JBL 134, «545-529 :(2015) ٠.تdoi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1343.2015.2816

Naboth’s Vineyard after Mari and Amarna

ANNE MARIE KITZanne.mariekitz@aol.com New Berlin, WI 53151

This inquiry reevaluates the Naboth pericope of 1 Kgs 21 in light of a refined translation of ARM 10.73, a letter written by Inib-Sarri to her father Zimri-Lim, king of Mari. The content of ARM 10.73 permits a comparison between the two texts regarding a form of political intrigue that the principal players exploit to gain advantage. Inib-Sarri details the efforts of her husband, Ibâl-Addu, to incriminate the regional Mari delegate, Itûr-Asdû, in seditious activities. Ibâl- Addu’s maneuverings, which Inib-Sarri labels karsïsu ïkulü (lit., “they ate his pieces,” that is, denounced him), are remarkably analogous to the steps Jezebel takes against Naboth. Such a correlation reveals an operative relationship between the lu 2.me§ sarär (“dishonest men”) mentioned in ARM 10.73,'rev· 21 and the

בנ־בליעל נ؛אנשם (“worthless men”) in 1 Kgs 21:10,13. Two Amarna letters, EA 160 and 161 confirm the ongoing relationship between the lu 2.meS sarrüti and the act of karsi akälu. Both EA 252 and 254 likewise attest to the abiding relevance of karsiakälu in the area ofOmri’s future kingdom. On the basis of the evidence adduced, this study concludes that 1 Kgs 21 records an incident of karst akälu without using the expression, and suggests that Jezebel’s acts are not the product of authorial imagination but reflect features of the ancient Near Eastern practice o f denunciation .

For obvious reasons, the tale of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kgs 21 is a source of perpetual interest to scholars. What could be more poignant than the story of a man defending his paternal inheritance from the covetous desires of evil King Ahab? Certainly Ahab initiates his negotiations to acquire the plot ofland with two more-than-generous offers: an exchange for superior property elsewhere or a pay- ment for twice its value. Naboth’s emphatic rebuff clearly wounds royal pride. A despondent Ahab slips into a sulk, takes to his couch, and waliows heartily in apool of discontent.

Ferhaps impatient with her husbands adolescent behavior, Queen Jezebel intervenes by exploiting a lesfoan-straightforward course of action. She writes foe leaders of Naboth’s tribe and directs them to hold a fast, assemble foe people, and, through foe agency 0^ בנ־בליע אנשים שנים , “two worthless men” (w. 10,13), accuse Naboth of sedition. The people comply. Naboth is publicly charged and

529

Journal of Biblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015)530

found guilty. With disturbing speed the tribe exeeutes the sentence, ^ e y drag Naboth out of the city and stone him to death.

Shortly thereafter, Elijah, inspired by YHWH, excoriates Ahab for his swift action against Naboth. The prophets words are harsh; Ahab and his household will be exterminated from the face ofthe earth. Hearing this, Ahab immediately repents and wins a stay of execution for himself but not for his heirs.

Interpretations ofthe incidentvaryprincipally according to scholarly approach. The most compelling studies consider the ancient Near Eastern context of 1 Kgs 21. Law codes and land rights, in particular, have provided important insights into Ahab and Jezebel’s legal manipulations^ ^ e s e studies have drawn attention to the cultural inheritance of the Hebrew Bible, confirming the continuity of societal practices that transcend time periods and geographical locations.

The study offered here will revolve around two points: the historical/literary character of 1 Kgs 21 and the application ofthe Akkadian phrase karst akälu (“eat pieces”) to describe the procedures found there. Such a treatment necessitates a réévaluation of the degree of authorial creativity attributed to 1 Kgs 21. The plot twists in Naboth’s vineyard reveal a carefully crafted scheme that presents Jezebel as the epitome of subterfuge who inspires divine rage against her husband. Yet one question lingers. Does 1 Kgs 21 draw on ancient Near Eastern procedures exploited in earlier times in earlier cultures or does the author fabricate these procedures for the sake ofthe story?

To address this question 1 will turn to selected letters from Mari and Amarna and reexamine the Naboth pericope in light of their contents. ARM 10.73, a letter written by Inib-Sarri to her father, Zimri-Lim, king of Mari, receives particular attention. This missive describes an incident in which the same method Jezebel used against Naboth is exploited by King Ibâl-Addu to deflect res^nsibilityfor the death and seizure of property belonging to a certain Yap^ur-Lim. lnib־§arri describes Ibâl-Addu’s attempt to implicate Itûr-Asdû, Zimri-Lim’s long-suffering representative in foe upper Habur region, as an example of karsïsu ikulüy literally, “they ate his pieces.” She writes that, in order to do this, Ibâl-Addu hired a group of individuals referred to as LU2.MES sararí (“dishonest men”) to denounce Itûr-Asdû.

From foe selected Mari and Amarna letters 1 develop two paradigms, one based on hierarchical power structure and the other delineating the protocol asso- ciated with denunciations of this type. At fois juncture, 1 adduce five Amarna let- ters, EA 252 and 254, written by Labaya of Shechem؛ EA 16ه and 161 drafted by Aziru of Amurru; and Pharaoh’s reaction to Aziru’s activities articulated in EA 162. Each text draws on various permutations of karsi akälu and expands on associative terminology that, in turn, broadens the context of such political artifices, ^ e s e

1 See esp. ^e©dore j. Lewis, “The Aneestral estate ( אלהים נחלת ) in 2 Samuel 14:16,” JBL 110 (1991): 597-612, esp. 608.

531Kitz: Naboths Vineyard after Mari and Amarna

Amarna letters and ARM 10.73 provide additional evidence that 1 Kgs21 describes a well-known ancient Near Eastern political strategy.

1 . 1 K i n g s 21

Contemporary discussions of 1 Kgs 21 generally focus on two general divi- sions of the text, w . l-20ba and w . 20by27- ־24, 29 , and the primacy of date assigned to a related account in 2 Kgs 9:25-26. j. M. Miller considered the latter to be historically superior and viewed 1 Kgs 21 as nothing more than a “novelette.”^

Cf the many treatments ofthe Naboth incident, Reinhold Bohlen’s is perhaps the most precise. He argued that 1 Kgs 21:1-16 demonstrated a consistency of sentence structure and vocabulary and, therefore, that w . lb-9, 11-16 formed a coherent unit that dated to the seventh century.^ At the same time, however, he stronglypressedforthe exclusion ofv. lObecauseJezebel’sletter is too explicit. Why should she explain her entire plan and not engage the services of the אנשים שנים herself? The entire verse bespeaks an adjustment to the narrative. As for בנ־בליעלthe remaining verses, Bohlen dated w . 17-20d to the eighth century and w . 25-29 to the sixth century and later.4

Alexander Rofé refuted Bohlen’s position on V 10: “What we have here is not a police report about Jezebel’s crime, but a piece of fiction which does not neces- sarily relate to ‘plausible facts.5’״ He also refined Bohlen’s proposal and advanced a postexilic date because the terminology harks back to that period.5 Consequently, 1 Kgs 21 addressed the concerns of Ezra and Nehemiah, who sought to maintain a pure community by condemning those Judahites who married foreign women.7

Most current scholars view w . l-20ba as the earlier pericope and w . 20by-24, 27-29 as a Deuteronomistic expansion. This diachronic view encourages an artifi- cial disconnect between the episode involving the vineyard and Elijah’s prophetic delivery of the word of God and YHWH’s subsequent forgiveness of a suitably penitent Ahab in w . 27-29. This perspective yields the image of an intractable deity whose wrath is so absolute that it can neither be swayed nor mollified. Divine mercy then becomes an afterthought designed to meet the needs of a later redactor des- perate to accommodate the historical reality of Jehu’s coup d’état during the reign of Ahab’s son Jehoram.

