David Janzen

The social meanings of sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible : a study of four writings

This work uses anthropological theory and field studies to investigate the social function and meaning of sacrifice. All rituals, including sacrifice, communicate social beliefs and morality, but these cannot be determined outside of a study of the social context. Thus, there is no single explanation for sacrifice - such as those advanced by Rene Girard or Walter Burkert or late-19th and early-20th century scholars. The book then examines four different writings in the Hebrew Bible - the Priestly Writing, the Deuteronomistic History, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles - to demonstrate how different social origins result in different social meanings of sacrifice.

An Ambiguous Ending: Dynastic Punishment in Kings and the Fate of the Davidides in 2 Kings 25.27-30

The portrayal of the fates of the dynasties of the North in Kings shows that, in Deuteronomistic theology, only one king in a royal house need cause the people to sin to mandate the destruction of the entire house. Since Manasseh also causes the people to sin, we might assume that the Deuteronomic History (Dtr) intends the same fate for the Davidides. However, Dtr is deliberately ambiguous in regard to the future of the Davidides following the exile—besides the specific reference to Manassehs sin, it also includes (but does not explicitly annul) the unconditional covenant with David, and includes a conclusion that permits readers to interpret the narrative as forecasting either hope for Davidic restoration or annulment of the Davidic covenant. This ambiguity suits the exilic period of composition of Dtr, when the fate of the Davidides was unknown, and so should not be taken as evidence for redaction.

Why the Deuteronomist Told about the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter

In response to Thomas Römer’s assertion that the story of Jephthah’s sacrifice is a Hellenistic insertion into the Deuteronomistic History, this articleargues that the presence of the story is best explained as an original part of the history. The portrayal of the sacrifice fits the pattern of moral decline in the book of Judges, and it forms an integral and interconnected part of thestory of Jephthah as a whole. Moreover, as part of this whole it reflects animportant theme stressed elsewhere by the history: when Israel sacrificeslike foreigners do, it will act like foreigners, as well. This is why the story of Jephthah’s sacrifice is followed immediately by the story of the tribe of Ephraim, which acts just like the Ammonites, the foreign nation in thisaccount, by invading Gilead.

‘What he did for me’: David's Warning about Joab in 1 Kings 2.5:

This article argues that David orders Solomon in 1 Kgs 2.5–6 to kill Joab because of Joabs pattern of assassinating rivals in order to benefit his master. Davids point in 2.5 is that Joab killed Abner and Amasa, two potential enemies of David, without warning, and since Joab supported Solomons brothers claim to the throne, Solomon might be his next victim. The Septuagint and the Lucianic recension have altered the more difficult text that appears in the Masoretic text in order to make it seem as if Joab and harmed David, and so provide a legal and religious basis for David and Solomons conspiracy to kill Joab not present in the original text.

The Sins of Josiah and Hezekiah: A Synchronic Reading of the Final Chapters of Kings

The double redaction theory of the Deuteronomistic History has its roots in the claim that there are logical discontinuities in the narrative from Manasseh to the end of 2 Kings. This article argues, however, that it is possible to see a coherent narrative in a synchronic reading of the final chapters of Kings once we recognize them as presenting a series of lessons to the Davidide in exile. Among the important lessons in 2 Kings 18–25 for Jehoiachin to learn is that, although he has received a negative evaluation from the narrative, the past sins on the parts of Josiah (for initially continuing Manassehs sin) and Hezekiah (for initially failing to trust Yhwh to deliver Jerusalem) are ignored by Yhwh once they act rightly, and so are erased from their evaluations. It is still possible for Jehoiachin to earn an impeccable evaluation himself if he trusts Yhwh to deliver as Hezekiah eventually learned to do, and leads the nation in repentance as Josiah eventually did.

The Condemnation of David's "Taking" in 2 Samuel 12:1-14

In the narrative of 2 Samuel 11–12, after David commits adultery with Bathsheba and attempts to cover up this crime by murdering her husband, Uriah, Nathan approaches him in 12:1–4 with a parable, the point of which would appear to be to have David pass judgment on himself for these sins and so to acknowledge the justice of the punishment that God and Nathan pronounce in 12:7b–12, 13b–14. The parable concerns a rich man who takes a poor man’s beloved lamb, his only possession, in order to provide for a traveler, because the rich man does not want to kill one of the many animals that he owns. The prophet’s parable does seem to accomplish the goal of auto-condemnation: David announces in 12:5–6 that the rich man in Nathan’s story deserves to be punished, and when Nathan announces the divine penalty for David’s actions, David admits culpability in 12:13a. This, says Uriel Simon, is the way a “juridical parable” is supposed to function—it is “a realistic story about a violation of law, related to someone who had committed a similar offence with the purpose of leading the unsuspecting hearer to pass judgment on himself.”1 I will show here that, although 12:1–4 does function as such a parable, its point is to have David convict himself not primarily of murder and adultery but simply of “taking” Bathsheba, a matter that God sees as an attempt by David to usurp God’s role in their relationship. The key to seeing this as the point of the parable is through a comparison of it with God’s announcement of David’s punishment in the oracle of 12:7b–12 and Nathan’s addendum to it in 12:13b–14, particularly the rationales that God and prophet supply there for this punishment. As we shall see, it is David’s taking of Bathsheba that is central to the warrant that God

A Monument and a Name: The Primary Purpose of Chronicles’ Genealogies

The primary purpose of the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9 is to construct a monument to the pre-exilic dead of Judah and Israel, reflecting the important cultural value Judeans placed on the preservation of ones name after death. Ancient Near Eastern and archaeological evidence suggests that the preservation of ancestral names for many generations was something available only to the elite; by opening the work with a monument to the pre-exilic ancestral dead, the Chronicler implies readers would raise their cultural status by supporting a restoration of the pre-exilic polity. The Chronicler used the genealogies to reflect important themes of the work, but the one thing they do that narrative cannot is to create a literal monument to the dead.