David in Cultural Memory (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) 9789042937482, 9789042937475, 9042937483

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

93

Ida Fröhlich (ed.)

David in Cultural Memory

PEETERS

DAVID IN CULTURAL MEMORY

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES EDITORS K. De Troyer (St Andrews) G. van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD Reimund Bieringer (Leuven) Lutz Doering (Münster) Mark Goodacre (Duke) Bas ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) Annette Merz (Groningen) Madhavi Nevader (St Andrews) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) Jack Sasson (Nashville) Tammi Schneider (Claremont)

Ida FRÖHLICH (ed.)

DAVID IN CULTURAL MEMORY

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2019

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2019 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-3748-2 eISBN 978-90-429-3747-5 D/2019/0602/7 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Bob BECKING The Productive Memory of David in the Prophetic Books Especially in Jeremiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Kåre BERGE The Psalms as a „Site of Memory” of David. . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Daniel BODI King David and His Wives in Light of Amorite Matrimonial Practices

35

Ida FRÖHLICH The Changing Faces of David in Biblical Historiography. Narrative Patterns in Historiography, Positive and Negative . . . . . . . . .

65

David HAMIDOVIĆ Messianic Expectations and Memories of David in the Qumran Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

Előd HODOSSY-TAKÁCS “Let her Lie in your Bosom.” The Topos of the Elderly King in 1 Kings 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 John JARICK Seven Things that the Chronicler Wants You to Remember about King David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Dolores G. KAMRADA Tales from David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Thomas RÖMER King David taken over by Josiah, Moses and Abraham – Dealing with the Davidic Dynasty in the Persian Period. . . . . . . . . . . 141 Géza G. XERAVITS David in the Dura Synagogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS ESPECIALLY IN JEREMIAH* Bob BECKING Utrecht University

David is an important figure in Jewish and Christian traditions as becomes clear from the papers in this volume. In the Hebrew Bible itself, he is mentioned some 850 times.1 This paper does not deal with questions of the historical David, but talks about David in history and tradition. I will limit myself to the role David played in the Book of Jeremiah. In the Books of the Prophets (Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Hosea; Amos; Zechariah) the heroic king is referred to about 35 times. Only a few of these texts are explicitly backwards related, in that sense that they refer to past events of the heroic king and hence formulate a memory. I will mention a few: Woe to you, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David settled! Add year to year and let your cycle of festivals go on. (Isa 29:1).

Or: You strum away on your harps like David and improvise on musical instruments. (Amos 6:,5).

The memory on the king is also present in expressions like: “The house of David”, “David’s throne,” “the city of David.” * I would like to thank Ida Fröhlich for her kind invitation to participate in the Symposium on David in Budapest. A slightly different version of this paper will appear in: C. Evans, Jack R. Lundbom and B. Anderson (eds.), Formationand/orInterpretationofJeremiah (Leiden: Brill, 2018). 1 On David see, e.g., Walter Dietrich, David: Der Herrscher mit der Harfe, Biblische Gestalten (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006); Bob Becking, “David between Evidence and Ideology,” in HistoryofIsraelbetweenEvidenceandIdeology, ed. Bob Becking and Lester L. Grabbe, OTS 59 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 1-30; Jacob L. Wright, David,KingofIsrael,andCalebinBiblicalMemory (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014).

2

BOB BECKING

More often the references to David are future related. David is seen as a future king, a future shepherd for the people, a future servant of God, etc. This might be an indication that David was cast in the role of a “messianic” figure in the Book of Jeremiah. Was he? The authors of the New Testament had a clear view on this topic. In the New Testament, several texts from Jeremiah are construed as being ‘messianic’.2 I will mention some. In Matthew 11:29, Jesus is said to have distinguished himself from John the Baptist with the following words: Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. (Matt 11:29)

The Greek phrase καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν· (Matt 11:9) is an almost verbatim quotation of Jer 6:16: καὶ εὑρήσετε ἁγνισμὸν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν (Jer 6:16)

Which renders the Hebrew: ‫וּמ ְצ ֥אוּ ַמ ְרגּ֖ ַוֹע ְלנַ ְפ ְשׁ ֶכ֑ם‬ ִ And you shall find rest for your souls. (Jer 6:16 NAS)3

In his speech after the cleansing of the temple, Matt 21:13 // Mark 11:17 // Luke 19:46, Jesus is said to have quoted Jeremiah’s temple sermon: And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’; but you are making it a robbers’ den. (Matt 21:13)

This text refers to the temple sermon of Jeremiah: ‘Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight? Behold, I, even I, have seen it,’ declares YHWH. (Jer 7:11).4

In Paul’s First letter to the Corinthians, the apostle advises that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in YHWH.” (1 Cor. 1:31), see also 2 Cor 10:17: Ὁ δὲ καυχώμενος, ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω: ‘But he who boasts, let him boast in YHWH’ (2 Cor 10:17). This is a direct quotation of a broader summons in Jer 9:22-23: 2

3

4

See, e.g., Joachim Becker, Messiaserwartung im Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), 7-9. See on the connection between Jer 6:16 and Matt 11:29, Maarten J.J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible:TheOldTestamentTextoftheEvangelist, BEThL 173 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 267-69. Menken, Matthew’sBible, 205.

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

3

Thus, says YHWH, ‘Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boasts of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am YHWH who exercises loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,’ declares YHWH. (Jer 9:22-23)

There are many other quotations and allusions of this character, that link the person of Jesus to sayings from the Prophet Jeremiah. It should be noted that they are not presented as fulfilment quotation and not labelled as Messianic devices.5 Next to these quotations and allusions, it should be remarked that in the New Testament, Jesus is construed as the ideal descendant of David. This becomes clear by the use of the Messianic title “Son of David” that is given seventeen times to Jesus in the synoptic gospels. This title qualifies Jesus as the long awaited progeny of the idealized king who will restore the divine realm on earth.6 The first question, now to be discussed is what is meant by the concept “Messiah/messianic.” 1. MĀŠAḤ: “TO ANOINT” AND/OR “TO APPOINT”? One of the main problems in detecting – or rejecting – “messianic” prophecies in the Hebrew Bible is connected with the idea a modern reader has of the concept of Messiah. Both, in Judaism and Christianity the word Messiah refers to a forthcoming redeemer given by God to the world.7 There exists, however, not a unison concept on the character of 5

6

7

See Jer 10:7 = Acts 15:3-4; Jer 12:3 = James 5:5; Jer 12:15 = Acts 15:16 (see also Amos 9); Jer 22:24 = Rev. 14:11. See, e.g., Matt 9:27; 12:23; 20:30-31 (with synoptic parallels); see recently: Jiří Dvořáček, TheSonofDavidinMatthew’sGospelintheLightoftheSolomonasExorcist Tradition, WUNT 415 (Göttingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); H. Daniel Zacharias, Matthew’s PresentationoftheSonofDavid (London; New York: Bloomsbury 2017). See, e.g., Richard Harvey, MappingMessianicJewishTheology.AconstructiveApproach, StudiesinMessianicJewishTheology (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009); Peter Schäfer, TheJewishJesus:HowJudaismandChristianityShapedEachOther (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012); Matthew V. Novenson, ChristamongtheMessiahs:Christ languageinPaulandMessiahlanguageinancientJudaism (Oxford: Oxford University

4

BOB BECKING

this redeemer and his/her redemptive acts. I will not annoy the reader with a survey of the different positions that are held: from remission of the sins of the chosen ones to a liberation from the evil powers of the free market system.8 When looking for ‘messianic’ texts in the prophetic books, one should be aware of one’s own concept of Messiah. It would, therefore, be sound to first have a look at the Old Testament roots of Messiah, māšîaḥ. The English word Messiah is derived from a Hebrew verb māšaḥ. Literally the verb means “to anoint,” hence Messiah, māšîaḥ, “the anointed.”9 The verb refers to a ritual act by which (holy) oil is put on the head of a person. As in the following text: Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, saying, ‘Has not YHWH anointed you ruler over his inheritance? When you leave me today, you will meet two men near Rachel’s tomb, at Zelzah on the border of Benjamin. They will say to you, ‘The donkeys you set out to look for have been found. And now your father has stopped thinking about them and is worried about you. He is asking, ‘What shall I do about my son?’ (1 Sam 10:1-2).10

Samuel is thus consecrated to his task. Anointing is a symbolic way of appointing. The human act is seen as the expression of the divine will to appoint someone in a specific role. Throughout the Hebrew Bible a variety of people are anointed and hence appointed to a specific task. Solomon is anointed by Zadok to become king over Judah and Israel (1 Kgs 1:39). Priests were sometimes anointed to their task (Lev 4:3). God’s spirit anointed the anonymous prophet Trito-Isaiah in order that he could “preach

8

9

10

Press, 2012); William Horbury, MessianismamongJewsandChristians:Biblicaland HistoricalStudies, 2nd ed. (London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2016). See recently Hans Otto Seitschek, “Politischer Messianismus als Konzept der Totalitarismuskritik,” ZRG 68 (2016): 40-56. There exists an abundancy of literature on the interpreration of the verb; I confine myself to: Ernst Kutsch, SalbungalsRechtsaktimAltenTestamentundimaltenOrient, BZAW 87 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1963); Marinus J. de Jonge, “The use of the word “anointed” in the time of Jesus,” NT 8 (1966): 132-148; Tryggve N.D. Mettinger, KingandMessiah:TheCivilandSacralLegitimationoftheIsraeliteKings, Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament 8 (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 185-232; Ansgar Moenikes, “Messianismus im Alten Testament (vorapokalyptische Zeit),” ZRG 40 (1988): 289-306; ErnstJoachim Waschke, DerGesalbte:StudienzuralttestamentlichenTheologie, BZAW 306 (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 2001), 9-52; Heinz-Josef Fabry und Klaus Scholtissek, DerMessias:PerspektivendesAltenundNeuenTestaments, NEB Themen 5 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2002), 19-36. See on this unit, e.g., Mettinger, KingandMessiah, 64-79, 174-179; P. Kyle McCarter, Samuel:anewtranslationwithintroduction,notes,andcommentary, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 178; Walter Dietrich, Samuel, BK VIII/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), #418, 423-26.

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

5

good tidings unto the meek” (Isa 61:1). God had anointed the Persian king Cyrus to be a liberator for oppressed kingdoms (Isa 45:1). These – and other texts – imply that the meaning of the verb māšaḥ is connected to a network of features, such as (a) a sorrowful situation; (b) a divine intervenor; (c) a person – mover, liberator – who is accepted by both people and divine; (d) an inimical power. Within a cognitive approach to meaning this network can be designed in the form of a prototypical scenario, or a basic script that clarifies the meaning of a word or an expression.11 (1) A people, a community, a person is in distress; (2) There seems to be no way out of the sorrow (of whatever kind); (3) Either divine intervention or an informal leader – often in cooperation – points at a person; (4) This person is accepted by the people, a community, a person in distress; (5) In a symbolic act in front of the people, a community, a person in distress the informal leader anoints this person; (6) The person accepts his (her) role and acts in a beneficial way for the people, a community, a person in distress. 2. DOES MĀŠÎAḤ OR MĀŠAḤ OCCUR IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS AND ESPECIALLY IN JEREMIAH? The question to be asked is whether or not forms from the root māšaḥ occur in the Book of Jeremiah. I will skip the complex discussion regarding the emergence of the Book of Jeremiah and connected topics such as: the historical persona; the tradition of his sayings; the construction of the biblical persona; the textual differences between LXX and the MT; and the fragments from Qumran. 11

On this concept, see: George Lakoff, Zoltán Kövecses, “The Cognitive Model of Anger Inherent in American English,” in CulturalModelsinLanguageandThought,ed. Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 195-221; Dominique Fleury and Thierry Brenac, “Accident Prototypical Scenarios: A Tool for Road Safety Research and Diagnostic Studies,” AccidentAnalysis&Prevention 33 (2001): 267–276; Ellen J. van Wolde, ReframingBiblicalStudies:WhenLanguageandTextMeet Culture,Cognition,andContext (Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 54-60; Cliff Goddard, “Universals and Variation in the Lexicon of Mental State Concepts,” in Wordsand theMind:HowWordsCaptureHumanExperience,ed. Barbara C. Malt and Phillip Wolff (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 72-93.

6

BOB BECKING

A first observation might be disappointing. The noun māšîaḥ, “anointed”, does not occur in the Book of Jeremiah. The same holds for the nouns māšḥā and mišḥā, both meaning “anointment”. The verb māšaḥ is attested only once in the Book of Jeremiah. In an oracle of doom, we read: Who says, ‘I will build myself a roomy house with spacious upper rooms, and cut out its windows, to panel it with cedar and to māšôaḥit bright red.’ (Jer 22:14)

The Hebrew text reads māšôaḥ, a Qal infinitivus absolutus. Here, the verb is used in a specific meaning: “to smear”. This connotation is attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. “Shields” (Isa 21:5) and “wafers” (Ex. 29:2; Lev. 2:4 etc.) are “smeared” in preparation for battle – and hence “appointed”, and “made ready” for their role.12 The use of the verb for the finishing touch of house-construction, i.e. to smear or dye the cedar walls in vermillion, is however exceptional. Here, an important warning must be made. The absence of the root māšaḥ in the Book of Jeremiah does not imply the absence of the concept underlying this verb in the biblical book under consideration. It must now be asked what language Jeremiah applies in designing the future. This best can be done by asking whether (elements of) the prototypical scenario can be found in this Biblical Book.

3. DOES

THE PROTOTYPICAL SCENARIO OCCUR IN JER

23:1-8?

I would like to start with the analysis of a smaller unit Jer 23:5-6. This Strophe is part of a greater Canto, Jer 21:1-23:40.13 In this Canto prophecies of doom and salvation are gathered in juxtaposition. The first part – Jer 21:123:8 – assesses the behaviour of kings, while the final part – 23:9-40 – is concerned with prophets. The first part mainly contains oracles of doom addressed to kings of Judah and Jerusalem, Zedekiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim and Coniah (which is Jeconiah). These oracles are larded with three other elements:

12

13

See Ruth Amiran, “The “Arm-Shaped” Vessel an Its Family,” JNES 21 (1962): 161-174, esp. 174; Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1986), 425-26; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36:anewtranslationwithintroduction,notes,andcommentary, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 137. On the delimitation of Jeremiah 21-23 in Cantos, Stanzas, and Strophes, see Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36, 93-221.

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

7

– Tidings of good news for the people, – Oracles indicating that Lebanon South will be favoured, and – Summons to Judean kings to improve their moral and religious behaviour. The final Sub-Canto of the first part – Jer. 23:1-8 – consists of two canticles: – Jer. 23:1-4: on bad and good shepherds – Jer. 23:5-8: promise of a righteous shoot and the return to the land. I will first concentrate on the first Strophe in this last Canticle. After making a set of remarks to be made on this unit, I will return to the composition in its entirety and the question on the assumed presence of the prototypical scenario in the textual unit. But first, I will present my translation: Look, days are coming, oracle of YHWH –, When I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely and do justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; and this is His name by which He will be called, ‘YHWH our righteousness.’14

1. hinnēhyāmîmbā’îm; This expression occurs several times in the Book of Jeremiah. With Lundbom, I do not construe this expression to be eschatological.15 In my view, the words do not refer to the end of all time, but indicates a transformation that will happen in the not-so-near future.16 In reading the Books of prophets like Micah and Jeremiah a distinction should be made between a near future and a second stage. Stage I will contain doom, stage II prosperity, hope, salvation. The stock phrase hinnēhyāmîmbā’îm refers to the coming of the second stage. 14

15

16

On this unit see: Becker, MessiaserwartungimAltenTestament, 53-58; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah1:ACommentaryontheBookoftheProphetJeremiahChapters1-25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 616-620; Carroll, Jeremiah, 445-47; Moenikes, “Messianismus im Alten Testament,” 300; Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36, 170-76; Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23: 1-8 in Context,” in Uprootingandplanting:essaysonJeremiahforLeslieAllen, ed. John Goldingay, LHBOTS 459 (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 308-321. Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36, 171-72; see also Werner Dommershausen, “Der ‘Spross‘ als Messias-Vorstellung bei Jeremia und Sacharja,” TQ 148 (1968): 321-41. See Holladay, Jeremiah1, 258-59.

8

BOB BECKING

2. ṣemaḥṣaddîq, “a righteous sprout/branch.” What does it mean? The collocation is read as Messianic by the Targum: wa’aqêmledāwîdmešiyaḥ deṣidqā’, “I will rise for David an anointed one of righteousness.” The words have often been construed as the indication of a future ruler.17 In the Hebrew Bible, the word ṣemaḥ occasionally occurs. In Amos 9:11; Mic 5:1; Isa 9:6-7 the word refers to the hope of a restored Davidic rule. Only in post-exilic texts like Zech 3:8 and 6:12 the term begins to have something of a reference to a “ruler of the final days.”18 The latter meaning has come to the fore in early Christianity (Matt 9:27) and Rabbinic Judaism (Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 97a).19 What does ṣemaḥṣaddîq mean? ṣemaḥcan best be rendered with “shoot,” in the sense of “off-spring,” something that is growing as a new form of life. What does ṣaddîq mean here? The adjective is often understood as “righteous,” implying that the acts of the forthcoming person will be morally correct according to the social code of the implied society, i.e., the ancient Israelite moral system of solidarity.20 Following an incentive of George Cooke, I would, however, like to pay attention to two Phoenician inscriptions.21 The first is a third century text found in Narnaka (Larnax Lapethos) on Cyprus. This dedicatory inscription is carved on the pedestal of a votive image that had been erected by the king Yaton-Baal. Image and inscription both honour the god Melqart. The important lines contain the following phrases: … the altars of my god Melqart. For the sake of my life and the life of my offspring (zr‘i), day after day, and for the legitimate offspring (ṣmḥṣdq), to his wife and to his blood.22

17

18

19

20

21

22

See, e.g., Kimhi; Calvin; Dommershausen, “Der ‘Spross’ als Messias-Vorstellung;” Carroll, Jeremiah, 446. See Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early PostexilicPeriod, JSOTSup 304 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 91-120. See, e.g., Ben Zion Wacholder, “Biblical chronology in the Hellenistic world chronicles,” HTR 61 (1968): 451-481; Ephraim E. Urbach, TheSages:TheirConceptsandBeliefs (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987), 677-78; Renald E. Showers, ThePre-WrathRapture View:AnExaminationandCritique (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2001), 14. The word ‘septannate’ refers to a period of seven years. See recently Hemchand Gossai, SocialCritiquebyIsrael’sEighth-CenturyProphets: JusticeandRighteousnessinContext (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2006), 11-89. See George A. Cooke, AText-BookofNorth-SemiticInscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 86; see also Alphons van der Branden, “Titoli tolemaici,” BeO 6 (1964): 60-72; James Swetnam, “Some Observations on the Background of ‫ צדיק‬in Jeremias 23, 5a,” Biblica 46 (1965): 29-40; Holladay, Jeremiah1, 617-18; Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36, 172-73. Larnax Lapethos 2 = KAI 43,10-11.

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

9

In the context of this inscription, ṣmḥ ṣdq refers to the legitimate heir, in this case Ptolemy II Philadelphus. Gossai correctly noted that in the Phoenician inscriptions ṣdq is used in forensic contexts.23 YatonBaal’s classification of Ptolemy II Philadelphus as a ṣmḥ ṣdq makes the impression as of being based on a righteous juridical decision. The succession of Ptolemy I Soter (367-283) was disputed. With this inscription the local ruler Yaton-Baal, acclaims to the claims of Ptolemy II Philadelphus to the throne at least on the island of Cyprus.24 The other inscription was excavated at Sidon and dates to the fifth century BCE. It concerns a building inscription from the reign of king Bod-Ashtart and reads: King Bod-Ashtart and his legitimate son (bnṣdq) Yaton-Malik, King of the Sidonians, grandson of Eshmun-Ezer, king of the Sidonians, has built this temple for his god Eshmun, the Holy Prince.25

The expression bnṣdq clearly designates Yaton-Malik as the one and only legitimate heir to the Sidonian throne. In line with these two inscriptions, the Hebrew expression ṣemaḥ ṣaddîq, would mean “the legitimate shoot.” The adjective ṣaddîq by implication refers to a metaphorical lineage. Contrary to the kings mentioned in Jer 21-22, this ṣemaḥ ṣaddîq will be the true descendant of David. This implies that although the “moral aspect,” the king has to reign in a righteous way, is far from unimportant, it is subordinated to this person being the legitimate heir of David. 3. The two final lines of verse 5 design some sort of a programme how this legitimate sprout can act righteously. 4. “He will (really) reign as king.” The cognate object indicates the quality of this reign.26 In contrast to the four Judahite kings whose acts were 23 24

25

26

Gossai, SocialCritique, pp. 14-17. On this ruler and his reign see the essays in Paul R. McKechnie and Philippe Guillaume, eds., Ptolemy the second Philadelphus and his World, Mnemosyne Supplements 300 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Building-inscription of Bod-Ashtart = KAI 16; see now Paolo Xella and José-Ángel Zamora López, “L’inscription phénicienne de Bodashtart in situ à Bustān eš-sēh (Sidon) et son apport à l’histoire du sanctuaire,” ZDPV 121 (2005): 119-29; Josette Elayi, HistoiredelaPhénicie (Paris: Perrin, 2013), 248-49; the text is found in nine versions all in public display. A cognate object or accusative is the object of a verb that is etymologically related to the verb; see, e.g., Bruce K. Waltke and Michael P. O’Connor, An introduction to BiblicalHebrewsyntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), § 10.2.1; Asya Pereltsvaig, “Cognate Objects in Modern and Biblical Hebrew,” in ThemesinArabicandHebrew Syntax, ed. Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky, Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 53 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2001), 107-136.

10

BOB BECKING

assessed negatively in Jer 21-22, this forthcoming heir will not spoil his heritage. 5. “He will succeed.” The Hebrew here is not easy to translate. The Hiph of the verb śkl has a broad variety of meanings running from “to make wise” to “be successful.” Since we are in a way in the semantic field of royal ideology, I would like to make a connection with 1 Kings 2:3. In his death-bed speech, David summons his son Solomon: And keep the charge of YHWH, your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the law of Moses, that you may succeed (taśkîl) in all that you do and wherever you turn.

In both contexts – 1 Kings and Jer 23 – “to succeed” does not refer to management targets or political proceedings, but to the fact that the ruler will succeed in applying the social code of the Yahwistic tradition in his reign. Phrased otherwise, he will succeed in bringing prosperity to the community based on the principles of solidarity.27 6. This is underscored by the resultative we-X-yiqtolforms in 23:6. As a result of the reign of the legitimate sprout there will be safety and security in the whole of the land. The element of change is underscored by the final canticle in the “Kingprophecies.” Applying the discontinuative adverbial adjunct lo’‘ôd, “no longer,” a reframing of the basics of the Israelite belief-system is indicated.28 The Exodus as foundation myth will be replaced by the return from exile as foundation myth. In my view, Jer 23:1-8 can easily be read within the framework of the prototypical scenario designed above around “to appoint by anointing:” (1) A people, a community, a person is in distress; ¾An indication can be found in the woe-oracle Jer 23:1: ‘Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of My pasture!” oracle of YHWH. The leaders of the community have brought distress over the people.”

(2) There seems to be no way out of the sorrow (of whatever kind); ¾ C learly, the language of scattering (pûṣ) and its references to the exile, makes clear that the people has entered a dead-end street. 27 28

See also Holladay, Jeremiah1, 618; Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36, 173-74. See Bob Becking, BetweenFearandFreedom:EssaysontheInterpretationofJeremiah30-31, OTS 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 235-37.

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

(3) 

(4)

(5)

(6)

11

This is underscored by the theme of retribution, phrased with the verb pāqad, in verse 2.29 Either divine intervention or an informal leader – often in cooperation – points at a person; ¾ T he divine intervention is already mentioned in verse 3 and 4: God will appoint (qûm H) “better” shepherds. In verse 5, this “better shepherd” motive is concentrated on one single person: the ṣemaḥ ṣaddîq. This person is accepted by the people, a community, a person in distress; ¾ T he acceptance as such is not mentioned, but is assumed in the reframing of the belief system. In a symbolic act in front of the people, a community, a person in distress the informal leader anoints this person; ¾ T his element is absent in Jer 23:1-8 The person accepts his (her) role and acts in a beneficial way for the people, a community, a person in distress. ¾ T his is quite easily deduced from the themes of “righteousness,” “justice,” “saved,” and “security.”

Does this make Jer 23:1-8 a Messianic oracle? The textual unit clearly contains several elements of the futurology of the biblical book of Jeremiah. The forthcoming exile is presented as divine punishment for the deeds and doings of the leaders of the community. Return and restoration – as yet beyond the horizon – are presented as the result of a merciful divine intervention. They are not presented in an eschatological way – i.e. in terms of the end of time and history – but as the result of a decisive discontinuity within time and history in which the “David”-character will play an important role. The question now raises, whether this concept can also be found in other passages from the Book of Jeremiah and whether or not it can be classified as messianic. 4. SPROUT AND DAVID INSTEAD OF MESSIAH Although the concept of fundamental change in history with the help of a divinely appointed person is present in the Book of Jeremiah – at least in Jer 23:1-8 – the specific ‘messianic’ language is absent. Jer 23:5 applies 29

See André Gunnel, DeterminingtheDestiny:PQDintheOldTestament, ConBOT 16 (Lund: Gleerup, 1980); Holladay, Jeremiah1, 614; Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36, 168.

12

BOB BECKING

two other words, the noun ṣemaḥ, “branch, sprout,” and the personal name dāwîd, David. What can be said about these two ideas? The noun ṣemaḥ, “branch, sprout,” is also mentioned in Jer 33:15. Chapter 33 contains a set of oracles of salvation that are located in the time when the prophet was imprisoned in the court of the guard. Jer 33:14-16 repeat – with minor differences – words and phrases from Jer 23.30 The ṣemaḥ ṣaddîq has exactly the same function as in Jer 23. Through him Judah and Jerusalem will be saved. The personal name dāwîd, David, occurs 14 times in the Book of Jeremiah: Jer 13:13; 17:25; 21:12; 22:2, 4, 30; 23:5; 29:16; 30:9; 33:15, 17, 22, 26; 36:30. I will not present a full interpretation of all these passages, but only remark that none of them can be construed as “messianic texts” giving a few examples. The prophecy of doom in Jeremiah 13 clearly does not have messianic traits: Then you shall say to them, ‘Thus, says YHWH: Behold, I will fill with drunkenness all the inhabitants of this land: the kings who sit on David’s throne, the priests, the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And I will dash them one against another, fathers and sons together, declares YHWH. I will not pity or spare or have compassion, that I should not destroy them.’31

The same is true for the following passage in the letter of Jeremiah to the exiles living “by the rivers of Babylon:” ‘Thus, says YHWH concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, and concerning all the people who dwell in this city, your kinsmen who did not go out with you into exile:’ ‘Thus, says YHWH of hosts, behold, I am sending on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like vile figs that are so rotten they cannot be eaten.’32 30

31 32

See, e.g., Carroll, Jeremiah, 637; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah2:ACommentaryonthe Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1-25, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 227-31; Willie Wessels, “Jeremiah 33:15-16 as a reinterpretation of Jeremiah 23:56,” HervormdeTeologieseStudies 47 (1991): 231-246; Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36, 53739; Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection;” Johanna Erzberger, “Jeremiah 33: 14-26: the question of text stability and the devaluation of kingship,” OTE 26 (2013): 663-683. Jer 13:13-14. Jer 29:16-17; on this letter see – next to the commentaries - Meindert Dijkstra, “Prophecy by Letter (Jeremiah XXIX 24-32),” VT 33 (1983): 319-322; John J. Ahn, Exileasforced

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

13

Both texts present a negative view on the fate of the Davidic dynasty in the future. Next to that, the name David occurs in fixed collocations: “throne of David” (Jer 13:13; 17:25; 22:2, .4, 30; 29:6; 36:30); “house of David” (Jer. 21:12) both referring to the dynasty in Jerusalem. In these texts, generally no mention is made of a messianic era. An interesting exception is found in the conditional prophecy of salvation in Jeremiah 17: ‘But if you listen to me, declares YHWH, and bring in no burden by the gates of this city on the Sabbath day, but keep the Sabbath day holy and do no work on it, then there shall enter by the gates of this city kings and princes who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their officials, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And this city shall be inhabited forever.’33

There exists an interesting discussion on the character of Jer 17:2429. Some exegetes construe a discontinuity in history and assume that the prophet is talking about the conduct of the people after the devastation of Jerusalem: keeping the Sabbath then will provoke salvation, not keeping the Sabbath will bring further ordeal.34 Others understand the unit as a summons to act wisely in the moment of threat: the siege of Jerusalem gives its population a unique chance to revaluate its conduct especially in view of keeping the Sabbath.35 On the basis of the verbal forms in the unit, a decision in this question cannot be made. The text, however, contains an element that might be seen as a decisive argument. In the beginning of verse 25, the collocation “kings and princes” occur. The word “princes” has often been construed as a later addition based on dittography with “their princes” later in the verse and on the assumption, that “princes” never ruled on the throne of David.36 This proposal, however, meets some serious challenges:

33

34 35

36

migrations: a sociological, literary, and theological approach on the displacement and resettlementoftheSouthernKingdomofJudah, BZAW 417 (Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 107-58; Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, TheReligionoftheLandless: ThesocialcontextoftheBabylonianexile (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2015), 130-37. Jer 17:24-25; see next to the commentaries Jerry A. Gladson, “Jeremiah 17: 19-27: A rewriting of the Sinaitic Code?”CBQ62 (2000): 33-40; Christl M. Maier, “Jeremiah as teacher of Torah,” Interpretation 62 (2008): 22-32. See, e.g., Holladay, Jeremiah1, 508-11. See, e.g., Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah1-20:anewtranslationwithintroduction,notes, andcommentary, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 807. See, e.g., Holladay, Jeremiah1, 508; Gladson, “Jeremiah 17:19-27,” 38.

14

BOB BECKING

– None of the versiones antiquae have a minus on this point;37 – The collocation melākîmweśārîm is attested elsewhere in the Book of Jeremiah.38 Besides, the noun śār, “prince,” can be interpreted here in the specific connotation of “a ruler who will lead the people over the threshold between a bad time and a good time.”39 In that case, the section in Jeremiah 17 would hint at a discontinuation and the “kings and princes” should be construed as rulers in a distant future. They are, however, not presented as messianic figures. The name David also occurs in texts that are dealing with the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. This theme started with a promise given to David after he transferred the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem: And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever. (2 Sam 7:16)

The prophecies in the Book of Jeremiah make clear that this promise has been contested by the behaviour of kings in the lineage of David. This can be seen in the prophetic oracles concerning the kings in Jer 2122. Although they were sitting on the “throne of David” they did not behave in a Davidic way. They failed to be a ṣemaḥṣaddîq. In the occurrences on the king of David, the Book of Jeremiah talks in two different registers: (1) The first dimension connects to the negative view on the future of the Davidic dynasty as displayed in texts like Jer 13:13-14 and 29:16-17, discussed above. In an oracle against Jehoiakim who dared to burn the scroll of Baruch containing the prophecies of Jeremiah, the language of discontinuation is used: Therefore, thus says YHWH concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out to the heat of the day and the frost of the night. (Jer 36:30)40

A comparable idea is to be found in Jer 33:26 (2) In an oracle of hope that design the future after the return from exile, the continuation of the line of David is promised: 37 38 39 40

LXX: βασιλεῖς καὶ ἄρχοντες; Vulg: reges et principes; Targ: mlkynwrbrbyn. Jer 2:26; 25:18; 32:32; 44:17, 21. See Isa 9 “prince of peace”; and below “David as Heilszeitherrscher.”. See Holladay, Jeremiah2, 261; Lundbom, Jeremiah21-36, 609-12.

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

15

For thus says YHWH, ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel.’ (Jer 33:17)

This two-side view on the future of the Davidic dynasty needs to be read within the broader Jeremianic view on two stages of future. 5. DAVID

DOES NOT

EQUAL THE ‘MESSIAH’

In my view therefore, David is never seen in the prophetic corpus as the “Messiah.” He nevertheless plays an important role in Ancient Israelite futurology. With this label, I refer to a conceptualization of time that can be found in various prophetic texts in the Hebrew Bible. Threat, conquest, downfall, exile, etc., are interpreted as divine acts in history. They are not, however, the end of time or history. Through the humiliation a new future is possible. This future can be reached by conversion, or by new deeds of the deity. This pattern can be found, for instance in Jeremiah’s Book of Consolation41 as well as in the enigmatic interchange of prophecies of doom and prosperity in Micah 2-5.42 Both in Micah and in Jeremiah a pattern can be detected. In this prophetic view, history is the display of an interchange between “good times” and “bad times.” The texts imply the idea that there is an alternation in time from periods of prosperity to times of trouble, and from situations of sorrow to periods of peace. Fear and freedom follow each other in a continuing interplay. This worldview can be characterized as proto-apocalyptic. In later apocalyptic literature, history is related in a schematic way. The past is presented in periods. I shall characterize this prophetic view as proto-apocalyptic since the concept of periodizing in its extreme form is not yet present. Besides, the active role of the divine being is stressed. I would add that a comparable worldview is attested in Mesopotamian from the first millennium BCE. In the so-called Akkadian literary predictive texts, the same pattern of interchange between “good times” and “bad times” is detectable.43 The theme of reversal is not only present in the Akkadian literary predictive texts, but 41

42

43

See Becking, BetweenFearandFreedom; Kathleen M. O’Connor, Jeremiah:Painand Promise (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2011), 103-13. See Bob Becking, “Micah in Neo-Assyrian Light,” in “ThusspeaksIshtarofArbela:” ProphecyinIsrael,Assyria,andEgyptintheNeo-AssyrianPeriod,ed. Robert P. Gordon and Hans M. Barstad (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 111-28. See Tremper Longman III., Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and ComparativeStudy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991).

16

BOB BECKING

also elsewhere in the ancient Near East. For instance: The Appendix to Assurbanipal’s Coronation hymn,44 the Admonitions of Ipuwer,45 and the Cyrus Cylinder.46 6. DAVID AS HEILSZEITHERRSCHER All these ancient Near Eastern texts imply the idea that there is an alternation in time from periods of prosperity to times of trouble, and from situations of sorrow to periods of peace. Fear and freedom follow each other in an on-going interplay. At the turn of times a Heilszeitherrscher plays an important role in bringing the community for bas times to good times: the “good prince” in the Akkadian literary predictive texts; the “Prince of Peace” in Isa 9; the “son of man” in Daniel 7.47 In Jeremiah 23:5 the sprout from the house of David is cast in this role. The imagery is a subtext of the well-known prophecy in Amos 9:11-12: “In that day ‘I will restore David’s fallen shelter – I will repair its broken walls and restore its ruins – and will rebuild it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name,’ declares YHWH, who will do these things.48 44

45

46

47

48

SAA III 11: r. 9-10; see Martin Arneth, “‘Möge Šamaš dich in das Hirtenamt über die vier Weltgegenden einsetzen’: der ‘Krönungshymnus Assurbanipals’ (SAA III,11) und die Solarisierung des neuassyrischen Königtums,” ZABR 5 (1999) pp. 28–53. Ipuwer 8:1–5 (COS I 96); see Roland Enmarch, TheDialogueofIpuwerandtheLord ofAll (Griffith Institute Publications; Oxford: The Griffith Institute, 2005). Most recent edition: Paul-Richard Berger, “Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadische Personennamen im Danielbuch,” ZA 64 (1975): 192234; see also Amelie Kuhrt, “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy,” JSOT 25 (1983): 83-97; Anne Fitzpatrick-McKinley, Empire, Power, and Indigenous Elites:ACaseStudyoftheNehemiahMemoir, JSJSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 54-63; Irvin Finkel, ed.,TheCyrusCylinder:TheKingofPersia’sProclamationfromAncient Babylon (London: British Museum, 2013). On this concept see Peter Höffken, “Heilszeitherrschererwartung im babylonischen Raum: Überlegungen im Anschluß an W 22 307.7,” WO 1 (1977): 57-71; Longman, FictionalAkkadianAutobiography; Beate Pongratz-Leisten, HerrschaftswisseninMesopotamien.FormenderKommunikationzwischenGottundKönigim2.und1.Jahrtausend v.Chr., SAAS 10 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Texts Project, 1999); Jonathan Stökl, Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. A Philological and Sociological Comparison, CHANE 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); Matthew Neujahr, PredictingthePastintheAncient NearEast:ManticHistoriographyinAncientMesopotamia,Judah,andtheMediterranean World, Brown Judaic Studies 354 (Providence: Brown University Press, 2012). See Francis Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos:anewtranslationwithintroduction,notes,andcommentary, AB 24A (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 885-926; Greg

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

7. CONCLUSION: THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH

17

IN

Which role did the memory on David play in the Book of Jeremiah? The past-oriented remarks make clear that to the author(s) of this Bblical Book, David was an historical figure. Details of his life, however, are absent. In future-oriented texts in this prophetic book, David is presented as a future prince of peace who will lead the population of Judah and Jerusalem from fear to freedom. Although this concept later gave rise to a messianic interpretation of King David, the Book of Jeremiah cannot be seen as a messianic text.49

REFERENCES Primary Sources COS = TheContextofScripture. Edited by William W. Hallo et al. Leiden: Brill, 1997. KAI = Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966-1969. Secondary Sources AHN, John J. Exileasforcedmigrations:asociological,literary,andtheological approachonthedisplacementandresettlementoftheSouthernKingdomof Judah. BZAW 417. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. AMIRAN, Ruth. “The ‘Arm-Shaped’ Vessel and Its Family.” JNES 21 (1962): 161174. ANDERSEN, Francis, and David Noel FREEDMAN. Amos:anewtranslationwith introduction, notes, and commentary. AB 24A. New York: Doubleday, 1989. ARNETH, Martin. “‘Möge Šamaš dich in das Hirtenamt über die vier Weltgegenden einsetzen’: der ‘Krönungshymnus Assurbanipals’ (SAA III,11) und die Solarisierung des neuassyrischen Königtums.” ZABR 5 (1999): 28–53. BECKER, Joachim. MessiaserwartungimAltenTestament. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977.

49

Goswell, “David in the Prophecy of Amos,” VT61 (2011): 243-257. The same holds for Zechariah 12. See also Hans Strauss, MessianischohneMessias:ZurÜberlieferungsgeschichteund InterpretationdersogenanntenmessianischenTexteimAltenTestament, Europäische Hochschulschriften XXIII/232 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984); Walter Brueggemann, TheTheologyoftheBookofJeremiah, Old Testament Theology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), esp. 128-33.

18

BOB BECKING

BECKING, Bob. “David between Evidence and Ideology.” Pages 1-30 in History ofIsraelbetweenEvidenceandIdeology.Edited by Bob Becking and Lester L. Grabbe. OTS 59. Leiden: Brill, 2011. —. “Micah in Neo-Assyrian Light.” Pages 111-18 in “ThusspeaksIshtarofArbela:” ProphecyinIsrael,Assyria,andEgyptintheNeo-AssyrianPeriod.Edited by Robert P. Gordon and Hans M. Barstad.Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013. —. BetweenFearandFreedom:EssaysontheInterpretationofJeremiah30-31. OTS 51. Leiden: Brill, 2004. BERGER, Paul-Richard. “Der Kyros-Zylinder mit dem Zusatzfragment BIN II Nr. 32 und die akkadische Personennamen im Danielbuch.” ZA 64 (1975): 192-234. BRANDEN, Alphons van der. “Titoli tolemaici.” BeO 6 (1964): 60-72. BRUEGGEMANN, Walter. TheTheologyoftheBookofJeremiah. Old Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. CARROLL, Robert P. Jeremiah. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1986. COOKE, George A. AText-BookofNorth-SemiticInscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. DIETRICH, Walter. David: Der Herrscher mit der Harfe. Biblische Gestalten. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2006. —. Samuel. BK VIII/1,1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009. DIJKSTRA, Meindert. “Prophecy by Letter (Jeremiah XXIX 24-32).” VT 33 (1983): 319-322. DOMMERSHAUSEN, Werner. “Der ‘Spross‘ als Messias-Vorstellung bei Jeremia und Sacharja.” TQ 148 (1968): 321-41. DVOŘÁČEK, Jiří. TheSonofDavidinMatthew’sGospelintheLightoftheSolomon asExorcistTradition. WUNT 415. Göttingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. ELAYI, Josette. HistoiredelaPhénicie. Paris: Perrin, 2013. ENMARCH, Roland. TheDialogueofIpuwerandtheLordofAll. Griffith Institute Publications. Oxford: The Griffith Institute, 2005. ERZBERGER, Johanna. “Jeremiah 33: 14-26: the question of text stability and the devaluation of kingship.” OTE 26 (2013): 663-683. FABRY, Heinz-Josef, und Klaus SCHOLTISSEK. DerMessias:PerspektivendesAlten undNeuenTestaments. NEB Themen 5. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2002. FINKEL, Irvin, ed.TheCyrusCylinder:TheKingofPersia’sProclamationfrom AncientBabylon. London: British Museum, 2013. FITZPATRICK-MCKINLEY, Anne. Empire,Power,andIndigenousElites:ACase StudyoftheNehemiahMemoir. JSJSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. FLEURY, Dominique, and Thierry BRENAC. “Accident Prototypical Scenarios: A Tool for Road Safety Research and Diagnostic Studies.” AccidentAnalysis &Prevention 33 (2001): 267–276. GLADSON, Jerry A. “Jeremiah 17: 19-27: A rewriting of the Sinaitic Code?” CBQ62 (2000): 33-40. GODDARD, Cliff. “Universals and Variation in the Lexicon of Mental State Concepts.” Pages 72-93 in WordsandtheMind:HowWordsCaptureHumanExperience. Edited by Barbara C. Malt and Phillip Wolff. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. GOSSAI, Hemchand. SocialCritiquebyIsrael’sEighth-CenturyProphets:Justice andRighteousnessinContext. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2006.

THE PRODUCTIVE MEMORY OF DAVID IN THE PROPHETIC BOOKS

19

GOSWELL, Greg. “David in the Prophecy of Amos.” VT61 (2011): 243-257. GUNNEL, André. DeterminingtheDestiny:PQDintheOldTestament. ConBOT 16. Lund: Gleerup, 1980. HARVEY, Richard. MappingMessianicJewishTheology.AconstructiveApproach, StudiesinMessianicJewishTheology. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009. HÖFFKEN, Peter. “Heilszeitherrschererwartung im babylonischen Raum: Überlegungen im Anschluß an W 22 307.7.” WO 1 (1977): 57-71. HOLLADAY, William L. Jeremiah1:ACommentaryontheBookoftheProphet JeremiahChapters1-25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. —. Jeremiah2:ACommentaryontheBookoftheProphetJeremiahChapters 1-25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989. HORBURY, William. MessianismamongJewsandChristians:BiblicalandHistoricalStudies. 2nd ed. London, New York: Bloomsbury, 2016. JONGE, Marinus J. de. “The use of the word ‚anointed‘ in the time of Jesus.” NT 8 (1966):132-148. KUHRT, Amelie. “The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy.” JSOT 25 (1983): 83-97. KUTSCH, Ernst. SalbungalsRechtsaktimAltenTestamentundimaltenOrient. BZAW 87. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1963. LAKOFF, George and Zoltán KÖVECSES. “The Cognitive Model of Anger Inherent in American English.” Pages 195-221 in CulturalModelsinLanguageand Thought.Edited by Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. LONGMAN, Tremper III. FictionalAkkadianAutobiography:AGenericandComparativeStudy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1991. LUNDBOM, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20: a new translation with introduction, notes, andcommentary. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999. —. Jeremiah21-36:anewtranslationwithintroduction,notes,andcommentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004. MAIER, Christl M. “Jeremiah as teacher of Torah.” Interpretation 62 (2008): 22-32. MCCARTER, P. Kyle. Samuel: a new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary. AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980. MCKECHNIE, Paul R., and Philippe GUILLAUME, eds.PtolemythesecondPhiladelphusandhisWorld. Mnemosyne Supplements 300. Leiden: Brill, 2008. MENKEN, Maarten J.J. Matthew’sBible:TheOldTestamentTextoftheEvangelist. BEThL 173. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. METTINGER, Tryggve N.D. KingandMessiah:TheCivilandSacralLegitimationof theIsraeliteKings. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament 8. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. MOENIKES, Ansgar. “Messianismus im Alten Testament (vorapokalyptische Zeit).” ZRG 40 (1988): 289-306. NEUJAHR, Matthew. PredictingthePastintheAncientNearEast:ManticHistoriography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, and the Mediterranean World. Brown Judaic Studies 354. Providence: Brown University Press, 2012. NOVENSON, Matthew V. ChristamongtheMessiahs:ChristlanguageinPauland MessiahlanguageinancientJudaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. O’CONNOR, Kathleen M. Jeremiah: Pain and Promise. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2011.

20

BOB BECKING

PERELTSVAIG, Asya. “Cognate Objects in Modern and Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 107-135 in ThemesinArabicandHebrewSyntax. Edited by Jamal Ouhalla and Ur Shlonsky. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 53. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Beate. Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien. Formen der KommunikationzwischenGottundKönigim2.und1.Jahrtausendv.Chr. SAAS 10. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Texts Project, 1999. ROSE, Wolter H. ZemahandZerubbabel:MessianicExpectationsintheEarly PostexilicPeriod. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. SCHÄFER, Peter. TheJewishJesus:HowJudaismandChristianityShapedEach Other. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. SEITSCHEK, Hans Otto. “Politischer Messianismus als Konzept der Totalitarismuskritik.” ZRG 68 (2016): 40-56. SHOWERS, Renald E. ThePre-WrathRaptureView:AnExaminationandCritique. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2001. SMITH-CHRISTOPHER, Daniel L. TheReligionoftheLandless:Thesocialcontext oftheBabylonianexile. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2015. STÖKL, Jonathan. ProphecyintheAncientNearEast.APhilologicalandSociologicalComparison. CHANE 56. Leiden: Brill, 2012. STRAUSS, Hans. Messianisch ohne Messias: Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte und Interpretation der sogenannten messianischen Texte im Alten Testament. Europäische Hochschulschriften XXIII/232. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984. SWEENEY, Marvin A. “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23: 1-8 in Context.” Pages 308-321 in Uprootingandplanting:essayson JeremiahforLeslieAllen. Edited by John Goldingay. LHBOTS 459. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007. SWETNAM, James. “Some Observations on the Background of ‫ צדיק‬in Jeremias 23, 5a.” Biblica 46 (1965): 29-40. URBACH, Ephraim E. TheSages:TheirConceptsandBeliefs.Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987. WACHOLDER, Ben Zion. “Biblical chronology in the Hellenistic world chronicles.” HTR 61 (1968): 451-481. WALTKE, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’CONNOR. AnintroductiontoBiblicalHebrew syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990. WASCHKE, Ernst-Joachim. DerGesalbte:StudienzuralttestamentlichenTheologie. BZAW 306. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 2001. WESSELS, Willie. “Jeremiah 33:15-16 as a reinterpretation of Jeremiah 23:5-6,” HervormdeTeologieseStudies 47 (1991): 231-246. WOLDE, Ellen J. van. ReframingBiblicalStudies:WhenLanguageandTextMeet Culture,Cognition,andContext. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. WRIGHT, Jacob L. David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014. XELLA, Paolo, and José-Ángel Zamora LÓPEZ. “L’inscription phénicienne de Bodashtart in situ à Bustān eš-sēh (Sidon) et son apport à l’histoire du sanctuaire.” ZDPV 121 (2005): 119-29; ZACHARIAS, H. Daniel. Matthew’sPresentationoftheSonofDavid. London; New York: Bloomsbury 2017.

THE PSALMS AS A “SITE OF MEMORY” OF DAVID Kåre BERGE NLA University School, Bergen

The way from the presence of David in the corpus of some – rather few – psalms, to the appearance of David in the introductions or the headings of the psalms, onto the idea of the Psalms as the Psalms of David, is what Klaus Seybold has called “die Davidisierung” of the Psalms.1 In English we might call it “the Davidizing process.” It is the task of this paper, first, to outline the occurrences of David in the Psalms, and then, as a major part of my presentation, to reflect on what it means to regard the Psalms as a “site of memory” of David based on the occurrences in some central Psalms. So, this is more about the significance of David than an exegetical study of the Psalms. So, how is David “davidized” in the Book of Psalms? Let me first admit that I am a little confused by my own title. Let me reformulate it in two questions. What does it mean to speak of the Psalms as a site of memory of David? And alternatively: What does it mean to speak of David as a site of memory in the Psalms? I will touch both. There are three types of references to David. 1. First, it is the simple headings, lǝdawid. There are counted 61 references of this type.2 2. Second, there are the extended headings, they are all lǝdawid + the extension which gives a setting in the life of David. There are some 13 cases of this type. 3. Third, there are the references within the songs. These are restricted to Pss 18:51; 78:70; 89:4, 21, 36, 50; 122:5; 132:1, 10, 11, 17; and 144:10. Syntactically speaking, of these 12 cases, 7 have the form lǝdawid in different syntactic constructions. There is possessive 1

2

For this, see Klaus Seybold, “Dimensionen und Intentionen der Davidisierung der Psalmen,” in TheCompositionoftheBookofPsalms,ed. Erich Zenger (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 125-40, esp. 126-128. For these numbers see James Luther Mays, “The David of the Psalms,” Interpretation 40 (1986): 143-55, esp. 152.

22

KÅRE BERGE

genitive lǝbetdawid “the house of David” in Ps 122:5 and bǝdawid in 78:70. Mostly they all refer to David as an object or indirect object of an act by God: He does ‫ ֶ֨חסד‬to his ֹ‫ ְמ ִשׁי ֗ח‬to David and his seed (Ps 18:51); he has chosen David (Ps 78:70); he has made a covenant and sworn an oath to David (Ps 89:4, 36, 50); he found him and anointed him (v. 21); and finally he rescues (with ’et) David from the sword (Ps 144:10). The most elaborate one is Ps 132. The second group, the extended headings, is mostly related to threatening situations in David’s life: He was fleeing form Absalom (Pss 3, 7), he was threatened by Saul (Pss 18, 52, 54, 57, 59), or the Philistines (Ps 56), he was in the Judean desert or the cave (Pss 63, 142), or he was at war against Aram (Ps 60; this is the only one which is not an individual’s song). Finally, there is the psalm of penitence Ps 51. A good summary of how David is being “davidized” in these introductions is the one by James Luther Mays:3 The David… is the David whose story is woven out of incidents of trouble, danger from foes within the community and from enemies outside, and finally from his own transgression. Yet in all he trod the way of prayer and trust. He was saved.