2j. m. Müler, “The Fall ©f the H©use ©f Ahab,” V T 17 (1967): 307-24, esp. 312, 316.^Reinh©ld B©hlen, Der Fall Naboth: Form, Hintergrund und Werdegang einer alttestament-

liehen Erzählung (1 Kön 21), TThSt 35 (Trier: Faulinus, 1978), 257-61, 309-26.4Ibid., 65-68.^Alexander R©fé, “The Vineyard ©fNab©th: The Origin and Message of the St©ry,” VT 38

(1988): 89-104, esp. 91.6Ibid., 97-1017Ibid., 102.

Journal ofBiblical Literature 34ل, no. 3 (2015)532

II. ARM 1 0 . 7 3

ARM 10.73 provides evidence that many of the plot details that sharpen the appeal of Naboth’s vineyard are neither fictitious nor the product of the authors inventive license. The modern history of ARM 10.73 begins with Georges Dossin’s publication oíArchives royales de Mari X: La correspondanceféminine in 1967م The autograph copy appears on pi. 32. As is t^ ical of most clay tablets, the text is dam- aged, in this case on the right side. A broader audience was served when Dossin published his transcription and translation eleven years later in ARMT ل0.و In 2000, Jean-Marie Durand tendered a refreshed translation based on an improved reading of the cuneiform text.10

Dramatis Personae

ه author of ARM 10.73 is Inib-Sarri, a fiercely devoted daughter of Zimri- Lim (line 2).11 She was married twice. Her first husband was Zakura-abum, foe ruler of Zallu^an, a small but important pastoralist enclave located in foe Upper Habur region. It was a happy but short-lived marriage.

After the death of Zakura-abum, Inib-Sarri returned to Mari only to marry another vassal of her father, Ibâl-Addu, whom Zimri-Lim installed as king of Aslakkä sometime during his third regnal year. The city, also located in the Habur triangle, was foe leading metropolis of a confederate kingdom sometimes referred to as foe “land of Ida-Maras.” Surviving documents suggest that foe marriage was cheerless and strained and seems to have lasted no more than five years.

Of particular importance is foe reference to Itûr-Asdû, who is none other than the Itûr-Asdû, Zimri-Lim’s highest ranking official in north (lines 5 ,9,20,28).12 His surviving correspondences reveal that he lived in Na^ur, a municipality situated within the infamous Habur triangle, and that his administrative authority just so happened to include foe principality of Aslakkä.13

8Georges Dossin, Archives royales de MariX: La correspondanceféminine, TCL 31 (?aris: Geuthner, 1967).

Georges Dossin and André Finet, Correspondanceféminine: transcrite et traduite, ARM؟10 (Paris: Geuthner, 1978), transcription, 110, 112; translation, 111, 113.

Ojean-Marie Durand, Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, 3 vols., LAPG 16-18(Paris: Cerf, 1997-2000), vol. 3, text 1249 [X 73], pp. 475-76.

٧ Jack M. Sasson, “Biographical Notices on some Royal Ladies from Mari,” JCS 25 (1973):59-78, esp. 63-67; Jozef De Kuyper, “Grundeigentum in Mari,” in Das Grundeigentum in Meso-potamien, ed. Burchard Brentjes, JWG.S 1987 (Berlin: Akademie, 1988), 69-78, esp. 75; MichaëlGuichard, “Le remariage d’une princesse et la politique de Zimri-Lîm dan la région du HautHabur,” RA 103 (2009): 19-30.

^Jean-Marie Durand, “Sur Katlim(m)u/Sëh-Hmad, How and Why?” in Dür-Katlimmu2008 and Beyond, ed. Hartmut Kühne, Studia Chaburensia 1 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010),49-66, esp. 59-62.

**Durand proposes that his tenure at Na^ur began during the fifth year of Zimri-Lim’s reign

533Kitz: Naboths Vineyard after Mari and Amarna

The Date ofthe Text

Fifteen letters nf prineess Inib-Sarri survive of which ten are published. The references to the above individuals in ARM 10.73 provide the apparatus for the historical context as well as the letter’s approximate date. It is believed that Inib- Sarri’s first husband died during the second h l^ ^ im r i-L im ’s sixth regnal year. When she returns to Mari, her father promptly begins negotiations with Ibâl-Addu for her hand in marriage, which suggests that a formal union may have occurred in the seventh regnal year. If the marriage lasted no more than five years, then its dissolution roughly coincides with the dissolution of Mari around the twelfth and final year of Zimri-Lim’s reign.

Inib-Sarri probably wrote ARM 10.73 toward the beginning of her marriage. This would place its composition around Zimri-Lim’s eighth or ninth regnal year, ^ e n , depending on one’s chronological inclinations, this will yield the years 1670- 1669 BCE for the fiber-short chronology, or 1702-1701 consistent with the short c h r o n o lo g y : or 1766-1765 according to the middle c h r o n o lo g y .

Transliteration and Translation

The transliteration offered below is based principally on Dossin’s autograph copy of 1967 and his 1978 publication. Nevertheless, in an effort to provide the best transcription possible, Durand’s enhanced assessments published in 2000 have been incorporated. This represents the first time Dossin and Durand’s readings have been brought together. The odd character of this transcription is due to the differences in Dossin and Durand’s transliteration styles.^

la-na b[e-l]i-ia qt-[bi-ma] 2um-ma f-ni-ib-LUGAL am[atl-ka-a-ma] 3i-napa-ni- tim-ma i-nu-ma \na-ak-ra-am45 ןa i-da-ma-ra-as be-lii-na [...] 5i-du-ku lI-túr- Ás-du-ú[-ma] 6a-na lI-ba-al-áAddu ki-im [iq-bf] 7um-ma-mi su-ma a-di-ma-ti \ a i - t a \ 8an-ni-ke-em su-su-ba-ta-[a] 9Ù i-tu-ur-ma ll-túr-Ás-d[u\ 10as-sum bit Ia-ap-hu-ur-Li-im e&n ki-im iq-bi-sum um-ma-mi e%A2ba-lu-um sarrim bit la- a[p]-h[u-ur-Li-im] م ء ا ت / te-[l]e-[qé] Teyl4awïlum da-an as-s[ú-ur-ri] revl5LUGAL هli-ib-ba-t[i-ka im-ma-li] rev16׳r«’ a-na-ku an-né-t\im-ma\ Kyl7ad-bu-ub-sum ú-ul [i-qú-ul] revl8É Lύ se-t[u] i[l*-qé-ma] Teyl9as-$um a-wa-tim an-né-ti\m-ma1 rev.20ri-túr-ás-du id-bu-uK \i-ba-al--im] rey2lawïliMES sa-ra-ri us-ta-[as-bi-it-ma] Tey-22ka-ar-si-su i-[ku-lu] rey23ki-ma tup-pi ka-a[r-si-su-ma] Tey24rf-tu-ur-ma i-\ba-al-imI ez-25[a]-na LTJ*-ME \sa-ra-ri1eg·26ke-em [iq-bi um-ma-mi] eg-27fl[f- ka-nim É-sú le-qé-nim] sideeg·2sum-ma at-tu-nu-ma I-túr-Ás-du ú-sa-hi-za-ni<- ^؛٠ *r>sideeg-29fi na-ap-sa-am ni-du-uk* te4-mu-um an-nu-um sideeg-305a؛ lha-am- mi-sa-gi-is-ma LÚ-MEá su-nu-ti [X X ] side eg-31LU2 SU-U2 us-ta-as-bi-it

(Archives épistolaires deM aril/l, ARMT 26 [Paris: Recherche sur les civilisations, 1988], 574-75); Durand, “Sur Katlim(m)u/Séh-Hmad,” 59-61.

14Dossin, ARM 10.73, pi. 32; Dossin and Finet, ARMT 10.73,110-13; De Kuyper, “Grund-eigentum in Mari,” 75; Durand, LAPD 18, text 1249 [X 73], pp. 475-78; Guichard, “Te remariage,”25 η. 42.

534 Journal ofBiblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015)

1To my Lord speak: 2“Thus (says) Inib-Sarri, your lady, 3a،Not long ago, when 4bmy lord 53defeated 3b[the enemy] 43of Ida-Maras 4ca t ... sbItûr-Asdû ób[spoke] 73thusly óbto Ibâl-Addu, How long . . . do you 8remain here 93 in opposition (to me)?’

^Concerning Yap^ur-Lîm, 9bItûr־Asdû egllalso spoke to him as follows, egl3،D 0 not take egl2bthe home of Yaphur-Lim egl2bwithout (the approval) of the king! rev l4The man (i.e. the king) is powerful. On no account ^ ^ 5should the king be angry with you.’

revl63As for me, rev-173I discussed revl6bthis matter (with him). revl7b(Yet) without any regard, revl8he took the house of this man. revl9aEven though rev-203Itûr-Asdû had discussed revl9bthis issue (with him), rev-20b[Ibâl־Addu] ^^-^instruct[ed] the dishonest men rev-22(who) then denoun[ced him] rev23־in the (same) way [they den]ounced him (on the) tablet. rev-24Again Ibâl-Addu [s^oke] eg-25to the dishonest men ^ ^ 4(concerning) Itûr-Asdû eg-26as follows, eg-27،G [ 0

and take his house!] sideeg-28(But) you (will say) the following, sideeg-293“Itûr-Asdû made us seize (the house) and so we killed (that) man.’” side eg-29bThis news side eg-30a(comes) from a servant of Hammi-sagis. sideeg-31That man (Ibâl-Addu was the one who) instructed ؛؟ ^ ·^ th ose ( d i s h © n e s t ؟ ) men.”15

Commentary

The opening 0fInib־$arris missive defies the conventions of the day. She dis- penses with the customary inquiries after her father’s health, an absence that imbues the letter with an undercurrent of urgency. According to lines 3-5, Zimri- Lim had launched a successful sortie in defense of Ida־Mara£. Ibâl-Addu, who, as Zimri-Lims appointedpn'raws inter pares in Id ^ a r a § , by o b lig t io h o th personal and political, most assuredly imparted his assistance. Despite the successful con- elusion of the raid, Ibâl-Addu loitered among the columns in toe palace at Na^ur. This idleness drew Itûr-Asdû’s attention, prompting him to press Ibâl-Addu about his plans.

While his inquiry may seem innocuous enough, it nevertheless has pointed undertones. Itûr-Asdû’s consternation is caused by Ibâl-Addu’s inchoate objective to seize property belonging to a certain Yap^ur-Lim. to ARM 28, Yap^ur-Lim describes himself as one ofthree sugägü, tribal leaders or sheiks, in Lu^ayâ.^ Even though ARM 73.هل uses toe logogram E2 = bitum to describe toe dwelling and household, it is clear that his is more than just a hovel on the ^abur. Yap^ur-Lîm’s own letters substantiate that he held sway in Izallu, a city that Durand places “West of Ida-Mara£ and next to toe kingdom of ASlakkâ.” Eor all intents and purposes,

15 This translation and all subsequent translations in this discussion are my own.16ARM 28.120 [A. 504], pp. 177-78; lú.meS su-ga-gi, line 4; 1Ú su-ga-gimtl, line 28. Even

though a tribe nominated a sugägu for toe position, the Mari king had officially to recognize toe appointment for it to be valid. See further ?ierre Villard, “Nomination d’un Scheich,” Florilegium marianum 2 (1994): 291-97, esp. 293.

535Kitz: Naboths Vineyard öfter Mari andAmarna

Yaphur-Lím is a vassal ofZimri-Lim. The rivalry between Ibâl-Addu and Yaphur- Lim seems to span snme years.

Neither Itûr-Asdû’s resolute instructions (lines eg13-rev15) nor lnib־§arri’s counsels (lines revT 6-revT7) deter Ibâl-Addu from his designs. He brazenly confis- cates the house and kills Yaphur-Lim. Then he puts into play a well-crafted strategy that plainly demanded malice aforethought.

Ibâl-Addu avails himself of a procedure that should echo in the ears of schol- ars a^uainted with the tale of Naboth’s vineyard. Inib-Sarri’s letter öfters conclu- sive evidence that Jezebel employed a well-known scheme. We may reconstruct the following sequence of events. Ibâl-Addu, apparently caught with his hand in the cookie jar, quickly gathers a coterie of individuals 0 fL U 2.MES saräriy “dishonest men” (lines rev-21, eg25־). He then composes a letter laying blame on Itûr-Asdû and dispatches his “dishonest men” with the tablet to Zimri-Lim. Inib-Sarri describes this act as karsïsu ïkulüy which, as noted above, literally means, “they ate his pieces,” that is “they denounced him (Itûr-Asdû)” (rev-22).

