A King and a Fool?

Front matter

VIRGINIA MILLER

A King and a Fool?

Biblical Interpretation Series

PART 1 Historical Context and Methodology

1 The Genre Debate and Satire 15 11 The Genre Debate 16 1.2 The Succession Narrative as Satire? 22

2 Methodology and Irony 29 21 Irony 29 2.2 Methodology 32 2.3 Verbal Irony and the Succession Narrative 39

PART 2 Evidence

3 David’sSinsand Punishments 43 31 2Samuelg1-13 44 3.2 2Samuelio1-19 49 3.3 2Samuel1:1-27 50 3.4 2 Samuel 1:27b-12:31 70

4 Amnon’s Sin and Absalom’s Revenge 88 41 2Samueli3i—39 88

5 The Deception of the Wise Woman of Tekoa 111 51 2Samuel141-33 11

VIII CONTENTS

7 The Kingdom Is Restored to David 189 71 2Samuelig:1-20:26 189 7-2 2Samuel 201-26 198

8 Solomon Rises to the Throne 200 8.1 I Kings1:1-53 200 8.2 IKings 21-46 207

9 The Non-essential Elements of Satire 215 91 Introduction 215 9.2 Conclusion 220

PART 3 Conclusions

10 The Genre Debate: 100 Years of the Succession Narrative 223 10.1 Satire 223 10.2 Conclusion 233 u Findings 235 1.1 VerbalIrony 235 1.2 Characterisations from a Consideration of the Text in Terms of Verbal Irony 247

12 Conclusion 263

Index of Modern Authors 277 Index of Biblical Citations 280 Index of Subjects 290

Acknowledgments

There are numerous people who I would like to acknowledge for their contribution to this book. Iam most grateful to Suzanne Boorer who supervised my doctoral dissertation which was reworked into this text. I would also like to thank the members of the Department of Theology at Murdoch University for their support including, Jim Trotter, Alexander Jensen, William Loader, Rowan Strong, Nancy Ault, and Jeremy Hultin.

Furthermore, I would like to extend my thanks to John Greene, Jan Fokkelman, David Marcus, and Stephen Pickard. I would also like to thank Seumas Miller, my mother and David, my father and George, Jason and Aaron and families.

Abbreviations

BibInt Biblical Interpretation

BibIntS Biblical Interpretation series

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CQR Church Quarterly Review

Int Interpretation

JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JHScr Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament NAS New American Standard Bible

NKJ New King James Version

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

RB Revue biblique

SHBC Smyth & Helwyns Bible Commentary

VT Vetus Testamentum

VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC Word Biblical Commentary BCE before the Common Era ISBL International Congress of the Society of Biblical Literature OT Old Testament

PhD Doctor of Philosophy

RSV Revised Standard Version SAT Speech Act Theory

SN Succession Narrative

Gen Genesis

Exod Exodus

Lev Leviticus

Num Numbers

Deut Deuteronomy

Judg Judges

Sam Samuel

Kgs Kings

Ps Psalms

Isa Isaiah

Jer Jeremiah

Ezek Ezekiel

Introduction

The question of genre has dominated scholarship focused on the narrative of King David in the Second Book of Samuel and the First Book of Kings. This narrative has variously been called, the Succession Narrative,! the Court History,? and the David Saga.? In this book, A King and a Fool? The Succession Narrative as a Satire, I offer a new perspective on the genre of, what I will hereafter refer to as, the Succession Narrative (SN). In this book I argue that the SN is in fact a satire.

Among biblical scholars, there are a number of competing views regarding the genre of the SN. Albeit, the picture has been complicated by the over-lap between the genres; however, some distinct groupings of genre have emerged. The main groupings of these views of the genre of the SN are as follows: national epic, propaganda,® wisdom literature,® theological ‘history’ writing,’ and literary art.8 I argue that the SN is not a national epic as David is presented

1 Leonhard Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David, ed. J. W. Rogerson, trans. Michael D. Rutter and David M. Gunn (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1982), 84. German original, Leonhard Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart, Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1926).

2 James W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2,” JBL, 91, 2, (Jun. 72), 172—181.

3 John Van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2009).

4 Scholars of note include: Edmond Jacob, Histoire et historiens dans l'ancien testament (Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1957), 29; William McKane, I & IT Samuel: Introduction and Commentary (London: scm Press, 1963), 19 and Christopher R. North, The Old Testament Interpretation of History (London: The Epworth Press, 1953), 34. Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Adam and Charles Black Limited, 1952), 358.

