The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

242

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor John Jarick Editorial Board Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

The Faces of David

K.L. Noll

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 242

For Tina

Copyright © 1997 Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19 Kingfield Road Sheffield S11 9AS England

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd Midsomer Norton, Bath

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-659-7

CONTENTS Preface Abbreviations

7 9

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION 1. The Nature of this Study 2. Literary Approaches to Biblical Narrative 3. The Nature of the Story-World in the Former Prophets

11 11 14 16

Chapter 2

THE CHARACTERIZATION OF DAVID IN THE PROSE STORY 1. The Themes of the Book of Samuel: Knowledge and Understanding 2. The Characterization of David 3. Excursus: The Illegitimacy of Solomon

40 40 50 64

Chapter 3

DAVID'S LAMENT, 2 SAMUEL 1.19-27 1. The Literary Context of David's Lament 2. David's Rhetorical Strategy in the Lament

76 76 98

Chapter 4

DAVID'S SONG, 2 SAMUEL 22 1. The Literary Context of David's Song 2. David's Rhetorical Strategy in the Song

118 118 134

Chapter 5

DAVID'S ORACLE, 2 SAMUEL 23.1-7 1. The Literary Context of David's Oracle 2. David's Rhetorical Strategy in the Oracle

152 152 165

6

The Faces of David

POSTSCRIPT: ANCIENT READERS AND AUTHORS

183

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

186 194 203

PREFACE

This book was researched in 1994, composed in 1995, accepted as partial fulfillment for the PhD degree at Union Theological Seminary in Virginia in the spring of 1996, and slightly revised during the summer months of 1996. And yet it is not the study I intended to write. My goal is to write a history of the David tradition from its earliest recoverable appearance to the final centuries before the common era. That project will entail diachronic evaluation of biblical texts, study of extra-biblical texts (such as the Tel Dan fragments and the Moabite Stone), and a systematic socio-historical investigation into each text dealing with the David motif. Obviously, that project is too large to have served as a vehicle for fulfilling the requirements of a degree program. So in this work, I tackled one minor element of the larger effort, a synchronic study of the David tale as found in Samuel-Kings. The larger project began in the late 1980s as a master's thesis dealing with 2 Samuel 7 under the direction of Richard D. Nelson, continued with a second master's thesis experimenting with the Saul narratives under W. Sibley Towner, and reaches its preliminary stage of completion here, under the direction of S. Dean McBride. During these years, both the project and I have undergone enormous changes. Yet, in some ways, the many drafts and revisions reflect a certain constancy. I can see now that my twelve years as a professional artist have had a profound impact on how I read ancient texts and the level of aesthetic pleasure I receive from them. No one is more aware than I of the flaws in this study, nevertheless I believe that the effort achieves its relatively modest goals. Chapter 1's discussion of method could be subject to the charge of reductionism. The section of the first chapter dealing with distinctions between implied author and narrator requires much more extensive treatment. Again, many might expect more in-depth discussion of theories about the ancient author-redactor's actual intentions (a favorite subject for many biblical scholars, though not a focus of this study). While such criticism

8

The Faces of David

would be valid, I do not apologize for the form the work has taken. It covers the subject with a minimum of fuss, and permits the reader to focus on the more interesting portion of the investigation, the study of David's characterization. My gratitude goes to each of my advisers listed above, as well as to many friends who contributed indirectly by means of intellectually stimulating conversations about method, about history, about literature, and about the nature of social interaction within ethnic and religious communities. Participants in those 'heady' conversations include Frances Gench, Bill Brown, JoAnne Dyson, Nancy Lee, Blake Grangaard, Mary Kate Berglund, Mary Boyd, Pat MacNicoll and many others too numerous to list. I wish to thank especially Paul E. Gill and Richard D. Nelson, both of whom taught me how to critically evaluate 'critical' scholarship, and Pat Woolever, who reminded me every week of the great value to be found in a simple story well told. Special thanks also to Wayne Bender, who got me started on this path, Sib Towner for friendship and guidance beyond the call of duty, and my parents, Jack and Pat, as well as my brother, Mark, all three of whom stimulated my interests in both literature and the past. Above all, I thank my best friend and lover, my wife, Tina, without whom I would not succeed and to whom this book is gratefully dedicated. Greencastle, Pennsylvania August 11, 1996

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABRL AnBib BDB BHS Bib Biblnt BIOSCS BLS BR CBC CBQ CJT DID ETL GKC

HAR HS HSM HTR HUCA IE] ILBS ISBL JB

JBL JBQ JPSV

JSOT JSOTSup JSS LCBI LCL

Anchor Bible commentary series Anchor Bible Reference Library series Analecta biblica F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblical Interpretation Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Bible and Literature Series Biblical Research Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Canadian Journal of Theology Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, ed. K. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley Hebrew Annual Review Hebrew Studies Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Israel Exploration Journal Indiana Literary Biblical Series Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature Series Jerusalem Bible Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Jewish Publication Society Version Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOT, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation Series Loeb Classical Library

10 NAB NIV NRSV

NSKAT OBO OIL PEGLMBS Proof RB RSV

SBLDS SBLSS SEA SHANE SJOT USQR VT WBC ZAH ZAW

The Faces of David New American Bible New International Version New Revised Standard Version Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar, Altes Testament Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Testament Library commentary series Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwestern Biblical Societies Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History Revue biblique Revised Standard Version Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies Svensk exegetisk arsbok Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Scandinavian Journal for the Old Testament Union Seminary Quarterly Review Vetus Testamentum Word Bible Commentary series Zeitschriftfiir Althebraistik Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

1. The Nature of this Study Second Samuel presents a sequel to the rising-star narrative about David found in 1 Samuel. The story traces the protagonist's career to its pinnacle, and then portrays a decline into fratricide and instability. Included are three poems attributed to David: a Lament (2 Sam. 1.19-27), a Song (2 Sam. 22) and the 'prophetic' words of David (2 Sam. 23.1-7).' I will examine these poems within their narrative framework. The question to be addressed is: In what way do they contribute to the characterization of David? In the course of my analysis, shorter poems, such as the lament over Abner (2 Sam. 3.33-34), and more prosaic utterances,2 such as David's prayer in 2 Samuel 7, will be examined as well; however, the three major poems placed upon David's lips will serve as focal points, giving structure to the investigation. The choice of texts for examination was suggested by previous scholarship's approach to these poems. Often, 2 Samuel 22, which is nearly identical to Psalm 18, is treated as though unrelated to its speaker, the character David.3 Likewise, scholarship tends to view the Lament over 1. Throughout this monograph, biblical chapter and verse numbers are cited according to BHS. Text-critical decisions are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Unless noted otherwise, English translations are my own. 2. For the nature and qualities of Hebrew 'poetry' and its relationship to 'prose', see J.L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), chs. 1 and 2, and Kugel's remarks, pp. 299302. See also, the helpful critical response to Kugel by A. Cooper, 'On Reading Biblical Poetry', Maarav 4 (1987), pp. 221-41. 3. Redaction critics focus upon the fact that the poem gives every reasonable appearance of having been inserted into its present setting after the main narrative was more or less complete. See, for example, P.K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 473-75. Literary readers deal with the poem as a speech of a story-bound character, but likewise have not offered, in any

12

The Faces of David

Saul and Jonathan as well as the last words of David either through the lens of a 'Deuteronomistic History' hypothesis, or as actual poems of a historical David.4 To my knowledge, a full-scale investigation into the contribution these poems could make to David's characterization in the story of Samuel has not been attempted. Since the question proposed is of a synchronic nature, the focus will be literary rather than historical. The method commonly called poetics will be employed. Tersely defined, poetics is a text-centered, synchronic study which pays attention to the differing points of view expressed by each character as well as narrator. (A slightly more comprehensive discussion is offered below, in section 2.) The goal of this approach is to discern what effect the poems attributed to David have on the larger narrative, and, conversely, what effect the narrative has upon them. Fulfillment of this goal will not require answers to the diachronic questions raised by source, form and redaction criticism. This is not to say that the literary approach is ahistorical. I disagree with those who have asserted that a synchronic reading is either impervious to, or antithetical to, historical considerations.5 One cannot read an systematic way, a treatment of its function as vehicle for character development. Some of these scholars even downplay its role in this regard, preferring to see in the poem a narrational adjustment to the story's previous characterization of David. As one example, see J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup, 139; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), ch. 6. These perspectives are correct so far as they go, but in my view they are insufficient for a full appreciation of the poem in context. 4. What has been asserted in the previous note concerning 2 Sam. 22 is true for these two poems as well. Historical critics are especially taken with the possibility that one or both of these shorter texts represent the ipsissima verba of a historical King David (so, for example, McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 78-79, 483-86). Literary critics frequently concentrate on the narrator's voice in these poems, downplaying David's voice. See, for example, R. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. III. 2 Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), pp. 14-25, 202-207. 5. The anti- or ahistorical perspective is ubiquitous in literary circles. See, for example, the otherwise informative essay by C.R. Holladay, 'Contemporary Methods of Reading the Bible', in L.E. Keck, et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible. I. General Articles, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), pp. 125-49 (136-38); see also E.V. McKnight, The Bible and the Reader: Introduction to Literary Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), pp. xiii-xix; J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. I. King David (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), pp. 421-23. A. Cooper offers a nuanced discussion,

1. Introduction

13

ancient literary artifact from a long-dead culture, written in an ancient Semitic tongue (the precise nuances of which are no longer fully accessible), without some degree of historical grounding.6 Indeed, as Meir Sternberg has argued, without a close reading of the literature as literature, the historian is incapable of dealing with it competently; without a historical perspective, the literary critic moves through an alien world blindly.7 For practical reasons the defined boundaries of this study are those of the Hebrew Bible's Former Prophets. Within those boundaries, I will focus on those chapters of the narrative in which the character David appears (1 Sam. 16 to 1 Kgs 2). But this narrow range of study will be expanded as necessary, especially with respect to the 'prologue' to David's entrance which is found in 1 Samuel 1-15. In many instances, the larger narrative framework, Genesis through Kings, will come into play as well.8 'On Reading the Bible Critically and Otherwise', in R.E. Friedman and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 61-79. An interesting personalized discussion by M. Bal highlights the reality that many literary readings have been charged with historical agnosticism falsely, and that a few historical approaches to the material have been plagued by questionable ideological presuppositions (M. Bal, On StoryTelling; Essays in Narratology [ed. D. Jobling; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1991], pp. 14-16). 6. T.L. Thompson, 'Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 65-92 (67-69). On the nature of 'Biblical Hebrew' as an ancient Semitic tongue, see E.A. Knauf, 'War BiblischHebraisch eine Sprache?', ZAH 3 (1990), pp. 11-23. 7. M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (ILBS; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), pp. 10-11. 8. The historically cautious reader is bound by necessity to accept either the Jewish or a Christian canon as received. If one prefers, one can choose to interpret those texts in conformity with a long tradition of religious exegesis. However, all the extant writings of ancient exegetes (from Qumran to Josephus to New Testament to Mishnah) possessed complex theologies through which to read what were for them the 'sacred' books, theologies that are not reflected in the Hebrew texts themselves and that might impose as much distortion as any modern reader. In any case, the Former Prophets in extant form are the point of departure, not a recent hypothesis about them (such as the 'Deuteronomistic History' or the 'Court History', etc.). As stated above, discussion of redactional issues is beyond the scope of this work, and therefore, the material will be dealt with in its earliest recoverable

14

The Faces of David

The five chapters of the study advance in linear fashion. This chapter discusses method briefly and then a few preliminary narrational issues. Chapter 2 moves to the central concerns of the work, painting a portrait of David's character as presented in the prose portions of Samuel and Kings. Chapters 3, 4 and 5 deepen the discussion of the prose narrative, and evaluate each of the three major poems attributed to David, discerning how they contribute to David's characterization. 2. Literary Approaches to Biblical Narrative I can be brief since it is not useful to outline a history of literary scholarship and its impact on biblical scholarship.9 With respect to the book of Samuel, those whose primary field was biblical scholarship had begun to engage in cross-disciplinary 'literary' readings of the text in the 1960s and 1970s.10 The 1980s and early 1990s saw a virtual explosion of literary-oriented scholarship into the book of Samuel, some of which will be cited in the pages of this volume. It cannot be said, however, that a literary approach to the Hebrew Bible is a univocal discipline. One finds in the scholarship 'literary' readings coming from many perspectives and employing a variety of labels. Although the nuances are many, essentially these varieties can be reduced to those that emphasize the text and those that emphasize the reader's response to the text. No literary method excludes one pole in favor of the other; each tends to emphasize one over the other. textual form—that is to say, in the form of an eclectic text established by examination of the ancient extant versions. Incidentally, I therefore assume, logically, that the 'earliest recoverable' text is one which might have been in circulation circa late fourth or early third century BCE, or perhaps earlier. 9. For the former, see W. Martin, Recent Theories of Narrative (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986). For the latter, one might begin with D.J.A. Clines and J.C. Exum, 'The New Literary Criticism', in D.J.A. Clines and J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 143; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 11-25. 10. Examples include J.J. Jackson, 'David's Throne: Patterns in the Succession Story', CJT 11 (1965), pp. 183-95; D.M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978); idem, The Fate of King Saul (JSOTSup, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980); C. Conroy, Absaloml Absalom\ Narrative and Language in 2 Samuel 13-20 (AnBib; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978); J.D. Levenson, '1 Samuel 25 as Literature and History', CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 11-28; D. Jobling, 'Jonathan: A Structural Study in 1 Samuel', in The Sense of Biblical Narrative (JSOTSup, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), pp. 4-25.

1. Introduction

15

The debate over text versus reader can mislead one into thinking that the issue is one of 'objectivity' versus 'subjectivity'. It might be held that a text-centered reading of a biblical document will not succumb as easily to the whim of the reader's subjective response.11 Advocates of a reader's response approach, however, will counter that the text is passive, and that it requires the reader's effort to become actualized. In this view, 'subjectivity' is inevitable, and the text serves as the necessary, but always inadequate, guard against excessive subjectivity.12 An important a priori consideration that informs my work is my recognition that the rhetorical thrust of a narrative is designed to be interpreted within the story-world boundaries. As Lyle Eslinger notes, Hebrew biblical narrative is very different from, say, the letters of Paul in the New Testament.13 The latter, presumably at least, were explicitly written to persuade an ancient audience toward particular ideological convictions and concomitant actions. Narrative, on the other hand, explicitly addresses no audience external to its own artificially created storyworld. Of course, it is possible that any given narrative was created by an author whose goal was to persuade the reader, but a cautious reader is not able to assume this at the outset. As the narrative unfolds, the reader will or will not perceive a rhetorical agenda consistently reinforcing a particular perspective or 'repertoire', as Wolfgang Iser calls it.14 If this reinforcement is sufficiently didactic, it can be concluded that the text's author advocates an ideology that the reader is expected to consider and inculcate. If not, the reader will of necessity conclude that the author's intention was not to persuade, but perhaps to entertain or perhaps to engage the reader in some other way. I emphasize this point at the outset, since the perspective I am articulating is not widely shared in biblical scholarship. Even among literary theorists there tends to be an a priori assumption that biblical narrative will be didactic in nature, and thus one should begin by searching for the nature of that didacticism.15 In addition, most modern historical-critical 11. This thesis is advocated by Sternberg, Poetics, chs. 1 and 2. 12. For example, W. Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), pp. 24-27, 66-68, 180-231. 13. L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOTSup, 164; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), pp. 4-9. 14. Iser, Act of Reading, ch. 3; one example in which Iser evaluates the effect wrought by a didactic repertoire can be found on pp. 189-91. 15. B.S. Childs stresses the thesis that biblical texts were created by a religious

16

The Faces of David

readers routinely assume that the ideological convictions stated by a biblical narrator or even story-world character reflect the views of a real-world author and, perhaps, even audience. For example, Martin Noth's hypothesis that the Former Prophets, together with Deuteronomy, constituted a single, sixth-century composition was founded in large part upon Noth's conviction that the characters, Moses, Joshua, Samuel and Solomon, spoke on behalf of the hypothetical deuteronomistic writer.16 3. The Nature of the Story-World in the Former Prophets Evaluation of character development in a tale requires, as a prerequisite, evaluation of the story-world of that tale. An understanding of its nature is essential to a competent reading of the text. Therefore, before turning to the issue of David's character (which will be discussed in the following chapters), I will discuss in this section a few points of debate with respect to the story-world of Samuel and the Former Prophets. Samuel's story-world is an artistically created environment, inhabited by a variety of human characters, several magical religious objects (e.g., the ark of Yahweh, the Urim and Thummim, possibly the statue of Dagan, and so forth), at least one very active deceased human (Samuel, community as a way of expressing the community's sacred beliefs and practices (Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985]). This view is sometimes defended by literary critics as well, as for example, D. Patrick and A. Scult, Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation (JSOTSup, 82; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), p. 18 and passim. Since the Hebrew Bible as an anthology of ancient literature was preserved and transmitted by religious people who bestowed upon the texts a religious authority, these scholars assume that the creation of every text in the anthology was motivated by religious ideology. This assumption can and does affect 'meaning'. As M. Bal succinctly puts it, 'All that "goes without saying" because we no longer think about it determines the interpretation that we believe to be "inscribed in the text'" (M. Bal, Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on Sisera's Death [ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988], p. 136). Nevertheless, it remains only a hypothesis that any given text was created to advance a religious worldview. This is particularly the case with a book like Samuel, where didactic material is at a minimum. 16. M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al.\ JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981, [German original, 1943, revised 1957]). The thesis that these characters speak for the real-world author or redactor has been questioned by L. Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God (JSOTSup, 84; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989).

1. Introduction

17

in 1 Sam. 28), and at least one deity, Yahweh.17 This surreal environment has been well delineated in previous scholarship and does not require extensive review here.18 Nevertheless, one area of focus that is essential to a reading of any narrative text has become a matter of debate with respect to the Former Prophets. This is the issue of a distinction between 'author', 'implied author' and 'narrator', and the presumed reliability of the latter. The following discussion defines these concepts as briefly as possible and then probes the implications for a study of Samuel. Most introductory-level literary criticism texts include a chart of this kind, outlining the structure of the story-world created by the 'real' author of the narrative:19

17. It may be that Dagan is a deity as well. If so, he is clearly inferior to the powerful Yahweh. Within the larger story of Genesis to Kings, other deities infrequently occur, are quite 'real', and are usually less powerful than Yahweh (e.g., Gen. 6.2; Exod. 7.11-12; Lev. 16.8-10, and so forth). One deity seems to rival Yahweh's power, though the narrator attempts to mute that rivalry, namely Kemosh in 2 Kings 3. (Of Samuel's magical items listed, the ark of Yahweh appears in 1 Sam. 4-6, 2 Sam. 6, and passim; the Urim in 1 Sam. 28.6; Thummim in 1 Sam. 14.41 MT [cf. Old Greek]; the statue of Dagan in 1 Samuel 5.) 18. A comprehensive discussion of Samuel's story-world can be found in J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel (4 vols.; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981-93). Treatment of the ancient Near Eastern environment in which Samuel was composed can be found in E.A. Knauf, Die Umwelt des Alien Testaments (NSKAT; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994). J.W. Flanagan offers one kind of anthropological approach to the story-worlds created by biblical narrators in David's Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel's Early Iron Age (JSOTSup, 73; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988). Treatment of a few of Samuel's more interesting magical elements can be found in F.H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation (JSOTSup, 142; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), chs. 5 and 6, especially pp. 263-312. 19. This chart is derived from S. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London: Methuen, 1983), p. 86. The programmatic work is W.C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), chs. 3, 8, and passim. Since I apply these concepts to ancient literature, no attempt has been made to retain all the nuances of modern theoretical discussion. 'Implied author' and other terms are, in this study, wholly pragmatic labels which do not pretend to define with any kind of precision what the ancient author-redactor thought he was doing. Rather, these labels attempt to clarify in modern language the effect of ancient authorial-redactional effort, an effort which can be presumed to have been relatively selfconscious.

18

The Faces of David

Real Author

Implied Author

Narrator

Narratee

Implied Reader

Real Reader

A distinction is made between at least two, and usually three levels. Outside the literature stand the real author and the real reader. Within the literature, there is a voice that corresponds to the real author, and this voice speaks to an addressee that corresponds to the real reader. These two cannot be identified with their real counterparts. On the one hand, the real author might not share her or his narratival counterpart's world-views, ethical norms, degree of knowledge, and so forth. On the other hand, the real reader might not share the same world-views, ethical norms and cultural presuppositions as the one to whom the narrative's voice seems to be addressed. Given that literature-bound counterparts to the real author and real reader seem necessary, critical debate centers on what to label those counterparts, and how many to identify. All hold that narration involves at least a narrator and a narratee, while most insist on making a further distinction by positing an 'implied' author and reader as well. There are a variety of reasons for positing this additional layer, but the most significant for our purposes is the issue of the narrator's implied values.20 It is the function of the narrative voice within the story to establish the beliefs, value-systems, mores and philosophical orientations that guide the reader through the tale.21 Whether the narrator is external to the story-world boundaries, that is to say, whether the narrator is omniscient with respect to the story, or whether the narrator is a character within those boundaries, it is his or her voice that becomes ideologically authoritative for the reader. The real reader might find the narrator's values exemplary, satisfying, odd, naive, ill-informed, or perhaps even repugnant. Nevertheless, those are the values that set the agenda for reading. As the story unfolds, the real reader might determine that the real author has created an unreliable narrator. An 'unreliable' narrator is 20. Other reasons include the question of how the narration unfolds and achieves its effect, and the 'ontological' status of the narrator, either extradiegetic (unbound to the story-world) or intradiegetic (bound to the story-world), either homodiegetic (telling the narrator's personal story) or heterodiegetic (telling a story from which the narrator is absent). For the sake of brevity, I have subsumed these important issues into a discussion of the narrator's implied values. 21. Rirnmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, p. 81.

1. Introduction

19

recognized to be unreliable because something within the text (let us label it an 'implied' author) alerts the reader that the narrator's judgments are not to be trusted in every instance. That means that there will be two (or more) value-systems setting the agenda for one narrative.22 If so, the tale becomes doubly complicated, but not impossible to fathom. For example, an 'implied' author of Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn23 has created a narrator, Huck, whose distinctive value system becomes apparent to the reader as it is progressively contrasted to the values of other story-world characters with whom Huck comes into contact.24 In what follows, I will suggest that the story-world structure of Samuel and the Former Prophets employs a subtle interplay of competing value systems, one voiced and one only perceived in the unvoiced structure of the literature. To make sense of these competing 'voices', it might be best to label one the narrator and the other the implied author, and to maintain a distinction between the two when reading. (For convenience, and assuming that text production in Iron Age Palestine was a maledominated environment, the implied author and narrator receive masculine pronouns throughout this monograph.) This approach will be applied to the story of David (1 Sam. 16 to 1 Kgs 2) in subsequent chapters, but some additional delineation of the conceptual framework will be helpful at this stage. It has been commonplace among readers of the Hebrew Bible to assert that the implied author and the narrator are ideologically the same—little distinction need be made between these two levels. This view is defended by scholars adhering to a wide variety of reading strategies. For example, two leading theorists, Meir Steinberg and Lyle Eslinger, 22. 'What makes a narrator unreliable is that his values diverge strikingly from that of the implied author...' (S. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978], p. 149). 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday; undated reprint of original, published in 1884. 24. One sometimes needs to maintain a distinction between story-bound narratee, implied reader and real reader. In the case of an unreliable narrator, the narratee might be the one taken in by the narrator; the implied reader, however, catches the ironies and double entendres implanted into the structure of the story by the implied author. The real reader, of course, can view both levels. More in-depth discussion of the issues pertaining to narratee, implied reader and real reader is not necessary. Generally, the term 'reader' will be used, and unless otherwise stated, an implied reader is meant. Occasionally, 'narratee' will appear, and in that case, a story-bound hearer of the tale is meant.

20

The Faces of David

find themselves in fundamental agreement on this point. Sternberg holds that the real authors of biblical narrative were ordinary scribes who made no pretensions concerning an inspired or divinely guided genius, but who nevertheless intentionally created literary counterparts, implied authors, who claimed to be divinely inspired.25 These implied authors are third-person narrators who are omniscient with respect to the story-worlds they create and describe. Sternberg holds that the storytelling strategy of omniscience sufficiently serves as an implicit claim of divine inspiration. The result is a form of narrative in which 'the implied author and the narrator to whom he delegates the task of communication practically merge into each other',26 for the purpose of expressing an ideological viewpoint similar to what many scholars call 'deuteronomism' ,27 Few literary critics agree with the first half of Sternberg's rather strained thesis. Biblical narrators never give the impression that they claim to derive their omniscient status from the deity, Yahweh. On the contrary, biblical narrators routinely treat the deity as one among many story-world characters. Like many other ancient narratives in which a god or gods figure, the biblical narrator stands above God, able to report the deity's innermost thoughts, feelings, even jealousies, when it suits the narrator's purpose to do so.28 For that reason, Eslinger turns the first half of Sternberg's thesis on its head, arguing that it was a misreading of the convention of the narrator's omniscience (common to many narratives, ancient and modern) that led to the doctrines of divine 25. This paragraph attempts to summarize the argumentation in ch. 3 of Sternberg, Poetics. See also, Poetics, ch. 2. 26. Sternberg, Poetics, p. 75. 27. Although most biblical scholars are familiar with what is meant generally by the term 'deuteronomism', in this context, no attempt is made at precision in the definition of that hypothetical ancient theological 'school'. Reasons for the necessity of the imprecision will become obvious in due course. For one of many good summaries of 'deuteronomistic theology' as usually understood in the scholarship, see M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (repr.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992 [1972]). 28. D.M. Gunn offers a thorough critique of Steinberg's work in 'Reading Right: Reliable and Omniscient Narrator, Omniscient God, and Foolproof Composition in the Hebrew Bible', in D.J.A. Clines, et al. (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield (JSOTSup, 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 53-64. For another helpful critique of Sternberg, see, B.O. Long, 'The New Biblical Poetics of Alter and Sternberg', JSOT 51 (1991), pp. 71-84 (79-83).

1. Introduction

21

inspiration held in various ways by Jews and Christians.29 Nevertheless, many scholars, such as Eslinger, would agree with the second portion of Sternberg's thesis, that the implied author and the narrator are essentially one. Eslinger holds that biblical narrators, with a few exceptions (such as Nehemiah), are detached third-person voices which are not bound to the story-worlds they create. Eslinger points to key biblical texts, such as Genesis 1, to defend this thesis: The narrator's distinctive vision is made more so by his failure to identify the source of his knowledge. He does not say, 'In the beginning I saw', or 'I dreamt that in the beginning', or even 'God told me that in the beginning'; he simply says 'in the beginning'. His superhuman ability is unapologe tic ally unconditioned. He just knows. The content of this first disclosure suggests that there is little if anything to do with the cosmos that this narrator could not know. 0/-1

With this thesis in place, Eslinger goes on to note that this omniscient narrator provides extremely inconsistent information.31 As historical critics have long noted, the story told by the narrator does not match the summary statements also voiced by the narrator. For example, in Joshua, a very incomplete 'conquest' occurs, but the narrator confidently repeats that 'all' the land has been subdued by Joshua and his warriors. Or again, in Joshua and Judges, Yahweh fails to follow through on divine promises, thus creating an environment where Israel cannot but go astray, yet the narrator voices Yahweh's view that it is Israel that is at fault. Eslinger's observation is echoed by many other scholars working from a literary perspective. For example, Robert Polzin notes the degree to which the pattern of divine retribution so explicitly emphasized by characters such as Yahweh and Moses has little to do with the pattern of retribution actually narrated. When the northern kingdom of Israel goes astray and does not repent, Yahweh saves (2 Kgs 13.5-6; 14.24-27).32 At 29. Eslinger, Into the Hands, p. 14. 30. Eslinger, Into the Hands, p. 16. See also, L. Eslinger, 'A Change of Heart: 1 Samuel 16', in L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and other Studies in Memory of P.C. Craigie (JSOTSup, 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 341-61(349). 31. This paragraph summarizes in broad strokes much of the data in Eslinger, Into the Hands. See also the study of Joshua by L.D. Hawk, Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991). 32. A. Cooper raises the additional suggestion that 2 Kings 14 involves 'falsification' of Amos 7 (Cooper, 'In Praise of Divine Caprice', in P.R. Davies and

22

The Faces of David

times, the people repent, and Yahweh chooses not to save (2 Kgs 23.2527). The same is true on an individual level. Saul repents in 1 Samuel 15 but Yahweh does not repent of his own 'repentance' with respect to Saul. Polzin concludes from these and other examples that: In spite of God's frequent threats and blandishments over the law, the reader cannot finish the [Deuteronomistic] History without being convinced that there is little connection between the salvation.. .that actually comes to an individual or a group in the story and the merits of those so favored. The merits or demerits of someone delivered by God are, more •5 "1

often that not, irrelevant to the deliverance itself.

As a consequence of these realities in the text of the Former Prophets, Eslinger holds that the narrator's purpose is to undermine, not uphold, deuteronomistic theology. In many narrative summary statements (e.g., 2 Kgs 17), the narrator is speaking tongue in cheek. These are not serious theological pronouncements, but sarcastically intended distortions of what the narrator knows to be the narrated truth. The reader, asserts Eslinger, is bound to arrive at a conclusion that dissents from the narrator's summaries, and this is what the narrator intends. The reader will conclude that the narrator finds Yahweh and humanity basically incompatible: The narrator blames neither God nor Israel. He simply reports the problem using the tools provided by his external, unconditioned viewpoint. And to the reader he offers a fresh insight into the problem of God and Israel. Existing as they do on two different levels of being, God and Israel constantly misunderstand each other. Divine omniscience may be a reality for the uninvolved God but for the one that has chosen to mix with [humans] in history it seems to cloud the resulting confusion. The history of Israel, traced in the deuteronomistic narratives, is a history of misunderstanding and cross-purposes that ends, as it must, in failure.34

An obvious weakness in Eslinger's thesis is the regularity with which irony must be invoked to explain the dichotomy between narration and narrative summary. There are so many narrative summaries that are incompatible with narrated events that the 'irony' in the narrator's voice becomes, on Eslinger's reading, an increasingly caustic sarcasm. By the time one reaches 2 Kings 17, a crucial text in Eslinger's hypothesis, one D.J.A. Clines [eds.], Among the Prophets: Language, Image, and Structure in the Prophetic Writings [JSOTSup, 144; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 144-63 [14546]). 33. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 91. 34. Eslinger, Into the Hands, p. 24.

1. Introduction

23

wonders why this narrator persists in expressing a theology so alien to his own views with such numbing consistency. Sternberg and Eslinger are competent literary scholars who, having read the same narrative carefully, came to opposite conclusions. For Sternberg, the narrator (= implied author) is an inspired advocate of his God, Yahweh. The narrator's role is to defend the deity at every turn, pushing a monotheistic ideological agenda in which the merciful creator of the universe has chosen a people, declared them his people, and entered into a long and turbulent relationship, in which Israel was constantly at fault for the catastrophes that occurred. Eslinger's narrator (= implied author) is a detached voice which employs the seemingly neutral language of narrative summary as a means to undercut the very kind of ideology Sternberg believes to be the basic agenda of the text. Eslinger's narrator pushes the reader toward a differently conceived religious world-view, one that a modern theologian might recognize as more 'agnostic', perhaps more 'humanistic', certainly more ambiguous. In spite of the weaknesses noted in each, the views of Sternberg and Eslinger are essentially correct; both scholars have discerned what is actually present in the text. Historical-critical scholars have been long aware of the observations made by Eslinger (and Polzin) that narrative summaries are sometimes in tension with the narrated events. For his part, Sternberg has correctly summarized what virtually all scholars, with the exception of Eslinger and a few others, would recognize as the actual ideological stance of the story-world narrator. Interestingly, historical-critical scholarship explains these anomalies by appeal to theories of disparate underlying sources sewn together by a deuteronomistic authorredactor who does not necessarily agree with everything he preserved from his sources, or theories of successive stages of redaction in which later scribes reinterpreted, but did not erase, earlier texts. But many scholars, including some historical-critical scholars, are unsatisfied with these hypotheses, since they create a final redactor who is little more than 'a by-product of literary hypotheses' and not a believable ancient Palestinian scribe.35 This is an issue which requires a few additional comments. 35. B. Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 109. Halpern's book is a response to the volume by J. Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). Although Halpern mentions literary studies of the Bible, he does not deal with them

24

The Faces of David

Even if the text is a composite of disparate sources, one must attempt to make sense of the final whole. Who would have written this, and why? Three possible answers have been advanced in modern scholarship, each of which involves stepping outside the boundaries of the text to the real world of ancient authors and redactors. First, majority historical-critical scholarship answers this question by positing the familiar redactor who is harmonizing source-texts or supplementing received texts, permitting summary statements to 'neutralize' conflicting statements in the material. This perspective is widespread. Earlier, it was noted that Noth's hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic History is founded upon it. Most of Noth's followers have perpetuated the assumption. As only one example, note the characterization bestowed upon a hypothetical second deuteronomistic redactor by Frank Cross: In this revision [of the hypothetical Josianic edition], the account of Manasseh's reign in particular was retouched, conforming Judah's fate to that of Samaria and Manasseh's role to that of Jeroboam... In the retouching of the original work by an Exilic hand, the original theme of hope is over-written and contradicted... [Essentially, the Deuteronomistic history is a work of the late Kingdom, suffering only minor modification by a member of the Deuteronomistic school in the Exile.36

What is of interest in this quotation from Cross's influential essay is not that Cross believes the story to have been glossed lightly by a second redactor (a thesis which may or may not be correct), but that Cross's primary reason for discerning two hands in the text is his belief that the story 'suffers' from contradictory over-writing. Although Cross adds arguments to the observation, his thesis rests fundamentally upon his insistence that character development in 2 Kings 21 is incompatible with character development elsewhere in the narrative as it is received and extensively. The Halpern and Van Seters monographs contribute significantly to scholarly discussion, both attempting to defend the view that biblical narratives were written as historiography. Halpern is particularly sensitive to what might be termed literary-aesthetic issues, and therefore contributes more than he may have intended to poetics scholarship. Nevertheless, see also the incisive comments of E. Nicholson, who evaluates Van Seters, and to a lesser extent, Halpern, concluding that both have marshalled evidence against their own theses (Nicholson, 'Story and History in the Old Testament', in S.E. Balentine and J. Barton [eds.], Language, Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994], pp. 13550). 36. P.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 287-89.

1. Introduction

25

therefore must derive from a second scribe.37 This is plausible but not very compelling. One might prefer to compare the characterization of Manasseh vis-a-vis Josiah with the characterization of Ahaz vis-a-vis Hezekiah in the book of Isaiah, or similarly, the presentation of the waffling, hot-and-cold Zedekiah with the decisively evil Jehoiakim in the book of Jeremiah. As a matter of fact, the theme of the good, or the partially good, being unable to overcome the effects of evil is a common one in the Hebrew Bible (see, for example, Gen. 18-19, Hab., and so forth). Therefore, Cross's redactional thesis is not the only, or necessarily the most plausible, explanation for Cross's observations about Manasseh in 2 Kings 21. Is the final author-redactor, whoever that may have been, to be regarded as one who has glossed a prized narrative and in the process 'contradicted' its central theme, or is the narrative to be seen as presenting a complex perspective, the precise nuance of which remains elusive to the modern reader? A second possible explanation is advanced by literary theorists such as Sternberg and Eslinger, who argue that the narrative 'bumpiness' is part of a literary strategy ultimately expressing a single ideology by a very circuitous route. As was noted, the difficulty with this approach is its assumption that the ancient reader was expected to discern (and agree with!) one and only one ideological perspective, in spite of the cacophony of disharmonious ideological voices swarming within the story-world boundaries. The fact that Eslinger and Sternberg are able to arrive at opposite conclusions demonstrates the problem.38 As Iser has argued,

37. Cross argues that the Manasseh pericope (2 Kgs 21) contradicts the twin themes of the 'sin' of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11-13) and the promise to David (2 Sam. 7; 1 Kgs 11.36, etc.). From a literary perspective, this thesis amounts to an argument that the Manasseh character and the deity who responds to him are incompatible with the Jeroboam and David characters and the deity who responds to them. Thus Cross's arguments can be evaluated by paying attention to character development within the story. (See also the brief discussion of R.D. Nelson's work, below, p. 28.) 38. Also, the fact that two thousand years of traditional exegesis tends to side with Sternberg to a (somewhat) greater extent than with Eslinger does not tip the scales against the latter. F. Jameson's observation that interpretive communities will arrive at conclusions predetermined by reading strategy sheds light on this aspect of the the issue. Cf. Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), p. 9. See also, S. Fish, Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), pp. 305-71.

26

The Faces of David

throughout human narrative literature, narration of a didactic or propagandistic nature tends to avoid confusing its reader with the complexities of an issue, presenting instead a rather clear perspective. It is non-reinforcing repertoires which can be expected to give equal time to several agendas.39 Clearly, the Former Prophets present a non-reinforcing repertoire. The third potential explanation has been articulated as part of what might be termed a minority historical-critical opinion. It takes several forms, but in each instance, the Hebrew narratives are viewed roughly as archives rather than as literature. For example, Thomas Thompson suggests that the biblical redactors were not historiographers, nor were they storytellers or theologians, but rather, librarians; they were literary elites with an antiquarian interest in preserving as much literature as possible, but unconcerned with having that literature make sense as a coherent whole.40 A different view, expressed by Anthony Campbell, holds that the biblical narratives are skeletal outlines, a collection of story 'reports' from which the ancient storyteller extracted raw material for each creative new oral presentation.41 In this view, as with the 'librarian' thesis, the ancient final redactor made no attempt to present coherent narrative, but only to assemble story outlines into a particular sequence and preserve them in an archive. Of these three possible explanations for the received shape of the Former Prophets, the third appears to have the greatest cogency. Given the consistency with which inconsistencies appear in the material, one must assume, at very least, a rather long process of sifting and rewriting has taken place. The final form, therefore, could be designated very plausibly an archive rather than a narrative per se. In this case, any attempt to read the individual narratives as a single narrative would amount to an attempt to read against the grain of the material. If this third perspective is correct, however, one wonders at the care with which the ancient archivists have ordered the material into a single, continuous narrative complete with chronological indicators, albeit internally inconsistent ones, and literary cross-references of an almost

39. Iser, Act of Reading, pp. 83-5. 40. T.L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 366-72. 41. A.F. Campbell, 'The Reported Story: Midway between Oral Performance and Literary Art', Semeia 46 (1989), pp. 77-85.

1. Introduction

27

infinite variety.42 Although the third hypothesis is an improvement over the previous two, it does not seem to go far enough in dealing with the actual shape of the received narrative. It does, however, illustrate the problem all exegetes face, namely that modern readers of ancient narratives 'always hover in suspense between anachronistic interpretation and incomprehension' ,43 Each of these options permits us only one conclusion with respect to the text itself: The story narrated in the Former Prophets is incoherent, and meant to be so. Or to say the same thing another way, all the options beg the same question: What makes for 'coherence' in an ancient Palestinian narrative? Either the real author-redactor had no intention beyond antiquarian desire to compile texts (third option), or he permitted discordant textual anomalies to cloud any ideology or narrational coherency he wished to express (first or second options). I know of no other option presented in modern scholarship. Perhaps this is the case because readers have been too quick to jump from the story to theories concerning the real-world author(s) of the story. It is not surprising that, given these options, the last decade or so has seen experimental alternative strategies—strategies that remain within the bounds of the story-world, without attempting (initially, at least) to resolve the issue of real-world authorial intention. In spite of the widespread consensus concerning the omniscience and reliability of the narrator in biblical narrative, a number of voices have begun to reassess the thesis. Increasingly, one reads statements of this kind: Today the notion of 'omniscient narrator' is under discussion...One reason is that this omniscience can vary from one story to another. The narrator of Gen 1 or Exod 1-15 'knows' more than the narrator of 1-2 Sam, for instance, concerning God's plan.44

42. On the complicated subject of literary cross-referencing, see L. Eslinger, 'Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category', VT 42 (1992), pp. 47-58. As only one example of the problem with respect to the present discussion, note how the character Joab makes reference to Abimelech in 2 Sam. 11.21. This interesting element of Joab's speech creates fascinating potential for the literary interpreter, but ill suits the hypothesis either that the story has been recorded as a skeletal 'report' to be actualized by the oral storyteller (Campbell) or that the narrative is an archival recording for antiquarian interest (Thompson). 43. Bal, Murder and Difference, p. 109. 44. J.L. Ska, 'Our Fathers Have Told Us': Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1990), p. 45.

28

The Faces of David

In 1988, Richard Nelson advanced a hypothesis that the narrator of the book of Kings is unreliable.45 Nelson notes that the final form of the book is either incoherent or masterfully subversive. It presents a God who is not trustworthy, consistently undercutting not only the narrator but God's own chosen prophets, such as Huldah in 2 Kings 22. Moreover, after the numbing regularity with which the narrator has driven home his doctrine of divine retribution, God almost whimsically 'changes the rules' toward the end of the book. Nelson concludes: Behind every narrator the reader may trace the outlines of an 'implied author', who may not have precisely the same point of view as the narrator who ostensibly tells the story. The non-concurrence of the ideological point of view of an implied author and the narrator employed by that implied author is a species of irony. The narrator represents a point of view which becomes the object of the reader's critical evaluation under the guidance of hints from the implied author. I would suggest that something of this nature is going on in the book of Kings.46

In agreement with Nelson's view of Kings, my working hypothesis is that the narrator of the Former Prophets generally, and the book of Samuel specifically, is unreliable. As an experimental starting point, one might suggest the following: Those who interpret the narrator's voice in Genesis through Kings to be a detached, omniscient voice not bound to the story-world generally have fallen prey to what Shlomith RimmonKenan (following M. Perry) terms the 'primary effect'. This effect occurs when 'information and attitudes presented at an early stage of the text tend to encourage the reader to interpret everything in their light'.47 In Eslinger's case, for example, Genesis 1 has set the agenda. The reader believes that the authoritative voice cannot be other than an omniscient one. However, if one permits 'recency effect'48 to enter into discussion, factors appearing later in the narrative, such as the examples to which Ska alludes in Samuel, will cause the reader to re-evaluate the initial impression created by Genesis 1. Recently narrated events in the story betray that the narrator of Genesis 1 or even Exodus 1-15 might be telling more than he knows.49 45. R.D. Nelson, The Anatomy of the Book of Kings', JSOT 40 (1988), pp. 39-48. 46. Nelson, 'Anatomy', p. 47. 47. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, p. 120. 48. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, p. 120. 49. This does not imply that the narrator of Genesis to Numbers is the same narrator as that of Deuteronomy through Kings. Distinctly different biases seem to

1. Introduction

29

Many scholars have noted tell-tale indications that the narrator of the Former Prophets is a story-bound character living at the time of the story's Babylonian exile, narrated in the closing chapter of Kings. Frequently, for example, this narrator appeals to landmarks or socio-political realities still viable 'unto this day'.50 Historical-critical scholars frequently rely upon these references in an effort to 'date' biblical texts. Their narrative function, however, seems more obvious. By having the narrator pause in the account of events to remind the narratee of some familiar landmark or social reality, these references effectively anchor the narrator and the narratee to the story-world. It is interesting to note that every 'unto this day' formula in the Former Prophets describes a landmark or a socio-political situation which could have been the case at a story-world time after the last narrated event in 2 Kings 25.51 Other indications of an intradiegetic narrator are abundant. For example, in the book of Kings, this narrator will make frequent appeal to the be reflected ('P' vs. 'D' perhaps?). An untested possibility is that we have more than one narrator in Genesis to Kings; if so, all are intradiegetic. Perhaps the final creator(s) of the Torah and Former Prophets attempted to 'kill off the earlier narrator(s), creating a division between more 'heroic' and more 'mundane' eras after the passing of Moses from the story-world stage. 50. In the Former Prophets, the narrator employs the phrase HTH DTTT 1!3 in: Josh. 4.9; 5.9; 6.25; 7.26; 8.28, 29; 9.27; 13.13; 14.14; 15.63; 16.10; Judg. 1.21, 26; 6.24; 10.4; 15.19; 18.12; 1 Sam. 5.5; 6.18; 27.6; 30.25; 2 Sam. 4.3; 6.8; 18.18; 1 Kgs 8.8 (?); 9.13, 21; 10.12; 12.19; 2 Kgs 2.22; 8.22; 14.7; 16.6; 17.23, 34, 41. 51. This is, of course, sometimes disputed. However, one does not need to strain the plain sense of any given text to read all such notices as consistent with the existential situation of a story-bound narrator living in the period we moderns would call the latter half of the sixth century, BCE. A few passages, such as Josh. 6.25, 9.27, 13.13 and so forth, speak of ethnic groups which the narrator claims are still present in his own time. One of these groups (Josh. 9.27) serves at the altar of Yahweh. (Interestingly, in the story-world of Jeremiah, a house of Yahweh stands in Palestine after the fall of Jerusalem [Jer. 41.5]. No doubt, the narrator of the Former Prophets lives among Yahwists who also have a religious shrine with an altar.) In MT 1 Kgs 8.8, a notice occurs that is absent from the Old Greek and appears to be secondary. In any case, the fate of the Ark is not narrated, so the text is rather straightforward. A few texts (1 Sam. 27.6; 1 Kgs 12.19; 2 Kgs 8.22) are sometimes thought to presuppose a monarchic setting; they presuppose only that the speaker is ideologically committed to Judah as the chosen people of Yahweh, to whom the fidelity of Yahweh for future times is assured by prophetic announcement (cf. Deut. 4.29-31; 30.1-5; 2 Kgs 19.30-31). The narrator reckons the kingdom of Judah still a reality, although the implied author might not, since the narrator is unable to mention an heir in the context of Jehoiachin's obituary notice (2 Kgs 25.27-30).

30

The Faces of David

'books of the days of the kings' of Israel and Judah.52 Historically speaking, it has been questioned whether day-books would have survived long enough for an actual seventh- or sixth-century biblical writer to make use of them, or whether such books would have provided the kind of information that the narrator of Kings provides.53 On the other hand, references of these kinds are an ideal way for an author to impress upon the reader the point that the narrator is bound to the story-world. His 'information' derives from resources within the story, and he encourages his narratee, who is also bound to the story-world, to make similar use of those resources.54 Similarly, frequent reference to such texts as a 'book of Yashar' (Josh. 10.13; 2 Sam. 1.18; possibly 1 Kgs 8.12-13, cf. Old Greek) not only anchor the narrator to the story-world, but have the added effect of giving the narratee the impression that the narrator knows what he is talking about, whether or not he does. If the narrator is both intra- and heterodiegetic (a character within the story who is telling a tale from which he is absent), it follows that his knowledge is more limited than that of an omniscient, extradiegetic narrator. It also follows that this character may have his own value system, or ideological agenda, that renders him unreliable to some extent. It is no surprise at all when this narrator occasionally identifies himself with the ideology of some characters within the story, as these two texts indicate: Now this is the reason why Joshua circumcised all the people... Circumcised were all the people who went forth [from Egypt], but all the people born in the desert...were not circumcised. For forty years the children of Israel walked in the desert...because they did not heed the voice of 52. 1 Kgs 14.19, 29; 15.7, 23, 31; 16.5, 14, 20, 27; 22.39, 46; 2 Kgs 1.18; 8.23; 10.34; etc. 53. D.B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 330-32. 54. Analogously, note how Mark Twain renders the sequel narrative of Huckleberry Finn compatible with his previously published novel: 'You don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, but that ain't no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth' (p. 1). In using this narrative strategy, Twain renders himself a story-world character (albeit one who never enters the narrated stage), and establishes Huck's credibility by having him critically evaluate a written source also existing within the story-world. How was an ancient reader to evaluate narrated references to written 'sources' to which the reader would not have had access?

1. Introduction

31

Yahweh, so that Yahweh swore to them lest they see the land about which Yahweh had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. (Josh. 5.4-6) Then, in that day, Solomon made a feast, with all Israel as well, a great assembly from the entrance to Hamath as far as the river of Egypt, before Yahweh our God, seven days and seven days—fourteen days [in all]. (1 Kgs 8.65)

Of interest here is that the narrator identifies very explicitly with the 'all Israel' about whom he speaks.55 The narrator is a faithful Israelite Yahwist, who claims to recount the story of his own corporate past. At critical moments in the story, such as the entrance into the promised land and the dedication of Solomon's temple, the narrator pauses to underscore his own fidelity with the people about whom he speaks. The narrator thus implies that Joshua and Solomon worship 'my' Yahweh; Joshua and Solomon are among the narrator's spiritual ancestors. Little wonder that modern scholarship has dubbed this narrator the 'deuteronomist' ,56 Returning now to my earlier discussion of Meir Sternberg and Lyle Eslinger, these observations help to illuminate in four ways the differences and similarities between the conclusions of these two talented critics. First, one can see how Sternberg and Eslinger can come to diametrically opposite conclusions derived from the identical textual evidence. Both scholars note that the narrator voices an ideology usually identified by modern scholarship as 'deuteronomistic' (whether Eslinger thinks the narrator actually espouses that ideology or not). There is very good reason why the story-bound narrator would voice such an ideology. As Robert Polzin has argued (from a methodological perspective somewhat at variance with the present discussion), this voice claims to be none other than the 'prophet like Moses' promised by the storyworld character, Moses, in Deut. 18.15-18.57 In other words, Sternberg's thesis that the story-world voice claimed divine inspiration was correct; 55. The use of the first common plural object suffixes cannot be viewed as scribal error since textual data do not indicate any uncertainty concerning the readings. 56. Most of what modern scholarship attributes to a hypothetical 'deuteronomist' is best attributed to the narrator of the Former Prophets, but not necessarily to the implied or real authors of these ancient works. 57. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History. I. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980), pp. 18-72 (esp. pp. 18-36,60-62).

32

The Faces of David

Sternberg was merely off target. He identified the implied author (= narrator) as the one who claimed inspiration. It was, however, the intradiegetic narrator, not the implied author, who makes that claim. Moreover, the claim to inspiration made by the narrator is not dependent upon the narrator's feigned omniscience, but on the narrator's emulation of his hero, Moses, as the textual examples in Polzin's discussion indicate (see also my example dealing with holy places, below). Secondly, these observations illuminate the issue about which Eslinger and Sternberg agree. Both merge the narrator with the creator of the story-world, the implied author. This is not correct. Like Huck Finn in Twain's novel, there is no way that the narrator of the Former Prophets could have invented the story-world described. Rather, the narrator is bound to that world, living after the final narrated event, and telling a long, complicated tale looking back over many centuries of story-world time.58 The implied author is a separate, silent voice which has created the story that the narrator merely recounts. Thirdly, these observations shed light on the odd way in which the narrator's voiced summaries do not match the narrator's description of events. Like Huck Finn, the narrator of the Former Prophets can be depended upon to offer a basically accurate narration of events as he perceives them to have occurred. However, since the narrator, like Moses before, claims to speak for Yahweh, he can be expected to evaluate narrated events in a way consistent with his own interpretation of the evaluations offered by the character Yahweh. In other words, the unreliability of this narrator tends to lean consistently in one direction; the narrator presents Yahweh as the narrator would have the reader believe in Yahweh. And the narrator defends Yahweh's actions in a way that is consistent with the narrator's theological perspective, a perspective dependent upon the authority of Moses in Deuteronomy. To illustrate my third point, I give one brief example of the narrator's unreliability in action. This example highlights the narrator's dependence upon Moses when dealing with the words and actions of Yahweh: What the narrator does not wish to admit, but which Yahweh reiterates constantly, is that holy places, such as the Jerusalem temple built by 58. The narrator's omniscience is a feigned omniscience: 'The narrator still remains a limited observer, who for some reason (brevity, convention, the rhetoric of aspersion, as with Nehemiah, or piety, as with Ezra) chooses to invest what he thinks his subject thinks with a show of objectivity' (Sternberg, Poetics, p. 87).

1. Introduction

33

Solomon, are mostly irrelevant to Yahweh's concerns. Discussion of some of the texts shedding light on this dynamic will demonstrate the assertion. In Deuteronomy 12, Moses advances a law that Israel must seek out the one place within its land at which Yahweh has chosen to put his name, and that one place only shall be the place of sacrifice; story-world reality as created by implied author is quite another matter. Many sanctuaries exist throughout the land, and no concern about them is expressed by Yahweh. Nor does Yahweh ever complain about the socalled 'high places' (niQH). As a matter of fact, the term is uttered by Yahweh only once in the Former Prophets, during his curse of the altar at Bethel (1 Kgs 13.2). In context, since Jeroboam has built an idol for Bethel and also some 'high places', Yahweh creatively curses the idolatrous altar by making reference to the priests of those high places, who shall be burned on the Bethel altar, desecrating it. If this is a word against the high places themselves, it is certainly ambiguous. Yahweh appears to be angered by the priests' participation in idolatrous worship at Bethel only. However, the narrator, in places such as 2 Kings 17, follows Moses' lead and consistently interprets Yahweh's words and actions as being opposed to these 'high places'. Likewise in this example, Yahweh has served notice that the 'place' built by Solomon is without significance. In 2 Sam. 7.10, Yahweh tells David, who is sitting in Jerusalem and hoping to build a temple there, that Yahweh will (future tense59) choose a place for his people, implying that Jerusalem is not that place, and rendering the prediction of v. 13a little more than an example of the deity's prescience. (Scholars have long noted, on other grounds, that v. 13a is, at best, a parenthetical aside, some even labelling it a redactional gloss.) Later, while the temple is under construction, Yahweh appears to Solomon to announce: As for this house which you are building—If you walk in my statutes, and my judgments you do, and you observe all my commands, to walk in them, then I will establish my word with you which I spoke with David, 59. On the verbal aspect of this passage, see J.P. Fokkelman, III: Throne and City, pp. 223-5. In addition to Fokkelman's observations, one might note the artistic transition from past narration to future promise contained in Yahweh's speech of 2 Sam. 7.9. Yahweh moves from past iterative action ('I was with you wherever you went') to a cohortative ('Now let me cut off all your enemies from before you') to future promise ('So that I might make your name [great] as the name of the great ones which are on earth').

