Neophilologus

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 499–509 | Cite as

Divine Silence in Stefan Heym’s The King David Report

Article

Abstract

This essay deals with Stefan Heym’s King David Report as a work of artistically-based biblical scholarship rather than a work of political allegory related to the writer’s experience in the East Block during the Cold War. I consider Baruch Halpern’s notion of complementary causation (the attribution of causes behind given biblical events to divine and human agency at the same time) in connection to King David’s seduction of Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of Bathsheba’s husband in 2 Samuel. I try to demonstrate Heym’s refusal to attribute complementary causation to the biblical events in order to expose David and Solomon as Machiavellian autocrats rather than instruments of God. Given that (according to Baruch Halpern) the biblical story of David is an apologia of Solomon’s illegitimate rule, Stefan Heym’s novel undermines the traditional view of Solomon as a Christ type and a great Israelite monarch. Heym’s position is contrasted with the deeply ingrained tradition in Judeo-Christian culture of seeing David’s life in terms of complementary causation. The conclusion seeks to illustrate Heym’s general philosophic stance that makes spirituality and power incompatible.

Keywords

Old Testament 1 and 2 Samuel David and Solomon Complementary Causation Baruch Halpern Divine Intervention Bathsheba Stefan Heym's King David Report 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Attar, K. E. (2001). Stefan Heym’s King David Report: A microcosmic precursor. Neophilologus, 85(2), 273–286.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1979). Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo. Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossia.Google Scholar
  3. Bible. New revised standard version.Google Scholar
  4. Faulkner, W. (1964). Absalom, Absalom!. New York: Random House, Modern Library.Google Scholar
  5. Friedman, R. E. (1987). Who wrote the Bible? New York: Summit Books.Google Scholar
  6. Halpern, B. (2001). David’s secret demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  7. Heller, J. (1984). God knows. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
  8. Heym, S. (1997). The King David Report. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hutchinson, P. (1986). Problems of socialist historiography: The example of Stefan Heym’s The King David Report. The Modern Language Review, 81(1), 131–138.Google Scholar
  10. Morson, G. S., & Caryl, E. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Roberts, D. (1977). Stefan Heym: Der Konig David Bericht. Journal of the Australasian Universities Language and Literature Association: A Journal of Literary Criticism, Philology & Linguistics, 48, 201–211.Google Scholar
  12. Steussy, M. J. (1990). David: Biblical Portraits of power. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  13. Taberner, S. (2000). The writer’s fascination with power: Stefan Heym’s Der König-David-Bericht. Neophilologus, 84(2), 271–283.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Modern Languages and LiteraturesUC115, University of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations