The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

80 Editors David J A Clines Philip R Davies

JSOT Press Sheffield

This page intentionally left blank

The Nathan Narratives

Gwilym H. Jones

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 80

Copyright © 1990 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The University of Sheffield 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield S10 3BP England Printed in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Ltd Worcester

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Jones, Gwilym H. (Gwilym Henry), 1930The NaJian narratives. 1. Bible. O.T. Historical criticism I. Title II. Series 221.67 ISSN 0309-0787 ISBN 1-85075-225-7

CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations

7 9

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

13

Chapter 2 NATHAN THE PROPHET

19

Chapter 3 SUCCESSION TO DAVID'S THRONE (1 KINGS 1)

31

Chapter 4 ORACLES CONCERNING THE TEMPLE AND THE DYNASTY (2 SAM. 7.1-17)

59

Chapter 5 CONDEMNATION OF DAVID'S AFFAIR WITH BATHSHEBA (2 SAM. 12.1-25)

93

Chapter 6 DAVID AND JEBUSITE JERUSALEM

119

Chapter 7 CONCLUSION

143

Notes Bibliography Index of Biblical References Index of Authors

149 179 187 193

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE My interest in the Nathan traditions was aroused when I was working through 1 Kings 1-2 for a commentary on 1 & 2 Kings in the New Century Bible series. Support from the University College of North Wales and from the British Academy enabled me to pursue my interest and to bring this study to conclusion. The Senate of the University at Bangor granted me a Study Leave to work on the project, and with the help of a Research Award in Humanities from the Academy I was able to spend time in the University Library, Cambridge and in the British Library, London. My colleague, the Revd B. A. Mastin, gave of his time to read an earlier draft of this book. I am grateful to him for his advice; his many suggestions saved me from infelicities of expression. Once again I must acknowledge my debt to Mrs Beti Llewellyn, who valiantly tackled my untidily handwritten manuscript and with skill and great patience prepared successive drafts of this work for the press. Finally, I thank the editors for accepting this book for publication in the Supplement Series of the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament and for their helpful comments and assistance. Gwilym H. Jones University College of North Wales Bangor April 1988

This page intentionally left blank

ABBREVIATIONS AASOR AB AJSL AnBib ARW ASTI

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven Anchor Bible, New York American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Chicago Analecta Biblica, Rome

Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, Berlin

Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute in Jerusalem, Leiden ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Gottingen AThD Acta Theologica Danica, Copenhagen BBB Bonner Biblische Beitrage, Bonn BHH Biblisch-historisches Handworterbuch, 3 volumes, Gottingen, 1962-66 BBS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1976 BHTh Beitrage zur Historischen Theologie, Tubingen BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Manchester BK Biblischer Kommentar, Neukirchen-Vluyn BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alien und Neuen Testament, Stuttgart BZ Biblische Zeitschrift, Paderborn BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary, Cambridge CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington CBOTS Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, Lund ChQR Church Quarterly Review, London EThL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Louvain FRLANT Forschung zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, Gottingen HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual, Cincinnati ICC The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh

10 JAOS JBL JBR JNES JPOS JQR JSOTS

The Nathan Narratives

Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven Journal of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia Journal of Bible and Religion, Boston Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, Jerusalem Jewish Quarterly Review, Philadelphia Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, Sheffield JThS Journal of Theological Studies, Oxford KAT Kommentar zum Alien Testament, Giitersloh KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alien Tesiament, Tubingen LXX The Greek Septuagint Version MS(S) manuscript(s) MT The Massoretic Text of the Old Testament NEB New English Bible NCB New Century Bible Commentary, London, Michigan NIV New International Version NRTh Nouvelle Revue Theologique, Louvain Oriens Antiquus, Rome Or Ant OSt Oudtestamentische Studien, Leiden OTL Old Testament Library, London PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London RB Revue Biblique, Paris RHPhR Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophic Religieuses, Paris RHR Revue de I'Histoire des Religions, Paris RSV Revised Standard Version SANT Studien zum Alien und Neuen Testameni, Munich SAT Die Schriften des Allen Tesiamenls, Gfillingen SBM Stuttgarier Biblische Monographien, Slullgart SBTh Studies in Biblical Theology, London SEA Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok, Lund StTh Studia Theologica, Scandinavian Journal of Theology, Oslo ThB Theologische Bucherei, Munich ThWNT Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Stuttgart ThS Theologische Studien, Zurich ThSl Theological Sludies, Baltimore ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift, Basel VT Vetus Testamentum, Leiden VTS Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Leiden

Abbreviations

11

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alien und Neuen Testament, Neukirchen ZAS Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde,

BerUn TAW ZDMG ZDPV ZThK

Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Wiesbaden Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins, Wiesbaden Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, Tubingen

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The sections of the Old Testament with which this study is concerned, the traditions about Nathan the Prophet, appear in the so-called 'Deuteronomistic History', that complex of historical traditions extending from the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 to the favourable treatment of Jehoiachin by the Babylonian king in 561 BC (2 Kgs 25.27-30). A period of about twelve hundred years is divided into four parts, and the three narratives under consideration in this study belong to the last two parts covering the period from Samuel to the last days of David (the books of Samuel) and the years from the rise of Solomon to the last days of Jehoiachin in the Babylonian Exile (the books of Kings). It is the dominant influence of Deuteronomy on the work as a whole that has given it the designation 'deuteronomistic' (or sometimes 'deuteronomic'). Links of language and thought between the Deuteronomistic History and the book of Deuteronomy are easily established. However, in noting the many similarities of language and phraseology, account has to be taken of M. Weinfeld's warning that not all the phrases and expressions found in Deuteronomy are significant; only those which express the essence of deuteronomic thought and theology deserve serious consideration.1 After presenting a detailed analysis of deuteronomic linkages, with comparisons of both phraseology and theological tenets, Weinfeld finds ample confirmation for the usage of the term 'deuteronomic' in connection with the historical narrative in Joshua-Kings.2 Although there is evidence of some development in the use of deuteronomic terminology, with sufficient grounds perhaps for reconstructing the historical development of the deuteronomic school between the composition of Deuteronomy in the 7th century BC and the deuteronomic prose sermons of Jeremiah in the second half of the 6th

14

The Nathan Narratives

century BC, the Deuteronomistic History presents the course of Israel's history according to a single line of interpretation.3 This has led to the claim that the concept of a single work cannot be precluded.4 Several major issues arising in connection with the Deuteronomistic History need not be listed and discussed in detail in this work.5 It will suffice to note briefly the main trends of current thinking about a few of the most basic of these issues. After a recent shift of scholarly opinion there seems to be support for designating Palestine, in preference to Babylon, as the place from which the Deuteronomistic History originated. Among the reasons given in support are: the accessibility of sources in Palestine, the importance of the BethelMizpah traditions in the history, the attention given to Canaanite rather than Babylonian cults, and the work's focus on the destruction of Judah and not on the exile in Babylon. Although some scholars find the evidence inconclusive and fail to come to a decision on the matter, increasing support is found for a Palestinian origin, and more specifically for the Bethel-Mizpah area.6 Another shift of emphasis can be seen in recent discussions of the identity of the deuteronomistic group responsible for the history. This group has in turn been described as country Levites or a section of the Jerusalem priesthood, and in support reference is made to the work's emphasis on the centralisation of the cult and purity in worship. Others have found in the prominence given to the fulfilment of prophecy theme and to prophetic personalities evidence that the deuteronomists were prophets. Another possibility is to identify the authors as the wise men of Jerusalem, the official scribes, who had access to material relating to the monarchy which was on record in court, public and temple archives. Various objections to these three possible identifications have recently led to the opinion that the group responsible for the Deuteronomistic History was not constituted exclusively of members from any one of these three groups, but that it originated from a comprehensive group to which members from the three traditions belonged.7 Another question which has received a variety of answers is that of the compilation of the Deuteronomistic History. The simplest answer of all is that a single historian was responsible for the entire history;8 it was careful planning on the part of this one author that gave the work its unified and self-contained character. Despite the many features that give the history an unmistakable impression of unity, there is also within it some variety which has not been totally

1. Introduction

15

suppressed. This would suggest that the author was dependent on a number of sources, to which he showed respect by allowing them to speak for themselves. Nevertheless, it has been claimed that linguistic characteristics, together with the unity of concept, method and theology, furnish an impressive accumulation of evidence to support the case for a single author. A criticism that has been levelled against this concept, and which is taken to give support to a different approach, is that it produces too simple a view of the Deuteronomistic History. Consequently there has been support over the years for the suggestion that the stages behind the present work are to be found in two redactions of the history, one soon after the Josianic reform in 621 BC and the other after 587 BC, or possibly after 561 BC. A number of different forms of the double redaction theory have been proposed, but they are agreed in their distinction between a pre-exiHc and an exilic redaction.9 Even the suggestion of a double redaction presented too simplistic a view of the history according to those who find in it a more prolonged and complex development. Again several attempts have been made to trace various stages in the gradual growth of the work. Despite the difficulties encountered by some of the earlier exponents of this approach, some support has been found for the more recent version which finds three successive layers of deuteronomistic tradition:10 the basic historical work (DtrH), a redaction introducing prophetical texts (DtrP) and a law-oriented final version (DtrN). Although agreement on the compilation of the Deuteronomistic History has for a long time eluded biblical scholars, it is agreed that the historians depended heavily on sources and selected from them the material that they considered relevant to their purpose. In addition to named sources, such as 'the Chronicles of the kings', which were records of reigns, it is obvious that un-named annals and lists, as well as narratives and legends, had been used. Material was taken from multifarious sources, many of them independent units rather than continuous strands. Of particular significance for this study is the so-called 'Succession Narrative' found in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2; this is not a collection of short stories, but a continuous narrative that was constructed as a unit.11 The title 'Succession Narrative' has been given to this complex because its various parts contribute to one unifying theme, which was Solomon's legitimate succession to his father's throne. Because the other candidates for the throne, Absalom, Amnon and Adonijah, were eliminated one by one, the only legitimate heir was Solomon. The

16

The Nathan Narratives

purpose of the whole complex is clearly indicated by its climax in 1 Kgs 2.46b, 'So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon'. Obviously, therefore, the attempts to separate 1 Kings 1-2 from the main body of the complex in 2 Samuel 9-20 are refuted. The claim that the first two chapters of 1 Kings belong to what follows rather than to what precedes, and the suggestion that they have superimposed the theme of succession on the Court History of David in 2 Samuel 9-20, are not as convincing as the interpretation that finds the theme of succession running through the whole complex to its climax in 1 Kgs 2.46. But the suggestion to read 2 Samuel 7 as part of the Succession Narrative is more acceptable, for the promise of an everlasting dynasty to David by Nathan forms an appropriate introduction to the narrative complex in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. The concern of the complex with the succession to David's throne is a natural development from the promise of a dynasty in 2 Samuel 7. For the purpose of this study it is also to be noted that the three Nathan episodes fall within the Succession Narrative, two of them significantly providing the introductory and concluding sections of the narrative. One of the most significant developments in recent study of the Succession Narrative is the recognition that it was the subject of some editing by the deuteronomists before it was incorporated in the Deuteronomistic History. For some time scholars had become attached to the view that it was a completely independent and unified corpus that was accepted and inserted in the deuteronomistic work without change; redaction was considered to have been minimal. There was, according to some,12 a deuteronomistic retouching of the narrative as far as 2 Samuel 12, but at that point it was completely abandoned. Others, who found some deuteronomistic interference in the latter chapters of the narrative, took the cautious view that it was restricted to very few and easily recognised accretions.13 Among the reasons given for such a cautious attitude are: (a) that it is by now impossible to reconstruct the original narrative and to see the real amount of reworking that has been incorporated; (b) after noting the very few instances of obvious interpolation, the narrative is remarkably uniform in style in its treatment of characters and in its point of view; (c) that it is a procedural misapprehension to assume that all narratives must be logically consistent and then to resort to the hypothesis of redactional activity in order to maintain this view. Recent studies acknowledge that the latter parts of the narrative were more heavily worked over by the deuteronomists than was originally

1. Introduction

17

anticipated, and attempts have been made to find traces of successive stages of editing. The various proposals that have been made suggest a very complicated redactional process. Another subject for investigation is the history of the Succession Narrative before it was taken over by the deuteronomists and incorporated in the Deuteronomistic History. As already noted, it has been suggested that the present emphasis of the narrative on Solomon as the legitimate successor to the throne of David (which is its Tendenz) did not belong to it in its earlier and original form, but has been imposed upon it during its long and complex process of growth. One suggestion14 is that the narrative was originally antiSolomonic, and possibly anti-Davidic; when material displaying a favourable attitude towards Solomon was included in the narrative its emphasis changed, and it became a pro-Solomonic work. Another suggestion is that the narrative was originally neutral and uncommitted in its stance;15 it sought to give an objective report of events, and could be interpreted as anti-Solomonic by those who wished to incriminate him or as pro-Solomonic by those who wished to glorify him. It was the latter interpretation that was chosen for the narrative in its present context, and steps were taken to modify it in order to emphasise distinctly its Tendenz. Such observations about the Succession Narrative inevitably lead to a more detailed discussion of its growth and development in its pre-deuteronomistic stages. Although it may be difficult to reconstruct the process whereby it became a continuous and unified narrative, it has to be asked if there is evidence of shorter units of tradition that have now been incorporated in the whole, and if so, whether it is possible to find what changes of emphases those units received when they became part of the Succession Narrative. The passages selected for attention in this study are those which give prominence to Nathan the prophet. The aim is to reconstruct the original form of these traditions and to trace the modifications that were made to them before they reached the Succession Narrative and were finally accepted into the Deuteronomistic History. Justification for this approach, if such is needed, can be found in those definitions of the character of the Succession Narrative which deny for it the classification of historical writing and refer to its interest in the personalia involved rather than in the political significance of the events in which they took part.16 Nathan is an obvious instance of this interest in personalia. Moreover, he has been given prominence both at the beginning and at the end of the

18

The Nathan Narratives

Narrative, and more specifically in passages which underline its main theme, the succession to the throne of David. By concentrating on the Nathan traditions it may be possible to get some insight into the handling of an issue that was of significance for Israel's development as it moved towards a dynastic monarchy.

Chapter 2 NATHAN THE PROPHET Although this study is concerned with the traditions about Nathan and will concentrate mainly on their growth and on their significance for our understanding of the period in which the Israelite dynastic monarchy was founded, some attention must be given to Nathan himself. After a brief survey of the content of the Nathan traditions and an attempt to analyse the portrayal of Nathan presented in the key biblical passages, an account will be given of the main lines along which the prophet's work and contribution have been interpreted. Among the issues that have been under discussion in recent study of Nathan are the definition of his office and function, and the complex question of his political, social and religious affiliations among the various groups in Jerusalem during the Davidic monarchy. Although it may now be impossible to provide an interpretation of the enigmatic Nathan that will prove entirely satisfactory, a brief review of Nathan studies will clarify the issues to which this study, in attempting to understand the growth of the tradition, will have to address itself. Nathan, who is mentioned only in connection with three incidents in which he played a major role (2 Sam. 7; 12; 1 Kgs 1), and three other times in the books of Chronicles (1 Chron. 29.29; 2 Chron. 9.29; 29.25), is nowhere given a patronymic, but is simply described as 'the Prophet' (hannabir).1 No hint is given of his place of origin nor of his family background. Some significance has been attached to the omission of these details and it has been interpreted as an indication that there is a problem about the person of this prophet.2 The peculiarity of the omission becomes more apparent on observing firstly, that Nathan is mentioned in the same context as such persons as Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada and Joab, the son of Zeruiah (1 Kgs

20

The Nathan Narratives

1.7-8), where the patronymic is in each case carefully recorded, and secondly, that in the case of other well-known prophets, such as Elijah (1 Kgs 17.1) and Isaiah (Isa. 1.1), details are provided of either the prophet's father or his place of origin. Whether it is correct to attribute this omission to the fact that Nathan, and likewise Zadok the priest, who is also without a genealogy,3 belonged to the preIsraelite, Jebusite cult of Jerusalem remains to be examined.4 For the present, it can be claimed that the absence of a genealogy draws attention to one of the difficulties that arise in attempting to define Nathan's position and to interpret his function. Despite the consistency with which the designation 'the Prophet' is used, and the impression that it is a simple and straightforward description of function, the appropriateness of the term to describe all Nathan's activities has been questioned, and there are a number of different views about the particular function that he exercised as a prophet. Nathan was consulted by King David (2 Sam. 7.1-3), and even when not consulted he had access to the king (2 Sam. 12.1-15); he also appears as a person of standing in the court and collaborates with other leading and prominent court officials (1 Kgs 1.8). His close association with Zadok, coupled with the absence of a genealogy for both, has been taken as a suggestion that they were leading personalities at the court of the city-king of Jerusalem in preIsraelite times and were taken over with the Jerusalem court by King David.5 The position of Nathan beside Zadok the priest has also been taken as a reason to exclude him from the ecstatic groups of prophets that appear elsewhere in the books of Samuel; his function was different from that of such schools or guilds of prophets.6 Another prophet who was in many ways similar to Nathan was Gad, who also advised David, especially during the king's early period. Admittedly a different background has been proposed for the two, mainly based on the fact that Gad was a 'seer' and Nathan a 'prophet',7 but proximity to the king and his consultation with them are common elements. Both have therefore been described as 'court-prophets'8 and their function more closely defined as that of advising the king.9 The exact position of such prophets and the real scope of their work have been variously described. Lindblom uses the phrase 'a public functionary at the royal court' of Gad and Nathan, and finds that playing a part in cultic matters and giving the king moral guidance fell within the scope of their office.10 Further attempts have been made to define more precisely the office and function of Nathan

2. Nathan the Prophet

21

as a courtier. It has been observed that some of his activities, more specifically those connected with the succession to David's throne that are found in 1 Kings 1, hardly call for the word 'prophet' to describe the person involved; it has even been suggested that the apposition 'the prophet' was in this instance a misguided addition. Nathan is portrayed as a person involved in a political intrigue, and there is no hint of any divine guidance being given to him through a divine word, which is so essential for a person deserving the title of prophet.11 Consequently Nathan has been described as a typical political schemer who depended entirely on human means to achieve his purpose.12 His activity on this occasion provides some basis for the description of him 'more as a privy councillor than as a prophet' and for the definition of him as 'a minister with special responsibilities in the immediate entourage of the king' or simply as 'counsellor'.13 But Nathan's other concerns, particularly with cultic matters and moral issues, and the emphasis on the proclamation of a divine oracle when he interfered with the king's affairs on other occasions, make it impossible for his status to be defined simply and exclusively in political or civil terms. Nevertheless, it is clear that he was attached to the court and enjoyed power as one of the court's officials. The two aspects of his work can be contained in the definition of him as a 'court-prophet', and the parallel with other court prophets, particularly those of Mari,14 is as instructive in the case of Nathan as it is with Gad. Apart from the similarity between the function of the Mari and Old Testament prophets, in that they were messengers announcing what had been commanded to them by their gods, and the fact that parallels can be observed in their method of delivery and in their forms of speech,15 the connection between the Mari prophets and the court gives a clearer indication of Nathan's status and function. In Mari too the prophets addressed the king, spoke words that were not always favourable to the king but criticised his behaviour, and were taken seriously by the king and his court. The court-prophets of Mari were dependent on the king, and had the task of confirming and preserving the monarchy; such a task, however, sometimes demanded an intervention in the king's affairs to censure him. This corresponds exactly to the status of Nathan, who, on the one hand was a courtprophet in the king's service and was concerned with such matters as succession to the throne, and on the other hand opposed the king and brought serious accusations against him.16 Further parallels with prophets other than those of Mari have been instanced, and it can be claimed that Nathan, the court-prophet, who showed concern for the

22

The Nathan Narratives

dynasty and was consulted by the king, belonged to a class of prophets that was widely known and recognised in the ancient Near East.17 A more complex issue is the correct placing of Nathan within the social and religious trends or parties in the period of the early monarchy in Israel. Some support has been found for explaining Nathan's contribution as that of a true representative of an indigenous Israelite tradition. In common with other early prophets his role has been envisaged as championing the cause of true Yahwism. Bright, for example, defines the prophets as 'representatives of the charismatic tradition of the tribal league' whose right it was 'to criticize king and state in the light of Yahweh's covenant and law';18 it is only in that context, it is claimed, that Nathan's rebuke of David in 2 Sam. 12.1-15 can be understood. Similarly Eichrodt takes Nathan to be an exponent of nabism and finds that, like others of its exponents, he had to intervene in the course of events, 'championing the righteous will of their God'.19 It has been found possible to interpret Nathan's objection to the building of a temple by David (2 Sam. 7) as another aspect of Yahwism. David was apparently intent upon building a temple in the Jebusite area of the city, and the site chosen is presumed to have been previously a Jebusite cultic place. Moreover, Zadok the priest, it has been claimed, had served this preIsraelite cult of Jerusalem.20 Such a development was not accepted without some disquiet and dissent, and obviously a syncretistic merger between Israelite tradition and Jebusite practice could not be introduced without tension in the community and a division of allegiance. Nathan thus opposed the plan to build a temple on the Jebusite site, and his action has been hailed as that of a true Yahwist, for there is no reason to question the implication that he was a prophet of Yahweh and a genuine Israelite.21 Although this interpretation seeks to place Nathan firmly within the tradition of Israelite prophecy, and provides a plausible explanation of his opposition to David's proposed temple, it fails to recognise that in 1 Kings 1 Nathan and Zadok belong to the same camp and that another member of this group, Bathsheba, was also possibly a non-Israelite.22 No attempt is made to reconcile Nathan's words against building a temple, and by implication his opposition to the syncretistic movement represented by Zadok, with his later co-operation with Zadok in what appears to have been a non-Israelite camp. Whilst agreeing that Nathan was the representative of true Israelite tradition, other attempts have been made to view his stance

2. Nathan the Prophet

23

from a different angle within the spectrum of that indigenous tradition. Instead of explaining his objection to the temple as a refusal of true Yahwism to compromise itself on taking over a Jebusite city with its traditions and practices, the clash between Nathan and David has been attributed to an inner Israelite tension between an ancient tent tradition and the concept of a temple to function as Yahweh's permanent abode. G. von Rad, for instance, after establishing that 'the notions of "meeting" and of "being enthroned" are mutually exclusive', claims that Nathan denied divine approval for David's plan to build a temple because he stood for 'the tradition of the tent against a parallel tradition of the ark'.23 This interpretation, however, does not give a satisfactory explanation of David's statement that 'the ark of God dwells in a tent' (2 Sam. 7.2), for it rejects the implication that there has been a fusion of the ideas associated with the tent and the ark. The account in 2 Samuel 7 lends more support to the suggestion that it was a confrontation between two views about housing the ark, one favouring a tent and the other proposing a permanent building.24 H.-J. Kraus finds a nomadic atmosphere behind the tradition of a tent sanctuary; this stands in contrast to the concept of building a temple, which betrays the influence of the cultic traditions of Canaan. The former persisted in the early period of the occupation of Canaan, when Israel's festivals were celebrated in the wilderness around the tent of meeting, with the worshippers temporarily forming a camp around it. With the settlement in the land the semi-nomadic tent sanctuary could not be retained for long, and the central sanctuaries of Shechem, Bethel, Gilgal and Shiloh acquired importance. Finally David, after capturing Jerusalem, sought to make it a central shrine for the whole of the tribal confederacy and proposed to house the ark in a temple, which was a Canaanite institution. Nathan thus supported the nomadic ideal of a tent cult, and opposed David's move to erect a permanent building, according to the custom in Canaan and among its neighbours.25 His stance has therefore been interpreted as an attempt to avoid 'departure from the old simplicity'; because of his adherence to a nomadic ideal, Nathan's objection to David's plan provides an early example of prophetic protest against the dangers of settled life and support for the nomadic tradition.26 Others, claiming that Israel never resorted to nomadism as a norm of orthodoxy,27 attribute Nathan's opposition to his reverence for the old tribal confederacy; thus it was not aimed at the concept of a permanent abode, but rather at building what was Canaanite in

24

The Nathan Narratives

concept and ideology.28 It was more of a clash between amphictyonic and Canaanite ideals than between nomadic and permanent concepts of God's abode. Finding in Nathan's motive a combination of the religious and the political, R.E. Clements claims that his oracle champions 'the tent of the old amphictyony' in contrast to 'the proposed temple of the Davidic state';29 in that case there would be here a combination of the religious clash between tent and temple and of the politico-social clash between amphictyony and state. There would be no difficulty in establishing a link between Nathan's rebuke of David in 2 Samuel 12 and his opposition to the temple in 2 Samuel 7, for both present a protest against the violation of true Yahwism. But, whichever terms are chosen to define the clash—the nomadic against the sedentary, the tent against the temple, the amphictyonic against the Canaanite30—no attempt is made to accommodate Nathan's part in the succession struggle in 1 Kings 1 within this interpretation of his prophetic activity. Others have sought ways of interpreting Nathan's opposition to a temple, without specifically designating him as an anti-Jebusite Yahweh prophet or as a champion of the ancient Israelite tent tradition. The opposition has been attributed to David's own misconception of such a temple and its function. A correct understanding of 2 Sam. 7.4-7, it is claimed, must take into account the important distinction between ydsab, 'to dwell permanently or abide', and sdkan, 'to stay temporarily'.31 Of course buildings had been constructed before this to house the ark, the most obvious example being the Shiloh temple; but these were regarded as places for a temporary stay and not for permanent dwelling. Because David had made the mistake of conceiving of a temple that would provide a more lasting abode for Yahweh, his proposal was rejected. The clash is not simply one between tent and temple concepts, but between the theological concepts of 'staying' and 'dwelling'; it was not a temple that was rejected, but the idea of God 'dwelling' in a temple.32 Such an interpretation has, however, been found unacceptable, firstly, because it is the contrast between a house and a tent that is distinctly brought out by the oracle, and secondly, because the distinction between yasab and sakan does not arise before the appearance of the Deuteronomic literature.33 Another interpretation finds in Nathan a representative of the southern Judahite tradition, which possessed a tent to serve the same purpose in Judah as the ark did for the northern, Israelite tribes. In bringing the ark to Jerusalem David was seeking a compromise between north and south, but, when he

2. Nathan the Prophet

25

attempted to take matters one step further, Nathan spoke up for the tent-tradition of the south.34 These interpretations of Nathan's prophetic activity concentrate on one incident only, namely his oppposition to David's temple, and do not attempt to relate his stance on that occasion, however important it may have been, to the other incidents in which Nathan played a key role. They thus fail to present an interpretation of Nathan that brings together all his prophetic activities and seeks to understand each of them within a clear definition of his status and background. A view that is entirely different from those already discussed is the claim that Nathan the prophet, like Zadok the priest, had originally belonged to Jebusite Jerusalem before it was conquered by the Israelites. This hypothesis has appeared in various forms during the last fifty years,35 and the following main contributive elements can be noted:36 (a)

(b)

(c) (d)

Zadok is without an ancestry or genealogy, and only appears on the scene after David conquered Jerusalem and established himself there. When David conquered Jerusalem, he did not destroy its ancient shrine at which Melchisedeq, so it is claimed, had presided in earlier times. On the contrary the priesthood of Jerusalem was validated for Israel, and it appears that the ark, when it was brought to Jerusalem, was placed in an existing shrine. The name Zadok, which had close connections with Jerusalem, may have been the name of a Semitic deity and was adopted by a priest officiating at the shrine.

Without commenting on the case for the so-called Jebusite hypothesis, and more specifically on Zadok's possible connection with the preIsraelite shrine,37 it is to be noted that this has been accepted by some as the correct setting for Nathan's activity.38 Various attempts have been made to define more specifically the part played by Nathan within the Jebusite set-up of Jerusalem. After noting the evidence of religious syncretism in the city with its establishment as David's capital and the taking over of the traditions of its non-Israelite cultic forms, Ahlstrom designates Nathan as the leader of a group identified as the Jebusite party.39 David had adjusted to his new environment and had given his son the name Solomon (which is connected with the divine name Salem), but Nathan, in giving him the name Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12.25), with its

26

The Nathan Narratives

Israelite 'Yah'-element, was clearly declaring his support of religious syncretism. Moreover, since 2 Sam. 12.25 is interpreted as a designation of Solomon as crown-prince, Nathan was not taking part in a palace intrigue in the events described in 1 Kings 1, but was taking swift action to realise what had already been promised to the Jebusite party, namely that Bathsheba's son Solomon would succeed David. Syncretism was expected to be promoted with more zeal by Solomon; this is why the Jebusite party, through Nathan, opposed David's move to build a temple, but did not object when Solomon undertook the task. David proposed to go further than providing a royal chapel at the palace, and was obviously aiming for a state sanctuary. Since Abiathar would inevitably function as high-priest at this sanctuary, it was taken to be a real threat to the esteem of the Jebusite cult both in Jerusalem and in the kingdom of David. In 2 Samuel 7, therefore, Nathan was a spokesman for the Jebusite tradition of Jerusalem. H. Haag,40 working mainly on the contrast between Gad, who represented the nomadic, desert tradition, and Nathan, who was of Canaanite origin, accepts that Nathan was taken over with his native Jerusalem when David seized the city. Nathan became a convinced Yahwist, as is seen from the vision report in 2 Samuel 7, the name he gave to Solomon (2 Sam. 12.25) and the name of his own son Azariah (1 Kings 4.5). His opposition to David's proposed temple is understood by Haag to be an absolute veto on a temple, whereas presumably there would be no objection to a sanctuary. Haag does not find the motive to be the defence of the Jebusite cult, as suggested by Ahlstro'm, but defines Nathan's role as that of an exponent of a tolerant, but lasting, mediation between conqueror and conquered.41 I. von Lowenclau also asserts that Nathan was converted to Yahwism,42 and not only publicly acknowledged Yahweh but acquired for Solomon Yahweh's protection by giving him the name Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12.25). He came from the rank of the wise, attained a high position in court as a shrewd adviser and educator of the prince, but never abandoned his Jebusite interests. His actions in 1 Kings 1, although some of them are dubious, were undertaken in the interests of the native, Jebusite population of Jerusalem. Von Lowenclau goes a step further than both Ahlstro'm and Haag in that she attempts to explain all the Nathan sections in the light of his Jebusite background and his unceasing care for Jebusite interests: it was this that prompted him to act with others to place Solomon on David's throne and to move craftily to dispose of the notion that Solomon was an usurper; he acted as an agent of

2. Nathan the Prophet

27

God's promise to Solomon in 2 Sam. 7.lib, a word which after his death was transferred to the Davidic narrative in order to give the succession of Solomon a stronger legitimation; he promoted a view of world order that he inherited from the Jebusite tradition by censuring David for his affair with Bethsheba, and thus gave expression to the critical attitude towards David that was found among the Solomonic party. All his actions are thus seen to be consistent with his position as the virtual head of the Jebusite, proSolomonic party. There is a measure of agreement among the adherents of the view that Nathan was a Jebusite prophet taken over by David. There are, however, differences in the details of their interpretation of the events, some attributing his motivation to his religious syncretism, and others finding it to be more politically and pragmatically orientated. They also attain a different measure of success in interpreting all Nathan's activities as aspects of his Jebusite, pro-Solomonic stance. A line of interpretation that avoids identifying Nathan too closely with either a Yahwistic or a Jebusite party attributes his actions to a pragmatic approach to the political realities of his age. For his discussion of Nathan's prophecy in 2 Sam. 7.1-7 Ishida43 takes as a starting-point the historical fact that David did not build a temple in Jerusalem, together with Mowinckel's suggestion that the prophecy seeks to give a reason why he could not do so.44 Accepting a hint from the biblical tradition that 'he was a man of wars and had shed blood' (1 Chron. 22.8; 28.3), it is suggested that the main reason for his inability was political instability. Although David's main military campaigns belonged to his early years on the throne, the latter part of his reign was characterised by domestic troubles, notably Absalom's rebellion (2 Sam. 13-19), Sheba's revolt (2 Sam. 20.1-2,4-22) and the national census and plague (2 Sam. 24.1-25). David himself presumably was of the opinion that he had sufficient stability for the project to be undertaken (2 Sam. 7.1), but Nathan finally vetoed it. According to Ishida's interpretation of the inconsistency between the two replies given by Nathan, the prophet had consulted the courtiers and officials and because of antagonism at the court had failed to obtain a consensus. Although the two priests Abiathar and Zadok were at the centre of the antagonism, Ishida refuses to take it as a clash between an Israelite-Yahwistic group and a Jebusite-Jerusalemite party but as a case of rivalry between two houses of priests.45 A combination of this clash at court with the instability of the kingdom provided good reason for not proceeding with the temple plan. After

28

The Nathan Narratives

these consultations Nathan gave a negative reply in the form of a divine oracle. That the reply was obtained after court consultations and arose from practical, political motives is perhaps confirmed by the fact that the rejection is stated rather obliquely and sandwiched between two questions in vv. 5b and 7, and does not contain an explicit and straightforward refusal. Nathan too fabricated a coup d'etat on the part of Adonijah in order to obtain from David the designation of Solomon as his successor, and took advantage of the king's senility to make him believe that he had already pledged himself to give Solomon the throne.46 All Nathan's activities are concerned with the succession of Solomon, and the narratives as they stand make the point that Solomon's kingship was superior to that of David. His condemnation of David's affair with Bathseba (2 Sam. 12.1-25) brings out the contrast between Solomon's position (vv. 2425) and that of David under a curse (2 Sam. 11.27; 12.10-11). 2 Samuel 7 brings out the theme of the stability of the Davidic dynasty as it passes over to Solomon. Ishida's general assessment of Nathan as a prophet who had become disappointed in David and had placed his hopes in Solomon can be justified.47 But his interpretation of 2 Sam. 7.1-7 implies that the divine opposition to the temple presented by Nathan was a sham,48 and his understanding of the events in 1 Kings 1 attributes to Nathan the double fabrication of Adonijah's coup d'etat and David's vow. Nathan turns out to be more shady in his dealings than is warranted by the texts concerned. Because of the obvious disparity between the different elements that contribute to the portrayal of Nathan, and the difficulty of finding a general description of the prophet and of his affiliations in Jerusalem that can accommodate his various activities, it is tempting to look towards another kind of solution. 2 Samuel 7 presents a Nathan who in many respects corresponds to the familiar picture of a prophet: he had a message from God in the night, use is made of the traditional formula 'the word of the Lord came to Nathan' to describe the receiving of the message, and the command to deliver the message is again given according to the traditional messenger formula 'Go and tell... Thus says the Lord ... '49 The word came to Nathan and was delivered by him in response to a consultation by the king, and therefore the term 'court-prophet' is appropriate as a description of Nathan and as a designation of his role. Nathan's appearance in 2 Samuel 12 has an entirely different character; he is not consulted by the king, but appears before him to deliver words of criticism and condemnation of his behaviour. His concern for justice

2. Nathan the Prophet

29

and his method of securing self-condemnation by using a parable deserve for him the title of 'justice prophet'50 and place him in the line of tradition that is also found in Elijah's condemnation of Ahab in 1 Kings 21. A different Nathan is presented again in 1 Kings 1, where he is an accomplice of Bethsheba in the move to secure the throne for Solomon. As noted above, the appropriateness of the term 'prophet' in connection with his activity on that occasion has been questioned, especially in view of the absence of any word from God and the fact that he does not play any specifically prophetical role. A term such as 'privy councillor' would be more suitable for the occasion. Thus the three different roles played by Nathan can be designated by three different titles—court prophet, justice prophet and privy councillor. If his activities as court prophet and privy councillor are reconciled, his role as justice prophet seems to be out of character; if the court prophet and justice prophet are brought together, the privy councillor stands on its own. It was observation of these differences that led Hempel to suggest that the present form of the text reveals two different Nathans.51 Of course this is attributed to some editorial activity, and there are no possible grounds for claiming that there were two different historical Nathans.52 Quite justifiably no hint of this possibility appears in the most recent studies of the prophet.53 A more promising method of approaching the Nathan traditions is to examine more closely the stages of modifying the text through subsequent editing, and to seek to uncover the original historical core behind the narrative as it now stands in the deuteronomistic history. The question asked is whether it is possible to separate the historical Nathan from the prophetical interpretation of him that is found in the presentation in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings. In Ivan Engnell's study of 'Prophets and Prophetism'54 Nathan is described as one of the 'transitional figures' between 'primitive prophetism' and 'reaction prophetism'. His attitude is described as syncretistic and the reactionary elements in his work are ascribed to 'a Deuteronomistic reinterpretation of the facts'.55 It is this approach that is found in recent treatments of the Nathan sections, and many attempts have been made to unravel the complex narratives by separating the original basis from subsequent additions reflecting deuteronomistic and other interests.56 The methodology is seen, for example, in Kyle McCarter's commentary on 2 Samuel,57 where it is argued that there was a pre-deuteronomistic prophetic version of 2 Samuel which was then followed by primary and secondary deuteronomistic editions. In

30

The Nathan Narratives

the pre-deuteronomistic prophetic form Nathan's role had been enlarged and he became 'the chief representative of the prophetic point of view with which the older materials have been editorially surcharged'.58 This to a large extent explains the difference between the Nathan of 1 Kings and the Nathan portrayed in 2 Samuel 7 and 2 Samuel 12. The former is closer to the historical Nathan, whereas the Nathan who delivered a divine word against David's proposed temple and who conveyed divine censure on the king's conduct betrays a prophetic editing of earlier sources. The above survey of the main approaches to the Nathan tradition brings to notice the key questions that have to be pursued in any further discussion of the enigmatic and complex 'Nathan the Prophet'. These are the issues with which the present enquiry will be concerned: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

Each of the Nathan sections will have to be subjected to a detailed literary analysis with the aim of presenting a history of the growth of the narrative until it attained the form in which it now stands. Later accretions and hints of restructuring in the long and varied editorial process will have to be removed one by one in our search for an original core. The numerous and differing analyses that have already been presented make this task of uncovering the basic tradition a difficult and tortuous one. Further consideration will have to be given to the original form of the tradition that emerges from our analysis. Some attention will have to be given to the possible circle from which the tradition may have originated. Naturally our main interest will focus on the character and function of Nathan as he appears in the original accounts as they are uncovered, and on defining more closely the setting, affiliations and motives of the historical Nathan. In bringing together the results of this enquiry, it will have to be asked if the historical Nathan, as he appears to us from the basic original accounts, displays consistency of character through his stance and actions. Some attempt must be made to find a uniformity in the interpretation of Nathan that will make it unnecessary for us to depend too heavily on one or perhaps two of the narratives at the risk of excluding the third one.

Chapter 3 SUCCESSION TO DAVID'S THRONE (1 KINGS 1) The succession issue was finally settled when Solomon took his father's throne (1 Kgs 1-2); thus a dynastic monarchy was founded. Nathan took a prominent part in the events which led to Solomon's accession, as is seen from 1 Kings 1, a chapter which calls for detailed attention. Firstly, an analysis of the chapter will seek to trace the stages of its composition, and by identifying later accretions, if there are any, an attempt will be made to reconstruct the original account of the events. Secondly, attention will focus on Nathan's collaborators, thus seeking to define more clearly the group to which he belonged and the motives behind the support that won the throne for Solomon. Thirdly, Nathan's own part in the events will be under consideration, and there will be a discussion of the measures which he took and of his motivation. Finally, there will be an attempt to see the settlement of the succession issue against the background of the social and religious life of Jerusalem at that time. There is some justification for following Schwally and others1 in taking 1 Kings 1 as the most appropriate starting point for studying Nathan, despite the fact that it is Nathan's third and final appearance in the Deuteronomistic History that is contained in this chapter. Admittedly Nathan in this narrative about palace intrigue plays a role that is markedly different from that attributed to him as a spokesman for Yahweh in 2 Samuel 7 and in 2 Samuel 12. The problems associated with defining Nathan's status in view of his activities on this occasion, and especially because of the significant absence of any reference to a word from God, render this chapter a difficult one to handle.2 Nevertheless, it purports to be a straight historical account, and the fact that it is an integral part of the narrative of David's succession has led many scholars to treat it as

32

The Nathan Narratives

historically reliable. The narrative is on the whole free from the expansions and successive reinterpretalions of the divine words that have found their way into 2 Samuel 7 and 2 Samuel 12, and consequently is in many ways less complicated.3 Moreover, it is hoped to demonstrate that it is this narrative about Nathan's part in securing David's throne for Solomon that provides the key for understanding both his background and his stance on the other occasions with which his name is associated. Analysis Before offering a detailed analysis of 1 Kings 1, it has to be stated that it stands with 1 Kings 2 as a conclusion to the Succession Narrative in 2 Samuel 9-20.4 The reasons for this approach to 1 Kings 1-2 are by now well rehearsed, and can be briefly summarised as follows: (i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

2 Samuel 7; 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 give an unbroken narrative which is now disrupted by the miscellaneous material in 2 Samuel 21-24 and by the division between the books of Samuel and Kings. Several links between these two chapters and the Succession Narrative sections in 2 Samuel confirm that they belong together. Incidents in the earlier parts of the Succession Narrative are presupposed in 1 Kings 1-2. In ch. 2 references are made to the murder of Amasa by Joab (2 Sam. 20.10; see vv. 5, 32), and kindness shown to David by Barzillai (2 Sam. 17.27; 19.29ff.; 19.31ff. see v. 7) and the curse of Shimei (2 Sam. 16.5ff; 19.19ff, see vv. 8, 44). It is further claimed that there are so many similarities between the traditions about Solomon and Adonijah in this narrative and the story of Absalom in 2 Sam. 15ff. to support the conclusion that they were transmitted together.5 On stylistic grounds it is necessary to separate 1 Kings 1-2 from the remainder of the books of Kings; they are more akin to 2 Samuel 9-20. On the other hand it can be observed that chs. 9-20 stand apart from other narratives in 1 and 2 Samuel.6 Thus we are given two main corpora of traditions— the History of David's Rise (1 Sam. 15-2 Sam. 5) and the Succession Narrative.7 Many unifying factors can be discovered in the Succession Narrative as a whole. Not only is there one central theme, but a number of subordinate themes are taken up and can be

3. Succession to David's Throne

33

traced through the narrative. There is also a consistent treatment of characters.8 The presence of these bonds between the different sections confirms the view that we are dealing with a narrative that was constructed as a unit rather than with a collection of short stories.9 For these reasons all attempts to separate the first two chapters in Kings from the Succession Narrative have proved unsuccessful. Mowinckel, for instance, argued that they belong to the Solomonic corpus that follows and not to the Davidic corpus that precedes,10 but his view is usually rejected.11 Another proposal is to take 1 Kings 1-2 as a later redaction; whereas the so-called 'Court History' in 2 Samuel 9-20 was written in Davidic times, these two chapters in Kings represent a later redaction, which was intended to superimpose on the original narrative the theme of succession.12 Once again the unity of theme and style that is so obvious in these sections makes such a proposal totally unacceptable;13 the first two chapters of 1 Kings provide the only suitable conclusion to the Davidic corpus. Chapters 1 and 2 in 1 Kings are concerned with the succession of David by Solomon, and so this closing unit brings to its climax the main theme of the Succession Narrative. However, the succession is treated in two consecutive parts: the first, in ch. 1, concentrates on Solomon's acclamation as David's successor, and the second, in ch. 2, gives an account of the measures taken by Solomon to consolidate his position and protect his kingship. Both chapters contribute to the one and the same theme, namely the legitimation of Solomon's succession. They have undoubtedly originated from the same author, and it can also be shown that the expansions and additions to the original narrative are to be attributed to the same reviser.14 But for the purposes of the present discussion, ch. 1 will be taken on its own, because it is only in the events recorded here that Nathan took part; when we move to ch. 2, Solomon is in control of the situation and has moved to the centre of the stage. An issue of fundamental importance for understanding 1 Kings 12 is concerned with the extent to which an original narrative has been preserved in the present text.15 The earlier claim that the narrative was accepted into its present position without any change and with only very slight redactional additions, and those mostly in ch. 2, is not as enthusiastically pressed in recent discussions of the Succession Narrative. Rost accepted ch. 1 in its entirety, and found later additions only in 2.1-4, which is regarded as deuteronomistic,

34

The Nathan Narratives

and in 2.27b, which takes up 1 Sam. 2.27ff.16 Indeed it was claimed by von Rad that deuteronomistic interpretation cannot be traced after 2 Sam. 12 until it reappears in 1 Kings 3; in 1 Kings 1-2 there is only a slight retouching of 1 Kings 2. Iff.17 Similarly Whybray18 does not mention any literary problems in connection with ch. 1, and finds only a few verses that are not original in ch. 2, namely the deuteronomistic vv. 2b-4, 27 and the annalistic vv. 10-11. This position is confirmed by Gunn,19 who does not accept that there was a greater degree of redactional activity and argues that too many difficulties are raised by proposing an extensive manipulation of the text. The possibility of redactional activity in ch. 1 is therefore not discussed by those taking this cautionary attitude; what annotations and corrections have been made are restricted to ch. 2. Among the reasons given for this approach are: (a) even if the original narrative has been reworked at a later stage, that has been so effectively accomplished as to make it impossible to discern the original;20 (b) the style of the narrative, its treatment of characters and its point of view give it such an impression of uniformity that only very few interpolations become evident;21 (c) some narratives may possess an inherent tension, which makes it unnecessary to search for a logical and theological consistency and to explain inconsistencies and incongruities by proposing a process of annotation and interpretation.22 Nevertheless, it has to be asked whether 1 Kings 1-2 does show signs of more extensive annotation than is recognised by those taking such a cautionary attitude. As is stated by Whybray the theories of interpolation are as numerous as the critics who have considered the matter,23 but that does not necessarily provide a good reason for abandoning such an approach. Some examples of the annotations found in ch. 1 must now be considered. Moth found extensive secondary additions in both chapters, notably in ch. 2, where not only the disputed testament of David in vv. 1-9, but also vv. 13-35, 36-46 are regarded as secondary; minor deuteronomistic additions are also found elsewhere (for example, in 2. II).24 Thus the whole of ch. 2, with the exception of the annalistic note in vv. 10-12 becomes secondary. But the only dubious section in ch. 1 is the opening section (vv. lb-4) dealing with Abishag the Shunammite. Mettinger25 also regards 2.13-46 as secondary, and again admits the presence of some evidence of still later deuteronomistic additions (vv. 31b-33,4445); he accepts, however, that part of the testament of David (2.5-9) was original, but that its beginning is now lost. Of more interest for

3. Succession to David's Throne

35

our discussion is his assertion that the whole of 1.1-40 belonged to the original conclusion of the Succession Narrative, but that 1.41-53 together with 2.13-46 are added sections on political murder. Both these sections must be considered together, for the section on Adonijah (1.41-53) belongs with the continuation of the theme in 2.13ff. Wurthwein,26 on the other hand, whilst finding in both chapters duplicates, deuteronomistic accretions and post-deuteronomistic additions, retains the two large blocks in ch. 2 (w. 13-35 and w. 36-46) as well as 1.41-53. A much more complicated process of redaction has been envisaged by Veijola27 and Langlamet,28 who agree on the principle of searching for the different stages of redaction that must have taken place before these chapters reached their present form. Veijola traces four stages in the redaction of ch. 2: an older working over the original narrative produced w. 1-2, 4aa(3, 5-9, 24, 26b-27, 31b-33, 37b, 42a, 44-45; from a later working over came w. 3-4a|3; a deuteronomistic accretion is found in w. 10-11; and finally v. 12 is regarded as a post-deuteronomistic accretion. The redaction of ch. 1 was a much simpler process, for w. 35-37, 46-48 originated from one stage of interpolation and v. 30 from a later working over of the chapter. Unlike Mettinger, Veijola does not regard the whole of the Adonijah section in 1.41-53, and with it 2.1346, as secondary, but he does attribute the whole of the testament of David to one stage or other in the redactionary process. Langlamet, although working on the basis of this concept of several consecutive accretions, does not attribute the redactionary stages to the same dates as Veijola, nor are these scholars agreed in the identification of these redactions. Many more verses have been worked over at some stage or other according to Langlamet's reconstruction.29 It is obvious from this survey of a few key contributions on 1 Kings 1-2 that a consensus on the minimum number of interpolated verses cannot be extracted from such a variety of theories; a decision must be reached on each section on its own after a careful consideration of each one individually. It is clear, however, that ch. 1 has emerged less scathed from the critical carve-up than is the case with chapter 2, and that the Nathan narrative remains more or less intact. The above survey has also served the purpose of bringing to notice the few debatable sections that have to be considered in discussing 1 Kings 1; they are vv. lb-4 (with Noth), vv. 41-53 (according to Mettinger) and w. 35-37, 46-48 (with Veijola). The main reason for doubting the originality of w. lb-4 is that they anticipate Adonijah's request for Abishag after David's death,

36

The Nathan Narratives

and may, like that section (2.13ff.), be regarded as a secondary addition.30 These verses only provide concrete evidence of David's age and frailty, which has already been stated in v. la. If these verses are omitted, it is claimed that v. la on its own provides an adequate introduction to the narrative as it proceeds in vv. 5ff. An argument that has been used in favour of their retention is that the original narrator, who was pro-Adonijah and anti-Solomon, would naturally show some interest in Adonijah's fate at the hands of Solomon, and by implication in Abishag.31 When the original narrative was given a pro-Solomonic flavour, the mention of Abishag and the account of Adonijah's death were both retained. A much simpler solution, and one that is not tied to the political stance of the narrative in either its original or its final form, is to accept vv. lb-4 as a necessary and important element in the construction of the first two chapters.32 Adonijah's move to take David's throne (w. 5-10) was occasioned by David's senility and impotency (w. 1-4).33 These opening verses of the chapter set the subsequent events that are recorded in their correct historical context; contention for the throne and Adonijah's downfall (2.13ff) are tied to the circumstances noted and illustrated in this opening passage, which is not as unrelated to what follows as it seems at first. In providing a colourful extension of the statement in v. la, the section in w. lb-4 gives a deliberate contrast between the strong and lusty David of 2 Samuel 12 and the aged and impotent David of this chapter. In such a situation it is not surprising to find Adonijah seizing the opportunity to claim the throne. According to Long, 'biblical convention ... links new impulses in the human drama with failure or dissolution, the old passing into the new.'34 The proposal to take w. 41-53 as secondary removes a passage on Adonijah from the narrative; under the same proposal the continuation of the Adonijah passage in 2.13ff is also excised.35 The main reasons for doing so are based on the internal discrepancies in ch. 1-2. The testament of David in 2.5-9 does not provide for the execution of Adonijah and Abiathar, but only offers a justification of the murders of Joab and Shimei. The so-called political murders of the contender for the throne and his supporting priest incriminate Solomon, and so, it is contended, the report of these incidents was not part of the original narrative. Other incongruities between the testament of David and 2.13-46 can be noted, such as the absence in 2.5 of the tide given to Amasa in 2.32, and the lack of reference in 2.13-46 to the sons of Barzillai mentioned in 2.7. Moreover, there are inconsistencies between these secondary sections and other verses in ch. 1, such as

