The Succession to the Throne of David 9781474266581, 9781474231558

Citation preview

GENEKAL P R E F A C E T O THE SEKIES Historic T e x t s and I n t e r p r e t e r s in Biblical Scholarship I t i s becoming increasingly recognised in English-speaking scholarship t h a t t h e study of t h e history of biblical scholarship i s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of Biblical Studies. This f a c t has, of course, long been acknowledged in Germany. N o t only a r e t h e s t a n d a r d and t h e m o s t d e t a i l e d books a b o u t t h e history of biblical scholarship Gerrnan works, t h e r e e x i s t many monographs and unpublished d i s s e r t a t i o n s in G e r m a n dealing with i m p o r t a n t biblical scholars and t h e i r most significant writings. T h e growing i n t e r e s t in t h i s whole a r e a on t h e p a r t of English-speaking scholarship c a n be indicated in s e v e r a l ways. A r e c e n t major contribution has been T h e C a m b r i d g e History of t h e Bible ( 3 vols. 1963-19701, although i t s c o v e r a g e i s necessarily s o m e w h a t r e s t r i c t e d . T h e A m e r i c a n Society of Biblical L i t e r a t u r e h a s i n i t i a t e d a s e r i e s e n t i t l e d "Studies in A m e r i c a n Biblical Scholarship, Schools and Scholars" of which t h e f i r s t numbers h a v e begun t o appear. A t a m o r e popular level, R. E. Clements's A C e n t u r y of Old T e s t a m e n t Scholarship (1976) has provided valuable o r i e n t a t i o n for present-day students, while a n o t h e r w e l c o m e development has been t h e t r a n s l a t i o n (in 1973) of W. G. Kiimmel's T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t : T h e History of t h e Investigation of i t s Problems. T h e s t u d y of t h e history of biblical scholarship c o n t r i b u t e s t o c u r r e n t Biblical Studies in s e v e r a l ways. ~ i r s t ,i t disposes of t h e simplistic generalisations in t e r m s of which past biblical scholarship i s o f t e n viewed, generalisations which somet i m e s only s e r v e t o r e i n f o r c e our own prejudices. Second, i t i n t r o d u c e s a necessary e l e m e n t of self-criticism i n t o Biblical Studies. Standpoints which may have been widely and unc r i t i c a l l y a c c e p t e d i n t o modern Biblical Studies c a n b e shown t o r e s t upon flimsy e v i d e n c e o r reasoning, and t h e necessity f o r a new approach c a n be underlined. Third, t h e study of p a s t scholars o f t e n i n d i c a t e s w h a t g i a n t s t h e y were, how incredible w e r e t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s , and how g r e a t t h e i r s t a t u r e a s scholars. I t i s d i f f i c u l t n o t t o b e c o m e diffident and modest a b o u t t h e a c h i e v e m e n t s of present-day scholarship when t h e y a r e viewed in t h e light of w h a t w a s a c h i e v e d in t h e past, without many of t h e t e c h n i c a l r e s o u r c e s of scholarship

TRANSLATOR'S P R E F A C E T h e principal foundation of t h i s translation i s t h e work of Michael D. R u t t e r . I h a v e revised i t a n d e d i t e d t h e book a s a whole. O t h e r s h a v e contributed along t h e way and I e x p r e s s h e r e my considerable g r a t i t u d e t o them: t o my colleagues in t h e D e p a r t m e n t of Biblical Studies, J o h n Rogerson and David Clines; t o Bernhard Lang of t h e University of Mainz; and t o Ed. Ball of St. John's College, N o t t i n g h a m , who a l s o very kindly c o n t r i b u t e d his e x p e r t i s e by way of t h e Introduction. I t need hardly b e said, of course, t h a t any failings in t h e t r a n s l a t i o n r e m a i n my own a n d Mr. R u t t e r ' s responsibility. A l a s t word of t h a n k s g o e s t o Dr. Diether Kellermann of Tiibingen, whose friendly c o o p e r a t i o n helped m a k e t h i s book possible. I have lnade various c h a n g e s t o t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e m a t e r i a l . F i r s t , English t r a n s l a t i o n s o f t e n r e p l a c e , or supplem e n t , Kost's H e b r e w quotations. Second, I have moved t h e long list of "ark narrative" vocabulary f r o m i t s original position in t h e body of t h e t e x t ( s e e pp. 14-15 below) t o a n appendix a t t h e end. Third, t h e n o t e s have been revised: t h e s y s t e m of r e f e r e n c e h a s been clarified, s o m e n o t e s h a v e been combined, and t h e resulting sequence h a s been numbered by c h a p t e r s ( a s w a s t h e c a s e in t h e 1926 edition). A bibliography a t t h e end of t h e book provides d e t a i l s of works c i t e d ( a p a r t i a l list a p p e a r e d in t h e 1926 edition, o m i t t e d in 1965), a n d a n index of a u t h o r s h a s a l s o been supplied. Finally, t o t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h e book itself. As s o m e reade r s m a y be a w a r e , my own studies in t h e Books of Samuel h a v e been no l i t t l e c o n c e r n e d with Rost's work, and a s well a s drawing f r e e l y upon i t I have also voiced s o m e criticism. Familiarity, t h e y say, b r e e d s c o n t e m p t . A renewed, and close, a c q u a i n t a n c e with his thesis over t h e past y e a r o r s o h a s indeed produced i t s occasional dismissive moments. I corne a w a y , however, with o n e feeling overwhelmingly predominant. And t h a t is, unquestionably, s h e e r admiration. David Gunn T h e University of Sheffield 7 t h S e p t e m b e r , 1982

x iii

AUTHOK'S PKEFACE T O THE 1926 EDITION I o w e t h e s t i m u l u s for t h i s work t o Professor A l t of Leipzig. H e has maintained his kind i n t e r e s t e v e n a f t e r t h e original s u b j e c t had changed somewhat. I o f f e r him my s i n c e r e thanks f o r a l l his kindness. Professor Procksch, s i n c e his a p p o i n t m e n t t o Erlangen, h a s most kindly t a k e n a n i n t e r e s t in t h e p r e s e n t study, and for t h i s I o w e him my humble thanks. T h e publication w a s m a d e possible with help f r o m t h e N o t g e m e i n s c h a f t fijr d i e d e u t s c h e Wissenschaft, s e c u r e d through t h e good o f f i c e s of Councillor Dr. K i t t e l of Leipzig. I a m deeply g r a t e f u l t o him, a s well a s t o t h e Notgemeins c h a f t , and I thank him especially, also, for a c c e p t i n g my work in his series, "Beitrzge z u r Wissenschaft vom A l t e n und Neuen Testament." L. R o s t LEONHARD KOST - BIOGKAPHICAL NOTE Born Ansbach, G e r m a n y , 30th November, 1896. Served i n First World War. Studied theology and a n d o r i e n t a l languages a t .Erlangen University: D o c t o r a t e , 1921, in Arabic studies; L i c e n t i a t e in Theology, 1925; Habilitation in Old T e s t a m e n t ~ d e r Thronnachfolge Theology, 1926 (Die ~ b e r l i e f e r u n von Davids). Berlin University, 1929; personal chair, 1936. University of Greifswald, 1937; established chair, f r o m 1938. 1940-45, s t o o d in, additionally, a s Old T e s t a m e n t P r o f e s s o r , Berlin. Honorary d o c t o r a t e , Erlangen University, 1943. 1946, Humboldt University; Vice-President of t h e Diet of t h e Theological F a c u l t i e s in t h e DDR; G u e s t L e c t u r e r a t t h e Kirchliche Hochschule in Berlin-Zehlendorf; church work in Berlin. F r o m 1956, Professor of Old T e s t a m e n t Theology, Erlangen University. R e t i r e d 1966. Honoured by BRD President, 1970, f o r s e r v i c e s t o learning and culture. Died 5 t h D e c e m b e r , 1979. Edited and co-edited various series, collections of essays, l e x i c a a n d t e x t editions. Among his published work: a n edition of t h e D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t (1933); Israel bei d e n P r o p h e t e n (1937); Vorstufen von Kirche urld Synagoge im Alten T e s t a m e n t (1938, 2nd edn. 1967); D a s kleine C r e d o und a n d e r e Studien z u m Alten T e s t a m e n t (1964); Einleitung in d i e a l t t e s t a m e n t l i c h e n Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen (1971 [El' 19761, 2nd edn. 1979).

INTKODUCTION h e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d r e s u l t of l i t e r a r y - c r i t i c a l w o r k o n I a n d I1 S a m u e l h a s b e e n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e individual n a r r a t i v e s b e t w e e n t w o m a j o r s o u r c e s running t h r o u g h t h e books, a n d c a l l e d variously K and K I o r J a n d E o r w h a t e v e r . A t t e m p t s t o g o beyond t h i s a n d f i n d subsidiary s o u r c e s u s e d within t h e s e major source strands have been rejected catego r i c a l l y by Budde,l a c k n o w l e d g e d with v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of r e s e r v a t i o n by o t h e r s . Y e t t h e wish t o find rnajor c o n t i n u o u s s o u r c e s h e r e as i n t h e H e x a t e u c h a n d Book of J u d g e s h a s o f t e n l e d , o n t h e o n e hand, t o t h e e s t a b l i s h i n g of c o n n e c t i o n s between quite unrelated components and, on t h e other hand, t o t h e s e v e r i n g of p a r t s w h i c h belong t o g e t h e r . Such divisions a n d c o n n e c t i o n s h a v e b e e n f a c i l i t a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t f o r t h e m o s t p a r t c r i t i c s h a v e a s s e s s e d only a source's v o c a b u l a r y a n d t h o u g h t - c o n t e n t , w h e r e a s , a p a r t f r o m a f e w minor a t t e m p t s , nobody h a s e x a m i n e d s t y l e , a l t h o u g h h e r e w e h a v e a t o u r disposal a n i m p o r t a n t a i d t o c r i t i c i s m . I t is t r u e t h a t a person's v o c a b u l a r y is r e s t r i c t e d a n d a l l of u s as individuals h a v e o u r o w n f a v o u r i t e w o r d s which w e u s e o v e r a n d o v e r again. B u t i t is a l s o t h e c a s e t h a t e v e r y now a n d a g a i n w e e x p l o i t a word o r e x p r e s s i o n which would norrnally b e a l i e n t o u s a n d , m o r e t o t h e point, m i g h t a l s o h a p p e n t o b e a n o t h e r person's f a v o u r i t e word. And in t h e e n d w e should n o t f o r g e t t h a t w h e r e m e m b e r s of t h e s a m e f a m i l y , background o r c l a s s a r e c o n c e r n e d , e a c h individual's v o c a b u l a r y m a y b e e x t r e m e l y s i m i l a r t h r o u g h a c c o m m o d a t i o n to m u t u a l influences. In t h e s a m e w a y , n a r r a t o r s , w r i t e r s , a l l h a v e t h e i r o w n leading ideas which shape what they say and write. Y e t here, t o o , i t is possible f o r a g r o u p of p e o p l e t o s h a r e t h e s a m e i d e a s just as i t c a n h a p p e n t h a t a p e r s o n m a y e m p h a s i z e d i f f e r e n t i d e a s at d i f f e r e n t t i m e s . I t i s a d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r w i t h s o m e o n e ' s style. T o b e s u r e , a

INTKODUCTION h e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d r e s u l t of l i t e r a r y - c r i t i c a l w o r k o n I a n d I1 S a m u e l h a s b e e n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e individual n a r r a t i v e s b e t w e e n t w o m a j o r s o u r c e s running t h r o u g h t h e books, a n d c a l l e d variously K and K I o r J a n d E o r w h a t e v e r . A t t e m p t s t o g o beyond t h i s a n d f i n d subsidiary s o u r c e s u s e d within t h e s e major source strands have been rejected catego r i c a l l y by Budde,l a c k n o w l e d g e d with v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of r e s e r v a t i o n by o t h e r s . Y e t t h e wish t o find rnajor c o n t i n u o u s s o u r c e s h e r e as i n t h e H e x a t e u c h a n d Book of J u d g e s h a s o f t e n l e d , o n t h e o n e hand, t o t h e e s t a b l i s h i n g of c o n n e c t i o n s between quite unrelated components and, on t h e other hand, t o t h e s e v e r i n g of p a r t s w h i c h belong t o g e t h e r . Such divisions a n d c o n n e c t i o n s h a v e b e e n f a c i l i t a t e d by t h e f a c t t h a t f o r t h e m o s t p a r t c r i t i c s h a v e a s s e s s e d only a source's v o c a b u l a r y a n d t h o u g h t - c o n t e n t , w h e r e a s , a p a r t f r o m a f e w minor a t t e m p t s , nobody h a s e x a m i n e d s t y l e , a l t h o u g h h e r e w e h a v e a t o u r disposal a n i m p o r t a n t a i d t o c r i t i c i s m . I t is t r u e t h a t a person's v o c a b u l a r y is r e s t r i c t e d a n d a l l of u s as individuals h a v e o u r o w n f a v o u r i t e w o r d s which w e u s e o v e r a n d o v e r again. B u t i t is a l s o t h e c a s e t h a t e v e r y now a n d a g a i n w e e x p l o i t a word o r e x p r e s s i o n which would norrnally b e a l i e n t o u s a n d , m o r e t o t h e point, m i g h t a l s o h a p p e n t o b e a n o t h e r person's f a v o u r i t e word. And in t h e e n d w e should n o t f o r g e t t h a t w h e r e m e m b e r s of t h e s a m e f a m i l y , background o r c l a s s a r e c o n c e r n e d , e a c h individual's v o c a b u l a r y m a y b e e x t r e m e l y s i m i l a r t h r o u g h a c c o m m o d a t i o n to m u t u a l influences. In t h e s a m e w a y , n a r r a t o r s , w r i t e r s , a l l h a v e t h e i r o w n leading ideas which shape what they say and write. Y e t here, t o o , i t is possible f o r a g r o u p of p e o p l e t o s h a r e t h e s a m e i d e a s just as i t c a n h a p p e n t h a t a p e r s o n m a y e m p h a s i z e d i f f e r e n t i d e a s at d i f f e r e n t t i m e s . I t i s a d i f f e r e n t m a t t e r w i t h s o m e o n e ' s style. T o b e s u r e , a

Chapter One T H E AKK NARRATIVE h i l e r e c o g n i z i n g i n I S a m 4.1b-6.21 (or 7.1) a closely-knit l i t e r a r y unity, Wellhausen k e e p s i t q u i t e s e p a r a t e f r o m I1 S a m 6. Lijhr a g r e e s w i t h t h i s opinion, r e g a r d i n g I S a m 4-6 as a n old n a r r a t i v e d e a l i n g with t h e f a t e of t h e a r k , w h i c h w a s included i n o r d e r t o g i v e s o m e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e philistine; I1 S a m 6, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , is t o b e c o u n t e d as p a r t of t h e David s t o r y proper. N o w a c k is of a s i m i l a r opinion a n d r e g a r d s I S a m 4.1-7.1 as a n old s o u r c e which h e a t t r i b u t e s t o E. A t t h e s a m e t i m e , h e a s s i g n s 11 Sarn 6 t o h i s s o u r c e S, along w i t h I1 S a m 9-20.1 What all t h e s e a t t e m p t s t o analyse t h e ark narrative have i n c o m m o n i s t h a t t h e y a l l p r o p o s e dividing t h e t e x t i n t o d i s c r e t e s e c t i o n s , t h a t is, t h e y a l l o c a t e t h e c h a p t e r s in I S a r n u e l t o o n e s o u r c e a n d I1 S a m 6 t o a n o t h e r s e p a r a t e source. Hudde, o n t h e o t h e r hand, a t t e m p t s t o d i v i d e t h e n a r r a t i v e a l o n g i t s l e n g t h ( d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e m a t e r i a l b e t w e e n J a n d E) a n d i n t h i s h e i s in g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h Smith. Sellin's a s s e s s m e n t i s s i m i l a r t o Budde's, though h e s e p a r a t e s t h e t e x t i n t o t w o s o u r c e s only in I S a m 4-6, a t t r i b u t i n g I1 S a m 6 t o a s i n g l e of t h e pair of n a r r a t i v e s t r a n d s t o b e found i n I S a m 4-6. H e a s k s in conclusion, h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r a l l n a r r a t i v e s concentrating on t h e a r k may not go back t o more ancient m a t e r i a l , "a history, which w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e ark.l12 In t h e e a r l i e r e d i t i o n s of h i s h i s t o r y of I s r a e l a n d in h i s t r e a t m e n t of t h e Books of S a m u e l in Kautzsch's Old T e s t a m e n t , K i t t e l a d v o c a t e s t h e i d e a of t w o l a y e r s within t h e a r k narrative, in t h e sense t h a t h e regards I Sam 4 and 5 on t h e o n e h a n d a n d I S a m 6 a n d I1 S a m 6 o n t h e o t h e r as b e i n g m o r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d - a d i s t i n c t i o n which h e l a t e r w i t h d r a w s i n t h e s i x t h e d i t i o n of h i s history.3 Contrary t o t h e s e a t t e m p t s t o divide t h e a r k narrative into

Chapter Two T H E P R O P H E C Y O F N A T H A N , 11 SAMUEL 7 h e r e i s g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t t h a t I1 S a m u e l 7 in i t s present f o r m is relatively late. The chapter is a l s o q u i t e o f t e n a t t r i b u t e d t o K I o r E, following t h e d e m o n s t r a t i o n t h a t t h e r e a r e only v e r y m i n o r t r a c e s of a D e u t e r o n o m i s t i c revision t o b e found. Wellhausen p l a c e s i t s c o m p o s i t i o n in t h e t i m e of J o s i a h , w h i l e B u d d e reg&ds t h e n a r r a t o r as being a f o r e r u n n e r of t h e Deuteronornist. Sellin t h i n k s i t w a s w r i t t e n in n o r t h e r n I s r a e l a r o u n d 800. G r e s s r n a n n b e l i e v e s a w r i t e r h a d c o m b i n e d a n old t r a d i t i o n w i t h a n originally p o e t i c o r a c l e which h e c o n v e r t e d i n t o p r o s e a n d t o which h e a d d e d a p r a y e r of David. K i t t e l t a k e s t h e p r e s e n t version of t h e c h a p t e r t o b e t h e work of a n a u t h o r n e a r t o D, i n d e e d KE, b u t t h i n k s t h a t l a , 2 - l l b , 12, 14-17 b e l o n g t o a n e a r l i e r s t r a t u m . In P r o c k s c h l s view t h e chapter was written in t h e 7th century, but preserves earlier f r a g m e n t s i n 1-3, 4 a , 5b, I lbb, 12, (14a?), 18f., 27a, which c o m e frorn t h e l a r g e r h i s t o r i c a l w o r k a b o u t David.1 W e will h a v e t o b e a r in mind t h a t t h e c h a p t e r is n o t uniform. T h i s c a n b e s e e n simply frorn t h e f a c t t h a t v. 2 a l o n e s p e a k s of t h e a r k which is n o t m e n t i o n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e s t of t h e n a r r a t i v e . F u r t h e r w e should n o t i c e t h a t in vv. 5 f f . a h o u s e i s t o b e built f o r Y a h w e h a n d in v. 13 f o r his name.2 T h a t t h e r e i s a new s t a r t i n v. 8 a l s o g i v e s u s p a u s e f o r t h o u g h t . I t i s m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e t o begin a n a l y s i s a t David's p r a y e r (18-27), t h e n t o p r o c e e d t o t h e p r o p h e c y of N a t h a n (8-17), a n d finally, w e m u s t e x a m i n e vv. 1-7, w h i c h G r e s s m a n n i s o l a t e d as a s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n . T h e c o r e of David's p r a y e r i s in v. 27a: Y a h w e h h a d "uncovered his ear," s a y i n g t o him, "I will build you a house." T h a t i s t o s a y , David would n o t b e l i k e Saul, a king in his o w n person only, b u t h e w a s t o forrn t h e b e g ~ n n i n gof a dynasty. I t i s obvious t h a t w e a r e dealing here with a very ancient text. Quite a p a r t from t h e a l m o s t word-for-word a g r e e m e n t of 7.1 l b , w e a r e c o n f r o n t e d

Chapter Three T H E A C C O U N T OF T H E AMMONITE WAR ollowing t h e p r e c e d e n t of Winckler, a s e r i e s of s c h o l a r s ( K i t t e l , Cook, G r e s s m a n n , Sievers) h a s f o u n d a s e p a r a t e s o u r c e in I1 S a m 13ff. e n c o m passing I1 S a m 10.1-1 1.1 a n d 12.26-31.l Budde, N o w a c k (who n o n e t h e l e s s a t t r i b u t e s 10.15-19a t o a r e d a c t o r , following Winckler), Sellin(?), a n d S t e u e r n a g e l , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , r e j e c t t h i s q u i t e firmly.2 I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o s t a r t o u r e x a m i n a t i o n of t h i s q u e s t i o n w i t h t h e s e c t i o n 12.26-31. T h e p a s s a g e i s u n i f o r m , t h e s t y l e i s c o n s i s t e n t l y s u c c i n c t , u n p r e t e n t i o u s , s i m p l e a n d c l e a r , y e t f r e s h a n d vivid. T h e a c t i o n r u s h e s a l o n g , w i t h t h e c h a n g e i n t h e l e a d e r s h i p of t h e o p e r a t i o n skilf ully a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h t h e commissioning of t h e m e s s e n g e r s . T h e n a r r a t i o n is a d r o i t a n d h a s a c o n c r e t e e f f e c t . T h e r e a r e no m e n t a l l e a p s a n d s o t h i s p a s s a g e m u s t b e e n t i r e within itself. However a fragment c a n also be e n t i r e within itself - a n d t h i s p a s s a g e c a n b e s e e n t o b e such. I t s t a r t s a b r u p t l y w i t h J o a b ' s b a t t l e s at R a b b a h of t h e A m m o n i t e s a n d t h e n t e l l s of David t a k i n g t h e c i t y a n d of how t h e p r i s o n e r s w e r e t r e a t e d , finishing with David going b a c k t o J e r u s a l e m . T h e a c c o u n t h a s a n a t u r a l ending, t h e r e f o r e , w h i c h c o u l d hardly b e a m e r e c a e s u r a ; b u t t h e beginning, which must have said something about t h e background t o t h e c o n q u e s t , is missing a n d h a s t o b e looked f o r in t h e p r e c e d i n g n a r r a t i v e . Thus o u r i m m e d i a t e t a s k i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e p a s s a g e t o i t s c o n t e x t , b o t h f o r w a r d s a n d backwards. We m u s t d e t e r m i n e , f i r s t , w h e t h e r t h e n a r r a t i v e f i n i s h e s properly o r only b r e a k s o f f a t 12.31; s e c o n d , w h e t h e r w h a t i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d e s provides t h e n e c e s s a r y beginning o r w h e t h e r i t should b e l o o k e d f o r e l s e w h e r e . A s a l r e a d y m e n t i o n e d , v. 3 1 is, as f a r as c o n t e n t i s c o n c e r n e d , t h e e n d of a s t o r y a b o u t t h e c o n q u e s t of K a b b a h of t h e A m m o n i t e s by David a n d t h u s of a r e p o r t c o n c e r n i n g t h i s king's A m m o n i t e wars, s i n c e t h e c o n q u e s t of t h i s c i t y p u t a n ~~

