Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning

542

Michael Avioz

Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning By Michael Avioz (Bar-Ilan-University)

Nathan’s prophecy promising David a dynasty is found in two main biblical texts: II Sam 7 and I Chr 171. Although the two texts share basic structure and content, a closer look reveals that there are many differences between them. Our objective in this article is to examine again these differences, to classify them, and to focus on their meaning2. According to our view, there is no exclusive way of explaining these differences. Some of the differences come from textual corruptions3; others from a different Vorlage4; and still others are the result of differences in style and language5. However, one should also note the possibility that some of the differences derive from other reasons. In other

1

2

3

4 5

Other biblical texts, such as Ps 89, Ps 132 etc. cite or hint at this prophecy, but our main focus will be on II Sam 7 and I Chr 17. G. Gakuru discusses some of the other biblical passages, which hint at or cite Nathan’s vision. See his An Inner-biblical Exegetical Study of the Davidic Covenant and the Dynastic Oracle, 2000. We will not focus here on differences between David’s prayer in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17. On these differences, see S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL, 1993, 339–341; P.C. Beentjes, Transformation of Space and Time: Nathan’s Oracle and David’s Prayer in I Chronicles 17, Sanctity of Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity, eds. A. Houtman et al., 1998, 43. For example, the difference between vtnil and vtlbl (II Sam 7,10//I Chr 17,9) indicates, in Japhet’s view, the presence of textual corruption in Chronicles, and that the correct reading is vtlkl . The exchange of hni for hlk appears in Chronicles on numerous occasions. See S. Japhet, Interchanges of Verbal Roots in Parallel Texts in Chronicles, Hebrew Studies 28 (1987) 29. See Kalimi, Historical Writing., 7, n. 20, and additional material cited there. Japhet, Interchange of Verbal Roots, deals with the question of changes due to differences in style and language. A list of expressions unique to the language of the Chronicler can be found in the Introduction of Curtis/Madsen to Chronicles. One may add also the differences in context: in Chronicles, Nathan’s oracle is not a part from the so-called »Succession Narrative« as it is in II Samuel. For the differences in context see M. Avioz, The Negotiations between David and Nathan Concerning the Building of the Temple (II Samuel 7) and Its Echoes in Biblical Historiography, PhD, 2003 (Heb.). It was written under the supervision of Professor Moshe Garsiel of the Bible Department at Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

ZAW 116. Bd., S. 542–554 © Walter de Gruyter 2004

Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning

543

words, the Chronicler revised, omitted, shortened, and expanded his sources in accordance with his agenda, which was different than those of the sources he used. If this is the case, one should be able to show that the textual differences in particular passages in the text of Chronicles accord with the agenda of the Chronicler that we see in other parts of Chronicles. 1. Differences in Style and Language (1) There are many differences in which we cyn see a simplification of complex grammatical or syntactic forms: lXr>y li ymi li / lXr>y li ; htyrkXv / tyrkXv ; dvd lX ydbi lX / ydbi dyvd lX . On the other hand, there are certain cases where the opposite occurs: hytiunv : instead of vytiunv, and so too the form vhytdmihv which has no parallels in Samuel. (2) Using plene forms: ytvmyqhv instead of ytmyqhv ; yty>iv rather than yty>iv ; ,ylvdgh instead of ,yldgh ; ytvrych instead of ytrch . (3) Differences in spelling: yub> / yup> . Some view the version of Chronicles as the base text in this case. But since LXX and the Samuel scroll from Qumran reflect yub> , in accordance with the MT in II Sam 7, it seems that the text in Samuel is to be preferred. The word ub> also indicates a leader, as in Gen 49,19; Num 24,17; Isa 9,36. (4) Text corruption: (a) The change vXlm / vXlmy stems probably from haplography because of two letters yod following one another7; (b) II Sam 7,6 has here ]k>mbv lhXb „lhtm hyhXv (»I have been moving about in a tent for my dwelling),« while in I Chr 17,5: ]k>mmv lhX lX lhXm hyhXv (»I have gone from tent to tent and from dwelling«). One should emend the text in Chronicles and add ]k>m lX (»to dwelling«)8; (c) Regarding the difference „l dyghv / „l dgXv (»It has been told unto you«/»I told you«; II Sam 7,11; I Chr 17,10), many scholars prefer to correct the text in Samuel from „l dyghv to „l dgXv in accordance with the text in Chronicles, LXX of II Sam 7, the Peshita, and the Vulgate. An additional reason cited for preferring the Chronicles text is the change from first to third person, as well as the repetition of the tetragrammaton in the Samuel text. The text in Chronicles is preferred because there 6

