Run, David, Run! An Application of Speech Act Theory in A Literary Analysis of David's Departure (2 Sam 15-1-17-24)

Center for Advanced Theological Studies
School of Theology
Fuller Theological Seminary
RUN, DAVID, RUN!

AN APPLICATION OF SPEECH ACT THEORY
IN A LITERARY ANALYSIS OF DAVID'S DEPARTURE (2 SAM 15:1-17:24)
A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the

School of Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
written by
Steven Thatcher Mann
April, 2011
UMI Number: 3472248
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT
Dissertation Publishing
UMI 3472248
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2011
by Steven Thatcher Mann
CONTENTS
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION OF TOPIC AND METHOD 1
A Focus upon 2 Sam 15:1-17:24

Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation
Thesis and Overview of Study
2. AN OVERVIEW OF PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUNCTION OF

2 SAM 15:1-17:24 13
To Record Historical Events

To Answer the Question of the Succession to David's Throne
To Serve a Political Agenda
To Provide a Work of Art
To Portray David
To Teach
In Search of a Function of David's Departure (2 Sam 15:1-17:24)
A Proposal: To Portray David's Faith in Yhwh
3. SPEECH ACT THEORY AND DAVID'S DEPARTURE 45
Speech Act Theory

The Application of SAT to Narrative Discourse
An Application of SAT to the Story of David's Departure
4. ABSALOM'S PLOT AS INTRODUCTION TO DAVID'S

DEPARTURE: SCENES ONE THROUGH THREE 91
Scene One (15:1-6)

Scene Two (15:7-12)
Scene Three (15:13-22)
5. OUTSIDE JERUSALEM: SCENES FOUR THROUGH SEVEN .. 122
Scene Four (15:23-29)

Scene Five (15:30-37)
Scene Six (16:14)
Scene Seven (16:5-15)
6. THE SHOWDOWN OF COUNSELORS IN JERUSALEM:

SCENES EIGHT THROUGH TEN 166
Scene Eight (16:16-23)

Scene Nine (17:1-14)
Scene Ten (17:15-24)
7. RESULTS: DAVID'S DEPARTURE AS ILLOCUTIONARY

AND PERLOCUTIONARY ACTS 199
David's Departure as an Illocutionary Act

David's Departure as a Perlocutionary Act of Encouragement
Conclusion
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 211
ABSTRACT 237
4
CHAPTER 1
Introduction of Topic and Method
Some stories deserve to be retold. The focus of this dissertation is one such story, the
narrative of David's departure from Jerusalem as it is contained in 2 Samuel 15:1-17:24.
The method for this analysis is a literary application of the philosophy of language known
as speech act theory.
The following introduction of this topic consists of three sections. The first
section will discuss the textual parameters that have been chosen as the focus of this
study. The second section will discuss some of the ways that speech act theory has
already been applied to biblical passages and will introduce how the theory will be
applied in the present study. The third section will present the thesis of this dissertation
and provide an overview of the chapters that follow.
A Focus upon 2 Sam 15:1-17:24
The textual parameters that have been chosen for this study begin at 2 Sam 15:1 and end
at 2 Sam 17:24. The narrative contained within these limits tells the story of David's
departure from Jerusalem at the time of the revolt that was led by David's son Absalom.
This passage constitutes the first of two parts of a larger passage found in 2 Sam 15-19
that might appropriately be called "David's departure and return." While 2 Sam 15-19
has traditionally been labeled in regards to Absalom (hence such titles as "Absalom's
Revolt" or "Absalom's Rebellion"), it is important to note that David and not Absalom is
the main character of 2 Sam 15-19 and with it 2 Sam 15:1-17:24.

1
While an explanation of textual parameters is relevant for any synchronic literary
analysis, this issue is particularly important for the present study. In fact, scholarly
discussion of 2 Sam 15-19 has been greatly influenced by the topic of textual
delimitation. The prevailing viewpoint during much of the twentieth century has involved
the existence of a hypothetical source commonly called the Succession Narrative (SN).
This idea was promulgated by Leonhard Rost in his highly influential Die Uberlieferung
von der Thronnachfolge Davids} For Rost, the story of Absalom's rebellion was to be
interpreted only within the larger context of the SN, within which he included 2 Sam
6:16, 20ff; 7:1 lb, 16; 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2. While the discussion of the SN has included
numerous adjustments to Rost's textual delimitation, the designation of 2 Sam 9-20 and
1 Kgs 1-2 has been widely accepted. With such parameters, the story of David's
departure and return becomes essentially a story about Solomon, i.e., to explain why it
was Solomon instead of Absalom who succeeded David.
Few studies have chosen to focus upon the story of David's departure and return
on its own. One notable exception is Caspari, who before Rost's study had claimed, "We
are now justified in examining chs. 15-20 as a whole and interpreting it in its own
right."3 However, since Rost's analysis the prevailing idea has been that the story of
1
Leonard Rost, Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1926).
2
E.g., Steven McKenzie has recently suggested that if a succession source were to exist (a
possibility he finds unlikely) then its parameters for the purpose of analysis should be 2 Samuel 2:8-4:12;
9; 10-12; 13-20; 21:1-14; and 1 Kings 1-2. Steven L. McKenzie, "The So-Called Succession Narrative in
the Deuteronomistic History," in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids (eds. Albert de Pury and
Tomas R6mer; OBO 176; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag, 2000), 123-35 (125).
3
Wilhelm Caspari and David E. Orton, "The Literary Type and Historical Value of 2 Samuel 15 -
20", in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars, 1906-1923
(trans. David E. Orton; ed. David M Gunn; JSOTSup 116; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991): 59-88.
2
Absalom's rebellion must be interpreted only as a part of a larger passage. This has been
assumed even by interpreters who disagree with Rost's designation of the theme of the
SN. For instance, Van Seters has opposed the assumption that the SN, which he calls the
Court History (CH), should be viewed as a source used by Dtr for the Deuteronomistic
History.4 Van Seters insists that the CH is actually an addition to DtrH that attempts to
discredit rather than to affirm the monarchy.5 Nevertheless, Van Seters claims that "on
matters of unity and style I have little argument with Rost's treatment."6
In recent decades, some interpreters have resisted the long-accepted textual
parameters of 2 Sam 9-20 with 1 Kgs 1-2 and have suggested different textual limits.
Conroy claims, "The current state of research no longer justifies an automatic and
uncritical acceptance of 2 Sam 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2 as a fully rounded literary unity with a
4
Martin Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: die sammelnden und bearbeiten
Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (2d ed.; Tubingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957). For an overview of views on
the Deuteronomistic History, see Thomas Romer and Albert de Pury, "Deuteronomistic Historiography
(DH): History of Research and Debated Ideas," in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic
Historiography in Recent Research (eds. Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi;
JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 24-41; Knauf Ernst Axel, "Does
'Deuteronomistic Historiography' (DtrH) Exist?" in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic
Historiography in Recent Research (eds. Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi;
JSOTSup 306; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 388-90; Otto Kaiser, "Das Verhaltnis der
Erzahlung vom Konig David zum sogenannten Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk," in Die sogenannte
Thronfolgegeschichte Davids (eds. Albert de Pury and Tomas Romer; OBO 176; Freiburg, Schweiz:
Universitatsverlag, 2000), 94-122; Richard Coggins, "What Does 'Deuteronomistic' Mean?" in Words
Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer (eds. Jon Davies, Graham Harvey
and Wilfred G.E. Watson; JSOTSup; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 135^8.
John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of
Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983; repr., Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997),
289.
6
Ibid.
3
7 R
clearly defined theme." Conroy focuses his study on 2 Sam 13-20. More recently,
Campbell has noted that for 2 Sam 11-20, the designations SN and CH do not fit.
Campbell calls the theme of succession for these chapters "unfortunate" and points out
that most of the action takes place outside of the court.9 He suggests that studies of 2 Sam
11-20 should investigate these chapters as holding, in general, stories of David's middle
years."10 Among the stories of these middle years, 2 Sam 15-19 is one passage that
displays a remarkable unity. For example, Campbell has noticed the appearance of the
word HUH twenty-two times in these five chapters but not once in chapters 11-14 and
chapter 20. n
The choice of the present study to investigate the first part of 2 Sam 15-19, i.e., 2
Sam 15:1-17:24, is due in part to a limitation of space but also in recognition that such
shorter limits may be considered a responsible textual demarcation. Unlike Caspari, the
present study does not assume that the story of David's departure and return is an
independent source and acknowledges that this story is woven into the larger narrative
contained in the book(s) of Samuel. The purpose is to determine in a responsible way a
textual unit for analysis. Conroy, citing Aristotle, has suggested that literary studies
Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20 (AnBib 81; Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 3.
8
It should be noted that within his study of 2 Sam 13-20, Conroy presents a close reading only of
2 Sam 13:1-22 and 2 Sam 17:24-19:9.
9
Antony F. Campbell, 2 Samuel (FOTL 8; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 100.
10
Ibid., 97.
11
Ibid., 139.
4
require the basic narrative unity of a beginning, middle, and end. Such qualities can be
seen within 2 Sam 15:1-17:24, especially in regard to the character Ahithophel. The
beginning of the story involves the introduction of Ahithophel as the final piece of
Absalom's plan for his rebellion (2 Sam 15:1-22, esp. v. 12). The middle of the story
includes the event of David praying that Yhwh would frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel
(2 Sam 15:23-16:14, esp. 15:31), as well as the contest between Ahithophel and Hushai
(2 Sam 17:1-14). This part of the story concludes with Ahithophel's suicide and the
effects of his failure (2 Sam 17:15-24, esp. v. 23). With Ahithophel gone, the story
ceases to be one of David's departure and becomes one about David's return.
One contribution of the present study may simply be the choice to investigate this
part of the narrative without first insisting upon an interpretation that is based upon a
broader selection of chapters. After reaching an interpretation of this passage, an
application of the results of the present study to larger textual parameters is encouraged.
Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation
Speech act theory (SAT) is a philosophy of language that is based upon the recognition
that words can be used to accomplish a variety of tasks that extend beyond the function of
describing reality. Words can affect reality (see chapter three).
The application of SAT to the study of biblical texts has been viewed in the last
few decades to hold great promise for biblical interpretation. For example, a 1988
12
Conroy references chapters 7 and 23 of Aristotle, Art of Poetry. Conroy, Absalom, 6.
13
E.g., Hugh White, "The Value of Speech Act Theory for Old Testament Hermeneutics" Semeia
41 (1988): 41-63; Nicholas Wolterstorff, "The Promise of Speech-act Theory for Biblical Interpretation,"
in After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation (The Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 2; Grand
5
volume of Semeia is devoted entirely toward this end. Anthony Thiselton has commented
that this volume is like "an orchestra tuning up for a concert which was never played."1
Today, it is evident that the tuning of SAT for a performance of biblical interpretation has
continued, but with several noticeable melodies now discernable above the noise. For
instance, Evans has investigated the self-involving nature of creation language in
Genesis, while Neufeld and Briggs have explored a similar hermeneutic of self-
involvement in specific kinds of speech acts such as confessing, forgiving, teaching, and
exhorting.15 Recently, Jim Adams has applied SAT to gain insight into the performative
nature of Isa 40-55 and the way it "elicits the self-involvement of the hearer/reader."16
SAT has been utilized for its value in studies of exegesis as well as theology. The
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 73-90; Eloise Rosenblatt, "Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical
Interpretation," TS 65 (2004): 179-81; Brevard Springs Childs, "Speech-act Theory and Biblical
Interpretation," SIT 58 (2005): 375-92. J. Eugene Botha, "Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation,"
Neotestamentica 41 (2007): 274-94; For a general overview of how SAT has been applied to the Bible, see
Richard Briggs, Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation (New York: T&T Clark,
2001), 3-102. For a more succinct overview, see Briggs, "Speech Act Theory," DTIB: 763-66.
14
Anthony C. Thiselton, "Speech-Act Theory and the Claim that God Speaks: Nicholas
Wolterstorff s Divine Discourse," SJT 50 (1997): 97-110.
15
Briggs, Words in Action; Dietmar Neufeld, Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of
John (Biblnt 7; Leiden: Brill, 1994).
Jim Adams, The Performative Nature and Functions of Isaiah 4 -55 (Library of Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament Studies 448; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 16.
17
E.g., Daniel Parte, "Speech Act Theory and Biblical Exegesis," Semeia 41 (1988): 85-102;
Richard A. Young, "A Classification of Conditional Sentences Based on Speech Act Theory," GTJ10
(1989): 29-49; J. Eugene Botha, "The Potential of Speech Act Theory for New Testament Exegesis: Some
Basic Concepts," HTS 47 (1991): 277-93; idem, "Speech Act Theory and New Testament Exegesis," HTS
47 (1991): 294-303).
18
E.g., Michael Goldberg, Theology and Narrative: A Critical Introduction (Nashville: Abingdon,
1982); James William McClendon and James M. Smith, Convictions: Defusing Religious Relativism (Rev.
ed.; Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994), esp. 46-79; Anthony Thiselton, "Christology in
Luke, Speech Act Theory, and the Problem of Dualism in Christology after Kant," in Jesus of Nazareth
(eds. Joel B. Green and Max Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994): 453-72; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, "From
6
theory has been used alongside other methods, such as feminist criticism. Wolterstorff
has more broadly explored ways that Scripture may be viewed as a way that God
speaks.20 Following Thiselton's metaphor of an orchestra, it is evident that musicians
have continued to test how this instrument may be used to perform the many parts and
voicings within this score.
Of special interest for the present study are ways that SAT has been applied to
biblical narrative, an area that has mostly involved studies of the New Testament.21 For
example, Thiselton has explored ways that the parables of Jesus invite their hearers into a
world in which they become transformed,22 while Stiver, Botha, and Upton have also
used SAT to explore other aspects of the Gospels. Of these, the most similar to the
present study is Botha's analysis of John A:\-M, which involves an investigation of the
Speech Acts to Scripture Acts: The Covenant of Discourse and the Discourse of the Covenant," in After
Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation (The Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 2; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001): 1^9.
19
Susan Lanser, "(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden: Inferring Genesis 2-3," Semeia 41 (1988):
67-84.
20
Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God
Speaks (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
21
Notable exceptions to the dominance of NT studies in utilizing SAT upon narrative include
Bodner's brief adoption of the parlance of SAT in discussing the speech of Ahithophel in 2 Sam 17:1-4,
and the present writer's recent article applying SAT to 2 Sam 15:23-16:14. Keith Bodner, David Observed:
a King in the Eyes of his Court (Hebrew Bible Monographs 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005),
132; Steven Mann, '"You're Fired': An Application of Speech Act Theory to 2 Samuel 15.23 - 16.14,"
JSOT 33 (2009): 315-34.
22
Thiselton, Anthony C. "Parables as Language-event: Some Comments on Fuchs's Hermeneutics
in the Light of Linguistic Philosophy." SJT23 (1970): 437-68.
23
Dan R. Stiver, "Ricoeur, Speech-act Theory, and the Gospels as History," in After Pentecost:
Language and Biblical Interpretation (The Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 2; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2001): 50-72; J. Eugene Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading of John 4:1-42
(NovTSup 65; Leiden: Brill, 1991); Bridget Gilfillan Upton, Hearing Mark's Ending: Listening to Ancient
Popular Texts through Speech Act Theory (Biblnt 79; Leiden: Brill, 2006).
7
function of the individual speech acts of the narrative on the level of the characters and
on the level of the author/reader.24
The present study seeks to apply SAT in ways that utilize an aspect of the theory
that has yet to be played to its potential in biblical interpretation, namely, its ability to
analyze everyday speech acts found in narrative. While SAT has been used to investigate
specialized types of performative speech acts found within Scripture (e.g., such speech
acts as forgiving, confessing, and teaching), the potential remains for understanding
speech acts that may at first appear to be a bit more pedestrian. As a philosophy of
language, SAT has been particularly helpful in understanding the function of everyday
speech acts that appear in normal conversations. This study will seek to apply SAT in
ways that contribute to the interpretation of 2 Sam 15:1-17:24, a biblical narrative in
which speech dominates the action. What is more, this study attempts to elucidate the
distinction between the illocutionary act and perlocutionary act, which has often been
blurred in biblical studies.
It should be noted that the present application of SAT holds a potential to be
employed upon literary studies of biblical and non-biblical narrative alike. This should
not be considered an indication that the present interpreter sees no difference between the
two types of narrative. In fact, this particular narrative has been chosen for study due to
E.g., Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 118-19.

25
Stanley Fish has commented that speech act theory is useful for understanding narratives which
are 'about' speech acts such as the Shakespearean play Coriolanus. Noted by White, "Introduction," 54.
8
the fact that it is here viewed to be worthy of further investigation. The manner in
which some stories are considered to be more significant than other stories by certain
communities is well attested in biblical studies, especially canonical criticism.27
Nevertheless, the interpretation presented herein does not require a shared view of the
significance of this passage.
While chapter three will explain in detail how this theory will be applied to 2 Sam
15:1-17:24, it is helpful at the outset of this study to present three categories of speech
acts. First, a "locutionary act" is an act o/saying something. Second, an "illocutionary
act" is an act that is accomplished in saying something. Third, a "perlocutionary act" is a
result that is achieved by saying something. The focus of this dissertation involves ways
that SAT illuminates the story of David's departure as both an illocutionary act and
perlocutionary act.
Thesis and Overview of Study
The thesis of this dissertation is that speech act theory illuminates several ways in which
the story of David's departure, as told in 2 Sam 15:1-17:24, holds the distinct function of
emphasizing a particular aspect of David's faith. David is projected as someone who
believes that Yhwh can be expected to bring good even by the means of bringing distress.
This illocutionary act of portraying David's faith may also serve as a perlocutionary act
26
John Goldingay has offered what is here viewed to be a helpful model for biblical narrative as
well as Scripture as a whole, that of a "witnessing tradition." John Goldingay, Models for Scripture (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).
E.g., James A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (GBS;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984).
9
of encouragement when told to an audience that utilizes a hermeneutic of self-
involvement. Of course, the idea that a biblical narrative does something beyond
describing an event but rather serves to portray Yhwh is certainly not unique to SAT.28
Similarly, the idea that Scripture attempts to encourage its readers has long been
recognized. Nevertheless, the theological aspect of 2 Sam 15:1-17:24 has not often been
considered to be such a crucial feature of the telling of this narrative (see chapter two).
The literary nature of the object for this study means that SAT will enter into
several ongoing conversations about narrative in general and biblical narrative in
particular. The fact that this story is a written narrative suggests the value of
incorporating other literary methods such as narratology. That this narrative is written
in biblical Hebrew indicates the need for exegesis. What is more, the position of this
narrative in 2 Samuel, a book known for its textual challenges, points to the value of
in
employing aspects of textual criticism.
E.g., Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).
29
Two studies on narratology that have been most helpful for the present investigation are as
follows: Mieke Bal, Narratology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985); Meir Sternberg, The
Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Indiana Literary Biblical Series; Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1985).
30
The aim of textual criticism differs among interpreters. Some utilize this method in search of the
Vorlage, or original wording, whenever there are differences between various witnesses to a text. E.g., P.
Kyle McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (GBS; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1986), 12. Other interpreters are skeptical of determining the illusive Vorlage and allow for
the possibility of multivalency. Such interpreters often seek a responsible reading without making a claim
for a single reading as the so-called original. E.g., Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d
ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 171. The present study attempts to determine responsible (but not
necessarily original) readings of the text of 2 Sam 15:1-17:24.
10
In particular, this study finds itself to be in harmony with certain aspects of the
study of hermeneutics, especially as presented by Anthony Thiselton.31 Thiselton has
drawn upon Heidegger's (later) thought on language concerning the role of a person as
listener rather than spectator,32 and upon Gadamer's concept of horizons.33 In discussing
how biblical texts can transform readers, Thiselton states:
Every reader brings a horizon of expectations to the text. This is a mind-

set, or system of references, which characterizes the reader's finite
viewpoint amidst his or her situatedness in time and history. Patterns of
habituation in the reader's attitudes, experiences, reading-practices, and
life, define and strengthen his or her horizon of expectation.34
Appealing to SAT in general and Evan's work on self-involvement in particular,
Thiselton notes that a text, "can surprise, contradict, or even reverse such a horizon of
expectation" and can promote "new hopes, new attitudes, and new actions." This is
achieved when a narrative "draw[s] the hearer into a projected narrative-world in which a
flow of events and feelings are imaginatively experienced at a pre-reflective level.
Thiselton offers the book of Jonah as an example and states, "Spending time with Jonah
in the narrative-world projected by the text transforms feelings and attitudes about the
See Anthony Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of
Transforming Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), esp. 272-312.
32
Anthony Thiselton, The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical
Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1980) e.g., 340.
33
Thiselton, New Horizons; Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (2d ed.; trans, revised by
Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall; London: Continuum, 2004).
Thiselton, New Horizons, 34.

35
Thiselton, New Horizons, 34, 32.
36
Ibid., 32-33.
11
wider world at a level which might not be reached by a theological sermon or treatise on
mission or evangelism as a principle of life." Something similar may be said for the
story of David's departure found in 2 Sam 15:1-17:24.
The present study will begin with an overview of scholarly views regarding the
function of the stories within 2 Samuel that include 2 Sam 15:1-17:24 (chapter two). This
is followed by a detailed description of the ways that SAT will be applied to this narrative
and an introduction to the analysis itself (chapter three). The next three chapters contain
the investigation of the speech acts of David's departure, both for their function within
the world of the narrative and for their function of telling the story (chapters four through
six). Concluding this study is a summary of the function of David's departure as an
illocutionary act as well as a discussion of the storytelling situation that can be expected
to facilitate this story as a perlocutionary act (chapter seven).
"Ibid.
12
CHAPTER2
An Overview of Perspectives on the Function of 2 Sam 15:1-17:24
This chapter contains a particular description of the scholarly discussion regarding
David's departure as told in 2 Samuel 15:1-17:24, namely the function of these chapters.
The nature of this history means that the discussion involves broader textual parameters,
most often 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 Kgs 1-2. The description of this history is not intended to
provide a complete overview of scholarly opinion, but rather to introduce how the present
study joins the ongoing conversation.
While the subject of function is but one aspect of the overall state of scholarship,
it is a topic which enables a discussion on a great deal of the scholarly terrain. Not
surprisingly, there is no consensus regarding the function of this passage. At the same
time, in presenting a case for one particular function to considered primary, many
interpreters at least agree that these stories of David do something. The issue of function
is inextricably tied to the topic of genre, which has long been a hallmark of scholarly
study on this and surrounding passages. In the parlance of speech act theory, the
For a more general overview, see Walter Dietrich and Thomas Naumann, Die Samuelbiicher
(Ertrage der Forschung 287; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), 169-295; Gillian
Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' (JSOTSup 221; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996), 14--12.
39
E.g., R.N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Sam. 9-20 and I Kings 1 and 2
(SBT 9; Bloomsbury Street, London: SCM Press LTD, 1968), 10-55; David Gunn, The Story of King
David (JSOTSup 6; Sheffield: JSOT, 1978; repr., 1982), 19-34; Leo Perdue, "The Testament of David and
Egyptian Royal Instructions," in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (ed.
William Hallo, James Moyer, Leo Perdue; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 79-96 (79-80);
Keys, The Wages of Sin, 156-83; Antony Campbell, 2 Samuel (FOTL 8; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005),
106-7.
13
scholarly conversation regarding 2 Samuel 15:1-17:24 has generally not suffered from a
descriptive fallacy.40
This chapter will discuss the following six views regarding the function (and
genre) of this passage: (1) to record historical events (history writing), (2) to answer the
question of the succession to David's throne (succession narrative), (3) to serve a variety
of political agendas (political propaganda), (4) to provide a work of art (serious
entertainment), (5) to provide information about David (biography), and (6) to teach
(didactic literature). The selection of these categories is neither to deny overlap between
these functions nor to adjudicate between them. Rather, the presentation of these
categories will serve to introduce the present study's proposal that David's departure
functions to portray David's faith in Yhwh in a manner that some readers might find
encouraging. As in the case of other views on function, this proposed view relies upon
the guidance of a chosen textual delimitation and a particular starting point, in this case a
focus upon speech.
To Record Historical Events
The idea that the story of David's departure functions as a record of historical events has
been widespread, though it should be noted that this focus has not ignored the artistic
quality of the story. While recognizing the high quality of the story of Solomon's
ascension to the throne, Wellhausen designates the story of Absalom's revolt to be
A key concept of speech act theory, J.L. Austin defines the descriptive fallacy as the assumption
that sentences containing statements only seek to describe some state of affairs. Speech act theory is
discussed in detail in chapter three.
14
marked by "an essentially historical character." Von Rad calls the SN the "narrative
sequence which must be regarded as the oldest specimen of ancient Israelite historical
writing [Geschichtsschreibung].,'A2 Similarly, Gunkel had declared the story of
Absalom's Revolt to be a well known example of Israelite history writing
[Geschichtsschreibung], though he also designated it to be "the most precious jewel of
history writing in Israel."43 This view has also been expressed by Gene Tucker, who
writes, "Certainly the best example of the genre ["history"] in the Old Testament is the
throne succession history of David (2 Sam 9-20, 1 Kings 1-2). This document is Israelite
history writing at its very best."44 As Keys notes, many scholars have viewed the SN "as
a piece of literature, written for the sole purpose of recording past events for posterity."45
The idea that these stories function as history writing has also involved the belief
that they are objective. According to Gressmann, "history writing wants to portray what
once really happened and will never be repeated."46 In particular, Gressmann uses 2
Samuel 19 as an example of the objectivity of biblical history writing as "it does not pass
Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan
Menzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith; Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885), 262.
42
Gerhard von Rad, "The Beginnings of History Writing in Israel" in The Problem of the
Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 166-204
(176); Gerhard von Rad, "Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel," Archivfur
Kultergeschichte 32 (1944): 1-42.
43
Hermann Gunkel, The Stories of Genesis (trans. John J. Scullion; ed. William R. Scott; Vallego,
Calif.: BIBAL Press, 1994), 6; trans, of Sagen der Genesis (3d ed., 1910).
Gene Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971),
36.
45
Keys, The Wages of Sin, 156.
Hugo Gressmann, "The Oldest History Writing in Israel", in Narrative and Novella in Samuel:
Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 19061923 (ed. David Gunn; trans. David Orton;
JSOTSup 116; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991), 9-58 (14-15).
15
over David's weaknesses."47 In his Prolegomena, Wellhausen expresses the view that 2
Sam. 9-20 with 1 Kings 1-2 contains a telling of events in which the writer's
commitment to a faithful recording surpasses even the writer's affinity for David:
Die Begeisterung fur David hat wohl auch hier die Feder gefuhrt, aber
seine Schwachen werden nicht verschwiegen, die wenig erbaulichen
Verhaltnisse seines Hofes getreu berichtet, die Palastintrigue, durch die
Salomo auf den Thron gelangte, mit einer beinah boshaft scheinenden
Unbefangenheit vorgetragen.
In speaking of the book of Samuel as a whole, Schultz declares that a "sure, self-
contained plan underlies i t . . . The intention is to describe the beginnings of the
monarchy in Israel up to David's last years."49
Many interpreters who view the stories of David as a faithful reporting of events
share the presupposition that they are an eyewitness accounting. According to Bright, the
whole of 1 and 2 Samuel (as well as 1 Kings 1-11) is "of the highest historical value,
much of the material being contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the events described."50
Bright calls 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 "a document with an eyewitness flavor
which can hardly have been written many years after Solomon succeeded to the
47
Ibid.
48
Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (6th ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter &
Co., 1927; repr., 1981), 259. It should be noted that Wellhausen does not limit such faithful reporting and
malicious naivete to the reporting of external events. While holding that this record is "marked by an
essentially historical character," Wellhausen also states that it "frequently affords us a glance into the very
heart of event, showing us the natural occasions and human motives which gave rise to the different
actions". Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (trans. J. Sutherland Black and Allan
Menzies, with preface by W. Robertson Smith; Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885), 262.
49
Alfons Schultz, "Narrative Art in the Books of Samuel," in Narrative and Novella in Samuel:
Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906-1923 (ed. David Gunn; trans. David Orton;
JSOTSup 116; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991), 119-70 (121-2).
John Bright, A History of Israel (4th ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000), 184.
16
throne." Similarly, von Rad sees the SN to have been written at the time of David.
Sellin and Fohrer's claim that the author of the Court History "was undoubtedly an
eyewitness to the events and a member of the royal court" represents a widely held
view.53
This assumption of eyewitness accounting as well as the applicability of the term
'history writing' have both been challenged over the past several decades. Wharton
declares with confidence, "We are certainly no longer bound to regard these stories as
history in the sense of unbiased reporting of events witnessed by the author."54 Rosenberg
exclaims:
Once one severs the "eyewitness" connection, once one recognizes that it
was not necessary to be present at the events reported in order to
understand and report them, there is theoretically no firm basis for placing
the work's time of composition in any one era over another."55
Others have accepted the term "history writing" with the qualification that a modern
understanding of this term must not be imposed upon an ancient understanding. For
example, Eissfeldt says that these stories of David "have rightly been praised as a
masterpiece or even as the masterpiece of Israelite historical writing" but he also
In a rather circular way, Von Rad insists that this must have been written at the time of David
because it is history. He quotes E. Schwartz, "Genuinely historical writing which faithfully represents its
own era always and invariably grows out of the political life of the day, whatever shape or form that may
take." Therefore, Von Rad says, "Only a political state which makes history can write history. The small
kingdom of Saul did not provide the necessary conditions, either politically or culturally, for the writing of
history is one of the most sophisticated of human cultural activities." ("Beginnings," 192, emphasis his).
53
Ernst Sellin and Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (trans. David E. Green;
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968), 163.
54
J. Wharton, "A Plausible Tale: Story and Theology in II Samuel 9 - 20,1 Kings 1-2," Int 35
(1981): 355-67 (342).
55
Joel Rosenberg, King and Kin (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1986), 103. (Italics his.)
17
acknowledges that "we certainly have not a simple eye-witness account... but a
composition which has in it something of good historical novel."56 Still other interpreters
choose to reject rather than qualify the term. Edward Ball asks, "Is there not the danger
that we shall too easily put a straightjacket on the possibilities of interpretation if we
insist on such a label ['history writing' (Geschichtsschreibung)] with all the inherited
baggage it carries with it?"57 Campbell points out that these are stories and not history,
saying, "A major rebellion might well be matter for a chronicler, but scarcely the details
of David's flight and return."58 Attempts at finding middle ground have included an
acceptance that the events are historical while acknowledging that the stories are not to be
regarded as history writing. For example, Rost says:
It is sufficient to establish that this source is an historical narrative which

rushes along with the excitement of a drama; it is based on actual events; it
does not provide us simply with a poor imitation of reality but groups the
events together around a theme, adopting them only so far and in such
form as they are relevant to the basic questions of the story.59
Notably, Gunn has compared SN to a Shakespearean play, which has a historical theme
without claiming to be history.60
Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. Peter Ackroyd; New York: Harper &
Row, 1965), 276, 141. Cf. Halpern, who states, "To read Israel's historiography, we must allow that it
stands on the far horizon of the Western tradition. The historians' idea of what leeway they enjoyed in
presentation diverged from the standards of twentieth century academia history." Baruch Halpern, The First
Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 276-77.
57
Edward Ball, introduction to The Succession to the Throne of David, by Leonhard Rost (trans.
Michael D. Rutter and David M. Gunn; Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1; Sheffield:
The Almond Press, 1982), xxxiii.
58
Campbell, 2 Samuel, 106. Cf. Whybray, The Succession Narrative, 12,18; Gunn, The Story of
King David, 19.
Leonard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (trans. Michael Rutter and David Gunn;
Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982), 104; cf.
Whybray, The Succession Narrative, 19; cf. Keys, The Wages of Sin, 164.
Gunn, The Story of King David, 26.

18
The discussion of the stories of David as history leads to the larger conversation
on history itself. In his influential study on ancient history and historiography, Van Seters
has defined history as "the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to
itself of its past."61 Van Seters goes on to reject this term as a designation for CH but
acknowledges that the more general designation of historiography may be appropriate.62
The ongoing discussion about history writing extends well beyond the scope of the
present study. Suffice it to say that the topic of history has been the dominant
conversation regarding the genre of these stories of David.
To Answer the Question of the Succession to David's Throne
As discussed in chapter one, over the past century a prevailing title used to denote 2
Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2 has been "The Succession Narrative" (SN). The
widespread use of SN to describe these chapters, even by interpreters who do not
necessarily agree with such a title,64 highlights the sheer dominance of the idea that these
6
Van Seters, In Search of History, 1, 249.
62
According to Van Seters, ANE historiography is: (1) a form of tradition in its own right, (2) not
primarily the accurate reporting of past events but rather a consideration of the significance given to past
events, (3) an examination of the causes of present conditions, (4) national or corporate in character, and
(5) part of the literary tradition and corporate tradition of the people. Van Seters, In Search of History, 45.
63
The discussion on history writing has included the recognition that even modern history writing
is not a reporting of events similar to eyewitness accounting. For example, Halpern has pointed out that
"History is not how things happened, but an incomplete account, written toward a specific end, of selected
developments." According to Halpern, "No historianno interpreter of real eventswrites in the
expectation that the history will be divorced from the intentions that motivate it. Rather, the historian tries
to communicate those intentions, to communicate information about specific phenomena outside the text, in
the text. Historical texts, then, cannot speak meaningfully to those who examine what they sayas readers
are wont to dobut only to those who ask what they mean to say." Halpern, The First Historians, 7, xvii,
(italics his).
64
E.g.,Van Seters, who prefers to the designation Court History, nevertheless is compelled to
explain that he uses this term as an equivalent to what many refer to as the Succession Narrative. John Van
Seters, "The Court History and DtrH: Conflicting Perspectives on the House of David" in Die sogenannte
19
chapters function as an answer to the question of who would succeed to David's throne as
king. While Wellhausen had noted in 1878 that 2 Sam 9 through 1 Kgs 2 (removing 2
Sam 21-24) chiefly tells of the way it is Solomon and not his brothers who reached the
throne,65 this view gained widespread popularity after Leonard Rost's Die Uberlieferung
von der Thronnachfolge Davids published in 1926.66
According to Rost, the SN was once a separate document and was later used as a
source that was inserted more or less untouched by the Deuteronomistic Historian.
Although he does not question the historical nature of the events described in the SN,
Rost insists that the ordering of the events and the artistic style in which they are
presented serve to advance the major theme of the succession to David's throne.67 Rost
reaches this conclusion through a methodology which starts from the end and works
backward. Rost states, "Here, as is often the case, it might be a better strategy to start
from the end and then work backwards to the beginning." 68 Thus Rost's perception of the
insistent question which dominates 1 Kings 1, "who shall sit upon the throne of my lord
the king, and who shall reign after him?" actually dominates the entire work.69
Thronfolgegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten undAnfragen (ed. Albert de Pury and Thomas Romer;
OBO 176; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag, 2000), 70-93 (70).
Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 259.

66
Rost, Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. (BWANT 3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1926).
67
Rost, Succession, 103.
68
Ibid., 67.
69
Ibid., 68.
20
Rost's identification of a Succession Narrative was embraced by so many scholars
that Conroy exclaims that it "was accorded what might be described as quasi-canonical
status in Biblical studies for the best part of forty years."70 Today, there is a full array of
scholarly opinion regarding agreement or disagreement with Rost. Interpreters such as
Ackroyd71 and more recently Frolov72 have pointed out that there is no evidence that a
Succession Narrative ever existed apart from the biblical form of the text. Frolov
concludes that such a document is "a figment of scholars' imagination."74 The discussion
on the theme of succession ranges from that of complete acceptance,75 to complete
denial,76 with various degrees in between. For instance, Flanagan agrees with Rost that
70
Conroy, Absalom, 1.
71
Peter R. Ackroyd, "The Succession Narrative (so-called)," Interpretation 35 (1981): 383-96.
72
Serge Frolov, "Succession Narrative: A 'Document' or a Phantom?" JBL 121 (2002): 81-104
(83).
73
Cf. Conroy, who states that: "the current state of research no longer justifies an automatic and
uncritical acceptance of 2 Sam 9 -20; 1 Kings 1-2 as a fully rounded literary unity with a clearly defined
theme." Conroy, Absalom, 3.
74
Frolov, "Succession Narrative", 103.
75
E.g., von Rad, "Beginnings," 193-97; George W. Coats, "Parable, Fable, and Anecdote:
Storytelling in the Succession Narrative," Int 35 (1981): 368-82 (368); Hans Hertzberg, / & IISamuel: A
Commentary (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1960), 299; and more recently, Stefan Seiler, Die Geschichte von
der Thronfolge Davids (BZAW 267; New York: de Gruyter, 1998). Reviewed by Michael Moore. "Die
Geschichte von der Throngefolge Davids (2 Sam 9-20; 1 Kon 1-2): Untersuchungen zur Literarkritik und
Tendenz." JBL 119 (2000): 755-56.
76
In addition to those already mentioned above, Wurthwein disagrees in the thematic unity of the
so-called SN and claims that the text endured a great deal of redaction. Ernst Wurthwein, Die Erzdhlung
von der Thronfolge Davids: theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (Zurich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1974), 10. Carlson also denies that there are independent documents within 2 Samuel and rejects
Rost's thesis, performing his own study while ignoring Rost's work. R.A. Carlson, David, the Chosen
King: A Tradio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,
1964), 136. Fokkelmann calls Rost's thesis on the theme of the SN a "Siren's song" that cast a spell over
the field of Old Testament research for fifty years. J.P. Fokkelman, King David (vol. 1 of Narrative Art and
Poetry in the Books of Samuel; Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1981), 10. More recently, Campbell has
said concerning the Stories of David's Middle Years, "The understanding of these chapters has been
bedeviled by the intrusive issue of succession." Campbell's recommendation is to "forget the issue of
21
succession is the primary purpose of the SN in its present form but proposes that at an
earlier stage of development "a Court History... was intended to show how David
maintained legitimate control over the kingdoms of Judah and Israel."77 Whybray also
agrees that the central theme of the SN is succession but notes that other "subordinate
themes" can be identified as well.78 Keys offers a fair if not completely accurate
summary to say that even when Rost's ideas are challenged they "still form the pivot
70
point of every argument." Today it appears as though the label Succession Narrative is
one that will endure, if only for the purpose of facilitating discussion.
The acceptance or rejection of Rost's claim of succession as the primary theme of
SN depends upon whether or not one accepts his starting point of reading the chapters
found in 2 Samuel in light of 1 Kings 1-2. This relationship between 1 Kings 1-2 and 2
Samuel 9-20 has been questioned by many interpreters.80 Many have agreed that the
theme of succession dominates 1 Kings 1-2, but point out that this theme is not
conspicuous in 2 Samuel. For example, Flanagan observes that when one removes 1
Kings 1-2 from the conversation the remaining chapters in Samuel focus upon David's
own reign rather than the succession to his throne.81 Similarly, Conroy asserts, "The
succession, based on one miserable verse (1 Kings 1:48) and let the identification of the text be based on its
peculiar qualities-with its interpretation to proceed from there." Campbell, 2 Samuel, 215,4.
James Flanagan, "Court History or Succession Document: A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1
Kings 1-2." JBL 91 (1972): 172-81 (172-73).
78
Whybray, Succession Narrative, 19-22; cf. Harry Hagan, "Deception as Motif and Theme in 2
Sm 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2," Biblica 60 (1979): 301-26 (302).
79
Keys, Wages of Sin, 14.
80
E.g., Hans Joachim Stoebe, Das Zweite Buck Samuelis (KAT 8/2; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn,
1994), 33-34; Flanagan, "Court History," 173; Conroy, Absalom, 102-4.
81
Flanagan, "Court History," 173.
22
question 'Who will sit on David's throne after him?' is nowhere audible on the
immediate text level of 2 Sam 13-20." Ackerman points out that Bathsheba's assertion
in 1 Kings 1:17 regarding how David (allegedly) swore that Solomon would succeed him
is not reported anywhere in 2 Samuel. Ackerman then asks if 2 Samuel can truly be
considered a succession narrative, saying, "How could the story ever omit such a
scene?" Recently, Keys has provided an intriguing analysis of Rost's use of 1 Kings
that includes a demonstration of the way that Rost's question is really his own
formulation of the questions found in 1 Kings 1-2. Interpreters who disagree with
succession as the primary theme of the (so-called) SN often resist the starting point of 1
Kings 1-2 for identifying the primary theme of Samuel.
In regards to the story of Absalom's rebellion, Rost declares that there is "no
doubt" that the story of Absalom's revolt is closely related to 1 Kings 1-2, based largely
upon a comparison of Absalom and Adonijah. This connection, so obvious to Rost, is
rejected by Flanagan, who says, "Absalom and Adonijah are often compared, but when
their records are carefully studied the revolt of Absalom must instead be contrasted with
the accession of Adonijah."86 Flanagan points to differences in the two revolts in terms of
planning, in terms of time span, and in different degrees of success (e.g., Absalom
82
Conroy, Absalom, 102-4.
83
James Ackerman, "Knowing Good and Evil: a Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2
Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2," JBL 109 (1990): 41-60 (53).
84
Keys, Wages of Sin, 43-70. Keys shows that the question presented by Rost as a direct quotation
of 1 Kgs 1 ("Who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king, and who shall reign after him?") does not
appear exactly in this form in the text itself. Rather, this is a hybrid reading of 1 Kgs 1:20 and 27, neither
of which is actually asking the question that Rost poses. Ibid., 4 8 ^ 9 .
85
86
23
successfully took his father's harem). What is more, unlike Absalom, who rebels against
David when David is still an able king and warrior, Adonijah attempts to assume power
when David is old and no longer able to reign.87 Flanagan also points out that when 1
Kings 1-2 are set aside, the story of Absalom's rebellion constitutes the central feature of
the "history of the difficulties and challenges that David faced in maintaining his control
on
over the kingdoms of Judah and Israel." With the theme of succession as a starting
point, the story of Absalom's revolt functions only to tell why it was not Absalom who
succeeded the throne. However, without the starting point of succession, the story of
Absalom's rebellion is a story about David.
To Serve a Political Agenda
Like the theme of succession, the idea that the stories of David's middle years
function for political purposes is a concept that was articulated by Rost, who declared the
SN to be composed in majorem gloriam Salomonis. Since Rost, interpreters have
explored how these chapters function as political propaganda, although with no
consensus as to the benefactor of this function of the narrative.
As political propaganda, the stories of David are viewed as pro-
Solomonic/Davidic by some interpreters and anti-Solomonic/Davidic by others. Among
those who accept a pro-Solomonic function, Thornton has astutely pointed out that the
87
Ibid., 174-75.
88
89
E.g., Whybray, Succession Narrative, 19-22.
24
SN answers a more specific question than that posed by Rost. He points out that the
general question of, "Who shall succeed David?" should be clarified as "Why was it
Solomon who succeeded David to the throne?"91 Whybray affirms that the SN places
both David and Solomon in a positive light, saying that the SN "is primarily a political
document intended to support the regime by demonstrating its legitimacy and justifying
its policies." Flanagan and McCarter have also emphasized how the SN is pro-Davidic
first and subsequently pro-Solomonic.
Other scholars have perceived an opposite function of the (so-called) SN as anti-
Davidic and anti-Solomonic. In his essay "Tendenz und Theologie," Delekat agrees that
the SN (David-Salomon-Erzahlung) is political propaganda but insists that it functions
against the Davidic regime.94 Delekat points to the numerous aspects of the stories that
portray David in a poor light and proposes that the narrative shows Solomon's rule to be
illegitimate. Van Seters has also emphasized the negative portrayal of David but has
broadened this portrayal to involve the institution of the monarchy. For Van Seters, the
CH is not only anti-Davidic and/or anti-Solomonic but is anti-monarchical. He directs
this claim against those who, like Rost, have viewed the SN as a source incorporated by
Dtr into the Deuteronomistic History. Van Seters declares that Dtr would never have
91
Timothy C. G. Thornton, "Solomonic Apology in Samuel and Kings," CQR 169 (1968): 159-
66.
92
Whybray, Succession Narrative, 55.
93
Flanagan, "Court History," 172-73, 181. Cf. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "The Historical David," Int
40 (1986): 117-29 (118); idem, "Plots, True or False: The Succession Narrative as Court Apologetic," Int
35 (1981): 355-67.
94
Lienhard Delekat, "Tendenz und Theologie der David-Salomo-Erzahlung," in Feme und nahe
Wort; Festschrift Leonard Rost (BZAW 105; Berlin: A Topelmann, 1967), 26-36.
25
incorporated such a story into a work otherwise intended to maintain David as the ideal
and model ruler.95 He further claims that the CH is actually "an antilegitimation story"
added to the DtrH by an exilic author who wanted to attack the entire royal ideology.96
Van Seters has been criticized by Polzin, who accuses Van Seters of being "obsessed by
the same desire as bedeviled his predecessors, that is, to establish a coherent pre-text out
of what he believes is the ideological mess of the real text."97 McKenzie offers a similar
although perhaps more respectful critique:
I agree with Van Seters' literary judgments regarding the contents of the
Court History. But I think he is incorrect in seeing the Court History as
against David and Solomon. He fails to account for the same pro-Davidic
no
apologetic tone in the Court History as in the History of David's Rise."

