Part 22
215 I AND 2 SAMUEL
Saul's shield is left to rust. In turning to Saul and Jonathan (w. 22—4), David extols them as heroes who, although now slain, persevered in battle and had slain the enemy (v. 22), for they were strong and swift in battle (v. 23). Father and son were joined in death (v. 23). Then the women of Israel are called upon to mourn Saul, who had brought them prosperity and luxury (v. 24). Before the final refrain in v. 27, David gives vent to his personal grief for Jonathan (w. 25/7-26), and the word 'love' echoes once again the covenant of friendship between the two.
section than to treat it as the opening chapter of the following section on David's rule in Judah.
The problem here is that w. i—16 give an entirely different account of Saul's death to the one read in i Sam 31:3-5. The Amalekite who brought the news to David claims that he killed Saul, and as proof presents the king's crown and armlet to David. There is no suggestion that Saul committed suicide; his leaning on his spear' (v. 6) was no more than an attempt to support himself. Moreover, Saul was overtaken by 'chariots and horsemen' (v. 6), not 'archers' as in 31:3; there is no mention of an armour-bearer in this account, and it mentions only Jonathan of the three sons killed. Of the various solutions offered the most likely explanation of the discrepancy is that the Amalekite was lying in order to gain favour with David. This is preferable to the suggestion that this chapter continues the narrative in i Sam 31, but is the result of the combination of literary strands (Gr0nbaek 1971), and also to the view that it is an alternative account emphasizing that
The Kingship of David (2 Sam 2-8)
Not one of the proposed divisions of material in 2 Sam 2-20 is entirely satisfactory. Superficially chs. 2-8 appear to be dealing with the period when David set up his kingdom, or, as is often claimed, his empire, and chs. 9—20, concerned as they are with intrigue and rivalries, address the issue of succession to his throne, with a final solution being found in i Kings 1-2. However, the place of ch. 7 is unclear; on the one hand, it has appropriately been described as a climax to the period when the Davidic empire was being established, but on the other, it can be regarded as an introduction to the section on succession to his throne. It can also be argued that other parts of this complex would fit more naturally elsewhere (see c.i6). The clash between Michal and David (6:20-3), f°r instance, is really concerned with the succession; again the account of his Philistine wars (5:17—25), as well as the list of his successes
Saul's death was the result of divine judgement (Ackroyd 1977). If it is accepted that the Amalekite was lying, several features of the narrative fall into place. The Amalekites, as old enemies of Israel, were not trusted; once the messenger is identified as an Amalekite (v. 8), only treachery can be expected. He came showing signs of grief, his 'clothes torn and dirt on his head', but they may well have been contrived in an attempt to give authenticity to his account. Although he claims to have killed Saul, it is more probable that he went to Mount Gilboa in search of plunder and chanced on Saul's body; he immediately stripped him of his crown and armlet, and then realized that these insignia of kingship would be valuable to David. He saw in this an opportunity to curry the favour of the king-elect (McCarter 1984). The messenger describes himself as 'a resident alien' (ger); an Amalekite who was resident was bound by the laws of his adopted community
(8:1—14), could bg placed within the History of David's Rise. It could also be legitimately claimed that a climax is reached in ch. 5 when David became king at Hebron and made a covenant with the people. Nevertheless, because of the possibility of identifying a complex in 2 Sam 9—20, i Kings 1—2 dealing specifically with the succession narrative, a natural break occurs at the end of ch. 8.
(Lev 24:22), and therefore his disregard for the sanctity of'the LORD'S anointed' could not go unpunished and he was sentenced to death. Not only does this narrative confirm once again David's respect for YHWH's anointed, but may also have been intended to exonerate David entirely of the events that led to his succession. It also has an apologetic aim, for it explains how David came quite innocently to be in possession of Saul's crown and armlet (McCarter 1984).
(2 Sam 2:1-32) David Becomes King at Hebron David's move to Hebron is presented as an act of obedience to God's instructions after an enquiry from David, and is, therefore, part of God's plan to bring his king-elect to the throne. Although that is the interpretation of events given in the biblical account, there is evidence that David himself had taken several shrewd steps aimed at strengthening his position in readiness for taking the throne. By marrying Abigail he had already obtained a power-base in Hebron (i Sam 25:3), and he had also sent gifts to its inhabitants after his defeat of the Amalekites (i Sam 30:31). Hebron was certainly the most powerful town in the region, and it was there that David was 'anointed king over Judah' (v. 4). Although he had been anointed previously by Samuel (i Sam 16:13), me action taken on this occasion by 'the people of Judah', as later by 'the elders of Israel' (5:3), was a significant step in his recognition as king.
David's lament in w. 17—20, with its very personal expression of his grief over the loss of Jonathan, can be attributed to David himself (cf Hertzberg 1964; McCarter 1984). The introduction in v. 17 contains a difficult phrase, 'and he said to teach the sons of Judah a bow', which the NRSV has taken to refer to the lament's title, 'The Song of the Bow'. Another possibility, having some support in the LXX, is to omit 'bow' as an intrusion. The poem was preserved in an anthology known as the Book of Jashar (cf. Josh 10:12—13; J Kings 8:12— 13), and although it is called a lament it does not adhere strictly to the qina metre. A kind of refrain, 'How the mighty have fallen', occurs in three places (w. 19, 25, 27). After stating that Israel's 'glory' has fallen (a reference to Saul, according to McCarter 1984, to its 'young men' according to Hertzberg 1964), the poet expresses his wish that the news be kept from the cities of the Philistines to prevent their exultation over Judah (v. 20). He then curses Mt. Gilboa (v. 21), the scene of defeat, and condemns it to barrenness; it is the place where
David had also attempted to secure support in northern areas. Two of the marriages he contracted, to Ahinoam of Jezreel and also to Maacah, daughter of Talmai of Geshur, are probably to be considered as marriage alliances through which he established contacts and gained support in those particular areas. His overtures to the men of Jabesh-gilead, who had been loyal to Saul (w. 4^-7), were again aimed at establishing a relationship with that area. With the death of Saul their relationship with him had come to an end, and now
I AND 2 SAMUEL 216
open bid for Ishbaal's throne, cf. i Kings 2:13—25, where Adonijah made a similar bid for Solomon's throne and 2 Sam 16:20-3, where Absalom openly visited David's harem (McCarter 1984, following Tsevat 1958). It was probably Abner's growing power in Ishbaal's court that gave him confidence to make public his interest in the crown. When challenged by Ishbaal, however, he replied angrily and defiantly, although the meaning of the phrase 'dog's head' in his reply is not clear; it may denote insignificance or else is a euphemism for his sexual drive (see further Thomas 1960). Abner does not admit that he is in the wrong, but dismisses the affair as insignificant in comparison with the loyalty he has shown to the house of Saul (v. 8). It has been suggested that the remainder of his reply (w. 9—10) is a Deuteronomistic interpolation; it shows acquaintance with the Deuteronomistic presentation of Saul and David, i.e. a condemnation of
they were being offered a renewed relationship with David
(McCarter 1984). David was obviously making moves which were a direct challenge to the house of Saul, which was enjoying special ties with Gilead, Jezreel, and Geshur, together with several other northern territories. Consequently civil war broke out between north and south. Ishbaal (reading with the Greek, for the Hebrew Ishbosheth, 'man of shame'), Saul's son, had Abner, Saul's cousin, as his military commander, and David was assisted by Joab, son of Zeruiah. Both armies set out for Gibeon, the Saulide contingent travelling from Mahanaim in Transjordan, and when they met Abner suggested a contest between the young men, twelve on each side. A serious contest between trained warriors to settle an issue was widely practised in the ancient world, cf ordeals by battle among the Hittites (Fensham 1970). A combat ordeal was settled by the will of the deity. To gain the advantage the contestant grasped the head of his opponent and with the other hand thrust a sword into his side. All the contestants were killed (v. 16), which made the contest inconclusive, but the more general battle that ensued was to David's advantage
Saul, a promise to give his kingdom to another, and the identification of David as the chosen king (Ackroyd 1977; McCarter 1984). In his message to David at Hebron (following the LXX in preference to an unclear MT) Abner sought a pact (a 'covenant') with him on the understanding that Israelite territories, i.e. Ishbaal's kingdom, would be transferred to David. His question, 'To whom does the land belong?' suggests that power was in his own hand (cf. v. 6) and that he could negotiate as he wished with Ishbaal's land. David set his own conditions: the return to him of Michal, Saul's daughter. The significance of his request has escaped the narrator, who probably understood it simply as proof of Abner's good faith (cf. Gen 43:4, 5). There were political implications to this move, and David was now staking a legal claim to Saul's throne. Despite the prohibition of remarriage in Deut 24:1— 4, it is known that there were special provisions for husbands forced to give up their wives (McCarter 1984, following BenBarak 1979). The legality of the case was one reason why Ishbaal complied with David's request (w. 15—16); Abner's power in court was another reason. Doubt has been cast on the historicity of David's marriage to Michal (i Sam 18-19; Noth 1960), and therefore on w. 14—15 in this chapter. However, it is a tradition that serves a purpose in this context; it confirms that David had legitimate rights to Saul's estate.
