Gideon's House as the ‫אטד‬:

A Proposal for Reading Jotham's Fable

DAVID JANZEN
North Central College
Naperville, IL 60540

D i s c u s s i o n s of Jotham’s fable in Judg 9:8-15 and the moral that Jotham

applies to it in 9:16-20 inevitably point out the differences between the fable and
the context to which it is supposed to respond, as well as the differences between
the fable and Jotham’s moral. These differences, I argue here, are due to the fact
that scholars universally see Jotham as equating the ‫) אטד‬almost always translated
as “bramble” or “thombush”)1 in the fable with Abimelech. When we proceed
from this assumption, it appears odd that the trees of the fable approach the ‫ אטד‬to
reign as king, since, in the context of the preceding narrative, Abimelech proposes
to Shechem that he rule among them. The most obvious disjuncture between the
fable and the moral that Jotham applies to it is that, whereas the ‫ אטד‬of the fable
warns the trees that they will be destroyed if they are not approaching him in
/sincerity, the moral deals with Shechem’s sincerity in its dealings with Gideon
Jerubbaal and his house, not with Shechem’s sincerity in its dealings with
Abimelech.2As a result, the fable seems weakly connected both to its context and
to the moral that Jotham uses to apply it to the context. If the author drew it from

,For a list o f translations by modem scholars o f this word in the fable, see Silviu Tatu 1
Jotham’s Fable and the Crux Interpretum in Judges ix,” VT56 (2006) 105-24, here 111-13.1 will“
.discuss the translation below
So also Elie Assis, Self-Interest or Communal Interest: An Ideology o f Leadership in the 2
Gideon, Abimelech and Jephthah Narratives (Judg 6-12) (VTSup 106; Leiden: Brill, 2005 ( 151;
:Yairah Amit, The Book o f Judges: The Art o f Editing (trans. Jonathan Chipman; BIS 38; Leiden
Brill, 1999) 105, 110; Wolfgang Bluedom, Yahweh versus Baalism: A Theological Reading o f the
Gideon-Abimelech Narrative (JSOTSup 329; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001 ( 216 ;
Roger Ryan, Judges (Readings; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007 ( 69 .

465
 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 466 | 74,2012

-some other source, then he or she chose rather poorly.3 In the eyes of some schol
ars, Jotham can still make his point even without a close parallel between the fable
,and the moral,4 yet if the fable only weakly corresponds to both moral and context
why would the author use it at all?5
I propose here, however, that if we see the ‫ אטד‬/as a reference to Gideon
Jerubbaal and his house, then these difficulties are resolved. Israel (of which
Shechem is a part) approaches Gideon and his house to rule as the trees approach
the ‫אטד‬. And if Gideon and his house are the ‫ אטד‬of the fable who warns the trees
of the consequences of their lack of sincerity in approaching them, then we see a
clear correspondence with the moral that Jotham applies to the fable, a moral that
.is directed toward the sincerity of Shechem’s dealings with Gideon and his house
Abimelech, as one of Gideon’s sons, is still part of Gideon’s house and thus part
of the ‫אטד‬, but only a part. There are three potential problems that we need to
address in order to maintain this identification between Gideon’s house and the
‫ אטד‬of the fable, but before we examine them, let me note briefly that it is difficult
to classify 9:8-15 in regard to literary genre. The fact that there is no agreement as
-to the genre of this pericope6 suggests that we should not approach it with any pre
conceived notions of how ancient readers would expect to interpret it. We can
-depend only on the content of the fable and its moral and their relation to the nar
rative context in which we find them. I will continue to refer to 9:8-15 as a fable
in part because this is the way scholarship normally refers to it, and in part because

