Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Constitution of Monarchy 1981 Ch 2 Theories of Dynasty

coexistence of conditional and unconditional dynastic theories; ideas developed a bit further in First Historians, but evolving still (2017)

Chapter 2 Theories of Dynasty in Israel A. Anointment and the Kingship Ritual The fact that the first three negîdîm in Israel are explicitly said to have been anointed (1 Sam 10:1, 16:13, 1 Kgs 1:35-39; 1 Chr 29:22) confirms the conclusion that the nāgîd was Yhwh’s designee for the throne. See above. It is embarrassing to Richter’s position (“Formel” 84) that none of the judges is said to have undergone unction. See n. 5 below. Note also 2 Chr 6:5-6 in this light. The rite of unction in Israel was invariably tied to sacral, rather than secular appointment. Richter (“Formel” 77) concedes that anointment is the only religious component of kingship. So, too, H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 59, 93, 221-223. A number of passages do employ the impersonal term, “they anointed him” (as 2 Sam 2:4; 5:3; 2 Sam 19:11; 2 Kgs 11:12; 23:30 [absent in 2 Chr 36:1]; 1 Chr 29:22). However, whenever the anointer is identified personally, he is either Samuel (1 Sam 10:1; 16:13), a prophet (1 Kgs 1:45; cf. 1 Kgs 1:39; 5:15; also 1 Kgs 19:15 + 2 Kgs 8:7-15; 2 Kgs 9:6), or a priest (1 Kgs 1:39). The high priest in Num 35:25; usually Mosos (as Ex 28:41; 29:7) in P. By the same token, the recipient of the unction is commonly referred to as “Yhwh’s anointed” (as, e.g., priests in 1 Sam 2:10, 35; royalty in 1 Sam 12:3, 5; 16:6; 24:7, 11; 26:9, 11, 16, 23). Further examples include 2 Sam 1:14, 16; 19:22; 22:51; 23:1; Isa 45:1; Hab 3:13; Lam 4:20; Ps 2:2; 18:51; 20:7; 28:8; 84:10; 89:39, 52; 105:15 (= 1 Chr 16:2); 132:10 (= 2 Chr 6:42), 17; Dan 9:25-26. Mettinger (King and Messiah 191) has already remarked on this phenomenon. In contrast, the phrase Israel’s anointed” does not occur. Even more striking is the fact that several texts identify Yhwh himself as the anointer, althouqh the act of anointment was mediated, presumably, by a proctor (as 1 Sam 15:17 with 1 Sam 10:1; 15:1; 2 Sam 12:7 with 1 Sam 16:13; 2 Sam 2:4; 5:3; 2 Chr 22:7 with 2 Kgs 1:13; see, too, Ps 45:8; 89:21). On the sacral character of the anointment, see de Vaux, Ancient Israel 1.103-106; Mowinckel, He That Cometh 64-69; Noth, “Office and Vocation in the Old Testament,” The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (Philadelphia: Fortress, l967) 229-249, esp. 224-242. These texts feel no tension between assertions of divine anointment (as 2 Sam 12:7) and descriptions of anointments by prophets (as 1 Sam 16:13) or by the assembly (as 2 Sam 2:4; 5:3). Whether performed by priest (1 Kgs 1:39) or people (1 Kgs 5:15), anointment was the act of Yhwh. Thus, no distinction is to be drawn between congressional and prophetic (priestly) unction. Rather, “they (Israel) anointed him” denotes the acquiescence of the assembly to a sacrel rite. E. Kutsch has attempted to differentiate popular from divine anointment, basing himself on Hittite texts in which “they anointed him” is the idiom. Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt in Alten Testament und im alten Orient (BZAW 87; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963) 52-57. It is interesting to observe that when Jehoiada staged his coup, “He brought forth the king’s son, and bestowed on him the nēzer and the ʿēdôût. Chr reeds, “They brought forth ... they bestowed.” GB reads the next two vbs. sg. They made him king, and they anointed him, and they clapped their hands and said, ‘Long live the king!’” (2 Kgs 11:12). 2 Chr 23:11, however, reads, “Jehoiada and his sons anointed him.” As in the texts cited above, there is no real tension here: the understanding is that Jehoiada executed the rite. Similarly, in the case of the Hittite king, the fact that the monarch was also anointed to the priesthood tells heavily against Kutsch’s notion of a secular, popular rite. See J. Friedrich, “Ein Sonderfall partitiver Apposition beim hethitischen Personalpronomen,” AfO 18 (1957/58) 127 for the text. Note that in KUB 9.13 + 24.5, tr. ANET3 355, it is the king’s prisoner-of-war substitute who is anointed. But see KBo 1.14 for coronation oil. Outside Hatti, there is no strong evidence of royal anointment. Cf. H. W. Fairman, “The Kingship Rituals in Egypt,” in Myth, Ritual and Kingship. Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958) 80-81; Frankfort, Kingship 247 and references. For the position here, see Schmidt, Erfolg 174-188; de Vaux, “La roi d’Israël, vassal de Yahvé,” Mélanges Eugene Tieserant I. Ecriture Sainte—ancien Orien (Studi e Testi 231; Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964) 119-133, esp. 129-133, 133 n. 68, stressing anointment as a rite of vassalage. Cf. Mettinger (King and Messiah 303 for insistence that the linguistic convention must have a “basis in reality”), who has recognized the contractual nature of anointment (pp. 212-224), but failed to distinguish this from a transactional stage. On his differentiations (e.g., pp. 144-148 on priestly anointment carrying no obligations; pp. 194-203, 228-230 on the origins of sacral anointment with Solomon), contrast the remarks below. It is, therefore, as a manifestation of divine election that anointment appears in the Israelite records. E.g., Ex 26:6-7; Lev 8:9-12. Even in EA 51:9, the suzerain anoints the king of the vassal country. This lends significance to the fact that unction is closely associated with the nāgîd: anointment pertained, in the earliest period, not to the king’s inauguration, but to the appointment of the divine designee for kingship. A recent study by Z. Weisman confirms this construct: Weisman argues that anointment pertains to the betrothal in marriage customs of the ancient Near East, as distinct from marriage proper and consummation. By the same token, anointment of kings pertains to their nomination by the god, not to their coronation. He supports this view by noting that Jehu (2 Kgs 9) and David (1 Sam 16) are anointed privately (as is Saul, perhaps—1 Sam 10:1), and well before their actual corronations. Weisman, “Anointing as a Motif in the Making of the Charismatic King,” Bib 57 (1976) 378-398, esp. 379-385. Weisman further attempts to distinguish anointment at the coronation ceremony (as 2 Sam 2:4; 5:3; 2 Kgs 11:12; 1 Kgs 1:39) from that performed in private. Ibid. 382-386. Weisman’s aim is to establish the character of the “prophetic” (private) anointment as charismatic. This distinction proceeds from a misapprehension of the sources: the anointment in the ritual performs the same function in its context as anointment in private serves in the narratives. The difference is one of orientation: the act of anointment juxtaposed with the actual ceremony of accession and coronation See Fairman, “Rituals” 78, far this distinction in Egypt. is a symbol of the king’s nomination; the anointment reported to have occurred in private represents a propagandistic idiom for justifying the king’s rise to power. Thus while a particular king might undergo two anointments (or, if we believe the records of David’s case, three), these should not be distinguished typologically or conceptually. Royal unction represents in Israel the deity’s election of the king. Given the nāgîd’s position, one might well regard his anointment much as Americans speak of electing (or even nominating) a President. A world of difference divides designation and inauguration. At the same time, it is relatively easy to understand how after the division of the kingdom, when the nāgîd-titulature passed from parlance (or at least saw restriction to mean the designated dynastic heir), See above, Chap. 1, for the term’s fossilization. the retention of the rite of unction would lead to such expressions as “anoint to be king.” It is, at any rate, more convenient to accept such a construct than to try to explain how the expression “anoint to be nāgîd” might have arisen, especially since the term seems to lie outside deuteronomistic and chronistic usage. Following Cross, CMHE 274-289 on Dtr, with reservations. See below, section c. On Chr, see Cross, “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975) 4-18, with similar reservations. Cf. Mettinger’s treatment of the cases of Jeroboam, Omri and Jehu (King and Messiah 117), and below, Chap. 7. Again, in dynastic times, with an orderly succession, the gap between designation and inauguration would, as it has in America, narrow. The relationship of the nāgîd and the rite of unction to the king can only be understood in the context of what is known of the royal ritual in Israel and Judah. Two such rituals, the enthronements of Solomon (1 Kgs 1) and of Joash (2 Kgs 11; 2 Chr 23), have been subject to study by Gerhard von Rad. “The Royal Ritual in Judah,” The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1966) 222-31. By comparing the accounts, von Rad established a number of details concerning the coronation process. As he pointed out, the episodes are so distant from one another that there can be little doubt that their convergence is authentic. The outset of Solomon’s coronation parade is related three times: indirectly in the instructions of David (1 Kgs 1:33-35), directly by the narrator (1:38-40), and again indirectly to Adonijah (1:44-48). Von Rad remarks the oversight of the ceremony by Benaiah ben-Jehoiada (1:36, 38, 44), the commander of the Cherethites and Pelethites, the standing, professional, royal army. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel 219-20. He notes that this mercenary army was also the royal bodyguard (see also p. 123). See also B. Mazar, “The Military Elite of King David,” VT 13 (1963) 310-20. In Joash’ case, too, the royal guard secures the venue of the election (2 Kgs 11:4-11; cf. 2 Chr. 23:4-9) This von Rad correctly imputes to the circumstances of the rituals: each has the aura of a coup about it. Solomon’s mount is David’s mule (1 Kgs 1:34, 38, 44). Von Rad ties this to Zech 9:9; 2 Sam 13:39; 18:9, and maintains it is a ritual element. It is noteworthy in this connection that the “sons” of the judges Jair (Judg 10:4) and Abdon ben-Hillel (Judg 12:14) were “riders on ass-colts.” Such a term seems to have denoted the delegate(s) of authority. This is fairly clear also in Judg 5:10-11, in which the musterers of the militia are urged to call the league to war; they must recite the “‘salvation history’ of Yhwh, the ‘salvation history’ of his heroism “Salvation history” for ṣidqôt, the right acts performed by Yhwh on behalf of the league (at war). pirzônô, “his heroism,” recalls v 7, “heroism ceased in Israel, until you aroused it, Deborah....” in Israel.” This is an appeal to covenant obligations, the suzerain’s beneficial acts being the foundation of the covenant. See D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (AnBib 21; Rome: P.B.I., 1963; G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage, 1955), esp. 32-33; K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) passim. The recitation was also the preface and exhortation to covenant renewal and fidelity. See Chap. 1, n. 59. Hence the curse of Meroz in Judg 5:23: Meroz had not fulfilled her obligations. See Cross, CMHE 235 n. 74; R. Boling, Judges (AB 6; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975) 114. While speculative, Cross’s suggestion that lmh in Judges 5 should be read la (“not”( + me (enclitic) is attractive. Note EA 244. Finally, asses are employed by the minor party to suzerainty pacts in Josh 9:4; 1 Sam 16:20; 25:18; 2 Sam 16:1-2; 1 Chr 12:38-40. If the embassy were characteristically dispatched by donkey, this would again associate the animal with the delegation of authority. Note the Horse Gate of Jer 31:40; Heh 3:28. W. Rudolf (“Die Einheitlichkeit der Erzählunq vom Sturz der Atalja (2 Kön 11),” Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, ed. W. Baumgartner et al. [Tübingen: Mohr, 1950] 473-78( reads sûs for sûr in 2 Kgs 11:6. Cf. 2 Kgs 11:16. But see M. Noth, “Das alttestamentliche Bundschliessen im Lichte eines Meri-Textes,” Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich: Kaiser, l957) 142-54; F. C. Fensham, “The Wild Ass in the Aramean Treaty between Bar-Gaʾayah and Matiʾel,” JNES 22 (1963) 185-86. Is Saul’s search for the asses in 1 Sam 9 associated with the same theme? However, the utility of the donkey precludes certainty. Probably, it is the simple act of riding that is significant (see Esth 6:6-12; Cf. Akk. kartappu). See Alt, “Hohe Beamte in Ugarit,” Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen Dicata, ed. F. Hvidberg (Copenhagen: Bianco Lunos, 1953) 1-11, for equivalents at Ugarit. On the mule, Solomon proceeds to the spring at Gihon (1 Kgs 1:34, 38, 45). Von Rad maintains that this was a sanctuary. “Royal Ritual” 223. He hopes to establish that the king is anointed in the setting of a sanctuary, but enthroned, properly, in the palace. Such a construction fits nicely with the concept of anointment argued above. Von Rad buttresses it by the observation that Joash was anointed standing on the king’s pillar in the temple court (2 Kgs 11:14; 2 Chr 23:13; cf. 2 Kgs 23:3; 2 Chr 34:31). He further notes Solomon’s delivery of the temple consecration address from a platform (2 Chr 6:13—kiyyûr), and to the special position for the king in Egyptian temple settings. “Royal Ritual” 224 and n. 6. The king’s platform is not peculiar to ancient Near Eastern cultures, as anyone who has visited El-Aqse or Westminster knows. For the “station of the king” in the temple of Amon, see ARE 2.140. Finally, von Rad observes that the nēzer and ʿēdût bestowed on Joash (2 Kgs 11:12) represent his crown and a protocol respectively. The protocol he compares with that bestowed by the god at the pharaoh’s enthronement: it contained the rights and duties of the king, and possibly his five throne names. “Royal Ritual” 224-25. That the protocol is nowhere explicitly associated with the throne-names does not substantially weaken von Rad’s argument. See H. W. Fairman and B. Grdseloff, “Texts of Hatshepsut and Sethos I inside Speos Artemidos,” JEA 33 (1947) 12-33, esp. 15 and pl. 3, for a case of the giving of throne names by the god. He ties this in turn to Ps 2:7, in which Yhwh is said to have given a decree to the king, in which he adopts the monarch as a son. This may be tied to anointment (Ps 2:6). Cf. Isa 29:10; 30:1. Adoption and the bestowal of the throne name are juxtaposed also in Isa 9:5-6. See esp. H. Wildberger, “Die Thronnamen des Messias, Jes. 9, 5b,” TZ 16 (1960) 314-32; de Vaux, Ancient Israel 107-08; A. M. Honeyman, “The Evidence for Royal Names among the Hebrews,” JBL 67 (1948) 13-26. Von Rad’s position has attracted a following. E.g., Fohrer, “Vertrag” 11-12; Ringgren, Religion; Mowinckel, Psalms 1.62-76; also, Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz (BZAW 131; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1973) 56 n. 29. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the term ʿēdût has been called into question. Earlier scholars fevered emendation to ṣe ʿādöt on the basis of 2 Sam 1:10. See Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (4th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963 [= 3rd ed., 1889]) 292 n. 2; cf. R. Patai, “Hebrew Installation Rites,” HUCA 20 (1947) 143-225, 195; Mettinger, King and Messiah 287 n. 46, for other suggestions. A. R. Johnson has laid emphasis on the king’s obligation to Yhwh, where von Rad stressed the aspect of divine promise. The ʿēdût, argues Johnson, is something “taught” by Yhwh, and on the observance of which the continuity of David’s dynasty depends (so Ps 132:12): “the king was made to wear, not merely the royal crown, but a document embodying the basic terms of Yahweh’s covenant with the House of David....” Sacral Kingship 24. Similarly, Gray, Kings 574-75; Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968) 104-06 and passim. H. G. May (“A Key to the Interpretation of Zechariah’s Visions,” JBL 57 [1938] 173-84, 181) sees a parallel with Tiamat’s bestowal of the tables of destinies on Kingu. Such a document would contain the royal obligations as well as promises to the king. G. Widengren (Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und in Judentum [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1955] 29; “King and Covenant,” JSS 2 [1957] 1-32, esp. 5-l7) has maintained that the document represented the whole law (citing Dt 17:18-19; Josh 24:25-28, and Agrippa’s promulgation of the law in 41 C.E. [M. Soṭa 7.8]). See below. This aspect of the ceremony, renewing the relationship of Yhwh with the royal line, stems from the earliest period of Israelite monarchy: the king was always in direct covenant relationship with the god. So, for example, Saul participates in what appears to be a covenant meal presided over at a sanctuary by Samuel (1 Sam 9:22-25). Wildberger (“Samuel und die Entstehung des israslitischen Königtums,” TZ 13 [1957] 442-69, esp. 453-54, followed by H. Seebass, “Die vorgeschichte der Königserhebung Sauls,” ZAW 79 [1967] 155-71, esp. 158) treats this as a clandestine meeting called by Samuel to moot Saul’s appointment. This construct is not only overly-interpretative, however, but also based on a weak division of the sources (see below). Schmidt (Erfolg 84-85) sees the incident as a proleptic coronation (= covenant) meal. His alternate selection is characterized by Yhwh’s choosing him (bḯr b: 1 Sam 10:24), an expression used to denote the commitments made by Yhwh to Israel, the Levites, Jerusalem, and the Davidic line. See above, Chap. 1, n. 77, on choice by lot. Similarly, Saul’s fall is imputed in all versions to violation of the covenant. 1 Sam 15:25-30a and 1 Sam l3:10-14 Both are secondary. On 1 Sam 15:25-30a, see above, Chap. 1 and n. 63. On 13:10-14, see Seebass, “1 Sam 15 als Schlüssel” 155 and passim. apparently tie the rejection to the laws of Holy War (though this is unclear in both); the latter asserts that Saul’s line would have been established had he observed his obligations (read *lû for lōʾ). 1 Chr 10:13-14 accuse him of disobedience in general, and of summoning up Samuel’s spectre in particular (1 Sam 28:3-25; cf. Dt 18:9-11 and 1 Sam 28:3, certainly authentic). In all three cases, it is the king’s special position that underlies his liability to punishment. A similar concept of (conditional) covenant with a dynastic line surfaces in the deuteronomistic treatment of northern history. The oracles treated above (1 Kgs 14:7-14; 16:1-4; 2l:20-22) See shove, Chap. 1. derive force from the type of covenant made between Yhwh and Jeroboam: Jeroboam is assured a dynasty on condition that he observe the god’s stipulations (1 Kgs 11:38). Similar sentiments are embodied in an oracle against Ahab (1 Kgs 20:42), again for violation of Holy War statutes. In short, even in Israel, the king was in covenant relationship with Yhwh. Within Judah a similar relationship is attested. Psalm 132, a text deriving ultimately from David’s time, gives it clear vent: Remember, Yhwh, all David’s humility; This is rubric material. See Cross, CMHE 95 n. 22. That he swore to Yhwh. He vowed to the bull of Jacob: “I shall not enter the tent of my dwelling, Nor mount the bed on which I stretch out, Nor allow sleep to my eyes, Slumber to my eyelids, 5 Until I have found the place of Yawh, The tenting-place of the bull of Jacob.” Behold! We heard of it The ark here, as in 1 Sam 4:17; 2 Chr 8:11, may be feminine. in Ephratah; We lighted on it in the fields of Yaʿar. Usually identified with Qiryath Yearim (as O. Eissfeldt, “Psalm 132,” WO 2 [1959] 480-83). See 1 Chr 2:19, 50-51; 4:4. Cross (CMHE 94-95 n. 16) identifies Caleb-Ephretah (1 Chr 2:24) with Qiryath-Yearim. Cf. Gen 23:17; 25:9; 1 Sam 6:14; 2 Sam 9:7; 2 Kgs 9:25. The identity of Yaʿar in Ps 132, however, remains obscure. We entered his tenting-place, Prostrated ourselves at his footstool: I take the -a ending here as emphatic, on the model of the Amarna subjunctive. See W. L. Moran, “A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the Amarna Tablets” (Johns Hopkins dissertation, 1950) 89-106, and the examples on p. 104. See W. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar (rev. E. Kautzsch; Oxford: Oxford, 1946) 108a-b for Hebrew examples. “Arise, Yhwh, from your rest, nḯtk with 2 Chr 6:41. See Cross, CMHE 95 and n. 20. You and the Ark of your might. Your priests are dressed in righteousness; Your votaries shout with joy. yerannēnû. Cf. the alternative presented in 2 Chr 6:41. 10 “For the sake of David, your servant, Do not turn back the face of your anointed.” Cross, CMHE 232 n. 56 would excise this v and vv 13-18 as secondary. Cf. 2 Chr 6:42, which reverses the order of the v, but preserves its sense. On 2 Chr 6:42b, cf. Ps 132:1. The psalm is structured so that vv 10-11 correspond to vv 1-2, while vv 9-10 correspond to vv 16-18. Yhwh swore to David; He will not turn back his troth from him: See Cross, CMHE 232 nn. 57, 58. But see the affirmation of Shuppiluliuma to Mattiwaza: amātu ša ina pîšu uṣṣu ana kutallišu ul itâr, in E. F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Die Staatsverträge in Akkadischen Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazköi (BoSt 8-9; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923) 2:23-26, suggesting no emendation may be necessary. Of the fruit of your belly Cross, CMHE 233 restores ʾāqîm to augment the stich. Cf. v 12c-12d. The count is 6:7, and requires no alteration. I shall set upon your throne. If your children observe my covenant, And the stipulations that I teach them, Their children, too, for always, Will sit upon your throne.” For Yhwh has chosen Zion; He has desired it for a dwelling: “This is my resting-place for always; Here I shall dwell, for I have desired it. 15 Its bounty I shall indeed bless; Its poor I shall sate with bread. Its priests I shall clothe in ‘salvation’; Deleting initial wa-. Note the variant for v 9 in 2 Chr 6:41. Its votaries will shout with joy. Deleting rannēn, though the variation may be intentional. 17 “There shall I make David’s standard sprout forth; I shall set up a fief for my anointed. His enemies I shall clothe in shame; But on him, his crown will flourish.” Here the selection of Zion as a dwelling for the deity is attached to the fulfillment of Yahwh’s oath to David. The ark is in procession, as the grounding of such phrases as “Arise, Yhwh, from your rest” in the Holy War (cf. Num 10:35) indicates. See T. E. Fretheim, “Psalm 132: A Form-Critical Study,” JBL 86 (1967) 289-300; D. Hillers, “The Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132,” CBQ 30 (1968) 48-55. Hillers’ contention that the psalm is not a processional is belied both by the structure and by the language of the piece. Note that David begins by looking to establish a home for the ark; that the psalmists find and enter it; that the priests and votaries prepare far the procession (in ritual dress). There follow promises to David, to Zion and its populace, and to the priests and votaries. The clothing of David completes the piece (cf. Zech 3:1-7). The most relevant biblical text here is to be found in 2 Sam 6:12-21, to which this song seems to have direct relevance in this passage, the priests bring the ark from Obed-Edom’s house to the City of David amid shouts and cheers, while David frolicks before it in ritually pure attire (v 14). The distribution of bread to the assembly is a part of the same process (2 Sam 6:19; cf. Ps 132:15). See my “The Ritual Background of Zechariah’s Temple Song,” CBQ 40 (1978) 167-90 far discussion of the relevance of sanctuary foundation and the ark processional (note that David’s inability to sleep in Ps 132:3-5 is paralleled in Gudea Cyl. A 6:11; 17:8ff:) to the victory progress of the champion. See further discussion below. On 2 Sam 6, see esp. J. R. Porter, “The Interpretation of 2 Samuel VI and Psalm CXXXII,” JTS 5 (1954) 161-73; also A. Bentzen, “The Cultic Use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel,” JBL 67 (1948) 37-53; Kraus, Königsherrschaft 27-99, esp. 38-39, 44-49, where Kraus, anticipating some of the conclusions below, posits an Israelite festival in which the election of Zion and the Davidides was celebrated. Also, P. D. Miller and J. J. H. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord. A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 2 Samuel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1977) 16-17. Basing themselves on Mesopotamian texts concerning the return of captured gods (and see M. Delcor, “Jahwe et Dagon ou le Jahwisme face à le religion des Philistins, d’après 1 Sam. V,” VT 14 [1964] 136-54 on the captivity of the gods), Miller and Roberts deny that 2 Sam 6 reflects regular cultic practice, thinking of it apparently as an instance of the celebration at the return of a captured god. Whether such a celebration did exist independent of regular cultic prescriptions is itself a question. Further, 2 Sam 6 represents the initiation of the Jerusalem sanctuary (see above and below); and ceremonies of renewal are apparently programmed by the initiation (witness the relation between Ee and the Babylonian akītu, Chap. 3 a, below). Thus, Ps 132 and 2 Sam 7 (as well as 6:21-22), and Solomon’s invocation of Ps 132 (2 Chr 6:41-42) demonstrate that 2 Sam 6 is concerned with temple-kingship initiation. Finally, even presuming that the mythos and ritual for the return of captured gods does not converge with that for renewal of kingship or temple, the progress of Yhwh in 2 Sam 6 does not reflect, historiographically at least, the captured god’s return. The latter is reported in 1 Sam 6. 2 Sam 6 reports a march, or a move, from Qiryath-Yearim. No evidence of Yhwh’s “liberation” is present. B. The Temple and the King’s Covenant 2 Samuel 6 is further relevant in that it, too, places Yhwh’s affirmations to David in the context of David’s providing a sanctuary for the ark. David explicitly associates his selection to be nāǧîd with his participation in the progress (2 Sam 6:21). After the progress, he turns to the question of constructing a sanctuary (2 Sam 7:2-3). This leads to Yhwh’s assurance that I will raise up your seed after you ... and establish his kingdom. He will build a house for my name and I shall establish the throne of his kingdom forever.... Your dynasty is sure, and your kingdom is forever before you; your throne will be founded firm forever. (2 Sam 7:12-16) In other words, the themes of the selection of Zion, the provision of a sanctuary, and the promise to David, are bound up in 2 Sam 6–7 as they are in Ps 132, in connection with the procession of the ark. This is not surprising. It is relatively clear from various sources that the construction or renovation of a sanctuary represented in the ancient Near East a renewal of a covenant between the king and god. One example occurs in Gudea Cyl. A 6:14–7:30. Here Gudea is ordered to adorn and bring the war-chariot of Ningirsu into É-ninnu-imduǧud-barbar (“the house of fifty flashing thunderbirds”); after the progress, Ningirsu will “come to rest” (ma.ra.ḫug.e; 7:5), and reveal the “plan of his house” to Gudea (7:6). Ningirsu will “bless” Gudea (šu.dḿu = Akk. karābu; 7:8). Gudea “brought it in rejoicing” (é.a ḫul.la ì.na.ni.ku4; 7:30). A dream vision follows (9:6ff.), which leaves Gudea “greatly knowing” (12:20). He is the elect of Ningirsu. It is difficult to resist remarking the similarity to Gudea’s also of Solomon’s construction. Like Gudea (Cyl. A 8:6-12—note the phrase “the place from which Ningirsu casts his eye over the lands,” 8:7; cf. Zech 4:10b), Solomon offers sacrifice at a sanctuary (1 Kgs 3:4; 2 Chr 1:3-6). He prays for and receives promises in a dream vision (1 Kgs 3:6-14; cf. 2 Chr 1:8-12). Cf. Nabonidus in ANET3 311-11. In the deuteronomistic version, he then dispenses justice before the ark (1 Kgs 3:15-28—in Jerusalem); he next turns to the construction of the temple (1 Kgs 5:16-32; 2 Chr 1:18–2:17). Kings and Chronicles view this event as a constitutive act of Solomon’s kingship. Thus 1 Kgs 2:3-28, after a notice peripherally related to the temple construction (esp. 3:2; cf. 3:3b), resume from the concluding remark of the Succession Narrative, “and the kingdom was firmly fixed in Solomon’s hand” (1 Kgs 2:46//2:44). The sacrifice and dream at Gibeon follow naturally: through them, Solomon seeks to establish his position with Yhwh. Similarly, Chr appends his account of Solomon’s sacrifice directly to the notice of David’s death (1 Chr 29:26-30). He, like Dtr, prefaces the account with the remark, “Solomon ben-David took hold of his kingship” (2 Chr 1:1). Perhaps even more pertinent is the way each account ends. Chr recounts, “Solomon came from the ‘high place’ that was in Gibeon MT reads lab-bāmâ. Vrs. translate “from.” This is certainly the sense of the passage. Note that Jerusalem is the frame of reference here: 2 Chr 1:3 uses hlk for the trip to Gibeon, bwʾ for the return to Jerusalem (1:13). Cf. 1 Kgs 3:4, 15. to Jerusalem, from before the Tent of Meeting, and he reigned over Israel” (2 Chr 1:13). 1 Kgs 4:1 reads, “King Solomon was (became?) king over all Israel.” This succeeds the peroration of the infant-vivisection: “All Israel heard of the judgment that the king rendered, and feared the king; for they saw that divine wisdom was in him to render judgment” (1 Kgs 3:28). 1 Kgs 3:15 brings Solomon back to Jerusalem, where the ark is. 2 Chr 1 has the ark in Jerusalem, but the “Tent of Meeting” in Gibeon (1:3-6). On the Tent of Meeting, see Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle,” BAR 1.201-08; cf. M. Haran, “The Nature of the ‘ʾOhel Moʿedh’ in the Pentateuchal Sources,” JSS 5 (1960) 50-65; “Shiloh and Jerusalem: The Origin of the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch,” JBL 81 (1962) 14-24; V. W. Rabe, “The Identity of the Priestly Tabernacle,” JNES 25 (1966) 132-34; von Rad, “The Tent and the Ark,” The Problem of the Hexateuch 103-24; also, Haran, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” HUCA 36 (1965) 191-226; R. E. Friedman, “The Impact of Exile” (Harvard dissertation, l978); “The Tabernacle in the Temple,” forthcoming. All of this leaves the impression that the Gibeonite interlude was regarded as the first act of Solomon’s kingship. Confirmation comes from Solomon’s prayer: “You have performed a great loyal deed for David, your servant, ... and given him a son occupying his throne this day” (1 Kgs 3:6; 2 Chr 1:8-9). The impression is strengthened by the consideration that the list of Solomon’s officers and the description of his administrative machinery follow the dream-vision (1 Kgs 4:2-5; 8; cf. 2 Chr 1:14-18, a description of Solomon’s trade). While such observations pertain more to the redactor’s than to contemporaneous perceptions, they nevertheless testify to an understanding of the Gibeonite sacrifice and return to Jerusalem as the founding act of Solomon’s kingship. Scholars generally assert that Dtr assembled this section. Our ignorance of the redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, however, makes argument enthymematic. Given the authenticity of the lists from Solomon’s reign (on 1 Kgs 4, see G. E. Wright, “The Provinces of Solomon,” Sukenik Memorial Volume [EI 8; Jerusalem: I.E.S., 1967] 58-68, and my “Sectionalism,” 519-32), it is likely this materiel had been assembled by the time of Dtr1. This is more probable in view of the fact that such lists do not characterize Dtr after Solomon’s reign. The administration of the empire began only after the initial sacrifice. Similarly, in the ancient Near East, temple building was a constitutive act of kingship. This is most clear in Ee: Marduk’s reward is the construction of a palace (Ee 6:39-66). Ešarra, Marduk’s palace, is the counterpart of his mundane shrine. Its construction follows his establishment of cosmic order; Ešarra is the visible evidence of Marduk’s reign. Precisely the same conceptualization underlies 2 Sam 5:11-12 (//1 Chr 14:1-2). This passage affirms the association between mundane palace and