A Violation of Royal Prerogative: The Shebna Prophecy (Isaiah 22.15–19) in Context

1. Introduction

This article explores the background of Isaiah's severe criticism and condemnation of Shebna, Hezekiah's major-domo, whom the prophet accused of hewing his tomb in the upper rocks of Jerusalem (Isa. 22.15–19). Interpretation of the prophecy in vv. 15–24 involves literary, historical, archaeological, and theological aspects, and issues like the integrity of the text, the interpretation of its words and literary structure, the identity of the named figures, and the date of the prophecy have been discussed repeatedly over the years. ¹ Surprisingly, the nature of Shebna's offence was only superficially discussed, so that the severity with which the prophet considered his deed still requires explanation.

Most scholars agree that Isaiah is the author of the prophecy against Shebna (vv. 15–18 [or 19]) but they disagree about the originality of the prophecy concerning Eliakim son of Hilkiah (vv. 20–24). At the time of the Assyrian blockade of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18.22, 26; 19.2; Isa. 36.3, 22; 37.22), Eliakim carried the office of ‭תיבה‬ ‭לע‬ ‭רשא‬ (‘who is over the house’), a post formerly held by Shebna (Isa. 12.15). Some scholars suggested that the prophet did not pronounce the prophecy in vv. 20–24, but rather consider this to be a vaticinium ex eventu, a literary prophecy written after Shebna's downfall and the transfer of his post to Eliakim. ² Hence, they proposed that the literary unit in vv. 15–25 grew in stages. ³ Other scholars assume that the prophecy is a single, coherent unit pronounced (though not exactly in its present words) by the prophet Isaiah. ⁴

Yet another literary-historical problem requires our attention, however. A certain Shebna, carrying the office of ‘the scribe’, appears in the episode of the Assyrian blockade of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 18.22, 26; 19.2; Isa. 36.3, 22; 37.22). Identifying Shebna the major-domo with Shebna the scribe means that the former still held an important post in Hezekiah's court at the time of Sennacherib's 701 BCE campaign. This notion contradicts Isaiah's prophecy in vv. 15–19, according to which Shebna would lose his post and social status and be ousted out of Jerusalem. Assuming that the second part of the prophecy (vv. 20–24) is a vaticinium ex eventu, why did not the editor fit his text to the first part of the prophecy? And if the prophecy in vv. 15–24 is an original unit, why did the late editors/redactors leave such an obvious contradiction between Isaiah's prophecy in vv. 15–24 and the story of the Assyrian blockade of Jerusalem? The best solution to this ostensible contradiction is to assume that Shebna was a common name in late monarchical Judah ⁵ and that the major-domo of the prophecy and the royal scribe who operated during the Assyrian blockade should be considered to have been two different people.

No data exist on the basis of which we can decide with certainty between the two conflicting positions concerning the unity and authenticity of the prophecy in vv. 15–24. Since I do not observe clear signs of editorial work or redaction in the prophecy, I tend to accept the literary analysis of those scholars who considered the prophecy in vv. 15–24 as an original coherent unit. With all due caution, I suggest that the essence of Isaiah's oral prophecy appears in vv. 15–19, but the oral message was composed in writing only after it was fulfilled, either before Sennacherib's 701 BCE campaign or shortly thereafter. According to this interpretation, the prophecy against Shebna in vv. 15–19 is essentially authentic, whereas the prophecy about Eliakim is a vaticinium ex eventu, written after he replaced Shebna and was nominated to the post of ‘who is over the house’.

Below, I first translate the prophecy against Shebna (vv. 15–19), then add a few comments, and ultimately analyze the norms that Shebna had transgressed and which formed the background for the prophet's harsh criticism of his deed.

2. The Shebna Prophecy (vv. 15–19)

The prophecy indicates that Shebna hewed for himself a remarkable tomb in a high rocky place, in a location that a man of his standing was not allowed to cut out. ¹⁰ Thereby, he violated the broadly accepted norm according to which only the royal dynasty could have cut their tombs in these high rocks. ¹¹ Isaiah's twofold reference to Shebna's post of ‭ןכס‬ (‘royal steward’) and ‭תיבה‬ ‭לע‬ ‭רשא‬ (‘who is over the house’) ¹² possibly allude to the fact that the latter hewed his tomb near the ‘house’ that he administered—that is, the royal palace, which was located near the burial place of the kings of Judah (for further details see below). His self-assurance and unprecedented deed aroused the rage of the prophet, who—probably sensing that the king cannot ignore this impudent deed—predicted that the insolent major-domo would soon come to disgrace, lose his high position, and be ousted from the royal service and the capital city. ¹³

