1 Samuel 8.11-18 as 'A Mirror for Princes'..pdf

7/23/2019 1 Samuel 8.11-18 as 'A Mirror for Princes'..pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1-samuel-811-18-as-a-mirror-for-princespdf 1/19

1 Samuel 8:11–18 as

“A Mirror for Princes”

jonathan kaplan

[email protected]

Te University of exas at Austin, Austin, X 78712

he prophet Samuel’s declaration of המ

משפט

to the assembled Israelites in1 Sam 8:11–18 has generally been understood in the history of scholarship as a cat-alogue of monarchic excess. Scholarly interpretations of this passage enumerate

various literary parallels found in both biblical and nonbiblical texts. hese pur-ported parallels include memories of the reign of Solomon by a later writer, descrip-

tions of Canaanite royal practices preceding the start of the Israelite monarchy, andaccounts of Assyrian royal behaviors close in time to the composition and redac-tion of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). his article shifts focus away fromcharting specific literary parallels to 1 Sam 8:11–18 in other ancient Near Easterntexts. I argue instead that 1 Sam 8:11–18 takes inspiration from a diverse group of literary materials and rituals designed to constrain monarchic power, the excessesof which brought ruin on cult and country. hese diverse materials range from theBabylonian Fürstenspiegel to priestly rituals that are part of the Babylonian New Year festival. ogether they constitute a “genre of discourse,” a term coined by

zvetan odorov to describe how diverse literary and nonliterary materials can

his article had its genesis in a seminar on 1–2 Samuel taught by members of the Hebrew Bible faculty at Harvard University in the fall of 2006. Subsequent versions of this paper were pre-sented at the 2008 New England regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Hebrew Bible Workshop at Harvard University, and the Hebrew Scriptures and Cognate Literature Groupat the 2009 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. I am grateful to participants inthose sessions for their comments and suggestions. In addition, I would like to extend my thanksto Brian Doak, Rebecca Hancock, John Huehnergard, Peter B. Machinist, Deborah E. Pardo-

Kaplan, and J. J. M. Roberts for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper. I pre-pared the final version of this paper while serving as a Jacob and Hilda Blaustein PostdoctoralA i t i th J d i St di t Y l U i it I l i ll i d i th t i

JBL 131, no. 4 (2012): 625–642



share a common social function. I contend that in 1 Sam 8:11–18משפט המshould be viewed as part of the Fürstenspiegel genre of discourse, a mode of cri-tiquing and restraining royal power in the ancient Near East by raising a mirror to

its excesses.

I. Scholarly Interpretations of 1 Samuel 8:11–18

Beginning in the nineteenth century, critical scholarship on 1 Samuel hasexplored possible responses to monarchy in ancient Israel that are disclosed in thesection of the book related to the rise of Saul (chs. 7–12). Scholarship since JuliusWellhausen’s synthesis (building on Johann Gottfried Eichhorn’s and Otto henius’s

earlier works) has attempted to dissect these chapters into promonarchic and anti-monarchic passages that reflect, respectively, earlier and later stages in the devel-opment of Israelite responses to the institution of monarchy.1 Classically, scholarshave construed 1 Samuel 8, a chapter in which Samuel confronts Israel’s requestfor a king “like all the nations” (8:5), as a late, antimonarchic passage designed toframe the reading of historically earlier, promonarchic passages in this section.More recent source-critical analysis of ch. 8 posits a more complex textual history for this passage. Bruce C. Birch, among others, argues that there are signs that ch. 8is not a complete unit but rather a composite text that is built on an older tradition.

Deuteronomistic phraseology such asאחרים

א הים

(“other gods”) andאחרי

ה

(“follow after”) (8:8) infuses this older material.2 his approach views 1 Samuel 8,

1 Lyle Eslinger, “Viewpoints and Point of View in 1 Samuel 8–12,” JSOT 26 (1983): 61–76.Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Scholars Press Reprints and ranslations; Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1994), 245–56; repr. of Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. SutherlandBlack and Allan Menzies, with a preface by W. Robertson Smith; Edinburgh: Adam & CharlesBlack, 1885); trans. of Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (2nd ed.; Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883); Eich-horn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (4th ed.; Göttingen: Weidmann, 1823–24); henius, Die

Bücher Samuels (2nd ed.; Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten estament 4; Leipzig:Hirzel, 1864). More recent scholarship, focusing on the final form of the text, views the attitudesto monarchy expressed in 1 Samuel as more nuanced and complex, reflecting ongoing, diverse, andoften competing attitudes toward monarchic power in Israelite society. Meir Sternberg’s work, inparticular, illustrates this broader methodological approach, which others such as Robert Polzinhave then applied in particular to 1 Samuel. See Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ide-ological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington: Indi-ana University Press, 1987); Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of theDeuteronomistic History, part 2, 1 Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989). See arecent summary of research on 1 Samuel 8 in Eric Alan Mitchell, A Literary Examination of the

Function of Satire in the Mišpat Hammelek of I Samuel 8 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2007),1–65.

2 Birch The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth and Development of 1 Samuel 7 15

626 Journal of Biblical Literature 131, no. 4 (2012)



in its final form, as a composite text reflecting competing attitudes toward themonarchy and an ongoing ambivalence toward the institution in Israelite society.

Samuel’s המ

משפט

in vv. 11–18 has, in particular, evoked substantial com-

ment about both its origin and its role in this chapter.11And he said, “his will be the משפט of the king who will rule over you: he willtake your children and appoint them in his chariots and his cavalry, and they willrun before his chariotry. 12He will appoint for himself captains of thousands andfifties, or they will do his plowing, harvesting, and make his weapons of war andequipment for his chariots. 13Your daughters he will take for perfumers, cooks,and bakers. 14Your choice fields, vineyards, and olive orchards he will take andgive to his servants. 15He will take a tithe of your seed and your vineyard andgive (it) to his officers and his servants. 16Your best servants, maidservants, and

young men and your asses he will take and use for his work.17

He will take a titheof your flocks, and you will be his servants. 18You will cry out on that day becauseof your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and Yhwh will not answeryou on that day.”