(v. 17). The slaughter of the contestants occurred at Helkathhazzurim, usually translated Field of Flints or Field of Swordedges (NRSV marg.), which is preferred to the Greek, Field of Sides, referring to the nature of the contest. This, it is claimed (McCarter 1984), was a secondary addition, which means that the verses originally constituted an aetiological narrative explaining a place-name.
The pursuit of Abner by Asahel was significant, and throws light on some events which were to follow. Three sons of Zeruiah, David's sister (i Chr 2:16), are mentioned here, and they have been described as rash, cold-blooded, and violent
(McCarter 1984). One of them, Abishai, had accompanied David to Saul's camp (i Sam 26:6-22) and later became joint military leader with Joab. On this occasion Asahel (the youngest of the three) relentlessly pursued Abner, and because he ignored his warning Abner had no choice but to kill him (w. 18-230). Joab and Abishai took up the pursuit, which was halted when Abner reminded them of their bond of kinship
(v. 2 6). Although these hostilities, which had obviously been to David's advantage (v. 31), ceased, and the armies returned to their bases, this was not the end of the feud between north and south. Joab was determined to avenge Asahel's death (3:17); when the opportunity arose for him to do this, it is emphasized thathe was not acting officially, rather it was a personal feud. As events developed we learn that David felt unable to restrain the violence of the sons of Zeruiah (3:39).
Abner successfully negotiated with both sides. His approach to the senior leaders of Israel was based on their desire to have David as king; he knew of their dissatisfaction with Ishbaal and their realization that he could not withstand the Philistines as David had done in the past. The support of Saul's tribe and his own, the Benjaminites, was secured, as is emphasized in the narrative. When he reported his success to David, he and his men were feasted, which probably on this occasion denotes covenant-making. Joab's recapture of Abner (w. 22—7) may have been due to a combination of reasons. The one given immediately, that Abner was planning to deceive David (v. 25), is not repeated in the narrative and does not play any part in it. Another obvious reason is that Joab did not wish to face competition from such a powerful commander and leader as Abner. However, the narrator more than once emphasizes that it was blood-revenge for the death of Asahel (w. 27, 30); this suited the narrator's aim, for he wished to make clear that David had no part in Abner's death. This point is confirmed by the references to Abner departing in peace from David (w. 21, 22, 24), by the statement that David did not
(2 Sam 3:1-39) The Death of Abner Hostilities were only temporarily suspended (2:28), for the struggle between the houses of David and Saul was a long one, and, continuing the theme of 2:30—i, was generally in David's favour and added to his strength (v. i). This provides the setting for the narrative continuing from v. 6. A list of sons born to David at Hebron (w. 2—5) interrupts the flow of the narrative, but may have been occasioned by the reference in v. i to the increasing strength of David.
Ishbaal's quarrel with Abner, whose stature in court was increasing, was occasioned by his relationship with one of Saul's concubines and the mother of two of his sons (21:8). There is ground for suggesting that Abner's behaviour was an
217 I AND 2 SAMUEL
narrative, like the account of Abner's death, shows that David was totally innocent of such assassinations.
know of Joab's plan (v. 26), by including David's claim that he was guiltless as well as his curse upon the guilty Joab (w. 28— 9), which is very Deuteronomistic in tone (cf. Veijola 1975), by describing David's public display of grief (w. 31-2), by citing David's tribute to Abner (w. 33-4), and by noting that David was unable to resist the violence of the family of Zeruiah
(2 Sam 5:1—25) Kingship at Hebron and the Capture of Jerusalem With Ishbaal's death David was at last free to take the throne of Israel. Because of his connection with the house of
Saul, his proven leadership against the Philistines and the promises made to him by God, there was no rival or opposition (w. 1—2). Words to this effect were spoken to David by the 'tribes of Israel' (translated 'staff-bearers' by McCarter 1984), but their words are frequently considered to be a secondary addition to the older brief statement in v. 3 (see Veijola 1975). His installation by the 'elders of Israel' (cf. 'elders of Judah' in 2:4) at Hebron consisted of making 'a covenant... before the LORD', which must have contained some reference to the obligations undertaken by both sides, an anointing and his designation as 'king'. The chronological note about the reigns of David and Ishbaal in w. 4-5 is also an addition; it is the kind of Deuteronomistic notice that usually appears on the accession of a monarch and was probably absent from 4QSama, Old Greek, and i Chron n. Nevertheless, it underlines the historical significance of the occasion.
(v. 39)-
By implication this narrative subscribes to the theme that David was God's chosen; first, he had a rightful claim to Saul's throne, and secondly he was not involved in any of the violent actions that brought him nearer the throne.
(2 Sam 4:1—12) The Death of Ishbaal Because Abner was so strong that he virtually ruled Israel (cf. 2:8-9; 3:^)» his death threw the country and its reigning monarch into confusion and uncertainty. Two officers in Ishbaal's army decided to take the initiative and make a bid for David's favour. The lineage of Baanah and Rechab is given in detail, although some of the information in w. 2-3 stands in parenthesis and may have been a later insertion. Although the two captains were from Beeroth, they were Benjaminites, for, despite uncertainty about its exact location, Beeroth 'was considered to belong to Benjamin' (v. 2, cf. Josh 18:25); it was definitely not in Benjaminite territory, but apparently had Benjaminite inhabitants (Hertzberg 1964). The original inhabitants had at some time or other fled to Gittaim, which may have been in Philistine territory.
The next important step was the capture of Jerusalem (w. 6-9). The name of Jerusalem (see OCB) is found in Egyptian Execration texts of the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries BCE and in the Amarna texts of the fourteenth century BCE. Its pre-Israelite inhabitants were known as 'Jebusites' (OCB), who were of Canaanite origin (Gen 10:16). The Israelites did not drive them out when they conquered Canaan (Josh 15:63; Judg 1:21); the city preserved its independence until the time of David, and was a foreign enclave. Such a strong fortress, away from the main north-south routes, was as advantageous to David as it had been to its previous inhabitants. Because it had been in Jebusite hands, and was independent of both northern and southern factions, and was situated more or less on the border between Israel and Judah, it was a wise choice as capital. A survey of the different interpretations proposed for the difficult account of its capture in w. 6-9 is available in major commentaries; special studies of the passage are discussed by McCarter (1984). A reasonable understanding of it is found in the rendering of the NRSV. The Jebusites were confident that their city could not be taken by David; it was such a strong fortress that even handicapped persons, 'the blind and the lame', would be able to defend it (v. 6). David later picked up the phrase and used it to refer to the defenders of Jerusalem, who were to be defeated, as 'the lame and the blind' (v. 8); the third reference to them in v. 8fc has probably been added by an annotator who was probably using a proverbial expression. The city was taken by those who went 'up the water shaft' to the city (v. 8); they made use of the vertical shaft from the city to the Spring of Gihon, either by stopping its flow and climbing up to the city (NRSV), or by forcing the city into submission by stopping its water supply (see McCarter 1984). On entering the city David occupied the fortress on the hill in the south-eastern corner, also called Ophel, and renamed it 'the city of David'. The 'Millo' was an earth-fill to form a rampart or a platform, and has been identified as Solomonic terracing on the eastern slope (Kenyon 1974). David also added to the fortification. This account of the capture of the city has a
The interpolation in w. 2-3 is followed by yet another unnecessary insertion in v. 4, which refers to Jonathan's son, Mephibosheth (or Meribaal, cf. i Chr 8:34; 9:40). It would be more appropriate at 9:1-13. The note may have been included here to make the point that after the death of Ishbaal there would be no serious contender for the throne from the house of Saul; Mephibosheth was only a minor ('five years old') and a cripple.
The two assassins gained access into Ishbaal's house at noon, when he was taking a siesta. The NRSV simply states that they entered the house on the pretext of taking wheat; because they appeared to have business in the house they were allowed to enter. Other translators (cf. REB) and commentators (Hertzberg 1964; McCarter 1984) have, on the basis of the LXX, seen a reference here to a porteress, who had been cleaning wheat and had fallen asleep. Once they had entered they swiftly accomplished their gruesome task (v. 7). In seeking David's favour they claimed to have avenged him on Saul, who is described as an 'enemy' because he had sought his life (v. 8). David immediately distances himself from their action, for, as he had so consistently demonstrated, he respected a reigning monarch and did not wish to seize the throne. The narrator does not entertain any thought of the sons of Rimmon being agents working for David, any more than he thought of Joab killing Abner with David's foreknowledge. David, YHWH's elect, was to advance naturally to the throne, and and did not have to stoop to intrigue and violence. His attitude is made explicit in w. 9-11. He had commanded than the Amalekite, who claimed to have killed Saul, be put to death. The sin of these assassins was worse; they had 'killed a righteous man on his bed in his own house' (v. n), and they are to suffer the same fate (v. 12). Although these men had by their action participated in David's advance to the throne, this
I AND 2 SAMUEL 218
fitting conclusion in v. 10, which may well have been intended as the closing verse of the History of David's Rise. Two brief notes are included in w. n—16. The first (w. 11—12) reports on negotiations with Hiram of Tyre, who had building materials and craftsmen for David's building projects. It is a chronologically misplaced note and probably refers to a later period in David's reign. Hiram also gave invaluable assistance with Solomon's building projects. At this juncture it makes the point that David was an internationally known figure and that his kingdom had status. The second (w. 13—16), a list of sons born to David in Jerusalem, is a continuation of the list in 3:2-5. Two of David's victories over the Philistines (w. 17-25) are placed after his capture of Jerusalem; these are also chronologically misplaced and are probably to be connected with an earlier point when he was 'anointed king over Israel' (v. 17). 'The stronghold' was not necessarily Jerusalem, but more probably Adullam (McCarter 1984). On both occasions David consulted the oracle, receiving a positive reply on the first occasion and a negative one, supplemented by further advice, on the second. The Philistines came up to Rephaim, a plain to the south-west of Jerusalem, and David defeated them at Baalperazim ('Lord of Bursting Forth'); there is here an aetiological play on the sanctuary's name. The second battle was likewise connected with Rephaim, although it is uncertain if the second account is authentic or is a variant of the first one. David was advised to take a different route and attack from the flank in the vicinity of'balsam trees', bushy growths characteristic of a hilly region. This time David secured a decisive victory, and they were struck 'from Geba' (probably to be read with the LXX as 'from Gibeon', six miles north-west of Jerusalem) back to their border at Gezer.
Sam 6:7. 'The house of Abinadab' is also known from i Sam 7:1, but his sons 'Uzzah and Ahio' appear here instead of 'Eleazar', who was in charge of the ark. It was an occasion for joy and celebration, with David and his people dancing vigorously ('with all his strength' in v. 14 and i Chr 13:8, for the Heb. 'with instruments of might') accompanied with 'songs' (following 4QSama, the LXX and i Chr 13:8 for the MT's 'firtrees'). But a cultic aberration brought disaster. Although the striking of Uzzah is sub-Christian, the narrative emphasizes once again the power and the danger that ancient Israel associated with the most holy object; it is this same ark that brought plagues upon the Philistines (i Sam 5) and devastation to the town of Beth-shemesh (i Sam 6:19). Uzzah's assistance had not been offered with the care and precaution necessary for performing a sacred rite, and according to ancient Israelite tradition he was justifiably punished. David was also unwilling to take the risk, and the ark was left for three months with Obed-edom the Gittite. Obed-edom was one of David's loyal servants since his time in Ziklag; he was a nonIsraelite and the worshipper of a strange god, and was willing to house the ark.
Despite some bitter experience with the ark, it was undoubtedly accompanied by blessing (v. 12), which prompted David to bring it to Jerusalem, again with much celebration and sacrifice. Offering sacrifice after those carrying the ark 'had gone six paces' does not mean one sacrifice after the first six steps (as by Hertzberg 1964), but must refer to repeated sacrifice every six steps, as was practised elsewhere (Miller and Roberts 1977). David was wearing 'a linen ephod', a priestly garment, which only covered the body and loins, and was inappropriate for the vigorous circular dance that he was performing. With blasts on the trumpet, the sopar or ram's horn, the people were assembled for this joyous event. When the ark was brought into Jerusalem, it was housed in a tent made for it by David (v. 17); this was not the same as the wilderness 'tabernacle', but was probably a special construction with some features that were later adopted when constructing a permanent abode for the ark. The whole ceremony was concluded with sacrifices, blessings, and gifts; it was indeed a great festive occasion.
(2 Sam 6:1—23) Taking the Ark to Jerusalem The ark had presumably remained in Kiriath-jearim since it was taken there after its return from the Philistines (i Sam 7:1), but now David was determined to bring it to Jerusalem. A continuation of the ark narrative in i Sam 4:1—7:1 is to be found here in w. 1—19 (Campbell 1975). Whether they were originally one piece of writing composed at the same time is another matter. Recent studies have on several grounds (such as the difference between Kiriath-jearim and Baalah, between Eleazar and Uzza, between a narrative written before a decisive battle and one written after it, and between the character of the two narratives) argued against reading the chapters together as one continuous piece (so MacCarter 1984, following Miller and Roberts 1977). Whatever its original context, this narrative continues the story of the ark and fits extremely well into this particular setting. Thematically it is part of the Deuteronomistic concern with the choice of David and Jerusalem. Chronologically it was only after a decisive victory over the Philistines (such as the one described in 5:17-25) that David would have been in a position to bring the ark to Jerusalem (cf Hertzberg 1964). Undoubtedly the narrative has been given a suitable context.
Connections between 2 Sam 6 and Ps 132, and again with cultic processions, have been widely discussed (see more fully McCarter 1984). It can be cautiously stated that Ps 132 is based on the story of the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem; it is similar to 2 Sam 6 and does not rest on a divergent version (as argued by Cross 1973). Several ceremonial parallels connected with introducing a god to a new capital have been found, and it has been suggested that there was an annual procession of the ark to the Jerusalem temple. It may well be that the celebrations described in this chapter gave rise to annually repeated celebrations.
Michal, Saul's daughter, was not pleased with David's behaviour, as is reported in a section that did not belong originally to the present context (w. 16, 19-23), but may have been part of the succession narrative (Rost 1982). She found David's dancing most vulgar, for the scantily clothed king in a mere linen ephod had exposed himself to 'his servants' maids'. Michal's words referring to the king 'honouring himself are full of irony; David's vow to make himself 'more contemptible than this' has a veiled reference to his piety.
The ark's journey from Kiriath-jearim, known in this passage as Baale-judah (on the basis of 4QSama for 'Baalah'), was a mixed event. Reference to the ark as 'the ark of God [YHWH]', and to YHWH as 'enthroned on the cherubim' shows similarity to i Sam 4:4, and again 'new cart' echoes i
219 I AND 2 SAMUEL
by giving the second oracle the same historical setting as the first (w. 1—3) and by employing the word bayit (house) in two different ways. David had not been allowed to build God a 'house' (bayit, w. 5, 6, 13), but YHWH was going to found for David a 'dynasty' (bayit, w. n, 16). Adaptations were necessary in joining the two oracles, among them a promise that Solomon would build a temple. The core message of the second oracle can be identified as follows: David had been called by God (v. 9), had been protected by him against his enemies and made into a great name (v. 10); God would raise up his son to follow him and would establish his kingdom (v. 12) and he would enjoy the status of God's adopted son (v. 14). It is an oracle that refers to David's choice, his protection, and the promise of a successor. Several new elements have been introduced by extending the oracle: God's interest in the people of Israel (w. 10-11), the eternity of David's kingdom (w. 13,16) and the contrast between David and Saul (w. 14/715). The similarity between this oracle and other texts, such as Ps 89, points to a development in Jerusalem of the combined theme of David's greatness and the certainty of succession. It is possible that Nathan, the court prophet, spoke an oracle along these lines either on David's initial enthronement as king in Jerusalem or on a subsequent celebration of it. His words were later accompanied by more elaborate Israelite royal ideology, which became the basis for Israel's messianic expectations. When this oracle was combined with the first one, links were forged by referring to Solomon as builder of the temple (v. 13) and by using 'house' with a double meaning. Thus both oracles have the appearance of being concerned with the dynasty.
There is no need to see in this episode a reference to a sacral marriage rite to accompany the ritual of the previous section (against Porter 1954), nor is it to be taken as criticism of David's affairs with women (Crusemann 1980). The key to understanding the section is the statement in v. 23 that Michal had no child. It offers an explanation of her childlessness, and in some ways is significant when surveying David's relations with the house of Saul and with his own descendants.
(2 Sam 7:1-29) Oracle and Prayer This chapter, dealing with two key issues, building a temple and succession to David's throne, is one of the most important in the OT, and has been subject to intense research (see Jones 1990). Although the succession narrative has been identified as 2 Sam 9-10; i Kings 1-2, this chapter provides a fitting introduction to the succession issue. The appearance of unity in w. 1—17 is only superficial, for two separate oracles concerning two different issues have been combined, each originating from a particular occasion.
The appropriateness of constructing a temple is the subject of the first oracle in w. 1—7. Extra-biblical parallels, especially the Egyptian Konigsnovdle, show that it was usual to seek divine approval for building a temple (cf. Hermann 1953-4). David thus consulted Nathan, a court-prophet at hand to advise the king, and possibly affiliated to the pre-Israelite Jebusite cult of Jerusalem. Whatever other reasons are given in the OTwhy David was prohibited from building a temple (i Chr 22:8; 28:3; i Kings 5:17), it is stated here that he was prohibited by Nathan, who was speaking for YHWH ('Thus says the LORD'). Why he was forbidden is not clear. One possible ground for rejection is that David himself had taken the initiative ('are you the one to build me...?', v. 5, emphases added); another is that there was opposition from Israel's'tent' or 'nomadic' tradition (v. 6); another is that there was a subtle theological difference between the concepts of 'dwelling' (yasab) and 'staying' (sakari) as suggested by v. 2. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the original oracle was later modified to accommodate a different and more theological interpretation, v. 6 becomes suspect, and its omission leads to a concentration on the reason given in v. 7; a temple was contrary to the past traditions of the tribes, for God had not indicated to the Hebrew tribes that he desired one particular sanctuary to be designated as his dwelling-place. If that is identified as Nathan's reason, before it acquired later theological interpretations, it must be asked if he had hidden motives. Why would Nathan be interested in Israel's tribal traditions ? It is significant that, although he resisted a Davidic temple, Nathan was in the pro-Solomonic camp (i Kings 1—2) and did not object to a Solomonic temple. A possible interpretation of these events is that Nathan objected to a Davidic temple because it was intended to replace the old Jebusite one, but did not object to a Solomonic temple because the Jebusites were in the Solomonic camp and could therefore influence him. Whatever Nathan's motives and the stages through which the oracle passed between its original form and the present version, the point of the rhetorical question in w. 5 and 7 is that David was prohibited from building a temple for YHWH in Jerusalem.
The second half of the chapter (w. 18—29) contains David's prayer, and is to be separated from the first half because: Nathan has disappeared from the scene, no allusion is made to the temple theme, and David requests God's blessing on his house, a blessing which has already been granted. The prayer shows affinity with the work of the Deuteronomists, and it may either be entirely their own composition or their thorough revision of an earlier form. A core may have been originally connected with bringing the ark to Jerusalem (6:1-19) rather than with the dynastic oracle in 7:1-7. It is known that in ceremonies for introducing gods into capital cities, there was an opportunity for invoking their blessing on king and people; David had invoked blessing on the people
(6:18), but not on his own house, and the core of this prayer may well have belonged to that part of the ceremony (McCarter 1984). When that prayer was modified for its present context, a number of additions were made, especially the allusion to God's promise and its 'eternal' nature (w. 22, 289), God's redemption of his people from Egypt (w. 23-4), and several Deuteronomistic cliches (w. 22/7—26).
(2 Sam 8:1—18) David's Empire and Court The list of David's conquests in w. 1—14 provides valuable historical insight into the extent of his power and kingdom. David's military leadership brought him phenomenal successes leading to the establishment of what was virtually an 'empire' (Malamat 1958; Mazar 1962). These verses, like other passages (cf. 5:17—25), give a catalogue of victories, probably compiled from ancient fragments, and are arranged thematically rather than chronologically. David's supremacy over the Philistines, although
The second oracle (w. 8-16) addresses a different issue, succession to David's throne; the two issues have been linked
I AND 2 SAMUEL 220
placed 'some time afterwards', was gained through a number of military victories (cf. ch. 5). The exact meaning of the word translated in the NRSV as a proper name, Metheg-ammah, is unclear; among other possibilities are 'from Gath to Ammah'
throne, Absalom, Amnon, and Adonijah, it is demonstrated that Solomon was the sole legitimate successor. Reference has already been made (c.16—20) to the key issues relating to the succession narrative: the boundaries of the complex, stages in its growth, historical value, date, genre, and motive. Whatever the difficulties that have arisen regarding the appropriateness of the term 'succession narrative', it can be retained as an indication of the most prominent theme in the complex and the one that binds the various narratives together. Although the narrative does not emphasize the involvement of God in the elimination of candidates for the throne, from the few references made to his activity (2 Sam 11:27; I2:24! I7:I4) it becomes clear that Solomon was God's choice as David's successor. The scarcity of such references, together with a lack of interest in cultic matters, has given rise to the suggestion that it is a secular narrative. This has been taken by some as proof of mastery of narrative art, by which a point is made through action and dialogue rather than by making explicit theological assertions (Conroy 1978; Gordon 1984).