The excavations conducted in First Temple Jerusalem fully confirm this interpretation. The burial places discovered in Jerusalem dating from the eighth and seventh centuries BCE are always located outside the city walls. Notable is the necropolis discovered at Silwan, which overlooks the City of David and the Temple Mount from the hills located beyond the Kidron Valley. ¹⁴ Other tombs were discovered north of the Shechem Gate, in the outskirts of the Southwestern Hill, and in the Christian and Moslem districts, all located outside the walls of the Iron Age city. ¹⁵ Burial within the city walls was the exclusive privilege of the kings of the House of David. This practice is indicated by the series of death formulae for the kings of Judah, from David to Ahaz, which read as follows: ‘and so-and-so slept with his ancestors and was buried with his ancestors in the city of David’. In light of the clear biblical evidence, scholars always searched for the ancient royal tombs in the area of the City of David. ¹⁶ Shebna's hubris of hewing his tomb in the city, near the royal burial place, is exceptional and explains the prophet's rage and severe judgment.

The practice of hewing royal burials within the city walls came under priestly attack in the late years of the Kingdom of Judah. Ezekiel's accusations (43.6–9) that the royal burials defile the temple well reflect this recent religious ideology. The priestly criticism might have yielded the termination of the practice of burying the kings near the palace and the transfer of the royal tombs to a new site; namely, the Garden of Uza, possibly located outside the walls of Jerusalem. ¹⁷

In sum, Isaiah accused Shebna of transgressing the long-accepted norm, according to which burial within the city walls was the prerogative of the rulers of the Dynasty of David and no one else.

3. Violations of Royal Prerogatives in Biblical Literature

Biblical literature does not define accurately what the prerogatives of the king were. These prerogatives can be deduced only from the analysis of some biblical texts. The King's Law in 1 Sam. 8.10–18 deliberately exaggerates the potential dangers of the monarchical institution and should be studied with caution. The best sources for the study are the narratives of Absalom's rebellion in 2 Samuel 15 and of Adonijah's attempt to gain the throne in 1 Kings 1–2.

The story of Absalom's rebellion opens with description of his providing for himself a chariot with horses and fifty men running before him (2 Sam. 15.1). The fact that this comprised a violation of a royal privilege is evident from 1 Sam. 8.11, which opens the King's Law as follows: ‘Your sons he will take and assign to his chariot and his cavalry, and they will run before his chariot’. Since David did not react to Absalom's transgression of his privileged status, the latter went one step further. By claiming that David's decisions do not do justice to the defendants, whereas he, when elected king, will make better judgments (vv. 2–4), he again violated the standing of the king as head of the kingdom's juridical system. In the internal dynamic of the narrative, David's policy of ignoring the violations of his prerogatives as king led to the outbreak of rebellion.

Following the rebellion's outbreak, the reader encounters a series of steps that canceled the remaining symbols of David's status as king. First, the rebel seized his capital city and royal house and drove him out of his seat of government; and second, Absalom publicly slept with David's concubines (2 Kgs 16.20–22; cf. 2 Sam. 12.11). According to ancient Near Eastern and biblical norms, a new king inherited the former king's harem (see 2 Sam. 12.8, ‘And I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom’). ¹⁸ By sleeping with David's concubines, Absalom assumed the prerogatives of kingship and established himself as the newly elected king.

Finally, the narrator relates that Absalom erected a ‭הבצמ‬ (‘pillar’) for himself in the Valley of the King as a way of memorializing himself and called it by his name, ‭םולשבא‬ ‭די‬ (‘Absalom's monument’, 2 Sam. 18.18). ¹⁹ There are three parallels in biblical literature to war leaders and kings who erected pillars after a military victory. Following his victory over the Philistines, Samuel erected a pillar and named it Ebenezer (1 Sam. 7.12). After his victory over the Amalekites, Saul erected in Carmel ‘a monument (‭די‬) for himself (1 Sam. 15.12). And David conducted a surprise attack on Hadadezer, King of Zobah, when the latter was on his way ‘to leave/erect his stele (‭ודי‬) on the River’ (2 Sam. 8.3; 1 Chron. 18.3). ²⁰ In ancient Near Eastern kingdoms, the erecting of commemorative monuments was a prerogative of the king (as discussed below). Seemingly, therefore, in the text of 2 Sam. 18.18, the narrator alludes to another case in which Absalom violated the privilege of the king, but softens the violation by inserting the note after Absalom's death and adding an explanatory remark according to which he transgressed as a self-memorializing act since he has no son to carry on his name.

A second literary description of the violations of royal privileges appears in the episode of Adonijah, son of Haggit (1 Kgs 1). This episode opens by relating that like Absalom, Adonijah made for himself a chariot and horses with fifty men running before him (v. 5). In this instance, the narrator added the following remark (v. 6a): ‘Yet his father never once caused him displeasure by saying: “Why have you done this?”’. By implication, the narrator alludes to the fact that David should have learned from Absalom's rebellion that turning a blind eye to the violation of his prerogatives might bring troubles, and yet did nothing to stop the pretender to the throne.

