Die Geschichte von der Thronfolge Davids (2 Sam 9-20; 1 Kön 1-2)

Abstract

Die Geschichte von der Throngefolge Davids (2 Sam 9-20; 1 Icon 1-2): Untersuchungen zur Literarkritik and Tendenz, by Stefan Seiler. BZAW 267. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1998. Pp. xvi + 364. DM 198.00. In 1926 Leonhard Rost published Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, a seminal work that argues for a unified, pro-Solomonic literary document in 2 Sam 9-1 Kgs 2. Ever since, debate sparked by this study has been spirited and intense, primarily because it so intentionally raises questions about literary integrity, redactoral history, and relationship between two. Ernst Wiirthwein, for example (Die Er-zahlung von der Thronfolge Davids), rejects most of Rost's arguments, arguing instead for a view that champions redactoral complexity over literary brilhance, presupposing passim existence of several predominantly antimonarchical sources underneath surface of text only lately fused together into a prodynastic composition. The present dissertation is a tour-de-force rejection of this trend in European scholarship. Rost's thesis, in Seiler's opinion, is much closer to truth than Wiirthwein's. After a brief history of research aligning work of those most in support of (T. C. G. Thornton, J. Kegler, Crusemann, T. Ishida) and opposed to Rost (T. Veijola, Langlamet, R. Bickert, J. Van Seters), Seiler's Textanalyse begins I Kgs 1-2 and hopscotches its way around succession narrative, jumping to 2 Sam 13-20, then to 2 Sam 10-12, then finally winding up 2 Sam 9 (pp. 29-296). Each section attends to questions of literary criticism, criticism, biography, theology, and various ad hoc comments about text's intentionality (Tendenz), though not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily in every section. The book's final chapter (pp. 297-326) subdivides into two sections: (a) Seiler's summary comments on Tendenz of narrative as a whole, and (b) a few historical questions about dating of succession narrative. Nowhere in book, not even in introductory paragraphs, does Seder ever state his presuppositions, his methodology, or his goals for book. But it does not take long to figure things out. Each section of Textanalyse (pp. 29-296) follows a predictable pattern. First, author cites an opponent of Rost regard to a specific redactoral position. Here are some examples: Wurthwein explains entire paragraph 2 Sam 17:5-14 as an addition (p. 152); According to T. Veijola, 2 Sam 9 was subjected to extensive re-working (p. 277); F. Langlamet considers statement about Adonijah . . . that David had never `hindered him' as prosolomonic redaction (p. 43). Second, after each citation, he systematically refutes each position in favor of his own: the arguments brought forward against originality of v. 5-14 can hardly be proven (response to Wurthwein, p. 157); Veijola's thesis, in which he argues that Merib-Baal is originally son of Saul, then later made by a redactor into son of Jonathan, proves itself to be untenable (response to Veijola, p. 295); with this, v. 6b is overinterpreted (response to Langlamet, p. 43). The purpose of book therefore seems to be (a) to rehearse debate between Rost and Wurthwein, (b) trace its evolution in writings of selected, predominantly European scholars, (c) test claims of these positions via close analysis of text itself, and finally, (d) to prove to reader that far fewer passages go back to later than opinions of E. Wurthwein and others would insist (p. 323). Compared to Veijola or Langlamet, Seiler sees very few redactoral amplifications (Enveiterungen) of original succession narrative; for example, (a) Nathan's encounter David (2 Sam 12:1-5, 7a, 13a-15a), of which only 12:9a, 10a go back to DtrH (a stilllater redactor adds 12:7b, 8, lob; 12:6, 9b, 20apba as glosses); (b) 1 Kings 2:1, 5-9 as a pre-Deuteronomistic attempt to exonerate Solomon (with 2:2, 4aa, 2:4b, 12b, 24aa, 24aai, 27, 33ab, 45 attributable to DtrH) (c) 2 Sam 12:llf, 15, 16b-17a; 16:21f; 20:3 as a secondary stratum added to explain fate of David's defiled concubines; and (d) 2 Sam 5:24-26, 29;16:11f as additions that emphasize David's humility and dependence on Yahweh's power. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.