throne. A similar situation seems to obtain in Ugarit. After defeating Yamm, one presumes (restoring baʿlu yamlu(ku) in CTA 2.4:32), Baʿl is acclaimed king. However, Asherah, and, probably, Anat seek from El a building permit for Baʿl’s palace. E. T. Mullen, Jr., in his The Divine Council in Ugarit and Israel (forthcoming HSM), argues that El retained kingship over the pantheon while dispensing subordinate realms to his children. When Baʿl himself approaches Anat and Asherah for help, the request is straightforward: wa-na ʾênv bêta la-baʿli wa-na is extra-metrical. ka-ma ʾilīma wa-ḯaẓira ka-banî ʾāṯirati môṯabu ʾili maẓlalu banīhu môṯabu rabbati ʾāṯirati yammi môṯabu kallāti kannuyāti môṯabu pidrayyi bitti ʾāri môṯabu paliyyi bitti rabbi môṯabu ʾarṣayyi bitti y ʿbdr Baʿl has no house like the qods [or like El] nor a courtyard like the sons of Asherah, The dwelling of El is the shelter of his sons, the dwelling of the lady Asherah Yammi Note the chiasm: ʾili-ma:banī ʾāṯirati :: banīhu (ʾili): ʾāṯirati yammi It is difficult to determine here whether El’s dwelling is Asherah’s as well, or whether Ashereh’s establishment is separate. the dwelling of faithful brides (?) the dwelling of Mist daughter of Light Cloud the shelter of Dew daughter of Rainshower the dwelling of Earth, daughter of Yʿbdr. CTA 4.1:10-19; cf. 3.4E:1-6. However, when Anat and Asherah put the request to El, they preface it: malkunu ʾal’ʾiyānu baʿlu ṯāpiṭunu ʾênv di-ʿalinhu kālaniyānu qīšīhu nabila kālaniyānu nabila kôsahu ʾalʾiyānu Baʿl is our king, our “judge”: none is above him. We will bear his tribute; all of us will bear his cup. (CTA 4.4:43-46; cf. 3.5:40-42) Here the association between cosmic kingship and palace—therefore between mundane kingship and temple—is made explicit. A further, more obscure association occurs a bit further on in the same text. Permission having been obtained, the temple having been built and purified by fire: šamiha ʾalʾyānu baʿlu bahatīya banītī dāti kaspi hekalīya dātima ḫurāṣi ʾalʾiyānu Baʿl exulted: “I have built my house of silver, my palace out of gold.” CTA 4.6:35-38 Immediately thereafter, Baʿl prepared, then proclaimed a feast, for which ṣāḯa ʾaḯīhu ba-bahatīhu ʾarhīyu ba-qirbi hekallīhu ṣāḯa šabiʿīma banī ʾṯirati He called his brothers to his house, his lions to his palace. He called Asherah’s 70 sons. On the “lions,” see P. D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” UF 2 (1971) 177-86. CTA 4.6:44-46 His action has parallels in Israel, in the case of Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:5-9) and, less strong, in that of Saul (1 Sam 9:22-24). David’s distribution of food at the transfer of the ark may also be recalled, as may Solomon’s feast at Gibeon (see above) Solomon similarly holds a feast at the temple’s dedication (1 Kgs 8:62-65; cf. also Judg 9:26-29). But proclamation of a feast, while indicative of an important occasion, is common throughout the world to all sorts of ceremony. Absalom’s invitations to “the sons of the king,” for example, had no stronger pretext than a sheep-shearing (2 Sam 13:23-27); while this was a festival, it should no more be confused with a messianic banquet than should the porridge-eating in Goldilocks. In its context, of course, Baʿl’s banquet does represent his coming-out affair as king. What follows is particularly instructive: qālahu qaduša ba[ʿlu ya]tinu yaṯanniyu baʿlu ṣi[ʾātima] pīhu qāluhu qā[dušu yappari]ru ʾarṣa [... ] ġurīma tiḫšānū ... bamātu ʾa[rṣi ] taṭiṭṭūna ʾêbu baʿli teʾḫudū yaʿra-ma šāniʾū haddi gapāti ġuri wa-yaʿni ʾalʾiyānu baʿlu ʾêbu haddūti lā-ma taḯūšū lā-ma taḯūšū nāṯiqū dimarīma ... Baʿl gives forth his holy voice. Baʿl recites his mouth’s utter[ances]. His holy voice [shatters] the earth [... ], the mountains quake ... The earth’s high spots shake. For a full treatment of the imagery and concepts, see Cross, CMHE 147-56 and following. The enemies of Baʿl take to the forests, The haters of Hadd to the tops of the peaks. ʾalʾiyānu Baʿl said: “The enemies of kingship On haddūtu, cf. Akk. enūtu, enlilūtu. Both are applied to the execution of the offices of kingship. See CAD E, ad loc. sure rush off; Or, “Why do you rush off?” Cf. esp. Ps 68:16-17, on which cf. else Ps 115, in the context of Elohim’s assumption of the throne. the bearers of armed force sure do rush off....” Cf. Ps 78:9. The verb has yet to be adequately grasped, though the usage here might well be a double reading, as will be argued by R. J. Clifford (“Psalm 78: A Liturgical Approach,” forthcoming). dmr = Arab. ḏmr, Heb. zmr, “mighty.” Cf. Isa 25:5: zemîr ʿarîṣîm yeʿanneh, “he abases the might of tyrants,” with Gray, Kings 361. CTA 4.7:29-39 In effect, Baʿl has established the efficacy of his rule (esp. CTA 4.7:42-44). His next act is to approach Mot, “Death,” who like Solomon seems to have remained aloof from the banquet (see CTA 4.7:47-52). Baʿl’s messengers are to begin with a refrain from Baʿl’s exultation: “I’ve built my house of silver, and my palace out of gold” (CTA 4.8:35-37). The construction of the palace is a claim to the throne. In Israelite poetry, similar concepts surface. Exodus 15, one of the older specimens, See Cross-Freedman, SAYP 84-91; Freedmen, “Divine Names and Titles in Early Hebrew Poetry,” Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God, ed. Cross, Miller, and Lemke (Fs. G. E. Wright; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976) 55-107; D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS 3; Missoula: Scholars, 1972). rehearses Yhwh’s triumph at the Red Sea, details his leadership of Israel through hostile territory, then culminates in the announcement, “You made/acquired a place for your enthronement; Cf. the use of ṯbt in the Baʿl-Yamm cycle. your hands founded a holy place, O Yhwh; Yhwh will reign forever” (Ex 15:17-18). Ps 29 associates the acclamation of Yhwh in the council with his “epiphany”—his cedar-shattering voice (Ps 29:2-9b; cf. esp. EA 147:14) vented precisely from his “palace,” where Yhwh, like Marduk, sits enthroned over the flood (Ps 29:9c-10; cf. CTA 4.7:29-39, and 4.7:42, “Baʿl sits enthroned in his house”; see above). For bibliography on Ps 29, see Dahood, Psalms 1.174-78. This is the celebrated “Canaanite Psalm” (see H. L. Ginsberg, The Ugaritic Texts [Jerusalem: Bialik, 1936 (Heb.)] 129-31). However, to paraphrase Leslie Howard’s response to the SS Kommandant who informed him Shakespeare was a German, “You must admit, our (Hebrew) translations are remarkable.” Cross (CMHE 155 n.44) excises Ps 29:11 as an “Israelite addition.” But this bicolon shares with Ps 68:36 the characteristic of Yhwh’s “giving strength” to his people (ʿamm; cf. also Ps 78:61) against 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 21:2, and, probably, Ps 28:8, where it is the “anointed one” or “king” who is the recipient. See also D. N. Freedman and C. F. Hyland, “Psalm 29: A Structural Analysis,” HTR 66 (1973) 237-56; cf. B. Margulis, “The Canaanite Origin of Psalm 29 Reconsidered,” Bibbica 51 (1970) 332-48; P. C. Craigie, “Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition,” VT 22 (1972) 143-51, who stand against Ginsberg. A third ancient work, Ps 24, again embodies the same concepts: The earth and its content are Yhwh’s The world, and its inhabitants. He founded it on Sea(s); He fixed it upon River(s). Who will ascend the mountain of Yhwh? Who will stand in his holy place? The clean of hand and pure of heart, Who has not taken an empty oath, Nor sworn with duplicity. 5 He will bear a blessing from Yhwh, And justification from his Savior-God. This is the council For this meaning of dôr, see F. L. Neuberg, “An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew DÔR,” JNES 9 (1950) 215-17, where Am 8:14; Ps 14:5; 49:20; 73:15; 84:11; 112:2; Jer 2:31 are cited. P. R. Ackroyd, “The Meaning of Hebrew dôr Considered,” JSS 13 (1968) 5-8, adds Isa 53:8; Jer 7:29; Ps 95:10; Prov 30:11-14; KAI 26. III: 17-19; 27:12; CTA 30:2; 31:1-2, 9”, 17, 25-26, 34; 34:7; 35-16; App. II, 17-18; 15.3:19; 10.1:5. “Council” is called for here, where requirements for admission are being erected. Cf. Dt 23:2-15; Zech 5:1-4. of those who seek him, Who seek the audience of the God of Jacob. With LXX. The meter is irregular here, before the refrain; note the shift from long lines (8:8/7:7) to short (5:5) below. Lift up your heads, O Gates! Lift yourselves up, Doors of Eternity, Dahood, Psalms 1.153, reads “Eternal One” (i.e. El). Here, however, Yhwh is entering Eternity—the site of the divine council, Eden, again the cosmic counterpart (in a cosmic time) of the mundane temple. That the king of glory Cf. Ps 29:1ff. and similar passages. may enter. Who is this king of glory? Yhwh, mighty and a hero, Hendiadys. Note the similar pair in Erra 1.110-11, ina ilāni ezzāku, ina igigi qardāku, “I am mighty among the gods (cf. ʿizzūz, Ps 24:8); I am a champion among the Igigi (cf. gibbôr, Ps 24:8).” Yhwh, a hero at war. Lift up your head, O Gates! Lift yourselves up, With v 7 and LXX. Note the use of nśʾ in vv 4 (ʾšrlʾ nśʾ lšwʾ npšw), 5, 7a (śʾw šʿrym rʾšykm) and 7b (= 9a, 9b). The poem is an alliterative frenzy. Note vs. 3b wmy yqwm bmqwm qdšw; also the refrain (vv 7c, 9c)—we-yābôʾ malk kābôd. Doors of Eternity, That the king of glory may enter. Who is he, this king of glory? LXX does not witness hôʾ. For a treatment of this psalm within the conceptual framework of the Divine Warrier motif, see esp. Cross, CMHE 91-111. 10 Yhwh Sebaoth He is the king of glory. In this piece, Yhwh’s foundation of earth prefaces his enthronement processional. The equation between the mundane shrine (vv 3-6) and the cosmic palace (vv 3, 7-10) is almost explicit. Yhwh’s position as king is associated with his entrance to the mountain, with his prowess, and, less clearly, with his victory over Sea—elements prominent in Ee and the Baʿl-Yamm cycle. It is unnecessary to review in whole the psalms celebrating the enthronement, or kingship, of Yhwh. The best treatment remains Mowinckel, Psalms 1.106-92. Most of these mention either the mundane sanctuary or its counterpart in heaven as the venue of the enthronement (Ps 47; 48; 93; 96; 99); others presuppose a procession into the shrine (Ps 95; 97; 98; so Ps 24). Of signal importance is Ps 96: 1 Sing to Yhwh a new song: Sing to Yhwh, all the earth. 2 Sing to Yhwh; bless his name: Herald daily his salvation. 3 Tell of his glory among the nations, Of his wonders among all the peoples. 4 For Yhwh is great, and greatly praised; He is more awesome than any god. 5 For all the peoples’ gods are vain; But Yhwh made the heavens, 6 Grandeur and splendor precede him, Strength and refulgence in his shrine. 7 Ascribe to Yhwh, families of peoples, Ascribe to Yhwh glory and strength. 8 Ascribe to Yhwh the glory of his name, Bear an offering and enter his courtyard(s). 9 Prostrate yourselves to Yhwh in his holy manifestation. Writhe before him, all the earth! 10 Proclaim among the nations, “Yhwh reigns! The world will be fixed, and will not be moved. He will judge the peoples in fairness.” 11 Let the heavens rejoice, the earth be glad; Let the sea and its content cheer. 12 Let the country celebrate, and all that is in it; Then let the trees of the forest shout out. 13 Before Yhwh, for he is come; He comes to judge the earth. He will judge the earth with righteousness, And the peoples with faithfulness. Juxtaposition with Ps 29 establishes that this psalm described Yhwh taking the throne in his council. Thus Ps 96:79a differ from Ps 29:1-2 only in two respects: 96:8b, “Bear an offering into his courtyard(s)” represents a plus; and the term “families of peoples” (96:7a) has replaced “sons of El” (29:1a). Reading benê ʾēl-ma. The Ugaritic usage points the way here: “sons of gods” is not plainly attested, whereas “son(s) of Asherah/El” is not infrequent. Ginsberg (Ugaritic Texts 129) restores bny ʾlm here. There is a further congruence of imagery between 96:9b, 11-12 and 29:3-9a. And each psalm culminates in an acclamation, and a note of the blessing to follow (29:9c-11; 96:10-13). Here Ps 96:10a helps to elucidate Ps 29:9c. The latter should probably be read “In his palace, proclaim his glory!” on the basis of 96:10 “Proclaim among the nations.... Reading in Ps 29:9c, be-hêkālô ʾimrû/ʾ emōr kābôd/kebôdô. kullô is probably a dittography (so, too, Cross, CMHE 154 n. 39). Cross and Dahood (“Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I,” Biblica 44 [1963] 295-6), in their appeal to the etymology *ʾmr- “see,” fail to observe the parallel with Ps 96. What follows in 29:10, “Yhwh is enthroned upon the flood; Yhwh is enthroned as kinq forever,” then represents the actual proclamation. Its parallel in Ps 96 is “Yhwh reigns! The world is fixed and will not shift.” Here the conceptual underpinning is identical to that of Ps 29: Yhwh has founded the earth (his throne) over the (vanquished) flood. The distinction between Ps 29 and 96 is that in the latter the god’s devotees assume the place of his council (in Ps 29). The shift may be superficial: it is plausible to presume that the worshippers played the part of the council also with regard to Ps 29. Nevertheless, the shift is complemented by a series of concomitant adjustments. So, the concept of tribute enters Ps 96 in conjunction with sacrificial rites (96:8b). 96:4-5 extol Yhwh at the expense of other gods: such an element would be inappropriate to Ps 29, where it is the council of gods who acclaim him. 96:3, 10 order the worshippers to noise Yhwh’s grandeur abroad. Ps 29 contains no such commend; in fact, it concludes, “Yhwh gives strength to his people; Yhwh blesses his people with well-being.” There is no trace of universalism, although such sentiments seem traditionally to have associated themselves with enthronement and with temple construction and dedication. See, e.g., Erra 5:25-40; Isa 2:2-4(5) = Miceh 4:1-3, on which see A. S. Kapelrud, “Eschatology in the Book of Micah,” VT 11 (1961) 392-405. Kapelrud argues Isaiah and Micah have used an older fragment. Cf. E. Cannawurf, “The Authenticity of Micah, IV, 1-4,” VT 13 (1963) 26-33; O. Kaiser, Der Prophet Jesaja. Kapitel 1–12 (ATD 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963) 19-24, where the material is dated to the Exile (!). See also Isa 60:1-22. Externally, see C. J. Gadd, “Inscribed Barrel Cylinder of Marduk-Apla-Iddina II,” Irag 5 (19S3) 123-34; R. Follet, “Une nouvelle inscription de Merodach-Baladan II,” Biblica 35 (1954) 413-28; P. Grelot, “Un parallele babylonien d’Isaie LX et du Psaume LXXII,” VT 7 (1957) 319-21. Also Gudea Cyl. A 11:1–12:9. W. W. Hallo (Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles [New Haven, CT: A.O.S., 1957] 49-55) discusses the title šar kibrātim arbaʾim. Cf. Heb ʾadôn kōl hā-ʾāreṣ (Josh 3:11, 13; Mic 4:13; Zech 4:14; 6:5; Ps 97:5; applied to Nebuchadrezzar in Judith 2:5). See J. Maier, Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum (BZAW 93; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1965) 26. Here coronation (e.g. Ps 97:5) and temple construction (Zech 4:14; 6:5) converge. But if the universal council of gods are “his people” the problem evaporates. The equation is thus confirmed. The drift of the psalms is convergent: Yhwh is enthroned as king (96:10; 29:10); he assumes his seat in palace or sanctuary to preside over the world (96:10-13; 29:10-11). Like Ps 24, Ps 96 details the tribute of the worshippers, at Yhwh’s enthronement. It is, therefore, a poignant indication of the correspondence between the inauguration of a sanctuary and the coronation of the god that Chr quotes Ps 96 as accompaniment for the ark’s entry into Jerusalem (1 Chr 16:23-33). Chr omits 96:1a, 2a, reads ʾōz we-ḯedwâ bi-mqômô for 96:6b and bōʾû le-pānāyw for 96:8 le-ḯaṣrôtāyw (suggesting Chr is perhaps eliminating reference to the temple), reads 96:9b, 10b, 11a (yōʾmerû), omits 10c, and closes the quotation with 96:11b-13b, collapsing 96:l3ab. The difference in v order suggests a divergence of texts still in stichometric form. On the passage, see T. C. Butler, “A Forgotten Passage from a Forgotten Era (1 Chr. xvi 8-36),” VT 28 (1978) 142-50. This is not to say that Chr’s account reflects the event. But the fact that he or one of his sources associated the psalm with the ark’s transfer testifies that the conceptual congruence of enthronement and the inauguration of a sanctuary was clear. Ps 96 provides a concrete link. But the similarity in image and language in the relevant liturgies confirms the conclusion: temple construction, as Ee and the Baʿl-Yamm texts suggest, was viewed in the ancient Near East as an integral element in the deity’s enthronement. That the construction of sanctuaries cemented the bond between king and god follows naturally from this. In turn, this bond could be translated into an affirmation of the mundane monarch’s authority. So, in 2 Sam 6:21, David ties his selection by Yhwh to his participation in the ritual progress of the ark. Similarly, 2 Sam 7 plays on the term bayit, meaning “temple” and “dynasty” (i.e. “house”), to associate the promise of perpetual kingship with the construction of Solomon’s temple. See Cross, CMHE 241-59. See bibliography on 241 n. 95. To this should be added Ishida, Dynasties 85-98. For the equation, bayit = dynasty, see Ishida, Dynasties 100-03. Ishida finds this usage in KAI 24:5-6; 215:7; 216:7-15 (in 216:16-20, he argues, bayit means palace; cf. 2 Sam 7) 181:4-7. The position of Solomon’s initial revelation has been discussed above. Both at Gibeon (1 Kgs 3:14) and at the temple’s dedication (1 Kgs 9:1ff.), Yhwh affirms support for Solomon’s kingship. 