An Exemplary Sinner and Penitent: A Study of Ahab’s Conversion Patterns in the Greek and Hebrew Bibles

Abstract

Hebrew and Greek versions of the Books of Kings and Chronicles present various instances of kings undergoing conversion with respect to their political and religious attitudes. In some cases, kings who were initially good become bad, while in others, bad kings repent. This paper explores the “conversion” patterns of king Ahab, focusing on their respective themes and vocabulary. The paper focuses on a comparison of the Hebrew and Greek versions, showing that the pattern of conversion changed in the late period: the Greek versions focus more on interior conversion.

1. Introduction

In the ANE, political crises, personal distress, and natural disasters were often seen as being the result of God’s anger. Appeasing angry gods was a first step out of an arduous situation. The Bible presents various models of how to reconcile with an angry God (McCarthy 1974; Becking 1995; Zenger 1996; Latvus 1998; Joo 2006; Kratz and Spieckermann 2008; Grant 2014; Reynolds 2020). Some ancient Near Eastern texts and biblical passages highlight rituals and observation of the Torah; other pericopes emphasize prayer and penitential gestures as the fundamental steps out of this arduous situation.

This paper focuses on a king’s repentance and conversion as one way of preventing personal and national catastrophe. The conversion of King Ahab is to be studied in detail as a model of this phenomenon. My analysis will draw on the Hebrew and Greek textual traditions to analyze Ahab’s conversion.

1.1. Conversion

Before proceeding with a detailed examination of Ahab’s conversion, it is essential to situate our study within a broader theoretical framework. The conversion of individuals, including rulers, has been the subject of numerous studies. The first Jewish writers to discuss this topic were Philo of Alexandria and Josephus Flavius (On virtues §§175–86; Ant. 20.17–96). The most significant contribution of early Jewish writing to this topic is represented by the novel Joseph and Aseneth. The topic has also been treated by many church fathers (Justin Martyr, Augustine, Cyril of Alessandria, etc.) and medieval writers (Rashi, Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Nathaneal Vincent, etc.). Nock’s monograph established the foundations for the critical study of conversion (Nock 1961). His definition of conversion presented below has become the reference point for further studies in this area and has been critically reviewed on a number of occasions (Bøgh 2015; Calhoun et al. 2021).

By conversion we mean the reorientation of the soul of an individual, his deliberate turning from indifference or from an earlier form of piety to another, a turning which implies a consciousness that a great change is involved, that the old was wrong and the new is right. It is seen at its fullest in the positive response of a man to the choice set before him by the prophetic religions.

(Nock 1961, p. 7)

The aforementioned studies demonstrate that the term “conversion” is inherently ambiguous and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In the Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception (vol. 5, p. 720), D. W. Kling advanced the proposition that the term may be applicable to different institutional or personal changes. First, the term “conversion” means the transition from a state of non-belief to a state of faith. Second, it describes the transition from a non-Christian religion to Christianity, and vice versa. Third, the term “conversion” may denote intra-conversion, that is to say, the transition from Catholic to Protestant faith, or vice versa. Finally, Kling argued that the term “conversion” denotes a transition from one’s minimal religious commitment to genuine involvement. It refers to a revitalized commitment to the Christian faith, specifically in instances where an individual, whether intentionally or unintentionally, engages in behavior that is in contrast to the Christian faith. Thus, a “sinner”, even though publicly being a believer, turns away from his or her previous way of living and turns to God. Such a process is often accompanied by contrition, repentance, penance, and a radical reorganization of one’s life. Applying the latter concept to a king, Ahab’s conversion is understood as a process of changing the king’s attitudes and actions.

This concept of conversion is not exclusive to the Bible. The ancient Near Eastern corpora contain several texts that describe a king’s conversion. Probably the most famous one is the prayer of the Babylonian king Nabonidus (4QPrNab). The prayer, written in Aramaic, was found in Qumran cave 4 and is dated to 75–50 BCE. The text reads:

(Concerning) words of p[ra]yer of Nabonidus, king of [Ba]bylon, [the Great] King, [when he was stricken] with a pernicious inflammation³ by the decree of G[o]d^, in [the municipality of] Teman.

I was stricken for seven years, and ever since [that time] I became comparable [with the beasts. Then I prayed before God], and (as for) my offense—he forgave it.

