Another Steve Donoghue Q & A.  As I mentioned before, I try to never miss these, because Steve Donoghue has read everything, remembers everything he has read, and has strong opinions on everything.  So it can be a lot of fun to hear his reaction to a subject if you can find the right question.

I put my question in earlier this week (link here): 

Several Q&As ago, you were asked your opinion about the historical Jesus.  I'd like to belatedly follow that up by asking your opinion about the historical King David.  Also, what did you think of Robin Lane Fox's argument in "The Unauthorized Version" that the so-called Court History of King David is an eye-witness account?

I figured I would be able to get away with asking Steve about a specific argument in that book because he had reviewed this book before (see HERE) and in his review he implied he re-read the book every year:

The main attraction of his book (which is so full of attractions it can literally be re-read every single year with new wonder, new discoveries … the acumen and sheer research necessary to have written it seem more impressive to me with every passing year)

Anyway, for Steve's answer to my question, watch from 4:26 

For my own thoughts on Robin Lane Fox's argument, see this section from my review of The Unauthorized Version.

On King David

            Interestingly, Fox thinks that this part of the Bible is based on a primary historical source.

            Granted he gives some of it more weight than other parts: In the opening scenes the choosing of Saul, then David, is based in part on popular tales, no more true than any other legend of a ‘once and future King’ (p. 187-188) Fox writes.  However once the narrative moves to the actual reign of King David, Fox writes: This section of the royal narrative is unlike any other. It contains no miracles but is full of intrigues and devious trick: women are prominent in the action. It reports the private dialogues of persons of high rank; it tells an interconnected story, from the wars against Ammon to the affair of David and Bathsheba, the deaths of two of David’s sons and the maneuvers to succeed to his throne…During these twenty years or so of David’s reign, the main focus is on events at court among David’s friends and enemies.  As a result, D’s source for these chapters has been ascribed as a court history, the work of a near-contemporary with access to court secrets….The scope, nature and date of this source are naturally strongly contested (we have to infer them) but there is no mistaking its difference of tone: its picture of King David is not unduly flattering (he commits adultery with Bathsheba and kills off her husband Uriah). On the strength of it, this source has been classed as an ‘anti-history’ and dated late during the Exile in reaction to others’ idealizing of David, the head of the royal messianic line.  Yet there is no trace anywhere else of such ‘anti-history’; the later our sources, the more they idealize David the king. Rather, the work’s detail, tone and focus point to a text which was written much earlier: how else did the author know so much court detail and geography, tell it relatively straight? (p. 188).

            Somewhat disappointingly, Fox does not bring in any outside historical evidence on the question of King David.  (I believe there’s currently an ongoing debate in Israel right now over whether the archeological record supports the boundaries of King David’s kingdom as the Bible describes them.  If the archeological evidence contradicts the Bible, then this would have an impact on the reliability of the court history).

            Fox’s only argument seems to be, “It sounds like it’s true, so it must be.”  The reader must decide for themselves how convincing Fox’s argument is.  (It’s an interesting hypothesis, but it’s not beyond my imagination that the court history could have been fabricated in a later age.  Greek myths also presented complex stories and had anti-heroes in them.)

            Nevertheless, both Fox and Christine Hayes in the Yale Lectures make an interesting point that I had never realized before in all my years of Sunday School—the material both directly before and directly after David’s reign focus almost exclusively on cycles of God rewarding Israel for her faith, or punishing her for her faithlessness.  The long story of David’s reign and succession crisis break from these themes with a completely different story, which does indicate the court history probably came from a different source.

*****END QUOTE******

For my previous forays into Steve Donoghue's Q & As, see HERE and HERE.  (There were several others I've neglected to link to.)