(cf. i Chr 18:1) or 'took the leading reins out of the hands of the Philistines' (Hertzberg 1964). Whatever the translation, what is implied is that David seized control of the land from the Philistines and restricted their movement to coastal areas. He also defeated Moab (v. 2), and despite previous good relations with the Moabites (i Sam 22:3—5), h£ selected two out of every three prisoners of war for execution.
David had to face competition from Aram Zobah in the north; under Hadadezer it was expanding its territory (Malamat 1958) and was the leading state in the area before the rise of Damascus. Hadadezer seems to have been the leader of a strong coalition (w. 5, 10; Malamat 1963), and he and David were competing for ascendancy over the same area. When Hadadezer (not David, as suggested by McCarter 1984) had gone to reinforce his power by the Euphrates (which is the meaning of 'restore his monument'), he was attacked by David, who took prisoners, mutilated horses, and defeated their helpers from Damascus. According to 2 Sam 10:1—19 and this passage, three successive battles were fought against the Arameans. As a result of this success, Toi of Hamath
(2 Sam 9:1—13) Kindness to Mephibosheth David's promise to Jonathan not to cut off his faithful love from his house (i Sam 20:15-16) is fulfilled with respect to his last remaining son, Mephibosheth. This chapter does not stand alone, but is connected with the story of the Gibeonites' revenge in 2 Sam 21:1— 14 and with events concerning the house of Saul and the death of Ishbaal in 2 Sam 2-4. The link with 2 Sam 21:1-14 is the strongest. Chronologically the revenge of the Gibeonites preceded the accommodation of Mephibosheth at David's table. The slaughter of seven Saulide descendants gave occasion for David's enquiry in v. 3 (taking v. i as a superfluous editorial link, so Veijola 1975); they could not have been alive at this time. The original continuous narrative of 21:1—14; 9:1—13 was later separated by an editor, who probably saw in the presence of a Saulide held in honour in David's household some contribution to the theme of succession. Whatever the original motive of David's kindness to Mephibosheth, the present narrative emphasizes that David was dealing honourably with Jonathan's son; the word 'kindness' (hesed) occurs in w. i, 3, 7. There is no suggestion of imprisonment or of keeping guard over him; David was granting him special patronage (v. 7). Despite Mephibosheth's assertion that he was insignificant ('a dead dog', v. 8), he was granted special privileges at royal expense (v. n), had his grandfather's property restored to him (v. 7) and arrangements were made for Ziba to act as estate manager to provide for the family (v. 10). Thus Saul's household was enjoying privileges at David's hand, and it is obvious that Mephibosheth, brought to court from Transjordanian Lo-debar, and his son Mica, were under his protection. Undoubtedly it was advantageous for David to have the only survivor of Saul's household under his roof. But there was no real threat from Mephibosheth, for a man who was 'lame in both his feet' would hardly have made a serious contender for the throne.
(which was on the Orontes to the north of Zobah) sent his son to make an alliance with David, and brought him expensive gifts, which indicates that David was the stronger partner in the alliance. He also conquered Edom and placed garrisons there (v. 14). As a result of his campaigns David had wrested control over what is now Palestine from the Philistines, had garrisons in Moab, Edom, and Ammon (which corresponds to modern Jordan), and had conquered Aramean states (corresponding to modern Syria and eastern Lebanon) (cf. Soggin 1977). The Deuteronomistic historian attributes all David's victories to YHWH (w. 6, 14).
The list of David's court officials in w. 15-18 is not exactly identical with another version in 2 Sam 20:23-6, which has a different order and additional names, Ira the Jairite and Adoram. Lists were available in archives, and these two are probably variants (Ackroyd 1977; McCarter 1984). Joab had been some time with David and had command of the army
(see 2 Sam 2); Jehoshaphat was still in office in the time of Solomon (i Kings 4:3). Zadok and Abiathar shared the priesthood until David's death (i Kings 2:26). The Cherethites and Pelethites were the royal bodyguard, and their captain (reading 'was over' with the English versions and i Chr 18:17) was Benaiah. The statement that 'David's sons were priests', although difficult and therefore revised to 'stewards' in i Chr 18:17, probably means that they were able to act as priests within the royal household.
Succession to David's Throne (2 Sam 9-20) 2 Sam 9-20 and i Kings 1-2 are thought to have originally formed an unbroken unit (Rost 1926), whose theme is clearly enunciated in its climax, 'so the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon' (i Kings 2:46). Among the reasons given for considering these chapters as a self-contained unit are: a common theme, common subsidiary themes, stylistic affinities, a consistent treatment of characters. By describing the elimination over the years of all candidates for David's
(2 Sam 10:1—19) Ammonite and Aramean Wars Problems arise here in connection with the history of the wars with Ammon and Aram, their connection with the David-Bathsheba affair and the reason for including 2 Sam 10-12 in the succession narrative. The chapter begins with an insult to David by Hanun the king of the Ammonites after the death
221 I AND 2 SAMUEL
elite warriors. He is referred to in 4QSama as Joab's armourbearer and was also known as 'the Hittite', which may denote the family origin of one that was born in Israel, as the 'yah' element in his name suggests. Another bit of information produced about Bathsheba is that she was purifying herself after menstruation; after the passing of the seven days of ritual impurity (Lev 15:19) she was in the best possible period for conception.
of Nahash, who was an enemy of Saul (i Sam n) but a supporter of David. After the Ammonites had summoned help from the Arameans (v. 6), who were Israel's rivals in the conflict of interest between the two powers, attention
seems to focus on the Arameans. Four states were called to the assistance of Hanun: Zobah and Beth-rehob to the south, Maacah (Aram Maacah in i Chr 19:6) north of Manasseh in Transjordan, and Tob, further south. By connecting this narrative with 8:3-5 it is possible to reconstruct the course of the Aramean conflict as follows: a first battle outside the gate of Kabbah (10:6—15); a second battle in the region of Helem in northern Gilead (10:15-19); a final and decisive battle in which Hadadezer's coalition was conquered (8:3-8) (following the reconstruction of McCarter 1984). In planning his action on two fronts (v. 9) David encouraged his own troops to be brave for the sake of'our people and for the cities of our God' (v. 12). The reference to 'cities' is textually sound and must be retained; it is probably a reference to cities in south Transjordan, which had associations with YHWH, and David is thus attempting to arouse religious fervour (Giveon 1964). After a successful battle in Kabbah, Joab, having fought on two fronts, was not in a position to take advantage of his conquest and returned to Jerusalem (v. 14). When the next battle was fought under the leadership of David himself (w. 15-19), matters were different, and after this defeat Hadadezer's vassals transferred their allegiance to David. The war account in ch. 10 and the David—Bathsheba narrative in ch. n are obviously different in character and style. The former betrays the flavour of archival records, the latter the style of a narrator. Rather than accepting the suggestion that the narrative is an intrusion that interrupts the sequence of the war report, it is more reasonable to accept that the narrator borrowed material from an archival source to provide the David-Bathsheba narrative with a framework. Because David's affair with Bathsheba was associated with the siege of Kabbah the choice was obvious. Thus we are given the historical setting (10:1-11:1), the affair and its outcome (11:2-12:25), and in conclusion the continuation of the war with the Ammonites (12:26—31).
