The Sins of King
David: A New History. By Gary Greenberg.
Good David and Bad David
But the word of the Lord came to me
[i.e., David], saying,
Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars:
thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because
thou hast shed
much blood upon the earth in my sight.
(1 Chronicles 22:8.)
Modern impressions of King David depict him
as a young boy of unsurpassed courage, a pious and humble man who triumphed
over many adversities, a goodly king whose heart was with the Lord and compared
to whom all other monarchs fall short. He is portrayed as the progenitor of a
dynasty that would one day rule over the
Following strict biblical chronology, King
David came to the throne at about 1061 b.c.,
but the biblical data presents many problems, including textual contradictions
and problematic synchronization with the dates of known events from
non-biblical records. Most scholars propose moving the start of his reign
forward about fifty or sixty years, somewhere between about 1010 and 1000 b.c.
David’s predecessor on the throne was Saul,
the first king of
David and Saul came from different families
and rival political entities that shared territorial borders, Saul from the
tribe of Benjamin and David from the tribe of
His dynasty ended in 587 b.c. when
In the second century a.d.,
after the Romans banished the Jewish people from
These views of King David, burnished over
millennia by armies of theologians and religious teachers, have made David the
most beloved character in all of the Old Testament and, theologically, the most
important. But how much do we really know about this man?
Archaeological
Sources for David’s History
Historically, we have not a shred of
archeological or textual evidence contemporaneous with David showing that
either he or his son Solomon ever even existed, let alone what kind of men they
were. Neither David, nor Solomon, nor the kingdom of Israel over which they
ruled, appear in any of the records recovered from the time of their reigns—not
in Canaan or from the many nations and peoples with whom they interacted or
over whom they allegedly ruled.
The earliest reference to directly mention
David’s name dates to sometime in the ninth century b.c.
Found on a stone monument at Tel Dan, in the far north of ancient Israel, the
partially readable Aramaic text appears to describe a victory by a king of Aram over both an Israelite and Judahite
king, and also makes reference to a "House of David." Dating to at
least a century after David’s death, it doesn’t directly prove that David
existed, only that a House of David, whatever that was, did. But it provides
strong circumstantial evidence for David’s existence as it seems to imply the
existence of a dynasty named after King David.
A prominent Egyptologist named Kenneth
Kitchen has also claimed to have found an Egyptian text that contains the
geographical name "The Heights of David" as one of the territories
conquered by Pharaoh Sheshonk during his invasion of Judahite territories. His claim is controversial and his
reading of "Heights of David" is widely challenged, but if he is
correct, and the reference is to David, then the text would date to shortly
after the reign of Solomon, because Pharaoh Sheshonk
is identified with the biblical Pharaoh Shishak, who
invaded
One other inscription, also dating to
sometime in the ninth century b.c., notes the payment
of three shekels to the House (or Temple) of Jahweh,
which may be a reference to the Temple of Solomon, but might just refer to a
local shrine or altar.
While there are other inscriptions from the
ninth century b.c. and later
that shed light on biblical history, they do not directly or even indirectly
corroborate the existence of David or Solomon. This lack of evidence, however,
should not be too surprising in that the time frame set by the bible for the
United Monarchy falls into a historical dark age throughout the ancient Near
East. From about 1100 to 900 b.c.
we lack substantial material evidence throughout the region, from
Prior to the time of David, we have only one
direct reference to
The stele’s reference to
Other
Sources for David’s History
The absence of archaeological or epigraphical evidence for the time of David and Solomon
leaves the bible as our earliest, and for all practical purposes, only,
meaningful source of information about their reigns. The biblical accounts of
the United Monarchy come from the Old Testament books of 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and
2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles. From a historian’s point of view, these
biblical records present some difficult problems.
The books of Samuel (which contain the
stories of Saul and David) and Kings (which tell of the transition from David
to Solomon) are believed to be primarily the work of a single author or school
of writers, who began the historical account with the Book of Deuteronomy, and
continued through the biblical books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
Scholars refer to this set of biblical books as the Deuteronomist
history, and the author or authors as the Deuteronomist
or Deuteronomists.
