Portraits of a King Favored by God: David the King: God's Poet, Warrior, and Statesman 9781611434057, 2012032125, 161143405X

Citation preview

Portraits of a King Favored by God

Biblical Intersections

18

Including the Hebrew Bible and New Testament this series presents studies that explore the biblical literature as a product as well as a reflection of the world in which it was produced. In addition to studies that take an historical approach, this series also examines the biblical text from alternative perspectives, including social-scientific, theological, literary, and cultural studies approaches.

Portraits of a King Favored by God

David the King: God's Poet, Warrior, and Statesman

Edited by

Mishael M. Caspi John T. Greene

9

34 2012

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2012 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2012

‫ܚ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-61143-405-7

ISSN 1943-9377

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Portraits of a king favored by God : David the King: God's poet, warrior, and statesman / edited by Mishael Caspi [and] by John Greene. p. cm. -- (Biblical intersections) 1. David, King of Israel. I. Caspi, Mishael, 1932II. Greene, John T. BS580.D3P67 2012 222'.4092--dc23 2012032125 Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents.....................................................................................v  Prolegomenon.........................................................................................vii  Mishael M. Caspi John T. Greene  King David Three Thousand Years Later: David and My Orthopractic Experiences....................................1  Richard E. Sherwin  The Idea of a King David: Creating a Ruler, a Dynasty, and His Capital City Stories and History: David as Literary and Historical Figure .....................................17  John T. Greene  The Strings of David’s Life...................................................................41  Mishael M. Caspi  David’s Laments as a Vehicle of Vindication ....................................81  Azila Reisenberger  Two Readings of the Story of David and Bathsheba and Their Meanings.....................................................................109  Yitzhak Peleg  Counterpoint and Contrast: ‘Tamar Versus Tamar Verses’: A Focalized-Emphathetic Reading...........................................131  Angeline M. G. Song  David as Son of Man: Hebrew Narratives of Divine Exaltation as Sources of Second Temple Son of Man Traditions (Psalms 2, 8, 72, 80 and 110) .....................................................147  J. Harold Ellens  The Portrait of David: Comparing the Bible and Talmud ...............169  Adrianne L. Spunaugle  King David: Six Portraits in Music....................................................215  Max Stern  Disappearing “Daughters” in the Tradition of David (Sir. 47:6)..229  Nancy Tan  v

PROLEGOMENON MISHAEL M. CASPI JOHN T. GREENE A. WHY DO WE DESCRIBE THE DUEL BETWEEN DAVID AND GOLIATH? In the following prolegomenon we are not interested in bringing to light the life of David as it is presented by the biblical narrator, nor as scholars who examined his character. We are interested in examining his battle, the duel with the Philistine. Our concentration on this duel has its reasons: a. The duel is designed to prevent bloodshed, but at the same time the defeated one is to be in a state of slavery. b. The irony of the duel is that on the one hand, we are introduced to a warrior with heavy weapons who is to face an inexperienced shepherd. It is here that the biblical narrator’s intention is not to deal with the duel but with the two warriors. The first one trusts his strength and weapons; the other lacks the heavy weapons, but trusts his ability to move quickly. c. Our examination of the duel takes another twist. We view it as a struggle between physical strength and spiritual strength. The storyteller leads the reader, in a very skillful way, from the physical to the spiritual. One who trusts his strength and armor is not to be compared to the one who trusts a supreme power. Because of these particular aspects, trusting God and the ability to conquer fear, we see the duel between David and Goliath as a paradigm for the rise of David to power. vii

viii

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD

Unknown in the camp of the Hebrews, still with the clothing of a shepherd, and his only weapon being a sling, he came to be close to the battle field. Yet, he was equipped with his faith which prepared him to step forward and to declare that he was willing to fight the Philistine. David was no match for him, not even with the armor of King Saul, or with his sling. He stepped ahead with the trust in the supreme power. That was his weapon and with it he became the victorious shepherd—leader of the people and their future king.

B. DAVID AND GOLIATH The story of David includes all of the ingredients of an epic; a myth with some grains of truth mixed together. It is a story about a person who was taken from a lower class, a shepherd, to be appointed the future king of all Israel. Since this story is a part of the canonized text, some view it as a holy text that tells the history of the people. But, still the principal belief for us is that the story of David presents an epic whose main character is an unknown person who, through his ambition, political shrewdness, murders and powers, achieved the highest position and became the founder of a dynasty, the Davidic Dynasty. In the tradition of the Hebrews, this shepherd was appointed by God to replace a king who failed to follow God’s commands. Does this story contain a religious explanation only? Or, does it also reflect political and ideological rivalries between two tribes, Judah and Benjamin? Should we see this story as a rivalry between messianic and anti—messianic movements? Above all, the text includes the story of the house of David, and portraits of a talented person in the art of war and music, a villain in his early years, and a womanizer. Yet, we should ask why such a character attracted all Western literatures and art. In fact, David became an icon who inspired artists, poets and authors.

PROLEGOMENON

ix

Goliath stood up clear in the assumption of status. Strong and unquestioning of himself and others. Fully determined by the limits of his experience…1

The story of David is among many narratives in the Hebrew Bible which borrows elements from other cultures as well. In this respect, we may conclude that ancient people borrowed literary works, motifs and themes from each other and made them their own. A biblical narrative that informs us about a battle between David and Goliath is a story which contains elements of an epic that was told orally and then, well edited, was written down to represent the rise of a new dynasty. The biblical narrative introduces us to a young man who is to serve King Saul and to be a kind of exorcist who, through his music, takes away the evil spirit from the king. Let us compare accounts from the Bible and the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB), a famous re-writing of portions of the Bible. Biblical Narrative

LAB

Let our lord command thy servants who were before thee to seek out a man who is skillful player on a harp, and it shall come to pass when the evil spirit from God is upon thee he shall play with his hand and thou shall be well…Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse, the Bethlehemite, who is skillful in playing and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, an agreeable person, and the Lord is with him. (1 Sam. 16:16– 17)

And in that time the spirit of the Lord was taken away from Saul, and an evil spirit was choking him. And Saul sent and brought David, and he played a song on his lyre by night and this was the song he played for Saul in order that the evil spirit might depart from him… (60:1)

Josephine Miles, “David” In Modern Poems on the Bible, David Cruzon, ed., (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994). 1

x

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD

The biblical narrator presents David as someone who is known among the common people as both a musician and a warrior. In this text David is like Orpheus who charmed the beast and even the rocks while playing his lyre and Diamedes, the famous warrior-king of Argos. The narrator of LAB presents David as the one who was brought before the king, as someone who was known to King Saul. Josephus’ account is very close to the biblical account, but includes some additional information which is not mentioned in the biblical narrative. In some ways Josephus presents a clinical observation of King Saul’s sickness. Josephus … some strange and demonical disorders came upon him and brought upon him such suffocations as were ready to choke him for which physicians could find no other remedy but this, that if a person could charm those passions by singing and playing upon a harp…Saul did not delay but commanded them to seek out such a man; and when a certain stander-by said that he had seen in the city of Bethlehem a son of Jesse, who was yet no more than a child in age, but comely and beautiful, and in other respects one that was deserving of great regard who was skillful in playing on his harp, and singing of hymns and an excellent soldier in war.2 Editor’s Note: Adjust tabs for the above quotation and for all of the following blocked in green.

The additional information telling that David is a child in age could also mean a young man. The description of David in the Bible that he is mighty, valiant; in Josephus he is described as beautiful…skillful in playing on the harp…and an excellent soldier and warrior. This is a description of a Greek hero, but not a Hebrew warrior. It is already argued by Halpern3 that David attracts special treatment because of his evolution from shepherd to courtier, to

The Work of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, tr., (Baltimore: Armstrong and Plaskitt, 1836), 6:9.2. 3 Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2001), pp. 5–14. 2

PROLEGOMENON

xi

thereupon, Patrocles to the Achilles of King Saul’s son, Jonathan.4 According to these three texts, David was known to King Saul before the battle against Goliath. Moreover, the biblical narrator/s who told the story of David tell/s us another story about the one who killed Goliath. In 2 Sam. we read: And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Ja-are-or-egim, a Bethlehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. (21:19)

This person, Elhanan, is also mentioned among the heroes of David: Elhanan son of Dodo of Bethlehem. (2 Sam. 23:24).

The different traditions about who slew Goliath points out that there was a story about a certain hero or heroes who took part in a war against the enemies of the Hebrews. One was named David and he was probably also known as Elhanan. So, who is this Elhanan? Is this the real name of David, since David is just an adjective, Da-vi-dum, which means leader, in the Akkadian language? The Bible is a literary work which influences human history, religion and culture. In fact, it is hard to find in Western civilization a literary and artistic work free from any biblical residue. The biblical narrator does not mention much of David’s ruthlessness, nor any of the other flaws of his early years when he was engaged in the struggle to establish his kingdom, petty empire, and dynasty. However, when the narrator tells us about the successor of Rehoboam, Abijah, whose heart was not perfect with the Lord, his God, he also reminds us about God’s promise to David and says: Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life except only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. (1 Kgs. 15:5)

Should we read this verse as a part of an historical document? The Bible never intended to be an historical book. It is a composition of ethics, law, and literature of the people who It is Patroclus, one of the Greek heroes of the Trojan War and a friend of Achilles. 4

xii

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD

acquired the text and made it their own. Only in the nineteenth century did scholars begin to conduct linguistic and literary analyses of the text. Although we know of the beginning of linguistic analysis in the Middle Ages, the nineteenth century made this subject pertinent in comparative literary works. The importance of the Bible is that it is designated as a text which emphasizes faith in the oneness of God, and from the teaching of all important characters within this text we learn that the Israelites were rewarded when they obeyed God and were punished when they disobeyed him. Making the Bible solely a religious text does not let us examine the text and its literary beauty. Thus, when we read the story about the battle between David and Goliath and view it as a battle between a Philistine infidel and one who charged war against the infidel, in the name of God, then we lose the beauty of this knightly battle told in literature in which irony and humor are woven together. The biblical narrative describes Goliath and his armor in the following way: Name; Goliath of Gath. Height; Six cubits and a span. Armor; Helmet of bronze. A coat of mail weighing five thousand shekels of bronze. Shin armor of bronze upon his legs. Javelin of bronze. The staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam. The weight of the spear six hundred shekels of iron. And one bearing a shield went before him. (1 Sam. 17: 4–7)

This giant of about eight feet tall carried armor weighted five hundred kilos, approximately. Josephus offers us the following details: Name:

Goliath of Gath. A man of vast bulk…four cubits and a span. Armor: Weapon suitable to the largeness of his body. Breastplate weighed five thousand shekels. Helmet and greaves of brass (as large as you would naturally suppose might cover the limbs if so vast a body). Spear (carried it lying on his shoulders). Many followed him to carry his armor. (Ant. 6, 9:4)

PROLEGOMENON

xiii

In contrast to Josephus, the author of LAB does not give any description, either of Goliath or of his armor. In the two above sources we mention the height and the heavy weapons carried by Goliath. The biblical narrator presents two warriors in the valley between Socho and Azekah. Socho is a place near the Western slope of the Judean Mountains. This giant of eight feet tall presented himself to the soldiers of King Saul while he and the Philistine army were camping on the mountain. Speaking to the Hebrews from the top of the mountain gave him the appearance of increased height and made him more threatening. There is no question about the fact that Goliath was superior as a man of war, very skillful in the tactics of battle and in using his armor. The biblical narrative emphasizes that while Goliath relied on his strength and weapons, David relied on God; one on his military experience and his talent as a warrior and the other on his faith. From the narrator’s point of view a person can be triumphant only if he trusts God. Before the battle took place, the storyteller informed the readers about David. Is this the same David who was brought before King Saul to sing to him to cast out the evil spirit? David, the musician is introduced to the readers as: a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, but here our David is: Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem whose name is Jesse. (1 Sam. 17: 12)

Does the narrator accentuate the family line of David who is an offspring of the Ephrathites who migrated to the country of Moab? Here there is no mention of David being in the court of Saul. The later editors realized that there was a problem in the story, so a verse was added: And David went and returned from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem. (17:14)5

This verse is by no means an attempt to bridge the gap between the narrative where David is in the court of the king and 5

hill.

From the valley of Elah to Bethlehem is at least one day’s walk up

xiv

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD

the one where he was sent to his brothers and found himself fighting the Philistine. The biblical narrator tells us again that Jesse, now an old man, was living in the time of King Saul. David reached the battle field to see his three brothers and found out that the people of Israel are threatened by Goliath. But also, here we are told of the prize awaiting the person who would fight the Philistine. Eliab angrily reacted to David’s suggestion to fight the Philistine, saying: I know thy pride and haughtiness of thine heart, for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. (17:28)

David offers himself to fight Goliath and he concludes his convincing arguments stating: David said, moreover, the Lord who delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. (17:37)

The king, so the biblical narrator informs us, tried to prepare David for the battle, armed with all the knightly armor, but then he quotes David saying: I cannot…I have not tested them. (1 Sam. 17:39)

Here the narrator presents his religious ideology. David puts his trust in God and he will win the battle fighting the infidel. The stem N.S.H. appears twenty four times in the Bible. Sixteen times it is related to the relationship between God and people and it means to examine, to test. David had not yet tested this armor, but he already knows that God is with him; God who saved him from the paws of the lion and the bear, he is the one to save him from Goliath. And he took with him five pebbles, a sling and the full trust in God to fight the Philistine. The Biblical Narrator

The Author of LAB

And he took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones out of the brook and put them in a shepherd bag which he had, even in a wallet. And his sling was in his hand and he drew near the Philistine.

Do not fear king, because I will go and fight the Philistine and God will take away hatred and reproaches from Israel. And David set and he took seven stones and wrote on them the name of his fathers and his own and the most powerful. And God sent

PROLEGOMENON

xv

Zervihel the angel in charge of might warfare. LAB does not tell us about the attempt to dress David in the knightly armor. David presents himself as the one who fights the Philistine and God will be the one to take away hatred from Israel. The biblical narrator describes the duel in a very brief series of actions. David

Goliath

(David) took his staff in his hand, (Goliath) came and drew near David; five smooth stones, sling (and drew a man who bore the shield went before near) the Philistine. him. In ancient times (and in some cultures in our time), a tribal war begins only after a poet or a messenger whose role is to insult the opponents has acted provocatively. Only when they end their insult(s) does war start. A remnant of such custom is found in 2 Kgs. 18, where Tartan, rab saris and rab shakeh, addressed the people of Jerusalem (vs. 19–37). In our story the insult between the two begins: Goliath:

Saw David, a youth David: and ruddy of fair countenance said unto David: ‘Am I a dog that thou comest to me with staves?’ And the Philistine cursed David by his god. And the Philistine said to David: ‘Come to me and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air and to the beasts of the field’.

