Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East

When an ancient Near Eastern king ascended the throne in an irregular
fashion—such as through usurpation or as a younger son selected over an elder
brother—he often encountered charges of illegitimacy from his opponents.
Kings combated such charges by commissioning apologies in which they
defended themselves and upheld their legitimate right to rule. In this study
Knapp provides a theoretical treatment of the concept of apologetic and
establishes a much-needed definition of the term that incorporates both genre
theory and historical scholarship. He examines the rhetoric of apologies in royal
inscriptions from Hatti, Aram, Assyria, and Babylonia, drawing attention to
recurring motifs, such as the king’s divine election, the unworthiness of the royal
predecessor, the king’s military prowess, and more. Drawing on these comparative
materials, Knapp detects apologetic elements in the biblical narratives about
David and Solomon, both of whom ascended the throne in atypical fashion and
undoubtedly had to address accusations of illegitimacy.