5 Scholars of note include: Timothy C. G. Thornton, “Solomonic apologetic in Samuel and Kings,” CQR, 169 [371] (1968), 159-166; P. Kyle McCarter Jr., “Plots, True and False. The Succession Narrative as Court Apology,” Int 35 4 (1981), 355-367; Martin Noth, The History of Israel (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1960); Andrew Knapp, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East. (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015); Keith W. Whitelam, and “The Defence of David,” JSOT, 29 (1984), 61-87, 62.

6 Roger Whybray, The Succession Narrative. A Study of II Sam. 9-20 and I Kgs 1 and 2 (London: SCM Press, 1968).

7 Scholars of note include: Gerhard von Rad, “The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel,” in From Genesis to Chronicles. Explorations in Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005); Walter Brueggemann, “On Trust and Freedom: A Study of Faith in the Succession Narrative,” Int, 26 (1972), 3-19; and Steven McKenzie, King David. A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

8 Scholars of note include: Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament. An Introduction (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), David M. Gunn, The Story of King David. Genre and Interpretation, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978); Van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David; and

© VIRGINIA MILLER, 2019 | DOI:10.1163/9789004411722_002 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc BY-NC 4.0 license.

as a complex character, who is not heroic. The SN is critical of David and could therefore fit into a broad category of propaganda. However, in the light of Keys research,’ I argue that the SN is too ambiguous to fit neatly into the genre of propaganda. Furthermore, I argue that Whybray’s focus on wisdom literature is inconsistent with the ironic episodes of ‘wisdom’ in the text, as Ridout points out.!° I have also discounted the idea that the SN is merely theological ‘history’ writing. Certainly, the stories have historical and theological dimensions. However, the primary purpose of the SN is not to document history. Arguably, the SN has a theological function. The theological material is particularly evident in reference to God’s punishment of David. However, a question arises as to how this theological function is realised. My suggestion is that it is done so in large measure by means of the genre of satire. At any rate, the claim that the SN is merely theological writing is implausible.

Since I contend that the SN is a satire, I take as my starting point the trajectory of thought which holds that the narrative contained in the SN is literary art. However, I argue that it is a particular species of literary art, namely, literary art with historical content and a theological function. The argument that this text is literary art and not merely historical writing is convincing. For the SN is replete with literary flourishes and motifs common in story-telling. Moreover, the plot and character development have more in common with literary art than with the other genres.

Furthermore, the claim that the SN is a satire is convincing as there are elements in the SN which satisfy all of the identifying features of satire. Most importantly, the SN has an object of ironic attack along with evidence of the essential element of satire—pervasive and confrontational irony. The SN also includes the characteristic, albeit non-essential, features of satire including, grotesqueries, distortions, ridicule, parody, and rhetorical features.

My conception of satire as a genre is that it is to be understood primarily in terms of tone and purpose rather than form. Hence, satires can take different forms such as novels, cartoons, plays or for our purpose biblical narratives. Moreover, the genre of satire is evidenced in its pejoratively critical tone and

Jan Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. A full interpretation based on stylistic and structural analyses. Vol. 1. “King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kgs. 1-2)” (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp., 1981). Vol. 11. “The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-31 & II Sam. 1)” (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp., 1986). Vol. 111. “Throne and City (II Sam. 2-8 & 21-24)” (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp., 1990). Vol. Iv. “Vow and Desire (I Sam. 1-12)” (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp., 1993).

9 Gillian Keys, Wages of Sin (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 22.

10 George P. Ridout, “Prose Compositional Technique in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2)” (PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1971), 127.

in its function—to criticize the object of ironic attack. Thus, the genre of satire is more dependent on content or meaning than on form.

