Ahab and David

I have argued elsewhere that the Omride dynasty is a counterfeit Davidic dynasty, and that in this structure Ahab is a counterfeit Solomon. John Van Seters suggests in a 2000 Presidential address to La societe canadienne des etudes bibliques that Ahab is also a Davidic character, at least in the episode with Naboth’s vineyard:

In 1 Kings 21 we have, within Dtr?s story of Ahab, an episode that focuses upon a similar use of the king?s abuse of royal power that leads to murder, in this case the murder of Naboth (Noth, 1981:71; McKenzie,1991: 67?E9). Indeed, the similarity of this episode in DtrH with the Bathsheba affair is striking. In the Ahab story we have a king who desires to obtain some property in the vicinity of the palace, at first through legitimate, nonviolent means, and then when he is frustrated through the surreptitious means of judicial murder. As soon as he lays claim to the property, God intervenes with his prophet who confronts him with his crime. He announces a judgment which includes a historical r?sum?Eof previous evil kings and in which the punishment will fall on Ahab?s entire household and its execution will be made to fit the crime. When Ahab shows deep remorse, there is a mitigation of the sentence in his own lifetime.

Virtually every element of this story has its equivalent in the David?Bathsheba affair. David too desires property in the vicinity of his palace, in this case another man?s wife. (In Nathan?s parable she is considered another man?s property.) When he does secretly take her and make her pregnant, he tries by non-violent means to cover up his act. This fails and so he undertakes surreptitiously to murder the husband. After David takes possession of Uriah?s wife, God intervenes by sending his prophet to confront him with his crime and, following a historical r?sum?Eof David?s rise to power, passes sentence in which the punishment is made to fit the crime, a punishment that will include the whole household. When David admits his sin, God mitigates the punishment so that David himself does not die, but the rest of the sentence remains.

Furthermore, the similarity of the two stories goes beyond the matter of structure and plot and includes specific language. What David does is “evil in the eyes of Yahweh” (11:26), a judgment that is repeated by Nathan as well: “Why have you despised the word of Yahweh to do what is evil in his sight?” This statement of judgment is very similar to that uttered by Elijah: “Because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of Yahweh.” Such statements are reserved by Dtr for the worst kings and the basis for the demise of their dynasties and the downfall of the two kingdoms. Ahab is considered by the DtrH as the very worst of all, but how is he any different from David? They both receive the same kind of judgment. In David?s case this refers both to events during his reign, but also to later acts of violence during the entire period of his dynasty (viz, to the end of the Judean monarchy): “The sword shall not depart from your house (dynasty) for ever.”
That judgment is no less severe than that passed upon Ahab.