The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (35 page)

  3
. Most Bibles read “cave” for “stronghold” here, but it has long been recognized that this is a text-critical error. Note that in the continuation of this brief episode, in 22:4, David’s hideout is referred to as a “stronghold.” It was therefore most likely a fortified settlement (see McCarter,
I Samuel,
357). This unfortunately renders the modern tourist attraction of the “cave of Adullam” rather more symbolic than historical.

  4
. On kinship culture in ancient Israel, see Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager,
Life in Biblical Israel
(Library of Ancient Israel; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 36–61.

  5
. It may be noted that the term used here, “saved,” is the same one used regularly to describe the actions of the judges in the book of Judges, thereby suggesting that David—rather than Saul, as one might expect—was taking on the role of the tribal leader. See Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg,
I & II Samuel
(Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 190.

  6
. See 1 Kings 22:10: “The King of Israel and King Jehoshaphat of Judah were seated on their thrones, dressed in robes, on the threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Samaria.”

  7
. See N. L. Tidwell, “The Philistine Incursions into the Valley of Rephaim,” in
Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament
(ed. J. A. Emerton; Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 30; Leiden: Brill, 1979), 190–212: “Behind the stories which . . . ostensibly refer to decisive encounters between David and the Philistines there lie accounts of what were originally nothing more than the successful routing of Philistine raiding parties engaged in foraging for supplies for local garrisons or intent on destroying the harvested crops of the Israelites as they lay exposed on the threshing floors” (202).

  8
. For a different, though equally unflattering, view of David’s time in Keilah, see Nadav Na’aman, “David’s Sojourn in Keilah in Light of the Amarna Letters,”
Vetus Testamentum
60 (2010): 87–97.

  9
. McKenzie,
King David,
107.

10
. See Baruch Halpern,
David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 272–73.

11
. It is certain that, whatever may be historically authentic in this story, the name of David’s victim, Nabal, is not. This name is descriptive of his character and is part of the literary agenda of the biblical authors. We have no way of ascertaining what his real name may have been. On Nabal’s name, see Jon D. Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,”
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
40 (1978): 11–28.

12
. On the institution of levirate marriage, see Eryl W. Davies, “Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage,”
Vetus Testamentum
31 (1981): 138–44, 257–68.

13
. See Deut. 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, etc.

14
. See the brilliant essay of Levenson, “1 Samuel 25.”

15
. See John Bright,
A History of Israel
(Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 193–94.

16
. The location of Gath was long a matter of dispute, but recent excavations have firmly identified it as Tell es-Safi. See Aren M. Maier, ed.,
Tell Es-Safi/Gath I: The 1996–2005 Seasons
(Ägypten und Altes Testament 69; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012).

17
. On the
habiru,
see Moshe Greenberg,
The hab/piru
(New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1955).

18
. This parallel to David’s story was noted by Niels Peter Lemche, “David’s Rise,”
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
10 (1978): 2–25 (at 12). On Idrimi’s inscription, see Sidney Smith,
The Statue of Idrimi
(London: British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara, 1949).

19
. See Greenberg,
Hab/piru
, 64–65.

20
. On the Amarna letters, see William L. Moran,
The Amarna Letters
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1992).

21
. Some of these were noted by Lemche, “David’s Rise,” 11–14. See also George E. Mendenhall,
The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1973), 135–36.

22
. On the connection of
habiru
and Hebrews, see Nadav Na’aman, “Habiru and Hebrews: The Transfer of a Social Term to the Literary Sphere,”
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
45 (1986): 271–86.

23
. It is possible that even the description of Saul’s death is meant to denigrate him. Suicide, often seen as a noble death in the Greco-Roman world, was not viewed quite so positively in the ancient Near East. See W. Boyd Barrick, “Saul’s Demise, David’s Lament, and Custer’s Last Stand,”
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
73 (1997): 25–41.

24
. This mechanism for calling the tribes to war was probably understood as an implicit curse—that the recipients should suffer the fate of the dismembered body should they not join their compatriots in battle. See McCarter,
I Samuel,
203.

25
. The motivation for the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead in particular to undertake this mission is found in the earlier narrative of how Saul became king: by defending the town against the attacks of the Ammonites.

26
. See Meir Malul, “Was David Involved in the Death of Saul on the Gilboa Mountain?,”
Revue Biblique
103 (1996): 517–45 (at 532–36).

27
. See 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), 104–5.

28
. See P. Kyle McCarter,
II Samuel
(Anchor Bible 9; New York: Doubleday, 1984), 63. The best indication for this interpretation is the identification of the informant as an Amalekite, the archetypical evildoer in the Bible. Once he was identified as such, the Israelite audience might well have assumed that everything the Amalekite said would be a lie and that he should be suspected of looting, a classic Amalekite behavior.

29
. For details, see D. M. Gunn, “Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel,”
Vetus Testamentum
24 (1974): 286–317 (esp. 286–97).

30
. Pushing this idea further, Malul, “Was David Involved,” suggests that David had established a fifth column within Saul’s ranks and that Saul fell at the hands of his own men, who had betrayed him. This reconstruction is tempting, but it relies on taking much of the narrative of David’s time at Saul’s court as accurate historical representation, which, as we have seen, is problematic.

Chapter 4: David Becomes King

  1
. On the history of Hebron, see Avi Ofer, “Hebron,” in
The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land
(4 vols.; ed. Ephraim Stern; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 2:606–9.

  2
. See Steven L. McKenzie,
King David: A Biography
(Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 114–15.

  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).