Davidic Dynasty Research Articles

Kryptogramme in Ezechiel 19 und im Ἱzbet-Ṣarṭa-Ostrakon

Ez 19 is a dirge on the downfall of the Davidic dynasty. Several scholars have suggested that Ez 19,1.2–9 is a reworked version of an earlier, secular song. It is noteworthy that no word for God occurs in the song. On the basis of an atbash-riddle, hidden in v. 1–5, it may be assumed that the original song referred to Jezebel and her sons Ahaziah und Jehoram. Ezekiel edited and actualised this ancient song (cf. v. 14) because he was struck by the remarkable similarity between the fate of Jezebel and her two sons and that of Hamutal and her two sons Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. Ezekiel added a dirge about the end of the Davidic dynasty (v. 10–14), a kind of lesson from history. The incongruities in the final text can be better understood now as the result of this redactional combination of old and new themes. That Atbash encoding was already known in the 12th cent. BCE and therefore could certainly be used in the 9th cent. BCE is demonstrated by a completely fresh interpretation of the hitherto puzzling text on the Ἱzbet Ṣarṭa ostracon.

The Political Theology of the Davidic Dynasty embedded in Psalm 89

The Political Theology of the Davidic Dynasty embedded in Psalm 89

Zedekiah's Fate and the Dynastic Succession

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) (ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes formula omitted.) Zedekiah's fate has not aroused much scholarly discussion. This is surprising because Zedekiah was Judah's last king and therefore the last reigning heir to David's throne. As a son of Josiah, Zedekiah would represent the Davidic dynastic line. There has been much more attention devoted to the deposed Jehoiachin and his alleged rehabilitation in 2 Kgs 25:27-30, the main question being whether 2 Kgs 25:27-30 presents a positive view about the future of the Davidic dynasty or not (originally von Rad vs. Noth).1 Most scholars assume that 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7 represents a fairly historical rendering of Zedekiah's final days and fate. His sons would have been slain in front of his eyes, and Zedekiah himself would have been blinded and taken in shackles to imprisonment in Babylon. Without much discussion or analysis, the assumption is that there is no reason to doubt the general historicity of this account.2 There are reasons, however, to question whether 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7 is as unbiased and reliable as usually assumed. First, it is peculiar that the author describes Zedekiah's fate as an eyewitness. The events are presented as if the author of the passage, or the author of the source that was used, had followed the king to the Judean desert and from there to Ribla in Syria. The author claims to have known that Zedekiah personally saw the slaying of his sons (...) and was put in shackles. Such details would be expected from an eyewitness. The question is, Who could the eyewitness be? Or, where did the author of 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7 receive such detailed information? It is unlikely that the author himself was the eyewitness, and it is also very doubtful that any Judean was present to witness the events.3 He would have to have followed the Babylonian army from the Judean desert, where Zedekiah was captured, to Ribla. He could have been a person captured with Zedekiah, but, according to 2 Kgs 25:5, his companions fled (...).4 Although it is possible that the king was captured with some of his personal aides and friends, there is no reference to any other person being captured. Moreover, it is doubtful that a co-prisoner, someone who was very close to the king, could have been the source that disclosed embarrassing and humiliating details about the king's fate. Another possibility is that the account that describes Zedekiah's fate was based on rumors and/or Babylonian propaganda, which were then used by the author of 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7. In principle, it is possible that the Babylonians, for political reasons, would have wanted to spread a report or rumor that Zedekiah's fate was particularly brutal because of his rebellion. This would have functioned as a warning to anyone who planned rebellion. However, since Judah, as a nation, was utterly destroyed, the purpose of such a message in the post-state context is not immediately clear. In any case, even if the Babylonians had circulated such an account, its uncritical acceptance by the author of the DtrH (= Deuteronomistic History) would be of significance. Why would the author of the DtrH accept Babylonian propaganda without question? In other words, it is very unlikely that the author of the DtrH had a reliable source for the events described in 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7. At most, he had a vague rumor or Babylonian propaganda at his disposal, which he could have used as the basis for his account. Although it is theoretically possible that Zedekiah experienced the fate described in 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7 (but see below), for now our main interest is that the author of the DtrH adopted the account as conclusive and presented it as history, even though he did not have an unproblematic and reliable source for the events. That the author not only described Zedekiah's fate in general terms, as one would expect from an author who does not have a direct source, but also seemed to know curious, even humiliating, details (shackles and Zedekiah seeing the slaughter of his sons), makes the author's approach even more peculiar. …

Man of God and the Deuteronomist: Anti-Deuteronomistic Polemics in 1 Sam 2,27-36

The article argues that the prophecy of an anonymous man of God in 1 Sam 2,27-36, often viewed as a product of Deuteronomistic writing and/or redaction, is in fact an anti-Deuteronomic and anti-Deuteronomistic text. It uses the verbal cliches, generic templates, and concepts found in Deuteronomy and the balance of Joshua-Kings to subvert the Deuteronomic principles of cultic organization and the Deuteronomistic notion of eternal Davidic dynasty. The fragment qualifies therefore as a possible post-Deuteronomistic addition to the Former Prophets.

Choosing brides for the crown-prince. Matrimonial politics in the Davidic dynasty

AbstractUntil now no one has outlined the matrimonial politics of the Davidic dynasty as a whole. A closer look reveals these policies to be a clear-cut means of stabilizing David's dynasty and expanding its territory and power. As far as we know, all of the marriages of Davidic crown-princes are comprehensible in the political and regional context of the time. In every case, choosing the bride for the crown-prince of Jerusalem and Judah was politically goal oriented. Selection of the royal bride throws light on the sometimes weaker, sometimes stronger (more independent) position of the kings as well as the possibilities and aims of Davidic politics. Mentioning the kings's mothers makes clear that the Bible can supply valuable information for the investigation of the history of Israel and Judah.

Counterfeit Davids: Davidic Restoration and the Architecture of 1-2 Kings

1–2 Kings makes extensive use of what Moshe Garsiel has called ‘comparative structures’ in that the biographies of Jeroboam and Omri are analogous to David’s biography. Kings thus presents these kings as ‘counterfeit Davids’, and their dynasties as ‘counterfeit Davidic dynasties’. Further, the end of each of these counterfeit dynasties – the northern kingdom and the Omride dynasty – foreshadows the end of the Davidic dynasty in a number of particulars. Each dynasty’s end is, moreover, followed by a revival of the Davidic dynasty: the Omride dynasty is followed by the restoration under Joash, and the fall of the northern kingdom is followed by the reign of the reforming Hezekiah. In this, too, these dynasties foreshadow the end of the Davidic dynasty in 2 Kings 25, which is followed by the exaltation of Jehoiachin. Hence, 1–2 Kings consists of three embedded narratives – the story of the Davidic dynasty, the story of the northern kingdom, and the story of the Omride dynasty – and each of these has a similar shape. Each dynasty begins with a David-like figure; each ends in a similar fashion; and each is followed by a restoration of hope for the Davidic dynasty.

Le Psaume 80 Dans Le Cadre Du Psautier Et Ezechiel 17

Psalm 80 is a Psalm of Asaph in the continuity of Psalm 79, and especially Psalm 78. We have the influence of Psalm 44 in relation to the Psalm 79, too. In the Psalms 78 and 80 we have two times in Israel's history: Patriarch's time (Joseph) and King's time (Judah). Joseph's mention in 80,2 and Ephraim Benjamin and Manasseh in 80,3, is an allusion to Egypt's time, a time without King. This point is corresponding to the fact of a doubt about the continuation of the royalty in the continuity of Ez 17. In the same way, Psalm 89 establishes the disappearance of the Davidic dynasty. But in the Psalm 80 there is always a hope. In the Psalm 80 the perspective of salvation plays an important part, with especially three times the expression . In this case it is not an influence of the book of Ezekiel, but a perspective of the Book of Isaiah, and so the Psalter. In this way it is possible to understand the relation of Psalm 80 to the Book of Exodus and especially Ex 15, see .

Re Ioiachin, una speranza perduta (2Re 25,27-30)

The release of Jehoiachin (2Kings 25:27-30), which is an act of mercy on the occasion of the ascension to the throne of the new king Evil-Merodach (562 B.C.E.), bears no hope for the future of the Davidic dynasty. The Dtr historian has judged him severely (cf. 2Kings 24:9), so has the Prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 28), and the author of Chronicles (cf. 2Chron 36). It seems, therefore, that some recent articles on 2Kings 25:27-30 devoted to reevaluate the release of king Jehoiachin are destined to be a failure. In some cases, the authors (J.D. Levenson, M.D. Goulder) propose to identify king Jehoiachin with the Suffering Servant of Is 52:13–53:12. King Jehoiachin cannot be an appropriate candidate to guarantee the ʻeverlasting promiseʼ made to the House of David in 2Sam 7 because, in the Prophetʼs view, the future belongs to the Remnant of Israel who, while in exile, has converted to the new plans of Yhwh. In conclusion, the information about the release of king Jehoiachin in 2Kings 25:27-30 was added by an anonymous hand to the Deuteronomistic History, but in the words of M. Noth, it adds nothing to the history itself.

Symmetry, Ruth and Canon

The book of Ruth has proven problematic insofar as scholars have not been able to agree upon its structure, purpose or meaning. This article proposes that a key to each of these may be found in the first six verses of the book. After suggesting that these verses evince a symmetrical pattern, the author then explores what canonical connections might be implied by such an arrangement. The author argues for a ‘Davidic’ reading of the entire book, not by emphasizing the genealogy, but by focusing on the book’s introduction and presenting it, and the story that follows, as a figurative expression of an exilic (or post-exilic) hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty.

Das Haus Elis und das Haus Davids: Wie Gott sein Wort zurucknehmen kann

The house of Eli and the house of David: how God can go back on God,s word. The interpretation of the rejection of Abiathar in terms of the Eli tradition offers an important indication of the intention of the Succession Narrative. The work does not only have a positive as well as a negative tendency as far as the Davidic dynasty is concerned, but the relationship between these two sides is one of conditionality. Therefore the critical aspect of the Succession Narrative contains both acceptance and warning. A sketch of the broader theological framework is given in which the interplay of God's love and his demand of obedience is understood in its historical context, including the redactional perspective.

1 and 2 Chronicles. Vol. 2, 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt and Atonement

I 2 Chronicles. Vol. 1, 1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles 9: Israel's Place Among Nations, by William Johnstone. JSOTSup 253. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Pp. 411. N.P. 1 2 Chronicles. Vol. 2, 2 Chronicles 10-36: Guilt Atonement, by William Johnstone. JSOTSup 254. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Pp. 300. N.P. Given explosion of academic study of biblical text, classical critical philological commentaries have tended to become scribal affairs. Unless commentator is extremely diligent, contemporary scholarship, rather than biblical text itself, becomes main dialogue partner for commentator-and reader of commentary. The length of commentaries grows, yet biblical text itself becomes a more distant voice, submerged beneath cacophony of contemporary discussions. William Johnstone seeks to avoid this dilemma is his 700 plus page commentary on 1 2 Chronicles by selectively engaging contemporary scholarship essentially forgoing a scholarly apparatus as he presents his reading of Chronicles to his audience. Yet his intent is not to present a postmodern exercise in ideology of reading; Johnstone seeks to write the inductive description of material in work itself, written with as few preconceptions as possible about what theme or themes may turn out to (vol. 1, p. 377). He methodically utilizes a concordance to trace use of language within Chronicles rest of Hebrew Bible, especially Leviticus, to construct message of text, while comparing Chronicles to its Vorlage in Samuel-Kings. Johnstone helpfully summarizes his basic reading of Chronicles in introductions to each volume (vol. 1, pp. 9-23; vol. 2, pp. 9-20). The bulk of commentary develops general hypothesis that historiographic genre of Chronicles masks its deeper function as a theological work related to midrash, written for the edification of community (vol. 1, p. 23). According to Johnstone, in 1 Chronicles 1-9, Chronicler spells out universal of God humanity, how Israel finds its place amidst nations in response to breakdown of this relationship. 1 Chronicles 10-2 Chronicles 9 presents Israel attempting to achieve its ideal amidst nations, sacramentally representing sovereignty of God amidst nations through Davidic dynasty. Yet even here, failure is seen on horizon. As a consequence, 2 Chronicles 10-36 engages exilic situation of Chronicler's original audience to understand Israel's failure and to look beyond it to conditions for eventual recognition of God's sovereignty on earth, which will solve problem of relationship betwen God human with which work began (vol. 2, p. 11). The Chronicler thus subordinates Jerusalemite royal tradition to levitical theology of Temple its rites in anticipation of eschatological fulfillment of God's sacramental sovereignty exercised over all creation. Despite Johnstone's claim to investigate inductively Chronicles with minimal presuppositions, his reading operates with a very strong, conservative, questionable MT bias. Indeed, he produces a commentary on MT of Chronicles, confusing it with its textual predecessors. Johnstone consistently works with MT paragraphing as significant to his interpretation; textual criticism in work is basically nonexistent-the MT as textus receptus is judged to be historically superior. More seriously, he rejects Qumran textual evidence for Vorlage of Chronicles in his redactional comments, arguing that the reader is presented with two given texts-Samuel-Kings C-and these two texts will endure as received texts for interpretation. …

The King's Preferential Option for the Poor: Rhetoric, Ideology and Ethics in Psalm 72

AbstractPsalm 72 embodies the ideal that the Davidic dynasty wished to be seen by its subjects to fulfil. Rhetorical analysis shows that the conception of the king as the protector of the poor is offered as the sole justification for the world-wide dominion claimed for him. But this ideology, which presents the king as caring for the poor of his own people but claiming tribute from foreign nations, contains a moral contradiction, as well as concealing the truth that the king was supported by domestic exploitation. However, the appropriateness of the model of the tributary mode of production is questioned in the light of the evidence for private property rights. The ideology draws its plausibility from an ancient tradition of royal measures in favour of the poor. Although direct evidence is limited, it will have been to the advantage of the judaean dynasty to take such measures in order to repress the independent power of local elites. The text suppresses this interest of the king, as well as his own exploitative activity, in favour of his alleged concern for the poor, and thus harmonizes the interests of the king with theirs. But it achieves this at the expense of the doctrine of unconditional divine election, deriving the king's legitimacy from his fulfilment of the divine will in his 'option for the poor'. The psalm's permanent ethical value lies in that it treats state authority as legitimate only if exercised on behalf of the weakest members of society.

The Sins of Rehoboam: the Purpose of 3 Kingdoms 12.24a-Z

It is widely assumed that the purpose of the 'supplement' found in 3 Kingdoms 12.24a-z is to provide additional information or a certain perspective on Jeroboam. An analysis of the supplement's explanatory phrases and structure, however, leads to the conclusion that its purpose is to place the blame for the division of the kingdom on Rehoboam. By emphasizing the notion that the north rejected Rehoboam rather than the Davidic dynasty, and by downplaying the sins of Jeroboam, the supplement implies that a reconciliation between the two kingdoms is possible. Hezekiah's efforts to extend his rule over the inhabitants of the north may provide the historical background for the compilation of the supplement.

The Deuteronomistic Critique of Solomon: A Response to Marvin A. Sweeney

The portrayal of Solomon in Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) has occasioned much scholarly attention owing to tantalizing ambivalence surrounding Solomon's image and attendant ramifications for composition of DtrH. In a recent article in this journal, Marvin A. Sweeney has provided a useful outline of problem, focusing on apparent discrepancy between Solomon's roles first heir to Davidic dynasty, wisest of all kings and founder of Temple, on one hand, and a sinner who is held responsible for division of united kingdom, on other hand.1 Before offering his own solution, Sweeney briefly refers to two alternative lines of reasoning on issue: first, that dichotomous portrayals of Solomon are to be related to notion of a double redaction of DtrH; second, that negative portrayal of Solomon stems from Deuteronomist's incorporation of northern material following fall of Samaria. After successfully pointing to weaknesses of second approach in particular, Sweeney puts forward his own analysis, namely, that a closer inspection of Solomon-related material in reveals signs of an ongoing critique, which purposely presents Solomon as foil for Josiah and antithesis of ideal kingship in DtrH (p. 622). Moreover, Sweeney puts his literary analysis within a specific historical context in arguing that overall critique of Solomon points to a Josianic historiographer who saw the propagandistic value of condemning Solomon in relation to a policy that was designed to attract people of former northern kingdom of Israel back to Davidic rule (p. 616 n. 33). In evaluating Sweeney's proposal, it is important to separate its literary and historical aspects. One must first question whether overall portrayal of Solomon in can legitimately be read a veiled critique. As a corollary, one may ask whether critique, to extent that it exists, indeed corresponds to propagandistic purpose Sweeney attributes to it. On literary-critical level, Sweeney's analysis represents a departure from those studies which view 1 Kings 11 standing completely apart from preceding chapters in its singular criticism of Solomon.2 To contrary, Sweeney argues that two themesnamely, Solomon's apostasy through foreign marriages and his mistreatment of northern tribes, very causes for breakup of monarchy according to 1 Kings 11-12-permeate narrative of 1 Kings 3-10 well. Sweeney adduces his evidence for first theme from scattered notices referring to Pharaoh's daughter (1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8; 9:16, 24) and from irony inherent in fact that Jeroboam is given sanctuary by none other than Pharaoh (1 Kgs 11:40). As for Solomon's mistreatment of northern tribes, Sweeney points to royal district list in 1 Kgs 4:7-19, report of a forced levy in 1 Kgs 5:27-32, and Solomon's ceding of twenty Galilean cities to Hiram mentioned in 1 Kgs 9:10-14, all of which appear to discriminate against northern interests. Methodologically, however, one must question way in which Sweeney is using evidence. Can texts he cites indeed be said to consciously advance a historiographic agenda?3 And, if so, must that agenda necessarily carry negative overtones? Alternatively, might texts in question, or at least some of them, be better appreciated in terms of their supplying raw material, however unwittingly, for a modern, historical appreciation of Solomon's kingdom? Regarding these issues, Sweeney fails to distinguish between passages that form part of an editorially conditioned structure and those that do not constitute part of a particular literary patterning. In first category, one may assign notices relating to Pharaoh's daughter in 3:1-2(4) and 9:24-25. As noted recently by Marc Brettler, these verses form part of Deuteronomist's overall literary frame, inasmuch they define boundaries of two opposing portrayals of Solomon in 1 Kings 3-11 (a point we shall return to below). …