34

The Faces of David your father. Then I will dwell in the midst of my people and I will not abandon my people, Israel.60

Yahweh has promised to establish his word with Solomon and to dwell with his chosen people. In spite of the fact that this oracle responds to the building of a temple, Yahweh makes no promises with respect to that structure, neither to establish his word concerning it, nor to dwell in it, nor to cause his name to dwell in it. In 1 Kgs 6.12-13, Yahweh announces that the game outlined as early as the Sinai covenant will not change; Yahweh demands obedience; Yahweh pledges never to abandon his people. 'As for this house', Yahweh adds nothing new. Yahweh's message could not be more clear: The temple is not (any longer? ever?) of particular concern to him (cf. 2 Sam. 7.5-7).61 Yahweh's attitude toward the Jerusalem temple is consistent from 2 Samuel 7 though 1 Kings 9. Only in the latter does he finally begin to adjust to Solomon's agenda, and then only minimally.62 The temple is, by contrast, of great concern to the narrator, who goes to excessive lengths to package story-world events in accordance with those concerns, and attempts to neutralize divine speech and action to the contrary through manipulative narrational summarizing of them. Creatively, but wholly erroneously, the narrator fashions a harmonizing interpretation from Yahweh's eclectic and ad hoc statements. In particular, the narrator seizes upon the deity's words in 1 Kgs 9.3 and 13.2. For the narrator, the law of Deuteronomy 12 is valid, but only after Yahweh gets around to choosing a place, and Yahweh does not bother to do this until the time of Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 3.2-3). Nevertheless, even after 1 Kings 9, it is always the narrator or story-world characters (e.g., Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah), never Yahweh, who are concerned about the integrity of the Jerusalem temple and the multiplicity of mOD (1 Kgs 12.31-32; 13.33-34; 14.23; 22.44; etc.). This example illustrates the degree to which the unreliable narrator's perspective differs from that of the implied author, who created opposed 60. 1 Kgs 6.12-13, a text which is not found in some ancient versions, but is the lectio difficilior in its setting and demands exegetical explanation. For a somewhat different reading of this text, see Eslinger, Into the Hands, pp. 141-42. 61. P.D. Miscall also notes that the story of Araunah's threshing floor undercuts the status of Solomon's temple proleptically (Miscall, '2 Samuel 24: A Meditation on Wrath, Guilt and the King', Shofar 11 [1993], pp. 65-79 [pp. 78-79]). 62. See the excellent treatment of 1 Kings 8-9 by Eslinger, Into the Hands, pp. 155-81.

1. Introduction

35

characterization for Yahweh and the narrator with respect to holy places. As such, the example serves to illustrate my third point: The narrator's unreliability is exposed by Yahweh's contrasting characterization; it is part of a deliberate storytelling strategy which creates a complex, non-didactic tale. Fourthly, these observations are compatible with Sternberg's assertion that the narrator defends a 'deuteronomistic' ideology, and with Eslinger's claim that the structure of the story-world as presented in the Former Prophets is designed to call into question that 'deuteronomistic' theology. It is the implied author who undercuts the narrator's pat explanations of Yahweh's troubling interaction with the human characters, creating the more 'ambiguous' perspective Eslinger discerns. But Eslinger goes too far when he characterizes texts such as 2 Kings 17 as ironic misrepresentations of the narration's ideology. Clearly, 2 Kings 17 and other narrated summaries encapsulate the narrator's perspective. The narrator does not speak tongue in cheek, but speaks with slightly forked tongue. However, the inconsistencies created by the implied author are not so jarring that one must dismiss the narrator's perspective as wholly unreasonable, given narrated events. As one scholar put it, the narrator's evaluation can be viewed as a tendentious interpretation of events, not a complete distortion of them; the narrator interprets story-world events in a way that will vindicate his view.63 This permits the reader a luxury— the luxury of accepting, without need for harmonization, multiple viewpoints within a single narrative. How does this discussion contribute to the central focus of my study, which is the characterization of David? Since the character David exists only in the events and speeches reported by the narrator, it is essential that the narrator's peculiarities and biases be observed. I submit that David's character emerges, at least partially, by means of the opposing perspectives provided by the narrator's and the implied author's differing evaluations of him. This suggestion will be fleshed out particularly in Chapters 3, 4 and 5. On the practical level, this discussion has been necessary so that the interpretational method employed in the following chapters will make 63. Halpern, First Historians, p. 118. Halpern was, of course, making this statement about a real author, the hypothetical deuteronomistic historian. His discussion accurately reflects the narrative voice, though I suspect that Halpern would not acknowledge the presence of a silent voice, an implied author.

36

The Faces of David

sense. It is possible to formulate a reading strategy designed to determine when and how to distinguish between a 'narrator' and an 'implied author'. The narrator of the Former Prophets can be trusted to the extent that the implied author has not undercut his claims by encoding a second opinion into the structure of the story. On those occasions when there is a second opinion encoded into the text, the unreliability of the narrator will be readily apparent to the attentive reader. Usually, the pattern is one in which the narrational summary is an inaccurate description of the previously narrated events. On a few occasions, the opposite occurs; the narrational summary hints that the narrator has not been entirely forthcoming when narrating previous events. To summarize, the implied author has created an indeterminate storyworld, but not an incoherent one. Ideologically, the narrator is an apologist for Yahweh and for human characters whom the narrator believes to be devout Yahwists (David, for example). However, the implied author is an apologist for nothing and appears to advance a non-reinforcing repertoire;64 indeed, the very existence of the implied author's patterned undercutting of the narrator creates a story-world tension which renders the possibility of a didactic repertoire problematic.65 In sum, while it would be possible to write a 'theology' of the narrator (which modern scholarship has dubbed the 'deuteronomist'), it would not be possible to write a 'theology' of the Former Prophets. They do not express a 64. It is probable that the tension between the narrator's unambiguous ideology and the implied author's almost sardonic scuttling of that ideology is what led Noth to conclude that his hypothetical deuteronomistic historian wrote an obituary expressing no future hope for Israel (Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, pp. 89-99). Noth was sensitive both to the theological thrust of the narrator and the lack of teleology inherent to the implied author's strategy, but Noth merged the two into his one hypothetical 'Deuteronomist'. Scholars who disagreed with Noth's assessment of the narrative's purpose preferred the theological ideology of the narrator to the atheology of the implied author (for example, H.W. Wolff, The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work', in W. Brueggemann and H.W. Wolff [eds.], The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions [Atlanta: John Knox, 2nd edn, 1982], pp. 83100). 65. There is a sense in which the complexity of the story-world structure in the Former Prophets parallels the complexity in the narrational framework of Qoheleth, as evaluated by M.V. Fox, 'Frame-Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet', HUCA 48 (1977), pp. 83-106 (pp. 104-106). Like the implied author of Qoheleth as defined by Fox, the implied author of the Former Prophets does not necessarily side with the orthodoxy expressed by the narrator, nor does he necessarily disagree with that orthodoxy.

1. Introduction

37

theology; they explore only the possibility of a theology. This point, I will have occasion to suggest, entails interesting repercussions for the reader's ultimate assessment of David's character. The thesis here advanced is an attempt to make sense of the text as we find it. The hypothesis does not attempt to recover the history of the text's redactional growth. It is not, however, incompatible with various redactional hypotheses. Historical critics generally assume that the redactor(s) compiled eclectic source materials. The view advanced does not disagree, but holds that any source-texts were heavily rewritten, permitting to remain only those inconsistencies which were useful for constructing the complicated but coherent story structure here discerned, in which an implied author dissents from the views of the narrator. One potential advantage of this hypothesis, if it be accepted, is that, when or if the time comes to ask questions concerning the real-world author(s)-redactor(s) of the Former Prophets, a portrait can be painted which accounts for the shape of the text in all its complexity, and therefore offers a more satisfying conclusion than the three options reviewed earlier, each of which appears to have taken account of only one aspect of the whole. Given the dual-voiced structure of the story, one might assume that it was not the intention of the biblical redactors to create a text that would voice a univocal ideological message. The biblical writers did not write what Sternberg would call 'foolproof narrative,66 nor did they gloss over or contradict opposing earlier sources as many redaction critics assume. On the contrary, the apparent motive behind the Former Prophets would have to be viewed as a kind of eclecticism, perhaps even pluralism. Thus, in response to questions of authorial intent, one might say (in partial agreement with Thompson and Campbell) that no story, nor any one version of a story told in multiple versions, was to be deemed authoritative. The narratives were strung together to function aesthetically, not canonically. That is to say, the Former Prophets were intended to be a coherent narrative literature (pace Thompson and Campbell, and in agreement with Sternberg and Eslinger), not a source of 'truth' about Yahweh's relationship to Israel (pace Sternberg and Eslinger) nor even an interpretation of the past (pace Noth, Cross, Halpern and others). If this is the case, the Former Prophets give every appearance that their authors were not interested in creating the kind of literary authority that the Bible eventually became for several religious communities. Rather, 66. Sternberg, Poetics, pp. 48-57.

38

The Faces of David

the final redactors of the Former Prophets could be viewed as the ideological forerunners of a later Talmudic principle expressed in the phrase, D"PI DTftK nni I^KI I1?!*, 'These and these are the words of the living God' ('Erub. 13b). Their view of the 'Israelite history' (if it be called that) narrated in the Former Prophets was one in which several potentially correct interpretations of that 'history' might be heard.67 If this thesis—which is not so much a thesis as a working hypothesis—is to be accepted, it must stand on its ability to offer compelling explanations for what are otherwise unexplained narrative anomalies. In this section, I have dealt briefly with a common element in critical debate, the religious ideology of the Former Prophets, usually labeled 'deuteronomism'. In the following chapters, the working hypothesis here outlined will be employed to shed light on another issue, the characterization of David. Throughout, I will maintain a dialogue with previous scholarly discussion of David's presentation in the Former Prophets, showing that the hypothesis of a dual-voiced story structure is compatible with, and a possible explanation for, the variety of opinions which have emerged concerning David's character.68 In Kings, for example, David is a plaster saint, who has done no evil (1 Kgs 11; 15.4; 2 Kgs 8.19, and so forth). In Samuel, by contrast, he appears to be a far more complex figure, as will be shown. The degree of complexity in David's character is partially the result of the dual presentation of him; the narrator presents David one way, the implied author, while not completely undermining that characterization, deepens it, rounds it, presents David as more human, more opaque. The result is a thoroughly compelling 67. The modern reader of the Former Prophets must be careful, however, lest she or he simply substitute the ideology of the implied author for the ideology of the narrator and conclude that the implied author's perspective is the real author's 'message'. While a working hypothesis might assume that the real authors-redactors held viewpoints more compatible with the implied author than with the narrator, there is no necessity to this assumption. To determine the intention of the real authors-redactors is not my purpose, but one could as easily conclude that they were 'deuteronomistic' Yahwists who nevertheless encouraged a kind of pluralism in which dissent from their own views (i.e. views voiced by the narrator) was a means for theological growth and exploration. 68. In other words, this thesis emerges at the intersection between historical, literary and anthropological studies. As such, it can be deemed to be very plausible as a historically grounded reading of the text. 'Only when the results of... an interpretive decision coincide with the findings of other [reading] codes can we reasonably attach a value to it that is not anachronistic', Bal, Murder and Difference, p. 92.

1. Introduction

39

story structure in which David emerges as a fully rounded character. The issue of David's characterization will be taken up in Chapter 2, and then explored in depth through the course of Chapters 3, 4 and 5.

Chapter 2 THE CHARACTERIZATION OF DAVID IN THE PROSE STORY As stated in Chapter 1, my purpose is to ask the following question: 'In what ways do three formal poems attributed to David contribute to the characterization of David?' Obviously, when addressing this question, one must first review the characterization of David in the prose portion of the story. Since David's characterization is a relatively narrow topic, a thorough examination of the themes of the entire literature would take the discussion too far afield. Nevertheless, a short discussion of the major themes of Samuel will serve to set the framework for the study of David's portrait which follows in the second half of this chapter. 1. The Themes of the Book of Samuel: Knowledge and Understanding In light of the brief discussion in Chapter 1 concerning the purpose for which a book like Samuel might have been generated, it could be argued that Samuel contains no 'theme' at all, due to its composite, anthological nature.1 However, without delving into the specifics of various redaction theories, it can be argued that the nature of Samuel as an anthology need not preclude a synchronic reading of its received form in search of thematic patterns, and might even demand it. The received book of Samuel could be regarded as a collection of narratives which fit two genres defined by Jan Vansina, 'Tales of Artistic 1. See Chapter 1, section 3. The assertion that Samuel has no literary theme is common, found even in the writing of scholars who nevertheless attempt to discern thematic elements in the literature. For example, P.K. McCarter asserts that the narratives 'have a heterogeneous appearance even to the untrained eye. Numerous internal thematic tensions, duplications and contradictions stand in the way of a straightforward reading of the story' (McCarter, / Samuel [AB, 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980], p. 12). McCarter concludes that a 'straightforward' reading can be performed only with the aid of source and redaction study.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

41

Merit', and 'Tales Concerned with Family Histories'.2 Specifically, these are tales concerned with two (possibly three or four, if Samuel and Eli are included3) dynastic families. As such, they have been preserved by a literate class,4 possibly members of a centralized bureaucracy, as Tales Concerned with General History', and fitted into their larger setting, Genesis through Kings.5 Both Samuel and its literary context serve the function of 'origin tradition', albeit in a highly complex form owing to the literary nature of the compendium.6 2. J. Vansina, Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (Chicago: Aldine, 1965), pp. 159-60 and 156-57. See also the updated volume, Oral Tradition as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985). Vansina defines 'tale' as an ostensibly historical account which nevertheless has as its aim 'either to instruct, edify, give pleasure or vindicate rights' (1965, p. 154). I assume the validity of comparison between contemporary traditional cultures and the archaeological and literary record of Iron Age Palestinian culture. For discussion, see J.W. Rogerson, 'Anthropology and the Old Testament', in R.E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 17-37, and see Rogerson's earlier volume, Anthropology and the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978). 3. G.W. Ahlstrom argues that a historical Samuel and a historical Eli were independent chiefs, ruling over small chiefdoms of the central Palestinian hills, prior to a historical Saul's unification of the region under the banner of the name 'Israel'. See Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), ch. 10. 4. On literacy in ancient Palestine, see two essays in one volume: E. Puech, 'Les ecoles dans 1'Israel preexilique: donnees epigraphiques' (pp. 189-203), and M. Haran, 'On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel' (pp. 81-95), in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Jerusalem, 1986 (Leiden: Brill, 1988). 5. Vansina, Oral Tradition (1965), p. 155. If the traditions derive from historical persons and events of the eleventh, tenth or ninth centuries, BCE, their preservation in the form of a book of Samuel suggests that they have passed through at least three functional stages: (1) Locally told tales (probably an oral stage, since there is little archaeological evidence for a bureaucracy with scribal class in Judah prior to the eighth century; see D.W. Jamieson-Drake, Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-Archeological Approach [JSOTSup, 109; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991], chs. 4 and 5); (2) Bureaucratically compiled tales (eighth to early sixth centuries); and (3) Tales edited for purposes of ethnic self-definition (post-587/86 BCE; see note 6 below). Each stage will have had a profound effect upon their shape and content. 6. Vansina, Oral Tradition (1986), pp. 21-24. On the Israelite origin myth as a theory of self-identity, see J.Z. Smith, 'Differential Equations: On Constructing the "Other"' (Lecture Transcript; Arizona State University, March 5, 1992, pp. 13-14). 'Origin traditions' are fictional narrations which will be received in their own

42

The Faces of David

The book's composite nature entails that the origin of any individual traditional tale is not clear.7 It is possible, for example, that underlying the latter half of 1 Samuel and the first few chapters of 2 Samuel was an old 'Apology of David'.8 If so, the narrative as we now have it is a thoroughgoing expansion and reworking of the source, since the narrative betrays many features associated with folktales, employs subtle characterization unheard of in the extra-biblical 'apologetic' texts employed in form-critical comparison, and is much longer than the expected length of such an apology.9 The components of the story passed through a long phase of transmission, during which little attempt would have been made by the storytellers to retain the integrity of the original.10 These considerations legitimate the quest for 'theme' in the book's culture with varying levels of credulity. ('Fiction' is defined by W. Iser as storytelling which seeks to shed light on some aspect of humanly perceived reality. Iser, Act of Reading, p. 53.) If the elements of the story are derived from historical reality, the reader of an origin tradition is compelled by the nature of the genre to assume that it was not the teller's intention to preserve reliable information. Rather, the teller's intention was to incorporate whatever the teller deemed to be interesting into the account in a way that the teller deemed to be logical. For most tellers, 'origin' is not what happened in the past, but what is important for the present (Vansina, Oral Tradition, 1965, 1986). 7. D.M. Gunn has explored traditional elements of these tales in two interesting essays: 'Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel', VT24 (1974), pp. 286-317; idem, 'Traditional Composition in the "Succession Narrative'", VT 26 (1976), pp. 214-29. 8. P.K. McCarter, 'The Apology of David', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 489-504. 9. D. Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), pp. 208-209. (McCarter is of the opinion that the received text, less a handful of glosses and redactional expansions, is the original text of the so-called Apology. Damrosch counters that 'a purely apologetic work could easily have cast these episodes in a better light' [p. 209].) 10. A traditional story tends to be subject to frequent arbitrary changes, subject to loss of memory and compression of detail followed by expansion with new detail, subject to change introduced by storytellers wielding or seeking higher status than the tellers of older versions, subject to change as often for aesthetic as for socio-political reasons. See Vansina, Oral Tradition (1985), chs. 1, 5, 6. With respect to the Bible, this means that redactors do not serve tradition; tradition serves redactors. This reality was illustrated in various ways by J.L. Palache, 'The Nature of Old Testament Narrative', in M. Kessler (ed. and trans.), Voices from Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative, (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994 [Dutch original, 1925]), pp. 3-22.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

43

final form. Regardless of Samuel's redactional history, regardless of what purpose any component part may have been intended to serve originally, the final redactor(s) chose to assemble the materials into one particular shape—a shape which, in spite of some narrational 'bumpiness', tells a complete story. It is reasonable to suppose that much of what various modern readers have discerned in the story was discerned also by Samuel's creator(s), who either intended those themes or at least chose not to rework the material another time.11 The thematic intent of Samuel is defined differently by each modern reader of the text, though there is much overlap in the discussions. This section will build on that overlap. Perhaps David Damrosch has summarized the consensus well in his assertion that the book of Samuel focuses on the person of David, an interest that is 'simultaneously loving and questioning, in an account whose deepest concerns are with issues of knowledge and understanding' ,12 The themes of knowledge and understanding are played out on many levels, including plot, characterization and theology. At the level of plot, questions abound; answers are few. For example, why does Yahweh permit Samuel to 'whitewash' the real reason for the people's request for a king (1 Sam. 12)?13 By what means did David first come to Saul's attention (1 Sam. 16-17)?14 Why does Michal remain childless (2 Sam. 6.23)?15 Is it the result of David's refusal to share her bed, her refusal to share his bed, or Yahweh's intervention to fulfill the prophecy of Samuel in 1 Sam. 13.13-14?16 Why do the men of Jabesh-Gilead never respond 11. The final product of these ancient redactional efforts is a tale designed by the book's implied author and narrated by an intra- and heterodiegetic narrator, as discussed in Chapter 1 above. In what follows, the term 'author' will refer to the implied author, not the book's real-world compilers. 12. Damrosch, Narrative Covenant, p. 259. 13. L. Eslinger, Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1-12 (BLS; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985), pp. 383-424. See also, idem, Into the Hands of the Living God, ch. 4. 14. For three interesting treatments of this question, see D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography ofJudah (JSOTSup, 121; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 118-21; R. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. II. 1 Samuel (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), pp. 171-76; J.D. Pleins, 'Son-Slayers and their Sons', CBQ 54 (1992), pp. 29-38. 15. Or, for that matter, did Michal remain childless? Cf. 2 Sam. 21.8, MT, and Sank. 2la: 'R. Hisda said: She had no child until the day of her death, but on the day of her death she did.' 16. J.C. Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical

44

The Faces of David

to David's overtures (2 Sam. 2.5-7)?17 Is it because David is an ally of their enemy, Nahash the Ammonite (cf. 1 Sam. 11.1-2; 2 Sam. 10.2)? What does Yah wen really promise David in 2 Samuel 7?18 The list is as open-ended as the story. The insights which the reader gains at each step inspire further questioning.19 Throughout the many twists taken by the plot, the central question remains: 'Why has Yahweh rejected Saul and chosen David?' The theme of divine election and rejection is not uncommon in the Bible and in ancient Near Eastern literature. The book of Samuel seems to approach the issue from the perspective of the humans who are caught up in the fates that divine election thrusts upon them. Intriguingly, the question of Saul's rejection and David's election is never answered, nor is the ambiguity—or cognitive dissonance—created by the dynamics of this odd plot ever lessened. Scholars continue to debate whether Saul 'deserved' the fate Yahweh thrusts upon him,20 though it would be difficult to deny that Saul is presented as a tragic figure, one who inspires empathy more than sympathy. The prophet, Samuel, and the deity, Yahweh, team up to virtually guarantee that Saul cannot succeed.21 From the ambiguous first instructions of 1 Sam. 10.2-8, through the questionable nature of Saul's final Narratives (JSOTSup, 163; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 25-26. 17. Fokkelman, III, Throne and City, pp. 35-36. 18. Eslinger, House of God, ch. 2. 19. For a balanced discussion of the service performed by open-ended narration and the 'bias' of contemporary criticism in favor of indeterminate literature, see W.C. Booth, The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 60-70. 20. See Yom. 22b; and Gunn, The Fate of King Saul. T.R. Preston emphasizes that only Saul cuts a genuinely heroic figure in the book of Samuel (Preston, 'The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship', JSOT 24 [1982], pp. 27-46). Other perspectives are advanced by: S. Dragga, 'In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul', JSOT'38 (1987), pp. 39-46; Sternberg, Poetics, pp. 482-513; V.P. Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (SBLDS, 118; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 87-90 and 138-69; Fokkelman, II, The Crossing Fates, pp. 32-44, 85-111; P.D. Miscall, I Samuel: A Literary Reading (ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), pp. 85-8, 100-14; W. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Int; Louisville: John Knox, 1990), pp. 98-102, 108-18; Edelman, King Saul, chs. 8 and 10; Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, ch. 4; Eslinger, Kingship of God in Crisis, pp. 283-382. 21. Consult the works in the previous note, and see Mo'ed Qat. 16b.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

45

condemnation in 1 Samuel 15, to Saul's insanity of later years (1 Sam. 16.14; 19.23, etc.), every 'sin' of Saul appears to have been thrust upon him by the deity. By contrast, what Yahweh sees in David's heart (1 Sam. 16.7) is never revealed. As Robert Polzin put it, David is introduced as 'the quintessential winner' ,22 whose worthiness of divine patronage is never really explained, and, in fact, becomes increasingly questionable as the story advances. If Saul 'sinned', David sinned boldly. Throughout 2 Samuel, the ghost of Saul hovers as Samuel's ghost hovered in 1 Samuel 28. The reader wonders why, given the offenses of David, Yahweh's patience does not end, and his patronage of the hero cease. Like the ghost of Samuel, the story never reveals Yahweh's motives. But if the reader is compelled to choose between Yahweh's first two human kings, no doubt judgment will fall with Saul, who seems more worthy for the throne than David.23 As the plot unfolds, these and many other questions are manipulated with finesse, evoking Damrosch's apt juxtaposition of knowledge and understanding. The reader is never given a full account of those questions, but a deeper understanding is achieved on a level having little to do with 'knowledge'. The narrative's indetermination reflects the author's resolute desire to avoid closure. He is not a moralizer. Questions remain questions; answers are never revealed. The product of narratival reticence is to create characters more rounded than usually encountered in biblical narrative, events more haunting. It is as though Saul's name, 'TlKCD (roughly meaning, 'asked for, inquired about'), is the reigning metaphor for the book of Samuel.24 22. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, p. 156. 23. Preston, 'The Heroism of Saul', pp. 27-46. Also, in spite of his intellectual limitations (see below), Jonathan is presented as more worthy for the throne in an ethical sense than David, a point well made by L.K. Handy, The Characters of Heirs Apparent in the Book of Samuel', BR 38 (1993), pp. 5-22 (7-8). 24. It is interesting that the thematic play on questioning, ^KKJ, is even employed at the story's outset, to 'explain' the name of Samuel in 1 Sam. 1.20 and elsewhere. (For the redactional questions this feature often raises, cf. McCarter, / Samuel, pp. 65-6.) The verb root, ^WD, occurs more often by far in Samuel than in any other Hebrew biblical book, 42 times of 172 total, or about 24 percent. The next most frequent use of this verb root is in the book of Kings (12 percent of the total in the Hebrew Bible), half of which occur in 1 Kings 2 and 3. (These statistics are derived from A. Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible [Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1989], pp. 1099-1101.)

46

The Faces of David

The twin themes of knowledge and understanding are integral to the characterization of each protagonist as well. For example, Samuel remains an enigma. Introduced as the apparent replacement of the Elide priesthood (1 Sam. 2.35), and yet not a priest (that is, not of priestly descent; 1 Sam. 1.1-2, 20), nor, it would seem, the actual one who replaces the Elides at all (cf. 1 Kgs 2.26-2T),25 Samuel remains ultimately unknown, perhaps unknowable. He is Yahweh's right-hand man, yet is portrayed as less than a prophet should be.26 Endorsed by Yahweh by means of prophetic reputation and miracles (1 Sam. 3.19-21; 12.17-18), Samuel nevertheless plods through the story-world a mostly sullen and lonely figure, whose own sons are no better than the sons of Eli, and whose success over the Philistines is negated by the very story-world itself.27 The reader is left with the impression that, if this is the best Yahweh's system of Judges can produce, the people were justified in asking for a change. Characterizations of other story-world figures are equally intriguing, and raise the issue of what can be known or understood at every turn. Why are Jonathan and Michal so smitten by David (1 Sam. 18)?28 More importantly, why is Jonathan so dense (1 Sam. 20)?29 How can Saul 25. The intent of Yahweh's words spoken through a prophet in 1 Sam. 2.35-36 are to discredit (not put an end to) the Elide priesthood and affirm Samuel as the founder of a priestly dynasty in service to the coming anointed one. See, for example, Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, p. 24, and Handy, 'The Characters of Heirs Apparent', p. 10. That Samuel fails to establish a priestly dynasty is due not to the corruption of his sons (1 Sam. 8.3), but to Yahweh's arbitrary decision to abrogate the choice of Saul, who is Samuel's ITCDQ (1 Sam. 2.35; 9.16; 10.1). Yahweh's decision elicits Samuel's angry protestation (1 Sam. 15.11) and results in a temporary alliance of Saul and Samuel in an unsuccessful attempt to overturn it (1 Sam. 15.31-33). (See Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 143-44.) When Yahweh orders Samuel to Bethlehem (1 Sam. 16), it is as much a defeat for Samuel as for Saul, since the selection of David puts an end to Samuel's power. After 1 Samuel 16, Samuel's role is that of onlooker, not power-broker. 26. E.g., 1 Samuel 12, in which the author places upon Samuel's lips a series of explicit distortions and outright lies. 27. The enigmatic statement of Yahweh in 1 Sam. 9.16 implies that 'all the days of Samuel' (1 Sam. 7.13b) expired before Samuel had expired. On this interesting feature, see Edelman, King Saul, p. 37 n. 1. 28. For the relationships between Jonathan, David and Michal, see the interesting discussion in Exum, Fragmented Women, ch. 2. 29. On Jonathan's intellectual limitations, see the excellent treatment by Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 187-94.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

47

seriously pin his dynastic hopes on this son?30 Why does Joab, usually so ruthless in his approach to Realpolitik, suddenly perform what appears to be an act of kindness in 2 Samuel 14?31 How much does Uriah the Hittite know about David's activities in 2 Samuel II? 32 Again, the list of questions is open-ended. Another intriguing aspect of what Damrosch called the issues of knowledge and understanding plays out at the theological level, in the characterization of Yahweh. The deity can only be described as absolutely free, and therefore, absolutely unpredictable.33 This is nowhere more evident than in 1 Samuel 8, where Yahweh interprets the people's request for a king as rejection of himself as king.34 Clearly he has ignored the words of his servant, Moses, in Deut. 17.14-20, where the deity presumably had anticipated and provided for this very moment. The most pertinent portion of Deut. 17.14-20 reads: When you say, 'Let me place over me a king like all the nations which are round about', then you may indeed place a king over you, the one whom Yahweh your God will choose.

In this passage, Moses (presumably speaking on behalf of Yahweh) did not imply that a request for a human king would constitute rejection of Yahweh. On the contrary, Moses promised that when the people requested a king 'like the nations' (Deut. 17.14b), Yahweh himself would choose the candidate (17.15a). In 1 Samuel 8, Yahweh instead declares the people apostate (8.7-8) and delegates selection of the king to Samuel (8.22a), two responses never hinted at by the text of Deuteronomy and no doubt very bewildering to the people of 1 Samuel 8. Little wonder Samuel shirks the command (8.22b), compelling Yahweh to act in 1 Samuel 9 in accordance with Moses' words. (This is an instance in 30. See n. 29 above, and see R.W. Lawton, 'Saul, Jonathan, and the Son of Jesse', JSOT58 (1993), pp. 35-46. 31. Gunn, Story of King David, p. 100. 32. See my summary of Sternberg's treatment, below, p. 60. 33. R.C. Bailey, The Redemption of YHWH: A Literary Critical Function of the Songs of Hannah and David', Biblnt 3 (1995), pp. 213-31. 34. Handy also notes that Yahweh's characterization at this point does not conform to ancient Near Eastern patron-god religion, where the human and divine kings routinely coexist without tension (Handy, 'The Characters of Heirs Apparent', p. 13 n. 22). A reader of the Ironll/III period would question the genuineness of Yahweh's trumped up charge.

48

The Faces of David

which Samuel's integrity in standing up against Yahweh is very impressive.) Given the story-world structure, Yahweh has no excuse for his misinterpretation of the people's intentions; his odd response stands there in the text, perplexing the reader.35 This is only one of many examples in which the deity disregards the Torah of Moses.36 An incomplete list of Yahweh's fascinating, perhaps even bewildering, activity, might include: 1) For the sins of the Elides, many Israelites and Philistines die (1 Samuel 4-6). 2) For unintentional mistreatment of his Ark, Israelites at Beth-shemesh (1 Sam. 6.19) and Uzzah ben Abinadab (2 Sam. 6.6-7) die. 3) For relatively minor infractions (compared to much that Yahweh has tolerated within the story-world), Saul is rejected, abused and afflicted by an evil spirit from the deity (1 Samuel 9-31 passim).31 4) When David sins against Bathsheba and Uriah, the deity characterizes it as a sin against himself, and brags of his own mistreatment of women such as Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12.7-12).38 5) The deity appears to receive passively, or at least leave unpunished, human sacrifice on several occasions (1 Sam. 15.33; 2 Sam. 21.6, 9), and perhaps even blesses such sacrifice with an end to drought (2 Sam. 21.10).39 35. Eslinger believes that Yahweh has interpreted the people's request for a king correctly. He views the request as a desire to abandon theocracy in favor of a 'secular' monarchy (Eslinger, Kingship of God in Crisis, pp. 262-82). I doubt that any ancient reader would have possessed a conception of 'secular' monarchy in the way that Eslinger defines the term. More importantly, within the story-world, the people of 1 Samuel 8 have every right to request a king 'like the nations' (however one interprets the phrase) as promised by Moses in Deuteronomy 17. Nevertheless, Eslinger correctly observes (pp. 257-262) that the people request a king in an effort to avoid future disasters under the failed 'judgeship' system. 36. For a brief discussion of this aspect to Yahweh's characterization, see Chapter 1, section 3. See also, from a redaction-critical perspective, J.D. Levenson, 'Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?', HTR 68 (1975), pp. 203-33 (223-33). This is an area requiring much more elaborate discussion than I am able to provide in this monograph. 37. With respect to Saul's 'sins', it is interesting to note that Saul commits no action which can be labelled 'sin' unambiguously. Even in the ugly scene of 1 Samuel 22, it is Yahweh (1 Sam. 16.14) and David, not Saul, who are ultimately responsible for Saul's massacre of the priests at Nob, as David, at least, admits (1 Sam. 22.22), though Yahweh never does. 38. T. Linafelt, Taking Women in Samuel: Readers/Responses/Responsibility', in D.N. Fewell (ed.), Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster Press, 1992), pp. 99-113. 39. J.C. Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

49

6) Yahweh incites various characters to commit evil (1 Sam. 18.10-11; 19.9-10; 2 Sam. 24.1). The behavior of Yahweh is so extraordinary in this story-world that commentators have frequently built their exegetical evaluations on precisely this feature. As one example, S. Gelander advances the thesis that the central point of the Samuel narrative is to present a deity out of control, who is 'domesticated' by the hero, David. With the final and, for Gelander, climactic scene in 2 Samuel 24, David achieves a victory over the capricious 'tribal' God. David's consolidation of empire, and manipulation of the deity into offering the promise of 2 Samuel 7, replaces the unpredictably free deity with a predictably trustworthy patron for the Davidic dynasty.40 The thesis, though interesting, tends to overplay a few chapters of Samuel, while ignoring the human drama which occupies the bulk of the narration. While it illustrates the degree to which Yahweh's unpredictability serves as an essential and defining factor of the story, a treatment of the characterization of Yahweh as the central issue, the key to an understanding of the entire book of Samuel, seems to involve a misreading of the author's intentions. The fact of the matter is that Yahweh is not the central character in this drama.41 He is one of several major supporting characters.42 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 110. 40. S. Gelander, David and His God (Jerusalem: Simor, 1991). Gelander's monograph is, unfortunately, rather difficult to follow. Gelander makes frequent and often unannounced shifts between the story-world and Gelander's vision of the historical world of ancient Palestine. One is never really sure when a feature of Gelander's prose is intended to describe one of the actual Israelite religions or Israelite religion as the story-world presents it. Actual Israelite religions (of whatever historical period might be pertinent) will not necessarily conform to that which a few ancient literary elites present in their fictional account of 'early Israel's' beginnings. 41. P.D. Miscall, 'Moses and David: Myth and Monarchy', in D.J.A. Clines and J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 143; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 184-200 (197). 42. On the other hand, a study of Yahweh's characterization in the entire Former Prophets might be a useful approach for getting at the central themes of the Former Prophets as a unit. But like any tale of such lengthy proportions, the Former Prophets are made up of shorter sequences in which one or another character, including Yahweh, recedes to the background here and comes to the fore there. The tale of David is one instance in which the implied author has placed Yahweh offstage for much of the narration. Some theologians have attempted to place him back on-stage by interpreting the details of the story as the narrator, but not necessarily the

50

The Faces of David

The author's central focus, and perhaps greatest empathy, lies with the two very human figures of Saul and David, especially the latter. If it is not too anachronistic, one could describe the story as essentially 'secular' , or as secular as one could expect to find in an ancient Palestinian context. All elements of the tale, including the religious one, converge on the person of David, whose characterization serves a kind of 'humanistic', not theocentric, interest. It is time, therefore, to look more closely at the characterization of David in the prose portions of Samuel. 2. The Characterization of David Evaluating characterization in a literary work is not a complicated task, nor a scientific one, though it does require very close and repetitious reading. The essentially aesthetic nature of the process, however, calls for a disciplined methodology that diverts subjective readerly response from the path of merely rampant subjectivity. It is not necessary to outline in any great detail my methods. It will suffice to note that I follow the basic orientation presented in Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan's book, Narrative Fiction.421 Essentially, she opts for a centrist position between the older conception of 'character' as fictive person and the newer, semiotic definition of 'character' as a kind of 'personified' textual cluster.44 Both views build their notion of character from the speech and events embedded in the text. Character is never wholly static in either model, but emerges as an interdependent quality of the speeches and events which expose it. The key to evaluating character is to avoid the extremes of 'static' and wholly 'kinetic' portraiture.45 The former is a perception of the character as nothing more than the sum total of his or her actions and speeches. This approach flattens the character, and usually overlooks the possibility that a character's personality traits might develop or even wholly transform themselves through the course of the story. On the implied author, interpret them, namely as the working out of Yahweh's providential will. An influential example of this kind of overtly theological reading is that of G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology. I. The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions (trans. D.G.N. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 314-15. There are few convincing hints in the text to substantiate von Rad's interpretation. 43. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction (London: Methuen, 1983). 44. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, ch. 3; see also ch. 5. 45. The terms 'static, kinetic' are modified from the discussion by Martin, Recent Theories, p. 120.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

51

other hand, kinetic conceptions tend to idealize the features of the text into a mirage of flesh and blood, in which it is assumed that the character could act outside the story to which he or she is bound. That approach reduces the tale to mere 'report', failing to allow for the (implied) author's contribution to characterization through the subtle nuances of language. As a painted portrait is both nothing more than, and so much more than, paint smeared upon canvas, so also character is both words on a page and an entity incarnate in those words. Although not introduced until about one-quarter of the way into the narrative, the character David is the central character in the book of Samuel, his fate the central paradox: 'Why has Yahweh rejected Saul and chosen David?' Thus, David's delayed entrance is a crucial element of the author's strategy. It permits ample space to develop the antihero's character and fate. Only after the failure of judgeship (Samuel's sons are no better than Eli's), and the potential for disastrous consequences of such failure (1 Samuel 4), have been fully developed, can kingship be introduced. But before the truly chosen king enters the stage, Saul is presented as the prototype, the antitype. In the first fifteen chapters of Samuel, the reader is made fully aware of the potentially disastrous experiment monarchy might turn out to be. Later, as David succeeds at every turn, and as David maintains the divine patronage, the reader marvels. Finally, as old King David lies on his deathbed (1 Kings 2), uncertainty for the future remains the dominant theme. Will Yahweh reject Solomon, or will he choose him as he chose David? With the final word in this part of the story—'The kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon' (1 Kgs 2.46b)—the reader has noted ominous signs: Never in this story has Yahweh or the narrator declared in favor of Solomon.46 Never has Yahweh acted on behalf of Solomon (1 Kgs 1). Only Solomon declares that Yahweh is on his side (1 Kgs 2.24; 2.45), a judgment no more trustworthy than the statement of any other story-bound character. The stage is set for another chapter in the unfolding drama, the story of the Kings (1 Kgs 32 Kgs 25). When David is introduced in 1 Samuel 16, his entry to the narrative stage is well-prepared. The reader has been told that David is a young man after Yahweh's own heart (1 Sam. 13.14), whom Yahweh has provided for himself as king (1 Sam. 16.1). It may be that Yahweh looks 46. On 2 Sam. 12.25 and the illegitimacy of Solomon, see the excursus at the end of this chapter.

52

The Faces of David

into the heart and sees in David something desirable (1 Sam. 16.7), but the reader is never told what qualities qualify David for kingship. Moreover, since Yahweh, as a story-world character, has not proven to be the most reliable judge of character or the most trustworthy of actors, the reader remains in the dark as to what qualities would attract the deity in the first place.47 It will be recalled that Yahweh had promised Samuel that Saul would deliver Israel from the Philistines (1 Sam. 9.16). That promise had been both a direct insult against Samuel (in light of 1 Sam. 7.13), and a marked failure for the deity, since Saul did not deliver Israel from the Philistines, but died in battle against them (1 Sam. 31). In light of this and other divine missteps, the reader has learned to reserve judgment concerning the reliability of Yahweh's judgment. By the time the reader confronts the events of 1 Samuel 16, 'All of the narrative clues are there for another disaster'.48 As noted earlier, David is introduced as the 'quintessential winner'.49 But this is a very two-dimensional portrait and will remain so through the first few chapters of David's career. People are smitten by David (1 Sam. 18.1-7, 15-16, 20).50 David is successful (1 Sam. 18.5, 7, 14-15, 27,30). All this is because 'Yahweh was with him' (1 Sam. 16.13; 18.14). The characterization, though integral to the later development of the plot, remains simplistic, folkloristic in nature. But even in this early stage of character positioning, the narrator provides some glimpses into the opaque person of David. He is clearly an opportunist.51 Even as a youngster, his ears perk up at the potential for fame and fortune (1 Sam. 17.25-27) as he asks repeatedly for details 47. Bailey notes this pattern particularly with respect to the deity's choice of Samuel, a misfit prophet. 'Is Yhwh one who chooses less than competent people?' (Bailey, 'Redemption of YHWH', p. 222). 48. Bailey, 'Redemption of YHWH', p. 225. 49. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, p. 156. 50. The textual problems in 1 Samuel 17-18 have been discussed extensively in the scholarship and there is no need to re-open the issue here. I have chosen to follow the MT to a greater extent than Old Greek in these two chapters since MT presents what might be termed the lectio difficilior.For a bibliography on the discussion, see a few of the more recent articles: A. van der Kooij, The Story of David and Goliath, The Early History of its Text', ETL 68 (1992), pp. 118-31; A.G. Auld and C.Y.S. Ho, 'The Making of David and Goliath', JSOT 56 (1992), pp. 19-39; J.T. Barrera, 'The Story of David and Goliath: Textual Variants and Literary Composition', BIOSCS 23 (1990), pp. 16-30. 51. Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative, p. 146; Preston, The Heroism of Saul', pp. 39-41.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

53

concerning a valiant warrior's reward (1 Sam. 17.26, 30). It is not long before David is seeking a spot within the royal family, first through an apparent feigned humility (1 Sam. 18.18-19, 23); then, failing that, through very aggressive and daring military prowess (1 Sam. 18.27). Likewise, the young David is a proud warrior who acquires the spoils of war (1 Sam. 17.54b), and who will cling to a gruesome trophy—the head of Goliath—even in later life, as the narrator tells us proleptically in 1 Sam. 17.54a.52 A key element in the early characterization of David occurs when David confronts the giant Philistine, Goliath.53 Before doing so, David's youthful arrogance is highlighted in the preposterous yarn he spins before Saul (1 Sam. 17.34-37a).54 This boy is one who will not hesitate to package events to suit his own needs. But David's speech to the Philistine (1 Sam. 17.45-47) is equally revealing. His bold confrontation, armed only with pious rhetoric ('But I come before you in the name of Yahweh Sabaoth, God of Israel's troops'55) marks out David to be an ardent, loyal Yahwist. Perhaps this is why the deity speaks of him as one after his own heart. Unlike Saul, who hid among the baggage, and whose inaugural military accomplishment was the direct result of divine intervention (1 Sam. 10.22; 11.6), David's 'royal testing'56 is the product of his own ambition aided by unswerving faith. Although Saul has been, and continues to be, a loyal Yahwist as well, David's faith appears to be 52. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 161-62; Edelman notes the irony in that Goliath's head parallels the fate of Dagan's head in 1 Samuel 5 (Edelman, King Saul, p. 133). Interestingly, Fokkelman plays the role of redaction critic, omitting 1 Sam. 17.54 as a 'boldly anachronistic' gloss (Fokkelman, II, The Crossing Fates, p. 727). 53. In the story-world, the giant killed by David is certainly called Goliath. On the intriguing narrational summary remark at 2 Sam. 21.19, see Chapter 4, below. 54. M. Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1985), pp. 116-17. 55. On the use of 'deuteronomistic' rhetoric as a tool for story and character development, rather than as a sign of redactional activity, see Eslinger, House of God, pp. 73-74 n. 1, and citation there. 56. On the pattern of the royal designation followed by a test-by-ordeal and then enthronement, see B. Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM, 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), pp. 51-148, and D.V. Edelman, 'Saul's Rescue of Jabesh-Gilead: Sorting Story from History', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 195-209. Saul and David are each anointed, and receive the spirit (1 Sam. 10,16). In each case, this is followed by the initial royal test on a field of battle (1 Sam. 11, 17), after which, enthronement can occur.

54

The Faces of David

qualitatively different—able to stand on the field armed only with a sling.57 Nevertheless, the character of David in the earliest stages of his story remains two-dimensional and is only gradually fleshed out. Three blocks of narrative mark stages in the changing portrait of David, moving from a kind of hero cliche to a fully rounded character, in 1 Samuel 18 to 2 Samuel 9. As the rounding out of David's character progresses through the narrative, his brief speeches shed light on the nature of that development. The first stage in the development of David involves his interaction with, and manipulation of, the household and subjects of Saul (roughly 1 Samuel 18-22).58 David can be ruthlessly deceptive, but also shrewd and outwardly graceful. The ruthlessness of David is exemplified in matters great and small. For example, it 'pleases' David, not to win the hand of a woman who loves him,59 but rather, to become the king's son-inlaw, even though the 'days were not fulfilled' (1 Sam. 18.26b), presumably implying that David has some inkling that he is pushing the deity's plan for David's future too quickly.60 This will not be the last time David 'takes' a woman for purely political gain.61 Or again, David knowingly 57. However, as noted by W. Brueggemann, the lists of David's mighty men will later reveal to the reader that even in this quality, David is not so unique, thus leaving the reader unsure whether this is really the element in David's personality that renders him uniquely fit for office in the eyes of Yahweh (Brueggemann, '2 Samuel 21-24: An Appendix of Deconstruction?' CBQ 50 [1988], pp. 383-97 [390-92]). 58. Also note David's manipulation of others in 1 Sam. 17, a point highlighted by J. Rosenberg, 'This Way and That: The Politics of the Field in the Davidic History', Shofar 5 (1986), pp. 19-29 (23-27). 59. R.W. Lawton argues that the Merab-Michal device evokes the LeahRachel motif of Genesis 29. In this way, the author is able to highlight the fact that, unlike younger daughter Rachel, younger daughter Michal is not loved by her husband (Lawton, '1 Samuel 18: David, Merab and Michal', CBQ 51 [1989], pp. 42325). 60. On David's treatment of Michal, see Exum, Fragmented Women, ch. 2. The phrase D'OTT IN^Q 8*71 (1 Sam. 18.26b) is not present in Vaticanus. On the basis of a textual and syntactic ambiguity in the following verse, McCarter omits the phrase (I Samuel, p. 316). Many English translations attach v. 26b to v. 27, assuming that there was an otherwise unmentioned time limit on the period during which David might obtain the one hundred foreskins. MT as received is, however, the lectio difficilior. 61. An excellent treatment of David's (and Yahweh's) ruthless exploitation of women is that of Linafelt, Taking Women in Samuel', pp. 99-113.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

55

places the priest, Ahimelech, in grave danger (1 Sam. 21.2-10; 22.2122).62 When the consequences of his actions are fulfilled, David's 'repentance' is minimal, especially in contrast to David's more ostentatious shows of sorrow when the news of death has greater political significance (2 Sam. 1.11-27; 2.4b-7; 3.28-39; 4.9-12).63 The exchange between David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20 is especially enlightening, and demonstrates the consummate skill with which the shrewd David manipulates those loyal to him. Only later will the reader learn how half-heartedly David keeps up his half of the covenant (compare 1 Sam. 20.15 and 23.17 with 2 Samuel 9; 16.1-4; 19.25-31). For now, the reader marvels at the obtuseness of Jonathan, who apparently has forgotten Saul's prohibition of 1 Sam. 18.2, and falls for David's harsh method of teaching Jonathan a lesson (1 Sam. 20.3-7, 2434).64 Additionally, Jonathan himself suggests an elaborate, and essentially unnecessary, ritual for David's benefit (1 Sam. 20.18-23, 35-42). David eagerly complies, playing Huck Finn to Jonathan's silly Tom Sawyer charade, thus winning Jonathan's trust, and an ally at court (1 Sam. 20.41-42; 23.17).65 The second stage in David's rounding as a character is loosely clustered around the reports of David's encounters with Achish of Gath (1 Sam. 21-30).66 While David the rogue travels about southern Palestine, gathering to himself all the no-counts (1 Sam. 22.2), he hones his skills as a diplomat as well. With the deity's aid, David becomes the 62. For a very different reading of David's encounter with Ahimelech, see P.T. Reis, 'Collusion at Nob: A New Reading of 1 Samuel 21-22', JSOT61 (1994), pp. 59-73. 63. According to Sank. 95a, David was punished for his guilt with respect to the massacre at Nob when he nearly died at the hands of ±Q *3$*. in 2 Sam. 21.16 (MT). 64. The harshness of the lesson is apparent not only in that Jonathan is shamed by his father (20.34) but that Saul tries to injure or kill Jonathan (20.33; Ton1?). Pace G. Stansell, 'Honor and Shame in the Davidic Narratives', Semeia 68 (1994), pp. 55-79 (61 n. 15). 65. See also, with differences of emphasis, Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 187-94. 66. Achish presents an interesting characterization in his own right. The text leaves open the question to what extent Achish has been taken in by David, and to what extent Achish believes that he can manipulate David to his own gain. W. Brueggemann explores the role of Achish as a man 'caught in the middle' (Brueggemann, 'Narrative Intentionality in 1 Samuel 29', JSOT 43 [1989], pp. 21-35).

56

The Faces of David

'protector' of Judah (1 Sam. 23, 25, 27), and of Yahweh's anointed (1 Sam. 24, 26; 2 Sam. 1). One is tempted to note the enormous personal gain these strategies potentially afford David. Interestingly, the author does not. On the contrary, the people of Keilah, Nabal of Maon/ Carmel, and the Ziphites are unimpressed with David's protectionism. As a matter of fact, the strongman's strongarm tactics never seem to endear him to any among the populace, who remain silent even when reaping the spoils of his wars, as in 1 Samuel 30. It will not be until after the warrior entrenches himself at Hebron, with Yahweh's patronage, that the people of Judah will choose him to be king over them (2 Sam. 2.1-4a). The irony of this facet to David's character is this: Among all the figures inhabiting the story-world, David alone (unless possibly, to a lesser extent, Abner) develops the finesse to operate with diplomatic skill. Because he is surrounded by Neanderthals, from Joab ben Zeruiah to Hanun ben Nahash, many of his diplomatic ventures are a failure.67 All the more necessary to David's success becomes Yahweh's patronage. Within these closing chapters of 1 Samuel, the three-fold pattern of chapters 24-26 stands out. Twice David protects the anointed one, Saul. Sandwiched between these stories, one finds the intriguing encounter with Nabal. The latter is, unlike his name, as shrewd as David himself, and quickly distances himself from the strongarm tactics David attempts to pass off under his diplomatic cover.68 But if Nabal is a reflection of 67. An interesting example of David's apparently successful diplomacy among his own men is found in 2 Sam. 23.13-17. 68. Oddly enough, some expert readers have been taken in by the opinions of Nabal expressed by Abigail and the poorly identified young man of 1 Sam. 25.14. For example, J.D. Levenson sees in Nabal and Abigail folktale incarnations of the fool and perfect wife from the book of Proverbs, a reading which does no more than react to the surface texture of the tale (Levenson, '1 Samuel 25', pp. 11-28). Or again, A. Berlin writes: 'Although [Nabal's] only offense is his failure to recognize David's authority (and this is quite understandable), his wives, his servants and the reader [sic] all think poorly of him' (Berlin, 'Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David's Wives', J'SOT 23 [1982], pp. 69-85 [77]). Not even 1 Sam. 25.3, BTNm D'^^DQ im nttfp, 'the man was harsh and vicious in his deeds', warrants this readerly assessment. It cannot have escaped the attention of an ancient reader that David will become just like Nabal in these qualities, and even at this stage the two are presented by the tale as rivals of like mind and deed. Nabal is the patron of the southern Judaean region, and he will not tolerate a new, would-be patron patronizing his shepherds and flocks. Nabal is indeed a 'fool', but it is his foolish lack of regard for the military threat David poses, not his lack of regard for David, which is the

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

57

David in his daring, he is a cipher for Saul in tragedy, and falls before David's divine patron as Goliath fell (note the 'stone' imagery, 1 Sam. 25.37). The deity robs Nabal to reward David, just as he robs Saul to reward David (2 Sam. 7.15b; 12.8). 1 Samuel 25 is the story of Saul and David writ small.69 Finally, the reader begins to really know David in the early chapters of 2 Samuel, as David comes out from under the shadow of the nowdeceased Saul, and begins to consolidate his power (2 Samuel 1-9). Here, we see a David whose every move seems to be calculated for maximum political payback. He can afford to sacrifice a few no-count benefactors, such as the lying Amalekite of 2 Samuel 1, or the sons of Rimmon in 2 Samuel 4, since the propagandistic effect of these public executions far outweighs personal human worth, in David's eyes. The heroism of the men of Jabesh-Gilead is, for David, an opportunity to send a self-promotional epistle of congratulations (2 Sam. 2:4b-7). Likewise, the pathos evoked at the sight of Paltiel weeping after his wife (2 Sam. 3.15-16) serves to highlight the cold political machinations behind David's demand for Michal's return. That the reader should not be taken in by David's public posturing is apparent in the subtle, and sometimes ironic, tone with which the actions are presented. For example, in 2 Sam. 3.35-39, the narrator emphasizes the outward, crowd-pleasing effect of David's actions. But in doing so, the narrator tacitly admits that David's actions may be no more than public gestures devised for propagandistic effect. No reference is made to David's internal thoughts or feelings.70 For his part, the narrator seems to admit David's incompetence before his thug-like henchman, Joab. (It might be noted that the narrator does not seem eager to admit this. Rather, it seems to be presented as an ostensible defense of David; cf. David's failure to respond in 2 Sam. 3.25; David's ignorance of his basis of his foolishness. For a balanced assessment of Nabal, see Stansell, 'Honor and Shame', pp. 62-64, and for Abigail, see A. Bach, 'The Pleasure of Her Text', USQR 43 (1989), pp. 41-58. Very perceptively, Bach writes, 'David is more successful than Nabal in keeping Abigail shut up in his house' (Bach, 'Pleasure', p. 49; cf. p. 55). 69. Nabal the sheep-shearer is also reflected in Nathan's multi-faceted parable of 2 Samuel 12. Abigail is as much a victim as is Bathsheba; both women are taken by a man whose power cannot be defied. On Nathan's parable, see the fascinating discussion in Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 122-26. 70. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 36.