Mays is clear also about the didactical or hermeneutical function of this picture. In this pattern of experience, David becomes model and guide for those who study the psalms and sing them in worship. The role of these psalms in his life “gives the congregation assurance that the practice of life according to these psalms will be the true way for their life.” Mays concludes, The psalm titles do not grow out of or function in behalf of a historical interest of any kind. They are rather hermeneutical ways of relating the psalms to the lives of those who lived in the face of threats… and who sought to conduct their lives according to the way of David.

All the references of the third type, the references within the songs, present David as the king. Mays informs us that only a limited sector of the David story is reflected in the psalms: It is Samuel’s anointing of the shepherd boy (Ps 78 and 1 Sam 16), David’s introduction of the Ark (Ps 132 and 2 Sam 6), and God’s covenant with David (Pss 89, 132, and 2 Sam 7). The center of this selection is the Nathan promise of 2 Sam 7 / 1 Chr 17. The picture is that of the chosen king, or as Klaus Seybold 3

Ibid.

THE PSALMS AS A “SITE OF MEMORY” OF DAVID

23

presents it:4 It is the monumental picture of an anointed ruler who is privileged by a special relation to God, theologically called a “covenant.” In a similar vein, James Luther Mays concludes about the importance of the divine choice of David, “the future of all those related to God through David is based on God’s sworn promise to David.”5 Many studies of the David pieces in these psalms discuss the relation between the unconditional and conditional David-covenant, or the possible date of the psalms, or its possible cultic setting and their literary unity. I will look at the memory culture, “die Gedächtniskultur” in which the memory of David in the Psalms occurs. Let us look at the word ‫“ ֥דוֹר‬generation”. It appears in Ps 78:4 (the comment between the dashes and translations of the Hebrew expresions are mine, K.B.): Which we have heard, and we know them – it is more elegant in Hebrew – and our fathers told us‫רוּ־לנוּ‬ ֽ ָ ‫ס ְפּ‬, ִ we don’t hide from their children‫ְל ֥דוֹר‬ ‫“ ַא ֲח ֗רוֹן‬who belong to the coming generation” to be telling ‫“ ְ ֽמ ַס ְפּ ִרים‬the price of Yahweh,” and his strength and his wonders which he made.

And verse 5-6: “He commanded our fathers to make them known to their children, for the sake that ‫א ֲח ֗רוֹן‬ ַ ‫‘ ֥דוֹר‬the coming generation’, children (who) would be born, should know. They should stand up and tell ‫יס ְפּ ֥רוּ‬ ַ ‫ ִ ֽו‬their children.”

In v. 8 we hear: They should not forget El’s deeds, but keep his commandments, And they should not be like their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, a generation who did not make its heart firm, ‫יןל ֑בּוֹ‬ ִ ‫א־ה ִ ֣כ‬ ֵ ֹ ‫מ ֶ ֥רהדּ֭ וֹרל‬ ֹ ֫ ‫סוֹררוּ‬ ֪ ֵ ‫דּוֹר‬. ֮

In the final part of the psalm, God chose David together with Judah and Zion, and it is clear that that election is forever. “The generations” also appear in Psalm 89. This psalm too, is a ‫ַמ ְשׂ ִ֗כּיל‬ like Ps 78. There is an “I” who will make God’s faithfulness known ‫ְל ֥ד ֹר‬ ‫“ וָ ֓ד ֹר‬from generation to generation.” And what he is telling is that God swore an oath to David, his servant, as in Ps 78, that (v. 5) he will build him a throne ‫לד ֹר־וָ ֖דוֹר‬.ְ God’s mercy will always be on him and his throne and his seed shall always be there, but his sons will be punished if they do not follow God’s commandments, his torah. 4

5

Klaus Seybold, “Dimensionen und Intentionen,” 126-127: “das Monumentalbild eines gekrönten und gesalbten Herrschers, der das Privileg einer besonderen Gottesbeziehung – theologisch gefasst als ‘Bund’ – geniesst.” Mays, “The David of the Psalms,” 153.

24

KÅRE BERGE

The word dor means to rotate, go round, a rotation, a ball, but also to dwell, to live, or a dwelling place, or a circular wall, a city wall. And then, a life cycle, a generation, a life time (according to HALOT). The formulation lǝdor etc. signals everywhere the stabile and unchangeable: It is the covenant (Gen 9:12; 17:7); it is the everlasting practice of circumcision (Gen 17:12); it is the divine name which shall be remembered as such through all generations (Ex 3:15 and Pss 135:13; 102:13), and of course it is the ‫ זִ ָכּ ֔רוֹן‬of the Passover (Ex 12:14, 17, 42). It is the jar of manna which shall be kept for “their generations,” and diverse regulations for the temple shall be kept as statutes forever ‫עוֹל ֙ם‬ ָ for “their generations” (Ex 27:21 a.o.), and they shall keep the Sabbaths for “your generations” “so as to know that I am Yahweh” (Ex 31:13). Joel 1:3 states that they shall tell their children “of the next generation” ‫ל ֥דוֹר ַא ֵ ֽחר‬.ְ Psalm 102:19 says that “this shall be written down for later generations,” ‫ל ֣דוֹר ַא ֲח ֑רוֹן‬.ְ And finally ‫ ֣דּוֹר ְ ֭לדוֹר‬shall praise God’s deeds and tell his might, Ps 145:4. The word “generation” has since the beginning nineteenth century been linked to processes of societal change as engines of progress or generation style etc.6 The sociologist Karl Mannheim thought that “generations” were born out of historical change and discontinuities, and that the critical point in creating a new generation are changes that take place between the late teens and the mid-twenties of a person’s life, a psychological insight which has been confirmed by psychological studies. It is clear that this does not correspond to the texts I have referred to above. We also have a clear impression that the word dor at least in some cases refers to children or people living at home. With Wilhelm Dilthey is connected the imprint hypothesis: a particular group of individuals are dependent on the same significant facts. Karl Mannheim distinguished between Generationslagerung, “generational location,” and Generationenbewusstsein “generational consciousness.” Jürgen Reulecke combines the terms generation – generational – generativity – memory, generativity denoting “the – conscious or unconscious – examination, especially within particularly distinctive generationalities, of their ties to the diachronic sequence of ‘generations’ in the genealogical sense of the word.”7 So, it is clear that “generation” in the texts referred to is something which is repeated. Change is a good thing only in so far as there is a 6

7

According to Jürgen Reulecke, Generation/ Generationality, Generativity, and Memory, in ACompaniontoCulturalMemoryStudies, ed. Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 119-125, in 119-125. Ibi, p. 122.

THE PSALMS AS A “SITE OF MEMORY” OF DAVID

25

return away from the apostasy of the former generation. This is also the case for the throne of David. It is just as misleading to discuss un/ conditionality in relation to the Davidic covenant as it is to discuss it for the patriarchal covenant, a setting where even redaction critics now do not use this as a criterion any more. The point is clear: the covenant is meant to last forever. So, how to describe this memory culture? Instead of discussing the un/ conditional character of the election of David, I will look at the implication of the time perspective, from generation to generation, and an everlasting election of David. Students of cultural memory may define a memory orientation towards the past as an invocation of the past so as to “create an atemporal sense of the past in the present,” while a historical orientation implies “a reflective exploration of past events considered along an axis of irreversibility.”8 The former orientation tends to mythologize the past. Memory confirms similarities between past and present and appeals to emotions.9 Another aspect of cultural memory theory is the distinction between episodic and semantic memory. The French historian Pierre Nora formed the term “site of memory.” Astrid Erll, a central student of cultural memory, links this notion to collective episodic memory. The point is; the so-called sites of memory appear when the culture itself is gone; it is an artificial placeholder for the no longer existent, natural collective memory. It is what remains when the milieu of memory is gone, and what remains is its artifact, e.g. a monument or a ruin still celebrated for its connection with the past. There will be a story in it, but it is episodic and fragmentary (as related to the broader history of the people), a fragmented image and nothing comprehensive. So, is the Psalms discussed here a “site of memory” of David? When first looking at Psalms 78 and 89, itisnot, by this definition. Ps 78 relates a coherent, comprehensive master narrative of the Israelite past and fits the election of David into this. Ps 89 too, is a master narrative, which links the chosen-ness of David not in the history of the people but in the “nature history,” creating a typical mythic point of reference for the chosen-ness of David. Astrid Erll distinguishes between collective autobiographical and collective semantic memory. The first one refers to the national myths or the fabrication of narratives of the recent past, while semantic memory 8

9

Barbara A. Misztal, TheoriesofSocialRemembering (Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press, 2003), 99. See also Astrid Erll, Memory in Culture, trans. Sarah B. Young, Palgrave Macmillan Memory Studies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) Kindle Edition, p. 109.

26

KÅRE BERGE

“looks at the symbolic representation of cultural knowledge;” this form of memory, she states, does not address the experience of time. It includes for instance wisdom and common sense. I think Ps 78 and 89 fall somewhat between these two categories. Especially Ps 78 narrates a history of the past, in the typical form of a national myth, but timeis merely present in the story. We have the impression that we are going in a circle there in Egypt and Soan, not going anywhere and not moving in time. It is first in the final verses, about the rejection of Ephraim and the election of David that we have a possible feeling of moving in time. This is even more so in Ps 89. It concentrates on the election of David, but this is rooted in a cosmogonic event, told with means of a typical cosmogonic myth. Thus, the election of David is eternal and not rooted in historical events.10 In parts of the psalm, the promise of David is part of the celebration of Yahweh’s creation of the world. The cosmic enemies of God are paralleled with the earthly foes of David. So, we can surely conclude that time is not addressed in these psalms. This is more like Erll’s semanticmemory. Let me return to Ps 78: It is not easy to get a clear view of the actors in this plot line. First, there is the “I” who speaks in mashal and hidot. He speaks to “My people.” This is the wisdom-I, the “I” we meet in Proverbs. When the poet speaks hidot ‫י־ק ֶדם‬ ֽ ֶ ִ‫מנּ‬, ִ “from ancient time,” this is exactly as expected, given the Old Testament’s participation in a common, koine culture which includes archaic Greece. Jacques LeGoff informs us that according to Greek tradition, “when poetry is identified with memory, this makes the latter a kind of knowledge and even of wisdom, of sophia.”11 The poet’s knowledge of the secrets of the past is provided him by Mnemosyne, the goddess of memory and mother of the muses. The poet’s memory is thus knowledge of something reserved for initiates. If this tradition was known also to the Semites, it explains perfectly the fact that the one who tells the memory of the past, and who knows its secrets, is not a “We” but the “I” of the poet, the singular person filled with wisdom and knowledge of the mysteries hidden in memory. I think this also explains the significance of the singer’s ‫“ ָמ ָ ֣שׁל‬parable” and his ‫ידוֹת‬ ֗ ‫“ ִח‬riddles” from old times, in Ps 78. The riddles are simply the memory of the past and their significance. In Ps 49, which has close 10

11

For this, see already F. Moore Cross, CanaaniteMythandHebrewEpic (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1973), 257-64. Jacques Le Goff, HistoryandMemory, trans. S. Rendall and E. Claman (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992), 64.

THE PSALMS AS A “SITE OF MEMORY” OF DAVID

27

terminological links, the riddles are the insight of the wisdom teacher in the hidden structures of the world. There are close terminological links with Ps 49. What the wisdom teacher speaks is hokma, and what his heart thinks is tebunah. He listens to ‫“ ָמ ָ ֣שׁל‬parable” and he “opens” ‫“ ִח ָיד ִ ֽתי‬my riddles,” v. 4.12 So, what are the “riddles?” Leo Perdue has identified the forms of two riddles in Ps 49 and found them comparable to the riddle of Samson, Judg 14:14: “From he who eats goes out food, and from the strong one goes out sweetness.” But as to its function, it is broader than that. In my reading, we have the same “I” in Ps 89. It has mostly been regarded as a communal, not individual lament.13 The king is not the speaker of the psalm.14 A more recent study concludes that the “I” is a prophet, but still there are elements of communal lament.15 I will return to the meaning of this. Back to Ps 78: On the other hand, we have the “We” who have heard, what Our fathers have told us, which we also tell “Their children” who must be our fathers’ children, technically speaking. This is the “you” and “your children” of the didactical or catechetical formulations in the exodus (Ex 10:1) and Pesah stipulations (Ex 12:26-27; 13:8). So, in Ps 78, there is a combination of wisdom’s knowledge of the secrets of the past, and the ritual participants’ knowledge of the sacred history, the memory of the national origin- or charter myth of Israel, its official memory. But there is a third dimension here too, which appears in the following: Our fathers were also commanded to tell Their children, so that they should not be stubborn like Their fathers, v. 8, that is, the generation who did not make their hearts firm. So who are Their fathers? These are the disobedient generation of Jos 5:6; Judg 2:19, and 2 Kgs 17:14. Finally there is the fourth topos, that about the choice of David, which is the goal of the narrative. For those who tend to see the psalm as a Passover liturgy, this element does not fit in. Psalm 78 carries a didactic theme.16 It is said about David that he “pastured” the people ‫תם‬ ֹ ֣ ‫ל ָב ֑בוֹ ְכּ‬,ְ “with integrity of his heart,” which may 12

13

14

15

16

For this, see Philip Stern, “The Eight Century Dating of Ps 78 Re-argued,” HUCA 66 (1995): 41-65, esp. 53. See Richard J. Clifford, “Psalm 89: a lament over the Davidic ruler’s continued failure,” HTR73 (1980): 35-47; see esp. 40. So Timo Veijola, VerheissunginderKrise:StudienzurLiteraturundTheologieder Exilszeitanhanddes89.Psalms (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982) See Michael H. Floyd, “Psalm lxxxix: A Prophetic Complaint about the Fulfillment of an Oracle,” VT 42 (1992): 442-457. So Hans-Joachim Kraus, Die Psalmen, BKAT 15 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961; 1978), Phillip E. McMillion, “Psalm 78: teaching the next generation,” ResQ 43 (2001): 219-28.

28

KÅRE BERGE

reflect 1 Kgs 9:4 and 2 Sam 22:24. He led them with an “understanding hand” ‫ב ְתבוּנ֖ וֹת ַכּ ָפּ֣יו‬. ִ This resembles what is said about Solomon’s kingship, but it is also said that David was ‫מ ְשׂ ִ ֑כּיל‬, ַ 1 Sam 18:14, 30. This word is also the title word of Psalm 78: It is a ‫ ַמ ְשׂ ִ֗כּיל‬lǝ-Asaph. There is a connection between the opening verses and what is said about David’ wisdom. To put it simple: the wise David is at the center of the answer to the “riddles” in v. 2. To summarize, this is Job 8:8: Now ask the former generation, ‫ישׁוֹן‬ ֑ ‫רר‬ ִ ֹ ‫ל ֣ד‬.ְ Be firm on what your fathers found.

And Job 15:17-18: I will tell ‫ וַ ֲא ַס ֵ ֽפּ ָרה‬what I have seen, what the wise ones have declared, and what their fathers did not hide.

To illustrate the notion of generations, let me return to theory of time. The historian Reinhart Koselleck, in his book FuturePast, discusses the notion of temporality and temporalization (Verzeitlichung) of history. This he relates to the start of modernity in the 18th century, but he also draws up a wide picture of two or three different ways of dealing with time, which fathoms the difference between experience and expectation in the old world and in the “neue Zeit.” In the peasant world, he says, expectations subsisted entirely on the experiences of their predecessors. There was an almost seamless transference of earlier experiences into coming expectations.17 Koselleck links this to a distinction between what he calls (political, rational) prognosis and eschatological or apocalyptic prophecy. Prophecy destroys time through its fixation on the end. From the point of view of prophecy, events are merely symbols of that which is already known.18 This he relates to Church History. According to Koselleck, “the prorogued End of the World had been constituted by the Church and then projected in the form of a static time capable of being experienced as a tradition.”19 Prognosis produces time in so far as it assigns itself to intrinsic, limited possibilities. It is here we can talk about progress. Prognosis implies a diagnosis which introduces the past into the future, he says. Eliminated is a conception of the future that takes for granted “the certainty that the Last Judgment would enforce a simple alternative 17

18 19

Reinhart Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time (Cambridge, Mass.; London: The MIT Press, 1985), 277-278. See also 6-12. Ibi, 14. Ibi, 17.

THE PSALMS AS A “SITE OF MEMORY” OF DAVID

29

between Good and Evil through the establishment of a sole principle of behavior.” Koselleck referred the former concept to the Christian Church history, “the future of the world and its end were made part of the history of the Church … The Church utilized the imminent-but-future End of the World as a means of stabilization.” He goes on saying, The future as the possible End of the World is absorbed within time by the Church as a constituting element, and thus does not exist in a linear sense at the end point of time. Rather, the end of time can be experienced only because it is always-already sublimated in the Church.

I think this may provide a structural means by which it is possible to describe central elements in our psalms. As I attempt to show, there is no real temporality, no historical development in the meaning of directional change through time in these psalms. If there is any time consciousness, it is repetitious time. We can hardly say that these biblical texts give room for a historiahumana, except as a turn away from God, as apostasy, in Ps 78. There is nothing in the understanding of time, which constitutes any consciousness of difference between traditional experience and coming expectation. Expectations have not distanced themselves from previous experiences, except for the idea of an eschatological end, proclaimed by the prophets. As to Ps 89, Michael Floyd, in a 1992 article about this psalm, demonstrates that the central speaker is cast in a prophetic role, and that the prophetic pronouncements (v. 3-5) serve as the basis for the affirmation of confidence, and that the description of trouble (vv. 20-46) also begins with Yahweh’s oracle to his prophets about David, and finally how the events referred to have called the validity of this oracle into question.20 He also cites Michael Fishbane, who has called the speeches of Yahweh in the psalm “mantological exegesis” of a prophetic oracle.21 The verses 20-38 amounts, according to Floyd’s exegesis, “to a kind of haggadic midrash that betrays the historical experience of the oracle’s apparently having been fulfilled for a time, as well as a more recent turn of events which appears to have virtually discontinued it.” Floyd refers to Hab 1:2-17 and Jer 15:10-18 as relevant parallels. Both present time as an ongoing fight between evilness and the prophetic expectation linked to the existence of Yahweh from eternity, ‫מ ֶ ֗קּ ֶדם‬, ִ or the reliability of the word of God against the enemies. But just this combination blots out or obstructs any feeling of temporality in the “historical experience.” Floyd interprets this as “the 20 21

Ibi, 453. Ibi, 444.

30

KÅRE BERGE

continuing viability of that prophecy under changed historical conditions.” I think it is more of a collision between God’s eternal presence and the present miserable circumstances. There is no “history” in this, in terms of a difference between past and present. So, what is the conclusion? The distinction between past and present is essential to the concept of time, and of memory. In these psalms, there is a distinction, but in both cases, the present is either an incitement to reestablish the old order, based on the conclusion of the historical myth, which is the election of David as opposite to the rejection of Ephraim, or it is a fall out of the order of the past (the eternal election of David). I think both Ps 78 and 89 fit more or less into Koselleck’s Verzeitlichung, or rather the lack thereof. Expectation and experience overlap. If Ps 89 reflects a prophet’s lament and a “mantological exegesis,” it confirms Koselleck’s theory that “Prophecy destroys time through its fixation on the end. From the point of view of prophecy, events are merely symbols of that which is already known.” Another theorist of memory and history, Jacques LeGoff, in his book HistoryandMemory,takes issue against the view that the way from collective memory to history is reflected in the Bible through the continuity of the institution of monarchy.22 LeGoff counters this by saying that in the Bible, Jewish history is on the one hand fascinated by its own origins (the creation and then the covenant between Yahweh and his people), and we could add, the covenant with David, and on the other drawn toward an equally sacred future: the advent of the Messiah and of the Heavenly Jerusalem which, in Isaiah, is opened to all nations. Even when this is a too narrow perspective, I think its suits our psalms: the continuity of the monarchy in our psalms is no continuity through time as a process, but it is the eternal foundation of the Davidic election (Ps 89) and the divine conclusion of a history of divine acts of salvation and punishment and the people’s continuing acts of apostasy (Ps 78). If it is right that Ps 89 may have found a place in a ritual setting in the Second Temple cult (typically the royal oracle to David is not linked to any temple setting), this confirms my view: The possible ritual setting is a Siteofmemory of David, in which “the past” including the election of David is used as a cultural code, it is a cognitive schema to understand the present and the identity of the celebrating community. 22

Le Goff, History and Memory, 12. This was put forward by Pierre Gibert, in a book about the Bible and the birth of history, LaBibleàlanaissancedel’histoire:Autemps deSaül,DavidetSalomon (Paris: Arthème Fayard, 1979).

THE PSALMS AS A “SITE OF MEMORY” OF DAVID

31

Before I conclude, let me briefly touch on Ps 132. Psalm 132 recalls the virtue of David as he swore to Yahweh that he would build a ‫ָ ֭מקוֹם‬ for Yahweh, a ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָכּנ֗ וֹת‬a dwelling place for the Mighty one of Jacob. The succeeding verse 6 recalls the ark narrative in 1 Sam, but it retells it as an event of ours: “See, we heard about her in Efratah, we found her in the fields of Ja’ar.” And “we will go to his dwelling place.” Who are these “we?” It has been argued that the “we” is to be interpreted historically, as those who acted according to the ark narrative in the Books of Samuel.23 This may or may not be true. My point is, however, that this does not make any sense to those who read or celebrated the psalm in, say, the post-exilic cultic community. I think it is the same suspension of time as we have seen in Pss 78 and 89. Even when one knows that the story is about the past, this past is not linked into an irreversible time frame. In a recent article, Gianni Barbiero has argued that v. 8, “Arise, Lord, to your resting place, you and your ark which is your strength,” looks at time from an eschatological perspective.24 This is not about an existing cultic procession, as argued by many scholars,25 but a prophecy of eschatological expectation, similar in a sense to 2 Maccabees. “Therefore, 23

24 25

Antti Laato, “Psalm 132 and the Development of the Jerusalemite / Israelite Royal Ideology,” CBQ 54 (1992): 49-66, esp. 63. See also Id., “Psalm 132: A Case Study in Methodology,” CBQ 61 (1999): 24-33. Antti Laato, who also argues for a pre-exilic dating of the psalm and an even earlier date of the traditions in it, claims that the “we” are those who, along with David, first found the ark in Kirjath-Jearim and then brought the ark from the tent of David to its permanent resting place in the Solomonic temple. Laato has demonstrated that the so-called deuteronomistic expressions in the psalm are few and no indices of dtr dependency. However, as he also shows, the bringing of the ark to the temple “is justified not by reference to Solomon’s hardships in building the temple but rather by referring to David’s merits.” Laato gives no clear explanation for this. I would argue however, that it fits into the Chronicler’s presentation of David as the “real” temple-builder even when he did not build it, so it indicates to my mind, a rather late development (contra Laato). Laato is right, however, when he points out that the idea of Yahweh’s abode on Zion is incoherent with the dtr notion of his name dwelling there, 1 Kgs 8. The reference to Zion in 1 Kgs 8:1 is probably from en early (Assyrian-time) Dtr. I do not think that Ps 132 is typically Deuteronomistic, but I still think it is late. The conditional covenant idea in Ps 132 is according to him, not a later, dtr development from the unconditional form, but just the opposite. It comes from an original, tribal idea, from antimonarchical ideas and later on, from ideas of conditional kingship, developed in Shechem (p. 60). His argument is based on Deut 17:14-20 and 1 Sam 8:5-6, 18-20; 1 Kgs 12. Gianni Barbiero, “Psalm 132: a prayer of ‘Solomon’,” CBQ 75 (2013): 239-58. esp. 247. See Heinz Kruse, “Psalm 132 and the royal Zion festival,” VT 33 (1983): 307-18; Delbert R. Hillers, “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132,” CBQ30 (1968): 48-55; and Aage Bentzen, “The Cultic use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel,” JBL 67 (1948): 37-53.

32

KÅRE BERGE

behind the historical event evoked in v. 8, we can glimpse the hope of an eschatological restoration of the time of Solomon, when peace reigned and the ark was present in the temple.” In a similar vein, he also states that “verses 8-10 are uttered … by Solomon. But in the psalms Solomon is not just a historical figure; he has messianic significance.” Then we are back to Koselleck’s definition. “Prophecy destroys time through its fixation on the end.” So, how is David “davidized?” To rephrase it: What kind of memory culture is visible in these psalms about David? Cultural memory, even when bearing an idea of something past, is intrinsically directed towards the meaning-making of the present. David in these psalms is no historical person, in the meaning of a figure placed on the axis of an irreversible time line, or in the distinction between past experience and present expectations, at best it is the David of a mythical time, that is, a timeless and ever present “time.” He is part of an objectivation of how the world of the chosen people ought to be; he is a symbol, a code of deeply moral questions of God’s purpose and present experiences – which is a central characteristic in social memory as described by Aby Warburg, one of the seminal “fathers” of cultural memory.26 I think what Astrid Erll writes about later Jewish practice of historiography also is valid, in broad terms, for what we have found in the discussed psalms, so the following citation is right only in its second part: The Biblical texts, Yerushalmi argues, still exhibit a certain sense of historical time and historical change. But after the Biblical canon is completed, the Jews practice virtually no historiography any longer. Jewish memory, in the centuries after the destruction of the second temple, is represented in the ahistorically structured rabbinical writings: The events recounted in the Bible become archetypes for every later historical event.27

David in these psalms is in the first instance, no site of memory, because he appears in three coherent narratives or national myths. In the second instance however, he may appear as a site, the way that he recalls the notion of David as the figure of the Dtr (and Chron) Histories. But I am unsure whether this should be called “cultural memory.” We are talking about the intertextual connections.

26 27

See Erll, MemoryinCulture,19. Ibi, 41.

THE PSALMS AS A “SITE OF MEMORY” OF DAVID

33

REFERENCES Primary Sources HALOT = The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1995, 2004. Secondary Sources BARBIERO, Gianni. “Psalm 132: A Prayer of ‘Solomon,’” CBQ75 (2013): 239-58. BENTZEN, Aage. “The Cultic use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel.” JBL 67 (1948): 37-53. CLIFFORD, Richard J. “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure.” HTR73 (1980): 35-47. CROSS, F. Moore. CanaaniteMythandHebrewEpic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. ERLL, Astrid, Ansgar NÜNNING, and Sara B. YOUNG. ACompaniontoCultural MemoryStudies. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. ERLL, Astrid. MemoryinCulture. Translated by Sarah B. Young. Palgrave Macmillan Memory Studies. Palgrave Macmillan (Kindle Edition), 2011. German title: Kollektives Gedächtnis und Erinnerungskulturen. Eine Einführung. FLOYD, Michael H. “Psalm lxxxix: A Prophetic Complaint about the Fulfillment of an Oracle.” VT 42 (1992): 442-457. GIBERT, Pierre.LaBibleàlanaissancedel’histoire:AutempsdeSaül,David etSalomon.Paris: Arthème Fayard, 1979. HILLERS, Delbert R. “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132.” CBQ30 (1968): 48-55. KOSELLECK, Reinhart. FuturesPast:OntheSemanticsofHistoricalTime. Cambridge, Mass.; London: The MIT Press, 1985. KRAUS, Hans-Joachim. DiePsalmen. BKAT 15. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961; 1978. KRUSE, Heinz. “Psalm 132 and the Royal Zion Festival,” VT33 (1983): 27997. LAATO, Antti, “Psalm 132 and the Development of the Jerusalemite / Israelite Royal Ideology,” CatholicBiblicalQuarterly54 (1992), pp. 49-66. —, “Psalm 132: A Case Study in Methodology,” CBQ61 (1999), pp. 24-33. LE GOFF, Jacques. HistoryandMemory. Translated by S. Rendall and E. Claman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Storia e memoria 1977. MAYS, James Luther. “The David of the Psalms.” Interpretation40 (1986): 14355. MCMILLION, Phillip E. “Psalm 78: Teaching the Next Generation.” Restoration Quarterly43 (2001): 219-28. MISZTAL, Barbara A. TheoriesofSocialRemembering. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press, 2003. REULECKE, Jürgen. Generation/ Generationality, Generativity, and Memory. Pages 119-125 in ACompaniontoCulturalMemoryStudies. Edited by Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.

34

KÅRE BERGE

SEYBOLD, Klaus. “Dimensionen und Intentionen der Davidisierung der Psalmen. Die Rolle Davids nach den Psalmenüberschriften und nach dem Septuagintapsalm 151.” Pages 125-140 in TheCompositionoftheBookofPsalms. Edited by Erich Zenger. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. STERN, Philip. “The Eight Century Dating of Ps 78 Re-argued.” HUCA66 (1995): 41-65. VEIJOLA, Timo. VerheissunginderKrise:StudienzurLiteraturundTheologie derExilszeitanhanddes89.Psalms. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT OF AMORITE MATRIMONIAL PRACTICES Daniel BODI Professor of History at Religious of Antiquity Sorbonne Université – University of Paris 4

ABSTRACT The Hebrew Bible provides lengthy, circumstantial descriptions of the way David acquired four of his wives: Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba and Abishag. This article compares elements from the stories of Michal, Abigail, and Bathsheba with what is known of the elaborate matrimonial practices of the Amorite chieftains like Zimrī-Līm of Mari and of his use of the princely ladies as political “exchange money.” First, the article compares the Saul’s offer of his two daughters, Merab and Michal to David with the particular story of two daughter’s of Zimrī-Līm. This 18th century BCE tribal chieftain offered his two daughters Kirûm and Šimātum to the same vassal, Ḫāya-Sūmû, in order to spy on him and better control his political alliances. The Amorite princess, Kirûm, eventually managed to extirpate herself from this unfortunate political transaction of her father by a divorce. By contrast, Michal, the Hebrew princess, first given to David then to Palti, due to the political dealings of her father Saul, is brought back to David and remained in his custody and probably sequestered until the end of her life. Second, the story in 1 Samuel 25 is seen in light of a major historical analogy and a forerunner of the triangular relationship between Abigail, Nabal, and David with a precedent culled from Mari documents. The career of Inib-šarri, ZimrīLīm’s daughter and princess, first married to an old sheikh, Zakura-abum, and, after his sudden death, to a younger vassal, Ibâl-Addu, is something of a comparative unicum in respect to 1 Samuel 25, providing a very apt analogy to the similar career of Abigail. Third, the David and Bathsheba episode in 2 Samuel 11 is interpreted in light of several texts from Mari and Mesopotamia. The Akkadian literary topos depicting the ideal warlike existence of a tribal chieftain requires of the leader to risk his life for the clan which in turn makes the clan trust its leader. David’s dallying with the wife of one of his officers, and eating, drinking and living in the shade rather than leading armies into military exploits would be considered unworthy of a warlord, disparaging to his reputation and calling into question his leadership.

36

DANIEL BODI

INTRODUCTION By focusing on how David acquired three of his wives, Michal, Abigail and Bathsheba, this research deals with gender studies.1 It also offers literary and historical criticism in the field of the Hebrew Bible and comparative ancient Near Eastern literature. When doing comparative studies, one has to comply to some basic requirements. The comparative literature adduced should be linguistically, geographically, culturally and chronologically close to the Hebrew one. The comparisons made about the way ancient Hebrew chieftains like Saul and David obtained, exchanged or dealt with their wives, daughters and the matrimonial transactions of the Amorite warlord, Zimrī-Līm, show that marriage transactions among semi-nomadic populations share numerous details which are best explained as being due to the conservatism of marriage customs in Northern Syria and in ancient Israel. Jack Sasson has shown the remarkable continuity of customs in the betrothal of Rebecca from Aram-naharaim and Isaac in Gen 24, both belonging to the same tribal ancestors, and that of Zimrī-Līm (1775–1762 BCE) from Mari and Šibtu, the princess from Aleppo, daughter of Yarim-Līm, another ruler belonging to the Bensim᾿alite Amorite tribes as Zimrī-Līm himself.2 The similarities between the way the Amorite warlord Zimrī-Līm handled his princely daughters, principal wives and women folk that worked for him with the royal ladies around Saul, David, and Solomon show the role women played in the political power play and confirms the existence of a particular “Royal Economics of Women” that the ancient Hebrew tribal warlords shared with their Northwest Semitic precursors. The biblical narratives place a woman at each key stage of David’s career. David enters the royal family by marrying Michal, Saul’s daughter. 1

2

Some abbreviations used in this article: AfO = Archiv für Orientforschung; ARM = Archives Royales de Mari; BBVO = Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient; ERC = Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations; SEPOA = Société pour l’Étude du ProcheOrient Ancien. Cf. Jack M. Sasson, “The Servant’s Tale: How Rebekah Found a Spouse,” JNES 65 (2006): 241-65, esp. 247. Both marriage transactions share numerous details which are best explained as being due to the conservatism of marriage customs in Northern Syria. They tend to confirm the continuity between the Amorite tribes and the Aramean ones, among which are found the ancestors of the Hebrews. Rebekah’s and Šibtu’s betrothals share the following elements: long-distance negotiations by wise servants or ambassadors, rich gifts to the bride and the family of the bride, the veiling of the bride, her own acceptance of her new status, the attachment of maids to her person, the merging of two families, the anxiety of the bride’s family, the long trek back, and the preparation of a chamber for the new mistress of the house.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

37

He becomes king of Judah in the city of Hebron where he reigned for seven years after marrying a rich widow Abigail, who was first Nabal’s wife. At the peak of his career, David almost loses everything, his realm and the allegiance of his people when he abducts Bathsheba, the wife of one of his officers, instead of leading his army in war. At the end of David’s life appears a young virgin Abishag brought into his bed to warm up his failing body, and yet David knew her not in the sexual sense.3 1. THE DAUGHTERS OF SAUL AND THE DAUGHTERS OF ZIMRĪ-LĪM – THE PRACTICE OF GIVING TWO FEMALES TO THE SAME MAN The 18th century BCE Mari Royal Archives have revealed a number of letters that were sent by women and some of which have been written by female scribes.4 This collection of letters, unique in its genre and of exceptional importance for the study of the role of women in the ancient Near East, has been collected in a special volume entitled “Feminine Correspondence.”5 By analyzing these letters and comparing them to other documents from the Mari archives, several Assyriologists established the identity of the royal ladies of the Amorite warlord Zimrī-Līm while Nele Ziegler wrote an entire book on Zimrī-Līm’s “harem.”6 This correspondence reveals Zimrī-Līm’s highly elaborate matrimonial policy using his daughters as bargaining chips in the accomplishment of his political ambitions. Zimrī-Līm had at least ten daughters all expressly named in the documents which enable us to identify them precisely and for some of them to follow their marital mishaps. In the palace catalogue, the royal princesses are listed in the “ladies’ quarters” implying that they lived in the part of the Mari palace reserved for women. 3

4

5 6

This research builds on two seminal insights on the role of women in David’s life: The first one from Adele Berlin’s article on the characterization of David’s wives and the second one from Jon D. Levenson and Baruch Halpern’s article on the political implications of David’s marriages, Adele Berlin, “Characterization in Biblical Narrative, David’s Wives,” JSOT 23 (1982): 69-85. Jon D. Levenson and Baruch Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” JBL 99 (1980): 507-18. Nele Ziegler, Le harem de Zimrî-Lîm. La population féminine des palais d’après les ArchivesRoyalesdeMari Mémoires de Nabu 5; Florilegium marianum 4 (Paris: SEPOA, 1999), 91-2 “Les femmes scribes;” Samuel A. Meier, “Women and Communication in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 111 (1991): 540-47. Georges Dossin and André Finet, Correspondanceféminine, ARM X (Paris: Geuthner, 1978). Bertrand Lafont, “Les filles du roi de Mari,” in LafemmedansleProche-Orientantique, (32ndRAIParis,7-10juillet1986, ed. Jean-Marie Durand (Paris: ERC, 1987), 113-21, esp. 114. Ziegler, LeharemdeZimrî-Lîm, 64, on Kirûm.

38

DANIEL BODI

Among the daughters of Zimrī-Līm, the tragic story of Kirûm and her sister Šimātum has attracted the attention of several scholars who established a very precise historical analysis of the chronological sequence of their marriages to the same man, Ḫāya-Sūmû, one of Zimrī-Līm’s vassals.7 Kirûm was the younger daughter and Šimātum was the elder one. Although they were sisters, their father’s matrimonial transactions turned their lives into a nightmare, first straining and eventually breaking up the friendship and complicity they probably enjoyed in their youth. Their difficulties emerged when their father Zimrī-Līm decided to marry them off, one after another, to the same man. Ḫāya-Sūmû was Zimrī-Līm’s vassal from the city of Ilān-ṣurā. The city is located in a region north of Mari, close to one of the sources of the Ḫabur river, near Šagar Bazar and east of Ḫarran. He was one of Zimrī-Līm’s principal military allies. In a region that was troubled with chronic unrest and shifting alliances,8 the role of the Mari princesses married and living at foreign courts seems to have been quite obvious. Zimrī-Līm was using his daughters as spies in order to obtain precious information on the dealings of some of his not so trustworthy vassals. Benefiting from their rank and pre-eminent position at the court of his vassals, Zimrī-Līm’s daughters were expressly solicited by their father to provide him with first-hand intelligence concerning the political activities of their royal husbands.9 The younger daughter Kirûm was given in marriage to Ḫāya-Sūmû, two years after her elder sister Šimātum, in the year two of Zimrī-Līm (1773 BCE). The vassal being no dupe, quickly realized the indelicate maneuver of his father-in-law. Ḫāya-Sūmû then threatened to kill his newly-wed bride Kirûm and decided to isolate her from his palace barring her access to his political friends and allies. By contrast, Šimātum had succeeded in convincing her husband of her undivided fidelity to his cause. Moreover, even in her letters to her father, she tried to convince 7

8

9

Jack M. Sasson, “Biographical Notices on some Royal Ladies from Mari I,” JCS 25 (1975): 59-78, esp. 68-70; Jean-Marie Durand, “Trois études sur Mari,” MARI 3 (1984): 127-80, esp. 162-80 III. “Les femmes de Ḫāya-Sūmû,” Annexes I et II. Durand established the complete dossier with additional documents. Our study follows this new interpretation of the pertinent documents. On the political history of Mari and its region, see Dominique Charpin and Nele Ziegler, MarietleProche-Orientàl’époqueamorrite:essaid’histoirepolitique (Paris: SEPOA, 2002). Dominique Charpin, Dietz-Otto Edzard, and Marten Stol, Mesopotamien.DiealtbabylonischeZeit, OBO 160 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004), ch. 1. Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand, “La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim,” MARI 4 (1985): 293-343, esp. 335 § 5. “La politique matrimoniale de Zimri-Lim.” Cf. also Lafont, “Les filles du roi de Mari,” 121.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

39

Zimrī-Līm of her husband’s political loyalty. Should this be taken as her making a sly maneuver, seeing the predicament that befell her younger sister? Or was she genuinely in love with Ḫāya-Sūmû and convinced of her husband’s innocence? Šimātum was behaving like Michal at an early, loving stage of her relationship with David described in 1 Sam. 19:10-18. There she sided with her husband David against her father Saul. Realizing that Michal helped David to escape, Saul asks his daughter, “Why have you deceived me like this, and let my enemy go, so that he has escaped” (v. 17). Saul counted on Michal’s cooperation in eliminating this young upstart whom he perceived as a potential political rival. Yamṣûm, the captain of the Mari garrison stationed in Ilān-ṣurā, ḪāyaSūmû’s capital, sent letters to the King Zimrī-Līm. These offer precious details on the court intrigues and the life that the two sisters Kirûm and Šimātum experienced there. Yamṣûm points out something unusual in that a vassal should be given two daughters by his suzerain, and presents this favor as a significant political gesture. He underlines the trust that ZimrīLīm places in Ḫāya-Sūmû saying, “Since Šamšī-Addu died, there were four powerful kings. But they had not married two daughters of YaḫdunLīm’s (stock). Now, you have married two daughters of my lord. You have, however, uttered disparaging words in respect to my lord.”10 The military man, Yamṣûm, points out the somewhat unusual feature of a vassal receiving two daughters of Zimrī-Līm for wives and underlines the “official” reason this unusual matrimonial transaction. It indicates particular favor that the suzerain Zimrī-Līm showed to his vassal ḪāyaSūmû. We may suggest two unofficial or hidden reasons behind this transaction. First, Zimrī-Līm was trying to secure for himself the faithful military services of this vassal. During his thirteen-year-long reign, Zimrī-Līm had to fight numerous battles in order to insure his rule over rebellious tribes. As he himself states in a letter to his father-in-law, king of Aleppo, “Now, since the numerous days that I acceded to the throne, I have conducted battles and combats and have never brought a harvest to my land in peace.”11 Zimrī-Līm was constantly on a warpath and chronically lacked fresh troops. He needed to rely on faithful vassals. As pointed out by D. Charpin, the offer of the younger daughter of Zimrī-Līm, Kirûm, to the 10

11

Dominique Charpin, ArchivesépistolairesdeMari I/2, ARM 26 (Paris: ERC, 1988), 57 no 303 [A.1168], ll. 20ʹ-25ʹ. Michaël Guichard, “Les aspects religieux de la guerre à Mari,” RA 93 (1999): 27-48, esp. 28 (ARM 28 16:27-30).

40

DANIEL BODI

same vassal was done with the purpose of rewarding Ḫāya-Sūmû by giving him a particular sign of recognition while at the same tightening the links between Mari and Ilān-ṣurā. This political alliance was a key element in Zimrī-Līm’s attempt to control the Mesopotamian Upper Country.12 Second, Zimrī-Līm used his daughters as a means of providing him with precious information about his vassal’s political faithfulness and reliability. Their behavior and the content of their letters indicate that Zimrī-Līm used his daughters as political informants. After her marriage to ḪāyaSūmû and having reached her husband’s capital Ilān-ṣurā, the older daughter, Šimātum, sends a letter to her father (ARMT 10 94), saying that she has visited all the cities “residences of my husband,” as well as the cities of their allies (ll. 3-7). “Since the day I left Mari, I have not stopped travelling. I have seen all the cities, those that serve as dwellings to my lord, and the officers of my lord have seen me.”13 These lines indicate that she is assuming her role as a new queen. Another letter (ARMT 10 5), reads like a memento written by the secret service. Šimātum14 provides her father with the information that he requests: (l.3 aššumtēmimšabēlīi[špur]am “concerning the report about which my lord had wr[ritt]en me”). She tells him that another spy named Maṣi-El, whom the king had ordered to watch the hostile city of Šubat-Enlil and to enter it, has not come out of it yet. It seems that Zimrī-Līm gave his second, younger daughter to the same vassal in order to get a better grip on his politically volatile son-in-law. While Šimātum succeeds in preserving the trust of her husband and her privileged position at Ḫāya-Sūmû’s court, Kirûm falls from grace. A bitter strife erupts between the two sisters, heightened by political rivalry. Kirûm, faithful to the injunctions of her father, keeps sending letters providing him with political intelligence. Šimātum does the opposite. She never fails to reassure her father of the supposed loyalty of her husband. Aware of treason in his own backyard, Ḫāya-Sūmû, ostracizes Kirûm, giving her harsh treatment. Kirûm’s position at Ḫāya-Sūmû’s court is so jeopardized that she prefers to leave him and return to her father’s court. From the beginning of her relationship with her husband, Kirûm seems to have been hampered in her travels as indicated in two fragments of 12 13

14

Charpin, AEM I/2, ARM XXVI (1988), 44-45. ARMT 10 94:3-7, with a new collation and translation by Jean-Marie Durand, Documents épistolairesdupalaisdeMari, LAPO 18 (Paris: Cerf, 2000), 3:430. Durand, DocumentsépistolairesdupalaisdeMari, 433 n. a) The text reads fši-tum, which Durand emends to ši--tum.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

41

the same letter (ARMT 10 34 and 113).15 She sends a message concerning her resolve to return to Mari (ARMT 10 34). Her father had promised “once, twice,” to take her back, but he had not carried out his promise. On the back of the same tablet, Kirûm requests that her father secure her a “throne for a queen.” In him alone does she trust, because in her husband’s town Ilān-ṣurā, she is not treated as a queen, “My father and lord should install me on a throne (worthy) of a queen: Let him do what is needed so that my heart may no longer be grieved” (ARMT 10 34:8′13′).16 Four years elapse before Kirûm gives birth to a son. This event took place in the sixth year of Zimrī-Līm . Šaknum, one of Zimrī-Līm’s servants, informed the sovereign in a letter, “Something else: Kirûm has given birth to a boy, may my lord rejoice!”17 Another one of Kirûm letters indicates that her situation at her husband’s court is steadily deteriorating. Ḫāya-Sūmû and his first wife Šimātum, Kirûm’s sister, have become overtly hostile to her and have deprived her of her female servants “Moreover, even the last female servants, she (Šimātum) had taken them away, saying, ‘My lord has decided so!’” (ARMT 10 32:15′). “Ḫāya-Sūmû tells me to my face, ‘You occupy here the office of ḫazannūtum (political representative or official resident). Once I kill you, may your ‘Star’ (Zimrī-Līm ) come and take you back!’” (ll. 11′-14′). Now, even her sister Šimātum threatens her and treats her with hostility, “Šimātum tells me to my face, ‘May my Star do to me as he wishes! I, however, will do with you as I wish!’ If my lord should leave me here and not take me back, I will die, I will not survive (a-ma-atú-ula-ba-lu-uṭ)!” (ll. 20′-28′). In the conflict that opposed Ḫāya-Sūmû and Kirûm, Yamṣûm, the chief of the Mari garrison stationed in Ilān-ṣurā, sided with the latter and reproached the former for his submission to the Elamites, Zimrī-Līm’s political enemies. Apparently, the court in Ilān-ṣurā was divided into two opposing political factions. On the one side there was the pro-Elamite party with Šimātum, Aqba-abum and Luria, and on the other side was the antiElamite party with Kirûm, Yamṣûm and Ulluri. One important feature of these documents is to show the political role that the wives of the vassal 15

16 17

Durand, “Trois études sur Mari,” 164, was able to make a join between ARMT 34 and 113, showing that letter no 113 comes from Kirûm. ARMT 10 34:8′-10′. Charpin, ARM XXVI, I/2 (1988), 125 no 351 [M.8467] (l. 24: ša-ni-tamfki-ru-údumunita2iš-li-imbe-líḫa-di) cf. the verb išlim from the root šlm with a transitive sense expressing the idea that the birth had a successful outcome.

42

DANIEL BODI

played and the part they adopted in the factions and quarrels that divided the local court.18 The tensions at Ḫāya-Sūmû’s court came to a head. The letters reveal a desperate Kirûm sequestered by her husband who is threatening to kill her. She is undergoing severe “moral harassment.” In ARMT 10 33:5,18, Kirûm twice says that her life is endangered (iktarunapaštīlit. “my life is in desperate straits”).19 She feels so outraged and scorned by her husband that she threatens to commit suicide, “I am tired of living from hearing Šimātum’s words! If my lord does not take me back to Mari, I will run and immediately (a-ṣa-ba-atap-pi) throw myself from a roof ([i]š-tuú-ri-ima-ma-qú-ut, ll. 5-9).”20 She desperately wants to leave her husband Ḫāya-Sūmû and his court where she is sequestered. She wants to get out of this arranged marriage. Her unhappy marriage ends in divorce. By insisting and claiming her profound unhappiness with the way she is treated, Kirûm succeeds in obtaining a public divorce procedure: “He cut (ibtuq) my cord (biqtī-ni), in front of the kings (maḫaršarrāni), saying, ‘Go away to your father’s house! (atlakianabītabīki ll. 25-29). I have turned my eyes away from the face of my wife!’ Moreover, the female servant I spoke about to my lord, he took her away from me and gave her to Šimātum.”21 The letter enumerates a series of symbolic actions revealing the divorce procedure in Northern Syria in the 18th century BCE. Kirûm being a royal princess, daughter of the most powerful local king in the region, took full advantage of the theoretical possibility that existed in OB times for women to obtain a divorce. She continued to claim her right until she obtained the official divorce ceremony from her husband. It seems that the divorce between Ḫāya-Sūmû and Kirûm took place at the end of the first half of the 9th year of Zimrī-Līm. After that date, it is supposed that Kirûm was free to go back to her father’s house in Mari. 18

19 20

21

Dominique Charpin, in D. Charpin, F. Joannès, S. Lackenbacher and B. Lafont, Archives épistolairesdeMariI/2 (ARMT XXVI, I/2; Paris: ERC, 1988), p. 45. CADK, p. 230, karû B with napišti “to be near death.” LAPO 18, 444, note a). The expression appam ṣabātum, corresponds to ṣibit appim, literally “in a sneeze,” meaning an action performed rapidly, “in a twinkle of an eye.” LAPO 18, 444, note e); CDA, p. 46 bitqu(m), “cutting (of umbilical cord).” Raymond Westbrook, OldBabylonianMarriageLaw, AfO Beiheft 23 (Horn: F. Berger, 1988). By contrast, while the pre-exilic Hebrew Laws allowed a man to divorce his wife, a Hebrew woman had to wait until the end of the fifth century BCE to be legally authorized to divorce her husband as attested by the Elephantine marriage contracts, see Hélène Nutkowicz, “A propos du verbe śn᾿ dans les contrats de mariage judéo-araméens d’Eléphantine,” Transeuphratène 28 (2004): 165-73.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

43

This fact cannot be verified, however, since the ration lists from the end of Zimrī-Līm’s reign are missing.22 By offering his two daughters Šimātum and Kirûm to the same man, Zimrī-Līm tried to better control the dealings of his somewhat duplicitous vassal Ḫāya-Sūmû. One finds other examples in the ancient Near Eastern literature of two daughters given to the same man: 1) In the Egyptian realm, the two daughters of Hatshepsut given to their half-brother Thutmose III (15th century BCE). 2) In the Hittite-Egyptian realm, the two Hittite princesses given to Ramses II as wives (13th century BCE). 3) In the Hebrew realm, according to Gen 29, the two daughters of Laban, the Aramean, were given as wives to the same man, Jacob. In the case of Jacob being offered two sisters Leah and Rachel as wives, it reflects Laban’s indelicate attempt to manipulate and control his son-in-law. In the time of early Hebrew tribal chiefdom, the two sisters Merab and Michal, the daughters of Saul, were offered to David as wives. Many scholars consider that Merab is a calque of the Michal story, a ghost character in an offer that never took place. Seen in the comparative light, however, the existence of Merab and the initial transaction between Saul and David on her account gains some probability. Saul offered Merab as a price for David winning over Goliath, but at the moment when she was supposed to become his wife she was given to someone else. Then Saul used Michal hoping to get rid of David as he imposed to him to bring the proof of having killed 100 Philistines, which David did.23 2. ABIGAIL, NABAL AND DAVID AND INIB-ŠARRI, ZIMRĪ-LĪM’S DAUGHTER MARRIED TO ZAKURA-ABUM AND THEN TO IBAL-ADDU Inib-šarri, Zimrī-Līm’s daughter, bears a certain likeness to Abigail because she also was married to two successive political leaders who might have been rivals.24 22 23

24

Ziegler, Leharem, 64. For detailed parallels with the biblical narratives about Merab and Michal, see Daniel Bodi, TheMichalAffair.FromZimrī-LīmtotheRabbis, Hebrew Bible Monographs 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005). In presenting this analogy between Inib-šarri and Abigail I follow the work of Michaël Guichard, “Remarriage of a Princess and the ‘Foreign Policy’ of the King of Mari in the Ḫabur Region in the Eighteenth Century BCE,” in Abigail,WifeofDavid,andOther Ancient Oriental Women, ed. Daniel Bodi, Hebrew Bible Monographs 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 12-23.