The Deuteronomist
history probably took near-final shape during the reign of King Josiah of Judah
(639-609 b.c.), with a small addendum tacked on to
cover the brief post-Josiah period leading to the capture of Jerusalem, and
some possible additional editing in later years.
1 and 2 Chronicles, which also present a
history of the United Monarchy, belong to a later literary cycle, and are
generally dated to sometime after the Persians defeated
Other than the Deuteronomist
and Chronicles histories of David and Solomon, we have no other significant
historical source, and it is these books that planted the seeds from which
sprouted David’s glowing reputation over the centuries. But the books of Samuel
and Kings were written more than three hundred years after David’s reign and
Chronicles perhaps another century or two after Samuel and Kings, and all of
the works are heavily biased in favor of David and Solomon. For the historian,
therefore, the factual reliability of the bible for this period presents a
number of difficult problems, not the least of which is the lack of
contemporaneous corroborating evidence.
Interestingly, though, buried deeply within
the Deuteronomist history we find another very
different picture of David, far more negative and derogatory than the present
view. Portions of this other Davidic image are sometimes explicitly set forth,
such as in the story of how he arranged to kill Uriah
the Hittite in order to cover up his adulterous affair with Uriah’s
wife, Bathsheba, a crime so heinous that even biblical authors commented on it.
"David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not
aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save
only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (1
Kings 15:5. Emphasis added.) On other occasions, some of David’s alleged
terrible sins are either dismissed as untrue, glossed over, explained away,
covered up by obfuscation, or misrepresented as the acts of others. It is
sometimes necessary to read between the lines to extract the truth.
The
Negative Image of David in the Bible
At the head of each chapter, I have placed a
biblical quote that preserves accusations against David in connection with that
chapter’s subject matter, and have collected these quotes together in Appendix
A. While the collection is not exhaustive, it does reflect the hostility toward
David’s reign that existed among some of his enemies, and it might be useful to
scan through them before continuing.
A careful reading of the biblical sources
shows that David was never the widely popular monarch depicted in popular
images and religious texts. On at least two occasions, popular rebellions nearly
cost him his crown. One, led by his son Absalom, arose in David’s southern home
base of
The same studies will also show, contrary to
the biblical image and popular belief, that Saul was not a manic-depressive
paranoid, imagining false schemes by David to steal his throne, but a popular
and well-balanced king who accurately understood what David was about and who
took responsible actions to curtail David’s treasonous and disloyal behavior to
In this book, I intend to examine this other
history of David. This examination will show that David was a corrupt and ambitious
mercenary who committed treason against Israel by working with its enemies to
seize the throne from King Saul; an ambitious and ruthless politician who
initiated, sanctioned, or condoned murder and assassination as a way to
eliminate political rivals, royal or otherwise; a Philistine vassal who used an
army of malcontents to terrorize and conquer the Kingdom of Judah while Saul
was still on the throne; a usurper who went to war against Israel after Saul’s
death and imposed himself as king over the nation of Israel by military force;
a cruel and unjust tyrant who used foreign mercenaries to centralize power
under his direct control and who oppressed the people of Israel with high taxes
and forced labor; a military imperialist who waged wars of conquest against his
neighbors and exposed the peaceful Israelites to military counter-attacks that
left many dead, wounded, or widowed; and the beneficiary of tales and legends
that made him the doer of other peoples’ heroic deeds, such as the false claim
that the youthful David slew the Philistine giant Goliath when in fact the
original story told of a soldier in David’s army doing the deed long after
David had become king.
The
Biblical Debate over David
Scholars have long noted what appear to be
many "apologetic" portions of the David history in 1 and 2 Samuel,
stories and comments designed to rebut or refute charges made against David by
others, or to account for incriminating pieces of evidence (such as David
having possession of Saul’s crown and bracelet almost immediately after Saul is
killed). I prefer to think of the Book of Samuel as the equivalent of a
criminal defense lawyer’s summation on behalf of a client, occasionally trying
to explain away criminal evidence, citing testimony by character witnesses, impugning
the integrity of hostile witnesses, and sometimes taking facts out of context
or changing the order of events.