A diviner, who was himself a Jew fro[m among the exilic community of Judea], provided an interpretation, and wrote (instructions) to render honor and greatness to the name of G[od. And so did he write]: “You were stricken with a pernicious inflammation [by the decree of God in the municipality of Teman, but] you continued for seven years to pray [before] gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and stone (and) clay, because [you were of the opin]ion that t[hey were] (true) divinities.

(English translation from COS 1.89)

1.2. “Positive” and “Negative” Conversion

The Books of Kings and Chronicles describe various changes in the king’s attitudes and actions. In some cases, kings who were initially good become evil. King Solomon can be taken as an example of this “negative conversion”: he was considered a wise king, but he changed his attitude towards God and did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord:

when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David. For Solomon followed Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not completely follow the Lord, as his father David had done.

(1 Kgs 11:4–6; NRSV)

While the biblical authors blame foreign women and old age for Solomon’s turning away from the Lord, they present a partially different reason for Joash’s abandoning the Lord. Joash forsook the Lord because after the death of the priest Jehoiada, his officials led him astray (2 Chronicles 24).

In other cases, bad kings repented. The Bible elaborates on the patterns of how a king changes from a negative starting point to a positive state. The notoriously known “positive conversion” is that of King David (2 Sam 12:13–23; 24:10–17). The Books of Kings describe in detail Ahab’s conversion (1 Kings 21; see below). The Books of Chronicles present several kings as the ones who sinned and turned to the Lord, such as Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:6), Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:26), and Manasseh (2 Chr 33:23). As these episodes are not included in the Books of Kings, scholars have argued that the stories of kings in the Books of Chronicles have been significantly revised in the post-exilic period (Klein 2012, pp. 6–11). One of the most important features of the Chronicler’s revision of the Judean kings is their “positive conversion”. This suggests that the change of a bad king into a good king became an important literary topos in the Persian and Hellenistic period.

The present paper centers on this kind of “positive conversion.” It examines the conversion process of King Ahab, identifying the essential steps of conversion.

1.3. Greek and Hebrew Versions of Ahab’s Conversion

D. Scialabba has approached the theme of conversion from a linguistic perspective (Scialabba 2014, 2022). She and others have studied the vocabulary used to describe the nuances of conversion in the Septuagint and New Testament Greek (Thiessen 2013). This paper employs their methodological approach to examine the Greek and Hebrew vocabulary describing Ahab’s conversion.

Any study of the vocabulary related to Ahab’s conversion must address the differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts (1 Kings 21/3 Kingdoms 20). Some syntagms describing Ahab’s conversion appear in all manuscripts; others occur only in the Hebrew or Greek texts. While some of these changes can be explained as scribal errors, others can rightly be considered intentional modifications.1 A different understanding of conversion in Greek and Hebrew literature may be reflected in the latter.2 Therefore, this stream of studies, this paper will compare the description of Ahab’s conversion in the Masoretic text of the Codex Leningradensis (MT) and in the three most important Greek texts, the Codex Vaticanus (G^B), the Antiochian text3 (G^Ant.), and the Codex Alexandrinus (G^A).

2. One or Two Conversions

Chapter 1 Kings 21/3 Kingdoms 20 recounts how Ahab and his wife Jezebel orchestrate the execution of Naboth because Ahab coveted his vineyard. The king asks to buy the vineyard, and when Naboth refuses, Jezebel takes matters into her own hands, orchestrating a monstrous process in which Naboth is accused of crimes that deserve capital punishment. Naboth is sentenced by the elders and nobles, stoned to death, and Ahab takes possession of the vineyard. At this point, the prophet Elijah enters the scene and severely condemns the crime of Ahab and Jezebel. After hearing Elijah’s prophecy of doom, Ahab repents. Elijah is then sent a second time to announce that the Lord has forgiven Ahab because he humbled himself. However, the punishment is only delayed, not revoked (Knauf 2019, pp. 404–60).

