2 Sam 8 NelsonFswm

8/3/2019 2 Sam 8 NelsonFswm

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-sam-8-nelsonfswm 1/20

Raising Up

a Faithful Exegete

Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson

Edited by

K. L. NoLL and BrooKs Schramm

Winona Lake, Indiana EisENBrauNs

2010

offpriNt from



© 2010 by Eisenbrauns Inc.

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Raising up a faithful exegete : essays in honor of Richard D. Nelson / edited by K. L. Noll

and Brooks Schramm.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-57506-201-3 (hardback : alk. paper)

1. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Deuteronomistic history

(Biblical criticism). 3. Bible—Theology. I. Noll, K. L. II. Schramm, Brooks,

1957– III. Nelson, Richard D. (Richard Donald), 1945–

BS1171.3.R35 2010

221.6—dc22

2010040185

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American

National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library

Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†Ê

Acknowledgment

Publication of this volume was made possible by a generous contribution from

the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, Michael L. Cooper-White,President.



159

David, the Great King, King of the Four QuartersStructure and Signifcation in the

Catalog of David’s Conquests

(2 Samuel 8:1–14, 1 Chronicles 18:1–13)

Cynthia EdEnburg

The catalog of David’s conquests (2 Sam 8:1–14, 1 Chr 18:1–13) presents aforceful cumulative image of King David’s dominion over all the lands withinhis scope. The king is depicted as an ideal empire builder, much like the depic-tions of the great Neo-Assyrian kings whose royal authority was reinforced bya divine mandate to establish Assyrian rule over all lands. Text- and historical-critical issues should not supply the sole criteria for evaluating the two versionsof the catalog; rather, we should also consider the possibility that they wereshaped in order to convey dierent views of the part David’s conquests play in

Samuel and Chronicles.

1

In fact, a close comparative reading of both versionswill uncover diering ideological statements implicit in the structure of eachtext, which suggest that each has undergone separate and purposeful editing. Inthe following, I shall show that the scribes responsible for the two versions dif-fered in how they viewed the intent of the catalog and its structure, and I shallargue that the deviations in structure were conceived to convey meaning andthat they derive from purposeful editing rather than from accidents in transmis-sion.2 First, however, it is necessary to examine the signicance of the struc-tural elements that are shared by all the fully extant versions of the catalog.

1. Discussion of the relationship between synoptic texts in Samuel and Chronicles mustinevitably consider the text-critical issues arising from divergences between the various tex-tual witnesses, which include 4QSama, the LXX of Samuel and Chronicles, and Josephus’sretelling. Notwithstanding, I shall focus mainly on the MT of Samuel and Chronicles, sincethe MT versions of the catalog are coherent texts in their own right that separately interactwith their larger context.

2. See Mario Liverani, “Critique of the Variants and the Titulary of Sennacherib,” in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological and Historical Analysis (ed. F. M. Fales; Orientis Antiqui Collectio 17; Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente, 1981) 228 onthe dierence between transmission variants and compositional variants in recensions of

Assyrian royal inscriptions:Variants in transmission mark the stages of a progressive deterioration in the written tradi-tion . . . textual variants can be explained at the graphic or mnemonic level, or also at thelevel of linguistic habit, and reach a cultural level of interest only without the knowledge



Cynthia EdEnburg160

General Structure of the Catalog

The catalog of David’s conquests is a discrete literary unit that is loosely

connected to the dynastic oracle in both Samuel and Chronicles (2 Sam 7:1–29, 1 Chr 17:1–27) by means of the introductory clause ןכ ירחא יהיו (2 Sam8:1, 1 Chr 18:1).3 The catalog uses the narrative perfect (wayyiqtol) to listDavid’s victories over the surrounding peoples and thereby appears to presenta chronological survey of achievements accomplished after Nathan deliveredthe dynastic oracle. However, the summary of David’s victories over the Am-monites, Hadadezer of Zobah, and Aram (2 Sam 8:3–8, 12; 1 Chr 18:3–8, 11)anticipates the full narrative of the Ammonite war that is related only later(2 Samuel 10–12, 1 Chr 19:1–20:3). Moreover, in Samuel the narrative in-

troduction to the dynastic oracle states that David had been granted rest fromall his enemies (2 Sam 7:1), which according to the Deuteronomist is a priorcondition to the institution of the temple and its cult (Deut 12:9–11). 4 But thisstatement implies that David completed his conquests before he consulted Na-than in 2 Samuel 7, rather than after Nathan’s oracle was delivered.5

Similar tension arises in Chronicles; although the catalog opens by report-ing that David vanquished the Philistines (1 Chr 18:1), the Chronicler has thePhilistine wars continuing in 1 Chr 20:4–8. Furthermore, while David’s warsand bloodshed (1 Chr 18:1–20:8) ostensibly serve to justify Yhwh’s refusal

for David to build the temple, the Chronicler retained the catalog’s refrain thatYhwh granted David victory in all his endeavors (1 Chr 18:6, 13), implyingthat David’s wars were still in accord with divine will.6 All these points indi-

of their authors (the copyists). Compositional variants on the contrary are the result of voluntary decisions by authors well aware of varying and specically motivated (by style,or ideology, or historical context) to vary.

3. This use of the temporal clause ויהי אחרי כן appears solely in the DeuteronomisticHistory and Chronicles, and imposes continuity upon previously unconnected material; seeJudg 16:4; 2 Sam 2:1, 10:1, 13:1, 21:18; 2 Chr 20:1.

4. On the so-called “rest theology,” see Gerhard von Rad, “There Remains Still a Restfor the People of God: An Investigation of a Biblical Conception,” The Problem of the Hexa-teuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966)94–102 = idem, From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology (ed.K. C. Hanson; Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005) 82–88;Wolfgang Roth, “Deuteronomic Rest Theology: A Redaction-Critical Study,” BR 21 (1976)5–14; compare P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 251.

5. See, for example, I. L. Seeligman, “Von historischer Wirklichkeit zu historiosophi-scher Konzeption in der Hebräischen Bibel,” Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel (ed. Erhard Blum, Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2004) 199–201.

