Compare And Contrast The Two Deuteronomistic History Sources Of King David

Comparison of the Two Deuteronomistic History Sources of King David The two sources that are credited with telling the story of King David are known as the Deuteronomistic History source and another source that is thought to be priestly in origin. The Deuteronomistic History source begins the story of King David in 1 Samuel 16:12 and continues through 2 Samuel until it concludes at 1 Kings 2:11. The other(priestly) source begins King David’s story with 1 Chronicles 11 and tells of his rise to power and reign through chapter 29. When we look at the scripture associated with both of these sources, it is evident that there are differences in the narration of events concerning the rise of David as king of Israel and also in his reign as king.
To begin the
comparison of these two different sources, the following are observations that I have made concerning stories that are present in the Deuteronomistic History source but absent in the other(priestly) source.
To begin with, in 1 Samuel beginning in chapter 17:41 through verse 51, there is an account of David slaying Goliath when he was a youth, and still small in stature, that is not in the Chronicles. Then, the accounts of David being installed in King Saul’s court and the subsequent conflict between David and King Saul including David’s fleeing from Saul and other related events in 1 Samuel 16 through 2 Samuel 1, is not mentioned at all in the Chronicles. Also, the conflict between the house of Saul and the house of David concerning who would be king of all of Israel after Saul’s death that is in 2 Samuel 2 through 2 Samuel 5:3, is not mentioned in the Chronicles. Notably absent from the Chronicles also, is the story of David’s lust for Bathsheba that resulted in an adulterous affair which precipitated his abuse of power that led to the death of Bathsheba’s husband Uriah so that David could take Bathsheba to be his wife. This chain of events, and the devastating results that followed for David’s family, as a
result of this sin, is recorded in 2 Samuel 11-20. The Chronicler states in 1 Chronicles 11:3, that David was proclaimed king over all of Israel where 2 Samuel 2:4 states that he was appointed king over all of Judah. Also notable, is the omission of the battle in 2 Samuel 21:18-22, where David is almost killed. Another story that was very violent in nature that was also omitted in the Chronicles was referenced in 2 Samuel 21:1-14, which is the story of how David had seven of Saul’s descendants put to death. The story concerning Abishag’s service to an elderly King David in 1Kings1:1-4, is not present in the Chronicles either. Also, David’s charge to Solomon concerning avenging the death of Abner and punishing Shemei for the curse that he had placed upon David in 1 Kings 2:1-2, is not noted in the Chronicles
When I looked at 1 Chronicles, there were things present in this book that are not mentioned in the Deuteronomistic History source concerning King David. In 1 Chronicles 21:26, fire consumes David’s sacrifice which is not noted in 2 Samuel 24:25. Also, I could not find a narration in the books of Samuel or Kings that paralleled the one in 1 Chronicles 22-29, which tells of David doing much of the preparation for the building of the temple even though he does not actually build it. Also, in 1 Chronicles 29:28, it implies that there was no opposition to Solomon being appointed the next king, but 1 Kings chapters 1 and 2 tell a different story. In Samuel, the author presents the story of David’s family, victories over enemies, and recounts the moving of the ark of the covenant. In 1 Chronicles, King David’s story is told in a different order; the moving of the ark, family, victories over enemies, and then when the move of the ark is completed. Why is the story told in a different order by each source?
In both of the sources, the story of King David is written to preserve the Jewish nation’s history, but in a selective way, according to the perspective of the source(author or authors). From the Deuteronomistic History point of view, the books of 1 and 2 Samuel and the first part of the book of 1 Kings that deal with King David, were looking backward and expressing the feelings of penitence. The breaking of the covenant with YHWH, at times by David, by willful disobedience resulted in consequences. Ultimately, 1 and 2 Kings, show how Israel, under the reign of the Davidic monarchy, ending up in captivity. The answer to the question of why King David’s story is told is a different order by the other(priestly) source than it is by the Deuteronomistic History source is that the other(priestly) source wanted to emphasize King David’s concern for the worship of YHWH and for his temple. This aspect of the Davidic monarchy is related in order to establish a link between the house of David(monarchy) and the house of Aaron(priests). The other(priestly) source provided an account of an “unblemished” and glorious king who was victorious over all of Israel’s foes. The passages of scripture about David that do not fit this unblemished image were simply left out. This image of King David gave the Israelites hope that as he was so will their Messiah be, perfect and victorious. So, instead of looking to the past, the other(priestly) source sought to look forward in hope to Israel’s future.
The process of “critical” reading has been an enlightening one for me. I used The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version, that I purchased for this class and I have found it to be an extremely valuable resource. I will admit that in the past I had been suspicious of “critical” assessment of the bible, thinking that it would be an intellectual assault on the theology of the bible. But, after understanding what critical reading actually is, I think that it has bolstered my belief in the theology behind Christianity, not diminished it.
References
Harris, Stephen L., and Robert L Platzner. The Old Testament –An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. p. 350-353.
Fourth Edition. Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.