Download - The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENTSUPPLEMENT SERIES

80

EditorsDavid J A ClinesPhilip R Davies

JSOT PressSheffield

This page intentionally left blank

The NathanNarratives

Gwilym H. Jones

Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement Series 80

Copyright © 1990 Sheffield Academic Press

Published by JSOT PressJSOT Press is an imprint ofSheffield Academic Press LtdThe University of Sheffield

343 Fulwood RoadSheffield S10 3BP

England

Printed in Great Britainby Billing & Sons Ltd

Worcester

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Jones, Gwilym H. (Gwilym Henry), 1930-The NaJian narratives.1. Bible. O.T. Historical criticismI. Title II. Series221.67

ISSN 0309-0787ISBN 1-85075-225-7

CONTENTS

Preface 7Abbreviations 9

Chapter 1INTRODUCTION 13

Chapter 2NATHAN THE PROPHET 19

Chapter 3SUCCESSION TO DAVID'S THRONE (1 KINGS 1) 31

Chapter 4ORACLES CONCERNING THE TEMPLEAND THE DYNASTY (2 SAM. 7.1-17) 59

Chapter 5CONDEMNATION OF DAVID'SAFFAIR WITH BATHSHEBA (2 SAM. 12.1-25) 93

Chapter 6DAVID AND JEBUSITE JERUSALEM 119

Chapter 7CONCLUSION 143

Notes 149Bibliography 179Index of Biblical References 187Index of Authors 193

PREFACE

My interest in the Nathan traditions was aroused when I wasworking through 1 Kings 1-2 for a commentary on 1 & 2 Kings in theNew Century Bible series. Support from the University College ofNorth Wales and from the British Academy enabled me to pursue myinterest and to bring this study to conclusion. The Senate of theUniversity at Bangor granted me a Study Leave to work on theproject, and with the help of a Research Award in Humanities fromthe 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 anearlier draft of this book. I am grateful to him for his advice; hismany suggestions saved me from infelicities of expression. Onceagain I must acknowledge my debt to Mrs Beti Llewellyn, whovaliantly tackled my untidily handwritten manuscript and with skilland great patience prepared successive drafts of this work for thepress.

Finally, I thank the editors for accepting this book for publicationin the Supplement Series of the Journal for the Study of the OldTestament and for their helpful comments and assistance.

Gwilym H. JonesUniversity College of North Wales

BangorApril 1988

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research,New Haven

AB Anchor Bible, New YorkAJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures,

ChicagoAnBib Analecta Biblica, RomeARW ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute in Jerusalem,

LeidenATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch, GottingenAThD Acta Theologica Danica, CopenhagenBBB Bonner Biblische Beitrage, BonnBHH Biblisch-historisches Handworterbuch, 3 volumes, Gottingen,

1962-66BBS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1976BHTh Beitrage zur Historischen Theologie, TubingenBJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, ManchesterBK Biblischer Kommentar, Neukirchen-VluynBWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alien und Neuen

Testament, StuttgartBZ Biblische Zeitschrift, PaderbornBZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissen-

schaft, BerlinCBC Cambridge Bible Commentary, CambridgeCBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly, WashingtonCBOTS Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, LundChQR Church Quarterly Review, LondonEThL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, LouvainFRLANT Forschung zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und

Neuen Testaments, GottingenHUCA Hebrew Union College Annual, CincinnatiICC The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh

Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft, Berlin

10 The Nathan Narratives

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society, New HavenJBL Journal of Biblical Literature, PhiladelphiaJBR Journal of Bible and Religion, BostonJNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies, ChicagoJPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, JerusalemJQR Jewish Quarterly Review, PhiladelphiaJSOTS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement

Series, SheffieldJThS Journal of Theological Studies, OxfordKAT Kommentar zum Alien Testament, GiiterslohKHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alien Tesiament, TubingenLXX The Greek Septuagint VersionMS(S) manuscript(s)MT The Massoretic Text of the Old TestamentNEB New English BibleNCB New Century Bible Commentary, London, MichiganNIV New International VersionNRTh Nouvelle Revue Theologique, LouvainOr Ant Oriens Antiquus, RomeOSt Oudtestamentische Studien, LeidenOTL Old Testament Library, LondonPEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, LondonRB Revue Biblique, ParisRHPhR Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophic Religieuses, ParisRHR Revue de I'Histoire des Religions, ParisRSV Revised Standard VersionSANT Studien zum Alien und Neuen Testameni, MunichSAT Die Schriften des Allen Tesiamenls, GfillingenSBM Stuttgarier Biblische Monographien, SlullgartSBTh Studies in Biblical Theology, LondonSEA Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok, LundStTh Studia Theologica, Scandinavian Journal of Theology,

OsloThB Theologische Bucherei, MunichThWNT Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, StuttgartThS Theologische Studien, ZurichThSl Theological Sludies, BaltimoreThZ Theologische Zeitschrift, BaselVT Vetus Testamentum, LeidenVTS Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Leiden

Abbreviations 11

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alien und NeuenTestament, Neukirchen

ZAS Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde,BerUn

TAW ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft,

WiesbadenZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins, WiesbadenZThK Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, Tubingen

Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Berlin

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

The sections of the Old Testament with which this study isconcerned, the traditions about Nathan the Prophet, appear in theso-called 'Deuteronomistic History', that complex of historicaltraditions extending from the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 tothe favourable treatment of Jehoiachin by the Babylonian king in 561BC (2 Kgs 25.27-30). A period of about twelve hundred years isdivided into four parts, and the three narratives under considerationin this study belong to the last two parts covering the period fromSamuel to the last days of David (the books of Samuel) and the yearsfrom the rise of Solomon to the last days of Jehoiachin in theBabylonian Exile (the books of Kings).

It is the dominant influence of Deuteronomy on the work as awhole that has given it the designation 'deuteronomistic' (orsometimes 'deuteronomic'). Links of language and thought betweenthe Deuteronomistic History and the book of Deuteronomy areeasily established. However, in noting the many similarities oflanguage and phraseology, account has to be taken of M. Weinfeld'swarning that not all the phrases and expressions found inDeuteronomy are significant; only those which express the essence ofdeuteronomic thought and theology deserve serious consideration.1

After presenting a detailed analysis of deuteronomic linkages, withcomparisons of both phraseology and theological tenets, Weinfeldfinds ample confirmation for the usage of the term 'deuteronomic' inconnection with the historical narrative in Joshua-Kings.2 Althoughthere is evidence of some development in the use of deuteronomicterminology, with sufficient grounds perhaps for reconstructing thehistorical development of the deuteronomic school between thecomposition of Deuteronomy in the 7th century BC and thedeuteronomic prose sermons of Jeremiah in the second half of the 6th


century BC, the Deuteronomistic History presents the course ofIsrael's history according to a single line of interpretation.3 This hasled to the claim that the concept of a single work cannot beprecluded.4

Several major issues arising in connection with the DeuteronomisticHistory need not be listed and discussed in detail in this work.5 It willsuffice to note briefly the main trends of current thinking about a fewof the most basic of these issues. After a recent shift of scholarlyopinion there seems to be support for designating Palestine, inpreference to Babylon, as the place from which the DeuteronomisticHistory originated. Among the reasons given in support are: theaccessibility of sources in Palestine, the importance of the Bethel-Mizpah traditions in the history, the attention given to Canaaniterather than Babylonian cults, and the work's focus on the destructionof Judah and not on the exile in Babylon. Although some scholarsfind the evidence inconclusive and fail to come to a decision on thematter, increasing support is found for a Palestinian origin, and morespecifically for the Bethel-Mizpah area.6

Another shift of emphasis can be seen in recent discussions of theidentity of the deuteronomistic group responsible for the history.This group has in turn been described as country Levites or a sectionof the Jerusalem priesthood, and in support reference is made to thework's emphasis on the centralisation of the cult and purity inworship. Others have found in the prominence given to thefulfilment of prophecy theme and to prophetic personalities evidencethat the deuteronomists were prophets. Another possibility is toidentify the authors as the wise men of Jerusalem, the official scribes,who had access to material relating to the monarchy which was onrecord in court, public and temple archives. Various objections tothese three possible identifications have recently led to the opinionthat the group responsible for the Deuteronomistic History was notconstituted exclusively of members from any one of these threegroups, but that it originated from a comprehensive group to whichmembers from the three traditions belonged.7

Another question which has received a variety of answers is that ofthe compilation of the Deuteronomistic History. The simplestanswer of all is that a single historian was responsible for the entirehistory;8 it was careful planning on the part of this one author thatgave the work its unified and self-contained character. Despite themany features that give the history an unmistakable impression ofunity, 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 anumber of sources, to which he showed respect by allowing them tospeak for themselves. Nevertheless, it has been claimed thatlinguistic characteristics, together with the unity of concept, methodand theology, furnish an impressive accumulation of evidence tosupport the case for a single author. A criticism that has been levelledagainst this concept, and which is taken to give support to a differentapproach, is that it produces too simple a view of the DeuteronomisticHistory. Consequently there has been support over the years for thesuggestion that the stages behind the present work are to be found intwo redactions of the history, one soon after the Josianic reform in621 BC and the other after 587 BC, or possibly after 561 BC. A numberof different forms of the double redaction theory have been proposed,but they are agreed in their distinction between a pre-exiHc and anexilic redaction.9 Even the suggestion of a double redaction presentedtoo simplistic a view of the history according to those who find in it amore prolonged and complex development. Again several attemptshave been made to trace various stages in the gradual growth of thework. Despite the difficulties encountered by some of the earlierexponents of this approach, some support has been found for themore recent version which finds three successive layers of deutero-nomistic tradition:10 the basic historical work (DtrH), a redactionintroducing prophetical texts (DtrP) and a law-oriented final version(DtrN).

Although agreement on the compilation of the DeuteronomisticHistory has for a long time eluded biblical scholars, it is agreed thatthe historians depended heavily on sources and selected from themthe material that they considered relevant to their purpose. Inaddition to named sources, such as 'the Chronicles of the kings',which were records of reigns, it is obvious that un-named annals andlists, as well as narratives and legends, had been used. Material wastaken from multifarious sources, many of them independent unitsrather than continuous strands. Of particular significance for thisstudy is the so-called 'Succession Narrative' found in 2 Samuel 9-20and 1 Kings 1-2; this is not a collection of short stories, but acontinuous narrative that was constructed as a unit.11 The title'Succession Narrative' has been given to this complex because itsvarious parts contribute to one unifying theme, which was Solomon'slegitimate succession to his father's throne. Because the othercandidates for the throne, Absalom, Amnon and Adonijah, wereeliminated one by one, the only legitimate heir was Solomon. The


purpose of the whole complex is clearly indicated by its climax in 1Kgs 2.46b, 'So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon'.Obviously, therefore, the attempts to separate 1 Kings 1-2 from themain body of the complex in 2 Samuel 9-20 are refuted. The claimthat the first two chapters of 1 Kings belong to what follows ratherthan to what precedes, and the suggestion that they have superimposedthe theme of succession on the Court History of David in 2 Samuel9-20, are not as convincing as the interpretation that finds the themeof succession running through the whole complex to its climax in 1Kgs 2.46. But the suggestion to read 2 Samuel 7 as part of theSuccession Narrative is more acceptable, for the promise of aneverlasting dynasty to David by Nathan forms an appropriateintroduction to the narrative complex in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings1-2. The concern of the complex with the succession to David'sthrone is a natural development from the promise of a dynasty in 2Samuel 7. For the purpose of this study it is also to be noted that thethree Nathan episodes fall within the Succession Narrative, two ofthem significantly providing the introductory and concludingsections of the narrative.

One of the most significant developments in recent study of theSuccession Narrative is the recognition that it was the subject ofsome editing by the deuteronomists before it was incorporated in theDeuteronomistic History. For some time scholars had becomeattached to the view that it was a completely independent and unifiedcorpus that was accepted and inserted in the deuteronomistic workwithout change; redaction was considered to have been minimal.There was, according to some,12 a deuteronomistic retouching of thenarrative as far as 2 Samuel 12, but at that point it was completelyabandoned. Others, who found some deuteronomistic interference inthe latter chapters of the narrative, took the cautious view that it wasrestricted to very few and easily recognised accretions.13 Among thereasons given for such a cautious attitude are: (a) that it is by nowimpossible to reconstruct the original narrative and to see the realamount of reworking that has been incorporated; (b) after noting thevery few instances of obvious interpolation, the narrative isremarkably uniform in style in its treatment of characters and in itspoint of view; (c) that it is a procedural misapprehension to assumethat all narratives must be logically consistent and then to resort tothe hypothesis of redactional activity in order to maintain this view.Recent studies acknowledge that the latter parts of the narrative weremore heavily worked over by the deuteronomists than was originally

1. Introduction 17

anticipated, and attempts have been made to find traces of successivestages of editing. The various proposals that have been made suggesta very complicated redactional process.

Another subject for investigation is the history of the SuccessionNarrative before it was taken over by the deuteronomists andincorporated in the Deuteronomistic History. As already noted, ithas been suggested that the present emphasis of the narrative onSolomon as the legitimate successor to the throne of David (which isits Tendenz) did not belong to it in its earlier and original form, buthas been imposed upon it during its long and complex process ofgrowth. One suggestion14 is that the narrative was originally anti-Solomonic, and possibly anti-Davidic; when material displaying afavourable attitude towards Solomon was included in the narrativeits emphasis changed, and it became a pro-Solomonic work. Anothersuggestion is that the narrative was originally neutral and uncom-mitted in its stance;15 it sought to give an objective report of events,and could be interpreted as anti-Solomonic by those who wished toincriminate him or as pro-Solomonic by those who wished to glorifyhim. It was the latter interpretation that was chosen for the narrativein its present context, and steps were taken to modify it in order toemphasise distinctly its Tendenz. Such observations about theSuccession Narrative inevitably lead to a more detailed discussion ofits growth and development in its pre-deuteronomistic stages.Although it may be difficult to reconstruct the process whereby itbecame a continuous and unified narrative, it has to be asked if thereis evidence of shorter units of tradition that have now beenincorporated in the whole, and if so, whether it is possible to findwhat changes of emphases those units received when they becamepart of the Succession Narrative.

The passages selected for attention in this study are those whichgive prominence to Nathan the prophet. The aim is to reconstructthe original form of these traditions and to trace the modificationsthat were made to them before they reached the SuccessionNarrative and were finally accepted into the DeuteronomisticHistory. Justification for this approach, if such is needed, can befound in those definitions of the character of the SuccessionNarrative which deny for it the classification of historical writing andrefer to its interest in the personalia involved rather than in thepolitical significance of the events in which they took part.16 Nathanis an obvious instance of this interest in personalia. Moreover, he hasbeen given prominence both at the beginning and at the end of the


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

Chapter 2

NATHAN THE PROPHET

Although this study is concerned with the traditions about Nathanand will concentrate mainly on their growth and on their significancefor our understanding of the period in which the Israelite dynasticmonarchy was founded, some attention must be given to Nathanhimself. After a brief survey of the content of the Nathan traditionsand an attempt to analyse the portrayal of Nathan presented in thekey biblical passages, an account will be given of the main lines alongwhich the prophet's work and contribution have been interpreted.Among the issues that have been under discussion in recent study ofNathan are the definition of his office and function, and the complexquestion of his political, social and religious affiliations among thevarious groups in Jerusalem during the Davidic monarchy. Althoughit may now be impossible to provide an interpretation of theenigmatic Nathan that will prove entirely satisfactory, a brief reviewof Nathan studies will clarify the issues to which this study, inattempting to understand the growth of the tradition, will have toaddress itself.

Nathan, who is mentioned only in connection with three incidentsin which he played a major role (2 Sam. 7; 12; 1 Kgs 1), and threeother times in the books of Chronicles (1 Chron. 29.29; 2 Chron.9.29; 29.25), is nowhere given a patronymic, but is simply describedas 'the Prophet' (hannabir).1 No hint is given of his place of origin norof his family background. Some significance has been attached to theomission of these details and it has been interpreted as an indicationthat there is a problem about the person of this prophet.2 Thepeculiarity of the omission becomes more apparent on observingfirstly, that Nathan is mentioned in the same context as such personsas Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada and Joab, the son of Zeruiah (1 Kgs


1.7-8), where the patronymic is in each case carefully recorded, andsecondly, that in the case of other well-known prophets, such asElijah (1 Kgs 17.1) and Isaiah (Isa. 1.1), details are provided of eitherthe prophet's father or his place of origin. Whether it is correct toattribute this omission to the fact that Nathan, and likewise Zadokthe priest, who is also without a genealogy,3 belonged to the pre-Israelite, Jebusite cult of Jerusalem remains to be examined.4 For thepresent, it can be claimed that the absence of a genealogy drawsattention to one of the difficulties that arise in attempting to defineNathan'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 straightforwarddescription of function, the appropriateness of the term to describeall Nathan's activities has been questioned, and there are a numberof different views about the particular function that he exercised as aprophet. Nathan was consulted by King David (2 Sam. 7.1-3), andeven 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 collaborateswith other leading and prominent court officials (1 Kgs 1.8). Hisclose association with Zadok, coupled with the absence of agenealogy for both, has been taken as a suggestion that they wereleading personalities at the court of the city-king of Jerusalem in pre-Israelite times and were taken over with the Jerusalem court by KingDavid.5 The position of Nathan beside Zadok the priest has also beentaken as a reason to exclude him from the ecstatic groups of prophetsthat appear elsewhere in the books of Samuel; his function wasdifferent from that of such schools or guilds of prophets.6 Anotherprophet who was in many ways similar to Nathan was Gad, who alsoadvised David, especially during the king's early period. Admittedlya different background has been proposed for the two, mainly basedon the fact that Gad was a 'seer' and Nathan a 'prophet',7 butproximity to the king and his consultation with them are commonelements. Both have therefore been described as 'court-prophets'8

and their function more closely defined as that of advising theking.9

The exact position of such prophets and the real scope of theirwork have been variously described. Lindblom uses the phrase 'apublic functionary at the royal court' of Gad and Nathan, and findsthat playing a part in cultic matters and giving the king moralguidance fell within the scope of their office.10 Further attempts havebeen 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, morespecifically those connected with the succession to David's thronethat are found in 1 Kings 1, hardly call for the word 'prophet' todescribe the person involved; it has even been suggested that theapposition 'the prophet' was in this instance a misguided addition.Nathan is portrayed as a person involved in a political intrigue, andthere is no hint of any divine guidance being given to him through adivine word, which is so essential for a person deserving the title ofprophet.11 Consequently Nathan has been described as a typicalpolitical schemer who depended entirely on human means to achievehis purpose.12 His activity on this occasion provides some basis forthe description of him 'more as a privy councillor than as a prophet'and for the definition of him as 'a minister with special responsibilitiesin the immediate entourage of the king' or simply as 'counsellor'.13

But Nathan's other concerns, particularly with cultic matters andmoral issues, and the emphasis on the proclamation of a divine oraclewhen he interfered with the king's affairs on other occasions, make itimpossible for his status to be defined simply and exclusively inpolitical or civil terms. Nevertheless, it is clear that he was attachedto the court and enjoyed power as one of the court's officials. Thetwo aspects of his work can be contained in the definition of him as a'court-prophet', and the parallel with other court prophets, particularlythose of Mari,14 is as instructive in the case of Nathan as it is withGad. Apart from the similarity between the function of the Mari andOld Testament prophets, in that they were messengers announcingwhat had been commanded to them by their gods, and the fact thatparallels can be observed in their method of delivery and in theirforms of speech,15 the connection between the Mari prophets and thecourt gives a clearer indication of Nathan's status and function. InMari too the prophets addressed the king, spoke words that were notalways favourable to the king but criticised his behaviour, and weretaken seriously by the king and his court. The court-prophets of Mariwere dependent on the king, and had the task of confirming andpreserving the monarchy; such a task, however, sometimes demandedan intervention in the king's affairs to censure him. This correspondsexactly to the status of Nathan, who, on the one hand was a court-prophet in the king's service and was concerned with such matters assuccession to the throne, and on the other hand opposed the king andbrought serious accusations against him.16 Further parallels withprophets other than those of Mari have been instanced, and it can beclaimed that Nathan, the court-prophet, who showed concern for the


dynasty and was consulted by the king, belonged to a class ofprophets that was widely known and recognised in the ancient NearEast.17

A more complex issue is the correct placing of Nathan within thesocial and religious trends or parties in the period of the earlymonarchy in Israel. Some support has been found for explainingNathan's contribution as that of a true representative of anindigenous Israelite tradition. In common with other early prophetshis role has been envisaged as championing the cause of trueYahwism. Bright, for example, defines the prophets as 'representativesof the charismatic tradition of the tribal league' whose right it was 'tocriticize 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 Davidin 2 Sam. 12.1-15 can be understood. Similarly Eichrodt takesNathan to be an exponent of nabism and finds that, like others of itsexponents, he had to intervene in the course of events, 'championingthe righteous will of their God'.19 It has been found possible tointerpret Nathan's objection to the building of a temple by David (2Sam. 7) as another aspect of Yahwism. David was apparently intentupon building a temple in the Jebusite area of the city, and the sitechosen is presumed to have been previously a Jebusite cultic place.Moreover, Zadok the priest, it has been claimed, had served this pre-Israelite cult of Jerusalem.20 Such a development was not acceptedwithout some disquiet and dissent, and obviously a syncretisticmerger between Israelite tradition and Jebusite practice could not beintroduced without tension in the community and a division ofallegiance. Nathan thus opposed the plan to build a temple on theJebusite 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 aprophet of Yahweh and a genuine Israelite.21 Although this interpre-tation seeks to place Nathan firmly within the tradition of Israeliteprophecy, and provides a plausible explanation of his opposition toDavid's proposed temple, it fails to recognise that in 1 Kings 1Nathan and Zadok belong to the same camp and that anothermember of this group, Bathsheba, was also possibly a non-Israelite.22

No attempt is made to reconcile Nathan's words against building atemple, and by implication his opposition to the syncretisticmovement represented by Zadok, with his later co-operation withZadok in what appears to have been a non-Israelite camp.

Whilst agreeing that Nathan was the representative of trueIsraelite tradition, other attempts have been made to view his stance


from a different angle within the spectrum of that indigenoustradition. Instead of explaining his objection to the temple as arefusal of true Yahwism to compromise itself on taking over aJebusite city with its traditions and practices, the clash betweenNathan and David has been attributed to an inner Israelite tensionbetween an ancient tent tradition and the concept of a temple tofunction as Yahweh's permanent abode. G. von Rad, for instance,after establishing that 'the notions of "meeting" and of "beingenthroned" are mutually exclusive', claims that Nathan denieddivine approval for David's plan to build a temple because he stoodfor 'the tradition of the tent against a parallel tradition of the ark'.23

This interpretation, however, does not give a satisfactory explanationof 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 theideas associated with the tent and the ark. The account in 2 Samuel 7lends more support to the suggestion that it was a confrontationbetween two views about housing the ark, one favouring a tent andthe other proposing a permanent building.24 H.-J. Kraus finds anomadic atmosphere behind the tradition of a tent sanctuary; thisstands in contrast to the concept of building a temple, which betraysthe influence of the cultic traditions of Canaan. The former persistedin the early period of the occupation of Canaan, when Israel'sfestivals were celebrated in the wilderness around the tent ofmeeting, with the worshippers temporarily forming a camp aroundit. With the settlement in the land the semi-nomadic tent sanctuarycould not be retained for long, and the central sanctuaries ofShechem, Bethel, Gilgal and Shiloh acquired importance. FinallyDavid, after capturing Jerusalem, sought to make it a central shrinefor the whole of the tribal confederacy and proposed to house the arkin a temple, which was a Canaanite institution. Nathan thussupported the nomadic ideal of a tent cult, and opposed David'smove to erect a permanent building, according to the custom inCanaan and among its neighbours.25 His stance has therefore beeninterpreted as an attempt to avoid 'departure from the old simplicity';because of his adherence to a nomadic ideal, Nathan's objection toDavid's plan provides an early example of prophetic protest againstthe dangers of settled life and support for the nomadic tradition.26

Others, claiming that Israel never resorted to nomadism as a norm oforthodoxy,27 attribute Nathan's opposition to his reverence for theold tribal confederacy; thus it was not aimed at the concept of apermanent abode, but rather at building what was Canaanite in


concept and ideology.28 It was more of a clash between amphictyonicand Canaanite ideals than between nomadic and permanent conceptsof God's abode. Finding in Nathan's motive a combination of thereligious and the political, R.E. Clements claims that his oraclechampions 'the tent of the old amphictyony' in contrast to 'theproposed temple of the Davidic state';29 in that case there would behere a combination of the religious clash between tent and templeand of the politico-social clash between amphictyony and state.There would be no difficulty in establishing a link between Nathan'srebuke of David in 2 Samuel 12 and his opposition to the temple in 2Samuel 7, for both present a protest against the violation of trueYahwism. But, whichever terms are chosen to define the clash—thenomadic against the sedentary, the tent against the temple, theamphictyonic against the Canaanite30—no attempt is made toaccommodate Nathan's part in the succession struggle in 1 Kings 1within this interpretation of his prophetic activity.

Others have sought ways of interpreting Nathan's opposition to atemple, without specifically designating him as an anti-JebusiteYahweh prophet or as a champion of the ancient Israelite tenttradition. The opposition has been attributed to David's ownmisconception of such a temple and its function. A correctunderstanding of 2 Sam. 7.4-7, it is claimed, must take into accountthe important distinction between ydsab, 'to dwell permanently orabide', and sdkan, 'to stay temporarily'.31 Of course buildings hadbeen constructed before this to house the ark, the most obviousexample being the Shiloh temple; but these were regarded as placesfor a temporary stay and not for permanent dwelling. Because Davidhad made the mistake of conceiving of a temple that would provide amore lasting abode for Yahweh, his proposal was rejected. The clashis not simply one between tent and temple concepts, but between thetheological concepts of 'staying' and 'dwelling'; it was not a templethat was rejected, but the idea of God 'dwelling' in a temple.32 Suchan interpretation has, however, been found unacceptable, firstly,because it is the contrast between a house and a tent that is distinctlybrought out by the oracle, and secondly, because the distinctionbetween yasab and sakan does not arise before the appearance of theDeuteronomic literature.33 Another interpretation finds in Nathan arepresentative of the southern Judahite tradition, which possessed atent to serve the same purpose in Judah as the ark did for thenorthern, Israelite tribes. In bringing the ark to Jerusalem David wasseeking a compromise between north and south, but, when he


attempted to take matters one step further, Nathan spoke up for thetent-tradition of the south.34 These interpretations of Nathan'sprophetic activity concentrate on one incident only, namely hisoppposition to David's temple, and do not attempt to relate hisstance on that occasion, however important it may have been, to theother incidents in which Nathan played a key role. They thus fail topresent an interpretation of Nathan that brings together all hisprophetic activities and seeks to understand each of them within aclear definition of his status and background.

A view that is entirely different from those already discussed is theclaim that Nathan the prophet, like Zadok the priest, had originallybelonged to Jebusite Jerusalem before it was conquered by theIsraelites. This hypothesis has appeared in various forms during thelast fifty years,35 and the following main contributive elements can benoted:36

(a) Zadok is without an ancestry or genealogy, and only appearson the scene after David conquered Jerusalem and establishedhimself there.

(b) When David conquered Jerusalem, he did not destroy itsancient shrine at which Melchisedeq, so it is claimed, hadpresided in earlier times.

(c) On the contrary the priesthood of Jerusalem was validatedfor Israel, and it appears that the ark, when it was brought toJerusalem, was placed in an existing shrine.

(d) The name Zadok, which had close connections withJerusalem, may have been the name of a Semitic deity andwas 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 pre-Israelite shrine,37 it is to be noted that this has been accepted by someas the correct setting for Nathan's activity.38

Various attempts have been made to define more specifically thepart played by Nathan within the Jebusite set-up of Jerusalem. Afternoting the evidence of religious syncretism in the city with itsestablishment as David's capital and the taking over of the traditionsof its non-Israelite cultic forms, Ahlstrom designates Nathan as theleader of a group identified as the Jebusite party.39 David hadadjusted to his new environment and had given his son the nameSolomon (which is connected with the divine name Salem), butNathan, in giving him the name Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12.25), with its


Israelite 'Yah'-element, was clearly declaring his support of religioussyncretism. Moreover, since 2 Sam. 12.25 is interpreted as adesignation of Solomon as crown-prince, Nathan was not taking partin a palace intrigue in the events described in 1 Kings 1, but wastaking swift action to realise what had already been promised to theJebusite party, namely that Bathsheba's son Solomon would succeedDavid. Syncretism was expected to be promoted with more zeal bySolomon; this is why the Jebusite party, through Nathan, opposedDavid's move to build a temple, but did not object when Solomonundertook the task. David proposed to go further than providing aroyal chapel at the palace, and was obviously aiming for a statesanctuary. Since Abiathar would inevitably function as high-priest atthis sanctuary, it was taken to be a real threat to the esteem of theJebusite cult both in Jerusalem and in the kingdom of David. In 2Samuel 7, therefore, Nathan was a spokesman for the Jebusitetradition of Jerusalem. H. Haag,40 working mainly on the contrastbetween Gad, who represented the nomadic, desert tradition, andNathan, who was of Canaanite origin, accepts that Nathan was takenover with his native Jerusalem when David seized the city. Nathanbecame a convinced Yahwist, as is seen from the vision report in 2Samuel 7, the name he gave to Solomon (2 Sam. 12.25) and the nameof his own son Azariah (1 Kings 4.5). His opposition to David'sproposed temple is understood by Haag to be an absolute veto on atemple, whereas presumably there would be no objection to asanctuary. Haag does not find the motive to be the defence of theJebusite cult, as suggested by Ahlstro'm, but defines Nathan's role asthat of an exponent of a tolerant, but lasting, mediation betweenconqueror and conquered.41 I. von Lowenclau also asserts thatNathan was converted to Yahwism,42 and not only publicly acknow-ledged Yahweh but acquired for Solomon Yahweh's protection bygiving him the name Jedidiah (2 Sam. 12.25). He came from the rankof the wise, attained a high position in court as a shrewd adviser andeducator of the prince, but never abandoned his Jebusite interests.His actions in 1 Kings 1, although some of them are dubious, wereundertaken in the interests of the native, Jebusite population ofJerusalem. Von Lowenclau goes a step further than both Ahlstro'mand Haag in that she attempts to explain all the Nathan sections inthe light of his Jebusite background and his unceasing care forJebusite interests: it was this that prompted him to act with others toplace Solomon on David's throne and to move craftily to dispose ofthe notion that Solomon was an usurper; he acted as an agent of


God's promise to Solomon in 2 Sam. 7.lib, a word which after hisdeath was transferred to the Davidic narrative in order to give thesuccession of Solomon a stronger legitimation; he promoted a view ofworld order that he inherited from the Jebusite tradition bycensuring David for his affair with Bethsheba, and thus gaveexpression to the critical attitude towards David that was foundamong the Solomonic party. All his actions are thus seen to beconsistent with his position as the virtual head of the Jebusite, pro-Solomonic party. There is a measure of agreement among theadherents of the view that Nathan was a Jebusite prophet taken overby David. There are, however, differences in the details of theirinterpretation of the events, some attributing his motivation to hisreligious syncretism, and others finding it to be more politically andpragmatically orientated. They also attain a different measure ofsuccess in interpreting all Nathan's activities as aspects of hisJebusite, pro-Solomonic stance.

A line of interpretation that avoids identifying Nathan too closelywith either a Yahwistic or a Jebusite party attributes his actions to apragmatic approach to the political realities of his age. For hisdiscussion of Nathan's prophecy in 2 Sam. 7.1-7 Ishida43 takes as astarting-point the historical fact that David did not build a temple inJerusalem, together with Mowinckel's suggestion that the prophecyseeks to give a reason why he could not do so.44 Accepting a hint fromthe 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 hisinability was political instability. Although David's main militarycampaigns belonged to his early years on the throne, the latter part ofhis reign was characterised by domestic troubles, notably Absalom'srebellion (2 Sam. 13-19), Sheba's revolt (2 Sam. 20.1-2,4-22) and thenational census and plague (2 Sam. 24.1-25). David himselfpresumably was of the opinion that he had sufficient stability for theproject to be undertaken (2 Sam. 7.1), but Nathan finally vetoed it.According to Ishida's interpretation of the inconsistency between thetwo replies given by Nathan, the prophet had consulted the courtiersand officials and because of antagonism at the court had failed toobtain a consensus. Although the two priests Abiathar and Zadokwere at the centre of the antagonism, Ishida refuses to take it as aclash between an Israelite-Yahwistic group and a Jebusite-Jerusalemiteparty but as a case of rivalry between two houses of priests.45 Acombination of this clash at court with the instability of the kingdomprovided good reason for not proceeding with the temple plan. After


these consultations Nathan gave a negative reply in the form of adivine oracle. That the reply was obtained after court consultationsand arose from practical, political motives is perhaps confirmed bythe fact that the rejection is stated rather obliquely and sandwichedbetween two questions in vv. 5b and 7, and does not contain anexplicit and straightforward refusal. Nathan too fabricated a coupd'etat on the part of Adonijah in order to obtain from David thedesignation of Solomon as his successor, and took advantage of theking's senility to make him believe that he had already pledgedhimself to give Solomon the throne.46 All Nathan's activities areconcerned with the succession of Solomon, and the narratives as theystand make the point that Solomon's kingship was superior to that ofDavid. His condemnation of David's affair with Bathseba (2 Sam.12.1-25) brings out the contrast between Solomon's position (vv. 24-25) and that of David under a curse (2 Sam. 11.27; 12.10-11). 2Samuel 7 brings out the theme of the stability of the Davidic dynastyas it passes over to Solomon. Ishida's general assessment of Nathanas a prophet who had become disappointed in David and had placedhis hopes in Solomon can be justified.47 But his interpretation of 2Sam. 7.1-7 implies that the divine opposition to the temple presentedby Nathan was a sham,48 and his understanding of the events in 1Kings 1 attributes to Nathan the double fabrication of Adonijah'scoup d'etat and David's vow. Nathan turns out to be more shady inhis dealings than is warranted by the texts concerned.

Because of the obvious disparity between the different elementsthat contribute to the portrayal of Nathan, and the difficulty offinding a general description of the prophet and of his affiliations inJerusalem that can accommodate his various activities, it is temptingto look towards another kind of solution. 2 Samuel 7 presents aNathan who in many respects corresponds to the familiar picture of aprophet: he had a message from God in the night, use is made of thetraditional formula 'the word of the Lord came to Nathan' todescribe the receiving of the message, and the command to deliverthe message is again given according to the traditional messengerformula 'Go and tell... Thus says the Lord ... '49 The word came toNathan and was delivered by him in response to a consultation bythe king, and therefore the term 'court-prophet' is appropriate as adescription of Nathan and as a designation of his role. Nathan'sappearance in 2 Samuel 12 has an entirely different character; he isnot consulted by the king, but appears before him to deliver words ofcriticism and condemnation of his behaviour. His concern for justice


and his method of securing self-condemnation by using a parabledeserve for him the title of 'justice prophet'50 and place him in theline of tradition that is also found in Elijah's condemnation of Ahabin 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 thethrone for Solomon. As noted above, the appropriateness of the term'prophet' in connection with his activity on that occasion has beenquestioned, especially in view of the absence of any word from Godand the fact that he does not play any specifically prophetical role. Aterm such as 'privy councillor' would be more suitable for theoccasion. Thus the three different roles played by Nathan can bedesignated by three different titles—court prophet, justice prophetand privy councillor. If his activities as court prophet and privycouncillor are reconciled, his role as justice prophet seems to be outof character; if the court prophet and justice prophet are broughttogether, the privy councillor stands on its own. It was observation ofthese differences that led Hempel to suggest that the present form ofthe text reveals two different Nathans.51 Of course this is attributedto some editorial activity, and there are no possible grounds forclaiming that there were two different historical Nathans.52 Quitejustifiably no hint of this possibility appears in the most recentstudies of the prophet.53

A more promising method of approaching the Nathan traditions isto examine more closely the stages of modifying the text throughsubsequent editing, and to seek to uncover the original historical corebehind the narrative as it now stands in the deuteronomistic history.The question asked is whether it is possible to separate the historicalNathan from the prophetical interpretation of him that is found inthe 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 'reactionprophetism'. His attitude is described as syncretistic and thereactionary elements in his work are ascribed to 'a Deuteronomisticreinterpretation of the facts'.55 It is this approach that is found inrecent treatments of the Nathan sections, and many attempts havebeen made to unravel the complex narratives by separating theoriginal basis from subsequent additions reflecting deuteronomisticand other interests.56 The methodology is seen, for example, in KyleMcCarter's commentary on 2 Samuel,57 where it is argued that therewas a pre-deuteronomistic prophetic version of 2 Samuel which wasthen followed by primary and secondary deuteronomistic editions. In


the pre-deuteronomistic prophetic form Nathan's role had beenenlarged and he became 'the chief representative of the propheticpoint of view with which the older materials have been editoriallysurcharged'.58 This to a large extent explains the difference betweenthe Nathan of 1 Kings and the Nathan portrayed in 2 Samuel 7 and 2Samuel 12. The former is closer to the historical Nathan, whereasthe Nathan who delivered a divine word against David's proposedtemple and who conveyed divine censure on the king's conductbetrays a prophetic editing of earlier sources.

The above survey of the main approaches to the Nathan traditionbrings to notice the key questions that have to be pursued in anyfurther discussion of the enigmatic and complex 'Nathan theProphet'. These are the issues with which the present enquiry will beconcerned:

(i) Each of the Nathan sections will have to be subjected to adetailed literary analysis with the aim of presenting a historyof the growth of the narrative until it attained the form inwhich it now stands. Later accretions and hints of restructuringin the long and varied editorial process will have to beremoved one by one in our search for an original core. Thenumerous and differing analyses that have already beenpresented make this task of uncovering the basic tradition adifficult and tortuous one.

(ii) Further consideration will have to be given to the originalform of the tradition that emerges from our analysis. Someattention will have to be given to the possible circle fromwhich the tradition may have originated. Naturally ourmain interest will focus on the character and function ofNathan as he appears in the original accounts as they areuncovered, and on defining more closely the setting,affiliations and motives of the historical Nathan.

(iii) In bringing together the results of this enquiry, it will haveto be asked if the historical Nathan, as he appears to us fromthe basic original accounts, displays consistency of characterthrough his stance and actions. Some attempt must be madeto find a uniformity in the interpretation of Nathan that willmake it unnecessary for us to depend too heavily on one orperhaps two of the narratives at the risk of excluding thethird one.

Chapter 3

SUCCESSION TO DAVID'S THRONE(1 KINGS 1)

The succession issue was finally settled when Solomon took hisfather's throne (1 Kgs 1-2); thus a dynastic monarchy was founded.Nathan took a prominent part in the events which led to Solomon'saccession, as is seen from 1 Kings 1, a chapter which calls for detailedattention. Firstly, an analysis of the chapter will seek to trace thestages of its composition, and by identifying later accretions, if thereare any, an attempt will be made to reconstruct the original accountof the events. Secondly, attention will focus on Nathan's collaborators,thus seeking to define more clearly the group to which he belongedand the motives behind the support that won the throne forSolomon. Thirdly, Nathan's own part in the events will be underconsideration, and there will be a discussion of the measures whichhe took and of his motivation. Finally, there will be an attempt to seethe settlement of the succession issue against the background of thesocial and religious life of Jerusalem at that time.

There is some justification for following Schwally and others1 intaking 1 Kings 1 as the most appropriate starting point for studyingNathan, despite the fact that it is Nathan's third and final appearancein the Deuteronomistic History that is contained in this chapter.Admittedly Nathan in this narrative about palace intrigue plays arole that is markedly different from that attributed to him as aspokesman for Yahweh in 2 Samuel 7 and in 2 Samuel 12. Theproblems associated with defining Nathan's status in view of hisactivities on this occasion, and especially because of the significantabsence of any reference to a word from God, render this chapter adifficult one to handle.2 Nevertheless, it purports to be a straighthistorical account, and the fact that it is an integral part of thenarrative of David's succession has led many scholars to treat it as


historically reliable. The narrative is on the whole free from theexpansions and successive reinterpretalions of the divine words thathave found their way into 2 Samuel 7 and 2 Samuel 12, andconsequently is in many ways less complicated.3 Moreover, it ishoped to demonstrate that it is this narrative about Nathan's part insecuring David's throne for Solomon that provides the key forunderstanding both his background and his stance on the otheroccasions with which his name is associated.

AnalysisBefore offering a detailed analysis of 1 Kings 1, it has to be stated thatit stands with 1 Kings 2 as a conclusion to the Succession Narrativein 2 Samuel 9-20.4 The reasons for this approach to 1 Kings 1-2 areby now well rehearsed, and can be briefly summarised as follows:

(i) 2 Samuel 7; 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 give an unbrokennarrative which is now disrupted by the miscellaneousmaterial in 2 Samuel 21-24 and by the division between thebooks of Samuel and Kings.

(ii) Several links between these two chapters and the SuccessionNarrative sections in 2 Samuel confirm that they belongtogether. Incidents in the earlier parts of the SuccessionNarrative are presupposed in 1 Kings 1-2. In ch. 2references are made to the murder of Amasa by Joab (2 Sam.20.10; see vv. 5, 32), and kindness shown to David byBarzillai (2 Sam. 17.27; 19.29ff.; 19.31ff. see v. 7) and the curseof Shimei (2 Sam. 16.5ff; 19.19ff, see vv. 8, 44). It is furtherclaimed that there are so many similarities between thetraditions about Solomon and Adonijah in this narrative andthe story of Absalom in 2 Sam. 15ff. to support theconclusion that they were transmitted together.5

(iii) On stylistic grounds it is necessary to separate 1 Kings 1-2from the remainder of the books of Kings; they are moreakin to 2 Samuel 9-20. On the other hand it can be observedthat chs. 9-20 stand apart from other narratives in 1 and 2Samuel.6 Thus we are given two main corpora of traditions—the History of David's Rise (1 Sam. 15-2 Sam. 5) and theSuccession Narrative.7

(iv) Many unifying factors can be discovered in the SuccessionNarrative 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 consistenttreatment of characters.8 The presence of these bondsbetween the different sections confirms the view that we aredealing with a narrative that was constructed as a unitrather than with a collection of short stories.9

For these reasons all attempts to separate the first two chapters inKings from the Succession Narrative have proved unsuccessful.Mowinckel, for instance, argued that they belong to the Solomoniccorpus that follows and not to the Davidic corpus that precedes,10

but his view is usually rejected.11 Another proposal is to take 1 Kings1-2 as a later redaction; whereas the so-called 'Court History' in 2Samuel 9-20 was written in Davidic times, these two chapters inKings represent a later redaction, which was intended to superimposeon the original narrative the theme of succession.12 Once again theunity of theme and style that is so obvious in these sections makessuch a proposal totally unacceptable;13 the first two chapters of 1Kings provide the only suitable conclusion to the Davidic corpus.

Chapters 1 and 2 in 1 Kings are concerned with the succession ofDavid by Solomon, and so this closing unit brings to its climax themain theme of the Succession Narrative. However, the succession istreated in two consecutive parts: the first, in ch. 1, concentrates onSolomon's acclamation as David's successor, and the second, in ch.2, gives an account of the measures taken by Solomon to consolidatehis position and protect his kingship. Both chapters contribute to theone and the same theme, namely the legitimation of Solomon'ssuccession. They have undoubtedly originated from the same author,and it can also be shown that the expansions and additions to theoriginal narrative are to be attributed to the same reviser.14 But forthe 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 hasmoved to the centre of the stage.

An issue of fundamental importance for understanding 1 Kings 1-2 is concerned with the extent to which an original narrative hasbeen preserved in the present text.15 The earlier claim that thenarrative was accepted into its present position without any changeand with only very slight redactional additions, and those mostly inch. 2, is not as enthusiastically pressed in recent discussions of theSuccession Narrative. Rost accepted ch. 1 in its entirety, and foundlater additions only in 2.1-4, which is regarded as deuteronomistic,


and in 2.27b, which takes up 1 Sam. 2.27ff.16 Indeed it was claimedby von Rad that deuteronomistic interpretation cannot be tracedafter 2 Sam. 12 until it reappears in 1 Kings 3; in 1 Kings 1-2 there isonly a slight retouching of 1 Kings 2. Iff.17 Similarly Whybray18 doesnot mention any literary problems in connection with ch. 1, and findsonly a few verses that are not original in ch. 2, namely thedeuteronomistic vv. 2b-4, 27 and the annalistic vv. 10-11. Thisposition is confirmed by Gunn,19 who does not accept that there wasa greater degree of redactional activity and argues that too manydifficulties are raised by proposing an extensive manipulation of thetext. The possibility of redactional activity in ch. 1 is therefore notdiscussed by those taking this cautionary attitude; what annotationsand corrections have been made are restricted to ch. 2. Among thereasons given for this approach are: (a) even if the original narrativehas been reworked at a later stage, that has been so effectivelyaccomplished as to make it impossible to discern the original;20 (b)the style of the narrative, its treatment of characters and its point ofview give it such an impression of uniformity that only very fewinterpolations become evident;21 (c) some narratives may possess aninherent tension, which makes it unnecessary to search for a logicaland theological consistency and to explain inconsistencies andincongruities by proposing a process of annotation and interpreta-tion.22

Nevertheless, it has to be asked whether 1 Kings 1-2 does showsigns of more extensive annotation than is recognised by those takingsuch a cautionary attitude. As is stated by Whybray the theories ofinterpolation are as numerous as the critics who have considered thematter,23 but that does not necessarily provide a good reason forabandoning such an approach. Some examples of the annotationsfound in ch. 1 must now be considered. Moth found extensivesecondary additions in both chapters, notably in ch. 2, where notonly the disputed testament of David in vv. 1-9, but also vv. 13-35,36-46 are regarded as secondary; minor deuteronomistic additionsare also found elsewhere (for example, in 2. II).24 Thus the whole ofch. 2, with the exception of the annalistic note in vv. 10-12 becomessecondary. But the only dubious section in ch. 1 is the openingsection (vv. lb-4) dealing with Abishag the Shunammite. Mettinger25

also regards 2.13-46 as secondary, and again admits the presence ofsome evidence of still later deuteronomistic additions (vv. 31b-33,44-45); 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


our discussion is his assertion that the whole of 1.1-40 belonged tothe original conclusion of the Succession Narrative, but that 1.41-53together with 2.13-46 are added sections on political murder. Boththese sections must be considered together, for the section onAdonijah (1.41-53) belongs with the continuation of the theme in2.13ff. Wurthwein,26 on the other hand, whilst finding in bothchapters duplicates, deuteronomistic accretions and post-deuterono-mistic additions, retains the two large blocks in ch. 2 (w. 13-35 andw. 36-46) as well as 1.41-53. A much more complicated process ofredaction has been envisaged by Veijola27 and Langlamet,28 whoagree on the principle of searching for the different stages ofredaction that must have taken place before these chapters reachedtheir 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 overcame w. 3-4a|3; a deuteronomistic accretion is found in w. 10-11;and finally v. 12 is regarded as a post-deuteronomistic accretion. Theredaction of ch. 1 was a much simpler process, for w. 35-37, 46-48originated from one stage of interpolation and v. 30 from a laterworking over of the chapter. Unlike Mettinger, Veijola does notregard the whole of the Adonijah section in 1.41-53, and with it 2.13-46, as secondary, but he does attribute the whole of the testament ofDavid to one stage or other in the redactionary process. Langlamet,although working on the basis of this concept of several consecutiveaccretions, does not attribute the redactionary stages to the samedates as Veijola, nor are these scholars agreed in the identification ofthese redactions. Many more verses have been worked over at somestage or other according to Langlamet's reconstruction.29 It isobvious from this survey of a few key contributions on 1 Kings 1-2that a consensus on the minimum number of interpolated versescannot be extracted from such a variety of theories; a decision mustbe reached on each section on its own after a careful consideration ofeach one individually. It is clear, however, that ch. 1 has emerged lessscathed from the critical carve-up than is the case with chapter 2,and that the Nathan narrative remains more or less intact. The abovesurvey has also served the purpose of bringing to notice the fewdebatable sections that have to be considered in discussing 1 Kings 1;they are vv. lb-4 (with Noth), vv. 41-53 (according to Mettinger) andw. 35-37, 46-48 (with Veijola).

The main reason for doubting the originality of w. lb-4 is thatthey anticipate Adonijah's request for Abishag after David's death,


and may, like that section (2.13ff.), be regarded as a secondaryaddition.30 These verses only provide concrete evidence of David'sage and frailty, which has already been stated in v. la. If these versesare omitted, it is claimed that v. la on its own provides an adequateintroduction to the narrative as it proceeds in vv. 5ff. An argumentthat has been used in favour of their retention is that the originalnarrator, who was pro-Adonijah and anti-Solomon, would naturallyshow some interest in Adonijah's fate at the hands of Solomon, andby implication in Abishag.31 When the original narrative was given apro-Solomonic flavour, the mention of Abishag and the account ofAdonijah's death were both retained. A much simpler solution, andone that is not tied to the political stance of the narrative in either itsoriginal or its final form, is to accept vv. lb-4 as a necessary andimportant element in the construction of the first two chapters.32

Adonijah's move to take David's throne (w. 5-10) was occasioned byDavid's senility and impotency (w. 1-4).33 These opening verses ofthe chapter set the subsequent events that are recorded in theircorrect historical context; contention for the throne and Adonijah'sdownfall (2.13ff) are tied to the circumstances noted and illustratedin this opening passage, which is not as unrelated to what follows asit seems at first. In providing a colourful extension of the statementin v. la, the section in w. lb-4 gives a deliberate contrast betweenthe strong and lusty David of 2 Samuel 12 and the aged and impotentDavid of this chapter. In such a situation it is not surprising to findAdonijah seizing the opportunity to claim the throne. According toLong, 'biblical convention ... links new impulses in the humandrama with failure or dissolution, the old passing into the new.'34

The proposal to take w. 41-53 as secondary removes a passage onAdonijah from the narrative; under the same proposal the continuationof the Adonijah passage in 2.13ff is also excised.35 The main reasonsfor doing so are based on the internal discrepancies in ch. 1-2. Thetestament of David in 2.5-9 does not provide for the execution ofAdonijah and Abiathar, but only offers a justification of the murdersof Joab and Shimei. The so-called political murders of the contenderfor the throne and his supporting priest incriminate Solomon, and so,it is contended, the report of these incidents was not part of theoriginal narrative. Other incongruities between the testament ofDavid and 2.13-46 can be noted, such as the absence in 2.5 of the tidegiven to Amasa in 2.32, and the lack of reference in 2.13-46 to thesons of Barzillai mentioned in 2.7. Moreover, there are inconsistenciesbetween these secondary sections and other verses in ch. 1, such as


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 'themother of Solomon' in 2.13 is unnecessary, since that informationhas already been given in 1.11. The original narrative, it is claimed,was smoothly rounded off by 2.12 and did not include those sectionsthat reflect unfavourably on Solomon. Despite the assertion thataccepting such excisions provides a satisfactory solution to theproblem, there are deep-seated reservations concerning the methodemployed and the conclusions reached. There cannot but bedissatisfaction with the procedure of judging the reliability of 2.13-46by comparing the section with the dubious testament of David in 2.1-12, where, to say the least, there has been some deuteronomisticinterference and where there are obvious signs of secondarycompilation.36 The incongruities between the testament of Davidand the report of the executions of his opponents by Solomon do notnecessarily indicate that the former was original and th* lattersecondary; it may be more likely that the former, despite thediscrepancies between it and the account of the executions, wasdeliberately composed in order to justify the latter and exonerateSolomon. Others of the inconsistencies mentioned can also beadequately explained: although Abishag is introduced in 1.4 asDavid's nurse, the clear implication of the narrative is that she wasbrought into the royal harem to test his potency;37 the re-introductionof Bathsheba in 2.13 can be explained by the fact that the narrativenow proceeds to a new section and describes a situation that waslater than that found in ch. 1 and different from it. A morefundamental objection is that by deleting the Adonijah sections(1.41-53; 2.13-25) from the narrative, it is implied that interest inAdonijah and his party ceased after the anointing of Solomon invv. 38-40. But if, as is contended below, the struggle for the thronewas the outcome of a deeper clash between Jebusite and Judaeanelements in Jerusalem, with the former gaining supremacy, it wouldseem that the original narrators would be eager to demonstrate thedownfall of Adonijah and his supporters. Their humiliation was socomplete that, when Solomon came to the throne, there was noquestion of any threat to his kingship; the narrative behind these twochapters would enthusiastically bring out the humiliation of Adonijahin contrast to the triumph of Solomon. A continuing interest inAdonijah is kept alive if 1.49-53 and the related passage in 2.13-25are retained.

An approach that depends on a combination of linguistic, literary


and theological analyses lies behind Veijola's proposal to regard thetwo sections, w. 35-37 and vv. 46-48, as later additions and therevision 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, arerecognised from the following characteristics: (i) Some linguisticpeculiarities belonging to the revisions cannot be traced in the mainnarrative. Kingship or dynasty is denoted by the word 'throne'(kisse'), as in 1.37, 47, cf. also 2.33,45; there is a distinction betweenIsrael and Judah, as in 1.35, cf. also 2.32; verses are joined togetherby using 'moreover' (wegam\ as in 1.46, 47, 48, cf. also 2.5. (ii) Aconsistent technique for constructing and joining the expansions canbe observed, for they are always appended either at the end of aspeech (1.35) or in the form of a new speech (1.36-37, 46.48); this isthe case too in 2.1-9, 24, 26b, 31b-33, 44-45. The expansions do notconcentrate on the concrete political situation, but generally introducea different emphasis, (iii) The expansions demonstrate a distincttheological interest, namely that the Davidic dynasty was enjoyingdivine favour, and that by implication this favour would be extendedto his newly installed successor, Solomon. This is the thrust of bothadditions to ch. 1 (w. 36-37, 47-48) as well as the occasional versesadded 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 theabove characteristics, but also because they single out Benaiah andattribute to him a special greeting to the new king. According to v. 32David had entrusted the task of securing the throne for Solomon tothree men, Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet and Benaiah theson of Jehoiada, and vv. 38ff report that they faithfully executedDavid's wishes. The connection between the instructions given invv. 32-34 and the report of their execution in w. 38-40 is broken bythe insertion of w. 36-37. The only reason for drawing attention toBenaiah is that it has been done in anticipation of ch. 2, where heenjoys particular prominence as the man responsible for theexecution of Solomon's enemies (w. 25, 34, 36).

Veijola has equally strong reasons for suggesting that v. 35b is asecondary addition. Whereas the narrative in general accepts thatSolomon 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 mystead' (tahtay). Again, it can be seen that the narrative refers toSolomon as 'king over Israel' (v. 34, cf. also v. 20), but that v. 35bdesignates him as 'ruler over Israel and over Judah', suggesting a


division of the kingdom that was not apparent at this time. It isfurther claimed that the term 'ruler' (ndgid) is secondary.40 Veijola'streatment of v. 35a, however, is less convincing; his objection toaccepting the statement made here as original is that this half of theverse 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 amule to Gihon, anointing Solomon, blowing a trumpet and giving acry of acclamation, are repeated in the account of their execution inw. 38-40; there is no reason for singling out for rejection thereference to 'coming after' the king because it appears in v. 40 as wellas in v. 35a. On the contrary there seem to be sufficient grounds foraccepting v. 35a as original and regarding vv. 35b-37 as secondary.41

We can also accept with Veijola that the words 'in my stead' havebeen unnecessarily added to v. 30 under the influence of v. 35b, forthey are not contained in the other versions of the oath given in thischapter (w. 13,17).42

Another breach in the sequence of events is caused by the presenceof w. 46-48. The delivery of Jonathan's news that Solomon had beenanointed king (vv. 41-45) is most naturally followed by an account ofits effect on Adonijah and his guests (w. 49-53). The interveningverses develop a different theme, namely God's favour in grantingDavid a successor to sit on his throne. These verses again betray thepresence of some characteristics that have been noted above asindications 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 tovv. 30, 35b in that they suggest that Solomon had already taken thethrone in David's lifetime. The congratulations to the king in v. 47repeat the sentiment, and to a great extent the wording, of Benaiah'sgreetings in v. 37, which also belongs to a section that is designatedas a secondary addition.The above analysis leads to the conclusion that in the first part of theclosing chapters of the Succession Narrative in 1 Kings 1, where theNathan tradition plays a significant role, there are only slightadditions to the original narrative; these are found in vv. 30, 35b-37,46-48. Furthermore, these additions show the same linguistic andstylistic characteristics as the secondary additions attached to 1Kings 2, and also share the same interest in the succession ofSolomon to David's throne. The two chapters complement oneanother, the first being concerned with the settlement of thesuccession issue and the second with the measures taken later to


consolidate Solomon's position. Without the secondary additions, thefirst chapter moves smoothly from one section to another: afterdescribing colourfully the historical circumstances (w. 1-4), it givesan account of Adonijah's contention for the throne (vv. 5-10); this isthen followed by an account of the counter moves of a pro-Solomonicfaction, in which two of the key personnel are Nathan andBathsheba, whose activities fall into four short scenes in vv. 11-14,15-21, 22-27 and 28-31;43 following the success of these pro-Solomonic manoeuvres, Solomon is designated and anointed asDavid's successor (w. 32-35a, 38-40); Adonijah's premature celebrationwas interrupted by the news of Solomon's designation (w. 41-45),and the narrative concludes with the devastating effect of this newson Adonijah and his guests, more especially on Adonijah himself(w. 49-53).

InterpretationAny understanding of Nathan's role in the events surroundingSolomon's succession depends to a large extent on a definition of thefaction to which he belonged and the faction which he opposed. Inthe narrative in 1 Kings 1 he is named in a group of which he, Zadokthe priest and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada seem to be the constantcore (w. 8,10,26,32,38,44,45). Occasionally the name of one of theother members is omitted (such as Zadok hi v. 10 and Benaiah invv. 34,45), but not the name of Nathan. In some instances referenceis made to other persons attached to the group, such as 'Shimei, Reiand David's mighty men' (v. 8), 'mighty men' (v. 10) or 'theCherethites and Pelethites' (vv. 38, 44). Nathan also acted in liaisonwith Bathsheba (w. 11-31), who is never mentioned in connectionwith this group of Solomon's supporters. But it has to be asked ifNathan's connection with Solomon's supporters is more closelyrelated to his co-operation with the queen than appears in thenarrative.

The first on the list of Nathan's companions is 'Zadok the priest',whose origin has posed a perplexing problem.44 He is mentionedalongside Ahimelech in 2 Sam. 8.17 and is claimed to have been theson of Ahitub. But this genealogy appears in a corrupt text, and thatintentionally so, according to Wellhausen.45 If the correct form istaken to be 'Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, andZadok were priests',46 then Zadok is stripped of a genealogy. Theattempt to provide him with another genealogy, suggesting on thebasis of 2 Sam. 6.3f that he was Uzzah's brother,47 has proved


unacceptable.48 The genealogies provided by the Chronicler (makinghim a descendant of Eleazar, 1 Chron. 24.3 and through Eleazar adescendant of Aaron, 1 Chron. 5.29-34; 6.35-38) are accepted asreliable by Cross, and are taken as a basis for the suggestion that hewas from the house of Aaron and was attached to Hebron.49 Such aproposal, however, rests again on the dubious tradition that he wasthe son of Ahitub and on the uncertain evidence of the Chronicler'sgenealogies; it fails to recognize that many of the lists appearing inChronicles are artificial constructions.50 On the basis of anotherreference in Chronicles, it has been argued that Zadok was priest ofGibeon (1 Chron. 16.34), and his opposite number, Abiathar, hasbeen thought to have been priest of Jerusalem.51 Although thistradition about Gibeon is found only in Chronicles and has beendescribed as a fabrication, the acceptance of a more open attitudetowards its historicity52 does not meet the more basic objections thatGibeon is not mentioned during the reign of David and that Zadok inthat reign functioned as priest in Jerusalem not Gibeon.53 In view ofthe alignment of Zadok and Abiathar on opposing sides in thesuccession struggle described in 1 Kings 1, and in view too of the factthat Zadok and his successors became the priests of the JerusalemTemple, it seems much more convincing to take Zadok as therepresentative of the Jerusalemite tradition54 and Abiathar as thechampion of an old Hebronite tradition.55 Zadok, it has to be noted,is introduced into the Biblical narrative without any word ofexplanation after David had conquered Jerusalem and establishedhimself in the city.56 For a time at least he appears to have shared theposition of chief priest with Abiathar, but he soon took precedenceover the latter. Some information about the period is found in theaccount 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 thename Abiathar from the Massoretic text of v. 27 suggests that he hadalready been replaced by Zadok.57 Verse 25, where only Zadok isnamed, again confirms that authority had been passed over to him.58

The time of Zadok's appearance, combined with the fact that thenarrative offers no explanation and also with his final supremacyover Abiathar, leads to the conclusion that he was priest of the pre-Davidic, Jebusite shrine in Jerusalem.59 This also provides a reasonfor the omission of Zadok's genealogy; the confusion over hisancestry in the corrupt text of 2 Sam. 8.17 may have been deliberatebecause of his previous connection with the Jebusite cult. To avoidsuch an embarrassment he was given an Israelite genealogy, either to


fill in a conspicuous gap in the available information or to replace anunacceptable genealogy.60 The acceptance of a pagan priest into theIsraelite cult of Jerusalem need not cause a difficulty;61 it is alsounnecessary to assume that he went over from the Jebusites to Davidduring the siege of Jerusalem.62 The presence of a Jebusite priest asan official of the new Davidic state, would go a long way towardsconciliating the Jebusite majority among the inhabitants ofJerusalem.63

There are, admittedly, a number of unanswered questions aboutZadok, and some of the additional evidence adduced in support of theJebusite hypothesis can only be considered with some amount ofreserve. The possibility that he was originally the city-king ofJerusalem, who was the priest of the state shrine, and whose officewas perhaps confirmed by David, seems very unlikely and is notsupported by evidence of priest-kings in Canaan.64 The similaritybetween his name and that of Zedek, which is thought to have beenthe name of a Semitic deity, is an argument that is only cautiouslyaccepted by Rowley,65 but the recognition of some weakness in thisparticular argument does not damage the Jebusite hypothesis.Rowley himself attaches more importance to the close association ofother 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 Jerusalemitethan a non-Jerusalemite. Despite the reservations with which someof the arguments for the Jebusite hypothesis are presented, and thelack of positive evidence in support of the hypothesis,67 it has to benoted that the indirect evidence gives it confirmation.68 Whilst itmust be admitted that because the evidence is indirect andcircumstantial there can be no certainty about Zadok's origin, theJebusite hypothesis is more satisfactory than any of the othersolutions that have been proposed. In the struggle for succession toDavid's throne Zadok must, therefore, be regarded as representingand 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 andNathan are named without genealogy, and are described as priestand prophet respectively, Benaiah is given a genealogy, but aspecification of his office and duties is lacking. According to 2 Sam.20.23 he was a military commander who had charge over the


Cherethites and Pelethites; they are also mentioned with Benaiah in1 Kgs 1.38, 44. The Cherethites and Pelethites, who are alwaysnamed together (cf. 2 Sam. 8.18; 15.18; 20.7,23; 1 Chron. 18.17), areusually taken to be David's personal bodyguard chosen deliberatelyfrom among foreign mercenaries.69 The Cherethites were Cretans,usually identified with the Philistines or related groups, who hadcome along the sea-route from Crete and had settled in thePalestinian coastal plain. Their identification with the Philistines hassome support (cf. Zeph. 2.4-5; Ezek. 25.15-16),70 and it is possiblethat David after his success against the Philistines (2 Sam. 8.1)recruited some of his conquered enemies as his bodyguard. Althoughthe identification of the Pelethites is far from certain,71 it is possiblethat this name too contains a reference to the Philistines. It seemslikely that David sought to protect his kingship by having abodyguard of foreign mercenaries who were independent of innertensions in the court. They were professional soldiers, who are called'David's mighty men' in 1 Kgs. 1.8. It is significant that theseforeigners and their leader Benaiah were drawn into the struggle forthe throne, and that they supported the activities of the pro-Solomonic party.

The two other members of the party, Shimei and Rei (1 Kgs 1.8),are unknown, since nothing is recorded about their genealogy oroffice. There is some uncertainty about the rendering of Rei, whichaccording to some traditions was not a proper name but refers toDavid's friend or friends.72 But whatever rendering is accepted, thesetwo members are listed only in v. 8 and do not play any part in theevents recorded in the narrative and are not even named insubsequent lists of Solomon's supporters.

Although Bathsheba is never listed with the pro-Solomonicfaction, Nathan's membership of the group and his collaborationwith Bathsheba are not unrelated. Bathsheba is in many respects anenigmatic person. There is wide disagreement about her part andinfluence in the court scenes described in 1 Kings 1, and thedefinitions of her role range from attributing to her an important partas an ambitious, capable, energetic, shrewd and powerful queen-mother to making her a colourless and even stupid woman who was amere instrument in Nathan's hands.73 There is also considerableuncertainty about the descent of both Bathsheba and her firsthusband Uriah. Although Uriah has been given a good Israelitename, and may therefore have been born in Israel, the designation ofhim as 'the Hittite' (2 Sam. 11.3) probably indicates that his family


was of non-Israelite descent.74 Bathsheba herself is called thedaughter of Eliam (2 Sam. 11.3), who, according to the Talmud(Sanhedrin 69b, lOla), is to be identified with Eliam the son ofAhithophel from Gilo (2 Sam. 23.34; 2 Sam. 15.12). Eliam, likeUriah, was one of David's warriors. It is debatable whether or notBathsheba came from Israelite stock,75 but, significantly, she isamong the pagan women who figure among the ancestors of Jesus inthe Matthaean genealogy (Mt. 1.6),76 although she appears therewithout a name and is simply designated 'wife of Uriah'. No reason isapparent for giving her a patronymic in 2 Sam. 11.3,77 but it can besuggested that there was point in underlining the fact that she wasnon-Israelite in origin. There was also a reason for hinting that she,like her grandfather Ahithophel (if the line of descent fromAhithophel through Eliam to Bathsheba can be established), knewhow to obtain support by drawing on general dissatisfaction andsecuring help from people who harboured grievances. We thereforehave to reckon with the possibility that Bathsheba was of non-Israelite origin, a native of Jerusalem and a Jebusite.78

The members of the pro-Solomonic camp thus came from a mixedbackground, some like Zadok, probably Nathan, and possiblyBathsheba, being connected with Jerusalem in pre-Israelite days, andothers being foreigners, Cretans or Philistines. They were basicallynon-Israelite. In contrast Adonijah's leading supporters were ofIsraelite origin, and more specifically had Hebronite connections.The first named of Adonijah's supporters was Joab the son ofZeruiah, who had a long and close connection with David. He isalways 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 inHebron (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 thearmy was by that time far more established than the levies of formertimes,79 it seems that there was a distinction between the militia incharge of Joab and the professional bodyguard under Benaiah;whereas the former was composed of conscripted Israelites, the latterwas constituted of foreign mercenaries. Joab and the army had givenDavid support during the uprising of Absalom (2 Samuel 18).Abiathar the priest was also a long-standing supporter of David andis also given an honourable place among David's administrators (2Sam. 8.17).80 Abiathar was a descendant of the priestly family of Elifrom Shiloh (1 Sam. 14.3), and had escaped from Nob, when Saulslaughtered the eighty-five priests there, and gone over to David (1


Sam. 22.20-22). The significance of the Hebronite connections ofthese men for our understanding of the rivalry between the twogroups concerned with the succession to David's throne becomesclearer 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 amatter of great concern for these members of the court who hadconnections with Hebron, and it is from among those earlysupporters of David that Adonijah was able to rally support.81

The nature of the friction between the two groups can now bedefined more closely.82 On Adonijah's side stood Joab, the commanderof the militia or levies, on Solomon's side was Benaiah the leader ofthe professional soldiers acting as David's bodyguard. In Adonijah'scamp too was Abiathar, who came from the old priesthood of Nob;his opposite number in the pro-Solomonic group was Zadok, whohad connections with pre-Israelite Jerusalem and may have been amember of the Jebusite priesthood serving there. On the one hand,therefore, were representatives of the military and religious institutionsof Hebron, which had been David's capital before the capture ofJerusalem; on the other hand were representatives of a new form ofadministration that was emerging with the establishment of amonarchy in Jerusalem. It can to some extent be described as rivalrybetween a party that had the supremacy of Judah and the south verymuch at heart, and a Jerusalem oriented party that wanted a unitedkingdom.83 However, the central issue was not a united kingdom inthe broader and later sense of the term; it was rather a case of specifictension between the Hebronite followers of David and a core ofpeople who represented the Jebusite, non-Israelite population ofJerusalem. The acceptance of Jerusalem as his capital posed seriousand difficult problems for David, and it seemed that the only wayforward was by fusing together the Israelite and Jebusite, theHebronite and Jerusalemite traditions. Although there were socialand administrative aspects to this problem it was basically a religiousone, for the combination of these different elements inevitably meantthe acceptance of religious syncretism. As G.W. Ahlstrdm84 rightlycomments, a new era of syncretism began when David establishedhis new capital in Jerusalem and this had religio-political consequences.The Hebronite party's attempt to put Adonijah on the throne afterDavid voiced the protest of the Judahite tribes against this developmentand deliberately intended to put a brake on it, and possibly hopedthat Hebron would be restored as capital. The Jerusalemite party onthe other hand was eager to place on the throne one who would be in


sympathy with the retention of Jerusalem as capital, advance thepolicy of King David and introduce more syncretism in the newcapital. It is in this particular setting, and more specifically inconnection with the endeavours of the pro-Solomonic group, that theprophet Nathan is to be understood.

The succession issueThe circumstances surrounding the succession issue as described in1 Kings 1.1-4 are that David was senile and impotent, and had thusbeen proved unfit to be in charge of the affairs of the kingdom. Theconcluding phrase of the Abishag episode, 'but the king knew hernot', contains a clue to the correct understanding of the measurestaken 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 theadditional phrase 'let her lie in your bosom', introduces anotheraspect of the presence of Abishag. It has been argued that this was amedical prescription, which aimed at reviving the aged king bybringing him into contact with young and warm flesh. There is someevidence that this custom was known elsewhere as having medicinaleffects.86 But it seems that there was more than this custom behindthe bringing of Abishag to David's bed. She was brought into theking's harem in an attempt to rejuvenate the aged David and therebyto test his potency. Confirmation of this is found in Solomon'sreaction to Adonijah's request for Abishag (2.22), which, because shewas a member of the harem, was equivalent to a renewed bid for thethrone.87 When it is stated in 1.4 that 'the king knew her not' ('had nointercourse with her', according to the NEB), the message is clear: theking had lost his virility and was no longer able to guarantee the well-being of his people.88

Adonijah's gathering of his supporters at En-rogel was anindication that he was contending for David's throne. As thenarrative develops, it becomes clear that David's successor was to actas co-regent until the king's death, and would only then assume soleresponsibility. When the succession issue had been settled, the manyreferences to David remaining king (1.43, 44, 47, 48) make it clearthat the intended impression of the final form of the narrative wasthat Solomon was acting as co-regent.89 It has to be admitted,however, that since no exact definition of his functions is given, it isimpossible to determine how power was shared between the tworeigning monarchs. Nevertheless, some form of co-regency musthave been in existence at this time.90 To argue further that what


happened in those particular extreme circumstances surroundingDavid's senility set the pattern for a series of Hebrew co-regenciesthroughout the period of the monarchy seems unwarranted.91 Butthat co-regency operated on this occasion, as it also did when Jothamhad to relieve the leprous Azariah of some of his royal functions (2Kgs 15.5), is unquestionable. Although the monarchy in Israel wasyoung and newly established, a custom that was known elsewhere inthe ancient Near East was adopted for these special circumstances.Mesopotamian parallels show that a king would install his successoras crown-prince during his own life-time;92 among the Hittites toothe crown-prince could act on behalf of the reigning monarch;93 andin South Arabian kingdoms the heir apparent, who had beencrowned as co-regent, could then succeed his father without furthercoronation.94 It has been strongly contended that the nearest parallelwas found in Egypt,95 where the system of co-regency was inexistence both before and during the period of the Israelite monarchyand with a suggestion that it was acceptable when the senior partnerwas too old to fulfil his duties properly. Whichever of these modelswas accepted as a basis for appointing a person to act as David's co-regent, the procedure behind the events of 1 Kings 1 is theappointment of a co-regent to assume some responsibility becausethe father, who was old and had lost his virility, could not fullyundertake his royal functions.

Adonijah, assuming that he was heir-apparent, moved to establishhimself as co-regent. His assumption was probably based on the factthat he was the eldest surviving son of the reigning monarch;96

Amnon, Absalom, and presumably Chileab, were dead (2 Sam. 3.2-5). Admittedly, it is difficult to prove that primogeniture was anaccepted principle in Israel at this very early period in the history ofthe monarchy; the. dynasty was too young yet to have acquired anestablished pattern. It is true that primogeniture was the customamong the Hittites,97 and that with time it became the accepted rulein Israel too.98 But it seems to have been a complicated issue inIsrael, for the charismatic factor and the election of a king by Yahwehdied hard (1 Kgs 2.15). There are cases where the reigning monarch,who had an important part to play in choosing his successor, by-passed the eldest son in favour of a younger one; the most notableexample is the succession of Josiah by Jehoahaz until the Egyptianslater replaced him with his older brother, Eliakim (2 Kgs 23.30-33).Possibly the death of the first-born provided extenuating circumstancesin which any one of the surviving sons, and not necessarily the eldest,


could be appointed." Although primogeniture had not been establishedin these early days of the monarchy, and was only ultimatelyaccepted with some reservations, Adonijah assumed that he was tosucceed 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 theearliest pre-Jerusalemite Davidic kingship; this could be taken tosignify his precedence and unquestionable claim to the throne. Theactions attributed to Adonijah in 1 Kgs l.Sff are those of a man whotook it for granted that he was heir-apparent and had decided thatthe circumstances called upon him to function as co-regent. Thestatement in v. 5 that 'he prepared for himself chariots andhorsemen, and fifty men to run before him' is to be interpreted as anact of setting himself up as king (cf. 1 Sam. 8.11). The fact thatAdonijah was allowed to behave in this way can be taken as asuggestion that he was already acknowledged as crown-prince.100

Whether Adonijah went further than the preliminary steps to claimthe throne and was actually anointed king, depends on ourinterpretation of the sacrifice in v. 9. The offering of'sheep, oxen andfallings' need not be taken to constitute an investiture,101 but couldhave been a celebration feast intended to consolidate the party thatsupported Adonijah.102

This expected and apparently legitimate progression to the thronewas thwarted by an unexpected move on behalf of Solomon, who hada less obvious claim to succeed his father. According to 2 Sam. 12.24-25 he was David and Bathsheba's second son, who replaced theillegitimate first-born who had since died. Despite the case presentedso strongly for taking Solomon as the illegitimate son born from anadulterous liaison between David and Bathsheba,103 and the fact thatsuch a reading of the events would delete the tension betweenNathan's condemnation of David and Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 12 andthe co-operation between him and Bathsheba in the present chapter,many difficulties turn the balance against the acceptance of such aninterpretation.104 It rests to a great extent on the excision of thewhole section in 2 Sam. 11.27b-12.24.105 Making Solomon theillegitimate son born from that infamous affair would place him inthe most unlikely position for becoming a contender for David'sthrone. Accepting that he was staking a claim for the throne, nostrong reason is given in 1 Kings 1 in support of his contention,except what may be a fabricated oath, which will have to beconsidered in more detail below.106 Solomon did not even stake hisclaim personally, but remained passive through the events described


in this chapter. The strength of his contention lay in the parly ofsupporters which was ready to take action on his behalf, and moreespecially in the liaison between his mother and Nathan, whosemanoeuvres 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 asco-regent with his aged and impotent father, but an opposing party,helped by an intrigue within the inner circle at court, secured thenomination of Solomon as co-regent and successor to the throne.Ahlstro'm's attempt107 to dismiss this idea of a palace intrigue is notconvincing for a number of reasons. Firstly, the naming of Solomonas Jedidiah, which was an obvious variant on the name David, doesnot necessarily mean that Solomon had from an early date beendesignated as crown-prince. Secondly, the interpretation of 2 Sam.12.25 as an oath designating the successor, which would thenvalidate the claim in 1 Kgs 1.13, 17, 28-31, takes the appeal to aprevious oath to be more reliable than is warranted. Thirdly, even ifsigns of a prolonged rivalry between Solomon and Adonijah can beread in 1 Kgs 1.9f, this does not of necessity deny Adonijah theposition of crown-prince and the ascription of Solomon's successionto a palace intrigue and coup d'etat. It is within this framework ofintrigue and the existence of an opposition party that Nathan'sactivities in 1 Kings 1 have to be understood.