Should this be an accurate restoration ofthe transactions, Inib-Sarri’s letter is, in all probability, a hastily written communication intended for delivery into her father’s hands as soon as possible. Certainly ARM 10.73 reveals Inib-Sarri to be a very shrewd woman skilled in diplomatic language. She discreetly insinuates an uncanny coordination between the wording of the tablet and toe LU2.MES saräris public allegations against Itûr-Asdû. As if to give the information greater impact, Inib-Sarri quotes Ibâl-Addu’s instructions to his cohorts in crime, “Go and take his house. But you will say the following, ‘Itûr-Asdû made us seize (the house) and so we killed that m an” (lines eg27־- side eg29־). Inib-$arri has folly exposed Ibâl-Addu’s duplicitous nature as he strives to lay responsibility for toe death of Yaphur-Lîm and the dispersal of his household at the feet of Zimri-Lim’s representative, Itûr-Asdû.

HL· Pa r a d ig m s f o r C o m p a r is o n

The Old Babylonian Mari letter offers new insight into toe social context of 1 Kgs 21. The date of ARM 10.73 allows toe assigning of an early rather than late, that is, Persian, origin to the biblical pericope. It also confirms that Jezebel’s machi- nations are not the result of authorial imagination; rather, toe pericope actually describes an incident of karsi akälu without using toe phrase.

Key to understanding I Kgs 21:1-16 is toe intriguing Akkadian idiom, karst akälu. Scholars maintain that this expression refers to gossip, rumors, or idle chat- ter indicative of the petty rivalries so often found in centralized palatial systems. Benno Landsberger suggested that äkil karsi refers to “the institution of a public informer.”17 A. Leo Gppenheim concluded, “The expression äkil karsi (CAD s.v.)

17Benno Landsberger, “Remarks on the Archive of the Soldier Ubarum,” JCS 9 (1955): 121-31,esp. 124.

Journal ofBiblical Literature ول , no. 3 (2015)536

is much less o^robrious and is restricted to literary texts and to situations outside of the court of justice, to denunciations, jealousies at court, etc.”18

This understanding should be set aside, as a review of the phrase’s use in let- ters, treaties, and even poetry indicates that the fundamental meaning of the idiom is “(accuse of) disloyalty,” which in the political arena constitutes nothing other than treason.

Karst is plural because it refers to a sequence of acts that betray a carefully calculated plan. When the deeds are gathered together and placed in chronological order, they demonstrate a conspiracy of disloyalty and treason. Behind akälu is the notion of diminishment. The conspirators person and position are “eaten” away bit by bit through the declaration of these acts until what lies beneath is laid bare. So glaring is this exposure that the accused cannot deny his duplicity.

Essential to the hoped-for success of such a course of action are foe LU2.MES saräri (“dishonest men”), who are the equivalents of the בנ־בליעל אנשים שנים in ! Kgs 2 בנ־בליעל האנשים שני and ل:ل0 in V. 13.19 foc$c coteries are responsible for the public denunciation of the targeted individual, and it is certainly possible that part of their duty is to gather and/or generate all the evidence necessary to prove foe guilt of the accused.

Even though foe data in ARM 0.73ل support a more nuanced comparison with ل Kgs 21, such comparative analyses are fraught with accidental conse- quences. The greatest peril is foe presumption ofa parallel that on closer scrutiny proves to be unsustainable. For this reason, a reliable foundation on which to base the comparison is essential for an accurate and successful examination. This necessitates foe development of paradigms to ensure precision and prevent unwanted digressions.

The Protocol ofPolitical Intrigue

The legal procedure associated with karstakalu follows a specific protocol, and ARM 10.73 proffers foe means to generate basic standard paradigms.^ In this case, viable models depend on three fundamental points: (1) identifying foe individuals

18A. Leo Oppenheim, “The Eyes of the Lord? JAOS 88 (80- ل968)ت 174 , here 177 n. 9, http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/597911. See also Jack M. Sasson’s invigorating article ‘“Nothing So Swift as Calumny’: Slander and Justification at the Mari Court,” in Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe, ed. Tom Boiy et al., OLA 220 (Leuven: ?eeters, 2012), 525-42.

19 foe definition of the Stative verb saräru from which saräri derives has evolved slightly over the years. Wolfram von Soden proposed “to be unstable, be false, tobe untrue” (AHw 2:1028). CAD advanced “to cheat, be frise, to be a criminal” (15:174-75), while foorkild Jacobsen offered “fleeting, momentary, insubstantial, false, lies” (“foe Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. Patrick D. Miller Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and s. Dean McBride [Philadelphia: Portress, 1987], 15-32, esp. 19).

20 foe schema given here includes only foe most fundamental elements associated with the procedure.

537Kitz: Naboths Vineyard after Mari and Amarna

named in the letter, (2) establishing their social positions, and (3) determining the nature oftheir political relationships. The hierarchy ofrank and the directional flow of information from one party to the other also play a role. The final forms of these models are a hypothetical reconstruction of events based on the ideal flow of power from one authorized party to another.

Hierarchical Power Structure Tribal Sheik ־■* Immediate Superior^ ־> Immediate Superior <—►Primary Superior

(TS) ( ¡ $٩ ة1) ل (PS) ر

Yaphur-Lîm (TS) ־־> Ibâl-Addu/Inib-Sarri (IS2) ־־> Itûr-Asdû (IS1) «—*Zimrï-Lîm (PS)Naboth (TS)/(IS2) -> Jezreel Tribe (IS2) ־> Ahab/Jezebel (IS1) ه YHWH (PS)

The historical c o n te x t of ARM 10.73 reveals a four-tier h ie r a r c h ic a l s tru c tu re .

In descending order these are PS, IS1, IS2, and Anally TS. I Kings 21 comfortably accommodates the semence and in so doing brings to the fore YHWHs preemi- nent position. All legitimate authority originates from this pinnacle. Just as Zimri- Lim appointed Itûr-Asdû and Ibâl-Addu to their respective political ranks and are, therefore, personally responsible to foe Mari king, so are Ahab and Jezebel, as well as the elders and nobles of Jezreel, equally accountable to YHWH. For these indi- viduals, foe issue then becomes the ءكيأ'ر exercise of this power in accordance with the will of the PS, foe Primary Superior.

