The article I will be evaluating is “Evaluating King David: Old Problems and Recent Scholarship” by David A. Bosworth. At the time David Bosworth wrote the article he was a Professor at Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida. The article appeared in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly in 2006. The article addresses the controversies of King David. The Books of Samuel have caused the reputation of King David to come under question. The consequences to King David’s reputation have been caused by the way these books are interpreted. Pierre Bayle, an enlightenment philosopher, in an article in the Dictionnaire historique et critique, focuses on David’s moral failures and challenges instead of the traditional interpretation as David being a hero.
…show more content…
There are two ways in which Biblical scholars characterize David. The first is the traditional version of David being a good shepherd who become the king of Israel. The second is the critical version with David scheming and murdering to become king of Israel. The characterization of David can be seen in two ways when reading the biblical text, naïve or suspicious. Bosworth points out that both readings of the biblical text are not contradictory. The first version follows the apologetic tone where David is described with good qualities and does not focus on his faults. Both David M. Howard, Jr. and D. F. Payne minimize David’s faults and focus on his good qualities, such as how he repents when he sins. David’s flaws of being deceitful, his actions with Bathsheba and indulgence with his sons cannot be condoned, but he was a good ruler. The naïve reading of David minimizes his flaws and overstates his virtues. Modern interpreters have challenged David being a hero and more of a “Stalin-like tyrant” (Bosworth 2006, 192). The article argues that both portraits of David form a selective reading of the biblical …show more content…
Steussy, whose critical attention is to the aesthetic, literary concerns of the text rather than historical matters behind the text. She identifies in detail how the text compares David and Saul. Her portrait of David is not one-sided as those of Halpern’s and McKenzie. Through these scholars, Bosworth is successful in providing proof of the different characterizations of David. The next claim that Bosworth discusses is the problem of assuming that David murdered his way to the throne. He provides three reasons and is able to provide evidence to back up his claims. Bosworth sums it up by stating “Great leaders have a mix of good and bad qualities. They are motivated by ambition and vision. In order to fulfill their ambitions, they commit crimes, and to realize their vision, they usurp old institutions to build new ones” (2006, 203). The last point he discusses is David compared to other royal figures. His proof is from Walter Dietrich, who examines the parallels to evaluate David’s image. He presents the biblical text of David as consulting with God on decisions to be made and his closeness to Yhwh compared to Saul. He also presents the text where Yhwh condemns David’s affair with Bathsheba. He presents a text that shows his good and bad qualities. These human touches and types of behavior are a standard part of the ancient Near Eastern presentations of royalty. Bosworth, through Dietrich’s comparative study, is able to
There are two ways in which Biblical scholars characterize David. The first is the traditional version of David being a good shepherd who become the king of Israel. The second is the critical version with David scheming and murdering to become king of Israel. The characterization of David can be seen in two ways when reading the biblical text, naïve or suspicious. Bosworth points out that both readings of the biblical text are not contradictory. The first version follows the apologetic tone where David is described with good qualities and does not focus on his faults. Both David M. Howard, Jr. and D. F. Payne minimize David’s faults and focus on his good qualities, such as how he repents when he sins. David’s flaws of being deceitful, his actions with Bathsheba and indulgence with his sons cannot be condoned, but he was a good ruler. The naïve reading of David minimizes his flaws and overstates his virtues. Modern interpreters have challenged David being a hero and more of a “Stalin-like tyrant” (Bosworth 2006, 192). The article argues that both portraits of David form a selective reading of the biblical …show more content…
Steussy, whose critical attention is to the aesthetic, literary concerns of the text rather than historical matters behind the text. She identifies in detail how the text compares David and Saul. Her portrait of David is not one-sided as those of Halpern’s and McKenzie. Through these scholars, Bosworth is successful in providing proof of the different characterizations of David. The next claim that Bosworth discusses is the problem of assuming that David murdered his way to the throne. He provides three reasons and is able to provide evidence to back up his claims. Bosworth sums it up by stating “Great leaders have a mix of good and bad qualities. They are motivated by ambition and vision. In order to fulfill their ambitions, they commit crimes, and to realize their vision, they usurp old institutions to build new ones” (2006, 203). The last point he discusses is David compared to other royal figures. His proof is from Walter Dietrich, who examines the parallels to evaluate David’s image. He presents the biblical text of David as consulting with God on decisions to be made and his closeness to Yhwh compared to Saul. He also presents the text where Yhwh condemns David’s affair with Bathsheba. He presents a text that shows his good and bad qualities. These human touches and types of behavior are a standard part of the ancient Near Eastern presentations of royalty. Bosworth, through Dietrich’s comparative study, is able to