Nathan's roleIn addition to his presence among the group of Solomonic supporters(1.32,35), and a consistent mention of him among those not invitedby Adonijah to En-rogel (1.8,10), Nathan is given a very significantpart in the settlement of the succession issue because of his co-operation with Bathsheba and their concerted approach to David.According to 1.11, it was Nathan who took the initiative by reportingto Bathsheba that Adonijah had seized the kingship and thenproceeding to give her 'counsel'. In the instructions that he gave herto go to King David he even provided her with words for the occasionand made reference to a previous oath made by the king (v. 13). Healso arranged to come himself to the king during her audience withhim and there to confirm Bathsheba's words (v. 14). All wentaccording to plan; after Bathsheba had repeated Nathan's wordsalmost verbatim (v. 17) and reported to David that Adonijah hadmade a move to set himself up as king (vv. 18-19), Nathan enteredand took matters into his own hands (vv. 22-27). The eventual


outcome of these two audiences with the king was that Davidconfirmed his previous oath (vv. 28-31) and issued instructions forthe installation of Solomon as co-regent (v. 32).

The impression given in this narrative, which was probablyintended on the part of the author, is that Nathan was the primemover and used Bathsheba as an accomplice; he devised the plot andmerely gave her a part to play and words to speak. There is strengthin the argument that Bathsheba, who as queen held a position ofauthority in the court, took a more active part in the plot thanobediently performing as a puppet in an act produced by Nathan. Itis obvious that her own status and authority after David's death weretied up with the outcome of the succession issue; if Solomon becameking, she would enjoy the position, power and privileges of 'queen-mother'.108 This point is forcefully brought out in the rather tersestatement made by Nathan to Bathsheba—'Have you not heard thatAdonijah the son of Haggjth has become king ...?' (v. 11); the clearmessage, although it has not been spelt out in so many words, is thatthe status desired by Bathsheba is about to be taken by Haggith. Theimplication cannot be missed in the deliberate coupling of her fatewith that of her son Solomon in v. 12.109 The positive influence ofBathsheba on the plot, and perhaps a more active part in itsinstigation than the narrative implies, is claimed to have somesupport from an examination of the influential position of the queensand the pan they played in harem intrigues.110 Evidence is availablefrom Assyria, where Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal were bothelevated to the throne in preference to their older brothers throughthe influence of mother ar/d grandmother respectively, from Egypt,where there is a record of a harem intrigue in the last days ofRameses III, and from Ugarit, where Ahatmilku, the queen-consort,took an active role in settling a dispute about the succession after herhusband's death. Similarly, it is claimed, their mothers exercisedconsiderable influence in securing the designation of Solomon andAbijah (2 Chron. 11.21).111 It may be conceded that probablyBathsheba was more than a mere accomplice and a tool in theprophet's hand.112 But in view of the number of other peopleinvolved, and the clear indications that there was a struggle betweentwo factions at court, the conflict cannot be attributed simply to therivalry between Haggith and Bathsheba.113

In its present form the narrative obviously sets out to attribute toNathan the major role in the plot. It was not the queen that hadcalled upon him to give her counsel, but it was he who approached


Bathsheba. Despite the recent turn of events, the queen does notseem to have reacted, and Nathan had to ask her whether she wasaware of these developments and of their implication for her—'Haveyou not heard...?' It was Nathan himself who offered her counsel,for which the queen had made no request. It was he too that broughtto her notice the need to take action, and that not simply forSolomon's sake but also to save her own position. Whatever the truecircumstances surrounding the plot may have been, the presentnarrative ascribes the leading role to Nathan; he was able to makeuse of Bathsheba, who would naturally be willing to comply with hiswishes because of her own desire to retain her status. Thisinterpretation of the narrative takes the point that Nathan was actingas the leader of the pro-Solomonic group, whose aim was to securethe nomination of Solomon as David's successor. Through hisshrewdness in assessing Bathsheba's position and pointing it out toher, he was able to win her support and ready co-operation in theplot he had conceived.

An examination of the place of the oath fabricated by Nathanconfirms that we are dealing with a devious attempt to intervene inwhat was an expected pattern of succession. The essence of the oath,purported to have been made to Bathsheba, was 'Solomon your sonshall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne' (v. 13, cf. itsrepetition in w. 17, 30).114 No record of such an oath has beenpreserved in the Biblical tradition, and the attempt to find proof ofSolomon's designation as crown-prince in earlier passages dependson very slender evidence. AhlstrOm's115 case is built on his readinessto interpret the naming of Solomon as Jedidiah by Nathan as an oathin which the prophet announces the successor to the throne, and heassumes that this was the oath to which reference is made in 1 Kings1. This, however, is very unlikely. The oath in 2 Sam. 12.25, if it is tobe interpreted as such, was made by Nathan to Bathsheba; but in 1Kings 1 the oath is claimed to have been made personally andsecretly by David to Bathsheba. Because of the personal nature of thefabricated oath, Nathan was not to know of it. When he came in toDavid, he did not even mention an oath, but chose another line ofapproach 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 viewthat an oath concerning the succession was unknown. In view of itsimportance for the future of the Davidic dynasty, it is remarkablethat, if such an oath had been made, it was not known within the


inner circle of the court. No suggestion is made that Adonijah wasaware of an oath, and therefore the calling of an assembly at En-rogeland his self-elevation to be co-regent is not presented as an act ofrebellion against known plans made by his father. Nowhere in 1Kings 1-2 is it suggested that Adonijah was responsible for anuprising in order to overthrow his father's wishes; in this thenarrative stands in contrast to the account of Absalom's rebellion in2 Samuel 15. Adonijah, acting in very special circumstances, merelyassumed the authority that was to be his on his father's death,116 andseems to be unaware that any other plans had been made by hisfather. Even if it is accepted that there was a strong rivalry betweenthe two brothers, a fact that is confirmed by Adornjah's action in notinviting Solomon to his sacrifice,117 there are no grounds forsuggesting that the throne had been promised by David to Solomonand that Adonijah was in effect seizing it contrary to his father'swishes.

It is also clear from the narrative that David's wishes concerningthe succession were unknown to Solomon and his supporters, as isemphasised in Nathan's words to David (vv. 22-27). AlthoughNathan had previously made clear reference to an oath madepersonally by David to Bathsheba (v. 13), when he came to the kinghe did not show any awareness of the oath. Since it was claimed tohave been an oath made to the queen, Nathan was careful not tomention it, and thus avoided giving any hint of a plot betweenhimself and Bathsheba.118 Thus, whilst Bathsheba went to the kingand suggested to him that, in view of his oath to her, he could nothave given Adonijah permission to take the actions described('although you, my lord the king, do not know it', v. 18), Nathanwent to him and craftily worked on the assumption that the king hadgiven Adonijah permission without informing other members of hiscourt. Whether v. 24 is taken as a question or a statement,119 onecannot miss the almost verbatim reproduction of the oath quoted byBathsheba to David in v. 17, but with the replacement of Solomon'sname with 'Adonijah'. After he had stated this, Nathan proceeded toaccuse the king of acting in this manner without informing his courtofficials (v. 27). The accusation that he had made a promise toAdonijah without informing the court had the desired effect on theaged David and he confirmed the oath that had a few minutes earlierbeen implanted in his mind by Bathsheba (w. 28ff.).

Both the suggestion that Adonijah did not know of an oath and thefact that Nathan had to act as if he did not know of the purported


oath to Bathsheba, indicate that the oath mentioned in vv. 13,17, 30is a complete fabrication.120 In v. 13 Nathan was not remindingBathsheba of an oath made to her, but was suggesting it to her as ameans whereby she could secure her own position and the accessionof her son Solomon. He appears to have been taking advantage of theking's senility, and was also probably playing on the special affectionthat David had for Balhsheba^121 his plot depended entirely on theking in his senility accepting Bathsheba's word. Admittedly accordingto this interpretation Nathan was acting in a very dubious, if notcorrupt, manner in 1 Kings I;122 he was responsible for inventing afalse statement and for persuading Bathsheba to present it to theking, which unquestionably renders him guilty of deception. But hisaction must be understood against the background of the Hebronite-Jebusite rivalry. The assumption of power by Adonijah presented theJebusite faction with a crisis, and Nathan acted swiftly on behalf ofthis faction and masterminded a plan to secure the throne for itspreferred candidate, Solomon. Despite the dubious nature of his plot,Nathan successfully achieved his goal and Solomon was dulyacclaimed as David's successor.

Thus Nathan does not simply appear as one member of a group ofpersons representing the Jerusalemite and Jebusite interests in thesuccession to the throne. He is rather presented as the leader and themost influential of the persons associated with this group. Ishida123

rightly dismisses the suggestion that Zadok was the leader ofSolomon's party and argues that the priests played only a secondaryrole; he is justified in referring to Nathan as the 'ideologue' ofSolomon's party. He stood out from amongst the group, exerted hisinfluence on the queen and secured the throne for their nominee. Hewas a person of authority in the court and naturally assumed theleadership of the Jerusalemite or Jebusite element within KingDavid's administration. When faced with a crisis that would leadinevitably to a decrease and possible demise of the Jebusite influenceat court, he acted swiftly and shrewdly.

ReconstructionThe most obvious place to look for the origins of a narrative thatattributes such a vital role to Nathan is among the native, Jebusitetraditions of Jerusalem, and more specifically in a circle that wasvery close to Nathan himself and anxious to preserve an account ofhis achievements. Setting the narrative in this context provides anexplanation of some of its main characteristics:


(a) Giving precedence to Nathan over Bathsheba would not beout of place in such a tradition. As noted above, there is apossibility that Bathsheba herself was from among thenative Jebusite population of Jerusalem.124 If so, she wouldhave been as concerned as Nathan was with the successionof Solomon to the throne. As noted above too,125 it isprobable that she as queen would have taken a more activerole in achieving this aim than is attributed to her in thepresent narrative. But a tradition originating from a circleclose to Nathan would naturally concentrate on his part incourt affairs, and would give him a leading role, even at theexpense of Bathsheba, who has been demoted to a subordinatepart.

(b) This would possibly account too for the naming of Nathanin connection with Solomon's anointing (v. 23, cf. v. 45), afeature that is not without its difficulties. The most obvioussolution, which is to regard the name Nathan as an additionbecause he does not function in the actual anointing(v. 39),126 is not entirely satisfactory. Other reasons foromitting his name have been put forward: the verb 'let... anoint him1 in v. 34 is in the singular, and so a referenceto Nathan is superfluous; the rite of anointing is moreappropriately ascribed to a priest. The omission of Nathan'sname does not, however, seem to be justified, sinceanointing was not confined to priests; prophets weresometimes 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 apriest was responsible for performing the actual anointingthe prophet undertook a related function, such as speakingan anointing oracle.127 Whatever the different functions ofpriest and prophet may have been at this particularanointing, it would be natural for a tradition that attaches toNathan such an important pan in the succession of Solomonto introduce his name side by side with that of Zadok whenreferring to the anointing.

(c) The narrative's attention to details of court protocol mayalso indicate that it originated from among court personnel;its attribution to Nathan or those near him would explainthis feature. It is in the sections of the narrative that describethe interviews of Bathsheba and Nathan with David thatinterest in such detail appears. According to 1.15 Bathsheba,


because she had direct access to the king, entered hischamber unannounced.128 Nathan, however, was in adifferent position and was not allowed to enter the chamberwithout 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, aswell as sufficient interest to make the point that thesecustoms were carefully observed. Both Bathsheba andNathan also followed the usual practice of bowing and doingobeisance on entering the king's presence (w. 16,23), withNathan the servant making the posture more distinct thanBathsheba the queen.129

(d) A narrative focussing on Nathan and wishing to demonstratethe successful part that he took in setting the JerusalemiteSolomon on the throne of David instead of the HebroniteAdonijah would feel no embarrassment in referring to ratherdubious behaviour in achieving this desired result. On thecontrary, there would be a certain amount of pride inshowing how Nathan, with Bathsheba's co-operation, outwittedthe Adonijah party and secured the nomination of Solomonby the senile David. The similarity between the circumstancessurrounding the succession of David by Solomon ratherthan Adonijah and those surrounding the succession of Isaacby Jacob rather than Esau cannot be missed. The latterepisode is basically that of a 'competition between Jacob andEsau, complicated by the deception of Jacob and Rebekah.Because of the deception, the blessing falls on the wrongson'.130 Furthermore, 'Jacob appears as the deceiver underthe tutelage of his mother'.131 Despite these rather strikingsimilarities, there are differences in the relationship betweenthe personnel involved and the way the deception plotdevelops. But there is a common motif: succession passes onto the younger son rather than the elder by deceiving the onebestowing the right of succession. The narrative in Genesisaccepts such a deception without any attempt to hide it orgloss over it; similarly the Jebusite tradition behind 1 Kings1 accepts that there was deception in settling the issue ofsuccession to David's throne. It was probably acceptedwithout any reservation or attempt to suppress it on theprinciple that the end justifies the means.


These are strong arguments in favour of tracing the original andbasic form of the narrative in 1 Kings 1 to a group of Solomon'ssupporters.132 The main concern of the group was to secure hisnomination as successor to the throne, but behind that concern was adeep interest in preserving the native, Jebusite tradition of Jerusalemwithin the framework of the new Israelite monarchy established inthe city. The prime mover was. Nathan, and it seems likely that thenarrative originated with a group that was very close to Nathanhimself.

Despite its Jerusalemite-Jebusite interest, origin and colouring,this account of the succession contained one element of vitalimportance for the compilers of the Succession Narrative: in it ispreserved evidence that Solomon was nominated by David as hissuccessor. However unpalatable some of the details may seem, theessence of the narrative was too significant for it to be omitted, for itprovided a fitting climax for the Succession Narrative by proclaimingthe legitimacy of Solomon's succession. Nathan had not simplydisplayed his skill in securing the throne for Solomon, but he hadachieved it with David's blessing and authority.133 Solomon in thisway came to the throne, not as an usurper, but as the nominee of thepreceding monarch and thus as the only legitimate successor ofDavid. By securing his nomination, Nathan had given Solomonstatus, moral authority and an unsevered link with the immediatepast history of the dynasty. The proven legitimacy of Solomon'ssuccession was greatly appreciated by the compilers of the SuccessionNarrative, and so they adopted the Nathan-Jerusalemite traditionand incorporated it into their narrative as a suitable conclusion.

What adaptations were made to the original narrative cannot betraced. If the Nathan tradition had openly delighted in Nathan'ssuccess against the Adonijah party and had with some justificationtriumphed in the outcome, that element was toned down. One thingis obvious: no attempt was made to suppress and delete from thenarrative the account of Nathan's deception. The reason is alsoobvious: inextricably bound with that deception was the confirmationby David of an oath making Solomon his successor, and that couldnot be excised, for it was the most important element in thelegitimation of his successor.

When the narrative was later revised, only slight modificationswere made to it, and these serve to emphasise the legitimacy ofSolomon's succession to the throne. As noted above,134 the revisionsin vv. 30, 35b-37, 46-48 emphasise that the Davidic dynasty was


under divine favour, and this was especially evident in the fact thatDavid had a successor in the person of Solomon, who had beenanointed and had even taken over the kingship during David's life-time.

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, 2Samuel 7 provides an introduction for it; with promises of a house, akingdom and a throne that will be established for ever the successionto David is thrown to the centre of the stage and becomes the issueon which attention will from now on be focused. The spokesman onthis important occasion was Nathan the Prophet. Again importantissues arise when 2 Samuel 7 is analysed in detail, most notablyquestions about the unity of the chapter and the extent to which itwas annotated and revised. Such an analysis, which will be based onthe suggestion that two separate oracles (w. 1-7 and 8-16) form thecore of this chapter, will be taken as a basis for understandingNathan's attitude towards the two fundamental issues that becomecentral in the chapter, namely the building of a temple and asuccessor for David. After separating the later additions made tothese two oracles from their original core, the next step is to discussthe origin and provenance of the verses designated as original core.Finally, attention is given to the purpose of the narrative in itspresent form; standing as it does at the beginning of the SuccessionNarrative it gives legitimation to the Jerusalem temple and at thesame time emphasises the legitimacy of the dynasty of David.

The words attributed to Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 form one of themost important sections in the Old Testament because Nathan'spromise concerning the Davidic dynasty (especially in v. 16) hasbecome the basis for an understanding of the Hebrew monarchy andthe hopes attached to it. The so-called 'oracle of Nathan' has beenregarded as a key text in any study of Israel's messianic thinking.1 Ithas been claimed that the oracle is not to be viewed simply as an off-


shoot of messianic prophecy, but, because of its proclamation of theeternal dynasty of the house of David, it has to be considered as theroot and origin of the messianic thinking found in the OldTestament.2 It is, nevertheless, a section that is beset by manydifficulties, especially when an attempt is made to unravel theoriginal portions from the many accretions that they acquired inlater times. The attempts to find a satisfactory solution to theproblems of this chapter have been numerous and show considerablevariety 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 fromthe first, for the prayer makes no allusion to the temple theme foundin vv. 1-17,4 and oddly enough, in asking for a blessing on David'shouse, makes a request for what has already been granted.5 Onesuggestion is that the prayer was originally connected with the arkceremony in ch. 6 rather than the dynastic promise in ch. 7.6 SinceNathan is not even mentioned in this second section, the presentstudy must be mainly concerned with the first. The prayer sectiononly becomes relevant when it provides evidence for determining theage, provenance and theological significance of the layers of traditionthat it has in common with vv. 1-17.

AnalysisAny attempt at analysing the Nathan oracle in vv. 1-17 has thedifficult task of deciding which parts of the prophecy are to beregarded as original, and which are to be attributed to thedeuteronomistic historians who worked over the material at a laterdate. Without giving a full and detailed account of recent analyses ofthe text, it can be seen from other surveys that there are three mainapproaches, (i) Some find in these verses only a very meagre originalcore, which has then been expanded in a later strand and hassubsequently received later additions, (ii) Others despair of findingan original kernel and so argue that the whole section is to beregarded as homogeneous and belongs to a period that is much laterthan the one in which it has been set. (iii) Others again take the viewthat a detailed analysis of the section and a thorough search for pre-deuteronomistic strands will produce more substantial evidence ofthe 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 todemonstrate that the first approach does not allow for a sufficientamount of original material, that the second approach, in arguing forthe unity of the passage, fails to recognise the successive stagesthrough which the material has passed, and that we must accept theposition advocated by those taking the third method of approach andattempting to recover a fairly substantial original account and totrace the subsequent additions made to it.

The origin of the trend which found only very few verses to havebeen original, and which, as is pointed out by T. Veijola,7 opened anew phase in the discussion of 2 Samuel 7, is to be traced back to thework of L. Rost on the Succession Narrative.8 His treatment of thischapter began with David's prayer in vv. 18-29, the crux of which hesaw in v. 27a; the prayer in general, with the exception of the Dtrexpansions in vv. 22-24, and probably also in v. 26, was attributed toDavidic times. The two main reasons given in support of its antiquitywere: (a) its formal similarities to other prayers, such as Gen. 32.10-13; 1 Kgs 8.23-26; 1 Chron. 29.10-19; (b) the fact that Solomon in hisreference to the divine legitimation of the Davidic dynasty in 1 Kgs2.24 seems to have been alluding to 2 Sam. 7.11-16. AlthoughDavid's prayer does not concern us directly in our study of theNathan traditions, it must be noted that Rost's acceptance of theprayer as a starting-point for his study of 2 Samuel 7 has raised somedoubts about his methodology.

Veijola offers two valid criticisms of Rost's approach.9 The first isthe fundamental objection to working back from the prayer to thepromise given to David, for the prayer is obviously not as old as thepromise itself. It is, then, an incorrect procedure to move towards anhistorical evaluation of the remainder of the chapter on the basis ofits connection with the prayer.10 The second is that Rost takes whatmust be considered as late material to prove the prayer's antiquity.In his own treatment of the Succession Narrative Veijola takes 1 Kgs2.24 to be a later deuteronomistic addition (DtrG),11 which cannottherefore be taken as proof of the great antiquity of the promise toDavid of a dynasty. Furthermore, the passages chosen for comparisonin search of indications that the prayer was early cannot be taken inthe way suggested by Rost; 1 Kgs 8.23-26 and 1 Chron. 29.10-19 arelater than David's prayer, and the self-humiliation in Gen. 32.10-13cannot be compared with 2 Sam. 7.18-29. Such fundamentalcriticism of Rost's methodology in the first part of his analysisnaturally arouses suspicion as we proceed to his treatment of vv. 1-17.


First for consideration is Nathan's prophecy in w. 8-17, whereRost found an older kernel in v. lib, which stands out against itscontext, and in v. 16, which must be taken with it. Taken togetherthese verses contain a fragment of Nathan's original oracle, and theyare attributed to the time of David because the prayer presupposesan oracle. A later stratum appears in w. 8-1 la, 12, 14, 15, 17; thisstratum originated from the time of Isaiah, when Assyria hadstormed through Judah and left only Jerusalem standing. Thepromise in v. 13 is of a still later origin, and is attributed to the periodof Josiah; it is probably deuteronomistic and relates the oracle moreclosely to historical fact. Whilst admitting that there is validity in thiskind of approach, Noth came to the conclusion that Rost's solution tothe problems of this chapter cannot be correct.12 Noth was notpersuaded by his stylistic distinctions, which were too narrowlybased, nor was he satisfied with the extraction of individual sections,which were then left hanging in the air without any attempt to givethem wider literary connections. Veijola too has reservations aboutRost's methodology in dealing with w. 8-17,13 especially on thequestion of the age of the two main strata. It is suggested that it is notfeasible for an oracle that originally promised an 'eternal' dynasty toDavid to be reduced at a later date to a promise concerning David'simmediate successor.14

When Rost came to deal with w. 1-7, he separated vv. l-4a fromw. 4b-7 and proposed a very complicated explanation of therelationship between the two sections. The second part (w. 4b-7) heconnected with the second stratum in w. 8-17; there are, however,slight stylistic differences between the two, and the reason suggestedfor this is that behind w. 4b-7 there stood originally an oldersubstratum which has by now been differently clothed by the authorof the second stratum of w. 8-17. The first part (w. l-4a) isconnected neither with the ark narrative, despite such an impressionbeing given on the grounds of content,15 nor with the second stratumof vv. 8-17. Despite Rost's own claim that the acceptance of suchcomplicated processes successfully surmounts the difficulties of thischapter, it has to be admitted that a theory based on the suppositionthat an original stratum has been lost, and then replaced by anotherform freshly written, proves too hypothetical and unsatisfactory.16

Although Rost won strong support from a number of scholars, whoaccepted both his methodology and his conclusions as a correct basisfor understanding 2 Sam 7,17 it has now become clear that there aresubstantial objections to his discussion of all the three main sections


of this chapter. More recent versions of his approach, whilstsuccessful in removing some of the difficulties of Rost's analysis,have not been able to escape from the fundamental criticism that themeagre older kernel, when extracted, seems to be an isolated andunconnected fragment. For instance E. Kutsch,18 who avoids thepursuit of stylistic distinctions by presenting a case for the unity ofthe chapter both in style and content, maintains that there isevidence of ancient material and of later deuteronomistic additions.The older kernel is reduced to v. lib alone, and the contention thatv. 16 is to be taken with it is dismissed. The deuteronomistic elementis found only in vv. 12b, 13a. Poulssen,19 on the other hand, rejectingthe idea that the chapter is a unity, finds in it two differentcomplexes, vv. 5-1 la and w. llb-16. Behind them stands an olderkernel, which was w. 1 Ib, 16, as was argued by Rost. The addition ofv. 13 brought together these two complexes. But Poulssen rejects theidea that v. 13 is a late and deuteronomistic addition; he dates itrather in the reign of Solomon. These later interpretations of 2Samuel 7 have changed the analysis proposed by Rost at somesignificant points, and in doing so have avoided some of the pitfalls.Nevertheless, they share the basic presupposition of a very small andfragmentary original kernel, and for that reason are not acceptable.

Kutsch does not stand alone in making a case for the unity of 2Samuel 7, allowing for an original kernel and two later accretions ofabout half a verse each. As is noted by Veijola in his survey ofresearch on this chapter,20 older critical scholars were agreed on twopoints—the comparatively late date of the chapter and its unity. Inmodern times too the argument for the unity of the chapter hasfound considerable support. One of the approaches taken is that aunity of content can be perceived in the chapter. According toMowinckel21 the intention of the chapter was to provide a reasonwhy King David did not build a Temple in Jerusalem; he took thewhole chapter, including what Rost designated as a deuteronomisticaddition, to have been composed in the age of Solomon for that verypurpose. Noth also finds in it a unity of content22 and bases it on thesupposition that David in setting up his kingship had to connect it tothe previous history of Israel as God's people. This was achieved bytransferring the ark to the city of Jerusalem, which is taken to be thedominant theme of 2 Samuel 7. The introduction of the ark at thebeginning of the chapter is not a foreign element, but provides asuitable Sitz im Leben for the promise to David in the remainder ofthe chapter. The unifying theme of ch. 7, therefore, is that, despite


changes of scene, it is fundamentally concerned with David as king ofthe ark sanctuary in Jerusalem.

The form-critical studies of S. Herrmann23 brought substantialsupport for this concept of unity, as was readily seen by Noth andothers.24 Herrmann's main contention was that 2 Samuel 7 as awhole forms a literary unit which has been deliberately mouldedaccording to an Egyptian pattern found in the so-called Konigsnovelle.The institutions connected with the king, with special concentrationon temples and cultic practices, are described in the Konigsnovelle.The features in 2 Samuel 7 that provide very close links with theEgyptian 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'sadoption by God (v. 14). These links are so strong that they can in noway be damaged by the slight differences that have become necessaryin the process of modifying the Konigsnovelle for Israel's particularsituation. Because David's court was on a smaller and more modestscale than the Egyptian model some adaptations were inevitable. Forinstance, David's consultation with the single official Nathancontrasts with the presence of many officials in the Egyptian version.There are, however, more basic differences which are not as easilyexplained, especially the fact that David was thwarted in his plan bythe official consulted and was thus prevented from building a temple.Added to this also is the rather peculiar feature that the king himselfwas not the recipient of the dream-vision. To overcome thesedifficulties Herrmann has to refer to a 'copernican twist to theKonigsnovelle' and to accept Rost's suggestion25 that in the originalform of the narrative David rather than Nathan was the recipient ofthe divine revelation.

Similarly M. Gdrg in his most recent comparison of the Biblicalnarrative with the Egyptian Konigsnovelle26 thinks that Nathan wasnot mentioned in the original form of vv. 1-7, thus making provisionfor a direct revelation to David. GOrg's treatment, however, is not astraightforward repetition of the proposals advanced by Herrmann,for he abandons the basic supposition that the chapter is a unity. Ineffect Gdrg attempts a combination of Herrmann's argument forfinding behind the chapter an Egyptian prototype with the literarycritical approach that seeks to separate later additions to the chapterfrom its original form.27 Go'rg finds a continuation of the originalform of w. 1-7 in w. 8b, 9, lib, 12-16,18-22a, 25-29; a later strandin the narrative can be traced in vv. 8a, 10, lla-B, lib, 17, 22b-24.


Thus, whilst admitting some later modification, Gorg retains a basicoriginal unit, which has been based on the Konigsnovelle^ or perhapsrather on Egyptian literature containing elements from theKonigsnovelle.2% The most important elements of ch. 7, a divinerevelation, the promise of a dynasty with the king's response and thepromise relating to the building of a temple (v. 13), can be comparedwith parallels provided from Egyptian literature.

The attempts of form-critical studies to find a unity in 2 Samuel 7are obviously not without their difficulties, and their shortcomingshave been made clear in several criticisms of them.29 One point hasalready become clear in the brief summary offered above: theargument for establishing parallels with Egyptian literature has toallow for some modification to meet the situation in Jerusalem inDavidic times. Some of these modifications are by no means slight;the fact that some of them are so substantial has led to a rejection ofthe whole procedure of seeking parallels with Egypt. An importantmodification, according to Kutsch,30 is that in the Konigsnovelle theking had the power to carry through his plans; David's failure toexecute his proposal places 2 Samuel 7 in sharp contrast to theEgyptian composition. The fact that the plan was rejected byYahweh gives the Biblical account an entirely different structure, andalso a different perspective, for, as Herrmann himself admits, it is notthe king, but the divine word that rules in the Israelite version.Because of this Kutsch finds adequate reasons for rejecting thesuggestion that 2 Samuel 7 follows the structure of the Konigsnovelle.Ishida too31 fails to find a parallel for this tension between god andking in Egyptian texts, which generally regard the king as anincarnate god. He therefore turns to Mesopotamia, where the kingwas a servant of the gods and always sought divine blessing on hisreign, and finds parallels between Nathan's prophecy and materialfound in building inscriptions and Neo-Assyrian prophecies. AlthoughIshida finds that Nathan's prophecy has a literary unity and hasMesopotamian parallels, he does not attempt to show that thechapter was composed according to a Mesopotamian model to thesame extent as has been done in the case of the EgyptianKonigsnovelle.

The contrast in this chapter between temple building and royalideology provides a second reason against establishing a connectionwith the Egyptian model; this contrast between rejection of a templeand a promise of dynastic prosperity is unparalleled.32 Admittedlythe two features appear in both models, but the Israelite structure,


which sets the refusal by Yahweh to support David's plan to build thetemple in contrast to Yahweh's promise of blessing on the house ofDavid, cannot have been derived from the Konigsnovelle, wherethere is no tension whatsoever between royal ideology on the onehand and Pharaoh's plan and his execution of it on the other.33

Another criticism that is mentioned by Veijola and others34 is thatHerrmann arrives at this proposed Gattung for 2 Samuel 7 not froma detailed literary or form-critical analysis of the chapter itself, butsolely by resorting to a study of extra-Biblical literature, and thenapplying this to the Biblical composition. The mention of literaryand form-critical analysis introduces the point at which Herrmann'sapproach to the chapter, in common with all other arguments insupport of taking it as a unity, fails to satisfy. A detailed analysis ofthe chapter's content, form and literary style will not support theclaim that it is a unit.35 Nor will the search for other models forcomparison with 2 Samuel 7 survive the attack on the view that thechapter is a unity. Of course models that are nearer to the essence ofOld Testament religion and literature, and are not as foreign to it asthe Egyptian Konigsnovelle, escape some of the criticisms that havebeen levelled against Herrmann. This is true of the cases that havebeen made for finding in the chapter a covenantal structure,36 andmore specifically a model of a promissory, unconditional covenant.37

But these attempts too fall into the same category as Herrmann'sapproach in that they seek to establish a structure that imposes unityon a chapter that cries out for another kind of approach.

A solution that does not ascribe unity to the chapter, but is at thesame time willing to allow that a more extensive original than theminimal amount suggested by Rost formed a basis for furthersuccessive redactions, has been sought in more recent works on thechapter. As has been rightly pointed out by Mettinger,38 thisapproach has arisen in the context of interest in the deuteronomisticelements that can be traced in such compositions as this chapter, andat the same time in seeking to establish which strands are pre-deuteronomistic. It is not sufficient to assert that the chapter is 'aDeuteronomic pivotal unit, summing up not merely the Davidictradition, but . . . the D-work as a whole'39 and at the same time toreject all attempts to analyse it further and separate the strandsevident in the deuteronomistic composition.40 Whilst it is true thatthe text betrays very clear signs of deuteronomistic editing, and thatthe unit may have played a formative role in the structuring of theDeuteronomistic History, an attempt must be made to penetrate


deeper into the past history of the section and recover what ispossible of its form at a pre-deuteronomistic stage in its growth. Abrief summary of the analyses proposed by the three representativesof this approach chosen by P. Kyle McCarter41 will amply illustratethe method used and will at the same time underline the difficulty ofobtaining a consensus view.

P.M. Cross,42 who accepts that the chapter in its present form is adeuteronomistic composition, that it reflects the normative view ofthe deuteronomist and that it does occupy a significant place in thestructure of the Deuteronomistic History, takes the discussion a stepfurther by looking for traces of pre-deuteronomistic strands. Apartfrom the prayer in w. 18-29, which is deuteronomistic throughoutand presumes the existence of the full composite oracle,43 there arethree other sections for consideration. The first section, w. 1-7,contains what is designated as the 'old oracle' of Nathan, but whichin its present form has included that original poetic oracle indeuteronomistic prose. A remnant of an old oracle, which explainedwhy David did not build a temple, is preserved in the poeticcouplet:

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 tothis oracle to be a minor element in the narrative and so refers to it asa preliminary oracle, whose original culmination in an oathconcerning David's seed has been lost and replaced by the eternaldecree of w. llb-16. The main section obviously is that in w. llb-16containing the 'eternal decree', but again showing signs that theoriginal oracle has now been incorporated in a deuteronomisticcomposition. 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 aformula of divine kingship and which, like Ps. 89.20-38 and Isa. 9.1-6,


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, isdesignated by Cross as a deuteronomistic linkage, although someolder material is reflected here and there. In joining the two olderpieces and casting the whole chapter in a deuteronomistic form, theeditors did give it the appearance of unity in that its central theme isDavid's dynasty. In tracing the complicated process behind thischapter, Cross finds deuteronomistic features in all its main sections.He does, however, distinguish between sections which are basicallyold, but reflect some deuteronomistic characteristics, and those thatare deuteronomistic compositions, but contain some older material.It would perhaps have been more helpful if Cross had approachedthe chapter layer by layer, rather than section by section.

T. Veijola,44 like Cross, assumes the presence of two differentoracles, 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 thepresent form of this account of an oracular guidance given throughNathan there are two deuteronomistic interpolations, viz. vv. Ib, 6.Another deuteronomistic addition in v. 13 qualifies the rejection of atemple by making it temporary and by distinguishing between 'ahouse 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 assertsthat there will be an immediate successor, although he is not named.By including in the present account two short additions, thedeuteronomists have imposed their own interpretation on theoriginal: (a) the insertion of v. 13 makes it unmistakably clear thatthe immediate successor was Solomon; (b) the addition of vv. lib, 16extends the promise considerably, for there is a movement frommentioning an immediate successor to the promise of an eternalDavidic dynasty. Veijola takes a further step by asserting that thedeuteronomistic additions to 2 Samuel 7 were not made at one andthe 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 thenarrative of a more substantial amount of original material than wasadmitted by Rost. By attempting to unravel the successive layers thathave been added to the original he has gone further than simplyaccepting that there has been deuteronomistic editing, as is done byCross. He has tried to demonstrate that there lies behind the


narrative a more complicated process of redaction. There may beroom for disagreement over points of detail, such as the ascription ofindividual verses to a particular stage of redaction in preference toanother. Some scholars show a more basic scepticism of the evidencefor the redaction known as DtrN,45 whilst others have questioned thevalidity of Veijola's whole approach.46 Nevertheless, he has openedup a new field of discussion that cannot be ignored in any study of 2Samuel 7.

T.N.D. Mettinger47 acknowledges the strength of this approachwhich, having separated the deuteronomistic additions from theoriginal narrative, seeks by further analysis to establish the variousredactions through which the material passed. His proposed analysis,however, is different from those presented by Cross and Veijola. Hisstarting point is the separation of deuteronomistic elements, andthose are found in vv. Ib, 10-1 la, 22b-26, which are less extensivethan the number of verses so designated in the other two analysesalready outlined. In the pre-deuteronomistic material Mettingerrecognises two layers, one later than the other, but both precedingthe deuteronomistic redaction. The first is called the Solomonic layerbecause it is concerned with the legitimacy of King Solomon andoriginated 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' wasfurther 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 oftwo original oracles, Mettinger seeks to establish that the relationshipbetween the two oracles is best explained as a case of an originalprophecy acquiring additions through a further redaction in pre-deuteronomic times; consequently the final deuteronomistic accretionsare reduced to a minimum. The strength of the case put forward byMettinger is that it does attempt to define more closely therelationship between the first prophecy of Nathan in vv. 1-7 and thedynastic element introduced in vv. 8ff. His analysis, however, is notwithout its weaknesses. By extending the original prophecy ofNathan beyond v. 7 to include vv. 12-14a, 16, 17 he seems to beignoring the natural division of the narrative. Furthermore, bydesignating the first division as the 'Solomonic prophecy', he changesits emphasis, and by bringing in the Solomonic element he haseclipsed the true issue of the section, which was the building of the


Temple. The main concerns of the two sections are with the Templeand the dynasty, and not with Solomon and the dynasty as suggestedby Mettinger.

The main thrust of the above presentation of different approachesto 2 Samuel 7 is that neither the recognition of a very minute originalcore (following Rost), nor the attempt to establish the unity of thechapter (on grounds of content with Noth, or following Herrmann'sform-critical analysis), adequately deals with this difficult andcomplicated chapter. A more acceptable method is found in the morerecent analyses which recognise different layers in the chapter andseek to find how these layers were combined in successive redactions.However, since the analyses examined, and the many others thathave been proposed,48 do not give grounds for a consensus of opinion,the evidence must be re-examined in order to reconstruct the growthof the chapter and permit a fresh estimate of its significance for ourstudy of Nathan. As has already been noted, w. 18-29 are not strictlyrelevant to the present discussion, since Nathan has by nowdisappeared from the scene.49 Moreover, this section, more than anyother part of the chapter, shows clear signs of affinity with the workof the Deuteronomists; most probably it is an entirely deuteronomisticcomposition,50 and not simply a deuteronomistic redaction of a pre-deuteronomistic form.51 The remainder of the chapter will beconsidered under its two main sections, w. 1-7 and vv. 8-16.