The central debate in the bible over King
David revolves around his relationship to the House of Saul. From the northern Saulide perspective, David was thought to have betrayed
King Saul by aligning himself with
To this Saulide
litany can be added some additional accusations of wrongdoing that can be
corroborated by the biblical accounts, including: the adultery with Bathsheba;
arranging for the death of Uriah, Bathsheba’s
husband; the failure to punish his son Amnon for
raping Tamar; the general lack of justice from David’s court, which resulted in
the alienation of his home base in Judah; the murders of Absalom and Amasa by Joab, David’s closest
and most trusted aide; the taking of a census in Israel, a sin so theologically
horrible that the Chronicler attributed it to an act of Satan; and David’s
support for Solomon over Adonijah as successor on the
throne, Adonijah being the rightful heir by the
then-current standards.
While much of the evidence against David has
no doubt been suppressed, some of it has survived in the biblical texts (for
reasons explained below). It includes: the acknowledgement that David served a
Philistine king and offered to join with him in the fight against Saul and
Israel; the admission that David had good relations with Nahash,
the king of Ammon, a man defeated by Saul and
Israel’s bitter enemy; Samuel’s endorsement of David as Saul’s replacement
while Saul lived; indications that David became king over Judah while Saul
still ruled over Israel; David’s possession of Saul’s crown and bracelet
immediately after Saul died; a full account of the Bathsheba and Uriah story; an account of the rape of Tamar by David’s son
Amnon and David’s reaction; accounts of the murders
of Abner, Amasa, and
Absalom by Joab; the immediate appearance in David’s
court of Eshbaal’s assassins with the murdered king’s
head; the execution of several of Saul’s children by hanging; the story of Absalom’s revolt against David’s failure to provide justice
in Israel; an account of David’s census sin; and the story of Solomon’s
succession to the throne.
In response, the Deuteronomist
historians argued that: God took the throne away from Saul and gave it to David
so Samuel was justified in endorsing David as king over Israel; while Saul was
alive David remained loyal to king and country but Saul had a paranoid and
unjustified fear that David sought to displace him as king; twice David had the
opportunity to kill Saul and failed to do so; David joined with Israel’s
enemies only because Saul drove him out of Israel and hunted him down and David
needed protection from Saul’s unwarranted persecution; Joab
acted independently and without authorization in his various acts of murder;
King Saul committed suicide after being wounded in battle and it was only by
coincidence that someone found Saul dead and brought the crown and bracelet to
David; David did not authorize the assassination of Eshbaal
and he put the murderers to death; David loved his children too much and
couldn’t bring himself to punish them for wrongdoing, even when one of them
rebelled against him; God wanted Saul’s children executed in order to end a
famine caused by wrongdoing in Saul’s lifetime; David was not responsible for
ordering the census in that God wanted it done as a punishment for Israel’s
wrongdoing; and David may have been unfairly taken advantage of by Solomon’s
supporters while he was sick and dying.
Before we begin our analysis of the charges,
counter-charges, and evidence, let us first look at how evidence of David’s
wrongdoings came to survive in biblical accounts designed to present him as the
ideal king.
Why
the Negative Image of David Survived
Why do some negative images of David appear
directly in the biblical text while others are so deeply buried, obscured, or
hidden from view? To answer that question we must know something about the
political and religious issues that divided
Prior to the institution of monarchy in
Israel, the nation was governed by a priesthood centered in the city of Shiloh,
located approximately in the central portion of Israel in the territory of
Ephraim (later to become the capitol of the kingdom of Israel after the break
with Judah). Many Israelites came to believe that the priesthood had become
corrupt and demanded that a king be appointed to give them judgments and to
defend them against aggressors. This caused a significant religious and
political feud to break out between the
The leader of the
Samuel, in an attempt to preserve Shilohite influence, proposed a compromise, suggesting that
it would be proper for
During Saul’s reign, David of Judah had
become a popular military hero among the Israelites, perhaps even more popular
than Saul. The king perceived David as a threat to his rule (rightly or wrongly
to be discussed in later chapters) and to his family dynasty and sought to kill
him. David fled from Saul’s camp and carved out an outlaw existence as Saul
chased after him. What David did during this period will also be the subject of
later chapters.