Die eskatologiese betekenis van Sion as agtergrond tot die teologie van die boek Openbaring

The eschatological meaning of Sion as background to the theology of the book of Revelation The core of the theology of the Book of Revelation focuses on the kingship of God. His kingship should be established on earth as it is in heaven. According to the Old Testament eschatological traditions God's kingship is linked with the Davidic dynasty by way of application. And the Davidic kingship is very much focused on Sion and Jerusalem. Through a theological review of the Old Testament meaning of the place and function of Sion within eschatology, linked up with God’s kingship, a necessary background for the theology of the Book of Revelation is sketched.

The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity; The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for MessianismGoodblattDavid The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 38J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)Tübingen, 1994, xii, 336, $137.50PomykalaKenneth E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for

The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity; The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for MessianismGoodblattDavid <i>The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity</i> Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 38J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)Tübingen, 1994, xii, 336, $137.50PomykalaKenneth E. <i>The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for

The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (review)

The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (review)

The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism

Book Review| October 01 1996 The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism, Kenneth E. Pomykala. Scott Langston Scott Langston Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of Biblical Literature (1996) 115 (3): 529–530. https://doi.org/10.2307/3266908 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Scott Langston; The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism. Journal of Biblical Literature 1 January 1996; 115 (3): 529–530. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3266908 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveSBL PressJournal of Biblical Literature Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

La pierre angulaire d'Esaïe 28 :16 et ses échos néotestamentaires

Edmond Jacob : The Cornerstone of Isaiah 28 :16 and its Echoes in the New Testament. Although it is set in a context of judgment, this oracle of salvation has its place in the theology of Isaiah. The construction of which the stone is to be the foundation is not the Temple but rather the Davidic dynasty with its messianic consummation. Faith, as a response to the divine initiative, is an attitude of trust in the work of God, which will be carried out in spite of the upheavals in the contemporary history of the prophet. The New Testament interprets the verse christologically and applies the symbolism of the stone to the person of Christ and to the community of believers.

David and the matriarch in the Book of Ruth

In this paper it is argued that the motif of the matriarch is not only present in the Book of Ruth, but that it also fulfils an important role. Several motifs and clusters of motifs established in the patriarchal narratives, especially that of the protection of the matriarch, are shown to be used in such a way that Ruth is portrayed as a typical matriarch. Since a matriarch is a matriarch by virtue of the importance of her offspring, the David motif in 4:17 is by no means secondary, but an inherent part of the narrative itself. This in turn has implications for the theological basis of the Davidic dynasty: Since the motif of the matriarch in this way becomes part of the royal theme, its meaning is determined by the overarching theme of solidarity and love, viz. that the royal house is founded not on 'pure' descent, but on solidarity and love.