31. See the classic work of Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948); Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (2d ed.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967).
32. Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000–330 BC (2 vols.; London: Routledge, 1995), 1:66–70.
33. Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 1:277.
34. See Barry J. Kemp, “Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and Second Intermediate Period c. 2686–1552 BC,” in B. G. Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), 71–182 (at 71–76).
35. Even in Israel, however, there may have been a closer link between king and deity than one might expect: it has been argued that the king was seen as God’s son. See Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 254–93.
36. Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 2:580.
37. Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 2:659.
38. On the diverse scholarly opinions regarding the composition and dating of 2 Sam. 7, see McCarter, II Samuel, 210–31.
39. A famous example is the appointment by Sargon the Great in the twenty-third century BCE of his daughter, Enheduanna, as the chief priestess, which inaugurated a tradition of Mesopotamian kings placing their daughters in this role that lasted for the next six centuries (Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 1:50). On David’s sons as priests, see Cody, History of Old Testament Priesthood, 103–5.
40. For the majority of the reconstruction offered here, and for further details, see the exceptional work of Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 144–98.
41. See Øystein S. LaBianca and Randall W. Younker, “The Kingdoms of Ammon, Moab, and Edom: The Archaeology of Society in Late Bronze/Iron Age Transjordan (ca. 1400–500 BCE),” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (ed. Thomas E. Levy; London: Leicester Univ. Press, 1995), 399–415.
42. What is described, rather, is the treatment of the defeated captives, two-thirds of whom David had put to death. The punishment of individuals is the result of an isolated battle, not a territorial conquest. (Were this notice to be understood as recording the conquest of Moab as a whole, it would mean that David had two-thirds of the entire Moabite population killed, which seems excessive even by David’s standards.)
43. Two ready examples come from the Bible itself: the Israelite king Hoshea revolted against Assyrian domination upon the death of Tiglath-Pileser III and the coronation of his son Shalmaneser V, with the result that the northern kingdom was attacked and destroyed forever; and the Judahite king Hezekiah revolted against the Assyrians when the kingship of Sargon II passed on to his son Sennacherib, again with disastrous results.
44. See K. A. D. Smelik, “The Inscription of King Mesha,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 2 (ed. William H. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 137–38.
45. The clue to this reconstruction, as recognized by Halpern, lies in the framework of the narrative in 2 Sam. 8:3–13. The report begins with the notice that David defeated Hadadezer “when he was on his way to set up his monument at the river” (8:3), a notice that, read in isolation, could refer to the Euphrates, to the north of Aram. Yet the report ends with the notice that “David erected a monument when he returned from defeated Aram in the Valley of Salt” (8:13). The “Valley of Salt” is the area of the Dead Sea—known in antiquity, quite reasonably, as the “Sea of Salt”—and the monuments referred to at the beginning and end of the narrative are surely one and the same: a victory stela commemorating the defeat of Ammon, of the sort found all over the ancient Near East. Thus “the river” mentioned in 8:3 must be not the Euphrates, but rather the Jordan.
46. There are two lists of David’s officials (2 Sam. 8:16–18; 1 Chron. 18:15–17), and Adoram is mentioned only in the second. Most scholars believe the lists to be two variants of a single original (see McCarter, II Samuel, 257), yet it seems more than mere coincidence that the list mentioning Adoram comes after the account of the Ammonite war, when his services would have been most naturally put to use. See Carol Meyers, “Kinship and Kingship: The Early Monarchy,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. Michael D. Coogan; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998), 194–95. It is also worth noting that Adoram is said to have served under Solomon, and even briefly under his son Rehoboam, which suggests that he attained his position late in David’s reign (McKenzie, King David, 149).
47. Archaeological surveys confirm the location of Edom in the Negev during the eleventh to tenth centuries BCE, rather than in its later heartland across the Jordan to the east, which was settled only in the eighth century BCE. See Nadav Na’aman, “Israel, Edom, and Egypt in the Tenth Century BCE,” Tel Aviv 19 (1992): 71–93; Burton MacDonald, “Early Edom: The Relation Between the Literary and Archaeological Evidence,” in Scripture and Other Artifacts (ed. M. D. Coogan et al.; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 230–46.
48. See John S. Holladay, “The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah: Political and Economic Centralization in the Iron IIA–B (ca. 1000–750 BCE),” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (ed. Thomas E. Levy; London: Leicester Univ. Press, 1998), 383.
49. See Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 244.
50. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 133–41.
Chapter 6: David Under Attack
1. On the two names for David and Abigail’s son, and a possible original “Daluiah” from which both are derived, see P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (Anchor Bible 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 101.