When Saul died in battle against the
Philistines, civil war broke out between the forces of David and the House of
Saul. After a period of conflict that saw David’s chief opponents assassinated,
David became king over a united
When David died the
Again the Shilohites
were disappointed. Jeroboam refused to recognize the authority of the
priesthood and allowed almost anyone who wanted to become a priest to become
one.
Geo-political realities and some
archaeological evidence indicates that the northern
Having worked with, supported, and endorsed
David as king, the Shilohites had to defend
themselves against northern attacks associating them with the crimes some
influential northerners believed David had committed against the House of Saul.
This required that the Shilohites tread a narrow path
between the hostilities separating north and south. On the one hand they wrote
about the weaknesses of David that demonstrated the need for a king to submit
to God’s will. On the other hand they erected an elaborate and sweeping defense
against the anti-Saul crimes attributed to David, especially where the Shilohites were thought to have a role. As a by-product of
the defense, it became necessary to cite some of the anti-David evidence that
had to be refuted. In other instances they tried to recast old stories in a new
light.
The literary layers of the Deuteronomist and Chronicles histories show that a variety
of written accounts circulated throughout ancient Judah and Israel, some from
the Judahite scribes defending David and/or Solomon,
some from proponents of the Shilohite and northern
prophets, some from those hostile to David and/or the Shilohite
priests, and others from those hostile to Solomon. The Book of Chronicles, for
example, cites such works as Samuel the Seer, Gad the Seer, and the Prophecy of
Ahijah (a Shilohite
priest). These works would have been well known to the intelligentsia
With
In 722 b.c.,
however, political realities changed. The Assyrians defeated and destroyed the
northern kingdom of
The survival of
About a century after the disappearance of
The inclusion of many of the negative
materials in the Deuteronomist history strongly
suggests that David’s reputation must have still suffered significantly from
the negative legacy passed on from the north. It’s most likely that many of the
facts underlying some of the charges against David were well known, to
northerner and southerner alike, although disagreements over what those facts
implied would have remained a lively source of debate.
At the same time, the Deuteronomists
shared the Shilohite idea that a king’s first duty
was to God and that the king must yield to God’s word. The Deuteronomists,
functioning within a Davidic dynasty, had two major problems to tackle. As with
the Shilohites, they needed to defend David against
those charges that undermined his legitimacy as king and that also led to a
divided kingdom, while at the same time demonstrating that even a good king had
weaknesses that required him to be guided by the word of God.
In that context, they adopted many of the Shilohite arguments defending David against northern
accusations and integrated them into their history of David’s kingdom. At the
same time, they preserved examples of how David’s personal weaknesses led to
wrongdoing when he failed to consult with the men of God. So,
charges that David assassinated Saul and other political opponents were
challenged with contrary evidence, while personal failings, such as in the
incident with Bathsheba and Uriah, were kept as
illustrations of how even a good king needs guidance from the men of God.
In the Deuteronomist
history of the kings that ruled over
Perhaps twenty to thirty years after the Deuteronomist history of David had been written, the Hebrew
nation suffered another blow. In 587 b.c.
Some seventy years later,
The Chronicles history almost completely
whitewashed whatever remained of David’s negative reputation, scrubbing out
details that would reflect badly on their hero, adding material that would
enhance his reputation, and occasionally contradicting the Deuteronomist
version of events. For historical sources, the Chronicler often relied on the
Book of Samuel, often sharing identically worded passages. But, the writing of
Chronicles was also influenced by other source material.
We should note that where the Deuteronomists were concerned with a theology that
subjected the king to the word of God, the Chronicles theology saw David as the
man chosen by God to forever lead the Israelites. It is probably fair to say
that the cleaned-up image of David in Chronicles played a major role in
transforming him into the all-purpose hero that transcended some of the
hesitations present in the Deuteronomist account.
Subsequent to the writing of Chronicles
Israel passed through a conquest by
From then on, David’s reputation flourished
as his sins were ignored.
The
Argument Ahead
Because of the lack of contemporaneous
corroboration, some scholars consider the biblical history of the United
Monarchy useless for determining what happened and argue for a very late
writing for all of the biblical accounts, sometime well after the fifth century
b.c. Most, however, find that literary and stylistic
analysis of the bible, together with some of the corroborating archaeological
and epigraphic finds and parallels, enables various textual strands and threads
to be separated from others, occasionally providing chronological clues and
sequences in their assembly. The political contexts and conflicts within many
of these strands suggest that they must have been written within certain
historical time frames as opposed to others, and indicate that some of the
Davidic history may have been written close to, or not long after, David’s
reign, while other pieces appear to have been written much later.
This is not the place for a detailed
scholarly analysis of the arguments involved. Many lengthy and complex
treatises have been written on the subject and there is still a wide range of
disagreement over what conclusions can be drawn. Therefore, let me set out my
own perspective.
I am one of those who believe that there are
many political layers of text in the histories of David, some of which, in
context, would only have been written to serve certain political purposes, and
that they would only have been relevant in certain historical circumstances. In
my view, much of the Davidic history underlying the biblical sources was
written during or shortly after the United Monarchy and reflected either
accusations of wrongful conduct committed by various political factions or
responses by those accused of such actions. The body of writings produced a
mixture of truth, falsehood, and ambiguity. This collection of writings
circulated throughout
Over time, rival factions continued to argue
and debate these issues, picking and choosing what they thought would enhance
their own point of view, and applying personal political spin to make their
case. By accident of history the particular texts that have been preserved in
the bible, though reflecting the biases of the particular authors, maintained
many of the opposing traditions. This no doubt occurred because polemic
necessities often required that the writers cite the particular charges they
wanted to refute.
For most of the last two thousand years,
theologians, Christian and Jewish, ignored, dismissed, or reinterpreted those portions of the bible that showed David in a negative
light. Driven by the idea that David was God’s chosen king, a man after God’s
heart whose descendant would one day rule God’s kingdom on Earth, efforts were
made to purge all inconsistent images from the public mind. Even where the
biblical authors acknowledged David’s misdeeds, as in the Bathsheba affair, new
extra-biblical ideas were introduced. One theologian, for example, concluded
that David was morally right in killing Uriah,
Bathsheba’s husband, because Uriah disobeyed the
king’s command to return to his home and have relations with his wife. This
general approach elevated David’s reputation to its present misleading heroic
status.
In the last century, however, a number of
scholars belonging to what is called the Literary-Critical school of biblical
analysis have taken a fresh look at the biblical stories of David, often
examining some of the negative images in the bible, and frequently trying to
unravel the written skeins that weave through the biblical texts. While for the
most part they still give David the benefit of the doubt wherever possible,
they have uncovered many useful insights into the origins of the biblical texts
and the meanings of various puzzling passages. In many instances they are
forced to admit, contrary to the popular impression, that much of David’s image
is mere myth, based on royal propaganda and inconsistent with the underlying
truth. Unfortunately, these views are restricted mostly to scholarly journals.
Such scholars rarely express such contrary opinions to the general public.
In the chapters that follow we will examine various claims and arguments
made by different factions, rise above the special pleadings, and reconstruct a
reasonably accurate history of King David and the United Monarchy. The history
revealed will radically disagree with traditional religious teachings and
standard academic treatments. It will show that David, Solomon, and the priest
Samuel were not the heroic figures we thought they were, and it will
rehabilitate the reputations of many of those falsely accused of wrongdoing,
such as Saul, Absalom, and Jeroboam. By careful reading and logical analysis,
we will separate much historical fact from a good deal of biblical fiction.