Part 23
For an unspecified reason Absalom wished to consult Hushai. He played for time, so that David and his men could regain their strength and muster the troops. In a long and colourful speech, Hushai made full use of his persuasive powers (w. 8—13). First, he sought to discourage Absalom from precipitate action by reminding him of David's military prowess; he and his men were brave professionals, and a night attack would be futile, for an old warrior like him would not be sleeping in camp with his men and he would throw Absalom's army into panic. Secondly, by suggesting that Absalom muster 'all Israel... from Dan to Beersheba' to battle, he was appealing to any illusions of grandeur that he may have held; he could envisage a pan-Israelite army supporting him and totally annihilating the enemy. Thirdly, his suggestion that Absalom himself go to battle in person was a direct appeal to his vanity. Hushai's eloquence and reasoning impressed Absalom and his advisers; nevertheless, as is emphasized in v. 14, the narrator found YHWH's will to be the decisive factor. Hushai had left the council before a decision had been taken. Although he had given his own counsel, his advice to David to cross the Jordan immediately (v. 16) took into account the possibility of a sudden attack as recommended by Ahithophel. The arrangement for passing information to David through the sons of Abiathar and Zadok and a girl informant was in danger of failing when they were spotted by Absalom's servants. However, after the message was successfully transferred, David and his followers safely crossed the Jordan.
Hushai, now known as David's friend, came to Absalom in Jerusalem, and with the standard acclamation, 'Long live the king', recognized his authority as king and declared his allegiance to him (v. 16). Absalom instinctively rejected Hushai's signs of disloyalty to David. But he was persuaded to accept Hushai, when he was assured by him that he considered Absalom to be God's elect and king by public acclamation and promised him the same loyalty as he had shown his father. During his brief period in Jerusalem, Absalom unwisely accepted Ahithophel's advice, which, according to v. 23, was always esteemed and regarded as divine guidance. But, by going to his father's harem, Absalom was publicly declaring his claim to the throne, which he had already taken (cf. Tsevat 1958). Other instances of this practice are found in 2 Sam 12:8; i Kings 2:22-3. Ahithophel saw in such action a decisive breaking of relations between son and father and therefore an opportunity to consolidate support from the anti-Davidic camp.
Three other pieces of information are included in w. 23—9. First, the spurned Ahithophel committed suicide (v. 23); although the narrative suggests that he took this decision because of wounded pride, it has been suggested that it was more from fear of cruel death at the hands of David (Hertzberg 1964). Secondly, Joab had been replaced at the head of the Israelite army by Amasa, an Ishmaelite (with the LXX and i Chr 2:17 in preference to 'Israelite' of the MT) related to Joab through the two mothers. Thirdly, David had powerful friends in Transjordan, Shobi, the Ammonite, Machir, who had previously assisted Mephibosheth of the house of Saul, and Barzillai from Gilead (see 19:31-9). It was important from the narrator's point of view to show that David had the support of past followers from the house of Saul. They gave David practical assistance by providing for him.
(2 Sam 17:1—29) Hushai and Ahithophel Hushai's task, as set by David, was to 'defeat... the counsel of Ahithophel' (15:34), and, despite the respect shown to Ahithophel and his counsel (16:23), Hushai succeeded in defeating him. The account of the contest between them (w. 1—14) has been rightly seen as pivotal in the story of Absalom (McCarter 1984). David's earlier conversations with the two priests, Zadok and Abiathar, and with Hushai (15:24—9,32—7), as well as previous introductions to Ahithophel (15:12; 16:20—3), have prepared for the contest between Hushai and Ahithophel. Ahithophel advised Absalom to take action quickly; if he were given the troops he would make a sudden night attack on David's weary companions. As was often the case with this frequently used military strategy, they would be thrown into panic. The advantages of Ahithophel's plan were that action would be swift and successful and the loss of life minimal; his aim was to kill David alone and return all other fugitives to Jerusalem, as a young wife returns to her husband after a brief quarrel (reading v. 30 with the LXX rather than the MT). This was sound advice, and had it been accepted, as seemed likely from the initial
(2 Sam 18:1-33) The Death of Absalom The delay in Absalom's attack, which had been secured through Hushai's counsel, gave David an opportunity to gather and arrange his troops. By the time he was ready for battle he had an army that he could divide into three groups, which was the traditional division of an army (Judg 7:16; i Sam 11:11; Conroy 1978). The army passed out in front of David, who had himself been prevented by the men from marching out with them
(v. 3); no such caution was taken by the opposing camp, and Absalom fell. The narrator was anxious to emphasize that David was not with the army and could not be implicated in Absalom's death. The point is made more forcibly in his specific instructions to his three commanders to 'deal gently' with Absalom, and it is deliberately noted that all the people heard him giving that order. Little information is given about
I AND 2 SAMUEL 226
him. By threatening another possible rebellion (v. 7), Joab managed to raise the king from his depression and to see him sitting on his throne with the troops marching past. 'Bringing the king back' to his residence in the capital obviously gave prestige and privileges to those involved; they would be the king's guards and his closest supporters. The people of Israel, former supporters of Absalom, had to reconsider their position; although they had not been satisfied with David's management of internal affairs, they had reaped benefits from his campaigns against the Philistines. Now that Absalom was dead the Israelites were ready to forget the past and transfer their allegiance again to David. But David saw danger in accepting these Israelite overtures at the expense of his supporters in Judah. No reason is given for Judah's tardiness in declaring its support; it may have been connected with the fact that Absalom's rebellion had centred on Hebron
the battle. 'The men of Israel', a corps of conscripted men, was defeated by 'the servants of David', presumably a more professional force. The latter were better placed to take advantage of the dangerous terrain in which the battle was fought. 'The forest of Ephraim' was probably wooded hill-country in TransJordan settled by some Ephraimites (Hertzberg 1964). It was rough country made treacherous by the large pits found there (v. 17), and took more casualties than the actual fighting, a hint perhaps that other forces were fighting for David. Absalom became victim to the forest, for as his mule made its way under the branches 'he was left hanging' (as understood by the English versions) in mid-air. Probably his neck became lodged between two branches (G. Driver 1962), which is more likely than the suggestion that he was caught by his phenomenal crop of hair (see 14:26; cf. Josephus, Ant. 7 J 239). Ignoring David's command regarding Absalom, Joab himself thrust a spear through Absalom's heart and left his young men to finish the work (v. 15). A man, who was likely to receive a reward for killing Absalom, had three good reasons for not accepting the task: his unwillingness to kill a king's son, his obedience to David's known wish, and his realization that Joab would not protect him from David's wrath (w. 12—13).
(15:10). David's approach to the elders of Judah, made through his representatives in Jerusalem, Zadok and Abiathar (cf. 15:24-9), was in two parts: a reminder of his Judahite descent, and a notice of his intention to appoint Amasa to replace Joab as commander of his army. The response was as David had wished, and the Judahites went to Gilgal to protect his crossing of the Jordan.
Joab suspended hostilities, realizing that it was not a war between the people but was focused on an individual (Hertzberg 1964). Absalom was thrown into a pit by the troops and they heaped stones over him; it was not a respectable burial
On David's return journey to Jerusalem there were three meetings or conversations to correspond to those on his departure from the city (15:9—16:13). His first encounter was with Shimei, a Benjaminite from the house of Saul. The two
(cf. Josh 7:26; 8:29). But Absalom had during his lifetime erected a memorial for himself in the Jerusalem area, although there is no certainty that it can be identified with the tomb of Absalom in the Kidron valley. He could have erected a memorial in the year when he was prince in Jerusalem; his period there as king was very short. The contradiction between v. 18 and 14:27 can be resolved by accepting that the sons he had died at an early age. The drama in connection with announcing the outcome of the battle to David can be explained as follows (following McCarter 1984). As suggested by w. 28-9, Ahimaaz was unaware of Absalom's death. Joab tried to dissuade him from carrying news of the battle to David; he would have to be informed of Absalom's death, and he could not rely on Ahimaaz to make that report as positively as he would wish. Another messenger was appointed, and the Cushite, like Joab, wanted to give the impression that it was good news despite Absalom's death. When Ahimaaz arrived, amid expectations of good tidings because he was a good man, he reported that 'all was well', but was unable to answer the king's question about Absalom. The Cushite too brought good news, but, in reply to the king's question about Absalom, gave him the news with a positive slant (v. 32). David began a period of mourning for Absalom (v. 33), and this continues into the next chapter.