44

DANIEL BODI

Among her letters, ten have been published so far.25 At least five new and unpublished texts should be added to this list. Until recently, scholars thought that Inib-šarri was married only to a young warlord, Ibâl-Addu, the king of the city of Ašlakkā, located in the Northwest of the Ḫabur triangle.26 A closer study of the case and the contribution of new documentation show, however, that she was first married to an older sheikh, Zakura-abum, who reigned over the little town of Zalluḫan, near the upper course of the river Ḫabur, south of the city of Ašlakkā.27 Her life, as that of any other Mari princess, began in her father’s “ladies’ quarters.” During the first years of Zimrī-Līm’s reign at Mari, she was receiving allotments of food and clothing, being on the same palace roster of rations as her sisters with whom she lived.28 Her career outside the palace is better known because of her correspondence. It discloses her marriage to an older sheikh, Zakura-abum, followed by a brief period of widowhood, and finally her life as the queen of Ašlakkā, a title she claimed. 2.1. Inib-šarri’s Marriage with Zakura-abum, the Ruler of of Zalluḫan Toward the end of the fourth year of his reign, the king of Mari arranged a marriage between his daughter and Zakura-abum, a former Bensim᾿alite semi-nomadic chief, who became the ruler of the city of Zalluḫan. He was 25

26

27

28

They have been initially edited by Georges Dossin, Correspondanceféminine, ARM 10 (Paris: Geuthner, 1978), and re-edited by Jean-Marie Durand, Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, 3, LAPO 18 (Paris: Cerf, 2000), 462-79. Here is a list of her letters in chronological order, LAPO18, 1246 [ARM 10 79], 1247 [ARM 10 75], 1248 [ARM 10 78] (year ZL 7); 1249 [ARM 10 73], 1243 [ARM 10 76], 1244 [ARM 2 113], 1245 [ARM 2 112], 1242 [ARM 2 74], 1250 [ARM 10 77] (years 11 and 12 of Zimri-Lim). All the reconstruction so far is based on the assumption of her single marriage: Willem H. Ph. Römer, Frauen über Religion, Politik und Privatleben in Māri, AOAT 12 (Neukirschen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1971),45-50; Bernard F. Batto, Studies onWomenatMari (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 37-42; Sasson, “Biographical Notices on Some Royal Ladies from Mari,” 63-67; Durand, Documents épistolaires, LAPO 18, 462-79, and lastly Charpin and Ziegler,MarietleProche-Orientà l’époqueamorrite, p. 193. This connection was established for the first time by Michaël Guichard, La vaisselle deluxedesroisdeMari. Matériaux pourleDictionnaire deBabylonien de Paris 2; ARM 31; Paris: ERC, 2005), pp. 109-110. A close link between Zakura-abum and Inibšarri was, however, already surmised by Durand, “On the other hand, Inib-šarri seems to have had a relationship of great friendship with Zakura-Abum (…),” LAPO 18, p. 471. Cf. for example ARM 21 379; Ziegler, LeharemdeZimrî-Lîm, 62.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

45

a man of advanced years, having already assumed the important function of “pasture chief” (mer᾿ûm), the highest rank in the Bensim᾿alite hierarchy, succeeding that of the king of Mari.29 This is when the dowry or bridal gift (nidittum) was prepared for the young princess: it contained a substantial list of bronze vessels.30 There is little information concerning the first period in the life of the royal couple.31 This silence or discretion, is the sign of a good relationship that, however, did not bring about the birth of a “male” child who could become the heir to the throne of Zalluḫan. Had Inib-šarri given birth to a son, the written documentation would not have failed to mention it. Zakura-abum already had a son from a previous marriage. As we learn from Zakura-abum’s correspondence,32 his kingdom went through difficult times on account of bad harvests, locust invasions, or farmers leaving their land. The most important problem that Zakura-abum faced was opposition rallied outside his kingdom by the former Zalluḫan’s ruling family whom he expelled before becoming king. His rivals were brothers united by a common desire to regain their lost heritage. While they waited for an occasion to take their revenge, the king of Ašlakkā gave them refuge. This king later became Inib-šarri’s second husband. He was a warlord and chieftain, who by his regional political role, was very influential at this time. This provoked a strong diplomatic tension between Zalluḫan and Ašlakkā as reported in a letter by Ibâl-Addu, the king of the city of Ašlakkā.33 Everything was interrupted by Zakura-abum’s illness, which occurred during the second part of the 6th year of Zimrī-Līm,34 while Inib-šarri went to Mari to visit her father. Upon her return, Inib-šarri found her husband in critical condition and witnessed his final hour. Couriers were sent to Mari to inform the suzerain about his sudden death.

29

30 31

32 33 34

Concerning Zakura-abum having the rank of mer’ûm or “pasture chief,” see Michaël Guichard, “Le Šubartum occidental à l’avènement de Zimrī-Līm, in Recueild’étudesà lamémoired’AndréParrot,ed. Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand, Florilegium Marianum 6; Mémoires de NABU 7 (Paris: SEPOA, 2002), 119-68, esp. 154-56. ARM 31 59 [25 485] = 5/xii/ZL 4. In one unpublished letter of Inib-šarri, written from the city of Zalluḫan, she takes the defense of her husband Zakura-abum. He himself wrote a short message to Zimrī-Līm announcing Inib-šarri’s visit to the capital. Only ARM 28 79 was published in full. The publication of other letters is in preparation. ARM 38 53. This approximate date can be determined from the correspondence of Itūr-Asdu, governor of Naḫur.

46

DANIEL BODI

2.2. Inib-šarri’s Brief Period of Mourning This sudden disaster marked the beginning of Inib-šarri’s tribulations. The mourning rites for her dead husband had just begun35 when the Zalluḫan kingdom was affected by a period of “political” turmoil due to the forceful return of the deposed ruler’s family, who found refuge at Ašlakkā or at Susā (the kingdom bordering Zalluḫan). Inib-šarri recounts the events herself.36After Ḫatnammuru, her late husband’s principal enemy, returned to the scene, she was expelled from the palace where she lived and from where she exerted her authority of the queen. She was provisionally lodged in the house of a commoner, an act of humiliation for her. Fortunately, a group of Mari soldiers quickly came to her rescue and installed her in the garrison-city of Naḫur, a town located in the middle of the Ḫabur triangle and held by the Mari forces. This can also be seen in similar events concerning the princesses Liqtum at the town of Burundum and the princess Ḫaliyatum at the town of Ašnakkum. The Mari people were always preoccupied with the security of the royal ladies stemming from their clan. Inib-šarri seems to have been in real danger, as indicated by the dispatch of a troop of fifty men for her rescue. She was already under the protection of about ten Mari soldiers in the city of Zalluḫan. In spite of this impressive guard, she states that during the takeover she barely escaped lapidation. It is obvious that the village communities of Zalluḫan had a dislike for the reigning family and supported the comeback of the former ruler. Zimrī-Līm, the suzerain of Zalluḫan’s population and also Zakura-abum’s father-in-law, was finally forced to accept the result of this political “revolution.” Inib-šarri was given a residence in Naḫur and her stay there was extended. During that time when the situation became more peaceful at Zalluḫan, she wrote several letters to Mari37 asking for help in recovering one of her servants. Once a widow, she could have been rapidly repatriated to Mari. It did not happen, however, because Zimrī-Līm seized the opportunity to marry her off quickly to another vassal. It seems that a short negotiation took place between him and Ibâl-Addu, as Inib-šarri mentions that a wedding present or “counter-gift” (terḫatum) was about to arrive at her father’s place.38 The 35

36 37 38

This indicates that the mourning was interrupted after fifteen days; LAPO 18 1246 [ARM 10 79]. The following information is culled from Itūr-Asdu’s unpublished letters. LAPO 18 1246 [ARM 10 79] and 1247 [ARM 10 75]. LAPO 18 1247 [ARM 10 75]. One of the important points of this letter is that it shows the correlation between the event of sending the terḫatumand the issue of the sequestered

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

47

sending of the terḫatum settles the marriage – the future groom had to send the “counter-gift” to his future father-in-law.39 Therefore, it seems that the marriage was decided and promptly organized during the course of Zimrī-Līm’s seventh year of reign. 2.3. Inib-šarri and Ibâl-Addu: The Couple’s Dissent If Inib-šarri’s new wedding didn’t exactly thrill her, she nevertheless complied with her father’s orders. The agreement between Ašlakkā and Mari made sure that Zimrī-Līm’s daughter would have the rank of the main spouse and queen. What other position could be expected for a daughter of the “mighty king” who had the intention of ruling over the entire IdaMaraṣ region including Ašlakkā? Moreover, that was her rank while she was in Zalluḫan, married to her previous husband, the old sheikh Zakuraabum. In this respect, Inib-šarri did not remain passive as she tried to have her voice heard by the Mari king through the intermediary of Šunuḫraḫalu.40 Her marriage with Ibâl-Addu, who was apparently sterile, may have lasted five years (from year 7 to year 12 of Zimrī-Līm). The deterioration of their marital relationship became apparent from another of her letters,41 where she denounces her husband’s dealings, which she considers outrageous even if she was not directly concerned. This document reveals a lot about Inib-šarri’s personality and the role she intended to play as the new queen of Ašlakkā. The subject of disagreement is still uncertain (even if many correspondents wrote about it), dealing with a quarrel between Yapḫur-Līm and the king of Ašlakkā. Ibâl-Addu heightened the clash by looting Yapḫur-Līm’s house. For this he was severely criticized by the

39

40 41

wine expert. Both events are concomitant. Moreover, the mention of the terḫatum in the case of a remarriage merits to be pointed out. Sending a terḫatum is rarely attested in such a context, see Westbrook, OldBabylonianMarriageLaw, 62. This case invalidates once again the old explanation according to which the terḫatum compensated for the pretiumvirginitatis (cf. Ibi, 59). On the questions of “dowry” nidittum and “marriage or counter-gift” terḫatum, see Bodi, TheMichalAffair, 80-83; “The Marriage Gift or Counter-Gift in Israel and Mari;” Tracy M. Lemos, MarriageGiftandSocialChangeinAncientPalestine:1200BCEto200CE (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Karel van der Toorn, “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East,” in PomegranatesandGoldenBells.Studiesin Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom ed. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 327-39. LAPO 18 1247 [ARM 10 75]. LAPO 18 1249 [ARM 10 73].

48

DANIEL BODI

Mari people who showed solidarity with Yapḫur-Līm. The governor of Naḫur reprimanded Ibâl-Addu for his action and, unexpectedly, Inib-šarri added her voice to that of the governor. Usually, the royal princesses married to foreign kings would stand by their spouses. Here, the contrary took place since Inib-šarri rebelled against her husband and openly challenged him, according to her own words. It happened after the war against the Elamites, which took place in the 10th year of Zimrī-Līm’s reign that deeply affected the entire upper Ḫabur region.42 Abigail too challenged her husband Nabal, though behind his back. When speaking with David, Abigail makes a disobliging nomen-omen type of word-play on her husband’s name Nabal which can also mean “Fool” or “Churl,” calling him a “man of Belial (ben-belîyya῾al), meaning, “a hellish fellow” or a “scoundrel” (1 Sam 25:25). Speaking of Abigail, Robert Alter notes, “It is hard to think of another instance in literature in which a wife so quickly and so devastatingly interposes distance between herself and her husband.”43 In the 11th year of Zimrī-Līm, the discord between the royal couple came to a head, and regardless of Zimrī-Līm’s mediation, Ibâl-Addu banished Inib-šarri to the city of Naḫur.44 This gesture, however, did not mean they were divorced. It was common practice for kings to send away some of their ‘spouses’ to secondary cities in their kingdom. The two letters ARM 10 76 and ARM 2 113 are difficult and have given rise to different translations and interpretations. Apparently, Zimrī-Līm met somewhere in the kingdom of Mari with his son-in-law Ibâl-Addu and his daughter Inib-šarri, either separately or with both of them together. Inib-šarri accused Ibâl-Addu of not having taken heed of Zimrī-Līm’s order concerning their marriage and of having forgotten his obligations as soon as he crossed the border, i.e., the river Ḫabur on his way home. He deposited his wife in the city of Naḫur and not in his capital, Ašlakkā, as he was supposed to do. Worse, he made sarcastic statements about ZimrīLīm’s capacity to make him bring his daughter to Ašlakkā. While Inib-šarri was still before her father (at Mari?), the latter gave her an order to go back home with no delay (hence to Ašlakkā) and to cover her head: “Cover your head!” (qaqqadkikutmī ARM 2 113:8). The mention of the veil in 42

43

44

LAPO 18 1249 [ARM 10 73] could be provisionally dated to the 11th year of ZimrīLīm. On the “Conflict with Elam,” see Charpin and Ziegler, MarietleProche-Orient àl’époqueamorrite, 216-27. Robert Alter, The David Story. A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: Norton, 1999), 156. LAPO 18 1243 [ARM 10 76] and 1244 [ARM 2 113].

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

49

this passage generated a lot of interest.45 According to J.-M. Durand, the gesture meant that the wife should not “openly break up with her husband”; on the contrary, she was summoned “to assume her status as a married woman.” It is possible that they envisaged to divorce and that the wife was the first to ask for a separation. Inib-šarri, who seems to have been the most dissatisfied of the two, must have complained about the deterioration of her situation in Ašlakkā. The rest of the story shows that the firm stance of the king of Mari did not produce any significant result. We know that Ibâl-Addu may have had pretentions on Naḫur’s territory. Nevertheless, this action marked a degradation of Inib-šarri’s position. This situation was extremely painful and humiliating for her. She spent the winter of the 11th and 12th years of Zimrī-Līm’s reign in the city of Naḫur in a situation she described as being that of utter misery for a woman of her rank: “Ever since I left my lord, I am deprived of food and of firewood.”46 Eventually, Zimrī-Līm managed to have Inib-šarri reintegrate the court at Ašlakkā. 47 This is the subject of Inib-šarri’s most heart-rending letter.48 The previous letters sent from Naḫur clearly expressed her wish to be brought back to Mari. Her father, however, remained inflexible: “Go! Go back to Ašlakkā! Stop crying! Go!”49 Forced to return to Ašlakkā, she found out that her position as queen (šarratum) was occupied by another! This other woman received all the usual gifts and Ibâl-Addu took all his 45

Cf. Ziegler, Le harem de Zimrî-Lîm, 467, and Sophie Démare-Lafont, ‘“A cause des Anges’. Le voile dans la culture juridique du Proche-Orient ancien,” in Etudesdedroit privéensouvenirdeMaryseCarlin, ed. Olivier Vernier, Michel Bottin, a‎ nd Marc Ortolani (Paris: Editions la mémoire du droit, 2008), 235-54. 46  LAPO 18, 468 and n. e), 470. 47 In this context, one should take the letter of Ibâl-Addu (ARM 28 67) into account. The agreement to bring Inib-šarri back to his city may have been part of it, under the condition of receiving more troops. Obviously, there is duplicity in this letter. Another possible interpretation is to see Inib-šarri going to Mari for the Ištar festival in the winter of the same year. 48 LAPO 18 1242. 49 LAPO 18 1242 [ARM 10 74]. This letter could be considered as the first one attesting to her entry into Ašlakkā as Ibâl-Addu’s wife. Several objections can be raised against this interpretation: Nothing links this letter to the letters dealing with the wine expert from Zalluḫan (an issue concomitant to the terḫatum), marking the transition from her time at Zalluḫan to that at Ašlakkā. The letter in LAPO 18 1242 [ARM 10 74], presupposes complaints and strong reserves Inib-šarri wrote concerning her husband Ibâl-Addu, These can hardly be explained in the year (ZL 7) when she had not yet reached Ašlakkā. Finally, in the same letter she presents Ibâl-Addu as an enemy of the king of Mari. This accusation makes more sense at the end of Zimrī-Līm’s reign, even though we know that this small king never behaved as a vassal beyond reproach from Mari’s point of view.

50

DANIEL BODI

meals with her, while he banished Inib-šarri to the “ladies’ quarters,” literally a “corner” (tubqum). She was put aside as a silly woman (lillatum) and she could not stop crying. Not trusting her, Ibâl-Addu ordered that she be closely watched. However, she kept her freedom to write. From this point on, she reiterated in vain her request to be repatriated to the city of Mari. Finally, the last letter of Inib-šarri could very well be the final denunciation of her husband’s politics. The correspondence of several informants lets us know that in the 12th year of Zimrī-Līm, Ibâl-Addu instigated a massive insurrection against the Mari hegemony in the region of the Ḫabur triangle. With remarkable courage, and on several occasions, in her letters Inib-šarri denounced his treacherous dealings.50 The rebellion organized by Ibâl-Addu broke out towards the end of that year. Zimrī-Lîm reacted forcefully and besieged the city of Ašlakkā. The rebel vassal managed to escape in the mountains and continued waging war the following year.51 The deportation of a part of the population from Ašlakkā’s kingdom and, notably, of its elite was the matter of several written inventories.52 Inib-šarri’s fate at the end of these events, however, remains unknown. 2.4. Some Parallels with Nabal, David and Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 As Nabal in 1 Samuel 25, Zakura-abum falls sick and dies after several days or weeks. As Nabal’s timely death benefits David, the death of Zakura-abum indirectly benefits the King Ibâl-Addu of Ašlakkā allowing the people he protected to recover their lost city of Zalluḫan and their inheritance. Moreover, almost immediately, he marries the old sheikh’s widow, Inib-šarri. From this prestigious alliance he draws the obvious political benefit of having married his suzerain’s daughter. Nevertheless, their marriage is the result of political expediency and apparently loveless. 50 51

52

LAPO 18 1250 [ARM 10 77]. Michaël Guichard, “Šuduhum, un royaume d’Ida-Maraṣ, et ses rois Yatâr-malik, Hammīkūn et Amud-pā-El,” EntrelesfleuvesI.UntersuchungenzurhistorischenGeographie Obermesopotamiensim2.Jahrtausend, ed. Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum and Nele Ziegler, BBVO 20 (Gladbeck: PeWe-Verlag, 2009), 88-89. Cf. Pierre Marello, “Esclaves et reines,” in Recueild’étudesenl’honneurdeMaurice Birot, ed. Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand, Florilegium Marianum 2; Mémoires de NABU 3 (Paris: SEPOA, 1994), 115-129; Nele Ziegler, “Le Harem du vaincu,” RA 93 (1999): 1-26; Brigitte Lion, “Les Familles royales et les artisans déportés à Mari en ZL 12’,” in Amurru3:nomadesetsédentairesdansleProche-Orient ancien: compte-rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre assyriologique internationale (Paris, 10-13juillet2000), ed. Christophe Nicolle (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 2004), 217-224.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

51

Whether it was really Ibâl-Addu’s choice to have Zimrī Līm’s daughter as wife remains unknown. In such conditions, Inib-šarri was ready to betray her husband. This second marriage was an unhappy one for Inib-šarri, but such was not the case with Abigail who became one of David’s wives and gave him a son, named Chileab (2 Sam. 3:3). The princess Inib-šarri was first married to the old sheikh Zakura-abum and then to the younger one Ibâl-Addu. The two chieftains were indirectly involved in a conflict. The most important problem with which the old sheikh Zakura-abum was faced was the continuous opposition that rallied outside his kingdom by the former Zalluḫan’s ruling family whom he expelled before becoming king. His direct rivals were brothers united by a common desire to regain their lost rule and inheritance. While they waited for an occasion to take their revenge, the young chieftain, IbâlAddu, king of Ašlakkā gave them refuge. This king later became Inibšarri’s second husband. This element too resembles the tension that existed between the rich owner Nabal and the young warlord David. The conflict between David and Nabal in 1 Sam 25 received a lengthy rabbinic discussion in the Talmud (y. Sanh. 2.3) where the rabbis argue that Nabal would have been a better royal candidate than David in view of the latter’s Moabite extraction.53 Great-grandson of a Moabite woman, Ruth, and Boaz, a man from the tribe of Judah, David was the youngest of eight sons of Jesse.54 The name of David’s mother is not mentioned, while the fact that he had a Moabite great-grandmother was deemed more important. When forced to flee his rival Saul, in 1 Sam 22:3-4, David takes refuge with the king of Moab whom he asks to protect his parents. David’s relationship with the king of Moab is natural in view of David’s Moabite origins through Ruth, the mother of Obed, Jesse’s father. The rabbis in the Jerusalem Talmud (y.Sanh. 2.3) argue that Nabal with a better genealogy would have been a better royal candidate than David. This might have been prompted by Nabal’s words in 1 Sam 25:10, “Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse?” The rabbis in Babylon were aware of the objections raised by their colleagues in Palestine and have provided a lengthy 53

54

For the presentation of the discussion, see Bodi, TheMichalAffair, 29-31. Arguing from a late text in Deut. 17:15: “You may not put a foreigner (nkry) over you, who is not your brother,” both Talmuds dedicate lengthy discussions demonstrating that David, in spite of his Moabite origins and the prohibition in Deut 23:3, was permitted to rule over Israel (b. Yeb. 72b; y. Sanh. 2.3). Gary N. Knoppers, “The Davidic Genealogy: Some Textual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World,” Transeuphratène 22 (2001): 35-50. 1 Sam 17:12; however, 1 Chr 2:15 and 1 Sam 16:9 mention only seven sons, implying that David was the eighth, number seven being conventional as in the story of Idrimi.

52

DANIEL BODI

legal discussion in order to rehabilitate David (in b.Yeb. 72b). Using a series of biblical quotes and establishing a very intricate relationship between different verses, they succeed in “deconstructing” the statement in Deut. 23:3 and conclude that an Israelite is permitted to marry a Moabite or an Ammonite woman; therefore, David should be considered as a full-fledged Israelite.55 Moshe Garsiel analyzed the political implications in the exchange between Nabal and David’s men, pointing out the underlying conflict between Nabal’s and David’s clans.56

3. DAVID AND BATHSHEBA IN LIGHT OF AN AKKADIAN LITERARY TOPOS: THE LOST HONOR OF THE WARLORD One can try to understand the underlying ideology of the Hebrew story of David and Bathsheba by placing the narrative in the context of the behavior of nomadic warlords and Amorite tribal chieftains as reflected in three Akkadian texts from Mari and Mesopotamia. The biblical story can be interpreted in the light of an Akkadian literary topos reflecting the ideal of the warlike existence of the Amorite tribal chieftain. According to this warrior ideology, dallying with women, eating, drinking and living in the shade instead of leading armies into military exploits is considered unworthy of a warlord and disparaging to his reputation. The literary topos of the warlike existence of Amorite warlords can be analyzed first in a long Mari tablet named by its editor “Lavienomade” or “The nomadic life”; second, in a letter written by the famous Amorite tribal chieftain Šamši-Addu (ca. 1792-1782 BCE), king of Assyria to his colorless and docile son Yasmaḫ-Addu (1782-1775 BCE). The latter ruled in Mari and spent more time dallying with his favorite women and concubines than in fighting or competently managing his realm, which he eventually lost to Zimrī-Līm (1775-1762 BCE), the last king of Mari; and third, in the ninth century BCE Babylonian PoemofErra containing a “Warriors’ Manifesto” extolling the superiority of the warrior’s rough 55

56

Both historical-critical scholarship and rabbinic tradition agree in seeing David’s marriage with Michal, the daughter of Saul, as an opportunistic move to enter the royal family of the first king, see Bodi, TheMichalAffair, 11-22, and 97 (the comments of Malbim on 1 Sam 18:26). Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail (1 Samuel 25): A Literary Study of Wordplay on Names, Analogies and Socially Structured Opposites,” in Abigail,Wife of David and Other Ancient Oriental Women, ed. Daniel Bodi, Hebrew Bible Monographs 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 66-78.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

53

outdoor life over the sedentary urban life-style.57 In all three compositions, the association of the tribal chieftain or the war leader with women is presented as shameful, degrading and unworthy of a true warrior or tribal leader. 3.1. The Nomadic Life – “La vie nomade” In this Mari tablet (A. 1146),58 one warlord named Ḫammī-ištamar writes to another chieftain named Yasmaḫ-Addu, not to be confused with Yasmaḫ-Addu the son of Šamši-Addu, who is the recipient of a letter addressed to him by his father (see below). Yasmaḫ-Addu, the tribal leader, is trying to persuade his colleague, a recalcitrant chieftain, to join him in a military campaign under the banner of their common suzerain Zimrī-Līm. The text of this tablet is extremely precious because it offers a glimpse of the way Amorite chieftains spoke between themselves. It is full of wordplays, striking expressions and somewhat raunchy metaphors. For the sake of space, only the key elements will be quoted here: Zimrī-Līm decided to go on a (military) campaign you, (Yasmaḫ-Addu, however), plan to eat (akālum), to drink (šatûm) and to lie down (itūlum) and do not plan to come along with me. To sit (wašābum) and to lie does not make you redfaced. (ll. 13-16). Yesterday, your entire clan gathered in the camp Ḫēn (l. 24). Perhaps a hot or a cold wind had never struck your face. The scrotum you (f.) carry is not yours! And the place where your father and mother saw your face after you fell out of a vulva, here a vulva received you. You know nothing of what is before (=are inexperienced) (ll. 32-38). Now, listen to this tablet of mine! If the king is late to go on the (military) campaign, silver, fine flour and anything which is in your possession take it for me now that I am here and join me here (ll. 5863). 57

58

For the analysis of the Erra Epic see, Daniel Bodi, The Demise of the Warlord. A New Look at the David Story, Hebrew Bible Monographs 26 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010), 123-29: “The ‘Warriors’ Manifesto in the Babylonian Poem of Erra.” Editioprincepsby Pierre Marello, “Vie nomade,” in Recueild’étudesenl’honneurde Michel Fleury, ed. Jean-Marie Durand, Florilegium marianum; Mémoires de Nabu 1 (Paris: SEPOA, 1992), 115-25. Jean-Marie Durand offered a new collation of problematic lines with a new translation and with additional explicative notes in his DocumentsépistolairesdupalaisdeMari, LAPO 16 (Paris: Cerf, 1997), 146-51.

54

DANIEL BODI

In l. 16, we should note the use of the verb wašābum“to sit, to dwell” corresponding to Hebrew yāšab in 2 Sam. 11:1 “…while David remained sitting in Jerusalem.” It is immediately followed by the verb ṣalālum which means “to lie (down), to sleep,” speaking of humans. It can also mean to “lie” (with) sexually, or “to share one’s couch with a woman” as in the Poem of Erra I 19. The conjunction of these two verbs is significant. It equals the same conjunction of corresponding Hebrew verbs found in 1 Sam. 11.1 yôšēb “he was sitting” and v. 2 miškābô “from his bed,” v. 4 wayyiškab ῾immāh “and he lay (with her).” The Akkadian terms akālum “to eat,” šatûm “to drink” and itūlum “to lie down (with a woman),” find exact parallels in the ironic reproach Uriah makes in respect to David’s behavior: “Uriah said to David, ‘The Ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling (yōšebîm) in the booths (bassukkôt), and my lord Joab and the officers of my lord are camping (ḥōnîm) in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat (le᾿ekōl) and to drink (lištôt), and to lie with my wife (weliškab῾im-᾿ištî)?’ (v. 11).59 The term Ḫēn in l. 24 literally means “camp” and corresponds to Maḫanum of the Bensim’alite or northern Amorite tribes. It is not certain that its precise location was a fixed spot in the region. Being a camp, its location could vary with respect to the military campaigns and the movements of troops. Moreover, the mention of the camp in this text reminds us of Uriah’s words referring to Joab, the officers and the Israelite army “camping” ḥōnîm in the open fields or steppe in 2 Sam. 11:11. In both texts the same term is used. In line 34 Ḫammī-ištamar throws a gibe at Yasmaḫ-Addu, saying: lipištamlākâtamnašēti “the scrotum you (2fs.) carry is not yours.” The term lipištu means “scrotum, sperm” (AHw), “an abnormal fleshy or membranous substance,” and with a transferred meaning “descent, offspring” (CAD). Moreover, the G-stem stative našēti “you carry” is written in the second person feminine form, and this might be intentional, although some Assyrian examples might support this grammatical anomaly. In this context, it would appear that Ḫammī-ištamar is making a very disobliging remark about the other chieftain, implying that he is an effeminate person who eschews military engagements. We might have 59

Uriel Simon, “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb. An example of a Juridical Parable,” Bib 48 (1967): 207-42, esp. 214: “Uriah is not ready to do legitimately what he (David) has done criminally. Presumably, Uriah would not have dared to apply to the king the same stringent standard he applied to himself as the servant of Joab recalled from the front to be posted there, but the moral is poignantly obvious to the king: Not only did he behave thus but worse than thus and at that with the wife of his subject!”

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

55

here an Amorite expression of the colloquial English, “you haven’t got the balls to fight.” These ancient Amorite texts attest to a particularity of the warriors’ world based on male bonding which is perpetuated even in modern-day military milieu – the preference for “macho” language and raunchy metaphors as the following lines show. In the world of the Amorite and Israelite chieftains, in order to be a warlord leading his people and troops into battle, one had to posses certain virile qualities. In analyzing the relationship between David and Jonathan, Y. Peleg argues that the Hebrew tradition presents Jonathan as passive and effeminate.60 The biblical texts do not suggest that Jonathan is homosexual, but rather that he is acting more like a woman. In so doing, he disqualified himself for being a tribal leader and a ruler according to ancient Israelite conceptions of this office. Warriors tend to use sexual metaphors. Lines 35-37 contain a particularly scathing sarcasm, if not an outright insult, which Ḫammī-ištamar hurls at his fellow sheikh who is unwilling to join the military campaign: uašarabuuummumpānī-kaittaplasūu ištubiṣṣurimtamqut-am-maannânumbiṣṣurumimḫur-ka“And the place where your father and mother saw your face after you fell out of a vulva, here a vulva received you.” First, we should note the use of the stylistic figure attested in Akkadian and in Greek classical literature called hysteronproteron meaning “latter first.” It is a rhetorical device in which the first key word or idea refers to something that happens temporally later than the second word. The author of the letter has placed first “your father and mother saw your face” an action which is temporally subsequent to “after you fell out of a vulva” judging that what came chronologically later was worthier to be emphasized. Second, the term biṣṣūrum means specifically “female genitals, vulva” and not “uterus,” for which the term šassūrum is used, as in the more poetic EpicofZimrī-Līm, ll. 74-76: (74) iz-za-aq-qa-ra-ama-na [e]ṭ-li-šu (75) ša-as-sú-ru-[u]m ib-ni-ku-nu-ti (76) um-mu-um ki-ma ku-nu-ti-ma ul-da-an-ni “Speaking to his men (Zimrī-Līm said) a uterus formed you; like yourselves a mother gave birth to me.” In a literary composition like the EpicofZimrī-Līm, a loftier term is used. Our present letter reflects the spoken Akkadian between Amorite chieftains and warlords and, therefore, a cruder term appears.

60

Yaron Peleg, “Love at First Sight? David, Jonathan, and the Biblical Politics of Gender,” JSOT 30 (2005): 171-89.

56

DANIEL BODI

It seems that the author of this letter used the crudest term at his disposal with an obvious pejorative and insulting end. One should understand that since his early age, Yasmaḫ-Addu has acquired a reputation of being an inveterate womanizer, spending more time with the opposite sex than in shared company with warriors. The idea, however, has been expressed in an extremely coarse manner, turning it into an overt reproach. To tell a chieftain and warlord that he is spending his life between female thighs must have been felt as a jolting insult.61 3.2. The Literary Topos in a Letter of Šamši-Addu to His Son YasmaḫAddu (ARMT I 69+M. 7538)62 The father, King Šamši-Addu, who was of Amorite stock, dwelt in the city called Šubat-Enlil, meaning “Enlil’s Abode or Dwelling,” which he chose as his capital. The ancient Šubat-Enlil was localized as present-day Tell Leilan. He became the ruler of Assyria and of a vast territory in Northern Mesopotamia by force of arms and was a true Amorite warlord. This remarkable king and conqueror wanted his two sons to follow his example and managed his vast realm with their help. Šamši-Addu had two sons, Yasmaḫ-Addu and Išme-Dagan. These two sons are well-known thanks to the Mari correspondence. Both names mean the same thing except for the variation of the divine name: “the storm-god Adad or Dagan hears.” Šamši-Addu placed one of his sons, Išme-Dagan, to rule over the Eastern part of upper Mesopotamia, the realm stretching along the river Tigris. He reigned in the city of Ekallātum. He bears an East-Semitic name which means “(the god) Dagan hears (prayers).” While in the name Išme-Dagan the verb “to hear” √šm῾ is written in classical Akkadian as spoken in Mesopotamia proper, in the name of the younger son Yasmaḫ-Addu, the same verb is written in its West-Semitic or Amorite form akin to the Hebrew yišma῾. 61

62

For the rabbinic tradition David’s inordinately long afternoon siesta was due to his particularly active sexual life. The Talmud (b.Sanh. 107a) says that he exchanged the night bed for the day one, meaning that what a man is usually doing at night in bed with his wife, David did it at day time, and adds a keen observation on human sexuality: “David forgot that a man has a small organ which is sated when you do not feed it and is hungry when it is sated.” Georges Dossin, CorrespondancedeŠamši-Addu, ARM I (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1950), 130-31. For a new translation with an edition of a join (M. 7538) see Charpin – Durand, “La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim,” 313, cuneiform tablet, and translation of the join on 314 n. 96. For additional collations of the text see Jean-Marie Durand, LesdocumentsépistolairesdupalaisdeMari. LAPO 17 (Paris: Cerf, 1998), 24-26.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

57

Apparently, Yasmaḫ-Addu refuses to assume a life that behooves an adult and spends his time in luxury, making expenditures far beyond his means. His indolent and slothful life-style is epitomized in the following letter where he is reproached for “lying among women.” Yasmaḫ-Addu’s main companions are not his warriors but his wives and concubines. Instead of going out to military campaigns like his older brother, IšmeDagan, who marches at the head of his troops, Yasmaḫ-Addu does not care for the glory of having a great name as a famous warrior and tribal leader. He is exhorted to abandon his dissolute and unbecoming life and effectively participate in the empire-building undertaken by his father Šamši-Addu and his older brother Išme-Dagan.63 ToYasmaḫ-Addu say: thus Šamši-Addu your father (ll. 1-4). I sent Išme-Dagan with an army to the land of Aḫazum, and I myself went to the City (Ekallātum) (ll. 6-8) Išme-Dagan took position against that city. Not approaching (beyond) a certain distance (less than 300 cubits) the troops of all that country together with the Turukkeans who are with them who gathered against Išme-Dagan [to do] battle, the weapons [they lifted ………………………………] (ll. 20′-27′). The main force of that land and the Turukkeans who gathered together with them, he captured (lakādum). Not a single man escaped and that day he seized the entire land of Aḫazum. This defeat is great for the (enemy) land. Rejoice! Your brother, here, inflicts a defeat (to the enemy) and you, there, remain lying among women aḫū-ka annikīam dawīdâm idûk u atta ašrānum ina birīt sinnišātim(mímeš)ṣallāt. Now, therefore, when you march on to Qaṭna with the army, may you be a man! (lūawīlat). Just as your brother made himself a great name, you, too, in the Qaṭna campaign make yourself a great name!’ (ll. 29-′43′).

The way Šamši-Addu’s scribe structured the message he was ordered to write on this tablet is significant for our comparison with 2 Sam. 11-12. The message is written in two clearly distinguished parts. In the first part of the message written on the obverse side of the tablet, Šamši-Addu seems to have taken a lot of care to describe in detail how his favorite 63

In 1950, when Dossin’s edition of ARMT I 69 appeared, only a part of the tablet was known. Thirty-five years later, Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand have identified a join (M. 7538) which completed the tablet and significantly improved our overall understanding of this letter.

58

DANIEL BODI

son, Išme-Dagan, conducted his successful military campaign against the city of Ikkallum, in the land of Aḫazum, and against their allies the Turukkeans. He gives a lot of detail concerning the war strategy he employed and praises his final success, the capture of the bulk of the enemy army and of the Turukkean troops. There seems to be a clear pedagogical intent in this extended description of a military conflict aimed at imparting to the less-experienced son, Yasmaḫ-Addu, some elements of military strategy. Once the military lesson has been delivered, in the second part of the message, written on the reverse of the tablet, Šamši-Addu proceeds with reproaches addressed to his son on account of his excessive dallying with women instead of mastering the art of war. a.) In ARMT I 69,22′ Šamši-Addu gives the precise distance between the two armies before the attack – less than 300 cubits or between 100 and 150 yards. The reason why Išme-Dagan’s troop kept this distance is probably to keep beyond the reach of enemy arrows. Joab committed a beginner’s mistake by not respecting the distance prescribed in military manuals as evidenced in the reference to the Abimelech precedent. In order to save his reputation as an experienced army leader from David’s reproach, he reassures the latter of Uriah’s death in 1 Sam 11:20-21: “…then, the king may get angry and say to you, ‘Why did you come so close to the city to attack it? Did you not know that they would shoot from the wall? Who struck down Abimelech, the son of Jerubbesheth? Was it not a woman who cast an upper millstone upon him from the wall, so that he died at the Thebez? Why did you come so close to the wall?’ Then you shall say, ‘Your officer Uriah the Hittite is dead too.’” Both the Mari and the biblical texts are dealing with the issue of the appropriate distance in launching an attack. J.-M. Durand proposes to transcribe the Akkadian verb as lakādum corresponding to Hebrew lākad “to capture, to seize, to take,” especially used in military contexts (Judg 1:8.12; Jos 8:21; 10:1; Deut 2:35). In fact, this verb appears four times in 2 Sam 12:27-29. Joab sends a messenger to David saying, “I have captured (lākadtî) the city of waters.” Joab describes the first part of his military strategy, having captured the lower city where the water supplies were found, and now invites David to finish off the conquest by capturing the acropolis of Rabbat Ammon. “Now, gather (we῾attâ᾿ esōp) the rest of the people together and encamp (waḥanēh) against the city, and capture it (w elākdāh); lest I capture (pen-᾿ elkōd) the city, and it be called by my name (w eniqrā᾿š emî῾ālêhā)’. So David gathered all the people together (wayye᾿ esōp Dāwid ᾿et-kol-hā῾ām) and went to Rabbah, and fought against it and captured it (wayyilkedāh).”

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

59

The second part of Šamši-Addu’s message to his son contains the literary topos we are examining. While the older son, Išme-Dagan, was energetic, having inherited his father’s capacities as a warlord and successful army leader, the younger son, Yasmaḫ-Addu, seems to have been indolent and slothful. The father admonished the younger son saying, “Your brother, here, inflicts a defeat (to the enemy) (dawidamdâku), and you, there, remain lying among women uattaašrānuminabirītsinnišātim(mímeš)ṣallāt.Now, therefore, when you go to Qaṭna with the army, be a man lūawīlat! Just as your brother made himself a great name, you, too, in the Qaṭna campaign make yourself a great name!” (ARMT I 69:41′-43′). The admonitions which are found in the closing lines of Šamši-Addu’s letter to his son Yasmaḫ-Addu are precursors of two almost identical ideological points of view found in the David story. First, in line 40′, Šamši-Addu enjoins his son: “Now, therefore, when you march on to Qaṭna with the army, may you be a man (lūawīlat)!’ The modal particle lū followed by a G-stem stative awīlāt may be rendered by “may you be a man” or “be a real man.”64 The context of the expression “be a man” related to the military campaign against Qaṭna makes it clear that Šamši-Addu exhorts his younger son Yasmaḫ-Addu to behave in a virile, military manner as a true warlord at the head of the army he is about to lead. David’s last words to his son Solomon contain a similar admonition: “I go by the way of all the earth. Be strong (w eḥāzaqtā) and be a man” or “show yourself a man (wāḥāyîtāle᾿îš)!” (1 Kgs. 2:2). As pointed out by J. A. Montgomery, this is “a veritable soldier’s challenge, used by the Philistines in mutual encouragement (1 Sam. 4:9). This summons to a strong-handed régime is followed by the harsh injunctions of vv. 59.” Indeed, in the following verses, David enjoins his son to execute both his general Joab and Shimai, and thus settle on his behalf an old feud. In the Hebrew Bible, the expression “be a man” is found in a military context. Frightened by the arrival of Yhwh’s Ark in the Israelite camp, the Philistines warriors gathered in Aphek encouraged each other with this expression: “Be strong (hitḥazzeqû), and acquit yourselves as men (wiheyû la᾿ anāšîm), O Philistines, lest you become slaves to the Hebrews as they have been to you; acquit yourselves as men and fight (wiheyîtem la᾿ anāšîm)” (1 Sam. 4:9). 64

Bodi, TheDemiseoftheWarlord, 122, and Daniel Bodi, “To Make Oneself a Name in the Hebrew Bible and in the Ancient Near East,” in LaBible&SesLectures:Rumeurs etrenommées.ActesduColloqueAngers 25-27 octobre, 2017 (University of Angers) (in print).

60

DANIEL BODI

The particular phraseology used allows us to detect what comes from Deuteronomistic redactors and what belongs to pre-Deuteronomistic traditions. The use of the verb ḥāzaq “to be strong” seems to belong to late Deuteronomistic language as indicated by the phraseology of Moses’ farewell exhortation to Joshua: “be strong and of good courage” (ḥazaq we᾿emāṣ) (Deut 31:32). The same two words are repeated in Josh 1:6,9,18. The expression “be a man,” however, is not part of the Deuteronomistic phraseology, and its connection with the corresponding Mari Akkadian expression lūawīlat in a military context would tend to indicate its antiquity. There is another feature which makes this Mari text pertinent for the relationship between David, the father, and his son Solomon. Commenting on 1 Kgs 2:2 in the Rabbinic Bible, Radaq explains David’s injunction to his son “to be a man” as “be zealous (zryz), reigning over your vital force or soul (npš), restraining your inclinations or instincts (yṣr).”65 Just as the King Šamši-Addu, the father of Yasmaḫ-Addu, was annoyed with his son’s excessive womanizing and absence of warlord virility, one may suggest that David too was worried by his son’s and successor’s excessive love for women. The expression we᾿ānōkîna῾arqāṭōn which Solomon uses to describe himself in his prayer in 1 Kgs 3:7, represents a typical conventional expression of humility found in comparable Egyptian texts and does not reflect his young age. In fact, Solomon already began constituting himself a harem through a political marriage as indicated at the beginning of the same pericope (in 3:1). Both Yasmaḫ-Addu and Solomon went down in history not as famous warriors but as womanizers. Second, the closing admonition of king Šamši-Addu to his son YasmaḫAddu to make himself a great name in the Qaṭna military campaign (šuma- am rabêm šakānum ll. 41′-43′), reflects a similar ideology of military honor and fame as found in the admonition Joab makes to his commander in chief, the Hebrew warlord David in 2 Sam 12:27-28: “And Joab sent messengers (wayyišlaḥyô᾿ābmal᾿ākîm) to David, and said, ‘I have fought against Rabbah; moreover, I have captured (lākadtî) the city of waters. Now, then, gather the rest of the people together, and encamp (waḥanēh) against the city, and capture it (w elākdāh); lest I capture (pen-᾿elkōd) the city, and it be called by my name (w eniqrā᾿š emî῾ālêhā).’” The goal of the warlord’s existence and of his military campaigns is making himself a 65

Medieval rabbinic commentators found in this injunction “to be a man” the ideal of a wise man and sage leading a truly philosophical life as the person who rules over the passions of his soul; for a discussion of rabbinic authors with bibliography, see Laurent Cohen, LeroiSalomon (Paris: Seuil, 1997), 27.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

61

great name and leaving for posterity the memory of his military conquests and exploits. Both Yasmaḫ-Addu and David are admonished by a third party, Šamši-Addu and Joab respectively, to rise to the occasion and honor the ideology of warlords and army leaders. CONCLUSION This research shows that although the final redaction of the Deuteronomistic Historiography of which the story of David is part dates from the post-exilic times, it does not preclude the presence of some ancient traditions describing political patterns, ancestral tribal customs, and matrimonial practices which the ancient Hebrews shared with the Amorite semi-nomadic tribes. The comparisons between the Amorite princesses of Zimrī-Līm and the royal ladies around Saul and David show the role women played in the political power play that went on between these two Hebrew tribal chieftains. It also confirms the existence of a particular “Royal Economics of Women” that the ancient Hebrew tribal warlords shared with their Northwest Semitic precursors. REFERENCES Primary Sources CHARPIN, Dominique. ArchivesépistolairesdeMari I/2. ARM 26; Paris: ERC, 1988 CHARPIN, Dominique, Francis JOANNÈS, Sylvie LACKENBACHER and Bertrand LAFONT. ArchivesépistolairesdeMariI/2. ARMT XXVI, I/2. Paris: ERC, 1988. DOSSIN, Georges. Correspondance de Šamši-Addu. ARM I. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1950. DOSSIN, Georges, and André FINET. Correspondance féminine. ARM X. Paris: Geuthner, 1978. DURAND, Jean-Marie. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. LAPO 16. Paris: Cerf, 1997. —. LesdocumentsépistolairesdupalaisdeMari. LAPO 17. Paris: Cerf, 1998. —. DocumentsépistolairesdupalaisdeMari.TomeIII. LAPO 18. Paris: Cerf, 2000. Secondary Sources ALTER, Robert. TheDavid Story.ATranslationwithCommentaryof1and2Samuel. New York: Norton, 1999. BATTO, Bernard F. Studies on Women at Mari. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.

62

DANIEL BODI

BERLIN, Adele. “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives.” JSOT 23 (1982): 69-85. BODI, Daniel. The Demise of the Warlord. A New Look at the David Story. Hebrew Bible Monographs 26. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010. —. TheMichalAffair.FromZimrī-LīmtotheRabbis. Hebrew Bible Monographs 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005 CHARPIN, Dominique, and Jean-Marie DURAND. “La prise du pouvoir par ZimriLim.” MARI 4 (1985): 293-343. CHARPIN, Dominique, and Nele ZIEGLER. Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite:essaid’histoirepolitique. Paris: SEPOA, 2002. CHARPIN, Dominique, Dietz-Otto EDZARD, and Marten STOL. Mesopotamien.Die altbabylonischeZeit. OBO 160. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004. COHEN, Laurent. LeroiSalomon. Paris: Seuil, 1997. DÉMARE-LAFONT, Sophie. “‘A cause des Anges’. Le voile dans la culture juridique du Proche-Orient ancien.” Pages 235-54 in Etudesdedroitprivéen souvenirdeMaryseCarlin. Edited by Olivier Vernier, ‎Michel Bottin, and Marc Ortolani. Paris: Editions la mémoire du droit, 2008. DURAND, Jean-Marie. “Trois études sur Mari.” MARI 3 (1984): 127-80. GARSIEL, Moshe. “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail (1 Samuel 25): A Literary Study of Wordplay on Names, Analogies and Socially Structured Opposites.” Pages 66-78 in Abigail,WifeofDavidandOtherAncientOrientalWomen. Edited by Daniel Bodi. Hebrew Bible Monographs 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013. GUICHARD, Michaël. “Le Šubartum occidental à l’avènement de Zimrī-Līm.” Pages 119-68 in Recueild’étudesàlamémoired’AndréParrot. Edited by Dominique Charpin and Jean-Marie Durand. Florilegium Marianum 6; Mémoires de NABU 7. Paris: SEPOA, 2002. —. “Les aspects religieux de la guerre à Mari.” RA 93 (1999): 27-48. —. “Remarriage of a Princess and the “Foreign Policy” of the King of Mari in the Ḫabur Region in the Eighteenth Century BCE.” Pages 12-23 in Abigail, WifeofDavid,andOtherAncientOrientalWomen. Edited by Daniel Bodi. Hebrew Bible Monographs 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013. —. “Šuduhum, un royaume d’Ida-Maraṣ, et ses rois Yatâr-malik, Hammī-kūn et Amud-pā-El.” Pages in 75-120 Entre les fleuves I. Untersuchungen zur historischenGeographieObermesopotamiensim2.Jahrtausend. Edited by Eva Cancik-Kirschbaum, and Nele Ziegler. BBVO 20. Gladbeck: PeWeVerlag, 2009. —. La vaisselle de luxe des rois de Mari. Matériaux pour le Dictionnaire de Babylonien de Paris 2. ARM 31. Paris: ERC, 2005. KNOPPERS, Gary N. “The Davidic Genealogy: Some Textual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World.” Transeuphratène 22 (2001): 35-50. LAFONT, Bertrand. “Les filles du roi de Mari.” Pages 113-21 in Lafemmedans leProche-Orientantique(32ndRAIParis,7-10juillet1986. Edited by JeanMarie Durand. Paris: ERC, 1987. LEMOS, Tracy Maria, Marriage Gift and Social Change in Ancient Palestine: 1200BCEto200CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. LEVENSON, Jon D., and Baruch HALPERN. “The Political Import of David’s Marriages.” JBL 99 (1980): 507-18.

KING DAVID AND HIS WIVES IN LIGHT

63

LION, Brigitte. “Les Familles royales et les artisans déportés à Mari en ZL 12’.” Pages 217-24 in Amurru3:nomadesetsédentairesdansleProche-Orient ancien:compte-rendudelaXLVIeRencontreassyriologiqueinternationale (Paris,10-13juillet2000). Edited by Christophe Nicolle. Paris: ERC, 2004. MARELLO, Pierre. “Vie nomade.” Pages 115-125 in Recueild’étudesenl’honneur de Michel Fleury. Edited by Jean-Marie Durand. Florilegium marianum; Mémoires de Nabu 1. Paris: SEPOA, 1992. —. “Esclaves et reines.” Pages 115-29 in Recueild’étudesenl’honneurdeMaurice Birot. Edited by Dominique Charpin, and Jean-Marie Durand. Florilegium Marianum 2; Mémoires de NABU 3. Paris: SEPOA, 1994. MEIER, Samuel A. “Women and Communication in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 111 (1991): 540-47. NUTKOWICZ, Hélène. “A propos du verbe śn᾿ dans les contrats de mariage judéoaraméens d’Eléphantine.” Transeuphratène 28 (2004): 165-73. PELEG, Yaron. “Love at First Sight? David, Jonathan, and the Biblical Politics of Gender.” JSOT 30 (2005): 171-89. RÖMER, Willem H. Ph. FrauenüberReligion,PolitikundPrivatlebeninMāri. AOAT 12. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1971. SASSON, Jack M. “Biographical Notices on Some Royal Ladies from Mari.” JCS 25 (1975): 59-78. —. “The Servant’s Tale: How Rebekah Found a Spouse.” JNES 65 (2006): 241-65. —. “Biographical Notices on some Royal Ladies from Mari I” JCS 25 (1975): 59-78. SIMON, Uriel. “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb. An example of a Juridical Parable” Bib 48 (1967): 207-42. TOORN, Karel van der. “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 327-39 in PomegranatesandGoldenBells.StudiesinBiblical,Jewish, andNearEasternRitual,Law,andLiteratureinHonorofJacobMilgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. WESTBROOK, Raymond. OldBabylonianMariageLaw.AfO Beiheft 23. Horn: F. Berger, 1988. ZIEGLER, Nele. Le harem de Zimrî-Lîm. La population féminine des palais d’aprèslesArchivesRoyalesdeMari. Mémoires de Nabu 5; Florilegium marianum 4. Paris: SEPOA, 1999. —. “Le Harem du vaincu.” RA 93 (1999): 1-26.

