This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]

On: 25 December 2014, At: 21:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An

International Journal of Nordic Theology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History

a
John Harvey
a
Thorneloe University , Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6, Canada
Published online: 04 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: John Harvey (2006) The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History, Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology, 20:2, 237-258, DOI: 10.1080/09018320601049508

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018320601049508

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
Vol. 20, No. 2, 237-258, 2006

The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History

John Harvey
Thorneloe University, Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6,
Canada
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

ABSTRACT: The author of Joshua-Kings structured his history after a land-

monarchy-centralized worship rubric. Joshua-Judges and 1-2 Kings bracket the
books of Samuel as parallel panels: just as the Deuteronomic promise of land is
realized in Joshua only to be compromised in Judges, so the Deuteronomic prom-
ise of centralized worship is realized in 1 Kings 1-11 only to be compromised in 1
Kings 12-2 Kings 25. 1 and 2 Samuel is an extended chiasm, the pivotal concern
of which is the Davidic monarchy. The Samuel chiasm is itself tied to the parallel
panels.

In this paper I contend that the Deuteronomistic Historian structured his his-
tory after a land-monarchy-centralized worship rubric.1 Joshua-Judges and 1-
2 Kings bracket the books of Samuel as parallel panels: just as the Deuter-
onomic promise of land is realized in Joshua only to be compromised in
Judges, so the Deuteronomic promise of centralized worship is realized in 1
Kings 1-11 only to be compromised in 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25 (see figure #1).
1 and 2 Samuel itself is an extended chiasm, the pivotal concern of which is
the Davidic monarchy (see figure #2).2
Figure #1 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History

1. I do not believe that the language, theology and writing styles in the DtrH lend
themselves to tracing precise contours of redactional processes. I therefore use the
appellation “Dtr” for the entire contents of the DtrH.
2. The existence of paneling (the AB║A’B’ pattern) and chiasms (the ABC║C’B’A’
pattern) in Hebrew narrative is common. See Radday (1981) and Dorsey (1999).

© Taylor & Francis 10.1080/09018320601049508

 238 John Harvey

The Samuel Chiasm

In the most exhaustive treatment of literary structures in the Hebrew Bible to
date, Walsh (2001:11) contended that “in a symmetrical structure certain po-
sitions (ends, centers) are often points of greater emphasis’.3 Concerning the
“ends” of the Samuel chiasm, Dtr drew impressive parallels between the po-
Figure #2 The Samuel Chiasm4
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

ems that bracket Samuel.5 In addition to the fact that such poems were inter-
polated,6 the Song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2.1-10 (A) and David’s psalms in 2
Sam 22,1-23,7 (A’) share the following linguistic features:

3. Watts (1992:11) could similarly contend that “inset hymns” regularly “occupy
thematically climactic and structurally crucial positions in larger blocks of narratives,
or even whole books.”
4. Consistent with Dtr’s diverse method in having units in the Samuel chiasm corre-
spond to each other, the titles of the units sometimes pertain to whatever features the
units share in common rather than their principal subject matter.
5. Various attempts have been made to define the structure of the books of Samuel.
The problem with each of them is that they tend to be over-generalized (e.g., Hum-
phreys 1978; Jobling 1978; Radday 1981) or forced (e.g., Klement 2000).
6. See Watts (1992:19-40, 99-117).
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 239

1 Sam 2,2 there is no Rock like our God7

wnyhl)k rwc Ny),
2 Sam 22,32 wnyhl) ydl(bm rwc ym, who is a Rock except our God

1 Sam 2,7 Mmwrm-P) lyp#Om . . . hwhy, the LORD . . . humbles, but also raises
2 Sam 22,28 Myp#Ot Mymr-l( Kyny(, your eyes are upon the proud, you humble
[them]

1 Sam 2,9 rm#Oy wdysx ylgr, he guards the feet of his faithful one
2 Sam 22,26 dsxtt dysx-M(, with the faithful you show faithfulness

1 Sam 2,10 M(ry Mym#O yl(, the Exalted One8 thunders in the heavens
2 Sam 22,14 hwhy Mym#O-Nm M(ry, the LORD thunders from the heavens
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

1 Sam 2,10 wklml z(-Nty, he gives strength to his king

9
2 Sam 22,51 wklm tw(w#Oy lydgm, magnifying the salvation of his king

Such common linguistic features are complemented by the shared messianic

tone in the Song of Hannah and the Last Words of David.10 In 1 Sam 2,10
Hannah declares that the LORD “gives strength to his king and exalts the horn
of his anointed one’, while David declares that as the “anointed one” (2 Sam
23,1) his righteous house enjoys an eternal covenant with the LORD (2 Sam
23,3-5; see also 2 Sam 22,44-45, 51). Childs (1979: 271-80) and Watts
(1992: 115) rightly argued that, as the bookends of Samuel, the Song of Han-
nah and the prayers of David together invite the reader to interpret the whole
of Samuel messianically.11

7. Except in those instances where a more literal translation is needed, the transla-
tions are those of NJPS.
8. For the emmendation of wl( to yl( see Lewis (1994:41–42).
9. See Watts (1992:23-24) for a complete list of parallels shared by these poems.
10. The “messianic tone” of the Last Words of David is heightened by the parallels
that Dtr drew between them and Balaam’s prediction of a saviour figure in Numbers
24. As Balaam says, “the oracle of Balaam son of Beor, and the oracle of the man
whose eye is opened” (Num 24,3), so David says “the oracle of David son of Jesse,
and the oracle of the man who was raised up” (2 Sam 23,1). As Balaam likens the
future dominion of Israel to lush valleys and forests (Num 24,5-7), so David suggests
that his house gives life to creation (2 Sam 23,3-5). Finally, Balaam’s prediction that
a mysterious man would come out of Israel to defeat the enemies of Israel (Num
24,17-18) finds fulfillment in the house of David. More specifically, Balaam states
that “a star shall come forth from Jacob, and a scepter shall rise from Israel’ (Num
24,17). To identify David as the mysterious figure that Balaam predicts, Dtr has
David refer to himself as “the anointed of the God of Jacob’ (2 Sam 23,1). Later in-
terpretation also regarded the “star’ figure as messianic (e.g., )xy#Om [“the Messiah”]
in place of +b#O [“scepter”] in the Targum of Num 24,17; War Scroll 11.6; and “Bar
Cochba’) (Harvey [2004:95]).
11. This messianic interpretation has ancient precedent. Harrington (1987a: 10-11
and 1987b) noted that it is precisely in the Song of Hannah and the prayers of David
that Targum Jonathan (which otherwise has a conservative translation technique)
adds much about the eschatological import of the Davidic dynasty.
 240 John Harvey

I turn now to the remaining pairs in the Samuel chiasm. 1 Samuel 1 and
2,11-7,17 (B) and 2 Samuel 15,13-21,15 and 23,8-24,25 (B’) immediately
precede and follow the inset hymns of 1 Sam 2.1-10 (A) and 2 Sam 22,1-23,7
(A’). Such material, which does not share parallels, evidently provided in-
formation that Dtr regarded as necessary for his introduction and conclusion
to the David story.12
Both 1 Samuel 8 and 2 Sam 15,1-12 (C and C’) concern illegitimate
quests for kingship. As Israel requests a king in 1 Samuel 8, so Absalom
strives to seize the kingdom from his father in 2 Sam 15,1-12. More specifi-
cally, as Samuel warns the Israelites that the king will make their sons “run
before his chariot (wtbkrm ynpl wcrw)” (1 Sam 8,11), so in his quest for the
throne Absalom provides himself with fifty men who “run (√Cwr) before
(ynpl)” him in his “chariot” (hbkrm) (2 Sam 15,1). There is also a parallel
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

between the sons of Samuel and the son of David: as Samuel “appoints”
(√My#o) his sons Joel and Abijah as “judges” (My+p#O) over Israel, only for them
to be rejected by the nation (1 Sam 8,-5), so Absalom the son of David de-
sires to be “appointed” (√My#o) as “judge” (+p#O), but he never leads the nation
(2 Sam 15,4).
Both 1 Samuel 11-13 and 2 Samuel 10-12 (D and D’) begin with Nahash
or Nahash’s son, and are followed by accounts of sin and prophetic denuncia-
tion. Whereas in 1 Samuel 11 Saul delivers the people from “Nahash” who
threatens the Jabesh-gileadites, in 2 Samuel 10 David defeats “Hanun the son
of Nahash” who rejects David’s condolences. Such stories concern deliver-
ance from shame. In both instances an aggressor threatens to remove or re-
moves half of a facial member, and a champion delivers the people from the
aggressor: as Nahash threatens to gouge out everyone’s right eye to disgrace
Israel (1 Sam 11,2), so Nahash’s son Hanun shaves half the beards of David’s
envoys and cuts away half of their garments (2 Sam 10,4).13 Following these
stories there are the infamous sins of Saul and David: Saul performs a sacri-
fice without Samuel (1 Sam 13,8-14), and David commits adultery and mur-
der (2 Samuel 11). Just as the prophet then Samuel rebukes Saul for his ille-
gitimate sacrifice and he tells him that his kingdom will be taken from him (1
Sam 13,11-14), so the prophet Nathan then rebukes David for committing
murder and he tells him that someone from his own house will trouble him (2
Sam 12,7-12). The responses of Saul and David to the prophetic word accen-
tuate the contrast between these figures. Whereas Saul only confesses that he
had sinned (yt)+x) after his excuses to the prophet fail (1 Sam 15,24), David

12. The insetting of the hymns A and A’ into B and B’ is consistent with the position
of hymns both in the Hebrew Bible and in the narrative literature of ancient Mesopo-
tamia and Egypt. According to Watts (1992),- such hymns are typically situated close
to the beginnings or ends of narrative units.
13. The concern with shame in the two accounts is implicit in Nahash’s contention
that piercing out the Jabesh-gileadites’ eyes would be a “reproach’ (hprx) to Israel (1
Sam 11,2), and in Nahash’s son’s dishonouring of David’s men (2 Sam 10,5-6)
where the verbs √ Mlk (niphal, “to be disgraced’) and √#$)b (niphal, “to become odi-
ous’) are used. See Stansell (1994) for the language of shame in the David narratives.
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 241

confesses that he had sinned (yt)+x) immediately after the prophet’s word (2
Sam 12,13).
Consistent with Saul being a foil for David through much of Samuel, in
several instances the pairs of the chiasm contrast David with Saul. This is
true of 1 Sam 14,1-48 and 2 Samuel 9 (E and E’), stories that concern a son
or grandson of Saul and their servants. Whereas in E Saul treats his own son
Jonathan unjustly when he recklessly swears that Jonathan should be put to
death for eating honey (1 Sam 14,24-27.44), in E’ David justly shows kind-
ness to Mephibosheth the son of Jonathan by promising to restore land to him
in fulfillment of his oath to Jonathan (2 Sam 9,3.7).
Both 1 Sam 14,49-52 and 2 Sam 8,15-18 (F and F’) are lists, respectively
of Saul’s family members and David’s officers.14
Another contrast between Saul and David occurs in 1 Samuel 15 and 2
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

Sam 8,1-14 (G and G’). As in G Saul fails to dedicate everything to the LORD
in his defeat of the Amalekites, so in G’ David dedicates spoils to the
LORD—even those from the defeated Amalekites (2 Sam 8,11-12).
Samuel’s anointing of David in 1 Sam 16,1-13 (H) and Nathan’s oracle to
David in 2 Samuel 7 (H’) are also parallel. Both passages concern a divine
disclosure to a prophet that pertains to the Davidic dynasty: as in 1 Sam 16,1-
13 the prophet Samuel anoints David as king, so in 2 Samuel 7 the prophet
Nathan assures David that he would have an enduring dynasty.15
There are many parallels between 1 Sam 16,14-1 Sam 20,42 (I) and 1
Samuel 31-2 Samuel 6 (I’), units that share the common theme of the rise of
David and the correlated demise of Saul. Just as in I David’s increasing suc-
cess is proportionate to Saul’s increasing failure (e.g., 1 Sam 18,12-15), so in
I’ David grows “stronger and stronger” while the house of Saul grows
“weaker and weaker” (esp., 2 Sam 3,1). Similarly, in I whatever David does
“is good in the eyes of all the people” (M(h-lk yny(b b+yyw; 1 Sam 18,5), and,
using the same language, in I’ all the people take note of David and it “is
good in their eyes” (Mhyny(b b+yyw; 2 Sam 3,36). Tied to the united themes of
David’s success and Saul’s failure, in both I and I’ Dtr uses David’s relation-
ship with children of Saul to further the division between David and Saul.
With regard to the relationship between David and Jonathan, Jonathan “loves
David as himself” (1 Sam 18,1), even as in the corresponding unit David
could confess that Jonathan’s “love” was greater than that of a woman (2
Sam 1,26). The division between David and Saul is likewise furthered by the
growing estrangement between David and Michal. The emerging disharmony
between this couple is explicitly seen in Michal’s initial “love” for David (1
Sam 18,20.28), and, in the corresponding section, her “despising” of David as
she witnesses him dancing before the ark (2 Sam 6,16). Similarly, whereas in

14. As with the corresponding poems that bracket the Samuel chiasm, these two lists
are of the same genre.
15. The close relationship between 1 Sam 16,1-13 and 2 Samuel 7 is undeniable.
McCarter (1984: 201) rightly contended that 2 Sam 7.8 “refers’ to the choice of
David in 1 Samuel 16. Brueggemann (1990:255) similarly stated that the review of 2
Sam 7,8-9 “begins with the events of 1 Samuel 16,1-13’.
 242 John Harvey

1 Sam 17,25 we read that whoever defeats Goliath would gain the king’s
daughter, in 2 Sam 6,20-23 David distances himself from Michal following
her deprecation of him—“Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day
of her death” (2 Sam 6,23). The rift between Michal and David is also im-
plicit in the word-string “through the window” which links the respective
units: as in I Michal delivers David from murderous Saul by letting David
down “through the window” (Nwlxh d(b; 1 Sam 19,12), so in I’ Michal de-
spises David while looking down “through the window” (Nwlxh d(b; 2 Sam
6,16) and seeing him dance.
Other parallels shared by I and I’ include the following. In both 1 Samuel
17-20 and 1 Samuel 31-2 Samuel 5 David is at war with Philistia and defeats
his enemies. As David defeats Goliath the Philistine in 1 Samuel 17, so he
defeats the house of Saul and the Philistines in 2 Samuel 2-5. The physical
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

settings and nature of violent acts in these units are also similar. Just as in I
the Israelites occupy one hill while the Philistines occupy another as both
groups prepare for battle (1 Sam 17,3), so in I’ Joab’s men sit on one side of
the Pool of Gibeon and Abner’s men sit on the other side as they prepare for
battle (2 Sam 2.13). Again, just as in I the Israelites camp “in the Valley of
Elah” prior to going to war against the Philistines (1 Sam 17,2), so in I’ the
Israelites spread out “in the Valley of Rephaim” prior to going to war against
the Philistines (2 Sam 5,18). Concerning the nature of violent acts, just as in I
David kills Goliath, decapitates him, and carries Goliath’s head to Saul (1
Sam 17;51.54.57), so in I’ Baanah and Recab kill Ish-bosheth, decapitate
him, and carry his head to David (2 Sam 4,7-8).
In both 1 Sam 21,1-9 and 1 Samuel 30 (J and J’) David is in flight from
Saul. As Ahimelech gives fleeing David bread in J (1 Sam 21,3-6), so David
gives the surviving Egyptian bread in J’ (1 Sam 30,11). In both stories, more-
over, related priests have roles to play: in J Ahimelech gives David bread and
a sword, and in J’ Abiathar—who is explicitly referred to as the “son of
Ahimelech” (1 Sam 30,7)—gives David the ephod that he might inquire of
the LORD.16
In both 1 Sam 21,10[11]-15[16] and 1 Samuel 29 (K and K’) David de-
ceives Achish the king of Gath. In K David does so by feigning insanity be-
fore Achish, and in K’ David lies to Achish when he tells him about various
raids. K and K’ also share verbatim rhetorical questions.
The servants of Achish query in K: Achish and his commanders
query in K’:
“Is this not David … “Is this not David
of whom they sing as they dance: of whom they sing as they dance:
‘Saul has slain his thousands, and ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and
David his tens of thousands?’” (1 David his tens of thousands?’” (1
Sam 21,11[12]). Sam 29,5).

