With remarkable erudition, Knapp translates and analyzes a comparative anthology of Hittite, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Akkadian texts/inscriptions according to a logically sound “theory about the phenomenon of ancient Near Eastern royal apologetic” (361), which he has formulated through research in multiple disciplines.
In chapter 1, Knapp surveys monographs and articles by scholars who, arguably, have had the greatest influence on subsequent studies of ancient Near Eastern apologetic texts (namely, H. Wolf, T. Thornton, H. Hoffner Jr., K. McCarter Jr., H. Tadmor, T. Ishida, M. Dick, M. Suriano). Though Knapp saves most of his critical engagement with these works for later in the book, his survey is nonetheless helpful for grasping why and how these scholars have compared and interpreted certain biblical and nonbiblical texts as generically apologetic, and how they have inadequately and inconsistently (if at all) explained the nature of apologetic.
In the remainder of chapter 1, Knapp seeks to dispel confusion as he lays the groundwork for his subsequent analyses of seven apologetic texts—and, more ambitiously, as he attempts “to establish a theoretical basis for future apologetic study” (43)—by showing how modern rhetorical studies scholars have already answered three fundamental questions. Question 1: “In what contexts may we appropriately detect an apology?” Answer: Any situation—whether judicial, political, religious, or any other—that elicits “discourse aimed at repairing one's reputation” “in response to attacks on one's character” (16–17). Question 2: “What precisely is apologetic?” Answer: “Apologetic is propaganda produced as defense against attacks upon a person's character or conduct” (27). Knapp grounds this definition of apologetic in an extended treatment of (1) the propagandistic and hence public nature of apologetic (19–24); (2) the arbitrariness of medium (oral, etc.) or form (autobiography, play, novel, etc.) when identifying apologetic (24–25); (3) the self-defensive and hence highly personal nature of apologies in “response to attacks” (25–26); (4) Knapp's usage of “royal,” “apologetic,” and related terms (27–28); (5) how he bases his definition of apologetic on the “rhetorical situation” that elicited the discourse, and not, following previous scholars, on the extraordinary situation that the discourse describes; and also in this section, how he classifies “specific defenses against particular allegations of misconduct” as “justifications,” and “broad defenses of legitimacy” as “legitimation” (28–30). Question 3: “What sort of category is apologetic?” Answer: “Apologetic most properly functions not as a literary genre, but as a literary mode (or mood)” (41). In answering this third question, Knapp argues that scholars who have emphasized the apologetic nature of biblical and other ANE texts—as well as those who have challenged it in certain cases—based on form-critical grounds have reached “specious conclusions” because they “have taken a transhistorical phenomenon (apologetic), given it an historical label (genre), and then drawn historical conclusions from it” (35). “On the contrary,” Knapp concludes in his final chapter, “the diagnostic situational feature of defense against accusation is not culturally bound, but common to all human society. By acknowledging the transhistorical nature of apologetic one can recognize the rhetorical similarity of these texts without having to postulate dubious historical relationships among them” (360).
In chapter 2, Knapp identifies and describes ten rhetorical motifs that ANE royal apologetic frequently employs in responding to charges of illegitimacy and/or unjust acts: divine election, royal prerogative/affiliation, popular acclamation, military success, the unworthy predecessor, the unworthy rival(s), passivity, transcendent nonretaliation, the merciful victor, and the youngest brother (47–56). In the course of discussing each motif, Knapp gives numerous examples to show how these motifs can be found in a wide range of ANE texts. Next, Knapp identifies sixteen ANE apologetic texts in a list (“not intended to be definitive,” 57) that includes both stand-alone apologies and apologies embedded in longer texts composed for other purposes. He briefly introduces the nine texts not included for analysis in the following chapters (59–64), and then explains his methodology for the seven he has chosen for close study (65–71).
In chapters 3 to 9, Knapp examines “the Proclamation of Telipinu,” “the Autobiography of Hattusili III,” “the Traditions of David's Rise and Reign,” “the Succession Narrative of Solomon,” “the Tel Dan Inscription of Hazael,” “the Accession of Esarhaddon,” and “the Rise of Nabonidus.” Knapp follows the same pattern in each of these chapters. First, he aims “to mine the appropriate ancient texts for historical information [about how each ruler assumed his throne] and present them without prejudice for or against any propagandistic aim” (66). Second, he introduces, outlines, transliterates, and translates the text if it is nonbiblical; for each biblical text, though, he omits the transliteration and translation, and offers a source-critical analysis instead. Third, Knapp offers an “apologetic analysis” in which he lists probable accusations; examines the king's response; considers the apology's use of “transformative” and/or “reformative” rhetoric (the former strategy attempts to transform how readers view acts or events that, presumably, could not be denied; the latter strategy essentially denies them; see 69–70); and he discusses motifs that the text shares in common with other ANE royal apologies. And fourth, he discusses the text's Sitz im Leben in light of its exigence in order to determine the text's provenance more precisely, and in order to test Tadmor's hypothesis that ANE apologies mostly served the successors of kings who assumed their thrones through unusual circumstances (71; Knapp lays the hypothesis to rest, 365). Finally, chapter 10 summarizes Knapp's general understanding of ANE apologetic, and presents a brief but helpful “synthetic view” of the above anthology.
Knapp's work is an important contribution to biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies. Future scholars of these and similar texts would be remiss to ignore Knapp's critical insights based on rhetorical genre theory, his definitions of key terms, his exposition of recurring motifs, and especially his analyses of seven “texts” from five ancient civilizations.
Nevertheless, nonspecialists and scholars who prefer to read and interpret “received texts” will have limited use for the chapters on David and Solomon, simply put, because “the Traditions of David's Rise and Reign” and “the Succession Narrative of Solomon” treated in this book are surgically reconstructed texts that do not exist in these forms in any biblical manuscript from ancient to modern times. (The non-biblical texts, on the other hand, have been reproduced more or less as they are found.) Operating on the assumption that David and Solomon must have commissioned propaganda in order to transform and reform dangerous rumors and charges against them, Knapp expertly wields his scalpel and removes the many parts that do not fit the “apologetic mode” from that which he determines to be historically “authentic,” that is, “a text that reflects the setting and concerns of the period that it describes” (161). Knapp fully acknowledges and explains better than most the nature and necessity of hermeneutical circularity in this type of procedure (esp. 194–95; also 29, 45, 71). And, indeed, he improves on a persuasive theory about the historical David and Solomon, and the apologetic texts they may have commissioned. But this theory is entirely unsuitable for appreciating the literary artistry and theological richness of 1 Samuel 16 – 1 Kings 2 as it appears in Bibles and manuscripts. Again, Knapp himself is careful to distinguish between the “final text” in Samuel–Kings and his reconstructed apologies. But even competent readers can easily slip into interpreting the biblical text through lenses they have uncritically borrowed from source critics. Therefore, it would be especially helpful to have Knapp's reconstructed versions fully accessible for viewing while considering his highly detailed source-critical and rhetorical analyses. Given that the publisher allowed nearly fifty pages for Hittite, Aramaic, and Akkadian transliterations and notes, and nearly twenty more for their translations, it does not seem unreasonable to request the inclusion of Knapp's prebiblical productions in a future edition or on the publisher's website.
These and other concerns aside, it is refreshing to read a scholarly treatment of ancient apologetic that is not beset with cynicism and driven by suspicion. Instead, this book exhibits a healthy spirit of scholarly inquiry, and it will serve as an excellent resource and model for future research along these lines.
