King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative (JSOT Supplement Series)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

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

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative

Larry L. Lyke

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 255

••m1? :"1Q1« -ITDV p "DT

n^QDn^ -iin TO -[TO TP nn^ai "is^n pn«na ^m nnnm n« «a^2 nmiz? sim For my teachers, Yose ben Yoezer said: Let your house be a gathering place for the sages, Sit in the dust at their feet, Drink in with thirst their words. (m. Ab. 1.4)

Copyright © 1997 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield SI 19AS England

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd Midsomer Norton, Bath

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-826-3

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations

7 8

Introduction

11

Chapter 1

'YOUR MAIDSERVANT HAD Two SONS' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

25

'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons' 'And the Two of Them Struggled in the Field' There Was No One to Separate Them' 'One Struck the Other and Killed Him' Summary

30 71 80 84 84

Chapter 2 'HELP, O KING!' 1. Levirate and the Tekoite 2. Women at Court and the Tekoite 3. 'Save Your Life and the Life of Your Son Solomon!' 4. Summary

90 92 100 119 124

Chapter 3

'LIKE WATER POURED OUT ON THE GROUND' 1. 'Guard This Man!' 2. 'And All the Trees Said to the Thorn Bush, "Come be King Over Us!"' 3. 'You Are the Man!' 4. Joab Sent to Tekoa and Brought From There a Wise Woman

127 130 136 145 158

6

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Conclusion

186

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

194 204 210

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This volume represents a slight revision of my dissertation submitted to the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University in 1996. It is impossible to acknowledge all of those to whom I am in debt, but I wish in a brief way to have at least a start at it. My dissertation committee was peerless in its encouragement and perspicacity. My association with my advisor Professor Jon Levenson began at the University of Chicago and continued at Harvard. To him I am most deeply indebted for unselfishly teaching his perspective on the rich texture and nuance of the Hebrew Bible. His teaching and guidance I regard as priceless. I also wish to thank Professor Peter Machinist for his careful reading. To Professor Lawrence Sullivan I owe thanks, not only for agreeing to be on the committee, but for his encouragement and clear-headed and broadbased view of my project. I must also thank the editors of Sheffield Academic Press, especially Steve Barganski, for their diligence in making this a better volume. My student, Carolyn Sharp, has also performed editorial tasks that have improved this work. She too has my gratitude. My training for the PhD began at the University of Chicago Divinity School and much of my intellectual growth came under the tutelage of teachers there. I especially wish to thank Professors Arthur Droge, Lynn Poland, Dennis Pardee, and Norman Golb. I am also indebted to my teachers at Harvard and wish to single out Professor James Kugel whose classes and work have had an important influence on the way I understand the Hebrew Bible and its interpretation. Finally, I wish to thank my family, especially my wife Ann Shafer and mother Lucille Lyke (my first and best teacher) who have ceaselessly believed that my pursuit of the PhD was worthwhile, fitting, and proper. Without their support I would, no doubt, have had a much harder time of it.

ABBREVIATIONS

AB AnBib ANET BASOR

Bib BRev BTB BWANT BZ CBQ ComViat DD ETR EvQ ExpTim HAR HR HS HTR HUCA IBS ICC

IDB IDSk Int JAAR JBL JBQ JBR JETS

IPS JQR JSOT JSOTSup Mus NAC

Anchor Bible Analecta biblica J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Biblica Bible Review Biblical Theology Bulletin Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Catholic Biblical Quarterly Communio Viatorum Dor le Dor Etudes theologiques et religieuses Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Hebrew Annual Review History of Religions Hebrew Studies Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible In die Skriflig Interpretation Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature The Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of Bible and Religion Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Jewish Publication Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Museon New American Commentary

Abbreviations NovT NTS NedTTs OTL Proof QUDCC RA RB RelS ResQ SBLDS SJT SSN SSR ST StMiss TBT ThStud 77 TZ VE VT VTSup ZAW

Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift Old Testament Library Prooftexts Quaderni Urbinati Di Cultura Classica Revue d'assyriologie et d'archeologie orientate Revue biblique Religious Studies Restoration Quarterly SBL Dissertation Series Scottish Journal of Theology Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studi Storico Religiosi Studia theologica Studia Missionalia The Bible Today Theologische Studien Trinity Journal Theologische Zeitschrift Vox evangelica Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

9

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION

•prm ^p nn 'roon TT b« pn« j-nm :rnin nma naifr "TO" DIN run '•pcnn -T ^wo The Rabbis say: 'Let the mashal not be lightly esteemed, for it is by means of the mashal that one is able to understand the words of the Torah!' (Cant. R. 1.8)

Immediately on the heels of one of the most compelling tales of palace intrigue in the Hebrew Bible, the story of Amnon's rape of Tamar, comes the narrative of the wise woman of Tekoa in 2 Sam. 14.1-20. The narrative begins with David's son Absalom in self-imposed exile after avenging the rape of his sister Tamar by murdering his halfbrother Amnon. For reasons not altogether clear, Joab, David's military leader, brings the Tekoite woman to Jerusalem and instructs her to tell David a parable, or what I shall call a narrative mashal.1 The woman tells the fabricated story of her two sons, one of whom, while out in a field, murdered the other (v. 6). Now, clan members anxious 1. In the following I shall refer to 2 Sam. 14.1-20 as the Tekoite mashal and shall use 'mashal proper' only in reference to v. 6. By narrative mashal I mean a pithy, fabricated story meant to provide perspective for the purpose of aiding interpretation of events in the narrative in which it is embedded. Narrative meshalim are often ambiguous to the degree that more than one interpretation of both the mashal and its surrounding narrative are possible. No text in the Hebrew Bible is explicitly labeled a 'narrative mashal' and our use stretches the meaning of 'mashal' (i.e. proverb) as it is found therein, but it has the advantage of placing our text within the context of Hebrew biblical idiom and genres and avoids the unseemly importation of New Testament assumptions about 'parables'. For more on this latter point see D. Stern, Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), pp. 9-13 and on the use of narrative meshalim, see B. Gerhardsson, 'The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels: A Comparison with the Narrative Meshalim in the OT', NTS 43.3 (1988), pp. 339-63. On the genre and use of 'mashal' in the Hebrew Bible, see T. Polk, 'Paradigms, Parables, and Meshalim: On Reading the Mashal in Scripture', CBQ 45 (1983), pp. 564-83.

12

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

for their own vengeance, not to mention inheritance, seek to kill her remaining son (v. 7). David responds by declaring that her murderous son must remain unharmed. Next, following a highly ambiguous dialogue in which the Tekoite apparently seeks to guide his interpretation of her mashal, David brings his estranged son Absalom back to Jerusalem. Apparently, David has interpreted the woman's mashal and her 'instructions' as a lesson that applies to his own circumstances, and has thus decided that the clemency extended to the Tekoite's fratricidal son must be applied to Absalom as well. Yet, other than in the incident of fratricide, the woman's mashal hardly corresponds to the events in David's biography or the Court Narrative of which it is a part.2 This lack of correspondence, combined with the ambiguity of the Tekoite's 'instructions' for interpreting the mashal, and the consistently ambiguous intent(s) and motive(s) of each person in the Tekoite narrative, make it difficult to determine the significance of 2 Sam. 14.1-20 for the larger narrative to which it belongs. Herein, I argue that a clearer understanding of the significance of the Tekoite narrative requires close attention to its verbal, motivic, and thematic particularities. In so doing, I shall demonstrate that the narrative represents, in highly condensed and idiomatic form, a complex accumulation of overlapping biblical topoi, each of which must be interpreted within its present as well as traditionary context.3 Beginning with the mashal proper (v. 6) and then continuing with successively larger narrative contexts, I argue that 2 Sam. 14.1-20 draws the machinations and sibling rivalries of the Davidic court into longstanding traditionary processes that are 2. This narrative includes 2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1 and 2 and was first isolated and identified as the Succession Narrative by L. Rost in The Succession to the Throne of David (trans. M. Rutter and D.M. Gunn; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982), originally published as Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (ed. R. Kittel; BWANT, 42; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926). The Court Narrative details the machinations of the royal household from shortly after the time that David secures the throne to the time when his son Solomon succeeds him. For an excellent review of the status of opinion on the Court History, see J.S. Ackerman, 'Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 12', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 41-64, esp. 54-60. 3. Scholes and Kellogg define topos as follows: 'insofar as a topos refers to the external world its meaning is a motif; insofar as it refers to the world of disembodied ideas and concepts its meaning is a theme' (The Nature of Narrative [London: Oxford University Press, 1966], p. 27). In the following discussion I shall refer both to topoi and to their constituent elements, motifs and themes.

Introduction

13

invaluable for understanding the mashal itself. Moreover, the mashal presents to David a number of interpretive trajectories by which he might understand his circumstances. Part of the goal herein is to elaborate those interpretive options represented by the mashal. Before detailing how I shall approach the Tekoite's mashal, we must consider how previous scholars have dealt with its disparities with the Court Narrative. Previous work has concentrated especially on the difficulties surrounding the difference between David's circumstances and those in the mashal. Interpretations of these difficulties fall into two camps. The first position assumes that the mashal was written by the author of the Court Narrative. Rost believes that the author of the Court Narrative has 'chosen' a familiar mashal to make his point, or in his words, to convey his 'basic idea'. Rost argues that 'it is not necessary for a [mashal] to be applicable to the actual situation in all its details', in fact 'the [mashal] chosen bears little resemblance to the actual conditions but clings fast to the basic idea, namely the necessity in certain circumstances of stopping a blood feud in order to preserve a line weakened by fratricide'.4 Dealing more directly with the disparity in details, Simon argues that the author wrote the mashal himself and purposely made it inconsistent with the surrounding narrative, reasoning that were the mashal made too obviously parallel to David's biography, he would recognize the ruse intended to force him to render a guilty verdict on himself.5 Rather than credit a single author, the second position holds that the mashal was added by a redactor and views the inconsistencies between the mashal and Court Narrative as the result of his rather inept attempt to integrate the mashal into its new surroundings. Wiirthwein views 2 Sam. 14.2-22 as an insertion meant to shield David and cast blame on Joab for Absalom's return and subsequent usurpation of the throne.6 4. Rost, Succession, pp. 74-75. 5. U. Simon, 'The Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable', Bib 48.2 (1988), pp. 221-22. Slightly different approaches but essentially similar assumptions about the 'deceptive' quality of the mashal can be found in J. Hoftijzer, 'David and the Tekoite Woman', VT20 (1970), pp. 419-44, and G. Coats, 'Parable, Fable and Anecdote: Storytelling in the Succession Narrative', Int 35 (1981), pp. 368-82. Ackerman ('Knowing Good and Evil') and R. Polzin (David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993]), while extending the discussion of the Court Narrative to questions of narrative artistry, presuppose a single author as well. 6. E. Wiirthwein, Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids—theologische

14

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Bickert postulates a 'pre-Deuteronomistic' core of the mashal that he thinks underwent two separate revisions, both of which were intended to improve David's royal image.7 For both scholars the mashal's lack of correspondence with the narrative is to be expected given its independent life prior to becoming part of the Court Narrative. Furthermore, both believe that the mashal has been co-opted by the redactor to suit his own tendentious purpose. The above examples show that work on the inconsistencies between the mashal and David's biography shares in the search for the purpose of its present location and consistently reduces this to the question of the author's or redactor's Tendenz. In such a univocal reading, inconsistencies and textual irregularities are glossed over or ignored. In so doing, previous work has failed to recognize the significance of the verbal, motivic, and thematic particularities of the mashal which, in turn, have numerous parallels with other traditions found in the Hebrew Bible.8 In this volume I argue that the coalescence of the themes and oderpolitische Geschichtsschreibung? (ThStud, 115; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974), pp. 46-47. 7. R. Bickert, 'Die List Joabs und der Sinneswandel Davids', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 30-51. 8. More recent trends in the study of the Hebrew Bible pay closer attention to these factors. See, for instance, Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist; J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis, I (SSN; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1990); J. Rosenberg, King and Kin (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). A relatively persistent problem with the new types of 'literary' analysis is a concentration on the literary artistry of the Court History at the expense of its meaning. While Rosenberg, Sternberg, and Polzin, each in his own way, correct this trend, none of them treats the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa in sufficient detail. Among the more attentive readers, one can cite David Gunn as one of the earliest to stress the 'story-telling' quality of the Court Narrative (The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation [JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978]). For a thorough discussion of the treatment of the Court Narrative through 1978, see his second chapter, pp. 17-34. Gunn's critique of the problems induced by the presupposition that the Court Narrative is exclusively 'History' or 'Wisdom Literature' hits the mark. Unfortunately, Gunn then makes nearly the same kind of claims for reading the Court History as 'story'. For a sound critique of Gunn's presuppositions, see J. Van Seters, 'Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David', JSOT 1 (1976), pp. 22-29. For Gunn's response see The Story of King David, pp. 47-49. Their debate turns on the

Introduction

15

motifs in the wise woman's mashal lends to the narrative a dense and polysemous quality that earlier studies have failed adequately to address. In order to establish the value of other traditions in the Hebrew Bible for understanding our text, I first draw on Hebrew Bible folklore research. In his work, Hermann Gunkel, arguably the father of Hebrew Bible folklore studies, while skeptical about the presence of any original folklore, recognized the remnants of folkloric motifs and themes throughout the Hebrew Bible.9 Gunkel's work is significant in that he has shown that the Hebrew Bible topoi have an ongoing history, are encoded over time with a surplus of contexts and meanings, and bring with them their accumulated associations. In other words, narratives like the Tekoite's are a question 'not of the artistry of a single, consciously creative artist... [b]ut for the very reason that many hands have moulded them, these narratives have acquired the imprint of the whole group and have become the common property of the people'.10 This suggests that our mashal and the Tekoite narrative are not so much the product of an author as of a community. The communal nature of the production of our text goes far toward explaining its complex and variegated quality. The task at hand, then, is to develop problem of deciding whether one is working with oral or written tradition in the Court History. The presupposition herein is that the distinction can be pressed too far. Whether or not the traditions of which I speak are written or oral, they clearly have great cultural currency over an extended period of time. Rather than get caught in the trap of identifying the nature of the sources, my interest is in the intertextual clues that help to illumine the meaning of the Tekoite's speech as part of the traditionary literary/oral elements that form the idiomatic expressions of ancient Israel. 9. Although Gunkel fails to identify our mashal as folkloric, it clearly contains three of the motifs that he identifies as having folkloric origins, including the motifs of 'fratricide', the 'sending of a messenger', and 'being judged by one's own judgement'. His failure to identify the Tekoite's mashal is especially noteworthy given his classification of all the other narrative meshalim in the Hebrew Bible as folkloric in origin (The Folktale in the Old Testament [trans. M. Rutter; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1987], pp. 143-45). As Gunn notes (The Story of King David, pp. 40-42) our mashal fits Stith Thompson's motif index J80-99 (Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, IV [Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1966], pp. 17-18). It is not my purpose herein to map the Tekoite's mashal against an external superstructure of types, but to use comparative data from within the Hebrew Bible. The presupposition is that it is within the idiom common to the tradent(s?) of our mashal that we are most likely to understand its significance for David and the narrative in which it is embedded. 10. Gunkel, Folktale, p. 23.

16

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

a methodological model that can articulate and do justice to the pluriform and polysemous quality of the Tekoite's mashal and narrative. The work of two scholars in particular helps to construct a model capable of illumining the complex nature of the Tekoite narrative. In his work on the problem of ambiguity of the meshalim found in midrash, David Stern suggests that the mashal 'deliberately gives the impression of naming its meaning insufficiently'.11 Stern speaks of the inherent ambiguity of the mashal by asserting that 'the hermeneutical conundrum posed by [the] mashal lies not in deciding upon a univocal reading of [it]' but rather in reading more than one message.12 In other words, the mashal is polysemous, drawing on innumerable associations to resolve the differences between itself and the surrounding narrative.13 In order to resolve these ambiguities, readers must possess what Stern calls 'communal hermeneutical competence'.14 This type of competence must come from familiarity with traditional stories and their versions as well as various adaptations of familiar motifs. So, for Stern the ambiguity surrounding a mashal is intentional, the product of an individual who forces upon his audience the 'hermeneutical conundrum' of polysemy. Moreover, it is only in the reception of a mashal that Stern invokes the notion of community. In contrast, by emphasizing the traditional, communal, and ongoing nature of the production of our mashal, I view the ambiguity therein to be of diffuse origin and essentially irresoluble. Mikhail Bakhtin's work provides the means to extend the implications of Stern's discussion of the mashal from its reception to its production. While Bakhtin's theoretical work in The Dialogical Imagination is directed at understanding the novel, it has much to add, mutatis mutandis, to our understanding of biblical narrative. Bakhtin complains that most critical investigation of narrative concerns ' "private craftsmanship" and ignores the social life of discourse... [the discourse] of social groups, generations and epochs'.15 Furthermore, Bakhtin argues that the novel 11. Stern, Parables, p. 15. If Stern is correct in arguing that it is the nature of the mashal to be ambiguous, then the difficulty with the consistency of our mashal is not fundamentally a question of authorial vs. redactional intent. 12. Parables, p. 61. 13. Parables, pp. 74-77. 14. Parables, p. 205. 15. M.M. Bakhtin, The Dialogical Imagination (trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), p. 259.

Introduction

17

orchestrates all its themes, the totality of the world of objects and ideas depicted and expressed in it, by means of the social diversity of speech types. .. and by the differing individual voices that flourish under such conditions. Authorial speech, the speeches of narrators, inserted genres, the speech of characters are merely those fundamental compositional unities with whose help heteroglossia. .. can enter the novel; each of them permits a multiplicity of social voices and a wide variety of their links and interrelationships (always more or less dialogized). These distinctive links and interrelationships between utterances and languages, this movement of the theme through different languages and speech types, its dispersion into the rivulets and droplets of social heteroglossia, its dialogization— this is the basic distinguishing feature of the stylistics of the novel.16

By invoking Bakhtin, I am not proposing that one ought to read the Hebrew Bible as a novel; for those familiar with Hebrew Bible narrative, however, his description seems quite familiar. Especially significant for our purposes is Bakhtin's notion of the inter-relationships and dialogue between various aspects of a composite narrative, which he terms dialogization. This model suggests that interpreting the Tekoite's mashal and narrative necessitates not only considering them in their immediate context but also in relation to manifestations of their constituent elements found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. It is the intertextual associations with other parts of the Hebrew Bible that form the lens with which we view the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa. It is, therefore, important to locate the method employed in the following in the context of the discussion of intertextuality.17 This 16. Dialogical Imagination, p. 263. By the use of the term 'heteroglossia' Bakhtin refers to the divergent perspectives brought into a narrative by including different genres, motifs, speakers etc. 17. T.N.D. Mettinger provides an excellent summary of the discussion in 'Intertextuality: Allusion and Vertical Context Systems in Some Job Passages', in H.A. McKay and D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages (JSOTSup, 162; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 257-80. Mettinger provides a very useful bibliography as well. For a discussion of intertextuality that touches on the function of our mashal see D. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading ofMidrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990). Stuart Lasine has taken on the difficulty posed by intertextuality in 'The Ups and Downs of Monarchical Justice: Solomon and Jehoram in an Intertextual World', JSOT 59 (1993), pp. 3753. See also A. Berlin, 'Literary Exegesis of Biblical Narrative: Between Poetics and Hermeneutics', in J.P. Rosenblatt and J.C. Sitterson (eds.), Not in Heaven: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 120-28. Lasine and Berlin depend too heavily on notions of

18

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

discussion consistently revolves around the question of purposeful allusion vs. common origins in broadly available and well-known culturally idiomatic formulations. In other words, are the associations between texts intentional or merely the result of employing familiar literary forms such as motifs, genres and so on? Unfortunately, like the modern literature from which the discussion of intertextuality arose, the Hebrew Bible does not permit easy answers to such questions. Because I presume the authors of our texts to have been relatively immersed in idioms of their culture, the notions of dependence, priority, and borrowing must be carefully nuanced. In the following, I refer to the phenomenon of intertextuality, when it seems to be the product of simple common origins in the literary conventions of ancient Israel, as resonance or reverberation.1* This kind of resonance is important because, even though it does not represent a purposeful allusion to another text, we can use it to compare and contrast stories or episodes in order to clarify how they use their elements (vocabulary, topoi, genres). In turn, we can use the other stories/episodes, and their own peculiar constellation of elements, to triangulate on the significance of all of the stories/episodes. In employing such a method, the relative dating of various episodes is of little concern, the assumption herein being that they would have had currency over an extended period. Even when we deal with material that is clearly later than our mashal, its resonance with the mashal is of considerable value in clarifying the issues at stake in the type of story of which they are a part.19 In order to imply a stronger association between two traditions I use the word allusion. By allusion I do not necessarily imply the direct borrowing of one source from another, but that one text purposely alludes to a tradition very closely related to the other for the purpose of deepening and enriching its own message. In the following, I presume the value of the resonance between texts without implying a genetic relationship unless otherwise specified. The central goal of the following is to understand how the Tekoite's mashal's resonance with, priority, which are increasingly difficult to establish, and on the self-consciousness of the authors when depending on another tradition. Herein, I presume that most resonances within the Hebrew Bible must be understood in rather looser relationships. 18. By literary I mean both written and oral traditionary conventions. 19. This is particularly true with a text like Ruth that is almost universally considered later than the material in the Court History.

Introduction

19

and, less frequently, allusions to, other parts of the Hebrew Bible illumine David's situation. This brings us to a final problem that requires constant attention and nuancing. On the one hand, the Tekoite's mashal represents a message to David, put in the mouth of the Tekoite by Joab but ultimately by the narrator. Simultaneously, the mashal is intended for the audience of the narrative of which it is a part. It is not always clear how the narrator understands David's cultural competence in deciphering the resonance and allusion of the mashal to be different from that of the audience. In the following, I presume that the narrator requires the same degree of competence on the part of his audience as he does of David unless indicated otherwise. This work represents a self-conscious attempt to juxtapose postmodern reading sensibilities, and their emphasis on multiple readings, with the historical realities that produced the texts with which we shall deal. In particular, I suggest that the multiple readings brought to the fore by such an approach are, in large part, the analogue in the reception of the text to the diffuse origins of the text in its production. The 'social life of discourse; of social groups, generations and epochs' is a convenient way to describe the broadly social ways in which our mashal finally came to rest in its present location. As a result of this traditionary process, the mashal has innumerable lexical and motivic links with other texts in the Hebrew Bible. These various traditionary threads coalesce in the mashal in such a way that they bring to it, and the narrative in which it is embedded, echoes of their individual traditionary processes. The multiple readings of the mashal that we discuss below should be seen, at least in part, as the response to the diverse 'voices' that find expression in the numerous idioms of ancient Israel contained in the mashal. A corollary to the realization that the mashal is the result of a communal process is making problematic the notion that it, like most texts in the Hebrew Bible, has been crafted by the will of single authors or redactors. Taking seriously the multiple readings of our mashal suggests that the coalescence of meaning(s) in the text took place over generations and is, more often than not, a result of the dialogue between elements placed in the texts by several separate hands. On this understanding, meaning takes on an added dimension, one of time— the time during which the biblical culture strove to articulate its understanding of its history and relationship to its God. Furthermore, this

20

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

understanding helps to explain why our mashal is so polysemous. In order better to understand the notion of the multiple layers of meaning embedded in our mashal, it is useful to consider the work of Bernard Levinson.20 Levinson has taken Meir Sternberg to task for seeking univocal interpretations.21 The univocal interpretations, writes Levinson, stem from Sternberg's insistence on maintaining the notion of an omniscient narrator. According to Levinson, Steinberg's ignoring of the historical origins of repetition in the biblical text and his 'use of the synchronic method, poetics as a systematization of narrative rules, tends to underemphasize the extent to which the text's own claims of authority reflect an ongoing process of redactional reformulation'.22 My analysis herein shares with Levinson's critique of Sternberg the emphasis on the historical processes that produce the text in conversation with the reading of it. In Levinson's words, 'exegesis is part of the very literary—hermeneutical—dynamic that produces the text. The text itself is a product of what it engenders; its modern readers respond in kind to, and thereby sustain, the interpretive activity that gave it birth.'23 In emphasizing the multivocal and polysemous quality of the text, it becomes clear that a more nuanced understanding of the mashal is required than either standard historical-critical approaches or contemporary 'literary' approaches have displayed. In contrast to both the historical-critical and the 'literary' treatments considered above, I emphasize the ambiguity that results from the multiple voices that comprise the mashal. In contrast to most contemporary 'literary' treatments, I also take seriously the historical dynamic involved in the coalescence and the production of the mashal as well as in its placement in its current context. In the end, it will emerge that the multiple narrative threads that comprise the Tekoite's mashal present so many possible messages and interpretive options that not all of them are likely intended by any single author or redactor. The 'echoes' of the traditionary process are, at times, louder than the most recent tradent's voice. That not all these 20. B. Levinson, The Right Chorale: From the Poetics to the Hermeneutics of the Hebrew Bible', in Rosenblatt and Sitterson (eds.), Not in Heaven, pp. 129-53. 21. See Sternberg, Poetics. The same complaint can be directed at most of the other contemporary treatments of the mashal as well. 22. 'Chorale', p. 153. 23. 'Chorale', p. 141.

Introduction

21

messages were intended does not mean that they were unavailable to David: only that he, of necessity, passed over some of them. It is our task to consider the Tekoite's mashal in light of its rich, varied, and deep immersion in the idiom of ancient Israel. Following is a full translation of the Tekoite's mashal in 2 Sam. 14.1-20 along with notes addressing the major difficulties in translating and understanding it.24 !

Joab son of Zeruyah knew that the king's heart was on (^U) Absalom;25 so Joab sent to Tekoa and brought from there a wise woman.26 He said to her, 'Act as if you are in mourning (Kr^DNnn), put on mourning clothes (^DtTHn) and don't anoint yourself with oil. Act like a woman who, for many days, has been mourning (Pl'PDNnQ) the dead. 3Go to the king and speak to him like this (HTH ~CTD).'27 And Joab put the words in 2

24. Note that this same translation and notes appear in ch. 3. 25. The preposition 'on' (*?!?) is difficult here. It is not clear whether it means worrying about or angry at. On this see especially Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 139-40. 26. The question of the label riDDf! ntEN and its significance is aptly addressed by Joel Rosenberg (King and Kin, p. 189) when he states, 'Much has been said about the "wisdom" influence in the court history, and I will not attempt here to assess this question in detail. My views on the matter can be summarized by the simple observation that products of a literate culture—indeed, efforts to sustain an oral or written culture together—are, by definition, "wisdom". To look for a "wisdom" genre, or for hallmarks of a "wisdom" style, is simply to add to the fund of fruitless abstractions of which—if I may be indulged this momentary fit of cantankerousness—PhD dissertations and publish-or-perish articles are made'. George Nicol has made the case that if Joab put all the words in the Tekoite's mouth she can hardly be considered the wise one; Nicol credits Joab with all the 'wisdom' displayed in this episode (The Wisdom of Joab and the Wise Woman of Tekoa', ST 36 [1982], pp. 97-104). Claudia Camp (The Wise Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women in Early Israel?', CBQ 43 [1981], pp. 14-29) argues that the wise women of 2 Samuel (including 2 Sam. 20) have a regularized institutional function in ancient Israel. This claim is difficult to sustain given the meager evidence in the two passages with which she deals. We more likely have in these women a familiar type. Whether they are restricted to merely 'literary' types or, perhaps, appeared on the historical scene now and again is impossible to tell. On the larger question of women in the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible, see, by the same author, The Female Sage in Ancient Israel and in the Biblical Wisdom Literature', in J.G. Gammie and L.G. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 185-203. 27. The difficulty of reported speech is treated in G.W. Savran, Telling and

22

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa her mouth. 4The Tekoite woman said to the king 2 8 ... she fell to the ground face down and bowed and then said 'Help, O king.' 5The king said to her, 'What bothers you?', to which she replied 'truly (^38), I am a widow and my husband is dead. 6Your maidservant had two sons and the two of them struggled in the field. There was no one to separate them and one struck the other and killed him. 7Now the whole family has arisen against your maidservant and said, "Hand over the one who struck (HDD) his brother so that we may kill him for his brother's life (TTTK 27DD3) that he took Cnn) and so that we might also destroy the heir." They would extinguish my ember that remains in order to (Tta'7) leave my husband without name or remnant on the face of the earth.'29 8The king said to the woman, 'Go home and I will give a command concerning you.' 9The Tekoite woman said to the king, 'Upon me, O king, is the guilt (]1U), and upon the house of my father; the king and his throne are innocent.' 10The king said, 'Let anyone who speaks to you be brought to me and he will not so much as touch you again.' HShe replied, 'Please be mindful, O King, of Yhwh your God who prevents those who would excessively avenge blood by destroying and let them not destroy my son.'30 The king replied, 'As Yhwh lives, not one of your son's hairs will fall to the earth'. 12 The woman said, 'May your maidservant speak to my lord the king of one more matter?' He said, 'Speak!' 13The woman said, 'Why have you made plans like this with regard to the people of God? In speaking of this matter the king is guilty, in that the king has not returned his banished.31 14 For truly we all must die and are like water poured out on the ground which cannot be gathered. God will not take life, but will make plans in

Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988). 28. Many versions (LXX, Syr, Vg, TgMSS, MTMSS) have 'The Tekoite woman went to the king'. On accepting the MT see below Ch. 2 §2.d. See also Radaq who thinks the first "iQKm is addressed to the gatekeepers. On his reading, she speaks to them in order to gain an audience with the king. 29. This verse admits of no easy translation. Another possibility for translating "•Br^TTE? Tta1? is 'With the result that my husband be left without. .. '. In the present context the translation above (in the main text) seems closest to what the woman must mean. 30. This verse is very difficult as well. On TI^D1? see previous note. The other major difficulty reads as follows: rTO1? Din "783 rfTinQ, which is translated above, '. .. who prevents those who would excessively avenge blood by destroying. .. '. For other options see P.K. McCarter, I and II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 338-39. 31. This is among the most difficult verses of the mashal. The Hebrew, which can be translated in a number of ways (discussed gjkjuk.below Ch. 3 §4.c), reads: "f^Qi!

ytfjuyhgftrggtjuh..7nhyuljlvjsflvfjnjlnmljj;kk

Introduction

23

order that the banished one shall not remain banished from him.32 15Now, the reason I have come to speak to the king, my lord, of this matter is that the people frighten me. Your maidservant said to herself, "Let me speak to the king; perhaps the king will do this thing for his handmaid!" 16For the king would listen to a plea to save his handmaid from the hand of the one who would remove me and my son, together, from the heritage of God. 17 And your maidservant said, "Let my lord the king's word provide respite, for my lord the king is like one of God's angels hearing the good and the bad." May Yhwh your God be with you.'33 18The king answered and said to the woman, 'Do not hide anything from me that I am about to ask you!' The woman said, 'Speak, my lord, king!' 19The king said, 'Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?' The woman answered, 'As you live, my lord, O king, nothing diverges to the right or left of what you have said, for your servant, Joab, did order me and placed in your maidservant's mouth all these words. 20It was in order to conceal the matter that your servant Joab did this thing. My lord is as wise as the wisdom of God's angels to know all that is (happening) in the land.'34

32. Especially ambiguous here is the last sentence, Dttfm 2JS] DTT^N Ntfr'tf'?! n~I] 13QQ FIT Tl^D1? ITQtonQ. For discussion of options for translation see below Ch. 3 §4.c. 33. On the possible dislocation of vv. 15-17 see discussion below Ch. 3 §4.c. 34. On the role of David's 'wisdom' see Ackerman ('Knowing Good and Evil', pp. 41-60) who argues that the Court History can be understood as a persistent test of David's knowledge and ability to interpret current events. To some degree, my analysis agrees with Ackerman's, although I am more interested in the specific cultural competence required of David to understand the Tekoite's mashal. Moreover, as will become clear below, I am more skeptical than Ackerman about David's wisdom as depicted by the narrator.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1 'YOUR MAIDSERVANT HAD Two SONS' At the heart of the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa is v. 6. Here, in a single statement, the Tekoite concisely sums up her situation:

•in«rm« Trwr im nrrra "rsa -pro mfen Dmo tan ma *JD •jmsBfri :in» rm 'Your maidservant had two sons and the two of them struggled in the field. There was no one to separate them and one struck the other and killed him.'

The question, of course, for David as well as the reader, is how this statement illumines David's current situation. Clearly enough, David has lost one son to fratricide, as has the Tekoite, but he has many more sons.1 Further, the woman says nothing about what led to her sons' altercation. Again, in contrast to the Tekoite's sons, Amnon and Absalom hardly came to blows in a field. Moreover, Absalom turned his henchmen on Amnon rather than kill him himself.2 Furthermore, it seems that there were others present who might have prevented Amnon's murder.3 What is one to make of the rough correspondence between the Tekoite's story and David's biography? What is this single verse at the heart of the mashal supposed to imply? One way to begin to understand the significance of the mashal is to pay serious attention to another text with which it has considerable resonance. Gen. 4.8 reads as follows: 1. See for example 2 Sam. 3.2-5 where we learn of the following born in Hebron: Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah, Ithream. In Jerusalem were born Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibahar, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphet. Note that these lists display some disagreement with the lists in 1 Chron. 3.1-8 and 1 Chron. 14.4-7. 2. 2 Sam. 13.23-29 tells of the sheep-shearing at Baal-hazor where Absalom orders his men to wait until Amnon is drunk and then strike him down. 3. 2 Sam. 13.27 relates that all the princes of David's household were present.

26

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

nnrim TTN nrr

fp np'i mfen onrm vn. . . vn«OT-TK]p -on

Cain said to Abel. . . And when they were in the field Cain rose up against his brother and killed him.

While the vocabulary and specific circumstances are different, the similarities between Gen. 4.8 and 2 Sam. 14.6 are remarkable. In each, two sons come to blows in a field and one kills the other. But the similarities between 2 Sam. 14.6, at the heart of our mashal, and Gen. 4.8 are merely part of a more general correspondence between the narratives of which they are a part. In particular, 2 Sam. 14.1-20 has a number of analogues with the Cain and Abel episode.4 In each, one 4. The similarity between 2 Sam. 14 and the Cain and Abel episode has been noted, but its significance remains unaddressed. Joseph Blenkinsopp has pointed to a number of verbal similarities in Theme and Motif in the Succession History', in G.W. Anderson et al. (eds.), Volume du Congres Geneve (VTSup, 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966), p. 51, and in 'Jonathan's Sacrilege', CBQ 26 (1964), p. 449. See also Gunn, The Story of King David, p. 43. The similarities between the two accounts are as follows. In the account of Cain's murder of Abel the word 'ground' (HOIK) is repeated four times. The first occurrence of HOIK comes in Gen. 4.10 where God tells Cain that Abel's blood cries out from ground. The second comes in v. 11 where God tells Cain, 'You are more cursed than the ground'. In v. 12 God tells Cain that his punishment will be associated with his crime when he says, 'You will tend ground without benefit'. Finally, in the fourth occurrence of HOIK, Cain says, 'You have chased me from the face of the earth' (HOT^n ^D ^S3ti). Notably, in v. 7 the Tekoite says that her family would leave her husband without name or remnant on the face of the earth (HQl^n ""DD"^). Like Cain, the Tekoite wants to preserve the only remaining heir and his connection to land and life. On first reading, Cain's plea for clemency seems more self-interested, but in Israelite society, were her story true, the Tekoite would be seeking her own well-being as much as her son's (cf. Bathsheba and 1 Kgs 1). That the Tekoite' s mashal and Gen. 4 contain the same phrase (HQlKn "DS *?!?) hardly signals a strong association between the two. In light of a number of other similarities between the two narratives, however, this phrase is important. The second important association between Gen. 4 and the Tekoite 's mashal can be seen when Cain, in Gen. 4.13, says 'my guilt (or punishment) is too great to bear (N2?]Q ''DU 'TTD)'. The key word here is 11U which can legitimately be translated either as guilt or punishment. The same word is used by Tekoite in v. 9 where she says that the guilt/punishment will fall on her house and not on the king (on other interpretations of v. 9 see below, Chapter 3). In both cases, the word describes what seems to be the appropriate result of fratricide. Moreover, if we are to understand Cain to be asking for forgiveness, then both acknowledge wrongdoing and are rewarded with clemency. The third and final connection between the mashal and the Cain and Abel episode

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

27

brother kills another in the field and is granted clemency after his case is pleaded before the authority. The analogues between these larger narrative segments are taken up in detail in Chapters 2 and 3 below; the focus of this chapter is on the value of Gen. 4.8 alone, with the goal of illumining how the Tekoite's brief statement in v. 6 is meant to inform David. For two reasons Gen. 4.8 provides a unique opportunity for understanding the Tekoite's speech. On the one hand, it represents a similarly condensed formulation of the key elements of 2 Sam. 14.6. These elements are represented by the four main clauses of the latter: 1) 2) 3) 4)

'Your maidservant had two sons and the two of them struggled in the field. There was no one to separate them one struck the other and killed him.'

comes in 2 Sam. 14.10 where the Tekoite associates David's clemency and prevention of excessive vengeance with God's. This appeal may well represent a reference to Gen. 4.15 where God promises that any who would seek vengeance against Cain will pay excessively (sevenfold). Significantly, in each case special pleading saves the life of Cain and the Tekoite's son, both of whom are guilty of fratricide. Each of the preceding similarities taken separately makes for a weak connection between the Tekoite's mashal and Genesis 4, but taken together and especially with the associations outlined in the rest of this chapter between 2 Sam. 14.6 and Gen. 4.8, these associations take on added significance. All this suggests that the mashal purposely alludes to the events contained in the Cain and Abel traditions. Furthermore, as we will see below in Chapter 3, the associations between 2 Sam. 14.14 and Genesis 4 reinforce the notion that our mashal 'alludes' to the Cain and Abel tradition(s). Others have noted the associations of the Court History with Genesis. Joel Rosenberg argues that the role of Jonadab in the Court History (ch. 13) is patterned after the role of the serpent in Genesis 3 (King and Kin, pp. 141-42 and pp. 189210). McCarter, like Blenkinsopp and Gunn, acknowledges the broader similarities and says 'we cannot be sure that this old story was in the mind of the author of the story of Absalom's rebellion, but the correspondences are striking' (II Samuel, p. 351). The days in which a consensus that Genesis might be known by the Court Historian (tenth century) or even the Deuteronomistic Historian (c. seventh-sixth century) are long gone. For our purposes, McCarter's suggestion that Gen. 4 might be known by the author of the Tekoite's mashal simply reinforces the realization that they have considerable resonance. While the dating and sequence of the texts involved is becoming less sure, most would still accept that J is responsible for the material in Gen. 4.1-16.

28

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Indeed, these four elements have an integral part in each of the episodes of sibling rivalry that comprise Genesis.5 This brings us to the other important way that Gen. 4.8 helps to illumine 2 Sam. 14.6.6 Genesis 4 can be understood as an introduction to the book of Genesis viewed as a case-study in sibling rivalry. For example, each of the major episodes in Genesis, including those of Isaac/Ishmael, Jacob/Esau, and Joseph and his brothers, revolves around the tensions between sons or their parents. Moreover, as will become clear in the following discussion, most of the issues at stake in these episodes are first introduced by the narrative of the struggle between Cain and Abel. Gen. 4.8 can, therefore, be used as a lens by which to view the episodes of sibling rivalry in Genesis. In the following, the four clauses listed above provide the structure and focus of my investigation of Genesis. For each clause of the Tekoite's speech, I first consider the corresponding element in Gen. 4.8 with the purpose of revealing its significance in the Cain and Abel episode. I shall then turn to each successive episode of sibling rivalry in Genesis to expose the significance of each of the four elements therein. The goal of this chapter is to use Gen. 4.8 as a guide to understanding the Cain and Abel episode, as well as the other episodes of sibling rivalry in Genesis, with the intention of determining the significance of the topos of sibling rivalry. In particular, I seek to reveal how the sibling rivalry topos informs the way in which the Tekoite's speech illumines David's circumstances. At the outset it is important to note that the four elements that focus my discussion are not entirely separable. While they represent discrete phrases in 2 Sam. 14.6 and Gen. 4.8, in many of the episodes they are so intertwined they must be considered simultaneously. To the degree it is possible, however, discussion will center on each element separately. Finally, in defining the cultural competence required of the mashal's tradent(s) and the 'literary' competence of its audience (including David!), the history of early Jewish interpretation is invaluable.7 5. It should be noted, however, that the elements come in various combinations, permutations, and degrees. 6. As will become clear in the course of discussion, the consistent associations between Gen. 4 and our mashal suggest that they are genetically related. As for the remainder of the episodes of sibling rivalry in Genesis, it seems we should simply view their association with the mashal as part of the larger topos of sibling rivalry. 7. I use the word 'tradent' to avoid 'composer(s)' and the presumption that one's familiarity with this type of material is only textual. Meshalim, in particular, are likely to have been familiar via the spoken word as much if not more than through the

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

29

Because the early interpreters were immersed in the Hebrew idiom and spent the better part of their lives studying the Hebrew Bible, they are peerless as careful readers of the text. Making the early Jewish material even more valuable is the interpreters' particular penchant for being attentive to the intertextual and literary resonances throughout their Bible. Moreover, they consistently reveal, through their literary competence, the recognition of the literary remnants of the culturally idiomatic formulations that are the building blocks of the biblical texts.8 Because the interpretive traditions considered here work with the whole of the biblical corpus, their understanding of the topos of sibling rivalry is much more complete than that of the tradents. In other words, the interpreters understand a full set of associations that define the topos whereas each episode includes only some of the elements that comprise it. As we proceed, it is important to recognize that the interpreter's 'fuller' understanding of the topos is of value in defining the various issues at stake in the topos and, in particular, the Tekoite's mashal. In the end, it appears that some of the associations implied by her mashal are much subtler than others and may be part of a set of subconscious assumptions rather than part of her purposely intended message. As such, these subtler textual associations, often unintended, suggest that the Tekoite's mashal represents an early stage in the emergence of the interpretive traditions that appear in full blossom in some of the interpreters we will consider below. Her challenge to David to interpret her mashal suggests that he must follow the 'textual trail' that later interpreters, mutatis mutandis, in fact do follow. As it turns out, the biblical material in Genesis, the Court History and related materials can be understood as the early and somewhat tentative stages in the process of articulating the religious and cultural values that are most clearly elaborated in the reception of the texts. This is not to say that the understanding of the biblical texts written (see discussion in Chapter 3 below). Likewise, by 'literary' competence I refer to any topos, genre, or other traditional form of story-telling, either written or spoken. My assumption is that this type of competence is the equivalent, on the reception side of the traditionary process, to the cultural competence it took to produce and transmit the traditions. 8. Because the texts in Genesis are in the Torah, they have attracted the attention of commentators for millennia. As a result, the interpretive material on Genesis can sustain concentrated consideration. In Chapters 2 and 3 below discussion of interpretive material will be much more restricted due to the relative dearth of commentary outside of the Torah.

30

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

in the interpretive traditions is exhaustive. It is merely to claim that their hermeneutical and literary competence elaborates much of the deep structure of the religio-cultural idioms that are represented in rather inchoate form in the biblical material. l.n-n "JD •jnnaefri 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons' The significance of the Tekoite's claim that she had only two sons becomes clearer in the context of Genesis. Most of the major episodes in Genesis are structured around two brothers.9 From the stories of Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, to Jacob and Esau, the tension between two brothers or their parents fuels the plot. As will become evident in the following discussion, even stories not ostensibly about two brothers are often influenced by this elemental formulation of story-telling in Genesis. At the center of this basic element of sibling rivalry is the question of how distinctions between siblings are made. In each episode in Genesis, there seems to be a more or less conscious attempt to grapple with the reasons for, and consequences of, favoritism. This favoritism takes two forms in Genesis. On the one hand, in a number of episodes it is parental favoritism that provides the central tension in the story. This is especially the case with the episodes of Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and Jacob's sons. The second, more important (and not altogether separable) form of favoritism in these 9. J.D. Levenson has discussed the phenomenon of the favored son in Genesis in The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), esp. pp. 55-81. He draws attention to the difficulties in distinguishing between firstborn and favorite sons as well as between the first-born of fathers and mothers. While Levenson has traversed much of the same material treated herein, his focus is the recurrent topos of the loss and/or death of the favored son. Other treatments of a similar theme include R. Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives (JSOTSup, 133; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993); and F.E. Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). C. Westermann discusses the phenomenon of sibling rivalry and fratricide between sons of a primeval couple in the ancient world in Genesis 1-11 (trans J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), pp. 315-17. My focus remains only on the reverberations the Genesis texts have with the Tekoite's mashal and how these texts in Genesis illumine 2 Sam. 14.6.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

31

episodes is God's. Indeed, much of the drama of the stories in Genesis is a result of the difference between parental and divine favorites. While these stories record the sure ascent of the divinely favored sons in Genesis, they also portray the human consequences thereof. The tensions and anxieties raised by the working out of divine favor are at the core of the notion of 'two sons', a proper grasp of the dynamics of which is crucial to understanding 2 Sam. 14.6. a. Cain and Abel The first clause of Gen. 4.8 signals the problems that arise from the extension of favor to one of two siblings. The verse records, 'Cain said to Abel... ', and then skips to 'when they were in the field'. This is among the most fascinating lacunae in literature. What did Cain say to Abel? It is likely that we should understand that he said something like, 'Let us go out into the field!'. Indeed the Vg has 'egrediamur foras', 'Let us go outside'. The LXX has 8ieX0co|iev eiq TO rceSiov, 'Let us go out to the plain'. The Peshitta has them going out to the 'open country', and the Targumim have, 'Let us go out into the field'. These translations, because they differ, appear to be providing a solution to the gap that is preserved in the MT. These solutions make a logical transition from 'Cain said to his brother Abel' to 'and while in the field'. In other words, from a translator's perspective this is the minimal amount required to smooth over a difficult textual lacuna.10 So, it appears that the lacuna in the MT motivates these 'gap-filling' measures. Ironically, even thought the lacuna is likely the result of poor transmission of the text, it marks what is a common element of the topos: siblings at loggerheads often have little to say to one another. A quick glance at the other episodes of sibling rivalry in Genesis confirms the prevalence of the 'silence' between brothers. While the interpretive tradition records an argument between Isaac and Ishmael, the biblical text has them say nothing to one another. Jacob and Esau interact before the former tricks the latter out of his birthright but, once Jacob fully usurps Esau's position, we only know of Esau's bitterness and not of words between the brothers. In the case of Joseph, once he tells his brothers of his dreams, they say nothing to him until 10. Cassuto makes essentially the same point (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis [trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961], p. 215). See also Westermann who is not sure whether these represent the 'original' text or an attempt to fill the gap in the MT (Genesis 1-11, p. 302).

32

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

they throw him in the pit. Notably, even his father, Jacob, who knows of the tensions between his sons, remains silent in the realization that Joseph is likely in danger. The prevalence of the 'silence between brothers' suggests that the lacuna in Gen. 4.8 may have been preserved because, for the transmitters of the story, Cain and Abel's silence was to be expected.11 Whether or not this is the case, the present form of Gen. 4.8 raises the question of how these two brothers came to this juncture. What went so wrong that Cain now prepares to kill his brother? The first two verses of ch. 4 tell of the birth of Cain and Abel and their respective occupations. Next, the text tells of offerings brought to Yhwh by Abel and Cain (vv. 3-4a). Because Yhwh accepts only Abel's, Cain grows angry and is warned by Yhwh that he must master his bitterness (vv. 4b-7). Yhwh's warning proves useless when in v. 8, Cain proceeds to kill his brother. Cain's murderous intent clearly springs from his jealousy over the extension of Yhwh's favor to Abel. This is likely supposed to be all the more insulting since Cain is the oldest son. He apparently cannot restrain himself when he recognizes that his brother has usurped his position. The texts are essentially silent about why the younger is favored over his older sibling.12 This is the case with Cain and Abel as well. Perhaps, because the text reverses the order of the brothers when it tells of their occupations and Yhwh's reaction to their offerings, we may presume that the distinction was based on them. Yet the text is not explicit about the motives. More than anything, the events of Gen. 4.8 suggest the jealousies and subsequent complications that arise from the bestowal of divine favor. 11. Auerbach, in his classic analysis of biblical prose, recognized this kind of silence, the absence of description of internal states of mind, of motive and emotion, as the primary characteristic of Hebrew biblical narrative (Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature [trans. W.R. Trask; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957]). Sternberg has applied the term 'gapping' to this quality of the Hebrew Bible (Poetics). 12. The issue of primogeniture is very difficult in the Hebrew Bible. Greenspahn (When Brothers Dwell Together, pp. 60-69) argues that it is essentially non-existent in the texts with which we deal in this chapter. He convincingly claims that TO3 means not 'first-born' in any literal way but rather merely designates the 'chief heir' without regard to birth order (p. 60). However we are to understand the relation between TDD and the notion of primogeniture, our texts persistently go about explaining how younger siblings become the 'chief heir' in markedly self-conscious ways.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

33

Modern interpreters have fixed on a relatively limited number of issues raised by the Cain and Abel episode. Claus Westermann provides an excellent summary of what he calls the two main lines of interpretation of the episode. The first, more traditional interpretation he calls the individual-primeval, which sees in Cain the prototype of the murderer; his story is intended to teach that all humans are brothers and no one should kill another human. The second line of interpretation Westermann calls collective. Here, the concern is with providing an etiology of the Kenites.13 While these represent answers to the question of its overall purpose, they fail to address the problem of what seems to be God's arbitrary choice. Notably, like their earlier counterparts, most modern scholars with theological interests seek to justify God's choice.14 Jon Levenson has reviewed the common approaches to the rather embarrassing question of God's seeming capaciousness.15 He argues, correctly, that the point of the Cain and Abel story is how one handles not being chosen rather than the principle of selection. Ancient Interpreters and Cain and Abel. Significantly, the ancient interpreters of the Cain and Abel episode attempt to elaborate the key issues that brought these first two brothers to their fateful encounter in v. 8. The insights generated by the interpreters in their effort to grapple with this problem reveal much about what lies at the core of the 'two sons' element of the Tekoite's mashal. Over and over, the interpretive tradition reveals discomfort with the seemingly arbitrary nature of God's choice and the consequent fratricide. Because of this discomfort, many turn to the first two verses of ch. 4 to explain why Yhwh favored Abel. While they seek to justify God's choice, the interpreters also look to cast blame for this first murder anywhere other than on God. Moreover, the early interpreters reveal an intuitive notion of the topos of sibling rivalry that highlights the key elements that are our focus. In addition, they often address issues associated 13. Genesis 1-11, pp. 282-84. 14. Cassuto argues that '[o]ur passage reflects the view that sacrifices are acceptable only if an acceptable spirit inspires them' (Genesis, p. 207). According to Nahum Sarna, 'Abel appears to have demonstrated a quality of heart and mind that Cain did not possess' (Genesis [Philadelphia: IPS, 1989], p. 32). Likewise Skinner, who says 'The distinction must lie either in the disposition of the brothers... or in the material of the sacrifice' (Genesis: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, I [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980], p. 105). 15. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, pp. 71-75.

34

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

with the topos but not present in the biblical text itself. The assumption guiding their interpretations, as noted above, is that God's choice of Abel was just; they need only find the principle of selection employed.16 Indeed, the translator of Tar gum Pseudo-Jonathan finds the reason for God's choice in v. 1, which he translates as follows: Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael, the angel of the Lord.

This translation stems from two textual irregularities.17 The first is the strange locution at the end of v. 1 where Eve says that she has acquired a man 'with' Yhwh (miTTIR ETN TP3p). Tar gum PseudoJonathan takes this to mean that Eve conceived from a divine being who was none other than Sammael. Furthermore, this translation explains the absence of a phrase that is included in the birth story of Seth in 5.3 where the narrator relates that Seth is born in Adam's image and likeness 00*720 imD"n). For Targum Pseudo-Jonathan the absence of this phrase plus the awkwardness of the phraseology at the end of 4.1 implied that Cain was not Adam's but Sammael's son. This, in turn, explains why God did not favor Cain.18 16. This is no less true of most modern interpreters; see n. 14. 17. Note that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan plays with the idiomatic use of the verb 'to know' and changes 'Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived. .. ' to 'Adam knew that Eve his wife had conceived. .. '. 18. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is only one among many traditions that believed that Cain was the son of Sammael. In PRE 21 the serpent of Gen. 3 seduces Eve by means of a complex and sophisticated allegorical understanding of the forbidden tree and the garden in which it resided. Rabbi Ze'era explains by citing as prooftexts Deut. 20.19 'For the man is the tree of the field' (TTTlZTn fl> D1KH "D) and Cant. 4.12 'A closed garden is my sister, and bride' (rto Tint* 'Til)] p). The passage from Deut. 20.19 Rabbi Ze'era reads as a double entendre. On the first reading he implies it means that any man (for certain obvious reasons) should be thought of as a tree. On the second reading he implies that Adam (Q"7Nn) in particular ought to be so understood. In other words, the tree in the midst of the garden is none other than Adam. According to Rabbi Ze'era, the serpent is telling Eve that only the tree is forbidden, not its 'fruit'. Rabbi Ze'era next cites Cant. 4.12 to establish that the garden is none other than Eve. He cites these passages in order to show that the passage in Gen. 3.3 'of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden you may not eat' was interpreted by the Serpent to mean that while Eve could not enjoy the fruit(fulness) of Adam, who is, after all, the tree in the midst of the garden, she might enjoy someone else's. With hope lost of having a child with Adam, Eve was seduced into relations with the serpent. All of this is the long way of explaining Cain's suspect origins and

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

35

While Cain's origins are suspect and, for some interpreters, explain his lack of favor, others view his occupation as key to his differentiation from Abel. In the Life of Adam and Eve 23, we are told of Eve's dream that foreshadows the impending trouble between Cain and Abel. In response Adam assigns to his sons occupations that he hopes will keep them separated and out of trouble. This elaboration of the biblical text assumes that it was their occupations that determined Cain's and Abel's relative favor in God's eyes. The author of Life of Adam and Eve presumes that God's choice was just and based on occupations given to the boys by their father. Therefore, the trouble that arose between Cain and Abel was ultimately (and ironically) the result of the attempt on the part of their parents to avoid that very trouble and not the result of an arbitrary divine choice!19 Interpreters' turning to the occupations of Cain and Abel to explain the distinction made between them is based, in part, on the wording of v. 2b where we read: :na"TN ~asj rrn j'pi ]rc* run ^amm Abel was a tender of the flock and Cain a tiller of the ground. The word order is crucial in what seems to become a rather standard interpretation of the significance of their occupations. Even though Cain was born first, when the text identifies their occupations, it names Abel and his first. This the interpreters take as a signal that Abel's occupation made him 'first' and more favorable to God. This reading is reinforced when the interpreters turn to Gen. 4.4b-5a, the passage that tells of God's reception of the offerings brought by the two brothers: rro vb
36

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Again, at the crucial moment of the acceptance of the offerings, the text places Abel first. Notably, the text itself reverses its syntax when it relates the reversal of the fortunes of Cain and Abel. Verse 4b has the verb (ni?tD') followed by two prepositional phrases whereas v. 5a has the same prepositional phrases followed by the same verb. But even if vv. 2 and 4b-5a signal to interpreters that the occupations are key to the reversal of Cain and Abel, why should one have more inherent value than the other? So what if Abel's name and occupation occur first or Abel's offering is accepted first? What principle of selection underlies the reversal that they think the text so self-consciously records? Targum Pseudo-Jonathan provides an answer to these difficult questions in its translation of vv. 3-5a which reads as follows: K"TD3 pip WTTD jrna «ir»n NTKQ ]'p TTN1 p']3 "D3"»a tTOT *]TOO mm3

-DOW 'n DTP Nun mm prm-Bam mau H-DDO Kin *]« TTN ^nm4 :'n mp . . . fSN -QOK vb mnmpVi ]p^5 irrnmp'Ti ^nnb 'n J-SK

3

After a certain time, on the 14th of Nisan, Cain brought of the produce of the land, of the seed of flax, as an offering of first fruits before the Lord. 4 Abel, for his part, brought from the firstlings of the flock and of their fat parts. The Lord looked kindly upon Abel and his offering 5but upon Cain's offering he did not look kindly.

