The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (24 page)

David’s Kingdom

In the end, then, what can we say about the extent of David’s kingdom? To the west, it was no larger than it had been in Saul’s time. The Philistines still controlled all of their traditional territory. David’s kingdom never reached the coast of the Mediterranean. To the north, Israel also maintained its previous boundaries, with the northernmost point still being the city of Dan. This is reflected in the Bible in the typical description of Israel’s territory: “from Dan to Beersheba,” a phrase used to describe Israel in the time of Samuel (1 Sam. 3:20), at the time of David’s census (2 Sam. 24:2), and in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 5:5). The Arameans remained a formidable power to the north, becoming Israel’s main rival and even overlord in the ninth century
BCE
. To the south, David made inroads into the Negev territory of the Edomites, though this was less a conquest than a transfer of influence. This area was virtually uninhabited before David installed garrisons there to protect the trade routes. The traditional phrase “from Dan to Beersheba” reflects the fact that Beersheba remained the southernmost major settlement in Israelite territory, even after David.

It was only to the east, in his conquest of Ammon, that David expanded with any real force. Yet this was really not such a great distance—Rabbah is only about twenty miles from the Jordan valley, and there was little of Ammon to the east of that, as the mountains give way to uninterrupted desert. What’s more, the territories just to the east of the Jordan were probably already Israelite, or at least pro-Israelite, rather than Ammonite, for these are the regions in which the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and part of Manasseh are said to have settled (Num. 32). Consider, for example, Jabesh-Gilead, the town oppressed by the Ammonites, the town that rescued Saul’s body from the wall: it is on the Ammonite side of the Jordan. This diminishes even further the Ammonite territory to be conquered by David. The conquest of Ammon was a real conquest, and a real subjugation—perhaps the only one of its kind in all of David’s reign. But it was hardly a major expansion, nor was Ammon a major power like the Philistines or the Arameans.

The largest view we can realistically maintain of David’s kingdom, then, is not very different from what it was at the beginning of David’s reign. It could hardly be called an empire—it was no stronger than the Philistine and Aramean peoples to its west and north. And compared with Egypt and Mesopotamia, it remained a virtual nonentity—note that David is never said to have had any diplomatic contact with either of those two great superpowers at any time during his reign, nor is there any record from those civilizations of David’s reign. Israel under David remained what it had always been: a minor state, largely confined to the central hill country of Judah and Israel.

The current area of the modern state of Israel, small though it may be, is in fact perhaps larger than that of David’s Israel. Certainly the coastal plain, almost all the way up to Jaffa, would not have been under David’s control. On the other hand, the West Bank would have been David’s heartland, even extending a little into what is now Jordan. But the Davidic empire of tradition, stretching from the border of Egypt up to the Euphrates, is a gross exaggeration. The biblical account is propagandistic, and that propaganda has been accepted as fact for thousands of years.

To give David credit where it is due, however, simply maintaining the newly expanded borders of his kingdom was achievement enough. He left a territory secure enough that it could endure, at least for the most part, for many generations. For a small kingdom with few natural resources at its disposal, a widely scattered populace, and no tradition of statehood, this is impressive. But it is not the Davidic empire of tradition. Such an empire never existed.

Chapter 6
David Under Attack
D
ESPERATE
T
IMES
C
ALL FOR
D
ESPERATE
M
EASURES

T
HE POPULAR DEPICTION OF
D
AVID’S
reign as gloriously successful is based largely on the memories of David preserved by later biblical authors. Those who wrote the books of Kings established David as the ruler against whom all others were judged. Those who wrote the books of Chronicles whitewashed David’s story to remove all traces of embarrassment or potential wrongdoing. But in the earliest material in the books of Samuel, even as the authors try to glorify David at every turn, they are forced, by virtue of their proximity to the historical events, to reckon with reality. The events that truly could be described as glorious—the capture of Jerusalem, the entrance of the ark into the city, and David’s victories against the neighboring nations—are narrated in only two chapters of Samuel. Almost the entire rest of the history of David’s kingship describes not a glorious reign, but rather a constantly troubled one.

In some respects, it is not surprising that David’s reign would not be an easy one. It was hard enough for rightfully chosen kings to maintain their grip on power. How much more difficult for a man who had taken the crown against the popular will and who had in addition spent years fighting on the side of the enemy, been responsible for the death of the previous and well-liked monarch, and appropriated a national cultic treasure for himself. If anyone knew the dangers of being king, it was David. But even David was unprepared when threats to his kingship came from an unexpected source: his own family.