58

The Faces of David

general's actions in 3.26.71) As David Gunn has emphasized, David's anger at Joab (2 Sam. 3.38-39) is 'directed not simply against an "evildoer" but against the man who had to all intents and purposes put an end to hopes of a straightforward transference of power to himself ,72 Another example of the subtle treatment David receives is the ironic tale in 2 Samuel 6. Here, a bad portent has scuttled David's desire to bring the ark of Yahweh to Jerusalem, and David responds to this setback as though it were a personal affront (2 Sam. 6.8-10). A new and favorable portent then occurs in the blessing of Obed-edom's home. David's opportunism is piqued, and, with nearly comical swiftness, he reverses his former decision and quickly renews his interest in Yahwen's ark, all the while 'rejoicing' (2 Sam. 6.12), perhaps in his hope for a transferral of the blessing.73 Gradually, the negative qualities within David's complex character have come to the fore. In 2 Samuel 7, 'though [David] is not exactly forthcoming about his political aspirations, anyone aware of the conventional meaning of temple construction, God included, can guess what he is up to'.74 David is seeking to 'domesticate' the deity in precisely the manner that Gelander has cogently described.75 Scholars will no doubt continue to debate the precise content of Yahweh's promise in response to David's initiative.76 The apparently unconditional promise might be viewed as uncharacteristic of Yahweh.77 Lyle Eslinger argues that 71. This point was highlighted recently from a redaction-critical perspective, by T. Ishida, 'The Story of Abner's Murder: A Problem Posed by the Solomonic Apologist', in S. Ahituv and B.A. Levine (eds.), Eretz-Israel: Historical and Geographical Studies (Festschrift for A. Malamat; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), pp. 109-13. 72. Gunn, Story of King David, pp. 96. 73. '[I]t is significant that the house of Obed-edom the Gittite is the only house, be it literal, familial, tribal or national, that the LORD is said to bless in the entire [Deuteronomistic] History [sic]' (Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 65). 74. Eslinger, House of God, p. 16. 75. See above, section 1 of this chapter. 76. 'When we see what the LORD has already done against the house of Saul and what he now promises to do for the house of David, it is difficult to recognize this God as the same one described by Moses: "For the LORD your God is God of Gods and Lord of Lords, the great, the mighty, the terrible God who is not partial and takes no bribes" (Deut 10:17). God's apparent partiality toward David poses serious problems of interpretation for any reader who believes that the History [sic] makes sense' (Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 79). 77. An 'unconditional' promise, however, appears to be a mixed blessing

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

59

Yahweh's promise in 2 Samuel 7 is couched in rhetorical artistry designed to make David believe he has received more than he has in fact been promised.78 If this is the case, David falls for it (cf. 2 Sam. 7.18-29; 23.5). Eslinger's argument might be strengthened when it is observed that various characters, though never Yahweh, have been promising David a 'steadfast house' for quite some time.79 Though these storybound characters were, in each case, promoting their own agendas, it may be that the character, David, has been well-primed by these flatteries to be seduced by the deity's rhetoric. An interpretation of the promise as 'unconditional' certainly accords with David's personal ambitions, as reflected in 2 Sam. 7.2. As Robert Polzin observes, David 'comes across as someone who is as much self-serving as God-fearing...'80 Thus, when the events of 2 Samuel 11 finally unfold, the reader is disgusted with David, but not entirely surprised. David's rape of Bathsheba (and certainly it must be labeled for what it is81) might have been when bestowed by Yahweh, and may be part of Yahweh's characterization as entirely free and unpredictable. 1 Sam. 2.30 is of interest in this respect, though David, as a story-bound character, might have no cognizance of this divine speech. In any case, the house of Eli's fate is not a perfect parallel to the fate of David's house, since the former is eternally discredited and the latter is simply terminated (pace Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 80-81). If the promise of 2 Samuel 7 is of an 'unconditional' nature, it is a premeditated divine lie, since its abrogation is unmistakably discerned in the obituary notice of 2 Kgs 25.29-30, where the death of an apparently heirless [sic] Jehoiachin is stressed twice. The narrator, it is true, downplays the death of Jehoiachin by speaking of 'all the days of his life', not of his death. It will be recalled that it is the narrator, in distinction from the implied author, who wishes to affirm every promise of the deity, and so does not wish to emphasize the discrepancy between Jehoiachin's fate and Nathan's dynastic oracle. On the other hand, the implied author is more comfortable with the sometimes bewildering freedom of Yahweh, and so creates a story in which the last Davidid dies without reference to an heir. 78. Eslinger, House of God, pp. 24-48, 57-64. 79. Love-struck Jonathan in 1 Sam. 20.15-17; 23.17; awe-inspired (or simply, fearful) Saul in 1 Sam. 24.20-21; desperate-to-please Abigail in 1 Sam. 25.28. See also 1 Sam. 13.13-14. The angered Abner makes a similar claim in 2 Sam. 3.9-10, though not in David's presence; it appears to be a convenient rationalization for Abner's plan. Finally, the flattery of the Israelites in 2 Sam. 5.2 should be noted. All of these passages can be defined as ironically prophetic, or perhaps, ironically prescient. They do not, however, represent Yahweh's agenda; they glimpse only one aspect of Yahweh's future action with respect to David. 80. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 91. 81. The terse wording of 2 Sam. 11.4 is designed to express a superior's

60

The Faces of David

foreseen, given that David has been presented as an ambitious, womantaking opportunist, who is not shy about manipulating those around him, including the deity. On the other hand, the reader does not really foresee this twist of plot, since the narrator's portrait of David has been reticent, and not univocally negative. On the contrary, the narrator's empathy clearly lies with David, and criticism of him has been muted. The laconic nature of the narrator's treatment of David is especially intriguing. In 2 Samuel 11, for instance, David's most heinous crime, the murder of Uriah, is given no rational motive. Meir Steinberg highlights the problem: 'Since [the narrator] states nothing, the reader has no choice but to puzzle out for himself what David hopes to gain by having Uriah murdered'.82 If David thinks Uriah does not know about the rape, then David must try to get Uriah out of the way quickly, so that David can marry Bathsheba quickly and perhaps avoid scandal. But if David thinks Uriah does know, then David is probably not avoiding scandal (if Uriah knows, the whole city must know). Rather, David is passionately in love with Bathsheba and wants to eliminate Uriah and marry her as soon as possible. This second option only seems to fail on the evidence that David sends the death-warrant in Uriah's hand. On the surface, if David thought Uriah knows, he would not do this, but, argues Sternberg, David is not thinking clearly on many fronts: Take the contents of the royal letter, ordering that Uriah should be assigned to 'the forefront of the hardest fighting' and then abandoned. For this plan to be carried out, all the soldiers must be let into the secret or at least receive a bizarre order that Uriah is not to hear. To the meanest intelligence, any such order will give away the intention of having Uriah forced imposition upon an inferior, which in modern parlance is rape. The action is unambiguous, the implied author's judgment readily apparent to the reader, so the modern term need not be considered anachronistic. As noted by J.S. Ackerman, the rape of Tamar in 2 Samuel 13 is designed to serve as a mirror image to David's taking of Bathsheba. If Bathsheba has not been raped, the connection cannot be made (Ackerman, 'Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2', JBL 109 [1990], pp. 41-64 [45, 48-9]). Certainly the character Yahweh interprets the action as a rape. In 2 Sam. 11.27, the thing which David did is evil in Yahweh's eyes, but nothing which Bathsheba did is evil in his eyes. Also, in 2 Sam. 12.8, Yahweh's words to David as spoken through Nathan indicate that, so far as Yahweh is concerned, David is permitted to take forcibly only those women Yahweh delivers to him. For a more complete discussion, with differences in nuance, see T. Dennis, Sarah Laughed: Women's Voices in the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), ch. 6. 82. Sternberg, Poetics, p. 209.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

61

killed. If to this one adds the urgent need for the king to wed and bed Bathsheba in his palace immediately thereafter, the thing must be a matter of public scandal; and then what need could there have been for the whole conspiracy in the first place?... And in case there is still a lingering suspicion of our having somehow read into the text what is not there to be read, let us observe that Joab.. .shares this opinion of the king's plan [in that he deliberately alters that plan].83

It would seem, therefore, that the author has presented a marked shift in David's characterization through the course of the story. The young David is presented as a self-serving opportunist who nevertheless is able to charm story-bound characters and reader alike. As he matures, David becomes more subtle, the silly lie of killing bears and lions gives way to the coy manipulations of the would-be statesman. Ultimately, however, David's self-service becomes the reigning paradigm, and the narrative's dynamic follows the agenda set by his greed. The deeper David ensnares himself, the more of his ugly side surfaces, until the shrewd statesman has become an irrational murderer. Ironically, at his nadir, David sets conquered peoples to work at the brick kilns (2 Sam. 12.31), which the reader recognizes as an echo of Israel's enslavement in Egypt. Just as in the book of Kings, the king's personal evil has infected the very nature of the social structure over which he reigns.84 Unlike Macbeth, the story of King David does not end with the selfserving king's tragic nadir; King David climbs back, at least somewhat. Moreover, he continues to surprise story-bound characters and reader alike. The pragmatic optimism reflected in his reaction to the death of Bathsheba's firstborn is part of a pattern of optimism which comes increasingly to the fore, especially in the Absalom tale. As David Gunn notes, ...[S]ome of [David's] best moments occur in the narrative of the progression from Jerusalem to the Jordan—moments characterized by his readiness to allow the matter of the throne to rest ultimately in the hands of others.'85

Scenes such as 2 Sam. 15.18-36 demonstrate that the author's empathy remains with the story-world hero. 83. Sternberg, Poetics, pp. 211-12. 84. For a development of this intriguing aspect of the story, see R.M. Schwartz, 'Adultery in the House of David: The Metanarrative of Biblical Scholarship and the Narratives of the Bible', Semeia 54 (1991), pp. 35-55 (44-51). 85. Gunn, Story of King David, p. 101.

62

The Faces of David

But this positive image of David is carefully counter-balanced by an equally negative portrait. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is in the case of the Mephiba'al and Ziba incident. In spite of David's covenant with Jonathan (1 Sam. 18.3-4; which to Jonathan's mind appears to have involved a promise to include Jonathan's heirs as ranking administrators—compare 1 Sam. 20.15 with 23.17), David has essentially placed Jonathan's son under house arrest (2 Sam. 9; cf. Jehoiachin's fate, in 2 Kgs 25.27-30).86 Later, David's continued disdain for Mephiba'al is exemplified in his failure to bother with any form of cross-examination when Ziba brings charges against his master (2 Sam. 16.1-4). The narrator, however, lets slip that Mephiba'al is innocent of the charges (2 Sam. 19.25).87 Thus, David's final decision to divide Mephiba'al's property between Ziba and Mephiba'al (2 Sam. 19.30) serves as a kind of proleptic and ironic commentary on the 'Solomonic' judgment of 1 Kings 3.88 David has proven himself unwise and unjust. In spite of the narrator's obvious empathy for David, the implicit criticisms of him crescendo toward the end of the David story. David's opportunism surfaces again in 2 Samuel 19, where the king, anxious to win back loyalty, pits Northerners against Southerners, and inadvertently sets off a second rebellion (2 Sam. 20).89 In 2 Samuel 21, David commits murder in the service of religion. Interestingly, the narrator's cryptic remarks imply that it is Saul's Yahwistic zeal that the deity has chosen to ignore (2 Sam. 21.1-2), and that serves as a convenient excuse for David to rid himself of political rivals.90 Although the narrator will not say so, the story-world events indicate that Yahweh may be scapegoating Saul for the benefit of David.91 86. The superficiality of David's self-proclaimed fidelity to his covenant with Jonathan is underscored by David's earnestness, which becomes increasingly stilted through the scene of 2 Samuel 9, as noted by L.G. Perdue, 'Is There Anyone Left of the House of Saul...? Ambiguity and the Characterization of David in the Succession Narrative', JSOT30 (1984), pp. 67-84 (75). 87. S. Lasine, 'Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: The Reader as Judge of the Dispute between Mephibosheth and Ziba', HS 30 (1989), pp. 49-69 (60-66). 88. H.C. Brichto, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Tales of the Prophets (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 57-59. 89. Ackerman, 'Knowing Good and Evil', p. 47. 90. Fokkelman, Throne and City, p. 274. 91. H.J.L. Jensen, 'Desire, Rivalry and Collective Violence in the Succession Narrative', JSOT55 (1992), pp. 39-59 (57-58).

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

63

David's final scenes are not flattering. The narrator makes no attempt to soften the ugliness, though he does not abet it; instead he resorts to reporting dialogue without confirming or denying the accuracy of what is said by the various characters.92 The feeble king is putty in the hands of Nathan and Bathsheba, the latter of whom, in a sense, finally exacts vengeance against the old king by taking from him, as he took her and from her.93 Finally, David's deathbed scene brings together for the last time the two driving elements of David's personality: genuine piety (1 Kgs 2.2-4) and self-serving political shrewdness (1 Kgs 2.5-9). To summarize briefly, David is a well-rounded character, and the central character of this portion of Hebrew biblical literature. Even before he enters the story-world, the narration has been preparing for his arrival, setting the very ambiguous stage in which David's phenomenal success will seem nearly miraculous. But his success is due only partly to divine patronage. It is due also to David's raw ambition, exemplified in nearly every scene. Only when David permits himself to be the recipient of Yahweh's favor, only when he permits his fate to rest in the hands of others, does the story present a fully positive view of him. In short, David is good and evil, hot and cold, lovable and worthy of admiration, frightening in his disregard for the welfare of others. David is fully human in his anguished cry for his son, Absalom, fully monster in his written order of execution sent by the hand of Uriah. No doubt it is this complexity of characterization which has made David one of the most famous and loved characters of Hebrew biblical literature.

92. This is one of many examples of how the narrator's presentation and the implied author's differing presentation can be sewn into a single narrational episode. On the methodological issues, see the previous chapter. More numerous examples will be outlined in subsequent chapters. 93. D. Marcus, 'David the Deceiver and David the Dupe', Proof 6 (1986), pp. 163-71 (166-67). Fokkelman asserts that the reader has no way of knowing whether David has or has not made the oath concerning Solomon attributed to him by Nathan and Bathsheba (Fokkelman, I. King David, p. 354). R.C. Bailey goes so far as to suggest that Bathsheba had extracted such a promise from David as the condition for her sexual favors (Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12 [JSOTSup, 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], pp. 84-90). Neither is convincing. For a critique of the latter, see Dennis, Sarah Laughed, ch. 6, and for the former, Marcus, 'David the Deceiver'. Also see my excursus at the close of this chapter.

64

The Faces of David

3. Excursus: The Illegitimacy of Solomon Because the issue will affect one's judgment of David's character at a few points, there is a need to address, very briefly, the motif of 'thronesuccession' in the books of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings 1-3. As the story unfolds, several sons of David appear to be candidates for his throne: Solomon, Amnon, Absalom and Adonijah. It is not uncommon in the literature to find scholars asserting that the brief scene of 2 Sam. 12.24-25 signals to the reader that David's marriage to Bathsheba is finally regarded by Yahweh as legitimate, and that Yahweh has gone so far as to designate Solomon heir to the throne, the fulfillment of Yahweh's promise of 2 Sam. 7.1 lb-16.94 If so, then each of the other sons, introduced in turn, does not represent (from the reader's perspective) serious competition for succession. Solomon's ascent is a foregone conclusion. In what follows, I will suggest that this is a misreading of the text, one which has profound consequences for a readerly assessment of both plot and characterization. The unfortunate consequence of this misreading is a failure to note that when Amnon commits rape (2 Sam. 13), he does so as the presumed heir; also, at the times of Absalom's revolt (2 Sam. 15-18) and Adonijah's presumption (1 Kgs 1), no heir to David's throne has yet been designated, rendering the outcome of these plot complications uncertain. First, one might note for the record that David has not chosen Solomon for the throne.95 So important an event would be narrated if it 94. Two examples are: 1) J.P. Fokkelman, who declares that David's triumph in war (2 Sam. 12.26-31) has been paired with the Nathan oracle concerning Yahweh's love for Solomon to show that 'shalom' at war front is equivalent to 'shalom' on the home front, where the marriage has now been 'purified' (Fokkelman, I. King David, p. 92). Later, Fokkelman asserts that Nathan's role in 1 Kings 1 is not mundane partisanship, but the fulfilling of Yahweh's choice as declared in 2 Sam. 12.25 (I. King David, p. 412). 2) Likewise, D.M. Gunn claims that 2 Sam. 12.24-25 renders Yahweh a partner in David's crime against Uriah, by reducing Uriah to a 'disposable pawn' in the deity's plan to make Solomon heir to David's throne (Gunn, Story of King David, p. 98). Both examples demonstrate the extent to which even close-readers of the text often fail to notice that what the text does not say is as important as what has been said. 95. J. Rosenberg seems to confuse David's choice with Yahweh's (alleged) choice: 'What is so peculiar is that at no point prior to, during, or long following this scene [2 Samuel 13] is David's specific attitude about succession made known—

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

65

had occurred; that it did not occur is clear from the entire tenor of 2 Samuel. Indeed, notices such as the Old Greek of 2 Sam. 13.21 (which many commentators take to be the superior text96) would be unintelligible had Solomon been named heir. The final scenes of 1 Kings do not alter this judgment. That Nathan's plot of 1 Kings 1 is successful can be attributed to David's incapacity; he is at that stage a shell of a man, aged and sick, and easily manipulated by those at court. The coup pulled off by Nathan is quite extraordinary in light of the fact that, without a royal decree to the contrary, at least Chileab, Adonijah, Shephatiah and Ithream (2 Sam. 3.3-5), and perhaps also Shammua, Shobab and Nathan ben David (2 Sam. 5.14), stand in succession ahead of Solomon. The irony of the tale in 2 Samuel 13 is that the firstborn, Amnon, permits lust to distort judgment and betrays himself wholly unworthy for royal office. In this scene, Amnon echoes the actions of his father with Bathsheba and reinforces in the reader's mind David's unworthiness to be king. In the aftermath of Absalom's murderous act, David stands silent before Jonadab's defense of Absalom's deed (2 Sam. 13.32-33). If David recognized the justice of Absalom's action, it may be that David recognizes his own unworthiness vis-a-vis Absalom. Part of the pathos of the mournful scene in 2 Sam. 19.1-5 is that David cries out on behalf of the one son who possessed the moral stature to succeed him ('If only I had died instead of you, Absalom!').97 Again, at the time of Adonijah's alleged 'revolt', the question of the succession has not been broached, so that Adonijah's ambitions might be deemed presumptuous, but not entirely unreasonable. Adonijah's banquet (1 Kgs 1.9) is not an act of treason. Nathan implies that it is treason (1 Kgs 1.11), but Nathan is biased (1 Kgs 1.8), and the reader cannot accept his evaluation at face value. Rather, Adonijah's banquet is one of the many necessary steps that an heir-apparent must take to ensure smooth transition of power. Adonijah invited those of power or prestige who supported his bid for the throne to demonstrate his capacity for benevolent patronage in the future as head-of-state. This banquet quite apart from the more oblique rubric stated at the birth of Solomon in 12:2425...The reader's knowledge that Solomon was the successor creates the necessary link' (Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible [ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986], p. 143). 96. See, for example, McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 319-20. 97. To David's mind, Absalom is the one son who is most like himself, and most fit for the throne. For a fuller discussion of Absalom, see Chapter 5, below, pp. 179-82.

66

The Faces of David

would be a powerful message to those who were invited and to those who were not; but the presentation of the event does not indicate that it was a celebration of coronation or anointing. The fact that David did not question his previous actions (1 Kgs 1.5-6) no doubt led Adonijah to believe that he was indeed a candidate for the as-yet unfilled position of heir (TH). Not only has David not designated an heir, several factors argue against an exegetical strategy which would posit Yahweh's patronage of Solomon prior to 1 Kings 3. Although there is no question that the deity does adopt Solomon as his king during the incident at Gibeon, that scene amounts to Yahweh's condescension toward a de facto reality. It is crucial to note that prior to 1 Kings 3, Yahweh has never explicitly claimed to support, nor lifted a divine hand in favor of, Solomon. Only one possible moment in the story might be viewed as contradicting this assertion, the previously mentioned 2 Sam. 12.24-25. It is time to examine the context leading to that scene. In 2 Samuel 12, the deity condemns David's marriage to Bathsheba and condemns David's house to unending strife. Specifically, there are three judgments:98 1) v. lOa

And now, the sword will not depart from your house forever.

2) v. 11

I am about to raise evil from your house: I will take your women before your eyes and give them to your neighbor. He will have sex with your women before the eyes of this sun.

3) v. 14b

Also, the son born to you will surely die.

Each of these three judgments is tied to a specific reason: 1) v. lOb

Because you despised me, and you took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.

2) v. 12a

Because you did this in secret...

3) v. 14a

But because you disdained [ ] Yahweh in this matter.

98. The readings are derived from MT. For the relatively minor textual issues, see McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 295-96.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

67

In other words, the deity, through Nathan, itemizes three sins of David, and prescribes three punishments that the deity presumably believes to fit the crimes. The first two punishments involve the house of David. For his sin of despising Yahweh by taking Bathsheba, David's house will suffer unending strife; because David did this secretly, Yahweh will openly take some of David's wives. These first two punishments with related justifications are closely intertwined temporally and rhetorically. Temporally, they are removed from the third punishment by David's repentant outburst in v. 13 ('I sinned before Yahweh!'). Rhetorically, they are connected to one another in that each involves the first sin of David, the rape of Bathsheba, but they focus on separate aspects of that sin: Its execution, and the hypocrisy of David in attempting to conceal it." The second sin of David, the murder of Uriah, is twice highlighted in the rhetorical preface to the three announcements of punishment in v. 9,100 but not specifically addressed until after David's outburst in v. 13a. Nathan's response on behalf of Yahweh to David's outburst (v. 13b) can be read to mean that Yahweh will not kill David for his rape of Bathsheba;101 that sin has been TUtfn ('transferred'); that sin will be atoned by the punishment to be inflicted against David's house, as previously announced. Nevertheless, because David murdered Uriah ("n~n ntil; 'this matter', v. 14, the remaining 'matter' about which punishment has not yet been announced), Yahweh will kill the first-born child. Yahweh exacts blood for blood immediately. The deity is content to wait in executing the punishment for rape and hypocrisy. 99. The character Yahweh interprets David's motive for the murder of Uriah as an attempt to conceal the sin against Bathsheba. As Sternberg has noted, the reader tends to opt for this interpretation as well, but the issue cannot be settled with finality (see the discussion above, pp. 60-61). 100. The dual reference to Uriah's murder in v. 9, sandwiching as it does the taking of Uriah's wife, might be interpreted as Yahweh's further delineation of the third punishment: First, David sinned in the murder of Uriah (v. 9ap); secondly, he sinned in the rape of Bathsheba (v. 9ay, for which two punishments are announced in vv. 10-12); thirdly, he sinned in the murder of Uriah at the hands of Ammonites, thus creating an alibi, and concealing his own culpability (v. 9b). The third punishment (v. 14b) exacts divine vengeance for murder and hypocrisy. This goes hand in hand with David's hypocrisy in the attempt to conceal the rape by means of murder. There is a sense in which Yahweh, like a modern district attorney, has 'thrown the book' at David, listing every conceivable aspect of the infraction in a separate charge. 101. According to Pentateuchal law, a rapist is to be executed if his victim is a married woman (Deut. 22.22-27).

68

The Faces of David

From this close reading of the charges and punishments, it can be seen that Yahweh did not, and will never, declare David's marriage to Bathsheba legitimate. The death of the child expiates David's sin of murder, but deals not at all with David's illegitimate marriage to Bathsheba. Since the punishment concerning that illegitimate marriage continues D'PIU IS ('forever'), it is reasonable to assume that Yahweh considers the marriage to be enduringly illegitimate. If this reasoning is correct, one might exegete the otherwise bizarre pericope of 2 Sam. 12.24-25 in the following way: [qere]

Then David consoled Bathsheba, his wife. He went into her, had sex with her, so that she bore a son. She named him Solomon. Now Yahweh loved him, and sent [that message] by the hand of Nathan, the prophet. Then he called him Jedidiah, because of Yahweh.

The syntax is ambiguous, but apparently Yahweh reveals his love for the child to Nathan, so that Nathan is moved to rename the child with Yahweh's revelation in mind. It is possible to understand the text to mean that Yahweh himself names the child, though this seems less likely.102 Thus, the deity's role in this pericope is limited to the sending of Nathan with the announcement that "OHR miT ('Yahweh loved him'). Why does the narrator feel compelled to interrupt the narrative flow to inform us that Yahweh 'loves' this particular child? After all, according to the deuteronomistic theology to which the narrator subscribes,103 Yahweh loves all the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Deut. 7.7-8). What makes Solomon special? Many commentators answer this question by supposing that the deity hereby announces the heir to David's throne.104 But this possibility falters for several reasons. 102. Pace N. Wyatt, 'Jedidiah and Cognate Forms as a Title of Royal Legitimation', Bib 66 (1985), pp. 112-25, who compares this text with Isa. 7.14 (p. 112). 103. See Chapter 1, section 3. 104. If one exegetes 2 Sam. 12.24-25 out of narrational context, it is possible to make a case that one has here a fragment of an old tradition in which Yahweh does indeed designate Solomon heir. See for example, Wyatt, 'Jedidiah and Cognate Forms', pp. 112-25. However, such a hypothesis would have to assume that the now lost fuller account employed more explicit terminology than merely "Giltf miT, which is hardly sufficient for such a bold exegesis (see note 109, below). The thesis presented here argues that, whatever the origin of these two verses might be, their

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

69

First, had the story-bound characters, Nathan and Bathsheba, been cognizant of a divine oracle designating Solomon heir, the charade of 1 Kings 1 would have been unnecessary.105 As a matter of fact, Bathsheba would be downright foolish to speak of her son 'Solomon' in 1 Kings 1. Rightly, we would expect her to speak of her son 'Jedidiah', the beloved of Yahweh, the divinely chosen fulfillment of the great oracle pronounced by Nathan in 2 Samuel 7. Neither Bathsheba nor the old prophet cash in on these allusions. Perhaps to have done so would have been knowledgeable misappropriation of Yahweh's words and therefore would have risked divine wrath, which the presumably pious Nathan would never have done. Instead, the conspirators keep their deceptive rhetoric at the safely 'secular' level. Secondly, earlier it was noted that if David had chosen a successor, the dynamic of the story would have been radically altered, and that is also the case had there been a divinely ordained heir in place by 2 Samuel 12. In 2 Samuel 7, Yahweh had promised that an heir would sit upon David's throne. The subsequent action is a playful game of 'bait and switch'. Who will be that heir? Any son of David will suffice to fulfill the promise, so that the reader's attention is piqued as each son of David advances across the story-world stage—Bathsheba's two children, one of whom dies, but the other of whom Yahweh 'loves', then Amnon, Absalom, Adonijah. The great amount of space and attention devoted to Absalom encourages the reader to disregard the briefly mentioned Solomon, and to believe that Absalom is indeed the one anticipated by Yahweh but as yet unnamed by him. For a long while, the reader believes that Yahweh's fulfillment of 2 Samuel 7 will work itself out ironically, by means of the punishment announced in 2 Samuel 12. Absalom is uniquely positioned to fulfill both prophecies; he is a son of David and he brings a sword to David's house. That is part of the great shock engendered by the narrational aside of 2 Sam. 17.14b: '...because Yahweh wished to cause misfortune for Absalom'. This otherwise rather pedestrian, if not intrusive, element is actually a key element that prepares the reader for an almost O. Henry-like ending, in which a minor figure advances, as it were, from nowhere to disrupt the poetic justice that the reader has been so long anticipating. present narrational context undermines any attempt to read them as a divine designation of Solomon as heir. 105. So also, Ackerman, 'Knowing Good and Evil', p. 54.

70

The Faces of David

The story should have concluded with Absalom upon the throne. This might have compensated for Yahweh's odd treatment of a previous heir to the throne, Jonathan. Saul's alleged infractions led to his loss of dynasty and a good man, Jonathan, suffered the consequences. Yah wen has promised an unworthy man, David, a dynasty; would it not be fitting if a good man should bring about the fulfillment of that promise?106 Absalom has all the makings of that expectation—loved by David, but wholly rebellious. By contrast, Solomon is a nonentity in this tale until Nathan and Bathsheba emerge to plead his cause. Most importantly, with respect to this second issue, if Solomon were Yahweh's choice, Absalom's rebellion would be treason not just against his father, but against the God of Israel, a factor that the narrator, who does not like Absalom very much,107 would have been likely to underscore. But the narrator is not able to underscore this point since the narrator is aware that Yahweh has not chosen Solomon. The key narrational aside—the only narrational aside—portrays Yahweh as opposed to Absalom, but gives no reason for the deity's opposition (2 Sam. 17.14b). Considering Yahweh's almost obsessive patronage of David, rendering any competitor of David likely to run foul of the deity, the author of the story has given the reader sufficient explanation for the narrator's observation at that point. Yahweh places Absalom in the company of Nabal and Saul. In light of the nice way in which Absalom would round off the promises of 2 Samuel 7 and 12, the reader might be disappointed by 2 Sam. 17.14b, but will be satisfied nevertheless with the logic of Yahweh's decision. There is little reason to hypothesize that the deity has condemned Absalom of violating a divine decree of succession as well. A third factor undermining the possibility that Yahweh has designated Solomon heir is the very indeterminacy of the text. Given the radically 106. Interestingly, as it turns out, it was David who had hoped precisely this: 'If only I had died instead of you, Absalom!' (2 Sam. 19.1). The reader learns of the depth of David's passion only just prior to and after Absalom's death, in 2 Samuel 18 and 19 (note the alliterative command of 18.5: utymvb ~iffh ^ Bt6). While the reader is still in the dark concerning Yahweh's plan to destroy Absalom, the reader is likewise in the dark as to whether David will fight Absalom to the death to retain his throne. On the one hand, David abandoned the city without a fight; on the other, he makes provisions for doing battle from within Absalom's entourage. 107. The narrator's distaste for Absalom is highlighted by Polzin's interesting discussion in David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 149-50. Also note the observations made by F. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel, pp. 311-12.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

71

important nature of such a detail within the narrative world, the author is likely to have been more clear about it. If Yahweh has chosen Solomon as future king, every subsequent event in the story is affected. Granted, this narrator is a master of understatement, but the statement that Yahweh 'loves' (3HK) Solomon is not enough to indicate that Yahweh designates him for royal office. Conspicuous by its absence is the term Yahweh has employed in such cases, T]]—'heir/designated one' (found on Yahweh's lips at 1 Sam. 9.16, 2 Sam. 7.8; cf. Samuel's words at 1 Sam. 13.14; by contrast, on David's lips, not Yahweh's, at 1 Kgs 1.35).108 It is interesting to note that in other instances where Yahweh is involved with 'love', further specification clarifies what is meant. Love from Yahweh and for Yahweh occur commonly in this story. Humans are repeatedly exhorted to love their God (e.g. Deut. 6.5; 10.12; Josh. 22.5, etc.). For his part, Yahweh loves the ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and as a result, loves their descendants, the Israelites, as well (Deut. 4.37; 7.6-13; 10.15, etc.). In all these instances, context implies that 'love' involves Yahweh's covenantal relationship to his chosen people. Only here, in 2 Sam. 12.24, is it said that Yahweh has 'loved' an individual descendant of the ancestors. The term is never even associated with Yahweh's individual favorites, such as Moses and David (who are indeed chosen for political office). Looking beyond instances of divine-human love, one finds that the word 3HK, as employed in the story of Genesis to Kings, does not carry sufficient weight for a political interpretation. 'Love' is an emotion closely tied to feelings of compassion, affection and devotion, which might, but does not always, imply a bond of fidelity or loyalty. Men DilN their wives, their children, their favorite meals (e.g. Isaac in Gen. 24.67; 25.28 and 27.4). Women seek ways to earn the love of their husbands (e.g. Gen. 29.32). Slaves become devoted to their masters (in case law; e.g. Exod. 21.5; Deut. 15.16). Love can be fickle, and wrapped up with strong emotion or lust (e.g. Amnon in 2 Samuel 13). Jonathan loves David, as does Michal, perhaps Saul, and certainly all Israel (e.g. 1 Sam. 16.21; 18.1-4, 16, 20, etc.). The devotion of Hiram and David for one another in 1 Kgs 5.15 is perhaps a unique instance when Hi~!K does carry a political sense, that of a parity treaty; it would be difficult, however, to 108. For a definition of T3], see Halpern, Constitution of the Monarchy, ch. 1. Halpern attempts to draw a number of historical conclusions from the biblical use of this term at particular places.

72

The Faces of David

demonstrate that the 'love' of Yahweh for Solomon has something to do with parity or suzerainty treaties.109 In sum, from Genesis through Kings, UHK is primarily an emotional term; it may in some cases imply fidelity to a public relationship, but in those cases, it requires contextual specification of that relationship. Without some designation, such as T3], Yahweh's 'love' of Solomon is rightly understood to be an emotional bond, not a political one. Given that the 'love' of Yahweh for the newborn Solomon has nothing to do with designating David's heir, one must search for an alternative reason for the announcement of this love for this particular child. A very logical explanation readily presents itself. Within the context of the story presented in 2 Samuel 12, David's marriage to Bathsheba is eternally condemned. It is an illegitimate marriage. Therefore, any child produced by the union will be illegitimate and, as such, will stand under the law of Deut. 23.3: mm ^np3 "ima NT vb\ 'A bastard shall not enter the assembly of Yahweh'. David's act of 'comforting' the woman whom the narrator calls 'his 109. This is not the place to discuss the complicated subject of treaty language, however, a general statement of clarification is in order: The verb 'to love' is employed from time to time in ancient Near Eastern treaty contexts. It does not follow that wherever and whenever one finds 3H» in a biblical text, the sense is related to ancient Near Eastern treaty language. In each case, the nuance is determined by other words clustered with it, which together might or might not give voice to a technical language of binding public relationships. For example, the book of Deuteronomy taken as a whole seems to be modelled on treaty forms, and therefore salts a text such as Deut. 6.5 with the flavor of a treaty relationship (in this case, a vassal-suzerain relationship). However, the importation of a 'treaty' interpretation into a biblical passage which bears only superficial relationship to ancient Near Eastern political texts can be misleading. For example, the story of 1 Sam. 18.1-4 lacks any language reminiscent of treaty language (pace Damrosch, Narrative Covenant, p. 204). Contextually, Jonathan's love is emotional, and the covenant is one of marriage, complete with marriage gifts. There is a political symbolism present in the story; Jonathan's gifts symbolize his abdication of any claim to Saul's throne. This has nothing to do with treaty language; abdication of the throne does not entail submission as a vassal. Likewise, whoever loves whom in 1 Sam. 16.21, the context does not imply a treaty obligation (pace Edelman, King Saul, p. 122). In the case of 1 Kgs 5.15, one could argue that the biblical storyteller derived his information from an extra-biblical treaty text. It is possible, though not necessary, to view the context of 1 Kgs 5.15 as one which retains the force of the original treaty language. If 2 Sam. 12.24-25 derived from a hypothetical extra-biblical source involving treaty language (a doubtful hypothesis), all such context has been lost in the text's received form.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

73

wife', but whom Yahweh continues to view as the wife of Uriah, is a brazen act of defiance before his divine patron.110 The product of that brazen act, Solomon, is a "ITQQ, a bastard.111 Although the law of Deut. 23.3 has to do with who may or may not participate in the religious liturgies of Israel, the spirit of this law, as well as its practical application, would have excluded Solomon from participation in 'Israel' as the author of this narrative defines Israel. So long as David is on the throne, one could assume that the child and his mother would be protected from social consequences of the Torah of Moses; but, of course, David will not be around always to protect his dependents. It is therefore necessary for Yahweh to announce publicly his 'love' for Solomon, lest the children of this illegitimate marriage be excluded from the 'assembly' of Israel. That the story-world characters view the situation this way might be indicated by Bathsheba's words in 1 Kgs 1.21: If Adonijah, who has not even bothered to invite Solomon to his banquet, becomes king, then says Bathsheba, D'KBn no'TO sm ']« TPm; 'I and my son, Solomon, will be [accounted as] sinners'.112 In other words, Yahweh's love for Solomon is an act of divine grace, overlooking, though not excusing, the fact that Solomon is, and any subsequent child of Bathsheba will be, illegitimate. Yahweh is here presented by the author as a deity who does not exact upon the sons the sins of the fathers, a neatly paradoxical turn of events considering the 110. Also, as noted by Dennis, David's act of 'comforting' Bathsheba is, at best, gross insensitivity, at worst, a second act of rape (Dennis, Sarah Laughed, pp. 157-58). 111. The traditional rendering has no viable alternative. See BDB, p. 561, and see J. Levitsky, 'The Illegitimate Child (mamzer) in Jewish Law', JBQ 18 (1989), pp. 6-12(6-7). 112. Bathsheba may also have in mind the law of Deut. 22.22. Be that as it may, given the fact that Solomon is not listed among the anti-Adonijah party in 1 Kgs 1.8, it is not necessary to interpret his exclusion in 1 Kgs 1.10 as politically motivated. It may be that Solomon is simply not important enough to be invited to a political 'fund-raiser', or it may be that his illegitimacy renders him undesirable in light of the Torah exclusion of bastards. But Nathan's actions of 1 Kings 1 are politically motivated as 1 Kgs 1.8 makes clear. It may be that Nathan is able to enlist Bathsheba's aid by playing upon her (realistic) fear that Solomon's exclusion from Adonijah's feast implies loss of honor for her as her patron-husband, David, fades from the political stage. She has reason to believe that she and Solomon will be excluded from the royal house, perhaps killed, under Adonijah's reign. Faced with a grim future, a gambit for the throne may have seemed the only realistic option—it is the all-or-none principle.

74

The Faces of David

fate of the previous child. Once again, the God of the book of Samuel is portrayed as one who is absolutely free, absolutely unpredictable. It is interesting to note, however, that the author, as opposed to the deity and the narrator, does anticipate that Solomon will be the heir to David's throne. This is an example of the author's strategy of undermining an aspect of the unreliable narrator's narration. The narrator tends not to be overly enthusiastic about Solomon. On the one hand, Solomon built the temple, and the narrator does give him due credit for it.113 On the other, Solomon was an apostate king with a terrible royal record. The narrator deals with this story-world reality by creating a neat, but wholly artificial, two-stage process to the narration of Solomon's storyworld career. Early in life, Solomon was faithful (hence the absurd notice at 1 Kgs 3.3, one of the most stunning examples of unreliable narration in the entire tale114), and later in life, unfaithful. The author has created a structure to the narrative which demands that the reader reject the narrator's presentation of this neat two-stage schema.115 Neither the deity nor the narrator wishes to present Solomon's accession as an inevitable event. On the contrary, the narrator carefully excludes any comment which would lead the narratee to believe that Yahweh had a hand in the coup narrated in 1 Kings 1. Instead, he stresses that Solomon's acceptance by Yahweh is the deity's response to Solomon's humility before God in 1 Kings 3—a motif more in keeping with the narrator's theological sensibilities. By the same token, Yahweh never mentioned by name the heir for David in his speech of 2 Samuel 7 (though he could have easily, had he wanted to do so; cf. 1 Kgs 13.2). Virtually any son of David will suffice to fulfill that vague prophecy. As already noted, Yahweh's opposition to Absalom need not be viewed as opposition to Absalom per se, but rather support of David, Yahweh's chosen king. Simply put, Yahweh does not care which son of David secures the throne, and shows up only after the fact, to test the new king (!Kgs3). 113. On the narrator's obsessive enthusiasm for the temple, an enthusiasm not shared by Yahweh, see above, Chapter 1, section 3. 114. Gunn, 'Reading Right', pp. 53-64 (56). 115. On the narrator's fondness for this artificial two-stage schema in the career of kings, see the older but still very useful volume, R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (trans. E. Sharpe and S. Rudman; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964). See also the interesting article by J.T. Walsh, 'The Characterization of Solomon in First Kings 15', CBQ 57 (1995), pp. 471-93.

2. The Characterization of David in the Prose Story

75

It is the (implied) author, and the author alone, who anticipates through artful foreshadowing the ultimate success of Solomon over David's other sons. He does this very creatively by inventing a story-world character, Nathan, who appears in only three scenes. First, Nathan announces the dynastic promise (2 Sam. 7); secondly, Nathan (as opposed to, say, Gad—cf. 1 Sam. 22.5), arrives on the scene at the moment of the heir's birth (2 Sam. 12); finally, Nathan performs a very unprophetlike role in carrying out the coup which sets Solomon upon the throne (1 Kgs I).116 Later, Solomon will announce that it was God who placed Solomon on the throne (1 Kgs 2.24; [5.19]; 8.20; cf. Adonijah's words in 1 Kgs 2.15). But Yahweh does not lift a divine finger for Solomon's benefit until after the narrator has twice announced that the kingdom was 'established' (]1D) in the hands of Solomon (1 Kgs 2.12, 46). It was the author who foresaw this, not the deity who foreordained it.

116. Nathan's role in 1 Kings 1 is unlike the 'prophetic' role of the king-maker found elsewhere in the Former Prophets. Nathan does not operate at a distance from the reigning king, on the open road (cf. 1 Kgs 11) or in the army's camp (cf. 2 Kgs 9), where a prophet's actions can be viewed as outright opposition to the reigning dynasty, but rather in the inner sanctum of the palace, effecting a coup which does not amount to the prophetic creation of a new regime so characteristic of this story. More importantly, he does not claim to speak for Yahweh, nor does the narrator indicate that he has acted in response to divine command, as was the case in Nathan's earlier appearances (cf. 2 Sam. 7, 12; also see 1 Sam. 9-10, 16, etc.). In 1 Kings 1, Nathan is presented as a conspirator, nothing more.

Chapter 3 DAVID'S LAMENT, 2 SAMUEL 1.19-27 1. The Literary Context of David's Lament In the previous chapter, David's character as discerned from the prose portions of the narrative was examined in broad outline. The time has come to look at the first of three extended poems uttered by David during the course of his story, David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan. Before turning to a rhetorical analysis of this poem (section 2, below), it will be helpful to review the narrative context in which the poem is set. David's Lament occurs at a pivotal point in the book of Samuel both on a narrational level (that is, in the narrator's view) and on a nonnarrational level (that is, in the author's view).1 On the narrational level, the poem serves the narrator in several ways. First, it forms an inclusio with Hannah's prayer (1 Sam. 2.1-10), framing the rise and fall of the first king of Israel, Saul. The narrator exploits the words of David and Hannah in such a way as to highlight their anticipation and summation of Saul's story. Hannah's multivalent prayer functions not unlike a delphic oracle.2 It becomes ambiguously prophetic, so that the reader can discern—but only with hindsight—that Saul's career was destined for glory and for failure. Hannah's prayer seems to anticipate the rise of monarchy, with the final line explicitly speaking about Yahweh's patronage of an 'anointed

1. As in the previous chapter, for convenience, the implied author of the text is designated the 'author'. 2. Like the delphic oracles in Herodotus, Hannah's prayer is 'fulfilled' in the story-world in ways unexpected by story-world characters. In the case of Hannah's prayer, the poem sets the theme for the remainder of Samuel and Kings, from the reversal of fortunes experienced by the Elides to the downfall of Jerusalem, and even the final pericope of Kings, in which a humbled man is set on high at the table of princes (see Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 37-38).

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel L19-27

77

one' (1 Sam. 2.10).3 Since she does not position herself as a prophet, Hannah probably intends to refer to Yahweh's reign as king.4 For the narrator, her words anticipate David, certainly, but Saul as well. Yahweh will give his patronage to Saul, and in addition, Hannah's son, Samuel, is packaged as a symbolic 'Saul' in the first chapter of Samuel.5 Several of the poem's lines can be read as cryptic references to Saul's fate. The tall king of 1 Sam. 9.2 and 10.23 is ridiculed by Hannah's words, $^>^? 'Do not say, "Tall!"' (1 Sam. 2.3acc).6 The fall of mighty Saul 3. Hannah does not have in mind a king, though the narrator and the reader take her words that way. In the Pentateuch, religious objects are anointed (as well as priests). This is perhaps what Hannah has in mind when she refers to herself as anointed in 1 Sam. 2.10: Yahweh's remembrance of her prayer constitutes the holy contract she has sought, making her son a sanctified person to be lent to Yahweh. She perceives herself to be an anointed vessel of her God. It should be noted that, although human story-world characters usually presume that any anointing implies divine patronage for the one anointed, neither Yahweh nor the narrator make this assumption. Abimelech, for example, was never Yahweh's anointed (see Judg. 9.8, 15), nor was Solomon (1 Kgs 1.34). (On Solomon's status with Yahweh, see the excursus at the end of Chapter 2 above.) After the book of Samuel, the narrator presumes that all kings and even prophets are anointed to office with or without divine sanction, though he narrates only a few instances (Solomon in 1 Kgs 1.39, 45 [cf. 5.15]; Elisha, Hazael and Jehu in 1 Kgs 19.15-16 [cf. 2 Kgs 9.312]; Joash in 2 Kgs 11.12 and Jehoahaz of Judah in 2 Kgs 23.30). By far the most frequent use in the Hebrew Bible of the root FI2JQ occurs in Samuel (32 times out of 109 total, or about 29 percent). Nearly half of the noun forms, FTOQ, occur in Samuel (18 of 39, or about 46 percent). Anointing as a prophetic act in the legitimization of kings is attested at Mari. See A. Malamat, 'A New Prophetic Message from Aleppo and its Biblical Counterparts', in A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of G.W. Anderson (JSOTSup, 152; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 236-41 (237). 4. In the bicolon, "dTKh TJ> ]m pN "DDK p- miT, it is Yahweh who reigns with justice and gives strength to his own rule (read ID^Q1?—preposition plus Qal infinitive construct with pronominal suffix). The final line, a monocolon, expresses Hannah's self-perception as Yahweh's 'anointed', as seems clear from the inclusio with v. 1, mm "]~ip HQ~1, in which the 'horn' is specifically Hannah's possession. (For an alternative view of 1 Sam. 2.10, see T.J. Lewis, 'The Textual History of the Song of Hannah: 1 Samuel ii 1-10', VT44 [1994], pp. 40-43. Lewis restores a line to create three complete bicola in the verse.) 5. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 25-26. 6. Reading with Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, p. 34. Alternatively, the final he could be construed as a remnant pre-Persian era third masculine singular suffix; thus 'Do not speak of his height!' On the text, which is conflated in MT, see McCarter, / Samuel, p. 69.

78

The Faces of David

and humble David's rise are alluded to throughout: Verse 4, the warrior's bow is broken but the humble girds on strength (cf. v. 7); v. 8, the lowly inherits the glorious one's throne; v. 9, the faithful one is observed by Yahweh, for human strength is not the means to make a man a warrior. These allusions place Saul in the Goliath position vis-a-vis David. Perhaps most clever is the pun on Saul's name in v. 6b: which can be read, '[Yahweh] is bringing down "Sha'til" and raises [another]'. It is doubtful whether the character Hannah recognizes in her own words any prescience, but the narrator's decision to report her words in full (a decision the narrator did not make for, say, the mother of Samson in Judg. 13), encourages the reader to follow these leads. David's Lament summarizes in retrospect what Hannah's prayer had summarized in prospect. It underscores both the glory and the tragic failure that was Saul's kingship. The 'bow' mentioned by Hannah and Jonathan's bow mentioned by David (1 Sam. 2.4a; 2 Sam. 1.22a) become Leitworter, appearing in Samuel only in texts representing stages leading to Saul's demise and David's rise.7 Jonathan gives David his bow, and Saul is felled by a bow (1 Sam. 18.4; 31.3). The heir abdicates in favor of David; the king falls, clearing the way for David. Later, David, having perceived that this was Yahweh's doing (2 Sam. 5.12), will boast that it is he who is able to bend a bow of bronze (2 Sam. 22.35). Some interpret the reference to a 'bow' in 2 Sam. 1.18a to be the title of David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan, 'He instructed that the Judahites be taught "The Bow'".8 If this were correct (the syntax is sufficiently ambiguous to require that the issue remain open), it would further underscore the symbolic significance and placement of the Lament. A second narrational role played by the Lament was highlighted by Polzin, who stresses that the narrator (Polzin calls him the deuteronomist) reports David's Lament because he, the narrator, is able to view David's words as a subtle prophetic rebuke of Israel, foreshadowing the sins of apostasy and worship on the 'high places' which become the 7. Interestingly, the word does not appear at potentially distracting points, such as when Jonathan is shooting arrows as a sign to David in the field, in 1 Samuel 20. It would seem that the reader is to associate the term with the theme of David's rise and Saul's demise. 8. For example, H.W. Hertzberg, / & II Samuel (trans. J.S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), pp. 235, 238-39.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

79

theme of the book of Kings.9 In effect, Saul is a metonym for Israel, which is fallen upon the high places. His shield is a metonym for Yahweh (quite a common metaphor in biblical Hebrew10), who is rejected by Israel on the high places.11 Thirdly, the narrator records David's Lament as a way of highlighting the narrator's portrayal of the faithful David, in service to his former lord turned enemy. In contrast to Saul's murderous manhunt, David refused to kill 'Yahweh's anointed',12 and now Saul and Jonathan are immortalized by the one destined by Yahweh to usurp their power and their place in Israel's national memory. David, says the narrator, is willing to forget the past, even to gloss over the divisions between Jonathan and his father (2 Sam. 1.23a(3),13 to remember their death in a positive fashion. The narrator has a fourth reason for depicting David as the composer of the lamentation; he wishes to stress David's fidelity to Jonathan. It will be remembered that Jonathan, as well as Michal, loved David.14 Apparently, David felt some affection for Jonathan, if not for Michal. This is uncertain, but Adele Berlin has noted that it was to Jonathan that David turned, not Michal, in 1 Samuel 20.15 Also, David Damrosch makes a case for seeing the relationship between David and Jonathan (throughout the narrative, but especially in 1 Sam. 18.1-4) as a formal marriage. Saul takes David from David's father's house, as would a man securing a bride for his son, while Jonathan provides marriage gifts (that 9. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, pp. 16-24. 10. The metonym/metaphor is extremely common in the Psalms—Pss. 3.4; 28.7; 33.20; 47.10; 59.12; 84.10, 12; 89.19; 115.9-11; 119.114; 144.2 (cf. 18.3, 31, 36). It occurs in narrative as well, on the lips of the deity and other story-world characters— Gen. 15.1 (Yahweh); Deut. 33.29 (Moses); 2 Sam. 22.3, 31, 36 (David). 11. It will be recalled (see Chapter 1) that the concern with Israel's apostate 'fall' upon the niQ3 is a concern expressed exclusively by the narrator, never by Yahweh, nor by the author. 12. David stresses Saul's status as anointed one often—1 Sam. 24.7, 11; 26.9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. 1.14, 16, and, of course, in 1.21 as well. For the narrator, this is an indication of David's fidelity toward Saul. For the author, David seems to fear the taboo nature of Saul's person. 13. Compare 1 Sam. 19.1-7; 20.30-34; 22.8; 23.17ap-b. 14. Saul appears to love David early in their relationship, at 1 Sam. 16.21, though the syntax is ambiguous. Jonathan and Michal vie for David's love in 1 Samuel 18. As A. Berlin observes, Jonathan seems to have won that contest (Berlin, 'David's Wives', pp. 69-85 [70-27]). 15. Berlin, 'David's Wives', pp. 70-72.

80

The Faces of David

double for a symbolic abdication of his status as royal heir in favor of David).16 In light of this, it is readily apparent why the narrator would include David's moving words directed toward the dead Jonathan in 2 Sam. 1.25-26. For the narrator, and perhaps also for the reader, this touching scene serves as proof-positive that David loved Jonathan as he never loved any female character within the story. There is a fifth reason for the narrator's use of David's Lament at this point in the story. It will be noted that when David publicizes this poem, he also instructs those publishing the Lament to teach the Judahites 'the bow' (2 Sam. 1.18). If this is indeed the correct reading of the text, it underscores an important aspect of David's thinking. The death of Saul and the defeat of Israel imply the ascendancy of Philistia. It is time, thinks David, for Judah to take arms. Within the story-world, Judah has been passive with respect to Philistia (Judg. 15.9-13; cf. 1 Sam. 23.3). With one exception, it has been Israel alone that fought this enemy (1 Sam. 4-31).17 With the death of Saul, the narrator depicts David's loyalties coming to a crisis point; he cannot serve Philistine and Hebrew interests at one and the same time. He chooses the Hebrews, and calls the idle portion of the Hebrew people to perpetuate the struggle begun even before the time of Saul. The Lament over Saul and Jonathan serves both as eulogy and call to arms.18 Moving beyond the narrational level of the story, David's Lament serves the purposes of the author in a more subtle, but no less important way. The poem, in all its stately beauty, formal dignity, artistic vision, 16. Damrosch, Narrative Covenant, pp. 202-205. 17. Judahites participate in Saul's wars with Ammon (1 Sam. 11.8) and Amalek (1 Sam. 15.4). In each case, the narrator enumerates Judahite strength in distinction from Israel. But in the entire story, only in 1 Sam. 17.52 do we read of Judahites engaged against Philistia. Presumably, they are at the battle scene only because it was Judahite land that was on this occasion invaded by Philistia (1 Sam. 17.1). Saul and the men of Israel respond to the threat (1 Sam 17.2), but from Judah, the narrator explicitly mentions that only three sons of Jesse 'followed Saul to battle' (1 Sam. 17.13). In 17.52, numbers are not given, and one could read this as the narrator's silent embarrassment that only a few Judahites are present, since the narrator is usually more particular about numerical details. In this instance, Judahite presence may be little more than a narrative necessity, since it affords the author opportunity to place David at the scene where Goliath is challenging Israel. In any case, the Judahites are not characterized as valiant participants in this war. 18. See T. Kleven's discussion and citation of earlier commentators (Kleven, 'Reading Hebrew Poetry: David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan', PEGLMBS 11 [1991], pp. 51-65 [52]).

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

81

perplexes the reader as to David's underlying character. The remainder of the present section will explore the author's strategy concerning David's character in the narrative context leading up to and immediately following the Lament.19 The final section (section 2) will explore the Lament's function within that context with respect to David's characterization. As was noted in Chapter 1 and explored tentatively in Chapter 2, the author tends to undercut the narrator's more straightforward presentation of persons and events. If David, for the narrator, is a good man who sinned only once (with respect to Uriah the Hittite, as 1 Kgs 15.5 stresses20), but who nevertheless remains an ideal against which later kings can be judged, David is more complex, less obviously good or bad, in the eyes of the author. The reader has discerned the author's ambivalence concerning David even before David appears in the story. As noted in Chapter 2, the story is designed to highlight Saul's unfair treatment at the hands of the deity. Therefore, when Samuel first announces that Yahweh will choose one 'after his own heart' with whom to replace Saul (1 Sam. 13.13-14), the reader is alerted. Will this one, whose heart is so much like Yahweh's, be just as Yahweh demands, or just as Yahweh is just? The ambivalence remains a constant theme. David is surely a pious and brave warrior in 1 Samuel 17, but also a youth with raw ambition, receptive to Jonathan's love in 1 Samuel 18-23, but apparently also manipulative of Jonathan himself (see the discussion above, Chapter 2). As the story unfolds, David appears wholeheartedly committed to his lord, Saul. Is the appearance real? The reader will never be able to answer this question definitively; that is as the author has designed it to be. David's actions and personality are deliberately fogged. Nevertheless, hints abound that the answer could be no. The narrator seems to let slip a side of David he may have preferred 19. This discussion presupposes and elaborates upon the discussion of David's characterization in Chapter 2. That material will not be repeated here, but the reader is encouraged to review Chapter 2 now, if that has not been read already. 20. The phrase, TTin miN ~Q"Q p"l, is lacking in Old Greek. If it is secondary, it nevertheless makes explicit what is implicit in the narrator's presentation of David. As we shall see shortly, and again in Chapters 4 and 5, the narrator has presented the story-world events in an obscure fashion partly to fog some of the more unpleasant aspects of David's personality and actions. That these story-world events remain part of the narration at all is a necessary part of the author's agenda, in distinction from the narrator's agenda.