While those who see the stories of David's middle years as pro-Davidic/Solomonic
appear to discount the negative portrayal of David, those who see these chapters as anti-
Davidic/Solomonic emphasize the negative portrayal.
Other interpreters have noticed that the stories of David's middle years contain
both positive and negative portrayals of David. Some have attempted to ease this tension
by redaction criticism (e.g., Wurthwein, Veijola, Langlamet),99 while others have sought
95
Van Seters, In Search of History, 278, "The Court History and DtrH," 76.
96
Van Seters, In Search of History, 290.
97
Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History,
Part 2:1 Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1993), 14.
98
Steven McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 196.
Ernst Wurthwein, Die Erzdhlung von der Thronfolge Davids: theologische oder politische
Geschichtsschreibung? (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974); T. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie: David und
die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellun (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian
Toimituksia 193; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975); F. Langlamet, "Pour ou Contr Salomon?
La Redaction Prosalomonienne de I Rois, I-II," RB 84 (1976): 321-79,481-528. For a review of
Wurthwein, Veijola, and Langlamet, see Gunn, The Story of King David, 22-25, 115-18.
26
a synchronic analysis (e.g., Gunn, Conroy, Keys). In acknowledging both the positive
and negative portrayals of David, the latter group brings into question whether it is the
function of these passages to serve as political propaganda. Conroy declares, "The
narrator's presentation of David . . . is sympathetic but not uncritical... If one takes into
account the artistic complexity of this presentation, one will be less inclined to affirm a
straightforward pro-Davidic or anti-Davidic bias in the story."100 Keys comments on how
the stark contrast between such opposing views as Delekat and Whybray highlights the
ambiguity of the portrayal of David.101 Such ambiguity is not a common feature of
political propaganda, suggesting that the primary function of these stories is not political
persuasion, although they could be so construed for many parties.
In postulating the necessary starting point that facilitates the view that the SN
functions for political purposes, two influential starting points emerge. First, the view that
SN functions to advance a pro-Solomonic political agenda depends largely upon the
inclusion of 1 Kings 1-2. This passage more explicitly concerns itself with political
persuasion in favor of Solomon rather than 2 Sam 9-20, which is concerned with
David. The second starting point is the assumption itself, that the narrative is
attempting political persuasion. As Gunn points out, "The generic classification as
political propaganda provides the logic for the swing of the pendulum. If the document is
100
Conroy, Absalom, 112.
101
Keys, Wages of Sin, 22. Also, Keys notes that "To a large extent the anti-Solomonic argument
was an inevitable consequence of the existence of the pro-Solomonic view." Ibid., 166.
102
Ibid., 168. Cf. McCarter, who says "Clearly 1 Kings 1-2 should be described as court
apologetic . . . The identification Solomonic propaganda in the succession narrative, however, raises the
problem of the relationship of 1 Kings 1-2 to the materials in Samuel to which the two chapters refer but in
which Solomon has no appreciable role." McCarter, "Plots," 361.
27
1 fl^
not pro the royal house it must be anti; if the tone is not white it is likely to be black."
Gunn asks, "Why should the text be simply and neatly 'pro' anyone?"104 If the stories of
David's middle years function as political persuasion, it appears that they do so only with
guidance from outside the stories themselves.
To Provide a Work of Art
Although interpreters have long recognized the literary artistry of SN, the idea
that the primary function of these stories is to provide a work of art was first proposed by
Gunn. He asks, "Why not accept the narrative as first and foremost a fine piece of
storytelling and not as essentially something else?"105 Whereas many interpreters have
noted the presence of literary artistry and have claimed that it serves to advance their
view of the primary function of the SN,106 Gunn suggests that the literary artistry itself is
inherent to the primary function.
Gunn proposes that the primary goal of the SN is "entertainment." Anticipating
resistance from interpreters who might attach the adjective "mere" to entertainment,
103
Gunn, The Story of King David, 22. (Italics his.)
104
Ibid., 25.
105
Ibid., 38.
106
For example, in discussing the stories of David as history writing, Caspari suggests that the
purpose of the literary artistry is to build in the readers a feeling of suspense akin to what would have been
experienced if one had also experienced these events first-hand. Wilhelm Caspari, "The literary type and
historical value of 2 Samuel 1520" in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and
Other Scholars 19061923, (ed. David Gunn; trans. David Orton; JSOTSup 116; Sheffield: Almond Press,
1991), 59-88 (85-86). Rost sees the literary artistry as a means by which to advance the theme of
succession: "With the greatest skill and conscious planning, the characters are balanced against each other,
their appearance determined, their actions linked one with another and connected with the major theme, the
succession to David." Rost, Succession, 103.
28
Gunn inserts his own adjective, "serious." He distinguishes between mere entertainment
and serious entertainment by saying:
There is entertainment designed for simple amusement, to fill an idle hour

and be forgotten and there is entertainment which demands the active
engagement of those being entertained, which challenges their intellect,
their emotions, their understanding of people, of society and of
themselves. It is in this latter sense that I would speak of our narrative as a
work of art and serious entertainment.107
Gunn's preemptive measure of attaching "serious" to his designation of entertainment has
not deterred interpreters from attacking the idea that SN functions primarily as
entertainment. For example, Van Seters summarizes Gunn by saying, "It [the CH] is not
just a fine story, written for entertainment, as David Gunn has suggested."108 Keys
comments, "We do not even have to go outside the Bible to find examples of stories
whose purpose is not simply entertainment."109 Ironically, it appears that many of those
who disagree with Gunn's designation of serious entertainment do so out of a belief that
Gunn is not taking the SN seriously.
While few have accepted Gunn's proposal of function as entertainment at face
value, many have recognized the literary artistry of the stories of David. For example,
Rost declares that in the SN "the impression of richness is given everywhere" and points
to the use of particles, participles, infinitives absolute, and a speech rhythm that show that
Gunn, The Story of King David, 61 (emphasis his).

108
Van Seters, "The Court History and DtrH," 92. For the disagreement between Gunn and Van
Seters, see, e.g., David M. Gunn, "Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel," FT 24
(1974): 286-317 (287-88, 295-96); John Van Seters, "Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court
History of David," JSOT 1 (1976): 22-29; Gunn, The Story of King David, 4 7 ^ 9 ; Van Seters, In Search of
History, 111, 278, 280,286-87.
109
29
narrator "found pleasure in full-sounding, well-rounded sentences."110 Before Rost,
Caspari had noted that the word "masterpiece" is appropriate for the Absalom narrative
(2 Sam 15-20), saying, "There is no lack of features that speak for such a designation."11
Von Rad notes that much has been written regarding the manner in which ancient Israel
had a "quite outstanding talent for narrative presentation."112 Schultz has pointed to the
use of literary devices "lending vividness to the narrative" such as chiasm, contrast,
variation, repetition, and even comedy.113 Whybray notes the extended use of dramatic
irony throughout the SN,114 and also says that the individual speeches of Nathan (2 Sam
12), Ahithophel (17:1-13), and Hushai (17:8-13) "are also masterpieces of their own
kind."115
Many interpreters have made the literary quality of these stories their primary
focus. Ridout employs rhetorical criticism to seek a better understanding of the effect on
the meaning of the story based on attention to stylistic attributes such as repetition,
chiasm, key words, and irony.116 Likewise, Conroy points out various literary aspects of
Absalom's revolt, including themes such as departure and return (specifically in regards
110
Rost, Succession, 91-92.
111
Caspari, "Literary Type," 71.
112
Von Rad, "Beginnings," 170.
113
Regarding comedy, Schultz says that "one is reminded of the fool in Shakespeare" and
mentions, among other scenes, "how Absalom gives Hushai's babble a hearing (17:5ff)." Schultz,
"Narrative Art," 146-48.
114
According to Whybray, "The whole book is an extended example of dramatic irony, for the
reader already knows how the succession was settled and what was in store for the main characters."
Whybray, The Succession Narrative, 47.

116
George P. Ridout, Prose Compositional Techniques in the Succession Narrative (Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University Microfilms, 1971).
30
to Jerusalem),117 and "microcontextual narrative patterns."118 Fokkelman also seeks to
understand the SN as a work of art, employing a detailed stylistic analysis.119 In his study
of 2 Sam. 15-16, Polzin explores the use of paronomasia as well as a thematic usage of
words such as "f vH, J1K, DK, and 3112?.120 Other interpreters have explored various other
themes within these stories, including the theme of deception121 and the threefold theme
of desire, rivalry, conflict.122
Those studies that focus upon the stories of David as literary art have been
critiqued by Rosenberg, who claims that such endeavors "have become trapped by their
own tools. The charts, statistics, and catalogues that are supposed to provide a way into
117
Conroy says, "During the account of David's flight the city of Jerusalem is mentioned so often
that one could almost take it as the focus of the narrator's interest." He notes that this theme occurs in 2
Samuel 15:14, 15:16, 15:19, 15:25, 15:27, 15:28, 15:29, 15:34, 15:35, 15:36, 15:37,16:3,16:7. Conroy
also points out that the focus of the departure in chapters 15-16 is balanced in chapters 19-20 by attention
to the return. Conroy, Absalom, 97.
118
For Conroy, these include patterns in the speeches of the narrative such as
'command/execution,' 'command/inadequate execution,' 'royal grant/reaction of subject,' 'motivated
suggestion of superior/acquiescense of inferior/action,' 'suggestion of superior/rejection' and 'alternative
proposal by interior/acquiescence of superior/action.' Conroy, Absalom, 93-94.
119
Fokkelman, King David.
120
Robert Polzin, "Curses and Kings: a Reading of 2 Samuel 15-16," in New Literary Criticism
and the Hebrew Bible (ed. J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 143; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993),
201-26.
' 21 Hagan, "Deception as Motif."

122
Hans J.L. Jensen, "Desire, Rivalry and Collective Violence in the 'Succession Narrative'"
JSOT 55 (1992): 39-59; repr. In The Historical Books (ed. J. Cheryl Exum; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997), 184-203. Jensen's thesis is that the fundamental themes in Girard's anthropological theory,
i.e., desire, rivalry, conflict, are the themes of the so-called 'Succession Narrative' as well as the story of
Absalom's rebellion in particular. The SN is "a reflection - in narrative form, of course - on basic
phenomena in the human world" (p. 40).
31
the story violate its spirit and lead to inconsequential and formalist generalizations."
While admitting that such studies do have value, Rosenberg claims:
[W]hen Fokkelman tells us that this or that occurrence of an event in

threes is a manifestation of "the ternary principle" . . . one wonders what
has been gained for interpretation. Or when Conroy, speaking of the
story's "microcontextual narrative patterns" . . . [and] lists with great
sobriety "the 'command/execution' pattern," "the 'requesting/granting'
pattern" . . . together with their various subtypes, useful as these
abstractions sometimes are, one wonders what they can do for our
understanding of the story, when so neatly divorced from character and
context, disassembled, labeled, and shelved.124
Rosenberg claims that synchronic literary studies divorce art and entertainment from the
social, cultural, political, and religious matrix in which they flourish. A notable yet
perhaps only partial exception to Rosenberg's critique is the study of Ridout, which is not
mentioned by Rosenberg. While much of Ridout's analysis is similar to those attacked by
Rosenberg, he does attempt to distinguish his rhetorical critical study of the SN from
purely aesthetic criticism as he seeks to identify possible effects of the literary techniques
as well as the contribution of these techniques to the function of SN as a whole.125
The critique that Rosenberg levels upon synchronic studies is similar to those
aimed by some scholars at Gunn's designation of the SN as serious entertainment, i.e.,
the claim that art for the sake of entertainment does not adequately take into account how
art reflects and impacts real life outside the narrative. While Rosenberg similarly
Rosenberg, Kings and Kin, 104-5.
Ibid.
Ridout, Prose Compositional Techniques. See, for example, pp \-A, 8-14, 19-21.
32
criticizes Gunn, he also remarks that Gunn may in fact demonstrate an understanding
of the political dimensions of narrative in his comparison to the stories of David with
Shakespeare's "historical plays." According to Rosenberg, "Gunn makes the political
dimensions of the King David story an incidental bonus in its unfolding as art, just as the
historical investigators of the story made its artistic brilliance an incidental bonus in its
unfolding as history." Perhaps Rosenberg's recognition here is due to Gunn's own
working definition of serious entertainment. When Gunn says that the purpose of the SN
is serious entertainment, he leaves open the possibility that serious entertainment itself is
a means to end.
To Portray David
In his 1950 Presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature, R. H. Pfeiffer

19Q
presented the SN as a biography. This sentiment is also found in his Introduction to the
Old Testament in which he says, "The author's method is biographical. His story centers
around the main characters, and national events are narrated in connection with personal
Rosenberg says that Gunn "clings to a belief in the autonomy of art" and states, "Those stories
memorable enough to sit among the culture's chief classics and sacred texts are not there simply because of
their beauty or their power to divert." Rosenberg, Kings and Kin, 107-8.
127
Gunn states, "To deny that the narrative is a document of political propaganda is not to deny
any political interest within the narrative. To do so would be absurd . . . . Shakespeare's 'historical' plays
are clearly 'political' in terms of subject-matter and themes explored, and few in an Elizabethan audience
could have failed to appreciate the undercurrent of comment on contemporary political life and institution;
yet they are above all plays, works of art for the purpose of serious entertainment, and least of all are they
'propaganda.'" Gunn, The Story of King David, 26.
128
129
Robert Henry Pfeiffer, "Facts and Faith in Biblical History," JBL 70 (1951): 1-14.
33
history."130 While some interpreters have disagreed with Pfeiffer's thesis,131 few would
dispute that David is portrayed as a central figure of the SN. For example, Whybray
points out that "David as portrayed in the Succession Narrative is the most fully
delineated of all the characters in the Old Testament," and notes that that even in the
story of Absalom's rebellion it is David who is the central figure.1 2 The interpreters who
focus upon the portrayal of David in the SN can be divided into two camps, those who
seek historical information (the historical David) and those who seek the literary
portrayal of David.
Those scholars who seek biographical information on the historical David utilize
the biblical text as a source of historical information. Thus McCarter attempts to identify
the earliest materials within the books of Samuel to reckon with the historical David.
In his 1986 article, McCarter notes the absence of any ancient inscription or
archaeological discovery mentioning David and says, "The Bible is our only source of
information about David."134 More recently, McKenzie has noted that although some
ancient inscriptions and archaeological finds have surfaced that may pertain to David,
McCarter's statement regarding how no archaeological discovery can be securely linked
to him remains relevant.135 Thus the Bible remains the primary source for biographical
130
Robert Henry Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: A&C Black, 1950), 358.
131
E.g., Morton Smith, "The So-Called 'Biography of David' in the Books of Samuel and Kings,"
HTR 44 (1951): 167-69.
132
Whybray, The Succession Narrative, 35, 27.
133
McCarter, "The Historical David," 117-28.
134
Ibid., 117.
135
McKenzie, King David, 17.
34
information about David. According to both McCarter and McKenzie, when seeking
information about David the stories of Samuel are not taken at face value but are
analyzed in order to separate what is of historical value from what is written for
inspirational value.
Many interpreters do not attempt to distinguish between a literary and an
historical David and instead study the portrayal of David as a whole. In his book, David's
Truth in Israel's Imagination and Memory, Brueggemann states:
First of all it should be understood that we are not here interested in the
"historical David," as though we could isolate and identify the real thing.
That is not available to us. And even if it were, it would not be nearly so
interesting or compelling as the "constructed" David that the tradition has
137
given us.
Brueggemann calls David "one of those extraordinary historical figures who has a literary
future. That is, his memory and presence keep generating more and more stories." He
goes on to say that David "is a person who fits David Tracy's notion of a 'classic',
surrounded by a community that continually returns to him for authority, not doubting
that there is more yet to be given." Many interpreters have noticed that the constructed
David is both complicated and at times ambiguous.140 For example, Noll claims:
136
McCarter, "The Historical David," 117; McKenzie, King David, 5.
13
Walter Brueggemann, David's Truth in Israel's Imagination and Memory (Fortress Press,
1985), 13.
138
Ibid.
139
Ibid.
140
This is not to suggest that scholars seeking the historical David assume him to be simple and
unambiguous. Perdue asks, "Is the ambiguity of the David character merely a typical feature of biblical
narrative, or is there some intention on the author's part in portraying David in such a manner?" While
admitting that any conception of the historical David is speculative, he goes on to ask, "But is it not
possible that the double portrait of David reflects the ambiguity many Israelites held about the institution of
monarchy in general, an ambiguity reflected in many biblical texts?" Leo G. Perdue, '"Is There Anyone
35
The degree of complexity in David's character is partially the result of the
dual presentation of him; the narrator presents David one way, the implied
author, while not completely undermining that characterization, deepens
it, rounds it, presents David as more human, more opaque. The result is a
thoroughly compelling story structure in which David emerges as a fully
rounded character.141
While the portrayal of David has long interested interpreters, attention to the portrait of
David as the primary focus has increased in the last decade, a focus made conspicuous
even by the titles of scholarly works alone.142
To Teach
For those who stress the didactic function of the stories of David's middle years, two
types of lessons are often discussed, both of which involve wisdom literature: (1) a
demonstration of the validity of proverbs, and (2) a demonstration of retributive theology.
The idea that the SN serves to teach as wisdom literature has been discussed at length by
Whybray. While viewing the primary function of the SN to be political, Whybray also
sees the SN as a didactic story, "a combination of propagandist political novel and
Left of the House of Saul... ?' Ambiguity and the Characterization of David in the Succession Narrative,"
JSOT30 (1984): 67-84; repr. in The Historical Books (ed. J. Cheryl Exum; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1997), 167-83 (182).
141
K.L. Noll, The Faces of David (JSOTSup 242 Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 3 8 -
39.
142
For example, in chronological order: Noll, The Faces of David; Robert Alter, The David Story
(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999); Baruch Halpern, David's Secret Demons: Messiah,
Murderer, Traitor, King (Bible in its World; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); Keith Bodner, David
Observed: A King in the Eyes of His Court (Hebrew Bible Monographs 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press, 2005); Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2008); Vivian L. Johnson, David in Distress: His Portrait through the Historical Psalms
(Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 505; New York: T & T Clark, 2009).
36
wisdom instruction in narrative form."143 Whybray finds a basis for this idea in von Rad's
treatment of the Joseph Narrative,144 saying:
If his [von Rad's] view is correct, that we have here in the OT [the Joseph
Narrative] an example of an extended narrative about a historical character
from Israel's past which is not in any sense a piece of historical writing
but a 'novel' composed for the wisdom schools in order to give force to
their teaching through a portrayal of the exemplary character of its hero,
the similarity which we have discovered between the ideas of the SN and
that same wisdom teaching suggests the possibility that the SN also may
have been written withamong othersa similar purpose in mind.145
Whybray points to many instances in the SN that, he claims, demonstrates the world of
wisdom literature, particularly the book of Proverbs. Such a vivid demonstration of the
validity of these Proverbs "is a hundred times more effective as a means of persuasion
than a brief, bare statement of fact or principle."146 Thus for Whybray, the SN functions
to display the reliability of various proverbs.
Some interpreters have disagreed with Whybray's claim that the SN is "wisdom
instruction in narrative form." Crenshaw points out that the SN is no more a narrative
portrayal of proverbs than any other Old Testament narrative,147 an idea expounded by
Gunn, who finds numerous proverbs within the patriarchal narratives.148 Crenshaw
suggests that the SN actually demonstrates a negative view towards wisdom. This idea is
143
144
Gerhard von Rad, "The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom," in The Problem of the
Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E.W. Traeman Dicken; Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 292-300.
145
146
Ibid., 72.
147
James L. Crenshaw, "Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon 'Historical' Literature,"
JBL 88 (1969): 129-42.
148
Gunn, The Story of King David, 27-29.
37
affirmed by Ridout, who claims that the references to wisdom in the SN are actually
meant to be viewed as ironic.149 Similarly, Ackerman has pointed out that "the story
seems to show both characters and readers failing in their quest to know good and
evil."150 Thus many who disagree with Whybray may concede that a comparison between
the book of Proverbs and the SN is possible, though not necessary and perhaps
unexpectedly negative.
The didactic function of the SN as wisdom literature has nevertheless gained
acceptance among some interpreters. Perdue attempts to respond to Crenshaw's
criticisms of Whybray's thesis by establishing a wisdom provenance and character for 1
Kings 2:1-12. Perdue hopes that if such a relationship can be demonstrated for "this
crucial part of the Succession Narrative . . . then a firm basis for further analyses of the
relationship with wisdom will be established.151 Such reliance upon the inclusion of 1
Kings to interpret Samuel is not displayed by Frolov, who suggests that the (so-called)
SN serves to educate and caution future (Davidic) monarchs that certain types of
behavior may bring down the dynasty and the whole nation. According to Frolov, by
exposing the weaknesses, failings, and blunders of "the paradigmatic king of yore," the
author demonstrates "as graphically as possible that certain modes of monarchic behavior
are counterproductive, if not destructive." More cautious is the decision by Campbell,
Ridout, Prose Compositional Techniques, 127.

150
Ackerman, "Knowing Good and Evil," 55.
151
Leo G. Perdue, "The Testament of David and Egyptian Royal Instructions," in Scripture in
Context II: More Essays on The Comparative Method (ed. William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer and Leo G.
Perdue; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 79-96 (81-82).
152
Frolov, "Succession Narrative," 101-2. Such behavior includes disregard for law and custom,
abuse of power, dereliction of duty, preferential treatment of the members of the royal household,
38
who, in regards to the wisdom to make choices in various moments of life, asks, "Is a
meaning from these stories to be sought in the direction of this wisdom? . . . It is
possible."153
In addition to teaching proverbs, some interpreters have viewed the stories of
David as didactic literature that teaches retributive theology, a theological viewpoint
often associated with the wisdom school. According to Smith, 2 Sam 10-20 and 1 Kings
1-2 constitute a "moral tract that traces events in the later years of David's life to be the
consequences of his sin against the Lord with Bathsheba (adultery) and Uriah
(murder)."154 All of these reported events, says Smith, "are told because of their direct or
indirect relevance to this moral message."155 Likewise, von Rad claims that after
Nathan's solemn declaration against David, what follows is the secret yet prophetic
"personal activity of the Lord of History against the adulterer."156 He states, "The whole
history of David can, indeed, be in some sense understood as the history of the
punishment for this one transgression."157 More recently, the theme of retribution has
been asserted by Keys, who claims that the theme of sin and punishment "provides the
answer to the question regarding the purpose of the work [2 Samuel 1 0 - 2 0 ] . . . a
demonstration of the inevitable consequences of transgression . . . punishment invariably
alienation of the most loyal supporters, exploitation of tensions between the tribes, information
mismanagement, and inaction.
153
Campbell, 2 Samuel, 109.
154
Smith, "The So-Called 'Biography of David," 168.
155
Ibid.
156
157
Ibid.
39
follows sin. Keys calls the SN a "theological biography" that displays David as a
model of someone who received his just punishment from Yhwh for his sins. For Keys,
the starting point to this understanding is David's sin in chapters 10-12. She says:
It is clearly evident that the chief concern of chs. 10-12 is theological: the
Sin and Punishment of David. It is the story of David's double crime of
adultery and murder and Yahweh's response in sentencing and punishing
the guilty party. However I have also traced this idea throughout the
material as a whole, demonstrating that chs. 13-20 are in fact the
outworking of this punishment."
While conceding that the SN can hold additional functions, Keys views all others as
subservient to that of displaying sin and punishment.
In Search of a Function of David's Departure (2 Sam 15:1-17:24)
As noted in chapter one and demonstrated here in chapter two, few interpreters
have chosen to study David's departure and return (2 Sam 15-19) as their primary focus,
much less the first half of the story (2 Sam 15:1-17:24). Not surprisingly, interpreters
who study larger passages often impose their perceived function of larger textual limits
onto the smaller story of David's departure and return. For Rost, Absalom's revolt
becomes "the story of the background to the succession" as he confidently claims, "That
II Sam 15-20 complies completely with this theme [succession] cannot be disputed."159
Those who follow Rost import the theme of succession to make the purpose of chapters
15-19 to simply show how it was not Absalom who would succeed David. A similar
reduction of this story is seen in the treatment of this narrative by Van Seters, who only
158
40
mentions Absalom's rebellion once in his book In Search of History (to simply say that it
belongs within the CH).160 In his more recent essay, Van Seters, who sees the CH as anti-
monarchical, admits that the story of Absalom's rebellion treats David "rather
sympathetically" yet quickly claims that this "does not detract in the least from the
portrayal of political turmoil that such a monarchy has produced."161 Similar to Van
Seters is the way that Keys admits that her chosen theme of sin and punishment for the
SN "is not immediately obvious" for chapters 15-20. However, Keys claims that it
"illustrates the theme of Sin and Punishment in that the coup d'etat led by Absalom is
intended by the writer of 12.7-12 to be seen as a direct consequence of David's sin in 2
Samuel ll." 1 6 2 In such cases, the effort that is required to explain how the story of
David's departure and return actually does perform a function that is not otherwise
apparent suggests that these chapters have a function that is all their own.
A Proposal for a Function of David's Departure: to Portray David's Faith in Yhwh
As stated in chapter one, the thesis of this dissertation is that speech act theory
illuminates ways that the story of David's departure (2 Sam 15:1-17:24) functions as an
illocutionary act to portray a particular faith in Yhwh held by David, namely, that Yhwh
can be expected to bring good after bringing distress. This illocutionary act may serve the
perlocutionary act of encouraging a particular audience.
Van Seters, In Search ofHistory, 212.
Van Seters, "The Court History and DtrH," 76-77.

41
Of all the views listed in this chapter, the most helpful to the present work is
Gunn's description of the SN as serious entertainment. Admittedly, Gunn's designation
has suffered from his choice of the word "entertainment" despite his effort to preempt
such misunderstanding with the adjective "serious." Perhaps no adjective could have
saved Gunn's designation from the charges leveled against it due to prevailing
conceptions regarding the purpose and value of entertainment. However, Gunn's own
description of what he means by serious entertainment remains, in my opinion, untouched
by the criticism leveled against his term. Gunn's description of serious entertainment is
something that "challenges their intellect, their emotions, their understanding of people,
of society and of themselves."163 For Gunn, serious entertainment affects an audience so
that their view of the world is changed.
In addition to Gunn's designation of function, the present study also holds points
of similarity to several other views listed above. While not viewing this story as history
writing, this study nevertheless acknowledges the historical content of the story (at least
in a connection to real life that is similar to Shakespeare's historical plays) and seeks to
understand how this story might have functioned for real (historical) audiences. With
those who see the SN as political propaganda, this study seeks to understand how this
story might have affected real life situations involving social, political, and religious
aspects of ancient life. With those who emphasize the biographical nature of this story,
this study views the Davidic focus to be crucial. The didactic nature, particularly in
regards to theology, is paramount to the present study. This dissertation joins with those
studies that emphasize how this story presents Yhwh as a person with the freedom to act
163
42
in different ways, as opposed to a teaching of a more predictable and impersonal
theology such as retributive theology.
Along with the similarities are several distinctions between the present study and
the views on function listed above. The present study does not share in the view of
succession as a main theme of this story. As stated in chapter one, Absalom's rebellion is
here viewed to be a subservient aspect of this narrative that introduces the main story of
David's departure (and return). The question is not, "Who will succeed David" but is
rather, "Will Yhwh bring David back to Jerusalem or not?" or perhaps "Has Yhwh
abandoned David in his distress?" This study does not see the primary theme of this story
to be sin and punishment. In fact, the opposite is in view as David hopes that Yhwh is
working in his favor despite the appearance that Shimei's insults assume a deserved
divine retribution. In both of these distinctions, the chosen textual limits and related
starting points are crucial for the different views expressed in this study. The limits for
this study do not include Rost's starting point of 1 Kings 1, nor is Keys' starting point of
David's sin against Bathsheba and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11a part of the textual limits here.
One final similarity between the present study and those described above is how
the study heavily relies upon chosen textual limits and a chosen starting point for the
interpretation of function. As discussed in chapter one, the chosen textual limits involve 2
Samuel 15-19 and more specifically chapters 15:1-17:24. The starting point among these
textual limits is not a single verse but is rather a particular characteristic of the story, the
prevalence of speech. Such a feature has long been recognized for this story. Rost notes
that unlike the ark narrative, in the succession narrative "speeches, arguments, are no
164
E.g., Walter Brueggemann, "On Trust and Freedom: A Study of Faith in the Succession
Narrative," bit 26 (1972): 3-19.
43
longer used merely occasionally to depict moods and character or to underline important
turning points, but they have a purpose of their own."165 Similarly, Whybray notes, "in no
other Old Testament narrative does the effectiveness of the stories depend so completely
on dialogue as here. The dialogue in the Succession Narrative not only reveals character:
it often bears the whole weight of the action."166 More recently, Brueggemann has
summarized this characteristic of the stories of Samuel as follows:
What strikes one about this artistic reading of Israel's transformation in

the Samuel narratives is the power of speech in these stories. People talk
to one another, and their talking matters. The playful possibility of speech
is at work in the public process of Israel. People listen and are changed by
such speech, and God is drawn deeply into the conversation. That is how
Israel discerns what has happened in its memory and in its life.
The choice of viewing speech to be a starting point to understand this story is not only
reasonable but appropriate as its importance has long been recognized. The ways that
speech will be analyzed in this study are discussed in the following chapter.
165
166
Whybray, The Succession Narrative, 34; see also Conroy, Absalom, 127-41.
167
Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (IBC; Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 5.
44
CHAPTER 3
Speech Act Theory and David's Departure
This chapter contains a particular description of SAT that entails those aspects of
the theory that are most relevant to this study. There are four sections in this chapter. The
first section contains a description of several key aspects of SAT as a philosophy of
language. The next section discusses how SAT can be applied to narrative discourse in
general by exploring two aspects of the parasitic nature of narrative speech acts: (1) they
operate within the narrative world by using an illocutionary force that is similar to such
utterances in the real world, and (2) they project the narrative world in particular ways.
This portrayal of the world of the narrative on the whole can itself be viewed as an
illocutionary act, while ways in which this portrayal affects an audience may be
appropriately deemed perlocutionary acts. A third section will explain how SAT will be
applied to the story of David's departure by identifying two levels of analysis, the story
level and the storyteller level. This will be followed by an introduction to the literary
analysis of the story as an illocutionary act (chapters four through six) and the subsequent
discussion of ways that the story may function as a perlocutionary act (chapter seven).
45
Speech Act Theory
I /TO
A participant in the broader study of pragmatics, speech act theory can be described as
an attempt to recognize and analyze how in speaking one actually performs acts. A
philosophy of language rather than a study of linguistics, SAT attempts to identify and
understand the performative nature of speech as a whole rather than the function of
specific structures (phonological, syntactical, and semantic) of a certain language.169 The
formulation of SAT that will be most important for the present study involves
contributions made by John L. Austin170 and John R. Searle.171 Austin is credited with
first presenting a form of the theory in his 1955 Harvard lectures. After Austin's untimely
death in 1960, his lecture notes were published in 1962 under the title How to Do Things
with Words (HTDTWW). John Searle, one of Austin's students, has formulated a more
systematic theory of speech acts. While many other scholars have contributed to the
discussion of SAT, the writings of Austin and Searle are often viewed by scholars to
represent and even constitute the traditional view of speech act theory.172
Pragmatics involves the study of language usage. For an introduction, see Marcelo Dascal,
Pragmatics and the Philosophy of the Mind I: Thought in Language (Pragmatics and Beyond: An
Interdisciplinary Series of Language Studies; eds. Hubert Cuyckens et al.; Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 1983), 20-42; John Searle, ed. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (Boston: D.
Reidel Publishing Company, 1980).
169
John R. Searle, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1979), 3-4.
170
John L. Austin, How to Do Things With Words (eds. J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa;
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975); John L. Austin, "Performative Utterances," in
Philosophical Papers (ed. J. O. Urmson and G. J. Wamock; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 233-41.
Repr. in Philosophy of Language: The Big Questions (ed. Andrea Nye; Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell
Publishers, 1998), 126-31.
171
John R. Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: University
Press, 1969); John R. Searle, Expression and Meaning; John R Searle and Daniel Vanderveken,
Foundations of Illocutionary Logic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
White, "Introduction," 4; Briggs, Words in Action, 5.

46
It should be noted that the emphasis of SAT upon the speech act, i.e., how words
are used, rather than only on the meanings of single words corresponds with a shift in the
larger philosophy of language represented by Wittgenstein. In his Philosophical
Investigations, Wittgenstein emphasizes how the meanings of words are not only to be
derived from the word itself but from its use in various practical contexts.173 Wittgenstein
declares that speaking a language is to participate in various activities, or "forms of life"
including giving orders, obeying orders, describing the appearance of an object, reporting
an event, speculating about an event, translating from one language to another, making up
a story, reading a story, guessing riddles, making jokes, and play-acting.174 While Austin
does not refer to Wittgenstein in HTDTWW and rejected any correspondence of his
studies with those of Wittgenstein, Searle compares his own approach to that of
Wittgenstein several times.175
The following discussion of SAT as a philosophy of language is divided into two
subsections. The first presents Austin's foundational contribution for SAT, especially in
regards to: (1) his recognition that speech can be performative rather than descriptive, (2)
his focus upon felicity conditions to understand the performative nature of speech, and
(3) his distinction between the illocutionary act and the perlocutionary act. The second
subsection presents several aspects of the systematic presentation of SAT made by
For a helpful introduction to philosophy of language, see Dan R. Stiver, The Philosophy of
Religious Language: Sign, Symbol and Story (Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 1996).
174
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (trans. G. E. M. Anscombe; New York:
Macmillan, 1953), 32.
175
E.g., Searle, Speech Acts, 18,44-45 . Searle, Expression and Meaning, 29.
47
Searle, especially in regards to his taxonomy of illocutionary acts and several aspects of
his theory that can be discussed under the topic of speech situations.
Austin: Performative Speech, Felicity Conditions, and Illocutionary Acts
In Austin's twelve lectures contained in HTDTWW, he actually offers two
different systems for investigating how saying something is doing something. In lectures
one through seven he explores a distinction between performatives and constatives, while
in lectures eight through ten he distinguishes between the locutionary act, the
illocutionary act and the perlocutionary act. (In lectures eleven and twelve he compares
the two systems.) The present study finds the following three topics discussed by Austin
most helpful: (1) his initial distinction between performatives and constatives, (2) the
concept of felicity conditions by which Austin explores and critiques his initial
distinction, and (3) his second attempt at understanding the performative nature of speech
by distinguishing between the locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act.
Austin seeks to address the descriptive fallacy, defined as the assumption that
sentences containing statements only seek to describe some state of affairs. According
to Austin, some utterances do in fact seek to describe some state of affairs, but others
actually bring about changes in some state of affairs. The former he calls constatives and
the latter he calls performatives. Performatives do not describe or report (or constate)
anything at all and thus cannot be expected to be found as true or false.177 Instead, by
176
Austin, HTDTWW, 1. Francois Recanati points out that here Austin is participating in a broader
scholarly viewpoint that gained strength beginning in the 1930s. Francois Recanati, Meaning and Force:
The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 67.
Austin, HTDTWW, 5.
48
uttering them a person is doing something beyond issuing a description. Austin's now
classic examples are:
(a) "I do (sc. Take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife)," as uttered in
the course of the marriage ceremony.179
(b) "I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth," as uttered when smashing the
bottle against the stem.
(c) "I give and bequeath my watch to my brother," as occurring in a will.
(d) "I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow."
Most of Austin's examples of performatives involve first person verbs, which for Austin
constitute explicit performatives, e.g., I apologize, I criticize, I censure, I approve, I bid
you welcome.180 However, Austin does also consider other performatives such as a judge
saying "guilty" or an umpire calling a runner "out" as well as such utterances as "you are
warned that the bull is dangerous."181
Besides the recognition of the performative nature of speech, Austin's focus upon
felicity conditions to understand speech acts are of the utmost importance for SAT. In
exploring the difference between performatives and constatives, Austin analyzes the
circumstances under which an utterance is successfully (or happily) performed. In order
to see whether a constative has been successfully performed, Austin says that one may
measure the statement with reality and deem it either true or false.182 For example, a
1/8
Austin, HTDTWW, 6.
179
In his essay "Performative Utterances," Austin anticipates the protest that these words alone do
not achieve a marriage and says that these words must be said in the appropriate circumstances in order for
them to be performative. "Performative Utterances," 128.
180
Austin, HTDTWW, 61-69, 83.
181
Ibid., 62.
182
Ibid., 3, 46.
49
constative such as "he is running" can be deemed true or false simply by looking to see if
he is in fact running.183 However, the situation is different for performatives. Austin
points out that "for a certain performative utterance to be happy, certain statements have
to be true."184 Using his four examples of performatives which are mentioned above,
corresponding felicity conditions would include the following:
(a) the groom must not already be married (in a western Christian context),
(b) the one naming the ship must be the person appointed to name her,
(c) the watch must still be physically given, and
(d) the bet usually must be accepted before it is considered to be effective.185
In regards to performatives such as "you are warned that the bull is dangerous," Austin
sees the felicity to depend upon the "personal signature" of the speaker.186 Similarly, the
performatives "guilty," "off-sides," and "out," depend upon the identity of the speaker as
holding the appropriate authority to issue such an act, i.e., a judge, a referee, or an
umpire.187 Performatives depend upon felicity conditions in order to be successful.
One topic that is closely related to Austin's exploration of felicity conditions is
the way that one utterance can commit the speaker to another utterance. In HTDTWW,
Austin points out that constatives can be measured according to what is entailed, what is
implied, and what is presupposed.18 Austin points out that to say "all Jack's children are
bald" presupposes that Jack has some children, to say that "all men blush" entails "some
183
Austin, HTDTWW, 47.
184
Ibid., 45. (Italics his.)
185
Ibid., 8-9.
186
Ibid., 62.
187
Ibid.
188
Ibid., 47-52.
50
men blush" and to say that "the cat is on the mat" must also mean that "the mat is under
the cat." Similarly, Searle and Vanderveken point out that a speaker who issues a
performative that warns a hearer of danger is committed to the constative that the hearer
is in fact in danger.190 In his book The Logic of Self-Involvement Donald Evans explores
the self-involving quality of language in both everyday language and religious
language.191 Included in Evans' study is the concept of "onlooks," the idea that with one
utterance the speaker may also commit to "look on x as y."m For example, in religious
language, Evans says that the utterance "God is the Creator of the world" is self-involving
in that by acknowledging such a divine role the speaker also commits to living as one
who is created by God. Thus the utterance of one speech act can involve making a
commitment to additional utterances.
Austin's identification of performatives and his recognition of the role of felicity
conditions enables a discussion of a third contribution to the theory, an alternate system
of identifying speech acts. After unsuccessfully attempting to fully distinguish
performatives from constatives based upon felicity conditions, Austin seeks a fresh start
on the problem.194 He notes that performatives (not just constatives) rely on truth factors,
189
Austin, HTDTWW, 50-52.
190
Searle and Vanderveken, Foundations, 6-7.
Donald Evans, The Logic of Self-Involvement: A Philosophical Study of Everyday Language

with Special Reference to the Christian Use of Language about God as Creator (London: SCM Press Ltd,
1963).
192
Ibid., 124-41.
193
Ibid., 218.
194
Austin, HTDTWW, 78. While Austin appears to abandon the performative/constative
distinction, Recanati has suggested that the distinction still has merit if an adjustment can be made to the
understanding of constatives to include pragmatic dimensions. Recanati, Meaning and Force, 70.
51
and that constatives (not just performatives) can be characterized not by truth but by
happiness.195 What is more, performative verbs are not always included in performatives,
e.g., one does not insult someone by saying "I insult you."196 Austin also points to the
way that some utterances which at first may appear to be constatives can actually be
performatives. For example, the utterance "the bull is charging" can be either a constative
or a warning.197
Austin's second system places all utterances into three categories, each following
a different preposition: of, in and by. In a broad sense, utterances are acts: (1) o/saying
something, (2) in saying something, and (3) by saying something. Austin defines each of
these as: (1) the locutionary act, (2) the illocutionary act, and (3) the perlocutionary act.
The act o/saying something is to perform a locutionary act and involves meaning. To
perform an act in saying something is to perform an illocutionary act and includes such
examples as asking or answering a question, giving information, announcing a verdict,
giving assurance, making an appointment, and giving a description. An illocutionary act
can be explained by the utterance "in saying x I was doing y," or, e.g., "in saying I would
shoot him I was threatening him."198 The operative word for understanding Austin's
conception of the illocutionary act is force. To achieve something by saying something is
Austin's main example for an unhappy (as opposed to untrue) statement is, "The present King
of France is bald." Austin asks, "Is not a statement which refers to something which does not exist not so
much false as void?" Austin, HTDTWW, 20.
196
197
Ibid., 91-95.
198
Ibid., 122.
52
a perlocutionary act and involves the effect of the illocutionary act, e.g. convincing,
persuading, deterring, and even surprising or misleading.199
Austin admits that the distinction between a locutionary act and an illocutionary
act is hard to make, noting that to perform a locutionary act is eo ipso to perform an
illocutionary act.200 Nevertheless, he sees this distinction to be helpful at least in order to
discuss the variety of ways that a locution can be understood as several differing
illocutions.201 What is more, the distinction between locution and illocution enables
Austin to once again address the descriptive fallacy as he points out that philosophers
have neglected illocutionary use of language entirely and have viewed all problems in
language as problems of "locutionary usage" (i.e., meaning).202
Before turning to contributions made by John Searle, one final aspect of Austin's
taxonomy of illocutionary acts should be noted that has no match in Searle's taxonomy.
(Searle's taxonomy and not the one presented by Austin will be used in this study.)
Austin offers a category of illocutionary acts which he calls behabitives. These are
utterances made in the area of social behaviors such as apologizing, congratulating,
cursing, and challenging.203 These acts rely upon societal conventions and include, but
are not limited to, utterances that are performed in a particular polite style.
199
200
Ibid., 98.
201
Ibid., 99.
202
Meaning here is used to point to 'sense' and 'reference' as opposed to what Austin calls force,
which also might be described as meaning, i.e., 'he meant it as an order'. Austin, HTDTWW, 100.
203
Ibid., 152.
53
Searle: lUocutionary Acts and Speech Situations
John Searle has written extensively on SAT in the attempt to offer a systematic
portrayal of the theory. Particularly helpful for this study are Searle's taxonomy for
illocutionary acts and his attempts to clarify and analyze specific aspects of speech
situations that facilitate the felicity of illocutionary acts.
Accepting Austin's definition of illocutionary acts, Searle views the illocutionary
act as the primary focus of SAT.204 However, he rejects Austin's attempts to separate
locution from illocution, i.e., meaning from force.205 Rather, Searle separates the
illocutionary force of an utterance from its propositional content. The propositional
content consists of a reference and a predication. For example, the following different
illocutionary acts all contain the same propositional content yet have different
illocutionary forces:206
1. Sam smokes habitually.

2. Does Sam smoke habitually?
3. Sam, smoke habitually!
4. Would that Sam smoked habitually.
All four have the same propositional content, i.e., the same referent (Sam) and the same
predication (smoke habitually), and yet are all different illocutionary acts. For Searle, to
make a reference is to perform a speech act in and of itself while a predication is never a
Searle, Speech Acts, 22-23. On this many have followed Searle's lead. For a different view, see
Recanati, Meaning and Force, 27. Against Searle, Recanati seeks to justify Austin's distinction between
force and meaning.
205
Searle, Speech Acts, 23.
206
Ibid., 22-23.
54
complete speech act (but is only a slice of an illocutionary act).207 The general form of a
typical illocutionary act is F(p) where p is the propositional content and F is the force of
the utterance which holds the key for the purpose the act is designed to accomplish.208
While F(p) is the most basic equation for an illocutionary act, Searle offers a
more detailed taxonomy that includes additional variables. In Expression and Meaning,
Searle identifies "at least" twelve significant dimensions of variation in which
illocutionary acts differ.209 However, for his taxonomy he singles out the following three
of these dimensions to be most important for speech act theory: (1) the illocutionary
point, (2) the direction of fit between words and world, and (3) the sincerity condition.210
Searle defines the illocutionary point as the point or purpose of the illocutionary
act.211 Some illocutionary acts clearly are uttered for different purposes. For example, an
order and a promise attempt quite different acts as the former attempts to get the hearer to
do something and the latter is an undertaking of an obligation by the speaker to do
207
Searle devotes a chapter to each of these in Speech Acts. Chapter four concerns reference (72-
96) and chapter five concerns predication (97-127).
208
209
Searle, Expression and Meaning, 2-8. The twelve dimensions of variation are: (1) differences
of illocutionary point, (2) differences in direction of fit, (3) differences in expressed psychological states,
(4) differences in illocutionary force, (5) differences in the status or position of the speaker and hearer, (6)
differences in the way the utterance relates to the interests of the speaker and the hearer, (7) differences in
relations to the rest of the discourse, (8) differences in propositional content that are determined by
illocutionary force indicating devices, (9) differences between acts which must always be performed
through speech and those which may instead be performed through other means, (10) differences between
acts which require extra-linguistic institutions for their performance and those that do not, (11) differences
between acts where the corresponding illocutionary verb ahs a performative and those where it does not,
and (12) differences in the style of performance of the illocutionary act.
Searle, Expression and Meaning, 1-3.

211
Ibid., 3.
55
something.212 Other illocutions, though clearly different acts, nevertheless share the same
illocutionary point. For example, both a command and a request are attempts to get the
hearer to do something.213 Searle claims that illocutionary point is the most important
contributor for illocutionary force.
Perhaps the most widely recognized element of Searle's theory of speech acts has
been his distinction regarding the direction of fit between words and the world. This
concept identifies the illocutionary point of many illocutionary acts to be either an
attempt to get the words (propositional content) to match the world, or to get the world to
match the words.215 Searle presents the illustration of a man who goes to the supermarket
with a shopping list with the intent to buy what is on the list (a world-to-word direction of
fit). A detective is following the man to see what he buys and writes down the items in a
list of his own (a word-to-world direction of fit).216 While the lists are probably the same,
they not only each involve a different direction of fit but also would function differently
if a mistake was found. If the detective later realizes he wrote an item incorrectly, he can
merely scratch it out or erase it and replace it with the correct word. But if the man later
realizes he bought the wrong item he cannot correct the mistake by doing this.217
Similarly, a description or assertion is understood as an attempt to match one's words to
1
Searle, Expression and Meaning, 2.
213
Ibid., 3.
214
Ibid.
2,5
Ibid.
2,6
Ibid., 4.
217
Ibid.
56
the world, while a promise or request embodies the attempt to change the world to fit
one's words. This concept serves to distinguish many illocutionary acts and has been
perhaps the most popular of Searle's contributions to speech act theory. Searle recognizes
the power of this concept and comments, "It would be very elegant if we could build our
taxonomy entirely around this distinction of direction of fit,"218 but he then states that it
cannot be used to cover all of the distinctions between illocutions.
The sincerity condition recognizes that some illocutionary acts express specific
psychological states. For instance, someone stating, asserting, or claiming that/? also
expresses the belief that/?. Someone promising, vowing or threatening to do x expresses
an intention to do x. One cannot say, "I promise that/? but I do not intend that/?."219
Similarly, an apology expresses regret.220 The term "sincerity condition" may be slightly
misleading as Searle does not mean that the one performing the illocution actually feels
221
this or that way, but only that such a psychological state is expressed Any of the three
examples offered above could insincerely express sincerity. However, under normal
circumstances, the sincerity condition serves to categorize many illocutionary acts under
such headings as belief (B), intention (/), or want (W).222
Searle's taxonomy of illocutionary acts is particularly helpful for this study.
Searle separates illocutionary acts into five categories as follows: assertives, directives,
218
Searle, Expression and Meaning, 4
219
Ibid., 5.
220
Ibid., 4.
221
Ibid.
222
Ibid., 5.
57
commissives expressives, and declarations. He uses symbols and letters in his
explanation of how his three main variables are represented in each (see chart below).
Illocutionary Illocutionary Direction Sincerity Proposition Illocutionary Act

Act (name) point of fit condition (equation)
Assertive h 1 e P h i B (p)
Directive ! T W Hdoes A ! T W(H does A)
Commissive C t 1 Sdoes A CT/(SdoesA)
Expressive 0 (P) S/H + property E 0 (P) (S/H + property)

Declaration D X 0 P D I 0 (p)
Assertives are used to tell people how things are. This illocutionary point,
common to all assertives, is denoted by Searle (following Frege) as (f-). Such speech acts
commit the speaker to something being true in a direction of fit which is word-to-world
(I) and with the psychological state of belief (B) of the proposition/?.225 Searle clarifies
that while the level of belief may vary, the illocutionary point and direction of fit remain
the same. For example, hypothesizing that/? carries a different level of belief than flatly
stating that/? and yet both acts tell people how thing are and are nothing like requesting,
for example.
Directives are used in an attempt to get people to do things.227 This illocutionary
point, denoted as (!), is different than assertives in that it embodies a direction of fit that
223
Searle, Expression and Meaning, 12-20. This chart was created using information from these
pages.
Searle, Expression and Meaning, viii.