Thou comest to me with a sword and a spear and with a shield but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand and I will smite thee and take thine head from thee and I will give the carcasses of the host of the Philistines this day to the fowls of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth.

It looks like a long walk for both of them. Yet, one was light and free to move quickly from one side to another, while the other was heavy with weapons and soldiers with a shield before him,

xvi

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD

blurring the way of the warrior, thus letting him to use the skills and the maneuvers of a well trained knight. Josephus, as a former soldier, understood the difference between the two warriors, David as a light soldier and Goliath a soldier with heavy armor and says: So, the Philistine, being retarded by the weight of his armor when he attempted to meet David in haste, came about slowly as despising him, and depending upon it that he should slay him who was unarmed and a child also…6

Contrary to Josephus’ description of a military man, the author of LAB presents a very different story which contains very many folk story motifs. The author of this story does not present a dialogue between the two warriors, but a long monologue of David, containing the history of both families: Were not the two women from whom you and I were born, sisters? And your mother was Orpah, and my mother was Ruth. Ruth chose for herself the way of the Most Powerful and walked in them…for after your death your three brothers, too, will fall into my hand… And Goliath, while he still had life in him, said to him. Hurry and kill me and then rejoice. And David said to him: ‘Before you die, open your eyes to see your slayer, the one who has killed you’. And the Philistine looked and saw the angel and said: ‘Not you alone killed me, but also the one who is present with you, he whose appearance is not like the appearance of man’.7

The story of LAB is different from that of Josephus. It is a story which intends to show that if not by a direct act of God then to point out that it was God’s works, sometimes accomplished by a messenger. As we have it in our story: …his appearance is not like the appearance of man.

The angel’s name here is Zervihel, while in other stories, involvement of an angel as a messenger of God to help people carries a different name. In the story of Judge Kenaz we are

6 7

Ant. 6:9.4. LAB. 61:6–8.

PROLEGOMENON

xvii

introduced to two angels who are active in the victory of Kenaz in his war against the Ammonites:8 But the Lord sent before him the angel Ingethel who was in charge of hidden things and works invisibly and another powerful angel was helping him… And Zeruel, the angel who is pre-eminent in military might, bore up the arms of Kenaz lest they should sink down.9

There are two angels helping Kenaz in his war. LAB offers us some of the folkloric motifs which are unique for such a text dated to the first century C.E. Kenaz may release his hand from the sword only if he puts it in hot blood. In another text the motif of killing the enemy of the Hebrews and cutting off the head as we read it in our story appears also in the story of Judith and Holophernes. In the literary work Book of Judith, the protagonist is depicted as a person with a great faith, wise and also an assassin. As an Israelite hero her prayer is: Strengthen me, O Lord God of Israel this day. (13:7)

Her prayer echoes the prayer of Samson: O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee and strengthen me, I pray thee only this time. (Jud. 16:28)

In the canonized text, the Book of Psalms contains one hundred and fifty psalms. However, in the Qumran texts we find four more psalms; in one of them, the battle between David and Goliath is described in four verses only: I went out to attack the Philistine and he cursed me by his idols.

This story does not appear in the Bible. Kenaz is not mentioned as a judge. But, his son, Othniel, is mentioned as the one who conquered Kiriath Sepher (Jud. 1:13) and as the one who delivered his people from Cushan-rishathaim. (3:10) 9 LAB. 27:10. 8

xviii

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD But after I unsheathed his sword, I cut off his head, and I removed the shame from the sons of Israel.10

In rewriting the Bible by both the author of LAB and by Josephus, we find attempts of these authors to describe King Saul at his worse. Josephus tells us that for forty days Goliath offered King Saul a duel: Till Saul and his army were there with terrified…but did not come to a close battle.11

David offered himself to fight the Philistine and he turned to the king saying: O king, be not cast down, nor afraid for I will depress the insolence of this adversary and will go down and fight with him.12

The irony is that a shepherd, unknown of skill as a warrior, is about to save the Hebrews from their enemy and restore the king’s honor. The author of LAB makes the king look worse too. Here too, we are informed that for forty days the Philistine insults the king and the people. David turns to the king saying: Do not fear king because I will go and fight the Philistine.13

In both texts we hear of the fear which engulfs the king from David only. The authors allow us to imagine that during these forty days the Philistine was able to demoralize both the king and the soldiers. David, the new anointed one, is about to save the people. The author of LAB, however, tells us the story of the seven stones which contain within them interesting motifs of folklore.14

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha vol. 2, James H. Charlesworth, ed., (New York: Doubleday, 1985), p. 615. 11 Ant. 9:6.1. 12 Ibid. 9:6.2. 13 LAB. 61:4. 14 While Josephus follows the biblical text that David took only five stones and put them into the shepherd bag, LAB tells us of seven stones David took with him. 10

PROLEGOMENON

xix

Another text which relates the story of David and Goliath is a Syriac text wherein we read the following: And in the days of Saul lived Gulyadah a giant of the Philistines. He came by night and reviled Israel, and blasphemed against God, and David the son of Jesse, killed him. And David was praised in songs by the daughters of Israel, and Saul persecuted him…15

Presenting the worst about King Saul is in many ways a presentation of an author who is not in favor of the house of Saul. The author of LAB, interpreting verse 17:16, equating it with the forty days in which Israel feasted when they received the Law.16 During this time the king and his soldiers were ridiculed and no one dared to fight the Philistine. David was the only one who was ready to fight him and to save the Hebrews. He was, in the view of the author of LAB, the anointed one who would replace the House of Saul. It is here that the author of LAB inserts some folk stories which were known to people in his time, the first century C.E. In his story of the duel between David and Goliath, there are two episodes which we wish to relate. The first one is the episode of the miracle stones we mentioned above. LAB tells us of seven stones: …wrote on them the names of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and Aaron and his own, and the Most Powerful, El Shaddai. (61:5)

The Book of the Cave of Treasures, E.A. Wallis Budge, tr., (London: Religious Tract Society, 1927), p. 167. In a long note, a parallel story to ours is related about a duel between the Egyptian Sanehat, who made his way to settle in Palestine, and a man by the name of Thennu who came to challenge him. This man was known for his strength. It is also here that the foe, Thennu, is killed by his own weapons and the people who watched the battle rejoiced at Sanehat’s victory and applauded him. 16 The author of LAB mentions forty days of feasting while the Hebrews received the Law. Such a festive event is not mentioned in any story. There is, thus, a way to suggest that this is the author’s interpretation of the verses in Ex. 24:11, 18. 15

xx

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD

The story of the seven stones and the fact that David wrote these names on the stones is not a biblical story.17 However, in a late midrashic story we read that David selected five stones on which he wrote five names; the name of God, the name of Aaron and the name of the three Patriarchs.18 The second episode contains the long monologue of David while facing the Philistine. Here David addresses Goliath stating: Were not the two women from whom you and I were born, sisters?... And because you have risen up today and have come to destroy Israel, behold I who am born from your own blood have come to avenge my people….

Jewish Sages related to the story of Ruth and they wanted to explain certain difficult verses in the story of David. One of the verses in his story is the following one: And David went there to Mizpeh of Moab, and he said unto the king of Moab, Let my father and my mother, I pray thee, come forth, and be with you till I know what God will do for me. (22:3)

The Sages argued that Ruth and Orpah were two sisters, the daughters of Eglon, king of Moab. The biblical narrator of the Book of Ruth presents an ambiguous verse stating: Wives of the women of Moab. (1:4) The Aramaic Targum states: Elimelech, the husband of Naomi died and she was left a widow and her sons were left orphans. They transgressed the law of the word of the Lord and took for themselves gentile women from the daughters of Moab. One was named Orpah, and the name of the second, Ruth, the daughters of Eglon, the king of Moab, and they dwelt there for ten years. (Tr. Ruth 1:3–4)

David asked the help of the king of Moab due to his relationship with the monarchs of Moab. It is thus, we argue that the tradition of the blood relation between the house of David and Moab was known in early time Josephus follows the biblical narrator stating that he took five stones and went toward the Philistine. 18 See, Midrash Shemuel, 24. 17

PROLEGOMENON

xxi

and by the first century transmitted from orality to literacy. David’s monologue mentions also that not only Goliath is about to be killed, but also his three brothers. According to the midrashic literature, Goliath was the son of Orpah. R. Hisdah teaches that Goliath was one of her four sons. In 2 Sam. 21 we read: …Elhanan the son of Jaare oregim a Bethlehemite slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite…These four were born to the giant (ha-ra-pha)… (21:19–22)

In the Talmudic literature, ha-ra-pha was identified as Orpah and Goliath was one of the four heroes descended from her.19 Midrashic literature deals with this issue while interpreting the verse: And they lifted up their voices and wept again, and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. (1:14)

In this literature we are introduce to the following teaching: In reward of the four tears that Orpah shed over Naomi, the punishment of her son Goliath was suspended forty days.20

In two other sources we find the following teaching concerning the genealogy of Goliath: The night that Orpah parted from her mother-in-law she was mixed with a hundred men from a hundred nations. R. Tanchuma said also with one dog as it is said; ‘And the Philistine said unto him Am I a dog ...?’21

She (Orpah) returned to the fields of Moab, but because she was wanton, they did not accept her. She went to the land of the Philistines where she bore six bastards, all of them fell by the hand of David the descendant of Ruth.22

The author of LAB presents an interesting end to the duel between the two. He states: See the teaching of R. Hisda and Rava in BSot. 42b. R. Rab. 2:20. 21 Ibid. 22 Zohar Hadash, Ruth 81b. 19 20

xxii

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD Now the angel of the Lord had changed David’s appearance and no one recognized him. And Saul saw David and asked who he was and there was no one who recognized him. (61:9)

Thus, our author solved the difficulty of the verse in the biblical narrative: And Saul said to him, whose son art thou young man…? (17:58)

It was indeed a strange question asked by the king who had David as an exorcist. The change of his appearance by the angel presents an interpretation to the biblical text.

C. DAWUD AND JALUT The story of David is mentioned in sixteen verses and his battle with Goliath in three verses. All together, the composer of the Zabur is mentioned in nineteen verses only, in the hadith David is well-respected: ...that the most dear to Allah was the fasting of David…and the salat (prayers).23

The battle with Jalut (Goliath) is described in one verse only (Q.2:251), where we read: Fa-ha-za-mu hum bi-idh-ni allahi wa-qa-ta-la da-wu-du ja-lu-ta wa-ata-hu allhu l’mul-ka wal-hik-ma-ta… By the will of Allah they routed them, and David slew Jalut and we gave him power and wisdom.

This is a short description of the battle. However, at the same time we get a clue about the information Muhammad had of the biblical story. As much as few verses relate the story of David, he is well-known in the oral tradition of the Muslims. In both, the ahadith and in the qisas al-anbiya, the stories of the prophets, David’s character is presented and the battle with Jalut is presented with beautiful creativity and in an imaginative way. But at the same time that we recognize this creative work as a paradigm of the creativity of the early Muslim Sages, there always were those who objected to 23

Bukhari, 4:63.

PROLEGOMENON

xxiii

those stories on the grounds that they are relating to the Israelites only and thus, are not authentic. Ibn Kathir argued that every thing whose origin is the fantasy of the Israelites is false. Thus, when he relates the battle between David and Goliath, he suggests that killing Goliath with a slingshot is an account which belongs to the fantasy of the Israelites. Indeed, when we compare the story of David with the account in the qisas, we find that it reflects many of the stories found in rabbinic literature. According to one tradition, David is sent with provisions to strengthen his brothers who were in the camp of Saul. Together with the provisions he had his sling and shepherd bag. On his way he passed by a stone which said to him: “Take me and put me in your bag.” So he did. The stone introduced itself as the stone of Jacob. Continuing his journey, he passed by another stone which introduced itself as the one of Isaac, and the third one introduced itself as that of Abraham. When David met Goliath, the stones began to jump within the bag and each one was saying: Take me! So he took one and with it he hit Goliath between his eyes and he fell off his horse and then he killed him. Kisa’i is more imaginative. He tells us that Goliath came mounted on an elephant and wearing a hundred rotls of armor.24 Relating his story, Kisa’i tells us that Goliath was eighteen spans tall while David was only ten spans.25 In his Qisas he also brings the biblical verse to light: The Bible

Kisa’i

And the Philistine said unto David: You may be able to smite wolves and Am I a dog that thou comest to me dogs with your slingshot… with staves? It is also here that we find the appearance of stones. The first one introduced itself as the one of Abraham, the second one of Isaac and the third one of Jacob. In LAB David took seven stones on which he wrote the names of the Patriarchs and the name of God, One rotle consists of four kilos. Thus, he wore armor of about a half of a ton. 25 Goliath was 13.8 feet tall and David was 7.6 feet tall. 24

xxiv

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD

as we mentioned above. The biblical narrator tells us about five stones. However, in the midrashic literature we are told that David wrote the name of God, Aaron and the Patriarchs.26 The stones, according to Kisa’i, were also involved in the fighting against Goliath. David, so the story goes, put the three stones in the sling and hurled them. One went to the army on the right, the second fell among the army on the left and the third struck Goliath and he fell dead. Another source tells us that Goliath was from the tribe of ‘Ad27 who were related to the Amalekites and was a fearsome warrior and infidel. In relating to the battle between Goliath and David, al-Rabghuzi tells us that David wanted to join his brothers in the war against the Philistine, but they did not let him. It is here that we are told of the tradition which suggests that Samuel told King Saul that Goliath would be killed by the son of Jesse. When the king put on David his coat of mail, he said that he could not fight with it. This text echoes the biblical verse: I cannot go with these; for I have not tested them. (1 Sam. 17:39)

Another text which echoes the biblical text is: Goliath said: Stones are for killing dogs. David replied: You are a dog.

David had no sword nor a bow and arrows, but the sling. Allah sent a wind which blew the helmet from Goliath’s head and the stone struck his forehead, another struck the soldiers on the right and the other struck the soldiers on the left. In this creative work it is related there were three stones. G. Weil in Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans adds the following information: In his head he heard a voice from a pebble which lay in the midst of the road calling him: “Lift me up, for I am one of the stones with which the prophet Abraham drove Satan away…” He again heard a voice from another pebble crying:”Take me, I am the stone which the angel Gabriel 26 27

See above, section A. Mentioned in Q. 7:63; 89:5.

