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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Attar, K. E. (2001). Stefan Heym’s King David Report: A microcosmic precursor. Neophilologus, 85(2), 273–286.
Bakhtin, M. (1979). Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo. Moscow: Sovetskaia Rossia.
Bible. New revised standard version.
Faulkner, W. (1964). Absalom, Absalom!. New York: Random House, Modern Library.
Friedman, R. E. (1987). Who wrote the Bible? New York: Summit Books.
Halpern, B. (2001). David’s secret demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Heller, J. (1984). God knows. New York: Dell.
Heym, S. (1997). The King David Report. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
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.
Morson, G. S., & Caryl, E. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
Steussy, M. J. (1990). David: Biblical Portraits of power. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Taberner, S. (2000). The writer’s fascination with power: Stefan Heym’s Der König-David-Bericht. Neophilologus, 84(2), 271–283.
About this article
Cite this article
Tumanov, V. Divine Silence in Stefan Heym’s The King David Report . Neophilologus 93, 499–509 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-008-9109-9
- Old Testament
- 1 and 2 Samuel
- David and Solomon
- Complementary Causation
- Baruch Halpern
- Divine Intervention
- Stefan Heym's King David Report