3. See Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 118: “David’s earlier distribution of spoils between ‘the elders of Judah’ (1 S 30,26–31) was made with the conscious aim to prepare the way for his recognition by these.”
4. This was the standard practice in Egypt, e.g.: “The allegiance of these vassals was initially secured by the imposition upon them of a binding oath, renewed from time to time and always at the accession of a new pharaoh” (Margaret S. Drower, “Syria c. 1550–1400 B.C.,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 2.1 [ed. I. E. S. Edwards et al.; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1973], 469).
5. See Martin Noth, The History of Israel (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 183; John Bright, A History of Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 196; Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 302–6.
6. This was recognized as early as the nineteenth century; see Adolf Kampenhausen, “Philister und Hebräer zur Zeit Davids,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1886): 43–97.
7. This may well be due to David’s relationship with Ammon, the long-time aggressor toward Gilead. See Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 301.
8. There seems to be a five-year gap between Saul’s rule and Ishbaal’s, since David is said to rule in Hebron for seven years, but Ishbaal rules in the north for only two (2 Sam. 2:10–11). This has occasioned much scholarly speculation: perhaps David actually took control in Judah while Saul was still on the throne in Israel (McKenzie, King David, 115–16; Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 230), or, more likely, it took five years for Abner and Ishbaal to consolidate power and drive the Philistines out of the north, thereby returning it to Israelite control (J. Alberto Soggin, “The Reign of ’Ešba‘al, Son of Saul,” in Soggin, Old Testament and Oriental Studies [Biblica et Orientalia 29; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975], 31–49 [esp. 34–40]). It is also quite possible that in driving out the Philistines, Abner and Ishbaal were also responsible for the destruction and incorporation into Israel of the major independent city-states in the north, most notably Megiddo (Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 154–56). Such a situation might explain the oddity that Ishbaal and Abner are depicted as governing from Mahanaim, across the Jordan, rather than from anywhere in Israel itself. Mahanaim seems to have been the provisional capital of the north while the Philistines still occupied much of Israel’s former territory (McCarter, II Samuel, 87). It might also explain the power dynamic between Abner and Ishbaal. Abner, as the head of the army, would have been responsible for the defeat of the Philistines and thereby had the power to rule had he wanted it. But to return Israel to its former glory meant restoring the dynasty that had been interrupted by the Philistine presence. If the dynastic succession had truly been uninterrupted, then Abner would not have had to make Ishbaal king—everyone in Israel would have known that Ishbaal was the rightful monarch. But if the succession had been interrupted, and in the interim Abner had made himself the most important man in the north, then Israel may well have looked to him, wondering whether Saul’s line would be reestablished on the throne.
9. On Ishbaal’s name, see McCarter, II Samuel, 85–87.
10. See Jakob H. Grønbaek, Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1. Sam 15–2 Sam 5): Tradition und Komposition (Copenhagen: Prostant Apud Muksgaard, 1971), 229–30. This is not to say that single combat was unknown as a means of deciding battles. If it were completely invented, then this story, and even more so the Goliath story, would be unintelligible to the ancient audience. There is a relief from the Mesopotamian site of Tell Halaf from roughly David’s time that depicts a moment almost identical to this one: two warriors, each grabbing the head of the other, each stabbing the other simultaneously in the side (see Y. Yadin, “Let the Young Men, I Pray Thee, Arise and Play Before Us,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 21 [1938]: 110–16). Yet a realistic scenario does not mean a historical one (again, see the Goliath story).
11. See McKenzie, King David, 118.
12. See A. K. Grayson, “Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territory in Ancient Western Asia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. Jack M. Sasson; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 959–68 (esp. 964–65). Of particular interest is the observation that vassal treaties were often concluded as “ ‘gunboat diplomacy,’ where only after moving the army into position, or even launching some attacks, was an agreement acceptable to the Assyrians reached” (964). This is precisely what we see in the conflict between David and Israel.
13. The era of Saul, David, and Solomon coincides with just such a decline, in both Egypt and Mesopotamia. See Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992), 283–92; Steven W. Hollaway, “Assyria and Babylonia in the Tenth Century BCE,” in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11; ed. L. K. Handy; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 202–16.
14. Working on the assumption that it was not fictional, Zafrira Ben-Barak offers legal arguments for why Ishbaal would be obligated to return Michal to David in “The Legal Background to the Restoration of Michal to David,” in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament (ed. J. A. Emerton; Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 15–29.