PROLEGOMENON

xxv

struck out from the ground with his foot when he caused the fountain to gush forth in the wilderness for Ishmael’s sake… from a third stone:”Lift me up, for I am the stone with which Jacob fought the angels which his brother Esau sent out against him.”28

Joseph Meyouhas, who used different sources to include in his work, relates the duel between Daoud and Jalut, and tells us the following: …as he was going to present himself before Saul, saw in his path three smooth stones, one upon the other, and approached them to take them and he heard how each of them called out, saying: Daoud take me, I pray, for with me thou shalt save the children of Israel from the hand of their foes… and he took the three stones… Then Daoud placed his hand in his wallet and drew out the three smooth and pointed stones which he took from the river…and hurled them with all his might and struck Jalut.29

The Shi’i tradition teaches that the prophet or the Imam inherits his portion from another prophet or Imam and thus, he aught to use the armor of the prophet as a sign of being appointed to this position. Al-Qummi, in the name of al—Saddiq, said that Allah revealed to the people of Israel that the armor of Moses would be that with which Goliath would be killed and a man from the tribe of Levi whose name is Daoud the son of Asa would do it. David in the Book of 1Samuel is described as a legendary hero. His duel with the Philistine became a paradigm of self sacrifice, courage and of faith. The battle against Goliath revealed and accentuated his cunning personality and his political shrewdness. He became a leader and his leadership is respected and idealized not only in the Hebrew literary works, but in the creative works of the Muslims as well. The biblical narrator describes the early life of David as a shepherd and as a warrior. Later literary works acknowledge him as a musician, the author of the Book of Psalms and the anointed future G. Weil, Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans, (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1846), p. 180. 29 Joseph Meyouhas, Bible Tales of the Arab Folk-lore, (London: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928), pp. 148–149. 28

xxvi

PORTRAITS OF A KING FAVORED BY GOD

king Messiah. Again, all other biblical episodes of jealousy, of womanizing, as a murderer, who killed Uriah and in his will to his son, Solomon, he insinuated the killing of Joab and of Shimei the son of Gera. And even stories of sex are not a part of the new image of David as it is presented in the late literary works. Here, the emphasis is on a hero, a true hero which, in folk literature, the folk—hero. David, a son of an unknown family from Bethlehem, became an admired hero after he fought and defeated a giant warrior from Gath of the Philistines. It is indeed a folk story if not a fairy-tale. The fact that it was an episode—probably added by one of the redactors—emphasizes David’s rightful claim for being a king. However, this episode is mentioned no more in the narrative concerning David. It is very strange that this story is not mentioned again, but the biblical narrator does offer us other information. He tells us that David found refuge in the city of Gath (1 Sam. 21); while another redactor tells us that Elhanan was the one who slew Goliath. Is Elhanan the true name of David? And so it goes in folk—literature. The following essays delve into other uneven aspects of the story/stories related about David, son of Jesse.

KING DAVID THREE THOUSAND YEARS LATER: DAVID AND MY ORTHOPRACTIC EXPERIENCES RICHARD E. SHERWIN BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION The four poems of this essay reflect my responses to the figure of David as an inescapable part of my Jewish orthopractic experience—biblically talmudically and devotionally. I discuss the main contexts of their creation, the conflicts they represent, and such resolutions as they may be considered to have attempted whether or not achieved. The discussions represent my personal take on David and not that of any of the Judaisms of which I know or in which I participate, and certainly not all the various Davids my experiences have come across. The context for the first poem to be considered was my attempt to understand how I found myself standing for an hour or so before the open ark in synagogue as the concluding service, Ne’ilah, of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, began, as it were, to ‘close’ the gates of repentance and forgiveness that were ‘opened’ ten days before, on Rosh HaShanah, the Jewish New Year. As a community we had come through the ten Days of Awe, scrutinizing our behavior—at all levels of virtue—of the year past, and hopefully gathering strength to improve such in the coming year.

1

2

RICHARD E. SHERWIN

That communal context has its own paradoxes, but they are not the subject of this poem. This poem tries to express my understanding and my ignorance of how I personally became the representative of the community chosen to stand before the ark during the closing service, the ‘last chance’ to achieve communal forgiveness. In our congregation, traditionally, the representative is chosen from among the eldest congregants, with preference among those given to one who was both a founding member of the synagogue and apparently sufficiently observant or pious to warrant such an intercessory honor. In this case, I was that honoree. Naturally, I was both flattered and embarrassed, thinking if I was considered capable of such an honor, it meant the congregants didn’t really know me very well. Gd certainly knew me better. And I most certainly did. So a strong undercurrent fear was that Gd might judge my community by me. It was an antsy situation, to say the least. When the ark would be closed, the curtain drawn, and the ‘books of judgment’ sealed, at the day’s end, for what would I have become responsible? Chosen for my age and apparent respectability, I was up there in front of everyone, and scratching my mind for something to justify my being there. And without all that much surprise, the figure of David, eternal King of Israel, forebear of the Messiah, divine judgment, and world peace, came to mind like a lifeline. Granted, I wasn’t anywhere near as important or significant for anyone as he was for Judaism and the Jewish people, past present and future. But then, too, I reasoned, if Gd could accept the virtue of such a man whom I neither liked nor respected except for his unremitting dedication to Gd and Gd’s honor in this world, and put aside his monstrous flaws, then maybe Gd wouldn’t mind my miniscule virtues combined with trivial vices and accept me as the community’s representative. Not the best they had to offer, just not totally unsuitable to the traditional criteria. This complex reflection threw me back to my adolescence when my grandfather brought me to order for complaining about my teachers. A secular Jew himself, he had no doubt that a good Jew should be both moral and a dedicated learner of everything he was capable of learning. No excuses accepted. A good student and a good Jew learned from everything and everyone, all his life, never giving up—and certainly not merely because he found the teacher

KING DAVID THREE THOUSAND YEARS LATER

3

or the topic unattractive. Gentiles might excuse themselves for any reason, but the proverbs distinguished clearly the wise man from the fool. And I would not be allowed to descend into the foolishness with which I justified my adolescent complaints. He was the oldest person I knew, and one of the wisest, if not the nicest; a tough man, on himself, on others, and on me. So I tried to avoid foolishness, and side with wisdom, from wherever it came. All of this helped me understand in my hour before Gd’s judgment, that David perhaps—unlikeable, untrustworthy, and often ignoble—had earned his right to his place in the imagery of Gd’s working out his will on earth. With all his flaws, he did the job he was set to do, earning his place in Judaism; and with more justification than I mine. That I personally respond spiritually to Saul—more just, more devoted to family, more noble, than David—his predecessor, who broke royal ground for him, was right then irrelevant. It was the figure of David that consoled me up there in front of the ark and the congregation, not that of Saul. And it is David more than Saul who is the object of these four poems.

A. POEM #1: OLD, OLDER, OLDEST any moron can learn from someone they love a smart one learns from even those they hate granpa julius’ wisdom whipped me into shape from learning whatever i felt or thought was just so here i was a half a century later creaking bones and all before the ark a slothful sinner chosen for his age pleading fasts atone for failing marks greatness granted david king not man i’d trust or want as parent or friend and still astonished by his love of Gd and will beyond morality his songs and dancings so there i am immobile quiet standing dreaming dancing empty ignorancings

4

RICHARD E. SHERWIN

The poem itself got written the first day of Sukkot, the Feast of Huts, which ends in Israel with the songs and dances with the Torah Scrolls on Simchat Torah (the Joy of the Torah) when we conclude the yearly reading of the first five books, the first section of the Tanach, from which most of our devotional laws and customs are talmudically derived, and begin the Genesis recounting of Creation again. Until then—so goes a communal belief—even though the books of judgment were closed and sealed on Yom Kippur, there was the chance of mitigation by repentance and atonement communally. Now the New Year begins joyously, the old one behind us with all its achievements. The poem grants David his greatness, his unique ‘love of Gd’ in song and dance, together with his slippery ‘songs and dances’ played out immorally with his family. The final couplet tries to combine my ignorances of thought, word and deed before Gd and man, with the dancing and songs of Simchat Torah, my favorite of all Jewish holidays, even as my aging bones creak less spryly than they used to; and perhaps my aging soul. Whatever the judgment, whatever the achievement and failure, the yearly spiritual and calendric cycle continues, symbolizing the continuity of the Jewish people, religion, and, of course for both David and me, the State. So in many ways, my learning, my devotion, my pieties or attempts at them, constitute my activities of ignorance, my ‘ignorancings’ not much different from David’s. My debatable personal acceptability gets included in his superior achievements, within those of the community. Everyone means something different when singing together the one-liner “David King of Israel lives and exists” which is so often sung as we dance with the Torah. For some it is not political but spiritual allegory, for others it is historical tradition, primarily a metaphor for Israel’s contemporary existence and a promise of maintaining the courage to battle through our troubles, and these are only a few possible readings. For me, personally, it’s both and includes the figure and family of King Saul whom David supplanted. But that’s best left for the discussion of the final poem. The next poem deals primarily with the eternities of Gd and the Jewish people in the figure of the rabbis who, as it were, certified the union of the parties, among other relationships, as they constituted the Sanhedrins in the Land of Israel and Babylonia during the three centuries after the Romans destroyed the

KING DAVID THREE THOUSAND YEARS LATER

5

2d Temple and forbad Jews to live in Jerusalem. First, on the Sharon Plain around Yavneh, then up in the Galilee in various places, mostly Tiberias, and near the end, Usha, Jews made their new homes. This poem describes the contemporary tourist ‘site’ near the present Jewish settlement, among remnants of ancient Galilee settlements of Jews. It is Rabbinic Judaism’s presence together with that of present-day Jews in Israel which prevents an Arnoldian lament for things gone and things not yet to be, and keeps it from sinking into the individual sensational piety of “Dover Beach”. The ruins of Usha are more alive and significant than the ruins of the Roman walls erected across England by Emperor Hadrian, the man who hounded the rabbis, Jews, and Judaism.

B. POEM #2: USHA IN THE GALILEE usha’s empty here a pile of stones there a winepress cut into stone a clump of poppies red remembrances famous rabbis cutouts in tin whitewashed and summarized in hebrew black among the purple thistles cactuses and dandelions the dry cowpattied path winds thru still the sabbath boundary is marked in greek on stone between another town nothing else is left of but then sanhedrin judges gathered here on hilltops hadrian allowed unharried burnt by nothing but the sun escaped from burntout yavneh and jerusalem to scribe and pharisee eternal truth and daily law the centuries to come

6

RICHARD E. SHERWIN hadrian a curse and crumbling wall that may have kept out picts but failed to keep out time the usha talmudists had crystallized glittering dark matter no matter how we turned it radiant no matter how we turn Gd’s word no matter stones piled up dug out no matter metal cutouts standing in and up for brilliant minds returned to Gd and us forever bonding jacob joseph david jonathan souls bound up in souls eternal

The rabbis interpreted the laws of the Torah into Judaism, and even more set the model for the preservation of the Jewish people throughout separations of time and space as eternal students of the law, including the laws of interpreting the interpretations. Dispute blended with belief, study with practice, all in the name of preserving Gd’s word in the commandments, behavior and customs, constituting the Jewish people’s being chosen to exemplify Gd’s will in and for the world. Mind and soul ideally unite in behavior, redeeming this world, and maintaining the Jewish people. Without the Talmud there is no Judaism or Jewish people. Without the Bible there is no Talmud. They constitute a ‘bond’ across time and space, a teaching of mind to mind, soul to soul, in community, a praxis of the unified spirit, the only contemporarily popularized version of which seems to occur in some forms of Buddhism. But Torah is not celibate or individualistic or monastic. It demands marriage, community, and action in this world as its primary functioning of spiritual achievement, and closeness to Gd, its holiness. And it is a holiness as much the production of the generally maligned ‘Scribes and Pharisees’ as the Jewish communities conjoined over intervening centuries.

KING DAVID THREE THOUSAND YEARS LATER

7

Something like this union is the cultural underpinning of the poem’s last three lines. In the Bible the phrase “his soul is bound up in his soul” occurs only twice. The first time is when Judah explains pleadingly to Joseph—who has not yet revealed himself to his brothers—the necessity for Benjamin to be returned to Jacob, even at the price of Judah taking his place and punishment as slave. This from Judah who led the betrayal of Joseph as part of his brothers’ jealousy at their father’s preference for Rachel’s children over Leah’s. The second occasion is when the love of Jonathan for David is expressed: justifying, as it were, Jonathan’s willingness to abandon his rights of inheriting the kingdom to David. In both cases, an older man, father or ‘big brother’ cannot survive without the presence, the life, of the younger man. There is no equally clear demonstration biblically that the souls of either Benjamin or David are—or need be—equally committed, equally dependent for life, on the existence of the elder male. And in both cases, the sense of loss, of envy, of death—real or surrogate—is present, along with the sense of self-sacrifice for their beloved. The poem substitutes Joseph for Benjamin, to parallel the biblical and devotional significances of the other three. Both Joseph and David commit their successes to Gd and in Gd’s name. There, of course, the similarity stops. Joseph is charitable, loves his family and protects them; David takes care to seem to be keeping his promise to protect Jonathan’s. Joseph takes responsibility for his family, David seems to ignore or abandon his own family, except when his personal biases are involved, as in the case of Absalom—let alone Saul’s. The comparison can be continued to David’s deprecation except for, of course, David’s stunning overwhelming creation of the Psalms, and the genius in establishing the Kingdom of Israel in the Promised Land, as Gd commanded, without which it is unlikely Solomon’s Temple would have been constructed and the Temple itself become so dominant a symbol for Judaism of Israel—people and nation— as the indestructible ‘house and home’ of Gd on earth. Add to this the recreation of the State in the Promised Land as the beginning of the salvational era. It is to me ironic that of the two Messiahs in Jewish tradition it is Joseph who is assigned the role of warring—and dying—while establishing Jerusalem on earth, whereas David will be the one who will establish the world of peace with all its consequences. These roles seem to contradict their biblical behavior. Perhaps each in

8

RICHARD E. SHERWIN

order to become Messiah has to acquire the capacities of the other, in some Yeatsian or Blakean marriage of contraries. Regardless of such speculation, however, the poem concludes by interpreting midrashically the devotional and historical biblicality which ties the four men together as emblems of unity of Jewish biblical and talmudic traditions in the past and present day Israel, and, one hopes, the future. The next poem addresses more directly some contemporary political implications of the wars Joseph is fighting and David will somehow resolve peacefully. Perhaps it is relevant here to suggest that references to external political military and other aspects of contemporary Israel’s experiences refer as much to the conflicting opinions and positions taken within the Jewish communities abroad and at home, as they do to the actualities recorded in newspapers, television, and other media. Simply put, the following poem’s public references relate to how acceptable I see myself, my community, my country, before each other and Gd.

С. POEM #3: tuesday on the way to 9th of Av both the temples burnt the third one stopped messiahs both of war and peace cut off jerusalems foundations shattered slabs davids city stolen out from under moslem prophets charge we forged the deeds judges bribed idolaters can wonder pious pious how we jews dare grieve legion enemies and legion friends gather gog magog against the Lord His chosen people slaughtered once again yawning presidents ignore us bored ’give in give up accept the loss and bless the enemies of Gd who planned this mess’ we kept the faith Lord keep the faith we wait on You to keep Your word and save

“Destroyed but indestructible”: well, that’s what I hope, especially the indestructible as it concerns the people and State of

KING DAVID THREE THOUSAND YEARS LATER

9

Israel; a hope that the history of the 20th century seems to have made more fragile than at some other times. Moreover, the 21st century seems intent on keeping matters that way. David the icon of our national establishment and survival, as militarily and economically violent then as now, may have over centuries been translated into permanent survival, refined into some spiritual essence. The realities of his life, however, remain unhappily similar to our own: insignificant size, held in contempt by what passes for the family of nations, his religion a mockery of the neighboring giants, ‘philistine moslems’, who threaten as regularly and violently then as now to destroy, and a nation organized for wars it dare not lose. It is this side of the Davidic heritage of national establishment and survival among nations indifferent or hostile that “on the way to 9th of Av” attempts to realize emotionally, politically, and at least formally poetically. Nothing in our lives individually or nationally encourages us or me to take other than literally any and all threats against the lives of Jews or the State of Israel. The peoples of Europe and the American continent may find it possible to believe Moslem education, political language, and behavior mean something different from exterminating Jews, Israelis, and Zion. They don’t know or believe Arabic language or culture, or think their geography will save them. We know what is being said and done, educating children and adults to, and see around us what our neighbors do to their own citizens whom they profess to love. We have no such luxury of ignorance, blindness or disbelief. The Holocaust-deniers will finish as much as they’re allowed. The world is busy with its own problems: economic, political, and cultural. What it wants is not more Jews, but more peace and quiet to try to tackle their problems. What we know, what this poem tries to suggest, is not that we want to be a ‘people alone’, but that that is what existentially we are. As I mentioned above, the Temple, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, functions like the core around which, in and out of which, Jewish values and existence develop. Many Christianities and Islams have slandered Gd and supersessionalized Jewish texts and refined Judaism and Jews to smoke and ashes. Still, Jerusalem is of secondary or tertiary importance to these religions, becoming primary only because Jews in Israel live it so. And it is primary to Jews as Jews, even those like me, who are not particularly enthralled by the city itself. It has been the only capital city of Jews

10

RICHARD E. SHERWIN

for thousands of years. In short, the complex of politics, religion, violence, which surrounds the city and Israel, may be boring to the world busy with its own capitals, violences, and politics. Boring or not, our neighbors and our history make the city and the land the inescapable grounds of reality for our daily lives, as well as our religious understandings of this life. It is not that I am interested in apocalyptics, visions of the end of this world, or of endgame wars of Gog and Magog. It is simply that in the fifty years or so I’ve lived here our peace-loving neighbors, overseas allies, and former Christiandoms have made it clear the degrees to which we’re on our own. Advice in plenty, which if we took, and were destroyed or merely conquered, would result in their passing the mildest resolution against us the Muslim countries would permit the UN to pass, while ignoring our being slaughtered with even more even-handedness than they ignore over 4000 Syrian Sunnis dead at Alawi hands. And if there were some millions of Jews left afterwards, there’d be no more transit visas, let alone permanent residences offered Jews now than in the past. Since the 1980s the world’s jewhatred has smelled to me like that of the 1920s and 1930s…. mutatis mutandis, granting the differences, some are planning and promising—and some merely happy with— the holocaust to come; and others indifferent, too busy elsewhere. This is why, of course, the quasi-poem ends with a direct reminder to the Lord, in whom I find myself sometimes wryly unable to disbelieve, that we’re doing the best we can in the world we inherited, to fulfill the commanded settlement of the Promised Land, and the rest is out of our hands, and in His, as are we. (I avoid here feminist “Her” for fear of male chauvinism, blaming whatever goes wrong, on females. And “It” seems to preclude the personality without which there is no I, let alone a Thou.) This critique is obviously part of why I feel myself so unsuitable a communal intercessor for the community; and perhaps part of why I may be partly acceptable as such. Politics, national, international, communal, and personal, are very much part and parcel of the Jewish construction of Jews. One may not attempt holiness in this world without attending to the various collective realities of one’s fellow beings. Even the Greeks considered such inattentiveness the definition of idiocy. The other side of such attentive learning as participates in holiness is compassion, giving and hopefully getting. If my

KING DAVID THREE THOUSAND YEARS LATER

11

grandfather, z”l (in blessed memory), could still teach me to learn from those I don’t like, and from their examples, it was an in-law who reminded me that David deserves compassion, for having had a ‘hard life’. Though not how I was considering David when first I began these versions of him poetically and in prose, I took my inlaw seriously. He lives in the Bible, and the Bible lives in him, as it should talmudically in all Jews, and often does. But David’s deserving human compassion, let alone mine, niggled at me until I began to seek out what was meant by David’s ‘hard life’. In addition, I felt that if I was to represent my community’s pleas for Gd’s compassion, then, minimally, I should try to give it with similar grace. My primary method of understanding what I might feel and believe is usually by trying to work out my confusions in verse. This leads me to the final poem’s attempt to summarize my apprehensions, or misapprehensions, of David by rejoining him to the more human—or less symbolized—figure of Saul, the man and king he supplanted and perhaps supersessioned as he has, perhaps, and more than I like, supersessioned parts of me.

D. POEM #4: pity david and saul who fought as if eternal enemies and not as pit bulls chosen bred and bet on and then tossed away a royal win and human loss pity david and saul inflated by the spirit of Gd sucked out and left to die a hero on a hill savior in bed betrayed by Gd and husked and just as dead pity david and saul who touched by Gd exalted and degraded israel and judahs temples risen twice twice felled their suffering abandonments the cost pity saul and david praise the Lord what david wrote saul lived without the word

Although the biblical conflict between Saul and David comes out clearly in favor of David as Gd’s chosen replacement of Saul as

12

RICHARD E. SHERWIN

King of Israel, the representation of Saul comes as close to that of a Greek tragic hero as the Bible ventures. David gets Saul’s daughter Michal and son Jonathan on his side, minimally as legal instruments to the legitimacy of David’s inheriting the kingdom, but also as establishing David’s incredible charisma: Michal is the only woman whose ‘love’ (for David) is written into her role; Jonathan the only man whose ‘soul is bound up in the soul’ of another man (David), other than Jacob for his son Benjamin. They testify to the passion David could generate in those who would normally be his opponents rather than his supporters. David also gets a warrior’s reputation superior to Saul’s and the ‘spirit of Gd’ that is taken from Saul. In fact, David seems to inherit—by hook and crook according to your view of things—everything Saul would have normally expected to be his, his family’s love and support, his army’s and people’s praise, and the love or commitment of Gd’s prophets and Gd himself. David could be seen as not merely replacing Saul’s royalty, but plundering his ‘treasury’—personal, military, political, and spiritual. Saul is left to the dark emptiness of abandonment while he tries and does his merely human best to be a good king. And as far as we can tell, he succeeds, though to no praise or reward. He dies emptied out, defeated, by the Philistines, and perhaps a suicide: his headless body hung out on the walls of Beit-Shean, along with that of his son Jonathan, while David, pure hearted and clean handed, does what he does best in such ambiguous situations: sings a lament for the fallen heroes, ‘lovely in life’: poetically memorable, personally suspect and politically adept. Only his lament for his rebellious son Absalom might be seen for quite different reasons as equally so. And yet, chosen by Gd, in love with Gd, depending on Gd’s justification at all times, David, too, gets stripped of his glories by the time we are shown him dying, in his own bed, unable to get warm even with the help of a young beautiful virgin. At best, a great poet dedicated to establishing the name and honor of Gd in his world, and a great warrior king unifying the fragmented Joseph and Judah tribes into Israel long enough for his son Solomon to build the Lord a house ‘as it were’ in which to dwell. At worst, an opportunist, killer, traitor, extortionist, bandit, faithless husband, adulterer, rotten parent, and machiavel using his cousin Joab to wipe out Saul’s descendants and Bathsheba’s husband, and his son Solomon to wipe out Joab. In brief, a man with more than enough

KING DAVID THREE THOUSAND YEARS LATER

13

of the qualities required to forge one people ostensibly worshipping one Gd, while surrounded by superior Philistine armies and multiple conflicting internal tribal loyalties. The first three stanzas of this poem, however, emphasize similarities of the two men; only the final couplet their differences. The first stanza, in a way, is the most bitter—treating them as animals ‘bred’ to battle each other mindlessly, regardless of how they as individuals might have chosen to handle their conflict. For all the ‘pit bull’ analogy is raised to be rejected, the fact of raising it in itself suggests there’s some apparent truth in the metaphor. In this sense, it faults Gd or at least Samuel that they are pitted against each other so absolutely: first removing the spirit of Gd from Saul, and secretly disposing it onto David, because Saul fails in commanded brutality (before David has the chance to show that in that area he will not fail—even without specific commands). Their initial attraction to each other biblically, and David’s musical abating of Saul’s deprivation-melancholy, serves to heighten their differences: youth beauty talent self-confidence vs. age melancholy duty and doubt. It will become a contrast of David’s power and apparent completeness with the loss of power and the increasing hopelessness of Saul’s situation. But underlying all the differences is their being set against each other to the death. David, after all, cannot inherit the kingdom till Saul and Jonathan die, and without David’s contributing to their deaths. The second stanza describes them both as betrayed by Gd, first inflated with divine spirit and then like balloons deflated till there seems nothing left but an empty shell. Saul’s deflation is of course fore grounded in the Bible; David’s just seems to happen after his rise to monarchy and adultery with Bathsheba, without the words or prophetic to-do that surrounds the abandonment of Saul. Once royal, neither he nor his family seem much concerned anymore with Gd; that seems relegated to Nathan the court prophet, or suspended until Solomon can inherit not the capacity for psalms but the engineering administrative aspects of building the first Temple. David dying is not presented as a recommendation for Gd’s service, nor, for that matter, does all he did in Gd’s name seem justified even retrospectively. He’s dwindled even more than Saul who could die a futile but heroic death. David’s glory is vanished, wasted away into court politics and the schemings of his wife and prophet for Solomon’s

14

RICHARD E. SHERWIN

succession. So what justification is there for Gd having deposed Saul so shamefully in favor of such a man that David became? The third stanza expands the lack of justification for royal brutality into a lack of justification for the inevitable exaltations and degradations of the nation as exemplified in the two future destructions of the kingdom symbolized by the fall of the two Temples. David’s divinely appointed charisma and Saul’s tragic suffering come to this—the nation and people pay the price down the line of the royal failures and successes, and the poem suggests, equally, the comparable failures of the divine. The national enterprise and the religious one together require and get a heavy price paid, thus raising the question, what and why the Saul-David conflict, contrast? What and why the successful establishment of the nation and religion as such, in the icon of the Temple, if only to be destroyed? In sheer human terms there does not seem to be any answer given biblically, other than accepting it all as the will of Gd. This retrospective on the past establishments of the Kingdoms of Judea and Israel, of course, does not remain retrospective. The third stanza already includes what is prospective from the time scheme of the Bible, and therefore allows querying the prospects of the present establishment of Israel, just as the third poem in this series had done so openly and rhetorically. Here the question emerges again from a compassionate examination of the human prices paid biblically, and perhaps foundationally, for the present nation’s biblical model. In many senses, therefore, David (and Saul) live and continue to act in our lives. The final couplet reverses the order of the beginning of each of the three initial stanzas. Their ‘pity david and saul’ becomes ‘pity saul and david’. It is worth noting that history does not usually consider David pitiable, not as icon, not as king, not as ancestor of the messiah. Usually it is his glorious successes and continued praise which is how he is presented. Pity Saul, yes. That’s human, perhaps also traditionally charitable. Saul was not the right man in the job for the establishment of a religious-national combination focused on the Temple. His very attempts to do humanely the job he didn’t want in the first place are what get him into trouble with Samuel, the prophets, and perhaps Gd; or at least cut him off from traditional accesses to Gd via the prophets so totally that prior to his death he forces Samuel’s ‘spirit’ to speak with him via the necromancing old woman of Endor. But pity David? Rarely is this

KING DAVID THREE THOUSAND YEARS LATER

15

done. His inglorious parenthood, betrayal of Joab, and powerless death get elided into the future successes of his son Solomon whom it is not certain he really chose or would have chosen to replace him. This is, indeed, pitiable but not part of the iconic curve of Jewish representations and uses for David, King of Israel… who lives and exists forever [david melech yisrael chai v’kayaam] and constitutes the people’s similar hope. In his biblical death we are shown nothing of the wonder-king of Israel, let alone the darling Psalmist of the Lord. We are shown merely the worn out oriental monarch succumbing to palace politics and a scheming wife whose accession marked what seems to have been the beginning of the end of the Lord’s attentions to David and his career. The concluding couplet reverses the names for whom pity has been insistently demanded, requested, justified during the first three stanzas. Now it demands of us to pity Saul first, David—if at all—second. It reverts us to our normal human instinct Greek tragedies play upon so instinctively and successfully. We pity first the human being like us in the hero who was more than we are, and was still insufficient, still ‘failed’, however nobly, as did Saul. His struggles to maintain the kingdom and people, with and without Gd’s apparent support, resonate with us less heroic, less significant, less successful human beings. We understand Saul; in pitying him we pity ourselves, and hope to avoid approximating his fate. Granted, we have been asked to pity David also, as if he needs such pity, for having reached even greater heights than Saul: achieving all the national goals that were set before him, and then also having Gd, as it were, vanish from his life, especially his private life. The family tragedies of Saul, for which David had much to answer, recur bitterly in David’s family without his having anyone to blame but himself. Self-examination and remorse were generally foreign to him except pragmatically in the case of Bathsheva, and even that at the incitement of Nathan the prophet. The poem had demanded of us a pity for David first, as if he needs it more Saul, or deserved it as much as did Saul. It can be read as sarcasm. Pity David? For what? He got what he wanted, or what the Lord wanted. The final couplet however, suggests that praising the Lord, which David did so much of so well, so famously, is either useless or begs the question of such praise in reference to lives lived for the Lord in this world. David’s psalms

16

RICHARD E. SHERWIN

record an intimate dependence on his relationship with Gd. But therefore, pity Saul even more than David, for Saul had to live out Gd’s having abandoned a relationship with him, intensely and negatively, without the comfort of communication from or with Gd; without the ‘word’ or words David is rightly famous for having so mastered, so made his own, that they have become everyone else’s words as well, except, perhaps, for Saul. Divinity and royalty had been imposed on him, sat badly in him, and were taken from him so thoroughly, so rudely. He died knowing he had had to live without such a relationship, having gone thru the depths of isolation, trying desperately to do right as a king, and without Gd. It is David who, as usual, gets the last word, “Tell it not in Gath and Ashkelon….” as if he could stop the Philistines, as if Gd would… or did. Their ‘talk’, their ‘word’, their victory over Saul and Jonathan proved Gd’s power and spoke His word in this world; and justified David’s succession. It still does, though the poem tries to qualify its worth. Sardonic, or cynical, yet its very question presumes Gd’s continued power, ambiguous activity in this world, and the consequent ambiguity of the holinesses inherited by the people and nation of Israel. It accepts the traditions of the Davidic icon as all we have to live within Gd; reluctantly, a bit resentfully, a bit angrily. So there I was, standing praying between ark and congregation. Praying. For the community, the people, the nation, the State. My family close and extended, regardless pretty much of what might happen to me. Or not. And I prayed in the modalities of David, his psalms, and those of others hallowed by centuries of use, as the rabbis, and for that matter Jesus, prayed: Believing. Disputationally. In love. Grateful whatever the prices paid, and to be paid, that the Psalms sing, the icons work, and the people choose Gd. If something like the poems touch on really approximates a truth of David’s life then pity, compassion, anger, awe, and all the other human responses I was capable of in prayer belonged to the closing of the books of judgment, the ark, Yom Kippur atonement, and my ‘ignorancings’.

