Historical Theology
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 57, No. 2 – Spring 2015
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
By Joseph Blenkinsopp. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. 231 pages. Paperback, $26.00.
Joseph Blenkinsopp is John A. O’Brien Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame. He is the author of numerous valuable books and articles. Blenkinsopp’s aim is “to trace one strand in the social and political life of the people of Israel from the sixth century B.C.E. to the early second century of the common era” (1). The strand he wishes to trace is the monarchy of David, and its influence. One might put this work in the vein of Old Testament theology in the sense that Blenkinsopp works to describe an ideology present in Israelite history. With a broad aim, the first weakness of this book might be its relatively short length. He acknowledges that it spans several sub-disciplines (Persian, Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods for example).
To begin, he encourages the reader to consider “the David legend,” which he considers to be a literary work of art, “not necessarily fictional but rather allowing for a basic historical substratum” (5). Blenkinsopp is not so much interested in the historicity of “the Davidic legend” as he is in the political developments which grew out of the ideological acceptance of it. Chapter 1 details the way in which the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler evaluate later leaders in terms of the Davidic ideal. He suggests understanding 2 Kings 25:27-30 as a latter addition which saw hope for the restoration of the Davidic line in Jehoiachin’s release. Chapter 2 suggests that Saul’s line of Benjaminites were always in contention with David’s descendents. Blenkinsopp suggests that in the climate of Babylonian and Persian rule, there was hope for a return of Saul’s line to power. He even suggets that Gedeliah’s appoint as (possibly) client-king gave them a concrete basis for their hope. Chapter 3 mainly argues for Gedeliah’s credibility to be appointed as client-king. Blenkinsopp argues that Gedeliah and the Benjaminites in general were in opposition to the group that sought to take on Babylon, and instead Gedeliah sought peace with the Imperialists. In chapter 4, Blenkinsopp suggests that Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 40-55) argues that “Cyrus, as Yahweh’s agent, will take over the succession to the now defunct Davidic dynasty” (65-66). He admits that doing so may have caused Deutero-Isaiah to be rejected. But, he also argues that Cyrus was considered the successor, or next King of Babylon, because he was favored by Marduk—another example of theological approval. In the same way, Deutero-Isaiah sees Yahweh favoring Cyrus, that is, if Cyrus re-establishes worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Much of the rest of the book relies on the minor prophets for historical reconstruction. He casts Zerubbabel as a part of the nationalist-dynastic resistance to empire movement in Syria-Palestine during the Persian empire, based upon his understanding of Zechariah’s imagery (chapter 5). In chapter 6, Blenkinsopp argues that because of the way Chronicles and Psalms present David as a musician, the psalms work as evidence to show an increased importance on temple and priests during the Persian and Hellenistic periods. Blenkinsopp argues that Isaiah 11:1-9 is an exilic song which shows that the new Davidic ruler will not be identified by heroic deeds, but wisdom and governance (137). Then, he considers the victim of violence, in what he calls Trito-Zechariah, was of the Davidic line, and will be mourned as Josiah was mourned because the lineage’s rule has ended. So, in chapters 7 and 8 he points out that during the late Persian period there were conflicting views about the Davidic dynasty. Chapter nine discusses resistance to Rome, which he says validates Max Weber’s theory. In this section he incorporates textual evidence from the Psalms of Solomon, Sibylline Oracles, Josephus’ works, and Qumran, in order to show that Jewish people still expected a new Davidic ruler. Then Blenkinsopp points out that the NT presents Jesus as that new Davidic ruler, in the sense of the Isaianic wise governor.
This book is a good example of creative thinking, and tracing an idea across several different time periods. Having said that, it seems that Blenkinsopp was right that he has attempted too much, because he is only able to devote one chapter to the Roman empire. This work is an example of ideological criticism. At times he disagrees with established positions in order to fit his over-arching idea (see his interpretation of Isaiah 11:1-9 on page 136 where he disagrees with Duhm, Wildberger, and Beuken). Readers of this journal might feel that he forces texts to fit his ideology, and dislike how he holds to several late-date authorship positions. It is comforting that Blenkinsopp traces textual themes to reinforce his political discussion. However, he spends so much time in the text of Zechariah that one could forget he is making a political argument. Furthermore, the political discussion would probably be served by incorporating more physical evidence into his argument. To utilize another ideological argument, he considers mainly the textual evidence of a few powerful groups which may or may not have represented the Israelite people at large. All things considered, this work can be cautiously recommended as a representation of a work which traces biblical themes and political ideology.
