Robert J. Merecz, «Jezebel’s Oath (1 Kgs 19,2)», Vol. 90 (2009) 257-259
Jezebel’s oath, as recorded in 1 Kgs 19,2, gives some clues that from the beginning it was not intended to be kept. One such indication is the lack of the prepositional phrase yl. Lack of the phrase coupled with other contextual clues paints a picture of Jezebel as a calm and clever queen and, at the same time, it exposes Elijah’s unreasonable fear and inability to see the true matter of things.
258 Robert J. Merecz
queen — seems to be put aside by the present biblical scholarship (6). It can
be argued, however, that the MT’s version of the oath is original and the
insertion of yl in 1 Kgs 19,2 is a result of a process of standardization of the
oath formula, the process of which is probably best seen in LXX (7).
Due to the consensus of most biblical scholars that yl in 1 Kgs 19,2 was
omitted by a scribe (though no ground is given for such an omission) and
consequently should be inserted in the text (as reflected in most if not all
ancient versions), the development of the plot as presented in MT is almost
lost to today’s scholarship. This fact becomes obvious when browsing
through the recent publications mentioning or analyzing the passage. They
either supply the reference to Jezebel (sometimes mentioning in a footnote
that it is omitted in the MT), or put it in the brackets. But omission of the
reference to Jezebel herself in her oath-curse formula could actually be
made purposely to indicate that the queen was not intending to follow up on
her threat.
All occurrences of the oath hk + a form of hc[ + hwhy/μyhla + hkw + a
form of πsy have a person that is under the oath introduced by a preposition
l. There are only two exceptions to this principle: 1 Sam 14,44 and 1 Kgs
19,2 (8). Looking at all the instances of the oath (9), one can see that
whenever the oath includes the prepositional phrase l + a personal pronoun
or a personal name, some actions are undertaken by the person under the
oath/curse to secure the fulfilment of the words. However, such actions are
not undertaken in the two passages mentioned above, which do not specify
the person under the oath / curse. This fact suggests that there was no
intention on the part of the speaker to do whatever was said under the oath.
Thus, 1 Sam 14,44 presents Saul’s oath in which the king swears that
Jonathan would surely die because of his disobedience to the king’s order.
(6) J.A. MONTGOMERY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Books of
Kings (ed. H.S. GEHMAN) (Edinburgh 1951) 317. One of the exceptions is Yael ZIEGLER’s
article “‘So Shall God Do …’: Variations of an Oath Formula and its Literary Meaningâ€,
JBL 126 (2007) 59-81. His interpretation, however, differs from the one presented in this
article.
(7) All occurrences of the oath in LXX are identical (tavde poihvsai ... oJ qeo;" kai; tavde
prosqeivh), despite different renderings of the oath in MT. LXX consistently uses, for
instance, oJ qeov" (with the exception of Ru 1,17), even though Masoretic 1 Sam 20,13 has
hwhy, and not μyhla, and despite the fact that the forms of verbs in MT’s 1 Kgs 19,2 and 1
Kgs 20,10 suggest a plural understanding of μyhla, namely, oiJ qeoi;. Another example of
standardization of the oath in LXX is the addition of a pronoun referring to the person
under the oath to the oath formula in 1 Sam 14,44 and 1 Kgs 19,2, which is otherwise
lacking in MT. Since the tendency of standardization is more probable than the omitting
of different elements of an already set and unchangeable oath formula, one should
therefore see the tradition behind MT as prior to the one reflected in the LXX.
(8) In both cases the prepositional phrase is added in almost every version of the text
(unfortunately, 1 Sam 14,44 is missing from 4QSama, 4QSamb, and 4QSamc). An
unintentional omission by a scribe, however, is unlikely as there is no reason to posit an
error due to homeoteleuton or homeoarchy. The intentional omission is also difficult to
explain due to the existence of the standardized version of the oath. On the other hand, it
is highly probable that a scribe would intentionally add the phrase, thus completing the
standardized formula, rather then deliberately omit part of the set expression.
(9) Ru 1,17; 1 Sam 3,17; 14,44; 20,13; 25,22; 2 Sam 3,9; 3,35; 19,14; 1 Kgs 2,23;
19,2; 20,10; 2 Kgs 6,31.