82

The Faces of David

to hide when we are told that David's heart 'struck him' (1 Sam. 24.6) for the symbolic act of cutting Saul's robe. This notice comes at an awkward moment in the course of the narration, and is left unexplained. The reader is piqued by the discord. Why would David's heart be heavy for not killing Saul? Or is his heart smitten only for the act of cutting the robe (as explicitly stated by the narrator)? If so, in what sense is David smitten at all, since he persists in the action begun with that fateful cutting? Is there any connection between killing and cutting? Polzin discerns the connection when the Amalekite arrives on the scene in 2 Samuel 1. As the Amalekite strips Saul of his emblems of royalty, so David has done with the cutting off of Saul's royal robe in 1 Samuel 24. As an effective narrative embodiment that suggests duplicity in profiting from the death of Saul while publicly bemoaning his demise, the lying Amalekite is a fitting narrative emblem for a complicated story.21

One can go further. If David is uncomfortable with his symbolic act of cutting Saul's robe, the author hints that he has good reason to be. At the end of 1 Samuel 25, we are told by the narrator that David had taken a wife previously, one Ahinoam from Jezreel.22 Is it coincidence that Saul, who will die attempting to rid the Jezreel of Philistines, is married to a woman named Ahinoam, daughter of Ahimaaz?23 Has David, the soon-to-be Philistine ally, stolen Saul's wife, undercutting Saul's Jezreel political connection? Perhaps the ambitious David has been making flagrant claims on his lord's throne, claims not mentioned by the narrator, but embedded in the story-world by the author. The reader is intended to catch the discord, since, in addition to the narrator's slip at 1 Sam. 24.6, story-world characters betray the narrator's sleight of hand. Let us not forget Nabal's words in 1 Sam. 25.10, where David is accused of being little more than a thug who has broken away from his lord. This possibility would also explain Yahweh's curious and otherwise inexplicable remark to David at 21. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 7. 22. 1 Sam. 25.43; Hebrew grammar (a wavv-disjunctive and direct object followed by a perfect verb) indicates that this is a parenthetical remark describing an event which took place earlier in story-world time. (Presumably, this Ahinoam is from the Jezreel valley, not the Jezreel of Josh. 15.56, though certainty on the matter is not possible.) 23. 1 Sam. 14.50; note that Saul responds to David's marriages by giving Michal to another (25.44). These points are advanced by Levenson, who draws historical conclusions from them (Levenson, 'I Samuel 25', pp. 11-28).

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

83

2 Sam. 12.8, 'I gave you your lord's house, and your lord's wives into your bosom...' 24 David's rebellion against Saul, if he is in fact rebelling, would expose the irony of David's self-justification to the face of Saul, while explaining David's otherwise inexplicable continued estrangement from him (1 Sam. 24.9-23; 26.14-25). Saul might voice love for David 'his son' in these circumstances, but Saul nevertheless departs without restoring David to David's former place in the royal family and administration. Why? Are Saul's words of reconciliation genuine, or the words of a man trapped, who resorts to diplomacy in order to gain a passage for retreat? What, for example, does Saul really mean by his use of the multivalent term, mB, in 1 Sam. 26.21? Perhaps in both scenes, chs. 24 and 26, Saul recognizes that he and his men have fallen into a strategically narrow strait—if David can dare to fall before Saul in 24.9, then David's men cannot be far off! Voicing reconciliation is the prudent thing for Saul to do.25 But Saul is not fooled by David's rhetoric or feigned obeisance. The renegade who cuts Saul's robe and steals his military gear is not the innocent he claims to be, and cannot accompany Saul back to Gibeah. Reconciliation is not narrated in these scenes because it is not possible; the confrontations are, in story-world reality, as artificially staged as they seem to the reader to be, staged by the character, David, and abetted by the biased narrator's choice of presentation. For his part, David in the scenes of chapters 24 and 26 strikes the reader as a Hamlet-like character, uncertain precisely what to do, but wishing to do something. In neither scene does David realistically expect 24. Yahweh's use, through the mouth of Nathan, of the plural, 'wives', is interesting, since the narrator has recorded only one wife of Saul, namely Ahinoam. Here again, the testimony of a story-world character calls into question the full reliability of the narrator, making it necessary for the reader to rely on the author as much as the narrator. But as with any narrative told by an unreliable narrator, the reader is at once dependent upon the narrator and suspicious of him. J.D. Levenson and B. Halpern think Yahweh refers to multiple lords of David in 2 Sam. 12.8 (perhaps Saul and Nabal) since the form, ~p]~IK, is formally plural (Levenson and Halpern, 'The Political Import of David's Marriages', JBL 99 [1980], pp. 507-18 [514 n. 15]). This is, however, the common biblical Hebrew construction for a singular lord, as in 1 Sam. 26.15; 29.10; 2 Sam. 9.9-10, etc. From the context Saul seems to be the one to whom Yahweh refers. 25. Compare 2 Sam. 19.17-24, where Shimei prostrates himself before David, begging mercy. But the narrator comments that Shimei is accompanied by a large contingent of Benjaminites! 'David surely recognizes it is not an auspicious time for dispatching his rival...' (Perdue, 'Is There Anyone Left?', p. 78).

84

The Faces of David

reconciliation, as is evident from his less than benevolent speech (e.g., 'May Yahweh wreak vengeance against you, but my hand will not be upon you', 1 Sam. 24.13; cf. the more oblique version of the same curse in 26.24). David steals close to his prey, but cannot bring himself to the fateful blow, preferring at the last moment to hand the dirty work over to the God who has anointed him through Samuel. Is David at once frightened to kill Saul (because Saul's anointing makes him taboo in David's mind) and at the same time eager to have Saul out of the way? Presumably, for since 1 Samuel 16, David has been aware of his destiny as Saul's replacement. It was mentioned in Chapter2 that 1 Sam. 18.26b (MT) might be construed to suggest that David has been eager to hurry his destiny along. Thus, the reader has been primed for an interpretation of David's actions in 1 Samuel 24 and 26 similar to the one suggested here. Clearly, there is a side to David discernible in the narration, but hidden by the narrator. It comes to play again in David's Philistine 'treason'. On the one hand, David flees to the Philistines with what seems to be good reason (1 Sam. 27.1). Once there, he employs his new vassal status to wreak havoc on non-Hebrews (in a vicious manner repulsive to modern readers, and possibly intended by the real author to be interpreted as repulsive by ancient readers as well; 27.8-9). Yet when the moment of truth arrives (1 Sam. 29), the reader is left in a deliciously open-ended situation. Would David have fought against Saul and Israel? The narrator stresses David's inability to have been present on the battlefield, or even to have been cognizant of the battle's outcome, by reminding the reader of a minimum six-day time lapse (1 Sam. 30.1; 2 Sam. 1.1-2). No doubt David and his men could not have been in the eastern Jezreel even had they planned to be there.26 But had they planned to do so? Could David have joined forces with the Philistines because he feared that his force of arms in 1 Samuel chs. 24 and 26 would not have defeated the full strength of Saul's army? David's words in 1 Sam. 27.1 permit several readings of his motive: David either flees Saul because he is persecuted, or because he fears his own rebellion is too weak militarily, and so he seeks protective alliance. The reader discerns precisely this dualism in David's characterization: He is genuine and not genuine. He is a man who can refuse to kill his 26. Polzin is uncertain of this (David and the Deuteronomist, p. 3). However, the argument offered by 'Kleven seems sound (T. Kleven, 'Rhetoric and Narrative Depiction in 2 Samuel 1:1-16', PEGLMBS 9 [1989], p. 59-73 [61]).

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

85

lord, but is perhaps stripping that lord nevertheless. He maintains the capacity to be 'struck' by his own duplicity while persisting in it. Faithful to others, yet full of ambition which can rise to the surface at any moment, David has a knack for seizing the moment, or even another' s misfortune, for his own gain. Most importantly, the author wants the reader to know that David knows his own dark side, and is as troubled by it as the reader might be. 'David's heart struck him' (1 Sam. 24.6). No doubt David is sincere in his confession to Abiathar in 1 Sam. 22.22 (else why say anything of his role in the matter at all?), yet expresses a curiously lackluster concern for the deaths he has caused.27 David appears to recognize the horror of his willingness to murder Nabal in cold blood (1 Sam. 25.32-34), yet manages to capitalize on Nabal's demise with haste (25.39). Even when David is not the instrument of murder, he seems to display a character given toward excessive self-justification, as in 2 Sam. 3.28-29 — a guilty conscience, perhaps? This last point begs elaboration; perhaps David displays a tendency to rationalize his success by blaming the victim. In the scene after Joab murders Abner, the king of Judah utters a lament over Abner (2 Sam. 3.33-34) which invokes the name of Nabal, from 1 Samuel 25: Has Abner died like the death of Nabal? Your hand(s) not bound,28 And your feet not fettered in bronze; As one who falls before the wicked, you fell.29

It is as though David wishes to convince others (and perhaps himself?) that Abner's death is another stage in Yahweh's mysterious patronage, not the brutal assassination which it is in story-world reality. 'Just as Yahweh killed Nabal, so Yahweh has killed Abner', he implies. The 27. See the discussion in Chapter 2 above. 28. 4QSama reads D'pn [$b ~pT rrmO]K, which is expansionistic. On other text-critical considerations in these four lines, see the discussion in McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 110-11. 29. The fourth line, according to the Greek and possibly a Qumran text, begins not blSD: 'As Nabal, before the wicked you fell.' If that reading is preferred, it strengthens the present discussion. The preposition ^sb serves a double entendre. Nabal fell before Yahweh, Abner before Joab, and both for the benefit of David. David recognizes his own wickedness in attempting to extort goods from Nabal, and threatening to kill him for failure to pay. Perhaps he recognizes his own wickedness in his ongoing relationship to Saul and, in this instance, Saul's house: 'Like Nabal, before the son of Jesse, you fell.'

86

The Faces of David

reader wonders whether David has convinced himself. In the meanwhile, Joab remains unpunished.30 With this in mind, the reader is prepared for the final irony leading up to the lamentation in 2 Samuel 1. When the scene opens at Ziklag, the reader wonders: To whom has the Amalekite come? An Israelite estranged from, but loyal to, his lord, Saul? A Philistine mercenary who would be delighted to hear that 'his side' won the battle on Gilboa?31 Later, the reader will be compelled to add a third option to this list: Did the Amalekite come to a rival Hebrew king, nominally vassal to the Philistines, who resides at this moment in Ziklag, but who reigns from Hebron? This question cannot be answered definitely. But the author has set the stage to permit this possibility, thus casting more uncertainty upon David's character. The author achieves this ambiguity by creating a narrator who confuses the chronology of David's career during the period stretching from David's escape from Saul in 1 Sam. 21.2, through the Amalekite's entry to Ziklag in 2 Sam. 1.2. During this period, David appears to make no less than fifteen journeys, not including military forays out from a base camp. These are:32

1 2 3 4 5

From

To

(Gibeah) (Nob) 'From there' 'From there' (Mizpeh of Moab)

Nob Gath Cave of 'Adullam33 Mizpeh of Moab 'The Stronghold'

1 Samuel

21.2 21.11 22.1 22.3 22.4

30. David will later attempt to depose Joab and fail (2 Sam. 19.14; 20.4-13). Finally, David will order Joab's execution (1 Kgs 2.5-6). But it is interesting that he makes these attempts against Joab only after Joab has killed Absalom (2 Sam. 18). Prior to that, David depends on Joab throughout his career to do the king's dirty work. When it comes time to order Joab's execution, David fails to mention the execution of Absalom, this most hurtful (from David's perspective) of Joab's crimes. Perhaps silence marks the genuine motive for David's desire to seek blood-guilt from Joab. In any case, it is a motive David need not share with Solomon, since it would not have been an effective motivation in Solomon's ears (quite the opposite!). 31. Edelman, King Saul, p. 299. 32. Names without parentheses are stated in the text; names in parentheses might be implied by context; when the narrator confirms character speech, alternate names for a single geographic region are listed together. 33. McCarter emends to D^TD mUQ, thus conflating this site with the 'stronghold' of 22.4 (McCarter, I Samuel, p. 355).

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

7 8

The Stronghold'34 (Forest of Hereth, Judah) Keilah

9

'From there'

6

10 (Strongholds of Ein-gedi) (Paran) (?)

87

22.5 Forest of Hereth, Judah Keilah 23.5 23.13-15 The Desert Strongholds; The Mountain in the Desert of Ziph, in Horesh; The Strongholds in Horesh, on 23.19 the hill of Hachilah, south of Jeshimon; 23.24 The Desert of Maon, in the Arabah south of Jeshimon 24.1 Strongholds of Ein-gedi The Desert of Paran

25.1

Hachilah, opposite Jeshimon; The Desert of Ziph (?)

26.1

26.5 (?) 11 12 13 14 15

(Paran or Hachilah, Ziph) (?) (Gath) (?) (?) ('Aphek, in Jezreel) (Land of the Philistines)

Gath

27.2

(Ziklag) (?) 'Aphek,inJezreel 35 Land of the Philistines Ziklag

27.6 29.1-2 29.11 30.1

Throughout this narration, the story-time which is elapsing is vague. David apparently makes his way from Nob (1) to the Forest of Hereth (6) in the time that it takes news of David's presence at Nob to reach Saul at Gibeah (1 Sam. 22.6-9). After the slaughter of the priests at Nob, Abiathar makes his way to David, but by this time, David has moved from the Forest of Hereth to Keilah (7; cf. 1 Sam. 22.20-23 and 23.6). None of this is impossible in the context of the story, but it does indicate 34. McCarter emends to HD^Q, because he assumes that the 'stronghold' of 22.4 is identical to the 'Adullam site mentioned in 22.1 (McCarter, I Samuel, p. 356; see previous note). 35. J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes equate this 'Aphek with the one mentioned in 1 Sam. 4.1 (Miller and Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986], p. 130). Historically, this might be correct. In narrative context, however, this appears to be a different site. Certainty in the matter is not possible.

88

The Faces of David

that the narrator is compressing large periods of story-time into an imprecisely defined narration-time. The explicit effect this has on the reader is to encourage the assumption that David is on the run and rarely in one place very long; the hidden effect is to shroud the precise doings of David from the reader's view. The narrator also keeps the reader guessing as to David's exact location at any given time. This is especially noticeable at (8), when David moves south from Keilah to the desert of Ziph (just south of Hebron). Through an artful use of repetition, the narrator links his own descriptions of this region with that of the Ziphites (1 Sam. 23.13-15, 19, 24). David and his six hundred men set out from Keilah and go about the countryside, settling in the region of Ziph, apparently in another stronghold. This region, to the narrator's mind, includes Horesh, south of Jeshimon, in the region of Maon. From there David moves to the coast of the Dead Sea, at Ein-gedi (9), and then far south, into the desert of Paran south of the Dead Sea (10).36 It is precisely at the transition from (10) to (11) on the chart above that the reader loses track of the continuity of David's movements. Up to this point, the narrator has been vague, but not so vague that continuity is broken. When, however, David acquires a wife in Paran, Abigail the wife of Nabal, the narrator begins to get coy with his reader. Although the narrator has not described a move on David's part (Abigail came to David for the wedding, he did not go to her), the Ziphites, in 1 Samuel 26, announce to Saul that David is back in their territory again, much further north than Paran. So far as the reader knows at this point, the Ziphites are wrong. Nevertheless, Saul comes to the desert of Ziph (1 Sam. 26.2). But David, we are told, dwelt in the 'desert' ("Oia; 1 Sam. 26.3b). Which desert? Presumably Paran, from which place he sends spies to Ziph, and upon their return, moves north (1 Sam. 26.4-5). This is quite a bit of movement back and forth for the apparent story36. MT reads 'Paran'. McCarter argues for the priority of Vaticanus, 'Maon' (McCarter, I Samuel, p. 388). This might be reasonable, but as McCarter notes, the MT represents the lectio dijficilior. One can explain how a scribe would 'correct' the rather extraordinary reference to Paran, by placing David further north, where Nabal will be in close proximity, and from which the narrative of ch. 26 can flow rather smoothly. Therefore, it is best to make sense of the more difficult reading. When one does, one finds that this difficult reading occurs at precisely the same spot in which the narration begins to obscure David's status and activities. This may be an accident of haphazard redactional activity, or it may be deliberate choice on the part of a redactor. In either case, 'Paran' is the superior reading.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

89

time elapsing. Nevertheless, it is plausible, thus maintaining the narrator's relative credibility.37 David's movements remain vague from 1 Samuel 25 to the start of ch. 29. The reader might presume that David had moved north in the unnarrated time between 1 Sam. 25.42 and 1 Sam. 26.1; or the reader could assume that David moved north from Paran for the confrontation with Saul narrated in 1 Sam. 26.5-25. Either is possible. But this is not the only gap in the reader's knowledge with respect to David's travels. In 27.1, David, in soliloquy, chooses to return to Philistine territory. But from where? Presumably either from Paran (his base camp since 25.1?) or from Ziph. We are then told that David is awarded a fief at Ziklag by Achish, king of Gath (1 Sam. 27.5-6). David promises Achish that he will live there, but the narrator never reports that David actually went there. Since David has lied to Achish about virtually every other detail (1 Sam. 27.8-12), the reader has no a priori reason to assume, at this point in the narration, that David actually intends to make Ziklag a permanent residence. In place of precision in these matters, the narrator gives the reader a vague summation concerning the time David spent in Philistia (1 Sam. 27.7). But the narrator has not told us where David dwelt. Was this time spent in Gath or Ziklag or both? Since from the moment Ziklag is given to David, it is reckoned to the 'Kings of Judah' (27.6), the time mentioned in the next verse is most likely time spent at Gath. Given the narrator's report so far, the reader has no reason to believe that David was ever in Ziklag during this period. He may have moved from Gath to Hebron, or for that matter, anywhere else in the region. So long as he 37. It will be recalled that in literary theory, even an unreliable narrator must maintain credibility relative to the nature of his or her unreliability. I doubt that the ancient creator(s) of the Former Prophets thought in terms comparable to the consistency one might expect from a modern novelist who employs an unreliable narrator. Nevertheless, the relative consistency in the unreliability of this ancient unreliable narrator is remarkable. In the present situation, the narrator never speaks falsely. However, the narrator's strategy of vagueness with respect to David's movements works to his advantage here. The inattentive reader has grown accustomed to receiving imprecise data concerning David's whereabouts and might not notice the shift toward total obscurity here. It is possible, therefore, that the Ziphites are correct, and that the narrator has chosen not to describe David's movement north after the wedding—a movement which might have been motivated by David's acquisition of his new throne.

90

The Faces of David

was in a position to conduct the raids described in 1 Sam. 27.8-11, the location is open. When next we learn of David's precise whereabouts, he is in Jezreel as part of the army of the Philistines (1 Sam. 29.1-2). The Philistines send him away, and he 'returns' (21$; 1 Sam. 29.11) not to Ziklag (which is now reckoned to Judah [27.6]; on this, see below), but to the 'land of the Philistines'. Then, with 1 Sam. 30.1, David at last enters Ziklag in narrated time. When he arrives, he discovers that his wives and family as well as the men's wives and families have been taken by the Amalekites. This at last would indicate that David has been residing in Ziklag in non-narrated time. Once again, however, the details are unclear. It had been David's custom to attack non-Hebrew groups and bring the spoils to Achish (1 Sam. 27.9). After the Amalekite episode, David brings the spoils to the land of Judah (1 Sam. 30.26-31), to 'all the places where David and his men had roamed'.38 The sites listed are not among those in the itinerary listed in the chart above. During David's 'Ziklag period', apparently, David has not spent all his time at Ziklag, but has been roaming in Judah as well, even at sites never previously mentioned by the narrator.39 Now it is entirely possible, in fact probable, that David spent much of the story- world time imprecisely narrated in chs. 27-29 at Ziklag. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that, in the entire book of Samuel, only in this portion of the story does the narrator's vagueness preclude precision concerning David's actual whereabouts. In 1 Sam. 27.10b, David 38. The waw preceding the phrase here quoted, in 1 Sam. 30.31 could be construed as a simple conjunction, in which case the interpretation here offered fails. The place names listed received booty in addition to 'all the places where David and his men roamed'. So, for example, the NAB, the NIV and the JB. Many versions, however, understand the waw to be either pleonastic or explicative. Thus, for example, the RSV, the NRSV, the JPSV. The latter seems the most reasonable possibility, and certainly the reading which the average reader of Hebrew is likely to employ at a first reading of the text. The rhetorical thrust of the list is to sustain an impression of annalistic precision: the impression that these are the very sites to which the spoil was sent. Given that there are thirteen places in the list, one wonders just how much further David's booty could be spread and still have an impressive effect upon the recipients. Thus the list of thirteen sites and the ^D are one and the same. 39. One is reminded of Samuel's circuit from Bethel to Gilgal and then to Mizpah (1 Sam. 7.16). In Samuel's case, the purpose of the itinerary was to administer justice; Samuel was ruler in those places. What was David's purpose in his unnarrated roaming?

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

91

deceived Achish by telling him that David's raids had been conducted in Judah, specifically southern Judah. In order to fool Achish, no doubt David had at least roamed in Judah even if he did not raid the region, as 30.26-31 makes clear. Of all the regions listed in David's Judahite wanderings, Hebron is both centrally located and takes pride of place at the climax of the list (30.31). What is it about Hebron that the narrator might prefer to withhold from the narratee? Perhaps the answer lies with the fool, Nabal. Nabal, we are told, is from Maon, and his 'work' (rTOQ) is in Carmel, a village near or perhaps in Ziph (1 Sam. 25.2; cf. Josh. 15.55). Also, he is a Calebite, implying that he has ties to Hebron, just to the north (1 Sam. 25.3 [qere}\ cf. Josh. 14.13-15).40 He is fabulously wealthy, and holds for himself a feast fit for a king (1 Sam. 25.2, 36). As earlier noted, this entire region is, in the narrator's mind, a homogenous unit, apparently one that carries a variety of names according to its sub-regions and villages. Why are these places considered one region? Although the narrator never calls Nabal a king, the reader has every reason to believe that a man of this stature, with ties to the broader region in which his 'work' is located, is the major power of that region. Probably, his 'work' is more than sheep-shearing, it is ruling.41 It would seem, therefore, that the narrator has chosen to withhold a significant piece of information, namely that David's patron, Yahweh, killed off the most powerful man in southern Judah, and gave to David that man's wife. By marriage rite, there is an open possibility that David has become 'king' of Hebron and its environs, southern Judah. That this possibility is explicitly hinted by the author is apparent in the way that the author's narrator gives tantalizing, but imprecise, data. Like a mod40. In the story of Genesis through Kings, Caleb and his family receive Hebron (which is also a levitical city, Josh. 21.11), and they take Debir, to the southwest (Josh. 15.13-19; cf. Judg 1.10-15, 20). The Calebites are never associated with the region of Ziph to the southeast, except here in 1 Samuel 25. 41. Given the cultural context in which the book of Samuel was composed, the real author might intend for the reader to define Nabal as the 'patron' of the region. The use of the term "['PQ in such places as Joshua 12 implies that regional patrons could bear that title in this story-world, making the term appropriate, though unexpressed, here. For patronage in ancient Palestine, see N.P. Lemche, 'Kings and Clients: On Loyalty between the Ruler and the Ruled in Ancient "Israel"', Semeia 66 (1994), p. 119-32. Levenson and Halpern come to similar conclusions concerning Nabal's political status. They attempt to draw historical conclusions from their reading of the texts (Levenson and Halpern, 'Political Import', pp. 507-18).

92

The Faces of David

em murder mystery, all the clues are there, but spread out across the narrative landscape. Most significant among the clues is the deliberately vague time-frame given by the narrator, which is presumably never falsified, yet does not add up. In 2 Sam. 2.10-11, we are told that at Saul's death, Ishba'al reigns two years over Israel, while at the same time David reigns over Judah at Hebron seven years and six months. Immediately upon the death of Ishba'al, David becomes king of Israel, and moves to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 4-5). What happened to the extra five and a half years at Hebron? The narrator does not answer, preferring instead to offer truthful but vague generalizations about David's movements; the author hints that David has been king of Hebron since the marriage to Nabal's widow described in 1 Sam. 25.42. If David has been reigning as king of Hebron since his marriage to Abigail, a number of other details mentioned by the narrator fall into place. First, the laconic notice at 1 Sam. 27.6b, to the effect that Achish's gift of Ziklag to David marked the moment when Ziklag was reckoned to 'the kings of Judah', is understandable given what the narrator knows about David's political status by that point in story-time, but is refusing to tell. Perhaps Achish is aware of David's status at Hebron, and the city of Ziklag on the border between the two is his gift as part of a treaty between them (parity treaty or vassal treaty cannot be determined, but the latter is more likely; cf. 1 Kgs 9.16-17 and context). Achish believes that Judah, through David's 'ruthless' rule of it, is an ally, and is estranged entirely from Israel to the north (1 Sam. 27.10-12). Second, since David took Ahinoam as wife prior to the events described in chapter 25, and since the Ziphites had been eager to rid themselves of David as early as ch. 23, the reader might conclude that David's growing power, if not formal rule, has been developing for some time. In this case, Jonathan's otherwise unexplained 'diplomatic mission' of 1 Sam. 23.16-18 can be viewed as an attempt by the royal house of Israel to contain a growing political strength to the south through the strategy of covenantal treaty. The distinctive features of this brief pericope might be highlighted by comparison with the events described in 1 Samuel 20:42

42. In each instance, only the most pertinent portions of the pericope are shown here. Translation of 1 Sam. 20.135-17 follows McCarter, I Samuel, pp. 333, 336-37. Read with 4QSamb and Old Greek, 'Yahweh', in 1 Sam. 23.16.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27 Verses 1 Samuel 20

Verses 1 Samuel 23

la-bap Then David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and entered and spoke before Jonathan, 'What have I done... ?'

16

13b

[Jonathan said]'May Yahweh be 17aa with you just as he had been with my father. 14-15 a If I remain alive, deal loyally 17a|3b with me; but if I die, never cut off your loyalty from my house. 15b-16 When Yahweh cuts off each of the enemies of David from upon the face of the earth, if the name of Jonathan is cut off from the house of David, then may Yahweh call David to account!' 17 So again Jonathan swore to 18 David out of his love for him, for he loved him as he loved himself [cf. 1 Sam. 18.1-4].

42

Then Jonathan said to David, 'Go in peace! For we have sworn, we two, in the name of Yahweh, saying, "May Yahweh be between you and me, and between your children and my children forever"'.

93

Then Jonathan, son of Saul, arose and went to David in Horesh. He strengthened [David's] hand by means of Yahweh. [Jonathan] said to him, 'Do not fear, for the hand of Saul, my father, will not find you. It is you who will reign over Israel, and I myself will be your second. Moreover, Saul, my father, knows this.

So they cut, the two of them, a covenant before Yahweh.

Then David dwelt in Horesh, and Jonathan went to his house.

1 Samuel 23 presents very different circumstances, very different actions, and a very different relationship between David and Jonathan, than does ch. 20. In the latter, both characters are speaking about a personal, non-public relationship previously forged in 1 Sam. 18.3-4 (cf. 20.8). David's goal in the scene is to convince Jonathan of Saul's homicidal intent toward David. Slow-witted Jonathan requires the elaborate charade narrated to be convinced of this (20.33b), and the equally silly ritual which follows to accommodate himself to the wrenching end of

94

The Faces of David

relationship which Saul's disposition compels.43 The portion of ch. 20 quoted above (vv. 13b-16) is a digression from the main action, in which Jonathan, smitten with love for David, reiterates the implications of the ritual act he had performed in 18.4. It is nevertheless a digression which presents Jonathan in character, doting on his beloved David, and predicting David's usurpation of Saul's throne. Unlike ch. 20, where David seeks out Jonathan, ch. 23 finds Jonathan seeking out David. Immediately the reader's interest is piqued. How is it that Jonathan knows where to find David? The narrator implied, without actually so stating, that Saul cannot locate David (1 Sam. 23.14). For his part, David 'fears' Saul (23.15).44 Scholars frequently note the seeming 'unreality' of this scene, in which Jonathan makes what could only be a long, dangerous journey (dangerous because Saul presumably does not know about it, nor approve) for the simple purpose of cutting a 'covenant' which many scholars see as no more than a renewal of the bond already forged in 18.3.45 Under these circumstances, Jonathan's casual entry to Horesh compels the reader to inquire under the surface level of this very brief scene. A definitive interpretation will remain elusive, but the following suggestion makes sense of all details presented by the narrator, fitting words to context. The reason for Jonathan's ability to find David is apparent in 1 Sam. 23.16, quoted above; Jonathan has not come to renew a personal relationship, but to 'strengthen David's hand' (IT PR prm). Within the book of Samuel, this phrase is only employed by story-world characters in contexts which explicitly or implicitly designate formal political union, or 'covenant' (2 Sam. 2.7; 16.21). Moreover, the 'hand' sometimes refers to a public monument designed to boast of a ruler's power (1 Sam. 15.12; perhaps also 2 Sam. 8.3). In this literary context, to strengthen the 'hand' is technical political jargon. In other words, if Jonathan strengthens David's hand by means of 43. On the dynamics of this scene, and Jonathan's slow-wittedness, see Chapter 2.

44. Hebrew NT1, pointed by the Masoretes to read 'and he saw'. McCarter vocalizes the text to be equivalent to NT! (McCarter, I Samuel, p. 374). Grammatically, all of 1 Sam. 23.15 is part of a parenthetical remark that begins in v. 14b(3, commenting upon the circumstances described in normal narrational style (with waw-consecutives) in v. 14abcc. Thus, NT1 can be construed as a disjunctive waw with qal perfect verb, 'Nevertheless David had come to fear...' 45. For example, McCarter, I Samuel, p. 375; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, pp. 19394; R.W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), pp. 231-32.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

95

Yahweh (23.16), if the two of them cut a covenant before Yahweh (23.18), then the two are sealing a treaty as representatives of two political units, presumably Judah and Israel. They are not renewing a personal covenant which occurred much earlier in the story. Apparently, Jonathan is on a diplomatic mission as Saul's representative (similar to Abner's mission in 2 Sam. 3, but with a different goal, namely a non-aggression treaty). Though the narrator has reasons for withholding the fact, Jonathan has been dispatched by Saul for this meeting. Perhaps a truce has been called. Within the story as created by the author, there is an aspect to David's 'wilderness period' of which the unreliable narrator is reluctant to speak. Instead, the narrator packages the scene to seem as though it is another instance of Jonathan's starry-eyed doting over David. The narrator reports the formal content of the non-aggression covenant ('Do not fear, for the hand of Saul, my father, will not find you'), but also includes a snatch of private conversation, another of Jonathan's characteristic digressions, in which he speaks of David's glorious future, as he, Jonathan, hopes it will be ('It is you who will reign over Israel, and I myself will be your second. Moreover, Saul, my father, knows this.' The latter statement is perhaps a reference to 1 Sam. 20.3031). In this way, the narrator makes a diplomatic encounter appear to be a personal visit. Yet the story-context permits, even demands, that the reader take note of words which, had they appeared in a formal, diplomatic setting, would be construed as political terminology. The narrator, unlike the author, prefers to withhold any information implying that David has been actively seeking his own gain, in preference of an image of David as the passive recipient of divine patronage whose only active role is to elude Saul's seemingly demented persecution. By narrating the scene of 1 Sam. 23.16-18 as he has done, the narrator is able to narrate truthfully without narrating the full storyworld 'truth'. The narrator's sleight of hand in this matter is abetted by Saul's obsessive and unreliable character.46 That Saul seizes an opportunity to defeat David in battle in spite of the treaty just ratified (1 Sam. 23.19-28) 46. The narrator, of course, has no control over the actions of any character. He is a story-bound character himself, and can therefore only choose which actions to report and how to report them. It is the author who creates characters, such as the impetuous Saul, and gives to each the actions performed. (Of course, it may be that the narrator has chosen to narrate the treaty scene out of proper sequence, but there is no textual clue that would so indicate.)

96

The Faces of David

suggests that David's 'fear' in 23.15 and later concern at 1 Sam. 27.1 are well-founded. A king honors a peace treaty when he knows he has more to lose by abrogating it (cf. 1 Kgs 15.19b-20). Saul's violation of the treaty suggests that he was stronger militarily, and that he was confident that David's subjects, such as the Ziphites, would not rally to David's cause; Saul's repeated failure in the field can be attributed to David's superior tactics and to divine patronage (cf. 1 Sam. 26.12). Thus it can be suggested that when the Judahite men finally come to David and anoint him king in 2 Sam. 2.4, they are ratifying a de facto regime. David, as the narrator feels compelled to admit in very vague terms a few verses later (2.11), has been king for quite some time, anointing or no anointing. The Ziphites may not have been happy about it, but they were powerless to stop it when their benefactor, Saul, failed to drive David out. Now, at 2 Samuel 2, David is legitimately king, and celebrates the fact by an immediate attempt to expand his influence into the Transjordan (2 Sam. 2.5-7), and into Israel's heartland (2 Sam. 2.1213 and following). The basic thesis here advanced is not new. Historical critical scholars have speculated for years that a historical David had opposed a historical Saul for five and a half years before the latter's death. The thesis was usually supported by noting details such as 2 Sam. 2.10-11 (the missing five and a half years at Hebron) and the interesting relationship between 1 Sam. 14.50 and 25.43 (two wives named Ahinoam). Unfortunately, these modern scholars believed that they were reading between the lines, and in the words of one such scholar, furnishing 'a perspective unrepresented in our texts'.47 By fleshing out the historical-critical thesis with many additional details derived from a close reading, this study demonstrates that this perspective is represented in the text. As a matter of fact, it seems to be explicitly encoded in the text. If it has been hitherto unrecognized as the text's perspective, that is because scholarship has assumed that the invention of an unreliable narrator is a modern one. As argued in 47. B. Halpern, 'Text and Artifact: Two Monologues?', in L.J. Silberstein and D.B. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (JSOTSup, 237; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Halpern argues, creatively but incorrectly in my view, that we may judge the narrative of Samuel to be historically reliable 'because it is nothing but lies', i.e. political propaganda (p. 330). My thanks to Dr Halpern for permitting me to read his manuscript in advance of publication.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

97

Chapter 1, however, a full reading of the Former Prophets cannot avoid recognition that the narrative voice in these texts is biased, story-bound and bent on presenting the story-world 'facts' from one particular perspective, a perspective which the story-world structure itself undercuts with regularity. Although this is the case for a great many issues, the present discussion has been focusing on only one such issue, namely the difference between the narrator's characterization of David, and the author's characterization of David. Thus, the character David who utters lamentation over Saul and Jonathan is one whom the reader recognizes to be far less saintly than the narrator has been at pains to demonstrate. The narrator presents a hapless innocent, faithful to Yahweh and to his lord, Saul. The author shows us a man with a dual nature, good and evil, virtuous and cunning. This David has, with the aid of Yahweh at every turn, advanced at the expense of his lord, Saul, his best friend, Jonathan, and his legitimate wife, Michal. Saul and Jonathan appear to have at least received David's respect. Michal was no more than a tool, left behind in favor of, interestingly enough, her own mother. She will be exploited again when the time is right; her brother will be made to relinquish her to David.48 But this David is not represented entirely negatively by the author; in fact, the author's view of David is, in many ways, quite positive. David is apparently not without a conscience (1 Sam. 24.6), not without genuine regard at least for Jonathan, perhaps for Abner and even Saul (1 Sam. 20.1; 2 Sam. 3.33-34; 1 Sam. 24, 26; 2 Sam. 1.1-16), and certainly caring for the people over whom he hopes to rule (1 Sam. 23.1-5; 30.26-31, etc.). The final portion of this chapter will examine the 48. Scholars sometimes view the role of Michal's brother, Ishba'al, at 2 Sam. 3.15 to be redundant and superfluous. (So, for example, P.R. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel [CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], pp. 43-4.) On the contrary, in ancient Palestinian culture, the text would be understood as anything but superfluous. David's previous taking of Ahinoam in 1 Sam. 25.43 was a blow to Saul's authority, but Saul is no more. As surviving patriarch of Saul's house, Ishba'al's relinquishing of Michal is a devastating blow to Ishba'al's power, more devastating than the fact that his mother (?), Saul's widow, has long since become part of the rival's harem. It is interesting that the narrator has no qualms about revealing the side of David who employs Saul's children for gain, but unconvincingly hides from view the side of David who abused Saul and his generation. Perhaps, in the narrator's mind, it is imperative that David be presented honoring his elders in conformity with the commandment, "Honor your father and mother..." (Deut. 5.16)'?

98

The Faces of David

rhetoric of David's Lament against the narrative context here outlined. How does the Lament contribute to David's characterization in the story? 2. David's Rhetorical Strategy in the Lament An eclectic Hebrew text of the Lament with translation will serve as the point of departure for the discussion which follows. 17-18

Then David lamented this lament over Saul and over Jonathan, his son. Also, he commanded that the Judahites be taught [the] bow. Now, this is written in the Book of Yashar.

19a

Is the Glory, O Israel, upon your heights, defiled? How are the mighty fallen!

19b

20acc 20ap 20ba 20bp

21aa 21ap 21ay 21bce 21bp 21by

Don't report it in Gath! Don't bring news to the streets of Ashkelon! Lest the Philistine daughters rejoice; lest daughters of the uncircumcised exult.

Mountains of Gilboa, permit no dew! Allow no rain upon you! Nor [upon] the fields of the heights! For on that spot was rejected the warrior's shield;49 The shield of Saul; There is no longer one anointed with oil.50

49. As noted by McCarter, enclitic mem has been understood as plural in the Masoretic tradition (McCarter, II Samuel, p. 71). 50. Literally: There is no longer one oily with oil.' For ^3 with a sense similar to ]"•«, see B.K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), p. 660 n. 58. The sense of 'no longer' is conveyed by context (compare, for example, Ps. 72.7). 'All negation is relative to some universe... When semantic factors in the context indicate that the

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27 22act 22ap 22b 23aa 23ap 23 ay 23b

24a 24ba 24bp

25a 25b 26aa 26ap 26b

27a 27b

99

From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the warriors, Jonathan's bow did not turn back. And Saul's sword did not return empty. Saul and Jonathan, beloved and dear, Never parted during their lives,51 And in death, not parted. Than eagles, swifter! Than lions, mightier!

Israelite daughters, weep over Saul! The one who clothed you with luxuriant crimson; Who affixed gold jewelry to your clothes.52

How the mighty are fallen in the midst of battle! Jonathan, on your heights, slain! Distress to me concerning you, my brother; You were my very beloved;53 Your love for me was more wonderful than the love of women.54

How are the mighty fallen! And the vessels of the war perished!

time universe is restricted, then the negative can be understood as "temporally relative'" (G.E. Whitney, 'Lo' ["Not"] as "Not Yet" in the Hebrew Bible', HS 29 [1988], pp. 43-48 [43]). 51. McCarter and Hertzberg correctly detect haplography in verse 23a and suggest restoration of a participle on the basis of the Greek witnesses (Hertzberg, / & II Samuel, p. 235; McCarter, II Samuel, p. 72). 52. As noted by McCarter, read *7J) for MT's ^ in v. 24a, prefer masculine suffix forms in v. 24b, and note that MT pKTn1? is a defectively written plural with second plural object suffix (McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 72-73). 53. Omit iroiiT as expansionistic, which is indicated by its uncertain position in the Lucianic texts (McCarter, II Samuel, p. 73). 54. The unusual form, nn^S], is an instance of analogy with final he verb forms, and need not be emended (McCarter, II Samuel, p. 73).

100

The Faces of David

The words of David appearing in 2 Sam. 1.19-27 are introduced as a usually translated 'lament'. The lament was a common lyrical genre in the ancient world, and is usually associated with women.55 In biblical usage, a nrp is the opposite of a nTEJ, such as the one David will sing in 2 Samuel 22 (see 2 Sam. 22.1; cf. Amos 8.10). But the is rarely mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. Poems introduced as most commonly appear in the book of Ezekiel, and to a lesser extent in Jeremiah and Amos. Many of these are lamentation-style prophetic oracles against foreign nations, especially Tyre.56 Others are 'deuteronomistically' influenced oracles leveled against Israel and Judah.57 These prophetic texts are parodies that work as parody because they allude to the cultural custom of lamentation for the dead and the bewailing of a fallen city.58 The Chronicler, influenced by prophetic and deuteronomistic texts, appropriates the character Jeremiah from the book by that name, and represents him as a temple leader who composes laments over the dead King Josiah (2 Chron. 35.25). Only here (2 Sam. 1.17) and in this text's mate at 2 Sam. 3.33 (previously discussed), does the root, "pp, or its noun form, nrp, occur in the story of Genesis through Kings.59 The very fact that David alone is 55. Cf. Jer. 9.16. In 2 Chron. 35.25, lamentation is performed by male and female singers in the temple. For a form-critical evaluation of David's Lament as a representative example of the genre, see G.A. Yee, 'The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14', CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 565-86 (568-72). 56. Ezek. 26.17-18; 27.1-11; 27.25-36; 28.12-19; 32.2-16. 57. Jer. 7.29; 9.9; 9.16-23; Amos 5.1-2; 8.7-10; Ezek. 2.9-10; 19.1-14. 58. The most famous series of poems in biblical tradition associated with the term, lamentation, is found in the book of Lamentations. These are not lamentations for the dead but conform to the ancient Near Eastern genre of literature bewailing the destruction of a beloved city after its defeat by an enemy. See W.C. Gwaltney, 'The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature', in W. Hallo, et al. (eds.), Scripture in Context. II. More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 191-211 (205-10). (It is interesting to note that the Hebrew Bible did not label these mrp, although rabbinic tradition refers to them as lamentations.) The prophetic and deuteronomistic parody found in Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Amos may well have grown out of the common ancient theological move toward attributing a city's destruction to the anger of its own patron god or gods. 59. Interestingly, no psalm in the Psalter is introduced with, or employs, this root or its associated noun form, though a number of them are mournful, and modern scholars speak of a psalmnic genre of lament. David, traditional composer of many

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

101

represented as a composer of mrp within Samuel and its narrative context might be significant for his characterization. Traditionally, women do the lamenting. The author presents David in this role. Moreover, the language David is depicted as employing to express his grief becomes, at times, very personal. Francisco Garcia-Treto stresses the gender role David is here depicted as adopting: David dares to give full expression to his grief for Saul and Jonathan in a feminine genre and, without the cool restraint of the gibbor he himself was, weeps for the fallen gibborim. But more, he opens his heart to expose to the reader a stunning, sudden glimpse into the most intimate feelings of his soul. It is fascinating, and oddly embarrassing at the same time, to hear him cast all reserve or restraint aside and wail for the loss of Jonathan.60

The reader is likely to interpret David's composition of a lament over Saul and Jonathan (and later, Abner) as an unprecedented event, one which sets David apart from his fellow soldiers and from other kings or royal hopefuls as a sensitive and articulate man. Like the David who will later throw all propriety aside to mourn uncontrollably for his slain enemy son, Absalom, this is a character who is not afraid to transcend socially determined roles for the sake of personal relationships. On the other hand, the analogy with the story of Absalom's death in 2 Samuel 18 and 19 raises some doubt about David's sincerity in the present instance. On that occasion, David appears to have wept uncontrollably. He was neither able to nor apparently interested in composing verse to proclaim his pain. The staccato words employed by the narrator to describe David's actions, and the equally blunt words issuing from David's mouth present the starkest of contrasts with the present scene: Then the king shook. He went up to the upper chamber of the city gate and wept. He said, as he went, 'My son! Absalom! My son! My son! Absalom! If only I had died in your place, Absalom! My son! My son!' (2 Sam. 19.1 [MT])

Not surprisingly, some scholars have suspected that the Lament of David serves David more than it serves the memory of Saul and Jonathan. The eloquence might be viewed as a sign that David is not so of the psalms, is nowhere else explicitly associated with the role of lamenter for the dead. 60. P.O. Garcia-Treto, 'A Mother's Paean, A Warrior's Dirge: Reflections on the Use of Poetic Inclusions in the Books of Samuel', Shofar 11 (1993), pp. 51-64 (63).

102

The Faces of David

pained as he lets on. Also the fact that he, or at least someone, has published the poem in a book (the book of Yashar), and the possibility, expressed by one reading of 2 Sam. 1.18a, that David ordered the poem be taught to his own men, has led to the suspicion that David is here serving his own interests. As Robert Polzin put it: In terms, then, of how the words of David help us characterize him, our task is not so much to rehearse the specific features of the lament whereby David romanticizes a fallen enemy, but to ask why he would be portrayed as eulogizing him in the first place. Later, 'on the day when the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul' (2 Sam 22.1), David has no time for magnanimity.61

Whether right or wrong, Polzin's suspicion that the Lament is essentially, perhaps wholly, self-serving is a valid suspicion in light of the foregoing discussion of David's shadowy actions vis-a-vis Saul. It may be that the author wishes to nudge the reader past the narrator's presentation of David as one who wails for the fallen king and the beloved companion. If the reader's suspicions are correct that the narrator has withheld a darker side to David's actions since his departure from the court of Saul, it may be that David has no personal feelings for Saul or Jonathan, and here only wishes to capitalize propagandistically on what is for David a very happy twist of fate. Can the reader test these twin impressions? Given that David routinely capitalizes on the misfortune of others, and given that David's ambitions are no secret, even at the level of the narrator's presentation of him; given also that David has consistently refused to kill Saul (whatever his motive might have been), and given that David, on the surface at least, seems to have had a strong relational bond with Jonathan, is the reader without means to locate the degree of sincerity or hypocrisy within this lamentation? Perhaps, contrary to Polzin's assertion, a closer look at what David actually says in the Lament is in order. For example, returning to the comparison with David's grief over Absalom, if one does rehearse the specific features of the Lament, one might be struck by certain similarities—in spite of the enormous differences—between David's words over Saul and Jonathan on the one hand, and over Absalom on the other. The refrain 'How are the mighty fallen!' is repeated here three times. Like the words, 'Absalom! My son! My son!', these words do not advance the thought, do not eulogize the dead. They are a pure expression of grief. Similarly, David's grief over 61. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 13.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

103

Absalom is not without its own rhetorical nobility. Staccato repetition sandwiching that most poignant of lines, 'If only I had died in your place, Absalom!', creates an eloquence of speech rivaling this longer, more baroque composition. It is a different kind of poetic art, but art nonetheless. The character David is no more nor less articulate on either occasion. Perhaps, then, a close reading of the poem will offer greater insights into David's personality, both as one who grieves truly, and who truly capitalizes on the deaths of these comrades. Both these sides of David can be seen in what he says and what is left unsaid. What David Says In what follows, the discerned structure of the Lament depends, with modification, upon a study by Diana Edelman.62 In the chart, Edelman's chiastic structure is shown in brackets; the structure as I have discerned it is shown without brackets. Verse Structure Themes 19

A [A]

Variation on refrain, #1

20

B [B]

21

C [C]

22

D [C']

23

D' [C"]

24

B'[B']

25

A' [A']

26

C' [D]

27

A" [A"] Variation on refrain, #3

Daughters of Philistia Nature mourns for Saul Jonathan and Saul extolled Saul and Jonathan extolled Daughters of Israel Variation on refrain, #2 David mourns for Jonathan

The refrain is repeated three times in the Lament (in the chart, see A; vv. 19, 25, 27), 'How are the mighty fallen (in the midst of battle)!' 62. D.V. Edelman, 'The Authenticity of 2 Samuel 1.26 in the Lament over Saul and Jonathan', SJOT2 (1988), pp. 66-75 (75).

104

The Faces of David

Each time, it is accompanied by a complementary thought: A—'Is the Glory, O Israel, upon your heights defiled?' or, perhaps, 'Alas! The Glory, Israel, upon your heights, is defiled!' A'—'Jonathan, upon your heights, you are slain'. A"—'And the vessels (or perhaps: spoils/coveted things) of the war perished!'63

In each instance, the complementary line echoes the refrain by use of a synonym for 'fallen' (*7D]), namely 'defiled/slain' (^n) and 'perished' (138). Also, each of these lines provides a concrete instance of the 'mighty' which has fallen. First, it is the Glory 032$), then it is Jonathan, and finally, the vessels of war. The first of these is intriguing in its multivalence. The Glory 032$) could be understood as Yahweh himself, a metaphorical use of the term found in the book of Isaiah.64 If so, the initial he might best be understood as an interrogative. 'Is the Glory, O Israel, upon your heights, slain?' While avoiding a bold declaratory statement which might have appeared to an ancient Yahwist to be blasphemous, the poet gently suggests that theodicy be resolved by means of a dualism between two powers, that of Yahweh, Israel's Glory, and the power that has defeated Yahweh's king. In the ancient world, defeat in battle on earth often paralleled defeat of one's patron god by another god in heaven.65 David here suggests that on this day, Dagan has won the battle; Yahweh lies slain, as does his king, Saul. On the other hand, '32$ may be a metonym for Saul himself. This is suggested by the three complementary lines taken together: The Glory, then Jonathan, then the vessels, a plural or, perhaps, dual form. This last is best taken as a metonym for Saul and Jonathan, the vessels of war on behalf of Israel.66 In that case, surely Saul can be the referent in the first, without denying or undermining the metaphorical use of '32$ to refer to the deity. Saul, as anointed, is Yahweh's representative, so the two are closely associated in the lamenter's mind. Read this way, the initial he might be declarative; perhaps it is best to read it as a defectively written 63. For the uncertain text of v. 21, see McCarter, // Samuel, pp. 73-74. 64. Isa. 4.2; 24.16; 28.5. Note the use of 1133 by Phinehas's wife in 1 Sam. 4.21-22. 65. This was one of several means by which military outcomes could be expressed ideologically. See the discussion of ancient Near Eastern texts in P.D. Miller and J.J.M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), ch. 1. 66. Kleven, 'David's Lament', p. 61.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

105

particle of lamentation, in (cf. Amos 5.16), 'Alas! The Glory, O Israel, upon your heights, is slain!' A third understanding of this line is not to be ignored either. Possibly, the phrase ^"ICT "Q1S is to be read as an appositional construct, 'The glory of Israel', that is to say, the glory that is Israel.67 'Alas! O glorious Israel, upon your heights, [you are] slain!' Such a reading fits well with the context, in which Philistia has inflicted a terrible slaughter on Israel.68 The three refrains, each with its complementary line, mark the progression of the lamentation from the Glory (Yahweh/Saul/Israel) slain upon the heights (pointing toward an emphasis upon Yahweh's representative, Saul, v. 21), then to Jonathan upon the heights, and finally to Saul and Jonathan, the vessels of war, together. This progression is marked in miniature at the center of the poem (see D on the chart; vv. 22-23), where Saul and Jonathan are eulogized. In the miniature progression, the order moves from Jonathan to Saul, then Saul and Jonathan together, and finally to a hyperbolic description of them both as supernatural beings, swifter and mightier than eagles and lions—a concretization of the metaphorical Glory, and a semi-deification of Saul and Jonathan.69 The divine Glory that opens the poem is revealed through the anointed one and his son in life, and in death that revelation shimmers immortally in the lamenter's heightened speech. The elements of the poem marked B on the chart (2 Sam. 1.20, 24) are designed in an obvious way to play off one another. The 'daughters' of the opposing sides are the embodiment of their respective peoples, either rejoicing in victory or bewailing loss. In both instances, the lamenter's focus remains on exteriors. First, the hearer must not report it in the 'streets', in the cities of those who are 'uncircumcised'. The exterior setting of non-proclamation reflects David's pejorative remark concerning the absence among Philistines of the outward sign of the covenant (they are the D^"1I?, 'the foreskins'). Perhaps David, the character of this story-world, remembers his own experiences with the Philistines primarily in these terms: Philistines possess foreskins, and David is one who has removed many of them (1 Sam. 18.27). This is a vivid 67. R.J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2nd edn, 1976), p. 11. 68. J.P. Fokkelman suggests that "3X refers to Jonathan alone, verse 19a serving as riddle and 25b solution (Fokkelman, II. The Crossing Fates, p. 670). 69. David will employ similar hyperbole concerning himself in 2 Samuel 22 and 23.1-7.