Most scholars agree that the text underwent numerous redactional interventions, and verse 1 Kgs 21;27 might represent a later addition (Würthwein 1984, pp. 245–46). Even though the text is composed of multiple layers, the final composition follows a simple narrative plot (McKenzie 2019, pp. 183–87). From a narrative viewpoint, Elijah’s denunciation (1 Kgs 21:17–26) represents the climax of the story, and Ahab’s conversion (1 Kgs 21:27) marks the turning point that leads to the resolution (Ska 1990, pp. 21–30). The resolution reports God’s decision to postpone punishment (1 Kgs 21:28–29). It explains why Judah was destroyed not during Ahab’s reign but rather a few centuries later (DeVries 2003, pp. 254–55). The turning point of the story—Ahab’s conversion—is described vividly:

he tore his clothes and put sackcloth over his bare flesh; he fasted, lay in the sackcloth, and went about dejectedly

(1 Kgs 21:27; NRSV)

In the Greek translations, the narrative dynamic is partially different. In the MT Ahab tore his clothes and put on sackcloth only once, but in the Septuagint he did so twice (Montgomery 1951, p. 334; McKenzie 2019, p. 182): first after hearing about Naboth’s death (3 Kgdms 20:16), and then again after hearing Elijah’s ominous oracle (1 Kgs 21:27/3 Kgdms 20:27). Comparing v. 16 in the MT and in the Septuagint, we can notice that the MT presents it as a temporal clause:

Protasis: When Ahab heard that Naboth was dead,

Apodosis: Ahab got up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth, the Jezreelite, in order to take possession of it. (MT)

The plus in verse 16 in the Septuagint adds a new piece of information which significantly changes the narrative flow of the text. Thus, the Septuagint has two independent sentences:

Sentence I

Clause 1: And it happened when Achaab heard that Naboth, the Jezreelite, had died,

Clause 2: and he tore his clothes and put on sackcloth.

Sentence II:

Clause 1: And it happened after these things

Clause 2: and he got up and Achaab went down to the vineyard of Naboth, the Jezreelite, to take possession of it. (Author’s translation of the G^B)

The MT suggests that Ahab seized the vineyard right after Naboth had died, whereas the Septuagint suggests that Ahab tore his clothes and put on sackcloth before taking possession of the vineyard. The time period between these two events could range from a few days to a few years (cf. 2 Kgs 8:1; 10:1; 4 Kgs 6:24). According to the analysis of A. Schenker, verse 16 represents incomplete penance, and Ahab converted fully only in verse 27 (Schenker 2004, pp. 97–98). However, Dubovský (2025) has argued that the gesture described in 3 Kgdms 20:16 is actually a gesture of despair after hearing shocking news, as in 4 Kgdms 19:1–2.

Despite differing opinions as to how to interpret verse 16 in Greek and Hebrew, scholars agree that Ahab’s actions in verse 27 mark a real turning point in the story (Walsh and Cotter 1996, pp. 335–36). In the context of this paper, verse 27 describes the “positive conversion” of an evil king. Let us now explore this verse.

3. Analysis of the Versions (1 Kings 21:27/3 Kingdoms 20:27)

As in the case of v. 16, here too we can observe several differences between the Greek and Hebrew texts. The italicized words show the differences between the four major manuscripts (Dubovský 2024a, pp. 168–70).

MT	GB	GAnt.	GA
וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ אַחְאָב אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה	καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λόγου,	ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λόγου,	καὶ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λόγου,
	ὡς κατενύγη4 Aχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου	ὡς κατενύχθη Aχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου	ὗο κατενύγη Aχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου
	καὶ ἐπορεύετο κλαίων	καὶ ἐπορεύθη5 κλαίων	καὶ ἐπορεύετο κλαίων
וַיִּקְרַע בְּגָדָיו	καὶ διέρρηξεν τὸν χιτῶνα6 αὐτοῦ	καὶ διέρρηξε τὸν χιτῶνα αὐτοῦ	καὶ διέρρηξε τὸν χιτῶνα αὐτοῦ
וַיָּשֶׂם־שַׂק עַל־בְּשָׂרוֹ	καὶ ἐζώσατο σάκκον ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ	καὶ ἐζώσατο σάκκον ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ	καὶ ἐζώσατο σάκκον ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ
וַיָּצוֹם	καὶ ἐνήστευσεν	καὶ ἐνήστευσε	καὶ ἐνήστευσεν
וַיִּשְׁכַּב בַּשָּׂק	καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον	καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον	καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον
	ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ ἐπάταξεν Ναβουθαι τὸν Ισραηλείτην	ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ ἐπάταξεν Ἰεζάβελ Ναβουθαι τὸν Ιεζραηλείτην καὶ τοῦ υἱὸν αὐτοῦ	ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ ἐπάταξεν Ναβουθαι τὸν Ιεζραηλείτην7
וַיְהַלֵּךְ אַט	καὶ ἐπορεύθη		καὶ ἐπορεύθη κεκλιμένος8

