The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 221 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive ...

Author: Gillian Keys

45 downloads 574 Views 12MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

221 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick Editorial Board Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The Wages of Sin A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative'

Gillian Keys

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 221

Copyright © 1996 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield SI 19AS England

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd Midsomer Norton, Bath

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-621-X

CONTENTS Preface List of Tables Abbreviations

7 9 10

Parti THE 'SUCCESSION NARRATIVE' HYPOTHESIS Chapter 1

THE HISTORY OF THE 'SUCCESSION NARRATIVE' HYPOTHESIS A History of Scholarly Opinion Summary

14 14 41

Chapter 2

A REAPPRAISAL OF THE 'SUCCESSION NARRATIVE' HYPOTHESIS Theme 1 Kings 1-2

43 43 54

Chapter 3

DEFINING THE NARRATIVE: EXTENT AND COMPOSITION The Beginning of the Narrative The Position of 2 Samuel 10-20 within its Larger Context Summary

71 72 81 99

Part II 2 SAMUEL 10-20 Chapter 4

THE UNITY OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20 Thematic Unity of 2 Samuel 10-20 Structural Unity of 2 Samuel 10-20 Summary

102 102 115 122

6

The Wages of Sin

Chapter 5

THE THEME OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20 Sin and Punishment David the Man Minor Themes Summary

123 127 142 151 155

Chapter 6

THE GENRE AND PURPOSE OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20 History Writing Political Propaganda Wisdom Literature Literary Work Biography

156 156 164 171 174 181

Chapter 7 THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20

Date Authorship

184

184 210

Chapter 8

CONCLUSION

213

Tables Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

218 225 235 243

PREFACE

This book had its beginnings as a doctoral thesis submitted to the Queen's University of Belfast, but its roots go much deeper than that. They go back to a time when, as a child, I sat spellbound upon my mother's knee, listening to the great biblical stories of the ancestors of Israel. From then I began to develop a fascination with the character of David. Yet this fascination was not with the great King of Israel. It was with the charismatic individual—so human, so likeable and so vividly portrayed by the writer(s) of Samuel. So it seemed natural to me when the opportunity presented itself, that I should develop this interest on an academic level. When I began my study of 2 Samuel 10-20, much of my time was spent pondering the question, Why did the author choose to recount these stories about David's reign? In the context of a person's whole lifetime, they represent only a very short period of time, they certainly do not tell the story of David's life and they are not overly concerned with the succession to his throne. Then I began to recognize what this portion of 2 Samuel was all about, as I realized how David's sin dominated the whole. It was in fact all about punishment for sin. 2 Samuel 10-20 revolves around David's sins of adultery and murder. They are recounted at the beginning and the rest of the narrative is taken up with showing how he suffered for his actions. It shows, first, that David was punished, and secondly, how he was punished. In many ways it answers the question as to how Yahweh deals with sin. It reveals how he exercises mercy, but yet still allows the natural consequences of human actions to take their course. Truly, the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. I wish to thank the editors for accepting this book for publication in the Supplement Series of the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament and for their helpfulness and courtesy.

8

The Wages of Sin

I would also like to express my deep appreciation of my family, to whom this book is dedicated. From the very beginning of my research until now, my parents, Bob and Shirley Keys, and my sister, Glynis Wilson, have never faltered in their support and encouragement. It is in no small measure due to them that I have reached this stage in the production of this work. I thank God for them and for the ability and opportunity to have completed this task. Gillian Keys Bangor, Northern Ireland June 1966

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 1 Kings 1.33-47 2. 2 Samuel 11.14-24 3. Correspondence between 1 Chronicles and 2 Samuel 4. Correspondence between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles

218 220 222 223

ABBREVIATIONS AB AJSL ANET ASTI ATD BHS Bib BKAT BWANT BZ BZAW CBC CBQ CJT ConBOT CQR EHAT FRLANT

HTR IBS ICC

Int JBL JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT NCB OTG OTL

RB REJ SAT SBLDS SET SN TBC

Anchor Bible American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Das Alte Testament Deutsch Biblia hebfaica stuttgartensia Biblica Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift BeiheftezurZW Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Canadian Journal of Theology Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Church Quarterly Review Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Harvard Theological Review Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Interpretation Journal of Biblical Literature Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament New Century Bible Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Revue biblique Revue des etudes juives Die Schriften des Alten Testaments Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Studies in Biblical Theology (the) 'Succession Narrative' Torch Bible Commentary

Abbreviations TS TSK VT VTSup ZA W

Theological Studies Theologische Studien und Kritiken Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Zeitschrift fir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

11


Parti THE 'SUCCESSION NARRATIVE' HYPOTHESIS

Chapter 1 THE HISTORY OF THE 'SUCCESSION NARRATIVE' HYPOTHESIS

A History of Scholarly Opinion Rost Since it was first published in 1929, Leonhard Rost's Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids1 has dominated scholarly thinking on 2 Samuel. Recently Rost's ideas have been challenged and questioned, but they still form the pivotal point of every argument. It was Rost who authoritatively established the view that 2 Samuel 920 and 1 Kings 1-2 was a single literary unit.2 He saw it as the product of one author: an eyewitness, who wrote soon after the events he described had taken place. Rost gave this material the title Thronnfolgegeschichte, or Succession Narrative (SN). Formerly it had been known as the Court History of David or David's Family Story (e\g. H.P. Smith, 1899: xxvi; Cook 1899-1900: 155), but Rost's emphasis on the succession to the throne rendered these titles obsolete. His hypothesis revolved around the identification of a 'succession' theme in the text. He propounded the view that the motivating force of the narrative was succession, borne out by the recurrence in 1 Kings 12 of the question 'Who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king, and who shall reign after him?' Rost drew his conclusions regarding the extent and boundaries of the narrative on the basis of his understanding of the succession theme. He 1. Citations are given from the (1982) English translation of Rost's work. See bibliography for details of earlier editions. 2. The idea of 2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2 as a narrative on the theme of succession had first been suggested by Wellhausen (1883 = 1957: 262; 1885 = 1963: 255-60) and the idea had been taken up by some other scholars (e.g. Driver 1913: 285). However it was Rost who popularized this approach and who gained general recognition for it.

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

15

believed that it comprised 2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23; 7.lib, 16; 9-20; 1 Kings 1-2.3 He thought that the beginning of SN was integrated into the end of the Ark Narrative, as the story of David and Michal (2 Sam. 6.16, 2023) seemed to have links with both documents. Rost saw the first two chapters of 1 Kings as the key to understanding SN. In 1 Kings 1-2 the issue of the succession comes into the foreground and to Rost this put all the preceding material into perspective. Up until this point the question of the succession is in doubt, but in 1 Kings 1-2 it is finally resolved by the accession of Solomon. Rost saw 1 Kings 1-2 as both conclusion and climax of the narrative. He argued that the rest of the narrative served only to lead up to the ultimate climax of the accession, thus he divided it into two distinct thematic sections: 'the background to the successor to the throne' and 'the background to the succession to the throne'. The 'background to the successor' consists of 2 Samuel 10-12: David's adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. It is framed against the backdrop of the Ammonite wars and ends with the birth of Solomon, the ultimate successor to his father's throne. He apportioned the rest of the narrative to the 'background to the succession'. It consists of: 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23—The story of Michal's barrenness. 2 Sam. 7.1 Ib, 16—Yahweh's promise that a son of David will succeed him to the throne. 2 Samuel 9—The introduction of the ambitious Saulide Mephibosheth, whose story is continued in that of the Absalom rebellion. 2 Samuel 13-14—The elimination of David's firstborn Amnon from the contention for the succession. 2 Samuel 15-19—Absalom's coup d'etat. 2 Samuel 20—The unsuccessful attempt of Sheba ben Bichri to decimate David's kingdom and leave little or nothing to be inherited by a successor.

3. 2 Sam. 10.6-11.1 and 12.26-31, although incorporated into the succession source was, he argued, an older campaign report of David's Ammonite wars. He suggested that its beginning had been replaced with 10.1-5 by the author of SN. He argued that the two oracles in 12.7b-12 and the narrative portions, 14.25-27 and 18.18, are later additions to the text. He also saw 1 Kgs 2.1-4, 11, 27b as subsequent, possibly deuteronomistic, additions.

16

The Wages of Sin

So Rost saw the culmination of all these events and the high point of the narrative in Solomon's coronation at the beginning of 1 Kings. Earlier scholars such as Holscher and Eissfeldt had extended the pentateuchal J and E sources into Samuel, but Rost argued that SN was a literary unity, the product of a single author. He argued that it was an independent, self-contained entity, which did not form part of any larger whole. He found further support for these ideas in examining the style of SN, which he called 'the finest work of Hebrew narrative art' (1982: 115). He found justification for this judgment in its long sentences, rich descriptions, sonorous language and rich imagery. Other major characteristics were the restraint of the rapid flow of the narrative, the detachment of each scene from those preceding and following it and the distinct and purposeful use of direct speech. He dated SN to the reign of Solomon. He saw its terminus a quo as the accession of Solomon. Its terminus ad quern, he argued, was the end of Solomon's reign, as the narrative contains no awareness of the division of the kingdom. Regarding authorship, he credited the narrative to a member of the court of either David or Solomon, because of the interest and orientation of the material. He viewed SN as a historical document, written 'in majorem gloriam Salomonis* (1982: 105). He thought it likely that it embodied 'real historical facts...in a strongly stylized dress' (1982: 104), but observed that the distinction between fact and fiction is difficult to make. He also advanced the view that SN had no theological interest because of the lack of overt reference to Yahweh or the cult. Rost's arguments did not merely dominate this area of scholarship, but became the accepted approach to 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. Especially with regard to theme and extent, his approach stood for decades as the almost undisputed view of SN. It is only in relatively recent times that some scholars have begun to question and propose alternatives to his views. As we continue to survey the progression of writing on SN in this chapter, it will be observed that as the various aspects of Rost's approach have been disputed, the whole SN hypothesis has been exposed to questioning. Von Rad The next noteworthy investigation of SN was by Gerhard von Rad in his 1944 essay 'Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten


17

Israel'.4 Essentially this was the only significant treatment of Rost's ideas between the publication of Die Uberlieferung in 1926 and the 1960s. Von Rad's work is remarkable in its agreement with Rost, for he accepted the earlier scholar's major views in detail. The value of von Rad's contribution to the study of SN lies in his probing further into the areas of the genre and the theological interest of the work. As to genre, von Rad argued convincingly that it was an example of early Israelite history writing. He regarded it as the oldest source of history writing in Israel, for he saw the earlier narratives of, for instance the book of Judges, as simply hero sagas (Heldensagen) in contrast with the historical narrative (Geschichtsschreibung) of SN. Von Rad argued that SN far surpassed the saga (Sage), an antecedent of history writing, in its complexity. Unlike the sagas, SN was not marked by supernatural events and miracles, while the connection with the cult and the institution of Holy War were no longer present. Moreover the hero sagas5 were composed of several independent episodes, but he argues, with Rost and against the earlier exponents of the Novellen idea,6 that SN was a single, unified work constructed by a 'masterly craftsman' (1966: 191). Indeed, he regarded 'the production of the long narrative compilation which brings together a great many events' (1966: 191) as an innovation of the author of SN in ancient Israelite history writing. Von Rad felt that the political situation during David's reign was the inevitable spawning ground for history writing, while the reign of Solomon provided the cultural conditions essential for its birth. He believed that unless a state or a nation actually 'makes' history then it cannot be the author of history, thus explaining his differentiation between the innovative 'history' of David's reign and the sagas of earlier times. He stated, '...the writing of history is one of the most sophisticated of human cultural activities. It can grow to maturity only on a broad national basis, and in an atmosphere of developed political 4. Citations are given from the English translation of the essay (von Rad 1966: 166-204). 5. The hero sagas, or Heldensagen, were a manifestation of the Sage, which centred upon the activities of an important individual such as Moses or Joshua. The development of history writing is often regarded as owing much to this type of narrative. 6. Caspari and Gressmann had argued that this material was a collection of individual short stories (Novellen). See below, Chapter 4, pp. 104-106.

18

The Wages of Sin

consciousness' (1966: 192-93). He argued that the expansion and subsequent stability of David's empire provided the necessary conditions in which the writing of history was able to develop. This is closely linked with von Rad's idea of a Solomonic golden age or enlightenment. He believed that Solomon's reign, with its social stability and economic prosperity, resulted in more liberal attitudes especially in the field of foreign relations, and that this led to the development of a more sophisticated spiritual outlook. He contended that the composition of SN must be dated to Solomon's reign, basically because of the theological outlook of the author. For him, the writer of SN saw Yahweh as the unseen force at work in the making of history. This contrasted with the theological outlook of the Heldensagen which viewed God, not man, as the main character in every drama. Von Rad thought that the author of SN had a definite theological standpoint, but that he exercised immense restraint in expressing it. He only allowed himself to make a direct comment on divine activity on three occasions7 and conveyed his religious views with sensitivity and subtlety. Yet von Rad did not attempt to attribute a theological purpose to the book. He argued that it could not be seen as a theological history—rather it was a higher form of literature: genuine historical writing. Carlson Following the publication of von Rad's essay, no major contribution to the study of SN was made for some twenty years. The silence was finally broken by a Scandinavian scholar, R.A. Carlson (1964). Although dealing with 2 Samuel in its entirety, his work relates specifically to SN in its approach to the structure of the book. Carlson applied the traditiohistorical method of biblical criticism pioneered by Ivan Engnell to 2 Samuel. As such, his work represents a complete break from the views propounded by Rost, advanced by von Rad and adopted by the vast majority of scholars at that time. Carlson's views are radical, demonstrating no dependence upon the work of those earlier scholars. In effect, he abandoned what had been by then the universally accepted approach to 2 Samuel 9-20 for some twenty-five to thirty years. Carlson deviated from Rost's approach to SN in several major areas. Perhaps the most significant of these is that he did not recognize any independent documents within 2 Samuel. Thus he denied the very 7.

2 Sam. 11.27; 12.24; 17.14.


19

existence of a SN.8 He saw the structure of the book as being dominated by two ideas: that of blessing (rD"Q) and curse (rfp^p). He argued that 2 Samuel fell naturally into two sections: the first was chs. 2-8 (prior to David's adultery) and describes 'David under the blessing'; the second was chs. 9-24 and describes 'David under the curse' .9 Carlson's approach to the structure of 2 Samuel is dependent upon his view of its composition. Noth (1981), in line with Rost in formulating his thesis of a Deuteronomistic History, argued that there was very little sign of deuteronomistic editing in 1 and 2 Samuel. He held that at this point the Deuteronomistic Historian had incorporated older material into his work virtually without comment. Carlson, however, saw the book as a product of the deuteronomistic school.10 He took it to be a deuteronomistic reworking of an old David epic, which owed not simply its incorporation, but its actual composition, to the D-group. Thus unlike other commentators, he finds abundant evidence of deuteronomistic editorial activity and the presence of deuteronomistic ideas and ideals throughout the text. He saw the themes of blessing and curse in 2 Samuel as the products of the deuteronomic theology of obedience to Yahweh bringing blessing and disobedience to Yahweh bringing curse. He argued then that the book was based upon this theme. He determined that chs. 2-8 demonstrate David's obedience to Yahweh's will and the resultant blessings that ensued and that ch. 9 is the turning point in this order. He argued that chs. 9-24 are dominated by David's disobedience to Yahweh's commands, the principle acts of disobedience being his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. Thus, in his view, SN shows David as the object of Yahweh's curse through the n^p motif. Carlson also differed from Rost and von Rad in his methodology. His application of the traditio-historical method of biblical criticism to the 8. Carlson comments that as a result of traditio-historical investigation 'it is impossible to accept Rost's thesis of a special Thronfolgegeschichte in 2 Sam.' (1964: 136). 9. He also included a third section in his work, which he entitled 'David and the Hidden Future'. This comprises ch. 7 of 2 Samuel, in which he sees embodied the deuteronomistic messianic theology. However, see Nahon (1965) for a criticism of this section, which appears almost as an afterthought in Carlson's work. 10. Carlson did not think in terms of a single Deuteronomist being responsible for the History, but of a plurality of editors. Thus following in the path of the Uppsala School he employed the term 'D-group' to refer to those responsible for its composition.

20

The Wages of Sin

text contrasted with the literary-critical approach of the earlier scholars. Much of Carlson's interest in examining the text is on tracing the use and development of various motifs and of catch-words or -phrases, whereas Rost's and von Rad's respective works concentrated largely upon the literary-critical problems inherent in SN. Hence it may be seen that Carlson's approach to the text is vastly different from anything that had gone before. It reveals that the SN hypothesis is not the only possible reading of the text and demonstrates that it is not obligatory to regard SN either as independent or as a unity. However despite his movement away from the earlier works, subsequent scholars continued to take their lead from Rost, while Carlson gained little or no following. Other writers have tended to refer to Carlson's work as a significant diversion from the general trend, but few have seriously developed his arguments. The reason for this may lie in his application of traditio-historical methods.11 This type of biblical criticism, with its emphasis on pre-literary oral tradition is typically Scandinavian and has never really been acceptable to nonScandinavians. This may explain why Carlson's arguments have not been taken up by other scholars. Another possible explanation may lie in Carlson's postulation of large amounts of deuteronomistic material in 2 Samuel,12 for his views on this diverge widely from that of the vast majority of scholars. Blenkinsopp In a paper read to the IOSOT Congress in Geneva in 1965 and published in 1966, Blenkinsopp conducted a stylistic analysis of SN in which he examined the themes and motifs of the work. In doing so he concentrated upon the style and literary qualities of the finished work, rather than on the pre-history of the text.13 Unlike Rost, he tended towards the older idea of separate Novellen 11. Carlson's use of the traditio-historical approach, to the exclusion of the literary-critical method, has been criticized by McKenzie (1965), Snaith (1966), Calderone (1967) and Veijola (1984). 12. Bright (1965), McKenzie (1965), Anderson (1966), Calderone (1967) and Veijola (1984) all remark that although Carlson isolates a large quantity of material which he credits to the D-group, he cannot prove that it is actually deuteronomistic in character. 13. Blenkinsopp stated that this was not intended as an alternative to literary criticism, source analysis or even the traditio-historical approach, but should be regarded as a complementary method of biblical criticism.


21

making up the work as it stands. Although not rejecting Rost's ideas on the theme, Blenkinsopp argued that it was possible to distinguish two distinct but connected themes. These were: 1. 2.

The struggle for the succession to David's throne. The legitimization of David's own claim to the throne.

He argued that 2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23 belonged to the latter theme, while the theme of succession as propounded by Rost only began in 2 Samuel 12 with the death of Bathsheba's child. He saw this section of the work as being made up of a pattern of 'sin externalised in a sexual form which leads to death' (1966: 47), which was repeated four times in the units 2 Sam. 11.2-27,12.15b-25; 13-14; 15-20; 1 Kings 1-2. Additionally, Blenkinsopp identified several minor motifs in SN. They were: 1. 2. 3.

The beauty and divine wisdom of the king; Brother killing brother; The woman who brings death.

He saw the third of these as the most significant. This idea was subsequently examined under a different guise by Gunn in his exploration of the use of oral techniques in SN.14 Thus it may be seen that although Blenkinsopp adopted a different approach from, and expressed views contrary to, those of Rost, these were not of the extent of Carlson's disagreements. Indeed, although Blenkinsopp's paper was read shortly after the publication of Carlson's work, it follows firmly in the tracks set by Rost and von Rad. With most of the subsequent works he nowhere follows, criticizes, nor challenges Carlson on any point, but sets his sights firmly on the work of Rost. Thus Carlson's views seem to depart almost at a tangent from the mainstream of scholarly writing. Delekat In the late 1960s, the question of the genre of SN began to come to the fore. Unlike the issues of theme and unity, which were generally accepted in the form proposed by Rost, there has never been a precise 'accepted' view on genre. At this time the political propaganda theory was taken up by two scholars, Whybray and Delekat. Whybray (1968) argued that the purpose of the narrative was to increase support for 14. See below, pp. 29-32.

22

The Wages of Sin

King Solomon,15 but Delekat (1967) argued that it was a piece of antiSolomonic propaganda, composed by an opponent of the Davidic regime. Gunn points out (1978: 22) that this was not an entirely new idea—both Kittel (1896: 172-82) and Holscher (1952) had made similar suggestions regarding 1 Kings 1-2, but neither had made a lasting impact. Delekat's proposal on the other hand, has proved to be very influential. He argued that whereas SN (David-Salomo-Erzahlung} was politically motivated, it was impossible to regard it as pro-monarchical propaganda (with Rost), or even as neutral (as Schulte [1972] subsequently proposed). He thought that the general impression left by the work was anti-Davidic/Solomonic and that it was exclusively the bad points and faults of David and Solomon that were recorded. He argued that the work presented David as an adulterer, a bad military commander and an incapable judge, with Solomon as a murderer and a usurper. He maintained that the work was political propaganda but that it did not advance the cause of the Davidic dynasty or boost their popularity. Therefore he saw it as the product of anti-Solomonic feeling. He suggested that the inclusion of many of the details in SN could only be explained in the light of this understanding of the text. He gave several examples: 1. 2. 3. 4.

David's inactivity during the Ammonite war; His callous statement in 11.25 on the death of Uriah; His orders concerning the killing of Shimei; and The omission of the information that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba (and therefore had a non-political motivation for his stance during the Absalom rebellion).

Delekat thought that the reason for the inclusion of such facts was for the sole reason of inspiring or fostering opposition to the royal family. Thus Delekat proposed that the intention (Tendenz) of the author of SN was to show through history that the respect in which David was held was unjustified and that Solomon's rule was illegitimate, not divinely appointed. He held that the author's aim was to weaken the sense of loyalty to the monarchy and ultimately to cause the overthrow of Solomon. The contrast between the arguments of Delekat and Whybray highlight the ambiguity in the portrayal of David which contributes to the 15. Pp. 23-24.


23

literary excellence of SN. That such opposite views may be held by these two writers illustrates the difficulty of defining a precise genre for the work. Whybray In his monograph on SN, Whybray (1968) set out, not to trace its literary critical problems, but to explore its character and purpose and to determine the extent of the influence that Wisdom tradition had upon it. Wisdom and the Wisdom tradition is central to Whybray's work. He saw SN, like the Joseph narratives in Genesis, as a didactic illustration of the outworking of Wisdom principles. In this Whybray owes much to von Rad (1966: 292-300), who first advanced this view of the Joseph narratives. However the debt is more wide-ranging than this. Whybray arrives at his emphasis on Wisdom as a result of the idea of a period of enlightenment during the reign of Solomon: an idea which has already been seen to have been propounded in connection with SN by von Rad. Whybray also followed von Rad in his basic approach to the composition of the document. He saw it as a new type of literature in Israel, a development from (but 'markedly superior' to) the earlier Israelite saga. His conclusions as to the type of literature into which it has developed, however, differ significantly from those of von Rad. Indeed, Whybray's work concentrates to a large extent upon the genre of SN. In this he and Delekat embody what we might view as a 'new' trend in this area of scholarship. He examined and rejected the theories that SN is history, a novel, a national epic, a moral or religious tale and political propaganda. He compared it to the modern historical novel: a fictional or semi-fictional work, which employs the historical situation of the times as a backdrop for its main interest. However he argued that the true genre of SN is political propaganda, for he saw it as 'a work written to rally support for the Solomonic regime by legitimizing Solomon's position' (1968: 54). Whybray thought, though, that this political function was not the sole purpose for the writing of the work. He suggested that it had a dual purpose, seeing it also as a vehicle for the teaching of the Wisdom schools. He believed that the contents of SN may be accounted for by its political motive and that its Wisdom function accounts for its literary character and psychological interests. Whybray argued for a high level of Wisdom influence in SN. He identified this on analogy with other Old Testament Wisdom works and

24

The Wages of Sin

with Egyptian Wisdom literature. Indeed he argued that the author of SN may have been influenced, either directly or indirectly, by similar Egyptian material such as the Instruction of Amenemhet, which combined a political interest with Wisdom instruction. Whybray's most notable supporter was Hermisson (1971) who adhered to his argument that SN emanated from Wisdom circles and was profoundly influenced by Wisdom ideas. Yet Hermisson differed from Whybray in that he did not regard it as a textbook or as a largescale didactic illustration of Wisdom teaching and principles. Rather he reverted to the view of von Rad that it was a presentation of history (Geschichtsdarstellung), but saw it as history that had been strongly influenced by Wisdom thought and was written from the perspective of the Wisdom schools. Also notable are a number of articles by Brueggemann (1968; 1969; 1972), in which he adopted the idea of Wisdom influence in SN. The parallel that Brueggemann (1968) draws between SN and the Yahwistic Genesis 2-11 is noteworthy. He regards this material as having been based upon SN and as relating specifically to the Davidic royal family. This is seen, for example, in the parallel between Absalom's murder of Amnon and the fratricide involving Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 (1968: 164-67). Whybray's view of the genre of SN as political propaganda is especially significant in the light of the work of the Tendenz critics, as will be discussed below.16 Yet perhaps the most interesting point to be noted is that the works of Whybray and Delekat mark the beginning of a rising tide of interest in the genre of SN, for whereas this question was of peripheral importance to Rost, it comes increasingly to the fore in several later works. Thornton Thornton (1968) took a slightly different view of the theme of succession in SN than had Rost. He suggested that the question 'Who will succeed to the throne of David?' is inappropriate when seen as the theme of a Solomonic composition, as its audience would be well-acquainted with the name of the successor. Instead he thought that we should '...try to repicture the circumstances of Solomon's succession to the throne...' whereupon 'Solomon's need for suitable apologetic becomes apparent' (1968: 160). He believed that it would have been necessary to 16. Pp. 27-29.


25

explain why Solomon, rather than one of his older brothers, succeeded David. He also contended that it would have been necessary to justify the executions of Adonijah, Joab and Shimei ben Gera and to account for Solomon's treatment of the priest Abiathar. Furthermore the position in Solomon's court of certain officials such as Nathan and Zadok and the privileges received by the sons of Barzillai required some form of explanation. Thus he suggested that the theme should be seen not as 'Who will succeed David to the throne?', but as 'Why was it Solomon who succeeded David to the throne?' Thornton emphasizes this apologetic purpose in the text, stating: 'From the very beginning, the question "Who will sit on David's throne?" is not an open question; both the writer and his readers already know the answer, and are more interested in seeking to justify the position and activities of the throne's present occupant' (1968: 166). He also was convinced that a simple interest in story-telling manifests itself in the text. Indeed he saw this interest as determining the author's selection of his material. The distinction that Thornton made between 'Why was it Solomon who succeeded?' and Rost's 'Who will succeed?' is a valid one, following on accurately from his premises. However, one factor supporting Rost's view is that he claims to take this phrase from the text of 1 Kings 1, where he saw it as the verbal expression of the theme. Thornton's variation on this has no textual support. Therefore, although it is certainly a plausible suggestion, Rost's argument is generally taken to be the more acceptable on this account.17 It must also be considered that although many adhere to the view that SN was written during Solomon's reign, this dating is by no means unquestionable. Yet Thornton assumed this without discussion, thereby weakening his argument. The value of Thornton's article should be seen in his questioning of Rost's ideas on theme and genre. His emphasis on an apologetic motive for SN is significant, particularly in view of the further development of this idea by a number of scholars. Flanagan Another significant contribution to the study of SN was made in an article by Flanagan (1972). He returned to the question of theme, contending that the succession theme could not be consistently applied to 17. However it will be suggested below (Chapter 2, p. 49) that the textual support for Rost's theme is not actually as strong as is commonly perceived.

26

The Wages of Sin

the work as a whole. He argued that not one, but two themes should be distinguished in the text. They were: 1. 2.

Solomon's succession to the throne; and The legitimation of David's rule over Israel and Judah.

Flanagan acknowledged that, in its present form, the work is a SN whose theme and purpose is to recount the history of Solomon's accession to his father's throne. However he did not adhere to Rost's view that it was an original composition that had not been based on any older written source. Rather he saw the final form of SN as the product of 'a skilful redactor' (1972: 173) who based his work upon and incorporated it into an earlier Court History. The theme of this Court History was the demonstration of David's maintenance of control of both Israel and Judah and the legitimization of his position. He believed that Rost had not perceived this juxtaposition and interweaving of the two quite separate themes because of the way he had established the extent of the work. He blamed Rost's inability to determine any definite beginning for the unit on the fact that he had worked backwards from his starting point in 1 Kings 1-2. Flanagan argued that it would have been better if he had approached the work by analysing which passages could be removed without disturbing the unity of the narrative. He held that had this approach been adopted, Rost would have been in a better position to recognize the existence of a Court History underlying a subsequent succession narrative. Flanagan's article represented a significant departure with regard to theme from the view propounded by Rost and supported by von Rad. That Flanagan reverted to the older idea of this entity as a Court History does not mark a continuing trend, although a few scholars do continue to use this term. It does, however, reveal the influence of the preRostian idea of a Court History of David. Flanagan attempted to synthesize the older approach with the subsequently established view of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 as a narrative on the theme of succession. Flanagan's views also tied in with those of Blenkinsopp (1966).18 Both scholars recognized a difficulty in taking succession as the sole theme of the work, for in effect both indicated that the text has a substantial interest in David himself.19 The main difference between the two lies in 18. See above, pp. 20-21. 19. I will seek to demonstrate below that the character of David is more central to the narrative than the SN hypothesis allows. See below, Chapter 2, pp. 51-54.


27

Flanagan's application of this observation to the literary history of the text. He accounted for the presence of these two themes by postulating an underlying Court History, with which SN is interwoven. The Tendenz Critics If the works of Delekat and Whybray are compared, it is found that both regarded SN as political propaganda, but Whybray saw it as proSolomonic/Davidic, while Delekat argued that it was opposed to the ruling dynasty. Obviously such variance causes difficulty. That two directly opposite views can be held, based on much the same evidence, creates a problem in itself. The problem of the political orientation of SN has been taken up by several, mostly European, scholars who have come to be known by the collective term Tendenz critics. As the name might imply, they have concentrated upon the political intention of SN, but have followed Delekat in seeing it as basically anti-Davidic/Solomonic. The most notable of the Tendenz critics are Wiirthwein, Veijola and Langlamet. These scholars owe much to Delekat's argument for an anti-Solomonic Tendenz in 1 Kings 1-2. However they are set apart both from Delekat and from the main stream of opinion by their application of a detailed literary criticism to the text. They are also unique in that they argue for the presence of more than one source and of secondary and redactional material in the narrative. Perhaps the major characteristic of the Tendenz critics is the emphasis they place upon the first two chapters of 1 Kings. It is clear that if one is to argue for a propagandist purpose in SN, then 1 Kings 1-2 must feature prominently in the argument. This is the case with these scholars. It may be seen in the work of Langlamet, which is concentrated squarely on these chapters. Veijola (whose aim is not primarily to determine the political tendency of SN but to establish the deuteronomistic account of the origins of the Davidic dynasty) also takes 1 Kings 1-2 as his starting point, it being the only section of SN with which he deals extensively. Wiirthwein, on the other hand, although placing considerable emphasis on these chapters, deals somewhat more comprehensively with SN almost in its entirety. The argument of the Tendenz critics is that there is an apparently insoluble conflict of intentions in SN in general and in 1 Kings 1-2 in particular. This is seen in that it is possible to detect evidence of both pro- and anti-Solomonic propaganda in this material. Yet they hold that a synthesis between the two is impossible.

28

The Wages of Sin

These scholars find a solution for the problem in questioning the assumption that SN is the unified product of a single author. Thus it is argued that the employment of literary criticism and the isolation of various sources can resolve the problem without any great difficulty. By the application of source analysis to 1 Kings 1-2, Langlamet concluded that there are two sources underlying the present text, an antiSolomonic source and a pro-Solomonic source. He argued that the antiSolomonic strand is the work of the original author (narrateur ancieri) of these chapters and that it was later reworked by an editor (redacteur prosalomonien) who rearranged the work to convey his own proSolomonic orientation. Thus he saw SN as having been employed at different times both as propaganda for and against the Davidic royal family. Wiirthwein's overall approach to SN saw 1 Kings 1-2 as basically anti-Solomonic and 2 Samuel 10-12 as anti-Davidic, while he viewed the history of Absalom's revolt as deriving from a source sympathetic to David. As such the approach of the Tendenz critics owed something to the view of Flanagan. On the basis of a duality of theme, Flanagan argued that an earlier Court History was incorporated by a later redactor into SN. The influence of this approach (whose motivation is that of theme and content) may be observed on the Tendenz critics (whose motivation is that of the genre of political propaganda). The Tendenz critics have, however, come in for criticism as a result of their literary critical methods and have not gained widespread acceptance. There are several difficulties with their approach. First, and perhaps most significantly, its proponents reject what is indeed an assumption (but nevertheless an assumption of much longstanding and wide acceptance): the unity of SN. Yet they do so only to replace it with another, strikingly tendentious, assumption that SN has been subject to major redactional changes. Secondly, their entire approach is based on the premise that there cannot be ambiguity in the presentation of a character (i.e. David or Solomon) in a single document. Thus they do not allow for grey area in this respect. However Gunn remarks that ambiguity may be used to enhance a text. He asks, But why must we be looking for neat 'solutions' which 'do away with' the tensions? Why should the text be expected to be simply and neatly 'pro' anyone? Do we seek to postulate editorial revisions of Shakespeare's Henry IV because it is exceedingly difficult to determine whether the plays are 'for' or 'against' Hal or Falstaff? (1978: 25).


29

The theory underlying the search for the Tendenz may be oversimplistic in itself. Indeed another criticism that could be levelled at these scholars is the complicated and arbitrary nature of their literary-critical methods and their source analysis of the text. Such analysis is, to at least some extent, subjective. Indeed it is also true that there is no agreement between them on the extent or nature of the redactions that they identify. It is their methods, not their conclusions, that mark them off as a 'school' or movement, therefore this must preclude their gaining any great following. It is for these reasons that the work, or at least the methods, of the Tendenz critics has not proved to be of great influence outside continental Europe. Gunn and Van Seters Of major significance in recent years has been the work of Gunn, whose The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (1978) was the most extensive work devoted to the study of SN since that of Carlson (1964). Gunn's publication was preceded by his series of articles (1974a, 1974b, 1975, 1976a, 1976b) in which he explored various aspects of SN, particularly the role and contribution of oral patterns. During the same period Van Seters (1972, 1976a, 1976b) became involved in a lively debate with Gunn on the issue of the role and extent of oral composition in the work. The contribution of Gunn to the study of SN may be seen in that his work departs from the views of Rost et al. in three areas of major importance, namely those of genre, extent and theme. With regard to genre, Gunn rejected each of the main views currently held among scholars and viewed SN as a 'novel' or 'story', written for its entertainment value.20 This should be distinguished, however, from the Novelle idea advocated by Caspari (1909, 1926) and Gressmann (1910) in the period prior to Rost. They held that this material consisted of a series of independent short stories (Novellen) composed by several writers and was not in fact a unity. Gunn on the other hand saw it as a single unit, the product of one author, similar in style and purpose to a modern novel. 20. He did, however, qualify this phrase by adding that it should be seen as 'serious entertainment'. He indicated that its product and aim are infinitely higher than those of the vision popularly conjured up by the word 'entertainment' or 'mere entertainment', the latter being a phrase often used when this entertainment is considered as a possible purpose for any Old Testament literature (1978: 61).

30

The Wages of Sin

Gunn regarded SN as 'a story, told in a traditional vein' (1978: 38), a work of art, whose purpose is to entertain. He saw the presence of traditional material in the text as valuable evidence that it is primarily a story. He lists the traditional motifs in SN as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

David and the sons of Zeruiah; The judgment-eliciting parable; The woman who brings death; The woman and the spies; and The two messengers and the letter of death.

He argued that these may be recognized as traditional because of the occurrence of similar motifs elsewhere, both in biblical and extra-biblical stories. He suggested that they are based upon the convention of oral storytelling, in which these patterns recurred. Gunn isolated the first of these patterns, 'David and the sons of Zeruiah', as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2 Sam. 16.10, where David says to Abishai, 'What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah?'; The incident in 1 Samuel 26, in which David restrains Abishai from killing Saul; 2 Samuel 3, in which Joab kills Abner; 2 Samuel 19 and 20, in which Joab kills Absalom, berates David and murders Amasa; and 2 Sam. 21.15-17, in which Abishai rescues David in battle.

He saw this 'love-hate relationship' between David and Joab and his brothers as a motif that was 'part of the stock-in-trade of the narrator of the stories of David and his men' (1978: 40). The judgment-eliciting parable is another of these traditional motifs. He took the fact that there are two examples in SN and another in 1 Kings 20 as evidence of their traditional nature. He noted certain traditional motifs that concern the role of women in the stories. These are the woman who brings death and the woman and the spies. He also saw a traditional element in the fact that the parable suggested by Joab is told by a woman. It would seem that he saw these as 'traditional motifs' because of the involvement of women here, which is unusual and fairly uncommon in Old Testament narrative. By comparing them with other similar circumstances, he characterized them as 'traditional motifs'.


31

In the case of the woman who brings death, he listed Rizpah, Bathsheba, Tamar and Abishag as the catalysts in stories, each of which result in the death of two men. However Van Seters (1976b: 26-27) argued that all these examples do not fit the mould of the woman who brings death. He stated that they would be more aptly categorized by the epithet death through the love of a woman, which is a common and almost universal motif. Gunn also interpreted the incident of the two messengers in 2 Samuel 18 as a traditional motif because it adds nothing to the story. He states, The account of the race is sheer entertainment. It adds no information of any importance for our understanding of the war and only indirectly has any bearing on the motives and roles of the leading characters. Nor does it teach us anything in particular...' (1978: 45). He viewed it as purely entertainment and therefore a traditional motif. With the motif of the letter of death, although he noted that it is 'widely attested in story the world over' (1978: 46), he remarked that this is the only example of this motif in Old Testament literature. It is Gunn's stress on a traditional/oral aspect in SN with which Van Seters disagreed. He did not concur with Gunn on the question of dependence upon oral traditions. Rather he saw those features of the text which the other scholar terms 'oral-traditional' as the result of scribal conventions. Indeed the differences between these two commentators may be most easily defined in that whereas Gunn laid great stress upon oral conventions, Van Seters emphasized the importance of written traditions.21 Gunn also diverged from mainstream opinion in his view of the extent of SN. He argued that it included 2 Samuel 2-4. His justification for this was on the basis of the difficulty involved in regarding ch. 9 as the starting-point for the narrative. Hence he looked elsewhere for its beginning. He could not come to terms with Rost's suggestion that its starting point may be found in the Michal story of 6.16, 20-23 and an earlier version of the dynastic oracle in ch. 7. Gunn argued that chs. 2-4 form an obvious and appropriate beginning for the entire narrative both thematically and stylistically.22 21. Van Seters's (1983) dating of SN (or the Court History, as he calls it) is significant in this respect. He saw it as a post-deuteronomistic addition to the David material. Thus he placed it in the post-exilic period, when oral story-telling would have had little significance. 22. Van Seters (1983: 281-86) agreed that the beginning of the narrative is to be found earlier in 2 Samuel. He takes 2 Sam. 2.8-4.12 as providing this starting point.

32

The Wages of Sin

He also rejected the view proposed by Rost that this is a 'Succession Narrative'. He states, 'In my view...the centrality and significance of this theme of Solomonic succession has been considerably overstated' (1978: 81). Rather he viewed the theme of succession as 'but one theme in the story, linking at a subordinate level one series of episodes' (1978: 84, the italics are Gunn's). He also criticized Rost's methodology in approaching the question of the theme before that of the extent of the work. He put forward the view that one should define the limits of a work first so that one's concept of theme does not determine the extent of the narrative. This is a valid criticism of Rost's methods, but it must be noted that where theme and extent are so closely linked as they are here, one cannot categorically define a right or wrong approach to the text. Either method (of finding theme or extent first), or indeed a combination of the two, could possibly be used with equal effectiveness. Gunn regarded SN as the story of David and his kingdom. He saw two basic themes in it: 1. 2.

David as king (in the political sphere—comprising the acquisition of the kingdom and the founding of a dynasty); and David as man (in the private sphere—comprising David both as husband and father).

He also noted the presence of several other minor interrelated themes. Thus Gunn's work is an important and significant contribution to the study of SN. This importance is attested not only by the conclusions that he reached in the fields of genre, purpose, theme and extent, but also by their value in raising questions that had not previously been asked or whose answers had simply been assumed or accepted. Hagan Hagan's 1979 article, 'Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Samuel 9-20; 1 Kings 1-2', represents a valuable development in the study of SN, especially with regard to theme. Hagan did not reject Rost's view of the succession theme, but he argued that it is simply one of many themes that run through the work. In this article, Hagan explored the theme of deception in SN. He listed eighteen primary occurrences of the motif of deception in 2 Samuel 920 and 1 Kings 1-2, but held that the total number of such occurrences is higher because several of these contain more than one element of deception.


33

He saw the examples of deception as falling naturally into five major units that link the work. They are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2 Samuel 11-12 David/Uriah/Nathan 2 Samuel 13-14 Amnon/Absalom 2 Samuel 15-19 Absalom's rebellion 2 Samuel 20 Sheba/Amasa/Joab/Woman of Abel 1 Kings 1-2 Adonij ah/Solomon

Hagan argued that each of these divisions is composed of a round of deception, followed by counter-deception. In each case, the aim of the deception is to gain possession of either a woman (Bathsheba/Tamar/ Abishag), or the kingdom. The aim and result of the counter-deception is to restore order. He saw these units as providing a link for the entire narrative, each being closely related to the others both on a literary and a thematic level. It would seem that there is a similarity between Hagan and Gunn in their emphasis on SN as literature. Hagan made no comment on either the genre or purpose of the work, therefore it is not clear whether he would go so far as Gunn in seeing the genre as that of the novel or the purpose as purely literary. However he remarks, 'While history may lie behind this narrative, the author has created a piece of literature out of his facts' (1979: 302). Thus it would seem that he viewed SN as based on history, but owing its literary character to the skill of its author. It is significant that Hagan did not commit himself to making definite assertions on any aspect of SN. He argued for deception as a major theme in the work, but he viewed it simply as a major theme and not the main theme. Thus he would displace but not refute the succession idea, which he continued to regard as important to the narrative. The value of Hagan's article lies in its questioning the validity of the idea of a single main theme. He raised the possibility that other major (and minor) themes may be present in the text, but otherwise did not make or propose any major changes to the generally accepted view of SN. His contribution may then be assessed in terms of broadening horizons rather than of changing views. Thus his article embodies a sideways movement in this field of study.

34

The Wages of Sin

Wharton, McCarter, Coats and Ackroyd In 1981 the journal Interpretation devoted an entire issue to articles on the subject of SN. These were supplied by Wharton, McCarter, Coats and Ackroyd, each dealing with one particular aspect of the work. Wharton's paper explored the theology of the narrative, McCarter took up the political propaganda idea and argued that it was pro-Solomonic, Coats discussed the genre and meaning of the two stories in 2 Sam. 12.1-4 and 14.5-7, while Ackroyd raised fundamental questions about the SN hypothesis. As the title suggests, one of the main ideas presented in Wharton's article was that the material in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 is to all intents and purposes 'plausible', requiring very little suspension of disbelief. He followed in the footsteps of von Rad by examining the theology underlying the narrative. He saw the characters and activities in the text as thoroughly human and, like von Rad, also emphasized the author's belief in the hidden activity of divine providence at work in all these events. Coats' article dealt with the two 'stories' contained within SN: Nathan's parable in 2 Sam. 12.1b-4 and the story told by the woman from Tekoa in 14.5b-7. Both are commonly regarded as parables, but Coats argued that it was their intention, not their genre, that was parabolic. Rather he saw the stories as belonging to two different genres: fable and anecdote, respectively. He suggested that each served to highlight certain acts of the king as 'ridiculous' or 'absurd'. Thus he perceived their role and function as limiting, or placing 'a hedge around', the power of the king by demonstrating their absurdity and thus forcing him to adopt a particular course of action. In his article, Ackroyd took a fresh approach to the narrative, considering it independently of the numerous studies that have been undertaken since Rost and von Rad. Instead of adding to what scholars have already observed, he took a step backwards, so to speak, and asked what real justification there actually is for delimiting SN as a separate, self-contained entity. He argued that there are several basic problems with the now traditional delimitation of these chapters. The most fundamental of these is, he argued, that in reading the text it is not immediately obvious that it is in fact a self-contained body of material. He stated that neither content, historical setting, style, nor structure mark it off as a separate unit. Thus Ackroyd took recourse to the work of Carlson. He determined


35

that Carlson's blessing/curse structure may be paralleled with a similar structure in the Saul and Solomon narratives.23 He remarked that Carlson's approach to 2 Samuel and the SN hypothesis in its present form are incompatible and saw the parallels with the Saul and Solomon material as strengthening Carlson's argument considerably. Thus he suggested that the division of SN from the rest of 2 Samuel may be a serious mistake. He found further support for this in highlighting links between SN and other material in 2 Samuel, specifically between 2 Samuel 9 (16.1-4; 19.24-30) and 4.4 and 21.1-14. Ackroyd went on to examine the idea that SN has a single distinct purpose. He thought that this issue had become clouded to a certain degree by a confusion or imbalance between literary considerations and questions of content. He also believed that the idea of a single purpose underlying SN may affect this problem. Thus he emphasized the danger that the SN hypothesis, or perhaps simply the delimiting of SN as a selfcontained entity, has become a matter of critical orthodoxy. He concluded: ... we must not be hindered by restrictions imposed by artificial and hypothetical categorizing of the text; and one such may appear to have been the supposition that there is an identifiable unit to be described as the 'succession narrative', when, in reality, such a unit is to be seen rather as the product of too narrow reading and too great a desire to find uniformity where there is in reality diversity and richness. A less rigid reading may open up a wider perspective (1981: 396).

In this article Ackroyd took a sharp turn from the general range of views on SN. However it would not be true to say that this was a divergence from the general trend of thought on the subject. Recent scholarly works had begun to call into question, or to reject, various of the 'accepted' conclusions established in the Rost/von Rad era; to a large extent Ackroyd's article was simply a further development in this general trend. Having questioned the basic aspects of the hypothesis, he took one step further and asked whether it should be accepted at all, drawing attention to the fact that it is simply a hypothesis. In this he was following in the path prepared by scholars such as Carlson and Conroy,24 both of whom rejected the SN hypothesis as promulgated by Rost.

23. This structure is highlighted by Soggin (1976: 197). 24. Conroy's approach to the text will be discussed below (pp. 39-40).

36

The Wages of Sin

Regardless of whether or not one is swayed by Ackroyd's suggestions, this article is a useful reminder of the hypothetical nature of the delimitation of the text. However, it may be that Ackroyd intended this paper more as a stimulant for discussion than as an authoritative refutation of the entire SN hypothesis. The main thesis underlying McCarter's article was the view first formulated by Rost25 (and since advanced by scholars such as Whybray 1968; and Thornton 1968) that SN is political propaganda, composed with the purpose of justifying and legitimizing Solomon's rule. He also pursued this idea in his (1984) commentary in the Anchor Bible series. McCarter detected a definite apologetic quality in SN, which is very much in the tradition of the extant Hittite political propaganda and apologetic documents. He saw its tone and purpose as pro-Solomonic. However, unlike many of the other proponents of this view, he drew a firm distinction between 1 Kings 1-2 and the rest of SN. He saw the first two chapters of Kings as having the quality of apologetic proper. Although viewing the rest of the material as apologetic in tone also, he argued that it was compiled from a series of independent, self-contained documents.26 He argued that these were concerned with issues pertinent during the reign of David and that the author linked them to his own composition (1 Kgs 1-2). The reason for the employment of these narratives was, therefore, to provide the necessary background to the author's own apologetic composition and to supply facts that he had clearly presupposed. Such presuppositions are seen in the mention of Joab, the sons of Barzillai, Shimei and the deeds for which they are to be punished or rewarded in 1 Kings 2. Thus he argued that the purpose for incorporating what is now 2 Samuel 9-20 was to provide a background for these references and to justify Solomon's actions regarding them. In dividing the text in this way, he recognized the problem encountered by Flanagan (1972) and also by Blenkinsopp (1966). Flanagan's argument served as a forerunner of McCarter's hypothesis in that he too observed a conflict within the text, which he attempted to resolve by postulating the theory of a Court History underlying a SN. McCarter perceived that a possible criticism of his argument could be made with respect to the prominent role played by Adonijah in these 25. Rost maintained that SN was written to glorify Solomon. 26. These were: 2 Sam. 21.1-14 + 2 Sam. 9, the Gibeonites' revenge and Mephibosheth at court; 2 Samuel 10-12, David's adultery and murder; 2 Sam. 1320, Absalom's rebellion.


37

chapters. Adonijah appears nowhere in the incorporated material (2 Sam. 9-20). He countered this, however, by drawing attention to the deliberate links made throughout 1 Kings 1 and 2 between Adonijah and his older brothers, Absalom and Amnon.27 Hence he explained both the importance of Adonijah in the Kings material and the presence of the account of Amnon's deeds and Absalom's rebellion in the early chapters. Thus in many ways McCarter broke away from the traditional approach to SN while still maintaining the views of extent, unity and theme advanced by Rost. The success of his thesis, however, hinges on one's acceptance or rejection of the political propaganda hypothesis. This is a view that, although advanced as early as Rost, has never really been dominant in the genre argument, but has been subservient in most circles to the idea of SN as an example of history writing. This approach has seen a significant rise in recent years, however, and it remains to be seen how influential it will become in the future. Also interesting as evidence for this view is McCarter's demonstration of the use of the story of Absalom's rebellion as political propaganda by John Dry den28 in 17th century England.29 Indeed it is also possible to observe a much more recent use of the David stories in Stefan Heym's (1972) satirical novel, The King David Report. This work employs all the David narratives in 1 Samuel 6-1 Kings 2 to comment on the treatment of history and politics in a totalitarian state. It must be noted that Heym is dependent upon early 20th-century critical analysis to a large extent.30 Nevertheless, both these treatments of the material demonstrate that even if SN was not originally intended as political propaganda, it does have the internal capacity to be interpreted in this way.

27. Adonijah's proclamation (1 Kgs 1.5), his acquiring chariots, horses and fifty runners (1.5), his handsome features (1.6) and his attempted procural of Abishag (2.13-18) were seen by McCarter to mirror statements about Absalom in 2 Sam. 15.10; 15.1; 14.25 and 16.20-22 respectively. He argued that David's indulgent treatment of Adonijah (1 Kgs 1.6) and the statement to the effect that 'he was the one born after Absalom' (1.6) also deliberately draw comparisons between Amnon and his elder brothers and link him with them. 28. In the satirical poem, 'Absalom and Achitophel'. 29. See McCarter 1981:355-57. 30. See his reference on p. 254 to source analysis.

38

The Wages of Sin

The Literary Critics The advent of the literary approach to the Old Testament has also penetrated the study of SN. Some studies have been published in Hebrew,31 while in English the names of Ridout (1971), Conroy (1978), Long (1981a, 1981b) and Fokkelman (1981, 1986) are connected with the application of this approach to SN. Of these, Conroy's monograph on the Absalom narratives has proved influential, while Fokkelman's work (not yet complete at the time of writing) is remarkable for its sheer volume. Ridout had earlier applied the principles of rhetorical criticism pioneered by Muilenberg to SN as a whole, and included a fairly extensive consideration of 2 Samuel 7. Conroy on the other hand, attempts to complete a more thorough literary analysis by confining his study to chs. 13-20 of the book. His work is divided into two parts: 'the text as process' (in which he presents a close reading of two specific passages, namely 2 Sam. 13.1-22 and 2 Sam. 17.24-19.9) and 'the text as product' (in which he surveys the material as a whole under the subdivisions 'the text as narrative' and 'the text as language system'). Perhaps the most notable and certainly the most influential feature of Conroy's work is that he confines his study to 2 Samuel 13-20. In doing so he argues that this material forms a narrative unity in itself. He remarks that 'doubts and problems' (1978: 5) have arisen regarding SN, which considerably weaken the entire hypothesis. He argues that it is possible to read 2 Samuel 13-20 within several larger works: SN, 2 Samuel, the David stories and the Deuteronomistic History. Therefore he proposes that it is erroneous to confine these chapters to a single larger body, that is SN. He sees this material as a unit in itself because it has a single unified theme: the story of Absalom's usurpation of his father's throne and its subsequent restoration to the legitimate ruler. He argues that its independence is attested by its structure: a complete story with a beginning, middle section and ending. He states that these are 'perhaps not a presuppositionless beginning nor an absolute and final end, but nevertheless enough of both to qualify for the title of story and not merely that of fragment' (1978: 6). Conroy does not, however, seek to deny the position of chs. 13-20 within SN, or even necessarily to propose an original independent existence. Rather he attempts to assert their independent

31. For example, Bar-Efrat 1975; and Amit 1983.


39

narrative identity and to prove the legitimacy of separating them from the surrounding material. Following on from this then, is the question of the division of chs. 1320. There are basically two schools of thought on this issue. One view is that the Amnon-Tamar-Absalom episode of chs. 13-14 forms a separate section from the story of Absalom's revolt in chs. 15-20. The alternative view is that chs. 13-14 are intrinsically related to chs. 15-20 and in fact record the early causes of the revolt in Absalom's initial estrangement from his father. The latter view is that adopted by Conroy, who takes chs. 13-20 as a single unit and suggests that the purpose in recording Amnon's rape of Tamar is to trace the story to its beginnings. With regard to the theme of SN, Conroy is somewhat more reserved than the majority of scholars in adopting the idea of succession as the motivating force in these chapters. Rost classed 2 Samuel 13-20 as part of the history to the succession. Conroy argues that when these chapters are viewed independently of 1 Kings 1-2, the theme of succession does not emerge, as should be the case if Rost's analysis were accurate. Therefore he contends that serious doubts are cast upon the importance of the theme for SN as a whole. Conroy does, however, place significant emphasis on other themes in 2 Samuel 13-20 on the basis of his literary-critical analysis of the text. These are the themes of return and restoration (seen most clearly in the account of David's flight from Jerusalem and subsequent return to the city) and of contrast and reversal (occurring, for example, when Tamar's obedience to her father brings about her ruin and when Amnon's great love turns to deep hatred). Conroy's work marks an important point in the study of SN. Its influence may be clearly observed in several recent writers, among whom is McCarter. In McCarter's commentary on 2 Samuel he may be seen to be heavily indebted to Conroy's appreciation of the unity and independence of chs. 13-20. Conroy's influence may also be observed in the continuing application of literary criticism to the text of SN, particularly in the work of Fokkelman. At the time of writing, the first two volumes of Fokkelman's Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel have been published. The first covers 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2, while the second deals with 1 Samuel 13-2 Samuel 1. The remaining volumes are yet to follow. Hence in the present context it is volume 1 that is of specific relevance and is considered here. This work interprets the text on the basis of a

40

The Wages of Sin

stylistic and structural analysis that Fokkelman applies to the text. The analysis of SN spans some 380 pages of volume 1, but most of it is only indirectly relevant to this survey of the development of the SN hypothesis. One major feature of Fokkelman's approach is that he completely rejects the SN hypothesis as propounded by Rost and subsequent scholars. Of these he singles out von Rad, Whybray, Flanagan, Wurthwein, Langlamet and Ridout for criticism. He states, 'the Thronfolgegeschichte theory...has crippled OT science for almost 50 years' (1981: 418). He sees much of the work on SN as having a 'naive onesidedness' and being in fact 'drastic and simplistic distortions' (1981: 418). However, in his emphasis upon the text and in his application of structural analysis to it, he rejects the view of the Tendenz critics, and in particular the text-critical methods of Wurthwein and Langlamet. He compares them to 'the proverbial surgeon who, having completed his labour, ascertains that "the operation is a success; the patient, however, is dead"' (1981: 419); and goes on to assess their work in strong language: 'Repugnant examples of this...are the radical "analyses" of Wurthwein and Langlamet' (1981: 419). Fokkelman's own approach is refreshing in its almost total break from the SN hypothesis and from general dependence on the views of previous scholars. One significant departure from the majority of his predecessors is his rejection of the title SN/Thronfolgegeschichte. Instead he offers the title 'King David' in the light of David's role as the central character.32 He also differs significantly from most other scholars in his appreciation of the themes of the work. By rejecting the SN hypothesis he rejects also the idea of succession as the theme. Instead he argues for the presence of seven other themes in the work, each consisting of a pair of opposites (1981: 428-29). These are derived from his analysis of the text: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Being whole/being divided; Unity/duality; Self/ego; Appearance/concealment; Being weak/acting strong; Father/king; Illusion/Truth.

32. Gunn (1978) also rejects the title 'SN' in favour of 'the Story of King David'.


41

However, the order in which these are placed is of no particular significance and he makes no strong argument for a main theme. Fokkelman sees 2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2 as a unity, but not to the same degree that Rost did. He argues that it is not entirely independent and should be regarded as a relative unity rather than as a completely independent body. It seems, however, that further discussion of the relationship between it and the surrounding material is reserved for a remaining volume of his work. This is also the case with the issue of the extent of 'King David'/SN, for he promises discussion of this question and of the issue of the possible inclusion of 2 Samuel 2-4 and 7 in the appropriate volume of his work. Finally, also worthy of note is Fokkelman's view of the structure of the piece. He calls the sections or divisions of the work acts and divides each of these into scenes. He sees four acts in this material, thus dividing chs. 13-14 and 15-20 and calling them Acts 2 and 3 respectively. He sees the four acts as arranged in a chiastic ABB'A' pattern and argues that the protagonists provide a link between these acts. This may be seen in that the main participants in Act 1 (A) (David, Bathsheba, Nathan and Solomon) reappear as the principle characters in Act 4 (A'), while the chief protagonist in both Act 2 (B) and Act 3 (B') is Absalom. Thus Fokkelman's division of the work, arrived at from the perspective of structural analysis, accords with that of those scholars who would see chs. 13-14 and 15-20 as two separate sections and not as one larger Absalom revolt story. Summary Despite the enormous influence and great impact of the SN hypothesis, it has been subject to various degrees of questioning over the last three decades. Some scholars, such as Carlson, the Tendenz critics and the literary critics, have departed from the views of Rost and von Rad by applying alternative methods of biblical criticism to the text. However these do not represent the main stream of scholarly thought, for otherwise few have moved far from Rost's original hypothesis.33 Individual

33. The main exception being Ackroyd whose questioning of the unity and independence of SN places the entire hypothesis in doubt.

42

The Wages of Sin

scholars have tended to doubt one or two particular aspects of the theory and have highlighted these particular areas.34 The main areas of debate have been those of its extent,35 unity,36 theme,37 and genre and purpose.38 Other issues such as its relation to the surrounding material and its date and authorship have also received some attention from time to time. In the following chapters SN will be examined in its own right and these issues will be discussed individually as they arise.

34. For example, Gunn challenges Rost's idea of the genre of SN; Hagan disputes his conclusions as regards theme etc. 35. Flanagan 1972; Gunn 1978. 36. Wiirthwein 1974; Veijola 1975; Langlamet 1976b; Conroy 1978; Ackroyd 1981. 37. Carlson 1964; Thornton 1968; Flanagan 1972; Hagan 1979; Ackroyd 1981. 38. Delekat 1967; Whybray 1968; Thornton 1968; Wurthwein 1974; Veijola 1975; Langlamet 1976; Gunn 1978; McCarter 1981, 1984.

Chapter 2 A REAPPRAISAL OF THE 'SUCCESSION NARRATIVE' HYPOTHESIS Despite the questions that have been raised about the SN hypothesis over the past 30 years, it still enjoys general acceptance. Scholars have tended to object to particular aspects of the hypothesis (for example: Gunn to genre and extent; Flanagan and Hagan to theme; Delekat and others to Tendenr, etc.), but have modified rather than abandoned the overall hypothesis. In effect, Rost's work remains the classic point of reference, for it has never been superseded by any other. Until now no viable alternative has been proposed. Yet some scholars are far from convinced that Rost's should remain the 'accepted' view of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. As was seen in the last chapter,1 Ackroyd (1981) emphasized that the SN hypothesis, despite its widespread popularity, is only a theory: a theory that runs the risk of becoming an example of critical orthodoxy.2 It was also seen that Fokkelman3 used stronger terms in stating that 'the Thronnfolgegeschichte theory...has crippled O[ld] T[estament] science for almost 50 years' (1981: 418). Is the prominence of Rost's work the result of a sound foundation? Or has it simply become traditional to accept the SN hypothesis? Theme4

Rost's approach centres around the succession theme. He began with the first two chapters of Kings,5 and took the statement in 1 Kings 1— 1. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 34-36. 2. Carlson was exceptional in that he did not take Rost's hypothesis as the basis for his own ideas. However his work failed to make any significant impact upon the mainstream of scholarly thought. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 18-20. 3. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 39-41. 4. See also Keys 1988. 5. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 14-16.

44

The Wages of Sin

'Who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king, and who shall reign after him?'—as the verbal expression of the theme of the entire narrative. From here he traced the extent of the work and concluded that it comprised 2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23 (the Michal story); 7.1 Ib, 16 (the core of the dynastic oracle); 9-20; and 1 Kings 1-2. He saw the entire work as an exploration of the question of succession. This theme in turn comprised two major branches: the history of the succession6 and the history of the successor.7 To him, the narrative was a record of the elimination of each of the various candidates for the throne up until the eventual emergence of Solomon as the heir to his father's domain. Yet the idea that the succession to the throne is the main theme of the work has attracted some criticism. Initially Carlson (1964) rejected the notion of a SN, to replace it with the idea that 2 Samuel as a whole is based on a structure of blessing and curse.8 Carlson's blessing and curse schema, however, was as much structural as thematic and he did not pay much attention to refuting the theme of succession. Nevertheless his work was in many ways a forerunner of those who have since questioned the succession theme. Both Blenkinsopp (1966)9 and Flanagan (1972)10 suggest that there are two themes in SN. One is the question of the succession and the other the legitimization of David's position. Flanagan's contention for a dual theme stems from his rejection of Rost's views on the composition and authorship of SN. He dissents from the idea of a single, unified document composed by one eyewitness not long after the events had taken place. He sees in SN evidence of more than one hand at work. For example, he argues that although a theological reason is given for Absalom's failure to succeed his father (2 Sam. 14.17), this is not carried through and no theological comment is given on Solomon's accession. He contends that there were in fact two redactional stages involved in the composition of SN. The earlier source was concerned with David's maintenance of legitimate control over Israel and Judah. The later redactor added the Solomonic portions, changing the tenor of the piece to that of a succession document. Flanagan's conclusions rest primarily on his idea of an earlier edition 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23; 7.1 Ib, 16; 9; 13-20; 1 Kgs 1-2. 2 Sam. 10-12. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 18-20. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 20-21. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 25-27.

2. A Reappraisal of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

45

of SN, but his conclusions have important repercussions as regards theme. Both he and Blenkinsopp accept the presence of a succession theme, but undermine its importance by arguing for the presence of another theme of equal importance in the work. Gunn's discussion of the theme of SN is much more directly aggressive to Rost's stance on this issue. Unlike Flanagan, he completely rejects the idea of 'succession'. He states, 'In my view...the centrality and significance of this theme of Solomonic succession has been considerably overstated' (1978: 81). As Fokkelman has done more recently, he goes so far as to reject the title 'Succession Narrative' and renames the work 'the Story of King David'. 11 He recognizes that there is some attention given to the succession, but argues that it is 'but one theme in the story, linking at a subordinate level one series of episodes' (1978: 84; the italics are Gunn's). He sees succession as only a minor motif. In its place he posits the character of David, arguing that it is a narrative revolving around the central personality. Hagan also rejects the idea that 'succession' is the sole or main theme of the narrative. He holds that a number of themes of equal importance are to be found in the text and that 'succession' is one of them. However his 1979 article is devoted not to discussing this concept of multiple themes, but to examining one of the themes that he finds in the text: 'weakness and deception'. He sees this theme as comprising five rounds of deception and counter-deception in which the weak vanquish the strong.121 would take issue with him, however, in that each instigator of the counter-deception is not necessarily in a position of weakness. In relation to the overall question of the succession theme, Hagan's argument proves inconclusive. Unlike Carlson, Blenkinsopp, Flanagan and Gunn, who offer a definitive view on theme, Hagan leaves it almost as an open question. He argues that 'succession' is not the main theme of SN, but does not substitute another for it. He goes into much detail on the theme of weakness and deception, but claims that other themes of equal importance also exist. He states that many major themes are to be found, but makes no attempt to list them. He presents a thorough and perceptive analysis of weakness and deception in SN, but his refutation of the 'succession' hypothesis is implicit rather than explicit and he does not go far enough in suggesting a concrete alternative. 11. In a similar vein and presumably owing some debt to Gunn, Fokkelman entitles these chapters 'King David'. 12. Chapter l,pp. 32-33.

46

The Wages of Sin

The views of these scholars reveal that many have experienced real difficulty with the idea of succession as the main theme of the narrative. Yet the general consensus of opinion still holds to Rost's hypothesis. The Principle of Primogeniture It cannot be denied that when viewed in the light of Solomon's accession, SN provides a background to his position as heir. This is seen in the deaths of three of his older brothers (Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah) and two potential usurpers (Sheba ben Bichri and Shimei ben Gera). However this is only a partial background. Although it appears to have gone unnoticed, SN nowhere attempts to record the full story of the succession. 2 Sam. 3.2-5 lists David's first six sons in order of birth as Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, Adonijah, Shephatiah and Ithream, while 5.14-16 lists those subsequently born to him in Jerusalem as Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada and Eliphelet. If the second list is also in order of birth, as would seem most likely, then Solomon is the tenth of these seventeen sons.13 Six sons (Chileab, Shephatiah, Ithream, Shammua, Shobab and Nathan) are not accounted for.14 It is sometimes argued that 1 Kgs 1.5-8 implies the premature death of Chileab (see, e.g., Montgomery 1951: 72). Yet this need not necessarily be the case, nor is it of particular significance to the question, for there remain five other older sons whose deaths are neither recorded nor implied. If SN is indeed a narrative of succession it tells an incomplete story, for it only accounts for the elimination of three of the nine possible candidates for the throne who were born before Solomon. Rost and his followers base their analysis on the assumption that the principle of primogeniture was already established in Israel. The accession of Solomon, then, must entail the demise of his older brothers. Yet there is no evidence that this was the case. No other son had ever succeeded his father to the throne of Israel. Indeed 2 Samuel 7 indicates that even the principle of a hereditary monarchy had not yet been established. With regard to the inheritance of property, it appears to have been the 13. This point is also noted by Jackson (1965: 185) and Gunn (1978: 136, n. 54). 14. However even if the order in 5.14-16 is random, Solomon may only be advanced to the seventh position and Chileab, Shephatiah and Ithream still precede him.


47

general practice in Israel that on the death of the father his assets were divided between all his sons, with the firstborn usually receiving twice as much as each of the others (cf. Deut. 21.15-17). However there are exceptions to this rule. Gottwald (1980: 286-87), for example, regards Jephthah as the eldest son of his father who was deprived of his rights of inheritance by the mutual agreement of his brothers (Judg. 11.1-2). It is probable that even in the normal course of events the firstborn was not always the chief beneficiary of his father's estate. There is, of course, an intrinsic difference between inheritance of property and succession to the throne. Under normal circumstances all the sons were given a share in their dead father's property, but in this case only one son could succeed his father as king. Gottwald believes that generally the eldest son succeeded to his father's position as head of the family (UN rP3), which would be analogous to the succession to the throne. Yet even this is far from clear, as is illustrated by the example of Jephthah. It is possible that Rost's idea of the inheritance of the firstborn comes from analogy with the status of Jonathan as heir apparent in 1 Samuel.15 It is possible, though, that Jonathan's position as heir derived not from the fact that he was Saul's eldest son, but as a result of his exploits and ability in battle and his popularity with the people (cf. 1 Sam. 14). Yet even if Jonathan was Saul's heir because he was his eldest son, it does not follow that David's sons should have priority in order of birth.16 Indeed it is notable that according to 1 Samuel 16, David himself was the youngest of the eight sons of Jesse. The principle of primogeniture at this stage in Israel's development cannot be proven. To assume that David's eldest son would inherit his throne is to beg a fundamental question. The idea of succession as the main theme and motivating force of the work rests entirely upon this 15. Cf. 1 Sam. 20.3la, where Saul, addressing Jonathan, says: 'For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth neither you nor your kingdom shall be established'. 16. It should be noted that there is at least one example in Kings of a younger son succeeding his father to the throne. If the figures given in 2 Kgs 23.31, 36 are to be trusted, then Josiah's successor Jehoahaz was 23 years old when he came to the throne, while his brother Jehoiakim was 25 years old. Indeed this highlights the fact that there is no indication in Kings that it was always (or ever!) the eldest son who succeeded to the throne. One only learns of the age of Jehoiakim because he replaced his younger brother as king when Pharaoh Neco deposed Jehoahaz three months after his initial accession.

48

The Wages of Sin

previously unquestioned assumption. If primogeniture was the order of the day, why are Solomon's other six older brothers not accounted for? The question cannot be answered. Thus an initial objection may be raised to the categorization of 'succession' as the main theme. For even if the firstborn was the natural successor, SN is incomplete. The Quotation Perhaps one of the strongest points in favour of Rost's succession theme is that he finds the idea expressly and repeatedly stated in 1 Kings 1. He says: And set in this framework... we have the insistent question: 'Who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king, and who shall reign after him?' Nathan's conversation with Bathsheba and their talk with David, David's order to Zadok, Nathan and Benaiah, and finally Jonathan's report to those banqueting around Adonijah's table, all centre on this question in agitated excitement. The whole action of the drama revolves around these disquieting words. The whole chapter is dominated by them—and not only the whole chapter, but... the whole work' (1982: 68).

Rost presents the question 'Who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king, and who shall reign after him?' as a direct quotation used repeatedly in 1 Kings 1. That this is taken directly from the text has added much weight to his argument. It has led most scholars to adopt his approach and to reject views that vary the nuance of the theme.17 Nevertheless, despite Rost's implication, this is not a direct quotation from the Masoretic text. He gives as a transcription from the text of 1 Kings 1: THnKf^lT ^"[ÊH ']1K KOD'^tf 30- 'Q.18 Yet this does not appear anywhere in 1 Kings 1. The language closest to it is found within the statements of Bathsheba and Nathan in v. 20 and v. 27 respectively. Here the Hebrew reads: mn«f ^nrHJIK NOD"1?!? ZK2T -Q. This comprises part, but not all of Rost's quotation. Thus the 'insistent question' taken by Rost to dominate the chapter is not in fact a direct quotation from the Hebrew text. Rather it is a hybrid reading of vv. 20 and 27, supplemented by language found elsewhere in

17. One such variation was Thornton's (1968) suggestion that the question underlying SN was not 'Who will succeed to the throne of David', but 'Why was it Solomon who succeeded David to the throne?' 18. In the German editions this quotation appears in Hebrew, but in the 1984 version it is translated into English.


49

the chapter.19 This observation is significant in itself, but the difficulties it creates for the SN hypothesis are further compounded by the fact that the quotation is taken out of context. Neither v. 20 nor v. 27 is actually asking the question that Rost poses. In neither case is the phrase a direct question. Verse 20 forms part of Bathsheba's speech to the king. It reads: 'And now, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are upon you, to tell them who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king after him'. In v. 27 Nathan addresses David and says, 'Has this thing been brought about by my lord the king and you have not told your servants who should sit on the throne of my lord the king after him?'. By presenting it as a direct question and separating it from its context, Rost dramatically alters its meaning and function. The Division of the Theme Another weakness in Rost's argument, which is not generally identified, concerns the actual theme of succession itself. Although he argues that this is a narrative composed on a single theme, Rost has to divide his succession theme into two distinct sections in order to make it fit the text. In reality there is not one single theme, but two separate 'succession' themes: the history of the succession (2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23; 7.1 Ib, 16; 9; 13-20; 1 Kgs 1-2) and the history of the successor (2 Sam. 10-12).20 There is a distinct imbalance between the length of these two sections. The history of the successor is related in only three chapters (2 Sam. 10-12), while the history of the succession (the SN proper?) takes up the remainder of the narrative and spans thirteen chapters. The link between the two themes is based solely on content and there is no structural support for identifying the two so closely. Reference is never made to Solomon outside two verses in 2 Samuel 12 and the actual accession material of 1 Kings 1-2, while Rost offers no explanation as to why the history of the successor should be inserted into the middle of the background to the succession. The succession to the throne, as presented by Rost, is not in fact a single unifying theme but a synthesis of two quite different themes, presented together under the heading of 'succession'.

19. 1 Kgs 1.13, 17 and 30 all contain the expression: nn« 1*70' "p*70' "p*70' "p "NOD"'?!? D2T Kim. This also bears a distinct resemblance to Rost's quotation. 20. The difficulty here is perhaps reflected in the views of Blenkinsopp (1966) and Flanagan (1972), who differentiate between the themes of David's maintenance of his position and the struggle for the succession.

50

The Wages of Sin

The Background to the Successor It is also possible to take exception to one of these strands, the background to the successor, at a much more basic level. It is far from clear that 2 Samuel 10-12 is in fact a history of the successor. Chapters 10-12 give an account of the Ammonite war, David's adultery, his murder of Uriah, his confrontation with Nathan, and the death of the infant born to Bathsheba. Rost saw the account of Solomon's birth in 12.24-25 as the highpoint of the entire section. It is a short note that records Solomon's conception and birth, states that he was 'beloved by Yahweh', and spans only three lines in the Hebrew text. Nevertheless he regarded it as the axis of the section and as the sole purpose for recording all the events in chs. 10-12. Yet as far as literary structure and content is concerned, the record of Solomon's birth occupies only a minor position in these chapters. It is brief, lacks detail and does not expand upon the facts it records. For example, one is not told why Yahweh loved Solomon, or that he would have any special future, or even that he survived infancy. Indeed the text would suffer no damage if it were to be omitted, for it is self-contained and the story would function equally well without it. Moreover if the primary purpose of chs. 10-12 was indeed to record the circumstances of Solomon's birth, why was the two-part Ammonite war included? Its function is generally accepted as setting the scene for the events that were taking place in Jerusalem while the war was in progress. However this does not adequately explain why the narrative returns to the subject of the war again in 12.26, for unless it was a protracted affair, Solomon must have been born long after David finally subdued Ammon. Indeed, regardless of time-scale, it is odd that if the Ammonite war is background to the adultery and murder, interest should again be centred on this early background after the initial events had been developed and their subsequent culmination arrived at. If the highpoint of the narrative were the birth of Solomon (as Rost believes it to be), then the adultery, murder, confrontation with Nathan and death of the infant would be a background to Solomon's birth. Therefore the account of the Ammonite war would be the background to the background to the main interest of the section! Surely such a structure is too involved to be realistic. Only 2 Samuel 10-12 is placed under the heading 'history of the successor'. All of the rest of Rost's SN belongs to the 'history of the succession'. I would suggest that there is in fact no history of the successor


51

for the chief interest of chs. 10-12 does not lie in the birth of Solomon. The entire section (including the Solomon verses) revolves around the account of David's adultery and murder; 12.24-25 is peripheral to this. The account of Solomon's birth has all the characteristics of a parenthesis, which has been included here for two purposes. First, it serves to show that David did obtain a measure of forgiveness from Yahweh in that despite the death of the first child, its fate did not extend to Bathsheba's subsequent offspring. Secondly, it would be of interest to the audience in rounding off the story by linking it with David's successor, who would certainly be well known to them, regardless of the function of succession in the narrative. In a similar vein, McCarter views the story of Solomon's birth as an appendix within chs. 10-12. He comments that if the importance of Solomon to the narrative is overemphasized and thus the whole story is read for the sake of the appendix, it is a matter of 'letting the tail wag the dog' (1984: 308). The Position of David Rost contended that the succession was the central idea in the work, constituting both its motivating force and subject matter. Yet, as he has indicated, the orientation of a 'succession' theme must be away from the king. It should focus attention either on the successor or on the process of succession. SN does not do this. Outside the Kings chapters, all of the stories in SN are about King David and it is he who is the central figure and main interest of the text.21 If this is truly a Succession Narrative, then David should have a relatively minor role in every episode. It should be Solomon who is the focus of attention in chs. 11-12; the death of Amnon should be the outstanding feature of chs. 13-14; the usurpers should be the main interest of chs. 15-20. Yet this is not the case. In chs. 10-12, the only reference to Solomon is confined to two verses at the close of the section. The text states: 'Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. And the LORD loved him, and sent a message by Nathan the prophet; so he called his name Jedidiah because of the LORD' (2 Sam. 12.24-25). Not only is this reference very

21. This is also the contention of Gunn (1978) and, to a lesser extent, of Fokkelman (1981). They both reject the title SN/Thronfolgegeschichte in favour of '(The story of) King David'.

52

The Wages of Sin

brief, but much of v. 24 is centred on David and Bathsheba, not on Solomon. Only with the words 'And the LORD loved him...' (..."OIK mm) at the end of the verse does the writer turn to the infant. There is no indication in the text that this is the climax of the section or that the story has been leading up to this. Throughout chs. 10-12, attention has been focused firmly upon the person of David. Following the introduction in ch. 10, the scene is set by the description of David in Jerusalem (11.1). This is followed by his glimpse of Bathsheba on the roof of her house (11.2-3), which leads to their adultery (11.4) and ultimately to his murder of her husband (11.1417). Chapter 12 continues with Nathan's parable and his condemnation of David (12.1-12). Then follows David's repentance (12.13-17), the death of Bathsheba's child (12.18-23) and finally the birth of Solomon (12.24-25) before returning to the scene of the war against Ammon (12.26-31). Thus only Nathan ever takes centre stage away from the monarch (outside the account of the war, which has been incorporated from official annals). Solomon certainly does not upstage his father: there is only a short statement about him. Nor does the succession feature here—it must be read into the text, for it never emerges unaided. Rather the text concentrates on the adultery and murder and focuses attention firmly upon the person of David. In chs. 13 and 14 the death of Amnon is of some importance to the story and to the sequence of events, but it is not given the attention that would be merited in a chronicle of the succession to the throne by the death of the heir presumptive. The text is more interested in his rape of Tamar and the vengeance taken by Absalom. The murder of Amnon is recounted in 13.28-29, but the text concentrates more on the preparations made by Absalom than in the actual deed itself. Indeed even David's grief is abated when he realizes that it is only one son, Amnon, who has been killed, and not all the princes as he had originally feared. Even in the story of Absalom's rebellion, the emphasis is not that of a SN. In chs. 15-19, Absalom only figures in a relatively small proportion of the text: the rest of the material is concerned solely with David. His retreat from and return to Jerusalem are described in great detail. While the bulk of chs. 18 and 19 is ostensibly about the battle against Absalom's forces, it includes an extensive account of David's grief at the loss of his son. Nor is there any discussion or even suggestion of the idea of succession in the story of Sheba ben Bichri's revolt in ch. 20. Rost suggests


53

that the purpose of this account is to air the possibility that little of David's kingdom might be left for his successor. Attention, however, is not centred upon this idea but upon Joab's murder of Amasa and the action of the wise woman in Abel-Bethmaacah. There is no mention of David's successor or his future inheritance. Indeed it would seem to be an odd point at which to discuss the succession—when David has just regained his own kingdom. The text is not interested in the succession here, but in the re-establishment of David's position. Let us turn now to the general perception of the relationship between 1 Kings 1-2 and the succession theme. Rost regarded the entire narrative as a build-up to the anointing and coronation of Solomon. Thus he saw 1 Kings 1-2 as the climax of the work. However these chapters do not at any time give the impression of being a grand finale to SN. Indeed although he claims that it is the zenith of the work, Rost treats it more as a conclusion than as a climax. With SN as a whole (as with 2 Sam. 10-12), Rost finds the main theme and pivotal point only at the very end of the narrative. Yet surely such a major theme should become apparent at a much earlier stage in any work. Undoubtedly 'succession' (or perhaps more accurately, the accession of Solomon) is the overriding theme of the first two chapters of 1 Kings, but is this really true of the rest of the work? It is doubtful whether, when viewed independently of 1 Kings 1-2, 2 Samuel 9-20 does in fact reflect the theme of succession. Conroy deals with this question in the context of his study of 2 Samuel 13-20 and finds that when these chapters are treated in isolation from the surrounding material, the succession theme never emerges (1978: 101-105). He argues that succession is not an intrinsic element of chs. 13-20. This observation also holds true for the preceding chapters: when 2 Samuel 9-20 is read independently of 1 Kings 1-2, the issue of the succession is not a significant feature of the narrative. Moreover, Rost's stress on 1 Kings 1-2 creates some difficulties in itself. In his assessment, it is both conclusion and climax of the narrative— the focal point of the entire work. However it seems unnatural to place such a strong emphasis on material at the very end of a work. It gives the piece a somewhat unbalanced air, for in effect what Rost is saying is that the work consists of a very lengthy introduction (2 Sam. 9-20), followed by a comparatively brief section of major interest (1 Kgs 1-2). Indeed 1 Kings 1-2 never gives the impression of being the climax of the work.

54

The Wages of Sin

It is my contention that succession is not the main theme of this narrative. The idea of the succession theme has arisen as a result of too great an emphasis upon 1 Kings 1-2 and an imbalanced view of the whole has resulted from this over-emphasis. Rost's view of theme leans heavily upon his analysis of these chapters. Yet neither chronologically nor stylistically is the relationship between 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 so firmly rooted as he would imply. 1 Kings 1-2 Perhaps the most distinguishing, and intriguing facet of Rost's argument is his systematic working from end to beginning in progressive, logical steps. He began with 1 Kings 1-2 and worked backwards. However because 1 Kings 1-2 was his starting point, he made no attempt to justify or defend the link between 2 Samuel 20 and 1 Kings 1, except on the basis of theme. Yet it has become apparent that the theme of succession does not have the significance that Rost ascribed to it. The accession of Solomon certainly is the chief interest of 1 Kings 1-2, but the succession to the throne is not the main theme of the rest of the work. This then raises another question; did 1 Kings 1-2 originally belong with 2 Samuel 9-20 or is the link between them an artificial creation? It is almost universally agreed that 1 Kings 1-2 is an integral part of the (so-called) SN, but there are some scholars who have dissented from this view. The most notable in recent times is Carlson (1964), who isolates 1 Kings 1-2 from 2 Samuel in accordance with his complete rejection of the SN hypothesis.22 Another approach worth noting is that of Conroy (1978), who treats 2 Samuel 13-20 as an independent unit, regardless of its role in any larger body.23 On the other hand, Rost and the vast majority of scholars see 1 Kings 1-2 as the pivotal point of the entire work because it embodies both its statement of theme ('Who will sit on the throne of David?') and its climax (the coronation of Solomon). Yet Rost's argument is defective on both counts. The work is not a build-up to the accession of Solomon and

22. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 18-20. 23. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 38-39. Although he does not make any specific statement about the extent of SN, Conroy's approach reveals that it is possible to isolate these chapters from 1 Kgs 1-2 without ill effect.

2. A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' Hypothesis

55

the 'quotation' from 1 Kings 1 does not reflect the theme of the work. Indeed it is not to be taken for granted that 1 Kings 1-2 is even a part of SN. Rost's view of these chapters in relation to the succession theme creates problems. There are also difficulties to be encountered in other areas if 1 Kings 1-2 is seen as part of SN,24 namely those of style, language, content, outlook and position. Style First, and perhaps most importantly, it should be questioned whether 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-225 belong together on the grounds of style. In the introduction to his work, Rost highlights the importance of taking the literary style of a piece into account. He states that 'style is and will remain a person's most individual creation' (1982: 4). He suggests that whereas a writer's language may vary from time to time (he may employ vocabulary that he does not normally use), style is not subject to the same degree of variation. Style is therefore taken to be an accurate indication of authorship. Two useful analyses of the literary style of SN are to be found in Rost (1982: 90-98) and Whybray (1968: 45-47). These analyses assume that the style of the material is uniform throughout, but this is not an assumption to be made lightly. A brief reading of Whybray's summary of style will reveal that of the 23 references that he gives, only one is from 1 Kings 1-2.26 The proportion of references to 1 Kings 1-2 in Rost's treatment of style is not much higher. Therefore the question arises as to whether these analyses are actually representative of the whole work. A comparison of the style of 1 Kings 1-2 with that of 2 Samuel 9-20 will determine the degree of uniformity between them. Whybray draws attention to the characteristic variation in the speed of the narrative in SN. He notes that its pace sometimes changes quite dramatically in order to create and release suspense. He notes examples of the pace being slowed down at a point where the reader is eager to 24. I will continue to use the abbreviation SN for the term Succession Narrative. However, its use does not imply any acceptance of the idea of a succession theme. 25. For the purpose of this discussion the extent of SN will be taken as 2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2. This will facilitate easier handling of the material. It should be noted however that several scholars, including Rost, place the beginning of the narrative earlier in 2 Samuel. This will be discussed more fully in the next chapter, when the issue of the beginning of the narrative is explored. 26. 1 Kgs 1.41 is cited as an example of dramatic irony.

56

The Wages of Sin

discover the subsequent results. Two examples of this are the delay between David's adultery and his punishment and between the murder of Uriah and the punishment it entailed. Rost cites what is perhaps the most masterful employment of this technique: the way in which the text slows the pace in narrating David's flight from Jerusalem in what should probably be a scene of swift and rapid action. A striking difference between 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 emerges when we consider this characteristic. Although change of pace has been identified as a major feature of the text of SN, there is no evidence of the use of this technique anywhere in 1 Kings 1-2. Rather the pace of these chapters is uniformly slow in comparison with that of the rest of the work. Each single action or event that features in 1 Kings 1-2 spans at least several verses of the text. This contrasts sharply with the rest of SN. Nothing is glossed over quickly and every aspect of the story is related in detail. This may be illustrated best by setting out the contents of the chapters in tabular form as follows: Introduction

1.1-4

Adonijah

5-10

The petition to David

11-27

David's instructions

28-37

Solomon's coronation

38-40

Adonijah's reaction

41-53

David's death

2.1-12

Adonij ah's death

13-25

The banishment of Abiathar

26-27

The death of Joab

28-35

The death of Shimei

36-46

In 1 Kings 1-2 events are never related succinctly, but are conveyed with a certain amount of preamble and much detail. It takes four verses (6 lines in Hebrew) to provide a background to the events of the chapter (namely David's infirmity) and seventeen verses (27 lines) to record the representations made by Nathan and Bathsheba, while there are thirteen verses (23 lines) that detail Solomon's coronation. Nevertheless there are passages elsewhere in SN which are equally leisurely in their presentation of events. One such is the account of David's flight from Jerusalem (chs. 15-17), which has been noted


57

above. Yet it is invariably true that such passages in 2 Samuel 9-20 are offset by sections of rapid narration. For example, although David's flight is recorded in great detail, it is immediately preceded by a swift account of the beginning of the rebellion and the decision to abandon the capital: And a messenger came to David saying, 'The hearts of the men of Israel have gone after Absalom'. Then David said to all his servants who were with him at Jerusalem, 'Arise, and let us flee; or else there will be no escape for us from Absalom; go in haste, lest he overtake us quickly, and bring down evil upon us, and smite the city with the edge of the sword' (2 Sam. 15.13-14).

1 Kings 1-2, however, contains no such contrasts in the speed of the narrative. Its pace never varies, but is uniform throughout. In this it contrasts with much of the rest of SN. Some might ask if this is a legitimate comparison, in that parallels are being drawn between 1 Kings 1-2 and a larger unit, which has more potential for such variation because of its length. It could be argued that the variation of speed is not apparent everywhere in SN and that its absence from 1 Kings 1-2 is not therefore of special significance. However, this variation of pace highlighted by Whybray is not something which emerges from the work as a whole, but becomes apparent within individual stories, such as that of the adultery and murder, and Absalom's rebellion. Therefore it is possible to subject 1 Kings 1-2 to this comparison. The divergence here is heightened in that the slow pace of these chapters is, to a large extent, the result of repetition. 1 Kings 1-2 abounds with repetition, and it is this which causes the lack of variation of pace. Repetition in itself is not unusual, but it becomes obtrusive when viewed together with the rest of SN, whose economy of language and avoidance of verbosity causes it to stand out from other biblical literature. Repetition plays a very large part in the narrative of 1 Kings I,27 particularly in the petition of Nathan and Bathsheba. An initial narrative section is followed by five rounds of speech (Nathan-Bathsheba; Bathsheba-David; Nathan-David; David-Bathsheba; David-Nathan), then another section of narrative. This may be set out as follows:

27. Its volume here is highlighted by the fact that in examining the techniques of repetition used in biblical narrative, Alter (1981: 98-100) uses 1 Kgs 1 as an illustration of the use of repetition in a text.

58

The Wages of Sin vv. 5-10 11-14 15-21 22-27 28-30 31 32-35 36-37 38-40

Narrative: Adonijah proclaims himself king Nathan-Bathsheba: Plan to reverse the situation Bathsheba-David: Petition Nathan-David: Petition David-Bathsheba: Response Bathsheba-David David-Nathan (+ Zadok and Benaiah): Response Benaiah-David Narrative: Solomon is proclaimed king

This could, of course, be set out differently by including the beginning and ending of the chapter; however the intention here is not to present a structural analysis of the chapter but to draw attention to the structure of the speeches in vv. 11-37. Before going on to look at their content, it should be noted that even the pattern of these speeches is repetitious. First, Nathan and Bathsheba plan what they will say to David (both are to say essentially the same thing), then their speeches are recorded in full, followed by David's response to each of them individually. On closer examination it emerges that various elements are repeated several times throughout. Verse 9 records that 'Adonijah sacrificed sheep, oxen and fadings' CirniK mn NHQl "1pm ]K!£). This phrase is then repeated in the speeches of both Bathsheba (v. 19) and Nathan (v. 25) in the slightly variant form: ran D"i^ jKirK'HQl 112?. The same information is recorded three times within a short space. This is also true of the list of guests in vv. 7-8 which is again repeated (with slight variations) in v. 19 and in v. 25. Such repetition may also be observed in the phrase that Rost has taken as the theme of the entire SN: 'NOD'ner »1!T) '"intf-f^fT "j]3 TO^.28 It appears in essence in v. 13 (Nathan-Bathsheba), v. 17 (BathshebaDavid), v. 20 (Bathsheba-David), v. 27 (Nathan-David), v. 30 (DavidBathsheba), and v. 35 (David-Nathan). On each occasion its form varies slightly according to its context, nevertheless its repetition dominates this first part of the chapter. However, although Rost credited the repetition of this phrase to its supposed thematic significance, it becomes clear that it is due simply to the use of repetition that characterizes 1 Kings 1. Its frequent recurrence here has no significance outside this chapter. It is obvious from the variation entailed and from its integration into the chapter that the use of repetition here does not signify bad literature. Rather it is in keeping with the style of much biblical Hebrew narrative 28. See above, pp. 48-49, for an assessment of this phrase.


59

as has recently been analysed by literary/rhetorical critics (see, for example, Alter 1981: 88-113; Licht, 1978: 51-95; McEvenue 1971: 1218). Yet no matter how similar it is to other biblical Hebrew literature, this use of repetition is not typical of the style of the earlier chapters of SN.29 Indeed repetition on this scale is never used elsewhere in SN. Yet there is nothing so unusual in the context or setting of 1 Kings 1-2 as to warrant the adoption by the writer of such a different style or technique. Indeed, that the use of repetition in this way diverges so sharply between 2 Samuel 10-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 may be illustrated best by comparing texts that have a similar context. Perhaps the passages best suited to such a comparison are those involving the bringing of news by a messenger. These are especially suitable because repetition is likely to be used to convey details which have already been reported. 1 Kgs 1.3248 and 2 Sam. 11.14-25 lend themselves readily to comparison.30 In 1 Kgs 1.32-48, Jonathan ben Abiathar is the messenger who brings news of Solomon's coronation to Adonijah. Immediately in this scene one is aware of the dominating influence of repetition. Verses 33-35 contain David's instructions concerning the coronation, vv. 38-40 record the ceremony itself (repeating David's speech in narrative form) and in vv. 44-48 Jonathan again repeats the story. In order to illustrate this the three sections have been set out in parallel columns. See Table 1. Every element present in the first two accounts is repeated in Jonathan's report, except for the blowing of the shofar and the proclamation, 'Long live King Solomon!' (The phrase 'for he shall be king in my stead; and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and Judah' in v. 35 also has no parallel in either vv. 38-40 or vv. 41-48, but this is by nature peculiar to David's speech). Hence one first reads the instructions for the coronation, then the fulfilment of every detail in the account of the coronation, then the whole story repeated again by the messenger. How does this compare with 2 Samuel 11? In 2 Sam. 11.14-25 the account of Uriah's murder is related in a similar way. First David instructs Joab as to what action should be taken, 29. Licht (1978: 61-62) cites the Joab-messenger-David episode in 2 Samuel 11 as an example of an author deliberately not using repetition. See below for an analysis of this passage. 30. The context of 2 Sam. 18.19-32 is not the same as that of these passages. Two messengers, rather than one, run to the city and the narrative concentrates on this fact in order to create suspense. For this reason it will not be included in this comparison.

60

The Wages of Sin

then the account of the battle is given, followed by Joab's instructions to the messenger and finally the message is delivered to David. However there is a vast difference between the means of presentation here and in 1 Kgs 1.33-48. This material has also been set out in columns. See Table 2. This account is constructed in such a way that the audience is only aware of the details of the battle when they are finally relayed to David in vv. 22-24. Indeed although Joab instructs the messenger as to how to assuage David's anger, his anticipated reaction is averted by the messenger's method of conveying the details.31 That the lack of repetition here is at odds with other contemporary literature is attested by the comment of H.P. Smith: The text of H[ebrew] has been shortened to avoid repetition. This is in accordance with the task of a later time. The older writers did not hesitate to repeat themselves' (1899: 320). Smith was in fact highlighting the difference between its style and that of other biblical literature. He credited this difference to later editing, but the overall style of the work denies this. Moreover we tend to define a text that employs much repetition as older and one that is more concise as younger because of an aversion to verbosity and repetition in modern Western literature. This tendency may also be reflected in Yair Hoffman's suggestion (cited in Alter, 1981: 103-104) that the use of repetition in biblical literature can be related to historical circumstance and the domination of either Mesopotamia or Egypt. However Licht (1978: 62-63) rejects all such attempts to define the age of a biblical text on the basis of its use of repetition, saying, 'such theories seem too simplistic to be indulged in without danger'. He argues that the use or non-use of repetition is as personal to an author as his choice of style. On the other hand, as the literary approach has increasingly revealed, 31. It should be noted that the Septuagint repeats 'Why did you go so near the city to fight?... Why did you go so close to the wall?' after the messenger's initial statement, putting the words predicted by Joab into David's mouth. However it seems that the Greek is simply dealing with a problem in the text (i.e. that David does not actually utter these words). Thus it witnesses to the singularity of style here, for as it stands, the Masoretic Text requires no further additions or explanations. The episode is both complete and succinct and its mode of conveyance is very much in keeping with the surrounding material. Licht also makes this point: 'The only text one can safely comment upon is the one that has been handed down to us as the Hebrew Bible; any attempt to improve on it (even where the Septuagint, or some other witness, might be available for the purpose) is too risky to be relied on' (1978: 61-62).


61

the use of repetition may indicate a text which is highly developed rather than one that is primitive. Indeed this is the case with 1 Kgs 1.33-47, for the three accounts are planned in such a way that none duplicates another. 2 Sam. 11.14-24 also demonstrates an intelligent plan underlying the text, so that the details of the battle are revealed gradually while the death of Uriah is repeatedly emphasized. What is clear from the survey of these two messenger accounts is that they are vastly different. The style of the Kings account is characterized by repetition, while the lack of repetition is an important feature of the style of the Samuel account. Gray describes the repetition surrounding the coronation in 1 Kings 1 as 'a feature of the style of the saga or epic antecedents of Hebrew historical narrative' (1970: 92). This emphasizes the difference between 1 Kings 1-2 and the remainder of SN, whose style is far advanced from that of the saga. Although these two narratives have been taken to illustrate the point, it would be true to say that the same rule applies throughout the texts in question. 1 Kings 1-2 abounds with repetition, while 2 Samuel 9-20 is characterized by its succinct narration. There is a wide divergence between the style of the two blocks of material in terms of their respective use of repetition. Both Rost and Whybray drew attention to the frequent use of vivid similes and comparisons in SN. These are found both in narrative and in dialogue. Especially striking are these examples cited by Whybray (1968: 45): We must all die, we are like water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again (2 Sam. 14.14). The counsel which Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the oracle of God (16.23). I will bring all the people back to you as a bride comes home to her husband (17.3). They are enraged like a bear robbed of her cubs (17.8). ... you are worth ten thousand of us (18.3).

Other examples are to be found in 2 Sam. 12.3; 13.13; 14.2, 17, 20; 16.9; 17.10, 11, 12; 18.32; 19.3, 28; 20.3.32 The frequency of use of this technique marks it off as a definite stylistic feature, a characteristic of the writer. 32. Some of these are also cited by Rost (1982: 92), namely 2 Sam. 13.13; 14.14, 17, 20; 16.23; 17.8, 11; 18.3; 19.28.

62

The Wages of Sin

Yet what of 1 Kings 1-2? There are no similes, metaphors, or comparisons of this type to be found anywhere in the two chapters. This is in sharp contrast with the large proportion of such similes and metaphors that pervade the rest of SN. Yet the content of 1 Kings 1-2 is not sufficiently different from that of the earlier chapters to account for the absence of this device. Indeed its setting in Jerusalem and in the royal court is the same as the setting for much of the rest of 2 Samuel 9-20. Therefore it must be concluded that there is in fact a stylistic variation between the two sections. This is another significant variation, for it is difficult to envisage that an author who favoured the use of imagery to this extent should cease to employ it at a certain point. Indeed Rost's own assertion that style is a consistent quality comes to mind. Rost also remarked that SN is composed of individual scenes, which are 'neatly detached' (1982: 90) from each other. It is clear that this is the case and that each scene is clearly separated from the next until one reaches 1 Kings 1. It is not the case with 1 Kings 1-2. Here all the events seem to run into each other in forming the larger story. This is witnessed by Fokkelman. Throughout his work Fokkelman divides the biblical text into acts and scenes, in the manner of a drama, but he finds it difficult to isolate scenes in 1 Kings 1. He defines a scene as 'a narrative text which to a high degree is understandable in itself and which is characterized by the initiation, building up and conclusion of an action...which usually demonstrates unity of place and time, and brings together one or two and sometimes three protagonists' (1981: 9). He argues however that 1 Kings 1 is in fact a scene in itself. Although he divides up its various components, he does not claim that these are 'scenes' in themselves, but labels them 'scene parts' (1981: 345). Rather he proposes that 1 Kings 1 as a whole is one large scene. Yet it is much longer by far than any of the previous scenes and as such it is out of keeping with the structure of the former material. It does not divide into 'neatly detached scenes'. Rost also draws attention to the special significance of direct speech in SN. He says, 'Speeches, arguments, are no longer used merely occasionally to depict moods and character or to underline important turning points, but they have a purpose of their own' (1982: 90). Thus, for instance, David's condemnation and repentance is told entirely by means of direct speech (2 Sam. 12.1-14). Another example of its importance for the telling of the story is in 2 Sam. 13.1-17, where the atmosphere is conveyed and the details related through speech. Amnon's desperation


63

(v. 4), his deceit (v. 5), David's lack of suspicion (v. 7), Tamar's fear (vv. 12-13) and Amnon's scorn (v. 17) are all conveyed very effectively through their words. Yet although there is much use made of direct speech in 1 Kings 1-2, it does not serve the same purpose, for it is not used to advance the story. Its frequent use is simply the result of the abundance of repetition in this section. In ch. 1, Nathan (to Bathsheba) (vv. 11-14), Bathsheba (to David) (vv. 15-21) and Nathan (to David) (vv. 24-27) all repeat what has already been set out in the narrative (i.e. Adonijah's aspirations to succeed his father). Then David's speech (vv. 33-37) prefigures the coronation and Jonathan's message (vv. 43-48) repeats it. In ch. 2, David's deathbed speech (vv. 2-9) again prefigures the events that will take place systematically in the remainder of the chapter. The only possible exception to this pattern is the incident leading up to Adonijah's death (2.1325), which is largely related through the speeches of Bathsheba and Solomon. Thus although direct speech is prominent in 1 Kings 1-2, it does not fulfil the same function as it does elsewhere in SN. It may also be useful to note at this point that Rost sees the presence of an a-b-a pattern in direct speech as a characteristic feature of SN. However Carlson (1964: 133) disagrees. He argues that the a-b-a technique is too common to be regarded as a feature of the style of SN, for it is common throughout much of biblical Hebrew narrative. As a result of this comparison of the style of 1 Kings 1-2 with that of the rest of SN, it becomes apparent that 1 Kings 1-2 is not written in the same literary style as that of SN. Language Any consideration of the style of a piece is incomplete without a corresponding analysis of its language. Let us turn then to the language in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. Rost comments of SN that in comparison with the Ark Narrative, 'The sentences are longer, expression is fuller, the description is richer, the language is more sonorous and richer in imagery' (1982: 90). However, as this assessment has been arrived at from comparison with the Ark Narrative rather than from a straightforward analysis, it may reflect the style and language of the Ark Narrative more than it reflects the language of SN. Hence this observation does not prove to be very useful in comparing the language of 1 Kings 1-2 with that of the rest of SN. Rost's subsequent remark that there are a number of particles in SN,

64

The Wages of Sin

and that of these rtn and D3 are especially numerous, may be examined however. These particles occur as follows: ran

D;

2 Samuel 9-20

33

28

1 Kings 1-2

11

11

Their distribution is fairly proportionate throughout 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. However even a cursory glance through any concordance will reveal that these particles are common, not only in SN, but throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. This is not then a very useful criterion with which to work. Perhaps the most useful way to approach the question of the language of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 is to adopt a fresh stance and to look for any anomalies between the two. In examining the language of 1 Kings 1-2, whereas the preceding chapters of SN use the terms 111 and "[^QH frequently and interchangeably in referring to David, 1 Kings 1-2 strongly favours the noun "|*?Q, (both in its basic form and as a component of several variations). Here David is referred to as f *?Qn, TH, TIT "f'PQn, "[Ôil TIN, S]1N and '3"T« 111 "[^Qn.33 Perhaps the most significant introduction among these nouns is ^"TN, which although it is used only 25 times in 2 Samuel 9-20 (24 times as ~[^Qn "]"TK and once as ÎN), appears 18 times within the space of 1 Kings 1. The verb "j^Q is also employed frequently in 1 Kings 1-2. Thus an initial difference in terminology may be observed between 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. It is notable that passages in 1 Kings 1-2 and elsewhere in SN that are similar in content do not contain similar vocabulary. The correspondence between Absalom's ostentatious display (2 Sam. 15.1) and that of Adonijah (1 Kgs 1.5) is generally recognized (cf., e.g., McKane 1963: 248; Stolz 1981: 253; Gordon 1986: 270). Indeed it may be that Adonijah is deliberately imitating the actions of his older brother (McCarter 1984: 357). In the respective passages we are told that both men procure a chariot, horses and a bodyguard of fifty retainers. The structure of the two sentences reveals the correspondence. We read in 33. The terms used to refer to David occur as follows: 2 Sam. 9-20—"pan (147); TH (103); -pan 'n« (24); in "pan (9); 'HK (1). 1 Kgs 1-2.12— "pan (30); "pan T1K (12); 111 f'PQn (6); in lân 'HN (4); -;•]« (2); 111 (6). 1 Kgs 2.13-46 has not been included. David dies in v. 11, thus all the posthumous references naturally call him "in, for at this point it is Solomon who is "[ân.


65

2 Sam. 15.1: TEh D-ITI CTK Dâm D'0101 nnDin DIÊDK ft ton and in 1 Kings 1.5: VlEb D-S"I CD-R D'Bam D'ChS"! 3D1 ft tDm...m~IKl. The two texts would parallel each other exactly, except that the vocabulary employed for 'chariots' and 'horses' is different. 2 Sam. 15.1 uses niD~lD (feminine noun) for 'chariot', while 1 Kgs 1.5 uses HIT); 2 Sam. 15.1 uses D'OO (plural of noun 00) for 'horses', and 1 Kgs 1.5 uses Q'GTIS (plural of noun GTIS). These two events have not only a similar context, but also a distinct and deliberate correspondence. However although there is a parallel of structure and indeed of language between the two passages, the difference in vocabulary is significant. If a single writer were describing these very similar events, it is unlikely that he would have employed different vocabulary to describe the same objects when the correspondence between the two passages is so clear.34 This discrepancy favours the idea that 2 Sam. 15.1 and 1 Kgs 1.5 come from the pens of two different authors. Finally a distinct difference may be noted in the use of an idiomatic phrase. In 2 Samuel 16 (twice) and in 1 Kings 1 (three times) the formula 'Long live...' appears in association with a proclamation of kingship. In 2 Sam. 16.16, Hushai proclaims of Absalom: ~[^Qn TP ~pft7l TT, while in 1 Kgs 1.25, 34 and 39, the formula appears as /miK -jân S1T rrcftfcj. Here we have in effect examples of the same formula with a basic difference: in the former the king is not named ('Long live the King!'), while in the latter the king's name is also included ('Long live King [Adonijah]!). This set formula is preserved in a different way in each of the two blocks of material. Indeed when Absalom is proclaimed as king in 2 Samuel 15, this formula is not used, but the people are told to proclaim: p"Qm DftEQK "]^Q. There may be a linguistic difference here in that whereas 1 Kings 1-2 favours the formula 'Long live King X!', the rest of SN employs two different, although related, idioms. However this point should not be overemphasized because of the relatively infrequent use of the idiom in both texts. Yet it is of value to the 34. Note that Rost takes as a confirmation of the status of 1 Kgs 1-2 'the fact that in 2 Sam. 15.1 the display of pomp by the budding successor is depicted with almost the same words as in 1 Kgs 1.5' (1982: 80). However he glosses over the difference between the two passages. Yet the difference in vocabulary is of much greater significance than is the general similarity, for it seems that Adonijah was modelling his actions on those of Absalom and thus a strong similarity is essential to the events being described.

66

The Wages of Sin

cumulative argument which has built up, for it has become increasingly obvious that the style and language of 1 Kings 1-2 is not identical with that of the rest of the work. 1 Kings 1-2 cannot in fact be a part of SN, for in a document composed by a single author without the use of earlier sources, a uniform literary style would be expected throughout. 1 Kings 1-2 differs from the preceding material in many respects. Thus it should not be linked with 2 Samuel in the manner that Rost has advocated. Content This assertion does not rest solely on style and language, although they certainly are the main considerations. The content of the material also provides strong evidence that 1 Kings 1-2 is not part of the rest of the (so-called) SN. It is significant that Rost et al. tend simply to assume the dependence of 1 Kings 1-2 on 2 Samuel 9-20. They never seek to prove this relationship. Certainly there are similarities between the content of the two groups and it is not difficult to see why this assumption was made. In 1 Kings 2 Joab is punished for his murder of Amasa and Shimei ben Gera for his treatment of David, while Barzillai the Gileadite is rewarded for his kindness. These three events are recorded in the story of Absalom's revolt in 2 Samuel 15-20 and thus their reappearance in 1 Kings 2 was interpreted as a continuation of the earlier strands. Yet this does not account for all of 1 Kings 1-2, for there are also several elements of 1 Kings 2 that play no part whatsoever elsewhere in SN. For example, Joab's punishment is not only for the murder of Amasa in 2 Samuel 20, but also for the murder of Abner ben Ner outside SN in 2 Samuel 3. It seems that Rost also saw the difficulty here, for he states: Then there are Barzillai, Shimei, Joab, Amasa and Abner whose activities or deaths must have been related in some way or other—assuming there to be no overwhelmingly weighty reasons against this, as in the case of Abner' (1982: 80). However his reasoning is unclear. What are the 'overwhelmingly weighty reasons' against the death of Abner having been 'related in some way or other' ? Rost does not provide the answer to the question and one is left wondering why Abner should be the sole exception to the rule. If it follows that the presence of Barzillai, Shimei, Joab and Amasa indicate that 1 Kings 1-2 is a continuation of SN, then it should also follow that the presence of Abner indicates a similar link with earlier material. Certainly no evidence


67

to the contrary is provided by Rost, nor is it apparent in the text. Rost's argument is inconsistent at this point. Gunn's view (1978) would provide a solution for this problem in that he sees 2 Samuel 2-4 as the beginning of SN. But surely this would be an insufficient basis for incorporating further material into SN! A more plausible solution is that the reference to the murder of Abner does not properly belong with SN and if 1 Kings 1-2 is not part of this work, then there is no reference to Abner's death in SN. Indeed the reference to Abner's death provides evidence that 1 Kings 2 draws on all the David traditions and not just on SN. Joab's motive for both killings is said to be 'avenging in time of peace blood which had been shed in war' (1 Kgs 2.5), yet this motive is never associated with the murder of Amasa in 2 Samuel. Gray (1970: 100101) attempts to deal with this problem by distinguishing between 'avenging in time of peace blood which had been shed in war' and 'putting innocent blood upon the girdle about my [David's] loins...' (1 Kgs 2.5). He isolates a separate motive for each of the murders (taking the first as applying to the death of Abner and the second to the killing of Amasa). The result of this interpretation, however, is that the bloodguilt which David wishes to remove is connected only with the murder of Amasa. Yet if this was the case then there was no need for any reference to Abner's murder. This solution simply adds more complications to a text that already presents difficulties for the adherents of the SN hypothesis. Rost, on the other hand, believes that the function of this passage is to shed light on an enigma in the earlier material. He states, 'it is here that we learn the answer to the question of Amasa's murder by Joab and that we hear about this warrior's harsh ruthlessness and get to know about Barzillai's willingness to help and about Shimei's bitter and pitiful curse' (1982: 80). However in the earlier material there are no gaps left in the details of Barzillai's support or of Shimei's cursing. Indeed 2 Samuel 20 implies that the reason for Joab's killing Amasa was because the latter had been appointed military commander in his place. The two passages are not easily reconcilable as part of a single document. There are two variant forms of Amasa's father's name preserved: one in 2 Samuel and another in 1 Kings. 2 Sam. 17.25 records that he is the son of KIH"; (yithra'), while vv. 5 and 32 of 1 Kings call him "IH!1']? (benyether). These are simply variant forms of the same name, but it is

68

The Wages of Sin

significant that they are both found within what is regarded as a single document. Other elements of 1 Kings 1-2 that have no precedent elsewhere in SN are the link of Anathoth with Abiathar (2.26) and the two prominent courtiers Shimei and Rei (1.8) who appear here without any previous introduction.35 Theological Outlook It is also true that 1 Kings 1-2 has a much more overtly theological/ cultic orientation and outlook than has the rest of SN. Von Rad contended that SN had a definite theological interest, but that it was subtle and restrained (1966: 201-202). Yet this is not the case with 1 Kings 12, where reference is made to several cultic objects and there is a theological/cultic preponderance. Reference is made to 'the horn of oil' (1.39); 'the tent' (1.39); 'the tent of the LORD' (2.29, 30); 'the altar' (2.29); 'the horns of the altar' (2.28); and 'the law of Moses' (2.3).36 The last of these ('the law of Moses') is especially striking, as it is completely foreign to the rest of SN. Indeed the beginning of ch. 2 reveals so strong a deuteronomistic influence that many commentators have regarded vv. 2-4 as secondary (e.g. Rost; Gray 1970; Noth 1968; Rehm 1979). However in view of the cultic references in 1 Kings 1-2, these verses are not out of keeping with 1 Kings 1-2, but their tenor is distinctly at odds with the rest of SN. Another significant difference between 1 Kings 1-2 and the rest of SN may be seen in the presentation of Zadok and Abiathar. Previously they have been depicted as colleagues and equals, perhaps even as friends. In 1 Kings 1-2 they appear as rivals: Abiathar supports Adonijah and Zadok supports Solomon; Zadok remains as priest in Jerusalem, while Abiathar is banished from the Temple. Kings' attitude to Abiathar is clearly dependent upon 1 Samuel and the period before David's coronation, or the early period of his reign.37 This is demonstrated in the 35. Gray (1970: 79) also sees a difficulty here in that Shimei and Rei are not properly introduced into the text. Following Josephus, he reads TH "in *l)QUi]— 'and Shimei, the Friend of David', taking "ÊH "in as an official court title (cf. 1 Kgs 4.5). 36. The use of the term iTliT ITU in 2 Sam. 12.20 is a much less specific phrase than those used in 1 Kgs 1. 37. In 2.26 the Masoretic Text reads: 'because you bore JUSTIN'. However it is often suggested that TIDN should be read here instead (cf. Gray 1970: 108-109; Robinson, 1972: 43). This emendation is suggested on the basis of the time scale: if


69

references to his early relationship with David (2.26) and to the prophecy in 1 Sam. 2.31-36 against the family of Eli (2.27). Yet nowhere else in SN has there been any indication of the rivalry between the two priestly houses, nor of the rejection of the House of Eli. It is certainly a definite theme or idea in 1 Kings 1-2 and thus the two differ significantly on this. Rost makes a somewhat surprising statement. He says, 'chapter 2 is only added as a concluding reverberation' (1982: 68). This surely indicates that Rost was aware of the somewhat weak position of 1 Kings 2 in his SN. The Position of the Samuel Appendix Finally, there is one other significant consideration which is most often glossed over. It is that 2 Samuel 20 and 1 Kings 1 are separated by a fairly extensive body of material: 2 Samuel 21-24—the Samuel appendix. Most scholars account for the presence of the appendix between 2 Samuel 20 and 1 Kings 1 on the grounds that it is a later insertion into the body of SN (e.g. Driver 1909: 173; McKane 1963: 2628; Hertzberg 1964: 415-16). It is argued that this is the only appropriate position at which it could have been placed because 1 Kings 2 leads directly into the account of Solomon's reign, which spans 1 Kgs 2.1211.43. Its present position is certainly not the only point at which the appendix material could have been placed. It could have been inserted after 1 Kgs 1.53 (where Solomon has been established as David's successor, but before the quite separate deathbed scene); after 1 Kgs 2.9 (at the end of David's speech); after 2.11 (at the end of David's reign); after 2.12 (where Solomon's position is confirmed, but before he begins his purges); or indeed it would have been possible to place it right at the end of 1 Kings 2. Such possibilities are countered by the view that the appendix is '...a fitting summary of David's reign, for when the story resumes in 1 Kings 1 David is a pathetic shadow of his former self (Gordon, 1984: 95). It is seen as belonging properly with Samuel, for it is reckoned as an appendix to the whole of Samuel, and not just to SN. However this does not take into account that Samuel and Kings were probably originally transmitted as a single book.38 Thus the distinction it is the Ark that is mentioned, then it must be referring to the period of David's reign and not to his fugitive days, when the Ark would have been in Philistine hands. 38. They were first separated for the sake of easier handling with the addition of

70

The Wages of Sin

upon which this argument rests is a false one. Nevertheless it seems odd that an editor should position 2 Samuel 2124 within a previously existing, tightly-knit document (SN), thus splitting it into two separate sections. Rather this is further evidence that the link between 2 Samuel 20 and 1 Kings 1 is not so close as Rost argues it to be. In effect, it gives strong support to the argument that 1 Kings 1-2 does not belong with SN. An awareness of the fundamental difference between 1 Kings 1-2 and the preceding material may be observed in the work of McCarter. He argues that 2 Samuel 13-20 was composed during the reign of David as an account of Absalom's rebellion, and that chs. 10-12 were added later by a writer who saw the events of 2 Samuel 11 as the basic cause of the coup d'etat. He holds that 1 Kings 1-2 was the final stage in the composition of the work, and that it was written during the reign of Solomon with reference to the earlier material (as reflected in the punishment of Joab and Shimei ben Gera). Thus although he envisages the final version of SN as comprising 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2, he distinguishes between the blocks of material in postulating that each was the product of a different writer. On the grounds of style, language, content, theological orientation and position then, it becomes evident that 1 Kings 1-2 does not belong with the (so-called) SN. I would suggest that 1 Kings 1-2 was written by someone other than the author of SN, and that it cannot be treated as part of this work. The conclusions regarding theme support this view, for it seems that the idea of a succession theme became popular only because 1 Kings 1 was taken as part of SN. Rost's hypothesis is based on weak foundations—a series of assumptions, totally dependent upon each other. The results of this investigation have serious implications for the SN hypothesis. If succession is not the theme of the narrative and 1 Kings 1-2 does not belong with this material, then the entire hypothesis is undermined. Not only is it undermined, but it becomes untenable as its foundations crumble.

vowels on translation into Greek. However the Septuagint continued to give 1 Samuel-2 Kings a blanket title (fiaaiAetcov a-8), thus demonstrating a closer association of the two than our present printed editions of the Masoretic Text imply. It is also notable that there is some variation to be found among the Greek texts as to where |3aaiXeicov (3 and y (2 Sam. and 1 Kgs) should be divided, thus attesting the close relationship between them.

Chapter 3 DEFINING THE NARRATIVE: EXTENT AND COMPOSITION

If SN is not a Succession Narrative—what is it? If 1 Kings 1-2 is not part of SN—what does SN consist of? These questions demand an answer, in the wake of the conclusions drawn in the last chapter. Yet before doing anything else, it is necessary to define the extent of the document in question and to explore the circumstances and nature of its composition. Rost defined the boundaries of SN by beginning with 1 Kings 1-2 and working backwards. 1 On the basis of the references to Mephibosheth and Ziba in 2 Sam. 16.1-4 and 19.25-30 (part of the story of Absalom's revolt), he concluded that 2 Samuel 9 must also belong with SN and the history of the succession. This did not provide a satisfactory beginning to the work, so he went further back into 2 Samuel to find the starting point. He concluded that the Michal episode of 2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23 was the beginning of the work, and interpreted this as a negative comment on the succession: no child of Michal (who would have united the houses of David and Saul) would succeed to the throne. To this he linked what he regarded as the core of the dynastic oracle of 2 Samuel 7 (vv. 1 Ib and 16) and took it as a positive note on the theme of succession to counteract the negative force of the previous episode. Thus although no child of Michal would ascend the throne, David's descendants would rule permanently. Yet this presented a difficulty in that the Michal episode in fact formed part of the account of the transfer of the Ark in 2 Samuel 6, which Rost regarded as part of the Ark Narrative. For this reason, he argued that the beginning of SN was integrated into the end of the Ark Narrative. The general tendency, however, is to set the limits of SN at 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 and most scholars see SN as beginning with 1.

See above, Chapter 1, pp. 14-16 and Chapter 2, pp. 54-70.

72

The Wages of Sin

2 Samuel 9, despite Rost's view of chs. 6 and 7. This may be observed even in the titles of many works (e.g. Whybray 1968; Flanagan 1972; Hagan 1979; and Wharton 1981). The Beginning of the Narrative 2 Samuel 6 Rost's inclusion of 2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23 in SN creates a significant difficulty in that it isolates this episode from its immediate context—the Ark Narrative. McCarter (1984: 188) comments that the Michal scene may be taken either with the preceding material (story of David's rise) as Weiser (1966) does, or with the following material (SN) as do Rost and von Rad. Carlson (1964: 92-96) has supplied a penetrating critique of Rost's analysis of ch. 6. Although he allows for a certain connection with 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2, he lays much stress on the primary function of ch. 6. He argues that the reason for the actions of both David and Michal lies in the surrounding Ark Narrative. He also draws attention to the connection between the Succoth festival2 and fertility, in view of Michal's ultimate infertility. Additionally he emphasizes the importance of a Saul/David theme, connecting this episode with ch. 6.3 Thus he rejects Rost's view on the grounds that 2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23 cannot be separated from the rest of the chapter.4 Indeed Rost's interpretation of the Michal scene entails some degree of eisegesis and a misinterpretation of the emphases of the original writer. He includes this material in SN on the grounds that its subject is the possible offspring of David and Michal. However, although the text ends with a reference to Michal's barrenness, its real interest is in the

2. The association between the movement of the Ark and Succoth is made by Porter (1954). He sees David's dance as preceding an intended hieros gamos ritual in which Michal refuses to participate. Carlson, however, does not go along with him in this. 3. The issue of a Saul/David theme will be addressed later in this chapter. See below, pp. 86-88. 4. Gordon (1986: 235) also sees a significant link between the Michal story and the account of the transfer of the Ark, suggesting that a contrast is intended between Michal's infertility in 6.23 and the blessing on Obed-Edom in 6.11. Such a contrast might therefore imply that the Michal episode is to be primarily associated with the Ark story and not with SN.

3. Defining the Narrative

73

cause of this barrenness: that is, her scornful attitude to her husband.5 One is given no explicit reason for her attitude. Whether it has its roots in a conservative religious outlook,6 anger at the king's lack of modesty,7 anger at his self-humiliation,8 or family9 or personal bitterness,10 must remain a matter of conjecture and interpretation. The chief interest of the text is in Michal herself, not in her potential offspring. The comment on her childlessness is secondary to the main interest. Her childlessness is merely the result of her actions, and it is her actions themselves with which the text is most concerned. This is also the contention of Schulte (1972: 138). He argues that the Michal scene has nothing to do with the succession theme, that there was no necessity for an alliance with Saul's clan and that there is no suggestion of such an alliance in 2 Samuel 6. This episode is more closely related to the account of the transfer of the Ark, of which it is an integral part, than to a succession theme. Therefore it becomes apparent that the beginning of SN is not to be found in 2 Samuel 6. 2 Samuel 7 Several scholars also find difficulty with Rost's analysis of 2 Samuel 7, most notably Mowinckel (1963) and Gunn (1978).n Indeed there is a

5. Alter (1981: 125) says that 'we may presume too much altogether in seeing here any definite relation of cause and effect' between Michal's barrenness and her argument with David. Although one may not accept this suggestion, it is a legitimate position, for the reference to Michal's barrenness is, by all accounts, no more than a concluding reverberation. 6. Porter (1954: 165) suggests that Michal, a representative of traditional Yahwism, was objecting to innovation from the Canaanite fertility cult. (See n. 2 above). 7. H.P. Smith (1899: 296), for example, sees the cause of Michal's scorn in that David exposes himself in public as a result of his ecstatic dancing. Gordon (1986: 234) notes that this is ostensibly the cause of her protest, but sees 'contempt for the whole of the day's proceedings' underlying it. 8. Hertzberg (1964: 280-81) suggests that Michal's concern is for David's dignity. 9. McCarter (1984: 189) argues that her behaviour may reflect resentment at the change from the old order, for her father's capital was Gibeah and during his reign there was little attention paid to the Ark. 10. Another possibility is that she may have been embittered against David because of her enforced separation from her second husband, Paltiel. 11. Gunn (1978: 66) believes that this is the weakest part of Rost's argument.

74

The Wages of Sin

distinct paucity of support for Rost's treatment of chs. 6 and 7. Rost's only reason for including any part of 2 Samuel 7 in SN was because of its supposed relation to the succession theme. It is no longer justifiable to include 2 Samuel 7 in SN on this basis, as it has been demonstrated in the last chapter, 'succession' is not the theme of SN. 2 Samuel 9 This brings us then to 2 Samuel 9—the most accepted beginning for SN. However we are immediately faced with a much less widelyacknowledged problem—that ch. 9 cannot be the starting point of the work. Gunn comments, 'It is hard to find a scholar who is prepared to defend ch. 9 as a certain (or even satisfactory) beginning to the story that follows' (1978: 66). Thus although this is the position that scholars normally take, Gunn suggests that they follow it only tentatively because of the seeming lack of any alternative. This approach is adopted simply because it seems the best way to counteract the difficulties of seeing ch. 6 as the starting point. Nevertheless 2 Samuel 9 also proves to be an unsatisfactory beginning for SN. Why is 2 Samuel 9 included in SN at all? Many scholars quite reasonably reject Rost's suggestion that 2 Samuel 6 and 7 belong to the narrative, but fail to deal with the question of its beginning, if this is the case. Chapter 9 is tolerated as the more satisfactory of the two starting points (i.e. either 6.16 or 9.1) because there does not seem to be an alternative.12 Yet Rost's argument for the inclusion of ch. 9 is no more convincing than is his argument for the inclusion of the earlier passages. Rost's sole reason for including 2 Samuel 9 in SN is on the basis of 2 Sam. 16.1-4 and 19.25-31. These two passages are firmly integrated into the story of Absalom's revolt, appearing in David's flight from and return to Jerusalem respectively. They parallel each other and concern Mephibosheth and Ziba? who have previously featured in 2 Samuel 9. Rost held that 2 Sam. 16.1-4 and 19.25-30 were incomprehensible when viewed in isolation from ch. 9. He reasoned that 2 Samuel 9 belonged to SN because it is only here that we learn about the relationship between David, Mephibosheth and Ziba, which is later developed within the story of the coup d'etat. Rost argues that ch. 9 serves to explain the relationship between

12. This is reflected, for example, in Whybray's (1968: 8) suggestion that the beginning of the narrative has in fact been lost.


75

David, Ziba and Mephibosheth and therefore is essential to the text. However Ziba and Mephibosheth are not the only characters who appear for the first time in the story of the revolt. Several characters are introduced on David's flight from Jerusalem: Ittai, Abiathar, Zadok, Hushai, Ziba, Shimei, Mephibosheth and Barzillai. Barzillai's background is related in the context of the narrative (17.27), but there is no prior introduction to the others. Yet the text does not suffer. One learns within each of the respective scenes that Ittai is a sojourner from Gath; Abiathar and Zadok are priests; Hushai is 'David's friend';13 Ziba is the servant of Mephibosheth; Shimei is a Saulide Benjaminite; and Mephibosheth is a son (or descendant?) of Saul. No other explanation is necessary, nor do 16.1-4 and 19.25-31 require any additional information. If an explanation of the relationship between David, Ziba and Mephibosheth is essential, then an explanation of the relationships between David and Ittai, Abiathar, Zadok, Hushai and Shimei should also be required. These characters are nowhere previously introduced, and Ittai, for example, is something of an enigma to us. Who is he? When and why did he come into David's service? What is the reason for his loyalty to the king? What is his standing at court and among the king's regular forces? We are told that he is a Gittite (i.e. from the Philistine city of Gath) and that he is a military commander, leading a group of foreigners, presumably Philistines. Very little information is given about him and any other conclusions at which one arrives are solely dependent upon conjecture: the text tells us no more. Similarly with the other characters introduced here, we are supplied with a minimum of background material within their respective scenes. So why should Mephibosheth and Ziba be an exception to the rule? Why do they require an entire chapter of background details? 2 Sam. 16.1-4 and 19.25-31 are in fact self-explanatory. David's flight from Jerusalem interacts on a structural level with the account of his return. The two are arranged in a loose chiastic sequence, consisting of two sets of consecutive, self-contained scenes, each of which has David and one (or two) other characters as its centre of interest. The scenes on the flight are set over against parallel scenes on the return, and may be analysed as follows:

13. It was first suggested by de Vaux (1939: 403-405) that the phrase "fôn "ID is actually the title of a royal official. Thus the description of Hushai as ~m 'in may indicate his position in David's court.

76

The Wages of Sin A

Ittai the Gittite (15.19-23) B Abiathar and Zadok (15.24-29) C Hushai the Archite (15.32-36) D Ziba the servant of Mephiboshet (16.1-4) E Shimei ben Gera (16.5-14)

C'

E' Shimei ben Gera (19.16-23) D' Mephibosheth ben Saul (19.24-30) Barzillai the Gileadite (19.31-40)

} } } Flight } } } } Return }

The final scene of the flight (E) features Shimei's abuse of David and this is paralleled by the first scene of the return (E'), in which Shimei begs David's forgiveness. Scene E' is followed by Mephibosheth's meeting with David (D') in which he denies the allegations made by Ziba in scene D. Then follows the scene featuring Barzillai the Gileadite (C'). This seems to parallel the scene in which Hushai the Archite appears (C) on account of the similarity between the two men: both are in old age (15.33/19.32); both are extremely useful to David's cause during the revolt (15.34/19.32); both are close to the king (15.37/19.33-39); and, perhaps incidentally, both are known from their place of origin rather than by their patronymic ('the Archite'/'the Gileadite'). Scenes A and B have no parallel or equivalent on the return. Thus they may not form part of the overall chiastic structure (note the gap between scene B, which ends at 15.29, and scene C, which begins at 15.32). Or perhaps the absence of any parallel to these scenes may be understood in the light of the sequence of events, for the steady progress of the returning caravan is brought to an abrupt halt by the complaints of the northern Israelites and the uprising led by Sheba ben Bichri in 19.41-43. In his analysis of the chapter, Fokkelman does not include the Ittai and Abiathar/Zadok scenes with those in which Hushai, Ziba, Shimei, Mephibosheth and Barzillai appear. He recognizes the parallels between the latter scenes, but envisages a stricter chiastic structure than the one suggested above. His analysis is as follows (1981: 282): C

the meetings with Hushai } D with Ziba } on the Mount of Olives E and with Shimei } F Deliberation: Hushai versus Ahithophel G Jonathan and Ahimaaz: report: David safe H Two camps. War: Absalom's army destroyed


C

77

H And Absalom himself killed by Joab G Ahimaaz & the Cushite: report: David mourns F' ch. 19.2-16 (title?) E The meetings with Shimei } D with Mephibosheth } at the Jordan and with Barzillai (parting) }

On the other hand he emphasizes the significance of movement in connection with the Ittai and Abiathar/Zadok scenes, thus regarding them as falling outside the chiastic pattern. He analyses 15.13-31 as follows: A

A

report: Absalom! David orders flight B1 movement: departure with household and army C conversation David-Ittai: to go with or not? Result: forward B2 movement: king + people cross the Kidron C conversation David-Zadok: to go with or not? Result: back B3 movement: king + people ascend Mount of Olives report: Ahithophel! David prays to God

Although the structure suggested by Fokkelman differs from that proposed here, neither is incompatible with the other. Rather, the difference is the result of Fokkelman's desire to discover a definite, ordered structure throughout the text. There is, however, no necessity to look for a strict formal structure dominating the entire text. The structure suggested here is not strict or formal, but merely follows a loose chiastic pattern. The chiastic structure reveals the author's intention that 2 Sam. 16.1-4 and 19.25-30 be seen together, and when they are taken together, they are self-explanatory. In 16.1-4, we are told that Ziba is the servant of Mephibosheth, and in 19.25-30, we are informed that this Mephibosheth is 'the son of Saul'. Thus the phrase 'your master's son' (16.3) is also explained: the 'master' is Saul. Indeed ch. 9 is to a large extent duplicated here, for 19.25-30 also reveals that Mephibosheth lives in Jerusalem (v. 25), is lame (v. 27) and that David has given him a regular place at the royal table (v. 29). Therefore all the information which ch. 9 allegedly needs to supply is already contained within these two scenes. Further, there is a certain difference of emphasis between 2 Samuel 9 and 2 Sam. 16.1-4/19.25-30 Rost categorized the theme of ch. 9 as succession (from the perspective of the aspirations of the Saulides to the throne). Fokkelman, however, presents a much more viable alternative (1981: 24-30) when he distinguishes ion as the major concern of the

78

The Wages of Sin

text.14 Chapter 9 is about the relationship between David and Jonathan. David seeks out Mephibosheth in order that he might show ion to him 'for Jonathan's sake' (9.1). This ion is the direct result of the covenant between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18, in which the latter shows ion to David. Indeed, as Fokkelman points out, 2 Samuel 9 demonstrates a complete inversion of the roles in 1 Samuel. This is particularly so with respect to 1 Samuel 20, in which the words Dn1?, jnÊJ and ^DK (important motifs in 2 Sam. 9) feature significantly. Thus it is the figure of Jonathan and the covenant between him and David that is of central importance to 2 Samuel 9. On the other hand, Jonathan is never mentioned in the other Mephibosheth episodes. This is especially striking in that Mephibosheth is consistently referred to as the son of Saul (16.3, 'your master's son', 'the kingdom of my father'; 19.25, 'the son of Saul'; 19.29, 'my father's house'). This seems to indicate that 2 Sam. 16.1-4/19.25-30 is not dependent upon 2 Samuel 9: in contrast with the significance of Jonathan, Mephibosheth is 'the son of Saul' in these scenes.15 Even David's provision for Mephibosheth is linked not with Jonathan but with Saul in ch. 19, for he says, 'all my father's house were but men doomed to death before my lord the king; but you set your servant among those who eat at your table' (2 Sam. 19.28).16 The link between 2 Samuel 9 and 16.1-4/19.25-30, such as it is, does not provide sufficient evidence for the inclusion of the former in SN. Indeed Rost believed that 2 Samuel 9 could not be the start of SN. He stated, The fact that we can discern in 9. Iff. the beginning of the Meribaal strand of the background story to the succession, hardly justifies regarding this scene as the beginning of the whole succession source; had this latter been the case there would undoubtedly have been in this scene some clear indication of the main theme, be it ever so slight (1982: 85).

14. Note however that Fokkelman takes 2 Sam. 9 together with 16.1-4 and 19.25-31. 15. Indeed this leads Veijola (1978) to argue that Mephibosheth was actually the son of Saul and not his grandson. 16. Several scholars have seen this statement of Mephibosheth's, as well as Shimei's curse, as an indication of dependence upon 2 Sam. 21.1-14. Yet 2 Sam. 21.1-14 has never been seriously suggested as belonging to SN. Therefore it seems odd that ch. 9 should be included in this work, when its connection is no closer than that of 21.1-14.


79

The reason he sought the beginning of the source earlier in 2 Samuel was that he recognized ch. 9 could not function as its starting point. His criteria for defining the extent of the work was the 'succession' theme, yet 2 Samuel 9 is an inadequate beginning for the work. Chapter 9 simply launches into its story without preamble or prior introduction. 2 Samuel 9 should not be regarded as part of SN. Rost's sole reason for including 2 Samuel 9 was its links with the story of Absalom's revolt, but these links are not sufficiently strong to warrant including it. Moreover it provides an inadequate and problematic beginning for the work. What remains of the narrative? If one agrees that Rost's delimitation of its extent was inaccurate, and excludes 1 Kings 1-2 and 2 Samuel 9, 2 Samuel 10-20 remains. In fact, 2 Samuel 10-20 demonstrates both structural and thematic unity, as well as literary independence.17 Indeed it displays all the literary characteristics normally associated with the (socalled) SN and ch. 10, unlike either 2 Sam. 6.16 or 9.1, provides a most appropriate beginning for the work. Therefore, from this point, 2 Samuel 10-20 will be referred to as SN—for it is chs. 10-20 which is the real literary heart of 2 Samuel.18 There are two possible objections that could be raised against this delimitation of the narrative. The first is that the two lists of David's officers at the end of 2 Samuel 8 and 2 Samuel 20 are structural markers, the argument being that these mark the beginning and end of the work: thus ch. 9 would be its beginning. This is not sufficient reason for including ch. 9 in the narrative. Indeed if the lists of officials in 8.16-18 and 20.23-26 were to have this significance, then they alone would provide enough evidence for the exclusion of 1 Kings 1-2 from the work. Yet it is difficult to imagine anyone excluding 1 Kings 1-2 solely on the basis of the list in 2 Samuel 20, without recourse to style, language, content, and so on. It would also be erroneous to argue for the inclusion of ch. 9 on this flimsy basis. Secondly, it could be argued that because 2 Samuel 10 begins with 17. See below, in this chapter and Chapter 4. 18. There are some scholars who have recognized a more compact body of material than that of Rost's SN. Notable among these is Caspari (1909, 1926), who regarded chs. 10-20 as a collection of Novellen or short stories. Leimbach (1936) treated 2 Sam. 11-20 together as a unit (see below, Chapter 5, p. 140-41). Mowinckel (1963) argued that 1 Kgs 1-2 belonged with a Solomon-saga and that 2 Sam. 9-20 comprised the full extent of SN and Bar-Efrat (1975) confined his study to 2 Sam. 10-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2.

80

The Wages of Sin

the formula p"HnK TT1, it must follow on from something else. Although the waw conversive (present in TH) is generally thought to be dependent upon a preceding verb, there are exceptions to this rule, as is indicated even in basic Hebrew grammars. For example, Weingreen (1959) states, 'Often a verse or even a chapter opens with a verb which has the Waw Consecutive, as TPl "and it came to pass"; this rather than implying a continuation with what has preceded, has little more force than "now it happened'" (1959: 92). Indeed this practice extends even further: not only verses and chapters, but even whole books may begin in this manner. Eleven books in the Hebrew Bible begin with a verb in the waw conversive: Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 2 Kings, Ezekiel, Jonah, Ruth, Esther and 2 Chronicles. Moreover of these, eight books begin with TH.19 Therefore it is quite possible that SN could begin with the formula p'nrw TH at 10.1. Indeed 2 Samuel 13 and 15 also begin with this formula.20 Its use at the beginning of the major divisions of the work21 (i.e. 10-12; 13-14; 15-20; taking 2 Samuel 10-20 as the full extent of the document), serves to emphasize the continuity of the work, rather than reveal that the material in question follows on from earlier events. The phrase p~"HnN TT1 in some ways is a special case in that it is more likely to follow on from preceding material than is, for example, the phrase ...mo "HITR TH (found at the beginning of Joshua, Judges and 2 Samuel). Perhaps this is a timely reminder that 2 Samuel 10-20 is not completely independent of the surrounding material. As it stands now it 19. Those books that begin with a formula using TH are:

josh.: Judg.:

noo no nn« -m jxzriiT ma -"ins -m

1 Sam.: 2 Sam.: Ezek.: Jon.: Ruth:

108 £TK TH *71»G? ma -HIN TH 1TO C'CD'pea TH mr-'w mrr"ai TT"1 rBSEJn BS0 'a'3 TVI

Est.:

omtonw â TTI

The remaining three books that begin with another verb in the waw-consecutive are: Num.: TOQ-^K mrr "DTI ^"IQ'3 DNIQ £DS'1 2 Kgs: 2Chron.: HQÊi prim

20. In 15.1 it takes the form p -"intW "H"!. 2 1 . 1 will argue below that 2 Sam. 10.1, 13.1 and 15.1 mark the beginning of the three major sections of the work.


81

is part of 2 Samuel and therefore plays a role in the book as a whole. It has been fully integrated into 2 Samuel and for this reason the use of the phrase does not present a problem when it is viewed in its proper context. The Position of 2 Samuel 10-20 within its Larger Context 2 Samuel 1-9 2 Samuel 1 begins with an account of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan on Mount Gilboa. It is related by an Amalekite who claims to have killed Saul (vv. 1-16) and is followed by a lament for Saul and Jonathan (vv. 17-27) which is credited to David. Chapters 2-4 follow on from this and concern the period of David's rule over Judah in Hebron. The main episodes are the coronation of David (2.1-4); the death of Asahel at the hands of Abner, Saul's commander (2.12-32); Abner's defection to David's side (3.12-21); Joab's murder of Abner (3.22-39); and the death of Ishbosheth (4.5-12). 2 Samuel 5 begins with the coronation of David as king of all Israel (vv. 1-5), and continues with his capture of Jerusalem (vv. 6-10) and defeat of the Philistines (vv. 17-25). Chapter 6 records the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant from Baale-judah to Jerusalem, David's new capital. The story of Michal (which Rost takes as belonging with SN) also forms part of this account. Chapter 7 is the dynastic oracle delivered by Nathan in response to David's desire to build a temple for Yahweh. David is promised that his descendants will continue to rule over Israel in perpetuity. Chapter 8 is a catalogue of David's military victories and ch. 9 records David's treatment of Mephibosheth. Thus he is shown to have fulfilled his promise to the effect that 'when the LORD cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth, let not the name of Jonathan be cut off from the house of David' (1 Sam. 20.15b-16a). Hence 2 Samuel 1-9 gives a chronological record of events from the death of Saul until David's rule is firmly established over the nation and he has subdued all his enemies. Its structure can be summarized as follows: 2 Samuel 1: 2-4: 5: 6-7: 8: 9:

Introductory background—death of Saul Initial stages of David's rule—south only Coronation and consolidation Initial actions (religious) Initial actions (military) Last initial duty—David keeps covenant with Jonathan

82

The Wages of Sin

This is a record of the achievement and consolidation of power by David. The first four chapters lead up to his coronation by the elders of Israel; the subsequent material is a record of how he firmly establishes his position, symbolized by his keeping covenant with Jonathan in ch. 9. Thus 2 Samuel 1-9 follows the career of David from the death of Saul until he is firmly established on the throne. 2 Samuel 21-24 2 Samuel 21-24 is generally perceived as an appendix to the books of Samuel. Initially it appears to be a miscellaneous collection of unrelated material from the reign of David. 21.1-14 is a narrative account of the execution of seven members of Saul's family, which David permits to end a famine plaguing the land. 21.15-22 has the Philistine wars as its setting and focuses on the defeat of four Philistine giants by David's warriors. Chapter 22 is a psalm with the heading: 'And David spoke to the LORD the words of this song on the day when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul' (22.1). 23.1-7 is also a psalm. It is described as 'the last words of David' (23.1). The remainder of ch. 23 concerns David's warriors, namely 'the Three' CCfttfn) and 'the Thirty' (D''efrtin). 23.8-23 is a collection of anecdotes about individuals and 23.24-39 is a list of 'the Thirty'. Finally ch. 24 is a narrative account of a census ordered by David and a subsequent plague on the nation, the culmination of which is the erection of an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. Gordon remarks of these chapters, 'Compared with the neatly ligatured narratives of the preceding chapters, 2 Samuel 21-24 is more in the nature of a miscellany of pieces relating to different periods within David's reign' (1984: 95). Although Gordon describes them as 'a miscellany of pieces', chs. 21-24 of 2 Samuel form a self-contained and carefully planned unit. This may be seen in its chiastic structure. There are six individual units in chs. 21-24, and they parallel each other as follows; (a) famine story (21.1-14) (b) warrior stories (21.15-22) (c) psalm (22) (d) psalm (23.1-7) (e) list of mighty men (23.8-39) (f) plague story (24.1-4)

The six units are arranged in three pairs, and the component parts of each pair correspond with each other, both stylistically and thematically.


83

Line (a) corresponds with line (f) stylistically (both are narratives of similar style and length) and thematically (both are disaster stories in which David is of central importance).22 Line (b) corresponds with line (e), stylistically (they are more formal accounts than (a) and (f), incorporating anecdotal and list material) and thematically (they deal with David's warriors, while the king himself is not of central importance). Line (c) corresponds with line (d) in that both are poetic pieces whose composition is attributed to David. Stylistic and thematic links are not so obvious in the two psalms as in the preceding groups. The psalm of ch. 23 is considerably shorter in length than that of ch. 22, but the idea of climax/success and of looking back on past events with satisfaction is present in both. 2 Samuel 21-24 is a compilation that has been deliberately planned, not something that is the result of chance. Its mechanical structure leads to the conclusion that its present order was the work of an editor who arranged the material in this way for a specific reason. Not every scholar has treated the appendix as a unity. Weiser (1961: 162-70), for example, sees six stages in the compilation of the books of Samuel. He regards the two poems of 2 Samuel 22 and 23.1-7 as having been inserted in the final stage of the process, which took place after the deuteronomistic revision of the books. Yet the chiastic structure of the appendix weakens Weiser's view. It reveals that chs. 21-24 must have been incorporated into 2 Samuel as a unit, for it is difficult to think in terms of a four-part chiastic structure that was later expanded with the addition of the two psalms to form a six-part unit. Although the Samuel appendix certainly appears to be a unity, the episodes it includes do not all derive from the same period, but relate to different times during the reign of David. 21.1-14 may record events that took place relatively soon after David assumed control of all Israel. Certainly the complaint of the Gibeonites refers to the period of Saul's rule, therefore it seems most likely that their demands were made not long after David assumed control of all Israel. The account of the 'Giant-Killers' (as Hertzberg [1964] aptly refers to the material in 21.15-22) relates to a much later period in David's reign. Verses 15-17 portray an older king, who is in danger of falling at the hands of the enemy if he leads his troops in battle. 22. Gordon (1984: 95) points out that the link betweep these two accounts is highlighted by the use of Ô'l in 24.1 and by the parallel statements QTI^N ~iniH p^ in 21.14 andptt'? miT "inin 24.25.

84

The Wages of Sin

The psalm of ch. 22 claims to come from a fairly early period in David's reign. It states: 'And David spoke to the LORD, the words of this song on the day when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul' (22.1). Here *7)NIZ7 ^DQl probably indicates a period not long after David's accession to the throne of all Israel. The psalm in 23.1-7, on the other hand, is entitled 'the last words of David ben Jesse' (23.1) and therefore is set at the very end of his reign. Chapter 23.8-29 seems to belong to an early period in David's life, for the anecdotes of vv. 9-17 are set during the struggle with the Philistines (cf. 2 Sam. 8.1). Some commentators have pointed out (e.g. McKane 1963: 296; Hertzberg 1964: 408) that the list in vv. 24-39 is fairly early, for Asahel the brother of Joab (v. 24) and Uriah the Hittite (v. 39) are both listed. Moreover 1 Chronicles 11 preserves the same list, but adds a further sixteen names. Indeed McCarter (1984: 501) wants to date it before David assumed control of the northern territory, suggesting that it belongs to the period of his rule in Hebron or perhaps even earlier. Chapter 24 gives no clear indications as to how it should be dated. Several scholars see a link between this episode and the building of the Temple by Solomon, chiefly on the basis of the parallel account in 1 Chron. 21.1-22.1. For example, Bentzen (1959: 94) suggests that it originally came after 2 Samuel 6 because although David was forbidden to erect a Temple for the Ark (ch. 7), he was permitted to acquire the site for the Temple and to build an altar on it (ch. 24). However in the Chronicler's version of this event, David says, 'Here shall be the house of the LORD God and here the altar of burnt offering for Israel' (1 Chron. 22.1) but no such claim is made in 2 Samuel 24, where the threshing floor is acquired simply to avert the plague. It is possible that there may be an indication of dating in that it is 'the prophet Gad, David's seer' (24.11), and not Nathan, who features in this narrative. Gad is first mentioned in 1 Sam. 22.5, when he appears to have accompanied David as he fled from Saul. He may have been a predecessor of Nathan, for the latter features in 1 Kings 1, which relates to the very end of David's life. The events recorded in 2 Samuel 24 could then belong chronologically before those of 2 Samuel 7, where Nathan first appears. However the presence of Gad in 2 Samuel 24 could equally imply that Nathan and Gad were contemporaries and it is impossible to be certain as to the date of this episode. Thus three of the units in the Samuel appendix belong early in


85

David's reign (21.1-4; 22; 23.18-29) and two belong to a much later period (21.15-22; 23.1-7). In contrast with chs. 1-9, 2 Samuel 21-24 contains a collection of material that is not chronological or continuous and that spans the entire length of David's reign. The Relationship of 2 Samuel 10-20 to 2 Samuel as a Whole What then is the role of 2 Samuel 10-20 within the book as a whole? It appears that 2 Samuel is broadly composed of three sections or blocks of material, namely chs. 1-9, 10-20 and 21-24. Chapters 10-20 is then the central section of the book in terms of structure. However its importance is more far-reaching than this. In contrast with both chs. 1-9 and 21-24, its unity, independence, continuity and theme are highly developed and these features cause it to stand out from the rest of the book.23 2 Samuel is set in the reign of David and the book in its entirety is concerned with the reign of David. In many ways the early chapters (19) build up to 2 Samuel 10-20. Chapters 1-9 begin with the death of Saul and present a chronological account of David's early years as king until his position has been firmly established. This is symbolized by his display of ion to the son of Jonathan, an action only carried out when David has subdued all his enemies (cf. 1 Sam. 20.15-16)—David's last initial duty. 2 Samuel 10-20, on the other hand, is set in the middle years of David's reign when his rule has been firmly established, but before old age has set in (cf. 1 Kgs 1). It is self-contained and follows a distinct theme, upon which its structure is based.24 Finally, the appendix rounds off the book with its collection of stories, anecdotes, lists and psalms relating to different periods throughout the reign of David. Thus not only is 2 Samuel 10-20 the central section of the book, but it also forms the apex of the book, both in terms of structure and content. Chapters 1-9 build up to this central section and the appendix rounds off the book, with its chiastic structure and its references to the latter years of David's life (21.15-17) and to his death (23.1). It would appear then that 2 Samuel 1-9 and 21-24 are in fact some form of framework for the central section of the book, that is chs. 10-20. This is reinforced by the fact that whereas chs. 10-20 are the product 23. These issues will be considered in detail in Part II of this work, but some of the conclusions will be anticipated here. 24. Although I have reduced the extent of what is commonly thought of as SN, I will maintain that it is in fact a self-contained unity, and will seek to demonstrate this in Chapter 4. However for the moment its independent status will be assumed.

86

The Wages of Sin

of a single writer,25 there is no indication of common authorship in either chs. 1-9 or the appendix. As has been demonstrated, the six portions of the Samuel appendix all derive from different periods of David's reign. So too their style is so diverse that common authorship is not a viable suggestion. Similar considerations apply with the early chapters. Chapter 8 probably comes from official annals or military records, while ch. 7 is almost always taken as an independent composition within 2 Samuel.26 2 Samuel 6 is often regarded as belonging with the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel 4-6,27 although some recent writers have contested this view.28 Some lists are likely to have been taken from official sources, namely, 3.2-5 (David's sons born in Hebron); 5.13-16 (sons born in Jerusalem); and 8.15-18 (royal officials). Thus, like the appendix (which may best be described as a 'collection' rather than a 'composition'), 2 Samuel 1-9 shows some sign of having been compiled from various sources. Yet despite the possible variety of authorship in these chapters, 2 Samuel displays signs of unity. As began to emerge from the discussion of 2 Samuel 9 above, this chapter is not alone within 2 Samuel in its interest in the Saulides.29 Rost linked ch. 9 with 2 Sam. 16.1-4 and 19.25-30 on the basis of this theme, but other scholars have highlighted links with other sections of the book. Budde proposed that 2 Sam. 21.1-14 (the account of the revenge of the Gibeonites on Saul's family) belonged with the story of Mephibosheth in ch. 9. He argued that the question 'Is there still any one left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan's sake?' (9.1) could only have been asked if the events of 21.14 had already taken place. Thus he held that this account must have originally preceded ch. 9. Several scholars have followed Budde in this, 25. See below, Chapter 4. 26. See below, pp. 97-99, 27. Rost (1982: 6-34) was chiefly responsible for the promulgation of this idea. It would be true to say that most scholars have followed him in taking 2 Sam. 6 with 1 Sam. 4-6. See Campbell (1975: 12-54) for an analysis of the approach of scholarship prior to Rost and a summary of subsequent writing on the Ark Narrative. 28. Schicklberger (1973: 129-49), Miller and Roberts (1977: 22-26) and McCarter (1980: 23-26; 1984: 182-84) argue that 2 Sam. 6 is not part of the Ark Narrative. 29. It has been noted above that both Carlson (in the context of 2 Sam. 6) and Gunn (in arguing for the inclusion of 2 Sam. 2-4 in SN) have remarked upon the presence of a Saulide strand in the book.


87

among whom are Carlson (1964) and McCarter (1981, 1984). Indeed McCarter regards 2 Samuel 9 and 21.1-14 as having comprised an independent document which sought to exonerate David from blame for the execution of the seven Saulides by highlighting his treatment of Mephibosheth.30 Others see a link between ch. 9 and ens. 2-4 of 2 Samuel. For example, Schulte (1972), Gunn (1978), Sacon (1982) and Van Seters (1983) all include 2 Samuel 2-4- in SN.31 Again David's question in 9.1 is taken to be significant. Gunn thinks that this question need not presuppose the death of a large number of Saul's descendants (as in 21.114), but that it 'basically requires as an antecedent...an account of the death of any surviving Saulides of public or political standing' (1978: 68). He argues that it was the death of Ishbosheth in 2 Samuel 4 that gave rise to David's enquiry, thus linking chs. 2-4 with the story of Mephibosheth. The links between these passages tend to be interpreted as revealing compositional unity, with individual scholars arguing for a link between ch. 9 and either 21.1-14 or chs. 2-4. In the context of 2 Samuel as a whole, however, several members of Saul's family feature in various places. The book begins with the deaths of Saul and Jonathan in ch. 1; then follows the Ishbosheth material in chs. 2-4; Michal features in ch. 6; Mephibosheth in ch. 9; Ziba, Shimei and Mephibosheth appear in the account of Absalom's revolt; and finally the famine story centres on the fate of the seven Saulides in ch. 21. It is remarkable that each of these episodes is not concerned with the respective members of Saul's family for their own sake. Rather the focus of attention is on the relationship between David and the Saulide(s) in question. 2 Samuel 1 gives David's reactions to the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, which is demonstrated in his punishment of the Amalekite and in the elegy attributed to him in vv. 17-27. Chapters 2-4 concern the power struggle between David and Ishbosheth/Eshbaal, Saul's son. 6.16, 20-23 offers an insight into the marriage of David and Michal, 30. Another pointer that has influenced the argument of Budde, et al. is that the Benjaminite Shimei calls David, 'you man of blood' (16.7). The suggestion here is that Shimei accuses David of complicity in the decimation of Saul's family and that it refers to the events of 2 Sam. 21.1-14. 31. Of these scholars however, only Sacon retains the title SN. Schulte calls the work Die David-Geschichten, Gunn adopts the title 'Story of King David' and Van Seters reverts to the older appellation, 'Court History'.

88

The Wages of Sin

Saul's daughter. Chapter 9 gives an account of David's dealings with Mephibosheth/Meribaal, the grandson of Saul. 16.1-4 and 19.25-31 concern David's division of Mephibosheth's estate. 16.5-13 and 19.16-23 record the latent hostility of Saul's clan for David, as demonstrated in Shimei ben Gera's cursing. 21.1-14 offers an explanation of the role and motives of David in the hanging of the descendants of Saul. Here is a theme that runs right through 2 Samuel, transecting the three major divisions of the book. It is found in the early chapters, in chs. 10-20 and in the Samuel appendix. However this theme does not encompass the whole book. For instance chs. 5-8, the bulk of 10-20 and most of the appendix bear no relation to it whatsoever. Rather it appears and reappears in various places throughout the text. Thus it is not the 'main theme' of 2 Samuel. (Its main theme is the reign of David). Rather it is a minor theme, or linking motif, which pervades the whole text. The theme of Saul's family emphasizes that 2 Samuel in its entirety is an editorial unity, as has already been implied in the suggestion that chs. 1-9 and 21-24 form a framework for the nucleus of the book (chs. 10-20). The theme of Saul's family in 2 Samuel symbolizes the transition of power from Saul to David for it consistently portrays David in the dominant role. Further it provides a fitting contrast for chs. 10-20, in which various members of David's family (namely Bathsheba, her children, Amnon, Tamar and Absalom) also feature. If the rest of 2 Samuel is a framework for 2 Samuel 10-20, then the central section must be a later composition than the framework that surrounds it. 2 Samuel 1-9 and 21-24 must therefore have been in existence before 2 Samuel 10-20 was written. The use of the phrase p'-inK sm in 2 Samuel 10-20 lends support to this view. Each of the major divisions of chs. 10-20 begins with p"nnN TH.32 Although a new section may begin with the waw consecutive, this phrase implies a certain degree of continuity with the preceding material. There seems therefore to be some literary dependence here. It is my suggestion that although it is a self-contained document, composed by a single author, 2 Samuel 10-20 never had an independent existence, but was transmitted with the rest of the book from its initial composition. It seems likely then that it was the author of chs. 10-20 who was the compiler of the framework. He would appear to have compiled chs. 1-9 and 21-24 from accounts about the reign of David which were already 32. P. 80.


89

in existence and used them as a framework for his own composition. Hence right from the beginning, 2 Samuel 10-20 was linked with the stories about King David contained in 2 Samuel 1-9 and 21-24, which were already in circulation at the time of its composition. One objection that could be made to this suggestion is that of Gunn (1978) and those who count 2 Samuel 2-4 with SN. For if chs. 2-4 were to be isolated from the rest of 2 Samuel 1-9, then the idea of 2 Samuel as a three-part volume would effectively be demolished. However Gunn's view does not take into proper consideration the structure of 2 Samuel. When chs. 1-9 are taken together as a unit, a definite pattern emerges: the story of David's consolidation of power is told from beginning to end. Chapters 2-4 fit properly into place with ch. 1 and chs. 5-9 in telling this story and cannot be separated from the rest of the material. A further objection that could be raised concerns the link sometimes made between 2 Samuel 1-8 and the history of David's rise. If any or all of this material is part of the history of David's rise, it could not have been compiled by the author of 2 Samuel 10-20 as part of a framework for his own composition. Rost (1926) was instrumental in isolating the history of David's rise, seeing it as an independent narrative, like the Ark Narrative and SN. He viewed it as comprising several fragments found between 1 Sam. 23.1 and 2 Sam. 5.10. Later scholars have generally seen it as a more substantial entity and have placed its beginning further back than 1 Samuel 23. In more recent works, Ward (1967) for example, placed its starting point at 1 Sam. 16.14, while Weiser (1966) saw it as beginning at 1 Sam. 16.1 and Gr0nbaek (1971) and Mettinger (1976) both traced it back to 1 Sam. 15.1. Weiser also extends the limit of the history of David's rise beyond Rost's ending in 2 Sam. 5.10. He includes 2 Samuel 7 (Nathan's oracle), while Mettinger also regards the source as having included at least some form of this oracle. Gordon finds the issue of the history of David's rise in general problematic because of the difficulty in defining its extent. He states, 'It certainly must remain an embarrassment to the theory that the boundary limits of the narrative are so fluid in scholarly discussion' (1986: 37). Further he comments, 'If a narrative has a distinct literary and thematic integrity of its own, then we should not expect that distinctiveness to wear so thin near the edges' (1986: 38). Indeed Gunn is able to argue that these chapters belong to SN without any reference to the history of

90

The Wages of Sin

David's rise.33 If this can be done, then serious doubts must be cast on the very existence of this source. A continuous narrative thread has been demonstrated in 2 Samuel 1-9, which displays a well-ordered structure. The history of David's rise, however, is difficult to define and its only indication of unity is the theme of David's rise. Indeed the whole idea of a 'history of David's rise' as a source for the books of Samuel is far from being indisputable and it does not present an overwhelming barrier to the understanding of the early chapters of 2 Samuel proposed here. The theme of 2 Samuel 1-9 is David's consolidation of power, which differs markedly from the theme of David's rise. After his introduction in 1 Samuel 16, the text of 1 Samuel concentrates on the rise of David. His rise is directly contrasted with Saul's fall. This is highlighted, for example, by Gunn (1980: 123) and McCarter (1980: 28), who indicate a transition in 1 Samuel from Saul (the people's king) to David (Yahweh's king), for while David gains Yahweh's favour, Saul merits his displeasure. The contrast between the two men comes to an end with the death of Saul. After Saul's death David's assumption of power is no longer in question. It is simply a matter of when, not if, he will be recognized as king, and of his putting down the last remnants of opposition to his rule, both internal and external. In 1 Samuel the only barrier to David's becoming king is Saul, and with his death this barrier is removed. So too is the theme of contrast between David and Saul. Thus with 1 Samuel 31, his rise is effectively complete and his consolidation of power may now begin. Thus David's rise to power features only in 1 Samuel, for with 2 Samuel he begins his reign. Certainly there is a similarity between the story of David in 1 Samuel 16-31 and that in 2 Samuel 1-9, in that 2 Samuel 3~4 is at pains to portray David as free from any blame for the deaths of Abner and Ishbosheth. This is reminiscent of the depiction of David in 1 Samuel, where it is made explicitly clear that he played no part in Saul's downfall. Yet this is not necessarily an indication of the author's style. It could simply be that David was ignorant of Joab's intentions in 1 Samuel 3 and that he set out to make this clear to Israel and Judah alike after Abner's death. Indeed Gunn (1978) sees no difficulty in separating 2 Samuel 2-4 from the account of David's rise. There is no need to take any of this material with the history of David's rise. It has much stronger links with 2 Samuel than with 1 Samuel. This becomes even 33. Gordon (1986: 38) also draws attention to this point.


91

more apparent when one appreciates that in its present setting 2 Samuel 1-9 functions primarily as a build-up to, and a framework for, 2 Samuel 10-20. The similarity between 2 Samuel 1-9 and the story of the rivalry between Saul and David in 1 Samuel 16-31, however, should not be undermined. The final form of the books certainly preserves a strong sense of continuity between the end of 1 Samuel and the beginning of 2 Samuel. Rather it should be appreciated that the main interest of 2 Samuel 1-9 is the reign of David and as such it belongs firmly with the material that follows it in 2 Samuel. On the other hand 1 Samuel 16-31 is concerned with the rise of David and belongs with and follows on from the accounts of the institution of the monarchy and the reign of Saul that precede it. The Relationship between 1 and 2 Samuel This then leads to the question of the relationship between 1 and 2 Samuel. If 2 Samuel is the compilation of a single editor, its relationship to 1 Samuel must be ascertained. This question is especially pertinent in consideration of the fact that 1 and 2 Samuel were originally transmitted together. The division into two books was first made in the Septuagint translation, but only appeared in the Hebrew text in a manuscript of CE 1448, subsequent to which it was introduced with the printing of the Bomberg Bible in 1516-17. 1 Samuel 1-15 begins in the pre-monarchical period. Its two major characters are Samuel (who dominates chs. 1-8) and Saul (who is introduced in ch. 9). Its chief interest is the establishment of monarchical rule, various accounts of which are contained in chs. 8-12. The prominence of Samuel may be accounted for by his role in the institution of the monarchy. It is he who anoints both Saul (10.1) and David (16.13). As for Saul, Gunn (1980) concludes that Saul is destined to failure almost from the start. There are two accounts in which he is rejected as king by Yahweh. The first (13.2-15) follows on immediately from the formal announcement of the beginning of his reign (13.1). The second (ch. 15) immediately precedes the account of the anointing of David, so that with the beginning of ch. 16, there is an abrupt shift of interest from the reign of Saul to the rise of David. The primary purpose of 1 Samuel 1-15 is to provide a record of the administration of Samuel and Saul and of the institution of the monarchy, but when viewed in its wider context of 1 and 2 Samuel as a whole,

92

The Wages of Sin

it also serves another function. 1 Samuel 16-2 Samuel 24 is concerned with the rise and reign of David, and these David narratives are placed in their historical and political context by 1 Samuel 1-15. Thus as well as recording important historical events, 1 Samuel 1-15 provides a background for the David narratives of 1 Samuel 16-2 Samuel 24. Much of 1 Samuel is centred around the character of David.34 From ch. 16 (David's anointing by the prophet Samuel) to ch. 31 (Saul's death), the interest of the text is in tracing David's rising popularity in the face of Saul's continuing decline. The abrupt change of emphasis after the second rejection of Saul in 1 Samuel 15 may be seen clearly in the text, for 1 Sam. 16.1 begins: The LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you grieve over Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons.'" Thus the opening words of this chapter direct attention finally away from Saul and towards David. Indeed they serve as an indication that the narrative is no longer interested in the reign of Saul, but in the rise of David. The impression that the account of David's rise to power finishes at the end of 1 Samuel is reinforced by the juxtaposition of 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1, which both relate the death of Saul in the battle against the Philistines.35 The former describes the events in narrative fashion, but the latter focuses on David's attitude to Saul's death.36 Thus 1 Samuel 31 rounds off the story of David's rise and Saul's decline (1 Sam. 16-31), while 2 Samuel 1 begins a new section by portraying David exercising the authority of a king.37 Also significant in this respect 34. Cf. Chapter 2, pp. 51-54. 35. There are, however, certain major differences between the two accounts of Saul's death. In 1 Sam. 31, Saul is wounded by archers (v. 3) and takes his own life (v. 4), while his three sons die with him (v. 6). In 2 Sam. 1, Saul was in danger of falling foul of the Philistine charioteers (v. 6) and was killed by the Amalekite (v. 10), while only Jonathan is said to have died with him (v. 4). It is often argued that the reason for these differences is that the Amalekite had fabricated his story (see, for example, Hertzberg 1964: 237; McCarter 1984: 62-64; Gordon 1986: 208). Against this view, see H.P. Smith 1899: 254. 36. Eissfeldt also sees 2 Sam.l as an account of 'the effect upon David of the report of the death of Saul and his sons' (1965: 275). 37. 2 Sam. 1 is variously connected with either the preceding or the following material. For example McCarter (1984: 61) and Gordon (1986: 207-12) take it as belonging with what follows; H.P. Smith (1899: xxii-xxvi), McKane (1963: 105-81) and Hertzberg (1964: 236) see it as bringing the preceding section to a close.


93

is the fact that the symbols of Saul's kingship (the crown and armlet, v. 10) are presented to him by the Amalekite, thus symbolizing the transfer of power to David in the eyes of the people. Once Saul is dead, the general populace look to David as his successor. There is also an undeniable sense of continuity between 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 1. The idea of the inviolability of Yahweh's anointed, which threads through the story of David's rise, continues into 2 Samuel 1. Here the Amalekite is executed for daring to harm Saul, the anointed king (v. 16). Thus in many ways 2 Samuel 1 serves the purpose of linking the story of David's reign with what has gone before.38 The structure of Samuel should be analysed as follows: 1 Samuel: David's Rise 1.

1-15

2.

16-31

Background Samuel's administration, the institution of the monarchy and the rule of Saul prepare the way for David's passage to the throne. Rise of David David's rise to power and the end of Saul's reign: preparation for kingship.

2 Samuel: David's Reign 3a. 1-9

4.

10-20

3b. 21-24

Consolidation of Power From the death of Saul until David's rule is firmly established. David's Reign The middle years of David's rule. Appendix Collection of material relating to various periods of David's reign.

A definite structural and thematic link may be observed between 1 and 2 Samuel, which follow the career of David from its earliest background (1 Sam. 1-15) to the end of his reign (2 Sam. 23.1-7). McKane's approach to the structure of Samuel is interesting in this 38. Mauchline (1971: 196) regards 2 Sam. 1 as a transitional passage. However he contends that David's reign can only begin at 2 Sam. 2.4, when he is anointed king of Judah.

94

The Wages of Sin

respect. He emphasizes the centrality of SN for Samuel as a whole. I have argued that 2 Samuel 10-20 is the core of 2 Samuel, but, following Bentzen (1959), McKane views SN as the core of both books and argues that the remainder of 1 and 2 Samuel is arranged around it. He states, The Narrative of Succession is the centre of the Book of Samuel and the other parts, however heterogeneous in origin, cluster around this nucleus' (1963: 29). He views all the material outside SN, not only in 2 Samuel but in 1 Samuel also, as leading up to and preparing the way for this narrative. McKane's view, however, is tempered by his understanding of succession as the theme of SN. He sees the overall interest of 1 and 2 Samuel as the foundation of the monarchy, in that the books begin with the institution of the office of king and end with the establishment of David's dynasty in hereditary succession. It has been demonstrated above that the central section of 2 Samuel is not concerned with the succession to the throne, but with King David himself39 and that the whole of 2 Samuel is built around the theme of the reign of David and not on the question of the succession. McKane sees the purpose of Samuel in terms of the establishment and continuation of the monarchy. In fact this question is dispensed with early in 1 Samuel and the text concentrates more on the person of David and his career than on the institution of the monarchy. The fact that 2 Samuel is a unit in itself makes it seem likely, in view of its sense of continuation with 1 Samuel, that there are two blocks that have been brought together by a redactor at some point. It would seem then that 2 Samuel has been added to the previous material.40 That this is the case and not vice versa may be illustrated in that 2 Samuel reveals a certain dependence upon 1 Samuel. It assumes such facts as the rivalry between David and Saul (2 Sam. 22.1), the marriage of David and Michal, the strange dowry paid for her, her subsequent marriage to Paltiel (2 Sam. 2.14-15; 1 Sam. 18.20-27; 25.44) and the presence of the Ark in the house of Abinadab (2 Sam. 6.3; 1 Sam. 7.1).41 These could 39. See above, Chapter 2, pp. 43-54. 40. The precise extent of 1 Samuel at this time need not concern us here, for it has been subject to more editorial activity than has 2 Samuel. Let it suffice to say that it was in substantially its present form when the story of David's reign was linked with it. 41. Note that 1 Sam. 7.1 states that the house of Abinadab was in Kiriathjearim, while 2 Sam. 6.2 places it in Baalah of Judah. However, according to


95

be explained away in that the dependence need not necessarily be literary, provided 1 Samuel contains an accurate record of historical events. Yet the dependence of 2 Samuel 9 on 1 Samuel 2042 is certainly a strictly literary dependence. Both thematic and linguistic parallels are found between the two, revealing that 2 Samuel 9 was based directly upon the account of the covenant between David and Jonathan. This strongly suggests that the compilation of 2 Samuel took place after 1 Samuel substantially reached its present form and supports the view that 2 Samuel was added to the already existing 1 Samuel. Yet who was responsible for incorporating the story of David's reign into the earlier material? If a single editor was responsible for the composition of 2 Samuel 10-20 and compilation of the rest of the book, the natural implication is that this author/compiler joined his own work to the accounts of the institution of the monarchy and the rise of David (1 Samuel). Indeed in view of the continuation of the narrative between 1 and 2 Samuel and the close links between the two, it is quite possible that the compiler of 2 Samuel may also have been responsible for the compilation of much of 1 Samuel in its pre-deuteronomistic form. If the author of 2 Samuel 10-20 had an extensive role in the compilation of Samuel, one must ask what part was played by the Deuteronomistic Redactor in the formulation of this material. Noth sees the Deuteronomist as having played a relatively small role in the literary history of 1 and 2 Samuel. He believes that 'Dtr. had access to an extensive collection of Saul-David traditions compiled long before Dtr. from different elements' and therefore argues that the existence of this traditional material absolved Dtr. from the need to organise and construct the narrative himself. Once he has stated his fundamental position on the institution of the monarchy in no uncertain terms (1 Sam. 8-12), he has little need to interpose in the traditional account his own judgements and interpretations (1981: 54).

This view coincides perfectly with the approach to 1 and 2 Samuel advocated here. It has also been argued that 'an extensive collection of Saul-David traditions' existed prior to the writing of the Deuteronomistic History. Thus there would have been little need for the Deuteronomistic Historian to have reworked the earlier material. This 1 Chron. 13.6, Baalah is another name for Kiriath-jearim (cf. also Josh. 15.9). 42. See above, pp. 77-78, for a discussion of the links between 2 Sam. 9 and the covenantal relationship between David and Jonathan.

96

The Wages of Sin

accords with the position of Noth. The only points of disagreement would be on the shape of these traditions43 and on the absence of the Samuel appendix from these.44 Most scholars agree that in comparison with, for example, Judges or Kings, 2 Samuel (and especially SN) shows little sign of deuteronomistic interpolation.45 Only Carlson (1964) is at variance with this in finding evidence of widespread deuteronomistic activity in 2 Samuel. However his conclusions are based on his traditio-historical approach to the text and have found little or no support from other commentators. Rather it seems that 2 Samuel (that is chs. 10-20 and their framework) essentially was already in its present form at the time of the deuteronomistic redaction and that it had also been linked with the earlier Saul-David traditions (the present 1 Samuel) before this time. The Deuteronomist used this combined material in order to supply history of the early monarchy and of the reigns of Saul and David. There are portions of 2 Samuel that are normally assigned to the Deuteronomist. Noth sees evidence of deuteronomistic activity in the formulaic introductions to the reigns of Ishbosheth (2.10a-l 1) and David (5.4-5).46 He also credits S.laa, 14b, 15-18 to the Deuteronomist, together with the list of David's officials in 20.23-26. These passages present no problems for the interpretation of the compilation of 2 Samuel presented here, for this hypothesis does not preclude the possibility of deuteronomistic interpolation on a small scale. It is my contention that the work was compiled virtually in its present form by the author of chs. 10-20. The proposed deuteronomistic additions in chs. 2, 43. Noth defines these traditions as old Saul material (1 Sam. 9.1-10.16; 10.27b-11.15; 13-14; together with 15 and 16.1-13, which were added later); the history of David's rise (1 Sam. 16.14-2 Sam. 5.25); and the succession story (1 Sam. 4.1b-7.1; 2 Sam. 6-7; 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2), including the Ark Narrative, into which the beginning of SN was integrated (cf. Rost 1982: 87-90). However I have suggested that 2 Samuel had reached virtually its present form before the time of the deuteronomistic redaction. 44. He argues that the material contained in the appendix was gradually added after the division of the Deuteronomistic History into separate books (i.e. after the division of 2 Sam. and 1 Kgs). However I have attempted to demonstrate that 2 Sam. 21-24 formed part of the framework to 2 Samuel from the time of the composition of chs. 10-20. 45. See, for example, McCarter 1984: 5; and Gordon 1984: 18. 46. He also took the formula introducing the reign of Saul in 1 Sam. 13.1 as deuteronomistic.


97

5, 8 and 20 do not alter the tenor or the subject matter of the material. Noth also held that the Deuteronomistic Historian rearranged the end of the history of David's rise47 and compiled 8.1ab-14a from official sources. Yet 2 Samuel 1-9 reveals a thematic and structural continuity which points directly to the work of a single editor (i.e. the writer of chs. 10-20) and to a compilation predating the deuteronomistic period. A more serious objection to this assessment of the compilation of 2 Samuel may arise from the question of the literary history of 2 Samuel 7. Rost examined this chapter. His conclusions were fairly closely followed by Noth (1981) and have since been widely accepted. In this scheme, 2 Samuel 7 is seen as an independent narrative source within Samuel, which has been subject to extensive redactional activity. The original form of the text is taken as having comprised 2 Sam. 7.1-7, 1 Ib, 16, 18-21, 25-29, of which vv. lib and 16 are the earliest, possibly dating back to the reign of David.48 This document was subsequently enlarged by the addition of vv. 8-17 some time before the Deuteronomist. To the text that he inherited, the Deuteronomist added v. 13a, which narrowed the command not to build a temple to a particular time (i.e. the reign of David).49 He also added vv. 22-24 to relate the dynastic promise to the past and not to the future, thus revising the material in the light of the exile. Other deuteronomistic portions are vv. Ib, 7a, 1 la, 12b/13b.50 Thus the chapter would have been subject to at least three redactional stages, reaching its final form only at the time of the Deuteronomist. Mowinckel (1963) strongly criticizes Rost's approach to 2 Samuel 7.51 He argues that the chapter is a unity, based on his interpretation of it as reflecting the liturgy that was repeated at the New Year Festival. Other scholars, however, have tended not to agree, most seeing its unity as having been imposed on 2 Samuel 7 by a final editor, rather than by a single author. Hence, the difficulty with the suggestion that 2 Samuel 1-9 was 47. He argued that 5.1-3 was originally followed by vv. 17-25. 48. Rost included vv. 1 Ib and 16 in SN, as has been seen. 49. Thus the pre-deuteronomistic text is seen as having prohibited the building of any temple and the Deuteronomist as having altered this to legitimize the building of the Jerusalem temple by Solomon. 50. Rost took v. 13b as deuteronomistic, whereas Noth held that v. 12b was the deuteronomistic introduction to v. 13a. 51. See above, pp. 73-74.

98

The Wages of Sin

compiled by the author of chs. 10-20 is that the majority of commentators see evidence of deuteronomistic compilation in ch. 7. However this is not necessarily an obstacle to viewing the literary history of the book as a whole. It is indeed possible (as stated above) that there was some deuteronomistic interpolation in the text. If this chapter did go through several stages of development, the original compiler may have included an earlier form of 2 Samuel 7 in his work and this may subsequently have been expanded by the Deuteronomist. This view largely coincides with the approach of Rost, who argued that 7.1 Ib and 16 are the oldest portions of the chapter and that these were part of SN. However, Carlson (1964: 105) argues that it is not possible to separate the predeuteronomistic form from the present text with any degree of certainty. Therefore it may be best to leave open the question of the extent of the document used by the pre-deuteronomistic compiler, in order to avoid the complications arising from an issue that is largely outside the scope of the present work. With regard to the place of 2 Samuel 7 in the Deuteronomistic History, McCarter (1984: 217-20) points out the significance of the theology underlying Nathan's oracle for the Deuteronomistic History as a whole. He highlights the references to the central sanctuary, the idea of 'rest' for Israel and the establishment of the Davidic dynasty. Indeed there is a growing trend to regard 2 Samuel 7 as having a central position within the work of the Deuteronomist.52 How does this idea relate to the view of the composition and structure of 2 Samuel expressed here? Essentially it does not affect the argument. It has been conceded that the text of Nathan's oracle used by the compiler of 2 Samuel could have been expanded by the Deuteronomistic Historian. Therefore if the chapter is to be seen as having a pivotal position in the Deuteronomistic History, then this must be seen as its secondary function, resulting from the deuteronomistic revision of the material. Its primary function in the context of Samuel is, together with 2 Samuel 6, to provide a record of David's initial actions with regard to religious affairs on becoming king of all Israel.

52. McCarter draws attention to the works of McCarthy (1965), Cross (1973: 241-64, 274-89), Veijola (1975: 72-78) and Mettinger (1976: 48-63), who all argue for the central importance of 2 Sam. 7 for the Deuteronomistic History.


99

Summary The findings of this chapter may be summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3.

4.

5.

The full extent of the (so-called) SN is 2 Samuel 10-20. This unit is the nucleus of 2 Samuel and the rest of the book forms a framework around it. The framework was compiled by the author of 2 Samuel 1020, who juxtaposed this work with the earlier Samuel-SaulDavid material. This larger work was available to the Deuteronomistic Historian and consequently was used by him to supply a record of the early monarchy and the career of David. Deuteronomistic activity in 2 Samuel was limited because of the comprehensive nature of this source material, evidence of this activity possibly being found in the addition of 2 Sam. 2.10a-ll; 5.4-5; S.laa, 14b, 15-18; 20.23-26 and in the expansion of ch. 7.


Part II 2 SAMUEL 10-20

Chapter 4 THE UNITY OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20 The realization that the (so-called) SN is somewhat shorter than is generally recognized gives rise to other questions concerning the work. Perhaps the most important of these relates to its unity. 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 is commonly regarded as a self-contained narrative unit which has come from the pen of a single author. Yet three chapters (2 Sam. 9; 1 Kgs 1-2) have been eliminated from this 'unity', thus dispensing with what amounts to a large percentage of the whole.1 The question must then be posed: can what remains still be considered as a unity in the same terms as Rost regarded SN a unity? Thematic Unity of 2 Samuel 10-20 Arguably the most significant aspect of Rost's hypothesis was his view of the unity of SN. Yet this unity has seldom since been justified or defended—it is simply taken for granted by most commentators. There are recent scholars, however, who have called this view into question. One such is Ackroyd (1981), who has raised the issue of the existence and uniformity of SN. Ackroyd thinks that there are several 'unquestioned assumptions' that result in the reading of SN being too restricted and too inflexible. He raises questions that are most often overlooked—questions whose answers are simply assumed by the vast majority of scholars.2 He asks if it is really justifiable to regard the SN as an independent unit, or indeed if it is justifiable to separate any group of chapters from within a larger work in order to treat them as an entity in themselves. He asks if the 1. In terms of volume, 2 Sam. 9, 1 Kgs 1-2 make up some 23% of Rost's SN. There are 755 lines in 2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2 in BHS, of which 181 lines are contained in 2 Sam. 9 and 1 Kgs 1-2. 2. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 34-36.

4. The Unity of 2 Samuel 10-20

103

delimitation of SN is warranted and if it can really be seen to have a single unifying purpose. Ackroyd maintains that the form and style of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 make these chapters 'among the most vivid and readable in the Old Testament' (1981: 383). Yet he argues that contrary to the impression conveyed by modern scholarship, the independence and self-sufficiency of this material is not immediately obvious. He points out that the unity and indeed the very existence of SN is simply assumed and almost never subjected to critical examination. Therefore he thinks that further investigation is imperative. Basically Ackroyd's reservations stem from difficulties inherent in the text, and particularly from the uncertainty that he perceives regarding its delimitation. He indicates that its subject matter is not unique in biblical literature—that the story of David's reign begins as far back as 1 Samuel 16 and comes to an end with his death in 2.10, some 36 verses before the end of SN. Thus its content does not mark it off as an independent block. He remarks that there are problems with both the beginning and ending of the narrative. He illustrates this with reference to two scholars, Holscher (1952) and Mowinckel (1963). They accept the SN hypothesis as promulgated by Rost, but give varying accounts of its extent. Mowinckel does not include 1 Kings 1-2 in SN. He sees it as the beginning of a new section, which has no obvious links with the preceding material. He also finds difficulty with the inclusion of any part of 2 Samuel 6 or 7 in SN.3 Holscher, on the other hand, not only includes 1 Kings 1 and 2, but also sections of 1 Kings 3 and 12. Ackroyd draws attention to the contrasting views of these two scholars, illustrating the divergence of opinion possible within the context of the SN hypothesis. He also highlights the links between 2 Samuel 9 and 2 Sam. 4.4; 21.1-14, which are generally regarded4 as falling outside the boundaries of SN.5 Thus he raises a question mark not only over the extent of SN, but also over the wisdom of isolating any portion of a 3. It has been demonstrated that Mowinckel is by no means alone in this respect, for many scholars who accept Rost's position reject the suggestion that the beginning of the narrative is to be found in 2 Sam. 6. 4. However compare the views of Gunn (1978) who is the main exception in including 2 Sam. 2-4 with 2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2. 5. I have already argued (Chapter 3, pp. 74-81) that 2 Sam. 9 does not form part of SN. I have also suggested that the links between it and 2 Sam. 16.1-14; 19.24-30 are the result of 2 Sam. 1-9 and 21-24 having been used to form a framework for chs. 10-20.

104

The Wages of Sin

larger whole. He asks if it is really legitimate to separate one section of Samuel, or even one section of the Deuteronomistic History, and to treat it as if it were an isolated document. The main thrust of Ackroyd's article is to highlight the state of 'critical orthodoxy' that he perceives has developed around SN. Unquestioned assumptions are a stumbling block not only in biblical scholarship, but in any field. He underlines the fact that the SN hypothesis is merely a hypothesis. This is often forgotten because Rost's ideas have gained such a large following. The conjectural nature of his views has become increasingly underemphasized or overlooked. Yet even a universally-accepted hypothesis must remain a hypothesis unless some tangible evidence can change its status. Ackroyd's criticism, however, does not apply only to questions such as the extent and the theme of SN, but extends even to the most basic level of the SN theory. I have argued that the (so-called) SN consists of 2 Samuel 10-20. Yet can 2 Samuel 10-20 be legitimately viewed as an independent unity, or should it be seen merely as part of a larger whole? In other words, does SN really exist? Are these chapters a unity? Or is one simply following Rost unquestioningly by seeing them as anything more than several consecutive chapters within 2 Samuel and the Deuteronomistic History? Ackroyd is not alone in questioning SN at such a basic level, for Gordon, also influenced by the fluidity of its boundaries, expresses some reservation regarding its relationship to the larger whole. He states, 'As with the "History of David's Rise", the mere fact that the "Succession Narrative" is capable of such expansion and contraction would seem to be a major obstacle to its recognition as a once-independent narrative' (1986: 42). Indeed dissenting views on the unity of SN have been offered by various scholars. Rost was not the first to formulate the idea of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 as an independent, self-contained literary unity, but it was he who gave the theory its authoritative form.6 The idea was first aired by Wellhausen as early as 1878. Nevertheless there were several different approaches in circulation at the time of Rost, the most notable being that of Caspari and Gressmann. Caspari (1909, 1926), followed by Gressmann (1910), took 2 Samuel 10-20 as a series of short stories or Novellen and not as a continuous 6. The idea of 'succession' as the theme of this material had previously been suggested by Wellhausen and others. See above, p. 14 n. 2.


105

narrative sequence. He argued for the presence of three individual stories: chs. 10-12 (Der Konig als Ehebrecher);1 chs. 13-14 (Die Prinzen Novelleri)', chs. 15-20 (Der Absalomische Aufstand). He saw each of these short stories as distinct and separate, each having independent origins in oral tradition. Basically Caspari offered three main reasons for the independence and separate transmission of each of these (1909: 318-23). 1.

2.

3.

The first was on grounds of style and linguistic usage. He offered some nine examples of variations of vocabulary between chs. 13-14 and 15-20 in similar contexts. He did not however place undue stress on the stylistic evidence as he believed it to be a somewhat inconclusive criterion. Secondly, he saw a marked variation in the treatment of some of the characters in the various Novellen. For example he found a great disparity between David's stern treatment of Absalom in ch. 14 and his grief at Absalom's death in ch. 19. Similarly he could not reconcile Absalom's attitude to Amnon's rape of Tamar (ch. 13) with Absalom's own actions in raping David's concubines (16.20-22). Caspari also saw further differences in the way Joab's support of Absalom in ch. 14 and his support of David in chs. 15-20 are presented; and between his obedience to David concerning Uriah's death in ch. 11, his defiance of David in campaigning on behalf of Absalom in ch. 14 and his anger with David's mourning for his son in ch. 19. Caspari's last criterion for separating the three stories was on the basis of the contradiction between 2 Sam. 14.27 and 18.18. The former states that Absalom was the father of three sons and one daughter, while the latter avers that he had no sons. He concluded that these statements must have been made by two different authors and that 2 Samuel 13-14 and 15-20 must have had separate origins.

7. He argued that the Ammonite war narrative was originally a separate document, but that it was linked with the story of David's adultery at a fairly late date (although before the deuteronomistic redaction) in order to provide a framework for it. Thus although he understands it as the product of another writer, he believes that it properly belongs with the short story to which it is attached.

106

The Wages of Sin

The views of Caspari and Gressmann have long been superseded by those of Rost and von Rad. Yet if the unquestioning assumptions of critical orthodoxy are to be put aside, they should be given some consideration. Indeed their views are rendered especially significant because the boundaries for their collection ofNovellen is 2 Samuel 10-20, which appears to be the true extent of SN. Carlson (1964: 182-86) considers the approach of Caspari, but dismisses the first of his criteria for separate transmission as 'irrelevant' and as having been 'put forward largely as a marginal comment on the other two' (p. 183). Of Caspari's argument regarding the presentation of character, Carlson comments: '...it is self-evident that this realistic and yet psychologically profound style should make use of contrast, nuances and the like, in order to give the presentation life and veracity' (1964: 184). This is a valid criticism, for by seeing the variations in character description as inconsistencies, Caspari did not allow for depth or perception of character in 2 Samuel. As is now generally recognized, the richness of the material is attested by the credibility of its presentation of the characters. The people it describes are completely believable and true-tolife. Thus by taking 2 Samuel 10-20 as a series of short stories, Caspari may have been expecting to encounter the two-dimensional characters of a legend or a fairy-tale rather than the true-to-life descriptions of a more developed work. Carlson acknowledges Caspari's final criterion as the strongest of the three. Some commentators explain the contradiction between 14.27 and 18.18 by assuming that Absalom's sons died in infancy (Hertzberg [1964: 334], who regards the mention of Absalom's daughter in 14.27 as evidence that the sons had died at an early age; Gunn 1978: 33; Gordon 1986: 269, 285; also Thenius [1842] and Schulz [1920] cited by McCarter [1984: 407]). Others credit this inconsistency to editorial activity (e.g. H.P. Smith [1899: 359] saw 18.18 as original and 14.27 as a later addition; Carlson [1964: 184-88] and Mauchline [1971: 268] also regard the present position of 14.25-27 as the result of a redactional insertion). Fokkelman, on the other hand, dismisses attempts at harmonization of the two passages and prefers to think 'that the narrator has slipped up in furnishing his information' (1981: 150), for he sees in 14.27 a deliberate contrast between the naming of the girl and the anonymity of the boys. None of these explanations really do justice to the problem of the


107

contradiction between the two passages, and it remains an enigma in SN and a strong point among Caspari's otherwise weak arguments. Yet even this is not compelling enough to be convincing as to the disunity of the material. As has been illustrated, it is not the only possible explanation for this difficulty. In his own assessment of the text, Carlson takes almost an opposite approach to that of Caspari and Gressmann. Whereas they viewed chs. 10-20 as a group of originally independent units, he sees the whole of 2 Samuel as one single literary entity. In contrast with the approach of Rost and the majority of other scholars, Carlson takes a traditio-historical approach to 2 Samuel.8 He sees the book as expressly deuteronomic in character and finds fault with the literary critics because they have failed to recognize the extent of deuteronomic influence in it.9 He argues for an underlying pre-deuteronomistic Davidic epic, but he maintains that the final form of the work cannot be penetrated with any degree of success. Thus he treats 2 Samuel in its entirety as a single whole. For this reason, Carlson rejects the idea that an independent SN (or a history of David's rise) exists within 2 Samuel. Rather his emphasis on the extent of deuteronomic influence throughout the book precludes him from seeing it as anything other than a single unit. His two sections, 'David under the Blessing' (2 Sam. 2-8), and 'David under the Curse' (2 Sam. 9-24), do not signify an admission of a literary division, for the division he envisages is simply thematic. Rost places a special emphasis upon the role of direct speech in SN and particularly upon the use of the A-B-A technique in speech.10 Carlson however contends that Rost goes too far in claiming that the AB-A technique lends a distinctive quality to SN. He gives several examples of this pattern in use elsewhere in Samuel and in other biblical books. He also disagrees with Rost on the uniqueness of the importance of dialogue here and gives examples of direct speech filling similar functions throughout 1 and 2 Samuel. Carlson states, 'it is impossible to accept Rost's thesis of a special Thronfolgegeschichte in 2 Samuel' (1964: 136). Carlson also does not accept the idea of the unity, independence, or even existence of SN. Whereas Caspari denied the unity of the material 8. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 18-20. 9. See Chapter 1, p. 20 n. 12, for a criticism of this aspect of Carlson's argument. 10. Chapter 1, p. 16.

108

The Wages of Sin

because he divided 2 Samuel 10-20 into separate units, Carlson denies it because he views the entire book as a single entity within the larger Deuteronomistic History. Yet both approaches demonstrate that Rost's is not the only possible interpretation of these chapters, as Ackroyd has also argued. Indeed, they also provide a practical demonstration that there is no obligation to regard SN either as independent or as a unity. Conroy (1978) does not set out to examine the unity of SN, nor indeed is he concerned with SN in its accepted form. Yet because he is able to discuss 2 Samuel 13-20 as an entity in its own right, he casts doubt on the unity of the whole, perhaps more effectively than any of his predecessors. In analysing 2 Samuel 13-20 (as distinct from SN), he states that these chapters are 'generally acknowledged to be one of the masterpieces of classical Hebrew prose narrative' (1978: 1), for which he cites Gunkel (1910) and Whybray (1968). By confining his study to chs. 13-20 he attempts to analyse his subject matter more thoroughly than others who have taken a similar approach to SN as a whole.11 Yet by doing so, he has shown that it is perfectly possible to treat this material independently of the surrounding text. If it is possible, and legitimate, to treat 2 Samuel 13-20 as a unity in its own right, what justification is there for adding several more chapters and calling this an equally close unity? If chs. 13-20 could be proved to be a document in its own right, then it would be difficult to envisage another tight unity with the addition of only three chapters (i.e. 2 Sam. 10-20). If Conroy's approach is justified, then the idea of the unity of the larger whole must be reviewed, or even abandoned. By isolating 2 Samuel 13-20, Conroy expresses his reservations regarding the unity of SN. These are displayed in an incidental remark: '...the Succession Narrative (granted its existence)...' (1978: 7). This scepticism is further demonstrated by another statement: '2 Samuel 1320 may well have existed from the start as part of a larger work (whatever that was)...' (1978: 6). The phrase in parenthesis '(whatever that was)' is most interesting. The obvious implication is that the 'larger work' was not necessarily SN. Indeed he feels that chs. 13-20 could be read in several different contexts and not just as part of SN. They could be viewed as an independent unit, as part of the King David stories, or of the Saul-David cycle, or even of the entire Deuteronomistic History.

11. Conroy compares his approach with that of Ridout (1971), who takes a rhetorical-critical approach to SN in its entirety.


109

He argues that each framework would reveal different aspects of meaning both within the context as a whole and within 2 Samuel 13-20 itself. He thinks that despite any links with 'a larger work', chs. 13-20 have, in themselves, the internal unity of a complete story, not just the marks of a fragment or section of another story. Thus he treats them separately and stresses that they can be viewed alone and are not confined to interpretation in the context of a larger work. Yet a momentary weakness may be detected in Conroy's argument. Whereas he deals solely with chs. 13-20, argues for its unity of theme, structure and content and treats it as a single, self-sufficient entity, he refers to it on one occasion as 'the relatively independent narrative unit 2 Samuel 13-20' (1978: 101). This then reveals that Conroy is not so convinced of the independence of this block as at first seems to be the case. Indeed this statement at once calls into question his undermining of the relationship between 2 Samuel 13-20 and the surrounding material, including its position within SN. Like Conroy, McCarter (1984) also places a strong emphasis on 2 Samuel 13-20, arguing that the story of Absalom's revolt is in fact 'the dominant composition' (1984: 9) in SN. However there is divergence as well as similarity between the works of McCarter and Conroy. Conroy separates 2 Samuel 13-20 from the preceding material, but McCarter makes no attempt to divide these chapters from SN in the final form of the text. Nor indeed does he reject the SN hypothesis. He simply sees 2 Samuel 13-20 as dominating the rest of the narrative. McCarter regards SN as a pro-monarchic account of Solomon's succession to the Israelite throne. Unlike others who have shared this view (e.g. Rost 1926; Whybray 1968; Thornton 1968; et a/.), he does not accept that it is the unified product of a single author who wrote during the reign of Solomon. McCarter rejects the compositional unity of SN because he traces more than one source in the text. He detects the presence of both Solomonic and Davidic material in this section of the Deuteronomistic History, and argues that there are at least three blocks of Davidic material apparent in Samuel. These are the story of David's rise to power (1 Sam. 16.14-2 Sam. 5.10), the story of Absalom's revolt (2 Sam. 1320) and the story of the Gibeonites' revenge on Saul's family and David's patronage of Mephibosheth/Meribaal (2 Sam. 21.1-14 and 9.113). He believes that the remainder of 2 Samuel was composed in the Solomonic era in order to justify Solomon's accession. He argues that

110

The Wages of Sin

1 Kings 1-2 was also the work of the later Solomonic author, who combined his own work with the earlier Davidic material. Thus he accounts for the presence of both older Davidic material and later Solomonic apologetic in the text of SN. He does not view it as a single unit of first-hand or eye-witness material, coming from the pen of one author. Instead, he envisages it as deriving from more than one source and as being composed of more than one document. He divides the work between two different authors: he sees 2 Samuel 9-12 and 1 Kings 1-2 as coming from the period of Solomon's rule and 2 Samuel 13-20 as having been composed during the time of his father's reign. Thus, to him, the final form of SN is a unity in that it has been arranged and compiled by the Solomonic apologist, but there are two separate works underlying the finished document. Although he does not call the existence or the present unity of SN into question, as does Conroy, McCarter casts doubts upon its unity of theme and purpose by ascribing it to different authors. Indeed the effect of Flanagan's work (1972) may also have repercussions on the unity of theme and purpose in that he observes a Court History underlying the extant succession document.12 However, McCarter's views affect the problems of dating and authorship more significantly than they affect the question of unity and will be dealt with in the appropriate context:13 Yet unlike Carlson, who makes no concessions to his perception of a David epic, McCarter thinks that it is possible to isolate the original documents. The implications of his approach also touch on the question of the unity of SN. The ideas of all five of these scholars affect the view of SN as an independent unity. It is notable however that their arguments fall into two distinct categories. Caspari and Gressmann accept the notion that 2 Samuel 10-20 is different and distinguishable from the surrounding text. They contend that this block of material does not have an internal unity in itself. On the other hand, neither Carlson nor Conroy recognize these chapters as a separate unity within 2 Samuel, (while McCarter, although falling into this general category, does allow for the existence of a SN). Each of them succeeds in casting doubts on the SN hypothesis by placing the emphasis upon a different unit (Carlson: 2 Samuel as a whole; Conroy, McCarter: chs. 13-20).

12. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 25-27. 13. See below, Chapter 7, pp. 211-12.


111

The view that SN is composed of independent Novellen has long ceased to exert significant influence over scholarly thought, largely due to Rost's analysis of its style. Rost effectively disproved the views of these earlier writers (see Rost 1982: 90-98) by arguing that SN displayed a uniformity of style that marked it off as the work of a single author. This issue will be discussed below in the context of style and language. Carlson concentrates upon the unity of 2 Samuel as a whole primarily because of his appreciation of theme. His idea of the contrast between 'David under the Blessing' and 'David under the Curse' gives the entire book a unity of structure. The first eight chapters thus depict David as the recipient of divine favour, in contrast with the remainder of the book, which shows him as the object of curse. It also gives a theological purpose to the material, placing it firmly within the provenance of the Deuteronomists. The blessing/curse idea is identified with the blessings and curses of the book of Deuteronomy and their link with obedience and disobedience to the divine Will. Thus for Carlson, 2 Samuel is a practical outworking of the deuteronomistic theology of the relationship between God and man in highlighting the necessity of obedience and the consequences of disobedience. The chief difficulty with this idea, however, is that it is not consistent in its application. The inherent incongruity has been highlighted by Caquot (1965). He points out that the blessings of chs. 1-8 are not solely dependent upon David's obedience to Yahweh and that chs. 9-24 do not show David consistently under the curse of Yahweh. In considering the relationship of blessing to obedience, Caquot draws attention to David's anointing in 2 Samuel 5. He points out that it is never said to be a consequence of David's actions or behaviour, rather Yahweh's blessing is bestowed freely and without precondition. He also observes the same sense of divine munificence characterizing the dynastic oracle in ch. 7. Indeed it is notable that no reference is made to obedience anywhere in the early chapters of the book, and the text makes no connection between this and David's good fortune. Thus one is drawn towards Caquot's contention that the link proposed by Carlson between divine blessing and obedience to Yahweh is not an inherent characteristic of 2 Samuel 1-8. Caquot also argues that David is not depicted consistently throughout chs. 9-24 as being under a curse from Yahweh. To illustrate this point he considers the birth of Solomon in 12.24-25 and David's victory over the Ammonites that follows in 12.26-31. He holds that neither of these

112

The Wages of Sin

belongs in a treatise composed to illustrate 'David under the Curse'. He states of the position of 12.26-31, 'Carlson gives no explanation as to why the victorious ending of the Ammonite campaign is lifted from its context and restored after the account of the birth of Solomon...is not the purpose of birth to show a sign of divine favour?' (1965: 173; my translation). Thus he attempts to illustrate that Carlson's assessment of chs. 9-24 is not accurate because elements of blessing exist within the section that Carlson views as exclusively illustrating the idea of 'David under the Curse'. Indeed further elements of divine favour that are not coterminous with Carlson's perspective on curse may be observed throughout chs. 9-24. Such elements of blessing may be seen even in the punishment decreed by Nathan in ch. 12. This demonstrates Yahweh's mercy toward David in that when he repents the sentence is reduced considerably. This is seen when Nathan states, The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die' (12.13b), for although the death penalty had been pronounced, David's repentance brings Yahweh's mercy and the death sentence is rescinded. Yahweh's benevolence towards David is also conveyed in the story of Absalom's revolt. Here the appearance of Hushai (15.32) is directly linked with David's prayer in the preceding verse. The triumph of Hushai over Ahithophel's superior counsel provides another example of this, for 17.14b states: 'For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom'. Thus David's initial victory over Absalom is demonstrated as the result of divine intervention, and not of human error. Indeed Yahweh's hand may also be detected in the fortunate escape of the spies from their pursuers (2 Sam. 17.17-20), for Jonathan and Ahimaaz are almost caught by Absalom's men. Thus they would have been prevented from warning David of the developments in Jerusalem and Absalom would have had the upper hand in the conflict.14 Finally an element of divine benevolence (or perhaps simply good fortune) is to be observed in the role played by the forces of nature in the victory of David's men over Absalom's troops. It is perhaps reminiscent of the victory of Deborah and Barak over Sisera (Judg. 4, 5) in that

14. However even if the spies' escape is to be seen as simply the result of chance and not of divine intervention, this episode is still inconsistent with the theme of 'David under the Curse'.


113

natural elements are the deciding force in the battle. For whereas heavy rain is the cause of Sisera's defeat (Judg. 5.21), 2 Sam. 18.8 tells us, 'The battle spread over the face of all the country; and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword'. Also nature plays a part in the death of Absalom himself, for we are told that his hair is caught in the branches of a tree, thus enabling Joab to find and kill him (18.9-15). Indeed David's victory over Absalom presents difficulties with the curse theme proposed by Carlson, in which a defeat rather than a triumph would seem more appropriate. Carlson also includes the Samuel appendix (chs. 21-24) in his 'Curse' section. However it is virtually impossible to reconcile the two psalms of ch. 22 and 23.1-7 with this idea. It is also difficult to see how the warrior stories and lists (21.15-22; 23.8-39) can fall into this structure. Yet even if one was to agree with Carlson that 2 Samuel was structured on a rom/n^p theme, there is no reason why the concept of an independent narrative within it could not be maintained. He himself rejects the idea of SN, but the view is tenable even in conjunction with his approach to 2 Samuel, for SN is in fact contained entirely within his second section ('David under the Curse'). Indeed Carlson is concerned with the impression left on the text by the D-group, and he does not go back beyond the deuteronomistic redaction, except to assert the prior existence of the Davidic epic. Yet it would be possible to see the unity of 2 Samuel and the rDIIl/n^p theme as an imposition on the text by the Deuteronomist or D-group. Thus one could accept Carlson's view of the unity of 2 Samuel and even his idea of deuteronomic influence, but still argue for the presence of another compositional unity within 2 Samuel. Carlson's approach then does not necessarily have any affect on the question of the unity of 2 Samuel 10-20. Let us turn then to look at the views of Conroy and McCarter. Whereas Carlson stresses the unity of the entire book, McCarter, and Conroy, emphasize the unity and importance of the story of Absalom's revolt in chs. 13-14. Yet their emphasis is not so much on unity of theme as on unity of content. They do not isolate any particular recurring motif, but see its structure and purpose as based upon the story of the coup. Chapters 13-14 begin the account with the early causes of the revolt: the events leading up to Absalom's murder of his brother Amnon, his estrangement from his father, his exile in Geshur and the

114

The Wages of Sin

reconciliation of the two men.15 Chapters 15-19 then proceed with a description of the actual revolt: Absalom's 'stealing the hearts of the men of Israel', the seizure of power in Hebron, David's flight, the battle of the counsellors and Absalom's death. Chapter 20 then brings the story, and the work, to a close with the offshoot revolt of Sheba ben Bichri and its suppression by Joab. This approach however need not necessarily preclude the existence of a wider SN, as McCarter's argument illustrates. Although it is difficult to envisage chs. 13-20 as a complete unity in itself while at the same time regarding chs. 10-20 as an equally independent unity, such a view is not impossible. Yet it is notable that McCarter perceives SN as 2 Samuel 920 and 1 Kings 1-2—a unit that is considerably larger than 2 Samuel 10-20. Nevertheless the chief difficulty with the arguments of Conroy and McCarter concerns their approach to chs. 13 and 14. Basically their view of a complete 'revolt story' hinges on the interpretation of the Amnon-Tamar-Absalom incidents of ch. 13 as one of the principal contributory factors to the coup. Otherwise chs. 13-20 could not be seen as a single story and the importance of the revolt would be considerably reduced. Yet this is not the only possible interpretation of chs. 13-14. There are two possible approaches to the structure of 2 Samuel 1020, differing with regard to chs. 13-14. The structure envisaged by Conroy, McCarter, Rost, and others has the material arranged in two sections as follows: 1. 2.

Chs. 10-12 Chs. 13-20

The Bathsheba affair The story of Absalom's revolt

Thus, 2 Samuel 13-14 is seen as part of the following section and is interpreted in the light of the coup d'etat. The alternative view finds three sections in this material, which are: 1. 2. 3.

Chs. 10-12 Chs. 13-14 Chs. 15-20

David-Bathsheba-Uriah-Nathan Amnon-Tamar-Absalom Absalom's revolt

15. Some scholars (e.g. Conroy 1978: 111; McCarter 1984: 327; Gordon 1986: 261) take the view that the reconciliation of David and Absalom in Jerusalem was for its political value only and was in fact a sham display. This is especially significant for those who see chs. 13-14 as the root of the rebellion. However I will argue below that the text does not imply any insincerity in this act.


115

Thus chs. 13-14 are regarded as a separate episode with no implicit bearing on the revolt.16 This is broadly the approach adopted by H.P. Smith, Caspar!, Gressmann and Fokkelman. Structural Unity of 2 Samuel 10-20 In the next chapter I will seek to prove, on the basis of theme, that the latter approach accurately reflects the structure of 2 Samuel 10-20.17 However let us leave discussion of theme for the moment and move on to look at structure in this light. That 2 Samuel 10-12 should be viewed as a single episode or unit is emphasized by the use of the Ammonite war story as a framework for David's adultery and murder. Chapter 10 begins with a record of the causes of the war (vv. 1-5),18 then proceeds with a detailed description (vv. 6-19), which is resumed at the end of this section. The core of the unit is 11.1-12.25,19 which is concerned with the two crimes committed by David—the adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah—and their immediate consequences.20 In contrast with chs. 10-12, it is not so obvious that chs. 13-14 should be taken as a single episode. There is no framework passage for this story and it does bear a certain relation to the succeeding narrative so it could be construed as belonging with it. Hence the differences of

16. Variations on these possibilities can, of course, exist. For example the position of ch. 20 is debatable and although I will argue below (Chapter 5, p. 138) that it forms an integral part of the Revolt story, it could be taken as another section in itself (so H.P. Smith 1899). However note also that in examining the narrative in the light of his theme of 'Giving and Grasping', Gunn (1978: 94-108) breaks away from this approach to structure. He splits chs. 13 and 14 in labelling ch. 13 as a transition passage between chs. 11-12 ('complication') and chs. 14-17 ('further complication'). 17. See below, Chapter 5, especially pp. 127-41. 18. Rost (1982: 59-60) suggested, on the basis of its style, that 10.1-5 was not original to the Ammonite war account, but that it was the composition of the author of SN, who inserted it in its present position. 19. Although 11.1 is being taken here with the story of the adultery, some commentators, such as Rost (1982: 59-62), Hertzberg (1964: 301-305) and Mauchline (1971: 246-48) see it as belonging with the account of the war in 10.6-19. 20. I have already argued (Chapter 2, pp. 50-51) that the story of Solomon's birth in 12.24-25 is peripheral here, and that it does not have the significance for the text that Rost attributes to it.

116

The Wages of Sin

opinion among scholars as to whether it should be treated independently or taken together with chs. 15-20. Yet unlike 2 Samuel 10-12, the independence of this episode from the story of Absalom's revolt may be more easily seen in its unity of story. It begins by introducing Amnon's lust for Tamar and this serves as the prelude to all the following events. The account of the rape, murder and exile form the core of the story, while it ends with a reunion between David and his son Absalom. As in chs. 10-12, two crimes are committed in chs. 13-14: the rape of Tamar by Amnon and the murder of Amnon by Tamar's brother Absalom. Several commentators point forward to chs. 15-2021 and see the reunion of David and Absalom as merely an outward show, but there is no direct internal evidence in ch. 14 to prove this. To all intents and purposes the reconciliation of father and son is what it appears to be in the context of these chapters: a happy ending. The two accounts in chs. 10-12 and 13-14 have several factors that link them together. The actions of David's sons in the latter account are almost a mirror image of his own actions in the former. Both sections have an identical pattern. Each begins with a seduction that leads to murder, but each situation is eased by the telling of a parable, whereupon a resolution (happy ending) ensues. This may be seen in that David seduces Bathsheba and Amnon seduces Tamar; David murders Uriah and Absalom murders Amnon; Nathan tells David a fictitious story, as does the wise woman from Tekoa; finally the first situation is resolved when Solomon is born and the second when David and Absalom are reunited. It is also notable that a minor character plays a significant role in each of these stories: the unnamed child of Bathsheba (in ch. 12) and Joab (in ch. 14). Both play a large part in leading up to the final resolution. The child, as a kind of substitute for David, in some senses absolves his father by dying instead of him. Thus the death sentence is removed and the happy ending is made possible because Solomon's birth is not overshadowed by divine displeasure. Likewise Joab makes possible the reunion of David and Absalom in ch. 14 by interceding on behalf of the exiled prince and by persuading his father of the expediency of a reconciliation. As with chs. 13-14, the unity of chs. 15-20 is a unity of content. Some argue that chs. 13-14 are merely a prologue to the revolt in chs. 15-20. The strong links between it and chs. 10-12 however mark it out as an episode in its own right—it is not merely part of the account 21. See n. 15 above.


117

of Absalom's revolt. The full story of the coup d'etat is contained in chs. 15-20; chapters 13-14 are linked with this. They provide an introduction to Absalom and perhaps also a cause of the revolt, but they have more in common both structurally and thematically with the first section of the work, chs. 10-12. In chs. 15-20 a complete account of the revolt is given, from its earliest stages to its ultimate ending. It follows Absalom from his initial attempts to ingratiate himself with the common people in 15.1-6 to his death in ch. 18. It follows David from his hurried flight from his capital (15.13-18) until he is firmly restored to power at the end of ch. 20. Indeed like the resolutions of chs. 12 and 14, the defeat of Sheba ben Bichri in ch. 20 may be seen as another 'happy ending' in that David's rule is once more firmly established. Yet although chs. 10-12, 13-14 and 15-20 are independent episodes, they should be seen as sections within the larger unit (i.e. chs. 10-20), not as self-sufficient accounts on the scale envisaged either by Conroy or Caspari. There are both linguistic and thematic links running through all three sections and welding them into a single narrative. The main thematic links will be examined below, but some of the connecting areas should be noted here. For example, chs. 15-20 is linked to chs. 10-12 by Absalom's seizure of his father's concubines, to which there is a direct reference in 12.11-12. There is also reference in 15.8 to Absalom's exile (recorded in ch. 14), linking the second and third sections. Indeed a similar link may be detected in that two of the main characters in chs. 15-20, namely Absalom and Joab, are first introduced in chs. 13-14. It has also been noted22 that the three sections are linked together by the use of the formula p~nnK 'm at 2 Sam. 10.1, 13.1 and 15.1.23 Indeed Conroy's argument for the extent of the story of Absalom's revolt may work against him: a weakness may be detected in his view of the structure of chs. 13-14 and 15-20 (1978: 89-93). He argues that chs. 13-14 should be seen as an integral part of the revolt story and that 'the differences between the two blocks of material should not be overstressed' (1978: 93). He presents us however with a self-contained, highly developed structure for each of them. He divides chs. 13-14 into four scenes, each of which follows a similar pattern. The four scenes comprise 13.1-22; 13.23-38; 13.39-14.24 and 22. See above, Chapter 3, pp. 80-81. 23. It has already been noted that it takes the form p '"HIND TH in 15.1.

118

The Wages of Sin

14.28-33. Each of these is separated by a time interval. He sees this 'block of material' (surely a somewhat odd description for an integral part of his revolt story!) as being based on a pattern of 'desire/fulfilment of desire' which is 'psychologically orientated' (1978; 93). He says that this block is 'at a higher pitch of narrative intensity than chs. 15-20 with their more relaxed or diffuse structure' (1978: 92). As to chs. 15-20, he suggests that they are arranged on a pattern of 'departure/return' and presents their structure in an ABCC'B'A' form. He sets this out as follows: (1978: 89) A B C C B' A'

Rebellion breaks out The king's flight: meeting scenes Clash of counsellors Clash of armies The king's return: meeting scenes The king returns to Jerusalem, and the final stirrings of rebellion are crushed

15.1-12 15.13-16.14 16.15-17.23 17.24-19.9 19.9-41 19.42-20.22

Thus although he argues that the two 'blocks' belong together and that the variance in their orientation and differing structures should not be overemphasized, the patterns that he describes are obviously independent of each other. His argument would seem to rest on two factors: the reference to Absalom's exile in 15.8, and the details of 15.1-12 which 'describes what Absalom did to win supporters but does not explain why he broke with his father in the first place' (1978: 90). Both these factors however are easily explained. First, Conroy overemphasizes the significance of the reference in 15.8. It is simply a linking motif, for the three sections of 2 Samuel 10-20 all derive from the same source and are not completely independent of each other. Secondly, there is no need for an explanation of why Absalom 'broke with his father in the first place', for the text assumes no such break here. Rather the break comes in 15.11 when Absalom proclaims himself king. Indeed chs. 13-14 would provide no explanation, for the text describes a genuine reconciliation between David and Absalom in 14.33. Therefore Conroy's analysis of the structure of chs. 13-14 and 15-20 reveals a distinct weakness in his argument and actually provides evidence for the distinction between the two sections. Thus 2 Samuel 10-20 has a structural basis that marks it off as a unity, being composed of three sections (chs. 10-12; 13-14; 15-20). This contrasts with the rest of 2 Samuel (i.e. chs. 1-9 and 21-24), which


119

has been seen24 to comprise material from a number of different sources. 2 Samuel 21-24 is a chiasmus, while chs. 1-9 have a less formal structure, being basically a chronological account of David's consolidation of power. Thus 2 Samuel 10-20 stands out from its framework as a result of its structural arrangement. However this structure is closely linked with the theme of the narrative, so that its unity of structure may only fully be appreciated when it is examined in the context of theme.25 It is very clear though that this narrative has a unified structure. The discussion of the extent of the work in Chapter 3 has already touched upon the question of the style of SN. There it was seen that Rost, Whybray and others have been impressed by the individuality and consistency of the style of the piece. Rost comments, 'It cannot be gainsaid that we have a quite outstanding piece of Hebrew narrative art here, perhaps, indeed, in the complexity of its plot, in the wealth of personalities taking part and in the fine organization of its structure, the most outstanding of all' (1982: 102). However Rost is commenting on the entire SN as he perceives it. Thus 2 Samuel 9 and 1 Kings 1-2 are also included in these remarks. Yet it became apparent in the discussion of extent above26 that the styles of 2 Samuel 9 and 1 Kings 1-2 are in fact inconsistent with the style of the rest of the material. When Rost and Whybray refer to the style of SN, their remarks generally apply only to 2 Samuel 10-20. The most significant stylistic characteristic of the work is the richness of its language. Rost remarks, 'Coming from the simple, terse prose of the ark narrative, we are struck all the more by the individuality of our source. The sentences are longer, expression is fuller, the description is richer, the language is more sonorous and richer in imagery' (1982: 90). Both Rost and Whybray draw attention to the abundant use of contrasts, comparisons and similes that add to the literary quality of the work. For example, in 17.3 Ahithophel promises Absalom that he will 'bring all the people back to you as a bride comes home to her husband'; in 14.14 the woman of Tekoa states, 'We must all die, we are like water spilt on the ground which cannot be gathered up again'; in 17.8 Hushai tells Absalom, 'your father and his men are...like a bear robbed of her cubs in the field'; and in 18.3 David's followers assert, 'you are worth ten thousand of us' (Rost 1982: 92; Whybray 1968: 45). 24. See above, Chapter 3, pp. 81-91. 25. See below, Chapter 5. 26. See above, Chapter 2, pp. 54-70, and Chapter 3, pp. 74-81.

120

The Wages of Sin

Attention is also directed to the pace of the narrative. Rost notes that the pace frequently varies and that often 'the rapid flow of the narrative is restrained'. Whybray (1968: 46) sees this variation in the speed of the narrative as a source of tension and suspense. Both recognize this technique as functioning most effectively in the account of David's escape from Jerusalem. Despite the fact that the evacuation of his household is carried out rapidly on David's orders, the narrative lingers leisurely on the details of the journey so that an impression of actual time is created. Another characteristic feature of the style of the piece is in the presentation of events in neatly detached scenes (Rost 1982: 90; Whybray 1968: 25-34). Each of the various episodes is conveyed in a selfcontained tale, which is brought to a close before the next event is related. For example, the account of David's sins has a distinct beginning: 'In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem. One evening David got up from his bed...' (11.1-2); and an equally distinct ending: 'When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD' (11.26-27). Thus the adultery and murder are confined to ch. 11, while the condemnation of David by the prophet Nathan occupies a separate block in its own right as the next scene in the story. Whybray comments on the role of these scenes in the text: 'the work is, then, a unity in which each scene is essential to the whole and to the development of the central theme of the succession' (1968: 23). Indeed he goes so far as to label these scenes 'chapters' and sees five chapters in the lead up to the outbreak of rebellion in chs. 13-15.27 He defines these as follows (1968: 26-28): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

13.1-22 The rape of Tamar 13.23-39 The murder of Amnon and Absalom's consequent banishment 14.1-33 The attempts to secure his return 15.1-6 The preparations for the rebellion 15.7-12 Climax: the act of rebellion itself

27. Like Conroy, et al., Whybray takes chs. 13-14 together with the following material and sees in this one of the main causes of the revolt.


121

Despite the fact that he takes chs. 13-14 as part of the rebellion account, Whybray is correct in highlighting the employment of such scenes as a narrative technique in 2 Samuel 10-20. This is also highlighted in Fokkelman's (1981) approach to 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. He divides the narrative into four 'acts', each of which is subdivided into individual scenes. That such divisions are possible emphasizes this aspect of the writer's style. Whybray remarks, 'the author of the Succession Narrative was entirely master of his own material', and that 'the division of the book into distinct scenes or chapters is to be understood in purely artistic terms' (1968: 25). Finally, the feature of the style most revered by Rost (1982: 92-96) was the function of direct speech in the text. Carlson argues that this is not a unique feature of the material and cannot be regarded as attesting the unity of the piece because it is equally important elsewhere in Samuel.28 However, whether or not it is unique to this work, it is a feature of its style that is not common to every biblical writer. For example, Rost (1982: 94-95) compares the tendency to structure a scene around direct speech in SN with the use of dialogue in the Ark Narrative (1 Sam. 4.1b-18a, 19-21; 5.1-llba, 12; 6.1-3ba, 4, 10-14, 16; 6.1-7.1; 2 Sam. 6.1-15, 17-20a). He contrasts the presentation of the scene involving the messenger in 1 Sam. 4.12-18 with the method of conveying the messages of the two runners in 2 Sam. 18.24-32. He finds that in the former passage there is no real structural interaction between the questions of Eli and the speech of the Benjaminite. In the latter passage, on the other hand, the scene is entirely structured around the dialogues between David and the watchman, Ahimaaz, and the Cushite. This technique is employed extensively throughout 2 Samuel 10-20, justifying Rost's stress on the importance of the use of dialogue and direct speech here. It would be difficult to refute Rost's analysis of the style of this material. Indeed, it has been one of the major factors of influence in his hypothesis: that the narrative could be shown to have a uniform style contrasting with that of the rest of 1 and 2 Samuel. On the basis of such analysis, it may be concluded that 2 Samuel 10-20 demonstrates a unity which distinguishes it from the surrounding material. By the same standard, therefore, the idea of these chapters as a collection of Novellen must also be rejected as their uniformity of style is at variance with this approach. If the individual sections of the work had originated in 28. See above, p. 107.

122

The Wages of Sin

different circles or from different writers, then some evidence of this would survive, even despite subsequent editing. There would be at least some disparity of style and language which would point towards such an origin. The only significant discord that is struck lies in the apparent contradiction between 14.27 and 18.18, but this is insufficient evidence to support such a far-reaching conclusion. Thus the short-story hypothesis of Caspari and Gressmann should be dismissed. Indeed on the basis of the observations made in this chapter the evidence accumulates to convey the impression of 2 Samuel 10-20 as a self-contained unity. It has been seen to have a consistent application of themes, an intelligent structure, and a uniform style. In the next two chapters, the issues of theme and genre will be addressed, both of which also have a bearing on the question of unity and further support the idea of the unity of these chapters. Summary The findings of this chapter are as follows: 1.

2. 3.

The idea of SN as an independent unity within Samuel stems directly from Rost, who developed the ideas already expressed by some earlier writers. This view has since been accepted by the majority of scholars. There are some who have questioned this view, the most notable since Rost being Carlson, Conroy and Ackroyd. There is ample evidence in 2 Samuel 10-20 to support the idea that it should be regarded as an independent document: it possesses a unity of theme, structure, style, and purpose. These factors combine to support the view that SN is not merely a figment of the critical imagination, but exists as an independent literary entity within 2 Samuel.

Chapter 5 THE THEME OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20

The major weakness of Rost's hypothesis, as was concluded above,1 is the idea that the succession to the throne is the main theme and motivating force of SN. In this chapter the issue of the theme of 2 Samuel 1020 will be considered. If its theme is not that of succession, then two possibilities remain. Either another theme must be sought to replace the one that has been rejected, or the conclusion must be drawn that there is no main theme in this material. Hagan's (1979) postulation2 that a number of themes exist alongside each other in SN is moving in the direction of a themeless narrative. He identifies a theme of deception, based on a pattern of deception and counter-deception, in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2.3 However he does not assert that this is the main theme of the work, but suggests that there are a number of equally important themes to be uncovered in the text. Thus he regards 'deception' as one theme among many (of which 'succession' is another). Yet if there are several significant themes in the text, none of which, has any precedence over the others, then they are simply motifs. They have no bearing upon the composition or purpose of the narrative. They need not be all-pervasive and they will provide no insight into the work as a whole. The views of Caspari and Gressmann that 2 Samuel 10-20 is a collection of independent short stories went a long way toward rendering a main theme unnecessary. However their ideas have long since been superseded. Perhaps the approach that comes closest to Caspari's in more recent times is that of Conroy (1978). In confining his study to the story of Absalom's revolt (chs. 13-20), Conroy in effect eliminates the 1. 2. 3.

Chapter 2, pp. 43-54. See above, Chapter 2, pp. 45-46. Chapter 1, pp. 32-33.

124

The Wages of Sin

search for a theme—it is provided by the chronological sequence of events leading up to and away from the coup d'etat. However there is no justification for narrowing the extent of SN further. 2 Samuel 10-12 is closely bound with the material following it.4 Indeed in this chapter it will become apparent that 2 Samuel 10-12 is in fact the most important section of the work and embodies the essence of the narrative. Therefore a theme must be sought which, in the absence of Rost's succession theme, will explain the presence of all the material in 2 Samuel 10-20. Such a theme must account for several non-chronological, nonsequential episodes from the reign of David. Why are these particular events recorded? Why is it these three episodes (i.e. the story of David's adultery, the Amnon-Tamar-Absalom episode and the account of Absalom's revolt) that are narrated here and what is the link between them? Such questions are especially pertinent when one considers that there must have been scores of stories connected with the reign of David that do not appear here, despite the fact that many years of his reign remain unaccounted for. Thus there must be a main theme that will provide an answer to these questions and explain why it is this material that makes up the document. Before going on to look for a main theme perhaps a further comment is necessary. Although Hagan's study is inconclusive, at least some of what he says holds true—his observation of more than simply one theme underlying SN. Indeed his thorough examination of the deception motif demonstrates this, for its presence in the text cannot be disputed. But while there may be several themes or motifs present in the work, these may or may not pervade the entire text. However there must be a main theme, a theme that will be found throughout the work and will provide answers for the questions asked above. Indeed it is the main theme that will provide the clue to both the structure and the purpose of the narrative. Undoubtedly the strongest unifying factor in 2 Samuel 10-20 is the character of David. David is central throughout the material. His importance, however, cannot be overemphasized for the entire work revolves around him. Without David these narratives could not exist. Therefore this must provide an important indication of the nature of the material. The centrality of the character of David to the entire work may be illustrated in numerous and various episodes. His position in chs. 11 and 4.

Chapter 4, pp. 115-17.

5. The Theme of 2 Samuel 10-20

125

12 requires no further comment, but it may be of value to look at ch. 10 a little more closely. On the face of it this is simply a war narrative. However, the role of David is of special significance here, despite the fact that it is not he but Joab who commands the army in the field. 2 Samuel 10 may be divided into two sections: vv. 1-5 and vv. 6-19. Of the latter section Fokkelman observes that it 'is one of the very few pieces in I/II Sam. which is not absorbing to a high degree' (1981:42). Chapter 10 is generally taken to be an official report of the war which has been used by the author of SN (so Rost 1982: 57-62; Whybray 1968: 8; although Hertzberg [1964: 303] and McCarter [1984: 275] contend that it should not be separated into two sources). Thus the account of the source of hostilities in vv. 1-5 assumes a certain degree of importance, being a SN-type story in the style of the rest of chs. 11-20. This account begins with a thought and an action of David. It is announced in v. 1 that the Ammonite king has died.5 Verse 2 immediately centres on David, who resolves to 'deal loyally with Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father dealt loyally with me' (10.2). Thus the ambassadors are dispatched to the Ammonite court only to be gravely insulted by the new monarch and his advisors. However the insult, although rendered to these individuals, is intended as an embarrassment for their lord. These men are David's representatives (or substitutes) and the cutting of their beards and garments is a direct insult to him, indicating utter contempt and disrespect. Thus David is central to this story through his representatives the ambassadors. A similar observation holds true in chs. 13-14. Here, although not himself among the main characters of the drama of ch. 13, David features prominently. When Amnon lusts after Tamar he feigns illness and thus receives a visit from his father whom he petitions for Tamar's presence at his bedside. Thus it is David who ignorantly sends Tamar to her fate. In v. 21 there is a brief notice of David's reaction to Amnon's actions: 'When King David heard all these things, he was very angry' (13.21). Following Amnon's death, David again takes centre stage, and the remainder of the section is concerned with the reconciliation of David and Absalom. The last section of the work (chs. 15-20, Absalom's rebellion) again follows a similar pattern. The setting and background of this material is 5. Fokkelman points out that the dead king (Nahash) is not named in v. 1 and that this intelligence is only gained through his son's patronymic in David's speech of v. 2(1981:42).

126

The Wages of Sin

the coup d'etat. It follows the story of the insurrection from its earliest beginnings (15.1-6, where Absalom makes himself popular with the ordinary people) to its ending (with the death of Absalom in 18.9-15) and its consequences (ch. 20, the split between the northern tribes and Judah led by Sheba ben Bichri). However although the rebellion forms the subject matter, it is approached at all times from the perspective of David's personal reaction to the insurrection. Actually the coup itself is never the subject of close examination. All that we learn about it is contained in the battle of the two counsellors (17.1-14), for the text may even be more interested in Ahithophel than in Absalom.6 The only substantial view of the rebellion as such is found in 16.15-17.23, where the defeat and demise of Ahithophel is portrayed. On the other hand, a much greater proportion of the material is devoted to a close-up view of David during the rebellion. The beginning of ch. 15 tells of the preparations made by Absalom but the scene abruptly changes from Hebron to Jerusalem and direct speech takes over the role of narrative when David is told by a messenger, 'The hearts of the men of Israel have gone after Absalom' (15.13). The king then begins immediate preparations to abandon the city. Whereas (with the exception of the Ammonite war) the narrative has been consistently centred on Jerusalem, it now follows David in his flight. Much of the material is taken up with David's journey from and return to Jerusalem. Only in 16.15-17.23 does the text return to the capital and this is only to record the victory of Hushai over the superior counsel of his rival. Thus it transpires that essentially it is not the rebellion, but David, in whom the narrator is interested. The rebellion forms a backdrop for the story, but it is David who is the central interest of the narrative. The text follows him consistently, never deviating or leaving his side: the story is wholly concerned with David and not with the wider historical or political background. Having rejected 'succession' as the main theme of the work, this interest in the character of David provides an insight into the nature and disposition of the text. However the structure and content of the work must be examined again in order to ascertain its true orientation and its theme. It will emerge that at least two major themes may be observed in 6. Ahithophel's defection to Absalom's camp is presented as a matter of great political significance and of concern for David (15.31; 16.20-23; 17.1-4). Indeed it is notable that whereas Ahithophel speaks frequently there is little direct speech attributed to Absalom.


127

the text. The terms 'major' and 'minor' are of course relative and perhaps somewhat subjective. However their use here signifies a distinction between themes that pervade the entire narrative and are essential elements of the author's perspective ('major' themes) and those that may not be present everywhere in the work or are peripheral to the writer's basic approach ('minor' themes). Sin and Punishment An examination of 2 Samuel 10-20 reveals one theme that is so closely connected to the basic form and content of the work that it must be defined as the main theme. It provides and explains the motivating force behind the narrative. Within 2 Samuel 10-20 it is all-embracing. I will term it: Sin and Punishment. It provides a thematic and literary unity for the text. By viewing 2 Samuel 10-20 from the perspective of Sin and Punishment it becomes apparent why these particular episodes have been included in the narrative. The use of the term 'sin' may possibly cause some difficulty. However this theme could equally well be referred to as one of Crime and Punishment. Certainly 'crime' may be seen as a more fitting description for the act of the Ammonites in ch. 10. Yet 'sin' gives a better definition of David's crimes in ch. 11 and these, I will argue, constitute the pivotal point of the entire work. These English terms may then be used interchangeably on the understanding that they have basically the same meaning. The only difference between the two is the theological connotations of the noun 'sin' in English.7 In Hebrew, however, such a distinction as is made in English between crimes against human and divine law may not be present. This stems from the Israelite belief that the law of the courts was derived directly from Yahweh, thus law and religion were intimately connected. Hence there is no ideological or linguistic drawback with the identifying of the two nouns in the exploration of this theme. 7. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (7th edn) defines crime as an 'act punishable by law', or, 'an evil act'; and sin as an '(act of) transgression against divine law or principles of morality'. In view of such a definition, the words employed bear slightly more resemblance to the definition of sin, for when the noun sin is employed here, it will indicate transgression against divine law or principles of morality, while the word crime will indicate transgression against human law or principles of morality.

128

The Wages of Sin

The theme of Sin and Punishment, as will become apparent throughout 2 Samuel 10-20, is one in which a sin (or crime) is inevitably followed by punishment. The recurring pattern of Sin and Punishment permeates the entire text. The work revolves around the account of David's sin in 11.1-12.25, which dominates all the other material. This account is the core of the first section of the work (i.e. chs. 10-12). It embodies the first and all-pervading statement of the theme of Sin and Punishment in 2 Samuel 10-20 and from this pivotal position it may be seen to link the entire work. Thus it may be of benefit at this stage to look more closely at these chapters in order to ascertain their natural emphases and interests. Normally 2 Samuel 10-12 is referred to as 'the Bathsheba incident', thus emphasizing David's adultery in ch. II. 8 However in a relatively recent article, Roth (1977) varies this perception. He adopts a literary approach to the material and terms it 'the David-Bathsheba-NathanSolomon episode'. He sees it as being composed of a series of two polemics (10.1-11.1; 12.26-31 and 11.2-27a) and two myths (11.27b12.14a and 12.15b-25), viewing the parable in 12.1-4 as the apex of this structure. However, although Roth places more emphasis upon the role of Nathan and his parable than is normally the case, like Rost he views the birth of Solomon as one of the main components of the story. He sees Solomon as the legitimate twice-named child, and contrasts him with the unnamed child who bears the burden of illegitimacy. Also like Rost et al. he almost completely ignores the contribution of Uriah to the narrative. However the figure of Uriah the Hittite features significantly in the text. His shadow appears first in the account of David's adultery, where the king is told as early as 11.3: 'Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?' Subsequent to David's initial offence, Uriah takes a central role when he becomes the victim of the murder. Indeed the audience is not allowed to forget him as the chapter ends: 'When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she made lamentation for her husband' (11.26). This sentence mentions him by name twice, and also draws 8. Note that although the record of Solomon's birth is seen as the central interest of this section, it is never called 'the Solomon account' or 'the birth narrative'. Thus further evidence is obtained that there is disparity here between the approaches taken to this material when it is examined as an independent unit and when it is viewed in the context of the succession theme.


129

attention twice to his relationship to Bathsheba ('her husband'). Moreover the importance of the figure of Uriah is attested in that although he is only a minor character, the author gives him a nobility surpassing that of David. Even when intoxicated he cannot be swayed from loyalty to his comrades-at-arms and adherence to military/religious etiquette. He asks: 'The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife?' (11.11). This contrasts sharply with the king, of whom we are told, 'In the spring of the year, the time when kings go forth to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel...' (11.1). Uriah is used as a foil for David. The high principles of the foreigner are used to highlight the immorality of Yahweh's anointed and to emphasize the seriousness of his crimes. However the majority of commentators fail to emphasize sufficiently the role of Uriah in the story.9 It is often almost overlooked that there are not one, but two offences involved in ch. 11. They are interrelated, but it remains that murder was committed as well as adultery. Indeed whereas the text deals with David's adultery in only four verses/six lines (11.2-5), the rest of the chapter is taken up with David's disposal of Uriah. This point is emphasized by Bar-Efrat (1978: 26), who highlights the fact that the passages in which Uriah is mentioned are slow and detailed, the text lingering rather than rushing on. On the other hand the passages concerning Bathsheba are rapid and almost in summary form. He argues that the reason for this is that the author wishes to indicate that the offences committed against Uriah were more serious than those committed against Bathsheba. Nathan's condemnation of David in ch. 12 seems to emphasize the murder of Uriah to a greater extent than the adultery with Bathsheba. It takes the form of an A-B-A pattern: You have smitten Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites (12.9).

The murder of Uriah is condemned, then the act of adultery with Bathsheba is denounced (although again the offended party is Uriah), then the condemnation of the murder is repeated. Hertzberg states, 'The 9. Gunn (1978: 97-98), however, gives Uriah equal importance with Bathsheba.

130

The Wages of Sin

sin of which David is here accused is not adultery, but that he murdered a husband and then took the wife for himself (1964: 314). He regards vv. 11-12 as a separate condemnation of the adultery, thus seeing two individual condemnations for each of the crimes. H.P. Smith (1899: 323), on the other hand, saw 12.9 as a condemnation of the adultery which has been expanded to include a double reference to the murder. It is perhaps approaches such as that taken by Smith, emphasizing the adultery and relegating mention of the murder to secondary expansion, which have encouraged or occasioned reference to 'the Bathsheba incident' and the undermining of the importance of Uriah to the narrative. Identification of the lamb in the parable with Bathsheba and the poor man with Uriah also tends to emphasize the sin of adultery over against that of murder.10 Thus the impression that ch. 11 is basically the story of David's adultery is strengthened. However this is not the only possible interpretation of the story. Delekat (1967: 33) suggests that the lamb should be identified with Uriah, that David should be seen as the guest and that it is Yahweh himself who is the rich man. This resolves several problems that he encounters with the traditional interpretation in that it is Uriah, not Bathsheba, who dies, while the rich man does not kill the lamb for himself but for his guest. Thus he sees Yahweh as the truly guilty party in that he could have frustrated David's plans to kill Uriah, but did not. Despite resolving certain issues, however, this scheme also creates considerable difficulties and must therefore be rejected. If we identify David as the guest, then his guilt is almost totally removed. Yet the condemnation contradicts this sentiment in no uncertain terms, for Nathan places all the blame on David and David himself acknowledges this to be the case. Indeed the statement in 12.8, 'and I gave you...your master's wives into your bosom...and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more', which expresses Yahweh's willingness to give David more wives (other than Bathsheba) also runs firmly contrary to this idea. It would seem rather that this story must be taken strictly in the sense of a parable and not as an allegory. This avoids the problem involved in trying to identify the guest. Indeed, no-one seriously attempts to identify the poor man's children, for an allegorical interpretation of every 10. It is widely agreed that the lamb in the parable is Bathsheba. Indeed it is interesting that Gordon (1986: 257) draws attention to the parallel between the first element of Bathsheba's name (ro, 'daughter') and the statement in 12.3 that the lamb was like a daughter to the poor man.


131

element in the story proves impossible. Moreover, the lamb in the story was an unwilling victim whereas the biblical text gives no indication that David's initial crime was rape. Rather it is portrayed as a seduction. Also it is the lamb who is put to death in the parable, whereas in ch. 11 it is Uriah (the poor man) who falls victim to David's wiles. Therefore it would seem appropriate to take nothing more than a general parallel between the two stories. The overall message of Nathan's story is that the poor man (Uriah) was grieviously and irreversibly wronged by the rich man (David). Therefore the role of Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 (to which the parable relates) should not be emphasized to the exclusion of Uriah, but the importance of both crimes committed by David should be recognized. The structure of chs. 10-12 should be seen in terms of a framework (the account of the war in 2 Sam. 10 and 12.26-31) surrounding and setting the scene for the main story. This central section is a narrative dealing with David's seduction of Bathsheba, murder of Uriah, condemnation by the prophet, confession, repentance and the beginning of his punishment—the death of the child of adultery. This may be illustrated as follows: 10

Ammonite War: framework 11 Adultery and Murder: main section 12.1-14 Condemnation 12.15-23 Death of the Child 12.24-25 Birth of Solomon 12.26-31 Ammonite War: framework The two verses recording Solomon's birth (12.24-25) could possibly constitute the climax of this section of the narrative (as Rost and others assert) because the story is complete in itself without any mention of Solomon.11 Instead I have argued that the story of Solomon's birth should be regarded as a parenthesis. However although the role of Uriah in these chapters has been emphasized, the intention has not been to portray him as the major character in the narrative, but rather to illustrate that the crimes of murder and adultery are of equal interest to the narrator. It is David who is the main character here and throughout 2 Samuel 10-20; it is his actions and his attitudes that are of central interest in the work. Thus there are two crimes that dominate the David-Bathsheba-Uriah 11. Chapter 2, pp. 50-51.

132

The Wages of Sin

account, and indeed all of chs. 10-20: David's adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah. The significance of these acts may be measured in that they warrant a rare theological comment which is one of only three editorial notes in this material.1211.27b states: 'But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD'. Chapter 11 records the crimes and after the pivotal comment of 11.27b, there follows in ch. 12 the expose, decree of punishment and initial consequences. Within the immediate context, the punishment for David's acts is the death of the child of adultery. However attention is drawn to Nathan's statements following David's confession: Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house (12.10a). I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun (12.11).

The implication of this then is more far-reaching than the death of the unfortunate infant. However one question that remains to be answered is whether vv. 13-14, entailing at least some measure of forgiveness, invalidates the previous decrees. Here Nathan announces (following David's confession), 'The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.' If this is the work of a single writer, as has been argued in Chapter 4, then it does not annul the earlier declarations of punishment. The prediction of v. 11 is too closely connected to Absalom's rape of David's concubines to be coincidental. The connection here was undoubtedly intended by the author. What punishment is David spared then? The answer to this must lie in the words 'you shall not die' (v. 13b). The sentence that is remitted is the death sentence that David pronounces upon himself in v. 5. McCarter (1984: 299) thinks that mirp should not be taken as a pronouncement of punishment but as an angry ejaculation. Thus, on the basis of the similar 'PiT'pirp, he translates mn~p as 'fiend of hell'. However if such a translation is adopted, v. 13 becomes obscure and the death of the child remains unexplained. Rost, on the other hand, takes all of 12.7b-12 as secondary (1982: 87). He omits the announcement of punishment—Nathan's 'You are the man' (v. 7a) is followed immediately by David's repentance and the death of the child. Thus the reverberations of David's sin are confined to ch. 12 12. Highlighted by von Rad (1966): 2 Sam. 11.27b; 12.24b-25; and 17.14b.


133

and its consequences do not extend beyond this section of the work. However it appears that Rost has come to this conclusion only because of his preconceived idea of the theme of the work. He believed that the purpose of the story of Absalom's revolt was to trace the history of the succession. Thus he could envisage no primary link between this and ch. 12, which he saw as part of the history of the successor. This then may be an appropriate point at which to comment on Rost's method. It has already been concluded that it was not the intention of the author of 2 Samuel 10-20 to compose a SN.13 A significant criticism levelled at Rost by Gunn (1978) in the context of his method of approach has also been noted.14 Rost's delimitation of the extent of SN is carried out on the basis of his prior isolation of the succession theme. Hence 2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23 is included in the narrative because it concerns Michal's barrenness. It has thus a (negative) link with the history of the succession and the elimination of possible rivals of Solomon. Gunn argues that this is not a suitable way to approach any text, 'since it entails a large risk that the crucial definition of the theme will be arrived at before the boundaries of the material are known' (1978: 81, the italics are Gunn's). He maintains that the extent of a source or document ought to be defined before its theme is deciphered. Otherwise the result may be an artificial theme—one not emphasized by the original author or compiler—due to the exclusion of material rightly belonging to the document because it does not accord with the perception of the theme. Indeed it is equally true that material naturally extraneous to the document could be inadvertently included for similar reasons. I would argue that Nathan's condemnation of David in 12.7-15 extends outside this section (chs. 10-12) in its repercussions. Although the child dies because of David's sin and in lieu of him, further and more widespread consequences of his actions are predicted and their fulfilment is traced in the subsequent chapters. Let us then examine each of the examples of Sin and Punishment found in the narrative. The first instance of this theme may be seen in the account of the Ammonite wars in 2 Samuel 10; 12.26-31. The offence is perpetrated by the Ammonites against David (in particular) and Israel (in general). The shaving of the ambassador's beards and the cutting of their clothes is designed as an insult and as such violates both moral principles and an international code of behaviour. This is seen in that they 'become 13. Chapter 2, pp. 43-44. 14. See above, Chapter 1, p. 32.

134

The Wages of Sin

odious' to David (10.6). The crime therefore warrants punishment. It is swiftly administered by the offended Israel, whose forces conquer and subdue both Ammon and her allies (10.6-19; 12.26-31). Thus the narrative begins with a clear and concise outworking of its main theme. Hence the account of the Ammonite wars may be seen to fulfil a double function within the text: it provides a background for the main section of the work (11.1-12.25), setting it in its temporal context; it also provides an initial statement and illustration of the theme, which will be followed through the entire narrative. The account of David's adultery and murder, which I have argued to be the key element in the entire narrative, is sandwiched in the middle of the account of the Ammonite wars. Just as the crime of the Ammonites is met with immediate punishment by David, so too the crime committed by David (this time offending divine rather than human principles) is met with immediate condemnation and punishment by Yahweh. The initial punishment was the death of the child of adultery, but 12.7-14 has wider implications and promises further punishment. It is the theme of Sin and Punishment and the repercussions of these incidents that supply the link between this and the remainder of the work. The second section of the work, chs. 13-14, is also largely concerned with sins (or crimes). It deals with Amnon's crimes of rape (and incest?) and Absalom's murder of his brother. As has been discussed,15 the crimes of David's sons are completely subordinate to and dependent upon David's own crimes in ch. 11, although the acts of the sons are more violent than those of the father. In ch. 11, David seduces Bathsheba, while in ch. 13 Amnon seduces Tamar. In ch. 11, David causes the death of Uriah, while in ch. 13 Absalom causes the death of Amnon. Yet whereas David seduces, commits adultery and murders (indirectly), his sons commit rape, incest and fratricide, so that there is almost a sense of his 'sins coming home to roost'. Another interesting contrast is that certainly with the adultery and probably with the murder, David's deeds are portrayed as spontaneous actions. However both the crimes of Amnon and Absalom are the result of long premeditation. There may also be a parallel between the roles of Uriah and David in chs. 11 and 13 respectively. Uriah suffers twice in the context of ch. 11, for he is the victim of both the adultery and the murder. So too David may be seen to suffer doubly in ch. 13 in that it is his children who are both the aggressors and the victims of the two crimes. 15. See above, Chapter 4, pp. 115-16.


135

Thus there is a definite parallel between the two sections. Indeed, Fokkelman entitles his investigation of 13.1-38 'Chips off the Old Block' (1981: 99-125). Chapter 13 is a mirror image of ch. 11, and the sins of David's sons uncannily reflect those that he himself had earlier committed. What then is the implication of this? In many ways these acts should be seen as punishments for David's crimes, as he suffers because of them.16 However, as well as being punishments for David's crimes, they are also crimes in themselves and as such receive their own due punishment. The agents of their punishment though, are human—Amnon meets death at the hands of Absalom, who is in turn forced into exile. On the other hand, Yahweh himself is seen to intervene in the matter of David's punishment in ch. 12. Unlike the preceding material, the connection of the final section of the work (chs. 15-20) with the theme of Sin and Punishment is not immediately obvious. Its subject matter is not that of a crime and subsequent punishment (as was the case with both chs. 10-12 and 13-14). However it illustrates the theme of Sin and Punishment in that the coup d'etat led by Absalom is intended by the writer of 12.7-12 to be seen as a direct consequence of David's sin in 2 Samuel 11. This may be demonstrated in that Absalom's violation of David's concubines (16.2122) is linked firmly with David's seduction of Uriah's wife (11.2-5). One significant feature of both these events is the palace roof (cf. Whybray 1968: 24). The noun 33 ('roof, 'top') does not occur frequently in the Hebrew Bible. Its employment in both these incidents suggests parallels to which the author wanted to draw attention. He uses it to highlight the violation of the concubines as another consequence of David's sin and therefore another aspect of the theme of Sin and Punishment. He does this by causing his audience to recall the events of 11.2-5 at the recurrence of this noun in 16.22 under, if not similar, at least related circumstances. In 2 Sam. 11.2, the word is employed twice in the context of David's initial impetus towards adultery with Bathsheba. The text states that in the evening David rose from his bed "f^QH ITU 33"^ "j^nm and from the roof11 of the palace he saw the woman bathing and was struck by 16. Cf. 2 Sam.12.21, 'When King David heard of all these things he was very angry'; 2 Sam. 12.37b, 'And David mourned for his son day after day'; 2 Sam. 12.39, 'And the spirit of the king longed to go forth to Absalom'. 17. McCarter (1984: 279), following the Syriac Version, regards the second ÛQ

136

The Wages of Sin

her beauty. Some commentators have sought to establish a greater degree of significance for the function of the roof here than is implicit in the text. For example Hertzberg (1964: 309), following Schulz (1920: 114), sees as deliberately provocative Bathsheba's bathing in a place where she could be seen. Me Kane (1963: 228), on the other hand, deems David a 'peeping-Tom' for deliberately spying on the woman from his higher position. However the text makes no judgment on the motivation of either David or Bathsheba. Rather the noun 33 features in the text in order to associate the roof with the adulterous union between David and his neighbour's wife. The next occurence of this word is in 16.2, where the text reads: 'So they pitched a tent for Absalom 33rr1?^ and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel'. The link between the two passages is clear: just as the roof was the focal point in David's act of taking the wife of another, so too it is the focal point when another man takes David's wives. This link having been established, the connection between the two events is reinforced by the more pointed and specific decree of punishment for the sin of adultery in 12.11-12. It states: Thus says the LORD, 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.'

Thus Yahweh's condemnation, which separates sin (the adultery with Bathsheba) and punishment (the rape of the concubines), is also seen to mark out the latter act as the punishment for the former. Indeed, just as the linguistic usage of 33 served to link the two acts, so too the phrases 'PN-IEr'^D and T1?4? are common to both the prediction of the punishment and the act itself. 2 Sam. 12.11 warns that another will take his wives nNTn $n$n TJ^ and that this will be done 'wifertD 13]. 2 Sam. 16.22 states: 'and Absalom went in to his father's concubines ~^D T!?1? "wife?0. Further correspondence between the two might also be seen more readily in English if we were to translate the flRTH tfnitfn by the colloquial 'in broad daylight' instead of the more stilted, literal 'before the sun', which is used by most English translations and commentaries. Absalom's act is carried out during the daytime and is witnessed by many, hence the significance of this phrase in 12.11 -12. 33H as a secondary insertion and argues for its omission.


137

When the violation of the concubines is viewed from this perspective, it becomes clear that the wider context of the revolt is also intended to be seen as a punishment. The former has been seen to be the result of David's adultery, but Nathan's condemnation in 12.7-14 also predicts chastisement for David's murder of Uriah. This takes the form of trouble within his own family. It is stated that in consequence of David's acts, The sword shall never depart from your house...' (12.10a) and that 'I [Yahweh] will raise up evil against you out of your own house...' (12.1 la). These references are specific and in their present context must be taken to refer to both the Amnon-Tamar-Absalom incidents (2 Sam. 13-14) and to the coup d'etat led by Absalom (2 Sam. 15-20). Indeed it is virtually impossible not to relate Absalom's revolt to the condemnation of David's sin, unless one follows Rost and dismisses 12.7b-12 as secondary. Thus this should be regarded as yet another aspect of the continuing retribution to which David is subject consequent to the acts of 2 Samuel 11. Attention should also be drawn to the fate of Absalom. Not only are David's sins punished in 2 Samuel 10-20, but the offences of others also receive their due recompense, as seen above. This was the case with the Ammonites' humiliation of the ambassadors (10.1-5) and Amnon's rape of Tamar (13.1-19). In both these instances, the agent of their punishment was human (the Israelite armies in 10.6-19 and 12.26-31; Absalom in 13.20-29). On this principle then, one cannot fail to observe a striking similarity between the death of Amnon and that of Absalom. Absalom's murder of Amnon functioned as the punishment for Amnon's earlier crime against Tamar. However Absalom's act was a crime in itself and also merited punishment. The close parallel between the deaths of the two brothers as recorded in 13.28-29 and 18.14-15 gives the impression of the punishment fitting the crime. Neither of the two men were in a position to defend themselves: Amnon was 'merry with wine' (13.28); Absalom was caught in the branches of a tree (18.9). Both were killed by a group of (unnamed) men: Amnon by Absalom's servants (13.29); Absalom by Joab's armour bearers (18.15). Thus a distinct similarity between the two events should be acknowledged. Indeed it appears that that the murder of Absalom is intended to echo the death of Amnon and thus be seen as a consequence of the fratricide in 13.23-29.18 18. Absalom's death is, of course, primarily related to his rebellion against David, but the description of the actual act serves as a literary allusion to Amnon's murder.

138

The Wages of Sin

When viewed in the light of the scheme of Sin and Punishment, chapter 20 does present some difficulty. It does not seem to follow the pattern set in chs. 15-19, which unfolded the divine chastening of David. This problem could be avoided by regarding it as an independent fourth section, but this would not provide a satisfactory solution. Chapter 20 follows on from the end of ch. 19 in such a way that the actual story is never interrupted (as it is interrupted between chs. 12 and 13 and between chs. 14 and 15). On the other hand, ch. 20 does seem to fulfil a function at the end of the narrative similar to that of the Ammonite war account at the beginning. Like the war story, the account of Sheba ben Bichri's revolt is concerned with political events of a wider significance than the domestic affairs of the rest of 2 Samuel 10-20. Indeed the main function of ch. 20 may be that, together with the account of the Ammonite wars, it sets the account of David's sin and punishment (a narrative of private events) in the context of international political events. Thus it provides its setting in time and space.19 However like the Ammonite war narrative, 2 Samuel 20 also contains an element of crime and punishment in itself. Amasa is guilty of negligence in delaying the pursuit of the enemy and Sheba is guilty of rebellion in leading Israel in revolt against the king. Both of them are put to death as punishment for their crimes. Another possible structural link may be seen in that just as his sons's acts mirrored David's crimes in chs. 11-12, so Sheba's rebellion in ch. 20 may be intended to reflect Absalom's revolt in chs. 15-18. Thus, if an overall view of the theme of Sin and Punishment in the work is taken, the narrative is basically approached as the story of David's sins (ch. 11) and their consequences. These consequences span several years, as is indicated by the time-scale of the work. Thus the importance of the first section (chs. 10-12) to the work as a whole should be stressed, for it assumes the dominant position in the text. That this has not generally been acknowledged must be due largely to the non-recognition of the theme of Sin and Punishment as the motivating force of the whole. These chapters, and principally their central section 19. Although the history of Absalom's revolt is ostensibly dealing with a political event—the coup d'etat led by one of David's sons—this is approached from a personal rather than a political perspective. The text is more interested in David's reactions to these events and in his relationship with those he encounters on his way from Jerusalem than in what we would probably consider points of 'historical' or 'political' interest.


139

(11.1-12.25), should be regarded as the pivotal point of the entire work. This is the main statement of the theme of David's sin, and the remainder of the narrative is primarily concerned with the resulting penalty of this sin. Therefore, great importance and a strong emphasis should be accorded to the first section of the work. However, before proceeding further, one should pause to consider 2 Samuel 24. It is obvious to even the most casual reader that ch. 24 is concerned almost solely with sin and punishment, but it falls outside the confines of 2 Samuel 10-20. It is a self-contained unit within the Samuel appendix. Yet it is the choice of punishment offered to David that makes it of interest for the study of 2 Samuel 10-20. In 2 Sam. 24.13 the prophet Gad asks: 'Shall three years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land?' Although it is the final alternative that comes about in ch. 24, the first and second choices describe the events of 2 Sam. 21.1-14 and 2 Samuel 15-20 respectively. Although the Samuel appendix comes from a different source than does 2 Samuel 10-20, it has been placed in its present position in the framework to chs. 10-20 by the author of the latter work.20 Thus it is possible to view the second punishment in ch. 24 as a direct reference to Absalom's revolt. However both the famine and the plague (the punishments that occur in the appendix) are referred to as threatening 'your land' (~[^"1K), while the flight from his enemies is seen as befalling David personally (yi^-as1? ~|D] D'tznn rKZftCTDK). This may emphasize the personal nature of 2 Samuel 10-20 in contrast with the appendix, which is more nationally orientated. Indeed, in the past, SN has sometimes been referred to as David's Family History (Familiengeschichte) (Budde 1890: 247; Rost 1982: 65). In many ways this is an appropriate title, for the ITU or family is an important motif within the context of the Sin and Punishment theme.21 Much of the punishment inflicted on David as a result of his sin is connected with his family. Absalom, Amnon and Bathsheba's first child meet their deaths and Tamar and the concubines are raped as a direct 20. See above, Chapter 3, pp. 82-85. 21. Conroy (1978) stresses that there is a familial dimension or motif of family relationship that recurs frequently within 2 Sam. 13-20. He sees this in the emphasis placed upon the various relationships in the text, for example between Tamar and Absalom, Amnon and Jonadab, and Joab and Absalom, as well as between David and his children.

140

The Wages of Sin

result of David's transgressions in 2 Samuel 11. Thus in many ways the work seems to compare David and Uriah. David has interfered with Uriah's family and has in effect destroyed it. As a result Yahweh will interfere with David's family and cause him great distress and suffering. However, outside chs. 10-20 in the framework material, hope is presented in the promise of an enduring dynasty and a hereditary throne. This may be related to chs. 10-20, and perhaps specifically to David's repentance in 12.13. Although Uriah's family was destroyed by David, Yahweh is merciful and David's family will not be destroyed, but only disrupted or disturbed. Thus 2 Samuel 10-20 may be seen as having a definite structure, which may be illustrated as follows:

I

{10 {11.1-26 {11.27-12.14 {12.15-25 {12.26-31

Background: Ammonite War DAVID'S SIN Condemnation and Announcement of Punishment Immediate Consequences Background: Ammonite War

II

13-14

Further Consequences

III

{15-19 {20

Further Consequences Background: Rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri

There is some similarity between this and the structure envisaged by Leimbach in his 1936 commentary on Samuel. The main point of similarity is in his view of 2 Samuel 11-20 as Davids Sunde und ihre Folgen (David's sin and its consequences). Without reservation he identifies the acts of David's children with the warnings in 12.9-12. He states, David disregarded the word and will of God. He has had an honourable man slain by the sword of heathen enemies, having already robbed him of his wife's fidelity. So the sword will claim victims in his house (Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah) and another will publicly take posession of his womenfolk (Absalom, on his entry into Jerusalem) (1936: 172; my translation).

However, although he perceived the basis of the structure as Sin and Punishment, Leimbach did not pursue this motif or identify it as a theme within the work. It is also notable that he did not include ch. 10 with the following material, but saw it as belonging with chs. 5-9, which he termed David Konig Uber Gesamt-hrael (David king of all-Israel).22 22. Leimbach also saw ch. 9 as belonging with the early chapters and makes no attempt to identify it with the following material. Cf. the discussion above of the


141

Fokkelman (1981: 414) notes that Bar-Efrat, in the conclusion of his 1975 doctoral dissertation, proposes to replace Thronfolgegeschichte/SN with the title 'David's Sin and its Consequences'. However I have not been able to gain access to Bar-Efrat's thesis, but only to an English abstract of its contents (Bar-Efrat 1978). Unfortunately this proposal is not covered there and the extent of Bar-Efrat's debt (if any) to Leimbach cannot be assessed at this time nor is there any indication of the depth of his discussion of the theme of SN. However on the grounds that the English abstract makes no mention of it, one is compelled to assume that discussion of the theme in his work is not extensive. Morton Smith (1951) also regarded 2 Samuel 10-20 (together with 1 Kgs 1-2) as a story of crime and punishment. However his concern was not with the theme, but with the genre of the work. Thus he allowed little for the literary quality and richness of theme that has been observed here. Rather he categorized the work as 'a moral tract' and its writer as a 'preacher' (1951: 168). However the narrative is not concerned only with Sin and Punishment. It is a highly developed piece of literature, not a religious tract or a theological treatise. Its literary sophistication is indicated by numerous scholars. Rost calls it 'the finest work of Hebrew narrative art' (1982: 115); Gunn sees it as 'a fine example of narrative art, a skilfully told story' (1978: 13); Hertzberg comments of the author, 'whoever took up his pen not only knew the facts but could also describe them, pertinently, in a skilful and artistic form, with a clear eye for the theological essentials' (1964: 379); while Fokkelman calls it 'this great and grand story' (1981: 9). To envisage it as being confined to one single area is to undermine its quality. As Hagan (1979) has indicated, the text is much more profound than this: depth and quality are not limited to language and style, but extend also to theme and perspective. Certainly the narrative is structured around the theme of Sin and Punishment, but 2 Samuel 10-20 is also interested in other aspects of the story it relates, so that it presents us with several themes and motifs.23

place of ch. 9 in 2 Samuel (Chapter 3, pp. 74-81). 23. Cf. Hagan's theme of deception. He presents it as one of several themes that can be detected in the text and although I have taken issue with his avoidance of the question of a main theme (see above, p. 123), one must appreciate his observation that SN cannot be confined to a presentation of a single theme.

142

The Wages of Sin David the Man

With this in mind we may observe that another major interest of the text is in the character of David. Auzou remarks of him, '// provoque I'affection' (1968: 43, quoted by Gunn 1978: 23), and this short statement seems in many ways to capture the flavour of the work. The author of the narrative clearly likes the man David and the reader inevitably identifies with the central character. The reasons for this identification are twofold: it is the result of the writer's personal perspective on David and the manner in which he is presented. The David of 2 Samuel 10-20 is a character to whom it is easy to relate, for he is presented in a very human way, with all his human weaknesses to the fore. Thus the audience does not see a mighty general or an all-powerful king, but a man who has all the human failings which they themselves possess. 2 Samuel 10-20 is concerned with presenting David as such, for the writer depicts him as a man just like any other man in Israel. He is not portrayed as a king who is superior to the ordinary people, for at times David comes across as an inferior mortal (cf. the contrast with Uriah)! This is in accord with the conclusion that the entire structure and plot of the narrative revolve around the character of David. The narrative is interested solely in David, as is attested throughout. Even the sin/punishment structure is based upon David, for it is his crimes and the ensuing penalties which are the foundation of the entire work. His humanity is frequently emphasized, for most often in these chapters we do not see the regal characteristics, but the human. He is often presented in less than his best light, so that we must go outside 2 Samuel 10-20 to find evidence of the traditional view of David. Here he is not the king to surpass all kings, but the man who happens to be king. An important aspect of David's humanity in this material is his weakness. Here he is frequently portrayed in weakness. That this is a special feature of 2 Samuel 10-20 may be demonstrated by the contrast it presents with the earlier chapters of 2 Samuel, in which David is consistently portrayed in strength. This may be seen in his position as the stronger of the two rival kings (chs. 2-4), his treatment of the messengers bringing news of the deaths of Saul and Ishbosheth (1.13-16; 4.8-12), his military defeat of various neighbouring states (5.6-10, 17-25; 8.1-14) and his dealings with Mephibosheth (ch.-9). In chs. 10-20, however, this trend is reversed and he is increasingly shown in a quite different light as the motif of his weakness emerges.


143

David is first shown in a weak position in the anecdote that begins ch. 10 (vv. 1-5). When the ambassadors are treated shamefully by the Ammonites, as his personal representatives it is not they but their king against whom the insult is intended.24 Just as his representatives are powerless to prevent this treatment of them, so David cannot prevent Israel being shamed by this act. This is the first indication of his weakness. A quite different kind of weakness is found in ch. 11. When he succumbs to human passions by seducing Bathsheba and murdering Uriah, David demonstrates a grave moral weakness. Whereas in 1 Samuel 16-2 Samuel 9, David is consistently portrayed as morally blameless, this account marks a sharp and even shocking contrast with all that has gone before. Indeed the impact of this contrast may be observed even in modern works. For example, Hertzberg states: The story of David and Bathsheba has long aroused both dismay and astonishment; dismay that King David, with his manifest piety, could stoop to such an act, and astonishment that the Bible narrates it with such unrelenting openness, although the person involved is David, the great and celebrated king, the type of Messiah (1964: 309).

In committing adultery and murder, David is seen to fall from the exemplary position in which he has been held up until this point. There is a sense of the king coming down from his throne, for there is no longer any quality of moral value to mark him off from the common people. By this he is stripped of the regal aura surrounding him and is presented as a man who uses his position to manipulate situations in order to indulge his own carnal desires. In the following chapter (ch. 12) David is once more shown in weakness. This is yet another type of weakness: David's weakness as a human in the face of Yahweh's divine power. Chapter 11 has shown David employing his power as a king to advance his own ends and by so doing he has transgressed Yahweh's laws. However the implication is that David is not his own master and is only king in Israel because of divine favour. Thus when he is confronted by the Great King in ch. 12, his own power fades into insignificance and he is seen in complete powerlessness. Nathan's condemnation of David in vv. 7-13 emphasizes David's weakness and Yahweh's power. It begins: 24. P. 125.

144

The Wages of Sin Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; and I gave you your master's house, and your master's wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more...' (12.7b-8).

Thus David's power is seen to be derived from Yahweh. David is totally dependent upon one whose own might is immeasurably superior to his. This is further emphasized by the punishment to which Yahweh sentences him and which he has no choice but to accept meekly. His weakness and the power of Yahweh are contrasted even more strongly in the following scene (12.15-23). This passage records the death of the child of adultery. Yahweh decrees that the infant must die, much to the distress of David, who mourns, fasts, lies prostrate and begs that the child be spared. However he can do nothing to avert the sentence and he acknowledges this in a poignant speech on the inevitability of death: 'But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me' (v. 23). Thus he is weak and powerless to stem the tide of events. Although he is a mighty king with the power to take life (as he did in the case of Uriah), only Yahweh the Great King has the power both to take and to give life. Thus in chs. 11-12 the presence of the motifs of power and weakness may be observed. Initially David's power as a king leads to his moral weakness in the misuse of this power. This results in the contrast between the divine power of Yahweh and the human weakness of David. However despite his obvious weakness, there is a certain inner strength in the David of ch. 12. This is seen in his immediate capitulation before Yahweh ('I have sinned against the LORD' [12.13]) and also in his reaction to the death of the child (12.23) which displays a wisdom and understanding beyond normal human perception. But is this actually strength? Perhaps it is merely an acknowledgement of the superior power of Yahweh. Perhaps it simply shows that he recognizes the futility of presuming any power or strength in the face of Yahweh. In the context of 2 Samuel, David's moral weakness is only a temporary state. Few commentators seem to acknowledge this and the misconception seems to form the basis of the negative approach to the character of David taken by some scholars. The text contrasts his actions in ch. 11 with his reactions in ch. 12. Whereas the former denigrate him, the latter elevate him to a position of sensitivity, as a result of which the audience begins to feel compassion for him. The reason for his reactions


145

in ch. 12 would seem to be this comprehension of the true position of his own weakness and Yah wen's power. By using the motif of weakness and contrasting it with Yahweh's power, the writer has presented David as truly human, a man with whom the audience can identify. He has been seen to be subject to temptation and to succumb to temptation; he has been seen to suffer and to mourn; and he has been seen to be truly powerless when confronted by Yahweh's superior strength. Thus it is not King David who is portrayed here, but the man David. He is not seen as a powerful king, but as a weak human being. It is the private not the public David who is on display. David is also shown in a type of weakness that is closely akin to powerlessness. 2 Sam. 13.39 states that 'the spirit of the king longed to go forth to Absalom', yet he seems unable to do so. It is only at the insistence of Joab that David gives orders for Absalom to be brought to Jerusalem from his exile in Geshur. Even then it is two years before the king grants him an audience. There is a barrier between the two which David cannot surmount. No reason is ever given for this. The barrier may have been legal, political, religious, or even emotional. Nevertheless we find that although 'the spirit of the king longed to go forth to Absalom', something stronger than him prevented him from doing so. As the actions of Amnon and Absalom in 2 Samuel 13 reflect the actions of their father in the preceding section of the work, so David's moral weakness of ch. 11 is reflected in their characters: Amnon heartlessly forces himself on his sister and Absalom has no scruples about carefully premeditating the murder of his brother. There may also be a contrast intended between the two brothers. Amnon is shown to be weak of character, for his lust causes him to take to his bed in self-pity. On the other hand, Absalom is seen in his silent and careful planning to have a great, if misdirected, strength of character. (Cf. 13.22, 'But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad; for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar'). However neither brother is granted the same degree of sympathy by the author of the work as is accorded to their father in and despite his weakness. In the final section of the work, David appears in the weakest condition of all. Here his weakness is political and military. Following the coup d'etat he is without the full support of his people and although he still retains the name of king, he has lost the power of the office. On the retreat from Jerusalem he is portrayed as truly weak and powerless, for he can do nothing to stem the tide of events.

146

The Wages of Sin

McCarter (1984: 375-77) draws attention to the penitential character of David's flight. This has also been discussed by other commentators from time to time (e.g. Caspari 1926; Ackroyd 1977). Ackroyd sees the details of the flight not as a historical record but as a representation of the relationship between David and Yahweh. McCarter, on the other hand, argues that the description of the flight as an act of penance was based on actual events, but that 'David—and the narrator—understood his exile from the city as a situation to which a penitential response was somehow appropriate' (1984: 376). He argues that penance is appropriate here because of the events leading up to the rebellion—that is, the rape and incest that led to fratricide because David did not punish Amnon. He connects the flight with the Amnon-Tamar episode and not with 12.7-12. He does so because he takes chs. 13-20 together as a single unit, viewing ch. 12 as the product of another (later) author. There are two difficulties with McCarter's view. First, it has been found that there are three distinct sections in the work. Thus chs. 13-14 are no more closely related to the story of Absalom's revolt than they are to chs. 10-12. Secondly, it should be noted that the Masoretic Text of ch. 13 does not state that David took no action against Amnon. This point is often overlooked. 13.21-22 is usually translated: 'When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad; for Absalom hated Amnon because he had forced his sister Tamar.' The English conjunction 'but' may be misleading in v. 22. If the Hebrew 1 were to be translated as 'and' then there would not be the same sense of contrast between David and Absalom as is engendered by this translation. Moreover the text here is not concerned with David's action, but with the actions of Absalom. It is stated that David was 'very angry' and it is possible (although perhaps not likely) that some action could have been taken against Amnon without its having been recorded here. It is possible that this could have been the case because the rape of an unbetrothed girl was not a capital offence according to biblical law (cf. Exod. 22.16-17; Deut. 22.2S-29).25 Thus it may be that by pinning the blame for the fratricide on David, lack of action on his part may be read into the text which is not implied in the Masoretic Text. However McCarter inserts the following into the 25. The question of the attitude towards incest is somewhat more difficult, as the issue is complicated by the contrast between Tamar's plea in 13.13b and the pentateuchal statutes in Lev. 18.9, 11; 20.17; Deut. 27.22. See McCarter 1984: 32324; Gordon 1986: 263.


147

text of 13.21: 'but he did nothing to chasten his son Amnon, because he loved him, since he was his firstborn' (1981: 366). This is reconstructed on the basis of readings in the Septuagint, Vulgate and 4QSam.a. Regardless of the underlying causes, there is certainly evidence supporting the penitential nature of the journey. Such may be found in 15.23 and 15.30, which describe David's passage through the countryside in terms similar to those used of mourning rites. Also significant are David's submission to the inevitable with abject humility and the suggestion of divine disapproval in 16.5-13. Indeed his response to Shimei's cursing ('Let him alone, and let him curse', 16.1 Ib) reveals something of the feeling that David's suffering will somehow appease Yahweh's anger. As such this idea emphasizes the weakness of David on his flight. Penance is not endured by the powerful, but by the weak and self-abasing. On this occasion David falls into both these categories. However the weakness of David here is used to highlight the power of Yahweh, for when he is at his lowest ebb (after hearing of Ahithophel's support for Absalom) he cries out: 'O LORD, I pray thee, turn the counsel of Ahithophel into foolishness' (15.31b). This is immediately followed by the appearance of Hushai who will prove to be the main cause of the defeat of Absalom's forces. It is not coincidental that this meeting takes place at 'the summit where God was worshipped', for it is the deliberate intention of the narrator to emphasize the part played by Yahweh in granting David victory. David's grief over the death of Absalom in ch. 19 may also be identified as contributing to the theme of his weakness. Here he is observed as unable to subdue his personal feelings in order to behave as a monarch who has been served loyally by his subjects. His mournful cry in 18.33 (Heb. 19.1) of 'O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!' completely removes him from the role of king and portrays him instead as a distraught parent. McCarter (1981) also sees this as a weakness. Indeed he would extend this weakness to include all his dealings with his sons in SN. Thus he deems David's treatment of Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah as expressions of this weakness, stating that 'as a father he is, perhaps, too loving, unwilling finally to condemn a miscreant son' (1981: 36). Finally in chs. 19 and 20, David is once more in a state of political/ military weakness. Here he is powerless to prevent the (temporary) estrangement of Israel and Judah brought about by Sheba ben Bichri.

148

The Wages of Sin

However this weakness may be seen as a direct result of the blow dealt to David, and to his kingship, by Absalom's coup d'etat. Yet his troops under the leadership of Joab are quick to regain their strength and to subdue the rebellion and unite the two groups. Throughout the text the idea of the power of Yahweh may be observed to run parallel with that of the weakness of David. Another aspect of David's character that draws attention to this contrast may be highlighted: it is his humility before Yahweh. This is first seen in ch. 12, when David acknowledges Nathan's accusations. He humbles himself before the prophet, God's representative. His repentance is related in one short and rapid sentence: 'I have sinned against the LORD' (12.13). The episode surrounding the death of the child also entails a demonstration of his humbling himself before Yahweh. When the infant becomes ill, David assumes the role of a mourner and pleads for its life: 'David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground' (12.16). Here the act of prostrating himself for a long period may be seen as a deliberate and intentional indication of self-abasement before the superior power of Yahweh. The penitential character of the flight from Jerusalem has already been discussed and this also entails David humbling himself. Indeed his entire demeanour during the flight exudes a humility that results from his perception of his misfortunes as a punishment from Yahweh. This is most apparent in his encounter with Shimei ben Gera when he voices the possibility that his plight has been caused by God: 'If he is cursing because the LORD has said to him, "Curse David", who then shall say, "Why have you done so?"' His humility before Yahweh may also be seen in his attitude to the Ark in ch. 15. Abiathar and Zadok prepare to take the Ark and accompany him on his journey, but David prefers not to presume upon Yahweh's favour and orders it to be taken back to the city. Thus he appears again as submissive to Yahweh. He states: 'If I find favour in the eyes of the LORD, he will bring me back and let me see both it and his habitation' (v. 25), while he follows this with arguably the strongest evidence in 2 Samuel 10-20 of his self-effacement: 'but if he says, "I have no pleasure in you", behold, here I am, let him do to me what seems good to him' (v. 26). The picture of David presented in this narrative is thus unequivocably one of a man willing to humble himself before Yahweh. He presumes no privilege of rank or favour and appears submissive and lowly.


149

The motifs of David's weakness and humility are closely linked. Both portray aspects of the man behind the office and both achieve a similar effect. I have argued that the motif of David's weakness is deployed so as to allow the audience to identify with him, by emphasizing his fallibility. However this motif conveys, at times, a negative aspect of his humanity. For example his moral weakness brings him into condemnation not only from Yahweh, but also from the audience who recognize the folly of his deeds. On the other hand, the motif of David's humility may be thought of as a positive aspect of his humanity, for it invariably produces sympathy on the part of the audience. It may then have the result of counterbalancing the effect of David's misdemeanours. However David's weakness is not a consistently negative motif, for in the final section of the work (chs. 15-20) his weakness very effectively engages sympathy for him. At any rate the narrator uses this to illustrate the character of David, a major concern of his work. The author is interested in the humanity of David—in his private affairs, rather than in his public life. Indeed the writer is not interested in conveying a picture of 'David the king', but of David the Man—the personality behind the throne. Thus the motifs of David's weakness and humility are employed to convey the overall theme of David the Man, for the writer's interest in the character of David is in the man himself.26 This emphasis on the theme of David the Man may be illustrated further by comparing the approach of 2 Samuel 10-20 with other similar material. Perhaps the most effective parallel may be found in a comparison of 2 Samuel 10-20 with the account of Saul's reign in 1 Samuel 831. This comparison is most useful because of the similarity between the two accounts both in situation and time, as well as their close literary proximity in the Hebrew Bible. These narratives are set during the reigns of Saul and David respectively, but the emphasis of each is vastly different. 1 Samuel 9-10 concerns Saul's anointing and tells the story of his search for the lost donkeys, his meeting with Samuel and his anointing as king. However after this point there are no stories about Saul's personal life and we 26. Gunn (1978: 88-94) also recognizes the presence of this theme in the material with which he deals. He sees an interaction between David in the private and political spheres in 2 Sam. 2-4, 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2. However it is my contention that in 2 Sam. 10-20 the writer is more interested in portraying David the man than David the king.

150

The Wages of Sin

learn little of the man. He is seen only in his role as king: we observe him leading the armies of Israel against the Ammonite Nahash in 1 Samuel 11; against the Philistines in chs. 13-14; against Amalek in ch. 15; and ch. 17 depicts the battle against the Philistines in which the young David defeats the enemy champion. Up until this point the only other interest of the text has been in the rift between Saul and Samuel. Following ch. 17, the interest of the narrative shifts from Saul to David and from thereon Saul features only in the context of his rivalry with the younger man. There are no stories about Saul's family here as there are about David's family in 2 Samuel 10-20. Saul is seen only at war with Israel's enemies, at loggerheads with the religious institution and in conflict with his rival David. The biblical text is not interested in the personality of Saul. There is no attempt to explore or develop his character. Its sole concern is with his fall from divine favour and ultimately from his office. This depiction of Saul therefore contrasts sharply with the approach to David in 2 Samuel 10-20, where his character is portrayed with care and sensitivity. There is also a significant contrast between the David of chs. 10-20 and the David portrayed in the rest of 2 Samuel. Both in 2 Samuel 1-9 and in chs. 21-24, the emphasis is on David's kingship. Chapters 1-9 are concerned with David's consolidation of power.27 Thus although the main interest of these chapters is David, he is seen here from a more public angle. This is also the case with chs. 21-24, where David deals with the famine (21.1-14), the census (24.1-9) and the plague (24.10-25) in his capacity as king. His military role is also emphasized in 21.15-22, as well as in 5.17-25 and ch. 8, in contrast with chs. 10-20 where he never takes an active role in battle. Thus the theme of David's humanity, or David the Man, is set in relief by the surrounding narratives in the framework. The question arises as to whether the themes explored here are conscious or unconscious themes. Have they been deliberately incorporated by the author? Or do they simply emerge involuntarily from the scenes that he describes? The above comparison of 2 Samuel 10-20 with other material in 1 and 2 Samuel has surely proved that the concern with the humanity of David—with David the Man—is characteristic of this writer. He has employed it for his own purposes, for it is his concern to present David as a man like any other man despite his high office. Thus 27. See Chapter 3, pp. 81-82.


151

this theme has been deliberately worked into the narrative and may then be described as a 'conscious' theme. As to Sin and Punishment, I have argued that it is the main theme of chs. 10-20. If this is the case, it must be a conscious theme, for the entire work has been seen to be arranged around it. It is an all-pervasive theme, hence its inclusion cannot be seen as merely random. Indeed it provides an explanation for why these selected incidents are narrated together to form this literary unit. Sin and Punishment is the very basis of 2 Samuel 10-20, and as such it must be recognized as a conscious theme, which was indeed intended by the author of the work. Finally, a comment is warranted on the relationship between these two major themes. How do Sin and Punishment and David the Man fit together in the context of this document? I have isolated Sin and Punishment as the main theme of the work. I have also stressed that the theme of David the Man, which incorporates the motifs of David's weakness and David's humility, is an essential element of the work. The relationship between the two might best be illustrated in terms of their contribution to the text. As the main theme, Sin and Punishment plays a large part in determining the structure of the work. David the Man, on the other hand, is not related to structure, but to the general approach of the author and the way in which the subject matter is portrayed. Thus both themes are essential elements in the working of the narrative, yet each serves different but complementary functions within the work as a whole. Minor Themes As well as these major themes, there are minor themes and motifs to be found in 2 Samuel 10-20. They are themes and ideas that are present in the narrative and are characteristic of it, but which do not play a vital role in the development or presentation of the plot.28 There are several such motifs that may be traced in 2 Samuel 10-20, three of which have already been mentioned: David's weakness,29 his humility30 and his family (H'D).31 Many others may remain, but I will only attempt to trace one of these in detail. 28. 29. 30. 31.

Pp. Pp. Pp. Pp.

126-27. 144-48. 148-49. 139-40.

152

The Wages of Sin

A significant characteristic of the text is its numerous references to mourning. It is notable that there should be so many instances of mourning in these chapters and it is not unreasonable to conclude that they have been employed for a specific purpose in the text. The first reference to death and mourning occurs as early as 10.1-2 when the Ammonite king dies and David sends messengers to console his grieving son. The next instance of mourning occurs in 12.16-17 when David petitions Yahweh for the life of the child. However this instance is remarkable (to David's contemporaries as well as to modern readers!) in that the mourning takes place before, but not after, the child dies. However one finds that in the Hebrew Bible the rites of mourning may be associated with repentance (as, for example, in the case of Ezra [Ezra 9]). Therefore David's actions here are more closely connected with his contrition and his petitioning of Yahweh for its life than with the death of the infant. This may be contrasted with David's reaction to the death of Absalom (18.33-19.8 [Heb. 19.1-9]), which is as violent as his acceptance of the baby's death is serene. In this case, however, David's lamentation is for the actual death of his son. Indeed there is a similar reaction in ch. 13 when the false rumour reaches the court that all David's sons have been killed. We are told, 'Then the king arose, and rent his garments, and lay on the earth; and all his servants who were standing by rent their garments' (v. 31). Thus David and the courtiers engage in the mourning practice of tearing their clothes and lying in the dust. Indeed we are also told of their weeping when the rumour is corrected and they know that only Amnon is dead: '...behold the king's sons came, and lifted up their voice and wept; and the king also and all his servants wept very bitterly' (v. 36). Another figure of mourning is David's daughter Tamar in ch. 13, following the treatment to which she is subjected by Amnon. Again this is a very vivid picture of the rites of mourning: 'And Tamar put ashes on her head with one hand, and rent the long robe which she wore; and she laid her hand on her head, and went away, crying aloud as she went' (13.19).32 Thus she too tears her clothes, weeps, pours ashes on 32. Driver (1913: 300) wanted to replace iTT in 12.19 with the plural iT"lT on the basis of the LXX reading. However it has been pointed out by several commentators (see Conroy 1978: 152; McCarter 1984: 326; Gordon 1986: 264) that putting one hand upon the head was an established sign of mourning in the ancient Near East.


153

herself, and covers her head. Some commentators (e.g. Hertzberg 1964: 324; Mauchline 1971: 261) draw attention to the correlation between Tamar's behaviour and that of a widow in bereavement. Mauchline comments, 'She mourned in widow's weeds, not for the husband she had lost, but for the husband she should have had' (1971: 261). Bathsheba has already been associated with mourning in 11.26-27. She goes through the customary mourning process, and when the set period is over, marries David. Perhaps there is a contrast intended between Bathsheba and Tamar. Tamar laments deeply for the husband she never had and remains 'a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom's house' (13.20). However there is no implication that Bathsheba's grief was anything other than shallow and perhaps even heartless. Whereas the text describes Tamar's actions graphically, Bathsheba's mourning is covered rapidly with the phrase: n^Jn'^JJ "[SOPH ('she made lamentation') whence the text passes on quickly with the words: 'TQtfn "GiTI. Perhaps then this is another indication of retribution: just as David has treated Uriah callously, so his daughter is treated equally callously. There is another mourning woman in ch. 14, for here Joab tells the woman from Tekoa to behave as if she were in mourning and to attire herself as if she had recently been bereaved. The intended link is between David (who has been in mourning for Amnon) and the woman (playing the part of a widowed mother who has recently lost one of her sons). The penitential character of David's flight from Jerusalem in 2 Sam. 15.16-16.14 has been discussed above but the biblical text is explicit in describing David and his entourage as mourners. It states: 'But David went up the ascent of the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went, barefoot and with his head covered; and all the people who were with him covered their heads, and they went up, weeping as they went' (15.30). Another instance of mourning is to be inferred from the demeanour of Mephibosheth when he meets David on his return from Transjordan. We are told that 'He had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, from the day the king departed until the day he came back in safety' (19.24). These are presumably signs of grief and mourning and are used to identify Mephibosheth with David's cause. Finally the fate of the concubines who had been left in Jerusalem is recorded. They are kept separately under guard, 'living as if in widowhood' (20.3). Their state, too, is described in terms appropriate to mourning. Indeed attention should be drawn to a link between the fate

154

The Wages of Sin

of these women and that of Tamar. In both instances they live as widows although this is not strictly the case. Thus again our attention is drawn to the contrast with Bathsheba (12.27), whose mourning for her dead husband is brief and is followed quickly by her marriage to David. The numerous examples of mourning in (the relatively short) 2 Samuel 10-20 mark this off as a specific theme or motif in the work. Nevertheless the import of the motif is not immediately visible, for it is certainly a 'minor' theme. The clue to its meaning may possibly lie in David's mourning of 12.16-17, where his actions are linked with repentance rather than with death, and specifically with his sin of ch. 11 and its punishment. This leads to the realization that (except for the mourning of Hanun in ch. 10) every instance of mourning in these chapters is to be linked with the punishment of David decreed in 12.10: 'Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house'. Hence the mourning of 2 Samuel 10-20 signifies both repentance over David's sin and grief over its punishment. There is mourning for the unnamed child; for Tamar; for Amnon; for Absalom; for the concubines; and for the exile of the royal household. Thus not only does this work present us with a picture of David's sin and its punishment, but also with its effect upon him and those close to him. In addition to the minor themes and motifs explored here, several scholars have highlighted other themes that are present in SN in a minor capacity. Among these, Hagan's examination (1979) of the motif of deception has already been acknowledged. Carlson (1964) also highlights several linguistic motifs, of which the JOE? motif is important. He traces the usage of the term 'seven' in 2 Samuel and establishes it as a useful concept. However his employment of textual emendation and his stress on the form of the names Bathsheba and Sheba ben Bichri are somewhat strained. In his subject index, Gunn (1978) lists no less than fifteen themes and motifs which he has discussed. He also advocates the presence in the text of several traditional story motifs and characteristic themes of oral-traditional composition. The most significant of these themes for the present work are those in which he underlines the emphasis on David's personal life: David as husband; as father; and in the private (as opposed to public) sphere. His appreciation of David's waiting to be given (rather than taking) the kingdom is also of interest. However it lies in effect outside the scope of the present discussion, as much of his evidence for this is based on the early chapters of 2 Samuel, which he includes with 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2.


155

Doubtless there are many other minor themes present in 2 Samuel 10-20 which have not been mentioned. The almost infinite possibilities of such a quest preclude its pursuance here. Let it suffice to say that the question of the presence of minor themes and motifs in 2 Samuel 10-20 remains an open one. Summary The conclusions in this chapter are as follows: 1.

2.

3.

The main theme of 2 Samuel 10-20 is that of Sin and Punishment and this revolves around 2 Samuel 10-12, which is the core of the work. David the Man is also a major theme of the narrative and the writer's interest in David's humanity dictates his presentation of the character. Other minor themes are to be uncovered in the text, among the most significant of which are the motifs of David's family, his weakness, his humility, and death and mourning.

Chapter 6 THE GENRE AND PURPOSE OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20

The issues of genre and purpose in 2 Samuel 10-20 are inseparably linked. The purpose underlying its composition becomes apparent only when its literary type is properly recognized. It is important for a full understanding of the material that the question of genre be explored. If its genre can be correctly established, then its purpose should become clear. It is remarkable that there has never been a common consensus on the genre of SN and that a great variety of views have been held. Gunn (1978: 19-29) lists these as: history writing (Wellhausen, von Rad, el al.}\ pro-Davidic/Solomonic political propaganda (Rost, Thornton, Whybray); anti-Solomonic political propaganda (Delekat, Holscher, Wurthwein, Veijola, Langlamet); Wisdom literature (Whybray, Hermisson). To this should be added Gunn's own proposal that SN is a work of art—a novel or story which has been written for its own sake (his suggestion owes some debt to the view formerly held by Caspari and Gressmann, that 2 Samuel 10-20 consists of a series of independent short stories).1 History Writing Of all the suggestions that have been put forward concerning genre, the idea that SN is an example of history writing has attracted the largest following. Many see it as a piece of literature, written for the sole purpose of recording past events for posterity. Yet, as is attested by the existence of so many alternatives, this view is not without its difficulties. 1. Gunn's approach is quite distinct from that of Caspari, et al., in that he sees it as a single, unified novel, not as a number of independent stories. It is also notable that whereas Caspari confined his material to 2 Sam. 10-20 as I have done, Gunn is concerned with a much larger entity, incorporating 2 Sam. 2-4 and parts of ch. 6 with 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2.

6. The Genre and Purpose of 2 Samuel 10-20

157

Van Seters's discussion of historiography is a useful starting point from which to examine the whole issue of SN as history writing. He begins with the observation that 'not all literary forms having to do with past events can be classified as histories' (1983: 1). This is often overlooked. Although a piece of literature records historical events or is set in time past, it is not necessarily an example of history writing. Take, for example, the abundance of modern works of fiction set in the recent or distant past. Despite their 'historical' background, they are far removed from our concept of 'history writing'. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (7th edn, 1984) defines 'history' as a 'continuous methodical record of important or public events'. Even from this brief definition, it is clear that 2 Samuel 10-20 is not 'history', at least not in the modern sense of the word. First, it is not continuous: there is a distinct time gap between each of the three units that make up the narrative (2 Sam. 10-12; 13-14; 15-20). Indeed a sense of continuity is not always apparent within these units. In 2 Samuel 10-12 the use of the Ammonite war story results in the text jumping from present to past in a manner not normally associated with the writing of history. Nor could 2 Samuel 10-20 be described as 'methodical', for it records only selected events from the reign of David, and makes no attempt to fill in the historical gaps that are left. Further, there is no evidence that all the events described are in chronological order. Obviously the events of chs. 13-14 took place before Absalom's coup d'etat, but we cannot be certain about the minor details. For example, it is probable that the birth of Solomon in 12.24-25 took place after the events related in the following verses (cf. McCarter 1984: 302; Gordon 1986: 259; et al.). Perhaps the most significant argument against the classification of this material as history writing is that it takes a personal angle on all the events recorded. It centres entirely around the character of David.2 The kingdom and the nation do not figure to any significant extent. When issues of national importance arise, such as the coup d'etat in chs. 15-20, their political significance is secondary to their repercussions for David himself. Other events, particularly those connected with the DavidBathsheba-Uriah affair cannot be construed as having significance for the nation, except perhaps in a theological sense. They pertain only to David and his family, and are of no group, national, or international significance: they are simply domestic events. 2.

See above, Chapter 5.

158

The Wages of Sin

In many ways 2 Samuel 10-20 bears a greater similarity to the modern historical novel, mentioned above, than to history writing.3 The historical novel is concerned with telling a story (not usually of any group significance), in which the history of the period forms a backdrop. However although the background of historical interest in such literature is deliberate, this may not be so with 2 Samuel 10-20. Rather it gives the impression that the history of the times (the Ammonite war, Absalom's revolt, the rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri) is incidental. For example, a full account of the rise, progress and repercussions of Absalom's rebellion is never given. The text is not interested in the political implications of the revolt, but in how David fares throughout the crisis. Gunn (1978: 20) describes Whybray's (1968: 11-19) criticism of the categorization of SN as history writing as 'the most thorough-going attack on this classification'. Whybray argues that the author displays the qualities of a novelist, not those of an historian. He stresses that the writer is concerned with matters of private, not historical, interest. With Eissfeldt (1965: 141), he highlights the large number of private scenes and conversations that feature in SN, arguing that they are the free composition of the author, and that the document cannot therefore be classed as history writing. This point opens up a more involved question. SN, and for that matter 2 Samuel 10-20, certainly is not history as 20th-century Western culture knows history, but was it history to the people of the ancient Near East? Compare, for example, Josephus's presentation of the speech made by the rebel leader at Masada prior to the mass suicide (War 7.323-88). Here the pre-modern historian takes great liberty in supplying conversation and speeches. So perhaps the objections of Eissfeldt, Whybray and Gunn embody a somewhat simplistic concept of history.4 Thus a more pertinent question arises—although it is not history in the modern sense, can 2 Samuel 10-20 be construed as history in the ancient Near Eastern sense? This calls for a closer look at Near Eastern history writing in order to discover if 2 Samuel 10-20 could have been regarded as

3. This comparison is made by Whybray (1968: 47). 4. Josephus asserts that two women and five children escaped the suicide pact, but Eleazar's speech is addressed to his male comrades only, and it is exceedingly difficult to accept that these people could or would have memorized such a long speech word for word. Yet Josephus's work is not denied the title 'history'.


159

history in its original literary and historical context.5 The view tending to dominate scholarship is that of all the ancient cultures, only Israel and Greece produced true history writing. Certainly the Near Eastern civilizations produced written material concerned with the past. Such is evidenced in Mesopotamia, among the Hittites, in Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, Moab and Ugarit, and others. Yet those texts that survive are not described as history writing, but are often placed within the broad categorization of historiography. Thus much of the literature of these nations is seen as dealing with historical events without attaining to the form of 'history'.6 The origins of Greek history writing are most often traced via the works of the early logographers (who may have been closer to storytellers than historians), through Anaximander, Hecataeus and their contemporaries, to Herodotus, who is commonly known as the 'father of history'. Thus there is a progression from legend to secular and objective history. Some northern European scholars have argued for a similar progressive development in the evolution of Israelite history writing. They have explored this development within the confines of biblical studies, without comparing it with other cultures. This view was propounded by Gunkel (1906) and Gressmann (1910). Basically they suggested that the origins of Israelite history writing were in the early (or 'primitive') 'myths', which contained a large element of the supernatural. These were superseded by 'legends', which were more specific than the myths in that they were linked with particular situations and peoples. Examples of legends were the Vatersagen (patriarchal legends) and Heldensagen (hero stories or 'historical legends'). History writing developed from these earlier forms. It was in many ways a secular or demythologized version of the legend, having dispensed with the supernatural element that had characterized the former. This development from 'legend' to 'history' was thought to have taken place at the time of David and Solomon. 5. This tension between the modern and ancient ideas of history is highlighted by Schubert (1955). 6. Van Seters (1983: 1) quotes Huizinga's definition that 'history is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past' (1963: 9), but Van Seters concludes, on the basis of this statement, that 'not all civilizations developed an intellectual form that one can rightly designate as history' (1963: 9). However for a criticism of Van Seters's use of Huizinga's definition of history, and of other aspects of his work, see Younger (1988).

160

The Wages of Sin

Others have varied this idea in seeing a correlation between the early biblical stories and the medieval Icelandic sagas (for example Jolles, Westermann and Koch and others; cited by Van Seters 1983: 223) This view has gained a larger following, but is essentially concerned with an earlier stage in the evolution of history writing and as such is of little direct relevance to the present discussion. Von Rad adheres to the idea of the development from 'saga' to 'history' in his assessment of the rise of Israelite history writing (1966: 166-204). Van Seters (1983: 246-65), however, criticizes this general approach, chiefly on the grounds that it leans too heavily on the J source and on SN, while virtually ignoring Kings and the Deuteronomistic Historian. He argues that the main work of the Deuteronomist has much more in common with the methods of other ancient Near Eastern historiography than these scholars allow. He stresses the value of comparing biblical 'history' with the near contemporary material of the ancient Near East and Greece, stating, a comparative study of early Greek historiography with that of the Old Testament has not been undertaken. Biblical studies have almost completely ignored the scholarly literature in classical studies on the rise of history writing in ancient Greece and have seemed more interested in the 'sagas' of Iceland of the twelfth century AD. Comparative treatment of the historiography of the Near East with ancient Israel has fared only a little better (1983: 247).

Thus he advocates closer scrutiny of contemporary material and less reliance on the development of history writing in northern Europe. As a result of his study, Van Seters (1983: 4-5) suggests five criteria for identifying Israelite history writing. He observes, 1.

2.

3.

4.

History writing is a specific form of tradition in its own right, it is not merely the accidental accumulation of traditional material. History writing is not primarily the accurate reporting of past events. It also considers the reason for recalling the past and the significance given to past events. History writing examines the causes of present conditions and circumstances. In antiquity these causes are primarily moral— who is responsible for a certain state of affairs? History writing is national or corporate in character. Reports of the deeds of the king may be only biographical unless these are viewed as part of the national history.

6. The Genre and Purpose of 2 Samuel 10-20 5.

161

History writing is part of the literary tradition and plays a significant role in the corporate tradition of the people.

In view of these observations, can 2 Samuel 10-20 realistically be classed as history writing? An investigation of SN in the light of these criteria becomes necessary here. The first and last of Van Seters's criteria cannot be applied to a single document such as 2 Samuel 10-20. Both are observations on history writing as a genre and its development within a particular society. To consider it in the light of these would serve no useful purpose. Criteria 2-4, however, are concerned with individual texts and need to be examined more closely. In criterion 2, Van Seters observes that history writing 'considers the reason for recalling the past and the significance given to past events'. What is immediately striking is that 2 Samuel 10-20 does neither. There is no omniscient narrator in this work. The writer offers no personal comments and the only narrative interjections are comments on the attitude of Yahweh, not of the narrator. SN is devoid of the subjective comment that is abundant throughout the 'historical' works of the Old Testament. It certainly fails to satisfy this criterion. Van Seters's third observation is that 'history writing examines the causes of present conditions and circumstances', while his fourth is that 'history writing is national or corporate in character'. Again 2 Samuel 10-20 does not fulfil either of these criteria. It does not trace the causes of present conditions because it is concerned with tracing the result of a past action (David's sin) through subsequent events, and these are not related to any present conditions or circumstances. Additionally, it has already been seen that SN is not national or corporate in that it revolves firmly around the character of David.7 He is the sole interest of the work, and events are only recorded insomuch as they affect him. Everything is approached from his perspective. It is a record of private events and as such, it falls far short of Van Seters's concept of history writing. It does not fulfil any of the criteria he offers. Indeed it appears that SN is classed as history writing solely because of its alleged succession theme. If the narrative included 1 Kings 1-2 and primarily illustrated Solomon's succession to his father's throne, then it would certainly be national in character and have a political flavour. Yet even if this were so, no reflection on the significance of events or on the 7.

See above, Chapter 2, pp. 51-54, and Chapter 5.

162

The Wages of Sin

reasons for writing is present. It is notable that not all those who concur with the succession idea regard SN as history writing (not least of whom is Rost himself), but if it is not a 'succession narrative', then it is almost impossible to regard it as history. This is reinforced if we pause to examine the purpose of history writing. A most useful comparison is with Herodotus, who at the beginning of his Histories states his purpose quite clearly: What Herodotus the Halicarnassian has learnt by inquiry is here set forth: in order that so the memory of the past may not be blotted out from among men by time, and that great and marvellous deeds done by Greeks and foreigners and especially the reason they warred against each other may not lack renown (1.1 LCL).

His purpose in writing is that great events of the past should not be forgotten. This is in line with the general tenor of history writing of any kind, whether it be a modern record or a Mesopotamian King-list: the primary reason for recording past events is to ensure that they are not forgotten. The difference between the ancient Near Eastern historical texts and true history writing is the absence of the disinterestedness revealed by Herodotus. 2 Samuel 10-20 does not display either of these characteristics and its motives are far from being disinterested. It seems rather that its purpose is to convey the underlying message of its author, not to ensure that these events be remembered. There is, however, more than one way to approach this question. Although 2 Samuel 10-20 in itself does not appear to be 'history', nor to have been intended to be seen as such by its author, it must be considered in its context as an integral part of the larger Deuteronomistic History, whose purpose is generally thought to be a historical one. The Deuteronomistic History traces the history of Israel from settlement under Joshua to the Exile, and 2 Samuel 10-20 is firmly integrated into this. Is it possible that the Deuteronomistic Historian understood this material as history writing and incorporated it into his own work as such? Thus although the idea of succession is not an inherent concept of 2 Samuel 10-20, is it possible that in the light of the subsequent events (namely those recorded in 1 Kings 1), the Deuteronomist believed it to be a SN?8 8. It was concluded above (Chapter 3, pp. 95-97) that the Deuteronomist incorporated 1 and 2 Samuel into his work with the minimum of interpolation.


163

It has been shown above9 that 2 Samuel 10-20 never had an independent existence, but was linked with the rest of 2 Samuel from its initial composition and the entire book, together with 1 Samuel, was incorporated into the Deuteronomistic History as a block.10 This being the case, the genre of 2 Samuel 10-20 as an individual unit would have had no particular relevance for the Deuteronomistic Historian, whose purpose was to supply a record of the life of David at this stage in his history. Yet there still remains the question as to whether the Deuteronomistic Historian actually understood it as 'history'. In other words, did he see it as providing the historical background for the accession of Solomon? Succession is not the main theme of these chapters, as has been demonstrated above,11 nor has it any significance within this unit. Yet it is true that when taken together with 1 Kings 1, 2 Samuel 10-20 does provide a partial background to Solomon's accession. The possibility should be allowed then, that the Deuteronomistic Historian could have seen the latter half of 2 Samuel as being in some way related to the question of the accession. However this point should not be overemphasized, for the connection is, if anything, loose. It has become clear that 1 Kings 1-2 does not belong with 2 Samuel 10-20, so if a succession theme was seen by the Deuteronomist, it is certainly a case of eisegesis on his part. Van Seters, on the other hand, would not accept the idea that the function of 2 Samuel 10-20 in the Deuteronomistic History could differ from that intended by its author. He argues that the Court History (2 Sam. 9-20, 1 Kgs 1-2) is of later composition than the Deuteronomistic History. He sees the author of the Court History/SN as having inserted his work into the Deuteronomistic History as the final stage in its compilation. Thus any duality of interpretation is impossible. Van Seters's views will be discussed at more length in the following chapter; However this does not preclude the possibility that the Deuteronomist might have understood 2 Sam. 10-20 in a manner other than was intended by its author. 9. See above, Chapter 3, pp. 88-89. 10. This is broadly also the view of Noth (1981), who sees the Deuteronomist as having incorporated the David traditions virtually unedited. However Carlson (1964: 23-24) takes issue with this view in his attempt to postulate a high degree of deuteronomistic revision in 2 Samuel. He considers it unlikely that the Deuteronomist could have treated this as a 'ready-made complex' in view of the large degree of deuteronomistic interpolation in Judges and Kings. Nevertheless, Carlson's view is the exception to the rule and most scholars remain convinced by Noth's impression of a largely unedited Saul-David tradition in the Deuteronomistic History. 11. Chapter 2, pp. 43-54.

164

The Wages of Sin

it is sufficient simply to acknowledge his alternative interpretation here. It appears, then, that 2 Samuel 10-20 is not primarily history writing. It is certainly not history in the strict sense of the word, but the possibility remains that it may have been interpreted differently at different times. Nevertheless as a unit it fails to fulfil the criteria normally associated with the writing of history. Yet the definition of 'history' covers such a broad spectrum. Although not history writing, 2 Samuel 10-20 certainly has historical content and may still be described as 'historical'. Indeed this is also the case with many of the Near Eastern texts which, although not examples of history writing as such, are placed within the broad category of 'historiography'. Hence we should not be overly pedantic in our rejection of the genre of history for 2 Samuel 10-20. Political Propaganda The idea that SN is political propaganda is not unrelated to the idea of SN as history writing: there is common ground in both. The main difference between the two is the understanding of intention and purpose. Both purportedly deal with 'historical' events, but whereas the historian records his material for its own sake, the propagandist's approach contains no element of disinterestedness. His foremost purpose in recording the material is to promote his political viewpoint. There are two different schools of thought that classify SN as political propaganda and the idea that it was composed during the reign of Solomon is essential to both. On the one hand there is the view of Rost, Whybray, and others, who see it as pro-Solomonic propaganda. They regard its purpose as the increase of support for the Solomonic regime through the promotion of the legitimacy of his succession. On the other hand there are the views of Delekat, Wiirthwein and others, who see it as anti-Solomonic propaganda which reveals the existence of contemporary political opposition to Solomon's rule. The use of political propaganda as a literary genre was not unprecedented at the time of Solomon's rule, for it has been identified elsewhere in the ancient Near East, particularly in Egypt. Whybray (1968: 107108) cites five examples of this genre from extant Egyptian literature: the Prophecy of Neferty (ANET: 444-45), the Ketnit, the Satire on the Trades (ANET: 432-34), the Instruction ofAmenemhet (ANET: 418-19) and the Story ofSinuhe (ANET: 18-22). The Hittite Apology ofHattuSili, which Giiterbock (1984: 30) calls 'a masterpiece of political propaganda', is another example. Other Near Eastern historiography also


165

demonstrates, if not a propagandist, at least a biased tendency in its desire to present the king in a favourable light, as is illustrated in the popular Konigsnovelle in Egypt and the memorial inscriptions elsewhere. As a direct result of his emphasis on the succession theme, Rost saw SN as having been written 'in majorem gloriam Salomonis' (1982: 105). He did not take the narrative as history writing in the same sense as would von Rad at a later date. Rather he said that 'real historical facts are related here, but in a strongly stylized dress' (1982: 104). He regarded the whole narrative as leading up to and revolving around Solomon's accession to the throne, and saw it as demonstrating 'goodwill, violating the limits of objectivity' (1982: 106). As a result, he believed that it was composed with an ulterior motive—a propagandist motive. Hence he argued that the purpose of SN was to rally support for King Solomon and to dispel any lingering doubts as to the legitimacy of his succession. This had previously been suggested by Wellhausen (1878: 224-26), and subsequently has gained a significant following. Some scholars have, of course, suggested variations on the basic idea. Among these is Whybray (1968) who argues that it combines two genres: political propaganda and Wisdom teaching. (The concept of SN as Wisdom literature will be discussed more fully below). Whybray uses material from Egypt to provide evidence that SN should be seen as propaganda. He compares it with the Instruction of Amenemhet which combines political propaganda and Wisdom instruction (1968: 110-14) and finds a large degree of correspondence between their settings, aims and approaches. Another variation on Rost's position is offered by Ishida (1982), who embarks upon a reading of the text from a political, rather than literary, perspective. Like Whybray, he emphasizes the importance of Benaiah's words in 1 Kgs 1.37 and takes this as a reflection of the narrator's own stance. However he differs from Whybray in seeing this (and the similar v. 47) as revealing a pro-Solomonic position that was critical of the Davidic regime. He states: I am now inclining to think that these words imply not only the growth of the Davidic dynasty but also a real wish on the part of Solomon's supporters that the name and throne of Solomon should literally become superior to those of David. This wish originated in their judgment that the regime of David had long been deteriorating and had to be taken over by Solomon... in order to establish the dynasty of David in the true sense (1982: 181).

166

The Wages of Sin

Thus he argues that SN was pro-Solomonic and at the same time, to a certain extent, anti-Davidic. Perhaps the greatest difficulty with the political propaganda idea is that it can be interpreted in more than one way. To a large extent the anti-Solomonic argument was an inevitable consequence of the existence of the pro-Solomonic view. Delekat (1967) was among the first to put forward the idea that SN was an anti-Davidic/Solomonic composition.12 He arrived at his conclusions on literary grounds and believed that some of the details in SN could only be understood if the author was opposed to the Davidic monarchy. Thus he took it as political propaganda against Solomon and David. Although Delekat's argument formed the basis for the views of Wurthwein, Veijola and Langlamet by introducing the anti-Solomonic idea, both their individual methods and their ultimate conclusions differ from his. The most significant variation lies in the fact that rather than seeing a clear anti-Solomonic tendency, these scholars detect a certain tension in the work, notably in 1 Kings 1-2. They seek to resolve this problem by means of source criticism, isolating pro- and anti-monarchical redactions within the story of Solomon's accession and elsewhere in SN.13 The conclusions of these scholars differ just as their individual methods differ. How then do these two opposing arguments fare when viewed together? Gunn also views one as the inevitable reaction to the other, stating of the anti-Solomonic argument, 'The generic classification as political propaganda provides the logic for the swing of the pendulum. If the document is not pro the royal house it must be anti\ if the tone is not white it is likely to be black' (1978: 22, the italics are Gunn's). Regarded in this light the anti-Solomonic argument appears simply as a backlash to the earlier pro-Solomonic view. More valuable is an approach such as that of Schulte (1972), who seeks to find a middle ground by categorizing the writer's approach as 'neutral'. Certainly an anti-Solomonic or anti-Davidic tendency is not immediately obvious in 2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2. Gunn, experiencing difficulty with Delekat's analysis, draws on Auzou (1968) and Brueggemann (1974) for support and remarks that 'a host of critics' have seen 'an underlying sympathy for David' in the narrative (1978: 23). Let us pause then to consider the anti-Solomonic view. 12. Chapter 1, pp. 21-23. 13. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 27-29.


167

If the anti-Solomonic argument is reduced to its bare bones, it hinges on the deaths of Adonijah, Joab and Shimei and the banishment of Abiathar in 1 Kings 2.14 This impression is reinforced by the approach of the Tendenz critics, who distinguish between pro- and anti-Solomonic material. This may be illustrated in Wurthwein's analysis of 1 Kings 2. By taking 1 Kgs 2.5-9, 31b-33, 44-45 as secondary, he effectually reduces the chapter to an account of Solomon's purges, devoid of either justification or mitigating circumstance. What remains is David's advice to Solomon with respect to obeying Yahweh's laws (vv. 1-4);15 the notice of David's death and burial (vv. 10-12); the death of Adonijah (vv. 13-25); the exile of Abiathar (vv. 26-27); the death of Joab (vv. 283la, 34-35); and the death of Shimei (vv. 36-43). The portions that are omitted as pro-Solomonic additions are David's instructions to Solomon regarding the purges (vv. 5-9), the justification for executing Joab at the altar (vv. 31b-33) and the justification for the execution of Shimei, together with the final phrase of the chapter: 'So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon' (vv. 44-46). The characters who are the subjects of the purges in ch. 2 (with the exception of Shimei, who is not mentioned in ch. 1) are seen to be the leaders of the pro-Adonijah party in the struggle for the accession. Thus he views the material linking their punishment with earlier incidents as secondary and 1 Kings 2 becomes simply an account of Solomon's initial elimination of his political opponents. The movement from this to the idea that 2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2 was written in order to promote opposition against the Solomonic party is easily comprehensible but it involves a significant moral judgment. What those who favour the anti-Solomonic approach are saying is, effectively, 1. 2. 3.

The writer records Solomon's purges; These purges were wrong; Therefore the writer was opposed to the Solomonic regime.

14. Also significant is the idea that 1 Kgs 1 is the account of a conspiracy in which Solomon is brought to the throne at the expense of the senile David. However this is not of the same importance as the previous argument, as it does not necessarily point towards an anti-Solomonic perspective, for several scholars in the proSolomonic camp also share this view (e.g. Rost, Gray, Ishida, et a/.). 15. However, many other scholars classify all or part of 1 Kgs 2.1-4 as secondary, seeing this as a deuteronomistic addition. Cf. Rost 1982: 71; Montgomery 1951: 87; Gray 1964: 15; Noth 1968: 8; Rehm 1979: 30.

168

The Wages of Sin

However this conclusion does not follow directly from the premises, as is demonstrated by Ishida. He finds a similar circumstance in Genesis 27, where Jacob's deception of Isaac is not 'moral', nevertheless the narrator is still favourably disposed towards Jacob. He states, Although the acts of Jacob and Rebecca were clearly immoral, the narrator, who was interested in Jacob's fate, does not mind telling the story. What he was most concerned with was not a moral judgment on Jacob's acts but the fact that the blessing of Isaac was diverted from Esau to Jacob, the ancestor of the people of Israel. The same spirit seems to be found in the narrative of the court intrigue which set Solomon on the throne (1982: 180).

He contends that although the 'court intrigue' may have been wrong in a moral sense, it does not follow that the writer was politically opposed to Solomon.16 The same may be said of the purges of ch. 2: on analogy with other biblical narrative it does not follow that if these were morally wrong, the narrator was an opponent of the ruling party. Ancient material cannot be judged by modern standards. The anti-Solomonic view therefore becomes less convincing than the pro-Solomonic political propaganda idea. These scholars argue that SN is political propaganda, but it is 2 Samuel 10-20 which is of concern here, not 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. The question should be asked then: what are the implications of the political propaganda view for the search for the genre and purpose of 1 Samuel 10-20? Most significantly, 1 Kings 1-2 is tremendously important for the political propaganda view. Although those scholars who advocate this classification trace the propagandist tendency back into Samuel, they inevitably find the appropriate Tendenz (whether pro- or antiSolomonic) in 1 Kings 1-2.17 Indeed it should be remembered that although the Tendenz is generally extended to include David,18 it relates chiefly and primarily to Solomon. It is only secondarily applied to David, with whom 2 Samuel 10-20 is concerned. 16. Langlamet (1976b: 329) also raises the question as to whether one is justified in judging ancient material by modern ethical standards. 17. This is apparent in Whybray's comment, 'Amenemhet is in its entirety the fictitious political testament of Amenemhet; strictly speaking the political testament of David occupies only a small part of the Succession Narrative' (1968: 112). Thus he acknowledges the limitations of applying this label to SN in its entirety. 18. Ishida is perhaps one of the few exceptions here in seeing SN as proSolomon, but anti-David.


169

It is the circumstances of Solomon's accession and the events immediately following his coronation that are seen as the indications of political tendency in the narrative. Yet this has no relevance for the genre of 2 Samuel 10-20, for it has no primary link with 1 Kings 1-2. Therefore if 2 Samuel 10-20 were to be categorized as political propaganda, all the evidence would have to come from within these chapters themselves. So how far could the political propaganda view be supported from a reading of 2 Samuel 10-20? The chief evidence that Rost would offer from these chapters is the birth of Solomon in 2 Sam. 12.24-25. He saw this as evidence of the pro-Solomonic tendency of the narrator. He believed that the phrase to the effect that Yahweh loved Solomon (2 Sam. 12.24b) marked him as the divinely-appointed successor to David. Whybray detects an underlying approval of the Davidic dynasty running throughout the work. He argues that this revealed the attitude of the narrator to David and Solomon. He claims that 'the whole tenor of the book shows that [the narrator] had complete confidence in the dynasty as divinely appointed and in the lightness of Solomon's claim to the throne' (1968: 52). Ishida also makes an interesting point in noting (1982: 183) that Sheba ben Bichri is called a worthless fellow ('pJr'TQ 2TK) in 20.1. He sees this as a demonstration that the narrator was favourable to the Davidic dynasty.19 Those who see SN as anti-Solomonic also find evidence of this in 2 Samuel 10-20. Perhaps the strongest point in this connection is the adultery and murder in chs. 11-12. Both Delekat (1967) and Wiirthwein (1974: 19-32) emphasize the negative aspect of these events. Ishida (1982) and Delekat also highlight the impression of David failing in his role as judge. The main evidence for this is taken from Absalom's complaint in 15.2-6. Both these scholars also argue that David is presented as a bad military commander, basically because of his inactivity during the Ammonite war. Additionally Ishida and Wiirthwein see some significance in the role of Joab in these chapters—Wiirthwein finds a source favourable to David and hostile to Joab,20 but Ishida asserts that the narrative is sympathetic to Joab. Ishida argues that the king is portrayed as weak and incompetent (in contrast with the David of the history of David's rise), while Joab is the dominant character. He takes Joab's 19. Although Ishida regards the narrator as critical of the Davidic regime in practice, he sees him as being pro-Solomonic and thus essentially and theoretically pro-Davidic. 20. Especially 2 Sam. 15.24-26, 29; 16.5-13; 18.2b-4a, 10-14; 19.2-22; 20.8-13.

170

The Wages of Sin

speech in 19.5-7 (Heb. 19.6-8) as a strong indication of this. He states, 'The unmistakable message of the story is that David was only a nominal ruler, and Joab had become the strong-man holding sway over the kingdom' (1982: 184). Thus Ishida finds evidence from within this unit that the narrator was critical of David's rule. The various points made by these scholars could be debated,21 but it may be more useful to concentrate on the general view to which these individual points contribute, i.e. the political propaganda idea. In examining these arguments from 2 Samuel 10-20, it becomes clear that they are used simply to support, not to prove, the idea in question. This is the case with both the pro-and anti-Solomonic views. It is possible to argue that 2 Samuel 10-20 is pro-Davidic or anti-Davidic, but I would contend that there is no evidence here of its use as political propaganda. 1 Kings 1-2 provides a political setting for SN (2 Sam. 9-20, 2 Kgs 1-2). However if there is no link between 2 Samuel 20 and 1 Kings. 1-2 (as I have argued to be the case), then this political setting is removed. The result is that there is no motivation in this unit for providing a piece of political propaganda: there is no Solomon to defend or malign. Again the question of the role and function of this unit within the Deuteronomistic History as a whole must be addressed. Although 2 Samuel 10-20 was not written as political propaganda, could it have been used as such by the Deuteronomist? That this is possible is illustrated by the view of McCarter (1981, 1984) who sees the story of Absalom's revolt (2 Sam. 13-20) as an independent document. However he draws attention to the attempts of Blenkinsopp (1966) and Flanagan (1972) to distinguish separate Davidic and Solomonic themes in the texts. He concludes that the author of 1 Kings 1-2 wrote these chapters as a work of Solomonic apologetic and that he did so with reference to earlier Davidic material: the story of David's rise (1 Sam. 16.14-2 Sam. 5.10), the story of Absalom's revolt (2 Sam. 13-20) and the stories of David's relationship with the Saulides (2 Sam. 21.1-14 and 9.1-13). Thence he advocates that the earlier material was not in itself political propaganda, but that it was employed by the author of the later apologetic material (i.e. of 1 Kgs 1-2).22 21. For example, Rost has overrated the importance of the birth of Solomon in 2 Sam. 10-12 (see Chapter 2, pp. 50-51). Also, David is not always presented in a good light in this material and it has been suggested that it is the result of the theme of David's weakness, which is employed to positive effect (Chapter 5, pp. 144-48.). 22. McCarter does not claim that it was the Deuteronomist who utilized the


171

Such a solution is indeed possible, but it is still not obvious whether 1 Kings 1-2 is pro- or anti-Solomon unless one is prepared to follow the source-critical methods of the Tendenz critics. Yet, as McCarter comments, 'The elimination of the literary blandishments of the author by appeal to higher critical or other considerations...will inevitably produce a recital of unfavourable circumstances, but it will also distort the writer's intended product beyond recovery' (1981: 360 n. 12). McCarter asserts that 'such tension is the very essence of the writer's technique' (1981: 360 n. 12), as does Gunn, who asks 'Why should the text be simply and neatly "pro" anyone?' (1978: 25). These comments are appealing, for it does appear that the author of 1 Kings 1-2 intends to present a narrative that neither glorifies nor vilifies Solomon. However for a work of political propaganda to be effective, the author's inclination must be clear and apparent, otherwise he fails to achieve this. Brueggemann seems to have come close to the truth when he states (1985: 44), It could be that the narrative has political interest... And yet what that interest might be is not transparent, for scholars have suggested the narrative is pro-David or anti-David, pro-Solomon or anti-Solomon. If one can argue in all such directions, one may conclude that the author is unclear, that the author is not interested in such questions, or that the author is carefully and cunningly subtle about such dangerous issues. Clearly the narrative is not excessively polemical or apologetic (1985: 44).

None of the political propaganda arguments are particularly convincing. Indeed this genre has no real relevance for 2 Samuel 10-20 in that it cannot be regarded as offering any clear-cut defense of, or attack on, David in a political sense. The only conclusion that can realistically be drawn is that 2 Samuel 10-20 is neither primarily, nor in its wider context, a work of political propaganda. Wisdom Literature Another possibility with regard to genre is that 2 Samuel 10-20 is a product of the Wisdom schools. Whybray (1968) believed that SN was a dramatic outworking of Wisdom teaching, used to instruct the young. material as political propaganda. (He credits this to the author of 1 Kgs 1-2). His view is cited merely to illustrate that it would be possible for the Deuteronomistic Historian to have employed 2 Sam. 10-20 for a purpose other than that for which it was originally composed.

172

The Wages of Sin

This view was based on comparison with Wisdom literature from Israel and elsewhere, notably Egypt. However his argument has attracted criticism from Crenshaw (1969), whose penetrating comments provide a convincing argument against Whybray's position. Crenshaw's chief objection to Whybray's hypothesis is that much, if not all, of the comparisons he draws between SN and Proverbs are based on features that are not unique to Wisdom literature. For example, he finds that the idea of Yahweh as the hidden controller of human destiny (Whybray 1968: 62-66) is not only a feature of SN and Proverbs, but also of the Yahwistic, Elohistic and deuteronomistic works and of prophecy. He finds that the emphasis upon humility and learning from experience (Whybray 1968: 85) 'is equally as pronounced in Isaiah as in Proverbs' (Crenshaw 1969: 139). He also argues that features such as similes and comparisons (Whybray 1968: 81-82) are essential to everyday speech and could not be upheld as a unique feature of Wisdom writing under any circumstances. This approach also gains support from Gunn (1978: 27). He cites the frequent occurrence throughout biblical narrative of some of the features highlighted by Whybray (patience and the control of temper; humility versus pride and ambition; the use of speech; friendship, loyalty and treachery). Crenshaw notes that there are certain aspects of SN that cannot be credited to Wisdom thought. He states, 'Especially damaging to his [Whybray's] thesis is the minor role played by wisdom's representatives, indeed the questionable function of each. The total effect of counselors, both private and courtly, is ruinous' (1969: 139-40). He suggests that the advice of the women from Tekoa and Abel, each described as nftDn TON, has undesirable consequences, while the debate between Ahithophel and Hushai casts the courtly advisors in a very bad light. Indeed this observation is most valuable, for it is impossible not to agree with Crenshaw when he comments, 'It is difficult to conceive of scribes calling attention to the frustration of Ahithophel's counsel by Yahweh, for this would undermine their position immeasurably', and that 'if Whybray's position were true, the scribes would have presented the wisdom representatives in a far more favourable light' (1969: 140). Whybray's view is based on the idea that the Wisdom tradition flourished under Solomon and that it had already taken root during David's reign. Crenshaw, on the other hand, believes that this is far from being unquestionable. Rather he holds that 'the history of wisdom does not appear to have been considered carefully enough' (1969: 140).


173

Finally Crenshaw comments that the 'differences in nuance' between SN and Wisdom literature have not been dealt with in Whybray's work. He highlights the theological difference that von Rad (1966: 195-204) saw between SN and the Joseph narratives. Also along these lines Gunn finds the differences between SN and the 'dramatizations' in Proverbs irreconcilable. He maintains that when 'length, plot, named characters and dialogue' are compared, 'none of this material in Proverbs is remotely like the "Succession Narrative'" (1978: 29). Indeed he remarks that the most significant divergence between SN and Wisdom is the fact that SN never attempts to draw a moral, whereas this is the clear and primary aim of Wisdom literature. Further, Gunn comments on specific points in Whybray's work. Whybray states that both SN and Proverbs stress the ideas of ethical conduct, humility and private prayer. However Gunn questions whether there is such an emphasis on these qualities in SN. Rather he suggests that what has actually been shown by Whybray (pp. 57-71) is that certain situations arise in the narrative that raise for the reader serious problems of moral evaluation (quite a different thing from the ethical imperatives. .. that confront the reader at every turn in Proverbs), that humility is an important emotional ingredient (among others) in the story, and that there is one occasion when a character offers private prayer (2 Sam. 15.31) (1978: 28, the italics are Gunn's).

Thus Crenshaw and Gunn undermine Whybray's hypothesis by finding weaknesses both in his basic approach and in his specific illustrations. However Hermisson's (1971) emphases differ from those of Whybray, for he concludes that SN was in fact history that had been very strongly influenced by Wisdom thinking. Yet it is Gunn's contention that Crenshaw's criticisms of Whybray apply also to Hermisson's work and are equally effective in combating his argument. In view of these penetrating comments, it certainly appears that SN does not belong to the genre of Wisdom literature. Rather, Crenshaw's statement rings true when he says, 'It is difficult to see how any story could fail to "illustrate" themes in Proverbs, for this book covers the whole gamut of human existence' (1969: 138). Thus the ease with which Whybray is able to find parallels between SN and Proverbs should not be attributed to any supposed Wisdom characteristics in SN. Rather it reflects the universal nature of the issues covered in Proverbs. However it is SN—2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2—with which

174

The Wages of Sin

these scholars deal. What of 2 Samuel 10-20? How do Whybray's arguments relate to this material? In seeing a Wisdom purpose underlying SN, Whybray has not placed undue stress on 1 Kings 1-2 or 2 Samuel 9. Rather much of his supportive evidence comes from 2 Samuel 10-20. Therefore if his thesis were to be proved correct then this material could be seen as falling within the scope of Wisdom influence. However it also follows that all the criticisms made by Crenshaw and Gunn are relevant in assessing the correlation between 2 Samuel 10-20 and Wisdom literature. Thus it is safe to conclude on the basis of their argument that 2 Samuel 10-20 does not fall into the genre of Wisdom literature. Literary Work

Prior to Rost, it was held by some scholars that the genre of the latter chapters of 2 Samuel was that of the short story. Luther (1906), Caspari (1909) and Gressmann (1910) all supported this position. Caspari, for example, argued that 2 Samuel 10-20 consisted of a series of three independent Novellen (chs. 10-12; 13-14; 15-20). However this view has been largely outmoded, in that since Rost there has been almost universal agreement on the intrinsic unity of these chapters. Much more recently, however, Gunn (1978) has put forward the suggestion that the genre of SN is that of a literary work. Unlike those earlier scholars, he does not regard it as a collection of short stories, but as a single, unified story or novel. He sees it as a work of art, whose main purpose is to entertain its audience. Nevertheless he adds a caution to the term entertainment, suggesting that it should not be dismissed as 'mere entertainment', but regarded rather as embodying 'serious entertainment' (1978: 61). Gunn arrives at this categorization by identifying what he views as traditional motifs which would have been used by storytellers. These have been listed above23 and a useful critique and discussion of them is provided by Van Seters (1976b). Gunn contends that his approach to genre 'is hardly radical', arguing that 'it simply takes seriously as a major clue to the basic genre of the narrative the one aspect of the work that has commanded the most widespread agreement, namely its quality as a work of art and entertainment' (1978: 38). He quite rightly points out that the vast majority 23. Chapter 1, pp. 29-32.


175

of writers have agreed upon the literary excellence of the work, and he applies this to the question of genre. In effect he is saying that the obvious has been overlooked. He believes that the artistic qualities of the narrative are not simply a matter for passing comment, but are the central issue in determining genre and purpose. In many ways Gunn's is perhaps the most difficult suggestion with which to deal. This difficulty stems from the fact that SN is certainly a story—and a very good story. It does have a special interest in character and displays other features more often associated with a novel than with history writing, political propaganda, or Wisdom teaching.24 However the difficulty arises in the issue of the relationship of genre to purpose. If (and we must stress the 'if) the work is a novel or a story, it does not follow automatically that its purpose must be that of a modern, popular novel. Indeed Gunn prefers the term 'story' to 'novel', and numerous stories could be listed whose purpose is not simply entertainment. For example the primary purpose of Aesop's Fables is didactic, while the modern historical novel aims to inform as well as to entertain. Indeed, we do not even have to go outside the Bible to find examples of stories whose purpose is not simply entertainment. For example it has been suggested at various times that the books of Ruth and Jonah, both obviously stories or short novels, were composed in order to combat the religious reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah.25 Indeed in SN itself, Nathan tells the story of the ewe lamb (2 Sam. 12.1-4) for the sole purpose of exposing David's sin. Thus a weakness may be detected in Gunn's argument. Although he has gone to great lengths to demonstrate the influence of traditional story-telling motifs and techniques, this does not provide conclusive evidence of the purpose of SN. There always remains the possibility that entertainment, or 'serious entertainment', may have played a part in the original function or purpose of the material. However, unless the text is totally devoid of any other purpose, it cannot be assumed to be primarily entertainment. Gunn effectively demonstrates that the purpose of the work is not to record history, to increase support for or opposition to Solomon, or to teach Wisdom principles. However he has not dealt with the issue of a 24. Cf. Gunn's comments (1978: 37) on Jackson's (1965) discussion of the material. 25. See, for example, on Ruth: Bertholdt 1816; Knight 1950; Weiser 1961; Sellin 1968; on Jonah: Bewer 1912; von Rad 1950; Loretz 1961; Burrows 1970. For a criticism of this view see Clements 1975.

176

The Wages of Sin

theological influence or purpose in the text. If 2 Samuel 10-20 is examined closely, a strong theological dimension is seen. It is my contention that the purpose of 2 Samuel 10-20 is theological and that it is much more than a work of entertainment. A theological dimension in this narrative has long been recognized by scholars. Whereas Rost had seen SN as being theologically neutral, or even secular in tone, von Rad (1966: 166-204) highlighted the theological perspective of the narrator. He held that the most important characteristic of the narrator was 'the immense restraint' that he exercised in conveying his theological standpoint. Von Rad argued that the earlier sagas and legends presented the activity of God in the forefront of human experience, manifested in miracles, visions and supernatural events. In contrast with this the narrator of SN saw Yahweh as the unseen power providentially at work behind the scenes of human history—'the ultimate force'. Thus whereas the earlier writers presented Yahweh chiefly in the context of the cult and religious activity, this narrator could portray God at work within the realm of the secular. Von Rad comments, he depicts a succession of occurrences in which the chain of inherent cause and effect is firmly knit up—so firmly indeed that human eye discerns no point at which God could have put his hand. Yet secretly it is he who has brought it all to pass; all the threads are in his hands; his activity embraces the great political events no less than the hidden counsels of human hearts. All human affairs are the sphere of God's providential working' (1966: 201).

By presenting the material in this way, the author does not need to write an overtly theological narrative—his restrained technique is much more effective. In order to combat Rost's view that this was a secular history, von Rad highlighted three passages in which the narrator makes clear reference to God's transcendent activity. All these are from 2 Samuel 10-20. They are 2 Sam. 11.27: 'And when the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore his a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD'; 2 Sam. 12.24: 'Then David comforted his wife, Bathsheba, and went in to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he called his name Solomon. And the LORD loved him"; and 2 Sam. 17.14: 'And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, "The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel". For the LORD had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the LORD


111

might bring evil upon Absalom.'26 He noted a certain similarity between each of these passages in that they 'break into their context' in an 'abrupt and disjointed manner' (1966: 198), thus interrupting the flow of the narrative. However each comment is brief and the narrative is resumed quickly. Hence Yahweh is shown to be active without the account of his activity dominating the narrative. Rather the text concentrates on the affairs of men, while leaving the audience in no doubt about God's role and interest in these events. He notes that with only three such comments in the entire narrative, this represents a very small proportion of the text. Yet he maintains that their rarity gives them an even greater significance because the narrator 'is at pains to conceal himself and his evaluations behind the material' (1966: 195), and is content to let the events speak for themselves. Central to von Rad's approach is his appreciation of the concept of sin and punishment in the narrative. He thinks that the function of the statement in 11.27b is to cause the audience to associate David's sin in the preceding narrative with Yahweh's anger here and with David's subsequent punishment. However he does not restrict this concept to the immediate context of 11.27, but argues that it pervades the entire work. He sees in the narrative 'a tightly drawn chain of causality which links sin with suffering' (1966: 196), and even goes so far as to assert that 'the whole history of David can, indeed, be in some sense understood as the history of the punishment for this one transgression [i.e. the adultery]' (1996: 196). However a word of caution should be added here. Von Rad was dealing with the entire SN, whereas I have argued that Sin and Punishment is the main theme of the smaller unit, 2 Samuel 10-20.271 would suggest that von Rad's assumption of the inherent link between this material and 1 Kings 1-2 is the reason that he fails to develop this idea and concludes that 'the underlying theme of the whole work is the succession to the throne of David' (1966: 202). McCarter (1984: 298, 306, etc.), however, is prepared to go further 26. Because of the relative rarity of these references, the possibility must naturally arise that they may have been glosses. However no-one seriously questions the originality of either 12.24 or 17.14. Nevertheless it has been suggested from time to time, most recently by Veijola (1979) and Wiirthwein (1974: 24, following Dietrich 1972) that 11.27b is a secondary addition. For a criticism of this suggestion see McCarter 1984: 306. 27. See above, Chapter 5, pp. 127-42.

178

The Wages of Sin

than von Rad in developing the retribution idea. His understanding of 2 Samuel 13-20 as an originally independent account of Absalom's revolt leads to his suggestion that the David-Bathsheba episode has been inserted into its present position at a later stage of its development. However he explains this assertion by arguing that a prophetic writer responsible for this development understood the events described in chs. 13-20 as direct consequences of David's adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. Thus he too emphasizes the importance of 11.27b from a theological perspective. To the passages cited by von Rad, we might also add three others in ch. 12. They are 12. la, 12.15b and 12.25a. These do not involve comment by the writer, but they occur in passages of third person narration and credit Yahweh with active participation in the sequence of events. 12. la states: 'And the LORD sent Nathan to David...' and 12.15 reads: 'Then Nathan went to his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and it became sick',28 while 2.25a, following on from the comment that Yahweh loved Solomon, states: 'and the LORD sent a message by Nathan the prophet'. These passages reinforce the view that the narrator sees God as playing an active part in the course of human history. There is a further direct reference to God, if we may call it such, in 16.23, where the counsel of Ahithophel is compared to the oracle of God. However this statement reveals little, if anything, about the theological perspective of the text. Other statements referring to Yahweh are put into the mouths of the various characters in the narrative. They are found in 10. 12;29 12.13, 14, 22; 14.11, 13, 17; 15.7, 8, 21, 25, 29, 30; 16.8, 11, 12, 18; 19.7, 21; 20.19. These contain some 30 references to Yahweh, four of which are in the context of oaths, three in the context of the land or the people, and three in the context of the cult. The vast majority, however, are simply reflections of the characters' belief in Yahweh and in divine involvement in human affairs. This does not directly reflect the views of 28. McCarter reads DTn^K here for mrr with 4QSam.a. The reason for his emendation is that he sees this as referring to 'divine affliction in general' (1984: 297) rather than to a specific act of Yahweh. 29. Note however that most scholars understand the account of the Ammonite war as an official document that the writer has incorporated, rather than as a narrative which he himself has composed. Cf. Rost 1982: 57-62; Hertzberg 1964: 303; Whybray 1968: 21; McCarter 1984: 275-76; etal


179

the narrator, but it serves to confirm the observation that he believed in the involvement of God in the secular realm. Therefore there would seem to be, at the least, a fairly substantial theological background or undercurrent in 2 Samuel 10-20. From the above discussion it has become clear that the idea of divine retribution is a very significant factor as regards the theological aspect of the narrative. I have suggested30 that the main theme and motivating force of the work is the idea of Sin (or Crime) and Punishment. This is essentially a theological theme in that its central interest is the transgressions of David (with respect to Bathsheba and Uriah) in ch. 11 and the punishment meted out to him by Yahweh. The emphasis on this is further demonstrated by the structure of the work. I have argued that 2 Samuel 10-20 is structured around three separate, yet closely interlocking units or sections, namely chs. 10-12, 13-14 and 15-20.311 have also argued that the first of these, chs. 10-12, is the pivotal section of the work, containing both its statement of theme and its main interest.32 It is clearly evident that the chief concern of chs. 1012 is theological: the Sin and Punishment of David. It is the story of David's double crime of adultery and murder and Yahweh's response in sentencing and punishing the guilty party. However I have also traced this idea throughout the material as a whole, demonstrating that chs. 1320 are in fact the outworking of this punishment. The actions of David's sons in chs. 13-14 exactly mirror his own crimes of the previous section, while David's role is changed from that of the 'sinner' to that of the 'punisher'. Thus this unit links directly with Nathan's prediction in 12.10 that 'the sword shall never depart from your [i.e. David's] house'. So too does the final section, in which Absalom attempts to oust David from his position as king. Chapters 15-20 have a more specific link with Nathan's decree of punishment in that Absalom becomes the HiTi of whom it is said in 12.11: 'Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbour, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun'. Thus the revolt is portrayed as being at least partially the result of David's actions in 2 Samuel 11, while both this and the events of chs. 13-15 are depicted as punishment for these offences. It seems clear then that there is a theological purpose pervading the 30. See above, Chapter 5, pp. 127-42. 31. See above, Chapter 4, pp. 115-17. 32. See above, Chapter 5, pp. 127-42.

180

The Wages of Sin

whole. The narrator has a definite theological standpoint on the role of God in human affairs, as von Rad's discussion has revealed. However it should also be emphasized that this belief is demonstrated in a practical manner via the theme of Sin and Punishment. Through this theme Yahweh is seen to be the prime mover in the inevitable consequences of human transgression. Indeed it is this theme that provides the answer to the question regarding the purpose of the work. The narrator's emphasis on Sin and Punishment reveals that he did not record his story out of a desire to entertain his audience. Rather it is essential to and inherent in the nature of this (theological) theme that its purpose is theological. The purpose for the writing of 2 Samuel 10-20 appears to be a demonstration of the inevitable consequences of transgression. The work serves to show that even despite repentance and forgiveness (for David begged and attained Yahweh's forgiveness in 12.13 and the sentence was reduced), punishment invariably follows sin. Indeed it might also be that the writer is interested not only in the bare fact that punishment must ensue, but also in the questions of 'how?' and 'what type of?' retribution follows a crime. Thus Gunn's suggestion that the primary purpose of this material is entertainment must be rejected. Having concluded that a theological purpose is apparent in the text, it cannot be reconciled with the view that the writer's aim was solely to entertain. However having said this, attention should be drawn to Gunn's concept of theme, for it has been demonstrated that the question of purpose may be more closely linked to that of theme than to that of genre. He argues that the main interest of SN is in the character of King David (1978: 87-111). Thus it may be suggested that his idea of its purpose as entertainment follows directly from this. I have also recognized the character of David as an important theme in the narrative (although not on the all-pervasive structural level of Sin and Punishment) and have adopted and developed Gunn's idea of the presence of a theme of David the Man.33 By telling a story of David's reign, the narrative entertains his audience (albeit in a 'serious' manner), therefore the possibility exists that this may have been an intention (or purpose) of the author. Therefore it must be allowed that the narrative could have had more than one purpose.34 Nevertheless if this is the case, 33. See above, Chapter 5, pp. 142-51. 34. In allowing the possibility of more than one purpose in 2 Sam. 10-20, it


181

any other purpose must surely be secondary to its theological purpose, which pervades every element of the work from beginning35 to end.36 Biography This brings us back again to the question of genre. If the purpose of the narrative is theological, what is its genre? It has been seen that it cannot be classified as history writing, political propaganda or Wisdom literature, yet it does contain an element of the historiographic and of the didactic. Gunn's view of the work as a story has been seen to be at least partially appropriate, but this is a rather vague criterion by which to classify genre. The question should thus be asked: what type of story is it? Despite the various suggestions that have been made, no-one seems to have seriously considered the biographical aspect of the narrative with respect to genre. I have argued, in dealing with theme, that a major characteristic of the work is its interest in David the Man, for many of the incidents recorded are of no national significance: they are of private or family significance. 37 Indeed it appears that there is a large 'biographical' element in 2 Samuel 10-20.38 It tells the story of King David's life from a private point of view rather than from the public viewpoint, which saw him as a great sovereign, acting only in the military and political fields. Indeed in this vein, Ackroyd remarks, '...what now follows is in some degree different...in giving a kind of inside story of his reign, not a complete account but the kind of details for which in might seem to be a case of taking the easy way out by leaving the options open. However, this is merely a case of acknowledging the sophistication of the narrative. Surely one of the great mistakes made with this work is to oversimplify it and thus reduce it to a two-dimensional, single theme, single purpose recitation of facts and events. 35. In 2 Sam. 10.1-19 and 12.26-31 the Ammonites are defeated and thus punished by Israel for their scornful treatment of David's ambassadors. 36. In 2 Sam. 20.22 Sheba ben Bichri is beheaded by the citizens of AbelBethmaacah in consequence of his stirring up the Israelites against David's government. 37. See above, Chapter 5, p. 139-40. 38. Van Seters's observation (1983: 5) as quoted above (p. 160-61) is that a text understood as history may be biographical rather than historical unless it is 'national or corporate in character'. 2 Sam. 10-20 is neither national nor corporate, therefore his comment lends support to the view that it should be seen as a biographical document.

182

The Wages of Sin

our more sophisticated times the Sunday newspapers of the slightly less reputable kind pay handsomely' (1981: 385). Such 'inside details' may be observed in David's seeing Bathsheba on the rooftop; his adultery; the conversations with Uriah; the murder; his conversations with Nathan and with the courtiers; the conversation between Amnon and Jonadab; the events in Amnon's bedroom; Absalom's conversations with his servants and with Joab; David's conversations with Ittai, Hushai, Zadok and Abiathar, Ziba, Abishai; and so on. Every chapter is abounding with such intimate details. There is more than ample justification for regarding this as a story of David's life. Therefore I would suggest that it should be classified as a biography. As a biography, this work is not unique in the ancient Near Eastern literature nor in the Bible. Biographical material was particularly common in Egypt, where it is found mainly in the form of inscriptions on tombs. Nehemiah's memoirs are an important example of the use of autobiographical style, while the book of Jeremiah also contains a significant biographical element. Indeed, on the basis of the Nehemiah material, Van Seters (1983: 186-87) suggests that the Egyptian genre of biography had a wide sphere of influence (in that Nehemiah's origins were far to the East in Susa) and therefore could very well have contributed to the development of Israelite historiography. Therefore it is not exceeding the bounds of reason to suggest that this is biography. There are, of course, differences between 2 Samuel 10-20 and Egyptian biography. For example, such Egyptian material as has been found is inscribed on tombs. Indeed an especially striking difference may be observed in that these inscriptions record only the good deeds and qualities of their subject, unlike 2 Samuel 10-20. However it is not suggested that the material in question is identical with Egyptian biography, but simply that it is not unique among ancient Near Eastern literature as a biographical story. The similarity between the two, however, should also be pointed out. It is particularly noticeable that there is a didactic element in both of them. The Egyptian texts are sometimes concerned with instructing the offspring of their subject with moral teaching, while we have seen that a major concern of 2 Samuel 10-20 is to convey a theological message. On the basis of these observations, I would suggest that 2 Samuel 1020 is a theological biography: a biography that takes a theological look at the life of David. In other words it should be seen not just as a biography in the sense of the Egyptian biographies, but as a record of his life


183

from the perspective of divine retribution (i.e. the theme of Sin and Punishment). However, genre and purpose are multifaceted by nature and it would be too simplistic to claim that this unit has a single purpose and displays only the characteristics of a biography. For while the genre of 2 Samuel 10-20 may be seen as biography and its purpose as theological, it may serve as 'serious entertainment' in the sense that any story entertains. Indeed Whybray's suggestion that SN is Wisdom literature has been rejected. Yet some overlap with his views should be acknowledged in that 2 Samuel 10-20 has, to a certain degree, a didactic purpose—to teach the lessons that may be learned from observing the outworking of Sin and Punishment in the life of David. Similarly although 2 Samuel 10-20 cannot properly be regarded as history writing, the classification of the material as a biography places it within the realm of historiography. Yet it has more in common with a historical novel than with a historical textbook. The only suggestion that cannot be countenanced is that of political propaganda, for this view has developed solely as a result of its strong emphasis on 1 Kings 1-2, which does not belong with this narrative. It must be concluded, therefore, that 2 Samuel 10-20 is primarily and essentially a theological biography.

Chapter 7 THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20 Finally, we turn to the questions of the dating and authorship of 2 Samuel 10-20. Having investigated the major issues touching on this literary unit, the question remains as to when and by whom the narrative was composed. If a definite answer can be given, it will also throw some light on the compilation of 2 Samuel as a whole, for it has been suggested above that this was the work of the author of chs. 10-20.1 Date The most widespread view on the dating of SN (and therefore also of 2 Sam. 10-20) is that it was written during the reign of Solomon by an eyewitness to the events. The main proponent of this idea was Rost. He reached this conclusion on the basis of his understanding that the narrative reveals no knowledge of the division of Israel and Judah. This division took place at the beginning of the reign of Rehoboam, Solomon's successor. Rost recognized the presence of a certain tension between North and South, namely in 2 Sam. 19.41-43 and contended that 'Sheba ben Bichri is to be regarded to a certain extent as a precursor of Jeroboam' (1982: 105). He argued that had the (Judaean) author been writing after the division of the kingdom, this incident would have been given a much larger profile. He also saw a certain incompatibility between the later idealism that surrounded the figure of David and the blunt portrayal of his faults and failings in SN. He took this as further evidence of an early date. As to it being an eyewitness account, he thought that the 'impression of probability and realism' (1982: 104) given by the narrative is such that it must derive from a time not long after the events took place. Thus he saw the vivid portrayal of events and the abundant use of direct speech as evidence that it has come from 1.

See above, Chapter 3, pp. 81-98.

7. The Date and Authorship of 2 Samuel 10-20

185

the pen of someone who was party to the events described. Many others follow this pattern in seeing SN as the product of a member of David's court, who wrote during the reign of his successor. Indeed the view that SN is political propaganda demands that the work be dated to the reign of Solomon, otherwise such an approach to genre is impossible. However this dating of the work is not confined to the adherents of the propagandist view, but is widespread and accepted by the majority of scholars. Whybray is one of those who accepts this dating of SN, and he is more specific about assigning a date to it. He follows Vriezen (1948) who argued on the basis of its political function that it could only have been written at the very beginning or end of Solomon's reign. His reasoning was that the stability of Solomon's kingdom was in danger only during these two periods. Thence Whybray concludes that SN must derive from the early years of Solomon's rule. He argues, if the late date were accepted we should also be forced to abandon the well-nigh universally held and extremely probable view that the book was written by a man who had been personally acquainted with David and his court, since it is unlikely that he would have still been active so long afterwards (1968: 54).

Thus he bases his argument on two assumptions: first that the author was a member of David's court; and secondly that the purpose of the document was propagandist. Fundamental to Whybray's argument is the idea of a Solomonic enlightenment or golden age. As does von Rad (1966), he takes this as firm evidence that SN was written during the reign of Solomon and was subject to a strong Wisdom influence. However in a more recent article he has conceded that in the earlier work he simply took von Rad's concept of a Solomonic enlightenment for granted, without seeking to justify this position sufficiently (1982: 15). The idea of a tenth-century date has been criticized, however, most notably by Eissfeldt (1965), who rejects the idea that it must be an eyewitness account. He emphasizes the literary ability of the narrator2 and raises the issue of poetic licence in suggesting that the writer could not have been an eyewitness to every scene that he describes. He states: 'We certainly have not a simple eye-witness account in II Sam. xiii-xx + 2. Whybray (1968: 12) detects the influence of Luther (1906) and the Novellen idea in Eissfeldt's approach to the literary qualities of the work.

186

The Wages of Sin

I Kings i-ii, but a composition presented and embellished with great narrative skill, a composition which has in it something of a good historical novel' (1965: 141, the italics are Eissfeldt's). To illustrate this he highlights several conversations which the narrator could not have overheard. The most convincing of these is the conversation between Amnon and Tamar in Amnon's bedroom (13.10-16).3 Yet Eissfeldt is prepared to allow that even if this is not the product of an eyewitness, at least 'an eye-witness account underlies it' (1965: 140),4 for like Rost and those who date SN to the reign of Solomon, he sees a significance in the 'liveliness and realism of its presentation' (p. 140). Thus he also takes the impression of reality given by the work as a serious issue. Despite the fact that Eissfeldt divorces the narrative from its immediate eyewitness setting, he does not argue for a date much later than that proposed by Rost. Rather he sees it as having been composed in the ninth century BCE. His main reason for suggesting this date is on the basis of his reading of 2 Sam. 20.18-19. First he suggests that the name Abel-Bethmaacah signifies a time after the Aramaean occupation of this region of northern Israel around 900 BCE (1 Kgs 15.20) and that it means Abel of (the Aramaean) Bethmaacah. Secondly he emends the text of vv. 18b/19a on the basis of the Septuagint.5 For:

'tfti 'DiK iann pi 3. Eissfeldt also cites the conversations between Joab and the man who brought the news that Absalom was caught in the tree (18.10-14), between David and the woman of Tekoa (14.4-20), and between Absalom, Ahithophel and Hushai (17.114). However it is difficult to see how these fit into the same category as the Amnon/Tamar conversation. In the case of Amnon and Tamar, the narrator expressly states that there is no-one else present in the room. On the other hand, the scenes in which the woman of Tekoa and Ahithophel and Hushai feature take place in a Court context, and not in private. Indeed the elders of Israel are active participants in the latter (cf. 2 Sam. 17.4, 14). Further, 18.15 reveals that Joab was accompanied by ten armour bearers in the battle, therefore it is hardly likely that there were no witnesses to his conversation with the anonymous messenger in 18.10-14. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the writer could have been among these witnesses. 4. Eissfeldt argues that the work could well have had some prior existence before being recorded in its present form. Hence he can conceive of an underlying eyewitness account, in which case he has no need to postulate the presence of the writer himself at each event. 5. He sees the Masoretic Text as corrupt at this point.


187

of the Masoretic Text, he reads: ~\m innn in The proverb in 20.18-19 is thus translated: 'let them but ask in Abel and in Dan whether what the faithful in Israel have ordained has come into disuse' (1965: 141), meaning that Abel has not abandoned the Israelite way of life despite foreign domination. Hence he argues that the town had already been under Aramaean occupation for some time when this was written and thus dates the entire work to the ninth century. On the other hand, Gunn is less inclined to be bound by the general approach to SN as an eyewitness account. He states quite categorically, 'there is not a shred of hard evidence to support this assumption that the author of the story wrote as a contemporary or near-contemporary of the events described' (1978: 30). What Gunn says rings true. The only evidence placing the composition of the work soon after the events described is the impression of contemporaneity it conveys. An 'impression' is by nature subjective and it is unreasonable to expect to date a work on anything other than objective criteria. All these scholars approach SN as an integral part of the Deuteronomistic History, which the Deuteronomistic Redactor has incorporated into his own work. Therefore it has been invariably dated to the period between the accession of Solomon and the initial compilation of the Deuteronomistic History.6 By far the most radical suggestion of recent years with regard to date, has been that of Van Seters (1983). He argues that SN (or the Court History, as he refers to it) was inserted into its present position after the final completion of the Deuteronomistic History and that it is in fact a post-exilic composition.7 Basically Van Seters has three reasons for arriving at this conclusion. First, he finds a major difficulty in that whereas the Deuteronomistic History in general holds to an idealized picture of David as the perfect ruler, his presentation in the Court History directly contrasts with this. Secondly, he observes that Chronicles is completely silent on all the events related in the Court History. Thirdly he remarks that this material presupposes information recorded elsewhere in the Deuteronomistic History. He maintains that this may most easily be accounted for by the 6. Sixth or seventh century BCE, depending upon one's dating of the Deuteronomistic History. 7 . Van Seters takes 2 Sam. 2.8^. 12 as part of the Court History, together with the rest of SN as defined by Rost.

188

The Wages of Sin

explanation that the Court History was composed after the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles were already in their present form. Let us digress somewhat in order to look at Van Seters's argument more closely. His thesis warrants more detailed examination for several reasons. First, his approach stands out from the others in dating the document to a much later period. Even Eissfeldt, although arguing for a later date than most scholars, simply puts back the date from the tenth to the ninth century. Thus the radical divergence of Van Seters's dating deserves some attention. Secondly, his approach challenges not only the views of other scholars, but also their basic presuppositions. Such questioning helps dispel unwarranted assumptions that breed the critical orthodoxy against which Ackroyd (1981) warns. Finally, in dealing with the date of the work, his argument also raises wider issues, namely those of the relationship between SN and the Deuteronomistic History, its omission from the Chronicler's account and its presupposition of other material. It must therefore be asked if his late dating is feasible. The larger issues that his suggestion raises need to be explored and the questions of the place of the material in the Deuteronomistic History and the reason for its absence from Chronicles addressed. The Relationship between 2 Samuel 10-20 and the Rest of 2 Samuel First of all, let us look at Van Seters's argument that the Court History presupposes earlier material. He notes that 2 Samuel 9 presupposes the relationship between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel. He draws attention to the similarity between the gifts of Ziba (2 Sam. 16.1) and Abigail (1 Sam. 25.18) and sees this as evidence that the Court History presupposed the history of David's rise.8 He highlights the reference to the death of Abimelech (Judg. 9.50-57) in 2 Sam. 11.21, and to the fate of Eli's family (1 Sam. 1-4) in 1 Kgs 2.27. Thus he takes this as evidence that the Deuteronomistic History was already in its final form when the Court History was written. However this hardly proves that the material in question was later 8. Here Van Seters is at variance with Gunn (1978: 50-51), who regards this as demonstrating the use of traditional compositional techniques in SN. Indeed Gunn is critical of Van Seters's approach in that it does not provide any explanation as to why the two lists should be so similar. He argues that even if the author of 2 Sam. 16.1 was aware of 1 Sam. 25.18, this is no reason to have composed a list that was similar (but not exactly the same).


189

than the entire Deuteronomistic History. I have argued above9 that 2 Samuel 10-20 is the latest of the material contained in 1 and 2 Samuel. Thus it can legitimately be seen to presuppose much of this material, as it was already known in a literary form when 2 Samuel 1020 was composed. 2 Samuel 10-20 need not post-date the Deuteronomistic History in its entirety simply because its author was acquainted with the rest of Samuel. The only conclusion that may be drawn is that its composition is not earlier than that of the rest of Samuel.10 As to the reference to the death of Abimelech in 2 Sam. 11.21, this may not be as useful as Van Seters would argue. Regardless of the dating of Judges 9, the implication behind Joab's allusion is that it was a military 'proverb' used to warn commanders of the dangers of engaging the enemy close to walls or buildings. Thus the reference here is more likely to be to a popular or military transmission of history than to the literary account as preserved in the biblical Judges. This also raises the point that such references need not necessarily presuppose a literary record, but could simply indicate an awareness of events of the fairly recent past. Van Seters's suggestion that the absence of the Court History from Chronicles has a significance for dating is a stronger argument however. Therefore it seems appropriate here to consider the relationship between the two bodies of literature. 2 Samuel 10-20 and the Chronicler's History The question of the relationship between SN and the Chronicler's account of David's reign is one that has never been the subject of widespread scholarly investigation. Commentators have tended to discuss the relationships between Chronicles and Kings, or between Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History. The more specific issue of the relationship between Chronicles and SN has generally been glossed over. Yet it presents a puzzling question, for despite the obvious parallels between the two, no story in SN appears in Chronicles except for the story of the Ammonite wars. Therefore this issue would warrant investigation, even without Van Seters's postulation. The Chronicler's account of David's reign comprises chs. 10-29 of 1 Chronicles, while the earlier chapters consist of genealogical material. 9. Chapter 3, pp. 88-89. 10. Also worthy of note is that two of Van Seters's four reference points (i.e. 2 Sam. 9 and 1 Kgs 2.27) fall outside the boundaries of 2 Sam. 10-20.

190

The Wages of Sin

1 Chronicles 10 records Saul's last battle and the story of David continues from this point until the end of the book. In Tables 3 and 4, the correspondence between the two has been set out in some detail. Table 3 shows how 2 Samuel (+ 1 Sam. 31) parallels 1 Chron. 10-29 and Table 4 reverses the procedure and demonstrates how Chronicles parallels 2 Samuel.11 Basically, there are two possible ways to explain this phenomena. It may have been that 1. 2.

The Chronicler was not familiar with the material (as Van Seters argues), or that The Chronicler has deliberately chosen to omit it from his own work (as is the contention of most other scholars).

This brings up the issue of the source material of Chronicles, which has received much attention over the years. If it can be determined whether this material was part of the Chronicler's source, only then will it be possible to tell whether its omission was through ignorance or conscious decision. Up until the beginning of this century it was generally held that both Chronicles and Samuel-Kings were based on another independent and more detailed source, which was no longer extant. For example, in his commentary on Chronicles, Keil is emphatic in his insistence that although Samuel and Kings may have been known to the Chronicler, he did not employ them as sources for his information. There were those however who argued that the source for Chronicles was in fact the books of Samuel and Kings. Torrey was perhaps the most instrumental figure in dissolving the view of a common source for Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. He argued, 'It is time that scholars were done with this phantom "source", of which the internal evidence is absolutely lacking, and the external evidence is 11. A note of explanation may be required here. The purpose of these tables is to set out the parallels between the two books in a general manner. The tables reveal the parallels between the two books, but do not seek to trace the exact correspondence between the texts in minute detail. For example, whereas the similarity between 1 Chron. 10.1-12 and 1 Sam. 31 is very close, the texts of 2 Sam. 15.25-28 and 1 Chron. 6.12-15 only roughly parallel each other (the role of the Levites is much more important in the Chronicles text). Also 2 Sam. 8.2b and 1 Chron. 18.8b have no parallel in the corresponding text, although this is not specifically indicated in the appropriate table. Therefore these tables should be seen only as a general guideline, and not as an authoritative delineation of the divergence between the two texts.


191

limited to the Chronicler's transparent parading of "authorities" while the evidence against it is overwhelming' (1909: 195; = 1910: 230). Largely as a result of Torrey's work, the idea of Samuel-Kings as the primary source for Chronicles became the accepted view. That this overtook the older idea of a common source may be accounted for basically by two reasons. These were, first, that the 'phantom source' is based purely upon conjecture. There is no evidence for its existence apart from the source references in Chronicles and Kings, and they could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Secondly, the close similarity between the texts of Chronicles and Samuel-Kings has led scholars to argue that the work of the Chronicler presupposed the existence of Samuel and Kings. How then are the source references in the books of Chronicles to be explained? On all but two occasions12 these references are identical with those in the book of Kings. Hence this was taken by earlier scholars as evidence for a common source. However Torrey, later followed by Noth (1957: 134), argued that in referring the reader back to his sources, the Chronicler was merely following a literary convention laid down in the earlier work. He put forward the view that these were not the Chronicler's sources but were the sources underlying Samuel and Kings. Indeed he believed that at the time of the Chronicler, these sources would have long ceased to exist in written form (1909:193; = 1910: 228). Willi (1972) has since taken Torrey's argument further. He has argued strongly that it was the Deuteronomistic History in its final form that was the basis for the Chronicler's work. So if Chronicles is based solely upon the Deuteronomistic History as we know it, then the absence of the SN material is a deliberate omission. However, the question of the relationship between Chronicles and SN and its implications for our understanding of the Deuteronomistic History has been discussed in a recent article by Auld (1983a). He challenges the current idea that Chronicles is directly dependent upon the Deuteronomistic History in its final form. He sees it as a weakness that most recent scholars have simply assumed that the Deuteronomistic History was readily available to the Chronicler and that he used it as his main source of information. The main interest of Auld's article is upon the use of prophetic terminology, specifically the root fcQ]. In examining the uses of the term, principally in Jeremiah and Kings, he argues that the noun N1^] only came to be applied to the biblical prophets in exilic and post-exilic times. 12. 2 Chron. 35.26-27; 1 Chron. 29.29.

192

The Wages of Sin

He reasons that the way for the use of this noun was paved by the more acceptable usage of the verb. Auld notes that there is a distinct difference between Kings and Chronicles in their use of prophetic terminology. Outside 1 Kings 22/2 Chronicles 18 (which is in many ways a special case) the two only accord in their usage of prophetic terms in referring to Gad as ntn, 13 Nathan and Isaiah as N^]14 and Huldah as n»'D].15 Auld regards the insertion of the term K'D] as post-exilic. Thus he argues that the final redactional stage of the Deuteronomistic History cannot be dated to the exile, but must have continued long after, for it employs the noun freely. He also sees links between Chronicles and an early deuteronomistic draft of Judges (1975). On these grounds he argues that the Deuteronomistic History was not complete when Chronicles was being composed and that some of its present contents may not have been available to the Chronicler. Auld highlights both SN and the Elijah/Elisha narratives (1 Kgs 172 Kgs 10)—the two bodies of literature over which 'the Chronicler is deafeningly silent' (1983a: 16). It is generally argued that the Chronicler has simply reworked the Deuteronomistic History in order to emphasize his own particular theological interpretation of history and that these units had no particular connection with it. Auld questions this and asks if it need necessarily be so. He suggests that SN and the Elijah/Elisha stories should be viewed as supplements to the Deuteronomistic History rather than as sources for it. He regards them as later additions rather than as source documents that the Chronicler has deliberately omitted. He goes on to comment that of von Rad's generally-acknowledged scheme of eleven examples of prophecy and fulfilment in the Deuteronomistic History,16 only two appear in Chronicles. Auld emphasizes 13. 1 Chron. 21.9/2 Sam. 24.11. 14. 1 Chron. 17.1/2 Sam. 7.2; 2 Chron. 32.20/2 Kgs 19.2. 15. 2 Chron. 34.22/2 Kgs 22.14. 16. Von Rad (1953: 74-91/1966: 205-21) identified a system of prophetic predictions linked to exactly-noted fulfilments running through the Deuteronomistic History. It is to be found in the following places: Prophecy 2 Sam. 7.13 1 Kgs 11.29-39 13 14.6-16 16.1-4

Fulfilment 1 Kgs 8.20 12.15b 2 Kgs 23.16-18 1 Kgs 15.29 16.12


193

that only two of these passages (significantly the two that are repeated in 2 Chron. 6.10 and 10.15), make the point that Yahweh has established the word he has spoken (-Q1 1&N TQTriK D'pn). Returning to the older view, Auld raises the possibility of a common source underlying both accounts 'that told the whole story of the Jerusalem monarchy' (1983: 16). Thus the Chronicler and the Deuteronomistic Historian would have drawn upon this source, each selecting material appropriate to his own purpose.17 With regard to the source references in Chronicles and Kings, Auld takes a different approach than do the majority of scholars. Although Chronicles is often regarded as quoting Kings, the reverse is not generally thought to be the case. However he argues that when Kings mentions the 'chronicles of the kings of Judah', it is in fact referring the reader to the biblical Chronicles. When Chronicles refers to the words of the prophet Nathan (K"Q]n ]fl] 'HITI) he argues that it is quoting SN (which does not appear in Chronicles) and not Nathan's oracle as many argue (which is paralleled in that work). Thus there is considerable correlation between the views of Auld and Van Seters in this area. Both believe that SN18 was not available to the Chronicler and that he was unaware of the events it records. Both regard SN as a supplement or addition to the Deuteronomistic History. They see it as having been incorporated after the exile, at a date when the Deuteronomist's work is normally thought to have already been completed. Therefore like Van Seters, Auld's contention is that the omission of this material from Chronicles is not a matter of differing emphases. Rather he argues that it is the result of the absence of SN from the Chronicler's source. The implication for the dating of SN is obvious. Auld's suggestion supports that of Van Seters in placing the composition of the work in the post-exilic period—which is distinctly at variance with the commonly-held view of Solomonic composition. Prophecy Josh. 6.26 lKgs22.17 21.21-22 2Kgsl.6 21.10-15 22.15-20

Fulfilment 16.34 22.35-36 21.27-29 2Kgsl.l7 24.2; 23.26 23.30

17. The implication here is that the Chronicler has a special interest in the fulfilment of the 'word of Yahweh'. 18. Like Van Seters, Auld also calls this work the Court History.

194

The Wages of Sin

However Auld's view is not without its difficulties, and some of these have been highlighted by Williamson (1983). He criticizes Auld's approach to the relationship between Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History.19 Williamson's comments, particularly those relating to the absence of SN from Chronicles, warrant some attention here. Unlike Auld, Williamson sees Chronicles as having used the Deuteronomistic History as its primary source material. He allows however that this was not an exact duplication of the Masoretic Text of the Deuteronomistic History as we know it.20 He objects to Auld's approach on several counts, a number of which are very useful in assessing this view. Williamson argues that the relationship between Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History is too large and wide-ranging a subject to be resolved on the basis of a comparison of prophetic terminology. Indeed he himself thinks that the differences in the use of the various terms may be more appropriately explained in that the Chronicler and the Deuteronomist were making different and distinctive comments on the nature of prophecy. He also takes recourse to Torrey's argument that the existence of a common source can never be proved and that it can only ever rest on conjecture. This is an important observation, for as Williamson notes, Auld's sole basis for postulating the existence of a common source is his examination of the relatively limited use of prophetic terminology. It will always be the case that if the existence of a common source cannot actually be proved, then the argument will remain exceedingly vulnerable. If, as Williamson suggests, the variation in the use of this terminology is simply due to the differing statements on prophecy, then Auld's entire argument falls down. Indeed it is also true to say that Auld has not properly considered the difference in the approaches to prophecy of the Deuteronomist and the Chronicler. Thus his argument is immediately weakened. With regard to the omission of the Elijah/Elisha narratives from the Chronicler's account, Williamson argues that almost all of these stories 19. The same volume of the journal in which Auld's (1983a) article appears also contains the responses of Williamson (1983) on the Deuteronomistic HistoryChronicles relationship, Carroll (1983) on the implications of this article for a study of prophetic literature and a further response of Auld (1983b) to their comments. 20. Williamson (19825/1983) argues that there was some separate development of the text of Kings in Palestine alongside the Masoretic version, which was given its final form in Babylon.


195

are concerned with the northern kingdom, whereas the Chronicler is interested only in material relating to the South. This observation also significantly weakens Auld's argument, for he does not show any awareness of the contrast between the southern orientation of the Chronicler's work and the northern setting of these stories. Williamson also deals specifically with the relationship between SN and Chronicles. Basically he puts forward four objections to Auld's suggestion that SN/Court History was not present in the Chronicler's source. However three of these four criticisms are undermined by my contention that 1 Kings 1-2 does not belong with 2 Samuel 10-20.21 His fourth argument on the other hand concerns the account of the Ammonite war in 1 Chron. 9.1-20.3. Auld has suggested that the 'Bathsheba' account was added to the story of the Ammonite war in 2 Samuel at some stage after the Chronicler had completed his writings. However Williamson disagrees. He argues that the presence of the phrase 'but David remained at Jerusalem' in 1 Chron. 20.1 is a redundant statement that could only reflect an original link with the David-Bathsheba-Uriah narrative in the source material.22 Indeed this is certainly a plausible suggestion, for there is some difficulty in the Samuel narrative as to whether the corresponding passage (2 Sam. 11.1) properly belongs with the preceding war account or with the following adultery-murder narrative.23 If it is indeed part of the following narrative, then a small portion of the DavidBathsheba-Nathan story is indeed paralleled in 1 Chronicles. 21. Williamson argues that 1 Chron. 29.24 presupposes a knowledge of the account of Adonijah's attempted usurpation of the throne in 1 Kgs 1; that 1 Kgs 2 may have been the trigger for the Chronicler's modelling the accession of Solomon to David on that of Joshua to Moses; and that the Samuel appendix was the latest addition to Samuel because it lies between 2 Sam. 20 and 1 Kgs 1, and as it was represented in the Chronicler's source, SN must also have been present there. 22. In countering Williamson's argument, Auld (1983b) concedes that the Chronicles narrative may originally have included some further element here, but that this was not the account of David's adultery and murder. However, this is not a very satisfactory argument, for Auld seems to be simply replacing the 'missing' DavidUriah-Bathsheba account with another unknown 'missing' account. 23. I have taken 11.1 as belonging with the following material, as have Caspari (1926: 524-37), McKane (1963: 228), Stolz (1981: 234-38), McCarter (1984: 27791), Gordon (1986: 252); on the other hand Budde (1890: 249), H.P. Smith (1899: 317), Rost (1926/1982: 73), Hertzberg (1964: 301-305), Carlson (1964: 144-46), Mauchline (1971: 246-48) and Fokkelman (1981: 41-70) take it as the conclusion of the preceding account of the Ammonite war.

196

The Wages of Sin

Thus Williamson's view of the relationship between Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History is diametrically opposed to that of Auld. Whereas Auld and Van Seters argue that the Court History was unknown to the Chronicler, Williamson regards its omission from Chronicles as part of a deliberate policy of selection on the basis of theme. In this he is representative of the majority opinion and finds support from scholars such as Torrey and Willi. Another criticism may be levelled at Auld. He does not specify if he sees SN as having been in circulation before it was added to the Deuteronomistic History or if he would date its actual composition as late as its incorporation into the History. Indeed, regardless of literary considerations, it would seem strange if the author of Chronicles, engaged in compiling a work on the history of this period, was unaware of such a politically important event as Absalom's coup d'etat. It would be especially surprising in view of the fact that it was known in some circles (i.e. either by those who knew 2 Samuel 10-20, or by those who passed on the historical information on which 2 Samuel 10-20 would be based). It would seem rather that the absence of any reference to Absalom's revolt in Chronicles reveals that the author has made a deliberate decision not to include it. Yet nor is Williamson's approach completely satisfactory. He argues that the Deuteronomistic History is the main source for the Chronicler's work and that the reason for the omission of the SN stories is that they did not fit in with the themes of his work. For example, he sees the portrayal of the reigns of David and Solomon as a 'United Monarchy' as a characteristic theme of Chronicles (1982a). Thus the omission of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba do not feature in his record of the reign of David because they reveal divisions and may even be seen to highlight a rift between North and South. Indeed the same reasoning serves to explain the omission of Eshbaal's reign in the North and David's early reign over Judah. The difficulty with this however is that the omission of all of 2 Samuel 10-20 cannot be explained solely on the grounds of theme. In common with many others, Williamson takes 'retribution and repentance'24 as a characteristic theme of Chronicles. He sees it as a distinct and deliberate attempt to illustrate that faithfulness brings blessing and that disobedience incurs judgment in each generation. An inherent feature of this 24. Often referred to as the 'doctrine of immediate retribution', although Williamson has doubts as to the accuracy of this title.


197

concept is that the possibility of repentance is always extended and prophetic warning always precedes judgment.25 However if this is the case (and there is widespread agreement that it is),26 then 2 Samuel 10-20 cannot have been excluded from Chronicles on the basis of theme alone, for it falls squarely within the scope of 'retribution and repentance'. The major theme of 2 Samuel 10-20 is Sin and Punishment, and I have argued that the David-Bathsheba-Uriah episode of 2 Samuel 11-12 forms the nucleus of the work, making the entire unit a treatise on the effects of sin. Indeed both repentance and prophetic warning are central components of 2 Samuel 12. This analysis of the text runs contrary to the opinion of Williamson and others in this respect, for the bulk, if not all, of 2 Samuel 10-20 could indeed fit into the Chronicler's work on the basis of theme. The main theme of Sin and Punishment in 2 Samuel 10-20 is certainly compatible with the Chronicler's theme of Immediate Retribution/Retribution and Repentance and in fact would illustrate the Chronicler's own theme in the finest detail. Had the Chronicler employed this material, it would have served to define and highlight this theme at the very beginning of his work.27 But he did not include it. Can its omission therefore continue to be understood solely on the basis of theme? Yet the suggestions of Auld and Van Seters do not provide a viable alternative to that of Williamson et al, for they hinge on the idea that SN/the Court History is a late addition to 2 Samuel. Yet 2 Samuel has been seen to be a very closely-knit unity structured around 2 Samuel 10-20.281 have argued that 2 Samuel 1-9 and 21-24 were probably in circulation before the composition of chs. 10-20, but that the author of the latter material was responsible for the compilation and arrangement of 2 Samuel as it now stands. Therefore, although 2 Samuel 10-20 may be later than the rest of the material in the book, 2 Samuel as a whole could not have been part of the Deuteronomistic History before chs. 10-20 had been

25. Williamson cites Japhet (1977) as having explored this aspect of the theme more thoroughly than anyone else. 26. Williamson states that this is 'one of the best-known features of the Chronicler's work' (1982a: 31). 27. Carlson's analysis of 2 Samuel could also be used in support of this argument in that he sees chs. 9-24 as the outworking of 'curse' incurred by David's sin of disobedience to Yahweh. 28. See above, Chapter 3, pp. 85-91.

198

The Wages of Sin

added. Therefore we cannot accept the idea of the Court History as a supplement to the completed Deuteronomistic History. Indeed it is notable that it is not just SN/the Court History/2 Samuel 10-20 that is absent from 1 Chronicles 10-29.29 Van Seters includes 2 Samuel 2-4 in the Court History, but he makes no attempt to take 2 Samuel 1 with this.30 Indeed there is no-one who seriously attempts to take 21.1-14 or the two psalms of chs. 22 and 23.1-7 with the Court History or succession document. Therefore it is not simply a matter of this narrative being absent from Chronicles. Much of 2 Samuel makes no appearance in this book. Therefore both Auld and Van Seters have oversimplified the issue by claiming that the absence of SN from Chronicles may be explained in this way. On the other hand, it is possible that the absence of this material may be related not to theme, but to genre. These are stories of a personal nature. The detail and intimacy of the scenes led Rost to argue that they were composed by an eyewitness and Gunn to emphasize their literary nature, seeing the narrative as the equivalent of a modern novel. Indeed I have argued that 2 Samuel 10-20 is a biographical work related from a religious perspective, with theological intent. The Chronicler's work on the other hand, although having a theological purpose and emphasis, is certainly concerned with presenting a chronological record of historical events. 2 Samuel 10-20 has a historical (or even political) emphasis but is not an example of history writing. Indeed the older appellations (Court History, Family History) convey a more accurate picture of its content, if not its genre. Thus it may be suggested that the Chronicler's omission of this material from his work is primarily on the basis of genre and that although theme may also play a role, it is at best a minor role. In this case no part of 2 Samuel 10-20 (except the Ammonite war narrative) appears in the Chronicler's account of David's reign because its primary interest is in David and his family. Indeed this may also account to some extent for the omission of 2 Samuel 1-4; 6.20b-23; 9; and 21.1-14, for these accounts are largely concerned with Saul's family. As Chronicles is

29. See Table 4. There is no parallel in 1 Chron. 10-29 (in terms of whole chapters or large units) for 2 Sam. 1-4; 9; 11.1-12.29; 13-20; 21.1-17; 22.1-23.7. 30. Auld, on the other hand, takes 'the story of David and his court' (1983a: 16) as comprising only 2 Sam. 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2. Therefore despite his postulation that SN is an addition to the Deuteronomistic History, he offers no explanation as to why a large proportion of the rest of 2 Samuel is also missing from Chronicles.


199

concerned solely with presenting and interpreting chronological historical and political data, the sequence of narratives that revolve around 2 Samuel 11-12 fall outside the scope of this work. 2 Samuel 10-20 and the Deuteronomistic History Van Seters suggests that the picture of David presented in the Court History is not compatible with that conveyed in the wider Deuteronomistic History. In the light of this argument, it would be appropriate at this point to examine the relationship between 2 Samuel 10-20 and the Deuteronomistic History as a whole. Van Seters asks: 'If...the Dtr. Historian incorporated the Court History into his own work, how could he consistently maintain that David was the ideal ruler and the model that all the kings of Israel and Judah should follow?' (1983: 278). He cannot reconcile the Historian's view of David as the role model for all future kings with the presentation of David in the Court History. On this basis he argues that the Deuteronomistic Redactor did not incorporate the Court History into his History, but that it was done by someone else after he had finished his work. However Van Seters's argument seems to stand or fall on a negative assessment of the character of David in the Court History. He states, 'There is scarcely anything exemplary in David's actions in the whole of the Court History' (1983: 290). This statement does not accurately reflect the presentation of David in the narrative. It has already been demonstrated,31 despite the views of those who see SN as anti-monarchical propaganda, that 2 Samuel 10-20 is favourably disposed towards David and fosters a deep sympathy for him.32 Indeed several instances of exemplary behaviour on his part may be highlighted, thus disproving Van Seters's assertion. Most worthy of note among these are David's speedy repentance (12.13), his humility before Yahweh (12.16-23; 16.10-12; etc.) and his attitude toward the Ark (15.25-26). Rather, the negative aspects of David's behaviour in 2 Samuel 10-20 serve to convey the impression of David the Man33 in order to enable the audience to identify with him more easily. Conversely it is not only in (what Van Seters describes as) the Court History 31. See above, Chapter 6, pp. 167-68. 32. See also the examination of the theme of 2 Sam. 10-20 (Chapter 5), especially the section on David's weakness (pp. 144-48). 33. See above, Chapter 5, pp. 142-51.

200

The Wages of Sin

that David does not appear in a good light. In 2 Samuel 24, the text quite categorically presents him as doing wrong by conducting the census. Van Seters does not dispute that this narrative was incorporated by the Deuteronomist. Why then should he object so strongly to the early incorporation of the Court History? Yet Van Seters states: 'It is...inconceivable to me that Dtr. would have included such a work virtually unedited in his history when his whole perspective was exactly the opposite' (1983: 290). But was the whole perspective of the Deuteronomist 'the opposite' to that of the material in question? Noth thinks not. He asserts, 'Dtr. is at one with the whole Old Testament tradition in seeing the figure of David, despite his weakness, as a model against which to judge the later Judaean kings' (1981: 54). Thus Noth sees the concept of David's weakness as an integral element of the Deuteronomistic Historian's impression of him. Further he sees it as extending outside the Deuteronomistic History, being also part of the overall Old Testament view of David. Thus although there is an idealized picture of David in biblical tradition, the notion is not one of a perfect David, simply that of a royal (and perhaps also religious) role model. Certainly David's sins of adultery and murder are also reflected outside 2 Samuel 11-12. For instance, the superscription to Psalm 51 is the classic example of the awareness of David's misdemeanours. Also in the Deuteronomistic History, 1 Kgs 15.5 qualifies its praise of David with reference to the incidents of 2 Samuel 11. It states, 'David did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, and did not turn aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah theHittite'. Gray (1970: 348) however, on the basis of the Septuagint text, sees the last phrase in 1 Kgs 15.5 as a later gloss. Van Seters presumably would also go along with Gray's reading. However the difficulty here is that Van Seters would have to think in terms of this phrase being added to the Deuteronomistic History after the incorporation of the Court History. Yet he sees the activity of the Deuteronomistic Redactor as having been long completed by this stage. The only other alternative would be to see this verse as having been the motivating factor in the incorporation of the entire Court History. It hardly seems likely, though, that such a short comment could precipitate a revision of the Deuteronomistic History on such a vast scale. In fact it may be that the events of 2 Samuel 10-20 (or indeed of

7. The Date and Authorship of '2 Samuel 10-20

201

Van Seters's Court History or Rost's SN) do not figure more prominently in Kings34 because the David of Kings is remembered first and foremost in a religious context. Subsequent to 1 Kings 2 David is mentioned 49 times in Kings.35 The majority of these concern his righteousness. He is said to have done what was right in the eyes of Yahweh;36 to have kept his statutes and commandments (m2iQ; mpn D'CDDEJQ;);37 to have been upright in heart,38 righteous,39 faithful40 and wholly true to Yahweh;41 to have followed Yahweh with all his heart;42 to have walked in integrity of heart43 and in the ways of Yahweh.44 The dynastic promise also features prominently in Kings. Reference is made to the promise of Yahweh45 and to the ideas that Yahweh has allowed the dynasty to continue for David's sake;46 that he has allowed a son of David to continue the dynasty47 and that he has built him a 'sure house';48 that the dynasty is a 'lamp' for David,49 that it is an eternal dynasty,50 that it shall never lack a man on the throne51 and that David has been divinely elected.52 David is linked with the building of the temple in Kings. He is said to

34. Naturally David only appears in the Deuteronomistic History from 1 Sam. 16 onwards. 1 Sam. 16.11-1 Kgs 2.11 are concerned with the life of David. Therefore if one wishes to examine the Deuteronomist's idealized picture of David, the posthumous references should be considered. 35. These are references to David himself as distinct from references to the 'city of David', 'house of David', etc. 36. 1 Kgs 11.33, 38; 14.8; 15.5, 11; 2 Kgs 14.3; 16.2; 18.3; 22.2. 37. 1 Kgs 3.14; 11.33,34,38. 38. 1 Kgs 11.33. 39. 1 Kgs 3.6; 9.4. 40. 1 Kgs 3.6. 41. 1 Kgs 11.4; 15.3. 42. 1 Kgs 14.8. 43. 1 Kgs 9.4. 44. 1 Kgs 3.14. 45. 1 Kgs 8.15, 20, 24, 25; 9.5. 46. 1 Kgs 11.12, 13, 32, 39; 2 Kgs 8.19. 47. 1 Kgs 5.15 (Eng. 5.1), 21 (Eng. 5.7); 8.20. 48. 1 Kgs 11.38. 49. 1 Kgs 11.36; 15.14; 2 Kgs 8.19. 50. 1 Kgs 8.25. 51. 1 Kgs 9.5. 52. 1 Kgs 8.16.

202

The Wages of Sin

have wanted to build a temple for Yahweh,53 that this was not possible because of the warfare in which he had engaged,54 but that Yahweh promised that his son would build a temple55 and that David stored up precious metals and utensils for this purpose.56 Also present is the idea that David was not guilty of sacrificing at the 'high places', but adhered to the deuteronomic ideal of a central sanctuary.57 Additionally Kings makes reference to the relationship between David and foreign powers. It mentions him engaged in conflict58 and notes his friendly relations with Hiram of Tyre.59 There is nothing in Kings that is directly at odds with the picture of David presented in the Court History unless one sees the latter as being blatantly anti-Davidic. Certainly no contradiction need be seen between the ideal of a righteous David in Kings and the events of 2 Samuel 11, for in concentrating on Sin and Punishment, 2 Samuel 10-20 only deals with one aspect of David's life. His uprightness, prowess in battle and desire to build a temple are made explicit elsewhere in 1 Samuel 161 Kings 2. Hence having rejected the suggestion of an anti-Davidic tendency in 2 Samuel 10-20, Van Seters's argument that the view of David in the Court History is incompatible with that in the rest of the Deuteronomistic History must also be rejected. Let us now consider the implications of these observations for Van Seters's overall hypothesis regarding date. He has suggested that SN + 2 Samuel 2-4 should be dated to the post-exilic period. I have sought to apply his principles for dating to 2 Samuel 10-20, but have found that 1. 2. 3.

53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.

The presentation of David here is not incompatible with that in the rest of the Deuteronomistic History; The absence of this material from the Chronicler's account results from its genre, not from its date of composition; and Its presupposition of outside material is witness to its close connections with the rest of Samuel, and need not be explained in the way that Van Seters attempts to do.

1 Kgs 8.17, 18. 1 Kgs5.17(Eng. 5.3). 1 Kgs5.19(Eng. 5.5). 1 Kgs 7.51. 1 Kgs 3.3. 1 Kgs 5.17 (Eng. 5.3); 11.14-22, 24. 1 Kgs 5.15 (Eng. 5.1).


203

Therefore Van Seters's dating must be rejected, for his arguments are not feasible in the light of the conclusions on 2 Samuel 10-20 reached in this work. The Function of 2 Samuel 10-20 within the Deuteronomistic History With regard to the prehistory and composition of 2 Samuel, it has been concluded here60 that 2 Samuel only arrived at its present form at the time when chs. 10-20 were written and that the author of chs. 10-20 was also the compiler of the whole book. He employed the material now found in 2 Samuel 2-9 and 21-24 as a framework for chs. 10-20 and used 2 Samuel 1 to link this to the Samuel/Saul/David material of 1 Samuel. This view is incompatible with Van Seters's approach to date. He sees the Court History as having been added as a supplement to the Deuteronomistic History and to 2 Samuel. However according to the scheme proposed here, although 2 Samuel 1-9 and 21-24 would have been in existence before chs. 10-20, they were only brought together by the writer of this unit. Van Seters's argument requires the existence of 2 Samuel without the Court History. This runs contrary to the views expressed here, which necessitate the dating of the composition of chs. 10-20 and the compilation of the book to some stage before the final compilation of the Deuteronomistic History in the sixth (or seventh) century BCE. Before continuing with the discussion of date, a further digression is needed. It was commented above that Van Seters's argument raises the wider questions of the relationship of 2 Samuel 10-20 with Chronicles and with the Deuteronomistic History. Having examined the structural relationship between this unit and the Deuteronomistic History, the functional role of 2 Samuel 10-20 within the larger History should now be explored. It would seem that 1 and 2 Samuel were incorporated into the Deuteronomistic History as a block and that the function of this block was to provide a record of the reign of David. The Deuteronomistic Historian could possibly have seen 2 Samuel 10-20 as history writing,61 for despite its own internal intention and purpose, it does provide a record of some of the events of David's reign that are otherwise unaccounted for. However it seems more likely that the Redactor has incorporated 2 Samuel as a whole because it tells the story of David's reign 60. See above, Chapter 3, pp. 88-91. 61. See above, Chapter 6, p. 163.

204

The Wages of Sin

and chs. 10-20 were included because they formed part of this account. Yet just as they have a distinct function within 2 Samuel, these chapters fulfil a similar function in the context of the Deuteronomistic History. Noth views the Deuteronomistic Historian as presenting a picture of a David who was the ideal role model, despite his weakness. 2 Samuel 1020 illustrates this weakness in the Deuteronomistic Historian's account of David's life. A major purpose of the theme of David's weakness in 2 Samuel 10-20 is to present him as truly human and to allow the audience to identify with him.62 Thus it also serves a similar purpose for the judgment of the subsequent kings. The Deuteronomist holds up David as the ideal king and the standard with which to measure his successors. 2 Samuel 10-20 reveals that this is not an impossible standard—that David, truly human and capable of transgression, could be an acceptable king in the sight of Yahweh. Therefore all subsequent kings could attain to this standard, because David was no better than they. Yet it is not only the theme of David's weakness which has a significant function within the Deuteronomistic History. The central and all embracing theme of 2 Samuel 10-20 has been seen to be that of Sin and Punishment, and it is true that this concept has much in common with the motivating force of the Deuteronomistic History. Noth (1981) saw the main idea underlying the work as the idea that the exile was punishment for Israel's sin and that God's anger with the exiled Israel was justified. It traces the history of Israel in order to explain and pronounce the punishment of exile and it does so by showing that this history has been plagued by continual apostasy and idolatry. Highlighted as the most significant examples are the break from the central sanctuary led by Jeroboam ben Nebat (in the North) and the apostasy under Manasseh (in Judah). The main principle underlying the Deuteronomistic History is the idea that punishment must follow sin. Hence the main idea of 2 Samuel 1020 is very closely related to this. The History as a whole is concerned with Sin and Punishment on a national level. This unit serves to provide an outworking of the effects of Sin and Punishment on an individual level. The larger work seeks to convey the overall impression that when the nation sins it must expect punishment from Yahweh. 2 Samuel 1020 provides a specific example of the inevitable consequences of wrongdoing on a smaller (and therefore more easily comprehensible) scale. If the Deuteronomistic History seeks to explain that Israel's punishment 62. See above, Chapter 5, p. 145.


205

has been merited by her past sin, then 2 Samuel 10-20 reinforces this by showing how David's sin was punished and how this punishment was deserved. Thus the function of 2 Samuel 10-20 within the Deuteronomistic History may be summarized as follows: 1.

2.

3.

It serves to provide a record of some of the events of David's reign which do not otherwise figure in the Deuteronomist's account. By revealing David's weakness, it serves to convey the idea that the standard by which the Deuteronomist judges the kings is not impossibly high. Its theme of Sin and Punishment coincides with the main idea of the Deuteronomistic History and illustrates the inescapable consequences of abandoning social and moral standards.

It serves a distinct purpose within the Deuteronomistic History and is an integral part of the larger work. On this basis it cannot be viewed as a later supplement to the completed History, but clearly was incorporated by the Deuteronomistic Historian when he compiled the whole work. Thus the latest date for the composition of 2 Samuel 10-20 is the sixth century BCE, before the final compilation of the Deuteronomistic History. What then is its terminus a quol The earliest date at which it could have been composed is after the latest event it describes.63 As it has been demonstrated that 1 Kings 1-2 does not belong with 2 Samuel 10-20, the terminus a quo is earlier than that of Rost, who argued that SN was written during the early years of the reign of Solomon. It could have been written late in the reign of David. Thus the work should be dated somewhere between the latter years of David's reign (tenth 63. In accordance with the approach adopted in this work (see above, Chapter 4), the question of dating is applied to the narrative as a single unit. However there are some who envisage various parts of 2 Sam. 10-20 as having been written at different times. Such is the approach taken by Conroy (1978) and McCarter (1981, 1984) who take 2 Sam. 13-20 as earlier than chs. 10-12. Also Gordon (1984: 89) suggests that There is, too, the danger that, in operating with the standard concept of the Succession Narrative... we may overlook the possibility that the finalized narrative comprises elements of both'. However I have argued that 2 Sam. 10-20 was composed as a unified narrative by one author. The only exception to this is the Ammonite war narrative, which has been taken from official records and must therefore predate the rest of the work. Thus the material is approached as a unity in terms of structure and composition. Hence a date must be sought for the block as a whole.

206

The Wages of Sin

century) and the activity of the Deuteronomistic Redactor (sixth century). However it remains an open question as to when during this long period the composition of chs. 10-20 and the compilation of 2 Samuel actually belong. Therefore let us attempt to find an answer for this question. Is it possible to be more specific than this? Further examination will reveal an answer. Rost, Whybray and many others argued strongly that SN should be dated to the early years of Solomon's rule. On the other hand Eissfeldt, Gunn (and indeed also Van Seters) contended that there is no evidence in the text for dating it to this period. Yet even if there is no firm evidence in the text for a very early date, it does not follow automatically that it must be a late composition. Let us look then at the textual evidence which is taken to support a later dating of the work. One of the most frequently cited arguments against an early composition is based on a textual emendation of 2 Sam. 13.18. In the Masoretic Text, v. 18a reads: cr'r.yn rfoiran ^'pDrrniB 7jt?Qtpn p •"? D'OD rqh? rrîri The significant word here is D^^D for as it stands, the Hebrew should be translated: Now she was wearing a D'OS PJro for thus were the virgin daughters of the king clad, in clothes ,64

In view of the obvious difficulty here, it has long been suggested that D'1?'!^ be read D'Tiun 'from of old' (see Driver, 1913: 300). Many scholars have accepted this emendation and several modern translations have adopted it. Thus it is often taken as an indication that the custom belonged in the (distant) past and therefore that the episode was recorded some considerable time after the events took place. However this suggestion has not been universally adopted. For example H.P. Smith (1899: 330) dismissed the entire phrase as secondary. Against this it has been pointed out (principally by Ehrlich 1914: 1; cited by Gunn) that the phrase has a definite function in that it mentions the robe which Tamar tears in the verse immediately following. Conroy (1978: 151-52) on the other hand is critical of the reading D'pl^p.65 Rather he follows Klostermann (1887: 186) in reading n^ton 64. The phrase D"DD f]]fD occurs only here and in the Joseph narratives (Gen. 37.3, 23, 32) and its meaning is by no means clear in either position. See Driver (1913: 299-300) for a summary of the possible interpretations. 65. He argues that DÎUQ cannot be rendered 'm olden days', that D^n is


207

('from childhood on') for DîJQ.66 This understanding is influenced by the suggestion of Wenham (1972) that the noun H^lfO may be related more directly to age than to virginity. I would suggest, however, that this is not a significant issue with regard to the dating of 2 Samuel 10-20. If the emendation of D^JJQ to QÎJJQ is not the only possible resolution of the problematic language in 13.18 then this emendation should not be used as evidence for the wider issue of dating. Moreover, regardless of this dispute, DÎ^Q remains a conjectural reading. The text itself does not contain the phrase67 and it seems unwise to base the understanding of such a major issue upon a conjecture. Thus it has no value for the question of the dating of the work. Another possible indication of dating is to be found in 18.18, where the phrase 'to this day' nvn DVn II? appears. It is used in the context of Absalom's erection of a monument to himself (mentioned by Conroy 1978: 65; Gordon 1984: 90). However HTH DVn Itf is very much a relative phrase. Although it implies that time has passed since the event under consideration took place, there is absolutely no indication of how long (or short!) this period of time has been. Indeed it is true that this argument is not widely used.68 Another argument that relates to dating concerns the attitude to North and South in the text. It is thought that this could reveal whether the text predates or postdates the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam. Alt (1966: 228-31) suggested that Absalom's supporters belonged mainly to the northern tribes, but many others have argued that there was no such geographical division between the forces of David and Absalom.69 This is the more widely-accepted view and is generally used in 'impressive contexts' and that it is unusual to find it in such a 'banal "archaeological gloss"... on princesses' fashions' (1978: 152). 66. McCarter (1984) adopts Conroy's proposal, but prefers to see it as deriving from D^JJ ('to be sexually mature') rather than from 'TIU, as Conroy suggests. Thus he translates it 'from puberty on'. 67. The only support for this reading is in Josephus, Antiquities 7.171. 68. In general, scholars are more interested in the apparent contradiction between 18.18 (which states that Absalom had no sons) and 14.27 (which credits him with having three sons and a daughter). However this issue does not have a significant bearing on the date of the narrative, for the two accounts can be harmonized (Hertzberg 1964: 360; Gordon 1986: 285; et al.}, or one of the two may be omitted as a secondary addition (for example, H.P. Smith [1899: 359] took 14.27 as secondary). 69. Regarding the terminology used, even Flanagan (1975), who argues that the

208

The Wages of Sin

reflected in the standard histories of Noth (1960: 201-202) and Bright (1981: 208-209). Indeed the argument of McCarter (1984: 357-58) that Absalom drew his support from the entire population is convincing. However it is quite obvious that there was a distinct geographical significance in the revolt of Sheba ben Bichri (2 Sam. 19.41-20.22). In this instance it is clear that the northern tribes were convinced by Sheba's argument, while Judah remained loyal to David. Gordon thinks that 19.43-20.2 may reveal an awareness of the division of the kingdom. He highlights (1986: 293-94) the use of the root ntfp in 19.44 (Eng. 19.43), which also appears in 1 Kgs 12.13. He sees an indication of a post-Solomonic origin in the association of David with Judah. Against this, Rost sees in the approach of the narrator here evidence that the division of the kingdom had not yet taken place. He argues, If the final rupture between the northern and southern kingdoms were already a fact of past history, the narrator would hardly have failed to stress more strongly (and perhaps even to deplore) as a prelude to future dissolution what here in this story is rated as no more than an episode and a temporary emergency, howbeit a serious one (1982: 105).

Further he states, Even though the tensions between the northern and southern tribes are apparent and Sheba ben Bichri is to be regarded to a certain extent as a precursor of Jeroboam, the reason for the strife—the wish to be associated with the royal household as closely as possible—is still not the same as that at the actual division of the kingdom where the issue was the aspiration to be freed from the burden of the Judaean kings (p. 105).

Thus he draws attention to the essential difference between the motivating factors underlying Sheba's revolt and the final split between North and South at the time of Rehoboam. Whereas the division of the kingdom resulted from disillusionment with the Davidic monarchy, the causes of Sheba's rebellion do not correspond with this in any way. Thus the record of Sheba ben Bichra's revolt in 2 Samuel 20 does not term 'all Israel' did not previously include Judah, thinks that at this stage the meaning of the phrase was expanding so as to incorporate both North and South. On the other hand, Gunn argues that there is some confusion on the part of the narrator as to whether the various terms relate to Israel and the people refer to the northern tribes only, or whether they extend to the whole nation. Thus he sees this as evidence that the writer was at some distance from the events he was recording. However it is not entirely clear that this is the case, and again there is no conclusive evidence either for or against the Solomonic dating of the narrative.


209

seem to reflect the later division between North and South. However, scholars often seem to have a somewhat naive view of the literary skills and subtlety of the biblical writers. Indeed I would suggest that a skilful author need not have allowed his record of time past to be coloured by his contemporary political situation. Although there is no evidence of the split here, that does not mean that the work must have been written before the division of the kingdom. It simply means that the writer recorded the events of the past as they happened. There is no indication as to whether this was the recent past or the distant past. There is nothing in the text that gives a clear indication of dating. But if there is no textual evidence to pin down its date, where can we turn? An examination of the language will not help for the time scale (about 450 years) is too short to enable dating by this means. Therefore it may be that the work cannot be dated any more precisely than this. One may think that it belongs early in this period, another that it originated later, but there will never be any real proof to support either view. Perhaps the reason that it is so difficult to narrow down the dating of 2 Samuel 10-20 further lies in the fact that it demonstrates so many of the qualities of a good literary work. Certainly Rost's contention for an eyewitness author is very appealing in that descriptions are so vivid and the characters seem to come to life when it is read. But how can a work really be defined as the product of an eyewitness? It cannot. There are no criteria for distinguishing the account of an eyewitness from any other type of material. Eissfeldt's criticism holds true that a later author could simply have used poetic licence to recreate the atmosphere of events of which he was aware. Yet it must be reasserted that simply because a text cannot be proved to be early does not mean that it must be late. There is no firm evidence either way. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that its composition took place somewhere in the period between the last days of David's reign and the completion of the Deuteronomistic History.70 One cannot be more specific than this. 70. Although Noth's view of a single Deuteronomist has been adopted in this chapter, this is not a statement on the question of a double or single redaction in the Deuteronomistic History, nor is it within the scope of this work to make such a statement. Therefore it might be best to note that if the Deuteronomist History has been subject to two redactions, 2 Sam. 10-20, and indeed all of 2 Samuel, would belong with the work of the first Deuteronomist. Therefore its terminus ad quern would be put back into the seventh century BCE.

210

The Wages of Sin Authorship

Let us turn now to the question of authorship. The author of 2 Samuel 10-20 and compiler of 2 Samuel has been mentioned many times in the course of this work, but can this individual be identified? As with the questions of genre, purpose and date, there is no serious precedent for a discussion of the authorship of 2 Samuel 10-20 as an independent unit. However as with these other issues, it is possible to look at the various opinions that have been offered on the authorship of SN and attempt to determine if any of these can apply to 2 Samuel 10-20. Two suggestions as to the authorship of SN are frequently cited. These are that it was written either by Ahimaaz the son of Zadok (first suggested by Klostermann 1887), or by Abiathar the priest (proposed by Duhm 1905). Rost (1982: 105-106) thought that of these two, Ahimaaz was the more likely. His reasoning was that Abiathar is unlikely to have been favourably inclined towards the Solomonic regime (cf. 1 Kgs 2.26-27). On the other hand, he believed that Ahimaaz was probably the son-in-law of Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 4.15), was involved in regional government and would therefore have been a proponent of the legitimacy of Solomon's rule.71 Another suggestion, put forward by Hertzberg (1964: 379), is that the author may have been Hushai, the friend of David. However 2 Sam. 15.33 implies that at the time of Absalom's rebellion, Hushai was already an old man. This makes the suggestion that he was the author of the narrative quite unlikely, unless it was composed at a very early date. However, it is not very useful to indulge in such a debate. Rost himself said of the Abiathar/Ahimaaz question, 'In the end it is simply an argument about names' (1982: 106). Thus he acknowledged that despite the pros and cons on each side, there is nothing conclusive that will pin down the authorship to either man. Indeed it may be more profitable to ask why it is assumed that the name of the author should be known. By looking for a name for him, one is taking it for granted that he figured in the text. Yet there must have been numerous members of David's court who are not mentioned in the biblical narrative. Thus even if 2 Samuel 10-20 was the product of a courtier from the time of David, the biblical account need not preserve any record of his name. Moreover 71. This argument, of course, is totally dependent upon Rost's view of SN as pro-Solomonic propaganda.


211

if the work comes from a later period, then it is even less likely that his name would be commonly known. Indeed an awareness of the difficulty involved in naming the author seems to be reflected in the more realistic suggestion of McKenzie (1974: 244). He credits the authorship and compilation of 1 and 2 Samuel simply to 'David's scribes' and not to any named person or persons. By assigning authorship to a group of scribes, McKenzie is following very much in the tradition of von Rad and Whybray. Their emphasis is on the Solomonic enlightenment and the notion of a strong scribal/ Wisdom influence during the reigns of David and Solomon. Yet this concept has been seen to be less firmly founded than von Rad would imply,72 for there is no firm basis for the analogy of Israelite culture in the Solomonic era with the golden age of Greek civilization. In many ways, though, the conclusion that 2 Samuel 10-20 has a strong theological dimension has much in common with the argument of Whybray (1968), for an important didactic element has been recognized in the work. However it has also been argued on the basis of Crenshaw's (1969) criticisms that there is no significant Wisdom influence in the text.73 Rather McCarter's (1981, 1984) approach seems to come closer to the natural orientation of the narrative than does that of Whybray. McCarter contends that a prophetic author was responsible for compiling 2 Samuel 10-12. He argues that this prophetic writer himself composed 11.2-12.24, for the details of which he 'may have relied on a chain of tradition transmitted in prophetic circles' (1984: 305). He sees the writer as having used the older story of the Ammonite war as a framework for the material, and to have employed this block as 'an interpretive preface' for the story of Absalom's revolt (2 Sam. 13-20). He thinks that the prophetic orientation of the author is demonstrated in the role of Nathan in ch. 11 and argues, 'In viewpoint and editorial technique [2 Sam. 10-12] cannot be separated from the preDeuteronomistic, prophetic edition of the stories of the origin of the monarchy and the rise and fall of Saul' (1981: 364, n. 19). Although the idea of multiple composition for 2 Samuel 10-20 has been rejected,74 McCarter's argument coincides to a large extent with the approach taken here. I have argued that apart from the Ammonite 72. Compare Whybray's comments in his 1982 article. 73. See above, Chapter 6, pp. 172-74. 74. See above, Chapter 4.

212

The Wages of Sin

war narrative (10; 12.26-31) which has been taken from official annals, the unit as a whole is the original composition of a single author. However it is interesting that in considering the activity of the prophetic writer, McCarter takes ens. 10-20 together. Also his postulation of a prophetic influence is convincing. I would suggest that it is not confined to the first section of the work (i.e. chs. 10-12), but extends throughout the work, influencing its overall purpose and meaning via its didactic element. A didactic purpose has been seen in these chapters, but its teaching is more akin to that of the Israelite prophets (who saw lessons to be learned in the history of the nation) than to that of the sages of Proverbs. The prophets' awareness of history may be illustrated for example in Ezekiel 20 (especially vv. 5-31). Here Ezekiel recounts the story of the exodus and the wilderness wanderings in order to emphasize Israel's unfaithfulness to Yahweh and thus to rebuff the elders' request that the prophet inquire of God. Indeed McCarter (1980: 18-23) argues the older sources underlying 1 Samuel 'were systematically reworked to produce a continuous prophetic history of the origins of monarchy in Israel' (1980: 18) before they were incorporated into the Deuteronomistic History. Thus he also recognizes the prophetic emphasis on the lessons of history. In the light of these observations it seems probable that 2 Samuel 1020 was the product of a prophetic hand. Hence its didactic purpose does not derive from the Wisdom schools, but from Israel's prophetic tradition. There is no necessity to look for a name for this author because such a search could be futile. It is enough simply to conclude that the composition of chs. 10-20 and the compilation of 2 Samuel as a whole was the work of a prophetic writer, who wrote at some time between the rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri and the compilation of the Deuteronomistic History.

Chapter 8 CONCLUSION At the outset, this work was styled a reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative'. In its broadest sense, the entire work fulfils this function, but it divides naturally into two stages. In some ways the first stage is the reappraisal proper, for here the SN hypothesis is examined in its own right. Subsequently 2 Samuel 10-20 is explored as a unit and a viable alternative to Rost's hypothesis is offered. Central to the rejection of the SN hypothesis is the argument that the proponents of this theory have incorrectly identified 'succession' as the main theme. This conclusion is on the basis of several observations. 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 (with or without the inclusion of parts of chs. 6 and 7) as a succession narrative is incomplete in recording the elimination of only three of Solomon's nine older brothers; there is no repeated verbal expression of the succession theme in 1 Kings 1 as Rost claims; there is no single succession theme in these chapters, but Rost has combined two quite distinct strands in order to relate them to this idea; his approach to the material undermines the role of David in the text; and his strong emphasis on the importance of 1 Kings 1-2 as the climax of the story does not coincide with the natural emphases of the narrative. Thus the term (so-called) SN is appropriate, because it becomes apparent that SN is not a narrative on the theme of succession. Another consideration of major significance in the rejection of the SN hypothesis is that of the delimitation of the narrative. On close examination, the style and language of 1 Kings 1-2 are different from that of the rest of SN. This is particularly apparent in that repetition is used extensively in 1 Kings 1-2, in stark contrast with the rest of the work. Also, the content of 1 Kings 1-2 does not reveal the degree of dependence on the preceding material suggested by Rost. Further, the cultic content of 1 Kings 1-2 is at variance with the orientation of the rest of the material. This evidence, combined with the fact that 1 Kings 1

214

The Wages of Sin

is separated from 2 Samuel 20 by the four chapters of the Samuel appendix, suggests that 1 Kings 1-2 should not be seen as part of the work. It also becomes apparent that the problems with defining the extent of the narrative are not limited to 1 Kings 1-2, but that some difficulty is often experienced in isolating its beginning. However, this difficulty is caused by the erroneous inclusion of 2 Samuel 9 with the following material. Therefore, the conclusion is that the document comprises only 2 Samuel 10-20. Thus although the idea of the existence of the (so-called) SN is rejected, 2 Samuel 10-20 is recognized as an independent document within 2 Samuel. The argument that the rest of 2 Samuel was compiled by the author of chs. 10-20 as a framework for his own composition establishes the relationship between this material and its immediate context and both its independence and its integration into the larger work are determined. In the second section, attention is focused on 2 Samuel 10-20 as a literary unit and the issues of its unity, theme, genre, purpose, date and authorship are examined in order to determine its literary features and characteristics. Initially it is found that these chapters possess a unity of structure, style, theme and purpose that identify them as a unity and as the product of one writer. Then the question of theme is explored. Having determined that the succession to the throne does not have the significance for the structure and composition of the work which Rost credited to it, this question is of particular interest. The main theme of this work is described as Sin and Punishment, for its chief interest is in tracing the punishment of certain sins or crimes. The structure of the work revolves around this theme and although it has an interest in the punishment of all offences, its chief concern is with David's sins, namely those recounted in the first section of the work; 2 Samuel 10-12. The idea of David the Man (the private, as opposed to the public figure) is another major interest of the work. Several other minor themes and motifs are also observed running through the work. Of these are identified the motifs of death and mourning, David's family, his weakness and his humility. Various suggestions have been made by scholars as to the genre of the (so-called) SN, but 2 Samuel 10-20 does not fit into any of these categories. Rather, it should be seen as a theological biography. Its purpose is more closely related to theme than to genre, and should be

8. Conclusion

215

seen as being in some ways didactic—to present the lessons that may be learned from the experiences of David regarding Sin and Punishment. In considering the question of the date of the document, because it is a narrative work and not a historical or political document, it is not possible to tie down its dating to a specific period. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it was written some time between the last years of David's reign and the incorporation of the books of Samuel into the Deuteronomistic History. As to authorship, it is impossible to identify any named individual as the writer of this work. However, from an examination of the character and purpose of the narrative, it seems likely that the work is the product of a prophetic author. The conclusions which are reached in Part II as to the characteristics of 2 Samuel 10-20 are not simply a series of unrelated answers to problematic questions. They are closely connected to each other and combine to present a picture of a unified narrative, the original composition of a single author. The two major themes have a vital significance for the form of the document. The main theme, Sin and Punishment, dictates both the structure and the content of the work,1 while the other major theme, David the Man, strongly influences the presentation of character.2 These themes are very closely linked to the issues of genre and purpose.3 Indeed the definition 'theological biography' strongly reflects this interpretation of the themes of the work. The conclusion as to the date of the narrative is deliberately vague and this is due in many ways to the assessment of its content and genre. Its narrative quality is emphasized and there is nothing in it as a biography or a theological/didactic work that will pin down its dating. Therefore, these are not a number of individual conclusions, but they combine to form a single hypothesis on the nature of 2 Samuel 10-20. The aim of this work has been to reassess Rost's understanding of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 and to offer an alternative approach to this material. In place of the SN hypothesis, the interpretation of 2 Samuel 10-20 as a theological biography is posited, based on the theme of Sin and Punishment and forming part of the larger story of David.

1. 2. 3.

See above, Chapter 5, pp. 127-42. See above, Chapter 5, pp. 142-51. See above, Chapter 6, pp. 179-81.

216

The Wages of Sin

That such a reassessment of this hypothesis is necessary is demonstrated by the various criticisms levelled at Rost in recent times by scholars;4 most notably the remarks of Ackroyd (1981). Ackroyd lays much emphasis upon the uncertainty surrounding the SN hypothesis despite the widespread acceptance of Rost's views.5 He warns against this hypothesis attaining the status of critical orthodoxy. It seems appropriate to conclude this work with a comment of Ackroyd's, which at once justifies the necessity for the study and adds weight to the misgivings of general adherence to Rost's theory that prevail throughout this work. He states, 'No hypothesis in Old Testament scholarship which reaches such a status must be allowed to go unquestioned, not because such questioning provides fodder for doctoral theses, but because a hypothesis must never be allowed to become more than it really is' (1981:388).

4. 5.

See above, Chapter 1. See above, Chapter 1, pp. 34-36.


Table 1 1 KINGS 1.33-47 David's Instructions (vv. 33-35)

The Coronation (vv. 38-40)

Jonathan's Report (vv. 43-48) Our lord King David has made Solomon king;

And the king said to them, 'Take with you the servants of your lord,

So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah ben Jehoiada, and the Cherethites and the Pelethites, went down

and the king has sent with him Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah ben Jehoiada and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites;

and cause Solomon my son to ride on my own mule,

and caused Solomon to ride on King David's mule

and they have caused him to ride on the king's mule;

and bring him down to Gihon;

and brought him to Gihon.

at Gihon

and let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet there anoint him king over Israel;

There Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the tent, and anointed Solomon.

Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king

then blow the trumpet,

Then they blew the trumpet;

and say, "Long live King Solomon!"

and all the people said, 'Long live King Solomon!'

You shall then come up after him,

And all the people went up after him,

and they have gone up from there

playing on pipes, and rejoicing with great joy,

rejoicing,

Tables David's Instructions (vv. 33-35)

and he shall come and sit upon my throne;

219

The Coronation (vv. 38-40)

Jonathan's Report (vv. 43-48)

so that the earth was split by their noise.

so that the city is in an uproar. This is the noise that you have heard. Solomon sits upon the royal throne. Moreover the king's servants came to congratulate our lord King David...

for he shall be king in my stead; and I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and over Judah.'

And the king also said, 'Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who has granted one of my offspring to sit on my throne this day, my own eyes seeing it.'

220

The Wages of Sin

Table 2

2 SAMUEL 11.14-24 David's Instructions (vv. 14-15)

The Battle (vv. 16-17)

Joab's Instructions (vv. 18-21)

The Messenger's Speech (vv. 22-24)

Then Joab sent and told David all the news about the fighting;

So the messenger went and told David all that Joab had sent him to tell.

In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah. And as Joab was beseiging the city, In the letter he wrote, 'Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting,

he assigned Uriah to the place where he knew there were valiant men.

and then draw back from him, The men gained an advantage over us And the men of the city came out and fought with Joab;

and came out against us in the field but we drove them back to the entrance of the gate.

Tables David's Instructions (vv. 14-15)

The Battle (vv. 16-17)

Joab's Instructions (vv. 18-21)

221 The Messenger's Speech (vv. 22-24) Then the archers shot at your servants from the wall

and some of the servants of David among the people fell.

some of the king's servants are dead and he instructed the messenger, 'When you have finished telling all the news about the fighting to the king,

then, if the king's anger rises, and if he says to you, "Why did you go so near the city to fight?..." that he may be struck down and die.'

Uriah the Hittite was slain also.

Then you shall say, "Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also".'

and your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.

222

The Wages of Sin

Table 3

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN 1 CHRONICLES AND 2 SAMUEL CHRONICLES 1 Chronicles

10.1-12 13-14 11.1-9 10-47 12 13 14.1-16 17 15.1-24 25-28 29 16.1-3 4-42 43 17 18 19 20.1 2-3 4-8 21.1-27 28-30 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

SAMUEL 1 Samuel

31

2 Samuel

5.1-10 23.8-39 6.1-11 5.11-25

-

6.12-15 16 6.17-19

6.20 7 8 10 11.1 12.26-31 21.18-22 24 -

223

Tables

Table 4

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN 2 SAMUEL AND 1 CHRONICLES SAMUEL 1 Samuel 2 Samuel

31 1 2 3 4 5.1-3 4-5 6-10 11-16 17-25 6.1-11 12-16 17-19 20a 20b-23 7 8 9 10 11.1 2-27 12.1-29 30-31 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21.1-14 15-17 18-22

CHRONICLES 1 Chronicles

10.1-12 11.1-3 4-9 14.1-6 7-16 13 15.25-29 16.1-3 43 17 18 19 20.1 20.2-3 20.4-8

224

The Wages of Sin

SAMUEL 2 Samuel

22 23.1-7 8-39

24

CHRONICLES 1 Chronicles

11.10-47

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, P.R. 1977 1981 Alt, A. 1966 Alter, R. 1981 Amit, Y. 1983

The Second Book of Samuel (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 'The Succession Narrative (so-called)', Int 35: 383-95. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (trans. R.A. Wilson; Garden City, NY: Doubleday [1953-64]). The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books). 'The Story of Amnon and Tamar: Reservoir of Sympathy for Absalom', (Hebrew) Hasifrut 32: 80-87.

Anderson, A.A. 1966 Review of Carlson (1964), JSS 11: 257. Auld, A.G. 1975 'Judges I and History: A Reconsideration', VT 25: 261-85. 1983a 'Prophets through the Looking Glass: Between Writings and Moses', JSOT 27: 3-23. 1983b 'Prophets through the Looking Glass: A Response', JSOT 27: 41-44. Auzou, G. 1968 La danse devant I'arche. Etude du livre de Samuel (Connaissance de la Bible; Paris: Editions de 1'Orante). Bar-Efrat, S. 1975 'tnpDS "llS-on •?» 'nnson mrun' (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem). 1978 'Literary Modes and Methods in the Biblical Narrative, in View of 2 Samuel 10-20 and 1 Kings 1-2', English abstract of PhD dissertation, Immanuel 8: 19-31. Bentzen, A. 1959 Introduction to the Old Testament (Copenhagen: Gad, 5th edn). Bertholdt, L. 1816 Historisch-kritische Einleitung in sammtlichen Schriften des Alien und Neuen Testaments, V (5 vols.; Erlangen: Palm). Bewer, J.A. 1912 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jonah (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

226

The Wages of Sin

Blenkinsopp, J. 1966 'Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam. XI 2ff.) and the Yahwist Corpus', Volume du Congres. Geneve 1965 (VTSup, 15; Leiden: Brill): 44-57. Bright, J. 1965 Review of Carlson (1964), Int 19: 246-47. 1981 A History of Israel (London: SCM Press, 3rd edn). Brueggemann, W. 1968 'David and his Theologian', CBQ 30: 156-81. 1969 The Trusted Creature', CBQ 31: 484-98. 1971 'Kingship and Chaos (A Study in Tenth Century Theology)', CBQ 33: 317-32. 1972 'On Trust and Freedom: A Study of Faith in the Succession Narrative', Int 26: 3-19. 1974 'On Coping with Curse: A Study of 2 Sam. 16.5-14', CBQ 36: 17592. 1985 David's Truth in Israel's Imagination and Memory (Philadelphia: Fortress Press). Budde, K. 1 890 Die Biicher Richter und Samuel ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau (Giessen: Ricker). Burrows, M. 1970 The Literary Category of the Book of Jonah', in H.T. Frank and W.L. Reed (eds.), Translating and Understanding the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press): 80-107. Calderone P.O. 1967 Review of Carlson (1964), Bib 48: 309-11. Campbell, A.F. 1975 The Ark Narrative (J Sam. 4-6; 2 Sam. 6). A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study (SBLDS, 16; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press). Caquot, A. 1965 Review of Carlson (1964), Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophic Religeuse 45: 171-73. Carlson, R.A. 1964 David the Chosen King. A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell). Carroll, R. 1983 'Poets not Prophets', JSOT 27: 25-31. Caspari, D.W. 1909 'Literarische Art und historischer Wert von 2 Sam. 15-20', TSK 82: 317-48. 1926 Die Samuelbucher (KAT, 7; Leipzig: Deichter). Clements, R.E. 1975 The Purpose of the Book of Jonah', in J.A. Emerton et al. (eds.), Congress Volume, Edinburgh 1974 (VTSup, 28; Leiden: Brill). Coats, G.W. 1981 'Parable, Fable, and Anecdote. Storytelling in the Succession Narrative', Int 35: 368-82.

Bibliography Conroy, C. 1978 Cook, S.A. 1899-1900 Crenshaw, J.L. 1969 Cross, P.M. 1973 Delekat, L. 1967

Dietrich, W. 1972

Driver, S.R. 1913 Duhm, H. 1905 Ehrlich, A.B. 1914 Eissfeldt, O. 1965 Flanagan, J.W. 1972 1975

227

Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam. 13-20 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press). 'Notes on the Composition of 2 Samuel', AJSL 16: 145-77. 'Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon "Historical" Literature', JBL 88: 129-42. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). 'Tendenz und Theologie der David-Salomo-Erzahlung', in F. Maas (ed.), Das feme und nahe Wort (BZAW, 105; Berlin: Topelmann): 2636. Prophetic und Geschichte. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistichen Geschichtswerk (FRLANT, 108; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn). 'Zur Geschichte der Alttestamentlichen Geschichtsschreibung', in Festschrift fur Theodor Pliiss (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn): 118-63. Randglossen zur hebrdischen Bibel (Vol. 7; Leipzig: Hinrichs). The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P.R. Ackroyd; Oxford: Basil Blackwell [1934]). 'Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2', JBL 91: 172-81. 'Judah in All Israel', in J.W. Flanagan and A.W. Robinson (eds.), No Famine in the Land. Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press).

Fokkelman, J.P. 1981 Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. I. King David (II Sam. 920 & I Kings 1-2) (Assen: Van Gorcum). 1986 Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-31 & II Sam. 1) (Assen: Van Gorcum). Gordon, R.P. 1984 1 and 2 Samuel (OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 1986 / and 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press).

228

The Wages of Sin

Gottwald, N.K. 1980 The Tribes of Yahweh, A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 CE (London: SCM Press). Gray, J. 1970 I & II Kings: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 2nd edn). Gressmann, H. 1910 Die alteste Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetic Israels (SAT, 2.1; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Gr0nbaek, J.H. 1971 Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (I Sam. 15-2 Sam. 5) Tradition und Komposition (Acta Theologica Danica, 10; Copenhagen: Munksgaard). Gunkel, H. 1906 'Die israelitische Literatur', Die orientalischen Literaturen (Berlin: P. Hinneberg): 51-106. 1910 Genesis, iibersetzt und erklart (Gottinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Gunn, D.M. 1974a 'Narrative Patterns and Oral Traditions in Judges and Samuel', VT 24: 286-317. 1974b ' "The Battle Report": Oral or Scribal Convention?', JBL 93: 513-18. 1975 'David and the Gift of the Kingdom', Semeia 3: 14-45. 1976a 'Traditional Composition in the "Succession Narrative"', VT 26: 214-29. 1976b 'On Oral Tradition: A Response to John Van Seters', Semeia 5: 15561. 1978 The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 1980 The Fate of King Saul. An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Guterbock, H.G. 1984 'Hittite Historiography: A Survey', in H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (eds.), History, Historiography and Interpretation, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill): 21-35. Hagan, H. 1979 'Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Samuel 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2', Bib 60: 301-26. Hermisson, H.J. 1971 'Weisheit und Geschichte', in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie, Gerhard von Rad zum 70 Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag): 136-54. Hertzberg, H.W. 1960 Die Samuelbucher (ATD, 10; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2nd edn). 1964 I & II Samuel: A Commentary (OTL; ET of 1960 German edn; London: SCM Press). Heym, S. 1972 The King David Report (London: Abacus).

Bibliography Hoffman, Y. 1979 Holscher, G. 1952 Huizinga, J. 1963

Ishida, T. 1982

Jackson, J.J. 1965 Japhet, S. 1977 Keil, C.F. 1872 1877 Keys, G. 1988

Kittel, R. 1896

229

'Between Conventionality and Strategy: On Repetition in Biblical Narrative' (Hebrew), Hasifrut 28: 89-99. Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Yahvisten und Elohisten (Lund: Gleerup). 'A Definition of the Concept of History', in R. Klibansky and HJ. Paton (eds.), Philosophy and History: Essays Presented to Ernst Cassirer (New York: Harper & Row): 1-10. 'Solomon's Succession to the Throne of David—A Political Analysis', in T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, papers read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December, 1979 (Tokyo: YamakawaShuppansha): 175-87. 'David's Throne: Patterns in the Succession Story', CJT 11: 183-96. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute). The Books of Chronicles (trans. A. Harper; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). The Books of Kings (trans. J. Martin; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). 'The So-Called Succession Narrative: A Reappraisal of Rost's Approach to Theme in II Samuel 9-20 and I Kings 1-2', IBS 10: 140-55. A History of the Hebrews (trans. E.B. Spiers; Theological Translation Library; London: Williams & Norgate [1892]).

Klostermann, A. 1887 Die Biicher Samuelis und der Konige (Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alien und Neuen Testamentes; Nordlingen: Beck). Knight, G.A.F. 1950 Ruth and Jonah (TBC; London: SCM Press). Langlamet, F. 1976a Review of Wurthwein (1974) and Veijola (1975), RB 83: 114-37. 1976b 'Pour ou Centre Salomon? La Redaction Prosalomonienne de I Rois I-II', RB 83: 321-79; 481-529. 1977 'Absalom et les concubines de son pere. Recherches sur II Sam., XVI, 21-22', RB 84: 161-209. 1980 'David et la maison de Saul1, RB 87: 161-210. Leimbach, K.A. 1936 Die Biicher Samuel (Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes, 3.1; Bonn: Hanstein).

230

The Wages of Sin

Licht, J. 1978 Long, B.O. 198la 198Ib

Loretz, O. 1961 Luther, B. 1906

Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes). 'A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah', JSOT 19: 7994. 'Wounded Beginnings: David and Two Sons', in B.O. Long (ed.), Images of Man and God, Old Testament Short Stories in Literary Focus (Sheffield: Almond Press): 26-34. 'Herkunft und Sinn der Jona-Erzahlung', BZ 5: 18-29.

'Die Novelle von Juda und Tamar und andere israelitische Novellen', in E. Meyer (ed.), Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstumme (Halle: Niemeyer): 26-34. McCarter, P.K., Jr. 1980 / Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). 1981 '"Plots, True or False", The Succession Narrative as Court Apologetic', Int 35: 355-67. 1984 // Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday). McCarthy, D.J. 1965 'II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History', JBL 84: 131-38. McEvenue, S.E. 1971 The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (Rome: Biblical Institute Press). McKane, W. 1963 / & II Samuel (TBC; London: SCM Press). McKenzie, J.L. 1965 Review of Carlson (1964), TS 26 (1965): 110-13. 1974 A Theology of the Old Testament (London: Geoffrey Chapman). Mauchline, J. 1971 1 and 2 Samuel (NCB; London: Oliphants). Mettinger, T.N.D. 1 976 King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT, 8; Lund: Gleerup). Miller, P.D., Jr, and J.J.M. Roberts 1977 The Hand of the Lord, A Reassesment of the 'Ark Narrative' of I Samuel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Montgomery, J.A. 1951 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ed. H.S. Gehman; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Mowinckel, S. 1963 'Israelite Historiography', ASTI 2: 4-26. Nahon, G. 1965 Review of Carlson (1964), REJ 224: 429-30.

Bibliography Noth, M. 1957 1960 1968 1981 Payne, D.F. 1984 Porter, J.R. 1954

231

Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2nd edn). The History of Israel (London: SCM Press 2nd edn). Konige (BKAT, 9.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 15; ET of 1957 German edn; Sheffield: JSOT Press). 'Estimates of the Character of David', IBS 6: 54-70.

'The Interpretation of 2 Samuel VI and Psalm CXXXII', 775 5: 16173. Pritchard, J.B., (ed.) 1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3rd edn). Rad, G. von 1944 'Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel', Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte 32: 1-42. 1948 Deuteronomium Studien (FRLANT; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). 1950 Der Prophet Jona (Niirnberg: Laetare). 1953 Studies in Deuteronomy (SET; ET of 1948 German edn; London: SCM Press). 1958 Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag). 1966 The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (ET of 1958 German edn; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd). Rehm, M. 1979 Das erste Buck der Konige, Ein Kommentar (Wiirzburg: Echter). Ridout, G.P. 1971 Prose Compositional Techniques in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9-20; I Kings 1-2) (PhD dissertation, Graduate Theological Union Berkeley; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms). Robinson, J. 1972 The First Book of Kings (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Rost, L. 1926 Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). 1965 Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer). 1982 The Succession to the Throne of David (intro. E. Ball, Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship, 1; Sheffield: Almond Press). Roth, W. 1977 'Structural Interaction in 2 Samuel 10-12', Semeia 8: 1-13. Sacon, K.K. 1982 'A Study of the Literary Structure of "The Succession Narrative'", in T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha): 27-54.

232

The Wages of Sin

Schicklberger, F. 1973 Die Ladeerzdlungen des ersten Samuel-Bitches, Fine Literaturwissenschaftliche und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung (Forschung zur Bibel, 7; Wurzburg: Echter). Schubert, P. 1955 'The Twentieth-Century West and the Ancient Near East', in R.C. Dentan (ed.), The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East (New Haven: Yale University Press): 311-55. Schulte, H. 1972 Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alien Israel (Berlin: de Gruyter). Schulz, A. 1920 Das zweite Buck Samuel (EHAT; Miinster: Aschendorff). Sellin, E. 1968 Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. D.E. Green; Nashville: Abingdon Press [1965]). Smith, H.P. 1899 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Smith, M. 1951 'The So-Called "Biography of David" in the Books of Samuel and Kings', HTR 44: 167-69. Snaith, N.H. 1966 Review of Carlson (1964), JTS 17: 122-24. Soggin, J.A. 1976 Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. J. Bowden; London: SCM Press [1968-69]). Stolz, F. 1981 Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag). Thenius, O. 1842 Die Biicher Samuels (Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament; Leipzig: Weidmann). Thompson, S. 1932 Motif-Index of Folk Literature, A Classification of Narrative Elements in Folk-Tales, Ballads, Myths, Fables, Mediaeval Romances, Exempla, Fabliaus, Jest Books, and Local Legends (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia). Thornton, T.C.G. 1968 'Solomonic Apologetic in Samuel and Kings', CQR 169: 159-66. Torrey, C.C. 1909 'The Chronicler as Editor and Independent Narrator', AJSL 25: 15773: 188-217. 1910 Ezra Studies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Van Seters, J. 1972 'The Conquest of Sihon's Kingdom: A Literary Examination', JBL 91: 182-97. 1976a 'Oral Patterns or Literary Conventions in Biblical Narrative', Semeia 5: 139-54.

Bibliography 1976b 1983 Vaux, R. de 1939 Veijola, T. 1975

1978 1979

1984

Vriezen, T.C. 1948

233

'Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David', JSOT 1: 22-29. In Search of History, Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press). Titres et fonctionnaires 6gyptiens & la cour de David et de Salomon', RB 48: 394-405. Die ewige Dynastic, David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia) 'David und Meribaal', RB 85: 338-61. 'Salomo—der Erstgebene Bathsebas', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (VTSup, 30; Leiden: Brill): 230-50. 'Remarks of an Outsider concerning Scandinavian Tradition History with Emphasis on the Davidic Traditions', in K. Jeppesen and B. Otzen (eds.), The Productions of Time: Tradition History in Old Testament Scholarship, A Symposium at Sandbjerg Manor, Denmark, May 1982 (Sheffield: Almond Press): 29-51. 'De Compositie van de Samuel-Boeken', Orientalia Neerlandica, A Volume of Oriental Studies (Netherlands Oriental Society; Leiden: Sijthoff).

Ward, R. Lemuel 1967 The Story of David's Rise: A Traditio-Historical Study of I Samuel xvi 14-11 Samuel v (PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University; Ann Arbor: University Microfilms). Weingreen, J. 1959 A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn). Weiser, A. 1961 Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd). 1966 'Die Legitimation des Konigs David', VT 16: 325-54. Wellhausen, J. 1878 Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Berlin: Reimer). 1883 Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Reimer). 1885 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Biicher des Alien Testaments (Berlin: Reimer). 1957 Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. J.S. Black and A. Menzies; Cleveland: World [1883]). 1963 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der Historischen Biicher des Alien Testaments (Berlin: de Gruyter, 3rd edn). Wenham, G.J. 1972 'BCTULAH "A Girl of Marriageable Age'", VT 22: 326-48.

234 Wharton, J.A. 1981

The Wages of Sin 'A Plausible Tale, Story and Theology in II Samuel 9-20, I Kings 12', Int 35: 341-54.

Whybray, R.N. 1968 The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Sam. 9-20 and I Kings 1 and 2 (London: SCM Press). 1982 'Wisdom Literature in the Reigns of David and Solomon', in T. Ishida (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha): 13-26. Willi, T. 1972 Die Chronik als Auslegung, Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der histoischen Uberlieferung Israels (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Williamson, H.G.M. 1982a 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). 1982b 'The Death of Josiah and the Continuing Development of the Deuteronomic History', VT 32: 242-48. 1983 'A Response to A.G. Auld', JSOT 27: 33-39. Wiirthwein, E. 1974 Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids-theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (Theologische Studien, 115; Zurich: Theologischer Verlag). Younger, L. 1988 Review of Van Seters (1983), JSOT 40: 110-17.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 2-11 4 27 37.3 37.23 37.32

24 24 168 206 206 206

Exodus 22.16-17

146

Leviticus 18.9 18.11 20.17

146 146 146

Deuteronomy 47 21.15-17 146 22.28-29 27.22 146 Joshua 6.26 15.9 16.34

193 95 193

Judges 4 5 5.21 9 9.50-57 11.1-2

112 112 113 189 188 47

1 Samuel 1-15 1-8 1-4 2.10 2.26 2.27 2.31-36 4-6 4.1-7.1 4.1-18 4.12-18 4.19-21 5.1-11 5.12 6 6.1-7.1 6.1-3 6.4 6.10-14 6.16 7.1 8-31 8-12 9-10 9 9.1-10.16 10.1 10.27-11.15 11 13-14 13 13.1 13.2-15 14

91-93 91 188 103 69 69 69 86 96 121 121 121 121 121 37 121 121 121 121 121 94 149 91,95 149 189 96 91 96 150 96 39 91, 96 91 47

15 15.1 16-31 16

16.1-13 16.1 16.11 16.13 16.14 18 18.20-27 20 20.15-16 20.31 23 23.1 25.18 25.44 26 31

31.3 31.4 31.6 2 Samuel 1-9

1-8

91, 92, 96 89 90-93 47, 90-92, 103, 143, 201, 202 96 89, 92 201 91 89, 96, 109 78 94 78, 95 81, 85 47 89 89 188 94 30 90, 92, 93, 190, 221 92 92 92

81, 82, 85, 86, 88-91, 93, 97, 103, 118, 119, 150, 197, 203 89, 111

236 2 Samuel (cont.) 1-4 198 1 39, 81, 87, 92, 93, 198, 203, 222 1.1-16 81 1.4 92 1.6 92 1.10 93 1.13-16 142 93 1.16 1.17-27 81 2-9 203 2-8 19, 107 2-4 31,41,67, 81, 86, 87, 89, 90, 103, 142, 149, 156, 198, 202 2 96, 222 2.1-4 81 2.4 93 2.8-4.12 31, 187 2.10-11 96, 99 2.12-32 81 2.14-15 94 2.17-27 87 2.25 178 128 2.26-31 3-4 90 3 30, 66, 222 3.2-5 46, 86 3.12-21 81 3.22-39 81 4-6 86 4 87, 222 4.4 35, 103 4.5-12 81 4.8-12 142 5-9 89, 140 5-8 88 5 81,97, 111 5.1-10 221 5.1-5 81 5.1-3 97, 222 5.4-5 96, 99, 222 5.6-10 142, 222

The Wages of Sin 5.10 5.11-25 5.11-16 5.13-16 5.14-16 5.17-25 5.25 6-7 6

6.1-15 6.1-11 6.2 6.3 6.7 6.11 6.12-16 6.12-15 6.16

6.17-20 6.17-19 6.20-23

6.20 6.23 7

7.1-7 7.1 7.2 7.8-17 7.11 7.12 7.13

89, 109 221 222 86 46 81, 97, 142, 150, 222 96 81, 96 71-74, 81, 84, 86, 98, 103, 156 121 221, 222 94 94 87 72 222 221 15,21,31, 44, 49, 71, 72, 74, 79, 87, 133, 221 121 221, 222 15,21,31, 44,49,71, 72, 87, 133, 198, 222 221 72 19,31,38, 41,46, 7174, 81, 84, 86, 89, 9799, 103, 111, 221, 222 97 97 192 97 15,44,49, 71, 97, 98 97 97, 192

7.16 7.18-21 7.22-24 7.25-29 8 8.1-14 8.1 8.2 8.14 8.15-18 8.16-18 9-24

9-20

9-12 9

9.1-13 9.1 9.41-20.22

15, 44, 49, 71, 97, 98 97 97 97 79, 81, 86, 97, 221, 222 97, 142 84, 96, 99 190 96,99 86, 96, 99 79 19, 107, 111, 112, 197 14-16, 18, 26, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41,43,44, 53-57, 6164, 66, 7072, 79, 96, 102, 103, 114, 121, 123, 149, 154, 156, 163, 16668, 170, 173, 198, 213, 215 110 15, 19,31, 35, 36, 44, 49, 71, 72, 74, 77-79, 81, 82, 8688, 95, 102, 103, 119, 140-43, 174, 188, 198, 214, 222 109, 170 74, 78, 79, 87 208

Index of References 2 Samuel (cont.) 10-20 59,79,80, 81, 85, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 188, 189, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211,212, 213, 214, 215 10-12 15,28,36, 44, 49-53, 70, 80, 105, 114-18, 124, 128,

10

10.1-11.1 10.1-19 10.1-5

10.1-2 10.1 10.2 10.6-11.1 10.6-19

10.6 10.12 10.16-17 11-20 11-12

11

11.1-12.29 11.1-12.25 11.1-26 11.1-2 11.1

131, 133, 135, 138, 146, 155, 157, 170, 174, 179, 205,211, 212, 214 52, 79, 125, 127, 131, 133, 140, 143, 154, 212, 221, 222 128 181 15, 115, 125, 137, 143 152 80, 117, 125 125 15 115, 125, 134, 137 134 178 154 79, 125, 140 33,51, 115, 138, 144, 169, 197, 199, 200 59, 70, 105, 120, 124, 127-32, 134, 135, 137, 138, 140, 143, 145, 154, 179, 200, 202, 211 198 115, 128, 134, 139 140 120 52, 115, 129, 195,

237 11.2-12.24 11.2-27 11.2-5 11.2-3 11.2 11.3 11.11 11.14-25 11.14-24 11.14-17 11.14-15 11.16-17 11.18-21 11.21 11.22-24 11.25 11.26-27 11.26 11.27-12.14 11.27 12

12.1-29 12.1-14 12.1-12 12.1-4 12.1 12.3 12.7-15 12.7-14 12.7-13 12.7-12 12.7-8 12.8 12.9-12 12.9 12.10

221, 222 211 21, 128, 222 129, 135 52 135 128 129 59 61, 219 52 219, 220 219, 220 219, 220 188, 189 219, 220 22 120, 153 128 128, 140 18, 132, 176-78 49,52, 112, 116, 117, 125, 129, 132, 133, 135, 138, 143-46, 148, 178, 197 222 62, 131 52 34, 128, 175 178 61, 130, 132 133 134, 137 143 132, 135, 137, 146 144 130 140 129, 130 132, 137, 154, 179

The Wages of Sin

238 2 Samuel (cont.) 12.11-12 117, 130, 136 12.11 132, 136, 137, 179 52 12.13-17 12.13-14 132 12.13 112, 132, 140, 144, 148, 178, 180, 199 12.14 178 12.15-25 21, 128, 140 12.15-23 131, 144 12.15 178 12.16-23 199 12.16-17 152 12.16 148 12.18-23 52 12.19 152 12.20 68 12.21 135 12.22 178 12.23 144 12.24-25 50-52, 111, 115, 131, 132, 157, 169 12.24 18,52, 169, 176 12.25 178 12.26-31 15,52, 111, 112, 131, 133, 134, 137, 140, 181, 212, 221 12.26 50 12.27 154 12.30-31 222 12.37 135 12.39 135 13-20 36, 38, 39, 44, 49, 53, 54, 70, 10810, 114, 123, 139, 146, 170,

13-15 13-14

13

13.1-38 13.1-22 13.1-19 13.1-17 13.1-7 13.1 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.7 13.8-39 13.10-16 13.12-13 13.17 13.18 13.19 13.20-29 13.20 13.21-22 13.21 13.22 13.23-39 13.23-38 13.23-29 13.28-29 13.28 13.29 13.31

178, 179, 185, 198, 205, 211 120, 179 15,21,33, 39,41,51, 80, 105, 113-18, 120, 121, 125, 134, 135, 137, 140, 146, 150, 157, 174, 179 52, 80, 105, 114, 115, 125, 134, 138, 145, 146, 152, 222 135 38, 117, 120 137 62

13.36 13.39-14.24 13.39 14

14.1-33 14.2 14.4-20 14.5-7 14.11 14.13 14.14 14.17 14.20 14.25-27 14.25 14.27 14.28-33 14.33 15-20

223

80, 117 61 63 63 63 223 186 63 63 206, 207 152 137 153 146 125, 147 145, 146 120 117 137 52, 137 137 137 152

15-19

15-18 15-17 15

15.1-12 15.1-6

15.1 15.2-6 15.7-12 15.7 15.8

152 117 145 52, 105, 114-17, 138, 153, 222 120 61 186 34 178 178 61, 119 44, 61, 178 61 15, 106 37 105, 106, 122, 207 118 118 21,39,41, 51,66,80, 105, 114, 116-18, 125, 135, 137, 139, 149, 157, 174, 179 15, 33, 52, 114, 138, 140 138 56 80, 126, 138, 148, 150, 222 118 117, 120, 126 37, 64, 65, 80, 117 169 120 178 117, 118, 178

Index of References 2 Samuel (cont.) 37 15.10 118 15.11 15.13-16.14 118 77 15.13-31 15.13-18 117 15.13-14 57 126 15.13 15.16-16.14 153 15.19-23 76 15.21 178 15.23 147 15.24-29 76 15.24-26 169 15.25-28 190 15.25-26 199 15.25 148, 178 15.26 148 15.29 169, 178 15.30 147, 153, 178 15.31 126, 147, 173 15.32-36 76 15.32 76, 112 15.33 76, 210 15.34 76 15.37 76 16 65, 222 16.1-14 103 16.1-4 35, 71, 7478, 86, 88 16.1 188 16.2 136 16.3 77,78 16.5-14 76 16.5-13 88, 147, 169 16.8 178 61 16.9 16.10-12 199 16.10 30 16.11 147, 178 16.12 178 16.15-17.23 118, 126 16.16 65 16.18 178 16.20-23 126 16.20-22 37, 105

16.21-22 16.22 16.23 17 17.1-14 17.1-4 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.8 17.10 17.11 17.12 17.14 17.17-20 17.24-19.9 17.25 17.27 17.29 17.32 18 18.2-4 18.3 18.8 18.9-15 18.9 18.10-14 18.14-15 18.15 18.18 18.19-32 18.19 18.24-32 18.32 18.33-19.8 18.33 19

19.1-9 19.1 19.2-22 19.3 19.5-7 19.6-8 19.7

135 135, 136 61, 178 150, 222 126, 186 126 61, 119 186 67 61, 119 61 61 61 18, 112, 176, 186 112 38, 118 67 75 76 67 117, 222 169 61, 119 113 113, 126 137 169, 186 137 137, 186 15, 105, 122, 207 59 106 121 61 152 147 30, 105, 138, 147, 222 152 147 169 61 170 170 178

239 19.9-41 19.16-23 19.21 19.24-30 19.24 19.25-31 19.25-30

118 76, 88 178 35, 76, 103 153 74, 75, 88 71,74,77, 78, 86 77, 78 19.25 77 19.27 61, 78 19.28 19.29 11, IS 19.31-40 76 76 19.32 19.33-39 76 19.41-43 76, 184 19.42-20.22 118 19.43-20.1 208 208 19.43 19.44 208 20 15, 30, 33, 52, 54, 66, 67, 69, 70, 79,97, 114, 115, 126, 138, 140, 147, 170, 195, 208, 214, 222 169 20.1 20.3 61, 153 169 20.8-13 186, 187 20.18-19 20.18 186 178, 186 20.19 20.22 181 20.23-26 79, 96, 99 21-24 69, 70, 82, 83, 85, 88, 89, 93, 96, 103, 113, 118, 119, 150, 197, 203 21 87 21.1-17 198

The Wages of Sin

240 2 Samuel (cont.) 21.1-14 35, 36, 78, 82, 83, 8688, 103, 109, 139, 150, 170, 198, 222 21.1-4 85, 86 21.14 83 21.15-22 82, 83, 85, 113, 150 21.15-17 30, 83, 85, 222 21.18-22 221, 222 21.22 85 82-84, 113, 22 198, 223 198 22.1-23.'1 22.1 82, 84, 94 84 22.5 23 83 23.1-7 82-85, 93, 113, 198, 223 23.1 82, 84, 85 23.8-39 82, 113, 221, 223 23.8-29 84 23.8-23 82 23.9-17 84 23.18-29 85 23.24-39 82, 84 23.24 84 23.39 84 24 82, 84, 92, 139, 200, 221, 223 24.1-9 150 24.1-4 82 24.1 83 24.10-25 150 24.11 84, 192 24.13 139 24.25 83 1 Kings 1-2

14-16, 21, 22, 26-28,

1

1.1-4 1.5-10 1.5-8 1.5 1.6 1.7-8 1.8 1.9 1.11-37 1.11-27 1.11-14 1.13 1.15-21 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.22-27 1.22-24 1.24-27 1.25 1.27 1.28-37 1.28-30 1.30 1.31

32-34, 36, 1.32-48 39, 41, 43, 1.32-35 44, 49, 531.33-48 1.33-47 57, 59, 6172, 79, 96, 1.33-37 102-104, 1.33-35 110, 114, 1.34 119, 121, 1.35 1.36-37 123, 141, 149, 154, 1.37 156, 161, 1.38-40 163, 16671, 173, 1.39 174, 177, 1.41-53 183, 186, 1.41-48 1.41 195, 198, 205, 213-15 1.43-48 43, 48, 57, 1.44-48 58, 61-63, 1.47 68-70, 85, 1.53 103, 162, :> 163, 167, 195, 213 56 56, 58 46 :>.1-12 37, 64, 65 :5.1-4 37 :1.2-9 58 :1.2-4

68 58

:1.3 :1.5-9

58

;1.5

56 58, 49, 58, 49,

:1.9 63 58 63 58

58 48, 49, 58

58

60

63 58, 65 48, 49, 58 56 58 49, 58 58

:5.10-12 :5.11 :5.12-11.43 ;1.12 :5.13-46 I5.13-25 :5.13-18 15.26-27 :5.26 25.27 ;5.28-35 :5.28-31 2..28 1..29 1..30

59 58 60 61, 217 63 59,217,218 65 58, 59 58 165 56, 58, 59, 217, 218 65, 68 56 59 55 63, 217, 218 59 165 69 36, 37, 63, 66-69, 103, 167, 168, 195, 201, 202 56 15, 167 63 68 68 167 67 69 167 15, 69, 201 69 69 64 56,63, 167 37 56, 167, 210 68 15, 188, 189 56 167 68 68 68

Index of References 2.31-33 2.34-35 2.36-46 2.36-43 2.44-46 2.44-45 3.3 3.6 3.14 4.5 4.15 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.15 5.17 5.19 5.21 6 7 7.51 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.20 8.24 8.25 9.4 9.5 1.1-2.12 11.4 11.12 11.13 11.14-22 11.24 11.29-39 11.32 11.33 11.34 11.36 11.38 11.39 12.13 12.15 12.29 13

167 167 56 167 167 167 202 201 201 68 210 201, 202 202 202 201 201, 202 202 202 201 213 213 202 201 201 202 202 192, 201 201 201 201 201 64 201 201 201 202 202 192 201 201 201 201 201 201 208 192 192 192

14.6-16 14.8 15.3 15.5 15.11 15.14 15.20 16.1-4 16.12 17 20 21.21-22 21.27-29 22 22.17 22.35-36 2 Kings 1.6 1.17 8.19 10 14.3 16.2 18.3 19.2 21.10-15 22.2 22.14 22.15-20 23.16-18 23.20 23.26 23.31 23.36 24.2

192 201 201 200, 201 201 201 186 192 192 192 30 193 193 192 193 193

193 193 201 192 201 201 201 192 193 201 192 193 192 193 193 ;47

47 193

1 Chronicles 6.12-15 190 9.1-20.3 195 10-29 189, 190, 198 10 190 10.1-12 190, 221, 222 10.13-14 221 11 84 11.1-9 221

241 11.1-3 11.4-9 11.10-47 12 13 13.6 14.1-16 14.1-6 14.7-16 14.17 15.1-24 15.25-29 15.25-28 15.29 16.1-3 16.4-42 16.43 17 17.1 18 18.8 19 20.1 20.2-3 20.4-8 21 21.1-22.1 21.1-27 21.9 21.28-30 22 22.1 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29.24 29.29

222 222 221, 223 221 221, 222 95 221 222 222 221 221 222 221 221 221, 222 221 221, 222 221, 222 192 221, 222 190 221, 222 195, 221, 222 221, 222 221, 222 223 84 221 192 221 221 84 221 221 221 221 221 221 221 195 191

2 Chronicles 6.10 193 10.15 193 18 192 32.20 192

242

The Wages of Sin

34.22 35.26-27

192 191

Ezekiel 20 20.5-31

Ezra 9

152

Psalms 51

Josephus Ant. 7.171

200

212 212

War 7.323-88

158

Classical Herodotus Histories

207

1.1

162

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackroyd, P.R. 35, 42, 43, 102, 103, 146, 182, 188, 216 Alt, A. 207 Alter, R. 57,59,60,73 Anderson, A.A. 20 Auld, A.G. 191-95 Auzou, G. 166 Bar-Efrat, S. 79, 129, 141 Bentzen, A. 84, 94 Bertholdt, L. 175 Bewer, J.A. 175 Blenkinsopp, J. 21, 26, 36, 44, 49, 170 Bright,!. 20,208 Brueggemann, W. 24,166,171 Budde, K. 86, 139, 195 Burrows, M. 175 Calderone, P.O. 20 Campbell, A.F. 86 Caquot, A. I l l , 112 Carlson, R.A. 18, 19, 29, 42, 44, 54, 63, 72, 87,96,98, 106, 107, 154, 163, 195 Carroll, R. 194 Caspar!, D.W. 17, 29, 79, 104-106, 146, 174, 195 Clements, R.E. 175 Conroy, C. 38, 42, 53, 54, 108, 109, 114, 117, 118, 123, 139, 152, 205-207 Cook, S.A. 14 Crenshaw, J.L. 172, 173,211 Cross, P.M. 98 Delekat, L. 22, 42, 130, 166, 169 Dietrich, W. 177

Driver, S.R. 14,69, 152, 206 Duhm, H. 210 Ehrlich, A.B. 206 Eissfeldt, O. 92, 158, 185, 186 Flanagan, J.W. 25, 26, 36, 42, 44, 49, 72, 110, 170, 207 Fokkelman, J.P. 38, 40, 43, 51, 62, 76, 77, 106, 121, 125, 135, 141, 195 Gordon, R.P. 64, 69, 72, 73, 82, 83, 89, 90,92,96, 104, 106, 114, 130, 146, 152, 157, 195, 205, 207, 208 Gottwald, N.K. 47 Gray, J. 61,67,68, 167,200 Gressmann, H. 17, 29, 104, 159, 174 Gr0nbaek, J.H. 89 Gunkel, H. 108, 159 Gunn, D.M. 22, 28-32, 40, 42, 45, 46, 51,67,73,74, 87,90,91, 103, 106, 115, 129, 133, 141, 149, 154, 158, 166, 171-75, 180, 187, 188, 206 Giiterbock, H.G. 164 Hagan, H. 32,33,42,72, 123, 141, 154 Hermisson, H.J. 24, 173 Hertzberg, H.W. 69, 73, 83, 84, 92, 106, 115, 125, 130, 136, 141, 143, 153, 178, 195, 207, 210 Heym, S. 37 Holscher, G. 22, 103 Huizinga, J. 159 Ishida, T. 165, 168-70

244

The Wages of Sin

Jackson, J.J. 46, 175 Japhet, S. 197 Keys, G. 43 Kittel, R. 22 Klostermann, A. 206, 210 Knight, G.A.F. 175 Langlamet, F. 42, 168 Leimbach, K.A. 79, 140 Licht, J. 59,60 Long, B.O. 38 Loretz, O. 175 Luther, B. 174, 185 Mauchline, J. 93, 106, 115, 153, 195 McCarter, P.K., Jr 36, 37, 42, 51, 64, 72, 73, 86, 87, 90, 92, 96, 98, 106, 109, 114, 125, 132, 135, 146, 147, 152, 157, 170, 171, 177, 178, 195, 205, 207, 208, 211, 212 McCarthy, D.J. 98 McEvenue, S.E. 59 McKane, W. 64, 69, 84, 92, 94, 136, 195 McKenzie, J.L. 20,211 Mettinger, T.N.D. 89, 98 Miller, P.D., Jr. 86 Montgomery, J.A. 46, 167 Mowinckel, S. 73, 79, 103 Nahon, G. 19 Noth, M. 19, 68, 95, 97, 163, 167, 200, 204, 208 Porter, J.R. 72,73 Rad, G. von 16-18, 23, 68, 132, 160, 173, 175-77, 185, 192 Rehm, M. 68, 167 Ridout, G.P. 38, 108 Roberts, J.J.M. 86 Robinson, J. 68 Rost, L. 14, 16, 17, 48, 55, 61-63, 6669,78,86,96, 109, 111, 115,

119-21, 125, 132, 139, 141, 165, 167, 178, 184, 195, 208, 210 Roth, W. 128 Sacon, K.K. 87 Schicklberger, F. 86 Schubert, P. 159 Schulte, H. 22, 73, 87, 166 Schulz, A. 106 Sellin, E. 175 Smith, H.P. 14, 60, 73, 92, 106, 115, 130, 195, 206, 207 Smith, M. 141 Snaith, N.H. 20 Soggin, J.A. 35 Stolz, F. 64, 195 Thenius, O. 106 Thornton, T.C.G. 24, 25, 36, 42, 48, 109 Torrey, C.C. 191 Van Seters, J. 29, 31, 87, 157, 160, 174, 181, 182, 187, 199 Vaux, R. de 75 Veijola, T. 20, 42, 78, 98, 177 Vriezen, T.C. 185 Ward, R. Lemuel 89 Weingreen, J. 80 Weiser, A. 72, 83, 89, 175 Wellhausen, J. 14, 165 Wenham, G.J. 207 Wharton,J.A. 72 Whybray, R.N. 21, 23, 36, 42, 55, 61, 72,74, 108, 109, 119-21, 125, 135, 158, 164, 165, 168, 169, 172, 173, 178, 185,211 Willi,T. 191 Williamson, H.G.M. 194, 196, 197, 200 Wiirthwein, E. 42, 169, 177 Younger, L. 159



JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28

DJ.A. Clines, /, He, We and They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 D.R.G. Beattie, Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth P. Auffret, The Literary Structure of Psalm 2 R.N. Whybray, Thanksgiving for a Liberated Prophet: An Interpretation of Isaiah Chapter 53 J.J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation D. Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible, I (Second Edition) P.D. Miller, Genesis 1-11: Studies in Structure and Theme K. Nielsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rib Pattern) D.J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Biblica 1978,1: Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes (Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford, 1978) K.W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel R.E. Clements, Isaiah and the Deliverance of Jerusalem: A Study of the Interpretation of Prophecy in the Old Testament D.M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History E.W. Da vies, Prophecy and Ethics: Isaiah and the Ethical Tradition of Israel D.L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel's Prophets R.D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History D.J.A. Clines, D.M. Gunn & A.J. Hauser (eds.), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature M.D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Sons ofKorah A. Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament R.W.L. Moberly, At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34 B.D. Chilton, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum J.F.A. Sawyer & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and NorthWest Arabia P.R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the 'Damascus Document' W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques W.H. Bellinger Jr, Psalmody and Prophecy G.I. Emmerson, Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

G.J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context D.J.A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story W.B. Barrick & J.R. Spencer (eds.), In the Shelter of Ely on: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor ofG. W. Ahlstrom T. Polk, The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self J.G. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy J. Maier, The Temple Scroll: An Introduction, Translation and Commentary G.W. Coats (ed.), Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature M.D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs J.T. Butler, E.W. Conrad & B.C. Ollenburger (eds.), Understanding the Word: Essays in Honor ofBernhard W. Anderson T.H. McAlpine, Sleep, Divine and Human, in the Old Testament D. Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible, II E.R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry B.C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult J.D. Martin & P.R. Davies (eds.), A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane G.C. Heider, The Cult ofMolek: A Reassessment S.J.L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms A.R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama B.G. Webb, The Book of Judges: An Integrated Reading S. Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah: A Revised Hypothesis W. Claassen (ed.), Text and Context: Old Testament and Semitic Studies for F.C. Fensham J.D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study M. Noth, The Chronicler's History (trans. H.G.M. Williamson with an Introduction) P. Joyce, Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel C.C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A FormCritical and Theological Study R.N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study J. Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah's Thought in Transition T.L. Thompson, The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel: 1. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1-23 N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function G.W. Coats, Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God

58

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 11 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

K.G. Hoglund, E.F. Huwiler, J.T. Glass & R.W. Lee (eds.), The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. B. Uffenheimer & H.G. Reventlow (eds.), Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics through the Centuries L.J. Archer, Her Price is beyond Rubies: The Jewish Woman in GraecoRoman Palestine D.G. Johnson, From Chaos to Restoration: An Integrative Reading of Isaiah 24-27 P.O. Kirkpatrick, The Old Testament and Folklore Study D.G. Schley, Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History C.A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation K. Nielsen, There is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah J. Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology L. Eslinger & G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie L.R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges P.R. House, Zephaniah, A Prophetic Drama S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible M. V. Fox, Qohelet and his Contradictions D.N. Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty: A Story of Stories in Daniel 1-6 J.W. Flanagan, David's Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel's Early Iron Age W. van der Meer & J.C. de Moor (eds.), The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry R.C. Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12 M.Z. Brettler, God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor J.R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites E.F. Davies, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel's Prophecy P.M. Arnold, S.J., Gibeah: The Search for a Biblical City G.H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives M. Bal (ed.), Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women's Lives in the Hebrew Bible D. Patrick & A. Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation D.T. Tsumura, The Earth and the Waters in Genesis I and 2: A Linguistic Investigation L. Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God A.J. Hauser & R. Gregory, From Carmel to Horeb: Elijah in Crisis A. Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (trans. W.G.E. Watson)

87

D.J.A. Clines, S.E. Fowl & S.E. Porter (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield 88 R.K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis 89 R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J.J. Scullion) 90 M.F. Rooker, Biblical Hebrew in Transition: The Language of the Book of Ezekiel 91 F.H. Gorman Jr, The Ideology of Ritual: Space, Time and Status in the Priestly Theology 92 Y.T. Radday & A. Brenner (eds.), On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible 93 W.T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative 94 D.J.A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament 95 R.D. Moore, God Saves: Lessons from the Elisha Stories 96 L.A. Turner, Announcements of Plot in Genesis 97 P.R. House, The Unity of the Twelve 98 K.L. Younger Jr, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing 99 R.N. Whybray, Wealth and Poverty in the Book of Proverbs 100 P.R. Davies & R.T. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History 101 P.R. Ackroyd, The Chronicler in his Age 102 M. Goulder, The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter, II 103 E.G. Wood, The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages 104 P.R. Raabe, Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains 105 P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and Procedures in the Hebrew Bible (trans. M.J. Smith) 106 P.P. Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World 107 C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law 108 P.M. McNutt, The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism and Tradition in Ancient Society 109 D. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A SocioArchaeological Approach 110 N.P. Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites [ 11 J.G. Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: The Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel 112 L.G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job 113 R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law 114 D. Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), A Traditional Quest: Essays in Honour of Louis Jacobs

115

V. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings 116 D.M. Gunn (ed.), Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars, 1906-1923 (trans. D.E. Orton) 117 P.R. Davies (ed.), Second Temple Studies: 1. Persian Period 118 R.J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms: The Prophetic Liturgy of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (trans. I.E. Crowley) 119 D.J.A. Clines & T.C. Eskenazi (eds.), Telling Queen Michal's Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation 120 R.H. Lowery, The Reforming Kings: Cult and Society in First Temple Judah 121 D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah 122 L. Alexander (ed.), Images of Empire 123 E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead 124 B. Halpern & D.W. Hobson (eds.), Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel 125 G.A. Anderson & S.M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel 126 J.W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography 127 D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past 128 T.P. McCreesh, Biblical Sound and Sense: Poetic Sound Patterns in Proverbs 10-29 129 Z. Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic 130 M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book ofZechariah 131 L. Holden, Forms of Deformity 132 M.D. Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective 133 R. Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives 134 G. Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua 135 G.F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 136 P. Morris & D. Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden 137 H.G. Reventlow & Y. Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence 138 R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson 139 J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative 140 W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law 141 G.C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East 142 F.H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation 143 D.J.A. Clines & J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible 144 P.R. Davies & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Language, Imagery and Structure in the Prophetic Writings 145 C.S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis

146

G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D. Edelman, with a contribution by G.O. Rollefson) 147 T.W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East 148 P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' 149 E. Ulrich, J.W. Wright, R.P. Carroll & P.R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp 150 I.E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 151 J.P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community 152 A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson 153 D.K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 154 M. Brettler & M. Fishbane (eds.), Min'ah le-Na'um: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sama in Honour of his 70th Birthday 155 J.A. Fager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge 156 J.W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles 157 G.R. Clark, The Word Oesed in the Hebrew Bible 158 M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers 159 J.C. McCann, The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter 160 W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History 161 G.W. Coats, The Moses Tradition 162 H.A. McKay & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophet's Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday 163 J.C. Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives 164 L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 165 E. Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Israel: From Joshua to the Mishnah 166 D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Tar gums in their Historical Context 167 R.F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School 168 R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs 169 B. Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story 170 W.G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse 171 H.G. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman & B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature 172 V. Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology

173 174 175 176 111 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188

M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown & J.K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes J.M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies: 2. Temple and Community in the Persian Period G. Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls D.A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew M.R. Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms J.G. McConville & J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy R. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development S.L. McKenzie & M.P. Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth J. Day (ed.), Lectures on the Religion of The Semites (Second and Third Series) by William Robertson Smith J.C. Reeves & J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honour of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday S.D. Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology L. Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity R.H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah

189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199

W. Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment S.W. Holloway & L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Go'sta W. Ahlstrom M. Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament H.G. Reventlow & W. Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration E.K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book of Hosea J. Davies, G. Harvey & W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer J.S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221

M.D. Carroll R., D.J.A. Clines & P.R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson J.W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith N. Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible J.M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs P.R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway? D.J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible M. Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint J.W. Rogerson, M. Davies & M.D. Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium B.J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 P. Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case ofAthaliah and Joash J. Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles Y. Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea 's Marriage in LiteraryTheoretical Perspective Y.A. Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context R.F. Melugin & M.A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah J.C. Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women J.E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink J.F.D. Creach, The Choice of Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter G. Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy G. Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea R.F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah G. Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative'

The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' (JSOT Supplement)

The Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin (3rd)

The Wages of Sin (3rd)

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages Of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages Of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Lost Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin (3rd Doctor)

The Book of the Covenant' (JSOT Supplement)

The Wages of Sin (3rd Doctor)

Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOT supplement)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

Images of Empire (JSOT Supplement)

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

The Psalms of the Sons of Korah (JSOT Supplement)

The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOT Supplement)

The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' (JSOT Supplement)

The Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin (3rd)

The Wages of Sin (3rd)

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages Of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages Of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Lost Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

Wages of Sin

The Wages of Sin (3rd Doctor)

The Book of the Covenant' (JSOT Supplement)

The Wages of Sin (3rd Doctor)

Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOT supplement)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

Images of Empire (JSOT Supplement)

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

The Psalms of the Sons of Korah (JSOT Supplement)

The Composition of the Book of Proverbs (JSOT Supplement)

Recommend Documents