The differences among the fable, its context, and the moral Jotham applies to it seem so 3
great that some scholars argue that this is proof that the fable was drawn from a different source
,entirely and dropped into this narrative. See, e.g., Hans-Wilhelm Hertzberg, Die Bücher Josua
,Richter, Ruth (3rd ed.; ATD 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 204; Gerhard von Rad
-Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 42-43; Timo Veijola, Das Königtum in der Beurteil
ung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia B/198; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia( , 1977 (
Uwe Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch ;103
-BZAW 192; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990) 205; Barnabas Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable— A New Form(
Critical Analysis,” JTS 24 (1973) 355-66, esp. 355-60; George F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on Judges (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1895) 245, 251; C. F. Burney, The Book o f Judges
with Introduction and Notes (London: Rivingtons, 1918( 275 .
So, e.g., Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth (New American Commentary 6; Nashville: Broadman 4
Holman, 1999) 316-17; Trent C. Butler, Judges (WBC 8; Nashville: Thomas Nelson &, 2009 ( 240 ;
Moore, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 245 .
The claim that the fable and its moral are “complementary” (so Assis, Self-Interest 5, 151-52 (
does not really answer this question. The moral o f a story (or fable) should correspond fairly closely
.to the story, or else there is little point in telling the story in the first place
Judges 9:8-15 has been called a fable, an apologue, an allegory, and a parable; see Jan de 6
:Waard, “Jotham’s Fable: An Exercise in Clearing away the Unclear,” in Wissenschaft und Kirche
Festschriftß r Eduard Lohse (ed. Kurt Aland and Siegfried Meurer; Texte und Arbeiten zur Bibel 4 ;
Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag, 1989) 362-70, here 362 nn. 1-3 for a bibliography o f the various ways in
which these verses have been categorized ,
 GIDEON’S HOUSE AS THE ‫אטד‬ 467

“fable” has no agreed-upon meaning,7 but I do not wish to imply that my use of
the term in reference to 9:8-15 reflects any kind of classical pattern.8
Let us briefly summarize the context, fable, and moral in order to identify the
three problems raised by identifying Gideon’s whole house with the ‫אטד‬. In the
context in which we find 9:8-15, Gideon has just rescued Israel from Midianite
,oppression (7:1-8:21). Israel then asks Gideon to “rule among us, you, your son
,and your grandson,” but Gideon rejects this request to found a ruling house, saying
I will not rule among you, and my son will not rule among you; Yhwh will rule“
among you” (8:22-23). But after Gideon’s death, his son Abimelech, bom of a
concubine (8:31), approaches the town of Shechem, the home of his mother, and
suggests himself as a ruler in place of Gideon’s other seventy sons (9:1-2). “What
is better for you,” he asks, “the rule among you of seventy men, all the sons of
Jerubbaal, or the rule among you of one man?” Shechem now provides him with
money, which he uses to hire men to kill the remaining sons of Gideon, except for
Jotham, who escapes the massacre (9:3-5). After Shechem and Beth-millo make
Abimelech king (9:6), Jotham delivers his fable to Shechem, and it concerns the
,trees that go out to search for a king to anoint over them. In a repetitive format
,the first part of the fable recounts how the trees approach an olive tree, a fig tree
and a vine, but each of them rejects the office of king/queen9 because they are busy
producing their respective fruits. Following this repetitive first section, the fourth
character the trees approach is the ‫אטד‬, who says, in the second part of the fable,

-See Niklas Holzberg, The Ancient Fable: An Introduction (trans. Christine Jackson 7
,Holzberg; Studies in Ancient Folklore and Popular Culture; Bloomington: Indiana University Press
For a list and critique o f modem attempts to define the genre o f fable, see Francisco .19-20 )2002
Rodríguez Adrados, Historia de la fàbula greco-latina (2 vols.; Madrid: Editorial de la Universidad
Complutense, 1979 , 1987( 1:39-59 .
If we could clearly place 9:8-15 into one particular genre o f literature, we would expect it 8
to be an ancient Near Eastern genre rather than an ancient Greek genre. As a number o f scholars
-have pointed out, the story Jotham tells here resembles Mesopotamian contest or disputation liter
ature (see, e.g., Tatu, “Jotham’s Fable,” 108-10; Karin Schöpflin, “Jotham’s Speech and Fable as
Prophetic Commentary on Abimelech’s Story: The Genesis o f Judges 9,” SJOT 18 ]2004 [ 3-22 ,
-here 13 n. 52), but there are more differences between 9:8-15 and the disputation genre than simi
larities. The subject o f disputation literature is a debate between two objects or animals or plants as
to which one better serves humanity, and, although we see the first three florae point to the benefits
o f their produce (vv. 8-13), there is no actual disputation here, nor does the structure o f 9:8-15
remotely approach that o f the Mesopotamian debate poems. For a discussion o f the Mesopotamian
”,)genre, see H. L. J. Vanstiphout, “The Mesopotamian Debate Poems: A General Presentation (Part I
Acta Sumerologica 12 (1990) 271-318; and idem, “The Mesopotamian Debate Poems: A General
Presentation (Part II),” Acta Sumerologica 14 ) 1992( 339-67 .
One way to understand the structure o f the fable is to see it as a chiasm based on the gender 9
o f the nouns o f the trees who are considered for the office o f the monarchy. The olive tree )‫ (זית‬is
masculine, the fig tree )‫ (תאנה‬is feminine, the vine )‫ (גפן‬is feminine, and the ‫ אטד‬is masculine. See
Tatu, “Jotham’s Fable,” 110-11 n. 16; de Waard, “Jotham’s Fable,” 365 .
 468 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