-

ur previous discussion h a s d e a l t with t h r e e major s e c t i o n s of t h e Books of Samuel. Of t h e s e , t h e f i r s t a n d t h e l a s t ( t h e a r k n a r r a t i v e and t h e a c c o u n t of David's w a r s with t h e Ammonites) a r e in l i t e r a r y - c r i t i c a l t e r m s relatively simple, easily distinguishable units, which h a v e been preserved tolerably i n t a c t . I1 Sam 7 p r e s e n t s g r e a t e r difficulty. I t falls i n t o t h r e e parts, t h e f i r s t , 7.1-7, stubbornly resisting a l l a t t e m p t s a t s o u r c e division, t h e o t h e r t w o e a c h containing a n old s o u r c e (which in e a c h c a s e is probably independent of t h e o t h e r ) overlaid by m o r e r e c e n t s t r a t a - t w o l a y e r s in t h e c a s e of vv. 8-17, o n e in t h e c a s e of vv. 18-29. T h e s e m a k e a significant contribution t o t h e history of Israelite piety. H e r e w e a r e only i n t e r e s t e d in t h e m o r e a n c i e n t s t r a t a of t h i s c h a p t e r , which, l i k e t h e a r k n a r r a t i v e and t h e a c c o u n t of t h e A m m o n i t e war, g o back t o t h e t i m e of David o r a t l e a s t t o t h a t of Solomon. What i s i m p o r t a n t f o r u s i s t o t r y t o look i n t o t h e h e a r t s of t h e s e a u t h o r s a n d s o gain a n insight i n t o t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y a b u n d a n c e of independent w r i t e r s in t h e e a r l y m o n a r c h i c period - w r i t e r s who a r e very sharply differe n t i a t e d , n o t only by t h e i r m o d e of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n but, a b o v e all, by t h e i r p e c u l i a r i t i e s of style. F i r s t w e c o m e t o t h e w r i t e r of t h e a r k narrative. Earlier w e looked f o r him a m o n g t h e c o m m u n i t y of priests of t h e a r k in J e r u s a l e m . T h e whole c o n t e n t of his n a r r a t i v e points t h i s way, especially t h e a t t e n t i o n paid t o c u l t i c issues. H e i s a skilful n a r r a t o r who h a s c o m m a n d of a simple, popular s t y l e a n d who c a n o b t a i n g r e a t e f f e c t s by t h e simplest of means. H e i s particularly d e x t r o u s a t linking t h e individual s c e n e s and settings, allowing t h e m t o flow i n t o e a c h other. F u r t h e r , t h e a u t h o r h a s a n i n t e r e s t in t h e history of his shrine. H e follows up everything and i s n o t s a t i s f i e d simply with t h e obvious a n d t h e ready-to-hand. A t t h e s a m e t i m e , in s o f a r as h e i s able, h e c u l t i v a t e s a n o b j e c t i v e style. H e d o e s not pass o v e r Israel's dishonourable defeats; indeed, h e could hardly d o t h i s anyway b e c a u s e a g a i n s t t h i s d a r k background Yahweh's

Chapter Four T H E SUCCESSION S T O R Y a v i n g f i r s t i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e subsidiary s o u r c e s av a i l a b l e t o t h e a u t h o r of t h e s u c c e s s i o n s t o r y a n d p u t t o u s e by hirn, w e now t u r n t o t h e s u c c e s s i o n s t o r y i t s e l f . Budde i s of t h e opinion t h a t n o s u c h s o u r c e s a r e t o b e positively i d e n t i f i e d in t h e t w o m a j o r s o u r c e s t r a n d s which c o n s t i t u t e ( a s h e s e e s i t ) t h e Books of ~ a m u e 1 . l O u r c h o i c e of s u b j e c t , as well as t h e previous discussion, m a k e s it q u i t e c l e a r , h o w e v e r , t h a t h i s v i e w f i n d s n o s u p p o r t here. Indeed, w e a r e e n t i t l e d t o a s k w h e t h e r t h e " e x e g e t e s ' f a v o u r i t e t e x t " - t h e s t o r y of David's f a m i l y , o r s u c c e s s i o n s t o r y - w a s itself a n i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e , a n d , if n e e d be, t o g i v e a n a f f i r m a t i v e a n s w e r t o t h a t possibility. If Budde i s u n a b l e t o find a n y t r a c e s of e d i t i n g , w h e t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n s in l a n g u a g e u s a g e , a c t u a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s w i t h i n e i t h e r of h i s t w o s o u r c e s , o r i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a n t t r a a i t i o n s t h a t would b e e v i d e n c e f o r a s o u r c e division, w e f o r o u r p a r t h a v e only t o point o u t , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e f u n d a m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n I1 S a m 21.1-14 a n d I1 S a m 9 - b o t h passa g e s which h e a l l o c a t e s t o t h e 3 s o u r c e . In 21.1-14 David c o n s u l t s Y a h w e h (just as i n I S a m 30.8, etc.) w h e r e a s in I1 S a m 9-20 i t i s only a t 16.23 t h a t t h e r e is a n y m e n t i o n of c o n s u l t i n g Y a h w e h a n d h e r e i t i s e q u a t e d w i t h c o n s u l t i n g Ahithophel. In 21.1-14 David k n o w s which of Saul's f a m i l y a r e a l i v e a n d w h e r e t h e y a r e living, including Meribaal, w h e r e a s i n c h a p t e r 9 h e m u s t a s k w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a n y S a u l i d e a l i v e at all. H i s r e t a i n e r s c a n f i n d only Saul's s e r v a n t , Ziba, a n d it i s f r o m him t h a t t h e y g a i n f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . In 2 1.1 -14, David s p a r e s M e r i b a a l f o r J o n a t h a n ' s s a k e a n d in c h a p t e r 9 h e e n d o w s him w i t h h i s f a t h e r ' s p r o p e r t y f o r t h e s a m e reason. O n t h e o t h e r hand, r e f e r e n c e i s m a d e in 21.7 t o a n o a t h t h a t David h a d m a d e previously, w h e r e a s t h e r e i s n o m e n t i o n of t h i s i n c h a p t e r 9 a n d M e r i b a a l is s p a r e d s i m p l y f o r t h e s a k e of his

CONCLUSION o w w e a r e at a n end. T h e f i n e s t work of Hebrew n a r r a t i v e a r t h a s passed b e f o r e our eyes. Our t a s k h a s been t o i s o l a t e i t and d e t e r m i n e i t s l i m i t s , t o study i t s s t y l e and s t r u c t u r e , i t s hist o r i c a l trustworthiness, a n d i t s c o n t r i b u t i o n t o our knowledge of t h e theological outlook a n d religious devotion of t h e e a r l y m o n a r c h i c period. As a preliminary s t e p w e looked at t h e subsidiary s o u r c e s used by t h e narrator: t h e a r k n a r r a t i v e , Nathan's prophecy, t h e a c c o u n t of t h e A m m o n i t e war, a l l t h r e e t h e products of t h e closing s t a g e s of t h e Davidic period a n d e a c h having in s o m e r e s p e c t a surprising individuality. In t h i s f i r s t blossoming of Hebrew l i t e r a t u r e w e s e e with s o m e a m a z e m e n t a s e r i e s of a u t h o r s f i g h t i n g t o c a r r y off t h e laurels; a n d s o w e a r e a f f o r d e d r e m a r k a b l e insight i n t o t h e richly varied c l i m a t e of c o n t e m p o r a r y religious thought. Alongside t h e n a r r a t o r of t h e a r k source, a plain and popular s t o r y t e l l e r with a fondness f o r edification and a p i e t y strongly conditioned by t h e c u l t , t h e r e a r e t h e a u t h o r s of t h e o l d e s t s t r a t a of Nathan's prophecy with t h e i r d e e p i n t e r e s t in t h e royal house of David a n d t h e i r humble piety. T h e sober, f a c t u a l a c c o u n t of t h e A m m o n i t e w a r g i v e s u s a glimpse i n t o t h e h e a r t of a godfearing soldier, while t h e a r t i s t i c a l l y s t r u c t u r e d s t o r y of t h e succession shows u s a m e m b e r of t h e c o u r t who views c u l t i c l i f e with a c e r t a i n r e s e r v e a n d recognizes God a t work in t h e normal c o u r s e of history. This, of course, hardly c o m p l e t e s t h e p i c t u r e of l i t e r a r v a c t i v i t y in t h e Davidic a n d Solomonic epochs, f o r t h e Abia t h a r s o u r c e a l s o belongs t o t h e period a n d s o m e individudl f r a g m e n t s as well (such a s David's l a s t words, perhaps t h e Solomon s t o r y , too, and works a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Yahwist). Only by examining t h e s e and t a k i n g t h e m i n t o a c c o u n t could w e h a v e a c o m p l e t e p i c t u r e of t h e l i t e r a r y c r e a t i v i t y of t h e e a r l y m o n a r c h i c period. T h a t , however, i s a t a s k well beyond t h e s c o p e of t h e p r e s e n t undertaking.