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID: CREATING A RULER, A DYNASTY, AND HIS CAPITAL CITY STORIES AND HISTORY: DAVID AS LITERARY AND HISTORICAL FIGURE JOHN T. GREENE Sherlock Holmes and 221B Baker Street are both more real than were real Victorians of the era. To this may be added several characters of Charles Dickens. —John T. Greene

THE CHALLENGE The intersection of chronological occurrence, ancient historiographical writings by biblical priestly scribes concerning those chronological occurrences, and material culture by way of archaeology that appears to verify either biblical account and/or chronological occurrence without any other input and means

INTRODUCTORY In an age wherein scandals and schemes of various types abound, a sort of precautionary retrenchment is occurring among scholars of biblical and related literature. This contributes only partially to the contemporaneous maximalist vs. minimalist controversy going on in some circles. One recalls the Wall Street scandals led by the financial “high priest” Bernard Madoff (Today U.S. Marshals are auctioning off his personal property—including yacht—in order to raise money to repay some whom he embezzled: 9/9/09), the 17

18

JOHN T. GREENE

archaeological/religious scandal surrounding the “Jesus/James Ossuary” of Talpiyot, Jerusalem, the Shroud of Turin, and many others. The heckles have been raised and caution is being exercised on all sides. This retrenchment is merely a way of getting back to basics in biblical studies; it is not negative, it is simply pragmatic. My colleague Rabbi Dr. Richard A. Freund of the University of Hartford wrote in his recent book, Digging Through the Bible: “... who were King David and King Solomon? Did they ever really exist, and what do we know about the Jerusalem(s) in the most ancient through the modern period?” (Freund 2009, 111). To some readers this may appear a strange set of questions, especially if one has one’s Bible close at hand. One may remember that as early as the Book of Genesis, for example, Chapter 38 therein discusses an ancestor of David, Peretz (as well as alludes to why the later David hid at the caves of Adullam [cf. 1 Sam. 22]). This chapter is most illuminating when one first reads Chapters 37 and 39 in terms of style and content to bracket this account; it appears to have been added later, and by a different hand. The point is that genealogical material is generally relied upon as one means to support the historicity and legitimacy of an individual. When a genealogy can be suspect, all bets are off concerning legitimacy and historicity. Genesis 38 provides one bone of contention. Once more, the issue of the pedigree of David surfaces at the end of the Book of Ruth where a mini-genealogy is also provided that cites her as his great grandmother. The ‘biographers’ of King David probably thought that this would be most helpful also. Thus, two books preceding the account of the rise of David in the Samuel books appear to have been ‘salted’ with allusions to the legitimacy of this king. Does this point to attempts to prepare the reader for doubts about his legitimacy—or even existence? For now, we merely want the reader to ruminate on these issues. Allow me to state that the above questions raised by Professor Freund are very real, and very legitimate when asked within the academic community. For some decades now, scholars and archaeologist/researchers have been locked in a dispute about the historicity of David and Solomon, as well as about the Jerusalem in which they are depicted as having lived according to the biblical books of 2 Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. But there is more, much more to these questions having been posed. They have to do with the questioning of the existence of a century, the tenth-century

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

19

B.C.E. More to the point, the doubts revolve around an archaeological issue of the non-existence of material-culture— those things taken out of the ground or built on top of it—by known methods having been produced on which to run tests and to examine and evaluate. It is for them as if the 10th Century B.C.E. did not exist. To add a bit of drama to this, if your brow continues to be stitched, the same skeptics do not question the existence of the centuries that bracketed this tenth-century: the 11th and 9th Centuries B.C.E. Go figure! For some twenty-three years now, this writer has been a member of the Bethsaida (Archaeological) Research Project. Our administrative headquarters are located at the University of Nebraska at Omaha; our director of field operations/chief archaeologist is a professor on staff there. Our excavation site is located some two and one-half kilometers north of the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee in Israel. Archaeologists refer to the four hundred meter long, two hundred meter wide, while rising above its surrounding terrain by about twenty five meters (area about 22 acres), mound of dirt as a multi-period site. That means that there exist several layers of earth (strata) that over centuries—if not millennia—have created this huge ‘hump’ in the earth there; within these layers are the ruins of cities, towns, and/or villages that stood (and once thrived) on the spot. One of the important levels or strata at this site, known as et-Tell/Bethsaida, contains the ruins of a former 10th-to-8th Century B.C.E. Geshurite city named Tzer. (Arav 1995) What is the connection to King David, and whether he existed or not?: David is said in 2 Samuel of the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures to have had friendly relations with the king of the Geshurites, one Talmai son of Amihud. More than this, David is said to have intermarried with this Geshurite royal family by marrying one of the king’s daughters, a Princess Maachah, who returned with him to Jerusalem. From this union (for David is said to have had numerous wives), David and Maachah became the parents of Prince Absalom. Absalom, in an incident of palace intrigue, assassinated one of his half-brothers, (Crown) Prince Amnon, who had offended Absalom’s sister, Princess Tamar. Rather than remain to answer for his crime, Absalom absconded to the estates of his grandfather, there to remain as a fugitive for three years before being allowed to return to Jerusalem unmolested. Absalom remained with his grandfather,

20

JOHN T. GREENE

which brought him to the site of our excavation in the eastern Galilee. Thus, biblical literature makes a case for David, Maachah, Talmai, and Absalom having spent time in Tzer, Talmai’s capital city, as well as in Jerusalem, David’s capital city. One intuits within the foregoing an excellent possibility of a working relationship between material culture produced by the archaeologist’s spade (and now more sophisticated tools), on the one hand, and literary analysis (and analytical methodologies, existing now in numerous permutations), on the other. These we shall combine in an effort to revisit the question of the nature of King David, and why he was such a bigger-than-life figure of Jewish/Christian Scripture.

QUESTING FOR DAVID Do we, the late-born, really know anything at all about someone who lived in the past? —Grete Weil, The Bride Price

Once we perceive the overwhelming Judaic “stamp” on the contents of the Hebrew Bible and the Synoptic Gospels of the New Testament, we notice that “all roads appear to lead to a David, and, with the exception of a period during which information and traditions concerning David have been sublimated to those of the Maccabee-Hasmoneans, then lead out of him as undisputed point of confluence for the central history of a people.” With such bigger-than-life status, establishing just who David was—even whether he existed at all, or is a composite, literary figure like Jesus of the Gospels—becomes an important question for determining the reliability of the entire Bible. The famous German scholar, Gerhard von Rad even posited an ‘Undersong’ about David that he maintained the reader experienced unwittingly from the beginning of reading Genesis until David was introduced. By the time he was, the reader is so unwittingly sympathetic to what happens to David, and what he subsequently does, that the ‘Undersong’s’ writer has succeeded at his intentions. (Kirsch 2001) It is not until the post-Biblical period, the period of the great Scribes and sages—and still later, rabbis—that the dominance of the Davidic figure begins to wane. Below, we shall examine reasons why. For now, however, we want to pursue strands that appear to point to more than a greatly-detailed, yet enigmatic figure.

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

21

For some biblical writers (who are generally anonymous), it is important to write a “comprehensive” history, or at least ‘biography’ of a given figure. This, they have done selectively. Joseph, Samuel, and David, for example, have received such attention, as has Jesus in Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels. Those who are subjected to this ‘honor’ and those who aren’t follow no discernible pattern. For instance, Joseph is so honored, but his greatness is simply that he rises to political greatness in a foreign country—as a landed immigrant—and thereby helps his relatives when they enter that country, having fallen on hard times. Samuel is so honored, but his greatness is that he facilitates a transfer of leadership and power from a tribal confederation to a monarchical form of government. Joseph serves a government, Samuel serves up a government. The picture of Jesus, too, serves the theme of government with him as the ultimate vice-head of a heavenly government. Joseph and Samuel look forward to the spot that will be occupied by David; the figure of Jesus hones, furbishes, and polishes the significance of Davidic rule and its place not only in human history, but in its transformation through Jesus’ activities as a Davidic heir as well. Professor Freund, whom I mentioned above, has done yeoman’s service in impressing upon us the importance and limitations of archaeology and literary-critical approaches to history and related issues. Herein, we shall also be mindful of these limitations of approach.

’PACKAGING’ DAVID THE YOUTH (1 SAM. 16:11–13; 19–23) The composite picture of David the youth has been well-crafted. When we add the record of 1 Chronicles to that stem, his history has been well-edited. It combines the fantastic and the amazing in such a way that David the lad comes off as a credible figure. Being the youngest of numerous sons raises no heckles (for the Bible constantly uses this motif and contrivance with great success). As a shepherd (a most suggestive motif), he would have had numerous hours to perfect the art of warding off predators to his flock with accurate slingshot tosses. Thus, the episode of his encounter with Goliath is also credible (Nevertheless, compare 1 Sam. 17:4, 7, 49 with 2 Sam. 21:19 before proceeding). Even the information supplied about Goliath, his size and his weapons is credible. And we have a predisposition to accept as true that “the bigger they are,

22

JOHN T. GREENE

the harder they fall.” (Before accepting this uncritically, however, one should read 1 Chronicles 11:22–25, especially verse 23, which discusses David’s commander of his personal guard. This should be followed by a careful reading of 1 Chronicles 20: 4–8, and much comparison and reflection with an eye toward ‘motif’.) This, of course provides subtle segway material for introducing David the armor-bearer—thus, warrior-in-training—of Saul, the rustic king of the former Israelite Confederation. Because of this exposure, also credible are David’s qualifications for being king eventually; he has had on the job training, having been the understudy to the king and his sons. Such a dossier would guarantee a modern-day seeker of the job a good chance at being chosen by a panel of those assessing qualifications. We encounter David in a host of vignettes: engaged in credible activity such as over ambitious seeker of power and prestige; outlaw and runner of the protection rackets; mercenary and warlord hiring himself and his services out to the highest bidder; and opportunist who recognizes when happenstance has gifted him with the ultimate opportunity to combine his previous efforts and bring them to bear on a given, tragic moment in the history of Confederated, rustic-kingly-led Israel: Saul’s defeat and death, and that of his most able heirs, at the hands of the Philistines on Mt. Gilboa. In sum, the character David is as credible as that of George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln. But there is a problem surrounding David under which the records concerning Washington and Lincoln don’t suffer. Other than the biblical records—which are oftentimes at odds with themselves—we have no information concerning a King David; he seems to exist in the Bible, but nowhere else. By focusing on David here, we focus on a far more challenging problem: how we as critical researchers accept and use data to arrive at credible and useful information for writing and understanding history. At stake, then, when we study David, is our total epistemology. What does, it mean to know, and how can we rely on that knowledge?1 According to Israel Finkelstein and N. A. Silberman (so-called minimalist scholars): 1

The time of David and Solomon was portrayed as a past golden era of a united monarchy led by Judah, whereas historical reality was much more meagre. David and

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

23

THE LINGUISTIC/EPIGRAPHICAL CHALLENGE: STELAE When I first began the study of biblical Hebrew, my professor fascinated his first-semester class by analyzing the first line of the first chapter of the first book of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Chapter 1. We sat amazed as he demonstrated, nay!, justified his translation of that line comprised of those letters as “In the beginning ...” We were convinced, and had no doubt, that now we knew from the original language what this sentence/line really said. He waited for our heads to swell with what we considered irrefutable knowledge. Then it began. He suggested that we revisit those same letters and see if any other possibilities for transmission by the ancient writers were possible. Feeling confident, we accepted the suggestion and followed along. A second sweep netted another possible rendering: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth being formless and void, ...” While something of a surprise, nothing earth shattering or violent had befallen the integrity of the letters, and thus essential transmission; minor grammatical shifts were possible, we learned. But this was not all. He proposed yet another sweep; we began to search each other’s faces and foreheads; invisible question marks were written indelibly on each of them. Before the final sweep we were reminded that letters had originally not enjoyed the separation into words on an early scroll or tablet as they did on later ones. The professor even introduced an illustration of the famous Moabite Stone/Stela (see below) with dots separating letters, but with no visible spaces between them (This is also true for the Dan Stela illustrated below.), as an example of an interstitial step in the process of moving to word separation in writing. We found this logical and reasonable. We were even somehow comforted by the dots. We, having accepted Solomon did not rule large empires, rather they were mere provincial rulers of a sparsely inhabited region. Their portrayal as rulers of a large-scale Israelite empire was meant to serve as ideological legitimation of a united monarchy under Josiah in the seventh century. (From “A Review of The Bible Unearthed by I. Finkelstein and N. A. Silberman” by Pekka Pitkaenan at www.zalag.net/OTstudies/ Review%20of%The%20Bible%20Unearthed.doc.