3. Succession to David's Throne

37

the implication in 2.22f. that Abishag was taken into the royal harem, which is not borne out by 1.4; the description of Bathsheba as 'the mother of Solomon' in 2.13 is unnecessary, since that information has already been given in 1.11. The original narrative, it is claimed, was smoothly rounded off by 2.12 and did not include those sections that reflect unfavourably on Solomon. Despite the assertion that accepting such excisions provides a satisfactory solution to the problem, there are deep-seated reservations concerning the method employed and the conclusions reached. There cannot but be dissatisfaction with the procedure of judging the reliability of 2.13-46 by comparing the section with the dubious testament of David in 2.112, where, to say the least, there has been some deuteronomistic interference and where there are obvious signs of secondary compilation.36 The incongruities between the testament of David and the report of the executions of his opponents by Solomon do not necessarily indicate that the former was original and th* latter secondary; it may be more likely that the former, despite the discrepancies between it and the account of the executions, was deliberately composed in order to justify the latter and exonerate Solomon. Others of the inconsistencies mentioned can also be adequately explained: although Abishag is introduced in 1.4 as David's nurse, the clear implication of the narrative is that she was brought into the royal harem to test his potency;37 the re-introduction of Bathsheba in 2.13 can be explained by the fact that the narrative now proceeds to a new section and describes a situation that was later than that found in ch. 1 and different from it. A more fundamental objection is that by deleting the Adonijah sections (1.41-53; 2.13-25) from the narrative, it is implied that interest in Adonijah and his party ceased after the anointing of Solomon in vv. 38-40. But if, as is contended below, the struggle for the throne was the outcome of a deeper clash between Jebusite and Judaean elements in Jerusalem, with the former gaining supremacy, it would seem that the original narrators would be eager to demonstrate the downfall of Adonijah and his supporters. Their humiliation was so complete that, when Solomon came to the throne, there was no question of any threat to his kingship; the narrative behind these two chapters would enthusiastically bring out the humiliation of Adonijah in contrast to the triumph of Solomon. A continuing interest in Adonijah is kept alive if 1.49-53 and the related passage in 2.13-25 are retained. An approach that depends on a combination of linguistic, literary

38

The Nathan Narratives

and theological analyses lies behind Veijola's proposal to regard the two sections, w. 35-37 and vv. 46-48, as later additions and the revision of v. 30 as the work of a still later hand.38 These revisions, which have come from the same source as the revisions of ch. 2, are recognised from the following characteristics: (i) Some linguistic peculiarities belonging to the revisions cannot be traced in the main narrative. Kingship or dynasty is denoted by the word 'throne' (kisse'), as in 1.37, 47, cf. also 2.33,45; there is a distinction between Israel and Judah, as in 1.35, cf. also 2.32; verses are joined together by using 'moreover' (wegam\ as in 1.46, 47, 48, cf. also 2.5. (ii) A consistent technique for constructing and joining the expansions can be observed, for they are always appended either at the end of a speech (1.35) or in the form of a new speech (1.36-37, 46.48); this is the case too in 2.1-9, 24, 26b, 31b-33, 44-45. The expansions do not concentrate on the concrete political situation, but generally introduce a different emphasis, (iii) The expansions demonstrate a distinct theological interest, namely that the Davidic dynasty was enjoying divine favour, and that by implication this favour would be extended to his newly installed successor, Solomon. This is the thrust of both additions to ch. 1 (w. 36-37, 47-48) as well as the occasional verses added to ch. 2.39 Some consideration must also be given to the content of vv. 36-37, for they are suspect, not simply because they exhibit a number of the above characteristics, but also because they single out Benaiah and attribute to him a special greeting to the new king. According to v. 32 David had entrusted the task of securing the throne for Solomon to three men, Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and vv. 38ff report that they faithfully executed David's wishes. The connection between the instructions given in vv. 32-34 and the report of their execution in w. 38-40 is broken by the insertion of w. 36-37. The only reason for drawing attention to Benaiah is that it has been done in anticipation of ch. 2, where he enjoys particular prominence as the man responsible for the execution of Solomon's enemies (w. 25, 34, 36). Veijola has equally strong reasons for suggesting that v. 35b is a secondary addition. Whereas the narrative in general accepts that Solomon was to come to the throne after David ('afyaray, vv. 13,17, 20,24,27) it is stated clearly in this verse that 'he shall be king in my stead' (tahtay). Again, it can be seen that the narrative refers to Solomon as 'king over Israel' (v. 34, cf. also v. 20), but that v. 35b designates him as 'ruler over Israel and over Judah', suggesting a

3. Succession to David's Throne

39

division of the kingdom that was not apparent at this time. It is further claimed that the term 'ruler' (ndgid) is secondary.40 Veijola's treatment of v. 35a, however, is less convincing; his objection to accepting the statement made here as original is that this half of the verse is a re-modelling of other verses, particularly vv. 40a and 45a. But a number of the instructions in vv. 33-35a, such as riding on a mule to Gihon, anointing Solomon, blowing a trumpet and giving a cry of acclamation, are repeated in the account of their execution in w. 38-40; there is no reason for singling out for rejection the reference to 'coming after' the king because it appears in v. 40 as well as in v. 35a. On the contrary there seem to be sufficient grounds for accepting v. 35a as original and regarding vv. 35b-37 as secondary.41 We can also accept with Veijola that the words 'in my stead' have been unnecessarily added to v. 30 under the influence of v. 35b, for they are not contained in the other versions of the oath given in this chapter (w. 13,17).42 Another breach in the sequence of events is caused by the presence of w. 46-48. The delivery of Jonathan's news that Solomon had been anointed king (vv. 41-45) is most naturally followed by an account of its effect on Adonijah and his guests (w. 49-53). The intervening verses develop a different theme, namely God's favour in granting David a successor to sit on his throne. These verses again betray the presence of some characteristics that have been noted above as indications of secondary additions, especially the use of the word 'throne' for kingdom (v. 47), the repetition three times of'moreover, also' (wegam', vv. 46,47,48) and the similarity of their standpoint to vv. 30, 35b in that they suggest that Solomon had already taken the throne in David's lifetime. The congratulations to the king in v. 47 repeat the sentiment, and to a great extent the wording, of Benaiah's greetings in v. 37, which also belongs to a section that is designated as a secondary addition. The above analysis leads to the conclusion that in the first part of the closing chapters of the Succession Narrative in 1 Kings 1, where the Nathan tradition plays a significant role, there are only slight additions to the original narrative; these are found in vv. 30, 35b-37, 46-48. Furthermore, these additions show the same linguistic and stylistic characteristics as the secondary additions attached to 1 Kings 2, and also share the same interest in the succession of Solomon to David's throne. The two chapters complement one another, the first being concerned with the settlement of the succession issue and the second with the measures taken later to

40

The Nathan Narratives

consolidate Solomon's position. Without the secondary additions, the first chapter moves smoothly from one section to another: after describing colourfully the historical circumstances (w. 1-4), it gives an account of Adonijah's contention for the throne (vv. 5-10); this is then followed by an account of the counter moves of a pro-Solomonic faction, in which two of the key personnel are Nathan and Bathsheba, whose activities fall into four short scenes in vv. 11-14, 15-21, 22-27 and 28-31;43 following the success of these proSolomonic manoeuvres, Solomon is designated and anointed as David's successor (w. 32-35a, 38-40); Adonijah's premature celebration was interrupted by the news of Solomon's designation (w. 41-45), and the narrative concludes with the devastating effect of this news on Adonijah and his guests, more especially on Adonijah himself (w. 49-53). Interpretation Any understanding of Nathan's role in the events surrounding Solomon's succession depends to a large extent on a definition of the faction to which he belonged and the faction which he opposed. In the narrative in 1 Kings 1 he is named in a group of which he, Zadok the priest and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada seem to be the constant core (w. 8,10,26,32,38,44,45). Occasionally the name of one of the other members is omitted (such as Zadok hi v. 10 and Benaiah in vv. 34,45), but not the name of Nathan. In some instances reference is made to other persons attached to the group, such as 'Shimei, Rei and David's mighty men' (v. 8), 'mighty men' (v. 10) or 'the Cherethites and Pelethites' (vv. 38, 44). Nathan also acted in liaison with Bathsheba (w. 11-31), who is never mentioned in connection with this group of Solomon's supporters. But it has to be asked if Nathan's connection with Solomon's supporters is more closely related to his co-operation with the queen than appears in the narrative. The first on the list of Nathan's companions is 'Zadok the priest', whose origin has posed a perplexing problem.44 He is mentioned alongside Ahimelech in 2 Sam. 8.17 and is claimed to have been the son of Ahitub. But this genealogy appears in a corrupt text, and that intentionally so, according to Wellhausen.45 If the correct form is taken to be 'Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, and Zadok were priests',46 then Zadok is stripped of a genealogy. The attempt to provide him with another genealogy, suggesting on the basis of 2 Sam. 6.3f that he was Uzzah's brother,47 has proved

3. Succession to David's Throne

41

unacceptable.48 The genealogies provided by the Chronicler (making him a descendant of Eleazar, 1 Chron. 24.3 and through Eleazar a descendant of Aaron, 1 Chron. 5.29-34; 6.35-38) are accepted as reliable by Cross, and are taken as a basis for the suggestion that he was from the house of Aaron and was attached to Hebron.49 Such a proposal, however, rests again on the dubious tradition that he was the son of Ahitub and on the uncertain evidence of the Chronicler's genealogies; it fails to recognize that many of the lists appearing in Chronicles are artificial constructions.50 On the basis of another reference in Chronicles, it has been argued that Zadok was priest of Gibeon (1 Chron. 16.34), and his opposite number, Abiathar, has been thought to have been priest of Jerusalem.51 Although this tradition about Gibeon is found only in Chronicles and has been described as a fabrication, the acceptance of a more open attitude towards its historicity52 does not meet the more basic objections that Gibeon is not mentioned during the reign of David and that Zadok in that reign functioned as priest in Jerusalem not Gibeon.53 In view of the alignment of Zadok and Abiathar on opposing sides in the succession struggle described in 1 Kings 1, and in view too of the fact that Zadok and his successors became the priests of the Jerusalem Temple, it seems much more convincing to take Zadok as the representative of the Jerusalemite tradition54 and Abiathar as the champion of an old Hebronite tradition.55 Zadok, it has to be noted, is introduced into the Biblical narrative without any word of explanation after David had conquered Jerusalem and established himself in the city.56 For a time at least he appears to have shared the position of chief priest with Abiathar, but he soon took precedence over the latter. Some information about the period is found in the account of carrying the ark back to Jerusalem in 2 Sam. 15.24ff. There are some signs of corruption in v. 24 and the absence of the name Abiathar from the Massoretic text of v. 27 suggests that he had already been replaced by Zadok.57 Verse 25, where only Zadok is named, again confirms that authority had been passed over to him.58 The time of Zadok's appearance, combined with the fact that the narrative offers no explanation and also with his final supremacy over Abiathar, leads to the conclusion that he was priest of the preDavidic, Jebusite shrine in Jerusalem.59 This also provides a reason for the omission of Zadok's genealogy; the confusion over his ancestry in the corrupt text of 2 Sam. 8.17 may have been deliberate because of his previous connection with the Jebusite cult. To avoid such an embarrassment he was given an Israelite genealogy, either to

42

The Nathan Narratives

fill in a conspicuous gap in the available information or to replace an unacceptable genealogy.60 The acceptance of a pagan priest into the Israelite cult of Jerusalem need not cause a difficulty;61 it is also unnecessary to assume that he went over from the Jebusites to David during the siege of Jerusalem.62 The presence of a Jebusite priest as an official of the new Davidic state, would go a long way towards conciliating the Jebusite majority among the inhabitants of Jerusalem.63 There are, admittedly, a number of unanswered questions about Zadok, and some of the additional evidence adduced in support of the Jebusite hypothesis can only be considered with some amount of reserve. The possibility that he was originally the city-king of Jerusalem, who was the priest of the state shrine, and whose office was perhaps confirmed by David, seems very unlikely and is not supported by evidence of priest-kings in Canaan.64 The similarity between his name and that of Zedek, which is thought to have been the name of a Semitic deity, is an argument that is only cautiously accepted by Rowley,65 but the recognition of some weakness in this particular argument does not damage the Jebusite hypothesis. Rowley himself attaches more importance to the close association of other names bearing the element 'zedek'-'righteousness' with Jerusalem, such as Adonizedek, Zedekiah and more particularly Melchizedek,66 but he does not press the evidence beyond claiming that the 'zedek' element would be more likely to figure in the name of a Jerusalemite than a non-Jerusalemite. Despite the reservations with which some of the arguments for the Jebusite hypothesis are presented, and the lack of positive evidence in support of the hypothesis,67 it has to be noted that the indirect evidence gives it confirmation.68 Whilst it must be admitted that because the evidence is indirect and circumstantial there can be no certainty about Zadok's origin, the Jebusite hypothesis is more satisfactory than any of the other solutions that have been proposed. In the struggle for succession to David's throne Zadok must, therefore, be regarded as representing and acting on behalf of Jerusalemite, and by implication Jebusite, interests. The second name in the list of Solomon's supporters is Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada (1 Kgs 1.8, 10, 32, 38, 44). Whereas Zadok and Nathan are named without genealogy, and are described as priest and prophet respectively, Benaiah is given a genealogy, but a specification of his office and duties is lacking. According to 2 Sam. 20.23 he was a military commander who had charge over the

3. Succession to David's Throne

43

Cherethites and Pelethites; they are also mentioned with Benaiah in 1 Kgs 1.38, 44. The Cherethites and Pelethites, who are always named together (cf. 2 Sam. 8.18; 15.18; 20.7,23; 1 Chron. 18.17), are usually taken to be David's personal bodyguard chosen deliberately from among foreign mercenaries.69 The Cherethites were Cretans, usually identified with the Philistines or related groups, who had come along the sea-route from Crete and had settled in the Palestinian coastal plain. Their identification with the Philistines has some support (cf. Zeph. 2.4-5; Ezek. 25.15-16),70 and it is possible that David after his success against the Philistines (2 Sam. 8.1) recruited some of his conquered enemies as his bodyguard. Although the identification of the Pelethites is far from certain,71 it is possible that this name too contains a reference to the Philistines. It seems likely that David sought to protect his kingship by having a bodyguard of foreign mercenaries who were independent of inner tensions in the court. They were professional soldiers, who are called 'David's mighty men' in 1 Kgs. 1.8. It is significant that these foreigners and their leader Benaiah were drawn into the struggle for the throne, and that they supported the activities of the proSolomonic party. The two other members of the party, Shimei and Rei (1 Kgs 1.8), are unknown, since nothing is recorded about their genealogy or office. There is some uncertainty about the rendering of Rei, which according to some traditions was not a proper name but refers to David's friend or friends.72 But whatever rendering is accepted, these two members are listed only in v. 8 and do not play any part in the events recorded in the narrative and are not even named in subsequent lists of Solomon's supporters. Although Bathsheba is never listed with the pro-Solomonic faction, Nathan's membership of the group and his collaboration with Bathsheba are not unrelated. Bathsheba is in many respects an enigmatic person. There is wide disagreement about her part and influence in the court scenes described in 1 Kings 1, and the definitions of her role range from attributing to her an important part as an ambitious, capable, energetic, shrewd and powerful queenmother to making her a colourless and even stupid woman who was a mere instrument in Nathan's hands.73 There is also considerable uncertainty about the descent of both Bathsheba and her first husband Uriah. Although Uriah has been given a good Israelite name, and may therefore have been born in Israel, the designation of him as 'the Hittite' (2 Sam. 11.3) probably indicates that his family

44

The Nathan Narratives

was of non-Israelite descent.74 Bathsheba herself is called the daughter of Eliam (2 Sam. 11.3), who, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 69b, lOla), is to be identified with Eliam the son of Ahithophel from Gilo (2 Sam. 23.34; 2 Sam. 15.12). Eliam, like Uriah, was one of David's warriors. It is debatable whether or not Bathsheba came from Israelite stock,75 but, significantly, she is among the pagan women who figure among the ancestors of Jesus in the Matthaean genealogy (Mt. 1.6),76 although she appears there without a name and is simply designated 'wife of Uriah'. No reason is apparent for giving her a patronymic in 2 Sam. 11.3,77 but it can be suggested that there was point in underlining the fact that she was non-Israelite in origin. There was also a reason for hinting that she, like her grandfather Ahithophel (if the line of descent from Ahithophel through Eliam to Bathsheba can be established), knew how to obtain support by drawing on general dissatisfaction and securing help from people who harboured grievances. We therefore have to reckon with the possibility that Bathsheba was of nonIsraelite origin, a native of Jerusalem and a Jebusite.78 The members of the pro-Solomonic camp thus came from a mixed background, some like Zadok, probably Nathan, and possibly Bathsheba, being connected with Jerusalem in pre-Israelite days, and others being foreigners, Cretans or Philistines. They were basically non-Israelite. In contrast Adonijah's leading supporters were of Israelite origin, and more specifically had Hebronite connections. The first named of Adonijah's supporters was Joab the son of Zeruiah, who had a long and close connection with David. He is always called 'the son of Zeruiah', who, according to 1 Chron 2.16, was David's sister; he had been with David since his early days in Hebron (2 Sam. 2.13). In a list of David's officials given in 2 Sam. 8.15ff. Joab's post is defined as being over the army. Although the army was by that time far more established than the levies of former times,79 it seems that there was a distinction between the militia in charge of Joab and the professional bodyguard under Benaiah; whereas the former was composed of conscripted Israelites, the latter was constituted of foreign mercenaries. Joab and the army had given David support during the uprising of Absalom (2 Samuel 18). Abiathar the priest was also a long-standing supporter of David and is also given an honourable place among David's administrators (2 Sam. 8.17).80 Abiathar was a descendant of the priestly family of Eli from Shiloh (1 Sam. 14.3), and had escaped from Nob, when Saul slaughtered the eighty-five priests there, and gone over to David (1

3. Succession to David's Throne

45

Sam. 22.20-22). The significance of the Hebronite connections of these men for our understanding of the rivalry between the two groups concerned with the succession to David's throne becomes clearer when it is realised that Adonijah was born in Hebron (2 Sam. 3.2-5). Securing for Adonijah the status of David's successor was a matter of great concern for these members of the court who had connections with Hebron, and it is from among those early supporters of David that Adonijah was able to rally support.81 The nature of the friction between the two groups can now be defined more closely.82 On Adonijah's side stood Joab, the commander of the militia or levies, on Solomon's side was Benaiah the leader of the professional soldiers acting as David's bodyguard. In Adonijah's camp too was Abiathar, who came from the old priesthood of Nob; his opposite number in the pro-Solomonic group was Zadok, who had connections with pre-Israelite Jerusalem and may have been a member of the Jebusite priesthood serving there. On the one hand, therefore, were representatives of the military and religious institutions of Hebron, which had been David's capital before the capture of Jerusalem; on the other hand were representatives of a new form of administration that was emerging with the establishment of a monarchy in Jerusalem. It can to some extent be described as rivalry between a party that had the supremacy of Judah and the south very much at heart, and a Jerusalem oriented party that wanted a united kingdom.83 However, the central issue was not a united kingdom in the broader and later sense of the term; it was rather a case of specific tension between the Hebronite followers of David and a core of people who represented the Jebusite, non-Israelite population of Jerusalem. The acceptance of Jerusalem as his capital posed serious and difficult problems for David, and it seemed that the only way forward was by fusing together the Israelite and Jebusite, the Hebronite and Jerusalemite traditions. Although there were social and administrative aspects to this problem it was basically a religious one, for the combination of these different elements inevitably meant the acceptance of religious syncretism. As G.W. Ahlstrdm84 rightly comments, a new era of syncretism began when David established his new capital in Jerusalem and this had religio-political consequences. The Hebronite party's attempt to put Adonijah on the throne after David voiced the protest of the Judahite tribes against this development and deliberately intended to put a brake on it, and possibly hoped that Hebron would be restored as capital. The Jerusalemite party on the other hand was eager to place on the throne one who would be in

46

The Nathan Narratives

sympathy with the retention of Jerusalem as capital, advance the policy of King David and introduce more syncretism in the new capital. It is in this particular setting, and more specifically in connection with the endeavours of the pro-Solomonic group, that the prophet Nathan is to be understood. The succession issue The circumstances surrounding the succession issue as described in 1 Kings 1.1-4 are that David was senile and impotent, and had thus been proved unfit to be in charge of the affairs of the kingdom. The concluding phrase of the Abishag episode, 'but the king knew her not', contains a clue to the correct understanding of the measures taken by David's servants. On the one hand it is suggested that the 'young virgin' they sought for David was to be his nurse.85 But the additional phrase 'let her lie in your bosom', introduces another aspect of the presence of Abishag. It has been argued that this was a medical prescription, which aimed at reviving the aged king by bringing him into contact with young and warm flesh. There is some evidence that this custom was known elsewhere as having medicinal effects.86 But it seems that there was more than this custom behind the bringing of Abishag to David's bed. She was brought into the king's harem in an attempt to rejuvenate the aged David and thereby to test his potency. Confirmation of this is found in Solomon's reaction to Adonijah's request for Abishag (2.22), which, because she was a member of the harem, was equivalent to a renewed bid for the throne.87 When it is stated in 1.4 that 'the king knew her not' ('had no intercourse with her', according to the NEB), the message is clear: the king had lost his virility and was no longer able to guarantee the wellbeing of his people.88 Adonijah's gathering of his supporters at En-rogel was an indication that he was contending for David's throne. As the narrative develops, it becomes clear that David's successor was to act as co-regent until the king's death, and would only then assume sole responsibility. When the succession issue had been settled, the many references to David remaining king (1.43, 44, 47, 48) make it clear that the intended impression of the final form of the narrative was that Solomon was acting as co-regent.89 It has to be admitted, however, that since no exact definition of his functions is given, it is impossible to determine how power was shared between the two reigning monarchs. Nevertheless, some form of co-regency must have been in existence at this time.90 To argue further that what

3. Succession to David's Throne

47

happened in those particular extreme circumstances surrounding David's senility set the pattern for a series of Hebrew co-regencies throughout the period of the monarchy seems unwarranted.91 But that co-regency operated on this occasion, as it also did when Jotham had to relieve the leprous Azariah of some of his royal functions (2 Kgs 15.5), is unquestionable. Although the monarchy in Israel was young and newly established, a custom that was known elsewhere in the ancient Near East was adopted for these special circumstances. Mesopotamian parallels show that a king would install his successor as crown-prince during his own life-time;92 among the Hittites too the crown-prince could act on behalf of the reigning monarch;93 and in South Arabian kingdoms the heir apparent, who had been crowned as co-regent, could then succeed his father without further coronation.94 It has been strongly contended that the nearest parallel was found in Egypt,95 where the system of co-regency was in existence both before and during the period of the Israelite monarchy and with a suggestion that it was acceptable when the senior partner was too old to fulfil his duties properly. Whichever of these models was accepted as a basis for appointing a person to act as David's coregent, the procedure behind the events of 1 Kings 1 is the appointment of a co-regent to assume some responsibility because the father, who was old and had lost his virility, could not fully undertake his royal functions. Adonijah, assuming that he was heir-apparent, moved to establish himself as co-regent. His assumption was probably based on the fact that he was the eldest surviving son of the reigning monarch;96 Amnon, Absalom, and presumably Chileab, were dead (2 Sam. 3.25). Admittedly, it is difficult to prove that primogeniture was an accepted principle in Israel at this very early period in the history of the monarchy; the. dynasty was too young yet to have acquired an established pattern. It is true that primogeniture was the custom among the Hittites,97 and that with time it became the accepted rule in Israel too.98 But it seems to have been a complicated issue in Israel, for the charismatic factor and the election of a king by Yahweh died hard (1 Kgs 2.15). There are cases where the reigning monarch, who had an important part to play in choosing his successor, bypassed the eldest son in favour of a younger one; the most notable example is the succession of Josiah by Jehoahaz until the Egyptians later replaced him with his older brother, Eliakim (2 Kgs 23.30-33). Possibly the death of the first-born provided extenuating circumstances in which any one of the surviving sons, and not necessarily the eldest,

48

The Nathan Narratives

could be appointed." Although primogeniture had not been established in these early days of the monarchy, and was only ultimately accepted with some reservations, Adonijah assumed that he was to succeed David. Not only was he the first-born of the surviving sons, but he had been born in Hebron, and so was a representative of the earliest pre-Jerusalemite Davidic kingship; this could be taken to signify his precedence and unquestionable claim to the throne. The actions attributed to Adonijah in 1 Kgs l.Sff are those of a man who took it for granted that he was heir-apparent and had decided that the circumstances called upon him to function as co-regent. The statement in v. 5 that 'he prepared for himself chariots and horsemen, and fifty men to run before him' is to be interpreted as an act of setting himself up as king (cf. 1 Sam. 8.11). The fact that Adonijah was allowed to behave in this way can be taken as a suggestion that he was already acknowledged as crown-prince.100 Whether Adonijah went further than the preliminary steps to claim the throne and was actually anointed king, depends on our interpretation of the sacrifice in v. 9. The offering of'sheep, oxen and fallings' need not be taken to constitute an investiture,101 but could have been a celebration feast intended to consolidate the party that supported Adonijah.102 This expected and apparently legitimate progression to the throne was thwarted by an unexpected move on behalf of Solomon, who had a less obvious claim to succeed his father. According to 2 Sam. 12.2425 he was David and Bathsheba's second son, who replaced the illegitimate first-born who had since died. Despite the case presented so strongly for taking Solomon as the illegitimate son born from an adulterous liaison between David and Bathsheba,103 and the fact that such a reading of the events would delete the tension between Nathan's condemnation of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 12 and the co-operation between him and Bathsheba in the present chapter, many difficulties turn the balance against the acceptance of such an interpretation.104 It rests to a great extent on the excision of the whole section in 2 Sam. 11.27b-12.24.105 Making Solomon the illegitimate son born from that infamous affair would place him in the most unlikely position for becoming a contender for David's throne. Accepting that he was staking a claim for the throne, no strong reason is given in 1 Kings 1 in support of his contention, except what may be a fabricated oath, which will have to be considered in more detail below.106 Solomon did not even stake his claim personally, but remained passive through the events described

3. Succession to David's Throne

49

in this chapter. The strength of his contention lay in the parly of supporters which was ready to take action on his behalf, and more especially in the liaison between his mother and Nathan, whose manoeuvres secured his designation by David as his successor. The situation outlined above can be briefly summarised as follows: an obvious and legitimate heir-apparent was about to be installed as co-regent with his aged and impotent father, but an opposing party, helped by an intrigue within the inner circle at court, secured the nomination of Solomon as co-regent and successor to the throne. Ahlstro'm's attempt107 to dismiss this idea of a palace intrigue is not convincing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the naming of Solomon as Jedidiah, which was an obvious variant on the name David, does not necessarily mean that Solomon had from an early date been designated as crown-prince. Secondly, the interpretation of 2 Sam. 12.25 as an oath designating the successor, which would then validate the claim in 1 Kgs 1.13, 17, 28-31, takes the appeal to a previous oath to be more reliable than is warranted. Thirdly, even if signs of a prolonged rivalry between Solomon and Adonijah can be read in 1 Kgs 1.9f, this does not of necessity deny Adonijah the position of crown-prince and the ascription of Solomon's succession to a palace intrigue and coup d'etat. It is within this framework of intrigue and the existence of an opposition party that Nathan's activities in 1 Kings 1 have to be understood. Nathan's role In addition to his presence among the group of Solomonic supporters (1.32,35), and a consistent mention of him among those not invited by Adonijah to En-rogel (1.8,10), Nathan is given a very significant part in the settlement of the succession issue because of his cooperation with Bathsheba and their concerted approach to David. According to 1.11, it was Nathan who took the initiative by reporting to Bathsheba that Adonijah had seized the kingship and then proceeding to give her 'counsel'. In the instructions that he gave her to go to King David he even provided her with words for the occasion and made reference to a previous oath made by the king (v. 13). He also arranged to come himself to the king during her audience with him and there to confirm Bathsheba's words (v. 14). All went according to plan; after Bathsheba had repeated Nathan's words almost verbatim (v. 17) and reported to David that Adonijah had made a move to set himself up as king (vv. 18-19), Nathan entered and took matters into his own hands (vv. 22-27). The eventual

50

The Nathan Narratives

outcome of these two audiences with the king was that David confirmed his previous oath (vv. 28-31) and issued instructions for the installation of Solomon as co-regent (v. 32). The impression given in this narrative, which was probably intended on the part of the author, is that Nathan was the prime mover and used Bathsheba as an accomplice; he devised the plot and merely gave her a part to play and words to speak. There is strength in the argument that Bathsheba, who as queen held a position of authority in the court, took a more active part in the plot than obediently performing as a puppet in an act produced by Nathan. It is obvious that her own status and authority after David's death were tied up with the outcome of the succession issue; if Solomon became king, she would enjoy the position, power and privileges of 'queenmother'.108 This point is forcefully brought out in the rather terse statement made by Nathan to Bathsheba—'Have you not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggjth has become king ...?' (v. 11); the clear message, although it has not been spelt out in so many words, is that the status desired by Bathsheba is about to be taken by Haggith. The implication cannot be missed in the deliberate coupling of her fate with that of her son Solomon in v. 12.109 The positive influence of Bathsheba on the plot, and perhaps a more active part in its instigation than the narrative implies, is claimed to have some support from an examination of the influential position of the queens and the pan they played in harem intrigues.110 Evidence is available from Assyria, where Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were both elevated to the throne in preference to their older brothers through the influence of mother ar/d grandmother respectively, from Egypt, where there is a record of a harem intrigue in the last days of Rameses III, and from Ugarit, where Ahatmilku, the queen-consort, took an active role in settling a dispute about the succession after her husband's death. Similarly, it is claimed, their mothers exercised considerable influence in securing the designation of Solomon and Abijah (2 Chron. 11.21).111 It may be conceded that probably Bathsheba was more than a mere accomplice and a tool in the prophet's hand.112 But in view of the number of other people involved, and the clear indications that there was a struggle between two factions at court, the conflict cannot be attributed simply to the rivalry between Haggith and Bathsheba.113 In its present form the narrative obviously sets out to attribute to Nathan the major role in the plot. It was not the queen that had called upon him to give her counsel, but it was he who approached

3. Succession to David's Throne

51

Bathsheba. Despite the recent turn of events, the queen does not seem to have reacted, and Nathan had to ask her whether she was aware of these developments and of their implication for her—'Have you not heard...?' It was Nathan himself who offered her counsel, for which the queen had made no request. It was he too that brought to her notice the need to take action, and that not simply for Solomon's sake but also to save her own position. Whatever the true circumstances surrounding the plot may have been, the present narrative ascribes the leading role to Nathan; he was able to make use of Bathsheba, who would naturally be willing to comply with his wishes because of her own desire to retain her status. This interpretation of the narrative takes the point that Nathan was acting as the leader of the pro-Solomonic group, whose aim was to secure the nomination of Solomon as David's successor. Through his shrewdness in assessing Bathsheba's position and pointing it out to her, he was able to win her support and ready co-operation in the plot he had conceived. An examination of the place of the oath fabricated by Nathan confirms that we are dealing with a devious attempt to intervene in what was an expected pattern of succession. The essence of the oath, purported to have been made to Bathsheba, was 'Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne' (v. 13, cf. its repetition in w. 17, 30).114 No record of such an oath has been preserved in the Biblical tradition, and the attempt to find proof of Solomon's designation as crown-prince in earlier passages depends on very slender evidence. AhlstrOm's115 case is built on his readiness to interpret the naming of Solomon as Jedidiah by Nathan as an oath in which the prophet announces the successor to the throne, and he assumes that this was the oath to which reference is made in 1 Kings 1. This, however, is very unlikely. The oath in 2 Sam. 12.25, if it is to be interpreted as such, was made by Nathan to Bathsheba; but in 1 Kings 1 the oath is claimed to have been made personally and secretly by David to Bathsheba. Because of the personal nature of the fabricated oath, Nathan was not to know of it. When he came in to David, he did not even mention an oath, but chose another line of approach to the king (1.22-27). The oath mentioned cannot, therefore, have been any word mediated through Nathan. There are some indications in the narrative to support the view that an oath concerning the succession was unknown. In view of its importance for the future of the Davidic dynasty, it is remarkable that, if such an oath had been made, it was not known within the

52

The Nathan Narratives

inner circle of the court. No suggestion is made that Adonijah was aware of an oath, and therefore the calling of an assembly at En-rogel and his self-elevation to be co-regent is not presented as an act of rebellion against known plans made by his father. Nowhere in 1 Kings 1-2 is it suggested that Adonijah was responsible for an uprising in order to overthrow his father's wishes; in this the narrative stands in contrast to the account of Absalom's rebellion in 2 Samuel 15. Adonijah, acting in very special circumstances, merely assumed the authority that was to be his on his father's death,116 and seems to be unaware that any other plans had been made by his father. Even if it is accepted that there was a strong rivalry between the two brothers, a fact that is confirmed by Adornjah's action in not inviting Solomon to his sacrifice,117 there are no grounds for suggesting that the throne had been promised by David to Solomon and that Adonijah was in effect seizing it contrary to his father's wishes. It is also clear from the narrative that David's wishes concerning the succession were unknown to Solomon and his supporters, as is emphasised in Nathan's words to David (vv. 22-27). Although Nathan had previously made clear reference to an oath made personally by David to Bathsheba (v. 13), when he came to the king he did not show any awareness of the oath. Since it was claimed to have been an oath made to the queen, Nathan was careful not to mention it, and thus avoided giving any hint of a plot between himself and Bathsheba.118 Thus, whilst Bathsheba went to the king and suggested to him that, in view of his oath to her, he could not have given Adonijah permission to take the actions described ('although you, my lord the king, do not know it', v. 18), Nathan went to him and craftily worked on the assumption that the king had given Adonijah permission without informing other members of his court. Whether v. 24 is taken as a question or a statement,119 one cannot miss the almost verbatim reproduction of the oath quoted by Bathsheba to David in v. 17, but with the replacement of Solomon's name with 'Adonijah'. After he had stated this, Nathan proceeded to accuse the king of acting in this manner without informing his court officials (v. 27). The accusation that he had made a promise to Adonijah without informing the court had the desired effect on the aged David and he confirmed the oath that had a few minutes earlier been implanted in his mind by Bathsheba (w. 28ff.). Both the suggestion that Adonijah did not know of an oath and the fact that Nathan had to act as if he did not know of the purported

3. Succession to David's Throne

53

oath to Bathsheba, indicate that the oath mentioned in vv. 13,17, 30 is a complete fabrication.120 In v. 13 Nathan was not reminding Bathsheba of an oath made to her, but was suggesting it to her as a means whereby she could secure her own position and the accession of her son Solomon. He appears to have been taking advantage of the king's senility, and was also probably playing on the special affection that David had for Balhsheba^121 his plot depended entirely on the king in his senility accepting Bathsheba's word. Admittedly according to this interpretation Nathan was acting in a very dubious, if not corrupt, manner in 1 Kings I;122 he was responsible for inventing a false statement and for persuading Bathsheba to present it to the king, which unquestionably renders him guilty of deception. But his action must be understood against the background of the HebroniteJebusite rivalry. The assumption of power by Adonijah presented the Jebusite faction with a crisis, and Nathan acted swiftly on behalf of this faction and masterminded a plan to secure the throne for its preferred candidate, Solomon. Despite the dubious nature of his plot, Nathan successfully achieved his goal and Solomon was duly acclaimed as David's successor. Thus Nathan does not simply appear as one member of a group of persons representing the Jerusalemite and Jebusite interests in the succession to the throne. He is rather presented as the leader and the most influential of the persons associated with this group. Ishida123 rightly dismisses the suggestion that Zadok was the leader of Solomon's party and argues that the priests played only a secondary role; he is justified in referring to Nathan as the 'ideologue' of Solomon's party. He stood out from amongst the group, exerted his influence on the queen and secured the throne for their nominee. He was a person of authority in the court and naturally assumed the leadership of the Jerusalemite or Jebusite element within King David's administration. When faced with a crisis that would lead inevitably to a decrease and possible demise of the Jebusite influence at court, he acted swiftly and shrewdly. Reconstruction The most obvious place to look for the origins of a narrative that attributes such a vital role to Nathan is among the native, Jebusite traditions of Jerusalem, and more specifically in a circle that was very close to Nathan himself and anxious to preserve an account of his achievements. Setting the narrative in this context provides an explanation of some of its main characteristics:

54

The Nathan Narratives (a)

(b)

(c)

Giving precedence to Nathan over Bathsheba would not be out of place in such a tradition. As noted above, there is a possibility that Bathsheba herself was from among the native Jebusite population of Jerusalem.124 If so, she would have been as concerned as Nathan was with the succession of Solomon to the throne. As noted above too,125 it is probable that she as queen would have taken a more active role in achieving this aim than is attributed to her in the present narrative. But a tradition originating from a circle close to Nathan would naturally concentrate on his part in court affairs, and would give him a leading role, even at the expense of Bathsheba, who has been demoted to a subordinate part. This would possibly account too for the naming of Nathan in connection with Solomon's anointing (v. 23, cf. v. 45), a feature that is not without its difficulties. The most obvious solution, which is to regard the name Nathan as an addition because he does not function in the actual anointing (v. 39),126 is not entirely satisfactory. Other reasons for omitting his name have been put forward: the verb 'let ... anoint him1 in v. 34 is in the singular, and so a reference to Nathan is superfluous; the rite of anointing is more appropriately ascribed to a priest. The omission of Nathan's name does not, however, seem to be justified, since anointing was not confined to priests; prophets were sometimes entrusted with anointing (1 Sam. 9.16; 10.1; 15.1; 16.1,12ff; 2 Sam. 12.7; 2 Kings 9.3,6,12), and even when a priest was responsible for performing the actual anointing the prophet undertook a related function, such as speaking an anointing oracle.127 Whatever the different functions of priest and prophet may have been at this particular anointing, it would be natural for a tradition that attaches to Nathan such an important pan in the succession of Solomon to introduce his name side by side with that of Zadok when referring to the anointing. The narrative's attention to details of court protocol may also indicate that it originated from among court personnel; its attribution to Nathan or those near him would explain this feature. It is in the sections of the narrative that describe the interviews of Bathsheba and Nathan with David that interest in such detail appears. According to 1.15 Bathsheba,

3. Succession to David's Throne

55

because she had direct access to the king, entered his chamber unannounced.128 Nathan, however, was in a different position and was not allowed to enter the chamber without previous announcement to the king (vv. 22-23). Although such points appear to be of very minor importance, they demonstrate a detailed knowledge of court etiquette, as well as sufficient interest to make the point that these customs were carefully observed. Both Bathsheba and Nathan also followed the usual practice of bowing and doing obeisance on entering the king's presence (w. 16,23), with Nathan the servant making the posture more distinct than Bathsheba the queen.129 (d) A narrative focussing on Nathan and wishing to demonstrate the successful part that he took in setting the Jerusalemite Solomon on the throne of David instead of the Hebronite Adonijah would feel no embarrassment in referring to rather dubious behaviour in achieving this desired result. On the contrary, there would be a certain amount of pride in showing how Nathan, with Bathsheba's co-operation, outwitted the Adonijah party and secured the nomination of Solomon by the senile David. The similarity between the circumstances surrounding the succession of David by Solomon rather than Adonijah and those surrounding the succession of Isaac by Jacob rather than Esau cannot be missed. The latter episode is basically that of a 'competition between Jacob and Esau, complicated by the deception of Jacob and Rebekah. Because of the deception, the blessing falls on the wrong son'.130 Furthermore, 'Jacob appears as the deceiver under the tutelage of his mother'.131 Despite these rather striking similarities, there are differences in the relationship between the personnel involved and the way the deception plot develops. But there is a common motif: succession passes on to the younger son rather than the elder by deceiving the one bestowing the right of succession. The narrative in Genesis accepts such a deception without any attempt to hide it or gloss over it; similarly the Jebusite tradition behind 1 Kings 1 accepts that there was deception in settling the issue of succession to David's throne. It was probably accepted without any reservation or attempt to suppress it on the principle that the end justifies the means.

56

The Nathan Narratives

These are strong arguments in favour of tracing the original and basic form of the narrative in 1 Kings 1 to a group of Solomon's supporters.132 The main concern of the group was to secure his nomination as successor to the throne, but behind that concern was a deep interest in preserving the native, Jebusite tradition of Jerusalem within the framework of the new Israelite monarchy established in the city. The prime mover was. Nathan, and it seems likely that the narrative originated with a group that was very close to Nathan himself. Despite its Jerusalemite-Jebusite interest, origin and colouring, this account of the succession contained one element of vital importance for the compilers of the Succession Narrative: in it is preserved evidence that Solomon was nominated by David as his successor. However unpalatable some of the details may seem, the essence of the narrative was too significant for it to be omitted, for it provided a fitting climax for the Succession Narrative by proclaiming the legitimacy of Solomon's succession. Nathan had not simply displayed his skill in securing the throne for Solomon, but he had achieved it with David's blessing and authority.133 Solomon in this way came to the throne, not as an usurper, but as the nominee of the preceding monarch and thus as the only legitimate successor of David. By securing his nomination, Nathan had given Solomon status, moral authority and an unsevered link with the immediate past history of the dynasty. The proven legitimacy of Solomon's succession was greatly appreciated by the compilers of the Succession Narrative, and so they adopted the Nathan-Jerusalemite tradition and incorporated it into their narrative as a suitable conclusion. What adaptations were made to the original narrative cannot be traced. If the Nathan tradition had openly delighted in Nathan's success against the Adonijah party and had with some justification triumphed in the outcome, that element was toned down. One thing is obvious: no attempt was made to suppress and delete from the narrative the account of Nathan's deception. The reason is also obvious: inextricably bound with that deception was the confirmation by David of an oath making Solomon his successor, and that could not be excised, for it was the most important element in the legitimation of his successor. When the narrative was later revised, only slight modifications were made to it, and these serve to emphasise the legitimacy of Solomon's succession to the throne. As noted above,134 the revisions in vv. 30, 35b-37, 46-48 emphasise that the Davidic dynasty was

3. Succession to David's Throne

57

under divine favour, and this was especially evident in the fact that David had a successor in the person of Solomon, who had been anointed and had even taken over the kingship during David's lifetime.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4 ORACLES CONCERNING THE TEMPLE AND THE DYNASTY (2 SAM. 7.1-17) Whereas 1 Kings 1-2 forms the climax of the Succession Narrative, 2 Samuel 7 provides an introduction for it; with promises of a house, a kingdom and a throne that will be established for ever the succession to David is thrown to the centre of the stage and becomes the issue on which attention will from now on be focused. The spokesman on this important occasion was Nathan the Prophet. Again important issues arise when 2 Samuel 7 is analysed in detail, most notably questions about the unity of the chapter and the extent to which it was annotated and revised. Such an analysis, which will be based on the suggestion that two separate oracles (w. 1-7 and 8-16) form the core of this chapter, will be taken as a basis for understanding Nathan's attitude towards the two fundamental issues that become central in the chapter, namely the building of a temple and a successor for David. After separating the later additions made to these two oracles from their original core, the next step is to discuss the origin and provenance of the verses designated as original core. Finally, attention is given to the purpose of the narrative in its present form; standing as it does at the beginning of the Succession Narrative it gives legitimation to the Jerusalem temple and at the same time emphasises the legitimacy of the dynasty of David. The words attributed to Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 form one of the most important sections in the Old Testament because Nathan's promise concerning the Davidic dynasty (especially in v. 16) has become the basis for an understanding of the Hebrew monarchy and the hopes attached to it. The so-called 'oracle of Nathan' has been regarded as a key text in any study of Israel's messianic thinking.1 It has been claimed that the oracle is not to be viewed simply as an off-

60

The Nathan Narratives

shoot of messianic prophecy, but, because of its proclamation of the eternal dynasty of the house of David, it has to be considered as the root and origin of the messianic thinking found in the Old Testament.2 It is, nevertheless, a section that is beset by many difficulties, especially when an attempt is made to unravel the original portions from the many accretions that they acquired in later times. The attempts to find a satisfactory solution to the problems of this chapter have been numerous and show considerable variety both in their approach and in their final proposals.3. The chapter divides naturally into two main sections: the first (vv. 1-17) contains an account of David's consultation with Nathan, and of the prophet's words to the king following a vision in the night; the second (vv. 18-29) is composed entirely of David's prayer to God. There are sufficient grounds for separating the second section from the first, for the prayer makes no allusion to the temple theme found in vv. 1-17,4 and oddly enough, in asking for a blessing on David's house, makes a request for what has already been granted.5 One suggestion is that the prayer was originally connected with the ark ceremony in ch. 6 rather than the dynastic promise in ch. 7.6 Since Nathan is not even mentioned in this second section, the present study must be mainly concerned with the first. The prayer section only becomes relevant when it provides evidence for determining the age, provenance and theological significance of the layers of tradition that it has in common with vv. 1-17. Analysis

Any attempt at analysing the Nathan oracle in vv. 1-17 has the difficult task of deciding which parts of the prophecy are to be regarded as original, and which are to be attributed to the deuteronomistic historians who worked over the material at a later date. Without giving a full and detailed account of recent analyses of the text, it can be seen from other surveys that there are three main approaches, (i) Some find in these verses only a very meagre original core, which has then been expanded in a later strand and has subsequently received later additions, (ii) Others despair of finding an original kernel and so argue that the whole section is to be regarded as homogeneous and belongs to a period that is much later than the one in which it has been set. (iii) Others again take the view that a detailed analysis of the section and a thorough search for predeuteronomistic strands will produce more substantial evidence of the existence of such material than is admitted by those described

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

61

under (i). In seeking a satisfactory analysis of the text it is hoped to demonstrate that the first approach does not allow for a sufficient amount of original material, that the second approach, in arguing for the unity of the passage, fails to recognise the successive stages through which the material has passed, and that we must accept the position advocated by those taking the third method of approach and attempting to recover a fairly substantial original account and to trace the subsequent additions made to it. The origin of the trend which found only very few verses to have been original, and which, as is pointed out by T. Veijola,7 opened a new phase in the discussion of 2 Samuel 7, is to be traced back to the work of L. Rost on the Succession Narrative.8 His treatment of this chapter began with David's prayer in vv. 18-29, the crux of which he saw in v. 27a; the prayer in general, with the exception of the Dtr expansions in vv. 22-24, and probably also in v. 26, was attributed to Davidic times. The two main reasons given in support of its antiquity were: (a) its formal similarities to other prayers, such as Gen. 32.1013; 1 Kgs 8.23-26; 1 Chron. 29.10-19; (b) the fact that Solomon in his reference to the divine legitimation of the Davidic dynasty in 1 Kgs 2.24 seems to have been alluding to 2 Sam. 7.11-16. Although David's prayer does not concern us directly in our study of the Nathan traditions, it must be noted that Rost's acceptance of the prayer as a starting-point for his study of 2 Samuel 7 has raised some doubts about his methodology. Veijola offers two valid criticisms of Rost's approach.9 The first is the fundamental objection to working back from the prayer to the promise given to David, for the prayer is obviously not as old as the promise itself. It is, then, an incorrect procedure to move towards an historical evaluation of the remainder of the chapter on the basis of its connection with the prayer.10 The second is that Rost takes what must be considered as late material to prove the prayer's antiquity. In his own treatment of the Succession Narrative Veijola takes 1 Kgs 2.24 to be a later deuteronomistic addition (DtrG),11 which cannot therefore be taken as proof of the great antiquity of the promise to David of a dynasty. Furthermore, the passages chosen for comparison in search of indications that the prayer was early cannot be taken in the way suggested by Rost; 1 Kgs 8.23-26 and 1 Chron. 29.10-19 are later than David's prayer, and the self-humiliation in Gen. 32.10-13 cannot be compared with 2 Sam. 7.18-29. Such fundamental criticism of Rost's methodology in the first part of his analysis naturally arouses suspicion as we proceed to his treatment of vv. 117.

