Adair 1

James R. Adair Dr. James R. Adair BIBL 6301 8 September 2011 Review of "King David, Serial Killer," by Baruch Halpern

Baruch Halpern is a biblical scholar and historian, and he holds the Chaiken Family Chair in Jewish Studies at Pennsylvania State University, where he is professor of ancient history, classics, ancient Mediterranean studies, and religious studies. In his book David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, he examines the history of David as described in the biblical text, and as illuminated by archaeological discoveries, especially inscriptions and documents, from the ancient Near East. He finds in the book of Samuel a portrayal of David that is both positive and negative, burnishing David's reputation as God's chosen king while simultaneously defending him against the accusations of his adversaries, and even sometimes revealing a side of David that is far from praiseworthy. In chapter 4, "King David, Serial Killer," Halpern says that the portrayal of David in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings 1-2 is an apology on David's behalf that was written during the reign of Solomon. Before delving into the question of the concerns that the apology is meant to address, Halpern first states his strong opposition to the minimalist approach to the early history of Israel, which claims that the united monarchy did not exist and that David and Solomon were eighth century B.C.E. literary inventions. That the history of David is so unflattering in many ways suggests that it was in fact written shortly after the end of David's reign, for a later historical account would portray David much more positively (as Chronicles does). Furthermore, he says, the Tel Dan inscription, and possibly the Mesha Inscription as well, point to the existence of the historical David in the tenth century. Having concluded that the David narrative was probably written in the days of Solomon, Halpern next asks the question, Why do "so many key actors [associated with David] die violently," particularly if they may be seen as opponents of David (75)? He believes that the account of David's conflicts is written in such a way that David is absolved of all blame in the deaths of his adversaries. Halpern believes that opponents to the legitimacy of the Davidic line during Solomon's time accused David of orchestrating the murders of many different enemies and potential enemies. In some cases, Halpern believes, their accusations may be well founded, but the author of this portion of 2 Samuel goes to great lengths to exonerate the king. 1. Nabal. Nabal is described as a man who insults David, only to fall dead suddenly before David can strike out in anger. David marries Nabal's widow, Abigail, and gains control of his large estate. Halpern suggests that it is possible that Abigail herself killed her husband, who was threatening to alienate a powerful warlord and thus put herself at risk. 2. Saul and his sons. Although the text says that David spares Saul's life on two separate occasions, David's close association with the Philistines led some to suspect his complicity in ending the Saulide line, especially since David ended up in possession of Saul's crown. The narrator admits that David was a retainer of a powerful Philistine lord, but he asserts that David had been sent home before the battle of Gilboa, and at any rate he was away on a raid against the Amalekites at the time of Saul and Jonathan's deaths (Halpern suspects that two separate alibis are joined in this account). To show David's disapproval of the killing of his longtime adversary, Adair 2

David has the Amalekite messenger, who allegedly finished Saul off after he was mortally wounded, at Saul's request. 3. Ishbaal. After Saul's death, his son Ishbaal assumed the throne in the north, but David's followers acclaimed him king over Judah at Hebron. After Ishbaal's general Abner defects to David, Ishbaal himself is assassinated by some Gibeonites. Suspicion that David is behind the assassination of his chief rival is allayed in the text by David's execution of the assassins, just as he had executed the non-Israelite messenger who struck down Saul. 4. Abner. The text says that Abner was killed by Joab to exact vengeance for Abner's killing of Joab's brother Asahel during battle, and it further claims that Abner had already rejected Ishbaal and was transferring his allegiance to David. Halpern points out, however, that Abner had made no moves to seize the throne from Ishbaal and was in fact ordered by Ishbaal to deliver David's wife Michal to him at the time of his death. Halpern suspects that David ordered Joab to kill Abner in order to further weaken Ishbaal's cause. As evidence, he notes that Joab is not punished for his apparent violation of the truce between the two kings. 5. Saul's other descendants. After David was firmly established as king over all Israel, David had seven of Saul's descendants executed, ostensibly to placate Saul's offense against the Gibeonites and to end a drought that Yahweh had imposed on Israel because of that offense. The fact that eliminating the former ruling house was a common practice when a new dynasty came to power, as evidenced by the biblical text itself, does not escape Halpern's notice. He points out that David's preservation of Jonathan's son Meribaal—albeit in Jerusalem, where he can keep close watch on him—allows David to claim innocence in the matter of the extermination of Saul's family, since one descendant is still alive. 6. Amnon. David's oldest son Amnon is reported to have raped his half-sister Tamar. Two years later, Tamar's brother Absalom exacts revenge by killing Amnon. Halpern notes the possibility that Amnon was the son of David and Saul's former wife Ahinoam. If so, the rape accusation may have provided David with a pretext for eliminating the last vestiges of Saul's family, securing the throne for David's family. 7. Absalom. After killing his half-brother, Absalom is exiled from the court. After three years, he is brought back, only to instigate a rebellion against his father. Although David commands his military leaders not to harm his son, Joab executes Absalom when he finds him hanging from a tree by his hair. David mourns publicly, but he does not punish Joab, leading Halpern to suspect that he had acted as a surrogate for David once again. 8. Amasa. Amasa, who was probably David's nephew, was the military leader of Absalom's revolt. Following Absalom's death, David installs Amasa in Joab's place as head of the army, but Amasa only holds his position for three days, when Joab kills him. Again, David does not punish Joab, so Halpern suspects that it was indeed David behind the plot. 9. Uriah. Unlike the other cases, the biblical text clearly asserts that David was directly responsible for the death of Uriah the Hittite, husband of Bathsheba. Although he was killed in battle, following the orders of David, secretly transmitted to Joab by Uriah himself, the prophet Nathan blames David directly for the killing, which the text admits was perpetrated to conceal David's adulterous relationship with Bathsheba. Why does the text admit that David killed Uriah, when it has denied his involvement in so many other deaths? Halpern believes that the issue of Solomon's legitimate claim to the throne is at stake and that Solomon may, in fact, have actually been the son of Uriah after all. However, to seal Solomon's accession to the throne, the author, writing in Solomon's time, asserts David's paternity. After Solomon becomes king, he Adair 3 kills his half-brother Adonijah, a rival for the throne; Joab, who supported Adonijah; and Shimei, another adversary of his father. Halpern's discussion of the biblical text is interesting and at times convincing, but not always. It is important to note that Halpern does not believe that David is in fact responsible for all the deaths of his enemies against which the text defends him, but he suspects that he is guilty of some of them. He makes his best case for the deaths of Absalom and Amasa, who conspired to revolt against David and nearly cost him his throne. He is less convincing in his suggestion that David was behind Absalom's revenge killing of his half-brother Amnon. His claim concerning the paternity of Solomon is ingenious but unlikely. If Solomon were indeed the son of Uriah, surely a story could have been concocted that would not have accused David of murder and adultery. Perhaps the most important aspect of Halpern's analysis of the text is that it reminds the reader of the historical books that the authors of these books wrote with a particular purpose in mind and had opinions about their subjects that are evident in their telling of the story. When a later author, like the Deuteronomistic Historian, uses earlier sources, as is probably the case in these stories about David, multiple purposes and points of view are sometimes visible. That the author (probably of the Dtr's source) was intent on distancing David from the killings of his enemies is evident, as is his preference for David and his household over Saul and his house. This fact makes it imperative that modern readers make every effort to identify the biases and perspectives of the author(s), so that they can come to their own understandings of events and people described in the text. As Halpern says, the attempt "to understand ancient persons or events in ways that vary from our reports about them" is what history is all about (75).