1 Kgs 3:14 is missing from 1 Chr 1:7-12. Cross (CMHE 285-87) maintains that 1 Kgs 9:4-9 derive from Dtr2. R. E. Friedman (“The Impact of the Exile”) maintains convincingly that vv 6-9 at best are exilic. By the same taken, R. B. Y. Scott (“The Pillars Jachin and Boaz,” JBL 58 [1939] 143-47) conjectures that the names of the pillars represent incipits of a Solomonic dynastic oracle. See Gray, Kings 186-89. Ishida (Dynasties 145-49) argues correctly the inextricability of the Davidic dynastic covenant from the perpetual covenant of the temple, and the election of Zion. By the same token, it is difficult to conceive that Dtr has thoroughly explored the reasons behind Jeroboam’s foundation of the Bethel and Dan sanctuaries (1 Kgs 12:25-33). No doubt the prestige and attraction of the Jerusalem temple were sources of concern. But conversely, Jeroboam’s erection or repair of shrines in Israel articulated his independence and suzerainty. Note esp. 2 Chr 11:13-17, where the deuteronomistic rationale is translated into historical event (v. 17). This material is independent of Dtr, yet seems to extrapolate on the basis of it. For further discussion of the politics of Jeroboam I, see F. Dumermuth, “Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen,” ZAW 70 (1958) 59-98, esp. p. 80; Cross, CMHE 198-99; my “Levitic Participation in the Reform Cult of Jeroboam I,” JBL 95 (1976) 31-42. Also M. A. Cohen, “The Role of the Shilonite Priesthood in the United Monarchy of Ancient Israel,” HUCA 36 (1965) 59-98, esp. 85, 91. It is perhaps of significance, for example, that the feast declared by Jeroboam in the “eighth month,” in conjunction with the renovation of Bethel (1 Kgs 12:32-33) seems to have had later ramification: Hezekiah postponed his Passover to the “second month”; it is possible that he did so in order to appeal to northerners (2 Chr 30:1-2). There is argument to this effect in S. Talmon, “Divergences in Calendar-Reckoning in Ephraim and Judah,” VT 8 (1958) 46-74. Not coincidentally, Solomon founded his temple precisely in Ziv, the “second month” (1 Kgs 6:1, 37). The problem here is ignorance of calendrical selection in the sources of the histories. An important exercise is that of E. Thiebe, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (Chicago: Eerdmans, 1951) which is flawed. See J. D. Shenkel, Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (HSM 1; Cambridge: Harvard, 1968). Also, J. Morgenstern, “The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel,” HUCA 1 (1924) 13-78. Though the histories omit mention of the covenant implicit in Jeroboam’s construction, the sources are not so quiet in the case of Jehu. 2 Chr 22:7 recognizes Jehu’s divine commission, anointment. The putsch is given short shrift, though (22:7-9). Like Saul, David, Solomon, and probably Adonijah, Jehu is anointed in private assembly, though the act itself takes place apart from Jehu’s companions (2 Kgs 9:1-10). hab-bāyetāh (v 6) is usually translated “inside.” But v 3 indicates an “interior room.” Cf. 1 Kgs 22:25. See J. M. Miller, “The Fall of the House of Ahab,” VT 17 (1967) 307-24, for argument that the presence of Jehosaphet indicates Jehorem might be the “king of Israel.” Gray (Kings 414-18) provides a sound discussion of the problem. He observes that Jorem did not fall at Rameth Gilead. But it should be observed that given the character of the narrative (“prophetic”), this is not necessarily a weighty objection. I have observed elsewhere (“Zechariah’s Temple Song”) that the king in 1 Kgs 22 treats Micaiah with scrupulous regard to the law of Dt 18. It is important to add that Asa treats Hanani the seer in precisely the same way (2 Chr 16:7-10). His son is thereafter in good stead at Jehosaphet’s court (2 Chr 19:2). Like Saul, Solomon, and Adonijah, he is proclaimed king (2 Kgs 9:13); he receives the king’s alarum (cf. 1 Kgs 1:34; 2 Kgs 11:14, Ps 47:5), and, probably, is in some makeshift way enthroned (2 Kgs 9:13). See Gray, Kings 541, 543. These are elements of the designation. The narrator of 1 Kgs 9, in fact, seems to recognize Jehu’s status when he remarks, “so Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi conspired against Joram.” In the ensuing narrative, Jehu is never called “king,” while Joram is (2 Kgs 9:15, 19, 21). Even at the death of Joram, Jehu is constrained to offer battle to the designated heir; he is, however, spared the trouble by a diplomatic coup de grâce (2 Kgs 10:1-14). On these negotiations, see Alt, “Das Königtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda,” VT 1 (1951) 2-22; G. Buccellati, “The Enthronement of the King and the Capital City in Texts from Ancient Mesopotamia and Syria,” Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1961) 54-61. See below. Jehu’s first act is to proclaim a sacrificial feast. The twist here is that the feast is meant to ensnare Baʿl worshippers. By this strategem, Jehu effects the purification of the Israelite cult (2 Kgs 10:15-28). On the Rechabites here, see J. D. Levenson, “On the Promise to the Rechebites,” CBQ 38 (1976) 508-14. Though a typically deuteronomistic notice interrupts the narrative (2 Kgs 10:29), Cf. 2 Kgs 17:20-23; 2 Kgs 10:29a–10:31b. Since v 31 has been inserted to preface vv 32-33 (which the disjunctive phrase “In these days...” marks off as separate), it is probable that v 29 was inserted to mitigate the extent of Jehu’s blessing subsequent to the insertion of v. 31. See Weinfeld, DDS 334, 337 on vv 29, 31. it is clear that Jehu’s activity produces a promise of dynasty from Yhwh: yaʿan ʾašer heṭîbōtā la-ʿsôt hay-yāšār be-ʿênāy ke-kōl ʾašer bi-lbābî ʿāśîtā le-bêt ʾaḯʾāb benê rebîʿîm yēšebû lekā ʿal kissēʾ yiśrāʾēl Since you have done well, doing what is right in my view you have done according to all that was in my heart to the house of Ahab, your children of the fourth generation shall occupy the throne of Israel. 2 Kgs 10:30 Though the fulfillment of the promise is noted in 2 Kgs 15:12, it does not necessarily follow that the prophecy was not part of Jehu’s initial covenant with Yhwh. The concept of repercussion to the fourth generation of deeds done by the first is explicit already in the decalogue (Ex 20:5). It is implicit also in Job 42:16. The Nerab inscription contains a phrase wbʿyny mḯ ʾnh bny rbʿ, “what should I see with my eyes? my fourth generation children!” KAI 226:5. This surfaces again in the inscription of Nabonidus’ mother: adi 4 lipīya balṭussunu āmurma, “I saw my offspring to the fourth generation alive.” C. J. Gadd, “The Harren Inscriptions of Nabonidus,” Anatolian Studies 8 (1958) 35-92, esp. 50.2:33-35. Cf. YOS 10.31.5:48–6:3: šarrum [u] šerrīšu adi ḫamši[šu] ina kussim [uš]šab, “The king and his offspring to the fifth generation will occupy the throne.” Thus the Jehu promise, if couched in terms redolent of deuteronomistic rhetoric (cf. 1 Kgs 14:7; 16:2; but cf. Gen 22:16), might nevertheless derive from an authentic tradition. What is interesting is the association of this royal guarantee with Jehu’s cultic purge. Again, the notice of the events of Jehu’s reign does not occur until after the sacrifice and royal promise (2 Kgs 10:32-36). The cultic act seems to be constitutive at least of the king’s covenant with god. In post-Solomonic Judah, several incidents bear out this conclusion. Perhaps plainest is the case of Joash. Here the investment, anointment, and acclamation (“Long live the king!”) occur in the temple (2 Kgs 11:4-12). As Athaliah, the queen, is led off (2 Kgs 11:13-16), Jehoiada makes a covenant “between Yhwh and between him (Joash) and the people” (2 Kgs 11:17; 2 Chr 23:l6). This is extremely confused. GL and 2 Chr 23:16 omit the “and between the king and the people” at the end of 2 Kgs 11:17. This phrase is a dittography under the hexaplaric obelisk. 2 Chr 23:16 reads, “Jahoiada made a covenant between him (self?) and all the people and the king to be Yhwh’s people.” 2 Kgs 11:17 reads “Yhwh” for “him,” omits “all” (correctly), and metathesizes “the people” and “the king.” The simplest solution is to assume a metathesis in one or the other version (prps. Chr, in view of “to be Yhwh’s people” and the precedence of the monarch); the variation between “him” and “Yhwh” is in this view negligible. However, the problem is complicated by two considerations. First, covenants seem in the ancient Near East to have been almost universally bilateral (see, e.g., Wiseman, VTE; note Thucydides 5.18-19, for strong evidence that this was the case in Greece); the tripartite pact constructed here is at best unusual, despite the argument of Ishida (Dynasties 115-16) to the contrary. Second, 2 Chr 23:16 continues 2 Chr 23:11 directly. The “between him” of Chr may therefore have referred originally to Joash, while “the king” entered as an expansion. In other words, the interpretation of the v is extremely precarious. It cannot bear the burdens imposed on it, e.g., by Fohrer (“Vertrag” 11-13) and Gray (Kings 579-80). The reconstruction proposed here, while hardly secure, is based on the consideration that the covenant between god and king has already been established (see below); further, the avowed purpose of the covenant is to make king and people belong to Yhwh; finally, the covenant between king and people has been contracted (by the acclamation), and will be consummated at the enthronement. Hence this must be a covenant between king and people on the one hand, and Yhwh (Jehoiada) on the other. Immediately thereafter, before the enthronement a cultic purge occurs (2 Kgs 11:18; 2 Chr 23:1l7ff.). Grey (Kings 565-69, following loosely B. Stade, “Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 10–14,” ZAW 5 [1885] 276-97) notes the tendency to divide 2 Kgs 11 into two sources—his “priestly” and “popular” versions. The linch-pin of the argument is that Athaliah’s death is reported twice (11:16, 20). Gray mentions that v 16 might be proleptic of v 20, or v 20 a “circumstantial amplification” of v 16. What he does not fully reckon with is the problem of simultaneity. The Athaliah interlude interrupts the narrative as it proceeds from v 12 to v 17. It comprehends events both preceding and succeeding the time of the interruption. See further Rudolf, “Sturz der Atalje” 473-78; esp. M. Liverani, “L’histoire de Joas,” VT 24 (1974) 438-53. It would appear as though the renewal of the cult was directly related to the royal covenant. The chronology of Joash’ temple repairs (2 Kgs 12:4-16; 2 Chr 24:4-15) is too unclear to permit treatment here. Not curiously, many of the elements of Joash’s accession seem to be shared by Jehu. Less clear are the cases of Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reforms. Dtr introduces Hezekiah’s reign with the notice that he “eliminated the high places and cut down the Asherab....” (2 Kgs 18:4); 2 Chr 29:3ff., however, speak of a stringent purification in the first year of his reign. While the episode is consonant with Hezekiah’s policy, it appears from the sequence in Chr (esp. 2 Chr 30:1ff.) that the issue of Davidic irredentism may have been paramount. Nevertheless, the text as it stands associates the renovation with the covenant between Hezekiah and Yhwh: “How it is in my heart to make a covenant with Yhwh the god of Israel...” (2 Chr 29:10). Whether this tradition is historically authentic or not, the temple renewal is elemental to the covenant. Scholars have frequently dismissed Hezekiah’s reform as Chr’s invention. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (Cleveland: Meridian, 1965) 46-47, 480; B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (SBT 2/2; London: SCM, 1967) 83-84. H. H. Rowley, “Hezekiah’s Reform and Rebellion,” BJRL 44 (1961) 395-431; esp. H. Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Aššur: A Chronological-Historical Study,” JCS 12 (1958) 23-40, 77-100. Josiah’s reform did not occur at the outset of his reign (when he was eight). 2 Chr 34:3 records that he began eliminating the high places in his twelfth year (c. 629), and in his eiqhteenth (c. 621) began the renovation of the temple (so, too, 2 Kgs 22:3ff.). On the chronology, see D. N. Freedman and F. M. Cross “Josiah’s Revolt against Assyria,” JNES 12 (1953) 56-58. Cf. Gray, Kings 724-725. Kgs has lost the events between the eighth (2 Chr 34:3) and eighteenth (2 Chr 34:8; 2 Kgs 22:3) years of his reign by simple homoioarcton in an earlier text-form. The result is the discovery of the law-code, which lends impetus to the reform. The covenant theme is present here: as in the case of Joash, it takes the form of a pact between king and people on the one hand and Yhwh on the other (2 Kgs 23:1-3); the destruction of pollutant cult paraphernalia ensues, again as in Joash’ case (2 Kgs 23:4ff.) Here, however, the emphasis is laid on the law-book. While this does not mean that the purification of the cult should be isolated as irrelevant, the importance of the law-book does somewhat mitigate the relation between covenant renewal and temple construction. At the same time, it is apparent that the construction and purification again are integral to the reaffirmation of the covenant. See N. Lohfink, “Die Bundesurkunde des Königs Josias,” Bib 44 (1963) 261-288, esp. 277; Cross, CMHE 278-285 on this episode, but esp. on the Josianic date of Dtr1. Cf. A. Jepsen, “Des Buch der Könige, seine Quelle und seine Redaktion,” Euchanisterian (FRLANT 18; Fs. Gunkel; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923) 1.158-213; Die Quellen des Königsbuches (2nd ed.; Halle: Niemayer, 1956). But Jepsen threw 1 Kgs 1-11 and most prophetic material into the exile, a view far too extreme and ill-founded. See W. Nowack, “Dsuteronomium und Regum,” K. Budde, ed., Vom Alten Testament (BZAW 41; Fs. K. Marti; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1925) 221-31, who pushes the main compilation into the pre-exilic era. After the Return, the issue of the second temple evoked the old associations. This is not so clear in the narratives of Chr and Ezra, as in the “night vision” of Zecheriah (1:7–6:15). This poem, addressed to the foundation of the temple, See my “Ritual Background.” My conclusions were anticipated by A. Petitjean, “La Mission de Zorobbabel et la Reconstruction du Temple,” ETL 42 (1966) 40-71; Les Oracles du Proto-Zacharie (Paris: Gabalda, 1969); E. Lipínski, “Recherches sur le livre de Zacharie,” VT 20 (1970) 25-55, esp. 30-33; D. L. Peterson, “Zerubbabel and Jerusalem Temple Reconstruction,” CBQ 36 (1974) 366-72. identifies Zerubbabel as the builder (Zech 4:9; 6:12-13). Nevertheless, it terms him ṣemaḯ “Shoot” (3:8; 6:12), or legitimate, but uninauqurated, successor to the throne. See Petitjean, “Mission de Zorobbabel” 63-71. See esp. Jer 23:5. Only a few promises are made to Zerubbabel: first, he will be assisted by Yhwh’s “spirit” (4:6-7); second, he will complete the temple (4:8-9; 6:12); On 4:10, “who has mocked the day of small things,” see below. third, he will rule from his throne (cf. Ps 96:6), with the high priest on his right (6:13). Reading with GB. Cf. Ps 110:1, 4. The completion of the temple and assumption of the throne are bound together in the final oracle (6:12-13). A fourth promise (6:12) looks as though it treats the succession. In any case, the relationship of Yhwh and Zerubbabel hinges on Zerubbabel’s status as temple builder. In this connection, the fact that only in the peroration does Zerubbabel receive the throne suggests that the ceremony of foundation constitutes a claim to it. This conclusion finds further corroboration in texts from Mesopotamia. The identical ideology, for example, underlies the preface to the code of Hammurabi (CH). The text used here is E. Bergmann, ed., Codex Ḫammunabi, Textus Primogenius (Rome: P.B.I., 19533). Like all law-codes, this document is a contract, between society and the state, or, in ancient terms, between society and the representatives of the gods. Similarly, e.g., the deuteronomic code (our Dtn). See Baltzer, Covenant Formulary 31-38; Weinfeld (DDS 59-157, esp. 146-57) has already reached this conclusion, though he seems to maintain a distinction between treaty- and law-code-form. It follows the contract pattern established throughout the Near East: See above, Chap. 1, n. 59; Chap. 2, n. 18. it begins with the introduction of Hammurabi, and of his mission to the “blackheaded people”; it rehearses his deeds as builder of the empire; it articulates the purpose of the covenant (mīšaram ana šӯpîm cf. CH 5.14-24). Following these preliminaries are the laws themselves; then come invocations of the gods to bless, or to curse. Finally, Hammurabi provides for the code’s consultation by future kings. It is inscribed on a stela, presumably to be deposited in sanctuary. See D. J. Wiseman, “The Laws of Hammurabi Again,” JSS 7 (1962) 166-67. In context, then, the prologue functions much like prologues in other Near Eastern suzerainty pacts—it establishes the validity of the document. However, Hammurabi places emphasis on his relationship to the gods. He speaks of himself as the “eternal seed of kingship” (zērum dārium ša šarrūtim—5:1-2), commissioned by Marduk (S:14-19) and numerous other gods. Cf. Urukagina’s reform (SAKI 52ff.), where a covenant with Ningirsu is made. See Cone B + C 7:29–13:13. I follow here the translation of T. Jacobsen, “Ancient Mesopotamian Religion: The Central Concerns,” Toward the Image of Tammaz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture, W. L. Moran, ed. (HSS 21; Cambridge: Harvard, 1970) 39-47, 319-34, in 330 n. 21. Yet, consistently, the concrete evidence he presents is instigation of and participation in temple building, repair, or maintenance (CH 1:58-64, 66, 2:4; 2:7-12, 18-21, 26-31, 34-36, 42-47, 52-54, 60-67; 3:4-6, 13-15, 33-35, 43-46, 62-69). There are many other instances in the Prologue. Cf. VAS l.37.2:8ff.; ABLSS 527:14-19; King, LIH 1.70. The temple builder is in league with the god. To review the catalogue of subsequent Babylonian temple construction would be a monotonous enterprise. It is sufficient to observe that such activity seems almost always to have been the province of the king, at least in periods in which the monarchy was firmly established. See, e.g., A. Goetze, “An Inscription of Simbar-Šîḫu,” JCS 19 (1965) 121-35, esp. 123-24; Gadd, UET 1.166-67, 306; 8.101; H. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia (London: R. E. Bowler, 1861-84) 1.5 #22. See also J. A. Brinkman, “Merodach-Baladan II,” Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim 6-53, esp. 17-18, 42, #44.2.2-3; 44.2.3. For the later period, see G. Goosens, “Les recherches historiques à l’epoquea néo-babylonienne,” RA 42 (1948) 149-59. J. A. Brinkman has maintained that temple repair performed by local officials in eighth c. Babylon indicates weakness on the part of the crown. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia 1158-722 B.C. (AnOr 43; Rome: P.B.I., 1968) 295. Brinkman cites A. S. Strong, “Four Cuneiform Texts,” JRAS 1892 337-68, esp. 350-68; YOS 9.74; BIN 2.31; BM 113205 (unavailable to me). Similarly, the ritual text from Babylon prescribing temple reconstruction procedure (K 48+), R. Borger, “Des Tempelbau-Ritual K4B+,” ZA 61 (1971) 72-80. stipulates that the king is the builder. He is neither addressed nor characterized as “king” until after the execution of the foundation ceremony (1.59). This indicates once again the construction of a temple creates a bond between king and god and is, as in the case of Solomon, a constitutive act of the accession. See above, and the placement of the regnal formula (1 Kgs 4:1) after the Gibeonite sacrifice. 1 Chr 28:5-7 attach the selection of Solomon to his destiny as temple builder (on 1 Chr 28:6, cf. Zech 6:12). Additional parallels can be found in Esarhadden’s prayer linking the survival of his dynasty with that of the foundation of Esaǧila (Borger, Asarhaddon 11, esp. 39.7:42–8:9); see also NBKI 60-64, esp. 64.3:31-49, for a similar prayer by Nabopolassar at the refoundation of Etemenanki. Cf. 2 Chr 6:5-6. C. The Dynastic Covenant In determining, therefore, the character of the ʿēdût bestowed on the king, it is legitimate to appeal also to covenants made between Yhwh and the king at the provision of a sanctuary, or at moments when such provision is in issue. For similar concepts, see A. S. Kapelrud, “Temple Building: A Task for Gods and Kings,” Or 32 (1963) 56-62. Cf. also 2 Chr 24:4-14; 29-31; 34:3–35:20; T. Jacobsen, “Formative Tendencies in Sumerian Religion,” TIT 1-15, pp. 10-11. Two cases have been examined above (Ps 132; 2 Sam 7). These tie in with a whole complex of covenant tradition pertaining to the Davidic line. It has been observed that dynasty in the northern kinqdom depended on Yhwh’s undertaking, subject to the condition of the king’s fealty. See above, Chap. 2b. This is the scheme promoted by the deuteronomistic histories of northern kings; to judge from the emphasis of the histories on the prophets, the scheme may also have represented a tenet of the northern quilds. See below for discussion of royal constitution. Insofar as these guild prophets seem to stem from the tradition established by Samuel, See Albright, Samuel, loc. cit.; Cross, CMHE 221-29. such a construct draws support from the histories of Saul’s reign: the continuation of Saul’s dynasty was, according to 1 Samuel (esp. 13:13), Read lû for lōʾ, syntactically preferable. contingent on Saul’s observance of Yhwh’s commands. See Chap. 1 n. 76 and again, below, on Saul’s kingship. Similar formulations concerning the Davidic dynasty have been discerned in Ps 132:11-12. See above Chap 2a. The psalm places this affirmation in the context of David’s transferring the ark to Jerusalem. Not coincidentally, Solomon cites the psalm at the dedication of the temple (2 Chr 6:41-42). Again, this need not represent an historical detail. Chr’s association testifies to the relationship between Ps 132 and the Davidic processional. The prose source presents a somewhat different version. Here, David is assured that Yhwh will set a son on his throne (2 Sam 7:12; 1 Chr 17:1l). Reading with 1 Chr 17:11 malkûtô (“kingship”) for mamlaktô (“kingdom”). The departure from Ps 132 occurs at this point: Yhwh also undertakes to guarantee the eternal establishment of the son’s “throne” (2 Sam 7:13; 2 Chr 17:12). Reading with Chr “he will build me a house”; see GL. Mettinger (King and Messiah 53) adopts the conflate reading of OG. The formula of divine adoption—”I shall be his father, and he will be my son” (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 17:13) Cf. the term of national adaption: “You will be my people, and I shall be your god,” and its variants (Ex 6:7; Lev 26:12; Dt 26:17-18; 29:12(?); 2 Sam 7:23-24 = 1 Chr 17:22; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 36:28; 37:23,27; Zech 2:15; 8:8; cf. Dt 4:20; 7:6; 14:2; 27:9; 28:9; 1 Sam 12:22; 2 Kgs 11:17—2 Chr 23:16). Note that the formula is associated with national divine sonship, e.g. in Dt 14:1-2 (v 2 is probably a gloss variant of v 1a). None of the occurrences (barring this gloss) appear in the core-law of Dt (i.e. chs. 12[13]-25[26:l5]). On Israel’s divine adoption, see D. J. McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy and the Father-Son Relationship between Yahweh and Israel,” CBQ 27 (1965) 144-47; H. J. Boecker, “Anmerkungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament,” ZAW 86 (1974) 86-89; Mettinger, King and Messiah 254-75.—follows. 2 Sam 7:14 adds that the son will be liable to punishment for violation of divine ordinance. In any case, Yhwh will not abrogate his assurance; David’s (2 Sam 7:16) or his son’s (1 Chr 17:14) throne will endure forever. 2 Sam 7:16 is the preferred reading: Ps 89:20-38 applies the material to David, not his son. Cf. 1 Kgs 11:12, 13, 32, 34, 36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19; 20:6; 2 Chr 21:7. Chr is again stressing Solomon’s dynastic legitimacy—see above, Chap. 1 n. 47. Mettinger (King and Messiah 56-60) holds the reverse. But his attempt to discover an early Solomonic prophecy beneath late Davidic dynastic assurances is founded on intimations too minor to be reliable (e.g., the switch from a dynastic interest to one in Solomon back to a dynastic interest). Certainly, that David’s “prayer” (7:18-29) makes no mention of the temple is no indication of the relative ages of the (posited) temple—Solomon and dynastic strata. In fact, this alignment itself is not necessarily correct. Once Mettinger (pp. 54ff., and bibliography there) has conceded that an original anti-temple prophecy underlay the temple-Solomon revisions, he has left room only far a dynastic promise. See below. Commentators have been quick to seize on the differences between 2 Sam 7 and Ps 132. Cross has argued that the dynastic covenant of Ps 132 is “conditional.... Obedience is explicitly required.” Schematically, The notion of a conditional covenant of kingship, a codicil, so to speak, in Israel’s covenant with Yahweh (after the manner of the dynastic stipulations in suzerainty treaties), fits well with the conditional Tent of David, and its Ark of the old covenant. It fits not at all into the ideology of the dynastic temple, the eternal dwelling of the deity, and the symbol of the permanent house or dynasty. CMHE 233. In other words, the association of perpetual kingship and temple (divine palace) expressed in Ee and the Baʿl-Yamm cycle, is not reflected in Ps 132 in promises of perpetual dynasty. See Chap. 2, section b. Leadership remains contingent on the fealty of the king to the god: Cross equates this conditionality with the kind of patriarchal leadership reflected in the Uqaritic texts in El’s pavilioned dwelling. See CMHE 185; Mullen, Divine Council (forthcoming). In essence, the mobility of the tent-shrine permits the rejection of kinq and capital. For the organic nature of their association, see Buccellati, “Enthronement” 54-61. The notion of the tent, therefore, is characteristically incompatible with secure dynasty. Note that Johnson (Sacral Kingship 19-25) finds similarly no trace of dynastic grant in Psalm 132. By contrast, 2 Sam 7 links dynasty and temple. Its present form promulgates an “unconditional” covenant of kingship. So Johnson, Sacral Kingship 25-3O; Cross, CMHE 257-59. This tradition may inform the emphasis of the Deuteronomistic History on David’s everlasting kingship over Judah. See references in n. 117. On David’s ownership of Jerusalem, see Ishida, Dynasties 122-36. It is reformulated poetically in Ps 89:20-38: 20 I placed the youth over the warrior; I read ġzr, “youth,” with Dahood, Psalms 2.309; Johnson, Sacral Kingship 26 n. 5; Cross, CMHE 258; but I cannot accept Dahood’s and Cross’s šiwwîtî (*ṯwy), “I made king.” This usage is found only in the place-name šwh-Valley in a peculiar chapter (Gen 14:17), and is glossed, “i.e. the King’s Valley,” since its meaning is unclear. See A. A. Wieder, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Lexicographic Notes,” JBL 84 (1965) 160-62. Ps 21:6 makes the emendation of ʿzr to nēzer attractive. I raised a boy from among the people. 21 I found David my servant; With my holy oil I anointed him. This is part of the nāgîd-formula. V 21 speaks of anointment after spying out. V 20d echoes 1 Kgs 14:7; 16:2. Cf. 2 Sam 7:8. 22 With whom my hand stands; Indeed, my arm stays him. 23 His enemy will not overtake him; Nor shall the pervert oppress him. Cf. 2 Sam 7:10 where this stich is applied to Israel. 24 I shall pulverize his foes before him; For ktt “pulverize,” see 2 Kgs 18:4; 2 Chr 34:7; Dt 9:21 (a suggestive alignment of parallels). The verb seems really to mean “beat flat, beat out.” This is a variant of 2 Sam 7:9. His antagonists I shall thump. 25 For my faith and loyalty are with him, and his “horn” will be raised in my name. 26 I shall set his hand over the Sea, Over the Rivers his right hand. 27 He will address me, “You are my father, My god, and the rock of my salvation,” 28 While I, I shall make him the first born, Most high of the kings of Earth. 29 I shall keep forever my loyalty to him; And my covenant is guaranteed him. 30 I shall make his seed perpetual, His throne like the days of the Heavens. 31 If his sons abandon my torah, Do not keep in step with my judgments, 32 If they violate my statutes, And do not keep my commands, 33 I shall respond to their rebellion with the rod, And with pummeling to their sin. 34 But I shall not abrogate my loyalty to him, Nor shall I belie my faith. 35 I shall not violate my covenant, Nor change the utterance of my lips. 36 Once I have sworn by my holiness; David I shall not betray. 