The added specification of Cain's offering and the date is crucial to the interpretation proffered by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. The translation of this brief passage addresses several difficulties that the interpreters find in the MT of Gen. 4.3-5. The text is painfully vague about when the events it describes take place, saying only D^IT j*pQ "HH, the equivalent of 'And after a while... '. The specification of the date of 14 Nisan, that is, Pesach or Passover, clarifies this problem while providing the hermeneutical key that unlocks the rest of passage. Because the offerings were brought on 14 Nisan, Abel's was accepted, based on the prescription of Exod. 12.5-6 where the Pesach offering is described as a lamb. In other words, only Abel brought an offering appropriate for the occasion! But this does not fully explain why God rejected Cain's offering. The specification that Cain's offering was flax, from which linen is made, provides the explanation for its rejection. The principle underlying this rejection is implicit in Targum PseudoJonathan but made explicit in PRE 21 which cites Deut. 22.11:20

20. Cf. Lev. 19.19.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

37

:rnr DTODI IDSTOOTen^n vb Do not put on clothes made with wool and linen together.

Tar gum Pseudo- Jonathan apparently understands that when God rejected Cain's offering he was merely following his own prescription not to mix wool and linen; having accepted Abel's offering, which included the lamb's wool, God could not accept Cain's offering of flax. That this interpretation has little to do with what anyone could reasonably construe as the 'plain sense' of the biblical text is clear. Nevertheless, it is remarkable both in its ingenuity and in its boldness. By specifying the date and the material of Cain's offering the interpretation also explains that God's choice was not arbitrary but simply following biblical prescription. Besides addressing the principle of selection, this interpretation is highly suggestive in specifying 14 Nisan as the date of the offering. The date marks the holiday of Pesach on the liturgical calendar, the day on which the delivery of Israel from the Egyptians is celebrated (cf. Exod. 12 and Lev. 23). The function of the Pesach offering was to protect the first-born of Israel from the last plague sent down on Egypt which killed all the first-born of the land. The blood of the lamb protected the people of Israel from this plague and allowed them to go free. One suspects that underlying Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's interpretation is the notion that in some way Abel himself served as a Pesach offering that allowed Cain, the first-born, to go free.21 Of interest in this regard is an early sixth-century Christian Syriac text on the life of Abel that also understands Abel's death to have taken place on Pesach. On this reading, of course, Abel's prefigures Jesus' atoning death.22 This suggests that the interpreters are aware, at a very deep level, of the substitutionary quality involved in the topos. This gains credence considering that, in the history of interpretation, each of the major stories of sibling rivalry in Genesis is associated with Pesach. The association of the Cain and Abel episode with Pesach reflects the 21. This would require that the fratricide also took place on 14 Nisan, a reading that is possible given the lack of temporal detail in the account. 22. For a critical edition of the Syriac 'Life of Abel' see S.P. Brock, 'The Syriac Life of Abel', Mm 87 (1974), pp. 467-92. On the loss of a brother and its association with Pesach, see Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, p. 6. Notably Levenson's concern is with the loss of the favored son rather than the 'also-ran'. Of interest is the frequent depiction of both brothers, the favored and unfavored, in substitutionary terms.

38

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

interpreters' awareness of the reversal that is central to this as well as other examples of the topos. It displays not only an awareness of the persistent danger posed to the favored sibling, but also that favor, of necessity, leaves someone behind.23 The first five verses of Genesis 4 serve to establish the central concern of the Cain and Abel story and, for that matter, the topos of sibling rivalry in general. Briefly stated, it is the disquieting realization that divine favor can appear to be unmerited, or in a more positive formulation, is an act of unwarranted kindness, "ion in the Hebrew. Further, divine favor has complex ramifications for humans. It is this anxiety over the process by which an heir is 'chosen' that provides part of the means by which the Tekoite's mashal illumines the events of David's court. With the anxiety over the process of choosing the favored son as background to their understanding of Gen. 4.8, we turn to how the interpreters attempt to fill the lacuna at the end of the first clause. In answer to the question, 'What did Cain say to Abel?', Philo insists that Cain drew Abel into a dispute by what he calls 'plausible sophistries'.24 Rashi also thinks that Cain purposely started a fight that he would eventually escalate to murder. Ibn Ezra and Radaq essentially agree with Rashi and even supply the content of Cain's diatribe. According to them, he repeated what God said to him in vv. 6 and 7. By so doing, Ibn Ezra and Radaq merely elaborate on what the MT implies; Cain's jealousy over Abel's selection led him to start an argument that, in turn, provided the opportunity for murder. PRE 21 understands the dispute in view of their occupations. In the mind of the interpreter, the two brothers had control over separate halves of the production of food; Cain over plants and Abel over meat. Each had to depend on the other for the produce not under his control, and this eventually led to their fight. Radaq takes this argument one step further by arguing that, because no one was granted permission to eat meat until Gen. 9.3, Abel was forced to negotiate with Cain for his food. This led to the dispute that eventually ended with Abel dead. Gen. R. 22.7 records a dispute that appears to be related to the last two. Here the two brothers argue over movable and unmovable property. Also in Gen. R. 22.7 23. Ironically, it is the favored son who dies here in order to let the unfavored go free. In other cases of the topos, the interpretive tradition applies the Pesach typology to the unfavored son and thereby displays its self-consciousness about his removal from the theological heritage of Israel. 24. Det. Pot. Ins. 1.1.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

39

and in Tank., Bereshit 9 is preserved the tradition that the two were arguing over where the future temple should be built. This interpretation is based on their presence in the field, which, Rabbi Joshua of Siknin argues, is a reference to the location of the temple. He cites Mic. 3.12 as his proof text, arguing that the field on which they stand is the exact location of the future temple.25 This interpretation attempts to solve not only what was said between the brothers, but also the significance of their location in the field. We will see even more elaborate attempts to deal with this latter problem below. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and one manuscript of Targum Neofiti preserve a tradition related to those above but one that views Abel as culpable. In these two translations, Abel responds to his brother by saying that the fruits of his deeds were better and more prompt. This picks up on the language of v. 4 where Abel is said to bring from the 'first' (rfi~O3Q) of his flocks. The Targumim read 'first' as qualitative as well as temporal. Whatever the source of Abel's claim in the Targumim, they assume that these rather indelicate statements fed the flames of Cain's jealousy. This intemperate speech by the younger, yet favored, brother is analogous to the problems Joseph brings on himself in Genesis 37 where he relates his dreams of supremacy to his brothers without editing or apparent self-consciousness. There the result is a similar, but unsuccessful, attempt on his life. Finally, as an answer to what comprises their conversation many traditions record a dispute between Cain and Abel over a sister. These traditions differ in considering the sister the twin of one or the other brother, but they consistently claim that Cain killed Abel in order to marry her. It is clear that a major factor in the traditions surrounding the twin sisters of Cain and Abel was the need to explain where they found their wives.26 But notably these sisters are absorbed into the 25. The MTreads Bhnn mfo ]V3£, 'Zion is a field laid waste'. The great irony of R. Joshua's quote is that the last third of Mic. 3.11 reads, 'Is not the Lord in our midst? No calamity will come to us!' Of course in the context of Gen. 4 the very problem is God's absence and the calamity that does come to Abel. Embedded in R. Joshua's citation may also be the sense that the temple's destruction is analogous to murder, since the first murder seems to have taken place on the very location of the temple. 26. Josephus records that there were daughters born to Adam and Eve but he gives no detail about them (Ant. 1.52). Jub. 4.1-8 tells of two daughters and provides their names; 'Awan and 'Azura. Jub. 4.9 records that Cain married his sister ' Awan after the death of his brother Abel. The text does not record a dispute between

40

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

interpretations centered on the brothers' dispute as well. Gen. R. 22.7, after suggesting that the two brothers were fighting over who would marry Eve, registers that Cain lusted after Abel's twin and killed him for her.27 Targ. Neof. CTg X has a related but slightly altered version in which we are told that Cain held a longstanding grudge because his own twin married Abel. This was especially troublesome to Cain because his twin was more beautiful than Abel's whom he had married. Out of jealousy and in order to take his own sister for his wife, Cain murdered Abel.28 The significance of this interpretive move becomes clearer below where the issue of sexually questionable acts comes up again in discussions of Ham, Lot, and Reuben and in light of the question of the significance of being 'in the field'. For the present, it must suffice to note that these interpreters are likely bringing to the interpretation of the Cain and Abel episode expectations generated by other examples of the topos and other closely associated texts. the brothers but the fact that the marriage came after Abel's death may presuppose traditions that Cain killed Abel for the opportunity. Some traditions are even more specific about the sister(s) born to Adam and Eve. LAB records that there was a sister named Noaba born between Cain and Abel. Targ. Ps.-J. 4.2 has a twin sister born with Cain and Rashi and Radaq believe that a twin sister was born with each brother. Gen. R. 22.2, 3, and 7 have one twin sister born with Cain and two with Abel. The natural question is how these traditions arise. PRE 21 provides the solution in its interpretation of Gen. 4.1-2. First it is important to note that Gen. 4 says only once that Eve conceived (~inm, v. 1) This implied to the careful reader that all the children (including Cain and Abel and any others) came from this single conception. Furthermore, PRE reads 'ppTlN "I^m, 'And she gave birth with Cain', reading the direct object marker DK as the particle 'with'. In other words, they understand that along with Cain was born another, female, child. They make a similar hermeneutical move when they read 'TQilTlN TTTNTltf rr^h ^0171, 'and she again gave birth with his brother with Abel'. Here they apparently understand the presence of two flN's as a signal that there were two girls born with Abel. This explains the tradition in Gen. R. 22, cited above, that attributes one twin to Cain and that Abel was the only male member of a set of triplets. All of these interpretations serve an immediate purpose by answering a rather simple and slightly embarrassing question: whom did Cain and Abel marry? (see especially b. Sanh. 38b). Interpreters found their answer in the nuances of the language in Gen. 4.1 and 4.2. 27. We see essentially the same tradition in PRE 21. 28. The interjection of an argument over a sister tempts one to make an analogy with the events in the Court History. Given the practices of the royal court, and the possibility that Absalom may have understood Amnon as a persistent threat as long as he could change his mind and marry Tamar, Absalom may have killed Amnon less for revenge than to keep his sister for himself.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

41

The interpretive material on the Cain and Abel episode elaborates on what the interpreters recognize as the central issues underlying the text. Notably, the biblical text itself remains nearly as silent about these problems as do Cain and Abel, but they are persistently implied therein. They include the question of how favor is bestowed and why; what are the consequences that ensue and on whom does responsibility fall to mediate these tensions? All are issues that are integral to Genesis and highly significant for David's history. The significance of the Tekoite's message for David begins to emerge in this constellation of problems raised by the text of Genesis and addressed directly by the interpretive traditions. With the episodes of sibling rivalry that follow Cain and Abel, many of the problems introduced by the interpreters of Genesis 4 are explicitly addressed in the biblical text itself. In the following our focus remains those cases of 'sibling rivalry' that center on two brothers. The majority of our discussion is devoted to Isaac and Ishmael as well as Jacob and Esau but, as noted above, a number of other stories of siblings in Genesis have been influenced, to some degree, by the expectations generated by the topos of two brothers in conflict. Between the Cain and Abel episode and that of Isaac and Ishmael the narrative quickly passes over several sets of siblings. Notably, in many of these accounts, two of the brothers are foregrounded. While these stories lack any explicit rivalry or conflict between brothers, they include some of the key elements associated with the 'two brothers' element of the topos. Moreover, the interpreters of these texts consistently address them presupposing the larger framework of the topos. As a result, they help more clearly and accurately to define the topos and the significance of the Tekoite's claim that she had two sons. b. Shem and Japheth The next significant siblings mentioned at length in the Genesis narrative are Shem, Ham, and Japheth. The frequent reference to these three, in this order, suggests that Shem is the oldest, Ham the middle son and Japheth the youngest but, in fact, the birth order of Noah's sons is difficult to determine. Gen. 10.2, where Japheth's genealogy is presented first among the brothers, suggests that Japheth may be the oldest while 9.24 calls Ham QtDpn) the youngest. Whatever the birth order of Noah's sons, in ch. 9 Ham drops out of contention for the

42

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

status of favored son.29 The factors involved in his loss of status seem vaguely familiar; he apparently indulged in some illicit sex act with his father.30 It is admittedly difficult to determine what it means when the text records that he saw the 'nakedness of his father' (TDN m~lJ?), but, minimally, it implies sexual activity with his mother if not his father (see Lev. 18).31 In context, it seems that we are to understand he did something to his father, but it is interesting to note that if it was his mother, i.e. father's wife, with whom he had sex, his behavior looks like that of other siblings in other examples of our topos. We need mention here only Reuben who sleeps with Bilhah, Absalom who sleeps with ten of his father's concubines, and Adonijah who seeks to sleep with Abishag after David's death.32 In fact, in response to Adonijah's request Solomon suggests that his brother might as well ask for the throne.33 The text in Genesis 9 is so vague we cannot be sure what Ham did inside Noah's tent, but clearly it was incestuous, if not homosexual in nature. At any rate, it is this act that removes Ham from the possibility of filling the most favored role, or at least marks his lack of qualification.34 The possibilities for that role are now narrowed to two. The biblical text is more or less uninterested in how Shem became the selected ancestor of the Israelites. In an orderly and disinterested way, it reports the events of Noah's life and the birth of his sons. Ancient Interpreters and Shem and Japheth. In contrast to the biblical account, the interpretive tradition self-consciously seeks to discover 29. Gen. 9.18-27 is usually attributed to J. 30. Whatever Ham's activity, the interpretive traditions associate him with sexually perverse behavior. For example: Gen. R. 36.7, PRE 23, and b. Sanh. 70a claim that Ham castrated Noah and thereby prevented him from having his fourth child. This tradition is meant to explain why Noah cursed Ham's fourth son (Gen. 10.6) instead of Ham himself. Gen. R. 36.7 includes a tradition that Ham had sex with a dog as well. 31. Westermann thinks that the outrage was simply in Ham's failure to cover his father's 'shame' (Genesis 1-11, p. 488). F.W. Basset argues that Cain had intercourse with his mother ('Noah's Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest?', VT21 [1971], p. 232). 32. Recall the interpretation in Gen. R. 22.7 that understands the dispute between Cain and Abel to be over who would get to marry Eve. 33. 1 Kgs 2.22. 34. In the context of the Noah story 'favored' simply designates the son who becomes the ancestor of the Israelites.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

43

how Shem merited the fortunate position of ancestor to the Israelites. Tank., Noah 15 draws attention to the word order of 9.23 where Shem and Japheth cover the nakedness of their father. The verse says: ... rfTOformR nsn HD np'i

And he took, Shem and Japheth, the cloak. .. Because Shem's name is mentioned first, and the verb 'to take' is singular, the interpreters understand that it was only by Shem's initiative that the two brothers covered their father's naked body. By so doing, Shem merited the honor of being the heir of Noah in the lineage of Israel. In fact, Gen. R. 36.6 records that as a reward (~O&) for covering their drunken (~DC7) father with a garment, Shem and Japheth received garments. Shem was given the rr^CD as a mark of his Jewishness and Japheth the K^fTS, a Greek garment.35 In summary, while the biblical text and even interpretive tradition remain unclear about the birth order of Noah's sons, the latter searches for the principle of selection that placed Shem in the most favorable position. Again, one of two brothers ascends to the position of favor, though, in this case, we learn only of the merits of the victor. Finally, if we are to understand that Japheth is older than Shem, then another element of the topos is present in our story: the recurrent motif of a younger brother assuming the favored place of the older. Clearly, we are not dealing with a full blown version of the topos that is the topic of our study, but the story of Noah's sons appears to presuppose some of the elements thereof. c. Abraham and Nahor The next set of siblings whose depiction seems to be guided by elements of our topos is the sons of Terah at the end of Genesis 11 where, again, three sons are narrowed to two almost immediately.36 Here we 35. This tradition appears in C.B. Albeck and Y.J. Theodor, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (Jerusalem: Vahrman, 1965). K^Q'D is apparently the Hebrew transliteration of the Greek rcaivoXriq, a travelling coat (see M. Jastrow, Sepher Milim leTargumim, le-Talmud Bavli, ule-Talmud Yerushalmi, ule-Midrash [New York: Traditional Press, 1975], p. 1165). 36. Gen. 11 is usually divided such that 11.1-9 and 28-30 are ascribed to J and 11.10-27 and 31-32 to P. Our analysis suggests that the redactor responsible for joining these texts presupposed the topos of sibling rivalry as well. Westermann argues that our two sources are so interwoven that separation is difficult and next to impossible (Genesis 12-36, p. 134).

44

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

learn of Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, who is born, begets Lot, and dies in eight short words. Based on the order of birth in 11.27, Gen. R. 38.14 assumes Abraham is the oldest followed by Nahor and then Haran. How Abraham came to be selected by God as his favorite is not clear in ch. 11; perhaps we are to assume that this is one of the rare instances in which primogeniture is at work. Ancient Interpreters and Abraham and Nahor. Nevertheless, however vague the biblical text may be, the interpretive traditions seek the merit by which Abraham became their chosen ancestor, and in the process, explain Haran's misfortune.37 One tradition explains the fate of both Abraham and Haran. In Jub. 12.12-14, after repeatedly warning about idolatry, Abraham decides to burn down the house in which the idols are stored. On seeing the burning house, Haran runs in to save the idols and is burned to death right before his watching father. Haran's attachment to the idols in this interpretation explains his untimely, and not altogether undeserved, death, while displaying Abraham's religious zeal. Furthermore, the tradition of the 'fire' of the Chaldees explains what Gen. 11.28 means when it says that Haran died 'before' his father Terah (rnn ''DS'^i?). The Hebrew here can be translated variously as 'in front of, 'in the presence of, or 'in the time of, but the interpreters understand the preposition to be spatial. This interpretive tradition addresses the fact that Abraham's merit in this early part of Genesis remains vague. In response, they consistently ascribe to him remarkable piety even from birth.38 This discomfort with the process 37. Most explanations rely on two key texts: Josh. 24.2 and Gen. 11.28. In Josh. 24.2 Joshua speaks to the Israelites just before entering the land and says 'when our forefathers, like Terah father of Abraham and Nahor, lived on the other side of the river they served other gods'. This signals to interpreters that Terah was an idolater. Looking for evidence in Gen. 11, they turn to v. 28 in which Terah and his third son (strangely missing from Josh. 24) are mentioned together. Here, Haran dies in front of Terah in the land of his birth, Ur of the Chaldees. In this verse the interpreters discover why Haran is missing from the passage in Josh. 24. He is dead, and what is more, his death is related to the issue of idolatry mentioned in the latter. This line of interpretation understands Ur (TIN) to refer to the 'fire' of the Chaldees and interpreters associate this fire with the idolatry mentioned in Josh. 24. 38. See Jub. 11-12; Josephus (Ant. 1.154-55) calls him the first monotheist. Numerous versions incorporate the 'fire' (Ur) of the Chaldees. Genesis Rabbah has Abraham refuse to honor Terah's idols for which the latter turns Abraham over to Nimrod who throws Abraham into fire from which he is miraculously saved. In this

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

45

of divine favor is in keeping with that witnessed in the biblical texts themselves. Moreover, it is witnessed more explicitly in several of the longer episodes of sibling rivalry considered below. Significantly, the process of Abraham's 'selection' includes the 'paring' down of the possibilities to two. Furthermore, like the Cain and Abel story and the story of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the interpretive tradition seeks his merit and attempts to explain the disqualification of (one of) the other sibling(s). Again, most significant here is the apparent influence of the topos and the self-consciousness on the part of the interpreters about the process of selection. In each case comes the differentiation between siblings, one of whom is removed in order to bring the alternatives for favor to two. In the case of Shem, we apparently witness the younger of the two 'remaining' brothers supplanting the older. d. Lot and Eliezer The last instance of what looks like the influence of our topos on the stories between Cain and Abel and Ishmael and Isaac is the depiction of Lot and Eliezer. Neither is Abraham's son, but both take on shades of the elements of the sons in our topos. In ch. 13, Lot is sent off or chooses to go east (cf. Cain in Gen. 4 and Abraham's sons by Ketura in Gen. 25). As soon as he has separated from Abraham, in vv. 12b13, we hear of Sodom and its evil and sinful ways. This notice must reflect traditions such as those found in Genesis 18 and 19 where, significantly, Sodom, and by extension, Lot, are associated with sexual deviancy. So, by the end of Genesis 13, Lot's disfavor is signalled by his association with Sodom. As it turns out, Abraham's concerns over who would be his heir in ch. 15 are well founded given the pattern of reversal in the topos.39 With Lot out of contention, Eliezer seems the logical beneficiary of divine favor. Ancient Interpreters and Lot and Eliezer. While the biblical text suggests that Lot's sexual behavior is unsavory, the interpretive traditions version Haran also gets thrown in and is killed (cf. 11.28). Targum PseudoJonathan has Nimrod throw Abraham into fire because he refuses to worship idols. In PRE 26 Abraham curses the building of the Tower and is thrown into the furnace used to make bricks (see also LAB 6.3-18). If all of that were not enough to establish Abraham's piety, we learn of his trials as well (PRE 26-31). 39. The texts under discussion in this section, Gen. 13.12-18 and 15.1-21, are ascribed to J.

46

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

reflect and magnify the role of sexual deviancy, picking up on several familiar elements of the topos. Moreover, the loose association of the 'sibling' who loses out with sexual deviancy seems to underlie the Court History as well. More important, as will become clear in the course of our argument, the Tekoite's mashal seems to include in its message a harsh critique of the sexual licentiousness of David's court. As a result, the following interpretive material concerning Lot is invaluable for understanding the Tekoite's message. In Targum PseudoJonathan (cf. Targum Neofiti) we are told that Sodom is evil for three reasons: 1) sexual immorality; 2) shedding of innocent blood; 3) idolatry. In a similar tradition in Gen. R. 41.7, Rabbi Issi comments on the cryptic Gen. 13.13 which says: :T«Q mrr4? o-wam n-in mo -raw The men of Sodom are evil and great sinners against Yhwh. He explains each element of the terse characterization as follows: The men of Sodom are evil to each other; sinners in adultery; against the Lord in idolatry; and 'great' refers to bloodshed.40 These traditions, again, simply elaborate on what the biblical text implies: Lot's (voluntary) association with Sodom signals something about his character. In both interpretive traditions Sodom and, by extension, Lot are associated with sexual immorality, shedding of innocent blood, and idolatry. The first two are, by now, familiar characterizations of the siblings who are unqualified for favor, in the biblical text as much as in the interpreters' minds. The third, the accusation of idolatry, is closely associated with sexual immorality in such books as Hosea (esp. chs. 2-4), Jeremiah 3, and Ezekiel 16 and 23 which likely influence the interpreters' accusation. As much as these traditions reinforce the notion that Lot is depicted, even in the biblical text, in ways associated with our topos, Gen. R. 41.7 preserves material even more convincing. R. Jose ben Hanina says that Gen. 13.10 connotes Lot's evil desire. The first phrase of 13.10, 'And Lot lifted up his eyes', R. Jose compares to Gen. 39.7 where Mrs Potiphar 'lifts her eyes to Joseph'. In comparing these texts, R. Jose makes three important observations about Lot. First, he suggests that Lot, like Mrs Potiphar, is sexually 40. Here R. Issi likely reverses the word "IKQ, eliminates the N, and reads D~T, Hebrew for blood.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

47

immoral. Second, by associating Lot with Mrs Potiphar, Jose contrasts him with Joseph who was able to resist foreign sexual temptation. Finally, at a more subtle level, Jose contrasts Lot with Joseph who represents the other half of the calculus of chosenness. The second phrase of 13.10, 'and he saw the plain (~DD) of the Jordan', Jose compares to Prov. 6.26: 'Because of a whore, for a loaf (IDD) of bread' (DH^ "DD-~li? nnt rKftnJn ^). As is often the case, Jose's citation from Proverbs is, in part, a way of explaining a very difficult verse in itself. Nevertheless, by comparing these two verses Jose makes a number of important associations. Again, Lot is associated with a foreign temptress, this time designated by the participle HUT which connotes idolatry as much as sexual immorality. Furthermore, the passage that Jose cites comprises a warning to a young man to avoid the temptations of a married woman. In fact Prov. 6.29, just three verses after his quotation, says: 'And so it is with any man who comes into his neighbor's wife; no one who touches her shall go unpunished'. It is impossible to tell whether Jose has this verse in mind when he cites v. 26, but the tenor of much of Proverbs 6 has strong associations with our topos. In particular, here with v. 29 we have the by now familiar situation of a man who would sleep with another's wife. By citing Proverbs 6 Jose, intentionally or not, associates Lot with a text full of what appear to be allusions to a key element of our topos. Lot is not associated with just any sexual immorality but with the temptations presented by another man's wife.41 The third phrase of Gen. 13.10, 'entirely well watered (np^Q)', Jose compares to Num. 5.24, 'He shall make the woman drink (nptfjm)'. The passage from Numbers prescribes the trial by ordeal for a woman suspected of adultery. Once again, Lot is associated with an adulterous woman. In the fourth and final phrase of Gen. 13.10 we read: 'Before Yhwh had destroyed (nnc?) Sodom.' This Jose compares to Gen. 38.9, 'When he had sex with his brother's wife he spilled (nrtCJ) it [semen] on the earth'. While Jose continues to associate Lot with sexual immorality, the focus here changes slightly: in Genesis 38 he deals with a man who is actually obliged to sleep with another (albeit dead) man's wife.42 Nevertheless, Genesis 38, like the other texts that Jose cites, deals with the problems that (can) arise between a man and another's wife. 41. This should have a familiar ring for the attentive reader of the Court History. 42. See below, Chapter 2, for an excursus on the irony of the obligation to sleep with another man's wife in the context of sibling rivalry.

48

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

It appears that the element of two sons as rivals for inheritance has, to a considerable degree, shaped the stories of the siblings that appear between the Cain and Abel episode and that of Ishmael and Isaac. The interpretive traditions surrounding these stories consistently understand the events therein in the categories associated with the topos. In particular, the interpretive traditions of the Lot material are especially valuable because they reveal the interpreters' awareness of the integral place sexual misconduct has in the topos of sibling rivalry. While this element is found in only some of the accounts in Genesis, it consistently emerges in the interpretations of them, and is especially important for understanding the import of the Tekoite's speech for the Davidic Court Narrative with all of its accounts of illicit sexual liaisons; in particular, because so many of these liaisons are with married women. This is a good juncture to recall the value of the interpretive material in understanding the Tekoite's mashal. It will eventually become clear that the Tekoite's mashal brings to David an interpretive matrix by which he is to understand the events in his court. This interpretive matrix appears to lie on the trajectory of the emergence of the interpretive strategies followed by the ancient interpreters of the episodes of sibling rivalry in Genesis. What the ancient interpreters are able to make explicit seems to be part of the deep structure of the assumptions informing the Tekoite's mashal. By understanding the interpreter's sense of the issues at stake in the topos, we can begin to recognize those issues that remain below the surface (often only barely) in the Tekoite's mashal and in the Court History. e. Ishmael and Isaac With the stories of Abraham's two sons the drama is focused, not on the tensions between brothers, but between their parents. Furthermore, while the story of Abraham's sons is conceived in the categories of our topos, it stresses the disparity between human affections and divine purpose. It is the emphasis on the human desires of this cycle of stories that make it especially relevant for understanding the topos of sibling rivalry and the message of the Tekoite for David. The stories that comprise the Ishmael and Isaac cycle begin with ch. 16, where we are told that because Sarah has failed to bear a child for Abraham she offers her servant Hagar as surrogate mother.43 By Gen. 16.10 Hagar 43. Much of what happens in Gen. 16.1-9 revolves around the tensions between Hagar and Sarah. This tension should be viewed in the larger context of the topos of

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

49

has conceived Abraham's son and been chased away by Sarah for treating her mistress with disrespect. In vv. 10-12, Hagar is told that her son's heirs will be too numerous to count and that she shall name him Ishmael, since 'Yhwh has heard' of her distress.44 The name Ishmael is here etymologized as 'El (God) will hear'. Notably, in v. 15 it is actually Abraham who names Ishmael. That these two traditions reflect different sources should not distract attention from the fact that v. 15 implies that Ishmael's birth is equally a response to Abraham's distress.45 In other words, Abraham gives his son the name Ishmael because he believes that he is the answer to his concerns expressed in ch. 15. On this reading, Abraham now has the heir he has hoped for and puts all his hope in him. In what appears to be a confirmation of Abraham's hopes for Ishmael, Genesis 17 begins with the appearance of Yhwh to Abraham and his reassurance that he will establish his covenant with him and his descendents. In the first fifteen verses of ch. 17, Yhwh tells Abraham the stipulations of the covenant of circumcision, among other things. Suddenly, in v. 16, Abraham discovers that Sarah will be the mother of his heir. In response to this information Abraham laughs, incredulously asking if a man of one hundred and a woman of ninety are likely to have a child (v. 17). After his initial response, Abraham, apparently having collected himself, pleads for Ishmael. The language of Gen. 17.18 is vague but Abraham seems to say, 'Oh if only Ishmael will/would live before you'. This response could mean a number of things.46 On the one hand, Abraham could be overjoyed at the news of 'woman with a cause' that will be discussed in Chapter 2 below. Notably, many have viewed the tension between Sarah and Hagar as the driving force in ch. 16 (J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975], pp. 192-96). For now we consider briefly the later verses of Gen. 16. 44. Note that the language of the promise to Hagar in v. 10 (3~IQ "ISO" $b"\) is quite reminiscent of that in 15.5 (DHN IDD^ ^DUTDN D^DIDH 1DD1). This implies that the tradents themselves recognized the fact that Ishmael appears to be the answer to Abraham's concerns in ch. 15. 45. Gen. 16.4-14 is J material while 16.15-16 is P. Notably, 16.15 represents P's answer to concerns expressed in the J text of ch. 15. Either P knows and works with the J material or an editor puts both to work in his rendition of the sibling rivalry topos. Most significantly, the familiarity with and competence in the topos on the part of J, P, and the redactor reveal its centrality to all of them! 46. Levenson (The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, p. 99) reviews the possibilities for understanding v. 18. Significantly, he warns that accepting any

50

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Isaac and, in a typical act of humility, says something like, 'Oh gee, the one I have is sufficient'. On the other hand, Abraham's response might be more incredulous and, afraid to have his hopes raised and dashed again, he says, more or less, 'Do not give me false hope!'47 Then again, perhaps Abraham accepts that Isaac will become his heir and is here just trying to protect Ishmael's interests.48 Finally, perhaps Abraham really hopes that Ishmael is his heir for whom he waited so long. With Ishmael's birth, Abraham finally has his prayer answered and cannot bring himself to await another son, much less give up the son he already has. In the end, it is not entirely clear how we ought to understand Abraham's declaration in v. 18, but it is clearly a testament to the strength of his attachment. At any rate, while Ishmael will enjoy numerous offspring and become a great nation, it is with Isaac that God will make his covenant. With this it would seem that Abraham's hopes in Ishmael's future are dashed, but in vv. 25 and 26 we learn that Ishmael was circumcised at age 13, apparently on the very day that God spoke to Abraham. The circumcision of Ishmael is significant because it signals that not only in Abraham's eyes, but also in God's, Ishmael had considerable status. Significantly, this understanding reveals the anxiety, which is part of the account in Genesis 17 itself, and of the topos in general, about the 'elimination' of the unfavored son. The notion that Ishmael is, in language familiar to our topos, 'eliminated' from the ranks of the chosen, gains credibility through the events of Genesis 21 and 22.49 Abraham's concern about his heir comes to a head in these two chapters in which he loses both of his sons. In fact, PRE 30 and 31 call the events of chs. 21 and 22 Abraham's ninth and tenth trials respectively and, thereby, also recognize in them the climax of the Abrahamic cycle. These chapters treat the painful dilemma of the disparity between human desires and affections and the divine plan and, in turn, Abraham becomes a study in the struggle to single interpretation, to the exclusion of others, has the effect of impoverishing what is likely a meaningfully ambiguous text. 47. This is essentially the notion captured in Gen. R. 47.4 (cf. 2 Kgs 4.16 and 4.28). 48. See Ramban, who says essentially the same. 49. The majority of the two chapters is ascribed to J and E. J is credited with 21.1-2, 7, 32-34; 22.14-24. E is assigned 21.8-21; 22.1-13. In my discussion I rely almost exclusively on the E materials.

1. 'Your HJL.JLMJJKLKLJLJP;PJL.s'

51

do what is right and the slowness of the human heart to adapt. The first seven verses of Genesis 21 describe the fulfillment of the promises made in ch. 17. Sarah conceives and bears Isaac, Abraham names and circumcises him, and Sarah offers a psalm of thanksgiving for the wondrous gift of Isaac. Verses 8-21 relate the events leading to the removal of Ishmael from the family of Abraham and the related theological and material inheritance. In many ways, ch. 21 is the analogue to ch. 17.50 Here in ch. 21 we see the fulfillment of the promises made in ch. 17 and, as in that chapter, Abraham takes up Ishmael's cause. In particular, it is in vv. 8-14 that Abraham's dilemma is detailed and the interpretive tradition discovers how well Ishmael fits the categories of the topos of sibling rivalry.51 The passage appears as follows: mfo torn9 iprcrTK tei ova ^i: nrro orraK foin "TOD TTTI *7in8 naKn era Drrafc6 na^ni10 :prrea crratf? rrrT—o* rrcsan ~iarrp-n»

itw ~mn im11 ipnym? 'ETO^ n»n nonrrp for «^ -D nmm nt«n -i^rr^ iT:n in-^ arrasr1^ D'rfrN -nan12 :in rm« ^u Drm« Tin an13 tint I1? Kip" pn:m -D rftpn ra mto i*xn no«n ne» ^D •jno»~bui D?Q nan Drrrnp'n np33 nm3« DDen14 :^in ";^IT 'D im^ ^ nQ«rr]Tn« t^n^j ~ita "Qioa inrn "prn nrrrtzh i^"n"nKi noDer^r D& "larr4^ |n"i 8

The boy grew up and was weaned and Abraham had a great party on the day of the weaning of Isaac. 9Sarah saw the son of Hagar, the Egyptian who bore for Abraham, making sport ['Isaacing']. 10She said to Abraham, 'Send this hand-maid away and her son for the son of this hand-maid will not inherit with my son, with IsaacV 1 [The matter was very distressing to Abraham on account of his son.12God said to Abraham, 'Don't let this distress you on account of the boy or your hand-maid. Everything that Sarah tells you to do, do, for from Isaac will come your progeny. 13 As for the son of the hand-maid, I will make him a nation, for he is your progeny.' 14Abraham got up early in the morning, took bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar, placing them on her back along with the boy, and he sent her off. She went and wandered in the wilderness of Beer Sheba.

50. This raises the possibility that the two chapters represent each author's (P for 17 and E for 21) rendition of Abraham's dilemma; at any rate both presuppose quite similar elements in the topos. 51. What follows is an abbreviated form of an article by the author entitled 'Where Does "the Boy" Belong? Compositional Strategy in Genesis 21.14', CBQ 56 (1994), pp. 637-48.

52

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Not only does this passage relate Abraham's mixed emotions for his sons but even the composition itself reflects the ambivalence about chosenness and deep concern over the also-ran. Verses 8, 10, and 12 each end with a reference to Isaac, much the way 21.3 and 22.2 do.52 This phenomenon is surely no coincidence and serves continually to emphasize Isaac as the center of discussion. Furthermore, in 21.3 and 22.2 the placement of Isaac at the end of the string of appositives serves to emphasize Abraham's own delayed gratification in attaining Isaac. But this compositional strategy cuts both ways. In 21.9, 11, 13 we find references to Ishmael at the end of each verse, and each reference has close associations with Isaac as well. For instance, v. 9 ends with pn^Q ('sporting'), which is the piel participle of the root of Isaac's name. Verse 11 ends with the word ID ('his son'), which could equally refer to Isaac. Verse 13 ends with the words N1H "]1T)T ('your seed is he') which is not only equally applicable to Isaac but is suggestively similar to the reference to him at the end to the preceding verse, where we read irif "ft, (he is) 'your seed'. These alternating references to Abraham's two sons come in a passage that tells of his rising anxiety over dispatching Ishmael. The climax of the compositional strategy comes in 21.14 where Abraham sends Ishmael and his mother off to wander in the wilderness. The last thing Abraham hands over to Hagar is Ishmael, referred to as "I^TI flKl ('the boy'). The composition of the verse reflects Abraham's feelings at this point: the last thing he wants to lose is Ishmael. The see-saw nature of the composition of Gen. 21.8-14 suggests the parity that his two sons enjoy in his affections. The irony in chs. 21 and 22 is that he loses them both. Almost as a signal of the connections between the stories, Gen. 22.3, when Abraham gets up early, saddles his ass and takes his two servants and Isaac, is structured nearly identically to 21.14. So, not only the plot of these stories emphasizes Abraham's dilemma but so does their composition. Abraham finds it nearly impossible to decide between his sons and seems to give up Ishmael only as the last resort. To add insult to injury, Abraham is faced with losing Isaac in the very next chapter. This anxiety has considerable resonance with the events within David's court and will be taken up below in our summary of the significance of the woman's

52. Note that in 22.2 it is actually the long string of appositives that ends with Isaac.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

53

'two sons'.53 For now it is important to consider the ways in which the interpreters of the Isaac and Ishmael material understand the story. Ancient Interpreters and Isaac and Ishmael. The interpreters of chs. 21 and 22, like the interpreters of the previous sibling rivalry episodes, consistently interpret them within the categories that comprise our topos. In particular, there is one problematic word that draws their attention. The reference to Ishmael at the end of 21.9 provides a window of opportunity for considerable speculation on why he joins the ranks of the unchosen. In v. 9 Sarah sees the son of Hagar doing something to, or with, Isaac. The reference to what Ishmael is doing is the participle which also identifies him, priKQ ('the one who sports'). Immediately after seeing Ishmael pn^Q ('sporting'), Sarah asks Abraham to get rid of him in v. 10. This leads interpreters to assume that it is Ishmael's behavior in v. 9 that elicits Sarah's request. Left with several alternatives for the meaning of pn^Q we cannot be sure just what it means.54 Jub. 17.4 says that Sarah saw Abraham rejoicing greatly with Ishmael and it made her jealous. This observation is based on two textual insights. First, it suggests that v. 9 refers to a celebration for Ishmael much like the one in v. 8 given for Isaac. Second, and related to the first, the interpretation presupposes the more or less equal affection Abraham has for both sons. Related to this latter point is the tacit recognition on the part of the interpreters that the alternating references to Abraham's sons' parties (as only the first in a series of alternations) mimic his alternating concern and divided loyalty. Josephus apparently takes pn^Q to refer to some kind of aggressive, if not homicidal, act, when he says that the reason Sarah wanted Ishmael sent off was because she feared that he would kill Isaac as soon as 53. Another important element in this story is the presence of Sarah who, in the end, takes up the cause of the chosen son in contrast to Abraham. This tension between parents, like the tension between Sarah and Hagar, will be addressed in Chapter 2 below. Likewise, the parallels between Abraham's and David's situation will be considered, in detail, below in Chapter 3. 54. Westermann argues that one should not understand pflKQ as a play on Isaac's name. In fact, he warns against seeing in this participle anything negative (Genesis 12-36, p. 339). This understanding, he says, is the result of attempting to find the reason for Sarah's actions that follow. Speiser sees plTSQ as a word play on Isaac but does not ascribe any purpose or effect to the pun (Genesis [AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964], p. 155).

54

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Abraham died. This is a legitimate fear, given the topos that we are considering. Recall that the Tekoite says that her husband had just died when her sons struggled. Further, Esau says that he wishes to kill Jacob as soon as their father is dead (Gen. 27.41). But some interpretive traditions hold that Ishmael's attempt on Isaac's life came while Abraham was still alive. PRE 30 explains pn^Q by saying that Ishmael tried to kill Isaac with an arrow. This interpretation not only attempts to explain the meaning of pniflD but also addresses Ishmael's otherwise superfluous association with archery (21.16, 20). In fact, an interpretation preserved in Gen. R. 53.11 includes a much fuller version of this tradition. Here, R. Azariah reports in the name of R. Levi that Ishmael said to Isaac, 'Let us go and see our portions in the field'. Once in the field Ishmael would take a bow and arrows and shoot them toward Isaac while acting as if he were just sporting (pPIXQ). Azariah uses as a prooftext for this interpretation Prov. 26.18 which reads: 'Like a madman who shoots deadly firebrands and arrows is the man who deceives his neighbor (inin) and says, "I was just sporting (pn2$D)"'. R. Azariah's interpretation is fascinating for several reasons. To begin with, Prov. 26.18-19 (like Genesis' depiction of Ishmael) associates the participle pn^D, the notion of archery, and the conflict between a man and his neighbor, which is typologically related to the sibling rivalry material. Furthermore, in Azariah's midrash, the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac takes place out in a field into which the former lured the latter.55 Given the attempt on Isaac's life while out in the field it seems likely that Azariah had Genesis 4 in mind when he made this midrash.56 R. Azariah's interpretation of pniin reveals that he intuits that the story of Ishmael and Isaac belongs to our topos, but he is not alone. Several other midrashim in Genesis Kabbah make similar connections. For example, R. Akiba says that priSD refers to sexual immorality, citing Gen. 39.17 as his prooftext. This verse comes from the passage 55. As will become clear below in our discussion of 'in the field', the association of the field with usurpation is common in Genesis and has strong associations with Deut. 22.23-27. 56. Of note here is the parallel with 1 Sam. 20.20, 36-38 where Nathan shoots arrows toward David as a signal of Saul's attitude toward David. Does Azariah have David and Nathan in mind? Note that Nathan is in process of being usurped and that Saul's favor here would signal David's ascent. Moreover, much of the previous narrative describes how David becomes attached to the house of Saul by 'taking' Jonathan's sister(s).

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

55

in which Joseph turns down the advances of Mrs Potiphar and she, in turn, tells her husband that Joseph had come to seduce or 'sport with' (pn^^) her. Like Lot, here Ishmael is compared in an unfavorable light to Joseph and is associated with the adulterous Mrs Potiphar. The significance of this association Akiba makes a bit more explicit when he says that Sarah saw Ishmael 'conquer "gardens" and hunt down other mens' wives and rape them (]mK n^Ql)'. Herein Akiba associates women with a garden, much as we have already seen.57 Furthermore, in remarkably similar imagery, we will soon see women, often the victims of rape, associated with the field as well.58 In an equally familiar interpretation, R. Ishmael says that pn^Q refers to idolatry by citing Exod. 32.6 where the Israelites worship the golden calf (pn^ IQp1'!). Finally, R. Eliezer says that pn^Q refers to bloodshed and cites 2 Sam. 2.14-16 in which Abner and Joab agree to have twelve of each of their men fight (Ipntin). In v. 16 each man grabs his neighbor (inin) and kills him. Significantly, this text depicts twelve pairs of men fighting one another, each killing his neighbor. These interpretive traditions in Gen. R. 53.11 are striking because, once again, we see the association of the unchosen brother with rape, idolatry, and bloodshed. Finally, there are several interpretive traditions of the Aqedah which also presuppose the topos and seem to use it as the lens through which they view events in Genesis. In PRE 31, the interpreters claim that Ishmael and Eliezer were the two boys who waited at the foot of Moriah during the Aqedah. Moreover, the interpreters insist that the two boys got into a fight over who would become Abraham's heir once Isaac was out of the way. Gen. R. 55.4 reads the opening words of Genesis 22, 'And after these things' (D'Hinn "iriR TH) equally plausibly as 'And after these words'. In answer to the question 'what words?' we are told that Isaac and Ishmael had words with each other. Again, the interpreters seek to fill in the background that explains the actions in the narrative. The gist of the discussion between the brothers is that each claims to be more beloved than the other based on the nature of his circumcision. Of interest here is the presence of conflict between the two brothers on the very issue of who is more beloved to God. As one of the interpretations has it, Isaac tells Ishmael that all he gave to God was three 57. See PRE 21 and n. 18 above. 58. See the section on 'in the field' below.

56

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

drops of blood but that if God asked, Isaac would be willing to be slaughtered. This all finds resonance in the story of Cain and Abel where the more beloved of the two brothers was slaughtered. Let us now summarize the key elements of the stories concerning Ishmael and Isaac. First, the emphasis in the biblical stories is on Abraham's anxiety over his sons, and in particular, over who would be heir. An element related to this anxiety is his tension with Sarah over Isaac and Ishmael. The stories do not reflect Abraham's favoritism as much as his paralysis over the prospect of losing his beloved son(s). In fact, in ch. 21 Abraham reluctantly acquiesces in Sarah's request to get rid of Ishmael, in spite of the knowledge that, according to the narrative line, Isaac is the divinely chosen son. The attentive reader will, of course, recognize the close analogue between Abraham's situation and David's on two levels. In the first place, in the Court Narrative, David seems excessively distressed about the well-being of Absalom. This is especially true considering that Solomon is apparently designated as his successor in 2 Sam. 12.24.59 The second level of the analogue is in the way that Bathsheba gets David to intervene on behalf of her (already chosen) son, much as Sarah intervenes on behalf of her (similarly chosen) son. So far as the interpretive tradition is concerned, at several points it presupposes the categories of our topos in explaining otherwise unclear texts. In particular, it concern itself with Gen. 21.9 and pnSQ, but even its understanding of the two boys that accompany Abraham and Isaac in ch. 22 is shaped by expectations formed through knowledge of the topos. Likewise some of their expectations regarding Abraham's sons are shaped by their reading of the Cain and Abel episode. f . Jacob and Esau The examples of sibling rivalry examined thus far have tended to stress either the tensions between the brothers or the dilemma posed to their parents. In the stories about Jacob and Esau, these two elements are more equally balanced. Their stories comprise a case study in sibling conflict and usurpation under the influence of divine and parental favoritism. Another added dimension to these stories is the nature of Jacob's usurpation. Here Jacob basically usurps what is already 59. Here we read that Yhwh 'loved' or 'favored' Solomon (nnK mrr). In the larger context of the Court History, this notice is clearly meant to signal Solomon's divine favor and role as successor.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

57

promised to him, the position of chosen son and heir to the divine promise. This has a close analogue in 1 Kings 1 and 2 where Solomon, with the help of his mother and Nathan, 'usurps' his rightful place as David's heir. Understanding the events of Jacob and Esau, therefore, promises to inform our reading of the Tekoite's message for David. Gen. 25.19-34 is the first one hears of the two sons of Isaac and Rebekah. In this passage are narrated the events leading up to and describing Jacob's usurpation of Esau's birthright. Even before birth, these twins struggle in the womb (v. 22).60 Apparently in order to discover why she has waited so long only to suffer from her sons' struggle in her womb, Rebekah directs an inquiry to Yhwh. The content of her request is unrecorded, but Yhwh's reply, in v. 23, is clear enough. He says:

ms- jina n-ntf? -KTI -pcm D'-a -JD :TI« ~nir a-n patr o^n D«*7i Two peoples are in your belly, Two nations will depart from your bowels. One nation will grow stronger than the other, The older shall serve the younger.

Herein is dictated the fate of Jacob and Esau. The reasons for Jacob's ascent over his brother Esau remain unclear, but the language and imagery of this account have a familiar ring. In this short prediction by Yhwh, the two brothers represent two nations, but the self-consciousness about the ascent of one, indeed the younger, over the other is evident.61 Notably, whatever the reason(s) for Jacob's selection, the text tells us that while Isaac favors Esau, Rebekah favors Jacob (25.28). This parental favoritism is an analogue to Abraham and Sarah's in that the mother's choice matches God's. This configuration of human and divine favor appears to have a strong analogue, as well, in the Court Narrative with David's seemingly 'misplaced' affections. For now, however, we must concentrate on the Jacob and Esau episodes. After announcing the fate of these two brothers, the remainder of ch. 25 tells of Esau's folly in selling his birthright for nothing more than a bowl of lentil soup. This sad episode in Esau's life ends in 60. To J we should ascribe 25.1-6 and 21-34; to P 25.7-20. 61. Note the resonance of D"^ ""32? with D^D "Dffi. It is to be expected that the topos take on a national perspective as well (see discussion of Joseph and Judah below). Discussion in Chapter 2 will point out that the topos takes on an international significance as well in the book of Esther.

58

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

v. 34b where we read: Thus did Esau spurn his birthright'. We can summarize our discussion of ch. 25 by noting that the text itself reflects the narrator's discomfort with the process by which his ancestor gained advantage over his 'brother' ,62 Chapter 27 continues the narrative that tells of Jacob's tricks by which he 'gained' his favored status. In this instance Rebekah acts as an accomplice in tricking Isaac to extend his blessing to Jacob rather than to Esau. For a second time, the text records the means by which Jacob 'climbs over' his brother. Perhaps one of the clearest examples of the self-consciousness about what it means to make such an ascent is embedded in the imagery and even language of 27.36. This verse comes after Jacob has usurped Esau's birthright and blessing and immediately on the heels of Esau's discovery that he has lost out. Esau says, 'Is this not why he is called Jacob? He has usurped CnplT) my position twice now. My birthright he took and now he has taken my blessing.' The language of the last sentence is of particular importance: TD"n np1? nn^ ram r^b TroaTiK Of special interest are two 'reversals' in the construction of this sentence. First is the reversal of the object and verb. In the first clause, in slight variation from normal syntax, the verb follows the object: Op*? THDirnN. In contrast, in the second, the object follows the verb: TO"D npb. The objects, the first 'mm ('my birthright') and the second TD"O ('my blessing'), represent the second instance of reversal. With the mere reversal of the second and third consonants birthright becomes blessing. The reversal in letters and of words replicates the very action that this sentence recalls. Esau's own words embody the double reversal he has experienced and just now comes to recognize. Of particular interest is the reversal of the letters in the words for birthright and blessing. The words are nearly identical, but what little difference there is between them makes all the difference in the world of Genesis. Just as the D and "1 are reversed in the words of Esau, so too are the expectations of the first-born. In the end, as similar as

62. Westermann argues that as a depiction of the rivalry between two states, Gen. 25 represents the way that the 'winner' 'makes fun of the crude, clumsy, and stupid hunter' (Genesis 12-36, p. 417). This understanding reads such stories as the triumphalism of the winning side in the theological history of the Hebrew Bible. Herein I suggest that the texts evince considerably more ambivalence about having 'won'.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

59

birthright is to blessing, they are worlds apart, as story after story in Genesis confirms.63 Another example of the awareness of the mystery of reversal in Genesis 27 is the similarity between Jacob's blessing (vv. 27-29) and Esau's consolation in vv. 39-40. The texts of each follows. Gen. 27.27b29 reads: :mrr iD"n ~\m mfo n-o -B m nto p«n n3QEbi D'nojn baa a-rf^n "fTpi28 Errm ]n mi D-D«*? ~p innzh ma:? "jTnir29 "JOB 'n ~p nnnzh -pn^ T3a mn :"[i"i3 jrmm THK ~p~iN Ah, the smell of my son is like the smell of the field that Yhwh has blessed.64 28 May God give you from the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth, Abundant grain and new wine. 29 Peoples shall serve you, nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, let your mother's sons bow down to you; Cursed be those who curse you, Blessed be those who bless you.

Isaac's consolation to Esau in vv. 39b-40 reads as follows: tbun D-Q^n ^QQI "pizrin rrrr p«n TOCO ran -nun -pntrnKi rrnn -p-irrbin40 :"]~i«i^ b:;a "by npnsi mn ~I^D rrm 39b

Now, from the fat of the earth shall be your dwelling and from the dew of heaven above. 40 By your sword you shall live, but you will serve your brother; And when you grow restless, you will break his yoke from your neck.

In particular, the notice in Jacob's blessing that he would be sustained by the 'dew from heaven and the fat of the earth' (27.28) is much like the promise to Esau that his dwelling would be 'from the fat of the 63. Levenson notes that 'in Gen. 27.1-45, two important items in Israelite culture collide, i~t~D3 and HD~Q, the birthright and blessing'; it is always the former that yields (The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, p. 69). 64. Note that the object suffix on "D~D could have as its antecedent 'the field' or 'my son'. In other words the object of Yhwh's blessing may be Jacob's son or the field. One can hardly ignore the irony that is entailed in the association of the field, Esau, and blessing. This will become clearer in the following discussion.