2. It has been suggested that Chileab’s disappearance from the story, and from the line of succession, should be attributed to an early death. See Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 161.
3. There were evidently two areas known as Geshur: this one, in Transjordan to the northeast, and another near Philistine territory to the southwest. It is, logically, the latter that the Bible tells us David raided during his time with Achish; it is mentioned also in Josh. 13:2–3.
4. See Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 233–34.
5. The same is undoubtedly true of David’s overtures to Jabesh-Gilead just after taking the throne in Hebron. Both Geshur and Gilead are regions over which Ishbaal is said to have been king in 2 Sam. 2:9 (where we should read “Geshurites” for the usual “Ashurites”; see McCarter, II Samuel, 82–83).
6. That is, the same reason it is historically unlikely that Saul would have offered Michal to David in marriage accounts for why David, after marrying Michal, did not have any children by her.
7. A comparable law exists in the Hittite law codes as well. See Harry A. Hoffner Jr., “Hittite Laws,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 2 (ed. W. W. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 106–119 (at 118).
8. See Jon D. Levenson and Baruch Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 507–18.
9. It has been speculated that Tamar was in fact Absalom’s daughter, rather than his sister, in an early version of the story. See Jack M. Sasson, “Absalom’s Daughter: An Essay in Vestige Historiography,” in The Land That I Will Show You (ed. J. A. Dearman and M. P. Graham; Journal of the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 343; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 179–96.
10. The connection of Ruth to David is made in the last five verses of the book of Ruth, recognized by all scholars as a later addition to the story. See Edward F. Campbell Jr., Ruth (Anchor Bible 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975), 172–73.
11. Intriguingly, the phrase used for Tamar’s garment in 2 Sam. 13, ketonet passim, appears only one other place in the Bible: it is the same phrase that describes Joseph’s famous tunic, the ill-translated “multicolored coat” (it was more likely a long-sleeved tunic, according to 2 Sam. 13:18, the customary clo
thing of unmarried princesses). Here, then, is yet another connection between the stories of Tamar and Joseph: both of these unusual garments are torn as the result of an act of fraternal aggression.
12. On a more detailed level, both stories use a relatively rare Hebrew word for “violate”—it appears at the beginning of the Dinah story, where Shechem “saw her and took her and violated her” (Gen. 34:2), and at the end of the Tamar story, where “Absalom hated Amnon because he had violated his sister Tamar” (2 Sam. 13:22). There is yet another, more striking verbal parallel between the two narratives, evident in both the English and, even more so, the Hebrew. As Tamar pleads with Amnon not to rape her, she says to him, “Such things are not done in Israel—don’t do such an outrageous thing” (2 Sam. 13:12). When Dinah’s brothers hear of her rape, they are distressed because Shechem “had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter—a thing not to be done” (Gen. 34:7). Both texts describe rape as an outrage (Hebrew nebalah), both qualify this with “in Israel,” and both add to this description the statement that such things should not be done. The similarity of this latter clause is even closer in Hebrew than it is in English: in the Tamar story it says lo ye’aseh ken, and in the Dinah story it says ken lo ye’aseh.
13. Other elements of the narrative add to this impression; e.g., there are only four characters in the tale: Amnon, Absalom, Tamar, and Jonadab. After this episode, only Amnon and Absalom continue in the story—Tamar and Jonadab disappear from the biblical narrative. It also should be noted that neither is mentioned before this story, even though one is David’s daughter and the other is his nephew. We may also wonder at the report of Absalom’s encounter with Tamar after the rape: somehow, simply by seeing her in a state of despair, Absalom concludes, with remarkable accuracy, that Amnon had raped her.
14. See Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 89.
15. Note that David apparently had little use for chariots, as is apparent from the account of his defeat of Hadadezer: “David hamstrung all the chariot horses” (2 Sam. 8:4). If David had chariots, he would have taken the horses rather than destroyed them. See André Lemaire, “The United Monarchy,” in Ancient Israel (2d ed.; ed. Hershel Shanks; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999), 91–120 (at 104).
16. See Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 60–61.
17. This is the basis of the prophet Amos’s castigation of Israel’s leaders: “You enemies of the righteous, you takers of bribes, you who subvert in the gate the cause of the needy!” (Amos 5:12).
18. See Martha Roth, “The Laws of Hammurabi,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 2 (ed. William H. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 335–53. See more broadly Keith W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchic Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 12; Sheffield: Journal of the Study of the Old Testament, 1979), 17–37.
