The Nathan Narrative in 2 Samuel 7:1–17: A Traditio-historical Study

By William W. Watty

As with archaeology, traditio-historical research of Old Testament literature proceeds backwards from the received text, travelling through the earlier stages of compositions to the probable origins. The canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible has therefore been taken as the point of departure in the traditio-historical study of the Nathan Narrative in 2 Samuel 7:1-17. By progressing backwards from the Canonical Prophets, the stages in the composition of the Joshua-Kings corpus, and of 2 Samuel 7:1-17, have been recovered through the application of redactio-critical and literary critical methods. A pre-history of the Narrative has also been retraced in the traditions that were preserved in the oral stages, in the typical forms and settings of transmission.

Notwithstanding the valuable insights that have accrued from Martin Noth's hypothesis of a "Deuteronomistic History," both the hypothesis itself and analyses deriving from it have failed to account satisfactorily for the place of 2 Samuel 7:1-17 in the Joshua-Kings composition. That failure is due to a methodological flaw of taking a non-canonical configuration--namely the Deuteronomy-Kings corpus--as the point of departure and the interpretative key. This study tries to remedy that flaw.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Jul 8, 2016
• ISBN: 9781498200011

William W. Watty

William Watty is a retired Methodist minister. He was Lecturer in Old Testament Language and Literature (1972-85), president at the United Theological College of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica (1976-85), and president of the Connexional Conference of the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas (1992-97). He is a member of the Silk Advisory Committee of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. Watty is the author of From Shore to Shore--Soundings in Caribbean Theology (1981).

Book preview

9781498200004.kindle.jpg

The Nathan Narrative in 2 Samuel 7:1–17

The Nathan Narrative in 2 Samuel 7:1–17

A Traditio-historical Study

William W. Watty

30754.png

The Nathan Narrative in 2 Samuel 7:1–17

A Traditio-historical Study

Copyright © 2016 William W. Watty. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Wipf & Stock

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-4982-0000-4

hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-8879-8

ebook isbn: 978-1-4982-0001-1

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

To the memory of my Tutors at Union Theological Seminary in Jamaica

(1955–1959)

The Reverend Herbert J. Cooke M.A. (Birmingham)

(Old Testament Language and Literature)

and

The Reverend David W.F. Jelleyman M.A. (Cantab)

(New Testament Language and Literature)

With a profound sense of gratitude and respect

Table of Contents

PREFACE

Abbreviations

Chapter I: THE DAVID TRADITION IN THE HEBREW CANON—AN OVERVIEW

Chapter II: THE TRADITIO-HISTORICAL APPROACH

Chapter III: THE ARGUMENT—2 SAMUEL 7:1–17 IN DEUTERONOMY–KINGS

Chapter IV: 2 SAMUEL 7:1–17 IN PRE–CANONICAL REDACTION

Chapter V: 2 SAMUEL 7:1–17—A LITERARY CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Chapter VI: 2 SAMUEL 7:1–17 IN ORAL TRANSMISSION—A FORM CRITICAL STUDY

Chapter VII: 2 SAMUEL VII: 1–17—THE EVOLUTION OF THE NARRATIVE—A SUMMARY

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

PREFACE

This Study is a revision of the thesis of the same title that was submitted to the Department of Theology in the Faculty of Humanities and Education of the University of the West Indies and, following examination, was approved for the award of the PhD degree. The subject was chosen out of a concern that, whereas the traditio-historical approach seemed to be essential for an in-depth study of Old Testament literature, and especially so the Law and the Prophets, the concept seemed to be lacking in clarity; evidence of its contribution to the commentaries seemed scant; subject areas chosen for special study seemed to be wide-ranging and diffuse; and conclusions reached seemed somewhat obscure. I have therefore tried to be clear and consistent in the definition, to focus on a manageable area, and to be uninhibited in the application of the method with a view to reaching a clearer, deeper, and fuller understanding of 2 Samuel 7:1–17 and its place in the Joshua–Kings corpus.

Aspects of the study that might be of special interest are arguments for the importance of the canonical text for traditio-historical research and vice versa, and a case for one exilic redaction of the Joshua–Kings corpus prior to canonization of the prophets which accounted for the fall of the Davidic monarchy and two pre-exilic redactions—the first being a Hezekianic redaction of the book of the law.