“;if in sincerity you are anointing me king over you, come take refuge in my shade
but if not, let fire go forth from the ‫” אטד‬.and consume the cedars of Lebanon 10
The moral that Jotham now goes on to supply in 9:16-20 for this fable is that
Shechem has not dealt properly with the house of Jerubbaal, for they have colluded
-in the murder of his sons after he rescued Israel from Midian. “If in complete sin
cerity11 you dealt with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, rejoice in Abimelech
and let him rejoice in you,” his moral concludes, “but if not, let fire go forth from
Abimelech and consume the lords of Shechem and Beth-millo, and let fire go forth
”.from the lords of Shechem and Beth-millo and consume Abimelech
The first problem we encounter when we identify Gideon/Jerubbaal and his
house with the ‫ אטד‬of the fable is the correspondence between the ‫’ אטד‬s language
in the fable and Jotham’s in the moral. Just as the ‫ אטד‬says, “let fire go forth from
the ‫ אטד‬and consume the cedars of Lebanon,” in his moral for the fable, Jotham
says, “let fire go forth from Abimelech and consume the lords of Shechem and
Beth-millo.” This seems to point fairly clearly to a correspondence between
Abimelech and the ‫אטד‬. The second problem we see is that, while Gideon, like the
olive tree, the fig tree, and the vine, has refused a request to lead, Abimelech has
become king, the office that the trees offer to the ‫אטד‬. -The third problem this iden
tification between Gideon’s house and the ‫ אטד‬raises results from the wide accept‫־‬
ance in scholarship that the ‫ אטד‬is a plant unfit to act as king of the trees, hardly
the way we would expect Jotham to talk about his father—a man who saved
Shechem and all Israel from their enemies—and his house, and much more the
kind of characterization we would expect him to attach to the man responsible for
.fratricide

I. The Suitability of the ‫ אטד‬to Rule

To begin with this last problem, some scholars argue that 9:8-15 criticizes the
office of the monarchy in general, claiming that its point is that productive citizens
represented by the olive tree, the fig tree, and the vine) do not want to lead, and(

LXXBC read “from me” here, but this is the easier reading— it more clearly fits the direct 10
speech o f the ‫ —אטד‬.and so I read above with the MT and the majority o f the versions
In the phrase 11 ‫ ) באמת ובתמים‬part o f the moral that Jotham applies to the fable, I ,)19 ,9:16
,am reading the wäw as a wäw explicativum. That is, I see the literal translation here as “in sincerity
,that is to say, in completeness/perfection” (see GKC, 484 n. 1; Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990] 648-49). This
makes for a somewhat awkward rendering o f the translation, however, and I have chosen to read it
,as “in complete sincerity” in order to show that Jotham is still talking about the notion o f sincerity
-but in a sense in which he sees it as perfectly expressed. See also Robert G. Boling, Judges: Intro
duction, Translation, and Commentary (AB 6A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975) 166. To read
the wäw as a conjunction does not change the sense o f the phrase that much; in this case, Jotham is
asking if Shechem has treated Gideon’s house “in sincerity and in perfection/blamelessness.”
 GIDEON’S HOUSE AS THE ‫אטד‬ 469

that the office of the king attracts only the worthless.12 Identifying the ‫ אטד‬as a
bramble or thombush, normally the Lycium europaeum,13 a bush that offers only
”interior shade,14 they see its offer to the trees that they “take refuge in my shade
as absurd, a promise on which the useless ‫ אטד‬cannot deliver.15 The olive and fig
trees and the vine decline to “sway over” )‫ (נוע על‬the other trees (9:9, 11, 13), and
their use of ‫נוע‬, a verb that can suggest drunken staggering, can thus been seen as
-a way for these first three candidates to refer pejoratively to the notion of king
ship.16
It is, however, not clear that the ‫ אטד‬is merely a bush; both Michael Zohary
,and Silviu Tatu suggest that it should be identified with the Zizyphus spina-Christi
an evergreen tree known for its thorns that can reach ten meters in height.17 And
even if we could identify the ‫ אטד‬with the Lycium europaeum with certainty, we
could still see the “shade” that it offers the other trees as simply a metaphor for