60

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

earth and the dew of the heavens' (27.39). Notably, the elements of sustenance here are reversed!65 Moreover, I have translated v. 39 to reflect what I suspect is the double entendre of the Hebrew.66 Esau's 'dwelling' (sustenance or home?) will be from (partitive = include or spatial = a long way from?) the fat of the earth and the dew of heaven. The effect is at once to draw attention to how close, yet how far away, is Esau's consolation in relation to Jacob's blessing. The similarity between the 'blessing' and the 'consolation' along with the reversal of language in 27.36 and 39 signal an ambivalence in these traditions about chosenness and its consequences. In both instances, the near identity of the two brothers is stressed yet their mysterious differentiation is acknowledged. Finally, the last important issue related to the topos of sibling rivalry is Esau's plan to kill his brother. In 27.41 Esau says to himself, 'Let the day of mourning for my father come and I will kill Jacob my brother!' This fratricidal rage is, by now, quite familiar. Like Cain's and Absalom's it appears to be motivated essentially out of vengeance or jealousy, with material benefit only a secondary, if remote, motive. The biblical text does not say if Esau is willing to wait to kill Jacob out of respect or fear of his father, but a tradition in Targum PseudoJonathan and Targum Neofiti holds that he would wait for Isaac's death in order to avoid Cain's mistake. In that instance Adam had time to engender another heir and leave Cain behind. This tradition suggests that in cases of fratricide of the favored son there is some hope on the part of the murderer that he will take the place of his dead brother just as, in many cases, that brother took his place as the favorite. Whatever the motives of the fratricidal brothers, it is significant that Esau is tempted to murder his younger brother who has usurped his position in much the same circumstances found in the story of Cain and Abel.67 65. Cf. Gen. 1.1, (2.1), (2.4a) and 2.4b. 66. Skinner notes the double entendre as well (Genesis, p. 373). Westermann (Genesis 12-36, p. 443) has noted the similarity between Jacob's blessing and Esau's consolation too; he reads the preposition ]Q as spatial ('far from') to emphasize the opposite nature of the brother's fate. But the fact that the blessing and consolation are so close signals a much more ambivalent attitude on the part of the author than Westermann's univocal reading implies. 67. An interpretation of events in Gen. 4 suggests that the interpretive tradition recognized the parallel between Cain and Esau as well as with Absalom. In ARN B 45 we are told that three men in Scripture wished to kill in order to inherit. The first

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

61

Ancient Interpreters and Jacob and Esau. In Gen. 25.22, our introduction to Jacob and Esau, the text records that they 'struggled' in Rebekah's womb. But in the context of the womb, what does it mean to 'struggle' OfSTinn1?)? In Gen. R. 63.6, R. Yohanan claims that it means that each brother 'ran' to 'slay' the other. This midrash plays on the somewhat awkward form of l^mm ('they struggled') by deriving it first from the root p~l for 'ran' and then from the root y^~l for 'slay'. More significantly, Rabbi Yohanan recognizes in this notice the fratricidal tendency that underlies our topos. Especially interesting are traditions that interpret Rebekah's role in Genesis 27. In Targ. Ps.-J. 27.9 Rebekah calls the first goat that Jacob is to bring to her a Pesach sacrifice (cf. PRE 32). Related to this interpretation is Targ. Ps.-J. 27.1 which says that Isaac called to Esau and sent him out into the field on Pesach. These interpretations serve to provide chronology for an otherwise temporally unmarked text, but are also clearly related to interpretations associated with other examples of the topos, especially Cain and Abel, which, likewise, understand the substitutionary quality of the events being depicted. Esau must fall by the wayside for Jacob to ascend to the position of favored son! The interpretive tradition makes another important connection between Esau and Jacob and Cain and Abel. In Gen. 27.42-45 Rebekah learns of Esau's intention to kill his brother and she warns Jacob to flee. She ends her warning by exclaiming, 'Why should I be deprived of two sons in a single day?' Targum Pseudo-Jonathan speculates on two are in the book of Genesis: Cain and Esau. In almost identical sentences the midrash says that each wished to kill his brother (vrttf) in order to eliminate him and thus inherit. The third person the midrash names is Absalom, but, in an odd twist on the language of the first two descriptions, we are told that he wished to kill his father (TDK) for the purpose of inheriting the kingdom. That the text does not claim that he killed his brother to inherit the kingdom is passing strange. The textual evidence for this midrash is limited but there may be one of several things going on with this interpretation. First, it is possible that the midrash is meant to say something like, 'Just as Cain killed his brother and Esau attempted to kill his brother to inherit, Absalom killed his brother and attempted to kill his father'. In other words, Absalom was as bad as Cain and Esau combined. Another possibility is that the unaccomplished quality of Esau's murder has influenced the last phrase of the midrash to emphasize Absalom's unaccomplished rather than successful murder. Whatever the case, we simply note that the three biblical personalities mentioned in ARN B 45 do share the fratricidal urge and that theirs are parade examples of the topos that is the subject of our investigation.

62

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

what Rebekah means by putting in her mouth, immediately following her question: 'when you are killed and he is driven away, as Eve was bereft of Abel whom Cain killed, and both were driven away from the presence of Adam and Eve all the days of the lives of Adam and Eve' ,68 Beyond recognizing the parallel between Cain and Abel's situation and her sons', Rebekah's comment in this Targum also stresses the suffering of the parents at the loss of their children. g. Jacob's Sons The last section of Genesis, the Joseph story, while at first seemingly distinct from the cases of sibling rivalry between two brothers, can be profitably interpreted within the categories associated with the topos. In chs. 37-50 the story turns on Joseph and his brothers. Here we move into a different sphere from that represented by preceding stories. Now the choice of the favored brother is 'horizontal' rather than 'vertical': while Joseph becomes the favored son, none of his brothers is excluded from the theological heritage of Abraham. Joseph ascends from among many, rather than in contradistinction to a single rival sibling, but still, there remain reflexes of the sibling rivalry in which two sons are foregrounded. Furthermore, this phenomenon of the ascent of one from among many brothers has its analogue in the emergence of David's successor in the Court Narrative. Therefore, understanding the Joseph cycle promises dividends for understanding the possibilities for interpreting the message of the Tekoite for David. It is in ch. 37 that Jacob makes his choice of favored son clear.69 In fact, much of the Joseph story revolves around the ramifications of this choice. Unlike Abraham's and Isaac's (and David's), Jacob's choice of favorite son matches God's plan in the Joseph story. Yet many of the details of the story have parallels with those considered above. For instance, like David and, to a certain extent, Isaac, Jacob sends Joseph off to meet his brother(s) even though he is aware of the tensions between them. Moreover, Jacob sends Joseph out into a field (v. 14). Full discussion of the import of this imagery must be delayed until our section devoted to the Tekoite's notice that her sons struggled 'in 68. Gen. 27.45. 69. Ch. 37 is, perhaps, one of the most complexly woven texts in Genesis. To P we should ascribe 37.1-2; to J vv. 3-4, 14, 18, 23, 25-27, 31-35; to E vv. 5-13, 1517, 19-22, 24, 28-30, 36. The topos is presupposed in both the J and E material once again.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

63

the field'. For now it is sufficient to recall that Cain killed Abel 'in the field' and that in the Tekoite's mashal the field is the locus of murder as well. There are other signs that the topos of two brothers in conflict has shaped the Joseph story. In particular, stories surrounding Joseph's encounters with Reuben and Judah suggest that their relationships are best viewed in light of the topos and, indeed, a close investigation of the episodes involving these brothers confirms the suspicion. Continuing what appears to be the consistent variation on, and even reversal of, the categories of the sibling rivalry topos, in 37.21-22 Reuben attempts to save Joseph from murder and then, in vv. 29-30, when he realizes that Joseph is missing, assumes responsibility.70 With the topos of sibling rivalry as a background, Reuben, the oldest brother (who seems to have been supplanted) would appear to have much to gain by the elimination of Joseph. In contrast with that topos, however, Reuben looks out for his younger and favored brother rather than attempting to kill him. While the evidence in ch. 37 represents a considerable variation on the categories of our topos, it still supports the notion that the topos is presupposed. There is, however, additional evidence that the Reuben traditions have been influenced by our topos. In fact, these other texts seem to fit more closely the categories seen over and again, above. First is the Reuben and Bilhah episode in Gen. 35.22 (J). This is a rather brief and unclear text, but the essentials are that while Jacob was away Reuben slept with Bilhah, his father's concubine. At the conclusion, we are told that Jacob found out, but not of the consequences for Reuben. Two passages in the Hebrew Bible do seem to address the consequences of Reuben's indiscretion involving Bilhah. First, Gen. 49.4 records Jacob's deathbed blessing of his sons; he says to Reuben: :rto "ircr rtfrn TK -p3« '33tfQ rfos -D •mirrl» D'QD ins 'Unstable as water, you shall survive no longer, for when you mounted your father's bed, you defiled his couch.'11

Second, 1 Chron. 5.la, which is dependent on the language of Gen. 49.4 (see italicized words) and is best viewed as an elaboration of that passage, says of Reuben: 70. This version of the brother who is overly concerned for Joseph is from the E source. 71. Translation is IPS.

64

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa "anerp ^or *zh inn^n nm rag "ircr t^rrn TDDH Kin 'He was firstborn but vv/zen /ze defiled his father's couch his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel.'

This passage represents an attempt to clarify Gen. 49.4 as well as explain the difficult passage at Gen. 48.6-7, where Jacob tells Joseph that his sons shall be counted in the name of their 'brothers' Reuben and Simeon. The Chronicler sees Gen. 48.6-7 as Jacob's elaboration of the consequences of Reuben's sleeping with Bilhah: as a result he lost his birthright. The Chronicles passage assumes that Reuben's loss of his birthright was due to his sexual indiscretion. This inner-biblical interpretation represents an important juncture in the relationship between the biblical text and the history of its interpretation. Here, within the Hebrew Bible itself, we see the beginnings of the means by which interpreters grapple with a key element of the sibling rivalry topos. The Chronicles passage, like the other interpretive traditions associated with the topos, is merely attempting to make explicit what appears to be the presupposition of the biblical text. Often, brothers who are removed from the ranks of the favored are depicted in sexually questionable, if not illicit, ways. As noted above, Reuben is not the only brother who is depicted in relation to Joseph in the hues of the sibling rivalry topos. Likewise, Judah's relationship with Joseph is reminiscent in numerous ways of the two brothers in conflict. Any student of Israelite history will recognize that Joseph and Judah represent rival siblings on the national scale in Israel and Judah respectively. It would be reductionist to an extreme, however, to attribute the prevalence of the sibling rivalry topos only to the historical tensions between these sibling nations. It is, perhaps, safest to say that the existence of the two nations maintained and reinforced the traditions of sibling rivalry and the cultural currency of the topos. The fall of the northern kingdom would, in turn, have likely occasioned increased attention to the self-consciousness about the survival of the favored brother in the nascent narrative traditions. In any event, in 37.26-27 (J source) Judah convinces his brothers not to kill Joseph. This is the second instance in which Joseph is saved by his brother (cf. Reuben in the E source above). This doublet, long recognized as the result of two different sources, is significant because it signals that Judah, too, was understood in terms dictated by the topos that is our focus here. That this represents a substantial twist on the sibling rivalry topos should not cloud the fact that it is just that, a

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

65

variation on and, perhaps, even reversal of what one expects. The brother who seems to have lost out goes to the extreme for the favored son. Lest one assume too monolithic an understanding of Judah's character, however, ch. 38 presents a portrait of him as considerably more complex and self-interested. Genesis 38, on first reading, would seem to have little to do with the issues relating to sibling rivalry, but consider that, besides Joseph, Judah's is the only story of which we know anything among Jacob's sons. That we have only the stories of the two sons of Jacob that are associated with the northern and southern kingdoms respectively, reinforces the notion that Judah would naturally be understood in the categories that are our focus. The relevance of ch. 38 to the discussion will become most evident in Chapter 2 below, but several key issues demand attention immediately. Reverberations of sibling rivalry can be found in ch. 38, but not in any clearly taxonomic way, leaving the impression that it is presupposed at numerous points, but never explicitly drawn on. The best way to demonstrate this subtle playing with the categories of the topos is briefly to compare events in Genesis 38 with other accounts in Genesis and with the categories of the topos. In Genesis 35 Reuben sleeps with his father's wife, but in ch. 38 Judah sleeps with his son's wife. The narrator makes no direct comment in either case, but one can hardly escape thinking in terms guided by the categories of the topos of sibling rivalry. In a truly intriguing twist on the topos, ch. 38 tells of Judah's three sons who are immediately reduced to two. The topos might have led us to expect Onan to kill Er in order to take his wife. Instead, God takes Er's life and Onan, in hopes of attaining Er's inheritance, refuses to fulfil his sexual obligations to Tamar. As a result, Onan is also killed by God, leaving only one son to Judah. The attentive reader will recognize here that in contrast to the strictures associated with other's wives embedded in the topos, in Genesis 38 sleeping with one's sister-in-law is an obligation. In one of the great ironies in Genesis, Judah attempts to protect both his chances for grandchildren and Shelah's interests by sending Tamar away. As a result, however, he winds up producing children with Tamar and, in effect, usurping Shelah's place. In another strange variation on the categories of the topos Tamar tells Judah to 'take note' (K] OH) of his seal and staff that reveal that he is the father of her children. This same phrase appears in Gen. 37.32 where Jacob's sons

66

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

tell their father to 'take note' of Joseph's bloody tunic.72 The phrase that is the means by which Jacob's sons hide their betrayal of his favored son is the means by which Tamar reveals Judah's betrayal of his only remaining son. As if to highlight the significance of the topos of sibling rivalry for Judah's story in ch. 38 his (grand)children are depicted struggling in the womb just like Jacob and Esau. Significantly, the notice that Tamar is to bear twins (38.27: mam D'OIKf! rum) is essentially identical to the notice that Rebekah will have twins in 25.24 (iTDCQD DEID rum). Moreover, Zerah and Esau, the usurped brothers, are both associated with the color red. Beyond these strongly familiar resonances with the 'two brothers' element of the topos in general, there are interesting associations between Genesis 38 and the Court History. Of interest is the fact that two characters in the Hebrew Bible have three sons and a daughter (in law) named Tamar: Judah and Absalom (cf. 2 Sam. 14.27). In addition, Judah has a dual relationship to Tamar. On the one hand, he is of the previous generation and therefore her elder. On the other hand, when he sleeps with her and engenders his second set of children with her, they can be understood to occupy equal generational status, at least in relation to their children. Likewise, Absalom is of the same generation, of course, as his sister Tamar while he has a daughter named Tamar (2 Sam. 14.27). Perhaps this parallel in relations is merely coincidence, but if it is, it is a remarkable one. David and Judah are also depicted in very similar ways. In the story in Genesis 38 and 2 Samuel 11, a Davidide produces his crucial offspring in less than ideal circumstances. Judah sleeps with the woman who is apparently (according to levirate law) reserved for his son and David essentially takes his wife from Uriah. In discussion of the significance of 'the field' below, we will see that the location of these sexual liaisons suggests even more strongly the parallel between these two characters that are so central to the Davidic lineage. Along with the closeness of the depiction of David and Judah, the women associated with them have much in common. As will become clear in Chapter 2, both Genesis 38 and 2 Samuel 14 depict Tamar and the Tekoite (respectively) as women who request an audience with a Davidide. More significantly, both have the goal of saving or perpetuating the lineage of David. Finally, and especially ironic, is that 72. See R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), pp. 3-4, and Gen. R. 84.19.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

67

the Davidide in both stories has to be convinced to save his own lineage. As noted, this parallel between the women in Genesis 38 and the Court History will be addressed below in Chapter 2 which deals with 'women with a cause'. The strong associations between Genesis 38 and the Court History are perhaps due, in part, to their place in the topoi of 'sibling rivalry' and 'woman with a cause', as well as their centrality to the Davidic history. Whatever the reasons for the strong associations, at present it is important to note that Genesis 38 has clear and strong associations with the Court History and the 'two sons' element that is so crucial to the Tekoite's message. The Significance of the 'Two Sons' in the Tekoite 's Mashal Having considered the prevalence of, and defined more clearly, the 'two sons' element of the topos of sibling rivalry, we should now consider the significance of the Tekoite's notice that she had two sons. That is, in what way is this notice supposed to inform David's situation? To begin, it is important to note that three pairs of David's sons are depicted in ways consistent with the 'two sons' element. These three pairs include: his two sons by Bathsheba—the first unnamed and the second Solomon (2 Sam. 12); Amnon and Absalom (2 Sam. 13); and Solomon and Adonijah (1 Kgs 1 and 2). As for the two sons by Bathsheba: the first, unnamed son dies, apparently as punishment for David's taking of Bathsheba and killing Uriah. It is David's second and, obviously, younger son Solomon who succeeds him, not his first. Furthermore, the account of David's first son's death implies a kind of substitution. 2 Sam. 12.13-14 essentially says that David will not die for his misdeeds but rather his first son. Clearly this is different from the suggestions in the interpretive traditions seen above that understand the death of the 'other' brother in substitutionary categories, but it may reflect the same religious sensibility. Because his son died in his stead, David was able to have a second son who became his successor. However we are to understand the death of David's first son, it is notable that Solomon, the younger of the two, receives Yhwh's favor at birth (12.24-25). Significantly, between the birth of Bathsheba's first son (11.27) and the notice that that son should die (12.14) comes the warning from Nathan that one of David's 'sons' would usurp him much as he 'usurped' Uriah's position and wife (12.11). Nathan's warning turns out to be a reference to

68

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Absalom, one of another pair of sons that rends David's family. This early reference to Absalom serves to interlock the first 'pair' of David's sons with the second, Absalom and Amnon, who apparently are the primary objects of the Tekoite's mashal.73 As a reference to the 'two sons' element of our topos the Tekoite's notice does much to illumine the Amnon and Absalom episode. While the Tekoite does not say what led to her sons' altercation, it seems likely that their future prospects, perhaps based on birth order, were part of what fueled their animosity. After all, this is a primary motive in all of the episodes of sibling rivalry that we have considered. Whatever the relative age of her sons, we know that Amnon was Absalom's elder (2 Sam. 3.2-3). While Absalom's motive for fratricide is depicted as vengeance for Tamar's rape, that Amnon is his elder brother finds resonance in the 'two sons' element of the topos of sibling rivalry. We should, therefore, suspect that Absalom's motives likely included his own self-interest as much as his sister's honor.74 In another analogy to the 'two sons' element, the Tekoite's description includes no words between her sons. This has considerable resonance with the Genesis episodes and Amnon and Absalom. It is impossible to tell whether the silence between her sons is meant to bring to mind Amnon and Absalom or is merely representative of this element of the topos, but it is clearly analogous to the silence of Amnon and Absalom who have little to say to one another after Tamar's rape. Indeed, 13.20-22 sums up their posture toward one another quite vividly: 20

Absalom her brother said to her [Tamar], 'Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now my sister, keep quiet, he is your brother, do not give a thought to this matter.' Tamar dwelt, in shame, in her brother Absalom's

73. Notably, while Solomon is here designated as heir apparent, his episode with his rival Adonijah is delayed while David's other pair of sons wrangle for supremacy. 74. It is of interest that Amnon's rape of Tamar may have been an attempt to solidify his position as heir to the throne. By taking Tamar as wife, Amnon could have cemented his relationship with another of the royal 'families' traced through Absalom's mother. In such a move Absalom would be peripheralized and Amnon strengthened in his bid to become David's successor. Of course, the difficulty with this argument is the fact that Amnon refuses to marry Tamar despite her request that he do so. Whatever the motives of Amnon, however, as long as he was alive there was the possibility that he might eventually wind up married to Tamar. This possibility could well be part of the motivation for Absalom's murder of Amnon.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

69

house. 21King David heard about all these things and became very angry. 22 Absalom said nothing to Amnon either bad or good, for Absalom hated Amnon over the matter of his raping Tamar his sister.

Things are so bad that the brothers cannot speak and even David, on hearing of the matter, seems paralyzed and appears unwilling or unable to mediate between them. The situation is analogous to that in Gen. 37.4 where Joseph's brothers are D1^ Tim ^^ tib ('unable to speak peaceably with him'). In addition, recall Jacob who, aware of the tensions between his sons, does little to prevent Joseph's demise (Gen. 37.11-14). David's inaction suggests another important resonance with the sibling rivalry episodes in Genesis. Especially in the Isaac and Ishmael and the Jacob and Esau episodes, we witnessed the anxiety, on the part of the author(s) and 'characters', over the reasons for and the consequences of favor. Because the notion of favor melds into the question of intervention between sons, the issue of parental favor and intervention will be taken up below. Here, we need only address David's anxiety as it relates to the disparity between his wishes and the divine will. As noted above, in 2 Sam. 12.24 and 12.25 Solomon is designated as David's heir and Yhwh's favored among David's sons. That this notice should come at this juncture is important. Much like Abraham's and Isaac's anxiety over their sons who lost out, David's anxiety over Absalom is expended on the wrong son. Through all the anxiety and torment reported in 2 Samuel 13-20, Solomon is designated and destined to succeed David. David's anxiety over his 'alsoran' sons is much like that not only of Abraham and Jacob but also of the narrator(s) of those episodes. It seems likely that these same anxieties underlie the Court Narrative as well. An amazing contrast to David's anxiety over his sons comes with the last episode of 'two sons' in the Court Narrative. In 1 Kings 1 and 2 David displays a remarkable lack of interest in the question of his succession. Here the story turns on the tensions between Adonijah, David's oldest surviving son, and Solomon. In a familiar twist of events, the older son is displaced by the younger, divinely favored, son. Much of the action of these chapters is discussed below in the section 'there was no one to separate them' as well as in Chapter 2. There is, however, a crucial event here that allows us to address the last central issue surrounding the 'two sons' element of our topos. In 1 Kgs 2.13-25, having lost to his younger brother, Adonijah seeks a

70

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

consolation prize from Bathsheba. He asks her for Abishag, David's former 'comforter', as wife. Bathsheba relays the request to Solomon who responds by saying that Adonijah might as well request the throne. As a result of his request, Adonijah is killed by Solomon.75 The reader will no doubt hear echoes of Reuben's liaison with Bilhah, his father's concubine, that apparently led to his removal from favor. Furthermore, in numerous interpretations, unfavored brothers are marked by their taking of another's wife. In particular, Lot is depicted in this way over and again.76 It seems highly likely that the Tekoite's 'two sons' are meant to illumine David's court with this unseemly part of the sibling tension. Notably, repeatedly in the Court Narrative, David's sons engage in illicit sexual activity. First, Amnon rapes Tamar, then Absalom sleeps with David's concubines upon taking Jerusalem (2 Sam. 16.20-23), and now, in 1 Kgs 2.13-25, Adonijah seeks Abishag. Of greatest import, however, is how this indictment of sexual misconduct subtly reflects on David himself. The tempo and tenor of the Court Narrative are set by 2 Samuel 11, the story that tells of David's killing of another man in order to take his wife. Given the consistent presence of the sexual misconduct aspect of the 'two sons' element, it seems highly likely that the Tekoite's message for David is meant to illumine his sons' altercation and cast a rather long and dark shadow over his own behavior. It seems the 'two sons' element of the Tekoite's mashal picks up the issues we have discovered in many of the episodes discussed above. In the end, this element suggests the ambivalence not only of the fathers whose succession is at issue, but also of the narrators as representatives of larger cultural values. The process of 'selection' is, indeed, as mysterious to the fathers as it is to the narrators of these stories. Especially poignant is the contrast between human affections and divine will in these episodes. While the reasons for the differentiation between sons remain unclear there is a persistent, if inconsistent, association of the 'also-ran' with sexual impropriety in these episodes. At any rate, the commentary on Amnon's rape of Tamar implied by the 'two sons' motif is reinforced by the second element of the Tekoite's exclamation, 'The two of them struggled in the field', to which we now turn. 75. On this point see J.D. Levenson and B. Halpern, The Political Import of David's Marriages', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 507-18. 76. See above.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

71

2. mfen nrnti ran 'Arcd f/ie Two of Them Struggled in the Field' Thus far we have seen that the 'two sons' element of the Tekoite's exclamation has multiple connections with David's story. Moreover, by association, it suggests some of the reasons that her two sons came to blows in the first place. But in what way is her sons' location 'in the field' significant? How is 'in the field' meant to inform the Court Narrative? Again, we begin by considering Genesis 4 and, in particular, v. 8. a. Cain and Abel Unlike the Tekoite's mashal, the Cain and Abel episode does not describe a struggle or record any actions between the brothers before Abel's murder. Gen. 4.8 merely says mfcO DnTTQ, 'And when they were in the field'. Surely the location of the fratricide in both Gen. 4.8 and 2 Sam. 14.6 'in the field' is significant, but in what way? With respect to Genesis 4, an immediate response might be that one expects a 'farmer' and 'rancher' to be in the field. Yet this does not exhaust the possible explanations of its significance. In fact, the distinction between the field and city is a persistent element in the Hebrew Bible as well as in much of the literature of the ancient Near East. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu, the man of the steppe, wild as an animal and covered with grass, represents the dangers posed by being outside the safety of the civilized world. It is only once Enkidu has been 'civilized' by the prostitute that he can be brought to town where he still needs to be made to submit to Gilgamesh.77 With regard to the Hebrew Bible, one immediately thinks of the law in Deut. 22.23-27 in which culpability for rape is determined by where the rape takes place: if in a city, both the man and the woman are guilty of adultery (presuming that fellow citizens would have heard cries for help if the woman were raped); if in the 'field', then only the man is culpable because the woman can legitimately claim it was rape, since there was no one to hear her calls for help. This legal text, along 77. Below we will see the persistent association of the field with sex. In the Hebrew Bible, however, this association is almost always highly negative; the field is so dangerous because that is where the normal rules that govern human relations can be, and often are, suspended.

72

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

with several texts in Genesis in which crucial distinctions are made by reference to the field, will prove to be central to our discussion below. Fortunately, the interpretive traditions of the Cain and Abel episode make an important observation that has considerable import for understanding the phrase 'in the field' not only here in Genesis 4 but also in all of Genesis and especially in 2 Samuel 14. Ancient Interpreters and Cain and Abel. The history of interpretation attributes considerable significance to the fact that Abel's murder takes place in a field. Radaq and Rambam claim that Cain feared his father and did not rise against Abel until they were out in the field where Adam could not prevent the murder. For practical reasons a field or remote area is obviously the locale of choice for such a crime. An awareness of this fact can be found in Jub. 4.5 which cites Deut. 27.24, 'Cursed (THR) is one who strikes (HDQ) his neighbor in a secret place ("inca)' as a reference to Cain's punishment for killing Abel.78 The author of Jubilees cites this verse because of its seeming reference to the events of Genesis 4, in particular because it begins with ~)1~IN just like God's curse on Cain in Gen. 4.11. But the citation of this passage from Deut. 27.24 in Jubilees signals more than just an awareness of its similarity with the situation and language in Genesis 4. In fact, like the medieval interpreters cited above, the author of Jubilees is simply part of a larger interpretive tradition that, first, recognizes the dangers posed in being in the open field and, second, turns to Deuteronomy to explicate the danger.79 It comes as no surprise, then, that one finds numerous interpretations of the significance of being in the field in Genesis 4 that explicitly turn to Deuteronomy. In PRE 21, Rabbi Zadok says 'Cain said: "I shall kill my brother Abel and take his twin sister from him" as it is said "and when they were in the field". "In the field" means woman, who is compared to a field.' Rabbi Zadok's comment is clarified by citing Deut. 22.25; part of a larger passage (vv. 23-27) that deals with the problem of a man who has sex with a woman betrothed to another. The entire passage is worth quoting: 78. Interestingly this passage could work equally well as a reference to the events cited in our mashal and in 2 Sam. 13. 79. One can find such recognition in places like the Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael where Deut. 22.26 is cited in order to comment on a passage in Exod. 22. See, for instance, Nezikin 13. It seems that Deut. 22.25ff. became the locus classicus for such interpretive moves, as we will see shortly.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

73

23

When a virgin who is betrothed to someone is found in the city by another man and he sleeps with her, 24you shall bring the two of them out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them with stones. They must die; the girl because she did not cry out in the city and the man because he raped his neighbor's wife. By so doing, you shall burn evil from your midst. 25If the man finds the betrothed girl in the field and seizes her and sleeps with her, only the man who slept with her shall die. 26You shall do nothing to the girl, for hers was not a capital offence; just as in the case of a man who rises up against his neighbor and kills him, so is this case, 27 for he found her in the field; the betrothed girl called for help, but there was no one to save her.80

That this passage should be cited to clarify Genesis 4 is truly fascinating and is no doubt due to the numerous resonances between them. The passage from Deuteronomy points to the danger posed by being out in a field away from anyone who might help or protect. But this citation also seems to presuppose the interpretations, seen above, that presume that the conflict between Cain and Abel was over their sister. On this midrashic reading, v. 26 seems to suggest to the interpreter that just as he rose up against his brother in the field, so also Cain took his brother's wife in the field. In each case the victim is innocent. In this citation the field is associated both with the danger posed to the man and with a wronged woman. For this midrash 'in the field' in Gen. 4.8 signifies the danger posed to Abel and the wrong done to his wife.81 It is clear that 'in the field' is a highly loaded phrase that, when unpacked, refers to the locus of homicide and rape and, in addition, not only is associated with, but even acts as a cipher for, at least in PRE 21, the wronged woman.82 Clearly this citation does much to illumine the function of 'in the field' in Gen. 4.8. It is also highly sug80. In the Middle Assyrian Laws (ANET, pp. 180-88), Tablet A, laws 12 and 55 are very similar to the one under consideration, but fail to make the distinction in culpability based on the location of the sexual liaison. 81. It also seems likely that in the minds of the interpreters the implied fate of the murderer in Deut. 22.26 illumines the Cain and Abel episode. In Deut. 22.25-27 the girl who is raped in the field goes unpunished, for it is like the case of the murderer who killed out in the field: since no one was there the benefit of the doubt goes to the rape victim and the murderer. For the interpreters who see Deut. 22.23-27 in light of the Cain and Abel episode, this suggests why Cain may have gotten off the hook; there were no witnesses (note that even Yhwh does not know what happened to Abel); therefore, Cain was extended the benefit of the doubt. Clearly this interpretation cleverly lets Yhwh off the hook too. 82. See n. 18 above where women are closely associated with a garden as well.

74

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

gestive for understanding the same phrase in 2 Sam. 14.6. Full consideration of that text and the value of Deut. 22.23-27 for understanding it must await discussion at the end of this section. For now it is important to note that the 'field' has a prominent place in other episodes of sibling rivalry in Genesis. b. Isaac and Ishmael In the biblical account of Isaac and Ishmael there is no significant mention of the field. It is true that in both accounts in which Ishmael is removed from Abraham's household he is sent out into the wilderness (~Q~FQ) but, while the imagery of the unfavored son, sent out in this manner, is suggestively reminiscent of the notion of usurpation 'in the field', it is different enough that we should not force it.83 Perhaps it is best seen as a rather distant variation on our topos. The locution rnfcD, 'in the field', does actually occur twice in reference to Isaac, but in ways very different from what we see in other texts. For example, at the end of ch. 24, when Isaac first meets Rebekah, he is out 'walking in the field' (v. 63). Additionally, when Rebekah sees him she asks her escort, 'Who is that man walking in the field?' As noted, the phrase n~I2D hardly functions here as it does in other episodes and therefore is not significant for our purposes. Ancient Interpreters and Isaac and Ishmael. We saw above, in the discussion of the tensions between Isaac and Ishmael, the interpretation preserved in Gen. R. 53.11 that understands pn^Q in Gen. 21.9 as a reference to a fight that took place in a field. R. Azariah reports in the name of R. Levi that Ishmael said to Isaac, 'Let us go and see our portions in the field'. Once in the field Ishmael would take a bow and arrows and shoot them toward Isaac while acting as if he were just sporting (pn^ft). Azariah uses as a prooftext for this interpretation Prov. 26.18 which reads: 'Like a madman who shoots deadly firebrands and arrows, is the man who deceives his neighbor (injn) and says, "I was just sporting (pnSD)"'. R. Azariah's interpretation of Prov. 26.18-19 apparently understands the participle prTCQ to include the conflict between a man and his neighbor, which is typologically related to the sibling rivalry material, especially as we have seen it in Deut. 22.26. Moreover, R. Azariah surely recognizes that the notion of archery in this passage resonates with Ishmael who is associated 83. See Gen. 21.14 and 16.7.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

75

with the bow in Gen. 21.16 and 21.20. Furthermore, the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac takes place out in a field into which the former lured the latter. As noted above, it seems likely that Azariah had Genesis 4 in mind when he made this midrash. While it is left to the interpreters to make a strong and direct link between Isaac and Ishmael and 'in the field', in the rest of the episodes of sibling rivalry in Genesis, the biblical text itself includes 'the field' in familiar ways. c. Jacob and Esau In 25.27 Esau is identified as n"T2J 2TK, a man of the field.84 This notice comes just before Jacob tricks Esau into selling his birthright, the first in the two-stage process by which Jacob usurps Esau's position. The ramifications of Esau's close association with the field become especially clear in ch. 27.85 It is this chapter that details Jacob's final usurpation of Esau's expected position as favored son. Once again Jacob employs a trick in order to accomplish his goal, but this time he assumes Esau's identity; a graphic representation of his ultimate goal. The first four verses of ch. 27 tell of Isaac, now old and nearly blind, who commands his son to go out into the field (mfrn 8^1), kill some game, and prepare his favorite dish so that Isaac might bless him. Of course, this picks up on the identification of Esau as a man of the field in 25.27 but goes further in two ways. First, this passage sets up the story of Jacob's final usurpation of Esau's position when he tricks his father into blessing him rather than Esau. Furthermore, this passage brings to mind the other two situations in which fathers send their sons out to meet their (near) demise. In Genesis 37 Jacob sends Joseph out into the field to find his brothers, where he nearly meets his end. In 2 Samuel 13, David sends Amnon out to meet Absalom where he was, in fact, killed. All of this confirms the notion of the danger posed by the field in general and especially in the topos of sibling rivalry.

84. The interpretive tradition associated with 25.29 makes some important observations on the significance of the fact that Esau came in from the field exhausted. It claims his exhaustion derived from five transgressions. They include: 1) idolatry; 2) shedding of innocent blood; 3) having sex with a betrothed woman; 4) while in the field, Esau denied the world to come; 5) he despised his birthright. This tradition is found in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Tank. 8, Gen. R. 63.12, and b. B. Bat. 16b. While it is unclear how the interpreters derive this information it is significant that the first three are, by now, familiar accusations directed at the unchosen brother. 85. Gen. 27.1-45 belongs to J.

76

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

d. Jacob's Sons The persistent association of sibling rivalry with 'the field' continues with the story of Jacob's sons. In Gen. 37.5-8 Joseph has, and then tells his brothers of, his dream that has him lording it over his brothers while in a field; at any rate, that is their interpretation of the dream. Once again, within the logic of their interpretation of the dream, the younger assumes the dominant position while in the field. The difference in this imagery, of course, is that the favored, not the unfavored son, gains dominance. As if to twist the ironic knife another turn, it is in a field, while wandering and looking for his brothers, that a man sends him off to his 'doom' where the unfavored brothers attempt to kill him. The prominence of the field is, by now, familiar from our investigation of two brothers in conflict. That the dream of Joseph's ascent to power and his brother's attempt to kill him both occur in a field is hardly coincidence. Once again, the field represents the place of danger but in a twist on the motif, in the first instance the imagery represents the favored son gaining his advantage there.86 The second instance, Joseph's brothers' attempted murder, comes closer to the usurpation usually associated with the field.87

86. Westermann (Genesis 37-50, p. 35) views ch. 37 as containing three scenes; the first (vv. 3-11) and third (vv. 31-35) take place between father, brothers, and Joseph. The second (vv. 18-30) takes place between Joseph and his brothers in the fields. Westermann points out the same threefold structure in the larger Joseph narrative, where ch. 37 corresponds to scene one, chs. 46-50 to scene three, and chs. 3945 to scene two, i.e. in the fields. This understanding of the Joseph narrative is suggestive and implies that, in large measure, his story plays off this key element of our topos. Consider that not only are the metaphors of supremacy in his dreams associated with the fields but his adroit advice to Pharaoh concerns the crops of the field. With Joseph the field becomes both the place of his usurpation and his ultimate justification. As a symbol of Joseph's (and by extension, Israel's) coming of age, nothing could be more profound than the mastery of 'the field' that posed such a threat to him. At a more subtle level, Joseph is a model of how to 'interpret' the field and its significance for Israel. David should be so hermeneutically aware! 87. It is interesting to note that while ch. 34 does not give the location of Dinah's rape, the text implies it was out away from town. Verse 1 says that Dinah went out to see the daughters of the land CpKH JTI]33). Moreover, Dinah's brothers are clearly out 'in the field' when her rape occurs (v. 7). Furthermore, their reaction to the news that Dinah has been raped implies the threat that is posed by being 'in the field' (esp. v. 31). It appears that the notion of the danger of the field, that is, the field as the location of rape and encroachment, is part of the subtle subtext of the episode in Gen. 34.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

77

The Significance of 'in the Field' in the Tekoite's Mashal The Tekoite's reference to her sons' altercation 'in the field' thus turns out to be much more significant than one might first expect. The association of usurpation, and even, in extreme cases, death, with a field is a consistent factor in the episodes of sibling rivalry in Genesis. Especially suggestive for understanding the Tekoite's mashal are the interpretive traditions on the Cain and Abel episode. In these interpretations Deut. 22.23-27 functions as the lens whereby the field represents danger to one of two men and a cipher for a wronged woman as well as the location in which she is wronged. This understanding of 'in the field' seems to be presumed by the Tekoite as well. By locating her sons' fight 'in the field', the Tekoite alludes to the two key events that have brought her to David: Amnon's rape of Tamar and Absalom's subsequent murder of Amnon. Notably, Amnon gets Tamar in seclusion in his room to rape her and Absalom gets Amnon out and away from Jerusalem to kill him. Once again, the possibility of a subtle commentary on David must be entertained. Recall that David gets Bathsheba to come to his chambers when he commits adultery with her and he sends Uriah off to the battle field to have him killed. Whether or not the Tekoite's mashal is meant as commentary on David's actions, it clearly functions that way for the events in ch. 13. But how should we understand the relationship between the Tekoite's mashal and Deuteronomy 22? There are essentially two alternatives. The first alternative for understanding the associations between 2 Sam. 14.6 and Deut. 22.23-27 is to see the former as dependent on the latter, or at least a legal formulation very much like it. The advantage of this explanation is its simplicity. On this understanding, we need merely posit that the Deuteronomistic Historian (or an editor of that school) presupposed the forensic world implied by Deuteronomy when he composed the Tekoite's mashal. The likelihood of dependence is strengthened by several other associations between the Tekoite's mashal and Deuteronomy. The dependence of the mashal on Deuteronomy, however, precludes the possibility of its being authored by the Court Historian as he is understood by Rost et al. Of course, if one pushed the existence of Deuteronomy, or at least the legal notions contained in 22.23-27, back far enough, the Court Historian might well depend on it. An alternative to this conceptualization is to presume that the Court Historian, or later his school, depended on tradi-

78

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

tions that eventually 'congeal' in the form we know them in Deut. 22.23-27. In the end, the argument for dependence gets hopelessly mired in essentially unanswerable questions of priority. As a way around this hermeneutical quagmire, a second, more subtle understanding of the association between 2 Sam. 14.6 and Deut. 22.23-27 is possible. On this understanding, the Tekoite's statement should be viewed as an independent narrative crystallization of the same religio-forensic understanding of 'field' seen in Deuteronomy 22 and, to a certain degree, presumed by Genesis and many of the episodes in the Court Narrative. The advantage of this understanding is that it does not become mired in the circularity of arguments over priority. It merely presumes that Deuteronomy, Genesis, and the Court Narrative, along with the interpretive traditions of Genesis, all recognize the significance of 'in the field' in the symbolic world of the Hebrew Bible. The disadvantage of this understanding is that it leaves on' with a rather vague and inexact notion of the connections between these texts and must posit an amorphous 'tradition' of which all partake. Any conclusion about the association of the Tekoite's message with Deuteronomy must take seriously these possibilities. In the end, the most likely solution is not a neat one. In all likelihood the message of the Tekoite relies both on some familiarity with the laws like those found in Deuteronomy 22 and a more general cultural competence in its understanding of the cultural idiom suggested by 'in the field'. Most significantly, however, the texts we have been considering seem to suggest a progression in the association between the field and the sexual misconduct that 'disqualifies' one of two sons. In Genesis this relationship is merely inchoate and latent. That is, we have stories that belong to the larger topos of sibling rivalry and 'two sons' that include, in essentially free variation, the elements of sexual misconduct as disqualifying (cf. especially Lot and Reuben) and the field as the location of usurpation (Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau et al.}. In contrast to this latent association in Genesis, Deut. 22.23-27 strongly associates the field with rape and murder. The Tekoite's mashal seems to rely on conceptualizations both like those of Genesis and like those of Deuteronomy in order to convey its message to David. By 'rely' I simply mean that the Tekoite's message is likely formed with the knowledge of these types of legal formulations of the problem of the field and the significance of 'the field' in narrative traditions.88 Much like the 88. Simon ('Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb', pp. 207-42) argues that 2 Sam. 14 as well

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

79

assumptions that inform the Tekoite's message for David, the interpretive traditions of Genesis presuppose a similar association between the narrative of Genesis and the forensic world of Deuteronomy. All this suggests that the texts considered above merely are witness to the growing association between 'the field' and sexual misconduct, an association that is clear for the interpreters of Genesis when they read it. It should be kept in mind, however, that they presume associations in Genesis that are, at best, below the surface if not merely the accident of the juxtaposition of the various elements of our topos. The Tekoite's statement in 2 Sam. 14.6 represents the means by which David is supposed to interpret his own circumstances. Moreover, it suggests that recent events in David's life ought to be interpreted in light of cultural idioms like those contained in the legal tradition(s) represented by Deuteronomy. In this way, her mashal represents a kind of 'proto-midrash'. That is, it presents to David interpretive options actually pursued, at a much later date, by the readers of Genesis 4. In other words, the literary competence displayed by the interpreters of Genesis 4 is demanded of David when he hears the Tekoite's declaration that her two sons came to blows 'in the field'. There remains, however, one puzzle. What should be made of the strong associations between Genesis 4 and the Tekoite's speech in v. 6? As will become evident in Chapters 2 and 3, the associations between the Tekoite's mashal and Genesis 4 are manifold. Ultimately, the evidence will support the contention that the Tekoite's mashal suggests parallels with the Cain and Abel tradition(s) as much as with those in Deuteronomy. For now, however, it is important to note its strong association with Deut. 22.23-27. It is at the end of this passage that it is declared that the woman who is raped 'in the field' is not culpable because il^ IT£hQ "pN, 'there was no one to save her'. This, strangely enough, brings us to the third element of the Tekoite's exclamation in 14.6 that 'there was no one to separate' her two sons.

as 2 Sam. 12, 1 Kgs 20, Isa. 5.1-7, and Jer. 3.1-5 are 'juridical' parables meant to cast judgment on their addressees. Simon fails to detail how he thinks these texts bring the forensic world to bear on the narratives of which they are a part. Herein I suggest the 'mechanism' or at least the association by which the legal material informs these narratives.

80

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

3. arrrn "TSD pro 'There Was No One to Separate Them' Immediately after the notice that her sons came to blows in the field the Tekoite tells David that there was no one to separate them. Again, this is likely the result of being in the field and away from help but, not surprisingly, it has a larger significance in the sibling rivalry topos and for David's circumstances. a. Cain and Abel In light of the Tekoite's claim, the fact that no one was there to intervene between Cain and Abel becomes a trenchant issue. Indeed, the lack of anyone who could stop Cain and Abel, while not explicitly addressed, is a lingering issue for any close reader of Gen. 4.1-16. In 4.6 Yhwh, apparently having noticed Cain's disappointment, essentially warns him to accept his fate and avoid the temptation for vengeance on his favored brother. In warning Cain, Yhwh clearly displays his recognition of the danger in which Abel finds himself. The question is, given his knowledge, why did Yhwh not prevent Abel's murder? One's immediate response, based on previous discussion, might be that it is precisely the field in which Cain chose to kill Abel because no one would be there to stop him. But is the field an effective hiding place from Yhwh? The biblical text itself raises the question, 'where was God?', when it records in 4.9: 'Yhwh said to Cain: "Where is Abel your brother"? And Cain replied, "I don't know, am I the one who looks out for my brother?'"89 Cain's response subtly throws the question back to God, 'Where were you, are you not the one who ought to look out for my brother?' Such an understanding captures the sentiment of many interpreters ill at ease with the absence of God in v. 8. Ancient Interpreters and Cain and Abel. We have already seen the central role played by Deut. 22.23-27 in understanding the significance of 'in the field' in Genesis as well as the Tekoite's mashal. There remains one element of Deut. 22.23-27 that the interpreters of PRE 21 89. G. von Rad (Genesis [trans. J.H. Marks; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1972], p. 106) translates Cain's response 'Shall I shepherd the Shepherd?' This nicely picks up on the reversal of positions suggested by the story and suggests the danger of the field when there is no one to 'shepherd'.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

81

seem to view as associated with the Cain and Abel episode. It comes at the end of the pericope in v. 27 where we read: Tfo irtflQ "pNI, 'And there was no one to save her'. This is an especially intriguing locution given the previous association in v. 26 between the girl and the man who is killed by his neighbor in the field. Deuteronomy 22 itself essentially says that the field is such a dangerous place, to the prospective victim of both murder and rape, because here there is no one to save him or her. The interpreters of Genesis 4 in PRE 21 apparently cite Deut. 22.23-27 because they see part of the drama of Genesis 4 arising from the fact that there was no one to intervene. This sentiment is most boldly stated in Gen. R. 22.9 where Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai says: It is difficult to say it and impossible for the mouth to explain. It is like two athletes who wrestle before the king. If he so desires, the king could separate them, but he does not want to. One overpowers the other and kills him while the victim cries out 'let my case be pleaded before the king'.

Simeon ben Yohai faces directly the difficulty that troubles interpreters of Gen. 4.8. What was God's role in the fratricide? Moreover, what does the biblical text mean when it says that Abel's blood cries out 'to' God? Simeon ben Yohai's interpretation implies that it means that the blood cries out 'against' God for abandoning Abel. Other translators and commentators fix on this verse as well. Tar gum Pseudo-Jonathan and Tar gum Onqelos change the Hebrew 'cry out to me', "^K, to 'cry out before me', ""Qlp. This reflects the exigencies of translation, but may also be meant to deflect a notion that is discomforting the translators. The translators of the Targumim and Simeon ben Yohai, in particular, are painfully aware of God's culpability in Abel's death. They appear to be saying to themselves, 'If God chose Abel and even knew enough to warn Cain to behave himself why did he not protect Abel?' But the interpretive tradition not only wonders where God was at the crucial moment. It also addresses the absence of Adam and Eve by claiming that Cain hid from them to commit the murder (Radaq, Ramban) and then buried the body to hide the evidence (PRE 21). These interpretations reflect the craftiness of Cain while at the same time absolving Adam and Eve. b. Isaac and Ishmael The attempt on the part of the interpreters to absolve Adam and Eve from culpability in Abel's murder reflects the fact that 'there was no one to separate them' refers to parents as much as God. In contrast to

82

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

the Cain and Abel episode and the Tekoite's situation, in the case of Isaac and Ishmael the problem is not so much that there is no one to intervene, but that there are too many to do so. As we saw above, in the 'two sons' discussion of Isaac and Ishmael, Abraham appears to side with Ishmael from the start. He even pleads his case before God in ch. 17 when he hears that Sarah will provide him with God's favored son. The real tension over which of Abraham's sons will become his heir comes in ch. 21, after Isaac's birth. Abraham's is the story of misplaced paternal love and the anxiety that ensues when his favorite must take a back seat in the divine plan. Similarly, on this reading, Sarah's is a story of maternal love in agreement with the divine plan. In any case, in view of the missing 'redeemer', Abraham's and Sarah's story in Genesis 21 depicts the irony that when there is someone to intervene, someone loses. Indeed, the problem is in accepting the hard reality that what one wants may not match Yhwh's choice. In the case of the 'sibling rivalry' topos, that is usually the father. In this sense, Sarah's victory is Abraham's disappointment. This configuration of opposing parental affection sheds new light on the message of the Tekoite's mashal for David that 'there was no one to separate her sons'. David himself failed to intervene between Absalom and Amnon, and now, in 2 Samuel 14, he is pressured into intervening in behalf of Absalom—the son who will never be king! When David does intervene, it is only at the instigation of a woman. This is especially true in 1 Kings 1, where it is only at Bathsheba's urging that David secures the throne for Solomon. In this latter text, David appears as the impotent king, seemingly never having got over the loss of his favorite son Absalom. The phrase 'there was no one to separate them' clearly has considerable resonance with David's story. This is made even more clear in relation to the Jacob and Esau episode. c. Jacob and Esau Because we have gone into extended discussion of the Jacob and Esau episode above we need only make a few brief observations here. In a move reminiscent of the role of Sarah in Genesis 21, Rebekah, in 27.5-17, steps in on her son's (Jacob's) side. Again, as in ch. 21, the mother takes up the cause of the son who is already established as the chosen while the father seems unable to overcome his own deep attachment to the divinely unfavored son. This phenomenon relates to two aspects of the Tekoite narrative. The first is the question of women

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

83

who take up the cause of their son, which is a subcategory of 'women with a cause' that will occupy our attention in ch. 2. Second is the dramatic tension that results from the paralyzing effect of fathers' affections on their ability to differentiate between their sons. The full implications of the latter will be addressed in the conclusions to this section. d. Jacob's Sons In the stories surrounding Jacob's sons the issue of 'intervention' is more complex than in any of the previous episodes of sibling rivalry. On the one hand, Jacob's failure to intervene between his sons has much resonance with David's failure to stop Amnon's murder. On the other hand, we do see the intervention of brothers to save another's life. It is unclear if we should consider this a new element of our topos, unrelated to the question of intervention suggested by the Tekoite's mashal, or a variation on it. Perhaps Reuben's and Judah's attempts to save Joseph are meant not only to turn the expectations of 'two sons' on their head, but also to provide a marked variation on those who do intervene. It is essentially impossible to determine just how the Reuben and Judah interventions relate to the larger question, but it is most important to recognize Jacob's failure to keep his sons from seeking vengeance against Joseph. The Significance of 'There Was No One to Separate Them' in the Tekoite 's Mashal Like everything she says in her speech in 2 Sam. 14.6, the Tekoite's claim that 'there was no one to tear her sons apart' has profound implications for David's interpretation of his situation. At the simplest level, it merely refers to the absence of anyone to help that is the result of being 'in the field'. The notice that no one was there, however, signals more than simply the lack of a 'deliverer'. It raises the more disturbing question of who should intervene and on which side. In resonance with the episodes in Genesis, the Tekoite's short sentence conveys the tragedy of misplaced affections on the part of Abraham and Isaac. This misplaced affection appears to define David's relationship with Absalom as well. Likewise, the analogues between the Tekoite's speech and Genesis 37 and Jacob's inaction with his sons

84

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

seem to indict David as well.90 Finally, the contrast in Genesis between the mothers who take the side and defend the rights of the divinely favored son, and their husbands' misguided affections, has an important analogue in 1 Kings 1 where Bathsheba secures Solomon's position as rightful heir to David. Considerably more can be said about the analogues between Sarah and Rebekah on the one hand and Bathsheba on the other but that must await fuller consideration in Chapter 2.

4. ™ nn -iiwrnR iiwi m 'One Struck the Other and Killed Him' With the last clause of 2 Sam. 14.6 the Tekoite relates the worst-case scenario of the topos of sibling rivalry. Because the issue of fratricide is so intimately associated with other elements of the topos, we have covered most of what can be said above; here we merely mention the few issues not addressed in previous discussion. Significantly, among the episodes with which we have been dealing, only in the cases of Genesis 4, the Tekoite's mashal, and David's two sons does one brother successfully kill the other. But even in cases where murder is not recorded, it is often contemplated by unfavored brothers. Esau cannot wait till Isaac dies so that he can kill Jacob, and Joseph's brothers essentially accomplish their murder by sending him off to Egypt. By claiming that one of her sons killed the other, the Tekoite taps this topos and associated traditions that tell of the anxieties, fears, and jealousies between siblings and records the ultimate tragedy that can result. 5. Summary There is much to say concerning the import of the Tekoite's mashal for the Court History. 2 Sam. 14.6 functions as a synecdoche for the topos of sibling rivalry and brings with it an accumulation of related traditions that comprise an ongoing process of rumination on the notion of chosenness and its consequences. The mashal begins with, 'Your maidservant had two sons'. The notice that she had two sons immediately suggests a key motif of the topos of sibling rivalry, two 90. I would be remiss if I failed to point out the irony that the Tekoite indicts herself as well as David, since she failed to intervene in time to prevent her own son's murder. Contrast Rebekah who not only intervenes to make sure that her favorite son usurps Esau, but also protects him from Esau at the end of Gen. 27.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

85

sons at loggerheads. So predominant is this motif that nearly every story of brothers in Genesis has been influenced by it. Stories that begin with several brothers seem to narrow to two before the crucial differentiation between them is made. Furthermore, even the story of Joseph and his brothers retains several indications that the 'two brothers' motif has guided many of the depictions therein. The notice that she had two sons serves not just to suggest David's three pairs of sons but signals that all three partake in a profoundly elemental and familiar struggle. To emphasize the association of her two sons with the topos and David's sons the Tekoite adds: 'And the two of them struggled'. The Tekoite provides no motive for their struggle, perhaps to maximize its applicability, but vv. 5 and 7 suggest that it was over inheritance. Furthermore, given the recurrence in much of Genesis of younger supplanting older brothers, it seems likely that it was the younger who killed the older in order to take his place.91 If this is the case, her situation is analogous to the persistent theme in Genesis whereby the first-born son consistently falls by the wayside while the younger assumes, or at least tries to assume, his position as heir. All this raises the question of Absalom's motive for killing Amnon. Given the persistence of the theme of reversal in the topos it seems likely that Absalom's murder was motivated by his desire to be rid of David's heir as much as vengeance.92 Certainly his attempt to usurp the kingship from David in subsequent episodes indicates his desire to succeed his father. Notably, by the end of David's life two sets of his sons will engage in the sibling struggle, the second pair for his throne. So the struggle of which the Tekoite speaks draws the events of David's court into the context of the familiar and persistent topos of sibling rivalry. Perhaps the most productive detail of the Tekoite's mashal is the location of her sons' struggle. 'In the field' has multiple connotations that require careful summary. The notion that one is in danger out in the field is a persistent element in Genesis' stories of sibling rivalry. In particular Abel, Esau, and Joseph come into gravest danger and/or 91. Self-conciousness about younger brothers supplanting older ones clearly underlies the topos of sibling rivalry. God's favor extended to Abel, Isaac's ascent over Ishmael, Jacob's usurpation of Esau's birthright and blessing, and Joseph's paternal favor all represent a world in which the relationship between birth order and inheritance is inverse. 92. See n. 74.

86

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

are essentially usurped while in the field. Moreover, the interpretive tradition consistently associates other siblings with 'the field' with results consistent with the topos. In considering the significance of 'in the field' Deuteronomy, in particular ch. 22, has special significance. There, the field comes to represent the danger of homicide for men and rape for women. Further, the field, in the interpretive traditions of Gen. 4.8, conies to represent a cipher for the wronged woman. All this suggests that 'in the field' carries considerable significance. It represents not only Amnon's rape of Tamar but also the danger posed to him by his homicidal brother. 'In the field' sharpens the focus of the Tekoite's mashal by associating the events of the Davidic court with more explicitly legal material. By so doing the Tekoite's mashal attempts to interject an interpretive matrix within which David can understand the fratricide in his court. In the end, as further discussion below in Chapters 2 and 3 will show, establishing this interpretive web forces onto David the dilemma of interpretation.93 Just as Deut. 22.23-27 has an important role in deciphering the phrase 'in the field' it helps to establish the significance of the phrase that immediately follows: 'And there was no one to separate them'. On the face of it, this phrase simply acknowledges that once one is out in the field there is no one to protect him or her from harm. But, at another level this phrase brings to the surface a persistently problematic issue in the topos of sibling rivalry: who should intervene between siblings. This issue causes considerable discomfort, in fact, even for interpreters of Genesis 4 where they wonder about God's absence and culpability in Abel's death. The Tekoite's emphasis on the absent redeemer has special poignancy for David in two instances: the conflicts between Absalom and Amnon and between Solomon and Adonijah. It is after the first, deadly, conflict that the Tekoite recites her mashal. By including 'there was no one to separate them' in v. 16 the Tekoite indicts David for his failure to prevent the murder of Amnon. In his indecision David looks much like Jacob, who in Genesis 37 failed properly to interpret the animosity between brothers. In both cases, the fathers send off their heirs apparent to their demise. Furthermore, 93. One can hardly escape the message to David in the larger context of the Court History. The allusion to Deut. 22.23-27 suggests that his taking of Bathsheba is meant to be understood in this legal light as well. Note that, as in the case of Tamar and Amnon, Bathsheba's illicit liaison was in the city and that her complicity is implied by the lack of audible pleas for help.