Saulides, Ziba and Shimei, had rushed down to the Jordan in order to bring back the king; the group with Ziba assisted the king's household to cross. Shimei, because of his guiltiness for previously cursing David (2 Sam 16:5—13), pleaded with the king to forget his past actions. He had made a special effort to be the first northerner ('house of Joseph') to meet him. David, as customary on coronation day, showed magnanimity; he could not accept the advice of the vengeful sons of Zeruiah (cf. 16:9), and dismissed Abishai as an 'adversary' (satan). Although he kept his oath to Shimei, he did not forget or forgive his insulting behaviour (see i Kings 2:8—9).
Although the conversation with Mephibosheth follows next (w. 24-30), there is some doubt concerning its correct historical placing. It obviously took place after David's conversation with Barzillai in Transjordan, for Mephibosheth did not cross over. Despite the reference in v. 30, he had gone out to Jerusalem to meet David (v. 25). When he arrived he was unkempt, probably intentionally to demonstrate his grief for David's departure. He pleaded innocence, claiming that he had been deceived by Ziba (cf. 16:1—4), and relied on the king's mercy. m his attempt to get a favourable decision he referred to him as an 'angel of God' (cf. 14:17, 20) and reminded him of previous favour granted to him. David's reply, curt and to the point, was a compromise, and he divided Saul's territories between Ziba and Mephibosheth. Barzillai had made provision for the king and his troops (17:27), and David wished to recompense him by giving him a place in the court (w. 31—40). Because of his old age Barzillai could no longer enjoy the pleasures of the court; he only wants his home and the family grave. He handed over Chimham to accompany David; according to MSS of the LXX he was his 'son'. Not forgetting Barzillai's kindness, David blessed him (w. 38/7—39), and later commended him to Solomon (i Kings 2:26).
(2 Sam 19:1-43) David Returns to Jerusalem David's prolonged mourning for Absalom became an embarrassment for his troops and supporters. The king had allowed his personal grief to eclipse his responsibility towards the men who had fought against Absalom, their enemy. Joab took matters in hand and spoke to the king some hard words which probably exaggerated the situation. David's behaviour had brought shame on those who saved him, and had given the impression that he loved those who hated him and hated those who loved
227 I AND 2 SAMUEL
guarded (v. 19). The proposal was to behead an individual to save the city (v. 21).
Conflict between north and south had not ceased (w. 41-3). These verses are in one sense a continuation of w. 8—13, where the Israelites considered their position and vacillated, leading David to appeal to Judah. When they saw the Judahites leading the king to Jerusalem, they felt excluded. In the ensuing quarrel Judah claimed priority because David was a kinsman, and Israel because the northern tribes formed the larger part of his kingdom ('ten shares' to two) and were the first to mention bringing back the king. These verses prepare for the revolt of ch. 20 and the ultimate division of the kingdom in i Kings 12.
The chapter is concluded with another list of David's officials (cf. 8:15-18). Joab is the established commander of the army, and Benaiah in charge of the Cherethites and Pelethites. Adoram (Adoniram in i Kings 4:6), not mentioned in the previous list, was in charge of forced labour, which may have been introduced in the latter part of David's reign. All the other names are identical with those in the previous list, except Ira, who replaces David's sons at 8:18. He is called 'the Jairite', probably because he came from the village of Jair (Num 32:41; Deut 3:14). The present list has been variously interpreted as later than the one in 8:15-18 (Noth 1960), a duplication of it (Kapelrud 1955), or a more primitive form of it (McCarter 1984).
(2 Sam 20:1—25) A Rebellion under Sheba A leader for discontented elements was found in Sheba, 'the son of Bichri, a Benjaminite', and a representative of the Saulide camp (cf. Bechorath in i Sam 9:1). The nature of his uprising has to be defined. Although v. 2 suggests that 'all Israel' left David and followed Sheba, it is clear from v. 14 that he had only the limited following of all the Bichrites. The use of such terms as 'revolt' and 'uprising' has been questioned; it was the dissension of a small group (McCarter 1984). The significance of this group must not be overlooked, however. The narrative reaffirms the presence of a northern, Saulide element which was not satisfied with being part of a united kingdom under David. According to David's perception in v. 6 this dissent was potentially more harmful than Absalom's rebellion. In that particular case, a contender was rising against a monarch, but Sheba's dissension showed that the structure of the kingdom was in danger. The allegiance of the northern tribes could no longer be relied upon, and it is significant that Sheba's rallying cry (v. i) was repeated when the kingdom was divided after the death of Solomon (i Kings 12:16).
Appendices (2 Sam 21-4)
This miscellaneous collection of narratives, lists, and poems is usually referred to as 'appendices'. However, it is not a haphazard collection of material, for commentators usually find here a concentric arrangement of the various pieces. At the centre are two poems, the Psalm of David in 22:2—51, reviewing the mighty acts of God, and the oracle in 23:1—7 giving assurances that the Davidic dynasty was to endure. Each side ofthe central poems are the warrior exploits recorded in 21:1522 and again in 23:8—39, where they are accompanied by a warrior list. Moving to the outer circle we find a famine story
(21:1-14) and a plague story (24:11-25) (cf. Gordon 1984, with reference to Budde's commentary of 1902). Sections of these appendices are closely linked with both preceding and succeeding parts of the Deuteronomistic History. The episode relating to the Gibeonites in 21:1-14 continues one ofthe main themes ofthe preceding chapters, namely the relationship between David and the house of Saul. The final section, the plague story in ch. 24, prepares the way for the building of Solomon's temple, and is therefore appropriately placed immediately before i Kings. The structure of these chapters is usually attributed to a final compiler (Hertzberg 1964).
Once he had settled in Jerusalem and made arrangements for his concubines (v. 3), David attended to the dissension. Amasa, the newly appointed commander (19:13), was given three days to rally a force, but failed to act as requested. No reason is given, but v. n may suggest that he was disloyal to David (Gordon 1984). Abishai was immediately put in charge of the army, for David saw trouble ahead if Sheba and his followers had time to establish themselves in fortified cities. Joab, reluctant to accept demotion, still had 'men' under his command (v. 7) and took the lead in the pursuit of Sheba. When they met Amasa at Gibeon, Joab operated his preconceived plan to murder him. Grasping Amasa by the beard to kiss him was not a suspicious act; but hidden in his girdle he had a short sword, which 'fell out' (into his hand, not onto the ground, according to Hertzberg 1964), and with which he killed Amasa. His body was thrown into a field. Joab was now unquestionably the leader of the army; his brother Abishai is not mentioned after v. 10. Hostilities centred on Abel of Beth-maacah in the north, near Dan, where Sheba had established himself. When Joab and his forces were attacking the besieged city a 'wise woman' spoke from the rampart. There are obvious links between her appearance and that of the wise woman of Tekoa in ch. 14; Joab was involved on both occasions, and the 'heritage of the LORD' became an issue in both (v. 19; cf. 14:16; see Conroy 1978). She had a plan to save Abel, a city which had a reputation for wisdom (v. 18) and which was a 'mother city' in Israel (v. 19); by saving it the integrity of Israel as 'the heritage of the LORD' would be safe-
(2 Sam 21:1—22) A Famine and the Gibeonites A prolonged famine caused by drought led David, accepting that it was a sign of divine displeasure, to enquire of YHWH. The reason given is that the house of Saul had incurred blood-guilt by putting the Gibeonites to death (v. i). It is known from Josh 9 that the Gibeonites had an irrevocable treaty with the Israelites (w. 19-20), and as is evident from biblical and extrabiblical material breaching a treaty led to national calamities
(Malamat 1955). The position ofthe Gibeonites is explained in v. 2; they were 'Amorites', i.e. inhabitants ofthe land before the Israelite occupation, but were protected by an Israelite oath. The fact that they were settled in Benjaminite territory irritated Saul; he was further aggravated because he had designs on Gibeon as his capital (Blenkinsopp 1974). Although there is no biblical account of Saul's slaughter ofthe Gibeonites, his dealings with the priests of Nob (i Sam 22:6-23) makes the statement in v. i credible.