7 8

For different suggestions for explaining this difference, see A. Slavesen, »ub> «, Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, ed. T. Muraoka, 1988, 122–136. See W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher, HAT, 1955, 131. This omission can be explained as a homoioteleuton. See Rudolph, Chronikbücher, 130. This completion already appears in the Aramaic Targum, in the commentary of R. David Kimhi, and in Pseudo-Rashi. Kalimi, Historical Writing, 74–75 also tries to find a literary explanation for the difference, but textual explanation seems preferable.

544

Michael Avioz

is no change in person and because the verb hyhv appears in place of the tetragrammaton. Others correct the text in Chronicles to read „ldgXv as in the LXX to Chronicles.9 (5) Differences deriving from the regularity of different words in the language of different periods: tvklm / hklmm (compare II Sam 5,12 in contrast to I Chr 14,2; I Reg 9,5 in contrast to II Chr 7,18); yknX / ynX (I Chr 21,10 in contrast to II Sam 24,12; I Chr 21,17 in contrast to II Sam 24,17; I Chr 34,27 in contrast to II Reg 22,19; lXr>y / lXr>y ynb 10. To this we may also add the unique spelling of the Name »David«: In Chronicles the full version of the name »David« appears (dyvd ). This form is typical for the late biblical books11. (6) The omission of the phrase Xn hXr and the use of the demonstrative hnh accords with the Chronicler’s tendency to add this word in many places, even when it does not appear in his sources. We find it in I Chr 11,1 (in place of vnnh in II Sam 5,1); II Chr 2,3 (in place of rmX ynnh in I Reg 5,19); II Chr 2,7 (it is omitted in I Reg 5,20). The Chronicler followed the biblical texts in which the imperative hXr is equivalent to hnh such as Gen 41,41; Jer 1,9–10; Rut 1,15.12 (7) Differences in the names of God (adonai versus the tetragrammaton). Japhet explains these differences as resulting from transmission processes13 Her view is that these cannot possibly be explained as deriving from differences in agenda. However, it appears to us that there is a tendency to compare the divine appearance to Nathan to the divine appearance to Solomon, and one of the ways to do this is by means of the

9

10

11 12

13

I.L. Seeligmann, Studies in Biblical Literature, 1992, 327–328 (Heb.). McCarter argues that the text in Samuel is preferable and explains the difference in Chronicles as a corruption. See P.K. McCarter, II Samuel, AB 9, 1984, 193–194. See further S.J. Pisano, 2 Samuel 5–8 and the Deuteronomist: Textual Criticism or Literary Criticism?, Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research, eds. A. De Pury et al., JSOTSS 306, 2000, 274–276. See R. Weiss, Mi-shût Bamikra, 1976, 83 (Heb.); A. Hurvitz, The History of Biblical Hebrew in the Second Temple Age, 19972, 79–82 (Heb.); Kalimi, Historical Writing, 240–241. Another linguistic phenomenon we can add here is the use of the word yrxX instead of rxX , as in I Chr 17,7. Compare also I Chr 10,2 to I Sam 31,2. This word also appears in Chronicles passages which have no parallel: II Chr 2,16; 13,19; 25,14; 26,2; 32,1. See D.N. Friedman, The Spelling of the Name David, HAR 7 (1983) 89–104. For a comprehensive study of the word hnh in the Hebrew Bible, see S. Kogut, On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of ›hineh‹ in Biblical Hebrew, Studies in the Bible, Scripta Hierosolymitana 31, 1986, 133–154. S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought, 1989, 21, 24–25, 35, 40. Bendavid adds several other terms to this category of changes. See A. Bendavid, Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew, 1967, I, 68 (Heb.).

Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning

545

word elohim14. The epithet »Lord God« appears in I Chr 28,20; 29,1; II Chr 1,9; 6,41–42, which all share the promise of a dynasty to David15. (8) In the text of Chronicles, »David« is used instead of the epithet „lmh (»the king«). Kalimi explains that the Chronicler used the PN David in order to give the reader a sense of dialogue between two human beings, rather than between a king and prophet16. However, this explanation is difficult to accept since the name David, without the epithet »the king« appears also in II Sam 8 and in II Sam 10 as well as in other passages in Chronicles. Japhet’s explanation is preferable: she claims that the difference derives from the Chronicler’s preference for brevity, as well as from the different texts of Samuel and Chronicles.17 (9) „ytbX ,i tkll / „ytbX tX tkk>v (»You shall lie with your fathers«/»You shall go to your fathers«). The burial formula »He lay with his fathers« indicates a peaceful death18, and it appears in indicating the death of Solomon (II Chr 9,31) and nine of the kings of Judah: Rehoboam (II Chr 12,16); Abijah (13,23); Asa (16,13); Jehoshaphat (21,1); Amaziah (26,2) Uzziah (26,23); Jotham (27,9); Ahaz (28,27); Hezekiah (32,33); Manasseh (33,20). No such formula is recorded in Chronicles regarding David. The formula vytbX ,i bk>yv (»He lay with his fathers«) is mentioned in regard to David in I Chr 1,21; 2,10; 11,21. But these passages are omitted in Chronicles, because they are inconsistent with the ideal description of king Solomon: the struggle for the throne between Solomon and Adonijah, and the revolt of Haddad against Solomon. Why did the Chronicler change this formula regarding David? Perhaps this was because the Chronicler sought to soften the language in 14

15

16 17 18

The claim that such variations are meaningful is discussed in Kalimi, Historical Writing, 328. M.H. Segal, El, Elohim, and YHWH in the Bible, JQR 46 (1955) 100, argues that these differences come from the sanctity attached to the name ^El in the Second Temple period. On the differences in this matter between the Samuel scroll from Qumran and the MT, see D.W. Parry, 4QSama and the Tetragrammaton, Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. D.W. Parry & S.D. Ricks, 1996, 106–125. See G. Steins, Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlußphänomen. Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik, BBB 93, 1995, 485–486. Kalimi, Historical Writing, 176–177. Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 376. On the meaning of this formula and its use in Chronicles and Kings, see I.W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings: A Contribution to the Debate About the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History, BZAW 172, 1988, 134–138; B. Halpern/ D.S. Vanderhooft, The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th Centuries BCE, HUCA 62 (1992) 183–190; G.N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, Vol. 1: The Reign of Solomon and the Rise of Jeroboam, 1993, 42–45; D. Glatt-Gilad, Regnal Formulae as a Historiographic Device in the Book of Chronicles, RB 108 (2001) 203–205.

546

Michael Avioz

regard to David, a tendency which may be expressed in the change „ynbm hyhy r>X (»among your sons«) rather than „yimm Xjy r>X (»shall come forth from your loins«) in the same verse19. II. Differences Deriving from Differences in Agenda 1. Omission of the Exodus Narrative I Chr 17,5

II Sam 7: 6

,vyh ]m tybb ytb>y Xl yk ytlih ,vyml tybb ytb>y Xl yk hzh ,vyh di lXr>y tX yty lih r>X div ,yrjmm lXr>y ynb tX hzh ,vyh The Exodus is not mentioned explicitly in Chronicles, although it is mentioned in the parallel in Samuel20. Japhet’s view21 is that the omission of the Exodus derives from the general tendency of the Chronicler to diminish the importance of the Exodus as a constitutive event in Israelite history. She claims that The bond between the people and the land, like the bond between the people and its god, is described as something continuous and abiding. This bond cannot be associated with a particular moment in history, for it has existed since the beginning of time22.

During the post-exilic era, the return from exile was seen as a »Second Exodus« (as in Jer 23,7–8, which is thought to be post-exilic) and therefore less value was assigned to the Exodus. However, Japhet here either ignores or diminishes the importance of certain texts in which the Exodus is explicitly mentioned (I Chr 17,21; 19

20

21

22

See Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 333. Talmon explains both instances differently. From the change „ytbX ,i tkll / „ytbX tX tkk>v he learns that »Chron[icles] here represents an ancient scribal tradition exactly synonymous with that which became embedded in Samuel«. From the change bk> / „lh he concludes that the Chronicler had another Hebrew Vorlage. See S. Talmon, Synonymous Readings in the Textual Traditions of the Old Testament, Studies in the Bible, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8, 1961, 356, 358. On „lh (»to go« with the meaning of death, see Gen 15,2; I Reg 2,2; Ps 39,14; Job 10,21. For the view that this is a euphemism, see W.A.L. Elmslie, The Books of Chronicles, Cambridge Bible, 1916, 114. Japhet, Interchange, 27 mentions this phrase as one of the phrases unique to the Chronicler. The short formulation is also found in the LXX to Chronicles. The Samuel scroll from Qumran seems also to read ,yrjmm although only the final letter of this word is present. The Aramaic Targum to Chronicles also adds here the word ,yrjmm but it does not seem not to reflect the early version of the Chronicler, in wich the lectio brevior appears. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, 379–386. An example of this is in the difference between I Reg 8,21 and II Chr 6,11. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, 386.

Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning

547

II Chr 5,10; 6,5; 7,22). Similarly, if the Chronicler had wished to speak about a continuous occupation of the land, he should have omitted texts in which the tradition of the wandering in the desert is mentioned (I Chr 16,39; 21,29; II Chr 1,3–5). Therefore, it does not seem to us that the omission of the Exodus in I Chr 17 and in other passages in Chronicles derives from a desire to minimize the importance of the Exodus as a central historical event. The Exodus is not assigned the same importance that it has in the Pentateuch and in the Deuteronomistic History, but this seems to be the result of focus and selection principles. The Chronicler wishes to focus attention on David and Solomon’s kingdom and the importance of the Jerusalem temple23. This can be demonstrated by two examples: (1) Failure to mention the Exodus in II Chr 6,41–42, as in the parallel source in I Reg 8,51–52 allows the Chronicler to focus on the repose of God as a result of the building of the temple and on divine kindness to David. (2) In II Chr 3,1, the building of the temple is mentioned first. In the parallel in I Reg 6,1, the length of time from the Exodus to the building of the temple is recorded as 480 years. Instead of this, the Chronicler records the placement of the site on which the temple was built: »Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the lord had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite«. The omission of Egypt in these two examples does not diminish its importance in Israel’s history, but rather clarifies the order of priorities of the Chronicler, with the temple and the dynasty coming first and foremost24. 2. The Building of the Temple II Sam 7,5

I Chr 17,4

tyb yl hnbt htXh

tybh yl hnbt htX Xl In place of the question hnbt htXh (»Would you build?«) in Samuel, the Chronicles passage reads hnbt htX Xl (»You shall not build«), and there is the addition of the definite article on the word tybh (»the house«). Some see the emphasis in Samuel not on htX (»You«) but rather on ytb>l (»for me to dwell in«)25. In contrast to this, the struc23

24

25

Williamson, Israel in Chronicles, 64–65; Amit, Exodus, 139 and 151, n. 7; Steins, Die Chronik, 479–488. Amit, Exodus, 152, n. 13, explains the failure to mention the Exodus in I Chr 17 as textual corruption. And in fact, this verse necessarily refers to the Exodus; there is no other way to explain it. Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 329; S. Gelander, David and His God, Religious Ideas as Reflected in Biblical Historiography and Literature, 1991, 78–80; I. Gabriel, Friede

548

Michael Avioz

ture of the sentence in Chronicles suggests that God does not object to the idea of dwelling in the Temple, but objects to the idea of David himself building the Temple26. Some see this difference as a stylistic matter, in which the interrogative particle h_ is more characteristic of the Style of the Pentateuch and the First Temple-period historiographical books27. In our view, the stylistic explanation is insufficient. It seems that the Chronicler is dependent on I Reg 8,19, in quoting God’s address to David. This seems to be the case from the negation »You shall not« in I Reg 8 and from the definite article on the word »house« (tybh ) which appears both in I Reg 8 and in Chronicles. The Chronicler chose to cite from the book of Kings, in order to clarify the total rejection we find in God’s words. There is no in-principle opposition to the building of the Temple in this verse, just as there is no opposition to this in II Sam 7.28 The Chronicler describes how God opposes David’s building the Temple and in this way the Chronicler prepares the way for II Chr 22,7–10, in which it is explained why David did not build the Temple29. 3. The Identity of the Heir In both II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17, the name of David’s heir is not given. But still there are differences between the text in II Sam 7 and the text in I Chr 17 in this regard. II Sam 7 (v. 16) ,lvi di „tklmmv „tyb ]mXnv

