Random Bible Adventures With Sadeeq: Who is Nimshi?
Today I flipped randomly to a page and line in the Bible (NRSV) and read:
"Thus Jehu son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi conspired against Joram."
2 Kings 9:14
My first thought: Other than the grandfather of Jehu and the father of Jehoshaphat, who the heck is Nimshi?
It turns out there is some confusion as to whether Nimshi is Jehu's grandfather or father, or mere ancestor. In contrast to the quote above, 1 Kings 19:16 describes Nimshi as Jehu's father. Alternatively, the word "son" may be interpreted broadly to simply mean descendant, which would make Nimshi a mere ancestor of Jehu, a King of Israel.
Little did I know, but I had stumbled into a heated scholarly debate.
In contrast to both biblical accounts, an Assyrian obelisk discovered in 1846 describes Jehu as the son of Omri, NOT of Nimshi. How may one explain this contradiction with the biblical accounts, especially when, according to the biblical accounts, Jehu slaughtered all of the Omrides to become King of Israel? Did Jehu kill his father (or grandfather), and the rest of his relatives, in his quest to become king?
Don Stahlnecker summarizes the scholarly debate that has evolved since the discovery of the obelisk:
Scholars generally conclude from the Biblical account that Jehu had brought an end to the dynasty of Omri when he killed all the children of Ahab. However, in stark contrast to this understanding, the inscription on the Black Obelisk reads, "Jehu son of Omri." The term "son of" is commonly used to mean "descendent of" and could thus indicate a decent of some distance. However, Jehu is referred to in scripture as the son of Nimshi (1 Kings 19:16) and in other places as the son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi (2 Kings 9:2). And since scripture depicts Jehu slaughtering the entire house of Ahab, this attachment of Jehu as the descendent of Omri has generated tremendous discussion in scholarly circles. Several attempts have been made to reconcile this discrepancy. The three most popular are described below.
The classic solution is to maintain that the Black Obelisk is simply inaccurate, that Assyria wasn't particularly interested in the insignificant Hebrews and was, therefore, not aware that a change in dynasty had taken place. It is quite possible to maintain this position without ascribing total ignorance to Assyria. It is sufficient that those responsible for carving and inscribing the Black Obelisk were unaware of the change, while certain key political advisors may have had full knowledge of events in Israel. A variation of this explanation is that the name Omri was not intended to describe any actual lineage of Jehu, but was instead intended to indicate that Jehu was now sitting in Omri's throne.
A second option, proposed by P. Kyle McCarter, is that the Black Obelisk is not referring to Jehu as is generally assumed, but is actually referring to Jehoram, the grandson of Omri whom Jehu killed. (Joram, the alias used in most Bible translations, is a shortened version of Jehoram.) His argument is based upon a rather complicated examination of cuneiform renderings of pronunciations and his conclusion is that the name inscribed on the Black Obelisk can easily refer to either Jehu or Jehoram. Since Jehoram is indeed the "son" (grandson) of Omri, McCarter ascribes the tribute to Jehoram.
A third option, proposed by Tammi Schneider, is that Jehu was indeed a descendent of Omri. In the scholastic circles, Jehu's coup is considered the total destruction of the descendents of Omri. However, the Bible itself never says this, but instead says that Jehu destroyed the entire house of Ahab (2 Kings 10:11) who was the son of Omri. If Omri had another son who became the father of Jehu, then it is perfectly possible to consider Jehu the "son" of Omri without conflicting with the Biblical account of his annihilation of the house of Ahab.
Another commentator summarizes Schneider's argument as follows, with excerpts from her scholarship:
Schneider now turns to the matter of Jehu's biblical lineage:
"…. A clue: In the Hebrew Bible, Jehu is called "Jehu son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi" (2 Kings 9:2,14). Jehu is the only king of Israel to have his grandfather's name listed in his patronymic. Why? Traditional explanations would suffice were it not for the Assyrian references. These explanations usually suggest that Jehu's father was not as well known in the community as his grandfather, or that Nimshi is a clan name whose meaning has been lost over the centuries."