106

The Faces of David

memory for him, as 2 Sam. 3.14 attests.70 The exterior places, the streets of Philistia, are a rhetorical veil for the Philistine status outside Yahweh's covenant. The emphasis upon exterior places in Philistia becomes an emphasis upon the exterior fineries of a woman's wardrobe among the Israelites. David reminds Israel through the imagery of what Saul himself reminded them in 1 Sam. 22.7. In that setting, Saul rebuked his servants, Benjaminite elites, with a sarcastic declaration concerning the son of Jesse. Through the imagery Saul employed, he reminded his supporters which hand it is that feeds them: Fields and vineyards are distributed by a king (cf. 1 Sam. 8.14), and it was Saul who did this for the elite of Israel. Now the women among those elites must weep for their loss of all the good things Saul was able to bring their way. As Terence Kleven notes, the women serve another purpose in David's poetic thinking. Just as the women once denigrated Saul's achievements by extolling David's (1 Sam. 18.7), so now these women must return glory to their fallen patron, the true slayer of ten thousands.71 Turning to the elements of the Lament marked C on the chart (2 Sam. 1.21, 26), the reader is confronted by a clever rhetorical twist. Here, Saul and then Jonathan each receive individual lamentation, and in each case, the poet does so by invoking the figure's name indirectly. In the former case, Saul is present in that his shield is present; in the latter, Jonathan is present in that he was addressed in the previous line (part of one of the three refrains), developing a fine segue from refrain to poetic stanza.72 The elegy over Saul in verse 21 lays stress upon Saul's status as the anointed of Yahweh. This is accomplished through a subtle use of Hebrew syntax impossible to render in English: pN "DDK p pN "DDK p A warrior's shield lies rejected upon Gilboa. Whose shield? Saul's shield. There is no longer one anointed with oil.73 The meaning of the final phrase pivots as the reader's attention shifts from shield to warrior. The ancient reader no doubt appreciated the 70. It is interesting to note that David removed 200 foreskins (1 Sam. 18.27) but recalls paying 100 (2 Sam. 3.14), since that was the agreed-upon price (1 Sam. 18.25). 71. Kleven, 'David's Lament', pp. 60-61. 72. Of course, in MT, Jonathan is addressed directly in the refrain (v. 25) and again in v. 26. On the text, see note 53, above. 73. For this translation, see note 50, above.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

107

word-play. The leather surfaces of shields were anointed to keep them ready for battle (cf. Isa. 21.5); Saul is himself the anointed one. Both lie rejected upon Gilboa. Even more creative than the metonymic use of the shield is the silent presence of deity in v. 21. David demands that the mountains permit no dew, nor allow rain. The heights must remain barren as Israel is barren of its anointed one. Water anointing reflects oil anointing. But who is it who causes rain and dew? Surely not the mountains of Gilboa. David addresses Yahweh indirectly through this imagery.74 Without commanding the deity explicitly, David has nevertheless requested that Yahweh mourn for Saul's loss as will the women of v. 24. Says David, 'It is Yahweh's anointed who is rejected; surely Yahweh, manifest in nature, will mourn'. Matching v. 21 is v. 26, which at first glance appears to be displaced. If a properly chiastic arrangement were followed, one would expect this verse to appear between vv. 23 and 24. When the lines are read, however, it is immediately obvious why they have been delayed to the end. David's moving tribute to his beloved Jonathan takes pride of place at the climax of the poem. The imperfect chiasm serves a forceful rhetorical function, expressing David's personal perspective on the four-way relationship between deity, anointed king, heir to the throne and David himself. Sandwiched between the second and third refrains, Jonathan's love for David transcends in David's mind the love of women, perhaps even Yahweh's love for his anointed. The divine-royal couple represent a tragedy, yes, but to David's anguished soul, not so great a tragedy as the couple David and Jonathan. If Yahweh might mourn through natural phenomena, David will certainly mourn through human tears. At the center of the Lament stands the magnificent lament-in-miniature, vv. 22 and 23. As noted earlier, all the pertinent elements of the 74. In the story of Genesis to Kings, dew and rain, when mentioned, are invariably associated with divine manifestation. Either Yahweh employs these natural elements for blessing or for curse (1 Kgs 18.1; 1 Sam. 12.17-18; Judg. 6.36-40; Exod. 9.22-35; cf. Exod. 16.4-36; Num. 11.9), or a human character speaks of Yahweh in these terms (Isaac in Gen. 27.28, 39; Moses in Deut. 11.11-17; 28.12, 24; 32.2; 33.13 [text?], 28; Solomon in 1 Kgs 8.35-36; Elijah in 1 Kgs 17.1; David here and in 23.1-7). The one exception is Hushai, in 2 Sam. 17.12; the wily advisor seduces Absalom by describing the usurper's descent upon David's troops as dew falls upon the soil. The rhetorical thrust of Hushai's flattery is similar to other character-speech uses of the term; Hushai implies that Absalom is superhuman, quasi-divine.

108

The Faces of David

larger lamentation reappear in one form or another here. If the Glory lies ^n ('slain') on Gilboa, David will not fail to remember how the Glory created D^n in abundance. These two war machines, says David (contrary to the facts of the story-line), were not parted in life, and are now appropriately one in death—the vessels of war are perished. Moreover, they were the Glory of Israel, for they were divinely endowed with superhuman strength. As with most of the elements of this poem, the imagery here is carefully drawn from the earlier story. As Edelman has noted, each of the two warriors is associated with the weapon with which he was primarily associated previously in the narrative—Jonathan with a bow (1 Sam. 18.4; 20.18-42), and Saul with a sword (1 Sam. 17.39; 31.4).75 From this analysis, it seems clear that David's purpose within the story-world is not entirely self-serving. No doubt a publicly proclaimed lament of this kind cannot hurt David's reputation with the people over whom he hopes to rule, the former subjects of Saul. No doubt the character David is aware of that potential gain. The reader has too often noted David's flair for public posturing and diplomacy not to suspect some self-serving motive here. Nevertheless, this Lament extolls its fallen heroes above and beyond what is necessary to accomplish David's propagandists goals. Five aspects of the poem would seem to indicate that the character David, for all his personal ambitions concerning Saul's throne, genuinely wishes to publicly proclaim these two warriors in a selfless manner (at least as selfless a manner as the genetically crafty David is able to manage). First, David seems eager to remind his hearers of Saul's success as a monarch (vv. 22-24). Such effort could more easily play into the hand of an heir to Saul's throne than to the hand of a usurper, since the hearer might be moved to support no change in royal administration. This is not the stress one expects from a propagandist. This can be noted in a second way. Verse 21b finds David stressing Saul's status as the anointed one; the reader knows that David also enjoys this status (1 Sam. 16), but David does not capitalize on this. Instead, he asserts that there is no longer an anointed one. A third aspect of this is the point exposed by Kleven; v. 24 seems to have as its rhetorical function the intention to subvert the by-now famous women's song, 'Saul has slain his thousands, David his ten thousands' (1 Sam. 18.7). In story-world time, this song has done wonders 75. Edelman, King Saul p. 309.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

109

for David's reputation (cf. 1 Sam. 21.12; 29.5). David's effort to subvert it, and to remind the women of Israel that it was indeed Saul who was responsible for their prosperity, is not what one would expect if the purpose of the Lament were purely for David's self-aggrandizement. Fourthly, David's placement of Jonathan at the climax of the poem, his intimately personal language, and for that matter, the very mention of Jonathan at all, are indicators that David's primary goal is not to position himself as the legitimate heir to Saul. Saul's biological heir is given such emphasis, and such acclaim, that the hearer might again be moved to the conclusion that, if possible, the throne should remain in Saul's biological line. Perhaps most significantly, David's hyperbolic language in this poem nearly deifies Saul. In Israel—at least the Israel created and defined by the story of Genesis through Kings—kings are human and are not to be confused with the divine. Yahweh is able to play cat-and-mouse at will with the great Egyptian king-god, Pharaoh (Exod. 7-11); Moses designates that Israel need not have a king at all, but if it should want one, he is most certainly human in every respect (Deut. 17.14-20). Samuel and Yahweh teamed up to convince Israel that her first king, Saul, was merely the concession Yahweh makes to the mob, and not an equal of the prophets, much less of the deity (1 Sam. 12). But here, David seems rhetorically to infuse Saul with divinity. He is the Glory; he and his son are superhuman. His death will, or at least ought to, affect the natural weather cycle on Gilboa, overlooking Palestine's bread-basket, the Jezreel valley. This hyperbolic language is both unnecessary and, perhaps to some story-world characters, offensive. Had Samuel lived, for example, one doubts that he would have been much impressed with this description of Saul. Saul may have been the anointed one, but for a 'deuteronomistic' prophet like Samuel, Israel need not think of him as something more (cf. Deut. 17.18-20 and 1 Sam. 8). If David's purpose in writing this poem is either primarily or exclusively one of personal ambition, it would seem that he is taking the unnecessary risk of offending key elements in the Yahwistic society created by the author and emphasized by the narrator, particularly the prophets. The five points just made might suggest to the reader that David's Lament is a genuine expression of grief. But perhaps not. It could be implied that David's stress on the status of Saul as Yahweh's anointed and his hyperbolic language in this poem are designed to reinforce in the

110

The Faces of David

minds of his subjects that he, David, is also an anointed one, and that the hyperbolic language signaling the sacrosanct person of the king applies to him as well.76 This cannot be disputed. David will employ very glorious language as self-reference in 2 Samuel 22 and 23.1-7. No doubt, David's story- world stress on the sacrosanct nature of Saul's life (1 Sam. 24, 26; 2 Sam. 1) has a self-interested edge to it. What one can conclude from what David has said in the Lament is that, to the extent that it is there, any self-interest in the Lament is very subdued. Can more be seen by what David does not say in the poem? What Is Left Unsaid As a way of highlighting what David does not say in the Lament, a comparison with another speech of David might be helpful. Unfortunately, the only other poetic lamentation uttered by David, which has already been treated, is too brief to provide a useful comparison (2 Sam. 3. 33-34).77 According to the narrator, during the period of David's career extending from Saul's death to David's 'sin' with Bathsheba, the only longer utterances of David are prose speeches.78 These might shed light on the issue, since in each case, the speech is motivated by David's ambitions now that Saul is dead. First, the very brief message David sends to the people of JabeshGilead might be enlightening in that the obvious intent is to convince former subjects of Saul to place their future support behind David (2 Sam. 2.5-7):79 5

Then David sent messengers to the people of Jabesh-Gilead. He said to them, 'Blessed are you by Yahweh, because you have done this loyalty with your lord, Saul: You have buried him.

76. P.K. McCarter, 'Apology of David', p. 501; Halpern, Text and Artifact'. 77. The contrast between the two lamentations is, nevertheless, interesting. In David's words over Saul and Jonathan, one does not find the implicit rationalization by means of blaming the victim so central to the lament over Abner. 78. According to the narrator, this is the case. As will be shown in the next chapter, it is possible that, according to the author, David uttered the nT2? of 2 Sam. 22 during this period. Nevertheless, full discussion of that poem will be delayed until next chapter. 79. Translation follows MT. On the relatively minor textual issues in these three verses, see McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 81-82.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27 6

7

111

Now, may Yahweh repay loyalty and truth to you. Also, I will repay this good thing to you, because you have done this deed. Now, may your hands be strong and be courageous men, for your lord, Saul, is dead. Also, I myself, has the house of Judah anointed as king over them.'

In this message, David praises his hearers, hints that the future lies with him, and encourages the hearers to make their own connection. Unfortunately, the message is designed to be a transparent political statement, and relatively brief, making comparison to the soaring imagery of the longer poem difficult. Although useful, it might be supplemented by another text. A second example is found in 2 Samuel 7, where, after Yahweh through Nathan has made David a stunning promise concerning the latter's dynastic succession, David offers a prayerful response to the deity. The rhetorical thrust of the prayer in 2 Samuel 7 is not so much to express piety as an attempt to capitalize to the fullest upon what David perceives to be an extraordinary divine promise. His prayer repeatedly emphasizes that promise, and its eternal aspect. 'David, of course, has no way of knowing what the reader has been made aware of since 1 Samuel 2—3' 80 When David's words in this prayer are compared to the Lament, interesting features of the latter are highlighted. An eclectic text of 2 Sam. 7.18-29 serves as the basis for the following discussion: 18

19

Then King David entered and sat before Yahweh and said, 'Who am I, Yahweh,81 and what is my house, that you have brought me this far? 'But this was a small thing in your eyes, Yahweh, so you spoke concerning your servant's house for the distant time.

80. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 86. 81. Omit TIN here and passim. Given the pattern of distribution in the versions, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the earliest recoverable text of 2 Samuel 7 employed only the vocative, mrr, throughout.

112 19 20 21

22

23

The Faces of David Now this is the Torah of humanity, Yahweh!82 'But what more might David say to you. For it is you who know your servant, Yahweh. 'On account of your servant, and according to your desire,83 you did all this greatness, to make it known to your servant. 'Therefore, you are great, Yahweh, for there is none like you. There is no god except you in all which we have heard with our ears. 'And what other nation on earth is as your people, Israel? Whom God caused to go out, in order to redeem for himself a people, and to make for himself a name, and to do great and fearful things, to banish from before his people (whom you redeemed for yourself from Egypt) a nation and its gods?84

82. Many scholars reject as unintelligible the reading DIKH min HNn in v. 19b. In spite of the fact that Old Greek provides an identical reading, appeal is often made to the obviously corrupt text of Chronicles: if?UQn DTKH Tiro TVK")"!. For a good summary of such attempts, see McCarter, II Samuel, p. 233. A more reasonable line of inquiry would be to ask how the text of Chronicles evolved from the text preserved in MT Samuel. The loss of taw from QTNn min could have triggered a series of emendations and corruptions. Most likely, the corrupt phrase was understood to mean 'the turn/succession of humanity', and associated with the oracle's prediction of the future of David's line. The MT and Greek texts of Chronicles each witness to independent attempts by scribes to make sense of the resulting confusion. 83. Read with Vaticanus and Chronicles, TQ», for MT Samuel's "]"Q1. The text can be read: 'On account of your servant, and your dog'. The term 'dog' was not uncommon in court language as a term of self-depreciation. It is sometimes argued, on the basis of Deut. 23.19, that 'dog' designated a male cult prostitute as well, though that seems unlikely (cf. J.B. Burns, 'Qadesh and Qedeshah: Did They Live off Immoral Earnings?' PEGLMBS 15 [1995], pp. 157-68 [160-62]). 84. A number of literary scholars have tried to interpret MT as it stands in v. 23. If one does this, it is probably best to assume that David is rambling incoherently (perhaps in awe before his deity). Nevertheless, several of the problems are relatively minor, though taken collectively, they add up to a very difficult text. Read "UIN with

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27 24

25

26

27

28

113

'You established your people, Israel, as a people forever. And you, Yahweh, have been for them as God. 'So now, Yahweh, the word which you spoke concerning your servant, and concerning his house, establish it85 forever, and do just as you said. 'For your name is magnified forever, saying, "Yahweh Sabaoth is God over Israel". Then the house of your servant, David, will be established before you. 'For you, Yahweh Sabaoth, God of Israel, revealed to your servant's ear, saying, "A house I will build for you". Therefore your servant found his courage to pray to you this prayer. 'Now, Yahweh, you are God, and your words will be truth. You have spoken to your servant this good thing.

the Greek against MT Samuel's TIN. Read ID'PH as a hiphil perfect with third masculine singular object suffix, as does the Greek text. Omit DD^> with the Greek and 4QSama. All witnesses testify to ~[Q^ "]SQ, but as McCarter points out, a scribe got lost in the rhetoric and failed to follow the logical sense of the rhetorical question (McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 234-35); read 1Q^ "]SQ. It is not necessary to emend the second person of D'l^QQ ~p ms "12JN if this be taken as a parenthetical thought. The phrase niN~l]l 1^1131 is awkward. MT Chronicles preserves the better reading, mfcO]T m^!3. Read "12 with the Greek, in favor of MT Samuel's D"^; the Greek is supported by MT Samuel's rnbtfl (the Greek and 4QSama reflect metathesis, V^nNl). A more difficult decision is choosing between MT Samuel's ~[^~1N'7 and MT Chronicles' (supported by the Greek) En^. MT Samuel is not incomprehensible, but difficult: '...to do great marvels on behalf of your (his?) land, before your (his?) people, (whom you redeemed from Egypt) [against] a nation and its gods'. Follow MT Chronicles because of the support it receives from the versions, and because the MT Samuel reading leaves the final two words, TTT^Nl D"13, hanging. 85. For the Greek text, see S. Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO, 57; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), pp. 277-81.

114 29

The Faces of David 'Now, be diligent! Bless your servant's house, to be forever before you. For you, Yahweh, have spoken, that from your blessing your servant's house might be blessed for all time.'

David's prayer is constructed of three carefully interlocked portions, an introduction (vv. 18b-21), a review of Yahweh's relationship to Israel (vv. 22-24), and a twofold imperative seeking action on God's promises (vv. 25-29).87 David wastes little time getting to his point, and once there, never retreats from it. An initial, 'Golly, who am I...' is followed by the assertive thesis statement virtually slung into Yahweh's face: 'And this is [will be] the Torah of humanity, Yahweh!' (v. 19b). According to the story-world created by the author, the Torah was introduced by Moses, and presumably, has been known to the Israelites since that time. Now David boldly suggests that Nathan's promise either replace, or at least serve as an addendum to, that Torah. Apparently, David wants the seemingly unconditional promise Yahweh has made added to the Torah as a kind of 'Bill of Rights' for the Davidic house. Since David is speaking to Yahweh, the language he employs is designed to appeal to that audience. The Moses figure is, according to the story-world, well known. David begins to emulate, even quote, Moses in vv. 22-24. Verse 23, for example, appears to be a strained attempt to articulate the thought of Deut. 4.34, and the following verse invokes Deut. 29.12. It would seem that David wishes to blend this new promise with the old, so that Yahweh will see the reasonableness of David's request: 'Let this be the Torah of humanity'. The final portion of David's prayer is an exercise in rhetorical overkill, even a kind of chutzpah (vv. 25-29). Framing this section are two imperatives, demanding that Yahweh make good the promise. In the middle, the syntax David employs is sufficiently pliable to give shades of nuance to his words. Between the imperatives of v. 25, and the imperfect (or jussive) of 26b, David sandwiches a clause introduced by waw: 'And/ 86. Where MT Samuel has "pm ^Nin nnn, McCarter interprets the Greek ap£ai (cf. Syriac) to represent a variant, probably hiphil imperative ^n (McCarter, II Samuel, p. 235). This may be correct, though it is possible that the ancient translators interpreted hiphil imperative 'w inceptively. 87. Conclusions similar to those which follow concerning David's prayer have been reached by means of a very different method of rhetorical analysis in Eslinger, House of David, ch. 3.

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

115

For/Then/Now/Thus/So that—your name is/will be/may be magnified forever, saying, "Yahweh Sabaoth is God over Israel'". David seems to imply without explicitly saying so that only when the promise is fulfilled will Yahweh's name be great.88 In his fervor, David seems to have forgotten that this basic confession has been a redundant motif from the beginning of the story. Taken as a whole, the rhetorical thrust of David's words is designed to meld within Yahweh's mind two concepts, Yahweh's glory and David's house. In short, there are no frills in David's prayer. Virtually every sentence, every thought, even the Moses-like (or, 'deuteronomistic') syntax of the prayer, is designed to serve David's story-world agenda. David hopes to retain Yahweh's patronage by wrapping himself in the rhetorical mantle of Yahweh's greatest story-world prophet, Moses.89 The prayer is lengthy enough to permit identification of definite elements in David's rhetorical strategy. Three such elements are redundantly present: (1) flattery directed toward the one addressed; (2) the central thesis advocating action for David's advantage; and (3) allusions designed to impress upon the hearer that the advocated action is compatible with the hearer's self-interest. Nothing of this kind can be discerned in David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan. First, at no point does David flatter, or even directly address (save for the women of v. 24), his hearers, the former subjects of Saul. He will do so in his message to the people of Jabesh-Gilead (2 Sam. 2.5-7), but not here. Secondly, in the poem, unlike David's message to Jabesh-Gilead, David makes no self-serving self-reference. The rhetorical equivalent of 111 HK ~[~m ^Kin nnn ('Now begin! And bless David!' cf. 2 Sam. 7.29a) never appears in the poem. Finally, and again unlike the message to Jabesh-Gilead, David speaks glowingly of the past status quo under Saul's leadership, but never hints at a possible renewal or betterment of that situation under his or any other leadership. The conclusion presents itself, therefore, that although David's Lament 88. Of course, the temporal factor involved, namely that the dynasty must go on 'forever' before the promise is wholly fulfilled, renders the logic of David's rhetoric fallacious: no one will ever have occasion to utter the confession of v. 26aj3 since no one will ever be sure that the promise has been fulfilled. Logic is irrelevant to David's agenda. (It is interesting to note that many of the modern English versions make David's implicit rhetorical thrust explicit. Cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, JB. One exception is JPSV, which manages to maintain the implicit flavor of the Hebrew.) 89. Apparently, the character David continued to exhibit this rhetorical mannerism in later life, since he is still using the style on his deathbed, in 1 Kgs 2.2-4.

116

The Faces of David

over Saul and Jonathan conforms to both major aspects in David's characterization, selfishness and selflessness, the greater stress is on the latter. In this poem, David serves himself, as he does always, but also expresses a genuine grief for the loss of one man whom he loved, and another whom he seems at the very least to have respected. Those scholars, such as Robert Polzin, who argue that the Lament primarily serves David's propagandistic purposes have missed something central to the poem. Unlike the message to Jabesh-Gilead, David here promotes a message to Saul's former subjects not primarily intended to point to David, but primarily intended to preserve the memory of Saul and Saul's heir, Jonathan. David's Character as Revealed in the Lament The narrator of Samuel has presented David's travels from Gibeah to Ziklag and on to Hebron as a period that the hapless David would rather not have happened. He was an innocent, persecuted by his lord Saul, to whom he remained loyal to the last. The author of this story, however, has embedded into the tale certain narrational anomalies that lead the reader to suspect that the narrator has not told the whole story. Though the narrator never told an untruth, he withheld details that may have painted David as a traitor to his lord. For the narrator, David might be innocent, but for the author, innocence does not exist. Thus, when the reader arrives at the scene in 2 Samuel 1 in which David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, the reader must discern which aspect of David's personality is coming to the fore. Is this the selfserving opportunist speaking, who eulogizes his former enemies for propagandistic purposes? Or is this the more humane side of David speaking? Is David attempting to remember for good the men with whom he had such convoluted relationships? From what David says in the poem, and from what is left unsaid, it is apparent that although the Lament might serve David, it serves the memory of Saul and Jonathan more. David's stress on Saul's status as the anointed one, his hyperbolic language extolling the greatness of Saul and Jonathan, his attempt to undercut the women who had sung David's praise at the expense of Saul, indicates that David here has the best interest of Saul and Jonathan at heart. Also, the complete absence of overtly self-serving rhetoric within the poem makes it less likely that the character David is here portrayed as merely an opportunist. In this tale, David has paused to remember two men he admired. In doing so, David reveals an aspect of himself that the reader might

3. David's Lament, 2 Samuel 1.19-27

117

otherwise have never discerned. This is a man who is able to commit himself in loyalty to others in spite of his own ambitions. Though the course of story-world events did not reveal it, and even at times called it into question, David respected Saul and loved Jonathan. Such fidelity would not have been in David's best interests, if for example, he had participated in the war in the Jezreel (1 Samuel 31). In a sense, therefore, the Lament of David can be said to perform an important function within the plot of Samuel. By revealing the depth of David's ability to commit himself to another, even an enemy who stands in the way of Yahweh's goals for him, the Lament foreshadows David's seemingly irrational behavior in the Absalom tale. David's fidelity to that enemy son will very nearly be David's undoing. After reading the Lament over Saul and Jonathan, the reader is prepared for a David whose loyalties will sometimes govern his behavior at the expense of his ambitions. It would seem that the Lament conforms very closely to the author's overall presentation of David within the story. To story-world characters, David is an ambitious, upstart little brother, an outlaw, a royal pretender, a king or many other things. For the narrator, David is above all the representative king who stands as Yahweh's model for all that is good in Israel. As always, however, the implied author seems to balance all of these on a higher plane, seems to hold a humanistic interest in David the man, David the one whose own loyalties are never entirely certain even to himself. Be he a thug or a king or anything else, he is always the fallible and very complex man, David.

Chapter 4 DAVID'S SONG, 2 SAMUEL 22 1. 77ze Literary Context of David's Song In the previous chapter, David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan confronted us with the speech of a very complex man. In spite of the narrator's presentation of David as a persecuted innocent, clues in the text reveal that the author of the story1 characterizes David as an ambitious warrior, who, knowing his status as Yahweh's chosen (1 Sam. 16), eagerly seeks to have it fulfilled (1 Sam. 17-2 Sam. 5). Yet, this same man, who refuses to kill Saul, is reluctant to take full responsibility for his own future as defined by Yahweh. In fact, David appears to have respected Saul, and certainly loved Saul's son, bewailing both eloquently. The Lament reveals to the reader the depth of David's ability to commit himself to others and to submerge his personal ambitions; ironically in the case of Absalom later in the tale, this aspect of David's personality could have been his undoing. Toward the end of Samuel, two more poems are attributed to the story's complex hero, David. This chapter will evaluate the first of these, a song praising Yahweh 'on the day when Yahweh delivered [David] from his enemies, and from Saul' (2 Sam. 22.Ib). Before turning to a rhetorical analysis of this poem (section 2, beginning p. 134), it will be helpful to review the narrative context in which the poem is set. Perhaps the most commonly discussed issue with respect to the literary setting of David's Song is the disconcerting effect it has upon a reader who has already learned of David's sins in the rape of Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah (2 Sam. 11), followed by the series of divinely inflicted blows to David's house and kingdom that these sins have set in motion (2 Sam. 12.7-14, and following). It is astounding, considering all David has been through in the second book of Samuel, to find him 1.

Once again, for convenience, the implied author is designated the 'author'.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

119

boasting in the Song that he is without sin, and that Yahweh has repaid him well for his righteousness. Generally there are two modern perspectives on this anomaly. One view holds that 2 Samuel 22 is part of an 'appendix of deconstruction', in which a redactor has attempted to undercut the allegedly 'proDavidic' image found in much of the earlier book.2 A second interpretation views the placement of this psalm as the handiwork of a redactor who wishes to 'clean up' David's reputation, washing away the soiled image of the previous chapters and preparing the reader for the more two-dimensional portrayal of David to be found after 1 Kings 2.3 At an initial glance, the first of these perspectives would seem more cogent. Clearly, David's words in this Song do not fit their narrated setting. David boasts that he has called upon the deity, the deity has responded, and David has annihilated all opposition with the aid of that divine patronage. All this, David claims, is due to his own unswerving loyalty, devotion, faultlessness before the just God. It is as though everything which the reader has learned from 2 Samuel 11 to 21 never happened. If David has 'forgotten' his past, the reader has not, and David's integrity is thereby called into question. First impressions are not always reliable, however, and the interpretation of this poem as one which reinforces the narrator's image of 'good' King David has merit. One agenda among many for this narrator has been an attempt to smooth over the questionable aspects of David's personality and career. In the book of Kings, David's image will reach its nadir in his deathbed scenes with Nathan, Bathsheba and Solomon (1 Kgs 1-2). But very quickly after that, the narrator permits the plastersaint image of David to go unchallenged. Story-world characters, such as Solomon and Yahweh, will assist the narrator in this reputational 'clean-up' project (e.g. 1 Kgs 3.6, 14; 9.4; 11.12, etc.). Previously, the narrator has lost no opportunity to present a David who is pious and obedient toward Yahweh. It will be recalled that David's first battle, in 1 Samuel 17, finds David wholly and boldly dependent upon his God (cf. vv. 45-47). Whenever possible, the narrator emphasizes that David has consulted Yahweh prior to battle, as for example, in 1 Samuel 23 and 2 Samuel 5. When the going gets rough, 2. For example, Brueggemann, '2 Samuel 21-24', pp. 383-97. 3. A prime example of this view is that of P.D. Miscall, 'For David's Sake: A Response to David M. Gunn', in J.C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 153-63 (158-62).

120

The Faces of David

David 'strengthened himself by means of Yahweh, his God' (1 Sam. 30.6). The motif of David's piety recurs regularly. No doubt, the character David really is a faithful Yahwist; on this score, author and narrator agree. But where the author displays no concern for shielding either David or Yahweh from the critical eye of the reader, the narrator is very concerned about the reputations of each of these characters.4 With respect to David, the narrator obscures events which might smudge David's reputation, while noting copiously every action by David in fidelity to Yahweh. Thus, it is no surprise that here, after the narrator has been compelled to recount the unpleasant aspects of David's career, he wishes to insert some material of a sort to neutralize the bitter taste of the previous events. In this case, the character David has uttered a wonderfully pious song of jubilation before Yahweh, and the narrator does not fail to inform the narratee of the fact, whether the words of the poem 'fit' their narrational context or not. In the process, the narrator's agenda for the future integrity of the unfolding narration is served as well, because: [T]he psalm makes explicit the divine causality behind all of David's successes and focuses attention on Yahweh as the primary subject of the Samuel narratives. By refocusing on God, the psalm does not dismiss the critiques of David that inform the latter half of 2 Samuel, but rather draws attention to a more fundamental issue, Yahweh's actions and purposes.5

Both these perspectives are correct: The author's final chapters of Samuel do tend to 'deconstruct' a plaster-saint image of David (as will be discussed below), but the poem of 2 Samuel 22 is placed in this context by a biased narrator who wishes to reinforce one overriding quality of David's character, namely his fidelity to Yahweh. There is a sense in which 2 Samuel 22 serves as the 'glue' which weds the complex portrait of David found in Samuel and early in Kings to the more simplistic image of David which is perpetuated through most of the remaining story. How this is accomplished will be the subject of the remainder of this section.

4. For the narrator's biases concerning Yahweh, see my comments in Chapters 1 and 2. A full discussion of the fascinating portrait of Yahweh in the Former Prophets is not attempted here since it would take the discussion too far afield. One recent effort moving in this direction is that of Bailey, 'Redemption of YHWH', pp. 213-31. 5. Watts, Psalm and Story, p. 104.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

121

Narrational Time and Story-World Time The key to comprehending how a single poem, placed upon the lips of the story-world character David, is able to accomplish conflicting goals for the author and the narrator is to be found in the distinction between narrated time and story-world time. Story-world time is the flow of events as the author conceives them to have happened; narrated time is the purely subjective order in which the narrator has chosen to present them, which might include flashforwards and flashbacks.6 In this instance, David uttered the poem much earlier in his story-world career, but the narrator has delayed reporting the utterance until near the end of the narration about David. In this way, for the narrator, the poem's soaring imagery, emphasis upon the deity's patronage in David's life, and especially, emphasis upon David's righteousness and integrity as a king, will set the stage for the book of Kings, where it is (again, in the narrator's view) David's fidelity and Yahweh's patronage which factor in the (limited) endurance of the Davidic house. At the same time, for the author, the poem affords insight into the mind of David, which, as will be discussed in the final section of this chapter, permits the reader to develop a more nuanced understanding of his complex identity. Before turning to the rhetoric of the Song, therefore, this section will investigate a number of details in the story of Samuel, from roughly the final days of Saul until the final days of David. Particular attention will be given to the chapters immediately surrounding 2 Samuel 22, with additional discussion of texts related to these chapters. These observations will assist in a determination concerning which part of David's career is reflected in the Song. There are numerous factors sewn into the fabric of Samuel's final chapters that indicate to the reader that the narrator has taken liberties with the story's chronology.7 The first note of discord occurs in 6. Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, ch. 4; cf. S. Chatman, who distinguishes the author's 'story' from the narrator's 'discourse', (Chatman, Story and Discourse, pp. 62-63 and passim). 1. As was seen in Chapter 3, the narrator can take liberties with geographical designations, reporting of story-world events and chronology. In 2 Samuel, many chronological gaps occur. For example, in 2 Samuel 12, the narrator violates strict chronology to finish off his report on David's relationship with Bathsheba before returning to the story of the war with Rabbah of Ammon, even though there can be no doubt that the war was concluded in story-world time before the birth of Solomon, possibly before the death of Solomon's ill-fated older brother. The narrator takes similar liberties with chronology quite often when reporting births to the

122

The Faces of David

2 Samuel 21, when David resolves the problem of a famine through the religious sacrifice of seven Saulides. Yahweh declares that there is bloodguilt on Saul, implying that this is the reason for the famine. Surely, Yahweh has not waited until late in the career of David, some decades after Saul's death,8 to give vent to his anger against Saul's actions. It will be recalled that this is a deity given to quick-tempered outbursts.9 If Saul has 'sought to strike the Gibeonites in his zeal for the Israelites and Judah' (2 Sam. 21.2b), and if the deity perceived in Saul's actions an offense of some kind,10 then Yahweh probably initiated the famine very early in David's reign, perhaps even in the last days of Saul. If so, the tale's appearance at this point in the narration is a flashback to an earlier moment in David's career. That suspicion may be confirmed by details in the narration. protagonists: 1 Sam. 14.49; 2 Sam. 3.2-5; 5.13-16; 9.12; 14.27 (cf. 18.18), and so forth. 8. The precise passage of time from Saul's death to the resolution of Sheba's revolt remains unclear, but the narration demands about twenty-five to thirty years. Although David may have been king of Hebron during Saul's final years (1 Sam. 25-2 Sam. 1), he abandons itinerate rule and moves formally to that city at Saul's death (2 Sam. 2.1), where he remains presumably two years (2.10-11). Absalom was born at Hebron (2 Sam. 3.3). After David moved to Jerusalem from Hebron, he reigned 33 years (2 Sam. 5.5). When Tamar was raped in 2 Samuel 13, her brother, Absalom, was an adult with control over a household (2 Sam. 13.20). Presuming that Absalom, at youngest, was at least in his late teens or about 20 when Tamar was raped, roughly 15 years (or more) pass from 2 Samuel 5 to 2 Samuel 13. Beginning with the rape of Tamar, more precise figures are given: Absalom waits two years (13.23), then kills Amnon and flees to Geshur, where he spends three years (13.38). Upon his return to Jerusalem, Absalom waits two more years before seeing his father (14.28). Then the revolt occurs after four years (15.7 Old Greek). Therefore, if the famine of 2 Samuel 21 occurs after Sheba's revolt, it occurred some twenty-five to thirty years after the death of Saul in story-world time. These considerations alone make it likely that the implied author intends 2 Sam. 21.1-14 to be read as a flashback. Characteristically, however, the implied author has permitted the evidence to remain tantalizingly ambiguous, so that the narrator's integrity is undercut, but not necessarily overthrown. Yahweh, being a free and wholly unpredictable character, may have waited two to three decades. 9. The obvious, but certainly not only, example is the fate of unfortunate Uzza ben Abinadab in 2 Sam. 6.6-7. 10. Why Yahweh should be angry with Saul for this is unclear. The treaty with the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 is a violation of Yahweh's stipulation that the inhabitants of the land be massacred, the ruse of the Gibeonites notwithstanding. On this complex issue, see Eslinger, Into the Hands, pp. 44-54.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

123

In 2 Sam. 21.7, the narrator turns directly to his narratee and announces that David did not kill Jonathan's son, Mephiba'al. The precise wording of this remark, however, conveniently leaves open the timing of events: When did David 'spare' Mephiba'al? The narrator apparently does not wish to say. Was Mephiba'al already well-known to David, eating at the king's table? Or did the 'sparing' of Mephiba'al take place subsequent to the events of 2 Sam. 21.1-14? The latter possibility leaps immediately to the reader's mind because of two intriguing details narrated earlier. First, in 2 Sam. 9.1, David had uttered the question, 'Is there anyone yet remaining to the house of Saul?' At the time that the reader confronted these words, the reader's natural assumption was that David referred to the deaths of Saul's sons in 1 Samuel 31 and 2 Samuel 4. However, even before the reader confronted 2 Samuel 21, this assumption was not wholly satisfying. The narrator reports that Saul's sons, Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua, were killed in battle, and that another son, Ishba'al, was killed in his bed (1 Sam. 31.2; 2 Sam. 4.7). The narrator has not given the reader any reason to believe that Saul's whole household has been wiped out. At least one son of Saul, Ish-yaw (1 Sam. 14.49 [Old Greek]11), presumably remains alive, and certainly the extended family does as well. Surely David would know this. David's words at 2 Sam. 9.1 strike the reader as hyperbolic. He has implied a catastrophe in Saul's house which was not narrated, and therefore is possibly unreal. This remains in the reader's mind, since it is not in David's character to utter hyperbole without motive. A second intriguing moment occurs during David's flight from Jerusalem when Absalom is in revolt. As David comes toward Bahurim, a man of 'the clan of the house of Saul' chastises him (2 Sam. 16.5). This man, Shimei ben Gera, curses David, throws stones at him, and shouts, 'Get out! Get out! Man of Blood! Man ofBeliya'all Yah wen has returned upon you all the blood of the house of Saul, which you usurped' (2 Sam. 16.7-8aa). Not only does this man represent evidence that there is indeed someone left of the house of Saul, but David's response to him seems, at this stage in narrated time, rather baffling. 11. Vaticanus, leoaioi)^, Lucianic, leooriov, probably reflect V2TK, which is superior to MT's ""IST. It is not impossible that the name, Ishyaw, is a variant for Ishba'al. If so, the narrator does not make the connection, and there is no apparent motive for him to fail to do so. The two should be regarded as two separate sons of Saul.

124

The Faces of David

David responds to his own supporters, who would rid themselves of Shimei, by saying:12 What is there between me and you...just because he curses?13 For Yahweh commanded him, 'Curse David!' So who will say, 'Why do you do this?' Then David said... 'Behold! My son, who came forth from my loins, seeks my life! So how much more now should this Benjaminite! Let him be! He will curse, for Yahweh commanded him. Perhaps Yahweh will see my guilt; then Yahweh might return to me good instead of his cursing this day'.

In effect, David has confessed that Shimei is in the right;14 David is a man of blood, who has usurped the house of Saul. Shimei speaks by Yahweh's command, says David.15 And David, through this extraordinary confession, hopes that Yahweh will 'see' his guilt, forgive him, and return to him good instead of cursing. Wrapped up in David's thinking is his estrangement from his son, Absalom, who came forth from David's loins. No doubt, David has perceived Absalom's rebellion to be precisely what Nathan had warned: 'The sword will not turn away from your house, forever' (2 Sam. 12.10a). That curse from Yahweh, a curse of 12. 2 Sam. 16.10-12. Translation follows MT. Among the relatively minor variants, only the Old Greek's use of 'my affliction' where MT kethib has 'my guilt' is significant. In this case, the MT text is the lectio difficilior and should be retained. The versions, including MT qere, represent independent scribal embarrassments over David's confession at this stage of the narration. At a casual reading, David has no reason to speak of his 'guilt'. At a closer reading, the essence of David's speech is transparent, as will be noted. C. McCarthy argues that MT kethib is identical to Old Greek, 'my affliction' (McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim [OBO, 12; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981], p. 84). The argument depends on speculation concerning pausal forms. McCarthy considers variants in Ps. 119.92, but the variant ']1IO (found in one MS) might reflect the reading 'my guilt' as easily as 'my affliction'. 'Affliction',""]!?, is written plene in Ps. 107.41 ("311?), but one would expect in 2 Sam. 16:12 the form "TlIO. McCarthy's interesting and initially attractive suggestion does not convince. 13. The translation follows MT kethib:... "OK mrr "Dl ^p' "D... The qere would read: 'What is there between me and you...? Thus he curses because Yahweh commanded...' 14. So also, J.C. Vanderkam, who draws very different conclusions from the observation (Vanderkam, 'Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study', JBL 99 [1980], pp. 521-39 [536]). 15. Note also the ambiguous object suffix, in^p, 'his cursing'. Does David refer to Shimei's curse or to Yahweh's curse? Is there any distinction in David's mind?

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

125

internal family strife for a crime against another man's wife, is Qt7lir"IU ('forever'). David hopes that this additional curse, a curse invoked also by Yahweh through a human agent, but for a wholly different crime, a crime against the house of Saul, might not be forever. As was seen in Chapter 3 above, any action by David against Saul is precisely what the narrator has never cared to admit in the narration of David's story. The narrator obscured David's activities during Saul's lifetime, to hide from the narratee's view the possibility that David reigned in the Hebron region as a rival of Saul for over five years before Saul died. However, although the narrator wishes to obscure the matter, the author does not (hence the reader's knowledge of it), nor would David, as a story-world character, assume that the matter was hidden. Perhaps it is David's rebellion against Saul to which David refers here in 2 Samuel 16? The man of guilty conscience believes that Yahweh is finally repaying him for his crime against Yahweh's anointed. But this interpretation is not satisfying for two reasons. First, Shimei accuses David of guilt against the house of Saul, not Saul. It is the house of Saul which David has usurped, says Shimei. Secondly, given that David experienced Samuel's anointing and Yahweh's gift of the spirit in 1 Samuel 16, there is no reason for the reader to believe that David considers his actions against Saul to have been a crime before Yahweh. Rather, it was Yahweh's destiny for him. As I mentioned in the previous chapter, David actively sought to displace Saul, while equally trying to preserve Saul's life, thinking Saul's status as anointed one to have rendered the king taboo. David would never have killed Saul, no matter how long Saul lived; David is not likely to be experiencing the anguish of guilt over this matter now. Certainly, he would have no reason to utter a confession of blood-guilt against Saul in the ears of Shimei. Since it is the house of Saul, not Saul personally, to which Shimei refers in his curse, the reader must assume that David's confession also refers to a crime against Saul's house, not a crime against Saul. But what crime? Thus far, in narrated time (not necessarily story-world time) the only candidate would be the murder of Ishba'al, in 2 Samuel 4. The narratee is led to believe that Shimei here accuses David of having orchestrated the murder of Saul's son. Since, at this point in the narration, the reader has no alternative to this possibility, the reader is astounded to hear David's confession. If David was guilty of this crime, then the narrator is even more unreliable than previously thought, for the narrator made it clear that David had had nothing to do with the

126

The Faces of David

actions performed by the sons of Rimmon. Although the solution is unsatisfying, it remains the only option, at this point in narrated time. Finally, with 2 Samuel 21, the missing clue to the puzzle appears. The narrator may have deceived the narratee, convincing the narratee that Shimei's curse was a false one, not from Yahweh, perhaps convincing him that David's 'confession' was only the diplomatic utterance of a man who knows when to skirmish with gadflies and when to leave them alone, but the narrator has not convinced the reader. The reader, unlike the narratee, makes a connection between the events of 2 Sam. 21.1-14 and previously narrated events. When the narrator finally outlines the 'Gibeonite revenge', as it is sometimes called, the reader is able to piece story-world events together. In the final days of Saul, Yahweh inflicted a famine on the land in immediate response to some unnarrated action by Saul against the Gibeonites. During the two-year civil war between Ishba'al and David, the famine remained in the land. Shortly after David conquered Jerusalem, three years into the famine, David had time at last to 'seek the face of Yahweh' concerning this matter (2 Sam. 21.lap). In response to Yahweh's accusation against Saul, David summons the Gibeonites, and later executes seven Saulides. After this affair is complete, David asks, 'Does anyone remain of the house of Saul?' (2 Sam. 9.1). Mephiba'al ben Jonathan is produced. Although the narrator never says so, Mephiba'al is a minor, probably not much older than eight or nine years, when the events of 2 Samuel 9 take place (cf. 2 Sam. 4.4).16 The notice at 2 Sam. 9.12 about Mephiba'al's later progeny serves to throw the narratee further off track with respect to the chronology of events. Such notices are commonly thrown into the narration by the narrator without regard to chronological precision (as one example, compare 2 Sam. 5.14 with 12.24), but in this case, the imprecision obscures the age of Mephiba'al at the time of his arrival in Jerusalem. The reader recognizes at last that Shimei's curse was real—David was complicit in the murder of seven men of the house of Saul. No wonder 16. This might be indicated also by the fact that Mephiba'al has been taken in by the house of Machir, in Transjordan—an ally of David, not an ally of the house of Saul (2 Sam. 9.4-5; cf. 2 Sam. 17.27). Had Mephiba'al been an adult, albeit a crippled one, one would presume that he would not have found shelter in the house of an enemy, but would have been allied with his uncle, Ishba'al. Mephiba'al has been under a kind of house arrest since shortly after the defeat of Saul by the Philistines and the resulting power struggle between the two Hebrew strongmen. As a child, he has no control over his fate.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

127

David confessed! True, David thought he did what he did to expiate Saul's blood-guilt, but David did so on the suggestion of the Gibeonites, a non-Israelite, presumably non-Yahwistic, people.17 David did not have the backing of Yahweh in the matter, nor does Yahweh ever explicitly express approval.18 So now, when confronted by Shimei, David's conscience is struck. Perhaps Shimei is right; perhaps Shimei is sent by Yahweh as Nathan had been sent after the murder of Uriah. David is unsure, and will therefore not risk further sin by striking Shimei down. Instead, he utters a confession, exposing his inner soul to the reader, as he seeks divine pardon. The narrator's motive in obscuring these details is clear. By delaying report of this ritual extermination of Saulides, the narrator is able to give the impression that David's actions vis-a-vis Mephiba'al and Shimei are motivated by humanitarian concerns and fidelity to Jonathan and Saul. That the narrator achieved his effect can be seen by consulting any number of commentaries on the book of Samuel, from Josephus to the present. But this is not the story-world reality. In reality, David places the remaining potential heir of the house of Saul under house arrest. He fails to dispatch Shimei out of a guilty conscience, not out of magnanimity. Later, when his conscience manages to clear itself of any vestigial sense of guilt, he will reverse his decision concerning Shimei (1 Kgs 2.8-9). Likewise, the author has a motive for inventing a narrator who presents the chronology of events in such distorted fashion. By having David's actions presented first in one light, then another, the story gains an additional dramatic dimension. David's characterization appears more complex by virtue of the very gradual process of character revelation. 17. The implied author defines the Gibeonites as non-Israelite and presumably non-Yahwistic (cf. Joshua 9), regardless of whether a historical ethnic or political entity by that name was Yahwistic or considered part of an 'Israel' of any Iron Age period. 18. Yeb. 79a makes Yahweh complicit in the human sacrifice. J.P. Fokkelman notes that Yahweh explains his reason for inflicting the famine, but never offers a direct suggestion for its resolution (Fokkelman, III. Throne and City, p. 276). On p. 288, Fokkelman observes that, in 2 Sam. 21.10, a presumably niphal verb, D^'IDD, leaves open the question of whether Yahweh has found David's sacrificial execution acceptable. The coming of the rain could be coincidental, though David might have been tempted to interpret the sign positively prior to Shimei's confrontation. It should be noted, pace Fokkelman, that v. 14b is equally ambiguous, though the biased narrator might favor the interpretation Fokkelman offers.

128

The Faces of David

The reader is kept guessing about essential aspects of his actions and motivations right to the very end of the story. David appears to the reader (perhaps appeals to the reader) on many levels: He is the quintessential winner, the mighty warrior, the faithful Yahwist, the opportunist, the hoodlum-like strongman, the exquisitely smooth manipulator of other persons, the cunning killer, the lusty voyeur, and the anguished father. More so, he is a man of complex inner conscience. He seeks his divinely ordained destiny, but restrains himself from overt actions of murder. When he gives himself to such actions, he is plagued by his remorse, and easily crushed by confrontation, whether from prophet (Nathan) or rogue antagonist (Shimei). David, according to the author, is a far more complex man than David, according to the narrator. That the author is able to achieve his or her goals also can be discerned by consulting the commentaries from Josephus to the present. There are other factors sewn into the fabric of Samuel's final chapters which indicate to the reader that the narrator is not narrating in storytime. The second half of chapter 21 contains one of the narrator's many summaries of persons and events (2 Sam. 21.15-22). This passage deals with four heroic events said to have occurred during wars with Philistia. The precise timing of the events, however, is wholly obscure. The reader has long since learned to be wary of narrational summary texts. Thus, the reader approaches the summary remarks of 2 Sam. 21.15-22 with caution. The tone of the passage, with its redundant refrain, 'There was again war (in place X, with the Philistines)...', alerts the narratee to the necessity of reminiscence. One must 'find a spot' in the earlier narration at which these events would fit naturally. The repetition of Til? ('again') in the refrain perhaps implies that none of these events occurred as early as David's first independent war with Philistia in 1 Samuel 23. Possibly, the narratee will envision the wars of 2 Samuel 5 or 8. In any event, the narrator has given no impression that war with Philistia occurred after 2 Samuel 11. Herein lies the narrator's agenda: he wishes the narratee to interpret the summary of 2 Sam. 21.15-17 as an explanation for David's nonparticipation in the war of 2 Samuel 11. His men had insisted that David stay home, thus placing David on the rooftop that fateful day when Bathsheba took her bath. The effect of this passage is to neutralize what could be perceived to be an implicit condemnation of David's cowardly passivity at the 'time when kings go out' to war (2 Sam. 11.1 [qere]}.19 19. Most commentators have noted the implicit narrational condemnation of

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

129

Is this an instance in which the narrator's summary is reliable? Possibly. Nevertheless, the reader has some reason to doubt. As with many of the narrator's summary statements, the details of this one do not quite match narrated events. Most glaring is the reference in v. 19 to the killing of Goliath by one Elhanan ben Ya'rei, the Bethlehemite.20 Readers of Samuel have been vexed by this anomaly for centuries. Scholars with an interest in the prehistory of the text suggest a variety of explanations. For example, Kyle McCarter believes that this verse represents the earliest folk tradition about the death of Goliath. Later, an overzealous scribe identified the originally anonymous Philistine giant killed by David with this same giant, Goliath. In support of such a theory, McCarter notes that throughout 1 Samuel 17, the bad guy is identified generically, with two exceptions (17.4, 23).21 This is a plausible suggestion for the genesis of the text; it does not, unfortunately, explain how the final redactors expected their readers to interpret the text. Unless the redactors were incompetent or simply uninterested in narrative coherency as usually defined, it was surely meant that the text should signal something in the reader's mind. Now, since one story-world character, Ahimelech ben Ahitub (1 Sam. 21.10; cf. 22.10), testifies that it was indeed David who killed Goliath within this story, and since the narrator has a reputation for sometimes distorting the facts when he offers summaries, it follows that the narrator has made a mistake here. The author has placed upon the lips of our narrator an erroneous statement, designed perhaps to remind the reader in an obvious way that not every narrational summary represents the story-world truth. Likewise, at the end of this summary, after describing four heroic events in which David is either absent or wholly passive, the narrator quite incorrectly concludes that four enemies 'fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants' (2 Sam. 21.22). David in 2 Sam. 11.1. It might be noted that, with or without the narrator's statement, an ancient reader would raise an eyebrow at the revelation that a presumably healthy king stayed home from battle. Within the story-bounds, the very interesting statement made by David's soldiers in 2 Sam. 18.3 might have some bearing upon the issue. Regardless, the narrator's attempt to exonerate David through fuzzy chronological reporting is apparent, whether it be a success or a failure. 20. Or perhaps, Elhanan ben Dodo, the Ye'arite, from Bethlehem. Cf. McCarter, // Samuel, p. 449. 21. McCarter, I Samuel, p. 291. Note that McCarter declares 17.4 the only instance in which the name Goliath occurs in the account, since he regards 17.23 to be secondary (1 Samuel, p. 291, cf. pp. 299-309).

130

The Faces of David

Given these factors, the reader will conclude that the narrative summary of 2 Sam. 21.15-22 may be more or less factual (that is to say, 'factual' events within the fictional story-world, though the narrator has hobbled the details), but cannot conclude from the text when these events are to have taken place. The narrator might have exonerated David with respect to 2 Samuel 11, but that remains uncertain. Given the narrator's general bias in favor of David, the reader will be excused for doubting that these story-world happenings occurred before the rape of Bathsheba. Passing over the two poems in 2 Samuel 22 and 23.1-7 for the moment, the reader encounters another summary list of David's mighty men (2 Sam. 23.8-39). A list of the 'three', with anecdotes concerning their valor, is followed by a discussion of an additional two and their valor, which in turn gives way to a bare list of names. As with the list just reviewed, the reader has no way of determining when the events embedded in the material occurred. The reader is also hampered by an inability to determine which details in the text are erroneous due to the unreliability of the narrator and which due merely to textual corruption.22 Enough is clear, however, to again note that the narrator has obscured the time-frame; there can be no doubt that the list, which includes Uriah's name, belongs to a much earlier period in David's career.23 The book of Samuel ends with the story of David's census in 2 Samuel 24. Is this event also narrated out of chronological order? Again, it is difficult to say. Since the prose portions of chs. 21-23 are out of sequence, the reader might assume the same here. However, several factors seem to indicate that the narrator has at last returned to a straightforward temporal narration. First, when David commands Joab to take the census, Joab responds in part by saying, 'May Yahweh your God add to the people one-hundred times what they are now, and do so while the eyes of my lord the king might see...' (24.3a). Although Joab does not say, '...while the eyes of my lord the king might yet see', the sense seems to imply that Joab perceives the king to be in the waning years of his life. Secondly, although the narrator has been stingy with precise chronological markers, it seems that 22. On the text, see McCarter, // Samuel, pp. 489-94. 23. N. Na'aman makes this observation and attempts to draw historical conclusions from it (Na'aman, The List of David's Officers', VT 38 [1988], pp. 71-79 [76]).

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

131

within the story-world, the revolts of Absalom and Sheba come to an end very near the end of David's life.24 Presumably, the wars of 2 Samuel 8 were completed before the Bathsheba incident, or in a few cases, have been raging throughout the narrated sequence of 2 Samuel 9-12. In other words, there has been almost perpetual upheaval in David's career from when he arrived in Jerusalem to the moment Sheba's head was tossed down from a city wall (2 Sam. 20.22). Logically, then, David would be 'motivated' to count his winnings only near the end of his successful life, when there is finally sufficient peace to do so. These observations are not compelling, and ultimately the reader cannot be sure when the census took place. However, the time-frame indicated in 2 Sam. 24.8 is compatible with the belief that this story represents the last act of David in his capacity as head of state. In sum, the implications of the foregoing discussion are clear: The two poems attributed to David in 2 Samuel 22 and 23.1-7 are to be found at the center of a three-chapter (or perhaps, a four-chapter) 'interlude', in which the narrator has broken the sequential narration to reminisce about earlier highlights of David's life (2 Sam. 21-23 [24]). Chapter 21 contains one event which had occurred prior to 2 Samuel 9, and other events which may have happened at any time prior to Absalom's rebellion. Chapter 23 contains information that is chronologically uncertain, but almost certainly deals with the period prior to 2 Samuel 11. The socalled 'Last Words' of David, to be discussed at length in my next chapter, function proleptically, looking forward to the very last days of David's life in 1 Kings 2. As will be discussed presently, the superscription to David's Song in 2 Samuel 22 seems designed to hark back to 2 Samuel 7, with its significant references to David's 'rest' from enemies (cf. 7.1) and to his destiny in replacing his enemy, Saul (cf. 7.15).25 All these factors give the reader sufficient reason to believe that the poem of 2 Samuel 22, like its surroundings, is not to be found in its actual sequential setting. Samuel 22 in Story-World Time If the contextual setting of David's Song indicates that the poem was not uttered shortly after the revolts of Absalom and Sheba but earlier, are 24. See my comments above, note 8. 25. The texts of MT 2 Sam. 7.1, 15 should be retained, but for a discussion of the variants, see McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 191, 194-95.