A case has been presented for the pre-monarchy origins of the ark of the covenant based on its regular movements as a mobile sanctuary before the inauguration of the monarchy, which continued during the reign of Saul (1 Sam 4–7:1; 14:18; 2 Sam 6–7), as well as the importance of the ark narrative as the hieros logos of a Davidic sanctuary and, much later, of the Temple as the Josianic central sanctuary. A question has also been raised concerning the interpretation of 2 Samuel 7:5 regarding whether or not it was originally a revelation that prevented David from initiating a temple building project on which he had set his heart. Alternative approaches to the concept of tradition and to the purpose and method of transmitting traditions have been suggested, and a reconsideration of the meaning of covenant and the practice of covenant-making, including the contrast between a covenant of grant and a conditional covenant, has been urged.

The discovery of a document in the temple by the priest Hilkiah (2 Kgs 22:8) has been accepted as credible, except that the book of the law, begun in Northern Israel in the ninth century and completed in Jerusalem in the reigns of Hezekiah and Manasseh was, even from its inception, more than just a law code or the legal nucleus of Deuteronomy, but also included a history of the people of Israel from the Moses’ leave-taking to the fall of northern kingdom and the deposition and deportation of Hoshea its king in 721 BCE.

I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor, the Most Reverend Doctor John Holder, Archbishop of Barbados, for his wise and patient guidance during the preparation; and to the examiners, the Reverend Doctor Ian Rock, Principal of Codrington College, Barbados, and Doctor Stanley Walters, for their careful and diligent examination and their suggestions for improvement. Acknowledgements notwithstanding, I take responsibility for errors and other deficiencies that might appear in the chapters that follow.

William Watty

January 2015

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible

BC Before Christ

BCE Before the Common Era

Bib Biblica

BZAW Beheifte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBA Catholic Biblical Association

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series

CahT Cahiers Théologique

DLT Darton, Longman and Todd

ELT Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

ExpTim Expository Times

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IDB The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IDBSup The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

LXX The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament

MT The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible

RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuse

SBL Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBT Studies in Biblical Theology

SCM Student Christian Movement

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series

SPCK Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge

TS Theological Studies

VT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Supplement to Vetus Testamentum

WZ Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift

ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CHAPTER I

THE DAVID TRADITION IN THE HEBREW CANON—AN OVERVIEW

Notwithstanding the wide variety and high quality of the studies, and the sustained level of the output, the questions have not all been answered nor has a consensus been reached on important issues pertaining to the Nathan narrative in 2 Samuel 7:1–17. Questions still unresolved include its authorship and composition, date and purpose, originality and genre, connections with and distinction within its literary setting, and its canonical status. Even so, its importance for the biblical tradition generally, and Samuel especially, has generally been recognized. Early hints of the narrative might be detected in Judges and 1 Samuel (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25; 1 Sam 2:2–10; 13:14; 15:28; 16:1–13a; 24:20; 25:28; 28:17), and echoes in 2 Samuel and Kings (2 Sam 23:1–7; 1 Kgs 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19), the Latter Prophets (Isa 9:2–7; 11:1–9; Jer 23:5; 30:9; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24; Amos 9:11; Mic 5:2) and the Writings (Pss 78:68–72; 89:3–4, 20–37; 132:1, 10, 17–18; 1 Chr 17:1–14).

It would be useful, by way of introduction, to overview the canonical profile, since the inclusion of the canonical text on the traditio-historical agenda seems both plausible and practical. The canonical text is but the culmination of a growing and developing tradition. Therefore, to focus exclusively on the final product without reviewing the preliminary stages is to miss whatever distinctive quality there might be in the traditional material, and to concentrate solely on the traditional material—its coalescence and growth in the pre-canonical stages—is to deprive the final product of its special significance. Either way, to detatch the text from its pre-history is to risk overlooking the intricacies and complexities of its composition and essential qualities of its content that might not be immediately apparent.

