(1976) J. v. Seters, Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David Journal

7/24/2019 (1976) J. v. Seters, Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David Journal

1/9

22 JSOT 1 (1976) 22-29

Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court Historyof David

John Van SetersUniversity of Toronto

In a number of recent articles D. M. Gunn has setforth a new position on the Court History which he regards as giving evidence of "oral traditional composition" /l/, and consequently it is not to be regarded asa literary composition in the way that L. Rost has described it, the view that has since dominated the field/2/. I have already written a response to the first of

these articles /3/ but since then two others haveappeared which call for additional comment and discussion on important issues of methodology

In his latest article Gunn groups together adisparate series of items from the so-called "SuccessionNarrative" under the rubric "traditional composition"/4/. But this term is so vague that it is meaningless.It can include a discussion of traditional forms orgenres of every kind and thus allow him to discuss a

particular form such as a parable. On the other hand,"traditional composition" can refer to content in eithera very specific or a quite general way. Under theseterms it is hard to think of any body of literature,ancient or modern, which does not exhibit some traditional composition. A great deal of literary criticism involves a careful analysis and classification ofsuch traditional elements and the way a particularauthor might make use of them. However, the rather

haphazard way in which different kinds of supposedlytraditional elements are set down side by side does notconstitute such an analytic study.

Gunnfs reason for pointing out elements of "traditional composition" is quite otherwise. He argues thatthese elements are evidence that the work as a wholehas its basis in oral tradition, or at least can bestyled as "traditional". That the patterns of composition to which Gunn points are necessarily, or even

probably oral in origin and use may be strongly disputed. And to call the Court History itself "traditi l" i ti bl O t h


2/9

Van Seters: Court History 23

Testament itself or in ancient Near Eastern literaturein general. It may employ a few traditional forms or

patterns within the story (although somewhat less than

Gunn believes) but this does not make the whole storyform traditional. It may also be seriously disputedthat the content is traditional. Apart from the factthat the story is about David and his family and makesuse of names which are otherwise known from othersources there are no independent variants by which tojudge whether the episodes in it belong to a body offolk tradition. On the contrary I think there is reason to suspect that they do not but are all created bya skilful author. The theme of the work is also anti-

traditional. It s fundamental purpose as I understandit is to call into question the traditional royal ideology of the Davidic covenant and the picture of goodking David which is basic to that ideology /5/.

These general criticisms may be tested by theexamination of specific details. In Gunnfslatestarticle the first example of traditional compositionhe gives is the antagonistic relationship betwen David

and the "sons of Zeruiah", Joab and Abishai, whichoccurs throughout the Court History. This is viewedas a traditional stereotype, "part of the stock intrade of a story-teller dealing with the stories ofDavid and his men". In order to even suggest the possibility one would have to find evidence for this friction outside of the Court History and Gunn attempts todo so but the passages referred to give little supportfor this /6/.

The first episode we have to consider is in 1 Sam.26:6ff where David asks for a volunteer to go down withhim into Saul's camp and Abishai comes forward. Thetwo men enter the camp and find Saul sleeping, whereupon Abishai proposes to kill him. But David rejectsthis, stating that no one can lay hands upon "Yahweh'sanointed" without divine consequences. Instead they

merely remove the spear and water jar. Now this rebukeby David can hardly be regarded here as a case ofpersonal tension. The whole scene is a variant of the

version in 1 Sam 24:5ff where David rejects the samesuggestion made by his men. In both cases David's menor Abishai react to the circumstances naturally and


3/9

24 JSOT 1 (1976)

thereby provide foil for David's piety and humility toshow that he has done nothing to seize the throne.

The contrast with 2 Sam 19:21ff is very pronouncedIt is Abishai who invokes the death penalty for one whocurses "Yahweh's anointed" - a statement which wouldseem to hark back ironically to 1 Sam 26:6ff. But hereDavid puts down Abishai quite directly and personally

but with a motivation which is clearly political. Itwas hardly a case of forgiveness as is clear from1 Kgs 2:8f. The relationship between the Court Historyand the earlier story of David's Rise is not that theyuse common stereotypes regarding Abishai but that the

Court History builds on the earlier material, yet giving to it an ironic twist.

Gunn also makes reference to the statement in 2Sam 21:17 in which Abishai rescues David from one ofthe giants of the Philistines and in which David's mentell him he should not go to battle with them again"lest you put out the lamp of Israel". In order touse this as another example of tension between Davidand the sons of Zeruiah Gunn must interpret the refer

ence to the "men of David" as a surrogate for Abishaibut this is hardly legitimate. And after all it is anexpression of affection and concern for David and notan instance of tension. It may also be noted thatironically David, in the Court History, never goes downto battle with his men. This contrasts with all thetraditions outside of the Court History.