15. The rabbis of the Mishnah saw exactly what was going on here: in discussing the fact that David walked behind the bier of Abner, they commented, “That was but to pacify the people” (m. Sanh. 2:3).
16. On David’s participation in Abner’s death, see James C. VanderKam, “Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 521–39.
17. On the import in the Bible of mutilating enemies, see Tracy M. Lemos, “Shame and Mutilation of Enemies in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 225–41.
18. See, emphatically, Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 310.
19. See Noth, History, 186: “It is in fact unlikely that David tried to accelerate the almost inevitable course of events by instigating a murder instead of calmly and shrewdly awaiting the end of Eshbaal’s reign as king.”
20. See Albrecht Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine,” in Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967), 223–309 (at 286).
21. See Noth, History, 187–88; Siegfried Herrmann, A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 153–54.
22. It seems likely that after the Philistines found themselves unable to deal with David militarily, they decided to deal with him diplomatically. Though the Bible does not relate any such agreements, it is telling that after these initial attacks, the Philistines do not appear again in the David story—nor, for that matter, in the account of Solomon’s career on the throne. Given the constant Philistine aggression toward Israel in the generations before David, this lengthy peace is almost certainly the result of a treaty.
23. Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1998), 9.
24. On famine in ancient Israel and the Bible, see William H. Shea, “Famine,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; ed. D. N. Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:769–73.
25. On the relationship of kings and fertility, see A. S. Kapelrud, “King David and the Sons of Saul,” in The Sacral Kingship (Studies in the History of Religions 4; Leiden: Brill, 1959), 294–301 (esp. 299–301); A. S. Kapelrud, “King and Fertility: A Discussion of II Sam 21:1–14,” in Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum (Osla: Land og Kirke, 1955), 113–22.
26. On Gibeon, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel (Society for Old Testament Studies Monographs 2; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972).
27. The rabbis of the Talmud asked the same question�
�“Where do we learn that Saul put to death the Gibeonites?”—and determine that, in fact, he never had (b. Yebam. 78b).
28. Some scholars do assume that there is a historical basis for Saul’s attempt to wipe out the Gibeonites. See McCarter, II Samuel, 441; Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 306–12.
29. Most scholars agree that the account in 2 Sam. 21 is chronologically displaced and belongs before 2 Sam. 9. See McCarter, II Samuel, 262–65. This is perhaps the only reasonable explanation for David’s question at the beginning of 2 Sam. 9: “Is there anyone still left of the House of Saul with whom I can keep faith for the sake of Jonathan?” (9:1).
30. On Meribbaal’s name, see the brilliant analysis of McCarter, II Samuel, 124–25.
31. See Jacob Klein, “Enki and Ninmah,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1 (ed. William W. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 516–18.
32. On Meribbaal’s disability, see the pioneering work of Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 441; New York: T&T Clark, 2006).
33. See, e.g., the regular introductory feature in letters from Canaanite vassals to their Egyptian overlords: “I fall at the feet of my lord seven times and seven times” (William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1992], passim).
34. The Septuagint preserves the contrary notion, that David will provide the food for Meribbaal, and some have taken this version as the more authentic. See McCarter, II Samuel, 262.
35. See, e.g., J. N. Postgate, Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decrees (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969).
36. For a biblical example of how deeply ingrained the custom of permanent possession of hereditary lands was, see the story of Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21.
37. See McKenzie, King David, 145.
38. On the cult of the deceased in ancient Israel, see the classic work of Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs About the Dead (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).
Chapter 5: David’s Kingdom
1. It is notable that the three most significant sites in southern Canaan in the two centuries before David are the three that are most prominent in the David story: Hebron, Jerusalem, and Gath. See Avi Ofer, “The Monarchic Period in the Judaean Highland: A Spatial Overview,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (ed. A. Mazar; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 331; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 14–37 (at 26–27).
2. On the archaeology of Jerusalem, particularly from David’s time, see Jane M. Cahill, “Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence,” in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period (Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 18; ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 13–80.
3. See P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (Anchor Bible 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 141; Albrecht Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine,” in Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (Garden City: Doubleday, 1967), 223–309 (at 282–83).