The first complete copy of the Bible did not mysteriously appear, nor was its final shaping, as Brevard Childs has suggested, the automatic outcome of transmission of an earlier received form of the tradition, unchanged from its original setting.¹ There was no initial composition of the documents that predetermined the final shaping of the of the Old Testament text nor, on the other hand, was it wholly the outcome of an official approval conferred upon documents, previously unrelated, that were selected, assembled and arranged in a recognizable order. Moreover, canonization, far from being a formal imprimatur, involved basically the same systematic process of transmission. While, therefore, the canonical text marks the end of the evolving traditions, its special status need neither be compromised by, nor compromise, its contribution to an exploration of its origins and the history of its evolution, since it is the integrity and elucidation of the text that is the primary objective, and there, as nowhere else, the essential data for research have been preserved. Such considerations should both encourage and enhance a traditio-historical study of Old Testament literature.

David and the Nathan Narrative in The Law (Genesis–Deuteronomy)

In the Law, otherwise designated the Pentateuch, David’s achievements, and especially the supremacy to which he raised Israel, were foreshadowed in covenant traditions of promises which God made to his ancestors regarding property in Canaan and innumerable descendants (Gen 12:1–3; 13:14–18; 15:1–18; 22:16–18; 26:24; 28:13–14; 35:11–12). While Ronald Clements has been able, by traditio-historical research, to retrace a Davidic covenant to a tradition of promises made to Abraham,² it is also evident that such traditions were reshaped in the course of their transmission. The nationalistic fervor that animated Noah’s blessing of Shem (Gen 9:25–27) and Isaac’s blessing of Jacob (Gen 27:1-29) reflected the Davidic and Israelite ascendancy over the Canaanite population in the one case, and domination of their Edomite neighbors in the other (cf. 2 Sam 8:13–14a; 1 Kgs 9:20–21; 11:15–16).

Although the Joseph narratives were originally intended to project Ephraim’s superior status (Gen 37–50; cf. 37:5–11; 42–45; cf. Deut 33:13–17), the Davidic tendenz might also be discerned in the insinuation of Judah’s seniority among his brethren (Gen 37:26; 44:14–31; cf. Matt 1:2). Also, the interruption of a Tamar episode (Gen 38:28–30) was, so Lansing Hicks has suggested, a staking of the ancestral claim of the tribe of Judah to which David belonged.³

Unlike the blessing of Moses, the blessing of Jacob showed a marked partiality that anticipated Judah’s ascendancy, from whom a messianic ruler would come and around whom the tribes would unite (Gen 49:8-10; cp. Deut 33:7). Additionally, the Balaam vision of the rising of a star out of Jacob and the submission of the neighboring states reflected the exploits and conquests of David early in the tenth century BCE (Num 24:7–9, 17; cf. 2 Sam 8; 10–12).⁴

While such linkages are no more than suggestive, a clearer affinity is evident in the coincidence of phraseology:

ועשתי לך שמ גדול (2 Sam 7:9; cf. Gen 12:2)

אשר יצא ממעיך (2 Sam 7:12; cf. Gen 15:4; 1 Kgs 8:19).

It is also noticeable that the latter references accentuate the importance of a biological heir for the fulfillment of promises which, being made against the recurring pattern of a barren spouse (Gen 11:30; 12:2; 18:9–15; 25:21; 30:1, 22; cf. 2 Sam 6:23), initiated a train of hazardous events through which the promises were brought to fruition (Gen 16; cf. 2 Sam 6:20–23; 11–12).

The Song of Moses at the Red Sea points to another aspect of the Nathan narrative, viz., the planting of Israel—YHWH’s chosen people—in a place prepared for their inheritance; his establishment of a sanctuary; and, following his discomfiture of their foes, the inauguration of his eternal reign (Ex 15:13–18; cf. 2 Sam 6–7). Such sentiments coincide with pronouncements appearing in the narrative regarding the status and security of the people of Israel under the aegis of the Davidic regime (2 Sam 7:6–7, 10–11a, 23–24). It seems, therefore, that the exodus-conquest traditions that informed the Nathan narrative, though rooted in pre-monarchy traditions, became an important component for royal ritual in Judah and informed the composition of Deuteronomy–Kings (cf. Pss 78:52–72; 105:36–44; 136:10–24; cf. Deut 6:20–23; 26:8–9; Josh 24:6–13; 2 Sam 7:10-11a).

Monarchical rule was legitimized and regulated in Deuteronomic law. It required that the ruler be designated by YHWH and endorsed by the people (Deut 17:14–15; cf.1 Sam. 10:1–25; 11:15; 13:14; 15:28; 16:1–13; 2 Sam 5:1–5; 7:12–14; 1 Kgs 1:39–40; 8:1–6; 11:29–35; 12:20). Although hereditary succession was not, in principle, prohibited (cf. Deut 17:20), dynastic rule as proposed in the Nathan narrative was not envisaged; rather, sovereignty was affirmed in conditional terms of steady adherence to the Mosaic law (Deut 17:18–20; cp. 2 Sam 7:12–16) which, significantly, featured in the investiture of Solomon, David’s immediate successor (1 Kgs 2:1–4; cf. 6:12; 8:25; 9:1–6).

In general, it might be noted that the composition of the Law was driven by three affirmations viz. that a people, at first few in number and enslaved, had become great and populous nation (Gen 12:1–5; Num 22: 1–4; Deut. 26:5), that once semi-nomadic and rootless, they had succeeded in gaining a secure foothold in Canaan (Gen 12:6–7; Deut 26:6–9; 2 Sam 7:10, 23–24) and that YHWH, their chosen God, had given them land in fulfillment of a promise he made to their ancestors (Exod 3:6–8; 19:5; 20:2–17; Deut 11:8–15; 28). They also show that the Law, albeit a self-contained canonical unit, gave Israel legal entitlement to the occupation of Canaan, and provided a basis for claims that were later made and institutions that were later established, such as the validity of prophetic witness (Num 11:29; 12:6–8; Deut 18:15–22); the appointment of a priesthood (Num 25:1–13; Deut 33:8–11); the establishment of a chosen sanctuary (Deut 12:10–11) and the legitimacy of a monarchy (Deut 17:15–20). On the other hand, differences between Genesis–Deuteronomy and Joshua–Kings are noticeable in such traditions as the miracle of the water-crossing (Josh 3:1–17; cf. Exod 14:14–28); the origin and meaning of the circumcision rite (Josh 5:5–9; cf. Gen 17:10–14; Exod 4:25–26); the inauguration and purpose of the paschal festival (Josh 5:11–12; cf. Exod 12:1–13); the locus of the Mosaic covenant (Josh 24:1–18; cf. Exod 19:4—20:17; Deut 5:2–3; 29:1); and the monarchy (Deut 17:15-20; cf. 2 Sam 7:8-29). Last but not least, the Law offered useful insights into the basis of Israel’s tribal structure, which would become a critical factor not only for land distribution and settlement, but political stability and fragmentation (Gen 49:3–28; Deut 33:5–23; cf. Josh 13–21; 2 Sam 5:1–5; 2 Sam 19:9–15; 20:1–2; 1 Kgs 11: 26–38; 12:1–17).

David and the Nathan Narrative in The Writings (Psalter–Chronicles)

The third category of the Hebrew canon, the Writings, otherwise designated Hagiographa, is bound at the one end by the Psalter and, at the other, by Chronicles. In both collections the figure of David is given a high profile. In the captions of the majority of the Psalms he is cited, if not as author, then certainly as the inspiration (Pss 2–41; 51–65; 68–72; 86; 101; 103–150). In conjunction with them are Psalms in which David is commemorated as progenitor of a royal lineage, his election is acclaimed and YHWH’s promises to him are recalled (Pss 78:70–72; 89:3–4, 20–35; 132:10–11, and 17). In other Psalms of later Jewish interpretation, significant events in David’s life were commemorated (Pss 3; 7; 18; 30; 34; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 59; 60; 63; 142) and two of the Psalms were quoted extensively in other literary contexts commemorating national milestones (Ps 18 in 2 Sam 22; Ps 105:1–15 in 1 Chr 16:23–33).⁵

