First Kings 11:14-22 relates the story of one of Solomon's 'three' adversaries, Hadad the Edomite. According to this pericope, after David conquered Edom, a certain Hadad, a young man and scion of the royal house, escaped to Egypt where he was given sanctuary and a wife of royal blood. This woman was the sister of a certain Tahpenes, queen of Egypt, and gave Hadad a son, Genubath. After the death of David, Hadad decided to return to Edom despite the objections of the reigning pharaoh. He then became one of Solomon's adversaries.
Scholarship seldom has questioned this pericope's essential historicity 1 and often has accepted it as an accurate report of the events of Hadad's life. 2 Recently, however, D. V. Edelman has shown that the historicity of Hadad and the events recorded in 1 Kings 11:14-22 should be questioned. 3 She offered four compelling lines of proof that can be summarized as follows: First, according to Edelman, little evidence exists for an Edomite state during the tenth century,4 making it doubtful that the details of the story correspond with the period. Second, Edelman pointed out that several folktale motifs (particularly the Flight to Egypt motif) appear in 1 Kings 11:14-22, lessening its credibility as history. Third, Edelman contended that the lack of specific details, such as personal names (the Egyptian pharaoh, Hadad's wife), argued against the story's historicity. Fourth, she suggested that the rarity of marriage of Egyptian princesses to foreigners cast doubt on the historical reliability of the Hadad story. 5 Furthermore, Edelman concluded that since no known, later Edomite figure could have served as a model for Hadad, the writer of 1 Kings 11 had invented Hadad as a stock 'bad guy' figure, having taken the name Hadad from Genesis 36 6 and the marriage motif from the LXX additions to the Jeroboam narrative. 7
Without doubt, these conclusions regarding the historicity of the Hadad story are convincing. Nevertheless, I would like to offer an alternate proposal to Edelman's conclusion that the writer of 1 Kings 11 invented Hadad. For several reasons, I believe this conclusion is inadequate. First, the appearance of other historical figures in the Solomon story, 8 all from the mid-8th century BCE (Hiram of Tyre, 9 the Queen of Sheba, 10 Jeroboam II[?], 11 Shoshenq V[?] 12 , and especially Rezon [rezn] of Aram, 13 one of the other 'bad guys'), strongly argues that the Deuteronomistic writers were not consciously fictionalizing. It is far too coincidental that these known 8th century figures all appear in the Solomon story, considering that in the known king lists for Aram, Tyre and Israel there is virtually no evidence of repeated royal names. If the Deuteronomistic writers were inventing 'bad guys', they did so using historical paradigms, in which case they were not 'inventing' at all. Rather, the writers have taken historical figures from one period and retrojected them into the Solomon account. Most likely, they did not do this consciously. Second, confusions, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the pericope and its context argue against the hypothesis of invention. For instance, vs. 16 implies that every male in Edom was killed, yet vs. 17 says many escaped. Then these fugitives disappear in the middle of vs. 18. Further, there is no description of their flight out of Edom (the refugees suddenly show up in Midian). Moreover, the account of the three adversaries of Solomon is repetitious and awkwardly shifts from subject to subject, leaving the reader with the impression that an editor tried to join several disjointed and independent traditions into a threefold pattern of adversaries. 14 Surely, pure literary creation of the type suggested by Edelman should be smoother and more coherent than this. The Hadad story more closely resembles oral tradition written only after some confusion and contradiction entered. 15 Third, it is uncertain that the Deuteronomistic writers consciously 'invented', as such, any of the material found in their history. Since they have alluded to sources consulted while writing the history (2 Samuel 1:18; 1 Kings 11:41; 14:19, 29), and there is no compelling reason to doubt the integrity of the writers whatever the date or accuracy of these sources, it is questionable how much sheer invention or fiction has played a part. Rather, as stated earlier, the DtrH appears to be a hodgepodge of traditional material, spliced and interwoven.