& So Martin Buber, The Kingship o f God (trans. Richard Scheimann; New York: Harper 12
Row, 1967) 75; Wolfgang Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch
.BBB 18; Bonn: Hanstein, 1963) 285; Frank Crüsemann, Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum: d (
antikönigl. Texte d. Alten Testamentes u. d. K am pf um d. frühen israelit. Staat (WMANT 49 ;
Neukirchen‫־‬Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978) 19-32; Becker, Richterzeit und Königtum , 188-90 ;
David Jobling, The Sense o f B iblical N arrative: Structural Analyses in the H ebrew Bible II
-JSOTSup 39; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986) 71-72; Moshe Weinfeld, “Zion and Jerusalem as Reli(
gious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia,” in The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary
,and Historical Biblical Criticism (ed. Richard Elliott Friedman; HSS 26; Chico, CA: Scholars Press
here 86; Moore, Critical and Exegetical Commentary; 244-45; Burney, Book o f ,75-116 )1983
:Judges, 272; J. Alberto Soggin, Judges: A Commentary (trans. John Bowden; 2nd ed.; OTL; London
-SCM, 1981) 175-77. Some scholars argue that the real point o f criticism here in regard to the monar
chy does not deal with the issue o f the king as unproductive and worthless, but may be seen rather
in the presence o f fire in the fable and its application as a sign o f divine punishment and thus of
divine disapproval o f the office (so Schöpflin, “Jotham’s Speech,” 15-16), or in the trees’ desire to
have a monarchy regardless o f what disaster might result from that (so Amit, Book o f Judges, 108-9(.
So, e.g., John Gray, Joshua, Judges, Ruth (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 13, 1986 ( 304 ;
de Waard, “Jotham’s Fable,” 369; F. Nigel Hepper, “Plants o f the Bible,” in The New Interpreter s
Dictionary o f the Bible (ed. Katharine Doob Sakenfeld; 6 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon , 2009 ( 4:536 -
here 541; J. Ebach and U. Rüterswörden, “Pointen in der Jothamfabel,” BN ,46 31 ) 1986( 11-18,
esp. 16-18; Soggin, Judges, 172; Crüsemann, D er Widerstand, 21; Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable,” 356
n. 2. Irene Jacob and Walter Jacob (“Flora” in ABD, 2:803-17, here 805) suggest that the ‫ אטד‬in the
story is the Rubus species, but this is also a bush rather than a tree large enough for other trees to be
.shaded beneath
See Tatu, “Jotham’s Fable 14,” 117.
,E.g., Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable,” 357, 361; de Waard, “Jotham’s Fable,” 366; Soggin 15
-Judges, 175-76; Moore, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 248-49; Crüsemann, D er Wider
stand, 21; Bluedom, Yahweh versus Baalism , 220-21 .
f Its Humour,” AbrN 16 3
) here 94; Moore, Critical and Exegetical Commentary ,90-98 )1961-62 , 247 .
Michael Zohary, Plants o f the Bible: A Complete Handbook (London: Cambridge University 17
Press, 1982) 155-56; Tatu, “Jotham’s Fable,” 117-22 .
 470 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

the protection and benefits that it would provide them as a king.18 Ancient Near
-Eastern texts, including biblical ones, use “shade” in this way.19 In biblical litera
ture we find ‫ צל‬in reference to protection offered by God (e.g., Pss 91:1; 121:5;
-Hos 14:8[7]), and Lam 4:20 states that the people used to refer to the king by say
ing, “in his shade we will live among the nations,” a reference to the fact that the
people used to believe that the king would protect Judah from the nations that have
destroyed it. The Akkadian phrase ina siili sa sarri, “in the shade/shadow of the
king,” can be used to refer to a king’s aegis, protection, or defense, as well as to
the largesse that he can provide to those close to him (CAD 16:191-92). The king’s
sillu is said to be täbu, “good, comforting” (Code o f Hammurabi 40.46), danqu
gracious” (ABL 652.rev.3), and gabbu dêq, “exceedingly pleasant” (ABL“
652.20(.20
So if in fact the ‫ אטד‬-is the Akkadian eddetu—a word that the Chicago Assyr
ian Dictionary sees as cognate with ‫ — אטד‬or some similar bramble rather than a
,tall evergreen, the benefit it would offer the other trees would be its prickliness
the defining characteristic of the eddetu}1 which means that it can offer them a
defense from those who would attack them. This is precisely how Lam 4:20 refers
,to the king’s shade. It is immediately after Gideon defends Israel from its enemies
,in fact, that Israel approaches him to ask him to “rule among us, you, your son
and your grandson.” Leadership in defense is also one of the reasons Israel offers
in 1 Sam 8:20 to explain its request for a king, and this ability to defend would
explain why the ‫אטד‬, —even if it is only a bramble—and again, that is not clear
”.can legitimately tell the trees to “take refuge in my shade
Thus, to respond to the third problem my proposal raises, we cannot simply
assume that the fable presents the ‫ אטד‬as an unworthy candidate for the kingship
of the trees. Indeed, one way of reading the parable is to see the olive and fig trees
— and the vine as declining the offer because they are best suited for other jobs
,each one points to the benefits of its produce (9:9, 11, 13). In this interpretation
therefore, the ‫ —אטד‬and not they—is the right choice for king, because the ‫אטד‬
can provide protection, while the other three flora can provide only oil, fruit, and
wine.22 If the ‫ אטד‬is the Zizyphus spina-Christi, then, it can literally offer the other

