The Nathan Narratives (review)

Hebrew Studies 34 (1993) 148 Reviews as a wisdom element. However, no linguistic parallels are adduced, only a statement that this constitutes the wisdom motif of admonishing the wise man against displaying anger (pp. 88-90). Also included as a wisdom indicator is the same psalm's statement, "I have been young and am now old, but I have never seen a righteous man abandoned or his children seeking bread" (v. 25, pp. 90-92). This verse expresses the personal experience of the sage, related in the first person, and can be paralleled by other autobiographic experiences elsewhere in wisdom literature. But once again the connection between the psalm and wisdom literature is not linguistic but literary. It is apparent, then, that the number of Hurvitz's wisdom indicators in all of the five psalms must be slightly reduced. This will mean that Psalms 19 and 112 will now have just three wisdom indicators apiece, hardly the "significant accumulation" needed for classifying them as wisdom. Hence, it is unlikely that Hurvitz will gain wide support for his view that wisdom psalms can be best identified by utilizing linguistic techniques at the expense of other criteria (e.g., literary, stylistic, and content). Nevertheless, he has made a solid contribution to both Psalms and Wisdom studies, for he has clearly demonstrated that a separate wisdom lexicon does exist and that portions of it are found in various psalms. Any future attempt to identify the wisdom psalms will have to take these linguistic conclusions into serious consideration. David Marcus Jewish Theological Seminary New York, N.Y. 10027 THE NATHAN NARRATIVES. By Gwilym H. Jones. JSOTSup 80. Pp. 196. Sheffield: 1990. Cloth, $43.00. Nathan appears primarily in only three pericopes within the Deuteronomistic History: 2 Samuel 7, the promise of a "house" to David, 2 Samuel 12, the parable of the poor man's ewe, and 1 Kings 1, the story of the succession to David. Though few in number, these texts are typically considered to be central, beautifully crafted texts within the Deuteronomistic History. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate to consider them together in an effort to understand the function and growth of the Nathan Hebrew Studies 34 (1993) 149 Reviews traditions. Indeed, it is surprising that this monograph, an outgrowth of Jones' earlier commentary on Kings for the New Century Bible Commentary, is the first attempt to synthesize the material about Nathan. This book contains a useful analysis of the critical opinions concerning the various Nathan chapters. This is particularly so in the case of 2 Samuel 7, which is typically considered a key text for understanding the purposes of the Deuteronomistic historians and their likely provenance and date. Jones offers clear summaries of the vast scholarly literature and judicious, if not always compelling, judgments concerning which verses are secondary to particular texts. The analyses of the central Nathan texts (chaps. 3-5; pp. 31-117) are preceded by an "Introduction" (pp. 13-18), which outlines the current understanding of the Deuteronomistic History, and by a more specific introductory chapter, "Nathan the Prophet" (pp. 19-30). A chapter on "David and Jebusite Jerusalem" (pp. 119-141) and a very short "Conclusion" (pp. 143-47) close the book. The book is clearly written and easy to follow, though its arguments would have been better served, and the book less redundant, had the chapter "David and Jebusite Jerusalem" appeared before the studies of the individual Nathan chapters, because it is this chapter which really serves as the basis of Jones's thesis. Jones resurrects the "Jebusite hypothesis," typically identified with the British scholar H. H. Rowley, according to which Zadok was a nonIsraelite Jebusite priest who served for David. This hypothesis is extended by Jones, who similarly views Nathan as a Jebusite who came to serve in David's court. This is a tantalizing suggestion, yet Jones admits that there is no direct support for this fundamental assertion. Even indirect evidence, such as the lack of a patronymic for Nathan, may be explained in several ways, and need not prove that Nathan was Jebusite. Yet Jones feels that this hypothesis offers the best background for a unified historical reconstruction of the evidence of...