With regard to the Nathan narrative, three psalms in particular seem to resonate. As in the narrative, so the concluding strophe of Psalm 78 recalls David’s earlier pastoral occupation that prepared him for leadership (Ps 78: 70–72; cf. 2 Sam 7:8). The Psalm also connected Israel’s settlement in the land with the blessing on the Davidic monarchy (Ps 78:65–72; cf. 2 Sam 7:8, 10–11a, 22–24).⁶ Affinities with Psalm 89:1–4, 19–37 are so evident as to have suggested dependence. Both compositions recall a covenant in which YHWH pledged unswerving commitment to the monarchy (Ps 89:30–33; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14), and define the relationship between YHWH and the Davidic ruler in paternal-filial terms (Ps 89:26–27; cf. 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). While direct dependence in either direction is difficult to establish, the affinities suggest a common rootedness in earlier traditions that informed the royal ideology.⁷ While the connections between Psalm 132 and the ark narrative are closer (1 Sam 4:1—7:1; 2 Sam 6),⁸ linkages with the Nathan narrative may be discerned in the recollection of David’s desire to build a sanctuary for YHWH (2 Sam 7:1–3; cf. Ps 132; 1–8), as well as the connection between YHWH’s election of Zion as his abode and the legitimization of David’s successors as rulers in Israel (2 Sam 6:1–17; cf. 7:5–7, 13a, 11–16; Ps 132:11–13, 17).

Whatever the dating of the Psalter as corpus, there can be little question that the majority of the Davidic psalms reflect a period when the throne of David was secure and occupied by legitimate successors. They also indicate that, far from being a de novo composition of a later period, the Nathan narrative (2 Sam 7:1–17) preserved traditions that reached back to the foundation of the Israelite monarchy in the eleventh century BCE.

The editors of the books of the Chronicles, also, were preoccupied with David’s status as king of Israel and with the Judaean monarchy. For them, however, his significance lay primarily in his position in, and contribution to, the Jerusalem cultus, i.e., his conquest and occupation of the chosen city (1 Chr 11:4–8); his recovery of the ark of the covenant (1 Chr 11:13–14; 13:1–14); his initiatives and leading role in its installation (1 Chr 15–16); his appointment of its priesthood and his ordering of its worship (1 Chr 15:1–24; 16:4–6, 37–42); his acquisition of the chosen site (1 Chr 21:18–28; cf. 2 Chr 3:1); his plans and provisions for the building of a sanctuary (1 Chr 22:14–16); and his charge to Solomon and the leaders of Israel regarding its construction (1 Chr 22:6–19; 28:1—29:20). David’s characterization in the Chronicles was essentially that of a religious leader from which unseemly features were excised and whose failure to build the temple was ascribed to ritual impurity (1 Chr 17:4; 28:3).

Written about the middle of the fourth century—almost two centuries and a half after the fall of the monarchy—David’s religious devotion superseded political acumen or military prowess. For that reason, the Nathan narrative was reinterpreted less as a legitimization of the Davidic monarchy than as sacred legend authorizing the foundation of the Jerusalem temple (1 Chr 17:1–15). The Chronicles version was, therefore, not an exact transcript of 2 Samuel 7 (differences being due less to dependence on parallel Vorlage than to consistency of theological perspective).⁹ The Chronicles show that the traditions of David lived on in Jewish lore beyond the fall of the monarchy and, by retracing his ancestry to Adam (1 Chr 1:1—2:15), established a genealogical basis for his legitimacy that also authorized the cultic institutions he introduced.

Included in the Writings is the book of Ruth, a narrative that alleged David’s Moabite ancestry (Ruth 1:1–4; 2:2; 4:13, 17; cf. 1 Sam 22:3–4).¹⁰ To the narrative, however, was appended a genealogy in which David was also recognized as the scion of a Bethlehem clan in direct descent from the patriarch Judah (Ruth 4:18–22; cf. Gen 38). Placed immediately before Βασιλείων in the Greek Bible (LXX), such connections made Ruth a fitting preface to the David epic (1 Kgdms 16:1—3 Kgdms 2:4).