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

87

while 2 Sam. 14.6 seems to highlight David's passivity, it also includes in its reference to the topos those instances in which someone does intervene between siblings. Among such cases Abraham's is most instructive for David's circumstances. Abraham has such strong attachment to Ishmael, despite the promises to Isaac in ch. 17, that up to the last he holds out hope for him. In much the same way David displays his ambivalence and apparent hope in Absalom even though Solomon has been chosen to succeed him. Again, much as Abraham's misplaced affections are countered by Sarah's coercion on behalf of the chosen son, so David in 1 Kings 1 and 2 is coerced by Bathsheba to assure Solomon's future. 'There was no one to separate them', then, highlights not only David's passivity in 2 Samuel 13 but also the models of possible intervention. Notably, intervening between siblings brings a whole new set of problems. Chief among them is the realization that human affections and loyalties are often not the same as God's. So, while 2 Sam. 14.6 seems to call for intervention, it provides no easy solution to the pathos that results from the disparity between human and divine favor. A key element of this disparity emerges in the ambivalence displayed by the traditions, and the characters therein, over the fate of the unfavored. In fact, the very composition of several key stories in the Hebrew Bible itself, especially Gen. 21.8-14; 27.36 and 4.2, 4b-5a, suggests an awareness of the reversal of fortunes and self-consciousness about the fate of the unfavored sibling. In the context of the Court History, David repeatedly suffers the anxieties that emerge from the differentiation between sons. Notably, Nathan tells David that his firstborn by Bathsheba will die as a consequence of his adultery and murder of her husband. In response David entreats God and fasts, hoping that God might let his son live. When his first son by Bathsheba dies, the text records that Bathsheba bore him a second son whom she named Solomon and whom, of course, God favored. It is surely no coincidence that the text records the death of his older and unfavored brother just before we are introduced to Solomon. Again, the case of Amnon and Absalom records the removal of the first-born of David's sons, this time by means of the active participation of his younger brother (2 Sam. 13.28-29). David's graciousness to Absalom in the following chapters is made doubly ironic because Absalom will attempt to usurp David's throne and because, with Solomon designated as David's heir, no amount of paternal affection will grant Absalom what he wants.

88

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Finally, David's ambivalence turns to paralysis in the case of his indecision regarding his succession in 1 Kings 1 and 2. As the last phrase of 2 Sam. 14.6, 'one struck the other and killed him', makes amply clear, murder represents the worst-case scenario of the topos. In 2 Samuel 13 and Genesis 4 the apparently unfavored resorts to murder for vengeance if not to (re)usurp his brother's position. But the topos is not restricted to one scenario or a single combination of elements. The marked variation in the various examples of the topos serves as a warning to anyone who would try to typologize or categorize with too heavy a hand. But amidst this diversity the subtly shifting elements form a living community of texts, each with its different trajectory and personality. The Tekoite's mashal brings to bear on the Court History in general, and on David's predicament in particular, a tradition of rumination on the nature of divine favor. This longstanding rumination is marked by considerable ambivalence about divine favor and especially about the human role in it. By reciting 2 Sam. 14.6 the Tekoite woman (or the narrator) taps into a rich and complex matrix of categories associated with sibling rivalry. The Tekoite not only stresses the difficulty that arises between human and divine affections; she also brings to bear on David's dilemma the legal concerns associated with texts like Deuteronomy. The Tekoite's reference (however indirect) to Genesis 4 and to the other examples of the topos as well as to the material in Deuteronomy suggests an interpretive procedure analogous to that found in the interpretive traditions of Genesis. The Tekoite presumes that David will trace, at least in part, the interpretive process I have outlined above. The Tekoite's mashal should, therefore, be understood to represent the earliest stage in the interpretive process that eventually makes the self-conscious connection between many of the elements of the topos. To what degree the mashal is aware of all the connections that are outlined above (and that will be considered below) is unclear. The strong associations that the mashal has with Genesis 4 and Deuteronomy suggest that the mashal was composed with some awareness of the traditions contained in them. If, however, the mashal was composed in ignorance of these associations, it represents an amazing parallel to the interpretive paths followed by the interpreters of Genesis that we have considered above. This discussion of the topos of sibling rivalry began by noting the thematic similarity between 2 Sam. 14.6 in the Tekoite's mashal and Genesis 4. While thematically, and in terms of imagery, the closest

1. 'Your Maidservant Had Two Sons'

89

analogue in the Hebrew Bible to 2 Sam. 14.6 is the Cain and Abel episode, there is a verse in Deut. 25.11 that is much closer in vocabulary. The first half of Deut. 25.11 reads:

TDD TO ntftmK "rifff? TTWI nzto m~ipi vrwi BTK HIT wn» i^r-o When men straggle together, a man and his brother, and the wife of one approaches to save her husband from the one who would strike him. . .

Just as in 2 Sam. 14.6, we have two men, identified as brothers (vriK), who struggle O^r) and in which he who apparently gains the upper hand is described with the verbal root ilD]. Both texts are concerned with the notion of someone who intervenes between the men. Here in Deut. 25.11 the man who appears to be in the greatest danger is saved (^n1?) whereas in 2 Sam. 14.6 there was no one to save (V^Q ]"N). These verbal and thematic similarities are striking, yet the two men are not said to be in a field. This may simply explain why there was someone available to save the victim. At any rate, in Deut. 25.11 is found the familiar cast of two men and a woman who, in this case, rather than being a victim, is actually present to deliver her husband. The marked similarity between the language of 2 Sam. 14.6 and Deut. 25.11 provides further evidence that the former is associated with that legal tradition. But there is another significant aspect to Deut. 25.11: its proximity to the discussion of levirate law in the six verses that proceed it. The importance of this passage emerges in relation to the topos of 'women with a cause' that defines the larger mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa in 2 Sam. 14.4-11. It is to that passage and topos that we next turn.

Chapter 2 'HELP, O KING!'

Whereas the focus of the first chapter was on just a single verse, in this chapter we enlarge the focus to 2 Sam. 14.1-11. This passage begins with Joab's retaining of the Tekoite woman and goes on to relate her encounter with David and his only direct responses to her plight. It is in this part of the woman's mashal that we can trace the outline of the topos of 'woman with a cause'. In order to determine the outlines of the topos and, in turn, its significance for 2 Samuel, we begin with a translation of vv. 1-11: ^oab son of Zeruyah knew that the king's heart was on Absalom; 2so Joab sent to Tekoa and took from there a wise woman. He said to her, 'Act as if you are in mourning, put on mourning clothes, and don't anoint yourself with oil. Act like a woman who, for many days, has been mourning the dead. 3Go to the king and speak to him like this.' And Joab put the words in her mouth. 4The Tekoite woman said to the king. .. she fell to the ground face down and bowed and then said, 'Help, O king.' 5 The king said to her, 'What bothers you?', to which she replied 'Truly, I am a widow and my husband is dead. 6Your maidservant had two sons and the two of them struggled in the field. There was no one to separate them and one struck the other and killed him. 7Now the whole family has arisen against your maidservant and said, "Hand over the one who struck his brother so that we may kill him for his brother's life that he took and so that we might also destroy the heir." They would extinguish my ember that remains in order to leave my husband without name or remnant on the face of the earth.' 8The king said to the woman, 'Go home and I will give a command concerning you.' 9The Tekoite woman said to the king, 'Upon me, O king, is the guilt, and upon the house of my father; the king and his throne are innocent.' 10The king said, 'Let anyone who speaks to you be brought to me and he will not so much as touch you again.' nShe replied, 'Please be mindful, O King, of Yhwh your God who prevents those who would excessively avenge blood by destroying and let them not destroy my son.' The king replied, 'As Yhwh lives, not one of your son's hairs shall fall to the earth.'

2. 'Help, O King!'

91

Full discussion of the textual and tfanslational difficulties in this verse can be found above in the introduction and in Chapter 3, where I provide commentary and analysis on the whole of the Tekoite's mashal.1 The purpose of this chapter is to consider how the form of the Tekoite's address, as an example of the 'woman with a cause' topos, comes to inform David's situation. Likewise, the possibilities for any reader's understanding are necessarily linked to ways in which this topos guides and circumscribes interpretation. Moreover, the topos of 'woman with a cause' is exceptionally illuminating for one's understanding of the way in which vv. 1-11 pick up on, and are integrated into, the fabric of the Court Narrative. The Tekoite's mashal, through v. 11, is profitably understood in the context of two particular sets of texts, understood as examples of the topos of 'woman with a cause'. The first is Deut. 25.5-10 (the law of levirate marriage) and related narratives (Gen. 38 and the book of Ruth); the second, women who come to the royal court seeking the king's adjudication (1 Kgs 3, 2 Kgs 6, Esther and 1 Sam. 25).2 In the first set, prospective mothers go to extreme measures in order to ensure that their dead husbands' names be perpetuated. Therefore, the Tekoite's claim that her family would wipe out her dead husband's name 'from the face of the earth' finds considerable resonance with the central concern of the levirate texts.3 With the second set of texts, 1. See Ch. 3 §4. 2. It seems that there are a number of texts that play off the 'woman with a cause' topos that are beyond our focus at present. These include 1 Kgs 14, where Jeroboam sends his wife to the prophet Ahijah to find out the fate of his ill son Abijah. Here, rather than seeking to save her son, the woman merely seeks to know his fate. Moreover, playing against the expectations generated by the topos, the son is doomed. Two other texts seem directly to play off the expectations of the topos as well. In 1 Sam. 28, rather than a woman coming to the king to save life, King Saul goes to the woman of Endor to learn of his own fate. The woman arranges for a meeting with the ghost of Samuel who tells Saul that he will soon die. In a similar way, in 2 Kgs 22, Josiah sends his messengers to Huldah to find out his fate. In this instance he is promised that he will die in peace. These last two episodes are clearly very different from the episodes considered in this chapter, but seem to presuppose much that informs the standard 'woman with a cause' topos. Likewise, the story of Sisera and Jael in Judg. 4 and 5 may be based on a variation on the theme. Finally, the story of Judith and Holofernes may also be based on this reversal of the expectations of the 'woman with a cause' topos. 3. On levirate marriage in general see M. Burrows, 'Levirate Marriage in Israel', JBL 59 (1940), pp. 23-33; M. Ichisar, 'Un contrat de marriage et la question du

92

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

the Tekoite's shares the depiction of a woman's audience with the king, the purpose of which is to save the life of a loved one. As we will see, the narrative of the Tekoite's visit with David represents a variation, as do these other texts, from any idealized form of 'woman with a cause' but, nonetheless, should be, and profitably is, understood as a representative of that topos. The task at hand, then, is first to consider the Tekoite's message for David in light of the law of levirate obligations. 1. Levirate and the Tekoite At the end of Chapter 1 we noted the striking similarity in language between v. 6 of the mashal and Deut. 25.11-12. Significantly, just before these two verses in Deuteronomy comes the law of levirate marriage. In other words, just before Deut. 25.11-12, with which 2 Sam. 14.6 shares so much vocabulary, comes the levirate law which, as we will see below, has much in common with the Tekoite's concerns.4 This coalescence of themes, vocabulary, and imagery can hardly be coincidence and adds weight to our claim that the Tekoite's mashal has strong connections to the legal corpus of Deuteronomy. In order to substantiate this claim, it is necessary first to consider the law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy and then turn to the two narratives in which the law is manifest in real-life situations. Levirat a 1'epoque cappadocienne', RA 1 (1982), pp. 168-73; and E.W. Davies, 'Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage', VT31 (1982), pp. 138-44 and 257-68; D.W. Manor, 'A Brief History of Levirate Marriage as it Relates to the Bible', ResQ 27 (1984), pp. 129-42. 4. Scholars generally are at a loss to explain the juxtaposition of the law in vv. 11-12 with the law in vv. 5-10. Most take the common reference to two men and a woman and the threat to progeny as motivating their juxtaposition (so S.A. Kaufman, 'The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law', Maarav 1/2 [1978-79], p. 143). Whatever the reason for their current placement, one wonders if the Tekoite's strong association with both might represent an attempt to explain their juxtaposition as applying to David's current situation. The language of her description and the larger concerns of her presentation are meant to apply these two legal cases to David's dilemma. In the end, it is impossible to tell why the two legal texts have been placed where they are, but it is passing strange that the Tekoite's mashal is so closely associated with each— unless its author knew Deut. 25.5-12 or a tradition that had these two laws in proximity. A final, albeit unlikely, possibility is that the two laws are placed together in Deuteronomy because they have already been associated with the Tekoite's mashal.

2. 'Help, O King!'

93

a. 'When Brothers Live Together' Deut. 25.5-10 provides our only record of the levirate law within a legal corpus.5 It reads as follows: 5

When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, let his wife not marry outside, to a stranger. Her husband's brother (HQT) will come to her and take her as wife and do his levirate duty (HOT"!).6 6The first-born that she bears he shall raise in the name of his dead brother so that his name will not be wiped out of Israel ('wito'Q IQtD nnQ'T*1?')). 7If the man does not wish to take his brother's widow (TOT), she may go up to the gate to the elders and say, 'My husband's brother (*QT) refuses to maintain his brother's name in Israel (^"ICTD DVJ VTltib D'pn'?), he does not want to do his levirate duty with me OQT).' 8The elders of the city shall call him and speak with him. Should he stand his ground and say, 'I do not want to take her', 9his brother's widow (TOT) shall approach him in view of the elders and remove his sandal from his foot and spit in his face. She will answer by saying, 'This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother's family! 10In Israel he shall be called "the house of the unsandaled one"'.

The circumstances surrounding this example of the levirate law are not identical to those in the mashal, but there are important analogies between them. Obviously, the Tekoite does not seek the implementation of levirate law; her plea, however, presupposes not only the same issues that motivate the law, but even the motif of a woman who pleads before authority for the maintenance of her dead husband's name and legacy. Given the divergence between the Tekoite's mashal and the legal 'case' presented in Deut. 25.5-10, it is not clear how one should interpret their analogous elements. Notably, the only two narratives that recount the application of levirate law are nearly equally divergent from the case as presented in Deuteronomy 25. Furthermore, these two narratives are elaborate accounts of two crucial junctures in the genealogy of none other than David. In what way can the associations between the Tekoite's mashal and Deuteronomy 25, Genesis 38, and Ruth be understood to inform David's situation? In order to answer this question, it is necessary first to consider the relationship between Deuteronomy 25 and its two associated narratives. Before doing so, however, a brief excursus is in order. In Chapter 5. See E. Merrill, Deuteronomy (NAC, 4; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), pp. 326-29 on our passage. 6. Note that the levirate law begins with brothers living together. It is not clear, but perhaps these brothers are to be presupposed in the law that follows in vv. 11-12.

94

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

1 we saw that an integral part of the message of 2 Sam. 14.6 relates to the 'sexual promiscuity' element of the sibling rivalry topos. This message informs many of the events of the Davidic court including not only the Amnon-Tamar-Absalom, Absalom-concubines-David, and Adonijah-Abishag-Solomon debacles, but likely the David-AbigailNabal and the David-Bathsheba-Uriah episodes as well. In each of these, as well as in the interpretive traditions of Genesis that we considered above, the issue at hand is the taking of another's wife and the consequences thereof. Strangely enough, the levirate law deals with a similar phenomenon, only in this case it is one's moral obligation to take another's wife/widow. That the Tekoite's mashal seems so intimately associated with, on the one hand, the topos of sibling rivalry (and, at least in the interpretive tradtions, its recurrent warnings against involvement with another man's wife) and, on the other hand, the levirate material (with its demand that one take his dead brother's wife) is an index of the cross-currents in her message. Clearly, the situation in which levirate marriage arises is very different from the cases of sibling rivalry, but it is, indeed, strange that it is exactly in such cases that marrying one's sister-in-law becomes required; taboo becomes requirement. As the investigation in this and the next chapter reveal, the wise woman's mashal is anything but univocal. b. 'Go to Your Brother's Wife' Genesis 38 falls in the middle of the Joseph story that occupies Genesis 37-50.7 It recounts Judah's separation from his brothers and marriage to 'Batshua', the daughter of a Canaanite.8 Judah and his wife have three 7. Among many treatments of our text see M.E. Andrew, 'Moving from Death to Life: Verbs of Motion in the Story of Judah and Tamar in Gen 38', ZAW 105 (1993), pp. 262-69; and N. Morimura, Tamar and Judah—A Feminist Reading of Genesis 38', The Japan Review 59 (1993), pp. 55-67. 8. J.A. Soggin ('Judah and Tamar', in H.A. McKay and D.J.A. Clines [eds.], Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday [JSOTSup, 162; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 281-87) argues that the text is of independent origin and is impossible to assign to any of the Pentateuchal sources. Westermann calls Gen. 38 a 'self-contained individual narrative' (Genesis 37-50, p. 52). In so stating, Westermann indicates that it is of independent origin in relation to the Joseph story that it seems to interrupt. For a lucid and convincing argument for the ways in which Gen. 38 is integrated into the Joseph story see J. Goldin, 'The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong?', 7flL96(1977), pp. 27-44.

2. 'Help, O King!'

95

sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Next, the text tells of Judah's taking of a wife, Tamar, for his eldest son Er. For whatever reason, God becomes dissatisfied with Er and kills him. At this juncture, Judah tells Onan, his second son, 'Go to Tamar and do (your) levirate duty to her and raise up seed for your brother' Cpntf? ITIT Dpm nDK Dm "pn« HCftr'TO ta). Onan fails to live up to his responsibilities, his efforts never really getting off the ground, and, like his elder brother, is killed by God. Judah now concludes that the sudden increase in the death rate among his sons is due to Tamar and, in order to preserve his last and only son, and prospects for progeny, he sends Tamar home to her father's house 'until Shelah grows up'. It is clear, in the context of his sons' deaths, that Judah means never to allow Shelah and Tamar to marry. At this point in the story there is the key analogue to the law in Deuteronomy 25: there is one remaining son who ought to be married to his brother's widow. The denouement of Judah's story, however, is considerably different from what one might expect given the levirate law.9 Upon the death of his wife, Judah and his friend Hirah go to Timnah for sheep-sheering. When informed that her father-in-law will pass by her locale, Tamar changes her widow's clothes for a veil and, wrapping herself, sits by the road waiting for Judah. When he sees her, Judah takes Tamar for a prostitute and, unaware of her identity, propositions her. In the end, it turns out that Tamar becomes pregnant. When Judah is informed that his daughter-in-law is pregnant, he declares that she should be burned. Tamar presents evidence of Judah's paternity at which point he declares her more righteous than he since he had failed to allow Shelah to marry her. The narrator next informs us that Judah never slept with Tamar again. Finally, we learn of the birth of Judah's two sons Perez and Zerah. While this account clearly does not follow the prescriptions of levirate marriage as known from Deuteronomy 25, it presupposes something very like them. Moreover, much of its impact derives from its 9. On Gen. 38's divergence from the levirate law in Deut. 25.5-10 see von Rad who says 'Genesis 38 can be interpreted as a sign of a certain decay of the ancient custom' (Genesis, p. 155). Westermann claims that the divergence is due to the natural variation of law (Genesis 37-50, p. 52). For general treatments of levirate and Gen. 38 see G.W. Coats, 'Widow's Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 461-66; A. Phillips, 'Some Aspects of Family Law in PreExilic Israel', VT23 (1973), pp. 349-61; idem, 'Another Example of Family Law', VT 30 (1980), pp. 240-43.

96

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

variation(s) on, and challenges to, the expectations generated by levirate. Up to the point that he sends Tamar home, the episode clearly is based on levirate expectations; even the language is similar. In the Judah and Tamar episode, we find the roots DT plus D'pn1? as in Deuteronomy 25, although the latter has 'raise the name' rather than 'seed'. Ironically, in spite of his efforts to protect his lineage from Tamar, Judah engenders his own (grand)children. Furthermore, Tamar's motives, when she sits by road, are unclear, but the result is the engendering of the progeny that is the goal of the woman in Deuteronomy 25! Note, too, that Tamar comes to an 'authority' for judgment near the end of the story; here the irony is that she forces Judah to declare her right and indict himself (cf. the wise woman of Tekoa and especially Nathan in 2 Sam. 12.1-12). While the episode of Judah and Tamar represents a considerable twist on levirate as depicted in Deuteronomy 25, it still presupposes it. It is interesting to note that 1 Chron. 4.21 has Shelah's first son named Er. By so doing, Chronicles represents a tradition within the Hebrew Bible itself that seems to presume that levirate was followed here. Indeed, Mt. 1.3-5 associates Ruth and Tamar with Bathsheba and may reflect awareness of the topos of women who go to extremes to protect and maintain the Davidic lineage. The first two women, of course, are associated with levirate and the third, as will become clear below, is intimately associated with the first two. Significantly, the last element of Judah's story tells of the birth of Perez and Zerah, whose names also appear in Ruth, the next story to which we turn. c. 'So that his Name Be not Lost from among his Brethren' Ruth, like Genesis 38, only loosely follows the prescriptions of Deuteronomy 25.10 Perhaps neither is aware of that formulation, or 10. On Ruth and levirate see E.F. Campbell, Jr, Ruth (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975); R. Gordis, 'Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth', in H.N. Bream et al. (eds.), A Light unto My Path (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974), pp. 246-52; J. Sasson, The Issue of Ge'ullah in Ruth', JSOT 5 (1978), pp. 52-64; H.F. Richter, 'Zum Levirat im Buch Ruth', ZAW95 (1983), pp. 123-26. For a study of Ruth in the context of stories about women who come to a king in a larger, cultural comparative approach, seeC. Grottanelli, The King's Grace and the Helpless Woman: A Comparative Study of the Stories of Ruth, Charila, Sita', HR 22 (1982), pp. 1-24. Grottanelli argues that the function of such stories is to emphasize royal generosity. While this underlies the message of the 'woman with a cause' topos, we are interested in the topos with elements in mind that are the result

2. 'Help, O King!'

97

maybe these stories represent the reality that law always has a rather loose fit with real circumstances.11 At any rate, Ruth does not rely on the specific vocabulary of Deuteronomy as does Genesis 38. In Ruth 1.15, we get ~[nQ:r on Naomi's lips when she tells Ruth to return with her 'sister-in-law'. As a reference to her sister-in-law, the root DT is applied in considerably different fashion from the way it is in the other texts relating to levirate.12 Still, the story presupposes the essentials of levirate and, in particular, the topos of 'women with a cause' in which levirate law is presented. Other elements emerge as we review the outline of the narrative. Rather than returning to her family (contrast Tamar), Ruth insists on staying with Naomi and returning with her to Judah. As luck would have it, on her first day out in the fields to glean, Ruth just happens to find herself in a kinsman's, Boaz's, field. In ch. 3 Naomi conspires with Ruth to set in motion a plan that will bring Boaz to redeem (^2) Ruth and provide the two women with the progeny they desire. Much as in the story of Judah and Tamar, Ruth comes to Boaz to initiate the relationship that will eventuate in the offspring that is (are) the goal of the narrative. Chapter 4 is the crucial part of the narrative for our purposes. Here Boaz, in the presence of the elders of the town, confronts the only other possible redeemer who, in the end, refuses to fulfill his duty (cf. Onan, who likewise seems unwilling to encumber his inheritance, and the petty relatives of the Tekoite woman who want to get their hands on her son's inheritance). The reluctant redeemer next takes off his shoe and hands it over to signal that he has transferred his obligation to Boaz. The narrator explains this event in a quite self-conscious way. While his description does not follow the stricture set out in Deuteronomy 25, it is important to note that the levirate law and Ruth associate the reluctant redeemer with a missing sandal.13 At any rate, of the specific cultural conditions of ancient Israel. 11. Campbell says, 'inconsistency [in the application of levirate] may just as easily arise from differing local practice as from a difference in the time period represented' (Ruth, p. 134). T. Thompson argues that all three levirate texts share two basic principles: first, the wife of the dead man is to be supported and, second, the dead man's property is to remain in the family ('Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth', VT 18 [1968], pp. 79-99, esp. 96). Add to this list a third: all three share the presumption that the dead man's name/legacy should be preserved. 12. Note that the root DT occurs only in these levirate texts! 13. On sandal removal see C.M. Carmichael, 'A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man's Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 321-36;

98

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

as a result Boaz declares that he now will take Ruth as his wife to 'maintain the name of the dead on his estate and so that the name of the dead not be removed from his kinsman' (v. 10): nDiTDg? D^pn*? TITO DUE norrDti fro^^l Tbnr^SS. The diction here is so much like Deut. 25.6, "wifera 1Qfl nna'Tto rran vn« pjzr1?!? Dip1' that coincidence seems unlikely.14 Next, the elders declare, in unison, the hope that Boaz's house be like Perez's, whom Tamar bore to Judah (v. 12). The narrative ends with a genealogy of the ten generations from Judah to David. As a final note on the associations between Genesis 38 and Ruth, it is interesting, indeed, that both Judah and Naomi lose two sons and that their only hope remains in their daughters-in-law. Like Genesis 38, Ruth has a broader understanding of levirate marriage than that implied by Deuteronomy 25.15 Here Naomi tells her daughters-in-law that even if she could bear another son, they need not wait for him to mature. Like Tamar in Genesis 38, Ruth ignores her short-term self-interest, and does what proves to be in her long-term interest, not to mention that of the Israelites and David, in particular. Here it is not a brother of Ruth's dead husband that 'redeems' her, but a more distant relative. Whereas in the levirate law, the woman goes to the elders of the city at the gate and, in what must be seen as a variation on this motif, Tamar goes to Judah for a decision, in Ruth, Boaz goes to the elders at the gate.16 So how does Ruth relate to women with a cause? Clearly, the book of Ruth stretches the notion, but it must be kept in mind that it is Naomi who stagemanages the whole event, beginning in ch. 3. In fact, in 4.14-15, the women of Naomi's town suggest that the marriage of Ruth and Boaz is E.A. Speiser, 'Of Shoes and Shekels', BASOR 77 (1940), pp. 15-20. 14. That the Ruth passage changes 'wipe out' (nnQ11) to 'cut out' (n~O') is of little consequence. 15. J. Sasson (Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979], p. 28, n. a) insists that Ruth does not presuppose the levirate law of Deut. 25. He argues that the root DZT (based on its use in a West Semitic text from the Middle Bronze Age) simply refers to a brother/sister-in-law and has nothing to do with levirate. In the face of the numerous verbal and thematic associations between Ruth, Gen. 38, and Deut. 25, Sasson's argument is difficult to sustain. 16. Ruth does plead with Boaz in 3.9 but in considerably different circumstances: she does not come to him as an authority from whom she seeks adjudication. This instance is closer to Tamar's meeting with Judah on the side of the road where their sexual relationship is initiated (Gen. 38.14-19).

2. 'Help, O King!'

99

Naomi's crowning achievement.17 Indeed, in v. 17 they declare that Ruth's son 'is born to Naomi' Cni?]1? p'l'r). It is time to summarize our findings concerning the associations between the Tekoite's message and the levirate law and narratives. To begin, all of the levirate texts tell of a woman who attempts to ensure the progeny of her dead husband. In particular, she strives to preserve her husband's name and legacy in Israel or among his 'brethren'. Since the Tekoite's concerns are so similar, even though she is saving the life of her son rather than ensuring his conception, one must ask how her story relates to these levirate texts. The first solution to this question is that all the levirate texts simply share with the Tekoite's mashal the topos of 'woman with a cause' and that the key elements of the topos are merely shared by all representatives of that topos. If this is the case, then the levirate texts provide a good background for understanding the central issues at stake in the Tekoite's presentation to David. Her message would seem to indicate that David has no choice but to preserve the life of the remaining son, just as the redeemer in the levirate cases is obliged to preserve his brother's name in Israel. Of course, by meeting this implied obligation, David would be acting in his own self-interest, given that the name he would preserve is his own. As powerful and subtle as the Tekoite's message is when illumined by the themes it shares with the levirate texts via the topos of 'woman with a cause', it becomes even more significant when one considers the centrality of levirate marriage for the preservation of David's blood line. Notably, Genesis 38 and the book of Ruth are the only narrative applications of levirate and both record crucial junctures in the genealogy of David. In both, women go to extraordinary efforts to preserve their husband's, and David's, lineage. It seems likely that the Tekoite's mashal is supposed to remind David, and the reader, of the levirate connection. In so doing, the Tekoite not only brings to David the message that he must save her, and his own son, but does so by drawing

17. J.A. Loader ('David and the Matriarch in the Book of Ruth', IDSk 28 [1994], pp. 25-35) sees Ruth as the 'heroine' of the book. Notably Loader claims that Ruth joins a number of patriarchal stories in which a matriarch emerges as the central figure in the maintenance of the royal household. Whether we credit Ruth or Naomi with the tremendous effort to preserve David's line, it is still the woman who accomplishes the task.

100

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

on associations with stories central to David's family's very existence.18 On this reading the Tekoite alludes to levirate concerns (at least those expressed in Deuteronomy 25 and Genesis 38) in order to elicit sympathy in David, since his own genealogy is so dependent on those women who did the right thing in the face of poor odds! Ironically, however, if the message is that David is to preserve Absalom, it serves to put David in grave danger. In the story that follows the wise woman's mashal, it turns out that David preserved his lineage at the cost of nearly losing his own life. Moreover, by saving and then returning Absalom to Jerusalem, David places at risk the divine plans for Solomon set out in ch. 12! In this sense the Tekoite's resonance with levirate leaves David with little choice about what to do; he must save the life of the remaining son even though, in the larger narrative frame of the Court Narrative, it is this decision that puts his life and the divine plan at risk. 2. Women at Court and the Tekoite Clearly, much of the explanatory value of the levirate texts is due to their location within the topos of 'women with a cause'. In the following, we consider a second group of texts that fit equally well within this topos: women who come to the royal court to save the lives of loved ones. The four texts considered below all share with the levirate law a similar set of expectations. In each of the first two examples (1 Kgs 3 and 2 Kgs 6) is narrated the story of the death of one of two sons, followed by the plea of one of their mothers for the king's adjudication. In each, the king is asked to decide the fate of the remaining son. In these first two stories we see two mothers rather than one, but the general circumstances and the decision asked of the king, not to mention much in the language of the accounts, is remarkably similar to the Tekoite's.19 In the second pair of stories is narrated 18. It is unclear which, if any, of the levirate texts might have been known by the narrator of 2 Sam. 14. Perhaps it is best to presume an awareness of the traditions contained therein. Most scholars would place the book of Ruth at a time clearly later than the Court History, however. 19. The evidence is meager, but it is tempting to see in the Sarah and Hagar conflict a version of this formulation of 'women with a cause'. In Gen. 16 and 21 we see the attempt of Hagar to put forward her best interests and progeny and Sarah's response. In each case the 'other woman' and her son are 'eliminated' from serious consideration as heirs. Note too that this scenario is much like the Bathsheba episode

2. 'Help, O King!'

101

the more familiar case of one woman who comes to the king to ask that he preserve life. In these two episodes a woman seeks to save someone other than her own son but, again, the significant parallels between them and the Tekoite's mashal serve to justify their consideration here. a. 'Truly You Must Not Kill Him!' The first example of the 'woman at court' that I wish to consider, 1 Kgs 3.16-28, reads as follows: 16

Then two women, prostitutes, came to the king and stood before him. One of the women said, 'My lord, this woman and I dwell in a single house and I gave birth with her in the house. 18Three days after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth. We were together, no one else with us, only the two of us in the house. 19This woman's son died during the night because she lay on him. 20She arose in the middle of the night and took my son from beside me, while your handmaid was asleep, and placed him in her bosom. Her dead son she placed in my bosom. 21I arose in the morning to nurse my son and, to my surprise, he was dead. I studied him that morning and he was not the son whom I had borne.' 22The other woman said, 'No! My son is alive and yours is dead!' The first woman responded, 'No! Your son is dead and my son is alive!' Thus they argued in front of the king. 23The king said, 'This one says, "this is my son who is alive and your son is dead", and this other one says "No! your son is dead and mine is alive"'. 24The king continued, 'Bring me a sword!' When they brought a sword to the king, 25he said, 'Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other!' 26The woman whose son was alive said to the king, for her compassion was stirred for her son, 'My lord, give her the living child. Truly you must not kill him!' The other woman said, 'Neither of us will have him, cut him in two!' 27The king responded, 'Give her the child and truly do not kill him: she is his mother!' 28A11 Israel heard of the judgement rendered by the king and were fearful because of him for they saw that divine wisdom was in him in order to do justice. 17

In order to understand the significance of this passage for the present study, it is necessary to consider its context and purpose in the larger narrative in which it is located.20 In its present location 1 Kgs 3.16-28 is sandwiched between texts that emphasize Solomon's association with wisdom. In 1 Kgs 3.1-15, Solomon, in a dream, asks Yhwh in 1 Kgs 1 as well as that of Hannah and Peninnah in 1 Sam. 1. 20. For comparative data on similar stories from other ancient cultures see J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), p. 109.

102

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

for the discernment to rule over the people. Yhwh responds by granting Solomon a wise and discerning heart (|1D]1 DDfT H1?).21 In 1 Kings 5 the topic of Solomon's wisdom is repeatedly brought up as well. It is clear that the story of the two prostitutes serves the larger narrative function of providing an example of Solomon's wisdom.22 Indeed, at the end of our passage comes the narrator's notice that Solomon was revered throughout Israel for his wisdom. But this passage is not only concerned with displaying Solomon's wisdom, it also presupposes much from the 'woman with a cause' topos as well. In particular, as expected, based on that topos, the woman goes to great effort to preserve her son's life. Indeed, she goes so far as to be willing to allow him to be stolen by another in order to preserve her son. Solomon's wisdom is marked by his awareness of this profound love the real mother would have for her son. This mixture of the topos of women with a cause and the verification of the king's wisdom does much to illumine the Tekoite's mashal.23 While there is much that is different in the circumstances of the Tekoite and the prostitute that comes to Solomon, there are some important analogues between the stories. Clearly both women wish to save their sons. Notably, in the case of Solomon, the woman presents him with a decision that he turns into a test of her love for her son. In contrast, the Tekoite's case for David becomes a test of his love for Absalom. Moreover, while the narrator, as an 'objective' third party, praises Solomon's wisdom, it is the Tekoite herself who praises David's wisdom. Note too that the Tekoite is labeled as wise in 2 Samuel 14. 21. Montgomery (Kings, p. 110), contra others who see in this and the Tekoite narrative connections with formal 'wisdom circles', points out that the root DDH in Arabic relates to practical judgment rather than abstract wisdom. It seems likely that here, and in the Tekoite's mashal, the root implies a kind of home spun cleverness rather than signaling associations with larger, so-called 'wisdom circles'. 22. H. Pyper ('Judging the Wisdom of Solomon: The Two-Way Effect of Intertextuality', JSOT59 [1993], p. 30) makes essentially the same point. 23. As will become clear below, David's experience with the Tekoite, in many ways, adumbrates his encounter with Bathsheba in 1 Kgs 1. Like the situation in 1 Kgs 3, the Tekoite and Bathsheba come to save the life of the surviving of two sons (note that Bathsheba's first son dies in 2 Sam. 12.18). Moreover, Solomon's favorable response to the woman in 1 Kgs 3 may be due, at least in part, to his recognition that his mother did much the same for him in 1 Kgs 1 when it looked as though his brother Adonijah would succeed his father and he and his mother would be killed.

2. 'Help, O King!'

103

This is part of a persistent theme in the 'woman with a cause' topos wherein the woman's and the king's wisdom are often in inverse relation (cf 1 Sam. 25 and Esther). All of this raises a question about David's wisdom in 2 Samuel 14. Moreover, the fact that the Tekoite's praise of David's wisdom comes before his decision is likely a subtle way of commenting on it. As it is, the Tekoite's praise may comprise mere flattery meant to 'butter up' David, or perhaps it is the woman's attempt to encourage David to make the right decision, or it may even be praise for his political savvy in discerning that Joab is behind her ruse. In the end, by placing her praise of David's wisdom before his decision, the narrator casts a long shadow over it.24 In the context of the Court Narrative, suspicion about David's decision in 2 Sam. 14.21 to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem, is well founded. It is this decision that brings about all the turmoil of the following chapters. In order better to understand the significance of 1 Kings 3 for illumining the Tekoite's message, it is necessary to consider another, closely related version of two mothers and two sons. b. 'Help, My Lord, O King!' 2 Kgs 6.24-30 represents the second example of a woman at court that we must consider in order to illumine the Tekoite's message for David. This passage comes in the middle of a relatively disjointed narrative. Its present location, most likely, is simply to signal how difficult the circumstances had become during the ongoing strife with Ben-Hadad. At any rate, the passage reads as follows: 24

And sometime later, Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, gathered his whole camp and went up and laid siege to Samaria. 25There was great famine in Samaria and the siege was on the city until the head of a donkey was eighty (shekels?) of silver and a quarter of a qab of dove's dung was five. 26 The king was walking along the wall and a woman called out to him, 'Help, my lord, O king!' ("pan "31« njrtDin) 27He said, 'Even Yhwh cannot save you ("JU2JT). From where should I draw that I could save you 24. It seems likely that the issue of David's wisdom is raised in 2 Sam. 14 in order to contrast it with Solomon's. This is not to say that the Tekoite's mashal is a direct allusion to 1 Kgs 3, but rather to traditions related to Solomon's 'proverbial' wisdom and, perhaps, to accounts something like the one we read in 1 Kgs 3. C. Fontaine ('The Bearing of Wisdom on the Shape of 2 Samuel 11-12 and 1 Kings 3', JSOT 34 [1986], pp. 61-77) makes an analogous argument for the relationship between 2 Sam. 11 and 12 and 1 Kgs 3. She says the end result is to depict David as a fool (p. 71).

104

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa ("]irctflN), from the threshing floor or the winepress? 28What bothers you?' ("f^TTD f^QH n'?""IQ»''l) asked the king. She answered, 'This woman said to me, "Give me your son that we may eat him today and my son we will eat tomorrow!" 29We cooked up my son and ate him. I said to her the next day, "Give me your son that we may eat him", but she hid her son!' 30 When the king heard the woman's words, he tore his clothes and walked along the wall. The people saw that he had on sackcloth underneath.

On first blush, the associations between this passage and the Tekoite's mashal are not entirely clear. Here we have a story that inverts the expectations generated by the topos.25 Rather than attempting to save a son, the two women in our story are forced to eat one of their own children to survive.26 Identifying this passage as an inversion of standard expectations is crucial to understanding its place in the topos that is our focus in this chapter. This story depends on a reader with sufficient cultural competence to recognize how much it contrasts with and plays off against the expectations of the 'woman with cause' topos. In particular, it seems to presuppose knowledge of the account in 1 Kings 3 where the prostitute saves her son.27 Here, after agreeing to kill her son, the woman comes to the king in order to get him to declare that the second woman is obliged to forfeit her son so that the two women can eat a second day. This depiction is in stark contrast to the woman of 1 Kings 3 who goes out of the way to save her son. 2 Kings 6 does, however, share with 1 Kings 3 the callous disregard with which one woman is willing to treat the other's son.28 Another way in 25. See n. 2 above. 26. Note that a similar circumstance is recounted in Deut. 28.53-57. 27. On previous recognition of these similarities, see Lasine, 'The Ups and Downs of Monarchical Justice', pp. 37-53 and 'Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers', JSOT 50 (1991), pp. 27-58, esp. 40-44. Lasine is preceded in his discussion of the similarities between 1 Kgs 3 and 2 Kgs 6 by A. Rofe, The Prophetical Stories (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), esp. p. 64; R. Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), esp. p. 189; R. LaBarbera, 'The Man of War and the Man of God: Social Satire in 2 Kings 6.8-7.20', CBQ 46 (1984), pp. 637-51; Coats, 'Parable, Fable, and Anecdote', pp. 368-82. Lasine essentially argues that 2 Kgs 6 purposely turns expectations on their head by reversing the elements of 1 Kgs 3. In contrast, Pyper argues that 2 Kgs 6 sheds light on 1 Kgs 3 by showing that 'kings' pretensions are shown up for what they are. .. ' ('Judging the Wisdom of Solomon', pp. 25-36). For Lasine's response see 'The Ups and Downs of Monarchical Justice', pp. 37-53. 28. Again, recall Sarah's attitude toward Ishmael or Bathsheba's toward Adonijah or even Rebekah who shows such disregard for her own unfavored son Esau.

2. 'Help, O King!'

105

which this text seems to play off the account in 1 Kings 3 is the reversal of the expectation that the woman comes to save life. Indeed, here the woman, having lost her only son, asks the king to make a ridiculous decision, one that the topos of 'women with a cause' would suggest is impossible. Finally, it is important to note that rather than render a wise decision, King Joram renders none at all. Instead, he apparently walks away without any idea how to adjudicate this case. Despite all its divergences with the topos, 2 Kings 6 seems to presuppose it. Like other stories, this one presupposes that the king ought to render a just decision. In particular, four elements in this account have close associations with our other accounts of women who seek a decision. The first is found in v. 26 where one reads: 'Help, O my lord and king!' (nir^hn "I^Qn TIN). This is remarkably similar to 2 Sam. 14.4 where one reads 'Help, O king!' Cj^nn niroJin).29 This important locution could easily appear in each of the 'woman-at-court' episodes, where the woman seeks from the king a fair verdict. In particular, the locution in association with 2 Kings 6, wherein the woman seeks the life of the remaining son, raises a rather dark specter in 2 Samuel 14. The second element of the account in 2 Kings 2 that requires comment is related to the first. In the mouth of the Tekoite, the root I?2T implies that David is to save the Tekoite's son and, in the end, his own son. Ironically, here in 2 Kings 6 the root UST implies the opposite. That is, if King Joram 'helps' the woman it will be by killing the only remaining son. That the root I?EP means not only 'help' but also 'save' makes this use even more ironic. We will see another example of this use of y& below in considering 1 Samuel 25, but for now it is important to note that the root has a kind of dual valence. On the one hand, it suggests saving, on the other, destroying, the remaining son. This dual message may well be an intended part of the Tekoite's mashal, which, as we will see more and more, presents its message in consistently ambiguous terms. The third important element of 2 Kings 6 is found in v. 28 where one reads: 'The king said to her "what bothers you?'" ("j^QH nLr"1QK>'l "j^TTD). This is identical to the phrase found in 2 Sam. 14.5. The phrase also occurs in Est. 5.3, in identical form, and in 1 Kgs 1.16 (minus 'to

29. Montgomery makes a similar observation (Kings, p. 385). See also M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), p. 79.

106

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

her', n^).30 All four stories are about women coming to the king in order to save the life of loved one(s). Moreover, we likely have what comprises a pun in this phrase. We should probably understand the consonants for 'king' h-m-l-k and for 'what bothers you' m-h-l-k to imply that what bothers the woman ("J^TTD) only the king ("f^Qil) can fix. The persistent presence of this clause signals its centrality to the topos of women with a cause and, in turn, comprises an important diagnostic in identifying stories that fit the topos. The fourth, and last, element of interest in 2 Kings 6 is the reaction of Joram when the woman confronts him. The king provides no judgment but, rather, continues to pace upon the city wall in mourning. An analogous reaction is found in Est. 7.7, where the foolishness of the King of Persia is a consistent theme. This lack of royal decisiveness reinforces the notion that this story in 2 Kings 6 inverts the expectations generated by the topos as narrated elsewhere.31 The stories we have considered above, from 1 and 2 Kings, are not identical, nor do they match Tekoite's mashal exactly. Significantly, however, all three share a broad outline of their basic theme and elements. These include the following: 1. 2.

3.

4.

A woman comes to the king expecting judgment/justice. Note that 2 Kings 6 merely inverts the expectations. In each story one of two sons remains and the woman seeks a decision about his life. Again, 2 Samuel 6 inverts the topos so that the woman seeks the remaining son's life! Related to this is the suggestive reversal of the meaning of the root #2T. The effect of each of these stories is generated by the assumption that the mother (and the king) should save her son's life. 2 Kings 6 merely inverts this expectation again. 1 Kings 3 provides the model of the ideal wise and judicious king while 2 Kings 6, Est. 7.7, and 2 Samuel 14 appear to depict their royal figures in contrast to this ideal.32

30. Essentially the same phrase occurs in Gen. 21.17 where it is addressed to Hagar just before Ishmael's life is saved. 3 1 . Note that David's three-part, and not entirely clear, response to the Tekoite in 2 Sam. 14.8-1 1 may signal a similar lack of will and clear-headedness. 32. This fourth thematic element requires nuancing. In the Hebrew Bible, and especially the Deuteronomistic History, there is displayed a persistent ambivalence toward kingship. Given this ambivalence, one cannot be sure whether the dim view of the king's wisdom in certain episodes inverts an ideal notion of wise kingship or

2. 'Help, O King!'

107

The associations between the Tekoite's mashal and these narratives imply, like the levirate texts above, that David ought to spare his own son. It is important to note, however, the implication of 2 Kings 6 that represents the obverse of the same coin: the root UET can imply vengeance as much as salvation. In fact, the texts to which we next turn reinforce this notion. c. The King Said to Her, 'What Bothers You?' Esther's encounter with Ahasuerus in his court, while clearly quite a variation on the topos at hand, evinces numerous elements central to it.33 After we make allowance for the action taking place in a foreign, rather than Israelite court, the story's place in the topos is obvious. It should be noted, however, that the element of 'foreignness' is not entirely absent from other examples of the topos. In particular, one thinks of Genesis 38 where Tamar tricks Judah into proclaiming her righteousness and his lack thereof. Scholars have long noted that Esther's experience in a foreign court is much like (the foreigner) Joseph's in Genesis 37-50. It is possible that the story we find in the book of Esther is an amalgam of these and other stories, but for our interest we seek to understand its relation to the mashal and to the Court History. For that reason we concentrate on its place in the topos of women with a cause. It is in chs. 5 and 7 that we are told of Esther's petition before Ahasuerus. The book of Esther tells of her being brought to the Persian court after King Ahasuerus banished Vashti, his former wife and queen. Apparently, because of her outstanding charm and beauty, Esther is chosen to replace Vashti. At nearly the same time that Esther is brought to the court two events, crucial to the plot of the story, occur: two of Ahasuerus's eunuchs plot to kill him, and the king's 'prime minister' hatches a plot to kill all the Jews of the land. Notably, the episodes recounting these events come one after the other (2.21-23 and 3.1-6). In fact, the proximity of these events seems to be reflected in the Greek version of Esther which records in A. 11, 'Haman, the whether examples of wise kings are viewed as great exceptions to the rule that one can expect little wisdom from a king. 33. A reliable and readable commentary on Esther is J.D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997). See also M. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1991).

108

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

son of Hammedatha, a Bougaean, was in great honor with the king, and he sought to injure Mordecai and his people because of the two eunuchs of the king'. The conflation of the two events likely reflects an implicit identification of the enemy of the Jews with the enemy of the Persian king. In this regard, it is interesting to note the language in Est. 7.6 where Haman is identified as 'the enemy' and treated as the enemy of state and king as much as of the Jews. This suggests that the Jews in Esther are so used to the notion of Persian royal authority that the topos of a woman entering the court to save life has been adapted to a Persian context.34 At any rate, it is clear that the book of Esther represents a variation, however drastic, on the topos of women who bring their case before the king.35 In 5.1-8 Esther comes to Ahasuerus, at the risk of her life, in order to plead for her people.36 Verses 1 and 2 set the scene for Esther's audience with the king, depicting her standing in the courtyard in front of the entrance to the king's palace. In v. 2 Ahasuerus notices Esther and invites her into his throne room. Verse 3 records: 'The king said to her "what bothers you, queen Esther? Whatever your request, up to half the kingdom will be given to you"'. This king is anxious to please! Most important in this verse are its first five words, ""[^ftn rb IQ^H "]^~riQ, 'The king said, what bothers you?' Significantly, we find identical phrases in our mashal (2 Sam. 14.5), and 2 Kgs 6.28, and in 1 Kgs 1.16.37 Remarkably, all of these texts are representatives of the 'woman at court' topos that is our focus herein. In each instance the phrase comes just before the woman details her request. It is hardly coincidence that this phrase is present in this scene between Esther and Ahasuerus. It is likely that this is one of many signals that this text is self-consciously part of our topos. At the end of v. 3 Ahasuerus makes his offer of up to half of the kingdom but, despite his generosity, Esther, in v. 4, refrains from specifying what she wants other than to give a banquet for Ahasuerus and Haman. In v. 5, the king commands that Haman hurry to the 34. This will become clearer in our discussion of 1 Sam. 25 and its associations with the Tekoite's mashal. These two texts suggest that the 'elimination' of an enemy is central to at least some of these 'woman at court' stories. 35. In this regard Judith presents an equally interesting variation. 36. Fox also recognizes this as a discrete unit that he labels 'Esther goes to the king; her first banquet' (Esther, p. 155). 37. Again, a similar phrase is also found at Gen. 21.17.

2. 'Help, O King!'

109

banquet that Esther has made. At the banquet Ahasuerus repeats his offer of up to half of the kingdom (v. 6), to which Esther replies that she seeks only to have the king and Hainan come to another banquet the next day (vv. 7 and 8). It is not entirely clear why Esther should stall in presenting her petition to the king, but at the larger narrative level it becomes clear that at this point Ahasuerus lacks the motivation to see Esther's enemy (Haman) as his own. Moreover, the stalling implies Esther's ignorance of what to do and her dependence on divine providence to save the day. The chapter that intervenes between the episode(s) of the 'woman at court' provides the necessary motivation for Esther to reveal her request in ch. 7. In ch. 6 Ahasuerus learns that his life has been saved by Mordecai. As a result of his discovery, the king rewards Mordecai at the expense of Haman. Implicit in this scene is the reversal of fortunes of Haman and Mordecai and a reinforcing of the inference that Haman, enemy of Mordecai and the Jews, is also the enemy of the king, since he seeks to kill Mordecai and his people. The scene in ch. 6 serves to set the stage for the banquet the following day. Now, Ahasuerus knows that Mordecai, and presumably his people, are on his side. In 7.1-10 we learn of the second banquet given by Esther for Ahasuerus and Haman.38 In v. 2, the king, for the third time, offers to Esther up to half the kingdom. In v. 3 Esther finally articulates her request: she wishes to save the lives of her people.39 She continues (v. 4) by telling Ahasuerus of the suffering of her people and their true need for his help. On hearing her report, the king asks Esther who it is that has threatened her people (v. 5). Esther responds by identifying Haman as the enemy (v. 6). Ahasuerus, apparently lost for words, walks out of the feast to the garden and Haman hastily pleads with Esther for his life (v. 7). On his return from the garden the king discovers Haman on the couch (pleading) with Esther and declares, 'Does he even take advantage of the queen while I am in the palace?' At this, Harbonah, one of the king's eunuchs, suggests that Haman be impaled on the stake that the latter had made for Mordecai. 38. Fox labels this unit 'Esther's second banquet; Raman's defeat' (Esther, p. 156). 39. Given David's threefold answer to the Tekoite' s request, one wonders whether Esther's threefold stalling technique is meant to show how much the tables are turned in the Persian Court. Now it is the woman, a Jew to boot, who puts the king off three times rather than the king putting off the woman at court.

110

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

In making the suggestion, Harbonah draws attention to the fact that it was Mordecai who had saved the king's life. By so doing, the text acknowledges that the enemy of Esther and Mordecai and all the Jews was likewise the enemy of the king. Several details in ch. 7 deserve comment. Once again we have the familiar scene in which a woman comes to court to save the lives of loved ones. Much like Joram in 2 Kings 6, Ahasuerus, in v. 7, once presented with the woman's dilemma, walks away without providing any resolution. It seems likely we are to recognize the kings' failure to live up to their responsibilities in these stories. To this extent, we should view these failures as variations on the expectations generated by the topos. Rather than solving the problem presented by Esther, Ahasuerus walks away and only as a reaction to personal insult does he decide to eliminate Haman. Another important issue in our text is Ahasuerus's interpretation of Raman's presence on the couch with Esther. While it does not appear in any of the stories on which we focus in this chapter, the motif of a man sleeping with another man's wife in order to usurp his position has a significant role in the Court History. One of Absalom's first acts, on taking Jerusalem, is to sleep with ten of David's concubines (2 Sam. 16.20-23). In 1 Kgs 2.13-25 Adonijah, having been denied the throne, seeks Abishag, a former bedmate of David's, as wife. Solomon, when told of Adonijah's request, says that he may as well have asked for the throne itself.40 With this kind of palace intrigue as a background to the events in Esther, it is no wonder that Ahasuerus thought that Haman was attempting to sleep with the queen.41 Moreover, this is the ultimate confirmation that Haman is indeed the gravest threat to Ahasuerus and his throne. As strong as the associations are between Esther and the Tekoite's 40. See Levenson and Halpern, The Political Import of David's Marriages', pp. 507-18. 41. One need only consider David's taking of Bathsheba and Abigail, both of whom belong in the 'woman with a cause' topos as well. It seems likely that Esther is playing within/off this constellation of imagery. Moreover, it appears that Esther comprises the application of the elements of the woman with a cause to the international context of the exile. In other words, Esther saves not her son but the entire people. One hears echoes of the woman at court motif, but it is now expanded to an international scale. Moreover, the problem of the woman at court has moved from an internal, albeit national, dilemma to one of international and nearly cosmic proportions; Israel must no longer look out for its enemy from within but rather from the outside.

2. 'Help, O King!'