David's wish to expiate for the sin of Saul has been widely discussed. One suggestion is that David was acting for the sake of fertility, and his action was therefore a royal sacrifice (Kapelrud 1955), an action that is paralleled elsewhere in
I AND 2 SAMUEL 228
poetry, which may well go back to the tenth century BCE. In its present form, however, the song contains a linking section in w. 2i—8, which reflects Deuteronomistic language and theology. But there is general recognition that the language of the psalm itself is archaic; earlier attempts to date it in the Maccabean period have been abandoned in favour of the tenth century (Cross 1953/7). Although some commentators refer to a long association between the psalm and David, and admit the possibility of Davidic authorship, there is no internal evidence to support the contention. For a discussion of the song's structure, type and provenance see under PS 18. The analysis which finds in the song two ancient poems (w. 2-20 and w. 29-31, 35-51) belonging to the monarchial period has much to commend it (McCarter 1984). The two poems were later combined by a Deuteronomistic editor who added w. 21-8 and v. i (and also according to some v. 510). The completed song celebrates two aspects of David's life: his deliverance from his enemies and his military conquests.
times of great emergency (see 2 Kings 3:26-7). In such a context, the note in v. 9 that the sacrifice was made 'at the beginning of barley harvest' acquires significance. Other interpretations of the passage concentrate on the issue of causality, which ascribes present disaster to past sin. Parallels show that a succeeding king made expiation for the sins of the past, more expressly for the breach of an oath (Malamat 1955), which required the death of the guilty (Fensham 1964). Another issue is the involvement of David in the deaths of the
Saulides for political reasons. It would unquestionably be to David's advantage to be rid of groups which had shown steadfast loyalty to the house of Saul, and his motives have been under suspicion. The intention of this narrative, together with its sequel in 9:1—13, is to show that David was not acting solely to gain political advantage. Although he was ultimately responsible for the deaths (v. 6), he was acting out of concern for the welfare of the land and in obedience to YHWH's will. His actions were also tempered by his kindness to Mephibosheth (see 9:1—13). Nevertheless, ithas to be admitted that, whatever the primary considerations in David's mind, he did gain significant political advantages. David also secured an honourable burial for Saul and Jonathan, as well as for those executed on this occasion. Whatever criticisms can be made of David's treatment of the family of Saul, he showed respect to the dead. Rizpah's vigil on a sackcloth until the coming of rain (probably an unseasonal shower rather than the November rains, Hertzberg 1964) was not simply intended as protection for the corpses, but was also in expectation of rainfall as a sign of God's favour. The bones of Saul and Jonathan were brought from Jabesh-gilead (but according to i Sam 31:12—13 the corpses had been burnt), and laid in a family grave at Zela (a place-name according to the NRSV, but a 'chamber' in a grave possibly at Gibeah according to Hertzberg 1964). The LXX adds that the bones of the executed sons of Saul were buried with them.
The song, according to the title, relates generally to the protection of David from Saul and his enemies, and does not concentrate on one particular event. Rescue from enemies is the prominent theme ofw. 2—20. Using images of a place of refuge on a rock, God, it is claimed, is the speaker's refuge and thus when he calls he is saved from his enemies (w. 2-4). The image changes in w. 5-6, where the speaker's distress, presumably at the hands of his enemies although they are not mentioned, is compared to being encompassed by the waters of Sheol. God's response to his cry for help (v. 7) is described as a theophany (w. 8-20); for the language and imagery cf. other OT theophany passages (Ex 19; Judg 5:4—5; i Kings 19; Ps 68:8; Hab 3). A number of features stand out in these verses: references to God's appearance are distinctly anthropomorphic ('nostrils', 'mouth', 'came down', 'rode'); storm imagery dominates the whole section, with fire, earthquake, clouds, lightning, and thunder accompanying God's presence; in its present context this description of God emphasizes his presence with his distressed servant, for his voice reaches to the caller at the bottom of the sea (v. 5).
A stereotyped section in w. 15-22, probably derived from archival sources, gives an outline of clashes during the Philistine wars with persons of extraordinary size called 'descendants of the giants' (so NRSV, which is preferred to 'votaries of Rapha', a cultic association of warriors, following 1'Heureux 1976). According to the NRSV the first giant was Ishbi-benob, whose hefty armour is reminiscent of Goliath (i Sam 17:7); he was killed by Abishai. No details are given of the second giant,
Prominent traces of Deuteronomistic language are evident in the transitional w. 21-8 (McCarter 1984, following Veijola 1975). Claiming that he is innocent, righteous, and blameless, the speaker considers God's salvation as a reward and recompense (w. 21—5). Among the most obvious Deuteronomistic cliches are: 'the ways of the LORD' (cf. Deut 8:6; 10:11, etc.), 'judgements and statutes' (Deut 4:5; 5:1, etc.). The theme of YHWH's help to the blameless and pure is asserted again in the fourfold statement ofw. 26—7, which have been described as an ancient quatrain (Cross I953»). The final section (w. 2951) is more concerned with David's victories over his enemies, and has been called a 'royal victory song'. After an acknowledgement of YHWH as the speaker's 'light' and 'shield', the sphere of God's assistance is made specific (v. 30); he is given help to conquer an army and 'leap over a wall' (NRSV, preferred to the many other translations suggested). A break in the sequence of thought occurs with the introduction of v. 32; it is a monotheistic outburst in the same vein as DeuteroIsaiah (cf. Isa 43:11; 44:6, 8; 45:21) and must be regarded as a later expansion. The theme ofw. 30—1 is continued in w. 33— 43, which are mainly concerned with victory in warfare. The king has received strength (w. 330, 40), facility of access
Saph; he was killed by Sibbecai the Hushathite, who was one of David's elite 'Thirty' (23:27 where the LXX is read for the MT Mebunnai). Goliath, the Gittite, was the third opponent (cf i Sam 17), and he was killed by Elhanan, a Bethlehemite; this is probably an older tradition than the one which names David as the victor. There is no reason for claiming that David was the throne name of the person whose real name was Elhanan (Honeyman 1948). No name is given to the fourth giant, who possessed some abnormal physical characteristics; he was killed by Jonathan, David's nephew, who is not named elsewhere.
(2 Sam 22:1-51) David's Song of Thanksgiving This song celebrating David's achievements due to God's marvellous works corresponds to Ps 18. The differences between them are minor ones which can be attributed to scribal errors or to the process of transmission. The song contains some ancient
229 I AND 2 SAMUEL
lentils (w. 11—12). The Three did not belong to the Thirty, but are named as a special group. The 'three of the thirty' in w. 13—170 are not to be identified with the previous three. The episode associated with them is probably linked with the advance of the Philistines to Rephaim mentioned in 2 Sam 5:17—21. Their exploit was to break through the Philistine ranks to obtain water for David from the well of Bethlehem. Realizing his mistake in causing them to risk their lives, David poured the water on the ground and called it 'blood' (cf Lev 17:10—13; Deut 12:23—4). The status of Abishai and Benaiah is not clear, the former being called 'chief of the Thirty' and the 'most renowned' of them, and the latter was among the Thirty but did not attain to the status of the Three (w. 18—23). Their membership of the Thirty is uncertain, caused possibly by the fluidity of the list with the course of time and by casualties. The status of these two seems to be somewhere between the Three and the Thirty.
(w. 33/7, 34, 37), and outstanding victory (w. 38-9, 41-3). In these verses again his success is attributed to God's help; it is he who has given him strength and guidance. His victories have brought peoples (v. 44, following the LXX) to him, and it is obvious from w. 45-6 that the reference is to foreign nations. The song reaches its climax with praise of God. David and his descendants are named only in the last phrase of the song, a feature paralleled in other victory songs (Hertzberg 1964); it is therefore to be regarded as original (cf McCarter 1984) rather than a later addition (Veijola 1975).