David and the Nathan Narrative in the Prophets (Joshua–Malachi)

Whatever its significance for the Law and the Writings, it is the second collection, the Prophets, that became the canonical setting for the story of David (1 Sam 16:1—1 Kgs 2:4) and, with it, the Nathan narrative (2 Sam 7:1–17). An important consequence of the inclusion of Deuteronomy in the Law was an eclipse of the Sinai-Horeb covenant as the interpretative key to the Joshua–Kings collection, and therefore a closer affinity between the Joshua–Kings and the Isaiah–Malachi collections, and a sharpening of the significance of the Davidic tradition for the shaping of the Prophets; for it was in pronouncements made to, by and about David in Samuel–Kings that a messianic hope took shape in the writing Prophets (Isaiah–Malachi).

A noticeable omission from Brevard Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament was an exposition of the Prophets as a canonical entity;¹¹ for, while the literary dissimilarities between Joshua–Kings and Isaiah–Malachi are evident, and the duplication of passages from 2 Kings into Isaiah and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 18:13—20:19 in Isa 36–39; 2 Kgs 24:18—25:30 in Jer 52) attests to their earlier independence, there must have also been a more compelling measure of compatibility between the two collections to validate their combination under the common prophetic rubric. While further exploration of the Former Prophets (Joshua–Kings) in this connection must be undertaken at a later stage, the canonical status of the Joshua-Kings corpus must raise questions for the applicability of Deuteronomistic presuppositions as the hermeneutical key.¹² Otherwise this will render the canonical composition either synonymous, superfluous, superficial, or misleading.¹³ Such an exploration might also assist a distinction between the intrinsic prophetic contribution to the Joshua–Kings collection on the one hand, and the canonical designation on the other. It might also clarify the status of the Nathan narrative (2 Sam 7:1–17) in the Former Prophets, which hypotheses have seemed unable to deliver having overlooked the canonical factor.

References to David in the Latter Prophets (Isaiah–Malachi) as the promise of a hopeful future point to his special importance for the redactors (Is 55:3; Jer 30:9; 33:17; Ezek 34:24; 37:24; Hos 3:5; Amos 9:11). Though the historical monarchy did not, on the whole, meet with prophetic approbation (cf. 2 Sam 12:1–14; 1 Kgs 11:29–33; Isa 7:13; 39:4–7; Jer 22:1—23:5; 36:21–31; 37:17–19; 38:14–28; Ezek 17:12–18; 19:1–9: 21:25–27; 34:1–24; Hos 5:10; Amos 6:5; Mic 4:7), it appears that Isaiah (9:7; 7:13–25; 11:1–10), Jeremiah (23:5), Ezekiel (34:23–24; 37:15–25), Hosea (3:5), Amos (9:11–12) and Micah (5:2–5), in particular, based the hopes for a future recovery on the appearance of a Davidic ruler. Such hopes may have sprung partly from the reputation of rulers of exceptional ability and devotion—such as Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:3–5; cf. Jer 26:17–19) and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:2, 19; 23:25; cf. Jer 22:15–16; 26:17–19)—and particularly their commitment to the Mosaic law and the reformation of the Jerusalem cultus (2 Kgs 18:3–6, 22; 22:2; 23:3–25). More than likely, however, they resulted from the impact of ancient but enduring traditions concerning David and the future of his house, preserved in court annals, cultic festivals, and prophetic traditions (2 Sam 7:1–17; 1 Chron 17:1–16; Ps 89:1–4, 19–37),¹⁴ which then became decisive for the formation of the Joshua–Malachi corpus. The recollection of the promises may have become a way of alleviating the doom predicted by the eighth and seventh century prophets which, having reached horrendous fulfillment in the downfall of the Hebrew kingdoms, fostered a renaissance of hope after the fall of the Babylonian Empire and the return of the Jewish exiles (Ezra 1:1–4; cf. Isa 40-55).

David and the Nathan Narrative in the Former Prophets (Joshua–Kings)

As historical narrative, Joshua–Kings, or the Former Prophets, may be interpreted at two levels. They are an account of the Israelite occupation of Canaan from the settlement of the tribes to the fall of the Southern Kingdom. Underlying the review are echoes of prophetic indictment of Israel’s infidelity to YHWH in their persistent disregard for the Mosaic law and the Sinai-Horeb Covenant (2 Kgs 17:7–23; 21:2–16), of which