In the next episode, Adonijah behaved as if the throne were his and acted like an elected coregent. He organized a large-scale ceremonial feast, invited the king's sons and the military and priestly elite, and slaughtered sheep and cattle in a royal manner (vv. 7–9, 18–19, 24–25). The narrator does not explicitly state that Adonijah's feast comprised a violation of the royal prerogative. Yet he emphasizes that (a) the royal court interpreted the feast as a sign that Adonijah was elected as David's coregent (1 Kgs 1.13, 18, 24); (b) David was unaware of the royal-like feast; (c) after Solomon's anointment and nomination, all participants in the feast trembled and immediately dispersed to their homes; and (d) Adonijah held the horns of the altar to avoid being executed. Hence, by organizing the feast, Adonijah by far exceeded his rights as a royal prince and encroached on a prerogative of the king.

The last episode in the Adonijah narrative opens with his request from Bathsheba, the king's mother, that he take as wife Abishag the Shunammite, David's concubine (2 Kgs 2.13–16). I already noted that according to ancient Near Eastern and biblical norms, a new king inherited the wives and concubines of his predecessor. The request for Abishag was an impudent violation of the reigning king's privilege. Indeed, Solomon sarcastically answered his mother (v. 22), ‘And why do you ask for Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask the kingship for him; for he is my elder brother.’ According to the internal logic of the story, Solomon interpreted the request as a conspiracy of Adonijah and his collaborators, Abiathar and Joab, to depose him and attain the throne. He immediately ordered the execution of his rebellious brother (vv. 24–25) and Joab (vv. 28–34) and expelled Abiathar from Jerusalem.

In yet another case, Ishbaal (Ishboshet), the son and heir of Saul, complained to Abner, his army's commander, about the latter having slept with Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, Saul's concubine (2 Sam. 3.7). Abner indeed violated the rights of Ishbaal to inherit his father's concubines. But since he was the strongest man in the kingdom, he did not apologize or send back Rizpah to her lawful master. Rather, he audaciously dismissed Ishbaal's request and sent messengers to David with a suggestion to transfer to him the Kingdom of Israel.

In sum, the king possessed various prerogatives, such that different texts illuminate different aspects of these privileges. The so-called Succession Narrative illuminates royal prerogatives, such as the right to select the heir to the throne, the right for the harem of the former king, the king's primary position in the administration of the juridical system, the exclusive right to carve statues that commemorate his name, the public appearance in ceremonies with chariots driven by horses and accompanied by runners, and the privilege to organize a presumptive ceremonial feast and invite members of the elite. This list does not intend to exhaust all the royal prerogatives, but rather to illustrate their wide range. It aims to put the prerogative of hewing a tomb within the city walls, near the palace, in the wider context of the royal prerogatives.

The topic of royal prerogatives as reflected in ancient Near Eastern texts is too broad to be discussed here. In what follows, I discuss one example of a royal prerogative—the erection of inscribed commemorative monuments—its violation in a certain period, and the reaction of later kings to the violation of their prerogative.

4. Violations of a Royal Prerogative by Assyrian Magnates

In Mesopotamian ideology, military campaigns and construction enterprises were presented as the results of a ruler's initiative. Hence, the erection of commemorative monuments that carry the name of the ruler and proclaim his victories and/or construction projects comprised an exclusive royal prerogative. ²¹ This was the case in the Kingdom of Assyria for hundreds of years, with only few exceptions. ²² Things changed, however, with the emergence of officials with unprecedented powers in the last third of the ninth century and, in particular, in the first half of the eighth century BCE. The first prominent official who left his mark on inscriptions that carry the name of his lord was the field marshal (turtānu) Dayyan-Ashur in the late years of Shalmaneser III (858–824). ²³ Although Shalmaneser ostensibly wrote his two latest royal inscriptions (the Black Obelisk and the Calah statue), the prominent role of Dayyan-Ashur in the texts led scholars to suggest that the turtānu, and not the king, commissioned the two inscriptions. ²⁴ A recently published Assyrian inscribed statue from Tell ‘Ağāğa (ancient Shadikanni), in the Khabur Valley, was apparently erected by Dayyan-Ashur. ²⁵ The fragmented inscription was tentatively dated to the late years of Shalmaneser III (831–824) and possibly the early years of his heir, Shamshi-Adad V. ²⁶ If this is indeed the case, it is the first inscription published to date in which the turtānu erected a royal inscription that does not obscure the identity of its non-royal author.