16. As I noted above, father and son also link D and D’ (‘Nahash’ and “the son of
Nahash’).
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 243

In 1 Samuel 22 (L) Saul kills priests who minister to the LORD, and in 1
Samuel 28 (L’) Saul spares a witch whose conduct is an abomination to the
LORD. Such actions are diametrically opposed to covenant fidelity, for Deu-
teronomic legislation honours priests and abominates witches (e.g., Deut
18,1-13). The correspondence between the two units is also implicit in the
difference between the narrator’s statement that “the LORD did not answer
[Saul] by dreams, urim, or prophets” (1 Sam 28,6), and Saul’s complaint to
ghostly Samuel that “[the LORD] no longer answers me either in prophets or
dreams (1 Sam 28,15). In contrast with the narrator’s statement, Saul fails to
mention “urim” because he has the priests killed in corresponding 1 Samuel
22.17
In 1 Sam 23,1-18 (M) and 27,1-12 (M’) David’s associations with the
Philistines are brash. While in 1 Sam 23,1-18 David daringly delivers the in-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

habitants of Keilah from the Philistines, in 1 Sam 27,1-12 David himself

moves to Philistia. Concerning David’s plan to deliver the inhabitants of
Keilah, David’s men are perplexed by his audacity—“we are afraid here in
Judah, how much more if we go to Keilah against the forces of the Philis-
tines?” (1 Sam 23,3). David’s brashness in his move to Philistia is similarly
seen in his raids of the enemies of Judah even while he resides in Ziklag of
Philistia (1 Sam 27,8-12). More specifically, as Saul is “told” (√dgn, hophal)
in M that David escaped from Keilah and then Saul ceases to set out (1 Sam
23,13), so in M” Saul is “told” (√dgn, pual) that David fled to Gath and Saul
does not pursue David (1 Sam 27,4). As David then leaves Keilah accompa-
nied by his “600 men” in M (1 Sam 23,13), so he and his “600 men” later
leave Judah for Philistia in M” (1 Sam 27,2).
The final members of the Samuel chiasm, 1 Samuel 23,19-24.22[23] (N)
and 1 Samuel 26 (N’), share striking parallels.18 The two narratives com-
mence with precisely the same rhetorical questions from the Ziphites to Saul:
“Is not David hiding “Is not David hiding
(rttsm dwd )wlh) (rttsm dwd )wlh)
… in Gibeah of Hachilah in Gibeah of Hachilah
(hlykxh t(bgb) (hlykxh t(bgb)
south of Jeshimon?” (1 Sam 23,19) which faces Jeshimon?” (1 Sam 26,1)19
In both N and N’ Saul then selects “three thousand chosen men”
([y]rwxb #Oy) Mypl) t#Ol#O) of Israel “to search for David” (dwd-t) #Oqbl) (1
Sam 24,2[3]; 26,2). Following this, David has opportunities to kill Saul, and
David’s men/Abishai tell David that the LORD delivered Saul into his hands
(1 Sam 24,4[5]; 26,8), for in the first account the LORD delivers Saul into
David’s hands by placing them together in the cave (1 Sam 24,10[11],

17. Hertzberg (1964:219) similarly noted that the omission of a mention of the urim
makes it “unnecessary to mention to Samuel the circumstances under which Saul lost
possession of the oracle [i.e., 1 Samuel 22].”
18. The following is from Harvey 2004:61-62. For the parallels between 1 Samuel 24
and 26 see also Koch (1969:133-37), Culley (1976:49-54), and Klein (1983:236-37).
19. As I noted above, the use of identical rhetorical questions concerning David also
serves to unite K and K’.
 244 John Harvey

18[19]), and in the second account “a deep sleep from the LORD” falls upon
Saul’s men which enables David to approach Saul (1 Sam 26,12). In both
stories David nevertheless refuses to harm “the LORD’s anointed’, choosing
rather to take something that belongs to Saul-be it a corner of his garment (1
Sam 24,4[5]-6[7]) or his jug and spear (1 Sam 26,9-12). David then confronts
Saul, telling him that he was seeking a “single flea” (dx) #O(rp) (1 Sam
24,14[15]; 26,20), and that his own refusal to kill Saul is evidence of his in-
nocence (1 Sam 24,8[9]-11[12]; 26,17-24).20 In each episode Saul responds
by confessing his guilt, telling David that David will prosper, and then de-
parting (1 Sam 24,16[17]-22[23]; 26,21-25).
As the centerpiece of the Samuel chiasm, Abigail’s speech in 1 Samuel 25
(X) is the hermeneutical key to the books of Samuel:21
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

The LORD has kept you from shedding blood . . . the LORD will surely make for
my lord a sure house . . . If someone should arise to pursue you and to seek your
life, the life of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of the living with the LORD
your God, but the lives of your enemies he shall sling out as from the hollow of a
sling. When the LORD does for my lord according to all the good that he spoke
concerning you, and has made you to be prince over Israel, do not let this be a
cause of stumbling and of faltering courage to my lord that you have shed blood
needlessly and that my lord sought redress with his own hands. And when the
LORD has prospered my lord, remember your maid (1 Sam 25,26.28-31).
Abigail’s speech brings together much of the Samuel narrative.22 Abigail’s
concern with David’s blood-guiltlessness brings to mind instances in which
David is absolved from blood-guilt, as with the murders of Abner (2 Sam
3,22-30) and Ish-bosheth (2 Samuel 4). Abigail’s contention that David
should allow the LORD to avenge him recalls David’s opportunities to kill
Saul (1 Sam 24,3[4]-7[8]; 26,8-11). Abigail’s mention of David’s enemies
who pursue him and seek to take his life similarly recalls the stories of Saul,
Absalom, and Sheba. As in the speeches of Jonathan (1 Sam 20,15) and Saul
(1 Sam 24,21[22]-22[23]), moreover, Abigail implores David for mercy be-
cause she knows that he will become king—David is to have a “sure house”
(tyb Nm(n) and he is to become “prince” (dygn) over Israel.
I noted above the striking parallels that exist between the Song of Hannah
(1 Sam 2,1-10; A) and the poems of David (2 Sam 22,1-23,7; A’). I con-
tended that these poetic bookends provide a framework that invites the reader
to interpret the books of Samuel messianically. Consistent with Walsh’s
(2001:14; cf. 11) conclusion that concentric patterns sometimes have “links”
between “outermost subunits and the central one’, it is evident that the book-
ends of 1 and 2 Samuel work together with the center of the Samuel chiasm

20. The language “Is not David hiding in Gibeah of Hachilah [near] Jeshimon?’,
“three thousand chosen men … to search for David’ and “single flee’ only appear in
these instances in the Hebrew Bible.
21. On the significance of the centerpiece in chiasms, see Walsh (2001:11) and Rad-
day (1981:51). Rosenberg (1987:137) and Gordon (1980) similarly contended that 1
Samuel 25 is central.
22. I am here partially indebted to McCarter (1980:401-402).
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 245

to buttress the theme of messianism. In the following paragraphs I will con-

tend that 1 Samuel 25 is similarly linked to 1 Sam 16.1-13 (H) and 2 Samuel
7 (H’)—passages that are the approximate middles of each side of the chiasm
and which also concern the theme of messianism:
Figure #3 1 Samuel 25 as Keystone
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