(2 Sam 23:1—39) David's Last Words and a List of Warriors The poem in w. 1—7 containing David's last words stands deliberately after the song of ch. 22, exactly as the blessing of Moses follows the song of Moses in Deut 32-3
(cf. Hertzberg 1964). It is not a blessing in the strict sense of the word, but concentrates on the covenant with the house of David and its continued prosperity. The opening words, identifying David as the speaker and his words as an oracle, are similar in structure to other OT opening formulae (cf. Num 24:3, 15; Prov 30:1). He is raised on high by God (following 4QSama) and is his 'favourite' (in preference to 'the sweet Psalmist of Israel', RSV, see Richardson 1971). A wisdomsaying with its own introduction (w. 2—4) attributes to David a prophetic role because God's spirit speaks through him; it is a glorification of a just king. In w. 3/7-4 it is claimed that a just king is like the sun on a cloudless morning; its rays gleam through the rain and cause grass to sprout from the earth; his reign is as beneficial to his subjects as the morning sun. The metaphor of the sun is common in ancient Near-Eastern royal ideology, as for example in Egypt, where the solar god-king is the source of growth (cf. Mai 4:1—20; McCarter 1984). In applying the metaphor to the house of David (w. 5—7) it is asserted that he is this kind of ruler, as is testified by the everlasting covenant God made with him. The 'everlasting covenant' (bent folam) was the promise of a dynasty made to David through Nathan (2 Sam 7) and designates a relationship that was to last for ever (cf. also Ps 89:28; 132:12, etc.). Those disloyal to David ('the godless') are compared to worthless thorns which are cast away and burnt on a fire. A contrast is drawn between the loyal subjects of the just king, who enjoy the benefits of his rule as the grass benefits from the sun, and his disloyal subjects, who are no better than uprooted thorns cast on a fire.
Asahel is the first name on the list of Thirty beginning in v. 24. If Abishai and Benaiah are included, the list has a total of thirty-three names, and it is debatable if'thirty' was more than a round number, and again if 'thirty' was a particularly significant number because of a 'host of thirty' in Pharaoh's court. It is also debatable if the list in w. 24—39 is arranged geographically, with the places listed in w. 24-35 being close to Bethlehem, and those in w. 36-9 being non-Israelite. (2 Sam 24:1—25) A Census and a Plague The plague story at the end of the collection balances the famine story at its beginning; in both cases the catastrophe is caused by divine anger in response to a transgression by the king.
The pestilence troubling Israel was a punishment for the census (v. 15), which was regarded as a sin (v. 10). But v. i suggests that God had invited David to count the people. A possible solution of this difficulty is that David was incited by God so that he could punish Israel for a sin committed previously. The difficulty is avoided by the Chronicler, who states that it was Satan who incited David to count the people (i Chr 21:1). Whatever the solution, it is obvious that the census was the reason for the plague. Several reasons for this have been suggested. One is that it was an introduction to a fiscal organization or military conscription (Bright 1972), and therefore a sign that David was moving towards self-sufficiency; possibly Joab sensed the danger of this move from a charismatic levy to a human organization (v. 3; Hertzberg 1964). Another reason is that there was a religious taboo on counting heads (cf. Ex 30:11-16), or more probably on recording names, some connecting this with regulations governing ritual purification (Speiser 1958). The reference in v. 9 to those 'able to draw the sword' (cf. Num 1:2—3) indicates that it was an enrolment for military service, and that possibly rules of purity had been neglected (cf. Josh 3:5; Deut 23:9-14). The choice given to David through the prophet Gad (w. 11—14) raises questions about the composition of the narrative. He had to choose between three possible punishments, varying from three years to three days, but on a reverse scale of intensity. David left it to Gad to choose (v. 15), although the LXX attributes the choice of pestilence to David himself. It has been suggested that the plague story in w. 11/7-17 was an independent folk-tale; its motif was the choice of three punishments and theophany (Schmid 1970). Others have presented a more
It is difficult to date David's last words; some favour a monarchical date, even the Davidic period (Richardson 1971; Cross 1973), but others argue for the period of Hezekiah or Josiah. On the whole it can be said that there are no compelling reasons for rejecting an early monarchical dating for it.
The list of David's warriors in w. 8-39 is not without its difficulties, and the various sections of it must be separated. It begins with the exploits of 'the Three' (so the LXX and Vulgate), whose names are given (w. 8/7—12, possibly concluded in v. 17/7). Josheb-basshebeth was the chief of the three, and he, like the other two, had probably been victorious against the Philistines (cf. i Chr 11:11). The second, Eleazar, had also distinguished himself in battle against the Philstines (w. 9-10), for, when the Israelites were driven back, he stood his ground and won a great victory. The third, Shammah, likewise repelled a Philistine attack during the harvest of
I AND 2 SAMUEL 23C
Blenldnsopp, J. (1964), 'Jonathan's Sacrilege, i Sam 14,1-46: A Study
complicated picture of the narrative's growth from a very simple original account of a census (w. 2, 4/7, 8—9), followed by a plague (v. iy), and then David's repentance leading to a commission to build an altar (w. 17-19) (cf. Fuss 1962).
in Literary History', CBQ26: 423-49.
(1966), Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam xi 2 ff.) and the Yahwist Corpus', Volume du Congres, Geneve 1965, VTSup 44-57.
David's purchase of Araunah's threshing-floor (w. 18-25) constitutes the third section, and has been called an aetiological narrative explaining the presence of an altar which became the site of Solomon's temple, cf. also the pillar at Bethel
(19690), 'Kiriath-jearim and the Ark', JBL 88:143-56. (1969(7), 'i and 2 Samuel', in R. C. Fuller (ed.), A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (London: Nelson), 305—27.
(i974), 'Did Saul Make Gibeon his Capital?', VT 24:1-7. Boecker, H. J. (1969), Die Beurteilung derAnfdnge des Konigtums in den
(Gen 28:11-22) and the altar at Ophrah (Judg 6:11-24). Araunah, a Jebusite, was one of the original inhabitants of Jerusalem before its conquest by David (see OCB), and the non-
deuteronomistischen Abschnitten des ersten Samuelisbuches, WMANT 31 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Boer, P. A. H. de (1938), Research into the Text of i Samuel i-xvi
Semitic form of his name given in the MT is possibly older than Oman in Chronicles and Orna in the LXX. The text does not claim that Araunah's threshing-floor was originally a Jebusite sanctuary, although traditionally a threshing-floor was a site of theophany (Judg 6:37) and a place for receiving divine messages (2 Kings 22:10); this was also the case at Ugarit (see McCarter 1984). But it was the appearance of an angel (v. 16) and the erection of an altar (w. 18, 25) that made it a sanctuary. David's conversation with Araunah is reminiscent of Abraham's negotiations with the Hittites for the purchase of the cave of Machpelah (Gen 23). In both cases the offer of a gift was rejected and a formal purchase made; i Chr 21:24 makes it explicit that a gift from a non-Israelite could not be accepted, for it was to become the site of the Jerusalem temple. David's action was acceptable and the plague was averted (v. 25).
(Amsterdam: H. J. Paris).