Opinions regarding the origin of this catalogue of monarchic excess are varied.Scholars in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries generally understoodthis passage as an insertion into the mouth of Samuel by a later author designed toreflect the actual realities of Israelite kingship.3 his position persists in more recentscholarship. Ronald E. Clements describes this passage as “an already existing cat-

alogue of royal oppressions . . . stemming from the memories of Solomon’s reign.”4

imo Veijola characterizes המ

משפט

as a version of a Königsvertag , or royaltreaty, between the monarch and the people. He argues that this treaty form derives

O’Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present Text (Minneapolis:Fortress, 2000), 233–34; and Jeremy M. Hutton, The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The OverwrittenTexts of Personal Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 396; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2009), 122–23.

3 E.g., Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 253–54; Hans Wildberger, “Samuel und die Entstehung

des Israelitischen Königtums,” TZ 13 (1957): 442–69; Karl-Heinz Bernhard, Das Problem der alt-orientalischen Königsideologie im Alten Testament (VSup 8; Leiden: Brill, 1961), 149–52; ArturWeiser, Samuel, seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und religiöse Bedeutung (FRLAN 81; Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 25–45; Robert Martin-Achard, “L’institution de la royauté enIsrael: Quelques remarque sur I Samuel 8,” BCPE 29 (1977): 49.

4 Clements, “he Deuteronomistic Interpretation of the Founding of the Monarchy in 1Sam VIII,” VT 24 (1974): 408–9; see also Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Diesammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (3rd unaltered ed.; übin-gen: Max Niemeyer, 1967), 57 n. 1; Birch, Rise of the Israelite Monarchy , 23–29; Frank Crüse-mann, Der Widerstand gegen Königtum: Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und

der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat (WMAN 49; Neukirchen-Vluyn: NeukirchenerVerlag, 1978), 66–73. Cf. Baruch Halpern’s dismissal of Clements’s approach in “he Uneasy C i I l b t L d M h ” i T diti i T f ti T i

Kaplan: 1 Samuel 8:11–18 as “A Mirror for Princes” 627



from actual practice in the northern kingdom of Israel.5 Ralph W. Klein charts anumber of parallels between this passage and other biblical materials. He makesthe case that these parallels support the contention that this passage is “a polemic

based on Israel’s actual experience with subsequent kings.”6 While this approach isappealing because it fits with prevailing models about the development of DtrHand conceptions about the dating of this passage to immediately before and duringthe exile, it contains a number of deficiencies. Most notably, as Mark Leuchter force-fully argues, the parallels between this text and other sections of DtrH are super-ficial at best.7

In an influential article published in 1956, Isaac Mendelsohn challenged theconsensus that 1 Sam 8:11–18 draws on memories of actual events in the history of Israel’s and Judah’s monarchies. Instead he argues for a much earlier sociohistori-

cal context for the excesses described in this passage. He charts a number of paral-lels between Samuel’s המ

משפט

and depictions of Canaanite society in theAlalakh tablets from Alalakh and Ugarit. On the basis of these parallels, Mendel-sohn argues that this passage reflects concern for the excesses of “the semi-feudalCaananite society as it existed prior to and during the time of Samuel.”8 Unfortu-nately, the parallels Mendelsohn identifies are generic. For instance, 1 Sam 8:15,17a mention a future king’s practice of taking tithes from his subjects’ agriculturaland viticultural produce as well as livestock. Mendelsohn identifies similar practicesdescribed in the Ugarit tablets.9 While behaviors such as these provide fine ana-

logues to the practices mentioned in 1 Samuel 8, they fall short of helping us bet-ter understand the social context that led to the mention of these practices in thebiblical text. As Klein rightly notes, “the polemic against royal practices is not evi-dent in the extra-biblical documents, thus leaving unexplained the central featureof these verses.”10

Mark Leuchter argues that the late dating of the final form of 1 Samuel 8 andthe lack of secure parallels between this text and other biblical texts necessitate a dif-

5 Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eineredaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (AASF Series B 198; Helsinki: Suomalainen iedeakatemia,1977), 62–63.

6 Klein, 1 Samuel (2nd ed.; WBC 10; Nashville: homas Nelson, 2008), 74.7 Leuchter, “A King like All the Nations: he Composition of I Sam 8,11–18,” ZAW 117

(2006): 547–48.8 Mendelsohn, “Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the Akkadian Docu-

ments from Ugarit,” BASOR 143 (1956): 17–18. For a more recent treatment of the parallelsbetween 1 Samuel 8 and the texts from Ugarit, see Anson F. Rainey, “Institutions: Family, Civil,and Military,” in Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible (ed. Loren R.Fisher; 3 vols.; AnOr 49–51; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972–81), 2:69–107. See also

Halpern, “Uneasy Compromise,” 80.9 Mendelsohn, “Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship,” 20–21.

10 Kl i 1 S l 74




ferent approach to the origins of Samuel’s in vv. 11–18.11משפט המ He contendsthat the background for the text’s restrictions is essentially Assyrian and echoes theconquest of the northern kingdom of Israel in the late eighth century b.c.e. He

writes, “. . . they refer not to Israel’s experience with despotic Israelite kings, butIsrael’s experience with the neo-Assyrian empire.”12 For instance, Leuchter high-lights Sargon II’s depiction of his conscription of charioteers in the palace inscrip-tion at Khorsabad as an analogue to the mention in 1 Sam 8:12 of conscription of charioteers.13 Similarly, he locates apt parallels in the Nineveh inscriptions for theconscription of women to serve as perfumers, cooks, and bakers (1 Sam 8:13).14

He argues that this passage, in the context of 1 Samuel 8 as a whole, functions to re-establish authentic Israelite ideas of kingship during the resurgence of Judahiteautonomy in the reign of Josiah in contradistinction to Assyrian imperial mod-

els.15 Leuchter lays out a convincing case for parallels between the specific excessesof Samuel’s המ

משפט

and the situations depicted in the Assyrian materials. Addi-tionally, he rightly points to the function of 1 Sam 8:11–18 in instantiating a nativeIsraelite model of kingship.

he purpose of this essay is not to challenge the specifc parallels that Mendel-sohn, Leuchter, or others chart between 1 Sam 8:11–18 and biblical, Assyrian, orother materials from the ancient Near East. Such a singular focus on establishing

11 he occurrence of the phraseההוא יום ב

(“on that day”) in 1 Sam 8:18 suggests that thismaterial reached its final form during the reign of Josiah. he question remains whether vv. 11–17 are a product of Josianic scribes or an existing catalogue of royal excesses incorporated intoch. 8 by those scribes. Ultimately, it is hard to establish whether vv. 11–17 were originally an inde-pendent unit or function as a paraphrase of an existing source. On the dating of this passage, seeJeffrey C. Geoghegan, “ ‘Until his Day’ and the Preexilic Redaction of the Deuteronomistic His-tory,” JBL 122 (2003): 205–24; idem, The Time, Place, and Purpose of the Deuteronomistic History:The Evidence of “Until this Day” (BJS 347; Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 42–95. See alsoLeuchter, “King like All the Nations,” 547, 555. Note that Wellhausen assigns this section to theDeuteronomist (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments[4th ed.; 1899; repr., Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963], 243; idem, Prolegomena, 247–56). Noth agrees withthis assessment, though he sees this source as reflecting exilic ideology (Überlieferungsgeschicht-liche Studien, 54–57).