1 Samuel 25 is the common denominator both of Samuel’s anointing of

David and David’s defeat of Goliath (1 Samuel 16-17), and of Nathan’s ora-
cle to David (2 Samuel 7). 1 Samuel 16,1-13 and 2 Samuel 7 also correspond
to each other. As I noted above, 1 Sam 16,1-13 (H) and 2 Samuel 7 (H’) are
pairs in the Samuel chiasm insofar as they both concern a divine disclosure to
a prophet that pertains to the Davidic dynasty: as in 1 Sam 16,1-13 the
prophet Samuel anoints David as king, so in 2 Samuel 7 the prophet Nathan
assures David that he would have an enduring dynasty. 1 Samuel 25 shares
the following parallels with 1 Samuel 16-17 and 2 Samuel 7. To begin with,
these three passages concern “shepherding’. As David is “shepherding the
flock” (N)cb h(r) of his father when Samuel comes to Bethlehem to anoint
him (1 Sam 16,11), so David is protecting those who were “shepherding the
flock” (N)ch My(r) of Nabal (1 Sam 25,16), and so the LORD tells David that
he commanded earlier leaders of the nation “to shepherd” (tw(rl) his people
(2 Sam 7,7). The three passages also share two features concerning the pri-
macy of David. First, as Saul queries, “Whose son is this young man?” (1
Sam 17,55), so Nabal asks “Who is the son of Jesse?” (1 Sam 25,10), and in
response to Nathan’s oracle David prays “Who am I’ (2 Sam 7,18).23 Second,
David’s anointing in 1 Sam 16,1-13 is the referent of Abigail’s confession
that the LORD would do “the good” that he had “spoken” (hbw+-t) rbd; 1
Sam 25,30), as is David’s acknowledgment that the LORD “had spoken good”

23. Such questions concerning the identity of David are similar to those questions
pertaining to the identity of David that unite K and K’: “Is this not David?’ (cf. “Is
not David hiding?’ which unites N and N’). In such instances the implied reader an-
swers, “David is the anointed one’. See also this rhetorical use of questions concern-
ing the identity of Jesus “the Son of David’ in the Gospels: “Who do people say the
Son of Man is?’ (Matt 16,13; cf. 16,15) and “Who is the Son of Man?’ (John 12,34).
 246 John Harvey

(hbw+-t) … √rbd) to him (2 Sam 7,28).24 A parallel shared by 1 Samuel 25

and 2 Samuel 7 concerns David’s “sure house’: Abigail’s reference to a “sure
house” (Nm(n tyb; 1 Sam 25,28) anticipates the LORD’s oath to give David a
“sure house” (tyb Nm(n; 2 Sam 7,16).25 As for the relationship between 1
Samuel 25 and 1 Samuel 16-17, the following parallels exist: Abigail’s con-
tention that the LORD would “sling (David’s enemies) out as from the hollow
of a sling” ((lqh Pk Kwtb hn(lqy; 1 Sam 25,29) recalls the story in which
David “slings” (√(lq) a stone that kills Goliath (1 Sam 17,49);26 and as
David delivers Israel from Goliath’s “defiance” (√Prx; 1 Sam 17,10.25-
26.36.45), so the LORD avenges David for the “defiance” (√Prx) of Nabal (1
Sam 25,39). It is evident, then, that 1 Samuel 25 is the common denominator
both of 1 Samuel 16-17 and 2 Samuel 7.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

1 Samuel 25 is equally the common denominator of the poetic bookends

of Samuel. With 1 Samuel 25, both the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2,1-10) and
David’s psalms (2 Sam 22,1-23,7) complement the theme of messianism.
Such bookends function together with 1 Samuel 25 as hermeneutical keys to
the rest of Samuel. The hermeneutical significance of A and A’ for all of 1
and 2 Samuel is also seen in the fact that while such hymns are replete with
reciprocal allusions, neither of them are strictly tied to the narratives in which
they appear.27 The function of the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2,1-10) and
David’s psalms (2 Sam 22,1-23,7) is to provide the reader with a messianic
paradigm through which the intervening stories of David are to be under-
stood. Watts (1992: 109) rightly concluded that the poetic bookends of Sam-
uel superimpose an “idealized characterization” on the depiction of David
throughout Samuel.28
Walsh (2001:14) argued that the turning point in a chiasm is often found
in its central subunit. This is the case with the Samuel chiasm. Following 1
Samuel 25 there is a transition in David’s relationship with Saul. After this
point David becomes more politically minded and aggressive. Consistent
with what Gunn (1980:102-05) noted, this development in David is first evi-
dent from contrasts between 1 Samuel 24 and 26. In 1 Samuel 24 David hides

24. Fox (1973) rightly contended that the idiom “to speak good’ is covenantal.
25. Levenson (1978:20) rightly noted that the promise of a “sure house’ is “an unde-
niable adumbration of Nathan’s prophecy which utilizes the identical language’. See
Carlson (1964:263-267) for the relationship between the dynastic promise in 2 Sam-
uel 7 and Samuel-Kings.
26. Fokkelman (1986: 508) also noted this parallel: “[David, who] flattened a Philis-
tine giant by slaying him ‘with sling and stone,’ is hit in the heart when he hears from
[Abigail that] the Lord ‘will fling away the lives of your enemies from the hollow of
a sling’.”
27. Watts (1992:19-40, 99-117) noted the sparse correspondences between the Song
of Hannah (1 Sam 2,1-10), David’s psalms (2 Sam 22,1-23,7), and the respective
narratives in which they appear.
28. Although scholarship has been divided over when the poetic bookends of Samuel
were interpolated or written (for the history of the question, see Watts 1992:110-
111), the integrality of such pericopes to the structure of the DtrH nevertheless sug-
gests that they were incorporated by Dtr himself.
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 247

in a cave while in 1 Samuel 26 David actively seeks Saul—the pursuer be-

comes the pursued. So also, in 1 Samuel 24 David refers to Saul as “father”
(b); 24,11[12]) and Saul refers to David as “son” (Nb; 24,16[17]). While in 1
Samuel 26 Saul continues to use the endearing title “son” with reference to
David (26,21.25), David here begins to use the more remote “master” (Nd))
rather than “father” with reference to Saul (26,15-19). At the close of 1 Sam-
uel 26, David is particularly brazen toward Saul after Saul confesses that has
done wrong. David caustically responds to Saul’s apology with “the LORD
rewards a man for his faithfulness and righteousness” (26,23).
On the basis of the foregoing analysis of the Samuel chiasm, some general
remarks concerning Dtr’s method of composition are in order. Dtr aligned the
corresponding units in the Samuel chiasm in different ways. Most units con-
sist of a combination of shared thematic and linguistic features. The use of
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

thematic or linguistic features to link texts is common in the Hebrew Bible.

Psalms in the Psalter, for instance, were in some instances grouped together
because they shared similar themes.29 Other psalms were placed beside each
other simply because they shared a common word—as with “dove” in Ps.
55.6 and in the superscription to Psalm 56.30 The melding of individual pro-
phetic works to form the Book of the Twelve is also akin to this practice, for
the close of one book uses the same language as the opening of the next (No-
galski 1993). To be sure, were it not for striking links between various units
in the Samuel chiasm—such as those concerning the Davidic dynasty (H and
H’) or those between the two Achish stories (K and K’)—identifying the
Samuel chiasm would be a difficult task. But striking links between various
units eases the task of identifying less-striking corresponding units. Alerting
the reader’s attention to the chiasm, for instance, are the impressive links be-
tween David’s opportunities to kill Saul in 1 Samuel 24 and 26. Fanning out
from this center in each direction, narrative units correspond to each other to
greater or lesser degrees. The more impressive corresponding units aid the
interpreter in identifying those that are based only on recurring motifs or
seemingly incidental words.
The Parallel Panels
Bracketing the Samuel chiasm is a panel structure: Joshua (1) is to 1 Kings 1-
11 (1’) what Judges (2) is to 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25 (2’).
The concern of Joshua (1) and 1 Kings 1-11 (1’) is, respectively, the ful-
fillment of the promise of land and the fulfillment of the promise of central-
ized worship. More specifically, the units begin with a transition in leader-
ship—from Moses to Joshua and from David to Solomon. Following this
transition the new leader realizes a key Deuteronomic promise: in fulfillment
of the promise of land Joshua takes the land, and in fulfillment of the promise
of centralized worship Solomon constructs the temple. In both units the ful-
fillments of such Deuteronomic promises are conditional on obedience to the