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID IN BIBLICAL HISTORIOGRAPHY NARRATIVE PATTERNS IN HISTORIOGRAPHY, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE Ida FRÖHLICH Pázmány Péter Catholic University

“Historia est magistra vitae” – historical memory commemorates events the memory of which have as their aim the education of future readers. Education aims at transmitting the common ethic of a given culture strengthening the working rules of the society, and creating common identity. Ancient Near Eastern cultures, up until the Hellenistic age were not familiar with detailed historical reports intended to recall the past. Historiography with exhaustive narratives on historical events and persons begins only with Herodotus. The host of events that are narrated in “exhaustive” historiographies usually serve to obscure the historiographer’s objectives. The method of the ancient Near Eastern historiography – the presentation of a selected group of the events that were considered as highly important – reveal much clearer the objectives of the historiographer. Thus, remembering history in Ancient Near Eastern cultures is basically different from modern historiography.1 These reviews are laconic, confined to some events selected carefully – events that are assumed to have special consequences in the future. Unfortunately, the documents of this kind of historical memory are not even considered as historiographies in contemporary views, and they are not included into modern historiographic outlines. However, historiography is an existent genre in the ancient Near East; texts written with the aim to overview some historical period or to present historical figures were composed according to obvious historiographic principles.2 Ancient Near Eastern historiography is basically 1

2

Modern historiographies do not even review the ancient Near Eastern forms of historical memory. Ernst Breisach, Historiography:Ancient,Medieval,andModern.3rd ed. (Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 2008) begins his overview with Greek historiography. According to Maurice Halbwachs past is socially constructed, since “No memory is possible outside frameworks used by people living in society to determine and retrieve

66

IDA FRÖHLICH

ethical, and authors focuse on ethical values exemplified in past history.3 They aim at highlighting moral consequences of human deeds. Observing the rules and norms of the society results in success of the ruler while deeds considered unethical call up doom. Royal ideology that aims at exemplifying “righteous” kings, and demonstrating consequences of sinful deeds of other rulers is based on this idea. Historiography is determined by the idea of the connective (i.e., binding) justice, a concept that binds people together, “creating a basis for social cohesion and solidarity”. Further outcome is that linking success to good deeds, and punishment to crime assigns “meaning and coherence in what would otherwise be an aimless, free-flowing stream of events”, thus creating system in history.4 The authors of texts used various forms: Mesopotamian scribes compiled short overviews of longer historical periods. One of the first steps in the development of ancient historiography are the Babylonian Chronicles, a group of texts that record major events in Babylonian history. Texts were written from the reign of Nabonassar (second half of the 8th century BC) up to the Parthian Period.5 One of them, the Weidner Chronicle (ABC 19) or Esagila Chronicle, is a piece of propaganda written in the form of royal correspondence, added by a historical retrospect from the Old Babylonian age to the events of the 3rd millennium.6 The chronicle relates the history

3

4 5

6

their recollections” see his On Collective Memory, ed. and trans. Lewis A. Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 43. With reference to the Nietzschean theory, according to which memory was born from the spirit of the law Jan Assman speaks of the “semiotization of history under the signs of reward and punishment”, and the working of “iustitia connectiva” in ancient historical memory, see his CulturalMemoryandEarlyCivilization.Writing,Remembrance,and PoliticalImagination (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 208-09. Assmann, CulturalMemory, 210. The standard edition is Albert K. Grayson, AssyrianandBabylonianChronicles(=ABC) (Locust Valley, New York: Augustin, 1975). A translation of Chronicle 25, discovered after the publication of ABC, was published by Cristopher B.F. Walker “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin Dynasties,” in ZikirŠumim:AssyriologicalStudiesPresentedtoF.R.KrausontheOccasionofHisSeventiethBirthday, ed. Govert van Driel(Leiden: Brill, 1982), 398-417. A recent update of ABC is Jean-Jacques Glassner, MesopotamianChronicles (= CM) (Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004). An even more recent update of ABC is Amélie Kuhrt, ThePersianEmpire: ACorpusofSourcesoftheAchaemenidPeriod (London; New York: Routledge, 2007). See also Caroline Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian chronicles: classification and provenance,” JNES 71 (2012): 285-98. The letter is written to Apil-Sin of Babylon (1830-1813); its presumed author is king Damiq-ilišu of Isin (1816-1794). The chronicle begins after line 31. Editions (with translation) are Grayson, AssyrianandBabylonianChronicles,145-151; Irving L. Finkel, “Bilingual Chronicle Fragments,” JCS 32 (1980): 65-80; Farouk N.H. Al-Rawi, “Tablets from the Sippar Library: I. The ’Weidner Chronicle:’ A Supposititious Royal Letter Concerning a Vision,” Iraq52 (1990): 1-13; Alan Millard’s rendering in William

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

67

of several Mesopotamian dynasties one after another, giving with it an evaluation of the rule of each of them. The events are evaluated from the point of view of the Esagila, the temple of the god Marduk in Babylon. The destiny of the dynasties is governed by the relation of their kings to the cult of Marduk. The chronicle aims at documenting the blessings that the gods bestowed upon earlier rulers who sacrificed to the supreme god Marduk in the Esagila shrine in Babylon and the curses (the loss of reign) of those who disregarded the prescriptions of the cult. The author remembers only those events which can be evaluated from the point of the relation of the Marduk temple and the king. The document is a historical account in the spirit of ancient Near Eastern historiography, opposing the sinner who losts rule because of his sins, and the righteous who inherits kingdom. Historical memory is often commemorated in longer narratives on historical persons – epical or biographical narratives related to Mesopotamian rulers like Lugalbanda, Gilgamesh, and Sharrukin. Based on the idea of iustitiaconnectiva and the ethical system of the historical overviews these historical narratives are intended to articulate royal ideology with the help of mythological and literary patterns. Basically, they serve aims to legitimate for the contemporary and future societies a king who is the founder of a dynasty. Birth legends represent a typical literary form of legitimation. They are to testify the divine election of the hero, and his/her divine support from birth. Examples from the 3rd millennium are the Lugalbanda epic and the inscription of Sharrukin. The part written in 1st person singular makes the king narrate his own birth story, the dangers, and his miraculous salvation. The second part contains historical data about his reign. It is evident that the inscription is not a postumous legend but a propagandistic narrative compiled during the reign of the king. Other historical narratives, from different Ancient Near Eastern cultures combined reports on real or verisimilar facts with literary patterns. The Syrian story of the solitary fugitive hero was popular throughout the ancient Near East. It is a constitutive motif of several works like the Idrimi inscription from Syria, or the Egyptian novel Sinuhe. Both of these reports are based on real autobiographical facts. Member of the royal house of Halab (Aleppo), Idrimi was ousted from the palace.7 Living in the desert he wielded priestly

7

W. Hallo (ed.), TheContextofScripture,3 vols. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1997-2003), 2:468-70; Glassner, MesopotamianChronicles, 263-68. The text was edited by Sidney Smith, ThestatueofIdri-mi, Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara 1 (London: The British Academy, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1949). Further editions are traited by Gary H. Oller,

68

IDA FRÖHLICH

functions, besides military ones. Later on he succeeded in gaining the throne of Alalakh with the assistance of the Habiru or displaced social laborers. Sinuhe, an Egyptian official, fled to Canaan following the murder of Pharao Amenemhat I.8 Vassal of a local king Sinuhe fought rebellious tribes. The single combat against a gigantic enemy in his autobiography stands for testifying his special qualities and explaining his military and political career. Remaining faithful to his ancestral gods during his career Sinuhe returned to Egypt in old age to die there and be enterred according to his ancestors’ customs. Literary patterns and formulae served also to commemorate negative events – reports on individual failure or on the end of a dynasty/state. Negative reports on fallen dynasties were written by historiographers of the following dynasty as retrospective accounts. The reason that motivated the use of such negative motifs was not mere hostility against the fallen dynasty, but rather the obligation of the emerging dynasty that they explain the motive of the fall of the dynasty that preceded their rule. They had the duty to make clear the reasons that led to the loss of the rule of their predecessors. The motive of the fall was in every case of ethical nature. Predominant among ethical motives are cultic or ritual sins, and “bloodshed”. The first one means neglecting local cult or inadequate cult practice. The latter one is for killing one’s own subjects, social injustice, violence against, suppression or enslavement of subjects. Sexual sins, i.e. violation of rules and laws concerning sexuality may also enrich the list. In order to understand these texts one needs to be acquainted with the cognitive background of the Ancient Near Eastern texts, their ethical universe and way of thinking. Two case examples stand here for cultic offenses and bloodshed that triggered the fall of dynasties. According to the Old Babylonian Weidner Chronicle or Esagila Chronicle the cultic sins of the kings committed during their rule are the following: they confiscated the fish caught for a

8

“The Inscription of Idrimi: A Pseudo-Autobiography?” in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A, StudiesinHonorofÅkeW.Sjöberg, ed. Hermann Behrens, Darlene M. Loding, and Martha T. Roth, Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 11 (Philadelphia: Babylonian Fund, University Museum, Philadelphia, 1989), 411-417. For an English translation, see “The Story of Idrimi, king of Alalakh”, in James B. Pritchard, ed., AncientNearEastern TextsRelatingtotheOldTestament(=ANET), 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 557-8; Tremper Longman III, “The Autobiography of Idrimi,”in: TheContextofScripture.CanonicalCompositionsfromtheBiblicalWorld, ed. William W. Hallo, Younger Jr. K. Lawson, Harry A. Hoffner, Robert K. Ritner (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:47980. For an English translation, see “The Story of Si-Nuhe”, in Pritchard, ANET, 18-22. Altough not known from historical records Sinuhe supposedly was a real person.

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

69

sacrifice to Marduk, they ate the fish prepared for the offering, or failed to perform the ritual sacrifice to the god. Another type of sin mentioned in the account is bloodshed. According to the chronicle, “Naramsin destroyed the creatures of Babili” – this statement is followed by the report on the transmission of his kingdom to nomadic tribes.9 The Cyrus Cylinder was written by Babylonian priests following a historical turning point, the overthrow of the Neo-Babylonian empire by the Persians (539 BCE). It was issued by the Persian ruler Cyrus, the new lord of the land of Babylon. The text has two parts – the first one a document on the transgressions of Nabonidus, the second one evincing Cyrus’ benefactory activity. The sins of the fallen ruler Nabonidus are cultic sins like inappropriate rituals and holding back sacrifices, erecting a cult statue which is qualified as a demon-like image. His further sin, violence represent social sins – an unlawful reign, allowing common people and nobles to perish through his will and wars, blocking the trade routes, and tooking away property of his subjects (col. I.1-11).10 SINS THAT

MAKE THE LAND IMPURE

Israelite – Old Testament – history writing is to be evaluated on the basis of the particular laws of its backgrounding culture. Ethical values of this culture are basically identical with those of other ancient Near Eastern cultures. However, a monotheistic religion eventuates special features in ethical values. The earliest block of the Old Testament history writing and the basis of the ethical views in biblical historiography is the Deuteronomic history, determined by the Deuteronomic legal concept.11 The laws of the Deuteronomy concern various areas of human life – social, sexual, and cultic categories. They reflect a system of ritual purity. Natural or physical (called also permitted) impurities originate from various human states like menstruation, discharge of sexual organs, scale 9 10

11

For the text, see note 6. These sins are considered in the biblical system of ritual impurities as resulting in ethical impurity. On the system of impurities, see Jacob Milgrom, “The Priestly Impurity System,” in ProceedingsoftheNinthWorldCongressofJewishStudies:DivisionA: The Period of the Hebrew Bible (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 121–25. David P. Wright, “Unclean,” ABD 6:729-41, esp. 729-31. Thomas C. Römer, TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory.ASociological,Historical andLiteraryIntroduction (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007) gives a clear introduction on the problem, the history of reseach, the literary concerns and the sociological background of the writings called Deuteronomistic History.

70

IDA FRÖHLICH

diseases (“leprosy”) and corpse. These impurities are removable by appropriate ceremonies. Ethical (or intentional) impurities issue from violating ethical prescriptions, and are not to be removed.12 Similarly to the views of other Near Eastern cultures social sins (oppression, homicide, violence against own subjects) expressed as “bloodshed” are considered in Deuteronomic legal concept as ethical sins and de-legitimating factors in Israelite concept. Sexual sins are abundantly exemplified in Deuteronomic and Priestly legislation, and also non-legislative sources. They are considered as making the land impure and causing the loss of the land by its inhabitants.13 Cultic offenses represent in biblical culture a vaste field of ethical sins resulting in impurity.14 Cults of gods other than YHWH are considered idolatry, an ethical sin (equated in biblical system with sexual sin, zenut). However, inappropriate forms of the state cult of YHWH are similarly considered as cultic sins. Practicing foreign forms of magic (sorcery, kašpah) is again considered as a sin resulting in ethical impurity. The concept of ethical sins and their punishment is reflected in various non-legislative genres, especially in narrative and prophetic literature. Another common denominator of these sins is that the continuous practice of them makes the land impure, and inhabitants of the land are to be expelled from there. Bloodshed, homicide (hamās) means shedding innocent blood. Institutional forms of bloodshed, like war or blood feud, do not fall into this category.15 Yet, any corpse that results from homicide pollutes persons and objects for seven days.16 According to the Priestly legislaton homicide brings pollution on the land whether the killing was intentional or unintentional.17 The death of the murderer removes the pollution.18 The rite described in Deut 21:1-9 (‘eglah‘arufah) serves to remove the pollution of the earth caused by a murder in which the culprit is not known. The 12 13

14

15

16 17 18

For the categorization, see Wright, “Unclean.” Interrelations of relatives are strictly regulated in Lev 19. Although adultery is not itemized neither here nor in other legal texts, sexual relation with married woman counted in ancient Near Eastern cultures a capital sin. Models of the sacred building of the Tabernacle, its paraphernalia, priestly vestments, sacrifices, priests, and cultic sins are given in Ex 35-40, Lev 1-10, 16-17, 19-24. For the Solomonic temple, see 1 Kgs 5:15-6:38. This impurity is distinct from that of corpse contamination. Corpse contamination arises from the state of the corpse itself; homicide pollution arises from an illicit act of killing. Cf. Num 31:13-24. Num 35:33-34. Vv 12, 16-21, 31; cf. Gen 9:5-6. In the case of manslaughter, the slayer must reside in a city of refuge until the death of the high priest. The priest’s death apparently purges the pollution (Num 35:12, 15, 22–25, 28, 32).

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

71

polluted earth becomes barren: the land is said not produce well for Cain because of Abel’s murder.19 The corpse of a hanged person left on the tree for the night also defiles the land.20 Sexual sins are usually described as ‘fornication’ (zenūt). Zenūt means the violation of the prohibition of any of the sexual taboos listed in Lev 18. These are: incest, i.e. sexual relation between blood relatives and persons in the place of a blood relative (e.g. wife of the father who is not necessarily the mother) (vv. 6-18), adultery (v. 20), homosexual relations and prostitution (v 22), and bestiality (v 23). The basis for this biblical view is the sum of biblical laws concerning sexuality. According to Leviticus 18, sexual sins pollute persons (vv 20, 23, 24, 30) and the land (vv 25, 27, 28). Polluting the land results in expulsion from it (vv 25, 28) and kārēt“cutting-off” for the people (v 29). Overlapping with permitted impurities is the case of intercourse with a menstruant (v 19).21 This sexual relationship is forbidden with a penalty of kārēt attached.22 Two principles are in Deuteronomy that determine the approach to the holy. The first is monotheism (“YHWH alone”), and the second one is the principle of ritual purity. The presence of unclean objects in the sanctuary, and unappropriate cult practice make the sanctuary impure. Priests are not to contact with anything impure in order not to bring impurity into the sanctuary.23 Priests, priestly households, and Israelites are not to contaminate sacrificial meat and other offerings.24 If they do, they are liable to the kārēt“cutting-off” penalty (to die without offspring).25 Unfortunately, the lack of description of the full area of the “canonical” of the holy in the field of the buildings, their proportions and ornament, 19 20

21 22

23

24 25

Gen 4:10-12; 2 Sam 21:1-14; Hos 4:2-3; Ps 106:38. This prohibition occurs only in Deut 21:2-23. Notwithstanding this, it was considered in everyday practice, and this was the reason of asking for Jesus’ body from Pilate and burying it before night, see Mark 15:42-45, Matt 27:57-61, Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42 (the last two sources explain the practice with the beginning of the Shabbat). Also Lev 20:18; cf. Lev 15:24). A special case in Deuteronomy: prohibition of the re-marriage with a divorced wife after her second marriage. The woman is considered as impure for her first husband; should she marry him, the land would be defiled (Deut 24:1-4; cf. Jer 3:1-10). This is the rationale of the law prohibiting the priests to contact death impurity, see Lev 21:1-4 (prescriptions for priests), and Lev 21:10-11 (prescriptions for the hight priest). Legal texts do not mention, but it is obvious that contact with other impurities like blood was also forbidden. See Matt 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan where the priest and the Levite avoid even to look at the bleeding beaten man. Lev 7:19-21; 22:3-7; Num 18:11, 13. Kārēt(from the verb krt “to cut off”) means not only the death of the sinner, but also the discontinuance of his progeny.

72

IDA FRÖHLICH

cultic objects, paraphernalia, customs and rituals related to the holy makes difficult to decide what was considered as non-authentic. The sole normative text concerning these questions is the description of the Solomonic temple with the building and paraphernalia considered as authentic by the history writers. Historical reports mention cases of forms of nonauthoritative cult form and representations like the practice in the sanctuary of Bethel mentioned as “Jerobeam’s sin.”26 The exact difference between the two cult forms is not clear. The representation of bulls in the Israelite cult is disparagingly mentioned by the Judean historiographer as the “calves of Bethel.” However, the bull motif is not unknown in the Jerusalem cult of YHWH either, since the “Sea of cast metal” (kiyyōr) stood on twelve bull-figures.27 Non-legislative literature gives several examples for the view that illicit forms of the cult were considered as polluting the sacred.28 Idolatry and magic (considered often as zenūt) mean further ethical impurities. Offering a child to mōlēk pollutes the sanctuary.29 The offender is to be put to death by stoning. A divine punishment for the same sin is the kārēt “cutting-off.” Consulting the dead, an idolatrous act, also defiles a person.30 According to biblical views, these sins are defiling for both the sinner and the land, and result in the disinheritance of the land for the sinner. Besides legal sources like the Holiness Code biblical narrative sources consider the “promised land” as holy where the observance of special laws means a prerequisite of the maintenance of the purity of people and the land, as well as a precondition for the survival of human beings on the land. The above sins serve in Deuteronomic history to motivate the fall 26

27

28

29 30

Jeroboam’s sin is repeatedly referred to in the retrospect to the history of the Northern kingdom Israel. The sin committed by each of the kings of the Northern kingdom is considered as one of the main causes of the fall of the Northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:2123). Cf. 1 Kgs 7:23-26. It can be supposed that the representations of bulls in Bethel were related to the cult of YHWH but were not the representations of the deity itself. During Josiah’s cultic reform objects considered as improper to the cult were eliminated from the temple, and defiled, and after that the sanctuary was ritually cleansed (2 Kgs 23:8, 10, 13, 16). Prolonged illicit cult practice – like “Jeroboam’s sin,” the practice in the Northern kingdom Israel – was interpreted as the cause of the fall of the kingdom in 722 BCE, and cause of the exile of the Northern tribes (cf. 2 Kgs 17:7-23). Lev 20:2-5. Lev 19:31; 20:6. This is the basis of the categoric prohibition of Ex 22:17 (18): “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live”. In several places, magic and the cult of alien gods are identified in the Old Testament with ‘fornication’ (zenūt), as it is demonstrated by the above mentioned example from Lev 20. In the symbolic language of prophetic literature, the adulterous wife and the prostitute are symbols of idolatrous Israel.

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

73

and disinheritance of the sinner. The most common example for it is the justification of the fall of the northern kingdom Israel in 722 BCE in 2 Kgs 17, the fall being attributed to a steady-state cultic impurity resulting from “Jeroboam’s sin” (i.e., the northern form of the cult of Yahweh, considered by the chronicler as illicit).31 This sin was committed by each of the Israelite kings (even by Jehu, the devotee parexcellenceof Yahweh) (2 Kgs 17:22–23). THE USE

ACCESSION HISTORY AND COURT HISTORY

OF ETHICAL LANGUAGE IN THE THE

Old Testament history writing begins with the Deuteronomic History. Obviously, the authors of the earliest Deuteronomic composition relied upon earlier written documents, as it is referred: “… are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel?” (2 Kgs 13:12). However, the views that governed their selecting from these sources, as well as the notions that ruled their interpretations are Deuteronomic – the cognitive background of their historical memory being Deuteronomic ideas. With this we came to the question of the Davidic image portrayed in the Deuteronomic historiography. David’s career story – the accounts about his accession to power and his rule – are recorded in the intertwined narratives of the Accession History and the Court History (2 Sam 9-20, 1 Kgs 1-2).32 These documents are the very foundations of Noth’s Deuteronomist, the author who shaped first the history of the kingdom from the beginning until his own time.33 He worked probably during the rule of the king Joshiah, and the ideas that determined the image of the history of the emerging kingdom of Israel were the spirit of the Deuteronomistic reform, the national independence and the idea of “YHWH alone.”34 31

32

33

34

On Jeroboam’s figure as a “bad king” in Deuteronomistic historiography, see Carl D. Evans, “Naram-Sin and Jeroboam: The Archetypal Unheilsherrscher in Mesopotamian and Biblical Historiography,” in ScriptureinContextII:MoreEssaysontheComparativeMethod, ed. William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue, (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 97-125. The term was used first by L. Rost as Thronfolgegeschichte,see Leonhard Rost, Die ÜberlieferungvonderThronnachfolgeDavids,BWANT 3/6 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926). Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 2nd. ed. (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1957), 54-55, 61-72. Scholars agree concerning the content of the Deuteronomic History. However, there is no consensus concerning the beginning of Deuteronomic history writing. Noth supposed that an originally unified work was composed during the exilic period by an individual

74

IDA FRÖHLICH

According to these ideas the founder of the reigning Davidic dynasty was seen an ideal figure, and his dynasty considered an “eternal dynasty” whose reign will last in longevity. The narrative on the history of the dynasty needed appropriate literary motifs of legitimation. The tableau contained also the career story of Saul, the founder of the dynasty that preceeded David’s house. Although the dynasty founded by Saul was an ephemeral one, he was considered in Deuteronomistic eyes as the founder of the first Israelite dynasty – so the tableau of his kingdom could not have been considered entirely negative. It is propbably for this reason that Saul’s career starts with a triple motif of his election. Continued with ambiguous motifs that can be interpreted as cultic misdemeanours the career story arrives to a fatal twist, relating a cultic sin that results Saul’s rejection by God, and foresees the fall of his dynasty.35 Legitimating elements reveal in various ways Saul’s election. The first element is his chance meeting with Samuel (1 Sam 9:1-10:16), the banquet scene (1 Sam 9:22-24), and the scene where Samuel anoints him.36 The second one is the story when Israel’s king is elected by drawing lots from among the tribes, then from among the clans (1 Sam 10:17-26).37 The third story of Saul’s election is the scene following the victory, when, on Samuel’s initiative, “the whole people” goes to Gilgal, and they acclaim Saul king; they make an offering and celebrate with great joy (1 Sam 11:15). Narratives about Saul’s early career attest also his charismatic power. On his appointment as military overlord by Samuel, Saul falls in prophetic ecstasy (1 Sam 9:1-10:16). However, his election is shadowed by a remark on the “worthless fellows” who refused to give presents to Saul

35

36

37

– the “Deuteronomist” (Dtr) – reflecting on the loss of the kingdoms soon after 586. However, regarding some optimistic motifs written in typically Deuteronomistic style like the divine promise of an everlasting dynasty to David (2 Sam 7), Frank M. Cross supposed an earlier beginning of the national history writing under the reign of Josiah. Further schools elaborated various theories of multiple Exilic redactions of the text which resulted in re-shaping earlier narratives. See, Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 22-43. Reports on survivors from Saul’s family do not form a coherent narrative with that of Saul’s kingdom. These narrative parts of the story originally were probably independent units. Following the banquet scene, Saul and Samuel are again tête à tête, thus, Saul’s anointment is a secret act witnessed by nobody. Following the drawing of lots, the elected king is not found. “See, he has hidden himself among the baggage”, they say. When he is eventually found, and he stands among the people, “he was head and shoulders taller than any of them”. Then Samuel proclaims the laws of the kingdom, “and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the Lord” (1 Sam 10:25).

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

75

(1 Sam 10:27) meaning that his eligibility and legitimation was not generally recognized and approved. The decisive rupture in Saul’s career is caused by a ritual sin committed by him when he makes a burnt offering in the absence of the prophet and priest Samuel. Samuel, who arrives after the offering, reveals that Saul’s kingdom will not last and that a new choice for the kingdom has been found. To make matters worse, Saul defies Samuel and goes to war (1 Sam 13:1-15).38 Thus, Saul’s deed is a cultic offense in deuteronomic views.39 His story continues with the report on the breaking of the holy war because Saul does not receive a favourable sign from God to continue the campaign, and he stops persecuting the Philistines.40 Saul intends to make up for the offence by erecting an altar (1 Sam 14:31-35). His propitiation seems to fail and he is not able to regain divine help. When pursuing David he is unable to arrest him, being affected by a prophetic spirit and tearing off his clothes and lying naked on the ground in a catatonic state for an entire day and night (1 Sam 19:18-24). Nevertheless, Saul’s worst ritual misdemenour occurs on the day preceding his death in the battle of Gilboa. Saul goes to see the witch of Endor about the success of the battle (1 Sam 28:3-25). He meets the sorceress in spite of the fact that it was himself who earlier categorically forbade any kind of magic. Now he tries to inquire before the battle about the outcome of the combat and his own fate. The biblical passages cited above show that in biblical thought this sort of magic is regarded as the most damnable among all kinds of magic. Since it makes the land impure, those who practise sorcery will be wiped out of the land, in accordance with the commandment of 38

39

40

Samuel’s attitude is typically deuteronomic, reflecting the view that sacrifices are to be offered only by priests. Samuel is not only the king making prophet, but judge and priest, an expert in offerings. The scene does not fit in the rest of the narration where patriarchs and judges build altars and offer themselves their offerings. Cf. e.g., Gen 12:7, 9, 18 where Abraham builds altars near Shechem, Bethel, and Hebron. Ritual offenses of Saul are multiplied in the narrative about his kingdom. He does not condemn his son Jonathan for breaking – although unknowing – an oath made during a holy war (1 Sam 14:24-30); the people commits ritual sin when eating blood when feasting from the booty (1 Sam 15:31-33); Saul does not fulfil the hērem on Agag and on the booty (1 Sam 15). Violation of the rules of the holy war is a sin of polluting the sacred, and results in the failure of the war. This Deuteronomic background is reflected in Samuel’s words foretelling Saul’s downfall: “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected you from being king” (1 Sam 15:23). His prophecy is visualized by the tearing of his mantle that represents both prophetic and royal power: Samuel is about to go, and Saul keeps him back by his robe when a fringe tears off from the robe. Saul’s second prophetic trance (1 Sam 19:18-24) is again intended to be a negative element. Saul’s war is a holy war for seizing the land from the Philistines.

76

IDA FRÖHLICH

Ex 22:17 (18) “You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.” The ritual offence of necromancy becomes the immediate cause of Saul’s fall, his physical destruction and the decline of his dynasty. Saul’s cultic and ritual offences result in polluting the sacred. A punishment for these sins is that God turns from him and sends an evil spirit (rūaḥ) to torment him (1 Sam 16:14-23). This means at the same time the end if his election, and that a new elect, David is anointed. The series of Saul’s sins culminate in magic (necromancy) which serves as a reason to the termination of his dynasty, his defeat and death in the battle of Gilboa against the Philistines.41 As to David, it can be supposed that the first deuteronomic historiographers who wrote his story worked in the Josianic court. They aimed at painting a clearly positive picture on him, an image embellished with motifs that legitimate him, and devoid of any negative component. Narrative motifs reflecting David’s divine election and the divine help given to him served to confirm his special relation with YHWH, the patron deity of the state and his dynasty. This special relation was based on the king’s piety, and culminated in the founding of the cult of the patron deity.42 It was probably this stage of the Deuteronomic historiography where the oracle of the “eternal dynasty” of David was articulated.43 However, the oracle seemed to fail following the Babylonian conquest in 586 BCE. Although members of the Davidic family survived in the exilic milieu, the chroniclers’ judgement about the history of the dynasty became undcided. The last event reported in biblical historiography is that under Evilmerodach (562-560) king Jehoiachin was released from his prison, and “lived as a pensioner of the king for the rest of his life” (2 Kgs 25:2730), fueling hopes about the return of the “eternal dynasty.” The mention of Zerubbabel in several sources (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hag 1:1,14; 2:2) implies the political activity of the members of the dynasty in the Persian province of Yehud, but later sources are silent about the future of the dynasty. It can only be supposed that the picture of David as an ideal hero and king was re-painted (probably in several layers) by later hands, 41

42

43

Together with Saul three of his sons – Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua – die (1 Sam 31:2). Although a surviving son Ishbaal continues to rule in Gilead for two years (2 Sam 2:8-11), the rule of the members of Saul’s dynasty is not regarded as legitimate in Deuteronomistic historiography. In David’s case it was the the founding of the cult of YHWH in the city-state Jerusalem which had a prehistory with a religious tradition different from the cult of YHWH. Timo Veijola, DieEwigeDynastie:DavidunddieEntstehungseinerDynastienachder deuteronomistischenDarstellung, AASFSerB 193 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975).

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

77

according to changes in the history of his dynasty, and the narrative was added with portentuous elements in retrospective historiography. This results an ambivalent portrait, where positive motifs aiming at legitimating the hero are mixed with negative ones serving to contest his legitimacy. Usual narrative motifs to foreshadow the doom of a dynasty were cultic sins, bloodshed, and sexual sins among the means of ancient Near Eastern historiography. As to David, portentuous elements are represented by bloodshed and sexual sin.44 However, differently from Saul (and other ancient Near Eastern rulers who were de-legitimated by later historiographers) David never commits a sin that can be explicitly categorized as a cultic sin. Similarly to the narrative of Saul’s career David’s career story is headed by a triple motif of his election. According to the first he is elected and anointed by Samuel (1 Sam 16:1-13).45 The second episode of legitimation – that of David’s fight with Goliath – serves to prove David’s suitability by his artfulness is (1 Sam 17). The third narrative that demonstrates David’s eligibility is that on David’s military career in Saul’s court, and his victories that raise Saul’s jealousy. In Saul’s court, David is beloved by all. Everybody but Saul is his friend and helper, especially Saul’s son and heir apparent Jonathan, and Mikal, Saul’s daughter and David’s wife (1 Sam 18-20). Further narrative speaks of David’s career is the wilderness. This part is built on the literary motif of the solitary fugitive hero and successful warrior, a motif present in several ancient Near Eastern literary autobiographies, beginning with the Egyptian novel Sinuhe, written in Egypt in the early second millennium where the solitary fugitive hero reaches the kingship in the land of Retenu. Its best known example is the inscription with the biography of the Syrian king Idrimi from the mid-fifteenth century, with a similar career of reaching the royal throne.46 The motif reappears in texts related to Hattusili III, 44

45

46

Dubious situations of David’s life are cleared up by the writers of his biography; the only case when he is incriminated with bloodshed is connected with his sexual sin with Bathsheba. David is presented in the narrative as a “male Cinderella,” the elect who is not present at the scene during the process of the election (1 Sam 16:6-13). Another element related to the motif of the election is secrecy. In the scene of the drawing of lots connected to Saul he “is hidden himself among the baggage” (1 Sam 10:22). Following David’s anointment by Samuel the fact is not made public (1 Sam 16:12-13). See note 7. John Van Seters, InSearchofHistory:HistoriographyintheAncientWorld andtheOriginsofBiblicalHistory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 188-191 sees it as an example story for the Old Testament stories of the Israelite founders of dynasties Saul and David. See also Niels P. Lemche, AncientIsrael:ANewHistoryof IsraeliteSociety, The Biblical Seminar 5 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 53-57; Mario

78

IDA FRÖHLICH

king of Hatti (early 13th century), Esarhaddon, king of Assyria (early seventh century), and Nabonidus, king of Babylon (mid-sixth century).47 Further episodes of the biblical narrative highlight that David does not commit ritual offence, and he is in perfect relation with sanctuaries. According to the account on David’s visit at the sanctuary of Nob (1 Sam 21:2-10), David and his men are allowed to eat from the shewbread (intended regularly to be eaten by priests). Thus the episode sets, unsaid, David into a priestly position. Another episode related to the sanctuary of Nob, the giving of Goliath’s sword to David by the priests of the sanctuary is a sign of his legitimacy, and endows him with a sacred character. David is guided by prophetic words: he moves to the region of Judah not of his own free will but at the behest of the prophet Gad.48 Before his military actions, David “asks the Lord” concerning the success of his planned enterprise – contrary to Saul’s practice who never is reported to ask for the divine will.49 Charges of murder are averted from David: he is explicitly excused from the guilt of Abner’s killing (2 Sam 3:22-39), and the same is for the case of Ishbaal, Saul’s son – on the contrary, it is David who threatens the murderers: “… And now shall I not require his blood at your hand, and destroy you from the earth?” (2 Sam 4:11). Indirect motifs serve, too, to prove David’s legitimacy. Such is the report about the arrival of the legation led by Hiram to David’s court (2 Sam 5:12).50 Prophecies and revelations on David’s eligibility and the

47

48

49 50

Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel (London: Equinox, 2009), 95; Stanley J. Isser, TheswordofGoliath:Davidinheroicliterature, Studies in Biblical Literature 6 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 79-80, and Jordi Vidal, “Summaries on the young Idrimi,” SJOT 26 (2012): 77-87. Edward L. Greenstein, “The Fugitive Hero Narrative Pattern in Mesopotamia,” in Worship,WomenandWar:EssaysinHonorofSusanNiditch. ed. John J. Collins, Tracy Maria Lemos, Saul J. Olyan, BJS 357 (Providence: Brown University, 2015), 17-35 concludes that the story pattern originated in the West and was disseminated eastwards from there. Before, he lived in the caves of Adullam, in Moab where he had good connections. Contrary to this, Saul commits again a sin when he massacres the priests of Nob. Since his men are reluctant to obey his order, he has them killed by Doeg, an Edomite, who does not belong to the Yahweh community (1 Sam 22:18-19). The killing of the priests is at the same time a homicide and a ritual offence, polluting the sacred. Cf. 1 Sam 30:6-9. “David then perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel”. Similarly, the deuteronomistic prophecy of Nathan in 2 Sam 7 contains nothing but positive elements when looking back David’s former career: “and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you”. The fact of God’s help for David means for the Deuteronomistic redactor a convincing prove for David’s innocence. Analogously, it is a principle for an oracle for the future: “and I will make for you a great name, like

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

79

“eternal dynasty” are direct forms to express his legitimacy.51 Although intermarriage belongs to the theme of the sins defiling the land in Deuteronomic concept, David’s marriages with Canaanite wifes mentioned in the Accession History are not evaluated negatively.52 The apogee of any legitimacy strategy is the report on the building of a sanctuary by the founder of the dynasty to the patron deity of the country and the dynasty, in order to secure the dynasty’s future. Assigning the place of the cult and depositing the cultic object representing the deity is an act that precedes the proper temple building. The bringing of the ark to Jerusalem and assigning the city to be the center of the dynastic cult of YHWH is a typical founding motif. However, in the narrative of the founding of the cult there appear ambiguous motifs that overshadow David’s figure, and that may originate from later Deuteronomistic redactors who aimed at rendering dubious David’s role as a cult founder.53 One of these motifs is David’s dancing before the ark of the covenant wearing but an ephod. The problematic scene is interpreted differently by David and by his wife Michal. David understands it as a sign of humility, whereas in Michal’s eyes, the dance is odd and ridiculous (2 Sam 6). The scene could even be interpreted as a cultic sin, the performing of a ritual alien to Yahweh’s cult, since the narrative recalls the case of the sacred nudity, a phenomenon well documented from the Sumerian practice, and perhaps known also outside Mesopotamia. In any case, nudity is in acute contrast to Deuteronomy’s words on the priests’ clothes and biblical concept of the relation of the garb and the holy. As to the narrative about David’s dance the Deuteronomistic redactor is silent about the interpretation, and David’s opinion seems to be accepted.

51

52

53

the name of the great ones of the earth,” 2 Sam 7:9) – this is followed by the revelation about the eternal kingdom of David’s house. The arrival of the legation led by Hiram to David’s court proves David’s eligibility again: “David then perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel” (2 Sam 5:12). Similarly, the deuteronomistic prophecy of Nathan in 2 Sam 7 contains nothing but positive elements when looking back David’s former career: “and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you.” The fact of God’s help for David means for the Deuteronomistic redactor a convincing prove for David’s innocence. Analogously, it is a principle for an oracle for the future: “and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth” (2 Sam 7:9) – this is followed by the revelation about the eternal kingdom of David’s house. Cf. Deut 7:1-15 where the ban of intermarriage is a precondition of surviving and obtaining divine blessing. Richard Elliott Friedman suggested that the Court History and the Accession History were originally part of a single historical epic by the Yahwist author covering the history of the Israelite world until the time of David and Solomon, see his TheHiddenBookin theBible (New York: Harper, 1999).

80

IDA FRÖHLICH

Another ambiguous element in the narrative is the role of Michal, Saul’s daughter and David’s wife. David’s remarriage with her is an oddish element of David’s story. His remarriage with Michal would threaten him with committing the sin of zenūt in Deuteronomic sense.54 Perhaps this is the reason that David is told not to have sex with Michal in their second marriage. His own explanation is Michal’s behavior who laughed at him when he was dancing before the ark when it was brought to Jerusalem – and a third one could be that he was not willing to have heirs from Saul’s daughter. Anyhow, his remarriage with Michal was against Deuteronomic law. The cult founder David never becomes a temple builder in Deuteronomic history. This occurrence might be due to the circumstance that later Deuteronomic redactors did already know about the fall of the Judean kingdom and the future of the Davidic dynasty, and their experience led to confine the perspective of the temple-building to the mere intention of such contribution. David was allowed to secure a cult place for YHWH but not to erect a building there, as it is expressed in Nathan’s prophecy: “Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the LORD: Are you the one to build me a house to live in?” (2 Sam 7:5). The biographical excuse for David’s not building a temple is his sexual wrongdoing and bloodshed. The emergence of these negative motifs in David’s picture shows the redactor’s intention to add de-legitimating elements to his biography. His adultery with Bathsheba is unequivocally a case of sexual wrongdoing (adultery, sexual relationship with a married woman), while the murder of her husband Uriah is a case of bloodshed (2 Sam 11-12).55 Nathan’s parable is an interpretation of the events, and an allegory of both crimes.56 In the 54

55

56

Cf. Deut 24:1–4, the prohibition of the remarriage with the divorced and remarried first wife. David’s sin with Bathsheba is in clear violation of the prohibition of adultery in Deut 22:22 and, according to that law, both should have died. Bathsheba is told to be Jerusalemite, thus, belonging to an alien group – similarly to her husband, Uriah the Hittite. However, both of them wear good Hebrew names. It can be supposed that Bathsheba and her husband were “hethitized”, and thus alienated from David’s ethnic group in order to minimize David’s blame for his sins. Nathan’s parable may not be original to the narrative. Hermann Gunkel, DasMärchenimAltenTestament (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1921; repr. Meisenheim am Glan: Athenäum, 1987), 35–36 stressed the lack of fit between the circumstances of the parable and David’s actions. Other scholars: Uriel Simon, The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable,” Biblica, 48 (1967): 207-242; P. Kyle McCarter, Samuel. IISamuel:anewtranslationwithintroduction,notesandcommentary, The Anchor Yale Bible 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 299 have, however, stressed the compatibility of the parable and David’s actions, identifying the crimes of both David and the rich man as abuses of power.

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

81

biblical narrative David’s crime is followed by an individual punishment (2 Sam 12) by the death of the child born from the adulterous relationship. The narrative emphasizes David’s sorrow and penitence,57 and his relief following the atonement.58 Through the retribution following immediately the crime the historiographer purifies David, so he can start the next period of his kingdom with clean hands. He suffers a personal, individual punishment in his offspring – but the same pericopa contains a report on the birth of a second son, Solomon (called Jedidiah by the prophet Nathan), who was born from a legitimate marriage with Bathsheba, and “whom the Lord loved” (2 Sam 12:24-25). Thus, David’s linege was not broken, and the future of the dynasty was secured through Solomon. However, the report on David’s adultery serves to keep undetermined the terms of the fulfilment of Nathan’s oracle on the “eternal dynasty”, the leading idea of Deuteronomistic historiography (2 Sam 7).59 David is not alone with committing a sexual sin. Three of his sons, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah are encumbered with the same misdeed. The first son in the line is Amnon who lusted after his consanguinous halfsister Tamar. Feigning sickness, he asks the girl to come into his room, where he takes advantage of the situation, rapes Tamar, and turns her out into the street. Amnon’s sin can be considered at the same time as a case of incest (although Tamar is not his uterine sister); nevertheless rape, in any case, is a sexual offence, a strictly punished crime in Ancient Near Eastern law.60 The fact that he enticed Tamar to come into his room and 57

58

59

60

When the child born to Bathsheba became ill, David sought God on behalf of the child, refusing food and lying on the ground, behavior typical of mourning. Cf. 2 Sam 12:1517. In a striking reversal of custom, David upon receiving word of the death of the child immediately rose, bathed, anointed himself, and asked for food. At this juncture the narrator records the birth of Solomon, who will ultimately succeed David on the throne, observing that the Lord loved him. Some scholars have suggested that the story of the death of the child is a fiction inserted here to establish the legitimacy of the birth of Solomon, see Ernst Würthwein, DieErzählungvonderThronfolgeDavids–theologischeoderpolitischeGeschichtsschreibung? Theologische Studien 115 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974), 32; Timo Veijola, “Salomo – Der Erstgeborene Bathsebas,” in StudiesintheHistoricalBooksoftheOldTestament, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 230-250. The deuteronomistic oracle of Nathan on the ’eternal dynasty’ in the next chapter (2 Sam 7) is followed by a report on victorious military campaign – so to say a verification of the oracle (2 Sam 10). As to biblical legislation, it is contained only in Deuteronomy, with two cases. In the case of an unattached girl it was sentenced by forcible marriage with no divorce, and payment of a set bride money (Deut 22:8–29). Rape of an inchoately married girl, on the other hand, was punishable with death (Deut 22:25). 1 Sam 13 Absalom’s killing of Amnon in revenge for the rape of his sister Tamar was regarded as unjustified. It is hard to

82

IDA FRÖHLICH

treated her especially roughly made things even worse.61 Absalom, during his revolt, when David flees from Jerusalem, on Ahithophel’s advice “goes in to his father’s concubines” under a tent pitched upon the roof of the royal palace (2 Sam 15, 16:20-23). The scene of this explicit and public appropriation of the royal harem has been often cited by scholars as a symbolic act of the legitimation of the new king’s reign, since marrying or taking possession of the harem of a king means the legitimation of the pretender, as a public symbol of the takeover of the royal prerogatives.62 However, Absalom takes possession of the concubines of his father, and when his father is still alive. According to Old Testament ethical norms, he would never have the right to get them, not even after his father’s death. Leviticus categorically forbids sexual relations with the father’s wife, and not only the mother (who is a blood relative), but every wive and concubine of the father: “… You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father” (Lev 18:8). Thus, Absalom’s deed has a doublse sense, it is a legitimation strategy, and the same time a sexual offence, the violation of the laws of ethical purity. Adonijah, following David’s death asked, through the mediation of Queen Bathsheba, to marry Abishag the Shunammite, David’s last concubine. Again, the story could be read as a story about legitimation, and as a story of incest, since he asked to marry his father’s concubine (1 Kgs 2:22; cf. 2 Sam 16:21). It seems that sexual sins always relate to the immediate future of the sinner, his hereditary rights, his life, and his next progeny, and they are

61

62

decide the question since the list of prohibited relations vary, even within the two levitical sources (cf. Deut 23:1; 27:20, 22–23), and none of them is comprehensive. All sources prohibit relations not only with blood relatives but also with certain relatives by marriage. In three cases the biblical – deuteronomistic – code prohibits relations that are licit elsewhere in the Bible: (1) marriage with a paternal half-sister (Lev 18:9; Deut 27:22; cf. Gen 20:12; 2 Sam 13:13); (2) marriage with two sisters (Lev 18:18; cf. Jabob’s marriage to Leah and Rahel); and (3) levirate marriage (Lev 18:16; 20:21, if not confined to the brother’s lifetime), although it is enjoined as a duty by Deut 25:5. The language of expulsion reduces Tamar to a disposable object since the Hebrew, contrary to many translations, has only the demonstrative pronoun this; cf. Phyllis Trible, TextsofTerror,OBT 13 (Philadelphia, 1984), 48. Several examples can be cited to prove this; first of all, Saul’s promise to David that he would give his daughter to David in marriage – first he promises his elder daughter, Merab, then Michal, the younger one, whom David eventually marries. Through this marriage, David also becomes Saul’s legitimate heir beside Saul’s sons. Marrying the king’s widow warranted similar rights. Marriage with the widow of the king was similarly a means of legitimacy. Ankhesiamun, Tutankhamun’s widow asked the Hittite prince Zannanza to marry her. Alexandra Salome, the widow of Aristobulus I chose to marry Alexander Jannaeus from among the brothers of her deceased husband, so Alexander became king.

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

83

not linked with remote future.63 David’s three sons are punished for their sexual sins with death, and they die without leaving offspring (there is no mention about their children).64 Due to their sins they cannot be legitimate heirs of their father, and possessors of the land. David’s adultery with Bathsheba, followed by an immediate punishment, is forgiven, and the Davidic lineage continues. As to his other sin, Uriah’s murder there is no forgiveness mentioned. The only sin David never commits is cultic sin – a sin that relates in every case to the far future of the dynasty. Thus, the future of his dynasty is not endangered (although some ambiguous cultic measures seem to unsettle the dynastic perspectives). Cultic, social, and sexual sins are the three types of sin that can influence the future of a dynasty and the future of its members individually. They are the elements of a coded language, each of them having a special symbolic meaning. Among them it is cultic sin that has the “strongest” effect: it leads, in each case, to the fall of the dynasty. Social sins seem not to endanger explicitly the future of dynasties. Sexual sin is related with the individual fate of the sinner. It is punished with death – the death of the sinner or his progeny. DAVID REMEMBERED IN CHRONICLES AND QUMRAN The elements related either positively or negatively to the legitimation of Saul and David are used sophisticatedly by the Chronicler. Saul’s career story is completely omitted, only his doom and shameful death are reported (1 Chr 10). His fall is reasoned that he “died in his transgression (bm῾lw) by which he transgressed (m῾l) against YHWH” (1 Chr 10:13).65 David’s career beginning is simply reduced to his election in Hebron by “all Israel” 63

64

65

Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam. xi 2 ff) and the Yahwist Corpus,” in VolumeduCongrès–Genève1965, ed. George W. Anderson, P.A.H. De Boer, and Giorgio Raffaele Castellino, VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 4457 had demonstrated that the Thronfolgegeschichte (2 Sam 11:2-27; 12:15b-25; 13-15; 15-20 and 1 Kings 1-2) is structured by the theme that sin externalized in a sexual form leads to death. Amnon, dies unmarried, killed, without progeny (2 Sam 13:23-38); Absalom, dies, killed (2 Sam 18:9-15). In the narrative he is presented intentionally as unmarried and childless; Adonijah, following his attempt at seizing the power and asking for Abishag, is killed (with Joab) by Benaiah (1 Kgs 2:24-25; cf. 1 Kgs 2:28-35). The root m῾l, a term characteristic of the Chronicler for profound infidelity and disobedience, see Gary N. Knoppers, “Democratizing Revelation? Prophets, Seers, and Visionaries in Chronicles,” in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel, ed. John Day, Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (New York; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 391-409, esp. 394.

