Cynthia Edenburg Wilderness, Liminality and David’s Rite of Passage The portion of the Book of Samuel known as “the History of David’s Rise” re- volves around the issue of legitimizing the Davidic dynasty, particularly since David was not Saul’s natural successor, and would be considered a “son of nobody” in Neo-Assyrian terms. 1 While the Tel Dan inscription provides exter- nal evidence that David was considered the founder of the ruling dynasty of the kingdom of Judah (“the House of David,” ב י ת ד ו ד), the historical setting for Saul continues to elude us. 2 What does seem clear to a growing number of scholars is that the story of Saul and the story of David were originally separate tradi- tions that were later combined. 3 According to the basic tenet of royal ideology throughout the Ancient Near East, a legitimate king is the son of a preceding king, therefore, royal inscrip- tions usually carefully detail the king’s lineage and thereby establish his legiti- macy. Although Ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions were composed with an eye to demonstrating that the king enjoys the favor of the gods, they do not always explicitly claim that a specific king was called, named or otherwise des- ignated for kingship by his god. In the first millenium BCE such claims are particularly forwarded by those whose kingship was not self-evident, whether they established a new dynasty (e.g. Zakkur and Nabonidus), or were appointed by their fathers as heir apparent to the detriment of older brothers (e.g., Esar- haddon and Ashurbanipal), or whether their rule was troubled by other rivals (e.g., Panammu). 4 Since both Saul and David are cast as founders of new dynas- 1 E.g., “Ashur-Dugul, son of a nobody (who) never sat on the throne,” in the Assyrian King List, Grayson 1972: 31 and “Hazael, son of a nobody, took the throne” in Shalmaneser III’s Assur Basalt statue inscription, Yamada 2000: 188–89. 2 See, e.g., Na’aman 2006: 168–70. Although Andre Lemaire’s proposal to read “House of Da- vid” ( ב ת ד ו ד) in line 31 of the Mesha inscription has had many adherents, the reading has recently been contested, and see Finkelstein, et al. 2019; Langlois 2019. 3 See, e.g., Weiser 1966: 333–34; Kratz 2005: 177; Römer 2005: 96; Dietrich 2007: 274; Fin- kelstein 2006: 173–78; Van Seters 2009: 3, 82–83, 122–23; Brettler 2010: 48. 4 See Ishida 1977: 6–14; Knapp 2015: 47–48. Ishida points out instances of Assyrian kings who relate their authority to both lineage and to divine election. However, it is telling that whereas Panammu relates that he received the scepter of authority from the gods (KAI 214.2–3), Barrak- ab his son admits to being seated on his throne by virtue of the combined support of his god and of his suzerain Tiglath-Pilesar (KAI 216.4–7). By contrast, Kilamua, who belongs to the fourth generation of the previous royal dynasty of Yaudi, makes no allusion to divine designa- tion. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110606164-015