Therefore, the writer has not 'invented' Hadad, but incorporated another historical figure who had become distorted in the tradition. Who might this historical figure be? Since, as Edelman stated, no other known Edomite figure could have served as a model for Hadad, and outside the Bible 'Hadad' is never the name of an Edomite king, logically the historical archetype for 'Hadad' came from outside Edom. In addition, considering that other mid-late 8th century BCE figures have been retrojected into the Solomon story, the archetype for Hadad most likely comes from this period as well. Is such a figure matching these criteria available? I suggest he is: Hanunu the Gazaite, mentioned in the records of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II. Not only was he a non- Edomite who lived in the mid-8th century BCE, but his career parallels that of Hadad in four significant ways: 1) He was an "adversary" of Judah. He was part of the anti-Assyrian alliance that Ahaz and Hezekiah (early in his reign) opposed, as seen from the Assyrian attack on Philistia, particularly Gaza, 16 in 734-33 BCE (text ND 400 17 ). 18 This alliance included Israel, Aram and many states of the Levant, but not Judah, as seen in 2 Kings 16:5-7 and Isaiah 7. Unlike these nations, Ahaz submitted to Tiglath-Pileser III. Years later, Hanunuwas still an adversary of Judah. Indeed, after the defeat of Gaza in 720 BCE, Philistine territory was ceded to Judah, 19 further enhancing the enmity between Judah and Gaza. 2) Hanunu fled to Egypt when Gaza was overrun (text III R 10, 2 20 ). There he was given sanctuary. 3) Hanunu was allied with Egypt. In 720 he again rebelled against Assyria, despite having been reinstated by Tiglath-Pileser (and like Hadad having returned to his land). At this time, 'Re'e, the turtanu of Egypt' fought with Hanunu. 21 4) He was allied with two other figures from the Solomon story: Rezin of Damascus and Hiram of Tyre (2 Kings 16:5). These parallels can hardly be coincidental and provide strong circumstantial evidence that the life of Hadad the Edomite is a garbled recollection of that of Hanunu the Gazaite.
Furthermore, given the assumption that for at least some length of time the Solomon story was transmitted orally, a few strands of evidence plausibly show how 'Hadad' became 'Hanunu' and a Gazaite became an Edomite. First, the name Hadad appears to have been somewhat fluid in biblical tradition. Hadad the Edomite, for instance, is also called "Adad" in 1 Kings 11:17, 22 showing that his name in the tradition was not firmly fixed. In addition, the first Hadad in the Edomite king list (Genesis 36:31-39) was sired by a certain Bedad, a name suspiciously similar to Hadad. Also, there are two Hadads in this list, showing that according to Israelite tradition, Hadad was a common royal name in Edom. 23 The groundwork exists, therefore, for possible confusion about figures named Hadad. Second, a distinct similarity in sound between Hadad and Hanunu could lead to confusion. The conversion of heth to he is common and needs no elaboration. 24 Both nun and daleth are dentals. Admittedly, it would be highly unusual for the nuns to become daleths since nun, as a nasal, generally gets confused with other nasals (m to n, and vice-versa), not other consonant groups, 25 but the similarity in sound makes confusion plausible. Possibly, Israelite tradents deliberately corrupted Hanunu because they wished to identify him with the weather god. Third and most significantly, biblical traditions about Edomite royalty mention not only 'Hadad's' but 'Hanan's' as well. The penultimate king of Edom (Genesis 36), the king preceding the second Hadad, was named Baal Hanan (Baal Hanunu in Assyrian 26 ). Since this list was most likely compiled during the 7th century BCE, 27 as were the Deuteronomistic History and Solomon account, any figure named Hanan/Hanunu could easily have been confused with any Hadad. If one also considers that names are particularly subject to change in oral tradition, 28 the confusion becomes likely.
As for the appelatives, despite that little phonetic similarity obtains between Edom and Gaza, three considerations help explain how "Gaza" could have become "Edom." First, during the 8th century BCE both Gazaites and Edomites were enemies of Judah. Amos 1:6, for instance, directly ties Gaza and Edom in the heinous slave trade. Also, the post-exilic 2 Chronicles 16:16-19 says that Edom and Philistia were allied against Judah. Thus, Judahite (Amos) and later Judean tradition made a strong connection between Gaza and Edom that could provide a foundation for confusion in the appelatives. Second, during the latter pre- exilic through the post-exilic periods, the time of the Deuteronomistic writers, Edom was a chief enemy of Judah. Since oral tradition often substitutes current political and social situations and entities into older traditions, resulting in changes in names, places, and the like, it is understandable that Hanunu would become an Edomite given the prevalence of 'Hadads' in biblical traditions of Edomite royalty and the prevalence of Edomite hostility. Third, although its significance is unclear, 1 Chronicles 27:28 mentions another Baal Hanan, a Gederite. Although the exact name( 29 and location of this town are uncertain, the most likely candidate is Geder. 30 This town may have been near Gaza. 31 Therefore, there may be a biblical tradition claiming that another Baal Hanan, who lived in the time of David, came from Gaza. At any rate, given the tendency toward alteration in oral tradition and the considerations above, it would have been easy for the events in the life of a certain Hanunu the Gazaite to become transposed to a Hadad. With the garbled tradition about Hiram, Rezon, the Queen of Sheba, and perhaps Jeroboam II and Shoshenq V, this tradition became part of the Solomon story.
A plausible hypothetical process by which Hanunu the Gazaite became Hadad the Edomite in biblical tradition might go as follows. First, several 8th century figures became part of the tradition about Solomon's friends and enemies. Then Hanunu became an Edomite. Two factors prompted this: 1) at the time of the Deuteronomistic 'school' Edom was a more plausible, and more traditional, enemy of Israel and Judah, fitting the paradigmatic tone of the Solomon narrative as a whole; and 2) biblical tradition about Edomite royalty included a Hanunu. Finally, the similarity in sound between Hanunu and Hadad, coupled with the greater popularity of Hadad as an Edomite royal name in biblical tradition, caused Hanunu to become Hadad. Although this is hardly the only possible process for the change, it is not at all far-fetched or unreasonable.
Although the evidence elucidated above is largely circumstantial and
cannot yet be proven by more direct means, 32 it is
substantial enough to warrant serious appraisal. Not only is the hypothesis
supported by the general nature of the Solomon story as reflecting the
8th century BCE, but it gives positive evidence for the identification
from a comparison between the lives, names, and traditional connections
of Hadad the Edomite and Hanunu the Gazaite.
1. For example, J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987), p. 214; G. W. Ahlström, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 505.
2. Some have held that it is based on first-hand reports. See, for instance, J. A. Montgomery, The Book of Kings, (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951), p. 238; J. Gray, I and II Kings, (OTL; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), p. 260. J. R. Bartlett considered it as gossip known to the soldiers of Joab ('An Adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite', ZAW 88 [1976], p. 217).
3.'Solomon's Adversaries Hadad, Rezon and Jeroboam: A Trio of "Bad Guy" Characters Illustrating the Theology of Immediate Retribution', in S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken. (JSOTSup, 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), pp. 174-83. She also discussed the question of the sources behind 1 Kings 11:14-40 (idem, pp. 171-78).
4. 'Adversaries', pp. 174, 179. See also J. R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup, 77; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), pp. 67-82; B. MacDonald, 'Early Edom: The Relation between the Literary and Archaeological Evidence', in M. D. Coogan, J. C. Exum, L. E. Stager (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), pp. 230-46; S. Hart, 'The Edom Survey Project 1984-85: The Iron Age', in A. Hadadi (ed.), Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), pp. 286-90; Ibid, 'Iron Age Settlement in the Land of Edom', in P. Bienkowski (ed.), Early Edom and Moab The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan (Sheffield: J. R. Collis Publications, 1992), p. 97; P. Bienkowski, 'The Edomites: The Archaeological Evidence from Transjordan', in D. V. Edelman (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), p. 54.
8. See G. Garbini, History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (trans. J. Bowden; New York: Crossroad, 1988), pp. 38-44.
9. The so-called Hiram I mentioned in Josephus (Antiquities 8:50; Against Apion I, 17, 18) most likely is merely a biblical figure (Garbini, p. 23; J. A. Green, 'David's Relations with Hiram: Biblical and Josephan Evidence for Tyrian Chronology', in Ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O'Conner, The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983], p. 382).
10. The legendary nature of the story and its numerous Märchen motifs (R. Körner, 'Märchenmotive bei König Salomo [1 Kön. 1-11]', BN 62 [1992]: 25-31; E. A. Knauf, Midian [Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästinavereins; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988], p. 29) suggest it was written a long time after any events recorded in it. Moreover, queens as regents in Arabian countries are known from the 8th and 7th centuries. Although this may have been the case earlier as well, there is little evidence that prior to the 8th century BCE there was significant contact with the Levant.
11. Contra Edelman ('Adversaries', pp. 187-89), I suspect that Jeroboam I is a garbled recollection of Jeroboam II, although this is not the place to elucidate further.
12. Have the Deuteronomistic writers conflated their traditions regarding Shoshenq I and Shoshenq V?
13. Edelman rejected this equation on the grounds that the names Raianu/Reîn (2 Kings 16:5) and Rezon are "sufficiently different" to doubt their identification. She reasoned that one would have to argue "that the writer deliberately disguised the name ('Adversaries', p. 187). However, Edelman does not seem to consider that names are highly likely to become corrupted in oral transmission. Consonantly, the only difference between Rezin and Rezon is the middle radical. Both zayin and tsadhe, however, are sibilants and subject to transposition, just as, for instance, c and s are in English. As noted by Edelman, the careers of the figure known from Assyrian texts and 1 Kings 11 are quite similar ('Adversaries', pp. 184-87). Therefore, it seems unreasonable to deny the equation.
14. Winckler, among others, postulated that two separate stories were joined (see C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903], pp. 157-60), but it is hard to separate two complete units. It appears more that several pieces of tradition have been welded, and not too well, into one story.
15. I reached this same conclusion about the so-called Solomon's District List ('Solomon's? District? List', JSOT 67 [1995], 67-86).
16. H. J. Katzenstein, 'Gaza', in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), II:913.
17. See D. J. Wiseman, 'A New Stele of A ur-Nasir-Pal II', Iraq 14 (1952), pp. 21-24. For a new translation, see J. K. Kuan, Assyrian Historical Inscriptions and Israelite/Judean- Tyrian-Damascene Political and Commercial Relations in the Ninth-Eighth Centuries BCE (Ph.D. Dissertation, Emory University, 1994), pp. 286-87.
18. Ahlström, History, p. 632; S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBLDS, 123; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), p. 52.
19. P. K. Hooker, The Kingdom of Hezekiah: Judah in the Geo-Political Context of the Late Eighth Century BCE (PhD Dissertation, Emory University, 1993), p. 331.
20. See J. B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Third ed.; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 283. For a new translation, see Kuan, p. 310.
22. This clause cannot be secondary or part of a different story since it is integral to the flight of Hadad. Without it, there is no statement of his departure from Edom.
23. This has not yet been borne out by archaeology. No Edomite king known from epigraphy was named Hadad or had this theophoric element in his name. The name is found in Arabic (E. A. Knauf, 'Hadad [PERSON]', ABD, III:11), and Knauf believed that Hadad was an Arabic name ('Alter und Herkunft der edmoitischen Königsliste Gen 36, 31-39', ZAW 97 [1985], p. 246). Lemaire, among others, has argued that Hadad was an Aramaen (A. Lemaire, 'Hadad l'Edomite ou Hadad l'Araméen'? BN 43 [1988], pp. 14-18). Edelman, however, correctly noted that the geography of the pericope in 1 Kings 11 supports the notion that he was an Edomite ('Adversaries', p. 181). Bartlett contended that Moabite names may have become conflated in the list (Edom, pp. 94-102).
24. One need only consider the number of anunus who became 'Hanno' rather than 'Channo' (with a chi) in Greek texts.
25. For Semitic languages, see S. Moscati, Il Sistema Consonantico delle Lingue Semitiche (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1954), p. 50; for phonetics in general, see I. Maddieson, Patterns of Sounds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 70.
26. Ashurbanipal Prism A, 2:84, 91 (see E. A. Knauf, 'Baal Hanan', ABD, I:551; ANET, p. 296).
27. See Knauf, 'Alter und Herkunft', pp. 94, 100. Mention of Bozrah, which apparently did not exist before the late 8th century, as well as the association of the Negevite Amalekites with Edom (Edelman, 'Adversaries', p. 177), suggest a late date. Bartlett wrote, "It seems most likely, then, that the core of this Edomite king-list derives from information which became current in Judah in the eighth century; this was edited, perhaps by a Deuteronomistic hand, in the seventh century and incorporated thereafter into the Pentateuchal history" (Edom, p. 101).
28. R. C. Culley, 'Oral Tradition and Historicity', in J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford (eds), Studies in the Ancient Palestinian World (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971), p. 111.
29. Geder or Gedor? Both existed in ancient Palestine.
30. C. S. Ehrlich, 'Geder (PLACE)', ABD, II:925.
31. Hooker, p. 325. The locations of the various Geders and Gedors is uncertain.
32. Unfortunately, given the paucity of literature and epigraphical materials that have survived from pre-exilic Israel or Judah, it is no surprise that the oral stages have left no written traces. nunu the Gazaite?