29. E.g., morning and evening prayer in Psalms 3-6.

30. Redactional practices behind the formation of the Psalter are discussed in Wilson
(1985).
 248 John Harvey

torah of Moses: as the LORD instructs Joshua to “be strong” (√qzx) and “to
keep” (rm#Ol) “all that is written” (bwtkh-lkk) in “the torah” (hrwt) of Moses
(Josh 1,7-8), so David instructs Solomon to “be strong” (√qzx) and “to keep”
(rm#Ol) what is “written” (bwtkk) in “the torah of Moses” (h#Om trwt) (1 Kgs
2,1-3).31 Akin to this, both units are idealistic in their presentations of the ful-
fillment of the promises. Joshua is a paragon of obedience to Moses” instruc-
tions, and Joshua’s generation is a parade example of religious fidelity.32 In
Joshua’s day, “the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their fa-
thers . . . he gave rest to them as he had sworn to their fathers … and not one
of all the LORD’s good promises that he swore to Israel failed” (Josh 21,43-
45). 1 Kings 1-11 similarly emphasizes the realization of the Deuteronomic
hope for Israel. Solomon is a possessor of wisdom and wondrous administra-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

tive skills that serve to consolidate the kingdom. During Solomon’s reign
“Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore—they ate,
they drank, and they were happy” and “they lived in safety, each man under
his own vine and fig tree” (1 Kgs 4,20; 4,25[5,5]). A final feature that unites
1 and 1’ is the common stories concerning prostitutes. At the beginning of
Joshua’s ministry, Rahab the “prostitute” (hnwz h#O)) lies to the king of Jeri-
cho, saying that the two men who came to her had left, and she then tells the
spies to hide for “three days” (Mymy t#Ol#O) (Josh 2,4-5.16). At the beginning of
his reign Solomon similarly solves a dispute between two “prostitutes”
(twnz My#On). One of the prostitutes tells the king of a lie, saying that “on the
third day” (y@#Oyl#Oh Mwyb) another prostitute deceptively replaced her living son
with the other prostitute’s dead son (1 Kgs 3,16-20).
In spite of the positive depictions of Joshua in 1 and Solomon in 1’, there
are nevertheless parallel omens in each unit of the nation’s later demise. In
both units the positive depictions are compromised by the nation’s involve-
ment with Canaanites, thereby transgressing the particular legislation of Deu-
teronomy 7. Moses there orders the Israelites to annihilate the inhabitants of
Canaan, to refrain from making a covenant (tyrb Mhl trkt-)l) with them or
show them mercy (Deut 7,1-2). The Israelites transgress such directives in
the Rahab story. Rather than annihilating Rahab and her family, the spies
spare Rahab’s father, mother, brothers, sisters and all that belongs to them
(Josh 2,12-13). The spies show such “grace and mercy” (tm)[w] dsx; Josh

31. Some have argued that Josh 1,7-8 is a post-Deuteronomistic redaction (e.g., Noth
1981:62 n.1; Rofé 1993). Others have argued the same for 1 Kgs 2.2-3 (e.g., Nelson
1981:101). But their common structural function, however discordant they may be in
their respective contexts, suggests that they are integral to the DtrH.
32. Joshua’s obedience to Moses’ instructions is particularly evident from the many
instances in which he fulfills Moses’ commands (e.g., Deut 3,18-20 and Josh 1,13.
17; Deuteronomy 27-28 and Josh 8,30-35; Deut 20,16-18 and Josh 11,11; Deut 9,1-3
and Josh 11,21-22; Deut 19,1-10 and Josh 20,2.7-9). The fidelity of the generations
under Joshua is implicit both in the nation’s obedience to Joshua (Josh 4,12.14; Judg.
2,7), and in Dtr’s distinction between the righteous generation under Joshua’s leader-
ship and the unrighteous generations that preceded and followed (Judg 2,7.10; cf.
Deut 1,37-39).
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 249

2,12.14)—typical covenant language—because they “swear” (√(b#O; Josh

2,17.20) to do so. The Israelites similarly transgress the directive of Moses in
the Gibeonite episode: Joshua “makes a covenant (tyrb … trkyw)” with the
Gibeonites, and Israel “swears (√(b#O)” an oath to them (Josh 9,15. 18-20).33
Once again in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 7, foreigners are also the agents of
Solomon’s demise. According to Deut 7,3-4, the people are not to intermarry
with the Canaanites lest the nation become idolatrous and incur the anger of
the LORD. Solomon’s intermarriage with foreign women accordingly leads to
idolatry and the consequent anger of the LORD (1 Kgs 11,4-9).34 In spite of
such unfaithfulness, in both Joshua and 1 Kings 1-11 the divine anger in re-
sponse to disobedience that is threatened in Deuteronomy 7 is nevertheless
abeyant until the subsequent generation: after the death of Joshua (Judg 2,8-
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

14), and after the death of Solomon (1 Kgs 11,34-35).

The omens of Israel’s demise in Joshua (1) and 1 Kings 1-11 (1’) are real-
ized in Judges (2) and 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25 (2’).35 The primary concerns of
these latter units is, respectively, the compromising of the promises of land
and of centralized worship. Concerning the land, Israel “dispossesses” (√#Ory)
it in Joshua from the Canaanites (e.g., Josh 12.1; 24.8), only to have it “dis-
possessed” (√#Ory) by Ammonites and Amalekites in Judges (Judg 3,13).36
Concerning centralized worship, Solomon builds and blesses the “house of
the LORD” (hwhy tyb) in 1 Kings 6-8 with the help of foreigners only for As-
syria and Babylon to pillage and destroy the “house of the LORD” (hwhy tyb)
in 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25 (e.g., 2 Kgs 14,14; 16,8; 25,13). Consistent with
this, both Judges and 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25 underline the disunity of the na-
tion. Unlike the tight leadership under Joshua, in Judges the nation is beset by
factions and internecine strife; and dissimilar to the unity of the nation under
Solomon is the national divisiveness in 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25. Finally,
Judges and 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25 closely follow paradigms that are given at
their outset. Judges 2,11-23 outlines a pattern that recurs through much of
Judges: the Israelites do evil before the LORD (Judg 2,11; 3,7.12; 4,1; 6,1;
13,1); such evil leads to the anger of the LORD and the consequent deliver-
ance into the hands of foreign oppressors (Judg 2,14; 3,8; 4,2; 10,9); the Isra-
elites then cry out to the LORD (Judg 3,9. 15; 6,6-7; 10,10); the LORD hears

33. Such oaths guaranteed both the survival of Rahab’s clan and the descendants of
the Gibeonites, for just as Rahab “lives among the Israelites to this day” (Josh 6,25),
so the Gibeonites remain with the Israelites “to this day” (Josh 9,27). The phrase “to
this day’ thus has a theological rather than simply an aetiological nuance.
34. The foreigners’ relations to the house of God in the two units are similarly paral-
lel: because the Gibeonites deceive Israel, Joshua sentences them to servitude “in the
house of my God” (Josh 9,23); and Solomon forces those foreigners who are left in
the land to build the temple and his palace (1 Kgs 9,20-21).
35. For treatments of idealistic historiography with omens of demise in Joshua see
Hawk (1991), and for 1 Kings 3-11 see Jobling (1991).
36. Joshua 13-21, which is not consistent with Joshua 1–12 in its presupposing that
not all the land had been taken, may well have been a post-Deuteronomistic interpo-
lation. See Noth (1981:66-67).
 250 John Harvey

their cries and raises up a deliverer (Judg 2,16; 3,9.15; 10,1.12); and a period
of peace ensues (Judg 3,11.30; 8,28).37 The sin of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 12,25-
33 is similarly paradigmatic for the remainder of 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25, for
Dtr indicts the kings of Israel because they “walk in the way of Jeroboam son
of Nebat who made Israel sin’.38
The parallel panels thus share the following features:
1 JOSHUA 1’ 1 KINGS 1-11
• Joshua succeeds Moses • Solomon succeeds David
• Joshua takes the land in fulfill- • Solomon builds the temple in
ment of the Deuteronomic prom- fulfillment of Deuteronomy
ise 12
• Command to keep torah • Command to keep torah
• Lie of prostitute to king • Lie of prostitute to king
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

