15

The present article examines the final part of the regnal formulas in the Book of Kings, i.e. the epilogue formulary. Most reports of the kings of Israel and Judah end with an epilogue containing formulaic statements about the death of the king and his succession. Typically, the epilogue formula is introduced by the phrase (source reference): 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel)?' and consists of three elements: 1. Dynastic notice ('PN1 slept with his fathers'); 2. Statement of burial; 3. Statement of succession. Sometimes one, two or all three of these elements are altered or lacking. The epilogue formulae of the Judean kings are more consistent than those of the Israelite kings; the latter often lacks a burial notice. Interestingly, the accounts of the deported (arrested) kings (Hoshea: 2 Kgs 17:6, Jehoahaz: 23:34, Zedekiah:25:7 and Jehoiachin: 25:27-30) do not contain an epilogue at all, nor the accounts of the reigns of Ahaziah and Athaliah which mark an episode of disruption in the history of the Davidic kingdom. For all these kings even the phrase 'Now the rest of the acts of PN1, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of... ?' is lacking. The absence of an epilogue in these cases is probably due to the fact that the king's succession (cf. element 3) is considered a constitutive and indispensable component of the epilogue. In the first instance, the approach of this study is descriptive and philological; it aims to contribute to the understanding of the notices. Secondly, the study addresses the question how the irregularities and variations within the formulae are to be explained. In particular, the study will pay attention to differences between the epilogue formulae concerning the kings of Israel and those concerning the Judean kings. At the end, questions concerning the epilogues formula's provenance and its formation date and concerning further redactional developments will be considered.

How to Read Bible stories

A welcome supplement to the bestselling How to Read the OT and How to Read the NT, indicating more recent developments in biblical studies especially in the area of narrative criticism.

The Future of the Deuteronomistic History

The present debate on the so-called "Deuteronomistic History" has become quite confusing and in recent years more and more scholars are inclined to deny the existence of a Deuteronomistic History as elaborated by Martin Noth or at least to modify this thesis radically. The contributions in this volume reflect the present state of discussion about the Deuteronomistic History. With one exception they have all been presented and discussed in three special sessions dedicated to "Deuteronomism" during the SBL International Meeting in Lausanne (July 1997). Three topics were treated: "The Future of the Deuteronomistic History", "Identity and Literary Strategies of the Deuteronomists", "Deuteronomism and the Hebrew Bible". The contributors are: R. Albertz, A.G. Auld, M. Bauks, W. Dietrich, D. Edelman, F. Garcia Lopez, E.A. Knauf, G. Knoppers, S.K. McKenzie, C. Nihan, T.C. Römer, N.H. Rösel, J. Van Seters and J. Vermeylen. Each contribution offers a valuable entry into one of the most important discussions of Old Testament scholarship at the end of the twentieth century.

Elaborated Literary Violence: Genre and Ideology of the Two Stories I Sam 22,6-23 and II Sam 21,1-14

The present article focuses on two stories dealing with acts of big blood shed. I Sam 22,6-23 relates the massacre of the priests of Nob; II Sam 21,1-14 is about the execution of seven descendents of Saul, as atonement for Saul's attempt to exterminate the Gibeonites. Most researchers consider both stories or at least certain parts of them old.1 For both stories few verses are regarded as secondary. In this paper I try to reassess the analysis of these stories and will point to indices favoring a late date of origin for both of them. They concern the language in use, intertextual connections and particular motifs. A further indication consists in the fact that the reported events of the stories lack significant resonance in the corpus of the Hebrew Bible. There are only two texts, I Sam 2,33 and Ps 52,2, which allude or refer to I Sam 22,6-23.With regard to the importance of the related events and acts this silence in the Biblical context is astonishing. Interestingly, also in the Book of Chronicles one does not find any allusions to these stories. This raises the question whether the latter were composed after the formation of the book of Chronicles.