Isabelle de Castelbajac (“Histoire de la rédaction de Juges ix: Une solution,” VT51 18 ]2001 [
here 178), seeing a parallel in 2 Sam 23:6-7, suggests that the ,166-85 ‫ אטד‬can be seen as a metaphor
.for arms, pointing to metonymy for a ruler whose job, in part, revolves around defense
-For the use o f the phrase “the shade/shadow o f the king” in Akkadian and Egyptian litera 19
ture, see A. Leo Oppenheim, “Assyriological Gleanings IV: The Shadow o f the King,” BASOR 107
) Crüsemann, D er Widerstand ;7-11 )1947, 21-22 .
Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections o f the British 20
Museum (ed. Robert Francis Harper; 14 vols.; Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1892-1914 (
7:702 .
.This is clear from all o f the passages that CAD, 4:23 presents under the heading o f eddetu 21
As a result, we need not argue that the fable criticizes the first three candidates for refusing 22
 GIDEON’S HOUSE AS THE ‫אטד‬ 471

trees shade; if it is the Lycium europaeum or some similar bush, then it can
,metaphorically offer them shade through the protection its thorns can provide
something of which the Zizyphus spina-Christi can also boast. The fact that the
trees’ first three choices do not want to “sway over” their compatriots does not
necessarily imply anything negative about the monarchy in general, for the verb
‫ נוע‬can simply refer to the natural movement of trees.23 It is quite possible that
what the olive and fig trees and the vine do not want is to do this “over” the other
trees, something not in accord with their natural jobs. The first part of the fable is
-clearly about the trees’ search for a king and about the right candidate for the king
ship, and there is really nothing about the fable that necessarily suggests a critique
of this office in itself.24 We can read the fable, in fact, as saying that the ‫ אטד‬is
that right candidate. In short, once we see that it is simply not patent that the fable
uses the ‫ אטד‬in some kind of pejorative sense—that in fact the opposite is quite
possible—then we can see why Jotham might equate the ‫ אטד‬with Gideon/Jerubbaal
and his house. Just as Israel approaches Gideon and his house with an offer to rule
after Gideon demonstrates his ability to offer Israel refuge in defense, the trees
approach the ‫אטד‬. Abimelech, on the other hand, approaches Shechem with his
.proposal to rule

II. Abimelech, Gideon’s House, and the ‫אטד‬

To turn now to the second problem I identified—Shechem and Beth-millo
make Abimelech king, the office the trees offer to the ‫—אטד‬we note that we do
not actually see the ‫ אטד‬in the fable accepting this offer. The ‫ אטד‬neither accepts
nor declines the trees’ request but, in the second part of the fable, only warns them
that if their offer is not sincere, then fire will go out, destroying the trees and,

to take the job, contra Eugene H. Maly, “The Jotham Fable— Anti-Monarchical?” CBQ 22 ) 1960(
here ,299-305 303 .
Burney {Book o f Judges, 273-74) argues that this verb indicates a position o f authority over 23
others, and he is followed by Boling {Judges, 173) and de Waard (“Jotham’s Fable,” 369 (. ‫ נוע‬is
,used to refer to the regular movement o f trees in Isa 7:2. The verb can be used in pejorative senses
such as trembling in fear (e.g., Exod 20:18; Isa 19:1) or staggering like a drunkard (e.g., Ps 107:27;
Isa 24:20). But unless a text specifically attaches a negative connotation to it, the verb itself does
not carry a pejorative sense but refers only to a swaying or waving motion (e.g., Job 28:4; Isa 6:4 ;
Amos 9:9), which appears to be why it can be used to refer to aimless wandering (e.g., Jer 14:10;
Amos 4:8; 8:12; Ps 59:16 ] 15[(.
So also Assis, Self-Interest, 144-45; Robert H. O ’Connell, The Rhetoric o f the Book o f 24
Judges (VTSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 163-64; Bluedom, Yahweh versus Baalism, 216; Gerald
Eddie Gerbrandt, Kingship according to the Deuteronomistic History (SBLDS 87; Atlanta: Scholars
,Press, 1986) 130-33; de Waard, “Jotham’s Fable,” 369; Maly, “Jotham Fable,” 303; Hanna Liss
Die Fabel des Yotam in Ri 9,8-15— Versuch einer strukturellen Deutung,” BN “ 89 ) 1997( 12-18 ;
de Castelbajac, “Histoire de la rédaction de Juges ix ,” 177-78 .
 472 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