NOTES Introduction [ N o t e s 1-4 in 1965 edn.] 1 Budde: D i e Bucher Samuel, p.XVII. 2 A c c o r d i n g t o Gunkel, i t i s t h e a u t h o r a n d n o t his work which i s t h e c o n c e r n of e x e g e s i s R e d e n und A u f s a t z e , 12f. Against this, Konig: Herm e n e u t i k d e s AT, p.63. 3 On H e r o d o t u s c f . Howald: lonische Geschichtsschreibung, pp. 127ff., a n d Aly: Volksmarchen, S a g e und Novelle, p.113. O n Thucydides c f . Aly: ibid., p.141, a n d Wilamowitz-Mollendorff: "Thukydides VIIl - Hermes," pp.598f. NOTES T O C H A P T E R O N E T h e Ark N a r r a t i v e [ N o t e s 5-74 in 1965 edn.] I C f . Wellhausen: Bleek, Einleitung in d a s AT, pp.208ff. a n d 222f. ( D e l e t e d a s glosses are: 1 S a m 4.21b, 22; 6.5a t o pixn-nx [ t h e land] a n d 6.17, 18a; f u r t h e r 6.15. 4.18 i s r e g a r d e d a s a r e d a c t i o n a l addition, a n d p e r h a p s a l s o 4.15.) Lohr: Thenius, D i e Bucher Samuelis, pp.LXVI1 a n d LXVI. Nowack: R i c h t e r , R u t h und Bucher Samuelis, pp.XVI1, XX, XXXIff. L o t z ("Die Bundeslade," pp.143ff.) a l s o divides t h e a r k n a r r a t i v e similarly: 1 S a m 4-6 i s h i s Mizpah s o u r c e , a n d 11 S a m 6 h i s David (Da) source. 2 Budde: op. cjt., pp.32 a n d 226. ( T h e l a t t e r d e a l s w i t h Cook's a t t e m p t t o distinguish t w o s o u r c e s e v e n within I1 S a m 6 ["Notes o n t h e Composition of 2 Samuel," pp.145-77% Budde d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h i s a n d a t t r i b u t e s t h e n a r r a t i v e t o his unified 3-source. Sellin: Einleitung in d a s A T , p.74 [ET: see Bibllog.]. T h e q u o t a t i o n i s f r o m p.75. 3 Kittel: G e s c h i c h t e d e s Volkes Israel, pp.71 a n d 297, n o t e 3. 4 Steuernagel: Lehrbuch d e r Einleitung in d a s AT, pp.332ff. Gressmann: D i e a l t e s t e G e s c h i c h t s s c h r e i b u n g und P r o p h e t i e Israels, pp.1 Iff. a n d 133ff. 5 C f ., e.g., Wellhausen: Einleitung, pp.222f. 6 Kautzsch: D i e Heilige S c h r i f t d e s AT, I, p.460, n o t e s b a n d c. 7 This i s n o rnore unlikely t h a n t h e extension of t h e n a m e f o r t h e a r k , which h a s generally b e e n a s s u m e d in t h e s e n a r r a t i v e s s i n c e Wellhausen; b u t s e e , a g a i n s t this, Lotz: op. cit., pp.143ff. 8 B e c a u s e of t h e a e t i o l o g y of P e r e z Uzzah, t h e n a m e U z z a b in 11 S a m 6 i s certain. 9 Keil: D i e Bucher Samuelis, p.260 [ET: see Bibliog.]. 10 S e e Nowack: op. cit., pp.XV a n d XX; Lohr: op. cit., pp.XVI1I a n d LIV. I1 O n e m a y c o m p a r e h e r e I Kgs 2.46, as t h e conclusion t o t h e succession story. 12 I t i s t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e a u t h o r t o s h o w how t h e shepherd boy, David, finally b e c o m e s king of t h e w h o l e of J u d a h a n d Israel in t h e newly c o n q u e r e d J e r u s a l e m . Among o t h e r things, t h e i m p o r t a n t r o l e given t o A b i a t h a r a n d t h e predilection f o r r e p o r t i n g c o n s u l t a t i o n s of Yahweh

INDEX O F AUTHORS Alt, A. Aly, W. Baurngartel, F. Budde, K.

L o t z , W. L u t h e r , 6. Miiller, D.H. N e s t l e , W. Norden, E. Nowack, W.

Olrik, A. Procksch, 0. C a n a a n , T. Caspari, W. Cook, S.A. Cornill, C.H. Dalrnan, G. Doeller, 3. Driver, S.R. Duhrn, D. Eissfeldt, 0. Geiger, A. Greiff, A. Gressmann, H.

S c h m i d t , H. Schulz, A. Schwally, F. Sellin, E. Sievers, E. Smith, H.P. S t a d e , 8. S t e u e r n a g e l , C. T ~ k t i n ,H. Volz, P. Wellhausen, 3 .

Gunkel, H. G u t h e , H. Howald, E. Holscher, C. Kautzsch, E. Keil, C.F. Kittel, R.

Klosterrnann, A. Lohr, M.

12 1 83 113, 128 127 122 6 , 8, 10, 42, 44, 57, 59, 6 6 , 121, 122, 125, 126 123, 127 35, 36, 40, 43, 124, 125 127 123 74 6 , 35, 57, 66, 121, 122, 124, 126 57, 59, 74, 124, 125, 126, 127 6, 59, 74, 122 122 7 , 10, 57, 67, 121, 122, 125, 126 42, 43, 44, 47, 125 124 6 , 35, 74, 76, 121, 124, 125, 126

WilamowitzMollendorff, U.von 12 1 Winckler, H. 57, 59, 126 127 Windisch, H.