(1949), 'Research into the Text of i Samuel xviii—xxxi', OTS 6: i— 100. Brauner, R. A. (1974), '"To Grasp the Hem" and i Samuel 15:27',
/ANESCir6:35-8. Bright, J. (1972), A History of Israel, 2nd edn., OTL (London: SCM). Campbell, A. F. (1975), The Ark Narrative (i Sam 4—6, 2 Sam 6): Form-
Critical and Traditio-Historical Study, SBLDS 16 (Missoula: Scholars Press). Carlson, R. A. (1964), David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical
Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell). Childs, B. S. (1979), Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture
(London: SCM). Clements, R. E. (1974), 'The Deuteronomistic Interpretation of the
Founding of the Monarchy in i Sam VIII', VT 24: 398-410. Cohen, H. H. (1965), 'David and Bathsheba', JBR 33: 142-8. Conroy, C. C. (1978), Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2
The placing of this chapter at the end of the appendices and of 2 Samuel is no accident. It may have belonged originally to earlier sections of the book, possibly to the account of the conquest of Jerusalem in 5:6—10 or to the arrival of the ark in Jerusalem (ch. 6). On the one hand it confirms the critical stance taken elsewhere towards David; on two occasions he declares himself a sinner (w. 10, 17), and therefore punishment was inevitable (v. 13). On the other hand, David responds to God's invitation, made known to him through the prophet Gad, and this leads to the erection of an altar offering pleasing sacrifice to God. It is a forward-looking narrative, for the erection of a holocaust altar on Araunah's threshing-floor was in preparation for the building of Solomon's temple.
Sam 13-20, AnBib 81 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). Cross, F. M. (19530), A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the
Original Hebrew Underlying the Septuagint', BASOR 132: 15-26.
(1953^), A Royal Song of Thanksgiving: 2 Sam 22 = Psalm 18', JBL 72:15-34.
(1955), The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran', JBL 74: 147-72. (1973), Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). Criisemann, F. (1978), Der Widerstand gegen das Konigtum: Die anti-
koniglichen Texte des Alten Testaments und der Kampfum denfruhen israelitischen Staat, WMANT 49 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
(1980), 'Zwei alttestamentliche Witze: i Sam 21:11-15 und 2 Sam 6:16, 20-23', ZAW()2: 215-27. Dietrich, W. (1972), Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschich-
tliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen GeschichtsweA, FRLANT 108 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Driver, G. R. (1962), 'Plurima Mortis Imago', in M. Ben-Horin et al.
Ackroyd, P. R. (1971), The First Book of Samuel, CBC (Cambridge:
(eds.), Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman (Leiden: Brill). Driver, S. R. (1913), Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd
Cambridge University Press).
(1977), The Second Book of Samuel, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
rev. edn. (Oxford: Clarendon). Dus, J. (1968), 'Die Geburtslegende Samuels, i Sam i (Eine traditions-
(1975), The Verb Love—'aheb in the David-Jonathan Narratives—a Footnote', VT 25: 213-14. Albright, W. F. (1968), Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City,
geschichtliche Untersuchung zu i Sam 1—3)', #5043:163—94. Edelman, D. V. (1991), King Saul in the Historiography of Judah,
NY: Doubleday). Alt, A. (1968), Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, tr. R. A.
JSOTSup 121 (Sheffield: Academic Press). Eissfeldt, O. (1965), The Old Testament: An Introduction, tr. P. R.
Wilson (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Ben-Barak, Z. (1979), 'The Legal Background to the Restoration of
Ackroyd (Oxford: Blackwell). Fensham, F. C. (1964), The Treaty between Israel andthe Gibeonites',
Michal to David', in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, VTSup 30:15—29. Birch, B. C. (1971), The Development of the Tradition on the Anoint-
BA27: 96-100.
(1970), "The Battle between the Men of Joab and Abner as a Possible Ordeal by Battle?', VT2O: 356-7. Fishbane, M. (1982), 'i Samuel 3: Historical Narrative and Narrative
ing of Saul in i Sam 9:1-10:16', JBL 90: 55-68.
(1975), The Choosing of Saul at Mizpah', CBQ37: 447—57. (1976), The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy: The Growth and Development ofi Samuel 7-15, SBLDS 27 (Missoula: Scholars Press).
Polities', in K. R. R. Gros Louis (ed.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, ii (Nashville: Abingdon).
231 I AND 2 SAMUEL
Flanagan, J. W. (1972), 'Court History or Succession Document? A
Mettinger, T. N. D. (1976), King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral
Study of 2 Samuel 9—20 and i Kings i—2',JBL 91:172—81. Fuss, W. (1962), '2 Samuel 24', ZAWjj,: 145-64. Gerleman, G. (1977), 'Schuld und Siihne: Erwagungen zu 2 Sam 12',
Legitimation of the Israelite Kings, ConBOT 8 (Lund: Gleerup). Miller, P. D., and Roberts, J. M. M. (1977), The Hand of the Lord: A
Reassessment of the 'AA Narrative' of i Samuel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Muilenburg, J. (1959), 'The Form and Structure of Covenant Formu-
in H. Donner el al. (eds.), Beitrage zur alttestamentliche Theologie, Festschrift fitr Walther Zimmerli (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 132-9. Giveon, R. (1964), ""The Cities of Our God" (2 Sam 10:12)', JBL 83:
lations', VT 9: 347-65. Nelson, R. D. (1981), The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic
415-16. Gnuse, R. (1982), 'A Reconsideration of the Form-Critical Structure in
History, JSOTSup 18 (Sheffield: JSOT). Newman, M. (1962), The Prophetic Call of Samuel', in B. W. Ander-
i Samuel 3: An Ancient Near Eastern Dream Theophany', ZAW94: 379-90. Gordon, R. P. (1984), i 6[2 Samuel, Old Testament Guides (Sheffield:
son and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage (London: SCM). Nicholson, E. W. (1967), Deuteronomy and Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell). Noth, M. (1960), The History of Israel, tr. P. R. Ackroyd (London: A. &
JSOT).
(1986), I 6[ II Samuel: A Commentary, Library of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan). Gr0nbaek, J. H. (1971), Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (i Sam 15—2
C. Black).
(1981), The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: JSOT). German original, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, I (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 1943). Porter, J. R. (1954), The Interpretation of 2 Samuel vi and Psalm
Sam jj: Tradition und Komposition, ATDan 10 (Copenhagen: Munksgaard). Gunn, D. M. (1976), 'Traditional Composition in the "Succession
cxxxii', JTS 5:161—73. Richardson, H. N. (1971), The Last Words of David: Some Notes on
Narrative"', VT26:2i4—19.
'Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel', VT 24: 286-317. (1978), The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: JSOT).
2 Sam 23:1-7', JBL 90, 257-66. Rost, L. (1982), The Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield: Al-
mond). German original, Die Uberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, BWANT 3/6 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926). Schicklberger, F. (1973), Die Ladeerzdhlungen desersten Samuel-Buches:
(1980), The Fate of King Saul, JSOTSup 14 (Sheffield: JSOT). Hermann, S. (1953—4), 'Di£ Konigsnovelle in Agypten und in Israel',
Eine literaturwissenschaftliche und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung, FB 7 (Wiirzburg: Echter). Schmid, H. (1970), 'Der Tempelbau Salomos in religionsgeschichtli-
Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universitat, Leipzig,
351-62Hertzberg, H. W. (1964), i and 2 Samuel: A Commentary, tr. J. S.
cher Sicht', in A. Kuschke and E. Kutsch (eds.), Archdologie und Altes Testament: Festschrift fur Kurt Galling (Tubingen: Mohr), 241-50. Soggin, J. A. (1977), The Davidic-Solomonic Kingdom', in J. H. Hayes
Bowden, OTL (London: SCM). Hoftijzer, J. (1970), 'David and the Tekoite Woman', VT2O: 419-44. Honeyman, A. M. (1948), "The Evidence for Regnal Names among the
and J. M. Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judaean History, OTL (London: SCM), 332-80. Speiser, E. A. (1958), 'Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel',
Hebrews', JBL 67: 13-25. Ishida, T. (1977), The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the
Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology, BZAW 142 (Berlin: de Gruyter). Jobling, D. (1976), 'Saul's Fall and Jonathan's Rise: Tradition and
BASOR 149: 171-6. Stoebe, H. J. (1973), Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT 8/1 (Giitersloh:
Giitersloher Verlagshaus). Thomas, D. W. (1960), 'KELEBH "Dog": Its Origin and Some Usages
Redaction in i Samuel 14: i—46', JBL 95: 367—76. Jones, G. H. (1984), i and 2 Kings, NCB Commentary, 2 vols. (Grand
of it in the Old Testament', VT 10: 410-27. Thompson, J. A. (1974), The Significance of the Verb "Love" in the
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans).