Protocol p ro n u n c ia tio n Denounced «־־ Agents of the Denunciation «—> Denouncer «—> Primary Superior

( ص ر (AD) (Der) (PS)

Yaphur־L1m (TS)/(D*) <- LU2.MES saräri (AD) <- Ibâl-Addu (IS2)/(Der) Itûr-Asdû (IS1)/(Ded) «- Ibâl-Addu (IS2)/(D er) ־־► LU2.MES saräri (AD) -־> Zimrl-L1m (PS)

Ibâl-Addu (IS2)/(Ded) <- Inib-Sarri (IS2/1)/(Der) ·־* Zimrï-Lîm (PS)Naboth (TS/Ded) < ־ בנ־בליעל האנשם (AD) «- Jezreel Tribe (IS2)/(D ed) «- Jezebel (lSl)/(OeT)

This paradigm reveals that foe LU2.MES saräri and בנ־בליעל are notthemselves denouncers but agents ofthe denunciation (AD), ^ e y are foe intercur- sitors who publically accuse another on behalf of their superiors. This likewise suggests that they may be professionals who offer a range of services for the right price. We may also note that IS2 individuals appear to hire them.

IV. ARM 1 0 . 7 3 a n d 1 K in g s 2 1

The above paradigms will now be applied to the two texts presently under consideration. The aim is to provide an accurate comparison and thus to allow foe two documents to bring clarity to each other. Other Amarna letters, especially

Journal ofBiblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015)538

those texts written by Labaya of Shechem, will be brought to the dlseusslon to underscore the persistence o f vocabulary and expression in the fourteenth century and build a bridge between the Mari letters and Naboth’s vineyard.

The Denounced (Ded)

^ e r e are five denunciations. According to rank these are Yap^ur-Lim (TS), Naboth (TS), Ibâl-Addu (IS2) and Itûr-Asdû (IS1). A fifth, foe tribe of Jezreel, is implied. Yap^ur-Lim and Naboth offer interesting social parallels, as both are tribal leaders. Even though Jezebel is the source ofthe arrangements, foe fact that Naboth may readily occupy a seat ש העם ברא , “at foe head of the assembly,” suggests that he Is of high social rank (v. 9). He could well be the leader of והחרים הזקנים , “foe elders and nobles” (w. 8,11). ^ i s point, of course, is neither new nor surprising. The question that does arise concerns the Jezreehtes. Are foey denouncers (Der) or were foey themselves denounced (Ded)? If the latter, only Jezebel was in a position to do so. Certainly her letter suggests as much when she commands the elders and nobles to proclaim a fast (v 9). ^ i s particular directive obliquely accuses them of corporate guilt similar to that which the Israelites suffered in Josh 7 as a result of the sin of Achan. The Jezreehtes are harboring a traitor, Naboth, and as long as they shelter him foey are implicated in his treason. This is a serious accusation. If the Jezreehtes were to leave foe issue unaddressed, they would endanger their entire patrimonial holding. By shielding Naboth, foey conveniently provide a legal justi- fication for foe crown to seize all tribal land.

The mechanism in play here is a time-honored custom. The exoneration and, therefore, the survival of the whole are contingent on the elimination of Naboth and his corrupting influence. In foe end, foe elders and nobles have no choice but to sacrifice their kinsman. Thus, ft is likely that Jezebel did indeed denounce the Jezreehtes. With Naboth dead, Ahab seizes the vineyard, Jezreel is saved, and the crown is sa tisf ied .

Inib-Sarri’s pressing missive does not present a very clear image of Yap^ur- Lim’s status. Other letters written by the sheik sharpen the picture considerably. As noted above, Yap^ur-Lim was a sugägUy a tribal leader in foe area of Lu^ayâ. He and his two peers, ^m diya and Yadra^am, are vassals of Zimri-Lim. As a group foey correspond with the Mari king directly, and, since Yap^ur-Lîm is the first name in foe list of addressors, he could well be their leader. The free exchange of other letters between the Mari king and Yap^ur-Lim similarly reflects his senior position.

One correspondence written by Yap^ur-Lîm [A.1941], albeit unedited and only a portion of which Durand quotes, is especially informative.

Ibâl-Addu said to me: “Why did you go to Zimri-him?” That is why he took my home, my people, and my daughters. Once again 1 went to my Lord. Due to the fact 1 went to my Lord, Ibâl-Addu sold my daughters, a priestess of and a priestess of Sin, for 50 shekels of silver in Hurra. My Lord sent Bêl.sunu, his

539Kitz: Naboths Vineyard after Mari and Amarna

servant, to Ibâl-Addu, to tell him: “Free the people ofYaphur-Lîm!” Ibâl-Addu did not eare at all about what was said to him my Lord!21

Since the entire text is not available, only a few cautious observations are possible. Ibâl-Addu’smotivation is revenge.^ It appears thatYap^ur-Lîm initially denounced Ibâl-Addu to Zimri-Lim for some offense. Learning of this, Ibâl-Addu confiscates Yap^ur-Lîm’s assets. When the tribal leader complains again, Yap^ur-Lim’s sells his daughters, and after a third denunciation, Zimri-Lim dispatches a representative to Ibâl-Addu to demand the release of Yap^ur-Lîm’s family. This was an exercise in futility. Nothing distracted Ibâl-Addu from his course of action. Bit by bit he strips Yap^ur-Lîm of his family, his house, and finally his life. The important point here is that Yap^ur-Lîm always remained loyal to Zimri-Lim. His fetal error was to inform the Mari king of Ibâl-Addu’s expanding illicit acts.

The text proves that Yap^ur-Lim lived for a period after the fell ofhis household and suggests that his eventual demise resulted from a series o^calating steps that occurred over a period of time. Although foe specifics of these steps are not imme- diately apparent. It Is possible that, like Jezebel, Ibâl-Addu pressured the other sugägüy as well as the tribal citizens oflzallu, to “relinquish” Yap^ur-Lim. IfYap^ur-Lim was indeed the foremost sugagu, then the domination ofLu^ayâwas as simple as eradicat- ing its leader. The others, like foe Jezreelites, could not help but fell in line.

Those who are denounced have only one option: to appeal to the FS. Two Amarna letters, EA 252 and 254, written by Labaya of Shechem afiirm this point in familiar language:

uhqa-bi u qa-ar-si2-ia si-ir-ti 15i-napa-ni MLUGAL-ma be-li2-ia (EA 252)23

13bHe has 14denounced me, I am slandered 15in the presence ofthe king, my lord؛ 16a-nu-ma yi-ka-lu ka-ar-si2-ia 17ha-ba-lu-ma u3 la-a 18yu2-sa3-an-ni-qu2 sar3- ٢« EN-/fl 19ar-ni-ia (EA 254)25

16Now they denounce me 171؛unjustly, and 1sbthe king, my lord 1 does not 18ainvestigate (what) 1؟myoffense (maybe).

21Durand, LAPO 18, text 1249 [X 73], p. 477, comment d.22This motivation aligns with Nadav Na’amaris observation concerning the cause of Jehu’s

eradication of the heirs of Omri (“Naboth’s Vineyard and the Foundation of Jezreel,” /SOT 33 [2008]: 197-218, esp. 213).

