David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story

349 Pages·2008·1.31 MB·English

by  Paul Borgman

David, Saul, and God
This page intentionally left blank
David, Saul, and God
Rediscovering an Ancient Story
paul borgman
1
2008
3
OxfordUniversityPress,Inc.,publishesworksthatfurther
OxfordUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellence
inresearch,scholarship,andeducation.
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright#2008by OxfordUniversity Press,Inc.
PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,Inc.
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NewYork10016
www.oup.com
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,
withoutthepriorpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Borgman,Paul,1940–
David,Saul,andGod:rediscoveringanancientstory/PaulBorgman.
p. cm.
ISBN978-0-19-533160-8
1. Bible.O.T.Samuel,1st—Criticism,interpretation,etc. 2. David,KingofIsrael.
3. Saul,KingofIsrael. I. Title.
BS1325.52.B672008
222.'406–dc22 2007030219
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
onacid-freepaper
Acknowledgments
To biblical scholarsEverett Fox, TremperLongman, andTerence
Fretheim Iam indebtedfor their careful scrutiny as the manuscript
wasbeingwritten.Theirobservationsandencouragement,combined
withoccasional dialogue, helped me hone much of what value this
exploration ofDavid’s story may have for you.
MyfearisthatIamsuretohaveforgottensomeoftheverybright
students who, over long years, have assistedme in insightsthat
haveemergedfromourstudyofboththebiblicalandscholarlytexts.
Fromwayback,therewereCarrieVanBruntandthenPetraBelkovic,
each of whom paid specialand very wise attention to matterssub-
stantiveand stylistic.Jessica Swibleand Lauren Moreau provided
excellentlast-minuteassistance.AndespeciallyIwanttothankMegan
Good for her tireless andsplendidhelp in all ways: I can’t quite
imagine what those recent three yearswould have been like in her
absence.
Gordon College has been magnanimous in providing generous
writingtime for the pastseveral years, and I thank them—in parti-
cular,our provost, Mark Sargent.
And finally I think of all those in the past decades who have
been absorbed in the study of Samuel and the David story,those
whose work informed,while providing me such alively and good
springboard formy own narrativeanalysis.
This page intentionally left blank
Preface
Rediscoverthestory of David? Surely the narrative in Samuel and 1
Kings1–2 has been understood well enough, especially given the
prodigious activity within the field of biblical studies over the past
two centuries. Thetruth, however,is thatthe story of David has
suffered from whatHans Freihas called ‘‘the eclipseof biblical
narrative’’—the overlooking ofbiblical texts as whole andcoherent
dramas.Withrareexception,whathasbeenlostiswhatFreithinksof
as essential inunderstanding any narrativecreation, namely, an op-
erating assumptionthat ‘‘meaning and narrativeshape bear signifi-
cantlyon each other.’’1 To rediscover David’s story is toretrieve
meaning that would have emerged,for the ancient audience, from
the narrative shape ofa story informedin large measure by tech-
niquesofrepetition appropriate to an oral age ofstorytelling. They
heard the story.To gainaccess to this story, as readers, we will pay
specialattention to the broadpatterns of repetition from which
emerge the meaning ofcharacters,action,andimplicit moralvision.
Along the way, by way of footnotes, we will be carrying on a
conversation with other readers representing various disciplines of
inquiry.
The David story took final shape from within an oral culture
whose techniques of repetition demanded from the audience acir-
cling backward—a tracking ofkey echoes—as the plotunfolds. Re-
discoveryofthisarguablygreatestofallancientstories,then,involves
arecognitionofanarrativeshapepeculiartoitsstorytelling manner.
viii preface
Moshe Garsiel and Herbert H. Klement are among the few who have
understoodthenarrativeshapingthatyieldsmeaningforDavid’sstory.Robert
Alter2andMeirSternberg3offerexamplesofvarioustechniquesofrepetition,
butwithoutapplyingthesetothebroadcontoursofanygivenbook-lengthstory
as a whole and unified drama; J. P. Fokkelman’s four-volume study of the
David story is a fastidious guide to such patterns of repetition, but on a mi-
crostructurallevel.4Garsiel’stitlesuggeststhepointaboutbroadpatterns:The
First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and
Parallels.5 Herbert Klement offers in the context of patterns within the whole
storyafineanalysisofthestory’sconcludingchiasm,demonstratingnicelythe
way major patterns interact with each other, weaving together key aspects of
the entire story.6 My exploration traces twelve interlocking patterns. Pattern
guidesappear at the end of the appropriate chapters.
‘‘The architectural cohesion of the narrative from the birth of Samuel to
thedeathofDavid,’’RobertAltersuggests,‘‘hasbeenmadeincreasinglyclear
by the innovativeliterary commentary ofthe past twodecades.’’7Referring to
comments by Alter about the unity and coherence of David’s story, Walter
Brueggemannopinesthat‘‘Altermaybecorrectonthispoint,buthehasonly
assertedthematterandhasnotgivenitanycarefulanalysis.’’8Thisstudywill
demonstrate the aptness of Alter’s assessment of the David story, while
helping toanswerBrueggemann’schallenge.
This reading of an ancient masterpiece is based on terms established by
thetextitself:aplotworkinginconcertwithinterlockingpatternsofrepetition,
common to the ancient storyteller. Such storytelling technique keeps the au-
diencecirclingbackwardwhilemovingforward,attentivetohearing-cluesthat
cohere and yield meaning.
We will be exploring a story, beginning with Saul, that exhibits not only
‘‘architectur[al] cohesion’’ but a haunting power to engage its audience, a
compelling quality unparalleled in ancient literature.