Ill

mashal, the next text with which we deal is even more closely associated and more fully illumines the Tekoite's message for David. Moreover, it, like the mashal itself, is part of the Davidic history. d. 'On Me, My Lord, Be the Guilt' The story of Abigail, David and Nabal comes between what many consider variants of a single story of David's encounter with Saul.42 Most agree that ch. 25 represents a single integrated story with the exception of the last two verses.43 The Nabal story begins by recording the death of Samuel followed by the description of Nabal, of whom we are given a rather grim characterization, especially in contrast to his wife. At any rate, David, having heard that Nabal was shearing sheep, sent ten of his men to Nabal to seek provisions. The men remind Nabal of the kindness that David had shown to him and his men, but it is to no avail; Nabal sends David's men away empty-handed. As a result of Nabal's insult, David instructs his men to prepare for an attack on Nabal and his men. One of Nabal's men comes to Abigail and tells her of Nabal's insult and the impending danger. Abigail immediately readies gifts and provisions for David and goes off to intercept him. Upon meeting David, Abigail prostrates herself, apologizes for her husband's behavior, and persuades David that he is above taking vengeance on such an insignificant man as Nabal. In response, David thanks Abigail and God for keeping him from shedding Nabal's blood. After saving her husband's life Abigail returns home to find Nabal in the middle of a feast fit for a king. The next morning she tells Nabal of the events of the previous day and he seems to go into shock, only to die ten days later. When David hears of Nabal's death, he sends for Abigail in order to marry her. Within this truly riveting story, we are particularly interested in 42. So J.D. Levenson, '1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History', in K. Gros Louis (ed.), Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narratives, II (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982), pp. 220-42. M. Garsiel stresses the commonalities between chs. 2426 (The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels [Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1985], esp. pp. 122-33), as does R. Polzin (Samuel and the Deuteronomist [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989], pp. 205-15. McCarter (77 Samuel, p. 400) points out that in all three chapters David is saved from deeds potentially disastrous to his own interests. 43. See Levenson, '1 Samuel 25', p. 220. On the political and sexual implications of the story in ch. 25 see '1 Samuel 25', and Levenson and Halpern, 'The Political Import of David's Marriages', pp. 507-18.

112

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

vv. 23-35. In these verses we have the familiar situation of a woman coming before the (future) king to plead her case, this time to save the life of her husband. Abigail's pleading of her case comes right after David has repeated the tale of his kindness to Nabal, which has been repaid with an insult. At the end of v. 22, before Abigail has reached his party, David says he will wipe out all the males of Nabal's city. The account of Abigail's audience with David follows: 23

Abigail saw David and quickly dismounted from her ass and fell in front of David face down and bowed low to the ground. 24She fell at his feet and said, 'On me, alone, is the guilt/punishment my lord (pun TIN ^tT'D)— may your maidservant speak further ("jriQK Nr~O~im) and will you listen to your maidservant? 25Let my lord not set his heart on this worthless man, on Nabal, for he is just like his name: his name is Nabal and he is dead foolish. Moreover, I, your maidservant, did not see my lord's young men whom you sent. 26Now, my lord, as Yhwh lives and as you live— Yhwh who prevented you from taking blood vengeance into your own hands ("f1? "JT UtDim D'QID K13Q)—may all your enemies and all who seek evil (run. .. D'Bpnon) for my lord be like Nabal. 27Now this is the blessing that your maidservant has brought to you, my lord. Let it be given to the men who are travelling with my lord. 28Forgive your maidservant's boldness, for truly Yhwh will establish for my lord a secure and enduring house (]GK3 rV3), since my lord has fought Yhwh's battles and evil is not found in you. 29If any man arises to pursue you and seeks your life, my lord's soul will be bound in the bundle of life with Yhwh your God; the soul of your enemy he will fling away as if from a sling. 30 When Yhwh does for my lord all the good that he has promised for you, he will make you the leader of Israel. 31Do not let this be discouraging or disheartening for my lord, shedding blood needlessly in taking vengeance, my lord ("b "3TK irtZJirftl). May Yhwh do well by my lord and may you remember your maidservant.' 32David replied to Abigail, 'Blessed be Yhwh the God of Israel who sent you this day to meet me! 33 And blessed be your sense and blessed be you who prevented me this very day from taking blood vengeance into my own hands ("^ *T INJJm). 34 Indeed, as Yhwh the God of Israel lives—who prevented me from harming you—had you not hastened in coming to meet me, not one of Nabal's men would have remained till morning.' 35David took from her hand that which she had brought for him and said to her, 'Go up to your house in peace and note that I have listened to you and have granted your request (q«S N2JN1 "f7lp3 TUOB TO -]H^b n"bvh '^l?).'

Even a casual reading of this passage reveals that it is associated with the 'woman with a cause' topos that is our subject. Again, we have a woman coming to the (future) king in order to make the case to save

2. 'Help, O King!'

113

someone's life. We find here familiar vocabulary and imagery throughout. To clearly articulate how this passage relates to the topos and to the mashal requires detailed commentary. In v. 23, the beginning of Abigail's petition to David, we find that fully one third of the words in the verse are verbs. Abigail sees, hurries, dismounts, falls, and bows down to David. This commotion is reminiscent of the Tekoite's just prior to her petition to David in our mashal. Indeed, as one might expect, the last two verbs describing the Tekoite's subservience are identical to the last two describing Abigail who falls upon her face (ITIS"1?!) .. .^Dfll) and bows down (inn^m). Abigail's flurry of activity suggests a degree of nervousness and deference that may explain a peculiarity in the Tekoite account. As noted above, in 2 Sam. 14.4 the Tekoite is depicted as starting to say something to David then falling to her face and bowing before actually speaking. Again, this first occurrence of the verb 'to speak' in 2 Sam. 14.4 is possibly a scribal error, but when we note that v. 24 here in 1 Samuel 25 begins with the recurrence of ^DHl, 'and she fell (at his feet)', we might infer that the narrator uses such repetition to suggest the excitement and confusion that arises in such cases.44 Whatever the verdict on this possible narrative device, clearly the account of Abigail's encounter with David depicts the nervousness with which one approaches such an event. It is worth noting that in the book of Esther this kind of nervousness is made much more explicit when Esther claims that anyone who comes to the king uninvited stands to lose her life (4.11-17). Verse 24, as noted, begins with Abigail falling at the feet of David and immediately professing her culpability. Notably, the way she approaches David is much like the way the Tekoite approaches him. In 1 Sam. 25.24 Abigail says, 'On me alone, my lord, is the guilt!' (•pun S]1K S3K"O) whereas the Tekoite, in 2 Sam. 14.9, says n]lK "^U "pun "['PQn, 'Upon me, my lord O king, is the guilt!' Just what Abigail refers to with the pl?n is unclear, but is likely the insult and lack of hospitality shown to David by her husband Nabal as well as her impertinence in daring to speak with the king. That it is impertinence that is implied is reinforced by another text associated with the 44. Radaq thinks that the first "IQ»m ('she said') in 2 Sam. 14.4 is addressed to the gatekeepers who, in turn, frighten her (cf. 2 Sam. 14.15 where the Tekoite says that 'the people' have frightened her). Radaq understands this first act of speaking as the means by which the Tekoite sought access to the king.

114

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

'woman with a cause' topos. Namely, in Est. 4.11, Esther reminds Mordecai that approaching the king without having been summoned is punishable by death. In view of the dual implication of the word ]1U, the Tekoite likely both apologizes for her boldness and accepts the guilt associated with her son. The associations between Abigail's and the Tekoite's approach to David are reinforced in the second half of 1 Sam. 25.24 where Abigail follows her addmission of guilt and apology for impertinence with a request to continue speaking with David. The language of this request, 'May your handmaid continue to speak?' (~[nQN tf]~~Q~im), is much like the Tekoite's 'May your maidservant continue to speak?' (-[nnDtf tfrnmn) found in 2 Sam. 14.12. Clearly the 'claim to guilt'/ 'apology' and the 'request to continue' are found in the Tekoite's mashal in different locations and contexts from where they are in Abigail's petition, but this should not distract us from the similarity in their formulations. In v. 25 Abigail tells David not to think too much about Nabal. Her exact words are:

"Tjrtjj nin ^ir^nn BTN^TK 13*77** TN D-izr NT*** Do not let my lord place his heart on this worthless man, on Nabal.

This locution is much like the one found in 2 Sam. 14.1 where we are told that Joab knew that David's heart was 'on' Absalom ("f^QH IlV^D Dl'PCZnfcr^). We noted that in the mashal, especially based on its context, it is unclear whether David was pining away for Absalom or dreaming of revenge. The similarities between 1 Samuel 25 and the mashal suggest that David had intentions toward Absalom that matched his intentions for Nabal. If this is, indeed, the case, then we have two instances in which a woman comes to dissuade David from revenge. Of course, in the case of the mashal, the presentation is considerably more subtle and ambiguous. Beyond this verbal association between the mashal and Abigail's narrative there is, in Abigail's speech, a subtle play on Nabal's name that has significance for understanding the mashal and the larger Court Narrative. Abigail says that Nabal is just like his name, he is dead foolish (1QI? n^QJl). My translation reflects what I suspect is the pun intended in this locution. The root *73] in biblical Hebrew can mean not only senseless or foolish, but is also associated with the notion of

2. 'Help, O King!'

115

death, and the consonants n^D] can represent the word 'corpse'.45 This means that Abigail is essentially saying 'Do not worry about Nabal because he is a no-good and is as good as dead'. Skepticism about this reading can be mollified with what must be understood as another pun on Nabal' s name earlier in the chapter. In v. 18, where Abigail prepares the provisions that she will take to David, we are told that among her goods is a skin of wine Q^'^H]). This effectively foreshadows the end of the story where Nabal, after a big party, is drunk. Of interest is that, after his party, when the wine has gone out of Nabal (^2]Q "pYI) he dies and in effect becomes a corpse (n^H]). Levenson notes that the name Nabal has been selected in this story for the effect of its associations with foolishness, in particular in contrast to Abigail's good common sense.46 It appears that the story has also been written to play off against the other meanings of the root ^Hl Given the awareness of, and punning on, the meaning of the name of David's 'contender' in 1 Samuel 25, what should we make of the name Absalom? Clearly, unlike Nabal, Absalom is not 'like his name'! Absalom (DI^EQN) means 'father of peace'. In the context of the Davidic court, the irony of this name can hardly pass the attention of the reader. Absalom kills his brother and usurps his father' s throne, hardly the behavior of the sire of peace! That 1 Samuel 25 and the Court Narrative assign to David's 'contender' names filled with irony must be viewed as the result of shared competence in narrative composition rather than as purposeful borrowing or allusion. What this common narrative device signals is that the associations between the mashal (as a cipher for the events in David's court) and 1 Samuel 25 are, indeed, significant and substantive. Reinforcing this contention is that the name of David's eventual successor, Solomon, comes from the same root as does the name of David's failed successor, Absalom. Another lexical peculiarity, in v. 26, is significant. We noted above that the root I?2T has a dual valence in the 'woman at court' episodes. While the root is used in 2 Sam. 14.4 to suggest that David ought to save the Tekoite's (and by extension his own) son, in 2 Kgs 6.26 the woman uses it to suggest that the remaining son ought to be eliminated. Again, the fact that the root U& means not only 'help' but also 'save' makes the use in 2 Kgs 6.26 highly ironic. Notably the root 45. See for example 1 Kgs 13.22, 24; Isa. 26.19; Deut. 28.26 etc. Note too that the root is associated with sexual misconduct in Gen. 34.7. 46. '1 Samuel 25', pp. 222-24.

116

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

appears in 1 Sam. 25.26, 31, and 33 and each time it is used to describe the act that Abigail convinces David not to commit: taking vengeance on Nabal. Much as it is used in 2 Kgs 6.26, the root is employed here to refer to the elimination of life rather than the preservation thereof. All of this suggests that when the Tekoite addresses David with "[^QH ni^in, 'Help, O King!' she may be seeking help for herself or, like Abigail, warning David to 'save' himself by eliminating Absalom his enemy. Given the prevailing message of the 'woman with a cause' topos, we are likely supposed to think of the former option first, but as with most things in the Tekoite's mashal, we are equally likely supposed to catch the subtle undertow suggested by the latter. There is one more element, in the second half of v. 26, that requires comment. Verse 26b reads as follows: 'May all your enemies and those who seek evil for my lord be like Nabal'. This locution is especially interesting when considered in view of the Court Narrative. If we take seriously the notion that Nabal is associated with death, and this is clearly the case by the end of this chapter, Abigail is essentially declaring her wish that all who pursue David, or wish him harm, shall wind up dead (like Nabal) for their effort. This wish has a long life in view of the events of the Court Narrative. There, in chs. 17 and 18 it is Absalom who pursues David and in the end dies for his rebellion. Moreover, like Abigail who seeks to preserve the life of the man who has challenged the king and who will die (apparently) because of his challenge, the Tekoite also apparently seeks to preserve the life of David's future challenger, Absalom who dies because of his challenge. This call for a quid pro quo punishment for David's challenger is nicely reinforced in v. 29, where Abigail expresses the hope that anyone who seeks David's life shall be punished by God. In v. 28, Abigail tells David that Yhwh will establish for him a secure house, }QN] ITQ. This phrase has particular relevance for our discussion. In the first place, it resonates with a crucial text relating to the founding of the Davidic dynasty. In 2 Samuel 7, after David has proposed building a temple for Yhwh, Nathan comes to David and tells him that Yhwh will build for David a house (ITU = dynasty) rather than David's building a temple (ITD) for him. In particular, vv. 11-16 are significant for our purposes. Here Yhwh promises (through Nathan) to provide David with offspring and to establish the kingship for that son.47 Further, Yhwh promises to establish a permanently secure 47. McCarter suggests that this reference to a 'secure house' is an insertion meant

2. 'Help, O King!'

117

dynasty ("[fTQ ]QKJ1) in that lineage (v. 16). Abigail's use of a nearly identical locution (v. 28) is so interesting because it occurs in the context of her cursing of anyone who would challenge David and his throne. The irony in the Court Narrative is that it is from his own 'house' that the challenger arises. Indeed, it is from one of those offspring to whom Nathan's promise in 2 Sam. 7.11-16 is addressed. The secure house that Abigail predicts is, ironically, the source of the challenger. It is even more ironic that Nathan himself predicts the rise of this challenger from within David's ranks (2 Sam. 12.11). None of this is likely in the mind of the narrator of 2 Samuel 12-14, but the record of David's usurper emerging from his 'secure house' is especially intriguing because it is associated with these two episodes of 'women with a cause' in 1 Samuel 25 and 2 Samuel 14. In vv. 32-33 David praises Abigail and blesses her for her good sense (DUtD) in preventing him from taking vengeance into his own hands. In acknowledging the woman's foresight and intelligence, the story of Abigail takes up another of the key elements of the topos of women with a cause. In each of the stories of women who come to the king, either she or the king is identified with wisdom or judiciousness. In 2 Samuel 14, the Tekoite is identified as wise or clever (nODn) from the outset. This marking of women as wise and judicious occurs in 2 Sam. 20.16-22, where the 'wise' (HQDn) woman of the city of Abel devises the plan by which Sheba ben-Bichri, someone who has rebelled against ("IT K2J]) David, is beheaded.48 This story has the woman coming not to the king but, rather, to his advisor Joab. In so doing, it represents a reversal of 2 Samuel 14 in which Joab brings a wise woman to Jerusalem to instruct her in the plan to trick David. As we have seen, Esther, too, represents a similarly judicious woman who comes to a (foreign) king with a clever plan. Though the details need not detain us at present, we need to note that all four of the stories I have just mentioned depict a woman who judiciously advises the king (or his representative) how to respond to a difficult and sensitive situation. But what should one make of David's praise for Abigail's good sense, especially against the backdrop of the topos of women at court who praise the king's wisdom? Among the variations of the topos that emphasize the judiciousness of the king, 1 Kings 3 is the most clear in to make reference to the events in 2 Sam. 7 (I Samuel, pp. 401-402). 48. Polzin has pointed out the strong association between 1 Sam. 25 and 2 Sam. 20 (David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 199-200).

118

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

its praise of Solomon. In fact, the story there about the two prostitutes who come to the king is clearly intended to give proof of the wisdom of Solomon, surrounded as it is by the text's claim that he was so wise. As noted above, 2 Kings 6 and Esther seem to parody the lack of judiciousness and wisdom of the kings therein. 1 Samuel 25 remains neutral with regard to David's wisdom but implies that his temper here may have interfered with his judgment. The mashal in 2 Sam. 14.1-20 presents a unique variation on the theme of judiciousness. While the woman is identified as wise at the outset of the narrative, in the last verse the Tekoite tells David that he is wiser than God's angels in knowing all that goes on in his realm: Din4? DTT^il ~\V&fo DQDriD DDFT JHND "itotr^DTIK. This locution is much like the praise of Solomon's wisdom in 1 Kings 3, but with some important differences. As noted above, the Tekoite's praise of David's wisdom rings hollow on several accounts. In contrast to Solomon's, it comes before his decision rather than after. Further, David's decision, while apparently following expectations generated by the woman with a cause topos (by saving the remaining son), ironically sews the seeds of Absalom's rebellion against him. Finally, it is of note that David's judiciousness does not win a ringing endorsement in 1 Samuel 25, 1 Kings 1, nor in 2 Samuel 14. Verse 35 contains the last element in Abigail's narrative that we need to consider closely. Of concern here is David's instruction to Abigail to 'go up to your house in peace, note that I have heeded your voice and have granted your request' (R&M "plpl Tltfntf 'fcTl -[ira1? ut>tih ^ :~ps). In 2 Sam. 14.8, David tells the Tekoite to 'go to your house and I will give a command concerning you' ('-~\^ m^K ^Kl ""[fPD'? "O1?). In both stories David's response is remarkably similar: once asked to render a decision he tells the woman to go home and he will take care of everything. Notably, David tells Abigail to go home after articulating his decision, whereas in 2 Sam. 14.8 David has not really made any clear statement about the Tekoite's remaining son. Most significant is the added evidence David's responses provide for the case that Abigail's story is profitably understood in the same topos as the narrative of the Tekoite's visit with David. Let us now summarize our discussion. Thus far we can conclude that the associations between our mashal and the two groups of texts we have considered above, the levirate and 'woman at court' texts, define what we can call the 'proximate' message of the mashal. This message,

2. 'Help, O King!'

119

again, can be summed up as follows: David should follow the Tekoite's example and the one implied by the mashal's association with Deut. 25.5-10, Genesis 38, Ruth, 1 Kings 3, 2 Kings 6, 1 Samuel 25, and Esther by saving the life of his son.49 Moreover, with our mashal, 1 Kgs 3.16-28 and 2 Kgs 6.24-31 share much in the way of language and circumstance. Each is the story of a woman who comes to the king to argue over the life of one of two sons.50 We have noted the ways that each of the stories varies the elements of the topos, but they all seem to presuppose, like the levirate texts, the obligation of the woman to save her progeny and of the king to accede to her request. The texts found in 1 Samuel 25 and Esther share with the mashal the presence of one woman who comes to the king to save the life of loved one(s) and, ostensibly, to convince him to alter his course of action. In each of these stories the woman's judiciousness clearly outstrips and influences the king's. The crucial additional element in the stories of Abigail and Esther is the call for the death of the enemy of the king and people. In the case of Nabal and Absalom this is especially ironic because it is his enemy that the king is called upon to save. The two groups of texts we have considered thus far illumine what the mashal could mean to David, in part, by shedding light on other parts of the Court History. In fact, it is in the larger context of the Court History that the significance of the associations with which we have been dealing becomes most clear. In particular, the mashal, in numerous ways, adumbrates the crucial events described in the Bathsheba episode in 1 Kings 1. It is to this text, the third case of a woman who comes to the Davidic court to save a loved one, that we next turn. 3. 'Save Your Life and the Life of Your Son Solomon!' Most of the examples of 'women with a cause' with which we have dealt so far are related to the Tekoite's mashal through the resonance they all share due to the topos of which they are a part. Notably, the last story with which we have dealt, the episode of Abigail and David, takes place within the Davidic history and, as the narrative line would 49. By this I do not mean to imply that David was capable of knowing all these texts, simply that the topos as represented by these texts establishes the expectations that guide David's choices and the author's likely message. 50. Again, recall that Bathsheba is doing much the same thing in 1 Kgs 1.

120

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

now have it, is part of David's experience when he encounters the Tekoite. One would think that the Tekoite's message should seem at least a little familiar to David. Indeed, the integration of the Tekoite's mashal into the larger Court narrative is not only signaled by its strong associations with the Abigail episode but also by its clear adumbration (at the motivic, verbal, and thematic levels among others) of the episode of Bathsheba in 1 Kings I.51 Before detailing the close association between the mashal and the Bathsheba episode, it is important to locate Bathsheba's story within the larger topos of 'woman with a cause'. The story of Bathsheba shares with the 'levirate' texts and certain of the 'woman at court' texts the concern over securing her son's destiny. In contrast to the cases of levirate, where the woman tries to secure progeny after the death of a husband, Bathsheba secures her son's future before David's death. Among the woman at court texts, Bathsheba's story is closest to Esther's. Just as Esther secures the future of her people and Mordecai and, as a result, ensures the demise of Haman, Bathsheba secures the future of her son, Solomon, and ensures the demise of Adonijah. Notably, Bathsheba's actions are analogous to those of two famous mothers of Genesis: Sarah and Rebekah. In all three of these stories a wife apparently convinces her husband to support her favorite, and God's chosen son, as his heir. The case in Genesis 21 is well known and has been treated above in Chapter 1. There, Sarah not only secures her son's future, but manages, apparently against Abraham's wishes, to have Ishmael, her son's only rival, expelled from the household. This tension with Hagar suggests a loose subcategory we might label 'two women and two sons'.52 At any rate, the story of Sarah and Hagar represents a scenario much like 1 Kings 1, where, as a result of Bathsheba's reminding David of his promise to Solomon, Adonijah is removed from the throne and eventually killed by one of Solomon's servants. Genesis 27, the account of Rebekah's championing of Jacob's cause, is more complex and perhaps less directly analogous to the Bathsheba story. Here Rebekah joins with Jacob in tricking Isaac into making her favorite son his heir, rather than convincing him to do so, 51. On the associations between Abigail and Bathsheba see A. Berlin, 'Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David's Wives', JSOT23 (1982), pp. 69-85. 52. If we are correct in identifying such a subcategory, then the stories in 1 Kgs 3 and 2 Kgs 6 may well be (slightly altered) representatives as well.

2. 'Help, O King!'

121

but, near the end of the account, just before Jacob leaves his mother and father, one of the two sources (P) records that Isaac has apparently been won over to Rebekah's (Jacob's) side and blesses him as he sends him off to Paddan-aram. This blessing comes as a surprise, since most of the previous chapter describes Isaac's love for Esau and his unwillingness to support Rebekah's favorite son Jacob. Perhaps this text records the remnant of a tradition in which Isaac, like Abraham before him, and David after, was convinced by his wife to support her favorite and God's chosen.53 As interesting as the connections are between the Bathsheba episode and the mothers of Genesis, its associations with the Tekoite's mashal are even more revealing, especially considering the following three analogues: Joab:Tekoite::Nathan:Bathsheba, Tekoite:David::Bathsheba: David, and Joab:David::Nathan:David. We will consider the textual evidence for each of these equations, in turn, as we consider the Bathsheba episode in detail. The episode begins by telling of David's dotage and and goes on to say that he requires an 'attendant' (n]DO) to keep warm (vv. 1-4). This report sets the stage for the events of 1 Kings 1 in which the succession to David's throne is decided.54 Next, we are told that Adonijah, apparently David's oldest living son, begins to boast that he will be the next king. The narrator informs the reader that David had never properly disciplined his son (vv. 5-6). Adonijah has on his side Joab, and the priest Abiathar, but not the priest Zadok, Benaiah, the prophet Nathan, Shimei, Rei, and David's warriors (vv. 7 53. Rebekah's account shares with the Tekoite's and Bathsheba's the more or less underhanded attempt to champion her son's cause. It is clear that elements of trickery are central to many of these episodes. On this understanding one wonders about the story of Saul and the woman of Endor in 1 Sam. 28. Here it appears that the tables are at least partially turned. In other words, Saul comes to this woman, who, if not called a 'wise woman', is depicted as able to discern what others cannot. In this instance Saul tricks the woman into giving him access to the dead Samuel, hoping to get word on how to save his own life. In the end, Samuel tells Saul that he is as good as a dead man, but the woman of Endor feeds him before he goes on. Clearly this story does not belong to our topos of woman with a cause, but may well presuppose it. By so doing it depicts Saul in rather farcical and unkind ways. As one last reversal of the 'woman with a cause' topos, Saul goes out from this encounter where he seeks to save his life and is almost immediately killed (ch. 31). See also n. 2 above. 54. Note that the episode's crucial moments turn on the relationship of Abishag with the men of David's court.

122

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

and 8). Adonijah prepares a celebratory feast, inviting his brothers (f^on ']3 vntf-^DTIN trip'"!) and David's court officials, but neither those who fail to support him nor his brother Solomon (vv. 9 and 10). This last element makes for an interesting contrast with the party Absalom throws during sheep-shearing in 2 Sam. 13.23-27. To his sheep- shearing Absalom also invites his brothers ('D'^D'? D'ftEDN Klpl f^on) and, especially, his brother Amnon.55 Whereas Absalom's goal is to eliminate Amnon, Adonijah wishes to ignore his rival brother and leave him out of the picture. In vv. 11-14 Nathan comes to Bathsheba to get her to secure Solomon's claim to the throne. The way Nathan relates to Bathsheba is quite analogous to the way Joab relates to the Tekoite woman. The analogue lies at a number of levels. After telling Bathsheba that Adonijah has assumed the throne in David's ignorance (v. 11), Nathan tells her that she must save her life and her son's (v. 12). He advises that Bathsheba go to David and say, 'My lord, the king, did you not promise your maidservant "Solomon your son will reign after me and he will sit on my throne"? Why has Adonijah become king?' (v. 13) Nathan concludes his advice by telling Bathsheba that while she is still talking he will enter and confirm her words (v. 14). Notably, just as Joab calls on the Tekoite to go to David with the purpose of securing (Joab's favorite) Absalom's position, so Nathan calls on Bathsheba to go to David to secure (Nathan's favorite) Solomon's position. But the similarity does not stop there! 2 Sam. 14.3 reads: JTS3 D-QTTTTK 3»T DfeTI HTH "DID T^N 0131)

'You will go to the king and you will tell him like this' and Joab put the words in her mouth.

In a very similar scene, Nathan tells Bathsheba exactly what to say. Confirmation of this comes in vv. 17-18 where Nathan's words are repeated nearly verbatim. Verses 15-21 reveal that Bathsheba' s relationship to David has its analogue in the Tekoite' s relationship to David. In v. 16 Bathsheba approaches the king and prostrates herself and bows (iOferra 1pm "f^a^ inntZHTl) much as the Tekoite approaches David and falls and bows before him Onntfm. . . 'PSm v. 4).56 In response to Bathsheba' s acts, the 55. Note the frequent association of sheep-shearing with men who engage in questionable sexual behavior. Along with these two cases, see also Gen. 38. 56. Note the similarity as well with Abigail's actions in 1 Sam. 25.23.

2. 'Help, O King!'

123

text records, 'Theking said, "Whatbothers you?"' tfrna "[^Qn IQ^l). This is nearly identical to David's response to the Tekoite woman in 2 Sam. 14.5, 'The king said to her, "What bothers you?'". Next Bathsheba retells the words of Nathan almost verbatim: 'My lord, did you not promise your maidservant, by Yhwh your God: "Solomon your son will rule after me and he will sit on my throne"? Now take note that Adonijah has become king!' (vv. 17-18).

After this, Bathsheba tells David that Adonijah has had a party to celebrate his succession and that Solomon and his supporters have been left out (v. 19). This part of her discussion with David was not in her instructions from Nathan but, notably, when he comes to talk with David he uses nearly the same language and phraseology. We are probably supposed to presume that this part of Bathsheba's speech was also given to her by Nathan. Bathsheba finishes her soliloquy by urging David to honor his promise to Solomon because all of Israel is watching and waiting for his word. Moreover, she adds, once the king has died, she and Solomon will be as good as dead. All of Bathsheba's interaction with David is reminiscent of the Tekoite's, from the language that describes her attitude to David's response to her request to save her son (and, by implication, herself) from impending doom. In vv. 22-31 Nathan, as he had planned, enters to talk with the king while Bathsheba is still talking. He tells David that Adonijah has taken the throne and has prepared a feast (again using much the same language that Bathsheba used in v. 19) and that all Adonijah's supporters are celebrating his assumption of the kingship. David now responds by calling for Bathsheba (either she has left without the narrator telling us or he is unaware that she has been in his presence the whole time Nathan was speaking), and he promises to honor his oath to her that Solomon would succeed him. Much as David accedes to the Tekoite's wish to save her son, David accedes to Bathsheba's. Moreover, by acceding to the Tekoite, David, in essence, saves his own son's life, just as by acceding to Bathsheba he saves his own son's life.57 At another 57. It is hard to know what to do with the analogy that emerges here between Absalom and Solomon. On the one hand, we can simply consider it the result of different stories, one with a 'good' son, the other with a 'bad' son, following the logic of the topos of which they are a part. This, however, is unsatisfactory for the careful reader. What is implied by this analogy? On the one hand it could be that it is meant to cast a long shadow over Solomon from the inception of his kingship. On the other it may imply, for want of a better term, the unfairness of the process of divine

124

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

level, however, David is actually being manipulated by the men who sent these female messengers. In 2 Samuel 14 David is coerced to do what Joab wishes (at least on one reading) quite like the way he is coerced here in 1 Kings 1 to do Nathan's bidding. In fact, when the decision is final, David calls for Nathan (et al.) to fulfil the promise he has made to Bathsheba (vv. 32-40). Again, this is much like 2 Samuel 14, where David calls on Joab to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem, an act David imagines is the intent of the promise elicited from him by the Tekoite. While many of the similarities between the Tekoite and Bathsheba episodes can be attributed to their place within the 'woman at court' topos, it is hard to imagine that their relationship is defined only by that connection. The similarities are so numerous and close that the mashal must be seen as a purposeful adumbration of the events in 1 Kings 1. This is representative of a number of ways the mashal seems to be integrated into the court history. Because it is the goal of Chapter 3 to consider the ways in which the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa is integrated into the Court History, we must leave a full discussion of this issue until then. For now we summarize the significance of the topos of 'woman with a cause' for understanding the Tekoite's mashal. 4. Summary We can begin by noting that the associations between the mashal in 2 Sam. 14.1-11 and the levirate texts we have considered suggest that the salvation and/or perpetuation of lineage is key to its message. Not only is David supposed to see the necessity of preserving the Tekoite's dead husband's lineage, but also that he ought to save and protect his own. 58 Of course, the irony in extending this message to his own selection. Perhaps both of these alternatives are equally likely and one should not opt for one to the exclusion of the other. It is of note, however, that Solomon, by the end of our account of his life, has intermarried with innumerable other women and has apostatized in ways that, at first blush, look far worse than Absalom. 58. W. Propp ('Kinship in 2 Samuel 13', pp. 50-53) argues that aside from the 'surface' message that David should bring Absalom home is a deeper and subtler message that David should actually kill his son. Based on our analysis, especially in relation to the 'woman with a cause' topos and its associations with levirate, this option is highly unlikely, unless one presumes that David is to do the opposite of what all the evidence seems to indicate is his only option. Of course, the great irony in Propp's reading of the Tekoite's mashal is that had David killed Absalom, he would have

2. 'Help, O King!'

125

situation is that by saving Absalom, David makes possible his return and ultimate usurpation, not to mention the threat to God's chosen heir. The irony of David's requirement to save his future usurper is a consistent implication of the mashal's association with many of the 'woman with a cause' episodes. It would appear that the associations of the mashal with the levirate texts also serves as a reminder of the significance of courageous women, like Tamar and Ruth, who had central roles in perpetuating and defending the Davidic lineage. This added reminder must be intended to give David extra incentive to save Absalom and to foreshadow Bathsheba who plays an equally central role in saving Solomon and ensuring his succession to David. With the subcategory of 'women at court', we have texts that share with the levirate texts the assumption that the lives of sons and loved ones ought to be saved. The variation in these texts suggests the latitude with which the form could be treated. A theme that persists in these texts is the judiciousness (or lack thereof) of the king. 1 Kings 3 goes furthest in establishing the judiciousness of the king. 2 Kings 6 and Esther appear to use the image of the judicious king as a foil to the royal figures in each. Esther in particular shifts the emphasis of judiciousness from the royal figure to Mordecai and Esther as representatives of a righteous people. 1 Samuel 25, likewise, seems to emphasize the prudence and judiciousness of Abigail in dissuading David from his murderous intentions. This emphasis on the judiciousness of the woman at court has direct implications for the 'wise' woman of Tekoa. She and Bathsheba clearly fit into this continuum of clever women who guide David to a correct choice. David's passions and loyalties and, yes, indecisiveness, require that these women force the issue on him. A second, and familiar issue, associated with the 'woman at court' subcategory is the persistent marking of the enemy of the king and state. This is especially true in the narrative treatment of Nabal, Haman, and Adonijah and suggests that part of the Tekoite's message to David (especially like Abigail's) is that the man he saves (her son as cipher for Absalom) is also a threat to his authority. As the Tekoite speaks, David may well have thought to himself, The last time I heard a plea like this was when Abigail convinced me to save that worthless Nabal'. Much like the irony implied by the association of the mashal with the avoided most of the troubles narrated in the remainder of the Court Narrative. As we will see, however, killing Absalom was not the only alternative that would have gotten him out of the way.

126

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

levirate texts, its association with these 'woman at court' texts implies that David is obliged to save his enemy. Finally, in its relationship to the Bathsheba story, and by association the episodes involving Sarah and Rebekah, the mashal marks how difficult and unclear are David's choices. His affections and desires seldom match God's intentions and, like Abraham and Isaac, he apparently wants for his son Absalom what cannot be his. Given the presumption that David ought to save Absalom, the question seems to arise, in particular through the mashal's association with the story of Sarah and Abraham, but also with the Cain and Abel episode, whether Absalom should be brought back to Jerusalem or left in exile. The mashal displays an awareness of strictures generated from, or at least witnessed in, legal and narrative material that constrain David's choice so that doing what is right puts his very kingdom at risk. Finally, as an adumbration of the Bathsheba episode, the mashal makes for a fascinating contrast between Absalom and Solomon. The Tekoite in 2 Samuel 14 goes to all the same efforts, apparently to save Absalom, as does Bathsheba to save Solomon. The irony is that despite their similar stories, and even their etymologically similar names, Absalom is doomed precisely because Solomon was chosen! Furthermore, in the constellation formed by the Nabal, Absalom, and Solomon episodes, despite the similarity between his name and Solomon's, Absalom's fate is much more like Nabal's. Moreover, with the sibling rivalry topos in view, much as Abraham's rehearsal and loss of his son in Genesis 21 adumbrate the events in ch. 22, where Isaac, the chosen son, is eventually spared, so too David rehearses the events leading to the loss of his son (chs. 13-20) before very similar events with Bathsheba secure the destiny of the divinely chosen son. Clearly, there are a number of narrative analogues here that reflect the ambivalence with which David must have approached these fateful decisions. So far we have considered the topoi of 'sibling rivalry' and 'woman with a cause' in isolation. The results of our investigation point to the conclusion that 2 Sam. 14.1-11 represent the intersection of these two topoi. This 'combination' of topoi suggests the phenomenon that is central to the discussion in the next chapter: the agglutinative quality of the narrative meshalim in general and of the Tekoite's in particular. Only in the context of the other narrative meshalim does the significance of this agglutinative quality emerge. It is to a consideration of the genre of the narrative mashal that we next turn.

Chapter 3 'LIKE WATER POURED OUT ON THE GROUND' In the two preceding chapters we have considered the relevant topoi by which to understand increasingly larger parts of the wise woman of Tekoa's mashal. In this chapter, we consider the whole of the Tekoite's mashal (2 Sam. 14.1-20). As has been frequently noted in the preceding chapters, numerous questions arise because of the imperfect analogue between the mashal and the narrative to which it is supposed to apply. It is these questions and many more that are generated by vv. 1-20 that I wish to address in this chapter. Fortunately our mashal is one of several examples of narrative meshalim found in the Hebrew Bible.1 We begin by considering the genre of narrative meshalim in general.2 Many of our questions about the mashal of the wise woman 1. Gerhardsson (The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels', pp. 33963) also uses the term 'narrative meshalim' in his discussion of the literary form under consideration. Gerhardsson applies the term to the New Testament parables as well. Again, by applying the same term to these literary forms in the two testaments, one runs the risk of obfuscating as much as one seeks to clarify. It is not my purpose to challenge Gerhardsson's typology, rather to note that his use of the term is slightly different from mine. This is made clearest by his identification of a slightly different set of narrative meshalim from mine (see p. 343). 2. Coats ('Parable, Fable, and Anecdote', pp. 368-82) has addressed a similar question with regard to 2 Sam. 12.1-4. His interest is in the genre 'parable' and he identifies 2 Sam. 12 as a fable, 2 Sam. 14, 1 Kgs 3, and 2 Kgs 6 as anecdotes. Clearly, his approach to much of the same material that is the focus here takes a different tack. I begin by noting that I have included the passages from 1 and 2 Kings in the last chapter under the discussion of women with a cause. To call these two stories anecdotes of the same kind as the Tekoite's, again, obscures as much as it reveals. In particular, Coats's recognition that there is resemblance between these texts and 2 Sam. 14 is correct. I simply think he traced the less productive of the associations between them. That is to say that the 'woman with a cause' topos reveals more associations and commonalities between these three texts than does viewing them as anecdotes. See also Simon ('Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb', pp. 207-42)

128

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

of Tekoa are best answered in light of its genre. Three phenomena associated with the narrative meshalim are especially useful in illumining the Tekoite's mashal. The first is the way that the meshalim are 'stitched' into their local narrative surroundings. The second is the way that the narrative meshalim develop larger, more universal themes. Finally, the third important characteristic of the meshalim is their consistently agglutinative quality. All three of these qualities we need briefly discuss as they emerge from three other narrative meshalim found in the Hebrew Bible. Only after considering these three meshalim and the three central characteristics related to them can we move on to elaborate the significance of the Tekoite's mashal. In the following we shall consider not only the three other examples of narrative meshalim but also other literary material related to each of them. First, we shall consider 1 Kgs 20.35-43 and how this mashal is integrated into its narrative surroundings. In particular, the mashal not only relates to the events involving Ahab and Ben-Hadad that immediately precede it, but also to the narrative of Naboth's vineyard that immediately follows in 1 Kings 21. The mashal appears to be intended to comment on Ahab's relationship with both Ben-Hadad and Naboth. Much like the mashal in 1 Kings 20, the second mashal that we shall consider, Jotham's in Judg. 9.6-20, is carefully integrated into its surrounding narrative. Again, the mashal not only picks up the immediately preceding narrative (in Judg. 8) in which Gideon is offered the chance to become king, but it also develops, in very subtle ways, the arboreal imagery that is so central to the rest of Judges 9. Further, as it turns out, the record of Abimelech's death in Judges 9 proves to have significance in the Court History as well when it is referred to in 2 Sam. 11.21. The third mashal that we shall consider is found in 2 Sam. 12.1-12. Known as 'Nathan's mashal', this text proves to be intricately woven into the fabric of the Court History. In particular, it provides the who calls 1 Kgs 20, 2 Sam. 12 and 14, Isa. 5, and Jer. 3 'juridical' parables. Herein I leave out the two prophetic 'parables' and add Jotham's mashal in Judg. 9. The reason I delete the two prophetic passages is that they do not inform our understanding of our mashal as a narrative mashal. They are not integrated into a larger narrative in the same way that the meshalim under consideration are. As will be noted below, the inclusion of Jotham's mashal is due to its usefulness in illumining the function of 2 Sam. 14.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

129

wellspring for most of the important themes that run through this narrative, such as the question of sexual propriety and the prediction that David's son will eventually usurp him. Beyond these associations with the Court History, Nathan's mashal also proves to be closely associated with the story of Naboth's vineyard. The way that each of these meshalim is integrated into its narrative proves invaluable for understanding how the Tekoite's mashal is integrated into its narrative surroundings. But these narrative meshalim also pick up on more universal themes found throughout the biblical narrative. Indeed, the meshalim are best understood both in the narrow and in the wide angle 'lens' of their narrative associations. That the meshalim are closely associated with more distant texts suggests that they likely have origins that are independent of the narratives in which they are now found. In fact, they can best be understood as pithy parabolic formulations of the values and morals embedded in related texts, both local and distant. Their independent origins help to explain the irregular fit they often have with their present narratives. This irregular fit is exaggerated by the third phenomenon that we need to address before diving into the texts: the agglutinative nature of the meshalim. All the meshalim, with the possible exception of Nathan's, appear to be made up of distinct and independent elements. The composite nature of the meshalim helps to account for the multiple interpretive trajectories implied by them. Despite their careful integration into the surrounding narratives, the disparate parts of the meshalim continually point toward their separate textual associations outside of their present context. The goal in the following is to use these three meshalim as a means of defining the genre and gaining a clearer understanding of its character. With this understanding as a background, we shall then consider the Tekoite's mashal, in light of how it is integrated into its narrative. In particular, I am interested in how her mashal picks up and utilizes larger biblical themes and literary motifs, especially the 'sibling rivalry' and 'woman with a cause' topoi. Finally, I am interested in revealing how this complex weave of traditionary threads forms and conveys its message(s) to David.

130

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

1. er«rrn« inti 'Guard This Man!' We turn to 1 Kings 20 for our first example of a narrative mashal. The chapter, as a whole, tells of Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, attacking Samaria and making what seem to Ahab, king of Israel, unreasonable demands. As a result, Ahab gets the advice from an unnamed prophet to go on the offensive. This ends in a rather telling defeat of Aram, but not a final one, since Aram regroups and plans a second attack. Once again, Ahab is told by 'the man of God' that Israel will prevail and, indeed, this time Israel exacts considerable tribute from the captive king of Aram (Ben-Hadad) who eventually bargains for his life and release. The messages to Ahab from the unknown prophet seem to imply, though this is never explicitly stated, that he is to show no mercy to King Ben-Hadad. At least this is the implication of the brief prophetic mashal that follows the narrative, a translation of which follows. 35

A certain man, one of the disciples of the prophets, said to his fellow, 'by the word of Yhwh, strike me'; but the man refused to strike him. 36 He said to him, 'Because you did not heed Yhwh, you are going to depart from me and be struck by a lion.' He departed from his presence and a lion found him and struck him down. 37The man found another and said, 'Strike me'. The man struck him and wounded him. 38The prophet went and waited for the king by the road and disguised himself with a bandage over his eyes. 39When the king passed by, he cried out to the king, 'Your servant went into the midst of the battle and suddenly a man turned, came over to me, and said, "Guard this man! If he should escape, it will be your life for his or you will pay a talent of silver." 40Your servant was doing this and that and all of a sudden the man was gone.' The king of Israel responded to him, This is your judgement, you yourself have declared it.' 41He quickly removed the bandage from his eyes and the king of Israel recognized him as one of the prophets. 42He said to him, Thus says Yhwh: because you have let go the man that I condemned, it will be your life for his and your people for his.' 43The king went to his house in Samaria depressed and in despair.

The second part of this passage (vv. 39-43) is familiar to anyone acquainted with the genre of narrative meshalim. Like the mashal in 2 Samuel 14, the king is told a fabricated story in order to elicit a judgment that reflects on his own situation. Yet, while this second part of the mashal is familiar, the first part seems strange indeed. In fact, vv. 35-37 are closer to a prophetic 'sign-act' that implies that because

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

131

he failed to strike down Ben-Hadad, Ahab will be struck down. In v. 39 we expect to find the lesson to be drawn from this sign-act but, instead, get a second 'veiled' message, this time in the form of a mashal proper.3 The relationship between the motifs of 'sign-act' and 'mashal' in the Hebrew Bible in general is fascinating. In a sign-act, a prophet's acts represent a dramatization and performance of the kind of story that is the basis of a mashal. In fact, it is likely that the linkage of the two halves of the passage above is based on the intuitive recognition that the two forms are closely associated. While the 'signact' here indicts Ahab for not killing Ben-Hadad, the mashal informs him that he should not have set him free. It appears that the 'double' message of the 'sign-act' and of the mashal has been collapsed into a kind of hybrid form of 'sign-act/mashal' in this passage. Both essentially say, 'You should not have been so easy on Ben-Hadad!'4 The recognition of this mixing of two separate genres is key to understanding how narrative meshalim coalesce. Far from following an abstract and fixed formula in its composition, this passage comes together as a pastiche of elements, each vaguely reminiscent of the other and each, to a certain degree, following a similar trajectory but maintaining its own peculiar set of concerns and lessons. For instance, in the 'sign-act' the prophet, as the one who ought to be struck, apparently represents Ben-Hadad, while in the mashal the prophet, as the one who failed to keep his prisoner, represents Ahab. The resulting complementary but 'loose' fit makes precise, univocal interpretation quite impossible, since the materials of which the passage is composed themselves take different paths and imply different messages. While the sign-act and mashal here convey roughly the same message (failure properly to punish Ben-Hadad will eventuate in Ahab's death), the overlap of the forms and their separate trajectories make ambiguous the 'point(s)' the passage is able to convey. This combination of two different but associated forms and messages is important for understanding other examples of the narrative meshalim considered below. The result of the mixing of literary types here is to incorporate the 3. This secondary and slightly conflicting message is an important element not only for understanding this mashal, but especially for understanding vv. 13-14 of the Tekoite's mashal. See below discussion of these verses in Ch. 3 §4.c. 4. Neither Montgomery (The Books of Kings, p. 323) nor Gray (1 and 2 Kings [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1970], pp. 431-33) notes the problem of the mixing of forms here; rather, they read vv. 35-43 as a whole.

132

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

sign-act into a larger mashal. In the following, I refer to the whole passage (vv. 35-43) as the larger mashal and to vv. 39-43 as the short mashal. First, it is necessary to concentrate on the short mashal in vv. 39-43 and to determine the basic outline of the genre. The short mashal begins in v. 39 with the set up or fabricated problem. As the king goes by, the prophet tells his fabricated story of failing to keep his captive under his control and even announces the predetermined judgment due in the case. In v. 40a, the prophet admits that he has failed in his duty. Verses 39-40a comprise the first element of the mashal genre, the setting of the problem, which I will call the mashal proper. In v. 40b, the king responds by saying, essentially, 'you have pronounced your own verdict'. This response is typical of the genre of meshalim and comprises its second main element, the (king's) reaction or proclamation. Verses 41-43 detail the means by which the prophet reveals to the king that the mashal proper applies to him. The three constituent elements of the narrative mashal, then, are 1) the mashal proper, 2) the reaction and proclamation of the one to whom it is addressed, and 3) the application of the mashal to its 'target'.5 The short mashal in 1 Kgs 20.39-43 is so useful because of its brevity and relatively straightforward application. It is especially good for establishing the outline of the genre of narrative meshalim.6 Moreover, 5. Note that this outline works for all of the meshalim as well and that for the larger mashal in vv. 35-43 we merely need to expand the first element to include vv. 35-40a. 6. Furthermore, it contains many elements with significant associations with other narrative meshalim. First, like all the other meshalim, the mashal is presented (almost always to the king) by a second party. Like the mashal in 2 Sam. 12, here the short mashal is presented by a prophet. Second, and especially intriguing, is the way the king responds to the mashal proper. The king essentially says that the prophet has pronounced judgment on himself (v. 40). Keeping in mind that the prophet is a cipher for the king, this response is remarkable. In telling the prophet that he has pronounced judgment on himself, the king also refers to himself. Indeed, this is essentially what the prophet tells the king in the 'application' of the short mashal in the last half of the passage. This is of special interest in comparison with 2 Sam. 12, where the prophet Nathan tells King David that the king has pronounced judgment on himself. Montgomery (The Books of Kings, p. 327) calls the prophet's response in 1 Kgs 20.42 a replica of Nathan's Thou art the man' in 2 Sam. 12.7 but, as the discussion here implies, the relationship between these responses is much more complicated than he suggests. For now it is simply important to note the variation and manipulation of this element of the genre.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

133

while the situation of the short mashal is much like the circumstances in which Ahab finds himself, there are important differences. Notably, in the narrative that precedes, Ahab makes a deal with Ben-Hadad for his release rather than inadvertently letting him go. Another difference is the warning of the consequences for letting the prisoner escape. The previous narrative provides no such warning to Ahab. Furthermore, while the events of the mashal are supposed to have taken place during the heat of battle, Ahab's deal with Ben-Hadad was made in the relative calm following the defeat of Aram. It is unclear what we are to make of these differences between the mashal and narrative, but, as will become clear in the following investigation, they are of the sort that are rather standard with this genre. One last element worth mentioning is the punishment prescribed in the 'sign-act' in vv. 35-38. There, the prophet says that the one who failed to strike him will be killed by a lion. Apparently, the lesson of the sign-act is much like that of the short mashal that follows, yet, again, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the lesson of the sign-act and the consequences for Ahab. Despite these differences between the larger mashal and the surrounding narrative, there are signs that the former has been integrated into the latter. The short mashal implies that Ben-Hadad came into Ahab's possession as a result of God's action and, given the promises that precede Ben-Hadad's capture, it is likely that the narrative implies the same. Just as in the narrative, in the sign-act and short mashal the man who represents Ben-Hadad is not harmed and finds his freedom. Finally, one last element is of interest. In v. 42 the prophet quotes Yhwh saying, 'Because you let the man I had doomed get away, it will be your life for his and your people for his'. At this Ahab walks away dejected and saddened. One wonders why Ahab does not mention the payment option suggested in the mashal proper (v. 39), where the alternative to being killed was the payment of a talent of silver. It is unclear why Ahab fails to suggest this alternative, but it is of note that the notion of optional 'payment' for the wrong done has an analogue in the events surrounding Nathan's mashal in 2 Sam. 12. There, David pronounces that the rich man, who has stolen the poor man's lamb, is a dead man (niQ~p) and must pay back fourfold for the lamb he took. In this passage the punishments are understood in combination rather than as options but, notably, the two punishments are quite similar to those in 1 Kgs 20.41. While the short mashal here in 1 Kgs 20.39-43 has important associations with all of the narrative meshalim, it displays especially strong associations with Nathan's mashal in 2 Sam. 12. These associations will be taken up again below in discussing the latter passage.

134

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

In the larger context of the surrounding narrative, it is significant that Ahab is killed in battle with the Arameans (ch. 22). The larger mashal and greater narrative imply that Ahab's failure to deal appropriately with Ben-Hadad leads to his own death. More evidence that the mashal is integrated into its narrative is found in 1 Kgs 21.4 where, in reaction to Naboth's refusal to sell his vineyard to Ahab, the latter returns home dejected and saddened (NT! *]I?n ID 1JT3'1PN DKntf ). The language here is nearly identical to that in the last verse of the mashal which reads, The king of Israel went to his house dejected and saddened' (*]I?n 10 irrn'1?!? 'wicr'I^D "p^}.1 This similarity cannot be coincidence. The phrase at the end of the mashal most likely represents an editorial attempt to provide a transition from the mashal to the following narrative.8 But is the presence of the same description in these two verses merely an editor's attempt to associate two otherwise unassociated texts, or does it signal a deeper association between them? It is notable that the 'lesson' of the short mashal in 20.38-43 seems to be that Ahab should not have let BenHadad go and the 'lesson' of the sign-act and mashal together is that, indeed, Ahab should have killed Ben-Hadad. This 'dual' mashal is followed immediately by the Naboth episode which indicts Ahab for almost the opposite misconduct: here he kills when he should not! The phrase 'Have you both murdered and dispossessed?' in 21.14 reinforces this lesson. That the first case is 'international' in scope and the second domestic may provide the key to understanding these seemingly disparate messages for Ahab. That is, perhaps the real message is that one needs to come to know one's true enemies: Ben-Hadad deserves to be killed while Naboth does not. Whatever one makes of the tension between the mashal in 1 Kings 20 and the 'lesson' of the Naboth episode, that they are meant to be in tension and read 'against' each other seems likely.9 7. Cf. Est. 6.12 where Haman returns home in mourning and seeking the solace of his wife. 8. Montgomery (The Books of Kings, p. 330) and Gray (1 and 2 Kings, p. 385) both note the similarity of this language but do not address its significance. 9. In fact the first words of ch. 21 are, 'After these things. . . ' (D'HUTT "in» TH n^Nn). While this phrase likely represents a standard editorial device to smooth over the transition between stories, ancient interpreters often take it to signal some relationship between the narratives that immediately precede and follow it. More specifically, they often understand Q'Hinn to mean 'words' rather than 'things' and assume that the following narrative is related to the words most recently spoken (e.g. Gen. R.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

135

Finally, we consider the wider thematic associations of the larger mashal. It is clear that it is meant to relate, however imprecisely, to its narrative surroundings in 1 Samuel 20 and 21, but the mashal has an important association with a text considerably further afield. 1 Samuel 15 tells the story of Saul's attack on Agag. Prior to the attack Samuel comes to Saul with a message from Yhwh telling him to spare none of Agag's people or animals. In the subsequent attack, Saul captures, rather than kills, Agag. All of Agag's best cattle Saul saves in order to sacrifice to Yhwh. After the battle Samuel comes to Saul and points out his error in the famous passage that follows: 22

Samuel said: 'Does Yhwh take delight in burnt offerings or sacrifices As much as listening to his voice? To obey is better than sacrifice, To listen than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, Willfulness like the wickedness of the teraphim. Because you have rejected the word of Yhwh, He has rejected you as king!'

The full implications of this passage cannot detain us now, but its significance for our larger mashal and narrative in 1 Kings 20 should be clear. In fact, the short mashal and its preceding companion 'signact' seem more accurately to reflect the circumstances surrounding Saul's failure with Agag than Ahab's with Ben-Hadad.10 The specificity of the commands and the admonishments in 1 Samuel 15 matches that of the warnings in the 'sign-act/mashal'. Indeed, the larger mashal in 1 Kings 20 represents a pithy parabolic formulation of the lesson that these two associated stories in 1 Kings 20 and 1 Samuel 15 narrativize. All three texts, in their separate formulations, warn that retribution on enemies must be swift and thorough. The mashal teaches that Ahab's fate, like Saul's, is sealed when he fails to follow through on this basic lesson. Like all the other meshalim that I shall discuss below, this one comprises an attempt to integrate a larger lesson into a more local narrative. 55.1, 4). The discussion above suggests that there are a number of reasons to accept this presumption. In fact, on one reading, it appears that Ahab has failed to learn his lesson, since he is unable, by himself, to rid himself of his new antagonist, Naboth. 10. Radaq implies a similar point when he associates v. 35 with the Saul/Agag conflict.

136

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

It seems likely that the two basic elements of the mashal, the signact and short mashal, had some sort of independent life before being placed in their current narrative context. But even in combination as the larger mashal, they may well have functioned relatively independently of their present narrative locus. It is, perhaps, most likely that the larger mashal has been placed where it is by the Deuteronomistic Historian (or associated editor), but why here? Was it always associated with Ahab or could it have been applied (with the proper name changes) to Saul as well? Given its closer correspondence to the events in Saul's experience, it would seem that the mashal may have been better placed in 1 Samuel 15. It is impossible to solve this dilemma without entering into entirely circular argumentation, but for our purposes it is simply important to note the fact that the mashal has associations beyond its own more narrow narrative context that are crucial to understanding its message and, thus, the other passages with which it is associated.11 This is a phenomenon that we also witness in our next example of a narrative mashal, Jotham's in Judg. 9.6-20.