23Carl Bezold and E. A. Wallis Budge, The Tell El-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum (London: Trustees ofthe British Museum, 1892) copy: p. 117, pi. 21, letter 61 [BM.29844].

^ ^ ere remains some variety among scholars regarding the appropriate translation ofthese two lines, ili/e qabî qartsa sirtu “He is/was able to denounce me: I am denounced״ (Baruch Halpern and John Huehnergard, “El-Amarna Letter 252,” Or51 [1982]: 227-30, esp. 228 and 229 n. 14) He has slandered me: 1 am slandered” (William L. Moran, ed. and trans.. The Amarna“ ثLetters [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992], 305).

25Hugo Winckler and Ludwig Abel, Der Thontafelfund von El Amarna (3 vols, in 1; Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen der königlichen Museen zu Berlin ل3ث - Berlin: spemann, 1890), 2/1, copy, pl. 112; text 112, tablet (VAT 335).

540 Journal ofBiblical Literature 34ل, no. 3 (2 0 (ل5

EA252 is extraordinary because ofthe West Semitic gloss sirtî attached to q/karsï.26 Whether its appearance here is explanatory or emphatic, q/karst and karsï akälu maintained their relevance and meaning long after Mari had evaporated from the Mesopotamian stage.

The protocol was as follows: (1) an individual (qabî) or group (yikalü) may present evidence to substantiate the accusation; (2) the proofis disposed in person before {ina päni) the PS; (3) the denounced person may contact the PS claiming an injustice (habälu); and (4) finally, the PS is graciously expected to examine (yusan- niqu) the circumstances.

The Agents ofDenunciation (ص ) and karst akälu

The agents of denunciation are the בנ־בליעל אנשים שנים (w. 10, 13) and the l u 2.m e s saräriy “dishonest men” (lines rev-21, 25ءء). ^ e y are the public face of otherwise hidden machinations.

Jezebel hired בנ־בליעל האנשים by proxy. She induces the Jezreelites to engage בנ־בליעל האנשים for the monarchy’s private purposes and, in all probability, pro-

vided the necessary funds. That the queen should do so suggests that there were, in fact, no authentic witnesses to Naboth’s seditious comment aside from herself and/or Ahab. To counteract this deficiency as well as distance the crown from any involvement, Jezebel gives explicit instructions to the Jezreelite leadership regarding בנ־בליעל האנשים . She quotes exactly what they are to say: אלהים ברכת You (Naboth) have cursed God and king” (v 10), a statement that renounces“ ,ומלךthe authority ofthe PS and IS1.27

ARM 10.73 bears some similarities. The LU2.MES sararí are clearly in the employ of Ibâl-Addu. It is significant that, rather than appearing personally before Zimri-Lim, Ibâl-Addu dispatches his LU2.MES saräri to communicate his justifica- tions. He is hedging his bet and, at foe same time, offering a glimpse into his guilt. Inib-Sarri’s careful description ofthe LU2.MES saräris testimony against Itûr-Asdû insinuates that Ibâl-Addu, like Jezebel but indirectly, schooled them on the content

^William F. Albright proposed that sirtî is a passive preterite that derives from the root sw/yr, “to triek, betray” (“An Archaic Hebrew Proverb in an Amarna Letter from Central Palestine,” BASOR 89 [1943]: 29-32, here 30 n. 13). Moran pronounced the question of etymology “a moot point” but suggested that foe roots Iw/yr and s’r have equal claims. For him sirtî is a qal passive perfect (“The Syrian Scribe of foe Jerusalem Amarna Letters,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, ed. Hans Goedicke and ]. ١. M. Roberts, JHNES [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975], 16Í-62 n. 38). Halpern and Heuhnergard advocate a G perfect (“El-Amarna Letter 252,” 299 n. 14). The possibility of a derivation from the root Pr < ٢٢ is intriguing. T*r is attested in Ugaritic, Sabaean, Classical and Modern Arabic with foe meaning “avenge foe blood, revenge, retaliate.” ff so, sirtî would be explanatory and qabîqartsa sirtî could mean, “He has denounced me: 1 am the object of blood revenge.”

27The word ברך (“bless”) functions as a euphemism for “curse.” The ancient editors were reluctant to express such a sacrilegious act in writing.

541Kitz: Naboths Vineyard after Mari andAmarna

of the evtdence. That Ibâl-Addu seeks to manipulate the LU2.MES saräri in this way demonstrates his desire to corrupt a process that is otherwise meant to protect the rights of all the parties involved. In this Ibâl-Addu and Jezebel share the same crime.

The l u 2.m es saräri and ם שי אנ ל ה ע לי ב ־ בנ could well have played a role in the subsequent murders. The Mari letter indicates that Yap^ur-Lim died at the hands of the l u 2.m es saräri. Since they are Ibâl-Addu’s men bound to do his bidding, he cannot deny his involvement. To deflect his culpability, the king of ASlakkä had only one option: claim that Itûr-Asdû ordered Yap^ur-Lim’s death.

The biblical passage is at pains to describe the corporate execution ofthe death sentence. Although the text is silent with regard to the role that ם שי אנ ל ה ע לי ב ־ בנ may or may not have played in Naboth’s death, ARM 1 7 م.3 suggests that they too were involved.

A slightly different form of LU2.MES saräri appears in two other Amarna let- ters, EA 160 and 161 as LU2.MES sarrüti. ^ e s e Middle Babylonian texts were writ- ten by Aziru of Amurru, a political gadfly in the dance of dominance between the Egyptian and Hittite kingdoms. Both letters use the phrase karst akälu to describe the l u 2.m e § sarrütis acts.

29E N -/a a-na-ku LU2AR A D -ka a-di da2-ri-ti 30«3 LUGAL a-na LU2.ME§" sa-ar-ru-ti 31[5 ]a i-rkar-lu-u2-nim kar3-si-ia32a-n[apa-]ni E N -ifl la te-se-im-mi (EA 160)28

29My Lord, 1 am your servant forever 30aand may the king ^ n o t listen 3Obto the dishonest men 31who denounce me 32ab[efor]e my lord.

7ENdi-mi a-na LU2.ME؟> sa-ar-ru-ti 8sa i-ka3-lu-u2-nim kar3-si-ia 9a-na pa-ni LUGAL EN-ia la-a te-se-em-me-e 10a-na-ku-mi LU2.A RA D-ka a-di da2-ri-ti (EA 161)29

7aMy lord, 9bdo not listen 7bto the dishonest men 7awho denounce me ®before foe king, my lord. 10I am your servant forever.