assumedly, the ‫ אטד‬as well.25 Admittedly, the ‫ אטד‬does not clearly reject the offer
to rule as Gideon clearly rejects the offer of leadership extended to him and his
house, and one could argue that there is a much clearer parallel between Gideon
and the olive tree, the fig tree, and the vine that reject offers to lead.26 We could
say that the ‫’ אטד‬s response to the trees’ offer of leadership is ambivalent, for it
does not clearly provide a yes‫־‬or‫־‬no answer to the request.27 Its emphasis is instead
on the sincerity of the trees’ approach, which is not a surprise, since the sincerity
of the approach is precisely what Jotham stresses in his moral. But if the ‫’ אטד‬s
response to the trees’ offer is ambivalent, so is that of Gideon and his house (and
it is the overall response of Gideon’s house, not Gideon’s response alone, that we
need to take into account): Gideon rejects the request to lead, but Abimelech seems
to assume that the request to the house is still on offer, at least in regard to
Shechem, and wants to take the city up on it. The ‫ אטד‬-does not provide a yes
or-no answer, while Gideon and his house provide a no (Gideon) and a yes
.)Abimelech(
Moreover, to argue that the ‫ אטד‬of the fable must refer to Abimelech alone
rather than to the entirety of Gideon’s house because the trees offer the ‫ אטד‬the
-office of king, the office given to Abimelech in 9:6, is to miss an important differ
enee between the fable and its context. Even apart from the point that Abimelech
approaches Shechem while the trees approach the ‫אטד‬, neither Shechem nor
Abimelech uses the root ‫ מלך‬in the negotiations of 9:1-5; Abimelech merely picks
up on the root ‫) משל‬which Israel had used in its original request to Gideon in ,)9:2
Israel asked Gideon and his house to “rule among us”; Abimelech asks .8:22
-Shechem if they would not prefer the “rule among you” of one rather than all sev
enty sons of Gideon. Shechem does not ask Abimelech to be king, and Abimelech
does not ask Shechem to be a king, but merely to “rule.” That he reuses the original
language of Israel’s offer to Gideon and his house when he approaches Shechem
suggests that Abimelech sees his potential rulership as deriving from that original
offer. He can be a ruler, that is, because he is part of the house to whom rulership
was offered. When he approaches Shechem, he does not ask the people if they
want a ruler; he asks them if they would prefer to have one ruler rather than the
seventy other sons of the house who are potentially eligible for the post. He seems
to assume, in other words, that the original offer of rulership to Gideon’s house is

As Bumey {Book o f Judges, 276) notes, the fact that the 25 ‫ אטד‬would also perish in the fire
.is not explicitly stated but would be a natural result o f the fire
So, e.g., Amit, Book o f Judges, 107; Bluedom, Yahweh versus Baalism, 216; Moore, Critical 26
and Exegetical Commentary, 245; Bumey, Book o f Judges , 272 .
Some scholars argue that the 27 ‫ אטד‬implicitly rejects the offer because it sees it as absurd (so
Lindars, “Jotham’s Fable,” 356-57; Volkmar Fritz, “Abimelech und Sichern in Jdc. ix,” FT 32 ] 1982[
here 140; Jobling, Sense o f Biblical Narrative, 72). They arrive at this conclusion because ,129-44
they see the ‫’ אטד‬s offer to the trees to “take refuge in my shade” as itself absurd, but we can read
this offer as made honestly and without irony, as we have seen ,
 GIDEON’S HOUSE AS THE ‫אטד‬ 473