David's misbehaviour is not glossed over, nor is there any attempt to explain his action. Although attempts have been made to excuse his behaviour, especially by the rabbis (see McCarter 1984), no mitigation is offered in the biblical narrative. No explanation is given of his motivation, whether he acted because of love, or lust, or because he wanted to reassert his flagging manhood (Cohen 1965). However, this story which is so openly and honestly related in 2 Samuel is totally ignored in i Chronicles.
David's attempt to cast paternity on Uriah, and when that failed, his desperate plan to secure his death in battle, add to the enormity of his misbehaviour. He realized his guilt in the eyes of the law (Deut 22:22), and under the pretext of wishing to gain news of the military situation called Uriah from the battleground; he then tried to persuade him to go home and have intercourse with his wife ('wash your feet' being a euphemism for sexual intercourse). Uriah, although on leave, maintained the ritual purity expected during battle (cf Deut 23:9—14; Josh 3:5); with words full of irony he claims that it is wrong to enjoy comforts when the ark was 'in booths' (or preferably 'at Sukkot') and the army encamped. He resisted the king's persuasive words and his efforts to put him in a relaxed mood through food and wine. Uriah eventually carried the letter assigning him to the front line and to certain death. It is assumed that Uriah was unable to read the message (Ackroyd 1977). Joab took matters in his own hands and unnecessarily endangered life by placing his men under the city wall, an action which had proved fatal in the case of Abimelech (Judg 5:23); on this occasion it saw the death of Uriah, and, according to the LXXL, eighteen other soldiers. A messenger from Joab to David did not carry the message in the form that it was given, and in order to achieve consistency the LXX has a longer version of v. 22. Nevertheless the vital information about Uriah's death was transferred, and David sent back to Joab a hidden message of acceptance and encouragement. After the customary period of mourning, seven days (i Sam 31:13; Gen 50:10), Bathsheba was taken into the king's household and in the course of time gave birth to a son.
Points of contact between chs. 10—12 and their setting in the succession narrative can be established. David's affair with Bathsheba was to reach its fulfilment in the birth of Solomon (12:24), which binds it firmly to the main thrust of 2 Sam 9— 12; i Kings i—2, which show how Solomon became David's legitimate successor. Contacts have also been found between this section and the story of Absalom's rebellion in the following chapters, especially with the events at Mahanaim in 17:24—9 with a specific reference being made to 17:24—7 in 10:2. It has been claimed that theologically this reference provides a preface to the account of Absalom's revolt.
(2 Sam 11:276-12:25) Nathan's Parable David's actions were not explained or condemned in the previous narrative, but in 11:27/7 it becomes clear that his behaviour was unacceptable to God. Nathan's parable follows in 12:1-70, which may at first have existed independently of the high moral tone in 11:27/7 and 12:9. Nevertheless, the implication of the parable itself is that David was guilty and deserved the punishment which he himself had pronounced on the rich man. Although w. 1-712 are usually described as a parable it has to be noted that parallels need not be sought for each of its constituent parts, but that the unit intended to emphasize one particular point. Even if the search for an exact parallelism between all elements in the narrative and the parable is abandoned, it is not
(2 Sam 11:1-270) David and Bathsheba When the time for military activity came round again (i.e. in the spring, after the end of the winter rains), and the Israelite troops under Joab had laid siege to Kabbah, David had not joined the forces, a decision that was by no means exceptional (cf. 10:7-14). This was the setting for his downfall; it provided him with an opportunity to see Bathsheba bathing and then to commit adultery with her. Bathsheba is identified as the daughter of Eliam, who, according to 2 Sam 23:34, was the son of Ahithophel, and as the wife of Uriah, one of David's corps of'Thirty'
I AND 2 SAMUEL 222
tion he had received forgiveness. A brief notice of Solomon's birth in w. 24—5 is beset with difficulties. A possible understanding of the events is that, if the Nathan parable and the secondary w. 15/7-240 are ignored, v. 24/7 follows on 11:270, thus giving 'and bore him a son and she called his name
easy to decide on the main point of comparison between them. A parallelism between the theft of a ewe lamb and the theft of Uriah's wife is possible, but not likely. It may be that the story was told with the sole purpose of eliciting words of condemnation from David, and then to throw them back at him with the simple application 'You are the man' (v. ya). The pronouncement of the king's verdict and its one-sentence application then becomes the focal point of the section. Interference by Nathan, the court prophet and counsellor, may have been prompted by political rather than religious motives; the kingship was a young institution, and he saw that it was in great danger if the holder began to take advantage of his status and exploit his subjects.
Solomon'. The whole section relating to the death of the firstborn and the birth of'his replacement' (selomoh) was inserted to avoid the identification of Solomon as David's illegitimate son (Veijola 1979). However, such an interpretation is not necessary; it can be accepted that a second son was born after the death of the first, but not necessarily within the short time suggested by placing both in the period of the Kabbah campaign, that he was named Solomon because he was a replacement of the first and that Nathan gave him another name, Jedidiah, meaning 'Beloved of the LORD'.
The terse application of v. ya was obviously not considered adequate. Two complete units, which follow in w. yb—10 and 11-12, each with its own beginning and a prophetic-messenger formula, concentrate on different aspects of David's crime and consequent judgement. The first unit (w. yb—10) is more concerned with the murder of Uriah than with the taking of Bathsheba. After a rehearsal of YHWH's mighty works on behalf of David (w. 7/?-8), a list that is concluded with the statement that God would be able to add more, the main accusation was that he had 'struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword'. By such an act he had despised God (v. 9), and his punishment will fit his crime, 'the sword shall never depart from your house'. The second unit (w. 11—12) does not mention David's crime, but introduces a punishment that fits the crime of adultery: a member of his household will take possession of his harem, and that public act of humiliation will stand out in contrast to what he did secretly. David's response to Nathan was a brief admission of guilt (v. 13); by implication he had deserved death. But Nathan's immediate reply gave a revised sentence; his repentance had been accepted, his sin forgiven, and the sentence of death on him personally commuted. Nevertheless, the child born from his adultery with Bathsheba was not to escape, but had to die
In w. 26-31 we return to the siege of Kabbah, last mentioned in 11:1. Joab captured the fortified area of Kabbah known as 'the royal citadel'; this meant that he was in control of its water supply (v. 27). David was then invited to take personal charge of the army for the final siege so that the city could be reckoned as his conquest. Among the treasures taken by David, before he dismantled the city's fortifications, was the crown of its national god, Milcom (a reading preferred to the MT's malkam, 'their king').
(2 Sam 13:1—39) Amnon and Tamar Amnon's love for Tamar, his rape of his half-sister, and the vengeance of Absalom for this wrong are incidents which have direct bearing on the succession issue. The outcome of these events was the death of Solomon's older brothers, Amnon and eventually Absalom. The latter, after his temporary exclusion from court, was briefly reconciled with David, but his dissatisfaction led to a revolt (chs. 15—19) and finally his death. The private affairs of chs. 13—14, like the more public events of chs. 15—19, are really concerned with Absalom (cf. 13:1, 23, 38; 14:28; see Conroy 1978). Those later events arose from the clash of personalities evident in chs. 13-14 (see McCarter 1984). It was inevitable that Absalom, vindictive (14:33) and determined (14:28—32), was on a collision course with the compliant (13:7), indecisive
(v. 14). The theme of repentance and forgiveness in w. 13-14, like the interpretation of Nathan's parable in w. 7/7—12, probably arose from later reflections on the course of David's kingship and the fate of his dynasty. David's house, including the son born to Bathsheba, suffered death; there was rebellion against David which included the ravishing of his harem (w. 11—12). But the house of David remarkably survived because he himself had been forgiven (v. 13). Omitting these later reflections, the natural conclusion to Nathan's parable is found in v. 150.
(14:1), and lenient (13:21) David. Joab was always ready to step in and force a quick solution.
The narrative has been skilfully written; the historical significance of the events for the kingdom of David has not been elaborated, nor has the theological theme that God's will to place Solomon on David's throne was being fulfilled, nor again has the parallel between Amnon's desire for Tamar and David's desire for Bathsheba. The position, as straightforwardly described in w. 1-2, was that Amnon, son of David and Ahinoam, fell in love with Tamar, full sister of Absalom, both children of David and Maacah. His desire for Tamar was so intense that it made him ill, and he had to resort to a trickery proposed by his cousin Jonadab (w. 3-5). Apparently virgins were under close guard, and Amnon did not have access to Tamar (v. 3), but a request to David, when he visited the ill crown-prince, brought Tamar to him and he raped her. He did not heed her pleading, in which she indicated the consequences for both of them; marriage between them was possible atthis time (cf. Gen 20:12), although later such a marriage was prohibited by law (Lev 18:9, n; 20:17; Deut 27:22). Amnon was obviously driven by lust not love, and his action was
The prophecy in v. 14 is fulfilled in w. 15/7—23; the child's death was followed by David's unconventional behaviour. His fast and vigil, the traditional signs of mourning, occurred before the child's death (v. 16), but were abandoned instantly after the child had died (v. 20). It was a strange behaviour that perplexed his courtiers. However, understood in conjunction with the theme of sin and forgiveness in w. 13-14, David's behaviour was reasonable (cf Gerleman 1977). Through his actions before the child's death, he was pleading 'with God for the child' (v. 16); that was the only reasonable course to take
(cf. v. 22). But once he knew, upon the child's death, that his plea had not been accepted, it was reasonable to abandon his actions (v. 23). David resigned to these events with serenity; they proved that God was fulfilling his word, and by implica-
223 I AND 2 SAMUEL
followed by an intense loathing of Tamar. Despite Tamar's expectation that Amnon would marry her (v. 16, cf Ex 22:16; Deut22:8), she was put away with contempt (w. 15,17—18) and immediately went into mourning. Tearing the long gown, which she was wearing as a virgin princess, was a sign of grief rather than lost virginity, as was putting ashes on the head and placing a hand on the head (cf. Jer 2:37). David, according to v. 21, was angry when he heard, but, following the LXX and 4QSama, the NRSV adds 'but he would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn'. David's leniency probably incurred Absalom's resentment, but he restrained himself for the time being (v. 22).
contending that Tekoa had a distinctive wisdom tradition (against Wolff 1964). Possible connections between this incident and other biblical texts have been suggested. First, it is the same in style as Nathan's parable; there a king condemns himself in his response to the situation described, and here the king in his judgement convicts himself (v. 13). Secondly, the tale about two brothers fighting and one killing the other is reminiscent of Cain and Abel in Gen 4 (Blenkinsopp 1966), and especially the protection given to the murderer, in one case by divine promise (Gen 4:15) and in the other by royal oath (v. n). Thirdly, there are several links with the account of Joab's interview with the wise woman of Abel of Beth-maacah (2 Sam 20, cf. Conroy 1978).
Absalom's revenge had been planned for some time, and was timed to coincide with sheep-shearing at Baal-hazor near Ephraim, which cannot be identified with certainty, but was probably a few miles from Jerusalem. Sheep-shearing was a time for festivities, and it was perfectly normal for Absalom to invite the king and his servants to the celebrations. No reason has been given for David's reluctance, nor for the fact that Absalom had to press the king for his permission (w. 25, 27). It has been suggested that David was suspicious of Absalom, and that by inviting the king specifically (v. 24) he had his eyes on the throne. If so, it is not easy to understand why he gave permission for Amnon to go to the festival; perhaps he did not realize the extent of Absalom's hatred until he was briefed by Jonadab (cf. v. 32). Once permission had been granted 'Absalom made a feast like a king's feast' (following the LXX and 4QSama). Nothing is known of the murderers (v. 29) nor of their fate afterwards; but it is obvious that Absalom was taking the lead, for it was he who gave the orders and encouraged them. An initial report that all the king's sons had been killed had to be corrected by Jonadab; in asserting that it was only Amnon who had died, Jonadab made David aware of the reason for Absalom's action (v. 32). Jonadab's report was confirmed when the king's sons returned along the 'Horonaim road' (with some support from the LXX for the MT 'the road behind him'). A period of bitter court mourning for Amnon followed (w. 36—7). Absalom took refuge with Talmai, king of Geshur, his grandfather on his mother's side, and was three years in exile (w. 37—8). Giving a time-scale in these verses, as well as noting a change in David, prepares the way for Absalom's return, and these verses are frequently read with ch. 14. David's change of heart (following the LXX and 4QSama) has been attributed to his affection for his sons and his realization that Absalom was second in line for succession (Gordon 19 84); but the fact that Joab had to resort to a ploy to persuade the king suggests that his change of heart was merely an abating of open hostility towards Absalom and that he could be persuaded step by step to allow him to return.
Whatever the parallels proposed, the interview reported in this chapter has its own problems. The woman's dilemma is succinctly presented: she was a widow and the murderer was her only heir; she was thus torn between her duty to avenge the other son's death and her duty to her husband to preserve his name by protecting the son still alive (v. 7). Her community rightly insisted on blood revenge, but her appeal for special consideration so that her last ember would not be quenched touched David's heart, and he promised a ruling (v. 8). The woman persisted until that very general promise became an oath that no one would touch her son. The meaning of v. 9 in this particular context is difficult to ascertain (see Hoftijzer 1970), but it is not to be regarded as an isolated text that disrupts the sequence (McCarter 1984). It is assumed that, if David responded to the woman's plea and suspended blood-revenge, he would be guilty; the woman, realizing that he would be responding to pressure from her, was willing to accept guilt. The exact meaning of the woman's words in v. 13 is not clear. Examples from the several interpretations offered are that the king had devised something against the people by banning the heir from their midst, or that he himself was in jeopardy because he had condemned himself for his treatment of Absalom. Her argument in v. 14 is easier to follow: all die, and the fact of Amnon's death cannot be changed by keeping Absalom in exile.
Another problem is posed by the placement of w. 15—17, which do not have any knowledge of w. 12-14, where the woman has related the meaning of the king's ruling to the banishment of Absalom. On the contrary w. 15—17 seem to constitute part of the woman's request in w. 5—7, and are read between w. 7 and 8 by many commentators (cf. McCarter 1984, but not so Hertzberg 1964). In her final plea the woman stated that the king was 'like the angel of God', which may be no more than flattery spoken by one trying to ingratiate herself with the king (so Hoftijzer 1970). After establishing that the woman's action was Joab's doing, David acceded to the request that Absalom be allowed to return; but he was not granted full privileges (v. 24). The section which follows (w. 25-7) gives a description of Absalom's person, noting his beauty and drawing attention in particular to the weight of his hair. The statement that he had three sons is contradicted by 18:18, where he says that he had no son. This section is a secondary addition, probably intended to show the popularity of Absalom despite his absence from court for two more years (Hoftijzer 1970). Finally Absalom was accepted by David; the king's kiss (v. 33) is to be taken as a sign of reconciliation. It was only after one desperate action against Joab that Absalom
(2 Sam 14:1—33) Absalom's Return Reading signs that David was ready for Absalom's return, Joab took matters in hand. The text gives no hint of his motives. He probably considered it necessary for Absalom, a possible heir to the throne, to be in Jerusalem; he was therefore acting in the kingdom's best interest (Gunn 1978). The special gift of the wise woman from Tekoa, called to his assistance and closely briefed by him, was either the gift of speech, in which she had been trained, or more probably a gift for feigning or acting lamentation. The incident does not provide sufficient evidence for
I AND 2 SAMUEL 224
('his servants'), loyal troops ('the people'), his personal bodyguard ('Cherethites and Pelethites', cf. 2 Sam 8:18) and a detachment of 600 Philistines from Gath (w. 17—18). During David's flight from the city there were five meetings or conversations (15:19—16:13), bearing some symmetrical correspondence to the three encounters on his homeward journey (19:16—40) (see Conroy 1978). In his meeting with Ittai (w. 19-23), the leader of the Gittites, David tried to persuade him to stay with Absalom ('the king') and avoid the uncertainty that would not be pleasing to him as a foreigner and exile. But for Ittai there was no king other than David, and he was determined to stay with him. David was presumably testing his loyalty. Other motives become apparent in David's conversation with the two priests, Abiathar and Zadok (w. 24-9). The mention of Levites carrying the ark is usually regarded as a later addition. In his conversation with them David gives them two reasons for returning to Jerusalem. The first is theological; it presents David in a favourable light as one who resigns to the will of YHWH knowing that it is he who decides the outcome. This is to be attributed to the pro-Davidic editors. The second is practical; David is obviously planning to make a comeback and is planting the priests in Jerusalem in order to gain information (v. 28).
gained recognition; Joab was compelled to go to David and bring Absalom to the king.
(2 Sam 15:1—37) Absalom's Rebellion Absalom, the prince in exile, soon became a contender for the throne. His intention was made known when he acquired a royal retinue, 'chariot and horses', and a personal bodyguard, 'men to run ahead of him' (cf i Kings 1:5). He also set out to win popular support among those coming to the seat of justice ('the gate') for litigation. Although the king was responsible for justice, Absalom was determined to capitalize on discontent because of David's failure to act efficiently and sympathetically. By making himself accessible and friendly Absalom gained popularity (v. 6).
Reference to the tribes of Israel in v. 2, if taken literally, may suggest that Absalom was taking advantage of discontent among northern tribes and was thus fanning the jealousy between north and south (as suggested by Alt 1968). There are, however, overwhelming reasons for accepting that Absalom's support was widespread and included Judahite as well as Israelite elements (see fully McCarter 1984). Absalom himself was a Hebronite, and the choice of Hebron as the seat of kingship (v. 10) would be unacceptable if he was supported exclusively by northern tribes. But Judahites, Ahithophel and Amasa, were among the leaders of his revolt, and it is significant that David did not seek refuge in Judah. It seems that Absalom had gathered support from Dan to Beersheba (cf. 17:11). The revolt was caused by deficiencies in the administration of justice under David; this is the implication ofw. 2-6, although it has not been explicitly stated in this proDavidic writing. The whole thrust of the biblical narrative is to attribute these events to Absalom's desire for revenge on Amnon and his own ambition to take the throne. But such causes would not have attracted the measure of support enjoyed by Absalom (McCarter 1984). Consequently several other reasons have been proposed, such as dissatisfaction with David's expansionist policy, or with his ruthless military campaigns, or with the loss of personal freedom as state bureaucracy developed. Absalom probably gained a following because of'a mass of indefinable grievances' (Bright 1972, followed by McCarter 1984). After a wait of four years (following the Greek and Syriac for the MT's 'forty'), Absalom planned his revolt without arousing any suspicion. His request for permission to fulfil a vow in Hebron was readily granted. It had to be fulfilled in Hebron because it was made to YHWH as he manifested himself there; parallels to 'YHWH-in-Hebron' are found elsewhere, such as 'Dagon-inAshdod' (i Sam 5:5) and 'YHWH of Samaria' and 'YHWH of Teman' in ancient inscriptions. Absalom swelled the ranks of his supporters by bringing to Hebron innocent and unsuspecting guests (v. n), and his revolt was assisted by the presence of Ahithophel, David's counsellor and grandfather of Bathsheba.
David's advance up the Mount of Olives (w. 30-1), which breaks the sequence of the five conversations, has been described as a pilgrimage or an act of penance. It was a march undertaken in sorrow and humility, which is mixed with a prayer that Ahithophel's counsel be confounded.
A third conversation occurred between David and Hushai of the Archite clan of Benjamin (w. 32—7); it has been suggested that his appearance 'where God was worshipped' was a direct reply to David's prayer in v. 31, for he is commissioned as an informer in order to defeat Ahithophel's counsel. He, with the two priests and their sons, were to penetrate Absalom's inner circle and report back to David.
(2 Sam 16:1-23) David in Flight and Absalom in Jerusalem David's first three meetings with supporters are followed by two other meetings, but this time with two persons connected with the family of Saul. It is doubtful if the reports of these two particular meetings came from the same source as the other three; some derive them from an independent source which had no connection with the present revolt. His first encounter, with Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth (w. 1-4), is rather confusing. Ziba brought provisions to sustain David on his way and reported that Mephibosheth had stayed in Jerusalem, confident that Saul's kingdom was to be returned to him. Ziba was clearly an opportunist, who probably calculated that David would eventually suppress the revolt, and sought to be in favour with him at the expense of Mephibosheth. If Mephibosheth's words in 19:27—9, accusing Ziba of slander, are trustworthy, he is exonerated; nevertheless, it has been claimed that Mephibosheth was as guilty as Ziba (Conroy 1978). If that is the case, he had grossly misjudged his position, for the revolt was focused on Absalom. David, against his better judgement, accepted Ziba's report and granted him
David's flight from Jerusalem to the Jordan was evidently a wise move, although the text offers no explanation. Absalom's presence in Hebron, discontent among the Israelites and the enmity of the Philistines left him with no other real alternative. On the outskirts of Jerusalem, probably in the Kidron valley before the ascent to the Mount of Olives, his supporters marched past David; they included the Jerusalem garrison
Saul's estates.
As David was coming to Bahurim on the edge of the wilderness, he was met by another Saulide called Shimei
225 I AND 2 SAMUEL
response of Absalom and his elders, it would no doubt have proved successful.
(w. 5-14), who was cursing David and calling him 'Murderer'; he was interpreting Absalom's take-over of the kingdom as God's revenge for what David had done to the house of Saul. It is not clear what is meant by 'the blood of the house of Saul' (v. 8) as there are many possibilities: the execution of seven Saulides at Gibeon (21:1—14), me death of Abner and Ishbaal, for which David may have been held responsible, or the deaths of Saul and Jonathan at Mount Gilboa, David perhaps being implicated by some factions because he had gone over to the Philistines. David's reply to Abishai and his unwillingness to take action against Shimei are significant. He was accepting the possibility that Shimei was cursing because YHWH had ordered him to do so (v. 10) and he resigned to God's will without protest (cf also i Sam 26:9—11). In view of his circumstances at the time, having been forced into exile by his own son, David could only accept that he was under a curse. Action against Shimei would not change the situation. David's response has been interpreted as penitential, but according to v. 12 he was hopeful that God would improve his situation at a future date; it has been suggested, however, that w. 11-12 are secondary.