37 His seed will endure forever, His throne like the sun before me; 38 Like the moon, it is fixed eternally, And its witness in the ether assured. This section derives from a tradition similar to that of 2 Sam 7 in its present state. H. van den Bussche (Le texte de la prophetie de Nathan sur la dynastie davidique (Analecta Lovanienses Biblica et Orientalia 2/7; Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1948] 354-94) and N. Sarna (“Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann [Studies and Texts 1; Cambridge: Harvard, 1963] 29-46) hold the pastry is derivative from the prose tradition. G. Ahlström (Psalm 89. Eine Liturgie aus dem Ritual des Leidenden Königs [Lund: Gleerup, 1959] 182-85) holds the reverse. J. L. McKenzie (“The Dynastic Oracle: II Samuel,7,” TS 8 [1947] 187-218) and A. Caquot (“La Prophetie de Nathan et ses echos lyriques,” Congress Volume, Bonn [SVT 9; Leiden: Brill, 1963] 213-24) maintain a common origin of the versions (in my view correctly). The psalm echoes Nathan’s address particularly in its promise that David’s offspring will be liable only to defeat, not to utter destruction (Ps 89:31-5; 2 Sam 7:14-16). While other correspondences exist, E.g., Ps 89:34a = 2 Sam 7:15e with GB, Chr ʾāsîr. See above. no effort has been made at complete verbatim reproduction. In part, this reflects the variation in the two texts’ orientation: the prophecy in 2 Sam 7 is addressed to David; that in Ps 89 is an oracle concerning him. Nevertheless, the two texts share the concept of perpetual dynasty, the divine adoption. Ps 89:26 augments this with the note that the king is set over Sea/River; he is the mundane counterpart of Yhwh, enthroned, as has been noted, on the Flood. Whether or not the dynastic grant attested in Ps 89 was originally included in the oracle of 2 Sam 7 is a moot point. S. Herrmann has compared 2 Sam 7 to the Egyptian royal protocol accompanying acts of building, etc. (Königsnovelle). Herrmann (“Die Königsnovelle in Ägypten und in Israel,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig 3 [1953/4] 51-83) also treats 1 Kgs 3:4-15 (51-62) in this light. Cf. Cross, CMHE 247-49. The parallel remains useful: cf. CH Prologue; Gudea Cyls. A + B; the dream of Nabonidus, etc. The genre is common in royal histories. The real criticism of Herrmann’s thesis is that such motifs as adoption from childhood (pp. S4-55) are common throughout the area. See, e.g., S. Paul, “Deutero-Isaiah and Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions,” JAOS 88 (1968) 180-86. Similarly, expressions of righteousness are hardly evidence of Egyptian influence. The other parallels, esp. between 1 Kgs 3:4-15 and the Sphinx Stele (ANET3 449), are equally broad. Herrmann presumes the unity of the chapter; this conclusion has been championed particularly by D. J. Mccarthy, who maintains that 2 Sam 7 fits into a series of programmatic addresses distributed through the Deuteronomistic History. McCarthy, “II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” JBL 84 (1965) 131-38. So also Noth, “David and Israel in II Samuel VII,” Laws in the Pentateuch 250-59; E. Kutsch, “Die Dynastie von Gottes Gnaden. Probleme der Nathanweissagung in 2 Sam 7,” ZTK 58 (1961) 137-53; A. Weiser, “Der Tempelbaukrise unter David,” ZAW 77 (1965) 153-68. Noth, Kutsch, and Weiser hold for a Davidic date. Cf. Carlson, David 97ff.; H. Gese, “Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwählung,” ZTK 61 (1964) 10-27. At the same time, it has been almost universally recognized that the original oracle rejected David’s construction plans: the language in 2 Sam 7:4-7 is unequivocal in its predilection for the tent, and seems to have been intended as a permanent reply. See Noth, “David and Israel” 250-59; Cross, CMHE 241-46; McCarthy, “II Samuel 7” 131-32; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Sinaibund und Davidsbund,” VT 10 (1960) 335-41; Weiser, “Tempelbaukrise” 153-68; V. M. Rabe, “Israelite Opposition to the Temple,” CBQ 29 (1967) 228-33; T. E. Fretheim, “The Priestly Document: Anti-Temple?” VT 18 (1968) 318-29; R. E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant (SBT 43; London: SCM, 1965) 56-62. Cf. particularly the somewhat unconvincing argument of Ishida (Dynasties 85-98) that the prophecy is as it stands original. Mettinger (King and Messiah 48-50) has provided a useful review of scholarship. This consideration has prompted efforts to recover the original oracle from the claws of deuteronomistic rhetoric. And this enterprise has led to the detachment of the dynastic assurances in vv 11bff. As Noth, “David and Israel” 250-59; Cross, CMHE 354-57. Cross’s list of deuteronomistic cliches in 2 Sam 7 (252-54) is helpful. But most cannot be cited as proof. Nor does re-working, even if conceded, necessarily indicate substantial change. See preceding n. and L. Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3/6; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926) 49; Noth, US 64-65. The result is not surprising in view of the cleavage between vv 11a and 11b. See Cross, CMHE 256, for the reading of 2 Sam 7:11b. This cleavage has resulted, however, from the displacement of vv 10-11a, which belong to the context of 2 Sam 7:6-7 (probably between the two), rehearsing the early history of Israel in Canaan. In their current position, they interrupt the address to David concerning his career. By the same token, the evidence assembled above, and the parallel with Ps 132, suggest that a dynastic covenant of some sort is called for in 2 Sam 7. Cross CMHE 258 n. 171) seems to acknowledge this. Weinfeld (DDS 23, 37-38 n. 4) holds the originality of the dynastic grant. Cf. M. Tsevat, “Studies in the Book of Samuel, III: The Steadfast House: What Was David Promised in II Sam. 7:11b-16?” HUCA 34 (1963) 71-82. Thus, at best, it might be maintained that the oracle of Nathan has been altered to make David’s dynasty independent of conditions (see esp. n. 161). Cross, maintaining roughly such a position, argues that the doctrine of perpetual dynasty belongs to the Solomonic rather than Davidic monarchy. CMHE 260-61. His view is somewhat embarrassed, however, by the so-called “last words of David” (2 Sam 23:1-7). This lyric is unique in a number of respects. It alone in HB speaks of the “anointed of the god of Jacob,” or of anyone other than Yhwh (23:1). David, in it, claims divine inspiration (23:2), a claim which, if paralleled in Solomon’s dream reports, is unusual for any Israelite king, particularly in poetry. Most of the material is impenetrable. However, one thing is clear: David claims to have an everlasting covenant with the god. How could my house not be fixed with El, On kî lōʾ (2 Sam 23:5 bis, 6), cf. EA 254:38-46. Cf. Cross, CMHE 235 n. 74; Johnson, Sacral Kingship 18-19. Since he has made me an eternal covenant, The alternative—to read ʿôlām as “the Eternal One” (Cross, CMHE 236 n. 78)—is unappealing, and would be highly unusual in HB. Properly drawn up and safeguarded? Following S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 360. What an “eternal covenant” is remains vague. Cross observes that P’s encompasses the conditions of the Sinai pact (see Gen 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Num 18:19; 25:13). CMHE 236. But whether conditionality cannot be subsumed under the rubric of an eternal covenant is not clear: it might be argued that the covenant in 2 Sam 7 // Ps 89 is eternal, but conditional. Despite his apophasis, Cross has confused condition with duration. Conversely, the contract of Ps 132:11-12 might be said to be conditional, but given the fulfillment of the conditions, eternal. An interesting case, therefore, occurs in 1 Sam 2:30, in which an everlasting covenant is in fact revoked by Yhwh. The house of Shiloh is suddenly dispossessed. In practical terms, this means that a tradition of eternal priestly dynasty existed prior to the destruction of Shiloh (or expulsion of Abiathar from the temple); The case of Gideon’s kingship is illuminating here. See below for discussion, and J. D. Levenson, “On the Promise to the Rechabites,” CBQ 38 (1976) 508-14, esp. 513 n. 22. the vagaries of domestic politics, however, forced the doctrine’s repudiation. The same oracle transfers the grant to a “legitimate priest” who is to come (1 Sam 2:35). The alternative construct, that the promulgaters of the second “everlasting covenant” retrojected this type into the past, and then annulled it, is both over-complex and ideologically naive. It is striking that a party claiming its own eternal covenant should even concede that the previous one had been voided! The rehearsals of David’s and Solomon’s contracts shed some light on the problem. These fall into several categories, the first of which is a refrain unreflected in Chr: “for the sake of David,” whom Yhwh chose (1 Kgs 11:34; with Jerusalem 1 Kgs 11:12-13, 32; cf. 2 Kgs 20:6); alternately, for the sake of David, to whom Yhwh promised a fief (nîr) On the nîr, see P. D. Hanson, “The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nîr,” HTR 61 (1968) 297-320, esp. 310-20. in Jerusalem forever (1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19; 2 Chr 21:7). 2 Chr 21:7 depends on 2 Kgs 8:19. This clause is used to justify Yhwh’s failure to strip the Davidides of all possession; its meaning is more or less clear: under no circumstances will Yhwh revoke his guarantee that David’s line will occupy the throne in Jerusalem. But curiously, the only oracular material in which a “fief” is guaranteed David is that cited in Ps 132:17: “There I shall cause to flourish a ‘horn’ for David; I have arranged a fief for my anointed.” The feudal language associated with the “unconditional,” or, better, eternal covenant appears in a context usually distinguished as belonging to a “conditional” or temporary covenant tradition. See above on the integration of v 17 into Ps 132. “I have arranged” (ʿāraktî) is, in these promises, echoed only in 2 Sam 23:5. The fief-formulae belong to a type of transaction common to all monarchical and many democratic societies, best described as a land-grant. In the Near East, this was universally at the dispensation of the suzerain. Cases from Babylon, E.g., BBSt #6, 8. See also MDP 2, 93-94, and BBSt in general. CT 34.40.3:20-21; 41.4:14, 22, which illustrate royal authority over boundaries, suggest the constitutional basis of the practice. Assyria, E.g., J. Kohler and A. Ungnad, Assyrische Rechtsurkunden (Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1913) 1-30 (neo-Assyrian) Hatti, E.g., KUB 26.43 (= 26.50), analyzed in V. Korošec, “Einige Juristische Bemerkungen zur Šaḫurunuva-Urkunde,” Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 35 (1945) 191-222. See, too, H. Güterbock, Siegel aus Bogazköy (AfO Bhft. 5; Graz: Weider, 1940) 47-55; D. J. Wiseman, “Abban and Alalaḫ,” JCS 12 (1958) 124-29; Alalakh Tablets, #1. and Ugarit See, e.g, PRU 3, 15.70, 15.88, 15.122, 15.155, 16.138, 16.139, 16.204, etc. RS 19.103 (UT 2032) is probably of a similar nature. See O. Eissfeldt, “Kultvereine in Ugarit,” Ugaritica 6 (1972) 187-95. are numerous. Examples are also available from Elephantine. See A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923) #6, 8, 13, 25. But it is worth observing that the formulae common to this category, beginning with the phrase “for the sake of David,” make no mention of kingship or any of its Hebrew metonyms. Thus, it would be premature to mix the two types. At the same time, it is tempting to draw a comparison between the fief-tradition and that of the ancestral covenant of kingship. In the letter, though the king be disloyal, his heirs are given the throne. E.g, J. Friedrich, Staatsverträge des Hatti Reiches (MVÄG 34, 1; 1930) 6.1-2 (esp. 137-38). #3.7-8, 21-2 (MVÄG 31, 1; 1926) mark the grant as having been made even though Kapanta-Kal’s father had rebelled. Thus, though the individual monarch is liable to punishment, the continuity of the dynastic line is assured. Wiseman, Alalakh Tablets #6. This seems consistent with the invocation of the fief formula, e.g. in 2 Kgs 8:19. It is paralleled by Ps 89//2 Sam 7 in their guarantee of ongoing Davidic rule. The second major strand of tradition centers about the phrase “There will not fail you (David) a man on the throne of Israel.” This promise is cited in 1 Kgs 2:2-4; 8:25 (= 2 Chr 6:16); 9:4-5 (= 2 Chr 7:17) (cf. 2 Kgs 10:32; 15:12). Each time it is associated with David. Together with 1 Chr 28:6-7, 1 Kgs 6:11-13, and 1 Kgs 11:38, these exemplars associate the continuity of the dynasty with the observance of Yhwh’s paths. Cross has assigned several of them to his exilic deuteronomistic editor, who could reckon with the dynasty’s ostensible end. CMHE 287 on 1 Kgs 2:4; 6:11-13; 8:25b; 9:4-9. Cf. Friedman, “Impact of Exile”; Friedman makes the distinction embraced here between treatments of the fief-form (unconditional) and treatments of the Israelite throne (which he maintains are always conditional). The consistent presence of the conditionality argues against it; similarly, a passage such as 1 Kgs 2:2-4 can be said at best to reiterate the ideas expressed already in Ps 132:11-12. Thus, even where deuteronomistic language is in evidence, the sentiment seems faithfully to have been preserved; Deuteronomistic language does not imply deuteronomistic theology—independent of the sources. That an account is couched in the historian’s terms hardly means that it is his invention. though 1 Kgs 9:3-9, for example, affirm the eternal selection of the temple and then proceed to provide for the temple’s rejection (9:3, 6-9), it is hardly indisputable that an exilic writer has had a hand in the composition. See preceding n. Cf. Cross, CMHE 287; Friedman, “Impact.” 1 Kgs 9:4-5S are a response to 1 Kgs 8:25. Sandwiched between 1 Kgs 9:3 and 1 Kgs 9:6-9, they are in proper context (see section b); there is no transparent seam here. Stylistically, vv 6-9 might be Dtr2; this would not affect vv 4-5. On this and 1 Kgs 2:2-4, see Noth, Könige, ad loc. Cf., e.g., Mic 3:12, Jer 26:18. This cluster of oracles pieces responsibility for righteousness on David’s eons, or, to be more specific, on Solomon. Unlike the land-grant constellation, for which either 1 Kgs 11:36 or Ps 132:17 might be cited, the “conditional” covenant oracles allude to a promise not actually recorded in the same terms: “there will not fail you a man on the throne of Israel. On Jer 33:17ff. see below. Jeremiah is, in my view, quoting the phrase. Cross (CMHE 259 n. 179) observes that Jer 33:14-26 are absent from the short Greek text (OG—see J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah [HSM 6; Cambridge: Harvard, 1973]). He argues that the use of the term “Levitic priests,” however, indicates an origin in Dtr circles. E. W. Nicholson (Preaching to the Exiles [Oxford: Blackwell, 1970] 91-92) supports this view strongly. However, if v 15 does refer to Zedekiah (as, e.g., J. Bright, Jeremiah [AB 21; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965] 146; A. Weiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jeremie [ATD 20-21; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1952-5] 2.204-06), then the prophecy of restoration (esp. Jer 33:23-26) makes sense. Though Jehoiachin’s line is excluded (as Jer 22:28-30), Zedekiah’s is not. Though S. Herrmann (Die prophetische Heilserwartungen in Alten Testament [BWANT 85; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965] 221 n. 22) and Nicholson (Preaching 90-91 n. 4) see Jer 30:1 as presuming the destruction of David’s line, the emphasis on the coming ruler’s endogeny is merely a reference to Dt 17:14-20. 33:14-26 are probably authentic. See Jer 36:30. They distinguish themselves further from the grant-type in that they treat kingship, specifically over Israel. It is illuminating that Ps 132 separates the kingship (vv 11-12) from David’s fiefdom (v 17). The former is guaranteed in perpetuum to David’s offspring, given their observance of the covenant stipulations, just as in the “there shall not fail you...” set of promises. The latter is by definition a perpetual grant, But see BBSt 8, 24, for temporary royal grants. like the “fief”-type oracles in Kings. The practice of tracing these oracles to an origin in Dtr’s ideology, See n. 156. whether in whole or in part, E.g., see Cross, CMHE 287. Cf. Mettinger, King and Messiah 256-57, 275-83. does not address these distinctions. It neglects further the function of the conditional promises in the Solomonic court history: Chr’s version, for example, preserves only the equivalents of 1 Kgs 8:25; 9:3-9 (2 Chr 6:16; 7:16-22). A similar admonition from David’s mouth (1 Chr 28:6-7) recapitulates 2 Sam 7 (1 Chr 17); The announcement of building follows the text of 1 Chr 17:12. Note 1 Chr 28:7, we-hakînôtî ʾet malkûtô ʿad ʿôlām for 1 Chr 17:11 we-hakînôtî ʾet malkôtô and 17:12 we-kônantî ʾet kisʾô ʿad ʿôlām (= 2 Sam 7:12c + 13). A glance at Ps 89 reveals the significance of the pair zrʿ//ksʾ (89:5, 30, 37), a unique configuration. This pair is recovered in 2 Sam 7 by omitting vv 12bB-13a. “...who will come from your loins (mʿyk)” is an expansion in 2 Sam 7:12bB (cf. 1 Chr 17:11, “...who will be [one of] your sons”; 1 Kgs 8:18-19 “your son who will come from your loins [ḯlṣyk]”). 