I KINGS 20 AND I KINGS 21

I have already written post entitled “I Kings 20-21” in which these chapters were analyzed verse by verse. But one aspect I left out was that of the textual traditions.

Many, but not all, Christians realize that there are often a number of small variations in wording of a given passage found when comparing the available ancient Bible manuscripts. In the case of the Old Testament writings, our best and earliest witnesses to the text are the standard Hebrew text (called the Masoretic Text, or MT), the early Greek translation called the Septuagint (abbreviated as LXX), and some of the Dead Sea scrolls found at Qumran and written in Hebrew. In the vast majority of cases where these texts differ from one another, translators have preferred to stick to the MT, unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise.

There are a number of times when the MT and LXX differ in minor ways, none affecting any doctrinal issues. But one interesting variation is found in the case of I Kings 20-21. The Septuagint actually reverses the order of these two chapters. We have found no copies of this passage in the Qumran scrolls which might help decide which of these two has the original order and which one has deliberately switched the order for some reason or another. Since there is no particularly overwhelming reason why one variation appears to be superior to the other, all modern translations I have seen simply take the conservative approach and stick with the MT.

But scholars can't just let it go at that, and so attempts have been made to defend either the Hebrew or Greek text as superior. G. H. Jones summarizes the current state of affairs by saying that recent investigations into the text of I-II Kings have resulted in “the acceptance of a more positive attitude towards the Greek translation...” He concludes that “when the Greek diverges from the Hebrew, all the evidence has to be carefully considered in order to assess the significance of each divergence.” At the present time, “There is no consensus among commentators regarding the 'original order of these chapters.” (Mordechai Cogan) I am no scholar, but I do have a technique that might help in this regard, analysis of literary structure, and so I will enter the fray.

The first thing to note regarding these two chapters is that they definitely belong together as a cohesive literary unit, and the overall form this unit takes is two parallel stories, given below in the order of the Hebrew text:

Figure 1: Structure of I Kings 20-21 (Hebrew text)

1. Ben-hadad wants Ahab's money, wives and children (20:1-6)

        2. Ahab defeats Ben-hadad's forces with a prophet's help but sins in the process (20:17-34)

                3. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet (20:35-44)

                        4. Ahab's response (20:43)

1'. Ahab wants to buy Naboth's land (21:1-4)

        2'. Ahab gets the land with Jezebel's help but sins in the process (21:5-16)

                3'. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet Elijah (21:17-26)

                        4'. Ahab's response (21:27)

The next thing to consider is how I Kings 20-21 fits in with the passages on either side. Shenkel feels that the reverse order found in the Septuagint must be the superior text since it brings together chapter 21 directly with all the stories of Elijah and King Ahab found in chapters 17-19. In addition, another effect of adopting the LXX order is to more closely combine all the wars with Aram found in chapters 20 and 22.

Burney also sides with the LXX for an entirely different reason, namely, his suspicion that the Hebrew text was the one doing the reversing in order to more closely associate (a) the prophecy of Ahab's death with its occurrence and (b) the two descriptions of the king's dismal mood in 20:43 and 21:4. If you examine Burney's reasoning a little more closely, it is easy to pick holes in it.

First to note is that his method of reasoning is actually a reversal of Shenkel's. Shenkel picks LXX because it does a better job of grouping together similar stories whereas Burney suspects the MT order for the very same reason – it does a better job of associating similar stories and expressions. A second problem with Burney's reason is that the traditional order of the chapters does not end in chapter 21 with a prediction of Ahab's death (which happens in 22:37-40) at all; instead it relates a stay of execution for Ahab due to his repentance. But the order in the Septuagint does contain a definite announcement of Ahab's demise at the end of chapter 20 (verse 42). By Burney's logic then, it is the LXX which should be more suspect. As to the similarities between I Kings 20:43 and 21:4, I will get to them in a minute.

If the above structure in Figure 1 were all there was to this organization, then it alone could not be helpful in distinguishing which textual tradition was the superior one since the two parallel units stand even if the order of the chapters is transposed. However, three passages need to be considered in the analysis. For one thing, this nice, neat arrangement does not yet include the end of chapter 21, God's response to Ahab's repentance found in 21:28-29. This ending has no correspondence in chapter 20. But if the order of the two chapters are reversed, the following symmetry results:

Figure 2: Structure of I Kings 21-20 (Greek text)

CYCLE I

        1. Ahab wants to buy Naboth's land (21:1-4)

                2. Ahab gets the land with Jezebel's help but sins in the process (21:5-16)

                        3. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet Elijah (21:17-26)

                                4. Ahab's response (21:27)

                                                CENTER UNIT: God delays Ahab's Punishment (21:28-29)

CYCLE II

        1'. Ben-hadad wants Ahab's money, wives and children (20:1-6)

                2'. Ahab defeats Ben-hadad's forces with a prophet's help but sins in the process (20:17-34)

                        3'. Judgment is pronounced on Ahab through the prophet (20:35-44)

                                4'. Ahab's response (20:43)

Confirmation of this as the original order are (a) the logical stress of the whole unit on God's mercy in the face of repentance (I Kings 21:28-29) and (b) the perfect bookends it provides in bounding both chapters at the beginning and end (a literary technique called an inclusio).

    “Ahab went home resentful and sullen” (21:4)

    “The king of Israel set out toward home, resentful and sullen.” (20:43)

This is certainly not the definitive answer to the question at hand, but it is one more piece of evidence favoring the Septuagint's order of chapters 20-21.