12 Leuchter, “King like All the Nations,” 548. he lack of secure parallels between 1 Sam8:11–18 and other sections of the DtrH should not, however, be taken as conclusive evidence thatthis passage does not reflect native Israelite monarchic practice. It is conceivable that monarchicpractices not recorded in Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles were preserved in other extrabiblical worksor in communal memory and that these practices are referenced in 1 Sam 8:11–18.

13 Ibid., 548–49.14 Ibid., 550.15 Ibid., 548–54. Notably, Clements’s and Leuchter’s treatments of this passage are part of a

shift in scholarship to viewing this passage not as antimonarchic but as reflective of a desire to cul-i i I li d l f ki hi S l H l “U C i ” 79




whether Samuel’s draws exclusively on one internal or external sourceמשפט המinstead of another ignores the reality that the author of 1 Samuel 8, like all biblicalwriters, received inspiration from both native Israelite and foreign experiences of

monarchic power. Rather, in what follows, I argue thatהמ

משפט

in 1 Sam8:11–18 has its origins in much broader ancient Mediterranean and Near Easternsocial, religious, and political practices of constraining the excesses of monarchicpower.16 Prominent among these means of constraint are literature written to advisea king on appropriate behavior and rituals designed to emphasize the proper roleof a king in society. Perhaps the most famous example of this group of texts and rit-uals is the Babylonian Fürstenspiegel , or “Mirror for Princes.” As pointed out above,these materials belong to what odorov describes as a “genre of discourse.”17

odorov understands that a genre is first and foremost an institution of society

rather than merely a collection of texts sharing common literary features. I con-tend that the author of 1 Samuel 8 drew on an existing catalogue of monarchicexcess based on models of this genre of discourse circulating in the Judean court.Before examining the affinities between 1 Sam 8:11–18 and this material, I turnfirst to chart the basic features of the Fürstenspiegel genre of discourse.18

16 For recent views of monarchy in ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean society, seeConcepts of Kingship in Antiquity: Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop Held in Padova, November 28th–December 1st 2007 (ed. Giovanni B. Lanfranchi andRobert Rollinger; History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 11; Padua: Sargon, 2010).

17 odorov, Les genres du discours (Paris: Seuil, 1978), 51; see also Richard P. Martin’s appli-cation of odorov’s genre theory to the study of classical Greek materials on monarchic instruc-tion (“Hesiod, Odysseus, and the Instruction of Princes,” TAPA 114 [1984]: 30–31).

18 Moshe Weinfeld has already treated the Babylonian material in some detail in his attemptto locate the Temple Scroll from Qumran in this genre (“‘emple Scroll’ or ‘King’s Law’” [inHebrew], Shnaton 3 [1978–79]: 214–37). he Temple Scroll (11Q19 = 11Q; see esp. cols. 57–59)includes the earliest extant examples of exegesis of 1 Sam 8:11–18. he scroll incorporates exege-sis of the biblical passage, but Weinfeld does not address the specific relationship of 1 Sam 8:11–18 to the Fürstenspiegel material. Mitchell (Literary Examination, 329–34), in contrast, does

enumerate a number of parallels between 1 Sam 8:11–18 and the Babylonian Fürstenspiegel , as wellas material from Ugarit discussed by Mendelsohn and others. He does not, however, elaboratethe significance of these parallels for our understanding of 1 Sam 8:11–18. he exegetical approachexemplified in the Temple Scroll continues in postdestruction-era rabbinic texts that deal with thestructures of polity in idealized Jewish society (m. Sanh. 2:2–5, t. Sanh. 4, Sipre Deut. 156–62, y. Sanh. 2). In the context of these discussions, verses from 1 Samuel 8 are cited periodically asproof-texts for points being made through midrashic exegesis of Deuteronomy 17 (e.g., t. Sanh.4:3 and Sipre Deut. 157). For comprehensive discussions of this literature, see Steven D. Fraade,“he orah of the King (Deut 17:14–20) in the emple Scroll and Early Rabbinic Law,” in TheDead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity: Papers from an

International Conference at St. Andrews in 2001 (ed. James R. Davila; SDJ 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003),25–60; idem, “Priests, Kings, and Patriarchs: Yerushalmi Sanhedrin in Its Exegetical and CulturalSettings” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco Roman Culture (ed Peter Schäfer; 3 vols ; SAJ




II. The Babylonian Fürstenspiegel

he “Advice to a Prince,” or Fürstenspiegel , seemed an anomalous example of the circumscription of monarchic power in Mesopotamia when found on a tabletin the libraries of Ashurbanipal.19 he exact date of the text has been contested.W. G. Lambert points to its style as suggesting a Babylonian king reigning some-time during the first few centuries of the first millennium b.c.e.20 his text drawson the formal features of omen literature to describe the consequences that willbefall a king if he follows certain patterns of behavior. As John Van Seters notes,“omens were viewed as a way of passing divine judgment on the lives and activitiesof rulers.”21 he range of behavior in this text spans the breadth of statecraft from

improper judicial actions and bribery to the imposition of forced labor in the threeprivileged cities of Nippur, Sippar, and Babylon. hese actions fall under the gen-eral rubric of the first line, “If a king does not heed justice, his people will be throwninto chaos, and his land will be devastated.” he following excerpt from Lambert’stranslation highlights some of the potential failings of the king.22