24

JOHN T. GREENE

this, were then shown the same letters, but without the vowel notation symbols written either above, below, or within those symbols in the Masoretic Text we were utilizing. It was difficult to recover from what followed, a rendering “In the beginning, the god of the sea created himself ...” By changing no letters, but merely removing the spaces and vocalization marks from the traditional text—in other words, attempting to show an Urtext—, another, and equally possible rendering was provided. His exercise shoved home his point: If this is possible with the first line of the first paragraph of the first chapter of the first book of the Hebrew Bible, proceed with caution when rendering the remainder of Genesis (Sefer B’reshit), as well as the remaining thirty-eight works of that biblical anthology. I have never forgotten that lesson. Thus, I come to questioning every line of biblical literature not because of any prima facie arguments on revisionist grounds or out of revisionist concerns, but chiefly on linguistic/philological grounds. Caveat emptor! The Mesha Stela/Moabite Stone The same Moabite Stone (ca. 930 B.C.E.) to which I alluded in the previous paragraph, and also known as the Mesha Stela, contains the significant letters DW/VD. The Moabite king, Mesha, whose account is on this stela/stone, mentions that he had victory over the king of Israel at his time, and that he took possession of (or captured) an altar-hearth. What is very important here is that we have archaeological proof of the historical existence of two of Israel’s kings, Omri (1 Kg. 16:22) and his son, Ahab (1 Kg. 16:28) outside of the biblical record, and by a foe, Mesha, king of Moab! Because two Israelite kings are mentioned (and three must be considered, for the contemporary of Mesha was actually Ahab’s son, King Ahaziah), and the letters DW/VD appear also in his narrative, scholars have been known to conclude that the famous founder of the royal house of Judah, David, would also be mentioned, even if indirectly. The letters DW/VD are the letters of the name DaW/ViD. Is this outside-the-Bible proof that David is mentioned elsewhere, and thus proof of his actual historicity also? Before we respond to this question, however, let it be known that DW/VD may also be rendered, just as legitimately and linguistically as the letters of Genesis 1 suggest and caution, Daud (a

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

25

Semitic proper name [perhaps Moabite], Dude (possibly a proper name; in present-day Israel a boy named David has the nickname Dudu), Dod (Semitic for uncle), and Duda (probably a proper name). In fact, numerous English renderings of the stone read “... and I brought back the altar-hearth [of] Duda (DWVD) and dragged it before... (his god) in the city of Kiryoth ...” (during a victory parade). Moreover, fueling the fire of credibility concerning David is the fact that David’s god, YHWH, is also mentioned by Mesha who took great delight in trouncing other gods as well. He tells that after conquering the city of (the god) Nebo, he confiscated as trophies of war the altar-hearths of that city as well, and dragged them before his god, Chemosh. (Barton, 460–1) And C. K. Hanson, following W.F. Albright, rendered the same section “And I brought back the fire-hearth [of [his] uncle (cf. Dod above) from there; and I brought it before Kemosh in Qeriot ...” (Hanson 1969) The evidence is indeed enticing. However, YHWH was also the acknowledged national deity of the northern Kingdom of Israel, just as he was the acknowledged national deity of the southern Kingdom of Judah. Thus, the presence of YHWH on the stela is not proof that David is either mentioned or existed; the existence of Omri and Ahab remains secure, however. What the stela does bequeath to scholarship is the powerful contribution that archaeological research can contribute in a positive way to biblical studies, without it meaning that “archaeology proves the Bible.” Before I discuss the Tel Dan Stela, it should be said that one of the foremost scholars of the Mesha Stela, Andre Lemaire, who has studied the stela for at least seven years, concluded that the expression BYTDW/VD does indeed appear on the Mesha Stela. (Lemaire 1994) This is significant because the word BYT is not present on the stela in the condition we presently have it preserved. (Cf. Favorites) As a result, he is challenged in this conclusion by Pierre Bordreuil, who approaches Lemaire’s thesis with far more skepticism. (Bordreuil 2001) And steering a wise and cautious middle road between parties in this ‘existence’ controversy is the work entitled Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E. (Mykytiuk 2004) It restores some modicum of balance of approach to the inscriptional data found on both the Tell Dan and Mesha Stelae.

26

JOHN T. GREENE

On the Stela of Mesha, “Omri, king of Israel” is written thusly in Moabite. Here one sees also how the words are separated by a dot rather than by an extra space between words. The “House of David” (BYTDWD)?/Tell Dan Inscription Discovered in 1993 during excavations at Tell Dan on the extreme northern border of both ancient and modern Israel, Fragment A, line 9 contains the letters BYTDWD. What is not surprising is the stela itself: these were common enough, set up at the border of a land as a signpost and information panel for passersby, usually identifying the ruler (either of the land or the one who conquered it) who had erected it. What agitated scholarly interest, however, were this series of alphabets in this arrangement. This time, unlike the Mesha stela, the words were not separated by dots, but there was a more pronounced space between the words, and there were no vocalization marks. Exacerbating a reading, however, is the fact that the inscription was not discovered intact: it is fragmentary and numerous words are missing. In the panel below, are located the six letters in lighter color on the right portion read as “House of David.” The language is not Hebrew, but Aramaic; the stele was set up, most believe, by the Aramean king, Hazael (or even Ben Hadad II or III) who did campaign militarily against Israel. One may ask immediately why if the stela was set up when, especially Avraham Biran, the chief archaeologist and director of the Tel Dan excavations for some twenty years, maintains that it was, why is that BYTDW/VD (House of David) and not BYTYSRL (House of Israel) appears on the stela. The answer to this neither dismisses the problem of the expression’s appearance on the stela, nor does it prove that David was a historical figure. The biblical account preserved in the second Book of Samuel informs the reader that after the death (and defeat!) of King Saul’s rustic kingdom (that had comprised chiefly the former tribal confederation of tribal Israel), David was visited at (his capital city from which he ruled as King of Judah) Hebron by representatives of the remnants of Saul’s former government. Apparently, they

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

27

concluded an understanding where David would rule simultaneously Judah—as king—and Israel as an officer similar to Saul by treaty. This means that David, as ruler of both kingdoms had influence over territory as far north as the city of Dan (and perhaps beyond). Biblical David’s authority there is unquestioned; the question still remains, on both linguistic and practice grounds wherein the expression BYT ... occurs, whether BYTDW/VD on the stela refers to King David, and thus assures his existence in history.

In a detail of the Tell Dan Stela, one reads the letters BYTDWD in the highlighted portion of the second line. The appearance of the letters (BYT)DWD on both stelae is both a blessing and a curse for researchers whether they are ‘maximalists’, ‘minimalists’, or those with no particular axe at all to grind. What is clear is that there was an ancient Near East-wide (hence A.N.E.) practice of employing an expression that contained the word BYT (house=dynasty) followed by the one who (supposedly) established that B(Y)T. Probably the power who employed this expression in its chronicles more than any other group were the neo-Assyrians. They used it to designate not necessarily a dynasty and its founder, but a territory, usually one

28

JOHN T. GREENE

against whom it had fought—and usually conquered. But B(Y)T could also appear in other expressions such as B(Y)T HILANI, where it had absolutely nothing to do with dynasties or territorial designation. This expression describes an architectural style of building found frequently throughout the A.N.E., and means “pillared building/house.” At et-Tell/Bethsaida, for instance, one finds the remains of an impressive (for its time) bit hilani structure. Not all B(Y)Ts are created equal. When we acknowledge that BYT means ‘dynasty of’ (because the two words form part of a prepositional phrase) it challenges us to ask other questions. The city of Rome is said to have been named after and based on the figure Romulus who, along with his brother, Remus, was raised by a she-wolf. There is certainly no question that Rome existed (exists), but the question of its beginnings is still more the province of legend and national myth than historical fact. We encounter an historical Rome and look back on how it originated. In a similar manner, especially since the conquerors relied on what they either learned (from the conquered) or designated (from their own practices) the territory to be assigned it an official designation, BYTDWD could refer to a territory or to a person; in neither case, however, to the biblical King David himself directly. All references are, of necessity, indirect or oblique. Moreover, BYT can be rendered either “descendant of,” “member of the ruling dynasty named . .,” and an indirect way of addressing a given monarch without addressing him by his ‘throne name.’ We would be remiss were we to omit another practice employing the prepositional phrase BYT, although it is implied and not stated. This practice deals with the enemy of a given monarch referring to members of a given dynasty named after its founder. While the biblical writers of Kings devote no more than seven lines to the famous King Omri of Israel, we know from his enemies, and from those of his descendants, that long after he was dead his land was still being referred to by his enemies as the “Land of Omri” and his descendants as “Son of Omri.” We read him being so honored on the Mesha Stela in our discussion above. Summary Thus, the discovery of one, maybe two, stelae containing the expression “House of David” documents the practice of using such

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

29

designations either for territories or for dynasties. However, we await further data in order to facilitate a more accurate conclusion on the historical confirmation of King David from stelae.

BULLAE/SEALS IN JERUSALEM It could be argued that the preceding discussion has been conducted in a vacuum; one does not explain something questioned by using the same (or similar) unknown or questionable thing. This may be the case with the BYTDWD of Tell Dan and the (suspected by Lemaire) [BYT]DWD of the Moabite Stone. They are, after all, studies in isolation. Fortunately, there have been other, more recent, discoveries that involve names mentioned in the Bible that have been at least verified by archaeological finds. The examples I shall provide are informational in their own right. In addition, they provide context for the preceding discussions, and highlight the challenge researchers face attempting to have literature interface with archaeological data. The ‘Temech’ Seal/Bulla A name well-known in archaeological circles in Israel is Mazar. Benjamin and his son, Amihai, Mazar enjoy premier status and respect. Eilat Mazar has inherited the same tradition. (Archaeology www) She, as director of an excavation outside the modern Old City of Jerusalem, near the Dung Gate on the southern side, discovered a stone seal bearing, she believed, the three letters TMK, Temech. The biblical book of Nehemiah mentions that a Temech family served at the First Temple in some sacerdotal capacity, and was among the exiles sent to Babylonia after the fall of Jerusalem in 587/6 B.C.E. Their family was also among the returnees after Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem and its environs from Babylonian captivity after 539/8 B.C.E. This 2,500 year-old engraved stone was discovered in January 2008 near the precincts of the Temple where it was understood that some priestly families resided. Here, again, we must ask questions of the relationship of text to artifact, and the huge possibility of connections between the two. After we adjust to the fascination of possible interface, what can we use? Was Temech a common priestly family name? Was it a common name among the citizens of Jerusalem in general? Other

30

JOHN T. GREENE

than as circumstantial evidence, what does the discovery of the Temech seal prove? How helpful really is the discovery to Biblicists in their quest for interface? Is there a relationship between the inscription, Temech, at the bottom of the seal and the images depicted above it? Does that image/name relationship enhance the understanding of the name having been mentioned in Nehemiah? These questions are all the more important when one does a follow up on the seal’s discovery and translation—and announcement. It is truly a lesson in caution; it instructs us to be cautious with our conclusions. After Dr. Mazar announced that the name on the seal contained the letters TMK paralleling the name of the priestly family mentioned in the book of Nehemiah, the astute scholarly world noticed a linguistic error. Mazar had read the seal from right to left (the way one reads Hebrew). Realizing that a seal creates a mirror image, the reading would be not Temech, but Shlomit. That is, there are four letters on the seal and not three: Sh,L,M, and T. Shlomit is also a name known from biblical literature, but it changes the seal’s significance greatly. Dr. Mazar has accepted the suggested revised translation, and order in which the letters should be read. Oops! There is a second consideration, however. Shlomit is a name associated with the 5th Century B.C.E. That is, it dates the seal to the time of the significant Jerusalem leaders of the Persian Period, Nehemiah the governor, and Ezra the Scribe, or just prior thereto. What is significant here is that the seal depicts two bearded priests standing on either side of an incense altar with their hands raised in a position of worship. A crescent moon, symbol of the Babylonian chief god, Sin, appears on top of the altar. One is forced to ask the question “What is such a seal doing in Jerusalem in the ruins of the area near where the First Temple supposedly stood?” The Gedalyahu ben Pashhur and Yehuchal ben Shelemayahu Seals Both good fortune and good archaeological methodology were with Eilat Mazar a second time. Near what is called David’s Palace, Mazar discovered small clay stamps or bullae bearing the names of influential courtiers mentioned in the Hebrew Bible: Gedalyahu ben Pashur, (Mariottini 2007) and Yehuchal ben Shelemayahu. The bullae were discovered in the same area within two years of each other. According to Jeremiah 38:1, both men (ministers) were

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

31

courtiers during the reign of the last king of Judah, ZedekiahMattaniah, before he and Jerusalem were conquered by the neoBabylonians in 586 B.C.E. With this number of inscribed bullae and seals we do begin to feel that there is reliable, historical basis to some biblical accounts. Their existences also suggest strongly that one regard the information of the previously-discussed two stelae with an eye to their ever growing importance. Nevertheless, we must not give in to the tendency to want to leap from biblical account to artifact bearing same name to hasty (and oftentimes faulty) conclusion.

SEAL OF GEDALYAHU BEN PASHHUR DISCUSSION The reader intuits that there is a definite relationship between the accounts in “historical” biblical books such as Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Nehemiah, and names of either places or persons that appear on inscriptional material discovered in the immediate geographical vicinity of a given biblical account. The BYTDWD inscription(s) suggest that there is much that is factual in the story about David’s rise to power, first over the Kingdom of Judah and then the kingdom of Israel, then over the two combined (!), and then petty emperor over several of the small kingdoms in the immediate area. The BYTDWD on the Tell Dan inscription recalls a time when a King David may have ruled territory as far north as the Euphrates River for a time. If the inscription is dated correctly (there is no reason to suspect otherwise) the Aramean conqueror (either Hazael or Benhadad I or II) still engaged in a practice he had inherited of naming territories and kingdoms. Since more than a century had passed since the time that David would have ruled that far north (his grandson and later descendants did not, beginning to rule Judah exclusively after ca. 920 B.C.E.) it would be a testimony to the esteem with which “David” was still held, or, as I alluded to above, just blind traditional practice. Part of what would have been “David’s” influence over other kingdoms in the vicinity would have included his rule over the Kingdom of Ammon, Moab, and Edom. Thus, were we able to verify what Lemaire suggests, that BYTDWD also appears on the Moabite Stone, one clue to his external-to-Judah/Israel rule would be such appearance by “House of David” appearing on the stone. Moreover, the occasion for its inclusion would not be considered accidental. When Mesha revolted against Israel’s overlordship/his

32

JOHN T. GREENE

vassalage, he fought against J(eh)oram of Israel (“son of Omri”— actually biological son of Ahab and grandson of Omri) and his coalition colleague from Judah, King Jehoshaphat (of the “House of David”—provided “House of” is ever demonstrated). (2 Kg. 3:5) What we have here is a tease, a delightful, even logical tease, but a mere tease nevertheless. What is concrete, and therefore of intellectual and scholarly use, is that the contents of both biblical literature and archaeological artifact “carom” off of each other at titillating points of contact and agreement. Each illuminates very promising potentialities for the other, and lead to understanding ancient methods of doing historiography. From Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ, information is shared nebulously that nothing exists from the Davidic empire described in the Samuel books of the Bible except one stone block (actually a stela) with the name David on it. In a direct quote from Harpur we read: If David and Solomon had been important regional power brokers, one might reasonably expect their names to crop up on monuments and in diplomatic correspondence. Yet, the record is silent.

