Eamon Younis: Rethinking The “Sure Mercies Of David” In Isaiah 55:3

By Peter J. Gentry

[Peter J. Gentry is Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisville, Ky.]

I. Introduction

Debate has raged for some time over the interpretation of the phrase ḥasdê dāwīd in Isa 55:3—an extremely important text in relation to understanding both the Davidic Covenant and the New Covenant in Scripture. This article engages the major players in the debate and challenges the standard view by rethinking the evidence from the grammar of the Hebrew language and from the versions. The “sure mercies” are by David rather than for David as in the consensus view. Moreover, by locating the text in a proper canonical and theological trajectory from Gen 1 through Deut 17 and 2 Sam 7, the passage in Isaiah can be interpreted as applying 2 Sam 7:19 to the future Davidic Servant King who brings about the everlasting covenant in Isa 53–54. The citation in Acts 13 is seen as providing strong support for this interpretation.

II. The Construct Phrase In Scholarly Debate

In 1965 Caquot challenged the standard view[1] that dāwīd is to be construed as object in the bound noun phrase ḥasdê dāwīd in Isa 55:3 and argued instead that David is to be understood as the subject of the acts of covenant kindness and love.[2] His analysis was adopted and developed further by Beuken in 1975,[3] but rejected in 1978 by Williamson[4] and by Walter Kaiser in 1989.[5] Recent commentators follow Williamson directly or simply maintain the standard view.[6]

First, Williamson scrutinizes the ancient versions and concludes that the LXX, contrary to claims by Caquot, in fact supports construing David as objective genitive. He further maintains that not only the Vulgate, as Caquot admits, but also the Targum preserves the ambiguity of the Hebrew. Only the Peshitta supports the subjective genitive. Later we shall return to the ancient versions, and in particular, to the LXX of Isa 55:3 and the citation of it in Acts 13:34.

Second, Williamson considers the claim from grammatical observations that when hesedis bound to a noun or pronominal suffix, virtually everywhere the free member or pronominal suffix indicates the subject or agent of the kindness. With Caquot he notes that the plural of hesed occurs eighteen times in the HB. Apart from Gen 32:11, the noun is always in a bound phrase and the free member is always the subject—aside from the disputed passages Isa 55:3 and 2 Chr 6:42. But do these facts, he argues, necessarily require that we read Isa 55:3 as subjective?

As an alternative approach, Williamson claims that in every text that precedes Isa 55:3 chronologically, the one who exercises ḥăsādîm is God. Thus, the readers of Isaiah would have construed the phrase in 55:3 as referring to the covenant loyalty of God rather than of David. He bolsters this by asserting that in the first instance where ḥăsādîm is certainly postulated of a human, the meaning is spelled out to avoid misunderstanding: ḥăsāday ʾăs̆er ʿāśîtî (Neh 13:14). Williamson then turns attention to the far more usual singular use of ḥesed and argues that in Ps 5:8; Ezra 7:28; 9:9; Neh 13:22b, and especially in Ps 144:2 and Jonah 2:9 we have examples where the objective use is possible, probable, or even certain.

Lastly Williamson considers the context of Isa 55:3. He argues that the use of ḥesed and neʾĕmān link the passage strongly to 2 Sam 7 and critiques the proposals of Beuken and Caquot to demonstrate that the context emphasizes the faithfulness of God to David and not the reverse. Evidence is brought forward to show that ḥasdê dāwīd hanneʾ ĕmānîm must be read in apposition to berît ʿôlām, and that construing the text this way is not only the most natural reading, but requires the interpretation that David is objective rather than subjective.

In responding to Williamson we must begin by affirming that both Beuken and Caquot are correct in observing that the normal way to construe the bound phrase is to interpret David as agent or subject. Out of eighteen instances in the plural, only two are considered objective; and after Williamson thoroughly scoured the materials, out of 228 occurrences of the singular only six can be found that may possibly or probably be read as objective.[7] There is no point in debating the interpretation of these six texts. The extreme paucity and debatable interpretation of these texts only supports the contention of Beuken and Caquot and strongly suggests that arguments to the contrary constitute special pleading. Linguistic usage demands, then, that the first notion to enter the mind of the native reader is to construe the free member as subject. That the free member in Isa 55:3 and 2 Chr 6:42 is human and not divine is an interesting point that does not necessarily support construing the free member as object.[8] Williamson’s argument that in the first case where ḥăsādîm is certainly postulated of a man, the meaning is spelled out to avoid misunderstanding (ḥăsādayʾăs̆erʿāśîtî [Neh 13:14]) fails to observe that the construction in Neh 13:14 is basically the same as in Gen 32:11 where God is agent of the acts of loyal love. The addition of the relative phrase in Neh 13:14 is motivated only by the fact that it emphasizes the agent and does not function to avoid misunderstanding over whether the pronominal suffix is objective or subjective. In Gen 32:11, however, Williamson fails to note that the speaker is the recipient of the acts of loyal love and this may be the reason why here, and only here, ḥesed (in the plural) is not and perhaps, according to usage, cannot be used in a construct phrase.

The use of ḥesed in bound phrases, however, is only one factor in the correct interpretation of this text. Other important contextual, grammatical, and lexical considerations are as follows. The most natural reading of the bound phrase in relation to the whole is to construe it in apposition to the berîtʿôlām of v. 3a. This Williamson has defended well, as have many scholars before him. For David, one normally thinks of the historical person who was king over Israel after Saul and who began the only lasting dynasty in Israelite monarchy. Here then, is the crux of the matter. We know of a covenant relationship established between Yahweh, God of Israel, on the one hand, and David and his descendants on the other (2 Sam 7). Yet what ḥăsādîm, that is, what acts of covenant kindness on the part of David or his sons, what acts fulfilling the human obligations in this covenant, could possibly constitute an everlasting covenant and so satisfy the context of Isa 55? Here is where scholars are driven to consider other possibilities and the conventional interpretation has for the most part opted for construing David in the bound phrase as object. At this point rebuttals of and rejoinders to Beuken and Caquot by Williamson and Kaiser are persuasive. Acts of grace and kindness by King David do not satisfy the context in Isa 55. Yet neither is the conventional interpretation free of problems. Williamson understands the phrase to mean God’s covenant faithfulness to David,[9] “giving rise to such translations as ‘my steadfast, sure love for David’ (RSV).”[10] The NIV renders, “my faithful love promised to David.” Kaiser’s translation is similar, “the unfailing kindnesses promised to David.”[11] The fact of the matter, however, is that reading David as objective genitive does not yield a translation such as that of Kaiser or the NIV The term ḥasdê in the bound phrase means either the acts performed by David (subjective) or for David (objective). ḥasdê dāwīd cannot, therefore, mean “blessings” or “faithfulness promised” to David. It can only mean actions that fulfill covenant obligations/stipulations.

III. The Background In Second Samuel 7

Williamson attempts to provide support for an objective reading of David by using חסד, נאמן, and עולם to link Isa 55:3 to 2 Sam 7:15–16. Certainly 2 Sam 7 represents fundamentally important background to Isa 55:3, although the connections drawn by Williamson are somewhat superficial and do not necessarily prove that David is either objective or subjective.

It is both helpful and worthwhile to review briefly the details of the Davidic Covenant in 2 Sam 7 to clarify the background to Isa 55:3. The following outline reveals the literary structure of this narrative.

Second Samuel 7 Outline
I. God’s Promise To David:	1–17
A. David’s Plan, David Proposes to Build a House for Yahweh	1–3
B. God’s Promise	4–17
1. Will You Build a House for Me?	4–7
2. I Will Build a House for You!	8–16
a. Promises to Be Realized During David’s Lifetime	8–11a
b. Promises to Be Realized After David’s Death	11b–16
i. The Covenant Promises—Yahweh’s Part Seed Kingdom Throne (Eternal)	11b–13
ii. The Covenant Relationship—the King’s Part Obedience in a Father-Son Relationship	14–15
II. David’s Prayer To God
A. David’s Praise and Worship	18–20
1. Wonder	21–24
2. Praise	25–29
B. David’s Requests
1. David Asks God to Confirm His Word	25–27
2. David Expresses Trust in God’s Word	28
3. David Asks God to Bless His House	29
III. Summary
An Eternal Seed	16
An Eternal Kingdom	18–29
An Eternal Throne	18–24

Several key markers of the literary structure need to be noted. First, the shift from perfect and waw-consecutive imperfect forms in vv. 8 and 9a to waw-consecutive perfect forms marking future time in the middle of v. 9 clearly marks the break between past blessings and future promises. Second, the messenger formula which began v. 8 (כה אמר יהוה צבאות) is repeated in v. 11b (והגיד לך יהוה). This is a clear marker in the text along with the temporal clause beginning v. 12 and referring to a time after David’s death, to separate the promises to be fulfilled during David’s life from the promises to be fulfilled after David’s death.

The covenant clearly demarcates both divine and human obligations. The divine obligations or promises are divided by the literary structure into promises to be fulfilled during David’s lifetime and promises to be fulfilled after David’s death. The former are listed in vv. 8–11a: (1) a great name, (2) a firm place for Israel as the people of God, and (3) rest for David from his enemies. The latter are listed in vv. 11b–13 and 16. Here what Yahweh promises David is a lasting dynasty, kingdom, and throne. The promises are given initially in vv. 11b–13 and repeated in v. 16. At the center of this A-B-A’ chiastic structure is the covenant between Yahweh and David defined as a father-son relationship. This structure stresses the need for obedience to Yahweh on the part of the king. Traditionally theologians have viewed the Davidic Covenant as unconditional. It is true that the content of the covenant consists in the mighty promises made by Yahweh. Nonetheless, as vv. 14–15 show, faithfulness is expected of the king and these verses foreshadow the possibility of disloyalty on the part of the king, which will require discipline by Yahweh. In effect, what vv. 14–15 are saying is that the covenant will only be fulfilled not by a faithful father alone (i.e., Yahweh keeping his promises), but also by a faithful son (i.e., the obedience of the king to Yahweh’s Torah). The chiastic literary structure actually portrays in a visual manner the nature of the covenant: faithfulness and obedience in the father-son relationship are crucial, but they are supported on both sides by the faithfulness and sure promises of Yahweh to David of descendants, kingdom, and throne (the order is the same before and after the chiastic center).

The consideration given by later texts to both divine and human obligations in the covenant will be noted shortly. First, however, the meaning of describing the relationship between Yahweh and the Davidic King as “father” and “son” must be fully explained. Factors involved in this explanation include the use of the word בן in Hebrew, the cultural context of kingship in Canaan and in the ancient Near East, the use of familial language in treaties, and the canonical context of the passage.[12]

A literal, physical family relationship is clearly contrary to the context. Nonetheless, בן, the term for “son” in Hebrew, has a much broader field of meaning than “son” in English. In an agrarian, pre-industrial economy and society, trades were normally transmitted within a family setting. In this way, sons customarily did what their fathers did in addition to displaying common characteristics passed on from family setting, upbringing, and genetics. Thus, the term “son” can be used to mean “possessing the characteristics” of something. In the Parable of the Vineyard in Isa 5:1, the beloved has a vineyard בְּקֶרֶן בֶּן־שֶׂמֶן. The horn, that is, a hillside or terrace on a mountain spur or slope, is “a son of fatness,” that is, characterized by abundant produce. An idiomatic English translation of the Hebrew phrase would be “on a fertile hillside.”

The ancient Near Eastern and Canaanite cultural context is significant. In Egypt, from at least 1650 B.C. onwards, people perceived the king as the image of god because he was the son of god. The emphasis was not on physical appearance. For example, a male king could be the image of a female goddess. What is stressed is that the behavior of the king reflects the behavior of the god. The king as the image of god reflects the characteristics and essential notions of the god.[13]

From Ugarit we have the story of King Keret who is described as the son of El.[14] His health must indicate his divine origin.[15]

The OT records an Aramean king of Damascus known as Ben-Hadad.[16] By his name, he is the son of his god. The prosopography of the Amarna Correspondence and also at Ugarit shows a number of people from various levels of society whose names are of the format “son of Divine Name.”[17] Thus, we do not know if the name Ben-Hadad proves that he considered himself as the representative of Ba’al to his people. It might depend upon whether the name was a birth name from his parents or a name taken upon accession to the throne.[18]

The Canaanite and ancient Near Eastern culture shows that the notion of the king as a son of god was well established.[19] The meaning may have differed in Egypt, Canaan, and Mesopotamia, but the common denominator is the idea that the king represents the character of the god in some way to the people.

Furthermore, in the ancient Near East those bound by suzerain-vassal treaties may refer to each other as father and son.[20] This has a significant bearing upon 2 Sam 7. Earlier theologians discussed covenants in terms of unconditional or conditional promises. More recently, covenants have been evaluated according to suzerain-vassal models on the one hand or royal grant models on the other. The former emphasizes the obligations of the vassal king to the suzerain, the latter the obligations of the great king to his noble or vassal. The Davidic Covenant has frequently been classified as a royal grant, yet it does not fit neatly either the unconditional-conditional categories nor the more recent suzerain-vassal versus royal grant models.[21] Verses 14–15 clearly emphasize the need for obedience on the part of the son, yet the literary structure shows that this is undergirded primarily by the promises of the father.

Second Samuel 7 must also be read according to the arrangement of the books in the Hebrew Canon.[22] A canonical reading indicates that the Davidic King is inheriting both the role of Adam as son of God and Israel as son of God according to the instructions of Deut 17. These are large topics and can be treated only summarily here.

First to be considered is the fact that humans are created as the divine image according to Gen 1:26–28. The divine image defines human ontology in terms of a covenant relationship with the creator God on the one hand and with the creation on the other hand. The former may be captured by the term “son-ship” and is implied by Gen 5:1–3:

By juxtaposing the divine creation of Adam in the image of God and the subsequent human creation of Seth in the image of Adam, the transmission of the image of God through this genealogical line is implied, as well as the link between sonship and the image of God. A Seth is a son of Adam, so Adam is a son of God. Language is being stretched here as a literal son of God is certainly not in view, but nonetheless the writer is using an analogy to make a point.[23]

The latter relationship, that is, between humans and the creation, may be reflected in the terms kingship and servanthood. As Randall Garr has shown, it is interesting to note that in the ninth-century Tell Fakhariyeh inscription, צלמא 22 (“image”) refers to the king’s majestic self and power in relation to his subjects, while דמותא (“likeness”) refers to the king’s petitionary role and relation to the deity.[24] The ancient Near Eastern data confirm and correspond exactly to this exegesis of the biblical text. Furthermore, as Gen 2:4–25 shows, the Adamic son is like a priest in a garden sanctuary. He must first learn the ways of God in order to exercise the rule of God as God himself would.[25]

Second, Israel inherited this Adamic role.[26] Yahweh refers to the nation as his son in Exod 4:22–23. The divine purpose in the covenant established between God and Israel at Sinai is unfolded in Exod 19:3–6. As a kingdom of priests they will function to make the ways of God known to the nations and also bring the nations into a right relationship to God. Since Israel is located geographically on the one and only communications link between the great superpowers of the ancient world, in this position she will show the nations how to have a right relationship to God, how to treat each other in a truly human way, and how to be faithful stewards of the earth’s resources. This is the meaning of Israel’s sonship.

Third, Deut 17 intimates that the king will be the leader in this role. Verses 16–20 describe the manner in which the future king is to exercise his responsibilities. After three negative commands in vv. 16–17, vv. 18–20 specify three positive commands all relating to Torah: (1) the king shall copy the Torah, (2) the king shall have the Torah with him, and (3) the king shall read the Torah.[27] In other words, the only positive requirement is that the king embodies Torah as a model citizen.[28] This is exactly the point of the father-son relationship set out in 2 Sam 7.

The response of David to this revelation via the prophet Nathan in vv. 18–29 reveals David’s own understanding of the covenant. In this regard, the problematic v. 19 is critical. In v. 18 David expresses the fact that he and his house have been highly exalted. Now in v. 19, however, he states that this honor is dwarfed by the promises concerning the distant future: zōʾt tôrat hāʾādām. This clause has been enigmatic for scholars. The NIV rendering, “Is this your usual way of dealing with man?” represents a standard interpretation. However, this interpretation is problematic. First, reading the clause as an affirmative, declarative statement is far more normal when no contextual or grammatical signals exist to indicate a question.[29] Second, although “manner” is suggested as the possible meaning of tôrâ by the Oxford Lexicon,[30] “instruction” or “law” is by far the first meaning that comes to mind. In the bound phrase, the free member may be subjective or objective. When the free member is a person, it is frequently a subjective genitive, but construed as an objective genitive gives good sense here.[31] Thus we should translate, “This is the instruction for humanity.” Dumbrell and Kaiser note that the expression “law of man” has been shown to have parallels in the similar Akkadian phrase tērit nīshē which has the sense of a “charter for humanity.”[32]

What could David mean when he states that the covenant revealed through Nathan is Yahweh’s instruction for humanity? In vv. 14–15 the human obligations in the relationship between Yahweh and the Davidic King are indicated by establishing a father-son relationship. We saw that in the ancient Near East, a country or region was thought to be ruled by the god of that territory, and the king was considered the representative of the local god. This explains how the king could be called the son of God. Therefore, as the divine son, the Davidic King was to effect the divine instruction or torah in the nation as a whole and was, as a result, a mediator of the Mosaic Torah. However, since the god whom the Davidic King represented was not limited to a local region or territory, but was the Creator God and Sovereign of the whole world, the rule of the Davidic King would have repercussions for all the nations, not just for Israel. This is developed in Ps 2 and many other psalms, but is already suggested in 2 Sam 7. Thus, faithfulness on the part of the Davidic Son would effect the divine rule in the entire world, much as God intended for humanity in the covenant of creation as indicated by the divine image in Gen 1:26ff This, I submit, is the logic behind David’s response in v. 19, and this is why he claims that a covenant that makes the Davidic King son of God is the instrument of bringing Yahweh’s Torah to all the nations. David’s own understanding of divine sonship is clearly indicated by his statement in 7:19 that the covenant is God’s charter or instruction for humankind.

The parallel text in 1 Chr 17:17 is problematic textually but instructive. The clause corresponding to zōʾt tôrat hāʾādām is ûreʾîtanî ketôr hāʾādām hammaʿăleh. The most thorough treatment of the problem and the best proposal for the meaning of tôr is in Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: “you see me according to the rank of the man placed high.”[33] This is equivalent to the last words of David in 2 Sam 23:1 where he refers to Nathan’s Oracle as a ברית and calls himself “the man set on high” (הַגֶּבֶר הֻקַם עָל). The statement in Ps 89:28 (ET 27) is similar:

I will also appoint him my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth. (NIV)

The second stich explicates the meaning of the Davidic sonship as being “the most exalted of the kings of the earth.” All of these texts represent interpretations of v. 19 of 2 Sam 7, and show that since the god who is represented by the Davidic King is both supreme and universal, the Davidic King has the highest rank among human beings. Despite critical textual problems,[34] 2 Sam 7:19 is the key to the universalization of the Messianic vision in the psalms and prophets.[35]

IV. Later Interpretations Of Second Samuel 7

Brief observations are now in order on the consideration given by later texts to both divine and human obligations in the covenant between Yahweh and David. These are also crucial in a correct interpretation of Isa 55:3, and frequently scholars have depended heavily on intertextual links, particularly with Ps 89. In one of the most enlightened treatments of intertextual links between Ps 89 and Isa 55:3, K. Heim addresses concerns of scholars who hold that Nathan’s Oracle has been reinterpreted or altered in different directions based upon present political realities in Israel and Judah. Heim responds to M. Fish-bane as follows:

Fishbane’s notion that the psalm’s developments or changes were introduced mainly to protect the validity of the original oracle loses conviction when we note that more effective changes to this effect could have been introduced. Yet Psalm 89 still maintains that the Davidic promise-covenant is unconditional, although changing the unconditional nature of the psalm into a conditional one would have brought the covenant more in line with political reality and resolved the theological problem. Such a transformation would have been part of the psalmist’s toolbox, for many other texts employed exactly this type of change (e.g. Ps 132:12; 1 Kgs 2:3–4, 6:12, 8:25).[36]

Heim’s main point is well taken. Yet what has not been noted sufficiently in recent scholarship is that while later writers do adapt and apply Nathan’s Oracle to their present context and theological tensions, their exegesis is more firmly rooted in the original oracle than is frequently allowed.[37] This is because the oracle itself has elements that are both conditional as well as unconditional. Later writers may focus more on the unconditional aspects (e.g., 2 Sam 22:51 = Ps 18:51) found in vv. 11b–13 and 16, or on the conditional aspects found in vv. 14–15 (Ps 132:12; 1 Kgs 2:3–4; 6:12; 8:25; 2 Chr 6:16; 7:17–18; Jer 22:1–5, 24). Indeed in Ps 89, which is so focused on the unconditional aspect, the conditional side does surface. Two verses in particular should be highlighted:

Psalm 89:31–34 (ET 30–33)

ובמשפטי לא ילכון׃

ומצותי לא ישמרו׃

ובנגעים עונם׃

ולא־אשקר באמונתי׃

אם־יעזבו בניו תורתי [31]

אם־חקתי יחללו [32]

ופקדתי בשבט פשעם [33]

וחסדי לא־אפיר מעמו [34]

if his sons abandon my Torah
and do not walk in my ordinances
if they profane my statues
and do not keep my commands
I will punish their transgression with a rod
and their offence with strokes
but my covenant loyalty I will not cancel from him
and I will not prove false in my faithfulness

Verse 31 relates directly to Deut 17 and emphasizes that the Davidic King must know and keep Torah in order for this to be the basis of his rule in the nation (as in Isa 11:3a). While the emphasis is upon the faithfulness of Yahweh, the need for Torah keeping on the part of the king is duly noted.

Psalm 89:50 (ET 49)

איה חסדיך הראשנים אדני נשבעת לדוד באמונתך׃ [50]

where are your former ḥăsādîm, O Lord,
which you swore to David in faithfulness?

This text appeals to the acts of ḥesed promised by Yahweh in the Davidic Covenant and performed by the Lord for at least some of the descendants of David, although apparently not in the life situation of the psalmist. Williamson proposed that when the referent is God, it is normal to think of him as showing ḥesed and so the subjective genitive is standard. He argued that the first instance where the referent is certainly postulated of a human, the meaning is spelled out to avoid misunderstanding38 I would argue that the pronominal referent is normally subjective, regardless of whether God or a human is the referent. Here, Hebrew ḥăsādêkâ must be read as subjective genitive, as Williamson acknowledges.[39] But in order for the psalmist to clarify that the acts of covenant kindness performed by Yahweh are previous in time and promised in the Davidic Covenant, the modifiers “former” and a relative clause are added to the bound phrase. Thus, clarifying modifiers can be added regardless of whether the referent is divine or human.

First Kings 3:6 and parallel 2 Chr 1:8 are illuminating in revealing Solomon’s understanding of the role of David’s faithfulness in the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise:

First Kings 3:6

ויאמרּ שלמה אתה עשית עם־עבדך דוד אבי חסד גדולּ [6]
כאשר הלך לפניך באמת ובצדקה ובישרת לבב עמך
ותשמר־לו את־החסד הגדול הזה
ותתן־לו בן ישב על־כסאו כיום הזה׃

Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.” (NIV)

Here Yahweh performs his covenant obligation, but David performs his as well, and thus the promise is fulfilled.

Lastly, before considering the exegetical issues in Isa 55, 2 Chr 6:42 must be treated as the only other place where the bound phrase ḥasdê dāwīd occurs. Without repeating the excellent observations of Beuken, we may note here the emphasis is not only on Yahweh fulfilling his covenant obligations, but also on the Davidic son fulfilling his.

The first section of 2 Chr 6 entails the Blessing of Solomon in vv. 1–11. Verse 4 contains references to Yahweh’s promises to David. Two promises are mentioned in v. 5: (1) choosing a city for the temple, and (2) choosing a leader over Israel. Then v. 6 observes the fulfillment of these two promises: (1) Yahweh chose Jerusalem for the temple, and (2) he chose David to rule his people Israel. Verses 7–11 go on to explain why it would be David’s Son and not David who would build the temple that stores the documents of the Mosaic Covenant. The explanation appeals directly to Nathan’s Oracle. The two themes, choice of Jerusalem for temple and choice of David for leader established in vv. 1–11, are important for understanding the Chronicler at the end of the prayer.

The second section records the Prayer of Solomon in vv. 12–42. In v. 14 Solomon begins by praising Yahweh as the God who keeps covenant and ḥasdê dāwīd to those who walk before him in complete devotion. This is central. Certainly the covenant with David entails promises that Yahweh must keep to be faithful. But the oracle through Nathan makes clear that Yahweh will only keep them to and through a faithful son. Therefore, from the Chronicler’s point of view, the promises of Yahweh await fulfillment only when the throne is occupied by an obedient son. What the subsequent course of history shows is that Yahweh must not only keep the promises, but also provide the obedient son if the covenant is to be maintained.

Verse 15 emphasizes that Yahweh spoke with his mouth and fulfilled with his hands the commitments he made in regard to David, his father. In v. 16 Solomon asks Yahweh to fulfill his promises to David concerning David’s sons, only if the sons faithfully follow Torah, as David did. Verse 17 repeats the request for Yahweh to fulfill his promise. To this point Solomon is calling upon Yahweh to be faithful to his promises to David, but he has underlined (1) the obedience of David, and (2) the necessity of the obedience of the sons for the promises to be fulfilled. Verses 18–40 constitute a request that God hear prayers made in and toward this temple. The various situations are all based on the Mosaic Covenant (Exod and Deut).

At the end of the prayer something interesting happens in the Chronicler’s account, which is different from the prayer in 1 Kgs 8. Second Chronicles 6:39b and 40 quickly summarize vv. 50–53 in 1 Kgs 8. Then in vv. 41–42 the Chronicler quotes, almost verbatim, Ps 132:8–10. The comments on this use of Ps 132 by Beuken need not be repeated here. His point may be strengthened, however, by a few significant observations. When it is recalled that the book of Psalms was Israel’s hymnal, the reader of Chronicles immediately picks up Ps 132 as part of the context in 2 Chr 6. This is because Ps 132 addresses the concerns raised at the beginning of 2 Chr 6: (1) the choice of Zion for the temple, and (2) the choice of David and his sons as leaders of Israel. From the historical point of view of the Chronicler, both of these have been in grave jeopardy. Yet Ps 132 is a prayer for Yahweh to keep his oath to David based upon a faithful David. This is the clear meaning of v. 12 and especially of the phrase in v. 10, “on account of David your servant.” The preposition baʿăbûr may be bound to a noun or to a clause. When bound to a proper noun, in all forty-nine instances in the HB the prepositional phrase means “on account of what a person did” and not “on account of doing something on behalf of a person.”[40] An interesting confirmation of the use of baʿăbûr is found in Gen 26:24 where baʿăbûr ʾabrāhām is a shorthand equivalent of ʿēqebʾăs̆er s̆āmaʿʾabrāhām beqôlî (“because Abraham obeyed my voice”) in Gen 26:5.[41] In 2 Chr 6:42 the phrase ḥasdê dāwīd substitutes for baʿăbûr dāwīd in the citation of Ps 132:10 and therefore probably intended the same thing.[42] In this way the Chronicler has Solomon praying for Yahweh to keep his promises on account of the faithfulness of David. It would work well in the context that Solomon is appealing for Yahweh to be faithful because of the obedience of his father.[43] However, in the context of Chronicles, with its Messianic focus, this is more likely a hope in a future king who will at last be an obedient son, so that the promises may be fulfilled by Yahweh.

V. Interpretation Of Isaiah 55:3

We may now turn directly to the exegesis of Isa 55:3. At once the major problem for Williamson, who readily admits that ḥesed nearly always governs a subjective genitive, is to understand how acts of ḥesed performed by David can possibly satisfy the context of Isa 55:3. Here one can sympathize with objections raised by Williamson and others to the proposals of Beuken and Caquot. Nonetheless, there is a third option, and that is to construe David as a rubric for the future king who will arise from the Davidic dynasty and not the founder of the line. Clear evidence exists for this in the context in that Isa 55:3b is expressed in the future tense. In 55:4, however, although “נתתיו is a perfect tense, it refers to the fact that Yahweh has planned a future role for the Davidic King to play. This interpretation fully preserves standard usage for the Hebrew perfect and shows how the future orientation is maintained.

This option was considered—and rejected—previously by F. Delitzsch and more recently by Walter Kaiser following Delitzsch.[44] Delitzsch states, “The directly Messianic application of the name ‘David’ is to be objected to, on the ground that the Messiah is never so called without further remark.”[45] This objection is not serious. It wrongly assumes that the manner of reference in Isaiah must match that in other prophets and fails to note the patterns of reference in Isaiah itself. The name “David” in Isaiah refers elsewhere to the historical personage in the expression “the city of David” (22:9; 29:1). In addressing Hezekiah, Isaiah calls Yahweh “the God of your father David” (38:5). The phrases “house/tent of David” (7:2, 13; 16:5; 22:22) and “throne of David” (9:7) are expressions used to refer to descendents of David, whether in the author’s present or future. Thus, the use of the name David in Isaiah shows that a future descendent is uppermost in the author’s thought. D. I. Block’s recent study “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah” provides strong evidence that need not be repeated here that the figure of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah is both Davidic and royal.[46] The figurative language in which the Davidic king and kingdom are portrayed as a majestic tree cut down (Isa 6:13) and the reference to the shoot and root in Isa 53:2 clearly connect this text to the vision of the future king who is the shoot and root of Jesse in Isa 11:1, 10. As Motyer notes, “The reference to Jesse indicates that the shoot is not just another king in David’s line but rather another David.”[47] The connection between the future king of Isa 9 and 11 and the Servant of Yahweh in Isa 53 in the history of interpretation is as old as the LXX. The rendering of yônēq in 53:2 by παιδίον shows a clear connection with 9:5 in the mind of the Greek translator.[48] Key to the identity of the Servant of Yahweh is Isa 49:3 and 6 in the Second Servant Song.[49] One text says the servant is Israel; another affirms that the servant will restore the tribes of Jacob (= Israel). The servant is Israel, yet restores Israel. How can we resolve this enigmatic and apparently contradictory situation? When the servant is seen as a royal figure, we can propose a solution. There is a sense in which the king is the nation in himself, and yet can also be the deliverer of the nation. If “David” refers to the future king in 55:3, a precedent would already be set by Hos 3:5, a usage more similar than those in Jeremiah (30:8–9) and Ezekiel (34:23–24; 37:24–25).

With the above exposition of “sonship” in the Davidic Covenant of 2 Sam 7 and the understanding that Isa 55:3 refers to a future David, the pieces of the text can now be put together. This approach best suits the flow of thought in Isaiah and best explains what the phrases “witness of the peoples” and “leader and commander of the peoples” mean in context. It also best explains the apposition of “faithful acts of loyal love by David” to “eternal covenant” and why “faithful” is used as a modifier. These arguments can be explicated as follows.

The first vision of a future restored Zion is found in ch. 2, where Mount Zion becomes the highest mountain in the new world, and all the nations stream to it to receive instruction (tôrâ) and the word of the Lord. This vision, along with the one in ch. 4, shows that the future Mount Zion has inherited the role of both Eden and Sinai and that the city, once a whore (1:21), is now characterized by social justice (1:26) as the term “holy” (4:3) indicates.

The vision in 9:5–6 (ET 6–7) and 11:1–10 brings a new twist. A future king, a new David, will arise. He will delight in the fear of the Lord, here a synonym for Torah as in Ps 19. Thus he will fulfill the command of Deut 17:18–20 and as a result implement the social justice of the Torah (Isa 11:3b–5). According to v. 10, the king himself will become a banner for the nations. Here we see that the nations which stream to Zion in 2:1–4 will receive the Torah of Yahweh through the Davidic King. The Servant of Yahweh—already connected to this future king—will bring justice to the nations in 42:1, 3–4; 49:1, 6. Also in the context of a Servant Song, the fact that a banner is raised to the nations is repeated in 49:22. In short, as the son of God, a future David will bring God’s instruction and rule to all the nations as indicated in 2 Sam 7.

Scholars have emphasized that ḥasdê dāwīd hanneʾĕmānîm in 55:3b functions in apposition to berîtʿôlām in 3a. What acts of ḥesed on the part of the future David can constitute an eternal covenant? The arm of Yahweh is part of the New Exodus theme that permeates all of Isaiah. The occurrence in 50:2 initiates a focus on the arm (51:5, 9; 52:10) that reaches a climax (53:1) in the Fourth Servant Song. Nevertheless, when Yahweh rolls up his sleeves and bares his arm no one would have believed it. The future king does not crush his enemies and rid the land of evil (11:3–5) by military force, prowess, and strategies, but simply by his word (11:4; 49:2; 50:4) and by offering himself as an ʾās̆ām (53:10).[50] Thus, the means and manner in which Yahweh’s Torah is brought to the nations and in which his Kingship is effected among them (a commander and leader of the peoples) is detailed by the four Servant Songs, and in particular by the Fourth Song in 52:13–53:12. It is the acts of ḥesed on the part of the Servant that establish and initiate the discussion on the eternal covenant in ch. 54 of which 55:3 continues the thread.[51] It is because the Servant is the “covenant of the people” in himself (42:6; 49:8) that the apposition of ḥasdê dāwīd and berîtʿôlām in v. 3 makes sense.

Isaiah 55:4–5 speaks of the future David being a witness to the nations and a leader and commander of the peoples. This speaks far more of fulfilling the human obligations in the Davidic Covenant than a specific focus on fulfilling the divine obligations. In explaining the phrase עד לאומים Beuken concludes: “David’s witness had consisted neither of his lot in itself nor of the trustworthiness of the connection between proclamation and fulfillment of rescue. More properly it consisted of the outspoken praise of God among the nations.”[52] Williamson counters by appealing to John Eaton:

Eaton here finds three aspects to this royal role, each of which fits the context, namely of the king as one who exhorts and admonishes, secondly as one who is able out of his own experience to testify to God’s revelation and salvation, and thirdly as one who, by his very existence, is an “evidential sign” to the nations.[53]

Eaton argues that the second is the most significant. This argument, however, fails to consider the central function of the king to effect the instruction of Yahweh in the lives of the people and even to the nations: “this is the instruction for humankind” (2 Sam 7:19). This function is what is prominent in Isaiah. The Servant of Yahweh brings Yahweh’s Torah to the distant islands.

A false start was made in trying to connect David as witness in Isa 55:4 and Ps 89:38 (ET 37). The idea that David or his seed is the witness in Ps 89:38 is suggested by Eaton and found “attractive” by Williamson.[54] As Timo Veijola has shown, neʾĕmān in Ps 89:38 is a predicate adjective,[55] not attributive, and vv. 37ab–38a form a tricolon so that v. 38b is not parallel to 38a.[56] Consequently, we cannot translate, “the faithful witness in the sky,” as does the NIV Williamson’s rendering, “and he is established to be witness in the clouds,”[57] does recognize the grammatical problem in construing neʾĕmān as attributive, but is not a natural reading of what is a simple nominal sentence. In Ps 89:38, therefore, Veijola suggests that Yahweh, not the Davidic Seed is the Witness: “the Witness in the sky is faithful.”

A careful examination of all instances of ʿēd in the HB points in a different direction from earlier proposals for Isa 55:4 and better suits the interpretation proposed. The role of the Davidic King in fulfilling his covenant obligations is defined by divine sonship based upon 2 Sam 7:14–15 and Deut 17:18–20. The king’s rule is to exhibit the justice and righteousness of Yahweh himself. Foundational to this is the Torah that the king must copy for himself and keep with him. Then the divine justice and righteousness in the Torah will shine through every aspect of the king’s decisions and government. The logic of being a son of a universal deity and the statement of 2 Sam 7:19 show that this instruction is not only for Israel, but for all the nations. This understanding explains how and why the Davidic King is a witness and is more to the point than the explanation given by Eaton and Williamson.

Nonetheless, there is much more to consider in the concept of witness. A lexical study of ʿēd shows that a witness functions in covenant relationships, especially with a view to restoring broken relationships. When Laban and Jacob make a covenant, a heap of stones functions as a witness. As Timo Veijola explains, “When a treaty is violated, it is the duty of the witness to stand forth and accuse the partner who transgressed the treaty (cf Gen 31:50).”[58] This kind of witness is what the Davidic King is for the nations. Note that in the Servant Songs, twice the Servant of Yahweh is informed that he will become in his person a covenant with the people (Isa 42:6; 49:8). Just as the term witness can sometimes replace covenant, so that the “Ark of the Covenant” becomes the “Ark of Witness,” so here to say that David is a witness to the peoples is correlative to the statements in the Servant Songs that he is a covenant to the people. Moreover, the background of Isa 19 is significant. David is to the nations what the altar is to Egypt in Isa 19:20.[59] He speaks to the nations of their covenant disloyalty of their broken obligations to the creator God, and he brings about the restoration of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and the nations. As stated earlier, the means and manner in which Yahweh’s Torah is brought to the nations and in which his Kingship is effected among them is detailed by the four Servant Songs, and in particular by the Fourth Song in 52:13–53:12. And this is why a nation that does not know Israel and also one that Israel does not know comes running to her through the work of her king as witness.

The king is also a leader and commander of peoples (nāgîd ûmeṣawweh leʾummîm). The most recent and thorough treatment of nāgîd, particularly in the context of 2 Sam 5:17–7:29, is that of Donald F. Murray. His conclusion is worth citing:

In our texts the melek is one who sees his power from Yahweh as susceptible to his own arbitrary manipulation, who obtrudes himself inappropriately and disproportionately between Yahweh and Israel, and who treats Israel as little more than the subjects of his monarchic power. The nāgîd, on the other hand, is positively portrayed as one who sees his power as a sovereign and inviolable devolvement from Yahweh, who acts strictly under the orders of Yahweh for the benefit of Yahweh’s people, and holds himself as no more than the willing subject of the divine monarch.[60]

No description better fits the role of the Future King in Isa 1–39 and the role of the Servant of the Lord in Isa 40–66 in implementing Yahweh’s Kingship. Thus Isaiah employs nāgîd because the future David fulfills the role of obedient son in the framework of the Davidic Covenant.

Finally, one must adequately explain the description of ḥasdê dāwīd as hanneʾĕmānîm. Williamson finds that Caquot “merely suggests an interpretation that suits his view” while Beuken “sees the problem posed by hanneʾemānîm more clearly.”[61] Williamson then seeks to show that neʾĕmān in association with ḥesed, dāwīd, and berit must surely point to Nathan’s Oracle. If we grant this it may support interpretation as subjective genitive as much or more than objective genitive, since the oracle is just as concerned with the faithfulness of an obedient son as it is with the faithfulness of Yahweh to his promises. Even here Williamson is somewhat unfair in his treatment of the evidence:

In Ps. 78:37 we find that the Israelites “were not true to his covenant.” However, since this unique explicit application of nʾmn to the human partner in a covenant with God is cast in the negative, it would be precarious indeed to seek to use it in any way to elucidate the quite different atmosphere of Isa. lv. 3 (contra Beuken, p. 53). Finally, in Neh. 9:8 it is said that God found Abraham’s heart faithful (nʾmn), so that he made his covenant with him. However, whilst this is certainly the closest parallel to Isa. lv. 3 which could suggest a subjective genitive, it should be pointed out against this conclusion that whereas in Neh. 9:8 nʾmn qualifies Abraham’s heart (and hence Abraham himself), in Isa. lv. 3 the plural hanneʾĕmānîm must be construed with ḥasdê, and not with the singular dwd.[62]

This can only be classified as specious linguistic reasoning. Whether the person or the person’s deeds are counted faithful does not affect whether one is speaking of divine or human deeds. And whether the actions are negative in one place and positive in another does not change the fact that the term can be applied to humans. What Williamson has missed is the atmosphere of Isaiah where in both the section concerning bad King Ahaz (7–9) and the section concerning good King Hezekiah (36–39) the history of the monarchy shows that we are still waiting desperately for an obedient Davidic son. While the faithfulness of Yahweh may be questioned in Ps 89, it is not an issue in Isaiah.

Williamson summarizes his approach to the problem as follows:

Thus far we have sought to show, first, that the versions cannot legitimately be invoked to settle the issue of how to construe ḥsdy dwd, and secondly, that although it is true that ḥsd nearly always governs a subjective genitive, there are indications that this need not necessarily be so in every case, but that the context should be the deciding factor.[63]

This is largely sound. The ancient versions do hold weight in the history of interpretation, but they cannot settle the issue. The pattern of constructions with ḥesed, however, carries great weight. While I am not persuaded that Williamson has succeeded in showing that genuine cases of objective genitive exist, the first datum in the context is the predilection of the native speaker to construe ḥasdê dāwīd as subjective. So the burden of proof lies in showing that the context requires a meaning other than the subjective genitive. The main reason interpreters have sought to interpret the text from the point of view of an objective genitive is a failure to see that a future, not historical, David is in view and a failure to observe properly the trajectory of the covenants in the OT and the flow of thought both in the book of Isaiah as whole and in the near context of ch. 55. The fact that some interpreters use such renderings in English as “the promises of grace to David”[64] or the aforementioned “unfailing kindnesses promised to David”[65] —paraphrases which actually go beyond linguistic parameters for a literal translation as objective genitive—really show how awkward it is to construe it this way. The blessings do come to the nations, not because Yahweh’s promises to David are democratized in the way some think,[66] but because a new David who is an obedient son succeeds in bringing Yahweh’s Torah to all humans.

VI. The Citation Of Isaiah 55:3 In Acts 13:34

The question remains: does the LXX of Isa 55:3 and the citation in Acts 13:34 support an objective genitive as Williamson claims? He notes that the neuter plural oaia occurs only [sic] in Deut 29:19 where s̆ālôm yihyeh lî is rendered idiomatically by ὅσιά μοι γένοιτο. Then he appeals to independent studies by Dupont[67] and Lovestam[68] who argued that oaia signifies “a general expression for blessings and good gifts which may be expected from the deity.”[69] Finally he argues that according to the majority of commentators, this meaning best suits the citation in Acts 13:34.

First, one should begin by considering the normal meaning of 00io5 and the translation technique for ḥesed in Isaiah. As our standard Greek lexica show, oaioq has two basic meanings: (1) it refers to what is divinely permitted or sanctioned, and (2) it describes persons or their deeds as devout, holy, pious, and so forth. There are actually two parallel passages where the neuter plural is found: Deut 29:19 and Wis 6:10. In both passages, the first meaning, “sanctioned by divine law,” fits well. Thus ὅσιά μοι γένοιτο in Deut 29:19 may be rendered “may I be allowed to. . .”[70] and οἱ γὰρ φυλάξοντες ὁσίως τὰ ὅσια in Wis 6:10 may be translated “those who have kept the holy ordinances in holiness.”[71] Whether or not these parallels assist in interpreting Isa 55:3 remains to be seen.

The term ḥesed was encountered in eight instances by the Greek translator of LXX Isaiah, and normally he employed ἔλεος, a standard quivalent among LXX translators (16:5; 54:8, 10; 63:7 bis). The rendering of ʾans̆ê ḥesed in 57:1 by ἄνδρες δίκαιοι and the use of δόξα in 40:6 for the charm or grace of a blossom illustrate well that the translator is sensitive to context and capable of fully idiomatic renderings. Since the rendering τὰ ὅσια Δαυιδ in 55:3 deviates from the norm, it is likely a contextually motivated idiomatic rendering. If divine sanctions are in view, it could mean “the divine decrees of David.” This seems an odd way to refer to the divine promises made to David in 2 Sam 7. An objective genitive is possible, but such English renderings as “divine blessings/promises to David” stretch the field of meaning permitted for ὅσιος beyond the norm.[72] The phrase may also mean the divine duties or holy deeds/things of David. Again, an objective genitive is also possible, but a subjective genitive seems less awkward. Honesty, however, compels one to admit that either subjective or objective genitive is possible and that the meaning of the LXX translator is not readily apparent. Nonetheless, one might argue that he avoided the usual ἔλεος to show that God’s kindnesses were not in view. Williamson does not explain why the Isaiah translator deviated from a more straightforward way of expressing that God’s mercies were in view and used instead a unique expression.

Lastly, we note the citation of Isa 55:3 in Acts 13:34. Although this text has been discussed extensively and the majority view favors an objective genitive, an alternative interpretation is briefly argued here. According to the context, in Acts 13 Paul is attending a meeting of the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, where he speaks to an audience consisting of Jews and god-fearing Gentiles (vv. 16, 26). His address is a retelling of the story of Israel so one must pay attention to what is included and what is omitted. No doubt what we have recorded in Acts constitutes only the main points. Nonetheless, the election of the Fathers, the Exodus, and the period of the Judges get only the barest mention as he hurries to the time when Israel requests a king. After Saul is given and also removed, he comes to David. Only one comment is made about David, but it is important: he will do everything that God wants. This is the faithful king of 2 Sam 7. Next he attempts to show that Jesus is the Savior whom God promised to bring to Israel from the line of David (v. 23). Finally, Jesus’ death and resurrection fulfill the words of the prophets (v. 27). In v. 32 Paul offers good news to “you” (second person plural), that is, his audience. What God promised to the fathers is now fulfilled for us, their descendants, when He raised Jesus from the dead. Paul cites Ps 2:7 and then affirms that God raised Jesus, no longer to return to corruption. That the resurrection of the Davidic son of Ps 2 is to an incorruptible life is demonstrated by two further texts: Isa 55:3 and Ps 16:10. In Isa 55:3 he (i.e., God) said, “I will give to you the faithful ὅσια of David.” (Note that the “you” is second person plural. The recipients, according to Paul, are his audience in Pisidian Antioch, the descendants of the people first promised “the faithful ὅσια of David.” This makes perfect sense in view of Isaiah’s doctrine of a remnant.) Now if Paul meant τὰ ὅσια Δαυιδ τὰ πιστά to be subjective genitive and understood “David” not as the historical David, but a rubric for the Messiah, his argument in context becomes plain. The explanation that David served his own generation is a clear statement that the historical David is not in view. Instead, Isaiah refers to the Messiah. Since the pious deeds of David in the context of Isa 55:3 are the sufferings and death of the Servant in ch. 53, the reference to resurrection becomes clear. Isaiah 53:11 affirms that “after the suffering of his soul he will see the light of life and be satisfied.” Isaiah 53:12 shows the Servant sharing his victory with the many. And it is natural for Paul to cite 55:3 and not a verse or two in ch. 53 because this is the text that applies the work of the Servant to the nations. Once again, perhaps the reason why scholars have labored so hard to find an appropriate meaning for ὅσια in Acts 13:34 is that they are thinking of the wrong David.[73] This interpretation, then, for Acts 13:34 is plausible and also matches the proposal for Isa 55:3.

Finally, not only the seasoned scholar but even the beginner should cast a doubtful eye at an entry in the lexicon that allocates a meaning for ὅσια in one instance that is apparently so disconnected in meaning from standard usage. The new third edition by Danker removes Acts 13:34 from the section on “things divinely sanctioned” and gives it a numbered paragraph of its own. The explanation, however, is almost identical to that in the previous edition:

The ref. to ὅσ. in δώσω ὑμῖν τὰ ὅς. Δαυὶδ τὰ πιστὰ I will grant to you (pl.) the unfailing divine assurances or decrees relating to David Ac 13:34 is of special interest (for τὰ ὅς. in the sense of divine decrees ordinances s. Wsd. 6:10; Jos., Ant 8,115—). This quot. fr. Is 55:3 is evidently meant to show that the quot. fr. Ps 15:10, which follows immediately, could not refer to the Psalmist David, but to Christ alone (cp. a sim. line of argument relating to a referent Hb 2:6–9). The promises to David have solemnly been transferred to ‘you’. But David himself served not you, but his own generation (vs. 36). So the promises of God refer not to him, but to his Messianic descendent.[74]

The movement from “assurances” or “decrees” to “promises” is an unwarranted jump linguistically. If we supply from regular usage a meaning like “the pious deeds of David” the comment in the lexicon would make good sense.

VII. Conclusion

In conclusion, “the faithful kindnesses of David” mentioned in Isa 55:3 are kindnesses performed by David—a rubric for the future king in this text. The faithful or obedient acts of loyal love are those of the Servant King in Isa 53 whose offering of himself as an ʾās̆ām and whose resurrection enable him to bring to fulfillment the promises of Yahweh in the Davidic Covenant and is at the same time the basis for the New or Everlasting Covenant. This future King then fulfills the roles required for the king in Deut 17 and 2 Sam 7 by bringing the divine instruction or Torah to Israel (Deut 17) and, indeed, to all the nations (2 Sam 7:19). He is therefore a leader and commander of the peoples and becomes a covenant witness in himself to the nations. This is exactly how Acts 13:34 interprets Isa 55.

Appendix

What follows is an analysis of all personal names in the Amarna and Ugaritic Texts of the type, “son of DN [Divine Name].”

1. Amarna Texts[75]

Name	Meaning	Comments	Reference(s)
Bin-Ana	son of Ana	detained with Aziru in egypt[76]	EA 170:37
Ben-Elima	son of Elu	(honorific plural?) identityunknown[77]	EA 256:15
Sum-Adda	child of Adda	son of Balume[78]	EA 8:8, 13, 35; 224:3 (GAGI, 222)
Sumu-Haddi	child of Haddu	mayor(?), detained in Egypt[79]	EA 97:1 (GAGI, 222)

2. Texts from Ugarit[80]

Name	Text Reference	Comments
bnil	PRU 3:253	(van Soldt 32 n. 259, 139, 163)
	PRU 4:201 (RS 18:02):18 Ug 5 2 rev. 12 Ug 5 3 rev. 6 3.10:17 4.86:12 4.297:3 4.377:19 4.609:8, 19 4:616:10	= 4.623:6 (van Soldt 11)
	4.623:6 4.723:1 4.791:13	list of maryannus[81]
bnʾmyn	4.69 III 5 4.75 IV 8 4.77:11
	4.280:12 4.290:11	(van Soldt 17, 139) of high rank? (van Soldt 37)
	4.356:5	of high rank? (van Soldt 37)
	4.357:25?	of high rank? (van Soldt 37)
	4.677:5 4.755:9? 4.785:19
Bnʿn	4.33.32 4.35 II 19	royal guard from Rqd pesons grouped by profession[82]
	4.232:47 4.753:14 9.423:8 (RS Ou 14 46)	buyer from Rqd
bnʿnt	PRU 3:194 (RS 11.839:12) PRU 3:194 (RS 11.839:16	? (ʾIlī-ʾ abu also possible[83])
	4.307:6	serf on royal farm at village of Yny
	4.320:4
Bin-baʿalana	PRU 3:193	from village of Bekani
	(RS 12.34:15)[84]
bnhd(d)	see below
bnpdr	4.655:8
bn rpiyn	4.232 (I) 8	from village of Rqd
bnrs̆p	4.33:12	guard from Ary
	4.155:15 4.170:9
bnrs̆py	4.69. I 22 4.93 II 17	titular of war-chariot cf. PRU 3:20 (RS 15.63:11, 12, 19)
bin-s̆aps̆i	PRU 3:195 (RS 15.09 B I 17) PRU 6:79 (RS 19.42:5) RSOu 7 3:7 =
	dumu-dutu dumu Idingir-silim	= Bin-s̆aps̆i mār ilī-s̆alim?[85]
bns̆ps̆	4.63 IV 6 4.194:18 4.227 I 11 4.628:5 4.666:4 4.422:43 broken context
bts̆ps̆?	RSOu 14 44:6 or bns̆ps̆?
Bnymn	4.64 IV 9 4.69 II 3
DUMU ad-dá	AT WO5 p. 63 (136, 4)	(cf. GAGI, 222)
s̆ùm-adì	PRU 3:59 (RS 16.133:6	son of Gis̆e
		(Akkadian Text)
s̆u-um-daddu	PRU 3:151	(RS 16.197:14) (Akkadian Text)

I acknowledge with gratitude Daniel I. Block and Stephen G. Dempster for helpful comments and criticisms. They not only rescued me from many mistakes, but stimulated my thinking in significant ways.