2. ir^jr-f'pn nnN -p itDKrr^K D^irr^D TiDtri 'And All the Trees Said to the Thorn Bush, "Come Be King Over Us!" ' The second narrative mashal with which we must deal is found in Judg. 9.6-20. This passage is usually labeled a fable, defined as a story about personified plants or animals meant to teach a lesson.12 While Jotham's is distinct at several points from the other narrative meshalim, there are a number of reasons to include it in our discussion. As will become clear, the text functions within its present literary context in much the same way as the other narrative meshalim. Moreover, its complex composition and resonance with both local and distant texts

11. It is interesting that Nathan's mashal in 2 Sam. 12, addressed below, shares with this mashal the characteristic of being more applicable to a narrative other than the one to which it is attached. As will become clearer during the course of discussion, this broader applicability of the mashal, or at least many parts of it, is important for understanding the Tekoite's message for David. 12. See for instance R. Stewart, 'Parable Form in the Old Testament and Rabbinic Literature', EvQ 36 (1964), pp. 133-47. Note that, like the term 'parable', 'fable' derives from the western, Greek canon and therefore threatens to obscure as much as it can reveal in its application to Hebrew biblical material.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

137

are quite informative for understanding the same phenomena as they relate to the other narrative meshalim. The narrative in which Jotham's mashal is embedded tells the story of Gideon's son Abimelech who seeks to become king of Shechem (Judg. 9.1-8). In order to secure his claim, Abimelech kills his seventy brothers. Only the youngest son of Gideon, Jotham, escapes Abimelech's mass fratricide. The people of Shechem gather at the terebinth Cp^K) of Shechem and declare Abimelech king.13 In response, Jotham comes and pronounces this mashal to the Shechemites: 8

The trees went to anoint a king over them. They said to the olive tree, 'Be king over us!' 9 The olive said to them, 'Have I, in whom God and men are honored, stopped yielding my oil, that I should come and wave over the trees?' 10 The trees said to the fig tree, 'Come, be king over us!' 1 ^he fig tree said to them, 'Have I stopped yielding my sweetness, my good fruit, that I should come and wave over the trees?' 12 The trees said to the vine, 'Come, be king over us!' 13 The vine said to them, 'Have I stopped yielding my new wine which gladdens God and men, that I should come and wave over the trees?' 14 The trees said to the thorn bush, 'Come, be king over us!' 13. Given the arboreal imagery in the following, it seems likely that we are to see some irony in the Shechemites' declaration of Abimelech as king at the terebinth of Shechem. Especially ironic is the fact that no real tree will accept the offer of kingship and that Abimelech, nothing more than a thorn bush, does accept. Perhaps we are to envisage Abimelech, as a thorn bush, at the base of the terebinth of Shechem and recognize from the outset of this narrative his presumption. Note too the arboreal imagery in vv. 46-49 where Abimelech lops off tree branches to get even with the Shechemites as if to deny them the 'shade' of any tree/king (cf. v. 15) if they refuse his authority. This arboreal/royal imagery is consistent with other texts in the Hebrew Bible. See, for instance, Jer. 23.5; 33.15; Ps. 132.17; and Zech. 3.8 among others. B. Halpern (The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel [Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981], p. 143) argues that Abimelech is depicted as a bramble to emphasize his humility. This, argues Halpern, fits in with 'Near Eastern ideology of kingship. . . the candidate eventually selected is of humble origin'. While this 'ideology' fits well the narratives of the selection of David and Saul, the message of the mashal in Judges implies that the emphasis is on the unworthiness of the 'bramble' and not on its humble origins.

138

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa 15

The thorn bush said to the trees, 'If in honesty you anoint me to be king over you, Come, seek refuge in my shadow. But if not, may fire come from the bush and consume the cedars of Lebanon'.

16

Now, if it is in honesty and purity that you have acted in making Abimelech king, if you have done right by Jerubbaal and his house, and if you have repaid him in kind—17it was my father who fought for you and risked his life and saved you from Midian, 18and now you have turned against my father's house today and killed his seventy sons, each on a single stone and have made Abimelech, son of his handmaid, king over the Shechemites because he is your kinsman14—19if in honesty and purity you have acted with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then take joy in Abimelech and may he also take joy in you. 20If not, may fire come from Abimelech and consume the Shechemites and Beth Millo, and may fire come from the Shechemites and Beth Millo and consume Abimelech.

There is much to be gained by careful analysis of this passage. Verses 8-15 constitute the 'mashal' proper. The trees in the mashal represent the Shechemites and the thorn bush, Abimelech. The message of the mashal, on first blush, seems relatively clear: only the thorn bush, of no real use otherwise, is willing to be anointed king.15 The problem is that this does not accurately reflect the relationship between Shechem and Abimelech. The mashal implies that the Shechemites, seeking a king, eventually turn to Abimelech who reluctantly accepts. But in reality Abimelech actively seeks to become king and even pleads his case in Judg. 9.1-2. So how does the mashal fit the circumstances of the narrative in which it is embedded? The answer to this question lies in the larger narrative context of Judges. In fact, the

14. Note that as the 'handmaid's son', Abimelech is depicted in ways similar to Ishmael (Gen. 16 and 21) and Jephthah in Judg. 11. In fact, the way that Jotham points out his brother's 'unseemly' origins is much like the way Sarah points out Ishmael's (Gen. 21.10) and the way Jephthah's brothers point out his in Judg. 11.2. 15. Most see this part of the mashal as containing an essentially anti-monarchical message. See, for instance, J.A. Soggin, Judges (trans. J. Bowden; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1987), p. 174. In contrast, E.H. Maly (The Jotham Fable— Antimonarchical?', CBQ 22 [1960], p. 303) argues that the point of the mashal is to indict those who refuse the burden of kingship. See also Halpern, Constitution, pp. 142-44. Rather than debate the merits of these positions, it is more important to note that the mashal contains such a mixed message that either of these positions represents a reasonable and internally consistent reading.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

139

mashal must be understood as a device by which Abimelech is contrasted with his father Gideon.16 In the story leading to this mashal, Gideon is asked by the Israelites to rule over them (Judg. 8.22). Gideon's response is that neither he nor his son or grandson, but only Yhwh, should rule over Israel. It is Gideon's circumstances that are reflected in the mashal when the trees actively seek a king. The appropriate response is represented not only by Gideon but by the olive, fig, and vine in the mashal. Notably Gideon's refusal was threefold ('neither I, my son, nor grandson'), just as the trees' refusals are threefold.17 The mashal makes for a striking contrast between Gideon, who refused to accept kingship even when sought out, and his son, who went to great effort to gain it. All of this is made doubly ironic when one considers that Abimelech's name means 'my father is king'.18 The point of the mashal is that, as much as he deserved it, Abimelech's father was not king. How much more should Abimelech be denied the role.19 While the first part of the mashal, through v. 14, actually applies to Gideon, v. 15 tells of the acceptance of the kingship by the thorn bush, or Abimelech.20 The description of the fire that goes out from the 16. Notably, the Tekoite's mashal can be understood to incorporate a similar function. This is especially true when David's wisdom is seemingly compared to Solomon's or when associations with the sibling rivalry topos cast that rather long, dark shadow over David's sexual liaisons. Notable as well is that David comes out the worse for these kinds of comparisons whereas Jotham's mashal seems to indict only Abimelech. 17. Radaq makes a similar point when he notes that the trees' threefold attempt to attain a king are like the threefold attempt of the Israelites to persuade Gideon to become king in Judg. 8.22. 18. R. Boling (Judges [AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975], pp. 162-63) insists that Abimelech is a pagan name (understanding 'father' to refer to a god other than Yhwh) and doubts that the devout Yahwist Gideon would have thus named his son. While his logic is open to question, more significantly, he misses the irony gained in so naming Gideon's son and, moreover, presumes historical veracity that is difficult to maintain with this text. L.R. Klein (The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges [Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988], p. 71 and pp. 78-79) also stresses the irony implied by Abimelech's name. 19. Notable is that Abimelech's ascent to the kingship falsifies the middle claim of Gideon, that his son would not become king. Halpern argues that Gideon's refusal of the kingship was merely a smokescreen to hide the fact that he had already founded a priestly dynasty (Constitution, p. 184). 20. Many have stressed the transitional role played by v. 15. They see v. 15 as the

140

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

thorn bush serves as an allusion to the events that follow in the narrative where Abimelech, in getting even with Shechem, attempts to burn it down.21 So while the first part of the mashal looks backward and makes reference to Gideon, the second part points forward to Abimelech and the consequences of kingship. Verse 15, on close reading, is not without its own difficulties for the interpreter. Does it reflect positively or negatively on the institution of kingship? On the one hand, v. 15b can be read as highlighting the natural and highly negative consequences of seeking a king: he will only make your life miserable and possibly seek your life. But the first part of the verse interjects language that makes the conclusion to the mashal hard to interpret. Verse 15a simply says that if the trees are acting in sincerity they will find refuge in the shadow of the thorn bush. But how much shadow does this bush provide, especially to the olive or fig tree? It is quite difficult to gauge the nuance of the first half of v. 15. It might mean that the trees had better accept the thorn bush's offer or nothing at all. Or it could mean that the bush (like many who would be king) has a very overblown notion of what it can provide for the other trees and that the trees themselves also overestimate what it can provide. As a consequence, the chances that 'fire will come forth from the bush' are very great, since all parties enter this agreement with unreasonable expectations. On the other hand, perhaps the plea for loyalty does not represent an overblown self-image of the thorn bush, but simply a straightforward proposition that if loyal, the subjects can expect similar treatment from the king, no matter how inadequate he is. This difficulty in reading v. 15 is made no easier by its 'application' that follows in vv. 16-20 nor by the narrative that tells of the consequences for picking Abimelech as king. The 'split personality' of v. 15 is difficult to understand, but is likely the result of a high degree of ambivalence about kingship.22 However one answers the question about the message of v. 15, it is crucial to note that it, means by which the mashal is integrated with the larger narrative. See, for example, Soggin (Judges, p. 176). Boling (Judges, p. 174) notes that many view v. 15 as a redactional attempt to join a pre-existing fable to our narrative. It is clear that v. 15 serves as a transition between what comes before and after it but it seems arbitrary to presume it is redactional rather than the product of the 'author'. 21. See Judg. 9.43-46. 22. This kind of ambivalence is witnessed throughout the Deuteronomistic History and is especially in evidence in texts like 1 Sam. 8-15 that seem so closely associated with Jotham's mashal.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

141

like the rest of the mashal proper in vv. 8-15, cannot be read as univocal. At the same time that v. 15 conveys the ambivalence about kingship that prevails in so much biblical literature, the mashal proper, as a whole, points backward and forward in the narrative and, like the 'sign-act/mashal' of 1 Kgs 20.35-43, in the process conveys distinct and not altogether compatible messages. These multiple narrative and thematic trajectories are brought to the narrative by way of the complex composition of the meshalim. As a consequence, it is no wonder that they require careful and thoughtful unpacking. Next, we consider the last part of Jotham's mashal, vv. 16-20. As noted above, the passage represents the application. This application picks up on the mixed message of v. 15 and makes it even more ambiguous.23 In particular, vv. 16 and 19 continue the message that if the Shechemites are acting honorably, then they will be able to delight in their king and he in them. The application makes an important addition to the query about the motive for selecting a king. Here the Shechemites are to act not just on an abstract notion of honor but out of loyalty to Gideon (Jerubbaal). In other words, Jotham interprets the mashal's requirement for loyalty to apply to Abimelech's father, not to Abimelech himself. In fact, in v. 17 Jotham reminds the Shechemites that Gideon risked his life in order to save them from the Midianites and in v. 18 reminds them, in the same breath, that they killed Gideon's seventy sons and selected Abimelech as king. There is considerable irony in this plea for loyalty within which is a reminder of the Shechemites' disloyalty to Gideon. In other words, Jotham's application of the mashal interprets v. 15 to say that loyalty to their new king is impossible. Furthermore, there is even deeper irony in his plea for loyalty to Gideon (who refused to be king) in selecting a king. So, Jotham's application picks up and makes more complicated the message of the mashal. At the same time, it reflects the recognition that the mashal does indeed point both to Gideon and to Abimelech. As a result, while Jotham's application appears to represent the way in which the mashal has been 'stitched' into its narrative, it does so by maintaining the multiple trajectories through that narrative that are suggested by the mashal proper. While the mashal appears to have been incorporated into its narrative, this has not been done at the expense of 23. B. Webb (The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading [JSOTSup, 46; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987], p. 155) argues that the main thrust of Jotham's speech lies in vv. 16-20.

142

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

multivocality; there are no easy interpretations here! Finally, we turn to the last verse of the application where Jotham repeats the warning that if the Shechemites are not acting out of loyalty they will be 'burned' by their new king. It is important to remember that in Jotham's formulation, the loyalty of which he speaks is to Gideon, and that vv. 17 and 18 have reminded the Shechemites of their disloyalty to him. In other words, this last verse says that this attempt to select a king is doomed. Most importantly, Jotham adds to the warning that the selection of a king will result in his demise as well. This warning proves true in the following narrative in which the Shechemites withdraw their support for Abimelech who returns to Shechem and burns the citizens to death. Verses 48-49 describe Abimelech cutting the branches from trees (D^U fDlto) for fuel to burn the Shechemites. This imagery is fascinating because the 'trees', as ciphers for the Shechemites, supply the fuel for their own demise. Furthermore, with their branches cut off, no trees can supply the shade promised by the bush that would be king.24 Finally, Abimelech is killed while attempting to burn down the tower of Tebez, as he had burned the tower of Shechem. Abimelech's death comes about when a woman throws an upper millstone on his head and crushes his skull. In order to avoid having it said that a woman killed him, Abimelech has one of his retainers run him through with a sword. The preceding provides ample evidence of the ways in which Jotham's mashal has been stitched, however roughly, into its surrounding narrative while, at the same time, maintaining the disparate messages that are implied by its constituent elements.25 However, it is important to note that the mashal can be read against other texts as well. In particular, the text with which it has most resonance outside of Judges is in the story of Saul. In 1 Samuel 8 the elders of Israel come to Samuel to request that a king be appointed over them. The message in 1 Samuel 8 is like the message of the mashal: kingship is undesirable and only men of questionable motives would accept (or seek) kingship. One could simply attribute both texts, with such similar sentiments, to the Deuteronomistic Historian but that fails to 24. See also n. 11 above. 25. For a summary of the solutions proposed for explaining the relationship between the mashal and surrounding narrative see Soggin, Judges, pp. 173-75. I essentially agree with him that the mashal is likely of independent origin (pp. 175 and 178).

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

143

account for how the mashal functions in its present context. Like the prophet's mashal in 1 Kgs 20.35-43, Jotham's mashal must be understood within the narrow context of the narrative in which it is found as well as the larger history of which it is a part and within which it forms an integral idiomatic expression. Another way that Jotham's mashal and its related material in Judges 9 are associated with other texts can be seen in the description of Abimelech's death. Interestingly enough, the accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1 tell a story very similar to that of the death of Abimelech.26 In the first account, Saul, when he realizes the Philistines will capture him at Gilboa, calls on his arms bearer to kill him but when the retainer refuses, Saul falls on his sword. The language of the account is important; 1 Sam. 31.4 reads as follows: ."ripTi n^n o-'rujn mr^a TO "npn "pin *pn T^D sgtf? "TIWZJ noun Saul said to his arms bearer, 'Draw your sword and run me through right here lest these uncircumcised men run me through.'

Compare this with Abimelech's command to his retainer: nm -1? riaN'-ja ^nmai "pin *pti ib -on r^p vsm IOT-^R mna mp-i .TIU] mp-n nnnn He called quickly to his retainer, the arms bearer, and said to him, 'Draw your sword and kill me lest it be said about me that a woman killed me.' And so his retainer ran him through.

The second account of Saul's death relates a slightly different story but one with equally important parallels with Abimelech's. In 2 Sam. 1.6-10, David learns from an Amalekite retainer of Saul's death. The retainer relates that Saul fell on his spear and while still alive requested that the boy finish him off, which he did. It is impossible to determine the exact relationship between the two accounts of Saul's death and the single account of Abimelech's, but all three are clearly associated. 1 Samuel 31 shares identical language with much of Judges 9, but 2 Samuel 1 shares the scenario in which the injured king is finished off by an associate. Whatever the source of this similarity, it is of note

26. D. Jobling (The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analysis in the Hebrew Bible, II [Sheffield: Almond Press, 1986], pp. 44-87), and Polzin (Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 223-24) both point out the verbal similarities between these texts but fail to elaborate on the significance thereof.

144

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

that Jotham's mashal, whose narrative ends with Abimelech's death, applies equally well to Saul, whose death is so much like Abimelech's. In other words, Saul's unseemly death, like Abimelech's, seems to be, at least in part, the result of his selection as king in spite of the warnings to the people against so doing. Perhaps more important than the association between these stories of royal deaths, the account of Abimelech's is retold in 2 Sam. 11.21, just before Nathan's narrative mashal. Discussion of the full significance of this citation must await consideration of the latter passage. To summarize, Jotham's mashal reflects a complex mixture of material. Much like the larger mashal in 1 Kgs 20.3-43, the messages of its first half are clearly distinct from those of its second half. Moreover, this combination of messages makes for multiple interpretive trajectories, not only within its more local narrative, but even within more distant ones. Jotham's mashal, whatever its origins, has been carefully interlaced with its narrative. It looks both forward to Abimelech's failed reign and backward to Gideon's example of the man who, though worthy, refused the role of king. Consider, too, the prevalence of arboreal imagery throughout the Abimelech narrative that is so nicely tapped by the mashal.27 Moreover, the mashal reflects a broader anxiety about kingship and would fit equally well somewhere between 1 Samuel 8 and 15, where the Israelites' desire for and success in attaining their first king ends in a similarly bad choice. Further, the similarities in the stories of the deaths of Abimelech and Saul reinforce the associations between them and the broad applicability of the mashal in Judges 9. Again, Jotham's mashal appears to be a pithy parabolic formulation of the lessons(s) embedded in its associated narratives. This implies a relatively independent origin of the mashal, at least its first half. All this goes far, as we shall see, toward elaborating the complex and dense message of the Tekoite. Finally we simply note, again, that the Court History makes a conscious reference to the account of Abimelech's death (Judg. 9.53-55) just before Nathan's narrative mashal in 2 Sam. 12.1-12. It is to this latter text that we now turn our attention.

27. See n. 13 and discussion at n. 20.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

145

3. trrKn nnK 'You Are the Man!'

The final text we consider in order better to understand the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa is Nathan's mashal in 2 Sam. 12.1-12, the translation of which follows: 1

Yhwh sent Nathan to David. He came and said to him: 'There were two men in a single city, one rich and one poor. 2 The rich man had many flocks and herds 3 But the poor man had only a single little ewe-lamb that he had bought. He raised it and it grew up with him together with his children and it ate from his bread and drank from his cup. It would lie in his bosom and was like a daughter to him. 4 A traveler came to the rich man but he hesitated to take from his own flocks and herds to prepare for the guest who had come to him. He took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.' 5

David became angry about the man and said to Nathan, 'As Yhwh lives, the man who did this is a dead man. 6And the lamb he shall repay fourfold because of this thing that he has done and because he showed no mercy.' 28 7Nathan said to David, 'You are the man! Thus says Yhwh God of Israel, "It was I who anointed you king over Israel, who saved you from the hand of Saul.29 8I gave to you your master's house; your master's wives I placed in your bosom and I gave to you Israel and Judah; in just a little bit I would have given twice as much. 9Why did you spurn the word of Yhwh by doing what is evil to him? Uriah the Hittite you have struck down by the sword, his wife you have taken as your wife, and him you killed by the sword of the Ammonites. 10Now the sword will never turn away from your house because you have spurned me and taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife." ] lrThus says Yhwh, "I am about to raise evil against you from your own house and I will take

28. The LXX has 'sevenfold', but note that 'fourfold' agrees with Exod. 21.37. Many wish to emend to agree with the LXX, presuming the MT has been altered to agree with Exodus. The logic here is a bit fuzzy. The number 7 could represent an attempt to bring the text in line with an auspicious number as much as the number 4 might represent the attempt to harmonize our text with Exodus. I, for reasons that will become clear below, would leave the MT as is. 29. As McCarter (2 Samuel, p. 300) points out, many believe vv. 7b-12 are secondary, coming from the hand of the Deuteronomistic Historian. McCarter accepts this passage as original, as do I, the reasons for which will become clear below.

146

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa away your wives right in front of you and give them to your fellow, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12For you have acted in secret, but I will do this thing before all of Israel and before the sun.'"

Even in a cursory reading of this passage one could hardly miss its threefold structure: 1) mashal proper in vv. 1-4; 2) reaction and pronouncement in vv. 5-6; and 3) the application in vv. 7-12. Clearly there are slight variations here from the other examples of the genre, but its main outline is obvious enough.30 Like the other meshalim, Nathan's makes for a rather awkward fit with its surrounding narrative.31 It is meant to inform the immediately preceding narrative of David's liaison with Bathsheba.32 In that story, David invites Bathsheba to his palace after seeing her bathing from his rooftop. After her visit, she becomes pregnant and David arranges for her husband Uriah to come home so that he might sleep with Bathsheba and cover David's paternity. When Uriah refuses to go home, David arranges to have him killed and in the end marries Bathsheba. But how do the details of the mashal relate to that story? Apparently David is the rich man and Uriah the poor. This means that Bathsheba is represented by the lamb. If this much is relatively clear, the remaining details of the mashal are less so. Whom does the traveler represent? How does Bathsheba correspond to the lamb that is raised by the man? If the mashal matched the details of the narrative more closely, David would have taken Bathsheba for someone other than himself. Much of this disparity between mashal and narrative, as we have noted before, is due to the agglutinative nature of the meshalim as well as their independent origins. The result of these factors is the fact that the meshalim can have numerous thematic and verbal associations that multiply and make ambiguous its message. In the following we consider each of the three parts of the mashal and how they function to weave the mashal into the larger Court History. 30. V.H. Matthews ('The King's Call to Justice', BZ 35 [1991], pp. 204-16) has treated 2 Sam. 12 as part of a body of texts that includes 1 Kgs 11.11-12, 30; 14.714; and 1 Kgs 21.21-29. His goal is to uncover a literary framework imposed on the Deuteronomistic History and is far from my focus here. Notably he views 2 Sam. 12.1-12 in considerably different light. 31. Polzin (David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 120-30) goes into considerable detail on the problem. 32. The David and Bathsheba episode has drawn considerable interest of late. For a thorough bibliography on this text see Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 223, n. 7.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

147

The mashal proper begins with the notice that there were two men in a certain city, one poor and one rich. Notably the language itself reflects the image of the difference between these two men. The most significant passage is the last half of v. 1, which reads: Vil D^DK *yfi :tftn in«1 T5DI? in« DON Tin. This clause contains two chiastic structures that reinforce its message and allude to the events of David's recent past. In the pairing of the words, TCJI? iriN nntf Tin, the second phrase reverses the order of the noun and numeral. Of more interest still is the adjective for the poor man (E>N~l) which reverses the last two consonants of the adjective for the rich man.33 Could this linguistic phenomenon be simply an accident of composition? Perhaps, but the fact that it mimics the reversal of David's role with Uriah's in the preceding narrative makes the word-play in the first verse of the mashal suspect, indeed!34 The second and third verse make for a striking contrast. The second verse relates, with remarkable economy, that the rich man had a lot of cattle and sheep. In contrast, the third verse tells, in more than four times as many words, of the poor man's single ewe-lamb. In the extended description of v. 3 a number of curious details are related. That the lamb is his only possession reinforces the notion that he is poor. It is less clear why the text stipulates that he had bought the lamb. Perhaps it is because of the nice alliteration of i~f]p "ICJN i"I]Qp or, perhaps, it implies that because he had purchased it, it was of special value. Further, the text says that he raised it and that it grew up along with his children. Adding to the familial language, the end of v. 3 says that the lamb was like a daughter to him. Perhaps the most intimate descriptions are that the lamb ate and drank from his own provisions and even slept in his 'bosom'. We are likely supposed to take all this description simply to indicate the tremendous value he put on the lamb and to understand that Uriah shared the same affection for Bathsheba. Furthermore, Nathan may subtly be signalling to David that he has 33. Notably, the consonants 2JK~) can also mean 'head'. This latter noun is consistently associated with the men who stand in the way of David (Naboth, Absalom, Sheba ben Bichri etc.). One wonders whether the application of 2JK"1 to the man who is the cipher for Uriah, who now stands in David's way, is related. 34. Note that the application of T2JI? andttJNHare reversed in the story in 1 Sam. 25. There, Nabal is the rich (T2J!?) and David the poor (2JK~l) man. This suggests a rather persistent and intentional (or at least traditional) application of these two similar-sounding words to David and his adversaries, not to mention the purposeful variation implied by their reversal.

148

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

pulled the wool over no one's eyes. Especially ironic in this message is David's relationship to the lamb. As the 'shepherd' of his people he is supposed to watch out for such lambs, not take and devour them.35 Finally, some of the language of this part of Nathan's mashal is illumined by its application in vv. 7-12 and will be considered in later discussion. It is v. 4 that introduces the element most difficult to square with the David and Bathsheba episode. How does the traveler of the mashal relate to the preceding narrative?36 Here, in the first half of v. 4, the rich man hesitates to take from any of his own sheep to prepare for the traveler who had come to him. The italicized phrase represents the last three words of the clause which read, in Hebrew, l^'fcOn mtf'?. Notably, the word for 'traveler' here sounds much like the name Uriah. That is, the phrase in question sounds much like, for Uriah who had come to him. This admittedly speculative understanding gains credence when one considers 11.10 where David uses the same verb when he asks Uriah, KH HDK "|~11Q Nl^n, 'Have you not just come from the road?' This understanding of I'non nitfb is made more interesting by the second half of the verse where the rich man takes the poor man's lamb and offers it to the man who had come to him (V^N Nnn). If there is an analogue between the traveler and Uriah, as 11.10 might suggest, then the last half of v. 4 may allude to David's offering of Bathsheba to Uriah. Strangely enough, this represents, more or less, David's actions in the preceding narrative where David tries to get Uriah to go home and sleep with Bathsheba. That is, David offers to

35. Cf. Ezek. 34.3 where Ezekiel charges that the shepherds of Israel have slaughtered rather than protected their sheep. 36. David 'takes' Bathsheba for himself, not in order to give her to another! Perhaps we are to understand that this is merely an inexact device to point out David's guilt, but there are a number of analogues between this part of the mashal and the David and Bathsheba episode that make their relationship intriguing, indeed. To begin, while we know little about Uriah's personal life, the mashal implies that he is married to Bathsheba alone. The mashal implies that, while Uriah has but one wife, David has many. Of course, the latter fact is well known. The implication is that David's taking of Bathsheba is wrong on two counts. First, David has so many wives he could hardly benefit from adding another, and, second, by taking Bathsheba he would leave Uriah with no wife. The irony, of course, is that by taking Bathsheba David adds greatly to his family, for Bathsheba is the mother of his successor Solomon.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

149

the traveler Uriah the woman that he had taken from the poor man Uriah. In the end it is impossible to know how to read v. 4 of the mashal. While the associations with the earlier narrative are suggestive, they are only that, and inexact as well. Perhaps the most important point is that, like the other meshalim considered above, Nathan's has this inexact and polyvalent relationship with the preceding narrative. It is typical of the narrative meshalim in the way it represents 'refracted' images of the narrative in which it is embedded and of motifs found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.37 Having considered how Nathan's mashal proper is integrated into the narrative of 2 Samuel 11, it is appropriate to consider how it is associated with more disparate texts. Interestingly enough, in many ways Nathan's mashal fits the circumstances of the story of Naboth's vineyard in 1 Kings 21 better than it does the story of David and Bathsheba. 38 But this is only one factor that makes the story in 1 Kings 21 important for the present study. In order to clarify the significance of the story of Naboth's vineyard it is necessary to review it. It comes right after the prophet's mashal to Ahab at the end of ch. 20. Naboth's story begins with the notice that he owns a vineyard in Jezreel that is right next to Ahab's palace (v. 1). Ahab comes to Naboth and proposes that Naboth trade or sell his vineyard to him (v. 2). When Naboth refuses to part with his inherited land, Ahab returns home, dejected and saddened (^un "ID) (vv. 3-4). Notably, the two words used to describe Ahab here are identical, as we have seen, to those describing his reaction to the mashal in the preceding chapter. This is one of the reasons one suspects that these adjoining texts are meant to be read in tandem. It seems most likely that the phrase was first found in 21.4 and then placed in 20.43 as an additional sign that the stories belong together. At any rate, Ahab returns to the palace and lies on his bed, refusing to eat.

37. S. Lasine ('Melodrama as Parable: The Story of the Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb and the Unmasking of David's Topsy-Turvy Emotions', HAR 8 [1984], p. 103) argues that 'like all melodrama, Nathan's story offers one-dimensional. .. portrayals. .. '. Lasine would seem to view our mashal as uni- rather than multivocal. As our discussion so far points out, nothing could be further from the truth. 38. For treatments of the Naboth episode see R. Martin-Achard, 'La vigne de Naboth (1 Rois 21) d'apres des etudes recentes', ETR 66 (1991), pp. 1-16; and A. Rofe, 'The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story', VT 38 (1988), pp. 89-104.

150

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

Next, Ahab's wife, Jezebel, asks why he is so dejected (v. 5). In answer, Ahab tells Jezebel of the conversation he had had with Naboth (v. 6). Jezebel responds by telling Ahab not to worry, for she will get the vineyard for him (v. 7). In order to fulfill her promise, Jezebel writes letters to the elders of Naboth's town (v. 8), telling them to declare a fast and to put Naboth at the front of the assembly (v. 9). Having done this, the elders are to have a couple of ne'er-do-wells come and accuse Naboth of spurning God and king and, as a consequence, they are to have him stoned to death (v. 10). The elders of Naboth's town do exactly as instructed (vv. 11-13) and inform Jezebel of Naboth's stoning and death (v. 14). On hearing of the stoning, Jezebel informs Ahab, who goes to the vineyard and takes possession (vv. 15-16). After Ahab takes possession of the vineyard, Elijah comes to him with instructions to indict him for taking the vineyard (vv. 17-19). The language in v. 19 is especially interesting. Here Yhwh instructs Elijah to ask Ahab, 'Have you both murdered and dispossessed?' (nc?T~D:n nninn). Notably, this very phrase could have been directed at David in Nathan's mashal. In fact, it summarizes the events in the story of David and Bathsheba just as well as those in the story of Naboth's vineyard. The Naboth episode ends with Elijah's confrontation with Ahab and his pronouncement of judgment on him (vv. 20-29). In v. 27 Ahab, having heard of his guilt, tears his clothes and fasts. In response, Yhwh comes to Elijah and has him tell Ahab that because he humbled himself before Yhwh, Ahab's punishment will be delayed to the next generation, in his son's time. The applicability of Nathan's mashal to the Naboth episode is clear enough. In the latter the third party, who takes from the poor man to give to another, is represented by Jezebel. There are, however, as many problems in understanding this narrative against Nathan's mashal as there are with the David and Bathsheba narrative. In the mashal, the rich man kills that which he takes before giving it to his guest. In both the David and Bathsheba and the Naboth episodes, it is not the 'gift' that is killed but its original 'possessor'. Moreover, while Jezebel supplies the third party seen in the mashal, Ahab can hardly be viewed as the traveler. In the end, the mashal fits as loosely with the Naboth episode as it does with David and Bathsheba's. But this is precisely the point: the mashal fits equally well, if not slightly better, with the

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

151

Naboth episode!39 This suggests that the two narratives share more than is at first evident. This suggestion becomes more certain when one considers the outlines of the two stories. Like David, Ahab acts in the relative tranquility of the domestic scenery of the palace. In a bit of a twist, Jezebel, like David, sends letters to get rid of the man who stands in the way of the king's desires. Just as Uriah is put at the front of the battle (nnn^QH ^D ^1Q~^«), Naboth is put at the head of the assembly (D^n $K~n).40 In both cases the murder is committed for the king by others, and in both cases the king takes possession of the object of his desire once his 'rival' is taken care of. Finally, in both stories the punishment for the wrong-doing of the king devolves on his son.41 All of this suggests that the composition of the stories of David and Bathsheba and Naboth's vineyard rely on a similar set of assumptions and constellation of events and motifs. The apparent lesson of these stories is that kings are prone to killing so that they may take possession, as Elijah claims in 1 Kgs 21.19. This saying of Elijah's, as well as Nathan's mashal, points out this common trait. Given the almost equal applicability of Nathan's mashal to both narratives, it seems likely that it is meant to be a pithy parabolic formulation of the same issues and lessons embodied in their narrative forms. This understanding goes a long way toward explaining the parallels and divergences that the mashal has with each story. More significantly, all this helps to understand the loose fit between Nathan's mashal and the preceding narrative. The mashal by nature makes reference to a larger context of meaning than this single story. Like the meshalim considered above, Nathan's has strong associations with other texts. It is only in the larger context of its parallels with these other texts that its fuller significance can be recognized. The question of to whom or what we ought to attribute these parallels is difficult to answer. On the one hand, one could attribute them to the purposive compositional strategy of the Deuteronomistic Historian. On the other hand, they may be the result of numerous hands at work in the text and essentially the result of the immersion of all of the tradents in the idioms that are the basis 39. McCarter (2 Samuel, p. 305) notes that the mashal, indeed all of chs. 10-12, are meant to question kingship in general as much as David himself. 40. Again, note the association of the word &K~l with the poor man in Nathan's mashal. 41. This is only partially true in 2 Sam. 12.

152

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

of the parallels. In the end, deciding on the source of the parallels fails adequately to address the multiple readings, and their significance, that result from them. One more example of the association of Nathan's mashal with texts outside of the immediate Court Narrative deserves attention. Of crucial importance in the narrative that Nathan's mashal is meant to interpret is the description of the events that led to the death of Uriah. In 2 Sam. 11.20-21 Joab predicts that David will say in response to the news of the war: 'Why did you approach [so near] the city to fight? Didn't you know they would shoot from atop the wall? Who killed Abimelech, son of Jerubeshet [Gideon]? Was it not a woman who threw an upper millstone from the wall onto him and killed him at Tebez?'

This echo of the text in Judges 9 is remarkable. It seems self-consciously to draw on the earlier text to inform the current events. As will become clearer below, this is part of a larger phenomenon related to the composition of each of the mashal/narrative complexes with which this chapter deals. For now it is enough to note the self-conscious reference in this mashal/narrative to the previous one. So much for Nathan's mashal proper. The second part of the larger mashal, David's response/pronouncement to Nathan's mashal proper, comprises 2 Sam. 12.5-6. Here, David grows angry and calls the rich man a 'son of death' (niQ~p). Next he declares that the rich man must repay four lambs for his misdeeds because he showed no compassion (*?Qn). This response is of interest for several reasons.42 First, like the options laid out in 1 Kings 20, David first says, essentially, that the guilty party deserves to die and then stipulates the amount of a fine. Just as Ahab presumes that only the 'death sentence' actually applies to him in 1 Kgs 20.43, in the narrative that follows Nathan's mashal, Nathan declares that David's 'death penalty' will be delayed. No possibility of paying a fine is mentioned! The function of the fine option is unclear in either case, although, in the case of David, payment would be impossible, since Uriah is no longer alive and repayment seems to have required handing over four of his wives. 42. As Polzin notes (David and the Deuteronomist, p. 122), David takes the mashal as history and fails to get the message. This critique may apply equally well to those who seek the historical message of these narratives to the exclusion of their theological or literary messages.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

153

The second important element of the response also relates to the repayment option. David's judgment is in agreement with the law in Exod. 21.37 which says, 'If a man steals a cow or sheep and slaughters or sells it, he must repay fivefold for the cow and fourfold for the sheep.' The source of the agreement between David's decree and this legal code is unclear. Perhaps it is an editor's attempt to show that David was 'law-abiding'; the surrounding text, however, seems to challenge such a notion. On the other hand, it might be meant to have an ironic effect. David is punctilious about certain aspects of the law, in particular when he thinks they apply to someone else, but not so concerned when they apply to him!43 Whatever the reason for the agreement with the legal corpus, this phenomenon is much like the apparent legal background that is presupposed by the Tekoite's mashal. Granted, in the case of the Tekoite's mashal, the 'reference' is much more subtle and oblique, but both meshalim seem to presume associations with the legal material. We come, finally, to the last significant detail of the response. At the end of v. 6, David says that part of the 'fault' of the rich man is that he showed no 'compassion'. Notably, the same root for the word 'compassion', ^Qn, appears in the mashal proper in v. 4.44 In contrast, however, the root is used in v. 4 to tell of the rich man's hesitation in taking from his own flocks and herds. David's indictment of the rich man for not showing compassion (^Qn) is doubly ironic because in v. 4 the rich man does show ^QFI, only to his flocks and herds rather than to the poor man. This play on the root ^Qn is clearly meant to point out David's utter lack of compassion for Uriah.45 More significant, the playing off against the unusual use of ^Qn in v. 4 is in keeping with the way the meshalim subtly comment on the behavior of their targets 43. Perhaps the point is that David is privileged and is thus in some ways (but not totally) above the law. 44. Notably, this root is used to describe Saul's 'sparing' of Amalek and its cattle in 1 Sam. 15.9, 15. It is this act of sparing the cattle and flocks that leads to Saul's downfall. David's act of sparing his own 'sheep' in order to take Uriah's represents an odd resonance with 1 Sam. 15. This is especially the case because Saul's downfall and David's succession are mentioned in vv. 7-8 of Nathan's mashal. Adding to the resonance is the fact that in 'sparing' his sheep (i.e. wives) and taking Uriah's, he is rehearsing the way he came into possession of Saul's wives, the event that is described in vv. 7-8. 45. For more on ^Qn and associations with more diverse biblical texts see G.W. Coats, '2 Samuel 12.1-7a', Int 40 (1986), pp. 170-74.

154

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

by the manipulation of key lexical items. The reversal of usual expectations and subtle commentary by the careful use and manipulation of language are hallmarks of the narrative meshalim, as we will continue to see. We now turn, finally, to the 'application' of Nathan's mashal in vv. 7-12.46 In v. 7 Nathan announces to David, 'You are the man!' Nathan continues with an extended message from Yhwh that takes up the remainder of the 'application', in which David is reminded of all the kindness with which Yhwh has treated him. Of particular interest is v. 8, in which Yhwh says, 'I gave the wives of your master into your bosom CpTn)'. This picks up on the language of the mashal proper, where v. 3 says that the lamb lay in the poor man's bosom Op TO). The mashal proper essentially accuses David of taking Bathsheba from Uriah's bosom. Yet in the 'application', Yhwh himself admits to having taken Saul's wives and placing them in David's bosom. This association between the mashal proper and the application may be coincidence but it seems unlikely. It serves to make much more ambiguous the message of the mashal. On reading only the mashal proper and the response of David, the interpretation would seem to be relatively clear: David must pay for stealing Bathsheba from Uriah's 'bosom'. Yet, the specter of Yhwh himself taking the wives of Saul and putting them into David's 'bosom' complicates the interpretation considerably. Nonetheless, vv. 9-10 reinforce the message that for taking Uriah's wife and killing him David must pay. In fact, as punishment for putting Uriah 'to the sword', Yhwh promises that the sword shall not turn away from David's family. In vv. 11-12 Yhwh says that he is about to raise evil from David's own house and hand his wives over to his associate ("pin1?) who will sleep with them in the open.47 Of course, 46. Not surprisingly, this application (like Judg. 9.16-20) is considered an addition by which the mashal has been joined to the narrative. Again, I agree with McCarter (2 Samuel, p. 300) that it is integral to the mashal as a whole and discussion below will confirm this. More to the point, however, the application is an integral part of the narrative meshalim that are our focus. So even if one could prove that the application is secondary it would not change how the application functions in the overall integration of the mashal into its narrative. 47. Once again, we have an important lexical association between Nathan's mashal and 1 Sam. 15. The word for associate ("fin1?) also occurs in 1 Sam. 15.28 where Saul is told that his kingship will be taken away and given to David. Notably, this represents a recollection of the chastisement and deposition of Saul within the chastisement (without deposition) of David. Cf. also Est. 1.19.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

155

all of this comes true in the following chapters of the Court History when Absalom usurps the throne and sleeps with ten of David's concubines. Importantly, this threat must be seen against the background of the events and vocabulary of the mashal proper and the application. In particular, the language used to describe the future taking of David's wives and handing them over to another is almost identical to Yhwh's reminder of Saul's wives being taken for David. So this future event will be a kind of payment in kind not only for David's taking of Bathsheba, but even as a kind of strange complement to the events of David's succeeding to Saul's throne. Moreover, the 'payment in kind' may reflect the sentence that seems to go unaddressed in David's proclamation of v. 6. Recall that he not only called the rich man of the mashal a 'son of death', but that he wanted him to pay fourfold for the lamb he took. Notably, in having Absalom sleep with ten of his concubines the text may record that the other part of David's selfprescribed 'sentence' is fulfilled, only tenfold rather than fourfold.48 Once again, the mashal makes a narrative 'stitch' backward and forward in associating the events of David's life. Notably, that this image emerges from the fabric of the narrative depends entirely on Absalom's return to Jerusalem, an event that could not take place unless David interprets the Tekoite's mashal the way he does. A final issue requires consideration in light of our most recent discussion. With all of the application in front of us, Nathan's 'you are the man' takes on new significance. On first reading, one naturally presumes that the 'man' with whom David is associated is the rich one that stole the ewe-lamb from the poor man. On closer consideration, however, David can be associated with each of the three men of the mashal.49 As Polzin has noted, when Yhwh mentions the taking of Saul's wives for David in vv. 7-8, David is the equivalent of the traveler for whom the lamb is taken.50 In vv. 9-10 David's killing of Uriah 48. Levenson and Halpern ('The Political Import of David's Marriages', p. 514) suggest something similar. 49. Polzin (David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 123-26) makes essentially the same observation but argues that David's association with all three men is meant to contrast David's current betrayal of Uriah with God's benevolence in the past. My understanding of the triple reference of 'you are the man' suggests that it has broader significance than its relation to God's benevolence in the past. 50. David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 123-26. Note that the traveler, with whom I associated Uriah, at least in part because of the similarity in the participle for 'traveler' and Uriah's name, can be equally associated with David. Rather than consider these

156

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

and the taking of Bathsheba clearly link him with the rich man. At the end of the mashal, in vv. 11-12, where David is told that his wives will be taken from him, we see the equation of David with the poor man. Finally, we need to note that Nathan's 'application', like Jotham's in Judg. 9.16-20, picks up on the multivocal quality of the mashal and maintains the refracted way in which the mashal relates to the larger narrative(s) of which it is a part. Let us summarize. The investigation of the genre of narrative meshalim has resulted in a number of observations. First, it is clear that a general outline of the genre includes three main elements: the mashal proper, the response, and the application. That the mashal in Judges 9 is missing the response may, in part, be due to the fact that it is directed to the citizens of Shechem rather than to the king. At any rate, all of the examples thus far include the mashal proper and the application. Furthermore, it should be noted that the variations from the outline need not be considered serious, since it is really only an abstraction based on what is generally true about the genre's various manifestations. That is to say, the word 'genre' implies variation as much as conforming to the 'ideal'. Secondly, on a number of occasions it has become evident that the meshalim are carefully integrated into their narratives by what I have called 'stitching forward and backward'. By this I mean that the meshalim pick up language, imagery etc. from the narratives in which they are embedded. The mashal in 1 Kings 20 clearly addresses the immediately preceding events by which Ben-Hadad found his freedom from Ahab. It also seems to be intended to comment on the events that follow in ch. 21. The mashal in Judges 9 looks backward and forward by drawing on the example of Gideon to indict Abimelech. Also, by picking up the arboreal imagery that dominates the rest of Judges 9, Jotham's mashal has been well grafted into its surroundings. Nathan's mashal ties the events surrounding David's liaison with Bathsheba to the following Court History in which his wives are taken by Absalom. More significantly, the mashal associates David with the rich man who has taken the poor man's lamb. It also introduces a moral perspective two associations as mutually exclusive, it seems much more attuned to the nature of the mashal to recognize in the 'traveler' associations with both men. The association of both men with the traveler suggests that somehow David's fate will be like Uriah's, which the last warning in 12.11-12 verifies. Ironically, their shared fate is not that of the traveller but that of the poor man who has his ewe-lamb taken from him.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

157

on the central narrative themes of the rest of the Court History. The third observation that has emerged from the preceding investigation is that along with the fact that these meshalim have been stitched, albeit roughly, into their narratives, they also have important associations with more distant texts. For instance, the mashal in 1 Kings 20 draws on a larger problem represented by Saul and his clemency extended toward Agag. Indeed, the mashal seems more appropriately addressed to Saul than Ahab. Jotham's mashal also seems to have strong associations with the story of the selection of Israel's first king in 1 Samuel 8-14. Furthermore, there are strong associations between the story of Abimelech's death and two distant texts: first are the accounts of Saul's death in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1; second is the reminder of Abimelech's death in 2 Samuel 11. In Nathan's mashal, while the taking of the lamb in the mashal is equated to the taking of Bathsheba, it is also placed in the context of the taking of Saul's wives. Finally, Nathan's mashal fits the story of Naboth's vineyard as well if not better than the David and Bathsheba affair. The final observation we need to make relates to the multivalent quality of the meshalim. This multivalence is due, in part, to their multiple textual associations outlined above, but also, in large measure, to their agglutinative quality. This is especially evident in 1 Kgs 20.3543 and Judg. 9.8-20 where literary forms with distinctly separate messages are placed together.51 The result can manifest almost contrary interpretive trajectories through the accompanying narrative. The mashal of 1 Samuel 20 appears to be a combination of a mashal, as defined herein, and a prophetic sign-act. It appears that whoever is responsible for the combination of the two genres recognized that they had complementary messages that could be combined and applied to the case of Ahab. Notably, it is this particular formulation that applies better to Saul than to Ahab. The mashal in Judges 9, likewise, takes several different approaches to the issues at stake in its surrounding narrative. The mashal indicts the Shechemites/Israelites for wanting a 51. Note that with 1 Kgs 20 we are dealing with two distinct and familiar forms, the sign-act and the short mashal. With Judg. 9 the problem is a bit more subtle and may reflect the addition of vv. 15b-20 as the transition to accommodate the mashal proper to the narrative of which it is now a part. Nevertheless, the effect of this combination, as we now have it, replicates that of the 'double' mashal in 1 Kgs 20. More significantly, this agglutinative quality is especially informative for understanding the Tekoite's mashal.

158

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

king; it suggests that only a ne'er-do-well would want to be king; and it seems to indict the insincere attempt to appoint a king. The message that emerges is not altogether clear but can be summarized as, 'You should not want a king, since kings cannot be trusted. Besides, you are not seeking a king out of loyalty to Gideon, who, by the way, refused to be king.' All these trajectories find their vectors in the surrounding narratives but clearly do not all serve a single purpose. Lastly, Nathan's mashal cuts across the Court Narrative and its game of 'musical beds' by pointing to David's 'inheriting' of Saul's wives, taking of Uriah's wife, and loss of ten of his concubines to Absalom. Moreover, Nathan's mashal draws parallels with Naboth's vineyard into the interpretive mix as well. The general applicability of the meshalim suggests the possibility of an independent origin for each. We should probably imagine that they found their present locations because of their relatively close association with the narratives in which they are found. The reverse of this positive formulation is that their independent origins explain why they do not have a one-to-one correspondence with their associated narratives. Furthermore, their dense quality represents a kind of condensate of central cultural values reduced to idiomatic and parabolic formulation. In other words, the meshalim are independent of their present narratives, and of similar narrative crystallizations of their themes, but are dependent on similar idiomatic expressions and images of their broader culture. This goes a long way toward explaining their associations with disparate narratives that represent variations on the issues at stake in the meshalim themselves. All of the above observations help to clarify the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa, to which we must now, finally, return.

4. noon nm nm np'i rurpn DKV rfteh Joab Sent to Tekoa and Brought From There a Wise Woman The full text of the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa reads as follows: Uoab son of Zeruyah knew that the king's heart was on (*?!?) Absalom;52 so Joab sent to Tekoa and brought from there a wise woman.53 He said

2

52. The preposition 'on' (^U) is difficult here. It is not clear if it means worrying about or angry at. On this see especially Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 139-40. 53. The question of the label HQDn rTON and its significance is aptly addressed by

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

159

to her, 'Act as if you are in mourning (K3~''73Knn), put on mourning clothes (^DfcTHn) and don't anoint yourself with oil. Act like a woman who, for many days, has been mourning (rfrHNnQ) the dead. 3Go to the king and speak to him like this (PITH "O~D).'54 And Joab put the words in her mouth. 4The Tekoite woman said to the king55 . .. 'she fell to the ground face down and bowed and then said 'Help, O king.' 5The king said to her, 'What bothers you?', to which she replied 'truly (^38), I am a widow and my husband is dead. 6Your maidservant had two sons and the two of them struggled in the field. There was no one to separate them and one struck the other and killed him. 7Now the whole family has arisen against your maidservant and said, "Hand over the one who struck (HDQ) his brother so that we may kill him for his brother's life (TFTN 2JSD3) that he took 0~in) and so that we might also destroy the heir." They would extinguish my ember that remains in order to (Tl^D^) leave my husband without name or remnant on the face of the earth.'56 8The king said to the woman, 'Go home and I will give a command concerning you.' 9The Rosenberg (King and Kin, p. 189) when he states, 'Much has been said about the "wisdom" influence in the court history, and I will not attempt here to assess this question in detail. My views on the matter can be summarized by the simple observation that products of a literate culture—indeed, efforts to sustain an oral or written culture together—are, by definition, "wisdom". To look for a "wisdom" genre, or for hallmarks of a "wisdom" style, is simply to add to the fund of fruitless abstractions of which—if I may be indulged this momentary fit of cantankerousness—PhD dissertations and publish-or-perish articles are made.' Nicol has made the case that if Joab put all the words in the Tekoite's mouth she can hardly be considered the wise one; Nicol credits Joab with all the 'wisdom' displayed in this episode ('The Wisdom of Joab and the Wise Woman of Tekoa', pp. 97-104). Camp ('The Wise Women of 2 Samuel', pp. 14-29) argues that the wise women of 2 Samuel (including 2 Sam. 20) have a regularized institutional function in ancient Israel. This claim is difficult to sustain given the meager evidence in the two passages with which she deals. We more likely have in these women a familiar type. Whether they are restricted to merely 'literary' types or, perhaps, appeared on the historical scene now and again is impossible to tell. On the larger question of women in the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible, see, by the same author, 'The Female Sage in Ancient Israel', pp. 185-203. 54. The difficulty of reported speech is treated in Savran, Telling and Retelling. 55. Many versions (LXX, Syr, Vg, TgMSS, MTMSS) have 'The Tekoite woman went to the king'. On accepting the MT see above Ch. 2 §2.d. See also Radaq who thinks the first HQNm is addressed to the gatekeepers. On his reading she speaks to them in order to gain an audience with the king. 56. This verse admits of no easy translation. Another possibility for translating <1 2TK'?~D''to Tfrs1? is 'With the result that my husband be left without. .. '. In the present context the translation above (in the main text) seems closest to what the woman must mean.

160

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa Tekoite woman said to the king, 'Upon me, O king, is the guilt (]1U), and upon the house of my father; the king and his throne are innocent.' 10The king said, 'Let anyone who speaks to you be brought to me and he will not so much as touch you again.' HShe replied, 'Please be mindful, O King, of Yhwh your God who prevents those who would excessively avenge blood by destroying and let them not destroy my son.'57 The king replied, 'As Yhwh lives, not one of your son's hairs will fall to the earth.' 12 The woman said, 'May your maidservant speak to my lord the king of one more matter?' He said, 'Speak!' 13The woman said, 'Why have you made plans like this with regard to the people of God? In speaking of this matter the king is guilty, in that the king has not returned his banished.58 14 For truly we all must die and are like water poured out on the ground which cannot be gathered. God will not take life, but will make plans in order that the banished one shall not remain banished from him.59 15Now, the reason I have come to speak to the king, my lord, of this matter is that the people frighten me. Your maidservant said to herself, "Let me speak to the king; perhaps the king will do this thing for his handmaid!". 16For the king would listen to a plea to save his handmaid from the hand of the one who would remove me and my son, together, from the heritage of God. 17 And your maidservant said, "Let my lord the king's word provide respite, for my lord the king is like one of God's angels hearing the good and the bad." May Yhwh your God be with you.'60 18The king answered and said to the woman, 'Do not hide anything from me that I am about to ask you!' The woman said, 'Speak, my lord, king!' 19The king said, 'Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?' The woman answered, 'As you live, my lord, O king, nothing diverges to the right or left of what you have said, for your servant, Joab, did order me and placed in your maidservant's mouth all these words. 20It was in order to conceal the matter that your servant Joab did this thing. My lord is as wise as the wisdom of God's angels to know all that is (happening) in the land.'61

57. This verse is very difficult as well. On Tl^nb see previous note. The other major difficulty reads as follows: nilCD'? D~in btW n'DinQ, which is translated above, 'who prevents those who would excessively avenge blood by destroying'. For other options see McCarter, 2 Samuel, pp. 338-39. 58 . This is among the most difficult verses of the mashal. The Hebrew, which can be translated in a number of ways (discussed below §c) reads: "131H f^on "Dim rirnrntf "J^on irton Tblb DtftO nm. Note that the translation above represents only one of several good options. 59. Especially ambiguous here is the last sentence, D£>m CDD3 DTT^K NCT'N1?! m] 1DQQ FTP Tb^b rratono. For discussion of options for translation see below §c. 60. On the possible dislocation of vv. 15-17 see discussion below §c. 61. On the role of David's 'wisdom' see Ackerman ('Knowing Good and Evil', pp. 41-60) who argues that the Court History can be understood as a persistent test of David's knowledge and ability to interpret current events. To some degree, my

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

161

Taking advantage of our discoveries about the genre of narrative meshalim, we shall now consider the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa as a whole. It should be quite clear that the mashal conforms, for the most part, to the outline of the narrative meshalim revealed above. To be specific: vv. 1-7 correspond with the 'mashal proper'; vv. 8-11 to the response-pronouncement; and vv. 12-20 to the application. Yet, as with the other meshalim considered above, there are some variations in the Tekoite's mashal for which we must account. In the following, we shall proceed as we have in the investigation of the other meshalim, considering how the 'sibling rivalry' and 'woman with a cause' topoi come together as well as the disparities and continuities between the mashal and the narrative in which it has been embedded. The beginning of the Tekoite's mashal is complicated by a number of factors. Among them is the ambiguity of Joab's motive(s) in retaining the services of the wise woman of Tekoa. This ambiguity matches that of David's emotions at the end of the preceding chapter. Furthermore, the material that is familiar to us as the 'mashal proper' only starts in v. 4 and is preceded (and complicated) by the narration of Joab's retaining of the Tekoite. It is these, and other, peculiarities of the Tekoite's 'mashal proper' to which we first turn. a. Joab ben Zeruyah Knew that David's Heart was on Absalom The introduction to our mashal says that Joab knew that David's heart was on Absalom (Dlt?Ent*~L?I?). This locution is quite vague. Does it mean that David was thinking about getting even with Absalom for killing Amnon, or does it mean that he was pining away for his absent son?62 What is it that Joab knows? If one turns to the last few verses of the preceding narrative in which David learns of Absalom's murder of Amnon, the issue becomes no clearer. The last verse of ch. 13 says that King David ceased to go out 'to' Absalom (flK^ 1 ?... ^Dm DI^CCGK"1^) because he was consoled over his son Amnon who was

analysis agrees with Ackerman's, although I am more interested in the specific cultural competence required of David to understand the Tekoite's mashal. Moreover, I am more skeptical than Ackerman about David's wisdom as depicted by the narrator. 62. Polzin (David and the Deutewnomist, p. 139) discusses this difficulty at length. The ambiguity recurs in vv. 8 and 13 as well. Are we to read this preposition as 'for' or 'against', either of which is possible and either of which substantially alters our reading?