Aziru’s desperate plea to ?haraoh not to “listen” (semû) to foe LU2.ME§ sarrüti not only indicates the oral delivery of the information but also the status of the LU2. MES sarrüti as messengers. As such, they are boundary crossers, afforded the protection of safe passage to accomplish their assignments. This diplomatic posi- tion likewise obligates them to report back to their employers. Consequently, when 1 Kgs 21:15 states “as soon as Jezebel heard [ע מ ש כ ] that Naboth had been stoned and was dead,” it is feasible that she “heard” the news from ם שי אנ ל ה ע לי ב ־ בנ . Of

^Winclder and Abel, Der Thontafelfund von ElAmarna, 2/1, copy, pl. 41؛ tablet 34ه [EM.l, 25,1575]; Shlomo Izre’el, “Amarna Tablets in the Collection ofthe ?ushkin Museum of Eine Arts, Moscow,”/Sew 7 (1995): 125-52 + pis. i-ix, photograph, pis. vi-ix.

29Bezold and Budge, Tell El-Amarna Tablets in the British Museuniy copy, 72-73, letter 35, tablets [BM. 29818; BU 88-10-13, 76]; photograph, pi. 22, letter 35.

542 Journal ofBiblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015)

necessity, Jezebel and Itûr-Asdû relied on these Individuals to validate the consum- mation of the task at hand: the death of their respective adversaries.

On the basis of these parallels, several points regarding the Agents of Denun־ ciation emerge: (1) the terms בנ־בליעל האנשים and LU2.MES saräri/sarrüti refer to a category of people; (2) their character is defined by the attending adjectives; (3) they are hirelings, personally answerable to their employers; (4) they function as messengers and/or executors of nefarious words and deeds; and (5) they are responsible for the public denunciation of those suspected of treason.

The Amarna texts, in particular, confirm the continuity of context that links the act of karsiakälu to the LU2.MES saräri/sarrüti. Even the Hebrew Bible makes a similar connection. Proverbs 19:28 observes wi sel y, רשצים ופי משפט יליץ בליעל עד ן יבלע־או , “A worthless witness mocks justice, and the mouth of the wicked devours nothingness.”

The Immediate Superior2 (IS2) and Immediate Superior1 (IS1)

^ e r e is a tactical divergence between the two texts on the IS2 to IS1 levels. The affiliation between Ibâl-Addu and Itûr-Asdû and the Jezreelite leaders and Jezebel is an IS2 to IS1 hierarchical relationship. Even though Ibâl-Addu and the elders and nobles of Jezreel may occupy the same position—-that is, the third tier as IS2—Ibâl- Addu acts as though he were an IS1. As Jezebel acts, so does he. The Israelite queen, however, functions well within the prerogatives due the IS1 status she and her hus- band enjoy. The distinction recommends that Ibâl-Addu is the more grievous o ffen d er .

The king of ASlakkä’s aspiration to grander things exposes his two-front strat- egy. First, he sought to expand his authority by annexing Yap^ur-Lim’s city to his sphere of influence. Second, he labored to implicate Itûr-Asdû in a treasonous act that, if proved true, would compel Zimri-Lim to remove him from his appointment in Na^ur. Ibâl-Addu’s “tangled web” is both audacious and imprudent, for he foils to consider his wife. He clearly underestimates Inib-Sarri’s political acumen and familial loyalty.

Inib-Sarri comes into view as a strategic player in this multilayered scheme. Her unique social position is eminently clear, as she occupies a rank that is almost equal to that of her husband. While she might be married to an IS2, her status as the daughter of Zimri-Lim grants her privileges beyond those of an ordinary queen. Thus, Itûr-Asdû and Inib-Sarri are social equals both of whom have direct access to the PS. Presumably Ahab and Jezebel enjoy the same privilege, namely, access to YHWH.30 ^erefore, the issue for the king and queen of Israel becomes one of divine authorization. The tenor of 1 Kgs 21 certainly suggests that they operated on their own.

In the end, Ibâl-Addu and Jezebel are united in the crimes they perpetrate. They are the instigating parties of false accusations of disloyalty, Ibâl-Addu against

^Jezebel, like Inib-Sarri, was probably free to contact her father, Ithobaal, if she so wished.

543Kitz: Naboths Vineyard after Mari and Amarna

Itûr-Asdû and Jezebel against Naboth. In $ه doing they are revealed to be bona fide tra ito rs . Their deceptions betray their ?rimary Superiors, Zimri-Lim and YHWH.

Treason and the Primary Superior (PS)

ARM 10.73 and 1 Kgs21 have fundamentally distinct andintrinsically unequal Primary Superiors. The former has Zimri-Lim, a mortal and all-too-human king. The latter has YHWH, an omniscient and omnipotent divine king who issues his condemnation of Ahab through his prophet Elijah in w . 17-24. Scholars have seen w . 20by-24, in particular, as Deuteronomistic interpretations ofthe Naboth affair, sudden in judgment and savage in punishment. This harshness stands in stark contrast to the mercy YHWH extends to Ahab after he repents of Naboth’s murder in w . 27-29. But which response is more in keeping with ancient Near Eastern monarchical governance?

Unfortunately we cannot turn to Zimri-Lim for his reaction to Ibâl-Addu’s scheming, as a letter regarding this issue does not seem to have survived. Even so, it is possible to reconstruct a few specifics. This is due to foe fortuitous survival of EA 162, in which Pharaoh addresses Aziru’s seditious activities concerning his part in foe death of Rib-Hadda, the usurped king of Byblos.

n u3 i-na VKU.si2-du-n a a-si-ib u3 ta2-a t-ta 2-d i3-in-su u a-na LU2.ME§ h a-za-nu - u2-ti ki-i te4-e -m i-i-ka u u2-u l ti-i-de9 sa3-a r-ru -u t-ta2 s a u j 2.ME$ . . . 16a m -m i3-ni la-a ta 2-a -ku -u l kar-si2-i-su a -na p a -n i LUGAL E N -^ 17u m -m a -a LU2 h a-za-an- nu an -n u -u 2 il-tap-ra-an -n i u m -m a-a 18li-qa2-an -n i a-na ka-a-sa «3 Su-ri-ba-an- ni i-na URU.Ki-ifl

33w3 su m -m a te-ip-pu-us ARAD- ta 2 a -na LUGAL EN-ka 34«3 m i-n a-a sa u2-u l ip- pu -sa -ak -ku LUGAL a-na ka3- a - s a 35su m -m a as-sum m i-im -m a d a-ra -am e-pi2-si li4-m u -u t-ti 36u3 su m -m a ta2-la -a k -k a 3-an le4-m u -u t-ti a - rw a '- te .ME§ s?sa3-ar- ru -u t-ti i-na lib3-b i-ka u3 i-na h a -ra f - s i 2- in -n i38sa LUGAL ta2-m a -a t q a -d u g a b 2- rb f k i-im -ti-ka (EA 162).31

12aHe (Rib-Hadda) was living in Sidon and, 13follow ing your own initiative, 12byou transferred him 13ato (the authority of other) mayors. 14Did you not know the dishonesties of (these) men?... 16why did you not denounce him (to) the king, your lord, ^saying, “This leader has written me, saying, *8‘Take me for yourself and send me to my city’?”