132

The Faces of David

there internal details that will either affirm or refute this hypothesis? It would seem that there are, and that most of the evidence would affirm it. It has been noted already how ill-suited the Song is to its narrational context. From what David boasts concerning himself and his relationship to Yahweh, it is as though everything narrated from 2 Samuel 11-20 has not yet happened. The reader is justified in assuming that David uttered the Song as early as, say, 2 Samuel 8 or 9. On the other hand, the clear allusions to Nathan's oracle of 2 Samuel 7 and the military victories of the next chapter, which can be seen in the Song (2 Sam. 22.3943, 51, etc.), demand the assumption that the poem was uttered no earlier than about 2 Samuel 8 or 9. Throughout the Song, allusions to story-world events are made, but with one questionable exception, none of these allusions refers to events after 2 Samuel 8. The one exception is the use of the term ""Op, which can be translated 'my rebels', in 2 Sam. 22.40b, 49ba. In the Song, David exults at the defeat of those rebelling against him. In the story, when David asks news of Absalom from the Cushite messenger, the latter replies: 'May my lord the king be informed that Yahweh has judged this day all those rebelling (D^Qpn) against you'; and 'May the enemies of my lord the king be as that young man; so also all who rebel (Dip) against you' (2 Sam. 18.31b, 32b). However, given David's anguished response to the Cushite (19.1), it is difficult to believe that David later would borrow the Cushite's lexicon to describe his dead son in the Song. On the contrary, David has never spoken of Absalom in such terms; rather, the enemy son was always 'my son' C!Q), and 'the young man' (nun).26 References to 'my rebels' in the Song are more likely to be generalized designations of enemies who questioned or threatened David's power (such as the men of 1 Samuel 30, to be discussed below). Allusions in the Song to the earlier half of David's career begin with the very first lines, the hymnic invocation (2 Sam. 22.2b-3). This invocation almost seems to have been composed specifically with David's years as a rogue in mind. Yahweh, says the poet, is David's sfro ('rock'), reminding the reader of David's days in Maon, where he went down to the sho in the region of Ziph (1 Sam. 23.25). Again, Yahweh is David's "IIS ('large rock'), like the Dm* at Ein-gedi (1 Sam. 24.3). In the Song, Yahweh is David's 013Q ('refuge'), implying that David's escape from Saul was Yahweh's doing (cf. 1 Sam. 19.10, with the same root, 01]). If Yahweh is David's m^D ('stronghold') in the Song, it is because David 26. 2 Sam. 13.25; 14.21; 16.11; 18.5, 29, 32; 19.1, 5.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

133

has perceived Yahweh's patronage while spending time in the various imsn of Moab (1 Sam. 22.4-5), Ein-gedi (1 Sam. 24.1, 23), Ziph (1 Sam. 23.14, 19) and, later, Zion (2 Sam. 5.7, 9, 17). Perhaps also in this period, though the chronology is uncertain, David was to be found in a riTttn between Bethlehem and 'Adullam (2 Sam. 23.13-14). If the poet can speak of Yahweh as W |~lp, in v. 3ba, David has certainly experienced that 'horn of salvation' first-hand, beginning with his anointing from Samuel's pp (1 Sam. 16.13) and continuing through the experiences of his early career (note David's words in 1 Sam. 17.47; cf. Abigail's words in 1 Sam. 25.26, 31, with David's response in 25.33; the narrator's words in 2 Sam 8.6b, 14b).27 Obviously, the highly metaphorical language of the Song does not encourage the reader to be satisfied with a pedestrian litany of allusions to David's career. Nevertheless, such allusions are unmistakable, particularly inasmuch as many of the words and phrases involved occur in only select texts within this story. It is almost as though the poet has saved favorite terms to plant at key moments in the text. For example, many commentators have stumbled over the interesting line in 2 Sam. 22.30a, 111: p& rD3 O, 'For by means of you, I crush a contingent.' Whether this line was composed for its present literary setting or found in a poem circulating independently of the book of Samuel, the author of Samuel has imbued it with ironic force. The term TTia ('military band/contingent') is a rare one in Samuel. David does indeed crush a contingent in 1 Samuel 30, namely the Amalekite band that had burned Ziklag (1 Sam. 30.8, 15, 23). In the same sequence, however, David must struggle to control his own rebellious soldiers, who would first stone David (1 Sam. 30.6) and later deny spoil to their own comrades (1 Sam. 30.22). The irony continues a few chapters later, when the unruly Joab, commander of David's 1113 (2 Sam. 3.22), is out of David's control (cf. 3.26-27), but a similar pair of 1113 leaders (2 Sam. 4.2) are quite literally crushed by David. By means of Yahweh perhaps David is able to overpower selected D"1113, but David's authority in such matters is far from absolute. Ironic allusions of this kind to David's career will be discussed in greater depth in the final section of this chapter.28 27. Connections of this kind between the poem and the story of David have been noted by many scholars. See J.-L. Vesco, 'Le psaume 18, lecture davidique', RB 94 (1987), pp. 5-62 (29); Watts, Psalm and Story, pp. 105-106. 28. For a somewhat different perspective on the relationship of 1 Samuel 30 to

134

The Faces of David

In sum then, both the narrational setting of the Song of David and its internal rhetorical thrust testify to the same conclusion: David uttered this poem much earlier in story-world time than it appears in narrational time. It will be recalled that long ago David, having sequestered himself in Jerusalem, and looking out over all his success, 'knew' (J?T) that it was Yahweh who had established him thus (2 Sam. 5.12). It is reasonable for the author to attribute a song of thanksgiving to his hero at any time after David comes to this knowledge. Given the allusions present in the Song, and given the allusions that might have been, but are not, present, it seems most probable that David uttered these words approximately at the time of the events in 2 Samuel 7-8.29 Given the narrator's keen interest in making the transition from the ugly details of David's later career to the plaster-saint image to be promoted in the story of Kings, it is very understandable why the narrator has delayed report of this magnificent proclamation of piety until very near the end of his narrative about David. It washes the soiled image clean. But this literary strategy has the added ironic value of undercutting the narrator in a subtle way; if the narratee responds to David's words literally and in their narrational (not story-world) setting, the narratee might conclude that David gives voice to an arrogantly articulated false righteousness. The present setting of the Song at 2 Samuel 22 is a stroke of literary genius (or a happy accident of redactional activity!), creating a kaleidoscopic image of David, shifting from one hue and form to another as the reader's temporal perspective shifts. 2. David's Rhetorical Strategy in the Song To facilitate the close reading of the poem, an eclectic Hebrew text and translation follows. It will be noted that line and strophe divisions follow rhetorical thrust, therefore at times breaking Masoretic verse divisions. 2 Samuel 22, see Vesco, 'Le psaume 18', pp. 43-44. 29. It is interesting to note that Josephus, when recounting David's prayer following Nathan's dynastic oracle, tells his readers that when David completed his prayer, he sang a hymn of praise before going his way. At the place where Josephus will have encountered 2 Samuel 22 in his source text, he shifts to a general discussion of information about David's musical proclivities derived from the book of Chronicles. See H.St J. Thackeray and R. Marcus, Josephus V: Jewish Antiquities, Books V-VHI (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1935), p. 410 ( pN "DDK p pN "DDK p, pp. 522-23.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

135

l-2a

David spoke the words of this song to Yahweh at the time of Yahweh's deliverance of him from the power of all his enemies, and from the power of Saul. He said:

2ba 2bp-3aa 3ap 3ba 3bp 3by

Yahweh is my crag, my fortress, My deliverer, my 'El,30 My rock; in him I seek refuge. My shield, the horn of my victory, My stronghold, my escape, My savior; from violent ones he saves me.

4a 4b

Praised [is what] I call Yahweh, For from my enemies I am delivered.31

5a 5b 6a 6b

Breakers of death encompassed me, Torrents of Beliya 'al terrified me, Cords of She 'ollSha 'ul wrapped me, Snares of death were before me.

7aa 7ap 7ba 7bp-8aa

In my distress I called 'Yahweh', To my God, I cried out. He heard, from his temple, my cry. My shout was in his ear, so that he shuddered.32 Then the earth quaked, The foundations of the sky shook, They shuddered because of his anger.

8ap Say 8b

30. Space does not permit in-depth discussion of the text. In the following instances, the textual decisions made by P.K. McCarter are followed in whole or in part without further comment: vv. 2b(3-3aa, 3by, 5a, 7ap, 1 Ib, 16aa, 16b(3, 27b, 28b, 29b, 39a, 40a, 42a, 43a, 43b, 45-46a, 48b, 49bp, 50a. See McCarter, II Samuel, pp. 455-63. 31. Or: 'Derided, I called, 'Yahweh!' / Then from my enemies...' McCarter cites Ps. 102.9:1JOB] '3 '^inQ '3'1« 'n=nn Dm ^D (McCarter, II Samuel, p. 456). 32. Reading with the qere.

136

The Faces of David 0-3

9act 9ap 9b lOa lOb lla lib 12aa 12ap-ba 12bp-13a 13b 14a 14b 15a 15b 16aa 16ap 16ba 16bp

Smoke rose in his anger/nostrils, Fire from his mouth consumed, Hot coals burned forth from him. He stretched the sky and came down, With darkness under his feet. He rode his Kerub; he flew; He soared upon wings of the wind. He wrapped darkness around himself. His 'booth' was the rain cloud,34 Clouds of mist shining before him,35 Glowing coals of fire burned. Yahweh thundered from the sky, 'Elyon gave his cry. He sent arrows; he scattered them; Lightning; he confused them; The sources of the sea were visible, Foundations of the world revealed, By means of Yahweh's rebuke, From the breath of his nostrils/anger.

17a 17b 18a

From on high, he sent and took me, He pulled me from the great waters. He delivered me from my strong enemies, From my foes, for they were too strong for me. They were before me on the day of my disaster, But Yahweh was my support. He brought me forth to a wide place,36

18b 19a 19b 20a

33. One need not posit an ablative bet: 'Smoke rose from his nostrils.' This understanding is not within the normal range of the Hebrew—as opposed to Ugaritic and Byblonite Phoenician—preposition, and it obscures the dual image evoked by ^N here and in v. 16b. (An ancient scribe would no doubt have noted the delightful image of the deity with smoke in his nose.) 34. In MT, 1PDO has suffered metathesis, appearing as HOO. 35. The form, n3]Q, is an intransitive hiphil participle (with unassimilated nun) from the root, iTG. Cf. the transitive use of this verb in v. 29, and note that it occurs again (with unassimilated nun) as an intransitive in 2 Sam. 23.4. (See Chapter 5.) 36. Cf. Ps. 18.20. 'The present text of S[amuel] can be explained as follows.... The eye of the scribe skipped from the aleph of the verb to the aleph of the preposition, omitting the intervening letters: DmQ1? [K ""]] N^'l; the form 'oti was added subsequently to make up for this omission' (P.M. Cross and D.N. Freedman,

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

137

20b

Equipped me, for he delights in me.

21a

Yahweh rewards me according to my righteousness, As my hands are pure, so he repays me; For I observed the ways of Yahweh, I did no evil before my God; For all his justice was before me, and his statutes; 0*7 I have not turned aside from this, I have become faultless before him;

21b 22a 22b 23a-ba

23b|3 24a

24b 25a 25b

But let me keep myself from my guilt, So that Yahweh may repay me my righteousness, According to my purity before his eyes.

28b

With the faithful you are faithful, With the faultless warrior you are faultless, With the pure you are pure, But with the perverse you are devious. And it is you who deliver an oppressed people, But arrogant eyes you humble.

29a 29b 30a

For you are my lamp, Yahweh, My 'El brightens my darkness. For by you I crush a contingent, 38

26a 26b 27a 27b 28a

'A Royal Song of Thanksgiving', JBL 72 [1953], pp. 15-34 [27 n. 51]). 37. The form, HDDQ, is not problematic. It may have involved a pre-Persian era third person masculine suffix referring to Yahweh, which was construed in later times as referring to npn, or perhaps to an abstract third person feminine suffix referent, 'this [thing/matter]'. However, if npn is indeed plural (as in MT), the Masoretes have placed the athnach in a confusing spot. This judgment will not be accepted by those who seek regular metrical patterns in Hebrew poetry (though ITlpm could be a gloss). 38. The suggestion by McCarter is plausible and may well be correct (McCarter,

138 30b

31a 31ba 31bp 32a 32b 33a

33b 34a 34b 35a 35b

36a 36b 37a 37b

38a

The Faces of David By means of my God, I jump a wall.

'El ! Faultless is his path! The word of Yahweh is tested, A shield is he to all who seek refuge in him. For who is 'El apart from Yahweh? Who is a rock apart from our God? 'El ! My strong refuge!

He sets free the faultlessness of my path,39 Making my feet as though deer's legs. And upon my heights he causes me to stand, Training my hand for war. He causes my arm to bend a bow of bronze.

You give me your shield of deliverance, The humility you [bestowed] magnifies me.40 You widen my stride under me, So that my ankles do not give way.

Let me pursue my enemies and annihilate them!

II Samuel, pp. 468-69). However, interpreting the verb to derive from '{"£~\ seems the simpler solution. 39. Reading with the qere here and in v. 34a. 40. Cf. Ps. 18.36. The sense of "[IT)]!? is one of divinely bestowed humility. MT Samuel could be accepted and translated, 'Your 'Anat magnifies me'. If this is correct, it no doubt derives from pre-Persian times, when Yahweh was not commonly considered a bachelor. The instance of 'Anat with a suffix is paralleled in the Khirbet el-Q6m and Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions, in which 'Asherah occurs with a suffix. See G.I. Davies et al., Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 78-82, 105-106.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22 38b

39a 39b 40a 40b 41a 41b 42a 42b 43a 43b

44a

44ba 44b(5 45b 45a 46b

47a 47b

48a 48b 49a 49ba

139

I will not relent until they are no more!

I crushed them, so they could not 'rebel' [rise], They fell under my feet. You girded me with strength for war; You humiliated my 'rebels' beneath me, My enemies' neck you gave to me.41 As for those hating me, I silenced them; They cried out, but there was no deliverer, To Yahweh, but he answered them not. I ground them up like dust on a path, Like mud on a street, I smashed them.

You freed me from the strife of my people. You kept me, with respect to the head of nations. People I never knew serve me. When a report of me reaches their ear, Foreigners come cringing before me; They tremble from their strongholds.42

Yahweh lives! Blessed be my rock! May my God be exalted! Rock of my deliverance! 'El ! Who gave me vengeance, And subdues peoples under me, Bringing me out from my enemies. Over my 'rebels', you exalt me,

41. For nnn see GKC, p. 69 and J. Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 173, and pp. 114-17. 42. Cf. A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989), p. 261.

140

49bp 50a 50b 51a

51ba 51bp

The Faces of David From the violent man, you preserved me. Therefore, I praise you among the nations, On behalf of your name, I sing, The one who magnifies his king's victories, Doing steadfast loyalty with his anointed, With David, and with his descendants forever.

Many literary studies of David's Song conclude that this poem functions to present the character David as an arrogant and self-centered man. Francisco Garcia-Treto, for example, asserts that this poem presents the 'national myth', the dynastic founder in his official guise.43 According to this view, David is two-dimensional here, superficial; the poem is ill-suited to the literary environment in which it is placed.44 At best, David exposes himself to Hannah's critique, because he is one of those who exalts himself—the very kind of man against whom Hannah's prayer serves as prophetic rebuke.45 One scholar even suggests that an appropriate title for the Song would be 'The Apotheosis of David' ,46 At one level, these suggestions might be deemed to be correct. Since the narrator has opted to insert the poem after a full report of David's less-than-royal conduct, the narrator runs the risk of inadvertently 'deconstructing' his hero. Earlier, the motivation behind the narrator's choice was discussed, and even those conscious choices on his part play into the reading of this text as little more than the royal executive's simplistic 'official' self-representation, one that presents David as those characters inhabiting the world of the book of Kings will remember him. To stop with such a reading, however, is to sell this magnificent poem short. When the narrative flow of the story pauses to give a story-world character time for such a long, intricate soliloquy, it is reasonable to assume that the discourse will have a multivalent function, adding layers of depth to the characterization of the speaker, and to the dynamics of the story. It is interesting to note, for example, that within the story of Genesis 43. 44. 45. 46.

Garcia-Treto, 'Mother's Paean', p. 62. Miscall, 'For David's Sake', pp. 158-59. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 207. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 203.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

141

to Kings, only a very few people bother to sing a iTTtD ('song').47 Laban claims to have wanted to sing songs in sending off Jacob and Laban's daughters, but was prevented from doing so (Gen. 31.27). Barzalai complains that he is old, and can no longer hear such mirth (2 Sam. 19.36). Solomon will be a composer of songs and will order instruments for his singers (1 Kgs 5.12; 10.12). In spite of all this talk of song, only a handful of characters are actually presented singing a iTTCJ. In the story, the moments when characters break into jubilant song are moments of intense drama, intense either for the reader, for the characters, or for both. Twice, victory songs are sung after significant battles—Yahweh's battle against Pharaoh, and Deborah's battle against Sisera (Exod. 15, Judg. 5). Once, Yahweh, insecure about the people's future 'misunderstanding' of their own actions, instructs Moses to teach a didactic song (Deut. 31.19-22, 30), which Moses does in Deuteronomy 32.48 Israel gives voice to exultant joy concerning water in the desert during their period of wilderness wandering (Num. 21.16-18). And, of course, Israelite women sing the praises of Saul and David, introducing the theme of Saul's jealousy (1 Sam. 18.6-8). Given that songs of this kind are so rare in the story, it behooves the reader to give special attention to David's Song. The very fact that he sings one places him in a special class of people inhabiting this storyworld. David stands among the uniquely pious, those who have perceived themselves to have encountered the divine, and wish to, or are compelled to, respond to that perception. Others may speak of singing, but David is presented as having taken the time to do so. When he does, he gives voice to a very long song (one of the longest in the Hebrew

47. The word occurs in two forms, n"V2? and T2J. The term "IIQTQ is associated exclusively with the psalter. The root, HOT, occurs in Genesis to Kings only twice, at Judg. 5.3 and here, in 2 Sam. 22.50. 48. Interestingly enough, this scene (Deut. 31.14-21) is Yahweh's first appearance in the story of what modern scholars call the 'Deuteronomistic History' (see Noth, Deuteronomistic History). If the narrative is read in the form Noth defined, Yahweh's initial action serves to position Yahweh's character in a fascinating way. After what is arguably the longest introductory speech in literature, delivered by Moses, the deity arrives on-stage announcing an obsessive fear (foreknowledge?) that Israel will not march through history as he, the deity, would wish, and sets about giving himself a pre-announced 'I told you so' for future actions. This blustering start turns out to be quite typical of the way in which the God of the Former Prophets is characterized.

The Faces of David

142

Bible), which advances slowly through a series of interlocking images and mini-narrations. It is, in one sense, counter-productive to reduce a complex literature to the bare bones of a skeletal outline. Nevertheless, the following table presents David's Song in a way which highlights its narrative progression and thematic reiteration: Verses

Progression

2b-3

4

Divine Patronage results in Deliverance

5-20

Subject

Theme

General Affirmation

Yahweh is my Patron

Central Affirmation

Praise of Yahweh for Deliverance from Enemies

1st Story

Yahweh rescues from Dire Situation

5-6 7-8

Dire Situation prompts Outcry, which prompts Divine Anger 9-16 Yahweh moves from Temple to David's Side 17-20 Yahweh's Presence results in David's removal from Danger 21-28 21-24a

24b-25

Awesome Power of the Divine Patron Repetition of Affirmation: Yahweh is my Patron/Support 1st Interlude

Past Reward for Past Righteousness, implies Hope for Reward for Future Righteousness

Repetition of Affirmation: Yahweh is my Patron/Rewarder

26-28 29-33a

29-30 31-33a

Theology of Retribution

Doctrine of Retribution (Segue between interludes: arrogant eyes and divinely enabled sight)

2nd Interlude

The Divine Lamp enables the Warrior for it has been Tested

Incomparability of Divine Patron

Repetition of Affirmation: Yahweh is my Patron/Lamp Doctrine of Incomparability

33b-46

33b-35 36-37

(Segue between interlude and 2nd Story: divine shield/refuge equips/protects the warrior) Yahweh (3rd person) equips David for Battle Yahweh (2nd person) equips David for Battle

2nd Story

Yahweh enables the Warrior's Victory

Repetition of Affirmation: Yahweh is my Patron/Shield

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22 Verses

Progression

Subject

David responds with Desire for Battle 39-43 David narrates the Battle 44-46 David enumerates the outcomes of the Battle

143 Theme

38

47-57 47 48-49 50 51

Awesome Power of the Divinely Equipped Warrior David is the Royal Patron Doxology

Confession of Faith in the One Who Delivers results in Praise of the Deliverer Who Exalts David

Summary of Themes Yahweh is my Patron/Rock Yahweh delivered me from Enemies Praise of the Divine Patron Exaltation of the Royal Patron

The poem is a tightly woven fabric consisting of quilt-like thematic and narratival patches. Two affirmations are reiterated throughout: The general affirmation that Yahweh is David's divine patron, and a more specific affirmation of Yahweh's activity on behalf of his chosen king. As a result of this divine choice and activity, David and his line are exalted forever. With these words, David gives voice to his perception that it was Yahweh who had guided his destiny (2 Sam. 5.12). Sometime shortly after Nathan's dynastic oracle of 2 Samuel 7, but before David's fall from grace in 2 Samuel 11, David has paused from royal activity to compose this psalm of praise for his benefactor.49 Foremost in David's mind is the theme which has earlier been identified as the central question of the entire book of Samuel: Why has Yahweh rejected Saul and chosen David?50 Of course, David answers this question in accordance with his own biases (see below), but the theme itself serves as the Leitmotif of the entire Song. This theme is played out in the layered descriptions of David's deliverance from enemies. It will be recalled that the superscription enumerates Saul as the central enemy.51 David invokes Saul's name ironically in v. 6a, S3DD ^WJ ^nn, 'the cords of She'ol/Sha'ul surrounded me'. That this is an allusion to Saul seems clear in that the term She '61 ('Underworld/Grave') occurs only 49. See the argumentation in section 1 of this chapter. 50. For my discussion of this theme, see Chapter 2. 51. 'Saiil occupe une place de choix parmi ces ennemis. II fut vraiment "l'ennemi de David tous les jours" (1 Sam 18,29; cf. 19,17...)...' (Vesco, 'Le psaume 18', p. 33).

144

The Faces of David

twice in the book of Samuel, here and in Hannah's prayer (1 Sam. 2.6).52 These two poetic references to the realm of death frame the tragic story of Saul's rejection in favor of the seemingly less deserving David. As was noted earlier, Hannah's prayer is a virtual foreshadowing of the events to follow, in which the line ^Jn 'j'lWD T~HQ '[Yahweh] brings down to She '61, and raises up' doubles for a blunt description of what the deity will do with Saul and David: '[Yahweh] brings down Saul, then raises [another]'. With Saul's name twice invoked so clearly toward the opening of the Song, the reader is compelled to interpret much of the 'enemies' imagery in light of David's stormy relationship to the former anointed one. Here, one catches a glimpse of David's genuine feelings for Saul; he calls Saul 'Beliya 'aV (v. 5b),53 Death itself (vv. 5a, 6b), the one snaring David and dragging him under like torrential waters (vv. 5-6, 17b). Saul was more powerful than David, says the latter, but it was Yahweh who chose between the two (vv. 18-19). Near the end of the Song, Saul appears to be invoked again, this time as the 'Man of Violence', in v. 49 (cf. 1 Sam. 18.9, 29 [MY], passim). The imagery David employs sheds additional light upon the two major interchanges Saul and David have had in the previously narrated portion of the story, 1 Samuel 24 and 26. On those occasions, David addressed Saul as 'My lord, the king' (1 Sam. 24.9; 26.17, 19) and 'my father' 52. The term is relatively rare throughout the story of Genesis to Kings (Gen. 37.35; 42.38; 44.29, 31; Num. 16.30, 33; Deut. 32.22). In the Former Prophets, Hannah and David are the only two people who invoke She'ol; cf. 1 Kgs 2.6, 9. One would expect the term to appear with more regularity, particularly in Samuel. In spite of the narrative's high death rate, ghostly conjuring (1 Sam. 28) and frequent appeal to the semantic range with which She'ol is associated, the term is usually gapped out. Its presence framing Saul's story is therefore quite striking. 53. 'Beliya'al' occurs seventeen times in the story of Genesis to Kings. The basic contextually determined meaning is mundane—anyone who harbors unethical designs is a Beliya 'al; essentially it is a slang term for an unsavory person. More often than not, the epithet is employed by story-world characters. The narrator uses it in five situations: to describe the rapists of Gibeah (Judg. 19.22); the sons of Eli (1 Sam. 2.12); the ones who reject Saul in 1 Sam. 10.27; and one who rejects David in 2 Sam. 20.1; also, parroting Jezebel, the narrator describes her henchman with this word (1 Kgs 21.13). Other characters who employ this slang term include Moses (Deut. 13.14; 15.9); the men of Israel in Judg. 20.13; Hannah (1 Sam. 1.16); a young man who is either in Nabal's employ or who is working for David and deceiving Abigail (the context is unclear) in 1 Sam. 25.17; Abigail (1 Sam. 25.25); Shimei ben Gera (2 Sam. 16.7) and Jezebel (1 Kgs 21.10).

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

145

(1 Sam. 24.12). The terms of endearment were hollow as the context implied. The reader has already followed the clues set down by the author, noting that David's words in these two scenes are not what they seem.54 When David bows before Saul, it is not as one who attempts reconciliation—the hard edge of his words implies threat. David's men are not far off stage and Saul knows it. Therefore, instead of returning to Gibeah with Saul, reconciled to his 'lord and father', David invokes a curse, asking Yahweh to avenge David on Saul (1 Sam. 24.13). Perhaps the curse is a call for Yahweh to do what David cannot bring himself to do. It was noted in Chapter 3 that David appears to be a Hamlet-like figure with respect to Saul both in 1 Samuel 24 and again in ch. 26. He wishes to have Saul out of the way, so that Yahweh's destiny might be fulfilled—a destiny conveniently matching David's own ambitions. Yet, like Hamlet, David cannot bring himself to the fatal blow. His frequently repeated excuse for inaction is that Saul is the anointed of Yahweh, and is therefore taboo. Now, with the epithets for Saul employed in the Song, the reader notes that it was not just empty rhetoric. Saul is more than mortal man in David's eyes; he is Death itself, the abyss, the raging waters, from which only Yahweh is able to pluck poor David. David affirms that it was Yahweh who fulfilled the curse David utters in 1 Samuel 24: ^ nap] ]nn ^n, 'El! Who gives me vengeance!' (v. 48).55 Here, the reader is exposed to a very vulnerable aspect of David's personality; if David has an Achilles' heel, it is the man Saul. Little wonder that David's hubris does not overcome him until well after Saul is dead. Not until the man-giant who strikes this obsessive fear and wonderment is gone will David emerge from the shadow of his own anxiety. Nevertheless, the Song overlays that undercurrent of mortal fear with the exultant thanksgiving for deliverance from, defeat of, the enemy, the Belly a'al, Saul. With Saul's ghostly presence so much to the fore in this poem, it is no surprise to find the second interlude and second story (see chart above, pp. 142-43) specifically alluding to David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1. Themes and vocabulary employed in the 54. See above, pp. 82-84. 55. The ironic contrast involving a root, Dp], which is rare in Samuel, is quite marked: Saul desired vengeance on his enemies, but never attained it (1 Sam. 14.24; cf. 18.25). Thus, David's desire in 1 Sam. 24.13, the fulfillment of which he here announces, stands in stark contrast.

146

The Faces of David

Lament are reiterated here, but for Saul, these terms designated his demise, for David, his protection. If Saul's shield is rejected upon the heights (rrm, pa; 2 Sam. 1.19, 21), Yahweh has become David's shield, who places him upon those heights (mQ3, pa; 2 Sam. 22.31, 34, 36). Or again, the ones who were swifter than eagles and mightier than lions are fallen (^D], mn«, Dnt&]; 2 Sam. 1.23; cf. 1.19, 25,27), but David has the swiftness of a deer and is caused by Yahweh to stand pN "DDK p 2 Sam. 22.34). Jonathan and Saul were tools of war, who delivered Israel, but do so no more (nnn^Q ^D; 2 Sam. 1.27; cf. 1.22-24); David's hands are trained for war, he receives Yahweh's shield of deliverance, and becomes Israel's new war machine pN "DDK p 2 Sam. 22.35-36; cf. 22.39-43). There is a sense in which the poem metaphorically describes what David bluntly announces to Michal in 2 Sam. 6.21: '... [Yahweh] chose me over your father and all his house...' Similar allusions position David on a par with Jonathan; thus, Jonathan's bow (nc?p) has been replaced by a new one (2 Sam. 1.22; 2 Sam. 22.35; cf. 1 Sam. 18.4). But in contrast to the polemical theme of replacing Saul, David, who loved Jonathan, does not overtly defame Saul's son. David subtly evokes the most glorious moment of Jonathan's career. It will be recalled that when Saul was king, the only truly 'theophanic' victory among his battles was initiated by Jonathan. In 1 Samuel 14, Jonathan and his armor bearer single-handedly cut down the foes, and as they did so, Yahweh's presence was felt: A divine trembling descended upon the human soldiers, and the earth quaked (tri; 1 Sam. 14.15; cf. 2 Sam. 22.8ay).56 Similarly, when David fought the Philistines, Yahweh manifested himself (2 Sam. 5.22-25).57 Except for Samuel's miracles (1 Samuel 7, 12), Yah wen's battle with Dagan (1 Samuel 5) and occasional references to the trappings of the divine court, such as in 1 Sam. 4.4 (cf. 2 Sam. 6.2), these are the only references in Samuel which might evoke the exciting 'mythological' imagery David conjures up in the Song. In this way, David is able to capitalize on his own enjoyment of the divine patron and, at the same time, allude to the legendary status of his one-time companion, Jonathan (and perhaps also to his old benefactor, Samuel).58 56. For the textual issues in this verse, see McCarter, / Samuel, pp. 236-37. 57. A number of textual difficulties present themselves in these verses; cf. McCarter, // Samuel, pp. 151-53. 58. It is possible but not entirely certain that the character, David, would have learned of Samuel's activities (cf. 1 Sam. 19.18, for example); presumably, however,

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

147

Although David's victory over Saul is the primary theme of the Song, it is by no means the only one. The superscription singled out Saul, but also mentioned David's 'enemies' generally. These are crushed by the mighty warrior in the second story (see chart above, pp. 142-43). The enemies of David are many in the Song. Obviously, they include foreign powers, which David, through the aid of Yahweh, has subdued (2 Sam. 8; cf. 8.6b, 14b). With Yahweh's patronage, foreigners serve David and come trembling before him (2 Sam. 22.44-46, 48b). The Song is aptly labeled a 'royal' psalm.59 The line of v. 44ba is a particularly creative allusion to David's relationship with the goyim: D"1")} WCb ^"iQEJn, 'You kept/observed/guarded me, with respect to the head of nations'. Many readers, ancient and modern, have considered this line odd.60 Its unique turn of phrase is understandable when the literary double entendre it conveys is appreciated. On the one hand, David offers a typically royalistic boast: He is not just a king, but has been observed by the patron deity to be the head of all nations (a statement which is clearly false both within the story-world and within the realm of ancient Syro-Palestinian history). In David's selfperception, the events of 2 Samuel 8 render him all-powerful. He has subdued the goyim. With David, truly Israel has become 'like the nations' (Deut. 17.14; cf. 1 Sam. 8.5, 20). The line conveys a second sense. David's use of the verb ~1Q^ ('to keep, guard, observe') is an unambiguous reference to his relationship with King Achish in 1 Samuel 27-29. It will be recalled that, in David's mind, the Philistines are the goyim par excellence, they are the D^~15J, the 'foreskins' (2 Sam. 1.20; cf. 1 Sam. 17.26, 36; perhaps a psychological reflection of David's earlier habit of forcibly circumcising so many of them—1 Sam. 18.27). When David entered into a treaty (either he would have known of Jonathan's exploits if by no other means than from Jonathan himself. 59. For the conception of the genre called 'royal psalm', see von Rad, Israel's Historical Traditions, pp. 318-24. H.-J. Kraus is more hesitant to label this poem unequivocally 'royal', although he includes it among the usual list of 'royal psalms' (Kraus, Psalms 1-59: A Commentary [trans. H.C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988 (from the revised German edn, 1978)], pp. 56-57, 252-66). 60. An ancient scribe appears to have been dissatisfied with the verb; cf. Ps. 18.44. In modern scholarship, similar consternation can be seen. For example, Cross and Freedman believe that the verb is so ill-suited to what follows that something must have dropped out of the text (Cross and Freedman, 'A Royal Song', p. 33 n. 98).

148

The Faces of David

parity or vassal) with Achish, he was to "Ifttf? Achish's 2?N"I (1 Sam. 28.2), that is to say, he was to observe the head of a goy. When he was driven out of his treaty relationship, he was accused of seeking to return to Saul's favor by means of the D'lZKO of the Philistine generals (1 Sam. 29.4). The Song's line shimmers with allusion both to David's past and his glorious present. But the enemies of David in the Song are not just Saul and the goyim. Earlier, it was discussed how David's enemies include 'rebels', that is, Hebrews who challenge David's authority. The term "ftp seems to refer to several levels of internal strife. As was mentioned, David occasionally had to contend with the rabble within his own ranks, and being the faithful Yahwist that he was, relied upon his God for assistance (e.g. 1 Sam. 30.6). However, ""Qp might also refer to the fact that David fought a civil war with the house of Saul (2 Samuel 2-4). Most probably, it is this to which David refers when he thanks Yahweh for freeing him from 'the strife of my people' (2 Sam. 22.44a). Since David was anointed by Samuel on behalf of Yahweh (1 Sam. 16), and since Samuel believed that the dynastic throne would pass from Saul to another (1 Sam. 13.14; cf. 16.1), the reader has every reason to believe that David construes his own actions against the house of Saul to be in accordance with the divine will. Thus, the house of Saul would be his 'rebels'. As we have seen, David's certainty on the matter is not iron-clad. He will later easily be brought to a level of self-doubt for actions against Saul's heirs (2 Sam. 16.5-13).61 Nevertheless, it may be that when David sang this Song, he had taken the words of the sons of Rimmon to heart (2 Sam. 4.8), and interpreted the death of Ishba'al as a divine act, just as he also implies that Abner's death was the result of Yahweh's patronage (2 Sam. 3.33-34).62 Thus the 'enemies' of David in the Song can be variously perceived as Saul, foreign powers, Hebrew rabble, and the house of Saul, including Abner and Ishba'al, possibly also the seven men of 2 Samuel 21. Sequestered within the metaphorical language of the Song lurk all the obstacles, hardships, pain, uncertainties, self-doubts of David's past from 1 Samuel 16 to 2 Samuel 8 or 9. The poem represents David's personal 'take' on these events, his public presentation of them.

61. See my discussion in section 1 of this chapter. 62. See above, pp. 85-86.

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

149

David's Character as Revealed in the Song The Song of 2 Samuel 22 has been presented to the reader twice. First, the narrator employs this song as a way of winding down his presentation of David on a positive note. As will be seen in the next chapter, the narrator's choice of narrational position was designed to permit his narratee to interpret the Song in conjunction with the 'Last Words' presented in 2 Sam. 23.1-7. Secondly, the author has created a story-world structure in which sufficient clues indicate that the character, David, uttered this Song much earlier in story-time, probably not long after Nathan's dynastic oracle of 2 Samuel 7. The poem expresses David's world-view at the peak of his career, and exposes to view both his confidence and lurking uncertainties about his own past, present and future. At this point, one might pause to note how much light this Song sheds on the characterization of David. David ascribes his triumph to Yahweh. In some cases, David's attribution seems justified in light of narrated events. In other cases, David clearly reads divine patronage into Realpolitik. Perhaps the man David is not as comfortable with the royal boasting of triumph as is the king David. So long as the victory is God's, it is legitimate in David's eyes. In spite of his words to the sons of Rimmon (2 Sam. 4.9-12), in spite of his troubled sense of fallibility in the death of Abner (2 Sam. 3), in spite of his sinking heart when even symbolically attacking Saul (1 Sam. 24.6), David takes strength in Yahweh. There are instances when that refuge might be more of an ethical crutch than a genuine shelter. It is interesting that all of David's troubles, self-doubts and uncertainties are thrust onto the deity's shoulders. The faithful Yahwist relies on his God to alleviate himself of his self-perceived failings. If David's success is due to Yahweh, then, he implies, his 'victories', no matter how ethically questionable some may have been, are the deity's ultimate responsibility as well. Behind the praise for patronage stands a catharsis for guilt. 'He delivered me from my strong enemies. From my foes, for they were too strong for me... May my God be exalted! Rock of my deliverance! "El! Who gave me vengeance!' (vv. 18, 47-48a). The irony that lies just beneath the text's surface cannot be missed. Yet the poem is consistent with David's character in the prose story. It was David who said of Joab and his brother, 'I, this day, am weak, yet anointed king. But these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too difficult for me...' (2 Sam. 3.39a). The obscure line of the poem which reads "]ni3^1 "^Tin (v. 36b) seems to be a reflection of David's vulnerable side; David is keenly

150

The Faces of David

aware of his own humility, lowliness, and full dependency upon Yahweh's patronage: 'Your [bestowed] humility has magnified me.' David's character, as revealed in the Song, might be summarized as childlike. As noted above, the very fact that David sings this Song exposes to the reader a side of David's personality that not even the long (and self-serving) prayer of 2 Samuel 7 could reveal. The genuineness of David's childlike dependence upon Yahweh is here more than anywhere since the Goliath story (1 Samuel 17) thrust to the fore. The childlike attraction and revulsion of David vis-a-vis Saul is equally thrust forward. David's anxiety that he not be held responsible for his replacement of both Saul and Saul's house seems again to reflect a tendency to retreat from story-world reality toward the comfort of a divine patronfigure. Nowhere is this simplicity, this black-and-white worldview, more to the fore than in the first interlude (see chart above, pp. 142-43). Here David answers the book of Samuel's central question in the most naive possible way: David believes that Yahweh has rejected Saul and chosen David because David was uniquely deserving. 'Yahweh has repaid me according to my righteousness; As my hands were pure, so he has rewarded me; because I observed the paths of Yahweh' (vv. 21-22a).63 It has been noted several times that David has every reason to believe that Yahweh truly does consider his actions righteous. He, David, was anointed to replace Saul and Saul's house. Since David sang the Song before the events of 2 Samuel 11, there is little doubt that, so far as David is concerned, his words constitute a simple description of storyworld reality. The reader, of course, cannot agree, though the reader's reasons for dissent have nothing to do with David's story-world conduct. The reader knows much about divine retribution that David does not, and cannot, know. Even if one limits oneself to the portion of the story occurring during David's lifetime, it is evident that Yahweh is not in the habit of rewarding and punishing according to the rigid retributional scheme David proclaims (vv. 26-28). If David proclaims his own innocence in the Song, the reader recalls that Saul too had made this claim (1 Sam. 15.20). As David Gunn has demonstrated, there is nothing in the narration of the story to contradict 63. Vesco notes that the retributional section of the Song (22.21-31) echoes David's insistence earlier in the story on his own innocence: 1 Sam. 20.1; 20.8, among others (Vesco, 'Le psaume 18', p. 41).

4. David's Song, 2 Samuel 22

151

Saul in this matter;64 he really is a faithful and righteous Yahwist, as the deity and Moses would define such matters. Nevertheless, Yahweh fails to 'repent' of divine anger against Saul, even when both Saul and Samuel team up to make expiation for an inadvertent sin which Saul might have committed.65 Nor, from Saul's perspective, do the words uttered by Saul in 1 Sam. 24.18-20 genuinely place David on a morally superior level. Saul, as was seen, was voicing the flattering words of a man trapped, and with little other choice than to beg his way out. As will be seen in the next chapter, David's conduct as king will not be entirely 'righteous' in the future either, even had the sins of 2 Samuel 11 never been committed. Thus, the Song both exposes David's personality in greater detail than ever before known to the reader, and at the same time introduces another complication to the plot. When the narrational delay in the Song's presentation is perceived, the reader is jolted by the realization that old David is not a hypocrite proclaiming his righteousness in spite of events, but rather, young David is a naive believer in the doctrine of divine retribution. The reader wonders, will David as he ages continue to remain blissfully ignorant of Yahweh's unreliability in the matter of retribution? Will David remain in even greater darkness than the reader concerning the central theme of Samuel?66 The author has created a narrator who chose to delay the telling of David's Song until quite late in the narration of David's story. Therefore, the reader will not have to wait long to find an answer to this new ripple in the ever-increasingly complex tale which is the book of Samuel.

64. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul. 65. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 143-44. 66. For the reader's confusion concerning the book's central question, see Chapter 2.

Chapter 5 DAVID'S ORACLE, 2 SAMUEL 23.1-7 1. The Literary Context of David's Oracle In the previous two chapters, an extended discussion has demonstrated that the partially unreliable narrator has not told as much about David as he knows. The implied author1 of the tale has embedded clues enabling a reader to respond with some suspicion to the narrator's version of events. If the reader has chosen to go behind the narrator's report (and a reader need not necessarily choose to do so) to reconstruct what seems to have 'actually happened' in story-world reality, the portrait of David that emerges from the textual clues is somewhat more complicated than one might suspect from a surface-level reading. David's character emerging from this story is both attractive and repulsive, both humane and sadly all too human. David can be intensely loyal (to Jonathan, for example) and selfishly manipulative (of Jonathan, Michal, the priests of Nob, etc.). He is ambitious, cunning, quick to capitalize on every situation. David seems to desire the fate for which Yahweh has chosen him, appears to have taken steps to set that destiny in motion while Saul was still alive, but appears reluctant to take drastic measures, such as murdering Saul, to accomplish his desire.2 When at last he rests on his throne and surveys his realm from Jerusalem, David 'knows' that it was Yahweh who sponsored his rise (2 Sam. 5.12).3 Or at least, this seems to be David's interpretation of his fate, for he sings a 1. As in previous chapters, the implied author will be designated the 'author'. 2. See pp. 81-86 above. 3. From the syntax of 2 Sam. 5.12, it is unclear who has interpreted David's rise as being 'for the benefit of [Yahweh's] people, Israel'. Probably David, but this might be the narrator's interpretation. No doubt, Yahweh would agree with it, at least publicly, as in 2 Sam. 7.8-1 la. David echoes the theme in his prayer of 2 Sam. 7.1829, though, as was seen, David has his own agenda in that prayer (cf. pp. 111-16 above).

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

153

majestic song of praise to his divine patron (2 Sam. 22). Now David will speak one last soliloquy, his 'last words'. Unlike David's Song in 2 Samuel 22, the narrator has left the reader in no doubt as to when in story-world time the poem of 2 Sam. 23.1b-7 was uttered. The narrator highlights that these are the 'last words' of David (2 Sam. 23.la). If the author wanted the reader to doubt the narrator's assertion concerning the story-world time of utterance, some clue would have been embedded into the story-world structure. The absence of such a clue gives the reader confidence to assume that these are indeed the last words of the character David. Thus these words are uttered by the old king on his deathbed, presumably sometime (shortly?) after the events of 1 Kgs 2.1-9, and just prior to the notice at 2.10: 'Then David slept with his ancestors, and he was buried in the City of David'. In narrational time, the two poems appear back to back (2 Sam. 22.123.7); in story-world reality, the Song was composed by David some three decades earlier than the deathbed poem.4 When the Song was sung, David had reached the apex of his career, having subdued many enemies, internal and external, and having enjoyed the patronage of Yahweh, a deity who can be counted upon (so David thought) to reward righteousness and punish injustice. 'Yahweh rewards me according to my righteousness/As my hands are pure, so he repays me' (2 Sam. 22.21). During the decades following the singing of David's Song, much has transpired. David executed the majority of Saul's male heirs, after having vowed before Yahweh not to do this (1 Sam. 24.22-23a). He placed Jonathan's son under house arrest, after having led Jonathan to believe that he would show kindness (1 Sam. 20.12-17). David raped Bathsheba and murdered Uriah (2 Sam. 11), then watched more or less helplessly as the house over which he presided disintegrated into chaos (2 Sam. 13-20).5 Finally, in old age and ill health, David passively 'condoned' a coup, resulting in the eventual death of one of his sons, the elevation of another to the throne, and the final plans for revenge against two men, one of whom had been his most loyal ally (1 Kings 1-2). 4. See Chapter 4. 5. S. Lasine argues that David does more than watch helplessly. His actions display an inability to maintain connection with reality, and therefore contribute to the chaos as a kind of catalyst (Lasine, 'Melodrama as Parable: The Story of the Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb and the Unmasking of David's Topsy-Turvy Emotions', HAR 8 [1984], pp. 101-24 [114-21]).

154

The Faces of David

After all this, it is very possible that the optimism expressed by David in his Song will have given way to a very different mood as he lies upon his deathbed. But is this the case? David's final words in 2 Sam. 23.1b-7 are enigmatic and not so easily summarized as to mood or message. The final words of David present the reader with several anomalies. First, the narrator has chosen to narrate this utterance out of sequence, prior to David's final actions as king in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Kings 1-2. Why? Secondly, David utters an 'oracle' (QK3), that is, a prophetic speech.6 Nowhere in the story of Genesis to Kings has a king, other than Saul, been presented as a prophet, nor has David himself been shown to prophesy.7 Why does David present himself in this way? Surely, he does not wish to imitate Saul (1 Sam. 19.23-24). Thirdly, the content of the poem is obscure to say the least. It is possible that some of the impenetrability of David's final words is due to textual corruption in the process of transmission.8 Assuming, however, that the main thrust of the text is intact, one is confronted by a sometimes incoherent series of metaphorical images and vague pronouncements. How can the reader account for these three anomalies? The first two will be addressed (not necessarily resolved) in this section, the third in section 2, below. The narrator's motive in presenting this poem out of story-world sequence is not entirely clear. Several good suggestions have been made. First, the narrator appears to be fond of presenting back-to-back speeches prior to the narrated death of major story-world characters. The most obvious examples of this are the poems of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 6. The term Dtf] is unambiguously associated with prophetic utterance. Outside of this poem, DN] occurs more than 350 times in the Hebrew Bible, and with two possible exceptions, always on the lips of either Yahweh or a human serving the prophetic role (either genuinely or falsely). The two exceptions are both parodies on prophecy, prophets and prophetic concerns: First, there is the speech of the 'brutish' anti-prophet, Agur ben Jakeh, in Prov. 30.1. Secondly, there is Psalm 36, in which 'Rebellion' utters seduction and is denounced accordingly and in prophetic-like terms (Ps. 36.2-5). 7. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, p. 101. Polzin explores the relationship of Saul to prophecy and prophets in ch. 3 of his monograph, and returns to that theme regularly. 8. 'Unhappily, the poem is very badly preserved' (Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 234). Cross describes portions as 'difficult' and even 'hopelessly corrupt' (Cross, p. 235, notes 73, 77). Although a reading of MT as found in BHS would be compatible with the general outlines of the interpretation I will advance, I have, in agreement with most commentators, concluded that MT requires substantial emendation with the aid of the versions. See my notes in section 2 of this chapter.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

155

and 339 and the two deathbed scenes narrated for Jacob in Genesis 48 and 49. Another example might be the dual didactic sermons of Joshua in Joshua 23 and 24. Samuel is presented delivering two rather lengthy sermons, though not back-to-back, in 1 Samuel 8 and 12. Thus, it may be that the narrator's choice with respect to David's poems in 2 Samuel 22 and 23.1-7 is guided by the narrator's penchant for this artful method of rounding off the narrational conclusion to a character's life. A second aspect of the narrator's motive might be to protect David's image. The story-world reality is that David's death scene is anything but heroic (1 Kgs 1-2). He is manipulated easily by his courtiers, and becomes vindictive in his treatment of Joab and Shimei. The rhetorical effect of David's 'Oracle', as the narrator perceives that effect (to be discussed momentarily), might have been muted or undermined if the Oracle had appeared in proper sequence. By removing the Oracle from its position immediately after David's vindictive directions concerning Joab and Shimei in 1 Kings 2, the narrator is able to down play any seeming hypocrisy which might have been highlighted by their juxtaposition had he narrated according to story-world time. James Watts suggests that the narrator has an additional reason for wishing to present the Oracle of David in connection with the Song of 2 Samuel 22. The narrator's perception of the Oracle's rhetorical effect dictates the narrator's use of the poem in his presentation of the story. Together, the two poems serve the narrator more forcefully than each would have done on its own. By combining them, the narrator reinforces in the narratee's mind the dual emphases most important to the narrator's concern: While the psalm [2 Samuel 22] emphasizes David's personal piety and thanksgiving, the Last Words reveal the didactic orientation of a wisdom poem, emphasizing for the Davidic dynasty the necessity of just rule... The poems...work together to show the unique degree to which Yahweh supported David. For the most part, the Thanksgiving looks back on David's career, while the Last Words look forward to future Davidic kings who will be judged by the extent to which they followed in David's footsteps. Thus, while providing an idealistic conclusion to David's career, the poem also prepares the way for the history which follows.10

In support of this suggestion that the two poems are indivisible in the 9. R.J. Tournay, 'Les dernieres paroles de David', RB 88 (1981), pp. 481-504 (503, and citations there). 10. Watts, Psalm and Story, p. 170.

156

The Faces of David

narrator's mind, one might note the degree to which the themes of the two poems overlap, and yet the way in which each poem addresses those themes from a different perspective. Jean-Luc Vesco highlights a variety of thematic parallels, such as: — David's election: 2 Sam. 23.1 and 22.51 — David's exaltation: 2 Sam. 23.1 and 22.34,49 [cf. 44-45] — The Divine Rock: 2 Sam. 23.3 and 22.2-3, 32,47 — The Theme of Illumination: 2 Sam. 23.4 and 22.29, and so on.11

In spite of these and other thematic similarities, the two poems present David the speaker in very different ways. The former emphasizes David's roles as warrior and pious Yahwist par excellence; the latter presents him as prophetic herald pronouncing Yahweh's will for the future dynasty's dispensation of justice. It is telling to note that where the Song is wholly personal ('Israel' is never mentioned12), the Oracle packages that person as the necessary tonic for the nation's well-being ('Israel/ Jacob' is stressed).13 Thus, for the narrator, these two poems present two interconnected sides of David and therefore must be presented together; for presented separately, each fails to highlight the fullness of the thematic agenda dear to the narrator's heart. This may be part of the reason why the narrator delays report of the Song for a considerable period, brings the report of the Oracle forward in an effort to separate it from the possibly tarnishing words of 1 Kgs 2.5-6, 8-9, and sandwiches the two into a characteristic summary report situated near the end of his narration of David's career. A final reason for the narrator's use of the Oracle prior to David's deathbed scene and in conjunction with the Song of 2 Samuel 22 lies with the nature of David's self-presentation: David claims prophetic insight; the narrator has structured his story in a way that gives priority to, and places structural weight on, prophetic figures. It will be recalled that the character nearest to the narrator's own self-perception is the greatest prophet, Moses (Deut. 34.10).14 The passing of Moses marks a, 11. Vesco, 'Le psaume 18', RB 94 (1987), p. 55. 12. D.K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 (JSOTSup, 153; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 76. 13. Vesco, 'Le psaume 18', p. 55 n. 118. 14. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, pp. 18-72. My study employs a somewhat different methodology than that employed by Polzin, and the distinctions made here between a theoretical construct called 'narrator' and a theoretical construct called 'implied author' result in certain differences. See Chapter 1, above.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

157

perhaps the, decisive moment in the plot's advancement, from the period of Israel's formation (Abraham to Moses) to the period of Israel's existence in the land of promise (Joshua to Jehoiachin). Likewise, the narrator has paused in his account to stress the final words of other prophets and prophet-like figures (Joshua in Josh. 23-24; the messenger of Yahweh in Judg. 2; the man of God in 1 Sam. 2; Samuel in 1 Sam. 8 and 12; Nathan in 2 Sam. 7; the narrator himself in a variety of places, such as 2 Kgs 17).15 Apparently, the narrator pauses here to mark another decisive transition, from charismatic leadership to dynastic rule, by presenting the words of a 'prophet', David, who will set the narrator's theological agenda by announcing Yahweh's will for appropriate future conduct. For the narrator, the Song and the Oracle present David not only as pious and chosen, but as the authoritative 'deuteronomistic' voice which evaluates events according to the narrator's interpretation of Yahweh's interpretation of events. According to the narrator, David's Song explains Saul's rejection and David's election; the Oracle presents the Davidic dynasty's role as in accordance with the divine will for the benefit of Israel. If, in the narrator's view, Nathan announced this change of plan in 2 Samuel 7, David here initiates it. The author, of course, does not necessarily agree with the narrator's take on this issue.16 The story-world created by the author presents a deity whose actual motives in the rejection of Saul remain a mystery, whose choice of David appears to be more or less arbitrary, and whose decisions are not always made according to strict deuteronomistic definitions of retribution.17 Interestingly enough, the author does not share the narrator's enthusiasm for prophets and prophecy. A curious tendency of prophetic failure in the Former Prophets is apparent at even a casual reading. One scholar accounts for this tendency with the suggestion that the real-world author/redactor of the Former Prophets attempted to parody the social phenomenon of prophecy.18 Be that as it may, the effect upon the story 15. Noth, Deuteronomistic History, pp. 5-6 and passim; D.J. McCarthy, 'II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 131-38. 16. It will be seen that David does not necessarily agree with the narrator either. 17. See my discussion in Chapters 1 and 2. 18. B. Peckham, History and Prophecy: The Development of Late Judaean Literary Traditions (ABRL; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), pp. 8 and 25 n. 9.