of War in the Temple Scroll ,” RevQ 13 (1988): 299–311; and Dwight D. Swanson, The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT (SDJ 14; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 117–73. 1 Samuel 8 receivessustained exegesis in its own right beginning in the Middle Ages. For instance, see the works of Rashi (1040–1105), Maimonides (1135–1204), David Qimchi (1160–1235), Gersonides (1288–1344), and Isaac Abravanel (1437–1508). Rashi’s, David Qimchi’s, and Gersonides’ commentarieson 1 Samuel 8 are reprinted in Miqra’ot Gedolot HaKeter: Samuel I & II (ed. Menahem Cohen;Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1993). Maimonides’ discussion of 1 Samuel 8 can be foundin Hilkot Melakim of Sefer Shofetim in his Mishneh Torah, reprinted by Mossad HaRav Kook in1960. A recent edition of Abravanel’s 1483 commentary is printed in Isaac Abravanel, Pirush al Neve’im Rishonim (Jerusalem: orah veDa‘at, 1959). his material, particularly Maimonides’ inter-pretation, treats 1 Sam 8:11–18 as a legal delineation of acceptable practices for kings.

19 See W. G. Lambert’s critical edition with introduction in Babylonian Wisdom Literature

(1960; corrected repr., 1967; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 110–15. See also StephenLangdon, “An Early Babylonian able of Warnings for the King,” JAOS 28 (1907): 145–54. heattribution of credit to Benno Landsberger for the first use of the term Fürstenspiegel to describethis text is Erica Reiner’s (“he Babylonian Fürstenspiegel in Practice,” in Societies and Languagesof the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour of I. M. Diakonoff [ed. M. A. Dandamayev et al.;Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1982], 323 no. 6). More recently, Robert D. Biggs has pointed toFranz Marius heodor Böhl as being the originator of the term Fürstenspiegel in describing thistext (“he Babylonian Fürstenspiegel as a Political Forgery,” in From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A. K. Grayson [ed. Grant Frame;Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2004], 1–5; see Böhl, Der babylonische

Fürstenspiegel [MAOG 11/3; Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1937]).20 Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 111.21 Van Seters In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Bib-




[11] mārī meš nippuriki ana di-nim ub-lu-ni-šum-ma kat 5-ra-a ilqē(ti)-ma i-da-as-su-nu-tì [12] den-líl bēl mātāti (kur.kur) lúnakra a-h }a-a-am [13] i-da-kaš-šum-maummānāti(erín.h }i.a)-šu ú-šam-qá-tì [14] rubû u šu-ut rēši-šu ina sūqi(e.sír) zi-

lul-liš is i

-s i

a-nun-du [15] kasap mārī meš

bābiliki

ilqē(ti-e)-ma ana makkūri(níg.ga)ú-še-ri-bu [16] di-in bābilā’a(lú.din.tir.ki.meš) išmē(giš.tuku)-ma ana qa-li tur-ru [17] dmarduk bēl šamê u ers ieti a-a-bi-šu elī-šú išakkan-ma [18] bušâ(níg.<šu>)-šu makkūra(níg.ga)-šu ana lúnakri-šú i-šar-rak [19] mār nippuriki urusip-par bābili(din.tir.ki) an-na e-me-da [20] a-na bīt s ii-bi-tim šu-ru-bu [21] a-šar an-nam ôin-né-enû -du ālu ana bērūti(sur7)-šu iššappak(dub-ak) [22] a-na bīt s ii-bi-tim šu-ru-bu lúnakru ah }û(bar-ú) errub(tu-ub)

[11] If citizens of Nippur are brought to him for judgment, but he accepts a pres-ent and improperly convicts them, [12] Enlil, lord of the lands, will bring a for-eign army against him [13] to slaughter his army, [14] whose prince and chief officers will roam (his) streets like fighting-cocks. [15] If he takes the silver of the citizens of Babylon and adds it to his own coffers, [16] or if he hears a law-suit involving men of Babylon but treats it frivolously, [17] Marduk, lord of heaven and earth, will set his foes upon him, [18] and will give his property andwealth to his enemy. [19] If he imposes a fine on the citizens of Nippur, Sippar,or Babylon, [20] or if he puts them in prison, [21] the city where the fine wasimposed will be completely overturned, [22] and a foreign enemy will make hisway into the prison in which they were put.

he agents of retribution for the king’s misbehavior include a number of Mesopotamian gods including Enlil (5), Marduk (12), and Addu (42). hey pun-ish the king for his infidelity to justice; the people and land suffer the consequencescollaterally.

he fact that this work was, at first, the only extant example of this type of text made it difficult, until recently, to determine its social function in Babyloniansociety. I. M. Diakonoff suggested preliminarily that the text was composed as awarning to Sennacherib concerning the failings of Shalmaneser V and Marduk-aplidinna II.23 Erica Reiner brings to the discussion additional texts including aNeo-Babylonian letter to Esarhaddon (CT 54, No. 212) that quotes a slightly dif-ferent version of the preceding Fürstenspiegel . She contends that the text was to beread to the king.24 Reiner refers to another copy of this text from Ashurbanipal’slibrary and the apparent quotation or paraphrase from a different Fürstenspiegel identified by Benno Landsberger in a Middle Babylonian letter (Br. M. 1912–5–13, 2).25 She suggests, following Landsberger, that this larger group of texts indicates

23 Diakonoff, “A Babylonian Political Pamphlet from about 700 B.C.,” AS 16 (1965): 343–49.24 Reiner, “Babylonian Fürstenspiegel in Practice,” 320.25 Ibid., 321; Landsberger, “Studien zu der Urkunden aus der Zeit des Ninurta-tukul-Aššur,”




that the Babylonian Fürstenspiegel is not anomalous but evidence of a wider scribalpractice of using “these texts . . . for pedagogical purposes.” According to her analy-sis, scribes copied “them not solely to enlarge their own tablet collections,” but also

drew “on them to influence contemporary events, just as the scholars who cited thecompendia of divinatory texts in their reports to the king attempted to influence theking.”26 For Reiner, scribes in Mesopotamian society used the Fürstenspiegel toshape the behavior of the monarch. he work delimited monarchic action by stat-ing the divine expectation of appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Reiner’sobservation is important because it highlights that the Fürstenspiegel both derivesfrom a real historical situation and continued to serve a social function in shapingpolitical practice in later generations.