4. See John Bright, A History of Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 195.
5. See most prominently Nadav Na’aman, “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century BCE,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 304 (1996): 17–27.
6. On the Egyptian administration of Canaan in the second millennium BCE, see Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992), 192–213.
7. Steven L. McKenzie (King David: A Biography [Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000], 55) has suggested that Zeruiah was not David’s sister, and was in fact not even a woman, but was rather the father of Joab and his brothers and had no relation to David whatsoever. This is possible, but as McKenzie admits, speculative.
8. See M. Delcor, “Les Kéréthim et les Cretois,” Vetus Testamentum 28 (1978): 409–22.
9. Many scholars have argued that the report of the construction of David’s palace in 2 Sam. 5:11–12 is chronologically displaced and belongs in fact much later in David’s reign (see McCarter, II Samuel, 145–46). The same argument has been made, in fact, about David’s bringing the ark to Jerusalem. These arguments may well be correct but have little effect on the discussion here.
10. See Eilat Mazar, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Review 32 (2006): 16–27, 70.
11. On the wide diversity of cultic sites in Israel, see Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 123–266.
12. See the variants on this theme in Gen. 28:10–22; 35:1–15; Hosea 12:5.
13. See Susan Ackerman, “Who Is Sacrificing at Shiloh? The Priesthoods of Israel’s Regional Sanctuaries,” in Levites and Priests in Biblical History and Tradition (ed. M. Leuchter and J. M. Hutton; Society of Biblical Literature—Ancient Israel and Its Literature 9; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 25–43; Israel Finkelstein, “The History and Archaeology of Shiloh from the Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age II,” in Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (ed. I. Finkelstein; Tel Aviv: Monograph Series of Tel Aviv University, 1993), 371–89.
14. On the connection of Kiryath-jearim and the ark, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Kiriath-jearim and the Ark,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 143–56.
15. See Martin Noth, The History of Israel (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 191.
16. See H. B. Huffmon, “Shalem,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2d ed.; ed. K. Van der Toorn et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 755–57.
17. There are numerous ancient Near Eastern parallels, both thematic and specific, to David’s bringing the ark into his new capital. Most notable are Assyrian texts from the ninth to eighth centuries BCE that describe the founding of a new capital, upon which the king “invites” the deities—that is, brings their idols—into the city, accompanied by sacrifices, music, and feasting. See P. Kyle McCarter, “The Ritual Dedication of the City of David in 2 Samuel 6,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983).
18. Shiloh may have been out of the question, as it appears to have been destroyed by the Philistines in Saul’s time. See Jer. 7:12–14, and for the archaeological evidence in support of this, see I. Finkelstein, “Shiloh,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (4 vols.; ed. E. Stern; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 4:1366–70.
19. Some have suggested that in fact this is the account of how Kiryath-jearim, once a Gibeonite city, became Israelite: that David conquered it and took the ark as booty. See R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1964), 58–60.
20. Although the text says simply that David offered these sacrifices “after six steps,” this does not mean after only the first six. See McCarter, II Samuel, 171.
21. See P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel (Anchor Bible 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980): “Israelite kingship had an important sacerdotal aspect (cf. Ps 110:4; etc.) that seems to have been refuted only in postmonarchical times” (186). See also Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 113–14; Aelred Cody, A History of Old Testament Priesthood (Analecta biblica 35; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 98–107.
22. On the burnt and well-being offerings, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (Anchor Bible 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 172–76, 217–25.
23. On the invention of the guilt and purification offerings, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1–16, 176–77.
24. The existence of temple markets for sacrificial animals is attested famously in Matt. 21:12–13.
25. See E. Lipín
ski, ed., State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East (2 vols.; Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1979).
26. On the economy of the medieval pilgrimage sites, see Esther Cohen, “Roads and Pilgrimages: A Study in Economic Interaction,” Studi Medievali 21 (1980): 321–41.
27. On the Christian cult of the saints and relics, see Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Late Christianity (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1981); Candida Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Ancient Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2013).
28. See George E. Mendenhall, “The Census Lists of Numbers 1 and 26,” Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958): 52–66.
29. See Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 89: “The threshing of the cereal took place on open, level surfaces, often elevated to catch the breeze needed for winnowing.”
30. Benjamin Mazar, “Jerusalem: The Early Periods and the First Temple Period,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 2:698–701 (at 699).
The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero Page 31