33But if you perform your service for foe king, your lord 34(then) what is there that the king will not do for you? 35If for some reason it gratifies you to do evil,^and if you harbor evil plans, ^dishonesties in your heart, then you, together with your entire household,38 shall die by the axe ofthe king.

With these lines, PharaGh lays bare foe crux Gf Aziru’s activities. Into the fabric of the letter is woven the antithetical theme ofloyalty vs. disloyalty beaded with foe

31Winckler and Abel, Der Thontafelfund von ء Amarna, copy, pl. 95a-b, tablet 92 [VAT ء347], lines 12-18, 33-38.

Journal ofBiblical Literature 134, no. 3 (2015)544

vocabulary of offense and denunciation, ^ e s e beads are sarrüttiy “dishonesties” (lines 14,37), am m lni lä täkul karsxsUy “Why did you not denounce him” (line 16), têtepus kî kx tti . .. ul kïnay “you did act loyally . . . ل آ و true” (line 19), êpisi limuttiy ا“do evil” (line 35), and tasakkan lemutti awâte.MES, literally, “you seize upon evil words” (line 36).

According to Pharaoh, the failure to denounce, karsx akälUy Rib-Hadda is “evil” and bespeaks Azriu’s own duplicitous behavior. The sarrütta sa LU2MES, the outright “dishonesties of the (other) men,” who probably killed Rlb-Hadda, is con- trasted with sarrütti ina libbxkay the interior “dishonesties of your (Aziru’s) heart.” If not in act, Aziru is in thought none other than the instigator behind the accusa- tion of the l u 2.meS saräri. He too is a “dishonest” man because he has lied to Pharaoh. Since Aziru has not written the truth (lines 19-20), the Egyptian king, for all intents and purposes, is karsx akälUy “eating (Aziru’s) pieces” in this letter.

Pharaohs communication is a letter of warning. Tike other ancient absolute rulers, he compels obedience by threatening Aziru and his family with extermina- tion (lines 37-38). Nevertheless, he gives Aziru a second chance, and even provides the means to achieve exoneration: the completion of an extensive list of tasks as specified in the king’s missive.

It seems likely that Zimri-Tim tendered an equally magnanimous and well- modulated response to Ibâl-Addu. The king of Aslakkä certainly survives this course of intrigue, as his many correspondences subsequent to lnib-$arri’s letter attest. Zimri-Lim evidently needed Ibâl-Addu in the Ida-Maras district. It may be that he was a very influential local ruler who maintained the political equilibrium in that part of the Upper Habur region. At the same time, however, Zimri-Tim could draw solace from Inib-Sarri. Since she had been so successful in uncovering Ibâl-Addu sinister dealings, her ongoing presence there would certainly keep the king of Aslakkä in line. These circumstances, if accurate, suggest that the Mari king co u ld be like other ancient Near Eastern m o n arch؟ . W h ile he would not have toler- ated traitors, he nevertheless appears tobe firm but fair and given to second chances.

One might argue that the Hebrew Bible presents a different picture, since it has a religious component that the Mari and Amarna letters lack. Unlike Zimri-Lim or even Pharaoh, ¥HW H is immortal. When taken as a whole, however, 1 Kgs 21:17-18, 229 - 27 ,22 - is comparable to Pharaoh’s letter. This is where YHWH هkarsxsuxkuly “eatshis [Ahab’s] pieces.”^ ere fo re ,E lija h isY H ^ ’s A gntofD enun- ciation, who on behalf of his divine king pronounces Ahab guilty of treason. The Israelite king immediately recoils with humility (v 27). He abases himself and mourns his deceitful deed. Much impressed, YHWH relinquishes his ire and grants Ahab a reprieve. The divine mercy shown in w . 27-29 is, therefore, an integral part of the story. To view these verses as merely a Deuteronomistic realignment of his- tory does the text a disservice. For it is here that YHWH reveals himself to be the epitome of a wise and tolerant ancient Near Eastern monarch in keeping with his human counterparts Zimri-Tim and Pharaoh.

545Kitz: Naboths Vineyard after Mari andAmarna

In the end, however, it is the historical environment of the Mari and Amarna letters that throws into reliefa finely tuned irony. Rather than the falsely accused Naboth, it is Ahab and Jezebel who are guilty of treason against YHWH. For what could be more treacherous that deigning to usurp heavenly authority by redistrib- uting YHWH’s property according to personal whims? In point of fact, Ahab as an IS* is, in all respects, nothing more than YHWH’s vassal.

V. C o n c l u s io n

The ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu of the Naboth incident invites the following observations. The essential pattern of 1 Kgs 21 is consistent with the content of Mari and Amarna letters regarding karsiakälu and treasonous acts. The full literary Gattung exploited therein is more than familiar: (1) the contrivance of a crime, (2) the execution the crime, (3) denunciation, (4) repentance, and (5) qual- ified forgiveness.

The inclusive impact of the pericope depends on an awareness ohierarchical governance and the structural flow of authority. Honoring this organization supports accepted legal procedures, the protocols of which are designed to protect the rights of parties caught in the net of ancient Near Eastern political stratagems. The Akkadian phrase karsiakälu is an enduring, archaic descriptive term that refers to the act of denouncing someone for the crime of disloyalty. It can apply to those moments when an individual of lower authority, a TS or IS2, accuses an associate of higher authority, here the IS2 or IS*, to the overlord PS. At the same time, how- ever, the PS can likewise exercise karsi akälu against an underling.

In the examples discussed above, the procedure is exploited to commit and conceal a crime through omission and/or deflection. It is murder by proxy for the purpose of confiscating property to increase one’s power base. Ibâl-Addu kills Yap^ur-Lim to seize control of Lu^ayâ. Aziru eliminates Rib-Hadda to gain greater influence over Byblos. Jezebel arranges the demise of Naboth so that Ahab may expand royal lands, ^ e s e acts augment the power of the IS2/IS* at the expense of the authority of the PS. ARM 10.73, EA 162, and 1 Kgs 21 record the corrupting forces of subordinates who refuse to respect the frontiers of their authority. It is easy to see, therefore, why a Deuteronomistic editor would have found the Naboth affair ripe for ideological refinement. He need only add a few well-placed state- ments, such as w . 25-26, to promote his theological perspective.

The question of the historicity of 1 Kgs 21 may never be resolved with cer- tainty. Nevertheless, Ahab and Jezebel’s maneuverings are features of authentic ancient Near Eastern political intrigue. That personal letters record these incidents breathes cultural life into the account of Naboth’s vineyard that scholars have here- tofore not appreciated.

آلمآورلم؛

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥۴ ajourna! typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, tbe author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use آس covered by the fair use provisions of tbe copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initia؛ funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property ofthe American Theological Library Association.