Author’s translation

MT	GB	GAnt.	GA
27 When Ahab heard these words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his body and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went (about) dejectedly.	27 And on account of the word when Achaab was deeply moved before the Lord and he went (about) crying and tore his tunic and girded himself with sackcloth on his body and fasted and put on sackcloth in the day he smote Nabouthai, the Israeleiten, and went (about in this way).	27 But on account of the word when Achaab has been deeply moved before the Lord and he went (about) crying and tore his tunic and girded himself with sackcloth on his body and fasted and put on sackcloth in the day Iezabel smote Nabouthai, the Iezraeliten, and his son.	27 And on account of the word as Achaab was deeply moved before the Lord and he went (about) crying and tore his tunic and girded himself with sackcloth on his body and fasted and put on sackcloth in the day he smote Nabouthai, the Iezraeliten, and went (about) bowed down.

As can be seen in the tables, the Greek versions have several pluses. Scholars have presented contrary opinions about the origin of the pluses. Some consider the pluses to be a later addition in the Septuagint (Stade and Schwally 1904, p. 167), while others take the G^B,Ant. to be the original version (Schenker 2004, pp. 97–100). Recently, S. McKenzie suggested that the plus “is a gloss intended to explain that Ahab repented not just of the sins of apostasy detailed in vv. 25–26, but also of the murder of Naboth. G^L reflects further elaboration of the gloss in attributing the murder to Jezebel and including Naboth’s son as a victim in agreement with 2 Kgs 9:26.” (McKenzie 2019, p. 182) In light of the different opinions, I side with the conclusion of P. Hugo, who suggested that originally there were two different Hebrew Vorlagen, one accessible only through the Septuagint and the other through the MT (Hugo 2006, p. 346).9

Although opinions differ concerning the Old Greek, for our purposes, it is important to understand how the verse and its message were received in later traditions. Our investigation shows that the longer and shorter versions were both considered authoritative. First, all medieval Hebrew manuscripts follow the MT, taking it to be the authoritative text. This tradition is also followed by the Syriac Peshitta. Conversely, some translations combine the Greek and Hebrew versions; for example, the Ethiopic version reads Discidit vestimenta sua et iuit plorans propter eam vocem ab ante Domino. More significant for our purposes, however, are the Latin translations, which show that Latin writers used both versions and considered them authoritative.

First, some readings attest the shorter version as in the MT:

Scidit uestimenta sua et operuit cilicio carnem suam ieiunauitque in sacco et ambulabat demisso capite

(Itala; HI ep 77,4)

Quaod cum audisset Achab, scidit uestimenta sua et posuit saccum super carnem sua ieiunauitque et dormiuit in cilicio

(Itala; HI ep 122,3,5)

Iba suam manionem fixit Achab, quando sissa veste sua, induto cilicio, dormivit in sacco, et demisso ambulavit capite

(PS-AM man)

Second, some Latin versions contain the pluses as in the G^B,Ant.,A, the others, like the Ethiopic translation, freely change the original text:

Ibat plorans et conscidit uestimenta sua et praecinxit se cilicio

(AMst q 102,5)

Et ibat plorans et conscidit uestimenta sua et operuit se cilicio et erat indutus sacco ex illo die, quod interfecit Nabuthae Israhelitem

(AM Nab 70)

Quomodo audivit Ahab sermons hos, reveritus est a facie Domini, et ibat flens, et scidit vestimenta sua, et accinxit se sacco.

(Itala; PS-AM pae 14)

Scissis vestibus cilicio intutus est, et inclinato capite paenitentiam egit

(CAE s 65,3)

Penituit et cilicio circumdatus facinus suum flevit

(CHRY lap 6)

This brief overview of the different versions has shown that from the beginning, there have been various traditions for interpreting Ahab’s conversion. Some use the shorter version, as in the MT; some refer to the longer version, as in the Greek manuscripts; and others freely combine both versions, adding or omitting elements. All of these versions have one thing in common: Ahab is considered a model of conversion and penance.