still on the table and that he is eligible to take it up. So the very fact that Shechem
and Beth-millo make Abimelech king does not necessarily suggest a close parallel
with the discussion between the trees and the ‫אטד‬, for the discussion between
Shechem and Abimelech, unlike the one between the trees and the ‫אטד‬, does not
involve kingship but is a kind of extension of the original offer of rulership to
Gideon’s house. This also points to the ‫ אטד‬as representing the entirety of Gideon’s
,house rather than Abimelech alone
So far, then, we have found that there is nothing about the term ‫ אטד‬itself that
;would prevent Jotham from using it when speaking of his father and his house
that Abimelech approaches Shechem while the trees of the fable approach the ‫אטד‬,
just as Israel approaches Gideon and his house; that the ‫’’ אטד‬s response to the trees
offer to rule is ambivalent, rather like the response of Gideon and his house; and
that the root ‫ מלך‬is not used in the negotiations between subjects and potential
leader in 9:1-5, despite the fact that the trees use it repeatedly in the fable. All these
details indicate that we should not be too quick to see the fable as associating
Abimelech alone with the ‫אטד‬. The very fact that Abimelech seems to pick up on
the language of Israel’s offer of rulership to Gideon and his house suggests that he
sees himself as the single member of the house who should rule. It is simply not
at all clear that we need to equate Abimelech rather than Gideon and his entire
house with the ‫אטד‬, .even though Shechem and Beth-millo make Abimelech king
The last objection against equating Gideon/Jerubbaal and his house with the ‫אטד‬
is the first one that I mentioned above: the ‫ אטד‬of the fable says, “let fire go forth
from the ‫ אטד‬and consume the cedars of Lebanon” (9:15), whereas, in his moral
for the fable, Jotham says, “let fire go forth from Abimelech and consume the lords
of Shechem and Beth-millo” (9:20). Yet, when we examine the fable and the way
in which Jotham applies it in his moral, we find that the moral itself connects the
‫’ אטד‬warning with Shechem’s treatment of Jerubbaal and his house rather than 8
its treatment of Abimelech. As we will see, this allows us to make sense of the
‫’ אטד‬.statement in 9:15 as pertaining to Jerubbaal’s house 8
The first part of the fable, in which the trees’ offer is repeatedly rejected by
the first three candidates, is about finding the right leader. As we have seen, there
is no clear and certain reason why we cannot see the ‫ אטד‬as a good choice for the
trees to approach. Jotham’s moral, however, ignores this first part of the fable and
focuses entirely on the second, which deals with the responsibility of the subjects
to the king whom they choose, since failure to do so in sincerity will result in their
-own destruction.28 Instead of repeating the language of the first three florae’s rejec
tion of the offer, the ‫ אטד‬warns those who approach it of their destruction should
they be insincerely making this offer. It is the ‫“) אמת‬sincerity”) of the ‫’ אטד‬warn 8-

28 For the fable’s point about the subjects’ responsibility to the monarch they choose, see also
Susan Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008) 116;
Tammi J. Schneider, Judges (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000) 140.
 474 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

ing that Jotham’s moral highlights. He states that Gideon has saved Israel (and
thus Shechem as well) from the Midianites (provided them with “refuge” in his
shade,” as the“ ‫ אטד‬puts it in the fable),29 and yet Shechem has participated in the
murder of the males of Gideon’s house (9:17-18). Just as the ‫ אטד‬warns the trees
that they must anoint him “in sincerity,” Jotham now asks Shechem, after pointing
out that “you rose up against my father’s house this day and killed his sons” )9:18(,
“if in complete sincerity you dealt with Jerubbaal and his house” (9:19). The
-answer Jotham would give to this question, clearly, is no. Had the offer been sin
cere, Gideon’s house would have been treated with respect, and Shechem would
.not have colluded in the murder of his sons
The entire point of Jotham’s moral is the application of the fable’s second
/ part in order to show that Shechem has been insincere in its treatment of Gideon
Jerubbaal’s house: Jotham twice alludes to the way Shechem has dealt insincerely
with Jerubbaal and his house” (9:16, 19) and also refers specifically to what“
Shechem has done “to my father’s house” (9:18). Given this point, and given that the
‫ אטד‬warns of the danger of insincerity in the trees’ offer, it makes the most sense
here to see Jotham as trying to draw a connection between the ‫ אטד‬and Jerubbaal
and his house. Despite the fact that his father saved Israel from Midian, says
-Jotham in his moral (9:17), Shechem’s role in the murder of his sons hardly sug
gests sincerity on their part when they, along with the rest of Israel, approached
Gideon and his house to rule. In the moral, that is, Jotham’s real contrast is not
between what Gideon did for Shechem and what Shechem did to Gideon, but
between what Gideon did for Shechem and what Shechem did to Gideon and to
,his house. And, after all, the original request to Gideon was that “you, your son
and your grandson” rule (8:22). The ‫ אטד‬corresponds not just to Gideon but also
to his house, and Abimelech, one of Gideon’s sons, is in some way part of this
house, even if he is a marginal part. Jotham may call him “the son of his slave
woman” in 9:18, but he is a “son” nonetheless.30 As a result, the fire that comes
out of Abimelech can be said to come out of Gideon’s house, especially since
Abimelech is all that is left of it. Abimelech certainly has no difficulty in presenting
himself to Shechem as eligible to assume the role of ruler originally offered to
Gideon/Jerubbaal and, as we have seen, he presents himself in 9:2 as the single
descendant of Gideon’s house who should rule. Further, just as this fire would

