The Question of the Beginning and the Ending of the So-Called History of David's Rise

Abstract

The thesis argues that we can maintain that the so-called History of David’s Rise (HDR) existed independently before the deuteronomistic work, by identifying its beginning in I Samuel 16. 14 and ending in II Samuel 5. 3. Additionally, the thesis proposes that the source was first composed during Hezekiah’s reign with a view to persuading the northerners to embrace Hezekiah’s one Israel policy, and then went through two major redactions – one in the late exilic period and the other in the post-exilic period. These later redactions were prompted not only by the political situations of the time, but also by the literary milieu. In other words, a growing interest in narratives and the emergence of the ‘Jewish novelistic impulse’ in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian period triggered the creation of more extensive narratives about Saul and David. These historical-critical arguments are preceded in the thesis by a methodological argument that a traditio-historical issue is inevitably related to a literary understanding of the larger whole. The background for this two-foci research is the wild disagreement on the issue, and the confusion around the methodology that has been aggravated by an unnecessary tension between different approaches. The thesis therefore discusses the methodological issues as carefully as possible, so that it might be transparent what actually happens when one does biblical criticism. This gives the thesis the features of a case study, but the thesis also hopes to present a satisfactory and attractive view on a particular traditio-historical issue in its own right. The study hopes to be an experiment of self-reflective biblical criticism that is serious but open. Since the thesis has two different but essentially related theses, the conclusion is established in two stages – methodological and historical. Chapter 1 shows that a literary understanding of the whole is foundational to traditio-historical discussions, and Chapter 2 demonstrates that literary understanding is always open to revision, and so are historical answers, as the latter are inevitably related to the former. Chapter 3 asks what is the most appropriate understanding of the whole HDR at this point, and the answer provides the last two chapters with the foundation by which various evidences can be measured. Chapter 4 revisits the initial question, and provides a provisional answer. And Chapter 5, after discussing the relationship between the materials in the books of Samuel, confirms the conclusion reached in the previous chapter, and elaborates further implications.