AN I MADVE R S I O N E S Jezebel’s Oath (1 Kgs 19,2) 1 Kgs 19 begins with Ahab reporting to Jezebel events that had taken place on the Mount Carmel. It is the first time the reader witnesses Jezebel in person and hears her own words. Perhaps not entirely unexpected, Jezebel’s reaction to the impotency of her god and to the murder of her cultic personnel was not surrender to Yahwism, but instead, words of vengeance to Elijah for killing her protégés — at least vengeance was what Elijah was supposed to see. As it turns out, Elijah was not the only one deceived by the words of the queen. Many current biblical scholars also fall into her deception. Keinänen, for instance, see Jezebel as “furious, intending to wreak revenge on Elijah who fled to save his life” (1), and Provan adds that “given her track record (18,4.13), she is to be taken seriously” (2). House also echoes that “Elijah has no reason to doubt her threats indicate her true intentions” (3). But Jezebel may have had no intentions of fulfilling her threat. First of all, if she really wanted to kill Elijah, she would have sent a killer and not a messenger (19,2). Many commentators have noticed this, but they often see it not as a deliberate development of the plot, but either as an editorial bridge connecting the accounts of Mount Carmel with Elijah’s trip to Mount Horeb (4) or simply as a possible weakness in the plot (5). Careful analysis of the text, however, unveils Jezebel’s clever tactic to make the prophet run away rather than turning him into a celebrated martyr. His escape, much more than his death, would undermine his victory at Mount Carmel. Surprisingly, nobody seems to have entertained the possibility that Jezebel purposely used an incomplete oath in order to threaten Elijah. The fact that the oath lacks the expected yl has of course been observed by many, but this is usually considered a scribal omission. The BHS critical apparatus states that many manuscripts and all or most versions complete the oath formula by inserting yl. As Montgomery states, such a completed oath has been generally accepted, and Thenius and Stade’s opinion — that it is inconceivable that the early copyist would omit such a reference to the (1) J. KEINÄNEN, Traditions in Collision. A Literary and Redaction-Critical Study on the Elijah Narratives 1 Kings 17–19 (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 80; Helsinki/Göttingen 2001) 164. (2) I.W. PROVAN, 1 and 2 Kings (NIBC 7; Peabody, MA – Carlisle, PA 1995) 143. (3) P.R. HOUSE, 1, 2 Kings (NAC 8; Nashville, TN 1995) 221. (4) So W. THIEL, Könige (BKATF IX.2.3; Neukirchen – Vluyn 2007) 225. Similarly V. FRITZ, Das erste Buch der Könige (ZBKAT 10.1; Zürich 1996) 175; S. J. DEVRIES, 1 Kings (WBC 12; Waco, TX 1985) 235; G. HENTSCHEL 1 Könige (NEB 10; Würzburg 1984) 116; and others. (5) An option mentioned by Walsh but not preferred by him. J.T. WALSH, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN 1996) 265.