David—Jonathan Narratives in i Samuel', VT24: 334—8. Timm, H. (1966), 'Die Ladeerzahlung (i Sam 4—6; 2 Sam 6) und
(199°), The Nathan Narratives, JSOTSup 80 (Sheffield: JSOT). Kapelrud, A. S. (1955), 'King and Fertility: A Discussion of 2 Sam 21:
1-14', NTT56: 113-22. Kenyon, K. M. (1974), Digging Up Jerusalem (London: Benn). Levenson, J. D. (1978), 'i Samuel 25 as Literature and History', CBQ
das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks', EvT 26: 509-26. Tov, E. (1979), The Textual Affiliations of 4QSama', JSOT 14: 37-53. Tsevat, M. (1958), 'Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit
40: 11-28. 1'Heureux, C. (1976), 'The -flide hdrdpd—A Cultic association of Warriors', BASOR 221: 83-5. Long, V. P. (1989), The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Lite-
and Israel', JSS 3: 237-43. Ulrich, E. C. (1978), The Qumran Text of Samuel andjosephus, HSM
(Missoula: Scholars Press). Veijola, T. (1975), Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner
rary and Theological Coherence, SBLDS 118 (Atlanta: Scholars Press). McCarter, P. K. (1980), i Samuel, AB 8 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 193 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia).
(1984), 2 Samuel, AB 9 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday). Malamat, A. (1955), 'Doctrines of Causality in Biblical and Hittite
Historiography: A Parallel', VT5:1—12.
(1977), Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B 198 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia).
(1958), 'The Kingdom of David and Solomon in its Contact with Egypt and Aram Naharaim', BA 21: 96-102.
(1963), 'Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon', JNES 22:1-17. Mayes, A. D. H. (1977), 'The Reign of Saul', in J. H. Hayes and J. M.
(1979), 'Salomo—der Erstgeborene Bathsebas', in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, VTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill), 230-50. von Rad, G. (1951), Der heilige Krieg in alien Israel, ATANT 20 (Zurich:
Miller (eds.), Israelite and Judaean History, OTL (London: SCM), 322-31. Mazar, B. (1962), The Aramaean Empire and Its Relations with
Zwingli).
Israel', BA 25: 98-120. Mendelsohn, I. (1956), 'Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship in the
(1966), The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel', The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd), 166-204.
Light of the Akkadian Documents from Egypt', BASOR 143:17-22.
I AND 2 KINGS 232
Wallis, G. (1952), 'Fine Parallele zu Richter 19:29 ff und i Sam 11:5 ff
Willis, J. T. (1971), 'An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic
aus dem Briefarchiv von Mari', ZAW6^: 57—61. Weinfeld, M. (1972), Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Ox-
Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary', JBL 90: 288-308. - (1972), 'Cultic Elements in the Story of Samuel's Birth and
ford: Clarendon). Weiser, A. (1962), Samuel: Seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und religiose
Dedication', ST26: 33-61.
(1973), The Song of Hannah and Psalm 113', CBQtf'. 139-54. - (1979), 'Samuel Versus Eli, i Sam 1-7', TZ 35: 201-12. Wolff, H. W (1964), Amos' geistige Heimat, WMANT 18 (Neukirchen-
Bedeutung: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu i Samuel 7-12, FRLANT 81 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck £ Ruprecht). Wellhausen, J. (1871), Der Text der Bucher Samuelis untersucht (Gottin-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). Wright, G. E. (1962), The Lawsuit of God: A Form-Critical Study of
gen: Vandenhoeck £ Ruprecht). Whybray, R. N. (1968), The Succession Narrative: A Study of'2 Sam 9-20
Deuteronomy 32', in B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (eds.), Israel's Prophetic Heritage (London: SCM), 26-67.
and i Kings i and 2, SET 9 (London: SCM).
13. i and 2 Kings WALTER DIETRICH
concluding formula on his death. This so-called king-frame almost always includes the same formulae with slight standard variations between the northern and southern kingdoms (apart from exceptional cases showing larger variations).
A. Literary and Religious Character. 1. The books of Kings contain the history of Israel and Judah from the time of King Solomon to the period of exile, i.e. from the middle of the tenth to the middle of the sixth century BCE. They cover the entire duration of the state of Israel apart from the reigns of its first two kings, Saul and David, who feature in the books of Samuel. Israel existed before and after this period without being a state. According to the Bible, it was present as the people of the God YHWH long before it became politically organized—indeed, even before it had its own land—and remained so during its period as a state; it continued even after the two states founded on that land had been destroyed by great oriental powers and a large number of their citizens dispersed abroad. Monarchical constitution was more or less merely an experiment in the history of the people of God: one that partly succeeded impressively, but which finally failed. The biblical history of the four long and eventful centuries is described in such a way that light and darkness are in constant alternation—where, however, light predominates at the beginning and darkness overwhelms at the end. The impression is given of an unstoppable, increasing decline terminating in exile.
The King-Frame
Introductory formula:
• synchronized date reference ('X/Israel became king in the year of Y/Judah') • age at accession (only with kings of Judah) • length of reign (including the year of accession and co-reign, if applicable) • name of the queen mother (only with kings of Judah) • religious judgement (using the first commandment as a guideline)
Concluding formula:
• source reference (often including special events and accomplishments) • acknowledgement of death • statement on funeral 'with the fathers' (only with kings of Judah) • naming and accession of the successor
The introductory formula almost always includes a verdict on the relevant king. Grades ranging from the extremes, 'He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD' and 'He did what was right in the sight of the LORD', were handed out. For this verdict, kings were not assessed on their political accomplishments, but on their attitude towards the commandment requiring the exclusive worship of YHWH. Right from the beginning, the northern kings bear the heavy burden of maintaining state sanctuaries in Bethel and Dan, in the south and north of the country, and later even in the capital Samaria, which, according to the authors of the Bible, had heathen influences or were in fact heathen. It was only possible to worship YHWH properly in the temple of Jerusalem, which was naturally accessible only to the kings of Judah. Inevitably, many Judean kings described in the Bible did not confine themselves to this one holy site, but also maintained or tolerated 'high places', holy places in Judah. Some are said to have paganized even the temple in Jerusalem.
2. Several eras can be distinguished during this period of history: the era of the united kingdom under Solomon in the tenth century (i Kings i—n), the era of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah from 926 to 722 BCE (i Kings 12—2 Kings 17) and the era of the remaining kingdom of Judah between 722 and 587 or 562 BCE (2 Kings 18-25). Th£ history of the two great Israelite dynasties of Omri (i Kings 16—2 Kings 8) and Jehu (2 Kings 9—15) emerges from the lengthy middle era. There is a stylistic variation between passages which are narrated in an attractive and detailed manner (i Kings 1-3; 10—12; 17—22; 2 Kings i—n; 18—20) and those in which information is passed on in a sober and curtailed form (i Kings 4— 9; 13-16; 2 Kings 12-17; 2I~5)- m ^e narrative, the prophets gradually replace the kings as protagonists. Indeed the history of Israel seems to be as much the story of its prophets as the story of its kings.
3. The colourful diversity of the narrative and historical information is all held together by a structure which repeatedly reorientates the reader within a sequence of time. Asa rule, each king is introduced at the time of his accession to the throne with an introductory formula and taken leave of with a
4. Thus the religious line of the books of Kings is that the temple of Jerusalem is the only legitimate place to worship YHWH, evidenced by the number of reports on the building, its decoration and maintenance, its occasional plundering,
233 I AND 2 K I N G S
thirteenth, if one includes Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel) up to the sixth century BCE, i.e. from the beginning of the state (from the occupation of the land) to its collapse (or to the loss of the land).
and the final destruction of this house of God. All points clearly to a specific period in the religious history of Israel: in 621 BCE, King Josiah carried out cultic reforms the core of which centralized the cult at Jerusalem (cf 2 Kings 22-3).
