Psalm 132: Zion’s Well-Being 81 of these texts to be post-exilic. Psalm 132, however, is by its size, language, verse rhythm (3+3 accents) and parallelismus membrorum perfectly classical (25). It is not very plausible that Psalm 132 should stem from the early monarchic period (26). The condition attached to YHWH’s pledge to David in v. 12 can hardly stem from an early time, because it is not found in 2 Sam 7 nor even in Ps 89 (27). Verse 12, moreover, seems to anticipate a considerable succession of Davidic rulers. The purport of the psalm points in the same direction. As its prayers touch matters that were vital to the kingdom of Judah, it fits in with a time when the Judaean state was in danger (28). In the context of a time like that, elements of the text stand out very clearly indeed. In v. 8 the phrase ‘ark of your strength’ was chosen well. In v. 10 the appeal on behalf of the king is urgent. And the alarming ‘If...’ in v. 12 cannot be silenced by the exuberant statements on Zion and David that will follow. VII In the seventh month, at the end of the crop year, the great festival of YHWH, Sukkoth, was celebrated in Jerusalem (29). There are two reasons to assume that Psalm 132 originates from this festival. First, to the religious community Sukkoth was the peak of the year, and so it suits a text dealing with matters essential to this community. Second, in the account of the inauguration of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8) the ark ritual is linked with (25) Cf. J.M. AUWERS, “Le Psaume 132 parmi les graduels”, RB 103 (1996) 558. With regard to the psalm’s language, it is illustrative that while the particle v is found nine times in the Songs of Ascent, rva occurs, apart from Ps 132,2, only in Ps 127,5. (26) See for this early dating SCHREINER, Sion-Jerusalem, 174; also H. GESE, “Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwählung”, ZThK N.F. 61 (1964) 16; LAATO, “Development”, CBQ 54 (1992) 49-66. A later pre-exilic dating is advocated in e.g. H. GUNKEL, Die Psalmen. Übersetzt und erklärt (Göttingen 41926) 568; W.O.E. OESTERLEY, The Psalms. Translated with text-critical and exegetical notes (London 1955) 530; W.R. TAYLOR in The Interpreter’s Bible (New York – Nashville, TN 1951-1957) IV, 685. (27) A. LAATO, “Psalm 132: A Case Study in Methodology”, CBQ 61 (1999) 28-29 (cf. LAATO, “Development”, 52-54), takes the view that the Deuteronomist reformulated the condition expressed in Ps 132,11-12 as “a conditional promise concerning the Davidides’ rule over the whole of Israel, including the northern region”; the threat implied in the condition was thought to have been realized in the secession of northern Israel. This reading of relevant Deuteronomistic texts is at variance with 1 Kgs 9,6-9, where the judgement on disloyalty reaches far beyond the end of the united monarchy. In Laato’s view the Deuteronomistic history has two versions of YHWH’s promise to David, one, conditional, regarding the throne of Israel, the other, unconditional, regarding the kingship in Jerusalem. Indeed, obviously, there is an unconditional promise in 2 Sam 7; Jerusalem, however, is not mentioned in it. In the book of Kings there is only a conditional promise (1 Kgs 2,4; 8,25). The threat implied in it takes effect because of Solomon’s sins (1 Kgs 11,9-11.31), but for the sake of David and Jerusalem, and despite more disloyalty, it is carried out only in part (1 Kgs 11,13.32.36; 15,4-5; 2 Kgs 8,19). From an historical viewpoint, it seems plausible that after bad governance (see 2 Kgs 23,26-27; 24,3-4), in times when the Davidic reign was in danger, an unconditional promise could be modified into a conditional one (Ps 132 etc.; cf., however, Ps 89). (28) Thus Melody D. KNOWLES, “The Flexible Rhetoric of Retelling: The Choise of David in the Texts of the Psalms”, CBQ 67 (2005) 246-247. (29) See Lev 23,39; Deut 16,13-15; Neh 7,72-8,18; also Exod 23,16; 34,22.