The growth of magnates' power in Assyria began in the late years of Shalmaneser III and lasted until the ascendance of Tiglath-pileser III to the Assyrian throne (827–745). ²⁷ Two prominent royal officials are known from this period: Nergal-eresh, who controlled several Assyrian provinces, and Shamshi-ilu, the turtānu. ²⁸ These two highly influential officials and other Assyrian magnates of lesser rank began inscribing inscriptions to commemorate their deeds. ²⁹ Some inscriptions were written in the name of the reigning king, but a certain extent of credit sharing became common. Thus, the ascription of the achievements to both the king and his magnate or the insertion of a passage that relates the undertakings of the magnate discloses the identity of the official who erected the monument. This, for example, is the case in all the inscribed monuments that Nergal-eresh erected in the provinces under his control. ³⁰

Furthermore, some monuments were inscribed with only the names of the magnate and ignored the name of the reigning king. The largest corpus of Mesopotamian non-royal inscriptions from the period under consideration is that of the Suhu governors in the first half of the eighth century BCE. Suhu was located in the middle Euphrates, in proximity to the kingdom of Babylonia, and its governors took advantage of Assyria's weakness to write inscriptions and erect stelae to commemorate their own deeds. ³¹ Shamshi-ilu, the Assyrian turtānu, engraved his inscriptions on two colossal stone lions, which he erected at the gate of Til-Barsip, his centre of power. The inscriptions ignore the reigning king and relate the field marshal's successful campaign against Argishtu, King of Urartu. ³² Bel-Harran-belu-uṣur, the ‘palace herald’ (nāgir ekalli), erected his stele during the reign of Shalmaneser IV (782–773). His name appears in the inscription before that of the king, and he commemorates the founding of a new city, which he named in his own name. ³³

With the rise of Tiglath-pileser III in 745, the inscribing of commemorative monuments by the Assyrian officials came to an abrupt end. The new king limited the power of the strong magnates, replaced some officials, and re-established the power and control of the royal court in the districts of the newly expanding empire. The names and titles of Nergal-eresh and Shamshi-ilu were erased in some of their inscriptions, and in the case of the former, an entire passage that commemorates his achievements was deleted. It is tempting to connect the deletions of these magnates' names to their violation of the royal ideology and the usurpation of the royal prerogatives. But since the date and circumstances under which the erasures took place are unknown, no possibility exists to establish with certainty the background of the erasures. ³⁴

In his recent book on the reign of Adad-nirari III, Luis Robert Siddall criticized the commonly accepted description of the years 827-745 as a period of weakness of the central Assyrian government and the transfer of power from the royal court to the Assyrian magnates. Instead, he suggested that the magnates comprised a part of the imperial machinery and operated in an effort to control and consolidate the Assyrian hold in the newly conquered areas. According to his interpretation, the magnates operating in the mid-ninth through mid-eighth centuries functioned in a way that is no different from those who succeeded them in the late eighth and seventh centuries BCE. ³⁵

Discussion of the broad issue of the operation of the Assyrian magnates in the ninth to seventh centuries is far beyond the scope of this article. What matters is the fact that the magnates who operated in the period under discussion and erected monuments that commemorated their names and deeds transgressed the broadly accepted prerogative of the Assyrian kings. Hence, the disappearance of commemorative inscriptions written by magnates immediately after Tiglath-pileser's rise to power cannot be accidental; rather, it indicates the bounds that the newly established king and his successors marked for the power of their officials.

5. Summary

Transgression of the prerogatives of the kings of Judah is a serious matter, as is illustrated by the literary descriptions of Absalom's rebellion and Adonijah's rise to power. The message that the author(s) of the two episodes convey(s) is that ignoring the transgression sends a message of weakness and encourages further violations, which might even lead to a rebellion and the loss of reign. In a similar manner, Tiglath-pileser III must have sensed the danger of giving up the royal prerogative of commemorating the king's achievements and halted the inscribing of non-royal commemorative inscriptions. Isaiah's severe criticism of Shebna must be evaluated along these lines as well.

We know neither what Shebna's father's name was nor what Shebna's real power was in the court of Hezekiah. The fact that he ventured to hew a tomb in a royal manner near the royal burial place indicates that he felt himself strong enough to behave in a kingly manner. The reference to his glorious chariots (v. 18) might allude to another aspect of his public appearance, similar to the display appearances of Absalom and Adonijah. Scholars tend to forget that each king had several wives and many children, so that senior members of the royal administration and court attendants might have been drawn from within the royal family. Was Shebna a member of the royal family and for this reason his father's name was deliberately omitted? Is it possible that his exceptional figure served as model for the author(s) of the so-called Succession Narrative?

The unique nature of the prophecy within the vast corpus of biblical prophetic texts indicates that Shebna's public behaviour was exceptional—hence the severity of the prophetic judgment. The episode in its present form probably commemorated the authentic reaction of the prophet to the impudent violation of a royal prerogative and, by inference, to the excessive power and hubris of a major-domo who operated in the royal court of Jerusalem in the late eighth century BCE.