225
Ibid., 12.
226
Ibid., 13.
227
Ibid., viii.
58
is world-to-word (T) and a sincerity condition that is want (W). The propositional content
is for the hearer (//) to do an act (A) and includes such actions as asking, commanding,
requesting, begging, pleading, and praying and even daring, defying, and challenging.228
Searle also includes the illocutionary act of asking a yes/no question as a directive since
the speaker (5) directs (H) to answer.229
Commissives are used to commit the speaker to doing things. Searle leaves this
category unchanged from that of Austin's commissives and shows that they use such
verbs as promise, vow, and bet which all adhere to the equation C T I(S does A). The
illocutionary point ( Q functions with a world-to- word direction of fit with the sincerity
condition of intention (/). The propositional content is for the speaker (5) to do a future
action (A).
Expressives are used to express feelings and attitudes.231 This category is
explained by the equation E 0 (P) (S/H + property). The null symbol is used where the
direction of fit would be found because expressives attempt no such fit. Instead, the
illocutionary point E is to express the sincerity condition "(P)" about the state of affairs
in the propositional content involving the speaker and the hearer.232 Expressives often use
verbs like "congratulate," "apologize," condole," "deplore," and "welcome." Searle notes
that the property of the proposition must be related to the speaker or the hearer, as one

229
Ibid., 14.
230
Ibid., viii.
231
Ibid.
232
Ibid., 15.
59
can congratulate another on a good performance but not, for example, for Newton's first
law of motion.233
Searle's final category consists of declarations, which are used to bring about
changes in the world through the utterance itself.234 It is this type of utterance that
initially had caught Austin's attention and prompted him to try to distinguish
performative utterances from constative utterances. Declarations, when performed
successfully, guarantee that the propositional content corresponds to the world.235 The
direction of fit is both word-to-world and world-to-word as both occur. There is no
sincerity condition in declarations and therefore the category is expressed as D X 0 (p).
Declaratives perform acts such as nominating a candidate, declaring war, or performing a
marriage. Declaratives are often used in the act of firing an employee (declaring that
someone's employment has been terminated) or of quitting a job (terminating one's own
employment).236 A subset of declaratives is "assertive declaratives" which would
normally be an assertive but can function with a world-to-words direction of fit when the
speaker holds the appropriate authoritative position within a particular speech situation.
Such assertive declaratives include an umpire calling a strike or calling a runner out and
are denoted as Dal tB(p) with Da standing for "assertive declarative" and B denoting
belief. Because of the speaker's position of authority the attempt to match words with the
world in effect becomes a world-to-words act.

234
Ibid., viii.
235
Ibid., 16-17.
236
Ibid., 17.
60
One important factor in determining the type of illocutionary act that an utterance
performs is the speech situation, a topic that encompasses a variety of felicity conditions.
A speech situation is the context of an utterance, which Austin had realized plays an
important part in speech acts. Austin notes, 'Tor some years we have been realizing more
and more clearly that the occasion of an utterance matters seriously, and that the words
used are to some extent to be 'explained' by the 'context' in which they are designed to
be or have actually been spoken in a linguistic interchange."237 The speech situation is
analyzed by Searle and Vanderveken to involve: (1) a speaker, (2) a hearer, (3) a time, (4)
a place, and (5) the "world of the utterance," i.e., other various features relevant to the
first four elements.238 Here the general designation of "the world of the utterance" may be
compared to Searle's more specific articulation of regulatory and constitutive rules. A
regulatory rule could be worded "do X" or "ifYdo X"239 and includes social behavior
(thus many of Austin's behabitives) such as correct table manners. By comparison,
constitutive rules do not merely regulate but actually create or define forms of
behavior.240 A constitutive rule could be worded "Xcounts as Y" or 'Xcounts as Yin
context C. "241 Searle thus views the world of an utterance to be both complicated and
simple. He says that "speaking a language is engaging in a (highly complex) rule-
governed form of behavior," but it is a game that one has intuitively played one's entire
237
Austin, HTDTWW, 100.
238
Searle and Vanderveken, Foundations, 27-28.
239
240
Ibid., 33.
241
Ibid., 35.
61
life.242 Therefore, after offering seven components of illocutionary force to correctly
determine an illocutionary act,243 Searle and Vanderveken then say that the actual speech
situation might alone make clear the illocutionary force of the utterance.244 Similarly,
Paul Grice has pointed out that both linguistic and extra-linguistic acts in normal life rely
upon the situation of their performance to be conveyed correctly. He points out that "a
man who calls for a 'pump' at a fire would not want a bicycle pump . . . [similarly]
context is a criterion in settling the question of why a man who has just put a cigarette in
his mouth has put his hand in his pocket."245 While grammatically a sentence may hold
ambiguity, a speech act functions within a particular speech situation that might limit the
possible intended illocutions.
For Searle, a key component of speech situations is "cooperative conversation," a
term he borrows from Grice.246 Grice's Cooperative Principle of conversation recognizes
that the context of a conversation necessarily guides what both the speaker and hearer do
with language.247 According to Grice, utterances that function within a conversation
242
243
These components are: (1) illocutionary point, (2) degree of strength, (3) mode of achievement,
(4) propositional content conditions, (5) preparatory conditions, (6) sincerity conditions, and (7) degree of
strength of sincerity condition. Searle and Vanderveken, Foundations, 13-20.
244
245
H.P. Grice, "Meaning," in Philosophy of Language: The Big Questions (ed. Andrea Nye;
Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 118-25 (125).

247
In Grice's words, the Cooperative Principle is, "Make your conversational contribution such as
is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk-exchange in
which you are engaged." It relies upon four maxims: (1) The Maxim of Quantity involves the rule to make
your contribution as informative as is required and no more, (2) The Maxim of Quality stipulates that an
utterance must be true and not something known to be false, (3) The Maxim of Relation stipulates that one
must be relevant, (4) The Maxim of Manner involves avoiding obscurity and ambiguity. See H. P. Grice,
62
involve implicit expectations between a speaker and a hearer that guide those functions
which are performed, provided that the speaker is deemed by the hearer to be trustworthy.
In conversation, illocutionary acts may function as indirect speech acts, i.e., illocutions
whose form may belong to one category but in conversation operate under the rules of
another illocution. Searle and Vanderveken list such conversations as participating in
arguments or discussions, buying and selling, exchanging letters, and making jokes.
These conversations serve to restrict the range of appropriate countermoves created by
each illocutionary act.248 For example, the request "can you reach the salt," when uttered
while eating a meal, will most often be understood by the hearer as a request to pass the
salt and not as an inquiry into her/his ability to reach it.249 Similarly, when the directive
"let's go see a movie tonight" is met with the response "I have a lot of algebra homework
tonight," it is generally understood that the invitation has been declined. When
approaching a teller at a bank window, the teller's utterance of "how are you?" likely
initiates the exchange rather than truly inquires as to the hearer's day. Searle points out
that the utterance in its primary function is not changed but more is meant by the speaker,
who expects the hearer to understand.250
On the other hand, it is possible that the speaker makes use of conversation in the
intention to make the hearer misunderstand. While many utterances rely upon a sincerity
condition of belief on the part of the speaker, Searle has noted that in a particular speech
"Logic and Conversation," in Syntax and Semantics: vol. 3, Speech Acts (eds. P. Cole and J. Morgan; New
York: Academic Press, 1975), 41-58.
248
Searle and Vanderveken, Foundations, 11.
63
situation the base requirement is simply the expression of a sincerity condition of belief.
As Searle points out, "Insincere promises are promises nonetheless" and within
conversation, the performance of an illocution requiring a sincerity condition of belief
counts as an expression of a sincere psychological state, whether it is sincere or
insincere.251 Similarly, Recanati has pointed out that sometimes the sender of a message
purposely conceals her/his intentions from the audience in order to issue a successful
utterance. For instance, in playing a game of poker, "the poker player who raises in order
to induce in the other players the belief that he has a strong hand certainly intends to
communicate something, but his intention can be achieved only if it goes undetected by
those to whom the message is addressed."252 Illocutionary acts thus rely upon a certain
construal by the hearer, a topic which has recently been discussed by Richard Briggs,253
though without such an emphasis upon deception. It should also be noted that within the
speech situation of a poker game, the hearer is aware of the possibility that the
aforementioned poker player may be "bluffing." In such a case, the conversation requires
that a decision be made by the hearer as to the speaker's intentions.254
These contributions for SAT made by Austin and Searle will prove helpful to
understanding the story of David's departure as told in 2 Sam 15:1-17:24. It will be
shown in chapters four through six that the narrative relies heavily upon the characters
performing illocutionary acts. To speak is to act in this story. For example, Absalom uses
251
Searle, Speech Acts, 62, 64-65.
252
Recanati, Meaning and Force, 31-32.
253
Briggs, Words, 105-43.
254
Ibid., 147-82.
64
a directive, several assertives and an expressive to steal the heart of the Israelites (15:2
5). David responds to the news of Absalom's success in this matter by issuing a series of
assertives and directives to those under his authority (15:14, 22, 25-28). He later
responds to the news of Ahithophel's defection with a directive to Yhwh (15:31) and then
a series of speech acts directed to Hushai (15:33-36). Hushai earns Absalom's trust with
an expressive, several assertives and several commissives (16:16-19). The ensuing
contest between counselors involves Hushai's assertives and directives counteracting
those of Ahithophel (17:1^4, 7-14a). As the story of David's departure gives way to the
story of David's return, David is able to avoid Absalom's forces after receiving a
directive sent from Hushai through David's messengers (17:15-22, 24). These illocutions
will be analyzed using Searle's taxonomy and discussed in regards to their felicity
conditions as well as the speech situations in which they are uttered. But before SAT is
applied to this narrative, the felicity conditions and speech situations involved in a
narrative context must first be discussed.
The Application of SAT to Narrative Discourse
Thiselton remarks that he "remain[s] unconvinced by those who try to restrict
speech-act theory to oral discourse" and brings up the examples of how legal texts create
commitments (commissive) and written wills bequeath an estate or legacy to a named
beneficiary (declarative).255 To these examples we may add how, e.g., traffic signs and
recipes function as directives, content labels and name tags function as assertives, and
poetry functions as expressive, not to mention how letters, emails, and other written
255
Anthony Thiselton, New Horizons, 2.
65
correspondence are used for many different illocutionary acts. While the functions of
written language offer many different areas of study, the present work is focused upon
ways in which SAT may be used to study narrative discourse.
As with its investigation of the function of speech in normal "real life" situations,
the application of SAT to language appearing in the context of narrative seeks to
understand those aspects of its object of study that can be learned through observing its
usage. Such an endeavor brings the present application of SAT alongside other attempts
to understand narrative in literary studies. For example, several aspects of the literary
theory of Mikhail Bakhtin will be shown to hold similarities to the present application of
SAT to narrative discourse.256 It should be noted that Bakhtin did not view himself
primarily as a literary theorist but rather a participant in philosophical anthropology.257
Perhaps one reason his literary theory fits so well with SAT is that his dialogic
conception is built upon the utterance,25* which holds similarities to the speech act.259 In
any case, the following discussion on SAT and narrative discourse does not necessarily
seek new insight as much as it seeks a fresh articulation of the function of narrative
Esp. Mikhail Bakhtin, "Discourse in the Novel," in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays
(ed. Michael Holquist; trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist; University of Texas Press Slavic Series
1; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981); Mikhail Bakhtin, Toward a Philosophy of the Act (ed. Vadim
Liapunov and Michael Holquist; trans. Vadim Liapunov; University of Texas Press Slavic Series 10;
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993).
257
Katerina Clark and Michael Holquist, Mikhail Bakhtin (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, 1984), 3.
258
Clark and Holquist, Mikhail Bakhtin, 10.
259
According to Clark and Holquist, for Bakhtin an utterance can be spoken or written and is
always expressed from a point of view, which is a process rather than a location. Clark and Holquist, 10.
Bakhtin himself has equated the utterance with the "complete speech act." Bakhtin, "Discourse in the
Novel," 264.
66
discourse. Whether or not this articulation is helpful for understanding narrative will be a
matter that is tested by its application.
This section will begin the discussion of SAT and narrative discourse by
addressing whether or not it is appropriate to apply a theory of spoken language to
written narrative discourse. Next, it will be shown that narrative speech acts function in
two ways, both of which can be understood as a result of their parasitic quality. First, the
parasitic illocutionary acts performed by characters function within the narrative world in
a manner similar to how they might be expected to function when performed by a speaker
in a non-narrative context. As with such illocutionary acts performed in real life, these
narrative utterances rely upon speech situations, which in the story are provided by the
narrator. Second, narrative utterances are parasitic in that they latch onto the illocutionary
force of real utterances for an additional purpose, to tell the story. A telling of the story
necessarily involves projecting a narrative world for an audience. In this way, the act of
telling the story itself is an illocutionary act, which also can function as a perlocutionary
act when told to an audience in an appropriate speech situation, or rather, a particular
storytelling situation.
One crucial issue is whether or not SAT, a philosophy of spoken language, should
be applied to written narrative discourse. In HTDTWW, Austin actually distances himself
from investigating utterances that are spoken outside of real life such as poetry, humor,
and dramas.260 Such utterances are, according to Austin, hollow or void in that the speech
of an actor is not committed to adhering to Austin's doctrine of infelicities. For
260
Austin, HTDTWW, 22.
261
Ibid., 6.
67
example, when a character says that it is raining outside, the audience does not expect to
look out the window to see rain. Austin calls such utterances insincere and parasitic upon
normal usage and therefore outside the scope of his study of performatives.262 Stiver has
recently noted that "the shift from spoken to written language is a significant jump, but
the theory has been widely applied to written language without violating the basic points
that Austin and other speech-act theorists have made."263 In a bit of irony given Austin's
reasoning for avoiding the use of SAT to analyze narrative, the fact that narrative speech
acts are parasitic may actually be the most significant factor that enables SAT to be used
to better understand them!
Those who reject an analysis of narrative discourse in terms of real discourse
often claim that the two uses of language are vastly different. On one hand, some view
narrative discourse to be inferior to real discourse while on the other hand, others see it as
superior. Frege points out that utterances performed on a stage cannot be considered true
as they are not spoken seriously, saying, "As stage thunder is only sham thunder and a
stage fight only a sham fight, so stage assertion is only sham assertion. It is only acting,
only fiction."264 Similarly, Richard Ohmann has called speech acts in literary works
"quasi-speech acts" and has claimed that they are locutionary acts but not illocutionary
262
Austin, HTDTWW, 22.
263
Dan Stiver, "Ricoeur, Speech-act Theory, and the Gospels as History," in After Pentecost:
Language and Biblical Interpretation (eds. Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene, and Karl Moller; The
Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 2; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001): 50-72 (64).
264
Gottlob Frege, Logical Investigations (ed. P. T. Geach; trans. P. T. Geach and R. H. Stoothoff;
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 8. cf. Recanati, Meaning and Force, 264.
68
acts, having no illocutionary force. Regarding those who see literary utterances as
superior, Mary Louis Pratt notes that many have claimed literary art to be a higher form
of language than the ordinary language of the common folk and have insisted that the
higher form of language must not be held to the common rules. In Saussarian terms,
ordinary language has been considered by some to be the langue with literary art the
parole. Whether they view narrative speech to be inferior or superior to real discourse,
many see narrative discourse to follow different rules than utterances outside narrative.
In her book, Towards a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse, Pratt argues that
SAT is an appropriate tool for understanding literature. Toward this end Pratt relies
heavily upon the natural narrative studies of William Labov, an American sociolinguist,
who shows how natural narrative is based on patterns used first in ordinary speech.267
Noting that the same pattern observed by Labov (i.e., orientation, complicating action,
suspension at the focus of evaluation, and resolution) also appear frequently in literature,
Pratt declares:
Unless we are foolish enough to claim that people organize their oral
anecdotes around patterns they learn from reading literature, we are
obliged to draw the more obvious conclusion that the formal similarities
between natural narrative and literary narrative derive from the fact that at
some level of analysis they are utterances of the same type . . . They occur
Richard Ohmann, "Speech Acts and the Definition of Literature," Philosophy and Rhetoric 4
(1971): 1-19. Quoted in Mary Louise Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), 89-90. Cf. Recanati's suggestion that normally an actor
makes only a locutionary act on stage but that it becomes an illocutionary act if the actor genuinely
subscribes to what is said. Recanati, Meaning and Force, 266.
266
Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory, 7-21, especially 17-18.
267
Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory, 45.
69
in novels not because they are novels (i.e., literature) but because they are
members of some other more general category of speech acts.268
Pratt uses Labov's findings to claim that a theory used to study general speech acts is
entirely appropriate for studying speech acts that appear in a literary context.269
Searle comes to a similar conclusion in regards to written discourse. In his chapter
of Expression and Meaning entitled "The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse," Searle
addresses the issue of how in literature illocutionary acts do not appear to follow the rules
for real life. Rejecting the suggestion that the act of writing a story should be
understood as a different category of illocutionary act, Searle points out that the
utterances within stories can be understood because they still carry the same function that
they do in real life, albeit for the world of the narrative and not the real world.271 For
example, a character in a novel who says that it is raining is not committed to the
assertion that it is raining outside in the world of the audience.272 Rather, the assertive
must be measured for whether it is raining or not in the world of the story.
Both Searle and Pratt point to the way that utterances in narrative retain their
normal illocutionary force while functioning within a different context than those uttered
in normal life. They both apply Grice's Cooperative Principle (Pratt does so more
268
269
It should be noted that Pratt does not extend this relationship between ordinary speech and
literature to ancient texts. The present application of SAT in the manner described by Pratt assumes that the
same relationship noted by Pratt for western speech and western literature applies to ancient Hebrew speech
and the literature that survives in 2 Samuel.
270
Searle does not address literature in general but only fiction. He reasons that the term literature
actually denotes a mindset of how one approaches a text rather than a quality inherent in the text itself,
while fictional discourse acquires its status as fiction from the writer. Searle, Expression and Meaning, 59.
271
272
Ibid., 60.
70
explicitly) to show that the literary context of the speech act signals proper expectations
to the audience.273 Just as a hearer has a set of expectations when listening to an
utterance, so too a reader has a set of expectations when reading. As Pratt says, "The real
lesson speech act theory has to offer is that literature is a context too, not the absence of
one, as Ohmann and so many others imply."274 Rather than removing the illocutionary
force of narrative utterances, the literary context retains this force and adds to it.
The idea that speech in narrative functions in ways similar to ways it functions in
real life has long been recognized in narrative theory. In his Poetics, Aristotle recognizes
and explores the presence of mimesis, the art of representation, as it is used in art, in
poetry, painting, narrative and drama.275 More recently, Mikhail Bakhtin has pointed out
that unlike the poet, who can detach the social connections of a word from its use in
poetry, the novelist utilizes the normal usage of dialogue.276 He says, "The prose writer ..
. does not strip away the intentions of others from the heteroglot language of his works,
he does not violate those socio-ideological cultural horizons... rather, he welcomes them
into his work."277 While Bakhtin then goes on to discuss how the author of a novel
273
Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory, 94-95.
274
Ibid., 99. (Italics hers.)
275
Aristotle, Poetics (ed. and trans. Stephen Halliwell; Loeb Classical Library 199; Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1995). For more recent studies on mimesis, see, e.g., James Redmond, ed.,
Drama and Mimesis (Themes in Drama no. 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980); Dennis R.
MacDonald, ed., Mimesis andIntertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Studies in Antiquity and
Christianity; Harrisburg, Perm.: Trinity Press International, 2001); and especially Erich Auerbach, Mimesis:
The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1953).
276
Bakhtin, "Discourse," 264, 275-300, esp. 298. Bakhtin notes that poetic works can also
incorporate heteroglossia, e.g., p. 286.
277
Bakhtin, "Discourse," 299-300.
71
utilizes these speeches for an additional purpose (see below), here it is significant to note
that he views heteroglossia in a narrative context as retaining its normal function.
One way to illustrate a single speech act appearing in a narrative context in
comparison with the same act appearing in the real world is in the juxtaposition of Figure
1 and Figure 2 below:
Figure 1. Figure 2.
As shown in Figure 1, when performed in a real life context, an utterance can involve an
exchange between a Speaker (S) and a Hearer (H). The literary speech situation shown in
Figure 2 retains the illocution SH but places it in a different speech situation involving
the utterance being performed by the Storyteller (St) and heard by the Audience (A).
While Figure 2 is a helpful illustration for how written narrative discourse differs from
real life discourse, another element is necessary in order to portray a narrative speech
situation.
Not only do narrative utterances function parasitically upon the rules of normal
utterances but they do so in order to perform an additional function in the projection of a
narrative world. Recanati notes that "stage assertions do indeed have the force of
72
assertions and are distinguished from true assertions by the presence of an additional
element." Pratt gives some clarity to what such an additional element may entail when
she speaks of narrative utterances as "display texts," that is, utterances that display a
world rather than describe a world.27 Such a designation fits well with an ongoing
philosophical discussion that is centered on the existence of the fictional character
Sherlock Holmes. Searle notes that a reference act to Holmes is felicitous despite the fact
that the character only exists in the world created by Conan Doyle,280 and remarks,
"Theorists of literature are prone to make vague remarks about how the author creates a
fictional world, a world of the novel, or some such. I think we are now in a position to
make sense of those remarks."2 ! Similarly, in his book, The Logic of Fiction, John
Woods notes that "a philosopher of language must be ready with opinions on
'Sherlock,'"282 stating:
[W]hen Sir Arthur Conan Doyle first penned a chronicle of Holmes, he

can hardly be supposed to have used the sentence-tokens descriptive of
Holmes to report the truth about Holmes. He used them rather to tell a
story, to create a character, to endow him with (the beginnings of) a
history. Doyle's venture was not bound'by the sayso condition of truth (as
we might call it) since Doyle's venture was not reportage.1*3
278
Recanati, Meaning and Force, 266.
279
280
Searle, Speech Acts, 78-79.
281
Searle, Expression and Meaning, 13>.
282
John Hayden Woods, The Logic of Fiction: A Philosophical Sounding of Deviant Logic (The
Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1974).
283
Woods, The Logic of Fiction, 26. (Emphasis his.)
73
Such a recognition that display texts function to create rather than report narrative worlds
can lead to a new designation for a narrative direction of fit, a world-from-words
direction of fit.
The following figure (Figure 3) illustrates the world-from-words direction of fit:
St
Figure 3.
In Figure 3, the utterance S>H is introduced by a Storyteller (St), who not only tells of
the utterance but also creates the world of the narrative (W) by issuing display texts. The
narrative world that is displayed for the audience provides the context within which the
utterance operates and is understood. An audience does not view a single utterance, but
rather an utterance that is performed on a particular stage, the world of a narrative.
As Searle's quote regarding fictional worlds indicates, the creation of narrative
worlds has been discussed without reference to SAT. However, SAT offers a helpful tool
by which to articulate this phenomenon. In his book Works and Worlds of Art, Nicholas
Wolterstorff asserts that to write fiction is to "project a narrative world." He says, "Rather
74
than asserting, the teller of fiction invites us to imagine."284 Bakhtin has pointed out that
an author's use of dialogue "becomes a unique artistic system, which orchestrates the
intentional theme of the author." He goes on to say:
The prose writer makes use of words that are already populated with the
social intentions of others and compels them to serve his own new
intentions, to serve a second master. Therefore the intentions of the prose
writer are refracted at different angles ... The orientation of the word
amid the utterances and languages of others, and all the specific
phenomena connected with this orientation, takes on artistic significance
in novel style.286
Within the context of narrative, words function within a narrative world that is also
created by words.
Such an artistic significance has been applied to biblical studies. Wolterstorff
appeals to SAT to claim that the gospels "are designed to reveal who he [Jesus] really
was . . . given the identity and significance of Jesus."287 Thiselton utilizes SAT to show
that the parables in the gospels create a narrative world that becomes "a meeting ground
between Jesus and the hearer." More recently, Wolterstorff has utilized the parlance of
SAT to describe the telling of a story, biblical or otherwise, as an illocutionary act.
Wolterstorff compares the projected narrative world to the propositional content of an
illocutionary act, which for Wolterstorff involves the sense of the story.289 Similarly,
284
Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, 243.
285
Bakhtin, "Discourse," 299.
286
Bakhtin, "Discourse," 299-300.
287
288
Roger Lundin, Anthony Thiselton, and Clarence Walhout, The Responsibility of Hermeneutics
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 108.
289
Nicholas Wolterstorff, "Living within a Text," in Faith and Narrative (ed. Keith E. Yandell;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001): 202-13 (206). Wolterstorff says that "the worldprojected'by that
75
Thiselton utilizes SAT to observe a distinction in Scripture "between image, picture, or
representational or propositional content and function or illocutionary force."290 While
Thiselton applies this to the propositional content within a single verse, the same can be
said for narrative worlds as illocutionary acts.
With the recognition that the telling of a story is an illocutionary act, the intended
results of telling the story can similarly be deemed a perlocutionary act. The idea that a
story is told to affect an audience is well-known, both for biblical and non-biblical
narrative. In regards to biblical narrative, Thiselton articulates a widespread
understanding that, "A narrative . . . seldom merely narrates. It may also inform, direct,
nourish a sense of community solidarity on the basis of corporate memory, produce grief
or joy, or constitute an act of celebration."291 Such is also the case outside of biblical
narrative. In discussing Simon Schama's book Dead Certainties, Wolterstorff asks if the
author is "merely inviting us to imagine the world he projects?" Wolterstorff then
answers his own question by saying, "I doubt it."292 Michael Taussig offers a more
detailed description of what a storyteller does in attempting to change the listener. He
says:
The fundamental move of the mimetic faculty taking us bodily into alterity
is very much the task of the storyteller too. For the storyteller embodied
that situation of stasis and movement in which the far-away was brought
to the here-and-now, archetypically that place where the returned traveler
text for that sense [he equates sense to Austin's illocutionary act] can then be thought of as that
propositional content, plus whatever else is appropriately extrapolated therefrom."
Thiselton, New Horizons, 41.

291
Lundin, Thiselton, and Walhout, The Responsibility of Hermeneutics, 108.
292
76
finally rejoined those who had stayed at home. It was from this encounter
that the story gathered its existence and power, just as it is in this
encounter that we discern the splitting of the self, of being self and Other,
as achieved by sentience taking one out of one-selfto become something
else as well.293
The telling of a story is often much more than the telling of a story.
While a storyteller may issue an illocutionary act, the perlocutionary act depends
upon the identity of the audience as a person (or group) who is willing to participate in
the conversation. It is well-attested in studies that utilize various reader-response methods
that an audience can choose to resist a text. This might lead to a variety of perlocutionary
acts.294 Yet readers can also participate willingly in ways that may fit more closely with
what the text attempts to do. This has also been recognized, e.g., as Taussig clarifies that
while storytellers attempt to transport readers into alterity, it is "the listening self [who] is
plunged forward into and beyond itself."295 In biblical studies, Thiselton has appealed to
SAT and particularly to Evans' work on self-involvement to show how such a
perlocutionary act of transformation is contingent upon the willingness of the audience to
"step into this world, and to let his or her feelings and imagination be directed by the
Michael Taussig, Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses (London: Routledge,
1993), 40-41.
294
Bakhtin draws a distinction between "the world in which an act or deed actually proceeds" and
"a concrete architectonic whole" which can be experienced by an observer who comes to a unique
understanding of the "world-as-event" through a "unique participation in that world". Bakhtin, Toward a
Philosophy, 56-57. Michael Holquist has noted that for Bakhtin, a reader encounters a text in a type of co-
authoring or re-authoring by which the reader "transforms a text into an event by giving it meaning".
Following this idea, Barnet points out that Bakhtin does not claim that the utterance loses past meanings in
new contexts but rather that meaning can be recalled and invigorated in renewed form. John Barnet, Not the
Righteous but Sinners: M.M. Bakhtin's Theory of Aesthetics and the Problem of Reader-Character
Interaction in Matthew's Gospel (JSNTSup 246; London: T&T Clark International, 2003), 30-31.
295
Taussig, Mimesis, 41. (Emphasis added.)
77
world of the text." More recently, Richard Briggs has reformulated Evans' "logic of
self-involvement" into a "hermeneutic of self-involvement" in which a reader of biblical
illocutions might find such illocutions to be effective in her or his own life.297 Although
Briggs concerns himself mainly with New Testament illocutions such as speech acts of
confessing, forgiving, and teaching, a hermeneutic of self-involvement holds great
potential for understanding biblical narrative as well. Thus the question of a story as a
perlocutionary act bespeaks the question of the sort of audience that might be willing to
listen and step into the projected world. In other words, a study of a narrative as
perlocutionary text involves an investigation into the sort of storytelling situation that
would include an audience who might utilize a particular hermeneutic of self-
involvement.
At first glance, it may seem that the inquiry into a story as a perlocutionary act
upon an ancient audience is impossible, since such audiences are unavailable for
observation or interview. However, a study of the storyteller level of a narrative can yield
an interpretation as to the general sort of audience to whom the story is told. This enables
further inquiry into an audience that would potentially facilitate a perlocutionary act.
Pratt notes that Labov's study on natural narratives finds them to be told with the quality
of "tellability," i.e., narratives are told in ways so as to be interesting to the audience at
hand.298 This often involves the inherent claim that what is told should be considered
Thiselton, New Horizons, 32-33.
Briggs, Words in Action, 147-82.
Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory, 132-51.
78
remarkable or unusual in the eyes of the audience. Claiming that the same is true for
written narrative, Pratt says:
In making an assertion whose relevance is tellability, a speaker is not only

reporting but also verbally displaying a state of affairs, inviting his
addressee(s) to join him in contemplating it, evaluating it, and responding
to it. His point is to produce in his hearers not only belief but also an
imaginative and affective involvement in the state of affairs he is
representing and an evaluative stance toward it.299
Pratt speaks of tellability markers in natural narrative such as the word "absolutely,"
which emphasize parts of the story, and extends the concept to how literary works are
constructed. To this it might be added that tellability markers also hint of an implied
audience that may require convincing, such as the interlocution of the phrase "let me be
clear" to signal that the speaker is presenting a disputed point.
Such an emphasis upon the construction of a narrative to yield insight into an
implied audience has been noted outside of SAT, particularly in the field of narrative
ethics. In her study on the book of Job as a contest of moral imaginations, Carol Newsom
references how a narrative text must first offer a reader something that interests the reader
before it can affect the reader. She notes that except for students forced to read a text,
readers turn the page out of desire for more of what the narrative offers.300 Furthermore,
Newsom states that one can understand the identity of the speaker and reader based upon
the narrative. As Newsom states:
Style constructs identity and character, not just for the figures within the
text but for the implied author and reader as well. If one thinks of speech
in actual social situations, how someone talks tells me who they think they
299
300
Carol A. Newsom, The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003), 35.
79
are, who they think I am, and what sort of a relationship exists between us.
. . . something analogous occurs in writing. The style in which a text is
writteninclusive of everything from diction and syntax to genre
constructs a character for the implied author and projects the character of
the one to whom it is addressed.
Newsom explains this further by appealing to Wayne Booth, who says that narratives
"pattern" the reader's desire to become "that kind of desirer" in the reading of the
narrative.301 In the parlance of SAT, the storyteller utilizes tellability markers to tell the
story in ways that directs it towards the intended audience. Therefore, an investigation of
the storyteller level can help to identify the sort of audience that the storyteller is
addressing. It is this (theoretical) intended audience by which the possibility of a
perlocutionary act can be discussed.
An Application of SAT to the Story of David's Departure
The Function of Speech Acts on the Story and Storyteller Levels
The present study seeks to understand how the story of David's departure functions both
as an illocutionary act and as a perlocutionary act. Using Searle's definition of an
illocutionary act to be F(p), chapters four through six will examine the propositional
content of the story (p) and the illocutionary force of the story (F). The terminology used
to denote these two levels of narrative analysis will be the story level and the storyteller
level, respectively. Chapter seven will then investigate the presence of tellability markers
within the storyteller level that suggest that this illocutionary act is issued to a particular
audience. With such an understanding of the identity of the implied audience, the
301
Wayne Booth, The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction (Berkley: University of California
Press, 1988), 201; Newsom, The Book of Job, 35.
80
illocutionary act of David's departure will be explored for how it may function as a
perlocutionary act within such a storytelling situation.
The story level of analysis seeks an understanding of how the speech acts of the
characters function within the narrative speech situations displayed by the narrator. Here
the term story is defined in a structuralist sense. In structuralism and narratology, a story
consists of a particular arrangement of the fabula, with a fabula consisting of a series of
chronologically and logically related events that are caused or experienced by actors.302
At the story level, the present study will analyze the characters' illocutionary acts by
using Searle's taxonomy and by investigating any necessary felicity conditions attached
to these utterances. At this level of study, the narrator's role involves: (1) issuing display
texts that provide the speech situations within which the characters' illocutionary acts
function (such as identities of the speaker and hearer, the geographic location, and any
difference in authority between the actors), (2) introducing the characters' speeches with
speech formulas, and (3) displaying any extra-linguistic reactions by characters within the
narrative conversation as a response to the illocutionary act. In short, the story level
follows the story from the viewpoint of the characters.
The storyteller level seeks to understand the illocutionary force of this particular
telling of the story by investigating the ways that the narrative world is projected to an
audience. On this level of analysis, the present study will investigate the characters'
speech acts and the narrator's speech acts for the ways that they tell the story. For this
particular narrative, an inquiry of the storyteller level takes into consideration such
aspects as key terms, repetition, chiasm, and themes. In this way, the storyteller level
302
Mieke Bal, Narratology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 5-6.
81
bears similarities with many other synchronic methods that are applied to biblical
narrative, such as narrative criticism and various other studies of poetics. The storyteller
level also joins with methods such as form criticism and rhetorical criticism in seeking
not only an identification of the artistic construction of a narrative but an understanding
of the function of such a construction. Since all of the utterances of the narrative, i.e.
those in the voice of the characters and the narrator, function to tell the story, the
storyteller level examines what Phyllis Trible has called the form-content of the
narrative. While the speech acts of character and narrator alike are analyzed at the
storyteller level, the narrator in particular contributes to the illocutionary force of the
story by occasionally issuing speech acts that are directed solely toward the audience.
Unlike the display texts that operate on both the story and storyteller levels, these speech
acts are actually assertives that describe rather than display the world of the narrative.
These assertives utilize a words-to-(narrative) world direction of fit rather than the
display texts, which utilize a world-from-words direction of fit. The storyteller level in its
entirety can be illustrated as follows:
303
Phyllis Trible, Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (GBS;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).
82
Figure 4.
In Figure 4, line St>A represents the assertives issued by the storyteller directly to the
audience. To clarify, in Figure 4 all of the utterances function on both the story level and
the storyteller level, with the exception of utterances St>A, which operates only on the
storyteller level. (There is no narrative utterance that functions only on the story level.)
The storyteller level thus follows the story from the viewpoint of the audience.
Only four utterances are performed by the narrator to function only on the
storyteller level: 2 Sam 15:6b; 15:12b; 16:23; 17:14b. It will be demonstrated how these
assertives emphasize certain aspects of the story level and contribute to the illocutionary
force of this story.
In distinguishing between the story level and the storyteller level, one can
recognize a difference of knowledge on the part of the audience and the characters. The
audience is often (though not always) more informed than are the characters regarding
events occurring within the narrative world because the audience does not exist in the
narrative world and therefore is not bound by the temporal aspect of the story. On the
other hand, the audience is bound in its knowledge of the narrative world by what is
83
displayed or otherwise shared by the storyteller, leaving the potential for various
assumptions and intentions of characters to remain hidden from the audience.
The distinction between the story level and the storyteller level participates in a
broader discussion by many who also seek to distinguish different levels of narration.
One such distinction has been offered by Botha, who also uses SAT and makes a
distinction between what the speech acts of John 4:1-42 do "on the level of the
characters" and "on the level of the author and reader."304 Without reference to SAT and
in regards to biblical narrative, Meir Sternberg suggests that there are two levels of
biblical narrative analysis: "source-oriented analysis," which is concerned with the
(historical) world behind the text, and "discourse-oriented analysis," which is concerned
with the artful presentation.305 Similarly, Jacob Licht claims that in biblical narrative, the
narrator exhibits a "double skill" as both historian and storyteller. Studies employing
structuralism upon non-biblical narrative also make a distinction between story and
discourse. For example, in his study on narrative and film, Seymour Chatman applies the
structuralist distinction between the story of a narrative, which consists of the content or
chain of events, and the discourse, consisting of the means by which the content is
communicated. Chatman says simply that "the story is the what in a narrative that is
depicted, discourse the how."307 The story/discourse distinction compares favorably with
304
Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 118-19.
305
Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 16.
306
Jacob Licht, Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1978;
second edition, 1986), 13.
307
Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1978), 19-20.
84
the story level and storyteller level. Many scholars have recognized the existence of two
levels of narration surrounding what characters can see and what the reader can see. This
recognition is well-attested in narratology and biblical poetics alike. Robert Polzin
has even noted that 2 Samuel 16: 1-14 "is filled with action that is presented by the
narrator as if it were happening before our eyes, and represented by characters as if it
were happening before theirs . . ."310 One contribution of the present study is an attempt
to better understand what these two levels of storytelling do in regards to the story of
David's departure in 2 Samuel 15:1-17:24.
Distinguishing between what narrative utterances do on the story level from their
function on the storytelling level provides a way to understand several aspects of the
story of David's departure. For instance, the two hundred individuals going from
Jerusalem to Hebron with Absalom are unaware of Absalom's plans of rebellion (15:11)
because they were not the recipients of this information told by the secret messengers
(15:10). The audience, however, is already privy to this information on the storyteller
level with the knowledge that Absalom has stolen the hearts of the Israelites (15:6). On
the story level Absalom has only publically expressed a desire to be appointed judge by
the king, not to rebel against the king. At this point the audience is more informed than
some of the characters. On the other hand, at times the characters have knowledge that is
308
E.g., Bal identifies two levels of narration, one which tells of what is going on and another
which tells of things that the actors do not see or hear. Bal, Narratology, 134, 137.
309
E.g., Sternberg has noted the gap between what the characters know and what the narrator
knows, and says that readers are not always given a full picture. As an example of two viewpoints,
Sternberg offers the "scene" of Genesis 18:10-15, when Sarah laughs to herself upon news of her imminent
pregnancy. This scene operates at two levels of awareness: a lower awareness consisting of Sarah's
restricted viewpoint and an upper level consisting of that of the divine visitor, which Sternberg compares to
the view of the narrator. Sternberg, Poetics, 84-99.
310
Polzin, "Curses and Kings," 218.
85
hidden from the audience. For example, although both David and Absalom consider
Ahithophel's counsel to be on a par with the words of Yhwh, a belief clearly operative on
the story level in 15:30-31, the audience is not told of this belief on the storyteller level
until 16:23. The distinction between story and storyteller will be shown to illuminate
many aspects of this narrative and engage in the ongoing discussion of 2 Samuel 15:1-
17:24.
Introduction to Chapters Four through Seven
Chapters four through six contain a narrative analysis of 2 Samuel 15:1-17:24 that
utilizes SAT to understand the speeches of this narrative, i.e., those performed by the
characters and the narrator. By inquiring into what the speeches of the characters and the
narrator do in addition to what they mean, SAT offers fresh insight into the story of
David's departure that contributes to an ongoing scholarly conversation on this story. The
identification of what these narrative speeches do on the story and storyteller level
illuminates David as the main character of the story and Yhwh as the most important
character of the story. On the story level, the theological speeches of David display a
hope that Yhwh will work to bring good to David even when the circumstances suggest
otherwise. On the storyteller level, this story is told in a way that emphasizes David's
faith and portrays it to be felicitous. In chapter seven this illocutionary act will be
discussed in regards to the type of storytelling situation that might facilitate it to serve as
a perlocutionary act of encouragement.
86
While there are many ways by which to present the structure of this narrative, for
this study it is helpful to divide this narrative into scenes that are grouped together
roughly according to their geographic location in relation to Jerusalem. See below.
Speech Structure
Location Scene Passage
Narrator Characters Narrator
Inside 1 15:1-6 Speech situation Speech acts Display text
Jerusalem
2 15:7-12 Speech situation Speech acts Display text
Speech acts Display text
Outside 4 15:23-29 Speech situation Speech acts Display text

Jerusalem
6 16:1-4 Speech situation Speech acts 0
Inside 8 16:16-23 Speech situation Speech acts Aside

Jerusalem
Speech situation Speech acts Aside
Speech situation Speech acts Display texts
In the above depiction of the passage's structure, a general pattern appears in most every
scene involving the ways that the speeches of the characters are framed by the narrator.
The scene begins with a display text regarding the speech situation, e.g., the speaker and
hearer(s), the temporal setting of the utterances, and the geographic location of the
utterances. The scene usually ends with a display text sharing results of the characters'
speech acts. Slight deviations from this pattern include scene three, which holds an
additional verbal exchange where resumptive repetition resists the splitting of this scene
87
into two scenes (see chapter four), and scene six, which conspicuously lacks a display
text at the end of the scene. Scenes nine and ten also contain more than one conversation:
the aside performed by the narrator at the end of 17:14 suggests that Absalom's
conversations with both Ahithophel and Hushai belong in one scene, while scene ten
involves a conversation that facilitates that delivery of a speech act.
It will be shown in chapters four through six that within the story of David's
departure, the characters' utterances rely upon several felicity conditions, including: (1)
the identity of the speaker, (2) the status of the speaker in relation to the hearer, especially
in regards to authority held by one over the other,311 (3) the location whereupon the
illocution is performed, and (4) the sincerity condition. Also, many of the pivotal speech
acts performed by the characters will be shown to operate with a conditional direction of
fit. For example, Absalom expresses a desire for the king to make him a judge, a
hypothetical situation, and then performs an assertive and a commissive that he would
bring pleasing judgment to all under such a circumstance. There is no way to prove or
disprove Absalom's illocutionary acts because the situation of being appointed as judge
never arises. However, the perlocutionary act of stealing the heart of the Israelites is
felicitous. A similar conditional direction of fit is utilized by David in his flight from the
city, when David tells all who are loyal to him to flee lest Absalom overtake them and
attack the city with the sword (15:14). Since David's party leaves before Absalom
arrives, it is impossible to tell if David's assertive regarding Absalom's military action is
311
The issue of status as a motif of narratives telling of court conflicts has been discussed by
Niditch and Doran, although they focus upon such nuances for stories involving a person of lower status
solving a problem for a king and thus being rewarded with entry into the king's court (e.g., Gen 41:4-5,
Dan 2:1^9). Susan Niditch and Robert Doran, "The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: a Formal
Approach," JBL 96 (1977): 179-93.
88
correct. Several other assertives depend upon a world that is projected by the speaker,
such as Ziba's claim of Mephibosheth's audacious expressive and Hushai's assertives
telling Absalom of David's position of strength and not weakness. In this way, several of
the characters of this narrative act as storytellers, i.e., they project a narrative world that
facilitates various perlocutionary acts provided that the hearers accept the invitation to
construe the direction of fit as felicitous.
Following the structuring of this story as one in which the action occurs inside,
outside, and then back inside the city of Jerusalem, chapter four will discuss scenes one
through three as an introduction to the story of David's departure. Chapter five will
discuss scenes four through six as the heart of the narrative, and chapter six will discuss
scenes seven through ten. For all ten scenes, the investigation of each individual scene
will consist of: (1) a translation that is based upon the narrative as it appears in BHS, (2) a
chart showing the illocutionary acts of each scene, (3) an investigation of what these
speech acts do on the story level, and (4) a discussion of what these speech acts do on the
storyteller level.
This detailed scene-by-scene analysis will be followed by a final chapter (chapter
seven) that summarizes the findings of the prior three chapters and discusses ways that
such a telling, i.e., such an illocutionary act, may function as a perlocutionary act of
encouraging the audience. The identity of the audience within a particular storytelling
situation will be shown to be a key felicity condition for such a speech act. One
storytelling situation that might be expected to facilitate the perlocutionary act of
encouragement involves an audience that utilizes a hermeneutic of self-involvement in
that it: (1) identifies itself with David, (2) believes that Yhwh exists beyond the narrative
89
world, and (3) has experienced distress. In other words, this story can encourage an
audience that will see this not only as a story about David, but a story about themselves.
90
CHAPTER 4
Absalom's Plot as Introduction to David's Departure: Scenes One through Three
Scenes one through three all take place near or within Jerusalem. While scene one (15:1-
6) and scene two (15:7-12) at first appear to introduce a story that is mainly about
Absalom and his attempted rebellion against David, the addition of scene three (15:13-
22) as well as the scenes that follow reveal that these first three scenes actually serve as
an introduction to a story about David. On the story level, Absalom performs speech acts
that prepare for and initiate his rebellion. While Absalom's intention to ascend to the
throne is evident on the story level, his plan to do so by means of open rebellion remains
hidden until 15:10. (Even then his preparations are performed in secret until the
announcement in 15:13.) On the storyteller level, Absalom's intention of replacing the
king via a rebellion rather than waiting to eventually succeed to the throne is more
evident. However, hidden from the view of the characters and the audience alike in
scenes one and two is whether or not King David knows of Absalom's plans. The
storyteller level of scene three suggests that David has known of and even approved of
Absalom's intention to replace him, and in leaving Jerusalem David is not strategizing
against Absalom but is rather enacting a plan that will enable him to return to the city in
peace when Absalom is established as king.
91
Scene One: 15:1-6
On the story level, scene one contains an account of Absalom's verbal and physical
exchanges with those people who are seeking judgment from the king. By performing
several illocutionary acts, Absalom portrays their cause as hopeless and presents himself
as the answer to this problem. On the story level, Absalom's intention to succeed his
father in due time is clear but his timetable is hidden as he only expresses the immediate
desire to be made judge. On the storyteller level, the audience is told of Absalom's acts in
ways that suggest he intends to replace the king soon.
Translation
(1) And it came to pass312 after this that Absalom acquired for himself a
chariot and horses and fifty men to run ahead of him. (2) Absalom would
rise early313 and stand beside the road to the gate; and when anyone314
brought a suit before the king for judgment, Absalom would call out and
say, "From what city are you?" When the person said, "Your servant is
from one of the tribes of Israel," (3) Absalom would say, "See, your
l i e
words are good and right; but there is no one appointed by the king to
"IT] appears frequently in Old Testament narrative and is often left out of English translations.
It is commonly used with an expression of time to introduce an independent narrative or a new section of
the narrative with a loose connection to the events previously narrated (GKC 11 lg). Here the translation
of "and it came to pass . . . that" is utilized in the attempt to recognize this function of T H to begin the
telling of a new section of a larger story.
The frequentative perfect consecutive belongs to the period of time expressed by the preceding
tense, including imperfects consecutive which simply express one single action (GKC 112e; Joiion
118n). However, it may also be said that in all cases the frequentative nuance is derived from the context
(Joiion 118n).
ETKn is here being used as a collective (GKC 127 b N). Gender inclusive language will be
used throughout this translation. This fits the present context, since one need not be a man in order to bring
a suit before the king for judgment (e.g., 2 Sam 14:2-21; 1 Kings 3:16).
315
Anderson and Hertzberg as well as NRSV translate ^"O"! as "your claim(s)." A. A. Anderson,
2 Samuel (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1989), 192-3; Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, / & IISamuel: A
Commentary (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL; London: SCM Press LTD, 1960), 335. BHS notes that many
manuscripts have the plural rather than the singular. At this time I have followed these manuscripts for the
sake of a smoother English translation matching the plural adjectival participles modifying it. However,
the singular "your word" should not be considered an error, as both here and in 17:6 it can be interpreted to
embody the whole of what is said (cf. in 17:6 the "word of Ahithophel").
92
hear you." (4) Then Absalom would say, "If only I were appointed judge
in the land! Then anyone that had a suit might come to me and I would
judge in their favor." (5) And when someone came near to bow down to
him, he would extend his hand and take hold of them and kiss them. (6)
Thus Absalom did to all Israel that came to the king for judgment, and
Absalom stole the heart of the people of Israel.
Speech Acts
Level Speaker / Hearer w. Speech Speech Act