David’s Family

T
O UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES
David would face, we need to be familiar with those closest to him. According to 2 Samuel 3:2–5, David had six sons by six different wives while he reigned in Hebron. His first wife, Ahinoam—the former wife of Saul—bore Amnon, David’s firstborn and a significant part of the story to come. His second wife, Abigail—the former wife of the Calebite chief—bore a son named Chileab according to Samuel, but Daniel according to Chronicles.
1
The discrepancy in the son’s name is curious, but ultimately irrelevant, for neither Abigail nor her son is ever mentioned again. This may seem odd: after all, an entire chapter was devoted to the story of how Abigail became David’s wife. Yet her absence from the rest of the narrative is telling. As suggested above, this marriage had nothing to do with love and everything to do with replacing Nabal as chief of the Calebites. Once David had become king of Judah, Abigail and her offspring were of no use to him. Her job was done.
2

It is possible, even probable, that David’s first two sons were born not in Hebron as the Bible says, but before David had become king in Judah. David had been married to both Ahinoam and Abigail for more than a year and a half before going to Hebron, and it seems unlikely that he would have waited to have children with them. In the case of Ahinoam, it is even possible that her son, Amnon, was conceived with David when she was still Saul’s wife. The biblical authors, however, would not have been pleased with the idea that David’s sons were born in Philistia, as this would make them practically foreigners. The authors have probably condensed the chronology of the births, at least for the first two sons.

David’s third son was Absalom, the central figure in the coming narrative. His mother, we are told, was Maacah, the daughter of King Talmai of Geshur. Geshur was an independent territory to the northeast of Israel, just to the east of the Sea of Galilee.
3
According to the conquest narrative in the book of Joshua, Geshur was one of the regions that the Israelites were unable to dispossess, thus explaining the Geshurites’ continuing presence on the borders of Israel (Josh. 13:13). We are never told when or how David came to marry the princess of Geshur, but given the standards of the time, we can make an educated guess. As noted above, marriages between royal houses were common in the ancient Near East as a way of cementing diplomatic relations between nations. It therefore seems improbable that David should have married the daughter of the king of Geshur before he took the throne in Hebron, as the Geshurites would have had little to gain from an alliance with a mere Philistine mercenary. We can thus date David’s marriage to Maacah at least to the Hebron period, though we may not be able to be more precise than that.
4
The marriage itself demonstrates that David was seen from the outside as a legitimate ruler, and one secure enough on the throne to warrant diplomatic ties. As Geshur was supposedly part of Ishbaal’s kingdom, David’s connection to it also was probably intended to weaken Ishbaal politically in advance of David’s seizing the northern throne.
5

Of David’s remaining sons listed in 2 Samuel 3, only the fourth, Adonijah son of Haggith, plays any further role in the story—though not until the very end. Shephatiah son of Abital, and Ithream son of Eglah, the fifth and sixth sons, never appear by name again. In this regard they are like the eleven sons said to be born to David once he became king in Jerusalem, listed in 2 Samuel 5, only one of whom is known to us: Solomon. What about Solomon? We will treat David’s successor fully in the next chapter. After he is born in 2 Samuel 12, he disappears from the narrative until the beginning of the first book of Kings. It is there, at the end of David’s life, that Solomon’s story, including his birth, is properly told.

One other figure is prominently missing from the list of David’s family presented here: Michal, the daughter of Saul whom David commanded to be brought to him when he became king in Hebron. Why isn’t she mentioned? Second Samuel 3 preserves a list of David’s sons—and Michal had no children with him. The biblical authors created an explanation for this: when David brought the ark into Jerusalem, Michal was embarrassed by David’s dancing, during which he evidently “exposed himself” in front of everyone. As a result of her verbal abuse, the text tells us, “to her dying day Michal daughter of Saul had no children” (2 Sam. 6:23). The Bible implies that this was divine punishment for Michal’s behavior. But there is a far simpler explanation. David took Michal as his wife as a show of strength, to demonstrate his power over even the royal family of the weakened northern kingdom. Being married to Saul’s daughter was also further justification for David’s rule in Israel, as it placed him in the legitimate line of succession. As was the case with Abigail, this was a marriage purely of political convenience. Having Michal as a wife served a clear purpose for David. Having children with her, however, did not. In fact, it would have been against David’s interests because Michal was a descendant of Saul, and any offspring she had with David would continue Saul’s line into the next generation.
6
As we have seen, David did everything possible to destroy Saul’s lineage, so having children with Michal would run counter to his program of eradicating the Saulide legacy.

There is another reason to believe that David probably never even slept with Michal, much less had children with her. He was already married to, and had a son with, Michal’s mother: Ahinoam. In Leviticus we read, “Do not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter” (18:17). Though this law was written well after David’s time, and though David was not one to adhere strictly to the law in any case, it is a reasonable guess that it reflects a cultural norm in ancient Israel, a known abhorrence of such semi-incestual relationships.
7
Just as today we need no law proscribing such an arrangement, it is likely that even David would have recognized that sleeping with both Ahinoam and Michal was forbidden. But it may not have even entered David’s mind to do so. He married Michal not for her potential offspring, but for her political utility. And, like Abigail, once she serves her purpose, she disappears from the story.