62

The Nathan Narratives

First for consideration is Nathan's prophecy in w. 8-17, where Rost found an older kernel in v. lib, which stands out against its context, and in v. 16, which must be taken with it. Taken together these verses contain a fragment of Nathan's original oracle, and they are attributed to the time of David because the prayer presupposes an oracle. A later stratum appears in w. 8-1 la, 12, 14, 15, 17; this stratum originated from the time of Isaiah, when Assyria had stormed through Judah and left only Jerusalem standing. The promise in v. 13 is of a still later origin, and is attributed to the period of Josiah; it is probably deuteronomistic and relates the oracle more closely to historical fact. Whilst admitting that there is validity in this kind of approach, Noth came to the conclusion that Rost's solution to the problems of this chapter cannot be correct.12 Noth was not persuaded by his stylistic distinctions, which were too narrowly based, nor was he satisfied with the extraction of individual sections, which were then left hanging in the air without any attempt to give them wider literary connections. Veijola too has reservations about Rost's methodology in dealing with w. 8-17,13 especially on the question of the age of the two main strata. It is suggested that it is not feasible for an oracle that originally promised an 'eternal' dynasty to David to be reduced at a later date to a promise concerning David's immediate successor.14 When Rost came to deal with w. 1-7, he separated vv. l-4a from w. 4b-7 and proposed a very complicated explanation of the relationship between the two sections. The second part (w. 4b-7) he connected with the second stratum in w. 8-17; there are, however, slight stylistic differences between the two, and the reason suggested for this is that behind w. 4b-7 there stood originally an older substratum which has by now been differently clothed by the author of the second stratum of w. 8-17. The first part (w. l-4a) is connected neither with the ark narrative, despite such an impression being given on the grounds of content,15 nor with the second stratum of vv. 8-17. Despite Rost's own claim that the acceptance of such complicated processes successfully surmounts the difficulties of this chapter, it has to be admitted that a theory based on the supposition that an original stratum has been lost, and then replaced by another form freshly written, proves too hypothetical and unsatisfactory.16 Although Rost won strong support from a number of scholars, who accepted both his methodology and his conclusions as a correct basis for understanding 2 Sam 7,17 it has now become clear that there are substantial objections to his discussion of all the three main sections

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

63

of this chapter. More recent versions of his approach, whilst successful in removing some of the difficulties of Rost's analysis, have not been able to escape from the fundamental criticism that the meagre older kernel, when extracted, seems to be an isolated and unconnected fragment. For instance E. Kutsch,18 who avoids the pursuit of stylistic distinctions by presenting a case for the unity of the chapter both in style and content, maintains that there is evidence of ancient material and of later deuteronomistic additions. The older kernel is reduced to v. lib alone, and the contention that v. 16 is to be taken with it is dismissed. The deuteronomistic element is found only in vv. 12b, 13a. Poulssen,19 on the other hand, rejecting the idea that the chapter is a unity, finds in it two different complexes, vv. 5-1 la and w. llb-16. Behind them stands an older kernel, which was w. 1 Ib, 16, as was argued by Rost. The addition of v. 13 brought together these two complexes. But Poulssen rejects the idea that v. 13 is a late and deuteronomistic addition; he dates it rather in the reign of Solomon. These later interpretations of 2 Samuel 7 have changed the analysis proposed by Rost at some significant points, and in doing so have avoided some of the pitfalls. Nevertheless, they share the basic presupposition of a very small and fragmentary original kernel, and for that reason are not acceptable. Kutsch does not stand alone in making a case for the unity of 2 Samuel 7, allowing for an original kernel and two later accretions of about half a verse each. As is noted by Veijola in his survey of research on this chapter,20 older critical scholars were agreed on two points—the comparatively late date of the chapter and its unity. In modern times too the argument for the unity of the chapter has found considerable support. One of the approaches taken is that a unity of content can be perceived in the chapter. According to Mowinckel21 the intention of the chapter was to provide a reason why King David did not build a Temple in Jerusalem; he took the whole chapter, including what Rost designated as a deuteronomistic addition, to have been composed in the age of Solomon for that very purpose. Noth also finds in it a unity of content22 and bases it on the supposition that David in setting up his kingship had to connect it to the previous history of Israel as God's people. This was achieved by transferring the ark to the city of Jerusalem, which is taken to be the dominant theme of 2 Samuel 7. The introduction of the ark at the beginning of the chapter is not a foreign element, but provides a suitable Sitz im Leben for the promise to David in the remainder of the chapter. The unifying theme of ch. 7, therefore, is that, despite

64

The Nathan Narratives

changes of scene, it is fundamentally concerned with David as king of the ark sanctuary in Jerusalem. The form-critical studies of S. Herrmann23 brought substantial support for this concept of unity, as was readily seen by Noth and others.24 Herrmann's main contention was that 2 Samuel 7 as a whole forms a literary unit which has been deliberately moulded according to an Egyptian pattern found in the so-called Konigsnovelle. The institutions connected with the king, with special concentration on temples and cultic practices, are described in the Konigsnovelle. The features in 2 Samuel 7 that provide very close links with the Egyptian model are: the reference to the king in his palace (v. 1), plans to build a temple (v. 2), consultation with an official (w. 2-3), an account of a dream-vision (w. 5-16) and a reference to the king's adoption by God (v. 14). These links are so strong that they can in no way be damaged by the slight differences that have become necessary in the process of modifying the Konigsnovelle for Israel's particular situation. Because David's court was on a smaller and more modest scale than the Egyptian model some adaptations were inevitable. For instance, David's consultation with the single official Nathan contrasts with the presence of many officials in the Egyptian version. There are, however, more basic differences which are not as easily explained, especially the fact that David was thwarted in his plan by the official consulted and was thus prevented from building a temple. Added to this also is the rather peculiar feature that the king himself was not the recipient of the dream-vision. To overcome these difficulties Herrmann has to refer to a 'copernican twist to the Konigsnovelle' and to accept Rost's suggestion25 that in the original form of the narrative David rather than Nathan was the recipient of the divine revelation. Similarly M. Gdrg in his most recent comparison of the Biblical narrative with the Egyptian Konigsnovelle26 thinks that Nathan was not mentioned in the original form of vv. 1-7, thus making provision for a direct revelation to David. GOrg's treatment, however, is not a straightforward repetition of the proposals advanced by Herrmann, for he abandons the basic supposition that the chapter is a unity. In effect Gdrg attempts a combination of Herrmann's argument for finding behind the chapter an Egyptian prototype with the literary critical approach that seeks to separate later additions to the chapter from its original form.27 Go'rg finds a continuation of the original form of w. 1-7 in w. 8b, 9, lib, 12-16,18-22a, 25-29; a later strand in the narrative can be traced in vv. 8a, 10, lla-B, lib, 17, 22b-24.

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

65

Thus, whilst admitting some later modification, Gorg retains a basic original unit, which has been based on the Konigsnovelle^ or perhaps rather on Egyptian literature containing elements from the Konigsnovelle.2% The most important elements of ch. 7, a divine revelation, the promise of a dynasty with the king's response and the promise relating to the building of a temple (v. 13), can be compared with parallels provided from Egyptian literature. The attempts of form-critical studies to find a unity in 2 Samuel 7 are obviously not without their difficulties, and their shortcomings have been made clear in several criticisms of them.29 One point has already become clear in the brief summary offered above: the argument for establishing parallels with Egyptian literature has to allow for some modification to meet the situation in Jerusalem in Davidic times. Some of these modifications are by no means slight; the fact that some of them are so substantial has led to a rejection of the whole procedure of seeking parallels with Egypt. An important modification, according to Kutsch,30 is that in the Konigsnovelle the king had the power to carry through his plans; David's failure to execute his proposal places 2 Samuel 7 in sharp contrast to the Egyptian composition. The fact that the plan was rejected by Yahweh gives the Biblical account an entirely different structure, and also a different perspective, for, as Herrmann himself admits, it is not the king, but the divine word that rules in the Israelite version. Because of this Kutsch finds adequate reasons for rejecting the suggestion that 2 Samuel 7 follows the structure of the Konigsnovelle. Ishida too31 fails to find a parallel for this tension between god and king in Egyptian texts, which generally regard the king as an incarnate god. He therefore turns to Mesopotamia, where the king was a servant of the gods and always sought divine blessing on his reign, and finds parallels between Nathan's prophecy and material found in building inscriptions and Neo-Assyrian prophecies. Although Ishida finds that Nathan's prophecy has a literary unity and has Mesopotamian parallels, he does not attempt to show that the chapter was composed according to a Mesopotamian model to the same extent as has been done in the case of the Egyptian Konigsnovelle. The contrast in this chapter between temple building and royal ideology provides a second reason against establishing a connection with the Egyptian model; this contrast between rejection of a temple and a promise of dynastic prosperity is unparalleled.32 Admittedly the two features appear in both models, but the Israelite structure,

66

The Nathan Narratives

which sets the refusal by Yahweh to support David's plan to build the temple in contrast to Yahweh's promise of blessing on the house of David, cannot have been derived from the Konigsnovelle, where there is no tension whatsoever between royal ideology on the one hand and Pharaoh's plan and his execution of it on the other.33 Another criticism that is mentioned by Veijola and others34 is that Herrmann arrives at this proposed Gattung for 2 Samuel 7 not from a detailed literary or form-critical analysis of the chapter itself, but solely by resorting to a study of extra-Biblical literature, and then applying this to the Biblical composition. The mention of literary and form-critical analysis introduces the point at which Herrmann's approach to the chapter, in common with all other arguments in support of taking it as a unity, fails to satisfy. A detailed analysis of the chapter's content, form and literary style will not support the claim that it is a unit.35 Nor will the search for other models for comparison with 2 Samuel 7 survive the attack on the view that the chapter is a unity. Of course models that are nearer to the essence of Old Testament religion and literature, and are not as foreign to it as the Egyptian Konigsnovelle, escape some of the criticisms that have been levelled against Herrmann. This is true of the cases that have been made for finding in the chapter a covenantal structure,36 and more specifically a model of a promissory, unconditional covenant.37 But these attempts too fall into the same category as Herrmann's approach in that they seek to establish a structure that imposes unity on a chapter that cries out for another kind of approach. A solution that does not ascribe unity to the chapter, but is at the same time willing to allow that a more extensive original than the minimal amount suggested by Rost formed a basis for further successive redactions, has been sought in more recent works on the chapter. As has been rightly pointed out by Mettinger,38 this approach has arisen in the context of interest in the deuteronomistic elements that can be traced in such compositions as this chapter, and at the same time in seeking to establish which strands are predeuteronomistic. It is not sufficient to assert that the chapter is 'a Deuteronomic pivotal unit, summing up not merely the Davidic tradition, b u t . . . the D-work as a whole'39 and at the same time to reject all attempts to analyse it further and separate the strands evident in the deuteronomistic composition.40 Whilst it is true that the text betrays very clear signs of deuteronomistic editing, and that the unit may have played a formative role in the structuring of the Deuteronomistic History, an attempt must be made to penetrate

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

67

deeper into the past history of the section and recover what is possible of its form at a pre-deuteronomistic stage in its growth. A brief summary of the analyses proposed by the three representatives of this approach chosen by P. Kyle McCarter41 will amply illustrate the method used and will at the same time underline the difficulty of obtaining a consensus view. P.M. Cross,42 who accepts that the chapter in its present form is a deuteronomistic composition, that it reflects the normative view of the deuteronomist and that it does occupy a significant place in the structure of the Deuteronomistic History, takes the discussion a step further by looking for traces of pre-deuteronomistic strands. Apart from the prayer in w. 18-29, which is deuteronomistic throughout and presumes the existence of the full composite oracle,43 there are three other sections for consideration. The first section, w. 1-7, contains what is designated as the 'old oracle' of Nathan, but which in its present form has included that original poetic oracle in deuteronomistic prose. A remnant of an old oracle, which explained why David did not build a temple, is preserved in the poetic couplet: As for me, I dwell in a cedar palace; but the Ark dwells in the midst of curtains;

the same tradition is continued in w. 5f. Cross finds the allusion to this oracle to be a minor element in the narrative and so refers to it as a preliminary oracle, whose original culmination in an oath concerning David's seed has been lost and replaced by the eternal decree of w. llb-16. The main section obviously is that in w. llb-16 containing the 'eternal decree', but again showing signs that the original oracle has now been incorporated in a deuteronomistic composition. The main part of the original decree appears in v. 14: I will become his father, and he shall become my son. If he does evil, then I will chastise him; I will punish (him) with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of man,

and in v. 16: Thy house shall be secure before me, thy throne will be established for ever.

The original was obviously a royal oracle, with fragments of a formula of divine kingship and which, like Ps. 89.20-38 and Isa. 9.1-6,

68

The Nathan Narratives

had a place in the coronation liturgy. A third section, vv. 8-1 la, which does not belong to either of the two oracles each side of it, is designated by Cross as a deuteronomistic linkage, although some older material is reflected here and there. In joining the two older pieces and casting the whole chapter in a deuteronomistic form, the editors did give it the appearance of unity in that its central theme is David's dynasty. In tracing the complicated process behind this chapter, Cross finds deuteronomistic features in all its main sections. He does, however, distinguish between sections which are basically old, but reflect some deuteronomistic characteristics, and those that are deuteronomistic compositions, but contain some older material. It would perhaps have been more helpful if Cross had approached the chapter layer by layer, rather than section by section. T. Veijola,44 like Cross, assumes the presence of two different oracles, which were originally independent. The first, in vv. la, 2-5, and 7, contains a rejection of David's plan to build a temple; in the present form of this account of an oracular guidance given through Nathan there are two deuteronomistic interpolations, viz. vv. Ib, 6. Another deuteronomistic addition in v. 13 qualifies the rejection of a temple by making it temporary and by distinguishing between 'a house for my name' (which is allowed) and 'a house to dwell in' (which is unacceptable). The second oracle, in vv. 8a, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15,17, is concerned with the succession to David's throne; it asserts that there will be an immediate successor, although he is not named. By including in the present account two short additions, the deuteronomists have imposed their own interpretation on the original: (a) the insertion of v. 13 makes it unmistakably clear that the immediate successor was Solomon; (b) the addition of vv. lib, 16 extends the promise considerably, for there is a movement from mentioning an immediate successor to the promise of an eternal Davidic dynasty. Veijola takes a further step by asserting that the deuteronomistic additions to 2 Samuel 7 were not made at one and the same time, but are to be attributed to two different redactions. From the first, identified as DtrH, came vv. lib, 13,16,18-21,25-29; a later redaction, identified as DtrN, was responsible for vv. Ib, 6, 11 a, 22-24. Veijola is certainly willing to allow for the presence in the narrative of a more substantial amount of original material than was admitted by Rost. By attempting to unravel the successive layers that have been added to the original he has gone further than simply accepting that there has been deuteronomistic editing, as is done by Cross. He has tried to demonstrate that there lies behind the

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

69

narrative a more complicated process of redaction. There may be room for disagreement over points of detail, such as the ascription of individual verses to a particular stage of redaction in preference to another. Some scholars show a more basic scepticism of the evidence for the redaction known as DtrN,45 whilst others have questioned the validity of Veijola's whole approach.46 Nevertheless, he has opened up a new field of discussion that cannot be ignored in any study of 2 Samuel 7. T.N.D. Mettinger47 acknowledges the strength of this approach which, having separated the deuteronomistic additions from the original narrative, seeks by further analysis to establish the various redactions through which the material passed. His proposed analysis, however, is different from those presented by Cross and Veijola. His starting point is the separation of deuteronomistic elements, and those are found in vv. Ib, 10-1 la, 22b-26, which are less extensive than the number of verses so designated in the other two analyses already outlined. In the pre-deuteronomistic material Mettinger recognises two layers, one later than the other, but both preceding the deuteronomistic redaction. The first is called the Solomonic layer because it is concerned with the legitimacy of King Solomon and originated from the period of his kingship; it is found in vv. la, 2-7, 12-14a, 16, 17. This so-called 'Solomonic prophecy of Nathan' was further extended by the addition of vv. 8-9, lib, 14b-15, 16,18-22a, 27-29, which emphasise the divine election of David and his dynasty. Nathan's prophecy underwent what is called a 'dynastic redaction', which is dated in the decades immediately after Solomon's death. Whereas Veijola finds more than one deuteronomistic redaction of two original oracles, Mettinger seeks to establish that the relationship between the two oracles is best explained as a case of an original prophecy acquiring additions through a further redaction in predeuteronomic times; consequently the final deuteronomistic accretions are reduced to a minimum. The strength of the case put forward by Mettinger is that it does attempt to define more closely the relationship between the first prophecy of Nathan in vv. 1-7 and the dynastic element introduced in vv. 8ff. His analysis, however, is not without its weaknesses. By extending the original prophecy of Nathan beyond v. 7 to include vv. 12-14a, 16, 17 he seems to be ignoring the natural division of the narrative. Furthermore, by designating the first division as the 'Solomonic prophecy', he changes its emphasis, and by bringing in the Solomonic element he has eclipsed the true issue of the section, which was the building of the

70

The Nathan Narratives

Temple. The main concerns of the two sections are with the Temple and the dynasty, and not with Solomon and the dynasty as suggested by Mettinger. The main thrust of the above presentation of different approaches to 2 Samuel 7 is that neither the recognition of a very minute original core (following Rost), nor the attempt to establish the unity of the chapter (on grounds of content with Noth, or following Herrmann's form-critical analysis), adequately deals with this difficult and complicated chapter. A more acceptable method is found in the more recent analyses which recognise different layers in the chapter and seek to find how these layers were combined in successive redactions. However, since the analyses examined, and the many others that have been proposed,48 do not give grounds for a consensus of opinion, the evidence must be re-examined in order to reconstruct the growth of the chapter and permit a fresh estimate of its significance for our study of Nathan. As has already been noted, w. 18-29 are not strictly relevant to the present discussion, since Nathan has by now disappeared from the scene.49 Moreover, this section, more than any other part of the chapter, shows clear signs of affinity with the work of the Deuteronomists; most probably it is an entirely deuteronomistic composition,50 and not simply a deuteronomistic redaction of a predeuteronomistic form.51 The remainder of the chapter will be considered under its two main sections, w. 1-7 and vv. 8-16. The First Oracle An issue that has arisen in connection with vv. 1-7 is whether there was an older form of this section that did not contain any reference to Nathan. That, together with the presence of later deuteronomistic accretions, defines the scope of our discussion of these verses. Objection to the presence of Nathan in the original account has been raised on the grounds that the divine message was received by the king himself, and that the introduction of a prophet as an intermediary represents a later stage in the growth of the narrative. Consequently the original core, according to M. Go'rg52 contained only the following terse account: Now when the king dwelt in his house, the king said, 'I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent.' And the LORD said to David, 'I have not dwelt in a house, but have been moving about in a tent for my dwelling.'

Another analysis of the text that deletes the king's consultation with

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

71

Nathan from the original finds the core of the section in the message in vv. 5-7 and considers the scene described in the preceding verses to be a later construction to provide a historical occasion for that message.53 But with the excision of the Nathan scene the whole point of the tradition behind the section is lost, and with it too goes important clues as to the possible origin of that tradition. Obviously the main concern of the tradition was with the reason why David did not build a temple in Jerusalem.54 That this was an issue of some significance is confirmed by the various attempts in the Bible to find a reason for it, such as the implication in 1 Chron. 22.8; 28.3, that David had been guilty of shedding too much blood, or the suggestion in 1 Kgs 5.17 that he had been too busy because he had so many wars to fight.55 The point made in 2 Samuel 7 is that he had been forbidden to undertake the project because of a divine word mediated through the prophet Nathan; the point is lost if Nathan is dismissed from the scene. Many reconstructions of the text, therefore, rightly consider the Nathan scene an indispensable element in the original tradition behind the present narrative. It has been claimed that in extraBiblical accounts of kings seeking divine approval for their intention to build a temple parallels can be cited for much of the material in 2 Sam. 7.1-3. S. Herrmann,56 for example, found that all the ingredients of the Egyptian Konigsnovelle are present in 2 Sam. 7.117, with the inclusion of vv. 1-3, where attention is drawn to the following items for which there are parallels: the king residing in his palace (v. 1), planning a temple (v. 2) and engaging in discussion with an official (vv. 2-3). Others, who have found parallels elsewhere, find a common element in the preparations made to find out the divine will concerning the building of a temple,57 and even in the denial of a divine oracle, which of course meant that the king was refused the honour of being the builder of a temple.58 Even if such parallels are not taken into consideration, the consultation of David with Nathan and the rejection of David's plan through the prophet must be taken to constitute the original kernel of 2 Sam. 7.1-7 and indeed of the whole chapter. J. Coppens,59 for instance, finds a homogeneous section in vv. 1-3, lie and 16; it moves coherently from David's wish to build a house for Yahweh to the divine assertion concerning the Davidic dynasty. Others, who find a more substantial amount of original material in vv. 1-7 than is allowed by Coppens, retain most of vv. 1-3, and allow for only very minor additions to this section. Both T. Veijola60 and T.N.D. Mettinger61 think that the reference to

72

The Nathan Narratives

David having 'rest from all his enemies round about' in v. Ib marks out this half verse as an obvious deuteronomistic addition. The socalled 'rest formula' (Ruheformel] is a truly deuteronomistic phrase (see Deut. 12.10; 25.19; Josh. 21.44; 23.12; 1 Kgs 5.18),62 and is an extension that adds to v. 1 an element that is ignored in the remainder of vv. 1-7. There is nothing to correspond to this phrase in the synoptic passage in 1 Chron. 17.Iff, and the account of the Chronicler, on the basis of this and other features, is claimed to have a superior text in its version of Nathan's oracle.63 Moreover, it is obvious from the list of David's wars in ch. 8 that it is incorrect to describe this period as a period of rest from his enemies. Of course the deletion of this phrase from v. 1 has its implications for vv. 9ab and 11 a, which refer to cutting off all the enemies and having rest from them.64 With the exception of this phrase, the whole of vv. 1-3 can be accepted as original. There is no agreement about the extent of original material in vv. 4-7, with attention focussing naturally on the possibility of ascribing the words prohibiting a temple in vv. 5-7 to Davidic times. Because these verses contain a tradition that is distinctly hostile to the Temple they are regarded by many as a later addition, with J. Coppens65 finding evidence here of two stages of accretion, one constituting vv. 4-5a (together with vv. 8bc, 9-1 lab, 12-15) and concentrating on the foundation of a dynasty and asserting that David's successor would build a Temple, and the other made up of vv. 5b-7 (with vv. 10-11) and expressly prohibiting David from building the temple. L. Rost, as already noted,66 proposed a complicated solution by finding in vv. 4b-7 a replacement for an original tradition that has now become lost. Others, however, ascribe the whole of vv. 5-7 to the original kernel of the chapter.67 One of the verses that has to be considered in detail is v. 6. T. Veijola68 takes the whole of this verse as a deuteronomistic interpolation, but Mettinger69 maintains that it is to be retained as part of the original. The reasons given for treating this verse as suspect are as follows, (i) The closest parallels to the formula 'since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day' occur in texts which are usually designated as deuteronomistic (Deut. 9.7; 1 Sam. 8.8; 1 Kgs 8.16; 2 Kgs 21.25; Jer. 7.25; 11.7).70 Despite M. Noth's unwillingness to remove references to 'the people of Israel' and his claim that they may well have been part of the original,71 the phrase seems to be a deuteronomistic stock formula, (ii) In content this verse gives a review of past history and clearly places an emphasis on God's work on behalf of his people.

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

73

Despite the claim that Heilsgeschichte plays an important part in the chapter (cf. vv. 8ff.),72 its presence in v. 6 seems to be an obvious expansion, (iii) Another indication that it is an interpolation is the repetition of so many words from the immediate context: 'dwell' in v. 5, 'house' in vv. 5, 7, 'the people of Israel' in v. 7 and 'move about' in v. 7. Although T.N.D. Mettinger takes a different view, he has not made a convincing case for refuting the above arguments as they are put forward by T. Veijola. He states only that in considering the Exodus formula in v. 6 as deuteronomistic Veijola is taking things too far and refers to the contrasting view that this formula was predeuteronomistic;73 he thus dismisses the discussion of deuteronomistic phrases in vv. 4 and 6 as being of no importance. On the evidence produced above, it can be concluded that v. 6 must be regarded as a deuteronomistic addition.74 The many repetitions in v. 7 from both preceding and following verses render its authenticity questionable. In v. 7a the phrase 'in all the places where I have moved' echoes the deuteronomistic 'I have been moving about' in v. 6,75 and the phrase 'with all the people of Israel' repeats 'the people of Israel' from the stock deuteronomistic formula incorporated in the previous verse. It appears that the deuteronomists were not satisfied with adding v. 6 to the narrative, but further attempted to make it a more integral part of the section by repeating some of its key phrases in the sentence that followed. Similarly the phrase 'whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel' in v. 7 contains another reference to 'my people Israel' and also forms a link with 'I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep' in v. 8. The rendering of v. 7 is complicated by the difficult allusion to the appointment of 'the tribes of Israel ... to shepherd' the people76 and the attestation to a variant tradition referring to 'the judges of Israel' in 1 Chron. 17.6.77 In view of support in the LXX for the MT's 'tribes', the Chronicler's rendering seems dubious.78 There is no need to posit a dialectical variant79 or a substantive form from the root sabaf, 'staff',80 in order to obtain the translation 'judges' or 'staff-bearers'. It is more likely that the original text, which read 'tribes', was later modified, not under the influence of v. 11, as is sometimes suggested,81 but rather because the deuteronomists wrongly qualified 'tribes' by adding the phrase 'whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel'. When the Chronistic version of this section was prepared, it was logical for 'tribes' to be replaced by 'judges'. Thus the only part of v. 7 that can be attributed to the original tradition is the question 'did I speak a word with any of the

74

The Nathan Narratives

tribes of Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built me a house of cedar?" The original version of the first oracle of Nathan can now be reconstructed from vv. 1, 2-5, 7 as follows: 1 Now when the king dwelt in his house, 2 the king said to Nathan the prophet, 'See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent.' 3 And Nathan said to the king, 'Go, do all that is in your heart; for the LORD is with you.' 4 But the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, 5 'Go and tell my servant David, "Thus says the LORD: Would you build me a house to dwell in? 7 Did I speak a word to any of the tribes of Israel saying, Why have you not built me a house of cedar?'" When this original account was later expanded, it acquired the deuteronomistic rest-formula in v. Ib, the deuteronomistic interpolation in v. 6 which interprets God's rejection of a temple on the distinction between a house and a tent, and the deuteronomistic expansion of v. 7 to facilitate the insertion of v. 6 and to forge a closer link between the first and second oracles. Interpretation Nathan's objection to David's temple project is presented in vv. 5, 7 in the form of an appeal to past history, with the clear implication that his move to establish a permanent construction for God to dwell in was an innovation. Although the two verses have an interrogative form, their obvious intention is to suggest a negative reply and thus to prohibit David's plan.82 Many attempts have been made to derive the meaning of 2 Sam. 7.1-17 from the contrasting phrases or emphases that can be discerned in the narrative. Some find a significant contrast between 'would you build me a house?' in v. 5 and 'the LORD will make^ow a house' in v. lib83; it is a contrast that becomes possible because of the double meaning of bayit, 'house', which in v. 5 refers to the Temple but in v. lib denotes a dynasty. Two objections are usually made to this proposal: firstly, that a contrast cannot have" been intended between two verses which stand so far apart,84 and secondly, that the use of two different Hebrew words (yibneh, 'build' in v. 5 and ya'aseh, 'make' in v. lib) and a different Hebrew construction makes the contrast less forceful than it appears initially.85 Another contrast that is thought to give meaning to the passage is that based on vv. 5 and 13; 'would you build me a house?' in v. 5 implies that David is not given the honour,

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

75

whereas lhe shall build a house for my name' in v. 13 states categorically that his successor will be entrusted with the task.86 What is suggested is that once the dynasty is established a temple would follow; this promise was fulfilled in the erection of the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem. Both verses use the same verb, and there is an obvious contrast between the subjects, you in v. 5 and he in v. 13. There is, however, the same objection that these verses again stand so far apart; there is also the more basic difficulty that v. 5 is not concerned with the disapproval of one person, but rather rejects permanently the concept of building a temple.87 Still another contrast becomes apparent by concentrating entirely on the construction of v. 5: 'would you build me a house?'; David as a human being was not in a position to decide to build a house for God, for that decision could only be made by God alone. It is, therefore, suggested that the real issue is not whether a Temple was to be built, but rather who was to take the initiative.88 However, when the original unit, as reconstructed above, is considered on its own, the obvious contrast that appears is that between David and the tribal history; it is suggested that present development is contradictory to past tradition: 'Would you build me a house ...? Did I speak a word to any of the tribes. ..?' The argument presented is a historical one, and claims that the tradition of the tribal confederacy is to be maintained.89 God had not indicated to the Hebrew tribes that he wished one particular sanctuary to be designated as his dwelling place; why should he take that step now by allowing David to develop such plans for Jerusalem? This interpretation of Nathan's objection is not contradicted by the existence of other sanctuaries, particularly the one at Shiloh. Those who accept the idea of an Israelite amphictyony find a central sanctuary to be one of the most essential elements in such a confederacy.90 Some find that Shechem served as the first centre, but that it was replaced by Bethel, then by Gilgal and finally by Shiloh. Others claim that Shiloh alone served as the central sanctuary.91 Even those critical of the amphictyonic hypothesis recognise the importance of Shiloh.92 Unquestionably the ark was located at the temple in Shiloh (1 Sam. 3.3), and the importance of the sanctuary is evident from 1 Samuel 1-4. It was the only sanctuary of sufficient importance to present a challenge to the Jerusalem Temple, and a clash was inevitable between the new order established in Jerusalem under the Zadokites and the old rural ideal found in Shiloh and led by the Levites.93 Nathan, however, did not champion the old rural

76

The Nathan Narratives

tradition of Shiloh against the more permanent and centralized system represented by Jerusalem. Nor is it correct to argue that the critical stance towards the Temple in 2 Samuel 7 was aimed initially at Shiloh, but was later diverted in the direction of Jerusalem.94 The objection presented by Nathan is that, despite the importance of Shiloh, the Israelite tribes had not been specifically instructed by Yahweh to construct a central sanctuary as his permanent abode. As is correctly noted by A.D.H. Mayes,95 nothing in the texts relating to Shiloh can be construed to suggest that it was considered a central sanctuary for all the tribes. The picture emerging is that during the period of the judges a number of sanctuaries were functioning and that each was maintained by the tribe in whose territory it was situated. What David now had in mind for Jerusalem by bringing up the ark to the city (2 Samuel 6) and by constructing a 'house of cedar' for Yahweh 'to dwell in' was to set upon Jerusalem an entirely different status from that enjoyed previously by Shiloh. There are two inter-related aspects to this new development: (1) David's bid for a house of cedar for the ark in Jerusalem, coinciding as it does with the move to found there a central monarchy for all the tribes, is obviously interpreted by Nathan as a deliberate attempt to give this house the status of a permanent sanctuary. The arrangement at Shiloh had never been regarded as permanent;96 it had developed into a sanctuary of some importance naturally and without a contrived effort to give it pre-eminence or permanence. (2) David's consultation with Nathan is taken to be an attempt to gain divine designation for this permanent sanctuary; no such designation had been sought or given in connection with Shiloh. Therefore, despite Shiloh's importance, Nathan's objection was historically correct. In presenting his objection by means of the question 'Did I speak to any of the tribes?' he was on firm historical ground; what was proposed by David was an innovation that had no basis in the tribal tradition. In the original oracle a straightforward historical reason is given, and there is no hint of a more complex theological argument. However, Nathan's anti-Temple stance is difficult to understand in view of his presence in the pro-Solomonic camp in 1 Kgs 1-2, and especially in view of the absence of any protest from him when Solomon made plans for the Jerusalem Temple. These facts can be taken to imply that his objection in 2 Samuel 7 applied only to a Davidic Temple, but not to a Solomonic Temple. There is, therefore, some justification for enquiring if Nathan had another deeper objection to David's projected Temple than the one presented by him

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

77

in his reply in vv. 5 and 7. The suggestion made by G.W. Ahlstro'm97 that he, as a Jebusite, could not approve a Davidic Temple succeeds in explaining both his stance against David and his total silence with regard to Solomon's Temple. The objection to David's Temple must be seen from the standpoint of the Jebusites living in Jerusalem. It was clear to them that in constructing this temple David was aiming for a royal Temple and a state sanctuary, which was to replace whatever the Jebusites had already built in the city. Undoubtedly his intention was to establish a cult that was thoroughly Yahwistic, and the high-priest officiating at the new cultic centre would be the Israelite Abiathar and not the Jebusite Zadok. The proposed cultic centre was seen as a dangerous rival and would have resulted in a loss of esteem for the Jebusite cult among the population of Jerusalem. There would have been no objection to David having a palace, with a royal chapel as part of the building; but it was obvious that David intended to build a far more elaborate construction and the Jebusites sensed the danger. Giving this temple the status of an official royal sanctuary would at the same time have given the Israelite group supremacy and would have sounded the death knell for the Jebusite community. Nathan was thus fighting against the extinction of the Jebusite community of Jerusalem. When Solomon came to power, and that, as already indicated, with the help of the Jebusite party, the danger was past, for he could be influenced by his supporters to safeguard the interests of the Jebusites. Nathan was thus forced to take a temporary stance against the threat of this new development, and that basically because a temple bearing the stamp of David would be thoroughly Yahwistic. Similarly H. Haag98 finds in Nathan's action an opposition to a Yahweh Temple in Jerusalem; but when Solomon came to the throne, the same objection could not be raised. Nathan was for preserving Jebusite elements in any cultic development in Jerusalem; he was for a tolerant, syncretistic religious growth in the city. But obviously he could not base his advice to David on his own Jebusite revulsion at such a proposal; he therefore hid his personal feelings behind an objection that had strictly Israelite terms of reference. David approached Nathan, his court prophet, to seek divine approval by means of a prophetic oracle. Consequently Nathan's reply is couched in such terms and is introduced with the formula 'Thus says the LORD'; in other words he prohibits the Temple in the name of Yahweh." Nevertheless, Nathan's own particular situation contributed considerably to the way he conceived of the divine word;

78

The Nathan Narratives

his own convictions and aspirations coloured the word which he spoke. It is possible to construe the passage in such a way as to imply that there was a change of heart on the part of Nathan. His initial reply in v. 3, 'Go, do all that is in your heart; for the LORD is with you', is taken to indicate Nathan's approval of David's plan; it was only after a revelation by night that he changed his mind and gave a negative reply. The contrast is taken by P. Kyle McCarter100 as that between 'Nathan's spontaneous response' and 'the more circumspect opinion... under the impact of divine revelation'. But such an understanding of the passage poses the difficult problem of having to admit that it was not simply a change of heart on the part of Nathan but that Yahweh also changed his mind; the initial reply of Nathan, with its emphasis on 'the LORD is with you', implies divine approval and guidance, whereas the later prohibition cancels that approval. To avoid this embarrassment, it may be claimed that the prophet's own private response in v. 3 was overruled by the divine oracle in v. 5;101 but no hint is given in the passage that there was a clash between Nathan's personal opinion and his prophetic message. It is difficult to see how the prophet could have changed his mind overnight as the result of antagonism at court, as is sometimes suggested.102 It seems more reasonable to accept with M. Noth103 that v. 3 does not contain a decision on the question of the Temple; he defines it as 'a polite formality customary before the king' and finds the declaration of a decision after the divine revelation in v.5. Admittedly this explanation minimises the emphasis on divine revelation that is so evident if the contrast between initial response and divine decision is retained. But Nathan, although wishing to present his disagreement with David's proposal as divine prohibition, was unlikely to have gone to the extent of suggesting a dramatic change of heart. It is perhaps significant that the divine rejection is put gently and delicately in the form of questions.104 Such a form lacks the power of a straightforward and unambiguous rejection, and the choice of form may indicate that Nathan exercised some care in the way he expressed his own reservation about the Temple and disapproval of its construction in terms of divine prohibition. The first oracle, therefore, contained originally the tradition that Nathan thwarted David's plan to build a temple for Yahweh in Jerusalem. Although his motivation is to be found in his care for the interests of the Jebusite community in the city, he had to present a more valid and acceptable reason for his veto. He thus based his objection on what he knew about the past tradition of the tribes; as

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

79

nomadic groups who had only recently moved into Canaan, they would have used a moveable rather than a permanent building. Nathan subtly suggested this in the two questions posed in his reply to David, and quite significantly it was in these two questions that he gave God's reply and not in a categorical statement. But, when the first oracle reached its final form in the hands of its deuteronomistic editors, the questions were supplemented by a more direct statement in v. 6. What was initially implied in the interrogative form is now more forcefully expressed in the contrast drawn between the two statements 'I have not dwelt in a house' and 'I have been moving about in a tent'. It is the weight of this statement in the modification in v. 6 that has given rise to various theological interpretations of Nathan's oracle, such as the suggestion that the idea of God 'dwelling' (yasab), as distinct from 'staying' (sdkari) was objectionable,105 or that Nathan's objection represented Israel's 'tent-tradition'106 or Israel's 'nomadic' tradition.107 But, according to the interpretation outlined above, the more theological expression of Nathan's more subtle hint belonged to a later modification of the text. Further reinterpretation of the oracle occurred when the second oracle became attached to it. The Second Oracle The opening 'Now therefore' in v. 8 marks a new beginning,108 and the main theme of vv. 8-16 is different from that of vv. 1-7. Thus it is clear that the two sections were originally independent.109 The dynastic oracle in vv. 8-16 is by no means easy to analyse, and there is disagreement about the number of verses to be attributed to the deuteronomistic redactors. With the exception of the rather simplified proposal of P.M. Cross,110 who considers the block in vv. 8-1 la to have been a deuteronomistic link between vv. 1-7 and llb-16, the tendency in recent studies is to treat the whole passage as a mixture of an original core and deuteronomistic accretions. T.N.D. Mettinger111 finds two strands in the pre-deuteronomistic core. He thinks that one, which includes the promise in vv. 12-14a, 17 is a Solomonic document, while the other, which includes vv. 8-9, llb-15, 16, is a dynastic redaction. A compromise between such divergent views is not possible, and each verse in the oracle has to be given careful consideration. The opening v. 8 contains the formulaic commissioning of a messenger ('thus you shall say') followed by the accompanying formula for declaring the message received ('thus says the LORD of

80

The Nathan Narratives

hosts'). The messenger's speech extends to the end of v. 16. It is not likely that the formulaic elements in v. 8 formed part of the original version.112 T. Veijola113 finds in the reference to David as 'my servant' (as also in v. 4) a deuteronomistic expansion, and argues that in both verses the title can be omitted without leaving gaps in the narrative. But in view of the fact that it is not an exclusively deuteronomistic title, it can be retained. The main subject of discussion in v. 8 is the phrase 'that you should be prince (ndgid} over my people Israel', and T. Veijola114 attributes the title ndgid to the deuteronomistic redactors while T.N.D. Mettinger115 argues that it belongs to the pre-deuteronomistic dynastic redaction. The wide variety of views about the usage and meaning of the term ndgid has made any discussion of the verses in which it appears a complex one.116 It is a term that has obvious connections with the early leaders of pre-monarchic times (1 Sam. 9.16; 10.1),117 and denotes one designated by God to act as leader, though not necessarily as crown-prince.118 When the leader (nagid} was acclaimed, he became king (melek)j thus, with the founding of the dynasty, the term disappeared.119 The oracle in w. 8ff. is obviously concerned with the Davidic dynasty, for which the term ndgid was not appropriate; it can therefore be attributed to an annotator who deliberately attempted to show that David (like Solomon, according to 1 Kgs 1.5) belonged to the same line of charismatic leaders as Saul and other leaders belonging to the early tradition of Israel.120 The reference to ndgid in v. 8b is therefore regarded as an addition; the original version extended as far as 'from following the sheep'.121 With the exception of F.M. Cross, the tendency is to accept v. 9 as part of the original layer.122 Although reference is made to cutting off his enemies from before David, the phrase used can hardly be taken as a repetition of the 'rest-formula' (Ruheformel) in v. 1. It is more positive in tone, and refers to the subjugation of the king's enemies, whereas the 'rest-formula' is more neutral and merely states that the king will enjoy a period of non-intervention or non-violence (cf. also vv. 10, 11). Although the phrase 'I have been with you' occurs in deuteronomistic passages, it is a phrase that belongs to the original story of David's rise to power,123 and can be retained. The promise of a 'great name' in the second half of this verse, with the perfect being rendered as a future,124 refers probably to the giving of a successor to David. It is a traditional formula,125 and this, together with the peculiarity of the Hebrew style, is an argument in favour of its antiquity. Therefore, since the various elements in this verse do not

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

81

have a specifically deuteronomistic flavour, the originality of the whole verse can be accepted. There is some disagreement again about the originality of v. 10. T. Veijola stands alone in taking it as original, whilst P.M. Cross, T.N.D. Mettinger and M. Gorg are agreed in designating it as deuteronomistic.126 It shares the same interest in 'my people Israel' as has been found in vv. 6-7, and therefore deviates from the theme of God's goodness to David introduced in v. 9. The allusion to appointing a place for Israel is not to be interpreted as an expression of the hopes of an exilic redactor for an early return to Palestine,127 nor as containing a reference to the settlement in Canaan during the period of the Judges, which had already taken place. It is best understood as an allusion to the Jerusalem Temple; the thought is in keeping with the interest of the deuteronomists and has some support from a Qumran midrash.128 Furthermore, the verse pronounces in essence the doctrine of rest from one's enemies, which was also secondarily introduced into v. 1. It appears therefore that v. 10 is to be assigned to a deuteronomistic redactor, who introduced a different theme from that of its immediate context and by alluding directly to the temple, the people of Israel and rest from the enemies tried to connect vv. 8ff more closely to vv. 1-7. Opinion is again divided with regard to v. 11. A tendency that has won considerable support from the time of L. Rost is to take the promise of a house in v. lib as constituting, with v. 16, the earliest core of this section.129 In addition to those who have accepted Rost's approach to this chapter,130 there are many others who take v. lib to be part of the original layer.131 All are agreed in attributing v. lla to a secondary layer. T. Veijola132 seems to be isolated in attempting to make a case for regarding v. lib too as secondary. The reasons for rejecting v. lla are obvious: as in previously noted secondary verses, an interest is shown in 'my people Israel' and their history (cf. vv. 6, 10); there is a repetition of the theme of rest from the enemies noted in v. 1 (cf. v. 10); the word 'judges' is also used in a way that confirms the ascription of v. lla to the deuteronomists. One of the problems in v. lib is how to interpret the word 'house' in the promise made to David. Mettinger's argument is that because it means 'dynasty' here this particular verse must belong to the dynastic redaction concerned with the election of the Davidic dynasty; it does not belong to the Solomonic version which confirms that it was Solomon who was to build the Temple.133 It is therefore pre-deuteronomistic. Veijola134 too takes the word 'house' to mean dynasty, but he comes to the

82

The Nathan Narratives

conclusion that the verse is secondary. His observations on the verse are as follows. (1) In v. lib there is an abrupt change from the first person speech of God, to a third person statement about him. (2) The original promise of a successor to David has in this verse been interpreted as the promise of a permanent dynasty; in the two additions, vv. lib and 16, the word 'house' is understood as 'dynasty', and thus the meaning of the original oracle is extended. A bridge between the two meanings of'house' appears in v. 13. (3) The use of'house' for 'dynasty' also appears in the prayer of David, which is again regarded as secondary (cf. w. 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 29) and originating from the same redaction; so too does the concept of a permanent or eternal dynasty (k'dldm, cf. vv. 25, 26, 29). (4) Veijola takes the verb at the beginning of v. lib, like other verbs in the surrounding section, as a past tense which refers back to a previous promise to David. But there is no evidence of such a promise, and therefore this part of the verse is taken to be an example of the deuteronomistic use of fictitious material (cf. 1 Sam. 2.30; 2 Sam. 3.9-10; 3.18; 5.2; 1 Kgs 2.4). (5) v. lib, from DtrH, does not belong to the same stage of redaction as v. 11 a, which is attributed to DtrN. Veijola's challenge to the originality of v. lib is forceful and persuasive. So too is his distinction between the two different perspectives that can be traced in this section, vv. 8ff; to the original layer belonged the promise of a successor to David, but the redactor extended the meaning of this promise by interpreting it as a promise of an everlasting dynasty. The whole of v. 11, therefore, is taken to be redactional. In all recent analyses of 2 Samuel 7 there is agreement that v. 12 belongs to the original layer of the chapter.135 But opinion varies again about v. 13, which contains the statement that David's son will 'build a house for my name', with most taking it as original, and Veijola standing alone in regarding the whole verse as the work of a redactor.136 The argument for its retention runs as follows. The passage prohibiting David from building the Temple (vv. 1-7) has its continuation in vv. 12-15, which state clearly that his offspring was to build a Temple. The connection between the two passages is evident from the very close correspondence between the question in v. 5 and the statement in v. 13; thus the deuteronomistic character of v. 13 is ruled out. Although the distinction between a temple 'to dwell in' (leSibti) and a temple 'for my name' (lisemi) offers a theological justification of the Temple,137 the latter need not be attributed to a late date, for the theology of the divine name may

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

83

extend further back to antiquity than is often realised.138 The verse is, therefore, regarded by Mettinger as part of the Solomonic layer, where it serves the purpose of identifying Solomon as the son of David whose kingdom would be established. Nevertheless, there have been doubts about the originality of this verse, and more specifically about v. 13 a, which since the days of Rost has been regarded as a deuteronomistic addition.139 One good reason for doubting the originality of v. 13 becomes obvious by concentrating on its stylistic peculiarities. The second half of the verse is a doublet of v. 12b, but with some variants; v. 13 adds 'the throne' before 'his kingdom' and also supplies 'for ever', both of which extend the meaning of v. 12b in common with the deuteronomistic trend noted in v. 11. It can thus be seen that v. 13b is a deuteronomistic variant of v. 12b. The first hah0 of the verse echoes v. 5 in its reference to building a house; but in v. 13b 'for my name' is introduced,140 and this is a characteristic variant, as is seen from other redactional passages in the deuteronomistic history (cf. 1 Kgs 5.17,19; 8.16,17, 18,19,20).141 The introduction of v. 13 by the redactor served three purposes: (1) by using the word 'house' here in its literal meaning, the dynastic oracle is linked with the oracle prohibiting the building of a Temple; (2) by introducing 'for my name' (lisemi} the Temple is given a theological justification, although it had previously been rejected on other grounds; (3) Solomon is identified as David's successor.142 For these reasons, and also on the strength of the observation that the second oracle is solely concerned with a successor for David, v. 13 is taken as secondary. Analyses of the chapter generally attribute vv. 14-15 to the original layer, and this is usually accepted without further discussion.143 However, Mettinger divides v. 14 into two sections, attributing v. 14a to the Solomonic layer and vv. 14b-15 to the dynastic redaction.144 The argument for placing v. 14a in the Solomonic document is that it makes the point that David's successor will enjoy the status of an adopted son. It is taken with v. 13 by Mettinger and is interpreted as a proclamation that a particular son, identified as Solomon in v. 13, will be granted this privilege. Whilst accepting the point that v. 14a belongs to the original layer, the present analysis differs from Mettinger's on two points: (1) v. 14a was not originally connected with v. 13, but provides a natural sequence to v. 12; (2) consequently the proclamation made in v. 14a is not that a particular son of David will become Yahweh's adopted son; it is simply stated that David will have a successor who will enjoy this particular status.

84

The Nathan Narratives

Because they introduce an entirely different theme, vv. 14b-15 are to be separated from v. 14a. On the one hand these verses assert that if the son is disobedient he will be punished, and on the other they give an assurance that he will not be totally rejected like Saul. Both assertions have a deuteronomistic flavour. The first, in v. 14b, presents the same deuteronomistic theology as is found in the book of Judges, namely that wrong-doing brings divine punishment. The second, in v. 15, in distinguishing between the better prospects for the Davidic dynasty and the sad fate of the dynasty of Saul, reflects the standpoint taken by the editors of 1 Samuel. T. Veijola again stands alone in his attribution of v. 16 to the deuteronomistic redactors,145 for in other proposed analyses the same verse is considered to be part of the original layer. T.N.D. Mettinger naturally finds a connection between v. 16 and vv. 13 and lib, which are regarded by him as pre-deuteronomistic.146 He attributes this particular verse to both the Solomonic layer and its dynastic redaction; the form in the LXX, reading 'his house', 'his kingdom' and 'his throne', refers to Solomon's house, whilst the Massoretic Text, reading 'your house', 'your kingdom' and 'your throne', affirms the permanence of David's house. According to Mettinger these variants reflect the redaction history of the passage, with the tradition of the Solomonic layer being preserved in the LXX and the tradition of the dynastic redaction in the Massoretic Text. Although Mettinger acknowledges that this is a rare example of a textual variation reflecting redaction history, he seems to be proposing a complicated and unnecessary explanation of a much simpler process, namely that the Greek version ran on the third person singular suffixes from v. 15 to the end of Nathan's oracle. Against the originality of v. 16 is the presence again of an allusion to the permanence of the Davidic dynasty, as was the case in vv. lib and 13. The phrase 'for ever' ('ad '61am) is found twice in this verse, and the phrase 'your house shall be made sure' is found only in the sections that are attributed to the deuteronomistic redactors; this verse too, like v. 13, uses 'throne' (kisse'} to mean 'kingship' or 'dynasty'. For these reasons, v. 16 must be regarded as deuteronomistic. According to Veijola and Mettinger,147 v. 17 belongs to the primary strand of the narrative (the first Solomonic layer, according to the latter). But according to M. Gorg,148 it forms part of a later strand that was added to the original material. Its references to 'all these words', probably referring to all the oracular material contained in ch. 7, and again to 'all this vision', presumably referring to the divine

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

85

message given to Nathan by night (cf. v. 4), clearly mark this verse as a redactional conclusion by the final compilers of the chapter, namely the deuteronomists. The original account of Nathan's second oracle, consisting of vv. 8*, 9, 12, 14a, can now be reconstructed as follows: (8) Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, (9) and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. (12) When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your son after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. (14) I will be his father, and he shall be my son.'

It is an oracle that refers briefly to David's choice and protection by God and promises him a successor, who will be Yahweh's adopted son. By extending the original oracle several new elements have been introduced. (i) Reference is made to David as a ndgid (v. 8). (ii) An interest is shown in the people of Israel (vv. 8b, 10). (iii) The theme of rest from the enemies is introduced (vv. 10, 11). (iv) Reference is made to God's promise of a house to David (v. lib) and there is an obvious attempt to link that promise with the assurance that his successor will build a temple (v. 13). (v) There is also an interest in the theme of the eternity of David's kingdom (also referred to as 'throne') (vv. 13, 16). (vi) A contrast is drawn between David's successor and his predecessor (vv. 14b-15). Interpretation Because of the obvious messianic character of the dynastic oracle in 2 Samuel 7, the question has been raised whether it is to be regarded as the root of messianic prophecy or as one of its later offshoots.149 Therefore any attempt to interpret 2 Sam. 7.8-16 must take into consideration Old Testament passages that contain remarkable parallels to it, and will also involve some discussion of the relationship between these passages. In addition to the parallel in 1 Chron. 17.7-14, a number of the Psalms contain similar elements

86

The Nathan Narratives

(Pss. 2; 89.2-4,19-37; 110; 132), as is also the case with the last words of David in 2 Sam. 23.1-7.150 First for consideration is the original oracle as reconstructed above. All its main elements have parallels in the passages noted, especially in Psalm 89. (1) The oracle opens with the election of David, and the words 'I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep' must refer to David's own history (cf. 1 Sam. 16.11). The same theme is echoed in Ps. 89.19-20 (Heb. 20-21): I have exalted one chosen from the people. I have found David, my servant.

(2) The theme of David's election is soon overtaken by the allusion to God's protection: 'I have been with you wherever you went', and this is especially evident in the subjugation of David's enemies, 'and have cut off all your enemies from before you'. A more extended reference to the king's success against his enemies appears in Ps. 89.22-23 (Heb. 23-24), and connected to this theme is his power over the sea and rivers, which may be a mythological allusion to his power over the whole world. It is this theme more than any other that is given prominence in Ps. 2, which, after describing the revolt of the kings against God and his anointed king (w. 1-3), proceeds to assure the king that he will be able to humiliate the nations (vv. 8-9), cf. also Pss. 110.1,2, 5; 132.18.151 (3) The king is promised greatness-'I will make you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth'. Without using exactly the same language, the mightiness of the king is envisaged in Psalm 89—'in my name shall his horn be exalted' (v. 24, Heb. 25). He will be given pre-eminence among all other kings: And I will make him the first born, the highest of the kings of the earth (v. 27, Heb. 28).