162

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

dead (v. 39).63 Once again, the phraseology makes it difficult to know exactly what is going on here. Was David 'going out' to Absalom in anger or not? Furthermore, the subject of the verb 'was consoled' in the second half of the verse is likely David, but the syntax makes a definitive answer impossible. In the final analysis, the end of the narrative that tells of Absalom's murder of Amnon leaves ambiguous David's attitude and motivation. This ambiguity is part of a larger question of what motivates David and all the other characters in this narrative. Moreover, the ambiguity displayed in these passages likely represents the narrative analogue to the ambivalence David feels about his fratricidal son. The ambiguity of 2 Sam. 13.37 best exemplifies David's ambivalence. After telling of Absalom's flight to Geshur, the text says that David 'mourned for his son every day' 0]3~^I? *?3tfm D^QTr^D). Notably, the text does not use the name of David's son; is he mourning the loss of his son Amnon or for his lost son Absalom? It is likely, as the text seems to suggest, that both are true.64 Moreover, David, no doubt, wants both vengeance on Absalom and his safe return to the royal court.65 Ironically, as a result of his interpretation of the Tekoite's mashal, David realizes both of these contrary desires. 63. The feminine verb is a problem. For various solutions, including reading the feminine subject nil, see McCarter, 2 Samuel, p. 338 and p. 344. 64. See Polzin, David and the Denteronomist, p. 133. 65. McCarter (2 Samuel, p. 344) argues that David in no way desires Absalom's return. He notes that if David wanted Absalom back, Joab's ruse in vv. 1-20 would be unnecessary. McCarter fails to note that Joab's 'ruse' might be employed to get for David what he is afraid to do on his own or in public. Joab may be seeking a pretext to get for David what he wants desperately. This is exactly what Hoftijzer claims ('David and the Tekoite Woman', pp. 419-44). D.G. Schley ('Joab and David: Ties of Blood and Power', in M.P. Graham et al. [eds.], History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Mayes [JSOTSup, 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 90-105) understands Joab to be so loyal to David that he concocts this plan to give David what he wants. Schley attributes this depiction to the 'author' of the Court Narrative who attempts to deflect blame for the coup from David and onto Joab. Wiirthwein (Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids, p. 46) understands 13.39 to imply that David wants Absalom home as well. Wiirthwein goes on to argue that since David wanted Absalom home, 14.2-22 must be seen as secondary and the result of the effort to hide David's part in bringing his own usurper back to Jerusalem. Wiirthwein's analysis is based on the simplistic presumption that the text at hand reflects an editorial attempt to gloss over a text that was originally 'too honest' about David's foibles. This reading ignores the persistently ambiguous and highly nuanced motives that inform this text.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

163

This brings us back to the problem of Joab's motive in retaining the services of the wise woman of Tekoa. Two possibilities suggest themselves. First, Joab, despite David's anger and desire for vengeance, wants Absalom back in Jerusalem and finds a way to trick David into letting this happen. Alternatively, Joab knows that, deep down, David wants Absalom home and finds a way to allow David to get what he wants.66 Either understanding is equally likely. The effect of v. 1 is to reveal how complex are the motives that underlie the Tekoite narrative. Verses 2-3 complicate the narrative even more, primarily because they add an element to the narrative mashal not seen elsewhere. Here Joab sends to Tekoa and instructs the wise woman to act as though she has been mourning. Further, he tells her what to say:

rrsn DnmrrnK SRI- nsr\ nn -DID T^N rraTi [Joab said] 'You will say to him something like this', and Joab put the words in her mouth.

Notably, we do not get the words straight from Joab's mouth; we know what he said to the Tekoite only from what she later says. In many other places in the Hebrew Bible we get two reports of such speech, the first when the originator tells the messenger what to say and the second when the messenger repeats it.67 In such cases, one can judge the accuracy of the repeated speech, which, incidentally, is often more or less altered from the original. The question that arises, of course, is how closely the Tekoite's conversation with David follows Joab's instructions. Did he take into account how David would reply and supply her with exactly what she says, or did he just give her more general instructions? Perhaps the instructions to say 'something like this' mean that her instructions were general. After all, the woman's wisdom (or should we understand 'cleverness'?) must be of some value.68 If this is the case, then one wonders how closely she follows Joab's intentions. All of this clearly complicates the possibilities for understanding what the Tekoite says to David. Further complicating things is that the Tekoite's mashal is a message, 66. See previous note. 67. Note that such an instance occurs in 1 Kgs 1 (a text we will consider below) as well as in many other places. On the phenomenon of repeated speech see Savran, Telling and Retelling. 68. McCarter (2 Samuel, p. 345) summarizes the discussion of this issue well. He agrees that 'clever' is more likely. See also n. 95 below.

164

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

not from God or prophet, but from one of David's court officials, and delivered by a third party. This is an important difference. Is one to assume that this mashal is ultimately a message from God, or is it merely the product of a manipulative court official? On the one hand, many aspects of the message appear to be in keeping with general notions of piety and reverence. On the other hand, there is a nagging suspicion that underlying this mashal are ulterior motives. Furthermore, the fact that the Tekoite woman delivers the mashal suggests that vv. 2-3 represent the means by which the genre of mashal has been 'fitted' to the motif of women with a cause. As noted above, this motif has particular resonance in David's history and its combination with the mashal serves at once to amplify and multiply the message of each. It is this combination that begins the process by which the mashal picks up multiple themes and is made to convey its dense message. Moreover, vv. 2-3 serve to integrate the mashal into the larger Court Narrative in three major ways. First, the language of v. 2, in particular, makes a strong association with the preceding narrative. Verse 2 says: Joab sent to Tekoa and took from there a wise woman. He said to her, 'Act like a mourning woman (Kr^DWin) and dress in mourning clothes (^3K~H33). Do not anoint yourself with oil; act like a woman who has mourned (rtatfno) over a death for many days.'

In this one verse, the root that has to do with mourning (*72K) appears three times in three different forms. Indeed, the same three consonants appear in v. 5 (with a different meaning) when the woman says to David, 'truly (^28) I am a widow'. We are, no doubt, supposed to get the double entendre that "73K implies in v. 5: she is 'truly' in 'mourning' because she is a widow. More importantly, it is this same root that is used to describe David's mourning in 13.37, where the object of his concern is so unclear. We have a similar case here in the opening of the Tekoite 's mashal. While the Tekoite is instructed to act like one who has been mourning for some time over a death, her conversation with David makes clear that she is equally worried about her surviving son. In this way, the root ^28 signals that each parent may have the surviving son in mind as much as the dead one. The second way in which vv. 2-3 integrate the mashal into the Court Narrative is, as I suggested above, by tying the mashal into the 'woman with a cause' motif and thereby drawing on all the associations discussed in Chapter 2, most important of which is making the

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

165

mashal function as a foreshadowing of the Bathsheba episode in 1 Kings 1. But the association with the Bathsheba episode in 1 Kings 1 is not limited to the 'woman with a cause' topos. Significantly, like the Tekoite, Bathsheba is sent by the king's advisor (Nathan in this instance) to ensure that the king's son is safe and will assume his 'rightful' place (1 Kgs 1.11-31). Moreover, like the Tekoite, Bathsheba is told by this advisor exactly what she is to say to the king. In this instance, we have a record of Nathan's instructions (v. 13) which are repeated, more or less verbatim, by Bathsheba in vv. 17-18a. Notably, Bathsheba adds much more in her discussion with David (vv. 18b-21) than is recorded in Nathan's instructions. One might think that Bathsheba has taken considerable license until one reads in the following verses what Nathan has to say when he comes to David. In his conversation, he repeats many of Bathsheba's words that are not recorded in his instructions. There is no full agreement between Bathsheba's 'additions' and Nathan's speech, but they are similar enough to make it appear that Bathsheba simply paraphrases this part of the 'instructions'. Beyond these associations between the Tekoite's and Bathsheba's situations we have remarkably similar outlines for each episode. After getting her instructions, Bathsheba, like the Tekoite, goes to the king and bows before him. Both texts record David's response, •j'rnn "[^QH (rftTiam, The king said (to her), "what bothers you?"'. Much like the Tekoite, Bathsheba tells of her plight and reminds David of the danger in which she and her son find themselves (v. 21). As she finishes her plea, Nathan shows up (as planned), and repeats her message and ensures that her (his) request is fulfilled. Joab plays a similar role in the Tekoite narrative. The associations between the Tekoite and Bathsheba episodes are so close that one must presume that vv. 2-3 serve, in large measure, not only to combine the mashal with the 'woman with a cause' topos but also to bring the mashal into fuller resonance with the Bathsheba episode. Finally, vv. 2-3 serve to signal an important association with events in 2 Samuel 20, which represents the conclusion to the story of David's return to the throne.69 On David's return, Sheba ben Bichri announces, 69. C. Conroy (Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Samuel 13-20 [AnBib, 81; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978], p. 142) and McCarter (2 Samuel, pp. 350-51) view the stories of the Tekoite and the wise woman of Maacah as inclusios for the story of Absalom's rebellion. This fine observation supports the argument herein that the fate of Sheba ben Bichri is an analogue to Absalom's and, as will

166

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

'We want no part of David, and have no portion in the son of Jesse! Every man to his own tent, O Israel!' This proclamation provides the motivation that drives the plot of ch. 20. Of most interest for the purposes of this investigation is the point in the story where Sheba ben Bichri arrives at and then hides in the city of Abel Beth Maacah. Joab and his men catch up with Sheba ben Bichri at just this time and proceed to attack the city. It is at this point that the story takes a familiar turn. Joab conspires with a wise woman (noun n^N) in order to gain access to the king's challenger. In contrast to the Tekoite narrative, however, here the wise woman (of Abel Beth Maacah) puts the plan into Joab's head. She suggests that rather than destroy the entire city, she will see to it that Sheba ben Bichri's head is thrown over the wall to Joab. While the goal of the conspiracy between Joab and this wise woman is not identical to that between Joab and the Tekoite, the similarities are suggestive.70 Another element that is curious, indeed, is the name of the town to which Sheba ben Bichri escapes. Maacah is given as the name of Absalom's mother in 2 Sam. 3.3. Is it just a coincidence that this passage which resonates so well with 2 Samuel 14 has Sheba ben Bichri flee to a town with the same name as Absalom's mother? Perhaps, but significantly, in 2 Sam. 20.6, where he is giving instructions to pursue Sheba ben Bichri, David says that this enemy will cause more trouble than Absalom. In other words, the narrative itself seems to acknowledge its association with the troubles brought about by Absalom.71 Moreover, the name of the town to which Sheba ben Bichri flees, Abel Beth Maacah (JT3 rtatt rDJ?Q), could easily be understood to mean 'the mourning of the house of Maacah'.72 Strangely enough, the story of Sheba ben Bichri's demise be discussed below, my contention that the 'beheading' of the king's challenger is integral to the imagery of these as well as other related stories. 70. Polzin (David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 199-200) notes the strong parallels between 2 Sam. 20 and 1 Sam. 25. Note that in the stories of Abigail, the Tekoite, the woman of Maacah, and Bathsheba we see the elimination (or the origins thereof) of the enemy of the king. 71. Note too the similarity in language of 2 Sam. 14.16 (DTI^N niTO2)and2 Sam. 20.19 (niiT rf?rn). On this phrase and difficulties in reading the latter passage see R.P. Gordon, The Variable Wisdom of Abel: The MT and versions at 2 Samuel xx 18-19', VT43 (1993), pp. 215-26. 72. For this precise reading we would prefer HD^Q ITD rbm with the first noun in construct. Still, we could read the present text as 'mourning is the house of Maacah' or There is mourning in the house of Maacah', etc.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

167

at this town, as an analogue to Absalom's, makes this name especially significant. All one need do is to associate the death of Absalom with the town whose very name suggests his own mother's mourning. In fact, the larger outline of Absalom's story, especially after his return to Jerusalem, has strong analogies with the events in 2 Samuel 20. In particular, both he and Sheba ben Bichri represent challenges to David, as head of state, and both are killed when they 'get it' in the head (cf. 2 Sam. 18.9-15).73 The symbolism seems rather obvi ous: challengers to the head of state stand to lose their own heads.74 Strangely enough, this theme has resonance with all the mashal/ narrative complexes considered above. Abimelech, who, despite his unworthiness, attempted to assume the throne of Shechem was killed when the woman of Tebez rolled a millstone onto his head. In fact, Joab makes reference to this event when he describes what he thinks will be David's reaction to the death of Uriah.75 Uriah's death is not detailed, but, significantly, the death of this man who stood in the way of the king's desires is associated with Abimelech's. More significantly, Uriah is put at the 'face' of the battle (nan^Qil ^S ^1Q) when he is killed.76 In the mashal/narrative complex in 1 Kings 20-21, Naboth, the man who stands in the way of the king's desires, is put at the 'head of the assembly' (Di?n tON~Q) when he is accused and subsequently stoned for sedition.77 Furthermore, in Judges 9, 2 Samuel 20, and 1 Kings 21, it is a woman who arranges for, or actually commits, the murder that rids the king of his challenger. All of this suggests the possibility that the wise woman of Tekoa, and Joab for that matter, may have had ulterior motives in attempting to get Absalom back to Jerusalem. They may want him there in order to get rid of him permanently. In the end, it is impossible to tell whether this is the implication of the associations between Joab's two conspiracies with the two wise women of the Court Narrative. It is more likely that the two stories in which 73. Polzin (David and the Deuteronomist, p. 199) argues that Abigail's reference to the 'sling' into which David's enemies should be placed and 'slung' (1 Sam. 25.29) is a purposeful reference to the story of David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17), who is the first of David's enemies to be beheaded. In other words, Polzin recognizes, on a smaller scale, the phenomenon of which I am speaking here. 74. Recall what happens to the baker in Gen. 40.16-22. This is especially interesting since it is associated with Joseph's ascent to a position second only to Pharaoh. 75. See 2 Sam. 11.18-20. 76. See 2 Sam. 11.15. 77. See 1 Kgs 21.9.

168

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

Joab conspires with a wise woman simply rely on a broader set of similar motifs, but their similarity raises even more complications for understanding the Tekoite's mashal. The emergence of a consistent constellation of imagery related to each of the mashal/narrative complexes is, perhaps, the most remarkable feature that arises in considering the associations between the mashal and 2 Samuel 20. The similarities in language and imagery in these complexes are striking. This is particularly true of the language that tells of a woman who kills the enemy either by crushing his skull (by throwing a stone over a wall) or by killing him and then throwing his head over the wall. This must be seen as the more explicit form of the circumstance in which the king's enemy 'gets it' in the head in some form. It is difficult to know what we are to make of the parallels that we find in the mashal/narrative complexes we have been considering. Minimally, they suggest that the cohesiveness of these stories depends on narrative blocks larger than those for which our usual sense of genre can account. Indeed, in the case of the Court History, the constellation of mashal, challenge to king, and 'beheading', etc., recurs in various permutations throughout 2 Samuel 11-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. This implies that as useful as our notions of genre and topos are, they cannot account for the ways in which larger narrative segments seem, consistently, to coalesce.78 But this is enough on the complications that arise from the melding of the mashal with the 'woman with a cause' topos that vv. 2-3 represent. 2 Sam. 14.4-7 represents the mashal proper. Most of the significant resonances of these verses with the Court Narrative, as well as with the rest of the Hebrew Bible, have been discussed above in Chapters 1 and 2. There remains one issue in v. 7 that requires comment. Above, we noted that the wise woman of Tekoa has strong analogues with other women in the Hebrew Bible, especially with women who come to the king with a cause. Even more importantly, the Tekoite's role with David represents a complex analogue with both Abigail and Bathsheba who fulfill similar roles with David. Ironically, the first 78. Clearly, one could attribute this to the Deuteronomistic Historian, but this does nothing to answer the deeper questions of what this recurrent image elaborates or why it recurs in the way it does. Moreover, if it is, indeed, the Deuteronomistic Historian who should be credited with this compositional principle, it simply means that we are retracing his own, more or less intentional, signals of the important intertextual associations in his history.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

169

few verses of our mashal depict her as an analogue to David himself. Both are described as mourning (n^HNfin), each for her or his son. Furthermore, as noted above, it is unclear whether they are more concerned with the dead son or the one that remains. So the Tekoite serves as an analogue not only to the women with a cause who come to David, but to David himself. This brings us to the question raised by v. 7. Is one to understand the Tekoite or her family as analogous to David? On the one hand, on the reading that sees in him a man out to avenge Amnon's death, David looks much like the Tekoite's family. Notably, the message of this part of her mashal would then mean that David, like the Tekoite's family, is about to wipe out the name and remnant of the dead son's father—that is, David is about to do himself the ultimate disfavor. On the other hand, the reading that emphasizes his compassion for Absalom would view David (once again in the image of the Tekoite) as seeking a pretext for saving his son. So, once again, the mashal continues to include differing trajectories by which to understand its referents. David is at once the wise woman and her family, simultaneously seeking vengeance on, and compassion for, Absalom. Confirmation that David is analogous to both the woman and her family can be found in the other meshalim, especially in the way they consistently depict their main characters in contradictory ways. Recall that the prophet of the mashal in 1 Kings 20 first represents Ben-Hadad (in the 'sign-act') and then represents Ahab (in the short mashal). Again, in Nathan's mashal we saw that David could legitimately be understood as the rich man, the poor man, and the traveler. This multi-referential and ambiguous nature of the Tekoite's mashal continues in the response-pronouncement section comprised by vv. 8-11. b. 'Upon Me, My Lord the King, be the Guilt!' The response-proclamation portion of the Tekoite's mashal represents a considerable variation from its form in 1 Kings 20 and 2 Samuel 12. In those two passages the response is relatively brief and to the point. Ahab says ~[tD2CJQ p, 'You have your answer' (1 Kgs 20.40), and David says to Nathan HNT ntoun CTKn mirp, 'The man who did this is a dead man!' In contrast, David's response in 2 Sam. 14.8-11 comes in three parts that become successively clearer, yet in none of the three does he make a clear pronouncement about anyone's guilt. He merely

170

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

gives assurances that the woman's son will be safe.79 In his first response to her mashal, David says, 'Go home and I will give orders concerning you' (v. 8). It is not immediately evident what it means for David to 'give orders' concerning the Tekoite. It appears that in response to this lack of clarity, the Tekoite seeks to elicit further assurances from David.80 In v. 9 she says:

:p] INGOT -[bom '3N ira^iD pin -pan TTR *?s 'Upon me and my father's house be the guilt, O my lord the king, may the king and his throne be innocent.'

Given the conflation of identities that emerges from v. 7, v. 9 is truly ironic.81 If we take seriously the indications that both the woman and her family represent the king, then the woman can be understood to say, in v. 9, that the guilt (blood guilt?) will be upon the king. Indeed, the first four words of the quotation above, ]1I?rT ~[^Qn ^"TK "^, could be understood more in the sense of, 'Upon me (as) the king, my lord, be the guilt and upon my family'. More pointed is W. Propp's reading 'upon my lord the king be the guilt... '.82 Either reading is grammatically possible and both capture what seems to be implied by the alternating analogy of David with the Tekoite and her family. Moreover, it appears that the remainder of the Court Narrative, the account of the rest of David's active life, is an account of how his blood guilt catches 79. On the delayed pronouncement and its rarity in judicial contexts see E. Bellefontaine, 'Customary Law and Chieftainship: Judicial Aspects of 2 Samuel 14.4-21', JSOT3S (1987), pp. 47-72. Also note its similarity to the failure of Joram (2 Kgs 6) and Ahasuerus (Esther) to give a clear response to similarly dire circumstances. 80. Rashi interprets the Tekoite's response in v. 9 as a signal that she knows she has been put off. Rashi says that the Tekoite's response is as if to say 'You delay me now by saying "I will give orders concerning you" so that I will go on my way. But, if you fail to give orders concerning me, and my son is killed, upon whom will the guilt be?' Note that v. 9 has resonance with the Rahab story as well. Recall that she, too, attempts to save the lives of her family members. 81. Note that McCarter, et al. (2 Samuel, p. 347) view v. 9 as a Deuteronomistic attempt to shield David from blame. This entirely misses the conflation of identities and the irony that results. 82. 'Kinship in 2 Samuel 13', p. 52. Propp reads ^U as the unabbreviated form of the preposition 'upon' rather than as the abbreviated form ^ plus the first person objective suffix ' as does the original translation above. Note too that above in Chapter 2 we considered the possibility of understanding the phrase as an apology for the impertinence of speaking so boldly to the king.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

171

up with him and his family. In this sense, the woman's and her family's associations with David make v. 9 prophetic. But if we are to read the first half of v. 9 as we have, how ought we to read the last three words, 'p] 1K031 "j^Dm, 'May the king and his throne be innocent'? Perhaps this represents a wish that is no longer possible. It may be the equivalent of the counterfactual wish, 'Would that the king and his throne were innocent!' Or perhaps it means something like, 'Despite the guilt that inevitably will fall on the king and his household, would that he and his throne could be considered innocent.' In the end, however, it may be impossible to gain a clear, unambiguous reading from v. 9, and perhaps this is the point. Like many of the meshalim, this one incorporates associations that, at a certain level, defy any straight-forward logic. What is important is the irony they convey by mixing the referents to which they point. Moreover, the multi-referential quality of v. 9, again, reinforces the complexity of the message encoded in the Tekoite's mashal. Put another way, v. 9 presupposes the analogues between the Tekoite and David and his family that make the verse imply two, contrary messages. The king and his family (throne) are both guilty and innocent. This double message appears to escape David. In response to the Tekoite's 'acceptance' of the guilt involved in this case, in v. 10 he gives the second of his three responses to the Tekoite's plea by specifying what he will do for her. He says that if anyone so much as speaks with her, he will have to answer to him. It is not clear whether this represents a response to v. 9 alone, or to the Tekoite's larger dilemma. As a response to v. 9 alone, it seems David would be saying something like, 'I will make sure no one harms you on account of your guilt'. On this understanding, David seems to agree to help the Tekoite avoid the normal consequences for her guilt. On the other hand, as a response to her larger problem, David's promise takes on a different hue. As such, David appears to guarantee that no one in her family will be able to harm her or her surviving son. In such a reading, the question of the guilt that remains is ignored, or at best, swept up into the larger dilemma in which the Tekoite finds herself. However we wish to understand this verse, like David's first response, this one is quite vague and hardly represents the kind of 'verdict' that we see in the other meshalim. Once again, it appears that the Tekoite elicits a more satisfactory response from David when she says, in v. 11 a:

172

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

'DTK Trnor vfy\ nmh mrr *»a rrmna •prfTN mrr™ i^an to—or 'Please be mindful, O king, of Yhwh your God who prevents those who would excessively avenge blood by destroying and let them not destroy my son!'

In calling to mind Yhwh's prevention of excessive vengeance, the woman obviously wishes to encourage the king to do the same. Furthermore, if we take seriously the king's dual analogy with the Tekoite and her family, then the last four words of the clause have a complicated set of associations with David. On the reading that understands David as an analogue to the Tekoite's family, one would read the last four words as follows: 'Do not kill my son'. In other words, since her family is a cipher for David, her reference to 'them' can be understood as a reference to David. But this reading becomes even more complicated if we continue to presume that the first half of the clause refers to David and that the second half, where she refers to 'my son', is meant to emphasize the analogue between the woman and David. In this case the last four words would best be understood to say 'Do not destroy your son'. In other words, the 'them' of the first half picks up the family-as-cipher-for-David and the second half picks up the woman-as-cipher-for-David. There are other complex ways in which this verse could be understood, based on the changing referents of the family and woman. We need not rehearse all of them here. It is sufficient to point out the consequences of the fact that David is represented by both the Tekoite and her family in the mashal. Here the conflation of identities serves a consistent purpose, to spare the life of the remaining son. This last comment from the Tekoite appears to draw out of David his final proclamation:

rfiriK -p rni&a ^-DN mrrTT 'As the lord lives, not a hair of your son's (head) shall fall to the ground.'

While this represents a somewhat more specific response to the Tekoite's situation, it still lacks the ringing quality of the verdicts in the other meshalim. David merely makes a promise about her surviving son, with no reference to a verdict for the guilty party involved. Of greatest interest in this last response are its associations with the larger narrative. The way in which David guarantees the woman's son's safety is fascinating for several reasons. First, just after the conclusion of

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

173

this episode in which David is, apparently, convinced to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem, we get the following description of Absalom: 25

There was no one in all of Israel praised so much for his looks as was Absalom. From head to toe he had no blemish. 26When he had his hair cut, which he did every year because it grew so heavy, the hair of his head weighed two hundred shekels by the king's weight.

It is, indeed, interesting that this information comes just after the mashal in which David promises the Tekoite that not a hair of her son, who is a cipher for Absalom, would fall to the ground. Almost as a signal of the association between her son and Absalom, the text immediately adds this little bit of information about Absalom's thick head of hair. As it stands, this makes for an interesting association between the woman's surviving son and Absalom, but David's promise takes on considerable irony when his son dies with his head caught between two limbs of a tree (2 Sam. 18.9). It is unclear if his head gets wedged between limbs or if it is his hair that gets caught there but, given the description of his hair in ch. 14, it seems we are supposed to understand the latter. Of course, the promise David makes to the Tekoite applies, by extension, to his own fratricidal son. Ironically it is both true and false. As a metaphor for the idea that nothing will happen to him, it is clearly false. Taken literally, the promise comes true when Absalom is killed, suspended from the tree by his hair: not a hair of David's son's head falls to the ground. At this juncture it is necessary to consider the nature of David's threefold response to the Tekoite. Of particular interest is the lack of correspondence between David's 'response-pronouncements' and those of the other narrative meshalim. The poor correspondence may simply represent the variation one expects in any genre. But even if this is the case, why does David's response take this particular form? Perhaps not surprisingly, David's response looks more like the responses we find in the 'women with a cause' motif than those of the other narrative meshalim. In fact, each of the three responses of David represents exactly the response sought in the 'women with a cause' motif. Indeed, his first reply in v. 8 is much like 1 Sam. 25.35 where he tells Abigail to return home and he will do what she requests. The absence of a clear 'verdict' in our mashal is, therefore, at least in part, due to its assimilation to the 'woman with a cause' topos. But it is equally likely the result of the fact that, unlike the other meshalim, the Tekoite's seeks clemency for an injustice rather than justice for a misdeed. So

174

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

the difference in the response here is due to at least two factors that combine to alter its form. Persistently, throughout the 'mashal proper' and the 'response-pronouncement', the Tekoite's mashal presents difficulties of interpretation. Like the other meshalim, the Tekoite's is intricately interwoven with the surrounding narrative. Further, the analogues between individuals in the mashal set up multiple and even conflicting messages much like the other meshalim. But if the first two parts of the mashal cause difficulty for the interpreter, the final part of the mashal, the application, seems nearly impenetrable. c. 'May Your Maidservant Speak of One More Thing to My Master, the King?' Verses 12-20 comprise the 'application' of the wise woman's mashal.83 Indeed, in v. 21 David, apparently having 'understood' what the mashal means, summons Joab and has Absalom brought back home. Based on the form of the application in other meshalim, and on David's response to this one, one would expect the Tekoite's application to be something like, 'You are this vengeful man!' Or, alternatively, 'You are like me; save your son!' The list could go on; the point is that what the Tekoite presents in her application is very different from the applications we have considered above. The numerous reasons for this difference are the subject of the remainder of this chapter. To begin, some of the distinctiveness of the Tekoite's 'application' can be understood in the context of the complications involved with the 'mashal proper' and the 'response' that precede. As noted above, both the Tekoite, as the one who worries about her remaining son, and her family, as the party seeking vengeance for the murder of one son, act as ciphers for David. The association of David with both the woman and her family complicates the way in which the 'application' can function here. Furthermore, given the mixed signals about motive in the surrounding narrative as well as throughout the first two parts of the mashal, it is not entirely clear what the 'application' ought to say. Moreover, while the message of the mashal seems to be that one's surviving son ought to be preserved, the result of David's listening to

83. H.P. Smith (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977], pp. 355-57) agrees that this comprises the 'application' of the Tekoite's mashal.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

175

the Tekoite's mashal is not just preserving Absalom's life but actually bringing him back home! The question of what the application ought to say is crucial to understanding it. One naturally presumes that David properly understands the mashal and that his decision to bring Absalom home is a result of his proper understanding. On close reading, however, the application of the Tekoite's mashal is anything but clear. It begins, simply enough, with the woman asking David whether she might have another word with him. The next two verses, however, are among the most obscure in Hebrew biblical narrative. They read as follows: ozfco nin -mn i^nn -mm D'rftN air^r HND rraein nabi rrc?Nn na^m13 ISDN' vb ~\m mnK D-OTI CTQDI mm ma~'D14 nmmN -^an Ttin Tbcb :m3 i]QQ rrr -rta1? rracria 3cm es: DTTTK Kento 13

The woman said, 'Why do you make plans like this with the people of God? In speaking of this thing the king is like someone who is guilty not to bring back his banished one. 14We all must die; we are like water poured out on the ground that cannot be regathered. God does not take (lift) life, and he will make plans so that the banished one does not remain banished from him.'

If the reader is left confused about what this passage means, it is only because the above English translation preserves, as much as possible, the ambiguities of the Hebrew.84 The ambiguity includes both the relationship between this passage and the preceding verses of the mashal, and truly perplexing grammatical problems. Indeed, vv. 13-14 become the crux interpretum for the entire mashal not only for the reader, but, as it turns out, for David as well. Verse 13a introduces the first element that makes vv. 13-14 so difficult. The Tekoite asks David why he has made his current plans, implying that they are not in the best interest of the people.85 But what plans has David made? Nowhere in the previous narrative does David even suggest he has any plan at all. Because David never articulates how he sees his present situation, in what follows it appears that the Tekoite is essentially pushing David to recognize and exercise his options. But it is more complicated than 84. McCarter (2 Samuel, pp. 348-49) gives a good summary of the difficulties involved here. 85. Note that in the end, DIT^i; is only a surface difficulty because in what the woman says after this awkward phrase, David's plans are clearly depicted as against the interests of the people.

176

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

simply attempting to get David to choose his option; the Tekoite apparently pretends that David already has a plan, and is trying to dissuade him from exercising it.86 Because David, in the end, opts to bring Absalom home, it is only natural to presume that this is the option being advocated by the Tekoite. On close reading, however, vv. 13-14 suggest a much more complicated message for David. In fact, three options are open to him in the Tekoite's 'instructions' of vv. 13-14. Based on three different readings of these two verses the following options emerge:87 A) B) C)

Kill Absalom to avenge Amnon and Tamar Bring Absalom back to Jerusalem Leave Absalom in exile

Significantly, it is unclear that the Tekoite really gives any clear guidance to David in making his decision; in reality her 'instructions' in vv. 13-14 essentially represent a second mashal that forces David to make a decision, but fails to clarify which one he ought to make. In the following I provide readings of vv. 13-14 with a view to understanding how each of the Tekoite's three options listed above emerges from her parabolic language. It is important to keep in mind that each of the options being advanced by the Tekoite represents a contrast to David's 'plans', if indeed he has any. Reading A: Kill Absalom While v. 13a suggests that David has plans, it fails to identity what they are. Verse 13b, however, offers hope in determining what David plans to do. It starts by saying, 'In speaking in this way theHKJL.ing. In other words, v. 13ba suggests that it is in what David has just said that we are to find his 'plans'.88 Furthermore, by referring to David's 'speaking in this way' this application sounds like the others we have seen. The Tekoite seems to say, 'In speaking this way, you indict yourself. But recollect what it is that David said in response to her mashal proper. David's response comes in three parts: v. 8, 'Go home 86. In pretending that David has a plan, the Tekoite may not only be pushing him to recognize his options, but may also be sparing him the embarrassment of admitting he has no plan. 87. Note that these options represent the possibilities for interpreting what the Tekoite presents as David's options. 88. Rashi seems to agree by claiming that this is a reference to v. 1 Ib.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

111

and I will take care of you'; v. 10, 'If anyone so much as speaks to you, bring him to me and he will never touch you again'; and v. 11, 'As Yhwh lives, not a hair of your son's head shall fall to the ground'. It seems that if the woman is referring to what David has most recently said, his 'plans' must be analogous to the preservation of her son. That would mean, of course, that David's 'plans' to preserve his own son are contrary to the interests of the populace. In other words, on this reading, the Tekoite is telling David that his plans to save Absalom are ill-advised and that he ought to kill Absalom instead. Recommending this reading is the fact that it addresses the notion that David pines for Absalom. On this reading, the Tekoite essentially says 'No matter how much you would like to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem, don't! Kill him!' By killing him, David would eliminate the the threat that Absalom, indeed, becomes. There are two major problems with this reading of the Tekoite's message. The first problem actually arises out of its greatest asset. Reading A, of the three suggested above, is most closely associated with what David has just said in vv. 8-11; readings B and C are only loosely connected with those verses. Of course, the problem arises in that what David has just said, implying clemency for the woman's son as well as his own, is in keeping with what appears to be the persistent message of the mashal—save the surviving son. Indeed, the associations of the first two parts of the mashal with the topos of 'woman with a cause' would suggest that reading A is highly improbable. The second problem with A is that v. 13bb raises the possibility of Absalom's return. Indeed, the last three quarters of vv. 13-14 imply that the question facing David turns on the option of bringing Absalom home or leaving him in exile.89 Given the nature of the last three quarters of these verses, and the overwhelming evidence that the first two parts of the mashal are informed by the 'woman with a cause' topos, we must view reading A as either impossible or, perhaps more subtly, as a red herring that proposes to David the impossible. That is, option A may be impossible because he loves Absalom so much he could never kill him, or it may be impossible because the early part of the mashal has made it clear that vengeance is no longer an option. This latter reading would imply that A is a kind of tease to a David 89. Note that v. 11 can be understood to imply the notion that David should leave Absalom in exile as God leaves Cain in Gen. 4, but this comes from the Tekoite's mouth and can hardly be understood as David's plan.

178

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

who would like nothing more than to kill his remaining son. As unlikely as is reading A, v. 14a could be understood to support it. Here, one could understand the Tekoite to say, 'We all must die, we are all like water poured out on the ground that cannot be regathered. Quit worrying about Absalom, he will die sooner or later; you are just fixing his date of death.' But reading A runs into trouble again in v. 14b which, again, raises the issue of exile vs. return. It may be that v. 14, like v. 13, is meant to raise the possibility of killing Absalom only to eliminate the possibility in its second half. However we should read vv. 13-14, reading A is highly suggestive and picks up on several conflicting trajectories through the narrative. In the end, however, David's options seem to boil down to whether or not he should bring Absalom back to Jerusalem. Reading B: Return Absalom Options B and C suggest that David's plans relate to the issue raised in v. 13b: should he bring Absalom home or not? In other words, these two readings understand v. 13ba, 'In speaking in this way', to refer to some plan to return Absalom. By 'pointing' to what is contained in v. 13b, readings B and C have a much looser connection with vv. 811, where the notion of return is never mentioned, but presuppose the more general message (again, persistently implied by associations with the 'woman with a cause' topos) that the the surviving son must be spared. Reading B would understand v. 13b as follows: 'In speaking in this way the king is guilty in that the king does not bring back his banished.'

On this reading, the Tekoite seems to say that David's plans are to leave Absalom in exile in Geshur, to which he is said to flee in 2 Sam. 13.34, 37-38. This repeated reference signals the importance of Absalom's exile and reinforces the notion that it is this exile that is the focus of the message in vv. 13-14. On reading B, the last half of v. 13, then, implies that David's plans to leave Absalom in exile are wrongheaded; Absalom should be returned. In support of the idea that Absalom should be returned to Jerusalem, v. 14a could be understood to imply the following: 'Like Amnon we all must die, and, like him, we are like water poured out on the ground that cannot be regathered. Amnon is dead, get over it and carry on!' In turn, on reading B, the last half of v. 14 can be understood as

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

179

follows: 'God will not punish (take the life) of the one who makes plans so that the banished one not remain banished from him.' This represents the most common way of understanding v. 14 and takes as the subject of the second verb a third party that is essentially a cipher for David. It then presumes that this same person is the antecedent to the object suffix on 12DQ. So, the message on this reading is that God will not punish David for bringing Absalom back home. This reading is supported by the fact that David himself understands the Tekoite to say just this. Moreover, without the return of Absalom to Jerusalem, Nathan's prediction in 12.11-12 would not come true. In those verses that conclude his mashal to David, Nathan says that God is going to raise dissension from within David's house and that he is going to hand his wives over to another who will sleep with them in broad daylight. Of course, this is exactly what happens in 2 Sam. 16.20-23 where Absalom, after his return, sleeps with ten of his father's concubines on the roof of the palace. In this way, the interpretation that David should bring Absalom home serves the larger narrative necessities of the Court Narrative. It makes it possible for Nathan's prediction to come true, and in a particularly fitting way, since David's liaison with Bathsheba began 'on the roof (2 Sam. 11.2). Moreover, this understanding also picks up on the 'woman with a cause' episodes, like Abigail's, in which the king is required to save the man who poses his greatest challenge. But reading B makes for a truly stunning irony. Returning Absalom, far from being without penalty, is the very means by which God will punish David. Reading C: Leave Absalom Exiled Reading C would understand the ambiguous v. 13b as follows: 'In speaking in this way the king is as one who is guilty (indicts himself) so that he not bring back his banished.'90

On this reading the Tekoite implies that in speaking of clemency in his response (vv. 8-11), David sets up a scenario in which he can extend such clemency into bringing Absalom back home. David is now supposed to recognize that his 'plans' are improper and be 'shamed' into changing those plans, with the result that he not bring Absalom home. This reading makes for only a slightly tighter association with vv. 8-11 90. Smith (The Books of Samuel, p. 335) translates v. 13 essentially like this as well.

180

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

and, like reading B, sees the crucial issue at hand the return mentioned in v. 13bb. On reading C, v. 14a should be understood as follows: 'We all must die. Absalom is gone, like so much water poured out on the ground that cannot (or perhaps should not) be "brought back".' In turn, v. 14b could then be read: 'God does not take life; rather, he makes plans so that the banished not be banished from him.' In this case, the subject of the second verb is understood to remain God who, likewise, is taken as the antecedent of the object suffix on 1]QQ. So read, v. 14b means that while God would preserve Absalom's life, he would not necessarily let him go home. Indeed, God makes provisions for those who are exiled, by never letting them be exiled from him. Several things recommend this reading. First, it incorporates what seems to be the lesson of the first two parts of the mashal by drawing attention to the fact that God would preserve the life of the fratricide. We have seen innumerable ways in which this must be taken as the essential message of the mashal proper and the response. In particular, the 'women with a cause' and, especially, the levirate connections make this point absolutely clear. It is also of note that this reading recognizes the danger posed by Absalom 'the challenger'. This danger is witnessed, again, especially in the parallels of our mashal with the Abigail episode and those related to it. Combined with the note of clemency in v. 14b, however, is the assurance that while Absalom remains in exile, he will not be exiled from God. In further support of this understanding is what appears to be a final parallel with Genesis 4. Indeed, v. 14 seems to point back to the Tekoite's earlier comment in v. 11 where she reminded David that his God prevents excessive blood guilt. Both v. 11 and v. 14 appear to be subtle allusions to the events surrounding the Cain and Abel episode. Recall that there God punishes Cain not by killing him but, rather, by sending him off to perpetual exile.91 Here, the Tekoite's reference to God, who preserves life and even makes sure that the exiled not be exiled from him, may send the message to David that it is one thing to save Absalom, but an entirely different matter to bring him home. As a final way in which this reading is both reinforced and integrated into 91. Note that Gen. 4.16 records: mrr "DS'TD |"p ten, 'And Cain left the presence of God'. Given the previous assurances of God's perpetual protection (via sevenfold vengeance), we should not understand v. 16 to mean that Cain was 'banished' from God.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

181

the larger narrative, it does turn out to be a mistake to bring Absalom back to Jerusalem. Moreover, on this reading the wise woman of Tekoa looks much like the wise woman of Abel Beth Maacah who likewise conspires with Joab to keep the king from the harm intended by a rebel. What can be said about the triple reading of vv. 13-14? First, reading A may represent what David wants but (based on the associations with the 'woman with a cause' topos) is impossible to do. Alternatively, it may represent what is in David's best interests, but what he finds impossible to do. As noted above, the last halves of vv. 13 and 14 suggest that David's real options turn on the issue of Absalom's return. This being the case, reading B has the advantage of being the way David interprets the mashal. It also serves the larger plot of the Court Narrative by getting Absalom back to Jerusalem where he, ironically, serves as the means by which God punishes David. But should we, like most other readers, decide that this is the best or only alternative? Reading C has as many things to recommend it. Most significantly, it seems to be best integrated with the other two parts of the mashal. Rather than select the correct reading here, we should conclude that all are possible. In other words, like the other meshalim, ours has at its heart a dual or even triple message.92 It is hard to determine to what degree all of these messages were intended by any single author or redactor. One or another could merely be the result of the multiple narrative threads that comprise the mashal. That David interprets the mashal the way he does should not obscure the other messages incorporated in it. In the end, the irony is that the only way David can 'have' his surviving son is dead or in exile. The parabolic language of vv. 13-14 is quite distinct. Whereas the other meshalim present the application in relatively terse and clear terms, ours slips into the kind of ambiguous language of the mashal proper.93 This makes the application read very much as if it were a second 'mashal' or a mashal within a mashal. This is not terribly sur92. Note that W. Propp ('Kinship', pp. 50-53) implies the same when he argues that the two options for understanding the mashal are that David should either return Absalom or kill him! As we have seen, the notion that David ought to kill Absalom runs counter to the message implied by the 'woman with a cause' topos. 93. Jotham's and Nathan's 'application', however, share with the Tekoite's the quality of picking up and maintaining the multiple interpretive trajectories suggested by the 'meshalim proper' that precede them.

182

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

prising given our investigation into other meshalim, such as the one in 1 Kings 20, where we detected a 'sign-act' and mashal joined together.94 Moreover, the recognition that vv. 13-14 represent both the 'application' and another 'mashal' serves to explain, at least in part, a peculiarity in vv. 15-17. McCarter and others have argued that these verses do not belong here but, rather, between vv. 7 and 8 above.95 Their reasoning is sound. Verses 15-17 represent the continuation of the Tekoite's description of her plight. Herein, she tells David that she has come to him because she was afraid, and figured that he might listen and deliver her and her son (vv. 15-16). In an apparent attempt to flatter David, the Tekoite finishes her little speech by telling him that she seeks relief from him because he is like an angel of God in recognizing both good and evil. It makes perfect sense to read this passage as a continuation of the material in v. 7. In so doing, we then get David's response(s) in vv. 8-11, the Tekoite's application in vv. 12-14, and David's reply in vv. 18-20 once he recognizes that the Tekoite's story has been a ruse to get him to bring Absalom home. Given the merits of this understanding of the dislocation of vv. 1517, one wonders how they got there in the first place. Scholars have, indeed, been less forthcoming in explaining the merits of the present location of these verses. There are some, however, who believe that vv. 15-17 belong where they are. Hertzberg says it best when he argues that in vv. 15-17 the Tekoite attempts to cover her main purpose by making it seem an afterthought.96 In other words, since she has addressed her application to him in vv. 12-14, David will now recognize that her story was a mashal. In an effort to cover this fact, the woman continues her guise as the widowed woman trying to save her only remaining son. As has consistently been the case above, both of these understandings of vv. 15-17 are plausible. It is my purpose, however, to show how the verses work in their present location. Notably, if we take seriously the mashal-like qualities of vv. 12-14, 94. Note that in 1 Kgs 20 the 'short mashal' served as the 'solution' to the signact that preceded while maintaining its own parabolic quality. This is an analogue to the way vv. 13-14 function in this mashal. While they serve to 'solve' the first part of the mashal they also encode their own parabolic message. Admittedly, neither 1 Kgs 20.39-43 nor 2 Sam. 14.13-14 provides a particularly satisfying 'solution', but that this appears to be their 'local' function seems clear. 95. 2 Samuel, p. 345. 96. H.W. Hertzberg, / & II Samuel, a Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), p. 332.

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

183

the relationship between them and vv. 15-17 is much like the relationship between vv. 6 and 7. Verse 6 represents the central element of the 'mashal proper'. Here we get the most ambiguous language and the simplest description of the problem. Verse 7 represents the attempt on the part of the woman to describe what her circumstances are since her tragedy. Similarly, vv. 12-14 are presented in highly ambiguous language, much like a mashal. Verses 15-17, like v. 7, present the more general circumstances in which the woman finds herself. Clearly, there are considerable differences between the material in vv. 6-7 and that in vv. 12-17. The point I wish to make is that the presence of vv. 15-17 might be explained as part of the nature of vv. 12-17 understood as a kind of 'secondary' mashal. This secondary mashal addresses an issue that goes untouched in the first. Whereas the first mashal concentrates on the issue of preserving the life of the remaining son, the second concentrates on the question of his return. We have seen in other meshalim this dual trajectory. For instance, the sign-act/mashal in 1 Kings 20 includes two messages. The first, connoted by the signact, is that Ahab should have struck Ben-Hadad down. The second and related message, connoted by the short mashal, is that Ahab should not have let Ben-Hadad go. A similar phenomenon was witnessed in Jotham's mashal where the message was actually threefold: only ne'erdo-wells wish to be king, it is foolish to want a king, and when you pick a king, you had better be loyal. In other words, like the other meshalim, the Tekoite's seems to convey both issues in this kind of dual-mashal configuration. The question will naturally arise: if vv. 12-14 represent a second mashal, what happens to their function as the application of the first mashal proper? The fact of the matter is that these verses seem to function in both capacities. By so doing, however, the application becomes a second, even more enigmatic, mashal. The 'split personality' of vv. 12-14 should come as no surprise. They not only present a 'triple option' message but represent a dual function in the larger mashal. The problem for David is in properly recognizing with whom and with what reading he should identify. The dilemma posed by the Tekoite's words to David, and to the reader for that matter, is all but lost when one reads on to the conclusion of ch. 14. Immediately following v. 20, David calls Joab and tells him to bring Absalom home. The reader can be forgiven for presuming that this is what the Tekoite's mashal 'meant'. There are, however, as

184

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

noted above, some subtle hints in the last section of the mashal that cast a long shadow over David's upcoming interpretation. In vv. 1819 David asks the Tekoite to admit that Joab was behind her ruse. She admits that this is the case and that Joab has put all the words in her mouth. That the Tekoite repeats the notion that Joab told her everything to say should not be over-interpreted. Whether or not she followed his orders, she would likely claim that she did. That Joab seems genuinely pleased that Absalom is to be returned to Jerusalem also implies that if her words were not exactly his, at least they produced his desired result. This does not mean, however, that the woman's words were not her own at some point. If Joab's goal was, indeed, to get Absalom back to Jerusalem, whether by tricking David or by arranging for the king what he secretly desires, then the Tekoite's 'second' mashal may represent her own words. In presenting her 'application/mashal' the way she does in vv. 12-14, she presents David with language that can be understood in several ways. If he interprets these verses as a call to bring Absalom home, the way Joab wants him to, fine. If he interprets them to mean that Absalom should remain in exile or be killed, she can defend herself by repeating the words and insisting that David has misinterpreted them. On this understanding, the Tekoite's designation as a 'wise' woman takes on considerable force.97 If, on the other hand, v. 12-14 do represent Joab's words, then his political cunning (or should we say his character as a yesman) is remarkable. In this case, Joab may not know what David wants and so presents him with an 'application' (from the Tekoite's lips) that is wide open to interpretation. In this way, when the king discovers the ruse, no matter how he interprets the mashal, Joab can take credit for instigating the whole thing. Of course, there are ways to understand the foregoing in subtle mixes of these basic trajectories of interpretation, but these represent the two major ways to understand them. The last verse of the mashal is the one that raises, proleptically, the question of the propriety of David's interpretation. This question is raised, really, in a very subtle way and is best understood in contrast to the story of Solomon's decision in 1 Kings 3. There, after Solomon 97. Radaq notes that if Joab put the words in her mouth, the Tekoite hardly need be 'wise'. On the other hand, if she is so wise, why did Joab feel it was necessary to put the words in her mouth? Radaq concludes that Joab gave the woman general instructions and she made up the details of the mashal (^CDOn rtpn NTT).

3. 'Like Water Poured Out on the Ground'

185

has rendered his decision, the narrator says that all of Israel heard of his decision and feared him because they recognized that the wisdom of God was with him. In language that is reminiscent of that found in 1 Kings 3, the wise woman of Tekoa praises David's wisdom. She says, 'My lord is as wise as the wisdom of the angel of God in knowing all that goes on in his land' (2 Sam. 14.20). The location of this verse is crucial to understanding it. First, it comes before, not after, David acts on the mashal that the Tekoite has just presented. In other words, it does not address the wisdom of his decision but rather of his ability to catch Joab at his game. So, David is here praised not for his interpretive abilities (he has not yet tipped his hand about how he interprets the mashal), but for his ability to keep up with the machinations of the royal court. That Solomon is praised after his decision makes the Tekoite's praise ring hollow. The quality of David's decision goes without overt comment, but the following narrative provides all the commentary one needs. David's interpretation of the mashal, for which he is overtly not praised, brings Absalom home and begins the sad story of the demise of father and son. The genre of narrative meshalim goes far in illumining the mashal of the wise woman of Tekoa. It is the nature of these meshalim to have very complicated forms; they often convey complementary, if not contradictory, messages. Furthermore, they are usually integrated into their narrative surroundings in very complex ways that suggest principles of composition that stretch beyond the notions of topos or genre. The relationship of the Tekoite's mashal to the genre of narrative meshalim is best considered within the discussion of its overall form and message, to which we immediately turn in the conclusion.

CONCLUSION At the outset of this study, we set as one of our goals to determine how the Tekoite's mashal illumines David's situation at the end of 2 Samuel 13. We should, perhaps, begin our conclusion with the admission that it illumines some areas rather brightly, others only dimly, and still others, like David, appear to be left in the dark. Our understanding of narrative meshalim, however, goes far in explaining the polysemous and multivocal qualities of the Tekoite's mashal. By now, it is clear that narrative meshalim incorporate numerous narrative threads. It is the numerous narrative threads making up the Tekoite's mashal that complicate the 'picture' for David. In the following, I shall review the mashal, verse by verse, in light of the discoveries discussed above. When v. 1 says that Joab knew that David's heart was 'on Absalom', the natural question is, what does Joab know! 2 Sam. 13.37 and 39 suggest that there is an even chance that David wants Absalom 'dead or alive'. That is, the root ^38 (mourning) is used to describe David's state toward 'his son', but which one? Is David mourning the loss of his son Amnon or for his lost son Absalom? This ambiguity sets the tone for all of the narrative in 2 Sam. 14.1-20. Furthermore, the use of the same root (^38) to describe the Tekoite implies that in this narrative she is the analogue to David's compassionate side but, as we have seen, her family is equally analogous to his vengeful nature. Moreover, one can hardly miss the irony of the 'woman with a cause' being made the analogue to David, when in most examples of the topos she is the king's antagonist. In the Tekoite's mashal, she is both antagonist and analogue to David. To complicate things further, the image of the Tekoite, who at once suggests saving Absalom and ridding David of his enemy (like Abigail, Esther, and the woman of Maacah) adumbrates Bathsheba. The only difference is that for Bathsheba, David's heir and enemy are two sons rather than one. Finally, reinforcing the persistent lack of clarity of our text, note the ambiguity of the Tekoite's 'application' in vv. 13-14, where her message is at its most ambiguous: should David kill, return, or leave in exile his son Absalom?

Conclusion

187

Verse 2 says that Joab retained the wise woman of Tekoa. This likely represents the beginning of the combination of the 'woman with a cause' topos with the mashal. With the introduction of the associations with the 'woman with a cause', there is good reason to believe that the overriding message herein becomes, 'Save my/your son!' But again, consider reading A of vv. 13-14 (kill Absalom) which suggests that things are more complicated than that. Recall that the notice that the woman is wise resonates especially well with the episode of the woman of Maacah (also called wise) who eliminates David's enemy (2 Sam. 20). Moreover, introducing the term 'wise' further signals this narrative's location in the 'woman with a cause' topos in which the woman's discernment and the king's seem consistently to be in inverse relation. This makes the end of the mashal and the Tekoite's praise of David's 'wisdom' suspect. Another aspect of the notice that the 'woman with a cause' is 'wise' is the association of this characteristic with righteousness. Given the persistent inverse relationship between the wisdom of the woman and the king's, this suggests that their righteousness is in inverse relation as well. The final element introduced by the 'woman with a cause' topos, raised only briefly in review of v. 1, is the use of the term ^38 to describe the Tekoite. As noted, it sets up the notion that perhaps the woman and David are both mourning the 'loss' of two sons. Moreover, it seems beyond coincidence that the story of Sheba ben Bichri in 2 Samuel 20 (which itself has so much in common with the Tekoite episode in particular, and the 'woman with a cause' topos in general) takes place at Abel Beth Maacah, a name that suggests the 'mourning of Maacah', the mother of Absalom. Verse 3 says that Joab put the words in the Tekoite's mouth. Again we remember the associations with Bathsheba in 1 Kings 1 and with the woman of Abel Beth Maacah in 2 Samuel 20 who put the idea in Joab's head. Each of these episodes revolves around saving David, or his son, from his enemy. When the Tekoite comes to David in v. 4, the garbled language may reflect an error in transmission or the narrator's attempt to signal the danger in approaching the king unsolicited. Note that Abigail and Esther display similar concerns and that Abigail, in particular, seems to become quite shaken in her approach to David. Moreover, when the Tekoite says to David 'Help, O King' she takes up a phrase repeated in numerous other episodes of the 'woman with a cause' topos. Recall

188

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

that the root IflZT has a dual value in these stories: on the one hand, it connotes saving the woman and, on the other, 'saving' the king. Is the woman asking for help for herself or, like Abigail, telling David to 'save' himself by eliminating Absalom his enemy? In v. 5 when David asks, 'what bothers you?', he responds to the 'woman with a cause' in a way very much consistent with that topos. Further, the woman's answer to the question 'truly I am in mourning' represents a pun on *7DN, which further signals her analogy with David. The rest of her answer, where she announces that she is a widow, provides the first of the information that suggests the associations with the widows of the levirate texts. When the woman tells David of her current plight in v. 6, we can detect the combination of the 'two sons/sibling rivalry' and 'woman with a cause' topoi. This is further complicated by the fact that v. 6 represents a brief, idiomatic formulation of numerous issues surrounding the problem of sibling rivalry. As such, it should be understood as the heart of the mashal in the same way that 2 Sam. 12.1-4 or 1 Kgs 20.39-40 is. As the heart of the mashal, it makes perfect sense that it provides the nexus of so many interpretive trajectories through the Tekoite's mashal and the larger Court Narrative. This is exactly how the other meshalim function. So v. 6 can be understood to represent, by synecdoche, the sibling rivalry topos. By so doing, v. 6 implies a full set of interpretive tacks for understanding David's current situation. In being presented by the Tekoite, it is further incorporated into the 'woman with a cause' topos with all its attendant issues. The complexity of the message should come as little surprise, given this layering of traditionary threads. This goes far in explaining why the mashal is not univocal.1 The 'messages' that v. 6 brings to David are no less ambiguous than the previous verses in this mashal. Rather than review all of Chapter 1 here, we simply note that the associations with Genesis, especially Genesis 4, suggest the difficult and nearly impossible position in which David finds himself. Whom does he favor and why? What are the consequences of this choice and how does it relate to God's plans? Much of the drama of David's story emerges from the working out of these elemental questions. Moreover, the pathos of David's situation is 1. Note the strong associations of v. 6 with Genesis, and in particular with the episodes of Sarah and Rebekah, where we see in rather inchoate form the juxtaposition of the 'woman with a cause' topos and the sibling rivalry topos.