Specifically, he tells Shechem that Gideon “fought for you . . . and rescued you from the 29
hand o f Midian” (9:17), making the point that they benefited from Gideon’s leadership as much as
.the rest o f Israel did
It is not only Jotham who makes a point o f putting Abimelech on the margins o f Gideon’s 30
house; the narrative in 8:30-31 also suggests a distinction between Abimelech and Gideon’s other
seventy sons (so Schöpflin, “Jotham’s Speech,” 4). Nonetheless, simply because Abimelech is the
son o f an ‫אמה‬, as Jotham puts it, does not mean that he is disqualified from belonging to his father’s
house. As Schneider {Judges, 141) points out, the two ‫ אמות‬o f Jacob’s wives (see Gen 30:3 ; 31:33 (
bear him legitimate children,
 GIDEON’S HOUSE AS THE ‫אטד‬ 475

inevitably destroy both trees and ‫אטד‬, both Shechem (9:34-49) and Abimelech )9:50‫־‬
,the remnant of Gideon’s house, destroy each other. As the narrative reports ,)54
the curse of Jotham son of Jerubbaal came upon them” (9:57). The narrative, in“
fact, rather neatly ties both the fable and the moral to Abimelech’s destruction of
the tower of Shechem, for he kills all the people in it by burning it )9:48-49(.

III. Conclusion
To conclude, once we see Gideon and his house as the ‫אטד‬, Jotham’s fable
fits both its context and the way that Jotham tries to apply it to this context through
his moral. Just as the trees approach the ‫ אטד‬to be king, Israel approaches Gideon
and his house to rule. The ‫’ אטד‬response to this offer is ambivalent, and that of 8
-Gideon’s house to Israel’s offer may also be said to be ambivalent, since one mem
,ber rejects it and another pursues it. The first part of the fable itself seems to be
in part, about choosing the right candidate to rule, and the ‫ אטד‬,can offer refuge
”just as Gideon defeated Midian to save Israel—it makes sense to see the “shadow
that the ‫ אטד‬refers to as the defense that it can offer its subjects. It is, in fact, quite
possible that Jotham is describing the ‫ אטד‬as a good choice for the ruler of the
.trees
Jotham’s moral, however, concentrates on applying the second part of the
fable to the situation he is addressing. We can read his application of it as making
the point that, if the ‫ אטד‬is a good candidate to rule, what matters is the sincerity
with which his future subjects make the offer. Just as Gideon and his house were
approached to rule, Jotham’s moral says that if Shechem, as part of Israel, was not
sincere in this offer—and their treatment of Gideon’s sons shows that they were
not—then the city and Abimelech, the remnant of the house, will destroy each
other. Once we can see the ‫ אטד‬,in the fable as referring to Gideon and his house
then we can see why Jotham’s moral focuses on the ‫’ אטד‬words in the second part 8
of the fable. Since Shechem was clearly not sincere in at least their part of Israel’s
offer of power to Gideon’s house, they can expect to be destroyed by the ‫אטד‬, or
at least by what is left of it. Jotham’s moral states that fire will come out from
Abimelech, but Abimelech is still part of Gideon’s house. He may be a “son of his
slave woman” as Jotham says, but he is still a son who, in 9:2, acts as if he can
.take Shechem up on Israel’s original offer of rulership to Gideon and his house
Jotham’s words also make clear something that is only implicit in the fable, that
this fire will destroy the ‫ אטד‬as well—and Shechem and Abimelech do indeed
destroy each other. So there is nothing that prevents us from seeing the ‫ אטד‬in the
,fable as corresponding to Gideon/Jerubbaal and his house. Indeed, once we do so
the fable relates far more clearly to its context and to the moral that Jotham supplies
for it than when we see it as representing only Abimelech.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.