I Chr 17

ytvklmbv ytybb vhytdmihv (v. 14) ,lvih di

,y>nX ub>b vytxkhv vtvihb r>X (v. 14) ,dX ynb yignbv

26 27

28 29

über Israel. Eine Untersuchung zur Friedenstheologie in Chronik I 10–II 36, ÖBS 10, 1990, 60. Gabriel, Friede über Israel, 60; Beentjes, 1 Chronicles 17,35. For a list of the places in which h appears as an interrogative pronoun for a rhetorical question, whose answer is »no,« see BDB, 209–210, as well as Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 329. This was discussed in full in the first chapter of my dissertation. See Avioz, II Samuel 7. On I Chr 22 see recently D.F. Murray, Under Yahwe’s Veto: David as Shedder of Blood in Chronicles, Biblica 82 (2001) 457–476. An additional difference appears in connection with the building of the Temple. In II Sam 7,13: ym>l tyb hnby Xvh (»He shall build a house for my name«); while in I Chr 17,12 tyb yl hnby Xvh (»He shall build a house for me«). See Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, 69–70; Pisano, 2 Samuel 5–8, 278–279 and the bibliography cited there.

Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning

549

The central question regarding these differences is: Does the Chronicler also see the prophecy as referring to Solomon30? If so, why did he change the text as it is found in II Sam 7? There seem to be a number of points, which seem to contain innerbiblical exegesis on II Sam 7, and which seem designed to focus the narrative on Solomon: (1) The description of David’s rest from his enemies in II Sam 7,1 is omitted by the Chronicler, since the Chronicler sees the building of the Temple as possible only in times of peace and rest, which occurred only in Solomon’s time (Compare I Reg 5,17–19). For this reason, there is also a change in v. 10: instead of ytxynhv (»I will give you rest«) in II Sam 7,11, I Chronicles 17,10 has »I will subdue all your enemies.« In accordance with this, Solomon is described in Chronicles as hxvnm >yX (»a man of peace«; I Chr 22,9), and the Temple as a hxvnm tyb (»house of rest«; I Chr 28,2). David could occupy himself with preparations for the building of the Temple, but could not build it, because God had not yet given him repose from all of his enemies31. Indeed, immediately after I Chr 17, we find, as in Samuel, a description of David’s wars. After Solomon’s time the motif of bybcm vl xynh (»God gave him rest all around«) is found regarding Asa and Jehoshaphet as well32. This parallel between them and Solomon creates an essential connection between the righteousness of the Davidic king and the repose from enemies all around33.

30

31

32

33

In II Sam 7, the interpretation that the passage refers to Solomon is only gained from reading all of the narratives in the Succession Narrative (though it is hinted at II Sam 12,24–25). See R.L. Braun, Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22,28 and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles, JBL 95 (1976) 585; ID, I Chronicles, WBC 14, 1986, 198–199; S. Abramski, King Solomon in the Eyes of the Chronicler, Eretz Israel 16 (1982) 4 (Heb.); Gabriel, Friede über Israel, 59 (and regarding this root in the Solomon narratives, ibid, 74–108). Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 328; L.C. Allen, The First and Second Books of Chronicles, The New Interpreter’s Bible, 1999, 406–407. II Chr 14,6; 15,15; 20,30. See B. Halpern, Sacred History: Chronicles’ Thematic Structure – Indications of an Earlier Source, The Creation of Sacred History, ed. R.E. Friedman, 1981, 40–41; Gabriel, Friede über Israel, 112–126, 180–191. If we accept the suggested emendation in II Chr 32,22 (,lhnyv > ,hl xnyv ), then Hezekiah king of Judah should also be included. On this emendation, which is reflected in LXX, see CurtisMadsen, I and II Chronicles, 490; Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 991. Seeligmann, Studies, 114–115, n. 30, argues that the expression »God gave him rest« becomes routine in Chronicles, and is only used as a description of conquest and settlement. See also Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, 392; B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles, JSOT.S 211, 1996, 198. For another explanation see Kalimi, Historical Writing, 42.