Accordingly, the forms in which the ironist expresses him or herself change over time and in different social contexts as, of course, do the specific satirical meanings expressed which relate to historical figures, ideas or conditions. Moreover, satire can be dependent on socio-historical contexts in other ways. For instance, the satiric content of satires written in Ancient Greece, such as Aristophanes’ The Clouds, tended to be more ambiguous than the satiric content of modern US TV satire, such as The Tonight Show. Again, the acceptable level of crudity in satire can vary across cultures; Charlie Hebdo was generally acceptable to the French but might not be to Australians. Therefore, on my conception of the genre of satire, satire is dependent in a number of important respects on socio-historical context. Although the meaning or content of satire is obviously to a greater or lesser extent conditioned by socio-historical context it does not follow from this that all or even most satire is fully determined by prevailing ideology or cultural conditions. Indeed, the view that satire is thus determined is self-defeating since it would undermine a primary purpose of the genre of satire, namely, to subject the status quo, dominant ideologies and so on to critique. Accordingly, if satire is to achieve its purpose the satirist must have a capacity for independent reflection and a strong individualistic streak.

My approach is consistent with scholars who are committed to genre taxonomies but also with those who hold that genres undergo change over time and can accommodate a strong individualistic element.” I note that the development of genre taxonomies is a long and established area of scholarship which cannot be lightly dismissed. I also note that even scholars who emphasise the changing character of genre do not wish to do away with the notion of genre entirely but are merely calling for a more flexible approach to genre. My approach is a common-sense and well-evidenced one that classifies genres and satire in particular by recourse to clearly stated identifiable features notably, in the case of satire, verbal irony. That said my approach has a degree of flexibility built into it in that I acknowledge that satire can take different forms and that satirists can have a strong individualist, even idiosyncratic, streak that is expressed in their satires.

My approach to genre is broadly consistent with that of Kynes. Kynes allows for the possibility of texts belonging to multiple genres.” Regarding the SN, I agree that it is possible that it fits into different genre groupings given that it

11 Please see Carol A. Newsom, “Spying out the Land: A Report from Genology”. In, Seeking out the Wisdom of the Ancients. Ed. R. Troxel, et al. (Winoa Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2005). 12 Will Kynes, An Obituary for “Wisdom Literature’. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).

has a historical focus, and a theological character, as well as being, as I argue at great length in this work, a satire. However, I contend that while genre groupings can be multiple, and can overlap in the manner of a family resemblance,¥ they must not be contradictory, so as to invalidate each other. For instance, the SN may be a satire and also history writing; however, it is not consistent for the SN to be a satire that mocks David, and simultaneously a national epic that praises David. Moreover, it is my claim that if there are multiple genre classifications it is also reasonable to argue for a dominant genre, as I do in this research.

Importantly, my argument relies on the presence of an author who intentionally imparts some meaning into the text. This is not to deny that the reader brings meaning to the text and that there is meaning in the text that the author is not aware of. However, it is to reject unbalanced interpretative models such as that of Belsey according to which the author has, at best, an attenuated role while the role of the reader is greatly exaggerated. Belsey’s and related models are predicated on the idea that the author is a discursive construct and, as such, does not have the capacity for originary meaning." By contrast, I am in favor of an interpretative model that considers the contributions to meaning of the reader, the author, the text considered in itself, and the socio-historical influences on the text, including the context of the writing and the context of the reading. I agree with Freadman and Miller who argue convincingly that the meaning of written sentences is partly dependent on the language they belong to, partly dependent on the context in which they are written and, crucially, that the meaning of these sentences in context is to a considerable extent determined by the intention of the author who wrote them. Moreover, being dependent on authorial intention, this meaning is not only produced by an individual but likely to be individualistic and, at least potentially, original and profound.!6

As mentioned above, my interpretative approach in this book is both historical and literary. I engage with the sitz im leben of the text and the literary form of the text. In the first instance, it is necessary to understand the social and historical context of a narrative in order to extract precise meaning from the text. For instance, it is necessary to have knowledge of customs of feasting in the Ancient Near East if we are to understand that David’s act of feasting after the death of his child (2 Sam. 11:20) is anomalous and somewhat cold-hearted.

13 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958).

14 Catherine Belsey, Critical Practice. (London: Methuen, 1980).

15 Richard Freadman & Seumas Miller, Re-thinking Theory. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 28-33.

16 Ibid. chapter 7.

With this knowledge of context, it can be argued that the intended purpose of the narrative is to criticize David’s behaviour. By contrast, if it is standard to feast in a mourning period, then the text would not appear to be critical of David on this occasion. If we consider the text on its own, taken out its historical context, we cannot know if the text is critical of David or not; surely a lesser means of interpretation than the one employed in this book. Moreover, if we do not situate the SN in its historical context, we have no way of understanding the many foreign themes in this narrative. For instance, the themes of hospitality and blood guilt, not to mention peculiarities such as Absalom’s hair-cutting ritual (2 Sam. 14:26) and mourning rituals involving pouring ashes on oneself and tearing robes.