Conclusion

189

signaled without providing sentimental depictions or simple solutions. Part of the complexity of David's dilemma emerges from the close association between v. 6 and Deut. 22.23-27. This association also signals a relatively persistent juxtaposition of sexual impropriety with the loss of favor in the sibling rivalry topos. The import of this message can hardly be lost on the Davidic household; the narrator apparently takes a markedly unsympathetic view of the game of 'musical beds' that comprises the Court History. Equally important in the connections between v. 6 and Deuteronomy 22 is the realization that our mashal has such close ties to that legal corpus. Reinforcing this notion is the closeness in wording between v. 6 and Deut. 25.11-12 and in the concerns shared by v. 7 and Deut. 25.5-10. However one understands these associations, they clearly signal that the mashal brings to bear on David's narrative those issues so central to the Deuteronomic legal material. When the Tekoite introduces her family in v. 7, the possibilities for understanding David's analogue(s) increase. Ironically, David can be understood to be analogous to both the Tekoite and her family. Perhaps as a signal of the interchangeable quality of the woman and her family, v. 7 refers to both with the root rtDCJ. Moreover, the notion that David could be associated with both parties in the mashal is reinforced by the fact that in Nathan's mashal David can be understood to be all three men. Furthermore, the conflation of identities is also witnessed in Jotham's mashal (Gideon vs. Abimelech) and in 1 Kings 20 where the 'prophet' represents first Ben-Hadad (sign-act), then Ahab (short mashal). Finally, v. 7 reinforces the levirate concerns that are so central to the Tekoite's message for David. In v. 8 David's response is inadequate at best, even dismissive. More important, it signals his total inability to see the analogy with which he is being hit over the head. David will have to be pushed over and again to 'get it'! Note that his second answer in v. 10 displays that David is still clueless. When the Tekoite declares that the 'guilt' is on her in v. 9, associations with Genesis 4 and Abigail come to mind, with all their attendant and not altogether consistent implications for David. Moreover, the notion that David is an analogue to the woman makes her claim even more ambiguous. Recall that 'Upon me, my lord the king, be the guilt' can be understood, 'Upon my lord the king be the guilt'. Furthermore, making the text even more ambiguous, this phrase can be understood

190

King David with the Wise Woman ofTekoa

to be an apology for her impertinence as well as an acceptance of guilt. Verse lla suggests that David consider God's prevention of excessive vengeance. We noted that this may be a reference to Genesis 4 where God saves Cain from those who would seek his life. Minimally, Genesis 4 is part of the same conceptual universe and its resonance with v. lla suggests that clemency is required here as well as in the case of Cain. If this, indeed, implies the notion that David should save Absalom, but leave him in exile, we may have the introduction of the contrast of exile vs. return that emerges explicitly in vv. 13-14 of the mashal. Consider, moreover, the elements of the Tekoite's mashal that are so much like Genesis 4: struggle in the field, no one to intervene, pleading for clemency, prevention of vengeance, and finally, the notion of exile. All follow the same order in which they occur in Genesis 4. Again, this is not conclusive, but suggests that the Tekoite's mashal alludes to the Cain and Abel traditions. The second important element of v. 11 is David's final response that 'not a hair' of the Tekoite's son's head should fall to the ground. This reference to her son's 'head' turns out to be an ironic cipher for Absalom's. Recall that not a hair of his head touches the ground when he is killed. Furthermore, it is the fate of Absalom that has so much in common with other meshalim in which pretenders to the throne 'get it' in the head. All the narrative meshalim contain the reference to this pretender who, in some way, represents a challenge or obstacle to the king. In this way, 2 Samuel 20 looks like a secondary conclusion (reverberating with Absalom's death in ch. 18) to the story of the challenge(s) to David. Again, recall the location of Sheba ben Bichri's death at Abel Beth Maacah and associations with the mourning of the house of Absalom's mother who is named Maacah. When the Tekoite asks to speak further in v. 12, she introduces the 'application' of the mashal with all its attendant difficulties. Among them is that the 'application' also serves as a second mashal. More significantly, v. 13 introduces the notion that David has 'plans' that he ought to change. If we look backward to vv. 8-11, his only plans would seem to be that he will save his son just as he has called for in the case of the woman. Does this mean that the Tekoite is calling on him to change those plans and kill his son? If we look forward to v. 13b, the plans would suggest the issue of return/exile which may have been raised only by the Tekoite in v. 11. All this leaves us, and David, with three, mutually exclusive, readings of the Tekoite's application: A) kill

Conclusion

191

Absalom; B) return Absalom to Jerusalem; C) leave Absalom in exile. Verse 14a works with any of the three interpretations of v. 13. In contrast, like v. 13b, v. 14b seems to limit the alternatives facing David to two: Absalom should either be returned or left in exile. These two interpretations presuppose the persistent message of the first two parts of the mashal that imply that Absalom must be saved, but not where he ought to reside. The major question surrounding vv. 15-17 is where these verses belong. Despite a strong case for reading them after v. 7, their relation to vv. 13-14 is consistent with other narrative meshalim (1 Kgs 20 especially) where we find a secondary mashal. On this reading of the Tekoite's mashal, vv. 15-17 are to vv. 13-14 as v. 7 is to v. 6. In addition to this observation, v. 16, by using ^^n^, suggests that, in contrast to her/his first son, David ought to save her/his second. Again, this serves to make readings B and C more likely. Further, given the persistent signals that David's discernment and judiciousness are suspect, when the Tekoite says in v. 17 that David 'knows everything', one should likely question her sincerity. Finally, in vv. 18-20, once David 'catches' the Tekoite at her (and Joab's) ruse, the Tekoite repeats the notion that David is wise and so raises for a second time similar questions. In their present location, thus, vv. 15-17 not only relate to vv. 13-14 (as outlined above), but also serve to raise the recurrent issue of saving the remaining son and reinforce the question of David's discernment. Both of these are important reminders, placed just before David interprets the Tekoite's mashal. The effect is to refocus the issues at stake and, again, cast suspicion on David's upcoming interpretation. Having reviewed the results of our close reading of the mashal, it is worthwhile to consider the larger methodological implications of this investigation. This volume represents a self-conscious attempt to juxtapose postmodern reading sensibilities, with their emphasis on multiple readings, and the historical realities that produced the texts with which we have dealt. Standard historical treatments of our mashal, as well as of most biblical narrative, seek univocal readings.2 As a result they tend to concentrate on individual authors and/or redactors as the source of meaning in the text. In other words, such treatments presume that the texts mean what the author or redactor wanted them to mean. The 2.

See for example the readings of our mashal detailed in the Introduction.

192

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

foregoing makes this method of reading problematic. The temporal nature of the coalescence of the text, incorporating as it does various idioms that resonate throughout the Bible, suggests the accrual of meaning(s) over an extended period of time. On this understanding, the texts represent the social and communal process of articulating core idioms and conceptualizations. As a result, 'meaning' has diffuse origins that can be understood as having both 'horizontal' (across the culture at any given time) and 'vertical' (across generations) qualities. The diffuse origins of our texts are represented by the multiple intertextual associations that inhere in them. It is the resonances amid this intertext that are key to understanding and revealing the underlying attitudes and religious conceptualizations of ancient Israelite culture. My method herein has differed not only from standard historicalcritical approaches to the Hebrew Bible but also from most contemporary 'literary' treatments of the mashal in paying close attention to the historical processes that gave rise to the text as we have it. While paying close attention to the 'literary art' of the composition of the texts, I also have sought to reveal how this artistic process remains in conversation with other manifestations of particular topoi, motifs etc. It is in the intertextual associations, with texts representing any number of historical periods, that one finds one's bearings in trying to triangulate on what the mashal might mean. Thus, while my method at one level operates synchronically, it also presumes that it is only in relation to the historical processes that produced the text that one can begin to understand it.3 In conclusion, v. 6 of our mashal, with its seeming contradictory 3. In a recent article I. Provan ('Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections of Recent Writing on the History of Israel', JBL 114 [1995], pp. 585-606) takes on the thorny problem of current conceptualizations of 'history writing' in ancient Israel. Provan's goals are different from mine, but his stress on Israelite history writing as 'story' is in line with the implications of this study. In particular, this study makes clear that those responsible for our text expressed their understanding of their past in familiar idioms and tropes. That this history is framed in the topoi and idioms that are central to the religious life of ancient Israel does not disqualify it as history. The implications of this realization are that one must be attentive to the multiple readings that result from the overlapping of traditionary threads. Furthermore, one must realize that the 'history' that results from this traditionary process has such profoundly religious underpinnings that they cannot be ignored. All of this is to say that the complexity of the texts with which we have dealt herein makes problematic ascribing meaning in the texts to single motives.

Conclusion

193

message(s) for David, encapsulated as it is in its mashal-like form and absorbed into the 'woman with a cause' topos, provides as good an opportunity as there is to raise the question about who intended these messages for David. To begin with, some of these 'messages' must be seen as more intentional than others. It is essentially impossible to tell which are intended and which are incidental—the result of prolonged contemplation of the possibilities presented by the mashal. That not all of these messages were intended does not mean that they were not available for David to interpret. In other words, some of the possibilities for interpreting the mashal are ones David simply passed over. David, partially because of the dire circumstances in which he finds himself, and partially because of the nature of interpretation itself, opts for a relatively narrow interpretation of the mashal. Why he makes this particular one is unclear; perhaps it is because he wants Absalom home, perhaps because the Tekoite has convinced him of the error of his hatred for Absalom, perhaps because he has no idea what to do and merely stumbles into this interpretation. The number of interpretive options implied by the Tekoite's mashal is so large, and so many are likely 'unintended', because of its agglutinative quality. Stated another way, the mashal means so many things because so many tradents 'meant' it. Messages cross the narrative on numerous trajectories and often imply contradictory interpretations. But the number of interpretations is not entirely indeterminate. The possible interpretations are persistently bounded by the strictures implied by the legal and theological insights embedded in the various literary forms that comprise the greater mashal. It is highly unlikely that any single author or redactor 'controlled' all these messages simultaneously, any more than David or any reader could. But this is the heart of the religiously overdetermined message implied in the Tekoite's mashal: interpretation is everything.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrahams, R.D., 'Personal Power and Social Restraint in the Definition of Folklore', in A. Paredes and R. Bauman (eds.), Toward New Perspectives in Folklore (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1972), pp. 16-30. —'Proverbs and Proverbial Expressions', in R.M. Dorson (ed.), Folklore and Folklife (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), pp. 117-27. Ackerman, J.S., 'Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 41-60. Ackroyd, P.R., 'The Succession Narrative (so-called)', Int35 (1981), pp. 383-96. Albeck, C.B., and Y.J. Theodor, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (Jerusalem: Vahrman, 1965). Alter, R.,The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). Althann, R., 'The Meaning of 'rb'ym shnh in 2 Sam 15:7', Bib 73.2 (1992), pp. 248-52. Altpeter, G., 'II Sam 12, l-15a. Eine strukturalistische Analyse', 7Z38 (1982), pp. 46-52. Amit, Y., "The Dual Causality Principle and its Effects on Biblical Literature', VT37 (1987), pp. 385-400. —'The Story of Amnon and Tamar: Reservoir of Sympathy for Absalom', Hasifrut 32.9 (1983), pp. 80-87. Andrew, M.E., 'Moving from Death to Life: Verbs of Motion in the Story of Judah and Tamar in Gen 38', ZAW 105 (1993), pp. 262-69. Ararat, N., The Story of Amnon and Tamar—A Sequential Reading', Beth Mikra 28 (1982-83), pp. 331-57 (Hebrew). Auerbach, E., Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. W.R. Trask; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957). Bailey, R.C., David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12 (JSOTSup, 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Bakhtin, M.M., The Dialogical Imagination (trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981). Bal, M. (ed.), Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women's Lives in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 81; Bible and Literature, 22; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989). Bartal, A., 'Two Forgotten Topics from the Time of Absalom's Rebellion', Beth Mikra 34 (1988-89), pp. 59-61 (Hebrew). Basset, F.W., 'Noah's Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest?', VT 21 (1971), pp. 232-37. Beames, B., 'Old Testament Parables', Preaching 6 (1991), pp. 37-40. Bellefontaine, E., 'Customary Law and Chieftainship: Judicial Aspects of 2 Samuel 14.421', 750738 (1987), pp. 47-72. —'Deuteronomy 21.18-21: Reviewing the Case of the Rebellious Son', JSOT 13 (1979), pp. 13-31. Ben-Amos, D., 'Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context', in A. Paredes and R. Bauman

Bibliography

195

(eds.), Toward New Perspectives in Folklore (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1972), pp. 3-15. Ben-Amos, D. (ed.), Folklore Genres (Publication of the American Folklore Society, Bibliographical and Special Series, 26; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976). Berlin, A., 'Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David's Wives', JSOT23 (1982), pp. 6985. —'Literary Exegesis of Biblical Narrative: Between Poetics and Hermeneutics', in J.P. Rosenblatt and J.C. Sitterson (eds.), Not in Heaven: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 120-28. Bickert, R., 'Die List Joabs und der Sinneswandel Davids', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 3051. Blenkinsopp, J., 'Theme and Motif in the Succession History and the Yahwist Corpus', in G.W. Anderson et al. (eds.), Volume du Congres Geneve (VTSup, 15; Leiden: Brill, 1966), pp. 44-57. —'Jonathan's Sacrilege', CBQ 26 (1964), pp. 423-49. Blomberg, C.L., 'New Horizons in Parable Research', TJ 3 (1982), pp. 3-17. Boling, R., Judges (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975). Boyarin, D., Intertextuality and the Reading ofMldrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990). Boyce, R.N., The Cry to God in the Old Testament (SBLDS, 103; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Brock, S.P., The Syriac Life of Abel', Mus 87 (1974), pp. 467-92. Brooks, P., Reading for the Plot: Design and Intention in Narrative (New York: Vintage, 1985). Brown, R. McAfee, 'The Nathan Syndrome: Stories with a Moral Intention', Religion and Literature 16.1 (1984), pp. 49-59. Brueggemann, W., First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching; Louisville: John Knox, 1990). —'On Trust and Freedom: A Study of Faith in the Succession Narrative', Int 26 (1972), pp. 3-19. Burrows, M., 'Levirate Marriage in Israel', JBL 59 (1940), pp. 23-33. Camp, C.V., 'The Female Sage in Ancient Israel and in the Biblical Wisdom Literature', in J.G. Gammie and L.J. Perdue (eds.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), pp. 185-203. —'The Wise Women of 2 Samuel: A Role Model for Women in Early Israel', CBQ 43 (1981), pp. 14-29. Campbell, E.F., Jr, Ruth (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975). Caquot, A., 'Un point difficile du discours de la Teqoite', in D. Garrone and F. Israel (eds.), Storia e tradizioni di Israele. Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin (Brescia: Paideia, 1991), pp. 15-30. Carlson, R.A., David the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach in the Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964). Carmichael, C.M., 'A Ceremonial Crux: Removing a Man's Sandal as a Female Gesture of Contempt', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 321-26. Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961).

196

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Coats, G.W., 'Parable, Fable, and Anecdote: Storytelling in the Succession Narrative', Int 35 (1981), pp. 368-82. —'2 Samuel 12.1-7a', Int 40 (1986), pp. 170-75. —'Widow's Rights: A Crux in the Structure of Genesis 38', CBQ 34 (1972), pp. 461-66. Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988). Cohen, H.H., 'David and Bathsheba', JBR 33 (1965), pp. 142-48. Conroy, C., Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Samuel 13-20 (AnBib, 81; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978). Cox, D., 'As Water Spilt on the Ground (Death in the OT)', StMiss 31 (1982), pp. 1-17. Coxon, P.W., 'A Note on "Bathsheba" in 2 Samuel 12, 1-6', Bib 62 (1981), pp. 247-50. Crenshaw, J.L., 'Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon "Historical" Literature', JBL 88 (1969), pp. 129-42. Crossan, J.D., 'Basic Bibliography for Parables Research', Semeia 1 (1974), pp. 236-74. Culler, J.D., The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981). Culley, R.C., 'An Approach to the Problem of Oral Tradition', VT 13 (1963), pp. 113-25. —'Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies', Oral Tradition 1 (1986), pp. 30-65. —'Oral Tradition and Historicity', in J.W. Wevers and D.B. Redford (eds.), Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), pp. 102-16. —'Oral Traditon and the OT: Some Recent Discussion', Semeia 5 (1976), pp. 1-33. Damrosch, D., The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). Daube, D., 'Nathan's Parable', NovT24 (1982), pp. 275-88. Davies, E.W., 'Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage', VT31 (1981), pp. 138-44 and pp. 257-68. Dulin, R., 'Anti-Davidic Voices', TBT26 (1988), pp. 267-71. Feinglais, A., The Rape of Tamar', JBQ 20 (1991-92), pp. 174-81. Fischer, A., 'David und Batseba: Bin literarkritischer und motivgeschichtlicher Beitrag zu IISamll',ZAW101 (1989), pp. 50-59. Flanagan, J.W., 'Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2', JBL 91 (1972), pp. 172-81. Flusser, D., Yahadut Umekorot Hanatzrut (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Poalim, 1979). Fokkelman, J.P., Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis, I (SSN; Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1990). Foley, J.M. (ed.), Oral Tradition in Literature. Interpretation in Context (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1986). Fontaine, C., 'The Bearing of Wisdom on the Shape of 2 Samuel 11-12 and 1 Kings 3', JSOT 34 (1986), pp. 61-77. —Traditional Sayings in the Old Testament: A Contextual Study (The Bible and Literature, 5; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982). Fontaine, C., and C.V. Camp, 'The Words of the Wise and their Riddles', in S. Niditch (ed.), Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 127-51. Fox, M.V., Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Colombia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1991). Frazer, Sir J.G., Folklore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion, Legend, and Law (London: Macmillan, 1918).

Bibliography

197

Freedman, D.N., 'The Nine Commandments: The Secret Progress of Israel's Sins', BRev 5 (1989), pp. 28-37. Gaer, J., The Lore of the Old Testament (Boston: Little, Brown, 1951). Garsiel, M., The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1985). Geertz, C., 'Religion as a Cultural System', in The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), pp. 87-125. Gerhardsson, B., 'The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels: A Comparison with the Narrative Meshalim in the OT,NTS 34.3 (1988), pp. 339-63. Gladson, J.A., 'Unholy Wedlock? The Peril and Promise of Applying Psychology to the Bible (David's "Mid-Life Crisis" in 2 Sam 11-12)', Journal of Psychology and Christianity 10 (1991), pp. 54-64. Goldin, J., The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong?', JBL 96 (1977), pp. 2744. Goldman, S., Samuel (London: Soncino, 1959). Goody, J., The Interface between the Written and the Oral (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Gordis, R., 'Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth', in H.N. Bream et al. (eds.), A Light unto My Path (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974). Gordon, R.P., 1 & 2 Samuel (Old Testament Guides, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). —'The Variable Wisdom of Abel: The MT and Versions at 2 Samuel xx 18-19', VT 43 (1993), pp. 215-26. Gray, J., 1 & 2 Kings (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1970). Greenspahn, F.E., When Brothers Dwell Together: The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). Greenstein, E.L., 'Deconstruction and Biblical Narrative', Proof'9 (1989), pp. 43-71. Grottanelli, C.C., 'The Ancient Novel and Biblical Narrative', QUDCC 56 (1987), pp. 734. —'Charismatic Possession and State Rationalization: On the Nature of Saul's Madness', English unpublished, trans. L.A. Sullivan from 'Possessione Carismatica e Razionalizzazione Statale nella Bibbia Ebraica', SSR 1 (1977), pp. 263-88. —'The King's Grace and the Helpless Woman: A Comparative Study of the Stories of Ruth, Charila, Sita', HR 22 (1982), pp. 1-24. Gunkel, H., The Legends of Genesis (New York: Schocken Books, 1966). —The Folktale in the Old Testament (trans. M.D. Rutter; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1987. Originally published in 1917 as Das Marchen im Alten Testament [Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr]). Gunn, D.M., 'The "Battle Report": Oral or Scribal Convention?', JBL 93 (1974), pp. 51318. —'David and the Gift of the Kingdom (2 Sam 2-4, 9-20, 1 Kgs 1-2)', Semeia 3 (1975), pp. 14-45. —The Fate of King Saul (JSOTSup, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980). —'From Jerusalem to the Jordan and Back: Symmetry in 2 Samuel xv-xx', VT 30 (1980), pp. 109-13. —'Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel', VT 24 (1974), pp. 285317. —The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978).

198

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

—'Traditional Composition in the "Succession Narrative" ', VT 26 (1976), pp. 214-29. Gunn, D.M. (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars (trans. D.E. Orton; JSOTSup, 116; Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991). Hagan, H., 'Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Sam 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2', Bib 60 (1979), pp. 301-26. Halpern, B., The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). Heller, J., 'Absaloms Zuluchtsstatte', ComViat 12.1-2 (1969), pp. 61-66. Herbert, A.S., The 'Parable' (mashal) in the Old Testament', SJT1 (1954), pp. 180-96. Hertzberg, H.W., / & II Samuel, a Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964). Hill, A.E., 'A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?', JETS 30 (1987), pp. 38790. Hoftijzer, J., 'David and the Tekoite Woman', VT20 (1970), pp. 419-44. Ichisar, M., 'Un contrat de marriage et la question du Levirat a 1'epoque cappadocienne', RA 1 (1982), pp. 168-73. Iser, W., The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978). Jason, H., 'How Old are Folktales?', Fabula 22 (1981), pp. 1-27. Jastrow, M., Sepher Milim le-Targumim, le-Talmud Bavli, ule-Talmud Yerushalmi, uleMidrash (New York: Traditional Press, 1975). Jensen, H.J.L., 'Desire, Rivalry, and Collective Violence in the "Succession Narrative" ', /SOT 55 (1992), pp. 39-59. Jobling, D., The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analysis in the Hebrew Bible, II (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1986). Jones, G.H., The Nathan Narratives (JSOTSup, 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Juel, D., Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS, 31; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977). Kaufman, S.A., 'The Structure of the Deuteronomic Law', Maarav 1 (1979), pp. 105-58. Kermode, F., The Art of Telling: Essays on Fiction (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983). —The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979). Keys, G., 'The So-Called Succession Narrative: A Reappraisal of Rost's Approach to Theme in II Samuel 9-20 and I Kings 1-2', IBS 10 (1988), pp. 140-55. Kirkpatrick, P.G., The Old Testament and Folklore Study (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988). Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., 'A Parable in Context: A Social Interactional Analysis of Storytelling Performance', in D. Ben-Amos and K. Goldstein (eds.), Folklore: Performance and Communication (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), pp. 130-55. Klaus, N., 'Bad News for David—A Literary Analysis (2 Sam 18:19-32)', Beth Mikra 28 (1982-83), pp. 358-67. Klein, L.R., The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988). Knight, D.A., 'Moral Values and Literary Traditions: The Case of the Succession Narrative', S«n«a34(1985),pp.7-23. LaBarbera, R., 'The Man of War and the Man of God: Social Satire in 2 Kings 6:8-7:20', Cflg46(1984), pp. 637-51. Langlamet, F., 'Absalom et les concubines de son pere. Recherches sur II Sam., XVI, 2122', RB 84 (1977), pp. 161-209. Lasine, S., 'Jehoram and the Cannibal Mothers', JSOT 50 (1991), pp. 27-58.

Bibliography

199

—'Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: the Reader as Judge of the Dispute between Mephibosheth and Ziba', HS 30 (1989), pp. 49-69. —'Melodrama as Parable: The Story of the Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb and the Unmasking of David's Topsy-Turvy Emotions', HAR 8 (1984), pp. 101-24. —'The Ups and Downs of Monarchical Justice: Solomon and Jehoram in an Intertextual World', JSOT59 (1993), pp. 37-53. Levenson, J.D., The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993). —Esther: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1997). —'1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History', in K. Gros Louis (ed.), Literary Interpretation of Biblical Narratives II (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982), pp. 220-42. Levenson, J.D., and B. Halpern, 'The Political Import of David's Marriages', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 507-18. Levinson, B.M., 'The Right Chorale: From the Poetics to the Hermeneutics of the Hebrew Bible', in J.P. Rosenblatt and J.C. Sitterson (eds.), Not in Heaven: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), pp. 129-53. Lewis, T.J., 'The Ancestral Estate (avh* rbm) in 2 Samuel 14:16', JBL 110 (1991), pp. 597-612. Little, J.C., 'Parable Research in the Twentieth Century', ExpTim 88 (1977), pp. 40-44, 7175. Loader, J.A., 'David and the Matriarch in the Book of Ruth', IDSk 28 (1994), pp. 25-35. Long, B.O., 'A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah', JSOT 19 (1981), pp. 79-94. Lubsczyk, H., 'Kain und Abschalom. Siinde und Gnade in der Geschichtsschreibung im davidisch-salomonischen Reich', in G. Hentschel and H. Riicker (eds.), Die Einheit derSchrift: Gesammelte Aufsatze (Leipzig: St Benno, 1989), pp. 103-13. Lyke, L.L., 'Where Does "the Boy" Belong? Compositional Strategy in Genesis 21.14', CBQ 56 (1994), pp. 637-48. Maly, E.H., 'The Jotham Fable—Antimonarchical?', CBQ 22 (1960), pp. 299-305. Manor, D.W., 'A Brief History of Levirate Marriage as it Relates to the Bible', ResQ 27 (1984), pp. 129-42. Marcus, D., 'David the Deceiver and David the Dupe', Proof 6 (1986), pp. 163-71. Martin-Achard, R., 'La vigne de Naboth (1 Rois 21) d'apres des etudes recentes', ETR 66 (1991), pp. 1-16. Matthews, V.H., 'The King's Call to Justice', BZ 35 (1991), pp. 204-16. Mayes, A.D.H., Deuteronomy (London: Oliphants, 1979). McCarter, P.K., / and II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984). —' "Plots, True or False": The Succession Narrative as Court Apologetic', Int 35 (1981), pp. 355-67. McEvenue, S.E., 'The Basis of Empire: a Study of the Succession Narrative', Ex Auditu 2 (1986), pp. 34-45. McKane, W., / & II Samuel (London: SCM Press, 1963). —'The Meaning of Mashal', in Proverbs: A New Approach (London: SCM Press, 1970), pp. 22-33. Merrill, E., Deuteronomy (NAC; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994).

200

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Mettinger, T.N.D., 'Intertextuality: Allusion and Vertical Context Systems in Some Job Passages', in H.A. McKay and D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages (JSOTSup, 162; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Milne, P.J., 'Folktales and Fairy Tales: An Evaluation of Two Proppian Analyses of Biblical Narrative', JSOT 34 (1986), pp. 35-60. —Vladimir Propp and the Study of Structure in Hebrew Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988). Montgomery, J.A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951). Moore, C.A., Esther (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971). Morimura, N., 'Tamar and Judah—A Feminist Reading of Genesis 3', The Japan Review 59 (1993), pp. 55-67. Mowry, L., 'Parable', IDE 3 (1962), pp. 649-54. Mulder, M.J., 'Un euphemisme dans 2 Sam 12:14?', VT 18 (1968), pp. 108-14. Nelson, R.D., First and Second Kings (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1987). Nicol, G.G., 'Bathsheba, a Clever Woman?', ExpTim 99 (1988), pp. 360-63. —'The Wisdom of Joab and the Wise Woman of Tekoa', 5736.2 (1982), pp. 97-104. Niditch, S., Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Niditch, S. (ed.), Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). Olrik, A., 'Epic Laws of Folk Narrative', in A. Dundes (ed.), The Study of Folklore (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 129-41. Payne, D.F., / & II Samuel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982). Perdue, L.G., 'Is There Anyone Left in the House of Saul? Ambiguity and the Characterization of David in the Succession Narrative', JSOT 30 (1984), pp. 67-84. Phillips, A., 'Another Example of Family Law', VT30 (1980), pp. 240-43. —'Interpretation of 2 Sam 12:5-6', VT 16 (1966), pp. 242-49. —'Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel', VT23 (1973), pp. 349-61. Polk, T., 'Paradigms, Parables, and Meshalim: On Reading the Mashal in Scripture', CBQ 45 (1983), pp. 564-83. Polzin, R., David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993). —Samuel and the Deuteronomist (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989). Prince, G., 'Introduction to the Study of the Narratee', in J.P. Tompkins (ed.), Reader Response Criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), pp. 7-25. Propp, V., The Morphology of the Folktale (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1960). —Theory and History of Folktales (trans. A. Martin and R. Martin; ed. A Liberman; Theory and History of Literature, 5; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984). Propp, W., 'Kinship in 2 Samuel 13', CBQ 55 (1993), pp. 39-53. Provan, L, 'Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections of Recent Writing on the History of Israel', JBL 114 (1995), pp. 585-606. Pyper, H., 'Judging the Wisdom of Solomon: The Two-Way Effect of Intertextuality', 750759 (1993), pp. 25-36. Rad, G. von, 'The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel', in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E.W.T. Dicken; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), pp. 166-201. —Deuteronomy (trans. D. Burton; London: SCM Press, 1966). —Genesis (trans. J.H. Marks; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, rev. edn, 1972).

Bibliography

201

Richter, H.-F., 'Zum Levirat im Buch Ruth', ZAW95 (1983), pp. 123-26. Rimmon-Kenan, S., Narrative Fiction (London: Methuen, 1983). Rofe, A., The Prophetical Stories (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988). —'The Vineyard of Naboth: The Origin and Message of the Story', VT 38 (1988), pp. 89104. Rosenberg, J., 'The Institutional Matrix of Treachery in 2 Samuel 11', Semeia 46 (1989), pp. 103-16. —King and Kin (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986). Rosenblatt, J.P., and J.C. Sitterson, Jr (eds.), Not in Heaven: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991). Rost, L., The Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982). Roth, W., 'You are the Man: Structural Interaction in 2 Sam 10-12', Semeia 8 (1977), pp. 1-13. Sanders, J.A., Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Sama, N.M., Genesis (Philadelphia: IPS, 1989). Sasson, J.M., 'The Issue of Ge'ullah in Ruth', JSOT 5 (1978), pp. 52-64. —Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist, Folklorist Interpretation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979). Savran, G.W., 'The Character as Narrator in Biblical Narrative', Proof 5 (1985), pp. 1-17. —Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988). Schley, D.G. 'Joab and David: Ties of Blood and Power', in M.P. Graham et al. (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honor of John H. Mayes (JSOTSup, 173; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 90-105. Scholes, R., and R. Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (London: Oxford University Press, 1966). Schor, N., 'Fiction as Interpretation/Interpretation as Fiction', in S.R. Suleiman and I. Crosman (eds.), The Reader in the Text (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), pp. 165-82. Schwartz, R.M., 'Adultery in the House of David: The Meta-Narrative of Biblical Scholarship and the Narratives of the Bible', Semeia 54 (1991), pp. 35-55. Scott, B.B., 'Parables of Growth Revisited: Notes on the Current State of Parable Research', BTB 11 (1981), pp. 3-9. Seebass, H., 'Ephraim in 2 Sam 13:23', VT 14 (1964), pp. 497-500. —'Nathan und David in 2 Sam 12', ZAW86.2 (1974), pp. 203-11. Segal, M.H., 'The Composition of the Books of Samuel', JQR 55 (1964-65), pp. 318-39. Seow, C.L., 'The Syro-Palestinian Context of Solomon's Dream', HTR 77 (1984), pp. 141-52. Simon, U., 'The Parable of Jotham—The Parable, its Application, and their Narrative Framework', Tarbits 34 (1964), pp. 1-34 (Hebrew). —'The Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable', Bib 48.2 (1967), pp. 207-42. Siverns, E.L., 'A Definition of Parable', Theological Review 9.1 (1988), pp. 60-75. Skinner, J., Genesis: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980). Slater, P., 'Parables, Analogues, and Symbols', RelS 4 (1968), pp. 25-36.

202

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

Smith, H.P., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977). Smith, J., 'The Discourse Structure of the Rape of Tamar', VE 20 (1990), pp. 21-42. Soggin, J.A., 'Judah and Tamar', in H.A. McKay and D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophets' Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday (JSOTSup, 162; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 281-87. —Judges (trans. J. Bowden; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1987). Speiser, E.A., Genesis (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964). —'Of Shoes and Shekels', BASOR 77 (1940), pp. 15-20. Stansell, G., 'Honor and Shame in the David Narratives', in F. Criisemann et. al. (eds.), Was ist derMensch? Beitrdge zur Anthropologie des Alien Testaments: Hans Walter Wolff zum 80 Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1992), pp. 94-114. Stern, D., Parables in Midrash: Narrative and Exegesis in Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991). Sternberg, M., Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978). —The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Stewart, R.A., 'Parable Form in the Old Testament and Rabbinic Literature', EvQ 36 (1964), pp. 133-47. Stoebe, H.-J., 'David und Uria: Uberlegungen zur Uberlieferung von 2 Sam 11', Bib 67.3 (1986), pp. 388-96. —'Uberlegungen zur Exegese historischer Texte—dargestellt an den Samuelisbiichern', TZ 45(1989), pp. 290-314. Syren, R., The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives (JSOTSup, 133; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Te Selle, S. McFague, 'Parable, Metaphor, and Theology', JAAR 42 (1974), pp. 630-45. Thoma, C., and M. Wyschogrod, Parable and Story in Judaism and Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1989). Thompson, S., Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1966). Thompson, T.L., 'Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth', VT 18 (1968), pp. 79-99. Torcszyner, H., 'The Riddle in the Bible', HUCA 1 (1924), pp. 125-49. Trible, P., Texts of Terror (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). Van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). —'Oral Patterns or Literary Conventions in Biblical Narrative', Semeia 5 (1976), pp. 13954. —'Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David', JSOT 1 (1976), pp. 2229. Vorster, W.S., 'Readings, Readers and the Succession Narrative: An Essay on Reception', Z4W98(1986), pp. 351-62. Wagner, N.E., 'Abraham and David?', in J.W. Wevers and D.B. Redford (eds.), Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World (Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies, 2; Toronto: University of Toronto, 1972), pp. 117-40. Waldman, N.M., 'Two Biblical Parables: Irony and Self-Entrapment', DD 15 (1986-87), pp. 11-18. Webb, B., The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading (JSOTSup, 46; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).

Bibliography

203

Weingreen, J., 'The Rebellion of Absalom', VT 19 (1969), pp. 263-66. Wesselius, J.W., 'De wijze vrouwen in 2 Samuel 14 en 20', NedTTs 5 (1991), pp. 89-100. —'Joab's Death and the Central Theme of the Succession Narrative', VT40 (1990), pp. 33651. Westermann, C., Genesis 1-11, 12-36, and 37-50 (trans. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984). Wharton, J.A., 'A Plausible Tale: Story and Theology in II Samuel 9-20,1 Kings 1-2', Int 35(1981), pp. 341-54. White, H.V., Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978). Whitelam, K.W., The Defence of David', JSOT29 (1984), pp. 61-87. —The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979). Whybray, R.N., The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Sam 9-20; I Kgs 1 & 2 (Naperville, IL: A.R. Allenson, 1968). Willey, P.K., The Importunate Woman of Tekoa and How She Got Her Way', in D.N. Fewell (ed.), Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992). Wiirthwein, E., Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids—theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (ThStud, 115; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974). Yee, G.A., The Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1-7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable', CBQ 43 (1981), pp. 30-40. —' "Fraught with Background": Literary Ambiguity in II Samuel 11', Int 42 (1988), pp. 240-53. Young, B.H., Jesus and His Jewish Parables (New York: Paulist Press, 1989).

INDEXES

INDEX OF REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1-11 1.1 1.1(2.1) 1.2 3 4

4.1-16 4.1-2 4.1 4.2 4.3-5 4.3-5 MT 4.3-4 4.4-7 4.4-5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.8

4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12

31,33,42 34 60 35 27,34 27, 28, 32, 35, 38-40, 45, 54, 60, 71-73, 75, 79, 81, 84, 86, 88, 177, 180, 188, 190 27,80 40 40 36, 40, 87 36 36 32 32 35, 36, 87 36,39 27, 38, 79, 80 26,38 25-28, 31, 32, 38,71, 73, 81, 86 80 26 26,72 26

4.15 4.16 4.26 9 9.3 9.18-27 9.23 9.24 10.2 10.6 11 11.9 11.10 11.27 11.28 11.31-32 12-36 13 13.10 13.12-18 13.13 15 15.1-21 16 16.4-14 16.7 16.10-12 16.10 16.15-16 16.15 17 17.8-21 17.8

27 86, 180 73 41,42 38 42 43 41 41 42 43,44 43 43 44 44,45 43 43, 58, 60 45 46,47 45 46 45,49 45 48, 49, 100, 138 49 74 49 48,49 49 49 49-51,82 51 52

17.10 17.12 17.16 17.17 17.18 17.25 17.26 18 19 21

21.1-2 21.3 21.8-14 21.8 21.9

21.10 21.1H.3 21.14 21.16H. 21.17 21.20 21.32-34 21.77 22 22.1-13 22.2 22.3 22.14-24 24

52 52 49 49 49,50 50 50 45 45 50-53, 56, 82, 100, 120, 126, 138 50 52 51,52, 87 53 52, 53, 56, 74 53, 138 52 51,52,74 54,75 106, 108 54,75 50 52 50, 52, 53, 55,56, 126 50 52 52 50 74

205

Index of References 24.63 25 25.1-6 25.7-20 25.12-13 25.19-34 25.21-34 25.22 25.23 25.24 25.27 25.29 25.34 27 27.1-45 27.5-17 27.27-39 27.27-29 27.27 27.28 27.36 27.39-40 27.39 27.41 27.42-45 27.45 28 28.30 34 34.1 34.7 35 35.7-13 35.22 37-50 37

37.1-2 37.3-11 37.3-4 37.4 37.5-8 37.11-14 37.14 37.15-17

74 45, 57, 58 57 57 45 57 57 57,61 57 66 75 75 58 58, 59, 61, 75, 84, 120 59,75 82 59 59 59 59 58, 60, 87 59 60 54,60 61 62 122 43 76 76 76, 115 65 62 63 62, 76, 94, 95, 107 39, 62, 63, 75, 76, 83, 86 62 76 62 69 76 69 62 62

37.18-30 37.18 37.19-22 37.21-22 37.23 37.24 37.25-27 37.26-27 37.28-30 37.29-30 37.31-35 37.31 37.32 37.36 38

38.9 38.14-19 38.27 39^15 39 39.7 39.17 40.16-22 46-50 48.6-7 49.4

76 62 62 63 62 62 62 64 62 63 62,76 76 65 62 47, 65-67, 91,93-95, 98-100, 107, 119 47 98 66 76 97 46 54 167 76 64 63,64

Exodus

12 12.5-6 21.37 22

37 36 145, 153 72

Leviticus

18 23

42 37

Numbers

5.24

47

22

22.11 22.18 22.23-27

22.25-27 22.25 22.26 22.27 25 25.5-12 25.5-10

25.6 25.11-12 25.11 25.12 27.24 28.26 28.53-57 Joshua

24 24.2

156 77 34

44 44

Judges

4 5 8 8.8-15 8.14 8.15 8.16-20 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.22 8.48-49 9

Deuteronomy

12.11-12 13 20.19

77, 78, 81, 86, 1 89 36 73 54, 71-74, 77-81, 86, 189 73 72 72-74, 81 81 93, 95-98, 100 92 91-93,95, 119, 189 98 92,93, 189 89 98 72 115 104

9.1-8 9.1-2

91 91 128 141 139 139-41 140, 141 141 141, 142 141, 142 141 139 142 128, 143, 144, 152, 156, 157, 167 137 138

206

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa

9.6-20 9.8-20 9.8-15 9.8-14 9.15-20 9.15 9.16-20 9.43-46 9.46-49 9.53-55 11 11.2

128, 136 157 138 137 138 137 154, 156 140 137 144 138 138

Ruth 1.15 3 3.9 4 4.14-15 4.17

97 97,98 98 97 98 99

1 Samuel 1 8-15 8 15

15.7-8 15.9 15.15 15.22-23 15.28 17 18 20 20.20 20.36-38 21 24 25

25.18 25.22 25.23-35

25.23 25.24 25.25 25.26 25.28 25.29 25.31 25.33 25.35 26 28 31

31.4

101 140 142, 144

135, 136, 144, 153, 154 153 153 153 135 154 116 116 135, 157 54 54 135, 167 111 91, 103, 105, 108, 111, 113-15, 117-19, 125, 166 115 112 112

2 Samuel 1 1.6-10 2.14-16 3.2-5 3.2-3 3.3 6 7 7.11-16 7.16 7.28 7.32-33 9-20 10-12 11-20 11-12 11

11.2 11.10 11.18-20 11.20-21 11.21 11.27 12-14 12

113, 122 113, 114 114 115, 116 116 116, 167 116 116 118, 173 111 91, 121 121, 143, 157 143

143, 157 143 55 25 68 166 106 116, 117 116, 117 117 117 117 12 151 168 103 66, 70, 103, 149, 157 179 148 167 152 128, 144 67 117 67, 79, 100, 103, 127, 128, 132, 133, 136, 146, 151, 169

12.1-12 12.1-7 12.1-4 12.1 12.3 12.4 12.5-6 12.7-12

12.7 12.11-12 12.11 12.13-14 12.14 12.18 12.24-25 12.24 12.25 13-20 13

13.20-22 13.23-29 13.23-27 13.27 13.28-29 13.34 13.37-38 13.37

13.39 14

14.1-20

14.1-11

96, 128, 144-46 153 127, 188 147 147 148, 149 146, 152 145, 146, 148 132 179 67, 117 67 67 102 67 56,69 69 69, 126, 165 67, 72, 75, 87, 88, 124, 161, 170, 186 68 25 122 25 87 178 178 162, 164, 186 186 26, 66, 72, 78, 82, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 117, 118, 123, 124, 126-28, 130, 166, 173 11, 12, 21, 26, 1 1 8, 127, 162, 186 90, 91, 124, 126

Index of References 14.1-7 14.1-2 14.1 14.2-22 14.2-9 14.2-3 14.2 14.3 14.4-21 14.4-14 14.4-11 14.4-7 14.4

14.5 14.6-7 14.6

14.7 14.8-11

14.8 14.9-61 14.9

14.10 14.11 14.12-20 14.12-17 14.12-14 14.12 14.13-14

14.13 14.14 14.15-34 14.15-17

161 158 114, 163 13, 162 159 163, 164 164, 187 122 170 22 89 168 105, 113, 115, 161 85, 108, 123, 164 183 11,25-28, 30, 31,71, 74, 77-79, 83, 84, 8789, 92, 94, 183 12, 85, 16870, 182, 183 106, 161, 169, 177-79, 182 118, 170, 173, 176 160 113, 170, 171 177 171, 177, 180 161, 174 183 182-84 114 175-77, 181, 182, 186, 187 176, 178-81 27, 178-81 23 23, 160, 182, 183

14.15-16 14.15 14.16 14.18-19 14.20 14.21 14.27 14.39 16.20-23 17 18 18.9-15 18.9 20

20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6

20.7 20.8-11 20.9 20.11 20.12 20.13-14 20.13 20.14 20.15-17 20.16-22 20.16 20.17 20.18-20 20.18-19 20.19 1 Kings 1-2 1

1.1-4 1.2-3 1.4

182 113 166 184 183, 185 103, 174 66 162 70, 110, 179 87 190 167 173 21, 117, 159, 165-68, 187, 190 187 187 188 166, 188, 189, 191, 192 189, 191 190 189 190 190 190, 191 190, 191 191 191 117 191 191 191 166 166

168 12, 57, 67, 69, 82, 87, 88, 102, 118, 120, 123, 163 121 165 122

207 1.5-6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11-31 1.11-14 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15-21 1.16 1.17-18 1.18-21 1.19 1.21 1.22-31 1.32-40 2 2.13-25 2.22 3

3.1-15 3.16-28 5 11.11-12 11.30 13.22 14 14.7-14 20-21 20

20.1 20.2 20.3-43

121 121 122 122 122 165 122 122 122 122, 165 122 122 105, 108, 122 122, 123, 165 165 123 165 123 123 12, 57, 67, 69,88 69,70, 110 42 91, 100, 102-106, 118-20, 125, 127, 184 101 101, 119 102 146 146 115 91 146 167 79, 128, 130, 134, 135, 149, 152, 156, 157, 169, 182, 183, 189, 191 149 149 144

208 20.3-4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8-11 20.10 20.13-14 20.14 20.15-20 20.15-16 20.17-19 20.20-29 20.27 20.35-43

20.35-40 20.35-38 20.35-37 20.35 20.38-43 20.39-43 20.39-40 20.39 20.40 20.41-43 20.41 20.42 20.43 21

21.3 21.4 21.6 21.7-12 21.7-8 21.7 21.8 21.9-10 21.9 21.11-12 21.14 21.19 21.21-29 22

King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa 149 150 150 150 169 150 131 150 157 150 150 150 150 128, 130-32, 141, 143, 157 132 133 130 135 134 130, 132, 133, 182 132, 188 131-33 132, 169 132 133 132, 133 149, 152 128, 134, 149, 156 154 134, 149, 153 153, 155 154 155 154 154 154, 155 167 154, 156 134 151 146 134

2 Kings 2 4.16 4.28 6

7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

109 109 109 109 108, 109 106, 109, 110

Psalms 132.17

137

6.27-30 6.28 22

105 50 50 91, 100, 104-107, 110, 118, 120, 125, 127, 170 104 119 103 105, 115, 116 104 105, 108 91

Proverbs 6 6.26 6.29 26.18-19 26.18

47 47 47 54,74 54,74

1 Chronicles 3.1-8 4.21 14.4-7

25 96 25

Isaiah 5 5.1-7 26.19

128 79 115

2 Chronicles 5.1

63

Jeremiah 3 3.1-5 23.5 33.15

46, 128 79 137 137

Ezekiel 16 23 34.3

46 46 148

Hosea 2-4

46

Micah 3.11 3.12

39 39

Zechariah 3.8

137

Matthew 1.3-5

96

6.8-7.20 6.24-31 6.24-30 6.26

Esther 1.19 2.21-23 3.1-6 4.11-17 4.11 5 5.1-8 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 6 6.12 7 7.1-10

154 107 107 113 114 107 108 108 108 105, 108 108 108 109 109 109 109 134 107, 109, 110 109

209

Index of References PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Jubilees 4.1-8

4.5 4.9 11-12 12.12-14 17.4

PRE 21

Midrash

39 72 39 44 44 53

ARN 45 B45

60 61

Cant. R.

1.8 4.12

11 34

LAB 6.3-18

45

Targums Targ. Ps.-J.

4.2 8 27.1 27.9

40 75 61 61

43

Talmuds b. B. Bat.

16

75

b. Sank.

38 70

55

26-31

26 30 31 32

81 50 42 45 45 50,54 50,55

61

Gen. R.

Taan.

15

Exod. R. 32.6

22 23

34, 36, 38, 40, 50, 55, 72, 73, 80,

40 42

22 22.2 22.3 22.7 22.9 36.6 36.7 38.14 41.7 47.4 53.11 55.1 55.4 63.6 63.12 84.19

40 40 40 38, 40, 42

81 43 42 44 46 50 54, 55, 74

135 55, 135 61 75

66

Other Josephus Ant. 1.52 1.154-55

39 44

Philo Det. Pot. Ins.

1.1

38

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackerman, J.S. 12, 13, 23, 160, 161 Albeck, C.B. 43 Alter, R. 66 Andrew, M.E. 94 Auerbach, E. 32 Bakhtin, M.M. 16, 17 Basset, F.W. 42 Bellefontaine, E. 170 Berlin, A. 17, 120 Bickert, R. 14 Blenkinsopp, J. 26, 27 Boling, R. 139, 140 Boyarin, D. 17 Bream, H.N. 96 Brock, S.P. 37 Burrows, M. 91 Camp, C. 21 Campbell, E.F. Jr 96, 97 Carmichael, C.M. 97 Cassuto, U. 31, 33 Clines, D.J.A. 17, 94 Coats, G.W. 13, 95, 104, 127, 153 Cogan, M. 105 Conroy, C. 165 Davies, E.W. 92 Emerton, J.A. 14 Fontaine, C. 103 Fox, M. 107-109 Gammie, J.G. 21 Garsiel, M. I l l Gerhardsson, B. 11, 127

Goldin, J. 94 Gordis, R. 96 Greenspahn, F.E. 30, 32 Gros Louis, K. I l l Grottanelli, C. 96 Gunkel, H. 15 Gunn, D. 14, 15, 26, 27 Halpern, B. 70, 110, 111, 137-39, 155 Hertzberg, H.W. 182 Hoftijzer, J. 13 Jastrow, M. 43 Jobling, D. 143 Kaufman, S.A. 92 Kellogg, R. 12 Klein, L.R. 139 LaBarbera, R. 104 Lasine, S. 17, 104, 149 Levenson, J.D. 7, 30, 33, 37, 49, 59, 70, 107, 110, 111, 155 Levinson, B. 20 Loader, J.A. 99 Maly, E.H. 138 Manor, D.W. 92 Martin-Achard, R. 149 Matthews, V.H. 146 McCarter, P.K. 22, 27, 111, 116, 145, 151, 154, 160, 162, 163, 165, 170, 175,182 McKay, H.A. 17, 94 Merrill, E. 93 Mettinger, T.N.D. 17

Index of Authors Montgomery, J.A. 101, 102, 105, 131, 132,134 Morimura, N. 94 Nelson, R. 104 Nicol, G. 21, 159 Perdue, L.G. 21 Phillips, A. 95 Polk, T. 11 Polzin, R. 14, 21, 111, 117, 143, 146, 152, 155, 158, 161, 162, 166, 167 Propp, W. 124, 181 Provan, I. 192 Pyper, H. 102, 104

Rad, G. von 80, 95 Richter, H.F. 96 Rofe, A. 104, 149 Rosenberg, J. 14, 21, 159 Rosenblatt, J.R. 17 Rost, L. 12, 13, 77 Sarna, N. 33 Sasson, J. 96, 98

211

Savran, G.W. 21, 159 Schley, D.G. 162 Scholes, R. 12 Seters, J. Van 14, 49 Simon, U. 13, 78, 79, 127 Sitterson, J.C. 17 Skinner, J. 33, 60 Smith, H.P. 174, 179 Soggin, J.A. 94, 138, 140, 142 Speiser, E.A. 53, 98 Stern, D. 11, 16 Sternberg, M. 14, 20, 32 Stewart, R. 136 Syren, R. 30 Tadmor, H. 105 Theodor, Y.J. 43 Thompson, S. 15 Thompson, T. 97 Webb, B. 141 Westermann, C. 30, 31, 33, 42, 43, 53, 58, 60, 76, 94, 95 Wiirthwein, E. 13, 162

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

147

R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead B. Halpern & D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel G.A. Anderson & S.M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel J.W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past T.P. McCreesh, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in Proverbs 10-29 Z. Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book ofZechariah L. Holden, Forms of Deformity M.D. Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective R. Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives G. Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua G.F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 P. Morris & D. Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden H.G. Reventlow & Y. Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law G.C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East F.H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation D.J.A. Clines & J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible P.R. Davies & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Language, Imagery and Structure in the Prophetic Writings C.S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D. Edelman, with a contribution by G.O. Rollefson) T.W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East

148 149

150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162

163 164 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' E. Ulrich, J.W. Wright, R.P. Carroll & P.R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp I.E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 J.P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson D.K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 M. Brettler & M. Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday J.A. Fager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge J.W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles G.R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers J.C. McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History G.W. Coats, The Moses Tradition H.A. McKay & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophet's Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday J.C. Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context R.F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs B. Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story W.G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse H.G. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman & B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature V. Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown & J.K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes J.M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies. II. Temple and Community in the Persian Period

176 111 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201

G. Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls D.A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew M.R. Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms J.G. McConville & J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy R. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development S.L. McKenzie & M.P. Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth J. Day (ed.), Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Second and Third Series) by William Robertson Smith J.C. Reeves & J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honour of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday S.D. Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology L. Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity R.H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah W. Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment S.W. Holloway & L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom M. Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament H.G. Reventlow & W. Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration E.K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book of Hosea J. Davies, G. Harvey & W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer J.S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators M.D. Carroll R., D.J.A. Clines & P.R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson J.W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith

202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231

N. Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible J.M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs P.R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? D.J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible M. Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint J.W. Rogerson, M. Davies & M.D. Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium B.J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 P. Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case ofAthaliah and Joash J. Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles Y. Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in Literary- Theoretical Perspective Y.A. Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context R.F. Melugin & M.A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah J.C. Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women I.E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink J.F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter G. Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy G. Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea R.F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah G. Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book S.B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job P.J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha R.D. Weiss & D.M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders L.L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas V. Fritz and P.R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States S.B. Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker K.J. Cathcart and M.J. Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara W.W. Fields, Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative

232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 248 249 252 255

T. Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament M.D. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III K. Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History J.W. Watts and P.R. House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts T.M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Re-Examined N.A. Silberman and D. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund and S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian M.S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (with contributions by Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith) E.E. Carpenter (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats R.K. Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel K.L. Noll, The Faces of David H.G. Reventlow, Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition W.E. Aufrecht, N.A. Mirau and S.W. Gauley (eds.), Aspects of Urbanism in Antiquity: From Mesopotamia to Crete L.L. Grabbe, Can a 'History of Israel' Be Written? G.M. Bediako, Primal Religion and the Bible: William Robertson Smith and his Heritage E. Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah W.P. Griffin, The God of the Prophets: An Analysis of Divine Action D.C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms L.L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative