Succession Narrative: A "Document" or a Phantom?

Abstract

Proquest Information and Learning: Foreign text omitted. In recent decades, an important shift has taken place in study of account of David's reign in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings. There are two major tendencies, both leading away from Thronfolgegeschichte hypothesis as it was formulated in 1926 by Leonhard Rost.1 One of them is to retain Rost's key postulate that much of 2 Samuel and 1 Kgs 1-2 is a self-contained Succession Narrative or Court History that was included in history of Israelite monarchy as a unit, but to reappraise this unit's extent, genre, theme, message, and dating.2 Another tendency, represented by a very small but steadily growing minority of exegetes, is to deny its existence. Thus, already in 1964 R. A. Carlson presented tradition-historical arguments in favor of viewing whole history of David's reign in 2 Sam 2-24 as an integral Deuteronomistic composition tracing king's fate first under blessing (chs. 2-7) and then under curse (chs. 9-24).3 Almost two decades later, in 1981, Jan Fokkelman published first volume of his grand literary interpretation of Samuel.4 Although scope of this volume, analyzing 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2, almost exactly coincides with limits of Rost's Thronfolgegeschichte, Fokkelman summarily dismissed idea of treating these texts as a separate entity and declared that the Thronfolgegeschichte theory... [had] crippled OT science for almost 50 years.5 In same year, Peter Ackroyd issued a terse and forceful warning: in texts pertaining to David's reign, there are so many uncertainties-uncertainties of chronology, uncertainties about nature of narratives, uncertainties about their proper order-that any attempt at mere historical reconstruction is out.6 In 1993 Robert Polzin published a commentary on 2 Samuel that completely ignored both Thronfolgegeschichte concept and hypothetical literary boundaries associated with it, and in 2000 Steven McKenzie concluded that there [had been] no S[uccession] N[arrative].7 This significant shift notwithstanding, core of Rost's hypothesis, namely, notion of a large, continuous, self-contained, and distinctive document (henceforth D) underlying a large part of 2 Samuel and perhaps first two chapters of 1 Kings, remains largely intact. Most scholars invest their efforts in modifying and refining it; others, with notable exception of McKenzie, seem to take issue primarily with diachronic mode of interpretation in general, not with specific redaction-critical presuppositions that can be traced back to Rost.8 As a result, these presuppositions still dominate field and shape it. Perhaps nothing illustrates this more graphically than Fokkelman's strategic decision not only to include 1 Kgs 1-2 in his reading of books of Samuel but to treat these chapters together with 2 Sam 9-20, ignoring fact that in received Hebrew Bible two units are not contiguous. Likewise, McKenzie limits his discussion of literary connections between Davidic narratives to texts included by some of his predecessors in D (2 Sam 2:8-4:12; 9:1-13; 13:1-21:14; 1 Kgs 1-2) and concedes that these texts may be based on earlier sources, thereby assigning them a special status.9 This article is an attempt to challenge concept of D per se by demonstrating that received MT of Samuel and Kings does not offer any evidence of its existence. I will examine 2 Sam 1-1 Kgs 2 in synchronic and diachronic perspectives and suggest that from both points of view it is preferable to regard it as an integral composition tracing David's biography after Saul's death and as an integral element of history of Israelite monarchy. I will also argue that concept of kingship in general and Davidic monarchy in particular that found its expression in 2 Sam 1-1 Kgs 2 broadly matches outlook of Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic passages in Former Prophets. …