• Idealistic historiography with • Idealistic historiography with

omens of demise (based on Deut omens of demise (based on
7,1-3) Deut 7,3-4)
• Joshua dies • Solomon dies

2 JUDGES 2’ 1 KINGS 12-2 KINGS 25

• Loss of land • Loss of temple
• Israel is disunited • Israel is disunited
• Paradigmatic historiography • Paradigmatic historiography
As with the Samuel chiasm, the manner in which Dtr had the panels mir-
ror each other merits discussion. Dtr’s concern with structure led to seeming
incongruities on a macro-level. The complete conquest of the land by a
united Israel in Joshua, for instance, is followed in Judges by an incomplete
conquest. Accusing Dtr of here uniting disharmonious traditions misses Dtr’s
point altogether, for Dtr’s concern was principally theological not historical.39
The panel structure may well have arisen from Dtr’s adherence to the Deu-
teronomic paradigms of blessings for obedience (Deut 28,1-14) and curses
for disobedience (Deut 28,15-68): blessings are exemplified in Joshua’s con-
quest, even as curses are fulfilled in Judges where the nation fails to take the
land.40 Dtr’s concern with structure also led to seeming incongruities on a

37. See the discussions in Lindars (1995:98-101) and Trompf (1979:219-224).

38. See 1 Kgs 15,34; 16,19.26; 22,52[53]; 2 Kgs 3,3; 10,29.31; 13,2.6.11; 14,24;
15,9.24.28.
39. As with Genesis–Numbers, Dtr was not very concerned about historical incon-
gruities or linear sequencing. Rather, Dtr melded and redacted the traditions that he
received in a highly structured and aesthetically delightful manner. For the non-
chronological nature of Genesis-Kings see Peckham (1999).
40. Consistent with the Deuteronomic blessing-curse design of Joshua-Judges,
Joshua builds an altar on Mount Ebal, he recites the blessings and curses, and the
narrator explicitly states that Joshua “read all the words of the Torah—the blessing
and the curse” (Josh 8,30-35). The unfolding of the Deuteronomic curse commences
with Judges: “whenever Israel went out to fight, the hand of the LORD was against
them for evil, just as he swore to them” (Judg 2,15).
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 251

micro-level. With reference to Joshua’s sentencing of the Gibeonites to servi-

tude, for instance, Dtr used the anachronistic phraseology “in the house of my
God” in Josh 9,23 (1) to harmonize this passage with the temple’s construc-
tion in 1 Kings 6 (1’). Failing to recognize the structure of the DtrH, the LXX
replaces the anachronistic “in the house of my God” (Josh 9,23) with “for me
and my God’. Boling and Wright (1982:259) similarly asserted that “house of
my God” refers not to the temple but to “Gibeon’s sanctuary which hence-
forth was to become Yahweh’s sanctuary’—even though “the house of my
God” (Josh 9,23) is clearly synonymous with “the place that he would
choose” (Josh 9,27), which is itself a certain reference to Solomon’s temple.
A more plausible explanation for the anachronism is that Dtr intentionally
drew it to bring greater harmony between Joshua (1) and 1 Kings 1-11 (1’).
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

Uniting the Chiasm and the Parallel Panels

The relationship between the Samuel chiasm and the parallel panels is con-
cretized by those passages in figure #2 that are marked with asterisks: 1
Samuel 9-11 (stories of Saul’s initiation into kingship) and 2 Samuel 13-14
(the rape of Tamar and its aftermath). Rather than mirroring each other, these
passages correspond to what immediately precedes and what immediately
follows 1 and 2 Samuel: 1 Samuel 9-11 corresponds with Judges 17-21, and 2
Samuel 13-14 corresponds with 1 Kings 1. These passages unite the Samuel
chiasm to the parallel panels.
I will first consider the parallels between 1 Samuel 9-11 and Judges 17-
21. The common features shared by 1 Samuel 9-11 and Judges 17-21 are
most pronounced with the stories of the Levite’s dismembering of his concu-
bine (Judges 19) and Saul’s dismembering of his oxen (1 Samuel 11). After
his concubine has been murdered in “Gibeah” (Judg 19.12-14), the Levite
cuts her up (√xtn) into twelve parts and sends them “throughout the territory
of Israel” (lwbn lkb l)r#oy; Judg 19,29). Similarly, when Saul is in “Gibeah”
(1 Sam 11,4) he hears of the threat of Nahash the Ammonite, he cuts up
(√xtn) his yoke of oxen into twelve parts, and he sends them “throughout the
territory of Israel” (l)r#oy lwbn-lkb; 1 Sam 11,7). The Levite and Saul there-
upon muster the people and their number is given (Judg 20,2. 8-11; 1 Sam
11,8). As the Levite says, “you are all Israelites, produce a plan of action here
and now’, and the people gather “as one man” (dx) #Oy)k; Judg 20,7-8), so
Saul declares, “Thus shall be done to the cattle of anyone who does not fol-
low Saul and Samuel into battle’, and the people gather “as one man”
(dx) #Oy)k; 1 Sam 11,7). The Benjaminites do not, however, surrender the
perpetrators of the rape to the Israelites. The Benjaminite Saul similarly does
not agree to have those who do not support him put to death:
 252 John Harvey

Judg 20.13 1 Sam 11.12-13

Give us the men (My#On)h-t) wnt) … Give us the men (My#On)h wnt)
and we will put them to death and we will put them to death
(Mtymnw) … (Mtymnw).41
But the Benjaminites would not But Saul said, “No man shall be put to
yield to
the demand of their fellow Israel- death this day.”42
ites.
Other parallels between 1 Samuel 9-11 and Judges 17-21 include the fol-
lowing. (1) As both a Levite and the tribe of Dan wander about “in the hill
country of Ephraim” (Judg 17,1.8; 18,2.13) looking for places to reside, so
Saul wanders about “in the hill country of Ephraim” (1 Sam 9,4) looking for
his father’s donkeys. (2) More geographically specific than these common
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

references to “the hill country of Ephraim” are Dtr’s allusions to Laish (the
unsuspecting city that the Danites conquer in Judges 18) in his itinerary of
Saul’s wanderings:
He passed through the hill country of Ephraim and passed through the land of
Shalishah, but they did not find them. And they passed through the land of
Shaalim, but they were not there. Then he passed through the land of Benjamin,
but they did not find them (1 Sam 9.4).
Commentators have not been persuasive in identifying the otherwise un-
known “Shalishah” and “Shaalim’. McCarter (1980:174) could conclude that
identification of these cities “is very difficult, and most commentators have
preferred to abandon the task as hopeless’, and that the reference to “the land
of Benjamin” should be emended to “Jabin’—for to assume that Saul “has
somehow doubled back to Benjamin leaves any reconstruction of the itiner-
ary in shambles’. A more satisfactory solution to correcting the text is to re-
gard the geographical features of 1 Sam 9,4 as allusions to the parallel stories
in Judges where “the hill country of Ephraim’, “Laish’, and “Benjamin” pre-
dominate: Shalishah (h#Ol#O) and Shaalim (Myl(#O) are plays on Laish (#Oyl),
and the incongruous “land of Benjamin” is likewise an allusion to the given
stories in Judges. (3) As the wandering Danites tell the Levite to inquire of
God about the success of their mission (Judg 18,2-6), so wandering Saul goes
to the prophet Samuel to ask about his journey (1 Sam 9,5-20). (4) As the old
man from “the hill country of Ephraim” invites the Levite to stay the night
and he would also feed the Levite’s donkeys (Judg 19,16.20-21), so Saul
passes through “the hill country of Ephraim” and is told by Samuel that Saul
would stay the night and he was not to be worried about his father’s donkeys