2 Sam 7:12c-13a is an insertion marked off by the contextual epanalepsis 2 Sam 7:12c//13b. The original text ran: k ymlʾ ymkškb ʾt ʾbtk hqmt zrʿk ʾḯrkwknnt ksʾh ʿd ʿwlm ʾn ʾhy lh lʾbwhwʾ yhy ly lbn wḯsdy lʾ ʾsr mʿmhb bhʿwth whkḯth pqdth bšbt ʾnšm wbngʿ bn ʾdm When your days are full and you lie with your fathers, I shall raise your seed after you, and shall establish his throne for ever. I shall be his father, and he will be my son. I shall not strip from him my loyalty: When he strays, I shall chastise him; I shall attend to him with the rod of men, And with the blows of humans. The ground for the haplography in 1 Chr 17 of all but the first line of the second stanza seems to have been the occurrence of le-pānệkā in 2 Sam 7:15, 16a, as in 1 Chr 17:13. Note Ps 89:27-29. But if Ps 89:34//2 Sam 7:15a, 1 Chr 17:13b originally ended the quatrain. This is a sufficient response to Mettinger’s arguments (King and Messiah 255-56): 2 Sam 7:12bα, 13b; 1 Chr l7:11bα, 12b imply Ps 89:5, 30, 37. it adds, nevertheless, the dimension of conditionality to what seems an unencumbered grant in the original prophecy. The same is done in 1 Chr 22:7-13. Here, the grant is repeated without adulteration; yet it is succeeded by an admonition that only if Solomon observe the law will he “succeed.” The admonitions seem, however, to be fulfilled in 2 Chr 1:7-13. Chr’s conditional remarks, in material unshared by and independent of Kings, cannot be imputed to the exilic Deuteronomist. Even more important, Chr sees these oracles as legitimating, not condemning, Solomon’s royal line. This is particularly evident in the case of the correspondence between 1 Chr 22:7-13 and 2 Chr 1:7-13. David, in fact, predicts Solomon’s success, provided he receive precisely what Yhwh gives in 2 Chr 1. It is equally clear that Solomon’s vocation in Chr is primarily as the builder of the temple (note the addenda in 1 Chr 22:8-9; 28:6, l0), See above, Chap. 1, n. 47, and the references there. an occupation guaranteeing his dynasty. See Chap 2, section b, above. In short, the application of conditions to the royal grant of 2 Sam 7 does not affect the grant itself in Chr. Solomon, for Chr, has fulfilled them! The situation is otherwise in Kings. Here the only elaboration of the conditional covenant not shared by Chr appears in 1 Kgs 6:11-13. A second occurrence is 1 Kgs 2:2-4; but this appears in a position analogous to 1 Chr 28:6-7 (or 22:7-13). What differentiates the deuteronomistic version from that of Chr is the four-fold invocation of the fief-form in 1 Kgs 11 (vv 12-13, 32, 34, 36). As has been noted, this formula does not appear in Chr, where the enfeoffment is irrelevant because Chr understands Solomon to have earned perpetual dynasty over all Israel. Not only is such material as 1 Kgs 11 extraneous to Chr, but the secession of the north itself becomes an illegitimate act (see below). In Kings, the enfeoffment of David’s line is recollected when the promise of dynasty is forfeit. This is made clear by Ahijah’s address to Jeroboam, which has been re-touched to refer to Rehoboam, when originally it treated Solomon. “His son” (1 Kgs 11:35, 36) could refer either to Solomon or to Rehoboam. Note that v 35 = v 31b, while v 36 = v 32. Effectively, the oracle picks up again at v 35. This is likely in view of the fact that vv 31-34 recapitulate the prophecy of 11:11-13. Here v 31 = v 11b; v 33 = v 1a (and 11:4-5, which 1a presumes); v 34 = v 12, reading with MT in v 34 (G reads kî śāṭôn ʾaśaṭṭenēhû; cf. 1 Kgs 11:14 and the similar sentiment in 11:39. This is a misreading of MT, as the presence of “for the sake of my servant David” illustrates. Cf. Gray, Kings 291 n. g). The doublets 31b-32 = 35-36 are striking, and suggest the re-working of the oracle, which, in the original historical context of Solomon’s twenty-fifth year, must have had reference to Solomon. See my “Sectionalism” 519-32; also, H. Seebass, “Zur Kônigserhebung Jeroboams I,” VT 17 (1967) 325-33. The second version, parallel to the first, reads: I shall take the kingship from his son’s hand and give it to you, the ten tribes. And to his son I shall give one tribe, for the sake of there being a fief for David, my servant, forever (lit. “all the days”) before me in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen for myself to put my name there. And you I shall take and you will reign over all that your soul desires: you will be king over Israel. And it will be, if you obey all that I command you, and follow my ways, and do the right in my eyes, observing my statutes and commands as David, my servant, did, I shall be with you and build you a guaranteed dynasty (lit. “house”), as I built David, and shall give you Israel. (1 Kgs ll:35-38) 1 Kgs 11:39 may belong to the oracle. See below. It does not effect the interpretation here. Cf. GB. Here Ahijah presents the preservation of the fief as consolation at the loss of dynasty over Israel. Jeroboam is to receive the promise previously made to David. In GB (12:24o), in fact, Jeroboam receives all twelve tribes. But this is not borne out either by context or by the other G versions. GB reads dōdeka for deka (1°); but this could be dittographic of the first dōdeka. Cf. Seebass, “Kônigserhebung” 327-333. Regardless, Dtr’s account of Solomon’s reign makes a plain contrast between the enfeoffment of David and the conditional promise to his dynastic line. Articulations of the dynastic contract are thus employed to explain the rending of the kingdom from Rehoboam, while the land-grant accounts for continued Davidic ascendancy in Judah. This explains why reiterations of the conditional covenant do not occur after Solomon’s reign, while those of the land-grant do: simply put, the dynastic covenant with David had been voided at Shechem. The land-grant remained in force. Thus, even in Exile, Jehoiachin is considered the legitimate monarch (2 Kgs 25:27-30). The conditional passages are concentrated in Solomon’s reign, therefore, not by Cross’s Dtr2, but to explain the Solomonic schism. The fact that Chr and Kings confine articulations of the conditional covenant to the reign of Solomon suggests that this segment of the histories is the logical home of that doctrine. And though 1 Kgs 11 sees the covenant as violated by Solomon, indications occur that the preceding material shared Chr’s concept that Solomon discharged his obligations and guaranteed the covenant. Thus, use of the tradition in Kings corresponds to that in Chr. Except for 1 Kgs 6:11-13 (absent in OG and suspicious in context), instances of the conditional doctrine fit into their parallel texts. Moreover, the promises in Kings, as in Chr, are made in an atmosphere of optimism. Another indication is the presence of occasional editorial remarks suggesting that Solomon fulfilled the covenant conditions. 1 Kgs 3:3 reads, “Solomon loved Yhwh, following the statutes of David his father...” (not in 2 Chr 1). The Gibeon episode concludes, “divine wisdom was in him” (1 Kgs 3:28). In fact, all indications are positive until 1 Kgs 11. Only there is the atmosphere of righteousness shared by Chr and 1 Kgs 1-10 destroyed. The Harvard dissertation of H. Macy, “The Sources of the Books of Chronicles: A Reassessment” (1975), implies the common origin of 2 Chr and Kings in material accumulated during Hezekiah’s reign. It is after Hezekiah that a shift in Chr’s accession formula occurs. The implication of its consistency in Kings is that Kings/Chr was first edited from material like that of Chr under Hezekiah. Regardless of this prehistory, the conclusion suggested is that dynasty in Israel theoretically depended on the king’s righteousness; that Jerusalem, perhaps by extension Judah, belonged by inalienable right to David’s descendants. Such an interpretation goes far particularly to reconcile the elements in 1 Kgs 11:35-38: Jeroboam will reign in Israel; if he obeys Yhwh, he will receive both Israel and a “guaranteed dynasty” (bayit neʾemān) “as I built for David” (!). This usage suggests that the phrase denotes a guarantee of familial line in a prominent or elect position. bayit is distinguished from throne and kingdom in 2 Samuel 7 (its other royal application).At the same time, David’s perpetual enfeoffment is confirmed. Jeroboam’s is a conditional, David’s an unconditional promise. However, this interpretation is not patent. It seems, for example, that however one juggles the translation, the promise embodied in 2 Sam 7//Ps 89 addresses a grant of perpetual dynastic kingship. This is significant, for, as has been noted above, the fief-formula never in Dtr makes mention of either kingship or its appurtenances. It strengthens the implication of the context that dynasty over Israel is in point (2 Sam 7:8). It might be maintained, 1 Kgs 3:4-15 suggest a resolution. This is one of the texts compared by Herrmann to Egyptian royal building edict protocols. See Herrmann, “Kônigsnovelle” 51-62. Whatever the objections to Herrmann’s isolation of the genre to Egypt, in this case the similarity is strong. See Gray, Kings 120-22, 124 for discussion. This suggests a genuine Solomonic origin for the material it contains. And 1 Kgs 3:6 indicates that Solomon’s accession represented the fulfillment of Yhwh’s affirmations to David, since “You have given him a son sitting on the throne of Israel this day.” This corresponds with the assurances of 2 Sam 7:12. It is similarly reminiscent of the refrain cited repeatedly in the conditional undertakings concerning Davidic dynasty: “there shall not fail you a man (sitting) on the throne of Israel.” This same expression is used in Ps 132:11-12, in which David is guaranteed that his son will be set on his throne. A conditional undertaking follows in which it is stated that his son’s sons, too, “will sit on your throne” )cf. 2 Kgs 10:30), if his son is obedient to Yhwh. The same is again true of the conditional refrains in Chr and Kings: David was guaranteed a successor; if his successor obeyed Yhwh, his sons, too, would inherit the crown. The implication would seem to be that David’s guarantee extended only to one generation; for this generation, Yhwh would not break faith, although punishment was possible (2 Sam 7:14; note the generalization of the assurance in Ps 89:31-35). This is again implicit in 1 Kgs 3:4-15. whether or not v 14 is deuteronomistic in origin (absent from 2 Chr 1, it contains the usual “cliches” of covenant language commonly classified as deuteronomistic), The phrase “extend days” occurs most frequently in Dt (note 17:20). It is not by any means restricted to this context, however. Cf. KAI 226:3. it confirms the interpretation of the conditional formulations as guaranteeing Solomon’s succession, but as being dependent thereafter on his behavior. It would be inviting to consign the sentiments of eternal Davidic rule to the throne of Judah. Isa 9:6, which speaks only of the “throne of David” and “his kingdom,” might be adduced as support. However, certain passages stand in tension with such suggestions. This is true not only of Ps 89:5, 30, 37-38//2 Sam 7:16, both of which find a reflex in 1 Kgs 2:45 (MT). A more significant case occurs in Jer 33:1-26: There will not fail David a man sitting on the throne of the house of Israel. Nor to the Levitical priests will there fail a man before me.... If my covenant of the day-time and my covenant of the night-time could be dissolved, so that there should not be day or night at their times, then, too, could my covenant with David my servant be dissolved, so that there should not be for him a son reigning on his throne, and with the Levitical priests my ministers. As the army of heaven cannot be counted, nor the sand of the sea numbered, so shall I multiply the seed of David my servant, and of the Levites who minister me. (Jer 33:17-22) See n. 157 above. Hrre Jeremiah echoes the astral imagery of Ps. 89:30b, 27-28. Note Jeremiah speaks of the dissolution (pwr—C) of the covenant. Cf. Ps 89:34 which precedes: ḯasdî lōʾ ʾāpîr mē- ʿimmô. The intent of the passage is unmistakable: Davidic dynasty will endure forever, under all circumstances. Here and here alone, the formula “there will not fail David a man (sitting) on the throne of ... Israel” appears as an unencumbered, grant-like promise. The links with Ps 89 suggest that that tradition, too, addressed dominion and dynasty, not just over Jerusalem and Judah, but over all Israel. In view of the absence of this passage from the short Greek text, it would be tempting to remove at least the first statement. This would remove both the formula nowhere else unqualified and referring to all David’s descendants, and the only reference to Israel. However, the very uniqueness of the passage demands its retention; nor is there any sound reason for excluding it. Indeed, a parallel can be found. The battle-taunt of Abijah (2 Chr 13:5-12) is a document unparalleled in Chr or Kings. See the commentaries ad loc. It divides naturally into two segments, the first of which treats the kingship: (Abijah) said, “Hear me, Jeroboam and all Israel. Oughtn’t you know that Yhwh the god of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David and his sons forever by a covenant of salt? Reading with LXX. And Jerobosm, the son of Nebat, the servant of Solomon son of David arose and revolted against his master. And desperate men, hellions, gathered to him, and steeled themselves against Rehoboam son of Solomon, and Rehoboam was a youth, weak-hearted, and didn’t dig in against them. And now, you mean to dig in against the kingdom of Yhwh—in the hand of the sons of David—and you are a numerous throng, and with you are the calves of gold which Jeroboam made you as gods. (2 Chr 13:4-8) The meaning here is plain. Jeroboam is an usurper; the Israelites are rebels; the Israelite cult is illegitimate and pagan. David has an everlasting guarantee of dynasty. Hence the terms “eternal/forever” and “covenant of salt”: they are combined also in Num 18:19, to indicate that however other Levites might contrive to achieve it, there is no hope for the Aaronides’ disenfranchisement. Together with Lev 2:13, Num 18:19 indicates some ceremony in which an inescapable contract was sealed. Here, such a ceremony is tied to Davidic dominion over Israel. The covenant alluded to is that of 2 Sam 7. So that no matter how late Chr’s recension, it adumbrates a traditional interpretation of 2 Sam 7 as an indissoluble covenant promise of dynasty. The second segment follows a more tendentious line: Have you not expelled the priests of Yhwh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests from the people of the land; Read with LXX and 1 Kgs 12:31. MT ke-ʿammê hāʾărāṣôt is almost identical with ʿam hā-ʾāreṣ (so G). The differences between 2 Chr 13 and 2 Chr 11:19 indicate paraphrasing of that version. any who came to fill his hand with a bull, son of cattle, and seven rams (?) became a priest to a non-god. But as for us, Yhwh is our god, and we have not abandoned him; and the priests are ministering to Yhwh, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, with service ... for we observe the charge of Yhwh, our god; G represents dittography from v 12. but you have abandoned him. (2 Chr 13:9-11) Like Jer 33:17-26, the passage associates the franchise of the legitimate priesthood with the eternal grant of kingship over Israel to David. What differentiates this passage is its emphasis on the Aaronid, rather then Levitic priesthood, a typical preoccupation of the Chronicler. This makes it particularly interesting to observe that the removal of “(ministering) Yhwh, the sons of Aaron, and” where it twice occurs, leaves a speech recording general Levitic disenfranchisement from Jeroboam’s Bethel shrine. This stands in close affinity with the reports of both Kings and Chr (1 Kgs 12:31; 2 Chr 11:13-15): the emphasis in these reports is on the absence of Levitical priests from Jeroboam’s cult. I take this notice as historical, against Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957) 299-300; F. Dumermuth, “deuteronomischen Theologie” 82n., my “Levitic Participation” 31-42, and most commentators. It looks as though Chr has glossed over a tradition like Jeremiah’s, in which Levites and priests were not distinct. The best treatment here remains J. A. Emerton, “Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy,” VT 12 (1962) 129-39, responding to G. B. Wright, “The Levites in Deuteronomy,” VT 4 (1954) 325-30. His point is that Deuteronomy recognizes the right of any Levite to be consecrated a priest. So, too, S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (3rd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clarke, 1902) 219; A. Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (AnBib 35; Rome: P.B.I., 1969) 127. R. Abba, recently, has come to Wright’s defense (“Priests and Levites in Deuteronomy,” VT 27 [1977] 257-62). His argument that Dt 18:1-8 distinguish a fixed minority of priests is simply not cogent. A peroration follows the second segment, leading to the battle: And lo! with us at the head is god, and his priests, and the trumpets of alarum, to sound out against you. Children of Israel, do not fight against Yhwh the god of your fathers, because you will not succeed (lōʾ taṣlîmaiḯû). (2 Chr 13:12) This address sounds like a war-oracle, particularly in the use it makes of divine presence and the oracular phrase (lōʾ taṣlîmaiḯ (cf. esp. Num 14:41; Ps 45:4-6; hadārekā (v 5) is a dittography of v 4. Isa 53:10; 54:17; esp. 1 Kgs 22:12, 15; 2 Chr 18:11, 14; 2 Chr 20:20 in context; 24:20, more loosely. Note esp. Jer 32:5). There are indications that it was bound originally to the end of the first segment, and that the second segment (vv 9-11) was subsequently inserted. This is especially the case with the contrast “with us at the head is god” (v 12) and “with you are the golden calves that Jeroboam made...” (v 8). Perhaps of less significance is that the rehearsal of the speech in Josephus includes the first segment and the peroration but omits altogether the second segment (Ant. Jud. 8.9.2). Since Joesphus’ rendition is both expansive and complete, his omission of vv 9-11 is suspicious. At all events, there can be little doubt that the Davidic covenant is represented here as both eternal and extensive over Israel. While the “there will not fail a man to David...” formula is not invoked, as it is in Jer 33:17-26, Abijah clearly regards the northerners’ defection as a temporary affair, doomed by its incompatibility with the deity’s will. This is what one would expect to find in Chr: Solomon there fulfilled the conditions of the covenant made with him and earned perpetual dynasty over all Israel. By the same token, the absence of such materiel from the Deuteronomistic History is equally consistent: Dtr regards Solomon’s alleged apostasy as invalidating the conditional dynastic award. Furthermore, while Dtr maintains silence on the efforts of Hezekiah to bring the north back into the Davidic fold, Chr speaks clearly to this issue (2 Chr 30:1-11, e.g.). And Chr records several prophecies against the alliance between Judah and Israel (2 Chr 19:1-3; 20:37; 25:7-9). Kings preserves no parallels. The implication is that Chr regarded the northern dynasts as usurpers. For him, only the Davidides had a legitimate claim to the Israelite throne. The Deuteronomistic History is less unified. 2 Sam 7, for instance, promises to David eternal dynasty. Yet later, there is no such promise in effect. David’s son has been guaranteed suzsrainty; David’s descendants have earned a fief. But the independence of Israel is legitimate. Solomon has forfeited the crown. See above for 1 Kgs 11:39. This brings Kings more into line with Chr. Still, Solomon remains culpable. The dichotomy is patent. There is only one way to treat this contradiction that is neither oversimple nor artificial: that is to assume contemporaneous diversity of doctrine—the bane of biblical scholarship. One doctrine asserts perpetual Davidic dynasty over Jerusalem. A codicil extends this to include Judah. There is a second doctrine according to which David earned a successor over Israel; the security of the dynasty, however, depended on the behavior of each successive Davidide. Solomon abrogated this obligation to Yhwh; Rehoboam was deprived of the Israelite throne. Both these doctrines are expressed in Kings. A third doctrine, however, stands in tension with the second, and makes the first redundant. In its scheme, David was guaranteed a successor to the Israelite throne, and the perpetual enfranchisement of his line. This doctrine seems to underlie 2 Sam 7, Ps 89, and 2 Chr 13:4ff., as well as Jer 33:17-26. There seems to be a variant tradition, however, ensconced in the materials common to and independent in the historical accounts of Solomon’s succession and temple construction. This sees David as having received a guarantee of a successor. But it sees Solomon as having earned by his fidelity to Yhwh the perpetuation of his and David’s line. The seeds of this contradiction can be discerned in the type of covenant pertinent to the issue of dynasty. These have been reviewed before, and break down basically into the types of conditional (or contemporary) and unconditional (or ancestral). See Cross CMHE 219-73; Weinfeld, DDS 59-116, esp. 74-75. In the former type, the king’s loyalty guarantees the throne to his heir. A case in point is the treaty between Muršili II and Niqmepa (RS 17.353). Though there is no mention of the possibility that Niqmepa’a loyalty might ensure the throne to his sons, this is implicit in the statement, “I enthroned you on your father’s throne.” Similarly, the declaration of Niqmepa’s multi-generational obligations to Hittite kings holds a prominent position at the head of the stipulations. See PRU 4, 84ff. This is probably Seltzer’s “Statement of Substance.” See Covenant Formulary 12-13. Another instance is the Alalakh-Aleppo treaty, in which the suzerain has the option to accept or reject the nominee for kingship. See Wiseman, Alalakh Tablets 6. It is worth recalling here how fond Amarna vassals are of recalling their fathers’ loyalty. A similar background probably underlies the inscription of Barrakib: he asserts that Tigleth-Pileser seated him on his father’s throne (with the help of Rakib-El) because of his father’s and his own righteousness. KAI 216:4-7. In contrast to this stands the type represented by the treaty between Tudhaliya IV and Ulmi-Tešub: KBo 4.10:5-13. Translation is from McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant 183. After thee thy son and thy grandson shall hold it [Dattasa], and no one shall take it from them. (But) if one of thy line sins (against Hatti), the king of Hatti will have him tried, and if he is condemned he will be sent to the king of Hatti where, if he merits it, he will be executed. (10) Let no one take away Ulmi-Teshub’s inheritance and country from his line to give to another line. Let it all remain the possession of Ulmi-Teshub and his line. However, the issue of a daughter of Ulmi-Teshub may not take it. If there is no issue in the male line, it shall return (to the king of Hatti). The descendants of a daughter of Ulmi-Teshub shall come (to the king of Hatti;) [sic] if they are in another country they shall be brought to the king of Hatti. In this form even the rebellion of one of the Dattasa kings means only that the kingship passes from him to another of Ulmi-Tešub’s line. Provision is made even for the possibility of esnasy. All the same, on the reverse of the tablet (11.5ff.), a cures is invoked to destroy U1mi-Tešub’s line utterly if he does not fulfill the conditions of the treaty. This is reminiscent of the situation under Jeroboam. Jeroboam would have received a “guaranteed dynasty” had he obeyed Yhwh (1 Kgs 1:38); the result of his insubordination, however, was the eradication of his line (1 Kgs 14:7-11). In the second type of treaty, an interesting situation obtains. Though U1mi-Tešub might by his fealty guarantee the enthronement of his son (A), this son need not necessarily provide the third generation of the Ulmi-Tešub dynasty. By sterility, the death of male issue, or revolt, son A might lose the throne either to son B or to the offspring of son B. In effect, all the collateral descendents of Ulmi-Tešub’s heir are eligible to replace any direct descendent who forfeits the throne. That this was the case at least in the Hittite sphere (which is the provenance of the treaty under discussion) is clearly attested by the secession narrative of Hattušili III: Hattušili argues his legitimacy partly on the grounds that he was a descendent of Šuppiluliuma. He maintains that the forfeiture of the throne by Urhi-Tešub resulted from such evils as his use of sorcery. See Hoffner, “Hittite Historiography” 51-54. In a corresponding light, it is possible to illuminate some of the finer points of biblical royal ideology. All texts agree that David discharged his obligations to Yhwh, despite difficulties over Bethsheba and taxes. Theoretically, therefore, the issue touches Solomonic dynasty. According to the terms of Ps 132:11-12, at least, it is impossible to distinguish whether David’s dynasty is eternal or not: From (among) the fruit of your belly I shall set you on the throne. If your sons observe my covenant And the stipulations I inculcate in them, Their sons, too, for always, Will sit for you on the throne. What is not clear is whether David’s descendants can earn their own perpetual dynastic grants within the rubric of their forefathers’, or whether David has earned only one heir to the throne, on whom the welfare of subsequent Davidides depends. In fact, the plural in v 12, and the rubric in v 11 should incline one to the former interpretation. One should not overlook the possibility that these lines referred originally to the throne of Judah/Jerusalem, since Zion, and not Israel, is the constant subject of the lyric. Levenson (“Rechabites” 514 n. 25) inclines toward the second interpretation. But given the circumstance in which one monarch has fulfilled the conditions for dynasty, there is a certain confusion regarding the legitimacy of his grandchildren, at least when the doctrines in point are either innovative or introduced ad hoc. The emphasis in Chr on Solomon’s legitimacy implies the interpretation of the doctrine as being one of unlimited Davidic but not necessarily Solomonic dynasty; Kings, on the other hand, reserves only Judah to the Davidides. These considerations by no means gainsay the perpetuity of David’s dynastic grant in such passages as 2 Sam 7; Ps 89; 2 Chr 13:5-12; Jer 33:17-26. These represent the mainstream of Davidic ideology: it is, indeed, precisely this sort of doctrine which was probably used to justify the irredentism first of Hezekiah (e.g. Hos 3:1-5//2:12-25; Hos 12:1, l1-15), I intend to argue, in a study now in progress, that Hosea was a Judahite propagandist for Hezekiah’s reform. Provisionally, see H. W. Wolff, “‘Wissen um Gott’ als Urform von Theologie,” EvTh 12 (1953) 533-54; “Hoseas geistige Heimat,” TLZ 81 (1956) 83-94; J. . Levenson, “Hosea and Deuteronomy,” forthcoming. then later of Josiah. On the other hand, such passages as Jer 7:12-15; 26:4-6 indicate a consciousness that even the unconditional pacts could be abrogated: in these passages (cf. also Ps 78) See Clifford, “Psalm 78: A Liturgical Approach,” forthcoming. Note that only in Hosea and Ps 78 is Ephraim called a “treacherous bow.” Jeremiah suggests that like Shiloh the Jerusalem temple could be ruined. See above on 1 Sam 2, which falls into the same category and is the case that Jeremiah takes as precedent. This calls to mind the qualification attached to the absolute dynastic guarantee given to Ulmi-Tešub: if he does not obey, he, his wife, family, and country will be eradicated. Yet despite this the throne of Dettasa is reserved to the line of Ulmi-Tešub only.” Note similarly the reversion of private land to the state in BE 1/1.83.15; CT 36 7.2.25. There is no point in attempting to pinpoint the origin of the three doctrines of Israelite dynasty. The most firmly entrenched is that of Davidic ascendancy over Jerusalem (the referent in Ahijah’s mention of David’s “sure house”). On bayit neʾemān, cf. bêt ʾāb, and n. 170, above. Otherwise, a rough contemporaneity must be assumed. Though one might venture that the usefulness of these versions found in Jer 33:17-26, etc., suggests an organic relationship with the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, innovation in doctrine is hardly what either of these monarchs could have desired: E.g., see Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4; Cambridge: Harvard, 1972) esp. 141-60 for the background of the doctrine of Zion’s inviolability. Witness also the attribution to Moses of the Dtn code. more useful by far would be the re-application of previous ideologies. Similarly, there is no reason to pinpoint the development of the “conditional” dynastic covenant in the Exile. 2 Kgs 25:27-30; Ezek 1:1-2; Hag 2:23 (to be read with Jer 22:24), and other passages indicate that the monarchy continued to be regarded as legitimate even during this period. In fact, the conditional dynastic grant is invoked only with *regard to Solomon’s dominion over Israel. What is more relevant, therefore, is the fact that Dtr qualifies it: “I shall oppress David’s seed for this, but not for always” (1 Kgs 11:39). In this way the perpetuity of David’s dynastic covenant is re-affirmed. The invocation of the conditional dynastic covenant specifically as a response to the division of the kingdom might suggest an origin shortly after that event. But the fact of the division (and of Absalom’s revolt, etc.) suggests an earlier date (see below, Chap. 7). The maintenance of the unconditional dynastic tradition in the face of the schism also suggests an early date, as does the permanent housing of the ark in the temple, Cross is thus probably correct to place the latter doctrine in Solomon’s reign, though a late Davidic origin cannot be excluded. The simplest solution is to assume contemporaneous diversity in doctrine, at least as it surfaces in the histories. However, the guestion then arises as to the ritual and constitutional contexts of these doctrines. In other words, it is probable that the Davidides and their faction laid claim to an insoluble covenant of dynasty ever both Israel and Judah. Whet then was the substance of the covenant bestowed, e.g., on Josiah at his accession? This is a thorny issue. Every royal covenant under discussion, from Saul through Jehu, deals not in the kingship of the candidate himself, but in his dynasty. 1 Kgs 3:15 (a plus in Kings) is the sole exception. One should not necessarily generalize from this: in the original recensions, it is possible that the oracles against Saul (1 Sam 13:8-13; 15:22-29) and Solomon (1 Kgs 11:35-38) See above. treated the stripping of the kingdom from the reigning monarch himself. However, the actual articulations of the covenant indicate that the reward for royal observance the punishment for royal violation of the covenant were continuation and discontinuation respectively of the line. This provides further confirmation, therefore, of the understanding of the position of the nāgîd set forth earlier. See above. Simply put, the nāgîd was the object of a divine assurance of kingship. At the time of his accession, however, the candidate received the ʿedût. It is, on the basis of current date, impossible to determine whether the ʿedût was itself a document, or the representation or symbol of such a document. Nevertheless, it guaranteed to the king the succession of his offspring provided he observed the god’s command. In other words, it is necessary to speak of a two-stage process in the Israelite concept of kingship: Yhwh first promises the throne to his designee; at the accession, he offers a covenant of dynasty. What the conditions of this covenant might have been is not entirely obscure. It is clear, at least, from the notices of the Deuteronomistic History and Chr, as well as from the case of Saul, that the king was responsible for the faithful execution of all facets of “the law.” See esp. Widengren, “King and Covenant” 5-17. That this was the subject of the ʿēdūt is, in the light of such parallels as the oath of office in the United States, attractive. See 2 Chr 17:7-9. This is by no means to say that special legislation was not involved in the covenant of secession for any given king. Such legislation is witnessed certainly in the case of Rehoboam’s abortive attempt at assuming the Israelite throne (1 Kgs 12); it seems to be present, also, in the specific stipulations of the “law of the king” (Dt 17:14-20). But one must assume from the testimony of the histories in general that the king’s obligation was one of an encompassing, rather then narrow, nature. He was responsible for the observation, not just of individual statutes, but of the will of Yhwh in general.