Gillian Keys The Wages of Sin A Reappraisal of The Succession Narrative JSOT Supplement 1996 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
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 individualso 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.
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, 20-23The story of Michal's barrenness.

2 Sam. 7.1 Ib, 16Yahweh's promise that a son of David will
succeed him to the throne.
2 Samuel 9The introduction of the ambitious Saulide
Mephibosheth, whose story is continued in that of the Absalom
rebellion.
2 Samuel 13-14The elimination of David's firstborn Amnon
from the contention for the succession.
2 Samuel 15-19Absalom's coup d'etat.
2 Samuel 20The 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
historyrather 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
ideaboth 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 spherecomprising the acquisition of the kingdom and the founding of a dynasty); and
David as man (in the private spherecomprising 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.
4. See also Keys 1988.
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.
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 themand 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: mnf ^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 hereit 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 successionwhen 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

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
otherassuming 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 21-24the 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 foundationsa 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 Narrativewhat is it? If 1 Kings 1-2 is not

part of SNwhat 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 contextthe
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 9the most accepted beginning for
SN. However we are immediately faced with a much less widelyacknowledged problemthat 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
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
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 SNfor 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
*71G? 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 backgrounddeath of Saul

Initial stages of David's rulesouth only
Coronation and consolidation
Initial actions (religious)
Initial actions (military)
Last initial dutyDavid 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
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
defendedit 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 overlookedquestions 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.
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
literaturethat 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
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).

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 1-2a 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 Davidthe adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriahand
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 rightit 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
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).
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.

124
The Wages of Sin
search for a themeit 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 truehis 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.
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
punishmentthe 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 punishmentNathan'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 themeone not emphasized by the original
author or compilerdue 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.
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 humanAmnon
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
eventthe coup d'etat led by one of David's sonsthis 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
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:
{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 'Davidand the narratorunderstood
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 rebellionthat 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
Davidin 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 Manthe 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 Davidwith David the Manis 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 arta
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 arisesalthough 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.

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.
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 motivea 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.
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 chaptersWiirthwein 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 SN2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2with 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
storyand 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 upso 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 narrativehis 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.
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
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,
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 purposeto
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.
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 periodwhich 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.
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
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).
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
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 standardthat
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
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 strifethe wish to be associated with the royal household as closely as possibleis 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.
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 didacticto 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.

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.

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 DavidA 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.
'Salomoder 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,
1.1-4
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'

Gillian Keys The Wages of Sin A Reappraisal of The Succession Narrative JSOT Supplement 1996 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Gillian Keys The Wages of Sin A Reappraisal of The Succession Narrative JSOT Supplement 1996 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The Wages of Sin

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Copyright 1996 Sheffield Academic Press

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

THE HISTORY OF THE 'SUCCESSION NARRATIVE' HYPOTHESIS

A REAPPRAISAL OF THE 'SUCCESSION NARRATIVE' HYPOTHESIS

DEFINING THE NARRATIVE: EXTENT AND COMPOSITION

THE UNITY OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20

The Wages of Sin

THE THEME OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20

THE GENRE AND PURPOSE OF 2 SAMUEL 10-20

This book had its beginnings as a doctoral thesis submitted to the

The Wages of Sin

I would also like to express my deep appreciation of my family, to

This page intentionally left blank

A History of Scholarly Opinion

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

2 Sam. 6.16, 20-23The story of Michal's barrenness.

3. 2 Sam. 10.6-11.1 and 12.26-31, although incorporated into the succession

The Wages of Sin

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

The Wages of Sin

2 Sam. 11.27; 12.24; 17.14.

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

existence of a SN.8 He saw the structure of the book as being dominated

The Wages of Sin

text contrasted with the literary-critical approach of the earlier scholars.

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

making up the work as it stands. Although not rejecting Rost's ideas on

The struggle for the succession to David's throne.

The beauty and divine wisdom of the king;

The Wages of Sin

David's inactivity during the Ammonite war;

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

literary excellence of SN. That such opposite views may be held by

The Wages of Sin

with Egyptian Wisdom literature. Indeed he argued that the author of

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

The Wages of Sin

Solomon's succession to the throne; and

Flanagan acknowledged that, in its present form, the work is a SN

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

Flanagan's application of this observation to the literary history of the

The Wages of Sin

These scholars find a solution for the problem in questioning the

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

The Wages of Sin

Gunn regarded SN as 'a story, told in a traditional vein' (1978: 38), a

David and the sons of Zeruiah;

He argued that these may be recognized as traditional because of the

2 Sam. 16.10, where David says to Abishai, 'What have I to do

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

In the case of the woman who brings death, he listed Rizpah,

The Wages of Sin

He also rejected the view proposed by Rost that this is a 'Succession

He also noted the presence of several other minor interrelated themes.

1. The History of the'Succession Narrative'Hypothesis

He saw the examples of deception as falling naturally into five major

Hagan argued that each of these divisions is composed of a round of