(4) David is also promised a successor; when his days are over 'I will raise up your son after you, who shall come forth from your body'. Although reference is made only to an immediate successor, the assurance that God 'will establish his kingdom' makes it quite clear that the founding of a dynasty is meant.152 This is how the promise is understood too in the later revision of the original oracle: 'Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house' (v. 11). It is more explicitly expressed in Ps. 89.4 (Heb. 5) 'I will establish your descendants for ever' (cf. also 2 Sam. 23.5a; Ps. 132.11). (5) David's successor will be Yahweh's adopted son, 'I will be his father, and he shall be my son'.153 This can be compared with Ps.

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

87

89.26 (Heb. 27) 'He shall say to me, "Thou art my father...'", and with Ps. 2.7, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you'.154 It is obvious that all the main themes of the original Nathan oracle are present, sometimes with remarkable similarity of wording, in other Old Testament royal texts. A further examination of these texts shows that the themes introduced into the revised and extended form of 2 Sam. 7.8-16 are also found in other royal texts. As would be expected, some of the additions to 2 Sam. 7.8-16 reflect the special interests of the annotators, and are not echoed in the other texts examined. Thus, no reference is made in these other texts to David as ndgid, but they show more interest in the fact that he was the 'anointed' of Yahweh (Pss. 2.2; 89.20, Heb. v. 21). No specific reference is made to the 'people of Israel', except perhaps indirectly in 2 Sam. 23.3b-4, and the rest formula does not appear in its usual form. These subjects, as noted above, reflect the peculiar interests of the deuteronomistic redactors. However, there are clear indications that some themes were similarly developed in both the revised form of 2 Sam. 7.8-16 and the related texts examined. The firm promise of a son for David that appears in the original version takes the form of a more explicit reference to founding a dynasty in the extended version. This is how the word 'house' is to be interpreted in the promise that 'the LORD will make you a house' (v. 1 Ib), and again in the allusion to the house being made sure (v. 16). Even more explicit statements concerning the dynasty appear in the assertions of Psalm 89 that his descendants will be established (v. 4, Heb. v. 5) and that his line will endure (vv. 29, 36, Heb. vv. 30, 37). Another development that appears both in the extension to the original oracle and in the related texts is the assurance about the everlasting nature of the Davidic dynasty. The simple statement of the oracle that 'I will establish his kingdom' (v. 12) has been modified in v. 13 to 'I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever'; again in v. 16 'for ever' is repeated in connection with the kingdom and the throne.155 No mention of the Davidic dynasty is made in Psalm 89 without a clear allusion to its eternity: I will establish your descendant for ever, and build thy throne for all generations (v. 4, Heb. v. 5).

With this may be compared the claims in v. 29 (Heb. v. 30) that his throne will be 'as the days of the heavens', i.e. endless,156 and again in v. 36 (Heb. v. 37) that his throne will endure 'as long as the sun

88

The Nathan Narratives

before me'. An element that becomes more prominent in the other texts than in the original oracle is the emphasis on the covenant between Yahweh and the king. A covenant may be implicit in the adoption formula in v. 14a.157 But it is more than implied in the secondary extension in w. 14b-15, for it is now stated that unfaithfulness to the obligations that are obviously understood to be part of the relationship formed will bring punishment. However, because of God's steadfast love (hesed) such unfaithfulness will not cancel the relationship between God and the king. This text has, therefore, been interpreted as a covenantal text.158 Although the word 'covenant' (berit) is not used, these verses provide an unmistakable example of covenant theology; failure to respond has its consequences, and there will be chastisement, but the covenant will not be annulled. It is a promissory covenant,159 and does not therefore follow the pattern that can be observed in other models such as vassal treaties or the royal land grant, or any other legal formulation.160 Frequent use is made of the word 'covenant' (berit) in the other texts, cf. Ps. 89.3,28, 34 (Heb. vv. 4,29,35) for 'covenant' and 2 Sam. 23.5 for 'everlasting covenant'. In referring to punishment for violating the commandments by means of a 'rod' and 'scourges', Ps. 89.30-32 (Heb. vv. 31-33) not only repeats the concept of 2 Sam. 7.14b-15, but it also uses identical words. Similarly 'I will not remove from him my steadfast love' in Ps. 89.33 (Heb. v. 34) produces an echo of 'I will not take my steadfast love from him' in 2 Sam. 7.15. A comparison of the texts in this way has produced sufficient evidence to support two main conclusions, (a) The original oracle, after noting the election and protection of David, gave him two promises, firstly greatness and secondly the certainty of a successor. It then concluded with a brief statement of divine adoption, (b) To this rather brief and very concise oracle have been added three important themes: firstly, the promise of a successor has become more clearly expressed to imply that a dynasty is founded; secondly, it is consistently emphasised that it is an everlasting dynasty; thirdly, the idea of a covenant between Yahweh and the Davidic dynasty gains prominence. These developments of the original core appear both in the extension to the original in 2 Sam. 7.8-16 and in related texts, particularly Psalm 89. Several solutions to the problems of dating the various texts and of relating them to each other have been proposed. The alternatives have been clearly set out by J.L. McKenzie.161 (1) Most critics accept the priority of 2 Samuel 7 and consider the other versions to have

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

89

been derived from it. (2) Some have argued for the priority of Psalm 89, with the Samuel and Chronistic versions being dependent upon it. (3) A few, supported by McKenzie himself, think that a common source was used independently to prepare the Samuel and Chronistic versions and also that in Psalm 89. The analysis offered above suggests the priority of the original version of Nathan's dynastic or royal oracle; it was a concise oracle consisting of a few clear elements and running smoothly over the two sections designated respectively by P.M. Cross as an oracle of divine decree and a deuteronomistic linkage.162 It seems possible that this original core preserved in vv. 8*, 9,12,14a was the first layer which may well have originated from the time of David. The acceptance of a different analysis from that proposed by Cross makes it unnecessary to endorse his verdict that the oracle cannot have been earlier than Solomon. Furthermore, a recognition that the core or original layer in our reconstruction was the first version that formed the basis for all later revisions makes it unnecessary to attempt what McKenzie labels as an effort of desperation, namely the reconstruction from the present texts in Samuel, Chronicles and Psalm 89 of what could have been a common source behind the three versions.163 The original oracle is uncovered by extracting the secondary material from 2 Sam. 7.8-16 and no further reconstruction is necessary. It can also be claimed that the above analysis of the main elements held in common by the extension to 2 Sam. 7.8-16 and Psalm 89 gives a clear indication of the relative age of these texts. The development of the themes noted is at a more advanced stage in the Psalm than in the secondary sections of 2 Samuel 7. As has already been noted, the brief allusion to the establishment of a dynasty in 2 Sam. 7.lib, 16 becomes far more explicit in the Psalm; again, the eternity of the Davidic dynasty is more prominent and more forcefully expressed in the Psalm; the concept of Yahweh's covenant with David has also taken a fuller form in the Psalm, as is indicated by its frequent use of that word. The first revision of the royal oracle was made in deuteronomistic circles. The deuteronomists were of course aware that Solomon had succeeded David and had built a Temple (v. 13), and they would have wished to make the point that despite his weaknesses, he was not rejected in the same way that Saul had been rejected, for Yahweh was supporting the dynasty of David (vv. 14b-15). Although the Psalm brings out some of these themes to greater prominence, it does not show the same interest in Solomon. It is difficult to see, therefore, how the version in 2 Samuel 7 could have been dependent on Psalm

90

The Nathan Narratives

89. The Psalm is fuller and may have been a later revision of 2 Samuel 7, or else an independent, cultic elaboration of the same themes. In the hands of the deuteronomists, whose work reached its culmination after 587 BC, the original oracle associated with Nathan was given a more pronounced dynastic interpretation. In Israel's royal ideology, as it developed in Jerusalem's cultic tradition, the dynastic principle was combined with the concept of Yahweh's covenant with David; it is this tradition that finds its full expression in Psalm 89, whose present form reflects a long process of elaboration.164 Careful observation of the content of the original oracle behind 2 Sam. 7.8-16 may also produce some indication of its origin and provenance. (1) The references to the taking of David 'from the pasture, from following the sheep' and to the cutting off 'all your enemies from before you' may be taken as suggesting that it originated from a circle that was close to David. It is possible too that they reflect an early stage in David's kingship, when his successes against his enemies were well-known; connected with his victories was the tradition about the way he was chosen as king. (2) The general tone of the assurance about a successor, especially in comparison with the later annotations that refer specifically to Solomon, may be an indication that the original oracle belonged to a pre-Solomonic era, possibly to David's early days in Jerusalem. (3) The conciseness of the oracle and its symmetrical movement from the opening recapitulation of David's election and protection to the promises of a great name and a successor, and then its ending with the adoption formula, may indicate that it was a liturgical piece, and the most natural setting for it would be an enthronement ritual. The simplicity of the adoption formula, without the more elaborate theologising about the kingship that is apparent in its later versions, may again indicate an early enthronement or installation connected with King David. (4) The opening formulae provide an unmistakable indication that it was spoken on such an occasion by a prophet, and the obvious name to associate with it would be Nathan, the court prophet of King David. It can therefore be suggested that either on David's initial enthronement as king of Jerusalem, and/or perhaps at subsequent celebrations of it, Nathan spoke an oracle, which gave a concise summary of his previous career and made promises for the future. Nathan, coming from a Jebusite background, could have spoken the rather stark non-'theologicaP adoption formula that appears in v. 14a;165 it is understandable that the formula on this

4. Oracles concerning Temple and Dynasty

91

occasion should not have been accompanied by the more elaborate royal ideology known from later Israelite texts. Reconstruction Two short and originally independent oracles provided a basis for the complex section in 2 Sam. 7.1-16, and both had their origins in traditions associated with Nathan the prophet. The first oracle preserved a tradition that must have been cherished in Jerusalem's Jebusite circles, for it showed that Nathan had prevented David from pursuing his plan to build a Yahwistic temple in the newly conquered city. It was a carefully executed move on the part of Nathan, and in order to achieve it he was compelled to suppress what was foremost in his mind. Nevertheless, it was precisely because of the hidden motivation for his action that the tradition was preserved by the Jebusite population. The second oracle too goes back to traditions about Nathan, and it belonged originally to David's early days in Jerusalem. Preserved among the Nathan traditions was a royal oracle spoken by the prophet on a significant royal occasion, probably an enthronement or a celebration associated with the kingship and reaching a fitting climax in the adoption formula. Both oracles were modified by the deuteronomists and contain clear pointers to deuteronomistic theology. In addition to the characteristic deuteronomistic 'rest from the enemies' formula, the first oracle received an interpolation which changed the nature of Nathan's objection to the temple; the interpolation in v. 6 made Nathan's veto into a theological and particularly Israelite clash of concepts between moving about in a tent and dwelling in a permanent abode. Similarly the royal oracle was theologised by the deuteronomists, and in its new form acquired explicit allusions to the founding of the Davidic dynasty and to the eternity of David's kingdom, and a rather less explicit hint at the concept of a covenant between Yahweh and David. The two oracles were linked and given an appearance of unity. The historical occasion provided in vv. 1-3 for the first oracle came to serve as a setting for the two oracles. The connection between them was all the stronger because two themes were present in both, (a) Whereas David was prevented from building a temple for Yahweh, his son was to be granted that privilege—'He shall build a house for my name' (v. 13). (b) By employing the word 'house' (bayit) in two different ways, it is emphasised that although David was not given the honour of building a temple ('house', w. 5, 6,13)

92

The Nathan Narratives

for Yahweh, God was going to found a dynasty ('house' vv. 11,16) for David.166 By giving the whole complex the appearance of an oracle concerning the Davidic dynasty, it was given an apparent unity and messianic significance. The modified version of the two oracles was probably intended by the deuteronomists as an introduction to the Succession Narrative.167 After the combination of the oracles to give a composite utterance by Nathan, the section is used in the same way as the other speeches of God's servants, the prophets, that are inserted at all crucial points in the Deuteronomistic History (cf. 1 Kgs 11.31-39; 14.7-11, 13-16; 2 Kgs 17.7-23; 21.10-15; 22.15-20).168 In common with the general interests of the deuteronomists, as is witnessed elsewhere, this section at the beginning of the Succession Narrative gives legitimation to the Temple in Jerusalem, although David himself had not been authorized with its construction (cf. the deuteronomistic emphasis on the Temple as 'the house that Yahweh's name is called upon', 1 Kgs 8.43). The section is also concerned with the legitimacy of Solomon as David's successor; the perpetuation of David's dynasty through Solomon becomes clear in the final form of this section (cf. also 1 Kgs 2.24; 8.15; 9.5). The legitimacy of the Temple and the succession of Solomon are brought out clearly in the narrative in its revised and final form.169

Chapter 5 CONDEMNATION OF DAVID'S AFFAIR WITH BATHSHEBA (2 SAM. 12.1-25) It is more difficult than was the case with the previous two chapters to see how the complex narrative giving an account of David's affair with Bathsheba, and particularly Nathan's intervention on that occasion, fits into the theme of the Succession Narrative. A firm basis for understanding the chapter can only be found by analysing the narrative as a whole, and ch. 12 in particular, with special attention to its various parts. After unravelling some of the complexities in the chapter, it will then have to be seen if any of the basic elements found in the narrative justify its inclusion in the Succession Narrative and contribute to the issue of succession. Finally, it has to be seen if Nathan's criticism of David relates in any way to the succession of Solomon and the foundation of the dynasty. After reaching the climax of the account of David's adultery with Bathsheba and the contrived murder of her husband Uriah, 2 Sam. 11.27b states that 'the thing that David had done displeased the LORD', and then the narrative immediately introduces Nathan, who appears on the scene to rebuke David and to pronounce divine punishment. Whether or not 11.27b is to be taken as the proper introduction to 12.1-25 and is to be read with ch. 12 rather than with ch. 11, it does unquestionably provide the correct setting for the events that follow; its explicit theological statement is a basis for the correct understanding of some of the harsh words in ch. 12, especially in vv. 9-12,1 and it serves as a link to connect these words with the events of ch. 11. However, determining the extent of the Nathan episode, and deciding on the various stages of its growth from an original version to its present form, are only some of the problems arising in connection with this chapter. An introductory question of fundamental significance is the origin and placing of the whole David-Bathsheba affair.

94

The Nathan Narratives

As it stands the affair is introduced in the context of David's war with the Ammonites (lO.lff). It was during a season of campaigning in that war that David remained in Jerusalem (11.1) and was attracted to Bathsheba (11.2ff). After the sad outcome of the affair and the death of the child born of their illicit relationship, the narrative proceeds in 12.26ff to give an account of the capture of Kabbah of the Ammonites. Since 12.26 seems to continue the account of the Kabbah campaign introduced in 11.1, it has been argued, with some conviction, that the David-Bathsheba-Nathan narrative in 11.2-12.25 can be lifted out of its present context without any damage to the main account of David's war against the Ammonites. Although 11.2-12.25 seems to give an account of what happened during the war with the Ammonites, L. Rost2 has listed several arguments against the unity of the two sections. (1) It is not known that the war used as a setting for the Bathsheba affair was the war against the Ammonites described in 12.26ff; only once, in 12.9, are the Ammonites mentioned, but it is not stated specifically in this section who David's enemies were and against which city he was fighting. (2) The change from 12.25 to 12.26 is so abrupt that it is hardly possible to attribute their composition to the same author. (3) The account in 12.26-31 is to say the least only loosely connected with the material around it. Therefore, Kost concluded that 2 Sam. 10.6b-ll.l and 12.26-31 contain an account of the Ammonite wars which was derived from state archives, but that the account has received an introduction in 10.1-6a from the same hand as was responsible for the interpolation in 11.2-12.25. Although some have expressed reservations about Kost's treatment of 10.1-6a,3 his suggestion that 11.2-12.25 is a secondary addition has found considerable following.4 It is to be noted too that this section is absent from the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20. But its omission by the Chronicler can be understood as an attempt to suppress an occurrence that cast unfavourable light on David and may therefore be indirect evidence to the honesty and trustworthiness of the tradition preserved in 2 Samuel 11-12. The war account and the David-Bathsheba narrative are obviously different in character and style; whilst the origin of the former can be found in archival records or reports, the latter betrays the style of an accomplished narrator. Rather than accepting Rost's suggestion that the narrative is an intrusion that interrupts the sequence of the war report, it seems more reasonable to accept Kyle McCarter's proposal that a narrator wishing to give an account of the David-Bathsheba

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

95

affair borrowed material from an archival source to provide it with a framework;5 his choice of material was obvious because David's affair with Bathsheba had been associated with the siege of Kabbah. From this combination of archival data and a more lively tradition of the king's misbehaviour the narrator composed a section that began by describing the historical setting (10.1-11.1), then introduced the David-Bathsheba affair and its outcome (11.2-12.25), and concluded by continuing the account of the war against the Ammonites (12.2631). Thus the David-Bathsheba incident formed an important part of the presentation of the Ammonite war, and that to such an extent as to suggest that the latter had been incorporated only because of its association with the former.6 It is beyond the scope of the present study to pursue in detail the wider issues arising in connection with the Ammonite war report. Its unity has for one thing been in dispute; whereas Rost, as has already been noted, attributes its introduction in 10.1-6a to the hand responsible for the narrative in 11.2ff, McCarter7 finds in it a single report of consecutive events. Its relationship to other source material in Samuel has also been debated. Obviously there is a connection between the report in 10.1-11.1 and 8.3-8, and it has been suggested that the war report really belonged to the war narratives of 2 Samuel 8.8 Contacts have also been found between it and the story of Absalom's rebellion that follows it in chs. 13-20, especially the events at Mahanaim in 17.24-29,9 with a specific reference to 17.2729 being found in 10.2.10 Establishing links between the Ammonite war report and the sections preceding and following it does not necessarily prove a common source, and it has been suggested that 2 Sam. 10-12 did not belong originally with any other material in the books of Samuel. But theologically it does provide a preface to the account of Absalom's revolt.11 However, the place of 2 Sam. 10-12 in the work in general, and the connection between these chapters and surrounding material, may become clearer on a closer analysis of the origin, development and likely reasons for the inclusion of individual components. The account of Nathan's condemnation of the king, and of the events which followed it, will now be examined in more detail with these issues in mind. The unit in question, 11.27b-12.25, is easily recognisable, for it stands apart from the surrounding narrative, which after bringing the David-Bathsheba incident to a suitable conclusion in 11.27a, proceeds with its account of the defeat of Kabbah (12.26).12 Although the section's central theme is Nathan's

96

The Nathan Narratives

words to David and subsequent events, its various components have to be considered separately: Nathan's parable (vv. l-7a), two prophetic oracles (vv. 7b-10,11-12), David's response (vv. 13-14), the death of David's child (vv. 15-23) and the birth of Solomon (vv. 2425). Nathan's Parable (vv. 1-7a) The account of Nathan's parable begins with the prophet's appearance on the scene in 12.1 and is concluded with his direct application of the parable to David in v. 7a, despite contrary views with regard to both its beginning and conclusion. It has been argued that the series of blows that befell the house of David is not easily understood without taking note of the statement in 11.27b, 'But die thing that David had done displeased the LORD'; if this statement is read with ch. 12 the events there recorded are seen to be Yahweh's punishment on David for his sin.13 Consequently 11.27b is sometimes read with 12.1-7,14 a course which finds some support in the fact that it is an unnecessary conclusion to the narrative in ch. 11, because that chapter reaches a fitting climax with the record in 11.27a that Bathsheba became David's wife and bore him a son. Its position as a bridge between chs. 11 and 12, with the possibility of reading it with either of them, may indicate that 11.27b is a redactional link. This suggestion receives some confirmation from two other observations: firstly, that the formula 'displeased the LORD' is typically deuteronomistic,15 and secondly that this half verse shares the same moral stance as 12.9, which, as will be argued below, is a later addition. It can therefore be contended that the parable in 12.1-7a stood originally without 11.27b, which now links it more clearly with ch. 11. Nathan's words to David, in which the parable is applied to the latter's case, are found in vv. 7-12 and are followed by David's response and Nathan's reply in vv. 13-14. For reasons to be discussed below vv. 7b-14 are regarded as subsequent additions, and the parable itself is thought to have reached its climax with the simple application 'You are the man' in v. 7a.16 Nathan described the situation with such vividness that David felt compelled to pronounce judgement on the rich man; his judgement is not very clearly stated, for it appears that initially he pronounced the death sentence (v. 5), which was later softened to a monetary settlement (v. 6).17 Nathan abruptly, but effectively, spelt out the message of his parable by stating that he was referring to David; by implication, therefore,

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

97

David was guilty and deserved the punishment which he had pronounced upon the case of the rich man. The apparent commuting in v. 6 of the sentence pronounced in v.5 raises the question of the unity of vv. l-7a, and more specifically that of the relationship between the story in vv. 1-4 and its interpretation in vv. 5-6. After the completion of Nathan's parable at the end of v.4 David's response is recorded in vv. 5-6; the break between the two sections could possibly be taken to indicate that two different units have been combined, the original parable and its interpretation by the narrator.18 The narrator was so concerned with God's response to the David-Bathsheba affair that he had divine judgement in mind when composing vv. 5-6, with the commutation of the sentence providing an exact parallel to the commutation of the death sentence in vv. 13-14. There are, however, many reasons for refusing to separate vv. 5-6 from vv. 1-4 and for treating them as one unit. Firstly, a study of the structure of judicial parables, or more specifically judgement eliciting parables (cf. 2 Sam. 14.1-20; 1 Kgs 20.35-42; Isa. 5.1-7), shows that after the presentation of the legal case (as in vv. lb-4) there was an appeal for judgement, whether implicit or explicit; the point of the parable thus becomes apparent when judgement is elicited (as in vv. 5-6) and that judgement is reapplied (as in v. 7a).19 The whole point of relating a fictitious tale is to obtain a ruling from the king and then to apply the consequences of such a ruling to his own case.20 It would thus appear that the parable in vv. 1-4 cannot stand without the judgement section in w. 5-6. Secondly, the inseparable connection between the two sections is confirmed by the deliberate use of the verb hamal in both; v. 4 has 'he spared (hamal} taking one of his own sheep' and v.6 'and spared what belongs to him'.21 It is unnecessary to propose different connotations for the verb in each of its occurrences here.22 Because the verb has exactly the same meaning in vv. 4 and 6,23 it can be suggested that a common source is indicated.24 Thirdly, the suggested parallel between the commutation of the sentence in vv. 5-6 and the withdrawal of the death sentence in w. 13-14 becomes less significant if recent interpretations of vv. 5-6 are accepted. One suggestion is that David was incensed by the rich man's callous behaviour and instinctively said that he 'deserves to die'; but he knew that theft was not punishable by criminal law and therefore pronounced a sentence consistent with civil law and providing for adequate damages, 'he shall restore the lamb fourfold'.25 Verses 5-6, therefore, contain a contrast, either between the king's heated reaction and his more considered

98

The Nathan Narratives

reflection, or between David's personal view that the rich man deserved to be indicted on a criminal charge and the legal position that he could be charged only under civil law.26 Another suggestion is that the reference to the rich man as ben mdwet does not mean that he deserved death, but indicates that he was to be considered as an 'arch villain';27 despite his despicable behaviour, he could be punished only according to the law of restitution. Whichever of these explanations is accepted, the point to be established is that there was no commutation of the sentence; thus w. 5-6 are not to be interpreted in close association with vv. 13-14 and in the light of later developments in connection with the David-Bathsheba incident. For these reasons it is correct to conclude, as is done by G.W. Coats, that 'the story and the interpretation provided by verses 5-6 should therefore not be split as discontinuous parts'.28 If it is accepted that the Nathan parable is to be found in vv. l-7a, some attempt must be made to define its genre and at the same time to uncover its true meaning. The section is usually described as a parable,29 and the point is made that the parable concentrates on one single point of comparison and does not seek to establish complete parallelism in which all the details become significant.30 Whether or not the genre is more correctly defined as fable in preference to parable,31 its intention was to emphasise one particular point. Once the parable is seen to be concerned with only a single point of comparison, it becomes unnecessary to search in the narrative for parallels to each of the parable's constituent parts and, if such parallels are not found, to regard the parable as inappropriate for the circumstances with which it has been associated. It was this kind of problem that H. Gunkel encountered in his discussion of the Nathan parable.32 Whilst the parable relates how the rich man took the poor man's property, the narrative is more concerned with Uriah's death than with David's adultery with his wife (see v. 9). Because of this lack of direct contact between the application in v. 9 and the parable in vv. 1-7, Gunkel came to the conclusion that Nathan's story did not belong originally to its present context. Others have been similarly concerned about the marked discrepancy between the minor charge of theft in the story and the more serious charges of adultery and murder described in the narrative; whereas the verdict of death was appropriate for David's dealings with Bathsheba and her husband Uriah, such a verdict would be inappropriate for the simple theft of a lamb.33 Not only is the murder of Uriah in the narrative section without parallel in the parable, there is again nothing in the narrative

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

99

to correspond to the visit of a traveller in the parable.34 Such inconsistencies between the parable and the narrative are acceptable if it is recognised that the aim in presenting the former was to make one major point of comparison with the latter; it is only when an exact parallelism between all elements in the narrative and the parable is sought that difficulties arise. A number of attempts have been made to decide which is the main point of comparison between the parable and the narrative. Attention is naturally given to the parallelism between the theft of the poor man's ewe-lamb and the theft of Uriah's wife. Because of the reference in v. 6 to the law of restitution for theft in Exod. 22.1, it is thought that David's sin, like that of the rich man, was no more than robbery.35 Several features, however, need some explanation if robbery or theft is made the leading motif. One question that arises immediately is why the case should be brought before David for judgement. What is implied in the presentation of the story is that Nathan expected David to pronounce a verdict on the case.36 But a simple case of theft was not one that called for a royal pronouncement; it was a straightforward case that could be dealt with by seeking justice at the gate.37 Moreover, the penalty for such an offence was clearly defined by law, and the indignation shown by David in his first response to the case (v. 5) may suggest that there was a more heinous aspect to the crime than is suggested by a superficial reading of the text. Theft does not seem to be the issue at stake.38 Because of these difficulties attention is sometimes drawn away from the nature of the crime, and it is claimed that the aim of the story was simply to elicit words of condemnation from David; once such words had been spoken, they were thrown back at him, and he had thus taken part in a process of self-condemnation. The aim was to lead 'the unsuspecting hearer to pass judgement on himself'.39 The description in v. 3 of the attachment of the poor man to his ewe-lamb was intended to arouse the hearer's emotions; its success is shown by the vehemence of David's anger in v. 5. The focal point of the story is the speaking of the king's verdict, which turns out to be his verdict against himself. A more elaborate expression of this interpretation is presented by H. Hagan,40 who found for the deception of ch. 11 a counter-deception in ch. 12, where Nathan resorted to a piece of deception in order to trick David into condemning himself. Although it is correct to find the significance of the parable in its verdict, which ultimately becomes self-condemnation, there must be some basic similarity between the case and its application, or else the transformation of the

100

The Nathan Narratives

verdict to an act of self-condemnation becomes arbitrary and invalid.41 A point of contact between parable and narrative that offers the most satisfactory interpretation of the section is the abuse of power. An analysis of the parable shows that the contrast introduced in its opening sentence between rich and poor (v. 1) is further expanded as the plot develops. Whereas the one had Very many flocks and herds', the other had 'nothing but one little ewelamb'; this is the dominant contrast in the parable.42 When the rich man took the lamb without paying an indemnity, the poor man could bring against him the charge that he was taking advantage of his position to show total disregard for the law; but the case had to be presented by a third party, the prophet. It was a case of flouting the law, and as such was brought to the attention of the king, who was the upholder of the law (Rechtshelfer}.^ The king could not accept this attitude towards the law, since he was expected to defend the cause of the poor; thus he pronounced his verdict accordingly. However, Nathan's abrupt application 'You are the man' draws a parallel between the rich man's exploitation of the poor on account of his superior status and the king's misuse of his own position of authority. Attention is thus focused not on the simple case of theft, but on the exploitation of the weak by one enjoying a superior position.44 When the application was thrown at him, David was forced to take some action, because he now found himself in the problematic situation of being on the one hand the rich oppressor and on the other the royal judge.45 As is rightly noted by H. Seebass,46 Nathan was concerned with the character of David's kingship; it was a young institution which had been renewed by David after the catastrophic failure of its first representative, Saul, and Nathan interfered because he saw great danger for the kingship if the holder began to take advantage of his status and exploit his subjects. Nathan's interference was thus mainly political. There are no compelling reasons for not attributing the parable to Nathan. As is noted by H. Hagan,47 a 12th century BC manuscript containing 'The Contending of Horus and Seth' provides a parallel from Egypt. Despite some important differences, especially in the use of such elements as the introduction of a prophet and the appeal to David to act as judge, the similarities are sufficient to justify the conclusion that the genre found in 2 Sam. 12.1-7a was known and recognised. The presence of other examples in the Bible, most notably Isa. 5.1-7, confirms this conclusion. Furthermore, the scenario described in Nathan's parable is credible. U. Simon48 has

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

101

found much relevant material in the form of legal theft, known as Adayieh, practised by the Bedouin of the Beersheba district and described in the work of Aref el-Aref. Taking from the flock of one's neighbour to provide for an unexpected guest was permissible under certain conditions, such as notifying the owner. However, some animals were exempt, among them an ewe reared in a tent and for which the owner had special affection; if one of this type was taken, repayment had to be made fourfold. It can be suggested that Nathan in his interview with David used a genre that was known and described a scenario which was familiar. If it is accepted that Nathan's stance in the Bathsheba affair had political motives, as suggested above, it may provide further evidence of his Jebusite background. Nathan, as court counsellor who had experience of the previous Jebusite regime in Jerusalem, was a keen observer of any changes or developments introduced by the new regime under David. He immediately sensed that David, in misusing his royal status vis-a-vis Bathsheba and Uriah, had taken a step that threatened the whole fabric of the newly established kingship. It was for this reason that he decided to have an interview with the king and through his parable give him a timely word of warning. The issue with which Nathan was concerned was more specific than the upholding of world-order,49 or making a stand for the cause of justice;50 it was the reaction of a Jerusalemite to what he saw as a dangerous path taken by the new monarch who had only recently installed himself in the city. Extensions to the Parable 2 Sam. 12.7b-12 consists of two sections (vv. 7b-10 and 11-12), which must not only be separated from the parable in vv. l-7a, but also from each other, and thus be treated as two independent sayings. As has been noted, the parable is brought to its conclusion with the declaration in v.7a 'You are the man'. But vv. 7b-10 are interested in interpreting subsequent events in the life of David as punishment for his crimes in connection with Bathsheba and Uriah, and they are usually regarded as secondary and deuteronomistic.51 It is obvious that vv.7b-10 and 11-12 do not form one unit: first, there are two new beginnings, each containing the prophetic messenger formula, Thus says the LORD' (vv. 7b and 11); secondly, both constitute in themselves complete and independent units, which contain basically two parts, an announcement of judgement together with the reasons or motivation for that judgement; thirdly, the two sections concentrate

102

The Nathan Narratives

on different aspects of David's sin, the first being more concerned with the murder of Uriah and the second relating exclusively to David's adultery with Balhsheba.52 For these reasons vv. 7b-10 and 11-12 must be treated as two separate additions to vv. l-7a. A closer analysis of vv. 7b-10 shows that the section, after the initial messenger speech formula, contains the following elements. (1) A rehearsal of Yahweh's mighty works on behalf of David, which were: his anointing, as recorded in 1 Samuel 16; his deliverance from the threats upon his life by Saul; the inheritance of Saul's wives and concubines, as was customary on the usurpation of power, and the possession of the kingdom of Israel and Judah (vv. 7b-8). This series is brought to a conclusion with the statement that 'if this were too little, I would add to you as much more'. (2) The chief accusation against David is introduced in v. 9—'You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword', which is repeated again at the end of the verse. (3) The punishment, introduced by 'Now therefore' (we'attdh) in v. 10, is fitting for the crime that has been noted, 'the sword shall never depart from your house'. (4) A second accusation follows in v. 9, 'you have taken his wife to be your wife'. The repetition of this accusation in v. 10 is very incongruous; whereas the threat of the sword upon David's house is a correct sequence for the killing of Uriah 'with the sword of the Ammonites', this particular form of punishment has no link whatsoever with the crime of taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite. (5) The theological interpretation of the crime in v. 9, where it is described as an act of despising Yahweh's Word and doing what he regards as evil, is repeated in a shorter form in v. 10. This interpretation introduces yet another element in the description of David's crime.53 The second section (vv. 11-12) is much simpler. It does not provide any reason for the punishment to be executed upon David, but introduces the threat directly with 'Behold'. The punishment obviously fits the crime of adultery, for one from David's house will rise up and, by publicly taking possession of the king's harem, will stake a claim for the throne. That this section is directed specifically at David's adultery is made clear by suggesting a contrast between what David did secretly with the act of punishment which will happen 'before all Israel' and 'in the sight of the sun', the latter being noted twice. The incongruity of the first oracle and its connection with the second raise questions about the originality of the two sections, and also about their growth and development. A simple solution to this

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

103

problem is to accept the less intricate version (w. 11-12) as the older version and to delete the more complex one (vv. 7b-10) as a secondary addition.54 The main reason for this is that the theft of Uriah's wife, which is presumably the crime calling for the punishment in vv. 11-12, corresponds more closely to the theft of an ewe-lamb in the parable. But vv. 11-12 can only be retained as an independent saying with some difficulty, especially in view of the fact that it pronounces judgement without noting categorically the reason for it. A much more complex approach attempts to separate the older elements in the two oracles from secondary additions, which were acquired at a later date. One possibility is to find behind the present section a very brief original core referring to David's adultery with Bathsheba and constituting the question 'Why have you despised the word of the LORD ... and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife?' (vv. 9a and 10b).55 A much more detailed analysis has been presented by W. Dietrich.56 An older layer, in which Nathan was the speaker, was concerned with David despising God by taking Bathsheba as wife (vv. 8a, 9a to 'Yahweh', lOb, 11, 12); this is considered to be an original part of Nathan's interview with David, and taken with the parable provides a pre-prophetic example of the 'Scheltwort-Drohwort' form. The additional layer, which does not form an independent unit but seems to have been worked into the first layer at various points, was spoken by Yahweh himself and gave prominence to the murder of Uriah (vv. 7b, 8abc, 9a from 'to do', 9abc, lOaba; this layer is attributed to DtrP, who may have been responsible for the insertion of the whole Nathan episode into the narrative. Despite the detail of his analysis and its relation to the main thesis of his work, W. Dietrich seems to ignore entirely the obvious division of the oracle into two independent declarations (vv. 7b-10,11-12); he lifts out elements from the first to fill out the second, and proposes as the original unit an oracle that begins abruptly with v. 8, with a late introduction of the oracular formula, 'Thus says the LORD' at v. 11. It seems more reasonable to seek an analysis that adheres more closely to the natural division of the text in its present form. The first attempt to interpret the threat of punishment implicit in the Nathan parable can be seen in the core of vv. 7b-10. Possibly it was an interpretation that took as its starting-point the restoration of the lamb 'four-fold', and saw in it an allusion to the death of four of David's sons, namely Bathsheba's first child, Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah.57 The threat of v. 10, 'the sword shall never depart from

104

The Nathan Narratives

your house', was an appropriate interpretation of the punishment implied in v. 6. It was also appropriate in view of the fact that Uriah had been killed with the sword. The original oracle can be reconstructed as follows: (7b) Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I anointed you king over Israel, and delivered you out of the hand of Saul, (8) and gave you the house58 of Israel and of Judah; (9) but you have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. (10) Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house. Although the main point of the oracle is to be found in the association between killing Uriah with the sword and the curse of the sword upon the house of David, there is also a contrast between Yahweh's goodness to David and the king's despicable behaviour. In anointing, delivering and establishing him on the throne, Yahweh had entrusted him with power; but David misused that power and status by killing Uriah. The first interpretation takes up the point made originally by Nathan about the exploitation of his subjects by the king. An interpretation that concentrated on the killing of Uriah at the expense of David's adultery with Bathsheba could not have been entirely satisfactory. At a later point, therefore, a second oracle (vv. 11-12) was added, and suitable modifications were made to the first to accommodate references to David's sin with Bathsheba. It was not necessary for the second oracle to repeat the theme of Yahweh's guidance to David, or to refer again to the killing of Uriah. Nor, after insertions had been introduced into the first oracle, was it necessary to refer directly to David's adultery. The punishment introduced abruptly in v. 11 fitted the purpose perfectly, and it is obvious from it that David's adultery was now being brought into greater prominence. The incident described in 2 Sam. 16.21-22 seems to have been used as a basis for this oracle, and thus Absalom's action was interpreted as punishment for David's adultery with Bathsheba. This second oracle, however, could not have stood independently, for its full meaning becomes clear only when it is read with the insertions that were incorporated in the first oracle. Two specific references to taking Uriah's wife were included (vv. 9,10). In conjunction with these references, and in preparation for them, a reference to marrying Saul's daughter and inheriting his concubines was added in v. 8 to the list of Yahweh's mighty works on behalf of

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

105

David: 'I gave you your master's daughter,59 and your master's wives into your bosom', with specific reference to his marriage to Michal. Possibly too the phrase 'and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more (kdhenndh wekahennahy is to be understood as referring specifically to wives and concubines. It does not refer in a general and unspecific way to all that Yahweh had done for David, implying that if that were not enough he would do more; but rather, by using the feminine plural, it implies that Yahweh had supplied David with a number of wives, and if this were not enough he could have supplied him with more.60 Coveting Bathsheba was therefore unnecessary. By means of these annotations the first oracle was reconciled with the second. The section was again modified when two further additions were made to it. The full version of v. 9, which reads 'Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight?', appears in a much shorter form in v. 10, 'because you have despised me'. As was noted above, W. Dietrich divides the question in v. 9 after 'the LORD', and attributes the first part, together with the phrase in v. 10, to the oldest layer of the text; the second half of the question, which is distinctly deuteronomistic, is attributed to the later DtrP layer.61 Thus the reference to despising the word of Yahweh or Yahweh himself is considered to be part of the oldest material in the section.62 It would appear, however, that both parts of the question in v. 9 belong to the same process of theologising the text. The two oracles are concerned with the practical consequences of David's behaviour in the light of later history, the murder of Uriah leading to destruction with the sword, and his adultery with Bathsheba resulting in taking over of his harem. But only in these two additions in vv. 9 and 10 are these practical consequences given a theological content. That this was a later development is borne out by the deuteronomistic flavour of'to do what is evil in his sight' (cf. Deut. 4.25; 9.18; 17.2; 31.29; Judg. 2.11; 3.7,12) and by the fact that there are literary parallels to this type of utterance in the prophetical books.63 Both oracles are therefore considered to be later extensions that were in successive stages added to the original Nathan parable, and which also in the course of time acquired some further modification. Basically they contain a messenger formula followed by a statement of the reason for judgement (murder in one and adultery in the other) and an announcement of the coming of that judgement (the sword in one, ravishing the harem in the other). In view of the very practical

106

The Nathan Narratives

aspects to the judgement described during the first stages of the growth of the two oracles, and the lack of a pronounced theological perspective until a later date, it seems that too much is read into the text in the attempt to find here an example of the so-called RibGattung that is connected with the violation of the divine covenant.64 The extensions are concerned with giving, in the light of later events, an interpretation of the judgement implied by the parable. David's Response The section containing David's brief response to Nathan's judgement with the words 1 have sinned against the LORD' (v. 13a), together with Nathan's commutation of the death sentence (v. 13b) and his proclamation of a revised sentence (v. 14), poses many problems. A question that causes considerable difficulty is how to reconcile the various punishments mentioned in the entire passage, w. 7b-15. Not only are there two serious threats in the oracles contained in vv. 7b12, but it is obvious from David's conversation with Nathan in v. 13 that his admission of guilt could lead to punishment by death; there is also the further punishment of his child's death in v. 14. L. Rost65 found a ready solution for this in deleting the two oracles in vv. 7b-12 and reading w. 13-15a as the correct sequence to Nathan's parable in w. l-7a. It is accepted that only one punishment is implied at the beginning of v. 14, namely the death of the child; thus the threats in w. 7b-12 are rendered obsolete. David's self-condemnation in v. 5, taken with Nathan's pronouncement in v. 13b, gives the reader a basis for understanding David's confession in v. 13a as implying that he deserved death; Nathan replied immediately and gave a revised sentence.66 It is thus claimed that vv. l-7a, 13-15a constituted the original account of Nathan's interview with David. However, there is a possibility that the phrase ben mdwet in v. 5 does not mean 'deserves to die',67 and, if this is the case, no reference is made in the parable to a death sentence which is taken to provide a basis for the conversation in vv. 13-14. This calls for a reconsideration of the connection between the two verses. G. Gerleman68 has claimed that the implied sentence of death in v. 13 in no way depends on v. 5, and so can be dissociated from it. His main contention is that the confessionary 'I have sinned against' does not simply refer to a sinful act, but is a term that implies also the consequences of that act. Thus David's confession and the consequent commutation of his sentence are able to stand on their own without it being necessary for them to be preceded by v. 5. But if the verdict announced in v. 5 does not

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

107

refer to the culprit as deserving death, then vv. 13-14 become suspicious on the grounds that they introduce a new element into a narrative that was not basically concerned with the admission of guilt or the acceptance of forgiveness. If it is accepted that Nathan's parable received its earliest interpretations when an attempt was made to explain its implied judgement on David in the light of later events, it must be asked if the theme of repentance and forgiveness in vv. 13-14 also represents a later interpretation. For those concerned with the course run by David's kingship and with the fate of his dynasty, one remarkable feature was that the house of David survived; it did so despite the severe losses reflected in the first interpretation of Nathan's parable in vv. 7b-10, and again despite the act of rebellion reflected in the second interpretation in w. 11-12. The only conceivable reason for this was that Yahweh had not punished David fully for the Bathsheba affair. To explain this, an act of repentance and forgiveness was introduced in v. 13. The choice of words in v. 13b is significant, and it is thought that the translation 'The LORD has put away your sin' is inadequate. Although Yahweh had decided to cause David's act and its consequences for him personally to pass away from him,69 because he had realised his guilt, acknowledged it before Yahweh and received forgiveness, Yahweh did nevertheless cause his child to die. Because of this the translation 'has transferred your sin' can be justified.70 Thus v. 13 contains the same kind of reflection on the fate of the Davidic kingship in the light of the implied judgement in Nathan's parable as that already encountered in vv. 7b-10 and 11-12. Because of its content this reflection has acquired a deeper theological significance than the other reflections contained in the chapter, for as G. Gerleman has rightly emphasised it deals basically with guilt and forgiveness.71 That v. 14, with its announcement of a modified sentence upon David, is related to v. 13 has already been suggested. It appears that, although God had moved away David's sin and its consequences from him personally, the child born from his adultery with Bathsheba was not to escape, but had to die. As already suggested, there was a transfer of punishment; this was obviously regarded as a less severe sentence and could be reconciled with the idea that Yahweh had forgiven David. Thus v. 14 again rested on the same kind of reflection on the kingship as gave rise to the preceding verses; it provided a fitting climax for the section. The two interpretations of vv. 7b-10 and 11-12 respectively have been combined in the phrase

108

The Nathan Narratives

'the child born to you shall die', which brings together the theme of the destruction of the house of David by the sword and the theme of David's sin with Bathsheba. Furthermore, it explains how David's callous deed was punished, although David himself was forgiven and continued to reign. It also provides a link between the Nathan parable and the narrative in vv. 15ff, which report the death of the child. Despite its importance, v. 14 is a verse that is beset by many difficulties. Textually the reading presupposed by the RSV's translation 'you have utterly scorned the LORD', is acceptable,72 and states clearly that David's behaviour was so objectionable that it could not be allowed to pass without some form of punishment. Theologically the verse poses further problems. Although it has succeeded in showing that David's kingship survived despite his behaviour, because the punishment he deserved was transferred to the child, it has left other questions unanswered. First comes the question about justice for the wronged husband, and it is sometimes suggested that the child had to die as retaliation for the death of Uriah, and as a means of preserving his legal rights.73 There follows the question about causing the innocent child to die, which is sometimes explained as an act of substitution for the father.74 No answer is given to these perplexing theological questions; v. 14 did not aim to do more than show how David's kingship survived, and it achieved this by emphasising that his punishment was transferred to the child born of his unfortunate liaison with Bathsheba. Verses 7b-10, 11-12 and 13-14 therefore contain attempts to explain the implications of Nathan's parable for the subsequent history of David's kingship. His house, including the child born to Bathsheba as a result of his adultery, suffered death; there was also rebellion against the father which involved the ravishing of his harem. But David survived, and his house continued, because David himself had been forgiven; therefore Yahweh's promise to David remained steadfast.75 These verses are later intrusions, and the original conclusion to Nathan's parable is to be found in v. 15a.76 The death of David's child (w. 15b-23) The prophecy in v. 14 that the child was to die is taken up by the narrative in vv. 15b-23, where there is not only a record of the child's death but also an account of David's unconventional behaviour on that occasion. For those who assume that the Nathan episode interrupts the main narrative, this section is taken to be a continuation and conclusion of the account of David's adultery with

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

109

Bathsheba in ch. 11; the record in v. 15b that 'the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David' is a continuation of 11.27b where it is stated that 'the thing that David had done displeased the LORD'.77 However, the narrative cannot be as easily discussed, since its obvious connections with other sections in the complex raise questions regarding its origin and purpose. There is more to the connection between this narrative and v. 14 than the superficial link of demonstrating that a prophecy contained in that verse was fulfilled; it can also be confirmed that the basic themes of sin and forgiveness in vv. 13-14 provide a clue for the correct understanding of vv. 15b-23. The most prominent element in the narrative is David's unexpected conduct before and after the child's death.78 His fast and vigil before the child's death are aspects of what is said at the beginning of v. 16, 'David therefore besought God for the child'. Although David appeared to be showing the traditional signs of mourning, his actions are obviously not to be understood in that sense. Verse 16 reports the next stage in David's response after his admission of guilt (v. 13) and the declaration of a commuted verdict that he would be spared, but that the child would die (v. 14). His actions, despite their strangeness to the servants (v. 17), were reasonable in the light of vv. 13-14, for David now realised that the only possible action was to plead with God to spare the child (cf. also v. 22). When that request was not granted, David abandoned his fast and did not show any signs of mourning. Such action was unreasonable for his servants (v. 21), but was logical in David's eyes: 'Now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me' (v. 23). His petition had failed, but read in the light of vv. 13,14 this meant that God had kept his word; the child was taken, and David could take it as an assurance that he had now been forgiven, which was the reason for his unexpected action. Reading vv. 15b-23 as a continuation of vv. 13-14 gives the most satisfactory explanation of their content.79 Other explanations have been offered, mostly on the lines that David's actions either show a new attitude towards mourning or else bear witness to the exceptional strength of character that is attributed to him. Among the interpretations in the former category that can be listed80 stands J. Pedersen's view that David's attitude marks a change in 'the psychic history of Israel'; it shows that holiness gave him strength and blessedness and made him passive, and it was this that enabled him to effect a complete reversal of mourning customs.81 The other line of

110

The Nathan Narratives

interpretation concentrates on the extraordinary development of character or strength of manhood that is exhibited in David, whether it is called strength of will and manly attitude,82 or connected more specifically with the fact that he was fully man and was trusted by Yahweh as a consequence of the promise made to him in Nathan's oracle in 2 Samuel 7.83 Such interpretations, however, are undermined by David's attitude to death and to ritual acts of mourning on other occasions; he seems to have invariably followed the traditional customs that were expected of him by his servants on this occasion too (cf. 2 Sam. 1.17ff; 3.31-35; 13.36-37; 19.1).84 Neither the birth of a new attitude to mourning nor the emergence of a fully trusted man is confirmed by what happened on these other occasions. Therefore, a reason for his attitude must be sought in the special circumstances surrounding this exceptional event, and, as is shown by G. Gerleman,85 what gives the behaviour shown here uniqueness is that it was connected with the issue of sin and forgiveness. It is claimed that the narrative was written to illustrate some of the remarkable characteristics belonging to David and to demonstrate his strong personality. A significance that was unrecognised by his servants was in David's mind attached to the death of the child; whilst they did not associate the death with David's affair with Bathsheba, David was conscious that it had to do with God's forgiveness for that sin. The central theme of the narrative is to be seen, not in the death of the child, but in the turning away of disastrous punishment from the person of David himself. In this way the death of the child was regarded as a sacrifice for David's sin; its occurrence was a pronouncement to David that he had been forgiven and that no further punishment would befall him.86 For this reason David's words in vv. 22-23 possess the character of Gerichtsdoxologie*1 The interdependence of w. 15b-23 and vv. 13-14 is an indication that vv. 15b-23 too belong to a later redaction of the DavidBathsheba-Nathan complex. P. Kyle McCarter is thus justified in regarding this narrative as 'not part of the oldest literature about David'.88 A possible confirmation of this may be obtained from the statement in v. 20 that David 'went into the house of the LORD and worshipped', an assertion that causes some difficulty because of the general assumption that there was no temple for Yahweh in Jerusalem before the time of Solomon. One proposal to avoid the difficulty of this reference accepts that when David entered Jerusalem he took over the Jebusite temple which he found there and worshipped Yahweh in that sanctuary.89 The statement, which is

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

111

taken to be literally true, escaped the attention of the deuteronomistic editors and was therefore not deleted. Another solution, which is rightly preferred by McCarter,90 is to accept that such a reference is an anachronism; the editors responsible for this section thought it appropriate for David to worship Yahweh on such an occasion, but inadvertently referred to the Temple. This may indicate a date that was somewhat removed from the events described. Although this section recording the death of David's son is similar in content and theme to vv. 13-14, it can be suggested that the theological concern with God's forgiveness to David was not totally devoid of historical terms of reference. It is not a complete fabrication that can be deleted with other similar sections as a kind of theological treatise, for it is given within a historical framework.91 The narrative in skeletal form runs from 11.21a to 12.15b, 18a and is continued in 12.24a: (27a) And when the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son. (15b) And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and it became sick. (18a) On the seventh day the child died. (24a) Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and she called his name Solomon.