The First OracleAn issue that has arisen in connection with vv. 1-7 is whether therewas an older form of this section that did not contain any reference toNathan. That, together with the presence of later deuteronomisticaccretions, defines the scope of our discussion of these verses.Objection to the presence of Nathan in the original account has beenraised on the grounds that the divine message was received by theking himself, and that the introduction of a prophet as an intermediaryrepresents a later stage in the growth of the narrative. Consequentlythe original core, according to M. Go'rg52 contained only thefollowing terse account:

Now when the king dwelt in his house, the king said, 'I dwell in ahouse of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent.' And the LORDsaid to David, 'I have not dwelt in a house, but have been movingabout in a tent for my dwelling.'

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


Nathan from the original finds the core of the section in the messagein vv. 5-7 and considers the scene described in the preceding versesto be a later construction to provide a historical occasion for thatmessage.53 But with the excision of the Nathan scene the whole pointof the tradition behind the section is lost, and with it too goesimportant clues as to the possible origin of that tradition. Obviouslythe main concern of the tradition was with the reason why David didnot build a temple in Jerusalem.54 That this was an issue of somesignificance is confirmed by the various attempts in the Bible to finda reason for it, such as the implication in 1 Chron. 22.8; 28.3, thatDavid had been guilty of shedding too much blood, or the suggestionin 1 Kgs 5.17 that he had been too busy because he had so many warsto fight.55 The point made in 2 Samuel 7 is that he had beenforbidden to undertake the project because of a divine word mediatedthrough the prophet Nathan; the point is lost if Nathan is dismissedfrom the scene.

Many reconstructions of the text, therefore, rightly consider theNathan scene an indispensable element in the original traditionbehind the present narrative. It has been claimed that in extra-Biblical accounts of kings seeking divine approval for their intentionto build a temple parallels can be cited for much of the material in 2Sam. 7.1-3. S. Herrmann,56 for example, found that all theingredients of the Egyptian Konigsnovelle are present in 2 Sam. 7.1-17, with the inclusion of vv. 1-3, where attention is drawn to thefollowing items for which there are parallels: the king residing in hispalace (v. 1), planning a temple (v. 2) and engaging in discussion withan official (vv. 2-3). Others, who have found parallels elsewhere, finda common element in the preparations made to find out the divinewill concerning the building of a temple,57 and even in the denial of adivine oracle, which of course meant that the king was refused thehonour of being the builder of a temple.58 Even if such parallels arenot taken into consideration, the consultation of David with Nathanand the rejection of David's plan through the prophet must be takento constitute the original kernel of 2 Sam. 7.1-7 and indeed of thewhole chapter. J. Coppens,59 for instance, finds a homogeneoussection in vv. 1-3, lie and 16; it moves coherently from David's wishto build a house for Yahweh to the divine assertion concerning theDavidic dynasty. Others, who find a more substantial amount oforiginal material in vv. 1-7 than is allowed by Coppens, retain mostof 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


David having 'rest from all his enemies round about' in v. Ib marksout this half verse as an obvious deuteronomistic addition. The so-called '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 anextension that adds to v. 1 an element that is ignored in theremainder of vv. 1-7. There is nothing to correspond to this phrase inthe synoptic passage in 1 Chron. 17.Iff, and the account of theChronicler, on the basis of this and other features, is claimed to havea superior text in its version of Nathan's oracle.63 Moreover, it isobvious from the list of David's wars in ch. 8 that it is incorrect todescribe this period as a period of rest from his enemies. Of coursethe deletion of this phrase from v. 1 has its implications for vv. 9aband 11 a, which refer to cutting off all the enemies and having restfrom them.64 With the exception of this phrase, the whole of vv. 1-3can 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 ascribingthe words prohibiting a temple in vv. 5-7 to Davidic times. Becausethese verses contain a tradition that is distinctly hostile to the Templethey are regarded by many as a later addition, with J. Coppens65

finding evidence here of two stages of accretion, one constitutingvv. 4-5a (together with vv. 8bc, 9-1 lab, 12-15) and concentrating onthe foundation of a dynasty and asserting that David's successorwould build a Temple, and the other made up of vv. 5b-7 (withvv. 10-11) and expressly prohibiting David from building the temple.L. Rost, as already noted,66 proposed a complicated solution byfinding in vv. 4b-7 a replacement for an original tradition that hasnow become lost. Others, however, ascribe the whole of vv. 5-7 to theoriginal kernel of the chapter.67 One of the verses that has to beconsidered in detail is v. 6. T. Veijola68 takes the whole of this verseas a deuteronomistic interpolation, but Mettinger69 maintains that itis to be retained as part of the original. The reasons given for treatingthis verse as suspect are as follows, (i) The closest parallels to theformula 'since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt tothis day' occur in texts which are usually designated as deuterono-mistic (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 'thepeople of Israel' and his claim that they may well have been part ofthe original,71 the phrase seems to be a deuteronomistic stockformula, (ii) In content this verse gives a review of past history andclearly places an emphasis on God's work on behalf of his people.


Despite the claim that Heilsgeschichte plays an important part in thechapter (cf. vv. 8ff.),72 its presence in v. 6 seems to be an obviousexpansion, (iii) Another indication that it is an interpolation is therepetition of so many words from the immediate context: 'dwell' inv. 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 notmade a convincing case for refuting the above arguments as they areput forward by T. Veijola. He states only that in considering theExodus formula in v. 6 as deuteronomistic Veijola is taking things toofar and refers to the contrasting view that this formula was pre-deuteronomistic;73 he thus dismisses the discussion of deuteronomisticphrases in vv. 4 and 6 as being of no importance. On the evidenceproduced above, it can be concluded that v. 6 must be regarded as adeuteronomistic addition.74

The many repetitions in v. 7 from both preceding and followingverses render its authenticity questionable. In v. 7a the phrase 'in allthe places where I have moved' echoes the deuteronomistic 'I havebeen moving about' in v. 6,75 and the phrase 'with all the people ofIsrael' repeats 'the people of Israel' from the stock deuteronomisticformula incorporated in the previous verse. It appears that thedeuteronomists were not satisfied with adding v. 6 to the narrative,but further attempted to make it a more integral part of the sectionby repeating some of its key phrases in the sentence that followed.Similarly the phrase 'whom I commanded to shepherd my peopleIsrael' in v. 7 contains another reference to 'my people Israel' andalso forms a link with 'I took you from the pasture, from followingthe sheep' in v. 8. The rendering of v. 7 is complicated by the difficultallusion to the appointment of 'the tribes of Israel ... to shepherd'the people76 and the attestation to a variant tradition referring to 'thejudges of Israel' in 1 Chron. 17.6.77 In view of support in the LXX forthe MT's 'tribes', the Chronicler's rendering seems dubious.78 Thereis no need to posit a dialectical variant79 or a substantive form fromthe 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 issometimes suggested,81 but rather because the deuteronomistswrongly qualified 'tribes' by adding the phrase 'whom I commandedto shepherd my people Israel'. When the Chronistic version of thissection was prepared, it was logical for 'tribes' to be replaced by'judges'. Thus the only part of v. 7 that can be attributed to theoriginal tradition is the question 'did I speak a word with any of the


tribes of Israel, saying, 'Why have you not built me a house ofcedar?"

The original version of the first oracle of Nathan can now bereconstructed from vv. 1, 2-5, 7 as follows:

1 Now when the king dwelt in his house, 2 the king said to Nathanthe prophet, 'See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark ofGod dwells in a tent.' 3 And Nathan said to the king, 'Go, do allthat is in your heart; for the LORD is with you.'

4 But the same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan, 5 'Goand tell my servant David, "Thus says the LORD: Would you buildme a house to dwell in? 7 Did I speak a word to any of the tribes ofIsrael saying, Why have you not built me a house of cedar?'"

When this original account was later expanded, it acquired thedeuteronomistic rest-formula in v. Ib, the deuteronomistic inter-polation in v. 6 which interprets God's rejection of a temple on thedistinction between a house and a tent, and the deuteronomisticexpansion of v. 7 to facilitate the insertion of v. 6 and to forge a closerlink between the first and second oracles.

InterpretationNathan's objection to David's temple project is presented in vv. 5, 7in the form of an appeal to past history, with the clear implicationthat his move to establish a permanent construction for God to dwellin was an innovation. Although the two verses have an interrogativeform, their obvious intention is to suggest a negative reply and thusto prohibit David's plan.82 Many attempts have been made to derivethe meaning of 2 Sam. 7.1-17 from the contrasting phrases oremphases that can be discerned in the narrative. Some find asignificant contrast between 'would you build me a house?' in v. 5and 'the LORD will make^ow a house' in v. lib83; it is a contrast thatbecomes 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 acontrast cannot have" been intended between two verses which standso far apart,84 and secondly, that the use of two different Hebrewwords (yibneh, 'build' in v. 5 and ya'aseh, 'make' in v. lib) and adifferent Hebrew construction makes the contrast less forceful thanit appears initially.85 Another contrast that is thought to givemeaning to the passage is that based on vv. 5 and 13; 'would youbuild me a house?' in v. 5 implies that David is not given the honour,


whereas lhe shall build a house for my name' in v. 13 statescategorically that his successor will be entrusted with the task.86

What is suggested is that once the dynasty is established a templewould follow; this promise was fulfilled in the erection of theSolomonic temple in Jerusalem. Both verses use the same verb, andthere is an obvious contrast between the subjects, you in v. 5 and hein v. 13. There is, however, the same objection that these versesagain stand so far apart; there is also the more basic difficulty thatv. 5 is not concerned with the disapproval of one person, but ratherrejects permanently the concept of building a temple.87 Still anothercontrast becomes apparent by concentrating entirely on the construc-tion of v. 5: 'would you build me a house?'; David as a human beingwas not in a position to decide to build a house for God, for thatdecision could only be made by God alone. It is, therefore, suggestedthat the real issue is not whether a Temple was to be built, but ratherwho was to take the initiative.88 However, when the original unit, asreconstructed above, is considered on its own, the obvious contrastthat appears is that between David and the tribal history; it issuggested that present development is contradictory to past tradition:'Would you build me a house ...? Did I speak a word to any of thetribes. ..?' The argument presented is a historical one, and claimsthat the tradition of the tribal confederacy is to be maintained.89 Godhad not indicated to the Hebrew tribes that he wished one particularsanctuary to be designated as his dwelling place; why should he takethat step now by allowing David to develop such plans forJerusalem?

This interpretation of Nathan's objection is not contradicted bythe existence of other sanctuaries, particularly the one at Shiloh.Those who accept the idea of an Israelite amphictyony find a centralsanctuary to be one of the most essential elements in such aconfederacy.90 Some find that Shechem served as the first centre, butthat 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 theimportance of Shiloh.92 Unquestionably the ark was located at thetemple in Shiloh (1 Sam. 3.3), and the importance of the sanctuary isevident from 1 Samuel 1-4. It was the only sanctuary of sufficientimportance to present a challenge to the Jerusalem Temple, and aclash was inevitable between the new order established in Jerusalemunder the Zadokites and the old rural ideal found in Shiloh and ledby the Levites.93 Nathan, however, did not champion the old rural


tradition of Shiloh against the more permanent and centralizedsystem represented by Jerusalem. Nor is it correct to argue that thecritical stance towards the Temple in 2 Samuel 7 was aimed initiallyat Shiloh, but was later diverted in the direction of Jerusalem.94 Theobjection presented by Nathan is that, despite the importance ofShiloh, the Israelite tribes had not been specifically instructed byYahweh to construct a central sanctuary as his permanent abode. Asis correctly noted by A.D.H. Mayes,95 nothing in the texts relating toShiloh can be construed to suggest that it was considered a centralsanctuary for all the tribes. The picture emerging is that during theperiod of the judges a number of sanctuaries were functioning andthat each was maintained by the tribe in whose territory it wassituated. What David now had in mind for Jerusalem by bringing upthe 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 entirelydifferent status from that enjoyed previously by Shiloh. There aretwo inter-related aspects to this new development: (1) David's bid fora house of cedar for the ark in Jerusalem, coinciding as it does withthe move to found there a central monarchy for all the tribes, isobviously interpreted by Nathan as a deliberate attempt to give thishouse the status of a permanent sanctuary. The arrangement atShiloh had never been regarded as permanent;96 it had developedinto a sanctuary of some importance naturally and without acontrived effort to give it pre-eminence or permanence. (2) David'sconsultation with Nathan is taken to be an attempt to gain divinedesignation for this permanent sanctuary; no such designation hadbeen sought or given in connection with Shiloh. Therefore, despiteShiloh's importance, Nathan's objection was historically correct. Inpresenting his objection by means of the question 'Did I speak to anyof the tribes?' he was on firm historical ground; what was proposedby David was an innovation that had no basis in the tribal tradition.In the original oracle a straightforward historical reason is given, andthere is no hint of a more complex theological argument.

However, Nathan's anti-Temple stance is difficult to understand inview of his presence in the pro-Solomonic camp in 1 Kgs 1-2, andespecially in view of the absence of any protest from him whenSolomon made plans for the Jerusalem Temple. These facts can betaken to imply that his objection in 2 Samuel 7 applied only to aDavidic Temple, but not to a Solomonic Temple. There is, therefore,some justification for enquiring if Nathan had another deeperobjection to David's projected Temple than the one presented by him


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 succeedsin explaining both his stance against David and his total silence withregard to Solomon's Temple. The objection to David's Temple mustbe seen from the standpoint of the Jebusites living in Jerusalem. Itwas clear to them that in constructing this temple David was aimingfor a royal Temple and a state sanctuary, which was to replacewhatever the Jebusites had already built in the city. Undoubtedly hisintention was to establish a cult that was thoroughly Yahwistic, andthe high-priest officiating at the new cultic centre would be theIsraelite Abiathar and not the Jebusite Zadok. The proposed culticcentre was seen as a dangerous rival and would have resulted in aloss of esteem for the Jebusite cult among the population ofJerusalem. There would have been no objection to David having apalace, with a royal chapel as part of the building; but it was obviousthat David intended to build a far more elaborate construction andthe Jebusites sensed the danger. Giving this temple the status of anofficial royal sanctuary would at the same time have given theIsraelite group supremacy and would have sounded the death knellfor the Jebusite community. Nathan was thus fighting against theextinction of the Jebusite community of Jerusalem. When Solomoncame to power, and that, as already indicated, with the help of theJebusite party, the danger was past, for he could be influenced by hissupporters to safeguard the interests of the Jebusites. Nathan wasthus forced to take a temporary stance against the threat of this newdevelopment, and that basically because a temple bearing the stampof David would be thoroughly Yahwistic. Similarly H. Haag98 findsin Nathan's action an opposition to a Yahweh Temple in Jerusalem;but when Solomon came to the throne, the same objection could notbe raised. Nathan was for preserving Jebusite elements in any culticdevelopment in Jerusalem; he was for a tolerant, syncretisticreligious growth in the city. But obviously he could not base hisadvice to David on his own Jebusite revulsion at such a proposal; hetherefore hid his personal feelings behind an objection that hadstrictly Israelite terms of reference.

David approached Nathan, his court prophet, to seek divineapproval by means of a prophetic oracle. Consequently Nathan'sreply is couched in such terms and is introduced with the formula'Thus says the LORD'; in other words he prohibits the Temple in thename of Yahweh." Nevertheless, Nathan's own particular situationcontributed considerably to the way he conceived of the divine word;


his own convictions and aspirations coloured the word which hespoke. It is possible to construe the passage in such a way as to implythat there was a change of heart on the part of Nathan. His initialreply in v. 3, 'Go, do all that is in your heart; for the LORD is withyou', is taken to indicate Nathan's approval of David's plan; it wasonly after a revelation by night that he changed his mind and gave anegative reply. The contrast is taken by P. Kyle McCarter100 as thatbetween 'Nathan's spontaneous response' and 'the more circumspectopinion... under the impact of divine revelation'. But such anunderstanding of the passage poses the difficult problem of having toadmit that it was not simply a change of heart on the part of Nathanbut that Yahweh also changed his mind; the initial reply of Nathan,with its emphasis on 'the LORD is with you', implies divine approvaland guidance, whereas the later prohibition cancels that approval. Toavoid this embarrassment, it may be claimed that the prophet's ownprivate 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 betweenNathan's personal opinion and his prophetic message. It is difficult tosee how the prophet could have changed his mind overnight as theresult of antagonism at court, as is sometimes suggested.102 It seemsmore reasonable to accept with M. Noth103 that v. 3 does not containa decision on the question of the Temple; he defines it as 'a politeformality customary before the king' and finds the declaration of adecision after the divine revelation in v.5. Admittedly this explanationminimises the emphasis on divine revelation that is so evident if thecontrast between initial response and divine decision is retained. ButNathan, although wishing to present his disagreement with David'sproposal as divine prohibition, was unlikely to have gone to theextent of suggesting a dramatic change of heart. It is perhapssignificant that the divine rejection is put gently and delicately in theform of questions.104 Such a form lacks the power of a straightforwardand unambiguous rejection, and the choice of form may indicate thatNathan exercised some care in the way he expressed his ownreservation about the Temple and disapproval of its construction interms of divine prohibition.

The first oracle, therefore, contained originally the tradition thatNathan thwarted David's plan to build a temple for Yahweh inJerusalem. Although his motivation is to be found in his care for theinterests of the Jebusite community in the city, he had to present amore valid and acceptable reason for his veto. He thus based hisobjection on what he knew about the past tradition of the tribes; as


nomadic groups who had only recently moved into Canaan, theywould have used a moveable rather than a permanent building.Nathan subtly suggested this in the two questions posed in his replyto David, and quite significantly it was in these two questions that hegave God's reply and not in a categorical statement. But, when thefirst oracle reached its final form in the hands of its deuteronomisticeditors, the questions were supplemented by a more direct statementin v. 6. What was initially implied in the interrogative form is nowmore forcefully expressed in the contrast drawn between the twostatements 'I have not dwelt in a house' and 'I have been movingabout in a tent'. It is the weight of this statement in the modificationin v. 6 that has given rise to various theological interpretations ofNathan's oracle, such as the suggestion that the idea of God'dwelling' (yasab), as distinct from 'staying' (sdkari) was objectionable,105or that Nathan's objection represented Israel's 'tent-tradition'106 orIsrael's 'nomadic' tradition.107 But, according to the interpretationoutlined above, the more theological expression of Nathan's moresubtle hint belonged to a later modification of the text. Further re-interpretation of the oracle occurred when the second oracle becameattached to it.

The Second OracleThe opening 'Now therefore' in v. 8 marks a new beginning,108 andthe main theme of vv. 8-16 is different from that of vv. 1-7. Thus it isclear that the two sections were originally independent.109 Thedynastic oracle in vv. 8-16 is by no means easy to analyse, and thereis disagreement about the number of verses to be attributed to thedeuteronomistic redactors. With the exception of the rather simplifiedproposal of P.M. Cross,110 who considers the block in vv. 8-1 la tohave been a deuteronomistic link between vv. 1-7 and llb-16, thetendency in recent studies is to treat the whole passage as a mixtureof an original core and deuteronomistic accretions. T.N.D. Mettinger111

finds two strands in the pre-deuteronomistic core. He thinks thatone, which includes the promise in vv. 12-14a, 17 is a Solomonicdocument, while the other, which includes vv. 8-9, llb-15, 16, is adynastic redaction. A compromise between such divergent views isnot possible, and each verse in the oracle has to be given carefulconsideration.

The opening v. 8 contains the formulaic commissioning of amessenger ('thus you shall say') followed by the accompanyingformula for declaring the message received ('thus says the LORD of


hosts'). The messenger's speech extends to the end of v. 16. It is notlikely that the formulaic elements in v. 8 formed part of the originalversion.112 T. Veijola113 finds in the reference to David as 'myservant' (as also in v. 4) a deuteronomistic expansion, and argues thatin both verses the title can be omitted without leaving gaps in thenarrative. But in view of the fact that it is not an exclusivelydeuteronomistic title, it can be retained. The main subject ofdiscussion in v. 8 is the phrase 'that you should be prince (ndgid} overmy people Israel', and T. Veijola114 attributes the title ndgid to thedeuteronomistic redactors while T.N.D. Mettinger115 argues that itbelongs to the pre-deuteronomistic dynastic redaction. The widevariety of views about the usage and meaning of the term ndgid hasmade any discussion of the verses in which it appears a complexone.116 It is a term that has obvious connections with the earlyleaders of pre-monarchic times (1 Sam. 9.16; 10.1),117 and denotesone designated by God to act as leader, though not necessarily ascrown-prince.118 When the leader (nagid} was acclaimed, he becameking (melek)j thus, with the founding of the dynasty, the termdisappeared.119 The oracle in w. 8ff. is obviously concerned with theDavidic dynasty, for which the term ndgid was not appropriate; itcan therefore be attributed to an annotator who deliberatelyattempted to show that David (like Solomon, according to 1 Kgs 1.5)belonged to the same line of charismatic leaders as Saul and otherleaders belonging to the early tradition of Israel.120 The reference tondgid in v. 8b is therefore regarded as an addition; the originalversion extended as far as 'from following the sheep'.121

With the exception of F.M. Cross, the tendency is to accept v. 9 aspart of the original layer.122 Although reference is made to cutting offhis enemies from before David, the phrase used can hardly be takenas a repetition of the 'rest-formula' (Ruheformel) in v. 1. It is morepositive in tone, and refers to the subjugation of the king's enemies,whereas the 'rest-formula' is more neutral and merely states that theking will enjoy a period of non-intervention or non-violence (cf. alsovv. 10, 11). Although the phrase 'I have been with you' occurs indeuteronomistic passages, it is a phrase that belongs to the originalstory of David's rise to power,123 and can be retained. The promise ofa 'great name' in the second half of this verse, with the perfect beingrendered as a future,124 refers probably to the giving of a successor toDavid. It is a traditional formula,125 and this, together with thepeculiarity of the Hebrew style, is an argument in favour of itsantiquity. Therefore, since the various elements in this verse do not


have a specifically deuteronomistic flavour, the originality of thewhole 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 asdeuteronomistic.126 It shares the same interest in 'my people Israel'as has been found in vv. 6-7, and therefore deviates from the themeof God's goodness to David introduced in v. 9. The allusion toappointing a place for Israel is not to be interpreted as an expressionof the hopes of an exilic redactor for an early return to Palestine,127

nor as containing a reference to the settlement in Canaan during theperiod of the Judges, which had already taken place. It is bestunderstood as an allusion to the Jerusalem Temple; the thought is inkeeping with the interest of the deuteronomists and has somesupport from a Qumran midrash.128 Furthermore, the verse pronouncesin essence the doctrine of rest from one's enemies, which was alsosecondarily introduced into v. 1. It appears therefore that v. 10 is tobe assigned to a deuteronomistic redactor, who introduced a differenttheme from that of its immediate context and by alluding directly tothe temple, the people of Israel and rest from the enemies tried toconnect vv. 8ff more closely to vv. 1-7.

Opinion is again divided with regard to v. 11. A tendency that haswon considerable support from the time of L. Rost is to take thepromise of a house in v. lib as constituting, with v. 16, the earliestcore of this section.129 In addition to those who have accepted Rost'sapproach to this chapter,130 there are many others who take v. lib tobe part of the original layer.131 All are agreed in attributing v. lla to asecondary layer. T. Veijola132 seems to be isolated in attempting tomake a case for regarding v. lib too as secondary. The reasons forrejecting 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 notedin v. 1 (cf. v. 10); the word 'judges' is also used in a way that confirmsthe ascription of v. lla to the deuteronomists. One of the problems inv. lib is how to interpret the word 'house' in the promise made toDavid. Mettinger's argument is that because it means 'dynasty' herethis particular verse must belong to the dynastic redaction concernedwith the election of the Davidic dynasty; it does not belong to theSolomonic version which confirms that it was Solomon who was tobuild the Temple.133 It is therefore pre-deuteronomistic. Veijola134

too takes the word 'house' to mean dynasty, but he comes to the


conclusion that the verse is secondary. His observations on the verseare as follows. (1) In v. lib there is an abrupt change from the firstperson speech of God, to a third person statement about him. (2) Theoriginal promise of a successor to David has in this verse beeninterpreted as the promise of a permanent dynasty; in the twoadditions, vv. lib and 16, the word 'house' is understood as'dynasty', and thus the meaning of the original oracle is extended. Abridge between the two meanings of'house' appears in v. 13. (3) Theuse of'house' for 'dynasty' also appears in the prayer of David, whichis again regarded as secondary (cf. w. 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 29) andoriginating from the same redaction; so too does the concept of apermanent or eternal dynasty (k'dldm, cf. vv. 25, 26, 29). (4) Veijolatakes the verb at the beginning of v. lib, like other verbs in thesurrounding section, as a past tense which refers back to a previouspromise to David. But there is no evidence of such a promise, andtherefore this part of the verse is taken to be an example of thedeuteronomistic 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 tothe same stage of redaction as v. 11 a, which is attributed to DtrN.Veijola's challenge to the originality of v. lib is forceful andpersuasive. So too is his distinction between the two differentperspectives that can be traced in this section, vv. 8ff; to the originallayer belonged the promise of a successor to David, but the redactorextended the meaning of this promise by interpreting it as a promiseof an everlasting dynasty. The whole of v. 11, therefore, is taken to beredactional.

In all recent analyses of 2 Samuel 7 there is agreement that v. 12belongs to the original layer of the chapter.135 But opinion variesagain about v. 13, which contains the statement that David's son will'build a house for my name', with most taking it as original, andVeijola standing alone in regarding the whole verse as the work of aredactor.136 The argument for its retention runs as follows. Thepassage prohibiting David from building the Temple (vv. 1-7) has itscontinuation in vv. 12-15, which state clearly that his offspring wasto build a Temple. The connection between the two passages isevident from the very close correspondence between the question inv. 5 and the statement in v. 13; thus the deuteronomistic character ofv. 13 is ruled out. Although the distinction between a temple 'todwell in' (leSibti) and a temple 'for my name' (lisemi) offers atheological justification of the Temple,137 the latter need not beattributed to a late date, for the theology of the divine name may


extend further back to antiquity than is often realised.138 The verseis, therefore, regarded by Mettinger as part of the Solomonic layer,where it serves the purpose of identifying Solomon as the son ofDavid whose kingdom would be established. Nevertheless, therehave been doubts about the originality of this verse, and morespecifically about v. 13 a, which since the days of Rost has beenregarded as a deuteronomistic addition.139 One good reason fordoubting the originality of v. 13 becomes obvious by concentratingon its stylistic peculiarities. The second half of the verse is a doubletof v. 12b, but with some variants; v. 13 adds 'the throne' before 'hiskingdom' and also supplies 'for ever', both of which extend themeaning of v. 12b in common with the deuteronomistic trend notedin v. 11. It can thus be seen that v. 13b is a deuteronomistic variant ofv. 12b. The first hah0 of the verse echoes v. 5 in its reference tobuilding a house; but in v. 13b 'for my name' is introduced,140 andthis is a characteristic variant, as is seen from other redactionalpassages 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 threepurposes: (1) by using the word 'house' here in its literal meaning,the dynastic oracle is linked with the oracle prohibiting the buildingof a Temple; (2) by introducing 'for my name' (lisemi} the Temple isgiven a theological justification, although it had previously beenrejected on other grounds; (3) Solomon is identified as David'ssuccessor.142 For these reasons, and also on the strength of theobservation that the second oracle is solely concerned with asuccessor for David, v. 13 is taken as secondary.

Analyses of the chapter generally attribute vv. 14-15 to the originallayer, and this is usually accepted without further discussion.143

However, Mettinger divides v. 14 into two sections, attributingv. 14a to the Solomonic layer and vv. 14b-15 to the dynasticredaction.144 The argument for placing v. 14a in the Solomonicdocument is that it makes the point that David's successor will enjoythe status of an adopted son. It is taken with v. 13 by Mettinger and isinterpreted as a proclamation that a particular son, identified asSolomon in v. 13, will be granted this privilege. Whilst accepting thepoint that v. 14a belongs to the original layer, the present analysisdiffers from Mettinger's on two points: (1) v. 14a was not originallyconnected with v. 13, but provides a natural sequence to v. 12; (2)consequently the proclamation made in v. 14a is not that a particularson of David will become Yahweh's adopted son; it is simply statedthat David will have a successor who will enjoy this particular status.


Because they introduce an entirely different theme, vv. 14b-15 are tobe separated from v. 14a. On the one hand these verses assert that ifthe son is disobedient he will be punished, and on the other they givean assurance that he will not be totally rejected like Saul. Bothassertions have a deuteronomistic flavour. The first, in v. 14b,presents the same deuteronomistic theology as is found in the book ofJudges, namely that wrong-doing brings divine punishment. Thesecond, in v. 15, in distinguishing between the better prospects forthe Davidic dynasty and the sad fate of the dynasty of Saul, reflectsthe standpoint taken by the editors of 1 Samuel.

T. Veijola again stands alone in his attribution of v. 16 to thedeuteronomistic redactors,145 for in other proposed analyses the sameverse is considered to be part of the original layer. T.N.D. Mettingernaturally finds a connection between v. 16 and vv. 13 and lib, whichare regarded by him as pre-deuteronomistic.146 He attributes thisparticular verse to both the Solomonic layer and its dynasticredaction; 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 thepermanence of David's house. According to Mettinger these variantsreflect the redaction history of the passage, with the tradition of theSolomonic layer being preserved in the LXX and the tradition of thedynastic redaction in the Massoretic Text. Although Mettingeracknowledges that this is a rare example of a textual variationreflecting redaction history, he seems to be proposing a complicatedand unnecessary explanation of a much simpler process, namely thatthe Greek version ran on the third person singular suffixes from v. 15to the end of Nathan's oracle. Against the originality of v. 16 is thepresence again of an allusion to the permanence of the Davidicdynasty, 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 shallbe made sure' is found only in the sections that are attributed to thedeuteronomistic redactors; this verse too, like v. 13, uses 'throne'(kisse'} to mean 'kingship' or 'dynasty'. For these reasons, v. 16 mustbe regarded as deuteronomistic.

According to Veijola and Mettinger,147 v. 17 belongs to the primarystrand of the narrative (the first Solomonic layer, according to thelatter). But according to M. Gorg,148 it forms part of a later strandthat was added to the original material. Its references to 'all thesewords', probably referring to all the oracular material contained inch. 7, and again to 'all this vision', presumably referring to the divine


message given to Nathan by night (cf. v. 4), clearly mark this verse asa 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, 'Thussays the LORD of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from followingthe sheep, (9) and I have been with you wherever you went, andhave cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make youa 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, Iwill raise up your son after you, who shall come forth from yourbody, and I will establish his kingdom. (14) I will be his father, andhe shall be my son.'

It is an oracle that refers briefly to David's choice and protection byGod and promises him a successor, who will be Yahweh's adoptedson. By extending the original oracle several new elements have beenintroduced.

(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 promisewith the assurance that his successor will build a temple(v. 13).

(v) There is also an interest in the theme of the eternity ofDavid's kingdom (also referred to as 'throne') (vv. 13, 16).

(vi) A contrast is drawn between David's successor and hispredecessor (vv. 14b-15).

InterpretationBecause of the obvious messianic character of the dynastic oracle in2 Samuel 7, the question has been raised whether it is to be regardedas 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 intoconsideration Old Testament passages that contain remarkableparallels to it, and will also involve some discussion of therelationship between these passages. In addition to the parallel in1 Chron. 17.7-14, a number of the Psalms contain similar elements


(Pss. 2; 89.2-4,19-37; 110; 132), as is also the case with the last wordsof David in 2 Sam. 23.1-7.150

First for consideration is the original oracle as reconstructedabove. All its main elements have parallels in the passages noted,especially in Psalm 89. (1) The oracle opens with the election ofDavid, and the words 'I took you from the pasture, from followingthe sheep' must refer to David's own history (cf. 1 Sam. 16.11). Thesame 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 allusionto God's protection: 'I have been with you wherever you went', andthis is especially evident in the subjugation of David's enemies, 'andhave cut off all your enemies from before you'. A more extendedreference 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 overthe sea and rivers, which may be a mythological allusion to his powerover the whole world. It is this theme more than any other that isgiven prominence in Ps. 2, which, after describing the revolt of thekings against God and his anointed king (w. 1-3), proceeds to assurethe king that he will be able to humiliate the nations (vv. 8-9), cf. alsoPss. 110.1,2, 5; 132.18.151 (3) The king is promised greatness-'I willmake you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth'.Without using exactly the same language, the mightiness of the kingis 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 theearth (v. 27, Heb. 28).

(4) David is also promised a successor; when his days are over 'I willraise up your son after you, who shall come forth from your body'.Although reference is made only to an immediate successor, theassurance that God 'will establish his kingdom' makes it quite clearthat the founding of a dynasty is meant.152 This is how the promise isunderstood 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 willestablish 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 behis father, and he shall be my son'.153 This can be compared with Ps.


89.26 (Heb. 27) 'He shall say to me, "Thou art my father...'", andwith Ps. 2.7, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you'.154 It isobvious that all the main themes of the original Nathan oracle arepresent, sometimes with remarkable similarity of wording, in otherOld Testament royal texts.

A further examination of these texts shows that the themesintroduced into the revised and extended form of 2 Sam. 7.8-16 arealso found in other royal texts. As would be expected, some of theadditions to 2 Sam. 7.8-16 reflect the special interests of theannotators, and are not echoed in the other texts examined. Thus, noreference is made in these other texts to David as ndgid, but theyshow 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, andthe rest formula does not appear in its usual form. These subjects, asnoted above, reflect the peculiar interests of the deuteronomisticredactors. However, there are clear indications that some themeswere similarly developed in both the revised form of 2 Sam. 7.8-16and the related texts examined. The firm promise of a son for Davidthat appears in the original version takes the form of a more explicitreference to founding a dynasty in the extended version. This is howthe word 'house' is to be interpreted in the promise that 'the LORDwill make you a house' (v. 1 Ib), and again in the allusion to the housebeing made sure (v. 16). Even more explicit statements concerningthe dynasty appear in the assertions of Psalm 89 that his descendantswill be established (v. 4, Heb. v. 5) and that his line will endure(vv. 29, 36, Heb. vv. 30, 37). Another development that appears bothin the extension to the original oracle and in the related texts is theassurance about the everlasting nature of the Davidic dynasty. Thesimple 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 hiskingdom for ever'; again in v. 16 'for ever' is repeated in connectionwith the kingdom and the throne.155 No mention of the Davidicdynasty is made in Psalm 89 without a clear allusion to itseternity:

I will establish your descendant for ever, and build thy throne forall generations (v. 4, Heb. v. 5).

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


before me'. An element that becomes more prominent in the othertexts than in the original oracle is the emphasis on the covenantbetween Yahweh and the king. A covenant may be implicit in theadoption formula in v. 14a.157 But it is more than implied in thesecondary extension in w. 14b-15, for it is now stated that unfaithfulnessto the obligations that are obviously understood to be part of therelationship formed will bring punishment. However, because ofGod's steadfast love (hesed) such unfaithfulness will not cancel therelationship between God and the king. This text has, therefore, beeninterpreted as a covenantal text.158 Although the word 'covenant'(berit) is not used, these verses provide an unmistakable example ofcovenant theology; failure to respond has its consequences, and therewill be chastisement, but the covenant will not be annulled. It is apromissory covenant,159 and does not therefore follow the patternthat can be observed in other models such as vassal treaties or theroyal land grant, or any other legal formulation.160 Frequent use ismade 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 'everlastingcovenant'. In referring to punishment for violating the commandmentsby means of a 'rod' and 'scourges', Ps. 89.30-32 (Heb. vv. 31-33) notonly repeats the concept of 2 Sam. 7.14b-15, but it also uses identicalwords. 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 steadfastlove from him' in 2 Sam. 7.15.

A comparison of the texts in this way has produced sufficientevidence to support two main conclusions, (a) The original oracle,after noting the election and protection of David, gave him twopromises, firstly greatness and secondly the certainty of a successor.It then concluded with a brief statement of divine adoption, (b) Tothis rather brief and very concise oracle have been added threeimportant themes: firstly, the promise of a successor has becomemore 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 dynastygains prominence. These developments of the original core appearboth in the extension to the original in 2 Sam. 7.8-16 and in relatedtexts, particularly Psalm 89.

Several solutions to the problems of dating the various texts and ofrelating them to each other have been proposed. The alternativeshave been clearly set out by J.L. McKenzie.161 (1) Most critics acceptthe priority of 2 Samuel 7 and consider the other versions to have


been derived from it. (2) Some have argued for the priority of Psalm89, with the Samuel and Chronistic versions being dependent uponit. (3) A few, supported by McKenzie himself, think that a commonsource was used independently to prepare the Samuel and Chronisticversions and also that in Psalm 89. The analysis offered abovesuggests the priority of the original version of Nathan's dynastic orroyal oracle; it was a concise oracle consisting of a few clear elementsand running smoothly over the two sections designated respectivelyby P.M. Cross as an oracle of divine decree and a deuteronomisticlinkage.162 It seems possible that this original core preserved invv. 8*, 9,12,14a was the first layer which may well have originatedfrom the time of David. The acceptance of a different analysis fromthat proposed by Cross makes it unnecessary to endorse his verdictthat the oracle cannot have been earlier than Solomon. Furthermore,a recognition that the core or original layer in our reconstruction wasthe first version that formed the basis for all later revisions makes itunnecessary to attempt what McKenzie labels as an effort ofdesperation, namely the reconstruction from the present texts inSamuel, Chronicles and Psalm 89 of what could have been acommon source behind the three versions.163 The original oracle isuncovered by extracting the secondary material from 2 Sam. 7.8-16and no further reconstruction is necessary. It can also be claimedthat the above analysis of the main elements held in common by theextension to 2 Sam. 7.8-16 and Psalm 89 gives a clear indication ofthe relative age of these texts. The development of the themes notedis at a more advanced stage in the Psalm than in the secondarysections of 2 Samuel 7. As has already been noted, the brief allusionto the establishment of a dynasty in 2 Sam. 7.lib, 16 becomes farmore explicit in the Psalm; again, the eternity of the Davidic dynastyis more prominent and more forcefully expressed in the Psalm; theconcept of Yahweh's covenant with David has also taken a fullerform in the Psalm, as is indicated by its frequent use of that word.The first revision of the royal oracle was made in deuteronomisticcircles. The deuteronomists were of course aware that Solomon hadsucceeded David and had built a Temple (v. 13), and they would havewished to make the point that despite his weaknesses, he was notrejected in the same way that Saul had been rejected, for Yahweh wassupporting the dynasty of David (vv. 14b-15). Although the Psalmbrings out some of these themes to greater prominence, it does notshow the same interest in Solomon. It is difficult to see, therefore,how the version in 2 Samuel 7 could have been dependent on Psalm


89. The Psalm is fuller and may have been a later revision of 2Samuel 7, or else an independent, cultic elaboration of the samethemes. In the hands of the deuteronomists, whose work reached itsculmination after 587 BC, the original oracle associated with Nathanwas given a more pronounced dynastic interpretation. In Israel'sroyal ideology, as it developed in Jerusalem's cultic tradition, thedynastic principle was combined with the concept of Yahweh'scovenant with David; it is this tradition that finds its full expressionin Psalm 89, whose present form reflects a long process ofelaboration.164

Careful observation of the content of the original oracle behind 2Sam. 7.8-16 may also produce some indication of its origin andprovenance. (1) The references to the taking of David 'from thepasture, from following the sheep' and to the cutting off 'all yourenemies from before you' may be taken as suggesting that itoriginated from a circle that was close to David. It is possible too thatthey reflect an early stage in David's kingship, when his successesagainst his enemies were well-known; connected with his victorieswas the tradition about the way he was chosen as king. (2) Thegeneral tone of the assurance about a successor, especially incomparison with the later annotations that refer specifically toSolomon, may be an indication that the original oracle belonged to apre-Solomonic era, possibly to David's early days in Jerusalem. (3)The conciseness of the oracle and its symmetrical movement fromthe opening recapitulation of David's election and protection to thepromises of a great name and a successor, and then its ending withthe adoption formula, may indicate that it was a liturgical piece, andthe most natural setting for it would be an enthronement ritual. Thesimplicity of the adoption formula, without the more elaboratetheologising about the kingship that is apparent in its later versions,may again indicate an early enthronement or installation connectedwith King David. (4) The opening formulae provide an unmistakableindication that it was spoken on such an occasion by a prophet, andthe obvious name to associate with it would be Nathan, the courtprophet of King David. It can therefore be suggested that either onDavid's initial enthronement as king of Jerusalem, and/or perhaps atsubsequent celebrations of it, Nathan spoke an oracle, which gave aconcise summary of his previous career and made promises for thefuture. Nathan, coming from a Jebusite background, could havespoken the rather stark non-'theologicaP adoption formula thatappears in v. 14a;165 it is understandable that the formula on this


occasion should not have been accompanied by the more elaborateroyal ideology known from later Israelite texts.

ReconstructionTwo short and originally independent oracles provided a basis for thecomplex section in 2 Sam. 7.1-16, and both had their origins intraditions associated with Nathan the prophet. The first oraclepreserved a tradition that must have been cherished in Jerusalem'sJebusite circles, for it showed that Nathan had prevented David frompursuing his plan to build a Yahwistic temple in the newly conqueredcity. It was a carefully executed move on the part of Nathan, and inorder to achieve it he was compelled to suppress what was foremostin his mind. Nevertheless, it was precisely because of the hiddenmotivation for his action that the tradition was preserved by theJebusite population. The second oracle too goes back to traditionsabout Nathan, and it belonged originally to David's early days inJerusalem. Preserved among the Nathan traditions was a royal oraclespoken by the prophet on a significant royal occasion, probably anenthronement or a celebration associated with the kingship andreaching a fitting climax in the adoption formula.

Both oracles were modified by the deuteronomists and containclear pointers to deuteronomistic theology. In addition to thecharacteristic deuteronomistic 'rest from the enemies' formula, thefirst oracle received an interpolation which changed the nature ofNathan's objection to the temple; the interpolation in v. 6 madeNathan's veto into a theological and particularly Israelite clash ofconcepts between moving about in a tent and dwelling in apermanent abode. Similarly the royal oracle was theologised by thedeuteronomists, and in its new form acquired explicit allusions to thefounding of the Davidic dynasty and to the eternity of David'skingdom, and a rather less explicit hint at the concept of a covenantbetween 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 cameto serve as a setting for the two oracles. The connection betweenthem was all the stronger because two themes were present in both,(a) Whereas David was prevented from building a temple forYahweh, his son was to be granted that privilege—'He shall build ahouse for my name' (v. 13). (b) By employing the word 'house'(bayit) in two different ways, it is emphasised that although Davidwas not given the honour of building a temple ('house', w. 5, 6,13)


for Yahweh, God was going to found a dynasty ('house' vv. 11,16) forDavid.166 By giving the whole complex the appearance of an oracleconcerning the Davidic dynasty, it was given an apparent unity andmessianic significance.

The modified version of the two oracles was probably intended bythe deuteronomists as an introduction to the Succession Narrative.167

After the combination of the oracles to give a composite utterance byNathan, the section is used in the same way as the other speeches ofGod's servants, the prophets, that are inserted at all crucial points inthe 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 generalinterests of the deuteronomists, as is witnessed elsewhere, thissection at the beginning of the Succession Narrative gives legitimationto the Temple in Jerusalem, although David himself had not beenauthorized with its construction (cf. the deuteronomistic emphasison the Temple as 'the house that Yahweh's name is called upon',1 Kgs 8.43). The section is also concerned with the legitimacy ofSolomon as David's successor; the perpetuation of David's dynastythrough 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 thesuccession of Solomon are brought out clearly in the narrative in itsrevised 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 chaptersto see how the complex narrative giving an account of David'saffair with Bathsheba, and particularly Nathan's intervention on thatoccasion, fits into the theme of the Succession Narrative. A firm basisfor understanding the chapter can only be found by analysing thenarrative as a whole, and ch. 12 in particular, with special attentionto its various parts. After unravelling some of the complexities in thechapter, it will then have to be seen if any of the basic elements foundin the narrative justify its inclusion in the Succession Narrative andcontribute to the issue of succession. Finally, it has to be seen ifNathan's criticism of David relates in any way to the succession ofSolomon and the foundation of the dynasty.

After reaching the climax of the account of David's adultery withBathsheba and the contrived murder of her husband Uriah, 2 Sam.11.27b states that 'the thing that David had done displeased theLORD', and then the narrative immediately introduces Nathan, whoappears on the scene to rebuke David and to pronounce divinepunishment. Whether or not 11.27b is to be taken as the properintroduction to 12.1-25 and is to be read with ch. 12 rather than withch. 11, it does unquestionably provide the correct setting for theevents that follow; its explicit theological statement is a basis for thecorrect 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 wordswith the events of ch. 11. However, determining the extent of theNathan episode, and deciding on the various stages of its growthfrom an original version to its present form, are only some of theproblems arising in connection with this chapter. An introductoryquestion of fundamental significance is the origin and placing of thewhole David-Bathsheba affair.


As it stands the affair is introduced in the context of David's warwith the Ammonites (lO.lff). It was during a season of campaigningin that war that David remained in Jerusalem (11.1) and wasattracted to Bathsheba (11.2ff). After the sad outcome of the affairand the death of the child born of their illicit relationship, thenarrative proceeds in 12.26ff to give an account of the capture ofKabbah of the Ammonites. Since 12.26 seems to continue theaccount of the Kabbah campaign introduced in 11.1, it has beenargued, with some conviction, that the David-Bathsheba-Nathannarrative in 11.2-12.25 can be lifted out of its present contextwithout any damage to the main account of David's war against theAmmonites. Although 11.2-12.25 seems to give an account of whathappened during the war with the Ammonites, L. Rost2 has listedseveral arguments against the unity of the two sections. (1) It is notknown that the war used as a setting for the Bathsheba affair was thewar against the Ammonites described in 12.26ff; only once, in 12.9,are the Ammonites mentioned, but it is not stated specifically in thissection who David's enemies were and against which city he wasfighting. (2) The change from 12.25 to 12.26 is so abrupt that it ishardly possible to attribute their composition to the same author. (3)The account in 12.26-31 is to say the least only loosely connectedwith the material around it. Therefore, Kost concluded that 2 Sam.10.6b-ll.l and 12.26-31 contain an account of the Ammonite warswhich was derived from state archives, but that the account hasreceived an introduction in 10.1-6a from the same hand as wasresponsible for the interpolation in 11.2-12.25. Although some haveexpressed reservations about Kost's treatment of 10.1-6a,3 hissuggestion that 11.2-12.25 is a secondary addition has foundconsiderable following.4 It is to be noted too that this section isabsent from the parallel account in 1 Chronicles 20. But its omissionby the Chronicler can be understood as an attempt to suppress anoccurrence that cast unfavourable light on David and may thereforebe indirect evidence to the honesty and trustworthiness of thetradition preserved in 2 Samuel 11-12.

The war account and the David-Bathsheba narrative are obviouslydifferent in character and style; whilst the origin of the former can befound in archival records or reports, the latter betrays the style of anaccomplished narrator. Rather than accepting Rost's suggestion thatthe narrative is an intrusion that interrupts the sequence of the warreport, it seems more reasonable to accept Kyle McCarter's proposalthat 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 aframework;5 his choice of material was obvious because David'saffair with Bathsheba had been associated with the siege of Kabbah.From this combination of archival data and a more lively tradition ofthe king's misbehaviour the narrator composed a section that beganby describing the historical setting (10.1-11.1), then introduced theDavid-Bathsheba affair and its outcome (11.2-12.25), and concludedby continuing the account of the war against the Ammonites (12.26-31). Thus the David-Bathsheba incident formed an important partof the presentation of the Ammonite war, and that to such an extentas to suggest that the latter had been incorporated only because of itsassociation with the former.6

It is beyond the scope of the present study to pursue in detail thewider issues arising in connection with the Ammonite war report. Itsunity has for one thing been in dispute; whereas Rost, as has alreadybeen noted, attributes its introduction in 10.1-6a to the handresponsible for the narrative in 11.2ff, McCarter7 finds in it a singlereport of consecutive events. Its relationship to other source materialin Samuel has also been debated. Obviously there is a connectionbetween the report in 10.1-11.1 and 8.3-8, and it has been suggestedthat the war report really belonged to the war narratives of 2 Samuel8.8 Contacts have also been found between it and the story ofAbsalom's rebellion that follows it in chs. 13-20, especially theevents at Mahanaim in 17.24-29,9 with a specific reference to 17.27-29 being found in 10.2.10 Establishing links between the Ammonitewar report and the sections preceding and following it does notnecessarily prove a common source, and it has been suggested that2 Sam. 10-12 did not belong originally with any other material in thebooks of Samuel. But theologically it does provide a preface to theaccount of Absalom's revolt.11

However, the place of 2 Sam. 10-12 in the work in general, and theconnection between these chapters and surrounding material, maybecome clearer on a closer analysis of the origin, development andlikely reasons for the inclusion of individual components. Theaccount of Nathan's condemnation of the king, and of the eventswhich followed it, will now be examined in more detail with theseissues in mind. The unit in question, 11.27b-12.25, is easilyrecognisable, for it stands apart from the surrounding narrative,which after bringing the David-Bathsheba incident to a suitableconclusion in 11.27a, proceeds with its account of the defeat ofKabbah (12.26).12 Although the section's central theme is Nathan's


words to David and subsequent events, its various components haveto be considered separately: Nathan's parable (vv. l-7a), twoprophetic oracles (vv. 7b-10,11-12), David's response (vv. 13-14), thedeath of David's child (vv. 15-23) and the birth of Solomon (vv. 24-25).

Nathan's Parable (vv. 1-7a)The account of Nathan's parable begins with the prophet's appearanceon the scene in 12.1 and is concluded with his direct application ofthe parable to David in v. 7a, despite contrary views with regard toboth its beginning and conclusion. It has been argued that the seriesof blows that befell the house of David is not easily understoodwithout taking note of the statement in 11.27b, 'But die thing thatDavid had done displeased the LORD'; if this statement is read withch. 12 the events there recorded are seen to be Yahweh's punishmenton David for his sin.13 Consequently 11.27b is sometimes read with12.1-7,14 a course which finds some support in the fact that it is anunnecessary conclusion to the narrative in ch. 11, because thatchapter reaches a fitting climax with the record in 11.27a thatBathsheba became David's wife and bore him a son. Its position as abridge between chs. 11 and 12, with the possibility of reading it witheither of them, may indicate that 11.27b is a redactional link. Thissuggestion receives some confirmation from two other observations:firstly, that the formula 'displeased the LORD' is typicallydeuteronomistic,15 and secondly that this half verse shares the samemoral stance as 12.9, which, as will be argued below, is a lateraddition. It can therefore be contended that the parable in 12.1-7astood originally without 11.27b, which now links it more clearly withch. 11.

Nathan's words to David, in which the parable is applied to thelatter's case, are found in vv. 7-12 and are followed by David'sresponse and Nathan's reply in vv. 13-14. For reasons to be discussedbelow vv. 7b-14 are regarded as subsequent additions, and theparable itself is thought to have reached its climax with the simpleapplication 'You are the man' in v. 7a.16 Nathan described thesituation with such vividness that David felt compelled to pronouncejudgement 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 Nathanabruptly, but effectively, spelt out the message of his parable bystating that he was referring to David; by implication, therefore,


David was guilty and deserved the punishment which he hadpronounced upon the case of the rich man.

The apparent commuting in v. 6 of the sentence pronounced in v.5raises the question of the unity of vv. l-7a, and more specifically thatof the relationship between the story in vv. 1-4 and its interpretationin vv. 5-6. After the completion of Nathan's parable at the end of v.4David's response is recorded in vv. 5-6; the break between the twosections could possibly be taken to indicate that two different unitshave been combined, the original parable and its interpretation by thenarrator.18 The narrator was so concerned with God's response tothe David-Bathsheba affair that he had divine judgement in mindwhen composing vv. 5-6, with the commutation of the sentenceproviding an exact parallel to the commutation of the death sentencein vv. 13-14. There are, however, many reasons for refusing toseparate vv. 5-6 from vv. 1-4 and for treating them as one unit.Firstly, a study of the structure of judicial parables, or morespecifically judgement eliciting parables (cf. 2 Sam. 14.1-20; 1 Kgs20.35-42; Isa. 5.1-7), shows that after the presentation of the legalcase (as in vv. lb-4) there was an appeal for judgement, whetherimplicit or explicit; the point of the parable thus becomes apparentwhen judgement is elicited (as in vv. 5-6) and that judgement isreapplied (as in v. 7a).19 The whole point of relating a fictitious tale isto obtain a ruling from the king and then to apply the consequencesof such a ruling to his own case.20 It would thus appear that theparable in vv. 1-4 cannot stand without the judgement section inw. 5-6. Secondly, the inseparable connection between the twosections 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 'andspared what belongs to him'.21 It is unnecessary to propose differentconnotations for the verb in each of its occurrences here.22 Becausethe verb has exactly the same meaning in vv. 4 and 6,23 it can besuggested that a common source is indicated.24 Thirdly, the suggestedparallel between the commutation of the sentence in vv. 5-6 and thewithdrawal of the death sentence in w. 13-14 becomes less significantif recent interpretations of vv. 5-6 are accepted. One suggestion isthat David was incensed by the rich man's callous behaviour andinstinctively said that he 'deserves to die'; but he knew that theft wasnot punishable by criminal law and therefore pronounced a sentenceconsistent with civil law and providing for adequate damages, 'he shallrestore the lamb fourfold'.25 Verses 5-6, therefore, contain a contrast,either between the king's heated reaction and his more considered


reflection, or between David's personal view that the rich mandeserved to be indicted on a criminal charge and the legal positionthat he could be charged only under civil law.26 Another suggestion isthat the reference to the rich man as ben mdwet does not mean thathe deserved death, but indicates that he was to be considered as an'arch villain';27 despite his despicable behaviour, he could bepunished only according to the law of restitution. Whichever of theseexplanations is accepted, the point to be established is that there wasno commutation of the sentence; thus w. 5-6 are not to beinterpreted in close association with vv. 13-14 and in the light of laterdevelopments in connection with the David-Bathsheba incident. Forthese reasons it is correct to conclude, as is done by G.W. Coats, that'the story and the interpretation provided by verses 5-6 shouldtherefore 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 timeto uncover its true meaning. The section is usually described as aparable,29 and the point is made that the parable concentrates on onesingle point of comparison and does not seek to establish completeparallelism in which all the details become significant.30 Whether ornot the genre is more correctly defined as fable in preference toparable,31 its intention was to emphasise one particular point. Oncethe parable is seen to be concerned with only a single point ofcomparison, it becomes unnecessary to search in the narrative forparallels to each of the parable's constituent parts and, if suchparallels are not found, to regard the parable as inappropriate for thecircumstances with which it has been associated. It was this kind ofproblem that H. Gunkel encountered in his discussion of the Nathanparable.32 Whilst the parable relates how the rich man took the poorman's property, the narrative is more concerned with Uriah's deaththan with David's adultery with his wife (see v. 9). Because of thislack of direct contact between the application in v. 9 and the parablein vv. 1-7, Gunkel came to the conclusion that Nathan's story did notbelong originally to its present context. Others have been similarlyconcerned about the marked discrepancy between the minor chargeof theft in the story and the more serious charges of adultery andmurder described in the narrative; whereas the verdict of death wasappropriate for David's dealings with Bathsheba and her husbandUriah, such a verdict would be inappropriate for the simple theft of alamb.33 Not only is the murder of Uriah in the narrative sectionwithout parallel in the parable, there is again nothing in the narrative


to correspond to the visit of a traveller in the parable.34 Suchinconsistencies between the parable and the narrative are acceptableif it is recognised that the aim in presenting the former was to makeone major point of comparison with the latter; it is only when anexact parallelism between all elements in the narrative and theparable is sought that difficulties arise.

A number of attempts have been made to decide which is the mainpoint of comparison between the parable and the narrative. Attentionis naturally given to the parallelism between the theft of the poorman's ewe-lamb and the theft of Uriah's wife. Because of thereference in v. 6 to the law of restitution for theft in Exod. 22.1, it isthought that David's sin, like that of the rich man, was no more thanrobbery.35 Several features, however, need some explanation ifrobbery or theft is made the leading motif. One question that arisesimmediately is why the case should be brought before David forjudgement. What is implied in the presentation of the story is thatNathan expected David to pronounce a verdict on the case.36 But asimple case of theft was not one that called for a royal pronouncement;it was a straightforward case that could be dealt with by seekingjustice at the gate.37 Moreover, the penalty for such an offence wasclearly defined by law, and the indignation shown by David in hisfirst response to the case (v. 5) may suggest that there was a moreheinous aspect to the crime than is suggested by a superficial readingof the text. Theft does not seem to be the issue at stake.38 Because ofthese difficulties attention is sometimes drawn away from the natureof the crime, and it is claimed that the aim of the story was simply toelicit words of condemnation from David; once such words had beenspoken, they were thrown back at him, and he had thus taken part ina process of self-condemnation. The aim was to lead 'the unsuspectinghearer to pass judgement on himself'.39 The description in v. 3 of theattachment of the poor man to his ewe-lamb was intended to arousethe hearer's emotions; its success is shown by the vehemence ofDavid's anger in v. 5. The focal point of the story is the speaking ofthe king's verdict, which turns out to be his verdict against himself. Amore elaborate expression of this interpretation is presented by H.Hagan,40 who found for the deception of ch. 11 a counter-deceptionin ch. 12, where Nathan resorted to a piece of deception in order totrick David into condemning himself. Although it is correct to findthe significance of the parable in its verdict, which ultimatelybecomes self-condemnation, there must be some basic similaritybetween the case and its application, or else the transformation of the


verdict to an act of self-condemnation becomes arbitrary andinvalid.41 A point of contact between parable and narrative thatoffers the most satisfactory interpretation of the section is the abuseof power. An analysis of the parable shows that the contrastintroduced in its opening sentence between rich and poor (v. 1) isfurther expanded as the plot develops. Whereas the one had Verymany flocks and herds', the other had 'nothing but one little ewe-lamb'; this is the dominant contrast in the parable.42 When the richman took the lamb without paying an indemnity, the poor man couldbring against him the charge that he was taking advantage of hisposition to show total disregard for the law; but the case had to bepresented by a third party, the prophet. It was a case of flouting thelaw, and as such was brought to the attention of the king, who wasthe upholder of the law (Rechtshelfer}.^ The king could not acceptthis attitude towards the law, since he was expected to defend thecause of the poor; thus he pronounced his verdict accordingly.However, Nathan's abrupt application 'You are the man' draws aparallel between the rich man's exploitation of the poor on account ofhis superior status and the king's misuse of his own position ofauthority. Attention is thus focused not on the simple case of theft,but on the exploitation of the weak by one enjoying a superiorposition.44 When the application was thrown at him, David wasforced to take some action, because he now found himself in theproblematic situation of being on the one hand the rich oppressorand on the other the royal judge.45 As is rightly noted by H.Seebass,46 Nathan was concerned with the character of David'skingship; it was a young institution which had been renewed byDavid after the catastrophic failure of its first representative, Saul,and Nathan interfered because he saw great danger for the kingship ifthe holder began to take advantage of his status and exploit hissubjects. Nathan's interference was thus mainly political.

There are no compelling reasons for not attributing the parable toNathan. As is noted by H. Hagan,47 a 12th century BC manuscriptcontaining 'The Contending of Horus and Seth' provides a parallelfrom Egypt. Despite some important differences, especially in the useof such elements as the introduction of a prophet and the appeal toDavid to act as judge, the similarities are sufficient to justify theconclusion that the genre found in 2 Sam. 12.1-7a was known andrecognised. The presence of other examples in the Bible, mostnotably Isa. 5.1-7, confirms this conclusion. Furthermore, thescenario described in Nathan's parable is credible. U. Simon48 has


found much relevant material in the form of legal theft, known asAdayieh, practised by the Bedouin of the Beersheba district anddescribed in the work of Aref el-Aref. Taking from the flock of one'sneighbour to provide for an unexpected guest was permissible undercertain conditions, such as notifying the owner. However, someanimals were exempt, among them an ewe reared in a tent and forwhich the owner had special affection; if one of this type was taken,repayment had to be made fourfold. It can be suggested that Nathanin his interview with David used a genre that was known anddescribed a scenario which was familiar.

If it is accepted that Nathan's stance in the Bathsheba affair hadpolitical motives, as suggested above, it may provide further evidenceof his Jebusite background. Nathan, as court counsellor who hadexperience of the previous Jebusite regime in Jerusalem, was a keenobserver of any changes or developments introduced by the newregime under David. He immediately sensed that David, in misusinghis royal status vis-a-vis Bathsheba and Uriah, had taken a step thatthreatened the whole fabric of the newly established kingship. It wasfor this reason that he decided to have an interview with the king andthrough his parable give him a timely word of warning. The issuewith which Nathan was concerned was more specific than theupholding of world-order,49 or making a stand for the cause ofjustice;50 it was the reaction of a Jerusalemite to what he saw as adangerous path taken by the new monarch who had only recentlyinstalled himself in the city.

Extensions to the Parable2 Sam. 12.7b-12 consists of two sections (vv. 7b-10 and 11-12), whichmust not only be separated from the parable in vv. l-7a, but alsofrom each other, and thus be treated as two independent sayings. Ashas been noted, the parable is brought to its conclusion with thedeclaration in v.7a 'You are the man'. But vv. 7b-10 are interested ininterpreting subsequent events in the life of David as punishment forhis crimes in connection with Bathsheba and Uriah, and they areusually regarded as secondary and deuteronomistic.51 It is obviousthat vv.7b-10 and 11-12 do not form one unit: first, there are two newbeginnings, each containing the prophetic messenger formula, Thussays the LORD' (vv. 7b and 11); secondly, both constitute inthemselves complete and independent units, which contain basicallytwo parts, an announcement of judgement together with the reasonsor motivation for that judgement; thirdly, the two sections concentrate


on different aspects of David's sin, the first being more concernedwith the murder of Uriah and the second relating exclusively toDavid's adultery with Balhsheba.52 For these reasons vv. 7b-10 and11-12 must be treated as two separate additions to vv. l-7a.

A closer analysis of vv. 7b-10 shows that the section, after theinitial messenger speech formula, contains the following elements.(1) A rehearsal of Yahweh's mighty works on behalf of David, whichwere: his anointing, as recorded in 1 Samuel 16; his deliverance fromthe threats upon his life by Saul; the inheritance of Saul's wives andconcubines, as was customary on the usurpation of power, and thepossession of the kingdom of Israel and Judah (vv. 7b-8). This seriesis brought to a conclusion with the statement that 'if this were toolittle, I would add to you as much more'. (2) The chief accusationagainst David is introduced in v. 9—'You have smitten Uriah theHittite with the sword', which is repeated again at the end of theverse. (3) The punishment, introduced by 'Now therefore' (we'attdh)in v. 10, is fitting for the crime that has been noted, 'the sword shallnever depart from your house'. (4) A second accusation follows inv. 9, 'you have taken his wife to be your wife'. The repetition of thisaccusation in v. 10 is very incongruous; whereas the threat of thesword upon David's house is a correct sequence for the killing ofUriah 'with the sword of the Ammonites', this particular form ofpunishment has no link whatsoever with the crime of taking the wifeof Uriah the Hittite. (5) The theological interpretation of the crime inv. 9, where it is described as an act of despising Yahweh's Word anddoing what he regards as evil, is repeated in a shorter form in v. 10.This interpretation introduces yet another element in the descriptionof David's crime.53

The second section (vv. 11-12) is much simpler. It does notprovide any reason for the punishment to be executed upon David,but introduces the threat directly with 'Behold'. The punishmentobviously fits the crime of adultery, for one from David's house willrise up and, by publicly taking possession of the king's harem, willstake a claim for the throne. That this section is directed specificallyat David's adultery is made clear by suggesting a contrast betweenwhat David did secretly with the act of punishment which willhappen 'before all Israel' and 'in the sight of the sun', the latter beingnoted twice.

The incongruity of the first oracle and its connection with thesecond raise questions about the originality of the two sections, andalso about their growth and development. A simple solution to this


problem is to accept the less intricate version (w. 11-12) as the olderversion and to delete the more complex one (vv. 7b-10) as asecondary addition.54 The main reason for this is that the theft ofUriah's wife, which is presumably the crime calling for thepunishment in vv. 11-12, corresponds more closely to the theft of anewe-lamb in the parable. But vv. 11-12 can only be retained as anindependent saying with some difficulty, especially in view of the factthat it pronounces judgement without noting categorically the reasonfor it. A much more complex approach attempts to separate the olderelements in the two oracles from secondary additions, which wereacquired at a later date. One possibility is to find behind the presentsection a very brief original core referring to David's adultery withBathsheba and constituting the question 'Why have you despised theword of the LORD ... and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite tobe your wife?' (vv. 9a and 10b).55 A much more detailed analysis hasbeen presented by W. Dietrich.56 An older layer, in which Nathanwas the speaker, was concerned with David despising God by takingBathsheba as wife (vv. 8a, 9a to 'Yahweh', lOb, 11, 12); this isconsidered 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 notform an independent unit but seems to have been worked into thefirst layer at various points, was spoken by Yahweh himself and gaveprominence to the murder of Uriah (vv. 7b, 8abc, 9a from 'to do',9abc, lOaba; this layer is attributed to DtrP, who may have beenresponsible for the insertion of the whole Nathan episode into thenarrative.

Despite the detail of his analysis and its relation to the main thesisof his work, W. Dietrich seems to ignore entirely the obvious divisionof the oracle into two independent declarations (vv. 7b-10,11-12); helifts out elements from the first to fill out the second, and proposes asthe original unit an oracle that begins abruptly with v. 8, with a lateintroduction of the oracular formula, 'Thus says the LORD' at v. 11.It seems more reasonable to seek an analysis that adheres moreclosely to the natural division of the text in its present form. The firstattempt to interpret the threat of punishment implicit in the Nathanparable can be seen in the core of vv. 7b-10. Possibly it was aninterpretation that took as its starting-point the restoration of thelamb 'four-fold', and saw in it an allusion to the death of four ofDavid's sons, namely Bathsheba's first child, Amnon, Absalom andAdonijah.57 The threat of v. 10, 'the sword shall never depart from


your house', was an appropriate interpretation of the punishmentimplied in v. 6. It was also appropriate in view of the fact that Uriahhad been killed with the sword. The original oracle can bereconstructed as follows:

(7b) Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I anointed you kingover Israel, and delivered you out of the hand of Saul, (8) and gaveyou the house58 of Israel and of Judah; (9) but you have smittenUriah the Hittite with the sword, and have slain him with thesword of the Ammonites. (10) Now therefore the sword shall neverdepart from your house.

Although the main point of the oracle is to be found in theassociation between killing Uriah with the sword and the curse of thesword upon the house of David, there is also a contrast betweenYahweh's goodness to David and the king's despicable behaviour. Inanointing, delivering and establishing him on the throne, Yahwehhad entrusted him with power; but David misused that power andstatus by killing Uriah. The first interpretation takes up the pointmade originally by Nathan about the exploitation of his subjects bythe king.

An interpretation that concentrated on the killing of Uriah at theexpense of David's adultery with Bathsheba could not have beenentirely satisfactory. At a later point, therefore, a second oracle(vv. 11-12) was added, and suitable modifications were made to thefirst to accommodate references to David's sin with Bathsheba. Itwas not necessary for the second oracle to repeat the theme ofYahweh's guidance to David, or to refer again to the killing of Uriah.Nor, after insertions had been introduced into the first oracle, was itnecessary to refer directly to David's adultery. The punishmentintroduced abruptly in v. 11 fitted the purpose perfectly, and it isobvious from it that David's adultery was now being brought intogreater prominence. The incident described in 2 Sam. 16.21-22seems to have been used as a basis for this oracle, and thus Absalom'saction was interpreted as punishment for David's adultery withBathsheba. This second oracle, however, could not have stoodindependently, for its full meaning becomes clear only when it is readwith the insertions that were incorporated in the first oracle. Twospecific references to taking Uriah's wife were included (vv. 9,10). Inconjunction with these references, and in preparation for them, areference to marrying Saul's daughter and inheriting his concubineswas added in v. 8 to the list of Yahweh's mighty works on behalf of


David: 'I gave you your master's daughter,59 and your master's wivesinto your bosom', with specific reference to his marriage to Michal.Possibly too the phrase 'and if this were too little, I would add to youas much more (kdhenndh wekahennahy is to be understood asreferring specifically to wives and concubines. It does not refer in ageneral 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 suppliedDavid with a number of wives, and if this were not enough he couldhave supplied him with more.60 Coveting Bathsheba was thereforeunnecessary. By means of these annotations the first oracle wasreconciled with the second.

The section was again modified when two further additions weremade to it. The full version of v. 9, which reads 'Why have youdespised 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 despisedme'. As was noted above, W. Dietrich divides the question in v. 9after 'the LORD', and attributes the first part, together with thephrase in v. 10, to the oldest layer of the text; the second half of thequestion, which is distinctly deuteronomistic, is attributed to thelater DtrP layer.61 Thus the reference to despising the word ofYahweh or Yahweh himself is considered to be part of the oldestmaterial in the section.62 It would appear, however, that both parts ofthe question in v. 9 belong to the same process of theologising thetext. The two oracles are concerned with the practical consequencesof David's behaviour in the light of later history, the murder of Uriahleading to destruction with the sword, and his adultery withBathsheba resulting in taking over of his harem. But only in thesetwo additions in vv. 9 and 10 are these practical consequences given atheological content. That this was a later development is borne outby 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 thatthere are literary parallels to this type of utterance in the propheticalbooks.63

Both oracles are therefore considered to be later extensions thatwere in successive stages added to the original Nathan parable, andwhich also in the course of time acquired some further modification.Basically they contain a messenger formula followed by a statementof the reason for judgement (murder in one and adultery in the other)and an announcement of the coming of that judgement (the sword inone, ravishing the harem in the other). In view of the very practical


aspects to the judgement described during the first stages of thegrowth of the two oracles, and the lack of a pronounced theologicalperspective until a later date, it seems that too much is read into thetext in the attempt to find here an example of the so-called Rib-Gattung 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 ResponseThe section containing David's brief response to Nathan's judgementwith the words 1 have sinned against the LORD' (v. 13a), togetherwith Nathan's commutation of the death sentence (v. 13b) and hisproclamation of a revised sentence (v. 14), poses many problems. Aquestion that causes considerable difficulty is how to reconcile thevarious punishments mentioned in the entire passage, w. 7b-15. Notonly are there two serious threats in the oracles contained in vv. 7b-12, but it is obvious from David's conversation with Nathan in v. 13that his admission of guilt could lead to punishment by death; thereis 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-12and reading w. 13-15a as the correct sequence to Nathan's parable inw. l-7a. It is accepted that only one punishment is implied at thebeginning of v. 14, namely the death of the child; thus the threats inw. 7b-12 are rendered obsolete. David's self-condemnation in v. 5,taken with Nathan's pronouncement in v. 13b, gives the reader abasis for understanding David's confession in v. 13a as implying thathe deserved death; Nathan replied immediately and gave a revisedsentence.66 It is thus claimed that vv. l-7a, 13-15a constituted theoriginal account of Nathan's interview with David. However, there isa 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 theparable to a death sentence which is taken to provide a basis for theconversation in vv. 13-14. This calls for a reconsideration of theconnection between the two verses. G. Gerleman68 has claimed thatthe implied sentence of death in v. 13 in no way depends on v. 5, andso can be dissociated from it. His main contention is that theconfessionary 'I have sinned against' does not simply refer to a sinfulact, but is a term that implies also the consequences of that act. ThusDavid's confession and the consequent commutation of his sentenceare able to stand on their own without it being necessary for them tobe preceded by v. 5. But if the verdict announced in v. 5 does not


refer to the culprit as deserving death, then vv. 13-14 becomesuspicious on the grounds that they introduce a new element into anarrative that was not basically concerned with the admission ofguilt or the acceptance of forgiveness.

If it is accepted that Nathan's parable received its earliestinterpretations when an attempt was made to explain its impliedjudgement on David in the light of later events, it must be asked ifthe theme of repentance and forgiveness in vv. 13-14 also representsa later interpretation. For those concerned with the course run byDavid's kingship and with the fate of his dynasty, one remarkablefeature was that the house of David survived; it did so despite thesevere losses reflected in the first interpretation of Nathan's parablein vv. 7b-10, and again despite the act of rebellion reflected in thesecond interpretation in w. 11-12. The only conceivable reason forthis was that Yahweh had not punished David fully for the Bathshebaaffair. To explain this, an act of repentance and forgiveness wasintroduced in v. 13. The choice of words in v. 13b is significant, andit is thought that the translation 'The LORD has put away your sin' isinadequate. Although Yahweh had decided to cause David's act andits consequences for him personally to pass away from him,69

because he had realised his guilt, acknowledged it before Yahweh andreceived forgiveness, Yahweh did nevertheless cause his child to die.Because of this the translation 'has transferred your sin' can bejustified.70 Thus v. 13 contains the same kind of reflection on the fateof the Davidic kingship in the light of the implied judgement inNathan's parable as that already encountered in vv. 7b-10 and 11-12.Because of its content this reflection has acquired a deepertheological significance than the other reflections contained in thechapter, for as G. Gerleman has rightly emphasised it deals basicallywith guilt and forgiveness.71

That v. 14, with its announcement of a modified sentence uponDavid, is related to v. 13 has already been suggested. It appears that,although God had moved away David's sin and its consequencesfrom him personally, the child born from his adultery withBathsheba was not to escape, but had to die. As already suggested,there was a transfer of punishment; this was obviously regarded as aless severe sentence and could be reconciled with the idea thatYahweh had forgiven David. Thus v. 14 again rested on the samekind of reflection on the kingship as gave rise to the preceding verses;it provided a fitting climax for the section. The two interpretations ofvv. 7b-10 and 11-12 respectively have been combined in the phrase


'the child born to you shall die', which brings together the theme ofthe destruction of the house of David by the sword and the theme ofDavid's sin with Bathsheba. Furthermore, it explains how David'scallous deed was punished, although David himself was forgiven andcontinued to reign. It also provides a link between the Nathanparable and the narrative in vv. 15ff, which report the death of thechild. Despite its importance, v. 14 is a verse that is beset by manydifficulties. Textually the reading presupposed by the RSV's translation'you have utterly scorned the LORD', is acceptable,72 and statesclearly that David's behaviour was so objectionable that it could notbe allowed to pass without some form of punishment. Theologicallythe verse poses further problems. Although it has succeeded inshowing that David's kingship survived despite his behaviour,because the punishment he deserved was transferred to the child, ithas left other questions unanswered. First comes the question aboutjustice for the wronged husband, and it is sometimes suggested thatthe child had to die as retaliation for the death of Uriah, and as ameans of preserving his legal rights.73 There follows the questionabout causing the innocent child to die, which is sometimesexplained as an act of substitution for the father.74 No answer isgiven to these perplexing theological questions; v. 14 did not aim todo more than show how David's kingship survived, and it achievedthis by emphasising that his punishment was transferred to the childborn of his unfortunate liaison with Bathsheba.

Verses 7b-10, 11-12 and 13-14 therefore contain attempts toexplain the implications of Nathan's parable for the subsequenthistory of David's kingship. His house, including the child born toBathsheba as a result of his adultery, suffered death; there was alsorebellion against the father which involved the ravishing of hisharem. But David survived, and his house continued, because Davidhimself had been forgiven; therefore Yahweh's promise to Davidremained steadfast.75 These verses are later intrusions, and theoriginal 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 thenarrative in vv. 15b-23, where there is not only a record of the child'sdeath but also an account of David's unconventional behaviour onthat occasion. For those who assume that the Nathan episodeinterrupts the main narrative, this section is taken to be acontinuation and conclusion of the account of David's adultery with


Bathsheba in ch. 11; the record in v. 15b that 'the LORD struck thechild that Uriah's wife bore to David' is a continuation of 11.27bwhere it is stated that 'the thing that David had done displeased theLORD'.77 However, the narrative cannot be as easily discussed, sinceits obvious connections with other sections in the complex raisequestions regarding its origin and purpose.

There is more to the connection between this narrative and v. 14than the superficial link of demonstrating that a prophecy containedin that verse was fulfilled; it can also be confirmed that the basicthemes of sin and forgiveness in vv. 13-14 provide a clue for thecorrect understanding of vv. 15b-23. The most prominent element inthe narrative is David's unexpected conduct before and after thechild's death.78 His fast and vigil before the child's death are aspectsof what is said at the beginning of v. 16, 'David therefore besoughtGod for the child'. Although David appeared to be showing thetraditional signs of mourning, his actions are obviously not to beunderstood in that sense. Verse 16 reports the next stage in David'sresponse after his admission of guilt (v. 13) and the declaration of acommuted verdict that he would be spared, but that the child woulddie (v. 14). His actions, despite their strangeness to the servants(v. 17), were reasonable in the light of vv. 13-14, for David nowrealised that the only possible action was to plead with God to sparethe child (cf. also v. 22). When that request was not granted, Davidabandoned his fast and did not show any signs of mourning. Suchaction was unreasonable for his servants (v. 21), but was logical inDavid's eyes: 'Now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring himback again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me' (v. 23). Hispetition had failed, but read in the light of vv. 13,14 this meant thatGod had kept his word; the child was taken, and David could take itas an assurance that he had now been forgiven, which was the reasonfor his unexpected action.

Reading vv. 15b-23 as a continuation of vv. 13-14 gives the mostsatisfactory explanation of their content.79 Other explanations havebeen offered, mostly on the lines that David's actions either show anew attitude towards mourning or else bear witness to the exceptionalstrength of character that is attributed to him. Among the interpretationsin the former category that can be listed80 stands J. Pedersen's viewthat David's attitude marks a change in 'the psychic history ofIsrael'; it shows that holiness gave him strength and blessedness andmade him passive, and it was this that enabled him to effect acomplete reversal of mourning customs.81 The other line of


interpretation concentrates on the extraordinary development ofcharacter or strength of manhood that is exhibited in David, whetherit is called strength of will and manly attitude,82 or connected morespecifically with the fact that he was fully man and was trusted byYahweh as a consequence of the promise made to him in Nathan'soracle in 2 Samuel 7.83 Such interpretations, however, are underminedby David's attitude to death and to ritual acts of mourning on otheroccasions; he seems to have invariably followed the traditionalcustoms that were expected of him by his servants on this occasiontoo (cf. 2 Sam. 1.17ff; 3.31-35; 13.36-37; 19.1).84 Neither the birth of anew attitude to mourning nor the emergence of a fully trusted man isconfirmed by what happened on these other occasions. Therefore, areason for his attitude must be sought in the special circumstancessurrounding this exceptional event, and, as is shown by G.Gerleman,85 what gives the behaviour shown here uniqueness is thatit was connected with the issue of sin and forgiveness. It is claimedthat the narrative was written to illustrate some of the remarkablecharacteristics belonging to David and to demonstrate his strongpersonality. A significance that was unrecognised by his servants wasin David's mind attached to the death of the child; whilst they didnot associate the death with David's affair with Bathsheba, Davidwas 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 ofthe child, but in the turning away of disastrous punishment from theperson of David himself. In this way the death of the child wasregarded as a sacrifice for David's sin; its occurrence was apronouncement to David that he had been forgiven and that nofurther punishment would befall him.86 For this reason David'swords in vv. 22-23 possess the character of Gerichtsdoxologie*1

The interdependence of w. 15b-23 and vv. 13-14 is an indicationthat vv. 15b-23 too belong to a later redaction of the David-Bathsheba-Nathan complex. P. Kyle McCarter is thus justified inregarding this narrative as 'not part of the oldest literature aboutDavid'.88 A possible confirmation of this may be obtained from thestatement in v. 20 that David 'went into the house of the LORD andworshipped', an assertion that causes some difficulty because of thegeneral assumption that there was no temple for Yahweh inJerusalem before the time of Solomon. One proposal to avoid thedifficulty of this reference accepts that when David entered Jerusalemhe took over the Jebusite temple which he found there andworshipped Yahweh in that sanctuary.89 The statement, which is


taken to be literally true, escaped the attention of the deuteronomisticeditors and was therefore not deleted. Another solution, which isrightly preferred by McCarter,90 is to accept that such a reference isan anachronism; the editors responsible for this section thought itappropriate for David to worship Yahweh on such an occasion, butinadvertently referred to the Temple. This may indicate a date thatwas somewhat removed from the events described.

Although this section recording the death of David's son is similarin content and theme to vv. 13-14, it can be suggested that thetheological concern with God's forgiveness to David was not totallydevoid of historical terms of reference. It is not a completefabrication that can be deleted with other similar sections as a kind oftheological treatise, for it is given within a historical framework.91

The narrative in skeletal form runs from 11.21a to 12.15b, 18a and iscontinued in 12.24a:

(27a) And when the mourning was over, David sent and broughther 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 toDavid, and it became sick. (18a) On the seventh day the child died.(24a) Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in toher, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and she called his nameSolomon.

This was a simple form of the narrative, before it was joined to theNathan episode and its theological extensions, which are based on11.27b; those extensions are to be found in a series in 12.7b-14 and in12.15b-23.

The Birth of Solomon (12.24-25)Some doubts have been expressed concerning the sequence of eventssuggested by this chapter, namely the birth of a son from David'sadulterous liaison with Bathsheba, the death of that son and the birthof a second son called Solomon.92 For several reasons it has beenclaimed that 2 Sam. 12.15b-24a does not belong to the originalnarrative and is to be regarded as a secondary addition. The accountof 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 notname the son, as is usual in such notices. A more natural sequence isobtained by reading 12.24b with 11.27a, 'and bore him a son and shecalled his name Solomon'.93 Furthermore, the name Solomon,meaning probably 'his replacement' need not suggest a replacement


for the dead child; he was so named by Bathsheba because hereplaced her dead husband, Uriah.94 Another reason given is that it isimpossible for the two births, including two periods of gestation, tohave occurred during the siege of Kabbah,95 even if the secondconception took place immediately after the death of the first child,which happened seven days after its birth (cf. v. 18a). Again it issuggested that the account of David's behaviour both before andafter the child's death contains legendary elements, one of thembeing the reference in v. 18a to 'seven' days. The motivation forintroducing this legendary material about the birth and death of thefirst child was obviously the wish to avoid identifying Solomon as theillegitimate child born to David and Bathsheba.96

Despite the number of arguments that have been presented, thecase is far from being convincing. Another equally valid reason fornot naming the child in 11.21a was that his life was so short and hedied within seven days after birth, which was before the time forgiving him a name (cf. Lk. 1.59); his name was of no consequenceand certainly of little relevance in a narrative which reached itsclimax with the birth of Solomon (12.24-25). Again the suggestionthat Bathsheba gave Solomon his name because she considered himto be a replacement for the dead Uriah is very unlikely; it was Davidwho replaced Uriah, and Solomon could only be a replacement foranother child. Furthermore, it need not be assumed that the twobirths happened during the same campaign; as often happens innarrative form, the two events may have been telescoped and it isquite possible that Solomon's birth occurred after the Ammonitecampaign.97 The legendary character of 12.15b-23, and the occasionalsigns of its late origin, do not of necessity cast doubt on the historicityof some of its basic elements. As is suggested above, a satisfactoryanalysis of the section becomes possible if a distinction is drawnbetween the theological elements in vv. 15b-24a and the fewimportant historical statements included in the narrative. Theconcise record in vv. 15b, 18a and 24a can be accepted as a soundhistorical report.98

However, the statement 'and she bore a son, and he called hisname Solomon' (so RSV) is not without its difficulties. The Ketib, 'hecalled', attributes the naming to David, whilst the Qere^ with thesupport of some manuscripts, the Syriac and the Targum, reads 'shecalled' and attributes his naming to Bathsheba. It has to be notedthat up to the ninth century BC it was usual for the mother to namethe child,99 and therefore the feminine form represents the older and


more original tradition,100 and its replacement by the masculine is alater modification reflecting a change in custom. A brief referencehas already been made to the choice of name, which unquestionablybears some symbolic significance related to the circumstancessurrounding the child's birth.101 The suggestion, on the basis of 1Chron. 22.18, that his name was connected with salom, 'peace', andcarrying with it an indication that Israel would enjoy peace duringSolomon's reign, has no support from the present text, and musttherefore be dismissed.102 selomoh must be connected with the rootslm used in the Pi'el with the meaning 'to replace, make whole', andso the name means 'his replacement' or 'his substitution'.103

Although such a name may denote a replacement for a lost child or alost parent, preference has already been shown for the former. Takinginto consideration Bathsheba's circumstances, that she had lost herhusband because of her affair with David and then had become thelatter's wife, it would be strange and even impudent if she considereda 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 ofher illicit relationship with David, as is argued by those who deleteentirely the tradition about the death of the first child. The note inv. 24 must therefore be taken as a historical record that Bathshebanamed her child Solomon because he was for her a replacement forthe child which she had lost.104

In vv. 24b-25 there is a second naming of the child through theintervention of the prophet Nathan. As is noted by P. KyleMcCarter,105 the Hebrew idiom found in this verse is very confusing,and for the literal 'and he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophetand he called his name Jedidiah' he proposes the rendering 'and sentinstructions through Nathan the prophet that he was to be calledJedidiah' (cf. NIV 'to name him Jedidiah' and NEB 'he should be giventhe name Jedidiah'); it is also argued that the RSV's 'because of theLORD' (NEB 'for the LORD'S sake') has to be rendered 'by the grace ofYahweh'.106 Thus, to the name given by the child's mother was addedanother one given by Yahweh, denoting that he was 'beloved ofYahweh' (cf. 'and the LORD loved him' in v. 24a). Any interpretationof the double name of Solomon faces the difficulty of having toexplain why this second name occurs only here, with no furtherevidence that it was used either as a private name or as a thronename. Taking Solomon as the private name given by the mother andJedidiah as the throne-name designated by the dynastic god is notsatisfactory in view of the fact that Solomon was the name that


survived. Consequently the reverse has been suggested, withSolomon being the throne-name and Jedidiah the private name thatwas soon forgotten.107 Other solutions that avoid the difficulties ofthis kind of discussion of the double name are obtained either bysuggesting that the naming of Jedidiah in vv. 24b-25 referred to thefirst child of David and Bathsheba, but that it was later mistakenlyconnected with Solomon,108 or else by treating these verses as asecondary insertion to suggest a respectfully orthodox name that wasnever in use.109 However, a different understanding of the naming ofSolomon as Jedidiah becomes possible if these verses are taken torepresent an old tradition belonging to the Jebusite circle to whichNathan belonged. Admittedly it would seem more natural for thechild to have been named Jedidiah in Israelite circles; in view of thepossibility that the name Solomon is in some way related to thesecond part of the name Jerusalem, his name would be morenaturally found in Jebusite circles. On the other hand, proposing thename Jedidiah may be another example of the shrewd and timelyintervention of Nathan in the interests of the Jebusite cause. He mayhave seen in the naming of the child as Solomon by Bathsheba an actthat would estrange him from the Israelites. Therefore, in order toachieve a measure of compromise between the Jebusite and Israelitepopulation of Jerusalem, and perhaps anticipating the steps to betaken in the future to place Solomon, with Jebusite support, on thethrone of David, Nathan proposed the name Jedidiah as a secondname for Solomon; it was an orthodox name that would satisfy theIsraelite element in Jerusalem. Although it did not survive in use, itrepresents a calculated attempt to cancel the harm that may havebeen done by Bathsheba's initial choice of name. Thus in vv. 24-25two traditions about the naming of Solomon have been combined; onthe one hand, the record in v. 24a of Solomon's birth and the namegiven to him by his mother; on the other hand, the old tradition ofvv. 24b-25 that was associated with Nathan and his Jebusitesupporters.

Verses 24-25 form a conclusion to the David-Bathsheba narrative,and vv. 26ff return to the account of the Ammonite war and the siegeof Rabbah which was interrupted after 11.1. Because Solomon'sbirth seems to be the climax of the section it has been suggested thatthe narrative in 11.2-12.25, and even in the whole of chs. 10-12, is tobe designated as the birth story of Solomon.110 As is noted by P. KyleMcCarter, there must be reservations about such a designation; it isan inglorious birth story, which is not central to the main narrative,


and because the notice of the birth itself in vv. 24-25 appears in whatis called a postscript, the impression is gained that Solomon's birthwas reported from a sense of obligation. Nevertheless, it has to beasked if the report of Solomon's birth was of more importance for thenarrator than the mere two verses devoted to it suggest. Thesignificance of the marriage of David to Bathsheba was that it led tothe birth of Solomon. The record of his birth in the narrative servestwo purposes. Firstly, it provides a contrast to the ignominyassociated with the first child born to David and Bathsheba; whatbegan as a narrative of disgrace comes to a conclusion with the gloryof the birth of Solomon, and this could not be ignored. Secondly,although David had committed a heinous sin, which demanded someform of punishment, he himself was spared, and his dynasty was tocontinue; that this was the case is borne out by the brief statementabout the birth of Solomon.

ReconstructionIt has already been accepted that the narrative of David's affair withBathsheba in 2 Samuel 11-12 belongs to the account of theAmmonite war.111 This means that the suggestion that it should betaken as an intrusion into the account of the Ammonite war isimplausible, and some support is given to P. Kyle McCarter'ssuggestion that in chs. 11-12 is a narrative whose author was carefulto introduce it within a historical framework. In view of the analysisoffered above, it is doubtful if all McCarter's conclusions can beaccepted, especially his proposal that behind the whole section standsa prophetic author, who had before him the old story of Absalom'srebellion; he introduced that story by writing his own account of theBathsheba affair, and thus interpreted the rebellion as a working outof the denunciation of David in 12.7b-12.112 Some reservations mustbe expressed about McCarter's assumption that, whilst it dependedon a chain of traditions, the narrative has been composed as acomplete story. It must also be questioned if it was written solely as atheological introduction to the narrative of Absalom's rebellion.

The analysis above suggests that the present complex is far frombeing a single narrative that can be attributed to one author,prophetic or otherwise. It is rather a work that was first of allcomposed from a number of different elements, and then developedinto its present form through a series of successive redactions. In itsearly form the narrative contained the account of David's affair withBathsheba in 11.2-27a, which is a self-contained unit introduced into


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 wasborn to David and Bathsheba, because it also included the briefnotices in 12.15b, 18a, 24a, which cover between them the child'sillness, death and replacement by Solomon. Obviously this narrativedid not originate from the same source as the account of theAmmonite war in 10.1-11.1 and 12.26-31, but was probablycomposed by the narrator on the basis of an earlier tradition. Itsculmination in the birth of Solomon may indicate that its author wasa person interested in the Davidic dynasty and in the succession tothe throne of David; it may well be that the lively narrative in 11.2-27a had existed previously without 12.15b, 18a, 24a, but that thesewere included in the present version to complete the record. Thusthe apparent climax that is reached in 11.21a may denote that theolder narrative finished there; but in the version found in 2 Samuel,and coming from the one interested in the succession of David bySolomon, possibly the author of the so-called Succession Narrative,the unit contained 11.2-27a; 12.15b, 18a, 24a. What he wished toshow was that during the Ammonite war there occurred a series ofevents that led to the birth of Solomon; a relationship that began as asordid act of adultery was eventually to produce the future king, whowould ensure the continuation of David's dynasty.

To his narrative the author joined two other elements obtainedfrom an ancient corpus of tradition surrounding the prophet Nathanand current among the Jebusite population of Jerusalem. The firstunit showed how Nathan had criticised David for his behaviour(12.1-7a); it was brief and to the point. But for the author it providedone important element that was not included in the version ofDavid's affair with Bathsheba which he had produced, namely acriticism of David for his behaviour. The account is remarkably bare,without direct words of criticism or any hint of motivation.113 Byreporting the condemnation preserved in the Nathan tradition andintroducing it without further elaboration, the author was able tosuggest in a very subtle fashion a criticism of David. This served hispurpose well, for a general hint that David was disgraced by his actwas a suitable background for introducing Solomon.114 The secondunit concerned the naming of Solomon as Jedidiah by Nathan(vv. 24b-25). This record again was most acceptable to the author forit emphasised that Solomon was 'beloved of the LORD', whichfurther stresses the contrast between David under a curse and theone who was to become his successor. It has been shown that these


two pieces of tradition associated with Nathan had been preservedfor sound Jebusite reasons, the first because it showed Jebusitereservations concerning the recent development of misusing theroyal prerogative, and the second because it demonstrated a shrewdmove by Nathan to fuse the Jebusite and Israelite factions inJerusalem. Although these Nathan traditions demonstrate his strongJebusite motivation and had therefore been cherished among theJebusites, they acquired a new emphasis when they were joined toother traditions about the same events, and were used to demonstrateanother point of view.

Although the narrative in 11.2-27a; 12.1-7a, 19b, 18a, 24-25 gave acomprehensive account of David's affair with Bathsheba, included acriticism of it and reviewed briefly subsequent developments, it didnot satisfy all its readers. Two oracles, both of which were intendedto bring out the implications of Nathan's criticism in the light of thenature of David's sin and the turn of subsequent events, were addedin vv. 7b-10 and 11-12. Although both have very practical aspects,they also introduce theological themes to a narrative that wasremarkably non-theological; characteristics denoting a deuteronomistichand are evident. David's response in vv. 13-14 is to be included withthese later extensions, as is also 11.27b, which links the narrativemore closely with later interpretations of it and again gives a clearindication of deuteronomistic authorship.

Of special interest for our study is the presence of the two unitswhich have been described as Nathan traditions and their importancefor the development of this section of 2 Samuel. The followingobservations have been made about these two units: they had theirsetting and motivation in the Jebusite faction; they were used by thenarrator of the so-called Succession Narrative because of theircontribution to his theme; and they also, and especially the first one,provided a basis for the further, and more theological, developmentof this section.

Chapter 6

DAVID AND JEBUSITE JERUSALEM

In the above analyses of the three narratives which relate incidentswith which Nathan was particularly connected, it has been suggestedthat the original core underlying each of them gives an account ofNathan's activities that is shorter and different from what appears inthe longer and modified version found in the present biblical text.Since it has been claimed that the original core came from a traditionpreserved among the Jebusites of Jerusalem, and that the actionstaken by Nathan reflect a Jebusite stance aimed at preserving theinterests of that particular faction, the state of affairs in the cityconquered by David has to be examined in more detail. Of particularinterest are the claims that David took possession of a Jebusitestronghold that had not hitherto been conquered by the Israelites,that the Jebusites were not expelled from the city, and that Davidtook over some of the institutions which he found there andattempted to merge Israelite and Canaanite elements, which alsoincluded a syncretism of the Yahwistic and Jebusite religions.

Pre-Davidic JerusalemIt is universally conceded that Jerusalem was an ancient foundationwhich had a long history of at least a thousand years prior to Davidictimes, and that David took possession of what was a Jebusite city-state. The evidence, which is by now well rehearsed,1 can be brieflysummarised. Egyptian execration texts dated c. 2000-1780 BC refer toJerusalem by name, and the form Urusalim occurs in Tell el-Amarnaletters of the 15th and 14th centuries BC2 It is clear from thereferences to it in the latter that it was an important city-state whichexercised influence over the surrounding country.3 Such evidenceconfirms the impression of its importance given by Joshua 10, whereAdoni-sedeq the king of Jerusalem headed a league of Amoritetribes.


Biblical texts relating to the period of the settlement contradicteach other in their references to Jerusalem. It was obviously situatedin the border area between Benjamin and Judah, and there is adiscrepancy as to which side of the border the city belonged. Sometexts place it in Benjaminite territory (Josh. 18.1 Iff; Judg. 1.21), butothers imply that it was situated in Judah (Josh. 1.8; 15.63). Possiblysuch a contradiction arose because Jerusalem had not fallen to theIsraelites at the time of their settlement in Canaan, and so its tribalaffiliation had remained undefined. Without entering into theintricate question of the relationship between the various tribal andcity lists and the boundary designations found in the books of Joshuaand Judges, it can be quite simply stated that Jerusalem belonged toJudah.4 Such factors as the plurality of boundary traditions,redactional modifications and the use of later monarchical districtdivisions have contributed to the contradictory statements thatappear in the texts.5 Despite the difficulties encountered in examiningthese texts, it appears that all traditions agree on the basic fact thatJerusalem was occupied by the Jebusites, who were not driven outduring the Israelite occupation of Canaan. Whilst Josh. 15.63 statesthat the tribe of Judah was unable to oust the Jebusites fromJerusalem, Judg. 1.21 attributes such failure to the tribe of Benjamin;but both texts are agreed in recording that 'the Jebusites have dweltwith the people of Benjamin (or Judah) in Jerusalem to this day'. It isright therefore to conclude that the Jebusites occupied the city in theperiod before its conquest by David,6 and to assert this conclusion inthe 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 itwith the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.' How to reconcilethese two contradictory standpoints will be discussed below.

The presence of Jebusites in Jerusalem in pre-Davidic times can beconfirmed despite doubts about the validity of the equation of Jebuswith Jerusalem.7 As is noted by J.M. Miller, the equation ofJerusalem with Jebus or 'the Jebusite' appears three times in thebooks of Joshua and Judges (Josh. 15.8; 18.28; Judg. 19.10), and isagain confirmed by 1 Chron. 11.4. Jebus was not a word that hadwide usage, but seems to have been restricted to the period betweenthe Israelite settlement and the possession of Jerusalem by David; itis not corroborated by extra-biblical evidence. However, the namesJebus and Jerusalem seem to have been alternatives,8 but opinionsvary with regard to the importance of the name Jebus. On the onehand 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 distinguishbetween the pre-Israelite and Israelite occupation of the city.9 On theother hand it has been claimed that the references to Jebus in the OldTestament texts are authentic and old and that the name was in usein this early period of Israelite history.10 But, according to J.M.Miller, the evidence that the name Jerusalem was in use long beforethe time of David calls for a more satisfactory explanation of the useof the name Jebus. His proposal is that Jebus did not refer to pre-Davidic Jerusalem, but to a village slightly to the north of Jerusalem,and that there is here therefore a clear case of mistaken identity. Ofparticular significance for the present study is that whateverexplanation of the name Jebus is accepted, the identification of theinhabitants of Jerusalem as Jebusites stands unchallenged. Even ifthe novel and radical solution proposed by J.M. Miller is found to beconvincing, it has to be noted that, whilst he does not identify Jebuswith Jerusalem, he confirms that Jerusalem was inhabited byJebusites.11

The Jebusites were still in the city and its surrounding districtwhen David decided to take possession of it (2 Sam. 5.6). Althoughthe conquest of the city and David's campaigns against thePhilistines are so closely related as to make the sequence of eventsunclear, Jerusalem was at this time undoubtedly held by theJebusites. They may have been under pressure from the Philistinesto hold out against David, but there is little to confirm the view thatthe Jebusites were no longer independent because their city wasunder the control of the Philistines.12 The main chronologicaldifficulty of these narratives is the decision whether David'sencounter with the Philistines in the valley of Rephaim (2 Sam. 5.17-25) occurred before or after the capture of Jerusalem; it is an issuethat is complicated by the placing of the narrative about thisencounter immediately after the capture of Jerusalem, whilst v. 17suggests that it occurred immediately after the anointing of David atHebron.13 It is further complicated by the difficulty of identifying'the stronghold' of v. 17.14 The question to be settled is whetherDavid's encounter with the Philistines prepared the way for thecapture of Jerusalem or conversely whether the large scale encounterin the valley of Rephaim was the Philistine response to the taking ofJerusalem. It may well be that the sequence of events is so unclearbecause 2 Sam. 5.17-25 is a composite narrative in which the reportof a major encounter between David and the Philistines (w. 22-25)has been joined to a report of minor skirmishes belonging to David's


period in Hebron (vv. 17-21).15 If recent reconstructions of thehistorical sequence are accepted, a period of months if not yearsseparated David's capture of Jerusalem and his first campaignagainst the Philistines.16 If so, the suggestion that the Jebusites wereunder the control of the Philistines receives no confirmation fromthese reconstructions; even if it had been controlled by thePhilistines, there is no suggestion that it was a Philistine city as such.It can thus be maintained that in taking Jerusalem David was dealingwith the native Jebusite population of the city.

The search for an exact date for the Jebusite settlement ofJerusalem raises another difficult problem. Working on evidence thatthe term 'Amorite' was used for the population of Jerusalem, like itsneighbours (Josh. 10.3), in the early period, with the exception of theperiod between the end of the settlement and the reign of David,when 'Jebusite' was substituted for it, B. Mazar concludes thatJerusalem 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 12th-llth centuries BC. A closer look at the ancestry of the Jebusites willconfirm that they were a group of people belonging to the Hurrians.18

It is known that an early governor of Jerusalem from the Amarnaperiod (1400-1350 BC) was Abdi-frepa, which is a Human name. TheJebusite Araunah, who was in Jerusalem in David's time (2 Sam.24.16fFcf. 1 Chron. 21.15ff, where he is called Oman), also has aHuman name meaning 'ruler, lord', which may be a designation thathe was a king rather than an individual personal name.19 Possibly toothe name of Uriah the Hittite is derived from the same root,20 or atleast from the Human consonantal form, 'wryh, though it is notnecessary to accept the more extreme view that he was a Jebusiteking removed by David through an act of murder.21 The evidencejustifies the conclusion that the Jebusite settlement in Jerusalem hada long history going back to the Amarna period; it was so firmlyestablished in the city that it could not be dislodged by the Israelites,but remained as a foreign enclave in their midst when they settled inthe land and persisted in this way until David conquered Jerusalem.

The city of DavidThe account of David's conquest of Jerusalem in 2 Sam. 5.6-10 callsfor further investigation, especially with a view to defining the exactarea that was captured and explaining its connection with the


Jebusites. The wording of the report in vv. 7 and 9 is particularlysignificant: 'Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, that is,the city of David. On the basis of his detailed study of the city ofJerusalem, and in particular in connection with his definition of theterms 'Zion', 'city of David' and 'OpheF, J. Simons22 makes someobservations that have a bearing on the present study: firstly, heclaims that 'Zion' and 'city of David' are identical terms for the sameplace, and secondly, he identifies the area conquered by David as thesouth-eastern hill. In referring to the area conquered by two names,the report is faithful in giving the Jebusite and Israelite names for thesame fortress; what the text intended to convey was that David tookover 'the stronghold of Zion' and gave it a new name, 'the city ofDavid'. The city-state, previously belonging to Jebusite rulers, nowbecame David's own holding or property, and he rightly renamed itin 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 contextany meaning other than the south-eastern hill. Both the definition ofZion as the whole of the eastern ridge, and the proposal todistinguish it from 'the city of David' and to give it the morerestricted meaning of fortified building or citadel, are rejected. ThusZion, now renamed 'the city of David', indicates the south-easternhill on which a strong fortress had been built;25 this was the Jebusitecity which had remained unconquered until the period of David.

Not only was the south-eastern hill well fortified, but it also had afresh supply of water because of its proximity to the Kidron Valleyand the Spring of Gihon. Therefore, confirmation that this was thefortress 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 theplateau of the hill on which the fortress was founded, and usuallyidentified with Warren's shaft discovered in 1867, not only ensuredfor 'the stronghold Zion' a fresh water-supply, but also provided oneweak point at which the fortress could be penetrated. David's wordshave thus been interpreted as a challenge to take the city by climbingup the shaft and capturing the city through a surprise attack. Theremay be reasons for modifying this explanation, especially because ofthe very free rendering of the Hebrew ndga' be in the translation 'getup the water-shaft'. J. Simons26 has suggested the translation'Whoever smites the Jebusites and arrives at the finnor...'; what heenvisaged was that the fortress was captured by attacking the


garrison posted on the slope above the spring to guard it. Byoverpowering the guard the city's life-line could be cut and its fallensured. A similar procedure was envisaged by G. Brunet,27 whoplaced the attack lower down at 'the overflow' (for §innor\ with theresult that the water-supply could be drained out. Whichever of theseexplanations is preferred, they are agreed that the §innor was in someway connected with the city's water-supply and that an action to cutoff the supply was to lead eventually to the capture of the fortress byDavid. In this way a satisfactory explanation of the attack describedin 2 Sam. 5.6-10 is obtained, and a search for other meanings forfinndr, such as an instrument employed in the siege28 or a part of thebody to be struck by the invading soldiers,29 is quite unnecessary.

Because the stronghold on the south-eastern hill was so wellfortified and had a guarded supply of water, its Jebusite inhabitantsconsidered it impregnable; they had good reason for their confidence,for it had remained an unconquered enclave since the time of theIsraelite incursion into Palestine. When David thus moved againstthe city its residents could with some justification assert 'You will notcome in here',30 for they confidently believed that 'David cannotcome in here'. The intervening phrase, 'but the blind and the lamewill ward you off', appears to contain the taunting words of theJebusites as David approached the fortress.31 They were so confidentin the strength of their fortress that they could leave its defence in thehands of the disabled, 'the blind and the lame', who were able towithstand David's attack.32 David's reply is in similar vein andthrows out a challenge to any of his men 'to attack the lame and theblind, who are hated by David's soul'. Unless David's words aretaken to contain a taunting reply indicating that he was ready to takethe Jebusites at their word and that he would take possession of thefortress, heavy weather is made of v. 8, as for example is the casewith the explanation that he was encouraging his men to deal a fatalblow on the Jebusites rather than merely mutilate them, becausethere 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. 8has been deleted, there is a logical sequence to the two occurrences ofthe phrase: in the mouth of the Jebusites it is a taunt reflecting theirconfidence in their stronghold and in the mouth of David it is a replyin kind that he will take the city. The acceptance of this simple andstraightforward interpretation makes the more elaborate explanationsthat have been offered appear laborious and cumbersome. This is thecase with interpretations based on taking the lame and the blind to be


idols reminding the Israelites of the covenant they have broken,34 oras an attempt to protect the city through magic and sorcery,35 oragain in finding here a reference to the images of Isaac and Jacob, theguardian deities of the city.36 This is the case too with the suggestionthat the phrase should be referred to David's own soldiers, who inthe eyes of the Jebusites were like lame and blind men trying tooccupy the city,37 and with claim that the lame and the blind hadincited 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 verbaltaunting, somewhat similar to the exchanges between the Rabshakehand the Jerusalemites in 2 Kgs 18.19-27, not only gives a satisfactoryinterpretation of the references to the blind and lame, but also servesto bring out clearly the complete confidence of the Jebusites, whohad held out so long as an enclave in 'the stronghold Zion' on thesouth-eastern hill.

David's concentration on the south-eastern hill is again confirmedby a consideration of the south-western hill, which was alsopopulated, and which in due course became part of Solomon'sJerusalem.39 'The stronghold Zion' on the south-eastern hill was theonly walled and protected part of Jerusalem. At this time, accordingto J. Simons,40 the south-western hill had not been fortified in such amanner; if it had been protected in the same way, it would have beena much stronger fortress, and David's campaign would certainly nothave been confined to the south-eastern hill. Jerusalem was the namefor the Jebusite settlement on two hills, and the relationship of Zionto Jerusalem is explained as that of a part of the whole. One part wasfortified, and within that fortress there resided a nucleus of thepopulation with their ruler; the other part was unprotected opencountry and some section of the population lived there.41 Thissituation as described by J. Simons provides an adequate explanationof some problems that arise. Firstly, the two apparently contradictoryreports in Josh. 15.63 and Judg. 1.8 can be reconciled; whereas thestatement in Judg. 1.8 that Jerusalem was captured and burnt mustrefer 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 Jebusitesfrom Jerusalem obviously refers to the fortress on the south-easternhill. It was this situation that persisted until the time of David.Secondly, the presence of a fortified city to accommodate a section ofthe population with the remainder living in settlements in the opencountry gives a clue for understanding the reference to Araunah'sthreshing floor in 2 Sam. 24.16. Whilst the fortress, which became


known as the City of David, was on the south-eastern hill, thethreshing-floor is usually thought to be to the north of it, and thusoutside the fortified area.42 Thus it can be suggested that those livingin the fortress had interests and holdings in the surrounding areabecause it also was Jebusite. Thirdly, the reference in 2 Sam. 5.6 to'the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land', is not anachronistic, as issometimes thought. Because they inhabited the region around thesouth-eastern hill, the text is correct; but it lacks precision in that ituses 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 fortresson the south-eastern hill. Interpreting the text as a statement thatDavid and his men went to Jerusalem 'against the Jebusite ruler ofthe city' becomes unnecessary.43 These considerations confirm thepoint 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 Zionare not given in the text, the situation outlined above brings them outquite obviously. This well fortified hill stood not only in a strategicposition on the central hill range, but also in the middle of the twotribal blocks that David hoped to unite. Whilst this Jebusite enclavepersisted, David had little hope of uniting the northern and southerntribes, since he was deprived of the advantage of a continuous area ofIsraelite occupation in the centre of the country;44 taking 'thestronghold Zion' was absolutely necessary. Possession of thisparticular area also gave him the added advantage of establishing hisbase on neutral ground that had never belonged to either thenorthern or the southern tribes.45 He had good reasons for takingover the Jebusite fortress.