Notes

For the standard view, cf. H.-J. Zobel, “ חֶסֶד hesed,” TDOT 5:44–64; and H. J. Stoebe, “חֶסֶד hesed,” TLOT 2:449–64. For the meaning of hesed, a plethora of studies have appeared in the last fifty years. Still fundamental is Nelson Glueck, Hesed in the Bible (ed. Elias L. Epstein; trans. Alfred Gottschalk; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967). For a recent study, see Sung-Hun Lee, “Lament and the Joy of Salvation in the Lament Psalms,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception (ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller, Jr.; VTSup 94; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2005).
A. Caquot, “Les «Graces de David»: A Propos d’Isaie 55/3b, ” Sem 15 (1965): 45-59.
W. A. M. Beuken, “Isa. 55, 3–5: The Reinterpretation of David,” Bijdr 35 (1975): 49-64.
H. G. M. Williamson, The Sure Mercies of David : Subjective or Objective Genitive?, JSS 23 (1978): 31-49. Williamson’s interpretation of Isa 55:3–5 is essentially unaltered in more recent statements; see H. G. M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1998), 113–31.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Unfailing Kindnesses Promised to David: Isaiah 55.3,” JSOT 45 (1989): 91-98.
E.g, John N. Oswalt, T he Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66 (NICO T; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 438. Also maintaining the standard view are Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 470; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 40–55 (AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 367, 370; Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40–66(Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 158–59; G. Gakuru, An Inner-Biblical Exegetical Study of the Davidic Covenant and the Dynastic Oracle (Mellen Biblical Press Series 58; Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen Press, 2000), 205–7, 229; John Goldingay, Isaiah (NIBCOT; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2001), 313–14; J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity 1993), 121; Christopher Seitz, Word Without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 160. Occasionally one encounters interpreters influenced by postmodernism who think they can have it both ways (objective and subjective).
129 of the 228 singular instances of I ḥesed occur in a bound phrase where the free member is a person (see A. Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible [Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer, 1982], s.v. “חֶסֶד”).
In 4QMMTe 25 David is called איש חסדים (see E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Miqṣat Maʿaśe Ha-Torah [Qumran Cave 4, Vol. 5; DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994], 62–63, 91). The editors correctly render this “a man of righteous deeds.” The text shows an exegesis of Isa 55:3 at Qumran which construed the free member of the bound phrase as subjective. I am indebted to Simon Gathercole for drawing my attention to this text.
Williamson, “The Sure Mercies of David,” 44.
Ibid., 31.
Kaiser, “The Unfailing Kindnesses Promised to David,” 91.
J. Day, “The Canaanite Inheritance of the Israelite Monarchy,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (ed.J. Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 72–90; Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East(2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1967); H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 300–301; J. K. Hoffmeier, “The King as God’s Son in Egypt and Israel,” JSSEA 24 (1994): 28-38; T Jacobsen, “The Concept of Divine Parentage of the Ruler in the Stela of the Vultures,” JNES 2 (1943): 119-21; T Kleven, “Kingship in Ugarit (KTU 1.16I 1–23),” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C Craigie (ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor; JSOTSup 67; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 29–53; Marjo C. A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1990), 252–61; A. Latto, “Second Samuel 7 and Ancient Near Eastern Royal Ideology,” CBQ 59 (1997): 244-69; T N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 259–74; J. Tigay The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1982), 152–56; Juan-Pablo Vita, “The Society of Ugarit,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt; HO 1: The Near and Middle East 39; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), 455–98; K. W. Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship: The Royal Ideology and Opponents,” in The World of Ancient Israel (ed. R. E. Clements; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 119–40.I am grateful to John Walton for assistance in locating literature on this topic. The most useful article proved to be that of Hoffmeier.
See P.-E. Dion, ‘Ressemblance et image du Dieu, DBSup 10:365–403.
See Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tadition (trans. W G. E. Watson; 2 vols.; HO 1: The Near and Middle East 67; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2003), 226. Also noteworthy: K. A. Kitchen, “The King List of Ugarit,” UF 9 (1977): 131-42; Kleven, “Kingship in Ugarit,” 29–53.
Cf also P. Kyle McMarter, Jr., “Two Bronze Arrowheads with Archaic Alphabetic Inscriptions,” ErIsr 26 (1999): 124*-128*.
1 Kgs 15:18, 20; 2 Chr 16:2, 4. See M. Cogan, 1 Kings (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 399–400.
See the Appendix at the end of this article for a listing of all names in texts from Amarna and Ugarit of the type, “son of DN.”
Some argue that this is a dynastic name, but there is no clear evidence to support this idea. See K. Lawson Younger, Jr., “Shalmaneser III and Israel” (paper presented at the conference on ‘Ancient Civilizations and the Bible,” The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisville, Ky, 15–17 January 2004), 17–18. (The proceedings of this conference will be published in book form [ed. Daniel I. Block; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, forthcoming].)
See esp. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship, 80.
For Mesopotamia, see, e.g., W. Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 48, and note texts such as 26:347 (311) and 26:372 (326) where “father” is used to refer to the suzerain. For Egypt and Canaan, “father” and “son” are terms used in the Amarna Letters of parties in suzerain-vassal treaties, e.g., EA 44, 73, 82 in William L. Moran, ed. and trans., The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). Similar language comes from Phoenicia as in the Kilamuwa and Karatepe inscriptions; see J. C. L. Gibson, Phoenician Inscriptions (vol. 3 of Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 47–48, 130–31.I am indebted to Gregory Smith and Jim Harriman for helping me locate these texts.
A. A. Anderson believes 2 Sam 7 involves three overlapping concepts: adoption, covenant, and royal grant (2 Samuel [WBC 11; Waco: Word, 1989], 122). A main proponent of the idea that the Davidic Covenant follows the model of royal grant is M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184-203; and Weinfeld, “בְרִית berîth,” TDOT 2:253–79. Yet evidence to demonstrate that 2 Sam 7 lacks essential elements of the royal grant and may better fit a suzerain-vassal treaty model was provided by Paul Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1982), 181. See also the critique of Weinfeld by Gary N. Knoppers, ‘Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?,” JAOS 116 (1996): 670-97. Thus Anderson is more to the point.
For the approach, see esp. Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (New Studies in Biblical Theology 15; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003).
Ibid., 58-59.
W. Randall Garr, Image and Likeness in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh, IEJ 50 (2003): 227-34.
See Gordon J. Wenham, Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story in ‘I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11 (ed. R. S. Hess and D. T Tsumura; Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns: 1994), 399–404; William J. Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 24–25; and M. Hutter, “Adam als Gartner und Konig (Gen. 2:8, 15),” BZ 30 (1985): 258-62.
Exod 15:17 shows that Canaan becomes for Israel what the garden sanctuary was for Adam.
I am indebted to D. I. Block for the privilege of consulting a preliminary version of his forthcoming commentary on Deuteronomy.
See Daniel I. Block, The Burden of Leadership: The Mosaic Paradigm of Kingship (Deuteronomy 17:14–20),” BSac 162 (2005): 259-78.
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis (ed. John H. Skilton, Milton C. Fisher, and Leslie W. Sloat; Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 311–12.
BDB, s.v “תוֹרָא”; yet 2 Sam 7:19 is the only instance provided for this meaning of tôrâ.
Fokkelman follows the JPS translation in construing the clause as precative, but nonetheless views hāʾ ādām. as objective: “May that be the law for the people.” See J. P. Fokkelman, Throne and City (II Sam. 2–8 &21–24) (vol. 3 of Narrative Art and Poetry in -the Books of Samuel; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990), 240 n. 67, 242.
W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 151–52; and Kaiser, “The Blessing of David,” 314–15.
Dominique Barthélemy ed., Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 1. Josue, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther: Rapport final du Comité pour l’analyse textuelle de l’Ancien Testament hébreu institué par l’Alliance Biblique Universelle, établi en coopération avec Alexander R. Hulst; Norbert Lohfink; William D. McHardy; H. Peter Rüger, coéditeur; et James A. Sanders, coéditeur (OBO 50/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 457–58.
On which see P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; New York: Doubleday 1984), 233; and Hans J. Stoebe, Das zweite Buch Samuelis (KAT 8b; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1994), 231.