4. The Meanings of the Different Textual Traditions

The various differences that were presented above, and in particular those between the Hebrew and Greek traditions, can be sorted into three types: those pertaining to introductory syntax, those pertaining to models of conversion, and those pertaining to responsibility for the death of Naboth. Since the third type of difference does not bear on our topic, we will explore only the first two (cf. Godding 1967, pp. 276–79; Merecz 2009, p. 180).

4.1. Introductory Syntax

The Greek manuscripts read, “And/but on account of the word,” while the MT reads, “When Ahab heard these words.” The MT uses this expression three times, in verses 15, 16, and 27, thus presenting three reactions to what has been heard: that of Jezebel, that of Ahab prior to his conversion, and that of Ahab after his conversion. The use of this phrase in 1–2 Kings shows that Ahab’s new way of hearing in v. 27 plays a crucial role in depicting a good king, which in our terms is a king after his conversion. The hearing of Jezebel and that of Ahab before his conversion reflects the way of hearing as described in the previous chapters of the Books of Kings. It was a neutral or even negative (1 Kgs 12:2, 20; 13:4; 15:21; 20:12). But after Elijah’s rebuke, Ahab hears the word of God differently. All subsequent occurrences of the phrase “When king XY heard these words” have a positive connotation, expressing the kings’ humility before God and their plea for help (2 Kgs 6:30; 19:1; 22:11). Therefore, verse 27 marks a turning point in the kings’ way of hearing. One might suggest that the MT depicts a new model of a king, one whose main characteristic is listening to the Word with humility. In fact, this reaction to God’s word represents a crucial point of Ahab’s conversion that is valued by God and that prompts God to delay the punishment: “Have you seen that Ahab humbled himself before me?” (1 Kgs 21:28–29).

In sum, the choice of words in the MT seems to convey a key theme of the Books of Kings, which is listening to the word of God as mediated through the prophets and then acting accordingly. Ahab, an exemplary sinner, becomes a model of this pattern. The transformation of the evil king into a good king is signified by his ability to hear, and particularly by his ability to hear the word of the Lord as conveyed by God’s prophets. This dynamic is characteristic of the MT, but it does not occur in the Septuagint or Chronicles.10

4.2. Steps of Conversion in the Hebrew Text

The MT portrays Ahab’s conversion as taking place in five steps:

1.	Tearing clothes	וַיִּקְרַע בְּגָדָיו
2.	Putting on sackcloth	וַיָּשֶׂם־שַׂק עַל־בְּשָׂרוֹ
3.	Fasting	וַיָּצוֹם
4.	Sleeping in sackcloth	וַיִּשְׁכַּב בַּשָּׂק
5.	Living as a penitent	וַיְהַלֵּךְ אַט

The first two gestures—tearing one’s clothes and wearing sackcloth—are common in the Bible. These gestures are typically used in the Bible to show that someone is admitting their sin and doing penance (see 2 Kgs 6:30; 22:11; 1 Macc 2:14; Jdt 14:16, 19).11 The particularity of the second gesture is emphasized by the phrase “and put sackcloth on his body,” literally “on his flesh.” While there are other instances in the Bible of people wearing sackcloth (Thiel 2000, pp. 583–85), only here and in 2 Kgs 6:30 is it said explicitly that the sackcloth was worn on “the flesh.” Often it was worn on the loins (Gen 37:34; 1 Kgs 20:31), so it is likely that the sackcloth was worn under Ahab’s clothing. This gesture emphasizes Ahab’s serious commitment to doing penance, albeit not in an obviously visible way.

The last three gestures—fasting, sleeping in sackcloth, and walking dejectedly—underscore the fact that Ahab’s penance was not merely momentary, but was rather a way of life that the king adopted for a certain period of time. Ahab’s fasting connects this episode to David’s sin and conversion (2 Samuel 12).12 Moreover, the king not only wore sackcloth but also slept in it. Finally, the king walked, or lived, dejectedly. The Hebrew phrase וַיְהַלֵּךְ אַט can be interpreted, based on parallel texts (2 Sam 18:5; Isa 8:6), as “he walked slowly/gently, subdued.” (Cogan 2001, p. 483). W. Thiel reviewed the interpretations of אַט that have been presented thus far and interpreted the expression as walking around in a depressed state of mind (Thiel 2000, pp. 585–86). In light of the following verse (v. 29), one might suggest that God interprets this gesture as an act of conversion, rather than as depression in the modern sense.