This was a simple form of the narrative, before it was joined to the Nathan episode and its theological extensions, which are based on 11.27b; those extensions are to be found in a series in 12.7b-14 and in 12.15b-23. The Birth of Solomon (12.24-25) Some doubts have been expressed concerning the sequence of events suggested by this chapter, namely the birth of a son from David's adulterous liaison with Bathsheba, the death of that son and the birth of a second son called Solomon.92 For several reasons it has been claimed that 2 Sam. 12.15b-24a does not belong to the original narrative and is to be regarded as a secondary addition. The account of the birth of the first son is said to be incomplete, for the sentence 'and she became his wife, and bore him a son' in 11.27a does not name the son, as is usual in such notices. A more natural sequence is obtained by reading 12.24b with 11.27a, 'and bore him a son and she called his name Solomon'.93 Furthermore, the name Solomon, meaning probably 'his replacement' need not suggest a replacement

112

The Nathan Narratives

for the dead child; he was so named by Bathsheba because he replaced her dead husband, Uriah.94 Another reason given is that it is impossible for the two births, including two periods of gestation, to have occurred during the siege of Kabbah,95 even if the second conception took place immediately after the death of the first child, which happened seven days after its birth (cf. v. 18a). Again it is suggested that the account of David's behaviour both before and after the child's death contains legendary elements, one of them being the reference in v. 18a to 'seven' days. The motivation for introducing this legendary material about the birth and death of the first child was obviously the wish to avoid identifying Solomon as the illegitimate child born to David and Bathsheba.96 Despite the number of arguments that have been presented, the case is far from being convincing. Another equally valid reason for not naming the child in 11.21a was that his life was so short and he died within seven days after birth, which was before the time for giving him a name (cf. Lk. 1.59); his name was of no consequence and certainly of little relevance in a narrative which reached its climax with the birth of Solomon (12.24-25). Again the suggestion that Bathsheba gave Solomon his name because she considered him to be a replacement for the dead Uriah is very unlikely; it was David who replaced Uriah, and Solomon could only be a replacement for another child. Furthermore, it need not be assumed that the two births happened during the same campaign; as often happens in narrative form, the two events may have been telescoped and it is quite possible that Solomon's birth occurred after the Ammonite campaign.97 The legendary character of 12.15b-23, and the occasional signs of its late origin, do not of necessity cast doubt on the historicity of some of its basic elements. As is suggested above, a satisfactory analysis of the section becomes possible if a distinction is drawn between the theological elements in vv. 15b-24a and the few important historical statements included in the narrative. The concise record in vv. 15b, 18a and 24a can be accepted as a sound historical report.98 However, the statement 'and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon' (so RSV) is not without its difficulties. The Ketib, 'he called', attributes the naming to David, whilst the Qere^ with the support of some manuscripts, the Syriac and the Targum, reads 'she called' and attributes his naming to Bathsheba. It has to be noted that up to the ninth century BC it was usual for the mother to name the child,99 and therefore the feminine form represents the older and

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

113

more original tradition,100 and its replacement by the masculine is a later modification reflecting a change in custom. A brief reference has already been made to the choice of name, which unquestionably bears some symbolic significance related to the circumstances surrounding the child's birth.101 The suggestion, on the basis of 1 Chron. 22.18, that his name was connected with salom, 'peace', and carrying with it an indication that Israel would enjoy peace during Solomon's reign, has no support from the present text, and must therefore be dismissed.102 selomoh must be connected with the root slm used in the Pi'el with the meaning 'to replace, make whole', and so the name means 'his replacement' or 'his substitution'.103 Although such a name may denote a replacement for a lost child or a lost parent, preference has already been shown for the former. Taking into consideration Bathsheba's circumstances, that she had lost her husband because of her affair with David and then had become the latter's wife, it would be strange and even impudent if she considered a child born from David as a replacement for her murdered husband. It would be even more so if that child was the illegitimate one born of her illicit relationship with David, as is argued by those who delete entirely the tradition about the death of the first child. The note in v. 24 must therefore be taken as a historical record that Bathsheba named her child Solomon because he was for her a replacement for the child which she had lost.104 In vv. 24b-25 there is a second naming of the child through the intervention of the prophet Nathan. As is noted by P. Kyle McCarter,105 the Hebrew idiom found in this verse is very confusing, and for the literal 'and he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet and he called his name Jedidiah' he proposes the rendering 'and sent instructions through Nathan the prophet that he was to be called Jedidiah' (cf. NIV 'to name him Jedidiah' and NEB 'he should be given the name Jedidiah'); it is also argued that the RSV's 'because of the LORD' (NEB 'for the LORD'S sake') has to be rendered 'by the grace of Yahweh'.106 Thus, to the name given by the child's mother was added another one given by Yahweh, denoting that he was 'beloved of Yahweh' (cf. 'and the LORD loved him' in v. 24a). Any interpretation of the double name of Solomon faces the difficulty of having to explain why this second name occurs only here, with no further evidence that it was used either as a private name or as a throne name. Taking Solomon as the private name given by the mother and Jedidiah as the throne-name designated by the dynastic god is not satisfactory in view of the fact that Solomon was the name that

114

The Nathan Narratives

survived. Consequently the reverse has been suggested, with Solomon being the throne-name and Jedidiah the private name that was soon forgotten.107 Other solutions that avoid the difficulties of this kind of discussion of the double name are obtained either by suggesting that the naming of Jedidiah in vv. 24b-25 referred to the first child of David and Bathsheba, but that it was later mistakenly connected with Solomon,108 or else by treating these verses as a secondary insertion to suggest a respectfully orthodox name that was never in use.109 However, a different understanding of the naming of Solomon as Jedidiah becomes possible if these verses are taken to represent an old tradition belonging to the Jebusite circle to which Nathan belonged. Admittedly it would seem more natural for the child to have been named Jedidiah in Israelite circles; in view of the possibility that the name Solomon is in some way related to the second part of the name Jerusalem, his name would be more naturally found in Jebusite circles. On the other hand, proposing the name Jedidiah may be another example of the shrewd and timely intervention of Nathan in the interests of the Jebusite cause. He may have seen in the naming of the child as Solomon by Bathsheba an act that would estrange him from the Israelites. Therefore, in order to achieve a measure of compromise between the Jebusite and Israelite population of Jerusalem, and perhaps anticipating the steps to be taken in the future to place Solomon, with Jebusite support, on the throne of David, Nathan proposed the name Jedidiah as a second name for Solomon; it was an orthodox name that would satisfy the Israelite element in Jerusalem. Although it did not survive in use, it represents a calculated attempt to cancel the harm that may have been done by Bathsheba's initial choice of name. Thus in vv. 24-25 two traditions about the naming of Solomon have been combined; on the one hand, the record in v. 24a of Solomon's birth and the name given to him by his mother; on the other hand, the old tradition of vv. 24b-25 that was associated with Nathan and his Jebusite supporters. Verses 24-25 form a conclusion to the David-Bathsheba narrative, and vv. 26ff return to the account of the Ammonite war and the siege of Rabbah which was interrupted after 11.1. Because Solomon's birth seems to be the climax of the section it has been suggested that the narrative in 11.2-12.25, and even in the whole of chs. 10-12, is to be designated as the birth story of Solomon.110 As is noted by P. Kyle McCarter, there must be reservations about such a designation; it is an inglorious birth story, which is not central to the main narrative,

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

115

and because the notice of the birth itself in vv. 24-25 appears in what is called a postscript, the impression is gained that Solomon's birth was reported from a sense of obligation. Nevertheless, it has to be asked if the report of Solomon's birth was of more importance for the narrator than the mere two verses devoted to it suggest. The significance of the marriage of David to Bathsheba was that it led to the birth of Solomon. The record of his birth in the narrative serves two purposes. Firstly, it provides a contrast to the ignominy associated with the first child born to David and Bathsheba; what began as a narrative of disgrace comes to a conclusion with the glory of the birth of Solomon, and this could not be ignored. Secondly, although David had committed a heinous sin, which demanded some form of punishment, he himself was spared, and his dynasty was to continue; that this was the case is borne out by the brief statement about the birth of Solomon. Reconstruction

It has already been accepted that the narrative of David's affair with Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11-12 belongs to the account of the Ammonite war.111 This means that the suggestion that it should be taken as an intrusion into the account of the Ammonite war is implausible, and some support is given to P. Kyle McCarter's suggestion that in chs. 11-12 is a narrative whose author was careful to introduce it within a historical framework. In view of the analysis offered above, it is doubtful if all McCarter's conclusions can be accepted, especially his proposal that behind the whole section stands a prophetic author, who had before him the old story of Absalom's rebellion; he introduced that story by writing his own account of the Bathsheba affair, and thus interpreted the rebellion as a working out of the denunciation of David in 12.7b-12.112 Some reservations must be expressed about McCarter's assumption that, whilst it depended on a chain of traditions, the narrative has been composed as a complete story. It must also be questioned if it was written solely as a theological introduction to the narrative of Absalom's rebellion. The analysis above suggests that the present complex is far from being a single narrative that can be attributed to one author, prophetic or otherwise. It is rather a work that was first of all composed from a number of different elements, and then developed into its present form through a series of successive redactions. In its early form the narrative contained the account of David's affair with Bathsheba in 11.2-27a, which is a self-contained unit introduced into

116

The Nathan Narratives

its correct historical setting as described in 10.1-11.1; it did not, however, reach its climax with the notice in v. 27a that a child was born to David and Bathsheba, because it also included the brief notices in 12.15b, 18a, 24a, which cover between them the child's illness, death and replacement by Solomon. Obviously this narrative did not originate from the same source as the account of the Ammonite war in 10.1-11.1 and 12.26-31, but was probably composed by the narrator on the basis of an earlier tradition. Its culmination in the birth of Solomon may indicate that its author was a person interested in the Davidic dynasty and in the succession to the throne of David; it may well be that the lively narrative in 11.227a had existed previously without 12.15b, 18a, 24a, but that these were included in the present version to complete the record. Thus the apparent climax that is reached in 11.21a may denote that the older narrative finished there; but in the version found in 2 Samuel, and coming from the one interested in the succession of David by Solomon, possibly the author of the so-called Succession Narrative, the unit contained 11.2-27a; 12.15b, 18a, 24a. What he wished to show was that during the Ammonite war there occurred a series of events that led to the birth of Solomon; a relationship that began as a sordid act of adultery was eventually to produce the future king, who would ensure the continuation of David's dynasty. To his narrative the author joined two other elements obtained from an ancient corpus of tradition surrounding the prophet Nathan and current among the Jebusite population of Jerusalem. The first unit showed how Nathan had criticised David for his behaviour (12.1-7a); it was brief and to the point. But for the author it provided one important element that was not included in the version of David's affair with Bathsheba which he had produced, namely a criticism of David for his behaviour. The account is remarkably bare, without direct words of criticism or any hint of motivation.113 By reporting the condemnation preserved in the Nathan tradition and introducing it without further elaboration, the author was able to suggest in a very subtle fashion a criticism of David. This served his purpose well, for a general hint that David was disgraced by his act was a suitable background for introducing Solomon.114 The second unit concerned the naming of Solomon as Jedidiah by Nathan (vv. 24b-25). This record again was most acceptable to the author for it emphasised that Solomon was 'beloved of the LORD', which further stresses the contrast between David under a curse and the one who was to become his successor. It has been shown that these

5. Condemnation of David's Affair

111

two pieces of tradition associated with Nathan had been preserved for sound Jebusite reasons, the first because it showed Jebusite reservations concerning the recent development of misusing the royal prerogative, and the second because it demonstrated a shrewd move by Nathan to fuse the Jebusite and Israelite factions in Jerusalem. Although these Nathan traditions demonstrate his strong Jebusite motivation and had therefore been cherished among the Jebusites, they acquired a new emphasis when they were joined to other traditions about the same events, and were used to demonstrate another point of view. Although the narrative in 11.2-27a; 12.1-7a, 19b, 18a, 24-25 gave a comprehensive account of David's affair with Bathsheba, included a criticism of it and reviewed briefly subsequent developments, it did not satisfy all its readers. Two oracles, both of which were intended to bring out the implications of Nathan's criticism in the light of the nature of David's sin and the turn of subsequent events, were added in vv. 7b-10 and 11-12. Although both have very practical aspects, they also introduce theological themes to a narrative that was remarkably non-theological; characteristics denoting a deuteronomistic hand are evident. David's response in vv. 13-14 is to be included with these later extensions, as is also 11.27b, which links the narrative more closely with later interpretations of it and again gives a clear indication of deuteronomistic authorship. Of special interest for our study is the presence of the two units which have been described as Nathan traditions and their importance for the development of this section of 2 Samuel. The following observations have been made about these two units: they had their setting and motivation in the Jebusite faction; they were used by the narrator of the so-called Succession Narrative because of their contribution to his theme; and they also, and especially the first one, provided a basis for the further, and more theological, development of this section.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 6 DAVID AND JEBUSITE JERUSALEM In the above analyses of the three narratives which relate incidents with which Nathan was particularly connected, it has been suggested that the original core underlying each of them gives an account of Nathan's activities that is shorter and different from what appears in the longer and modified version found in the present biblical text. Since it has been claimed that the original core came from a tradition preserved among the Jebusites of Jerusalem, and that the actions taken by Nathan reflect a Jebusite stance aimed at preserving the interests of that particular faction, the state of affairs in the city conquered by David has to be examined in more detail. Of particular interest are the claims that David took possession of a Jebusite stronghold that had not hitherto been conquered by the Israelites, that the Jebusites were not expelled from the city, and that David took over some of the institutions which he found there and attempted to merge Israelite and Canaanite elements, which also included a syncretism of the Yahwistic and Jebusite religions. Pre-Davidic Jerusalem It is universally conceded that Jerusalem was an ancient foundation which had a long history of at least a thousand years prior to Davidic times, and that David took possession of what was a Jebusite citystate. The evidence, which is by now well rehearsed,1 can be briefly summarised. Egyptian execration texts dated c. 2000-1780 BC refer to Jerusalem by name, and the form Urusalim occurs in Tell el-Amarna letters of the 15th and 14th centuries BC2 It is clear from the references to it in the latter that it was an important city-state which exercised influence over the surrounding country.3 Such evidence confirms the impression of its importance given by Joshua 10, where Adoni-sedeq the king of Jerusalem headed a league of Amorite tribes.

120

The Nathan Narratives

Biblical texts relating to the period of the settlement contradict each other in their references to Jerusalem. It was obviously situated in the border area between Benjamin and Judah, and there is a discrepancy as to which side of the border the city belonged. Some texts place it in Benjaminite territory (Josh. 18.1 Iff; Judg. 1.21), but others imply that it was situated in Judah (Josh. 1.8; 15.63). Possibly such a contradiction arose because Jerusalem had not fallen to the Israelites at the time of their settlement in Canaan, and so its tribal affiliation had remained undefined. Without entering into the intricate question of the relationship between the various tribal and city lists and the boundary designations found in the books of Joshua and Judges, it can be quite simply stated that Jerusalem belonged to Judah.4 Such factors as the plurality of boundary traditions, redactional modifications and the use of later monarchical district divisions have contributed to the contradictory statements that appear in the texts.5 Despite the difficulties encountered in examining these texts, it appears that all traditions agree on the basic fact that Jerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, who were not driven out during the Israelite occupation of Canaan. Whilst Josh. 15.63 states that the tribe of Judah was unable to oust the Jebusites from Jerusalem, Judg. 1.21 attributes such failure to the tribe of Benjamin; but both texts are agreed in recording that 'the Jebusites have dwelt with the people of Benjamin (or Judah) in Jerusalem to this day'. It is right therefore to conclude that the Jebusites occupied the city in the period before its conquest by David,6 and to assert this conclusion in the face of such a contradictory claim as is found in Judg. 1.8 that 'the men of Judah fought against Jerusalem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.' How to reconcile these two contradictory standpoints will be discussed below. The presence of Jebusites in Jerusalem in pre-Davidic times can be confirmed despite doubts about the validity of the equation of Jebus with Jerusalem.7 As is noted by J.M. Miller, the equation of Jerusalem with Jebus or 'the Jebusite' appears three times in the books of Joshua and Judges (Josh. 15.8; 18.28; Judg. 19.10), and is again confirmed by 1 Chron. 11.4. Jebus was not a word that had wide usage, but seems to have been restricted to the period between the Israelite settlement and the possession of Jerusalem by David; it is not corroborated by extra-biblical evidence. However, the names Jebus and Jerusalem seem to have been alternatives,8 but opinions vary with regard to the importance of the name Jebus. On the one hand it has been suggested that Jebus had no real currency as a

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

121

name, but had been coined from the name of the tribe to distinguish between the pre-Israelite and Israelite occupation of the city.9 On the other hand it has been claimed that the references to Jebus in the Old Testament texts are authentic and old and that the name was in use in this early period of Israelite history.10 But, according to J.M. Miller, the evidence that the name Jerusalem was in use long before the time of David calls for a more satisfactory explanation of the use of the name Jebus. His proposal is that Jebus did not refer to preDavidic Jerusalem, but to a village slightly to the north of Jerusalem, and that there is here therefore a clear case of mistaken identity. Of particular significance for the present study is that whatever explanation of the name Jebus is accepted, the identification of the inhabitants of Jerusalem as Jebusites stands unchallenged. Even if the novel and radical solution proposed by J.M. Miller is found to be convincing, it has to be noted that, whilst he does not identify Jebus with Jerusalem, he confirms that Jerusalem was inhabited by Jebusites.11 The Jebusites were still in the city and its surrounding district when David decided to take possession of it (2 Sam. 5.6). Although the conquest of the city and David's campaigns against the Philistines are so closely related as to make the sequence of events unclear, Jerusalem was at this time undoubtedly held by the Jebusites. They may have been under pressure from the Philistines to hold out against David, but there is little to confirm the view that the Jebusites were no longer independent because their city was under the control of the Philistines.12 The main chronological difficulty of these narratives is the decision whether David's encounter with the Philistines in the valley of Rephaim (2 Sam. 5.1725) occurred before or after the capture of Jerusalem; it is an issue that is complicated by the placing of the narrative about this encounter immediately after the capture of Jerusalem, whilst v. 17 suggests that it occurred immediately after the anointing of David at Hebron.13 It is further complicated by the difficulty of identifying 'the stronghold' of v. 17.14 The question to be settled is whether David's encounter with the Philistines prepared the way for the capture of Jerusalem or conversely whether the large scale encounter in the valley of Rephaim was the Philistine response to the taking of Jerusalem. It may well be that the sequence of events is so unclear because 2 Sam. 5.17-25 is a composite narrative in which the report of a major encounter between David and the Philistines (w. 22-25) has been joined to a report of minor skirmishes belonging to David's

122

The Nathan Narratives

period in Hebron (vv. 17-21).15 If recent reconstructions of the historical sequence are accepted, a period of months if not years separated David's capture of Jerusalem and his first campaign against the Philistines.16 If so, the suggestion that the Jebusites were under the control of the Philistines receives no confirmation from these reconstructions; even if it had been controlled by the Philistines, there is no suggestion that it was a Philistine city as such. It can thus be maintained that in taking Jerusalem David was dealing with the native Jebusite population of the city. The search for an exact date for the Jebusite settlement of Jerusalem raises another difficult problem. Working on evidence that the term 'Amorite' was used for the population of Jerusalem, like its neighbours (Josh. 10.3), in the early period, with the exception of the period between the end of the settlement and the reign of David, when 'Jebusite' was substituted for it, B. Mazar concludes that Jerusalem was not Jebusite until the period of the Israelite conquest, more specifically the time of the sacking of the city by the Judahites (Judg. 1.8).17 Thus the Jebusites, who were related to the Hittites (Ezek. 16.3), remained as an enclave amid the Israelites in the 12thllth centuries BC. A closer look at the ancestry of the Jebusites will confirm that they were a group of people belonging to the Hurrians.18 It is known that an early governor of Jerusalem from the Amarna period (1400-1350 BC) was Abdi-frepa, which is a Human name. The Jebusite Araunah, who was in Jerusalem in David's time (2 Sam. 24.16fFcf. 1 Chron. 21.15ff, where he is called Oman), also has a Human name meaning 'ruler, lord', which may be a designation that he was a king rather than an individual personal name.19 Possibly too the name of Uriah the Hittite is derived from the same root,20 or at least from the Human consonantal form, 'wryh, though it is not necessary to accept the more extreme view that he was a Jebusite king removed by David through an act of murder.21 The evidence justifies the conclusion that the Jebusite settlement in Jerusalem had a long history going back to the Amarna period; it was so firmly established in the city that it could not be dislodged by the Israelites, but remained as a foreign enclave in their midst when they settled in the land and persisted in this way until David conquered Jerusalem. The city of David The account of David's conquest of Jerusalem in 2 Sam. 5.6-10 calls for further investigation, especially with a view to defining the exact area that was captured and explaining its connection with the

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

123

Jebusites. The wording of the report in vv. 7 and 9 is particularly significant: 'Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David. On the basis of his detailed study of the city of Jerusalem, and in particular in connection with his definition of the terms 'Zion', 'city of David' and 'OpheF, J. Simons22 makes some observations that have a bearing on the present study: firstly, he claims that 'Zion' and 'city of David' are identical terms for the same place, and secondly, he identifies the area conquered by David as the south-eastern hill. In referring to the area conquered by two names, the report is faithful in giving the Jebusite and Israelite names for the same fortress; what the text intended to convey was that David took over 'the stronghold of Zion' and gave it a new name, 'the city of David'. The city-state, previously belonging to Jebusite rulers, now became David's own holding or property, and he rightly renamed it in his own honour,23 as was customary with captured capital cities.24 Although both names were used of the extended city of later times, Simons resists all attempts to give the names in their present context any meaning other than the south-eastern hill. Both the definition of Zion as the whole of the eastern ridge, and the proposal to distinguish it from 'the city of David' and to give it the more restricted meaning of fortified building or citadel, are rejected. Thus Zion, now renamed 'the city of David', indicates the south-eastern hill on which a strong fortress had been built;25 this was the Jebusite city which had remained unconquered until the period of David. Not only was the south-eastern hill well fortified, but it also had a fresh supply of water because of its proximity to the Kidron Valley and the Spring of Gihon. Therefore, confirmation that this was the fortress taken by David is usually found in the words of v.8, 'Whoever would smite the Jebusites, let him get up the water-shaft'. The water-shaft leading from the Spring of Gihon in the valley to the plateau of the hill on which the fortress was founded, and usually identified with Warren's shaft discovered in 1867, not only ensured for 'the stronghold Zion' a fresh water-supply, but also provided one weak point at which the fortress could be penetrated. David's words have thus been interpreted as a challenge to take the city by climbing up the shaft and capturing the city through a surprise attack. There may be reasons for modifying this explanation, especially because of the very free rendering of the Hebrew ndga' be in the translation 'get up the water-shaft'. J. Simons26 has suggested the translation 'Whoever smites the Jebusites and arrives at the finnor...'; what he envisaged was that the fortress was captured by attacking the

124

The Nathan Narratives

garrison posted on the slope above the spring to guard it. By overpowering the guard the city's life-line could be cut and its fall ensured. A similar procedure was envisaged by G. Brunet,27 who placed the attack lower down at 'the overflow' (for §innor\ with the result that the water-supply could be drained out. Whichever of these explanations is preferred, they are agreed that the §innor was in some way connected with the city's water-supply and that an action to cut off the supply was to lead eventually to the capture of the fortress by David. In this way a satisfactory explanation of the attack described in 2 Sam. 5.6-10 is obtained, and a search for other meanings for finndr, such as an instrument employed in the siege28 or a part of the body to be struck by the invading soldiers,29 is quite unnecessary. Because the stronghold on the south-eastern hill was so well fortified and had a guarded supply of water, its Jebusite inhabitants considered it impregnable; they had good reason for their confidence, for it had remained an unconquered enclave since the time of the Israelite incursion into Palestine. When David thus moved against the city its residents could with some justification assert 'You will not come in here',30 for they confidently believed that 'David cannot come in here'. The intervening phrase, 'but the blind and the lame will ward you off', appears to contain the taunting words of the Jebusites as David approached the fortress.31 They were so confident in the strength of their fortress that they could leave its defence in the hands of the disabled, 'the blind and the lame', who were able to withstand David's attack.32 David's reply is in similar vein and throws out a challenge to any of his men 'to attack the lame and the blind, who are hated by David's soul'. Unless David's words are taken to contain a taunting reply indicating that he was ready to take the Jebusites at their word and that he would take possession of the fortress, heavy weather is made of v. 8, as for example is the case with the explanation that he was encouraging his men to deal a fatal blow on the Jebusites rather than merely mutilate them, because there was a religious aversion to the mutilation of human beings.33 After the third reference to the blind and the lame at the end of v. 8 has been deleted, there is a logical sequence to the two occurrences of the phrase: in the mouth of the Jebusites it is a taunt reflecting their confidence in their stronghold and in the mouth of David it is a reply in kind that he will take the city. The acceptance of this simple and straightforward interpretation makes the more elaborate explanations that have been offered appear laborious and cumbersome. This is the case with interpretations based on taking the lame and the blind to be

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

125

idols reminding the Israelites of the covenant they have broken,34 or as an attempt to protect the city through magic and sorcery,35 or again in finding here a reference to the images of Isaac and Jacob, the guardian deities of the city.36 This is the case too with the suggestion that the phrase should be referred to David's own soldiers, who in the eyes of the Jebusites were like lame and blind men trying to occupy the city,37 and with claim that the lame and the blind had incited the Jebusites to declare that David could not enter the city.38 Taking the words in vv. 6-8 as an example of pre-battle verbal taunting, somewhat similar to the exchanges between the Rabshakeh and the Jerusalemites in 2 Kgs 18.19-27, not only gives a satisfactory interpretation of the references to the blind and lame, but also serves to bring out clearly the complete confidence of the Jebusites, who had held out so long as an enclave in 'the stronghold Zion' on the south-eastern hill. David's concentration on the south-eastern hill is again confirmed by a consideration of the south-western hill, which was also populated, and which in due course became part of Solomon's Jerusalem.39 'The stronghold Zion' on the south-eastern hill was the only walled and protected part of Jerusalem. At this time, according to J. Simons,40 the south-western hill had not been fortified in such a manner; if it had been protected in the same way, it would have been a much stronger fortress, and David's campaign would certainly not have been confined to the south-eastern hill. Jerusalem was the name for the Jebusite settlement on two hills, and the relationship of Zion to Jerusalem is explained as that of a part of the whole. One part was fortified, and within that fortress there resided a nucleus of the population with their ruler; the other part was unprotected open country and some section of the population lived there.41 This situation as described by J. Simons provides an adequate explanation of some problems that arise. Firstly, the two apparently contradictory reports in Josh. 15.63 and Judg. 1.8 can be reconciled; whereas the statement in Judg. 1.8 that Jerusalem was captured and burnt must refer to the settlement on the south-western hill, the claim in Josh. 15.63 that the Judahites had not been able to drive out the Jebusites from Jerusalem obviously refers to the fortress on the south-eastern hill. It was this situation that persisted until the time of David. Secondly, the presence of a fortified city to accommodate a section of the population with the remainder living in settlements in the open country gives a clue for understanding the reference to Araunah's threshing floor in 2 Sam. 24.16. Whilst the fortress, which became

126

The Nathan Narratives

known as the City of David, was on the south-eastern hill, the threshing-floor is usually thought to be to the north of it, and thus outside the fortified area.42 Thus it can be suggested that those living in the fortress had interests and holdings in the surrounding area because it also was Jebusite. Thirdly, the reference in 2 Sam. 5.6 to 'the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land', is not anachronistic, as is sometimes thought. Because they inhabited the region around the south-eastern hill, the text is correct; but it lacks precision in that it uses the name of the whole for the part, and does not specify that, when David went up to Jerusalem, he was going to attack the fortress on the south-eastern hill. Interpreting the text as a statement that David and his men went to Jerusalem 'against the Jebusite ruler of the city' becomes unnecessary.43 These considerations confirm the point that David set out to conquer the Jebusite fortress known as 'the stronghold of Zion' and renamed it 'the City of David'. Although David's reasons for his decision to take the fortress Zion are not given in the text, the situation outlined above brings them out quite obviously. This well fortified hill stood not only in a strategic position on the central hill range, but also in the middle of the two tribal blocks that David hoped to unite. Whilst this Jebusite enclave persisted, David had little hope of uniting the northern and southern tribes, since he was deprived of the advantage of a continuous area of Israelite occupation in the centre of the country;44 taking 'the stronghold Zion' was absolutely necessary. Possession of this particular area also gave him the added advantage of establishing his base on neutral ground that had never belonged to either the northern or the southern tribes.45 He had good reasons for taking over the Jebusite fortress. Pre-Israelite Cult A settlement that had a long history extending back about a thousand years, as is the case with Jerusalem, and that moreover had been occupied by the same people for a length of time, as is the case with the fortress on the south-eastern hill, is naturally expected to have firmly established religious traditions. One of the areas to be investigated is the evidence for the existence of a pre-Israelite cult in Jerusalem, for it has been claimed that, like other Canaanite cities, it had been regarded from early times as a holy city and was a religious centre of some importance and influence.46 This makes it probable that when Jerusalem became the supreme Israelite cultic centre, with its splendid Temple dedicated to the God of Israel, its cult took over

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

127

some of the traditions established there and its Temple was actually founded on an ancient cultic site.47 The name 'Jerusalem', which is a compound of two elements, yrw and slm, is taken to mean 'foundation of (the god) Shalem'.48 The root behind the first element yrw is defined in Gesenius' Thesaurus of 1835 as meaning 'to cast, lay a foundation', and an impressive list of other Semitic languages, including Nabataean, Aramaic and Syriac, which use the same root with this meaning, can be compiled in support.49 In the second element is a proper name denoting the founder of the city, on the analogy of Ur-Kasdim, 'the foundation of the Chaldeans'; although the name has occasionally been connected with a human founder from a very distant past,50 it is more usual to find in the consonants slm a reference to a deity who had particular associations with the city of Jerusalem. It has therefore been claimed that the city was the main centre for worshipping the West Semitic god whose name appears as Salim, Sulmanu or Salamu in Accadian sources.51 Jerusalem was called Bit-Sulmani in the period of Abdihepa, according to the Amarna letters, and on the basis of such evidence it has been claimed that Jerusalem was the seat of the god Sulman, for whom there was a temple on the site in the 14th century BC.52 It is also thought that that the old sanctuary of Salim had been later replaced by the Sulman Temple. Of course it is not suggested that the worship of Salim or Sulmanu was confined to the Israelites or to Jerusalem. A theophoric name containing the deity slm is given to a king of Moab in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III,53 and both Sulman and Selamanes are mentioned, the former on a stele discovered at Sidon and the latter in inscriptions from Aleppo.54 Of particular significance, according to J. Gray,55 is the appearance of two astral deities, known by the names $hr and Slm, in the mythological text from Ras Shamra describing 'The Birth of the Gracious and Beautiful Gods'. They were twin deities, one manifested in the Morning Star (Shr—Dawn) and the other in the Evening Star (Slm—peace = peace of evening, Dusk).56 The probability is that Slm was the local god of Jerusalem, whose name appears not only in the city's name, but significantly too perhaps in the theophoric names of two of David's sons, Absalom and Solomon, despite the birth of the one in Hebron and the other's alternative name being Jedidiah. Although the incidence of the name Salim/Sulman is widespread, it can justifiably be claimed that this god was worshipped in preIsraelite Jerusalem.57 Another deity whose name is also mentioned in discussions of the

128

The Nathan Narratives

pre-Israelite Jerusalem cult is $edeq.58 The argument is based on the following evidence: the divine name Sydyk, 'The Just', is found in the writings of Philo of Byblos and also appears as a theophoric element in personal names outside the Bible, for example at Tell el-Amarna and Ugarit, and corresponds to the Accadian Kittu, 'Justice';59 the names of some of the pre-Israelite kings in Jerusalem, such as Melchisedeq which means 'My King is Sedeq'60 (Gen. 14.18ff) and Adonisedeq (Josh. 10.1, 3), can be taken as theophoric names connected with the deity worshipped in the city; the name of Zadok, who became chief priest in the time of Solomon, was also theophoric, having the meaning 'dedicated to $edeq'61 and denoting that he belonged to the pre-Davidic shrine in Jerusalem. Thus, it is claimed that Jerusalem, where Melchi§edeq had been priest-king, and whose priesthood had eternal validity (according to Ps. 110.4), was a cullic centre for the local deity $edeq. The possibility that Zadok was a preIsraelite Jebusite priest is reserved for more detailed discussion below. Despite the importance of the reference to Melchi§edeq, there is uncertainty about finding in \hz-?dq element in his name proof that a deity by the name of $edeq was worshipped in Jerusalem. Because of the probability that Melchisedeq means 'My king is righteous' (with 'my king' being either a divine appellative or a proper name), A.R. Johnson62 concluded that the association of a god $edeq with Jerusalem is extremely uncertain, but cautiously affirmed that there was an early association between pre-Israelite Jerusalem and the notion of righteousness. However, the narrative about Melchisedeq in Genesis 14 is most instructive. Melchisedeq, the king of Salem (obviously a reference to Jerusalem), is called 'priest of God Most High' and pronounced a blessing on Abram in the name of 'God Most High, maker of heaven and earth' (vv. 18f). In v. 22 'God Most High' is identified with Yahweh. Despite doubts about the historical authenticity of Genesis 14 it can be affirmed that vv. 18-20, a section which is thought to have originally stood independent of the remainder of the chapter,63 correctly reflects one historical fact of significance, namely that there was a shrine in Jerusalem in preIsraelite times.64 There are uncertainties about the origin of the section, although the indications are that it belonged to Davidic times, when the worship of Yahweh was introduced to Jerusalem.65 Among the suggestions about the intention and significance of the narrative are: that it aimed at justifying the pre-Israelite worship of Jerusalem;66 that it sought to legitimise the priesthood of the Jebusite shrine;67 that it affirmed David's right as a successor of Melchi§edeq

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

129

to exact tithes and homage from Israel.68 It was the fusion of the worship of Yahweh with the cult of'El 'Elyon in the reign of David that gave occasion for the interpolation, according to J.A. Emerton.69 Its aim was to encourage the Israelites to accept this fusion, to recognise the status of Jerusalem and to acknowledge that David was a king who inherited the royal and priestly status of Melchi§edeq. It also aimed at encouraging the Canaanites to acknowledge David and to accept the Israelites. These explanations are agreed that, because there was a pre-Israelite shrine in Jerusalem, some explanation and justification was necessary when David took over the city. Furthermore, the use of the name 'God Most High' ('El 'Elyon) in this section indicates that the chief god of the shrine was 'El 'Elyon, maker of heaven and earth'. Evidence for the use of 'Elyon as a divine name comes from Byblos and Aleppo,70 and the use of the nomenclature 'El 'Elydn, 'God Most High', in both biblical and extra-biblical sources, can be taken as a suggestion that two names have been fused to imply one supreme God.71 Whatever the personal name of the deity may have been, and whether or not other names such as Salim and $edeq are to be regarded as hypostases of 'Elyon,72 it can be affirmed that a supreme deity known as 'Elyon had been worshipped in the old Jebusite city of Jerusalem. When it became a Davidic city and a place of worship of Yahweh, some explanation had to be offered and some adjustments were necessary. The above discussion of divine names such as Salim, $edeq and 'Elyon, like the identification of Melchi§edeq as priest-king of Salem, clearly indicates that there was a pre-Israelite shrine in Jerusalem. More direct evidence has been seen in the narrative about David buying the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite to build an altar and offer sacrifice (2 Sam. 24.15ff). According to v. 24 David bought the threshing-floor and oxen for the sacrifice from Araunah, but the narrative does not state that there was an altar on the land bought. This, however, has been assumed on the grounds that theophanies, receiving divine messages and altars are frequently associated with threshing-floors both in biblical and Ugaritic literature.73 A threshingfloor was often situated on an elevated, open spot outside a city, where it was used as a local cultic site, especially during harvest;74 consequently it has been maintained that David was buying from Araunah a site that had previously been used for worship.75 Our understanding of this chapter is made more difficult by its complexity, as is illustrated by the many literary analyses of it that have been proposed.76 On the basis of such analyses, the following observations

130

The Nathan Narratives

are relevant to our study. (1) The altar aetiology in w. 16-25 stood originally independent of the other two narratives contained in the chapter, the census narrative (w. 1-1 la) and the plague narrative (w. llb-15). (2) Although the main interest of the section in its present form lies in establishing the Davidic origin of the altar, use is made of an old Jebusite tradition or cult-legend concerning a theophany (w. 16-17).77 One of the problems arising in connection with this analysis is whether to take Araunah to be the last owner of the threshing-floor who sold it to David and possibly to identify him as the last Jebusite king of Jerusalem,78 or to consider him to have been an earlier Jebusite, who on the basis of the theophany described in w. 16-17 designated his threshing-floor as a sacred site.79 The obvious confusion here may have been due to the mistaken use of the proper name Araunah for the person selling the site. The difficulty is avoided to some extent by assuming that Araunah is not a proper name, but is the Hurrian word meaning 'ruler';80 if so, David bought this site from the last city ruler of Jerusalem. Whatever difficulties are presented by 2 Sam. 24.16-25 it may be concluded, even if cautiously, that when David bought the threshing-floor a little to the north of the south-eastern fortress he was buying what had been a sacred site in pre-Israelite times. Some confirmation of this is obtained by referring to the usage of threshing-floors in biblical times; even more confirmation is obtained from those literary analyses which find that the record of transferring the ownership has been combined with an ancient cult legend explaining its origin as a sacred site. The further problems of identifying this site with the position of the altar in Solomon's Temple81 or with the altar used by Abraham82 are not relevant to the aim of the present study, whose main concern is with establishing whether or not the site of David's altar had cultic connections in pre-Israelite times. The indications are that it was considered a sacred site by the Jebusites. There are still many uncertainties in this area of research due to the lack of precise descriptions of the Jerusalem of pre-Davidic times. On the basis of the evidence considered above it can be concluded that the Jerusalem of this period was a religious centre of importance, where the supreme god 'Elyon was worshipped, possibly with Salim and $edeq as hypostases of this deity, or else as other deities who might have been associated with 'Ely6n. Slightly to the north of the city boundary there was a sacred site, which, according to an old tradition, had been legitimised in the distant past by a theophany. When the Israelites under David captured Jerusalem, they had the

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

131

problem of legitimizing the religious traditions of the city and dealing with its native cult. It is suggested that the policy of outright rejection and obliteration was not pursued, but that there was a process of assimilation and adaption of what was found there. Zadok the Priest The background and function of Zadok the priest have to be examined in more detail than was possible in Chapter 2, and more especially because of the prominent place he occupies in discussions of Jebusite Jerusalem. A case has been made, and subsequently challenged, that Zadok was a priest belonging to the pre-Israelite Jebusite shrine in Jerusalem; he was not removed from his post when David occupied the city, but exercised his priestly functions side by side with Abiathar until ultimately in the time of Solomon he replaced him. Zadok's origin is a perplexing problem, mainly because the Old Testament itself does not provide clear and reliable information.83 He is introduced beside Abiathar in the time of David without any explanation as to his previous background or how he came to belong to the Jerusalem priesthood. Consequently several suggestions have been made, and arguments for and against each alternative have been forthcoming. The suggestion that he was established by Saul to replace the priests slaughtered at Nob, because it fails to provide concrete evidence that he held such a position and to explain why Saul's priest could stand beside Abiathar, David's priest, has by now been abandoned.84 The proposal that Zadok was the priest of Gibeon, whilst Abiathar was the priest of Jerusalem, has found more followers. Although this proposal has the support of biblical references indicating the importance of Gibeon (cf. 1 Kgs 3.4) and the statement in 1 Chron. 16.39 that Zadok officiated there, it fails to explain why he appeared in Jerusalem in the reign of David and why he took precedence over Abiathar (2 Sam. 15.24).85 Yet another explanation rests on reading the proper name Ahio in 2 Sam. 6.3f as 'dfriw—'his brother', and proposes to identify Zadok as Uzzah's brother and count him as one of the sons of Abinadab. Despite the chronological feasibility of this explanation, it rests on a doubtful textual emendation,86 has no concrete evidence in support and does not explain why Zadok is listed as son of Ahitub in 2 Sam. 8.17 and not the son of Abinadab.87 A different line of interpretation is followed by F.M. Cross,88 who claims that David followed the exceptional path of attempting to reconcile two rival priestly houses

132

The Nathan Narratives

by appointing the head of each to the national cult in Jerusalem; the two leaders were Abiathar, from the Mushite house of Eli at Shiloh, and Zadok, from the Aaronid house at Hebron. It is claimed that this interpretation gives an explanation of many difficult points in the biblical narrative. But the evidence for taking the priesthood at Shiloh to be Mushite does not have a firm basis, and depends on Chronistic genealogies and a fragmentary list in Num. 26.58a; similarly the attempt to make Zadok an Aaronid rests on genealogies whose value is to say the least debatable, as will be noted below. Because of the reservations that have been expressed in connection with each of these attempts to explain Zadok's origin, the alternative that was acceptable to H.H. Rowley and A. Cody was to claim that Zadok was a priest officiating in Jebusite Jerusalem before it was conquered by David. Whilst it is admitted that the evidence is mostly indirect, the assertion is made that this view of Zadok's origin meets most of the difficulties that arise. It explains why genealogical information about Zadok is absent even from documents where it would have been natural to supply it (2 Sam. 8.16ff; 20.23-26); it gives the most plausible reason for Zadok's support of Solomon and Abiathar's support of Adonijah in the struggle for the throne; it fits in with the circumstances of the time, when the appointment of a Jebusite priest to serve with the Israelite priest in the national cultic centre would have helped to reconcile the Jebusite majority.89 Although there have been minor modifications of the theory,90 the position generally accepted by its supporters is that David gave this Jebusite priest joint responsibility with his own priest Abiathar. Cody, conscious that this theory is based on indirect evidence and that, like the others discussed, objections can be raised against it, rightly states that no solution proposed is completely satisfactory.91 Nevertheless, he saw in it a possible solution that has some evidence to support it. Taken with other pointers to Jebusite presence in Jerusalem it has some advantage over rival theories. The genealogies provided for Zadok give him an Israelite ancestry, and, if genuine, contradict the above theory about his Jebusite origin. According to the list of his officials in 2 Sam. 8.15-18, David had two priests, 'Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar'. This information has incorrectly listed Ahimelech as joint priest with Zadok; it is known from other references that Abiathar was the name of David's priest (cf. 2 Sam. 20.25), and that Ahimelech was the name of Abiathar's father (1 Sam. 22.20; 23.6; 30.7). This item in the list has been corrected in the Syriac to read 'Abiathar the son of

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

133

Ahimelech'.92 But it has also been claimed that the listing of Zadok as 'the son of Ahitub' shows further confusion, for he thereby becomes the son of Eli's grandson (cf. 1 Sam. 14.3). However, in view of the supersession of the house of Eli by the house of Zadok (cf. 1 Sam. 2.27-36; 1 Kgs 2.26f), and the fact that only Abiathar escaped the massacre at Nob (1 Sam. 22.20), Zadok could not have been the son of Ahitub. Consequently, J. Wellhausen's proposal to read 'Zadok, and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub' is accepted by many on the grounds that it gives Abiathar a correct genealogy and that the present text is a clear attempt to provide Zadok, who was without genealogy, with a Levitical ancestry.93 Such a reading has not been universally accepted,94 and some criticism of it has been made by P.M. Cross.95 The main contention of Cross's case is that Ahitub is not to be connected with the priestly line of Eli, but belonged to the house of Aaron in Hebron;96 Zadok the priest is thus identified with the Zadok of 1 Chron. 12.27-29, who was 'a young man mighty in valour'.97 In support of the retention of'Zadok the son of Ahitub' it has to be noted that there are no textual variants to suggest otherwise. However, there are many points about Cross's case that make it less convincing than it appears. (1) He does not offer an explanation for the consistent appearance of Zadok's name in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings without a patronymic, with the exception of 2 Sam. 8.17, nor again for the introduction of the patronymic in 1 Chron. 6.8 (=5.34 in the MT); 6.52f (=6.37f in the MT). (2) There is no biblical evidence to support his claim that there was another Ahitub of Aaronid descent at Hebron. (3) 1 Chron. 12.27 describes Jehoiada as being 'of the house of Aaron'; but it seems strange to omit a similar description if the Zadok of v. 28 was also an Aaronid. (4) There is considerable uncertainty about the antiquity of the list in 1 Chron. 12.23-40 and the extent of the material taken from original sources as opposed to the fabrication of the Chronicler.98 Despite criticisms of the proposal to list Zadok without a patronymic, it seems to offer a solution that is more consistent with other biblical references to Zadok, and is at the same time free from the difficulties encountered by Cross. Of course giving Zadok an Aaronid ancestry is consistent with the genealogies provided by the Chronciler (1 Chron. 6.4-8, 50-53), who traces his ancestry through Ahitub to Eleazar the son of Aaron. Although he admits that the Chronicler's genealogies are often secondary constructions, Cross defends the historicity of Zadok's ancestry and attaches special importance to 2 Sam. 8.17.99 But Cross

134

The Nathan Narratives

seems to depend rather heavily on genealogies that are usually regarded as pious fabrications of a later age, and they are sometimes described as more of a work of art than a true representation of descent.100 It is a vicious circle in which the uncertain text of 2 Sam. 8.17 is taken to confirm the lists of the Chronicler, and the dubious lists of the Chronicler to affirm 2 Sam. 8.17. No account is taken of the indications that it was a later, post-Exilic development that found for Zadok an Aaronid genealogy,101 and that originally Zadok the priest appeared in the narrative without patronymic or ancestry. Another aspect of the question of Zadok's origin and setting concerns his name and its possible connection with a pre-Israelite, Jerusalemite deity. Note has already been taken of the names containing the element $dq, and of the possibility that $edeq was one of the Jerusalem deities who were hypostases of the chief god '£l 'Elyon or who were associated with him.102 Although H.H. Rowley gave his interpretation of those names in which §edeq is a constituent element with some reserve, he was of the opinion that there was a Semitic deity with he name §edeq, that the meaning of Melchi§edeq is '$edeq is king', and that a priest bearing his name must have belonged to Jerusalem before its conquest by the Israelites.103 Further reservations have been expressed by others. As was noted above, A.R. Johnson104 found it very uncertain that the god §edeq was associated with Jerusalem, and proposed for Melchisedeq the meaning 'milki (a divine appellative, if not a proper name) or my king is righteous'. F.M. Cross,105 whilst admitting the extremely common use of $dq in Semitic names, and referring to some forms in which $idqu is a divine name, finds no connection whatsoever between the divine name §idqu and the Hebrew form Zadok; indeed it was in such common usage that no special link with Jerusalem can be established. Because of these reservations, it would be inappropriate to draw firm conclusions about Zadok's previous affiliations from his name. But, taking into account the possibility that Sedeq was a hypostasis of the god 'El 'Elyon or was closely associated with him, and the evidence that §edeq-'righteousness' had close associations with Jerusalemite names, it is not impossible that the name Zadok had some connection with ancient Jerusalemite tradition. The significance of Zadok for our study may be cautiously set out as follows: the theory that Zadok originated from Jebusite Jerusalem seems to have more to commend it than other attempts to trace his origin; the fact that he appears frequently without genealogy casts doubt on the one given in 2 Sam. 8.17, and the genealogies provided

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

135

by the Chronicler seem to have been composed to meet later needs; it may be true too, although less certainty can be claimed for this conclusion, that his name may have had some connection with one of the names used of the supreme god of the pre-Israelite cult of Jerusalem. Despite the many uncertainties which have been noted, these conclusions seem to give tentative support for the suggestion that Zadok was a Jebusite priest who was given a place in the national cult of Jerusalem by David. Jerusalemite Traditions David took Jerusalem by storm early in his reign (2 Sam. 5.6-9), and his obvious aim was to gain a continuous area of Israelite settlement in the centre of the country by deleting the Jebusite centre that separated the mountains of Ephraim in the north from the mountains of Judah in the south.106 This does not mean that he wiped out the Jebusites; they managed to maintain a strong and probably predominant presence in the stronghold of Zion, even after its conquest by David. On the evidence of the friendly negotiations between David and Araunah in 2 Sam. 24.18-25, and David's insistence on paying a fair price for the Jebusite's threshing-floor rather than taking possession of it as conqueror, it can be suggested that there was no outright slaughter of the Jebusites or an attempt to oust them from their stronghold. It is therefore unlikely that there was initially at least an influx of Israelites, and that many more than David's own household and personal army moved into the fortress.107 Jerusalem is usually described as a city-state, and the position envisaged after its storming by David and his troops is that it remained a city-state; the coming of David meant only a change of city ruler, the previous Jebusite king being now replaced by David.108 The inhabitants remained, but their fortress had now become the personal possession of David and was under his control. David unquestionably found in the city-state over which he now ruled very firmly embedded traditions among its inhabitants. S. Yeivin109 admits that Jerusalem was the centre of a diminutive state, for its territory had been contracting from the days of Puttiheppa in the second quarter of the 14th century to the time of Araunah, who is thought to have been its last king. Nevertheless, it is claimed that Jerusalem had enjoyed a stable regime and had an established organisation of government. Yeivin mentions in particular the civil service, and accompanying it schools for training scribes and administrative staff. One of the reasons for accepting that such a

136

The Nathan Narratives

school existed in pre-Israelite Jerusalem to make provision for the Jebusite court is that David employed these non-Israelites as his ministers. Among those mentioned are Shausha the scribe, Ahithophel the king's counsellor, Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud the recorder and Ittai the Gittite; although there is uncertainty about some of the names (notably Jehoshaphat, which is a Yahweh-name) and the posts which were held, it is not unreasonable to suggest that these men had entered David's administration when he took over the services that had been established by the Jebusites. The sap of Canaanite culture was absorbed and assimilated through trained scribes and craftsmen, legislators, archivists who were responsible for annals and chronicles, and court prophets. Yeivin argues that among the trainers and trained in Jerusalem there was a wide enough class of intelligentsia. Because the evidence is in places slender, there is a tendency to depend on parallels drawn from practices which were current either at Ugarit or elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Nevertheless, the balance of probability lends support to Yeivin's reconstruction of the trends in Jerusalem at this time, and is much more reasonable and convincing than the claim that, because much of Solomon's administrative machinery came from his intimate relations with Tyre, there is little evidence of Jebusite influence.110 Another area that has been thoroughly explored, and to which only a cursory reference was made above in the discussion of the preIsraelite cult in Jerusalem, is the probable influence of Canaanite cultic mythology and cultic practices on Jerusalem's cult in the period of the monarchy. Comparative studies, such as that presented by J. Gray,111 demonstrate both the correspondences and the differences between Old Testament and Canaanite religions. Summarising his studies of the Krt and Aqht texts and the mythological Baal cycle, Gray112 makes special reference to the principle of imitative magic in Canaanite ritual and its verbal accompaniment. When the Israelites settled down to an agricultural life in Canaan, they adopted this most significant feature of Canaanite religion to such an extent that it pervaded Hebrew religion. It is also claimed that 'the abiding heritage of Canaan to Israel was the theme of the triumph of God over the power of chaos';113 whereas the Canaanites were mainly concerned with God's triumph in the natural sphere, the Israelites extended it to the realm of history and morality. Not unexpectedly it has been suggested too that this Canaanite influence on Israelite cultic practices came to Israel to a large extent via the Jebusite cult in Jerusalem. This would

6. Dawd and Jebusite Jerusalem

137

have been only natural in view of the suggested co-existence of David and his supporters with the predominantly Jebusite population of the city; it was there too that Israelite cultic assimilation and development would be likely to happen on a more prominent scale than elsewhere, because Jerusalem became the national cultic centre. Consequently, A.R. Johnson114 found that the Jebusite cultus in Jerusalem, with its worship of the 'Most High' and its royal-priestly order of Melchisedeq, provided a ritual and a mythology which were assimilated by David and his successors in the city. Johnson attaches special significance to Psalm 29, which may possibly have been originally a hymn to Baal and which may have belonged to the Jebusite cult in Jerusalem before it was later adapted to the worship of Yahweh.115 Among the reasons for suggesting this are its parallels in language and form to Ugaritic literature, and, on account of the close nature of the parallels, some scholars are willing to assign Psalm 29 to the 10th century BC. The presence of this and other Canaanite parallels in the Psalter116 would therefore suggest some dependence of the Yahwistic cult in Jerusalem on the forms, language and mythology that had belonged in pre-Davidic times to the Jebusile cult practised in the fortress. H.-J. Kraus also makes the point that it was the traditions and institutions that belonged to the whole Canaanite-Syrian culture that were developed in the Canaanite-Jebusite city of Jerusalem in its pre-Israelite period.117 When the city was conquered by David, these Canaanite-Jebusite traditions were so well-established there that what happened can be best described as the meeting and fusion of two different traditions: Israel's Ark tradition and the cultic traditions that belonged to pre-Israelite Jerusalem. The three psalms chosen by Kraus to illustrate the process of assimilation are Psalms 122, 46 and 48. Whereas Psalm 122 is based on old amphictyonic traditions, Psalms 46 and 48 make use of Canaanite-Jebusite language and ideas. Of particular significance are the references to Mount Zion as being 'in the far north' (Ps. 48.2) and to the 'streams' which make glad the holy city (Ps. 46.4). Both are taken by Kraus to be examples of the mythological traditions taken over from the Jebusites. The former is based on the concept of Mount Zaphon, the Canaanite Mount Olympus, that was the seat of the gods and on which the supreme god had his throne; the latter is an adaptation of the tradition that the supreme god had his seat where the subterranean waters are transformed to streams bringing fertility to the earth. Both traditions were important in the Syro-Phoenician world, as is

138

The Nathan Narratives

shown in the Ras Shamra texts; both were established in Jerusalem and, in the fusion of two different traditions, were re-applied to the God of Israel who was now worshipped in Jerusalem. It has also been argued that the influence of Canaanite traditions upon Israelite religion goes beyond borrowing and re-interpreting mythological concepts, and that some key theological ideas, such as Israel's monotheism, have their origin in Canaanite religion.118 Although this area of cultic, mythological and conceptual influence of Canaanite traditions on Israelite religion, with the notion that they were specifically mediated through the Jebusite traditions and practices of Jerusalem, has been the subject of a much more detailed discussion than can be attempted within the scope of this study, some valuable pointers to the fusion of traditions in Jerusalem have emerged. Taken against the general background of David's entry to Jerusalem as the new ruler of a city-state that had its own traditions and culture, it is not unreasonable to take the point made in these studies that religious, cultic and mythological areas show Canaanite influence; the evidence points to a process of borrowing and reinterpreting. Moreover, since Israel had no royal ideology of its own, influence from Canaanite sources would be expected at the time of the introduction of the monarchy. Entry to an enclave that had such firmly established traditions without any indication of influence and of conflation would be unexpected and more difficult to explain. Nathan's background The Jebusite enclave in Jerusalem, with its long established traditions, both cultural and religious, and its fairly developed organisation connected with the king, his court and the training of officials, was Nathan's scene. As has already been noted, he appears without genealogy and that after David had taken possession of Jerusalem. Both points are taken as indications that he was a courtprophet belonging to Jebusite Jerusalem, that he was taken over by David, and that he came to play an important role under the new regime.119 Although Nathan has no genealogy, he is invariably introduced as 'the Prophet' (2 Sam. 7.2; 12.25; 1 Kgs 1), and attention must be given to the significance of the term in the proposed setting for Nathan. According to H. Haag,120 the passages where Gad and Nathan appear together (1 Chron. 29.29; 2 Chron. 29.25) are particularly instructive, for Gad is called a 'seer' and Nathan a 'prophet'. A distinction is drawn between the seer, who was of

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

139

nomadic origin, and the prophet, who was of Canaanite origin; one emerged from a wilderness tradition, the other from the culture of established Canaanite states.121 He is of a different kind, therefore, from the ecstatic groups of prophets who operate in the books of Samuel,122 and is usually designated as a person whose office was exercised in connection with the court, thus gaining for himself the title of'court prophet',123 or 'privy counsellor'.124 As such he bears a close resemblance to the court-prophets of Man, who also functioned at the court and addressed the king.125 Because of his appearance in the same group as Zadok, it has been suggested that both persons had been associated with the life and organisation of Jerusalem in its preIsraelite days. Reference has already been made to the possibility that there was in Jerusalem an organisation or school for training court personnel; it has been suggested that Nathan was a courtier who had been so trained and is to be ranked among the wise.126 As Zadok the priest of the Jebusite sanctuary was given a place in the new cultic compromise sought in Jerusalem, so too was Nathan, the court-prophet who had operated within the Jebusite order in the city, given the opportunity of continuing as adviser and counsellor to King David.127 In support of this contention reference can be made again to the evidence that the Jebusites were not expelled and that in this situation of the co-existence of Israelites and Jebusites there had to be compromise and assimilation; the persistence of the Jebusite order and the continuation of Jebusite personnel was not unlikely, and Jebusite influence was inevitable. It is to this period of fusion between two cultures and two traditions that Nathan belongs. A difficult question arises in this context: did Nathan the prophet remain loyal to Jebusite traditions after his transfer to David's court, or did he become converted to Yahwism? References have been made to his conversion to Yahwism,128 and that with the support of the biblical presentation of him speaking in the name of Yahweh (cf. 2 Sam. 7.4, 8; 12.7,11). But there are other considerations. On the occasions with which he is associated, he seems to have been acting in the interest of the Jebusites; most notably his opposition to the Yahweh Temple in Jerusalem has been attributed to his obvious Jebusite sympathies.129 Thus Nathan has been described as a complex character who had, on the one hand, been converted to Yahwism, but on the other hand, had not entirely disclaimed Jebusite interests.130 At crucial points in history he reacted instinctively on behalf of his fellow-citizens. Without referring at this point to the possibility that the presentation of Nathan as a Yahweh spokesman is

140

The Nathan Narratives

a feature that was later imposed on the original tradition,131 it must be asked if his conversion to Yahwism is feasible in view of the state of affairs in Jerusalem at the time. The crux of the matter is whether Nathan would be expected to proclaim a word in the name of Yahweh. Taking as a starting-point the claim that he was a privy counsellor or adviser taken over by David from the Jebusite organisation in Jerusalem, it would seem more likely that he was expected to continue in that capacity and now act as counsellor for the new king of Jerusalem. Furthermore, since it was a situation in which the new minority Israelite element and the old majority Jebusite element attempted to co-exist in the same city-state, it would seem that Nathan's primary task as king's counsellor was to attain peaceful co-operation between the two sides. As representative of the old Jebusite regime in the court of the new king of the city, it was necessary for him to act as spokesman for this native population. His was the task of finding out a course of successful mediation between conqueror and conquered,132 between Israelite and Jebusite interests. Because he was a courtier, who through his advice to the king was seeking an answer to the very tricky political and social problem of integrating the two sides, he was not expected to act as a spokesman for the superior deity, and so the question of his conversion to Yahwism does not arise. Admittedly the so-called 'Jebusite hypothesis' is not without its difficulties, as is pointed out in the many discussions of it, and has had many critics. Many of the studies of early Zion tradition, according to J.J.M. Roberts,133 accept that this tradition owes its formation to the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem, and Roberts himself is sceptical of all previous attempts to topple this hypothesis from its dominant position. Although the hypothesis rests on what he calls 'unproven and unprovable assumptions',134 the very detailed criticisms of it put forward by such writers as G. Wanke are not convincing.135 Roberts supposes that he has the alternative hypothesis that will replace the popular 'Jebusite hypothesis' and will ultimately destroy it. His examination of the four main motifs of the Zion tradition leads him to the conclusion that their origin is not to be found in an unknown pre-Israelite cult but in Zion itself in the golden days of David and Solomon.136 But Roberts' argument has not been found convincing on the grounds that: (a) there is so much common ground between Judah and surrounding cultures that it is obviously wrong to dismiss the influence of pre-Davidic Jerusalem; (b) the Jebusite hypothesis, despite the fact that it remains unprovable,

6. David and Jebusite Jerusalem

141

offers the most plausible explanation of several features belonging to the period after the occupation of Jerusalem by David.137 In view of the culmulative evidence considered above and the analysis of the Nathan tradition, the 'Jebusite-hypothesis' does provide for Nathan a background for a comprehensive understanding of his life and contribution.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 7 CONCLUSION

Literary analysis of the three main sections in the biblical narrative devoted to the activities of Nathan shows that these narratives in their present form bear unmistakable signs of later accretions made at various stages and of editorial work, which must have been considered necessary before they could be incorporated in the complex in which they now stand. By removing carefully the accretions, modifications and theologising additions, a core tradition about Nathan can be uncovered. Its main elements have been defined as follows: (a)

(b)

(c)

The part of the tradition that has been least affected by the insertion of additional material is that preserved in 1 Kings 1, in which Nathan appears as the leader of the group active in securing David's throne for Solomon. He appears as a person enjoying a position of authority in David's court, being able to exert influence on the queen and playing a key role in directing the course of events. Before his appearance in connection with those events immediately concerned with Solomon's succession to David's throne, Nathan had also taken a stand against David's intention of building a Temple in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 7). Although his intervention was brief and rather reserved, it nonetheless contained a firm objection to the Temple project. It takes the form of a very cautious suggestion that such a move by David would introduce an innovation and be a departure from the traditions of the tribal confederacy. The present form of 2 Samuel 7 contains another oracle, which has become attached to Nathan's rejection of the Davidic Temple. The core of this oracle has been defined as a liturgical piece that was probably used during an

144

(d)

(e)

The Nathan Narratives enthronement ritual. Reasons have been given for regarding it as an early composition belonging to pre-Solomonic times, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that it was on some such occasion spoken by Nathan the court prophet, and that presumably in the name of the deity of the reigning monarch. Nathan's condemnation of David's affair with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12.1-7a) was again originally brief and subtle. The message of his parable was evident, and he did not have to elaborate its meaning or underline for emphasis the implied criticism of the king. In 2 Sam. 12.24b-25 there is a brief record that Solomon was renamed Jedidiah by Nathan the prophet. Despite some difficulties arising from the ascription of this renaming to Nathan, it is accepted that this section too preserves an old tradition.

The core tradition which is revealed after the removal of additional material appears in a brief and stark form; elaborations of a theological nature are removed as later material and there were in the original no indications of the motivation for Nathan's actions and attitude. However, these traditions are compatible with the general attitude and probable reaction of the Jebusites who had been inhabiting Jerusalem before it was conquered by David. Nathan, a court official and chief spokesman for the Jebusite group, took careful steps to safeguard the cause of this faction of the Jerusalem community and to achieve a working compromise between the original Jebusite inhabitants and the new Israelite settlers. A temple consecrated to Yahweh by David would have been an essentially Israelite shrine which was largely untouched by Canaanite religious practices; it would not have been acceptable to this Jebusite group and would thus have led eventually to the alienation of the two communities. But Nathan had to conceal his true motive and present an objection that would be meaningful for the Israelite David; he therefore very shrewdly and carefully set the proposed new development in contrast to Israel's past tradition. But a temple built by Solomon, who had Jebusite ancestry and sympathies, would have been seen in a different light by the original inhabitants of Jerusalem, and so Nathan did not object on that occasion. Other developments accompanying the kingship of David in Jerusalem were equally unacceptable for the Jebusites; they were especially concerned if

7. Conclusion

145

David's misuse of the royal prerogative in connection with the Bathsheba incident indicated the inauguration of a new style of monarchy. Nathan intervened once again, and on this occasion too he was brief and exercised great restraint in demonstrating that such behaviour was unacceptable; although his motives were concealed, his method was most effective. Nathan's stance on these two occasions aimed at preserving the interests of the Jebusite community in Jerusalem, but there is no doubt that he realised that the only way forward in Jerusalem was the achievement of a successful compromise between Jebusites and Israelites. As a Jebusite court official who had decided to take service under the new regime he could fully appreciate the situation; it is because of this that he attempted to minimise the possible harm done by Bathsheba's naming of her son Solomon by suggesting a second, truly Israelite name. It was in the interests of such a compromise too that he took such an active part in securing the throne for Solomon, who was of Israelite and Jebusite descent, in preference to the Israelite Adonijah. The picture of Nathan that emerges from this core material is that of a Jebusite court official, who, after accepting service under David, attempted to secure the best he could for the Jebusites in what had to be a compromise situation. Such a picture of him is compatible with the historical and textual evidence indicating that the Jebusites had continued to inhabit Jerusalem until it was conquered in Davidic times, and that when David took it over as his capital there was a fusion of Jebusite and Israelite elements. The main advantage of this analysis is that it gives consistency to Nathan's actions and attitude.1 In the original tradition about him Nathan seems to have acted primarily from one basic motive, which arose directly from the situation in Jerusalem when David entered the city. It was when this core tradition was expanded, modified and theologised on its acceptance into the biblical tradition that Nathan became a complex character and such a dual personality that the existence of two Nathans has been proposed. In the hands of the biblical theologians his rejection of the Temple project on the basis of its departure from past tradition became a theological objection based on the distinction between a permanent dwelling and a moveable tent. With the help of other deuteronomistic additions, and especially with the combination of the narrative with the dynastic oracle, which was also given a clearer allusion to the founding of the Davidic dynasty and the eternity of David's kingdom, 2 Samuel 7 became a significant theological text. Similarly Nathan's subtle

146

The Nathan Narratives

condemnation of the Bathsheba affair, through subsequent interpolations which made the criticism far more pointed and associated the sin of David with the turn of subsequent events, was transformed from a non-theological to a highly theological narrative. In this way the shrewd and diplomatic court official, who acted consistently in the interest of the native population to achieve a working compromise in Jerusalem, became in the hands of the Biblical narrators a spokesman for Yahweh. His moderate utterances were charged with theological power, and he became the true Yahweh prophet who objected to the Temple, spoke of the eternity of David's dynasty and prophesied the calamities that would follow his adultery with Bathsheba. The courtier who spoke advisedly in the interest of the Jebusites and the well-being of the new capital has been transformed into a Yahwehspokesman, who perpetuated theological ideas, many of which belonged to the deuteronomistic school. With the transformation of Nathan there is also a transition from one kind of prophet to another, namely from the diplomatic court prophet, who acted as the king's privy counsellor, to the outspoken prophet of Yahweh. But the transition is not made in 1 Kings 1 and because of that it is difficult to reconcile the Nathan described there with the transformed Nathan of the other texts. But in earlier tradition there was no problem of reconciliation, for Nathan acted consistently in accord with his one primary motive. The conclusion drawn from this study of the transformation of the Nathan tradition in the hands of the biblical theologians is obviously dependent on placing the original Nathan in a Jebusite situation. Despite the serious challenges to the Jebusite hypothesis that have been offered, the contention of this study is that it offers the best interpretation of Nathan's role in the court of King David. It provides for him a setting in the life of Jerusalem that offers a comprehensive interpretation of his advice to David and his place in court affairs; that setting only becomes apparent when the early and original Nathan tradition is separated from the later 'theological' version found in the biblical texts. When the various components of this tradition were discussed, it was suggested that the Nathan tradition was preserved among the Jebusite, pro-Solomonic group in Jerusalem. Because it belonged to people who took pride in the achievements of Nathan, the tradition has been able to accept and incorporate some elements that would perhaps have caused embarrassment to a different group. Within the general presentation of Nathan as one striving to safeguard the

7. Conclusion

147

Jebusites, dubious means were accommodated within the purview that he achieved noble ends. Very soon, however, this tradition was set within another context, and Nathan became a different person fulfilling a different role. But before this transformation the Nathan tradition had been preserved intact by the Jebusites of Jerusalem. Is there perhaps a reference to the preservation of this tradition in the allusion to 'the book of Nathan the prophet' in 2 Chron. 9.29? On the negative side, it has been suggested that 'the book of Nathan', in common with the Chronicler's citation of other prophetic sources, refers to no more than a particular section of the Deuteronomistic History, more specifically to 1 Kings I;2 thus reference is not made to an independent source.3 On the more positive side, it has been suggested that Nathan, or one of his sons (preferably Zabud, priest and king's friend, 1 Kgs 4.5) composed 'Nathan's prophecy' (2 Samuel 7), which was intended for the legitimation of Solomon, from a number of Nathan's old prophetic sayings. As in Man and Nineveh, these prophecies were preserved in the royal archive in Jerusalem.4 It is, however, difficult to find evidence to support the more extreme views that Nathan was the author of the whole Succession Narrative5 or that he wrote the primeval traditions of Gen. 1-11 which were intended as a criticism of the deeds of Solomon.6 In view of the unified presentation of Nathan in the core tradition lying behind the present biblical narratives, it would not be inappropriate to suggest that this original tradition found its way in the form of a collection of material concerned with Nathan into the royal archive in Jerusalem. The Chronicler rightly identified this as one of the sources used for the compilation of the account of Solomon's reign. The Deuteronomistic History also depended on this source, not only for the material found in 1 Kings 1 but also for the material incorporated in 2 Samuel 7 and 12. But the deuteronomists imposed on that tradition their own theological interest and in doing so continued the process which transformed Nathan from the Jebusite official of the original to the Yahwist of the biblical tradition.

This page intentionally left blank

NOTES Notes to Chapter 1 1. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972), Iff 2. M. Weinfeld, op.cit., 320-65. 3. J.R. Porter, 'Old Testament Historiography', Tradition and Interpretation, ed. G.W. Anderson (Oxford, 1979), 135ff 4. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1962), 346f. 5. For a full discussion see G.H. Jones, 1 & 2 Kings, NCR (1984), 2888. 6. See G.H. Jones, op.cit., 44-45 for discussion and references to those supporting this interpretation. 7. G.H. Jones, op.cit., 46 with particular reference to E.W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles (Oxford, 1970), 48. 8. The position described in this paragraph is that of M. Moth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen, 1957) (first published in 1943), a work which had great influence on the way in which the growth and composition of the Deuteronomistic History was understood. 9. The more recent and widely supported version of this hypothesis is found in F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 274-89; it has been supported by R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTS 18) (Sheffield, 1981). 10. This is the view of the German school associated with the names of R. Smend, W. Dietrich and T. Veijola as outlined in G.H. Jones, op.cit., 4222. 13. Cf. R.N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative. A Study of II Samuel 920; 1 Kings 1-2 (SBTh9) (London, 1968), 8ff 14. See on the Tendenz of the Succession Narrative in G.H. Jones, op.cit., 54-57. 15. Cf. D.M. Gunn, The Study of King David, Genre and Interpretation QSOTS 6) (Sheffield, 1978), 23-24. 16. See G.H. Jones, ibid. Notes to Chapter 2 1. H. Haag, 'Gad und Nathan', Archaologie und Altes Testament, Festschrift K. Galling, ed. A. Kuschke, E. Kutsch (Tubingen, 1970), 135-43, found the

150

The Nathan Narratives

difference between referring to Nathan simply as 'the prophet' and to Gad as 'the prophet' and 'the seer' to be highly significant. Gad represented the nomadic tradition, Nathan in contrast belonged to Canaanite culture. 2. I. von LGwenclau, 'Der Prophet Nathan in Zwielicht von theologischer Deutung und Historic', Werden und Wesen des Alien Testaments, Festschrift Glaus Westermann, ed. R. Albertz et al. (GOttingen, 1980), 202-15 esp. 202. 3. J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bucher Samuelis untersucht (Go'ttingen, 1871), 177, found in the statement "Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests" (2 Sam. 8.17) a deliberate corruption and suggested as the correct reading "Abiathar son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub and Zadok were priests". The corruption provided Zadok with a levitical genealogy, cf. A.H.J. Gunneweg, Leviten undPriester, FRLANT 89 (1965), 104-105; H.H. Rowley, 'Zadok and Nehushtan', JBL 58 (1939), 114ff. For a different view see F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), 212-14. 4. As is suggested by I. von Ldwenclau, op.cit., 203ff and H. Haag, op.cit., 140f. See further 138. 5. I. von LOwenclau, op.cit., 205. 6. F. Schwally, 'Zur Quellenkritik der historischen Bucher', ZAW 12 (1892), 153-61, esp. 156. 7. H. Haag, op.cit., 135ff. 8. H. Haag, ibid., cf. I. von Lfiwenclau, op.cit., 205 of Nathan and F. Langlamet, 'Pour ou centre Solomon? La redaction prosalomonienne de 1 Rois 1-11', RB 83 (1976), 333 n. 18. 9. K. Budde, Die Bucher Samuel erklart, KHC (1902), 234. 10. J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1963), 76f. 11. Cf. F. Schwally, op.cit, 155. 12. H. Gressmann, Die dlteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetic Israels (Go'ttingen, 1921), 193. 13. S. Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (London, 1975), 166f. 14. C. Westermann, 'Die Mari-Prophetie und die Prophetic in Israel', Forschung am alien Testament ThB 24, (1964), 180f. 15. C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (London, 1967), 11528. 16. C. Westermann, 'Die Mari-Prophetie', 181. 17. For additional material see T. Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel, BZAW 142 (1977), 85 n.30, 90-92. 18. J. Bright, A History of Israel (2nd edn, London, 1972), 245-46. 19. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (London, 1961), 327. 20. G.W. AhlstrOm, 'Der Prophet Nathan und der Tempelbau' VT 11 (1961), 113-27, esp. 119ff.

Notes to Chapter 2

151

21. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 130. 22. G.W. AhlstrOm, op.cit., 121, see further 44. 23. G. von Rad, 'The Tent and the Ark' (1931), The Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays (Edinburgh, 1966), 103-24, esp. 118-19. 24. H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1966), 181-83, cf. also his Die Konigsherrschaft Gottes im Alien Testament, BHTh 13 (1951), 33ff. 25. See further R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions (London, 1961), 329f, cf. his 'Jerusalem et les Prophetes', RB 73 (1966), 485. 26. Cf. J.W. Flight, 'The Nomadic Idea and Ideal in the Old Testament,' JBL 42 (1923), 158-226, esp. 209-24, with an extensive use of K. Budde, 'The Nomadic Ideal in the Old Testament', New World 4 (1895), 726-45. For a criticism of the concept of a prophetic nomadic ideal, see F.S. Frick, 'The Rechabites Reconsidered', JBL 90 (1971), 279-87. 27. R.E. Clements, God and Temple (Oxford, 1965), 58; W. Schmidt, 'Miskan als Ausdruck Jerusalemer Kultsprache', ZAW 75 (1963), 91f. 28. R. de Vaux, op.cit., 329f. 29. R.E. Clements, op.cit., 59. 30. See further J. Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem Jahwes Konigssitz, SANT VII (1963), 81f. 31. H.W. Hertzberg, 1 & 2 Samuel (London, 1964), 284f. 32. J. Schreiner, 0p.cz';. 89-94. For the view that it was more specifically an expression of hostility to the Jerusalem temple, see M. Simon, 'La Prophetic de Nathan et le Temple (Remarques sur 11 Sam. 7)', RHPhR 32 (1952), 4158; for the view that an original opposition to Shiloh had been utilized against Jerusalem, see J. Dus, 'Der Brauch der Ladewanderung im alten Israel', ZAW 42 (1960), 353-74. 33. These two points are made by R.E. Clements, op.ci'r., 58. 34. Cf. J. Schreiner, op.cit.., 84 for references to other literature. 35. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 123f. traces the suggestion that Zadok was a preDavidic priest of the Jebusite shrine to a footnote in S. Mowinckel Ezra den Skriftloerde (1916), 109 and to a line in H.R. Hall, 'Israel and the Surrounding Nations', The People and the Book ed. A.S. Peake (Oxford, 1925), 11. An attempt to connect Nathan with Zadok is associated with the name of A. Bentzen, Studier over del Zadokidiske Proesteskabs historic (Copenhagen, 1931). 36. The points listed are mainly based on H.H. Rowley, op.cit. 113-32. 37. See below Chapter 2, for a full discussion. 38. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 129f., whilst accepting the Jebusite hypothesis and claiming that Zadok was a priest of the pre-Israelite shrine, argued against Bentzen's view that Nathan was a Jebusite prophet and that the struggle for the throne was a contest between a Jerusalemite, basically Jebusite party and a Judaean party. 39. G.W. AhlstrOm, op.cit., 122.

152

The Nathan Narratives

40. H. Haag, op.cit., 135-43. 41. H. Haag, op.cit., 143 42. I. von Lowenclau, op.cit., 205. 43. T. Ishida, op.dt.9 93flf. 44. S. Mowinckel, 'Natansforjettelsen 2 Sam. kap. T, SEA 12 (1947), 221. 45. T. Ishida, op.cit., 94f. with reference to F.M. Cross, op.cit., 207ff., where it is suggested that David had to keep a balance between two rival priestly families, that of Zadok the Aaronide priest from Hebron and that of Abiathar, a Mushite from Shiloh. 46. T. Ishida, 'Solomon's Succession to the Throne of David—A Political Analysis', Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and other Essays ed. T. Ishida (Tokyo, 1982), 179. 47. T. Ishida, op.cit., 187. Thus the narrative provides a legitimation of Solomon, cf. Royal Dynasties 98f. 48. P. Kyle McCarter, // Samuel, AB 9 (1984), 196. 49. C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (London, 1967), 98128. 50. Cf. I. von Lowenclau, op.cit., 203. 51. J. Hempel, Geschichten und Geschichte im Alien Testament (Giitersloh, 1964), 131; cf. also H. Schulte, op.cit., 158, where the intriguing Nathan of 1 Kings 1 is contrasted with the Nathan of 2 Sam. 12.1-15a, who plays a typical, but unhistorical role. 52. J. Gray I & II Kings OTL 3rd edn (London, 1977), 87. 53. Notably H. Haag (1970) and I. von Lowenclau (1980). 54. See I. Engnell Critical Essays on the Old Testament (London, 1970), 123-79 (based on former works published in Swedish in 1947 and 1949). 55. I. Engnell, op. cit. ,131. 56. See below for discussions on how to analyse the three main complexes. 57. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., esp. 6-8. 58. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 196. Notes to Chapter 3 1. F. Schwally, 'Zur Quellenkritik der historischen Bucher', ZAW 12 (1892), 153-61, cf. I. von LCwenclau, 'Der Prophet Nathan in Zwielicht von theologischer Deutung und Historic', Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments Festschrift Glaus Westermann (GOttingen, 1980), 203. 2. See above pp. 20-22 and I. von Lowenclau, ibid. 3. HJ. Stoebe, BHH II col. 1289. 4. There is support for contending that 2 Samuel 7 forms an appropriate introduction for the Succession Narrative and that the whole complex (2

Notes to Chapter 3

153

Samuel 7; 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2) is brought to conclusion with the statement in 1 Kgs 2.46 that the kingdom was established in the hands of Solomon, see further L. Rost, Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids BWANT (1926) = Das kleine Credo (Heidelberg, 1965), 212-16, ET (Sheffield, 1982), 65ff; D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David JSOTS 6 (1978), 67; G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, NCB (1984), 48-57. 5. R.A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King (Uppsala, 1964), 167ff., 194f. 6. L. Rost, op.cit., 218-86; L. Watermann, 'Some Historical and Literary Consequences of Probable Displacement in 1 Kings \-2\JAOS 60 (1940), 383ff. 7. On the History of David's Rise see H.U. Nubel, Davids Aufstieg in der frtihen israelitischer Geschichtsschreibung (Bonn, 1959); J.H. Gronbaek, 'Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1 Sam. 15-2 Sam. 5)', Tradition und Komposition, AThD 10 (Copenhagen, 1971); A. Weiser, 'Die Legitimation des Ko'nigs David. Zur Eigenart und Entstehung der sogenannten Geschichte von Davids Aufstieg', VT 16 (1966), 325-54. 8. R.N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative, SBTh 9 (1968), 23-24. 9. G. von Rad, 'The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel' (1944), The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh, 1969), 189ff. 10. S. Mowinckel, 'Israelite Historiography', ASTI 2 (1963), llff. 11. Cf. H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel, BZAW 128 (1972), 169, and also R.A. Carlson, op.cit., 194. 12. J.W. Flanagan, 'Court History or Succession Document, A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings \-2\JBL 91 (1972), 172-81. 13. D.M. Gunn, op.cit., 133. 14. T. Veijola, Die Ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (Helsinki, 1975), 26f; G.H. Jones, op.cit., 50f. 15. For a summary see G.H. Jones, op.cit., 48ff, 88. 16. L. Rost, op.cit., 198ff. 17. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1962), 334, 346. 18. R.N. Whybray, op.cit., 8ff. 19. D.M. Gunn, op.cit., 65ff. 20. R.N. Whybray, op.cit., 8. 21. R.N. Whybray, ibid. 22. D.M. Gunn, op.cit., 25. 23. R.N. Whybray, loc.cit. 24. M. Noth, Konige, BK (1968), 8-13, whose conclusions are in general adopted by J. Gray, 1 and 2 Kings, OTL (1973), 14-22. Others have suggested that ch. 1 is original, but that ch. 2 has been added as a concluding reverberation; see L. Rost, op.cit., 67-68 (ET). 25. T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah (Lund, 1976), 28f.

154

The Nathan Narratives

26. E. WOrthwein, Das erste Buck der Konige, ATD (1977), 8-9. 27. T. Veijola, op.cit., 26f. 28. F. Langlamet, Tour ou centre Solomoa? La redaction prosalomonienne de 1 Rois 1-11', RB 83 (1976), 321-79, 481-528. 29. F. Langlamet, op.cit., 524ff. attributes 2.1-2, 4 a a b, 5- 9 to the principal redactor, 1.5 a b c, 5b, 6a, 6ba, 12a b, 13aa, 17ab, 21, 29bb, 30ab, 30ac, 30b, 34a, 35, 37,45a, 46-48, 51ba, 51byc, 52 and 2.1, 5,6,7, 8-9,14-15, 16aa, 22a, 23, 24a, 31b-33, 44-45 to a pro-Solomonic redactor, 2.7, 22b, 2627 28abc to a later redactor, and 2.2-4, 5aa, 11 to a deuteronomistic redactor. 30. M. Noth, op.cit, 30. 31. Cf. M. Rehm, Das erste Buck der Konige (1979), 21 for a similar but not identical argument. 32. See further G.H. Jones, op.cit., 88. 33. Of the many interpretations proposed for 1 Kgs 1.1-4, the most reasonable view to accept is that Abishag was taken to the king's harem in an attempt to test his potency. On w. 1-4 see G.H. Jones, op.cit., 88-90. 34. B.O. Long, 1 Kings (Michigan, 1984), 36f. 35. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 27ff. 36. See more fully G.H. Jones, op.cit., 52f., 106f. 37. See above n. 33. 38. T. Veijola, op.cit., 16ff. 39. T. Veijola, op.cit., 26f. 40. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 29 firmly rejects the designation ofndgfd as a deuteronomistic addition. His main reason is that ndgid is read here as a secular title, which is not the case in the deuteronomistic sections. For a summary of the discussion of the term ndgid see G.H. Jones, op.cit., 101-102. Mettinger's further claim that there is an Israel-Judah dualism in v. 34 cannot be substantiated without resorting to the LXX, and his suggestion of a link between ndgid and haggfd in v. 20 is very unconvincing. 41. See further G.H. Jones, op.cit., 51, 97. 42. T. Veijola, op.cit., 18; E. Wflrthwein, op.cit., 15. 43. See G.H. Jones, op.cit., 93-97. 44. See a summary of different proposals in A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood, AnBib 35 (1969), 88-93, cf. also A.H.J. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester, FRLANT 89 (1965), 98-104. A more detailed discussion of some of the issues raised here appears in Chapter 5 below. 45. J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bilcher Samuelis untersucht (1871), 177, see above, 150. 46. See further A. Cody, op.cit., 89. 47. E. Sellin, Geschichte der israelitisch-jildischen Vdlker (Leipzig, 1924), 1167; K. Budde, 'Der Herkunft Sadocks', ZAW 52 (1934), 42-50. 48. A. Cody, op.cit. 90. 49. F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973), 213-14. Cross

Notes to Chapter 3

155

supposes that, by contrast, Abiathar belonged to the Shilonite house of Eli, with an ancestry going back to Moses. See also T.E. Fretheim, 'The Priestly Document: anti-temple?' VT 18 (1968), 323ff. 50. See H.H. Rowley, 'Zadok and Nehushtan', JBL 58 (1939), 123; H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (1982), 70. 51. E. Auerbach, 'Die Herkunft der Sadokiden', ZAW 49 (1931), 217, and 'Das Ahron Problem', VTS 17 (1969), 50. See H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 120ff. 52. As is suggested by H.G.M. Williamson, op.cit., 130-32. 53. A. Cody, op.cit., 90. 54. On the rather different question of the descent of the Jerusalem high priests from Zadok see J.R. Bartlett, 'Zadok and his successors at Jerusalem' JThS, n.s. 19 (1968), 1-18. 55. See A. Cody, op.cit., 91, cf. T.E. Fretheim, op.cit. 323. 56. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 118. 57. On the text of v. 24 see P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 365, where reference is made to Wellhausen's suggestion that there was a deliberate attempt to remove the non-Zadokite Abiathar. 58. G.W. Ahlstrfim, op.cit., 122; H.H. Rowley, op.cit. 119. 59. So H.H. Rowley, op. cit., 113-41. For a full note listing others who have given their support to this view see A. Cody, op.cit., 91n. 12, cf. also C.E. Hauer, 'Who was Zadok?', JBL 82 (1963), 89-94. 60. I. von LOwenclau, op.cit., 204. 61. As suggested by F.M. Cross, op.cit., 210. 62. As proposed by C.E. Hauer, op.cit., 89-94 and refuted by A. Cody, op.cit., 91. 63. A. Cody, ibid, 64. As suggested by S. Mowinckel and A. Bentzen, but refuted by H.H. Rowley, op.cit. 129; see also H. Haag, op.cit., 141. 65. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 130. 66. See H.H. Rowley, 'Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen. 14 and Ps. 110)', Festschrift A. Bertholet, ed. W. Baumgartner (Tabingen, 1950), 461-72. For the argument against see C.E. Hauer, op.cit., 90, n. 13. 67. R. de Vaux, op.cit., 372-74, cf. also F.M. Cross, op.cit., 209-11. 68. A. Cody, op.cit., 92. 69. See further G.H. Jones, op.cit., 102f. 70. K.A. Kitchen, The Philistines', Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D.J. Wiseman (Oxford, 1973), 53-78. 71. On the various possibilities see G.H. Jones, loc.cit.,75. 72. See G.H. Jones, op.cit., 91. 73. For a full list of the various descriptions of her role see F. Langlamet, op.cit., 338-39. 74. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 285. See further N. Wyatt, '"Araunah the Jebusite" and the Throne of David', StTh 39 (1985), 41ff. 75. G.W. AhlstrSm, op.cit., 121. see also N. Wyatt, op.cit., 42ff.

156

The Nathan Narratives

76. As noted by H.W. Hertzberg, op.cit., 310. 77. P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit. 78. T. Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 157. 79. M. Noth, op.cit., 11. 80. On the reading here see above, 40. 81. See further E. Wiirthwein, op.cit., 11-12. 82. Cf. G.H. Jones, op.cit. 91-92. 83. Cf. J.A. Soggin, 'The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom', Israelite and Judaean History, OTL (1977), 367ff; E. Wtirthwein, loc.cit.; T. Ishida, loc.cit. 84. G.W. AhlstrOm, op.cit., 113. 85. The word sokenet probably comes from a root meaning 'to be of service', cf. G.H. Jones, op.cit., 89, and it is unnecessary to think that Abishag became his queen, as is argued by M.T. Mulder, 'Versuch zur Deutung von sokenet in 1 Ko'n. i.2, 4', VT 22 (1972), 43-54. 86. For references to Josephus and Galen, see G.H. Jones, loc.cit. 87. See further G.H. Jones, op.cit., 110-13. 88. See J. Gray, op.cit., 77, with reference to Ras Shamra. 89. G.H. Jones, op.cit., 97ff. 90. So M. Noth, op.cit., 23; J. Gray, op.cit., 88; G.H. Jones, op.cit., 9798. 91. The only other co-regency mentioned in the books of Kings is that of Jotham (2 Kgs 15.5), and so it is difficult to justify the claim that co-regency was customary practice among the Hebrews, see further G.H. Jones, op.cit., 17-19, 98. 92. R. Labat, Le Caractere religieux de la Royaute Assyro- Babylonienne (Paris 1939), 74ff; I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Oxford, 1967), 17. 93. J.A. Soggin, Konigtum in Israel. Ursprunge, Spannungen, Entwicklung BZAW 104 (1967), 127-31. 94. E. Ball, 'The Co-regency of David and Solomon (1 Kings 1)', VT 27 (1977), 271ff. 95. E.Bali, ibid. 96. M. Rehm, op.cit., 22. 97. R. de Vaux, op.cit., 101. 98. T. Ishida, Royal Dynasties, 152ff. 99. R. de Vaux, loc.cit. 100. K.W. Whitelam, The Just King, JSOTS 12 (1979), 150. 101. K.W. Whitelam, op.cit., 151. 102. G.H. Jones, op.cit., 92. 103. E. Wiirthwein, 'Die ErzShlung von der Thronfolge Davids— theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung?', ThZ 115 (1974), 24ff; T. Veijola, 'Salomo-Der Erstgeborene Bathsebas', VTS 30 (1979), 230-50. 104. See G.H. Jones, op.cit., 94.

Notes to Chapter 4

157

105. See 111-15. 106. See 51-53. 107. G.W. Ahlstrom, op.cit., 122ff. 108. On the status of the queen mother or principal lady (haggebirah) see G. Molin, 'Die Stellung der Gebira im Staate Juda', ThZ 10 (1954), 161-75; H. Dormer, 'Art und Herkunft des Amtes der Ko'niginmutter im Alten Testament', Friedrich Festschrift (Heidelberg, 1959), 105-45. 109. 'Save your own life and the life of your son Solomon', ties the fate of mother and son. 'Save a life' in this instance means 'safeguard a status'. 110. See J.A. Montgomery, Kings, ICC (1951), 74-75; T. Ishida, op.cit., 155-57. 111. T. Ishida, op.cit., 155. 112. She was thus described by I. Benzinger, Die Bttcher der Konige KHC (1899), 4. 113. As is suggested by T. Ishida, op.cit., 157. 114. In v. 30 'in my stead' replaces 'after me', which may be a sign of secondary revision, see G.H. Jones, op.cit., 51, 97. 115. G.W. Ahlstrom, op.cit., 123. 116. D.M. Gunn, op.cit., 105-106; E. Wiirthwein, 1 Konige 13-14. 117. G.W. Ahlstrom, loc.cit. 118. G.H. Jones, op.cit., 96. 119. M. Noth, op.cit., 22. 120. G.H. Jones, op.cit., 93. 121. T. Ishida, op.cit., 158. 122. I. von Lo'wenclau, op.cit., 207. 123. T. Ishida, 'Solomon's Succession to the Throne of David' Studies in the Period of David and Solomon (Tokyo, 1982), 176-77. 124. See above, 43-44. 125. See above, 50. 126. J. Gray, op.cit., 86; E. Wiirthwein, op.cit., 16. 127. G.H. Jones, op.cit., 99. 128. On the presence of Abishag, see G.H. Jones, op.cit., 94f. 129. B.O. Long, op.cit., 38. 130. G.W. Coats, Genesis (Michigan, 1983), 204. 131. G.W. Coats, ibid., 205. 132. B.O. Long, op.cit., 40. 133. I. von Lo'wenclau, op.cit., 207. 134. See above, 39. Notes to Chapter 4 1. H. van den Bussche, 'Le texte de la prophetic de Nathan sur la dynastic davidique (II Sam. vii-1 Chron. xvii)' EThL 24 (1948), 354. 2. So J.L. McKenzie, 'The Dynastic Oracle: II Samuel 7', ThSt 8 (1947),

158

The Nathan Narratives

188-89, 213; J. Scharbert, 'Der Messias im Alten Testament und in Judentum', Die religiose und theologische Bedeutung des Alten Testaments (1967), 57; J Coppens, 'Le messianisme royal. Ses origines. Son developpement. Son accomplissement', NRTh 90 (1968), 32. 3. For a survey of previous research on this chapter see F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973), 241ff; T. Veijola, Die Ewige Dynastie (1975), 68ff; M. GOrg, Gott-Konig Reden (1975), 178ff, T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah (1976), 48ff. (with a list of literature p. 48, n. 1); T. Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Israel (1977), 77ff. and R.P. Gordon, 1 &2 Samuel (Sheffield, 1984), 71-80. 4. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 54-55. 5. M. Tsevat, 'The House of David in Nathan's Prophecy', Biblica 46, 1965, 355. 6. P.Kyle McCarter, 2 Samuel, AB (1984), 240. 7. T. Veijola, op.cit., 67ff. 8. L. Rost, Die Vberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, BWANT 111 (1926), 47-74, now in English, The Succession to the Throne of David (1982), 35-56. 9. T. Veijola, loc.cit. 10. This method had the support of M. Noth, 'David und Israel in II Samuel 7', Melanges Bibliques. Rediges en I'honneur d'Andre Robert (1957), 124, now in English, 'David and Israel in II Samuel vif, The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays (1966), 252. 11. T. Veijola, op.cit., 2, 70. 12. M. Noth, op.cit., 124, ET 252. 13. T. Veijola, op.cit., 70. 14. This criticism is also accepted by T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 48. 15. That it is connected with die ark narrative is accepted by H.-J. Kraus, Die Konigsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament BHTh 13 (1951), 33ff. 16. Cf. T. Veijola, loc.cit. 17. Among the works in which echoes of Rost's conclusions are heard, Veijola, op.cit., 69, lists those of Kraus, Alt, Rohland, Mildenberger, Richter, Noth, Poulssen and Hertzberg. 18. E. Kutsch, 'Die Dynastie von Gottes Gnaden. Probleme der Nathanweissagung in 2 Sam. 7', ZThK 58 (1961), 17-53. 19. N. Poulssen, Konig und Tempel im Glaubenszeugnis des Alten Testaments, SBM 3 (1967), 43-55. 20. T. Veijola, op.cit., 68ff. 21. S. Mowinckel, 'Natansforjettelsen 2 Sam. kap. 7', SEA 12 (1947), 22029. 22. M. Noth, op.cit., 128, ET 256. 23. S. Herrmann, 'Die KOnigsnovelle in Agypten und in Israel' Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitat Leipzig (1953-54), 51-62. 24. Cf. M. GOrg, Gott-Konig-Reden in Israel und Agypten BWANT 105

Notes to Chapter 4

159

(1975), 178ff; R.N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative, SBTh 9 (1968), 96ff. 25. L. Rost, op.cit., 179f, ET 52 26. M. GOrg, op.cit., 178-271, cf. also his earlier work, Das Zelt der Begegnung (1967), 86ff. 27. The same attitude is taken by G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol.1 (1962), 40. 28. Especially noted are 'The Decree or Blessing of Ptah upon Ramesses II and III' and 'The Prophecy of Neferti', M. GOrg, op.cit., 234ff. 29. Especially by E. Kutsch, op.cit., 17ff; T. Veijola, op.cit., 71ff. 30. E. Kutsch, op.cit., 151ff; cf. T. Veijola, loc.cit. 31. T. Ishida, The Royal Dynasties of Israel (1977), 84ff. 32. E. Kutsch, loc.cit.; T. Ishida, loc.cit. 33. E. Kutsch, op.cit., 152; T. Veijola,, loc.cit. 34. T. Veijola, ibid., with reference to W. Richter, Exegese ah Literaturwissenschaft (1971), 130 and M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (1972), 250-54. 35. T. Veijola, op.cit., 72. 36. Cf. P.J. Calderone, Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty, 2 Samuel 7, 8-16 (1966); K. Seybold, Das davidische Konigtum im Zeugnis der Propheten (1972), 36ff. 37. M. Weinfeld, loc.cit. 38. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 49f. 39. R.A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King (1964), 104. 40. Cf. DJ. McCarthy, 'EL Samuel 7 and the structure of the Deuteronomic History', JBL 84 (1965), 131-38. 41. P. Kyle McCarter, 2 Samuel (1984), 216. 42. F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973), 241-61. 43. F.M. Cross, ibid., rejects the suggestion of M. Tsevat that the unconditional promise of kingship in w. 13-16 was not included in the oracle (see M. Tsevat, 'The House of David in Nathan's Prophecy', Biblica, 46 [1965], 353-56). 44. T. Veijola, op.cit., 72ff. 45. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 50. 46. As for instance E. Ball, 'The Co-regency of David and Solomon', VT 27 (1977), 279, where it is claimed that he makes false use of the literarycritical method; cf. D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David (1978), 23ff, 115ff. 47. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 48ff. 48. As for instance by N. Poulssen, loc.cit.; K. Seybold, op.cit, 26ff, P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 220ff. 49. See above, 60. 50. Cf. R.A. Carlson, op.cit., 128; F.M. Cross, op.cit., 247; T. Veijola, op.cit., 74ff.

160

The Nathan Narratives

51. See further T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 51. 52. M. G6rg, Der Zelt der Begegnung (1967), 91. 53. K. Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem (1977), 70ff, where reference is made to w. 1-3 as an exposition of w. 4-7. 54. S. Mowinckel, op.cit., 220-29; he rejects an interpretation of the passage that finds in it hostility towards the cult along what he calls Reformed and Lutheran lines. The question dealt with is why it was that Solomon and not David built the Temple, and the reason given in 2 Samuel 7 is that God had so decided. See further M. Simon, 'La Prophetic de Nathan et le Temple', RHPhR 32 (1952), 43ff. 55. Cf. M. Ota, 'A Note on 2 Samuel 7', A Light unto My Path, ed. H.N. Bream, et al. (1974), 403. 56. S. Herrmann, loc.cit.. 57. M. Ota, op.cit., 404ff. where it is demonstrated that it was an important royal duty to build temples; the sole authorising power rested in the gods, from whom a favourable omen was sought. Cf. also T. Ishida, op.cit., 85ff. 58. There are cases where the king was denied the task, cf. M. Ota, op.cit., 405f. 59. J. Coppens, 'L'union du trone et du temple d'apres 1'oracle de Nathan', EThL 44 (1968), 489f. 60. T. Veijola, op.cit., 72. 61. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 52. 62. See further on this concept in G. von Rad, 'There remains still a rest for the people of God', The Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays (1966), 94-102; F.M. Cross, op.cit., 252-54; M. Weinfeld, op.cit., 343. 63. H. van den Bussche, op.cit., 354-94, especially pp. 393f; P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 191. 64. On the implications of this deletion for vv. 9afi and 1 la see below. 65. J. Coppens, op.cit., 490ff. 66. Cf. above, 62. 67. See T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 54, where it is argued that vv. 1-7,12-15 belonged to an early Solomonic layer; cf. also F.M. Cross, op.cit., 249ff. where it is claimed that there is an 'old oracle' behind vv. 1-7, and N. Poulssen, op.cit., 44f. where the objection to the Temple is ascribed to the period of David. 68. T. Veijola, op.cit., 77. 69. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 52. 70. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 252-54; M. Weinfeld, op.cit., 341. 71. M. Noth, op.cit., 125, ET 253. 72. On the presence of Heihgeschichte in the chapter see K. Seybold, op.cit., 33ff. 73. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 52, where special reference is made to W. Gross, 'Die Herausfiihrungsformel—Zum Verhaltnis von Formel und

Notes to Chapter 4

161

Syntax', TAW 86 (1974), 440f, whose opinion is that it is pre-deuteronomistic. 74. Cf. K. Rupprecht, op.cit., 70f, where v. 6 is connected with Judg. 19.30 and regarded as a deuteronomistic reflection. 75. 'Moving about' is listed as a deuteronomistic idiom by F.M. Cross, op.cit. 76. See S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (1890), 211. 77. 'Judges> is accepted by the RSV cf. P.V. Reid' '§b{y in 2 Samuel 7.7', CBQ 37 (1975), 17-20, but not by the,NEB or NIV. 78. Cf. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 192, where it is suggested that the MT is confirmed by 1 Kgs 8.16. 79. M. Dahood as cited by P. Kyle McCarter, ibid. 80. P.V. Reid, op.cit., 20. 81. Cf. P. de Robert, 'Juges ou tribus en 2 Samuel vii 7?', VT 21 (1971), 116-18. 82. M. Simon, op.cit., 50. 83. See further P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 225ff. 84. M. Noth, op.cit., 251. 85. N. Poulssen, op.cit., 47f. 86. Cf. W. Caspari, Die Samuelbucher, KAT (1926), 482. 87. So F.M. Cross, op.cit., 242. 88. Cf. H. Gese, 'Der Davidsbund und die ZionserwShlung', ZThK 61 (1964), 10-26; F.M. Cross, op.cit., 243. 89. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 242; cf. R.E. Clements, God and Temple (1965), 60, where Nathan's veto is claimed to have been made in the name of the old Yahweh amphictyony. 90. See M. Noth, Das System der zwolfStamme Israels (1930), 97f., 151ff., and for a foil discussion A.D.H. Mayes, Israel in the Period of the Judges (1974), 34-55; R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel II (1978), 703ff. 91. For a full discussion with references see A.D.H. Mayes, op.cit., 117, n.59. 92. A.D.H. Mayes, op.cit., 52ff. 93. A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (1969), 108ff. See further M.M. Cohen, 'The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel', HUCA 36 (1965), 59-98. 94. As is argued by J. Dus, 'Der Brauch der Ladewanderung im alten Israel', ThZ 17 (1961), 1-5. 95. A.D.H. Mayes, op.cit., 53. 96. So R.E. Clements, loc.cit. R. de Vaux, 'Jerusalem et les Prophetes', RB 73 (1966), 485 suggests that the Shiloh shrine was not a temple but a miSkan. For an opposite view, see T. Ishida, op.cit., 96. 97. G.W. AhlstrOm, 'Der Prophet Nathan und der Tempelbau', VT 11 (1961), 127. 98. H. Haag, 'Gad und Nathan', Archaologie und Altes Testament (1970), 142f.

162

The Nathan Narratives

99. H. Haag, op.cit., 139. 100. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 196. 101. E. Kutsch, 'Die Dynastic von Gottes Gnaden. Probleme der NathanWeissagung in 2 Sam. T, ZThK 58 (1961), 138 n. 1. 102. T. Ishida, op.cit., 94. 103. M. Noth, op.cit., 255-56; cf. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 242, where v. 3 is not interpreted as Nathan's assent but as protocol. 104. T. Ishida, op.cit., 95. 105. See further F.M. Cross, op.cit., 245; J. Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem Jahwes Konigssitz (1963), 90fF.; A. Weiser, 'Die Tempelbaukrise unter David', ZAW11 (1965), 158-60. 106. G. von Rad, 'The Tent and the Ark' (1931), The Problem of the Hexateuch (1966), 118-19. 107. J.W. Flight, 'The Nomadic Ideal in the Old Testament', JBL 43 (1923), 212; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Ancient Israel (1966), 181-83. 108. Cf. J. Coppens, op.cit. 489. The Hebrew we'attdh may in this case be a conjunction joining together two independent sections, cf. H.A. Brongers, 'Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des adverbialen we'attdh im Alten Testament', VT15 (1965), 294. 109. K. Rupprecht, op.cit., 65; N. Poulssen, op.cit., 48. 110. FJvl. Cross, op.cit., 254. 111. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 52flf. 112. Cf. also the messenger formula in v. 5. 113. T. Veijola, op.cit., 76f. 114. T. Veijola, ibid. It is also secondary in 1 Kgs 1.35; he finds that the term is used only for Saul in traditional material. 115. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 61. 116. See further G.H. Jones, op.cit., lOlf. 117. Cf. W. Richter, 'Die ndgid—Formel. Ein Beitrag zur Erhellung des ndgid Problems', BZ 9 (1965), 77ff. 118. This title was suggested by E. Lipiriski, 'Nagid der Kronprinz', VT 24 (1974), 497-99.

119. Cf. B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (1981), 111. 120. Against T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 77, who believes that Solomon was the first historical ndgid. 121. The dissociation of the ndgid formula from the references to David being taken from the pasture and from following the flock is made despite the argument that ndgid meant 'shepherd', see J.J. Gluck, 'Nagid-Shepherd', VT 13 (1963), 144-50. 122. See F.M. Cross, loc.cit. For its attribution to the original layer see T. Veijola, op.cit., 78; M. Go'rg, Gott-Konig-Reden, 190f. 123. Cf. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 201. 124. With P.Kyle McCarter, ibid., against L. Rost, op.cit., 44ff; see further

Notes to Chapter 4

163

O. Loretz, 'The Perfectum copulativum in 2 Sam. 7, 9-11', CBQ 23 (1961), 294-96. 125. A common Hamito-Semitic concept, according to F.M. Cross, op.cit., 248, and not a specifically Egyptian influence, as is argued by S. Morenz, 'Agyptische und davidische KOnigstitular', ZAS 79 (1954), 73-74. 126. See T. Veijola, loc.cit.; F.M. Cross, op.cit., 254; T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit. 52 and M. Gdrg, op.cit., 191f. 127. P.R. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel, CBC (1977), 77. 128. The term mdqom has been understood to refer to 'a place for divine service', cf. W. Caspari, Die Samuelbucher (1926), 489. In a study which supports this interpretation, A. Gelston, 'A Note on 11 Samuel 7.10', ZAW 84 (1972), 92-94, refers to a Qumran midrash, 4Q Florilegium, which takes this section of the Nathan oracle to refer to the Temple. 129. L. Rost, op.cit., 42ff. 130. Such as E. Kutsch, op.cit., 140 and N. Poulssen, op.cit., 43ff. 131. Cf. FJVl. Cross, loc.cit.', M. GOrg, op.cit., 200; T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 52. 132. T. Veijola, op.cit., 72f. 133. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 54. 134. T. Veijola, op.cit., 76. 135. FJVi.Cross,loc.cit.;M.GOrg,op.cit.,205;T.N.D.Mettinger,ibid.;T. Veijola, op.cit., 73. 136. T. Veijola, op.cit., 72. 137. For this distinction between 'dwelling in' and 'appearing in' see J. Schreiner, op.cit., 89ff and R.E. Clements, op.cit., 55-61. 138. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 56. 139. L. Rost, op.cit., 49. 140. H. Gese, op.cit., 10-26 rejects the argument that v. 13a is a gloss; he thinks that liSemi is not part of the original text, but accepts li 'for me' as in 1 Chron. 17.12. N. Poulssen, op.cit., 48 notes the interesting point that v. 13 is absent from the Qumran fragment. 141. T. Veijola, loc.cit. 142. Whereas v. 13 refers specifically to the builder of the Temple, v. 12 refers only to 'your son' (i.e. zar'aka, 'your seed'), which denotes an individual, without identifying him as Solomon. It does not refer collectively to the dynasty. See further T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 52ff. 143. FJVl. Cross, loc.cit.; M. GOrg, op.cit., 205; T. Veijola, op.cit., 78. 144. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 60f. 145. T. Veijola, op.cit., 73. 146. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 57-59. 147. T. Veijola, op.cit., 78; T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 60. 148. M. GOrg, op.cit., 201ff. 149. See above, 60. 150. For detailed studies of parallels and a discussion of the interdependence

164

The Nathan Narratives

of these passages see J.L. McKenzie, op.cit., 187-218; A. Caquot, 'La prophetic de Nathan et ses echos lyriques', VTS 9 (1963), 213-24; N.M. Sarna, 'Psalm 89; A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis', Texts and Studies, Brandeis (1963), 29-46; M. Tsevat, 'Studies in the Book of Samuel. Ill The Steadfast House: What was David promised in 11 Sam. 7.13b-16?', HUCA 34 (1963), 71-82; F.M. Cross, op.cit., 254ff. 151. See further A.R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel 1955,118; S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, (Oxford, 1956), 67. 152. K. Seybold, op.cit., 33 draws attention to the use of different words for 'establishing' or 'making sure' (ne'eman, hekin, kun, and nakori) in connection with the successors, kingship, throne and house of David. 153. The Hebrew construction 'for a father.. .for a son' (i.e. as) is taken to be metaphorical, which is confirmed by v. 12. See further T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 260; G. Cooke, 'The Israelite King as Son of God', ZAW 73 (1961), 202ff. Consequently the Israelite description of kingship appears in terms of adoption. 154. On this verse and its place in the Israelite conception of the king as Yahweh's adopted son, see T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 261ff. Both Ps. 2.7 and 2 Sam. 7.14 are to be understood as adoption formulae, according to H.J. Boecker, 'Anmerkungen zur Adoption im Alien Testament', ZAW 86 (1974), 86-89, and that despite the objection made by H. Dormer that Israelite legal texts make no provision for legal adoption (see H. Dormer, 'Adoption oder Legitimation? Erwagungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Recht', OrAnt 8 (1969), 87-119. 155. On the significance of 'ad '61am, 'for ever', see T. Veijola, op.cit., 7274; K. Seybold, op.cit., 33. 156. So A.A. Anderson, Psalms vol. 2 NCB (1972), 643. 157. Cf. T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 284ff., where it is suggested that the word 'son' (ben), like the word 'servant' ('ebed), may denote a subordinate and vassal relationship. 158. K. Seybold, op.cit., 35-44,163ff. See further P.J. Calderone, Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty (1966). 159. Cf. R.E. Clements, Abraham and David (1967), 52ff. 160. On the vassal treaties see P.J. Calderone, op.cit., and on the land grant, M. Weinfeld, 'The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East', }AOS 90 (1970), 184-203; 92 (1972), 468-69. Whilst rejecting both models, T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 284-86 maintains that the covenant in w. 14-15 possesses a legal nature. 161. J.L. McKenzie, 'The Dynastic Oracle: 2 Samuel 7', ThSt 8 (1947), 187-218, esp. 196. 162. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 254ff. 163. J.L. McKenzie, op.cit., 217f. 164. A.A. Anderson, op.cit., 631. 165. See further on the royal ideology in N. Poulssen, op.cit., 54.

Notes to Chapter 5

165

166. It was the use ofbayit with a double meaning that gave the oracle force and coherence according to M. Simon, op.cit., 50. 167. On the key position of the chapter in the structure of the Deuteronomistic History cf. DJ. McCarthy, II Samuel 7 and the structure of the Deuteronomic History', JBL 84 (1965), 131-38; F.M. Cross, op.cit., 249ff. 168. See further G.H. Jones, op.cit., 30. 169. Cf. N. Poulssen, op.cit., 44-45 for the Unking of the two themes. Notes to Chapter 5 1. On the theological significance of the statement see G. von Rad, 'The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel', The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (1966), 198-21, and on the question whether 11.27b should be read with ch. 12, see P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 298. 2. L. Rost, op.cit., 59. 3. Cf. R.A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King (1964), 145; H.W. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel (1964), 303. 4. Cf. also the view of W. Caspari, Die Samuelbucher (1926), 510ff. 5. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 275f. 6. H.W. Hertzberg, loc.cit. 7. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 273ff, who thinks that a war in three phases is reported in 10.1-19; 8.3-8; 11.1; 12.26-31, although the author who placed it in its present context has been guilty of anachronism. 8. Cf. P.R. Ackroyd, 'The Succession Narrative (so-called)', Interpretation 35 (1981), 386. 9. J.W. Flanagan, 'Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings \-2\JBL 91 (1972), 176. 10. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 275. 11. P. Kyle McCarter, ibid. 12. Its separation is accepted by W. Dietrich, Prophetic und Geschichte (1972), 127-29, E. Wiirthwein, Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids— theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (1974), 19-30 and T. Veijola, 'Salomo-der Erstgeborene Bathsebas', VTS 30 (1979), 233-34, who follow an earlier suggestion made by F. Schwally, 'Zur Quellenkritik der historischen Bucher', ZAW 12 (1892), 155. A different view is taken by P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 306, where the whole David-Bathsheba-Nathan affair is taken to be the work of a prophetic writer. 13. G. von Rad, loc.cit. 14. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 298. 15. W. Dietrich, op.cit., 131 lists Deut. 26.2; 1 Sam. 12.25; 1 Kgs 14.9; 16.25; 2 Kgs 21.11; Jer. 7.26; 16.12 for comparison and comes to the conclusion that 11.27b was composed by DtrP. 16. Cf. also K. Seybold, Das davidische Konigtum (1972), 46ff; H.W. Hertzberg, op.cit., 313; H. Hagan, 'Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Sam.

166

The Nathan Narratives

9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2', Biblica 60 (1979), 306f. But against is U. Simon, The Poor Man's Ewe Lamb', Biblica 48 (1967), 226ff. 17. On the implications of this see A. Phillips, 'The Interpretation of 2 Samuel xii. 5-6', VT16 (1966), 242-44 and G.W. Coats, 'Parable, Fable and Anecdote', Interpretation 35 (1981), 372f. 18. G.W. Coats, ibid. 19. A.A. Anderson, 'The Judicial Parable in 2 Samuel', a paper read to a meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study in Manchester on July 15, 1986 with a discussion of the same parallels as are noted by U. Simon, op.dt., 208. 20. Cf. the analysis of J. Hoftijzer, 'David and the Tekoite Woman', VT20 (1970), 419-44. Although there are similarities between the Tekoite woman's audience with David and that of Nathan, there are also differences in the presentation (see especially pp. 442ff). 21. The translation provided by P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 294 follows S. Schill, 'Zu 2 Sam. 12.6', ZAW 11 (1891), 318 and others in reading we'al 'aSer Id hamal, instead of the MT we'al 'aSer lo' hdmal, which means 'and because he had no compassion'. Cf. R.A. Carlson, op.cit., 152. 22. As is suggested by U. Simon, op.cit., 231. 23. Cf. G.W. Coats, loc.cit.; P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit. 24. Other links are suggested by U. Simon, op.cit., 232, where it is also argued that the parable has an integral relationship with the narrative. 25. The MT'S 'fourfold' is consistent with the law of restitution in Exod. 22.1 and has the support of the Peshitta. The LXX reads 'sevenfold' and this is favoured by many on the grounds that it appears in Prov. 6.31 and represents a perfect restitution (cf. J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bucher Samuelis (1871), 183f, S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel 2nd edn (1913), 291; P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 299; R.A. Carlson, op.dt., 152-57) or else because it contains a word-play on Bathsheba's name (see P.W. Coxon, 'A Note on "Bathsheba" in 2 Samuel 12, 1-6', Biblica 62 (1981), 247-50). However, it is more likely that reference is made to the law than to a proverbial saying, and the 'fourfold' may be highly significant in view of subsequent history; thus the reading of the LXX may represent a later reading based on a recollection of the proverbial saying, cf. A. Phillips, loc.cit. 26. See further A. Phillips, op.cit., 243; cf. also H. Seebass, 'Nathan und David in II Sam. 12', ZAW 86 (1974), 204f. for a discussion of the suggestion that David's first reaction was an expression of indignation and not a judicial verdict. 27. This is the translation proposed by A. Phillips, op.ctf., 244; cf. also P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 292, 299, where 'a fiend of hell' is suggested and G. Gerleman, 'Schuld und Suhne. Erwagungen zu 2 Samuel 12', Festschrift W. Zimmerli (1977), 133. 28. G.W. Coats, op.cit., 373. 29. Cf. U. Simon, op.cit., 220f, where it is defined as a 'juridical parable'

Notes to Chapter 5

167

and H. Seebass, op.cit., 205ff. where it is simply called a parable. 30. G.W. Coats, op.cit., 369f with an appropriate quotation from C.H. Dodd The Parables of the Kingdom (1938), 7. 31. On this point and the whole question of genre see G.W. Coats, op.cit., 368-82. 32. H. Gunkel, Die Mdrchen im Alien Testament (1921), 35f. Others of course find in the application a secondary addition, cf. J. Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Biicher 1889, 258f. and M.H. Segal, The Composition of the Books of Samuel', JQR 55 (1964), 32022. See 99. 33. This is one of the judicial problems discussed by H. Seebass, op.dr., 203-11. 34. As is noted by H. Leben, 'Eine Vermutung zum Schafchen des armen Mannes', Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 6 (1903), 15-55 and discussed by U. Simon, op.cit., 226ff. 35. K. Seybold, op.cit., 5flf. 36. This is more explicit in the addition to v. 1 found in some MSS of the Lucianic recension of the LXX anangeilon de moi ten krisin tauten, 'pass judgement on this case for me', which some take to be superior to the MT, cf. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 294. 37. H. Seebass, op.cit., 205. 38. Cf. G.W. Coats, op.cit., 372. 39. U. Simon, op.cit., 220f. 40. H. Hagan, op.cit., 303-305. 41. The parable is often compared to Isa. 5.1-7, but form-critical reservations about their functional similarity have been advanced by G.A Yee, 'The Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5,1-7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable', CBQ 43 (1981), 30-40. 42. G.W. Coats, op.cit., 372. 43. H. Seebass, op.cit., 205f. 44. H. Seebass, op.cit., 211. 45. W. Roth, 'You are the Man! Structural Interaction in 2 Samuel 10-12', Semeia 8 (1977), 8. 46. H. Seebass, op.cit., 206. 47. H. Hagan, op.cit., 306f. 48. U. Simon, op.cit., 227 ff. 49. As for instance by I. von Lo'wenclau, op.cit., 21 If, who argues that Nathan represented a way of thinking distributed throughout the ancient Orient; the ordered state of the world was guaranteed by the king, the son and mediator of the high god. 50. The concept of justice (sdq), it is claimed, had a particularly prominent place in Jebusite Jerusalem, cf. I. von Lo'wenclau, ibid. See also below 127-29. 51. Cf. L. Rost, op.cit., 74f; I. von Lo'wenclau, op.cit., 213f; K. Seybold, op.cit., 52ff.

168

The Nathan Narratives

52. See further L. Rost, where it is claimed that they cannot have belonged together; cf. K. Seybold, loc.cit. 53. K. Seybold, op.cit., 53. 54. See H. Seebass, op.cit., 207ff. where w. 11-12 are taken to be part of the original, but w. 7b-10 to be additional. But L. Rost, loc.cit., whilst separating the two, takes both to be later additions. That w. 11-12 are secondary and reflect the events of 2 Sam. 16.21-22 has been recognised since J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bilcher Samuelis (1871), 184. 55. H. Seebass, loc.cit. 56. W. Dietrich, op.cit., 127-34. 57. See also H. Seebass, op.cit., 204. 58. Despite the reading of the Syriac and the grammatical support for a feminine plural reading (i.e. 'daughters') from the Hebrew for 'much more', the reading of the MT is accepted here, with R.A. Carlson, op.cit. 152 against P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 295. 59. Reading bat for bet comparing the Syriac, cf. P. Kyle McCarter, ibid., W. Dietrich, op.cit., 129 and R.A. Carlson, op.cit., 158. It is possible that the MT 'house' is a corruption due to the following 'house of Israel and of Judah'. 60. Cf. W. Dietrich, loc.cit. 61. W. Dietrich, op.cit., 128ff. 62. Cf. H. Seebass, op.cit., 207. 63. Cf. I. von Lowenclau, op.cit., 213f. 64. As is argued by K. Seybold, op.cit., 45ff., where the confession in v. 13a and also the remission of v. 13b are also brought in to complete the form. 65. L. Rost, op.cit., 76f. 66. Cf. W. Dietrich, op.cit., 130; H.W. Hertzberg, op.cit., 314; R.A. Carlson, op.cit., 157. 67. See above, 98. 68. G. Gerleman, op.cit., 133f. 69. Cf. S.R. Driver, op.cit., 225. 70. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 301. 71. G. Gerleman, op.cit., 132-39. 72. Cf. one Greek cursive MS. The MT has 'scorned the enemies of the LORD', which is sometimes mistakenly translated as 'given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme' (cf. H.W. Hertzberg, op.cit., 315) instead of being accepted as an euphemism introduced out of respect for God (see M.J. Mulder, 'Un euphemisme dans 2 Sam. xii 14?', VT18 [1968], 108-14), which has parallels elsewhere (cf. R. Yaron, "The Coptos Decree and 2 Sam. xii 14', VT 9 [1959], 89-91; P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 296). 73. G. Gerleman, op.cit., 211. 74. G. Gerleman, ibid. 75. Cf. H. Seebass, op.cit., 208. 76. Cf. H.W. Hertzberg, op.cit., 308 and the RSV; against P. Kyle

Notes to Chapter 5

169

McCarter, op.cit., 293, where it is read with the next section. 77. Cf. H.P. Smith, The Books of Samuel (1899), 325. 78. See further G. Gerleman, op.cit.y 136ff; P.Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 301. 79. Cf. H.W Hertzberg, op.cit., 316; P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit. 80. See H.W. Hertzberg, loc.cit.; P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit. 81. J. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, 455-57. 82. See H.W. Hertzberg, loc.cit. 83. W. Brueggemann, 'The Trusted Creature', CBQ 31 (1969), 489-90. 84. P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit. 85. G. Gerleman, loc.cit. 86. H.W. Hertzberg, loc.cit. 87. G. Gerleman, op.cit., 138. 88. P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit. 89. K. Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem (1977), 120. 90. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 302. 91. Against the suggestion of T. Viejola, 'Salomo—Der Erstgeborene Bathsebas', VTS 30, (1979), 230ff. that only one son, by the name of Solomon, was born to Bathsheba and that 12.15b-24a is therefore historically dubious. On the implications of this see the discussion of the birth of Solomon, 114. 92. See especially S.A. Cook, 'Notes on the Composition of 2 Samuel', AJSL 16 (1899-1900), 156f; E. Wurthwein, op.cit., 32ff; T. Veijola, loc.cit. 93. T. Veijola, op.cit. 231ff. See below on the subject of the verb 'called'. 94. T. Veijola, op.cit. 235ff. On the meaning of the verb see below. 95. K. Budde, Die Bucher Samuel erkldrt (1902), 257f, cf. T. Veijola, op.cit., 238ff. 96. T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah (1976), 30. 97. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 302-303. 98. Bringing together w. 15b and 18a provides a full sequence 'struck the child ... and he died', cf. 1 Sam. 25.38; 26.10. See also T. Veijola, op.cit., 245. 99. So T. Veijola, op.cit., 234, with references to other studies. This is also accepted by P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 303. 100. Cf. JJ. Stamm, 'Der Name des Konigs Salomo', ThZ 16 (I960), 287, 295. 101. See further J. Barr, 'The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament', BJRL 52 (1969), 11-29. 102. Cf. also P.Kyle McCarter, loc.cit.; for a contrary view see H.W. Hertzberg, op.cit., 317. 103. For a study of the name and its meaning see J.J. Stamm, loc.cit. and 'Hebraische Ersatznamen', Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger (1965), 413-24; G. Gerleman, 'Die Wurzel slm\ ZAW 85 (1973), 1-14; T. Veijola, op.cit., 235; P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit.

170

The Nathan Narratives

104. With JJ. Stamm, ThZ (1960) 296; G. Gerleman, op.cit., 13 and P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit. against T. Veijola, loc.cit. 105. P. Kyle McCarter, ibid., see further P.A.H. de Boer, '2 Sam. 12, 25', Studio Biblica et Semitica (1966), 25-29. 106. Cf. P.A.H. de Boer, op.cit., 27, where reference is made to the clarification of this formula from its occurrences in Phoenician Karatepe inscriptions of the 8th century BC. 107. A.M. Honeyman, 'The Evidence for Regnal Names among the Hebrews', JBL 67 (1948), 22-23. 108. A. Klostermann, Die Biicher Samuelis und der Konige 1887, ad.loc. 109. E. Wurthwein, op.cit., 29f; T. Veijola, op.cit., 237. 110. See further P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit,, 307ff. 111. See above, 95. 112. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 304ff. 113. For a discussion of David's motivation and the attempts to mitigate David's crime see H.H. Cohen, 'David and Bathsheba',.7B/? 33 (1965), 146; M. Garsiel, 'A Review of Recent Interpretations of the Story of David and Bathsheba, II Samuel 11', Immanuel 2 (1973), 20; P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 288f. 114. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 308. Notes to Chapter 6 1. Cf. A.R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (1955), 30f; B. Mazar, 'David's Reign in Hebron and the Conquest of Jerusalem', In the Time of Harvest, ed. D.J. Silver (1963), 237f; J. Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem. Jahwes Konigssitz (1963), 19; D.R. Ap-Thomas, 'Jerusalem', Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas (1967), 277f; B. Mazar, 'Jerusalem in the Biblical Period', Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology of the Holy City 1968-74, ed. Y. Yadin (1976), 1-8. 2. The forms of the name vary: in the Egyptian texts it is Rushalimum, in the Amarna letters Urusalim and in the Sennacherib inscriptions of the 7th century Ursalimmu. See further G.A. Smith, Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70 (1907), 252f; G. Fohrer, ThWNT 1, 295-96. 3. See especially J.A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna Tafeln (1908-15), nos. 280, 285-90. 4. Cf. K.-D. Schunck, Benjamin: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines israelitischen Stammes, BZAW 86 (1963), 151-52; J.M. Miller, 'Jebus and Jerusalem: A Case of Mistaken Identity', ZDPV9Q (1974), 119. 5. See further A. Alt, 'Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua', Kleine Schriften I (1953), 193-202; M. Noth, 'Studien zu den historischgeographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches', ZDPV 58 (1935), 185-255;

Notes to Chapter 6

171

F.M. Cross and G.E. Wright, 'The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom of Judah', JBL 75 (1956), 202-26; Z. Kallai-Kleinmann, 'The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan', VT 8 (1958), 134-60. 6. J.M. Miller, op.cit., 127. 7. For a full treatment of this question see J.M. Miller, op.cit., 115-27. 8. Cf. J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament (1952), 60ff, 247, where 'Jebus-Jerusalem' are taken as equivalents designating a different entity from that understood by the other equivalents 'City of David—Stronghold of Zion'. 9. D.R. Ap-Thomas, op.cit., 286. 10. J.M. Miller, op.cit., 116. 11. J.M. Miller, op.cit., 127. The final conclusion is that Jebusites inhabited both the city and its vicinity, and that they derived their name from the village north of Jerusalem which has been mistakenly identified with the city. 12. As was argued by J. de Groot, 'Zwei Fragen aus der Geschichte des alien Jerusalem', Werden und Wesen des Allen Testaments, ed. J. Hempel, BZ/HT66(1936), 191ff. 13. For a treatment of this issue, with a list of those supporting both views, see C.E. Hauer, 'Jerusalem. The Stronghold of Rephaim', CBQ 32 (1970), 571-78. 14. Recent discussions of the problem have come to the conclusion that the stronghold was Adullam rather than Jerusalem, cf. C.E. Hauer, op.cit., 576ff; N.L. Tidwell, 'The Philistine Incursions into the Valley of Rephaim (2 Sam. v 17ff)', VTS 30 (1979), 190f. It is claimed that Jerusalem, a newly conquered city, was not ready for another siege, and that David strategically moved to a defensible position. Another site has been proposed by B. Mazar, 'The Military Elite of King David', VT 13 (1963), 315. 15. As is argued by N.L. Tidwell, op.cit., 190-212. 16. B. Mazar, 'David's Reign in Hebron', 243f proposed the following reconstruction: 1st year—David's conquest of Jerusalem; 3rd year—first campaign against the Philistines; 5th year—wars with the Philistines in the Coastal Plain; 8th year—the inauguration of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. C.E. Hauer, op.cit., 578 agrees in placing the conquest of Jerusalem prior to the Philistine incursions into the Valley of Rephaim. 17. B. Mazar, 'Jerusalem in the Biblical Period', 1-8. 18. The 'Hivites', notably Hamor of Shechem and his clan (Gen. 34) and the Gibeonites (Josh. 9.7; 11.19), were also Hurrians according to H.A. Hoflher, 'The Hittites and Hurrians', Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. DJ. Wiseman (1973), 225. 19. The name Araunah is related to ewri-ne, 'the Lord' (accepting that there is confusion between the Hebrew forms 'rwnh and 'wrnh, cf. BHS, as indeed there is between ewri and erwi, both of which are found. The form 'wrn is also known from Ugaritic. See further E.A. Speiser, 'Introduction to

172

The Nathan Narratives

Human', AASOR 20 (1941), 44-49; H.B. Rosen, 'Arawna—nom Hittite?', VT 5 (1955), 318-20; N. Wyatt, '"Araunah the Jebusite" and the Throne of David', StTh 39 (1985), 39ff. 20. Cf. CJ. Mullo Weir, 'Nuzi', Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas (1967), 82. 21. See further N. Wyatt, op.cit., 39-53. 22. J. Simons, loc.cit. 23. A. Alt, 'Jerusalems Aufstieg. Aus einem Vortrag', ZDMG 79 (1925), 119. 24. Cf. B. Mazar, 'David's Reign in Hebron', 238 with reference to Tukulti-Ninurta, and P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 140 with reference to Sargon II (721-705 BC) and modern Khorsabad. 25. On the excavations on the SE hill and the uncovering of the eastern wall of the Jebusite city see J. Simons, op.cit., 68ff; K.M. Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem (1974), 83-97; B. Mazar, 'Jerusalem in the Biblical Period', 1-2. 26. J. Simons, op.czf., 168ff. 27. G. Brunei, 'David et le sinndr', VTS 30 (1979), 73-86. 28. Cf. LXX 'with a dagger'; NEB 'grappling-iron'; Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (1963), 268. 29. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 139f has 'at the windpipe'. 'The phallus' (referring to taking an oath by touching the genitals) is suggested by J.J. Gliick, "The Conquest of Jerusalem in the Account of 2 Sam. 6.5a-8 with Special Reference to "the Blind and the Lame" and the phrase weigga' bassinor', Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap 1960 (1966), 98-105. On the many translations offered see G. Bressan, 'L'espugnazione di Sion in 2 Sam. 5, 6-8//1 Chron. 11, 4-6 et il problema del sinnor', Biblica 25 (1944), 378. 30. Although the Hebrew reads the singular 'he said', it is assumed that the subject, 'Jebusite', refers collectively to 'the Jebusites'. W.G.E. Watson, 'David Ousts the City Ruler of Jebus', VT 20 (1970), 501-502 argues that 'Jebusite' is not collective but refers specifically to 'the Jebusite ruler of the city', with the following 'and he said' being naturally in the singular. 31. It is assumed that this difficult phrase is part of the text, although the LXX and 4 QSama do not include it. See further P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 135-36. 32. This explanation goes back to Josephus, Ant. 7.61 and has the support of many modern commentators; see further P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 138. 33. See P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 140. 34. As outlined by P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 138. 35. As in J. Haller, 'David und die KriippeF, Communio Viatorum 8 (1965), 251-58, where it is suggested that the lame were taboo, and so if placed on the city wall would be respected by the Israelites. Y. Yadin, op.cit., 267-70 thinks that they were paraded before the troops to demonstrate the afflictions that would befall anyone who proved unfaithful to his pre-battle

Notes to Chapter 6

173

oath. See also G. Brunei, 'Les Aveugles et boiteux jebusites', VTS 30 (1979), 65-72. 36. R.A. Rosenberg, 'The God $edeq', HUCA 36 (1965), 165. 37. Cf. H.J. Stoebe, 'Die Einnahme Jerusalems', ZDPV 73 (1957), 7399. 38. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 135-36, where a different text is read on the evidence of 4 QSama. 39. Cf. J. Simons, op.cit., 226ff, where it is argued that the South-western hill had been incorporated in Jerusalem before the Exile. 40. J. Simons, op.cit., 243. 41. For further evidence that there was a settlement on the south-western hill, see J. Simons, op.cit., 246, where it is claimed that Judg. 19.11 refers to the south-western hill by the name of Jebus; it is also included in the boundary definitions of Josh. 15 and 18. Cf. B. Mazar, 'David's Reign in Hebron', 237f. where it is suggested that Jerusalem included the walled city and open suburbs and farmsteads. 42. J. Simons, op.cit., 40, 382f. 43. This reading was proposed by W.G.E. Watson, loc.cit., where it is argued that the Hebrew singular yoseb means 'ruler' and hd'dre? means 'city', hence 'the Jebusite ruler of the city'. 44. B. Mazar, op.cit., 238. 45. See A.R. Johnson, op.cit., 29; J. Bright, A History of Israel (1960), 179. 46. See B. Mazar (Maisler), 'Das vordavidische Jerusalem', JPOS 10 (1930), 181-91. 47. B. Mazar, ibid.; M. Noth, The History of Israel (1960), 190f. 48. B. Mazar, 'Jerusalem in the Biblical Period' 1-8, cf. D.R. Ap-Thomas, op.cit., 277, where Salem is translated 'Prosperer'. 49. See S. Krauss, 'Zion and Jerusalem. A Linguistic and Historical Study', PEQ 77 (1945), 25f. He also finds the same root yrh in the name Moriah, and also, with a slight dialectical variant, in the name Ariel in Isa. 29.1, see S. Krauss, 'Moriah-Ariel', PEQ 79 (1947), 45-55, 102-111. 50. S. Krauss, PEQ 77 (1945), ibid. 51. See J. Lewy, 'Les textes paleo-assyriens et 1'Ancien Testament', RHR 110 (1934), 29ff. 52. See J. Lewy, 'The Sulman Temple in Jerusalem', JBL 59 (1940), 51922. 53. See J. Gray, 'The Desert God 'Aftr in the Literature and Religion of Canaan', JNES 8 (1949), 78. 54. G.A. Smith, op.cit., 253. 55. J. Gray, op.cit., 72-83; idem , The Legacy of Canaan. The Ras Shamra Texts and their Relevance to the Old Testament, VTS 5 (1957), 135ff. 56. According to J.C.L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 1978), 29, slm, 'Dusk', was so-called because of the 'ending' of the day, cf. Accadian saldmu, samsi, 'sunset'.

174

The Nathan Narratives

57. R.E. Clements, God and Temple, 43. 58. For example J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan 136-37; A.R. Johnson, op.cit., 3Iff; R.E. Clements, loc.cit. 59. For a full discussion of the evidence see R.A. Rosenberg, op.cit., 16265. 60. R.A. Rosenberg, ibid. 61. R.A. Rosenberg, op.cit., 167. 62. A.R. Johnson, op.cit., 42. Although FJV1. Cross, op.cit., 209ff is critical of the so-called 'Jebusite hypothesis', he does allow that there are names where the element $idqu is a divine name, and refers to bitta-sidqi, malkisidqu and 'adoni-sidqu, cf. H.H. Rowley, 'Zadok and Nehushtan', JBL 58 (1939), 131. 63. C. Westermann, Genesis, BK (1966), 223, 239ff., cf. W. Zimmerli, 'Abraham und Melchizedek', Das feme und nahe Wort, Festschrift L. Rost, BZAW 105 (1967), 255-64. 64. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 124ff; A.R. Johnson, op.cit., 43. It is assumed that Salem in the Melchi§edeq section refers to Jerusalem, cf. M. Astour, 'Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and its Babylonian Sources', Biblical Motifs, ed. A. Altmann (1966), 65-112. Other identifications have been proposed, such as Shiloh, Tamor and most recently Shechem, cf. C. McKay, 'Salem', PEQ (1948-49), 121-29 and J.G. Gammie, 'Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14.18-20', JBL 90 (1971), 385-96. For a discussion of the historical problem together with a bibliography see C. Westermann, op.cit., 213-46. 65. A.R. Johnson, loc.cit.; R.E. Clements, loc.cit. 66. A.R. Johnson, loc.cit. 67. H.H. Rowley, loc.cit. 68. R.E. Clements, loc.cit. 69. J.A. Emerton, 'The Riddle of Gen. xiv', VT 21 (1971), 421- 25. A foil survey is given of other theories about the date of w. 18-20; the reasons for not accepting them are noted and a case for a Davidic dating is made out. 70. A.R. Johnson, loc.cit.; C. Westermann, op.cit., 241. 71. G. Delia Vida, "El 'Ely6n in Genesis 14, 18-20', JBL 42 (1944), 1-9. 72. S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel's Worship I (1962), 12f. accepted that Melek, Zadok and Salem were manifestations of 'El 'Elydn. H.S. Nyberg, 'Studien zum Religionskampf im Alien Testament', ARW 35 (1938), 356 claimed that 'Al, 'El 'Ely6n, 'El Saddai, Salem and Zaddk were different names for the same god. 73. See P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 511-12 for a list of references. 74. B. Mazar, 'Jerusalem in the Biblical Period', 1-8; R.E.Clements, op.cit., 61. For the meaning of grn, 'threshing-floor', see S. Smith, 'The Threshing-floor at the City Gate', PEQ 78 (1946), 5-14 and 'On the Meaning of Goren', PEQ 35 (1953), 42-45 against J. Gray, 'Tell el Far'a by Nablus: A "Mother" in Ancient Israel', PEQ 84 (1952), 110-13.

Notes to Chapter 6

175

75. G.W. Ahlstrom, op.cit., 115-19. 76. W. Fuss, '11 Samuel 24', ZAW 74 (1962), 145-64; H. Schmid, 'Der Tempelbau Salomes in religionsgeschichtlicher Sicht', Archdologie und Altes Testament, Fest. K. Galling, ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch (1970), 245-50; K. Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem 1976, 9ff. For a discussion of the literary analyses, see K. Rupprecht, op.cit., 5ffand P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 514-15. 77. It has been suggested that behind the angel in w. 16-17 lies a preIsraelite deity, possibly '£1 'Elydn, cf. H. Schmidt, Der heilige Pels (1933), 8486 and H. Schmid, 'Yahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem', ZAW 67 (1955), 168-97. 78. G.W. Ahlstrom, op.cit., 117f. 79. R.E. Clements, op.cit., 61. 80. See especially H.B. Rosen, op.cit., 318-20. cf. above, 122. 81. The identification is made in 2 Chron. 3.1. See further K. Rupprecht, op.cit., 13ff; J. Simons, op.cit., 382f. 82. Also made in 2 Chron. 3.1. See H.G.M. Williamson, Chronicles, NCB (1982), 204. 83. See especially H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 113ff; A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (1969), 89ff. 84. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., Ill; A. Cody, op.cit., 90. 85. H.H. Rowley, loc.cit.', A. Cody, op.cit., 89f. 86. The proposed afyiw is not accepted in BHS. 87. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 120ff; A. Cody, op.cit., 90f. 88. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 206ff. 89. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 113-32; A. Cody, op.cit., 91f. 90. For instance C,E. Hauer, op.cit., 89-94 thinks that the Jebusite Zadok escaped to David during the siege of Jerusalem, but this would naturally have made him unpopular with the Jebusites. 91. A. Cody, op.cit., 92. 92. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 113f; P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 253. 93. H.H. Rowley, loc.cit., where it is shown that this reading, found in J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bucher Samuelis (1871), 177, was older than Wellhausen. It is also accepted by A.HJ. Gunneweg, Leviten und Priester (1965), 104-105. 94. H.P. Smith, op.cit., 309; S.R. Driver, op.cit., 283; P. Kyle McCarter, loc.cit. 95. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 21 Iff. 96. Cf. also M. Haran, 'Studies in the Account of the Levitical Cities', JBL 80 (1961), 161. 97. See also C.E. Hauer, op.cit., 89-94, where it is argued that the head of the Zadokite priesthood is identified here. 98. See further H.G.M. Williamson, op.cit., 110-11; cf. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 118.

176

The Nathan Narratives

99. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 212. 100. See H.G.M. Williamson, op.cit., 68ff. 101. H.G. Judge, 'Aaron, Zadok and Abiathar', JThS 7 (1956), 70-74. 102. See above, 128. 103. H.H. Rowley, op.cit., 130-32. 104. A.R. Johnson, op.cit., 42, 46. 105. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 209. 106. B. Mazar, 'David's Reign in Hebron', 238f. 107. J. Bright, loc.cit. 108. M. Noth, op.cit., 191. 109. S. Yeivin, 'Social, Religious and Cultural Trends in Jerusalem under the Davidic Dynasty', VT 3 (1953), 149-66. 110. F.M. Cross, op.cit., 210. 111. J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan (1957). 112. J. Gray, op.cit., 147. 113. J. Gray, op.cit., 151. 114. A.R. Johnson, op.cit., 46. 115. A.R. Johnson, op.cit., 54ff. 116. On this question in general see J.H. Patton, Canaanite Parallels in the Book of Psalms (1944). 117. H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel. A Cultic History of the Old Testament (1966), 201ff. 118. See further H. Gottlieb, "El und Krt—Yahwe und David. Zum Ursprung des alttestamentlichen Monotheismus', VT 24 (1974), 159-67, where it is argued that the assertion of the Kit-text that 'El alone is acknowledged by Krt is the basis of Psalm 29, which belonged to the Jerusalem New Year Festival. 119. G.W. Ahlstrom, op.cit., 113-27; H. Haag, op.cit., 135-43; I. von Lowenclau, op.cit., 202-15. 120. H. Haag, op.cit., 139f. 121. G. Fohrer, 'Die Propheten des Alten Testaments im Blickfeld neuer Forschung', Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetic, BZAW 99 (1967), 1-4. 122. F. Schwally, op.cit., 156. 123. I. von Lowenclau, op.cit., 205. 124. S. Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times, 166. 125. C. Westermann, 'Die Mari-Briefe und die Prophetic in Israel', ThB 24 (1964), 180f. 126. I. von LSwenclau, op.cit., 206. 127. H. Haag, op.cit., 140f; I. von Lo'wenclau, loc.cit. 128. I. von Lo'wenclau, op.cit., 206f. 129. H. Haag, op.cit., 142; G.W. Ahlstrflm, op.cit., 127. 130. I. von LOwenclau, loc.cit. 131. See 146. 132. H. Haag, op.cit., 143.

Notes to Chapter 7

111

133. J.J.M. Roberts, 'The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition', JBL 92 (1973), 329-30. 134. Listed by J.J.M. Roberts, ibid, are the four unprovable assumptions made by F. Stolz, Strukturen und Figuren im Kult um Jerusalem (1970), 7-8. 135. G. Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97 (1966), 70- 113. According to J.J.M. Roberts, op.cit., 330, his arguments are inconclusive, his treatment of evidence arbitrary and his own reconstruction impossible, cf. H.-M. Lutz, Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Vdlker (1968), 213-16. 136. J.J.M. Roberts, op.cit., 344. 137. Cf. also N. Wyatt,' "Araunah the Jebusite" and the Throne of David', StTh 38 (1985), 53. Notes to Chapter 7 1. Although R.N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative, 35-45 elaborates, with many examples, the point that the Succession Narrative gives a consistent portrayal of character, he does not list Nathan among his examples. The point made here is different in that it is claimed that a consistent portrayal of Nathan is to be found, not in the Succession Narrative, but in the earliest form of the tradition. 2. H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (1982), 18f, 27. 3. E.L. Curtis and A.A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles ICC (1910), 360. 4. T. Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Israel (1977), 99. 5. This is conceivable, according to J. Gray, / and II Kings (1977), 21, although he finally prefers another option. 6. So W. von Soden, cited by T. Ishida, op.cit., 99, n. 89 and rightly dismissed as highly hypothetical.

This page intentionally left blank

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, P.R., The Second Book of Samuel, CBC, 1977. —'The Succession Narrative (so-called)', Interpretation 35 (1981), 383-96. AhlstrOm, G.W.,'Der Prophet Nathan und der Tempelbau', VT 11 (1961), 113-27. Alt, A., 'Jerusalems Aufstieg. Aus einem Vortrag', ZDMG 79 (1925), 1-19. —'Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua', Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I (Munich, 1953), 193-202. Anderson, A.A., Psalms, NCB 2 vols. (1972). Ap-Thomas, D.R., 'Jerusalem', Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas (Oxford, 1967), 276-95. Astour, M., 'Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and its Babylonian Sources', Biblical Motifs, ed. A. Altmann (Cambridge Mass., 1966), 65-112. Auerbach, E., 'Die Herkunft der Sadokiden', ZAW 49 (1931), 327-28. —'Das Aharon Problem', VTS 17 (1969) (Congress Volume, Rome 1968), 37-63. Ball, E., 'The Co-regency of David and Solomon (1 Kings 1)', VT 27 (1977), 26879. Barr, J., 'The Symbolism of Names in the Old Testament', BJRL 52 (1969), 11-229. Bartlett, J.R., 'Zadok and his Successors at Jerusalem', JThS 19 (1968), 1-18. Bentzen, A., Studier over del Zadokidiske Proesteskabs historic (Copenhagen, 1931). Benzinger, I., Die Bticher der Konige, KHC (1899). Boecker, HJ., 'Anmerkungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament', ZAW 86 (1974), 8689. Boer, P.A.H. de, '2 Sam. 12,25', Studio Biblica et Semitica. Fest. Th. C. Vriezen (Wageningen, 1966), 25-29. Bressan, G., 'L'espugnazione di $ion in 2 Sam 5,6-8,1 Chron. 11,4-6 et il problem del sinndr', Biblica 25 (1944), 346-81. Bright, J., A History of Israel, OTL (1960). Brongers, H.A., 'Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch des adverbialen we'attah im Alten Testament', VT 15 (1965), 289-99. Brueggemann, W., 'The Trusted Creature', CBQ 31 (1969), 484-98. Brunei, G., 'Les Aveugles et boiteux jebusites', VTS 30 (1979), 65-72. -'David et le sinnor\ VTS 30 (1979), 73-86. Budde, K., 'The Nomadic Ideal in the Old Testament', New World 4 (1895), 72645. -Die Bucher Samuel erklan, KHC 8 (1902). -'Der Herkunft Sadoks', ZAW 52 (1934), 42-50. Bussche, H. van den, 'Le texte de la prophdtie de Nathan sur la dynastic davidique (2 Sam.vii, 2 Chron. xvii)', EThL 24 (1948), 354-94. Calderone, P.J., Dynastic Oracle and Suzerainty Treaty, 2 Samuel 7,8-16 (Manila, 1966). Caquot, A., 'La prophetic de Nathan et ses dchos lyriques', VTS 9 (1963), 213-24. Carlson, R.A. David, the Chosen King. A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Uppsala, 1964).

180

The Nathan Narratives

Caspari, W., Die Samuelbucher , KAT 7 (1926). Clements, R.E., God and Temple (Oxford, 1965). —Abraham and David. Genesis IS and its Meaning for Israelite Tradition, SBTh 5 (1967). Coats, G.W., 'Parable, Fable, and Anecdote. Storytelling in the Succession Narrative', Interpretation 35 (1981), 368-82. —Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, The Forms of Old Testament Literature 1 (Michigan, 1983). Cody, A., A History of Old Testament Priesthood, AnBib 35 (1969). Cohen, H.H., 'David and Bathsheba', JBR 33 (1965), 142-48. Cohen, M.M., 'The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel', HUCA 36 (1965), 59-98. Cook, S.A., 'Notes on the Composition of 2 Samuel', AJSL 16 (1899-1900), 145-77. Cooke, G., 'Israelite King as Son of God', ZAW 73 (1961), 202-25. Coppens, J., 'L'union du trone et du temple d'apres 1'oracle de Nathan', EThL 44 (1968), 489-91. —'Le messianisme royal. Ses origines. Son deVeloppement. Son accomplishment', NRTh 90 (1968), 30-49, 225-52, 479-512, 622-50, 834-63, 936-75. Coxon, P.W., 'A Note on "Bathsheba" in 2 Samuel 12, 1-6', Biblica 62 (1981), 24750. Cross, F.M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge Mass., 1973). —and G.E. Wright, 'The Boundary and Province Lists of the Kingdom ofJudah'^JSL 75 (1956), 202-206. Curtis, E.L. and A.A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles, ICC, (1910). Dietrich, W., Prophetic und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 108 (1972). Dormer, H., 'Art und Herkunft des Amtes der Konigsmutter im Alten Testament', Festschrift J. Friedrich, ed. R. von Kienle (Heidelberg, 1959), 105-45. —'Adoption oder Legitimation? Erwagungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Recht', Or Ant 8 (1969), 87-119. Driver, S.R., Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford, 1890). Dus, J., 'Der Brauch der Ladewanderung im alien Israel', ThZ 17 (1961), 1-16. Eichrodt, W., Theology of the Old Testament, OTL 2 vols. (1961). Emerton, J.A., 'The Riddle of Gen. xiv', FT 21 (1971), 403-39. Engnell, I., Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Oxford, 1967). —Critical Essays on the Old Testament (London, 1970). Flanagan, J.W., 'Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2', JBL 91 (1972), 172-81. Flight, J.W., 'Nomadic Idea and Ideal in the Old Testament', JBL 42 (1923), 158226. Fohrer, G., 'Die Propheten des Alten Testaments im Blickfeld neuer Forschung', Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetic, BZAW 99 (1967), 1-17. Fretheim, T.E., 'The Priestly Document: anti-temple?', VT 18 (1968), 313-29. Frick, F.S., 'The Rechabites Reconsidered', JBL 90 (1971), 297-87. Fuss, W., 'II Samuel 24', ZAW 74 (1962), 145-64. Gammie, J.G., 'Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14.18-20', JBL 90 (1971), 85-96. Garsiel, M., 'A Review of Recent Interpretations of the Story of David and Bathsheba, II Samuel 11', Immanuel 2 (1973), 18-20. Gelston, A., 'A Note on II Samuel 7.10', ZAW 84 (1972), 92-94.

Bibliography

181

Gerleman, G., 'Die Wurzel slm\ ZAW 85 (1973), 1-14. —'Schuld und Siihne. Erwagungen zu 2 Samuel 12', Beiirage zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie, Festschrift fur Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Donner, R. Hanhart, R. Smend (Gottingen, 1977), 132-39. Gese, H., 'Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwahlung', ZThK 61 (1964), 10-26. Gibson, J.C.L., Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2nd edn (Edinburgh, 1978). Glvick, J.J., Wa£u/-Shepherd', VT 1 (1963), 144-50. —'The Conquest of Jerusalem in the Account of 2 Sam. 5.6a-8 with Special Reference to "the Blind and the Lame" and the phrase weigga' bassinor', Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Africa I960 (Pretoria, 1966), 98-105. Gordon, R.P., / & 2 Samuel, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield, 1984). Gorg, M. Dos Zelt der Begegnung. Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels, BBB 27 (1967). —Gott-Konig Reden in Israel und Agypten, BWANT 105 (1975). Gottlieb, H., 'El und Krt -Jahwe und David. Zum Ursprung des alttestamentlichen Monotheismus', KT24 (1974), 159-67. Gray, J., 'The Desert God 'Ajtr in the Literature and Religion of Canaan', JNES 8 (1949), 72-83. -'Tell el Far'a by Nablus: A "Mother" in Ancient Israel', PEQ 84 (1952), 110-13. —The Legacy of Canaan. The Ras Shamra Texts and their Relevance to the Old Testament, VTS 5 (1957). -1 and 2 Kings, OTL (1973). Gressmann, H., Die Alteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetic Israels, SAT (1921). Gr0nbaek, J.H., Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1 Sam. 15—2 Sam. 5). Tradition und Komposition, AThD 10 (1971). Groot, J. de, 'Zwei Fragen aus der Geschichte des alien Jerusalem', Werden und Wesen des Alien Testaments, ed. J. Hempel, BZAW 66 (1936), 191-97. Gross, W., 'Die Herausfiihrungsformel—Zum Verhaltnis von Formel und Syntax', ZAW 86 (1974), 425-53. Gunkel, H., Das Marchen im Alien Testament (Tubingen, 1921). Gunn, D.M., The Story of King David. Genre and Interpretation, JSOTS 6 (1978). Gunneweg, A.H.J., 'Sinaibund und Davidsbund', VT 10 (1960), 335-41. —Levitien und Priester. Hauptlinien der Traditionsbildung und Geschichte der israelitisch-jiidischen Kultpersonals, FRLANT 89 (1965). Haag, H., 'Gad und Nathan', Archaologie und Altes Testament, Festschrift fur K. Galling, ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch (Tubingen, 1970), 135-43. Hagan, H., 'Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Sm. 9-20; 1 Kgs. 1-2', Biblica 60 (1979), 301-26. Hall, H.R., 'Israel and the Surrounding Nations', The People and the Book ed. A.S. Peake (Oxford, 1925), 1-40. Haller, J., 'David und die Kriippel', Communio Viatorum 8 (1965), 251-58. Halpern, B., The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel, Harvard Semitic Monographs (Harvard, 1981). Haran, M., 'Studies in the Account of the Levitical Cities', JBL 80 (1961), 45-54,15665. Hauer, C.E., 'Who was Zadok?', JBL 82 (1963), 89-94. -'Jerusalem. The Stronghold of Rephaim', CBQ 32 (1970), 571-78. Hempel, J., Geschichten und Geschichte im Alien Testament bis zur persischen Zeit (Giltersloh, 1964). Hermann, A., 'Die agyptische Konigsnovelle', Leipziger dgypiologische Studien 10 (1938).