41. “And we will put them to death (Mtymnw)” only occurs in these instances.
42. As with various pairs in the Samuel chiasm, scholarship has noted the parallels
between Judges 19 and 1 Samuel 11. Because, however, such scholarship has not
considered the given parallels in light of the structure of the DtrH, it has failed to
explain them adequately. Jüngling (1981:237), for instance, concluded that while
there are striking parallels between the dismemberings of the concubine (Judg. 19.29)
and the oxen (1 Sam 11,7), the differences between the two accounts suggest that
they are based on independent origins.
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 253

(1 Sam 9,3-20). (5) As the concubine’s father repeatedly insists that the Le-
vite eat before leaving in the morning (Judg 19,4-9), so Samuel tells Saul to
eat and he would send him off in the morning (1 Sam 9,19). (6) As Israel
thereafter wages war against the tribe of “Benjamin” for its sexual assault of
the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19-21), so Israel thereafter wages war against
the Ammonites for threatening the “Jabesh-gileadites” (1 Samuel 11). (7)
“Benjamin” and “Jabesh-gilead” are both central to the stories. The selection
of Jabesh-gilead as the tribe that fails to appear at the assembly is akin to the
selection of Saul as king: in both cases the selection takes place at Mizpah,
and as no one from Jabesh-gilead is present so Saul cannot be found (Judg
21,1-9; 1 Sam 10,17.20-21). Moreover, in both narratives the tribe of Benja-
min, or Saul the Benjaminite, have a similar relationship to the people of Ja-
besh-gilead. According to Judges 21, the only people who fail to appear at
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

Mizpah to fight the Benjaminites are the Jabesh-gileadites. They are conse-
quently killed (Judg 21,10). In 1 Samuel 11 Saul similarly sides with the Ja-
besh-gileadites who are threatened by Nahash.
As 1 Samuel 9-11 corresponds with what immediately precedes the Sam-
uel chiasm, so Amnon’s rape of Tamar and its aftermath (2 Sam 13,1-15.12)
corresponds with what immediately follows the Samuel chiasm—Solomon’s
succession to the throne in 1 Kings 1-2. In both 2 Sam 13.1—15,12 and 1
Kings 1-2 there are fratricides resulting from sexual indiscretions involving
David’s sons: Absalom has his brother Amnon killed for raping Tamar (2
Samuel 13); and Solomon has his brother Adonijah executed for requesting
to marry Abishag (1 Kings 2,13-22). In both stories sons of David decep-
tively seek their father’s throne: Absalom leads a coup against David (2 Sam
15,1-12), and Adonijah strives to do so (1 Kings 1). More specifically, Absa-
lom and Adonijah seek David’s throne by processions of “chariots”
(bkr\hbkrm), “horses” (Myss) or “horsemen” (My#Orp), and “fifty men running
before” them (wynpl Mycr #Oy) M#Omx) (2 Sam 15,1; 1 Kgs 1,5).43 Other parallels
include the following: as Jonadab counsels Amnon to have Tamar the virgin
serve him (2 Sam 13,5), so David’s servants counsel him to have a young
virgin attend him (1 Kgs 1,2); and both Joab and Nathan convey their respec-
tive messages about Absalom and Solomon cunningly through women—Joab
through the woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14,1-20), and Nathan through Bath-
sheba (1 Kgs 1,11-27).
The manner in which Dtr used 1 Samuel 9-11 (the first asterisk) and 2
Sam 13,1-15,12 (the second asterisk) is similar, for in each instance portions
of the given passages have a double duty: they are both integral to the Samuel
chiasm, and at the same time they are linked to what immediately precedes or
immediately follows the Samuel chiasm. In his analysis of “connective de-
vices’, Walsh (2001:177) refers to a “double-duty hinge’, which he describes
as follows:
[With a double-duty hinge] one element—often the entire hinge itself—functions
in two different ways . . . . [T]he hinge is not a discrete entity interposed between
the two [surrounding units]; on the contrary, it belongs simultaneously to both,

43. This word string only occurs in these instances.

 254 John Harvey

and no clear dividing line can be drawn between them. The analogue for the dou-
ble-duty hinge is not the whole of the hinge, with two plates that attach it to the
two panels it joins; it is rather the central pin of the hinge, inextricably part of the
whole mechanism, but indivisible.44
The double-duty function of Saul’s defeat of Nahash (the first asterisk) is
evident from the following: In addition to uniting itself to the story of Na-
hash’s son (2 Samuel 10 [D’]), Saul’s battle against Nahash and Saul’s dis-
membering of his oxen (1 Samuel 11 [D and *]) corresponds to the Levite’s
dismembering of his concubine (Judg 19.29—20.13):
Judg 19,29-20.13 1 Samuel 11 [D and 2 Samuel 10 [D’]
*]
Nahash threatens to Nahash’s son
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

shame Jabesh-gilead. shames David’s

emissaries.
In Gibeah, the In Gibeah, Saul hears
Levite “cuts up” of Nahash’s threat, he
his concubine into “cuts up” his yoke of
twelve parts, and oxen into twelve
sends them parts, and sends them
“throughout the “throughout the terri-
territory of Israel’. tory of Israel’.
Israel musters and Saul musters and
numbers the peo- numbers the people.
ple.
The people gather The people gather “as
“as one man.” one man.”
Saul battles “Na- David battles the
hash.” “son of Nahash.”
No death sentence No death sentence to
to rapists those who do not
support Saul

The story of Absalom (the second asterisk) similarly has a double duty. In
addition to uniting itself to Israel’s illegitmate request for a king (1 Samuel 8
[C]), the story of Absalom (2 Sam 13,1-15,12 [C” and *]) corresponds to
Adonijah’s pursuit of the throne (1 Kings 1):

44. Parunak (1983:540-41) similarly defined a “hinge” as “a transitional unit of text,

independent to some degree from the larger units on either side, which has affinities
with each of them” See also Parunak (1982:10-12) for a treatment of the way in
which one pericope can simultaneously employ different structural devices.
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 255

1 Samuel 8 [C] 2 Sam 13,1-15,12 [C” 1 Kings 1

and *]
Jonadab counsels Amnon David’s servants counsel
to have Tamar serve him. him to have a virgin attend
him.
David’s son Absalom has David’s son Solomon has
his brother Amonon his brother Adonijah exe-
killed for raping Tamar. cuted for requesting to
marry Abishag.
Joab conveys a message Nathan conveys a message
to David through the to David through Bath-
Tekoaite. sheba
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

Israel requests a David’s son Absalom David’s son Adonijah de-

king. deceptively seeks the ceptively seeks the king-
kingdom. dom.
A king will force David’s son Absalom has David’s son Adonijah has
sons to “run be- a “chariot,” “horsemen,” a “chariot,” “horses,” and
fore (his) chariot.” and “fifty men running “fifty men running before
before him.” him.”
The sons of Sam- Absalom the son of
uel “appointed” as David would be “ap-
“judges” pointed” as “judge”
The fact that both 1 Samuel 9-11 and 2 Sam 13,1-15,12 perform double du-
ties shows that the Samuel chiasm and the parallel panels are interlocked. By
means of such double duties that these asterisked passages perform, Dtr ef-
fectively tied the Samuel chiasm to the parallel panels. Neither the Samuel
chiasm (which concerns the monarchy), nor the parallel panels (which re-
spectively concern the land and the temple) stand on their own.
I conclude by contending that the message of the DtrH is inextricably tied
to its structure. For Dtr, the land, the Davidic monarchy, and the temple had
defined the nation prior to 587.45 Dtr discussed each of these in turn from

