David versus Josiah

I am always trying to point out the difference between reading the Bible inductively and reading it as Christian Scripture, both of which I consider important for Christians.  We naturally read the Bible as Scripture and this way of reading is completely appropriate, but it is a form of "reader-response," an "ideological" reading from a Christian point of view.  Inductive reading, reading the biblical texts for what they actually say and what they likely meant originally in context, is very difficult for us to do.  It takes massive paradigm shifts for most of us even to know what I'm talking about.

Another example occurred to me this morning.  From an inductive standpoint, it seems to me that Josiah is more important for the deuteronomistic history (Joshua-Kings, with Deuteronomy as lead off) than even David is.  Does not the lead off in 1 Kings 13:2 point to Josiah at least as the climax of 1 and 2 Kings?  2 Kings 23:25 point to him as the greatest king of all Israel's history.  In fact, from an inductive standpoint, an argument can at least be made that a Jewish reader of, say, 500BC, would see Josiah as the most likely candidate for who Deuteronomy 18:15-19 pointed toward.

Yet when we read the Bible as Scripture, David clearly outshines Josiah in the story.  Josiah plays no role in the New Testament, but David is a type of Christ, a key feature in Jesus' identity as king.  Acts 7:37 and other passages clearly read Deuteronomy 18 in relation to Christ.  So when we read the Historical Books as Christian Scripture, David is by far the most important person in the story.  Inductively, David is important--after all, he dominates the space of the narrative.  You just might argue that he is not as important as Josiah in terms of the original meaning of Samuel-Kings.