FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2921872759> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2921872759 endingPage "327" @default.
• W2921872759 startingPage "325" @default.
• W2921872759 abstract "Reviewed by: Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East by Andrew Knapp David A. Bosworth andrew knapp, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East (WAW Supplements 4; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015). Pp. xx + 419. $59.95. Knapp provides a valuable study of royal apologetic in the ancient Near East. He reviews the scattered scholarship on the subject and then turns to scholars of rhetoric for some much-needed clarity and borrows a definition of apology as a public speech of self-defense (p. 18). Ancient Near Eastern apologies are propaganda and therefore public, and K. strives to discern the intended audiences of ancient texts to determine whether they meet [End Page 325] this criterion (e.g., building inscriptions buried in foundations could be public in the sense of existing in many clay copies circulating among scribes). Apologies are speech in the broad sense that includes writing. The self-defensive nature of apologetic may be divided into defenses against specific allegations (called justifications) and wider defenses of legitimacy (called legitimations). Most importantly, K. clarifies that apology is not a literary genre but rather what scholars of rhetoric call a mood or mode, analogous to satire as a generally useful rhetorical category that may find expression in a wide variety of genres or forms (e.g., novel, lyric poem). Once the groundwork on apology in general is completed, K. offers in chap. 2 a list of motifs that commonly appear in ancient Near Eastern apologies, such as divine election, popular acclamation, and military success. He then lists sixteen ancient Near Eastern texts that qualify as apologies, from which he selects seven for analysis in the subsequent chapters, specifically: Proclamation of Telipinu, Autobiography of Hattusili III, Traditions of David's Rise and Reign, Succession Narrative of Solomon, Tel Dan Inscription, Accession of Esarhaddon, and The Rise of Nabonidus. K. limits himself to these texts because they include both legitimations and justifications, whereas the others lack the specificity of justifications. K. then outlines his approach to each text in subsequent chapters: summary of the ruler's accession, description of the text, transliteration and translation of the text (except the biblical texts, which are source-critically analyzed and summarized), analysis of apologetic motifs, and the circumstances of each text. The discussion of the biblical texts receives the most attention due to the length of the texts and the wealth of scholarship concerning them. K. notes that the biblical texts differ from the other ancient Near Eastern apologies in that they are composite texts whose earliest copies date to centuries after the events they purport to describe, and that they are not royal inscriptions. Without the two chapters on the biblical narratives, the monograph would be more focused with a more coherent collection of related texts. Although the biblical materials get the most attention, K. does not treat the ancient Near Eastern texts as background to the biblical narratives. K. does not seek to reconstruct an alleged singular narrative that was an apology for David. Rather, his Tradition of David's Rise and Reign (TDRR) consists of 1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 24 minus those passages that seem late. For example, 2 Sam 11:2–12:25 presents an unusual interaction between the king and the prophet Nathan that K. thinks derives from a later prophetic source (it also happens to be hard to reconcile with an apologetic purpose). Knapp states, Methodologically, I privilege the apologetic mode because I can coherently explain (to my mind, anyway) all other aspects of the Samuel narrative in light of this, but I cannot account for the apology with other models (such as those that treat 1–2 Samuel as a late fiction (p. 195). Here and elsewhere, he notes the connection between the apologetic mode and historical reconstruction. If the text is apologetic, then it must be early and represent historical events (albeit in distorted fashion). He thinks that no such apology was needed centuries after the events, yet even in recent times many people have a vested interest in defending David from reasonable suspicions about his character that may be derived from the biblical text. Consider, for example, the many attempts to read Bathsheba as a dangerous seductress..." @default.
• W2921872759 created "2019-03-22" @default.
• W2921872759 creator A5081549167 @default.
• W2921872759 date "2017-01-01" @default.
• W2921872759 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2921872759 title "Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East by Andrew Knapp" @default.
• W2921872759 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cbq.2017.0052" @default.
• W2921872759 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2921872759 type Work @default.
• W2921872759 sameAs 2921872759 @default.
• W2921872759 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2921872759 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2921872759 hasAuthorship W2921872759A5081549167 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C164913051 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C192562157 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C2780792186 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C74916050 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C124952713 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C1370556 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C138885662 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C142362112 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C144024400 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C164913051 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C17744445 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C192562157 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C199539241 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C27206212 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C2778061430 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C2780792186 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C29595303 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C46295352 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C74916050 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C94625758 @default.
• W2921872759 hasConceptScore W2921872759C95457728 @default.
• W2921872759 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2921872759 hasLocation W29218727591 @default.
• W2921872759 hasOpenAccess W2921872759 @default.
• W2921872759 hasPrimaryLocation W29218727591 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W1972076818 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W2092366154 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W2586137910 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W2586834857 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W3042030216 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W4210751636 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W4244584156 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W4376645255 @default.
• W2921872759 hasRelatedWork W880977601 @default.
• W2921872759 hasVolume "79" @default.
• W2921872759 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2921872759 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2921872759 magId "2921872759" @default.
• W2921872759 workType "article" @default.