158

The Faces of David

of prophetic failure as designed by the author is to place all prophets in the shadow of the towering figure of Moses, who remains the greatest of all prophets in the eyes of the narrator (Deut. 34.10). A few examples of prophetic actions and words which are less than appropriate to the office of prophet will suffice to highlight the dynamic of the authorial presentation of prophets and prophecy. When Huldah responds to King Josiah's query (2 Kgs 22), she foretells Josiah's peaceful demise, a prophecy which undermines her status according to Moses' injunction of Deut. 18.21-22. The liar-prophet of 1 Kings 13 and the prophet whom he dupes have the effect of presenting the reader with an all too human side of prophecy. Micaiah ben Imlah knowingly offers untrue information, and only after questioning admits his deception (1 Kgs 22); moreover, he presents the deity as one who himself will knowingly deceive humans through prophecy. Elijah wallows in self-pity and fails to carry out all of Yahweh's directives (1 Kgs 19). According to the received text of Kings, when the prophet Isaiah announces that the king of Assyria 'will hear a rumor and return to his land' (2 Kgs 19.7), events prove Isaiah a failure: The Assyrian does hear a rumor but does not start packing (2 Kgs 19.9-19). Similarly, Elisha announces great things to the three kings of 2 Kings 3, but the greatest of his announcements—victory over Moab—is the one thing which turns out to be a false prophecy. These examples from the Former Prophets could be multiplied. It is not an exaggeration to say that virtually every prophet in the Former Prophets fails fully to live up to the ideal that the narrator, basing himself on Moses' example, tends to stress.19 In every case, the aspects of the prophets' careers that undermine the narrator's emphasis on the vital importance of prophecy are embedded in the tale by the author, but never stressed, only mentioned in passing, by the narrator. Within the book of Samuel, this tendency of the author to undermine prophets and prophecy is well pronounced. Numerous scholars have highlighted the less than flattering portrayal of Samuel himself, who strikes the reader as a rather dense, self-centered, perhaps even self-

19. The flawed characterization of the prophets, a product of the implied author's story-world, plays into the narrator's desire to subordinate all the prophets after the time of Moses to the image of Moses as greatest prophet (Deut. 34.10). This has ramifications also for the narrator's emulation of Moses, posturing thus as the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18.15). See pp. 31-35 above.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

159

serving, man.20 Nathan is given the task of announcing an 'unconditional' dynastic promise which is overturned by the deity in 2 Kings 25 (Jehoiachin's obituary notice twice refers to his death but does not mention an heir). Later, Nathan is presented as one who is embroiled in decidedly non-prophetic political intrigue (1 Kgs 1). Gad's role as David's prophetic advisor does not provide David with sure guidance (1 Sam. 22.5; 2 Sam. 24). As a prophet, Gad is essentially useless.21 By contrast, non-prophets do quite well in anticipating the future as God's will. Hannah, for example, whom the narrator never defines as a prophet, anticipates the story-line to follow.22 Abigail, whose words are the flattery of a trapped woman attempting to worm out of almost certain doom, is remarkably prescient (1 Sam. 25.28). The human characters surrounding Saul in 1 Samuel 16 are able to interpret divine activity in Saul's demeanor without the aid of divination or prophecy.23 Once again, these examples in Samuel could be multiplied, but they are sufficient to demonstrate that David's self-proclamation as prophet, even if true (a question which will be explored momentarily), will not necessarily encourage the reader to place any great authority in his words. Unlike the narrator, the reader will look to David's words to better understand David, not to better understand Yahweh or unfolding story-world events. So the question remains, why does David present himself as a prophet in his 'Last Words'? A definitive answer to this question remains an expositional gap in the narrative. David, as the narrator has presented his story, has never filled the role of a prophet. Given the narrator's enthusiasm for prophets, had David filled this role at any time, the reader would likely have been told about it. It may be that the ancient reader would interpret a deathbed utterance as uniquely inspired by divinity (as might be the case in, say, Gen. 49), but the reader would have to import that interpretation into the text, since the narrator has not given any indication. On the contrary, given the way the author permits his narrator to present this oracle, there is no reason to assume that the deathbed

20. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 84-88 and passim; Eslinger, Into the Hands, ch. four; R.C. Bailey, 'The Redemption of YHWH', pp. 221-24. 21. 'Gad is only a pale reflection of Samuel and Nathan' (Miscall, '2 Samuel 24', p. 73). 22. See pp. 76-78 above. 23. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, p. 156.

160

The Faces of David

situation heightens the oracle's significance as prophecy.24 At best, the author might permit, but does not encourage, that kind of 'spin' on the scene.25 Clearly, however, David perceives himself to be (or wishes his hearers to perceive him to be) a prophet. He introduces himself as one who utters an oracle (Dtf])26 and states explicitly that the oracle derives from Yahweh (vv. l-3a). Oddly, the form of David's Oracle does not conform to that of a biblical prophetic oracle.27 In fact, if this poem had not appeared in a narrative context, it would be more at home in Proverbs than in one of the Latter Prophets (cf. Prov. 4.18).28 Also, the 'oracle' is very short, appearing only in vv. 3b-4.29 Verses l-3a introduce the oracle and belabor the alleged 'fact' of David's prophetic role, while vv. 5-7 appear to reflect introspectively upon the content of the oracle. 24. For example, the narrator did not announce in 2 Sam. 23. la:' or the like. (It should be noted that throughout the Former Prophets, 'genuine' prophecy is affirmed either by direct confirmation in subsequent events, by affirmation in the direct speech of the character Yahweh, or by direct affirmation of the narrator. However, in the latter instance, the reader will trust the narrator's judgment in those cases where neither narrational details nor Yahweh contradict his summary statements.) 25. The scene certainly was interpreted as 'prophetic' in Roman times. See the Qumran text of the first century CE, in J.A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll ofQumran Cave 11 (llQPsa) (DID, 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965), p. 48 and pi. XVI. Of course, in Roman times, Jews and Christians alike were eager to bestow 'prophetic' status on many texts which are not amenable to the label. 26. For the significance of the term, see my n. 6, p. 155. 27. At a minimum, one would expect David's Oracle to conform to a few very basic elements common to many examples of biblical prophecy, such as an explicit or implicit reference to the hearer's life-situation followed by an announcement of divine threat or divine promise with respect to that situation (cf., for example, the announcement of a 0*711? rP"D in Jer. 32.36-41). On characteristic prophetic style in biblical oracles, see W.E. March, The Basic Types of Prophetic Speech', in J.H. Hayes (ed.), Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1974), pp. 157-75. 28. Tournay, 'Paroles de David', p. 494. See also Ps. 72.6, the context of which is a sapientializing prayer to God on behalf of the king, not an oracle from God concerning the king. 29. Most commentators recognize only vv. 3b-4 as the 'prophetic oracle' proper. See, for example, H.N. Richardson, The Last Words of David: Some Notes on II Samuel 23:1-7', JBL 90 (1971), pp. 257-266 (259-60); McCarter, II Samuel, p. 480, note on v. 2; Anderson, 2 Samuel, p. 267; Tournay, 'Paroles de David', pp. 482-83,494. But see also the next note.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

161

Jon Levenson is correct in his observation that David echoes Nathan's oracle of 2 Samuel 7 in v. 5,30 but it is interesting to note that David does not announce a divine promise as a prophet would (contrast, for example, the rhetorical thrust of Ps. 89.20-38; Ezek. 37.24-28, etc.), but reflects upon a promise that he presumes to be established already.31 Thus, v. 5 is not intended by David to be interpreted as part of the 'prophecy'. Rather, it is the beginning of David's commentary on the oracle of vv. 3b-4, commentary expressed in light of Nathan's prophecy in 2 Samuel 7. The oracle itself (vv. 3b-4) fails to communicate its storyworld speaker's intent because it fails to function as the prophetic form of rhetoric by which David introduced it, and thus offers no hint for its raison d'etre.32 If neither the deathbed situation nor the sapiential form of David's Oracle answers the question as to why he presents himself as a prophet, a look at the specific words David employs to define his prophetic role also fails to clarify the enigma. First, the term Dtf] ('oracle'), which is the reader's clearest indication that the passage is prophetically oriented, is far too common in the Hebrew Bible, and too cryptically employed here, to give any indication as to how David specifically understands it. Secondly, David's invocation of the term DT3, 'beloved one', clarifies little. No doubt, the ancient reader will have recognized in this term a religious sense. Levenson has argued that D^] in the Hebrew Bible often designates one who has received a favorable omen by means of divination.33 In the ancient Near East, divination and prophecy are functionally, 30. J.D. Levenson, 'A Technical Meaning for N'M in the Hebrew Bible', VT 35 (1985), pp. 61-67 (66). Levenson's discussion implies, however, that v. 5 is part of David's prophetic oracle, not a commentary on it. 31. The syntax of v. 5 does not encourage interpretation as an announcement of divine promise. Even if one were to follow that branch of scholarship which emends the text to an asseverative lamed, "78 QJJ TPD p~*7 "O, or the like (asseverative lamed appears to exist in biblical Hebrew [cf. Ps. 47.10; 89.19], but has no textual support here), the use of a verbless clause followed by perfect in v. 5ba implies that the speaker envisions completed action on the part of the deity. At best, this speaker looks back upon a promise he might believe to be fulfilled. (For the text of this line, see the discussion in n. 49, below.) 32. A case could be made that David does want his hearer to interpret vv.5b6, 6-7 as a continuation of the oracle begun in vv. 3b-4, with v. Sabafty serving as a parenthetical commentary. If so, both halves of the oracle (vv. 3b-4 and 5b6, 6-7) are sapiential in nature (functioning as rhetorically equivalent to Prov. 4.18-19, for example). Therefore, my conclusion concerning the form of the prophecy is not affected. 33. Levenson, 'Technical Meaning', pp. 61-67. Since those granted omens are

162

The Faces of David

and in most instances, theologically, of one conceptual field.34 David has on occasion practiced divination earlier in the story,35 but the oracle here pronounced (vv. 3b-4) obviously does not derive from one of those events. In this instance, it seems that David employs the cultic label in an effort to imply that the DK3 he utters is a favorable divine revelation spoken by David in response to David's unnarrated divinatory inquiry.36 The question remains, however, given that such an implication is false, why does David imply it? In this story, David has never been the instrument by which Yahweh speaks. Thirdly, David invokes a formula occurring only once elsewhere in the story of Genesis to Kings, "I33H Dtf] (literally, 'oracle of the man'), but this again sheds little light on David's self-perception of his prophetic status. This phrase appears on the lips of Bala'am ben Be'or, in Num. 24.3-4, 15-16. It is conceivable that David knows of the oracles of Bala'am, since he certainly knows of a Moses-era tradition (cf. 1 Kgs 2.2-4). But the term, "133, as it appears on David's lips is rather differently understood than as it appears on the lips of the (from David's perspective) very ancient prophet. In context, Bala'am appears to employ the term as a synonym for 2TR, 'man'. By contrast, David employs "133 as though a defectively spelled instance of "1133 (derived from the verbal sense of strength in war; 2 Sam. 1.21-22; cf. 2 Sam. 11.23; 1 Sam. 2.9). This is clear in that the line in which it appears celebrates the same theme David invoked in the Song, at 22.33-46. David presents himself as a (deified?) warrior-prophet, not merely as a man-prophet: ^ Dpn "133n Q«, 'Oracle of the warrior 'All raised up'.37 generally those seeking omens, it is reasonable to render D*U3 in this instance, 'diviner'. 34. H.M. Barstad, 'No Prophets? Recent Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy', JSOT 51 (1993), pp. 39-60 (47). Cf. the remarks of R.R. Wilson, who argues that the deuteronomic promise of a prophet-like-Moses was designed to replace divination in 'Israel', (at least, in the Israel which is defined by the book of Deuteronomy) (Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980], pp. 160-62). This might suggest to a reader that the character David is seeking to position himself as the prophet like Moses of Deut. 18.15. 35. 1 Sam. 22.5 (?); (cf. 22.10, 15); 23.2-4, 9-12; 30.6-8; 2 Sam. 2.1; 5.19, 23; 7.1-3 (?); 21.1. 36. So argues Levenson, Technical Meaning', pp. 66-67. 37. 'Hebrew geber...has both a mantic and a military connotation' (Levenson, Technical Meaning', p. 67). However, I differ with Levenson in that he claims the military connotation is present in Numbers and Proverbs as well as in this text.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

163

Only one statement made by David might shed light on his selfperception as a prophet: v. 2a, S3 ~Q"1 mrr m~i ('Yahweh's spirit spoke with me'). Even this is ambiguous nearly to the point of total obscurity. The reader is tempted to associate David's use of the preposition, H, with the role of Moses as described in Num. 12.6-8. In that place, Yahweh had announced that he speaks with Moses face to face ("Q ""Q~IN PIS ^K HS). Does David imply that he is a 'new' Moses (Deut. 18.15)? If so, he will not convince the reader, since within the story of David (1 Sam. 16 to 1 Kgs 2), 2 Sam. 23.2a can only refer to the anointing of David in 1 Samuel 16. At that time, and only then, the miT m~l interacts directly with David. The narrator, however, does not indicate that the HIT FTP spoke. Moreover, in this story, Yahweh's m~l is more often than not a manifestation of divine power or a form of divine empowerment, not a direct, spoken revelation.38 If neither situation, nor form, nor even vocabulary assist in this quest, then the reader is left only with the almost vacuous content of David's sapiential 'oracle' as the means to determine his motive for presenting himself as a prophet. But the content suggests very little, expressing metaphorically the equation of just rule with divine blessing: One who rules as a righteous man, Is ruling as a God-fearer; Like morning light [when] the sun rises,

Levenson makes that assertion on the basis of a parallel with Akkadian texts, not the literary context of Numbers 24 or Proverbs 30, which betray no indication of a military connotation. (On my translation of the line, *?& Dpn ~Q3n DK3, see n. 41, below.) 38. One possible exception is Num. 24.2, which may be on David's mind if he is familiar with a Bala'am-era tradition (as discussed above). Also, the use of m~l in the conversation between Micaiah and Zedekiah appears to reflect the sense of the term as David is using it in the passage under discussion, except that the two prophets of Ahab's court debate the possible deceptiveness of miT m~l (1 Kgs 22.21-24; cf. 2 Kgs 19.7, which is also false prophecy). But in Genesis to Kings, the divine im is usually a metaphor for divine power and empowerment (for better or for worse), not revelation (e.g. Exod. 10.13; 14.21; Num. 11.31; Judg. 3.10; 6.34; 9.23; 11.29; 14.6; 15.14; 1 Sam. 11.6; 16.14; 18.10; 1 Kgs 18.45; 19.11, etc.). As power, it is sometimes accompanied by revelatory experience, though rarely confused with the revelation itself (e.g. Num. 11.16-17, 24-25; cf. in the Latter Prophets, Ezek. 8.1-4; 11.24; 37.1, etc.). In some cases, the m~l is the content revealed, not the revelation, a content which, again, is empowerment (e.g. Exod. 28.3; 31.3; Deut. 34.9; 2 Kgs 2.9, etc.; cf. in the Latter Prophets, Isa. 11.2; 61.1, etc.).

164

The Faces of David A cloudless morning intensely shining, And after rain, greenery springs from the earth (vv.3b-4).39

Behind this lush metaphorical imagery is a very simple message: Yahweh repays good for good. David here gives voice to a very conventional theology of divine retribution. This retributional worldview has been a constant in David's personality from the beginning of his career until his deathbed scene.40 In 1 Samuel, young David expressed his belief that humans and God alike repay good for good and evil for evil. Not surprisingly, David assumed optimistically that he, Yahweh's chosen heir to Israel's throne, was the one who was doing 'good', no matter the situation, and therefore it would be he, David, who would benefit from human (e.g. 1 Sam. 17.26) and especially divine favor (e.g. 1 Sam. 24.13-16). As he matured, David sought to apply his understanding of divinely ordained retribution to individual situations, even boldly executing reward and punishment himself (e.g. 2 Sam. 4.10-11). Interestingly, he failed to do precisely this when he would suffer personal loss from the consequences (e.g. 2 Sam. 13-15), but shows no indication that he ever abandoned the basic principle of retribution (e.g. 1 Kgs 2.2-4). Since it is doubtful that the miT mi has ever spoken with David, and since the theology the old king expresses is so conventional, it seems reasonable to conclude that David is over-interpreting, perhaps misinterpreting, his own experience. The content of his Oracle might be attributed to the Spirit of Yahweh, but it is of David's own devising. Because David has experienced Yahweh's spirit, because David has espoused consistently one kind of retributional 'justice' or another, David here concludes that his theological view, as expressed in vv. 3b-4, is not his own opinion, but the very word of God. David presents himself as a prophet in order to lend added weight to a point of view he has long held. But even this is only a partial answer to the question: The reader still does not know why David is so keen to position his utterance as divine revelation. To summarize this discussion, the story-world context in which David utters his Oracle is clear, certainly more clear than the context in which he had composed the Song of 2 Samuel 22. Unfortunately, the clarity of 39. For the translation, see my notes in section 2, below. 40. 1 Sam. 17.26, 45-47; 24.9-16; 25.32-34, 39 ; 26.18-20, 22-24; 2 Sam. 1.16; 3.28-29, 39; 4.10-11; 5.12 (?), 20; 6.21-22; 7.18-29; 12.5-6; 16.10-12; 22.2-51; 24.10; 1 Kgs 2.2-9.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

165

the context does not, at first glance, shed much light on the obscurity of the words David utters. The reader can perhaps guess why the narrator has chosen to displace the poem to an earlier narrational moment; doing so provides the narrator with a double 'prophetic' summary speech (2 Sam. 22.1-23.7), preparing the way for the story of the Judaean kings to follow. Likewise, the reader might venture a guess at why David wishes to present himself as a prophet; nevertheless, any guesses cannot be wholly confirmed, since the author, as usual, has permitted the text to remain indeterminate. If this latter discussion has been largely negative—a precise answer to the question of why David presents himself as a prophet has not emerged—it has not been fruitless. It is clear that the character David is not a prophet in any meaningful sense of the term, and equally clear that his 'prophecy' reveals only a very conventional piety, a belief in divine retribution. David deliberately packages this garden-variety piety as a prophetic utterance. Armed with these insights, the reader is prepared for a close reading of the Oracle of David. Perhaps that reading will provide a more complete answer to the question of David's self-presentation as a prophet. 2. David's Rhetorical Strategy in the Oracle As in previous chapters, the close reading of this poem which follows will be based upon an eclectic Hebrew text and translation. In this case, however, extensive emendation of MT is required due to the poor preservation of the text. la

Now these are the last words of David:

Ib

Oracle of David, son of Jesse, Oracle of the warrior 'Ali established.41

41. P.K. McCarter prefers 4QSama which reads ^K for MT's "7JJ 'in view of [the book of Samuel's] frequent interchange of the prepositions' (McCarter, II Samuel, p. 477). But had the original read ^K, it is unlikely that an ancient scribe would have mistaken it for a preposition. It is more reasonable to assume that an obscure epithet gave rise to the variation observed in the ancient manuscripts. (For the epithet, see the theophorics listed in Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, pp. 372, 461.) This epithet, H^tf, is a more clear indication than alleged archaisms that the text of the poem is relatively old, perhaps dating to a period as early as the late eighth or the seventh centuries BCE. The author-redactor of Samuel, who incorporated part or all of the poem from whatever source, copied the divine epithet as it appeared, defectively

166

2

3a

3b 4

The Faces of David The anointed of Jacob's God, The diviner of Israel's strong one.42 The Spirit of Yahweh speaks with me, And his word is upon my tongue. Says the God of Jacob, Speaks the Rock of Israel.43

'One who rules as a righteous man,44 Is ruling as a God-fearer;45 Like morning light [when] the sun rises,46 A cloudless morning intensely shining,47 And after rain, greenery springs from the earth'.48

spelled. In early Hellenistic times, the epithet was still recognized but not favored. 4QSama replaced p]1?!? with the more familiar ^N, as did the Vorlagen to the Old Greek (some of which employed *7K and some iTliT), while the Masoretes of a later era, who retained the original text, interpreted the epithet, the meaning of which was forgotten by their time, as a preposition. 42. For the translation of D^U], 'diviner', see above, note 33. mOT (or miQT, if it be an 'intensive' plural; cf. T.N.D. Mettinger, The Last Words of David: A Study of Structure and Meaning in II Samuel 23:1-7', SEA 4142 [1977], pp. 147-56 [151]) is derived from the Semitic root z-m-r (= d-m-r), meaning something like 'strength'. A convenient summary of the cognate forms is found in McCarter, II Samuel, p. 480. For Hebrew theophorics employing this root, see Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, pp. 316, 345; cf. 1 Kgs 16.15. 43. The Lucianic reflects '3 3pJT for MT's ^ "wits'. On the strength of v. 1, 'Jacob' is preferred. However, it would seem that two dissimilar Hebrew texts have each suffered dittography: -QT [3] 3pU' and 13T ft] 'wier. Perhaps in both cases, the scribes considered the prefix form of "131 to be inappropriate or in error. The verbal aspect of the unit, vv. 2-3a, is certainly ambiguous. One might prefer to render the verbs in past tense. 44. Or: 'One ruling among humans righteously'. (For the use of the beth of identity, see R.J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2nd edn, 1976], p. 45.) 45. Or: 'One ruling in the fear of God / is like morning light...' 46. Omit the waw with Lucianic, Old Latin, Syriac and Vulgate. 47. H2]Q is a hiphil participle (with unassimilated nun) employed as an intransitive (cf. 2 Sam. 22.13). G. del Olmo Lete suggests the possibility of a transitive hiphil participle, but does not endorse the suggestion (del Olmo Lete, 'David's Farewell Oracle: A Literary Analysis', VT 34 [1984], pp. 414-37 [420]). Tournay opts for a piel participle, and notes correctly that this would be a hapax (Tournay, 'Paroles de David', p. 494). 48. Insert waw with some Hebrew MSS, Greek, Syriac and Vulgate. Mettinger

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7 5a 5ba 5b(3 5by

167

Although my house is not this way with 'El,49 Surely, an eternal covenant he has made for me.50 Until now, in all times, he observes it; Surely, all which 'Ali does, he does not relish.51

suggests that the preposition on "IOD be interpreted temporally (Mettinger, 'Last Words', pp. 152-3). H.N. Richardson reads NtZH as a go/ verb form, citing Joel 2.22 (Richardson, 'Last Words', p. 263). 49. The Hebrew text is difficult but the versions offer no alternative. For the concessive use of T>, see Williams, Hebrew Syntax, p. 88. Another reading is: 'Indeed! Is not my house this way with 'El?' Rhetorical questions unmarked by the interrogative he are not uncommon in the book of Samuel (e.g., 1 Sam. 24.20; 25.11; 2 Sam 11.11). A third possibility is to take tib as an instance of the particle expressing an unreal condition (= *b), thus, 'Indeed! If only my house were thus with 'El...' This form occurs in Samuel with some regularity (1 Sam. 14.30; perhaps 20.14 [cf. McCarter, I Samuel, p. 336]; 2 Sam. 18.12; 19.7). In this third option, the following line serves as apodosis, 'then an eternal covenant he might have established for me'. This option is not impossible, and might be given serious consideration. A number of scholars advocate recognition of an emphatic form in MT $b (for citations, see McCarter, II Samuel, p. 482). On analogy with older Semitic languages, it has been argued that the form [R]bn appears as an emphatic in biblical Hebrew (M.L. Brown, '"Is it Not?" or "Indeed!": HL in Northwest Semitic', Maarav 4 [1987], pp. 201-19). Identification of emphatic $b has been extended to instances lacking the he as well (Richardson, 'Last Words', p. 263; cf. C.F. Whitley, 'Some Remarks on lu and lo", ZAW 87 [1975], pp. 202-204). 'A methodological difficulty complicates the study of the asseverative in biblical Hebrew since the rhetorical question and the asseverative often appear to be interchangeable' (D. Sivan and W. Schniedewind, 'Letting Your "Yes" be "No" in Ancient Israel: A Study of the Asseverative Vtb and «^n', 755 38 [1993], pp. 209-26 [211-12]). For this reason, despite intense research and numerous publications, only a handful of convincing examples of asseverative #br] have been identified in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps. 56.14; Ezek. 18.25; cf. Sivan and Schniedewind, 'Letting Your "Yes" be "No"', pp. 213, 215), and there are no undisputed instances of asseverative $b (cf. 2 Kgs 5.26; Job 2.10; 11.11; but cf. Sivan and Schniedewind, 'Letting Your "Yes" be "No"', pp. 219-26 for discussion of examples they consider convincing). With respect to 2 Sam. 23.5, the advice of F. Notscher is sound: 'Stellen, wo der Zusammenhang undurchsichtig bleibt...sollen dabei ausser Betracht bleiben' (Notscher, 'Zum emphatischen Lamed', VT3 [1953], pp. 372-80 [374]). 50. Or: 'Surely a covenant has 'Olam made for me'. 51. Though itself corrupt in part, the Lucianic provides an essential witness for v. 5b(3y. In Lucianic, ecog co8e ev rcaai KCU (jwXa^ev ainriv (= mQ2H btt !~D 1!?), the KCU appears to be inner-Greek corruption of Kcapco (= Pi); cf. Vaticanus). This is

168 5b8 6

7

The Faces of David For he does not cause the wicked one to sprout; As a thorn banished are all of them, For not by the hand are they taken. A man does not grasp them,52 Except [with] iron or wood,53 Then with fire they are surely burned.

The structure of this poem is clear; the devil is in the details. One can outline the structure with ease (see the chart, p. 170 below), but determining precisely what David is talking about is probably beyond any exegete's competence. The following suggestions remain tentative, though grounded in the story of David as it unfolds in Samuel. Each of four strophes presents, in a way unique with respect to the other three, a dynamic tension between reiteration and forward progression in thought. The first employs metaphorical description to introduce the speaker and establish his prophetic authority. Obviously, this issue is of great importance to the poet, since this introductory strophe is the longest of the four (eight lines). The means by which his authority is established involve reiteration of key elements combined with a gradual notching forward of the thesis statement. Next, the prophetic oracle's imagery progresses in a linear fashion over five lines, while its thematic assertion remains constant, much as a melody line drifts over a bass beat in song. After the oracle, the poet offers two strophic commentaries, the first in four lines and the second in six. Like the second strophe, the last moves forward in linear fashion, reinforcing a single theme; like the first strophe, the third tends to fold back on itself as the poet's thought reiterates, and in the process, re-explores each prior assertion. First Strophe Introduction: Establishes the poet's authority

Ib

Oracle of the human speaker. Oracle of the deified warrior.

to be preferred since it provides an object for "7D3 (which rarely appears without an object). Also, the Lucianic reflects another instance of the misunderstood divine epithet, <|I?I>: OTI rcavia tov avuGeTOV urn o\) 6eX,r|aei (= fSIT $b **?& DKTTO ^D *D). These readings probably represent the earliest recoverable form of the text, since their accidental corruption explains well the variation found in other versions. In v. 6act, read "PIT^n with Vaticanus (and possibly Lucianic) for MT's bir^m. 52. Omit the waw with Lucianic. The negation, implied in MT, is found in Vaticanus. 53. For the final two lines of the poem, see McCarter, II Samuel, p. 479.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

2

3a

169

The deified one's status as anointed. His status as human religionist. Assertion of divine intercourse. Assertion of divine inspiration. Words of the deity. Words of the deity (full pause).

Second Strophe The Oracle

3b

4

Ruling in the human sphere. Intensification or closure of the theme: The nature of good rule. Intensification or closure: Metaphor. Intensification of metaphor. Narrational closure of metaphor.

Third Strophe Exploration of the Oracle's implications

5a 5bct

5b|3 5by

Rhetorical question or assertion: Questioning the circumstances. Counter-assertion: Affirmation of the circumstances. Intensification of counter-assertion. Rhetorical question or assertion: Re-questioning the circumstances.

Fourth Strophe Reiteration of the Oracle in a negative sense

5b8 6 7

Assertion: Divine retribution. Intensification of assertion: metaphor. Intensification of metaphor: mini-narrative. Continuation of mini-narrative in three lines.

In what follows, a strophe-by-strophe evaluation might help to clarify what appears to be David's tortured mind. It will be argued that with this poem, the reader confronts the final, exasperated words of a broken man. As David closes his eyes in death, he asks of his God, 'What happened?' His life has not made sense. The deity has not performed as expected; David remains troubled, perhaps embittered, by what has transpired.

170

The Faces of David

First Strophe (vv. lb-3a) As has been noted, David is at pains to present himself not merely as Yahweh's anointed king, the deified warrior as in the Song of 2 Samuel 22, but additionally as a prophet. As has also been noted, David's reasons for this are not entirely clear. Apparently, however, David views his status of God's anointed as one which bestows upon him revelatory insight as well, or at least, David wishes his hearer to think so. In his opening words, David's Oracle seeks to convince the hearer that David is indeed a prophet. He employs two strategies for doing so. First, David, as is his habit from time to time (e.g. 2 Sam. 7.18-29; 1 Kgs 2.2-4), employs a phrase drawn from the vocabulary of the grand old prophetic tradition (or 'deuteronomistic' language, in modern parlance), which he apparently learned from his knowledge of the Moses traditions. In this case, David invokes the 'God of Jacob'. The phrase, which is basic to the exodus story (Exod. 3.6, 15; 4.5; 6.3), invokes an ancestral name occurring only rarely in the Former Prophets, and usually when a speaker is giving voice to the ideology of 'deuteronomistic' prophetism.54 A second, more subtle, strategy develops David's authority as a prophet by interweaving that label, which is never directly invoked, with other roles of honor, which David has already assumed. The first two lines set out in intensified parallelism (from mere son of Jesse to Warrior par excellence55) to position David as proclaimer of 'oracles'. These are followed by two more lines invoking roles which David has filled in the story-world, those of anointed one and diviner. Together, these four lines fold back upon themselves, so that the middle two invoke David's public career (warrior, anointed one), and the outer two stress his human reality, as the mere Bethlehemite, who must divine Yahweh's will as must any other man standing before Israel's 'strength', Yahweh. Having interwoven the prophetic role with his public and private images into a neat chiasm, David moves forward in the final four lines of the first strophe to proclaim unambiguously a relationship to the deity surpassing that of ordinary humans. The spirit of Yahweh speaks 'with' (3) David, and—as the reader's eye moves onward—that same assertion shimmers, and transforms itself, becoming a claim that the deity speaks 54. Usually on the lips of the narrator himself, but also invoked by Joshua and Samuel, and possibly on the mind of Elijah when he erected a twelve-stone altar on Carmel: Josh. 24.4, 32; 1 Sam. 12.8; 1 Kgs 18.31; 2 Kgs 13.23; 17.34. 55. Note the similar pattern in Yahweh's speech of 2 Samuel 7.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

111

'by means of p) David, for Yahweh's words are on David's lips. This progression comes to a full stop in the final two lines, where static parallelism (the only two lines of the entire poem in which the second does not in some way intensify or advance the thought of the first56) underscores David's desire that the hearer accept what follows as the very words of God. At this point in the poem, the reader remains in the dark as to why David wishes to be known as a prophet. Nevertheless, the reader has no doubt that David is insisting rather adamantly upon the title. Second Strophe (vv. 3b-4] The words of the Oracle itself are the most obscure in the poem. Much of the obscurity is, perhaps, intentional. These words are multivalent, cascading over one another and evoking slightly different responses from the reader as they do so. The two participial phrases can serve as a protasis, or as a protasis and apodosis: Thus one reads either, 'One ruling... One ruling...is as light...', or alternatively 'One ruling...is One ruling...; As light...' If the latter, then the final three lines begin a new thought which intensifies the initial assertion, and explores it metaphorically; if the former, the final three lines complete the previous thought through a segue which provides metaphorical closure to the 'mundane' (that is, 'this worldly') initial imagery. With the third line, the middle line of the five-line Oracle, the strophe becomes Janus-faced, pivoting through metaphor from mundane explanation of just rule toward a boundless revelry in the imagery of the verdant paradise evoked by the metaphor itself. The focus on the necessity of just rule is almost—though never quite—forgotten, as David's mind seems to wander off toward the intense light and lush greenery experienced in the wake of Yahweh's rain.57 It is as though the old man 56. If one follows the reading of MT, where an intensified seconding occurs in the second line, this is not the case: 'Spoke the God of Israel/To me, spoke the rock of Israel'. See note 43. 57. It will be recalled (see Chapter 3, n. 74) that the use of "1QQ in the story of Genesis to Kings almost always carries with it the force of divine intervention in human affairs. Behind the lush scenery of the verdant paradise in v. 4 stands David's acknowledgment of his God's activity in the making and sustaining of a just rule. One might also note that the verb, n~lT, can connote divine manifestation in the story of Genesis to Kings. A key text is Moses' famous image of Yahweh shining forth from Se'ir in Deut. 33.2; several times, divine awe is inspired in the shining at dawn: Gen. 32.32; 2 Kgs 3.22.)

172

The Faces of David

is momentarily so taken with his own rhetoric that he permits the central message to trail off into obscurity. The reader cannot but wonder, however, what could possibly stand behind this imagery.58 Why does David utter a five-line poetic illustration of just rule and package it as divine speech? If David intends for his hearer to perceive in these words a divine message, why is it not more specific? The following line will find David speaking for himself, not Yahweh, so the 'oracle', such as it is, has ended with v. 4. Given that the reader has received no textual clue to indicate that David is actually speaking prophetically on behalf of Yahweh, the central question is: What is really in David's mind when he announces this bizarre image and then leaves it dangling? Since the third strophe will find David turning directly to himself and his 'house', it is reasonable to suppose that behind the 'oracle' of this strophe stands David's own perception of his and his house's relationship to Yahweh, his divine patron. In younger days, David perceived (ITP) that it was Yahweh who had given him success (2 Sam. 5.12), and that Yahweh had done so for the benefit of the people, Israel (cf. 2 Sam. 7.5-29).59 David's Oracle is perhaps nothing more than the old king's paraphrased interpretation of Nathan's dynastic oracle in 2 Samuel 7, or an articulation of the silent perception of 2 Sam. 5.12. If this is the case, the reader might perceive at last what is really on David's mind. He adopts the persona of a prophet because in this storyworld (and in most of the Hebrew Bible), prophets are those who rebuke the unrighteous. David's stress, as 'prophet', is on the necessity of just rule (pHU ^IQ), a rule that will become like the dazzling brilliance of a dawn after the rains. Perhaps David is here uttering the equivalent of a deathbed confession, a self-judgment, a 'prophetic' rebuke, in which David begins to admit that the one ruling among humanity pHU ('righteously') was certainly not he. If so, he has stopped short of uttering the rebuke that one would expect from a prophetic 58. The reader wonders what stands behind this imagery within the story-world. Outside the story-world, if one presumes that the poem is fragmented from a text much older than the story in which it is now placed (see n. 41, above), the poem's imagery may have been part of a standard ancient Near Eastern royal iconography, in which the king's rule is theophanic—associated with the deity's solar attributes. See, for example, the succinct discussion by M.S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), ch. 4. 59. But recall the discussion in n. 3, above.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

173

declaration. Can this conjecture be defended? It will be recalled that David is one who believes fervently in divine retribution. During an earlier, more cocksure stage of his career, David gave voice to his confidence that he had earned all the divine favor which came his way (2 Sam. 22.21-24a). At the time that David uttered the Song of 2 Samuel 22, even the sometimes reliable narrator could affirm without hedging that David had lived up to conventional expectations of the just ruler (2 Sam. 8.15). But times had changed. In the final thirty or so years of David's career, his rule had veered more than once from the path of the pHl£. Without explicit approval from Yahweh, but with a later, possibly prophetic, rebuke (at least, in David's perception, 2 Sam. 16.5-13), David had executed the strong men of Saul's household, violating a pledge David had made before Yahweh (1 Sam. 24.22-23a). In spite of Jonathan's loyalty, David had not attempted to fulfill Jonathan's hope that he would be 'second' in David's administration; instead, Jonathan's son, Mephiba'al, was placed under a form of house arrest (2 Sam. 9), and later badly mistreated by David (2 Sam. 16.1-4; 19.25-31).60 David raped Bathsheba and murdered Uriah (2 Sam. 11), and perpetuated a marriage Yahweh had declared eternally illegitimate.61 David's imperial tyranny paralleled that of Pharaoh in the early days of Moses (2 Sam. 12.31).62 He did nothing after his eldest son raped David's daughter (2 Sam. 13.21 [MT or Old Greek]). David frequently displayed poor judgment in matters requiring his judicial decisions (2 Sam. 12; 14).63 The king displayed no compassion nor concern for his own culpability in the violation of his concubines, even adding to their misery by placing them in a life sentence of exclusion (2 Sam. 20.3).64 Even on his deathbed, David could not rise above the vindictiveness he displayed toward a man who, 60. Brichto, Toward a Grammar, pp. 57-59. See also p. 62 above. 61. See the excursus at the close of Chapter 2. 62. Schwartz, 'Adultery in the House of David', p. 45. 63. On David's bizarre reaction to Nathan's tale in 2 Samuel 12, see Lasine, 'Melodrama as Parable', pp. 101-13. David's failure to respond in the appropriate royal manner in the case of 2 Samuel 14 is well delineated in the expert treatment by P.K. Willey, 'The Importunate Woman of Tekoa and How She Got Her Way', in D.N. Fewell (ed.), Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), pp. 115-31. Cf. H.S. Pyper, 'The Enticement to Re-Read: Repetition as Parody in 2 Samuel', Biblnt 1 (1993), pp. 153-66 (157-60). 64. Po\zin,DavidandtheDeuteronomist,p. 197.

174

The Faces of David

more than any other, secured David's lifetime success (1 Kgs 2.5-6), and toward a man whose only crime was stone-throwing and name-calling (1 Kgs 2.8-9). In light of David's less-than-perfect royal record, the reader finds integrity in the complaint lodged by Absalom in 2 Sam. 15.3-4, who stresses publicly David's injustice:65 Then Absalom used to say [to those he intended to flatter], 'See, your affairs are good and proper. But from the king, there is no one to hear on your behalf. And Absalom would say, 'Who would make me a judge in this land! Then to me any man might come who had a dispute. For with justice would I rectify the situation'.

Clearly, Absalom is a biased character with his own agenda. Moreover, the narrator is at pains to underscore Absalom's manipulative motivation behind his public denunciation of his father. Absalom seems to sow divisiveness as groundwork for his coming rebellion. It is interesting to note, with Robert Polzin, that the narrator has presented Absalom's actions in a way that implies violation of the statute of Deut. 25.1: Absalom appears to declare right everyone with whom he speaks, rather than making a decision between right and wrong.66 As Lowell Handy has observed, the text never directly states that this is the case.67 If Absalom is to fool anyone, he will certainly have taken the time to listen carefully to their concerns before declaring them just; thus the narrator's cryptic report leaves out at least part of the conversation and, as a result, implies that Absalom's methods are more capricious than they might actually be in story-world reality. Absalom is certainly using this ploy to further his own cause, but 'his charge of David's corruption of justice should not be taken as a trumped up pretext for revolt'.68 Rather, it is a ready-made pretext, seed sown by David himself. David has not been D^K HNT ^{DID pH^ DTfcO ^CDID ('one ruling among humans righteously, one ruling in the fear of God'), and he knows it. On his deathbed, he begins to rebuke himself, but cuts the prophetic oracle short, before coming to the famous ]lh ('therefore') element of the prophetic message.69 Instead, he abandons his prophetic 65. On the minor textual issues in 2 Sam. 15.3-4, see McCarter, II Samuel, p. 354. 66. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, p. 150. 67. Handy, 'Characters of Heirs Apparent', p. 19. 68. Handy, 'Characters of Heirs Apparent', p. 19. 69. March, 'Basic Types of Prophetic Speech', p. 160.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

175

posturing and begins instead to comment on the imagery he has invoked. This reading of the second strophe, while certainly debatable, has the merit of offering an explanation for the terse obfuscation of the oracle, and its very odd rhetorical packaging. Likewise, it sheds light on what follows in the final two strophes. Third Strophe (v. 5aba$y) With this strophe, the reader comes to the most famous passage of David's Last Words. Frequently, David's reference to a D^IU rP"Q ('eternal covenant') is invoked in the scholarship as a reference to a hypothetical Judaean royal propaganda usually associated with Psalms 2, 89, 110, 132 and elsewhere.70 If the poem of 2 Sam. 23.1b-7 had a life prior to its inclusion in its present narrative setting, such historical speculation may be valid, but it is not the concern here. The real author or redactor of the text has given the poem another life in its literary context. Although the Masoretic text of this verse is readable, it is probably not the earliest recoverable form of the text. Thus, the interpretation offered here is derived from the presumed Vorlage to the Old Greek (see textual footnotes).71 Like the first strophe of the poem, the third does not progress in a direct linear fashion, but tends to fold back upon itself, re-examining its own previous assertions. David begins with a line which can be heard either as a rhetorical question implying an affirmative answer, or as a direct negative declaration: *7K DU TP3 p $b ""D ('For not thus my house with 'El'). At first confrontation, the reader cannot choose how to read this; it remains vague, unsettling. What is now in David's mind? Does he deny or affirm that his house is 'thus' with the deity? The following line tends to lend weight to an interpretation of the first as a positive statement: 'Is not my house thus with 'El? For an eternal 70. It is not necessary or practical to cite the volume of scholarship published on this subject or its twin motif, Zion Theology. For a recent treatment of both with extensive bibliography, see B.C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTSup, 41; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). 71. It is interesting to note, however, that if one were to follow the MT, an interpretation might present itself similar in thrust, though very different in detail, to the one outlined here. Cf. D.M. Gunn, 'In Security: The David of Biblical Narrative', in J.C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), p. 133-51 (134). Unfortunately, Gunn fails to treat the final element in MT v. 5, ITmr fc^D.

176

The Faces of David

covenant he has made with me'. The reader's confidence in this interpretation is abetted by the third line, which intensifies the thought by adding that 'until now', the deity has observed this covenant. David appears to be boasting that his reign and his house are the embodiment of the dazzling splendor which is a just rule. However, as the reader encounters the final line of the strophe, David withdraws his support from the interpretational structure the reader has been constructing: 'Surely, all which 'Ali does, he does not delight.' This matter-of-fact utterance cuts machete-like back through the previous lines. Yahweh observes 'until now' his covenant with David, but does he delight in this? 'Is not David's house pHS with Yahweh?' Perhaps, but the line can also be read as a negation of that assertion. 'Surely, my house is not thus with 'El'. If the first three lines had notched forward in steady progression, the last rips the gears, forcing the progression back to its very premises, and questioning them. The unsettling effect of the final line places the entire poem in a new light. David has positioned himself as a prophet, uttered the ideal for kingship, then failed to drop the expected prophetic 'therefore', instead turning toward an introspective assessment of his own house. Now, with the final line of the third strophe, the introspection gives way to implicit condemnation (already hinted in the first line of the strophe). He asks himself, 'Although my house is not this way with 'El, surely an eternal covenant he has made with me?' Perhaps, he implies, but only perhaps. 'Until now, in all times, he observes it', but what about the future? Yahweh's past action guarantees nothing in David's mind. Since his house has not been pHK, David assumes that Yahweh's past action was that which 'he does not relish' (fDrr $b). The future may find Yahweh of a changed disposition, since, as David has consistently affirmed, Yahweh is a God of strict retribution. Fourth Strophe (vv. 5bS, 6-7) The final strophe adds precisely what the reader might expect to hear, given David's concern as discerned above. David reiterates the negative side of his doctrine of retribution. It is this negative side that is so much on his mind. David is aware that if Yahweh has observed the covenant made with David, it is by grace alone. The imagery of the fourth strophe progresses linearly, employing the common metaphor of the gardener at work: Yahweh does not cause the Beliya 'al to sprout, for he is a thorn (or they are thorns, as the number

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

111

shifts to the plural). One does not take a thorn in hand, unless one protects the flesh by handling it with a tool of iron or wood; then the handler casts the thorns into the flame. Although the imagery is clear, the identification of the Belly a 'al is not. Contextually, since David has been speaking of his own affairs, his own house, it is reasonable to assume that David still speaks introspectively in the final strophe. 'For is not my house thus with 'El?' Is David, or David's dynasty, Beliya'al in David's mind? Is it the dynastic promise Yahweh has made to David that which David believes Yahweh is about to cast into the fire? It will be recalled that when David responded to the dynastic oracle in 2 Samuel 7, he spoke brazenly about Yahweh's new decision as Torah for humanity' (Dl«n min; 2 Sam. 7.19).72 Clearly David wished to think of Yahweh's promise as one which places the house of David on a par with the most significant events in Israel's history. That David continued to think this way throughout his life is clear from his last words. In the third strophe, David summarizes Nathan's dynastic oracle as ('eternal covenant'), which is an interesting choice of words. That phrase has occurred in the story of Genesis to Kings only at very significant moments, and always on the lips of one character, Yahweh.73 Perhaps this is the key to David's solar imagery in the second strophe: David likens Nathan's dynastic oracle (which never employed the key term, rr~Q) to the great moments of Yahweh's interaction on behalf of humanity, according to the story which David has heard (2 Sam. 7.22). Like the rainbow after the flood (Gen. 9.16; cf. 2 Sam. 23.4), the righteous ruler shines, for both have a D^li? JT~Q. David's house is as 'eternal' as the Torah of shewbread, like the bread he ate on the run in 1 Samuel 21 (cf. Lev. 24.8). Like circumcision and the Sabbath (Gen. 17.13 and Exod. 31.16), David believed, or wished to believe, that Yahweh's promise would be Dltfn mm (2 Sam. 7.19). Now, perhaps, he is not so sure; according to the doctrine of retribution to which David steadfastly clings, his house ought not be eternal, but burned as a thorn. Thus there is surely a sense in which the Beliya 'al of which David speaks is, or at least to David's way of thinking ought to be, himself. Like Samuel before him, David believes that Yahweh's 'delight' Q"Sn) is in obedience (cf. 1 Sam. 15.22). The reader knows better; Yahweh's

72. See pp. 112, 114-15 above. 73. Gen. 9.16; 17.7, 13, 19; Exod. 31.16; Lev. 24.8; cf. Num. 25.13.

178

The Faces of David

delight is often, but not rigidly, in obedience.74 David, however, interpreted his own rise as the result of Yahweh's delight in David (2 Sam. 22.20), and continued in later life to depend on that divine delight (2 Sam. 15.26). Now, with the third strophe, David has begun to question that divine attitude, and the fourth strophe, as one in which David speaks of himself, follows naturally from the line: pN "DDK p ('all which 'Ali does, he does not relish'). At the same time, one might see in the final strophe a reference to David's son, Absalom, a thorn banished (2 Sam. 13.34-39), not taken by the hand (14.21-28). David's relationship to Absalom is complex. On the one hand, it is clear that David never forgave his son the murder of Amnon. Even the 'reconciliation' in 2 Sam. 14.33 is formal rather than warm. The king 'kisses' Absalom, but no speech is reported, nor does the final scene between them (2 Sam. 15.7-9) convey the sense that the two had buried their differences. On the other hand, David wept for Absalom like no other person in his life (2 Sam. 19.1). After Amnon's death, David quickly ceased his concern for that son and began to miss Absalom (2 Sam. 13.39).75 Given David's sense of retributional justice, and given that David ultimately kissed Absalom, rather than finding in him guilt (cf. 2 Sam. 14.32b, 33b), it is not unreasonable to conclude that David believed Amnon got what he had coming; Absalom was just in David's eyes.76 How does David conceive Absalom's death? Did Absalom, in David's mind, suffer death because Yahweh judged Absalom's actions to be the actions of the Beliya'al of the poem? Or did David interpret Absalom's death as the fault of David, part of the curse invoked by the deity through Nathan? It will be recalled that David knows two things from Yahweh: First, Yahweh has bound himself to placing a son of David on David's throne 74. 'Delight' as these story-world characters conceive it involves necessarily also 'retribution'. However, like the implied author of Qoheleth (and, perhaps, Job), the implied author of the Former Prophets does not make that connection. 75. On this difficult text, see McCarter, II Samuel, p. 338. See also, Willey, 'The Importunate Woman of Tekoa', pp. 116-17. 76. Though the text is reticent on the point, it may be that Jonadab's role in 2 Sam. 13.32-36 is to act as Absalom's defense attorney. The narrator does not explain how Jonadab knows what he knows, but the rhetorical thrust of his words justifies the murder of Amnon as execution, not assassination. Jonadab might be Absalom's 'plant' in the court of David, and David's silent response to Jonadab may indicate David's acknowledgment that Amnon's murder was justified.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

179

(2 Sam. 7). Secondly, Yahweh has promised to punish David's house by the sword (2 Sam. 12). Surely David recognizes that Absalom has the potential to fulfill both divine promises in a single stroke. Absalom's death, therefore, must have represented a profound puzzle to David as he considered it in retrospect. The image of Beliya 'al shimmers in this context, his identity uncertain to the reader, perhaps uncertain even to David. The reader cannot but remember David's own words: 'If only I had died instead of you, Absalom!' (2 Sam. 19.1). Who really is the Beliya'all David's internal evaluation of the death of Absalom remains a gap in the narration; the reader, however, has reason to agree with Lowell Handy, who argues that Absalom was the one son of David truly qualified to be heir to David's throne, possibly more qualified to rule than David himself.77 What the story reveals about Absalom hints that his murder of Amnon was an act of justice and nothing more. Absalom has an older brother, Chileab (2 Sam. 3.3), who plays no role in the story-world except to exist, and thus leave the reader with every reason to believe that Absalom did not murder Amnon with an eye on the throne.78 Absalom invited David to the murder scene, implying that he intended to kill his father as well;79 this fact gives the reader further evidence that Absalom's later charge of David's injustice (2 Sam. 15.34) is one which Absalom truly believed, for after the rape of Tamar, David had done nothing (2 Sam. 13.21 [MT or Old Greek]). Handy also notes that Absalom was never given a chance to serve in David's administration; Absalom did not at first claim kingship, but only pleaded to be made a judge (CDE^).80 As a young man, he may have been full of idealistic zeal to set the world right through righteous rule. Again, 77. Much of this paragraph is dependent upon Handy, 'Characters of Heirs Apparent', pp. 18-21. 78. Since 'all' David's sons attended Absalom's sheep shearing celebration (2 Sam. 13.23-29), it is reasonable to assume that Absalom had opportunity to murder Chileab had he wanted to do so. 79. J.L. Ska notes the complexity in Absalom's vow of 2 Sam. 15.7-8: 'The vow of Absalom can be understood in two very different ways. The apparent meaning is religious (an act of worship). The hidden meaning is political (Absalom decided to become king)... It is more difficult to know whether the phrase "to serve the Lord" is ironic or not. Does Absalom mean "I will serve the Lord (better than you do)"? Or "I want to become officially responsible for the cult as king?"' (Ska, Our Fathers, p. 59). 80. Handy, 'Characters of Heirs Apparent', p. 20.

180

The Faces of David

Absalom named his daughter Tamar (2 Sam. 14.27), giving the reader further evidence that it was justice, not personal gain, at the heart of Absalom's actions. If David wept for Absalom like no other, it may be that David perceived a reason to weep: Absalom, and Absalom only, was qualified to be David's heir. The tragedy of David's life is that the son most like his father in courage, decisive action, opportunism, better than his father in ethical conviction, died trying to seize what could have been his.81 David had every reason to admire this son above all others. This point could be illustrated by noting a parallel between David's career and that of Absalom. David Gunn discussed in detail the observation that in David's career, things go well for David when David lets go, and permits Yahweh and other humans to guide his destiny; things go awry when David tries to seize control.82 In earlier chapters of this study, it was noted that David is a Hamlet-like figure with respect to Saul. Although wishing to be rid of the older king, David lacked the courage (or hubris) to do away with him, believing as he did that Saul's person was taboo, and that Yahweh's vengeance would surely overtake anyone bold enough to strike the anointed one. As a young man, David was convinced of his own righteousness (2 Sam. 22.21-24a); as an old man, perhaps he has acquired doubts. David's life, but for the grace of God, could have gone as did Absalom's. David could have raised his hand against the anointed of God (1 Sam. 24.6), just as Absalom did. Where they differed was in courage and conviction: David lacked the former with respect to Saul and the latter with respect to just rule; Absalom possessed both. Possibly, all this has gone through David's mind since the fateful day when the Cushite soldier brought news of Absalom's death. 'If only I had died instead of you, Absalom!', 'For [God] does not cause the Beltya'al to sprout... With fire they are surely burned'. David does not understand. The end of his life does not reward David's conviction concerning the strict retribution of Yahweh. The just one is dead and David lives on, his covenant 'observed' by a deity who ought not delight in that observance. Just who is the Beliya 'all 81. It will be recalled that the scene of 2 Sam. 12.24-25 does not imply that Yahweh designated Solomon for the throne, nor does any story-world character (including Nathan and Bathsheba) ever interpret that scene in that way. See the excursus, pp. 64-75. 82. Gunn, Story of King David, ch. 5.

5. David's Oracle, 2 Samuel 23.1-7

181

David's Character as Revealed in 1 Samuel 16 to 1 Kings 2 The narrative of 1 Samuel 16 to 1 Kings 2 presents a highly complex portrait of a highly complex man. David wears many faces in this story: Ambitious young man, uncertain anointed one, lover and manipulator of Jonathan, usurper of Saul's throne, user of Michal and Abigail, conqueror of Palestine and Syria, taker of Bathsheba, murderer of Uriah, passively failed father of Amnon and Tamar, anxiety ridden father of Absalom, singer of Yahweh's praise and prophet of Yahweh's inscrutability. This last seems very clear in the final words attributed to David, the 'Oracle' of 2 Sam. 23.1b-7. When the reader bids goodbye to David who is on his deathbed— after some thirty or so story-world years, and all of the tragic events contained in them, since the days when he wrote a lament for Saul and Jonathan and a song of praise to Yahweh for his own success—the reader has every reason to expect that David's perspective on life will have changed. The man who speaks the Oracle of 23.1b-7 will not necessarily be quite the same man who spoke in 2 Samuel 1 or 2 Samuel 22. This consideration seems to provide an essential strategy by which the reader can deal with the many questions raised by the Oracle. The optimism of David's youth has given way to introspection, uncertainty, perhaps bitterness. The loss of Jonathan was for David a great tragedy; the loss of Absalom appears to have been an unbearable disaster. From that time, perhaps David has begun to re-evaluate everything. Yet on his deathbed, he has no answers. David is, to use a modern slang term, 'clueless'. Is the divine patron of his life as he, David, had thought? What has happened? Why has it happened? David departs from the reader as a comic figure dressed for tragedy. The successful man's final soliloquy is the musing of the would-have-been failure. David's life is to David a profound paradox. If he is the quintessential winner in the early days of his story, David seems to be the paradoxical winner in the twilight of his career. As usual, the author has given the reader a story which is vague in crucial ways, thoroughly impenetrable in others. The precise goings on of David's mind are never spelled out. His words, though readable, are not necessarily fully intelligible. The reader is invited to explore, hypothesize, reconsider from each angle as the narration unfolds. Through many speeches and actions, and through three formal poems, the author has molded a portrait of a complex man. David is king, anointed one,

182

The Faces of David

mighty warrior; David is loyal but manipulative toward others; David loves Jonathan, loves Absalom, has possibly never loved any woman. David loves Yahweh, and expects from his patron a consistency that Yahweh is too free to grant. These and many other factors interweave in the text of the poems here analyzed, and in the loci of those many intersections, paint an image of David that evolves and shifts as does a kaleidoscope. In the end, the reader might depart from David's deathbed experiencing an empathy with David's plight. In David, biblical narration has given us a fully human protagonist, one whose triumphs and doubts linger long after the story has ended.