Story and S= Narrator 1 Display text
storyteller H= Audience
* . . _. _ * "-. : : v
levels T T T
:V2*b
T T :
S= Narrator 2a- T~bv ins] Di^5 n^pri) Speech

H= Audience 2ba situation
^ r r ' j g Kin1? rrT^'rriT

-
T - T : T|: * T : -
s= Di^na 2bp nna T n?o'*$ Directive

T : -
H= Person seeking
CDSE7Q from the king
S= Narrator 2by -1I2KS] Speech
H= Audience formula
S= Person seeking 2b6 :*pn& ^sqfcr-^nc?? irwe Assertive &

DS52I2 from the king Commissive
H= DibefaK
T : -
S= Narrator 3aa T : - T -
Speech
H= Audience formula
s= uhti'iK 3aP- D^ron D^riCD ^nnn n*n Directive &
T : -
3y Assertive 1
H 1 = Israelite seeking
C0SK7Q from the king 3a5 ânnao^-^Kpofcr; Assertive 2
S= Narrator 4aa DiêbK -ii?si Speech

H= Audience formula
s= DibraK 4ap JHK3 DS& W p p Expressive
T : ~
93
(cont.) H= Israelite seeking 4b rrrr\m BTK-SO Ki:r bin
-
Assertive &
CD3$Q from the king v : v : T T - T :
Commissive
S= Narrator 5-6a b nrnn&Tb Erirmpn rrmDisplay text

H= Audience - : - : : T|: I T :
:b pgy\ b p^W) iT~n$ n ^ l

T : v - T T - T : ~
-
T : - T v : T :
Storyteller S= Narrator 6b tf 38 a!?~n8 nbwix nan Display text

level only H= Audience
* T :
Story Level
The narrator opens this scene by telling of Absalom's acquisition of a chariot, horses, and
men (v. 1). While many interpreters have assumed that this verse reveals Absalom's
intention of rebelling against the king, it is also possible that such an act is endorsed by
the king. Among those who view this act to show Absalom to be setting himself against
the king is Conroy, who says that Absalom's "ostentatious" display in 15:1 is aimed at
attracting public notice for his conspiracy.316 Such a view fits with Weingreen's comment
that this act is an indication that within Israel there has been "a serious deterioration in
David's status."317 While Absalom's intentions to replace the king will be made evident
on the storyteller level in this scene (see below), at this point of the story level the act of
acquiring chariots, horses, and men does not necessarily indicate that Absalom is
preparing for revolt. It may be, as Battenhouse has suggested, that Absalom's actions
allow the inference that he has "an opportunist's intent to remove a rival heir to the
316
3,7
Jacob Weingreen, "Rebellion of Absalom," VT19 (1969): 263-266,264.
94
throne."318 That this act does not necessarily set Absalom against the current king also
fits with Whitelam's suggestion that the expense of the upkeep for such an entourage
would likely have been financed by the king himself.319 If Absalom is preparing for
conflict with rival heirs and not the king, a character on the story level might interpret
this public act to indicate that Absalom is favored by the king. If, however, the king has
not financed this entourage then Absalom's act might serve as a signal to David regarding
Absalom's intentions. Thus the first verse of this scene leaves as ambiguous the king's
knowledge of Absalom's rebellion.
The narrator then introduces the immediate speech situation of the scene.
Depicted as a recurring situation by the use of the frequentative perfect consecutive, the
speech situation involves a speaker (D17EOK), a location pS?$!l TJ"n T~^S?), and a
description of the hearers (33^13*? ^ g P r ^ S Kin1? n n " i ^ _ n ^ , - " l ^ ETKrr^S).
The hearers are in search of EDSEJE from the king, bringing a suit seeking judgment in his
or her favor. The location is given in terms of the gate (1S?I2?n), a place where people
might go to find judgment over disputes (e.g., Deut 16:18; 21:18, 25:7; 2 Kgs 7:17).
According to Ramsey, some court settings would involve the king hearing the suit while
others might involve someone appointed by the king to perform this task.320 In the book
318
Roy W. Battenhouse, "The Tragedy of Absalom: a Literary Analysis (2 Samuel 13-18),"
Christianity and Literature 31 (1982): 53-57 (53).
Keith W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel
(JSOTSup 12; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979), 141.
320
George Ramsey, "Speech-forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles," JBL 96 (1977): 45-58
(48); cf. Ludwig Kohler, Hebrew Man (trans. Peter R. Ackroyd; London: SCM Press, 1956), 164-65;
Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; The Biblical Resource
Series; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 153.
95
of Amos, the house of Israel is directed by Yhwh to make faithful decisions at the gate
(Amos 5:10, 12, 15). The speech situation of this scene involves hearers who desire
judgment from the king's court, and a speaker who expresses a desire to be given the task
of issuing such a judgment.
Absalom's first speech act serves to catch the hearer's attention and then to
initiate a particular conversation. The question, JiriX "VS7 H-IP-"1^ "From what city are
you?" is not only a directive to respond with information, but also for the hearer to stop
and engage in conversation. The narrator then tells of a response that would continue the
conversation, involving first a self-designation (^j^QS?) and then an assertive that the
speaker belongs to "one of the tribes of Israel." The self-designation ^jl?!? is certainly a
behabitive as the appropriate way to begin a response after being asked a question by a
member of the royal family. It identifies the speaker as someone professing to be under
Absalom's authority. Daube suggests that these travelers possess a status higher than a
common Israelite, calling them "important people from diverse districts."321 Even if this
is so, these respondents still show themselves to be under the authority of Absalom and
identifying with Israel. When met with this response, Absalom proceeds to offer
additional speech acts that are intended for this particular audience.
Absalom's ensuing speech consists of two assertives that describe the world from
a particular viewpoint, one that he invites the hearer to share. Beginning with a directive
to pay attention (HSS!"]), Absalom offers two assertives: one regarding the validity of the
David Daube, "Absalom and the Ideal King," PT48 (1998): 315-25.
96
hearers' claims and the other regarding the inevitable failure of these claims to receive
the judgment that is sought. Interpreters have noted that it is impossible for Absalom to
know for certain the validity of each and every claim, and that his own presence in
Jerusalem bears witness to the opposite, that the king is hearing cases (i.e., the woman of
Tekoa in 2 Sam 14). Nevertheless, Absalom can speak as one who has observed and
experienced the king's lack of DS27Q as the king had refused to punish Amnon for the
rape of Tamar (2 Sam 13, esp. v. 21).322 If Absalom's audience has already failed to
receive judgment from a lower court as Beek suggests,323 then the speech situation works
in favor of a successful perlocutionary act to convince the audience that this will continue
to be their experience with the king. Such an act serves as the groundwork for Absalom's
next speech, in which he offers himself as a solution to this problem.
After describing the problem in which the king will ignore his responsibility to
provide tDSCPQ, Absalom presents himself as the answer by performing an expressive, an
assertive, and a commissive. As with his first speech, this illocution involves a particular
projection of the world that Absalom invites the audience to share. Absalom expresses
the desire for the king to make him judge (tDSDEJ), an act that would not necessarily seem
extraordinary. Absalom then performs an assertive describing the ensuing situation were
he made judge and then a commissive by which Absalom commits to bring a judgment
322
Daube has drawn attention to how it is the lack of judgment (CDSKJD) that is the incentive of
Absalom's efforts. Daube, "Absalom," 319.
323
Martinus Adrianus Beek, "David and Absalom: a Hebrew Tragedy in Prose," in Voices from
Amsterdam: a Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative (ed., trans. Martin Kessler; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1994), 155-68 (160).
97
that is in favor of the petitioner (TTlpllJrn COSE???1)). As Battenhouse notes, here in 2
Sam 15 Absalom holds himself in high regard in terms of bringing justice, saying that he
"regards his act of slaying Amnon as an act of justice, better justice than the King's."324
In any case, it appears that Absalom here commits to enacting judgment on behalf of the
petitioner.325 While interpreters have suggested that here Absalom is presenting himself
as a replacement to the king, on the story level Absalom only expresses a desire to
serve under the king as a judge.
The display text that closes this scene on the story level brings into focus the
position of authority held by Absalom and his attempt to win the hearts of the travelers
with whom he speaks. As with Absalom's verbal exchange of verses 2-4, the physical
exchange of verse 5 attempts to establish a firm relationship between Absalom and the
people of Israel. The narrator displays Absalom's royal status and the hearers'
subservient status with the display of the hearers approaching Absalom to bow down to
him.328 In response, Absalom is said to "extend his hand" (i"T~n$ 11727']), a kingly act,
but in this case one that is followed by seizing (p^Tfirfl) and kissing (pCfal) that person.
Thus the narrator portrays Absalom as being approached by someone with lower status,
324
Battenhouse, "The Tragedy of Absalom," 53.
325
Goldingay notes that in this verse the phrase TTlplSiT) DSEJD1) denotes "a concern to do right
for your people that expresses itself in decisive action on their behalf." John Goldingay, Men Behaving
Badly (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 2000), 279.
326
E.g., De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 152.
327
E.g., Anderson, 2 Samuel, 194.
328
The practice of bowing appears as a mandated form of greeting by those approaching someone
appointed by the king in Esther 3:2-5.
98
and treating this person as if they are of equal status. As Hagan points out "Rather than
accept the homage due a prince, Absolom [sic] offers the men of Israel the kiss of a
friend."329 Some interpreters have noted that Absalom himself had recently received a
kiss from the king (2 Sam 14:33), and have suggested that Absalom's kiss here makes
Absalom a hypocrite.330 Yet the act of receiving a kiss from one who has a higher status
likely functions as a behabitive and not a commissive. Unlike the narrator's report of the
kiss given to Absalom by David in 2 Sam 14:33, here the narrator follows the report of
Absalom's kiss given to the people of Israel with a display text telling of its success.
Storyteller Level
At the storyteller level, the narrator's display text at the end of the scene offers the
audience insight into the truth value regarding Absalom's intentions.331 According to Bal,
truth value involves "the 'reality' of the actants within the actantial structure." A
character may appear to be a certain type of character, e.g., helper, opponent, hero,
villain, but at some point the truth value of this identity is revealed. The scene closes with
the narrator performing an assertive rather than a display text (v. 6b). The narrator says
that Absalom "stole the heart" of the people of Israel ( ^?K S 1 ? " ^ Q i ^ e b g 333^
'Nn&T). Although it is possible that here the narrator is conveying the affection which
329
Hagan, "Deception as Motif," 313.
330
E.g., Hagan, "Deception as Motif," 314. Battenhouse remarks"he is an unconscious hypocrite.
When admitted to the king's presence he bows to the ground, then accepts the king's kiss of peacethen
next goes to the public gate to undermine the king with the public." Battenhouse, "The Tragedy of
Absalom," 54.
Bal, Narratology, 34-35.

332
Ibid.
99
Absalom earns by these acts,333 the phrase D ;> J"IX ... D33 appears elsewhere to show
deception, e.g. Gen 31:20, 26, 27. On the storyteller level, the narrator thus signals to the
audience that the speech acts and the extra-linguistic acts of the scene on the story level
have resulted in the fact that Absalom has deceived his hearers.
Scene Two (15:7-12)
In scene two, Absalom performs several speech acts in the presence of the king in order
to obtain permission to go to Hebron to fulfill a vow. While the storyteller level reveals
that Absalom's true intentions are to begin his rebellion, it is not clear whether the king
realizes that by his directive to "go in peace" he enables Absalom to continue his plans.
Translation
(7) And it came to pass that at the end of forty days Absalom spoke
insistently to the king,334 "Please let me go and fulfill my vow that I
vowed to Yhwh in Hebron. (8) For your servant made a vow while
dwelling in Geshur in Aram saying, 'If Yhwh will indeed bring me back to
Jerusalem, then I will serve Yhwh.'" (9) And the king said to him, "Go in
peace." And he arose and went to Hebron. (10) And Absalom sent agents
through all the tribes of Israel saying, "When you hear the sound of the
trumpet, then you shall say, 'Absalom is king in Hebron!'" (11) And with
E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explainedand Illustrated (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1968); 648.
334
The MT as contained in BHS holds the statement that the time that has passed is forty years
(T\}p D^pSIX). Many translators consider forty years to be impossible and adopt an emendation of four
years, following the LXX, Syriac, Vulgate, and Josephus. E.g., Anderson, 2 Samuel, 192-3; Campbell, 2
Samuel, 141; McCarter, IISamuel, 335; Shimon Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buch Samuel: Ein narratologisch-
philologischer Kommentar. (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008), 155. Several explanations have been offered in
support of the emendation, including scribal error (e.g., Hertzberg, I &II Samuel, 335) and the presence of
an enclitic mem (e.g., McCarter, II Samuel, 193). Robert Althann retains "forty" by inserting DV and
treating "lO&n !"DE? as a hendiadys that carries a force of repetition which would render the translation,
"And at the end of forty days Absalom spoke insistently to the king." Robert Althann, "The Meaning of
TO D ' W I K in 2 Sam 15:7," Biblica 73 (1992): 248-52. Such a suggestion fits with two Hebrew
manuscripts that have been found reading DV D^SQIX, forty days. The discovery of these manuscripts is
noted by Anderson, 2 Samuel, 193; Conroy, Absalom, 107. The present study adopts Althann's suggestion
in order to retain D^WIS, which will be viewed as significant on the storyteller level.
100
Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem, invited guests going
unsuspectingly, and they knew nothing of the matter. (12) And Absalom
sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, the counselor of David, from his city,
from Giloh, while he was offering the sacrifices.335 And the conspiracy
was strong, and the people with Absalom were growing in number.
Speech Acts
Level Speaker/ w. Speech Speech

Hearer Act(s)
Story and S= Narrator 7a- -1!?XS1 UV WEST f j?P "iTI Speech
storyteller H= Audience 7ba situation
levels
S= Absalom 7b(3 Directive
H= the king :)n?D5 nwb (with
assertive)
8 onga "ntfja TOED ^ns? -na "i"]?"'? Assertive
(with
rnrp ^rp^r [aier] 3^;-DK imb declarative)
:mrr-nK Tnnsn D^tfiT
T : v : T T : - T :
S= Narrator 9aa ân ibloan Speech

H= Audience formula
S= the king 9ap ofrtf 3 T(? Directive
H= Absalom
S= Narrator 9b njin^n T\bl1 j?*lDisplay
H= Audience text:
reaction
S= Narrator 10 Display text
H= Audience (with
T - 1 v v -: : T : -
T
directive &
declarative/
assertive)
S= Narrator llaa era DTIKO o^n Dfreosmio Display text

- T : T T : - v :
H= Audience -
T
335
The wording does not clearly indicate whether it is Absalom or Ahithophel doing the
sacrificing. A comparison with texts that involve both paying vows and making sacrifices (e.g., 1 Sam
1:21; Jer 44:25; Pss 50:14; 56:12; 66:13; Prov 7:14) may suggest that Absalom is the one who is making
sacrifices.
101
llap -bs WT *6i osnb D'obni uvnp Display text
-lib
T T
12a Display text

DTnfrrnK irnra rfbao irwn TH
T : - v : T : * * * T
Storyteller S= Narrator 12b Display text

Level only H= Audience
T : ~
Story Level
The narrator begins the scene with a display text regarding the speech situation involving
the time of the conversation (DV D^SniK fj?Q), the speaker (Di72Q), and the hearer
C^/SH). The narrator completes the introduction of the speech situation with the use of
the royal title of Absalom's addressee ("="[713/1) displaying the difference in authority
between the two and signaling that this conversation will operate according to
constitutive rules for conversations between an inferior and a superior.
In the presence of the king, Absalom performs a directive, a request to be allowed
to go to Hebron. The use of K2 makes this directive also function as a behabitive, giving
the request an appropriate level of politeness.337 Many interpreters have discussed
political and personal reasons for Absalom to choose Hebron as the location where he
will begin his revolt. Hebron was the location where David first became king over Judah
and he reigned there for seven years (2 Sam 2:4). Absalom himself was born at Hebron (2
336
For a discussion of utterances in Scripture occuring between those of superior and inferior
status, see Ahouva Shulman, "The Particle K3 in Biblical Hebrew Prose," HS 40 (1999): 57-82.
337
E.g., Jouon 105c; Shulman, "The Particle K3," 57-82; Bent Christiansen, "A Linguistic
Analysis of the Biblical Hebrew Particle na': A Test Case." VT59 (2009): 379-93.
102
Sam 3:3). Some interpreters have suggested that a further political advantage may exist if
Hebron exhibited hostility to David due to his action of moving the capital from its
location to Jerusalem.338 Alter suggests that Hebron affords Absalom some distance from
David when he proclaims himself king.339 However, Absalom himself does not speak of
his plans for rebellion.
The reason Absalom offers for why he must go to Hebron is that he must fulfill a
vow that he made in Hebron when he was living in Geshur. Fokkelman considers the vow
to be secondary to Absalom's primary concern, saying, "everything between 'may I have
leave to go' and 'in Hebron' is padding."340 While such an interpretation fits with the
storyteller level, on the story level Absalom uses this assertive to support his directive.
This geographic reference alludes to the time when Absalom had fled from David to
Geshur after killing Amnon, where he had remained for three years (2 Sam 13:37-38).
By specifying this as the location, Absalom supports his claim to have performed such a
vow as it was during this time when Absalom was outside Jerusalem without any
knowledge of when (if ever) he could return. Such an interpretation is supported by
Absalom's report of the vow itself (v. 8). Also, Absalom shows himself to be under the
authority of David by referring to himself as ^jÔS? immediately before invoking the
E..g., Hertzberg, I &II Samuel, 337; Whybray, Succession Narrative, 17.
Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York:
W.W. Norton & Co., 1999), 284.
340
Fokkelman, King David, 170.
103
name of someone higher than the king, Yhwh, to further provide support for his
directive.341
Given the speech acts of this servant and the appeal to Yhwh, the king
appropriately issues a royal directive, 017593 "!\/. The king's directive for Absalom to go
to Hebron has been viewed as an example of dramatic irony. As Bar-Efrat points out,"In
diesem Segen liegt viel Ironie, da Abschalom nicht mit Friedensabsichten weggeht,
sondern in boser Absicht. Das Ergebnis seines Weggehens ist nicht Frieden, sondern
Krieg und Ungliick fur David wie fur Abschalom selbst".342 In the parlance of speech act
theory, this directive which contains the propositional content to "go in peace" actually
functions as a perlocutionary act of allowing a widespread revolt to begin. Many
interpreters appear ready to believe that David is unaware of this function of his directive,
and thus David is here viewed to be both uninformed and unwise. Yet as the story
progresses, it will become more likely that David is aware of the consequences of his
actions.The response of Absalom to the king's directive is brief, n3i""Dn "T]7S] Ej?*l as
Absalom leaves the king's presence and goes towards Hebron.
The narrator then issues a display text in which Absalom enacts the next phase of
his plan (v. 10). Absalom sends messengers to spread a directive to issue an assertive,
I ' n n n ? D17C1QX "=]?lp. Utilizing a formula of proclamation of ascension,343 this
assertive can be expected to have declarative force if indeed uttered at once by "'CDnETTO
341
Cf. Hagan, "Deception as Motif," 314.
342
Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buck Samuel, 155.
343
Anderson, 2 Samuel, 196.
104
7fcnE?\ While this directive is issued throughout Israel, the narrator shows that this plan
is still hidden from some in Jerusalem as Absalom invites 200 guests to go with him to
Hebron who are unaware of this plan (v. 11). Alter suggests that by taking unsuspecting
guests, Absalom wards off any suspicion from those within Jerusalem.344
The narrator then closes the scene on the story level by saying that Absalom sends
for Ahithophel, who is designated by name (^TIDl 7?rPnX_nN!) and by his title as a
counselor of David ("TH YVT), as well as his location (11730 ITS?!?). If it is Absalom
who is offering sacrifices as he sends for Ahithophel (see note in translation above) rather
than Ahithophel being called away from making sacrifices in his own city, then Absalom
may be fulfilling his alleged vow to Yhwh while also sending for Ahithophel. Sending
for Ahithophel becomes Absalom's final act of preparation for his rebellion.
Storyteller Level
On the storyteller level, the inclusion of the number forty within the opening display text
places this story in the company of some of Israel's other important stories that also
utilize this number, including: (1) the number of days and nights that Yhwh will send rain
on the earth (Gen 7:4), (2) the number of years that the Israelites were in the wilderness
before entering the promised land (e.g., Num 32:13), (3) the number of years in which Eli
had judged Israel when he died (1 Sam 4:18), (4) the length of years of David's reign (2
Sam 5:4), (5) the number of days which Joshua's spies explore the promised land (Num
Alter, The David Story, 285.

105
13:25), (6) the number of days the Philistine challenges Israel (1 Sam 17:16), and (7) the
time in which Jonah warns Nineveh it will be destroyed (Jonah 3:4).
On the storyteller level, the exchange between Absalom and the king holds
significance involving recurring themes of this narrative involving the use of the roots
mttf and D759. Polzin points out that it is Absalom who here in verse 8 introduces a
theme involving S'W which will occupy the narrative until David's return to
Jerusalem.345 In particular, Polzin says that Absalom introduces the theme of returning
( m $ ) to Jerusalem after a time of exile.346 Other uses of this theme involve
Mephibosheth allegedly expressing the expectation of the kingdom to be returned (3127)
to him in 16:3 and the theme of divine recompense (mttf) in 16:8.347 Fokkelman sees an
extensive play on D727 that starts with Absalom's name in this scene.348 Absalom asks
for permission to fulfill a vow (D7E?), and the king grants this request by telling him to
go in peace (DÊJ).
Like the scene before it, this scene ends on the storyteller level only as the
narrator emphasizes the importance of Ahithophel by following the news of his coming
345
Polzin, "Curses and Kings," in New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (ed. Cheryl J.
Exum and David J. A. Clines; JSOTSup 143; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 213-14.
346
Ibid.
347
Ibid.
348
106
with an assertive that tells the audience of the strength of the conspiracy. With
Ahithophel en route, the conspiracy is said to be increasing in strength and numbers, an
assertive that shows that no more preparation is necessary for Absalom.
Scene Three (15:13-22)
On the story level, David receives the news that the heart of the Israelites is with
Absalom and issues a directive for those loyal to him to flee, both for their lives for the
sake of the city. His conversation with Ittai highlights the importance David holds that all
those who are loyal to him must leave. However, the speeches of David and the display
texts of the narrator suggest that David might actually be enacting a plan to help Absalom
attain the throne. It is possible that by fleeing the city, David might not only be seeking to
preserve his own life but also the life of Absalom. Several aspects of the storyteller level
emphasize that in fact the king has been aware of Absalom's intentions and has been
preparing for this moment all along.
Translation
(13) And the informant350 came to David saying; "The hearts of the
Israelites have gone after Absalom." (14) And David said to all his
servants who were with him in Jerusalem, "Get up! Let us flee or none of
us will escape from Absalom. Hurry and go, lest he hurry and overtake us
and bring down disaster upon us and strike the city with the edge of the
sword." (15) And the servants of the king said to the king, "Whatever my
TCI
lord the king chooses, here, we are your servants. (16) And the king
iV
Cf. Bodner, David Observed, 126.
The one reporting this news is called T ? ? ! ! instead of the more common word for messenger,
"^frpfin (e.g., 1 Sam 23:27; 2 Sam 11:19, 22, 23, 25). This suggests that this particular individual is more
than a common messenger.
McCarter and Anderson do not translate ",?ilK. However, this designation makes the
relationship between David and his servants conspicuous and thus is included in the present translation.
107
went out, with all his household at his heels,352 and the king left behind ten
concubines, to watch over the palace. (17) And the king went out, and all
the people were at his heels, and they stopped at the last house. (18) And
all his servants were crossing over alongside him, and all the Cherethites
and all the Pelethites and all the Gittites, six hundred men who had come
at his heels from Gath, crossing over before the king. (19) And the king
said to Ittai the Gittite, "Why are you also going with us? Return and stay
with the king. For you are a foreigner, and also you are one in exile from
your home. (20) Yesterday you came, and today shall I make you wander,
while I go wherever I may go? Turn back and take your kinsfolk.353
Steadfast faithfulness to you!354 (21) And Ittai answered the king and said,
"As Yhwh lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king
may be, whether for death or for life, there also will be your servant." (22)
And David said to Ittai, "Go and cross over." And Ittai the Gittite crossed
over, with all his men and all the children355 who were with him.
Speech Acts
Level Speaker/ Vv. Speech Speech

Hearer Act(s)
Story and S= Narrator 13a ' T V . - - T -
Speech
Storyteller H= Audience situation
Level
s= "nan 13b tafrebK nnx bmfr &mb rrn
T : - -.-. - .. . . .
Assertive
T v T T
H=TTT
T
S= Narrator 14aa v -: T T -: T : - T
Speech
H= Audience situation
-
T
The masculine singular suffix of Tyn~Q may suggest the use of this colloquial expression.
Fokkelman points out that "I y3"13 elsewhere in Scripture can mean "at once" and says that it is in this case
"primarily an expression of close obedience and proximity." Fokkelman, King David, 178.
BDB notes that J1K, "brother", can be used of kinship in the wider sense to members of the
same family, tribe, or people. BDB 26, 2.
4
Here riDKI IDPI may be a hendiadys and mean "true loyalty" (Williams 72). For other
appearances of this construction of HOPI and J"lDK see Gen 24:49; 47:29; Ex 34:6; Josh 2:14; 2 Sam 2:6; Ps
25:10; 61:7; 85:10; 86:15; 89:14; Prov 3:3; 14:22; 16:6; 20:28.1 have adopted a suggestion by Alter to
reflect the elliptical character of the MT where the LXX has an easier reading of "May Yhwh show
steadfast kindness to you." Alter, The David Story, 287.
The noun derives from ^jSB, "trip, take quick little steps" and refers collectively to children.
BDB, 382. Other translations of *p in this verse include "dependents" (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 198), "little
ones" (NRSV), and, perhaps humorously, "baggage" (Hertzberg, / & IISamuel, 339).
108
S=TPT 14ap- T v : T T : : |
Directive,
T
14a5 Commissive,
T T -: T T : - : * T - :
Assertive
14b Directive,
vpn nam njnrrnK rts? Assertives
* T T " I T T T V " T
v T * :
S= Narrator 15a ^rrbs ân-Hns? n a i n Speech

15b nan ^ban ^n*f -jnrr-")^ *? Commissive
H= ^lan
S= Narrator 16a i ^ n s in^-bpi Tjân a;n Display text
H= Audience
16b nâbs aâ "ito? na Tj^Bn ntsn Display text

:n-3n natf1?
T - :
17 riasn r ' r r a DS?n_^Di ^ a n am Display text

: T : - : T T T : 1 v v - . - -
tprnanrvn
18 iT'b> anas? r-nsr^Di Display text
T - : T T -: T :
DTiarr'wi Tbsrr^Di Tnsrr^Di

. .- T . . .. . _ T . ... - T .
nap ibann nii?-e^
IK3~-)B& &K
S= Narrator 19aa Tian:*ân
^nK~bi?^ "ân
' ^ P D' H3
"IKS
T Speech
S=TPT 19ap una nn*raa "nbn na^ Directive
* T T * T - 1 " " T T
H= Tian TIK 19ba ârras? neft 3 ^ Directive

19b|3 - : T - * : T
Assertive
^138 "isn] ii3 bian r^joipjpb
20 ion TJBV f n*cnK atf rn aw Directive &

Expressive
S= Narrator 21a -iniri "rearms TM is?*] Speech

109
S=T1K 21b Declarative
H= îw
T - : v T : 1 v v -
S= Narrator 22aa "Tttr1^ -rn -IIM*9I Speech

S=TPl
' T
22ap ~o$H I1? Directive
H= Tian TIK
S= Narrator 22b TT~: T : - - . - : - -
Display text:
H= Audience response
Story Level
The scene opens with the narrator's display text of the speech situation involving the
speaker (TSSri) and hearer (TH). Fokkelmann has suggested that this is one of the two
hundred who went with Absalom unsuspectingly.356 Anderson has noted the possibility
that Tafin "may have been sent by David himself to ascertain the situation."357 In any
case, this informant reveals that the hearts of the Israelites have gone after Absalom
(O'PEJDX ''"inK). This assertive announces on the story level what was made known to
the audience on the storyteller level in 15:6, namely that Absalom has stolen the heart of
the Israelites pK"1C?T 'EfaK 2 7 ) , and that the Israelites are loyal to Absalom.358 However,
if this individual has been acting under orders from the king to obtain this information,
356
357
358
Cf. Judg 9:3, when the lords of Shechem's hearts are described to stretch after Jerubbaal ( D*1
" ^ O ^ K "HnS tnb) while they say, Kin WTIK ("He is our brother").
110
then it is possible that the king has also been aware of the situation and has been
monitoring it.
The speech situation of David's response is provided by the narrator, who
identifies the speaker (TH), the hearers (TH3ST7D) and their location (D/EttTp). Here
the speaker is the one with authority, a fact displayed not only by the identity of the
hearers in relation to him by title but also in relation to him by location (inK~"127^!).
While the identity of THniT7D has been limited to "professional soldiers" by Anderson,
the term also shows more generally an inherent commitment to someone else.359
David then issues two directives (IQIp and HHD). The first directive is followed
by a commissive (Pirn;}]!) and then an assertive ( ^SQ HI2v2 ^ " I T n r r i O "O
Di7E?3X). The second directive is likewise followed by a series of assertives, all
claiming to describe the world as it will be should they fail to follow the directive.
According to David, if they do not hurry then Absalom will hurry and bring disaster upon
them and strike the city with the sword (14b). While many interpreters have asked why
David's response to this threat is to flee the city (see below), David's own hearers do not
ask questions but rather respond appropriately to the directives! When spoken by the king
to his servants, these assertives do not need to fit the world but are connected with the
royal directive. David himself does not need to explain the accurate direction of fit of his
assertives but need only display a sincerity condition of belief.
Ringgren, ""Di?," TDOT 10:376-405 (387).
Ill
Many interpreters have questioned why David would respond to the message in
verse 13 by immediately fleeing the city. Jacques Cazeaux asks "Porquoi fuir, dans ces
conditions?"360 Similarly, Campbell asks, "Why should David abandon the reputedly
impregnable Jerusalem?"361 While some interpreters have attempted to follow David's
reasoning,362 it is possible that David was aware of Absalom's plan at Hebron, or at least
aware of his intention to replace him as king, and acts quickly to leave Jerusalem because
of a pre-conceived plan of his own. Anderson has commented that "it would be rather
naive to assume that David had no knowledge . . . [of Absalom's political maneuverings]
and that Absalom's march on Jerusalem came as a complete surprise to David."
Consequently, Anderson suggests that verse 13 is not the first time David hears of the
rebellion.364 Campbell has also noted that the readers are not told what David knows
before the messenger arrives with news of the rebellion:
The question that is not raised by the text, but that we can hardly avoid, is
whether David knew of Absalom's preparations. We are not told. We are
entitled to think that a competent king should have known what was going
on in his kingdomespecially if it was spread over a period of time and
extended through 'all the tribes of Israel.'
360
Jacques Cazeaux, Saul, David, Salomon: La Royaute et le destin d'Israel. (LD 193; Paris: Les
Editions du Cerf, 2003), 237.
361 ,
Campbell, 2 Samuel, 139-^0.
362
Interpreters who suggest that David flees to preserve his life and those loyal to him include von
Rad, "Beginnings," 183; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 203; Alter, The David Story, 285. McEvenue follows
David's reasoning in the following scene and suggests that David leaves because he is not sure if Yhwh
wants him as king or Absalom. Sean E. McEvenue, "The Basis of Empire: A Study of the Succession
Narrative," ExAuditu 2 (1986): 34-^5 (43).
363
364
Ibid.
112
On the story level, it is possible that David has been aware of Absalom's efforts and with
his directives and assertives David draws everyone loyal to him away from the city in
order to facilitate a smooth transition for Absalom to become king.
The response of David's servants is introduced by the narrator with a display text
showing their identity to be connected to the title of the king ( '?J7liirr,,"Q !HPXS]
"^ySITT'K). This anticipates their corporate commissive of complete loyalty (15b). This
commissive, ^"QS? ("tin ^ / S i l ^ K "105?""^$ ^ 3 3 , further emphasizes the higher
level of authority of the king and reinforces that their loyalty is not with Absalom but
with the king.
After displaying the departure of the king with those following him on his heels
(TyinS), the narrator points out that the king leaves ten concubines to keep watch over
the palace (n^Sn ""iQCp?). The narrator then repeats the display text telling of the
departure of the king with those following him on his heels (1 ylHS). While this
repetition will be discussed on the storyteller level in regards to the way that it highlights
the act of leaving these concubines (see below), this act has been viewed to be a mistake
by interpreters. As Hill notes, "most scholars agree that David was unwise (if not foolish)
to abandon these harem wives . . . especially given that according to ancient custom,
marriage to a member of the royal harem legitimized a usurper's claims to kingship."
365
Andrew Hill, "On David's 'Taking' and 'Leaving' Concubines (2 Samuel 5:13; 15:16)," JBL
125 (2006): 129-50; 129.
113
Stone has pointed out that this custom is not explicitly stated in the Old Testament,366 but
agrees that by this act "Absalom has attempted to increase his own prestige by showing
his ability to take what David ought to be, but is not, able to control."367 Whether or not
David is aware of custom mentioned by Hill and others (the episode in 1 Kgs 2:13-25
implies that such a custom was recognized), it is important to notice that here David does
have control over his concubines! David intentionally leaves ten of them in Jerusalem at
the palace.
Among those commentators that choose a synchronic approach, there has been the
hint of consensus that leaving the concubines, though unwise, at least shows that David
has not conceded the throne. However, the narrator may actually be attempting to
convey the opposite.36 David's act of leaving these concubines does not necessarily
indicate a tactical error but may involve strategy. In fact, even in David's lowest
moments, such as his rape370 of Bathsheba and his murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11), David is
still portrayed as a cunning strategist - he is not often described as someone who might
mistakenly leave his concubines in danger. To the contrary, David is most often viewed
as a skilled strategist, especially in studies of David's departure. If David's act is viewed
366
Ken Stone, "Sexual Practice and the Structure of Prestige: The Case of the Disputed
Concubines," in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 32 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 554-73
(558).
367
Ibid., 566.
368
E.g., Alter, The David Story, 285; Campbell, 2 Samuel, 146; Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buck
Samuel, 159. Campbell has gone further to state that the text attempts to arouse a similar expectation within
the readers. Campbell, 2 Samuel, 146. Cf. Bar-Efrat, "Es lasst sich ihr aber auch entnehmen, dass David die
Absicht hegte, nach Hause zuriickzukehren." Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buch Samuel, 159.
369
Private conversation with Dr. Pamela Scalise.
370
Noll points out that "the terse wording of 2 Sam 11.4 is designed to express a superior's forced
imposition upon an inferior, which in modern parlance is rape." Noll, Faces of David, 59-60.
114
to be intentional, then it is more likely that his act of leaving the concubines at the palace,
and even his sudden departure from the city, are part of a preconceived plan.
The speech situation of the ensuing conversation involves the occasion of all the
king's servants crossing over before the king, as well as all the Cherethites, all the
Pelethites, and all the Gittites (v. 18). This last group is introduced in more detail, both
with a specific number (600) and their place of origin (Gath). The two participants in the
dialogue are introduced as ^ y Q n and one of these Gittites, Ittai (TIK). The location for
the conversation is the last house ( p r n S H HPS)- Anderson suggests that David has
stopped to review the troops and evaluate their military strength.371 However, a more
specific reason can be offered in that the loyalty of this final group might be in question.
Whereas all of the king's household, all the Cherethites, and all the Pelethites are
expected to be loyal to David (1 Sam 30; 2 Sam 8:18; 20:7, 23; 1 Kgs 1:38,44; 1 Chr
18:17), the Gittites may not necessarily expected to be committed to David.
The king's utterances to Ittai consist of assertives framed by directives and focus
upon the identity of both Ittai and David. David repeatedly displays Ittai as someone who
has no reason to be loyal to David. Beginning his speech by issuing two directives, David
first directs Ittai to share (and/or reconsider) his reasons for coming with this group (v.
19ap). He then directs Ittai to "return and dwell with the king," "rf^QTjTUS 3tfl 312? (v.
19ay). As many commentators have noticed, David is here not referring to himself and
therefore must be referring to Absalom. According to David, Ittai's loyalties are to the
115
title of king and not necessarily to King David.372 David then asks for what reason Ittai, a
foreigner C"l?3) and one who is in exile (5172) might be compelled to follow David
"while I go wherever I go" p j b i n " , p>#8 bs Tj'pin ^ l ) . This self-description of
David to be one who wanders aimlessly does not fit a king but a "homeless refugee."373
According to Fokkelman, David has essentially said, "now I have myself become an exile
just like you."374 David then modifies his second directive to extend to Ittai's kinsfolk
with the directive to return (312?) and to bring (2W) his kinsfolk with him (v. 20). With
this speech to Ittai, David downplays his own authority over Ittai and suggests that he and
those with him return and serve the king.
David completes his speech with an expressive, HON! "IDPI, which itself serves
the important function of showing that David himself has no feelings of animosity
towards Ittai or his people.375 While it may be possible that David is testing Ittai's
loyalty,376 this expressive indicates that David may also be genuinely offering to Ittai the
chance to return to the city in goodwill where these 600 Gittites, who are not bound to
serve David, may serve King Absalom.
Fokkelman, King David, 182; Hertzberg, I&II Samuel, 342. Hertzberg says that this is "an
appropriate way of speaking to a foreign soldier."
373
374
Against Bar-Efrat, who says, "Dieser Ausdruck am Ende der Rede Davids hat keinen
Zusammenhang mit dem, was vorher gesagt wurde." Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buch Samuel, 160.
376
Anderson, 2 Samuel, 203 and Fokkelman, King David, 182.
116
In response, TlK utters a declarative to ^ySH by which he reveals his identity as
David's "DP- His opening introduction "^ySn ",3S"IK ''IT) rn!T~",n twice signals that this
is an oath with the use of the oath formula "As X lives...," with "X" first referenced as
Yhwh and then as "my lord the king."377 Ittai then commits himself to be wherever the
king may be "whether for death or for life" and ends the oath with a self-reference of his
identity, "^"^DP. Ittai also reinforces David's identity as ^ / S H by twice referring to
David with this title,378 thus affirming the levels of status and existence of loyalty on
behalf of the speaker to the hearer. Hagan calls Ittai's words a definition of "servant" and
many scholars have noted that this speech displays "ID!!.379
Given this identity of Ittai, David issues the directive for Ittai to ""DP] ^ 7 .
"David can respond to the oath only by granting it." This conversation appears to
embody an attempt of David to discern the loyalty of these Gittites. Beyond this purpose,
it may not be that David desires to strengthen his own army but rather is attempting to
protect his son by removing from the city all those who are loyal to David (especially
those with military experience). Thus when David offers Ittai and the Gittites the chance
to go back and serve "the king," David may in fact intend to call Absalom the king with
377
Meier identifies "As X lives . . . " as an oath formula that does not have to use the verb 1732?.
Samuel A. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46; New
York: Brill, 1992), 201.
378
Cf. Bar-Efrat, who states, "Weil David den Titel 'Konig' in Bezug auf Abschalom benutzt,
verwendet Ittai zweimal die Wortverbindung 'mein Herr Konig' als Bezeichnung fur David." Bar-Efrat,
Das Zweite Buch Samuel, 160.
379
E.g., Alter, The David Story, 18; Fokkelman, King David, 182.
380
Fokkelman,^gZ)avzJ, 183.
117
all sincerity! Yet when Ittai shows that he is loyal to David then in David's view this
group must join him. While von Rad has noted that "the gain of six hundred troops, of
course, provide David with welcome reinforcements,"381 the issue that arises from the
speeches of this scene does not concern the military strength of these Gittites but rather
their loyalty.
Storyteller Level
The storyteller level of scene three is significant in at least two ways that guide the
interpretation of this story. First, it emphasizes the way that this story is more about
David's departure than it is about Absalom's rebellion. Second, it supports the
interpretation that David may have been aware of Absalom's intention to replace him as
king all along by emphasizing his act of leaving the concubines.
First, an emphasis is placed upon the departure itself. Although the storyteller
level begins the scene with a rapid pace with the king directing those loyal to him to
hurry and their response (w. 13-15), the actual departure that follows is told in a way
that slows down the story. The resumptive repetition between verses 16 and 17 serve to
continue the narrative,382 and in verse 18 the long list of those crossing over before David
after his servants, &K rriao-tftf DTiarrboi T i ^ s r r ^ i Tt-orr'wi i T " ^
^ H ^'bv Dnni? n?P "frr Wrr-IE^, also slows down the pace of the narrative
and draws attention to the large group crossing over with David. This change in pace as
Ibid., 286.
118
well as the sudden predominance of participial forms imparts a sense that the action is
happening before the reader's eyes.383
The structure of this scene exhibits a chiasm that places at the center of the scene
David's act of leaving the concubines in the city.384 Of course, chiasm is as much an
interpretation (or construal) of the text as any other attempt at interpretation.
Nevertheless, a chiasm may be noted of the entire scene that has as its center the display
text regarding the concubines:
v^rm irra-^Di ^ n KX9I A (16a)
rran ntipb D-tf&s D^3 ifop na Tf?i?n n?sn B(16b)

rbm rn-^DT -?6n K>n A' (17a)
T : - : T T T : 1 v v - **-
Similarly, Gunn notes that in this mention of David leaving the concubines "the ring-
composition serves to isolate, in paratactic style, the important additional detail."385 The
importance of this detail is further understood to be central to the entire scene as the chiasm
may extend throughout vv. 13-22 in regards to key terms and concepts as follows:
rafreag nna bxjzr vh/rnb rrn -ib*6 i i i ^ -paan K3s] I A (V. 13) The
messenger tells
David that the heart
of the Israelites are
with Absalom
- T * v -: T T -: T :
B(v.l4):
T
David's speech to his

n : ^ nno nibvinx, ^nsso na-bs vb-rrnrnib "o nn-nai IDIDservants "with him"
v v T -: -
-
T : - : T : T v : T T : : |
(in*)
imn ^ TSTTI nam nsnrrnK wbv m m iMfcm inD'HS
v T : * T T : T T T v T - * * : T : - : I
383
Ibid.
384
Some interpreters would use the term concentric to denote a chiasm that exhibits a central
element.
385
David M. Gunn, "From Jerusalem to the Jordan and Back: Symmetry in 2 Samuel XV-XX,"
VT30 (1980): 109-13 (109-10).
119
C (v. 15): Commissive offered by
r^nnj? nan the king's servants (H3S?)
D (16a)
trrsn n b 0 ayipa n*tii ita? nK Tj^Bn atg?i E ( 6b)
r^rm Dsn-^Di nban KX9I D' (17a)