The cases of Abigail and Michal remind us that David’s familial relationships were fundamentally political in nature.
8
He married to gain the kingship, in Judah and in Israel. It was not only his wives who had political importance, however. David’s sons were lined up to succeed him on the throne: first Amnon, then Absalom. And the question of succession would be the driving force behind the most significant challenge David faced while king—one that would, in fact, temporarily force him off the throne.

Amnon and Tamar

T
HIS STORY BEGINS WITH
the narrative of Amnon and Tamar, the sister of Absalom.
9
Amnon, the story goes, became infatuated with his half-sister. His cousin Jonadab, in a misguided effort to improve Amnon’s mood, suggested that Amnon pretend to be sick and ask that Tamar bring him some food. So Amnon did, requesting that David send Tamar to him, and so she went to Amnon’s bedside. After she had prepared the meal, however, Amnon sent everyone out of the room. When Tamar brought the food close to him, he grabbed her and demanded that she sleep with him. Tamar pleaded with her half-brother, even suggesting that if he just asked David for her hand in marriage, he could have her—but to no avail. Amnon raped her. Afterward, he no longer desired her; in fact, he loathed her and ordered her to leave. Again she pleaded with him, that the shame this would bring upon her would be unbearable, but again to no avail. She was forced from his chambers, screaming and tearing her garment in dismay. She encountered her brother Absalom, who immediately discerned what had happened but told her to keep it quiet for the moment. David also heard about it and was upset, but did nothing. Absalom said nothing to Amnon, but hated him for having violated Tamar.

Such is the biblical account. In assessing its historical veracity, we must begin by noting that, as with many other parts of the David story, the events described here are fundamentally private in nature. The story could be told only by one of the participants, for no one else was privy to what happened in Amnon’s bedroom. This alone is cause for doubt.

More striking, however, is the way that elements of this story find parallels in other biblical narratives of sexual misconduct, particularly those from the semimythical patriarchal era. There are two well-known women named Tamar in the Bible: David’s daughter, and the daughter-in-law of Judah, whose story is told in Genesis 38. Both stories revolve around the question of sexual propriety within a family. Both stories have an element of deception: Amnon’s faked illness, and Tamar’s disguising herself as a prostitute. Both Tamars are treated callously by the men around them. And both are connected with David: the Tamar of Genesis bears Judah twins, one of whom, Perez, was traditionally believed to be David’s direct ancestor.
10

There are resonances also with the story of Joseph and his Egyptian master’s wife from Genesis 39. Both stories feature infatuation that turns into sexual aggression, in both cases specifically when no one else is present. In both stories the infatuation eventually turns to revulsion and leads to the debasement of the victim. In both a garment plays an evidentiary role: Absalom recognizes that Tamar has been raped by her torn garment, and the Egyptian’s wife holds Joseph’s garment up as proof that he had tried to rape her.
11

The closest parallel to the story of Amnon and Tamar, however, is the narrative of Dinah in Genesis 34. Both the Tamar and Dinah stories are, most obviously, about rape. In both the brother(s) of the victim is given the lead role in responding—both Jacob and David, the fathers, are mysteriously passive, even though they are fully aware of what has transpired. Both stories address the issue of marriage—Amnon refuses Tamar’s proposal, and Jacob’s sons offer a disingenuous proposal to Shechem.
12

The similarities between the story of Amnon and Tamar and these three chapters from Genesis strongly suggest that what we have in 2 Samuel 13 is not a historical account, but rather a mixture of older traditional stories. In short, the narrative seems to be a literary creation.
13
There is no reason to believe that Amnon ever raped Tamar—in fact, there is no reason to believe that David actually ever had a daughter named Tamar at all. What the story seeks to establish is a reason for Absalom to hate Amnon, for that hatred appears to be the motivating factor behind what happened next.

Amnon’s Death

I
N THE SPRING
, A
BSALOM
threw a party, a festival to celebrate the annual sheep-shearing. Exactly when this took place is unclear—the Bible says that it was two years after the rape of Tamar, but dating events on the basis of fictional stories is, needless to say, a risky proposition. Whenever it happened, Absalom invited David, who excused himself; he then asked David whether Amnon could attend, and after some reticence on David’s part, the king relented. So Amnon joined Absalom at Baal-hazor, a town a few miles north of Jerusalem. Absalom instructed his servants: “When Amnon is merry with wine, and I tell you to strike down Amnon, kill him! Don’t be afraid, for I myself command you” (2 Sam. 13:28). His servants dutifully obeyed and killed Amnon. Thereafter, David heard a false report that Absalom had actually killed all of David’s sons. This, we are told, devastated him, but Jonadab, his nephew, assured him that Amnon alone had died and that this was Absalom’s revenge for the rape of Tamar.