The Chronicler, as an early interpreter of Samuel and Kings, alerts us to the diverse understandings of (or emphases in) cult centralization that are represented in these texts and in the Pentateuch. Recent studies demonstrate the Chronicler’s apparent desire to bring his source narratives into compliance with both Deuteronomic and Levitical understandings of Law. In light of this observation, reading backward from the Chronicler’s opinion on centralization may help us evaluate the model of centralization represented in the final form of Samuel and Kings. Such a reading will demonstrate that Samuel is in fact a “Deuteronomistic” book, exhibiting the precise view of cult centralization that one would expect from a book that advances the Deuteronomistic narrative in the way that it does—that is, the “discovery” of “the place which yhwh will choose to set his name to dwell there.”
David A. Glatt-Gilad“Chronicles as Consensus Literature,” in What Was Authoritative for Chronicles?(ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana Edelman; Winona Lake in: Eisenbrauns 2011) pp. 73-74. However Jonker rightly cautions against an overly text-dependent conception of the Chronicler’s use of Pentateuchal traditions; see Louis C. Jonker “From Paraleipomenon to Early Reader: The Implications of Recent Chronicles Studies for Pentateuchal Criticism” in Congress Volume Munich 2013 (ed. Christl M. Maier; Leiden: Brill 2014) pp. 220-225.
McKenzie observes“Saul is an honored guest. The thigh is usually reserved for the deity or priests.” Steven L. McKenzie, “1 and 2 Samuel,” in The New Oxford Annotated BibleMichael D. Coogan ed. (New York: Oxford University Press 2007) p. 413.
Marsha C. White“Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 1 and 14,” in Saul in Story and Tradition(ed. Carl S. Ehrlich and Marsha C. White; fat 47; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 2006) pp. 119-138. See also V. Philips Long The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (sblds 118; Atlanta: Scholars Press 1989).
Ehud Ben Zvi“Are There Any Bridges Out There? How Wide Was the Conceptual Gap Between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles?” in Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives(ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth A Ristau; Winona Lake in: Eisenbrauns 2009) pp. 59-86; Gary N. Knoppers “The Relationship of the Deuteronomistic History to Chronicles: Was the Chronicler a Deuteronomist?” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010 (ed. Martti Nissinen; VTSup 148; Leiden: Brill 2012) pp. 307-341; Louis C. Jonker “Was the Chronicler More Deuteronomic Than the Deuteronomist? Explorations into the Chronicler’s Relationship with Deuteronomic Legal Traditions” sjot 27 (2013): pp. 191-203.
See Gary N. Knoppers“Israel’s First King and ‘The Kingdom of YHWH in the Hands of the Sons of David’: The Place of the Saulide Monarchy in the Chronicler’s Historiography,” in Saul in Story and Tradition(ed. Carl S. Ehrlich and Marsha C. White; fat 47; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 2006) pp. 189-191; and also Benjamin D. Giffone Sit At My Right Hand: The Chronicler’s Portrait of the Tribe of Benjamin in the Social Context of Yehud (lhbots 628; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark 2016) pp. 189-190.
See Yairah Amit“Araunah’s Threshing Floor: A Lesson in Shaping Historical Memory,” in What Was Authoritative for Chroniclespp. 133-144; Louis C. Jonker “Of Jebus Jerusalem and Benjamin: The Chronicler’s Sondergut in 1 Chronicles 21 Against the Background of the Late Persian Era in Yehud” in Chronicling the Chronicler: The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography (ed. Tyler F. Williams and Paul S. Evans; Winona Lake in: Eisenbrauns 2013) pp. 81-102.