From: heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
To: "Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup"<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 00:05:18 +0000
Subject: Biblical Narrative: David
From: JUICE Administration <juice@virtual.co.il>
To: story@virtual.co.il
Subject: JUICE Biblical Narrative 11
==============================================================
World Zionist Organization
Student and Academics Department
Jewish University in CyberspacE
juice@wzo.org.il birnbaum@wzo.org.il
http://www.wzo.org.il
==============================================================
Course: Literary and Artistic Aspects of the Biblical Narrative
Lecture: 11/12
Lecturer: Yoel Duman
David son of Jesse
Several years ago, in the course of a speech in Israel's parliament, the
Knesset, Labor party veteran Shimon Peres made a passing reference to King
David, which included an element of criticism of the Biblical figure. His
remarks caused a furor, reflecting, if not further exacerbating, tensions
between left and right, religious and non-religious elements in the Israeli
public. Why should the figure of David, Israel's second king, who reigned
approximately 3000 years ago, be the focus of public controversy repeatedly
in Israel? Certainly no such situation exists regarding King Arthur or even
Queen Victoria in Great Britain.
Without doubt, part of the key to an understanding of this phenomenon lies
in the place King David assumed in the popular consciousness, in the course
of later Jewish history.
David is called "God's chosen" or "God's messiah" several times in the Bible
(eg. II Samuel 19: 22). The latter term originally meant simply "anointed",
as the kings of Israel and Judah, along with priests and some prophets, were
inaugurated through a ceremony of anointing, which symbolized their
God-sanctioned positions. However, there are a number of Biblical references
to an ideal king, descendant of David, who will eventually become king over
all Israel and head the restoration of a golden age. These two concepts
were combined in Second Temple Judaism and coalesced into the apocalyptic
figure of "the Messiah", which was then adopted and transformed by
Christianity. Thus David became the chief symbol of ultimate Jewish
expectations and hopes. Of course, any slight to such a figure would be
taken with great umbrage.
Our purpose this week is to examine the figure of David, the son of Jesse,
as it is drawn in the Bible itself. Our working hypothesis, based on the
research of modern scholarship, is that the Biblical material is the product
of a number of writers and redactors; as a result, we should not be
surprised to find a number of attitudes toward David. This is already the
case within the main source of David's biography, the books of Samuel and
the opening of I Kings. We will limit our examination to this source,
although additional rich materials are found in Chronicles, in Psalms, in
the prophetic books and in the book of Ruth, which exhibit an even wider
variety of approaches.
Because of the wealth of material on the life of David, I will not bring
extensive quotes this week; so please make sure the Biblical text is handy.
We will start with I Samuel 16, in which David first appears. The
background to the story is the rejection of King Saul for allowing his
troops to take loot from the conquered Amalekites. The prophet Samuel had
ordered Saul to invoke the "ban" regarding this vicious foe of the people of
Israel; accordingly, all booty should have been destroyed. But Saul,
possibly under popular pressure, allowed his soldiers to enjoy the spoils of
war; in response, Samuel proclaimed to the King that God had utterly
rejected him and that his sons would not inherit his throne. In I Samuel
16, God sends Samuel on a secret mission, to appoint a new king, from
amongst the sons of Jesse, a Judahite living in Bethlehem. As in the
opening story of the Abraham cycle, Samuel is not told all the details of
his mission; he does not know which of Jesse's son is destined for
kingship. Jesse presents his sons to the prophet, in order of birth,
naturally beginning with his first-born, Eliav. The process of presentation
and rejection is described in detail, causing a slowing of the pace of the
narrative, both as a reflection of the cultic aspect of the event and in
order to increase our expectation prior to David's appearance.
"Then Samuel asked Jesse, 'Are these all the boys you have?' He replied,
'There is still the youngest; he is tending the flock.' And Samuel said to
Jesse, 'Send someone to bring him, for we will not sit down to eat until he
gets here.' So they sent and brought him. He was ruddy cheeked (admoni),
bright eyed (im yafe ainiim) and handsome (vetov roi)." I Samuel 16: 11 - 12
Throughout this story, David's name is never mentioned and even when he
actually appears, he neither speaks nor performs any significant actions,
but only serves as an object of admiration. His physical features are noted
here with three completely unique expressions, which nonetheless evoke
associations with the handsome Joseph and with Saul, whose extraordinary
stature was mentioned in last week's lecture. As we mentioned then, it is
noteworthy that the following lines appear in I Samuel 16: 7:
"Pay no attention to his appearance or his stature, for I have rejected him.
For not as a man sees [does the Lord see]; man sees only what is visible,
but the Lord sees into the heart."
Why then, we might ask, is David's appearance described? Last week, we
suggested that the aim was to create a dichotomy between Saul and David; I
now would like to stress an additional dichotomy, between David and his
brothers. It seems to me that the detailed description of Samuel's
examination and rejection of David's older brothers is meant in part to
highlight David's position as youngest brother/son, and therefore as the
completely unexpected choice as future king. The description of David's
outward appearance is meant to convey inner qualities which are not bound by
the legal conventions of primogeniture.
In the continuation of I Samuel 16, we are told of King Saul's emotional
decline. David is suddenly mentioned as the sweet singer who was brought
into the royal court to ease the king's mental anguish. However, in I
Samuel 17, when David appears at the site of a confrontation between
Israelite and Philistine troops, the king does not know him. We seem to
have here several independent and contradictory traditions regarding David's
entrance into the royal household. We certainly have here a completely
different literary strategy regarding David; he is now both a man of words
and of deeds. But here too, David's actual appearance at "center stage" is
remarkably delayed: he is first mentioned in verse 12 of the chapter. Even
at this point he is lost in the crowded description of his family; we are
told only that he is the youngest of eight sons of Jesse and had not gone
off to Saul's wars (just as Joseph had not gone with his brothers to care
for the family's flocks). Only after the appearance of the Philistine
nemesis, Goliath, is David finally addressed and ordered to bring supplies
to his older brothers at the front. From this point (verse 20), he becomes
the focus of the narrative, although only in verse 26 does he finally speak,
after hearing Goliath's blasphemous taunting of the Israelite troops:
"David asked the men standing near him, 'What will be done for the man who
kills that Philistine and removes the disgrace from Israel? Who is that
uncircumcised Philistine that he dares defy the ranks of the living God?'"
His older brothers are annoyed by David's words:
"Eliav became angry with David and said, 'Why did you come down here, and
with whom did you leave those few sheep in the wilderness? I know your
impudence and your impertinence....'" I Samuel 17: 28
We have here an ephemeral reference to the fraternal rivalry so apparent in
the patriarchal stories; despite the similarities between Joseph and David,
the intensity of this rivalry has certainly been reduced. As we shall see,
however, it will explode in the next generation.
When David is brought before King Saul, he makes a speech of epic
proportions and character, in response to the King's warnings:
"Your servant has been tending his father's sheep, and if a lion or a bear
came and carried off an animal from the flock, I would go after it and fight
it and rescue it from its mouth...The Lord who saved me from lion and bear
will also save me from this Philistine." I Samuel 17: 34 - 37
David is fearless; he is also quite a speechmaker!
We have in these introductions to David a variety of views regarding his
character. He is, for reasons not given, the Lord's chosen; he is the
youngest of his family, a fine healthy looking shepherd. He is a champion
of faith and nation. He is the country boy who has no problem speaking
before his elders or even his king. When he finally strides out to meet
Goliath, we see David through the eyes of the Philistine veteran:
"When the Philistine caught sight of David, he scorned him, for he was but a
boy, ruddy and handsome." Apparently the order of these descriptions
reflects the order in which Goliath perceived David: from afar, he already
saw that it was a boy; as they drew near, he saw that the boy was ruddy
(perhaps a red-head); finally he noticed that David was handsome (or should
we translate the word as pretty, in order to express Goliath's contempt?)
Here too, David continues his rhetoric, his expressions of religious and
national outrage and his faith in God's support. We can hardly imagine a
more impressive introduction to this character. While we might find David a
bit over-confident, he appears in general as a shining and admirable figure.
This favorable impressions is conveyed, even before his stunning victory
over Goliath, by his appearance, his words, his family position (which
evokes associations with the patriarchal figures, and especially Joseph, who
were also not first-born) and the contrast with Saul. A comparison of this
introductory material with that of any other Biblical figure shows the
extraordinary effort on the part of the Biblical authors in creating David's
persona and shaping public opinion.
It is, therefore, a stunning fact that the last years of David's life are
described as a series of personal and national tragedies. When David
finally dies at the age of 70, as reported in I Kings 2: 10 - 11, he is
portrayed as an almost helpless old man, easily manipulated by his Queen and
chief advisor, lonely and abandoned by all but Abishag, the virgin hired to
comfort the King in his dotage.
