David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel

Written by Joseph Blenkinsopp Reviewed By David G. Firth

In this study of how the figure of David was remembered and taken up by exilic and post-exilic Israel through to the beginning of the Christian period, Joseph Blenkinsopp aims to fill a gap left over from his earlier volume, Judaism, The First Phase: The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). His particular goal here is to explore how the memory of David and his dynasty impacted the policies pursued by the Jewish people and developed their visions of the end time. These two elements are clearly linked with one another in that attempts to restore some form of Davidic dynasty by political means might also be understood by those involved as faithfulness to the promise of a future for David’s house. Although Blenkinsopp recognises that his study could address a range of other issues which emerge from these central questions, he is careful to retain his focus on the memory of David throughout. Of course, since his concern is only with the memory of David, he makes no investigation of the historical roots of this tradition reaching back into the books of Samuel. For this investigation it does not particularly matter whether or not these are reliable traditions, since he is only concerned with how they were taken up and adapted. One might therefore understand this as a study in reception history, though it is a reception that starts within the OT itself.

Given his goal of covering the reception of David across a fairly extended period, it is not surprising that Blenkinsopp arranges his material chronologically, beginning with the collapse of the dynasty in the events that immediately led into the exile and then tracing this through to the time of Jesus. His previous writings—including commentaries on Isaiah and Ezra-Nehemiah, as well as his earlier work on Judaism—mean that he has a detailed exegetical foundation on which to base this study, though he here engages with a much wider range of texts. In structuring this material chronologically, he follows the mainstream of critical study of the OT, devoting one chapter to a period and, for the most part, to its principal text. So, Isa 40–55 is the work of Deutero-Isaiah in the latter stages of the exile whilst Isa 56–66 comes from after the exile. He similarly divides Zechariah into three segments, with chs. 9–14 representing material from a time after Zechariah 1–8, whilst some texts from other prophets (Isaiah, Amos, Micah) are also treated as additions from the same period. What is perhaps more surprising is that, although he recognises both Jeremiah and Ezekiel as prophets active in the post-exilic period, neither receives a sustained treatment of their own, though both make considerable use of the memory of David. Blenkinsopp does draw on Jeremiah and Ezekiel in reconstructing the events immediately after the fall of Jerusalem, but the work would have been improved by a more detailed treatment of them both, especially given the attention devoted to various parts of Isaiah and Zechariah. Similarly, although Blenkinsopp traces the memory of David through the canonical literature, he gives only passing attention to the apocryphal literature and Qumran. Admittedly, the Apocrypha is mostly interesting for this theme because of its relative absence, but some further exploration of this would have been helpful.

These gaps in content do not devalue the work that has gone into the rest of the book, and one is frequently struck by the breadth of knowledge of both the biblical text and wider historical sources that Blenkinsopp is able to engage. This is especially so given the divisions that normally exist in theological faculties between OT and NT studies. He is candid about points where we lack the knowledge to make clear affirmations but is also willing to put forward proposals at various points that might explain the information we do have. Not all of these are equally persuasive, but they always reflect a judicious weighing of the data we can access. Even if some of his suggestions were to be rejected, they would not affect the clear evidence for the tenacity of the memory of David as something that shaped the politics of Judah in its resistance to various imperial powers (e.g., Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome) while also providing hope for a future that transcended current experience. For example, he ponders the possibility (p. 63) that Jehoiachin’s elevation by Babylon (2 Kgs 25:27–30) might have been grooming him to return to Jerusalem as a client king, though nothing in the text indicates this directly. It is a plausible suggestion, but other possibilities should be considered—for example, it could be a means of discouraging unrest among the exiles.

In sum, although there are points where I would express some reservations, this is an important study of a crucial theme which is here studied in its own right and not simply as background to the study of the NT. It deserves a wide reading.


David G. Firth

David G. Firth
St John’s College
Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK

Other Articles in this Issue

Jesus and the authors of the New Testament consistently link how Jesus’ followers are to live (ethics) with when they live (eschatology)...

Possessing a helpful explanation of the slowness of spiritual change can be encouraging to Christians who are not growing spiritually as quickly or consistently as they might have hoped...

Many have written on the difficulties of pastoral ministry, backed by research into the demise of those who become discouraged in the work...

In light of John A. D’Elia’s A Place at the Table and Stanley E...

A trio of recent books raises important questions on how Scripture is handled in halls of (certain kinds of) learning and how such handling affects Scripture’s perceived truth and message...