In King of Kings: God and the Foreign Emperor in the Hebrew Bible, Justin L. Pannkuk explores the ways in which Old Testament authors attempted to reconcile the experience of foreign domination with a belief in the sovereignty and goodness of YHWH. As Pannkuk writes, “If the unrivaled political sovereignty of the Gentile king was not to dislodge YHWH from his position of ultimate supremacy, this sovereignty somehow had to be assimilated into a Yahwistic theological framework. The discursive responses preserved in the biblical texts do just this” (5). Pannkuk argues that subservience to Gentile kings is what stimulated the development of monotheistic discourse in Judah (9). In making his case, he employs the post-colonial concept of hybridity in order to show “how the biblical presentation of YHWH was influenced by the imperial encounter through the process of response” (7–8).
The first chapter explores the depiction of Assyria within First Isaiah (i.e., Isa 1–39). According to Pannkuk, this section of Isaiah “relate[s] the most direct engagement with the new political realities and ideological challenges brought by Assyria in the late eight century” (16). Pannkuk identifies Isaiah 10:5–15 as the most relevant section within First Isaiah since it “establishes a set of relations between YHWH and the Assyrian king that provides the theological framework for making sense of Assyrian aggression” (18). After commenting on the provenance and redactional features of the passage (19–21), Pannkuk surmises that Isaiah 10:5–15 functioned to provide an alternative explanation for Assyria’s dominance—an explanation that acknowledged the Gentile king’s power, but that nevertheless perceived his agency to be subordinated to that of YHWH (37–38). Such an explanation evidences hybridity, since it adopts elements of Assyrian imperial ideology in its response to the problem of Assyria’s rule (39).
Next, Pannkuk transitions to analyzing Jeremianic materials regarding Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian empire. After describing Jeremiah’s text history, Pannkuk identifies three different Jeremianic models of the relationship between YHWH and the Babylonian king. The first model portrays Babylon and its king as YHWH’s agents of judgment (59–80). The second presents Nebuchadnezzar as YHWH’s chosen delegate to rule over the world (81–99). Finally, the oracle against Babylon (JerMT 50–51; JerLXX 27–28) describes Nebuchadnezzar as a wrongdoer who would be subjected to divine justice (99–103). According to Pannkuk, each model performed meaningful symbolic work for a people under a foreign regime; however, the models also reflected the influence of imperial ideology and could even be exploited by dominant foreign powers.
In chapter 3, Pannkuk seeks to unpack Second Isaiah’s reflections on Cyrus. After explaining the collapse of Babylon, the rise of Persia, and the latter’s policies towards the Judean exiles (108–23), Pannkuk rehearses the arguments for dating Second Isaiah (i.e., Isa 40–55) within the final years of the neo-Babylonian empire (124–26). He then argues that “one of the central tropes that recurs throughout the Cyrus Songs is YHWH’s claim to the effective agency behind Cyrus’ actions” (127). Finally, Pannkuk argues that Judean ideology and Persian ideology influenced each other, as evidenced by (1) the similarities between Isaiah 40–48 and the Cyrus Cylinder and (2) the decrees attributed to Cyrus in Ezra 1:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:23 (147–51).
Pannkuk then turns his attention to the witness of the book of Daniel, which he analyzes in two chapters. First, he attends to Daniel 1–6, which is understood to have had a complex redactional history. He contends that several of the stories in this collection were originally written as reflections on the reign of Nabonidus and were only later recast around the figure of Nebuchadnezzar (158). The author of these stories used the “court tales” genre in order to reflect theologically on the problem of foreign rule (164). Together, these stories adopt the theological model reflected in Jeremiah 27:5–6 as they present YHWH delegating rule to foreign kings (187). However, Pannkuk identifies the four-kingdoms schema in Daniel 2 as a later interpolation—one which functioned as a “counter genre” by introducing a novel eschatological scenario into the section (196).
Finally, Pannkuk attempts to explain how Daniel 7 contributes to the OT’s varied depiction of YHWH’s relationship to the Gentile king. According to him, Daniel 7 was the product of a complex redactional history, as a pre-Maccabean version of the passage was updated in 167 BCE to reflect upon the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (202–5). The original version adopted the four-kingdoms schema present in Daniel 2 and recast it within the apocalyptic genre (208). This original vision used mythological imagery in order to “[depict] the Gentile king(dom)s as delegates created to fulfill the plan of the Most High for history—ruled—and yet intrinsically dangerous by their very constitution—unruly” (216). At a subsequent time, the vision was supplemented by the Horn redaction (Dan 7:7bβ, 8, 11a, 20–22, 24–25), which likewise framed the rule of Antiochus as being within God’s plan for history (231).
Pannkuk has succeeded in writing a learned and insightful study that should be of interest to biblical scholars. The OT certainly does wrestle with the problem of Gentile imperialism, and Pannkuk provides many cogent observations regarding the witness of the biblical texts. He employs the concept of hybridity to good effect, as his suggestions regarding the interactions between the discourses of Judah and their Gentile rulers are stimulating and well-argued. Many readers will also benefit from the well-written overviews of ancient Near East history that begin each chapter.
Despite these strengths, not everyone will be completely satisfied with Pannkuk’s work. Those interested in synchronic analyses of the theology of the OT will have to look elsewhere, as Pannkuk limits his purview to the diachronic study of theological developments behind the final form of various OT texts. Furthermore, many of Pannkuk’s arguments are contingent upon critical reconstructions of the textual history of various OT books. As such, those who disagree with his reconstructions will inevitably find some of his proposals unconvincing. Finally, though Pannkuk includes many of the most important passages regarding YHWH’s relationship to Gentile rulers and kingdoms, his leaves out a number of other passages and texts that may have contributed to the study (Exod 4-15; Lev 26:17; Deut 28:25-26, 33, 47-57; Judg 2:11-23; Ps 137; Ezek 17; Neh 9; etc.). As a result, Pannkuk’s monograph may be too selective to be a true overview of the OT’s theological reflections on the problem of Gentile rule.
Richard M. Blaylock is an assistant professor of biblical studies at Western Seminary.
Richard Blaylock
Date Of Review:
April 3, 2023