However, I also understand this narrative as a work of literature. Therefore, my interpretation marries historical critical and literary critical interpretative methods. Understanding the SN as a work of literary art allows for an interpretation of literary devices such as irony and parody. Accepting these literary devices allows for a more sophisticated interpretation of the narrative. This kind of approach is also important for understanding the historical context of the narrative. For instance, if someone in a narrative is being parodied then this person must have features (or is being claimed to have features) that are regarded by the people of the culture in question as ridiculous, unworthy or otherwise highly undesirable.

As my approach uses literary criticism it is important to discuss genre, and satire in particular. In doing so it is necessary to understand that naming a biblical text as a satire is not anachronistic. It is my argument that although the descriptive term “satire” did not exist at the time the SN was written, texts possessing the features definitive of the genre did exist and, indeed, the SN is one of those texts. Therefore, it is not anachronistic to claim that the SN is a satire. The key features of satire are a pervasive use of verbal irony, the use of grotesqueries etc. and a target of ironic attack. These features depend on language, surely the most central form of human communication. Moreover, the use of irony is common to most, if not all, human languages. Indeed, evidently the use of irony seems natural to human beings; certainly, the use of irony to criticise persons, ideas etc. is commonplace throughout history and in most, if not all, cultures. And there is a good reason for this; irony involves contrasting appearance and reality, and very often criticising someone or something. Thus, on speaking of irony, Sedgewick remarks that irony is a natural expression of the reflective mind contrasting reality with appearance.!” I conclude that my discussion of irony and satire in relation to the SN is not anachronistic.

17 G. G. Sedgewick, Of Irony, Especially in Drama, (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1948), 5.

While the overarching thesis of this work is that the SN is a satire, the main preoccupation is with irony and, in particular, verbal irony. The reason for this is that irony, and verbal irony in particular, is now generally accepted—on the basis of Douglas Muecke’s ground-breaking work, The Compass of Irony!8—as the essential feature of satire.

Accordingly, I have applied an importantly modified version of Douglas Muecke’s definitions of verbal irony, as they appear in his book, The Compass of Irony (1969) to the SN. I have also to a much lesser extent used some of his ideas in his later, but less considered and much less comprehensive work, Irony and the Ironic (2018).!° In choosing this approach I benefit from the comprehensive nature of Muecke’s taxonomy in The Compass of Irony and some of the updates in Irony and the Ironic. Furthermore, I have corrected some of Muecke’s definitional errors (e.g. with respect to his conflation of the target of ironic attack and the unknowing victim of irony—see Chapter 2 on methodology for discussion) and hence my methodology is a combination of Muecke’s comprehensive work, his most recent work and my corrections to his earlier work—corrections that were not made in Muecke’s recent work. I chose to use Muecke’s influential taxonomy of irony because it is flexible enough to allow for the variety and vagueness of irony, while sufficiently structured to ensure the notion of irony is kept within reasonable parameters. Moreover, he has created a comprehensive list of categories of the grades and modes of satirical irony, and sub-categories of the modes of satirical irony. I apply this modified taxonomy of verbal irony to the SN and find verbal irony to be a pervasive feature of the SN, thereby, demonstrating (given the co-existence of some other features that are in fact present in SN) that the SN is in fact a satire.

Most of the major scholars who have written on the SN have identified multiple ironic elements in the story.2° However, these commentaries have

18 D.C. Muecke, The Compass of Irony (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1969).

19 D.C. Muecke, Irony and the Ironic (London: Routledge, 2018).

20 Scholars of note include: Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1981). Original date 1965; Whybray, The Succession Narrative. A Study of II Sam. 9-20 and I Kings 1 and 2; George P. Ridout, “Prose Compositional Technique in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9-20; 1 Kgs 1-2)” (PhD diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1971); Gunn, The Story of King David. Genre and Interpretation; Walter Brueggemann, David's Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985); Perry and Sternberg, “The King Through Ironic Eyes: Biblical Narrative and the Literary Process,” Poetics Today. Vol. 7, 2 (1986), 275-322; Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1989; David M. Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell. Narrative Art in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993; McKenzie, King David. A Biography; and Carolyn Sharp, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 2009); Virginia Ingram, “David Remains in Jerusalem and Absalom Flees differed with respect to the kind of irony that they have identified, and in the significance that they attach to these elements of irony. Most scholars appear to have a merely intuitive response to irony that is evident in statements such as, “it is ironic that ...” or “it would appear that Absalom is being ironic ...”. They do not have or do not utilize a theoretical account of irony; Menachem Perry and Meir Sternberg,” and George Ridout?? are notable exceptions. More importantly, scholars have not systematically investigated or even discussed verbal irony. My investigation of irony in the SN furthers the conversation by defining irony, especially verbal irony, more explicitly and in more detail, and by presenting a thoroughgoing application of the resulting definitions to the SN in support of the proposition that the SN is a satire.