Harpur also questioned biblical accounts dealing with great battles supposedly fought by David against his enemies on behalf of the god Yahweh. Nor has evidence of the splendor that was to have characterized King Solomon’s powerful trading and building prowess and era evident. This leads Harpur to conclude: “Yet, not one single goblet or brick has ever been found (to date) to indicate a reign existed.”2 As one would expect, then, Finkelstein and colleague(s) would agree to some large extent with Harpur, for they state: On the basis of archaeological surveys, Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071103170444A AVrxnM. Harpur was writing in a work entitled “The Pagan Christ” in the March/April 1994 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review. 2

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

33

What makes the present inquiry vibrant and relevant is the fact that an archaeologist of the stature of William Dever writing in What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? in opposition to Finkelstein and those of like mind, opined: Archaeological and anthropological evidence supports the broad biblical account of a Judean state in the 10th century. (Dever 2001)

“DAVID’S” SIGNIFICANCE IN SOME NON-BIBLICAL LITERATURE For those cultures for which the Bible and its contents were the ‘word of God,’ the accounts of David’s exploits were encouragement for writers who wanted to present the gist of the story for their contemporaries. To that end, contributors to the various versions of the ‘Legend of King Arthur’ have demonstrated being heavily under the influence of there being significant paradigmatic value in the David traditions. (Frederick www) Let us refer to these accounts as the British Isles trajectory. A second trajectory of example revolves around revisionist history of a more modern type than that engaged in by many biblical scholars today. It involves the backdrop role played by East Germany during the cold war in Stefan Heym’s novel, The King David Report. (Heym 1997) The British Isles Trajectory: David (et al.) and King Arthur Reading the stories of King Arthur, Camelot, the Round Table, Lancelot, the Lady of the Lake, Mordred, Morgana le Fay, and Merlin conjures up for those of us raised on this literature feelings of deja vu without our knowing just why. It is not until we delve deeper into the fascinating history of Celtic gods who later became transformed by ancient storytellers into human heroes that we begin to understand. Moreover, once heroes belonging to one people’s traditions, they could be appropriated by that people’s enemies and made their own. It is a common example of social/political syncretism. What we learn ultimately about these legends is that there is a trunk on to which were grafted numerous branches as the cultural, religious, and political need arose. Whereas the tendency to clarify the contents and development of a legend such as that of Arthur is to find roots in the classical writings of Greece and Rome, the story

34

JOHN T. GREENE

of David and his rise to power appears to have greater relevance here. In other words, the Legend of King Arthur has, at least in its more polished form(s), a Middle Eastern flavor to it. The fog of deja vu begins to be lifted when one reviews the parallels between King Arthur and King David when one reads the work of Sharonah Frederick (www). She draws parallels between David/ Arthur/Saul and their respective counselors, Nathan/Merlin/ Samuel. In each case the latter treated the former as if he were a perpetual lad, never a mature man. Just as David’s son, Prince Amnon desired his half-sister, Tamar, sexually, Arthur himself was obsessed with his half-sister, Morgana le Fay and had sex with her; it led to her becoming impregnated with their son, Mordred. Amnon’s rape of Tamar did not result in issue. Arthur rejected his son just as Amnon rejected his sister who was emotionally attached to him. Mordred was sent away by Arthur in a basket built of reeds. Like the sister of Moses in his case, Merlin watched from a hiding place the basket float down the river to be rescued by the witches of Avalon. After some time, Arthur called him back just as David recalled Absalom from his grandfather’s estates to where he had gone in exile after assassinating his half-brother, Prince Amnon; Tamar was his sister. Once back at court, Arthur referred to Mordred as his nephew; David refused to grant his son an audience for over three years. Arthur, like David, though having alienated him, does not want any harm to come to him. Yet, both sons eventually revolted against their fathers to overthrow them. Mordred destroys Camelot, while Absalom takes over Jerusalem for a time, and David is forced to flee to his holdings in the Transjordan. Finally, both Arthur and David continued as types of ‘resurrected rulers’; after Arthur dies of a head wound, he (and Morgana also—she, too, was a witch of Avalon) is revived by the witches of Avalon. David attains ‘resurrection’ through the (awaited) Messiah. It was left to Solomon to produce ‘Camelot.’ Sufficient parallels exist to suggest that the story of David has influenced the Legend of King Arthur.

THE KING DAVID REPORT AND THE DAVID SAGA Our final observation above acknowledged that although David created the City of David as an unusual capital of an unusual kingdom forged by the wars of David, it was Solomon who created the Jerusalem/Camelot that saw little or no warfare between ca.

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

35

966–922 B.C.E.: it was the city at the center of a peaceful and prosperous empire—yet, there were severe cracks in the ‘body politic’. It is King Solomon who summons Nathan the Scribe to court and commissions him to write the official history of King David in Stefan Heym’s The King David Report. (1997) Why would this be Solomon’s concern? It would be for the same reason that the East German regime (1945–1989) was as concerned with its image and right to rule. Legitimacy is a powerful motivator to one whose legitimacy is in question. Suffice it to say that Solomon and Walter Ulbricht had the same problem. In the Report, Ethan the historian is placed in the position of unwilling revisionist historian and must carry out his task of writing the ‘official’ history of King David (during the period of King Solomon) while being pressured by minimalists, as well as maximalists at court to write an ‘accurate’ history. Threatening dire consequences for Nathan and his family they attempt to influence the final, ‘official’ form of his work possessing the ambitious title: The One and Only True and Authoritative, Historically Correct and Officially Approved Report on the Amazing Rise, God-fearing Life, Heroic Deeds and Wonderful Achievements of David, Son of Jesse

This title illustrates and frames the problems modern researchers also face in writing about a biblical King David. Since history does not exist until someone writes it, historians respond to the need to rewrite the past in order to have it serve the present; all history works for a living! Those interviewed by Nathan are not just the roster of characters at court who round out the story of David’s rise among whom were Solomon himself, Nathan, Michal, Beniah, Zadok, they represent East German political opinions on how to engage in history writing and produce an ‘officially approved report’. Heym was not the only modern novelist to be fascinated by the account of David’s rise; Torgny Lindgren (1988/9) wrote an account of one specific part of King David’s rule as refracted through the prism of Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother and the ‘Queen Mother.’ One of the significant points in Lindgren’s novel is the telling exchange between the Prophet Nathan and the widow/queen, Bathsheba, on page 157 of the Collins Harvill edition.

36

JOHN T. GREENE

QUESTING FOR JERUSALEM Just as there is considerable doubt concerning the activities of David (and by extension, Solomon), the capital city of David is also shrouded in controversy. This work is being crafted as Israel prepares to celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of the conquest of Jerusalem by King David’s mighty men of valor in his name according to the biblical book of Samuel. Already, we encounter two major problems in a world that requires at least—preferably more—witnesses to consider something documented. Aside from a few inscriptions that mention—or appear to mention—the expression “House of David,” which we discussed above, the biblical account of this capture of the city seems to render its name as Jebus, because of the Jebusite Canaanites who resided there, and not Jerusalem. Some four centuries earlier, the Tell el-Amarna Tablets indeed mentioned a Jerusalem, but whether it refers to Jebus is not certain. Moreover, the Patriarch Abraham tithes to a priest-king named Melchizedek of a city named Salem (Genesis 14: 19–20). The same question applies here: are these cities the same locus as what one understands today as Jerusalem, capital city of King David and his successors? The Bronze and Iron Age remains of the City of David were investigated extensively by Yigael Shiloh of the Hebrew University in the 1970s and ‘80s. Shiloh’s investigations turned up no evidence of significant occupation during the 10th century B.C.E. Later (2005), Eilat Mazar’s work in the City of David turned up no conclusive archaeological evidence that, due to contamination, could be dated accurately. Nevertheless, we acknowledged above that the bullae she discovered make a significant contribution to studies concerning a post-exilic Jerusalem. In all, then, surveys of surface finds aimed at tracing settlement patterns and population changes have shown that between the 16th and 8th centuries B.C.E. The entire population of the hill country of Judah (including a Salem, Jebus, Jerusalem) was no more than about 5,000 persons, most of them wandering pastoralists (even from the Transjordan area), with the entire urbanized area consisting of about twenty small villages.(This from Wikipedia) It is the responsibility—even the pleasure—of scholars to inquire, to seek clarification of nebulous issues, to (re)solve

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

37

problems relating to their disciplines, and to propose strategies for future, anticipated problems. This, of course, is an endless endeavor. According to the five steps that constitute the scientific method employed by scholars, the fifth requires that one “publish” one’s findings, i.e., share their conclusions with the “world.” Unfortunately, scholars of archaeology who also utilize this method are notorious for failing to “publish” their field reports following excavation endeavors at a given site in a timely manner. While there may be numerous reasons why this is so, it creates problems for other researchers who rely on their missing data to advance their corner of scholarship. Four of the major excavators of “Jerusalem” have been Dame Kathleen Kenyon, Benjamin Mazar, Nahman Avigad, and Yigal Shiloh. Their work in various loci of the city spanned a period from 1961 to 1985. What they all have in common is that their “directors’ final reports” have not been completed. This typical problem has contributed to the controversies among archaeologists who have tackled the problem of a 10th century B.C.E. David, Solomon, and a 10th century B.C.E, “City of David, Jebus, Salem, Jerusalem. Some maintain that there is just insufficient data from which to draw major conclusions about the veracity of the biblical account of a “Davidic Kingdom” as described therein. This certainly has encouraged a scholar like John Van Seters who places the present, biblical text of King David as a product of the late Persian period. (Van Seters 2009) He sees there all of the ingredients for a description of monarchs fitting that described of David. He does argue, however, that this text is a reworking of an earlier text concerning David, but even that earlier (hypothesized) Urtext was still later than the 10th Century B.C.E.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Alter, Robert. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: Norton & Company, 1999. Amichai, Yehuda. Poems of Jerusalem: A Bilingual Edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1988. Arav, Rami. “Bethsaida, Tzer, and the Fortified Cities of Naphtali” Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee. Rami

38

JOHN T. GREENE

Arav and Richard Freund. Eds. Vol. 1. Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1995), pp. 193–201. Archaeology and the Bible: Holyland Briefs. http://bibleprobe.com/ archaeology.htm Barton, George A. Archaeology and the Bible. 7th. Ed. Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1916. Becking, Bob. From David to Gedaliah: The Book of Kings as Story and History. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 228. Fribourg/Goettingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Bodi, Daniel. The Demise of the Warlord: A New Look at the David Story. Hebrew Bible Monographs. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. Bordreuil, Pierre. “A propos de l’inscription de Mesha: deux notes.” In The World of the Arameans III, pp. 158–167. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Brueggemann, W. David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory. 2nd Ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. Dahood, Mitchell J. “The Moabite Stone and Northwest Semitic Philology.” In The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies Presented to S.H. Horn. L.T. Geraty and L.G. Herr. Eds., 429–41. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1986. Dever, William. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2001. Faulkner, William. Absalom, Absalom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Publishing Group, 1991. Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. Flanagan, J.W. David’s Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel’s Early Iron Age. Sheffield: JSOT Press Press, 1988. Flanagan, J.W. “Chiefs in Israel.” JSOT 20 (1981): 47–73. Frederick, Sharonah. “Notes from Limmud 2007: King Arthur and King David: Literary Parallels.” http://lethargic-manlivejournal.com/19753.html. Freund, Richard A. Digging Through the Bible: Understanding Biblical People, Places, and Controversies through Archaeology. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2009. Gide,Andre. “Saul” In My Theatre: Five Plays and an Essay. Paris: Editiones de la Nouvelles Revue Francaise, 1922.

THE IDEA OF A KING DAVID

39

Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Hanson, K.C. http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOS/westsem/ mesha.html. Heller, Joseph. God Knows. New York: Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, 1997. Heym, Stefan. The King David Report. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1997. Hutchinson, Peter. “Problems of Socialist Historiography: The Example of Stefan Heym’s The King David Report.” JSTOR: The Modern Language Review. Vol. 18. No. 1 (1986): 131– 138. Kirsch, Jonathan. King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel. Trade Paperback, 2001 Landay, J.M. The House of David. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1973. Lawrence, D.H. David: A Play. New York: Haskell House Publishers, Ltd., 1926. Lemaire, Andre. (Add title of article on DWD inscription on Mesha Stele) Biblical Archaeology Review. (May/June 1994): 30–37. Lemaire, Andre.”House of David” Restored in Moabite Inscription: A New Restoration of a Famous Inscription Reveals Another Mention of the “House of David” in the Ninth Century B.C.E.” BAR 20:03 (May/June 1994) Biblical Archaeology Society, 2002. Lindgren, Torgny. Bathsheba. Collins Harvill Press, 1989 c. 1984. Mariottini, Claude. “Gedaliah.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible D-H. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. 2:530. Massie, Allan. King David. London: Sceptre, 1995. McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E. Academia Biblica 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden, Brill, 2004. Pinski, David. “King David and His Wives” In The Dybbuk and other Great Yiddish Plays. NewYork: B.W. Huebsch, 1923. Pinsky, Robert. The Life of David. New York: Schocken Books, 2005. “Pinski, David.” The Columbia Encyclopedia. Sixth Edition. 2008.

40

JOHN T. GREENE

“Stefan Heym’s King David Report: A Microcosmic Precursor.” Neophilologus. Springer Netherlands. Volume 85. Number 2/April, 2001: 273–286. Van Seters, John. The Biblical Saga of King David. Winona Lake, Wisconsin: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Whybray, Roger Norman. The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9–20: I Kings 1–2. Studies in Biblical Theology. London: SCM Press, 1968. Wright, John W. “The Founding Father: The Structure of the Chronicler’s David Narrative.” in JBL 117/1 (1998): 45–59.