Stephen W. Cole suggests that the roots of this literature might actually lie in

an account of the actions of Nabû-šuma-iškun, who reigned as king of Babylon inthe middle of the eighth century (760–748 b.c.e.).27 he excerpts from col. iii, lines10´–29´ of this account (see table 1 on p. 634) detail a portion of the crimes hecommitted against various groups of his subjects.28 his Chaldean monarch com-mitted a wide range of crimes “against the inhabitants and shrines of several of Babylonia’s principal cult centers.”29 His offenses include the extralegal appropria-tion of property from groups such as the “sons of Babylon” and individuals such ashis opponent at court, Mudammiq-Adad. Elsewhere in the document, the chron-icler tells us that Nabû-šuma-iškun upset traditional cultic rites and calendars (col.

ii, lines 7–24). From the perspective of the chronicler, Nabû-šuma-iškun’s crimes ledto the disruption of civic and cultic order. For the chronicler, civil society and cul-tic order are intrinsically interconnected. he failure to ensure cultic order, a prin-cipal responsibility of the monarch, results in the neglect of traditional monarchicrights and responsibilities toward subjects. In a similar fashion, a king’s cavalierand malicious appropriation of individual property can give rise to a monarch’spresuming that he is no longer responsible to cultic officials for maintaining the cul-tus. Such failings brought about widespread periods of plagues and civil unrest dur-ing Nabû-šuma-iškun’s reign. His failure to maintain cultic justice led to destruction

for the people and the land just as in the Fürstenspiegel discussed earlier.Not all of the examples of royal submission to cultic justice are negative in

tone. Hayim admor points to the “emple Program for the New Year’s Festivals atBabylon” as an example of a priestly perspective on the monarch’s proper role inrelation to the cult.30 Like the chronicle of Nabû-šuma-iškun’s reign, this text dates

26 Reiner, “Babylonian Fürstenspiegel in Practice,” 322.27 Cole, “he Crimes and Sacrileges of Nabû-shuma-ishkun” ZA 84 (1994): 220–52.28 he transcription and translation are Cole’s; see ibid., 230–31, 235–36.29 Ibid., 221; note that the copy of the extant text dates to the Seleucid period.30 he translations cited come from “emple Program for the New Year’s Festivals at Baby-




to the Seleucid period. admor argues, however, that it reflects “a custom prevalentin the Neo-Babylonian Period.”31 he first mention of the king occurs during aprayer recited on the fourth of Nisannu, the fourth day of the festival, by the urigallu-priest in the middle of the night. he priest exalts Marduk as the one “whoholds kingship, grasps lordship” and “who turns over the pure scepter to the kingwho reveres him” (lines 227, 244). he priest’s laudatory declaration is ritually enacted later in the day. he king arrives at the sanctuary, where the priest divests

31 admor, “Monarchy and the Elite in Assyria and Babylonia,” in The Origins and Diversity f A i l A Ci ili ti ( d S N Ei t dt SUNY S i i N E t St di Alb St t


10´–11´ šat-ti-šam-ma da-ku h } a-ba-lu šá-ga-šú Year by year hes ia-ba-ti il-ki u tup-šik-ki UGU-šú-nu ú-šá-tir (Nabû-šuma-iškun)

increased the killing,pillaging, murder-ing, and forced laborupon them.

18´–19´ *ôKÁû* DUMU.MEŠ IN.IR .KI h }e-pí eš-šú ŠÚ SAG h }e-pí he quarter of theana DU6 u kar-mu iš-pu-uk-ma ana UGU É.GAL sons of Babylon

ú-tir [. . .] he heaped intoa tell and ruin and

turned into royalproperty.

24´–25´ ISIG5-iq-dIM DUMU IdIM-MU-KÁM EN DI-šú Mudammiq-Adad,ba-lu h } i-t ii u bar-tum is i-bat-su-ma son of Adad-šuma-

ēreš, his courtsopponent—withouthis having com-mitted any crime orsedition (at all)—heseized him.

28´–29´ URU.MEŠ-šú A.ŠÀ.MEŠ-šú É.MEŠ-šú GIŠ.KIRI6.MEŠ-šú His (Mudammiq-ù mim-ma-a-šú ma-la ba-šú-ú pa-ni-šú ú-šad-gil Adad’s) villages,

his fields, his houses,his gardens, and allhis property—asmuch as there was—he took over.

Table 1



him of royal accoutrement: “the scepter, circle, and the sword” (lines 415–19). Afterdepositing these items in the sanctuary, the priest returns to slap the face of theking. Subsequently, the priest drags the king before Bel and “make[s] him bow to

the ground” (lines 420–22). his physical abuse elicits the following confessionfrom the king: “I did [not] sin, lord of the countries. I was not neglectful (of therequirements) of your godship. [I did not] destroy Babylon; I did not command itsoverthrow [I did not . ] . . the temple Esagil, I did not forget its rites. [I did not] rainblows on the cheek of a subordinate . . . I did [not] humiliate them. [I watched out]for Babylon; I did not smash its walls. . .” (lines 423–29). he priest responds tothis confession with assurance of divine favor, restores the royal accoutrement, andstrikes the king’s cheek again.32 he king and priest then go on to preside jointly over the remainder of the ritual, symbolizing the balance of power between them.

As admor notes, the king’s pledge includes preserving the kidinnu rites of the Babylonian temple cities. he kidinnu rites entail the exemption of these cities“from taxation, the corvée, and military service, the prohibition of imprisonmentwithout trial, etc.” admor views this ritual as symbolizing the triumph “of the tem-ple cities in their historic struggle with the crown after the sacrilege of Sennacheribin 689.”33 While this may be true, more relevant to the discussion here are the par-allels between this text, the Fürstenspiegel texts, and the Nabû-šuma-iškun account.he actions that the monarch confesses not to have done in his prayer are thecrimes committed by Nabû-šuma-iškun and the actions that the Fürstenspiegel

declares to be portending ill omens. As noted earlier, Nabû-šuma-iškun destroyedsome sections of Babylon, abused subordinates and political rivals (e.g., Mudammiq-Adad), and upset traditional cultic rites and calendars. Such activities wouldundoubtedly elicit divine retribution in the judgment of the writer of the Fürsten-spiegel .