The only other, episode of significance for Gunn'spoint outside of the Court History is the story of thecensus in 2 Sam 24. Here David sends Joab and thecommanders of the army to number the people. Joab, asspokesman for the commanders, raises an objection butDavid insists and Joab acquiesces and the order iscarried out. There is no suggestion in this accountof any personal animosity between David and Joab.There is no subsequent rebuke of David by Joab afterthe plague came and the story has no direct literaryconnection with any other episode which fortify such atension.


4/9

Van Seters: Court History

So one must conclude that outside of the CourtHistory there Is no basis for any pattern or stereotype in which the "sons of Zeruiah" are in oppositionto David /7/. This tension is the creation of the

author of the Court History alone. His treatment ofthe "sons of Zeruiah", Abishai and Joab, as powerful

military men who cannot be controlled is part of thewhole picture of David in this work. Outside of theCourt History Abishai and Asahel are included in thelist of David's warriors as members of the thirtywhile Joab is given the status of commander-in-chiefAbishai and Joab are also given the patronymic, "son ofZeruiah". However the author of the Court History madeZeruiah the name of the mother of the three brothers(2 Sam 17:25) but this is clearly against all convention of citing one's name. The reason the author doesthis is to make Joab and Amasa cousins and both of themgrandsons of Nahash, the former king of Ammon. On theother hand there is no justification for Gunn's suggestion that the author of the Court History thought ofDavid and the "sons of Zeruiah" as related. This is acorrection made by the Chronicler in 1 Chron 2:13-17who found the reference to Nahash objectionable. The

whole genealogical notation in 2 Sam 17:25 is the invention of the author of the Court History who has madean anomalous matronymic out of the patronymic "sons ofZeruiah" for his own literary purposes.

Gunn's second example of traditional composition iwhat he calls a "judgment-eliciting parable". The traditional element here is that of form not content as inthe previous case so the issue here is a form-criticalone. I do not wish to debate here the issue of parable

genres. What is at issue is the Sitz im Leben whichGunn suggests is evidenced by the use of this genre.Drawing on a more modern example, he cites from a collection of popular folk-tales, he concludes that thegenre derives from such an oral story-telling background. But Gunn overlooks an important distinction.The folk-tale makes the parable the whole story withthe reason for the parable given only in a brief introduction. The whole episode is a self-contained unit.But the biblical examples, particularly in the Court

History i.e., Nathan's parable and the story by thewoman of Tekoa, are only minor elements of a much


5/9

26 jsoT 1 (1976)

larger complex with consequences extending far beyondthe telling of the parable itself. One must speak hereof the genre's Sitz im der Literatur. The genre itself

may be folkloristic in character and origin as far asits form is concerned but its use in the Court Historyis strictly literary. To follow Gunn's line of reasoning one would have to say that every piece of literature that contained even a popular saying would have to

be the product of oral story-telling, which is absurd.

Under this same heading of "judgment-elicitingparable" Gunn turns to an entirely different type ofcomparison, that of the petition by the woman of Tekoa

in 2 Sam 14 and the intercession of David by Abigailin 1 Sam 25. In this case it is not the "motif" of aparable that is similar for there is none in 1 Sam 25,but rather the phraseology used in describing theapproach of the two women before David (see 1 Sam 25:23-4,35 and 2 Sam 14:4,8,9,12). This verbal similarity raises an entirely different kind of questionabout the relationships of these two stories to eachother. It is curious that there are not other examplesif this is such a fixed stereotype. In the popular

story about the two prostitutes before Solomon, 1 Kgs 3:16-28 the form is altogether different. On the otherhand the same kind of verbal similarity between theCourt History and the episode with Abigail can be seen

between 1 Sam 25:18 and 2 Sam 16:1. Gunn suggests thatin both cases it is a matter of using traditional patterning or stereotypes /8/ but I would explain thesimilarity as evidence of direct literary dependence bythe author of the Court History upon the story ofDavid's Rise. Now this is an important issue of method

ology. How much verbal similarity is necessary to proveliterary dependence? If similar phraseology is found inonly these two sources and there is evidence on othergrounds of literary dependence by one source on theother then I think it is highly likely that the similarity is a matter of direct borrowing and not just a useof stereotype expression.

Another example of Gunn's motif-criticism is his

gathering together of a number of episodes under therubric "the woman who brings death". These would include such women in the Court History as Rizpah (2 Sam


6/9


compared with such stories as Judah's marriage toShua (whose first two children die) and the story ofEve, the woman who brings death. Such a rubric is

very far-fetched when applied to the last two casesand the stories are altogether different from those inthe Court History. In the latter case amuchmore aptdescription would be "death through the love of awoman". Now this is such a common theme which pervadesliterature of all kinds, times and places that to treatit as a special indicator of traditional composition

hardly seems warranted and the observation is trivial.What might be more to the point is why it occurs sofrequently in the Court History but with perhaps only

one other example in the restof the OT narrative,that of Gen 34. Gunn also speaks of a pattern of two

deaths connected with each woman. Such a pattern is

forced in the case of the Court History and certainly

does not apply to Gen 34 where all the males of the

city were killed.

Gunn also points to a number of other minor folk

loristic motifs in the Court History, such as the

woman who assists the spies in their escape (2 Sam 17:17-20), the two messengers who bear the news to David

(2 Sam 18:19ff), and the letter which Uriah carries to

his commander containing his own death warrant (2 Sam

ll:14ff). These motifs may well have been traditional

in a vague way but that fact tells us nothing about

the form in which the author of the Court History knew

these stories. In this regard the motif of the spies

may be instructive. Gunn points to the high degree of

similarity between 2 Sam 17:17-21 and Jos 2. He states

There are two spies in or at a city. The king

of the city learns of their presence and sends

men to find them. They are hidden in a house

(under something) by a woman. The king's men

come to the house and demand the spies be given

up. But the woman gives false directions, the

pursuers go their way, fail to find the spies,

and return to the city. The spies escape.


7/9

28 JSOT1(1976)

Now the particular combination of similar ele-

ments, especially that of both hiding the spies and

then giving false directions has suggested to Gunn

that the stories derive from a "common stereotype"/ 9/. What Gunn means by common stereotype is not

clear for it seems to be different from "traditional

motif", something much more fixed in its various ele-

ments. On the other hand it may be thatthe high de-

gree of similarity points to direct literary depend-

ence and thatthe whole spy motif in 2 Sam 17 is dir-

ectly derived from Jos. 2 which has been used as a

model. This would account for a "blind motive" in the

later story /10/. As Gunn points out, the pursuers

come to a specific house where the spies were hiding(2 Sam 17:20) even though there is no explanation given

of how the they were known to have been there. The

reference to the lad seeing them, V.18, has to do with

their stay at Enrogel but not the house at Bahurim.

On the other hand in Jos.2 the spies were seen enter-

ing the house of the harlot. This would appear to me

as evidence that the author of the Court History has

borrowed the motif from Jos 2 in a shortened and in-

complete form.

Consequently, even though a theme or motif is tra-

ditional or folkloristic in character the author of the

Court History could still have taken it from a literary

exemplar. And none of these motifs would have had to

bepart of a David tradition prior to their use by the

author of the Court History. The constant reapplica-

tion of folklore motifs by storytellers and literary

artists to new persons, times and situations is so

well known thatit scarcely needs to be debated. The

degree of "traditional composition" in the Court

History is very much less than Gunn has suggested and

what there is does not point in any way to a body of

oral tradition about David specifically. While it is

probably true that the author of the Court History

also drew upon the storytelling techniques and motifs

of his contemporaries, whether oral or written, this

is simply a truism of literature in all ages. It is

the degree to which this is the case that cannot be

controlled by the limited materials at hand. Yet ifwe compare his work with the other narratives of the

Old Testament he still stands out, to my mind, as a


8/9


1. "Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition, iiiJudgesand Samuel", VT 24 (1974), 286-317; "David and

the Gift of the Kingdom" (2 Sam 2-4, 9-20,1 Kgs 1-2), Semeia 3 (1975), 14-45; "Traditional Composition in the 'Succession Narrative'",

VT 26 (1976), 214-229. See also idem, "The'Battle Report': Oral or Scribal Convention?".JBL 93 (1974), 513-518.

2. L.Rost, Die berlieferung von der ThronnachfolgeDavids, BWANT III/6 (1926), reprinted in DasKleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testa

ment (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965) pp.119-253; G. von Rad, "The Beginnings of HistoricalWriting in Ancient Israel", in The Problems ofthe Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh:Oliver and Boyd, 1965) pp. 166-204.

3. ."Oral Patterns or Literary Conventions in BiblicalNarrative", Semeia 5 (1976)

4 . V T2 6 : 2 1 4

-2 2 9

5. See my treatment of this theme in my chapter on

Israelite Historiography in Histories and Hist

orians of the Ancient Near East ed. by J.W.Wevers,Toronto: University of Toronto Press (in press).

6. If, however, the Court History is directly dependent upon earlier literary sources in Samuel theneven this criterion is defective. On thisliterary question see my article above.

7. Note that Gunn takes 2 Sam 2:8 - 4:12 as part ofthe Court History and in this I entirely agree.

8. See also V 24:301-303.9. Gunn further suggests that in both stories the

pursuers immediately accept the directions of thewoman without a search, but this is only clearlystated in the case of Jos. 2:5-7.In 2 Sam 17:20,the statement about searching is ambiguous andcould as easily refer to the house as well as theroute and more likely the former.

10. For a discussion of "blind motive" as a criterionfor literary dependence see J. Van Seters,

Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven andLondon, Yale University Press, 1975),p. 163.See the index for its application to the Abrahamstories.


9/9

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

Documents

(1976) J. v. Seters, Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David Journal