Similar gestures are observed throughout the ancient Near East. Esarhaddon, in his letter to the god Aššur, describes a similar penitential gesture on the part of the Shubrian king:

He heard my royal message, which burns my enemy like a flame, and he doubled over at the hips; his heart stopped and his knees trembled. He tore off his royal garment and clothed his body with sackcloth, the garment of a sinner. His appearance became miserable and he became like a slave and counted himself among his servants. With entreaty, prayer, expressions of humility, kneeling against the wall of his city, he was bitterly crying ‘woe,’ beseeching my lordship with open hands, (and) saying ‘Aḫulap!’ again and again to the heroic Aššur, my lord, and the praise of my heroism.

(RINAP 4 33 i 1–7)

In sum, the MT highlights penitential gestures as being fundamental steps in the conversion of a king. These gestures are not new but are characteristic both of the Biblical world and of the ancient Near Eastern religious mindset of the first millennium.

4.3. Steps of the Conversions in the Greek Texts

In the Greek texts, Ahab’s conversion is depicted differently. The Septuagint and Hellenistic Judaism developed a sophisticated vocabulary to describe conversion (Scialabba 2014, 2022), but this verse uses a slightly different vocabulary.

		GB	GAnt.	GA
1.	Inner movement	ὡς κατενύγη Aχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου	ὡς κατενύχθη Aχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου	ὗο κατενύγη Aχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου
2.	Weeping	καὶ ἐπορεύετο κλαίων	καὶ ἐπορεύθη κλαίων	καὶ ἐπορεύετο κλαίων
3.	Tearing clothes	καὶ διέρρηξεν τὸν χιτῶνα αὐτοῦ	καὶ διέρρηξε τὸν χιτῶνα αὐτοῦ	καὶ διέρρηξε τὸν χιτῶνα αὐτοῦ
4.	Putting on sackcloth	καὶ ἐζώσατο σάκκον ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ	καὶ ἐζώσατο σάκκον ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ	καὶ ἐζώσατο σάκκον ἐπὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ
5.	Fasting	καὶ ἐνήστευσεν	καὶ ἐνήστευσε	καὶ ἐνήστευσεν
6.	Sackcloth	καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον	καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον	καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον
7.	Living as a penitent	καὶ ἐπορεύθη		καὶ ἐπορεύθη κεκλιμένος

The Greek texts repeat the penitential gestures of the MT, but with one difference. According to the MT, Ahab slept in sackcloth. But instead of using the verb שׁכב, the Greek manuscripts use a different term for putting on sackcloth (καὶ περιεβάλετο σάκκον). Thus, the Greek manuscripts depict Ahab as wearing two layers of sackcloth: one directly on his body and the other on top. This suggests that, according to the Greek manuscripts, Ahab made at least part of his sackcloth visible.

The pluses in the Greek texts present Ahab’s conversion in a different manner. The first important plus is ὡς κατενύγη Aχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου “when Achaab was deeply moved before the Lord”. The verb κατανύσσομαι translates כנע in 1 Kgs 21:29. Thus, verse 1 Kgs 20:27 anticipates God’s response in verse 29. Ahab’s act of self-humiliation (כנע/κατανύσσομαι) links him with other repentant kings, such as Rehoboam (2 Chr 12:6), Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:26), Manasseh (2 Chr 33:23), and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:19/2 Chr 34:27). Thus, Ahab is one of many kings who realized their sin and repented.

The Hebrew term כנע means “to bend oneself” or “to submit oneself to someone” (HALOT, 484). This verb is normally translated by the Greek verb ταπεινόω (Scialabba 2014). However, in 1 Kgs 21:27, the Greek text translates it as ὡς κατενύγη Aχααβ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου. The verb κατανύσσομαι means “to be pierced or stabbed,” and it expresses figuratively the feeling of sharp pain connected with anxiety or remorse (BDAG, 523). Thus, the scribal choice to employ the verb κατανύσσομαι instead of ταπεινόω conveys Ahab’s profound inner anguish over his sinful life. This verb is key for expressing conversion in Hellenistic Judaism (cf. Aseneth 6:1). According to the Greek texts, the first expression of this interior attitude is tears. Thus, before assuming any penitential gestures, Ahab feels deep sorrow for his sins and cries.