While I have highlighted the major phenomenological parallels among thesethree texts, they do not constitute a distinct genre of literature. hey lack the for-mal similarities requisite for such a designation. In terms of literary genre, the“Advice to a Prince” draws on the features of omen literature; the account of the

reign of Nabû-šuma-iškun is a chronicle; and the “New Year’s emple Program” isa description of a ritual. hey are, however, part of a “genre of discourse,” an insti-tution of society rather than merely a collection of texts sharing common literary features.34 aken together, these texts portray a broad pattern in Mesopotamiansociety in the eighth and seventh centuries b.c.e. of limiting monarchic power,whose excesses brought ruin on cult and country. Appropriate exercise of royal

32 On the relationship of kingly confessions and royal responsibility, see Giovanni B.

Lanfranchi, “Ideological Implications of the Problem of Royal Responsibility in the Neo-AssyrianPeriod,” ErIsr 27 (2003): 100–110.

33 d “M h d Elit ” 218




power led to divine blessing for ruler and people alike. Improper behavior led todivine punishment for both monarch and people. I now turn to 1 Sam 8:11–18 toexplore how this Levantine text participates in the Fürstenspiegel genre of dis-

course.35

III. 1 Samuel 8:11–18 and the Limits of Monarchic Power

1 Samuel 8 begins by describing the perverted justice of Samuel’s sons. Samuelis no longer able to serve as the military leader, priest, prophet, and cultic officialof the earlier part of the narrative (1 Sam 3:20; 7:5–17). As with his mentor Elibefore him, his sons assume his judicial duties and perform them for personal ben-

efit (8:1–3; cf. 2:22–26). In the next section (8:4–5), the elders of Israel approachSamuel at Ramah and propose an alternate polity for Israel. heir request entails thereplacement of the current model of charismatic judgeship with a monarchy inwhich the people are ruled “in the manner of all the nations.” he narrative of Judges and 1 Samuel suggests a certain impermanence and provisional quality tothe office of judge. Both king and judge perform the same action of judging (i.e.,exercising rulership over the people). Formally, however, there seems to be a dif-ference. he office of judge was based on charismatic authority. Judges, unlikekings, lacked the ability and authority to establish a sustained bureaucracy; their

responsibility was to form short-term organizations such as an army marshaled toaddress immediate threats or needs (e.g., Judges 4). In 1 Samuel 8, the reason forthe change in political form seems to be the apparent end of the office of judge dueto internal corruption and age. In Samuel’s farewell speech in 1 Samuel 12, Samueldescribes the reason for the people’s request for a king as a response to theencroachment of Nahash, king of the Ammonites. his suggests that, in terms of form of office, the office of kingship is better suited to face sustained internationalthreats. hus, the people desire a king who can exercise rulership over them in themanner of the surrounding nations and bring parity to Israel’s relations with

them.36

35 More extensive work could be done on the links between the Mesopotamian Fürsten-spiegel genre and the speculum principum (“Instruction of Princes”) literature in the Greek corpusof which Hesiod’s Works and Days is the most extensive example. For treatments of this literature,see Martin, “Hesiod, Odysseus, and the Instruction of Princes,” 29–48; and Weinfeld, “‘empleScroll’ or ‘King’s Law,’” 229–32.

36 Jo Ann Hackett, “ ‘here Was No King in Israel’: he Era of the Judges,” in The Oxford His-tory of the Biblical World (ed. Michael D. Coogan; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 143;

John Day, “he Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; JSOSup270 Sh ffi ld Sh ffi ld A d i P 1998) 72 73 H Ni h “ ” TDOT 15 411 31 h




he people’s request is not well received by Samuel. Verses 6–9 raise the ques-tion of why the people’s request distresses Samuel. Levi ben Gershom, the medievalJewish commentator also known as Gersonides or Ralbag (1288–1344), suggests,

“hey erred in this because Israel does not operate in the manner that the kingshould judge as he pleases.”37 Gersonides argues that the problem in the people’srequest is not the request for a king itself but rather the statement that such a kingshould be allowed to rule Israel “in the manner of all the other nations,” that is, inwhatever manner he sees fit.38 From his synchronic, halakic perspective (and per-haps the perspective of DtrH itself), any Israelite king should be obedient to the pre-scripts for kingship outlined in Deut 17:14–20. Samuel’s concern at this point in thenarrative, however, is not whether Israel’s king would submit to divine authority asspecified in the orah but rather that the people would dare to request a change in

the political system at all. God interprets their request as fundamentally a rejec-tion of divine authority and thus a threat to the very divine justice that ensuresIsrael’s survival.

In v. 8, God frames the elders’ request as part of a larger pattern of infidelity stemming from the time of the exodus.39 Remarkably, God seems to undergo achange of mind at the beginning of v. 9. Despite Israel’s apparent rejection of divineauthority, God allows for human kingship. he nature of this kingship, however,should be clearly delineated for the people. Samuel is to warn them and tell themthe manner of kings by disclosing המ

משפט

to the people. he meaning ofטפשמ

המ

is a bit obscure. he wordמשפט

itself has a rather wide semantic range,though as B. Johnson notes, “the focal point clearly lies in the realm of justice, judg-ment, and law.”40 Elsewhere in the DtrH and biblical literature, the word משפט

isused in connection with a group of people and seems to suggest the customary practice of that particular group.41 Rabbinic interpretation generally regards משפט in 1 Samuel 8 as aהמ , ”statute of the king.”42חוקת המ Robert Polzin points outthat the phrase המ

משפט

is used here and in the variant form המ כה

משפט

in

37 Gersonides’ commentary on 1 Samuel can be found in Cohen, Miqra’ot Gedolot .38 Cf. David Qimchi’s comments ad loc. Classically the appointment of a king over Israel has

been enumerated as one of the positive commandments enjoined on Israel upon entering the landof Israel based on Deut 17:14 (e.g., Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Melakim, 1:1).

39 Commentators generally agree that v. 8 is a later insertion of the DtrH designed to explainthe reasons for Israel’s request in a manner reflective of the DtrH’s historiographic program; see,e.g., McCarter, I Samuel , 157.

40 Johnson, “משפט

,” TDOT 9:87. See also Wallace I. Wolverton, “he King’s ‘Justice’ in Pre-Exilic Israel,” AThR 41 (1959): 276–86.