4. One especially important source was the 'Books of the Annals of the Kings of Israel/Judah', which were referred to in the concluding formula of almost every king. The historical information for the framing formula is taken from these books. These Annals seem to have been kept in both royal courts (by the end, naturally, only in Judah), and contained the names and dates of each king as well as short reports of important events occurring during the time of his reign. The authors of Kings chose sections of the Annals which seemed to them to be of especial importance. Such reports remained partly in the concluding formulae of a frame, were also placed into the corresponding narrative about that king, or were enhanced with other, primarily prophetic sources. It is possible that the Judean Annals also included reports from the temple at Jerusalem, which after all stood on the palace grounds, though perhaps temple registers were used as a separate source. These known sources seem to have been written in a rather sober style and are likely to be historically reliable—individual mistakes, a certain pro-palace slant, or an occasional erroneous transcript by the Deuteronomists excepted.
Such reforms relate to the corresponding order of law in Deut 12. Their object was to ensure that the entire people of Judah serve YHWH alone and no other god. The first commandment, T am the LORD your God... you shall have no other gods before me' (Deut 5:6-7) was given prominence. The authors of Kings in effect reviewed the history of Israel and evaluated each king on the grounds of his adherence to the first commandment, ordering exclusive worship of YHWH. Josiah receives an especially good rating (2 Kings 22:2; 23:25); in fact all his predecessors and his few successors are compared to him and his actions. In this way the fall of the state of Judah in 587 BCE is seen (like the fall of the kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE) as the result of countless breaches of the first commandment.
B. Authorship and Sources. 1. Since the verdict on the kings was rigidly integrated into the king-frames which form the skeletal structure of Kings, the latter cannot have been written before the time of Josiah. Whilst researchers agree on this basic point, variations have been discussed. Was there in fact one single author who described the history of the kings (and beyond this a greater work about the history of Israel from the time of Moses) during the period of exile under the influence of the catastrophe in 587 BCE (as in Noth 1991; Hoffmann 1980)? Or did an underlying text with an optimistic tendency already exist at the time of Josiah which was reworked during the period of exile, giving it a basic tone of pessimism (as in Cross 1973; Nelson 1981)? Or was an underlying text mainly confined to historiographical aims reworked at the end of and after the period of exile, from the perspective of prophecy and the Torah (as in Smend 1989; Veijola 1982; Dietrich 1972)?
5. Another much more clearly biased source is the obviously pro-Solomon 'Book of the Acts of Solomon', named in i Kings 11:41. A large number of the reports in i Kings 3-11 seem to have stemmed from it. Besides pure information (e.g. about the districts of government in i Kings 4:7—20), it also included elaborate and colourful narrative (e.g. Solomon's dream revelation and wise verdict in i Kings 3). It should perhaps be placed in the eighth century (Walchli 1996), although older material was also used. The report of Solomon's accession to power (i Kings 1—2) seems to have been taken from another source which was already used in Samuel: a longer narrative of the transition of power from Saul to David and then from David to Solomon. This narrative is outstanding literature, but paints a much less glowing picture of the kingdom than the story of Solomon that followed it.
2. In each case, the authors of the entire text of i and 2 Kings are Deuteronomists in so far as they are marked by Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic thought, especially by the basic Deuteronomic creed that 'The LORD is our God, the LORD alone' (Deut 6:4). Their way of thinking and working, their comments, and their written texts can therefore be called Deuteronomistic. They wrote the history of Israel with the intention of making it transparent and understandable to themselves and their contemporaries and to declare it meaningful and guided by God. The internal motivation driving all external events is Israel and Judah's relationship to their God who chose his people, leading them strictly and lovingly through the ages and demanding to be their one single God, worthy of all respect and love. In this Commentary the Deuteronomistic theologians of history, to whom we owe the books of Kings, are often simply referred to as 'the editors' for the sake of brevity.
6. The Deuteronomists could also draw from a wealth of prophetic tradition. There were first the stories of Elijah (i Kings 17—19) and Elisha (2 Kings 2—8), which were probably bound together with other stories of prophets (i Kings 20; 22), and the story of the coup d'etat of Jehu (2 Kings 9-10) in a larger narrative about the struggle of the prophets of Israel and Judah against Baal (i Kings 17—2 Kings 10, cf. Dietrich 1998). This may have been produced in the seventh century, although the collected stories within it partly go back as far as the eighth and even ninth centuries. Beyond this there was a collection of legends concerning the prophet Isaiah and King Hezekiah during the Assyrian crisis around 701 BCE (2 Kings 18:17-20:19). This collection, which was entirely transcribed from Kings into Isa 36—9, was probably written in stages and not integrated into the Deuteronomistic History text at a single point in time (Camp 1990). Its oldest part is the underlying story, 2 Kings 18:17-19:9, 36-7, which, according to a plausible theory, was produced during the period of crisis shortly before 587 BCE (Hardmeier 1990). Beyond this is a series of individual prophetic stories scattered across the
3. The Deuteronomists used specific sources, by no means merely writing Kings as they felt appropriate, let alone freely inventing it. In this way they were true historians whose work is not an original essay or fiction, but a work of tradition (Noth 1991). The authors took older, historically orientated extant sources, checked them, noted excerpts, sorted them, commented on and added to them, and thus created a running chronology of events from the tenth century BCE (or the
I AND 2 K I N G S 234
2. The Deuteronomists only had a limited amount of source material at their disposal and used it only selectively. They were neither pedants nor accountants and had neither access to an inexhaustible archive, nor the will or the means to get over-involved in underlying research. They have in the past been accused of documenting history in an all too biased and incomplete way. Leaving aside the fact that it is unfair and irrelevant to judge an ancient work by modern standards, the fact remains: had the Deuteronomistic History not existed, we would not know countless details and many greater connections in the history of Israel and Judah. Even if it is currently fashionable (as it has occasionally been in the past) to place the historical reliability of the Bible as low as possible, the Deuteronomistic books of Kings especially are not only stories, but also history. This is due to the fact that the Deuteronomists quoted their sources in large parts of their narrative rather than writing something original themselves. Although the historical value of each case must be carefully and critically checked—a miracle story about Elisha cannot be given the same historical value as the list of Solomon's ministers or synchronized date references—they still deliver a lot of essential historical information.
entire Deuteronomistic work which repeatedly contain conflicts between prophets and kings (e.g. i Kings 14; 21; 2 Kings i). These may have been taken from a collection of prophet stories which were quite critical of the kings and were written in the late pre-exilic period (Dietrich 1992) in order to serve as a less pro-monarchical reworking of the historical text. A number of speeches by the prophets (e.g. i Kings 16:1—4; 2 Kings 9:7-100; 21:10-15)were probably written in a propheticDeuteronomistic style with this in mind.
7. All the prophetic material is without exception written in a narrative style. Collections of words and speeches attributed to individual prophets did not find their way into the Deuteronomistic History, but were put together into books of their own. Thus the absence of Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Jeremiah in the Deuteronomistic narrative is not surprising and does not point to a tendency against prophecies of woe (as suggested by Albertz 1992). What the prophets said and experienced had been documented elsewhere. This did not need to be duplicated in a historical work and would in any case have been too extensive to do so. The tone of the Deuteronomistic History (as well as Deuteronomy itself) is deeply influenced by prophecy, as can be seen throughout the historical narrative. On the other hand there are dates quoted from the Deuteronomistic History and there is a Deuteronomistic slant noticeable in the subsequent editing of many books of prophets, and indeed the entire prophet-canon.