"Another explanation is that Jehu's grandfather's name is included to show that Jehu's father was not King Jehoshaphat of Judah, Jehu's contemporary."
This explanation however also has its problems as indicated by the three points to which Schneider now refers:
"Although the foregoing explanations are consistent with Biblical accounts, they face some significant problems: (1) There is no other Biblical reference to a person named Nimshi, so that he was probably not all that well known; (2) the name "Nimshi" appears as a personal name on a Samarian ostracon, making it unlikely that the name referred to a clan; (3) not only are grandfathers' names never listed in the patronymics of Israelite kings, but other Israelite kings who usurped the throne, such as Zimri and Omri, have no patronymics at all!"
"On the other hand, if Jehu claimed descent from Omri, the inclusion of his grandfather's name may have been necessary to establish the genealogical link. …. I propose that Jehu was indeed a descendant of Omri. …."
"Without contradicting information provided by the Hebrew Bible, this suggestion would answer many questions. Assuming that Omri had sons from more than one wife would explain the Assyrian reference to Jehu as belonging to the House of Omri. It would also account for Jehu's unusual patronymic, why he was a commander so familiar to the royal family, and why the purge of the House of Ahab, extending to Judah, was so severe. This new way of thinking about Jehu solves problems on both the cuneiform and Biblical sides without having to make excuses for any of the texts involved."
"Thus Jehu son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi conspired against Joram."
2 Kings 9:14
My first thought: Other than the grandfather of Jehu and the father of Jehoshaphat, who the heck is Nimshi?
It turns out there is some confusion as to whether Nimshi is Jehu's grandfather or father, or mere ancestor. In contrast to the quote above, 1 Kings 19:16 describes Nimshi as Jehu's father. Alternatively, the word "son" may be interpreted broadly to simply mean descendant, which would make Nimshi a mere ancestor of Jehu, a King of Israel.
Little did I know, but I had stumbled into a heated scholarly debate.
In contrast to both biblical accounts, an Assyrian obelisk discovered in 1846 describes Jehu as the son of Omri, NOT of Nimshi. How may one explain this contradiction with the biblical accounts, especially when, according to the biblical accounts, Jehu slaughtered all of the Omrides to become King of Israel? Did Jehu kill his father (or grandfather), and the rest of his relatives, in his quest to become king?
Don Stahlnecker summarizes the scholarly debate that has evolved since the discovery of the obelisk:
Scholars generally conclude from the Biblical account that Jehu had brought an end to the dynasty of Omri when he killed all the children of Ahab. However, in stark contrast to this understanding, the inscription on the Black Obelisk reads, "Jehu son of Omri." The term "son of" is commonly used to mean "descendent of" and could thus indicate a decent of some distance. However, Jehu is referred to in scripture as the son of Nimshi (1 Kings 19:16) and in other places as the son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi (2 Kings 9:2). And since scripture depicts Jehu slaughtering the entire house of Ahab, this attachment of Jehu as the descendent of Omri has generated tremendous discussion in scholarly circles. Several attempts have been made to reconcile this discrepancy. The three most popular are described below.
The classic solution is to maintain that the Black Obelisk is simply inaccurate, that Assyria wasn't particularly interested in the insignificant Hebrews and was, therefore, not aware that a change in dynasty had taken place. It is quite possible to maintain this position without ascribing total ignorance to Assyria. It is sufficient that those responsible for carving and inscribing the Black Obelisk were unaware of the change, while certain key political advisors may have had full knowledge of events in Israel. A variation of this explanation is that the name Omri was not intended to describe any actual lineage of Jehu, but was instead intended to indicate that Jehu was now sitting in Omri's throne.
A second option, proposed by P. Kyle McCarter, is that the Black Obelisk is not referring to Jehu as is generally assumed, but is actually referring to Jehoram, the grandson of Omri whom Jehu killed. (Joram, the alias used in most Bible translations, is a shortened version of Jehoram.) His argument is based upon a rather complicated examination of cuneiform renderings of pronunciations and his conclusion is that the name inscribed on the Black Obelisk can easily refer to either Jehu or Jehoram. Since Jehoram is indeed the "son" (grandson) of Omri, McCarter ascribes the tribute to Jehoram.
A third option, proposed by Tammi Schneider, is that Jehu was indeed a descendent of Omri. In the scholastic circles, Jehu's coup is considered the total destruction of the descendents of Omri. However, the Bible itself never says this, but instead says that Jehu destroyed the entire house of Ahab (2 Kings 10:11) who was the son of Omri. If Omri had another son who became the father of Jehu, then it is perfectly possible to consider Jehu the "son" of Omri without conflicting with the Biblical account of his annihilation of the house of Ahab.
Another commentator summarizes Schneider's argument as follows, with excerpts from her scholarship:
Schneider now turns to the matter of Jehu's biblical lineage:
"…. A clue: In the Hebrew Bible, Jehu is called "Jehu son of Jehoshaphat son of Nimshi" (2 Kings 9:2,14). Jehu is the only king of Israel to have his grandfather's name listed in his patronymic. Why? Traditional explanations would suffice were it not for the Assyrian references. These explanations usually suggest that Jehu's father was not as well known in the community as his grandfather, or that Nimshi is a clan name whose meaning has been lost over the centuries."
"Another explanation is that Jehu's grandfather's name is included to show that Jehu's father was not King Jehoshaphat of Judah, Jehu's contemporary."
This explanation however also has its problems as indicated by the three points to which Schneider now refers:
"Although the foregoing explanations are consistent with Biblical accounts, they face some significant problems: (1) There is no other Biblical reference to a person named Nimshi, so that he was probably not all that well known; (2) the name "Nimshi" appears as a personal name on a Samarian ostracon, making it unlikely that the name referred to a clan; (3) not only are grandfathers' names never listed in the patronymics of Israelite kings, but other Israelite kings who usurped the throne, such as Zimri and Omri, have no patronymics at all!"
"On the other hand, if Jehu claimed descent from Omri, the inclusion of his grandfather's name may have been necessary to establish the genealogical link. …. I propose that Jehu was indeed a descendant of Omri. …."
"Without contradicting information provided by the Hebrew Bible, this suggestion would answer many questions. Assuming that Omri had sons from more than one wife would explain the Assyrian reference to Jehu as belonging to the House of Omri. It would also account for Jehu's unusual patronymic, why he was a commander so familiar to the royal family, and why the purge of the House of Ahab, extending to Judah, was so severe. This new way of thinking about Jehu solves problems on both the cuneiform and Biblical sides without having to make excuses for any of the texts involved."
For additional interesting scholarly discussions concerning the problem of Nimshi, including critiques of Schneider's thesis, go here and here.
Stay tuned for updates on Nimshi scholarship, and other random Bible adventures.
posted by sadeeq | 1:11 AM | Permalink
|
3 comments
3 Comments:
Nimshi? I got your Nimshi right here, pal.
Personally, I think Nimshi is probably an ancestor of Chim Chim, of Speed Racer fame.
Come on, sing it with me!
"Chim Chim Nimshi
Chim Chim Nimshi
Chim Chim Cheree
Sadeeq is as lucky
as lucky can be.
Chim Chim Nimshi
Chim Chim Nimshi
Chim Chim Cheroo
Sadeeq, this will be
the last post for you."
What do you say, gang? Keep Peter or dump Peter?
I noticed that the biblical account has Jehu, Jehosaphat, and Nimshi being born out of alpabetical order, which could be the source of all the confusion.
How come no one names their kid Jehosaphat anymore?
Post a Comment
<< Home