Pre-Israelite CultA settlement that had a long history extending back about athousand years, as is the case with Jerusalem, and that moreover hadbeen occupied by the same people for a length of time, as is the casewith the fortress on the south-eastern hill, is naturally expected tohave firmly established religious traditions. One of the areas to beinvestigated is the evidence for the existence of a pre-Israelite cult inJerusalem, for it has been claimed that, like other Canaanite cities, ithad been regarded from early times as a holy city and was a religiouscentre of some importance and influence.46 This makes it probablethat when Jerusalem became the supreme Israelite cultic centre, withits splendid Temple dedicated to the God of Israel, its cult took over


some of the traditions established there and its Temple was actuallyfounded on an ancient cultic site.47

The name 'Jerusalem', which is a compound of two elements, yrwand slm, is taken to mean 'foundation of (the god) Shalem'.48 Theroot behind the first element yrw is defined in Gesenius' Thesaurus of1835 as meaning 'to cast, lay a foundation', and an impressive list ofother Semitic languages, including Nabataean, Aramaic and Syriac,which use the same root with this meaning, can be compiled insupport.49 In the second element is a proper name denoting thefounder of the city, on the analogy of Ur-Kasdim, 'the foundation ofthe Chaldeans'; although the name has occasionally been connectedwith a human founder from a very distant past,50 it is more usual tofind in the consonants slm a reference to a deity who had particularassociations with the city of Jerusalem. It has therefore been claimedthat the city was the main centre for worshipping the West Semiticgod whose name appears as Salim, Sulmanu or Salamu in Accadiansources.51 Jerusalem was called Bit-Sulmani in the period of Abdi-hepa, according to the Amarna letters, and on the basis of suchevidence it has been claimed that Jerusalem was the seat of the godSulman, for whom there was a temple on the site in the 14th centuryBC.52 It is also thought that that the old sanctuary of Salim had beenlater replaced by the Sulman Temple. Of course it is not suggestedthat the worship of Salim or Sulmanu was confined to the Israelitesor to Jerusalem. A theophoric name containing the deity slm is givento a king of Moab in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III,53 and bothSulman and Selamanes are mentioned, the former on a stelediscovered at Sidon and the latter in inscriptions from Aleppo.54 Ofparticular significance, according to J. Gray,55 is the appearance oftwo astral deities, known by the names $hr and Slm, in themythological text from Ras Shamra describing 'The Birth of theGracious and Beautiful Gods'. They were twin deities, one manifestedin the Morning Star (Shr—Dawn) and the other in the Evening Star(Slm—peace = peace of evening, Dusk).56 The probability is that Slmwas the local god of Jerusalem, whose name appears not only in thecity's name, but significantly too perhaps in the theophoric names oftwo of David's sons, Absalom and Solomon, despite the birth of theone in Hebron and the other's alternative name being Jedidiah.Although the incidence of the name Salim/Sulman is widespread, itcan justifiably be claimed that this god was worshipped in pre-Israelite Jerusalem.57

Another deity whose name is also mentioned in discussions of the


pre-Israelite Jerusalem cult is $edeq.58 The argument is based on thefollowing evidence: the divine name Sydyk, 'The Just', is found in thewritings of Philo of Byblos and also appears as a theophoric elementin personal names outside the Bible, for example at Tell el-Amarnaand Ugarit, and corresponds to the Accadian Kittu, 'Justice';59 thenames of some of the pre-Israelite kings in Jerusalem, such asMelchisedeq which means 'My King is Sedeq'60 (Gen. 14.18ff) andAdonisedeq (Josh. 10.1, 3), can be taken as theophoric namesconnected 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 hebelonged to the pre-Davidic shrine in Jerusalem. Thus, it is claimedthat Jerusalem, where Melchi§edeq had been priest-king, and whosepriesthood had eternal validity (according to Ps. 110.4), was a culliccentre for the local deity $edeq. The possibility that Zadok was a pre-Israelite Jebusite priest is reserved for more detailed discussionbelow. Despite the importance of the reference to Melchi§edeq, thereis uncertainty about finding in \hz-?dq element in his name proofthat a deity by the name of $edeq was worshipped in Jerusalem.Because of the probability that Melchisedeq means 'My king isrighteous' (with 'my king' being either a divine appellative or aproper name), A.R. Johnson62 concluded that the association of a god$edeq with Jerusalem is extremely uncertain, but cautiously affirmedthat there was an early association between pre-Israelite Jerusalemand the notion of righteousness. However, the narrative aboutMelchisedeq in Genesis 14 is most instructive. Melchisedeq, the kingof Salem (obviously a reference to Jerusalem), is called 'priest of GodMost High' and pronounced a blessing on Abram in the name of'God Most High, maker of heaven and earth' (vv. 18f). In v. 22 'GodMost High' is identified with Yahweh. Despite doubts about thehistorical authenticity of Genesis 14 it can be affirmed that vv. 18-20,a section which is thought to have originally stood independent of theremainder of the chapter,63 correctly reflects one historical fact ofsignificance, namely that there was a shrine in Jerusalem in pre-Israelite times.64 There are uncertainties about the origin of thesection, although the indications are that it belonged to Davidictimes, when the worship of Yahweh was introduced to Jerusalem.65

Among the suggestions about the intention and significance of thenarrative are: that it aimed at justifying the pre-Israelite worship ofJerusalem;66 that it sought to legitimise the priesthood of the Jebusiteshrine;67 that it affirmed David's right as a successor of Melchi§edeq


to exact tithes and homage from Israel.68 It was the fusion of theworship of Yahweh with the cult of'El 'Elyon in the reign of Davidthat gave occasion for the interpolation, according to J.A. Emerton.69

Its aim was to encourage the Israelites to accept this fusion, torecognise the status of Jerusalem and to acknowledge that David wasa king who inherited the royal and priestly status of Melchi§edeq. Italso aimed at encouraging the Canaanites to acknowledge David andto accept the Israelites. These explanations are agreed that, becausethere was a pre-Israelite shrine in Jerusalem, some explanation andjustification was necessary when David took over the city. Furthermore,the use of the name 'God Most High' ('El 'Elyon) in this sectionindicates that the chief god of the shrine was 'El 'Elyon, maker ofheaven and earth'. Evidence for the use of 'Elyon as a divine namecomes from Byblos and Aleppo,70 and the use of the nomenclature'El 'Elydn, 'God Most High', in both biblical and extra-biblicalsources, can be taken as a suggestion that two names have been fusedto imply one supreme God.71 Whatever the personal name of thedeity may have been, and whether or not other names such as Salimand $edeq are to be regarded as hypostases of 'Elyon,72 it can beaffirmed that a supreme deity known as 'Elyon had been worshippedin the old Jebusite city of Jerusalem. When it became a Davidic cityand a place of worship of Yahweh, some explanation had to be offeredand 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 Davidbuying the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite to build an altarand offer sacrifice (2 Sam. 24.15ff). According to v. 24 David boughtthe threshing-floor and oxen for the sacrifice from Araunah, but thenarrative 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 withthreshing-floors both in biblical and Ugaritic literature.73 A threshing-floor 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 fromAraunah a site that had previously been used for worship.75 Ourunderstanding of this chapter is made more difficult by its complexity,as is illustrated by the many literary analyses of it that have beenproposed.76 On the basis of such analyses, the following observations


are relevant to our study. (1) The altar aetiology in w. 16-25 stoodoriginally independent of the other two narratives contained in thechapter, the census narrative (w. 1-1 la) and the plague narrative(w. llb-15). (2) Although the main interest of the section in itspresent form lies in establishing the Davidic origin of the altar, use ismade of an old Jebusite tradition or cult-legend concerning atheophany (w. 16-17).77 One of the problems arising in connectionwith this analysis is whether to take Araunah to be the last owner ofthe threshing-floor who sold it to David and possibly to identify himas the last Jebusite king of Jerusalem,78 or to consider him to havebeen an earlier Jebusite, who on the basis of the theophany describedin w. 16-17 designated his threshing-floor as a sacred site.79 Theobvious confusion here may have been due to the mistaken use of theproper name Araunah for the person selling the site. The difficulty isavoided to some extent by assuming that Araunah is not a propername, but is the Hurrian word meaning 'ruler';80 if so, David boughtthis site from the last city ruler of Jerusalem. Whatever difficultiesare presented by 2 Sam. 24.16-25 it may be concluded, even ifcautiously, that when David bought the threshing-floor a little to thenorth of the south-eastern fortress he was buying what had been asacred site in pre-Israelite times. Some confirmation of this isobtained by referring to the usage of threshing-floors in biblicaltimes; even more confirmation is obtained from those literaryanalyses which find that the record of transferring the ownership hasbeen combined with an ancient cult legend explaining its origin as asacred site. The further problems of identifying this site with theposition of the altar in Solomon's Temple81 or with the altar used byAbraham82 are not relevant to the aim of the present study, whosemain concern is with establishing whether or not the site of David'saltar had cultic connections in pre-Israelite times. The indicationsare that it was considered a sacred site by the Jebusites.

There are still many uncertainties in this area of research due tothe lack of precise descriptions of the Jerusalem of pre-Davidic times.On the basis of the evidence considered above it can be concludedthat the Jerusalem of this period was a religious centre of importance,where the supreme god 'Elyon was worshipped, possibly with Salimand $edeq as hypostases of this deity, or else as other deities whomight have been associated with 'Ely6n. Slightly to the north of thecity boundary there was a sacred site, which, according to an oldtradition, had been legitimised in the distant past by a theophany.When the Israelites under David captured Jerusalem, they had the


problem of legitimizing the religious traditions of the city and dealingwith its native cult. It is suggested that the policy of outrightrejection and obliteration was not pursued, but that there was aprocess of assimilation and adaption of what was found there.

Zadok the PriestThe background and function of Zadok the priest have to beexamined in more detail than was possible in Chapter 2, and moreespecially because of the prominent place he occupies in discussionsof Jebusite Jerusalem. A case has been made, and subsequentlychallenged, that Zadok was a priest belonging to the pre-IsraeliteJebusite shrine in Jerusalem; he was not removed from his post whenDavid occupied the city, but exercised his priestly functions side byside with Abiathar until ultimately in the time of Solomon hereplaced him.

Zadok's origin is a perplexing problem, mainly because the OldTestament itself does not provide clear and reliable information.83 Heis introduced beside Abiathar in the time of David without anyexplanation as to his previous background or how he came to belongto the Jerusalem priesthood. Consequently several suggestions havebeen made, and arguments for and against each alternative havebeen forthcoming. The suggestion that he was established by Saul toreplace the priests slaughtered at Nob, because it fails to provideconcrete evidence that he held such a position and to explain whySaul's priest could stand beside Abiathar, David's priest, has by nowbeen abandoned.84 The proposal that Zadok was the priest ofGibeon, whilst Abiathar was the priest of Jerusalem, has found morefollowers. Although this proposal has the support of biblicalreferences indicating the importance of Gibeon (cf. 1 Kgs 3.4) andthe statement in 1 Chron. 16.39 that Zadok officiated there, it fails toexplain why he appeared in Jerusalem in the reign of David and whyhe took precedence over Abiathar (2 Sam. 15.24).85 Yet anotherexplanation rests on reading the proper name Ahio in 2 Sam. 6.3f as'dfriw—'his brother', and proposes to identify Zadok as Uzzah'sbrother and count him as one of the sons of Abinadab. Despite thechronological feasibility of this explanation, it rests on a doubtfultextual emendation,86 has no concrete evidence in support and doesnot explain why Zadok is listed as son of Ahitub in 2 Sam. 8.17 andnot the son of Abinadab.87 A different line of interpretation isfollowed by F.M. Cross,88 who claims that David followed theexceptional path of attempting to reconcile two rival priestly houses


by appointing the head of each to the national cult in Jerusalem; thetwo leaders were Abiathar, from the Mushite house of Eli at Shiloh,and Zadok, from the Aaronid house at Hebron. It is claimed that thisinterpretation gives an explanation of many difficult points in thebiblical narrative. But the evidence for taking the priesthood atShiloh to be Mushite does not have a firm basis, and depends onChronistic genealogies and a fragmentary list in Num. 26.58a;similarly the attempt to make Zadok an Aaronid rests on genealogieswhose value is to say the least debatable, as will be noted below.

Because of the reservations that have been expressed in connectionwith each of these attempts to explain Zadok's origin, the alternativethat was acceptable to H.H. Rowley and A. Cody was to claim thatZadok was a priest officiating in Jebusite Jerusalem before it wasconquered by David. Whilst it is admitted that the evidence is mostlyindirect, the assertion is made that this view of Zadok's origin meetsmost of the difficulties that arise. It explains why genealogicalinformation about Zadok is absent even from documents where itwould have been natural to supply it (2 Sam. 8.16ff; 20.23-26); itgives the most plausible reason for Zadok's support of Solomon andAbiathar's support of Adonijah in the struggle for the throne; it fits inwith the circumstances of the time, when the appointment of aJebusite priest to serve with the Israelite priest in the national culticcentre would have helped to reconcile the Jebusite majority.89

Although there have been minor modifications of the theory,90 theposition generally accepted by its supporters is that David gave thisJebusite priest joint responsibility with his own priest Abiathar.Cody, conscious that this theory is based on indirect evidence andthat, 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 evidenceto support it. Taken with other pointers to Jebusite presence inJerusalem 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 twopriests, 'Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar'.This information has incorrectly listed Ahimelech as joint priest withZadok; it is known from other references that Abiathar was the nameof David's priest (cf. 2 Sam. 20.25), and that Ahimelech was thename of Abiathar's father (1 Sam. 22.20; 23.6; 30.7). This item in thelist has been corrected in the Syriac to read 'Abiathar the son of


Ahimelech'.92 But it has also been claimed that the listing of Zadokas 'the son of Ahitub' shows further confusion, for he therebybecomes the son of Eli's grandson (cf. 1 Sam. 14.3). However, in viewof 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 escapedthe massacre at Nob (1 Sam. 22.20), Zadok could not have been theson of Ahitub. Consequently, J. Wellhausen's proposal to read'Zadok, and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub' isaccepted by many on the grounds that it gives Abiathar a correctgenealogy and that the present text is a clear attempt to provideZadok, who was without genealogy, with a Levitical ancestry.93 Sucha reading has not been universally accepted,94 and some criticism ofit has been made by P.M. Cross.95 The main contention of Cross'scase 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 isthus identified with the Zadok of 1 Chron. 12.27-29, who was 'ayoung man mighty in valour'.97 In support of the retention of'Zadokthe son of Ahitub' it has to be noted that there are no textual variantsto suggest otherwise. However, there are many points about Cross'scase that make it less convincing than it appears. (1) He does notoffer an explanation for the consistent appearance of Zadok's namein 2 Samuel and 1 Kings without a patronymic, with the exception of2 Sam. 8.17, nor again for the introduction of the patronymic in1 Chron. 6.8 (=5.34 in the MT); 6.52f (=6.37f in the MT). (2) There isno biblical evidence to support his claim that there was anotherAhitub of Aaronid descent at Hebron. (3) 1 Chron. 12.27 describesJehoiada as being 'of the house of Aaron'; but it seems strange toomit a similar description if the Zadok of v. 28 was also an Aaronid.(4) There is considerable uncertainty about the antiquity of the list in1 Chron. 12.23-40 and the extent of the material taken from originalsources as opposed to the fabrication of the Chronicler.98 Despitecriticisms of the proposal to list Zadok without a patronymic, itseems to offer a solution that is more consistent with other biblicalreferences to Zadok, and is at the same time free from the difficultiesencountered by Cross.

Of course giving Zadok an Aaronid ancestry is consistent with thegenealogies provided by the Chronciler (1 Chron. 6.4-8, 50-53), whotraces his ancestry through Ahitub to Eleazar the son of Aaron.Although he admits that the Chronicler's genealogies are oftensecondary constructions, Cross defends the historicity of Zadok'sancestry and attaches special importance to 2 Sam. 8.17.99 But Cross


seems to depend rather heavily on genealogies that are usuallyregarded as pious fabrications of a later age, and they are sometimesdescribed as more of a work of art than a true representation ofdescent.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 dubiouslists of the Chronicler to affirm 2 Sam. 8.17. No account is taken ofthe indications that it was a later, post-Exilic development that foundfor Zadok an Aaronid genealogy,101 and that originally Zadok thepriest appeared in the narrative without patronymic or ancestry.

Another aspect of the question of Zadok's origin and settingconcerns his name and its possible connection with a pre-Israelite,Jerusalemite deity. Note has already been taken of the namescontaining the element $dq, and of the possibility that $edeq was oneof the Jerusalem deities who were hypostases of the chief god '£l'Elyon or who were associated with him.102 Although H.H. Rowleygave his interpretation of those names in which §edeq is aconstituent element with some reserve, he was of the opinion thatthere was a Semitic deity with he name §edeq, that the meaning ofMelchi§edeq is '$edeq is king', and that a priest bearing his namemust have belonged to Jerusalem before its conquest by theIsraelites.103 Further reservations have been expressed by others. Aswas noted above, A.R. Johnson104 found it very uncertain that thegod §edeq was associated with Jerusalem, and proposed for Melchisedeqthe meaning 'milki (a divine appellative, if not a proper name) or myking is righteous'. F.M. Cross,105 whilst admitting the extremelycommon use of $dq in Semitic names, and referring to some forms inwhich $idqu is a divine name, finds no connection whatsoeverbetween the divine name §idqu and the Hebrew form Zadok; indeedit was in such common usage that no special link with Jerusalem canbe established. Because of these reservations, it would be inappropriateto draw firm conclusions about Zadok's previous affiliations from hisname. But, taking into account the possibility that Sedeq was ahypostasis of the god 'El 'Elyon or was closely associated with him,and the evidence that §edeq-'righteousness' had close associationswith Jerusalemite names, it is not impossible that the name Zadokhad some connection with ancient Jerusalemite tradition.

The significance of Zadok for our study may be cautiously set outas follows: the theory that Zadok originated from Jebusite Jerusalemseems to have more to commend it than other attempts to trace hisorigin; the fact that he appears frequently without genealogy castsdoubt on the one given in 2 Sam. 8.17, and the genealogies provided


by the Chronicler seem to have been composed to meet later needs; itmay be true too, although less certainty can be claimed for thisconclusion, that his name may have had some connection with one ofthe names used of the supreme god of the pre-Israelite cult ofJerusalem. Despite the many uncertainties which have been noted,these conclusions seem to give tentative support for the suggestionthat Zadok was a Jebusite priest who was given a place in thenational cult of Jerusalem by David.

Jerusalemite TraditionsDavid took Jerusalem by storm early in his reign (2 Sam. 5.6-9), andhis obvious aim was to gain a continuous area of Israelite settlementin the centre of the country by deleting the Jebusite centre thatseparated the mountains of Ephraim in the north from themountains of Judah in the south.106 This does not mean that hewiped out the Jebusites; they managed to maintain a strong andprobably predominant presence in the stronghold of Zion, even afterits conquest by David. On the evidence of the friendly negotiationsbetween David and Araunah in 2 Sam. 24.18-25, and David'sinsistence on paying a fair price for the Jebusite's threshing-floorrather than taking possession of it as conqueror, it can be suggestedthat there was no outright slaughter of the Jebusites or an attempt tooust them from their stronghold. It is therefore unlikely that therewas initially at least an influx of Israelites, and that many more thanDavid's own household and personal army moved into the fortress.107

Jerusalem is usually described as a city-state, and the positionenvisaged after its storming by David and his troops is that itremained a city-state; the coming of David meant only a change ofcity ruler, the previous Jebusite king being now replaced by David.108

The inhabitants remained, but their fortress had now become thepersonal possession of David and was under his control.

David unquestionably found in the city-state over which he nowruled 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 inthe second quarter of the 14th century to the time of Araunah, who isthought to have been its last king. Nevertheless, it is claimed thatJerusalem had enjoyed a stable regime and had an establishedorganisation of government. Yeivin mentions in particular the civilservice, and accompanying it schools for training scribes andadministrative staff. One of the reasons for accepting that such a


school existed in pre-Israelite Jerusalem to make provision for theJebusite court is that David employed these non-Israelites as hisministers. Among those mentioned are Shausha the scribe, Ahithophelthe king's counsellor, Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud the recorder andIttai the Gittite; although there is uncertainty about some of thenames (notably Jehoshaphat, which is a Yahweh-name) and the postswhich were held, it is not unreasonable to suggest that these men hadentered David's administration when he took over the services thathad been established by the Jebusites. The sap of Canaanite culturewas 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 andtrained in Jerusalem there was a wide enough class of intelligentsia.Because the evidence is in places slender, there is a tendency todepend on parallels drawn from practices which were current eitherat Ugarit or elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Nevertheless, thebalance of probability lends support to Yeivin's reconstruction of thetrends in Jerusalem at this time, and is much more reasonable andconvincing than the claim that, because much of Solomon'sadministrative machinery came from his intimate relations withTyre, there is little evidence of Jebusite influence.110

Another area that has been thoroughly explored, and to whichonly a cursory reference was made above in the discussion of the pre-Israelite cult in Jerusalem, is the probable influence of Canaanitecultic mythology and cultic practices on Jerusalem's cult in theperiod of the monarchy. Comparative studies, such as that presentedby J. Gray,111 demonstrate both the correspondences and thedifferences between Old Testament and Canaanite religions.Summarising his studies of the Krt and Aqht texts and themythological Baal cycle, Gray112 makes special reference to theprinciple of imitative magic in Canaanite ritual and its verbalaccompaniment. When the Israelites settled down to an agriculturallife in Canaan, they adopted this most significant feature ofCanaanite religion to such an extent that it pervaded Hebrewreligion. It is also claimed that 'the abiding heritage of Canaan toIsrael was the theme of the triumph of God over the power ofchaos';113 whereas the Canaanites were mainly concerned with God'striumph in the natural sphere, the Israelites extended it to the realmof history and morality. Not unexpectedly it has been suggested toothat this Canaanite influence on Israelite cultic practices came toIsrael 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 Davidand his supporters with the predominantly Jebusite population of thecity; it was there too that Israelite cultic assimilation and developmentwould 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 itsworship of the 'Most High' and its royal-priestly order of Melchisedeq,provided a ritual and a mythology which were assimilated by Davidand his successors in the city. Johnson attaches special significance toPsalm 29, which may possibly have been originally a hymn to Baaland which may have belonged to the Jebusite cult in Jerusalembefore it was later adapted to the worship of Yahweh.115 Among thereasons for suggesting this are its parallels in language and form toUgaritic literature, and, on account of the close nature of theparallels, some scholars are willing to assign Psalm 29 to the 10thcentury BC. The presence of this and other Canaanite parallels in thePsalter116 would therefore suggest some dependence of the Yahwisticcult in Jerusalem on the forms, language and mythology that hadbelonged in pre-Davidic times to the Jebusile cult practised in thefortress.

H.-J. Kraus also makes the point that it was the traditions andinstitutions that belonged to the whole Canaanite-Syrian culturethat were developed in the Canaanite-Jebusite city of Jerusalem in itspre-Israelite period.117 When the city was conquered by David, theseCanaanite-Jebusite traditions were so well-established there thatwhat happened can be best described as the meeting and fusion oftwo different traditions: Israel's Ark tradition and the cultictraditions that belonged to pre-Israelite Jerusalem. The three psalmschosen by Kraus to illustrate the process of assimilation are Psalms122, 46 and 48. Whereas Psalm 122 is based on old amphictyonictraditions, Psalms 46 and 48 make use of Canaanite-Jebusitelanguage and ideas. Of particular significance are the references toMount 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 tobe examples of the mythological traditions taken over from theJebusites. The former is based on the concept of Mount Zaphon, theCanaanite Mount Olympus, that was the seat of the gods and onwhich the supreme god had his throne; the latter is an adaptation ofthe tradition that the supreme god had his seat where the subterraneanwaters are transformed to streams bringing fertility to the earth.Both traditions were important in the Syro-Phoenician world, as is


shown in the Ras Shamra texts; both were established in Jerusalemand, in the fusion of two different traditions, were re-applied to theGod of Israel who was now worshipped in Jerusalem. It has also beenargued that the influence of Canaanite traditions upon Israelitereligion goes beyond borrowing and re-interpreting mythologicalconcepts, and that some key theological ideas, such as Israel'smonotheism, have their origin in Canaanite religion.118

Although this area of cultic, mythological and conceptual influenceof Canaanite traditions on Israelite religion, with the notion that theywere specifically mediated through the Jebusite traditions andpractices of Jerusalem, has been the subject of a much more detaileddiscussion than can be attempted within the scope of this study,some valuable pointers to the fusion of traditions in Jerusalem haveemerged. Taken against the general background of David's entry toJerusalem as the new ruler of a city-state that had its own traditionsand culture, it is not unreasonable to take the point made in thesestudies that religious, cultic and mythological areas show Canaaniteinfluence; the evidence points to a process of borrowing and re-interpreting. Moreover, since Israel had no royal ideology of its own,influence from Canaanite sources would be expected at the time ofthe introduction of the monarchy. Entry to an enclave that had suchfirmly established traditions without any indication of influence andof conflation would be unexpected and more difficult to explain.

Nathan's backgroundThe Jebusite enclave in Jerusalem, with its long establishedtraditions, both cultural and religious, and its fairly developedorganisation connected with the king, his court and the training ofofficials, was Nathan's scene. As has already been noted, he appearswithout genealogy and that after David had taken possession ofJerusalem. Both points are taken as indications that he was a court-prophet belonging to Jebusite Jerusalem, that he was taken over byDavid, and that he came to play an important role under the newregime.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 begiven to the significance of the term in the proposed setting forNathan. According to H. Haag,120 the passages where Gad andNathan appear together (1 Chron. 29.29; 2 Chron. 29.25) areparticularly instructive, for Gad is called a 'seer' and Nathan a'prophet'. A distinction is drawn between the seer, who was of


nomadic origin, and the prophet, who was of Canaanite origin; oneemerged from a wilderness tradition, the other from the culture ofestablished Canaanite states.121 He is of a different kind, therefore,from the ecstatic groups of prophets who operate in the books ofSamuel,122 and is usually designated as a person whose office wasexercised in connection with the court, thus gaining for himself thetitle of'court prophet',123 or 'privy counsellor'.124 As such he bears aclose resemblance to the court-prophets of Man, who also functionedat the court and addressed the king.125 Because of his appearance inthe same group as Zadok, it has been suggested that both persons hadbeen associated with the life and organisation of Jerusalem in its pre-Israelite days. Reference has already been made to the possibilitythat there was in Jerusalem an organisation or school for trainingcourt personnel; it has been suggested that Nathan was a courtierwho had been so trained and is to be ranked among the wise.126 AsZadok the priest of the Jebusite sanctuary was given a place in thenew cultic compromise sought in Jerusalem, so too was Nathan, thecourt-prophet who had operated within the Jebusite order in the city,given the opportunity of continuing as adviser and counsellor to KingDavid.127 In support of this contention reference can be made againto the evidence that the Jebusites were not expelled and that in thissituation of the co-existence of Israelites and Jebusites there had tobe compromise and assimilation; the persistence of the Jebusite orderand the continuation of Jebusite personnel was not unlikely, andJebusite influence was inevitable. It is to this period of fusionbetween two cultures and two traditions that Nathan belongs.

A difficult question arises in this context: did Nathan the prophetremain loyal to Jebusite traditions after his transfer to David's court,or did he become converted to Yahwism? References have been madeto his conversion to Yahwism,128 and that with the support of thebiblical presentation of him speaking in the name of Yahweh (cf.2 Sam. 7.4, 8; 12.7,11). But there are other considerations. On theoccasions with which he is associated, he seems to have been actingin the interest of the Jebusites; most notably his opposition to theYahweh Temple in Jerusalem has been attributed to his obviousJebusite sympathies.129 Thus Nathan has been described as acomplex character who had, on the one hand, been converted toYahwism, but on the other hand, had not entirely disclaimed Jebusiteinterests.130 At crucial points in history he reacted instinctively onbehalf of his fellow-citizens. Without referring at this point to thepossibility that the presentation of Nathan as a Yahweh spokesman is


a feature that was later imposed on the original tradition,131 it mustbe asked if his conversion to Yahwism is feasible in view of the stateof affairs in Jerusalem at the time. The crux of the matter is whetherNathan would be expected to proclaim a word in the name ofYahweh. Taking as a starting-point the claim that he was a privycounsellor or adviser taken over by David from the Jebusiteorganisation in Jerusalem, it would seem more likely that he wasexpected to continue in that capacity and now act as counsellor forthe new king of Jerusalem. Furthermore, since it was a situation inwhich the new minority Israelite element and the old majorityJebusite element attempted to co-exist in the same city-state, itwould seem that Nathan's primary task as king's counsellor was toattain peaceful co-operation between the two sides. As representativeof the old Jebusite regime in the court of the new king of the city, itwas necessary for him to act as spokesman for this native population.His was the task of finding out a course of successful mediationbetween conqueror and conquered,132 between Israelite and Jebusiteinterests. Because he was a courtier, who through his advice to theking was seeking an answer to the very tricky political and socialproblem of integrating the two sides, he was not expected to act as aspokesman for the superior deity, and so the question of hisconversion to Yahwism does not arise.

Admittedly the so-called 'Jebusite hypothesis' is not without itsdifficulties, as is pointed out in the many discussions of it, and hashad many critics. Many of the studies of early Zion tradition,according to J.J.M. Roberts,133 accept that this tradition owes itsformation to the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem, and Robertshimself is sceptical of all previous attempts to topple this hypothesisfrom its dominant position. Although the hypothesis rests on what hecalls 'unproven and unprovable assumptions',134 the very detailedcriticisms of it put forward by such writers as G. Wanke are notconvincing.135 Roberts supposes that he has the alternative hypothesisthat will replace the popular 'Jebusite hypothesis' and will ultimatelydestroy it. His examination of the four main motifs of the Ziontradition leads him to the conclusion that their origin is not to befound in an unknown pre-Israelite cult but in Zion itself in thegolden days of David and Solomon.136 But Roberts' argument hasnot been found convincing on the grounds that: (a) there is so muchcommon ground between Judah and surrounding cultures that it isobviously wrong to dismiss the influence of pre-Davidic Jerusalem;(b) the Jebusite hypothesis, despite the fact that it remains unprovable,


offers the most plausible explanation of several features belonging tothe period after the occupation of Jerusalem by David.137

In view of the culmulative evidence considered above and theanalysis of the Nathan tradition, the 'Jebusite-hypothesis' doesprovide for Nathan a background for a comprehensive understandingof his life and contribution.

Chapter 7

CONCLUSION

Literary analysis of the three main sections in the biblical narrativedevoted to the activities of Nathan shows that these narratives intheir present form bear unmistakable signs of later accretions madeat various stages and of editorial work, which must have beenconsidered necessary before they could be incorporated in thecomplex in which they now stand. By removing carefully theaccretions, modifications and theologising additions, a core traditionabout Nathan can be uncovered. Its main elements have beendefined as follows:

(a) The part of the tradition that has been least affected by theinsertion of additional material is that preserved in 1 Kings1, in which Nathan appears as the leader of the group activein securing David's throne for Solomon. He appears as aperson enjoying a position of authority in David's court,being able to exert influence on the queen and playing a keyrole in directing the course of events.

(b) Before his appearance in connection with those eventsimmediately concerned with Solomon's succession to David'sthrone, Nathan had also taken a stand against David'sintention of building a Temple in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 7).Although his intervention was brief and rather reserved, itnonetheless contained a firm objection to the Templeproject. It takes the form of a very cautious suggestion thatsuch a move by David would introduce an innovation andbe a departure from the traditions of the tribal confederacy.

(c) The present form of 2 Samuel 7 contains another oracle,which has become attached to Nathan's rejection of theDavidic Temple. The core of this oracle has been defined asa liturgical piece that was probably used during an


enthronement ritual. Reasons have been given for regardingit as an early composition belonging to pre-Solomonic times,and it is not unreasonable to suggest that it was on somesuch occasion spoken by Nathan the court prophet, and thatpresumably in the name of the deity of the reigningmonarch.

(d) Nathan's condemnation of David's affair with Bathsheba (2Sam. 12.1-7a) was again originally brief and subtle. Themessage of his parable was evident, and he did not have toelaborate its meaning or underline for emphasis the impliedcriticism of the king.

(e) In 2 Sam. 12.24b-25 there is a brief record that Solomon wasrenamed Jedidiah by Nathan the prophet. Despite somedifficulties arising from the ascription of this renaming toNathan, it is accepted that this section too preserves an oldtradition.

The core tradition which is revealed after the removal of additionalmaterial appears in a brief and stark form; elaborations of atheological nature are removed as later material and there were inthe original no indications of the motivation for Nathan's actions andattitude. However, these traditions are compatible with the generalattitude and probable reaction of the Jebusites who had beeninhabiting Jerusalem before it was conquered by David. Nathan, acourt official and chief spokesman for the Jebusite group, tookcareful steps to safeguard the cause of this faction of the Jerusalemcommunity and to achieve a working compromise between theoriginal Jebusite inhabitants and the new Israelite settlers. A templeconsecrated to Yahweh by David would have been an essentiallyIsraelite shrine which was largely untouched by Canaanite religiouspractices; it would not have been acceptable to this Jebusite groupand would thus have led eventually to the alienation of the twocommunities. But Nathan had to conceal his true motive and presentan objection that would be meaningful for the Israelite David; hetherefore very shrewdly and carefully set the proposed new developmentin contrast to Israel's past tradition. But a temple built by Solomon,who had Jebusite ancestry and sympathies, would have been seen ina different light by the original inhabitants of Jerusalem, and soNathan did not object on that occasion. Other developmentsaccompanying the kingship of David in Jerusalem were equallyunacceptable for the Jebusites; they were especially concerned if

7. Conclusion 145

David's misuse of the royal prerogative in connection with theBathsheba incident indicated the inauguration of a new style ofmonarchy. Nathan intervened once again, and on this occasion toohe was brief and exercised great restraint in demonstrating that suchbehaviour was unacceptable; although his motives were concealed,his method was most effective. Nathan's stance on these twooccasions aimed at preserving the interests of the Jebusite communityin Jerusalem, but there is no doubt that he realised that the only wayforward in Jerusalem was the achievement of a successful compromisebetween Jebusites and Israelites. As a Jebusite court official who haddecided to take service under the new regime he could fullyappreciate the situation; it is because of this that he attempted tominimise the possible harm done by Bathsheba's naming of her sonSolomon by suggesting a second, truly Israelite name. It was in theinterests of such a compromise too that he took such an active part insecuring the throne for Solomon, who was of Israelite and Jebusitedescent, in preference to the Israelite Adonijah. The picture ofNathan that emerges from this core material is that of a Jebusitecourt official, who, after accepting service under David, attempted tosecure the best he could for the Jebusites in what had to be acompromise situation. Such a picture of him is compatible with thehistorical and textual evidence indicating that the Jebusites hadcontinued to inhabit Jerusalem until it was conquered in Davidictimes, and that when David took it over as his capital there was afusion of Jebusite and Israelite elements.

The main advantage of this analysis is that it gives consistency toNathan's actions and attitude.1 In the original tradition about himNathan seems to have acted primarily from one basic motive, whicharose directly from the situation in Jerusalem when David enteredthe city. It was when this core tradition was expanded, modified andtheologised on its acceptance into the biblical tradition that Nathanbecame a complex character and such a dual personality that theexistence of two Nathans has been proposed. In the hands of thebiblical theologians his rejection of the Temple project on the basis ofits departure from past tradition became a theological objectionbased on the distinction between a permanent dwelling and amoveable tent. With the help of other deuteronomistic additions, andespecially with the combination of the narrative with the dynasticoracle, which was also given a clearer allusion to the founding of theDavidic dynasty and the eternity of David's kingdom, 2 Samuel 7became a significant theological text. Similarly Nathan's subtle


condemnation of the Bathsheba affair, through subsequent interpolationswhich made the criticism far more pointed and associated the sin ofDavid with the turn of subsequent events, was transformed from anon-theological to a highly theological narrative. In this way theshrewd and diplomatic court official, who acted consistently in theinterest of the native population to achieve a working compromise inJerusalem, became in the hands of the Biblical narrators a spokesmanfor Yahweh. His moderate utterances were charged with theologicalpower, and he became the true Yahweh prophet who objected to theTemple, spoke of the eternity of David's dynasty and prophesied thecalamities that would follow his adultery with Bathsheba. Thecourtier who spoke advisedly in the interest of the Jebusites and thewell-being of the new capital has been transformed into a Yahweh-spokesman, who perpetuated theological ideas, many of whichbelonged to the deuteronomistic school. With the transformation ofNathan there is also a transition from one kind of prophet to another,namely from the diplomatic court prophet, who acted as the king'sprivy counsellor, to the outspoken prophet of Yahweh. But thetransition is not made in 1 Kings 1 and because of that it is difficult toreconcile the Nathan described there with the transformed Nathan ofthe other texts. But in earlier tradition there was no problem ofreconciliation, for Nathan acted consistently in accord with his oneprimary motive.

The conclusion drawn from this study of the transformation of theNathan tradition in the hands of the biblical theologians is obviouslydependent on placing the original Nathan in a Jebusite situation.Despite the serious challenges to the Jebusite hypothesis that havebeen offered, the contention of this study is that it offers the bestinterpretation of Nathan's role in the court of King David. Itprovides for him a setting in the life of Jerusalem that offers acomprehensive interpretation of his advice to David and his place incourt affairs; that setting only becomes apparent when the early andoriginal Nathan tradition is separated from the later 'theological'version found in the biblical texts.

When the various components of this tradition were discussed, itwas suggested that the Nathan tradition was preserved among theJebusite, pro-Solomonic group in Jerusalem. Because it belonged topeople who took pride in the achievements of Nathan, the traditionhas been able to accept and incorporate some elements that wouldperhaps have caused embarrassment to a different group. Within thegeneral presentation of Nathan as one striving to safeguard the

7. Conclusion 147

Jebusites, dubious means were accommodated within the purviewthat he achieved noble ends. Very soon, however, this tradition wasset within another context, and Nathan became a different personfulfilling a different role. But before this transformation the Nathantradition had been preserved intact by the Jebusites of Jerusalem. Isthere perhaps a reference to the preservation of this tradition in theallusion to 'the book of Nathan the prophet' in 2 Chron. 9.29? On thenegative side, it has been suggested that 'the book of Nathan', incommon with the Chronicler's citation of other prophetic sources,refers to no more than a particular section of the DeuteronomisticHistory, more specifically to 1 Kings I;2 thus reference is not made toan independent source.3 On the more positive side, it has beensuggested that Nathan, or one of his sons (preferably Zabud, priestand king's friend, 1 Kgs 4.5) composed 'Nathan's prophecy' (2Samuel 7), which was intended for the legitimation of Solomon, froma number of Nathan's old prophetic sayings. As in Man andNineveh, these prophecies were preserved in the royal archive inJerusalem.4 It is, however, difficult to find evidence to support themore extreme views that Nathan was the author of the wholeSuccession Narrative5 or that he wrote the primeval traditions ofGen. 1-11 which were intended as a criticism of the deeds ofSolomon.6 In view of the unified presentation of Nathan in the coretradition lying behind the present biblical narratives, it would not beinappropriate to suggest that this original tradition found its way inthe form of a collection of material concerned with Nathan into theroyal archive in Jerusalem. The Chronicler rightly identified this asone of the sources used for the compilation of the account ofSolomon's reign. The Deuteronomistic History also depended onthis source, not only for the material found in 1 Kings 1 but also forthe material incorporated in 2 Samuel 7 and 12. But the deuteronomistsimposed on that tradition their own theological interest and in doingso continued the process which transformed Nathan from theJebusite official of the original to the Yahwist of the biblicaltradition.

NOTES

Notes to Chapter 1

1. M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford,1972), Iff2. M. Weinfeld, op.cit., 320-65.3. J.R. Porter, 'Old Testament Historiography', Tradition and Interpretation,

ed. G.W. Anderson (Oxford, 1979), 135ff4. 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), 28-

88.6. 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, Uberliefe-

rungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen, 1957) (first published in 1943), awork which had great influence on the way in which the growth andcomposition 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 Redactionof 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., 42-22.

13. Cf. R.N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative. A Study of II Samuel 9-20; 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, FestschriftK. Galling, ed. A. Kuschke, E. Kutsch (Tubingen, 1970), 135-43, found the


difference between referring to Nathan simply as 'the prophet' and to Gad as'the prophet' and 'the seer' to be highly significant. Gad represented thenomadic 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, FestschriftGlaus 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 sonof Abiathar were priests" (2 Sam. 8.17) a deliberate corruption and suggestedas the correct reading "Abiathar son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub and Zadokwere 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 viewsee 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 1Rois 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), 115-

28.16. 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. Fora criticism of the concept of a prophetic nomadic ideal, see F.S. Frick, 'TheRechabites 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 Propheticde Nathan et le Temple (Remarques sur 11 Sam. 7)', RHPhR 32 (1952), 41-58; for the view that an original opposition to Shiloh had been utilizedagainst Jerusalem, see J. Dus, 'Der Brauch der Ladewanderung im altenIsrael', 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 pre-

Davidic priest of the Jebusite shrine to a footnote in S. Mowinckel Ezra denSkriftloerde (1916), 109 and to a line in H.R. Hall, 'Israel and theSurrounding Nations', The People and the Book ed. A.S. Peake (Oxford,1925), 11. An attempt to connect Nathan with Zadok is associated with thename 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, arguedagainst Bentzen's view that Nathan was a Jebusite prophet and that thestruggle for the throne was a contest between a Jerusalemite, basicallyJebusite party and a Judaean party.

39. G.W. AhlstrOm, op.cit., 122.


40. H. Haag, op.cit., 135-43.41. H. Haag, op.cit., 14342. 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 rivalpriestly families, that of Zadok the Aaronide priest from Hebron and that ofAbiathar, 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), 98-

128.50. 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 1Kings 1 is contrasted with the Nathan of 2 Sam. 12.1-15a, who plays atypical, 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 vontheologischer Deutung und Historic', Werden und Wesen des Alten TestamentsFestschrift 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


Samuel 7; 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2) is brought to conclusion with the statement in 1Kgs 2.46 that the kingdom was established in the hands of Solomon, seefurther 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 derfrtihen israelitischer Geschichtsschreibung (Bonn, 1959); J.H. Gronbaek, 'DieGeschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1 Sam. 15-2 Sam. 5)', Tradition undKomposition, AThD 10 (Copenhagen, 1971); A. Weiser, 'Die Legitimationdes Ko'nigs David. Zur Eigenart und Entstehung der sogenannten Geschichtevon 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 havesuggested that ch. 1 is original, but that ch. 2 has been added as a concludingreverberation; see L. Rost, op.cit., 67-68 (ET).25. T.N.D. Mettinger, King and Messiah (Lund, 1976), 28f.