The last significant change occurs exclusively in the G^A. We translate the Hebrew syntagma וַיְהַלֵּךְ אַט as “walking dejectedly” (see above). While the G^Ant. does not translate this syntagma at all, the G^B translates only the first part ἐπορεύετο “he walked (around)”. The G^A translates καὶ ἐπορεύετο κεκλιμένος as “and went bowed down.” The verb κλίνω is not a normal Greek translation of the Hebrew word אַט (Gen 33:14; 2 Sam 18:5; Isa 8:6). It means “to turn, recline, bow down” (BDAG, 549) and takes on a figurative meaning, expressing submitting to authority, as in “Incline your shoulder (κλίνατε τὸν ὦμον ὑμῶν) and work for the king of Babylon” (Baruch 2:21), and also following God’s commandments (cf. Ps 119:112). But the most significant intertextual link is with the Prayer of Manasseh (Pr Man 11–12):

And now I bend my heart’s knee (καὶ νῦν κλίνω γόνυ καρδίας),

begging for kindness from you.

I have sinned, O Lord; I have sinned,

and my lawless acts I know.

The translation of אַט as κεκλιμένος indicates that, according to the G^A, true conversion required a heart that was bowed down—a heart willing to submit to and follow God. The use of the same verb in the Prayer of Manasseh suggests that Ahab is portrayed as a repentant sinner, similar to Manasseh.

In summary, the three Greek texts depict Ahab’s conversion differently from the Hebrew texts do. They assert that penitential gestures must be motivated by interior sorrow that moves the penitent to tears. Only then can penitential gestures take place. Only then can penitential gestures take place. Furthermore, the G^A adds that penance should not lead to depression, but rather to “bending one’s heart before the Lord,” inclining it to follow the Lord’s commandments.

5. Conclusions

Why did the Israelite scribes write about Ahab’s conversion? As we have demonstrated, the conversion of a ruler was a significant subject in the Books of Chronicles. It has also been argued that the description of Ahab’s conversion and repentance in 1 Kgs 21:27 belongs to a later stratum of the chapter. Consequently, the portrayal of Ahab as a repentant sinner who was forgiven belongs to a later stratum of 1 Kings 21. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the post-exilic scribes wanted to convey an important message to the Jews living in and returning from exile: anyone, even one of the worst kings in Israelite history, could repent and be forgiven.

Since Ahab’s conversion impacted the well-being of the entire nation (Fritz 2003, p. 215), the story demonstrates that post-exilic scribes considered repentance, conversion, and changing one’s lifestyle to be powerful tools for reconciling with angry gods. Thus, a king’s conversion could become a starting point for the post-exilic Israelites to reconstruct their future, which would be a new beginning for them. However, not all conversions and penitential gestures were sufficient to obtain God’s forgiveness. Chapter 1 Kings 21 outlines a path to reach this goal. The study of the Greek and Hebrew texts reveals two distinct yet comparable sets of steps to be followed.

The Masoretic text emphasizes penitential gestures such as tearing one’s clothes, wearing sackcloth, and fasting. The penitential gestures that are required according to the MT are those that are well-known in other biblical texts. There are no new gestures that must be fulfilled. However, these gestures should become the king’s lifestyle for a certain period. The king should wear sackcloth under his outer garment, and he should wear it even while sleeping. Moreover, the king should walk dejectedly.

The Greek texts introduced three new elements in addition to those proposed by the MT. First, the king’s penance should be rooted in his inner sorrow. To describe this inner contrition, the Greek versions use the verb κατανύσσομαι, which means “to be pierced.” Second, this inner attitude should lead to the first external expression of the king’s penance: tears. In sum, while the MT begins with penitential gestures immediately, the Greek texts begin with the king’s contrition, which is later transformed into penitential gestures. Finally, while the MT suggests that the king should “walk dejectedly,” the G^A requires the king to walk bowed down (καὶ ἐπορεύθη κεκλιμένος). Thus, the G^A emphasizes the king’s humility as an opposition to his hubris (Dubovský 2024b).