550

Michael Avioz

(2) The sentence vytxkhv vtvihb r>X (»when he commits iniquity, I will chastise him«) is explained by Williamson as not fitting with the positive attitude of the Chronicler to Solomon’s kingdom, which will fulfill the promise to David34. In Chronicles, this sentence is directed at Solomon, not at the whole Davidic dynasty as in Samuel. Since Solomon is described as an ideal king, the sentence is not relevant to him. Williamson sees in the omission of this sentence proof of the Chronicler’s attitude towards the renewal of the Davidic kingship. Since Solomon was loyal to God, the continued existence of the Davidic covenant is assured. We agree with Williamson regarding the Chroniclers’ aim in general, but not with his claim that these positions are evident in I Chr 17. Theoretically speaking, if this sentence was omitted from Chronicles, it would still be directed at the Davidic dynasty in general, and specifically at Solomon. Since Solomon is included among the addressees of this sentence, the Chronicler could not leave it as in Samuel. But there is nothing that necessitates Williamson’s conclusion regarding the renewal of the Davidic dynasty, since the Chronicler did not think that the matter was entirely dependent on Solomon. Kelly may be more accurate in emphasizing that Solomon’s obedience to God’s laws and commandments is more important than the Temple’s centrality, and the continued existence of the Davidic dynasty35. Japhet is of the view that the words »when he commits iniquity« do not hint at the Chronicler’s tendency to idealize Solomon, but they were originally part of God’s promise to David regarding the continued existence of his kingdom36. There are parallels to this in the ancient Near East: a man with whom a covenant is established will be punished if he transgresses, but the covenant will be still valid. The omission of these words in Chronicles denies that hint at Solomon’s sins, but there is another factor at play: these words and the promise rvcy Xl ydcxv (»My kindness will not depart«), which appears in II Sam 7,15, express the absolute and unconditional nature of the divine promise. In contrast to the passage in II Sam 7, in which a clear answer is given to the question of the promise’s future if the king sins (the dynasty will nevertheless continue to exist), the omission of II Sam 7,14 in the Chronicles text creates the impression that the matter is not so clear-cut. The next stage appears in I Chr 28,5–6 and in other passages in Chronicles. These make it clear 34

35 36

See H.G.M. Williamson, 1 und 2 Chronicles, NCBC, 1982, 135–136. Cf. PseudoRashi, and similarly Allen, Chronicles, 407. Japhet explains this omission differently, as we will discuss below. Kelly, Retribution, 161. The Ideology of Chronicles, 463–464. Cf. R.J. Coggins, The First and Second Books of Chronicles, CBC, 1976, 94–95; W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History, JSOT.S 160, 1993, 73.

Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning

551

that the Chronicler saw the promise to David and his descendants as conditional: violating the terms of the covenant by the Davidic kings will result in annulment of the covenant. The destruction can be explained by the fact that the kings did not fulfill the conditions of the covenant.37 Japhet’s view is based upon two assumptions: (1) The status of the Davidic covenant in Chronicles is secondary, and the reestablishment of the Davidic dynasty was irrelevant38; and (2) that the aim of the Chronicler is to tell his readers that only a change in their religious behavior will lead to redemption. However, there are difficulties with this approach. First, If everything is dependent only on the people’s behavior, than why does the subject of David and Solomon’s kingship take up so much space in I–II Chronicles39?; Secondly, Japhet does not explain the connection between the concept of divine reward and punishment in Chronicles and the Davidic covenant, which is a central topic in the book40; And thirdly, Japhet is of the view that the Chronicler sees every king as able to cause the violation and renunciation of the Davidic covenant. But if this were so, how can this approach explain why the end of the kingdom took place in the days of Zedekiah and not already in the days of Ahaz, who was considered an evil king41? (3) The change in objects also shows a greater emphasis on Solomon the Temple-builder. »And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure« in II Sam 7,16 is replaced in I Chr 17,14 with »I will confirm him«; and »in my house« (I Chr 17,14) replaces »your house (II Sam 7,16).« While in Samuel, God’s words are formulated in second person, 37 38

39 40

41

Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, 465, 467. It seems that Japhet has drawn back from this assumption in Japhet, Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles, The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Traditions in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, eds. B. Becking/M.C.A. Korpel, OTS 42, 1999, 33–44 (esp. 44). See Kelly, Retribution, 147. Therefore, we prefer Williamson’s approach. He holds that the idea of divine reward and punishment is designed to convince the people that there is hope for an improvement of their situation in the future, both as a reward for their good deeds and in virtue of the hope for renewal of the Davidic monarchy. See H.G.M. Williamson, Eschatology in Chronicles, TynB 28 (1977), 115. We do not agree with Japhet’s general approach, according to which the Davidic covenant has no central place in Chronicles. See Steins, Die Chronik, 469–476. It is worth noting that Weinfeld’s view concerning the nature of the Davidic covenant was recently challenged by G.N. Knoppers, Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?, JAOS 116 (1996) 670–697. We have dealt with the nature of the Davidic covenant in the first chapter of our dissertation. See Kelly, Retribution, 160.

552

Michael Avioz

directed at David (your house, your kingdom, your throne), in Chronicles, the formulation is in first person with a third person object suffix (I will confirm him; his throne), and this refers to David’s heir, Solomon, who »will build a house for My name« (v. 12)42. It seems that the changes reflect the idea that the prophecy promising a dynasty to David rests on three points: the building of the temple by David’s son; the kingship of god; and the throne of David’s house. The word »My house« refers to the Temple, which will be built by David’s heir; »My kingdom« refers to God’s kingdom, and the third element is the establishment of the Davidic monarchy, which is hinted at in the word »forever«43. These three elements also appear in I Chr 28,5–7: »He has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. He said to me, ›It is Solomon your son who shall build my house … I will establish his kingdom‹.«44 The placement of Solomon in the Temple is a sign of his being desired by God as Temple builder. The purpose of this change is to focus the prophetic promise to David on Solomon45. This change might also seek to emphasize divine legitimation of the building 42

43

44

45

Mosis, Untersuchung, 91; Williamson, The Dynastic Oracle, 310; Id, Eschatology, 135; Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 335; K.E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Tradition, Its History and Significance for Messianism, 1995, 88–89. See Abramski, King Solomon, 5; G.N. Knoppers, David’s Relation to Moses: The Context, Content, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises, King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Day, JSOT.S 270, 1998, 102–103. Compare this to II Chr 7,11 and to II Chr 1,18 and 2,11: »a house for God (or for the Name of God) and a house for his kingship.« See Williamson, I and II Chronicles, 136; ID, The Temple in Chronicles, 17; Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty, 89. Japhet argues that the meaning of the word »house« in this verse is the house of David, and it parallels »your kingdom« (The Ideology of Chronicles, 398, n. 11). See also Riley, King and Cultus, 74–75. The Chronicler intended to introduce a change in the word hklmm and changed it to ytvklm , and in the process also affected the meaning of the »house« without considering the matter carefully. Japhet rejects the idea that the words »I will confirm him in My house« identify the king’s role in God’s kingdom with his role in God’s house, i.e. the Temple. She regards this interpretation as difficult because the Chronicler minimizes the role of the king in the Temple, and differentiates between the Temple and Solomon’s palace (II Chr 1,18; 2,11). However, it seems that in view of the context of the verse and in view of the emphasis that the Chronicler places on David and Solomon’s role in establishing the temple, there is no difficulty in understanding the word »in my house« as referring to the building of the Temple. »My house« is used in reference to the Temple in I Chr 28,6 »he shall build My house;« and in Isa 56,7; Ez 23,39; 44,7; Hag 1,9; Zech 1,16. The meaning of the word dymihl is »to appoint as responsible over,« as in BDB, 764; HALOT, 841; H. Ringren, dmi , TDOT, XI, 178–187. According to this, it seems that Solomon was appointed in I Chr 17 as responsible for the building of the Temple. See Kelly, Retribution, 157–158; Allen, Chronicles, 407. See further in W.M. Schniedewind, King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the Duality of Qumran Messianism, JJS 94 (1994), 71–78.

Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, and Meaning

553

of the Temple. While in Samuel, the efforts of David are emphasized, here the relation between the Temple and God is emphasized. It is considered the temple of God (ytyb , »My house«) and therefore only He can command who shall build it (vhytdmihv ). The Chronicler creates analogies between the Davidic kingdom and the kingdom of God in the following verses: I Chr 17,14; 28,5; 29,23; II Chr 13,8; 9,846. There are different ways of clarifying the relationship between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the House of David47. Japhet sees this as indicating that while kingship is entrusted to the House of David, it actually belongs to God. The kings of the House of David are God’s emissaries on earth, and if they fulfill his commandments, the period of Israelite splendor will return48. However, it seems to us that a more careful analysis of these texts uncovers a different meaning. All of these texts deal with the kingship of the House of David. It is worth noting the contexts in which these statements about the relationship between divine kingship and Davidic kingship appear. They appear at the moment of making the covenant between God and David (I Chr 17), at the point of passing the monarchy from David to Solomon (I Chr 28–29), during Solomon’s kingdom (II Chr 9,8), and as an explanation for the split in the kingdom and giving part of the kingdom to the House of David during the time of Abijah (II Chr 13). These statements were of cardinal importance to the Chronicler49. These statements are the means for expressing the eternal nature of the Davidic monarchy: Just as the kingdom of God is eternal, so too will the Davidic monarchy be. They also provide divine legitimation for the Davidic monarchy (as in II Chr 13,5). (4) It is possible that the change »he will build« (I Chr 17,10) instead of »he will make« (II Sam 7,11) intended to clarify the rejection of David’s plan to build the Temple and the decision to have Solomon build it instead. The root hnb (»to build«) relates to David, as one who did not build a house; to God, who will build a house (a dynastic one) for David; and to Solomon – as one who will build the House of God50.

46

47 48

49 50

See Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, 400; S. Zalewski, Solomon’s Ascension to the Throne, 1981, 333 (Heb.). M.J. Selman, The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament, TynB 40 (1989), 161–183 includes also I Chr 16,31; 29,10–13; II Chr 20,6. Riley, King and Cultus, 176. See Japhet, The Ideology of Chronicles, 395–411. J.M. Myers, I Chronicles, AncB 12, 1965, lxxxi–lxxxii, and Gakuru, An Inner-biblical Exegetical Study, 226, hold that the emphasis on the kingship of God diminishes the importance of the Davidic monarchy. Williamson, I and II Chronicles, 250; Selman, The Kingdom of God, 167. See Beentjes, 1 Chronicles 17,35. Throntveit argues that in the Chronicles text, a closer relationship is created between a house for God and a house for David. See M.A.

554

Michael Avioz

Scholars are divided on the question whether the differences between II Sam 7 and I Chr 17 regarding David’s heir reflect eschatological, messianic or royalist expectations.51 Without getting into details, we shall suffice in saying that we are of the view that the preservation of Nathan’s prophecy in Chronicles proves the great importance that the Chronicler attached to the continuity of the promise to David of an eternal monarchy. But the changes we see in I Chr 17 do no provide enough evidence to constitute a basis for this claim. This claim seems to be proved from other scriptures in I–II Chronicles.52 The purpose of this article is to examine the textual and contextual differences between Nathan’s prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17. In contrast to scholars who try to explain the textual differences between the sources exclusively in accordance with a particular theory, we have tried to point out several possible causes for such differences. The central line of these differences is to focus the prophecy on Solomon, the Temple builder. The intent of these changes is not related to eschatology or »messianism«. Focussing the prophecy on Solomon helps portray the transition from the kingdom of David to that of Solomon as a smooth transition.53 Der Aufsatz untersucht die textlichen und kontextuellen Differenzen der Nathanweissagung in II Sam 7 und I Chr 17. Im Gegensatz zu Forschern, die die textlichen Differenzen ausschließlich in Übereinstimmung mit einer bestimmten Theorie zu erklären versuchen, bemüht sich der Aufsatz verschiedene mögliche Gründe für die Differenzen aufzuzeigen. Die Generallinie dieser Differenzen ist es, die Weissagung auf Salomo, den Tempelbauer, zuzuspitzen. Die Absicht dieser Veränderungen hat keinen Bezug zu Eschatologie oder »Messianismus«. Die Zuspitzung der Weissagung auf Salomo hilft dazu, den Übergang von Davids Königtum auf Salomo als einen fließenden Übergang darzustellen. L’A. analyse les différences textuelles et contextuelles entre II Sam 7 et I Chr 17. Sans chercher à fonder l’explication des différences textuelles sur une base théorique donnée, il tente de dégager diverses explications possibles de ces différences. L’idée principale serait celle qui se concentre sur la promesse faite à Salomon, le constructeur du Temple. L’intention d’une telle modification n’a aucun rapport avec l’eschatologie ou le »messianisme«; elle vise à présenter la transition du règne de David à celui de Salomon de manière harmonieuse.

51

52

53

Throntveit, The Idealization of Solomon as the Glorification of God in the Chronicler’s Royal Speeches and Royal Prayers, The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, ed. L.K. Handy, 1997, 417. For a similar explanation, see Kalimi, Historical Writings, 188. See discussion and bibliography in Kelly, Retribution, chapter 6; ID, Messianic Elements in the Chronicler’s Work, The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, eds. P.E. Satterthwaite et al., 1995, 249–264. For a detailed analysis see Avioz, II Samuel 7 (n. 5), chap. 3. For the omission of Saul’s name see Avioz, II Samuel 7,157–159. The writer wishes to express his gratitude to Professor G.N. Knoppers of the Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Department at Pennsylvania State University for his useful comments on a first draft of this paper.