84

IDA FRÖHLICH

(1 Chr 11:11), followed by his conquer of Jerusalem. His cult-founding, the transmitting of the ark from Kiriath-jearim is related in 1 Chr 13:114, 15:1-28. Ambiguous elements of the Deuteronomic narrative concerning David’s dance, and his clothing are reshaped, making his role explicit. During the way to Jerusalem “David and all Israel danced for joy before God” (1 Chr 13:8). When arriving to Jerusalem David decreed that only Levites should carry the ark (1 Chr 15:2). David and all the Levites, and the musicians escorting the ark “were arrayed in robes of fine linen; and David had on a linen ephod” (1 Chr 15:27), making unambiguous that no ritual nakedness occured. Michal, witnessing David’s dance does not even bring up her despise (1 Chr 15:29). Following the transport of the ark to Jerusalem David pitches a tent for it (1 Chr 15:1), puts it inside the tent (1 Chr 16:1), offers sacrifices, and blesses the people in the name of YHWH (1 Chr 16:1-2). Immediately he appoints Levites to serve before the ark (1 Chr 16:3-6, 37-42). Once established in his palace he gives expression to build a sanctuary (1 Chr 17:1). David’s sexual sin and murder are not mentioned in Chronicles – however, God gives an evasive answer through Nathan’s prophecy, referring to earlier history when he dwelled in a tabernacle (1 Chr 17:3-10). According to the dynastic oracle it is one of David’s sons who will build a house to YHWH, and whose throne will be established “for all time” (1 Chr 17:12). Although the builder will be Solomon, the real builder and cult founder is David – not only as the person who organizes the Levites (1 Chr 16:4-43), but also as the king who physically prepares elements of the building of the Temple, its service, and the cultic paraphernalia (1 Chr 22-26). It is this that makes him defacto a temple builder. However, the history written by the Chronicler is not the history of a dynasty but that of the Sanctuary. The Chronicler’s main interest is the future of the Temple, and not that of the Davidic dynasty. The narrative ends with a reference to Cyrus’ proclamation and the edict for the rebuilding of the Temple (2 Chr 36:22-24). What makes especially important David’s role in Chronicles is that by establishing cult and liturgy he becomes the parexcellence founder of the religion, since the narratives on Moses and the tradition of the giving of the Law at Sinai are omitted from Chronicle’s narrative. In this wise the narrative on David becomes a kind of counter-narrative against the Mosaic tradition, a tradition where Moses’ role as the founder of a religion is fulfilled by David. Differently from this, Qumran tradition is full in line with that of Exodus where the “religion founder” is Moses, who is the mediatior of the Law. At the same time the DamascusDocument (CD V.2-6) mentions David,

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

85

absolving him from both sexual sin and bloodshed. Other Qumran writings refer to him as the founder of religious liturgy. 11Q5 attributes to him 3600 tehillim and 364 shirot “songs”. It is knot nown what the 3600 tehillim serve for, but the function of the 364 shirot is better known. These songs establish contact with the divine sphere on the subsequent days of a 364 days calendar – a calendrical form well known in Qumran. Some of these songs can be identified with compositions documented by manuscript tradition – 11Q11 composed for the four liminal days of the year, the SongsoftheShabbatSacrifice composed for the shabbats of the year, and the Dibrēha-Meorot, composed for the days of the week. These songs constitute together the scheme of a yearly liturgy. It is through the songs contributed to him that David becomes the founder of a cult performed in the heavenly temple. REFERENCES Primary Sources PRITCHARD, James B., ed. AncientNearEasternTextsRelatingtotheOldTestament.3rd. ed. Princeton: Princeton Universtiy Press, 1969. Secondary Sources AL-RAWI, Farouk N.H. “Tablets from the Sippar Library: I. The ’Weidner Chronicle:’ A Supposititious Royal Letter Concerning a Vision.” Iraq52 (1990): 1-13. ASSMAN, Jan. CulturalMemoryandEarlyCivilization.Writing,Remembrance, andPoliticalImagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. BLENKINSOPP, Joseph. “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam. xi 2 ff) and the Yahwist Corpus.” Pages 44-57 in VolumeduCongrès–Genève1965. Edited byGeorge W. Anderson, P.A.H. De Boer, and Giorgio Raffaele Castellino. VTSup 15. Leiden: Brill, 1966. BREISACH, Ernst. Historiography:Ancient,Medieval,andModern.3rd. ed. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2008. EVANS, Carl D. “Naram-Sin and Jeroboam: The Archetypal Unheilsherrscher in Mesopotamian and Biblical Historiography.” Pages 97-125 in Scripturein Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method. Edited by William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. FINKEL, Irving L. “Bilingual Chronicle Fragments.” JCS 32 (1980): 65-80. FRIEDMAN, Richard Elliott. TheHiddenBookintheBible. New York: Harper, 1999. GLASSNER, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. GRAYSON, Albert K. AssyrianandBabylonianChronicles. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1975.

86

IDA FRÖHLICH

GREENSTEIN, Edward L. “The Fugitive Hero Narrative Pattern in Mesopotamia.” Pages 17-35 in Worship,WomenandWar:EssaysinHonorofSusanNiditch. Edited by John J. Collins, Tracy Maria Lemos, Saul J. Olyan. Brown Judaic Studies 357. Providence: Brown University, 2015. GUNKEL, Hermann. DasMärchenimAltenTestament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1921; repr., Meisenheim am Glan: Athenäum, 1987. HALBWACHS, Maurice. On Collective Memory. Edited and translated Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. HALLO William W., ed. TheContextofScripture.3vols. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1997-2003. ISSER, Stanley J. The sword of Goliath: David in heroic literature. Studies in Biblical Literature 6. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. KNOPPERS, Gary N. “Democratizing Revelation? Prophets, Seers, and Visionaries in Chronicles.” Pages 391-409 in ProphecyandtheProphetsinAncientIsrael. Edited by John Day. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. New York, London: T&T Clark, 2010). KUHRT, Amélie. ThePersianEmpire:ACorpusofSourcesoftheAchaemenid Period. London; New York: Routledge, 2007. LEMCHE, Niels P. AncientIsrael:ANewHistoryofIsraeliteSociety. The Biblical Seminar 5. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. LIVERANI, Mario. Israel’sHistoryandtheHistoryofIsrael. London: Equinox, 2009. LONGMAN, Tremper III. “The Autobiography of Idrimi.” Pages 479-480 in vol. 1 of The Context of Scripture. Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Edited by William W. Hallo et al. Leiden: Brill, 1997. MCCARTER, P. Kyle. Samuel. II Samuel: a new translation with introduction, notesandcommentary. The Anchor Yale Bible 9. New York: Doubleday, 1984. MILGROM, Jacob, “The Priestly Impurity System,” in ProceedingsoftheNinth WorldCongressofJewishStudies:DivisionA:ThePeriodoftheHebrew Bible (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 121-125. NOTH, Martin. ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien.2nd. ed. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957. OLLER, Gary H. “The Inscription of Idrimi: A Pseudo-Autobiography?” Pages 411417 in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A,StudiesinHonorofÅkeW.Sjöberg. Edited by Hermann Behrens, Darlene M. Loding, and Martha T. Roth. Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 11. Philadelphia: Babylonian Fund, University Museum Philadelphia, 1989. ROST, Leonhard. Die ÜberlieferungvonderThronnachfolgeDavids.BWANT 3/6. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926. RÖMER, Thomas C. TheSo-CalledDeuteronomisticHistory.ASociological,HistoricalandLiteraryIntroduction. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2007. SIMON, Uriel. “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable.” Biblica 48 (1967): 207-242. SMITH, Sidney, ed. ThestatueofIdri-mi. Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara 1. London: The British Academy, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1949. TRIBLE, Phyllis. TextsofTerror.OBT 13. Philadelphia, 1984.

THE CHANGING FACES OF DAVID

87

VAN SETERS, John. InSearchofHistory:HistoriographyintheAncientWorld and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. VEIJOLA, Timo. “Salomo – Der Erstgeborene Bathsebas.” Pages 230-250 in StudiesintheHistoricalBooksoftheOldTestament. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979). VEIJOLA, Timo. DieEwigeDynastie:DavidunddieEntstehungseinerDynastie nachderdeuteronomistischenDarstellung. AASFSerB 193. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975. VIDAL, Jordi. “Summaries on the young Idrimi.” SJOT 26 (2012): 77-87. WAERZEGGERS, Caroline. “The Babylonian chronicles: classification and provenance.” JNES 71 (2012): 285-298. WALKER, Christopher B.F. “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Kassite and Isin Dynasties.” Pages 398-417 in ZikirŠumim:AssyriologicalStudies PresentedtoF.R.KrausontheOccasionofHisSeventiethBirthday. Edited by Govert van Driel et al. Leiden: Brill, 1982. WRIGHT, David P. “Unclean.” ABD 6:729-741. WÜRTHWEIN, Ernst. Die Erzählung von der Thronfolge Davids – theologische oderpolitischeGeschichtsschreibung? Theologische Studien 115. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974.

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AND MEMORIES OF DAVID IN THE QUMRAN TEXTS David HAMIDOVIĆ Université de Lausanne

The relationships between memory and history are very old. The Greek mythology assigns to Mnemosyne, translated from Greek to English by “memory”, the role of mother of the nine muses, including Clio, the muse of history. Behind this organic link, the Greek historian Thucydides in his book History of the Peloponnesian War opposed history to memory because memory is for him a source of mistakes. However, the confusion between memory and history is become a characteristic of the following centuries according to the uses of both words attested in the first dictionaries. For example, the first edition of the dictionary of the French Academy in 1694 spoke about memory as “the good or bad reputation which remains on somebody after his death.1 This locution described past or historical events from the point of view of a group or a person. It was a way to assign good or bad reputation to another group or to a historical event. Thus, history became memory of a group. The French historian Pierre Nora has explained this confusion by the lack of literary critic of the group’s narrative. In a seminal article in 1978 named “mémoire collective” in the volume LaNouvelleHistoire, Pierre Nora, among other historians like Yosef H. Yerushalmi,2 wished to engage the community of historians in some analysis of collective memories to make contemporary history.3 The analysis of collective memories corresponded to studies of rhetoric in the textual sources, and studies of oral witnesses. This last source for history raised the question of individual 1

2

3

Dictionnairedel’Académiefrançoise (Paris: Veuve de Jean Baptiste Coignard & Académie françoise, 1694), 38: “La reputation bonne ou mauvaise qui reste d’une personne aprés sa mort.” Yosef H. Yerushalmi, Zakhor.Histoirejuiveetmémoirejuive, Tel 176 (Paris: Gallimard, 1991). Pierre Nora, “Mémoire collective,” in LaNouvellehistoire, ed. J. Le Goff, R. Chartier et J. Revel, Les encyclopédies du savoir moderne 11 (Paris: Retz-CEPL, 1978), 398-401, esp. 401 concluded: “L’analyse des mémoires collectives peut et doit devenir le fer de lance d’une histoire qui se veut contemporaine.”

90

DAVID HAMIDOVIĆ

memories confronted to collective memories. Strictly, individual memory is unique by definition, but there is no remembrance without language, it means a social product. The historian Marc Bloch demonstrated the organic relationships between both kinds of memory.4 Indeed, personal memory grows. It quickly becomes familial memory then collective memory for groups increasingly wide. Thus, collective memory exists because it is shared. The philosopher Paul Ricoeur spoke about a phenomenon of “reconnaissance” to explain that memory deals with an intimate and direct relationship with the past. He summarized this concept with a formula taken to Reinhard Koselleck: “the past present.”5 The diachronical gaps and anachronisms do not exist anymore when using memory in history. We know that the works of Paul Ricoeur on memory have a strong relationship with the use of the concept of memory in the Bible. One of his goals was to understand the process of writing and rewriting in the Bible and its meaning.6 Therefore I propose to apply these reflections to many memories of King David in the texts of Qumran. Through this study, I also wish to understand the dialectic of interiority and sociability in order to define more precisely the Essene “identity”. ROYAL MESSIAH AND DAVIDIC MESSIAH A close examination of messianic expectations in the Qumran texts leads to consider various messianic figures. Since many decades, the royal messiah and the priestly messiah, alone or in relationship, have been studied. Moreover, the last deciphered fragments from Cave 4 have allowed to discuss one or different eschatological prophets and different celestial messianic figures.7 Following the works of John J. Collins,8 Johannes 4

5

6

7

8

Marc Bloch, Apologiepourl’histoireoumétierd’historien (Paris: Armand Colin, 1993), 106-118. Paul Ricoeur, Temps et Récit, III: Le Temps raconté. L’Ordre philosophique (Paris: Seuil, 1985), 301. For example, Paul Ricoeur, L’herméneutique biblique, La nuit surveillée (Paris: Cerf, 2001); idem with A. LaCoque, PenserlaBible, Points. Essais 494 (Paris: Seuil, 2003). See the handbook of the topic: John J. Collins, TheScepterandtheStar.Messianism inLightoftheDeadSea Scrolls, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids,Cambridge: Eerdmans,2010); more recently, seeAuxoriginesdesmessianismesjuifs, ed. David Hamidović,VTS 158 (Leiden: Brill, 2013) and David Hamidović, “La diversité des attentes messianiques dans le judaïsme palestinien,” in Encyclopédiedesmessianismesjuifsdansl’Antiquité, ed. D. Hamidović, X. Levieils, C. Mézange, BTS 33 (Louvain: Peeters, 2018), 205-286, esp. 218-232 which sustain the analysis in this article. Collins, TheScepterandtheStar

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AND MEMORIES OF DAVID

91

Zimmermann,9 and Géza Xeravits,10 it is interesting to study different kinds of messianic figures but also different messianic paradigms. The paradigm of the royal messiah remains the most documented in the preserved manuscripts. The expression mashiaḥ Israel, “messiah of Israel” is usually presented as a locution to name the royal messiah in the scholarship. We read the expression four times in the Damascus-Literature (D).11 Each time, the “messiah of/from Israel” is always quoted after the “messiah of/from Aaron.” Both figures are expected at the imminent end of times. The order of quotation indubitably means superiority of the priestly messiah on the royal messiah. Two other passages in the Serekh-Literature (S) express the same idea.12 It is striking that no context, no allusion links the “messiah of Israel” with a Davidic identity as already pointed by André Caquot,13 and Lawrence Schiffman.14 But we must also add that none of these passages describes the status of the “messiah of Israel”. Therefore, we only know the functions of the “messiah of Israel” as they take place in the different contexts. Thus, the title “messiah of Israel” appears at the end of times with the priestly messiah in a context of banquet (1QSa 2:11-22) or in a context where the community is supposed to maintain the original precepts of God until the end of times (CD 12:23-13:1; 14:19; 1QS 9:9-11); its arrival is also the sign of the end of wickedness (CD 12:23-13:1) and a moment of visitation with the chastisement of the wicked ones (CD 19:10-11); and it brings the exclusion of apostates (CD 19:21-20:1). Without considering other references, the expression “messiah of Israel” presents neither characteristics of David’s picture nor royal attributes. However, the “messiah of Israel” is supposed to use violent deeds at the end of times. We can raise the question if it assumes a military function as expected for a royal saviour on the pattern of David. Nevertheless, the “messiah of Israel” seems to assume only a national function without explicit reference to kingship. 9

10

11 12

13

14

Johannes Zimmermann, MessianischeTexteausQumran, WUNT 104 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Géza G. Xeravits, King, Priest, Prophet. Positive Eschatological Protagonists of the QumranLibrary, STDJ 47 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). CD 12:23-13:1; 14:19; 19:10-11; 19:21-20:1. 1QS 9:9-11; 1QSa 2:11-22 with the “priest” who blesses the first over the bread then the “messiah of Israel” who offered his blessing. André Caquot, “Le messianisme qumrânien,” in Qumrân.Sapiété,sathéologieetson milieu, ed. Mathias Delcor, BETL 46 (Paris, Leuven, Gembloux: Éditions J. Duculot, 1978), 238. Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Messiah:DevelopmentsinEarliestJudaismandChristianity.TheFirstPrincetonSymposiumonJudaismandChristianOrigins, ed. J.H. Charlesworth etalia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 116-129, esp. 119-121.

92

DAVID HAMIDOVIĆ

Other titles in the Qumran manuscripts designate a royal messianic figure without using the word mashiaḥ. For example, the expression nasi (ha-)edah, “prince of the congregation” is read in five eschatological passages. In CD 7:19-20, the figure appears in an interpretation of Numbers 24:17 explicitly quoted: “A star shall come forth out of Jacob and a scepter shall rise out of Israel” (‫)דרך כוכב מיעקב וקם שבט מישראל‬. The star (kokhav) corresponds to the “interpreter of the Torah” (doresh hatorah) while the scepter (shevet) is the “prince of all the congregation”. Both figures seem to be in parallel with the “messiah of Aaron” and the “messiah of Israel”. Therefore, the “interpreter of the Torah” may be a priestly figure and the “prince for all the congregation” may be a royal or national figure. But the first figure seems to belong to the past and the reference to Damascus may be an indication to identify the Teacher of Righteousness who led the Essene group and whom we know by other passages that he was a priest.15 The second figure seems to belong to the future because when it will rise, it will kill the “sons of Seth,” i.e. perhaps the nations, according to another quotation of Numbers 24:17. The word “scepter” is well attested in Ancient Judaism16 to describe the military power of the king, but once again it is hardly to find an explicit reference to David. The same expression “prince of all the congregation” is used in the WarScroll (1QM 5:1-2): ‫ ועל ̇מ] [ נשיא כול העדה יכתבו שמו] ו[שם ישראל ולוי ואהרון ושמות שנים‬1 ‫כתול ֯דותם‬ ̇ ‫עשר שבטי ישראל‬ ̇ vacat ‫ ושמות שנים עשר שרי שבטיהם‬2 1. and on [ ] the prince of all the congregation, they shall write his name[ and] the name of Israel, of Levi, of Aaron, of the twelve tribes of Israel according to their order of birth 2. and the names of the twelve chiefs of their tribes. vacat

The figure does not really appear because the passage only considers its shield where its name and the names of Israel, Levi, Aaron, the names of the twelve tribes and the names of their chiefs will be inscribed for the eschatological war. Then, the figure of “prince” disappears in the narrative; it does not participate to the military struggle.17 Thus, this role seems contrary to the last passage of CD where the prince will kill the 15 16 17

1QpHab 2:7-8; 4Q171 3:15. Zimmermann,MessianischeTexte 459. The Balaam’ oracle is quoted in 1QM 11 without interpretation while in CD 7, the “scepter” is “the prince of all the congregation.”

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AND MEMORIES OF DAVID

93

nations. The “prince” in the WarScroll is hardly to link so easily to a royal figure, especially a Davidic figure, because it does not assume a military function at the end of times. Another document discovered in Qumran caves preserves at least four blessings. Therefore the liturgical text was named Blessings (1QSb). It is copied on the same scroll with theCongregationRule(1QSa) and enrolled in the scroll of the CommunityRule(1QS) excavated from Cave 1.After the blessings of all the faithful ones, of an individual priest probably the high priest or rather the priestly messiah, and of the priests, sons of Zadok, we read in 1QSb 5:20-21: [ ] ‫ למשכיל לברך את נשיא העדה אשר‬20 ‫]י[חד יחדש לו להקים מלכות עמו לעול]ם‬ ֯ ‫ ] [ תו וברי̇ ֯ת ֯ה‬21 20. For the instructor, to bless the prince of the congregation who […] 21. […] and he shall renew the covenant of the [ya]ḥad for him so that he shall establish the kingdom of his people fore[ver.

Using words and expressions from Isaiah 11, the “prince” assumes to be a judge, to be exalted by God, to crush the wicked ones, to be served by the foreign rulers, to establish its covenant for the seekers of God, and to have strong religious powers in order to establish the kingdom of its people. In 1QSb 5:27, God has established the “prince” as “a scepter”, an allusion to the “scepter” in Balaam’s oracle in Num 24:17. In 1QSb, the “prince of the congregation” clearly assumes to be an eschatological ruler over Israel and the nations, but he is not explicitly described as the Davidic messiah.18 To my mind, it remains difficult to speak about a true military function of the “prince” for each reference in context, especially and surprisingly for the WarScroll, but in general the “prince” seems to kill the impious ones at the end of times. The scenario in CD and in 1QSb is not precisely given, but the use of the title “scepter” is clearly perceived as a royal messianic title around our era. The absence of military function in the War Scroll in favour of the priests seems to indicate (1) a military function at the end of times which is mainly attributed to the priests and the priestly messiah, picture of the earthly high priest. The order of blessings in 1QSb is also meaningful: the “prince of the congregation” is the fourth blessing after the community, the high priest and the priests; (2) the usual words to 18

Following the opinion of Kenneth E. Pomykala, TheDavidicDynastyTraditioninEarly Judaism.ItsHistoryand SignificanceforMessianism, EJL 7 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 242-243; Collins,TheScepterandtheStar, 68, andXeravits, King,Priest,Prophet, 212-213, disagree with this opinion.

94

DAVID HAMIDOVIĆ

say the military power are not reinterpreted but re-attributed to the priests. This phenomenon looks like a “priestlyzation”19 because the priests pretend to lead messianic times instead of the royal figure, and, if we keep in mind the words of Paul Ricoeur, it is likely that they also pretend to rule present time; (3) it remains difficult to identify a Davidic hope, because the name David is not quoted and because the directory to name a royal messiah is strongly based on the terminology already used to describe David in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, the limit to assign or not a Davidic messianic expectation to a passage is blur. With these three reasons, it seems to me difficult to recognize with a little certainty a Davidic messiah without the name David. Moreover, it also seems to me difficult to follow Jean Starcky when he pretended that the use of the word “prince” was a way to avoid the term melekh, “king”, because the last title would have been only given to the Hasmonean rulers.20 Methodologically, it seems to me impossible to demonstrate something from missing information. The TempleScroll also preserves the same idea on the royal ideology. The passage of 11Q19 56:12-59:21 named “the statutes of the king” is a set of laws on the ideal king from a slightly modified quotation of Deuteronomy 17:14-20.21 The king is under the leadership of the priests as in 11Q19 56:20-21: ‫והיה בשבתו על כסא ממלכתו וכתבו‬ vacat 20 ‫ לו את התורה הזואת על ספר מלפני הכוהנים‬21 20. vacatAnd when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, they (priests) shall write 21. for him this teaching in a book taken from the priests.

While Deut 17:18 announced that the king wrote for himself a copy of the law: ‫־ס ֶפר ִמ ִלּ ְפ ֵנ֥י‬ ֵ֔ ‫את ַעל‬ ֙ ֹ ‫תּוֹרה ַהזּ‬ ֤ ָ ‫־מ ְשׁ ֵ֨נה ַה‬ ִ ‫וְ ָה ָי֣ה ְכ ִשׁ ְב ֔תּוֹ ַ ֖על ִכּ ֵ ֣סּא ַמ ְמ ַל ְכ ֑תּוֹ וְ ָ֨כ ַתב ֜לוֹ ֶאת‬ ‫ַהכּ ֲֹה ִנ֖ים ַה ְלוִ ִיּֽם׃‬ And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this teaching in a book taken from the priests Levites. 19

20

21

A better word is “sacerdotalisation”, see David Hamidović, “Les bénédictions des sages tannaïm et la ‘sacerdotalisation’,” in Laquestiondela‘sacerdotalisation’dansle judaïsmerabbinique,lejudaïsmechrétienetlejudaïsmesynagogal, ed. S.C. Mimouni and L. Painchaud (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming). Jean Starcky, “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân,” RB 70 (1963): 481-505, esp. 488. Casey D. Elledge, TheStatutesoftheKing:The Temple Scroll’sLegislationonKingship (11Q19LVI12– LIX 21), CahRB 56 (Paris: Gabalda, 2004).

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AND MEMORIES OF DAVID

95

In spite of many precautions on the Israelite lineage of the king, no family is quoted and Deut 17:15 is no more precise. A more striking example is the possibility of interruption of the dynastic continuance, if the king disobeys to God in 11Q19 59:14-15: ‫ לוא ימצא לו איש יושב על כסא‬14 ‫ אבותיו כול הימים כי לעולם אכרית זרעו ממשול עוד על ישראל‬15 14. For him, a man who sits upon the throne of 15. his fathers shall not be found all the days. For I shall cut off his seed from ruling over Israel forever.

The phraseology is very close to the eternal promise done to the Davidic dynasty in Jeremiah 33:17: ‫־כּ ֵ ֥סּא ֵ ֽבית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֽאל׃‬ ִ ‫הו֑ה ֽל ֹא־יִ ָכּ ֵ ֣רת ְל ָד ִ ֔וד ִ֕אישׁ י ֵ ֹ֖שׁב ַעל‬ ָ ְ‫ִכּי־ ֖כֹה ָא ַ ֣מר י‬ For thus says YHWH: For David a man who sits upon the throne of the house of Israel shall not be cut off.

The comparison indicates that the TempleScroll affirms the permanency of the end of the dynasty. Therefore, the studied passages do not preserve continuity between the Davidic royal ideology in the Hebrew Bible and the expectations of a royal messiah.22 At this point, it seems possible to conceive a national messianic expectation with a royal messiah under the power of the priestly messiah. But other passages in the Qumran texts draw a more nuanced picture. Indeed, a text related to the WarScroll, 4Q285 7:3-4, seems to associate the “prince of the congregation” with the branch of David (ṣemaḥ David): ‫[ את צמח דויד ונשפטו‬ [‫צמ]ח דויד‬ ̇ ‫[ והמיתו נשיא העדה‬

] 3 ] 4

3. […] the branch of David, and they shall enter into judgment 4. […] and the prince of the congregation, the bran[ch of David,] shall kill him

The fragments deal with the eschatological war between Israel and the Kittim. The “prince” seems to lead Israel during the battle but the passage is fragmentary. After a quotation of Isaiah 10:34-11:1, the beginning of interpretation’s lines is missing. Numerous scholars understand line 4: “[…] and the prince of the congregation, the bra[nch of David] shall kill 22

Elledge, The Statutes of the King, 234 points that “the possibility that Yahweh may remove the royal house if it rejects the TempleScroll’s laws.” The author recognizes the moment when Hyrcanus became the first Hasmonean to succeed to his father as high priest and ruler in 134 BCE.

96

DAVID HAMIDOVIĆ

him” as an apposition to designate the same figure. Despite a fragmentary context, the “prince” seems to contribute to the defeat of evil and he is paired with Israel in fragment 4:1-2, then it is associated to a military engagement in lines 4-6 near the “Great Sea”, i.e. the Mediterranean Sea. However, the verb mût can be vocalized vêhemiytô to say “and he shall kill him” or vehémiytû to say “and they shall kill”. We understand a male adversary in the first hypothesis, but the fragment does not name such a figure; the second hypothesis means that the “branch of David” and the “prince” are two different figures who will kill the Kittim named at line 6, but there is no vaw, no conjunction of coordination, between “branch of David” and “prince of the congregation”. Or we understand the last hypothesis with the Kittimas subjects of the verb: theKittimwill slain the Davidic “prince”.But such an idea isnot documented in other Qumran texts. Therefore most of scholars choose the first option. Another fragmentary document, a pesher of Isaiah, 4Q161 8-10:22 represents “David” after a quotation of Isaiah 11:1-5 as a figure rising at the end of days: [

‫באח]רית הימים‬ ̇ ‫[דויד העומד‬

]

[…] David, who will take his stand in the lat[ter days ]

The following lines describe the power of the Davidic messiah as sustaining by God in majesty; it will rule over the nations. Another fragment, 4Q161 2-6:19, deals with the “prince of the congregation” but without clear context to know its function: [ ‫]ו[ר מעלי]הם‬ ֯ ‫יס‬ ֯ ‫[ נשיא העדה ואחר‬

]

[…] the prince of the congregation. And afterward, he will de[pa]rt from [them ]

But scholars have associated the Davidic Messiah and the “prince” thinking about the manuscript 4Q285, while 4Q161 does not associate them according the preserved state of the fragments. The manuscript 4Q174 1:10-13 takes place in an eschatological context: ‫]והג[י֯ ד לכה יהוה כיא בית יבנה לכה והקימותי את זרעכה אחריכה והכינותי את‬ ‫כסא ממלכתו‬ ‫]לעו[ל ֯ם אני ֯א ֯הי֯ ֯ה לוא לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן הואה צמח דויד העומד עם דורש‬ ֯ ‫התורה אשר‬ ‫[אחרית הימים כאשר כתוב והקימותי את סוכת דויד הנופלת הואה‬ ֯ ‫] [בצי֯ ]ון ב‬ ‫סוכת‬ ‫א[שר יעמוד להושיע את ישראל‬ ֯ ‫הנופל]ת‬ ֯ ‫דויד‬

10 11 12 13

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AND MEMORIES OF DAVID

97

10. [‘And] YHWH [decl]ares to you that he shall build you a house. And I shall raise up your offspring after you, and I shall establish his royal throne 11. [fore]ver. I shall be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me.’ (2 Sam 7:13-14) He (is) the branch of David arising with the interpreter of the Torah who 12. […]in Zi[on in the] latter days, as it is written, ‘And I shall raise up the booth of David that is fallen.’ (Amos 9:11) He (is) the booth of 13. David that is falle[n w]ho shall arise to save Israel.

After a quotation of 2 Samuel 7:13-14, the “branch of David” will arise with the “interpreter of the Torah” (dôreshhatorah).23 Then, after a quotation of Amos 9:11, the “booth of David” (sûkkatDavid) will save Israel in line 13. The Davidic messiah is explicitly linked to Israel. Both interpretations are redundant in order to clearly associate the Davidic Messiah to the function of salvation of Israel. However, the passage does not seem to attribute an explicit military function to the Davidic messiah in order to save Israel, but the previous passage deals with the evil role of the sons of Belial to destroy the sons of light. Nevertheless, this motif and the considerations on the Davidic messiah are not explicitly linked. The manuscript 4Q252 is a commentary on Genesis.24 The fragment 6 (V) intermingles parts of Genesis 49:10 and Jeremiah 33:17 with interpretations: ‫לו[א יסור שליט משבט יהודה בהיות לישראל ממשל‬ ֯ ] ‫כסא לדויד כי המחקק היא ברית המלכות‬ ̇ ‫י[כ ֯רת יושב‬ ֯ ‫]לוא‬ ‫עד בוא משיח הצדק צמח‬vacat‫ישראל המה הדגלים‬ ̇ ‫]ואל[פי‬ ‫דויד כי לו ולזרעו נתנה ברית מלכות עמו עד דורות עולם אשר‬ ‫[התורה עם אנשי היחד כי‬ ֯ ] ‫שמר‬

1 2 3 4 5

1. ‘The scepter shall [n]ot depart from the tribe of Judah.’ (Gen 49:10a) When Israel rules 2. [no one shall] cut off one who occupies the throne for David. (Jer 33:17) For ‘the staff’ (Gen. 49:10a) is the covenant of the kingship; 3. [And the thousa]nds of Israel are ‘the standards’ (Gen 49:10a) vacat until the coming of the messiah of righteousness, the branch of 4. David. For to him and his seed will be given the covenant of the kingship of his people for everlasting generations, which 5. he kept […]the Torah with the men of the community, for

23

24

David Flusser, “Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. vii,” IEJ 9 (1959): 104-109; Xeravits, King,Priest,Prophet, 43-49. See George J. Brooke, “The Thematic Content of 4Q252,” JQR 85 (1994): 33-59; Id., “4Q252 as Early Jewish Commentary,” RQ 17/65-68 (1996), 385-401; Id., “4QCommentary on Genesis A,” in QumranCave4,XVII: ParabiblicalTexts,Part3, eds. by G.J. Brooke etal. (DJD XXII; London: Oxford University Press, 1996), 185-208.

98

DAVID HAMIDOVIĆ

The “scepter” is identified with the “throne for David” which rules Israel. Lines 3 and 4 explain that the “messiah of righteousness, the branch of David” (mashiaḥ haṣedeq ṣemaḥ David) will become the depositary of the “covenant of kinship” of Israel forever. As the linesare complete, we are confident that the figures “messiah of righteousness” and “branch of David” are synonyms. The figure “messiah of righteousness” is a hapax, but we cannot see an allusion to the “Teacher of Righteousness” who is a priestly figure. The “messiah of righteousness” is clearly the “branch of David”, a Davidic royal messiah. Therefore, the manuscript seems to affirm the opposite view to the TempleScroll: the Davidic messiah will keep the kingship forever. Unfortunately, the following lines are lacunar, but no word or expression allows to discredit this idea. Thus, the last references in the Qumran manuscripts attest to an explicit link between the royal messiah and the Davidic lineage. ABOUT HISTORICAL HYPOTHESES After this overview, we are tempted to harmonize the diversity of messianic expectations concerning the royal or national figure in the Qumran texts. Many scholars suggest the transformation of the concept of royal messiah to the Davidic royal messiah during the Herodian time.25 Outside the Qumran texts, the Davidic messianic expectations in the Psalms of Solomon 17-18 are also dated at the same period, after the death of Pompey in 48 BCE.26 Before this period, several patterns of royal or national leadership which are mainly based on interpretations of Num. 24:17; 25

26

For example, Starcky, “Les quatre étapes du messianisme,” 500; Caquot, “Le messianisme qumrânien,” 245; Pomykala, TheDavidicDynastyTradition, 244-246. Jacob Liver, “Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth,” HTR 52 (1959): 159-163, shared one of my conclusions when he observed that the “prince of the congregation” and “the messiah of Israel” are not explicitly designated as Davidic figures. He concluded that the “Branch of David” may appear from a later time. Pomykala, TheDavidicDynastyTradition, 159-170; Antti Laato, AStarIsRising.The HistoricalDevelopmentoftheOldTestament RoyalIdeologyandtheRiseoftheJewish MessianicExpectations, University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 279-284; Kenneth Atkinson, ICriedtotheLord:AStudyofthePsalmsofSolomon’sHistoricalBackgroundand SocialSetting, JSJSup 84 (Leiden: Brill,2004); Loren T. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism,” in TheMessiahin theOldandNewTestaments, ed. S.E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 9397.

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AND MEMORIES OF DAVID

99

Deut. 17:14-20 and Ezek. 40-48 have coexisted. Then, the pattern of the Davidic royal dynasty was used or reused to fashion the figure of royal messiah.27 Before examining this hypothesis, we must explain why the first references to the royal or national messiah avoid David as a messianic figure. For example, CD 5:5-6 disserts around the righteousness of David, but he is not the subject of a messianic expectation. Again, it is surprising to note that 1QM 11:1-3 deals with the military success of David, but he is not associated to the prince of the congregation. Indeed, David was a prophet and a wise figure who has written the psalms and canticles for the liturgy according to 11Q5 27:2-11; he was also a model of piety in the last part of 4QMMT (4Q398 14-17 ii 1-2). These memories of David are not new because he is described like this in Chronicles28 and the (Greek) book of ben Sira 47:8-10. The main argument for a change during the Herodian period is the copy of the manuscripts 4Q161, 4Q174, 4Q252 and 4Q285 during the period. But the date of copy cannot be confused with the date of composition, because no material proof allows to conclude to an autograph for these manuscripts. For example, it is likely that the pesher of Isaiah in 4Q161 was written close to the related events, it means the end of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE) during the Hasmonean period. The confusion about the political and religious leadership during the last centuries BCE has probably encouraged to consider an ideal and legitimate royal messiah to save Israel. The figure of King David might be a good candidate, but he was already considered as a wise and prophetic figure according to the Qumran texts. Is it possible to consider a figure with so different functions inside the same community at the same moment? I have doubts about a possible evolution of messianic expectations. One of the reasons of this doubt comes from the primacy of the priestly messiah over the royal or national messiah across numerous Qumran texts composed inside the Essene movement. It means from the Essene point of view, the Essene “interiority,” that the royal expectations are less important than the priestly expectations to save Israel. However such royal or national expectations exist, therefore they are meaningful for the yaḥad. In the Hebrew Bible, we know that there were different royal patterns, 27

28

See Kenneth Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm ofSolomon17,”JBL118 (1999): 435-460. See 1 Chronicles 6:16; 13:8.

100

DAVID HAMIDOVIĆ

Davidic or not, and even no royal hope at all.29 The studied passages in different documents of Qumran preserve the same variety. We also note diversity of expressions to report royal messiah. These locutions are often based on explicit interpretations of some Hebrew Bible verses. Therefore, diversity of expressions does not seem to me a difficulty or a hint of historical evolution of royal messianic expectations. The low use of David to describe the royal messiah could also be explained because David is a figure already used as wise man and prophet in order to justify writing and authority of psalms and canticles. The memories of David in the Qumran community seem to be overcharged, because the documents of Qumran compile the first and the last uses of David from the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the expression “messiah of/from Israel” after the locution “messiah of/from Aaron” in CD, 1QS and 1QSa seems to rise during the Hasmonean period.30 Therefore, I remain cautious about a historical evolution of royal messianism.31 If I am agree with the absence of documents in favour of the Maccabean and Hasmonean rulers in the so-called “library” of Qumran so that it may suggest no affinities with the Maccabeans and the Hasmoneans from Essene movement, but the preserved texts of Qumran relate further a polemic with the priests in service in the Jerusalem temple32 and with the Pharisees.33 The Wicked Priest seems to be one or several Hasmonean high priests, but the dispute remains contained in few texts.34 Therefore, even after the discovery of the Qumran texts, it remains difficult to draw the history of the Jewish groups on the very last centuries BCE. Thus I think the explanation of messianic ideas by history is too speculative. In sum, the different ideas on royal or national messiah and the different expressions, used individually or in combination with other expressions, correspond to a literary inheritance of the Hebrew Bible attested by the explicit use of specific quotations. Moreover, this diversity does not really alter the function of the royal or national messiah: the salvation of Israel. 29 30

31

32

33 34

The whole volume of Pomykala, TheDavidicDynastyTradition, is a very good summary. See David Hamidović, “The Architextualization of the Qumran Community,” in The Embroidered Bible: Studies in Biblical Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Honour of MichaelE.Stone, ed. L. DiTommaso, M. Henze and W. Adler, SVTP 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2018) 494-509. Caquot, “Le messianisme qumrânien,” 245: “je chercherais dans des contingences plus immédiates la naissance ou la renaissance de cette forme de messianisme.” See for example, James C. VanderKam, TheDeadSeaScrollsToday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 99-119; Robert A. Kugler, “Priest,” in EDSS 2:691-692. See CD 1:14; 20:11; 4Q162 2:6-10; 4Q525 23:8. See 1QpHab 8:11-12.16; 9:9.16; 11:4-9; 12:10; 1QHa 12:8-9; 13:5-9.29; 4Q171 110 iv 7-10.

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AND MEMORIES OF DAVID

101

This idea is expressed in general terms and motifs to say: the messiah will judge at the end of times or it will participate at the eschatological war without more details. Indeed beyond diversity, the royal or national messiah remains a secondary protagonist after the priestly messiah and the priests at the end of times which have the principal roles in the last eschatological events. Behind the textual variety, the general message of the royal or national expectations, when it is preserved, remains the same. In this framework, David is a royal figure among others in the Hebrew Bible but it can incarnate potentially the royal messianic expectation, because the Hebrew Bible deals with many discussions on the lineage of David through the Covenant commitments over the time. However, there is no real possibility to reconstruct a chronology of textual uses of David without a high degree of hypothese. Likewise, the considered manuscripts are also too often fragmentary to know more about the context of use of David’s figure. Nevertheless, the memory of David in the yaḥad and more widely in Ancient Judaism around our era does not correspond only to a royal figure. Thus to my mind, the overcharged memories of David cannot allow to institute David as the unique royal messianic pattern in the Qumran texts regardless of the time. Besides, other expressions are attested in the Qumran texts to name the royal or national messianic figure and we do not know if they are linked together or only embedded from different literary inheritances. In such a perspective, the royal or national background of the royal or national messianic figure in the Qumran texts is diverse. Thus, we have preferred to speak about a national messianic figure rather than a royal messianic figure after the study of some Qumran passages. The adjectives “royal”, “Davidic” and “national” correspond to the plurality of representations behind this kind of messiah; they cannot be opposed each other. To follow up the expression of Ricoeur, there is a dialectic of interiority of royal/Davidic/ national memories in the Qumran texts. However, above the plurality of expressions corresponding to a variety of functions expected for the messianic figure, the soteriological role of the messiah concerning the people of Israel remains unchanged in the background. REFERENCES Primary Sources QumranCave4,XVII: ParabiblicalTexts,Part3 eds. by G.J. Brooke et al. DJD XXII. London: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 1996.

102

DAVID HAMIDOVIĆ

Secondary Sources ATKINSON, Kenneth R. “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon17.”JBL118 (1999): 435460. —. I Cried to the Lord. A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical BackgroundandSocialSetting. JSJSup 84. Leiden: Brill,2004. BLOCH, Marc. Apologiepourl’histoireoumétierd’historien. Paris: Armand Colin, 1993. BROOKE, George J. “4Q252 as Early Jewish Commentary.” RevQ 17/65-68 (1996): 385-401. —. “The Thematic Content of 4Q252.” JQR 85 (1994): 33-59. CAQUOT, André, “Le messianisme qumrânien.” Pages 231-247 in Qumrân.Sapiété, sathéologieetsonmilieu. Edited by Mathias Delcor. BETL 46. Paris, Leuven, Gembloux: Éditions J. Duculot, 1978. COLLINS, John J. TheScepterandtheStar.MessianisminLightoftheDeadSea Scrolls. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids,Cambridge: Eerdmans,2010. ELLEDGE, Casey D. TheStatutesoftheKing:The Temple Scroll’sLegislationon Kingship(11Q19LVI12– LIX 21). CahRB 56. Paris: Gabalda, 2004. FLUSSER, David. “Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. vii.” IEJ 9 (1959): 104-109. HAMIDOVIĆ, David, ed.Auxoriginesdesmessianismesjuifs. VTSup 158. Leiden: Brill, 2013. HAMIDOVIĆ, David. “The Architextualization of the Qumran Community.” Pages 494-509 in TheEmbroideredBible:StudiesinBiblicalApocryphaand PseudepigraphainHonourofMichaelE.Stone. Edited by L. DiTommaso, M. Henze and W. Adler. SVTP 26. Leiden: Brill, 2018. —. “La diversité des attentes messianiques dans le judaïsme palestinien.” Pages 205286 in Encyclopédie des messianismes juifs dans l’Antiquité. Edited by D. Hamidović, X. Levieils, C. Mézange. BTS 33. Louvain: Peeters, 2018. —. “Les bénédictions des sages tannaïm et la ‘sacerdotalisation’.” in Laquestion dela‘sacerdotalisation’danslejudaïsmerabbinique,lejudaïsmechrétienet lejudaïsmesynagogal. Edited by S.C. Mimouni and L. Painchaud. Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming. KUGLER, Robert A. “Priest.” EDSS 2:691-692. LAATO, Antti. AStarIsRising.TheHistoricalDevelopmentoftheOldTestament RoyalIdeologyandtheRiseoftheJewishMessianicExpectations. University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism 5. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. LIVER, Jacob. “The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth.” HTR 52 (1959): 149-185. NORA, Pierre. “Mémoire collective.” Pages 398-401 in La Nouvelle histoire. Edited by J. Le Goff, R. Chartier et J. Revel. Les encyclopédies du savoir moderne 11. Paris: Retz-CEPL, 1978. POMYKALA, Kenneth E. TheDavidicDynastyTraditioninEarlyJudaism.ItsHistoryand SignificanceforMessianism. EJL 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. RICOEUR, Paul. TempsetRécit,III:LeTempsraconté. L’Ordre philosophique. Paris: Seuil, 1985. —. L’herméneutiquebiblique. La nuit surveillée.Paris: Cerf, 2001.

MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS AND MEMORIES OF DAVID

103

RICOEUR, Paul - André LACOQUE. Penser la Bible. Points. Essais 494. Paris: Seuil, 2003. SCHIFFMAN, Lawrence H. “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 116-129 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and ChristianityTheFirstPrincetonSymposiumonJudaismandChristianOrigins. Edited by J.H. Charlesworth etalia.Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. STARCKY, Jean. “Les quatre étapes du messianisme à Qumrân.” RB 70 (1963): 481-505. STUCKENBRUCK, Loren T. “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism.” Pages 90-113 in TheMessiahintheOldandNew Testaments. Edited by S.E. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. VANDERKAM, James C. TheDeadSeaScrollsToday. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. XERAVITS, Géza G. King,Priest,Prophet.PositiveEschatologicalProtagonists oftheQumranLibrary. STDJ 47. Leiden: Brill, 2003. YERUSHALMI, Yosef H. Zakhor.Histoirejuiveetmémoirejuive. Tel 176. Paris: Gallimard, 1991. ZIMMERMANN, Johannes. MessianischeTexteausQumran. WUNT 104. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.

“LET HER LIE IN YOUR BOSOM” THE TOPOS OF THE ELDERLY KING IN 1KINGS 1 Előd HODOSSY-TAKACS Associate Professor of Biblical Theology Debrecen Reformed Theological University

The story of King David in its present form covers several hundreds of verses of the Hebrew Bible. Among the lengthy texts (in 1-2 Sam and 1 Kings; the accounts of the Chronicles and Psalms), the brief passage at the very beginning of 1 Kings marks a pivotal turn in the life and career of the founder of Judah’s royal dynasty. The brief story of King David and Abishag the Shunemite is found in 1 Kgs 1:1-4. David reached an old age (‫יָּמים‬ ִ ‫)וְ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ָדּוִ ד זָ ֵקן ָבּא ַבּ‬, and the people in charge of his wellbeing covered him with clothes (‫)וַ ַיְכ ֻסּהוּ ַבּ ְבּגָ ִדים‬ but unfortunately he was not warmed (‫)וְ לֹא יִ ַחם לוֹ‬. At this point his servants came up with a very acceptable idea; they wanted to seek (‫ )בקש‬a young virgin (‫תוּלה‬ ָ ‫“ )נַ ֲע ָרה ְב‬to attend the king”1 (‫)וְ ָע ְמ ָדה ִל ְפנֵ י ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך‬. Her duty would include special caretaking, namely personal warming (‫)וּת ִהי לוֹ ס ֶֹכנֶ ת‬. ְ They suggested that she should lay (‫ )שכב‬to the bosom (‫)חיק‬ ֵ of the king to warm him (‫)חמם‬. They performed a careful search, found Abishag the Shunammite and brought her to the king. She was very beautiful (‫יָפה ַעד‬ ָ ‫)מאֹד‬ ְ indeed, and she took care of the king (became his warmer? ‫וַ ְתּ ִהי ַל ֶמּ ֶלְך‬ ‫)ס ֶֹכנֶ ת‬, who served (‫ )שרת‬the king, but he “did not know her” (NKJV for ‫)וְ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך לֹא יְ ָד ָעה‬. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate this text in its own cultural terminology and also in terms of cultural memory. In the most common Bible translations (NIV, NRSV) this passage is understood as a reference to the sexual incapacity of the aged David.2 This paper offers an alternative 1 2

Bible quotations: always NIV, unless otherwise noted. For a recent overview of the most important trends of the interpretation of this text: Richard S. Hess, “David and Abishag: The Purpose of 1Kings 1:1-4,” in Homelandand exile:biblicalandancientNearEasternstudiesinhonourofBustenayOded, ed. Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard, VTSup 130 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2009), 427-438. In the interpretation of Hess the sexual aspects the passage are not crucial.

106

ELOD HODOSSY-TAKACS

interpretation. The story about the relationship between the king and Abishag records a conceptually important moment in the biblical tradition and in the development of the ancient Israelite monarchy. Besides keeping the historical memory of the monarch alive, this brief narrative also represents the first phase of the development of Israelite royal ideology. In western thought the old king is supposedly a wise man, whose experience is called upon when his young successor acts improperly. In the ancient world certain ideas developed differently, and some of these various beliefs relate royal household and sexuality. Our current interpretation is partly based on the terminology of the passage (some idioms, euphemisms, and metaphors which will be evaluated) and on the social developments within Israel and Jerusalem, namely the consequences of the transition from a rural chiefdom to early monarchy. In terms of cultural memory we may read this text as a story of royal court intrigue against the ruling king. SOME DUBIOUS TERMS

IN THE TEXT: THE AGE OF THE KING, HIS PHYSICAL

CONDITION, AND KNOWING A VIRGIN

At the very beginning of the text the reader is informed that King David reached an old age. In the meantime the references to his age are inaccurate, here (‫ )וְ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ָדּוִ ד זָ ֵקן ָבּא ַבּיָּ ִמים‬and in v. 15 (‫ )זָ ֵקן ְמאֹד‬too. How old was David exactly? Very old – as a blessed person he must have had a long life. But how old he was at this particular moment? It remains a secret, just as all the other exact data of his life. Biblical references state that he became king at the age 30, and ruled for 40 years.3 We could assume that this means he is around 70 at this moment. We do not know for how long his co-regency with Solomon lasted.4 The existing numbers are too round and not acceptable as specific references, and probably the actual number of years he ruled or his actual age at the time of this story is not important at all. As Sean M. McDonough has already observed5 it is more important to connect our verse to a passage regarding the ancestor Abraham. In Gen 24:1 it is stated, “Abraham was old, well advanced in years” (NRSV, ‫יָּמים‬ ִ ‫)זָ ֵקן ָבּא ַבּ‬. The terminology is the same, but in Genesis the idiom obviously marks the beginning of a new period in the life of Abraham. After 3 4 5

2 Sam 5:40. Cf. 1 Kgs 2:1; 10.11. Sean M. McDonough, “‘And David Was Old, Advanced in Years:’ 2 Samuel XXIV 1825, 1 Kings I 1, and Genesis XXIII-XXIV,” VT 49 (1999): 128-131, esp. 128-129.

“LET HER LIE IN YOUR BOSOM”

107

the quoted remark he had to find a wife for his son, which means he had to work on the future of his clan. This life issue was settled for him with Rebekah’s arrival and the future was not exclusively in his hands any longer. Then, quite unexpectedly, he took another wife (Keturah), who has borne him six more children. This implies that a so-called old man can be sexually active. But more likely, this idiom has not so much to do with the actual age of the person. In these two cases prominent figures have just finished the most important business transactions of their life: Abraham bought the burial site for his beloved wife, a piece of land which will connect his descendants to the promised land for generations (Gen 49:31-32) and become the symbol of YHWH’s enduring promise. The sons of Keturah are not important to the Abraham saga. Only their names are recorded and their story consists of this statement: Abraham “sent them away from his son Isaac to the land of the east” (Gen 25:6). David similarly just bought a piece of land: the site for the temple construction.6 It is not necessary to emphasize here the theological importance of this step. The Abraham – David age parallel means that the quoted idiom marks a transition in the life of an experienced individual, one who has already achieved his main goal and is ready to let his son to take his position. In both texts the really important deeds of the two chiefs are already told,7 they might as well die, since they completed the most important acts of their lives. They are not necessarily very old in terms of years but in terms of accomplishments. It is also important to emphasize that this expression does not exclude a sexually active person. Abraham had more sons after he had become “advanced in years” than before! David was cold. His servants tried their best to warm him up, used clothes to cover his body, but he was still freezing (‫וְ לֹא יִ ַחם לו‬, 1 Kgs 1:1). Together with the previous idiom in the reader’s vision an old man appears, struggling with the most basics needs of human life. In Hebrew (just like in several other languages) the idea of becoming hot, ‘to burn’ can have a strong sexual aspect as well. It is obvious in a positive, affirmative sentence – but here the expression is negative. The verb (‫ )חמם‬is not very common in the Hebrew Bible,8 and it denotes ‘lust’ only once, in the Niphal form (Isa 57:5), but that verse instead of human sexuality talks about idolatry. In all other instances it means hot in the natural sense – the most sunny part of the day (1 Sam 11:11, Neh 7:3, Gen 18:1, etc.); 6 7 8

The mode of making business is also similar in the two texts. Hess, “David and Abishag,” 431. Avraham Even Shosan (ed.), A New Concordance of the Old Testament Using the HebrewandAramaicText, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1993), 379.