41 E.g., priests (Deut 18:3; 1 Sam 2:13), nations (2 Kgs 17:13), firstborn (Deut 21:17),

redemption (Jer 32:7), possession or refusal (Jer 32:8), ruler (Ezek 21:32 [27]), nations, that is,Chaldeans (Hab 1:7).

42 E t S h 4 Y i L b b S b di t d Ki Ki hip i Cl i l J i h Lit




1 Sam 10:25 to reflect “both the rights and the duties of the king.”43 he abstractnoun משפט

appears to be a pun on the participle .44שופט In fact, the root appearseight times in ch. 8 (vv. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 20). Samuel discloses to the people the

way a king will exercise rulership ( המ

משפט

) in ways worse than that of Samuel’sown sons who acted corruptly as judges (םיטפוש; see 1 Sam 8:1–3). Like the judge-ship that failed under Samuel’s sons, kingship can be a corrupt institution, and thepeople need to be made aware of this reality and the threat it poses to Israel’snational welfare. delineates the appropriate rights and duties ofמשפט המ anIsraelite king via negativa. he pattern of kingship described in this passage con-notes the enslavement of a people to a monarch through their complete subordi-nation to his whims. Essentially, this statement expresses what God considersinappropriate behavior for an Israelite ruler. Israelite kings should not indiscrimi-

nately impose upon their populace tithes of people, produce, or property in orderto sustain their ever-burgeoning administrations.45

here are a number of thematic parallels between and the threeמשפט המexamples of the Fürstenspiegel genre of discourse discussed earlier. able 2 on thefollowing pages outlines parallels among the four texts. his table illustrates thatstrong affinities in theme and content between המ

משפט

in 1 Sam 8:11–18, the“Advice to a Prince,” and the account of the reign of Nabû-šuma-iškun. “he New Year’s emple Program” lacks specific parallels with the other three texts exceptthat all four texts share a common trope that the king’s actions will ultimately be

recounted before YHWH or other gods. he first three texts all describe a subversionof existing property and land rights in society as well as the conscription of variousgroups of people for forced labor or royal service at the whim of the monarch.46 he“Advice to a Prince” and the account of the reign of Nabû-šuma-iškun both explic-itly point out that these assertions of royal prerogative contravene the divinely ordained social order. his social order mandates a balance of power between themonarchy, the priests, the landed gentry, and the people. his upsetting of the rightorder of society is most notable in the “Advice to a Prince” through the king’sostensive seizure of the sacred cities of Sippar, Babylon, and Nippur. In the

43 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist , 86; see 1 Sam 8:9, 11; 10:25. B. Johnson similarly notes that ” “can also denote the right or authority that emanates from the power of a rulerמשפט(TDOT 9:92). See also Klein, 1 Samuel , 76.

44 I am indebted to Cian Power for this observation.45 In contrast to Deut 17:14–20 (cf. 1 Kings 10–11) and David’s instructions to Solomon in

1 Kgs 2:1–12, which are positive statements of what kingship should be.46 he variations in seized property between

המ משפט

in 1 Sam 8:11–18 and the “Adviceto a Prince” and the “Chronicle of Nabû-šuma-iškun” could stem from the explicitly urban con-

texts of these two documents as opposed to the more (though not exclusively) rural context of the first chapters of 1 Samuel. On urbanization in the ancient Near East, see Urbanism in Antiq-

it F M p t i t C t ( d W lt E A f ht N il A Mi d St W G l





Table 2

1 Samuel 8 Advice to a Prince Chronicle of New Year’s

Nabû-šuma-iškun Temple Program

11–12 aking of 23–25, 52, 55–57 iii.10´–17´ “killing, –male children for Imposition of pillaging, murder-royal service corvée or forced ing,” and imposition(military, plowing, labor. of forced laborharvesting, upon residents ofweapons Babylon. iii.26´–27´

manufacturing). aking of Mudammiq-Adad’s

“people” and givingthem as gifts.

13 aking of female 23–25, 52, 55–57 iii.10´–17´ “killing, –children for royal Imposition of pillaging,service (perfumers, corvée or forced murdering,” andcooks, and bakers). labor. imposition of forced

labor uponresidents of Babylon. iii.26´–27´

aking of Mudammiq-Adad’s“people” and givingthem as gifts.

14 aking of – iii.18´–25´, 32´–33´ –

agricultural lands Seizure of urban(fields, vineyard, and agriculturaland olive orchards) lands of variousand transferring leading citizens.

them to royalservants.

15 aking tithes 31–33 ransfer of iii.34´–45´ Seizure –of agricultural the fodder of the of items dedicatedproduce and citizens of Sippar, to Esagil andtransferring them Nippur, and transfer to his ownto royal officers Babylon to royal coffers, for theand servants. steeds. adornment of the

women of his

palace, and forgifts to Syria andElam



account of the reign of Nabû-šuma-iškun, his seizure of items dedicated to the cul-

tic complex of Esagil evokes the ire of the chronicler (iii.34´–45´). 1 Samuel 8:11–18only hints that the king’s actions transgress the divine social order with regard tohieratic rights. המ

משפט

twice highlights the king’s actions in taking a tithe of agricultural produce and livestock (רשעי; vv. 15, 17). Such a practice could be seenas either an unjust burden on the people or a subversion of tithes traditionally reserved for the priests and the Levites (Num 18:8–32; Deut 14:28–29; cf. Lev 27:30–34).47 Additionally, Samuel, as a priest (1 Sam 2:35), could have been affectedadversely by a change in the tithing system. Further, the “New Year’s emple Pro-gram” reflects a similar anxiety about proper royal deference to priestly rights.

Comparison with the explicit enumeration of royal transgressions of priestly pre-


1 Samuel 8 Advice to a Prince Chronicle of New Year’s

Nabû-šuma-iškun Temple Program

16 aking of best 23–25, 52, 55–57 iii.10´–17´ “killing, –servants and asses Imposition of pillaging, murder-for work. corvée or forced ing,” and imposition

labor. of forced labor upon38–41 aking of residents of Babylon.oxen and sheep. iii.26´–27´ aking of

Mudammiq-Adad’s“people” and givingthem as gifts.

17 aking a tithe 38–41 aking of iii.34´–45´ Seizure of –of flocks. oxen and sheep. items dedicated to

Esagil and transferto his own coffers,for the adornmentof the women of his palace, and forgifts to Syria andElam.