19. See further Whitelam, Just King, 137–42.
20. See McKenzie, King David, 167: “It was an illustration of how out of touch with his people David had become.”
21. The pattern established in the premonarchic period, of tribes coming together to fight only in times of crisis, that is, for defensive purposes alone, was dramatically disrupted by David’s expansionist leanings and, equally important, his private militia, which required no tribal assistance or ratification before engaging in battle. See Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period (2 vols.; Old Testament Library; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 1:115–16.
22. See Hayim Tadmor, “Traditional Institutions and the Monarchy: Social and Political Tensions in the Time of David and Solomon,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (ed. T. Ishida; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 239–57.
23. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 365–71, goes much further and suggests the possibility that Absalom promised the north a restoration of its previous independence.
24. The number of the concubines, ten, is intriguing. It may simply be taken as a typical “biblical” number, more symbolic than accurate. At the same time, it lines up neatly with another semimysterious group of ten in David’s life: the ten sons, aside from Solomon, who are said to have been born to David in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:13–15). The ten concubines are unnamed, as are the mothers of the ten Jerusalemite sons, which is unusual given the genealogical information provided about the sons born in Hebron in 2 Sam. 3:2–5. It would seem likely that one of these enumerations has influenced the other: either the ten concubines were part of the original story, and David was said to have had ten sons on that account, or, more likely, the list of the ten sons is original and the mention of ten concubines meant to provide each of those sons with a mother from David’s harem.
25. On royal advisors in Assyria, see Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East: c. 3000–330 BC (2 vols.; London: Routledge, 1995), 2:523–25. For Egypt, see Barry J. Kemp, “Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and Second Intermediate Period c. 2686–1552 BC,” in B. G. Trigger et al., Ancient Egypt: A Social History (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983), 71–182 (at 84).
26. As suggested by McCarter, II Samuel, 395.
27. This is the technical meaning of “All of Israel had fled, each man to his tent” in 2 Sam. 19:9. See McCarter, II Samuel, 419.
28. See Stanley A. Cook, “Notes on the Composition of 2 Samuel,” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 16 (1900): 145–77 (at 159–60).
29. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 90 n. 29.
30. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 364–81, boldly suggests that David had never really been king of Israel before Absalom’s defeat and that the revolt was in fact an opportunity for David to attain power on a new and far broader scale. The temptations offered by his argument are great, especially for a work like the present one, but Halpern’s counterreading of the biblical presentation is too much even for this author to accept.
31. This statement of Meribbaal is often taken as rhetorical, the focus being placed on Meribbaal’s proclamation of loyalty to David. But the division of Saul’s land between Meribbaal and Ziba seems unlikely given everything we know about David’s character, and so perhaps more weight than usual should be placed on the first part of Meribbaal’s statement.
32. McCarter, II Samuel, 419.
33. See Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 91.
Chapter 7: David in Decline
1. In the Talmud, David is held up as the model of repentance (b. ‘Abod. Zar. 4b–5a).
2. On menstrual impurity and purification rituals in the ancient Near East, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (Anchor Bible 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 950–53.
3. This conclusion is supported by the reference to a story from Judg. 9:50–55 placed in David’s mouth in 2 Sam. 11:21.
4. See fundamentally Timo Veijola, “Solomon: Bathsheba’s Firstborn,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (ed. Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon McConville; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 340–57, and intimated already as early as Stanley A. Cook, “Notes on the Composition of 2 Samuel,” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 16 (1900): 145–77 (at 156–57).
5. For the following, see Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 401–2. For the classic statement of the argument that Solomon was Uriah’s son, see Veijola, “Solomon.”
6. Although the biblical text that we have says “he named him Solomon,” referring ostensibly to David, it has been recognized since as long ago as the eleventh century CE that the text requires correction to “she named him Solomon.” See further Veijola, “Solomon,” 344.
7. See Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 402. It also has been conjectured that Ahitophel defected to Absalom precisely because of David’s murder of Uriah, his grandson-in-law (Steven L. McKenzie, King David:
A Biography [Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000], 168).
8. On the basis of such parallel names, some scholars have accepted the biblical notion that Solomon was named in memory of the deceased firstborn son. See P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel (Anchor Bible 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 303. Yet these analogies do not resolve the internal logical problems of the biblical narrative.
9. See Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 402.
10. See James W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 172–81 (at 174–75).
11. See Donald B. Redford, “The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51 (1965): 107–22.
12. See McKenzie, King David, 178.
13. On the concept of sanctuary in the Bible, see William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40 (Anchor Bible 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 208–10.
The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero Page 32