108

ELOD HODOSSY-TAKACS

body heat or lack of it (Isa 44:15; Job 31:20; Hag 1:6);9 or fire-like heat (Isa 47:14; Ezek 24:11). Twice it refers to human feelings, ‘hot anger’ (Jer 51:39; Deut 19:6), in none of these cases the term denotes sexual desire. Our text is closely connected to 2 Kings 4:34: “Then he (Elisha) got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy’s body grew warm.” Eccl 4:11 is about the same: “if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone?” In these cases someone is using body heat to warm up another person, an action that has nothing to do with sex. In our case the reader is tempted to feel a sort of sexual connotation, but that’s due to the circumstances: the presence of a beautiful virgin, and the final note about ‘not knowing’ her. But let’s take this note as a mere description of his physical condition – probably he is simply cold, in the MT this meaning is acceptable. Obviously Abishag was expected to warm him up with her own body heat; just as Elisha did by lying on the dead body of the widow’s son (2 Kgs 4:34).10 David was freezing, and of course, in such physical condition a person won’t have intercourse with anyone. To put it briefly, it is not necessary to interpret the reference to the warming of David as a euphemism. With this in mind we can understand the role of Abishag, the young virgin better. “Let her lie in your bosom” (NRSV) means she was expected to warm the king. She did not have to enter to a sexual relationship with him. If we read the description of this young lady in the arms of an elderly man (David) as a euphemism, we limit the interpretation of the situation, an unnecessary consequence that is visible in several Bible translations. The story ends with a laconic statement: the king did not know her. Understood metaphorically this serves as a final proof of David’s impotence. The Bible translators seem to feel the importance of these last words, eg. NRSV, presumably in order to avoid a possible confusion, states directly: “the king had no sexual relations with her”; NIV is quite similar: “the king had no intimate relations with her”. These translations are strong interpretations in themselves. Through this sentence the meaning of the entire text becomes one-sided. 1 Kings 1:15 describes Abishag’s role very precisely: she was a servant, a person to attend to him. The elderly man is freezing in his room; his once famous charm has gone, never to return. One may ask: why is it so shameful that the king did not know her? Why would he? She is his personal nurse! 9 10

Job 39:14 (lying of eggs) also goes under this rubric. This way of heating up somebody was well known among Dutch sailors and fishermen – Bob Becking (personal communication).

“LET HER LIE IN YOUR BOSOM”

109

It’s also noteworthy, that in terms of the Ancient Near Eastern royal ideology this text is more than a simple description of a sad human health condition. We are dealing with a still active royal figure. Kings had to fulfill their duties; among other things they were responsible for their land’s fertility.11 Without entering into speculations about the Israelite kings’ participation in unrecognized cultic activities, we may state, that in the transitional period of the 10th century BCE it is likely the people of Jerusalem wanted to see a real virile man on the throne. Looking from this perspective the person of Solomon with his extraordinary success among women12 is to be seen as a positive example. THE STRUCTURE OF THE

STORY

–

A COURT INTRIGUE?

The unknown author of the narrative13 very consciously placed these few verses here. The founder of Judah’s dynasty was passing the power to his son, for the first time in the royal city of Jerusalem. This story is not only a record of King David’s final months in his weakness but also a window to the changing world of the Israelite kingdom. Normally the king should pass away before the enthronement of his successor, but here he is still alive. David is a survivor. He fought with enemies, rebels, family members and now at the end of his rule he became surprisingly passive. Perhaps he was not strong enough to react at this particular moment, in the rest of the narrative he kept his ears open and instructed family members. When Bathsheba visited him he received full royal honor: “Bathsheba bowed low and knelt before the king. ‘What is it you want’ the king asked” (1 Kgs 1:16). In this sentence David is the man with whom the reader is familiar with, a strong man well aware of his role and duties. Strangely enough he had no objection against the will of the people. He accepted the scenario that either Solomon or Adonijah will succeed him already in his 11

12 13

In certain periods in Ancient Mesopotamia the hierosgamos was practiced with the active participation of the king, but during the Neo-Assyrian period only the gods met in the bed prepared for wedding. But the goal of the festival remained the same: “the anticipated result of the festival was always to provide a long and happy life to the king and, consequently, prosperity to the people,” Jean Bottéro, ReligioninAncientMesopotamia (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001), 158; see also 153-158. Seven hundred wives of royal birth, three hundred concubines (1 Kgs 11:3). The literary character and the dating (and even the existence) of the so-called ‘succession’ narrative is a highly debated issue. John Barton recently evaluated the most important theories (David M. Gunn, John van Seters, Richard E. Friedman, etc.), see John Barton, “Dating the ‘Succession Narrative,’ in In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 406 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 95-106.

110

ELOD HODOSSY-TAKACS

lifetime. He was not trying to remain on his throne. He called back Solomon’s mother, who “stood before him” (1Kgs 1:28), but as David declared his will she bowed to the ground (1Kgs 1:31), just as Nathan the prophet did, who “went before the king and bowed with his face to the ground” (1Kgs 1:23). Strangely enough in vv. 47-48 the king is in his bed again, depicted as the previously seen weak elderly man. But that’s second-hand information: Jonathan son of Abiathar is talking about the man in his bed. In the narrative we see two political parties and an elderly king. When the king is described directly he is old but behaves like a royal figure. When someone else is talking about him, second hand, he is weak and practically nonexistent. Today’s reader may not understand it clearly but we do recognize the role of gossip in the royal court. That’s why the call “let her lie in your bosom” is so important. In vs. 1-4 the people around the king are seemingly acting on his behalf. They are covering him and making decisions (they search and find a virgin, etc.) for him. The only detectable fact in the entire story is the appearance of the young lady. We do not know exactly the weakness of the king, and the role of Abishag is just as dubious: they want her as ‘warmer’, not as sexual partner, but the lack of intimate relations led to the replacement of David. We hear nothing about the king’s desire, and the text is mute regarding her actual acts. She was called to warm him up with her body, but instead of describing her actions as lying close to him she just ‘served’ him. Thus Abishag was considered one of the female attendants of King David, nothing else. The lack of sexual relationship means she was not an ordinary member of the royal harem although her beauty placed her in the sphere of royalty. According to the later part of the narrative (ch. 2) Solomon saw this entire issue differently. In his eyes Abishag was not an attendant but a woman who formerly belonged to his father. The call for lying in the bosom of David allowed for a confusion of her role, her actions are properly recorded as ‘serving him’ and at the same time implicating her inclusion as a member of the royal harem. She is like the other concubines and thus should be considered one of them. Solomon acted like Absalom before him, holding the harem of his father as he ascended to throne (cf. 2 Sam 16:22). In the well-known debate between Solomon and his mother about the request of Adonijah to marry Abishag (1 Kgs 2:17-25) Solomon is defending his rule by rejecting his older brother’s claim. He clearly remembered how the servants of Absalom “pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he lay with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.” Solomon knew that in his people’s eyes the king is the person who took over his predecessor’s harem. He had to reject Adonijah’s unacceptable

“LET HER LIE IN YOUR BOSOM”

111

request.14 Asking for the former king’s concubine is an open rebellion offering an excuse for Solomon to kill him. If Abishag was a simple nurse, as we are tempted to see her, than Adonijah’s request is not offensive.15 His original plan, as it is described in 1 Kgs 1:5-10, was to rule with wide support, he invited all nobles, except a few (listed in 1 Kgs 1:10) to his coronation celebration. He appears in chapter one immediately after Abishag’s introduction and declares the need to replace the king. After his failed attempt he wants to have the woman. Here the similarity of circumstances to that of Abraham is obvious again (Gen 12:14-20). In both situations a woman in the royal court, a member of the king’s harem is leaving the palace without having intercourse with the king. Both kings were unable to act as men. Abraham (with the help of God, of course) got his beloved, Sarai, back from the royal harem. Probably Adonijah wanted to do the same. Were Abishag’s selection, hiring, and behavior with David entirely under the direction of Adonijah’s hand? One may speculate over it. Also speculative, but seemingly obvious, that Bathsheba could anticipate Solomon’s reaction to Adonijah’s request.16 This story describes to the reader a developing royal court, where intrigue trumps fact, where what one is told carries more emphasis than real action. The roles are unclarified here. Someone, an unknown officer found and hired Abishag to serve David, and someone interpreted their relationship to the rest of the court. Coronation parties are celebrated, supporters try to secure a future all the while, and the still living king is trying to get warm in his room. Intrigues, gossip and rumor reign in the chambers and corridors of royal palaces. LEADERSHIP STRUCTURES AND A

KING AT THE CROSSROADS

Around 1000 BC new political structures appeared in the Levant. For about 200 years Palestine was dotted with simple, non-urban settlements. People lived their agricultural way of life in the desert fringes and in the 14

15

16

Or: her beauty was crucial for both men. Michael Avioz, “The motif of beauty in the books of Samuel and Kings,” VT 59 (2009): 341-359, esp. 357-58. Joyce Willis, Andrew Pleffer, and Stephen Llewelyn, “Conversation in the succession narrative of Solomon,” VT 61 (2011): 133-147, esp. 141-144. Bathsheba in Gunn’s interpretation of the ’succession narrative’ is the model for the woman who brings death, see David M. Gunn, “Traditional Composition in the “Succession Narrative,” VT 26 (1976): 214-229, esp. 222-223. Berlin points on a possible personal conflict: perhaps Bathsheba was simply jealous of Abishag and did not want Solomon to have her, see Adele Berlin, “Characterization in biblical narrative: David’s wives,” JSOT 23 (1982): 69-85, esp. 75.

112

ELOD HODOSSY-TAKACS

central highlands.17 After the 10th century the landscape became different. By the mid-ninth century urban centers emerged, with defense-systems, chambered city gates, storehouses, ashlar masonry, and with other signs of the developing monarchic structures.18 The states of ancient Israel and Judah during these centuries developed from simple chiefdoms to kingdoms. a. The leadership in chiefdoms19 is small scale, mainly military in nature, and based on personal aptitude. In tribal (clan based) societies the chief is one of the local leaders whose leadership can be enduring, but it’s still temporal. b. On the more advanced level, in early states20 one chief rules above other rulers. In these societies the hierarchy is limited, but existing, and the royal figure is clearly visible. Family bonds and virtue have special importance; in early states the first steps toward a developed royal propaganda (ideology) are taken. c. In developed (dynastic) monarchies royal ideology is carefully communicated. New ideas appear, like the divine election of the royal house.21 The hierarchic structures are unquestionable, and the monarch 17

18

19

20

21

Israel Finkelstein, LivingontheFringe.TheArchaeologyandHistoryoftheNegev,Sinai andNeighbouringRegionsintheBronzeandIronAges, Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). For a general outline of the archaeology of the Israelite architecture of the Iron Age: Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 BCE, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 406-491. Robert D. Miller, ChieftainsintheHighlandClans.AHistoryofIsraelinthe12thand 11thCenturiesBC. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 6-12; a useful example: the ‘complex chiefdom’ of Tell Balatah, 34-36. For the Tel Masos chiefdom in the south see Finkelstein, LivingontheFringe, 114-128. For a general evaluation, see John W. Rogerson, “Was Early Israel a Segmentary Society?” JSOT 36 (1986): 17-26. Unfortunately the terminology is not settled in this field. In Miller’s terminology the complex chiefdom is a system of chiefs and ‘sub-chiefs’, see Miller, Chieftains, 11. Others talk about “dimorphic” chiefdoms, and emphasize the mixed nature of these societies. A dimorphic chiefdom is “a kin-based political system in which the settled villagers and mobile herders are loosely ruled by a chieftain or strongman, who resides with his small entourage in a central stronghold,” see Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, DavidandSolomon.In SearchoftheBible’sSacredKingsandtheRootsoftheBiblicalTradition (New York: The Free Press, 2006), 41. Henri J.M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik. eds., The Early State (The Hague: Mouton, 1978); Henri J.M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik, eds., TheStudyoftheState (The Hague: Mouton, 1981). John H. Walton, AncientNearEasternThoughtandtheOldTestament.Introducingthe ConceptualWorldoftheHebrewBible (Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), 278-286; Carol Meyer, “Kinship and Kingship. The Early Monarchy,” in TheOxfordHistoryofthe BiblicalWorld, ed. Michael David Coogan (London: Oxford University Press, 1998), 221-271, esp. 261-262.

“LET HER LIE IN YOUR BOSOM”

113

is practically unavailable and invisible. Power is based on descent and on God-given rights; personal achievement and abilities are secondary. In these kingdoms the monarch has a strong role in the sustainment of the order of the world. The Jerusalem of our chapter is the capital of a smaller kingdom, the center of an early state. Although David is vividly described as the founder of a monarchy, his kingdom is definitely not comparable with Ancient Near Eastern empires. It is not the purpose of this paper to clarify the nature of the social structures and politics of 10th century Palestine and Jerusalem,22 but our story depicts a scene of transition in a royal court. This is not the kind of world David was familiar with. As a chief he understood the world around himself. His rule rooted deeply in the traditional morale of rural leaders, but history overtook him. Court intrigue, positions in the royal harem, high ideology: this is not the world of an emerging hero. David transformed his old chiefdom to an early state. As chief he knew the duties in the battlefield, he was aware of pretenders. But the emergence of conspiracy with officers and a queen in the shadows is a sign of a new world, something ‘he did not know’. Thus, he had to leave the stage for a newcomer. In terms of cultural memory we may read this text as a story of royal court intrigue versus an outmoded ruling king. He was tested (is he still the kind of man we knew?) and expected to notice the beauty of the prettiest virgin in Israel with the same virility displayed in the past. Surprisingly David accepts her for what she is represented to be, his nurse. Because, in her beauty, she does not become a member of the king’s harem, the servants with Adonijah knew it is time to take action to replace the king. Thanks to Bathsheba Solomon became the winner. Poor David: he is the least important person in his own last story. In ch. 2 we read his final address to his son. Probably his most important advice was kept in the following sentence: “I am going to the way of all the earth; be strong and show yourself a man” (1 Kgs 2:2). BIBLIOGRAPHY AVIOZ, Michael. “The motif of beauty in the books of Samuel and Kings.” VT 59 (2009): 341-359. 22

The capital of David was a simple highland town, or, according to others “no more than a small, poor highland village,” Finkelstein and Silberman, DavidandSolomon, 80.

114

ELOD HODOSSY-TAKACS

BARTON, John. “Dating the ‘Succession Narrative.’” Pages 95-106 in InSearchof Pre-ExilicIsrael. Edited by John Day. JSOT Sup 406. London: T&T Clark 2004. BERLIN, Adele. “Characterization in biblical narrative: David’s wives.” JSOT 23 (1982): 69-85. BOTTÉRO, Jean. Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. CLAESSEN, Henri J.M., and Peter SKALNIK, eds. The Early State. The Hague, 1978. —. TheStudyoftheState. The Hague, 1981. EVEN SHOSAN, Avraham, ed. ANewConcordanceoftheOldTestamentUsingthe HebrewandAramaicText. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993. FINKELSTEIN, Israel. LivingontheFringe.TheArchaeologyandHistoryofthe Negev,SinaiandNeighbouringRegionsintheBronzeandIronAge. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. FINKELSTEIN, Israel, and Neil Asher SILBERMAN. DavidandSolomon.InSearch of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Biblical Tradition. New York: The Free Press, 2006. GUNN, David M. “Traditional Composition in the ‘Succession Narrative.’” VT 26 (1976): 214-229. HESS, Richard S. “David and Abishag: The Purpose of 1Kings 1:1-4.” Pages 427438 in Homelandandexile:biblicalandancientNearEasternstudiesin honourofBustenayOded. Edited by Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard. VTSup 130. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. MAZAR, Amihai. ArchaeologyoftheLandoftheBible10,000-586BCE. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1990. MCDONOUGH, Sean. “‘And David Was Old, Advanced in Years:’ 2 Samuel XXIV 18-25, 1 Kings I 1, and Genesis XXIII-XXIV.” VT 49 (1999): 128-131. MEYERS, Carol. “Kinship and Kingship. The Early Monarchy.” Pages 221-271 in The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Edited by Michael David Coogan. London: Oxford University Press, 1998. MILLER, Robert D. ChieftainsintheHighlandClans.AHistoryofIsraelinthe 12thand11thCenturiesBC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. ROGERSON, John W. “Was Early Israel a Segmentary Society?” JSOT 36 (1986): 17-26. WALTON, John H. AncientNearEasternThoughtandtheOldTestament.IntroducingtheConceptualWorldoftheHebrewBible. Nottingham: Apollos, 2007. WILLIS, Joyce, Pleffer, Andrew, and Llewelyn, Stephen, “Conversation in the succession narrative of Solomon,” VT 61 (2011): 133-147.

SEVEN THINGS THAT THE CHRONICLER WANTS YOU TO REMEMBER ABOUT KING DAVID John JARICK University of Oxford

Encountering the story of King David in the book of Chronicles, after reading of his exploits as previously told in the books of Samuel and Kings, gives a reader the clear impression that the Chronicler was seeking, among other things, to reshape certain aspects of the cultural memory of that legendary figure. To flesh out that impression, the following analysis identifies seven particular items in which the Chronicler’s portrayal of David differs dramatically from the earlier traditions concerning the son of Jesse. 1. DAVID

STANDS AT THE VERY CENTRE OF SACRED HISTORY

Lying within the genealogies of the opening chapters of the book of Chronicles – a preamble to the story of David, setting the scene for the grand narrative of the Davidic kingdom – is a generational sequence which seems to carry a certain calculating significance.1 The name of the protohuman “Adam” launches the series and is followed in immediate succession by a line of descent that lists “Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel” and so on (1 Chr 1:1-2); the generations from the beginning of time march across the page. This is not everyone’s idea of riveting reading, but there is method among the masses of names, with the procession of worthies moving more slowly as the Chronicler casts some sideways glances at the spreading branches of the human family and then more particularly as he 1

I first explored this particular matter in my article, “The Implications of LXX 1 Chronicles 3:21 for King David’s Place in the Chronicles Timeline,” in Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-FifthBirthday, ed. Martin F.J. Baasten and Willem T. van Peursen, OLA 118 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 579-585; and I draw from that study for the observations I make here on the matter.

116

JOHN JARICK

focuses in on the sons of Israel, and within the sons of Israel on the sons of Judah, and within the sons of Judah on the house of David. As we approach that decisive juncture, the figures linger somewhat longer, with the more elongated formulation of “Nahshon, prince of the sons of Judah; and Nahshon became the father of Salma, and Salma became the father of Boaz, and Boaz became the father of Obed, and Obed became the father of Jesse” (1 Chr 2:10-12), and then “Jesse became the father” of a full seven sons and two daughters, with David listed as the seventh and ultimate son (1 Chr 2:15). After an intermission, the list lingers on an itemised tally of David’s nineteen sons from seven wives (1 Chr 3:1-9), and then the procession of state of the Davidic dynasty moves across the page, with the royal line of descent through “the son of Solomon, Rehoboam; Abijah, his son; Asa, his son; Jehoshaphat, his son” (1 Chr 3:10), and so on down the line again in uninterrupted generational sequence, until we come to Josiah, more than one of whose sons sits on the throne in Jerusalem, and then to Jeconiah, “the captive” (1 Chr 3:17). But Jeconiah’s captivity does not bring an end to the Davidic line, for he too has a son, indeed a full complement of seven sons (1 Chr 3:1718), and so the procession starts up again, not now of reigning monarchs but of potential kings, each one in his turn a possible candidate to take his rightful place on a refounded throne in Jerusalem. Unfortunately some untidiness creeps into an otherwise well-ordered procession at one point in the listing (at 1 Chr 3:21 to be precise), where the formulation in the received Hebrew text at that point is not in keeping with the rest of the dynastic chart, and so the reading of the venerable Greek, Syriac and Latin versions (together with certain other Hebrew manuscripts) is to be preferred, namely that the “sons [i.e. descendants] of Hananiah” are first of all “Pelatiah” and then in generational sequence “Jeshaiah, his son; Rephaiah, his son; Arnan, his son” and so on. Such a sequence of “his son” (beno in Hebrew, as in v. 10) makes better sense than a sequence of “sons of” (beney in Hebrew, as in the mainstream text of v. 21). It is easy to see how the scribal slip to be found in the mainstream text of v. 21 occurred – it is a simple and all too common confusion between the Hebrew letters vav and yod – and it is just as easily corrected.2 But is there any particular consequence in whether the Chronicler intended to have pass by us in this verse just one generation in a list of 2

See also the discusssion of this text-critical matter concerning the “sons” of 1 Chr 3:21, with the decision that a linear sequence is indeed the best reading, in Gary N. Knoppers, 1Chronicles1–9:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary, AB 12 (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 322-323.

SEVEN THINGS THAT THE CHRONICLER WANTS YOU TO REMEMBER

117

six brothers or in fact six succeeding generations in a sequence of father and son and grandson and so on? Well, a rather interesting aspect emerges here: if we make the reading I have suggested, somewhat against the received Hebrew text but in full accordance with the other ancient versions, then the entire number of generations from David to his last-named descendant, Anani (1 Chr 3:24), is thirty-two, exactly the same number as the generations from Adam to Jesse. And this suggests that the Chronicler had devised a rather clever balance to his generational matrix, although by not making it explicit he was unable to prevent a simple confusion between vav and yod from masking his achievement. And that achievement seems to have been a calculated placement of David at the centre of the whole span of human history as sketched by the book of Chronicles. Adam to Jesse equals thirty-two generations; David to Anani equals thirty-two generations. What could be neater?3 It is clear that the Chronicler had a very systematic view of the past. In these genealogical lists he allowed himself to be distracted marginally from the central line that holds his interest, in order to give some shape to the surrounding peoples and more particularly to set out the shape of the Israelite tribes as he envisaged them, most especially the tribes of Judah and Levi as the “regal” and “priestly” groups centered on Jerusalem. Yet even as branches spread out from the centre, in each generation there remains a focus.4 The idea at work here is put later into the mouth of David himself (in 1 Chr 28:4-5): “Yahweh, the god of Israel, chose me from all my ancestral house to be king over Israel forever; for he chose Judah as leader, and in the house of Judah my father’s house, and among my father’s sons he took delight in making me king over all Israel.” Only the barest minimum of any such scheme can be seen in the book of Samuel. There readers are merely told that “David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons” (1 Sam 17:12), and some of those sons are named, but the ancestral line of Jesse is undivulged and unexplored. Afterwards, in the book of Kings, 3

4

There may be more here than simply neatness in the Chronicler’s mind. If the “before David” span of generations had been thirty-two, and then the incomparable man arose, what might the writer be anticipating could happen after the further set of thirty-two generations? I explore, in the aforementioned article (Jarick, “The Implications of LXX 1 Chronicles 3:21,” on 582-585), the possibility that the Chronicler might be hoping for a “new David” to be destined to arise in the writer’s own generation. For a graphic representation of this “line of destiny” and the characters to be found along it, with various kin alongside them at particular stages, see my commentary, 1 Chronicles, 2nd ed., Readings: A New Biblical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007), 16-79.

118

JOHN JARICK

the royal line of descent from David is traced down through the reigning monarchs until the captive Jehoiachin (2 Kgs 25:29), and no further. King David is a giant of a figure in the grand narrative of Samuel and Kings, striding across more chapters of the text than any other character, but there is no hint that he may be standing at the very centre of sacred history. 2. DAVID WAS THE

FIRST REAL KING IN ISRAEL

After exhaustively cataloguing the generations, the Chronicler begins his main narrative with an account of Israel’s quintessential enemies, the Philistines, exercising dominance over the Israelites, and, as soon as the story proper has begun, we encounter the fall of Saul. Although the name of Saul had been listed in the genealogies (twice, in fact, at 1 Chr 8:33 and 9:39), little is said of this character; he serves in the book of Chronicles merely as an inadequate antecedent to the hero David. The narrative does not call him “King Saul,” but merely “Saul.” Only some time later in the story (at 1 Chr 11:2), and then only grudgingly, does anyone refer to him as having been in some manner a “king,” but this is immediately qualified by the comment that all along it had been David who was “leading Israel out and bringing them in,” that is, exercising the military functions that a king ought to be exercising personally. Thus readers can think of Saul as having been at most only a quasi-king of Israel, an ineffective would-be ruler who is quickly despatched from the scene, along with any chance of him and his house constituting a proper monarchy in Israel. “Saul died,” we are told (in 1 Chr 10:6); “he and his three sons and all his house died together”. Now as it happens there is a discrepancy between this statement and the list in the genealogy of Saul, which continues for some twelve generations after Saul himself. Thus the Chronicler had at first suggested that Saul’s house survived for at least twelve generations, but now he narrates that “all his house died together.” Perhaps “all his house died together” means not that every single male member of Saul’s family was killed in or after the decisive battle on Mount Gilboa, but that a potential dynasty of Saul, the possibility of there being a royal line beginning with him and continuing on from him, was what really perished on that fateful day. There was no turning back from that cataclysmic event for the house of Saul. Matters are underlined by the repetition in the story of the words “dead” and “died” (forms of the Hebrew verb mut) in 1 Chr 10:5-7: “When his armour-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword and died;

SEVEN THINGS THAT THE CHRONICLER WANTS YOU TO REMEMBER

119

thus Saul died – he and his three sons and all his house died together – and when all the men of Israel ... saw ... that Saul and his sons were dead, they abandoned their towns and fled.” The Chronicler is insistent about the finality and thoroughgoing nature of this defeat, and of course this total end of the house of Saul is a beginning for our storyteller. The comprehensive defeat of Israel at Mount Gilboa is the first real story that he tells, and it leads to the proper beginning with David, a story that would arguably not have been so effective if the character of Saul had not been briefly brought forward as exemplar of the inadequacies of Israel’s pre-Davidic situation. And so with Saul disposed of, the unparalleled David now enters the picture. He is at Hebron and the elders of Israel gather there to “anoint David king over Israel, according to the word of Yahweh by Samuel” (1 Chr 11:3). What a contrast to the case of that rogue Saul, for whom there had been in the book of Chronicles – unlike the clear presence of these aspects in the book of Samuel – no anointing as king over Israel and no word of Yahweh by Samuel that he had been chosen to be king. So nefarious is Saul’s character in this story-world that he would not in any case have listened to any word from the prophets of Yahweh; he is castigated for failing to seek guidance from Yahweh and for being unfaithful to Yahweh, while David is exactly the opposite. It is clear to “all Israel” (1 Chr 11:1) that David alone has the divine sanction to become king: “Your god Yahweh said to you, ‘It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over my people Israel’” (1 Chr 11:2).5 3. DAVID INSTITUTED EVERYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE IN ISRAEL’S

LIFE

Immediately after David has been anointed king of Israel, the Chronicler relocates him from Hebron to the city that will become the centre of Israel’s life: “David and all Israel marched to Jerusalem” (1 Chr 11:4), and in swift order they take “the stronghold of Zion” and the place is rebranded as “the city of David” (1 Chr 11:7). We are not told quite how David and his troops manage to break into this fortress, but he will never be dislodged from his position of strength and power once he is in this city and builds it all around him (1 Chr 11:8). At a stroke – a master-stroke – 5

Note the comment of Ralph Klein that “the transition from Saul to David in the Chronicler’s account… was divine retribution at work and, even more, divine providence;” see Ralph W. Klein, 1Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 291.

120

JOHN JARICK

everything has been changed, and nothing will ever be quite the same again. Jerusalem will not look back; it will now be a new glorious capital where Yahweh himself will be in residence. A considerable amount of text is then devoted to the project of relocating the sacred ark of Yahweh from an outlying town to the new capital city. First efforts at relocating the ark are not fully successful, but once David has taken extra care to organise things more systematically with the right functionaries in place, the situation becomes fully effective, with the result that the ark is triumphantly “brought in” to the city and “set inside the tent that David had pitched for it” (1 Chr 16:1), whereupon various kinds of offerings are made to the deity. The activities narrated at that point have the hallmarks of a ceremony of institution for a permanent home for the ark, although there is not yet a temple to house it. Even so, the Chronicler claims that it was “on that day”, the day that David had brought the ark to Jerusalem, that “David first appointed the giving of thanks to Yahweh by Asaph and his kindred”, by these particular Levites with a specialism in singing. The clear contention is that the giving of thanks or the singing of praises predates the temple itself and is instituted by David, and is not an innovation devised, say, during the reign of King Hezekiah or Josiah, as good as those monarchs are, and certainly not a post-exilic innovation. Nor are these things said by the Chronicler to have been instituted by Aaron or by Moses; in fact the Chronicler does not mention Moses a great deal, other than occasionally to say that David fixes things in a particular way because it is in accordance with the word of Yahweh as given by Moses. But it seems that for the Chronicler David is really much more important than Moses. It is in the time of David and at the instigation of David that the founding of Israelite national life occurs. Of course the dynasty that is founded by David is also of fundamental importance to the Chronicler, who happily recounts, after the general rejoicing over the establishment of the ark in Jerusalem, that Yahweh promises in an oracle that the house of David will be established “forever” (1 Chr 17:13, 14). And the dynastic founder is depicted, in his response to the oracle, as linking Israel and his own house inextricably: “Yahweh of hosts, the god of Israel, is Israel’s god, and the house of your servant David will be established in your presence” (v. 24). So it is inconceivable to this King David or to the Chronicler that Israel can be firmly established (or that Yahweh’s name can be firmly established) without the house of David being firmly established and magnified. Everything is very closely linked in the minds of the writer: Yahweh is David’s god, and so this kingdom is both Yahweh’s kingdom and David’s kingdom, a connection noticeable

SEVEN THINGS THAT THE CHRONICLER WANTS YOU TO REMEMBER

121

even in the dynastic oracle itself, with “I will establish his kingdom” (1 Chr 17:11) and “I will confirm him ... in my kingdom” (1 Chr 17:14).6 One doubts that the Chronicler could conceive of Israel flourishing without a Davidide at the helm. Several chapters are devoted to David setting up a thorough organisation of the religious personnel for his kingdom, a clear demonstration of the Chronicler’s concern that everything in these matters be seen to stem from David rather than as growing out of later developments, or indeed as having been a pre-Davidic aspect. It is David who organises both priests and Levites into particular divisions. He sees to it that the priests, or Aaronites, are organised into twenty-four divisions (1 Chr 24:1-19), so that “their appointed duties” can be effectively managed (vv. 3, 19). The detail is given that they were all organised by means of “lots” (v. 5), a selection process that appears again in the assigning of other duties to the wider cohort of Levites, namely the divisions of assistants to the priests (v. 31), the divisions of singer-musicians (1 Chr 25:8), and the divisions of gatekeepers (1 Chr 26:13). Thus the casting of lots is mentioned several times throughout these chapters as the means of organising the cultic personnel. In this way the point is made that it is ultimately through the will of the deity that particular clans are assigned particular responsibilities. If a temple functionary finds that, as a Jakimite, he is in the twelfth division of the priests (1 Chr 24:12), and another finds that, as a Hothirite, he is in the twenty-first division of the singer-musicians (1 Chr 25:28), and yet another finds that, as a Shuppimite, he is a gatekeeper on the western side of the temple complex, “at the gate of Shallecheth on the ascending road” (1 Chr 26:16), then each of them can be assured that their lot in life has been determined by divine will. Many of these foundational matters are absent from, or less fulsomely portrayed in, the account that had been presented in the book of Samuel. There David had indeed captured Jerusalem and turned it into “the city of David”, and he had indeed brought the sacred ark into the city and received a divine blessing upon his nascent dynasty, but he was not said to have appointed any Levites to any of the assorted religious duties catalogued in Chronicles, neither at the time of locating the ark in Jerusalem nor at the time of organizing his kingdom. Actually there is nothing like the Chronicler’s depiction of a systematic ordering of the kingdom by David in the book of Samuel, and in fact the only Levites mentioned in the earlier 6

See the discussion of “Kingship” in H.G.M. Williamson, 1and2Chronicles, NCBC (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1982), 26-28.

122

JOHN JARICK

telling were those who carried the ark out of and back in to Jerusalem during a dark episode – missing from Chronicles – in 2 Samuel 15:24. If in later times there are Asaphites singing praise to Yahweh at the central sanctuary, or Shuppimites keeping watch over the western gate, then such functionaries could not look to the book of Samuel to trace the instituting of their roles, but only to the book of Chronicles. 4. DAVID VIRTUALLY

BUILT THE TEMPLE

The Chronicler tells a number of stories concerning David’s conquests of surrounding nations and the resultant exploitation of their wealth and enslavement of their people. Such stories are not at all appealing to modern readers, but we should note a certain feature that recurs in these accounts. For example, we are told that “David took a vast amount of bronze” from the cities that he had conquered, and from it would be made “the bronze sea and the pillars and the vessels of bronze” for the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem (1 Chr 18:8); and so too the Hamathites “sent all sorts of articles of gold, of silver, and of bronze, and these also King David dedicated to Yahweh, together with the silver and gold that he had carried off from all the nations” (1 Chr 18:10-11). So the picture emerges that from an early point in proceedings David had set about gathering the material for a temple, as well as the labour to prepare those materials. The last eight chapters of the Chronicler’s account of David’s reign are all to do in one way or another with preparations for the temple. One might think of that edifice as Solomon’s temple, since it was built in the latter reign, but in the book of Chronicles it is entirely David’s conception. He makes all the preparations, not only for building the complex itself but also (as we have already noted) for organising its personnel. He provides almost everything in terms both of the materials for its construction and of the arrangements for the various activities that will characterize its functioning once it has been built. So in the Chronicler’s estimation it is very much David’s temple.7 Indeed it is David who determines where the temple will be, issuing a declaration, “This is the house of the god Yahweh and this is the altar of 7

Hence the title of my article, “The Temple of David in the Book of Chronicles,” in TempleandWorshipinBiblicalIsrael:ProceedingsoftheOxfordOldTestamentSeminar, ed. John Day, LHBOTS 422 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 365-381, in which I more fully explore the matter of Chronicles’ perspective on the temple.

SEVEN THINGS THAT THE CHRONICLER WANTS YOU TO REMEMBER

123

burnt offering for Israel” (1 Chr 22:1), and giving orders regarding what should be done in order to make this more properly and fully a house fit for a deity. He was standing at the place where, according to that particular story, Yahweh’s angel of death had stopped on his way toward Jerusalem (1 Chr 21:16). In a later story the Chronicler will say that the king had in fact seen Yahweh himself at that place (2 Chr 3:1),8 so there can be no doubt that it is indeed the correct site for Yahweh’s house. The orderly transition from David to his successor in the book of Chronicles includes the handing over of the temple “plan,” a word used twice at the beginning (1 Chr 28:11, 12) and twice at the end (1 Chr 28:18, 19) of the description of these plans. This “plan” is probably to be thought of as a description in words of the dimensions, materials and furnishings of the complex rather than a drawing, but in any case considerable details are given in the Chronicler’s account of the matter, making clear that it was all set out by David. There may be a suggestion, through the expression “at Yahweh’s direction” (literally, “from the hand of Yahweh”), that the deity himself had inscribed the plan, as Exodus 31:18 says of the tablets of the law – although “the hand of Yahweh” might simply refer to divine inspiration. But at least the expression emphasises that absolutely everything connected with the temple stems from the divine sphere, while being embedded in an account that it was under David’s aegis that the plans were fully formed. I need hardly point out that no such specific Davidic/divine plans are mentioned in the books of Samuel and Kings, nor any itemisation of the various preparations that Chronicles depicts David as making and passing on to Solomon. Indeed in the book of Samuel David makes no proclamation that “the house of the god Yahweh and … the altar of burnt offering for Israel” (as appears in 1 Chr 22:1) must be built at the place where the angel of death had ceased his killing spree against Israel. Both writers agree in having Solomon note at the dedication of the temple that “it was in the heart of my father David to build a house for the name of Yahweh, 8

Sara Japhet rightly remarks that in this text – which places David’s encounter with divinity at the same place as Abraham’s encounter, namely Mount Moriah (cf. Gen 22:2) – “Davidic authority” may be seen as superseding “the ancient traditions of the Abrahamic cult;” see Sara Japhet, I&IIChronicles:ACommentary, OTL (London: SCM Press, 1993), 552. See also the discussion in H.G.M. Williamson, “The Temple in the Books of Chronicles,” in TemplumAmicitiae:EssaysontheSecondTemplepresentedtoErnst Bammel, ed. William Horbury, JSNTSup 48 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 15-31, esp. 2325; and the remarks concerning the temple site in Jonathan E. Dyck, The Theocratic IdeologyoftheChronicler, BIS 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 147-149.

124

JOHN JARICK

the god of Israel” (1 Kgs 8:17; 2 Chr 6:7),9 but only the Chronicler has David set before Solomon and the people a fully developed blueprint for the construction of the edifice. 5. DAVID WAS A

MODEL HUSBAND AND FATHER

As founder of a kingdom and a dynasty, David is permitted by the Chronicler to have seven wives, and to produce nineteen sons and one daughter from these unions, and in addition to have an undisclosed number of concubines and to produce an undisclosed number of offspring with them (1 Chr 3:1-9). Whatever we moderns think of such royal polygamy, it draws no censure in the book of Chronicles, and there is no suggestion that the great man had any difficulties in running so large a household or raising so many children. On the contrary, the careful and smooth transition from David’s reign to that of his chosen successor Solomon demonstrates a consummately wise and benevolent father. There are no troubling squabbles between his many sons, nor between his wives for that matter, as everyone recognises from the beginning that, of all his sons, Solomon is the one whom Yahweh himself has designated for the succession and especially for the task of overseeing the construction of the temple for which David has made such full preparations (cf. 1 Chr 28:5-6). David’s good fatherliness is demonstrated in his twice-expressed concern that “my son Solomon is young and inexperienced” (1 Chr 22:5; 29:1), which leads him to offer much counsel to the youngster over a good period of time; and his twice-enunciated encouragement to his successor to “be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid or dismayed” (1 Chr 22:13; 28:20). He instructs the lad at length on all that he needs to know to continue the vital projects that his father has commenced, he exhorts him to serve Yahweh “with single mind and willing heart” (1 Chr 28:9), and finally he marshals all appropriate pomp and circumstance for the occasion of passing his royal mantle publicly to the youngster (1 Chr 28:1). After all this, David can contentedly die “at a good old age, full of days, riches, and honour” (1 Chr 29:28), secure in the knowledge 9

Both accounts had earlier related David’s words to the prophet Nathan, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent” (2 Sam 7:2; 1 Chr 17:1), implying that he felt the need for a temple building, though he was dissuaded from such an enterprise in the oracle that Nathan subsequently delivered.

SEVEN THINGS THAT THE CHRONICLER WANTS YOU TO REMEMBER

125

of having raised a fine son and having left Solomon and the nation with an outstanding legacy. Undoubtedly, then, the David of Chronicles is a model father. But is he also a model husband? Perhaps, while there is no hint in these pages of any scandal in his love-life, there is one episode which might cast him in a bad light in this respect? I refer to a brief incident, recounted as part of the story of David bringing the sacred ark into Jerusalem, where we are told that, “as the ark of the covenant of Yahweh came to the city of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and dancing; and she despised him in her heart” (1 Chr 15:29).10 Now this is the only mention of a female member of the house of Saul in the book of Chronicles. We are not told anything else about her, just that she is Saul’s daughter, that she is in David’s city, and that she despises David, presumably as a direct reaction to seeing him “leaping and dancing”. Is it that she feels that her father Saul should be king and not this David, with whose name the city is now associated? This representative of the house of Saul in what had previously been the city of Saul is presented as a dissident voice over against “all Israel” who “brought up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh with shouting, to the sound of the horn, trumpets, and cymbals, and made loud music on harps and lyres” (1 Chr 15:28). She is, then, a fitting representative of her house, for we had earlier been told of her father that “Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to Yahweh … and so Yahweh put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse” (1 Chr 10:13-14). In the despising that Michal daughter of Saul demonstrates towards David son of Jesse we see the last gasp of a house that has been swept aside. Of course in the book of Samuel all this is rather different, with Michal having been married to David as part of his rise to kingship but subsequently being married to Palti (or Paltiel) before being forcibly returned to David’s house, and so she is in Jerusalem as David’s restored wife in the story-world of Samuel. But not so in the story-world of Chronicles, in which she has no stated connection to David at all, other than to despise him. When put together with Chronicles’ twice-stated assertion that her family were residents of Jerusalem, a startlingly different perspective on the attitude of this quasi-king’s daughter towards the masterful monarch 10

For my following remarks on this intriguing incident, I draw upon the discussion I set out in my article, “Cross-Examining Chronicles: Adventures in the Story-World of a Notionally Historical Narrative,” in BiblicalInterpretationandMethod:EssaysinHonourofJohnBarton, ed. Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 214-222, on 217-218.

126

JOHN JARICK

David suggests itself. In the Chronicles story-world no disaffected wife is popping up here,11 and accordingly David in that telling of his tale remains free of any suggestion that he was less than a perfect husband to his seven surely contented and proud wives. So too the portrait of David as exemplary father, with absolutely no friction between any of his many children, stands in stark contrast to the sordid tales in the books of Samuel and Kings concerning the shameful jostling for power and privilege within his household. I need hardly mention the notorious tales of the rape of David’s daughter Tamar by David’s firstborn son Amnon, the subsequent murder of Amnon by Tamar’s brother Absalom, then Absalom’s rebellion against his father and his rape of David’s concubines that ends with the younger man’s execution by David’s nephew Joab, and the abortive rebellion of yet another son Adonijah that ends with his execution at Solomon’s command. None of that speaks at all well of David’s parenting skills, and so not a word of it is presented in the book of Chronicles. Such lurid tales have no place in the Chronicler’s account of the model family man. 6. DAVID MADE

ONE ERROR OF JUDGMENT BUT EVEN

THAT TURNED OUT WELL

There is one black mark against David in the pages of Chronicles, and that is when he is persuaded to conduct a census of the people against the wishes of Yahweh. Yahweh’s anger is unleashed, but even this rebounds to David’s good when, seeing the angel of Yahweh standing with a drawn sword in his hand, the king falls to the ground and pleads for his people: “It is I who have sinned and done very wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done?” (1 Chr 21:17). Indeed David says the noble thing, namely that Yahweh’s hand should be against him and against his “father’s house” rather than against the people at large. Perhaps the reader is meant to be startled there and to consider briefly the possibility that David’s god might have repented of the promises he had made in the earlier dynastic oracle, and eaten those previous words of assurance that David’s house 11

Note the comment of Robert Rezetko: “This information [about Saul’s lineage and death earlier in Chronicles] efficiently prepares the reader for comprehending the role of ‘Michal, the daughter of Saul’ as a foil in 1 Chr 15:29 … What difference does it make here whether or not she is even David’s wife? The contrast is between David and Saul, and she is unmistakably one of Saul’s;” see Robert Rezetko, SourceandRevisioninthe NarrativesofDavid’sTransferoftheArk:Text,Language,andStoryin2Samuel 6and 1Chronicles13,15–16, LHBOTS 470 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 282.

SEVEN THINGS THAT THE CHRONICLER WANTS YOU TO REMEMBER

127

would be secure. In the world that the Chronicler has created it is startling enough that the golden boy David seemed to be so easily led astray from perfect obedience to the divine will into the apparently displeasing project of taking a census. But our faith in David, and his usefulness as a role-model, is reinstated through this act of contrition, wherein he offers to sacrifice all that he has achieved for himself and his house if only the divine wrath will pass from the people. In response to David’s contrition, Yahweh commands that an altar to himself be built upon the site, and David immediately sets about providing it. At the end of the episode (in 1 Chr 22:1) it is confirmed that this will be the site for Yahweh’s temple, but that is not said at first. Rather, to mark the inauguration of the splendid new altar, a now well-pleased Yahweh sends “fire from heaven onto the altar of burnt-offering” (1 Chr 21:26). The same offerings mentioned on this occasion – namely “burnt-offerings and offerings of well-being” – had been offered by David when he had successfully brought the sacred ark into Jerusalem (1 Chr 16:1-2), and so it is only appropriate to have him repeat the exercise now that the permanent site for the ark is being designated, but although Yahweh had presumably been pleased that the ark had then arrived in the city, it is only now on this special plot of land that he “answers” David with a pyrological endorsement. This special divine approval of having sacrifices made to him on this particular spot will be underlined when Solomon completes the dedication of the temple, whereupon “fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt-offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of Yahweh filled the temple” (2 Chr 7:1). Nothing could make it clearer that, although the initial episode had begun with a single error of judgement on David’s part, the eventual outcome was staggeringly wonderful. The same episode of David taking a misjudged census of the people was also told in the book of Samuel, although it is interesting to note that several of the flavours present in the Chronicler’s telling are not to be found in the earlier story – there was no proclamation in the Samuel presentation that this will be the site for the temple, and no pyrological endorsement from the heavens in response to David’s sacrifices (nor later when Solomon completes the dedication of the temple in the book of Kings). A fascinating additional difference between the two accounts concerns the impetus for the census in the first place: was it prompted by God (as 2 Sam 24:1 would have it) or by “a satan” (as 1 Chr 21:1 asserts)?12 12

I discuss the issue of this “satanic verse” in my commentary on 1Chronicles (cf. n. 4 above), 133-134. See also the discussion in Ryan E. Stokes, “The Devil Made David Do

128

JOHN JARICK

But even so, the main outlines of this particular story are shared by the two iterations. Of more consequence for the discussion at this point is that in Samuel there are several other episodes in which David makes errors of judgment, such as his decision (thwarted by the wise Abigail) to wreak vengeance on Nabal and his men at an early stage of his career and his misjudgments in dealing with the errors of his children later in his reign, but most significantly of all his adultery with Bathsheba and his in-effect murder of her husband Uriah. In Chronicles, however, none of those episodes are to be seen. The episode of the census is presented in Chronicles as the single instance of David being in error, and it turns out to be a necessary evil, as it enables the site for the temple to be discerned. 7. DAVID’S

FIRST AND LAST WORDS WERE EXEMPLARY

The Chronicler’s account of the reign of King David comes to an end with a closing formulation: “Thus David son of Jesse had reigned over all Israel” (1 Chr 29:26); he had reigned for forty years (v. 27), “and he died in a good old age, full of days, riches, and honour” (v. 28), as befits the hero that has been presented in the book. Other accounts of the great man’s life and work are claimed to be available – indeed that all “the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the records of the seer Samuel, and in the records of the prophet Nathan, and in the records of the seer Gad, with accounts of all his rule and his might and of the events that befell him and Israel and all the kingdoms of the earth” (vv. 29-30) – but from the Chronicler’s point of view all that we need to know about this primary king of Israel is “written in the records” that we call the book of Chronicles. In that “account of his rule and his might and of the events that befell him and Israel”, he is the man who establishes Yahweh’s kingdom on earth and who prepares the ground for Yahweh’s temple. His first words (in 1 Chr 11:6) had been an exhortation to the Israelites to seize Jerusalem, and his last words (in 1 Chr 29:20) are an exhortation to the Israelites to “bless your god Yahweh”. How different matters had been in the books of Samuel and Kings. There David’s first words had been rather self-serving, asking “What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine?” (1 Sam 17:26), the answer being that the man who kills Goliath will be greatly enriched by the king It… Or Did He? The Nature, Identity, and Literary Origins of the Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1,” JBL 128 (2009): 91-106.

SEVEN THINGS THAT THE CHRONICLER WANTS YOU TO REMEMBER

129

(i.e. King Saul) and will be given the king’s daughter in marriage, prizes that a young David eagerly desires. And in that account David’s last words were rather nefarious, sidestepping the oath that he had sworn by the name of Yahweh not to put Shimei son of Gera to death by the sword, and on his death-bed issuing instructions to the newly-anointed Solomon “not [to] hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him, and you must bring his grey head down with blood to Sheol” (1 Kgs 2:9).13 In the telling in the book of Chronicles, however, all “the acts of King David, from first to last” (1 Chr 29:29), are devoted to the glory of Israel’s god through the founding of a political and religious system that sweeps all before it. The Chronicler clearly wants David to be remembered as the central and foundational figure in the very Kingdom of God, a “man after God’s own heart” (1 Sam 13:4; cf. 1 Chr 29:17) more perfectly than earlier tradition had managed to portray; and so in the Chronicles version of events any unflattering aspects of the Davidic character – with the single exception of that one error of judgment that also turned out for the best – are swept away.14 David is to be remembered as “full of … honour” (1 Chr 29:28), standing in the very centre of sacred history as the first real king in Israel, who instituted everything of significance in the nation’s life (including virtually building the temple) and who provided the perfect model for family life and for a personal life of piety from beginning to end. Such is the shining portrait of David that the Chronicler sought to bequeath to Israel. REFERENCES DYCK, Jonathan E. TheTheocraticIdeologyoftheChronicler. BIS 33. Leiden: Brill, 1998. JAPHET, Sara. I&IIChronicles:ACommentary. OTL. London: SCM Press, 1993. JARICK, John. “Cross-Examining Chronicles: Adventures in the Story-World of a Notionally Historical Narrative.” Pages 214-222 in BiblicalInterpretation andMethod:EssaysinHonourofJohnBarton. Edited by Katharine J. Dell and Paul M. Joyce. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 13

14

Note the comment of Gary Knoppers: “The tone and tenor of David’s final speech [in Chronicles] could not differ more from his final speech in Kings;” see Gary N. Knoppers, 1Chronicles10–29:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary, AB 12A (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 963. Note another comment of Knoppers: “The Chronicler’s version of David’s last years presents a striking contrast to the stories of adultery, rape, deception, chaos, betrayal, and murder found in Samuel–Kings;” see Knoppers, 1Chronicles10–29, 961.

130

JOHN JARICK

—. “The Implications of LXX 1 Chronicles 3:21 for King David’s Place in the Chronicles Timeline.” Pages 579-585 in HamletonaHill:SemiticandGreek StudiesPresentedtoProfessorT.MuraokaontheOccasionofhisSixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Martin F.J. Baasten and Willem T. van Peursen. OLA 118. Leuven: Peeters, 2003. —. “The Temple of David in the Book of Chronicles.” Pages 365-381 in Temple andWorshipinBiblicalIsrael:ProceedingsoftheOxfordOldTestament Seminar. Edited by John Day. LHBOTS 422. London: T&T Clark, 2005. —. 1Chronicles. 2nd ed. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. KLEIN, Ralph W. 1Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. KNOPPERS, Gary N. 1Chronicles1–9:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionand Commentary. AB 12. New York: Doubleday, 2003. —. 1Chronicles10–29:ANewTranslationwithIntroductionandCommentary. AB 12A. New York: Doubleday, 2004. REZETKO, Robert. SourceandRevisionintheNarrativesofDavid’sTransferofthe Ark: Text, Language, and Story in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15–16. LHBOTS 470. London: T&T Clark, 2007. STOKES, Ryan E. “The Devil Made David Do It… Or Did He? The Nature, Identity, and Literary Origins of the Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1.” JBL 128 (2009): 91-106. WILLIAMSON, H.G.M. “The Temple in the Books of Chronicles.” Pages 15-31 in TemplumAmicitiae:EssaysontheSecondTemplepresentedtoErnstBammel. Edited by William Horbury. JSNTSup 48. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. —. 1and2Chronicles. NCBC. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1982.

TALES FROM DAVID Dolores G. KAMRADA Pázmány Péter Catholic University

In the books of Samuel, David is repeatedly pictured as a kind of folk hero.1 Although he was evidently a historical figure, several biblical stories attribute to him such characteristics that are typical of folk heroes. The literary topoiconnected to his figure seem to highlight his exceptional position in the collective memory of biblical tradition. On the other hand, the folk motifs and folk tales related to the figure of David seem to form the integral part of the present biblical narratives, as if the editors of the biblical texts had consciously applied these motifs and tales in order to convey their own theological message, their own interpretation of the Israelite history. According to Gregory Mobley, the Deuteronomistic History outlines the picture of the so-called heroic age which ends with the beginning of the monarchy ‒ in the present study I will take his reconstruction as a standing point.2 The literary motifs related to the figure of David make him a typified character, a character that represents a particular heroic type different from that of his predecessor, Saul, and that of his successor, Solomon. In the following, I will attempt to present the key motifs which characterize the figure of David within the biblical heroic tradition. In the biblical depiction of the heroic era, Samson and Saul are portrayed as absolutely typical and exemplary heroes, inasmuch as Samson and Saul extremely excel other heroes in strength and in height; they both embody general physical superiority. Samson is definitely the superhero of the book of Judges: he has superhuman strength according to the biblical narratives,3 and Saul also especially embodies the archetypal hero, 1

2

3

See e.g. Heda Jason, “King David: A Folklore Analysis of His Biography,” in Teshurot LaAvishur:StudiesintheBibleandtheAncientNearEastinHebrewandSemiticLanguages.FestschriftpresentedtoProf.YitzhakAvishurontheoccasionofhis65thbirthday, ed. Michael Heltzer and Meir Malul (Tel-Aviv: Tel Aviv Archaeological Centre Publications, 2004), 87‒106; and Kurt L. Noll, CanaanandIsraelinAntiquity:ATextbookon HistoryandReligion, 2nd ed. (London, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 219. Gregory Mobley, TheEmptyMen.TheHeroicTraditionofAncientIsrael (New York: Doubleday, 2005), esp. 224–246. Cf. e.g. Judg 14:6; 15:15; 16:3, 30.

132

DOLORES G. KAMRADA

the ideal warrior, standing head and shoulders above all the people.4 The great warriors termed as gibbôrîmappear in close association with a particular period within the chronological framework outlined in biblical tradition. They are depicted as ‘the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown’,5 in other words the quasi-mythical warrior heroes of a long-past era. That quasi-mythical status of these figures is all the more emphasized since these heroes are said to have been born of the ʻmésalliance’ between the sons of God (Elohim) and the daughters of men in the very same verse. The latter remark actually implies the semi-divine status of these heroes. Moreover, they are also said to be identical with certain giants, the Nephilim.6 Other texts about these heroes include the following description: ‘...lie with the fallen warriors of long ago7 who went down to Sheol with their weapons of war, whose swords were laid under their heads, and whose shields are upon their bones; for the terror of the warriors was in the land of the living.’8 Several different terms (including the term Rephaim) seem to denote these heroes of ancient times9 who are characterized not only as war heroes but also as people of colossal height. Focusing on the chronological dimension it is important to highlight that biblical texts occasionally depict these heroes as the representatives of the people who dwelled in the land prior to the Israelite conquest. As the above-mentioned biblical verse shows, they are also identified with the shades of the dead, especially with war heroes and kings. The overall representation of these heroes ‒ particularly the remark about their semi-divine parentage ‒ suggests a mythological interpretation. These details seem to fit in well with the concept of a hero mythology, albeit forming an incomplete picture of the contemporary beliefs. Most strikingly, these presentations are not unlike the legendary stories about the ancient Greek heroes. Normally, the details of this hero mythology scattered throughout the biblical books all portray the heroic world as the bygone milieu, the days of old. According to ancient Greek traditions, the heroic era directly preceded the age of the classical authors,10 and 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

Cf. 1 Sam 9:2; 10:23. Gen 6:4, NRSV (‫)גברים אשר מעולם אנשי השם‬. ‫ ‒ נפלים‬Gen 6:4. Or ‘giant heroes of long ago’ (‫)גבורים נפלים מעולם‬. Ezek 32:27, NRSV. The gibbôrîm, the Nephilim, the Rephaim, Anakim, Melakim and other characters are often related to each other and mentioned together. Cf. nn. 6, 8 above and also e.g. Deut 2:11; Ps 88:11; Isa 14:9. See Peter W. Coxon, “Gibborim,” DDD 345–6; Peter W. Coxon, “Nephilim,” DDD 618–20; Hedwige Rouillard, “Rephaim,” DDD 692–700. Cf. Hesiod, WorksandDays, lines 157–175.

TALES FROM DAVID

133

modern historical research has revealed that the general picture of the heroic era conveyed by these writings mainly corresponds with the conditions typical of the Mycenaean civilization.11 Although the ancient Greek heroic tales were perceived through mythical lenses by the classical authors, nevertheless their narratives may have transmitted some historical details: certain historical events and personalities may have been presented in legendary/mythological interpretation.12 Besides the above-mentioned characteristic features of the greatest heroes (excellent stature and strength), it is worthwhile to mention that they typically do not die a peaceful death. It has to be taken into account that the tragic death of a hero (an excellent warrior), the proverbial idea of ‘heroic death’, is actually regarded as the logical outcome and the highest summit of a heroic life. According to most heroic traditions, tragic, violent death (suffered especially during fight and/or through self-sacrifice) is the actual fulfilment of heroic existence. The fate of Samson precisely corresponds to this picture; he definitely dies a tragic, heroic death. King Saul also dies a tragic death. However, the demise of Saul can be interpreted as a negative heroic death. Within biblical heroic tradition, Saul is one of the greatest heroes; his stories actually demonstrate the greatest downfall that can befall a hero. In the biblical texts, the characterization of David and his rule signals the decline and end of the classical heroic era. However great a hero David is, he represents a category of heroes who do not correspond to the classical heroic ideal.13 For instance, the biblical narrative puts a great stress on the physical appearance of David, namely that he is undeniably not a tall man while Saul’s most distinctive characteristic is his enormous height.14 Goliath, the emblematic enemy of David, however, is a giant warrior, and an absolutely typical hero, the representative of the classical heroic type. In 2 Samuel 21, Goliath is actually mentioned among the offspring of Rapha, i.e. among the Rephaim, who are identified and associated with the gibbôrîm.15 The famous tale of David’s defeat of Goliath especially underlines the fact that the biblical presentation of David does not correspond to 11

12

13 14 15

Late Bronze Age in ancient Greece. See especially Martin P. Nilsson, TheMycenaean OriginofGreekMythology(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1972), and e.g. Fritz Graf, Greek Mythology: An Introduction (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), 68–78. On the Troian war, see e.g. Ahuvia Kahane, Homer:AGuideforthePerplexed (London, New York: Bloomsbury, 2012), 25–31. Cf. nn. 3, 4 above. Cf. 1 Sam 16:7, 11 and ch. 17 with 1 Sam 9:2; 10:23. See n. 9 above.

134

DOLORES G. KAMRADA

the picture of the classical heroes who excel in height ‒ not to mention their phenomenal strength.16 David is not such a hero; quite the opposite, he is portrayed as a handsome young man,17 a great, convincing orator (16.18) and first and last a very cunning character.18 Besides these characteristics, the biblical text highly emphasizes that God favours David and never leaves him.19 The divine favour seems to be ensured by the diligence of David to seek divine advice, to consult the deity in any kind of emergency, while Saul loses the divine favour precisely because of his reluctance to ask for divine guidance.20 David dies as an old man in peaceful conditions21 that is certainly not a typical heroic fate.22 On the contrary, not only does he avoid a tragic demise, but David also leaves behind several offspring thus ensuring the survival of a long-lasting dynasty. By contrast, the representatives of the classical heroic ideal typically die a heroic death and do not manage to found a dynasty due to their premature, tragic death23 and/or to the fact that their children share the fate of their parent and their potential dynasty vanishes.24 David evidently embodies a different heroic type: due to his very close relationship with the deity he proves to be a remarkably great hero whose distinctive feature and principal characteristic is, however, sagacity and not physical excellence, who does not suffer a heroic death but is able to found an own dynasty. Apparently, this is not the usual pattern of a pre-eminently heroic life that culminates in a tragic, heroic death – the figure of David symbolically closes the heroic age and begins a new era. As has been mentioned, the evident difference between the representations of Saul and David indicates a shift in ideals. That shift denotes a fundamental change in the perception of heroism, which not only involves 16

17 18

19 20

21 22

23 24

Yet note that biblical tradition depicts David as a mighty warrior, a gibbôrḥayil (cf. 1 Sam 16:18; 17:34–36). 1 Sam 16:12, 18. Cf. his conduct when confronting Goliath, Saul and Achish in 1 Sam 17–27; and “ingenious Odysseus,” who embodies a heroic type that is totally different from the one represented by the greatest heroes of the Achaeans, Achilles and Aias; about the feud between him and Aias, see Odyssey 11.548–551. ‘YHWH is with him’ (1 Sam 16:18). See Dolores G. Kamrada, Heroines,HeroesandDeity.ThreeNarrativesoftheBiblical HeroicTradition(London, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 132–169. 2 Kgs 2. By contrast, cf. the heroic death of Samson (Judg 16:30–31), and tragic demise of Saul (1 Sam 31). See n. 22. Concerning Saul, cf. 1 Sam 31:2 and 2 Sam 21; concerning Gideon, cf. Judg 9.

TALES FROM DAVID

135

a change in approach to bodily dimensions (height, strength)25 but also to mental and behavioural factors. In terms of their personal character traits, heroic rage is portrayed as characteristic of the classical heroes.26 Heroic fury can potentially come in useful for the warriors when fighting. Still this disposition poses a constant threat to their own people, since warrior heroes are prone to go berserk even when being at home, in their own circle. For instance, according to the biblical narrative Saul proves to be unable to control his heroic madness and turns against a member of his household, namely against David.27 However, David, who represents a different heroic type, is never portrayed as mad; on the contrary, he is portrayed as a shrewd man who simulates madness, who pretends to lose control.28 This literary motif strongly accentuates the marked difference between Saul and David, between the two heroic types. The downfall and death of Saul indicates the decline of the classical heroic ideal and the end of the heroic age. This concept is poignantly expressed in David’s lamentation for Saul and Jonathan:29 the recurring refrain ‒ ʻhow the mighty have fallen’ ‒ sounds like a lamentation over the fall of all the heroes, the heroic age. Not only does Saul perish but also his offspring,30 and the narrative about their cruel impalement is ensued by the enumeration of the heroic feats of David’s men.31 The latter text seems to formally conclude the heroic era by listing some exploits that are characteristic of the classical heroes. All the more so since the first chapters of the books of Kings conveys a radically different picture of the next king, Solomon: he is definitely not a warrior hero.32 On the contrary, he is an exceptionally wise king.33 The biblical narratives set the heroic era in the period presented in the books of Judges and Samuel. Moreover, the biblical portrayal of the heroic age involves the systematic usage of some concepts that are markedly 25 26

27

28

29 30 31 32

33

Cf. nn. 3, 4. Cf. Samson in Judg 14:19, and Saul in 1 Sam 11:6; and the rage of Achilles, see e.g. Iliad 22.344–354. Cf. 1 Sam 16:14–23; 18:8–11; 19:9–10; and the fury of Aias in Odyssey 11.469–470, 548–551 and Sophocles’ Aias. Similarly, Odysseus (Apollodorus, Library, Epitome 3.7; Hyginus, Fabulae 95), Brutus (Livy, 1.56) and Shakespeare’s Hamlet are such typically cunning literary characters who feign madness in order to gain their purpose. Cf. 2 Sam 1:17–27. 2 Sam 21:14. 2 Sam 21:15–22 and 23:8–39. Cf. 1 Kgs 3:7; see Gregory Mobley, SamsonandtheLiminalHerointheAncientNear East (New York–London: T&T Clark, 2006), 112. Cf. 1 Kgs 3.

136

DOLORES G. KAMRADA

associated with that period. To begin with, after the time of David there is no mention of the bestowal of God’s spirit34 on any other kings or commanders, although the major judges are typically portrayed as divinely inspired military leaders.35 In a similar vein, Saul is also said to be endowed with the divine spirit,36 and his fall from divine favour is depicted precisely by the very same motif: the (positive) divine spirit abandons him, and subsequently an evil spirit from the deity possesses and torments him.37 To highlight the difference between Saul and David, the biblical stories relate the bestowal of the divine spirit on David,38 but do not know of the withdrawal of that spirit from him. Yet after his time the divine spirit is never bestowed on kings and commanders any more according to the biblical presentation. Biblical texts also associate another concept with the heroic era: several different forms of ḥērem is mentioned in biblical tradition, but the warḥērem ‒ i.e. the complete annihilation of the adversary population ‒ typically appears in the traditions concerning the heroic age.39 War-ḥērem plays a crucial part in the stories about the conquest of the land in the book of Joshua,40 yet Judges also yields examples of that notion.41 Moreover, according to the biblical presentation, King Saul eventually loses God’s favour precisely due to his negligence of the instructions concerning military ḥērem.42 Significantly, David is also said to resort to war-ḥērem;43 but thereafter the complete annihilation of the enemy does not appear as an actually performed military action any more in the biblical accounts.44 Besides the war-ḥērem, references to another practice also repeatedly occur in biblical narratives concerning the heroic era: the Urim and 34 35 36 37 38 39

40 41

42 43 44

I.e. ruaḥYHWH/Elohim. Cf. Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6,19; 15:14. 1 Sam 11:6. 1 Sam 16:14. 1 Sam 16:13. On the notion of ḥērem, see Dolores G. Kamrada “The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter and the Notion of Ḥērem. A Problematic Narrative against Its Biblical Background,” in WithWisdomasaRobe.QumranandOtherJewishStudiesinHonourofIdaFröhlich, ed. Károly Dániel Dobos and Miklós Kőszeghy, HBM 21 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 57–85. Cf. especially Josh 6-7. Cf. Judg 1:17; 21:11; on the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter, see n.39 (my article does not identify this human sacrifice with the negative ḥērem, the annihilation of the enemy, but it highlights the similarity between the offering of Jephthah’s daughter and the positive ḥērem offerings, cf. Lev 27:28; Josh 6:19, 24; 7:21-22). 1 Sam 15. 1 Sam 30:17. Yet note the phrase ‫איש־חרמי‬, ‘man of my ḥērem’ in 1 Kgs 20:42.

TALES FROM DAVID

137

Thummim ritual, a kind of oracular method, is mainly associated with war.45 According to the book of Numbers Joshua normally applied the UT divination when waging war.46 The book of Judges also offers various examples of the usage of this oracular method, always set in a military context.47 The books of Samuel ‒ more precisely the stories about Saul and David ‒ abound in references to the UT oracle.48 Furthermore, consultation of the deity (mainly through UT oracle) constitutes the key theme and the leitmotif throughout the so-called Saul cycle.49 The motif of divination sees Saul through the ups and downs of his life, finally indicating his demise. However, as for David, biblical verses concerning the UT oracle function as a literary device to justify his exceptional position. Like the war-ḥērem, the UT divination ‒ i.e. the rite that is in reality carried out ‒ appears only with reference to David but no more thereafter in the biblical tradition.50 Apart from the biblical accounts, there are hardly any sources51 which can confirm that the three above-mentioned notions and practices in reality characterized the early history of Israel. Yet it is apparent that biblical narratives set all these phenomena in the context of the premonarchic era and the rule of Saul and David, presenting them as military concepts. Thus according to the biblical interpretation the very early history of Israel presented in Joshua and Judges and the early monarchic times appear to be mutually interrelated historical eras forming an overarching period, the so-called heroic age.52 Returning to the motif of divination, as has been mentioned above, the Saul cycle seems to have been built around the motif of consultation of the deity. Yet the figure of David does not feature in this basic story about the life of Saul; only one reference to David occurs in the entire cycle, namely in the narrative about the witch of Endor that actually depicts a consultation 45

46

47 48 49 50 51

52

For a detailed analysis of the Urim and Thummim oracle, see Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns, 1997). Cf. Num 27:21. Actually, Eleazar the priest is said to have consulted the oracle on Joshua’s (and Israel’s) behalf. Cf. Judg 1:1; 20:18, 23, 27-28. Cf. 1 Sam 10:22; 14:37; 22:10, 13, 15; 23:2, 4; 30:8; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19, 23-24; 21:1. For a systematic treatment of this question, see Kamrada, Heroines, 120–169. Cf. 2 Sam 5:19, 23-24; 21:1. Yet note the Mesha stele, which bears witness to the usage of the ḥērem in the region. See e.g. Walter Dietrich, “The ‘Ban’ in the Age of the Early Kings,” in TheOrigins oftheAncientIsraeliteStates, ed. Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies, JSOTSup 228 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 196–210. See n. 2.

138

DOLORES G. KAMRADA

of the dead.53 Still even this remark concerning David did not form part of the original story but commentators generally consider it to be an interpolation:54 the plot initially treated the military conflict between the Saulides and the Philistines.55 According to this plot, Saul has been abandoned by the deity, and consequently the Philistines are to defeat him and Israel. The interpolation of the remark concerning David clearly aims at highlighting the fact that he proved to be the final victor over all the other concerned parties, and thus proved to be the chosen one in biblical tradition. Significantly, all the accounts of military divination concerning David seem not to belong to the Saul cycle.56 Whereas the Saul cycle offers several different kinds of divine consultation, the oracles concerning David look all alike. The texts report that David is most willing to consult the deity before taking any significant action (mainly before engaging in battle), and the divine response is consistently positive (by contrast, Saul and Jonathan repeatedly neglect the instructions concerning divine consultation before battle, and the consequent negative divine reaction follows).57 Yet having been inaugurated into kingship and having overpowered the Philistines,58 David is not reported to initiate a divination throughout his entire career. One exception is the scene before the execution of Saul’s remaining sons and grandsons when David resorts to asking for an oracle for the last time.59 Consequently, the passages forming the History of David’s Rise60 appear to apply the oracle motif so as to conform to the storyline of the Saul cycle whose leitmotif is the consultation of the deity. In the present form of the texts the story of David’s rise to power highlights the chosen status of David as opposed to Saul, the falling hero: the positive responses to David’s consultations of the deity contrast sharply with the negative divine responses to Saul throughout the later part of the Saul cycle. 53 54

55 56 57 58 59 60

1 Sam 28:17. See e.g. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., ISamuel. ANewTranslationwithIntroduction,Notesand Commentary, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 423: “…the references in vv. 17-18… are entirely superfluous and out of place here; the original of this speech of the ghost included only the material in vv. 16 and 19, the direct answer to Saul’s inquiry about the battle.” Cf. also 1 Sam 31. Cf. 1 Sam 22:10; 23:2, 4; 30:8; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19, 23-24. See the detailed discussion of this issue in Kamrada, Heroines, 132–169. 2 Sam 2 and 5. 2 Sam 21:1. Commentators usually identify this section with the bulk of 1 Sam 16:14–2 Sam 5:8. See e.g. Anthony F. Campbell, 1Samuel, FOTL 7 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 167–168.

TALES FROM DAVID

139

The final report concerning a divination initiated by David61 powerfully confirms the overall message that the deity passes a final and absolute negative judgment upon Saul and his family through an oracle. Here the usage of the oracle pattern is all the more significant since the Saul cycle seems to have been constructed around this pattern, the consultation of the deity. This report on the annihilation of the remnants of a potential Saulide dynasty forms part of the ending section of 1-2 Samuel,62 and this final section has been lately treated as the ideological synthesis of the whole bulk of 1-2 Samuel. Accordingly, it is striking that the final part of the books of Samuel returns to the topic of the divine disfavour towards Saul and his family conveyed through divination. The latter pattern actually reasserts the key pattern of the Saul cycle, consultation of the deity and the troubles that disturb it. According to the presentation of this last oracle scene, the pattern of divine consultation re-emphasizes David’s willingness to seek divine advice as opposed to Saul’s final negligent behaviour: David’s attitude to the consultation of the deity has apparently not changed since his younger years reported in the History of David’s Rise. In this light, David appears as a positive hero, a hero that does not fail in the end, unlike Saul. Thus David can found his own dynasty, unlike all the other heroes of the heroic age before him. In conclusion, the biblical editors applied all the above-mentioned literary and folk motifs in order to portray David as a great hero who represents a new type of heroism, who concludes the heroic era and begins a new period. These motifs in the biblical texts make David a typified character, and his depiction fits in nicely with the overall concept elaborated throughout the Deuteronomistic History. BIBLIOGRAPHY CAMPBELL, Anthony F. 1Samuel. FOTL 7. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. COXON, Peter W. “Gibborim.” DDD: 345–6. —, “Nephilim.” DDD: 618–20. DIETRICH, Walter. “The ‘Ban’ in the Age of the Early Kings.” Pages 196–210 in TheOriginsoftheAncientIsraeliteStates. Edited by Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies. JSOTSup 228. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. GRAF, Fritz. GreekMythology:AnIntroduction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

61 62

2 Sam 21:1. 2 Sam 21-24.

140

DOLORES G. KAMRADA

JASON, Heda. “King David: A Folklore Analysis of His Biography.” Pages 87‒ 106 in TeshurotLaAvishur:StudiesintheBibleandtheAncientNearEast in Hebrew and Semitic Languages. Festschrift presented to Prof. Yitzhak Avishurontheoccasionofhis65thbirthday, Edited by Michael Heltzer and Meir Malul. Tel Aviv: Archaeological Centre Publications, 2004. KAHANE, Ahuvia. Homer:AGuideforthePerplexed. London; New York: Bloomsbury, 2012. KAMRADA, Dolores G. Heroines,HeroesandDeity.ThreeNarrativesoftheBiblicalHeroicTradition.London, New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016. —. “The Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter and the Notion of Ḥērem. A Problematic Narrative against Its Biblical Background.” Pages 57–85 in WithWisdomasa Robe.QumranandOtherJewishStudiesinHonourofIdaFröhlich. Edited by Károly Dániel Dobos and Miklós Kőszeghy. HBM 21. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. MCCARTER, P. Kyle Jr. I Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes andCommentary. AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980. MOBLEY, Gregory. TheEmptyMen.TheHeroicTraditionofAncientIsrael. New York: Doubleday, 2005. —. SamsonandtheLiminalHerointheAncientNearEast. New York; London: T&T Clark, 2006. NILSSON, Martin P. TheMycenaeanOriginofGreekMythology.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1972. NOLL, Kurt L. CanaanandIsraelinAntiquity:ATextbookonHistoryandReligion. 2nd ed. London-New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. ROUILLARD, Hedwige. “Rephaim.” DDD: 692–700. VAN DAM, Cornelis. TheUrimandThummim:AMeansofRevelationinAncient Israel. Winona Lake, ID: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM – DEALING WITH THE DAVIDIC DYNASTY IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD Thomas RÖMER Collège de France, University of Lausanne and University of Pretoria

INTRODUCTION: THE PARADOX OF KING DAVID IN THE SO-CALLED DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY In the books of Samuel and Kings, after the dtr redactions that these books underwent, King David plays a prominent, yet also ambiguous role. On the one hand, he is presented as YHWH’s chosen one to whom the deity promises an eternal dynasty (2 Sam 7) and who is used as a yardstick to measure the other kings’ religious behavior. On the other hand, the second book of Samuel contains numerous stories that do not fit this picture: in 2 Sam 12, the king has an adulterous liaison with Bathsheba, who later becomes his wife, but in order to marry her, David organizes the death of Bathsheba’s husband. After that he has to face a series of revolts especially from his son Absalom, who is finally killed by David’s general Joab. During this revolt David abandons his capital and his people and appears quite passive or even weak. And also in the story about his successor to the throne that opens the books of Kings, David is depicted as an old monarch with lacking any vigor and power of decision so that the prophet Nathan and his wife Bathsheba can easily convince him that he had uttered an oath through which he established Solomon as his successor. How to explain the positive references to David in the book of Kings with these stories of the so-called “Court History”? The traditional answer by Martin Noth, the “father” of the Dtr History hypothesis was, that his Deuteronomist, whom he believed to be a single author, was an “honest broker”, who faithfully transmitted the older traditions that he had at his disposal even in case they contradicted his own views1. John Van Seters 1

Martin Noth, ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien.Diesammelndenundbearbeitenden GeschichtswerkeimAltenTestament(1943) (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,

142

THOMAS RÖMER

had suggested a very different solution. He claimed that the Court History is a post-dtr addition to the books of Samuel and Kings. The author or redactor who added that story at the beginning of the Persian period wanted to prevent any hopes about the restoration of the Davidic dynasty or any messianic expectations linked to the figure of David, as can be found in oracles contained in the book of Ezekiel that announce the coming of a “new David”. The author of the Court History was opposed to such ideas and therefore emphasized the dark or weak sides of the founder of the Judean dynasty2. Whether one wants to resolve the problem in the traditional way or whether one wants to accept the late date of the Court History, and there are some good reasons to do so, the fact remains that the “cultural memory” of David became ambiguous in the Persian period. Inside and outside the Dtr History different strategies developed in order to cope with the figure of David and the Davidic dynasty. In what follows I would like to present some of these strategies. I will start with (1) the use of David as a positive reference in the Dtr History. After that I will turn (2) to the question of the ending of the Dtr History in which David had disappeared. This brings us (3) to the question of whether David has been supplanted by King Josiah, who receives at the end an even better praise. After that we will deal with the question of Davidic or Dynastic memory in the Torah, examining (4) the law of the king in Deut 17 before (5) a final investigation about Abraham as a new king or David. 1. DAVID AS A POSITIVE REFERENCE IN THE DTR HISTORY As it is well known all rulers are evaluated in the books of Kings according to their religious behavior, the ideal of which, according to the dtr theology, can be characterized by a double exclusivist ideology: the worship of YHWH alone and only in the Jerusalemite Temple. In this regard, all Northern kings fail, perpetuating the sins of Jeroboam, that

2

1967). English translation: TheDeuteronomisticHistory, SOTSup 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). John Van Seters, “The Court History and DtrH: Conflicting Perspectives on the House of David,” in DiesogenannteThronfolgegeschichteDavids.NeueEinsichtenundAnfragen, ed. Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer, OBO 176 (Freiburg (CH): Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 70-93; idem, TheBiblicalSagaofKing David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009).

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

143

is the worship of YHWH outside of Jerusalem and especially in the sanctuary of Bethel. As for the Southern, Judean kings some of them are compared in a positive or negative sense with their “father”. This comparison appears for the first time with Solomon, who is held responsible by the Dtrs for the splitting up of the “United Monarchy”. The dtr redactors use two different expressions “to walk in the way of his father” (hlkbdrk’byw) and “to do what is right in the eyes of YHWH” (‘śhhṭwbb‘ynyyhwh)3. The comparison starts with the divine revelation to Salomon in 1 Kgs 3. Before the theophany the narrator states: “Now Solomon loved YHWH, walkinginthestatutes of hisfatherDavid, except he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.” This notice is quite anachronistic since Solomon has not yet built the temple and Gabaon where YHWH’s revelation takes place is described as bamah, a high place. The comment in 1 Kgs 3:3 reminds the reader (or listener) of 1 Kgs 2:2ff., where David, in strong contrast to 1 Kgs 1, appears like Moses and Joshua, who farsighted give their last instructions before their deaths: “I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. Keep the charge of YHWH your God, towalkinhisways,tokeephisstatutes, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn …”. In this passage, verses 3-4 are often considered to be a late dtr (DtrN or similar) addition4. The redactor’s aim could have been to show that David did indeed walk in YHWH’s commandments – something that is not stated earlier in the books of Samuel – and also that he admonished his son Solomon to do so. This is confirmed in the divine speech at Gabaon: “If you walk in my ways,keepingmystatutesandcommandments,asyourfatherDavidwalked, then I will prolong your days” (1 Kgs 3:14). As it has often been observed this divine speech in 1 Kgs 3 is taken up by a second speech of YHWH in 1 Kgs 9. Both dtr speeches frame the positive part of King Solomon’s reign, whereas 1 Kgs 9 is introducing the bad sides of his reign which will lead to the end of the United Monarchy.5 3

4

5

See the listings in Thomas Römer, IsraelsVäter.UntersuchungenzurVäterthematikim Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, OBO 99 (Freiburg (CH): Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 282-5. See for instance Timo Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner DynastienachderdeuteronomistischenDarstellung, AASFSerB. 193 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975), 28-9. See on this Thomas Römer, “Redaction Criticism: 1 Kings 8 and the Deuteronomists,” in MethodMatters,EssaysontheInterpretationoftheHebrewBibleinHonorofDavid

144

THOMAS RÖMER

In 1 Kgs 9:4, the same condition and the same comparison with David is formulated, but now the negative outcome, in case that Solomon will not behave like his father, is emphasized: “ Ifyouwillwalkbeforeme asyourfatherDavidwalked, in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you and will keep my statutes and my ordinances, then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’ But if you or your sons indeed turn away from following me, and donotkeepmycommandmentsand mystatutes …, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them, and the house which I have consecrated for my name, I will cast out of my sight”(1 Kgs 9:4-6). Before the kingdom splits up, the destruction of the Temple and the exile are already announced. However, the fact, that after Solomon’s death, the kingdom of Judah subsisted next to Israel is explained in the following ways. First the narrator states that, “Solomon did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, and he did not follow YHWH fully(ml’), as David his father had done” (11,6). This statement apparently tries to say that Solomon was not entirely bad (probably because he has built the Temple) but cannot compare to David. Ahijah’s prophetic speech to Jeroboam telling him that he will be the new king over the tribes of Israel contains a similar explanation, which is formulated in the MT in a very strange mix of plural and singular: “because they have forsaken me, and have worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of Moab, and Milcom the god of the sons of Ammon; and they have notwalkedinmyways,doingwhatisrightinmysightand (observing my statutes and my ordinances),6 ashisfatherDaviddid.” This mix is difficult to explain: either the end in singular, which clearly alludes to Salomon, is a gloss from a copyist who wanted to emphasize Solomon’s responsibility, or the whole verse was first in singular (as it is the case in LXX, Syr and ms of the Vulgate) and was than transformed in order to show that all tribes of Israel were responsible for the end of the United Monarchy. The fact that YHWH permitted Solomon’s son to continue the dynasty and to rule over one tribe, Judah, is also explained with a reference to David: “But to his son I will give one tribe, that my servant David may

6

L. Petersen, ed. Joel M. LeMon, Kent Harold Richards, SBL Resources for Biblical Study 56 (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 63-76. Lacking in LXX* and perhaps a late addition.

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

145

have a nîr always before me in Jerusalem” (v. 36). We will come back to the question of a nîr for David. Interestingly in 1 Kgs 11:37-39 Jeroboam, receives the same conditional promise of an ongoing dynasty as Solomon (here David appears as YHWH’s servant), but because of his construction of the sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan he immediately annihilates the promise to benefit from YHWH’s protection as did David. The next king who is compared to David is Asa: “Asa didwhatwas rightinthesightofYHWH,likeDavidhisfather” (1 Kgs 15:11). Asa’s rightdoing consists in religious reforms: he bans male prostitutes, destroys the symbol of Ashera and other statues. However he maintains the high places, which the dtr redactors of Kings abhor (1 Kgs 11:12-14). The next king being directly compared to David is Amaziah: “He did whatwasrightinthesightoftheYHWH,yetnotlikeDavidhisfather; he did according to all that Joash his father had done” (2 Kgs 14:3). His father Joash is indeed also praised for doing the right in YHWH’s eyes without mention of David. Joash did restore the temple, prefiguring Josiah’s temple restoration. Interestingly Amaziah, in contrast to Asa, did not the right like David his father, although both kings are “only” blamed for having maintained the bamôt. King Ahaz is also compared to David, but in an entirely negative way: “he did not do what was right in the sight of YHWH his God, as his father David had done” (2 Kgs 16:3). Ahaz is blamed because he behaved as a vassal of the Assyrians and imitated the kings of Israel. His son Hezekiah stands in total contrast to his father Ahaz: “He didwhatwasrightinthesight ofYHWH,accordingtoallthathisfatherDavidhaddone” (2 Kgs 18:3). Hezekiah is like Josiah a cultic reformer and, reading 2 Kgs 18:4 (“He trusted in YHWH, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him”) one gets the impression that he was the best of all, an impression that will be later contradicted by the comment on Josiah. Did Hezekiah surpass David in the eyes of the author of this verse? However, when YHWH defends Jerusalem against the assault of the Assyrians, the reason for the divine protection is again David: “For I will defend this city to save it for my own sake and for myservantDavid’ssake” (1 Kgs 19:34; see also 2 Kgs 20:6). Thanks to David’s behavior the Assyrians are driven back by YHWH, and when YHWH promises to heal Hezekiah from his illness, David is mentioned again in 2 Kgs 20:5: “Thus says YHWH, the Godof yourfatherDavid, “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will heal you.”

146

THOMAS RÖMER

David appears for the last time in the book of Kings, and in the Dtr History, in comparison with Josiah: “He didwhatwasrightinthesightof YHWHandwalkedinallthewayofhisfatherDavid, nor did he turn aside to the right or to the left” (2 Kgs 22:2). Like Hezekiah, Josiah is said to behave exactly like David, his father. But, as we will see, finally he will surpass him. Summing up so far, we have seen how the dtr redactors construct the comparisons of Judean kings in order to evaluate their religious actions. In these comparisons David appears as at the one who did right in the eyes of YHWH, and as the one who kept the divine statues and commandments. It is not clear to which precise behavior this presentation of David refers. There is no account in which he appears a dtr cult reformer or even as following the divine law. Therefore we have to do here with a theoretical dtr construction, which seems to be based upon the idea that the founder of the chosen dynasty behaved according to the divine will. A similar idea is linked to the idea that YHWH did not destroy immediately the kingdom of Judah because he wanted to preserve a nîr for David. This theme appears in the comments about the reigns of Solomon, Abiam and Jehoram (1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19). There has been a long debate about the meaning of nîr which often is translated with “lamp”, but which may on comparison with the other biblical texts using this term better be understood as “royal estate” as suggested by Ehud Ben Zvi.7 Many scholars consider that the promise of a “nîr ledwd” alludes to the promise of an eternal dynasty in 2 Sam 7. This may be possible although the term does not appear in this text. Another intriguing question is why the nîr-theme is restricted to the three kings Solomon, Abiam and Jehoram. According to Omer Sergi8 the theme appears when there is a danger of foreign women. If one accepts this idea, it is possible to argue that the dtr redactor who added the nîr-theme considered the foreign wives as a threat to the Davidic dynasty. In this case it could be an addition later than the other remarks on David’s righteous behavior. It could also be understood as a reference to the promise of an eternal to David in 2 Samuel 7. The date and the formation of this text are also hotly debated. Most agree that the text must in its original form be pre-exilic since the promise does

7

8

Ehud Ben Zvi, “Once the Lamp has been Kindled – A Reconsideration of the Meaning of the MT Nîr in 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19 and 2 Chr 21:7,” ABR 39 (1991): 10-30. Omer Sergi, “Foreign Women and the Early Kings of Judah: Shedding Light on the Historiographic Perception of the Author of Kings,” ZAW 126 (2014): 193-207.

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

147

not fit the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Judean state9. For F.M. Cross the existence of 2 Sam 7 in the Dtr History was a strong case for his theory of a Josianic edition of the Dtr History. According to Cross and all his followers the Josianic edition of 2 Sam 7 had been used a royal propaganda, showing that Josiah is a David redivivus of a sort.10 However, despite many attempts it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct the extent of the older document behind the present text of 2 Samuel 7. For that reason Jan Rückl emphasized11 has the fact that contrary to Mesopotamian building inscriptions 2 Sam 7 presents a polemic against David’s plan to build a temple. According to him the dynastic promise to David was written after the destruction of the Jerusalemite temple12 in order to counter the causal relationship between the building of a temple and the duration of a dynasty. This expresses the hope that the dynasty thanks to the promise to David would not follow the fate of the temple. This would fit well in a time without temple or even after the reconstruction of the temple when the Davidides lost the control over the Temple. This new reading is challenging but brings us to the question of why David is absent in the end of the Dtr History and how one has to understand its end. 2. NO DAVID AT THE END – THE LAST VERSES OF

HOW TO UNDERSTAND

2 KINGS 25?

As already mentioned, David appears for the last time in the books of Kings introducing the reign of Josiah. When it comes to the last years of the kingdom David has disappeared. And contrary to 2 Kings 17 that offers a long explanation for the reasons of Israel’s downfall, there is nothing similar in the last chapters that report the end of Judah and the destruction of the temple. For that reason it has often been suspected that the Dtr History did end somewhere else than in the present last verses of 2 Kings 25, 9

10

11

12

William M. Schniedewind, SocietyandthePromisetoDavid.TheReceptionHistory of2Samuel7:1-17(New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Omer Sergi, “The Composition of Nathan’s Oracle to David (2 Samuel 7:1-17) as a Reflection of Royal Judahite Ideology,” JBL 129 (2010): 261-279. Frank M. Cross, “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” in CanaaniteMythandHebrewEpic.EssaysintheHistoryofthe ReligionofIsrael (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274-289. Jan Rückl, A Sure House. Studies on the Dynastic Promise to David in the Books of Samuel, OBO 281 (Fribourg: Fribourg Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016). See also Wolfgang Oswald, NathanderProphet:eineUntersuchungzu2Samuel7und 12und1Könige1, AThANT 94 (Zürich: TVZ Theologischer Verlag, 2008).

148

THOMAS RÖMER

probably in 2 Kgs 25: 21 “and so Judah was led away from their land to the exile.” This according to many scholars may be the closing remark of the exilic DtrH.13 The exile is presented as the conclusion of the whole history, creating at the same time the myth of an “empty land”, suggesting that “all Israel” has been deported, which is in contradiction to the historical facts and other biblical accounts.14 If 2 Kgs 25:21 originally was the conclusion of DtrH, we must assume, that very soon it was enlarged with verses 22-26, which contain the information about the anarchic situation in the land (described in detail in Jer 40-42), and so to a certain extent correct 2 Kgs 25:21: “And all the people parted … and went to Egypt…”. Here the entire history of the people of YHWH, which started with the Exodus from Egypt, is practically annihilated. There is not a more negative way to express the end of a history and no clear hope for a future can be found in these verses. If these two verses were conclusions of the exilic edition of the DtrH it can hardly be maintained that the Dtrs kept up hope for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. Does the situation change with regard to the Davidic dynasty in 25:27-30, which represents the conclusion of the actual form of the books of Kings? “Now it came about in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, … that Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he became king, released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison; and he spoke kindly to him and set his throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon. Jehoiachin changed his prison clothes and had his meals in the king’s presence regularly allthedaysofhislife; and for his allowance, a regular allowance was given him by the king, a portion for each day, allthedaysofhislife”. According to Noth, the account on the improvement of Jehoiachin’s situation, who receives a place of honour at the table of the Babylonian king, “was added, because this event – even though little interesting for the story as such – is still part of the description of the destiny of the Judean kings.”15 In no way it should be read “in the sense of a new dawn of a better future.”16 The slightly laconic attitude of Noth towards these 13

14

15 16

Walter Dietrich, “Niedergang und Neuanfang: Die Haltung der Schlussredaktion des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes zu den wichtigsten Fragen ihrer Zeit,” in TheCrisisof IsraeliteReligion.TransformationofReligiousTraditioninExilicandPost-ExilicTimes, ed. Bob Becking and Marjo C.A. Korpel (Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill, 1999), 45-70. Hans M. Barstad, TheMythoftheEmptyLand:AStudyintheHistoryandArchaeology ofJudahduringthe‘Exilic’Period,Symbolae Osloenses (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996). Noth, ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien, 87. Ibid, 108 (translations mine).

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

149

verses has soon been contradicted especially by G. von Rad who saw these verses as expressing a hope of the continuity of Davidic dynasty or even the hope of the coming of a messianic king17. According to von Rad, this passage contains a discreet hope that the history of the Davidides did not come to an end. E. Zenger was much more affirmative, stating that in these verses the promise to David in 2 Sam 7 had been fulfilled.18 But there are no references to 2 Sam 7, YHWH is not even mentioned, and the narrator is telling a very secular event without any commentary. If he had wanted to show to his audience a fulfilment it would have been easy to take up an expression like “for David’s sake” or something similar. One may also observe that nothing is said about Jehoiachin’s sons, who are mentioned in Chronicles but not here; there is no allusion to an eventual successor. The narrative ends with Jehoiachin staying in Babylon until the end of his days. Apparently we must find another explanation. There seem to be literary and thematic parallels between the destiny of Jehoiachin and the Diasporanovels in Gen 37-50 (Joseph),19 Dan 2-6 (Daniel) and Esther (Mordecai). In all these texts an exile is brought out of prison and gains an important role at the court of a foreign king, becoming “second after the king” (2 Kgs 25: 28; Gen 41: 40; Dan 2: 48; Est 10: 3); in all four cases the new position is marked by a changing of clothes (2 Kgs 25: 29; Gen 41: 42; Dan 5: 29; Est 6:10-11; 8:15). The aim of these Diaspora-narratives is to show, that the land of the exile can become a land, in which one can live well and even make an astonishing career. 2 Kgs 25: 27-30 could be interpreted similarly: the destiny of Jehoiachin symbolizes the transformation of the exile into a Diaspora.20 More generally, the Deutoronomists of the early Persian period play the strategy of the “open end,” which is quite comparable to the ending of the Pentateuch. But at that end David has vanished. A similar strategy can be observed in the final account of Josiah’s reform. 17

18

19

20

Gerhard von Rad, “Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den Königsbüchern (1947),” in GesammelteStudienzumAltenTestament, TB 8 (München: Chr. Kaiser, 1958), 189-204. Erich Zenger, “Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung Jojachins,” BZNF 12 (1968): 16-30. For the references to Joseph see Michael J. Chan, “Joseph and Jehoiachin: On the Edge of Exodus,” ZAW 125 (2013): 566-577. Donald F. Murray, “Of All Years the Hope-or Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon (2 Kings 25:2730),” JBL 120 (2001): 245-265; Ronald E. Clements, “A Royal Privilege: Dining in the Presence of the Great King,” in ReflectionandRefraction.StudiesinBiblicalHistoriographyinHonourofA.GraemeAuld, ed. Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, W. Brian Aucker,VTSup 113 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2007), 49-66.

150

THOMAS RÖMER

3. JOSIAH,

BETTER THAN

DAVID?

When opening the narrative about Josiah’s reign, which mostly consists of a report about his reform, he is equaled with David: “He did right in the sight of YHWH and walkedinallthewayofhisfatherDavid, nor did he turn aside to the right or to the left.” However in the final account of his reform he will surpass his “father.” The story of Josiah’s reform in 2 Kgs 22-23 is a complex text whose first edition (in a very short form) might stem from the Josianic period. In a recent article Nadav Na’aman has argued that the story of the discovered book, the so-called Auffindungsbericht, was part of the oldest form of the story, which was according to him an independent narrative, which was later integrated in the DtrH History.21 According to him the finding of the book was absolutely necessary for the original account, which needed a starting point for Josiah’s reform. But according to the parallel account in 2 Chr 34 Josiah undertook his reform without any book, which was found only ten years later. In the Chronicler’s account, the book is not needed for the reform but for Huldah’s oracle. Also in 2 Kings 22:8 the mention of the discovered book interrupts the scene in v.7 and 9, a fact that also supports the idea of a later insertion. Therefore I tend to disagree with Na’aman on this point, but be it as it may, he also concludes that in the literary context of the DtrH “the ‘book of the Law’ became an element in the revolutionary concept of the ‘book’ as the word of God, symbolizing the transition of authority from the prophet and the temple to the divine written word”.22 The origin of the book-finding motif probably needs to be situated in the deposit of foundation tablets in Mesopotamian sanctuaries, which are often “rediscovered” by later kings undertaking restoration works.23 But interestingly, the foundation stone is in 2 Kgs 22 replaced by the book, which becomes the “real” foundation for the worship of YHWH. In the present account of 2 Kgs 23, Josiah eliminates all cultic symbols from the temple to make it the place where the book is to be read to the people. The replacement of the iconic and sacrificial cult by the reading of the book can be understood as a strategy to emphasize the importance of the written 21

22 23

Nadav Na᾿aman, “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform,” JBL 130 (2011): 47-62. Na’aman, “The ‘Discovered Book’,” 62. Thomas Römer, “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography. On ‘Book-Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies,” ZAW 109 (1997): 1-11.

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

151

scroll. In doing so, the Persian time Deuteronomists prepare the rise of Judaism as a “religion of the book”.24 We have observed that 2 Sam 7 tries to dissociate the dynastic promise from the Temple. 2 Kgs 22-23 also tries, but in another way, to dissociate the Davidic dynasty from the Temple, in order to transform the temple into a place where the “book” is read. In a Persian period setting, 2 Kgs 22-23 can be understood as a foundation myth of the synagogues. It is difficult to know when the first synagogues were built, but it seems quite logical that the Diaspora situation required buildings for gathering, for administrative and religious matters. It has often been argued that the found book in 2 Kgs 22-23 should be identified with the first edition of the book of Deuteronomy, and this is certainly right in the sense that the Ur-Deuteronomium was written under Josiah. But in a Persian period context, the reading of the “book” in 2 Kgs 22-23 may already allude to the beginning of the promulgation of the Pentateuch. Some scenes in the reform account, often suspected to be additions, support that view: the eradication of the cult of Molech (2 Kgs 23:10) is not based on a law in Deuteronomy but on prohibitions in the book of Leviticus (18:21; 20:2-5). Equally, the teraphim (2 Kgs 23:24) are not mentioned in Deuteronomy but appear as “pagan idols” in Genesis (31:19, 34-5). The expression “book of the covenant”25 appears in Exod 24:7 but not in Deuteronomy. The cultic initiatives of Josiah may therefore reflect the beginnings of the compilation of the Pentateuch. This new foundation replaces the traditional markers of religious identity: the temple, the prophet and the Davidic king. At the end of the narrative, there is first a comment about Josiah that places him higher than David, by making him the only king who fulfills the loyalty prescription of Deut 6:4-5 literarily: 2 Kgs 23:25 is the only exact parallel to Deut 6:5: “Before him there was no king like him who turned to YHWH with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him”.

24

25

Jean-Pierre Sonnet, “Le livre ’trouvé.’ 2 Rois 22 dans sa finalité narrative,” Nouvelle RevueThéologique 116 (1994): 836-861. The MT has “this book of the covenant” and suggests an identification of the “book of the covenant” with the “book of the law.” LXX and Vulg (and one Hebrew manuscript) read, however, “book of this covenant.”

152

THOMAS RÖMER

‫־מא ֶ ֹֽדָך‬ ְ ‫־ל ָב ְבָך֥ וּ ְב ָכל־נַ ְפשְָׁך֖ וּ ְב ָכל‬ ְ ‫ֹלהיָך ְבּ ָכל‬ ֑ ֶ ‫הו֣ה ֱא‬ ָ ְ‫וְ ָ ֣א ַה ְב ָ֔תּ ֵ ֖את י‬

Deut 6:5

2 Kgs 23:25 ‫־ל ָב ֤בוֹ וּ ְב ָכל־נַ ְפשֹׁ֙ו‬ ְ ‫־שׁב ֶאל־יְ הוָ ֙ה ְבּ ָכל‬ ֤ ָ ‫־ה ָ֨יה ְל ָפ ָ֜ניו ֶ֗מ ֶלְך ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ָ ‫מהוּ֩ ֽל ֹא‬ ֹ ‫וְ ָכ‬ ֣ ַ ‫־מא ֹ֔דו ֺ ְכּ ֖כֹל‬ ְ ‫וּ ְב ָכל‬ ‫מהוּ׃‬ ֹ ֽ ‫־קם ָכּ‬ ֥ ָ ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶ ֹ֑שׁה וְ ַא ֲח ָ ֖ריו ֽל ֹא‬

Even if David did walk in the way of YHWH by behaving according to his statues and commandments, he did not, contrary to Josiah, fulfill literarily the “shema‘Yisrael”, because the adverb me’ôd is only used twice as a substantive (“might”) in the Bible: in Deut 6:4-5 and for Josiah in 2 Kgs 23:25. But 2 Kgs 22-23 in its final form is also about the disappearing of the king in favor of the book. The strange oracle of Huldah that Josiah will die beshalom, which is contradicted by the account of Pharaoh killing him at Megiddo has surprised many an exegete. The audience may understand this oracle in the sense that the pious Josiah is spared from seeing the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kgs 22:20b). One may also understand that, after the introduction of the book, kingship is no longer necessary and can vanish “peacefully.” After creating room in the temple for the reading of the book, the king, traditional mediator between God and man is dispensable. Josiah’s death is accompanied by a caesura that compares to the caesura after Moses’ death: Deut 34:10

‫־פּ ִנֽים׃‬ ָ ‫הוה ָפּ ִנ֖ים ֶאל‬ ֔ ָ ְ‫־קם נָ ִ ֥ביא ֛עוֹד ְבּיִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֖אל ְכּמ ֶ ֹ֑שׁה ֲא ֶשׁ ֙ר יְ ָד ֣עוֹ י‬ ֨ ָ ‫וְ ֽל ֹא‬

ְ ‫־שׁב ֶאל־יְ הוָ ֙ה ְבּ ָכל‬ ֤ ָ ‫־ה ָ֨יה ְל ָפ ָ֜ניו ֶ֗מ ֶלְך ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ָ ‫מהוּ֩ ֽל ֹא‬ ֹ ‫וְ ָכ‬ 2 Kgs 23:25 ‫־ל ָב ֤בוֹ וּ ְב ָכל־נַ ְפשֹׁ֙ו‬ ֣ ַ ‫־מאֹדוֹ ְכּ ֖כֹל‬ ְ ‫וּ ְב ָכל‬ ‫מהוּ׃‬ ֹ ֽ ‫־קם ָכּ‬ ֥ ָ ‫תּוֹרת מ ֶ ֹ֑שׁה וְ ַא ֲח ָ ֖ריו ֽל ֹא‬

With Josiah, kingship disappears and gives way to the Mosaic Torah that becomes the new authority to which any royal dynasty has to submit.26 This is clearly stated in the Law of the king according to Deut 17:14-20. 4. THE LAW OF THE

KING AND THE

DAVIDIC DYNASTY

Although David was the founder of a dynasty and recipient of a divine promise, he was not like other kings in the ancient Near East the mediator of the divine law. The Dtrs emphasize that he behaved according to YHWH’s law, but he did not receive it from his god, contrary to Hammurabi and other 26

Françoise Smyth, “When Josiah Has Done his Work or the King Is Properly Buried: A Synchronic Reading of 2 Kings 22:1-23:28,” in IsraelConstructsitsHistory.DeuteronomisticHistoriographyinRecentResearch, ed. Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, JeanDaniel Macchi JSOT.S 306 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 343-358.

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

153

amcient Near Eastern kings. According to the Hebrew Bible, the whole Law of YHWH is transmitted to Moses, and not to any king.27 The fact that Moses is a substitute for the king is also made clear in the only ‘law’ dealing with a king, Deut 17:14-20. First, this law is according to the situation of discourse given by Moses, whose voice is so mingled with YHWH’s voice, that it is impossible to decide in many passages who the speaker is. Deut 17:14-10 is often dated in the 7th century BCE and understood as an attempt by a Dtr author to limit the king’s power while increasing the power of the court officials. If dated to the Assyrian period, its intention could have been to create a balance between being loyal to YHWH and being loyal to Assyria: the king should limit his symbols of power and not appear as a threat to Assyria, and he should also show his loyalty to YHWH by reading the Torah.28 It is however more plausible to locate this text in the sixth century BCE, at the end of the Babylonian or the beginning of the Persian period. It can be demonstrated that the author of this passage already knows the Deuteronomistic History in its exilic edition.29 It was probably written in order to summarize the dtr discourse about kingship and more precisely about the David dynasty. The opening in Deut 17:14 (“when you have entered the land and you say: ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me’”) foreshadows the first story about the installation of monarchy (1 Sam 8:5). The author of 1 Sam 8 was apparently unaware of Deut 17:14-20, since Samuel is presenting in 1 Sam 8:10-18 a quite different description of kingship. The divine election of the king in 17:15 (“you shall surely set a king over you whom YHWH your God chooses”) alludes to 1 Samuel 8–12 (see 1 Sam 10:24, but also YHWH’s election of David and Saul’s rejection in 1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 6). The prohibition of placing a foreign king on the throne (17:15: “you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman”) may allude to the “Phoenician” (influenced) kings of 27

28

29

There is a half-exception in 1 Sam 30:25 where it is said that David made “a statute and an ordinance for Israel to this day” with regard to the share of booty. Yet this is not a divine law but a custom linked with David. Patricia Dutcher-Walls “The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in Its Ancient Social Context,” JBL 121 (2002): 601-616. There is no need to distinguish different layers inside this passage, except, some smaller revisions; see for this (and a late date of the “law of the king”) Reinhard Achenbach, “Das sogenannte Königsgesetz in Deuteronomium 17:14-20,“ ZABR 15 (2009): 216-233; Thomas Römer, “La loi du roi en Deutéronome 17 et ses fonctions” in Loietjustice danslaLittératureduProche-Orientancien ed. Olivier Artus, BZAR 20 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), 99-111.

154

THOMAS RÖMER

Israel or even to foreign wives who are considered in the books of Kings as a threat to the Davidic dynasty. Or is this a polemic against the discourse of Second Isaiah, who presented Cyrus as YHWH’s messiah?30 The combination of horses and Egypt (17:16: “Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses”) refers to different attempts by Israelite and Judahite kings to ally with Egypt, alluding to the end of the history of the Israelite and Judahite monarchy. This warning may also be a reference to Solomon’s horse trade in 1 Kgs 10:26, which transfers an Assyrian practice to the ruler of the “United Monarchy”). Albertz has suggested that the prohibition to make the people return to Egypt, refers to Jehoiachin’s attempt to send mercenaries to Egypt in order to make Pharaoh his ally.31 This does not, however, provide a “terminus ad quem” for this passage, since Judean mercenaries are attested in Egypt during the entire Persian period. The prohibition against “many wives” in Deut 17:16 (“He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself”) is a clear allusion to Solomon’s love of foreign women (1 Kgs 11:1-3) and his wealth. Again, the report of 1 Kgs 11 was probably written without knowledge of the “law of the king”, since this law is not quoted, although Solomon is heavily criticized. All these prescriptions do not give any privilege to the king, they are all restrictions and contrast with the royal power as it is known in an ancient Near Estern background. The conclusion in Deut 17:18-20 stipulates that the king “shall write a copy of this torah in presence of the Levitical priests. It shall remain with him and he shall read it all the days of his life that he may learn to fear YHWH his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes”. In Deuteronomy 17, the king is a scribe of a sort,32 but not the mediator of the Law; Moses is. The king continues copying the Mosaic Law, as Joshua had already done after conquering the land (Josh 8:32, where he 30

31

32

According to Ernest W. Nicholson “‘Do Not Dare to Set a Foreigner Over You.’ The King in Deuteronomy and ‘The Great King,’” ZAW 118 (2006): 46-61, the prohibition should be understood as a critique of those who accepted the Assyrian king as their suzerain. This interpretation presupposes, however a 7th century dating of this passage. Rainer Albertz, “A Possible terminus ad quem for the Deuteronomic Legislation? A fresh Look at Deut. 17:16,” in HomelandandExile:BiblicalandAncientNearEastern StudiesinHonourofBustenayOded, ed. Gershon Galil, VTSup 130 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2009), 271-296. “He shall scribe” does however not necessarily mean that the king has to do it himself; he may delegate this task to professional scribes. The same holds true for the king, who “builds” the temple.

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

155

inscribes on stones a copy of Moses’ Law). The king also has to obey to the Law as did David according the Dtr comments in the book of Kings. Deut 17:20 states that “he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.” Deut 17:14-20, concedes the possibility that Israel might be ruled by a king, although in quite a restrictive way. In his way there way be a possibility for a Davidic dynasty, so that the Law of the king could have been introduced in the Persian period into the Torah as a concession to those dreaming of restoring the Davidic dynasty. In a way Deut 17:14-20 draws the conclusion from the Dtr presentation of David by subordinating the Davidic dynasty to Moses and the Law. However, in the Torah Moses is preceded by Abraham, who also shows some parallels with David. 5. ABRAHAM AND DAVID In the context of the traditional Documentary theory some parallels between Abraham and David had been used in order to date the Yahwist in the time of the “United Monarchy”. The fact that Abraham is located in Hebron as was David before he took over Jerusalem was considered as providing an early date for the Abraham narratives. And Gerhard von Rad who located the Yahwist at the court of Solomon understood the promises in Gen 12:1-4 as fulfilled in the establishment of the Davidic dynasty. There are indeed other Davidic features in the Abraham narrative, but these do not stem from the time of David or Solomon but from the Persian period when there were no more Davidides ruling over Judah. One may observe in several texts of the Abraham narrative a transfer of royal ideology to the figure of Abraham that starts already in Gen 12:1-4. Here YHWH promises to Abraham a transfer that he will become a great nation and a blessing for all the families of the earth: “And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make yournamegreat; And so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed (or: blessthemselves).” These blessings have their closest parallels in the royal ideology in the ancient Near East as well as in the Hebrew Bible.33 Abraham is blessed as 33

For these parallels see, Matthias Köckert, VätergottundVäterverheißungen.EineAuseinandersetzungmitAlbrechtAltundseinenErben,FRLANT 142 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 276-294.

156

THOMAS RÖMER

David is blessed in 2 Sam 7:29: “Now therefore, may it please you to bless the house of your servant, that it may continue forever before you. For you, O Lord YHWH, have spoken; and with your blessing may the house of your servant be blessed forever” (see also Ps 45:3). In the royal Psalm 72 the idea that the others will be blessed by the name of the king parallels Gen 12:2-3: “May his name endure forever; May his name increase as long as the sun shines; And letmenblessthemselvesbyhim; Let all nations call him blessed” (Ps 72:17).

The “great name” that YHWH promises to Abraham in Gen 12:2 has a literal parallel in the promise to David in 2 Sam 7:9: “and I will make you a great name.” The same transfer of royal ideology can also be observed in the priestly version of YHWH’s covenant with Abraham in Gen 17. The change of name from Abram to Abraham reminds one of the change of the king’s name when he was enthroned. This is particularly attested in Egypt and in Assyria, but also in several cases for Judean kings and for maybe also for Solomon, whose other name was Jedidiah. The promise in Gen 17:6: “I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you.” Here it is Abraham, who becomes the founder of the royal dynasty and not anymore David. Since David is from the tribe of Judah, and Abraham the ancestor of Jacob, father of the twelve tribes, it is Abraham who is claimed to be at the origin of the monarchy, but not only of the Judean one, but also of other royalties in the Levant, underlining Abraham’s character as an “ecumenical ancestor”. The most important text for the transfer of royal ideology to Abraham is however Gen 15.34 There is some consensus again in recent European research that Gen 15 is a “late” text, but opinions differ in regard to the question of whether it is basically the work of one author or the result of a complex history of redactions and whether it pre-or postdates the priestly account of YHWH’s covenant with Abraham in Gen 17. I cannot take up here this discussion, which is less important for our topic. However it seems quite clear to me (and others) that Gen 15 presupposes Gen 17,35 and that 34

35

Thomas Römer, “Abraham and the Law and the Prophets” in The Reception and RemembranceofAbraham,ed. Pernille Carstens and Niels Peter Lemche, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 13 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011), 103-118. In a way one can argue that Gen 15 is also a theological correction of Gen 17. In Gen 17 Abraham is laughing when YHWH informs him that he will have a son, whereas in Gen 15 he reacts to the promise of a son adequately with “faith.”

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

157

this chapter is perhaps the last important text added to the Abraham narrative in order to reevaluate Abraham against Moses. Abraham is presented as a prophet. The story opens indeed by a prophetic formula: ‫ל־א ְב ָ ֔רם‬ ַ ‫ָהָי֤ה ְד ַבר־יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶא‬

“YHWH’s word came to Abram.” This Wortereignisformel parallels Abraham with the prophets, especially Ezekiel and Jeremiah, who are often a dressed with this formula. The prophetic context is underlined by the fact that the divine word is accompanied by a vision (see for instance Jer 1). And before Moses, Abraham is informed about the “true” name of the God of Israel. “I am YHWH, who brought you out form Ur of the Chaldeans” (v. 7). Abraham here comes to know before Moses the real identity of Israel’s god. In a way he even surpasses Moses through his faith in YHWH. But Abraham also appears as a substitute for David since Gen 15 opens by presenting Abraham as a royal figure. YHWH promises him an important booty, a promise that presupposes Abraham’s war in Gen 14, and presents himself as Abram’s shield. The root m-g-n can be found in the whole Pentateuch only here, in Gen 14:20 and in Deut 33:29, a verse that contains Moses’ last words before his death. YHWH’s promise to Abram is at the end of the Pentateuch fulfilled in the divine intervention for a “royal” Israel: “Happy are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by YHWH, the shield of your help, and the sword of your triumph! Your enemies shall submit themselves to you; and you shall tread upon their high places.” This oracle reflects a theocratic idea of a direct divine intervention without the mediation of a king. Interestingly, the depiction of YHWH as a shield (mgn) also appears in the psalm 2 Sam 22 attributed to David: “the word of YHWH is tested; he is a shield to all who take refuge in him” (v. 31). The royal image of Abraham in Gen 15, to which belongs also the divine exhortation: “do not be afraid”, that in its turn parallels Assyrian and Babylonian Heilsorakel given to the king, is triggered or prepared by Gen 14, where Abraham acts like a king in waging war against other kings. The rescue of Lot by Abraham in Gen 14, where he raises his personal army (318 men) and pursues the capturers, may parallel David’s rescuing of the captured wives and children (among them two of his own wives) from Ziklag in 1 Sam 30 by pursuing the Amalekites with 400 men and saving his captured wives and the others. At the end of Gen 14, Abraham comes to Shalem, a clear hint to Jerusalem. There he meets Melchizedek, king and priest of El Elyon, to whom Abraham gives the tenth of all. The “royal” Abraham submits himself to

158

THOMAS RÖMER

a priest with royal power who is not a predecessor of David, so that we may find in this very late addition an alternative view on religious and political power, not related to the Davidic dynasty. As to Gen 15, it has often been observed that Abraham is presented as an anti-Ahaz. The emphasis on his faith (v. 6) is the opposite of king Ahaz, whom the prophet Isaiah accuses to lack faith (Isa 7:9). But he is also the “first David.”36 YHWH’s unconditional promise to Abraham anticipates his conditional promise to David in 2 Sam 7: Gen 15,4 The one who shall come forth of your entrails shall be your heir (‫שׁר יֵ ֵצ֣א ִמ ֵמּ ֔ ֶעיָך ֖הוּא יִ ָֽיר ֶ ֽשָׁך‬ ֣ ֶ ‫י־א ֙ם ֲא‬ ִ ‫)כּ‬ ִ 2Sam7,12 I will set up your seed after you, that shall come forth out of your entrails (‫)וַ ֲה ִקימ ִ ֹ֤תי ֶ ֽאת־זַ ְר ֲע ָ֙ך ַא ֲח ֶ ֔ריָך ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר יֵ ֵצ֖א ִמ ֵמּ ֶע֑יָך‬

Besides 2 Sam 6:11, Gen 15 and 2 Sam 7 are the only biblical texts that speak about a son coming out of his father’s entrails. The transfer of Davidic themes and ideology to Abraham probably reflects a democratization of a sort of royal ideology. The redactors of the Torah apparently agreed in the idea that Israel does not need a king since it has Moses, but also Abraham. BRIEF SUMMARY Although David will play an important role in Jewish and also Christian discourses about the Messiah, there exists in the HB a movement that is less enthusiastic about the necessity for a “new David.” In the exilic and early post-exilic layers of the Dtr History, David is for sure constructed as a model of faithfulness to YHWH, so that YHWH postpones the judgment on Judah but he is a model with regard to “Torah piety,” a dtr construction that does not fit well to the older traditions about David. There is no expectation of a continuity of the Davidic dynasty at the end of the book of Kings. Although 2 Sam 7 may be understood with Rückl as an attempt to dissociate the Davidides from the Temple, 2 Kgs 25 ends with the exile of Jehoiachin without any statement about the continuity of the dynasty. In 2 Kgs 22-23 David is surpassed by king Josiah who, in his reform empties the temple, in order to give space to the reading of the “book.” His death may symbolize the death of the Davidic royalty which is replaced by the Pentateuch and Moses. Not the king, but Moses is the lawgiver in the 36

Bernard Gosse, “Abraham and David,”JSOT 34 (2009): 25-31.

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

159

Hebrew Bible, and in the only law dealing with the king, the latter is subordinated to the Torah. Deut 17 may be a concession to a Davidic faction: there may be a Davidic king, but if so, he will not have much power. This is also shown by the transposition of Davidic themes to Abraham, especially in Gen 15. Therefore in the Pentateuch, Abraham and Moses have taken over David’s place and function.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ACHENBACH, Reinhard. “Das sogenannte Königsgesetz in Deuteronomium 17:1420.” ZAR 15 (2009): 216-233. ALBERTZ, Rainer. “A Possible terminusadquem for the Deuteronomic Legislation? A fresh Look at Deut 17:16.” Pages 271-296 in HomelandandExile:BiblicalandAncientNearEasternStudiesinHonourofBustenayOded. Edited by Gershon Galil, Mark Geller and Alan Millard. VTSup 130. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. BARSTAD, Hans M. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and ArchaeologyofJudahduringthe‘Exilic’Period.Symbolae Osloenses. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996. BEN ZVI, Ehud. “Once the Lamp has been Kindled – A Reconsideration of the Meaning of the MT Nîr in 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19 and 2 Chr 21:7.” ABR 39 (1991): 10-30. CHAN, Michael J. “Joseph and Jehoiachin: On the Edge of Exodus.” ZAW 125 (2013): 566-577. CLEMENTS, Ronald E. “A Royal Privilege: Dining in the Presence of the Great King.” Pages 49-66 in ReflectionandRefraction.StudiesinBiblicalHistoriographyinHonourofA.GraemeAuld.Edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, W. Brian Aucker. VTSup 113. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2007. CROSS, Frank M. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 274-289 in CanaaniteMythandHebrew Epic.EssaysintheHistoryoftheReligionofIsrael by Frank Moore Cross. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. DIETRICH, Walter. “Niedergang und Neuanfang: Die Haltung der Schlussredaktion des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes zu den wichtigsten Fragen ihrer Zeit.” Pages 45-70 in TheCrisisofIsraeliteReligion.Transformationof ReligiousTraditioninExilicandPost-ExilicTimes. Edited by Bob Becking and Marjo C.A. Korpel. Leiden, Boston, Köln: Brill, 1999. DUTCHER-WALLS, Patricia. “The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in Its Ancient Social Context.” JBL 121 (2002): 601-616. GOSSE, Bernard. “Abraham and David.” JSOT 34 (2009): 25-31. KÖCKERT, Matthias. VätergottundVäterverheißungen.EineAuseinandersetzung mitAlbrechtAltundseinenErben.FRLANT 142. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. MURRAY, Donald F. “Of All Years the Hope- or Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27-30).” JBL 120 (2001): 245-265.

160

THOMAS RÖMER

NA᾿AMAN, Nadav. “The ‘Discovered Book’ and the Legitimation of Josiah’s Reform.” JBL 130 (2011): 47-62. NICHOLSON, Ernest W. “‘Do Not Dare to Set a Foreigner Over You.’ The King in Deuteronomy and ’The Great King.’” ZAW 118 (2206): 46-61. NOTH, Martin. ÜberlieferungsgeschichtlicheStudien.DiesammelndenundbearbeitendenGeschichtswerkeimAltenTestament(1943). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967. English translation: TheDeuteronomistic History. SOTSSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. OSWALD, Wolfgang. NathanderProphet:eineUntersuchungzu2Samuel7und 12und1Könige1. AThANT 94. Zürich: TVZ Theologischer Verlag, 2008. RAD, Gerhard von. “Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den Königsbüchern (1947).” Pages 189-204 in GesammelteStudienzumAltenTestament by Gerhard von Rad. TB 8. München: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. RÖMER, Thomas. “Abraham and the Law and the Prophets.” Pages 103-118 in TheReceptionandRemembranceofAbraham.Edited by Pernille Carstens and Niels Peter Lemche. PHSC 13. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011. —. “La loi du roi en Deutéronome 17 et ses fonctions.” Pages 99-111 in Loiet justicedanslaLittératureduProche-Orientancien. Edited by Olivier Artus. BZAR 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013. —. “Redaction Criticism: 1 Kings 8 and the Deuteronomists.” Pages 63-76 in MethodMatters,EssaysontheInterpretationoftheHebrewBibleinHonor ofDavidL.Petersen. Edited by Joel M. LeMon and Kent Harold Richards. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 56. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. —. “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography. On ‘BookFinding’ and Other Literary Strategies.” ZAW 109 (1997): 1-11. —. IsraelsVäter.UntersuchungenzurVäterthematikimDeuteronomiumundin der deuteronomistischen Tradition. OBO 99. Freiburg (CH); Göttingen: Universitätsverlag, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. RÜCKL, Jan. ASureHouse.StudiesontheDynasticPromisetoDavidintheBooksof Samuel.OBO 281. Fribourg: Fribourg Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. SCHNIEDEWIND, William M., SocietyandthePromisetoDavid.TheReception Historyof2Samuel7:1-17(New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). SERGI, Omer. “The Composition of Nathan’s Oracle to David (2Samuel 7:1-17) as a Reflection of Royal Judahite Ideology.” JBL 129 (2010): 261-279. —. “Foreign Women and the Early Kings of Judah: Shedding Light on the Historiographic Perception of the Author of Kings.” ZAW 126 (2014): 193-207. SMYTH, Françoise. “When Josiah Has Done his Work or the King Is Properly Buried: A Synchronic Reading of 2 Kings 22:1-23:28.” Pages 343-358 in Israel Constructs its History. Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. SONNET, Jean-Pierre. “Le livre ‘trouvé.’ 2 Rois 22 dans sa finalité narrative.” NouvelleRevueThéologique 116 (1994): 836-861. VAN SETERS, John. “The Court History and DtrH: Conflicting Perspectives on the House of David.” Pages 70-93 in DiesogenannteThronfolgegeschichte

KING DAVID TAKEN OVER BY JOSIAH, MOSES AND ABRAHAM

161

Davids.NeueEinsichtenundAnfragen. Edited by Albert de Pury, and Thomas Römer. OBO 176. Freiburg (CH): Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. —. TheBiblicalSagaofKingDavid. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. VEIJOLA, Timo. DieewigeDynastie.DavidunddieEntstehungseinerDynastienach derdeuteronomistischenDarstellung. AASFSerB 193. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975. ZENGER, Erich. “Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung Jojachins.” BZNF 12 (1968): 16-30.

DAVID IN THE DURA SYNAGOGUE* Géza G. XERAVITS Selye J. University, Komarno

1. MATERIAL The walls of the Dura synagogue – decorated around 245 CE – were fully covered in horizontal rows by predominantly narrative murals depicting various biblical scenes;1 among others, they evoke stories about the life of David.2 Scholars agree that the figure of David appears on the central panel above the Torah niche, and it is obvious that another panel of the western wall (WC 3) also depicts him: besides the iconographic evidence it is reinforced by an Aramaic dipinto, too (šmw[l]kdmšḥ[d]wyd, “Samuel when anointing David”). Most scholars admit that David is depicted also on the east wall (panel EC 1), and there are some other points sometimes interpreted as connected with David. The entrance of the synagogue was situated at the east wall. This wall was the farthest from the city wall, and during the secondary fortification before the Sassanian siege of 256 it was not entirely covered with earth, consequently only parts of the bottom of the murals in the lower register are preserved. At the right side of the door of the synagogue, a longer * The English of the paper has kindly been corrected by Prof. Karin Schöpflin (Göttingen). 1 Scholarly literature related to the synagogue of Dura is also enormously vast. Definitive publication of the site is Carl H. Kraeling, TheSynagogue, The Excavations at DuraEuropos Final Report VIII.1 (New Haven: Yale University Press 1956); and see also Robert du Mesnil du Buisson, LespeinturesdelaSynagoguedeDoura-Europos,245256aprèsJ-C. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1939); Rachel Wischnitzer, TheMessianicThemeinthePaintingsoftheDuraSynagogue (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1948); Erwin R. Goodenough, JewishSymbolsintheGreco-RomanPeriod.Volumes9– 11:SymbolismintheDuraSynagogue, Bollingen Series 37 (New York: Pantheon, 1964); Joseph Gutmann, ed., TheDura-EuroposSynagogue:ARe-evaluation(1932–1972) (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973); Kurt Weitzman and Herbert L. Kessler, TheFrescoesofthe Dura Synagogue and Christian Art, DOS 28 (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990); Rachel Hachlili, AncientJewishArtandArchaeologyintheDiaspora. HdO I.35 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 96–197. 2 For a fuller treatment of the late antique Jewish evidence see my paper “The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art,” in FigureswhoShapeScriptures, ScripturesthatShapeFigures:EssaysinHonourofBenjaminG.WrightIII, ed. Géza Xeravits and Greg Schmidt Goering, DCLS 40 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 71-90.

164

GÉZA G. XERAVITS

narrative panel is seen (EC 1, 4.88 m.), depicting episodes of a story from the early years of David, when in the wilderness of Ziph he spares the life of king Saul (1 Samuel 26). The panel slavishly follows the biblical narrative in three successive episodes, which is marked by the change of colour in the background.3 The first episode reminds of a hunting scene with cavalry and dogs: here Saul led his forces for seeking David in the wilderness (1 Sam 26:2). The next episode depicts the king and his entourage sleeping, and David with his men taking away the king’s spear (1 Sam 26:7–12). Finally, at the right side of the panel David reveals himself (1 Sam 26:14–16). The interpretation of the panel’s dramatis personae is nearly unanimous among scholars, only some early interpreters argued for protagonists other than David.4 A matter of dispute, however, whether the panel fits into an overall messianic idea testified by the murals at Dura or not. For Rachel Wischnitzer, who hypothesises a comprehensive messianic message of the artistic program of the synagogue, the panel relates the outstanding moral attitude of the progenitor of the messiah.5 Leaving aside the validity of Wischnitzer’s overall interpretation of the murals, it is enough to say that the EC 1 panel inse does not trace any messianic hints. If one contrasts it with the only other preserved painting of the regrettably damaged eastern wall, which very probably depicts Belshazzar’s feast from Daniel 5 (EC 2),6 the messianic interpretation of EC 1 remains unsubstantiated. Of course, David’s ethical qualities might be the question here – as they are clearly contrasted with Belshazzar’s ungodly hybris. The contrast between Jew and non-Jew in this instance clearly fits in with the kind of cultural resistance of the Durene Jews vis-à-vis their gentile environment as described exemplarily by Jaś Elsner.7 To put it the other way around, the preserved east wall panels do not have eschatological orientation: they might simply be interpreted on the moral level. At first sight, the side walls of the synagogue are not interested in the figure of David. Even so, some scholars have tried to interpret some elements of these walls as related to David. The first is an entire fragmentarily 3

4 5 6

7

Goodenough, JewishSymbols, 11: xvii and 344, this change of colour is not striking at the reproductions, but is stressed by Kraeling, TheSynagogue, 203. On this, see, e.g. Hachlili, Diaspora, 129. Wischnitzer, TheMessianicTheme, 36. This interpretation is generally held by scholars. Other opinions hypothesise Abraham’s sacrifice from Genesis 17; Elijah fed by the ravens; the cleansing of the Temple, etc. See esp. Wischnitzer, TheMessianicTheme, 21–22; and Hachlili, Diaspora, 129–130. Jaś Elsner, “Cultural Resistance and the Visual Image: The Case of Dura Europos,” ClassicalPhilology 96 (2001): 269–304.

DAVID IN THE DURA SYNAGOGUE

165

preserved panel of the south wall (SB 1). It is situated in the middle horizontal register, which comprises panels connected to cultic matters. The remains of this painting apparently display a procession with the Ark of the Covenant. Generally, the scene is interpreted as visualising 1 Kings 8:1–5, the transfer of the Ark into the newly built Temple by Solomon. Based on two elements, however, Kurt Weitzman has argued that the panel rather depicts 2 Samuel 6:12–15, when David transports the Ark to Jerusalem. It was told King David, The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing; and when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. David danced before the LORD with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

He bases his argument on two premises. First, he interprets one of the youths accompanying the procession as playing a flute, and points to the fact that the only related story mentioning music is the one in 2 Samuel. Second, he interprets the posture of the assumed leader of the procession as dancing, which is, again, a characteristic of the 2 Samuel story.8 Firstly, as for the flute: the fourth figure from the right might be interpreted as playing this instrument,9 but he is the only one of the preserved figures doing this. His two counterparts at the far right are carrying branches, the others are bringing the Ark. Moreover, it is true that the 2 Samuel story refers to musical activity, whereas 1 Kings 8 does not. But the biblical text speaks about lyre, harp, tambourine, castanet, cymbal and trumpet, without, however, mentioning a flute: David and all the house of Israel were dancing before the LORD with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals (2 Sam 6:5).

Secondly, the figure, who – at the actually preserved material of the damaged panel – seems to lead the procession does not significantly differ in posture from the other persons depicted, it is unsubstantiated therefore to interpret his pose as dancing. Despite my reluctance to subscribe to Weitzman’s interpretation, he might be right in identifying this panel as representing 2 Samuel 6. Even if this might be the case, nevertheless, two implications are appropriate concerning the role of the otherwise 8 9

Weitzman and Kessler, TheFrescoesoftheDuraSynagogue, 94–98. I thank Prof. Paul Flesher, who, in private communication, reconfirmed the presence of a flute. See Goodenough, JewishSymbols, 11: xvi – the reproduction is ambiguous.

166

GÉZA G. XERAVITS

unidentifiable David: on the one hand, he appears in a cultic function, and on the other hand, he is not a protagonist on the panel. This painting is clearly about the Ark, suitably to the exclusive cultic orientation of the middle register. Another possible appearance of David on the side walls is claimed to be at the large and complex Ezekiel panel of the north wall, the longest of all the narrative panels of the synagogue (NC 1, 7,46 m.). Ezekiel appears eight times on the panel. His first six representations belong to the depiction of Ezekiel 37, the Valley of the Dry Bones prophecy; whereas the two last figures belong, with all probability, to the extra-biblical story of Ezekiel’s martyrdom.10 Considering the fact that the figures generally interpreted as depicting Ezekiel underwent a change of clothes, some scholars think that in fact two different figures are presented on the panel. For them, those in Persian garb represent Ezekiel, but the figures dressed in Greek clothes might depict someone else, most probably the eschatological, messianic David.11 Their opinion is based on Ezekiel 37:24, which presages that “my servant David shall be king over them.” There are two basic problems with this interpretation. First – as Carl Kraeling has demonstrated – there is an intrinsic coherence between the figures in Persian and Greek clothes on the panel.12 Even the textual tradition refers to Ezekiel as priest and prince (hence the Persian dress) on the one hand, and a prophet (which is marked in the Dura paintings by the Greek clothes) on the other hand. Moreover, the two Ezekiel figures in the prophets’ dress mark the climax of the Dry Bones prophecy: the revivification of the house of Israel. One must furthermore admit that the scope of the panel need not extend to the continuation of the Dry Bones prophecy in 37:15–28. In the middle of the panel simply Ezekiel 37:10 is illustrated: I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude.

After these, I now want to turn to the west wall of the Dura synagogue. This obviously had pre-eminent importance among the walls: as facing the direction of Jerusalem, as the one which included the Torah niche, 10

11

12

The last scene of the panel has been interpreted differently by Wischnitzer, TheMessianic Theme, 36–38; and Clark Hopkins, TheDiscoveryofDuraEuropos (New Haven: Yale University Press 1979), 168–172. Emil G. Kraeling, “The Meaning of the Ezekiel Panel in the Synagogue at Dura,” BASOR 78 (1940), 12–18; Rachel Wischnitzer, “The Conception of Resurrection in the Ezekiel Panel of the Dura Synagogue,” JBL 60 (1941) 43–55; eadem, TheMessianic Theme, 45–46. Kraeling, TheSynagogue, 189, 193–194.

DAVID IN THE DURA SYNAGOGUE

167

and towards which the attendants of the synagogal liturgy were oriented. David occurs three times on the murals of this wall: once in the lower register, immediately right from the Torah niche (WC 3), and twice on the central panel (reredos).13 The scene at the WC 3 panel is easily identifiable. A tall figure wearing a white draped Greek dress – characteristic of the prophets in the Dura paintings – stands besides seven smaller persons. One of these is standing somewhat to the fore, the salient purple mantle he wears and the pose of his head slightly turned towards the taller man equally detach him from the crowd of his companions. The tall man is depicted as touching the head of this figure with a horn. If one immediately would not identify this scene with David’s anointing by Samuel (1 Sam 16:11–13), an Aramaic dipinto mentioned above helps in doing this (šmw[l]kdmšḥ[d]wyd). The reduction of the number of Jesse’s sons from eight to seven does not cause problems: already the genealogy at the beginning of 1 Chronicles testifies to this tradition.14 The reredos of the west wall is an area which underwent at least two different phases of decoration.15 Below, I consider only the last phase of paintings, so to say the final composition, the executor of which has redwashed the previous layer, and carried out a completely new design. The reredos of the final composition has two registers. On the upper panel, the artist reused an important earlier element, an enthroned figure wearing Persian costume and accompanied by two other men in Greek dress. The final artist has complemented the painting with thirteen additional figures, dressed, again, in Persian clothes. Most scholars interpret this panel as depicting King David with the representatives of the Israelite tribes (eleven plus two half-tribes).16 The men in Greek robes are generally identified with the prophets Samuel and Nathan;17 those who opt for a messianic interpretation of the panel hold that these figures must represent Moses and Elijah.18 13

14 15

16

17 18

The importance of this area has been highlighted by Hachlili, Diaspora, 106, too. See recently my “The Message of the West Wall of the Dura Synagogue,” ZDMG 167 (2017), 111–125. Cf. Kraeling, TheSynagogue, 168. The sequence of the various layers at the reredos is treated, e.g., by Kraeling, The Synagogue, 62–65 and 215–227; or Hachlili, Diaspora, 99–111. Other interpretation consist of Wischnitzer, The Synagogue, 96–99: Joseph and his brethren; for further opinions, see, Hachlili, Diaspora, 109. Weitzman and Kessler, TheFrescoesoftheDuraSynagogue, 90–91. Jonathan A. Goldstein, “The Central Composition of the West Wall of the Synagogue of Dura-Europos,” JANES 16/17 (1984/85), 118–131.

168

GÉZA G. XERAVITS

Finally, another striking depiction of David is provided by the lower panel of thereredos, upper left corner. Here a figure is represented, sitting on a throne. He wears royal robes and a Phrygian cap, and plays on a lyre. Behind his right shoulder an object was painted. Previously it was identified as an eagle, however, Paul Flesher has convincingly demonstrated that it is none other than a shepherd’s crook.19 To the right of the figure, two animals are depicted: a lion and a dove.20 Earlier commentators unanimously interpreted this figure as Orpheus, and equated him – seemingly most naturally – with David. This small figure is highly ambiguous. Paul Flesher called attention to a couple of its elements inconsistent with the habitual iconography of Orpheus.21 I must confess I have serious problems in interpreting this figure together with both the other material of the reredos and the narrative panels of the west wall. My impression is that it is somewhat out of context in its actual position. And indeed, scholars do not agree even about the fact to which decorative stage this musician belongs. Goodenough, for example, thinks that this figure belongs to the earlier phase of the decoration, and was painted together with the huge surrounding vine-tree. Jonathan A. Goldstein held this, too, and went so far as to have considered the supposed David-Orpheus as the messianic fruit of this tree.22 On the contrary, Carl H. Kraeling and Rachel Hachlili hold that the figure originates from the second phase of the synagogue’s decoration.23 Paul V.M. Flesher calls attention to the fact that the several times repainted reredos is most damaged especially at the figure in question,24 which makes any definitive conclusions for the compositional position of this figure impossible. 2. INTERPRETATION The first question concerning the narrative panels at Dura is whether they display an altogether coherent composition or not. Despite the efforts 19

20

21

22

23 24

Paul V.M. Flesher, “Rereading the Reredos: David, Orpheus, and Messianism in the Dura Europos Synagogue,” in AncientSynagogues.HistoricalAnalysisandArchaeologicalDiscovery, ed. Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher, SPB 47 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 350–351. Some scholars tried to identify more animals, but these are pure fictions, see Flesher, “Rereading the Reredos,” 351–352; see also Hachlili, Diaspora, 110–111. Flesher, “Rereading the Reredos,” 350–359; cf. earlier S. Charles Murray, “The Christian Orpheus,” CA 26 (1977): 19–27. Goodenough, JewishSymbols, 9: 89–104; Goldstein, “The Central Composition,” passim, see esp. 140. Kraeling, TheSynagogue, 223–225; Hachlili, Diaspora, 110–111. Flesher, “Rereading the Reredos,” 347–348.

DAVID IN THE DURA SYNAGOGUE

169

of several scholars, who argue for this view,25 it seems to be much safer to avoid this approach. Nevertheless, this does not mean that some panels might not show close relationship with each other. And indeed, this is the case with three panels of the west wall, viz. panel WC 3, the upper panel of the reredos, and panel WC 2. Two of them are connected with the figure of David, and considering the three together, they are arranged in a triangular shape in the very centre of the west wall. All three panels are interested in the idea of rule or political power. The first instalment (WC 3) depicts the birth of kingship in Israel. The pre-eminently large figure of the prophet Samuel who anoints the young David strongly emphasises the effective divine approval for the inauguration of the royal office for the Jews. At the top of the centre of the wall David is depicted enthroned, together with the representatives of the tribes and two prophetic figures. This panel illustrates the formal, factual fulfilment of Samuel’s previous act, and the change of the protagonists is clearly marked by the change of the dimensions of the figures: in this panel, the figure of David is apparently larger than those of the prophets involved. Finally, the artist closes this small, triangular cycle with the so-called Esther and Ahasuerus (or Purim Triumph) panel (WC 2). This mural represents the benevolent attitude of the Persian king towards the Jews, and at the same time the humiliation of their pagan foe. With this panel, the artist/designer has drawn near their actual present, and confesses the belief that under pagan rule the Jews might live according to their proper Lebensordnung. The position of David in this arrangement is clearly pre-eminent. It must be noted, however, that this is without obtaining a messianic interpretation. In fact, the kind of messianic virus that infected a couple of interpreters of the Dura murals seems to be groundless.26 It was shown that the messianic interpretation of the narrative panels of the Dura paintings depart mainly from the material of the reredos – which, in fact, offers little room for this kind of explanation.27 This part of the west wall has historical interest in effect. The lower panel visualises Genesis 48, the blessings of Ephraim and Manasseh; and Genesis 49, the blessings of the tribes. The upper scene represents the accomplishment of Jacob’s blessing: when the Land promised by God has been seized and divided among the tribes and David from 25

26

27

See, e.g., Isaiah Sonne, “The Paintings of the Dura Synagogue,” HUCA 20 (1947), 255–362; Wishnitzer, TheMessianicTheme; Goodenough, JewishSymbols; Goldstein, “The Central Composition,” 99–142. See especially Wishnitzer, TheMessianic Theme; Goldstein, “The Central Composition;” Weitzman and Kessler, TheFrescoesoftheDuraSynagogue. See, e.g., the critique of Flesher, “Rereading the Reredos,” 359–366.

170

GÉZA G. XERAVITS

the tribe of Judah has dominion over them. This theme is broadened by the relationship of the upper panel with WC 3 and WC 2, also in a historical or political level. From the perspective of David: his divinely ordered rule compared with several pagan authorities’ benevolent attitude towards Jews consists of a message of consolation and encouragement in turbulent times. REFERENCES DU MESNIL DU BUISSON, Robert.LespeinturesdelaSynagoguedeDoura-Europos, 245-256aprèsJ-C. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1939. ELSNER, Jaś. “Cultural Resistance and the Visual Image: The Case of Dura Europos.” ClassicalPhilology 96 (2001): 269–304. FLESHER, Paul V.M. “Rereading the Reredos: David, Orpheus, and Messianism in the Dura Europos Synagogue.” Pages 346-366 in AncientSynagogues.Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Edited by Dan Urman and Paul V.M. Flesher. SPB 47. Leiden: Brill, 1995. GOLDSTEIN, Jonathan A. “The Central Composition of the West Wall of the Synagogue of Dura-Europos.” JANES 16/17 (1984/85): 118–131. GOODENOUGH, Erwin R. JewishSymbolsintheGreco-RomanPeriod.Volumes9– 11: Symbolism in the Dura Synagogue. Bollingen Series 37. New York: Pantheon, 1964. GUTMANN, Joseph, ed. TheDura-EuroposSynagogue:ARe-evaluation(1932– 1972). Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973. HACHLILI, Rachel. AncientJewishArtandArchaeologyintheDiaspora. HdO I.35. Leiden: Brill, 1998. HOPKINS, Clark. TheDiscoveryofDuraEuropos. New Haven: Yale University Press 1979. KRAELING, Carl H. The Synagogue. The Excavations at Dura-Europos Final Report VIII.1. New Haven: Yale University Press 1956. KRAELING, Emil G. “The Meaning of the Ezekiel Panel in the Synagogue at Dura.” BASOR 78 (1940): 12–18. MURRAY, S. Charles. “The Christian Orpheus.” CA 26 (1977): 19–27. SONNE, Isaiah. “The Paintings of the Dura Synagogue.” HUCA 20 (1947): 255–362. WEITZMAN, Kurt, and Herbert L. KESSLER. TheFrescoesoftheDuraSynagogue andChristianArt. DOS 28. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990. WISCHNITZER, Rachel. “The Conception of Resurrection in the Ezekiel Panel of the Dura Synagogue.” JBL 60 (1941): 43-55. —. The Messianic Theme in the Paintings of the Dura Synagogue. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1948. XERAVITS, Géza. “The Message of the West Wall of the Dura Synagogue.” ZDMG 167 (2017): 111–125. —. “The Reception of the Figure of David in Late Antique Synagogue Art.” Pages 71-90 in FigureswhoShapeScriptures,ScripturesthatShapeFigures: EssaysinHonourofBenjaminG.WrightIII. Edited by Géza Xeravits and Greg Schmidt Goering. DCLS 40. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018.

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 1. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, earlyJewishandearlyChristianTraditions, Kampen, 1990 2. P.W. Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An Introductory Survey of a MillenniumofJewishFuneraryEpigraphy(300BCB-700CE), Kampen, 1991 3. E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings8,14-61, Kampen, 1993 4. R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Weltüberwindung: Theologische Positionen im Danielbuch, Kampen, 1994 5. J.N. Bremmer, SacredHistoryandSacredTextsinearlyJudaism.ASymposiumin HonourofA.S.vanderWoude, Kampen, 1992 6. K. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a MantologicalWisdomAnthology, Kampen, 1994 7. B. Aland, NewTestamentTextualCriticism,ExegesisandChurchHistory:ADiscussionofMethods, Kampen, 1994 8. P.W. Van der Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, Kampen, Second Enlarged Edition, 1998 9. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen, 1994 10. J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen, 1994 11. Tj. Baarda, EssaysontheDiatessaron, Kampen, 1994 12. Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline SpeechesoftheActaApostolorum, Kampen, 1995 13. D.V. Edelman, TheTriumphofElohim,FromYahwismstoJudaisms, Kampen, 1995 14. J.E. Revell, TheDesignationoftheIndividual.ExpressiveUsageinBiblicalNarrative, Kampen, 1996 15. M. Menken, OldTestamentQuotationsintheFourthGospel, Kampen, 1996 16. V. Koperski, The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. The High Christology of Philippians3:7-11, Kampen, 1996 17. M.C. De Boer, JohanninePerspectivesontheDeathofJesus, Kampen, 1996 18. R.D. Anderson, AncientRhetoricalTheoryandPaul, Revised edition, Leuven, 1998 19. L.C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, Perspectives on Multi-dimensional Exegesis, Kampen, 1996 20. L.V. Rutgers, TheHiddenHeritageofDiasporaJudaism, Leuven, 1998 21. K. van der Toorn (ed.), TheImageandtheBook, Leuven, 1998 22. L.V. Rutgers, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, Leuven, 1998 23. E.R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiah’sServantPoemsAccordingtotheSeptuagint.AnExegetical andTheologicalStudy, Leuven, 1999 24. R.D. Anderson Jr., GlossaryofGreekRhetoricalTerms, Leuven, 2000 25. T. Stordalen, EchoesofEden, Leuven, 2000 26. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, JeremiahinPropheticTradition, Leuven, 2000 27. J.F.M. Smit, About the Idol Offerings. Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’sDiscourseinFirstCorinthians8:1-11:1, Leuven, 2000 28. T.J. Horner, ListeningtoTrypho.JustinMartyr’sDialogueReconsidered, Leuven, 2001 29. D.G. Powers, Salvation through Participation. An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’CorporateUnitywithChristinEarlyChristianSoteriology, Leuven, 2001 30. J.S. Kloppenborg, P. Hoffmann, J.M. Robinson, M.C. Moreland (eds.), TheSayings GospelQinGreekandEnglishwithParallelsfromtheGospelsofMarkandThomas, Leuven, 2001 31. M.K. Birge, TheLanguageofBelonging.ARhetoricalAnalysisofKinshipLanguage inFirstCorinthians, Leuven, 2004

32. P.W. van der Horst, JaphethintheTentsofShem.StudiesonJewishHellenisminAntiquity, Leuven, 2002 33. P.W. van der Horst, M.J.J. Menken, J.F.M. Smit, G. van Oyen (eds.), Persuasionand DissuasioninEarlyChristianity,AncientJudaism,andHellenism, Leuven, 2003 34. L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, PaultheMissionary, Leuven, 2003 35. L.M. Teugels, Bibleandmidrash.TheStoryof‘TheWooingofRebekah’ (Gen. 24), Leuven, 2004 36. H.W. Shin, TextualCriticismandtheSynopticProbleminHistoricalJesusResearch. TheSearchforValidCriteria, Leuven, 2004 37. A. Volgers, C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-and- AnswerLiteratureinContext, Leuven, 2004 38. L.E. Galloway, FreedomintheGospel.Paul’sExemplumin1Cor9inConversation withtheDiscoursesofEpictetusandPhilo, Leuven, 2004 39. C. Houtman, K. Spronk, EinHelddesGlaubens?RezeptionsgeschichtlicheStudien zudenSimson-Erzählungen, Leuven, 2004 40. H. Kahana, Esther. Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, Leuven, 2005 41. V.A. Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith. An Authorial, Structural, and Theological InvestigationoftheCosmicChristologyinCol1:15-20, Leuven, 2005 42. B.J. Koet, DreamsandScriptureinLuke-Acts.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2006 43. P.C Beentjes. “HappytheOneWhoMeditatesonWisdom”(SIR.14,20).Collected EssaysontheBookofBenSira, Leuven, 2006 44. R. Roukema, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, K. Spronk, J.W. Wesselius (eds.), TheInterpretationofExodus.StudiesinHonourofCornelisHoutman, Leuven, 2006 45. G. van Oyen, T. Shepherd (eds.), TheTrialandDeathofJesus.EssaysonthePassion NarrativeinMark, Leuven, 2006 46. B. Thettayil, InSpiritandTruth.AnExegeticalStudyofJohn4:19-26andaTheological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Leuven, 2007 47. T.A.W. van der Louw, TransformationsintheSeptuagint.TowardsanInteractionof SeptuagintStudiesandTranslationStudies, Leuven, 2007 48. W. Hilbrands, Heilige oder Hure? Die Rezeptionsgeschichte von Juda und Tamar (Genesis38)vonderAntikebiszurReformationszeit, Leuven, 2007 49. J. Joosten, P.J. Tomson (eds.), VocesBiblicae.SeptuagintGreekanditsSignificance fortheNewTestament, Leuven, 2007 50. A. Aejmelaeus, OntheTrailoftheSeptuagintTranslators.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2007 51. S. Janse, “You are My Son”. The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism andtheEarlyChurch, Leuven, 2009 52. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, L.L. Schulte (eds.), ProphecyaftertheProphets?TheContributionoftheDeadSeaScrollstotheUnderstandingofBiblicalandExtra-Biblical Prophecy, Leuven, 2009 53. C.M. Tuckett (ed.), FeastsandFestivals, Leuven, 2009 54. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), AnthropologyintheNewTestamentanditsAncient Context, Leuven, 2010 55. A. van der Kooij, M. van der Meer (eds.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, Leuven, 2010 56. J. Smith, TranslatedHallelujehs.ALinguisticandExegeticalCommentaryonSelect SeptuagintPsalms, Leuven, 2011 57. N. Dávid, A. Lange (eds.), QumranandtheBible.StudyingtheJewishandChristian ScripturesinLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls, Leuven, 2010 58. J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus,theEschatologicalTemple.AnExegeticalStudyofJn2,13-22in theLightofthePre70C.E.EschatologicalTempleHopesandtheSynopticTemple Action, Leuven, 2011

59. H. Wenzel, ReadingZechariahwithZechariah1:1–6astheIntroductiontotheEntire Book, Leuven, 2011 60. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), ImageryintheBookyofRevelation, Leuven, 2011 61. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, J.S. Adcock (eds.), TheQumranLegalTextsbetweenthe HebrewBibleandItsInterpretation, Leuven, 2011 62. B. Lang, Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie, Leuven, 2011 63. H.-J. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom. The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1-4 Rooted in Scripture, Leuven, 2011 64. K.-J. Lee, TheAuthorityandAuthorizationofTorahinthePersionPeriod, Leuven, 2011 65. K.M. Rochester, PropheticMinistryinJeremiahandEzekiel, Leuven, 2012 66. T. Law, A. Salvesen (eds.), GreekScriptureandtheRabbis, Leuven, 2012 67. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), WhatisBible?, Leuven, 2012 68. J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law,Prophets,andWisdom.OntheProvenanceofTranslatorsandtheirBooksintheSeptuagintVersion, Leuven, 2012 69. P.N. De Andrado, The Akedah Servant Complex. The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis22andIsaiah53inAncientJewishandEarlyChristianWritings, Leuven, 2013 70. F. Shaw, TheEarliestNon-MysticalJewishUseofΙαω, Leuven, 2014 71. E. Blachman, The Transformation of Tamar (Genesis 38) in the History of Jewish Interpretation, Leuven, 2013 72. K. De Troyer, T. Law, M. Liljeström (eds.), IntheFootstepsofSherlockHolmes.Studies intheBiblicalTextinHonourofAnneliAejmelaeus, Leuven, 2014 73. T. Do, Re-thinkingtheDeathofJesus.AnExegeticalandTheologicalStudyofHilasmos andAgapein1John2:1-2and4:7-10, Leuven, 2014 74. T. Miller, ThreeVersionsofEsther.TheirRelationshiptoAnti-SemiticandFeminist CritiqueoftheStory, Leuven, 2014 75. E.B. Tracy, SeeMe!HearMe!Divine/HumanRelationalDialogueinGenesis, Leuven, 2014 76. J.D. Findlay, FromProphettoPriest.TheCharacterizationofAaroninthePentateuch, Leuven, forthcoming 77. M.J.J. Menken, StudiesinJohn’sGospelandEpistles.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2015 78. L.L. Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe.ThePersianRoyalPropagandaModelintheNehemiahMemoir, Leuven, 2016 79. S.E. Humble, ADivineRoundTrip.TheLiteraryandChristologicalFunctionofthe Descent/AscentLeitmotifintheGospelofJohn, Leuven, 2016 80. R.D. Miller, BetweenIsraeliteReligionandOldTestamentTheology.EssaysonArchaeology,History,andHermeneutics, Leuven, 2016 81. L. Dequeker, StudiaHierosolymitana, Leuven, 2016 82. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah. The Exegesis of Jeremiah1and10inLightofTextandReceptionHistory, Leuven, 2016 83. J.S. Adcock, “OhGodofBattles!StealMySoldiers’Hearts!”AStudyoftheHebrew andGreekTextFormsofJeremiah10:1-18, Leuven, 2017 84. R. Müller, J. Pakkala (eds.), InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandtheAncient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of AuthoritativeTexts?, Leuven, 2017 85. R. Burnet, D. Luciani, G. van Oyen (eds.), TheEpistletotheHebrews.Writingatthe Borders, Leuven, 2016 86. M.K. Korada, TheRationaleforAniconismintheOldTestament.AStudyofSelect Texts, Leuven, 2017 87. P.C. Beentjes, “WithAllYourSoulFeartheLord”(Sir.7:27).CollectedEssayson theBookofBenSiraII, Leuven, 2017 88. B.J. Koet, A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.), Multiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, Leuven, 2017

89. T. Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-HerodianPeriods, Leuven, 2018 90. D.C. Smith, The Role of Mothers in he Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons, Leuven, 2018 91. V.P. Chiraparamban, TheManifestationofGod’sMercifulJustice.ATheocentricReading ofRomans3-21-26, Leuven, 2018 92. P. Paul, BeyondtheBreach.AnExegeticalStudyofJohn4:1-42asaTextofJewishSamaritanReconciliation, forthcoming

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706