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, 26-27 28abc to a later redactor, and 2.2-4, 5aa, 11 to a deuteronomisticredactor.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 anattempt 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 asecular title, which is not the case in the deuteronomistic sections. For asummary 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. 34cannot be substantiated without resorting to the LXX, and his suggestion of alink 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 detaileddiscussion 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


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 PriestlyDocument: 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 toremove 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. Forthe 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.


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 thatAbishag became his queen, as is argued by M.T. Mulder, 'Versuch zurDeutung 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., 97-

98.91. 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-regencywas 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 NearEast (Oxford, 1967), 17.

93. J.A. Soggin, Konigtum in Israel. Ursprunge, Spannungen, EntwicklungBZAW 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.


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 AltenTestament', Friedrich Festschrift (Heidelberg, 1959), 105-45.

109. 'Save your own life and the life of your son Solomon', ties the fate ofmother 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 ladynastic 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),


188-89, 213; J. Scharbert, 'Der Messias im Alten Testament und inJudentum', 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 EwigeDynastie (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 &2Samuel (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 thePentateuch 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 Nathan-

weissagung 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), 220-

29.22. M. Noth, op.cit., 128, ET 256.23. S. Herrmann, 'Die KOnigsnovelle in Agypten und in Israel' Wissen-

schaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitat Leipzig (1953-54), 51-62.24. Cf. M. GOrg, Gott-Konig-Reden in Israel und Agypten BWANT 105


(1975), 178ff; R.N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative, SBTh 9 (1968),96ff.25. L. Rost, op.cit., 179f, ET 5226. 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 Literatur-

wissenschaft (1971), 130 and M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the DeuteronomicSchool (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 derPropheten (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 literary-critical 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.


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 callsReformed and Lutheran lines. The question dealt with is why it was thatSolomon and not David built the Temple, and the reason given in 2 Samuel 7is that God had so decided. See further M. Simon, 'La Prophetic de Nathanet 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 inthe 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, andN. Poulssen, op.cit., 44f. where the objection to the Temple is ascribed to theperiod 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


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 oldYahweh 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 UnitedMonarchy 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.


99. H. Haag, op.cit., 139.100. P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 196.101. E. Kutsch, 'Die Dynastic von Gottes Gnaden. Probleme der Nathan-

Weissagung 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 unterDavid', 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), 1-

11.120. 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 theargument that ndgid meant 'shepherd', see J.J. Gluck, 'Nagid-Shepherd', VT13 (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


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 whichsupports this interpretation, A. Gelston, 'A Note on 11 Samuel 7.10', ZAW84 (1972), 92-94, refers to a Qumran midrash, 4Q Florilegium, which takesthis 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 1Chron. 17.12. N. Poulssen, op.cit., 48 notes the interesting point that v. 13 isabsent 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 anindividual, without identifying him as Solomon. It does not refer collectivelyto 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


of these passages see J.L. McKenzie, op.cit., 187-218; A. Caquot, 'Laprophetic 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 TheSteadfast House: What was David promised in 11 Sam. 7.13b-16?', HUCA34 (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) inconnection with the successors, kingship, throne and house of David.

153. The Hebrew construction 'for a father.. .for a son' (i.e. as) is takento 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', ZAW73 (1961), 202ff. Consequently the Israelite description of kingship appearsin 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 and2 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 legaltexts make no provision for legal adoption (see H. Dormer, 'Adoption oderLegitimation? Erwagungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament auf demHintergrund der altorientalischen Recht', OrAnt 8 (1969), 87-119.

155. On the significance of 'ad '61am, 'for ever', see T. Veijola, op.cit., 72-74; 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 subordinateand 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 theAncient Near East', }AOS 90 (1970), 184-203; 92 (1972), 468-69. Whilstrejecting both models, T.N.D. Mettinger, op.cit., 284-86 maintains that thecovenant 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.


166. It was the use ofbayit with a double meaning that gave the oracleforce and coherence according to M. Simon, op.cit., 50.

167. On the key position of the chapter in the structure of the DeuteronomisticHistory cf. DJ. McCarthy, II Samuel 7 and the structure of theDeuteronomic 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, 'TheBeginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel', The Problem of theHexateuch and Other Essays (1966), 198-21, and on the question whether11.27b 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 placedit in its present context has been guilty of anachronism.

8. Cf. P.R. Ackroyd, 'The Succession Narrative (so-called)', Interpretation35 (1981), 386.

9. J.W. Flanagan, 'Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2Samuel 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, whofollow an earlier suggestion made by F. Schwally, 'Zur Quellenkritik derhistorischen Bucher', ZAW 12 (1892), 155. A different view is taken by P.Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 306, where the whole David-Bathsheba-Nathanaffair 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 theconclusion 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.


9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2', Biblica 60 (1979), 306f. But against is U. Simon, The PoorMan's Ewe Lamb', Biblica 48 (1967), 226ff.

17. On the implications of this see A. Phillips, 'The Interpretation of 2Samuel xii. 5-6', VT16 (1966), 242-44 and G.W. Coats, 'Parable, Fable andAnecdote', 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'saudience with David and that of Nathan, there are also differences in thepresentation (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 'andbecause 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 isfavoured by many on the grounds that it appears in Prov. 6.31 and representsa 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) orelse 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 aproverbial saying, and the 'fourfold' may be highly significant in view ofsubsequent history; thus the reading of the LXX may represent a later readingbased 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 suggestionthat David's first reaction was an expression of indignation and not a judicialverdict.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'


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. andM.H. Segal, The Composition of the Books of Samuel', JQR 55 (1964), 320-22. 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 byU. 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, 'passjudgement 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.AYee, 'The Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5,1-7 as a Song and a JuridicalParable', 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 ancientOrient; the ordered state of the world was guaranteed by the king, the sonand 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 below127-29.51. Cf. L. Rost, op.cit., 74f; I. von Lo'wenclau, op.cit., 213f; K. Seybold,

op.cit., 52ff.


52. See further L. Rost, where it is claimed that they cannot have belongedtogether; 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., whilstseparating the two, takes both to be later additions. That w. 11-12 aresecondary and reflect the events of 2 Sam. 16.21-22 has been recognisedsince 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 againstP. 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 theMT 'house' is a corruption due to the following 'house of Israel and ofJudah'.

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 theenemies of the LORD to blaspheme' (cf. H.W. Hertzberg, op.cit., 315) insteadof being accepted as an euphemism introduced out of respect for God (seeM.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


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 ofSolomon, was born to Bathsheba and that 12.15b-24a is therefore historicallydubious. On the implications of this see the discussion of the birth ofSolomon, 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.


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 Karatepeinscriptions of the 8th century BC.

107. A.M. Honeyman, 'The Evidence for Regnal Names among theHebrews', 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 andBathsheba, 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 theTime of Harvest, ed. D.J. Silver (1963), 237f; J. Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem.Jahwes Konigssitz (1963), 19; D.R. Ap-Thomas, 'Jerusalem', Archaeologyand Old Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas (1967), 277f; B. Mazar,'Jerusalem in the Biblical Period', Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology of theHoly City 1968-74, ed. Y. Yadin (1976), 1-8.

2. The forms of the name vary: in the Egyptian texts it is Rushalimum, inthe Amarna letters Urusalim and in the Sennacherib inscriptions of the 7thcentury 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 undGeschichte 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 historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches', ZDPV 58 (1935), 185-255;


F.M. Cross and G.E. Wright, 'The Boundary and Province Lists of theKingdom of Judah', JBL 75 (1956), 202-26; Z. Kallai-Kleinmann, 'The TownLists 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 fromthat understood by the other equivalents 'City of David—Stronghold ofZion'.

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 namefrom the village north of Jerusalem which has been mistakenly identifiedwith 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 (2Sam. v 17ff)', VTS 30 (1979), 190f. It is claimed that Jerusalem, a newlyconquered city, was not ready for another siege, and that David strategicallymoved 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—firstcampaign against the Philistines; 5th year—wars with the Philistines in theCoastal 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 tothe 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, asindeed 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


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 ofDavid', 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), 1-

19.24. Cf. B. Mazar, 'David's Reign in Hebron', 238 with reference to

Tukulti-Ninurta, and P. Kyle McCarter, op.cit., 140 with reference to SargonII (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 upJerusalem (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 withSpecial Reference to "the Blind and the Lame" and the phrase weigga'bassinor', Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap 1960 (1966), 98-105. On themany 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 thecity', 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 ifplaced 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 theafflictions that would befall anyone who proved unfaithful to his pre-battle


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), 73-

99.38. 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 tothe south-western hill by the name of Jebus; it is also included in theboundary definitions of Josh. 15 and 18. Cf. B. Mazar, 'David's Reign inHebron', 237f. where it is suggested that Jerusalem included the walled cityand 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 nameMoriah, 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), 519-

22.53. 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' ofthe day, cf. Accadian saldmu, samsi, 'sunset'.


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., 162-

65.60. 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 nameswhere the element $idqu is a divine name, and refers to bitta-sidqi, malki-sidqu 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 havebeen proposed, such as Shiloh, Tamor and most recently Shechem, cf. C.McKay, 'Salem', PEQ (1948-49), 121-29 and J.G. Gammie, 'Loci of theMelchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14.18-20', JBL 90 (1971), 385-96. For adiscussion 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 fornot 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 differentnames 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, 'TheThreshing-floor at the City Gate', PEQ 78 (1946), 5-14 and 'On the Meaningof 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.


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 AltesTestament, Fest. K. Galling, ed. A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch (1970), 245-50; K.Rupprecht, Der Tempel von Jerusalem 1976, 9ff. For a discussion of theliterary 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 pre-

Israelite deity, possibly '£1 'Elydn, cf. H. Schmidt, Der heilige Pels (1933), 84-86 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 naturallyhave 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 thanWellhausen. 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.


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 isacknowledged by Krt is the basis of Psalm 29, which belonged to theJerusalem New Year Festival.

119. G.W. Ahlstrom, op.cit., 113-27; H. Haag, op.cit., 135-43; I. vonLowenclau, 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.


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 assumptionsmade by F. Stolz, Strukturen und Figuren im Kult um Jerusalem (1970),7-8.

135. G. Wanke, Die Zionstheologie der Korachiten in ihrem traditions-geschichtlichen Zusammenhang, BZAW 97 (1966), 70- 113. According toJ.J.M. Roberts, op.cit., 330, his arguments are inconclusive, his treatment ofevidence 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 aconsistent portrayal of character, he does not list Nathan among hisexamples. The point made here is different in that it is claimed that aconsistent portrayal of Nathan is to be found, not in the SuccessionNarrative, 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.

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), 268-

79.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), 86-

89.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), 726-

45.-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).


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), 247-

50.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), 158-

226.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 TestamentieseWerkgemeenskap 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), 45-54,156-

65.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).


Herrmann, S., 'Die Konigsnovelle in Agypten und in Israel. Ein Beitrag zurGattungsgeschichte in dem Geschichtsbuchern des Alten Testaments', Wissen-schafiliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitdt Leipzig. Gesellschafts undsprachwissenschaftlkhe 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), 175-87.

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), 74-

105.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 1-11', RB 83 (1976), 321-79, 481-528.

Leben, H., 'Eine Vermutung zum Schafchen des armen Mannes', OrientalistischeLiteraturzeitung 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, 1-8und 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), 235-44.

—'Jerusalem in the Biblical Period', Jerusalem Revealed. Archaeology in the Holy City1968-74, ed. Y. Yadin Qerusalem, 1976), 1-8.

Mettinger, T.N.D., King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of theIsraelite 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


Honor of Jacob M. Myers, ed. H.N. Bream, et al., Gettysberg Theological Studies14 (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), 119-253; 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), 168-

97.—'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 religionsgeschichtlicheStudie (Tflbingen, 1933).

Schmidt, W., 'MiSkan als Ausdruck Jerusalemer Kultsprache', ZAW 75 (1963), 91-92.

Schreiner, J., Sion-Jerusalem Jahwes Konigssitz. Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im AltenTestament, 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 einesisraelitischen 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.


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), 39-

53.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

Genesis1-111414.18ff.14.2232.10-1334

Exodus22.1

Numbers26.58a

Deuteronomy4.259.79.1812.1017.225.1926.231.3934

Joshua1.89.71010.110.311.191515.815.631818.1 Iff.18.2821.4423.12

147128128, 179n6912861171nl8

99, 166n25

132

105721057210572165nl510513

120171nl8119128122, 128171nl8173n41120120, 125173n411201207272

Judges1.81.212.113.73.1219.1019.1119.30

1 Samuel1-42.27ff.2.303.38.88.119.1610.112.2514.315-2 Sam. 515.11616.116.1122.20-2222.2023.630.7

2 Samuel1.17ff.2.133.2-53.9-103.183.31-355.25.6-10

120, 122, 125120105105105120173n41161n74

7534, 1338275724854,8054,80165nl544,1333254102548645132, 133132132

1104445,47828211082122-24

5.65.75.85.95.17-255.17-2166.3f.7

7.1-177.1-167.1-7

7.1-4a7.1-3

7.1

7.1a7.1b

7.2-77.2-57.2-37.2

7.37.4-77.4b-77.4-5a7.47.5-167.5-1 la

121, 126123123, 12412312112260,7640,13116, 19, 22-24, 26, 28,30-32, 59-92,110, 143,145, 147,152n459-929127, 28, 59,62, 67, 69-72, 79,160n6786220, 71, 72,9127, 64, 71,74, 80, 8168,6968, 69, 72,746968,7464,7123, 64, 71,13878, 162nl0324,7262,727280, 1396463


2 Samuel (cont.)7.5b-77.5f.7.5

7.5b7.6-77.6

7.7

7.8-177.8-16

7.8-1 la7.8ff.

7.8-97.8

7.8a7.8b

7.9-117.9

7.9a7.10-lla7.10

7.11-167.11b-167.11

7.11a

7.11b

7.11c7.12-167.12-15

7.12-14a7.12

7267, 71, 7273-75, 77, 78,82, 83, 91,162nll2288168, 72-74, 78,79, 81, 91,161n7368, 73, 74,776259, 70, 79,85, 87, 89,9062, 68, 7969, 73, 80-8269,7973, 79, 80,85, 89, 13864,6864, 72, 80,857264, 68, 80,81, 85, 897269-7264, 68, 80,81,856163, 67, 7973, 80S3, 85,86,9264, 68, 72,8127, 62-64, 68,69, 74, 81,82, 84, 85,87,89716472, 82,160n6769,7962. 68. 82,83, 85, 87,89, 163nl42,

7.12b7.13

7.13a

7.14-157.14b-15

7.14

7.14a7.14b7.15

7.16

7.17

7.18-29

7.18-22a7.18-217.187.197.22-247.22b-267.22b-247.257.267.27-297.277.27a7.298f.88.18.3-88.1 5ff.8.16ff.8.17

8.188.27

164nl5363,8362, 63, 65,68, 74, 75,82-85, 87,89, 91, 163nn140nl4263, 83,163nl408369, 83-85, 88,8962, 64, 67,68, 83,164nl5483-85, 88-908462, 68, 84,8859, 62, 63,67-69, 71,80, 82, 84,85, 87, 89,9262, 64, 68,69, 79, 8460, 61, 67,7064,6968828261,6869648261.8264,688261829572439544,13213240, 44, 131,133, 1344341

9-20

10-1210.1-11.110.1-6alO.lff.10.210.6b-ll.l11-1211

11.111.2-12.2511.2-27a11.2ff.11.311.27a

11.27b-12.2411.2711.27b

12

12.1-2512.1-15

12.1-7a

12.1-412.1

12.312.412.5-612.5

12.6

12.7-1212.712.7a12.7b-1512.7b-1412.7b-1212.7b-10

12.7b-812.7b

15, 16, 32,33, 153n495, 11495, 1169494959494, 11593, 96, 99,10994, 11494, 95, 114115-179443,4495,96,111,112,11648,952896, 109, 111,11716, 19, 24,28, 30-32, 34,36, 48, 93-117, 14728, 93-11720, 22,152n5196-102, 106,116, 117, 1449796, 100,167n36999797,9896, 97, 99,10696, 97, 99,1049654, 13996, 97, 10110696, 111101-106, 11596, 101-107,11710228, 101, 104

Index of Biblical References 189

2 Samuel (cont.)12.812.8a12.9

12.9a12.10-1112.1012.10b12.11-12

12.11

12.1212.13-15a12.13-14

12.1312.13a12.13b12.1412.15-2312.1 5ff.12.15a12.15b-24a

12.15b-2312.15b12.1612.1712.18a

12.19b12.2012.2112.22-2312.2212.2312.24-25

12.2412.24a12.24b12.25

12.26-3112.26ff.12.2613-2013-1913.36-37

103, 10410394, 96, 98,102, 104, 10510328102-10510396, 101-107,117101, 103,104, 13910310696-98, 106-11,117106-108106-108106-108106-10996108111,112111,112,169n91108-11, 112109, 116109109111, 112,116, 11711711010911010910928, 48, 96,111-17, 144113111-14, 11611125, 26, 49,51, 94, 13894,95,11694, 11494,959527110

14.1-2015ff.1515.1215.1815.24ff.15.2416.5ff.16.21-221717.24-2917.27-2917.2719.119.19ft".19.29ff.19.31ff.20.1-220.4-2220.720.1020.23-2620.2320.2521-2423.1-723.3b-423.523.5a23.3424.1-2524.1-lla24.11b-1524.1 5ff.24.16-2524.16-1724.16ff.24.1624.18-2524.24

1 Kings1-2

1

1.1-4

l.lb-4

97325244434113132104279595321103232322727433213242,4313232868788864427130130129130130, 175n77122125135129

15, 16, 31-57, 59, 76,153n419, 22-24, 26,28, 29, 138,143, 146, 14735, 36, 40,46, 154n3334-36

l.la1.41.5-101.5ff.1.51.7-81.8

1.91.101.11-311.11-141.111.121.13

1.141.15-.211.151.161.17

1.18-191.181.201.22-27

1.22-231.231.24

1.261.271.28-311.28ff.1.30

1.32-35a1.32-341.32

1.33-35a1.341.35-371.35

1.35a1.35b-371.35b1.36-37

3637,4636,4036,48802020, 40, 42,43,4948,4940, 42, 49404037, 49, 505038, 39, 49,51-53, 554940545538, 39, 49,51-5349523840, 49, 51,52555438, 52,155n574038,5240, 49, 505235, 38, 39,51, 53, 56,157nll4403838, 40, 42,49,503938,5435,3838, 49,162nll43939,5638-3938


I Kings (cont.)1.371.38-401.38ff.1.381.391.40a1.41-531.41-451.431.44

1.451.45a1.471.481.49-5322.1-122.1-92.1-42.1ff.2.2b-42.3-42.42.4a2.5-92.52.72.82.10-122.10-112.112.122.13-462.13-352.13-252.13ff.2.132.152.22f.2.24

2.252.26b-272.27b2.31t>-332.322.332.342.36-46

38,3937-403840, 42, 43543935-3739,404640, 42, 43,4640,543938, 39, 464637, 39, 40323734,383334,353435823534-3632,3632,36323434,353435,3734-3734, 35, 373736374737,4635, 38, 61,923835, 38, 1333434, 35, 3832, 36, 38383834,35

2.362.37b2.42a2.44-452.442.452.46b33.44.55.175.185.198.158.16

8.178.188.198.208.22-268.439.511.31-3914.7-1114.914.13-1616.2517.120.35-4221

2 Kings9.39.69.1215.517.7-2318.19-2721.10-1521.1121.2522.15-2023.30-3325.27-30

/ Chronicles2.165.29-346.4-86.8

38353534, 35, 38323816, 153n43413126, 14771,8372839272, 83,161n78838383836192929292165nl592165nl5209729

54545447, 156n919212592165nl592924713

4441133133

6.35-386.50-536.52f.11.412.23-4012.27-2916.3416.3917.1ff.17.617.7-1418.172021.15ff.22.822.1828.329.10-1929.29

2 Chronicles3.19.2911.2129.25

Psalms22.1-32.22.72.8-92946488989.2-489.389.489.19-3789.19-2089.20-3889.2089.22-2389.2489.2689.2789.2889.2989.30-3289.33

4113313312013313341131727385439412227,7111327,716119, 138

175nn81-219, 1475019, 138

86868787, 164nl5486137, 176nll813713788-90868886,87868667878686878688878888

Index of Biblical References 191

Psalms (cont.)89.3489.36110122132132.11

Isaiah1.15.1-7

8887861378686

2097, 100

9.1-6

Jeremiah7.257.2611.716.12

Ezekiel16.325.15-16

67

72165nl572165nl5

12243

Zephaniah2.4-5

Matthew1.6

Luke1.59

43

44

122

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Ackroyd, P.R. 163nl27, 165n8AhlstrOm, 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. 170n5,172n23Anderson, A.A. 164nnl56,164,166nl9Ap-Thomas, DJL 170nl, 171n9,173n48Astour, M. 174n64Auerbach, E. 155n61

Ball, E. 156nn94, 95, 159n46Barr,J. 169nl01Bartlett, J.R. 155n54Bentzen, A. 151n35Benzinger, I. 157nll2Boecker, H.J. 164nl54Boer, P.A.H. de 170nnl05,106Bressan, G. 172n29Bright, J. 22, 150nl8,173n45, 176nl08Brongers, H.A. 162nl08Brueggemann, W. 169n83Brunei, G. 124, 172nn27,35Budde, K. 150n9, 151n26, 154n47,

169n95Bussche, H. van den 157nl, 160n63

Calderone, PJ. 159n36, 164nnl58,160Caquot, A. 164nl50Carlson, R.A. 153nn5,ll, 159nn,39,50,

165n3, 166nn21,25,168nn58,59,66Caspari, W. 161n86, 163nl28, 165n4Clements, 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. 170nll3Cohen, M.M. 161n93Cook, S.A. 169n92

Cooke, G. 164nl53Coppens, J. 71, 72,158n2, 160nn59,65,

162nl08Coxon, P.W. 166n25Cross, 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. 157nl08,164nl54Driver, S.R. 161n76, 166n25, 168n69,

175n94Dus,J. 151n32, 161n94

Eichrodt, W. 22, 150nl9Emerton, J.A. 129, 174n69Engnell, I. 29, 152nn54,55,156n92Flanagan, J.W. 153nl2,165n9Flight, J.W. 151n26,162nl07Fohrer, G. 170n2, 176nl21Fretheim, T.E. 155nn49,55Frick, F.S. 151n26Fuss, W. 175n76

Gammie, J.G. 174n64Garsiel, M. 170nll3Gelston, A. 163nl28Gerleman, G. 106,107,110,166n27,

168nn68,71,73,74, 169nn78,85,87,103, 170nl04

Gese, H. 161n88, 163nl40Gibson, J.C.L. 173n56Gliick, J.J. 162nl21, 172n29Gordon, R.P. 158n3G6rg, M. 64, 65, 70, 84, 158nn3,24,

159nn26,28, 160n52, 166nl22,


163nnl26,131,135,143,148

Gottlieb, H. 176nll8Gray, J. 127,136, 152n52, 153n24,

156nn88,90,157nl26,173nn53,55,174nn58,74,176nnl 11-13, 177n5

Gressmann, H. 150nl2Gr0nbaek, J.H. 153n7Groot,J. de 171nl2Gross, W. 160n73Gunkel, H. 98,167n32Gunn, DJVL 34,149nl5,153nn4,13,19,22,

157nll6,159n46Gunneweg, 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, 167nn40,47Hall,H.R. 151n35Haller,J. 175n96, 172n35Halpern, B. 162nll9Haran, M. 175n96Hauer, C.E. 155nn59,62,66, 171nnl3,

14,16,175nn90,97Hempel,J. 29, 152n51Herrmann, S. 64-66, 70, 71, 150nl3,

158n23, 160n56, 176nl24Hertzberg, H.W. 151n31,156n76,

165nn3,6,16, 168nn66,72,76,169nn79,80,82,86,102

Hoffiier, H.A. 171nl8Hoftijzer,J. 166n20Honeyman, 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. 170n5Kenyon, K.M. 172n25

Kitchen, K.A. 155n70Knudtzon, J.A. 170n3Kraus, H.-J. 23, 137, 151n24, 158nl5,

162nl07,176nll7Krauss, S. 173nn49,50Kutsch, E. 63, 65,158nl8,159nn29,

30,32,33,162nl01, 163nl30

Labat, R. 156n92Langlamet, F. 35,150n8,154nn28,29,

155n73Leben, H. 167n34Lewy,J. 173nn51,52Lindblom, J. 20,150nlOLipiriski, E. 162nll8Long, B.O. 36,154n34, 157nnl29,132Loretz, O. 163nl24LOwenclau, 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. 159n40,165nl67McKay, C. 174n64McKenzie, J.L. 88, 89,157n2, 164nn

150,161,163Madsen, A.A. 177n3Mayes, A.D.H. 76, 161nn90-92,95Mazar, 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, 171nn6,7,10,11

Molin,G. 157nl08

Index of Authors 195

Montgomery, J.A. 157nllOMorenz, S. 163nl25Mowinckel, S. 27, 33, 63,151n35,

152n44,153nlO, 158n21, 160n54,164nl51, 174n72

Mulder, MJ. 156n85,168n72

Nelson, R.D. 149n9Nicholson, E.W. 149n7Noth, 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. 153n7Nyberg, H.S. 174n72

Ota,M. 160nn5,57,58

Patton,J.H. 176nll6Pedersen, J. 109, 169n81Phillips, A. 166nnl7,24,27Porter, J.R. 149n3Poulssen, 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, 156n96Reid, P.V. 161nn77,80Richter, W. 159n34,162nll7Robert, P. de 161n81Roberts, JJ.M. 140,177nnl33-36Rosen, H.B. 172nl9, 175n80Rosenberg, R.A. 173n6Rost, L. 33, 61-64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 81,

83, 94, 95,106,153nn4,6,16,24,158n8, 159n25,162nl24,163nn129,139,165n2 167n51,168nn52,54,65

Roth, W. 167n45Rowley, 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

ScharbertjJ. 158n2Schill, S. 166n21Schmid, H. 175nn76,77Schmidt, H. 175n77Schreiner, J. 151nn30,32,34,163nl37,

170nlSchulte, H. 152n51,153nllSchunck, K.-D. 170n4Schwally, F. 31,150nn6,ll, 152nnl,2,

165nl2, 176nl22Seebass, H. 100, 166n26, 167nn29,33,

37,43,44,46, 168nn54,55,57,62,75Segal, M.H. 167n32SeUin, E. 154n47Seybold, 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. 149nlOSmith, G.A. 170n2,173n54Smith, H.P. 169n77,175n94Smith, S. 174n74Soden, W. von 177n6Soggin,J.A. 156nn83,93Speiser, E.A. 171nl9Stamm, J.J. 169nnlOO,103,170nl04Stoebe, H.J. 152n3,173n37Stolz, F. 177nl34

TidweU, N.L. 171nnl4,15Tsevat, 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, 153nl4,154nn27,38,39,42,156nl03,158nn3,7,9,11,13,16,17,20,159nn29,30,33-35,44,50, 160nn60,68,162nn113,114, 163nnl26,132,134-36,141,143,145,147, 164nl55,165nl2,169nn91-95,98£9,103,170nnl04,109

Vida, G. Delia 174n71

Wanke, G. 177nl35Waterman, L. 153n6


Watson, W.G.E. 172n30,173n43Weinfeld, M. 13,149nnl,2, 159nn34,37,

160nn62,70, 164nl60Weir, C.J. Mullo 172n20Weiser, A. 153n7, 162nl05WeUhausen, J. 40,133, 150n3,154n45,

166n25,167n32, 168n54, 175n93Westermann, C. 150nnl4-16, 152n49,

174nn63,64,70, 176nl25Whitelam, K.W. 156nnlOO,101Whybray, R.N. 34,149nl3,153nn8,18,

20,21,23, 159n24, 177nlWilliamson, H.G.M. 155nn50,52,

175nn82,98,176nlOO, 177n2

Wright, G.E. 170n5Wilrthwein, E. 35, 154nn26,42,155nn

81,83,103,157nnl 16,126, 169n92,170nl09

Wyatt, N. 155nn74,75, 172nnl9,21,177nl37

Yadin, Y. 172nn28,35Yaron, R. 168n72Yee, G.A. 167n41Yeivin, S. 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 53D.J.A. Clines

4 THANKSGIVING FOR A LIBERATED PROPHET:AN INTERPRETATION OF ISAIAH CHAPTER 53R.N. Whybray

5 REDATING THE EXODUS AND CONQUESTJ.J. Bimson

6 THE STORY OF KING DAVID:GENRE AND INTERPRETATIOND.M. Gunn

7 THE SENSE OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE I:STRUCTURAL ANALYSES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE (2nd edition)D. Jobling

10 THE THEME OF THE PENTATEUCHD.J.A. Clines

12 THE JUST KING:MONARCHICAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN ANCIENT ISRAELK.W. Whitelam

13 ISAIAH AND THE DELIVERANCE OF JERUSALEM:A STUDY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECYIN THE OLD TESTAMENTR.E. Clements

14 THE FATE OF KING SAUL:AN INTERPRETATION OF A BIBLICAL STORYD.M. Gunn

15 THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORYM. Noth

16 PROPHECY AND ETHICS:ISAIAH AND THE ETHICAL TRADITIONS OF ISRAELE.W. Davies

17 THE ROLES OF ISRAEL'S PROPHETSD.L. Petersen

18 THE DOUBLE REDACTION OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORYR.D.Nelson

19 ART AND MEANING: RHETORIC IN BIBLICAL LITERATUREEdited by DJ.A. Clines, D.M. Gunn, & AJ. Hauser

20 THE PSALMS OF THE SONS OF KORAHM.D. Goulder

21 COLOUR TERMS IN THE OLD TESTAMENTA. Brenner

22 AT THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD:STORY AND THEOLOGY IN EXODUS 32-34R.W.L. Moberly

23 THE GLORY OF ISRAEL:THE THEOLOGY AND PROVENIENCE OF THE ISAIAH TARGUMB.D. Chilton

24 MIDIAN, MOAB AND EDOM:THE HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF LATE BRONZE AND IRON AGEJORDAN AND NORTH-WEST ARABIAEdited by J.F.A. Sawyer & DJ.A Clines

25 THE DAMASCUS COVENANT:AN INTERPRETATION OF THE 'DAMASCUS DOCUMENTP.R. Davies

26 CLASSICAL HEBREW POETRY:A GUIDE TO ITS TECHNIQUESW.G.E. Watson

27 PSALMODY AND PROPHECYW.H. Bellinger

28 HOSEA: AN ISRAELITE PROPHET IN JUDEAN PERSPECTIVEG.I. Emmerson

29 EXEGESIS AT QUMRAN:4QFLORILEGIUM IN ITS JEWISH CONTEXTG.J. Brooke

30 THE ESTHER SCROLL: THE STORY OF THE STORYD.J.A. Clines

31 IN THE SHELTER OF ELYON:ESSAYS IN HONOR OF G.W. AHLSTROMEdited by W.B. Barrick & J.R. Spencer

32 THE PROPHETIC PERSONA:JEREMIAH AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE SELFT. Polk

33 LAW AND THEOLOGY IN DEUTERONOMYJ.G. McConville

34 THE TEMPLE SCROLL:AN INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARYJ. Maier

35 SAGA, LEGEND, TALE, NOVELLA, FABLE:NARRATIVE FORMS IN OLD TESTAMENT LITERATUREEdited by G.W. Coats

36 THE SONG OF FOURTEEN SONGSM.D. Goulder

37 UNDERSTANDING THE WORD:ESSAYS IN HONOR OF BERNHARD W. ANDERSONEdited by J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad & B.C. Ollenburger

38 SLEEP, DIVINE AND HUMAN, IN THE OLD TESTAMENTT.H. McAlpine

39 THE SENSE OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE U:STRUCTURAL ANALYSES IN THE HEBREW BIBLED. Jobling

40 DIRECTIONS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW POETRYEdited by E.R. Follis

41 ZION, THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING:A THEOLOGICAL SYMBOL OF THE JERUSALEM CULTB.C. Ollenburger

42 A WORD IN SEASON: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF WILLIAM McKANEEdited by J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies

43 THE CULT OF MOLEK:A REASSESSMENTG.C. Heider

44 THE IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE PSALMSS.J.L. Croft

45 THE CONFESSIONS OF JEREMIAH IN CONTEXT:SCENES OF PROPHETIC DRAMAA.R. Diamond

46 THE BOOK OF THE JUDGES: AN INTEGRATED READINGE.G. Webb

47 THE GREEK TEXT OF JEREMIAH:A REVISED HYPOTHESISS. Soderlund

48 TEXT AND CONTEXT:OLD TESTAMENT AND SEMITIC STUDIES FOR F.C. FENSHAMEdited by W. Claassen

49 THEOPHORIC PERSONAL NAMES IN ANCIENT HEBREWJ.D. Fowler

50 THE CHRONICLER'S HISTORYM. Noth

51 DIVINE INITIATIVE AND HUMAN RESPONSE IN EZEKIELP.Joyce

52 THE CONFLICT OF FAITH AND EXPERIENCE IN THE PSALMS:A FORM-CRITICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDYC.C. Broyles

53 THE MAKING OF THE PENTATEUCH:A METHODOLOGICAL STUDYR.N. Whybray

54 FROM REPENTANCE TO REDEMPTION:JEREMIAH'S THOUGHT IN TRANSITIONJ. Unterman

55 THE ORIGIN TRADITION OF ANCIENT ISRAEL:THE LITERARY FORMATION OF GENESIS AND EXODUS 1-23T.L. Thompson

56 THE PURIFICATION OFFERING IN THE PRIESTLY LITERATURE:ITS MEANING AND FUNCTIONN. Kiuchi

57 MOSES: HEROIC MAN, MAN OF GODG.W. Coats

58 THE LISTENING HEART: ESSAYS IN WISDOM AND THE PSALMSIN HONOR OF ROLAND E. MURPHY, O. CARM.Edited by K.G. Hoglund

59 CREATIVE BIBLICAL EXEGESIS:CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH HERMENEUTICS THROUGH THE CENTURIESB. Uffenheimer & H.G. Reventlow

60 HER PRICE IS BEYOND RUBIES:THE JEWISH WOMAN IN GRAECO-ROMAN PALESTINEL.J. Archer

61 FROM CHAOS TO RESTORATION:AN INTEGRATIVE READING OF ISAIAH 24-27D.G. Johnson

62 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND FOLKLORE STUDYP.G. Kirkpatrick

63 SHILOH: A BIBLICAL CITY IN TRADITION AND HISTORYD.G. Schley

64 TO SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE:ISAIAH 6.9-10 IN EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATIONC.A. Evans

65 THERE IS HOPE FOR A TREE:THE TREE AS METAPHOR IN ISAIAHK. Nielsen

66 SECRETS OF THE TIMES:MYTH AND HISTORY IN BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGYJ. Hughes

67 ASCRIBE TO THE LORD:BIBLICAL AND OTHER ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF PETER C. CRAIGIEEdited by L. Eslinger & G. Taylor

68 THE TRIUMPH OF IRONY IN THE BOOK OF JUDGESL.R. Klein

69 ZEPHANIAH, A PROPHETIC DRAMAPR Home

70 NARRATIVE ART IN THE BIBLES. Bar-Efrat

71 QOHELET AND HIS CONTRADICTIONSM.V. Fox

72 CIRCLE OF SOVEREIGNTY:A STORY OF STORIES IN DANIEL 1-6D.N. Fewell

73 DAVID'S SOCIAL DRAMA:A HOLOGRAM OF THE EARLY IRON AGEJ.W. Flanagan

74 THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF BIBLICAL AND CANAANITE POETRYW. v.d. Meer & J.C. de Moor

75 DAVID IN LOVE AND WAR:THE PURSUIT OF POWER IN 2 SAMUEL 10-12R.C. Bailey

76 GOD IS KING:UNDERSTANDING AN ISRAELITE METAPHORM. Brettler

77 EDOM AND THE EDOMITESJ.R. Bartlett

78 SWALLOWING THE SCROLL:TEXTUALITY AND THE DYNAMICS OF DISCOURSEIN EZEKIEL'S PROPHECYE.F. Davis

79 GIBEAH:THE SEARCH FOR A BIBLICAL CITYP.M. Arnold

80 THE NATHAN NARRATIVESG.H. Jones

81 ANTI-COVENANT:COUNTER-READING WOMEN'S LIVES IN THE HEBREW BIBLEM. Bal

82 RHETORIC AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIOND. Patrick & A. Scult

83 THE EARTH AND THE WATERS IN GENESIS 1 AND 2D.T. Tsumura

84 INTO THE HANDS OF THE LIVING GODL. Eslinger

85 FROM CARMEL TO HOREB:ELIJAH IN CRISISA.J. Hauser & R. Gregory

86 THE SYNTAX OF THE VERB IN CLASSICAL HEBREW PROSEA. Niccacci

87 THE BIBLE IN THREE DIMENSIONSD.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl & S.E. Porter

88 THE PERSUASIVE APPEAL OF THE CHRONICLER:A RHETORICAL ANALYSISR.K. Duke

89 THE PROBLEM OF THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION IN THE PENTATEUCHR. Rendtorff

90 BIBLICAL HEBREW IN TRANSITION:THE LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK OF EZEKIELM.F. Rooker

91 THE IDEOLOGY OF RITUAL:SPACE, TIME, AND THE STATUS IN THE PRIESTLY THEOLOGYF.H. Gorman

Download - The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

Top Related