POSTSCRIPT: ANCIENT READERS AND AUTHORS The scroll of Samuel, in the literary form that we know it, constitutes a very long and complex narrative. Since the earliest extant Samuel manuscripts derive from the late third century BCE, it is reasonable to assume that this book in this form existed at least by the early third century. No doubt, much of the source-material was traditional (cf. the discussion at the start of Chapter 2). The traditions, in many variations, may have been known generally among the semi-literate and illiterate populations. Perhaps a few parts even derived from more ancient texts, either copied in part (e.g. 2 Sam. 23.1b-7) or paraphrased (e.g. 2 Sam. 10.6b, 16-18; 8.3-8) or simply referenced (e.g. 2 Sam. 18.18). Nevertheless, what the author(s) of the received text manufactured from those traditions and older texts was never meant for the eyes of the many, but for the few who had the time, the education and the inclination to read carefully. In 1996 CE, evidence is not available for determining how this story was read and interpreted in the early third century BCE. The earliest extant interpretations derive from a later part of the Hellenistic period. Lacking evidence, we might conclude from a certain rough-edged 'bumpiness' in Samuel that its earliest readers never attempted to read it holistically (cf. the discussion in section 3 of Chapter 1). If they did make that attempt, we cannot anticipate the presuppositions they brought to the text, but text criticism can determine with reasonable probability the words that they read. No doubt, the ancient reader of Samuel and its companion scrolls (Torah, Joshua, Judges, Kings) had to approach the tale much as I did, and in much the manner you employ now as you read my words. The text unfolds as the reader advances through it. The text answers the reader's questions, though it cannot anticipate every question which will be asked of it. Nevertheless, the nature of the text is to induce, predefine, guide the reader toward certain questions and away from others, at least to an extent. What I have done is to actualize the text according to an interpretative

184

The Faces of David

assumption, one derived from the text itself (as outlined in Chapter 1). By doing so, I have painted the portrait of the tale's main character, David. I have, in sum, articulated one possible response to the text. By 'possible', I mean that other interpretations are also possible; but more, I wish to insist that my reading of the text is in fact one that was possible in the context of the early third century BCE (or perhaps earlier, if this text existed earlier). If an ancient reader bothered to evaluate the distinctive features of the text carefully, that reader could have stepped away from Samuel with an interpretation similar to mine, though no doubt articulated in a very different manner, since I have employed the terminology of modern literary theory. Possibility is one thing, what about probability? Is it likely that an ancient reader would draw from this story the fallible and attractive David I have painted? Yes indeed. It is true that later interpreters, such as Jesus ben Sira, the Psalms and HQPsa, learned to limit (or redirect) the text's possibilities by transforming the tale into sacred history, and thus creating a less complex, more conventionally pious, David. Others accomplished the same goal by slavishly rewriting the story, as did the Chronicler. But the very fact that a pious scribe felt the need to rewrite is interesting. It indicates that so long as any narrative was not yet domesticated by the artificially imposed status of 'divine writ' (and many times even then as well) the subtlety of that narrative could be recognized and read with great flair, verve, creativity, and all the while, with very careful attention to the limiting guidance of the U527D, the plain sense. If Jesus ben Sira's didactic interpretation were the only option in the ancient period, the shape of Samuel itself would be very different, more like the interpretational paraphrases of biblical stories which one finds in the New Testament and the Qur'an. The question I have not addressed (except briefly on pp. 37-38) is the question of authorial intention. Why would the author(s) of this story produce a tale which would present David, the legendary king of hoary antiquity, in this way? I do not intend to offer much of an answer to this question at present, but it is one which is so routinely asked that I would be remiss not to address it at all. As a matter of fact, for decades modern scholarship has been positing answers to the question of authorial intention in diverse and creative ways. Yet, in nearly all cases, the answer involves a presumption that the tale was intended to be didactic. When the characterization of David appears to be positive, the modern interpreter attributes the text to a pro-Davidic royal scribe, or to a theologian

Postscript: Ancient Readers and Authors

185

with 'messianic' interests, be they this-worldly or eschatological. When negatively portrayed, David's portrait is alleged to derive from an antiDavidic circle, perhaps members of a monarchic-era 'prophetic' opposition movement, or perhaps Persian-era priests who advocate a theocracy in place of a monarchy. These theories presume something that seems highly unlikely, namely that a long, complex story could have served a useful role as propaganda. But that could be the case only if the story would have been read out to a large number of people and that its (alleged) ideological spin would have been perceived and internalized effectively by that large audience. I suggest that the purpose of the Samuel scroll was essentially aesthetic, the story being intended for an elite, educated audience who would have been expected to follow the complicated series of plot twists. David's story is the vehicle through which a storyteller explored a theme, or rather, a cluster of themes. Those themes were not overtly, perhaps not even covertly, ideological in nature. At most, the ideological purpose will have been to contribute to a growing anthology of literature which, collectively, served to create for its readers a sense of corporate selfidentity through the telling of tales about a mythic origin spanning the centuries, all the way back to creation itself. I have no doubt that the storyteller in question identified himself as an 'Israelite' (though how he defined the label is not easy to determine) and that he worshipped a God called miT (a deity who may or may not have borne some resemblance to the Yahweh of the Former Prophets). But this ancient writer, I submit, was neither a theologian, nor a preacher, nor a propagandist, nor a royal scribe, nor a priest, nor a historian, nor a 'spin doctor' of any kind. He may have been any of those things on his 'day job'—that cannot be determined from the text—but when writing this story, the writer was nothing more than, and certainly nothing less than, a superb storyteller.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, J.S., 'Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History', JBL 109 (1990), pp. 41-64. Ackroyd, P.R., The Second Book of Samuel (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Ahlstrom, G.W., The Early History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup, 146; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Anderson, A.A., 2 Samuel (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1989). Auld, A.G., and C.Y.S. Ho, 'The Making of David and Goliath', JSOT 56 (1992), pp. 19-39. Bach, A., 'The Pleasure of her Text', USQR 43 (1989), pp. 41-58. Bailey, R.C., David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12 (JSOTSup, 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). —The Redemption of YHWH: A Literary Critical Function of the Songs of Hannah and David', Biblnt 3 (1995), pp. 213-31. Bal, M., Murder and Difference: Gender, Genre, and Scholarship on Sisera's Death (trans. M. Gumpert; ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988). —On Story-Telling: Essays in Narratology (ed. D. Jobling; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1991). Barr, J., The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). Barstad, H.M., 'No Prophets? Recent Developments in Biblical Prophetic Research and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy', JSOT 57 (1993), pp. 39-60. Berlin, A., 'Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David's Wives', JSOT 23 (1982), pp. 69-85. Berry, D.K., The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretative Strategies for Psalm 18 (JSOTSup, 153; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Booth, W.C., The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988). —The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). Brichto, H.C., Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Tales of the Prophets (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). Brooke, A.E., N. McLean and H.S.J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek. II. Parti (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927). Brown, M.L., '"Is it Not?" or "Indeed!": HL in Northwest Semitic', Maarav4 (1987), pp. 201-19. Brueggemann, W., '2 Samuel 21-24: An Appendix of Deconstruction?', CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 383-97. —First and Second Samuel (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1990).

Bibliography

187

—'Narrative Intentionality in 1 Samuel 29', JSOT 43 (1989), pp. 21-35. Burns, J.B., 'Qadesh and Qedeshah: Did they Live off Immoral Earnings?' PEGLMBS 15 (1995), pp. 157-68. Campbell, A.F., 'The Reported Story: Midway between Oral Performance and Literary Art', Semeia 46 (1989), pp. 77-85. Carlson, R.A., David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (trans. E. Sharpe and S. Rudman; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964). Chatman, S., Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978). Childs, B., Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Clines, D.J.A., and J.C. Exum, 'The New Literary Criticism', in D.J.A. Clines, and J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 143; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 11-25. Conroy, C., Absalom! Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Samuel 13-20 (AnBib; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978). Cooper, A., 'In Praise of Divine Caprice', in P.R. Davies and D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings (JSOTSup, 144; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 144-63. —'On Reading the Bible Critically and Otherwise', in R.E. Friedman and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 61-79. —'On Reading Biblical Poetry', Maarav 4 (1987), pp. 221-41. Cross, P.M., and D.N. Freedman, 'A Royal Song of Thanksgiving', JBL 72 (1953), pp. 15-34. Cross, P.M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973). Cryer, F.H., Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A SocioHistorical Investigation (JSOTSup, 142; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). Damrosch, D., The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). Davies, G.I., et al. (eds.), Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Corpus and Concordance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Dennis, T., Sarah Laughed: Women's Voices in the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994). Dragga, S., 'In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul', JSOT 38 (1987), pp. 39-46. Edelman, D.V., 'The Authenticity of 2 Samuel 1.26 in the Lament over Saul and Jonathan', SJOT 1 (1988), pp. 66-75. —King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup, 121; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). —'Saul's Rescue of Jabesh-Gilead: Sorting Story from History', ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 195-209. Epstein, I. (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud. (London: Soncino, 1948). —Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (trans. I.W. Slotki; London: Soncino, 1983).

188

The Faces of David

Eslinger, L., 'A Change of Heart: 1 Samuel 16', in L. Eslinger and G. Taylor (eds.), Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory ofP.C. Craigie (JSOTSup, 67; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), pp. 341-61. —House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (JSOTSup, 164; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). —'Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Question of Category', VT 42 (1992), pp. 47-58. —Into the Hands of the Living God (JSOTSup, 84; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989). —Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1-12 (BLS; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985). Even-Shoshan, A., A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1989). Exum, J.C., Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives (JSOTSup, 163; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). —Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Fish, S., Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980). Flanagan, J.W., David's Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel's Early Iron Age (JSOTSup, 73; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988). Fokkelman, J.P., Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2) (trans. G. van Driem, R. Vreeland and J. Frishman; As sen: Van Gorcum, 1981). —Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 1331 & II Sam. 1) (trans. R. Vreeland; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986). —Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. III. Throne and City (II Sam. 2-8 & 21-24) (trans. L. Waaning-Wardle; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990). —Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. IV. Vow and Desire (I Sam 1-12) (trans. L. Waaning-Wardle; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993). Fox, M.V., 'Frame-Narrative and Composition in the Book of Qohelet', HUCA 48 (1977), pp. 83-106. Garcfa-Treto, P.O., 'A Mother's Paean, A Warrior's Dirge: Reflections on the Use of Poetic Inclusions in the Books of Samuel', Shofar 11 (1993), pp. 51-64. Garsiel, M., The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1985). Gelander, S., David and His God (Jerusalem: Simor, 1991). Gunn, D.M., The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980). —'In Security: The David of Biblical Narrative', in J.C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 133-51. —'Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel', VT 24 (1974), pp. 286-317. —'Reading Right: Reliable and Omniscient Narrator, Omniscient God, and Foolproof Composition in the Hebrew Bible', in D.J.A. Clines et al. (eds.), The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield (JSOTSup, 87; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), pp. 53-64. —The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (JSOTSup, 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978).

Bibliography

189

—'Traditional Composition in the "Succession Narrative'", VT 26 (1976), pp. 214-29. Gwaltney, W.C., The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature', in W. Hallo et al. (eds.), Scripture in Context. II. More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 191-211. Halpern, B., The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM, 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). —The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). —'Text and Artifact: Two Monologues?', in L.J. Silberstein and D. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (JSOTSup, 237; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Handy, L.K., 'The Characters of Heirs Apparent in the Book of Samuel', BR 38 (1993), pp. 5-22. Haran, M., 'On the Diffusion of Literacy and Schools in Ancient Israel', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Jerusalem, 1986 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 8195. Hawk, L.D., Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991). Hertzberg, H.W., / and II Samuel: A Commentary (trans. J.S. Bowden; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964). Holladay, C.R., 'Contemporary Methods of Reading the Bible', in L.E. Keck, et al. (eds.), The New Interpreter's Bible. I. General Articles, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), pp. 125-49. Iser, W., The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978). Ishida, T., 'The Story of Abner's Murder: A Problem Posed by the Solomonic Apologist', in S. Ahituv and B.A. Levine (eds.), Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical, and Geographical Studies: A. Malamat Volume, Vol. 24 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), pp. 109-13. Jackson, J.J., 'David's Throne: Patterns in the Succession Story', CJT 11 (1965), pp. 183-95. Jameson, F., The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981). Jamieson-Drake, D.W., Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A SocioArcheological Approach (JSOTSup, 109; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991). Jensen, H.J.L., 'Desire, Rivalry and Collective Violence in the Succession Narrative', JSOT 55 (1992), pp. 39-59. Jobling, D., 'Jonathan: A Structural Study in 1 Samuel', in The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament (JSOTSup, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), pp. 4-25. Klein, R.W., I Samuel (WBC; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983). Kleven, T., 'Reading Hebrew Poetry: David's Lament over Saul and Jonathan', PEGLMBS 11 (1991), pp. 51-65. —'Rhetoric and Narrative Depiction in 2 Samuel 1.1-16', PEGLMBS 9 (1989), pp. 5973. Knauf, E.A., Die Umwelt des Alien Testaments (NSKAT; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994). —'War Biblisch-Hebraisch eine Sprache?', ZAH 3 (1990), pp. 11-23.

190

The Faces of David

Kooij, A. van der, 'The Story of David and Goliath, The Early History of its Text', ETL 68 (1992), pp. 118-31. Kraus, H.-J., Psalms 1-59: A Commentary (trans. H.C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988; from the revised German edn, 1978). Kugel, J.L., The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981). Lasine, S., 'Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: The Reader as Judge of the Dispute between Mephibosheth and Ziba', HS 30 (1989), pp. 44-69. —'Melodrama as Parable: The Story of the Poor Man's Ewe-Lamb and the Unmasking of David's Topsy-Turvy Emotions', HAR 8 (1984), pp. 101-24. Lawton, R.W., '1 Samuel 18: David, Merob and Michal', CBQ 51 (1989), pp. 423-25. —'Saul, Jonathan and the "Son of Jesse'", JSOT 58 (1993), pp. 35-46. Lemche, N.P., 'Kings and Clients: On Loyalty between the Ruler and the Ruled in Ancient "Israel"', Semeia 66 (1994), pp. 119-32. Levenson, J.D., 'Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?', HTR 68 (1975), pp. 203-33. —'I Samuel 25 as Literature and History', CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 11-28. —'A Technical Meaning for N'M in the Hebrew Bible', VT 25 (1985), pp. 61-67. Levenson, J.D., and B. Halpern, 'The Political Import of David's Marriages', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 507-18. Levitsky, J., 'The Illegitimate Child (mamzer) in Jewish Law', JBQ 18 (1989), pp. 6-12. Lewis, T.J., The Textual History of the Song of Hannah: 1 Samuel ii 1-10', VT 44 (1994), pp. 18-46. Linafelt, T., 'Taking Women in Samuel: Readers/Responses/Responsibility', in D.N. Fewell (ed.), Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (LCBI; Louisville: Westminster Press, 1992), pp. 99-113. Long, B.O., 'The New Biblical Poetics of Alter and Sternberg', JSOT 51 (1991), pp. 71-84. Long, V.P., The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (SBLDS, 118; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989). Malamat, A., 'A New Prophetic Message from Aleppo and its Biblical Counterparts', in A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets (JSOTSup, 152; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 236-41. March, W.E., 'The Basic Types of Prophetic Speech', in J.H. Hayes (ed.), Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1974), pp. 157-75. Marcus, D., 'David the Deceiver and David the Dupe', Proof 6 (1986), pp. 163-71. Martin, W., Recent Theories of Narrative (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986). McCarter, P.K., 'The Apology of David', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 489-504. —/ Samuel (AB, 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980). —// Samuel (AB, 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984). McCarthy, C., The Tiqqune Sopherim (OBO, 36; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). McCarthy, D.J., 'II Samuel 7 and the Structure of the Deuteronomic History', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 131-38. McKnight, E.V., The Bible and the Reader: Introduction to Literary Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Mettinger, T.N.D., 'The Last Words of David: A Study of Structure and Meaning in II Samuel 23.1-7', SEA 41^2 (1977), pp. 147-56.

Bibliography

191

Miller, J.M., and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986). Miller, P.D., and J.J.M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the Ark Narrative of 1 Samuel (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977). Miscall, P.D., 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading (ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University, 1986). —'2 Samuel 24: A Meditation on Wrath, Guilt and the King', Shofar 11 (1993), pp. 65-79. —'For David's Sake: A Response to David M. Gunn', in J.C. Exum (ed.), Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 153-63. —'Moses and David: Myth and Monarchy', in DJ.A. Clines and J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 143; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993). Na'aman, N., 'The List of David's Officers', VT 38 (1988), pp. 71-79. Nelson, R.D., 'The Anatomy of the Book of Kings', JSOT 40 (1988), pp. 39-48. Nicholson, E., 'Story and History in the Old Testament', in S.E. Balentine and J. Barton (eds.), Language, Theology and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 135-50. Noth, M., The Deuteronomistic History (trans. J. Doull et al.\ JSOTSup, 15; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981; rev. German edn, 1957 [1943]). Notscher, F., 'Zum emphatischen Lamed', VT 3 (1953), pp. 372-80. Ollenburger, B.C., Zion, the City of the Great King (JSOTSup, 41; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987). Olmo Lete, G. del, 'David's Farewell Oracle: A Literary Analysis', VT 34 (1984), pp. 414-37. Palache, J.L., 'The Nature of Old Testament Narrative', in M. Kessler (ed. and trans.), Voices from Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative (SBLSS; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), pp. 3-22. Patrick, D., and A. Scult., Rhetoric and Biblical Interpretation (JSOTSup, 82; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990). Peckham, B., History and Prophecy: The Development of Late Judean Literary Traditions (ABRL; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993). Perdue, L.G., 'Is there Anyone Left of the House of Saul...? Ambiguity and the Characterization of David in the Succession Narrative', JSOT 30 (1984), pp. 67-84. Pisano, S., Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO, 57; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984). Pleins, J.D., 'Son-Slayers and their Sons', CBQ 54 (1992), pp. 29-38. Polzin, R., Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. I. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury, 1980). —Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. II. 1 Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989). —David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. III. 2 Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993). Preston, T.R., 'The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship', JSOT 24 (1982), pp. 27-46.

192

The Faces of David

Puech, E., 'Les ecoles dans 1'Israel preexilique: donnees epigraphiques', in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume, Jerusalem, 1986 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), pp. 189203. Pyper, H.S., 'The Enticement to Re-Read: Repetition as Parody in 2 Samuel', Biblnt 1 (1993), pp. 153-66. Rad, G. von, Old Testament Theology. I. The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions (trans. D.M.G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1962). Redford, D.B., Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992). Reis, P.T., 'Collusion at Nob: A New Reading of 1 Samuel 21-22', JSOT 61 (1994), pp. 59-73. Richardson, H.N., 'The Last Words of David: Some Notes on II Samuel 23.1-7', JBL 90 (1971), pp. 257-66. Rimmon-Kenan, S., Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London: Methuen, 1983). Rogerson, J.W., Anthropology and the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978). —'Anthropology and the Old Testament', in R.E. Clements (ed.), The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 17-37. Rosenberg, J., King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (ISBL; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986). —'This Way and that: The Politics of the Field in the Davidic History', Shofar 5 (1986), pp. 19-29. Sanders, J.A., The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (HQPsa) (DID, 4; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965). Schwartz, R.M., 'Adultery in the House of David: The Metanarrative of Biblical Scholarship and the Narratives of the Bible', Semeia 54 (1991), pp. 35-55. Sivan, D., and W. Schniedewind, 'Letting Your "Yes" be "No" in Ancient Israel: A Study of the Asseverative K1? and N^H', JSS 38 (1993), pp. 209-26. Ska, J.L., 'Our Fathers Have Told Us': Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1990). Smith, J.Z., 'Differential Equations: On Constructing the "Other"' (Lecture Transcript, Arizona State University, 5 March 1992). Smith, M.S., The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco: HarperSanFranciso, 1990). Stansell, G., 'Honor and Shame in the Davidic Narratives', Semeia 68 (1994), pp. 5579. Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (ILBS; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985). Thackeray, H.St.J. , and R. Marcus, Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, Books V-VIII (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1935). Thompson, T.L., Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE; Leiden: Brill, 1992). —Text, Context and Referent in Israelite Historiography', in D.V. Edelman (ed.), The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel's Past (JSOTSup, 127; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 65-92. Tournay, R.J., 'Les dernieres paroles de David', RB 88 (1981), pp. 481-504.

Bibliography

193

Trebolle, J., 'The Story of David and Goliath: Textual Variants and Literary Composition', BIOSCS 23 (1990), pp. 16-30. Twain, M., The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, undated reprint of original, published January 1884). VanderKam, J.C., 'Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal', JBL 99 (1980), pp. 521-39. Van Seters, J., In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). Vansina, J., Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (trans. H.M. Wright; Chicago: Aldine, 1965). —Oral Tradition as History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985). Vesco, J.-L., 'Le psaume 18, lecture davidique', RB 94 (1987), pp. 5-62. Walsh, J.T., The Characterization of Solomon in First Kings 1-5', CBQ 57 (1995), pp. 471-93. Waltke, B.K., and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Watts, J.W., Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative (JSOTSup, 139; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (repr.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992 [1972]). Whitley, C.F., 'Some Remarks on lu and lo'', ZA W 87 (1975), pp. 202-204. Whitney, G.E., 'Lo' ("Not") as "Not Yet" in the Hebrew Bible', HS 29 (1988), pp. 43-48. Willey, P.K., 'The Importunate Woman of Tekoa and How She Got Her Way', in D.N. Fewell (ed.), Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), pp. 115-31. Williams, R.J., Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2nd edn, 1976). Wilson, R.R., Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980). Wolff, H.W., 'The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work', in W. Brueggemann and H.W. Wolff (ed.), The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox, 2nd edn, 1982), pp. 83-100. Wyatt, N., 'Jedidiah and Cognate Forms as a Title of Royal Legitimation', Bib 66 (1985), pp. 112-25. Yee, G.A., The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14', CBQ 50 (1988), pp. 565-86.

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1

29 29.32 31.27 32.32 37.35 42.38 44.29, 31 48 49

21, 27, 28 17 177, 177 79 177 177 25 71 71 71 107 54 71 141 171 144 144 144 155 155, 159

Exodus 1-15 3.6, 15 4.5 6.3 7-11 7.11 9.22-35 10.13 14.21 15 16.4-36 21.5

27, 28 170 170 170 109 17 107 163 163 141 107 71

6.2 9.16 15.1 17.13 17.7, 13, 19 18-19 24.67 25.28 27.4 27.28, 39

28.3 31.3 31.16

163 163 177, 177

Leviticus 16.8-10 24.8

17 177, 177

Numbers 11.9 11.31 12.6-8 16.30 21.16-18 24 24.2 24.3-4 24.15-16 25.13

107 163 163 144 141 163 163 162 162 177

Deuteronomy 4.29-31 4.34 4.37 5.16 6.5 7.6-13 7.7-8 10.12 10.15 10.17 11.11-17 12 13.14 15.9 15.16

29 114 71 97 71, 72 71 68 71 71 58 107 33, 34 144 144 71

47, 147 17.14 47, 109 17.14-20 47 17.15 109 17.18-20 158, 163 18.15 31 18.15-18 158 18.21-22 73 22.22 67 22.22-27 72, 73 23.3 112 23.19 174 25.1 107 28.12, 24 114 29.12 29 30.1-5 31.14-21 141 31.19-22, 30 141 141, 154 32 32.2 107 144 32.22 33 155 171 33.2 107 33.13 33.29 79 34.9 163 34.10 156, 158 158 Joshua 29 4.9 5.4-6 31 5.9 29 6.25 29, 29 7.26 29 8.28, 29 29 9 122, 127 29, 29 9.27

Index of References 10.13 13.13 14.13-15 14.14 15.13-19 15.55 15.56 15.63 16.10 21.11 22.5 23 23-24 24 24.4, 32

30 29, 29 91 29 91 91 82 29 29 91 71 155 157 155 170

Judges 1.10-15, 20 1.21, 26 3.10 5 5.3 6.24 6.34 6.36-40 9.23 9.8, 15 10.4 11.29 13 14.6 15.9-13 15.14 15.19 18.12 19.22 20.13

91 29 163 141 141 29 163 107 163 77 29 163 78 163 80 163 29 29 144 144

1 Samuel 1-12 1-15 1.1-2 1.16 1.20 2 2-3 2.1-10 2.3 2.6 2.9 2.10

43 13 46 144 46 157 111 76, 77 77 144 162 77, 77, 77

2.12 2.30 2.35 2.35-36 2.4a 3.19-21 4-6 4-31 4.21-22 5 5.5 6.18 6.19 7 7.13 7.16 8 8.3 8.7-8 8.14 8.22 8.5, 20 9 9-10 9-31 9.2 9.16

10.1 10.2-8 10.22 10.23 10.27 11.1-2 11.6 11.8 11.16 12 12.8 12.17-18 13.13-14 13.14 14 14.15 14.24 14.30

144 59 46, 46 46 78 46 17, 48 80 104 17, 146 29 29 48 146 46, 52 90 47, 48, 109, 155 157 46 47 106 47 147 47 75 48 77 46, 46, 52, 71 46 44 53 77 144 44 53 80 163 43, 46, 109, 146 155, 157 170 46, 107 43, 59, 81 51,71, 148 146 146 145 167

195 14.41 14.49 14.50 15 15.04 15.11 15.12 15.20 15.22 15.33 16

17 122, 123 82, 96 22, 45 80 46 94 150 177 48 13, 19, 46, 51, 52, 75, 84, 108, 125, 148 148, 159 163, 163 181 43 16-17 51, 148 16.1 45, 52 16.7 52 16.13 16.14 45, 48, 163 71,72, 16.21 79 54, 81, 17 118, 129 150 80 17.1 80 17.2 129 17.4 80 17.13 52 17.25-27 164 17.26 53 17.26, 30 147 17.26, 36 17.26, 45-47 164 53 17.34-37 108 17.39 129 17.4, 23 53 17.45-47 80, 80 17.52 53, 53 17.54 46, 54 18 54 18-22 81 18-23 71,72, 18.1-4 79 52 18.1-7 55 18.2 94 18.3

196 18.3-4 18.4 18.6-8 18.7 18.10 18.10-11 18.14 18.14-15 18.15-15 18.16, 20 18.18-19 18.20 18.23 18.25 18.26 18.26b 18.27 18.27, 30 18.29 18.5, 7 18.9, 29 19.1-7 19.9-10 19.10 19.18 19.23 19.23-24 20

20.1 20.8 20.12-17 20.13-16 20.13b 20.13b-17 20.14 20.14-15a 20.15 20.15b-16 20.18-23 20.18-42 20. la 20.30-31 20.30-34 20.33b 20.35-42 20.41-42

The Faces of David 62, 93 78, 94, 108, 146 141 106, 108 163 49 52 52 52 71 53 52 53 106, 145 54, 54 84 53, 54, 105, 106 147 52 143 52 144 79 49 132 146 45 154 46, 78, 79, 92, 94 97, 144, 150 93, 150 153 94 93 92 167 93 55,62 93 55 108 93 95 79 93 55 55

20.42 21 21-22 21-30 21.2 21.2-10 21.10 21.11 21.12 22 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.4-5 22.5 22.6-9 22.7 22.8 22.10 22.10, 15 22.20-33 22.21-22 22.22 23

23, 25, 27 23.1-5 23.2-4 23.3 23.5 23.6 23.9-12 23.13-15 23.14 23.14, 19 23.15

23.16 23.16-18 23.17 23.17a 23.18 23.19 23.19, 24 23.19-28 23.24 23.25 24

93 177 55 55 86 55 129 86 109 48 86, 87 55 86 86,87 133 75, 87, 159, 162 87 106 79 129 162 87 55 48, 85 93, 94, 128 56 97 162 80 87 87 162 87,88 94 133 94, 94, 96 92, 93, 94,95 92,95 55, 55, 62 79, 93 93, 95 87 88 95 87 132 83, 84,

97, 110, 144, 145 24-26 56 24.1 87 24.3 132 24.6 82, 85, 97, 149, 180 24.9 83, 144 164 24.9-16 24.9-23 83 24.1, 23 133 24.12 145 24.13 84, 145, 145 164 24.13-16 24.18-20 151 24.20 167 59 24.20-21 153, 173 24.22-23a 24.26 56 24.48 145 24.7, 11 79 25 56, 57, 82, 89, 91, 122 87 25.1 25.2 91 25.3 56, 91 25.10 82 25.11 167 25.14 56 25.17 144 25.2, 36 91 25.25 144 25.26, 31 133 25.28 59, 159 25.28-29 85 25.32-34 85 25.32-34, 39 164 25.33 133 25.37 57 25.39 85 25.42 89, 92 25.43 82, 96, 97 25.44 82 26 83, 84, 97, 110, 144, 145 26.1 87, 89 26.2 88

Index of References 26.4-5 26.5 26.12 26.14-25 26.15 26.17 26.18-20 26.19 26.21 26.22-24 26. 3b 26.9 26.11 26.16 26.23 27-29 27.1 27.2 27.5-06 27.6

27.7 27.8-9 27.8-11 27.8-12 27.9 27.10-12 27.10b 27. 6b 28 28.2 28.6 29 29.1-2 29.4 29.5 29.10 29.11 30 30.1 30.6 30.6-8 30.22 30.25 30.26-31

30.31 30.8 30.15 30.23

88 87 96 83 83 144 164 144 83 164 88 79 79 79 79 147 84, 96 87 89 29, 29, 87, 89 89 84 90 89 90 92 90 92 17, 45, 144 148 17 55, 84 87, 90 148 109 83 87, 90 132, 133 84, 87 120, 133, 148 162 133 29 90, 91, 97 90 133 133 133

31

31.2 31.3 31.4 2 Samuel 1

1-9 1.1-2 1.1-16 1.2 1.11-27 1.14, 16 1.16 1.17 1.17-18 1.18 1.18a 1.19 1.19, 21 1.19, 25, 27 1.19-27 1.19a 1.19b 1.20

1.20a 1.20b 1.21-22 1.21 1.21a 1.21b 1.22-24 1.22-23 1.22 1.22a 1.22b 1.23-24 1.23 1.23a 1.23b 1.24 1.24a

197

52, 117, 123 123 78 108

1.24b 1.25-26 1.25 1.25a 1.25b 1.26

56, 57, 86, 100, 110, 116 122, 145 181 57 84 84, 97 86 55 79 164 100 98 30, 80 78, 102 103 146 146 11, 100 98 98 103, 105, 147 98 98 162 79, 103, 105, 106, 107 98 98, 108 108, 146 105 103, 107 146 78, 99 99 107 103, 146 79,99 99 103, 105 107, 108 99

1.26a 1.26b 1.27 1.27a 1.27b 2-4 2.1 2.1-4 2.4 2.4-7 2.5-7 2.6 2.6b 2.7 2.8 2.10-11 2.11 2.12-13 3 3.2-5 3.3 3.3-5 3.14 3.15 3.15-16 3.22 3.25 3.26 3.26-27 3.28-29 3.28-39 3.33 3.33-34

3.35-39 3.38-39 3.39a 4

4-5 4.2 4.3

99 80 103 99 99 103, 106 107 99 99 103, 146 99 99 148 122, 162 56 78, 96 55, 57 44, 96, 110, 115 111 78 78, 94, 111 78 92, 96 96 96 95, 149 122 122, 179 65 106, 106 97 57 133 57 58 133 85, 164 55 100 11,85, 97, 1 10, 148 57 58 149 57, 123, 125 92 133 29

198 4.4 4.7 4.8 4.9-12 4.10-11 5 5.2 5.5 5.12

5.12, 20 5.13-16 5.14 5.19, 23 5.22-25 5.7, 9, 17 6 6.2 6.6-7 6.8 6.8-10 6.12 6.21 6.21-22 6.23 7

7-08 7.1-3 7.1 7.2 7.5 7.5-29 7.5-07 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11-16 7.13 7.15

The Faces of David 126 123 148 55, 149 164, 164 118, 122, 128 59 122 78, 134, 143, 152 172, 172 164 122 65, 126 162 146 133 58 146 48, 122 29 58 58 146 164 43 25, 34, 44, 49, 58, 59, 69, 70, 74, 75, 75, 111, 131, 132 143, 149 150, 157 161, 170 172, 177 179 134 162 131 59 161 172 34 71 33 33 64 33 57, 131

7.18-29

7.18 7.18b-21 7.19 7.19b 7.20 7.21 7.22-24 7.22 7.23 7.24 7.25-29 7.25 7.26 7.26b 7.27 7.28 7.29 7.29a 7.8-lla 8 8.3-08 8.3 8.15 8.6b, 14b 9-20 9-12 9

9.1

9.4-5 9.9-10 9.12 10.02 10.16-18 10.6b 11-21 11-20 11

59, 111, 152, 164 170 111 114 111, 112 177, 177 114 112 112 114 112, 177 112 113, 115 114 113, 114 113, 115 114 113 113 114 115 152 128, 131 132, 147 148 183 94 173 133, 147 60 131 54, 55, 62, 62, 126, 131 132, 148 173 123, 123 126 126 83 122, 126 44 183 183 119 132 59, 60, 118, 128 130, 131 143, 151 153, 173

11.1 11.4 11.11 11.21 11.23 11.27 12

12.5-6 12.7-12 12.7-14 12.8

12.9 12.10-12 12.11 12.12a 12.13 12.13a 12.13b 12.14 12.14a 12.14b 12.10a 12.10b 12.24-25

12.24 12.25 12.26-31 12.31 13-20 13-15 13

13.20 13.21 13.23-29 13.23 13.25 13.32-36 13.32-33 13.34-39 13.38

128, 129 59 167 27 162 60 66, 69, 70, 72, 75, 75, 121, 173 179 164 48 118 57, 60, 83 67 67 66 66 67 67 67 67 66 66 66, 124 66 64, 64, 66, 68, 68, 72, 180 65, 126 51, 64, 65 64 61, 173 153 164 64, 64, 65,71, 122 122 65, 173, 179 179 122 132 178 65 178 122

Index of R 13,.39 14 14..21-28 14.,21 14.,27 14,.28 14.,32b 14,.33 14.,33b 15-18 15.,3-4 15 .7-9 15,.7-8 15,.18-36 15 .26 16 16,.1-4 16,.5-13 16 .5 16..7-8 16,.7 16.,10-12 16 .11 16,.21 17,.12 17.,14b 17,,27 18-19 18 18..3 18.,5 18.,12 18.,18 18.,29 18.31b 18.32 18.32b 19 19. 1-5 19. 1 19.5 19.7 19. 14 19. 17-24 19.25-31 19.25 19.30 19.36

178 47, 173 178 132 122, 180 122 178 178 178 64 174, 179 178 179 61 178 125 55, 62, 173 148, 173 123 123 144 124, 164 132 94 107 69, 70 126 70 86, 101 129 132 167 29, 122, 183 132 132 132 132 62, 101 65 70, 101, 132, 178 179 132 167 86 83 55, 173 62 62 141

20 20 .3 20 .4-13 20.22 21-24a 21-24

21-23 21 21 .1-14 21 .1-2 21 .1 21 .la 21 .7 21 .10 21 .14b 21 .15-22 21 .15-17 21 .16 21 .22 21 .2b 21.6,9 22

22,.1-23.7 22,,l-2a 22,.1 22.,lb 22.,2-51 22,.2-3 22.,2b-3a 22,,2b-3 22.,2b 22.,3b 22.,4 22.,4a 22.,5-20 22.5-6 22.5a

62 173 86 131 142 54, 119, 131 130 62, 122, 123, 126 148 122, 123 126 62 162 126 123 48, 127 127 128, 130 128 55 129 122 48 11, 12, 100, 105 110, 110 119, 120 121, 130 131, 134 149, 153 155, 156 164, 165 170, 173 181 153, 165 135 100, 102 118, 136 164 156 135 132, 142 135, 137 135, 138 142 135, 135 139 142 142 135, 135

99 22,.5b 22.,6a 22,,6b 22,.7-8 22,,7a 22.,7b-8a 22,.7b 22.,8a 22,.8b 22,.9-16 22. 9a 22,.9b 22.,10a 22,,lla 22,.lib 22,.12a 22,.12b 22,.13a 22,,13b 22.,14a 22.14b 22,.15a 22,.15b 22,.16a 22,,16b 22.,17-20 22.,17a 22,,17b 22,.18-19 22,.18 22,.18a 22,.18b 22,,19a 22,.19b 22,.20 22,,20a 22,.21 22.,21-31 22.,21-28 22.,21-24a 22.,21-22a 22.,21a 22.,21b 22.22a 22,,22b 22.,23a 22,,23b 22.,24a 22.,24b-25 22.24b

140, 135, 144 135, 135, 142 135 135 135 135, 135 142 136 136 136 136 135, 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 135, 135, 142 136 136, 144 149 136 136 136 136 178 136 153 150 142 173, 150 137 137 137 137 137 137 137 142 137

144 140 143 144

146

136

136 136 144

180

200 22.25a 22.25b 22.26-28 22.26a 22.26b 22.27a 22.27b 22.28a 22.28b 22.29-33a 22.29-30 22.29 22.29a 22.29b 22.31-33a 22.31 22.31a 22.31b 22.32 22.32a 22.32b 22.33a 22.33b-46 22.33b-35 22.33b 22.34 22.34a 22.34b 22.35-36 22.35 22.35a 22.35b 22.36-37 22.36 22.36a 22.36b 22.37a 22.37b 22.38 22.38a 22.38b 22.39-43 22.39a 22.39b 22.30a 22.40b 22.41a 22.41b 22.42a

The Faces of David 137 137 142, 150 137 137 137 135, 137 137 135, 137 142 142 136, 156 137 135, 137 142 79, 146 138 138 156 138 138 138 142 142 138 146, 156 138 138 146 78, 146 138 138 142 79, 146 138 138, 149 138 138 143 138 139 132, 143 146 135, 139 139 133, 135 137 132, 135 139 139 139 135, 139

22.42b 22.43a 22.43b 22.44-46 22.44-45 22.44a 22.44b 22.45-46a 22.45a 22.45b 22.46a 22.46b 22.47-51 22.47-48a 22.47 22.47a 22.47b 22.48-49 22.48a 22.48b 22.49 22.49a 22.49b 22.50 22.51 22.51a 22.51b 23.1-7

23.1-3a 23.1 23. la 23.1b-7

23. Ib 23.2 23.2a 23.3 23. 3a 23.3b-4 23. 3b

23.4

139 135, 139 135, 139 143, 147 156 139, 148 139, 147 135 139 139 139 139 143 149 143, 156 139 139 143 139 135, 139 147 144, 156 132, 139 139, 140 141, 143 132, 143 156 140 140 11, 105, 107, 110 130, 131 149, 155 160, 165 166 160 156, 166 153, 160 165 153, 154 175, 181 183 165, 168 166, 169 163, 163 156 166, 169 160, 161 162, 171 133, 166 169 136, 156

23.5 23. 5a 23. 5b 23.6-7 23.6 23.7 23.8-39 23.13-17 23.13-14 24

24.1 24.3a 24.8 24.10 1 Kings 1

1-2 1-3 1.5-6 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.21 1.34 1.35 1.39 1.45 2

2.1-9 2.2-9 2.2-4 2.5-9 2.5-6

166, 169 177 59 167, 169 175 161, 167 168, 169 176 161, 176 168, 169 168, 169 130 56 133 34, 49, 130, 154 159 49 130 131 164 51, 64, 69, 73, 74, 75, 159 60, 119, 153, 154, 155 64 66 65, 73 65 73 65 73 77 71 77 77 13, 19, 51, 131, 163, 181 153 164 63, 115, 162, 164 170 63 86, 156, 174

Index of R 2.6 2.8-9 2.9 2.10 2.12 2.15 2.24 2.26-27 2.45 2.46 3

3.2-3 3.3 3.6, 14 5.12 5.15 5.19 6.12-13 8-9 8.8 8.12-13 8.20 8.35-36 8.65 9 9.3 9.4 9.13 9.16-17 9.21 10.12 11-13 11 11.12 11.36 12.19 12.31-32 13 13.2 13.33-34 14.19 14.23 14.29 15.4 15.5 15.19b-20 15.7 15.23

144 127, 156 174 144 153 75 75 51, 75 46 51 51, 75 51, 62, 66,74 34 74 119 141 71, 72, 77 75 34, 34 34 29, 29 30 75 107 31 34 34 119 29 92 29 29, 141 25 38, 75 119 25 29, 29 34 158 33, 34, 74 34 30 34 30 38 81 96 30 30

15.31 16.5 16.14 16.15 16.20 16.27 17.1 18.1 18.31 18.45 19 19.11 19.15-16 21.13 22 22.21-24 22.39 22.44 22.46 2 Kings 1.18 2.9 2.22 3.22 5 5.26 8.19 8.22 8.23 9 9.3-12 10.34 11.12 13.5-6 13.23 14.7 14.24-27 16.6 17

17.23 17.34 17.34, 41 19.7 19.9-19 19.30-31 21 21.10 22 23.25-27 23.30

30 30 30 166 30 30 107 107 170 163 158 163 77 144 158 163 30 34 30 30 163 29 171 29 167 38 29, 29 30 75 77 30 77 21 170 29 21 29 22, 33, 35, 157 29 170 29 158, 163 158 29 24, 25 144 28, 158 22 77

01 25 25.27-30 25.29-30

51, 159 29, 62 59

2 Chronicles 35.25 100 Job

2.10 11.11 Psalms 2 3.4 18

167 167

18.3 18.20 18.31 18.36 28.7 33.20 36.2-5 47.10 56.14 59.12 72.6 84.10 89 89.18 89.20-38 102.09 110 115.09-11 119.92 119.114 132 144.02

175 79 11, 143, 150, 156 79 136 79 79, 138 79 79 154 79 167 79 160 79 175 79 161 135 175 79 124 79 175 79

Proverbs 4.18-19 4.18 30 30.1

161 160 163 154

Isaiah 4.2 7.14 11.02 14 21.5 24.16

104 68 163 100 107 104

The Faces of David

202 28.5 61.1

104 163

Jeremiah 7.29 9.9 9.16-23 9.16 41.5

100 100 100 100 29

Ezekiel 2.9-10 8.1-04 11.24 18.25 19.1-14 26.17-18 27.1-11 27.25-36 28.12-19

100 163 163 167 100 100 100 100 100

32.2-16 37.1 37.24-28

100 163 161

Amos 5.1-2 5.16 8.7-10 8.10

100 105 100 100

Yebamot 79a

127

Yoma 22b

44

OTHER ANCIENT REFERENCES

4QSam 85,92, 113, 165, 166 160, 184 'Erubin 13b 22b 79a

38 44 127

Mo'ed Qatan 16b

44

Sanhedrin 21a 95a

43 55

INDEX OF AUTHORS Ackerman, J.S. 60, 62, 69 Ackroyd, P.R. 97 Ahlstrom, G.W. 41 Anderson, A.A. 139, 160 Auld, A.G. 52 Bach, A. 57 Bailey, R.C. 47, 52, 63, 120, 159 Bal, M. 13, 16, 27, 38 Barr, J. 139 Barrera, J.T. 52 Barstad, H.M. 162 Berlin, A. 56, 79 Berry, O.K. 156 Booth, W.C. 17,44 Brichto, H.C. 62, 173 Brown, M.L. 167 Brueggemann, W. 44, 46, 54, 55, 119 Burns, J.B. 112 Campbell, A.F. 26, 37 Carlson, RA. 74 Chatman, S. 19, 121 Childs, B.S. 15 Clines, D.JA. 14 Conroy, C. 14 Cooper, A. 11, 12, 21 Cross, P.M. 24, 25, 37, 136, 147, 154 Cryer, F. 70 Cryer, F.H. 17

Even-Shoshan, A. 45 Exum, J.C. 14, 43, 46, 48, 52, 54 Fish, S. 25 Flanagan, J.W. 17 Fokkelman, J.P. 12, 17, 33, 44, 53, 6264, 105, 127 Fox, M.V. 36 Freedman, D.N. 136, 147 Garcfa-Treto, P.O. 101,140 Garsiel, M. 53 Gelander, S. 49 Gunn, D.M. 20, 42, 44, 47, 58, 61, 64, 74, 150, 151, 175, 180 Gwaltney, W.C. 100 Halpern, B. 23, 24, 35, 37, 53, 71, 83, 91, 96, 110 Handy, L.K. 45, 47, 174, 179 Haran, M. 41 Hawk, L.D. 21 Hayes, J.H. 87 Hertzberg, H.W. 78, 94, 99 Ho, C.Y.S. 52 Holladay, C.R. 12 Iser, W. 15,26,42 Ishida, T. 58

Damrosch, D. 42, 43, 45, 47, 72, 80 Davies, G.I. 138, 165, 166 Dennis, T. 60, 63, 73 Dragga, S. 44

Jackson, J.J. 14 Jameson, F, 25 Jamieson-Drake, D.W. 41 Jensen, H.J.L. 62 Jobling, D. 14

Edelman, D.V. 43, 44, 46, 53, 72, 86, 103, 108 Eslinger, L. 15, 16, 19-23, 25, 27, 28, 31,34,37,43,44,48,53,58,59, 114, 122, 159

Klein, R.W. 94 Kleven, T. 80, 84, 104, 106, 108 Knauf, E.A. 13, 17 Kooij, A. van der 52 Kraus, H.-J. 147

204

The Faces of David

Kugel, J.L. 11 Lasine, S. 62, 153, 173 Lawton, R.W. 47, 54 Lemche, N.P. 91 Levenson, J.D. 14, 48, 56, 82, 83, 91, 161-63 Levitsky, J. 73 Lewis, T.J. 77 Linafelt, T. 48, 54 Long, B.O. 20 Long, V.P. 44 Malamat, A. 77 March, W.E. 160, 174 Marcus, D. 63 Marcus, R. 134 Martin, W. 14,50 McCarter, P.K. 11, 12, 40, 42, 54, 65, 66, 77, 85-88, 92, 94, 98, 99, 104, 110, 112-14, 129-31, 135, 137, 146, 160, 165-68, 174, 178 McCarthy, C. 124 McCarthy, D.J. 157 McKnight, E.V. 12 Mettinger, T.N.D. 166, 167 Miller, J.M. 87 Miller, P.D. 104 Miscall, P.D. 34, 44, 49, 119, 140, 159 Na'aman, N. 130 Nelson, R.D. 25, 28 Nicholson, E. 24 Noth, M. 16, 24, 36, 37, 141, 157 Notscher, F. 167 O'Connor, M. 98 Ollenburger, B.C. 175 Olmo Lete, G.del 166 Palache, J.L. 42 Patrick, D. 16 Peckham, B. 157 Perdue, L.G. 62, 83 Pisano, S. 113 Pliens, J.D. 43 Polzin, R. 12, 21-23, 31, 32, 43, 45, 46, 52, 53, 57-59, 70, 76-79, 82, 102, 111, 116, 140, 151, 154, 156, 159, 173, 174

Preston, T.R. 44, 45, 52 Pyper, H.S. 173

Rad, G. von 50, 147 Redford, D.B. 30 Reis, P.T. 55 Richardson, H.N. 160, 167 Rimmon-Kenan, S. 17, 18, 28, 50, 121 Roberts, J.J.M. 104 Rogerson, J.W. 41 Rosenberg, J. 54, 64, 65 Sanders, J.A. 160 Schniedewind, W. 167 Schwartz, R.M. 61, 173 Scult, A. 16 Sivan, D. 167 Ska, J.L. 27, 28, 179 Smith, J.Z. 41 Smith, M.S. 172 Stansell, G. 55, 57 Sternberg, M. 13, 19-21, 23, 25, 31, 32,35,37,44,47,60,61,67 Thackeray, H.StJ. 134 Thompson, T.L. 13, 26, 37 Tournay, R.J. 155, 160, 166 Twain, M. 19,30,32 Van Seters, J. 23, 24 Vanderkam, J.C. 124 Vansina, J. 40-42 Vesco, J.-L. 133, 134, 143, 150, 156 Walsh, J.T. 74 Waltke,B.K. 98 Watts, J.W. 12, 120, 133, 155 Weinfeld, M. 20 Whitley, C.F. 167 Whitney, G.E. 99 Willey, P.K. 173, 178 Williams, R.J. 105, 166, 167 Wilson, R.R. 162 Wolff, H.W. 36 Wyatt, N. 68

Yee, G.A. 100

JOURNAL FOP THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 131 132

L. Holden, Forms of Deformity M.D. Carroll R., Contexts for Amos: Prophetic Poetics in Latin American Perspective 133 R. Syren, The Forsaken Firstborn: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives 134 G. Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua 135 G.F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 136 P. Morris & D. Sawyer (eds.), A Walk in the Garden: Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden 137 H.G. Reventlow & Y. Hoffman (eds.), Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence 138 R.P. Carroll (ed.), Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson 139 J.W. Watts, Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative 140 W. Houston, Purity and Monotheism: Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law 141 G.C. Chirichigno, Debt-Slavery in Israel and the Ancient Near East 142 F.H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio-Historical Investigation 143 D.J.A. Clines & J.C. Exum (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible 144 P.R. Davies & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Language, Imagery and Structure in the Prophetic Writings 145 C.S. Shaw, The Speeches ofMicah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis 146 G.W. Ahlstrom, The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (ed. D. Edelman, with a contribution by G.O. Rollefson) 147 T.W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East 148 P.R. Davies, In Search of 'Ancient Israel' 149 E. Ulrich, J.W. Wright, R.P. Carroll & P.R. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp 150 J.E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 151 J.P. Weinberg, The Citizen-Temple Community 152 A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson 153 O.K. Berry, The Psalms and their Readers: Interpretive Strategies for Psalm 18 154 M. Brettler & M. Fishbane (eds.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday 155 J.A. Fager, Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee: Uncovering Hebrew Ethics through the Sociology of Knowledge

156 157 158 159 160 161 162

163 164 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184

J.W. Kleinig, The Lord's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles G.R. Clark, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible M. Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers J.C. McCann (ed.), The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter W. Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History G.W. Coats, The Moses Tradition H.A. McKay & D.J.A. Clines (eds.), Of Prophet's Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday J.C. Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives L. Eslinger, House of God or House of David: The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context R.F. Person, Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School R.N. Whybray, The Composition of the Book of Proverbs B. Dicou, Edom, Israel's Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story W.G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse H.G. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman & B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature V. Fritz, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology M.P. Graham, W.P. Brown & J.K. Kuan (eds.), History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes J.M. Sprinkle, 'The Book of the Covenant': A Literary Approach T.C. Eskenazi & K.H. Richards (eds.), Second Temple Studies. II. Temple and Community in the Persian Period G. Brin, Studies in Biblical Law: From the Hebrew Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls D.A. Dawson, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew M.R. Hauge, Between Sheol and Temple: Motif Structure and Function in the I-Psalms J.G. McConville & J.G. Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy R. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets B.M. Levinson (ed.), Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development S.L. McKenzie & M.P. Graham (eds.), The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth J. Day (ed.), Lectures on the Religion of The Semites (Second and Third Series) by William Robertson Smith J.C. Reeves & J. Kampen (eds.), Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honour of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday

185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211

S.D. Kunin, The Logic of Incest: A Structuralist Analysis of Hebrew Mythology L. Day, Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther C.V. Dorothy, The Books of Esther: Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity R.H. O'Connell, Concentricity and Continuity: The Literary Structure of Isaiah W. Johnstone (ed.), William Robertson Smith: Essays in Reassessment S.W. Holloway & L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W. Ahlstrom M. Saeb0, On the Way to Canon: Creative Tradition History in the Old Testament H.G. Reventlow & W. Farmer (eds.), Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration E.K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel's History in the Book of Hosea J. Davies, G. Harvey & W.G.E. Watson (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F.A. Sawyer J.S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible W.M. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period T.J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison J.H. Eaton, Psalms of the Way and the Kingdom: A Conference with the Commentators M.D. Carroll R., D.J.A. Clines & P.R. Davies (eds.), The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Roger son J.W. Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith N. Stahl, Law and Liminality in the Bible J.M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs P.R. Davies, Whose Bible Is It Anyway ? D.J.A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible M. Miiller, The First Bible of the Church: A Plea for the Septuagint J.W. Rogerson, M. Davies & M.D. Carroll R. (eds.), The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium B.J. Stratton, Out of Eden: Reading, Rhetoric, and Ideology in Genesis 2-3 P. Dutcher-Walls, Narrative Art, Political Rhetoric: The Case ofAthaliah and Joash J. Berlinerblau, The Vow and the 'Popular Religious Groups' of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry B.E. Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles

212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 233 234 235 236 237 238 242 248

Y. Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea's Marriage in Literary- Theoretical Perspective Y.A. Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context R.F. Melugin & M.A. Sweeney (eds.), New Visions of Isaiah J.C. Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women I.E. McKinlay, Gendering Wisdom the Host: Biblical Invitations to Eat and Drink J.F.D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter G. Glazov, The Bridling of the Tongue and the Opening of the Mouth in Biblical Prophecy G. Morris, Prophecy, Poetry and Hosea R.F. Person, Jr, In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah G. Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the 'Succession Narrative' R.N. Whybray, Reading the Psalms as a Book S.B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job P.J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha R.D. Weiss & D.M. Carr (eds.), A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders L.L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis J.F.A. Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: Responses to Mary Douglas V. Fritz and P.R. Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States Stephen Breck Reid (ed.), Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker K.J. Cathcart and M.J. Maher (eds.), Targumic and Cognate Studies: Essays in Honour of Martin McNamara M.D. Goulder, The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III Ken Stone, Sex, Honor, and Power in the Deuteronomistic History J.W. Watts and P.R. House (eds.), Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah ReExamined Neil Asher Silberman and David Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present M. Patrick Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglund and Steven L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian K.L. Noll, The Faces of David Etienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah