Saving the Integrity of the Deuteronomistic Historian: The Case of 2 Sam vii 1-17
Without doubt, 2 Sam vii 1-17 is one of the central theological passages of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), since it details the "Davidic covenant." 1 However, as many scholars have observed, the oracle contains a contradiction. F. M. Cross, for instance, wrote
the text is disturbed by a fundamental dichotomy. Verses 1-7 contain
an
oracle in prose opposing the building of a temple. This theme is very
striking
since it stands in opposition not only to the pro-temple oracle in
verses 11b-
16 but to the royal ideology of the Deuteronomistic historian of the
seventh
century who was responsible for the present form of 2 Samuel 7. 2
Further, Dietrich and Naumann recently wrote, "V.5b-7 [darstellt ] eine profunde und prinzipielle Tempelkritik." 3 Efforts to deny the existence of a contradiction prove unsatisfactory. D. J. McCarthy, for instance, argued that verse 7 merely contrasts the time of the Judges with that of David. 4 Verse 6, however, is clearly a direct rebuttal to David's wish to build a temple. 5 Nowhere do verses 6 and 7 state, or even imply, that YHWH's will has changed because of David's rise, coronation, or faithfulness. Hence, objections to the notion that the oracle is not contradictory fail.
Partly because of this literary tension, scholars have vigorously attempted to isolate various redactional levels in the oracle and reconstruct its tradition history, with the result that the number of views on the redaction history of 2 Samuel vii is virtually equivalent to the number of commentators. 6 L. Rost, who set the stage for the discussion, found three redactional layers: 1) 1-7, 11b, 16; 2) 8-11a, 12, 13b-17; 3) 13a (which he labelled Deuteronomistic). 7 Several others, including T. Veijola, J. Coppens, P. K. McCarter, T. N. D. Mettinger, M. A. O'Brien, and M. Tsevat, to list a few, have divided the text in similar ways. 8 Almost always, those who isolate redactional levels take vss. 5-7 as early, pre-Deuteronomistic material, while they understand vs.13, which 2states that David's "seed" will build a temple, as Deuteronomistic. 9 These commentators also usually take 11b, which reads, "Moreover, YHWH declares to you that YHWH will make you a house," as part of an earlier oracle that plays on the potential ambiguity in the word bayit: David wants to build YHWH a house (literal sense), but YHWH will build David a house (figuratively of a dynasty).
Considering the amount of Deuteronomistic language in vss. 8-16 and the number of literary connections between 2 Samuel vii and the DtrH as a whole, 10 I believe 2 Sam vii1-17 is essentially a product of the Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr). 11 The evidence for any pre-existing oracular material or written sources for this pericope is weak, being based largely on the assumption that Dtr was primarily an editor and not an author. This study proposes to solve the contradiction between vs. 5-7 and vs. 13 by detecting two interpolations in the text of 2 Samuel vii1-17. Excision of these interpolations alleviates the aforementioned tension and yields an oracle fully consonant with the Deuteronomistic ideology found in other theologically-motivated prophetic and editorial passages in the DtrH (1 Kgs xi11-13; 31-39; xvi 1-4; 2 Kgs xvii 21-23, etc.), thus "saving the integrity" of the Deuteronomistic Historian. This study deviates from others by arguing that these two interpolations were additions to a Dtr oracle, not part of any earlier or incompletely integrated oracular material.
The first interpolation is vss. 6-7. 12 While none of the following lines of evidence is conclusive in and of itself, taken collectively they are convincing.
1) These two verses contradict earlier narrative passages within the DtrH that claim that YHWH in fact lived in a bayit at Shiloh (1 Sam i 7; LXX 1 Reigns iii 3). It is hard to believe that Dtr would have allowed this contradiction had vss. 6-7 been part of his source material or had it been known to him. More likely, a later glossator with strong theological tendencies added these verses to override some previous ideology.
2) There is no specifically Deuteronomistic language in vss. 6 and 7. Although this fact could simply mean that these verses are pre-Deuteronomistic, there is very little evidence for any pre-existing oracle, and it is more likely that they are post- or non-Deuteronomistic. There is only one Dtr-type expression in these verses: "I brought up the Israelites from Egypt." With the hiphil of '~l|h, however, this clause appears more often in passages that some have argued belong to Dtr2. Among these are 2 Kgs xvii 7, 36 and Jer xvi 14; xxiii 7. 13 Only on one occasion does this clause with this verb appear in texts generally attributed to "Dtr1" (1 Kgs xii 28).
3) The transition from vs. 5 to vs. 6 is awkward and unjustifiably presupposes a negative answer to YHWH's question in vs. 5. This is true whether the initial kî in verse 6 is taken as causal/explanatory or as asseverative. 14 Grammatically, however, this question can take either a "yes" or a "no" answer. 15 Only knowledge of the remainder of the oracle would lead a reader to understand this question as demanding a "no" answer. 16
4) The theology differs from that of Dtr. Lacking in vss 6-7 is the Deuteronomistic Name theology, according to which YHWH's name dwells in the temple not YHWH himself (1 Kgs viii 27). In vs. 7, in contrast, YHWH is believed to dwell in a sanctuary. Also, according to vs. 7, YHWH called an entire tribe to tend Israel, 17 a notion unique 2to the Hebrew Bible. Since there is no reason why any ancient reader would read MT as anything but shiv"ê, "tribes," 18 these theological incongruities suggest that these verses were added later. Again, it is almost impossible to believe that Dtr would have allowed them to stand as they are had he known them. It seems that someone has adopted the themes of 1 Kgs viii 16 but either misunderstood or misapplied them here. Finally, the theology of 1 Kgs v 17-19 differs from that of 2 Sam vii 6-7, which are not mentioned in 1 Kgs v 17-19 (Eng. v 3-5). To Dtr, the author of 2 Sam vii 1-5, 8ff., there was no permanent prohibition against building the temple. Only David was "prohibited." According to 1 Kgs v 17-19, however, David was too busy waging war to build a temple, a notion consonant with the narrative from 2 Samuel viii on. 19 In any case, the intent of 6-7 is to disallow permanently the building of a temple. If one connects verse 5 directly with 8 it makes good sense and alleviates the tension with 13 and the remainder of the DtrH, which sees the temple as divinely authorized. 20
The second interpolation is vs. 11b. The change in person, from first person speech with YHWH as speaker to third person speech with (presumably) Nathan as speaker is so incongruous with the genre and flow of the passage that it must be seen as a gloss. 21 As with vss 6 and 7, it is simply too much to believe that Dtr would have allowed this verse to stand in its present form if it had been known to him. In addition, against the earlier usage of bayit in vs. 5, vs. 11b employs a figurative sense. I suggest that this verse was probably added to conform the verbiage of vss. 1-17 with that of David's prayer in 18-29, in which vs. 27 specifically mentions that YHWH will build David a house. 22 This glossator perhaps felt vss. 8-16 did not emphasize David's "house" (figurative sense) enough to warrant his prayer, which focusses on it. Verse 11 now is grammatically parallel to vs. 25: a word to David (8-11a), then a word to his "house" (11b).
Furthermore, in contrast to the usual conclusion, vss. 5 and 13, not vs. 5 and 11b, should be understood together since they are clearly grammatically parallel. 23 The emphatic hã' opening the verse parallels the emphatic 'âtt|h in 5. It is not David but his seed who will build the temple. If one considers the secondary nature of 6-7 and 11b, verse 13 does not really break the flow of the oracle, nor is it any longer contradicted by any permanent ban on a temple for YHWH. Finally, without 11b a literal use of bayit is perfectly proper, indeed expected.
How then does one explain the lack of a mention in David's prayer of the promise of vs. 13? I suggest that David's prayer does not mention the promise of vs. 13 because the prayer is largely framed as a response to verse 16, which is placed last, against its more logical (and probably original) juxtaposition with 11ab. David probably does not mention the temple, 1) because it does not apply to him; and 2) YHWH has succeeded in deflecting his interest and attention away from the temple to his "house." 24
As Dtr wrote the oracle, each element of vss 12-14 foreshadowed a part of Solomon's life in chronological order. Solomon is first "raised up" (12ab; 2 Samuel xii; 1 Kings i); then his kingdom is established by YHWH (12b; 1 Kings ii); then he builds the temple (13; 1 Kings v-viii); the throne of his kingdom is established (literally in 1 Kgs x 18-20; otherwise by his great political, economic and advisory powers (1 Kgs ix-x); in addition he is promised a dynasty (1 Kgs xi 36); he is punished with the rod of 2men (14; human adversaries, 1 Kgs xi 14-39). The oracle to Jeroboam I (1 Kgs xi 31-39) guarantees that, despite the loss of the "kingdom," the Davidide retains the nîr (a fief). 25 Thus the promise of vs. 16 continues.
Recognition of the secondary nature of vss. 6-7 and 11b revolutionizes the interpretation of 2 Sam vii 1-17. The tension that has exercised so many scholars vanishes. The theological notions contained in the oracle become consistent with the theology of the DtrH and provide the foundation for Dtr's conception of the Davidic monarchy and his confidence in its perpetuity. 2 Sam vii 1-17 looks backward at the rise of David and Jerusalem, but more importantly, it looks forward toward Dtr's "Golden Age" of Israelite history, the age of Solomon, a period of unrivalled peace and prosperity, the greatest glory of the Davidide, and the time of the construction of the great Jerusalem temple of YHWH. It also looks further, to the demise of that great age and the collapse of the unity of the peoples of Israel. Nevertheless, it ends confident in YHWH's renewed mercy for David's seed and the continuance of benevolent Davidide rule.
Notes
1 I do not think any commentator today would doubt that 2 Samuel vii 1-17 is strongly connected with DtrH, as shown by D. J. McCarthy ("II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History", JBL 84 [1965], pp. 131-38). However, interpretations of the redaction history of DtrH vary (for a thorough review and evaluation of the theories, see G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations Under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies [Atlanta, 1993), 1:17-53). Commentators' theories 2)of the redaction history of DtrH usually affect how they understand the redaction history of 2 Samuel vii. J. Van Seters, for instance, sees 2 Sam vii 1-17 as entirely the work of Dtr (In Search of History [New Haven, Conn., 1983], pp. 271-77). Not surprisingly, he holds to the view of M. Noth that DtrH is a single, exilic work (The Deuteronomistic History [Sheffield, 1981]). T. Veijola, on the other hand, argues that DtrH is the product of three separate redactions identified as DtrG, DtrP, and DtrN (Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung [Helsinki, 1975]. He finds these layers in 2 Samuel vii, as does W. Roth ("The Deuteronomic Rest Theology: A Redaction-Critical Study", BR 21 [1976], p. 9). F. M. Cross holds to a two-stage redaction by Deuteronomists and views 2 Samuel vii as essentially the work of Dtr1 (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge, Mass., 1972], p. 241).
Overall, on the basis of certain themes and language in DtrH it seems best to agree the broad conclusions of the "Cross School" and accept that there existed a pre-exilic version of DtrH of indeterminate boundaries, supplemented by later Deuteronomistic redactors (Knoppers; I. W. Provan, Hezekiah and the Books of Kings [Berlin, 1988], p. 110; S. L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History [Leiden, 1991], p. 151-52; M. A. Sweeney, "The Critique of Solomon in the Josianic Edition of the Deuteronomistic History", JBL 114 [1995], p. 607-22).
3) Die Samuelbücher (Darmstadt, 1995), p. 145.22
4) See Cross' arguments (n. 1, pp. 241-46).
6) For summaries of the history of scholarship, see Van Seters (n. 1, pp. 271-72; R. P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel [Sheffield, 1984], pp. 71-72; P. K. McCarter, II Samuel [New York, 1984], pp. 210-20; Dietrich and Naumann [n. 3, pp. 153-56].
7) Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield, 1982), pp. 35-56.
8) Veijola has three: 1) 1a, 2-5, 7, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17; 2) 11b, 13, 16; 3) 1b, 6, 11a. Mettinger also: 1) 1a, 2, 4-5, 7, 12-14a, 16; 2) 3, 8-9, 14b-15; 3) 1b, 6, 10-11a (as summarized in J. Coppens, "La Prophetie de Nathan sa Portée Dynastique", in W. C. Delsman, J. T. Nelis, J. R. T. M. Peters, W. H. Ph. Römer, and A. S. Van der Woude [eds.], Von Kanaan bis Kerala [Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982], p. 94). M. A. O'Brien, following Campbell, divides the text thusly: 1) 1a, 2, 4b-5, 11b, 16; 2) 3-4a, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17 (the layer of their "Prophetic Record"; 3) 1b, 11a, 13 (Deuteronomistic)(The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment [Göttingen, 1991], pp. 132-34; A. F. Campbell, Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1 Samuel 1--2 Kings 10) [Washington, DC, 1986]). Coppens sees essentially two layers: an old stratum consisting of 1a, 2-3, 4-5a, 11b, 12-17; and a later, large interpolation in 5b-11a. Finally, M. Tsevat also separates the oracle into two layers, an early oracle plus two major glosses: 13a and 13b-16 ("Studies in the Book of Samuel", HUCA 34 [1963], pp. 71-82). He believes that the earliest oracle was conditional. Most notably, these scholars see only slight Deuteronomistic input. See Dietrich and Naumann for a fuller listing of various reconstructions (n. 1, pp. 153-56).
10) Second Samuel vii is intricately connected to the DtrH. Leitmotifs are: 1) the all-important Davidic covenant with its assurances of eternal dynasty for David (1 Sam xxv 28; 1 Kgs viii; 1 Kgs xv 3-5; etc.); 2) the Ark theme; 3) the Rest theme (2 Sam vii 1, 11); 4) the Zion theme is implicitly found here with the assurance of the fabrication of a temple (M. D. Guinan, "Davidic Covenant," The Anchor Bible Dictionary [ed. D. N. Freedman {New York, 1992}], 2:70); 5) the n~g0d theme (1 Sam xxv 30); 6) the Jerusalem temple theme, which dominates 1 and 2 Kings. Second Samuel 7 connects to the immediately preceding material with its focus on the Ark, now installed in a tent in Jerusalem. David, on the other hand, lives in his cedar palace built earlier (v 11). Verse 9 finds its fu>
11) Following Cross, Van Seters, and a few others. Van Seters takes it entirely as the work of Dtr (n. 1, p. 273). Cross also emphasizes the Deuteronomistic reworking, although he allows for two earlier oracles, at least one of which was poetic (n. 1, pp. 243, 255). Carlson likewise emphasizes the Deuteronomistic element (David the Chosen King [Stockholm, 1964], pp. 108ff.).
12) Campbell also sees 6-7aa as an interpolation, however, of northern origin, rather than exilic/post-exilic (n. 8, p. 75).
13) Dtr2 (McKenzie, n. 1, p. 152).
14) G. Hentschel discusses its possible uses (Gott, König, und Tempel: Beobachtungen zu 2 Sam 7, 1-17 [Leipzig, 1992], p. 33).
15) R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto, 1988) #541. Hentschel regards vs. 5 as a rhetorical question (2 Samuel [Würzberg, 1994], p. 28).
16) Early exegetes and translators took it in this way, as seen in LXX's ou su and the use of 'al in 1 Chron vxii 4.
17) S. R. Driver, Notes on the Text of the Books of Samuel (Oxford, 1913), p. 274.
18) D. Murray, "Once Again 't 'd by yÑr'l in II Samuel 7:7", RB 94 (1987), pp. 389-96. Much debate has ensued over the meaning and interpretation of this word. The problem is exacerbated by the LXX which reads phul‘n "tribe," and 1 Chron xvii 6 which reads shÇp". Driver opted for shÇp" as in Chronicles, arguing that there was an "accidental confusion of letters" (n. 17, p. 275, italics his). Murray suggests that mêkÇl has dropped out and contends for a reading "anyone from any of the tribes." C. T. Begg, in a rebuttal to Murray, opts for MT and interprets it as a reference to tribes being chosen as leaders via the judges ("The Reading in 2 Sam 7,7: Some Remarks", RB 95 [1988], pp. 551-58). Many recent commentators and translations (for instance, NRSV) follow Reid's suggestion to repoint and translate "staff-bearers" (A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel [Dallas, 1989], p. 110; P. V. Reid, "by in 2 Samuel 7:7", CBQ 37 [1975], pp. 17-20). The best alternative seems to be Reid, although the mention of "staff bearers" is strange when one reads the previous biblical narrative. Perhaps this refers to traditions not extant in the Hebrew Bible. After all, the theological notion embedded in these verses is also foreign to its large context.
19) The Chronicler had another explanation for David's failure to build a temple: he was a man of war and had shed blood (1 Chron xxii 8; xxviii 3).
20) Verse 8a is most likely a gloss connected with 6-7 and serves to separate the two parts of the oracle, although it has links to Deuteronomistic phraseology ("my servant David") and connects with 2 Sam vi 2, 18 in its use of "Sebaoth."
21) Rost rejected H. Tiktin's (Kritische Untersuchungen zu den Büchern Samuelis [Göttingen, 1922], p. 48) assertion that 11b be regarded as a gloss, since Rost believed that a later glossator would not have been so inept as to include a third person saying in a first person oracle (n. 7, p. 43). His view has prevailed (see, for instance, Campbell [n. 8, p. 74]). However, the contrary could be just as true: would Dtr have been so inept as to leave a third person saying in a first person oracle? The legal literature is rife with these third person glosses, so this argument will not hold.
22) However, 27 uses b~n|h while 11b uses '~s|h. Although the LXX reflects the former, as does 1 Chron xvii 10, MT is the Lectio difficilior (since '~s|h does not otherwise appear in this oracle) and should be retained.
23) Verse 13 has generated many interpretive problems, especially for those who accept the originality of 11b and find the return to a literal sense of bayit puzzling. Since Wellhausen, scholarship has generally taken it as a very late addition to the oracle (See M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford, 1972], p. 194). McCarter goes so far as to say it "renders the oracle incoherent" (n. 6, p. 206). Others see it as intrusive as well (E. von Nordheim, "König und Tempel", VT 27 [1977], p. 436; H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel [New York, 1903], p. 300; J. Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel [London, 1971], p. 230). Another problem is its absence in David's prayer (H. W. Hertzberg, I and II Samuel [Philadelphia, 1964], p. 287).
24) A purpose which, according to L. Eslinger, is YHWH's ultimate aim in the oracle (House of God or House of David: the Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 [Sheffield, 1994], p. 41).
25) P. D. Hanson, "The Song of Heshbon and David's nîr", HTR 61 (1968), pp. 297-320; E. Ben-Zvi, "Once the Lamp has been Kindled . . ." ABR 39 (1991), pp. 19-30.