7/28/2019 Narrative and Theology

1/6

NARRATIVE AND THEOLOGYAs a unified whole, the corpus of 1 and 2 Samuel figures significantly in the narrative

presentation of Israels memory and faith. This narrative complex, which encompasses Joshuathrough 2 Kings, is central in the canon as well as in the study of Israels history and theology.

Moreover, the received form of 1 and 2 Samuel reflects specific narrative concerns such as the

juxtaposition of human power and divine authority, and frames these with theologicalintentionality and literary ingenuity. Finally, a survey of the narrative elements of the booksbrings into focus how the literary form accomplishes the narrative intent.

A. Literary Context1. In the Canon

2. In Critical Scholarship

B. The Literature in its Full and Final Form

1. Historical Transformation2. Narrative Concerns

3. Frame of the Narrative

C. Survey of the Narrative ElementsD. Some Important Texts

C. Survey of the Narrative Elements

Wide scholarly consensus holds that the present books of Samuel have been formed by joiningtogether independent literary pieces which in and of themselves are important literary

achievements. Alter, who asks a very different set of questions than is usual among biblical

scholars, dissents from this view, . . . the evidence for a unified imaginative conception of thewhole David story seems to me persuasive (1981:119 n. 1). However, Alters view is against

the consensus, and in any case a unified imaginative conception does not necessarily preclude

earlier independent elements. On the whole, most scholarly analysis has been preoccupied with

efforts to identify and/or reconstruct those earlier pieces. The most that can be said withconfidence is that this literature, which now moves from poem (1 Sam 2:110) to poem (2 Sam

22:251), from the prayer of Hannah (1 Samuel 1) to the prayer of David (2 Samuel 24), is

formed as it stands by a long traditioning process working with extant materials. That longprocess is not completely visible to us, but with the aid of a rough scholarly consensus, we may

identify several narrative elements.

1. 1 Sam 1:14:1a. The early Samuel materials of 1 Sam 1:14:1a present the historicalproblem of Israel in crisis. These materials, drawn from a variety of sources, focus on the birth,

authorization, and establishment of Samuel as a key leader in premonarchic Israel. The centrality

of the Song of Hannah assures one that the narrative does not have an excessive interest in the

person or personality of Samuel. It is clear that the person of Samuel is early placed in theservice of the liberation of Israel from historical oppression. Thus Samuel is of interest as he is

included in the anticipation of Israels social well-being under the new organization of life

wrought by David.

2. 1 Sam 4:1b7:2. The second element of the text is 4:1 b7:2 (with a conjecturedcontinuation in 2 Samuel 6). This narrative reflects the situation of a vulnerable tribal

organization, though the narrative is stunningly silent on the leadership role of Samuel. The

n. note(s)

7/28/2019 Narrative and Theology

2/6

central subject here is the ark of the covenant which is taken as a rallying symbol of the tribal

confederation and as a mark of Gods powerful, effective presence. Scholars have concluded that

this narrative at one time circulated independently. In terms of the overall move from chaotictribal organization to an ordered monarchy, this narrative serves (congruent with Judges 1721)

to indicate that the old organization and the old modes of trust in Yahweh were not adequate for

the Philistine threat. Indeed, the books of Samuel make sense only if one recognizes that there isa social, political, and therefore theological issue about the adequacy of old forms of public life.The capture of the ark is not only a religious failure, but it also bespeaks an organizational and

institutional crisis which is present throughout this literature.

Miller and Roberts (1977) have seen that the Ark Narrative is shaped, not unlike the PlagueNarrative of Exodus 511, as a battle between the gods which culminates in the triumph of

Yahweh over rival gods and their images. Thus the debacle of the image of Dagon is a liturgic,

narrative assertion of the power of Yahweh. That is, the repeated retelling of this narrative

functioned in ancient Israel as a paradigmatic statement concerning the sovereignty of Yahwehvis--vis all other religious claims. The Ark Narrative (as this piece is named) no doubt is quite

distinct, but when it is juxtaposed with 1 Samuel 13, and particularly the Song of Hannah, the

combined narrative asserts the power of Yahweh to govern the history of Israel in irresistibleways. It is probable that the Ark Narrative, because of its ties to the tribal order, also attests to

the validity of leadership embodied in Samuel as the last of the judges. Samuel, however, is not

mentioned by name in the narrative, which means that enhancement of Samuels leadership here

is at best only by inference. The more important point is that Yahweh is the real governor of thehistorical process. The same point is made in the Succession Narrative (cf. 2 Sam 11:27; 12:24;

17:14) in a very different mode. Israel here sees its narrative history, an implementation of the

powerful themes of the Song of Hannah.

3. 1 Sam 7:315:35. The emergence of monarchy is the theme of 1 Sam 7:315:35, which is

particularly linked to the person of Saul. There is no doubt that this narrative is the result of an

intensive redactional process, but the exact features of this are impossible to determine. While

the story is cast around the disputed leadership of Samuel and the emergence of Saul, the realdebate does not concern personalities. Rather, it concerns the relationship between the faith of

the community and public forms of power and how the trust Israel has in Yahweh should be

implemented in institutional forms.The narrative discloses to us opinions which believe not only that monarchy is required to cope

with historical threats, but that monarchy is a gift from Yahweh to Israel for the securing of the

community. A counter opinion, more forcefully expressed, argues that monarchy is a departurefrom faith in Yahweh even as it is a departure from the old tribal organization. Both opinions are

expressed in this complicated narration of chaps. 715. It is a truism of scholarship that the

narrative contains two sources reflecting two strongly held political opinions which judge the

institution of monarchy positively and negatively. Scholarship moreover has held that the pro-kingship source is from the period itself, whereas the anti-kingship sources are later, reflecting

disillusionment with the tyranny of Solomon.

It seems more probable that the two opinions were in fact alive at the same time. The two

opinions reflect a genuine dispute and a genuine probe of a serious issue upon which thetheological answers were not yet clear. As Mendelsohn (1956) has shown, Israel could appeal to

models of tyrannical kingship very early in its existence. The debate was not an artificial or

simply pragmatic one. Instead, the issue turned (as it frequently does) on the concreteinstitutional form that is to be given to zealous faith.

7/28/2019 Narrative and Theology

3/6

The two voices in the text need to be assessed not only as serious theological offers, but also in

terms of sociopolitical reality. It is common to say that kingship arose in response to the external

threat of the Philistines. But Gottwald (1983) has suggested an alternative. As economicprosperity developed in Israel and some group(s) came to be affluent, Israelites in the community

developed an accumulation of wealth (surplus value) that needed to be defended and legitimated.

The institution of monarchy emerged, on this reading, to defend and maintain the social inequityin Israel. From the outset (on this reading), monarchy was sponsored by and in the interest of theaffluent, dominant class. As the monarchy defended such a disproportion, so monarchy was

accompanied within one generation by the temple which served to legitimate the economic

monopoly which might earlier have received a harsh critique, but now is given religioussanction. Thus the debate about kingship is not an isolated theological question about the will of

Yahweh, but the debate contains within it a covert discussion of social power, social theory,

social organization. It is a debate about egalitarianism and social inequity in institutionalized

forms. The yearning to be like the nations (1 Sam 8:5, 20) is a yearning to abandon the radicalegalitarian social vision of covenantal, tribal Israel (as portrayed in Joshua-Judges) and to

embrace the economics and politics of surplus that other cultures practiced and other religions

legitimated. The dispute thus is for the heart of Israel, but with a keen awareness that Israelsheart is not far distant from its treasure. (Notice the embodiment of this shift as it is portrayed in

Solomon, with reference to his heart from 1 Kings 3:9, 12 to 11:4.) As the narrative now presents

the monarchy issue, 1 Samuel 12 is a sober rejection of monarchy by a voice not disinterested,

and 1 Sam 13:815 and 15:135 are strongly critical voices against monarchy. The precise intentof these latter narratives, however, is unclear. It appears in 13:14; 15:10, 35 that what is rejected

is not the institution and principle of monarchy, but only Saul as the appointee.

Gunn (1978) and Humphreys (1978) have shown that the Saul narrative is a portrayal oftragedy, marked by ambiguity, darkness, and fate. It may be that the tragic character of Saul in

this narrative is a portrayal from the perspective of Davidic interests. That is, Sauls fate is the

counter-theme of Davids success and so the Saul portrayal is not disinterested. But it is also

plausible, as Gunn and Humphreys suggest, that taken on its own terms and without reference toDavid, the great artistic achievement of the narrative is to see and articulate that Sauls public

life was indeed a tragedy, the end of which is not found in sin and judgment, but in a hidden,

irrevocable destiny that is beyond understanding. What is offered then, is not an imposedphilosophy of history, but simply a discerning study of how the historical process has worked in

this one case. It is indeed true that the sword devours one and now another (2 Sam 11:25). Saul is

indeed devoured by the historical process in an inexplicable, inscrutable way.The analyses of Humphreys and Gunn, contrasted, e.g., with those of Birch (1976) and

Campbell (1975), reflect an important shift in scholarly perspective away from technical to

artistic sensitivity. The newer scholarship is not so much interested in source analysis and

dissection of the material, as it is in an attempt to grasp the artistic construction that is offeredwhen the narrative is taken as a whole. When so viewed, Saul is the character in the drama who

is sacrificed around the inescapable public question of faith and power. The narrative does not

linger over Saul, but recognizes that the issue of faith and power is on its way to a new resolution

at the severe cost of Sauls person, reputation, and destiny.

4. 1 Sam 162 Sam 5:10. The central character of the books of Samuel does not appear until

1 Sam 16:1. It is as though the literature has withheld this character as long as possible, in an

e.g. exempli gratia (for example)

7/28/2019 Narrative and Theology

4/6

intentional attempt to enhance the drama. It is generally held that with the appearance of David

in 1 Sam 16:113, we have a new piece of literature, referred to as The Narrative of the Rise of

David, which extends through 2 Sam 5:10 (though Gunn [1978] divides the materialdifferently).

This material is marked by (1) a narrative quality that allows for playfulness and a kind of

navet which likely is quite artistically crafted, (2) intense redactional activity so that there issome evidence of traditions which are often repetitious and occasionally contradictory, and (3)an intense fascination with David that is celebrative and uncritical. The combination of narrative

mode and the celebrative presentation of David suggests that this material is free from (and

perhaps prior to) the disputes concerning monarchy. This material presents the emergence of theinstitution of monarchy under David as an unmitigated good.

The narrative moves from an idyllic picture of the shepherd boy (1 Sam 16:113) to the

establishment of the shepherd (king) over Israel (2 Sam 5:3). The central subject of the narrative

is the conflict between Saul and David, which of course comes to an end in 1 Samuel 31 with thedeath of Saul. (It is clear from 2 Sam 9:3 that David and the literature continue to be haunted by

the Saul legacy and cannot put its reality and danger to rest.) The break in the narrative between

1 and 2 Samuel is organized around Sauls death and is marked by the exquisite poem of lamentin 2 Sam 1:1927.

Jobling (1978:425) and Humphreys (1978; 1980) have shown that notwithstanding all the

redactional activity and the fact that old narratives have been secondarily employed, there is

indeed an intentional literary design to the construction of the whole. The story line concerns theunhindered advance of David and the corresponding demise of Saul. The intent of the story line

and the artistic skill of literary design are matched by the theological intentionality of the story,

for it is clear that Davids heroic buoyancy is held in close relation to the purposes of Yahweh.This theological affirmation of David is evident in the initial transitional episode of 1 Sam 16:1

13 and is reaffirmed in the concluding formula of 2 Sam 5:10: And David became greater and

greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him. The formula perhaps appeals to the old

slogans of holy war (I am with you,) and is the basis of the claim of Immanuel (God withus,), a programmatic claim of the Davidic dynasty (see also 1 Sam 25:28). The narrative is able

to discern and articulate in a seemingly unreflective mode the powerful and resilient purpose of

Yahweh, so that the very shape of the narrative makes the assertion of Gods will for thisdynasty. As the narrative presents it, the person of David overrides the misgivings and disputes

of 1 Samuel 715. Those issues simply are not present to a Davidic purview of reality.

5. 2 Sam 5:118:18. The materials in 2 Sam 5:118:18 clearly reflect a very differentliterary tone, a different set of sociological presuppositions, and a different theological

sensitivity. This literature may indeed be a miscellaneous collection of materials lodged between

the two great narratives of The Rise (1 Sam 16:12 Sam 5:10) and The Succession (2

Samuel 920). Within this section there is surely a different mode of literature, largely lackingthe free narrative style of The Rise and being much more preoccupied with technical data

concerning lists of officers, indices of victories and logs of battles. The material also contains a

narrative about the ark (2 Samuel 6) which has been reckoned to be a continuation of 1 Sam 4:1

7:1. Finally, there is the formidable oracle of legitimacy in 2 Samuel 7, which has no parallelelsewhere in this literature.

The entire unit breathes the air of an established, legitimated royal apparatus, having the tone

of ideology, propaganda, and justification for the state. In that regard it is clear that the uncriticalenthusiasm and amazement of the tale of The Rise have been displaced and overcome by a

7/28/2019 Narrative and Theology

5/6

self-assured and seemingly self-serving order. What had been amazing in prospect is self-serving

in reality. As the social reality changes, so the literary form changes with it.

The in between chapters are conventionally regarded as miscellaneous. However, Flanagan(WLSGF, 36172) has shrewdly observed that there is a possible three-tiered structure of older

materials:

Transfer of Ark Dynastic Oracle(6:120) (7:129)

Philistine War Battles of the Empire

(5:1725) (8:114)

Children of David Officers of David

(5:1316) (8:1518)

Such an analysis not only suggests a quite intentional arrangement, but Flanagan proposes that

the order of materials in this way makes a statement of social and theological transition fromtribe to state, from Saul to David, indicating that the social, political, economic, and religious

center of Israels world had shifted (WLSGF, 369). That shift was the work of David, but the

text is uncompromising in its conclusion that the work wrought by David is in fact the work of

Yahweh, who wills the change in Israels life. Such a juxtaposition of David and Yahweh cannotfail to legitimate the entire enterprise.

6. 2 Samuel 910. In 2 Samuel 920 (1 Kings 12), we consider the second major

collection, which stands architecturally over against the long narrative of The Rise. Thisnarrative has been designated by scholarship as The Succession Narrative because it seems to

concern the crisis of identifying the successor to David on the throne (1 Kgs 1:20). But that

designation is at most a scholarly convention. Given the complex nature of the book, a simplestructural design of the Samuel material is not feasible. However, 1 Sam 16:12 Sam 5:10 can be

viewed as the Rise to power (ascent), 2 Sam 5:118:18 the Establishment of power

(plateau), and 2 Samuel 89 the Succession of power (descent). These three literary blocks

concerning David are cast in very different modes, make very different theological assertions,

and reflect very different sociological realities and experiences.The Succession Narrative is divided into five episodes: 2 Samuel 910, 1112, 1314, 1519

(20), and 1 Kings 12. Scholars have recognized that this is a distinctive mode of literature notmet elsewhere in Samuel, rarely elsewhere in the OT or in the ANE. It is a self-conscious

literature that focuses upon human agents as history-makers and presents God in subdued and

indirect ways. This theological perspective, which reflects a new historical self-consciousness, is

matched by a literary style especially marked by its artistic style and sensitivity. Variousanalyses by Gunn (1978), Conroy (1978), Alter (1981), Ridout (1971), and Fokkelman (1981)

have illuminated the artistry of the unit.

It is generally recognized that 2 Samuel 1112 is the key element in the narrative. In this

episode David breaks the Torah, violates Uriah and Bathsheba, and is denounced by Nathan the

WLSGF The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman, eds.

C. L. Meyers and M. OConnor. Winona Lake, IN, 1983

OT Old Testament

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

7/28/2019 Narrative and Theology

6/6

prophet. Although David repents and is rescued from death, the dynasty of David is placed

perpetually under the threat of the sword (2 Sam 12:10). With consummate skill, this vague

threat works its way through the narrative, until in the concluding episode, Solomon assumes hisfathers throne through the use of the sword, which works havoc. Note the repeated use of Heb

pga, strike down (1 Kgs 2:29, 31, 34, 46; cf. v 9). Thus, it seems plausible that the governing

episode of 2 Samuel 1112 and the concluding events of 1 Kings 12 are held together by thiscommon reference to the sword.What emerges is a very different disclosure of David, a personal account of the interiority,

ambiguity, and pathos of the man that is absent in the early narrative sections. This narrative

characterizes the struggle of David to hold together personal reality and public office. Gunn hasseen how this portrayal of David, without any didactic effort, functions as a mirror and

disclosure of the same brokenness that is present in all of human life.

The narrative celebrates and focuses on David in a most remarkable way, as von Rad (PHOE,

176204) has noted. Nonetheless, even here the narrative shows clearly that David is not anindependent, free agent. Even Davids life is encompassed in the rule of Yahweh, who is both

faithful and demanding.

7. 2 Samuel 21

24. Finally, 2 Samuel 2124 is commonly reckoned as a miscellaneouscollection of old materials inserted in the Succession Narrative before the concluding episode of

1 Kings 12. This material is much more like the narrative style of The Rise, but we cannot

assign it to any particular corpus of material. Two comments must suffice. First, it is generally

recognized that these chapters of miscellaneous notes have a structure of two narratives, twolists, and two poems, a sequence in parallel to what Flanagan has found in 2 Sam 5:118:18

(McCarter2 SamuelAB, 18). One may at least conclude that this unit is not without some

intentionality.Second, as suggested above, that these materials may function for canonical purposes so that

the concluding episode of 2 Samuel 24 may be a counterpart of 1 Samuel 1, even as 2 Samuel 22

is a poem in relation to the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2. These appendices evidence a much

less sophisticated reading of historical reality. They affirm in more direct fashion that Yahwehsgovernance is overriding, even of Davids capacity. The whole of Samuel in the service of David

is to legitimate and enhance the monarchy. Yet it is noteworthy that in 2 Samuel 24 as in 2

Samuel 1122, the narrative articulates a theological Yahwistic foil to rapacious royal power.Moreover, David as a king is not free from Yahweh and Yahwehs Torah. Thus the ambiguity so

painfully articulated in 1 Samuel 715 persists here. In the end even the chosen and much-

celebrated David stands rebuked and under judgment. The narrative seems not to know how (orchooses not) to resolve this issue, but calls the reader to participate in this ambiguity which

characterizes Israels relation with Yahweh.

Heb Hebrew; Epistle to the Hebrews

PHOEG. von Rad. 1966. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Trans. E. Dicken.

Edinburgh and New York