I owe this precise wording to D. I. Block. William M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) is a major contribution made recently to the study of 2 Sam 7. His approach focuses on diachronic and synchronic aspects of interpretation as well as the function of the literature in the society at the time and yields important insights. While he is to be commended for dating the texts earlier than previous scholars, his analysis of editorial layers in the history of the text is seriously flawed because he does not consider the linguistic science of discourse grammar/text linguistics (see, e.g., S. G. Dempster, “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of Narrative from the Classical Period” [Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985]). It is also strange that in a work dedicated to reception history, his analysis is limited to vv. 1–17 of 2 Sam 7 and he does not consider the first step in the reception history: the response of King David himself to the promise in vv. 18–29. His brief comments on the connection between the promise to David and Isa 55 follow the standard view and do not illuminate the problems under discussion here.
Knut M. Heim, “The (God-)forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Enquiry,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (ed. John Day; JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 301–2.
It is not uncommon in recent studies to set the different texts addressing the Covenant with David as disparate traditions at odds with one another, e.g., Steven L. McKenzie, Covenant (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2000).
See section 1 above for analysis of Williamson s discussion of Neh 13:14.
Williamson, “The Sure Mercies of David,” 36.
Analysis based on Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible, s.v. “בַּעֲבוּר”
This insight I owe to Dr. Stephen Dempster.
This was noted by Beuken, but the point is strengthened by the above considerations on the use of baʿăbûr.
So recently (pace Williamson) Gakuru, An Inner-Biblical Exegetical Study, 222.
F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah (trans. J. Martin; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 2:355. The ET was based upon the 4th ed. (1875) of the German original. See also Kaiser, “The Unfailing Kindnesses Promised to David,” 95.
Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, 2:355.
Daniel I. Block, “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 17–56. See also Ivan Engnell, “The ‘Ebed Yahweh Songs and the Suffering Servant Messiah in ‘Deutero-Isaiah,”‘ BJRL 31 (1948): 93; and E.J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah: Translated from a Critically Revised Hebrew Text with Commentary (2 vols.; Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1943), 2:179–80.
Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, 121; emphasis in the original.
This insight I owe to Dr. Stephen Dempster.
I am painfully aware of the brevity of my statement concerning the identity of the servant in contrast to the difficulties in interpretation and the voluminous literature on this topic.
Kaiser seems to be moving in this direction. Concerning Isa 55:3 he states, “What the Servant of the Lord has provided for and accomplished by his great act of suffering in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is now offered in 55:1–13” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., The Messiah in the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], 182). Yet in spite of this he interprets the ḥasdê dāwīd as objective genitive.
Similarly Engnell, in a statement that begs further elaboration: “The passage liv: 1ff forms a hymnic conclusion of the ‘Ebed Yahweh song.. .. Here the consequences of the Servant’s resurrection and exaltation are depicted: the restoration of Zion and the erection of the new Jerusalem on the basis of the Davidic covenant, fulfilled in ‘Ebed Yahweh” (Engnell, “The ‘Ebed Yahweh Songs and the Suffering Servant Messiah,” 89).
Beuken, Isa. 55, 3–5, 60.
Williamson, The Sure Mercies of David, 47–48.
John Eaton, “The King as God’s Witness,” ASTI 7 (1968–1969): 25-40; and Williamson, “The Sure Mercies of David,” 48.
C. Brockelmann, Hebraische Syntax (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1956), §58.
Timo Veijola, The Witness in the Clouds: Ps 89:38, JBL 107 (1988): 413-17.
Williamson, “The Sure Mercies of David,” 48.
Veijola, “The Witness in the Clouds,” 417.
Isa 19 is a Judgment Oracle against Egypt. The judgment involves civil strife and war and government by a harsh king. The rivers and streams will dry up affecting the agrarian and fishing economy. Conventional Egyptian wisdom and religion will fail them. They will be in fear of Judah and of Yahweh. At that time an altar to Yahweh will be in the center of Egypt and a monument to Yahweh at the border. “It will be a sign and a witness to Yahweh of Armies in the Land of Egypt.” The Egyptians will cry out to the Lord because of their oppressors and he will send a savior to them. Thus Yahweh will make himself known to the Egyptians, and they will become worshippers of Yahweh. There are some similarities between this text and Josh 22:34. There the witness reminds the two and a half tribes that they belong to Yahweh. In a similar way, this altar functions to bring those outside the border of Israel into a relationship with the Lord. Only in Josh 22 those outside are Israelites, whereas here they are Egyptians. The altar functions to restore relationship to the Lord.
Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemicsin a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.17-7.29) (JSOTSup 264; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 299.
Williamson, “The Sure Mercies of David,” 41.
Ibid.,
Ibid., 41.
So Otto Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5, ” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson; New York: Harper, 1962), 196–207.
So Kaiser, The Unfailing Kindnesses Promised to David, 91.
E.g., C. Westermann, Das Buch Jesaia: Kapitel 40–66 (2d ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 227–30. No doubt a significant work on this topic is Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1998). The discussion of methodological principles distinguishing allusion, influence, and echo is most incisive and illuminating. Sommer completely fails, however, to provide convincing evidence of allusion to Pss 89 and 132 in Isa 55. Obviously all three texts are dealing with the covenant with David and so share common vocabulary and themes. But the foundational role of 2 Sam 7 is ignored by Sommer, and the connections between Isa 55 and the Psalms are not worked out rigorously according to the principles initially set forth. Sommer’s exegesis of Isa 55:1–3 is based upon that of Eichrodt (see 265 n. 25) and does not advance beyond the traditional view
J. Dupont, “ΤΑ‘ ΟΣΙΑ ΔΑΥΙΑ ΤΑ ΠΙΣΤΑ (Ac XIII 34 = Is LV 3),” RB 68 (1961): 91-114.
E. Lövestam, Son and Saviour: A Study of Acts 13, 32–37 (ConBNT 18; Lund: Gleerup, 1961).
Ibid., 75; cited by Williamson, “The Sure Mercies of David,” 32.
This is, in fact, the interpretation and rendering of T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), s.v. “ὅσιος.”
Translation from David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; New York: Doubleday 1979), 151.
The Hellenistic inscriptions in pagan temples which Dupont and Lövestam adduce actually belong to the regular use meaning “things divinely sanctioned” and hardly support a rendering such as “divine blessings.” While Williamson accepts this, Bauer’s lexicon does not seem to acknowledge the research of Dupont or Lövestam. See BAGD, s.v. “ὅσιος.”
Stephen G. Dempster has reminded me that the same distinction between the historical David and future David is made in Acts 2:22–32 (private communication).
BDAG, s.v “ὅσιος” (728).
Analysis based on the following sources: Richard S. Hess, “Amarna Proper Names” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College, 1984); Hess, Amarna Personal Names (ASORDS 9; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993); Moran, The Amarna Letters = EA; Daniel Sivan, Grammatical Analysis and Glossary of the Northwest Semitic Vocables in Akkadian Texts of the 15th-13th C.B.C. from Canaan and Syria (AOAT 214; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984) = GAGI.
Hess, Amarna Personal Names, 381.
Ibid.
Ibid., 384.
Ibid.
Analysis based on the following sources: Frauke Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl 1; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967); Lete and Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language = DULA. References given according to abbreviations and format in DULA. All references were carefully checked in best editions using CTU = M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. San-martín, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Rab Ibn Hani and Other Places (2d enl. ed. of KTU; Munster: Ugarit-Verlag 1995); AT WO5 = Alalah Tablets, Die Welt des Orients 5; PRU = F.-A. Claude Schaeffer, ed., Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit (Mission de Ras Shamra 6–9; Paris: Klincksieck, 1955–); RSOu = P. Bordreuil, ed., Ras Shamra-Ougarit (Publications de la Mission Francaise Archeologique de Ras Shamra-Ougarit; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991–); Ug = F.-A. Claude Schaeffer, ed., Ugaritica (Paris: P. Guethner, 1939–). Additional information is provided from R. Hess, “The Onomastics of Ugarit,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, 499–528; Wilfred H. van Soldt, Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit: Dating and Grammar (AOAT 40; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1991); and W. G.E. Watson, “Ugaritic Onomastics (1),” AuOr 7 (1990): 113-27.
Member of social group (< titular of war chariot), DULA, 580.
Should be read son of Annu”; bn not part of name. Profession = t nn (archer?), van Soldt, Studies in the Akkadian of Ugarit, 38
So John Huehnergard, The Akkadian of Ugarit (HSM; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 400 n. 85.
Cf. also DULA, 226.
So Pierre Bordreuil, Une bibliotheque au sud de la ville: Ras Shamra-Ougarit VII (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), 20. See also Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, 326, 354.

Eamon Younis

Thursday, 7 October 2021

Rethinking The “Sure Mercies Of David” In Isaiah 55:3

No comments:

Post a Comment