22

JSOT 1 (1976) 22-29

Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History

of David
John Van Seters
University of Toronto
In a number of recent articles D. M. Gunn has set
forth 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 as
a 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 have
appeared which call for additional comment and discussion on important issues of methodology
In his latest article Gunn groups together a disparate series of items from the so-called "Succession
Narrative" under the rubric "traditional composition"
/4/.
But this term is so vague that it is meaningless.
It can include a discussion of traditional forms or
genres 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 either
a very specific or a quite general way. Under these
terms 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 of
such traditional elements and the way a particular
author might make use of them. However, the rather
haphazard way in which different kinds of supposedly
traditional elements are set down side by side does not
constitute such an analytic study.
Gunn f s reason for pointing out elements of "traditional composition" is quite otherwise. He argues that
these elements are evidence that the work as a whole
has its basis in oral tradition, or at least can be
styled 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 "traditional" is even more questionable. One cannot show any
long tradition of such a story form either in the Old

Van Seters: Court History

Testament itself or in ancient Near Eastern literature
in 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 story
form traditional. It may also be seriously disputed
that the content is traditional. Apart from the fact
that the story is about David and his family and makes
use of names which are otherwise known from other
sources there are no independent variants by which to
judge whether the episodes in it belong to a body of
folk tradition. On the contrary I think there is reason to suspect that they do not but are all created by
a skilful author. The theme of the work is also antitraditional. It s fundamental purpose as I understand
it is to call into question the traditional royal ideology of the Davidic covenant and the picture of good
king David which is basic to that ideology /5/.
These general criticisms may be tested by the
examination of specific details. In Gunn f s latest
article the first example of traditional composition
he gives is the antagonistic relationship betwen David
and the "sons of Zeruiah", Joab and Abishai, which
occurs throughout the Court History. This is viewed
as a traditional stereotype, "part of the stock in
trade of a story-teller dealing with the stories of
David 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 to
do so but the passages referred to give little support
for this /6/.
The first episode we have to consider is in 1 Sam.
26:6ff where David asks for a volunteer to go down with
him into Saul's camp and Abishai comes forward.
The
two men enter the camp and find Saul sleeping, whereupon Abishai proposes to kill him. But David rejects
this, stating that no one can lay hands upon "Yahweh's
anointed" without divine consequences. Instead they
merely remove the spear and water jar. Now this rebuke
by David can hardly be regarded here as a case of
personal tension. The whole scene is a variant of the
version in 1 Sam 24:5ff where David rejects the same
suggestion made by his men. In both cases David's men
or Abishai react to the circumstances naturally and

23

24

JSOT 1 (1976)

thereby provide foil for David's piety and humility to

show that he has done nothing to seize the throne.
The contrast with 2 Sam 19:21ff is very pronounced
It is Abishai who invokes the death penalty for one who
curses "Yahweh's anointed" - a statement which would
seem to hark back ironically to 1 Sam 26:6ff. But here
David puts down Abishai quite directly and personally
but with a motivation which is clearly political. It
was hardly a case of forgiveness as is clear from
1 Kgs 2:8f. The relationship between the Court History
and the earlier story of David's Rise is not that they
use 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 2
Sam 21:17 in which Abishai rescues David from one of
the giants of the Philistines and in which David's men
tell him he should not go to battle with them again
"lest you put out the lamp of Israel". In order to
use this as another example of tension between David
and the sons of Zeruiah Gunn must interpret the reference to the "men of David" as a surrogate for Abishai
but this is hardly legitimate. And after all it is an
expression of affection and concern for David and not
an instance of tension. It may also be noted that
ironically David, in the Court History, never goes down
to battle with his men. This contrasts with all the
traditions outside of the Court History.
The only other, episode of significance for Gunn's
point outside of the Court History is the story of the
census in 2 Sam 24. Here David sends Joab and the
commanders of the army to number the people. Joab, as
spokesman for the commanders, raises an objection but
David insists and Joab acquiesces and the order is
carried out. There is no suggestion in this account
of any personal animosity between David and Joab.
There is no subsequent rebuke of David by Joab after
the plague came and the story has no direct literary
connection with any other episode which fortify such a
tension.

Van Seters: Court History

So one must conclude that outside of the Court
History there Is no basis for any pattern or stereotype in which the "sons of Zeruiah" are in opposition
to David / 7 / . This tension is the creation of the
author of the Court History alone. His treatment of
the "sons of Zeruiah", Abishai and Joab, as powerful
military men who cannot be controlled is part of the
whole picture of David in this work. Outside of the
Court History Abishai and Asahel are included in the
list of David's warriors as members of the thirty
while Joab is given the status of commander-in-chief
Abishai and Joab are also given the patronymic, "son of
Zeruiah". However the author of the Court History made
Zeruiah 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 does
this is to make Joab and Amasa cousins and both of them
grandsons of Nahash, the former king of Ammon. On the
other hand there is no justification for Gunn's suggestion that the author of the Court History thought of
David and the "sons of Zeruiah" as related. This is a
correction made by the Chronicler in 1 Chron 2:13-17
who 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 made
an anomalous matronymic out of the patronymic "sons of
Zeruiah" for his own literary purposes.
Gunn's second example of traditional composition i
what he calls a "judgment-eliciting parable". The traditional element here is that of form not content as in
the previous case so the issue here is a form-critical
one. I do not wish to debate here the issue of parable
genres. What is at issue is the Sitz im Leben which
Gunn 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 the
genre derives from such an oral story-telling background. But Gunn overlooks an important distinction.
The folk-tale makes the parable the whole story with
the 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 the
woman of Tekoa, are only minor elements of a much

26

jsoT 1 (1976)

larger complex with consequences extending far beyond

the telling of the parable itself. One must speak here
of the genre's Sitz im der Literatur. The genre itself
may be folkloristic in character and origin as far as
its form is concerned but its use in the Court History
is 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-eliciting
parable" Gunn turns to an entirely different type of
comparison, that of the petition by the woman of Tekoa
in 2 Sam 14 and the intercession of David by Abigail
in 1 Sam 25. In this case it is not the "motif" of a
parable that is similar for there is none in 1 Sam 25,
but rather the phraseology used in describing the
approach 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 question
about the relationships of these two stories to each
other. It is curious that there are not other examples
if 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 other
hand the same kind of verbal similarity between the
Court History and the episode with Abigail can be seen
between 1 Sam 25:18 and 2 Sam 16:1. Gunn suggests that
in both cases it is a matter of using traditional patterning or stereotypes /8/ but I would explain the
similarity as evidence of direct literary dependence by
the author of the Court History upon the story of
David's Rise. Now this is an important issue of methodology. How much verbal similarity is necessary to prove
literary dependence?
If similar phraseology is found in
only these two sources and there is evidence on other
grounds of literary dependence by one source on the
other then I think it is highly likely that the similarity is a matter of direct borrowing and not just a use
of stereotype expression.
Another example of Gunn's motif-criticism is his
gathering together of a number of episodes under the
rubric "the woman who brings death". These would include such women in the Court History as Rizpah (2 Sam
3:6ff), Bathsheba, Tamar, and Abishag. These are then

Van Seters: Court History

compared with such stories as Judah's marriage to
Shua (whose first two children die) and the story of
Eve, the woman who brings death. Such a rubric is
very far-fetched when applied to the last two cases
and the stories are altogether different from those in
the Court History.
In the latter case a much more apt
description would be "death through the love of a
woman". Now this is such a common theme which pervades
literature of all kinds, times and places that to treat
it 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 so
frequently in the Court History but with perhaps only
one other example in the rest of 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 folkloristic 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.

27

28

JSOT

1 (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 that the high de
gree of similarity points to direct literary depend
ence and that the 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 En-rogel 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
be part of a David tradition prior to their use by the
author of the Court History. The constant reapplica
tion of folklore motifs by story-tellers and literary
artists to new persons, times and situations is so
well known that it 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 story-telling 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 if
we compare his work with the other narratives of the
Old Testament he still stands out, to my mind, as a
ery creative and quite untraditional writer.

Van Seters: Court History

1.

29

"Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition , iii Judges

and 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 Thronnachfolge
Davids, BWANT III/6 (1926), reprinted in Das
Kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965) pp.119253; G. von Rad, "The Beginnings of Historical
Writing in Ancient Israel", in The Problems of
the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd, 1965) pp. 166-204.
3. ."Oral Patterns or Literary Conventions in Biblical
Narrative", Semeia 5 (1976)
4.
VT26:214-229
5.
See my treatment of this theme in my chapter on
Israelite Historiography in Histories and Historians 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 then
even this criterion is defective. On this
literary question see my article above.
7.
Note that Gunn takes 2 Sam 2:8 - 4:12 as part of
the 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 the
woman without a search, but this is only clearly
stated in the case of Jos. 2:5-7.In 2 Sam 17:20,
the statement about searching is ambiguous and
could as easily refer to the house as well as the
route and more likely the former.
10. For a discussion of "blind motive" as a criterion
for literary dependence see J. Van Seters,
Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven and
London, Yale University Press, 1975), p. 163.
See the index for its application to the Abraham
stories.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an 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 as
otherwise 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.