The key to this pathetic fall is found in II Samuel 11 and 12, which recount
the story of David's unpardonable sins in the matter of Uriah the Hittite
and his wife, Bathsheba.
"At the turn of the year, the season when kings go out [to battle], David
sent Joab with his officers and all Israel with him, and they devastated
Ammon and besieged Rabbah; David remained in Jerusalem."
Thus begins one of the most amazing accounts in world literature. Modern
Biblical scholars are in agreement that the major source for the books of
Samuel and Kings were the writings of royal scribes, who were dependent on
the good will of their masters. It is therefore extraordinary that this
story, which contains express condemnations of the King's behavior, both by
the narrator and by the literary figure Nathan, the king's prophet, should
be found within this clearly biased account. In addition to the overt
criticism just mentioned, our story lambastes David through the use of a
number of literary techniques, including much irony. In the first verses
quoted above, for instance, David is portrayed as the only able-bodied man
left in Jerusalem; all the others have gone off to the wars, just as David
used to and should have in this case as well, since this is what kings do!
This scathing comment is expressed through a subtle use of phrasing,
highlighting opposites: David/other kings, David/other men.
In the continuation of the story, David is portrayed in comparison to Uriah
the Hittite. Our only bases for evaluation of this character are his few
words and actions; we have no additional physical or biographical
information on him. As a result, Uriah's character may be evaluated in a
number of different and opposing manners, especially with regard to his
awareness of his wife and the King's adultery. After being brought to the
King, Uriah is told to go home, a fit reward for a brave and tired soldier.
However, Uriah refuses saying:
"The Ark and Israel and Judah are located at Succoth [or are sitting in
huts], and my master Joab and Your Majesty's men are camped in the open; how
can I go home and eat and drink and sleep with my wife? As you live, by
your very life, I will not do this!"
Is this the response of a veteran trooper, for whom military protocol and
camaraderie are above all, or of an embittered husband who is unwilling to
participate in the cover-up of the King's dalliance with his wife, but has
enough cunning to avoid open confrontation? As M. Peri and M. Sternberg
show in their remarkable article "The King through Ironic Eyes" the Biblical
storyteller leaves his readers unable to make a clear judgment on this vital
issue. We have here an extreme example of the technique of narrational
reticence which we have noted in other cases, especially, once again, in the
Joseph cycle.
As for the reader, he is completely knowledgeable regarding the facts of the
story, if not regarding the minds of the characters. A question I have
posed my young students frequently regarding this story is: why did
Bathsheba agree to the affair with David? I'd be happy to hear explanations
from any of you. But out narrator sums up the action in a completely clear
manner in II Samuel 11:27, after Uriah has been eliminated and Bathsheba
brought into David's ever-growing harem:
"But the Lord was displeased with what David had done"
Thus David has become a despot, a murderer, an adulterer and an unsuccessful
schemer and has angered God. This has all been reported in a seemingly
objective manner, except for the contrast with David's
pitiful/proud/admirable victim, Uriah.
II Samuel 12 is the direct continuation of the Bathsheba episode and is
well-known as the proverb of the poor man's lamb. In this story, David's
prophet Nathan presents the King with a supposedly current legal case, in
which a poor man was cheated out of his only possession by his rich
neighbor. The King is outraged and summarily condemns the perpetrator to
death. Hereupon Nathan responds:
"That man is you! Thus said the Lord, the God of Israel: 'It was I who
anointed you king over Israel and it was I who rescued you from the hand of
Saul. I gave you your master's house and possessions of your master's
wives, and I gave you the House of Israel and Judah; and if that were not
enough, I would give you twice as much more. Why then have you flouted the
command of the Lord and done what displeases Him? You have put Uriah the
Hittite to the sword; you took his wife and made her your wife and had him
killed by the sword of the Ammonites. Therefore, the sword shall never
depart from your House - because you spurned Me by taking the wife of Uriah
the Hittite and making her your wife.'"
Nathan's entrapment and condemnation follow a prophetic pattern that can
also be seen in the parable of the vineyard (Isaiah 5: 1 - 7). The talmud
attempts to clear David of the most serious of these charges; the biblical
Book of Chronicles simply deletes the story from his composition.
Nonetheless, the prophetic condemnation is crystal clear and undeniable.
The fact that this condemnation was preserved is indeed remarkable.
I would like to end this lecture with a brief overview of the stories of
David's children. The statistics are shocking: three sons are murdered
(Amnon by his half-brother Absalom, Absalom by David's Chief of Staff Joab
and Adoniyahu by his half-brother Solomon's order), the one daughter
mentioned by name, Tamar, lapses into insanity after being raped by her
Amnon her half-brother. Something is definitely wrong in this household.
In the account of the rape of Tamar, Amnon is portrayed as one of the truly
evil characters in the Bible. Advised by his uncle, David's own brother,
Amnon lures his beautiful half-sister into his home, pretending that he his
sick; he even goes so far as to use his father, the King, as a pawn in his
ruse. The power and horror of the rape is, to my mind, a pinnacle of
Biblical writing:
"Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them to her brother inside.
But when she served them to him, he caught hold of her and said to her,
'Come lie with me sister.' But she said to him, 'Don't, brother. Don't
force me. Such things are not done in Israel! [a hyperlink to the rape of
Dinah, daughter of Jacob] Don't do such a vile thing! Where will I carry my
shame? And you, you will be like any of the scoundrels in Israel. Please,
speak to the king; he will not refuse me to you.' But he would not listen
to her; he overpowered her and lay with her by force.
Then Amnon felt a very great loathing for her; indeed, his loathing for her
was greater than the passion he had felt for her. And Amnon said to her,
'Get out!' She pleaded with him, 'Please don't commit this wrong; to send
me away would be even worse than the first wrong you committed against me.'
But he would not listen to her. He summoned his young attendant and said,
'Get that [woman] out of my presence, and bar the door behind her.'" II
Samuel 13: 10 - 17
Note that I have placed the word "woman" in brackets; the word does not
appear in the Hebrew text and I think that the JPS translation loses the
coarseness of Amnon's speech by supplying the word. In the Hebrew, Amnon's
loathing is expressed in his inability or unwillingness to refer to the
woman, who had until now driven him mad with love, as any more than an
inanimate object.
In the following chapter, Absalom, who has been identified in II Samuel 13
as Tamar's full brother and comforter after the rape, methodically arranges
the murder of Amnon. In this chapter, despite the horror of the act of
murder itself, Absalom comes off in a positive, almost heroic light. On the
other hand David is portrayed in both chapters as a non-entity at best; a
father unwilling to take action in a clearly volatile family situation at
worst. In II Samuel 13, as I mentioned, Amnon uses David to lure Tamar into
his house. In II Samuel 14, Absalom invites David to his sheep-shearing
festivities; for reasons left unclear, the King refuses to attend, but after
persistent urgings from Absalom, agrees to send Amnon ( in his place?).
Thus David has had a key role in the rape of his daughter by his son and the
murder of one son by another. Once again, there are striking similarities
between David and several of the patriarchal antecedents; Jacob, too, is
portrayed as a passive witness to family violence.
When Absalom is returned to Jerusalem, after a complex series of stories in
which the now heir-apparent is portrayed as a ruthless schemer, it is no
surprise that he soon begins to undermine his father's position and
popularity. In the following detailed account of the rebellion of Absalom,
we have the one true case of an "oedipal" conflict in the Bible. We also
have a short period of strength for David; just as he arrives at the low
point in his career, forced once again into flight, but this time not by the
"mad" king Saul but by his beloved son Absalom, David finally recovers his
leadership skills, quickly and confidently places his agents in the most
advantageous positions and sets the stage for Absalom's fall. But through
Joab's overzealous action, the careful planning of the King ends with the
death of his son and the once proud young champion is left a broken man (II
Samuel 19: 1):
"The king was shaken. He went up to the upper chamber of the gateway and
wept, moaning these words as he went, 'My son Absalom! O my son, my son
Absalom! If only I had died instead of you! O Absalom, my son, my son!'"
Thus, the Biblical account of the career of David portrays him not as a
super-human figure, beyond reproach or criticism, but as a dazzling young
man, who indeed galvanizes the nation, creates a huge empire and then falls
prey to his own appetites and weaknesses - fittingly, he combines the best
and the worst of humanity.
Bibliography
Sh. Bar-Efrat, The Art of the Biblical Story, pp. 199ff (Hebrew)
Y. Zakovitz, David: From Shepherd to Messiah (Hebrew)
Suggested readings for next week's lecture on Ruth and Esther
R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, pp. 58 - 60
**************************************************************