18 Appeal to Yhwh Whole text: Whole text: 251–72 urigallu-priest’sbecause of the predicts divine recounting of prayer to Beltiyaexcesses of the intercession in sacrileges of who advocates onking. response to royal Nabû-šuma-iškun, behalf of the

transgression. presumably before oppressed.the gods.

Table 2 (cont.)



rogative in the “Advice to a Prince” and the chronicle of the reign of Nabû-šuma-iškun and concern for proper relationship between the monarchy and the priest-hood in the “emple Program” only serve to bring the possibility of royal

usurpation of priestly tithes in 1 Sam 8:11–18 into clearer relief.hough these four texts share varying degrees of thematic affinity, it is clear

that they do not share the formal conventions of a literary genre. Nevertheless, allof these texts, including המ

משפט

in 1 Sam 8:11–18, participate in the Fürsten-spiegel genre of discourse. As I noted earlier, this genre of discourse serves to limitand to constrain monarchic power in relation to other groups and institutions insociety. It does so by exposing monarchic excess through various modes of socialrebuke. his type of discourse employs various literary genres, including prophecy (as in ), omen literature, and chronicle as well as rituals of monarchicמשפט המ

subjugation. While these texts and rituals might not have been regularly enacted orread, it is clear from the “New Year’s emple Program” and Reiner’s suggestion thatthe “Advice to a Prince” texts were used by scribes for “pedagogical purposes” thatthe Fürstenspiegel genre of discourse was part of a mechanism in certain societiesin the ancient Near East to limit monarchic power.48

Although an Israelite scribe produced המ

משפט

in 1 Sam 8:11–18, these verses are not uniquely Israelite.49 As the preceding discussion shows, the Fürsten-spiegel genre of discourse received broad distribution in both Babylonian andAssyrian scribal circles. It is quite plausible that scribes in either the northern or the

southern kingdom, or both, could have encountered this Fürstenspiegel traditionand nativized it. Other examples of texts that participate in this genre also stemfrom these same Israelite scribal circles. Moshe Weinfeld suggests that Deuteron-omy as a whole functioned as a Fürstenspiegel or peri basileias to which the king wasaccountable.50 As Baruch Halpern points out, Deut 17:8–18:22 “works to limit andto hedge the powers of the monarch.”51 It is notable that the provisions of Deut17:16–17 do not set legal limitations but instead function as wisdom teachingdesigned to shape the ethical practice of the monarch (cf. Prov 31:1–9 and the Baby-lonian Fürstenspiegel ).52 his limitation of monarchic power addresses the same

concerns that are raised in the narrative of 1 Samuel 8–12 and the consequentdesires to restrain the excesses of royal power and prerogative. Deuteronomy 17:18–20 assures this accountability through its command for the king to copy and reciteregularly some form of Deuteronomy. Echoes of this practice are seen in Joshua’scopying of the orah on stones and reading it before all the people in Josh 8:30–35

48 Reiner, “Babylonian Fürstenspiegel in Practice,” 322.49 Clements, “Deuteronomistic Interpretation,” 408–9.

50 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 56–57.

51 Halpern “Uneasy Compromise” 84




and in Samuel’s priestly declaration of rules of the monarchy and the depositing of these rules before the Lord in 1 Sam 10:25. Another example of the social enact-ment of this genre of discourse occurs in 2 Kings 22 with the scribe Shaphan’s pres-

entation to Josiah of “a scroll of the teaching” (התורה

ספר

) given to him by thepriest Hilkiah (v. 8) and Josiah’s mournful response (v. 11).53

IV. Conclusion

While it is unclear whether המ

משפט

in 1 Sam 8:11–18 was excerpted froma Fürstenspeigel -like text in the collection of an Israelite scribe or modeled on sucha tradition, comparative study of this passage shows that it stems from a broad

ancient Near Eastern genre of discourse that sought to limit monarchic power. hecustomary excesses of the king that Samuel seeks to limit through his recitation of this passage represent one aspect of the Fürstenspiegel genre of discourse. Samuelseeks to limit royal excess through a tabloid-like exposé of its frivolities and extremes.Earlier scholarship such as Mendelsohn’s comparison of this passage with Canaan-ite material and Leuchter’s work with parallels in the Assyrian annals reflects arecognition that this passage describes a native Israelite model of kingship in con-

versation with and in contradistinction to contemporary imperial models. While Iaffirm the basic trajectory that these earlier works chart, I proposed in the present

discussion that the Fürstenspiegel genre of discourse provides a closer analogue for1 Sam 8:11–18. he source on which 1 Sam 8:11–18 draws not only served to detailroyal irresponsibility; it also sought to curb it by exposing its excesses. his under-standing of המ

משפט

reinforces the interpretation of 1 Samuel’s description of the rise of the monarchy as focusing on the pragmatic issue of the conduct of theking. In this regard, 1 Samuel’s approach (and that of the DtrH more broadly) to thequestion of monarchic power is not merely an analysis of what went wrong withIsrael but rather is programmatic for the conduct of Israel’s monarchy. המ

משפט

of 1 Sam 8:11–18 thus contributes to a broader historiographic statement of the

limits of monarchic power and serves as a native Israelite exemplar of the Fürsten-spiegel genre of discourse. In fact, one may regard the phrase המ

משפט

as a nativeIsraelite equivalent of its Greek parallel peri basileias or its Latin version speculum principum, as well as Landsberger’s term Fürstenspiegel .

53 On the role of a priestly or cultic agenda in shaping the portrayal of the Josianic reformin 2 Kings 22–23, see Lauren A. S. Monroe, “A Pre-Exilic ‘Holiness’ Substratum in the Deuteron-

omistic Account of Josiah’s Reform,” in “Scribes Before and After 587 b.c.e.: A Conversation,” ed.Mark Leuchter, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 7 (2007): 42–53; eadem, Josiah’s Reform and theD i f D fil t I lit Rit f Vi l d th M ki f Bibli l T t (O f d O f d




Copyright of Journal of Biblical Literature is the property of Society of Biblical Literature and its content may

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Date post:	12-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lukin-vladimir
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

1 Samuel 8.11-18 as 'A Mirror for Princes'..pdf

Documents