T : - : T T T : I V Y - -
"msn-^Di iT'^s? tr-ai? rinsr 1 ^ :pmsn rrs nosm C'(v.l7b-18): The king's
- : - T : T - : T T ~: T : ) T : Y - :
servants (13S7) act upon their
rap iSa-p saqngK K?9K niKp-^K? DTrarH??'] T^sn-^T] commissive in v. 15
,,
^bpn 3?',?P nn^b
B'
"ran vbrbx ^ p n nok9i (w. 19-20)
nnx n^ron nna naa-o ibnrrnv nm svti lanx nn*raa n^n na^ The king's speech to
- : T ~ : T I V Y - * : T T - - ( . . . . T T "Ittai" CnK)
bv nîn ^ i np^b iapy [^jn**] sjgiaK Di9rn ^ t i îoxji ^pipp*?
tnogi npn T]p ^proms atfni aitf sfcin 93i2?
A' Ittai the Gittite
_ h shows that his heart
n#8 DipD3 o$ *$ Tfppn ^ m rnnpn np*n ^ p r r n s TIK isn is with David (w.
21-22)
1^8 ^ r r b o ' i ^ f c T ^ ? ! 'flan 'nx -nsn n i s i T ^ "TIK^S ni
After the first two levels, the next chiastic level pairs the commissive uttered by the
king's servants (C, v. 15) with the display text showing the act of loyalty in fulfilling this
commissive ( C , w.l7b18). The next level involves the conversations of the scene, first
between David and those of his servants who are with him (1HK) in Jerusalem (B, v. 14)
and then between the king and Ittai (TlK) (B', w . 19-20). The opening of the scene
involves the messenger telling David that the heart of the Israelites are with Absalom (A)
while the scene closes with Ittai showing that his heart is with David (A', w . 21-22).
Thus the focus on the king's act of leaving his concubines may be viewed on the
storyteller level as a signal to the audience that this act is not a passing detail but rather is
significant for the telling of this story. David is leaving Jerusalem only after setting in
120
place a situation that will help Absalom. Such an act suggests that the king's directive to
his son to "go in peace" to Hebron in scene two might not be an instance of dramatic
irony after all, and supports the interpretation that David removes all those loyal to him
from the city in order to protect his son. Such an interpretation fits well with the way that
David later instructs his commanders to spare Absalom, a directive that is heard by all the
people (2 Sam 18:5; 12-13). What is more, the news of Absalom's death is entirely bad
news for David as his goal of preserving his son's life has failed. At that time, David will
express the desire that their positions had been reversed (2 Sam 18:33). It may be that at
the beginning of Absalom's rebellion David has the same goal as at the end of it, to save
the life of his son.
121
CHAPTER 5
Outside Jerusalem: Scenes Four through Seven
On the story level, the middle four scenes (15:23-29; 30-37; 16:1-4; 5-15) all
occur outside the city limits and display the importance of authority, identity, and loyalty
for the plot of this narrative. While these are evident in David's interaction with the
characters he encounters in these scenes, it is David's faith in Yhwh that is demonstrated
to be the most important felicity condition in his plan to return to the city. In scene four,
David sends loyal priests and their sons back to the city as spies, and exhibits confidence
that Yhwh might bring him back to Jerusalem. This confidence evaporates in scene five
with the news that Ahithophel has been disloyal and has joined Absalom. In desperation,
David prays to Yhwh with a directive to frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel, and then
interprets the entrance of Hushai to be the answer to his prayer. In scene six, David shows
that he trusts Ziba, a faith that may be founded upon Ziba's past loyalty to Jonathan. In
scene seven, David displays his faith that Yhwh can be expected to remain loyal to David
and thus dares to hope that Yhwh has sent Shimei to insult David in order to bring good
to David.
On the storyteller level, the audience is invited to share David's perspective of
these events. The story is told using participles that present the action as if it is unfolding
before the eyes of the audience, with the departure of David and his group portrayed as a
tragedy for all the land. Each scene introduces a new character by using Hjini, which
functions as a directive to draw the audience's attention to the newcomer through the
122
eyes of David. With such a perspective, the audience is invited to share David's view that
Hushai is the answer to his prayer and also to share in David's hope Yhwh is someone
who desires to bring good to David, even in unexpected ways.
Scene Four (15:23-29)
As with scene three, scene four continues to show David as someone who is in control of
the situation. On the story level, David sends the priests Zadok and Abiathar along with
their sons back to Jerusalem, thus creating a network of spies that will send to David
information concerning events that occur within the city. David also directs them to take
the ark back with them as a way to determine whether David will find grace in the eyes of
Yhwh and also be allowed to return. While the storyteller level displays the confidence of
David, his situation is nevertheless portrayed as undesirable, a tragedy for all the land.
Translation
(23) And all the land was weeping aloud, and all the people386 were
crossing over, and the king was crossing over the Kidron River, and all the
people were crossing over along the road to the wilderness. (24) And
"2QH 3R8
here, Zadok and all the Levites were also with him, carrying the ark
of the covenant of God. They set down389 the ark of God, and Abiathar
386
Another possible meaning of DI?n here is "army" (e.g., McCarter, // Samuel, 360; Anderson, 2
Samuel, 198, 200).
387
Most translations render TliTl) as "lo" or "behold". For an explanation of the present
translation, see the discussion on the storyteller level of scene four below. The particle TilTl) also signals
the entrance of Hushai (15:32), Ziba (16:1), and Shimei (16:5).
388
Many interpreters emend the order in MT, which places Abiathar before the 'atnah, n3rTt
"irp5$ bvn crn'^n rhtrrra ipsi Q'n'^n rp-a ]i"i8"nK D'KM inx cn'prrî pnirai, by
moving "and Abiathar ascended" to the front of the sentence, i.e., pinS~D3 iljini "lH^SK bp*]. The present
translation retains the order in MT of Zadok -Levites-Abiathar.
389
MT contains Ip?*] ("and they poured out") where one might expect WS*] ("and they set it") as
the action taken by the Levites with the ark. Most scholars translate this "set down." McCarter suggests that
IpiTI may carry the meaning of "set" as well as "pour out" based on its use in Joshua 7:23 and with PN for
123
came up, until all the people had finished crossing over from the city. (25)
And the king said to Zadok, "Return the ark of God to the city. If I find
grace in the eyes of Yhwh, he will bring me back and let me see it and its
habitation. (26) But if thus he says, 'I do not delight in you,' here I am, let
him do to me what is good in his eyes." (27) And the king said to Zadok
the priest, "Do you see?390 Return to the city in peace, and Ahimaaz your
son and Jonathan son of Abiatharyour two sons with you. (28) See, I
5Q1
will be waiting at the fords of the wilderness; until a word comes from
you to inform me." (29) And Zadok and Abiathar returned the ark of God
to Jerusalem, and they remained there.392
Speech Acts
Level Speaker / w. Speech Speech

Hearer Act(s)
Story and S= Narrator 23 T T T : T \ | V T T T :
Display text
levels
~bD) ]ii"]p ^naa "ins? "âm onns?
t-nnsrrns ^."p??"^ onni? Din
S= Narrator 24- D"Kto3 ina D^rrboi pinx-m nam Speech
H= Audience 25 aa : - : - T : | x - - : situation
DPrrbo arm? nn^nx bsn &nbxn -

T T T T T : v v: T
piixb ^ a n nafci tTprrjp Ttor1?

s= ^ban 25ap Ts?n n^ribxn ]"h*rn*<! agnDirective
H= pnx 25b Assertive 1
(cont.) -T v :
26a TJ3 "man *6 -)a*o ns OKI Assertive 2
serving food as well as with Ugaritic comparisons. McCarter, II Samuel, 370-71. This translation is chosen
for the present study due to the context. Namely, a speech situation involving the act of pouring out the ark
would not lead to the conversation that appears in this scene. Rather, David's first question would be, in
bewilderment, "Why have you poured out the ark?"
390
The participle in the phrase nriK rtKi"in can also mean, "Are you a seer?"
391
The qere suggests nD"lS>3, "at the steppes o f (followed by McCarter, II Samuel, 371).
Others follow the ketib, ni"!3J:3, "at the fords o f (e.g., NRSV, Hertzberg, I&II Samuel, 339; Anderson,
2 Samuel, 199-201). I have followed the ketib due mainly to the continued theme around the root "IDS?.
McCarter follows the LXX and makes the root a hiphil, "and deposited it there" (McCarter, II
Samuel, 366). I have followed the MT (cf. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 199-201; Hertzberg, I& II Samuel, 339).
124
26b :TT5 nio "i^5 ''rn^sr ^?n Commissive
S = Narrator 27aa iron pnx_l?8 ^Qn "IOKSI Speech

H = Audience situation
s= "H^n 27ap rsttrrwi Dibtfa Tin rntf nnx rwhn Directives

-27b 1 . . . . . _ T . . T T .. T _ v _.
:Dpr
28 [nin"3][3] ni-nsn rrananp ^ IK-I Directive w/
:^ Tar6 DDSJ?I2 -on m is? -mian commissive
... v T . .. T T _ T .._
S= Narrator 29 crrfrgn l"n*rn$ "irrr^n pnx sen Display text
H= Audience
T : "- T T :
Story Level
On the story level, the narrator opens the scene with a display text portraying all
the land in mourning, weeping as the king and all those with him cross over the Kidron
River toward the wilderness (v. 23). Most interpreters interpret jHKrr?D to refer to all
of the people in the country. Such a description might be viewed to hold some tension
with the report of Absalom's widespread popularity as reported in scene three. This also
shows that David's departure does not only affect David and those with him but all the
people as well.
The narrator then introduces the speech situation by displaying the characters who
will be present when the king speaks p r T 2 $ bsP1...inK Ds1,prrl?D1 pi1S"D3), their
action concerning the ark of the covenant ( IpS 9 ! D^n^KH rTH3 P^S~n D^tttf
E.g., Hertzberg, I &II Samuel, 342. Bar-Efrat calls this "metonymischer Ausdruck" for "alle
Leute des Landes" and compares this phrase to nD"H2S0 ")fcO flXH 701 in Genesis 41:57. Bar-Efrat, Das
Zweite Buck Samuel 160; Fokkelman translates f H K n ^ D here to mean "all the city." Fokkelman, King
David, 184.
125
D^rOKn |i"lK-ni<), and a temporal aspect that enables the conversation to take place
(TSfirr|P " T D ^ OD'Frbs B^-""1?)- The word order of this introduction has been
viewed as strange, since Abiathar is not introduced immediately after Zadok but rather
after the mention of the Levites and their action with the ark (see note in translation
above). Translators often adjust the word order of this verse to place Abiathar before
Zadok at the beginning of the verse due to the strangeness of starting this list (after the
call to attention) with pilSTD?. While emending the word order is appropriate for a
smooth translation, it should be noted that the king will first directly address Zadok,
making it also appropriate for him to be listed first.
The king begins by issuing a directive for Zadok to return the ark to the city, 35911
T P i l D^n^KH )i~lK~nX. While the motivation of David for issuing this directive has
been discussed, with some interpreters offering positive and others negative reasons,
attention should be given to what David actually does with this directive. Namely, by this
utterance the king creates a situation in which one of his two ensuing assertives will fit
the world. With the ark back in Jerusalem, David says that he will be able to determine
whether or not he finds grace in Yhwh's eyes. The king begins both of these assertives
with the qualifier DK which signals that the sincerity condition of belief is contingent
Von Rad says that David is sending the ark back to Jerusalem "probably because he does not
want to see the palladium (which accompanies the army only in a 'holy war') involved in internecine
strife." Von Rad, "Beginnings," 183.
395
Alter notes that David may actually want the ark back in Jerusalem simply given the disastrous
consequences of carrying the ark into the battlefield at the time of Eli. Alter, The David Story, 287.
126
upon Yhwh's freedom. It should be noted that this qualifier also limits the possible
situations with the assumption that Yhwh will become involved in one way or another. In
the first assertive, the king says that the return of the ark to Jerusalem will lead to 'DSEJni
^rnj-niSfl in& ^ K i n t This assertive is contingent upon the king finding grace in the
eyes of Yhwh (HIIT "TJ?? JPt KSJMTDK). The king thus utilizes for the first assertive a
sincerity condition of hope.397 In the case of the second assertive, the return of the ark
affords Yhwh the speech situation to issue a divine expressive against the king ( K?
^]3 VISED!!). When placed in the mouth of Yhwh, even a hypothetical expressive holds
great power and the king here offers an immediate response before even receiving this a
speech act. The king utters a commissive,TTS^ nitD "KW$3 ^"TTBttP ^ H , which
5QO
shows David to be someone who is willingly under Yhwh's authority. In particular, the
use of "D
' DH shows David to be a humble servant of Yhwh as this commissive is used
elsewhere in Scripture by people responding to Yhwh in faith.399
The subject of Yhwh having freedom to choose how to act as a theme of the Succession
Narrative is discussed by Walter Brueggemann, "On Trust and Freedom," 3-19; idem, "On Coping with
Curse: A Study of 2 Sam 16:5-14," CBQ 36 (1974): 175-92.
397
Cf. Brueggemann, "On Trust and Freedom," 14.
398
Ridout notes that "his speech stresses that he places his trust in Yahweh, and recognizes that he
alone will enable him to survive." Ridout, Prose Compositional Techniques, 211.
399
E.g., Abraham at the time of his testing (Gen 22:1), Jacob in responding to God in his dreams
(31:11,46:2), Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:4), Samuel in his youth (1 Sam 3:4), and Isaiah in response
to the Lord's question "Whom shall I send?" (Isa 6:8). Also of note is the manner in which the larger
directive to "do to me what seems right in your eyes" appears in Josh 9:25.
127
The speech situation of the king's next utterance is introduced using Zadok's title,
] r D n p i l ^ . Zadok himself is not only the recipient but also the subject of this directive.
The first speech act (nTIK mSA""!!!) is a directive for Zadok to confirm he understands and
also signals that there is more to the initial directive of returning the ark to the city.400
Zadok is told to return to the city D172?3 along with Abiathar and their respective sons,
Ahimaaz and Jonathan.
The inclusion of Di 7273 may be a behabitive, although this is also what the king
had told Absalom in 15:9 that effectively allowed Absalom to start his rebellion. In light
of this, the king's use of Di^2?3 may in fact be a genuine expressive that shows that here,
as in scene two, David desires and is working for WOW in this situation.
The lack of a response after the king's directive for Zadok to return to Jerusalem
has been interpreted by Alter as a display of uncertainty by Zadok,401 and appears to be
interpreted in this way by David as well. Whether or not Zadok needs the instructions to
be clarified, the king does so by issuing a directive to "see" (W1), which is followed by a
commissive that tells of what the king himself will be doing. The king's use of the
masculine plural form W1 shows that he is speaking to more than just Zadok,
presumably the four individuals he names in verse 27. To this group the king commits to
"waiting at the fords of the wilderness until a word comes from you (DDQS7I?) to declare
400
Similarly, J. Hoftijzer sees this as "a formula meant to draw the attention of the listener to the
following words of the speaker." J. Hoftijzer, "A Peculiar Question: A Note on 2 Sam. XV 27" FT 21
(1971): 606-9.
401
128
to me" (v.28). In the mouth of a king speaking to those under his authority, a commissive
such as this also necessarily functions as a directive.
The narrator closes the scene by telling of the immediate results of both of the
king's speeches, DP *ati% nbprV D'H^H rhSTlK i n ^ l pH? 3#;i (v.29).
David's speech acts have been successful, at least in their initial perlocutionary intent.
Whether or not this will result in David's return has yet to be displayed.
Storyteller Level
On the storyteller level, the display text that opens the scene with mention of |HXrrTO
weeping holds significance that extends beyond the story level. While on the story level
"all the land" might refer to all the people in the land weeping, for the storyteller level
this phrase holds additional significance. As Conroy suggests, this may be an instance of
personification of the land.402 Brueggemann has noted that in Scripture the word f "1KI1 is
used in a literal sense "to refer to actual earthly turf'where people can be safe and secure"
and is often used in a symbolic sense "to express the wholeness of joy and well-being
characterized by social coherence and personal ease in prosperity, security, and
freedom." Brueggemann points to how ^"IKH "is a central, if not the central theme of
biblical faith" and lists how it applies to the promise to Abraham, the time waiting in the
wilderness until the long-awaited entrance into the Promised Land, and later the
402
403
Walter Brueggemann, The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith.
(OBT 1; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 2. (Italics are his.)
129
experience of landlessness, i.e., exile. On the storyteller level, the significance of the
land mourning may extend beyond David's experiences on the story level. The
connection of land to mourning is attested elsewhere in Scripture, as Brueggemann points
to how the land mourns in Jer 4:28 and 12:4. Thus while it is reasonable to imagine the
beginning of scene four to display on the story level a great number of people mourning
David's departure from Jerusalem, on the storyteller level it may also be the land that is
mourning.
The storyteller level also seeks to involve the audience in David's departure, first
by verse 23 and then by the particle Hani in verse 24. Several interpreters have
recognized that the repetitions within verse 23 as well as several participial verbs slow
down the action of the scene, drawing attention to this procession.405 It also sets a mood
of mourning,406 one that the audience is invited to share. According to Polzin:
There may be no pericope within the books of Samuel that so abundantly

employs verb forms whose function is to bring the readers into the center
of the action by presenting that action as if it were taking place before
their eyes... giving the readers the impression that they too are present as
events unfold.407
This is not only a story of a political crisis for David, but a time of crisis for many.
Brueggemann, The Land, 3-8.

405
E.g., Polzin, "Curses and Kings," 208; Alter, The Story of David, 287; Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite
Buch Samuel, 160. Bar-Efrat says "Alle Verben in diesem Vers stehen im Partizip, um den Auszug aus
Jerusalem und die Uberquerung des Kidron als eine lebendige Szene zu prasentieren, so als spielte sie sich
vor unseren Augen ab."
406
Von Rad, "Beginnings," 183. Von Rad notes that David's exit from the city is depicted as "an
act of penance" and not a going forth into battle. Fokkelman sees a similar significance in the mention of
Kidron, pointing out that the root T i p occurs elsewhere in Scripture almost always in the context of either
mourning (Jer. 8:21; 14:2; Mai. 3:14; Ps. 35:14; 38:7; 42:10; 43:2; Job 5:11; 30:28) or disaster (Isa. 50:3;
Jer. 4:28; 8:21; 14:2; Ez. 31:15; 32:7-8, Joel 2:10; 4:15; Micah 3:6). Fokkelman, King David, 184.
407
Polzin, "Curses and Kings," 208.
130
The audience is also invited to view this scene through David's eyes with the
introduction of Zadok's entrance using n s n i According to BDB, nan") is a
demonstrative particle meaning "lo! behold!" used for pointing out persons, things,
places, and actions.408 While this understanding is ubiquitous in English translations, the
common use of the English verbs holds the danger of confusing this Hebrew word with a
verb. Louis Dorn states:
It is important to remember that it is not an imperative verb, since the

common translation in English, 'behold,' is imperative and may leave the
impression that the term in Hebrew is likewise imperative... We should
think of hinneh as performing a function similar to the demonstrative
terms 'this' and 'that' in English, where our attention is directed to the fact
that the item so marked is either near or far from the speaker. There is
nothing imperative about the words 'this' or 'that.'409
According to Dorn, the interjection is "a marker to indicate that what follows is worthy of
attention."410 Yitshak Sadka has suggested that Hjin should be viewed as a marker of
existence, specifically one that introduces direct sight.411 For this scene, Bar-Efrat makes
a note of njjJl for the entrance of Hushai and Ziba, "zeigt uns der Erzahler auch diesmal
das Erscheinen eines Menschen aus dem Blickwinkel Davids an."412 It appears that here
in this narrative n2m is a marker of a character who comes onto the scene and into the
408
5>5,243.
409
Louis Dorn, " 'Lo' and 'behold'translating the Hebrew word hinneh." Bible Translator 52
(2001): 222-29 (224).
410
Ibid.
411
Yitshak Sadka, "Hinne in Biblical Hebrew." Ugarit-Forschtmgen 33 (2001): 479-93. Cf.
Tamar Zewi, "The Particles HINNEH and WEHINNEH in Biblical Hebrew." Hebrew Studies 37 (1996):
2137. Zewi makes the distinction between H?!!, which normally introduces speech, and 7\Sy\, which
mostly follows verbs of sight or descriptions of dreams.
412
Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Bitch Samuel, 164.
131
line of David's sight. The present translation of "here" attempts to recognize Hjirn as a
tellability marker to encourage the audience to view this encounter through David's eyes.
Scene Five (15:30-37)
The calm and controlled king in scene four is replaced in scene five with David in a panic
from the news that Ahithophel is with Absalom. It appears that AhithophePs defection
was previously unknown to David and that this news has complicated David's plans.
Whereas in scene four David had confidently constructed a test by which to determine
whether Yhwh will allow him to return to the city, in scene five David desperately prays
that Yhwh might frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel. The entrance of Hushai is viewed
by David to be the answer to his prayer, an idea that is reinforced on the storyteller level.
Translation
(30) And David was going up the ascent of Olives,413 going up and
weeping, with his head covered and walking barefoot, and all the people
who were with him had covered their heads and went up, weeping as they
went. (31) And David414 reported, "Ahithophel is with those conspiring
with Absalom." And David said, "Please make foolish the counsel of
Ahithophel, O Yhwh." (32) When David came to the summit, where one
would bow down to God, and here, to meet him was Hushai the Archite,
whose tunic was torn and who had earth upon his head. (33) And David
said to him, "If you cross over with me, you will be a burden to me. (34)
But if you return to the city and you say to Absalom, T will be your
servant, O king. As I have been your father's servant in time past so now I
am your servant,' you will defeat for me the counsel of Ahithophel. (35)
413
Anderson suggests that the ascent of Olives (DTP? H rT7S?Q) is an earlier designation of the
Mount of Olives (DTPTn "in, cf. Zech 14:4), located on the east side of the Wadi Kidron. Anderson, 2
Samuel, 204.
414
BHS notes that 2 manuscripts read "to David" and a scroll found at Qumran also has a lamed
before David's name. Most scholars prefer this reading as David must have been told this information,
presumably by a messenger. However, it is not necessary to dismiss the MT in this case, and in doing so we
may miss how the story is being told here in the MT as contained in BHS (see below).
132
Are not Zadok and Abiathar the priests with you there? So every word that
you hear from the house of the king you shall tell to Zadok and to Abiathar
the priests. (36) Here, their two sons are with them there, Zadok's son
Ahimaaz and Abiathar's son Jonathan; and you shall send415 every word
that you hear416 to me by their hand. (37) And Hushai, David's friend,417
came to the city, just as Absalom was coming into Jerusalem.
Speech Acts
Level Speaker/ W. Speech Speech Act

Hearer
Story and S= Narrator 30- ratn ibv o w n rbgipri r6fc T T Speech
storyteller H= Audience 31aa situation
~bi) *]0; "i?ft wms nan h mi)
levels
fom imi era ian inKIK DJJH -
T : * T v : T T
ibvb Tan T T trto) ribv T : T T
S=TH
T
31aa nibeaK-DB Dn^fa ^srpns Assertive
H= avin-b^
in -iotfsi
T T T
S= Narrator 31ba Speech
H= Audience * 7
situation
S=TH
T
31bp :mTT âfrrof nxg_n$ xrbso Directive
H= mrr
T
S= Narrator 32- ninn#r">#8 twnrr-m KS in ni_ Speech
H= Audience 33aa situation
^ n in*njpi? nam nnbxb ap
zWft-bv nTO inans vnp *DIXI
T T -: - : T \ - \r : - T
S
in h "IDK T
S=TH 33ap- tmnb hv rvm TIK n-ns? DK Assertive 1 T V
T
33b T - : - T T * T : T : - T
' 2nd person plural.
' 2nd person plural.
n?J~! in 2 Sam 15:37, 16:16, 1 Kings 4:5 as a construct state (rather than il?*)) is "remarkable"
(GKC 93 11) and "suspect" (Jouon 96 C, e).
133
H = 'tfin 34 T : - : T : - T : T T :
Assertive 2
^l TSK "ins? rrng "sfpan ^ ^ns?
nK b nrnsrn ^ns? âgn nnpi mo
35-36 D^rpn in;ni pins nw ^rpp Ki^niAssertives

nrao S70c?n IE;'K - m r r b s T T - -
. . . - . . v : T T T T T :
ta^rpn " M T ? ^ pnf? Tan ^bm
onn1?^ "lrrng1? IO^TI pins'?

:WDtfn ItfK " O T ^ S ^ K D T 3
S= Narrator 37 aênKi Ti?n T I run tftn tfnn
T : v ~: T T T
-
" TT : Display text
H= Audience T : - : T T v ** T -
: D ^ T &T
T T : T
Story Level
The speech situation of scene five involves a designation of the speaker (T"l) and the
hearers (inX"*1^K DPil^D1]) at a certain location (D^riTH n7S702). Unlike scene four,
which begins with the land weeping, here David is weeping as he goes (("Dim PPS?) and
is further described as one who is mourning, ÎT " ^ H Kim. "^SPI T) E?XT. While there
is some confusion stemming from an ambiguity in the word HSn as to whether David's
head is covered or uncovered,418 it is clear from the juxtaposition to HD3 that David is in
Commentators have been uncertain whether here David has his head covered (Hertzberg, I&II
Samuel, 339) or uncovered (McCarter, II Samuel, 361), due to ambiguity in the word HDn. Anderson
references Gordis to suggest that an uncovered head would be consistent with custom in Ezek 24:17, 23
and also states that this also would make better sense of the practice of putting dust or ashes on one's head
as in 2 Sam 13:19, Neh 9:1, Job 2:12. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 204; R. Gordis, "Hebrew Roots of Contrasted
Meanings," JQR 27 (1936-37): 41-43. It should be noted that Anderson's comment also would support the
idea that David's head is covered, albeit with dust or earth. (Cf. Hushai's entrance in this state in verse 32.)
In any case, David is in state of mourning (cf. Keys, Wages of Sin, 153). Hertzberg notes that David and
those with him display the attitude of a mourner and a penitent similar to that of the Ninevites in Jonah 2.
Hertzberg, I&II Samuel, 343.
134
mourning. Those with him are described in a similar fashion, showing their loyalty419 and
perhaps continuing the mourning of scene four.420 This similarity of description as well as
the lack of any title for speaker or hearer may suggest that this speech situation, unlike
those in the prior scenes, will not emphasize a hierarchy between the (human) speaker
and hearers.
After the speech situation is set, the narrator uses the speech formula "P3n "THI
"ibK1? to introduce David's assertive, Di^rtfTDS? Dn2?p2 ^ g f r n g . Most (if not all)
interpreters choose to follow a variant found in a few textual witnesses (see note on verse
above) that say that this news was told to (?) David (though without identifying the
speaker). This is sometimes accompanied with the reasoning that David does not know of
AhithophePs defection and therefore cannot be the one to report it.421 It is conceivable
that here an informant reports this news to David in a manner similar to the report of
Absalom's treachery to David in scene three. However, it is also possible that this display
text tells of David reporting this event, perhaps after he himself has received this news.
Such an interpretation is strengthened by the change in David's demeanor before this
assertive is performed, which itself may be David's initial response to this news before he
reports it to those who are with him.
4iy
420
Many interpreters have noticed that that this introduction does not fit with a strategic military
retreat. E.g., McCarter, IISamuel, 375.
421
For a different view, see Wurthwein, Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids, 5. Wurthwein
says that we must assume that David would have been told of Ahithophel's defection at the same time that
he had received news of the uprising in 15:13.
135
Whether or not David receives this report in v. 31 or if he heard it prior to the
opening of the scene, this news is clearly devastating to David. Interpreters have offered
several reasons for why Ahithophel's defection would be so disheartening to David.
Several have suggested that Ahithophel's defection makes David's situation bleak by
taking away his advantage over Absalom in regards to military experience.422 Following
the present study's own interpretation, it is also possible that David had hoped to
reconcile with his son and return to the city in peace with Absalom as the new king. With
Ahithophel as Absalom's counselor, David might now realize that this possibility is
impossible as Ahithophel will attempt to kill David or at least sever the father/son tie. (In
fact, Ahithophel will attempt both. See discussion of scenes eight and nine.) The reason
that the narrator will later give for David's despondency at the storyteller level is that
David considers Ahithophel's counsel on par with the words of Yhwh (16:23). For
David, he is no longer dealing with a human foe who utters speech acts equal to or below
his own level of authority, but rather one who utters words considered equivalent to those
of God. Such a perspective fits with David's next speech act, which involves an appeal to
the authority that David associates with Ahithophel's words, Yhwh.
After another brief speech formula by the narrator ( T H ")OXsY), David issues a
directive that is clearly a prayer as it is directed not to those with him who are in
mourning but to Yhwh, HIIT 7Si"PnK niSSTriK KJT73D. Here David appears to
presume that Ahithophel's counsel will be good, leaving him to direct Yhwh not to place
bad advice in Ahithophel's mouth but rather to frustrate what he assumes will be good
422
E.g., von Rad, "Beginnings," 184; Hertzberg, / & II Samuel, 344.
136
advice.423 Also implicit with this directive is the way that David shows himself to be one
who is under that authority of Yhwh,424 and one who believes that Yhwh is willing and
able to intervene.425 Balentine has noted that this prayer offers little in the manner of
stylistic pleasantries beyond the polite use of K3 and calls this utterance one which
belongs to a category of prayers that are "totally unconventional and artless." What this
prayer may lack as a behabitive it makes up as a successful directive as David will almost
immediately see his prayer answered in the appearance of Hushai.
After David's prayer, the narrator issues a display text with a new speech
situation, although one that is still connected to the first part of the scene. David has now
come to the summit (2?K"in~"IS?), which is referenced by the narrator in terms of what
people do at this location (D^rn&P DE? ninni?r_"1EJX). The entrance of a new
character, ''SIKH " ^ J l , marked by nsni, is described in a fashion which identifies him
as a hearer who identifies with David's plight, W")~b$? HDn^l iri3n3 5M")j?.
Interpreters have viewed Hushai's appearance as the answer to David's prayer,427 an
assumption which David appears to believe as well on the story level.
Goldingay, Men Behaving Badly, 291.
Balentine notes that prayer depicts the status of pray-ers [sic] as being under the authority of
Yhwh. Samuel Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue (OBT;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 50-80; 63-64.
425
Cf. Balentine, Prayer, 29.
426
Balentine, Prayer, 46. Balentine here references Greenberg's unpublished dissertation to note
two other levels of prayer in the Old Testament: (1) the patterned prayer speech, and (2) the ritual prayer.
427
E.g., von Rad, "Beginnings," 200; Fokkelman, King David, 191.
137
David's speech to Hushai consists of two assertives, one directive (with a
commissive) and then four assertives. The first two assertives provide a foundation for
his directive, and the ensuing directives provide clarification. First, David presents a
situation in which if Hushai crosses over with him, he would be a burden ( TH!?!? QK
K|?I?7 vS? rPrn. TlX). Why exactly Hushai would be a burden (perhaps this is because
of Hushai's advanced age)428 is not important for the speech act because this assertive
serves to support David's second assertive. David presents a situation in which if Hushai
returns to the city (2WR TSJrrDKT) and performs a speech act ( nhtfivfy FHQK1
^35? ^ 1 nnifl mo ^ 1 f ?K "OS? ^Tl$ Tj^Bn ^ *p]3P), he will defeat the
counsel of Ahithophel pSrPnK HSS? J"lK "h nrnsni). The commissive that David
directs Hushai to utter will identify Hushai as one who will be loyal to Absalom.429
If David views Hushai as the answer to his prayer, it appears that Hushai does not
share this view. Perhaps sensing some reluctance on the part of Hushai, David performs a
series of four assertives that depict the world in a certain way that might give Hushai
courage,430 and also inform him of how he fits in the group which David has already sent
to Jerusalem.431 The assertives alternate between involving with whom Hushai will work
(A) and what they will do (B):
428
E.g., Hertzberg, I&II Samuel, 344.
429
Cf. Fokkelman, who says that David charges Hushai to "feign loyalty." Fokkelman, King
David, 192.
430
Cf. Alter, The David Story, 289.
431
In this case, assertives in the mouth of the king may function as directives upon the current
hearer. Hushai probably does not have a choice in the matter.
138
a^rpn ")rr381 pi"1? nV 1?? Kibrn (A)
D^rpn in^Kbi pinab -pan ^ban rrso s?nK?n i ^ -cnrr^s rrrn (B)
" i n ^ b inainî pins'? jvwm nn-n ^ DQI? aernan (A)
wotfn ntfx -on_i73 "b& D T S ann^tfi (B) v
T : v ~: T T T - - TT : v : - : '
With these assertives David clarifies his initial directive and shows that he believes that
Hushai will defeat Ahithophel's counsel by sending word to David before Absalom can
implement this counsel.
This scene ends with the narrator telling the audience that Hushai arrives at
Jerusalem at the same time as does Absalom (v. 37). The narrator includes the true
identity of Hushai as David's PISH. While interpreters disagree whether this designation
is of an official position in David's court,432 or a friend in a non-official sense,433 both
understandings indicate that Hushai will be loyal to David. This identity will be known
by Absalom, who will question Hushai's loyalty.
Storyteller Level
The storyteller level emphasizes the importance of geographic location for this scene as a
crucial component for David's speech act. While the prior scenes have focused upon
geographic position in relation to being inside or outside of Jerusalem, scene five presents
geography as a felicity condition for the most important speech of the story level, David's
prayer to Yhwh. The narrator refers to the geographic aspect of this scene three times:
first by name (DTT-Tn H7S705), then by a more specific area (HtfinrnS?), and finally by
Many interpreters follow Herbert von Donner,"Der 'Freund des Konigs'," ZAW73 (1961):
269-77.
433
E.g., Fokkelman claims that the idea of "friend" as a title here is "superfluous erudition."
Fokkelman,A:/gDavirf, 191-92.
139
function (D^n^K1? QW n i p n # r " 1 # 8 ) - Campbell has noted that within this story, this
point at the top of the mountain proves to be "the turning point of the entire narrative"
and comments, "It may be a matter of sheerest topography, but storytellers can turn
topography to symbolic use."434 David offers his prayer to Yhwh as he goes up the Mount
of Olives (v. 31). When he reaches the top and encounters Hushai, the narrator connects
this specific location to divine authority (D^nîw), reinforcing at the storyteller level
what David appears to believe on the story level, that Hushai is the immediate answer to
his prayer.435 Not only will Hushai prove the solution to the problem of Ahithophel,
which affects the entire narrative, but the geographic location of this scene enables David
to do more than speak about Yhwh as he did in scene four, but to speak to Yhwh. This
location may also lead David to believe that Yhwh has intervened.
The closing reminder of Hushai's identity as David's HS?") prepares the audience
for the importance of this identity for Hushai's conversation with Absalom in Jerusalem.
Scene Six: 16;14
The shortest scene of the narrative, scene six contains an exchange between David and
Ziba during which Ziba gives supplies to David and his people. After Ziba tells David
that Mephibosheth has spoken against him, David gives to Ziba all that had belonged to
Mephibosheth. On the story level, David clearly believes Ziba's claim that Mephibosheth
434
Campbell, 2 Samuel, 149. Cf. Balentine, who notes that in Deuteronomistic literature, prayers
of petition "occur at strategic places in a narrative which have the literary effect of shaping a narrative
situation." Balentine, Prayer, 21.
435
E.g., Fokkelman, King David, 191.
140
has turned against him. However, on the storyteller level, the narrator indicates that Ziba
has been disloyal to Mephibosheth and thus suggests that he cannot be trusted.
Translation
(1) When David had crossed over a little beyond the summit, here,
Ziba, a steward of Mephibosheth, met him, with a pair of saddled
donkeys carrying two hundred loaves of bread, one hundred bunches
of raisins, one hundred summer fruits, and one skin of wine. (2) The
king said to Ziba, "Why have you brought these?"436 And Ziba said,
"The donkeys are for the king's household to ride, and the loaves of
bread437 and the summer fruit are for the stewards to eat, and the wine
is for those who are weary in the wilderness to drink." (3) And the
king said, "And where is your master's son?" And Ziba said to the
king, "Here, he remains in Jerusalem, for he has said, 'Today the
house438 of Israel will return the kingdom of my father to me.'" (4)
And the king said to Ziba, "Here, all that belonged to Mephibosheth is
yours." And Ziba said, "I bow down! May I find favor in your eyes,
my lord the king."
Speech Acts
Level Speaker/ w. Speech Speech Act

Hearer
Story and S= Narrator 1- nsa ja^x mm wxnnn BS?Q ins? -nTi Speech
storyteller H= Audience 2aa T * - : T - - : - T T -
situation
levels
nasi DTOBS nxo5) orb D^nso Drrbm
T " 1- T - v v - T v - - : -
2ap -$> n'pirnpDirective

H= na^
T
S= Narrator 2ba T V
Speech
H= Audience formula
Another translation might be, "What are these to you?"
Following the qere.
BHS notes that 2 manuscripts have "sons of Israel."

141
s=*a,,x
T
2bp an'pn'pi n^nb ^jprrrra1? aniopn Declaratives
H= ^bm
l^ni anwn Si^^ f"j?m [nn'pjpijf]]
S= Narrator 3aa ^sn -i!?xsi Speech

H= Audience formula
3ap Tn*n? n^: Directive
H= icx
T
S= Narrator 3ba îgrrbK K;PX -ioKs3 Speech

H= Audience formula
s
s=*o^T
3bp tt^r ai n -)OK ^3 aêft-rs 2tiv nanAssertive
T ~ - T ' ' * T ' " "
H= ^bm
S= Narrator 4aa Tj'pan -ii?*n Speech
1
4a(3 riea-si? ? n$$ ^3 ?fp nan iqa'p Declarative
h
H = K3 2
T
S= Narrator 4ba K3^2J "1QKS1 Speech

H= Audience T V
formula
T
4b|3 tnban ân$ IT?? ]n-^p^ wnntfn Declarative
H= ^bsn
Story Level
The narrator begins this scene with a display text identifying the speaker (TH), his
location (tftfinO COpO "I3S7), and the hearer,fcCTX.Ziba is designated to be "IS?3
nED~",SO and is described as bringing a variety of goods with him ( D'Hfrn ""lOSl
]"r ^331 f ?p n#m D ^ S X r\$m QVib Q^nKIp DST^Bl D^3n). With the speech
situation set, the narrator issues the speech formula iCPX"/K "^pSn 1!?KS1.
142
The first conversation between the speaker and hearer begins with the king
performing a directive consisting of three words: ^ 7 !l7K~ni2. The identity of the
speaker as the king clearly makes this a directive to obtain these items (an indirect speech
act) rather than merely a request for information. Understanding the indirect speech act,
Ziba answers the king with a declarative ( UTwTD^ D3"l7 "^pQiTTPp7 D'HIOnn
"i3"]B3 ^srn rmth j^rn : onsan bte$b )"j?rn [an^][n][i]), thereby giving the
king and his party all of the items. Hertzberg says that Ziba acts on the spur of the
moment but calculates that he should align himself with David.439 While this may be so,
it is also possible that Ziba simply and correctly interprets the king's utterance to be a
directive. It is likely the case that when a king asks a steward ("1S?3) his intentions for any
items, the appropriate response is similar to, "Why, these are for you, O king!"
The next conversation begins once more with a question from the king that is a
directive ,?]',3fc7K~]5 nsK1 to which Ziba responds with an assertive, p T ^ I T p 2$V Han
"OK nw'pipO nX Swn&P JV3 "b OT; Dlsn -JD ">2. Upon being asked of the
whereabouts of Mephibosheth, Ziba responds by saying that Mephibosheth is sitting in
Jerusalem and has uttered the assertive, "Today the house of Israel will return the
kingdom of my father to me" (v. 3). With Mephibosheth of the line of Saul, Ziba portrays
him as expressing the belief that Saul's kingdom will be returned to its rightful family.
Interpreters are divided as to whether Ziba is accurately reporting the words of
Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 345.
143
Mephibosheth.440 Whybray declares that Ziba "cleverly takes advantage of David's
confusion of mind during his flight" and suggests that David would have seen past this
deception were he in a normal state of mind.441 Among those who are willing to believe
that Mephibosheth did indeed utter this expressive, he is usually viewed as naive.
Goldingay suggests that if Ziba is not lying then there might be something wrong not
only with Mephibosheth's legs but with his head as well.442 Halpern suggests a way to
view Ziba's report as accurate:
Mephibaal might realistically think that he was about to inherit his

grandfather's crown. This means that one possible outcome of the
insurrection was a division of the kingdom of Israel from that of Judah.
Though no sentient analyst would take this as Absalom's true intention, he
probably promised to let the Israelites go.443
It is not possible at this time of the story to determine whether or not Mephibosheth
uttered this speech act (although in 2 Sam 19:27 he will call Ziba's report slanderous).
However, an analysis of Ziba's speech reveals that this accusation has been elicited by
David and not spontaneously offered by Ziba.444 On the story level it is not clear that
Ziba is attempting to slander Mephibosheth.
440
Those who believe Ziba include: Rost, Succession, 100; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 205; and
Halpem, David's Secret Demons, 366. Those who do not believe Ziba include Ridout, Prose
Compositional Techniques, 162, 166; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 345; and Whybray, Succession Narrative,
44). Von Rad does not adjudicate. Von Rad, "Beginnings," 184. Alter notes that "there is no corroborating
evidence for Ziba's words" but suggests that Ziba is "flatly lying in order to make himself appear to be the
only loyal subject worthy of David's benefactions, and of title to Saul's property." Alter, The David Story,
291.
441

443
Baruch Halpern, David's Secret Demons, 366.
444
144
While the narrator offers insight to the audience of Ziba's disloyalty on the
storyteller level (see below), on the story level it is clear that David believes Ziba.445
David responds to Ziba's assertive with a declarative by which he gives to Ziba
everything that had belonged to Mephibosheth, neO^M 1 ? "IBfcf ^3 ?f? TlttfcOSJ1?.In
examining the story level to find a reason as to why David might trust Ziba, David's
reference of Mephibosheth (f'jnijrjS) may provide some insight. Alter notes that this
reference to Mephibosheth as the "son of your master" shows that David still thinks of
the long-dead Jonathan as Ziba's real master.446
The scene ends with a declarative made by Ziba, VPinritpn "I bow down."
While it is possible and even likely that Ziba bows down physically as he says this,447 it
may also be that by saying this Ziba in effect bows. This act is followed by a behabitive
which may serve as an assertive of the exchange, "^/SH "O^K ^pjTSJS ]n~K^P!S!.
Storyteller Level
As mentioned above, interpreters are divided in regards to whether or not the audience
should consider Ziba to be a faithful reporter of Mephibosheth's speech. Conroy says that
the narrator's stance "appears to be less than omniscient" with the presentation of Ziba
and Mephibosheth and suggests that this ambiguity may be a subtle way of showing both
Mephibosheth and Ziba deserving of contempt.448 While there is ambiguity in regards to
445
446
447
Waltke & O'Connor, An Introduction, 488.
448
145
whether or not Mephibosheth has uttered the speech acts allocated him by Ziba, on the
storyteller level the narrator's introduction of Ziba provides a key to exposing him as a
false witness. The narrator introduces Ziba as "a steward of Mephibosheth," "")5?3
n??il~',20, an identity which indicates that Ziba owes his loyalty to Mephibosheth.
Whether or not Mephibosheth has uttered the speech as Ziba says, someone who is loyal
to Mephibosheth would not so easily volunteer this information. As Fokkelman notes,
Ziba has been loyal to David but has been disloyal to Mephibosheth.449 Indeed, David
then refers to Ziba not as someone loyal to Mephibosheth but as someone who has
remained loyal to Jonathan (see above), or perhaps has remained a steward of Saul ( 1S73
T'lKStf) as he is called in 2 Sam 9:9. In any case, Ziba's speech identifies him as someone
who has not transferred his loyalty completely to Mephibosheth. Such a speech does not
fit with the narrator's introduction of the speech situation, thus the audience (but not
David) is warned of Ziba's treachery.
Scene Seven (16:5-15)
In scene seven, the fourth consecutive scene outside the boundaries of Jerusalem, David
encounters a fourth character that is introduced by the narrator with 113111, Shimei.
However, unlike the other three instances of rtl!T), David does not interact directly with
this new character. Rather, Shimei's act of insulting David provides the subject matter of
the conversation between David and Abishai, and then between David and all those who

146
are with him. The speech acts of David display his faith that Yhwh is someone who is
free to act as he pleases and yet can be expected to remain loyal to David. This faith leads
David to suggest that Yhwh has directed Shimei to hurl insults upon David in order to
create a situation in which Yhwh will then bring him good. On the storyteller level, the
audience is invited to see how David's faith in Yhwh is put into practice.
Translation
(5) And King David came as far as Bahurim, and here, a man from the
family of the house of Saul was coming out whose name was Shimei son
of Gera, he was coming out hurling insults.450 (6) He threw stones at
David and at all the servants of King David, and all the people and all the
warriors were at his right hand and at his left. (7) And thus said Shimei as
he insulted him,451 "Out! Out! The man of blood and the man of Belial!
(8) Yhwh has returned upon you all of the blood of the house of Saul, in
whose place you have reigned, and Yhwh has given the kingdom into the
hand of your son Absalom. Here you are in your disaster, for you are a
man of blood." (9) And Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, "Why is
this dead dog insulting my lord the king? Please allow me to cross over
and take off his head." 10) And the king said, "What have I to do with
you, O sons of Zeruiah? If he hurls insults it is because Yhwh said to him,
'Insult David,' and who can say, 'Why have you done so?'" (11) And
David said to Abishai and to all his servants, "Here, my own son seeks my
life, how much more this Benjaminite! Let him alone and let him insult,
for Yhwh has bidden him. (12) Perhaps Yhwh will see my distress452 and
7 7 p is usually translated here as "cursing". However, this translation might suggest that
Shimei is uttering a curse ("HK) upon David, a declarative. While some passages do use 77>p in ways
similar to ")"1N, in many cases v'T'p is used to denote the act of insulting someone. The propositional
content and illocutionary force of Shimei's speech as well as the speech situation strongly suggests that
here Shimei's act of 7 7 p is an assertive rather than declarative. See below.
451
According to Joiion 124i (note 2), it is not possible to say whether the suffix upon i b / p S
refers to the subject of the action (Shimei's act of hurling insults) or to the object of the action (David).
Joiion suggests that a reference to Shimei's act of hurling insults would be iJ"IT>7p3.
452
The word in BHS is ,D"I#3 which may be translated so that David says that Yhwh may see 'my
guilt' or 'my iniquity'. It may also refer to the guilt or consequences resulting from the iniquity. For
example, in Gen 4:13 Cain says, "My punishment C?i??) is greater than I can bear." The apparatus notes
that a few variant readings of Hebrew manuscripts (as well as ancient translations) have " 3 I Q , which
147
Yhwh will repay me good for his insult today." (13) And David and his
men went along the way, and Shimei was walking on the side of the hill
alongside him, hurling insults, and throwing stones at him and flinging
dust. (14) And the king came, and all the people who were with him,
exhausted, and he refreshed himself there.453 (15) And Absalom and all
the Israelites came to Jerusalem; and Ahithophel was with him.
Speech Acts
Level Speaker / w. Speech Speech Act

Hearer
Story and S= Narrator 5-7a DE; nam Dmrais? TH ^fran jai Speech
levels
*vnti iQEtt bwerrra nn?K;aa asr eftssituation
T 1 v v - * : - T v : T
s= ^pc? 7ba K2K2 Directive

(cont.)
* T 7bp ^sr^nn Kfto o w n eft* Assertive 1
- T * : - * : T -
8a- ntfK Snatf-rra m bs rnrr *rbv n^n Assertive 2

8ba v ~: T . . . . . T . | .. T ...
-n*$ rnrr jrpi [rnnn] innn roba

TO1? Tjani ^35 Dittos T S noân
8bp T T T *
Assertive 3
S= Narrator 9aa ^pBrrbg rrnx - ]3 *&z$ lain Speech

S= ''tf "PS 9ap- 'a'nrng n?n nan a ^ n S^p* nab Directive
H= ^ n 9b
-
T T : T T : : v 1v v
S= Narrator 10aa ^gn -laî Speech

H= Audience formula
s= "^sn 10ap rrn? 'J? Dpb'i "Vna Assertive 1
carries a related meaning such as 'my distress.' The qere indicates this should be read T I Q , ' my eye'.
Most English translations follow the variant reading and the LXX. For its use in this study, see below.
LXX has the Jordan.

