Israel in the Book of Kings: The past as a Project of Social Identity

Abstract

in Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity, by James Richard Linville. JSOTSup 272. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Pp. 331. $85.00/ 50.00. As intimated in book's title, this study has two major research foci: (1) How are and related terms properly defined in book of Kings? (2) How does answer to this question shed light on function of narrative in an Achaemenid context? The book is set out in three main parts beginning with a lengthy methodological overview. Building on setting model for Deuteronomistic History developed by E. T. Mullen, Linville views Kings' narrative as reflecting a series of metaphors and social dramas that served to define self perception of postexilic Judah-ism. Linville defines latter term as some form of religious-cultural matrix that identified its members on genealogical and religious grounds with of Judah, and in worship . . . of god Yahweh, imagined as being deity with a special association with (pp. 27-28). Common to Judah-fists, who were spread out in itself, Babylonia, and Egypt, was desire to express their ethnic and religious integrity in form of writing. As such, Linville stresses that this historiography represents above an artefact of history (p. 40), through which we can begin to uncover socioideological dynamics of writers' world. In this vein, exile itself is to be understood as merely immediate cause of an identity crisis but, rather, an essential part of identity which writer constructs for his dispersed people (p. 87). Yet Linville is skeptical of attempts to pinpoint circles responsible for producing Kings, rejecting catchall term Deuteronomists, and readily admitting that reconstructing from Kings a precise map of society and times which produced it is fraught with difficulty (p. 106). In a nutshell, Linville is sympathetic toward so-called minimalist school associated with P. R. Davies and N. P. Lemche, but not dogmatically so. The body of Linville's textual analysis begins in part 2 of book, entitled Empire and Entropy. In developing hypothesis that the two kingdoms are metaphorical projections of fractious, post-monarchic `Israel' (p. 117), Linville argues that in its idealized usage in Kings refers to entire people. This is particularly true of such key texts as Solomon's temple dedication ( 1 Kgs 8:16, 30, 33, 34, 36 and passim) and catalogue of sins accounting for destruction of northern kingdom and ultimately for Judah's destruction as well (2 Kgs 17:7-17). Consequently, appearance of as an entity distinct from signals a setback to ideal. In this connection, Linville interprets MT version of 1 Kings 4 as expressing intentional latent criticism of Solomon, inasmuch as it defines all Israel whom Solomon subjected to royal levy (v. 7) as excluding Judah. For Linville, even closing verse of that chapter, which describes both Judah and Israel prospering, serves as an ironic statement that perhaps Judah's prosperity was attained by divisive means. Even after narration of northern kingdom's destruction, alone is never offered possibility of forging a distinct and permanent continuity to exclusion of northern tribes. …