6. See Wilhelm Rudolph, Chronikbücher (HAT; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955) 139.Japhet notes that the Chronicler made an eort to portray David as “‘the great warrior’ of Israel’s history,” by assembling together in one continuous section (1 Chronicles 18–20)all the information available from his source about David’s campaigns and political activ-



David, the Great King, King of the Four Quarters 161

cate that the catalog is intended to summarize David’s achievements in the in-ternational sphere without regard for the chronological framework representedby the narrative in Samuel and Chronicles.

The catalog itself has been shaped according to geographical principles,with the notices of David’s conquests moving from west (the Philistines,2 Sam 8:1, 1 Chr 18:1) to east (Moab, 2 Sam 8:2, 1 Chr 18:2) and then fromnorth (Aram, 2 Sam 8:3–8, 1 Chr 18:3–8) to south (Edom, 2 Sam 8:13–14,1 Chr 18:12–13).7 Similar four-point structures occur in boundary lists andcommemorative inscriptions, where they are best understood as merism, inwhich the totality is represented by its limits. 8 The geographical structure isalso implicit in the axis extending from Philistia and its western and southern

ity; see Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993)344–45. On the achronological character of the catalog in its context, see Gary Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2004) 702–3.

7. See also Simon J. De Vries, 1–2 Chronicles, (FOTL; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1989) 159–60; Antony F. Campbell, S.J., 2 Samuel (FOTL; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,2005) 84; Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 701. Geographical principles rather than chronol-ogy also ruled in the composition of Assyrian summary (or “display”) inscriptions; see A. T.Olmstead, Assyrian Historiography: A Source Study (University of Missouri Studies: SocialScience series 3/1; Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1916) 6, 50; Hayim Tadmor,“The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-nirari III,” Iraq 35 (1973) 141; idem, The Inscriptions

of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humani-ties, 1994) 22, 25; Albert Kirk Grayson, “Assyrian and Babylonia,” Or 49 (1980) 152, 170.8. See, for example, the annalistic inscription of Tiglath-pileser I: “from beyond the

Lower Zab . . . unto the further side of the Euphrates, and the land of Ḫatti and the UpperSea of the West,” in Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Parts I–II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–27) §245; the “Standard Inscription” of Assurnasirpal (Luckenbill, Part I §487) which delineates Assurnasirpal’s reach in the north(Naʾiri, Šubaria, the source of the Subnat River and Urartu), west (the Lebanon and theGreat Sea), east (Babite pass and land of Hashmar on the slopes of the Zagros), and south(Karduniaš / Babylonia); the bull inscription of Shalmaneser III (Luckenbill, Part I §640)

with points in the west (Amanus and Ḫatti), north (Enzite, Melid, Araškun), east (Namri onthe slopes of the Zagros) and south (Sea of Kaldu); the Khorsabad summary inscription of Sargon (Luckenbill, Part II §79) listing points east (“the Medes up to the border of MountBikni”), north (Urartu), west (princes of Ḫatti) and south (Meluḫḫa); the building inscriptionof Ashurbanipal (Luckenbill, Part II §§906–12) pointing south (Kush), east (Qirbit), north(Lydia, Cimmerians, Tabal), and west (Arvad). For locations, see The Helsinki Atlas of the Near East in the Neo-Assyrian Period (ed. S. Parpola and M. Porter; Chebeague Is., ME:Casco Bay Assyriological Institute / Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001). Forsimilar compass-point schemes in the Bible, see Gen 28:14; Josh 11:2, 12:7; Jer 47:1–49:22(west Philistia 47:1–7, east Moab 48:1–47, north Ammon 49:1–6, south Edom 49:7–22); Jer49:23–50:1 (north Damascus 49:23–27, south Qedar 49:28–33, east Elam 49:34–39, west

Babel 50:1–5); Ezek 25:1–17. For discussion of the conventions of merism and additionalsources, see N. Wazana, All the Boundaries of the Land: The Promised Land in BiblicalThought in Light of the Ancient Near East (Biblical Encyclopaedia Library 24; Jerusalem:Bialik Institute, 2007; Hebrew) 57–79, 123–74.



Cynthia EdEnburg162

borders on the Sea and the Brook of Egypt (v. 1; compare Josh 13:2–3, 15:47),up to the river by which David intended to erect his monument (די v. 3).9

My understanding of v. 3b ([תרפ] רהנב ודי [ביצהל] בישהל ותכלב) requiressome qualication, since the syntax is ambiguous in both Samuel and Chron-icles, and the pronominal suxes (ותכלב, ודי) could apply to either Davidor Hadadezer. An additional ambiguity arises from the fact that the river isunnamed in Samuel. The Chronicler identies the river with the Euphrates-but this may be an interpretive gloss. Some have argued that the monu ,(פרת)ment mentioned must belong to Hadadezer, since it is unlikely that David everreached the Euphrates. Others have suggested that the unnamed river by whichDavid or Hadadezer erected a monument was the Jabbok and not the Euphra-tes.10 Both interpretations attempt to reconcile the catalog’s report with histori-cal feasibility and assume that the notice is rooted in the historical reality of David’s reign and perhaps even derives from a contemporary annalistic source.However, these assumptions are questionable. 11

Despite the historical intent of historiographical compositions, they fre-quently bend historical reality to t ideological concerns or use data from latertimes when describing poorly documented periods. Therefore, I suggest thatthe statement regarding the monument by the river is best understood againstboth its immediate and its larger literary context. Within the immediate con-text, we should note that David’s achievements, and not Hadadezer’s, are thesubject of the catalog; thus it is most likely that the catalog’s author intends tocredit David with both acts, defeating Hadadezer and erecting the monument.Moreover, throughout the Bible, when “the river” is not further identied, it

9. For this signicance of די, see 1 Sam 15:12, 2 Sam 18:18. For discussion of theboundary between Philistia and Egypt, see Nadav Naʾaman, “The Brook of Egypt and As-syrian Policy on the Border of Egypt,” Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors: Interaction and Counteractions—Collected Essays, vol. 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005) 238–64.

10. Hans JoachimHans Joachim Stoebe, Das zweite Buch Samuelis (KAT; Gütersloh: GütersloherVerlag, 1994) 243, 249–50; Japhet, Chronicles, 346; Baruch Halpern, “The Construction of the Davidic State: An Exercise in Historiography,” in The Origins of the Ancient IsraeliteStates (ed. Volkmar Fritz and Philip R. Davies; JSOTSup 228; Sheeld: Sheeld AcademicPress, 1996) 44–75 (esp. p. 65); Simon B. Parker, Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions:Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Bible (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1997) 69; Nadav Naʾaman, “In Search of Reality behind theAccount of David’s Wars with Israel’s Neighbors,” IEJ 52 (2002) 200–224 (esp. p. 208).

11. It is doubtful whether royal scribes of the incipient monarchy would have been em-ployed in the production of literary genres such as annalistic sources; see discussion andreferences in Nadav Naʾaman, “Sources and Composition in the History of David,” Ancient Israel’s History and Historiography: The First Temple Period —Collected Essays, vol. 3

(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006) 23–25, 31–33; idem, “Sources and Composition inthe History of Solomon,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millen-nium (ed. Lowell K. Handy; SHCANE 9; Leiden: Brill 1997) 57–61 with additional refer-ences there.




almost invariably indicates the Euphrates.12 Finally, the broader context of theDeuteronomistic History (henceforth: DtrH) shows that the Chronicler’s gloss,identifying the unnamed river with the Euphrates, coincides with the utopianvision of the extent of Solomon’s rule ranging from “all the kingdoms from theriver as far as the land of the Philistines” (1 Kgs 5:1, 4; compare 2 Chr 9:26).This delineation includes all the kings of the territory ‘Across the River’, thatis, the Transeuphrates or ēbir nāri.13 Thus, even if the Chronicler’s readingis a gloss, his interpretation undoubtedly coincides with the Deuteronomist’sintent. Hence, there is a sound basis for understanding 2 Sam 8:3 to claim thatDavid erected a monument on the western bank of the Euphrates.

Additional structuring becomes evident through the patterns of recurringformulations. The basic framework of the catalog is a series of four conquest

notices corresponding to the four compass points. The rst three notices fol-low one another and open in the same fashion: David defeated [ x] with [x]representing the Philistines, Moab, and Hadadezer of Zobah, respectively(2 Sam 8:1–3, 1 Chr 18:1–3). However, the fourth notice (2 Sam 8:13–14,1 Chr 18:12–13) breaks the pattern of the standard opening. Instead of theexpected formulation, “David defeated Edom,” we nd something entirely dif -ferent in both Samuel and Chronicles. For the present, it is enough to noticethat such a break of the recurring pattern at the end of a series is characteristicof the graduated number, or x + 1 sequence. In this type of sequence, the breakin the repeated pattern not only alerts the reader that the sequence has cometo its end but also frequently marks the climax or a signicant turn of events.Accordingly, the victory over Edom in the Valley of Salt appears to be cast asthe crowning achievement in this series of conquests.

12. The determinate form ‘the river’ (רהנה) appears 20 times without a subsequent des-ignation. With the single exception of Num 22:5, all of these instances implicitly refer to theEuphrates; see Gen 31:21; Exod 23:31; 1 Kgs 5:1; Isa 8:7, 11:15, 27 :12 and the phrase רבע in Josh 24:2–3, 14–15; 2 Sam 10:16; 1 Kgs 5:4; Ezra 8:36; Neh 2:7, 9; 3:7. Five timesהנהר

‘the river’ is explicitly identied with the Euphrates (Gen 15:18; Deut 1:7, 11:24; Josh 1:4;

1 Chr 5:9) as opposed to a single identication with another river (the Tigris, Dan 10 :4).Nowhere does ‘the river’ imply either the Jabbok or the Jordan.

13. Although the term gained currency in the Persian period, it was already attested inthe time of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal; see, for example, Rykle Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Knigs von Assyrien (AfOB 9; Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag, 1967) 60 v 54;ibid., 109 iv 9 (treaty with Baʿalu of Tyre); Robert Francis Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914) 706 rev. 3. For the view thatthe term was the established name for the territory west of the Euphrates, see Naʾaman, “InSearch of Reality,” 208 n. 35. According to some, this utopian vision of Solomon’s reachderives from post-Deuteronomistic revision; for example, Naʾaman, “History of Solomon,”79; compare Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, His-torical and Literary Introduction (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005) 175–76. However, an exilicDeuteronomist might choose to accentuate the loss of independence by means of a utopianrepresentation of Solomon’s empire.



Cynthia EdEnburg164

Other elements intermittently augment this superstructure. These includebooty notices (2 Sam 8:1b, 7–8; 1 Chr 18:1b, 7–8);14 vassal and tribute notices(2 Sam 8:2b, 6b, 14b; 1 Chr 18:2b, 6b, 13b); the number of causalities inicted(2 Sam 8:5, 13; 1 Chr 18:5, 12); comments that David appointed governorsover (or stationed garrisons in) the conquered territory (2 Sam 8:6, 14; 1 Chr18:6, 13);15 and the statement that Yhwh granted David victory in all his en-deavors (2 Sam 8:6, 14; 1 Chr 18:6, 13).

Between the third and fourth conquest notices is an additional report relat-ing how the king of Hamat sought an alliance with David and sent him tribute(2 Sam 8:9–12, 1 Chr 18:9–11). This report is placed after the notices deal-ing with Aram, since it continues the geographical progression northward andbecause Hadadezer gures in Toi’s motives for seeking the alliance (2 Sam8:9–10, 1 Chr 18:9–10). Although the Hamat section stands out from its con-text by virtue of its shift in focus, perspective, and the separate summary listof David’s conquests (2 Sam 8:11–12, 1 Chr 18:11), this does not necessarilyindicate that the catalog of conquests has been secondarily expanded by theinsertion of the material dealing with Toi.16 Similar changes in perspective andfocus are also evident in Assyrian and West Semitic royal inscriptions.17

Structure and Signication

Now that the structural principles that shaped the catalog are clear, we areable to consider the meaning imparted by the structure. For, just as an automo-bile is more than a set of parts, so a text comprises more than a group of state-ments. The way parts are ordered and put together is crucial for a car to run,

14. The reading in 2 Sam 8:1 המאה גתמ is supported by 4QSama. Chronicles reads תג- instead, but this is undoubtedly an interpretive reading rather than a true textual variובנתיהant; see, for example, S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913) 280; Rudolph, Chronikbücher , 134. The phrase probably refers to a particular piece of booty similar to the golden quivers takenמתג האמהfrom Hadadezer (2 Sam 8:7) and the crown of Milcom taken from the temple in Rabbat(2 Sam 12:30); compare the ’r ’l dwdh that Mesha took from Atarot and placed in Chemosh’ssanctuary in Qiryat (Mesha Inscription lines 12–13); see N. Naʾaman, “History of David,”30; Parker, Stories in Scripture, 68.

15. 1 Chr 18:6a lacks the required object and is undoubtedly corrupt.16. Contra Stoebe, Das zweite Buch Samuelis, 250; Parker, Stories in Scripture, 70. The

other catalog notices focus on conquest, booty, and subjugation and are told from David’sperspective, while the Hamat section deals with diplomacy and patron-client relations and isnarrated from Toi’s perspective. On the narrative mode of the section and its stylistic parallelin the Mesha Inscription, see Parker, Stories in Scripture, 71.

17. This change in theme and perspective is particularly characteristic of the “letter to

the god” genre; see Sargon’s “letter” reporting on his eighth campaign and Esarhaddon’s“letter” dealing with the campaign against Shupria (Luckenbill, Part II §§140–78, 593–612).See also the description of Shalmaneser’s thirtieth year in the “Black Obelisk” Inscription(Luckenbill, Part I §587).




and so too, the structure—that is, the interaction between constituent parts—isintegral to the signication of a text. In other words, there is a metonymic rela-tionship between the text’s structure and the signicance conveyed by the textas a whole. I suggest that the merisms implicit to the geographical structure notonly shape the catalog of conquests but also impart signicance beyond the listof separate victories.18 Moreover, the merisms and other geographical topoi inthe catalog are best paralleled by literary conventions known from Assyrianroyal inscriptions.

First, the merism inherent to the west–east, north–south structure impliesthat the scribe shaped the catalog in order to credit David with subjection of all the lands adjacent to Israel in all four cardinal directions—from west toeast and from north to south. I think the scribe may even have intended this

structure implicitly to claim for David the Mesopotamian royal title ‘king of the four quarters [of the world]’ (šar kibrātim arbaʾim).19 The title King of the Four Quarters has a lengthy history in Mesopotamian royal inscriptions,and many kings employed the title from the beginning of their reigns beforeengaging in campaigns to every point on the compass. 20 However, from thetime of Sennacherib, the title appears in Assyrian royal inscriptions only after enumerating campaigns to the four compass points.21 Familiarity with the titlepenetrated westward with the advance of the Neo-Assyrian empire, as is at-tested by the Aramaic equivalent applied to Tiglath-pileser III in royal inscrip-tions of the kings of Yaudi/Samʾal.22

Additionally, the statement that David defeated Hadadezer when he—Da-vid—set out to erect his monument by the river casts David in the role of oneof the great kings who undertakes a hazardous campaign to the banks of thedistant river, where he erects his stele symbolizing his claim to dominion overall the territory up to that point. This topos was a recurring motif in Assyrianroyal inscriptions, and several Assyrian kings sought to enhance their prestigeby erecting steles and engraving inscriptions on clis and walls by distant andimmense natural boundaries at the far extreme of the king’s reach.23

18. On implicit spacial merism, see Wazana, Boundaries, 64–65.19. From Narâm-Sin of Akkad down to Cyrus, the title was claimed by Mesopotamian

kings who pursued an aggressive policy of military campaigning; see M.-J. Seux, Épithètes Royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967) 305–8; William W.Hallo, Early Mesopotamian Royal Titles: A Philologic and Historical Analysis (AOS 43;New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1957) 49–56; Liverani, “Critique,” 234–36,241; B. Cifola, Analysis of Variants in the Assyrian Royal Titulary from the Origins toTiglath-Pileser III (Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale, 1995) 40–41 and passim.

20. See, for example, Hallo, Titles, 50; Cifola, Titulary, 41, 63, 82.

21. Liverani, Critique, 234–36.22. See KAI 215 lines 13–14 (Panammu); 216 lines 1–4, 217 lines 1–2 (Barrakkab).23. See Mario Liverani, “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire,” in Power and Prop-

aganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires (ed. Mogens Trolle Larsen; Mesopotamia:



Cynthia EdEnburg166

Another geographical convention of the Assyrian royal inscriptions usesthe opposition of extreme boundaries, as in the royal title ‘king of the upperand lower seas’ (šar tâmti elīti u šupalīti).24 This opposition I think is reectedby the trajectory running from the land of the Philistines up to the river (Eu-phrates) and undoubtedly is intended to imply that David realized the divinepromises that Israel would inherit all the land from the Great River to the Seaand the Brook of Egypt at the southern border of Philistia (Gen 15:18, Deut11:24, Josh 1:4; compare 1 Kgs 5:1).

The use of these geographical conventions conveyed by structure and titu-lary in order to represent maximalistic expansion and universal dominationis specically characteristic of Mesopotamian royal inscriptions (particularlyof Neo-Assyrian kings) and rarely occurs in West Semitic inscriptions.25 Me-sha’s Inscription, for example, details his conquests without invoking merismor maximalistic geographical topoi. Hence, I suggest that, in this aspect, thecatalog emulates the literary conventions of Neo-Assyrian rather than WestSemitic royal inscriptions.

Furthermore, the clustering of augmenting formulas in the catalog (2 Sam8:3–8, 13–14; 1 Chr 18:3–8, 12–13) imparts special emphasis to the noticesdealing with the conquest of Aram and Edom, which represent the northernand southern extremes of David’s empire. These two extreme points are dis-tinguished by the comments about appointing governors over the conqueredterritory and by the summation that Yhwh granted David victory in all hisendeavors. As a result, although the narratives in Samuel and Chronicles only

Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 7; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979) 297–317 (esp. p. 307); Hayim Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Cracking the Codeof the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th AnniversarySymposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project (ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting;Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997) 325–38 (esp. pp. 330–31); idem,“World Dominion: The Expanding Horizon of the Assyrian Empire,” in Landscapes: Ter-ritories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East—Papers Presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (ed. L. Milano et al.; History of the Ancient NearEast: Monographs 3/1; Padua: Sargon, 1999) 55–62; Ö. Harmanşah, “Source of the Tigris:Event, Place and Performance in the Assyrian Landscapes of the Early Iron Age,” Archaeo-logical Dialogues 14 (2007) 179–204.

24. Liverani, “Ideology,” 307; idem, Critique, 241; see also Cifola, Titulary, 42. Com-pare similar formulas, “from beyond the lower Zab . . . unto the further side of the Euphrates. . . and the Upper Sea of the West,” in the annalistic inscription of Tiglath-pileser I (Luck-enbill, Part I §245); “from beyond the Tigris unto Mount Lebanon and the Great Sea,” inAshurnasirpal’s bull inscription (Luckenbill, Part I §516); “from Bitter Sea of Bit-Yakin . . .up to the Western Sea,” in Tadmor, Tiglath-Pileser , 159, summary inscription 7.

25. An interesting exception is the Azitiwada inscription from Karatepe (KAI 26), inwhich Azitiwada claims to have extended his land “from the rising sun to its setting” (A i4–5; compare A ii 2–3) and to have built fortresses “in all the remote areas along the borders”(A i 14).




relate specic battles that David waged against the Philistines, the Ammonites,and the Arameans, the shape of the catalog summarily establishes an ideal pic-ture of the extent of David’s empire, attributing to David the subjugation of theentire Transjordan, from Aram in the north to Edom in the south.

Finally, inclusion of the Hamat section within the catalog of David’s con-quests casts David in the role of the great patron alongside his role as the greatwarrior. Moreover, this section implies that David realized virtual control overthe ideal boundaries of the promised land up to Lebo Hamat in the far northeast,an area that the Deuteronomistic conquest account relegated to the territory of the “land that yet remains” (Josh 13:5, Judg 3:3; compare Num 13:21, 34:8;1 Kgs 8:65).26 In sum, merisms and other geographical topoi work togetherto paint a larger picture, one that emulates Neo-Assyrian style and intends topresent David as the great king in the manner of Assyrian royal propaganda.

The Relationship between the Catalogs in2 Samuel 8 and 1 Chronicles 18

All the elements discussed till now are shared by all the fully extant ver-sions of the catalog. Now I shall examine some of the issues relating to thedierences between the versions and concentrate on points that contribute tothe structure or signication of the catalog.

Signicant Pluses in the Versions of Samuel and ChroniclesThere are three signicant pluses in the versions of the catalog. The rst,

which describes David’s treatment of the Moabite prisoners, is found in theversions of Samuel (MT, LXX, and 4QSama) but is lacking in Chronicles.Some have suggested that the Chronicler deliberately deleted the commentbecause he found it denigrating to the character of David.27 However, this isunlikely, since the Chronicler retained a similar report regarding David’s crueltreatment of a subject population in the description of the Ammonite war in1 Chr 20:3. Thus, the phrase probably was already lost in the transmission of

the Chronicler’s Vorlage, possibly due to homoioarkton .(מואב—ויהיו מואב)The situation is much more complex with regard to the other two pluses,

placed at the end of consecutive verses (vv. 7–8) and dealing with the even-tual fate of spoil taken from Hadadezer. The rst comment, at the end of v. 7,states that the golden quivers taken from Hadadezer were later taken as booty

26. Compare Nadav Naʾaman, “Lebo-Hamath, Subat-Hamath, and the Northern Bound-ary of the Land of Canaan,” UF 31 (1999) 417–41; Edward Lipiski, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100; Leuven: Peeters / Sterling, VA: Department

of Oriental Studies, 2000) 338.27. Compare Edward Lewis Curtis and Albert Alonzo Madsen, A Critical and Exegeti-

cal Commentary on the Books of Chronicles (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910) 232–33;Japhet, Chronicles, 346; Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 690.



Cynthia EdEnburg168

by Shishak when he attacked Jerusalem in the time of Rehoboam. This plus isattested in Samuel by 4QSama and the Greek versions (the LXX of Samuel andJosephus) but is not extant in the MT of Samuel or in Chronicles. The secondcomment, at the end of v. 8, relates that the bronze taken from Hadadezer wasused by Solomon in making various furnishings for the temple. This plus isfound in the LXX of Samuel as well as in the MT of Chronicles and in Jose-phus’s paraphrase but is not preserved in the MT of Samuel or in 4QSama. It isinitially tempting to view the additional comment in 1 Chr 18:8 in light of theChronicler’s tendencies, since this note occurs at the midpoint of the catalog,implying that the true signicance of David’s gains lay in the fact that theyserved to glorify the future temple.28

Given the distribution of these pluses in the dierent versions, it seemsmost likely that they originated in a specic stem of copies of Samuel, withwhich both the Chronicler and the OG translator were familiar. 29 Even so,these anticipatory remarks are out of place in a catalog that revolves aroundDavid’s conquests and achievements. Therefore, they appear to be interpre-tive glosses that were inserted by a creative scribe who was inuenced by therecurring comments in the DtrH regarding the temple treasury (for example,1 Kgs 14:25–26; 15:18; 2 Kgs 12:5, 19; 14:14; 16:8, 17–18; 18:13–16; 24:13;25:13–15). While the remarks in Kings about the temple treasury may havestemmed from a temple chronicle, their cumulative force within their contextin the DtrH presents a picture of continual despoiling of the temple. 30 Thus,I think that the scribe who added the glosses to vv. 7–8 in the catalog mayhave wanted to make a double point. On the one hand, his comments empha-size David’s role in establishing the temple treasury by devoting his spoils toYhwh. On the other hand, the remarks foreshadow later key developments inthe history of the temple. The temple furnishings mentioned as those made bySolomon in the Chronicles plus to v. 8 are the same as those despoiled by Ne-

28. Rudolph, Chronikbücher , 139; Stephen Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books

of Samuel (OBO 57; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1984) 47–48. However, compare Japhet (Chronicles, 348–49), who notes that proleptic re-marks are not characteristic of the Chronicler.

29. See, for example, Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984) 53–54; Frank H. Polak, “Statistics andTextual Filiation: The Case of 4QSama/LXX (With a Note on the Text of the Pentateuch),”in Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Sym- posium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (ed. George J. Brooke and Barnabus Lindars; SBLSCS 33; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992)249–50; Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 692; Frank Moore Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4, 12:

1–2 Samuel (DJD 17; Oxford: Clarendon, 2005) 25–26, 133.30. See, for example, Victor Hurowitz, “Another Fiscal Practice in the Ancient NearEast: 2 Kings 12:5–17 and a Letter to Esarhaddon (LAS 277),” JNES 45 (1986) 289–94 (esp.p. 290 n. 5); Nadav Naʾaman, “The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Pow-ers,” JSOT 65 (1995) 37–53.




buchadnezzar at the end of the DtrH (1 Chr 18:8, 2 Kgs 25:13).31 Furthermore,the 4QSama and LXX plus to v. 7 alludes to the rst despoiling of the templetreasures recorded in the DtrH, which occurred in the course of Shishak’s cam-paign (1 Kgs 14:26).

These pluses should therefore be considered editorial glosses reecting aprocess of compositional revision and not true transmission variants. Thus, it isnot surprising that the Chronicler added the comment about the temple furnish-ings, since this note apparently derives from the copy of Samuel before him.But why did he not add the aliated note about Shishak? Did he purposelydelete this notice in order to avoid detracting from David’s conquests, as FrankPolak suggests?32 Or was it already lacking from the copy of Samuel that laybefore the Chronicler?33

2 Samuel 8:3, 13 and 1 Chronicles 18:3, 12

The next dierence in structure to be considered arises from a comparisonof the pair of notices in Samuel and Chronicles regarding the victory over Ha-dadezer and the victory in the Valley of Salt. The MT of 2 Sam 8:3, 13 reectsopposing movements expressed by the phrases ‘on his way to’ [לוטק]־ל ותכלב(v. 3) and ‘upon returning from’ [לוטק]־מ ובשב (v. 13) as well as opposingplaces: the river and the Valley of Salt. In addition, each of the verses con-tains one unit of the hendiadys םשו די that is synonymous with an everlasting

name or memorial (Isa 56:5; compare Isa 44:5, Jer 16:21, 2 Sam 18:18). 34 Thebreakup of the hendiadys along with the various oppositions between the twoverses convey the impression that the two events are conceived as two partsof a whole and that the march to the river in the north and the victory in theValley of Salt in the south are meant to signify a single achievement—namely,subjugating all of the east between Aram and Edom. 35

31. The Chronicles plus stands in inverse relation to the despoiling notice at the end of the DtrH. According to 1 Chr 18:8, the bronze that David takes from Hadadezer’s cities is

used by Solomon to make the bronze sea and the columns, while 2 Kgs 25:13 reports thatthe Babylonians dismantle the bronze columns and the bronze sea and carry them o toBabylon. Moreover, the Chronicles plus reverses the order of the clauses and the word pairsoccurring in 2 Kgs 25:13, which may indicate intentional intertextual reference.

32. Polak, “Statistics,” 250.33. For the suggestion of homoioteleuton, see McCarter, II Samuel, 244; Cross et al.,

1–2 Samuel, 133; compare McKenzie, Chronicler’s Use, 53.

34. For םשו די as a hendiadys and instances in which the two components are separatedand appear in parallel cola, see Shemaryahu Talmon, “Yād wāšēm: An Idiomatic Phrasein Biblical Literature and Its Variations,” HS 25 (1984) 8–17 [repr. Literary Studies in the

Hebrew Bible: Form and Content—Collected Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes / Leiden: Brill,1993)]. Talmon noted (p. 12) the occurrence of the broken up form of the hendiadon in2 Sam 8:3, 13 but did not indicate its function in structuring the catalog.

35. The MT reading “Aram” in 1 Sam 8:13 is generally thought to be a scribal slip for“Edom” caused by the graphic similarity of dalet and reš (compare 2 Kgs 16:6; Ezek 16:57,



Cynthia EdEnburg170

Here we nd that a specic version of the catalog—the version in Sam-uel—evokes an additional motif familiar from Mesopotamian royal inscrip-tions. This motif of ‘placing the name’ (šuma šakānu) of the monarch on amonument or a votive object was in use from the Old Akkadian period (latterthird of the third millenium b.C.E.) down to the times of Nebuchadnezzar II(604–562 b.C.E.) and, according to Sandra Richter, was employed in order “toclaim something as one’s own by placing one’s name upon it.”36 In several in-scriptions from dierent periods, Mesopotamian kings claim to have marchedto the shore of the Great Sea, to the Cedar mountains, or to other distant land-marks and erected their stela and ‘placed their name’. Erecting the commemo-rative stela on which the king has placed his name preserves the memory of the king and his achievements for posterity and establishes the extent of histerritorial hegemony. Sandra Richter has argued that in some inscriptions theidiom ‘placing the name’ is a metonym signifying the act of erecting a monu-ment.37 In the context of 2 Samuel 8, this suggestion might be extended, withthe catalog itself as a literary composition lling the role of an actual monu-ment by establishing the claim for David’s hegemony over all the neighboringlands and by commemorating his achievements for all time. 38

The framework and ideas conveyed by splitting the םשו די hendiadys in theSamuel version of the catalog are absent from Chronicles. Chronicles makesno reference to “making a name” in conjunction with the victory at the Valleyof Salt. Nor does Chronicles convey an opposition in movement between theencounter with Hadadezer and the victory in the Valley of Salt, since v. 12lacks the temporal clause ותוכהמ ובושב. Finally, Chronicles disagrees withSamuel by attributing the Valley of Salt victory to Abishai rather than to David(2 Sam 8:13, 1 Chr 18:12).39

27:16; 2 Chr 20:2), and all the other versions (LXX Samuel, Peshitta Samuel, and 1 Chr18:12) read “Edom” for “Aram” in this clause. The exchange of Edom for Aram seems tohave occurred already in 2 Sam 8:12. The parallel in 1 Chr 18:11 has Edom at the begin-

ning of the summary list, which reects a geographical progression from south to northernTransjordan through Moab and up to Ammon. By contrast, placement of Aram at the open-ing of the list in the MT of 2 Sam 8 :12 has no internal logic and appears superuous sinceHadadezer of Zobah is mentioned at the end of the list. Thus, an initial slip at the beginningof 2 Sam 8:12 seems to have led to a continuation of the same error in v. 13.

36. Sandra L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: Lešakkēn

šemô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002) 183.37. Ibid., 153–84.38. Compare Parker, Stories in Scripture, 73.39. Some suggest that היורצ ןב ישיבא in 1 Chr 18:12 is a corruption of a postulated read-

ing in the Samuel Vorlage, such as, הכה הבוצמ ובושבו ; see, for example, Curtis and Madsen, Books of Chronicles, 235–36; Rudolph, Chronikbücher , 134–35; Thomas Willi, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972) 74–75; Japhet, Chronicles, 344. How-ever, this proposal is not supported by any textual witness.




Naʾaman has suggested that the catalog’s notice about the Valley of Saltvictory is based on the account in 2 Kgs 14:7 about Amaziah’s war there. 40 Indeed, the notice about Amaziah’s victory in the Valley of Salt is indepen-dent of the other variants and is integrated into the narrative of Amaziah’sreign.41 By contrast, the account of David’s reign preserves no informationabout David’s victory over Edom, and the only other extant source for a cam-paign against Edom was incorporated into the episode dealing with Hadad theEdomite in 1 Kgs 11:15–16, which reports Joab’s slaughter of the Edomites. 42 As I have shown, the royal inscriptions of Mesopotamian kings who claimedto establish or rule an empire employed titles and geographical structures thatrepresented them as sovereigns whose rule extended over the far extremes of the familiar world. If the author of the catalog was inuenced by the literaryconventions of these inscriptions, then he must have been motivated to creditDavid with the conquest of Edom in order to establish his rule over all theTransjordan, which represented the eastern horizon of the familiar world asseen from Judah. To this end, the author picked up a conquest notice associatedwith another king—Amaziah—and adapted it to his own purposes.

By contrast, Chronicles signicantly deviates from the pattern of the royalreport, which focuses solely on the king’s accomplishments. At rst it seemsunlikely that the Chronicler would have deviated from a prior Davidic tradi-tion, particularly given his tendency to glorify David. Therefore, some holdthat the Chronicler simply followed his source in attributing the Valley of Saltvictory to Abishai.43 This view implies that Chronicles preserves the earlierversion of the notice and that the catalog was subsequently revised to reectthe form of a royal summary inscription in which all achievements are at-tributed to the king. This position approaches the notion that Chronicles andSamuel–Kings have separately evolved from a common source.44

40. Nadav Naʾaman, “Sources and Composition in the Biblical History of Edom,” in Se-

fer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume—Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Postbiblical Judaism (ed. C. Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul; WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004) 318–19; idem, “History of David,” 31.

41. Compare the unparalleled note in v. 7a2

regarding the conquest of Sela as well as theadditional reference to Amaziah’s victory over Edom in v. 10. Furthermore, the postscript toAmaziah’s reign in vv. 21–22, which introduces Uzziah and reports his building project inEilat, assumes the victory over Edom.

42. For the source of this episode, see Naʾaman, “History of Solomon,” 62–63.43. Stoebe, Das zweite Buch Samuelis, 245; Diana V. Edelman, “The Deuteronomist’s

David and the Chronicler’s David: Competing or Contrasting Ideologies?” in The Future of

the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Thomas Römer; BETL 147; Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress, 2000) 67–83 (esp. pp. 75–78); Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 693. For a comparablecase in which Chronicles introduces an additional victor alongside David, see 1 Chr 11:4–9 // 2 Sam 5:6–10.

44. Edelman, “David,” 83. (See the essay by A. Graeme Auld in this volume.)



Cynthia EdEnburg172

However, both versions of the catalog reect the geographical structure of the summary inscription genre, which seems to indicate that the Chronicler’ssource already attributed all the victories to David. If Chronicles was com-posed at the end of the fourth century b.C.E., as Japhet, Knoppers, and otherspropose, then the Chronicler probably was not sensitive to the literary conven-tions of the Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, which heavily inuenced scribeseducated in the Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian periods. 45 Naʾaman suggeststhat the Chronicler may have been troubled by an apparent conict between thereport in the catalog that David defeated the Edomites and the report in 1 Kgs11:15–16, according to which Joab commanded the campaign against Edom. 46 Of course, he was also aware of the similar report regarding Amaziah’s vic-tory in the Valley of Salt, and the formulation found in 2 Kgs 14:7 appears

to have inuenced his revision of the catalog notice. If indeed the Chroniclerrevised the catalog in order to resolve the conicting reports, he may have hitupon Abishai ben Zeruiah as victor in the Valley of Salt not only because heis related to Joab but also because his name contains the ʾalep, ade, yod , andhe found in Amaziah’s name. 47 On the one hand, this view implies that theChronicler was less concerned with enhancing David’s reputation as a valiantconqueror, and on the other hand, it presents the Chronicler in the role of ahistorian trying to make sense out of his sources.

Interaction between the Catalog and the Dynastic OracleIn both Samuel and Chronicles, the catalog of David’s conquests imme-

diately follows the pronouncement of the dynastic oracle and David’s subse-quent prayer. This juxtaposition implies that David’s “empire” was establishedas a direct consequence of the divine promises and underscores the Deuter-onomistic principle of double causality, according to which success resultsfrom human initiative accompanied by divine aid. 48 Thus, in the dynastic or-acle (2 Sam 7:9; compare 1 Chr 17:8), Yhwh promised to assist David in allhis endeavors (תכלה רשא לכב), to eradicate (התרכאו) all his enemies, and to

make his name great (לודג םש ךל יתשעו). These themes are underscored in

45. On the date of Chronicles, see Japhet, Chronicles, 23–28; Gary N. Knoppers,1 Chronicles 1–9 (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2003) 116.

46. Naʾaman, “Sources and Composition in the Biblical History of Edom,” 318.47. This may also explain why 2 Chr 25:11 appears to paraphrase rather than reproduce

from the formulation of Amaziah’s victory in 2 Kgs 14:7. If the Chronicler deliberately pat-terned the catalog notice on the report of Amaziah’s victory, then he probably preferred tovary the formulation when relating the events of Amaziah’s reign.

48. See, for example, Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, 694, 703. On the principle of

double causality, see I. L. Seeligman, “Menschliches Heldentum und göttliche Hilfe,” inGesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel (ed. Erhard Blum; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,2004) 137–59; Yairah Amit, “The Dual Causality Principle and Its Eects on Biblical Lit-erature,” VT 87 (1987) 385–400.




the catalog through the enumeration of David’s victories along with the sum-mary refrain that Yhwh granted him victory in all his endeavors (ךלה רשא לכב;2 Sam 8:6, 14; 1 Chr 18:6, 13).

At the same time, the catalog interacts dierently with the oracle in theseparate versions in Samuel and Chronicles. Only the Samuel version of thecatalog explicitly picks up the promise of aggrandizing David’s name by stat-ing that David ‘made his name’ (םש דוד שעיו) through the Valley of Salt vic -tory, and this statement, as we saw, is lacking in Chronicles (2 Sam 8:13;compare 1 Chr 18:12). On the other hand, Chronicles adds a link lacking inSamuel. The Chronicles version of the dynastic oracle reads in 1 Chr 17:10 “Ishall subdue (יתענכהו) all your enemies,” where 2 Sam 7:11 has “I shall grantyou rest (יתחינהו) from all your enemies.” The Chronicler’s divergent readingin the dynastic oracle echoes the opening of the catalog that states that Davidsubdued the Philistines (םענכיו, 1 Chr 18:1).49 The Chronicler’s divergencehere undoubtedly stems from his rejection of the idea that Yhwh granted Davidrest from Israel’s enemies (1 Chr 17:1; compare 2 Sam 7:1). The postponementof the period of rest to the days of Solomon (1 Chr 22:8–10) plays a central rolein the Chronicler’s attempt to justify the reason that the temple was built bySolomon and not by the founder of the dynasty—David. Thus, the interactionin Chronicles between the dynastic oracle and the catalog of conquests helpsconvey the notion that Yhwh subdues David’s enemies, without granting himrest from them. Here it is evident that the Chronicler is manipulating the meta-narrative according to his purpose and that the divergence in reading derivesfrom editorial or compositional considerations, rather than separate processesof transmission.50

Conclusion

I suggested above that the geographical scheme reected by the catalog’sstructure alludes to various Mesopotamian royal titles and topoi and conveysan ideological message, claiming for David the same prestigious position as-sumed by Mesopotamian kings who built empires and claimed to rule the fourquarters of the world. If there is merit in my suggestion, then the catalog hasbeen composed by a scribe familiar with the scribal conventions of the Neo-Assyrian inscriptions. Although neither the DtrH nor Chronicles applies anyroyal titles to David or any other king of Judah or Israel, the geographicalstructure of the catalog alludes to a number of titles borne by Neo-Assyrian

49. See also Gary N. Knoppers, “Changing History: Nathan’s Oracle and the Struc-ture of the Davidic Monarchy in Chronicles,” in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible,

Its Exegesis and Its Language (ed. M. Bar-Asher et al.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007)111*–12*.

50. Michael Avioz, “Nathan’s Prophecy in II Sam 7 and in I Chr 17: Text, Context, andMeaning,” ZAW 116 (2004) 542–54 (esp. p. 549); Knoppers, “Changing History,” 104*–5*.



Cynthia EdEnburg174

kings. While the title King of the Four Quarters and its implicit claim for uni-versal dominion is already attested in the West Semitic sphere from the timeof Tiglath-pileser III, the daring characterization of David in the image of aNeo-Assyrian empire-builder suggests that the architect of the catalog workedeither after the demise of the Assyrian Empire or when it was waning. 51 Thefact that the catalog draws upon Neo-Assyrian conventions rmly places itwithin the scope of Deuteronomistic literary production, even though it doesnot employ Deuteronomistic idioms.52 The lack of Deuteronomistic idiomsmay be explained by the notion that the scribe derived some of the noticesfrom a relatively early source, such as a “Chronicle of Early Israelite Kings,”as Naʾaman proposes.53 The depiction of David in the gure of a Neo-Assyrianconqueror could easily t within the working hypothesis of either a single ex-ilic or double (preexilic and exilic) redaction of the DtrH. If the case for adouble redaction is still compelling, as Richard Nelson argues, then the scribe,who viewed David as the alter-ego of Josiah, designed the catalog to implythat, with the withdrawal of Assyrian rule from Judah, David/Josiah becameheir to the title King of the Four Quarters.54 In the context of an exilic editionof the DtrH, the catalog helps build the gure of David as the image of the idealking from which all subsequent kings steadily declined until Yhwh rescindedthe dynastic promise, just as he revoked Israel’s inheritance to the land prom-ised to Moses and Joshua.

By contrast, the catalog in Chronicles overlooks the theme of making Da-vid’s name and downplays his conquering warrior image by casting Abishai as

51. See n. 22 above.52. On the literary inuence of Neo-Assyrian inscriptions on the idiom, style, and liter-

ary structure of the Deuteronomistic literature, see, for example, Moshe Weinfeld, Deuter-onomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972; repr. WinonaLake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992); Eckhart Otto, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien (BZAW 284; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999).

53.Naʾaman, “History of David,” 25–31, 34.54. R. D. Nelson, “The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case Is

Still Compelling,” JSOT 29 (2005) 319–37. The double or multiple redaction hypothesis de-rives further support from the conicting view of the Transjordanian kingdoms in 2 Samuel8 and Deut 2:2–23. The total subjugation of the Transjordan as depicted by the catalog in2 Samuel 8 probably conformed with utopian aspirations following the weakening of Assyr-ian hegemony during the rule of Josiah. By contrast, the view expressed in Deut 2:2–23, thatEdom, Moab, and Ammon are outside the borders of the land that Yhwh has apportionedto Israel, probably reects later territorial realities, when the Transjordan was incorporatedinto the Babylonian and Persian province systems. See Piotr Bienkowski, “New Evidenceon Edom in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods,” in The Land That I Will Show You:

Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (ed. J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham; JSOTSup 343; Sheeld: SheeldAcademic Press, 2001) 198–213; Oded Lipschits, “Ammon in Transition from Vassal King-dom to Babylonian Province,” BASOR 335 (2004) 37–52; Römer, So-Called , 125.




victor alongside him. The link with the dynastic oracle along with the prolepticnotice regarding the bronze spoils invites the reader to reassess the impact of David’s achievements according to Chronicles’ catalog. David’s victories didnot bring about rest in his day, but nonetheless, they helped amass the wealthand materials needed later to realize David’s ambition to build a temple.

Thus, my examination of the versions of the catalog rearms the old viewthat the Chronicler based his work on the Deuteronomistic History and thathis tendencies are evident, not only in what he chose to add or delete, butalso in the way in which he reworked the source before him. Finally, althoughthe catalog interacts dierently with the dynastic oracle in both Samuel andChronicles, this does not indicate that they represent separate editions derivingfrom a common source, particularly if the Chronicle’s version of the Valley of

Salt victory has been inuenced by key texts in the DtrH that were not repli-cated by the Chronicler (for example, 2 Kgs 14:7).



Documents

2 Sam 8 NelsonFswm