148
H= 'Brgg 10b bbp h noK rnrr ps] *$) bbpi [ns] "oAssertive 2
1 " T ' T - - ~ ' " T
S= Narrator llaa r-nsrb?- ?^ ^ 3 $ - ^ t n npxsi

1
Speech
s= ^ e n llap- tfarns # jpnip 'ffsn KX;--itfg ^n nan Assertive 1
H= ^'58 llba Tirrrja nnsrp ^KI
T T -: T :
llbp ^ n ib ^nan Directive
llby :mrr iI?"noK ^

T : - T
Assertive 2
12 3TO1 [T][?] aw? rnit ngT ^ w Assertive 3

:n-?n aisn )rhbp nnn nniB ^ mrr
T : |- - - T T :
S
S= Narrator 13 n^n 'vipî nnna râsi n n ^^ .I Display
H= Audience
*?TO ^!?p?3 ^ n insyb -inn s?b?? text
T T v - * : T *.. : T -: T
S= Narrator 14 * --: v ~: T T T : 1 v v - T~
Display
H= Audience text
-
T " T *
S= Narrator 15 1K3 biDET BTK DBrr^Dl Di^BfaKI Display

H= Audience T ** : * T T : ~ :
text T T T :
-: : T T :
Story Level
The narrator's introduction of the speech situation of this scene signals that authority and
identity will be paramount in the speeches that follow. The narrator for the first and only
time in this narrative refers to David by using both his title and his name (TH "?j /QH).
Similarly, the character whom David will encounter is identified by his connection to
Saul, blKtfTPa n n S ^ S p KSi- &$, a n d t h e n b y h i s n a m e ^ T r p *VQ0 iQtfft. The
emphasis upon David's status as king is matched by the implication that Shimei will not
willingly concede to David's authority. The location for the scene is Bahurim (D'HinS),
149
a village on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives which lies on the edge of the
wilderness.454
Unlike in prior scenes, David does not converse with the character who has been
introduced as a part of the speech situation. Rather, Shimei provides the occasion for
David to enter into conversation with Abishai and all those in David's company. The
narrator says that Shimei is coming out (KIT) and is hurling insults (T>7J?pi). The
description of Shimei's speech act is usually translated in English as "cursing," a
translation which holds both strengths and liabilities. On one hand, the word "curse" is an
appropriate translation for the Hebrew ? ;p in that like the Hebrew root, the English
word can denote: (1) a declarative speech act, as a (magical) curse, or it can refer to (2)
an assertive or series of assertives used for the perlocutionary act of insulting someone
(e.g., to curse someone to their face). In Scripture, ;sp is sometimes used in the former
sense as a synonym for the Hebrew root T1K, which more explicitly refers to the
declarative act.455 On the other hand, the basic meaning of 7>7p in all Semitic languages
is "be small, light."456 Often in Scripture, / 7 p retains this meaning rather than serving as
Alter, The David Story, 291; Hertzberg, / & II Samuel, 345. The identity of this location will be
discussed as it may function on the storyteller level below.
455
The instances where 7 7 p and ""HK are most clearly both a reference to a magical curse are
found in passages regarding Balaam. In Numbers, TIN appears (Num 22:6; 23:7; 24:9) while elsewhere
this occurrence is told using bbp: Deut 23:4[5]; Josh 24:9; Neh 13:2. In 2 Kgs 2:24, Elisha curses (bbp)
some children who were mocking his bald head, and then two bears came out of the woods and mauled
forty two of them.
456
E.g., Scharbert, "bbp,n TDOT 13:37-^4 (37).
150
a synonym for "HX.457 Thus in many passages, 7>7p is used to describe acts of reviling
or insulting someone.458 In the present context, Shimei is reviling David and throwing
stones upon him and his whole party (v.6). This context as well as the propositional
content of his utterances themselves will show that the speech situation does not involve
Shimei issuing a declarative curse, which would carry a world-to-words direction of fit,
but rather a series of assertives utilizing a word-to-world direction of fit. Shimei is
hurling insults upon David that ridicule his current situation; he is not attempting to bring
about change to David's situation.459 While the scholarly discussion of Shimei's speech
act has included confusion that may be based upon the English translation of 7 ^ p as
"curse,"460 many interpreters have correctly designated Shimei's act as one of

461
vituperation.
457
E.g., 1 Sam 6:5; 18:23; 1 Kgs 12:4, 9, 10; Isa 30:16; Jer 6:14; 8:11; Prov 14:6.
458
For example, Hagar bpri], "looks with contempt" (NRSV) at Sarai (Gen 16:4). In Ex 21:17,
cursing (77p) one's father or mother deserves death. The lords of Shechem ridicule (77>p) Abimelech
(Judg 9:27). Goliath curses (77p) David saying "Am I a dog that you come to me with sticks?" (1 Sam
17:43). In his shameless celebration that draws Michal's ire, David says that he will make himself even
more 7>T>p as he makes himself low in his own eyes. In Isa 23:9, Yhwh Armies (nliQlS HliT) has planned
to bbp "all the honored of the land." See also Lev 19:14; 20:9; 24:14, 15, 23; 1 Sam 2:30; 3:13; 2 Sam
19:22; 2 Kgs 2:8; Isa 8:21, 23; 65:20; Jer 15:10; Ezek22:7; Nah 1:14; Ps 37:22; 62:5; 109:28; Prov 20:20;
30:10; Eccl 10:20; Neh 13:25.
459
Against Steven Mann, '"You're Fired': An Application of Speech Act Theory to 2 Samuel
15.23-16:14" JSOT33 (2009), 328. In this article I also noted that Shimei issues assertives, though as a
part of a declarative from Yhwh. As it will be shown below, I am adjusting my position.
460
Polzin appears to treat ; ;p as a synonym for "llK in "Curses and Kings" as he emphasizes
those instances mentioned above in which 7 7 p functions as a (declarative) curse. Carlson labels the entire
section of 2 Samuel 9-24 as "David under the curse (I"D7p)" in which he links 2 Sam 12 with 16:5-13.
E.g., Carlson, David, the Chosen King, 140. McCarter suggests that David still may be cursed here even if
not directly from Shimei. McCarter, II Samuel, 374. For a discussion 7 b p and "HX, see Herbert Chanan
Brichto, The Problem of "Curse " in the Hebrew Bible (SBLMS 13; Philadelphia: Herbert Chanan Brichto,
1963).
151
Shimei's speech act is introduced by the narrator in a way that emphasizes his
personal possession of the vituperation, i 7 7 p ? "'VQP IQKTDl. 462 Shimei himself
emphasizes David's identity and lack of status. He begins by performing a repeated
directive, X22 K2S, that also may be construed as an assertive because it describes David's
departure from Jerusalem. The rest of Shimei's insults are also assertives, beginning with
two references of David as D^QÎH ETK and 7S7sT'3n ETK. The first reference act regards
T - - T : -
David's identity as a violent man. According to Ridout, this is the basis of Shimei's
condemnation as it is repeated at the end of the speech, forming an inclusion.463 The
second reference appears elsewhere in Scripture as a designation of someone of low
status and thus one with no valid authority.464 The assertives which are framed by the
reference of David as D^QIH C^K describe David's current situation as divine retribution
for David's violence against the house of Saul.465 According to Shimei, David's own
ascension was usurpation.466 What is more, Shimei says that Yhwh has given the
461
Brichto says "Shimei's words do not constitute imprecation or malediction; they do constitute a
vituperative denunciation. And the proper translation of qillel in this context is "rail at / vituperate /
denounce." Brichto, The Problem of "Curse," 141. Borgman calls Shimei's utterances "a foul invective,"
"verbal insults," as well as "slander." Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient
Story (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 141, 144. Brueggemann calls it "taunting" and "shouting
abusive things." Brueggemann, David's Truth, 54.
462
The speech formula PN "I OX I"D, while commonly considered a "messenger formula," is
simply a formula used to cite a quotation. Meier, Speaking of Speaking, 282.

464
See 1 Sam 25:25, 1 Kgs 21:13. It is also possible that this designation serves to identify David
with Sheol, death, and destruction. J. A. Emerton, 'Sheol and the Sons of Belial,' VT 37 (1987): 214-18.
465
Cf. Fokkelman, King David, 292.

152
kingdom to Absalom and has brought upon David his disaster. As Alter notes, Shimei is
"clearly playing a very dangerous game."467 After all, if his assertives do fit David, i.e., if
Shimei is correct that David is a violent man, then there is little question of how ETK
DÔ^n will react to these insults!

T ~
Such a violent response is anticipated by Abishai, who is introduced by the
narrator as n^12J~]3 "^"OIS!. Abishai performs a directive to "=]7I3n requesting
permission to cross over and remove Shimei's head, i$XTTlX rTTpNn K3~<1"13S?K.
Abishai introduces this request with a question that points to Shimei's low status and
therefore lack of authority, ~$W ^ S T I S H-TH nSH S ^ n bbpi nb. Abishai thus
counters Shimei's accusations against the king's status by projecting Shimei as a "dead
dog." Alter has noted that this designation is the lowest of the low, especially in relation
to someone who is of higher authority.468 What is more, Abishai issues a reference act for
David that stands in stark contrast to Shimei's reference by countering "son of Belial"
with "my lord the king."469 This response fits with Abishai's identity; it is Abishai who
might be accurately described as a "man of blood."470
467
Ibid.
468
Ibid.
469
Ibid.
470
Brueggemann points out that such a taunting of the king would be intolerable for a
governmental officer. He calls Abishai a "security officer" who certainly would want to remove the
troublemaker. Brueggemann, David's Truth, 54. Van Seters notes that Abishai and Joab are portrayed in
the CH "as powerful military men who cannot be controlled." Van Seters, "Problems in the Literary
Analysis of the Court History of David," JSOT1 (1976): 22-29 (25).
153
Due to the focus upon identity and authority as displayed by the display text of
the narrator and by the speech acts of both Shimei and Abishai, it comes as no surprise
that David responds in terms of identity and authority. Directing his speech acts first to
Abishai and then to Abishai and all of David's servants, David clarifies and emphasizes
his own identity and authority (v. 10), and then turns to that of Shimei (v. 11), and of
Yhwh (v. 12). Nevertheless, several aspects of David's response are surprising. David
does not attempt to counter Shimei's description of David's current situation, and he
treats Shimei as someone who has been sent by Yhwh. What is more, David expresses
the hope that Yhwh has sent Shimei in order so that he may bring good to David.
In verse 10, David addresses the issues of identity and authority directed against
his own character. He first counters the notion of his identity proclaimed by Shimei (and
assumed by Abishai) that David is a man of blood. David distances himself from Abishai,
the true man of blood, first with a question, !T")X "'33. WZO) ",?~n!3. Although many
interpreters would like to hear a response to this question, this is not a directive for
Abishai to provide this information but rather an assertive in the form of a rhetorical
question to show that David has nothing to do with the sons of Zeruiah.471 After
offsetting Shimei's charge as to the king's identity, David then shows himself to be under
the authority of Yhwh. This perlocutionary act is achieved first with an assertive that
connects the authority of Yhwh to Shimei's insults, bbp )b "10S HIIT "O] bbp* "D
"TnTHS, and then another rhetorical question that in effect asserts that neither David nor
Of course, given the service of the sons of Zeruiah in David's court, this assertive that David
has nothing to do with these brothers might rightly be met with skepticism.
154
Abishai are people who can resist Yhwh's authority,]^ nrTCPS? P^ni? "1I2X,, "*ft). Here
David does not counter Shimei's charge that he is a son of Belial by asserting his
authority but rather by asserting his identity as someone under Yhwh's authority.472 Such
an identity as a man who is unwilling to resist the authority of Yhwh is consistent with
other speeches David utters in Samuel, such as in response to Abishai's request to kill
Saul as he lay sleeping in 1 Samuel 26 (cf. a similar situation in 1 Sam 24). Here David
shows that he is still under Yhwh's authority.
While David performs speech acts that counter Shimei's description of David as a
man of blood and a man of Belial, David does not perform any speech act that attempts to
counter Shimei's assertive regarding Yhwh giving the kingdom to David's son Absalom.
Many interpreters have noticed that David does not dispute Shimei's interpretation of
David's current situation. While it has been assumed that David agrees with Shimei in
accepting his present situation as divine retribution, this may in fact be an instance where
David hopes that Shimei is correct. In other words, David does not attempt to counter this
particular assertive because he is not insulted by it in the way that he is insulted by
Shimei's attack upon his character. If David agrees with Shimei's interpretation of
Yhwh's action regarding Absalom, then one might expect him to seek to affirm rather
than deny Shimei's divine appointing. In fact, such is David's next speech act.
In verse 11, David turns to the identity and authority of Shimei. He says to
Abishai and all his servants, n n j p ? *]K1 t ^ ^j?3P "^BO K""l#j$ '?? n ? ^
Against Polzin, who says that David's rebuke of Abishai in v. 11 indicates that "clearly David
is no longer the man after God's own heart." Polzin, "Curses and Kings," 221.
155
",5>1P"'n )5- David points out that if his own son seeks his life, an unnatural desire given
Absalom's identity as ^ 3 3 ^ 0 ^ 3 0 ^ S O KIT--)tf& what would stop Shimei from
doing the same, given the way that Shimei's identity C T ^ L T J S ) makes this a much
more natural response? David asserts that Shimei is to be expected to act in this way, and
that Yhwh has utilized this identity.
If David's desire to preserve Shimei's insults is not yet clear to David's hearers,
this point is clarified when David then performs two directives, T'?P',1 T? Î"!?!!.
Interpreters have offered a variety of reasons for why David might refuse Abishai's offer.
For example, Anderson suggests that David is hesitant to punish Shimei on this particular
occasion because Shimei might be accompanied by 1,000 of his kinsmen as he is in
19:17.47 Whybray asks if the response to Abishai is a calculated attempt to impress his
followers.474 The present proposal is that David is not insulted by one particular aspect of
Shimei's insults but in fact agrees with it and wants to make it known that he endorses
Shimei's claim that Yhwh has replaced David with Absalom. David himself offers the
reason as HIPP i7"1!5K "O. While his purpose for protecting Shimei's insults is a matter
of interpretation, it is clear that David attributes Shimei's act of hurling insults to the
authority of Yhwh. As he has already shown, David is unwilling to resist the authority of
Yhwh.
Whybray, Succession, 36.
156
In verse 12, David projects a particular identity of Yhwh as someone who can be
expected to bring good to David and emphasizes Yhwh's supreme authority. While
Shimei's identity as David's enemy leads David to expect Shimei to hurl insults upon
him, David's perception of Yhwh's identity allows him to hope that Yhwh is attempting
to bring good to David, even in an unexpected way. Although many interpreters have
assumed that by attributing the insults to Yhwh David believes that Yhwh has given
Shimei the words to say,475 David himself does not make this connection. Rather, he says
that Yhwh has directed Shimei to insult David. Hertzberg articulates a dominant
viewpoint when he says, "He [David] sees Shimei's curses not as the subjective
expression of human anger, but as the performance of a divine commission."476 Actually,
David's assertive in verse 12 commits him to the belief that Shimei's insults are both the
subjective expression of human anger and the performance of a divine commission.
Yhwh would not have had to tell Shimei exactly what to say, especially in the personal
attacks on David's character, since the words will come easily to such a man of the house
of Saul. David expresses a hope that Yhwh has directed Shimei to insult him in order to
bring good to David.
In addition to portraying Yhwh as someone who can be expected to bring good to
David, this assertive shows a more precise hope that Yhwh is someone who might bring
good to David when Yhwh sees something. The precise object which David says Yhwh
E.g., Bar-Efrat says, "Gemeint ist, dass Schimi nur ein Werkzeug in der Hand des HERRN ist,
der ihn jetzt demiitigen will." Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buch Samuel, 166. Borgman re-words "David's spirit"
to be saying "perhaps the Lord is cursing me through Shimei." Borgman, David, Saul, and God, 114.
Anderson calls Shimei no more than the mouthpiece of Yhwh. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 207.
476
Hertzberg, / & IISamuel, 345.
157
will see and bring good to David may be an instance of threefold multivalency,477
although the qere "1?',S?3 is a bit mysterious and is usually not followed by translators.
Those interpreters who follow the ketib '1?1J?3 "my iniquity" often see David in agreement
with Shimei's reference of David and his situation as an example of retributive
theology.479 Many other interpreters follow the variant "^SJD as well as ancient
translations such as the LXX as David says that Yhwh may see "my
affliction/distress."480 For this study, this variant reading is preferred because David does
not otherwise admit to any wrongdoing in his prior speech acts. It certainly is not
uncommon in biblical scholarship to perceive David as someone who believes that Yhwh
will help him in a time of distress. However, here David expresses the hope that Yhwh
may have directed Shimei to create the situation of distress to which he will respond to
bring about this good, unbeknownst to Shimei. One possible reason for David to hope
that Yhwh will bring good after distress is a change in David's situation that leads to a
change in David's identity as Yhwh will deal with him as he would with one who is
afflicted (H3S7).
477
See note in translation above.
47
Perhaps the function of the qere is simply for the reader to avoid attributing guilt to David
aloud.
479
E.g., Hertzberg follows the ketib saying that David recognizes the justification of divine
retribution, but believes it to be more than he deserves. Hertzberg, / & IISamuel, 345.
480 i
E.g., McCarter, II Samuel, 369; Alter, The David Story, 293.
481 ,
This point, though not prevalent in commentaries, fits with an observation made by Rost, that
in 16:12 it is evidence that "to curse and insult someone afflicted by Yhwh brings the curser no benefit and
could even result in Yahweh again showing his favour to the cursed person on that very account." Rost,
Succession, 107.
158
While expressing such a theology of hope, David simultaneously emphasizes
Yhwh's authority even as he expresses his hope that Yhwh is someone who will act in his
favor. By starting his theological assertive with a qualifier vW, David acknowledges
Yhwh as the ultimate authority who always has the freedom to act as he chooses (cf. DK
in his assertives to Zadok in scene four). This makes any divine action contingent only
upon Yhwh's decision. At the same time, it is possible in virtually every other instance
in Scripture where v W is used of Yhwh's actions to construe an element of hope that
Yhwh will act in the speaker's favor,483 although this hope is not always realized.484
Here in 2 Sam 16:12, such an expression of Yhwh's authority in combination with
the hope that he will bring about good is similar to the way David hopes that Yhwh might
change his mind (0113) and allow David's first child with Bathsheba to live, P~\V ''D
"I^H 'rn riirr "MIT (2 Sam 12:22).485 Of the theology exhibited in 2 Sam 12:22 and
16:12 Kathryn Roberts remarks:
482
Brueggemann has written at length on how the SN carries the theme of Yhwh's freedom. E.g.,
Walter Brueggemann, "On Trust and Freedom: A Study of the Faith in the Succession Narrative." Int 26
(1972): 3-19; idem, "On Coping with Curse: A Study of 2 Sam 16:5-14." CBQ 36 (1974): 175-92.
483
Elsewhere in Scripture the following passages contain such utterances which use v W with
Yhwh as the subject: Num 23:3, 27; Josh 14:12; 1 Sam 6:5; 14:6; 2 Kgs 19:4; Isa 37:4; Jer 21:2; Amos
5:15; and regarding W7) 7X:Jonah 1:6. The expressed hope in these passages includes that Yhwh will be
with the speaker in a battle (Josh 14:12; 1 Sam 14:6; Jer 21:2), that Yhwh will lighten his hand (1 Sam 6:5),
that Yhwh might hear the mocking against him and rebuke these words (2 Kgs 19:4; Isa 37:4), that Yhwh
will be gracious (Amos 5:15) and that God will rescue the speaker in a life-threatening situation (Jonah
1:6). In each of these passages, the speaker expresses a hope that Yhwh will do something, though the hope
is not always realized (eg., Num 23:3, 27).
484
E.g., Num 23:3, 27.
485
For an overview and discussion of God's Dn3, see David Noel Freedman, "When God
Repents," in Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman (ed.
John R. Huddlestun; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 409-46.
159
David's prayer arises not only from the knowledge of his own
helplessness but also from a strong faith in the God who has stood with
him in the past (12:7-9). His prayer's hope is built upon confidence that
God can be affected by his prayers, that God can be moved . . . "Who
knows? Perhaps . . . " This is the foundation of the life of faith: believing in
a God whose mind is able to be changed on our behalf.486
As Goldingay points out, "'Perhaps' is not much of a hope, but its fulfillment emerges
from Yhwh's commitment to David, not David's commitment to Yahweh."487 Such a
recognition shows that David's faith in Yhwh's identity and authority are intertwined.
The narrator closes the scene with two display texts, the first concerning David
and those with him and the second concerning Absalom and those with him. David and
those with him walk along on the path as Shimei walks on the side of the hill beside him,
hurling insults and throwing stones and dust. David and those with him continue to walk
and endure the 7 7 p until they arrive, perhaps at the Jordan (following LXX) at the end of
verse 14. In verse 15, the narrator tells of Absalom's arrival at Jerusalem, with
Ahithophel.
Storyteller Level
On the storyteller level, the speech acts of scene seven are broadened in their scope,
extending beyond this particular story. Within the books of Samuel, Alter has noted the
location of Bahurim to be significant for its place in the story of how David uses his
authority as king to take Michal from her husband Paltiel (2 Sam 3:12 - 16). Of 2 Sam.
Kathryn L. Roberts, '"Who Knows? Yahweh May Be Gracious': Why We Pray," In Bernard
Batto and Kathryn Roberts, eds., David and lion: Biblical Studies in Honor ofJ.J.M. Roberts (Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004): 97-110 (109).
487
160
3:16, Alter says, "To a sober historian, this moment might well seem superfluous. To a
great imaginative writer like the author of this story, such moments are the heart of the
matter. Paltiel never even speaks in the story, but his weeping speaks volumes."488 The
geographic location thus adds to the accusation against David as transcending Shimei's
insults. Similarly, Fokkelman has said that Shimei himself is not so much an individual as
he is "a representative of those against King David."489 Yet Shimei and Bahurim are not
the only elements of this scene to transcend the story level. David and Yhwh do as well.
On the storyteller level, the faith that David expresses on the story level is
emphasized by the way that David refers to Yhwh in each of the three speech acts
mentioned above regarding w . 10-12. What is more, the audience might notice the irony
that Shimei's act of insulting David is performed in the attempt to harm David and yet it
is the very means by which David expects Yhwh might be bringing him good! In any
case, David's expectation that Yhwh is on David's side despite supposed evidence to the
contrary cannot be ignored on the storyteller level. As von Rad says:
Es war also die Absicht des Historikers, das erste Funktionieren der
Nathanweissagung zu zeigen. Jahwe hat sein Wort eingelost; aber der
Weg zu der Erfullung der Zusage war ein ganz unerwarteter: der Gesalbte
wurde aufs tiefste gedemutigt, und sein Thron ist beinahe dem Aufruhr
zum Opfer gefallen... Wohl, hier ist auch von dem leidenden Gesalbren
die Rede; ja die Eindringlichkeit, mit der das Bild des seiner Insignien
entkleideten Konigs gezeichnet ist, wie er die Residenz mit seinem Thron
und auch die Lade zurucklaBt, bis es sich entschieden hat, ob Jahwe an
ihm Gefallen hat, darf ja nicht ubersehen warden (2 Sam. 15.17ff.).490
Alter, The David Story, xxiii-xxiv.

489
490
Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Einfuhrung in die evangelische Theologie
1; Munich: C. Kaiser, 1962), 329.
161
The faith of David here in scene seven not only is a felicity condition for David's
speeches on the story level, but also may be construed to be particularly significant on the
storyteller level.
On the storyteller level, the details of David's hope in this scene may be
understood to fit into the larger context of the Old Testament that discusses similar
concepts. In particular, the expectation that Yhwh will act when he sees affliction (HIV)
is well attested in Scripture. For example, this expectation is portrayed for Jerusalem in
Lamentations 1:7:491
Jerusalem remembers,
in the days of her affliction (!T?S?) and wandering,
all the precious things
that were hers in days of old.
When her people fell into the hand of the foe,
and there was no one to help her,
the foe looked on mocking
over her downfall.
In this situation Jerusalem says at the end of verse 9:
"O LORD, look at my affliction,

for the enemy has triumphed!"
The expectation that Yhwh should work for the deliverance of his afflicted also appears
in traditions connected to David in many of the psalms. For example, the idea that Yhwh
has a special commitment to helping the afflicted appears in Psa 70:6 [5]:
"But I am poor (^V) and needy;

hasten to me, O God!
You are my help and my deliverer;
O LORD, do not delay!"
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references in the remainder of this section will refer to the
NRSV.
162
The expectation of Yhwh helping the afflicted is heighted with the identity of the
afflicted also as Yhwh's servants as they place hope in Yhwh's loyalty, i.e., with his
10n. 4 9 2 Examples of this expectation include:
Turn, O LORD! How long?

Have compassion on your servants ("^"DS?)!
Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love C^PO),
so that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
Make us glad as many days as you have afflicted us (ttJVaS?),
and as many years as we have seen evil.
Let your work be manifest to your servants (^"DS?),
and your glorious power to their children.
Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us,
and prosper for us the work of our hands
0 prosper the work of our hands! (Psa. 90:13-17)
Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O Lord?

Awake, do not cast us off forever!
Why do you hide your face?
Why do you forget our affliction (13H3S?) and oppression?
For we sink down to the dust;
our bodies cling to the ground.
Rise up, come to our help.
Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love (^"IPO). (Psa 44:2427)
In Psa. 109:20-28, this expectation is shared in the face of taunting:
May that be the reward of my accusers from the LORD,

of those who speak evil against my life.
But you, O LORD my Lord,
act on behalf for your name's sake;
because your steadfast love (ÎPD) is good (3i0), deliver me.
For I am poor (Î?) and needy,
and my heart is pierced within me.
1 am gone like a shadow at evening;
I am shaken off like a locust.
492
While at the story level David does not explicitly bring up 10T1, the storyteller level includes
the mention of it in 2 Sam 15:20. What is more, speech act theory shows that a crucial element to
understanding the speech acts of the characters in this narrative involves the identity of the speaker and the
level of commitment/loyalty between the speaker and hearer.
163
My knees are weak through fasting;
my body has become gaunt.
I am an object of scorn to my accusers;
when they see me, they shake their heads.
Help me, 0 LORD my God!
Save me according to your steadfast love (^"lOPD).
Let them know that this is your hand;
you, O LORD, have done it.
Let them curse (Iv'/p?), but you will bless.
Let my assailants be put to shame; may your servant (*JrO??'D be glad.
In Psa 31:8[7] the psalmist rejoices in Yhwh's "IDPI telling Yhwh "because you have
seen (JV&n) my affliction C^PTlX); you have taken heed of my adversities." The idea
that Yhwh has a commitment to help the afflicted is well-attested in books of the Old
Testament outside the books of Samuel, particularly within the book of Psalms.
For David, the situation of enduring Shimei's 7 7 p is the result of a divine
directive that may be an attempt to bring HIED to David. The idea that Yhwh can bring
mtD after bringing 7T>p is a theme attested elsewhere in Scripture, particularly in
passages associated with Israel's exile. In the book of Jeremiah, being the object of T>7p
is associated with exile, a result of Yhwh turning against a nation or group of people
(e.g., Jer 24:9; 25:18; 29:18; 42:18; 44:8, 49:13). In Jer 30:17, Yhwh finds an incentive to
restore his people in what others have said of them, "For I will restore health to you, and
your wounds I will heal, says the LORD, because they have called you an outcast: 'It is
Zion; no one cares for her!'" The idea that Yhwh can bring D1D after 7 7 p is also found
in Zech 8:13-15:
164
Just as you have been a cursing (ITTyp) among the nations, O house of
Judah and house of Israel, so I will save you and you shall be a blessing.
Do not be afraid, but let your hands be strong. For thus says the LORD of
hosts: Just as I purposed to bring disaster upon you, when your ancestors
provoked me to wrath, and I did not relent, says the LORD of hosts, so
again I have purposed in these days to do good (D',CP',n7) to Jerusalem and
to the house of Judah; do not be afraid."
Although the word 77>p does not appear in Lamentations, the description of the mocking
that is directed towards Jerusalem in Lam. 2:15 appears to fit Shimei's act of 7 7 p :
All who pass along the way p p . " ! ',""Oi?~^'?)

clap their hands at you;
they hiss and wag their heads (DEJKI)
at daughter Jerusalem;
"Is this the city that was called
the perfection of beauty,
the joy of all the earth QHNtrrW?)?"
David's hope that Yhwh will return the ? 7 p he endures from Shimei in exchange for
good is a hope that is reflected in many passages in Scripture.
This scene closes with a display text that on the story level tells of the king's
arrival, perhaps at the Jordan (following the LXX). On the storyteller level there may be
significance to how the king is not alone but that he has arrived weary along with
inK~"l$K DS7n~7D1. David was not alone in this distress during the scene, and this is not
merely a story about a single individual.
165
CHAPTER 6
The Showdown of Counselors in Jerusalem: Scenes Eight through Ten
The majority of the action within these three scenes occurs inside Jerusalem.493 On the
story level, Hushai is at the forefront of the action as he gains admittance into Absalom's
court as a counselor (scene eight). Hushai frustrates the counsel of Ahithophel, first by
countering the advice of Ahithophel (scene nine) and then by serving as part of David's
team of spies (scene ten). Although Hushai is the key character on the story level, on the
storyteller level the narrator emphasizes to the reader that Yhwh is behind Hushai's
success. Thus, the faith in Yhwh that David exhibits in his departure from Jerusalem is
shown to be justified.
Scene Eight: (16:16-23)
Scene eight contains two consecutive conversations on the story level, the first between
Absalom and Hushai and the second between Absalom and Ahithophel. On the story
level, the issue of identity remains a pivotal aspect of the speech acts as Hushai wins a
place among Absalom's counselors by displaying a loyalty to the line of David. While
Absalom misreads the speech situation and thus (mis)construes Hushai's loyalties to have
shifted away from David, Ahithophel notices that the bond between father and son still
The exceptions to this are all in scene ten, including: (1) the manner in which a directive sent
by Hushai in Jerusalem reaches the waiting David, (2) the telling of Ahithophel's journey back to his own
city where he commits suicide, and (3) the conclusion of the scene involving David reaching Mahanaim
while Absalom reaches the Jordan.
166
exists and seeks to break that bond. On the storyteller level, the audience witnesses the
dramatic irony of the speech acts of the scene with the knowledge that Hushai's true
loyalty remains with David. What is more, the storyteller level emphasizes the
importance of Ahithophel.
Translation
(16) And it came to pass when Hushai the Archite, the friend of David,
came to Absalom, that Hushai said to Absalom, "Long live the king! Long
live the king!" (17) And Absalom said to Hushai, "Is this your loyalty to
your friend? Why did you not go with your friend?" (18) And Hushai said
to Absalom "No, but the one whom Yhwh has chosen, and this people and
all the Israeliteshis494 I will be and with him I will remain. (19) And
besides, whom should I serve? Should it not be his son? Just as I have
served your father so I will serve you." (20) And Absalom said to
Ahithophel, "Give us counsel, what shall we do?" (21) And Ahithophel
said to Absalom, "Go in to your father's concubines, the ones he left
behind to watch over the palace, and all Israel will hear that you have
made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you
will be strengthened." (22) And they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the
roof, and Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all
Israel. (23) Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if
one495 consulted with the oracle of God, so was considered all the counsel
of Ahithophel, both by David and also by Absalom.
Speech Acts

Hearer
Story and S= Narrator 16a- t n nsn '?")Kn pin Kajtfgs vy Speech
Storyteller H = Audience 16ba situation
Levels
s = Tin 16bp :^n VI i?n VI Expressive
H = Di^KnK
T : -
Following the qere.
The qere notes to insert ETX.

167
S= Narrator 17aa Tirr^js; Dibeag -IOKS] Speech
(cont.) H = Audience formula
S = 3i7^3K 17ap- Directive
T : -
17b
H = Tin
S= Narrator 18aa Dbtfnjr^ Tin -iogsi Speech
H = Audience formula
s = Tin 18ap- -J?3i n-tn Dm mrr i n s -TK ^3 *6 Assertive &
H = Di7^3K 18b :T v - T T :Commissive
T : - T Y -:
T : - :im inai n;.n^ [ib] *6 ^"ifcr &$

S= Narrator 19a i33 'as1? Ki^n -nsra; ^ ^b rratfrn Assertive
H = Audience
19b n ^ s )? f 3X "as1? Tms? neap Commissive
20a ^3iTn*r^ nhpix nn&i Speech

formula
S = DiÊDK
T : -
20b :n^s?a"no nzv 33^ i3n
Y ~: ~ ~ T " V T T
Directive
H = bphv$
S= Narrator 21aa D'bâic^ b$hv$ ")K9: Speech
H = Audience formula
s = b&\r% 21ap rran ~im *p3? tfa'ps-bg m Directive
H= Dib^nK T : -
Iran ninth T ~ :
S= Narrator 21b _,,

T3KTIK n27K33 3 ^ " T ^ S S70E71 Assertive
H = Audience 1 T Y T : - : * T : * T - T :
t^m "i^"^3 "H? ipmi

s
22 *a i aarrbs? ^nkn afotinvb IBSI Display text
T- T - ~ Y T T : - :
^?vb V3K T'absr^ oftenx

' T : T
Storyteller S= Narrator 23 nnn 3 ^ 3 f sr -itfg bstrns nxsn Display text

level only H= Audience (Aside)
|3 QTi^sn "151? '^W. "I#83
Da T)TVB3 barvng nsir'rs
:3'bEa*6
T : - :
168
Story Level
On the story level, the speech situation of scene eight is provided by the narrator in verse
16 in regards to the time of the conversation (0~"1E?fcO TT1), which is followed by an
introduction of Hushai that uses both his name (^SIKH ^ J l ) and his title/designation in
relation to David ("TH nS7~l). Thus Hushai's loyalty is reinforced as a pertinent aspect of
this speech situation. After identifying the hearer (DÊQK) the narrator issues a speech
formula, D ^ t t T ^ 'tfin "1QKS1.
Hushai first performs an expressive by which he attempts to identify himself as
someone who is loyal to Absalom, "^/SH TV ^/QH ''IT. While many interpreters have
noted that Hushai is (perhaps intentionally) ambiguous as to whether he is expressing his
desire for Absalom or for David to live,496 this is only conspicuous on the storyteller
level. On the story level, Hushai is clearly calling Absalom the king. Since the speech
situation of Absalom entering the city makes this an appropriate utterance for a supporter
to perform such a greeting, this expressive allows Hushai to present himself initially as
someone who is loyal to Absalom without a measurable direction of fit and without any
other illocutionary point.497 Indeed, this would be a strange expressive were it uttered by
someone who is not loyal to the hearer.
496
E.g., Fokkelman notes the omission of any proper name. Fokkelman, King David, 206-7.
497
Shulman notes, "When a speaker utters "^pSH TT . . . he expresses hope and neither the
addressee nor any other person is requested to act." Shulman, "The Particle M," 63.
169
Recognizing that Hushai's speech does not fit with Hushai's past identity as
someone loyal to David, Absalom questions Hushai as to why he has uttered such a
speech,*|Tn r O ^ n - ^ Hfib * | | n ~ n 8 "TOD HT.498 However, Absalom incorrectly
assesses the situation with the assumption that Hushai did not go with the king. On the
story level, the speech acts of the characters have shown that one's loyalty to someone is
directly linked to going with that person. In scene six, the fact that Mephibosheth has not
gone with David leads David to have a doubt of his loyalty. Here in scene eight, a similar
doubt is raised by Absalom in regards to the loyalty of Hushai. The incorrect assumption
by Absalom that Hushai stayed behind therefore has dire consequences since Absalom
utters this assertive with a sincerity condition of belief. What is more, by asking Hushai
to clarify how his words fit with his identity, Absalom allows Hushai the chance to mask
his identity.
Whybray has called Hushai's predicament "a great moral dilemma."499 However,
on the story level there is no hint of a dilemma. The issue is not whether Hushai will be
true to the facts of why he is in Jerusalem, but rather whether he will be true to his
identity. Hushai's response to Absalom allows him to successfully utter speech acts that
both utilize his true identity as the friend of David while also playing on Absalom's
misconstrual of his identity.
Hushai masks his identity in a way that not only allows him to be true to his
loyalty to David but also in a way that enables him to issue all of his utterances with
498
Alter notes that here Absalom is using "friend" in the sense of friendship and not the title of an
official, since the referent would be David. Alter, The David Story, 294.
499
170
sincerity. He begins with an assertive, a single word, ? . Since Absalom has asked two
questions, ("Is this your loyalty to your friend?" and "Why did you not go with your
friend?") it would not be clear to Absalom which of these questions Hushai is answering
in the negative. In the current speech situation, Absalom likely will construe Hushai's Is?
to the first question. Hushai then goes on to issue a commissive by which he establishes a
commitment, but by describing and not naming this person, DPil! HIIT "1113 ")EJX "O
nm intf] iT.ri [<b] tib biOSfT 2?^ _ bp1 Hfn. This allows Absalom to decide the
person who fits with Hushai's description. He then asks two question: *y$ ''O? rP3$rn
123 *W7 Xi7!l ""OS?K. While Absalom might construe the second of these questions as
an indirect assertive, i.e., "I should serve his son," Hushai himself does not answer his
questions. Rather, Hushai goes on to issue a commissive akin to the one given him by
David to say to Absalom, f B*? 7TV j ? ^DK *gb "Tnnf "V$$3. In none of these
speech acts does Hushai directly express a loyalty to Absalom. Rather, this must be
construed by Absalom. Hushai himself only expresses a loyalty to David's family line. In
fact, Hushai offers the basis of his commissive on the relationship of Absalom and David
as son and father!500 Many interpreters have noticed that the final commissive here may
be used by Hushai to commit himself to serving David even as he is with Absalom.501
Cazeaux points out that Hushai is observing the dynastic principal since Absalom is the son of
David. Cazeaux, Saul, David, Salomon, 237. Cf. Fokkelman, King David, 208.
501
E.g., Ridout says that "Hushai wants to both gain Absalom's confidence, and yet not in any
way to compromise his true loyalty to David. He is able to accomplish these two goals with this careful
choice of words." Ridout, Prose Compositional Techniques, 168-69.
171
Rost's designation of Hushai as "the traitor" is thus not supported by an examination of
his illocutions. Cazeaux's designation of Hushai as a "faux traitre" is a closer fit, at least
on the story level from Absalom's point of view.503 However, the best designation for
Hushai remains that he is the HS?") of David.
The second conversation in this scene occurs immediately as the narrator issues a
speech formula introducing the speech situation to be between Ahithophel and Absalom
(ySirnX 7 $ DiÊDX "")!?KSY). Since Absalom will use plural imperatives, Alter echoes
Bar-Efrat's suggestion that Hushai may still be present.504 It can be added that this brief
introduction of the second conversation indicates that Ahithophel was likely present
during the first conversation. In fact, Ahithophel's speech can be understood as a reaction
to that exchange between Hushai and Absalom.
Absalom issues a directive to Ahithophel, jT27|73_nD Jl^S? DDT5 Qil. Ahithophel
complies with a directive, rV3H TiOtf1? rP3n 1BK$ *p3K *Vlbsrb$ K13, and then an
assertive, îna "m?*rbD ^ T iptm Tn*rnK nefcor^ ^K-ifer-^ POtfl.

' I T v ~: T "4 I * T : I * T v T : - : * ** T : T - T :
Concerning the directive, Rost says that this advice is given "in mean rancor."505
Following von Rad's footnote that Ahithophel is Bathsheba's grandfather, many
interpreters see this advice as resulting from a personal vendetta against David.506
502
503
Cazeaux, Saul, David, Salomon, 238.
504
505
506
E.g., Rertzberg, I & II Sameul, 350;BodneT, David Observed, 128; Keys, Wages of Sin, 135.
172
Wurthwein calls this counsel "foolish," although Daube points out the practical nature
of this advice due to apparent customs of successors with regard to spouses of

SOX
predecessors. However, when the question is asked as to what Ahithophel does with
his directive, the answer is given by Ahithophel himself. The directive is offered in the
attempt to make Absalom "odious" to his father (21b).
The reasoning of Ahithophel suggests that he has offered this counsel at least in
part as a response to the father/son relationship between Absalom and David that is made
explicit in Hushai's exchange with Absalom with Hushai's reference of David as ^p^K.
Halpern has suggested that Ahithophel may doubt Absalom's resolve, and that following
his counsel would "demonstrate his [of Absalom] commitment to the uprising."509 After
all, given the strength of the father/son bond it is possible that David will reconcile with
his son and punish all other rebels. Thus Ahithophel seeks to irreparably break that bond
and as a result, the hands of all those with Absalom would be strengthened (v.21b).510
The narrator's report of Ahithophel's advice being followed quickly on the story
level in v.22 shows his influence and his command,511 a point made explicit on the
storyteller level in verse 23.
Wurthwein, Die Erzdhlung von der Thronfolge Davids, 295.

508
David Daube, "Absalom and the Ideal King" FT48 (1998): 315-25 (320). See the discussion
of this supposed ancient custom in chapter four of the present study.
509
Halpern, David's Secret Demons, 46.
510
Cf. Fokkelman, King David, 210. According to von Rad, this would show the break but
actually it would create the break. Von Rad, "Beginnings," 184-85.
511
Bodner, David Observed, 130.
173
Storyteller Level
Scene eight does not only return the action to Jerusalem but returns to a mode of
storytelling similar to the initial scenes that were located in Jerusalem as well. Polzin
notes that in 16:15-23 the style changes as it:
. . . reverts to the usual retrospective presentation of events: in w 15-23

the narrator no longer employs the imperfective verb forms and hinneh. It
is as if we are meant to see what happens in David's procession in the
wilderness as somehow still going on before us, whereas Absalom's
machinations in royal Jerusalem have happened, and represent a stable
past, one that is in contrast to the highly mobile, ongoing or durative
aspects of David's stylized and ritualized procession in the wilderness.512
This scene, along with scenes nine and ten, will be told as something that happened, as
opposed to something that that unfolds before the readers' eyes.
Relevant to the storyteller level is the recognition made by many interpreters that
much of what is said between Absalom and Hushai as well as between Absalom and
Ahithophel exhibit double meanings for the reader in instances of dramatic irony. For
example, Hushai's expressive of "long live the king" may still refer to David,513
Absalom's question of whether this is Hushai's TOPI may be answered affirmatively,514
and all of Hushai's commissives may serve to commit him further to David rather than to
Absalom. The second half of the scene regarding Ahithophel's counsel concerning
Polzin, "Curses and Kings," 219. (Italics are his.)

513
E.g., Conroy, Absalom, 51, 114; Fokkelman, King David, 206; Ridout, Prose Compositional
Techniques, 167.
514
Conroy, Absalom, 114; Fokkelman, King David, 206.
174
Absalom going in to David's concubines is considered a fulfillment of Nathan's prophesy
against David (2 Sam 12:7-12).516
Scene eight ends with an aside (v.23) that is directed only to the reader and serves
to bring to the storyteller level the importance of Ahithophel which has been operative on
the story level. The view of Ahithophel as an oracle of Yhwh517 suggests that
Ahithophel's speeches carry Yhwh's authority. Not only does this enable the reader to
look back and understand, for instance, why David would react as he did to the news of
Ahithophel's defection, but it also makes the reader anticipate that Ahithophel's counsel
in scene nine will be followed. Fokkelman notes that it also eases the dramatic tension
of the story, which shows that "the narrator is not primarily interested in that type of
tension . . . his goal is higher things."519 In the present study, such higher things involves
the manner in which this is not only an entertaining story about how Ahithophel's
counsel is thwarted by Hushai, but more importantly a story that displays the character of
Yhwh.
Scene Nine: (17:1-14)
Scene nine starts on the story level as Ahithophel presents his counsel to Absalom (w. 1
3). This is followed by a display text that operates only on the storyteller level (v. 4) and
then a longer conversation on the story level between Absalom and Hushai (w. 5-14a).
516
E.g., Bodner, David Observed, 129; Fokkelman, King David, 210; Alter, The David Story, 295;
Carlson, David the Chosen King, 140.
517
E.g., Rost, Succession, 108.
Bodner, David Observed, 131; Ridout, Prose Compositional Techniques, 133.

519
175
The scene ends with a display text that operates only on the storyteller level (v. 14b). On
the story level, Hushai counters Ahithophel's good advice by projecting a fictitious
situation which appeals to the legends of David rather than to his current situation. While
Absalom and the Israelites find Hushai's counsel to be better than that of Ahithophel, this
is based upon the ways that Hushai's counsel fits better within the fictitious situation
created by his own words. On the storyteller level, the narrator tells the audience that
Hushai's success is to be attributed to the authority of Yhwh.
Translation
(1) And Ahithophel said to Absalom; "Please let me choose twelve

thousand men and I will set out and pursue David tonight. (2) And I will
come upon him while he is weary and discouraged and I will drive him in
terror, and all the people who are with him will flee. I will strike down
only the king. (3) And I will bring all the people to you, for it is one man
you seek,520 and all the people will be at peace." (4) And the speech
pleased Absalom and all the elders of Israel. (5) And Absalom said, "Call
also Hushai the Archite, and let us hear what he too has to say. (6) When
Hushai came to Absalom, Absalom said to him, "This is what Ahithophel
has said, shall we do as he says? If not, you tell us." (7) And Hushai said
to Absalom, "This time the counsel that Ahithophel has given is not
good." (8) Hushai continued, "You know that your father and his men are
warriors and that they are enraged, like a bear robbed of her cubs in the
field. Besides, your father is a man of war and will not spend the night
with the troops. (9) Here, now he is hiding in one of the pits or in some
other place, and it will happen when some of them fall at the first attack,
whoever hears it will say, 'There has been a slaughter among the troops
who follow Absalom.' (10) And even the valiant warrior, whose heart is
like the heart of a lion, will utterly melt, for all Israel knows that your
father is a warrior and those with him are valiant warriors. (11) So I
counsel that all Israel be gathered to you, from Dan to Beersheba, like the
520,
' Most interpreters follow the LXX, which rearranges the wording of the MT ( 73)1 3 W 3
ETKn) to read nCTK7 H73 3 W 3 , "as a bride returns to her husband." However, Alter follows Bar-Efrat
in pointing out that this strange metaphor does not fit with the otherwise straightforward nature of
Ahithophel's counsel. This translation follows Alter, who adopts Bar-Efrat's proposal that 73H 3 W 3 is an
inadvertent scribal repetition of 7 3 rO^K") at the beginning of the verse and presumes "inK ETK instead
oflt&S en<n. Alter, The David Story, 296-97.
176
sand by the sea for multitude, and that you go into battle in person. (12)
And we shall come upon him in whatever place he may be found, and we
will be upon him as dew falls upon the ground, and he will not survive nor
will any of those with him. (13) And if he withdraws to a city, then all
Israel will bring ropes to that city and we will drag it as far as the valley
until not even a pebble is found there. (14) And Absalom said, and all the
Israelites with him, "The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the
counsel of Ahithophel." And Yhwh had ordained to defeat the good
counsel of Ahithophel so that Yhwh might bring ruin on Absalom.
Speech Acts

Hearer
Story and S= Narrator la D ' ^ r u r ^ b$hv$ ">9tfs3 Speech
storyteller H= Audience Formula
levels
s= b$ftn$ lba pv v T T : T T -: : v
Directive/
Commissive
H= D'ÊDK
T : -
lbp T : T - T ---; - T : : v : T | T :
Directive/
Commissive
2a D^T ns-ii VT mm vbs KHKI Assertive
-T ** : - "T : T T T :
ina--IE?K nvrrbs oai infc Ti-nnm

v ~: T T T T: * : - - : - :
2b- -bs r o ^ i 'nib "n^BrrnK vram Commissive
3ba T T T : - : 1 v v - v . .. . .
1 V " T T
3bp 2?i?30 nna inK ETK Assertive
3by tnbw rrrr Dn -l Assertive

T V I " T T T
S= Narrator 4 -bs TSQI D^tfSK ^rsn l a i n ")ETSI Display text

H= Audience T - - : T : - * : T T - - . -
S= Narrator 5aa aib^nK IQ&l Speech

H= Audience formula
S= D'bEDK 5ap- -no nsraefai onKn wnb as W $np Directive

T : -
b
H= '3j?T
*?$"!? (?)
177
S= Narrator 6aa DibE?3K n a s i Dib^K-^K Tin *osi Speech
H= Audience T : - v T : - v T -
situation
nbvb rbx
T "
s= oêoa 6ap bafrna ~)51 nfn 1313 Assertive

T : -
H= Tin 6ay- :~i3i nnK |:K_DK i")3n-n$ nj?3n Directive

6b
S= Narrator 7a Dibtfrur^K Tin naxi Speech
H= Audience formula
s= Tin 7b b^h^na, psritfa n3ss?n n3ito KbAssertive
_ -
: 1 - T v : T T T
H= tibufrx -
:n^?n DS7S3
T :
S= Narrator 8aa Tin naKsi Speech

H= Audience formula
s= Tin 8ap- ^3 rtfairnKi T3*rnK nsrr nna -

Series of
H= db^na, 10 T T-: v : 1 T v T : T T -
Assertives
T
bistf 313 nan tfS3 n a i nan ansa
: -
: T " V V " T T -
rb* *6i nanba tf^ TOKI nn&3

1 T : T T : 1 T : v r ~
nnas K3n3~Kin nns: nan :DS?n_na

- ... ; T : V T - " T T
bsas rrm naipan i n t o i o^nnsn

: TT: I : - - - : T : -
nn^n naai ya&n otfi nbnns ans

T : T - T . - .. - - T : T : - VT
Kim :D'b273K "HPTO "12?K DS73 n33a

: T : - "-: v v ~: T T T - -
_ _
oan n n s n 3^3 is*? nm b'n |3 D3
T3K "1133^3 S*nfcr-b3 jrp-o ow
11 înfrr1?? T*?? 1?K". *]b$n Jnxsr, ^3 Directive
1 T * ** T : * T - .. . T .
"^""1B?K bin? :inK

S732?-)$$ ?:n- ]ia
"1K3"1P1 ni
:31p3 D ^ n T3S1 3 1 ^ DY!
T|: - : f v T T T -
12-13 naipan [nna][3] nnas. vb$ 13K31 Series of

b& -itf*o rbv i3n3i DP asa3 ntfa Assertives
v -: - T T : - : T T : v **:
i3 -ini3-*6i nanxn-^y ban

: T T - : T - - -
:-inK_D3 IriK1B?K DT3Kn-l?331 -

TV * v -: T -: T T :
_l
ink i33noi wbnn i^nn Ts?n ?x _
: ~ T : T : - * T
D2? KXIMT6I#K ns? bnsn-ns?

-11-13J-D3
178
S= Narrator 14aa ** T : * T : T : -
Speech
H= Audience formula
n n n
S&H = 14ap bsrvng riss?!? ' 5 1 ^ ^ ^ â Assertive
T :
T :
binfr
T :
Storyteller S= Narrator 14b bpftn$ nxsrng isn'p ms mm Assertive

level only H= Audience -^K mrr *rnn -raja1? mien
T : T -: - T
:nsnrrna DibpnK T T T V T : ~
Story Level
The speeches in scene nine have been discussed at length by interpreters who have
noticed that Hushai and Ahithophel use drastically different styles,521 and that Hushai
presents counsel that counteracts that of Ahithophel in several ways.522 The question
posed by the current study enters into this discussion in agreement with the widely held
recognition that Hushai, in the parlance of speech act theory, performs his illocutions as a
perlocutionary act of countering the counsel of Ahithophel. However, greater attention
can still be given to the ways that Hushai's speech acts achieve this feat. It will be shown
below that both Ahithophel and Hushai utilize directives, commissives, and assertives,
but that they use these illocutions in vastly different ways. Ahithophel primarily employs
directives while Hushai primarily employs assertives.523 Moreover, Ahithophel attempts
For example, Ridout says "While Ahithophel had stated his plan succinctly and briefly, Hushai
speaks at greater length and employs elaborate and exaggerated imagery." Ridout, Prose Compositional
Techniques, 132.
522
For instance, whereas Ahithophel emphasizes the need for haste, Hushai emphasizes the need
to avoid such haste. Whereas Ahithophel places himself at the center of his plan, Hushai makes Absalom
the key actor. The purpose of this section is not to review all that has been noticed about these two speeches
but to focus upon several key aspects that show in a more general way what these two speeches do.
523
Similarly, Alter notes that unlike Ahithophel, Hushai starts with a lengthy description and then
uses third person verbs. Alter, The David Story, 296.
179
to match his directives to the actual situation whereas Hushai first creates an imaginary
situation with his assertives and only then fits his directives to his created world.
Whereas in scene eight Ahithophel had tested Absalom's resolve with his counsel,
in scene nine he shows his own resolve by committing himself to military action.
Ahithophel issues two directives for Absalom to give him permission to choose twelve
thousand men and to immediately set out in pursuit of David ( nS^nKI HD^pKI
H v> ^?n Tl"l-*,"ini<). Bodner has applied speech act theory to this part of Ahithophel's
speech, noting that these acts are not merely directives but commissives as well.524
Bodner points out, "So, rather than a request, this cohortative has the effect of
announcing what Ahithophel plans to do."525 Ahithophel describes the current state of
David as weary and discouraged (D?*T TIETA VTfrOm.)and tells what he will do ( KinKl
Infc TmnrTL.vbs?) as well as what the result of this action will be ( DBJT^D 031
. _ _ . _ _ T T / \ T T T T .
inK"""!^). He then issues commissives regarding the remainder of his plan and shows
how it fits into Absalom's own plan of replacing David (v. 3). Alter notes that
Ahithophel's description of David is accurate,526 as is his description of Absalom's plan
of merely replacing the king rather than waging all-out war.
Ahithophel concludes his speech with an assertive that Di ;>? JTiT DS?n~73.
Ahithophel's counsel fits the narrative world, fits with Absalom's plan, and will
524
Bodner also points out that these are cohortatives of resolve. Bodner, David Observed, 131.
525
Bodner, David Observed, 131.
526
180
purportedly yield Ur?p. Here it can be noted that Ahithophel's plan is remarkably
similar to the suggestion offered in the present study that David's initial plan when he left
Jerusalem was to enable a peaceful transition. With the heart of all Israel belonging to
Absalom and those loyal to David removed from the city, Absalom would have no
trouble ascending to the throne. Ahithophel even suggests what David appears to have
expected, that the people following after David might come to accept Absalom as king.
The primary difference between the 017$ planned by David in scenes three and four and
the 017$ offered by Ahithophel in scene nine is that the latter does not allow for a return
to the city by the new king's father.
The narrator then performs a display text revealing the direct response of
Ahithophel's counsel, i.e., that it has been viewed as good by D 72QK and by "^pT/D
'$"1?T (v. 4). By this utterance the narrator may be doing more than telling how
Absalom and the elders feel about the plan but may also be hinting that they have
accepted it. According to Fokkelman, this means that they have committed themselves to
this plan, and that this makes Hushai's task more difficult because he must overcome an
accepted course of action.527 However, when Hushai arrives he is not informed of
whether or not Ahithophel's advice has been accepted but is only told of what Ahithophel
has counseled (v. 6).
While one might expect Absalom to then issue a directive to follow Ahithophel's
counsel, instead he calls for Hushai to be brought in so that Absalom can hear what he
527
181
too will say. This decision to seek further counsel has been viewed by some interpreters
as inexplicable,528 although the wisdom tradition encourages more than one piece of
counsel.529 It may be that Absalom still feels he needs counsel because Ahithophel has
not spoken as a counselor, but as a military commander.530 Absalom informs Hushai of
Ahithophel's counsel, an act that is represented as indirect speech with an assertive
(7SrPnX l^n H-TH " a " ! ? ) , and he then directs Hushai to speak if they should not
follow the advice pZl PinK ]?8~DK ^ T ^ HE^D)- Hushai speaks.
Hushai's speech to Absalom has two parts (v. 7 and w . 8-13), each following a
speech formula made by the narrator. Hushai's first speech act is an assertive, rQiD K7
nK*n DJ7EQ ^gJTPnS f W~lti$ "TOPH. M o s t commentators have noted how
Ahithophel's counsel is "not good" for David only. This initial utterance is crucial for the
felicity of the ensuing speech for at least two reasons. First, by describing Ahithophel's
counsel as not good (yEirpnK fS^'lEW! i"!2JS?n !"QitD tih), Hushai creates a reason to
offer his own counsel in accordance with Absalom's directive ("if not, you tell us").
Second, by using the qualifier of nKTil DS723, Hushai identifies himself as someone who
normally considers Ahithophel's advice to be good. Bar-Efrat notes, "Indem er zu
verstehen gibt, dass er die verbreitete Meinung von der Qualitat der Ratschlage Ahitofels
528
E.g., Fokkelman, King David, 214; Bodner, David Observed, 133.
529
Prov. 15:2. It is also noticed that a counselor who goes second has the advantage (Prov. 18:17);
cf. Whybray, Succession Narrative, 87.
530
Bodner states, "Ahithophel is renowned as a counselor, not a soldieryet it is clear that he is
intending to transcend his office and also assume personal leadership of the army." Bodner, David
Observed, 132.
182
billigt, schafft Huschai eine gemeinsame Basis mit dem zuhorenden Publikum und
verhindert eine Widerspruchshaltung."531 By displaying himself in this way, Hushai
makes himself more appealing as a speaker to hearers who share this assumption.532
Hushai's second speech employs a chiastic structuring of assertives (w. 8-10) ->
directive (v. 9) -> assertives (w. 10-13). The first series of assertives utilize a world-
from-words direction of fit, projecting an imaginary world that the audience is invited to
share. Upon the creation of this world, Hushai only then offers his counsel, which relies
upon this imaginary world for its felicity. The ensuing assertives describe what will
happen within this projected world when Absalom follows Hushai's directive. The
problem for Absalom is that this world exists only within Hushai's words and Absalom's
imagination.
The world created by Hushai's speech is one in which David is dangerous, one in
which following the advice of Ahithophel would lead to disaster. Hushai invites Absalom
to consider this world with a tellability marker consisting of his first two words, HHIX
riS?"T. His reference of David as ^"OK emphasizes the familial link that may give
Absalom this knowledge and also makes Absalom the central figure. Many interpreters
have noticed that Hushai makes Absalom the focus of his speech,533 with some
Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buck Samuel, 172.

532
Bar-Efrat suggests that the speech formula after Hushai's first speech shows that Hushai waits
to see if his first speech has had an effect before he begins his second speech. Such an interpretation fits
here. Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buck Samuel, 172.
533
E.g., Alter, The David Story, 297; Bodner, David Observed, 134; Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buch
Samuel.m.
183
suggesting that Hushai does so in order to appeal to his vanity. However, it is also
possible that he appeals to Absalom's imagination. According to Hushai, Absalom knows
the identity of his father and his men to be warriors (tlQil D'HSX) and says that they are
m f r a bttti 2 1 3 n a n 2?S2 "HOI. He then issues another reference for David that
V T - - : T " V V " T
emphasizes David as a military man, n i p r n p 2TX "?|',?^1- After projecting such a
description, Hushai then performs assertives concerning the actions of such warriors (fcOl
D^nn^n nn$3 ionrwn nns? nan raprrns ]-bi). (Hushai adds irraa ia
nbipffin as he is careful to point out that he himself does not know this first-hand.)
Wurthwein points out that Hushai has not mentioned the women and children with
David. Such an omission is no accident; the women and children are not a part of the
imaginary world that Hushai is constructing.
Once this imaginary world has been created, Hushai is able to assert that
Ahithophel's proposed attempt on David's life will fail ( n ^ n r Q D113 7S33 <~CC^)' aru *
that the means of this failure is a widely performed speech act ( nrpn 10K1 ?l?$n S70271
D^tf 3K n r $ nm ESQ nSSO). This speech will have a devastating effect ( KliT]
OB? OJ?n n ^ X n 2 ^ 3 fob i m bw^-nX). When Ahithophel's advice is followed
in the imagery world created by Hushai's words, the result will be an end to Absalom's
rebellion in a way similar to how it began, with a speech act. Hushai issues one more
534
E.g., Alter, The David Story, 297; Bodner, David Observed, 134.
535
Wurthwein, Die Erzdhlung von der Thronfolge Davids, 40.
184
assertive here and says that Absalom is actually not the only one who knows this identity
of David but that all Israel knows that he is a "113? and those with him are T r r ^ D (v.
10). The imaginary world that Hushai has created with his words has not been created ex
nihilo, but is based on the legends of David that are widely known.536
After projecting an imaginary world based on Davidic legend and demonstrating
that Ahithophel's advice does not fit this world, Hushai presents his own counsel. He
introduces it with "TIXST "O and then issuing a directive, 7K"lfer~7D *[hv *]Oi ^DKH
rnjpn o^bri f asn nnb D^-bp-nm 7in? s?n?? "i^frnsn n&- The only way to
defeat such a warrior as David is with sheer numbers. The use of D'H" vy~1l27K 71115 to
describe this number may possibly reference Yhwh's promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:17)
and may serve to (indirectly) connect Yhwh's authority with this counsel.537 Unlike
Ahithophel's directives that also serve as commissives, Hushai here speaks only as a
counselor, leaving Absalom to lead the battle charge.
With his final series of assertives, Hushai describes with confidence what will
happen when Absalom follows his counsel. He continues to use imagery to describe this
world, describing Absalom's multitude as falling on David like dew ( 73!7 73? "lEftO
n!p"lKn~7S7). Alter notes that dew is elsewhere in Scripture an image used to denote
536
Alter references Bar-Efrat when he points out, "What he [Hushai] is doing in effect is invoking
the legend of the heroic David, who as a boy slew a bear and lion.. .and who gathered round him bitter
men, warriors, seasoned fighters." Alter, The David Story, 297. For such legends of David in Scripture, see,
e.g., 1 Sam 17:1-58; 2 Sam 8:1-14; 23:8-39; 1 Chr 11:10-12:40.
537
Cf. Cazeaux, "Usha'f y ajoute (pour le lecteur, du moins) la reference a un peuple unanime et
nombreux comme le sable de la mer , remontant ainsi aux antiques promesses de Dieu." Cazeaux,
Jacques. Saul, David, Salomon, 238.
185
peacetime and says that despite this it is here associated with destruction.538 Yet this
image is not out of place for what Hushai is doing with these assertives, which is
conveying the completeness of this military victory. Hushai does allow for the possibility
that David may temporarily escape to a fortified city (v. 13a), an appropriate situation
given Hushai's prior description of David as such an able warrior.539 Yet the sheer
numbers with Absalom will easily overcome such an obstacle (v. 13b).540
Unlike the response to Ahithophel's advice, which involved only a display text
from the narrator, the verbal response to Hushai's counsel is shared. Absalom and
bxn^ &rrby\ call it b^m nsgo *3n$n wn nss? nnia. As Alter notes, "The
straight-talking, clear-seeing advisor is defeated by the lying secret agent who musters
the resources of a figurative, psychologically manipulative rhetoric to achieve his
ends."541 A faithful friend of David, Hushai is certainly a skilled performer of
illocutionary acts.
Storyteller Level
At the storyteller level, this scene has been viewed as highly artistic. According to von
Rad, these speeches by Ahithophel and Hushai are "models of rhetorical refinement" and
538
539
Alter calls such a move the obvious objection to Hushai's counsel. Alter, The David Story, 299.
540
Bar-Efrat notes, "Im zweiten Teil seiner Rede unterbreitet Huschai seinen alternativen Plan.
Hier steht er aber vor einer neuen Schwierigkeit, die er selbst geschaffen hat. Im ersten Teil hatte er das
Heldentum Davids und seiner Manner als so herausragend beschrieben, dass es vollig unmoglich scheint,
sie zu besiegen. Seine Losung fur dieses Problem besteht darin, dass Quantitat gegen Qualitat gesetzt
wird." Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Bitch Samuel, 174.
541
186
"highly appetizing morsels to their original readers."542 The storyteller level continues to
display thematic significance. One continued theme involves DV7EJ, as Ahithophel
presents his counsel as advice that will result in D17I2? for all the people. A new theme
can be identified for the story after scene nine which involves the military portrayal of
King David. The descriptions of David by Hushai as a "TQ3 as well as D^P'nri ETX
appear to put a more positive spin on an aspect of David to which Shimei refers
negatively as D^P"!)! ETK. Ahithophel refers to David more simply as "=1/13)1.
The scene ends on the storyteller level only with an assertive directed towards the
audience that emphasizes that the acceptance of Hushai's counsel over that of Ahithophel
is the result of Yhwh's authority (14b). After telling of how Hushai's counsel is met with
acceptance and that Absalom and all the people compare it favorably to that of
Ahithophel (14a), the narrator says, nnitSH ^STPrftf nSgTIg "1?C,i? n P n rp1
3 -
nsnrrnK oftebir^K mrr iron TOSH1?. Von Rad has famously identified this J
T T T T : - v T : T -: -
verse as the third and most important of three verses in the SN that are explicitly
theological (2 Sam 11:27, 12:24, and 17:14):
Am wichtigsten ist die dritten Stelle; sie bildet den AbschluB des
Kreigsrates Absaloms mit dem prachtigen Rededuell zwischen Achitophel
und Huschai. Hier ist recht eigentlich die Peripetie des Ganzen. Wieder
unterbricht der Historiker seine Darstellung mit einem Fingerzeig auf
Gott: "Jahwe hatte es namlich so gefugt, dafi der gute Rat Achitophels
vereitelt wurde, um das Unheil iiber Absalom zu bringen."543
542
543
Von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 327-28.
187
The idea that this verse "points a finger to God" is helpful for understanding what this
does on the storyteller level; it is at this crucial point of the story where the narrator
inserts a display text saying that Yhwh has intervened with a command (HIS), and thus
has appointed544 such a result.
It should be noted that Yhwh's decision as displayed on the storyteller level
involves more than David has requested on the story level. In scene five, David had asked
only for Yhwh to frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel, saying nothing of Yhwh bringing
ns?"in upon Absalom. Here the audience is privy to information that will only become
evident to David when he receives the news of his son's death in 2 Sam 18:32. Yet this
portrayal also fits with David's recognition that Yhwh is free to act as he chooses.
While it is clear that the performative nature of 14b involves pointing to Yhwh, it
is less clear that the function of 14b is only to explain the story level of scene nine.
Looking backward, the positioning of 14b after 14a enables the narrator to explain what
has just happened on the story level of scene nine.545 What is more, the narrator's use of
the hiphil of " H 3 echoes David's description of the intended result of Hushai's speech in
15:34, suggesting that Hushai's mission in scene five is also Yhwh's mission in scene
nine. Looking forward, there is reason to view 14b not only as an aside for scene nine but
an introduction for scene ten as 14b does not, as one might expect, begin with the
preposition "O which would clearly attach it to the prior sentence (14a). Instead it begins
BDB, 846, #5.
Von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 328.
188
with ) , allowing 14b to function as an introduction to scene ten. Such an interpretation fits
with Wurthwein's rejection of the idea that David's prayer is fulfilled in scene w . 5-14
and supports his insistence that Hushai will frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel by
sending word to David:546
Auch die an David gesandren Boten wissen in 17, 21 nichts von einem Rat
Husais, denn ihre Botschaft lautet: Auf, setzt eilig iiber das Wasser, denn
so hat Ahitophel euretwegen geraten. Jedenfalls ist auf diese Nachricht
hin bis zum Anbruch des Morgens auch der letzte Mann jenseits des
Jordans (17, 22). Damit aber ist Ahitophels Plan, David unterwegs zu
uberfallen, vereitelt, und zwar nicht deswegen, wie nochmals zu betonen
ist, weil Husais Rat ausgefuhrt worden ware, sondern weil Ahitophels Rat
verraten wurde und David ihm mit der schnellen Uberquerung des Jordans
zuvorkommen konnte. Damit hat Husai den ihm in 15, 34f von David
gegebenen Auftrag erfullt, namlich alles, was er in Erfahrung bringen
konne, durch die Vermittlung der Priester Zadok und Ebjathar und deren
Sohne an ihn gelangen zu lassen. Auf diese Weise und nicht durch eine
Gegenrede hat er den Plan Ahitophels vereitelt, wie es Davids Absicht
war, als er ihn zu Absalom nach Jerusalem schickte.
On the storyteller level, v. 14b may extend in both directions, functioning both to point to
Hushai as the answer to David's prayer and to portray him as an integral member of
David's team of secret agents.
Scene Ten (17:15-24)
Scene ten utilizes a structure that is strikingly different from scenes one through nine in
that much of the action is presented by the narrator's display texts rather than the speech
acts of the characters. Nevertheless, speeches do play an important role in this scene.
Hushai sends a directive to David through the network of spies consisting of Zadok and
Wurthwein does not suggest that 14b belongs with the verses that follow it and insists that w .
5-14 are a later addition.
4
Wurthwein, Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids, 41.
189
Abiathar, and then Ahimaaz and Jonathan. A speech act uttered by a woman in Bahurim
preserves the lives of Ahimaaz and Jonathan and enables Hushai's directive to reach
David, which in turn enables David to avoid Absalom. As it was in scene nine, the
success of Hushai on the story level is emphasized by the narrator's assertive in 17:14b.
The death of Ahithophel on the story level marks the end of David's Departure on the
storyteller level.
Translation
(15) Then Hushai said to the priests Zadok and Abiathar, "Ahithophel has
counseled Absalom and the elders of Israel like so and like so and I have
counseled them like so and like so. (16) Now send quickly and inform
David, saying, 'Do not spend tonight at the fords of the wilderness, but by
all means cross over; lest the king and all the people who are with him be
destroyed.'" (17) And Jonathan and Ahimaaz were staying at En-Rogel,
and the maidservant used to go and inform them, and they would go and
inform King David; for they might not be seen entering the city. (18) But a
young man548 saw them and informed Absalom, so both of them went
quickly and came to the house of a man at Bahurim who had a well in his
courtyard, and they went down into it. (19) And the woman took a
covering, stretched it over the mouth of the well, and spread grain on it,
and the matter was not known. (20) When the servants of Absalom came
to the woman at the house, they said, "Where are Ahimaaz and Jonathan?"
And she said to them, "They have crossed over the stream549 of water."
And when they had searched and found nothing they returned to
Jerusalem. (21) And it happened after they had gone that Ahimaaz and
Jonathan came up from the well and went and informed King David, and
they said to David, "Arise and quickly cross over the water, for thus has
Ahithophel counseled against you."550 (22) So David arose, and all the
people with him, and they crossed over the Jordan. By daybreak not one
548
Many translations suggest that this character is a child or "boy" (e.g., NRSV). Yet in the Old
Testament "1S73 more generally describes youth at various stages of life. Fuhs, ""1SJ3" TDOT, 9:47485. The
term can be used for a young man. E.g., in 16:1 Ziba is called nEQ _, Sf? "IS??.
549
This is the only appearance of such a use of TO"'!? in the OT and the precise meaning is
uncertain.
550
2 masc. plural.
190
was left who had not crossed over the Jordan. (23) When Ahithophel saw
that his counsel had not been followed, he saddled his donkey and arose
and went to his own city. He set his house in order and hanged himself551
and he died. And he was buried in the tomb of his father. (24) And David
came to Mahanaim while Absalom crossed the Jordan with all the
Israelites.
Speech Acts

Hearer
Story and S= Narrator 15aa T T : v v : 1 T
Speech
storyteller H= Audience situation
levels D^rpn
s= tin 15ap- DêfoKTK bsirna psr rural HKTS Assertive

H= pm, 15b :MK TIXSP n*rai n^rai bmfr ^DT nai
nrrnK T - : -
T T : T : * T : * -|: * " :
T T : V 16aa nnvb Tnb nâm mn in^tf nnsn Directive 1

(cont.) T : - - : T ** : : * T - :
16a(3- Dai "i3"|ipn ninns?5 rb^n }bn~bxDirective 2

16b
S= Narrator 17aa bf\-]*v2 nntps fvnv$l inrirnDisplay

H= Audience text
17a0- w^ am nrb nTam nrron ro^m Display
17b : ** * : v T T : T : - T : T : text
:rrrs?n Kinb
T * T T
18-19 o^?.] areas'? nai -is?a ank K-n Speech

tfnrrps-1^ %&;i rnnn arpatf situation
:D2? H-PI "hXrQ "IK3 "frl D ^ r O ?
^~hp fjoarrnBfehsrnn#an npni
snia *6i nisnn r^'s? natfrn naan
T T
This is the only occurrence in the OT of pjil in the niphil. It occurs once in the piel of a lion to
its prey (Nah 2:13). The noun p3D!2 occurs once in the OT, in Job 7:15, which might hold a similar context
to that of Ahithophel's feelings here.
191
(cont.) S= Narrator 20aa nrran ntfKrrba afrebK '-DP wnn Speech
H= Audience naKs] situation
S= H ? ? 20ap inairn f s?a*nK rra Directive

-
T :
H= n$an
T " T
nrvan - _
T :
S= Narrator 20ay n&xn or6 noam Speech

H= Audience formula
s= nmn 20a8 man ^ a nni? Assertive
T * T
nrvnn
T : - -
H - nni?
T : -
S = Narrator 20b- ^rn tob^T a^n wso *6i itfprn Speech

H= 21ba na?i raî nanna ^sn an?*? n.DK situation
Audience
s= f POTTS 21b(3 f; n r o - ^ marrnK rnna nnsn imp Directive

jruirpi ^BiTTTK DD^l?
H=-rn
T
S= Narrator 22a n a m ina ne?K DSJrr'wi i n Dpsi Display

H= Audience ITj^rrng text:
immediate
response
S= Narrator 22b new "ns?3 *6 nn*ns? -pan (ij<rs? Display
H= Audience :HTn-n$-nsr*6 text
23 T
-
: T : v v T T v
Display
-: -
n
in 3~^ ^t?*l Qp*l "lioorrng tinu^ text
"inpsi nan panî i r r ? - ^ ix?i i-psr^
:rna 15p?
24 -nx "ins? D^BDKI na^na aa TITI Display
:ias? ^"ifer BTK-'WI Kin n-pn text
" T : T : 1 :
192
Story Level
The story level of scene ten includes three conversations: the first occurs when Hushai
delivers a message to Zadok and Abiathar (w. 15-16), the second between a young
woman and the servants of Absalom (20), and the third when Ahimaaz and Jonathan
deliver Hushai's message to David (21-22a). The narrator offers the rest of the action of
the scene with display texts.
Hushai's speech to Zadok and Abiathar consists of an assertive (j^ST nKTDI nXT3
h
W TIBST riKOI HKTD1 bmfr 3pT n*0 D ^ e a i m K ^STPIlK) and then a directive
T : - T T : T : * T : * ( : - : T : - v v -; '
that also contains the directive for David ( ifcxh m b I T a m m n ir6tf 71W)
\ .. T : - : T * : : T - :
nvrrhzhi ^brh shy is TOPD -rins? am -snarr nima nb^n htrhru -

T T T : I v v - - \ : Iv -: - T - : T : * : - : T : - ~ I v T
inK *12?K). Both of these speech acts show that Hushai does not know whether or not his
counsel will be followed.552 However, Hushai's urgency does show that he believes it to
be possible that Absalom will follow Ahithophei's advice.553 It may be that he is being
cautious554 or that he thinks that Absalom will change his mind and revert back to
Ahithophei's counsel.555 The text simply does not say.556 What the text does is to present
Hushai telling Zadok and Abiathar of the two pieces of counsel that were offered and
552
Wiirthwein, Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids, 40-41.
553
Against Halpern's suggestion that "Absalom declines to pursue David until he can execute
Hushai's plan," which does not fit with 17:24. Halpern, David's Secret Demons, 365.
554
Anderson, 2 Samuel, 216; Fokkelman, King David, 225.
555
Alter, The David Story, 299; Bar-Efrat, Das Zweite Buck Samuel, 179.
556
193
directing them to direct David to act as if the former advice is followed. It is most likely
that Hushai simply does not know what Absalom has decided since this information has
not been made conspicuous on the story level.
The narrator then tells of the location of Ahimaaz and Jonathan at En-Rogel (v.
17). The exchange in which Ahimaaz and Jonathan receive Hushai's message is not
shared, though the narrator shows that this message is not the first that they have relayed
to David (*byp *6 ^ m ibab iTam o ^ am anb nTam nns^n ro^m

v : * * T I v v ~ - * : : - : v T T * : T : * - T : T :
I'VSJri XiDT5 n i K i r P ) . Yet a young man (15?3) shows his loyalty to Absalom when he
sees them and tells Absalom (v. 18). What precisely he says to Absalom is not shared,
nor is it clear why this news would lead Absalom to send out servants. No explanation is
offered to explain how this 1P3 has enough time to go inform Absalom of what he saw
and then for Absalom's servants to be sent out and overtake Ahimaaz and Jonathan at
Bahurim. Rather, Jonathan and Ahimaaz are said to hide in a well, with a woman
covering and concealing the mouth of well to keep their whereabouts hidden.
The next speech situation occurs between the servants of Absalom who are
looking for Ahimaaz and Jonathan and a woman who is hiding them. The servants of
Absalom direct the woman to tell them the location of Ahimaaz and Jonathan ( 1*8
i r i a n i ^POnX). The woman answers with a short assertive, D^SH b^t2 n2S7. Like
the assertives utilized by Hushai to Absalom, this speech act may have a dual meaning
involving the true identity of the speaker. These three words may have been carefully
chosen as they may in some way match the whereabouts of Ahimaaz and Jonathan. After
all, Ahimaaz and Jonathan may indeed have crossed over a stream of water as they hid
194
themselves in the well! This illocution becomes a felicitous perlocutionary act because
the speaker's true identity, like the location of Ahimaaz and Jonathan, is hidden from
Absalom's servants.557 This woman is not loyal to Absalom but to David.
The final speech situation is presented to occur when Ahimaaz and Jonathan come
up from the well and speak to King David ( H P ] W1?*! "lK3n ty*") OFOb n.DK ^ n
T H I1?!?1?), delivering Hushai's message ( f ST rDD - , , 3 D^Brrng r n n i ? n^ff) IDIp
?2h' i nX DD vS7). King David responds not with a speech of his own but with immediate
action that is appropriate to the urgency of the situation, IfiK "I^K UV'il'bO') T H Dp*]
I'ni^rrnK T15-SP1. The speech that is delivered to David allows him to avoid Absalom
at the Jordan. Verse 24 may hint that Absalom did follow the part of the counsel of
pursuing David in haste, though without Ahithophel leading the charge.558
The heeding of this message by David leads to his immunity from Ahithophel's
counsel, which relied upon expediency as Ahithophel plans to pursue David IT? vH. The
coming of the morning ("1p3n TiK~"7J?) signals to Ahithophel that his counsel has not
been followed. The narrator then tells of Ahithophel's suicide. Many interpreters express
an extremely positive view of Ahithophel in this scene. Whybray calls him the '"new
man' who is determined to be master of his own fate."559 For Alter, Ahithophel is "a
557
While the reader certainly knows that this woman's loyalty is not to Absalom based on her
actions of hiding them in the well, her true identity is hidden from the servants of Absalom, who obviously
did not witness this act.
558
Bodner, David Observed, 135-36.
559
Whybray, Succesion Narrative, 43^t4.
195
deliberate, practical man to the end." According to Fokkelman, Ahithophel's
experiences "purified him to a statesmanship of all-encompassing logic, and to a radical
thought which arouses no empathy, but inspires fear and awe in the reader. Ahithophel is
a man with a true inner freedom."561 Yet Ahithophel's counsel has been defeated, not
only in the contest with Hushai but in the speech sent to David as well.
Storyteller Level
At the storyteller level, location continues to be significant as the location where
David was so ridiculed and insulted will now become the very place that sees to his
preservation. Location is also emphasized in the way that Ahithophel is presented as
returning to his own city (17:23), the location from where he had been summoned in
15:12. The Jordan is mentioned three times at the end of the scene (w. 22-24) as David
and all those with him cross over the Jordan (v. 22) and have all arrived safely at
Mahanaim at the time when Absalom reaches the Jordan with the Israelites (v. 24). The
display text telling of Ahithophel's journey to his own city to end his life (v. 23) is placed
between the display texts telling of David crossing the Jordan (v. 22) and Absalom
arriving at the Jordan (v. 24). This may emphasize Ahithophel's journey and his death,
which on the storyteller level signals the audience that David's prayer in 15:31 has been
fulfilled. The death of Ahithophel marks the end of the story of David's departure and the
beginning of the story of David's return.
Fokkelmann, King David, 231.
196
An aspect of the storyteller level that adds to the tellability of this scene involves
the role of the woman who hides Ahimaaz and Jonathan. Many interpreters have noticed
that this short account bears striking similarities to the story of Rahab hiding Joshua's
spies (Josh 2). This woman, like Rahab, gives false directions to those inquiring of the
men she has hidden. It may also be noted that this event bears similarity to the way that
David himself had eluded Saul's grasp thanks to the clever act performed by Saul's
daughter Michal (TOÔ), who had deceived Saul by disguising an idol to look like David
and placing it in a bed (1 Sam 19:11-17). This connection may even be hinted at on the
storyteller level as the woman answers the men of Absalom by saying that Ahimaaz and
Jonathan crossed over the stream (7?',f?) of water (v. 20). In any case, Alter notes that
once again "the enterprising intervention of a shrewd woman saves the day."
Finally, on the storyteller level the paradox concerning whether the advice of
Ahithophel has been rejected (scene nine) or followed (scene ten) by Absalom may
emphasize how completely Ahithophel's counsel has been defeated. Much of the scene
involves the assumption that Ahithophel's plan has actually been followed by Absalom
(w. 15-22, 24). While this tension is not easily resolved, some insight can be gained with
the distinction of what this paradox does on the storyteller level. One need not choose
between whether Ahithophel's advice was followed or not. In fact, this story is told in a
manner that shows how completely Yhwh's command (mu, v. 14b) serves to frustrate
the counsel of Ahithophel: Ahithophel's advice is thwarted before it can be implemented

197
(v. 23, cf. w . 5-14), but it is also thwarted if it is implemented (w. 15-22, 24). Either
way, Yhwh's will prevails.

CHAPTER 7
Results: David's Departure as Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts
By using speech act theory to analyze the speech acts of the characters and of the
narrator, the previous three chapters have offered a particular interpretation of 2 Sam
15:1-17:24 that contributes to the ongoing scholarly conversation about this passage.
This interpretation is based upon an inquiry into the function of these speech acts within
the world of the narrative (the story level) as well as how they contribute to the telling of
the story (the storyteller level). This final chapter will conclude the study by using the
results of the story and storyteller analysis to suggest a way to view the story of David's
departure (2 Sam 15:1-17:24) as an illocutionary act. In addition, this chapter will
discuss how this illocutionary act might serve as the perlocutionary act of
encouragement.
As discussed in chapter three, an illocutionary act carries the form of F(p), where
(p) represents the propositional content and F represents the illocutionary force of the
speech act. A narrative may be analyzed as an illocutionary act by equating the story
level to the propositional content and the storyteller level to the illocutionary force. When
the storyteller and story levels of 2 Sam 15:1-17:24 are understood in terms of F(p), it is
possible to view this telling of David's departure as the illocutionary act of portraying
Yhwh to be someone who David expects might bring him good even after bringing him
distress. While the success of an illocutionary act depends primarily upon the efforts of
the speaker (or a storyteller) to perform a speech act adhering to the equation F(p), the
199
construal of this speech act by a hearer (or an audience) is crucial in order for an
illocutionary act to function as a successful perlocutionary act. When told to an audience
that utilizes a hermeneutic of self-involvement, this story might function as the
perlocutionary act of encouragement.
The present chapter contains two sections. The first will review the ways that
David's departure can be viewed as an illocutionary act by summarizing the story and
storyteller levels of analysis. The second section will discuss the storytelling situation
necessary for this narrative to also function as a perlocutionary act of encouragement.
David's Departure as an Illocutionary Act
Summary of the Story Level
The analysis of the story level has suggested that in scenes one through three, King David
may actually be aware of Absalom's intent to replace him as king before the informant
delivers this information. It has also been suggested that David flees from the city in
order to save the life of his son, drawing with him all who might resist Absalom's forces
in the attempt to avoid military confrontation. At this time, David displays the hope that
Yhwh will allow him and all those loyal to him to return to the city after Absalom has
been secured as king.
In scenes four through seven, David learns of Ahithophel's defection to Absalom
and realizes that his plan is doomed. While it is not clear why Ahithophel poses such a
threat to David's plans, it is possible that David knows Ahithophel will not allow
Absalom to reconcile with his father and that military conflict is inevitable. With such a
change in his situation, David turns to Yhwh out of desperation and prays that Yhwh
would frustrate the counsel of Ahithophel. Hushai is viewed by David to be the answer to
200
his prayer. During the remainder of these middle scenes, the story is told in ways that
emphasize the issues of authority and identity, as well as the importance of loyalty. These
three issues are operative in David's encounter with Ziba and are made conspicuous in
David's reaction to the insults of Shimei. In the face of Shimei's insults, David attributes
this act to the directive of Yhwh and expresses a faith that Yhwh may have directed
Shimei to insult David in order to bring good to David.
Scenes eight through ten unfold back in Jerusalem, where Hushai gains access to
Absalom as a counselor (scene eight) and frustrates the counsel of Ahithophel, first in a
contest of counselors (scene nine) and then as a part of David's team of spies (scene ten).
Defeated, Ahithophel commits suicide as David evades Absalom and proceeds safely to
Manhanaim.
Summary of the Storyteller Level
The storyteller level of analysis assumes that the way a story is told is just as important as
the story itself. Such an idea has recently been displayed by Campbell, who suggests that
an important function of biblical narrative is not only the telling of a story but also the
keeping of a record for future storytellers of what the story is about.563 As Campbell says,
"It is not a matter of being bound to a text but bound to a story, to the opportunities that a
text offered and limited for the telling of a story."564 Thus for Campbell the biblical
passage contains a record, or "reported story," that functions as a base after which all
Antony F. Campbell, "The Storyteller's Role: Reported Story and Biblical Text," CBQ 64
(2002): 427-41 (429-31).
564
Ibid., 431.
201
future storytellers can model their telling of the story. The present study's analysis of
the storyteller level of David's departure shows that this story should be told in a way that
emphasizes David's faith in Yhwh. While David is the main character of the story, Yhwh
is the most important character.
As the illocutionary force of this speech act, the portrayal of Yhwh in the eyes of
David is emphasized in several ways. For example, the audience is invited to view the
unfolding of the scenes that occur outside of Jerusalem from David's perspective, as
evidenced through the prevailing use of participles and by the repeated calls to attention
of njjni (see chapter five). David's assumption that Hushai is the answer to his prayer in
scene five is supported on the storyteller level as Hushai frustrates the counsel of
Ahithophel in two ways in scenes nine and ten. More subtle yet no less important is the
way that the storyteller level interrupts the telling of David's prayer and its fulfillment
with a display of David's faith that Yhwh is someone who is loyal to David (scene
seven). The belief that Yhwh is someone who desires to bring good upon David leads
David to hope that this had been Yhwh's goal even when he had directed Shimei to insult
David. The audience is confronted with a faith in Yhwh that is based upon loyalty, one
that allows for new possibilities of divine action.
Linked to the importance of Yhwh in the eyes of David is the importance of
Ahithophel. Once again, this belief that is operative on the story level is emphasized on
the storyteller level. As Keys has noted, at times the narrative appears to be more
interested in Ahithophel than in Absalom!566 The importance of Ahithophel on the
565
Ibid., 429-31.
566
Keys, The Wages of Sin, 126.
202
storyteller level is made most conspicuous by the assertives performed by the narrator. Of
the four assertives that are performed by the narrator only on the storyteller level (15:6b;
15:12b; 16:23; 17:14b), the last three emphasize the importance of Ahithophel. While the
first such assertive informs the audience of the perlocutionary acts performed by
Absalom in scene one (15:6b), the next such assertive tells of the strength of the
conspiracy immediately after telling of Ahithophel being summoned on the story level
(15:12b). The narrator also tells the audience that both Absalom and David hold the
counsel of Ahithophel to be on a par with the words of God (16:23), and asserts that
Hushai's act of frustrating the counsel of Ahithophel is actually the work of Yhwh
(17:14b). Concerning this final assertive, the storyteller level affirms for the audience
what David assumes in scene five regarding Hushai to be the answer to his prayer. By
presenting the story of David's departure in terms of the contest between the counselors
Ahithophel and Hushai, the storyteller level emphasizes the role of Yhwh.
David's faith in Yhwh is also emphasized by the response of David to Shimei's
insults in a scene that is situated between the display of David's prayer (scene five) and
the telling of the prayer's ultimate fulfillment (scenes nine and ten). In scene five, David
is shown to assume that the entrance of Hushai embodies an act of intervention by Yhwh
on David's behalf. Before displaying the ways that this assumption is correct, the story
turns to another encounter in which David has the same positive assumption that Yhwh
has acted in his favor. Unlike in scene five, where the location and speech situation
support the interpretation of Hushai as the answer to David's prayer, the circumstances
around the entrance of Shimei do not appear to support such an interpretation.
203
Nevertheless, David's faith is shown to be based upon Yhwh's freedom to act
unexpectedly and in David's favor.
On this point it may be noted that the storyteller level also includes information
that is unknown to David, namely that the good that Yhwh will bring to David involves
bringing disaster upon Absalom (17:14b). In this case Yhwh's loyalty to David means
that he is against Absalom, despite David's feelings for his son. Perhaps in this
circumstance Yhwh had to choose between the two. If David does indeed hope that the
removal of Ahithophel will lead to a nonviolent succession to the throne for Absalom as
the present study suggests, the storyteller level prepares the audience for an outcome that
will not follow David's plans. Such an assertive on the storyteller level does not weaken
the illocutionary force of the portrayal of David's faith, and may even emphasize it
further. David himself expresses the belief that Yhwh has the freedom to decide his
divine course of action. His faith is not based on appearances but in the person of Yhwh.
It is those times when appearances may lead to questioning Yhwh's good intentions when
it is most important to remember that Yhwh might yet be planning to bring good, even by
means of bringing pain.
David's Departure as a Perlocutionary Act of Encouragement
While the function of David's departure as an illocutionary act depends upon the
storyteller, a function as a perlocutionary act depends upon the audience. As discussed in
chapter three, an investigation of a narrative's implied audience involves the identifying
of tellability markers that make the story interesting for the audience. In the case of
David's departure, such tellability markers include the storyteller level's focus upon
204
David, the importance of Yhwh, and the emphasis upon the departure from Jerusalem. As
tellability markers, these aspects suggest an implied audience who would be interested in
a story that: (1) has David as the main character, (2) emphasizes the role of Yhwh, and
(3) concerns a situation of being in distress outside of Jerusalem. Of course, the general
nature of this description of the implied audience does not necessarily match one that
would find this story to be encouraging. In order for this story to function as a
perlocutionary act of encouragement, an audience may utilize a hermeneutic of self-
involvement in which the audience: (1) identifies in some way with David, (2) believes in
Yhwh, and (3) finds itself in distress (perhaps even outside of Jerusalem). In other words,
this story can encourage an audience that construes the narrative world to be significant
for their own world.
For an audience that utilizes a hermeneutic of self-involvement, the story of
David's departure might open up the possibility within their imagination that Yhwh
might bring good after bringing their distress. A hermeneutic of self-involvement allows
the audience to adopt David's faith as it is displayed in this story. If David, while in his
distress, is able to maintain a hope that Yhwh is still someone who can be expected to
bring good even by the means of bringing this distress, then the audience is invited to
view their own distress in similar terms. They are invited to consider how their own
relationship with Yhwh might be a factor in their situation, and are invited to consider
that Yhwh will look for ways by which to help them. Even when Yhwh's actions suggest
the role of opponent, the audience is invited to view him as someone with the truth value
of helper and friend.
205
This threefold identity of an implied audience that might utilize such a
hermeneutic of self-involvement has been discussed in regards to other biblical passages,
including one that alleges a connection to this event in David's life, Psalm 3. 567 One of
thirteen psalms containing superscriptions relating the psalm to the life of David (the so-
called historical psalms),568 the superscription of Psalm 3 introduces the psalm as "llOTQ
"111/ and associates it to the time when David fled from Absalom ( "^SO in""D3 v
- T : - : * : T :
133 CntEQK). It is widely acknowledged that *Tn7> does not indicate authorship but
rather connects the psalm to David (or vice versa).569 As Nogalski comments, this
particular superscription displays no linguistic connection to the psalm, although one can
identify thematic connections by choosing to read the psalm with 2 Sam 15:1-17:24.57
For the purpose of the present study, the superscription of Ps 3 is significant as it
indicates that this psalm is directed toward an audience that would find its connection to
David as significant, the first aspect of the implied audience currently under discussion.
The second aspect of this threefold identity of the implied audience, a belief in
Yhwh, is depicted within the psalm itself. The psalmist expresses a hope that is based
solely upon Yhwh's identity as the psalmist's shield, the psalmist's glory, and the one
For a helpful overview of ways that interpreters have viewed this psalm, see Robert C. Culley,
"Psalm 3: Content, Context, and Coherence," in Text, Methode und Grammatik (eds. Walter Gross, Hubert
Irsigler, and Theodore Seidl; St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1991), 29-39.
568
Pss 3, 7, 18, 34, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63,142.
569
E.g., Alter, The Book of Psalms, xv, 8; Craigie, Psalms 1-50, 72; Goldingay, Psalms, 26-27.
570
James Nogalski, "Reading David in the Psalter: A Study in Liturgical Hermeneutics." HBT 23
(2001): 168-91 (170). For examples of reading Psalm 3 in light of 2 Sam 15:1-17:24, see Craigie, Psalms
1-50, 72-73; Goldingay, Psalms, 108-15.
206
who exalts the psalmist's head Cm") Dnffl H l 3 3 'HS?2 |30 HIPP n r ^ ] ) . As Grogan
notes, the psalmist's hope is based upon the relationship between the psalmist and Yhwh,
as indicated in verse 8 when the psalmist calls Yhwh YI/K. 571 This psalm does not focus
upon the psalmist's trust in Yhwh as much it does upon Yhwh himself.572 What is more,
the shift to third person in verse 5 shows that the psalmist is not only addressing Yhwh
but is displaying this faith in Yhwh for an additional audience.573 Thus the implied
audience of Psalm 3 is one that would find such a faith in Yhwh to be significant.
The third aspect depicted in Psalm 3 of an audience that would utilize a
hermeneutic of self-involvement is one that finds itself in distress. Recently, Vivian
Johnson has concluded that the 13 psalms containing historical superscriptions function
to recast David as someone who relied upon Yhwh in his times of distress.574 Johnson
views the superscriptions to be an attempt to re-package the psalms for those who view
David as a hero of Israel's past and thus someone who might serve as a model for their
present circumstances.575 This viewpoint is especially relevant for Psalm 3 in view of the
way the psalm concludes. After describing a time of great distress and expressing a hope
in Yhwh (as well as a directive for Yhwh to act in verse 8), the psalm concludes in verse
9 by attributing Yhwh's deliverance to a group rather than to the individual psalmist,
571
Geoffrey Grogan, Psalms (The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 47.
572
Goldingay,Psalms, 111; Kraus, Psalms 1-59, 139; Grogan, Psalms, 46.
573
Culley, "Psalm 3," 35.
574
Vivan L. Johnson, David in Distress: His Portrait Through the Historical Psalms (Library of
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 505; New York: T&T Clark, 2009).
575
Johnson, David in Distress, 2.
207
TOO ^JCD-D ?JQS? ?S? nSfiE^n n i n v . The desire for deliverance in a time of personal
distress is then attributed by the psalmist to Yhwh's people.
In addition to an implied audience of Ps 3, another general audience fits this
threefold description, one who might utilize a hermeneutic of self-involvement regarding
David's departure. This audience is an exilic group living in Babylonian exile during the
sixth century B.C.E. To claim that an exilic audience would be encouraged by David's
departure is not to claim that this audience is the only implied audience of this story.
Rather, an exilic audience fits the general description of the implied audience and thus
might be expected to utilize a hermeneutic of self-involvement leading to the
perlocutionary act of encouragement. This idea bears some similarity to those presented
in a recent essay by Gerald Keown, who addresses the potential for encouragement
within several of the prophetic books. Keown investigates how a particular audience
might unlock the potential to encourage within some prophetic messages that are not
normally considered to be encouraging. For example, in discussing the message of the
book of Amos, Keown notes that Amos was a prophet whom few would identify as an
encourager. Nevertheless, Amos' message could serve to encourage a particular
audience, namely "those whose context was the despair following Jerusalem's
destruction."577 For Keown, encouragement is found in a text's portrayal of Yhwh, who
in Amos is a deity who is "consistent, upholding justice in the world around Israel."
Gerald L. Keown, "The Prophet as Encourager," PRSt 35 (2008): 155-61.
Ibid., 156.
208
When directed towards an eighth-century Israelite audience, this news was bad news but
to a sixth-century audience who has endured injustice this would be good news.578
The idea of an exilic audience as an implied audience for Scripture is currently
well-attested in biblical studies. Robert Carroll has exclaimed:
The Hebrew Bible is the book of exile. It is constituted in and by

narratives and discourses of expulsion, deportation and exile. From
Genesis to Chronicles [Hebrew Bible grand narrative], that is, from the
stories of the expulsion of Adam and Even from the Garden of Eden to the
moment when exiled Israel prepared to expel itself from Babylon to return
to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, individuals, families, folk and the
people of Judah (Jews) existed in situations of varying degrees of
deportation awaiting possible return.
In her recent essay on reading exile in the Hebrew Bible, Pamela Scalise has noted that
"the result of more than a century of historical criticism is the widespread recognition that
the Old Testament in its final form is a product of the sixth century cataclysm of conquest
and exile."581 An exilic audience not only has been discussed as an implied audience for
the Old Testament but also might be expected to facilitate the telling of David's departure
to be a perlocutionary act of encouragement. Such an audience may be expected to utilize
Keown, "The Prophet as Encourager," 156-157. Thus Keown sees the entire book of Amos,
and not just the hopeful refrain of 9:11-15, as holding the potential to encourage a particular audience.
579
For an overview of the topic of exile in biblical studies, see James M. Scott, ed. Exile: Old
Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56;
Leiden: Brill, 1997). See also Ralph W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (OBT;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979; Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard, eds., Homeland and
Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (VTSup 130; Leiden: Brill,
2009); Shemaryahu Talmon, " 'Exile' and 'Restoration' in the Conceptual World of Ancient Judaism," in
Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott (Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 72; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 107^6.
580
Robert P. Carroll, "Deportation and Diasporic Discourses in the Prophetic Literature," in Exile:
Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott (Supplements to the Journal for the
Study of Judaism 56; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 63-85 (64).
581
Pamela J. Scalise, "The End of the Old Testament: Reading Exile in the Hebrew Bible," PRSt
35 (2008): 163-78 (165).
209
a hermeneutic of self-involvement in which they identify with David and believe in
Yhwh even as they find themselves in distress. In this way, David's faith in Yhwh that is
on display during his exile invites an exilic audience to place their hope in Yhwh as well.
Conclusion
This dissertation has utilized speech act theory to illuminate ways in which the story of
David's departure as it is told in 2 Sam 15:1-17:24 functions as an illocutionary act to
portray David's faith that Yhwh is someone who can be expected to bring good even
after bringing distress. What is more, a storytelling situation involving a particular
audience who utilizes a hermeneutic of self-involvement may facilitate this illocutionary
act to also serve the perlocutionary act of encouragement. While the present study has
suggested one possible ancient audience that fits such a storytelling situation, many other
audiences, including modern audiences, may also fit this description. After all, many
audiences, both ancient and modern, might see themselves to be identified in some way
with David, hold a belief in Yhwh, and find themselves in a time of distress. The
potential for the illocutionary act of David's departure to encourage may well continue
for as long as this story continues to be told.
210
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackerman, James. "Knowing Good and Evil: a Literary Analysis of the Court History in
2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2." Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): 4 1 -
60.
Ackroyd, Peter R. "The Succession Narrative (So-called)." Interpretation 35 (1981):