I have done this with the understanding that identifying irony can never be an exact science, as it is the nature of irony to be ambiguous, take different forms and constantly evolve.?3 Some purist scholars even suggest that to define irony is a sacrilege as it takes away the freedom of this creative form of expression.?+ However, I agree with Muecke, who writes that it is impossible to define irony precisely and conclusively, yet, in order to facilitate an academic conversation it is helpful to work with definitions, even if they are somewhat imprecise.25

Furthermore, I apply David Marcus’ influential taxonomy of the key elements of satire (as opposed to a taxonomy of irony)?® to the SN in Chapter 9. Marcus’ definitions have been chosen over the work of the other scholars mentioned on two grounds. Firstly, Marcus’ methodology gives a clear and comprehensive account of the main features of satire from a standard perspective, as opposed to scholars such as Highet whose work is more niched.”” Secondly, Marcus’ work discusses the features of satire as they apply specifically to to Geshur: An Ironic Interpretation,” in, ed. J. Harold Ellens, Bethsaida in Archaeology. History and Ancient Culture (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012), 469-485, and “The Kindness of Irony: A Psychological Look at Irony in 2 Samuel n,” in Intellect Encounters Faith; A Synthesis. A Festschrift in Honour of J. Harold Ellens PhD, ed. John T. Greene (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 269-285.

21 Perry and Sternberg, “The King Through Ironic Eyes: Biblical Narrative and the Literary Process.”

22 Ridout, “Prose Compositional Technique in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9—20;1 Kgs 1-2).”

24 Cleanth Brooks, The Well-Wrought Urn (London: 1949), 191.

26 Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah. Anti-Prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible. (Georgia: Scholar’s Press, 1995).

27 Gilbert Highet, The Anatomy of Satire (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962).

biblical scholarship. The biblical examples he uses to explain his definitions are, therefore, more helpful to this research, than examples which concentrate on broader literature.

My overall conclusion is that the SN has all of the identifying features of satire. Importantly, the SN has an object of ironic attack—often King David. Moreover, the SN has the essential feature of satire, namely, a pervasive sense of confrontational irony. The SN also includes the characteristic, albeit non-essential, features of satire including, grotesqueries, distortions, ridicule, parody, and rhetorical features. These findings in themselves are sufficient to demonstrate that the SN is a satire. However, the argument that the SN isa satire is further strengthened when I consider the flaws in the competing extant proposals on the question of the genre of the SN.

It is part of the point of verbal irony, and satire, to bring about the correction of vices. This being so, I conclude that the SN has a moral purpose albeit a moral purpose that exists, within a theological framework. Given that the primary purpose of satire is reform, it can be argued that the author of the SN sought reform in the monarchy of Israel and did so in the context of an overall theological worldview.

As mentioned above, I apply Muecke’s generic definition of irony, and the specific grades, modes, and sub-categories of verbal irony, as adapted by me, to a sequential reading of the final form of the SN: 2 Sam 9-20; 1 Kings 1-2. I have chosen to apply this methodology to the SN given the general acceptance of Rost’s thesis—that the narrative is a self-contained unit. Take for example, Walter Dietrich’s following comment, “To this day Rost’s careful and impressive reasoning has granted his thesis almost canonical standing at least within German Old Testament scholarship”.?® Yet, unlike Rost I consider 2 Sam 10:6- 11:1; 12:26-31 to be consistent with the rest of the narrative suggesting that it was written by the same author or, at the very least, that it is a separate source that was significantly revised by the same author. By contrast, Rost considers these verses to be war annals that were taken from a different source.

It is my argument that there is a pervasive sense of irony throughout 2 Sam 9—20: 1 Kings 1-2 which is a unifying feature of the narrative. This feature is also present in the disputed verses 2 Sam 11:1; 12:26-31. As far as 10:6-19 is concerned, the narrative is not necessarily ironic in and of itself; however, it is still dependent on the irony in 2 Sam 10:1-2. Therefore, it is my claim that this narrative was written by the same author or significantly revised by this author. For instance, David’s overstated commitment to hesed, in the verses preceding

28 Walter Dietrich, The Early Monarchy in Israel. The Tenth Century B.C.E. Trans. Joachim Vette (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 232.

10:6—11, are ironic because of the ensuing war in verses 10:6—1. Verse 11:1 is an example of verbal irony with an object of ironic and pejorative attack. For instance, the narrative states that springtime was the time of the year when all kings go out to war but that King David did not go out to war. Instead, we discover that David is on the roof of his house lusting after an attractive woman who is bathing. In verses 12:26-31 the verbal irony continues as Joab, David’s general, tells David to enter the war or Joab will name the city that he has won, in his own name. This is critical and as I go on to explain also ironic. In 12:31 David puts a crown that weighs the same weight as a grown man on his head— this is an overstatement and/or fictitious account and not an historical reporting of the events of the war.

However, it must be noted that I am not entirely convinced that the irony that is present in the SN does not continue. For example, in 1 Kings 3:6 it could be argued that Solomon’s statement that God had shown kindness to David because of his faithfulness, and righteousness is ironic; especially given we know that David has been anything but faithful and righteous. I recommend for future research a comprehensive study of potential irony in the verses preceding and succeeding the SN.

For the purpose of this study, which relies on a sizeable single authored narrative, I accept the boundaries of the SN whilst acknowledging that the boundaries of the narrative are a matter of dispute, and that there is a question of whether or not the narrative is much longer than Rost suggests. The boundaries of the SN are not central to my main thesis which is concerned with the presence of irony and satire in the narrative rather than with the exact boundaries of the narrative. My own findings are relevant not only to scholars who accept Rost’s thesis, but also to those who dispute the boundaries of the SN and even to those who dispute the existence of the SN.2° My findings remain relevant for the reason that the pervasive irony and other elements constitutive of satire that I have identified in the Second Book of Samuel and the First Book of Kings remain regardless of the stance one takes on the boundaries of the narrative. It stands that the narrative that is known as the SN is a satire whether or not the satire continues or whether it is limited to the SN.

Furthermore, this study is useful to scholars who are interested in redaction matters concerning the SN. It is useful in as much as it would seem persuasive that if a disputed verse is ironic then it is more likely to be part of the

29 Fora full discussion of authors who dispute the existence of the SN read, Die Sogenannte Thronfolgegeschichte Davids. Eds. Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer. (Freiburg: Univ.-Verl.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2000).

self-contained narrative. However, this undertaking is beyond the scope of this book which is instead a detailed analysis of irony and satire.

A further point of contention concerns the laws and customs in the SN. Saliently, it cannot be stated with certainty which laws were in place at the time that the SN was written. This is partly because the laws cannot be dated with certainty and partly because the SN cannot be dated with certainty. The arguments that are concerned with dating the SN fall into two general theses (1) that the narrative is pre-exilic?° and (2) that the narrative is post exilic.31 Regarding (1), it is generally argued that moral principles were largely understood in terms of, and applied in accordance with, customs. Regarding (2), it is generally argued that moral principles were largely understood in terms of, and applied in accordance with, formal laws. I assume that there was a formal set of laws in place at the time of writing. This is consistent with David's advice to Solomon in 1 Kings 2:3. There it is written, “And keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn ...” Whether or not this statement indicates that the SN is pre-Deuteronomistic and therefore (late) pre-exilic, or post-Deuteronomistic and post-exilic, it stands to reason that it was important for the king to follow a formal set of laws. Given this was an important requirement of a king in the Ancient Near East, I explore the SN from the perspective of the laws. In doing so, my work is aligned more with scholars who argue for a later date for the material in the SN. However, the findings of my work are still relevant to scholars who argue for an earlier date for the material in the SN, as formal laws are created from social customs. In order to accommodate this ambiguity, I assume that the commonplace and fundamental social taboos such as murder, rape, theft, and adultery were accepted in the time of the SN. In cases where it cannot be known whether specific laws were in place or not, I treat both perspectives.