182

The Nathan Narratives

Herrmann, S., 'Die Konigsnovelle in Agypten und in Israel. Ein Beitrag zur Gattungsgeschichte in dem Geschichtsbuchern des Alten Testaments', Wissenschafiliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitdt Leipzig. Gesellschafts und sprachwissenschaftlkhe Reihe 3 (1953-54), 51-62. —A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (London, 1975). Hertzberg, H.W., 1 and 2 Samuel. A Commentary, OTL (1964). Hoffher, H.A., 'The Hittites and Hurrians', Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D.J. Wiseman (Oxford, 1973), 197-228. Hoftijzer, J., 'David and the Tekoite Woman', VT 20 (1970), 419-44. Honeyman, A.M., 'The Evidence for Regnal Names among the Hebrews', JBL 67 (1948), 13-25. Ishida, T., The Royal Dynasties in Israel. A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology, BZAW 142 (1977). —'Solomon's Succession to the Throne of David - A Political Analysis', Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida (Tokyo, 1982), 17587. Johnson, A.R., Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff, 1955). Jones, G.H., 1 and 2 Kings, NCB 2 vols. (1984). Judge, H.G., 'Aaron, Zadok and Abiathar', JThS 7 (1956), 70-74. Kallai-Kleinmann, Z., 'The Town Lists of Judah, Simeon, Benjamin and Dan', VT 8 (1958), 134-60. Kenyon, K.M., Digging Up Jerusalem (London, 1974). Kitchen, K.A., 'The Philistines', Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D.J. Wiseman (Oxford 1973), 53-78. Knudtzon, J.A., Die El-Amarna Tafeln, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1908-15). Kraus, H.-J., Die Kdnigsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament. Untersuchungen zu den Liedern vonjahwes Thronbesteigung, BHTh 13 (1951). —Worship in Israel. A Cultic History of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1966). Krauss, S., 'Zion and Jerusalem. A Linguistic and Historical Study', PEQ 77 (1945), 15-33. -'Moriah-Ariel', PEQ 79 (1947), 45-55,102-11. Kuschke, A., 'Die Lagervorstellung der priesterlichen Erzahlung', ZAWfA (1951), 74105. Kutsch, £., 'Die Dynastic von Gottes Gnaden. Probleme der Nathanweissagung in 2 Sam. 7', ZThK 58 (1961), 137-53. Labat, R., Le Caractere religieux de la royaute assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1939). Labuschagne, C.J., 'Some Remarks on the Prayer of David in II Sam. 7', Studies in the Books of Samuel. Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Africa (Pretoria, 1960), 28-35. Langlamet, F., 'Pour ou contre Solomon? La redaction prosalomonienne de 1 Rois 111', RB 83 (1976), 321-79, 481-528. Leben, H., 'Eine Vermutung zum Schafchen des armen Mannes', Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 6 (1903), 152-55. Lewy, J., 'Les textes pateo-assyriens et 1'Ancien Testament', RHR 110 (1934), 29ff. —'The Sulman Temple in Jerusalem', JBL 59 (1940), 519-22. Lipiriski, E., 'Nagid der Kronprinz', VT 24 (1974), 497-99. Long, B.O., 1 Kings, with an Introduction to Historical Literature. The Forms of Old Testament Literature 9 (Michigan, 1984). Loretz, O., 'The Perfectum Copulativum in 2 Sam. 7, 9-11', CBQ 23 (1961), 294-96. Ldwenclau, I. von, 'Der Prophet Nathan in Zwielicht von theologischer Deutung und Historic', Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments. Festschrift Claus Westermann, ed. R. Albertz et al. (GOttingen, 1980), 202-15.

Bibliography

183

Lutz, H.-M., Jahwe, Jerusalem und die Volker. Zur Vorgeschichte von Sack. 12, 1-8 und 14, 1-5, WMANT (1968). McCarter, P. Kyle, / Samuel, AB (1980). -2 Samuel, AB, (1984). McCarthy, D.J., 'II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History', JBL 84 (1965), 131-38. McKay, C., 'Salem', PEQ 80 (1948), 121-29. McKenzie, J.L., 'The Dynastic Oracle: II Samuel 7', ThSt 8 (1947), 187-218. Mayes, A.D.H., Israel in the Period of the Judges, SBTh New Series, 29 (1974). Mazar, B., 'Das vordavidische Jerusalem', JPOS 10 (1930), 181-91. -'The Military Elite of King David', VT 13 (1963), 310-20. —'David's Reign in Hebron and the Conquest of Jerusalem', In the Time of Harvest. Essays in Honor of Abba Hillel Silver, ed. DJ. Silver (New York, 1963), 23544. —'Jerusalem in the Biblical Period', Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-74, ed. Y. Yadin Qerusalem, 1976), 1-8. Mettinger, T.N.D., King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, CBOTS 8 (1976). Miller, J.M., 'Jebus and Jerusalem: A Case of Mistaken Identity', ZDPV 90 (1974), 115-27. Molin, G., 'Die Stellung der Gebira im Staate Juda', ThZ 10 (1954), 161-75. Montgomery, J.A. and Gehman, H.S., Kings, ICC, (1951). Morenz, S., 'Agyptische und davidische Konigstitular', ZAS 79 (1954), 73-74. Mowinckel, S., Ezra den Skriftlferde (Kristiania, 1916), 75. -'Natansforjettelsen 2 Sam. kap. 7', SEA 12 (1947), 220-29. -He That Cometh (Oxford, 1956). —The Psalms in Israel's Worship, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1962). —'Israelite Historiography', ASTI 2 (1963), 4-26. Mulder, M.J., 'Un euphemisme dans 2 Sam. XII14?', VT 18 (1968), 108-14. —'Versuch zur Deutung von sdkenet in 1 K6. i 2, 4', VT 22 (1972), 43-54. Nelson, R.D., The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield, 1981). Nicholson, E.W., Preaching to the Exiles. A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (Oxford, 1967). Nordheim, E. von, 'Konig und Tempel. Der Hintergrund des Tempelbauverbotes in 2 Samuel vii', VT 27 (1977), 434-53. Noth, M., Das System der zwdlf Stamme Israels, BWANT iv, 1 (1930). —'Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches', ZDPV 58 (1935), 185-255. —Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen, 19572) (first published 1943). —'Jerusalem und die israelitische Tradition', OSt 8 (1950), 228-46. —'David und Israel in II Samuel 7', Melanges Bibliques. Rediges en I'honneur d'Andre Robert (Paris, 1957), 122-30; ET in The Laws in the Pentateuch (Edinburgh, 1966), 250-59. —The History of Israel (London, 1963). -Kdnige, BK (1968). Nubel, H.-U., Davids Aufstieg in derfruhen israelitischen Geschichtsschreibung (Bonn, 1959). Nyberg, H.S., 'Studien zum Religionskampf im Alien Testament', ARW 35 (1938), 329-87. Ota, M., 'A Note on 2 Samuel 7', A Light unto my Path. Old Testament Studies in

184

The Nathan Narratives

Honor of Jacob M. Myers, ed. H.N. Bream, et al., Gettysberg Theological Studies 14 (Philadelphia, 1974), 403-407. Patton, J.H., Canaanite Parallels in the Book of Psalms (Baltimore, 1944). Phillips, A., 'The Interpretation of 2 Sam. xii 5-6', VT 16 (1966), 242-44. Porter, J.R., 'Old Testament Historiography', Tradition and Interpretation, G.W. Anderson (Oxford, 1979), 125-62. Poulssen, N., Konig und Tempel im Glaubenszeugnis des Alien Testaments, SBM 3 (1967). Rad, G. von, Old Testament Theology 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1962). —'There Remains still a Rest for the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception' (1933), The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh, 1966), 94-102. -'The Tent and the Ark' (1931), ibid., 103-24. —'The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel' (1944), ibid., 166-204. Rehm, M., Das erste Bitch der Konige. Bin Kommentar (Wiirzburg, 1979). Reid, P.V., '&& in 2 Samuel 7.7', CBQ 37 (1975), 17-20. Richter, W., 'Die ndgid-Formel. Ein Beitrag zur Erhellung ders nagtd Problems', BZ 9 (1965), 71-84. —Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft. Entwurf einer alttestamentlkhen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie (G6ttingen, 1971). Robert, P. de, 'Juges ou tribus en 2 Samuel vii 7?', VT 21 (1971), 116-18. Roberts, J.J.M., 'The Davidic Origin of the Zion Tradition', JBL 92 (1973), 329-44. Rosen, H.B., 'Arawna-nom Hittite?', VT 5 (1955), 318-20. Rosenberg, R.A., 'The God Sedeq', HUCA 36 (1965), 161-77. Rost, L., Die Oberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, BWANT iii, 6 (1926) = Das kleine Credo und andern Studien zum Alien Testament (Heidelberg, 1965), 119253; ET The Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield, 1982). Roth, W., 'You are the Man! Structural Interaction in 2 Samuel 10-12', Semeia 8 (1977), 1-13. Rowley, H.H., 'Zadok and Nehushtan', JBL 58 (1939), 113-41. —'Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen. 14 and Ps. 110)', Festschrift A. Bertholet, ed. W. Baumgartner (Tubingen, 1950), 461-72. Rupprecht, K., Der Tempel von Jerusalem. Griindung Salomos oder jebusitisches Erbe? BZAW 144 (1977). Sarna, N.M., 'Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis', Texts and Studies, P.W. Lown Institute (Brandeis, 1963), 29-46. Scharbert, J., Solidaritat in Segen und Fluch im Alien Testament und seiner Umwelt (Bonn, 1958). —'Der Messias im Alten Testament und in Judentum', Die religiose und theologische Bedeutung des Alten Testaments (Wurzburg, 1967), 49-78. Schill, S., 'Zu 2 Sam. 12, 6', ZAW 11 (1891), 18. Schmid, H., 'Jahwe und die Kulttraditionen von Jerusalem', ZAW 67 (1955), 16897. —'Der Tempelbau Salomos in religionsgeschichtlicher Sicht', Archdologie und Altes Testament, Festschrift fur K. Galling, ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch (Tubingen, 1970), 241-50. Schmidt, H., Der heilige Pels in Jerusalem. Eine archaologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie (Tflbingen, 1933). Schmidt, W., 'MiSkan als Ausdruck Jerusalemer Kultsprache', ZAW 75 (1963), 9192. Schreiner, J., Sion-Jerusalem Jahwes Konigssitz. Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im Alten Testament, SANT 7 (1963).

Bibliography

185

Schulte, H., Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im alien Israel, BZAW 128 (1972). Schunck, K.-D., Benjamin. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines israelitischen Stammes, BZAW 86 (1963). Schwally, F., 'Zur Quellenkritik der historischen Biicher', ZAW12 (1892), 153-61. Seebass, H., 'Nathan und David in II Sam 12', ZAW 86 (1974), 203-11. Segal, M.H., 'The Composition of the Books of Samuel', JQR 55 (1964), 318-39; 56 (1965), 32-50,137-57. Sellin, E., Geschichte der israelitisch-jiidischen Volker (Leipzig, 1924-32). Seybold, K., Das davidische Konigtum im Zeugnis der Propheten, FRLANT 107 (1972). Simon, M., 'La Prophetic de Nathan et le Temple (Remarques sur II Sam. 7)', RHPhR 32 (1952), 41-58. Simon, U., 'The Poor Man's Ewe Lamb. An Example of a Juridical Parable', Biblica 48 (1967), 207-42. Simons, J., Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Researches and Theories (Leiden, 1952). Smith, G.A., Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70 (London, 1907). Smith, H.P., The Books of Samuel, ICC (1899). Smith, S., 'The Threshing-Floor at the City Gate', PEQ 78 (1946), 5-14. -'On the Meaning of Goren', PEQ 85 (1953), 42-45. Speiser, E.A., 'Introduction to Human', AASOR 20 (1941), 44-49. Soggin, J.A., Konigtum in Israel. Urspriinge, Spannungen, Entwicklung, BZAW 104 (1967). —'The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom', Israelite and Judaean History, ed. J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller OTL (1977), 332-80. Stamm, J.J., 'Der Name des Kflnigs Salomo', ThZ 16 (1960), 285-97. —'Hebraische Ersatznamen', Studies in Honor ofBenno Landsberger (Chicago, 1965), 413-24. Stoebe, H.J., 'Die Einnahme Jerusalems', ZDPV 73 (1957), 73-99. Stolz, F., Strukturen und Figuren im Kult von Jerusalem. Studien zur altorientalischen vor- und fruhisraelitischen Religion, BZAW 118 (1970). Thenius, O., Die Biicher Samuelis (Leipzig, (18983). Thornton, T.C.G., 'Studies in Samuel', ChQR 168, 1967, 413-23. —'Solomonic Apologetic in Samuel and Kings', ChQR 169 (1968), 159-66. Tidwell, N.L., 'The Philistine Incursions into the Valley of Rephaim (2 Sam. v 17ff.)', VTS 30 (1979), 190-212. Tsevat, M., 'Studies in the Book of Samuel. Ill The Steadfast House: What was David promised in II Sam. 7.13b-16?', HUCA 34 (1963), 71-82. —'The House of David in Nathan's Prophecy', Biblica 46 (1965), 353-56. Vaux, R.de, Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions (London, 1961). -'Jerusalem et les Prophetes', RB 73 (1966), 481-509. —The History of Ancient Israel, vol. 2 London, (1978). Veijola, T., Die Ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastic nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (Helsinki, 1975). —'Salomo—Der Erstgeborene Bathsebas', VTS 30 (1979), 230-50. Vida, G. Delia, "El 'Elyon in Genesis 14, 18-20', JBL 42 (1944), 1-9. Wanke, G., Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97 (1966). Waterman, L., 'Some Historical and Literary Consequences of Probable Displacement in 1 Kings l-2',JAOS 60 (1940), 383-90.

186

The Nathan Narratives

Watson, W.G.E., 'David Ousts the City Ruler of Jehus', VT 20 (1970), 501-502. Weinfeld, M., 'The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East',JAOS 90 (1970), 184-203; 92 (1972), 468-69. —Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972). Weir, C.J. Mullo, 'Nuzi', Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas (Oxford, 1967), 73-86. Weiser, A., 'Die Tempelbaukrise unter David', ZAW 77 (1965), 153-68. —'Die Legitimation des Konigs David. Zur Eigenart und Entstehung der sogenannten Geschichte von Davids Aufstieg', VT 16 (1966), 325-54. Wellhausen, J., Der Text der Bticher Samuelis untersucht (GOttingen, 1871). —Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bticher (Berlin, 1889). Westermann, C., 'Die Mari-Briefe und die Prophetic in Israel', Forschung am Alien Testament, Gesammelte Studien, ThB 24 (1964), 171-88. —Bask Forms of Prophetic Speech (London, 1967). -Genesis, BK (1976-82). Whitelam, K.W., The Just King. Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel, JSOTS 12 (1979). Whybray, R.N., The Succession Narrative. A Study of II Samuel 9-20; I Kings 1 and 2, SBTh 9 (1968). Williamson, H.G.M., 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCB (1982). Wurthwein, E., Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids—theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? ThS 115 (1974). -Das erste Buch der Konige, Kap. 1-16, ATD (1977). Wyatt, N., '"Araunah the Jebusite" and the Throne of David', StTh 39 (1985), 3953. Yadin, Y., The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, 2 vols. (New York, 1963). Yaron, R., 'The Coptos Decree and 2 Sam. xii 14', VT 9 (1959), 89-91. Yee, G.A., 'The Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5.1-7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable', CBQ 43 (1981), 30-40. Yeivin, S., 'Social, Religious and Cultural Trends in Jerusalem under the Davidic Dynasty', VT 3 (1953), 149-66. Young, D.W., 'Notes on the Root ran in Biblical Hebrew', VT 10 (1960), 457-59. Zimmerli, W., 'Abraham und Melchizedek', Das feme und nahe Wort. Festschrift L. Rost, BZAW 105 (1967), 255-64.

INDEXES INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 1-11

14

Judges

147 128 128, 179n69

14.18ff. 14.22 32.10-13

128 61

34

171nl8

Exodus 22.1

1.8

120, 122, 125

1.21 2.11

120 105 105 105 120

3.7 3.12 19.10 19.11 19.30

173n41 161n74

5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.17-25 5.17-21

6 6.3f.

7

99, 166n25 1 Samuel

Numbers 26.58a

132

Deuteronomy 105 4.25

9.7 9.18 12.10 17.2 25.19 26.2 31.39

34

72 105 72 105 72 165nl5

105 13

Joshua

1.8 9.7 10 10.1 10.3 11.19

15 15.8 15.63

120 171nl8

119 128 122, 128 171nl8 173n41

120

18

120, 125 173n41

18.1 Iff. 18.28 21.44 23.12

120 120 72 72

1-4

75

2.27ff. 2.30

34, 133

3.3 8.8 8.11 9.16 10.1 12.25 14.3 15-2 Sam. 5 15.1

16 16.1 16.11 22.20-22 22.20 23.6 30.7

2 Samuel 1.17ff. 2.13 3.2-5 3.9-10 3.18 3.31-35

82 75 72 48 54,80 54,80 165nl5 44,133

32 54 102 54 86 45

7.1-17 7.1-16 7.1-7

7.1-4a 7.1-3

7.1a 7.1b 7.2-7 7.2-5 7.2-3

7.2 110 44 45,47

5.2

82 82 110 82

5.6-10

122-24

123 123, 124

123 121 122 60,76 40,131 16, 19, 2224, 26, 28, 30-32, 59-92, 110, 143, 145, 147, 152n4 59-92

91 27, 28, 59, 62, 67, 6972, 79, 160n678

62 20, 71, 72,

91 7.1

132, 133

132 132

121, 126

27, 64, 71, 74, 80, 81 68,69 68, 69, 72,

74 69 68,74 64,71 23, 64, 71,

138 7.3 7.4-7 7.4b-7 7.4-5a

78, 162nl03 24,72 62,72

72

7.4

80, 139

7.5-16 7.5-1 la

64 63

188

The Nathan Narratives

2 Samuel (cont.) 7.5b-7 72 67, 71, 72 7.5f. 73-75, 77, 78, 7.5 82, 83, 91, 162nll2 28 7.5b 81 7.6-7 68, 72-74, 78, 7.6 79, 81, 91, 161n73 7.7 68, 73, 74, 7.8-17 7.8-16

77 62 59, 70, 79, 85, 87, 89,

90 7.8-1 la 7.8ff.

62, 68, 79 69, 73, 80-

82 7.8-9

7.12b 7.13

7.13a 7.14-15 7.14b-15

7.14 7.14a 7.14b 7.15

7.17

7.9-11

85 72

7.18-29

64, 68, 80, 81, 85, 89

7.9a 7.10-lla 7.10

72

7.11-16 7.11b-16 7.11 7.11a

69-72 64, 68, 80, 81,85

61 63, 67, 79 73, 80S3, 85, 86,92 64, 68, 72,

81 7.11b

7.11c 7.12-16 7.12-15 7.12-14a 7.12

27, 62-64, 68, 69, 74, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87,89

71 64 72, 82, 160n67 69,79 62. 68. 82, 83, 85, 87, 89, 163nl42,

83

11

10-12 10.1-11.1 10.1-6a lO.lff. 10.2 10.6b-ll.l 11-12

62, 64, 67, 68, 83, 164nl54 83-85, 88-90

84 62, 68, 84, 59, 62, 63, 67-69, 71, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 89,

11.1 11.2-12.25 11.2-27a 11.2ff. 11.3 11.27a

70 7.18-22a 7.18-21 7.18 7.19 7.22-24 7.22b-26 7.22b-24 7.25 7.26 7.27-29 7.27 7.27a 7.29

8f. 8 8.1 8.3-8 8.1 5ff. 8.16ff. 8.17

8.18 8.27

61,68

69 64 82 61.82 64,68

82 61 82 95 72 43 95 44,132

132 40, 44, 131, 133, 134

43 41

94 94 95 94 94, 115 93, 96, 99, 94, 114 94, 95, 114 115-17

94

117 12

12.1-25 12.1-15

64,69

68 82 82

16, 32, 153n4 114 116

43,44 95,96,111, 112,116 11.27b-12.24 48,95 11.27 28 96, 109, 111, 11.27b

92 62, 64, 68, 69, 79, 84 60, 61, 67,

15, 33, 95, 95,

109

69, 83-85, 88,

88 7.16

7.8a 7.8b

7.9

9-20

89

69,79 73, 79, 80, 85, 89, 138 64,68 64, 72, 80,

7.8

164nl53 63,83 62, 63, 65, 68, 74, 75, 82-85, 87, 89, 91, 163nn 140nl42 63, 83, 163nl40

12.1-7a 12.1-4 12.1

16, 19, 24, 28, 30-32, 34, 36, 48, 93117, 147 28, 93-117 20, 22, 152n51 96-102, 106, 116, 117, 144

97 96, 100, 167n36

12.3 12.4 12.5-6 12.5

99 97

12.6

96, 97, 99,

97,98 96, 97, 99,

106 12.7-12 12.7 12.7a 12.7b-15 12.7b-14 12.7b-12 12.7b-10 12.7b-8 12.7b

104 96 54, 139 96, 97, 101

106 96, 111 101-106, 115 96, 101-107,

117 102 28, 101, 104

189

Index of Biblical References 2 Samuel (cont.) 12.8 103, 104 12.8a 103 12.9 94, 96, 98, 102, 104, 105 12.9a 103 12.10-11 28 12.10 102-105 12.10b 103 12.11-12 96, 101-107,

117 12.11

101, 103, 104, 139

12.12 12.13-15a 12.13-14

103 106

12.13 12.13a 12.13b 12.14 12.15-23 12.1 5ff. 12.15a 12.15b-24a 12.15b-23 12.15b 12.16 12.17 12.18a 12.19b 12.20 12.21 12.22-23 12.22 12.23 12.24-25 12.24 12.24a 12.24b 12.25 12.26-31 12.26ff. 12.26 13-20 13-19 13.36-37

96-98, 10611,117 106-108 106-108 106-108 106-109

96 108 111,112 111,112, 169n91 108-11, 112 109, 116

109 109 111, 112, 116, 117

117 110 109 110 109 109 28, 48, 96, 111-17, 144

14.1-20 15ff.

15 15.12 15.18 15.24ff. 15.24 16.5ff. 16.21-22

17 17.24-29 17.27-29 17.27 19.1 19.19ft". 19.29ff. 19.31ff. 20.1-2 20.4-22 20.7 20.10 20.23-26 20.23 20.25 21-24 23.1-7 23.3b-4 23.5 23.5a 23.34 24.1-25 24.1-lla 24.11b-15 24.1 5ff. 24.16-25 24.16-17 24.16ff. 24.16 24.18-25 24.24

97 32 52 44 43 41 131 32 104 27 95 95 32 110 32 32 32 27 27 43 32 132

l.la

36

1.4

37,46 36,40 36,48

1.14 1.15-.21 1.15 1.16 1.17

49 40 54 55

42,43

1.18-19 1.18 1.20 1.22-27

49 52 38

132 32 86 87 88 86 44 27 130 130 129 130 130, 175n77

122 125 135 129

113 111-14, 116

1 Kings

111

1-2

25, 26, 49, 51, 94, 138 94,95,116 94, 114 94,95

95 27 110

1 1.1-4 l.lb-4

15, 16, 3157, 59, 76, 153n4 19, 22-24, 26, 28, 29, 138, 143, 146, 147 35, 36, 40, 46, 154n33 34-36

1.5-10 1.5ff.

1.5 1.7-8

1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11-31 1.11-14 1.11 1.12 1.13

1.22-23 1.23 1.24

80 20 20, 40, 42, 43,49 48,49 40, 42, 49

40 40 37, 49, 50

50 38, 39, 49, 51-53, 55

38, 39, 49, 51-53

40, 49, 51,

52 55 54 38, 52, 155n57

1.26 1.27 1.28-31 1.28ff. 1.30

40

1.32-35a 1.32-34 1.32

40 38

1.33-35a 1.34 1.35-37 1.35

39

1.35a 1.35b-37 1.35b 1.36-37

39

38,52 40, 49, 50

52 35, 38, 39, 51, 53, 56, 157nll4 38, 40, 42, 49,50

38,54 35,38 38, 49, 162nll4 39,56 38-39

38

190

The Nathan Narratives

I Kings (cont.) 1.37 38,39 1.38-40 37-40 1.38ff. 38 1.38 40, 42, 43 1.39 54 1.40a 39 35-37 1.41-53 1.41-45 39,40 1.43 46 1.44 40, 42, 43,

46 1.45 1.45a 1.47 1.48 1.49-53

40,54

2

32 37

2.1-12 2.1-9 2.1-4 2.1ff. 2.2b-4 2.3-4

2.4 2.4a 2.5-9

2.5 2.7 2.8 2.10-12 2.10-11 2.11 2.12 2.13-46 2.13-35 2.13-25 2.13ff. 2.13 2.15 2.22f. 2.24

2.25 2.26b-27 2.27b 2.31t>-33 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.36-46

39 38, 39, 46

2.36 2.37b 2.42a 2.44-45 2.44 2.45 2.46b

38 35 35

3 3.4 4.5

34 131

5.17 5.18 5.19 8.15 8.16

46 37, 39, 40

34,38

33 34,35

34 35 82 35 34-36 32,36 32,36

32 34

8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.22-26 8.43

9.5 11.31-39 14.7-11 14.9 14.13-16 16.25 17.1 20.35-42

21

34, 35, 38

32 38 16, 153n4 26, 147 71,83

72 83 92 72, 83, 161n78

83 83 83 83 61 92 92 92 92

2 Kings

35,37 34-37 34, 35, 37

9.3 9.6

37 36 37 47 37,46 35, 38, 61,

92 38 35, 38, 133

9.12 15.5 17.7-23 18.19-27 21.10-15 21.11 21.25 22.15-20 23.30-33 25.27-30

92 165nl5

20 97 29 54 54 54 47, 156n91

92 125 92 165nl5

92 92 47 13

34 34, 35, 38 32, 36, 38

20 21.15ff. 22.8 22.18 28.3 29.10-19 29.29

41 133 133 120 133 133 41 131 72 73 85 43 94 122 27,71

113 27,71

61 19, 138

2 Chronicles

3.1 9.29 11.21 29.25

175nn81-2 19, 147

50 19, 138

165nl5

34,35

34

6.35-38 6.50-53 6.52f. 11.4 12.23-40 12.27-29 16.34 16.39 17.1ff. 17.6 17.7-14 18.17

38 38

/ Chronicles 44 2.16 41 5.29-34 133 6.4-8

34,35

6.8

133

Psalms 2 2.1-3

2.2 2.7

86 86 87 87, 164nl54

2.8-9

86

29 46 48 89

137, 176nll8

89.2-4 89.3 89.4 89.19-37 89.19-20 89.20-38 89.20 89.22-23 89.24 89.26 89.27 89.28 89.29 89.30-32 89.33

137 137 88-90

86 88 86,87

86 86 67 87 86 86 87 86 88 87 88 88

191

Index of Biblical References Psalms (cont.) 89.34 88 87 89.36 110 86 122 137 132 86 132.11 86

Jeremiah 7.25 7.26 11.7 16.12

Isaiah 1.1 5.1-7

Ezekiel 16.3 25.15-16

20 97, 100

9.1-6

67 72 165nl5 72 165nl5 122 43

Zephaniah 2.4-5

43

Matthew 1.6

44

Luke 1.59

122

This page intentionally left blank

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackroyd, P.R. 163nl27, 165n8 AhlstrOm, G.W. 25, 26, 45, 49, 51, 77, 150n20,151nn22,39, 155nn58,75, 156n84,157nnl07,115,117,161n97, 175nn75,78, 176nnl 19,129 Alt, A. 170n5,172n23 Anderson, A.A. 164nnl56,164,166nl9 Ap-Thomas, DJL 170nl, 171n9,173n48 Astour, M. 174n64 Auerbach, E. 155n61 Ball, E. 156nn94, 95, 159n46 Barr,J. 169nl01

Bartlett, J.R. 155n54 Bentzen, A. 151n35 Benzinger, I. 157nll2 Boecker, H.J. 164nl54 Boer, P.A.H. de 170nnl05,106 Bressan, G. 172n29 Bright, J. 22, 150nl8,173n45, 176nl08 Brongers, H.A. 162nl08 Brueggemann, W. 169n83 Brunei, G. 124, 172nn27,35 Budde, K. 150n9, 151n26, 154n47, 169n95 Bussche, H. van den 157nl, 160n63 Calderone, PJ. 159n36, 164nnl58,160 Caquot, A. 164nl50 Carlson, R.A. 153nn5,ll, 159nn,39,50, 165n3, 166nn21,25,168nn58,59,66 Caspari, W. 161n86, 163nl28, 165n4 Clements, R.E. 24, 151nn27,30,33, 161nn89,96, 163nl37, 164nl59, 174nn57,58,65,68,74, 175n79 Coats, G.W. 98, 157nnl30,131, 166nnl 7,18,23,28, 167nn30,38,42 Cody, A. 132, 154nn44,46,48, 155nn,53,55,59,62,63,68, 161n93, 175nn83-85,87,89,91 Cohen, H.H. 170nll3 Cohen, M.M. 161n93 Cook, S.A. 169n92

Cooke, G. 164nl53 Coppens, J. 71, 72,158n2, 160nn59,65, 162nl08 Coxon, P.W. 166n25 Cross, F.M. 41, 67, 68, 89, 131, 133, 134,149n9, 150n3, 154n49, 155nn61,67, 158n3,159nn42,43,50, 160nn62,67,70, 161nn75,87-89, 162nnl03,105,110,163nnl26,131, 135,143, 164nnl26,131,135,143, 165nl67,170n5, 174n62, 175nn88,95, 176nn99,105,110 Curtis, A.L. 177n3 Dietrich, W. 103,105,149nlO, 165nnl2,15, 168nn56,59-61,66 Donner, H. 157nl08,164nl54 Driver, S.R. 161n76, 166n25, 168n69, 175n94 Dus,J. 151n32, 161n94 Eichrodt, W. 22, 150nl9 Emerton, J.A. 129, 174n69 Engnell, I. 29, 152nn54,55,156n92 Flanagan, J.W. 153nl2,165n9 Flight, J.W. 151n26,162nl07 Fohrer, G. 170n2, 176nl21 Fretheim, T.E. 155nn49,55 Frick, F.S. 151n26 Fuss, W. 175n76 Gammie, J.G. 174n64 Garsiel, M. 170nll3 Gelston, A. 163nl28 Gerleman, G. 106,107,110,166n27, 168nn68,71,73,74, 169nn78,85,87, 103, 170nl04

Gese, H. 161n88, 163nl40 Gibson, J.C.L. 173n56 Gliick, J.J. 162nl21, 172n29 Gordon, R.P. 158n3 G6rg, M. 64, 65, 70, 84, 158nn3,24, 159nn26,28, 160n52, 166nl22,

194

The Nathan Narratives

163nnl26, 131,135,143,148 Gottlieb, H. 176nll8 Gray, J. 127,136, 152n52, 153n24, 156nn88,90,157nl26,173nn53,55, 174nn58,74,176nnl 11-13, 177n5 Gressmann, H. 150nl2 Gr0nbaek, J.H. 153n7 Groot,J. de 171nl2 Gross, W. 160n73 Gunkel, H. 98,167n32 Gunn, DJVL 34,149nl5,153nn4,13,19,22, 157nll6,159n46 Gunneweg, A.HJ. 150n3,154n44

Haag, H. 26, 77,138,149nl, 150nn4,7,8, 152nn40,41,53, 155n64, 161n98, 162n99,175n93,176nnll9,120, 127,129,132, Hagan, H. 99,100,165nl6, 167nn40,47 Hall,H.R. 151n35 Haller,J. 175n96, 172n35 Halpern, B. 162nll9 Haran, M. 175n96 Hauer, C.E. 155nn59,62,66, 171nnl3, 14,16,175nn90,97 Hempel,J. 29, 152n51 Herrmann, S. 64-66, 70, 71, 150nl3, 158n23, 160n56, 176nl24 Hertzberg, H.W. 151n31,156n76, 165nn3,6,16, 168nn66,72,76, 169nn79,80,82,86,102 Hoffiier, H.A. 171nl8 Hoftijzer,J. 166n20 Honeyman, A.M. 170nl07 Ishida, T. 27, 28, 53, 65,150nl7, 152nn43,45-47,156nn78,83,98, 157nnllO,lll,113,121,123,158n3, 159nn31,32, 160n57, 161n96, 162nnl02,104,177nn4,6 Johnson, A.R. 128,134,137, 165nl51, 170nl, 173n45,174nn62,64-66,70, 176nnl04,114,115 Jones, G.H. 149nn5-7,14,16,153nn4,14,15, 154nn32,33,36,40,41,43,155nn69, 71,72,156nn82£5-87,89-91,102,104, 162nll6, 165nl68 Judge, H.G. 176nl01 Kallai-Kleinmann, Z. 170n5 Kenyon, K.M. 172n25

Kitchen, K.A. 155n70 Knudtzon, J.A. 170n3 Kraus, H.-J. 23, 137, 151n24, 158nl5, 162nl07,176nll7 Krauss, S. 173nn49,50 Kutsch, E. 63, 65,158nl8,159nn29, 30,32,33,162nl01, 163nl30 Labat, R. 156n92 Langlamet, F. 35,150n8,154nn28,29, 155n73 Leben, H. 167n34 Lewy,J. 173nn51,52 Lindblom, J. 20,150nlO Lipiriski, E. 162nll8 Long, B.O. 36,154n34, 157nnl29,132 Loretz, O. 163nl24 LOwenclau, I. von 26,150nn2,5,8, 152nn42,50,53,U, 155n60, 157nnl22,133,167nn49-51,168n63, 176nnl 19,123,126-28,130 Lutz, H.-M. 177nl35 McCarter, P.K. 29, 67, 78, 94, 95,110, 111, 113-15, 152nn48^7,58,156n77, 158n6,159nn41,48,160n63, 161nn78,79,83, 162nnlOO,123,124, 165nnl,5,7,10-12,14,166nn21,23,27, 167n36,168nn58,59,70,72,76, 169nn78-80,84,88,90,97,99,102,103, 170nnl04,105,l 10-14, 172nn24,29, 31-34, 173n38, 174n73,175nn76, 92,94 McCarthy, DJ. 159n40,165nl67 McKay, C. 174n64 McKenzie, J.L. 88, 89,157n2, 164nn 150,161,163 Madsen, A.A. 177n3 Mayes, A.D.H. 76, 161nn90-92,95 Mazar, B. 122, 170nl, 171nnl4,16,17, 172nn24,25,173nn41,44,4648,174n74, 176nl06 Mettinger, T.N.D. 34, 35, 66, 69-73, 79-81, 83, 84, 153n25,154nn35,40, 158nn35,40,158nn3,4,14, 159nn51, 61,67,69,73, 162nnlll,115,120, 163nnl26,131,133,135,138,142, 144,146,147, 164nnl53,157,160, 169n96 Miller, J.M. 120, 121, 170n4, 171nn 6,7,10,11 Molin,G. 157nl08

Index of Authors Montgomery, J.A. 157nllO Morenz, S. 163nl25 Mowinckel, S. 27, 33, 63,151n35, 152n44,153nlO, 158n21, 160n54, 164nl51, 174n72 Mulder, MJ. 156n85,168n72 Nelson, R.D. 149n9 Nicholson, E.W. 149n7 Noth, M. 34, 62-64, 70, 72, 78, 149n8, 153n24,154n30,156nn79,90, 157nll9,158nnlO,12,22, 160n71, 161nn84,90,162nl03,170n5,173n47, 176nl08 NObel, H.-U. 153n7 Nyberg, H.S. 174n72 Ota,M. 160nn5,57,58 Patton,J.H. 176nll6 Pedersen, J. 109, 169n81 Phillips, A. 166nnl7,24,27 Porter, J.R. 149n3 Poulssen, N. 63,158nl9,159n48,160n67, 161n85,162nl09,163nl40,164nl65, 165nl69 Rad, G. von 23, 34,149n3,151n23, 153nn9,17,159n27,160n62,162nl06, 165nnl,13 Rehm, M. 154n31, 156n96 Reid, P.V. 161nn77,80 Richter, W. 159n34,162nll7 Robert, P. de 161n81 Roberts, JJ.M. 140,177nnl33-36 Rosen, H.B. 172nl9, 175n80 Rosenberg, R.A. 173n6 Rost, L. 33, 61-64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 81, 83, 94, 95,106,153nn4,6,16,24, 158n8, 159n25,162nl24,163nn 129,139,165n2 167n51,168nn52, 54,65 Roth, W. 167n45 Rowley, H.H. 42, 132, 134,150n3, 151nn21,25,26,38,155nn50,51,56, 59,65,66, 174nn62,67, 175nn83-85, 87,92,93,98,176nl03 Rupprecht, K. 160n53,161n74,162nl09, 169n89, 175nn76,81 Sarna, N.M. 164nl50

195

ScharbertjJ. 158n2 Schill, S. 166n21 Schmid, H. 175nn76,77 Schmidt, H. 175n77 Schreiner, J. 151nn30,32,34,163nl37, 170nl

Schulte, H. 152n51,153nll Schunck, K.-D. 170n4 Schwally, F. 31,150nn6,ll, 152nnl,2, 165nl2, 176nl22 Seebass, H. 100, 166n26, 167nn29,33, 37,43,44,46, 168nn54,55,57,62,75 Segal, M.H. 167n32 SeUin, E. 154n47 Seybold, K. 159nn36,48, 160n72, 164nn 152,155,158, 165nl6,167nn35,51, 168nn52,53,64 Simon, M. 151n32, 160n54,161n82, 165nl66 Simon, U. 100,166nnl6,19,24,29, 167nn34,39,48 Simons, J. 123,125,171n8,172nn22, 25,26, 173nn39-42, 175n81 Smend, R. 149nlO Smith, G.A. 170n2,173n54 Smith, H.P. 169n77,175n94 Smith, S. 174n74 Soden, W. von 177n6 Soggin,J.A. 156nn83,93 Speiser, E.A. 171nl9 Stamm, J.J. 169nnlOO,103,170nl04 Stoebe, H.J. 152n3,173n37 Stolz, F. 177nl34 TidweU, N.L. 171nnl4,15 Tsevat, M. 158n5, 159n43,164nl50 Vaux, R. de 151nn25,28, 155n67, 156nn97,99, 161nn90,96 Veijola, T. 35, 38, 39, 61-63, 66, 68, 69, 71-73, 80, 81, 84,149nlO, 153nl4, 154nn27,38,39,42,156nl03,158nn 3,7,9,11,13,16,17,20,159nn29,30, 33-35,44,50, 160nn60,68,162nn 113,114, 163nnl26,132,134-36,141, 143,145,147, 164nl55,165nl2, 169nn91-95,98£9,103,170nnl04,109 Vida, G. Delia 174n71 Wanke, G. 177nl35 Waterman, L. 153n6

196

The Nathan Narratives

Watson, W.G.E. 172n30,173n43 Weinfeld, M. 13,149nnl,2, 159nn34,37, 160nn62,70, 164nl60 Weir, C.J. Mullo 172n20 Weiser, A. 153n7, 162nl05 WeUhausen, J. 40,133, 150n3,154n45, 166n25,167n32, 168n54, 175n93 Westermann, C. 150nnl4-16, 152n49, 174nn63,64,70, 176nl25 Whitelam, K.W. 156nnlOO,101 Whybray, R.N. 34,149nl3,153nn8,18, 20,21,23, 159n24, 177nl Williamson, H.G.M. 155nn50,52, 175nn82,98,176nlOO, 177n2

Wright, G.E. 170n5 Wilrthwein, E. 35, 154nn26,42,155nn 81,83,103,157nnl 16,126, 169n92, 170nl09 Wyatt, N. 155nn74,75, 172nnl9,21, 177nl37 Yadin, Y. Yaron, R. Yee, G.A. Yeivin, S.

172nn28,35 168n72 167n41 176nl09

Zimmerli, W. 174n63

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT Supplement Series 1 I, HE, WE AND THEY: A LITERARY APPROACH TO ISAIAH 53 D.J.A. Clines 4 THANKSGIVING FOR A LIBERATED PROPHET: AN INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH CHAPTER 53 R.N. Whybray 5 REDATING THE EXODUS AND CONQUEST J.J. Bimson 6 THE STORY OF KING DAVID: GENRE AND INTERPRETATION D.M. Gunn 7 THE SENSE OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE I: STRUCTURAL ANALYSES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE (2nd edition) D. Jobling 10 THE THEME OF THE PENTATEUCH D.J.A. Clines 12 THE JUST KING: MONARCHICAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN ANCIENT ISRAEL K.W. Whitelam 13 ISAIAH AND THE DELIVERANCE OF JERUSALEM: A STUDY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT R.E. Clements 14 THE FATE OF KING SAUL: AN INTERPRETATION OF A BIBLICAL STORY D.M. Gunn 15 THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY M. Noth 16 PROPHECY AND ETHICS: ISAIAH AND THE ETHICAL TRADITIONS OF ISRAEL E.W. Davies 17 THE ROLES OF ISRAEL'S PROPHETS D.L. Petersen 18 THE DOUBLE REDACTION OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY R.D.Nelson 19 ART AND MEANING: RHETORIC IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE Edited by DJ.A. Clines, D.M. Gunn, & AJ. Hauser 20 THE PSALMS OF THE SONS OF KORAH M.D. Goulder 21 COLOUR TERMS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT A. Brenner 22 AT THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD: STORY AND THEOLOGY IN EXODUS 32-34 R.W.L. Moberly 23 THE GLORY OF ISRAEL: THE THEOLOGY AND PROVENIENCE OF THE ISAIAH TARGUM B.D. Chilton 24 MIDIAN, MOAB AND EDOM: THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGE JORDAN AND NORTH-WEST ARABIA Edited by J.F.A. Sawyer & DJ.A Clines 25 THE DAMASCUS COVENANT: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE 'DAMASCUS DOCUMENT P.R. Davies

26 CLASSICAL HEBREW POETRY: A GUIDE TO ITS TECHNIQUES W.G.E. Watson 27 PSALMODY AND PROPHECY W.H. Bellinger 28 HOSEA: AN ISRAELITE PROPHET IN JUDEAN PERSPECTIVE G.I. Emmerson 29 EXEGESIS AT QUMRAN: 4QFLORILEGIUM IN ITS JEWISH CONTEXT G.J. Brooke 30 THE ESTHER SCROLL: THE STORY OF THE STORY D.J.A. Clines 31 IN THE SHELTER OF ELYON: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF G.W. AHLSTROM Edited by W.B. Barrick & J.R. Spencer 32 THE PROPHETIC PERSONA: JEREMIAH AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SELF T. Polk 33 LAW AND THEOLOGY IN DEUTERONOMY J.G. McConville 34 THE TEMPLE SCROLL: AN INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY J. Maier 35 SAGA, LEGEND, TALE, NOVELLA, FABLE: NARRATIVE FORMS IN OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE Edited by G.W. Coats 36 THE SONG OF FOURTEEN SONGS M.D. Goulder 37 UNDERSTANDING THE WORD: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF BERNHARD W. ANDERSON Edited by J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad & B.C. Ollenburger 38 SLEEP, DIVINE AND HUMAN, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT T.H. McAlpine 39 THE SENSE OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE U: STRUCTURAL ANALYSES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE D. Jobling 40 DIRECTIONS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW POETRY Edited by E.R. Follis 41 ZION, THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING: A THEOLOGICAL SYMBOL OF THE JERUSALEM CULT B.C. Ollenburger 42 A WORD IN SEASON: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF WILLIAM McKANE Edited by J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies 43 THE CULT OF MOLEK: A REASSESSMENT G.C. Heider 44 THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE PSALMS S.J.L. Croft 45 THE CONFESSIONS OF JEREMIAH IN CONTEXT: SCENES OF PROPHETIC DRAMA A.R. Diamond 46 THE BOOK OF THE JUDGES: AN INTEGRATED READING E.G. Webb 47 THE GREEK TEXT OF JEREMIAH: A REVISED HYPOTHESIS S. Soderlund

48 TEXT AND CONTEXT: OLD TESTAMENT AND SEMITIC STUDIES FOR F.C. FENSHAM Edited by W. Claassen 49 THEOPHORIC PERSONAL NAMES IN ANCIENT HEBREW J.D. Fowler 50 THE CHRONICLER'S HISTORY M. Noth 51 DIVINE INITIATIVE AND HUMAN RESPONSE IN EZEKIEL P.Joyce 52 THE CONFLICT OF FAITH AND EXPERIENCE IN THE PSALMS: A FORM-CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDY C.C. Broyles 53 THE MAKING OF THE PENTATEUCH: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY R.N. Whybray 54 FROM REPENTANCE TO REDEMPTION: JEREMIAH'S THOUGHT IN TRANSITION J. Unterman 55 THE ORIGIN TRADITION OF ANCIENT ISRAEL: THE LITERARY FORMATION OF GENESIS AND EXODUS 1-23 T.L. Thompson 56 THE PURIFICATION OFFERING IN THE PRIESTLY LITERATURE: ITS MEANING AND FUNCTION N. Kiuchi 57 MOSES: HEROIC MAN, MAN OF GOD G.W. Coats 58 THE LISTENING HEART: ESSAYS IN WISDOM AND THE PSALMS IN HONOR OF ROLAND E. MURPHY, O. CARM. Edited by K.G. Hoglund 59 CREATIVE BIBLICAL EXEGESIS: CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH HERMENEUTICS THROUGH THE CENTURIES B. Uffenheimer & H.G. Reventlow 60 HER PRICE IS BEYOND RUBIES: THE JEWISH WOMAN IN GRAECO-ROMAN PALESTINE L.J. Archer 61 FROM CHAOS TO RESTORATION: AN INTEGRATIVE READING OF ISAIAH 24-27 D.G. Johnson 62 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND FOLKLORE STUDY P.G. Kirkpatrick 63 SHILOH: A BIBLICAL CITY IN TRADITION AND HISTORY D.G. Schley 64 TO SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE: ISAIAH 6.9-10 IN EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION C.A. Evans 65 THERE IS HOPE FOR A TREE: THE TREE AS METAPHOR IN ISAIAH K. Nielsen 66 SECRETS OF THE TIMES: MYTH AND HISTORY IN BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY J. Hughes 67 ASCRIBE TO THE LORD: BIBLICAL AND OTHER ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF PETER C. CRAIGIE Edited by L. Eslinger & G. Taylor 68 THE TRIUMPH OF IRONY IN THE BOOK OF JUDGES L.R. Klein 69 ZEPHANIAH, A PROPHETIC DRAMA PR Home

70 NARRATIVE ART IN THE BIBLE S. Bar-Efrat 71 QOHELET AND HIS CONTRADICTIONS M.V. Fox 72 CIRCLE OF SOVEREIGNTY: A STORY OF STORIES IN DANIEL 1-6 D.N. Fewell 73 DAVID'S SOCIAL DRAMA: A HOLOGRAM OF THE EARLY IRON AGE J.W. Flanagan 74 THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF BIBLICAL AND CANAANITE POETRY W. v.d. Meer & J.C. de Moor 75 DAVID IN LOVE AND WAR: THE PURSUIT OF POWER IN 2 SAMUEL 10-12 R.C. Bailey 76 GOD IS KING: UNDERSTANDING AN ISRAELITE METAPHOR M. Brettler 77 EDOM AND THE EDOMITES J.R. Bartlett 78 SWALLOWING THE SCROLL: TEXTUALITY AND THE DYNAMICS OF DISCOURSE IN EZEKIEL'S PROPHECY E.F. Davis 79 GIBEAH: THE SEARCH FOR A BIBLICAL CITY P.M. Arnold 80 THE NATHAN NARRATIVES G.H. Jones 81 ANTI-COVENANT: COUNTER-READING WOMEN'S LIVES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE M. Bal 82 RHETORIC AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION D. Patrick & A. Scult 83 THE EARTH AND THE WATERS IN GENESIS 1 AND 2 D.T. Tsumura 84 INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GOD L. Eslinger 85 FROM CARMEL TO HOREB: ELIJAH IN CRISIS A.J. Hauser & R. Gregory 86 THE SYNTAX OF THE VERB IN CLASSICAL HEBREW PROSE A. Niccacci 87 THE BIBLE IN THREE DIMENSIONS D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl & S.E. Porter 88 THE PERSUASIVE APPEAL OF THE CHRONICLER: A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS R.K. Duke 89 THE PROBLEM OF THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION IN THE PENTATEUCH R. Rendtorff 90 BIBLICAL HEBREW IN TRANSITION: THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL M.F. Rooker 91 THE IDEOLOGY OF RITUAL: SPACE, TIME, AND THE STATUS IN THE PRIESTLY THEOLOGY F.H. Gorman