383-96.
Adam, Klaus-Peter. "Motivik, Figuren und Konzeption der Erzahlung vom

Absalomaufstand." Pages 183-211 in Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:
Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur "Deuteronomismus " -
Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by Markus Witte, Konrad
Schmid, Doris Prechel and Jan Christian Gertz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Bd. 365. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006.
Adams, Jim. The Performative Nature and Function of Isaiah 40-55. Library of Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament Studies 448. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
Alston, William P. Divine Nature and Human Language: Essays in Philosophical

Theology. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989.
. Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,

2000.
Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 2008.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.
. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton

& Company, 2007.
Althann, Robert. "The meaning of H32? D^SmK in 2 Sam 15:7." Biblica 73 (1992): 248-
52.
Anderson, A.A. 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary 11. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.
211
Aristotle. On the Art of Poetry. Translated by S. H. Butcher. Little Library of Liberal Arts
6. New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1948.
. Poetics. Edited and Translated by Stephen Halliwell. Loeb Classical Library

199. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature.

Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953.
Auld, A. Graeme. Kings Without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's
Kings. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Austin, John Langshaw. "Performative Utterances." Pages 233-41 in Philosophical

Papers. Edited by J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1970. Repr., pages 126-31 in Philosophy of Language: The Big Questions. Edited
by Andrea Nye. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.
. How to Do Things with Words. Edited by J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.
Axel, Knauf Ernst. "Does 'Deuteronomistic Historiography' (DtrH) Exist?" Pages 388-
90 in Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent
Research. Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. "Discourse in the Novel." Pages 259^122 in The Dialogic

Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Caryl
Emerson and Michael Holquist. University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1981.
. Toward a Philosophy of the Act. Edited by Vadim Liapunov and Michael

Holquist. Translated by Vadim Liapunov. University of Texas Press Slavic Series
10. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993.
Bal, Mieke. Narratology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985.
. On Storytelling. Essays in Narratology. Edited by David Jobling. Foundations &

Facets/Literary Facets. Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1991.
Balentine, Samuel E. Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human

Dialogue. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
212
Ball, Edward. Introduction to The Succession to the Throne of David, by Leonhard Rost.
Translated by Michael D. Rutter and David M. Gunn. Sheffield: The Almond
Press, 1982.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Das Zweite Buch Samuel: Ein narratologisch-philologischer

Kommentar. Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 10.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008.
Barnet, John A. Not the Righteous but Sinners: M.M. Bakhtin's Theory of Aesthetics and
the Problem of Reader-Character Interaction in Matthew's Gospel. Journal for
the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 246. London: T&T Clark,
2003.
Barnhart, Joe E. "Acknowledged Fabrications in 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 Kings 1-2: Clues
to the Wider Story's Composition." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 20
(2006): 231-36.
Barth, Karl. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol 1/1 of Church Dogmatics. Translated
by G.T. Thomson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936.
Battenhouse, Roy W. "The Tragedy of Absalom: a Literary Analysis (2 Samuel 13-18)."

Christianity andLiterature 31 (1982): 53-57.
Batto, Bernard F. and Kathryn L. Roberts, eds. David and Zion: Biblical Studies in
Honor of J. J. M. Roberts. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Becking, Bob and Dirk Human, eds. Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at
the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa
OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria August 2007. Oudtestamentische Studien 50. Leiden:
Brill, 2009.
Beek, Martinus Adrianus. "David and Absalom: a Hebrew Tragedy in Prose." Pages 155
68 in Voices from Amsterdam: a Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative.
Edited and Translated by Martin Kessler. Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1994.
Begg, Christopher T. "David's Mourning for Absalom According to Josephus." Jian Dao
25 (2006): 29-52.
Bodner, Keith. "Motives for Defection: Ahithophel's Agenda in 2 Samuel 15-17." Studies
in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 31 (2002): 63-78.
. David Observed: a King in the Eyes of his Court. Hebrew Bible Monographs 5.
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005.
213
Boer, Roland, ed. Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies. Semeia Studies 63.
Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta, 2007.
Booth, Wayne. The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction. Berkley: University of

California Press, 1988.
Borgman, Paul. David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2008.
Botha, J Eugene. "The Potential of Speech Act Theory for New Testament Exegesis:
Some Basic Concepts." Hervormde Teologiese Studies 47 (1991): 277-93.
. "Speech Act Theory and New Testament Exegesis." Hervormde Teologiese

Studies 47 (1991): 294-303.
. Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: A Speech Act Reading of John 4:1-42.
Supplements to Novum Testamentum 65. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
. "Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation." Neotestamentica 41 (2007):

274-94.
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Theological

Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis, Douglas W. Stott,
and David E. Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-2006.
Brichto, Herbert Chanan. The Problem of "Curse " in the Hebrew Bible. Society of
Biblical Literature Monograph Series 13. Philadelphia: Herbert Chanan Brichto,
1963.
Briggs, Richard S. "The Uses of Speech-act Theory in Biblical Interpretation." Currents

in Research 9 (2001): 229-76.
-. Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation Toward a

Hermeneutic of Self-Involvement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001.
. "Speech-Act Theory." Pages 763-66 in Dictionary for Theological

Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, et al. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2005.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. 4th ed. Westminster Aids to the Study of the Scriptures.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.
Brueggemann, Walter. "Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historian." Interpretation 22

(1968): 387-402.
214
. "Trusted Creature." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 484-98.
. "Kingship and Chaos: a Study in Tenth Century Theology." Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 33 (1971): 317-32.
. "On Trust and Freedom: A Study of the Faith in the Succession Narrative."
Interpretation 26 (1972): 3-19.
. "Weariness, Exile and Chaos: a Motif in Royal Theology." Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 34 (1972): 19-38.
. In Man We Trust: The Neglected Side of Biblical Faith. Richmond: John Knox
Press, 1973.
. "On Coping with Curse: A Study of 2 Sam 16:5-14." Catholic Biblical

Quarterly 36 (1974): 175-92.
. The Land: Place as Gift, Promise, and Challenge in Biblical Faith. Overtures to
Biblical Theology 1. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
. David's Truth in Israel's Imagination and Memory. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1985.
. Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1986.
. Power, Providence & Personality: Biblical Insight into Life and Ministry.
Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.
. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation Bible Commentary. Louisville: John

Knox Press, 1990.
. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis:

Fortress Press, 1997.
. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1998.
Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible: Explained and Illustrated. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.
Burkhardt, Armin, ed. Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the
Philosophy of John R. Searle. Foundations of Communication and Cognition.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990.
215
Buss, Martin J. "Potential and Actual Interactions between Speech Act Theory and
Biblical Studies." Semeia 41 (1988): 125-34.
Campbell, Antony, F. "The Storyteller's Role: Reported Story and Biblical Text."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002): 427-41.
. 1 Samuel. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2003.
. 2 Samuel. Forms of the Old Testament Literature 8. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2005.
Carlson, R.A. David, the Chosen King: A Tradio-Historical Approach to the Second
Book of Samuel. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964.
Carroll, Robert P. "Deportation and Diasporic Discourses in the Prophetic Literature."

Pages 63-85 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited
by James M. Scott. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Caspari, Wilhelm, and David E. Orton. "The Literary Type and Historical Value of 2
Samuel 15-20." Pages 59-88 in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by
Hugo Gressman and Other Scholars, 1906-1923. Translated by David E. Orton.
Edited by David M. Gunn. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 116. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991.
Cazeaux, Jacques. Saul, David, Salomon: La Royaute et le Destin d'Israel. Lectio Divina
193. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 2003.
Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978.
Childs, Brevard Springs. "Speech-act Theory and Biblical Interpretation." Scottish

Journal of Theology 58 (2005): 375-92.
Christiansen, Bent. "A Linguistic Analysis of the Biblical Hebrew Particle na': A Test
Case." Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): 379-93.
Clark, Katerina and Michael Holquist. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1984.
Coats, George W. "Parable, Fable, and Anecdote: Storytelling in the Succession

Narrativerinterpretation 35 (1981): 368-82.
216
Coggins, Richard. "What Does 'Deuteronomistic' Mean?" Pages 135-48 in Words
Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer. Edited by
Jon Davies, Graham Harvey and Wilfred G.E. Watson. Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995.
Conroy, Charles. Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 1320. Analecta
Biblica 81. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary 19. Waco: Word Books,
1983.
Crenshaw, James L. "Method in Determining Wisdom Influence upon 'Historical'

Literature." Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 129-42.
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1998.
. "The History of Israelite Religion: a Secular or Theological Subject?" Biblical

Archaeology Review 31 (2005): 42^15.
Culley, Robert C. "Psalm 3: Content, Context and Coherence." Pages 29-39 in Text,
Methode und Grammatik. Edited by Walter Gross, Hubert Irsigler, and Theodor
Seidl. St Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1991.
Dahood, Mitchell J., Psalms 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor Bible
16. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1966.
Dascal, Marcelo. Pragmatics and the Philosophy of Mind I: Thought in Language.

Pragmatics and Beyond IV (1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 1983.
Daube, David. "Absalom and the Ideal King." Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): 315-25.
Day, Peggy L. "Abishai the satan in 2 Samuel 19:17-24." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49
(1987): 543-47.
De Pury, Albert and Tomas Romer, eds. Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids.
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 176. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag, 2000.
217
Delekat, Lienhard. "Tendenz und Theologie der David-Salomo-Erzahlung." Pages 26-36
in Feme undnahe Wort; Festschrift Leonard Rost. Edited by Fritz Maass.
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 105. Berlin: A
Topelmann, 1967.
Detweiler, Robert. "Speaking of Believing in Gen 2-3." Semeia 41 (1988): 135-41.
Dietrich, Walter and Thomas Naumann. Die Samuelbucher. Ertrage der Forschung 287.
Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1995.
Dietrich, Walter, ed. David und Saul im Widerstreit: Diachronie und Synchronie im
Wettstreit. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 206. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004.
Dormer, Herbert. "Der 'Freund des Konigs'." Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 269-77.
Dorn, Louis O. "'Lo' and 'behold'translating the Hebrew word hinneh." Bible
Translator 52 (2001): 222-29.
Eissfeldt, Otto. The Old Testament: An Introduction, Including the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran: the History of
the Formation of the Old Testament. Translated by Peter Ackroyd. New York:
Harper & Row, 1965.
Emerton, J. A. "Sheol and the Sons of Belial." Vetus Testamentum 11 (1987): 214-18.
Engnell, Ivan. A Rigid Scrutiny: Critical Essays on the Old Testament. Translated and
edited by John T. Willis. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969.
Evans, Donald D. The Logic of Self-Involvement: a Philosophical Study of Everyday

Language with Special Reference to the Christian Use of Language about God as
Creator. London: SCM Press, 1963.
Firth, David G. "Shining the lamp: the rhetoric of 2 Samuel 5-24." Tyndale Bulletin 52
(2001): 203-24.
Flanagan, James W. "Court History or Succession Document: A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20

and 1 Kings 1-2." Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 172-81.
Fokkelman, J.P. King David. Vol. 1 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel.
Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1981.
Freedman, David Noel. "Son of Man, Can These Bones Live." Interpretation 29 (1975):
171-86.
218
. "The Age of David and Solomon." Pages 286-313 in Divine Commitment and
Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. Edited by John
R. Huddlestun. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
. "When God Repents." Pages 409-46 in Divine Commitment and Human

Obligation: Selected Writings of David Noel Freedman. Edited by John R.
Huddlestun. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Frege, Gottlob. Logical Investigations. Edited by P. T. Geach. Translated by P. T. Geach

and R. H. Stoothoff. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.
Friedman, Richard Elliot. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the
Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. Harvard Semitic Monographs 22. Chico,
Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981.
Frolov, Serge. "Succession Narrative: A 'Document' or a Phantom?" Journal of Biblical

Literature 121 (2002), 81-104.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. 2d ed. Translation revised by Joel

Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. London: Continuum, 2004.
Galil, Gershon, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard, eds. Homeland and Exile: Biblical and
Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour ofBustenay Oded. Supplements to Vetus
Testamentum 130. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Gelander, Shamai. David and His God: Religious Ideas as Reflected in Biblical
Historiography and Literature. Translated by Ruth Debel. Jerusalem Biblical
Studies 5. Jerusalem: Simor, 1991.
Gilfillan Upton, Bridget. Hearing Mark's Ending: Listening to Ancient Popular Texts
through Speech Act Theory. Biblical Intepretation Series 79. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Goldberg, Michael. Theology and Narrative: A Critical Introduction. Nashville:

Abingdon, 1982.
Goldingay, John. Models for Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
. Models for Interpretation of Scripture. Toronto: Clements Publishing, 1995.
. Men Behaving Badly. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 2000.
219
. Israel's Gospel. Old Testament Theology. Vol 1. Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press, 2003.
. Psalms Volume 1: Psalms 141. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.
., ed. Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Library of
Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies 459. New York: T&T Clark, 2007.
Gressmann, Hugo. "The Oldest History Writing in Israel." Pages 9-58 in Narrative and
Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 19061923.
Edited by David Gunn. Translated by David Orton. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series 116. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991.
Green, Barbara. "Experiential Learning: The Construction of Jonathan in the Narrative of

Saul and David." Pages 43-58 in Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies.
Edited by Roland Boer. Semeia Studies 63. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2007.
Grice, H.P. "Meaning." Pages 118-25 in Philosophy of Language: The Big Questions.
Edited by Andrea Nye. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1998.
Grimes, Ronald L. "Infelicitous Performances and Ritual Criticism." Semeia 41 (1988):

103-22.
Grogan, Geoffrey. Psalms. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Gross, Walter, Hubert Irsigler, and Theodor Seidl, eds. Text, Methode und Grammatik. St
Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1991.
Grossman, Jonathan. "The Design of the 'Dual Causality' Principle in the Narrative of
Absalom's Rebellion." Biblica 88 (2007): 558-66.
Guillaume, Philippe. "The Historicity of Biblical Israel: Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel."

Theological Review 25 (2004): 68-72.
Gunkel, Hermann. The Stories of Genesis. Translated by John J. Scullion. Edited by

William R. Scott. Vallejo, Calif: BIBAL Press, 1994.Translation of Die Sagen
der Genesis. 3d ed., 1910.
Gunn, David M. "Narrative Patterns and Oral Traditions in Judges and Samuel." Vetus
Testamentum 24 (1974): 286-317.
220
. "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'." Vetus Testamentum 26

(1977): 214-29.
. The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation. Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament Supplement Series 6. Sheffield: Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament, 1978. Repr., 1982.
. "From Jerusalem to the Jordan and Back: Symmetry in 2 Samuel XV-XX."

Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 109-13.
. "New Directions in the Study of Biblical Hebrew Narrative." Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament 39 (1987): 65-75.
. "Covering David: Michaelangelo's David From the Piazza Delia Signoria to my

Refrigerator Door." Pages 139-70 in 'Imagining' Biblical Worlds: Studies in
Spatial, Social and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplemental Series 359. Edited by
David M. Gunn and Paula M. McNutt. New York: Sheffield Academic Press,
2002.
., ed. Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressman and Other
Scholars, 1906-1923. Translated by David E. Orton. Journal for the Study of the
Hagan, Harry. "Deception as Motif and Theme in 2 Sm 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2." Biblica 60
(1979): 301-26.
Halion, Kevin. "Parasitic Speech Acts: Austin, Searle, Derrida." Philosophy Today
(1992): 161-72.
Halpern, Baruch. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1988.
. David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Bible in its World.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Hancher, Michael. "Performative Utterance, the Word of God, and the Death of the
Author." Semeia 41 (1988): 27-40.
221
Hartin, P.J. and J.H. Petzer, eds. Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the
Criticism of the New Testament. New Testament Toos and Studies 15. Leiden:
Brill, 1991.
Heller, Roy L. Power, Politics, and Prophecy: the Character of Samuel and the
Deuteronomistic Evaluation of Prophecy. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament Studies 440. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.
Helmer, Christine, ed. The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings.
Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 37. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2006.
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. / & II Samuel: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden.

The Old Testament Library. London: SCM Press, 1960.
Hester, David C. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation Bible Studies. Louisville:
Geneva Press, 2000.
Hill, Andrew E. "On David's 'Taking' and 'Leaving' Concubines (2 Samuel 5:13;
15:16)." Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 129-50.
Hoftijzer, J. "A Peculiar Question: A Note on 2 Sam. XV 27." Vetus Testamentum 21

(1971): 606-9.
Jarrett, Charles E. "Philosophy of Language in the Service of Religious Studies." Semeia

41 (1988): 143-59.
Jensen, Hans J. L. "Desire, Rivalry and Collective Violence in the 'Succession

Narrative.'" Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 55 (1992): 39-59. Repr.,
pages 184-203 in The Historical Books. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum. A Sheffield
Reader Biblical Seminar 40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Johnson, Vivian L. David in Distress: His Portrait through the Historical Psalms.
Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 505. New York: T&T Clark,
2009.
Joiion, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka.

Subsidia Biblica 27. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006.
Kaiser, Otto. "Das Verhaltnis der Erzahlung vom Konig David zum sogenannten
Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk." Pages 94-122 in Die sogenannte
Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Edited by Albert de Pury and Tomas Romer. Orbis
Biblicus et Orientalis 176. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag, 2000.
222
Kelle, Brad E. "Isaiah 53 in the Light of Homecoming after Exile." Religious Studies
Review 35 (2009): 260-318.
Keown, Gerald L. "The Prophet as Encourager." Perspectives in Religious Studies 35

(2008): 155-61.
Kessler, John. "Sexuality and Politics: the Motif of the Displaced Husband in the Books
of Samuel." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 409-23.
Keys, Gillian. The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative'. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 221. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996.
Kitzberger, Ingrid Rosa, ed. Autobiographical Biblical Criticism: Between Text and Self.
Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2002.
Klein, Ralph W. Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. Overtures to Biblical

Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Knauf, Ernst. Axel. "From History to Interpretation." Pages 26-64 in The Fabric of
History: Text, Artefact and Israel's Past. Edited by E. Edelman. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 127. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
. "Does 'Deuteronomistic Historiography' Exist?" Pages 388-98 in Israel

Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research.
Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 306. Sheffield: Sheffield
Kohler, Ludwig. Hebrew Man: Lectures Delivered at the Invitation of the University of
Tubingen December 116, 1952. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. London: SCM
Press, 1956.
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1-59: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald.

Continental Commentaries 19. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988.
Langlamet, F. "Absalom et les Concubines de son Pire: Recherche sur II Sam 16:21-22."
Revue Biblique 84 (1977): 161-209.
Lanser, Susan S. "(Feminist) Criticism in the Garden: Inferring Genesis 2-3." Semeia 41
(1988): 67-84.
Le Roux, Jurie. "Suffering and Hope During the Exile." Pages 19-32 in Exile and
Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old
223
Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria August 2007.
Oudtestamentische Studien. Edited by Bob Becking and Dirk Human. Leiden:
Brill, 2009.
Lesigues, Lope Florente A. Liberative Theoludics: Mikhail Bakhtin's Challenge to the

Play-World of Skhole and Agon. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: Faculteit
Godgeleerdheid, 2004.
Levin , Christoph. Der Jahwist. Gottingen: Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Licht, Jacob. Storytelling in the Bible. 2d ed. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew
University, 1986.
Lundin, Roger, Anthony C. Thiselton, and Clarence Walhout. The Responsibility of

Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.
MacDonald, Dennis R., Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Studies
in Antiquity and Christianity. Harrisburg, Perm.: Trinity Press International, 2001.
MacDonald, Neil B. "Divine Speaking as Godly Action in Old Testament Narrative:

Metaphysics of Exodus 14." Pages 470-91 in "Behind" the Text: History and
Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig Bartholomew, C. Stephen Evans, Mary
Healy, and Murray Rae. The Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 4. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2003.
Mann, Steven T. '"You're Fired': An Application of Speech Act Theory to 2 Samuel

15.23 - 16.14." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (2009): 315-34.
McCarter, P Kyle, Jr. "Plots, True or False": the Succession Narrative as Court
Apologetic." Interpretation 35 (1981): 355-67.
. II Samuel. The Anchor Bible 9. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1984.
. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Guides to Biblical
Scholarship Old Testament Series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
. "The Historical David." Interpretation 40 (1986): 117-29.
McCarthy, Dennis J. "The Uses of wehinneh in Biblical Hebrew." Biblica 61 (1980):

330-42.
McClendon, James William and James M. Smith. Convictions: Defusing Religious

Relativism. Rev. ed. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994.
224
McEvenue, Sean E. "The Basis of Empire: A Study of the Succession Narrative." Ex
Auditu 2 (1986): 34-45.
McKenzie, Steven L. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Harvard

Semitic Monographs 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.
. King David: A Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
. "The So-Called Succession Narrative in the Deuteronomistic History." Pages

123-35 in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Edited by Albert de
Pury and Thomas Romer. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 176. Freiburg, Schweiz:
Universitatsverlag, 2000.
Meier, Samuel A. Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible.
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 46. New York: Brill, 1992.
Merwe, C. H. J. van der. "A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective on hinneh in the

Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth." Hebrew Studies 48 (2007): 101-40.
Moore, Michael S. Review of Stefan Seiler, Die Geschichte von der Throngefolge Davids
(2 Sam 9-20; 1 Kon 12: Untersuchungen zur Literarkritik und Tendenz. Journal
of Biblical Literature 119 (2000): 755-56.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel's Worship. Translated by D.R. Ap-Thomas.

The Bible Seminar 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press, reprint 1967.
Murray, Donald F. Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and
Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.17-7.29). Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 264. Sheffield: Sheffield
Neufeld, Dietmar. Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of John. Biblical

Interpretation Series 7. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Newsom, Carol A. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imagination. Oxford: Oxford
Nicholson, Ernest W. Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book
of Jeremiah. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970.
Niditch, Susan and Robert Doran. "The Success Story of the Wise Courtier: a Formal
Approach." Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 179-93.
225
Nogalski, James. "Reading David in the Psalter: A Study in Liturgical Hermeneutics."
Horizons in Biblical Theology 23 (2001): 168-91.
Noll, K.L. The Faces of David. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series 242. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Noth, Martin. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: die sammelnden und bearbeiten

Geschichtswerke imAlten Testament. 2d ed. Tubingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957.
. The Deuteronomistic History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1981. Translation of
Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. 2d ed. Tubingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957.
. The History of Israel (Geschichte Israels). Translated by P.R. Ackroyd. London:

A&C Black, 1960.
Nye, Andrea, editor. Philosophy of Language: The Big Questions. Maiden: Mass.:
Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1998.
O'Brien, Mark A. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. Orbis

Biblicus et Orientalis 92. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag, 1989.
Ohmann, Richard. "Speech Acts and the Definition of Literature." Philosophy and
Rhetoric 4 (1971): 1-19.
Parte, Daniel. "Speech Act Theory and Biblical Exegesis." Semeia 41 (1988): 85-102.
Perdue, Leo G. "The Testament of David and Egyptian Royal Instructions." Pages 79-96
in Scripture in Context II: More Essays on The Comparative Method. Edited by
William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1983.
. "Ts There Anyone Left of the House of Saul...?' Ambiguity and the
Characterization of David in the Succession Narrative." Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament 30 (1984): 67-84; Repr. pages 167-83 in The Historical
Books. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum. A Sheffield Reader Biblical Seminar 40.
Pfeiffer, Robert Henry. Introduction to the Old Testament. London: A&C Black, 1950.
. "Facts and Faith in Biblical History." Journal of Biblical Literature 70 (1951):

1-14.
226
Pisano, Stephen. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses
and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXXand Qumran Texts. Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 57. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitatsverlag, 1984.
Plant, R. J. R. Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah.
Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 481. New York: T&T Clark,
2008.
Polzin, Robert. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic
History, Part 2:1 Samuel. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.
. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History,

Part 3: 2 Samuel. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1993.
. "Curses and Kings: a Reading of 2 Samuel 15-16." Pages 201-26 in New

Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Cheryl J. Exum and David J.
A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 143.
Sheffield: JSOT, 1993.
Pratt, Mary Louise. Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1977.
Rad, Gerhard von. "Der Anfang der Geschichtsschreibung im alten Israel." Archivfur
Kultergeschichte 32 (1944): 1-42.
. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Einfuhrung in die evangelische Theologie 1.

Munich: C. Kaiser, 1962.
. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper,

1965.
. "The Beginnings of History Writing in Israel." Pages 166-204 in The Problem

of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken.
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966.
. "The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom." Pages 292-300 in The Problem of
the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by E. W. Trueman Dicken.
Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966.
Ramsey, George. "Speech-forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles." Journal of

Biblical Literature 96 (1977): 45-58.
Recanati, Francois. Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
227
Redmond, James, ed. Drama and Mimesis. Themes in Drama no. 2. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Reis, Pamela Tamarkin. "Killing the Messenger: David's Policy or Politics?" Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2006): 167-91.
Rezetko, Robert, Timothy H. Lim and W. Brian Aucker, eds. Reflection and Refraction:
Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld. Supplements to
Vetus Testamentum 113. Boston: Brill, 2007.
Ricoeur, Paul. "The Bible and the Imagination." Pages 49-75 in The Bible as a
Document of the University. Edited by Hans Dieter Betz. Chico: Calif.: Scholars
Press, 1981. Repr. pages 144-166 in Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative,
and Imagination. Translated by David Pellauer. Edited by Mark Wallace.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1995.
Ridout, George P. Prose Compositional Techniques in the Succession Narrative. Ann

Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1971.
Roberts, Kathryn L. '"Who Knows? Yahweh May Be Gracious': Why We Pray." Pages
97-110 in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J.J.M. Roberts. Edited by
Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L. Roberts. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Rogerson, John W. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and
Germany. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
. W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual

Biography. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 126.
Romer, Thomas and Albert de Pury. "Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of

Research and Debated Ideas." Pages 24-141 in Israel Constructs its History:
Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Edited by Albert de Pury,
Thomas Romer and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Romer, Thomas, Albert de Pury and Jean-Daniel Macchi, eds. Israel Constructs its
History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Journal for the
Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 306. Sheffield: Sheffield
228
Rose, Martin. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Bervhrungspunkten
beider Literaturwerke. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments 67. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981.
Rosenberg, Joel. King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible. Indiana Studies in
Biblical Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Rosenblatt, Eloise. "Words in Action: Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation."
Theological Studies 65 (2004): 179-81.
Rost, Leonhard. Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Beitrage zur
Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 3. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926.
. The Succession to the Throne of David. Translated by Michael D. Rutter and

David M. Gunn. Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 1.
Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1982.
Roth, Wolfgang M. W. "A Study of the Classical Hebrew Verb SKL." Vetus
Testamentum 18 (1968): 69-78.
Rudolph, W. and K. Elliger, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). Stuttgart:

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967. Reprint, 1997.
Sacon, Kiyoshi K. "A Study of the Literary Structure of'the Succession Narrative'."
Pages 27-54 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays
Int'l Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 1979. Winona Lake, Ind.: Snow Lion
Publications, 1982.
Sadka, Yitshak. "Hinne in Biblical Hebrew." Ugarit-Forschungen 33 (2001): 479-93.
Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Guides to

Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984.
. "The Exile and Canon Formation." Pages 37-61 in Exile: Old Testament,
Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Sao, Calvin C. "Speech Act Theory and Biblical Studies." Jian Dao (July 1998): 23-41.
Sasson, Jack M. Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and

Interpretation. Anchor Bible 24. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
Scalise, Pamela J. "The End of the Old Testament: Reading Exile in the Hebrew Bible."
Perspectives in Religious Studies 35 (2008): 163-78.
229
. "Baruch as First Reader: Baruch's Lament in the Structure of the Book of
Jeremiah." Pages 291-307 in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for
Leslie Allen. Edited by John Goldingay. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
Studies 459. New York: T&T Clark, 2007.
., ed. Encourager and Educator: Essays in Honor of John D. W. Watts.

Perspectives in Religious Studies 35. National Association of Baptist Professors
of Religion, 2008.
Schipper, Jeremy. "Why Do You Still Speak of Your Affairs?: Polyphony in

Mephibosheth's Exchanges with David in 2 Samuel." Vetus Testamentum 54
(2004): 344-51.
. "Did David Overinterpret Nathan's Parable in 2 Samuel 12:1-6?" Journal of

Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 383-91.
Schmidt, Werner H. "Die deuteronomistische Redaktion des Amosbuches: zu den

theologischen Unterschieden zwischen dem Prophetenwort unt seinem Sammler."
Zeitschriftjvr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 11 (1965): 168-93.
Schultz Alfons. "Narrative Art in the Books of Samuel," Pages 119-170 in Narrative and
Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 19061923.
Edited by David Gunn. Translated by David Orton. Journal for the Study of the
Scott, James M., ed. Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions.
Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
., ed. Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives.

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge:

. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1979.
. Searle, John R. and Daniel Vanderveken. Foundations of Elocutionary Logic.

New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Searle, John R., Ferenc Kiefer, and Manfred Bierwisch, eds. Speech Act Theory and
Pragmatics. Synthese Language Library. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company,
1980.
230
Seiler, Stefan. Die Geschichte von der Thronfolge Davids: Untersuchungen zur
Literarkritik und Tendenz. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 267. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998.
Seitz, Christopher R. Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of

Jeremiah. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 176.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989.
Sellin, Ernst and Georg Fohrer. Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by David
E. Green. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968.
Shulman, A. "The Particle K3 in Biblical Hebrew Prose," Hebrew Studies 40 (1999): 57-
82.
Simon, Uriel. Jonah: the Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation,
Translated by Lann J. Schramm. JPS Bible Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1999.
Smith, Morton. "The So-Called 'Biography of David' in the Books of Samuel and
Kings." Harvard Theological Review AA (1951): 167-69.
Smith-Christopher, D.L. "Reassessing the Historical and Sociological Impact of the

Babylonian Exile (597/587-539 BCE)." Pages 7-36 in Exile: Old Testament,
Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Indiana Literary Biblical Series.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.
Steussy, Marti J. David: Biblical Portraits of Power. Studies on Personalities of the Old
Testament. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1999.
Stiver, Dan R. The Philosophy of Religious Language: Sign, Symbol and Story. Maiden,
Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 1996.
. "Ricoeur, Speech-act Theory, and the Gospels as History." Pages 50-72 in After
Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig Bartholomew,
Colin Greene, and Karl Moller. Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 2. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Stoebe, Hans Joachim. Das Zweite Buch Samuelis. Kommentar zum Alten Testament 8/2.
Giitersloh: GerdMohn, 1994.
231
Stone, Ken. "Sexual Practice and the Structure of Prestige: the Case of the Disputed
Concubines." Pages 554-73 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 32.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.
Talmon, Shemaryahu. "'Exile' and 'Restoration' in the Conceptual World of Ancient

Judaism." Pages 107-^16 in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian
Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. Supplements to the Journal for the Study
of Judaism 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Taussig, Michael. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. London:
Routledge, 1993.
Thiselton, Anthony C. "Parables as Language-event: Some Comments on Fuchs's

Hermeneutics in the Light of Linguistic Philosophy." Scottish Journal of
Theology 23 (1970): 437-68.
. "The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings." The Journal of

Theological Studies 25 (1974): 283-99.
. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description

with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming

Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
. "Christology in Luke, Speech-act Theory, and the Problem of Dualism in

Christology after Kant." Pages 453-72 in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ:
Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Edited by Joel B.
Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
. "Speech-Act Theory and the Claim That God Speaks: Nicholas Wolterstorff s
Divine Discourse." Scottish Journal of Theology 50 (1997): 97-110.
Thornton, Timothy C. G. "Solomonic Apology in Samuel and Kings." Church Quarterly

Review 169(1968): 159-66.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2001.
Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Guides to
Biblical Scholarship Old Testament Series. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
232
Tsohatzidis, Savas L., ed. Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and
Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, 1994.
Tucker, Gene. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Guides to Biblical Scholarship.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Vaccari, Alberto. 1924. "II Consiglio di Achitofel (2 Sam. 17, 3)." Biblica 5 (1924): 5 3 -
57.
Van Seters, John. "Problems in the Literary Analysis of the Court History of David."
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 1 (1976): 22-29.
. "Tradition and History: History as National Tradition." Pages 63-74 in Histoire

et Conscience Historique dans les Civilizations du Proche-Orient Ancien.
Louvain: Snow Lion Publications, 1989.
. "The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch." In Congress

Volume: Leuven, 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of

Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983; Repr., Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
. "The Court History and DtrH: Conflicting Perspectives on the House of David,"
Pages 70-93 in Die sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Edited by Albert de
Pury and Thomas Romer. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 176. Freiburg, Schweiz:
Universitatsverlag, 2000.
Vanderveken, Daniel and Susumu Kubo, eds. Essays in Speech Act Theory. Pragmatics
and Beyond 77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. "From Speech Acts to Scripture Acts: The Covenant of Discourse
and the Discourse of the Covenant." Pages 1-49 in After Pentecost: Language
and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene, and
Karl Moller. Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2001.
., ed. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2005.
Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh.
The Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
233
Veijola, T. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der
deuteronomistischen Darstellun. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia 193.
Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975.
Vorster, Willem S. "Readings, Readers and the Succession Narrative: An Essay on

Reception." Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 98 (1986): 351-62.
Wagner, Andreas. Sprechakte und Sprechaktanalyse im Alten Testament:

Untersuchungen im biblischen Hebrdisch an der Nahtstelle zwischen
Handlungsebene und Grammatik. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 253. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona

Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Weeks, Noel. Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form
as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 407. New York: T&T Clark, 2004.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School. Oxford: Oxford

Weingreen, Jacob. "Rebellion of Absalom." Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 263-66.
Weiser, Artur. The Psalms: A Commentary. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. Old

Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962.
Wellhausen Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. Sutherland

Black and Allan Menzies. Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1885.
. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bvcher des Alten
Testaments. 4th ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1963.
. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. 6th ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1927.
Repr., 1981.
Wesselius, J W. "Joab's death and the central theme of the succession narrative (2 Samuel
IX-1 Kings II)." Vetus Testamentum 40 (1990): 336-51.
Wharton, J. "A Plausible Tale: Story and Theology in II Samuel 9 - 20, 1 Kings 1-2."
Interpretation 35 (1981): 355-67.
White, Hugh C. "Introduction: Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism." Semeia 41
(1988): 1-24.
234
. "The Value of Speech Act Theory for Old Testament Hermeneutics." Semeia 41
(1988): 41-63.
Whitelam, Keith W. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 12. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1979.
Whybray, R.N. The Succession Narrative. Studies in Biblical Theology 9. London: SCM
Press, 1968.
Willis, John T. "David and Zion in the Theology of the Deuteronomistic History:
Theological Ideas in 2 Samuel 5-7." Pages 125-40 in David and Zion: Biblical
Studies in Honor of J.J. M. Roberts. Edited by Bernard F. Batto and Kathryn L.
Roberts. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe.

New York: Macmillan, 1953.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Works and Worlds of Art. Clarendon Library of Logic and
Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.
. Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
. "Living Within a Text." Pages 202-13 in Faith and Narrative. Edited by Keith
E. Yandell. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
. "The Promise of Speech-Act Theory for Biblical Interpretation." Pages 73-96 in

After Pentecost: Language and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig
Bartholomew, Colin Greene, and Karl Moller. The Scripture and Hermeneutics
Series 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Woods, John Hayden. The Logic of Fiction: A Philosophical Sounding of Deviant Logic.
The Hauge, Paris: Mouton, 1974.
Wurthwein, Ernst. Die Erzahlung von der Thronfolge Davids: theologische oder
politische Geschichtsschreibung? Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974.
Young, Richard Alan. "A Classification of Conditional Sentences Based on Speech Act
Theory." Grace Theological Journal 10 (1989): 29-49.
Zewi, Tamar. "The Particles HINNEH and WEHINNEH in Biblical Hebrew." Hebrew
Studies 37 (1996): 21-37.
235
-. "On Similar Syntactical Roles of inuma in El Amarna and HNH and HN in
Biblical Hebrew." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 25 (1997): 71-86.
Zias, Joseph, and Emile Puech. "The Tomb of Absalom Reconsidered." Near
Eastern Archaeology 68 (2005): 148-65.
236
Abstract
This dissertation analyzes the story of David's departure as it appears in 2 Sam 15:1-
17:24. The method for this investigation involves a literary application of the philosophy
of language known as speech act theory, which is used to analyze the narrative speeches
(i.e., the speeches of the characters and of the narrator) on two levels of inquiry: (1) the
story level, which seeks to better understand the plot of the story, and (2) the storyteller
level, which seeks to better understand how this story is told. The thesis of this
dissertation is that speech act theory illuminates the story of David's departure as a
portrayal of David's faith in Yhwh. While many interpreters have noticed theological
aspects of this story, most have considered the function of the narrative to be primarily
historical, political, aesthetic, or didactic. Speech act theory shows that theology is of
primary importance for this story, both on the story level and on the storyteller level. In
addition, this dissertation explores ways that this story may function to encourage a
particular audience, one who might be expected to utilize a hermeneutic of self-
involvement.
The study begins with an overview of scholarly views regarding the function of 2
Sam 15:1-17:24. This is followed by a chapter containing a detailed description of the
ways that SAT will be applied to this narrative. The next three chapters contain the
investigation of the speech acts of David's departure, both for their function within the
world of the narrative and for their function of telling the story. Concluding this study is a
summary of the function of David's departure as an illocutionary and perlocutionary act.
As an illocutionary act, 2 Sam 15:1-17:24 portrays David's faith concerning Yhwh as
someone who might attempt to bring about good through the means of causing distress.
237
As a perlocutionary act, this portrayal of David's faith might serve to encourage an
audience who identifies with David, believes in Yhwh, and finds themselves in distress.
238

Run, David, Run! An Application of Speech Act Theory in A Literary Analysis of David's Departure (2 Sam 15-1-17-24)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Run, David, Run! An Application of Speech Act Theory in A Literary Analysis of David's Departure (2 Sam 15-1-17-24)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Center for Advanced Theological Studies

RUN, DAVID, RUN!

A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the

Steven Thatcher Mann

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

1. INTRODUCTION OF TOPIC AND METHOD 1

A Focus upon 2 Sam 15:1-17:24

2. AN OVERVIEW OF PERSPECTIVES ON THE FUNCTION OF

To Record Historical Events

3. SPEECH ACT THEORY AND DAVID'S DEPARTURE 45

Speech Act Theory

4. ABSALOM'S PLOT AS INTRODUCTION TO DAVID'S

Scene One (15:1-6)

5. OUTSIDE JERUSALEM: SCENES FOUR THROUGH SEVEN .. 122

Scene Four (15:23-29)

6. THE SHOWDOWN OF COUNSELORS IN JERUSALEM:

Scene Eight (16:16-23)

7. RESULTS: DAVID'S DEPARTURE AS ILLOCUTIONARY

David's Departure as an Illocutionary Act

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 211

Introduction of Topic and Method

narrative of David's departure from Jerusalem as it is contained in 2 Samuel 15:1-17:24.

as speech act theory.

and provide an overview of the chapters that follow.

A Focus upon 2 Sam 15:1-17:24

the main character of 2 Sam 15-19 and with it 2 Sam 15:1-17:24.

was Solomon instead of Absalom who succeeded David.

In recent decades, some interpreters have resisted the long-accepted textual

contained in the book(s) of Samuel. The purpose is to determine in a responsible way a

broader selection of chapters. After reaching an interpretation of this passage, an

Speech Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation

describing reality. Words can affect reality (see chapter three).

instance, Evans has investigated the self-involving nature of creation language in

speaks.20 Following Thiselton's metaphor of an orchestra, it is evident that musicians

voicings within this score.

on the level of the author/reader.24

ways that contribute to the interpretation of 2 Sam 15:1-17:24, a biblical narrative in

blurred in biblical studies.

It should be noted that the present application of SAT holds a potential to be

E.g., Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman, 118-19.

communities is well attested in biblical studies, especially canonical criticism.27

significance of this passage.

acts. First, a "locutionary act" is an act o/saying something. Second, an "illocutionary

act" is an act that is accomplished in saying something. Third, a "perlocutionary act" is a

Thesis and Overview of Study

emphasizing a particular aspect of David's faith. David is projected as someone who

several ongoing conversations about narrative in general and biblical narrative in

employing aspects of textual criticism.

study of hermeneutics, especially as presented by Anthony Thiselton.31 Thiselton has

how biblical texts can transform readers, Thiselton states:

Every reader brings a horizon of expectations to the text. This is a mind-

Appealing to SAT in general and Evan's work on self-involvement in particular,

flow of events and feelings are imaginatively experienced at a pre-reflective level.

Thiselton, New Horizons, 34.

story of David's departure found in 2 Sam 15:1-17:24.

six). Concluding this study is a summary of the function of David's departure as an

to facilitate this story as a perlocutionary act (chapter seven).

An Overview of Perspectives on the Function of 2 Sam 15:1-17:24

This chapter contains a particular description of the scholarly discussion regarding

study joins the ongoing conversation.

of political agendas (political propaganda), (4) to provide a work of art (serious

focus upon speech.