| This dissertation explores the portrayal of the rise, reign and demise of Abimelech in Judges 9 and asks about whose interests this portrayal may have served. The negative depiction of Abimelech's kingship in this chapter, coupled with Gideon's rejection of kingship in Judges 8:22-23, has led interpreters to view the passage as anti-monarchic. This perspective then clashes with the pro-monarchic stance of Judges 17-21. However, the thesis of this dissertation is that while the portrayal of Abimelech's kingship is negative, it may yet have served as a legitimation strategy for the monarchy. In support, Judges 9 is examined through three methodological lenses. A narrative analysis shows how the motifs of kingship, kinship and retribution are intermingled and integral to the plot structure of the chapter. A rhetorical analysis of the persuasive techniques used to dissuade readers from following the example of Abimelech points towards an argumentative context in which the implied author attempts to inculcate the mutual responsibility of both leader and people for elevating dangerous candidates to leadership through questionable alliances and warn of the potential consequences of doing so. A social scientific analysis shows how the description of Abimelech's reign in Judges 9 exhibits interests consistent with Max Weber's patrimonial type of authority. Such authority is legitimated through conformity to tradition. However, the portrayal of Abimelech's reign fails to conform to tradition, so that Abimelech's exercise of authority is seen as illegitimate. In addition, anthropological data on early and developing states shows that such states attempt to prevent fissioning (the tendency inherent within political systems to break up and form other similar units) by subverting local leaders, groups, and institutions, and so legitimate the centralization of power. When read in this light, Judges 9 supports monarchic interests by seeking to subvert localized rule and alliances in favour of a centralized polity. |
