Queens in Kings

In Chapter 17, Coogan includes a section about women in the books of Kings. Most of the women mentioned are part of the royal families, and here we can see an interesting piece of evidence of the Judean perspective under which these books were written. While only one mother of a king of the northern kingdom, Israel, is named, the mother of almost every king of the southern kingdom, Judah, is mentioned. Considering how few names of women in any significant position of power have been recorded in the scriptures, just the fact that these women are named is important.

Coogan offers an explanation for the term “queen mother” in this section. The term that is usually translated this way in most Bibles, he says, literally means “powerful woman.” What sort of power did these women have? It is difficult to say with much certainty, but it is mentioned, with the typical DTRH concern for the centralization of worship, that King Asa removed his mother from the position of “queen mother” because she made an “abominable image” for Asherah. If this office was important enough for her to be removed for this offense, it seems that it must have entailed some degree of power, as the name suggests. No evidence seems to be given, however, as to any other functions of the office.

While reading this material, a question that came to mind was how the Deuteronomistic Historians’ treatment of queens differs from their treatment of kings. How does the Judean royal theology affect the women who are part of the royal family? In the books of Kings’ portrait of Jezebel, we certainly seem to see a woman who embodies pure evil. Yet she is also perhaps the most powerful woman in the Hebrew Bible. Was she depicted so unflatteringly only because of her deeds, or because those who recorded history felt threatened by her power?

Judean Royal Theology

This is an attempt at a brief overview of the Judean royal theology/ideology, as presented in Brooke’s lecture, Coogan, and the Harper-Collins NRSV. P. Kyle McCarter, writing on First and Second Samuel in the NRSV, notes that 2 Sam 7: 1-17 is “the royal theology of the Davidic dynasty in oracular form. Because of the thematic centrality of Davidic kingship to ancient Israelite religion, the oracle uttered by Nathan is a watershed event in the biblical narrative as a whole” (p. 445). The passage begins with David’s wish to build a house for Yahweh, since it seems unfitting to him that “the ark of God stays in a tent” while he, David, lives in “a house of cedar.” The prophet Nathan then receives an oracle from Yahweh: instead of David building a temple for Yahweh, Yahweh will establish the house of David.

David’s dynasty will now be guaranteed “unconditionally and in perpetuity, even if David’s successor(s) act wrongly” (Coogan, p. 261), and a covenant relationship is signified by the use of the words “steadfast love.” The Davidic dynasty will begin with David’s son Solomon, who will, in fact, build a temple for the Lord. The NRSV adds that the language of “father” and “son” in 7:14 indicates the “special relationship between the dynastic deity and the king, who was regarded as the adoptive son of the national god” (p. 446); David is therefore considered Yahweh’s son. Although Saul was rejected by God, it is now promised that this will never happen to David or to his successors: “But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, who I put away from before you” (7:15). The covenant with David is meant to be everlasting.

Deborah

In our reading of Joshua and Judges for this week, I found myself especially intrigued by the character of Deborah, who first appears in Judges 4: “At that time Deborah, a prophetess, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the Israelites came up to her for judgment.” I had certainly heard about Deborah before and even studied the book of Judges to some extent in an EfM (Education for Ministry) class, but one of the insights from Coogan’s textbooks helped me to find a new perspective on this text.

Coogan writes that part of what is so compelling about this text is that Deborah is presented in such a straightforward, matter-of-fact way, with no special attention given to her gender. In the text above, it is merely noted that she is “a prophetess” and that the Israelites “came up to her for judgment,” much the same sort of introduction that is given to many of the other judges. This note of Coogan’s seems to accurately capture what is so surprising about this text. It seems to give rise to much curiosity about who this Deborah might have been: a real prophet or leader of some sort, or one of the legendary folk heroes that is also presented in Judges, like Samson? She even receives one of the most positive presentations among the judges, winning a major military victory and singing, with Barak, the “Song of Deborah,” which Coogan notes is probably one of the oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible, probably written not long after the victory it commemorates. Of course, both Deborah and Jael are celebrated in this text not only for wisdom, but for committing acts of great violence; they are not idealized feminist role models, but they are certainly compelling characters.

Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah

I am writing this to try to make sure I understand some of the differences between Second and Third Isaiah, as presented by Coogan and our HarperCollins NRSV notes.

First of all, we separate Second Isaiah from First Isaiah because it addresses the problem of the Babylonians, rather than the Assyrians as in First Isaiah. Second Isaiah also does not name its author or specify any details about his life, whereas in First Isaiah the prophet is a named character in the narrative. The character of Cyrus the Persian is another differentiating factor. Cyrus is not mentioned at all in First Isaiah, but is given great importance in Second Isaiah. Despite his obvious pagan status, he is exalted as the "shepherd" and the "anointed one," and Yahweh has chosen him to rise up against the Babylonians. He has also been chosen to rebuild the Temple, which is another point of departure from First Isaiah, wherein the Temple, as well as Jerusalem as a whole, had not yet been destroyed. Second Isaiah is concerned with the possibility of restoration rather than the threat of destruction.

In Third Isaiah, the context clearly shifts once again. Second Isaiah is mainly concerned with the return from exile, but in Third Isaiah, the Temple seems actually to have been rebuilt, or at least the people are in the process of rebuilding. Also, while Second Isaiah is addressed to the people in exile in Babylon, Third Isaiah is addressed to the people of Judah. Therefore, Third Isaiah, although there are difficulties with its dating, seems to have its source in the early postexilic period, likely in the fifth or sixth century BCE.

Rocktober

As a temporary Denverite and solid-ish fan of my black-and-purple B team, let me say: GO ROCKIES. As I've mentioned here before, my feelings for them are very different than my feelings for the Cubs, almost entirely maternal (stay warm out there, little guys!) but still rather passionate.

Also, somewhat unsurprisingly: I hate the Dodgers.