3. The books of Kings offer us information which other (archaeological or non-biblical) sources say nothing about or perhaps only hint at: for example, that the Judean kingdom united two separate state structures, namely the land of Judah and the city-state of Jerusalem; or that the monarchies in Israel and in Judah had very different qualities—one being more or less legitimized by God, leading to an unshakeable ruling dynasty, and the other having a more democratic or tribal view of government, leading to a more frequent change of dynasties; or that critical prophecy, which became so important to the religious history of Israel in general and specifically for the exclusive worship of the God YHWH by Israel, initially emerged from northern Israel. It is of fundamental and inestimable value that the Deuteronomists created an unbroken chain of dated events from the establishment of the state (and even had the intention of spanning the time from the claiming of land) up to the time of the Exile. This allowed all those who followed them, beginning with the chroniclers and the editors of the books of prophets, moving on to Jewish and Christian interpreters right up to the present day, to place information (biblical and non-biblical text documents, archaeological finds, etc.) from the pre-exile period into a historical context and thereby fulfil a fundamental requirement of Israelite existence and Judeo-Christian religion, namely a historical basis. God's relationship to man is, according to biblical belief, not merely a spiritual and psychological process, but one that gains concrete form in space and time. This is evidenced for the first time in the history of this small and ancient oriental people of Israel. Thus the fortyseven chapters of i and 2 Kings form a fundamental episode in the humanization of God.
C. Historical Nature. 1. This theological perspective, which one could call Deuteronomic-prophetic, does not distort the Deuteronomists' view of historic events and processes. One can see how poetic, symbolic, and kerygmatic the pure prophetic historical perspective is by studying Am 4:6-12, Isa 2:622; 22:1-14; Ezek 16. By contrast the Deuteronomists are true historians: administrators of historical facts which are kept and passed on simply because they had been transmitted. They are naturally far from a modern historian's ideal. They do not pretend to report things objectively as they truly happened. This idea is in any case impossible and smacks of ideology. The Deuteronomists do not hide the fact that they interpret history from a certain standpoint, but they also document it! The strictly chronological structure of the work in itself bears witness to its truly historical nature. The closely bound narrative block about Elijah and Elisha (i Kings 17—19 + 2 Kings 2—8, 13:14—21) is broken up so that it can be sorted into the king-frames in smaller parts. Even kings who reigned for only a few months and about whom little can be reported apart from their short existence, are listed carefully so that the succession of kings, as found in the sources, remained complete. Furthermore, unpleasant and embarrassing events were not concealed: for instance Solomon's sale of Israelite villages and cities to the Phoenicians (i Kings 9:11), the political folly leading to the partition of the kingdom (i Kings 12), Elijah's lack of courage (i Kings 19:3-4), poor recognition of the prophets (2 Kings 9:11), the peaceful death of evil kings and the violent death of good ones (i Kings 22:40; 2 Kings 21:18; 23:29), the reign of the non-queen Athaliah (2 Kings n) and the placing of heathen cult symbols in the temple of Jerusalem (2 Kings 21:3-5). It is true that the Deuteronomists tried to give such reports meaning in terms of their view of history, but the great effort exerted to do this does them credit.
i Kings
The first major section of the two books, i Kings 1:1—11:41, documents Solomon's reign over Judah and Israel.
235 I AND 2 K I N G S
has heavenly blessing. The people (are only soldiers present or are these the people of Jerusalem?) cheer in celebration. The noise strikes fear into the festive society of Adonijah. A trusted messenger, Jonathan ben Abiathar (cf. 2 Sam 17:17-21) brings the shocking news of Solomon's accession to the throne. Adonijah capitulates before the turn of events. He flees to the altar, certainly standing in the tent: the holiness ofthe latter will offer him amnesty (cf. Ex 21:13-14). Solomon promises him protection, though only on probation.
Solomon's Accession to Power (1:1-2:46)
(1:1-4) David's Weakness and Old Age The opening scene of Kings shows King David as an old and impotent man, shivering with cold. Such a depiction of a highly respected king is probably unique in ancient historiography. No man is deified by the Bible, not even David. Even the beautiful young Abishag cannot arouse him, though she later turns the wheel of history significantly without us ever learning of one word or feeling from her (2:17, 22).
(2:1—12) David's Bequest to Solomon It is the first and last time that David and Solomon speak to each other, or more precisely that David speaks to Solomon. He first gives him a spiritual warning. He must keep the laws of YHWH. In Israel everyone, even the king, falls under God and his laws. The question whether the Davidic covenant in 2 Sam 7:11—16 is fulfilled depends on the king's loyalty to the Torah. The expression law of Moses' hints probably at Deuteronomy, w. 1-4 are unmistakably Deuteronomistic (cf. Deut 6:1—3; Josh I:I~ 9). Then the tone changes: David complains to the 'wise' Solomon about his enemies Joab and Shimei (cf. 2 Sam 3:27; 20:9-10; 16:5-14—but also 19:24) and incites him to murder. The ensuing wave of purges is thus clearly legitimized. Encouragement to reward the old Barzillai (v. 7, cf. 2 Sam 17:26-9; 19:32-9), can hardly brighten the bleak picture. David can now die in peace. He is buried in the 'city of David', i.e. the necropolis ofthe descendants of David on the Ophel Hill in Jerusalem, which is said to be visible still today in the form of some caves. David is reported to have reigned for forty years—a conspicuously round number. The seven years in Hebron (cf. 2 Sam 2—5) could be historically correct. The rest is probably an estimate.
(1:5-10) The Parties in the Struggle for Succession to the Throne The time for David's succession seems to have arrived. Adonijah, who is the oldest of David's sons following the death of his brothers Amnon and Absalom (2 Sam 13; 18; cf 2 Sam 3:2-5) announces his ambitions. Unfortunately he does it in precisely the same manner as Absalom had once done and failed (2 Sam 15:1). The narrator qualifies this behaviour negatively ('exalted himself). David, whose motives are unclear, makes no comment on the activity. Is he simply too old? Adonijah seems to have understood the paternal silence as implied approval. He finds support with the leading personalities and classes in the land of Judah: with Joab, commander ofthe militia (cf. 2 Sam 20:23; 24:l-9)» with Abiathar, a country priest and trusted old companion of David (cf. i Sam 22:20—3; 2 Sam 15:24—9), with Judean court civil servants and members ofthe royal family. Solomon, however, has ambitions of his own. Although he is only the tenth in the line of David's sons (cf. 2 Sam 3:2-5; 5:14-16) he has the political and military heavyweights ofthe city of Jerusalem on his side: the mercenary general Benaiah, with his elite troops stationed on the premises (2 Sam 20:23; 23:8~39)» the high priest Zadok (2
Sam 15:24-9) and the prophet Nathan (2 Sam 7; 12). The situation is tense, particularly because Adonijah—as Absalom had once done (2 Sam 13:23—9; 15:7—12)—invites members of his party to a great feast at a well, probably in the valley of Kidron. We do not discover what he has in mind.
(2:13—25) The Elimination of Adonijah Having remained quiet for some time, Adonijah begins to dig his own grave. He lusts after the beautiful Abishag of Shunam. This is dangerous, since she has, after all, lain in his father's bed. Proud and submissive at the same time, he first tells Bathsheba about his frustrated ambitions for the throne: now, all he wants is Abishag. Adonijah has correctly recognized the power and influence ofthe queen mother (as the ceremonial in v. 19 shows), but he fails to understand her intentions and character. She seems to champion Adonijah's cause, but by slipping in the phrase 'your brother', she rouses Solomon's guilty conscience and awakens his fears. The latter immediately orders Adonijah's execution and lets the unscrupulous Benaiah carry it out. To our consternation, Solomon refers to the Davidic covenant as justification: was it meant to be invoked in this way?
(1:11-37) David's Decision in Favour of Solomon The story unfolds within the confines ofthe palace walls. The narrator reports as if he were there at the time. Two people are constantly in dialogue as the drama ofthe ensuing events escalates: Nathan talks to Bathsheba (Solomon's mother, cf. 2 Sam 11—12), Bathsheba talks to David, David to Nathan, David to Bathsheba; finally David gives a firm order to Zadok, Nathan, and Benaiah: Solomon should be anointed king. Two questions remain open until the end: whether Adonijah actually allows himself to be proclaimed king, and whether David had really sworn an oath in favour of Solomon in the past. One thing, however, is finally certain. David abdicates to make way for Solomon. Again his motives are unclear. Has he been manipulated? Is he bound to his word? Has he more affection for Solomon than for Adonijah? Is he in favour of centralized state government, more likely under Solomon and his Jerusalem party than under Adonijah and his Judeans?