45. Sanders (1972:15) rightly contended that after 587 “[t]here remained no Temple
to bolster her spirits, no Jerusalem to encourage her trust, no political or social insti-
tution to which to rally.” As in the DtrH, concern with the land, the king, and the
temple is equally present in contemporaneous literature. This is seen in particular in
Jeremiah. Because the land, the king, and the temple were overthrown, in hopes that
they would one day be restored, the exilic community tended to eschatologize them.
Concerning the land, there was to be a new Exodus (23,7-8), a mass return (12,15;
23,3; 29,14; 30,3), and the land would again prosper “as at first” (33,10-11). With
regard to the monarchy, because it would be no more (22,24.30; 36,30-31), a future
Davidic king (who is closely associated with the LORD) would reign (23,5-6; 30,9;
33,15.17). Concerning the temple, the people had found their identity in it, for they
appealed to “the ark of the covenant of the LORD” (3,16), cried out “this is the temple
of the LORD, this is the temple of the LORD, this is the temple of the LORD” (7,4), and
declared that they “are safe” in the temple (7,10). Following the temple’s demise,
however, Jerusalem would itself become “the throne of the LORD’ to which all the
nations would gather (3,17).
 256 John Harvey

Joshua to Kings. There is a recurring movement from positive to negative in

the DtrH: Israel acquires the land in Joshua only to compromise the promise
of land in Judges; and Israel builds the temple in 1 Kings 1-11 only to un-
dermine the promise of a temple in 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25. But consistent
with the divine promise to David of an enduring dynasty, the same movement
is not true of the Davidic monarchy in 1-2 Samuel.46 While the promises of
land and temple are compromised, the promise of a Davidic dynasty remains.
Together with Abigail’s speech in the center of the DtrH, David’s prophetic
encounters in corresponding 1 Sam 16.1-13 and 2 Samuel 7, and the poems
of Hannah and David that bracket 1 and 2 Samuel, the structure of the DtrH
presents a latent messianism. The exiles could only hope for a new king.47

Bibliography
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

Boling, Robert G., and G. Ernest Wright

1982 Joshua. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(AB 6; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Brueggemann, Walter
1990 First and Second Samuel (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox).
Carlson, R.A.
1964 David, the Chosen King. A Traditio-Historical Approach to the
Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell).
Childs, Brevard
1979 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: For-
tress).
Culley, Robert C.
1976 Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Narrative (Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press).
Dorsey, David A.
1999 The Literary Structure of the Old Testament. A Commentary on
Genesis-Malachi (Grand Rapids, MG: Baker Books).
Fokkelman, J.P.
1986 Narrative Art in the Books of Samuel. Volume II. The Crossing of
the Fates (1 Sam 13-31 and 2 Sam 1) (Dover, NH: Van Gorcum).
Fox, M.
1973 ‘Tôb as Covenant Terminology’, BASOR 209: 41-42.
Gordon, Robert P.
1980 ‘David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Sam 24-
26’, Tyndale Bulletin 31: 37-64.
Gunn, David M.
1980 The Fate of King Saul. An Interpretation of a Biblical Story
(JSOTSS 14; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).

46. See von Rad’s (1953) discussion of the role of the promise to David in the DtrH.
47. Some of the exiles put their hopes for a renewed dynasty in Jehoiachin, as is evi-
dent from Jer 22,24-30 and 28,4. As Levenson (1984:353–61) argued, hope is also
adumbrated in the manumission and exaltation of Jehoiachin in the close of the DtrH
(see also Sanders 1972:15).
 The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History 257

Harrington, Daniel J. and Anthony J. Soldarin

1987a Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. Introduction, transla-
tion, and notes. (The Aramaic Bible, vol. 10; Edinburgh: T&T
Clark).
1987b “The Apocalypse of Hannah: Targum Jonathan of 1 Samuel 2.1-10’,
in D.M. Glomb (ed.), Working with No Data: Semitic and Egyptian
Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1987): 147-52.
Harvey, John E.
2004 Retelling the Torah. The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetra-
teuchal Narratives (JSOTSS 403; London: T & T Clark).
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm
1964 1 and 2 Samuel (Philadelphia: Westminster).
Humphreys, W. Lee
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

1978 ‘The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel

9-31’, JSOT 6: 18-27.
Hawk, Daniel L.
1991 Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua (Louisville,
KT: Westminster/John Knox).
Jobling, David
1978 The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the
Old Testament (JSOTSS 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).
1991 ‘“Forced Labor”: Solomon’s Golden Age and the Question of Lit-
erary Representation’, Semeia 54: 57-76.
Jüngling, H.W.
1981 Richter 19—Ein Plädoyer für das Königtum: Stilistische Analyse
der Tendenzerzählung Ri 19, 1-30a; 21:25 (AnBib, 84; Rome: Pon-
tifical Biblical Institute).
Klein, Ralph W.
1983 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco, TX: Word).
Klement, Herbert H.
2000 2 Samuel 21-24. Context, Structure and Meaning in the Samuel
Conclusion (European University Studies, Series 23, Volume 682;
New York, NY: Peter Lang).
Koch, Klaus
1969 The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. The Form Critical Method
(New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Levenson, Jon D.
1978 ‘1 Samuel 25 as Literature and History’, CBQ 40: 11-28.
1984 ‘The Last Four Verses in Kings’, JBL 103: 353-61.
Lewis, Theodore J.
1994 ‘The Textual History of the Song of Hannah’, VT 44:18-46.
Lindars, Barnabas
1995 Judges 1-5. A New Translation and Commentary (Edinburgh: T &
T Clark).
McCarter, P. Kyle.
1980 1 Samuel (AB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
1984 2 Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Nelson, Richard D.
1981 The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSS 18;
Sheffield: JSOT).
 258 John Harvey

Nogalski, James
1993 Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 126; Ber-
lin; New York: Walter de Gruyter).
Noth, Martin
1981 The Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: JSOT).
Parunak, H. Van Dyke
1982 ‘Some Axioms for Literary Architecture’, Semitics 8: 1-16.
1983 ‘Transitional Techniques in the Bible’, JBL 102: 525-48.
Peckham, Brian
1999 ‘History and Time’, in Robert Chazan, William Hallo, Lawrence
Schiffman (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu. Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical,
and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns): 295-314.
Radday, Yehuda T.
Downloaded by [George Mason University] at 21:41 25 December 2014

1981 ‘Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative’, in John W. Welch (ed.),

Chiasmus in Antiquity (Hildesheim: Gersetneberg Verlag): 50-111.
Rofé, Alexander
1993 ‘The Piety of the Torah Disciples at the Winding-Up of the Hebrew
Bible: Josh 1:8; Ps. 1:2; Isa. 59:21’, in Helmut Merklein et al
(eds.), Bibel in Jüdischer und Christlicher Tradition. Festschrift für
Johann Maier vum 60. Geburstag (Frankfurt am Main: Hain): 78-
85.
Rosenberg, Joel
1987 ‘1 and 2 Samuel’, in Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (eds.), The
Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press): 122-45.
Sanders, James A.,
1972 Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress).
Stansell, Gary
1994 ‘Honor and Shame in the David Narratives’, Semeia 68: 55-79.
Trompf, G.W.
1979 ‘Notions of Historical Recurrence in Classical Historiography’, in
J.A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Tes-
tament (SVT 30; Leiden: E.J. Brill): 212-29.
von Rad, Gerhard
1953 ‘The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in the Books of Kings’,
in Studies in Deuteronomy (London: SCM): 74-91.
Walsh, Jerome T.
2001 Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Collegeville,
MN: The Liturgical Press).
Watts, James W.
1992 Psalm and Story. Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSS 139;
Edinburgh: Sheffield).
Weinfeld, Moshe
1991 Deuteronomy 1-11 (AB 5; New York, NY: Doubleday).
Wilson, Gerald
1985 The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBL Dissertation Series 76;
Chico, CA: Scholars Press).