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE MISHAEL M. CASPI BATES COLLEGE

A. WHEN HE TOOK OFF THE HELMET His heat, his lust and pleasure all is fear Consume and waste, and straight his crown of gold His purple pall, his scepter he lets fall And to the ground he throweth himself withal.1

The Bible as a literary work of the Hebrews contains within it stories which are pseudo-religious and some even on the border of myth. Early people reacted to a crisis by story telling, composing an epic, glorifying the resistance of the people to oppression and, sometimes, the lingering suffering become a test to their robustness. As in any epic or chanson, the reader can detect and identify the favorable people or those who are detested. As much as we find ancient literary motifs in the Bible, so we can find allusion to biblical motifs in the world literatures. An allusion to the case of David who allows himself to take the hallowed bread from the Shrine of Nob can be compared to Pericles’ action. When he wanted to finance his plan to beautify Athens and at the same time to fortify the city, he suggested taking the treasure of the Delian League which was kept on the island of Delos. In the same way, we can also explain the action of the Thomas Wyatt, “From Penitential Psalms”, in Chapter Into Verse, Robert Atwan & Lawrance Wieder, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 115. 1

41

42

MISHAEL M. CASPI

Emperor Komnenos who seized the property of the Church to pay his army. Among the many biblical stories one can find stories which are beyond the religious realm, they are folk stories which contain religious elements. Or, should we say, they are spiritual? Such stories are those of Jonah and of Job. They are not just folk stories, but spiritual ones as well. Through these stories we can assume the genre of folk literature in early Hebrew tradition. While these stories describe the role of people within their milieu, other stories, like those in the Book of Judges, relate to certain folk heroes. However, some of these stories are told differently. The emphasis is more on the spirituality and the greatness of the hero, on his ability to stand up to the test, more than his heroic activity. As such, the biblical stories, especially those of Book of Judges (the story of Ehud and the king of Moab, Deborah and Jabin king of Hazor, Jael and Sisera, Jephthah and the Amonites) and the story of Samson, all are heroic stories of individuals whose spiritual greatness helped them to stand up to a/the test. The biblical storyteller makes these folk stories historical and demands of his readers to believe and to accept them as historical. In this way the biblical folk story becomes historical rather than fictional. To say that the Bible is a word of God, as some would argue, is to disregard the beauty and the creativity of many storytellers as well as many redactors. In the work of Josephus and in the PseudoPhilo we have some other stories and names which are not a part of the Bible. These stories were written around the time of the canonization of the Bible and thus, probably, they present stories which were told in different Jewish milieu. While Josephus presents his stories as the history of his people, he allows himself to add some interpretations to the biblical text. Together with this work remained another text that pointed out the existence of other stories. But as much as we claim that the author of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (hence LAB) presents a folk legend, in the literary category they are, in some way, narratives with historical elements. As an example of such excellent demythologization work, we offer in Samson’s narrative the developments from the story of his birth to his last prayer before his death. Yet, the special power of the hair leaves this narrative in the realm of a folktale. Thus, although the Bible is a creative work of certain people who view it as a hallowed religious text, ethical and didactic, this is a text

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

43

which was developed from the early Hebrew folktales throughout the centuries of storytelling until its canonization. At this point it was sanctified as a religious and national primary text of the Hebrews. While the biblical narrator sees as his role to play down any magical elements in a story, the post biblical narrator had no problem with the magical elements in their stories.2 However, it does not mean that we cannot find magical stories in the Bible. Our narrator used what we can call magical sketches. The rise of David from being a shepherd to becoming a king has all the ingredients of a fairytale. David, the youngest in the family, is the only one who was willing to stand against the Philistine (a monster). He had to overcome many obstacles until he was able to ascend to the throne. Yet, the biblical narrator added the religious elements to the story. He tells us that God sent a prophet, Samuel, to anoint David as a king. The storyteller stresses that David acts in the name of God (17:37, 45, 47). Such a powerful story made its way to the midrashic literature as well. For the Sages, biblical stories serve as an explanation of their interpretation of laws and for solving ethical and theological questions and issues. By doing so, they removed any magical element from the biblical narrative and placed it in the religious realm. However, as much as the Sages in their interpretations of the biblical stories tried to avoid the magical stories, they allowed themselves to use elements of tall-tales to attract their audiences to the moral and religious teachings. Such is the story of David who was led astray by a deer (Satan) to the land of the Philistines. Although this story contains many folk similes and motifs, they made it a Jewish story. Judaization of folk stories by the Jewish Sages was done with those which were examined by them as stories that contained moral teachings. At the same time, the characters selected by them as the subject of this method were biblical characters. As the rod from his father’s branch, David-theMessiah would come; Solomon, because of his wisdom, and Elijah because he was taken by God to become the forerunner of the Messianic era. Relying on the biblical character, the Sages expanded So we can understand the help of the angels to the judge Kenaz, to David, as well as the writing of names on the stones David collected on his way to battle the Philistine. 2

44

MISHAEL M. CASPI

the biblical narrative and created an independent story whose only relation to it are the associations to the allusions of the biblical story. An explanation of a biblical story is found also in the Pseudepigraphical literature, as well as in Josephus. In the first one, LAB, also known as Pseudo-Philo, the author, in many ways, rewrote the biblical narrative and ended his story with the death of King Saul. In some of his stories he not only presented independent stories, but also mentioned characters which are not mentioned in the Bible, nor are known to the biblical narrator. Josephus rewrote the biblical narrative by adding his interpretation and in some ways created quasi-independent stories.

A. WITHOUT LIVING UP TO IT IS USELESS At the time of King David men lived a short time, hence his saying: Our days are but three score and ten.3

Jewish Sages wrestled with the biblical narrator(s), trying, with their own reading of the text, to exonerate David of his sins. We do not have the means to fix the exact time this trend of the Jewish Sages began. This act of exonerating David of his sin happened also in early Christianity. The anonymous author of the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, who probably lived outside of Judea, offers his vision stating: Now, moreover, my sons this is a trial because it is necessary that the good and the evil be weighed in a balance (APZeph. 8:5).

This hints of Egyptian influence about the judgment that takes place in the underworld. Does it mean that he lived in Egypt? This anonymous author describes the great angel with the golden trumpet who blew it three times and said: …then he ran to all the righteous ones, namely Abraham and Isaac and Enoch and Elijah and David. He spoke with them as friends speaking with one another (9:4–5). In another work which is from the first century C.E., the author wrote his vision, or as it is called, ‘the prophetic call’, where 3

BYeb. 64a.

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

45

he describes the transgressed world of those who descended from Adam and only when time passed, another person was raised up: … a servant, named David. And you commanded him to build a city for your name and in it to offer you oblation from what is yours (4Ezra 3:23–25).

In the interpretation of the fifth vision offered by the author, we have a close description of David’s bravery. This description is very close to the one found in the words of Hushai the Archite as he stated: … thou knowest thy father and his men, that they are mighty men and they are chafed in their minds like a bear robbed of her whelps in the field…and he also is valiant whose heart is like the heart of a lion… (2 Sam. 17:8–10).

In his vision the author of 4 Ezra tells us that: And as for the lion that you saw rousing up out of the forest and roaring and speaking… this is the Messiah, whom the Most High has kept until the end of days, who will rise from the posterity of David… (4 Ezra 12:31–32).

Even these anonymous authors write about the sins of the king, they also describe how he repented and that the tears he shed saved him.4 In this work and in another apocalyptic work, David, as we mentioned above, is counted among the prophets. His sin is also mentioned in another: Lives of the Prophets. Yet, here the author uses the name of Nathan the prophet and tells his readers that he is from the city of Geba. This city is, in fact, Gibeon or Gibeah. The author tells his story and says that Nathan was hastening to approach David, but Beliar, a demonic power, prevented him from going. It is told that by the road there was a dead man: Who had been murdered lying naked…and at that night he knew that he (David) committed a sin.

Our narrator is very familiar with the biblical story. Nathan the prophet came to David to rebuke him after the death of Uriah and 4

See APSed. 14:4.

46

MISHAEL M. CASPI

after Bathsheba mourned for her husband. It is also in this text that the author tells us that Nathan rebuked David only when he killed Bathsheba’s husband. This author explicitly accuses David of killing Uriah.5 In this work of the Pseudepigrapha, the motif of angels involved in human lives is very obvious. They are everywhere and in the Davidic episodes we find them as well. They help David to overcome Goliath, they were the obstacle preventing Nathan to rebuke David and it was the angel who told David to build the Temple: Then the angel appeared to him standing above the place where the alter is set up in Jerusalem, and ordered him not to set up the temple, because he was defiled with human blood…6

This work which is titled On the King of Judea was written by a Jewish historian before the first century B.C.E. The title is found in the work of Clement, Bishop of Alexandria. In his history work, Eupolemus refers to David as the son of Saul, but the events given in his work point out that David is the son-in-law of Saul. The list of David’s conquests follow his success as the biblical narrator describes them in 2 Samuel, but the name of the nations mentioned are as they were known in Eupolemus’ time. The order given to David was that his son, Solomon, will build the temple, but David has to prepare and accumulate material for building the temple.7 Yet, in the two biblical texts there is no angel, but the name of Nathan the prophet.8 Again, we are witnessing a very important trend among authors of those days to LivPro. 17:1–4. Euopolemus, 30:5. 7 This aspect is recorded in 1 Ch. 22: “And David said; Solomon, my son, is young and tender, and the house that is to be builded for the Lord must be magnificent…I will, therefore, now make preparation for it. So David prepared abundantly before his death” (22:5). In another place of 1Ch. we read: “Then David gave to Solomon, his son, the pattern of the porch of the temple, and of its houses and of its treasuries and its upper chambers round about of the treasuries…” (28–11– 19). 8 In the OT Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2, 866, note 31p. 5 6

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

47

refrain from mentioning the transgression of David. Eupolemus does not mention it at all. We do accept the notion that rabbinic literature presents its interpretations to biblical narrative as well. In these very creative writings we do find a new inventory of stories about biblical characters and life in biblical times, but the problem is that they view all of these anachronistically to their time. So when the Sages of the rabbinic literature describe the reign of David, they see him consulting the Sanhedrin, or in the case of their interpretation of the following verse, …there remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold he keepeth the sheep… (16:11),

rabbinical literature elaborates on this verse and presents its long interpretation which includes an explanation about tending goats: And behold he is tending the sheep. Now where was David tending the sheep? One may not raise goats and sheep in Eretz Yisrael, but one may raise in Syria and in the wilderness of Eretz Yisrael.9

We know from early biblical narrative that shepherding had been highly regarded in the days of the patriarchs. But now the land was settled and according to Jewish Sages it was improper to raise goats and sheep in the Land of Israel. Some of the Sages went on in their teaching and disqualified shepherds from certain civil duties. Shepherds of goats and sheep in the Land of Israel Are disqualified as witnesses.10

Moreover, the Sages tried to disqualify Saul and pave the way for David. Thus, they emphasized that the call to anoint David was different from that of Saul.

9

BBa. Kam. 79b. BSan. 25b.

10

48

MISHAEL M. CASPI Saul

David

…a choice young man and handsome, and there was not among the children of Israel a more handsome person than he; from his shoulders and upward he was taller than any of the people… (1 Sam. b9:2)

And Samuel said unto Jesse: “send and fetch him, for we will not sit down till he come here.” And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and of beautiful countenance and handsome. (1 Sam. 16:11–12)

The Sages state: When Samuel saw that David was red, he became fearful. He said; This one too shed blood like Esau? Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him…Esau killed of his own volition, But this one kills only as authorized by Sanhedrin.11

In another midrashic explanation we find the following story, relating to the verse in Gen. 25:25 vis-à-vis 1 Sam. 16:12: Said R. Abba bar Kahana, all of him was shedder of blood. And when Samuel saw that David was red, he was afraid, said he is also shedder of blood. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him; With beautiful eyes. Esau kills when he decides to do so; David Kills when the Sanhedrin decides.12

In the Zohar we read the following description about David’s eyes: David’s eyes were composed of all manner of colors. There are no eyes in the world to behold as were the eyes of David. All the colors of the world would sparkle in them…13

The Hebrew verse states that David was ad-moni im ye-fe,e-na-yim… the adjective ad-mo-ni appears twice in the Bible. Once in Gen. 25:25: Va-ye-tse ha-ri-shon ad-mo-ni kul-lo, and the second time in our text,

Yalkut Sam. 124. In another midrashic explanation we find a story, relating to the verse in Gen. 25:25, vis-à-vis 1Sam. 16:12. 12 Gen. Rab. 63:8. 13 Zohar, 3:78a. 11

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

49

1 Sam. 16:12. Yet, rabbinic literature marks strongly the difference between the two: R. Judah said: If you see a person of ruddy complexion (he is) either completely wicked like Esau or completely righteous like David. Regarding Esau it says: The first emerged ruddy all of him like a hairy mantle. Regarding David it says :( he was) ruddy with beautiful eyes.14

The anointment of David and his election to reign was in the mind of God. His election was obvious. The story tells us that when Samuel wanted to anoint the brothers of David, the oil had remained in the horn of the oil, but when he approached David, the oil flowed of its own accord; even though the horn of the oil was full as before. The act of the anointment is a very emotional one. Samuel was sent by God to elect another person who would replace the king which was disliked. By Whom? By God? By Samuel? The newly elected person was not known to the people. Jewish Sages acknowledged this emotional moment by creating a very rich story about the new person. This creative work was also a part of the Middle Age’s works. In the work of Maimonides, for example, we read that: The moment David was anointed as king, he and his family acquired the right to be the king of Israel forever.15

Rabbinic literature distinguishes between the reign of Saul and that of David. The biblical narrator tells us that Saul reigned only two years. In the Massoretic texts we read: Saul was a year old when he had reigned and two years he reigned over Israel (31:1).

This statement could be interpreted in different ways. Either the redactors did not complete the numerical before the years. Or that both, the narrator and the redactors, point out cynically their objection to the house of Saul, while they maintain that the reign of David was forty years and was promised forever.

14 15

Midrash ha-Gadol, Deut. 1:17. Law of the King, 1:10.

50

MISHAEL M. CASPI

Beside the issue of cynicism on the part of the narratorredactor, one can argue that objection to the house of Saul, and a tribal struggle between the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin was evident. The verse as it is presented here offers us enough information to suggest that the narrator is trying to show the readers how ineffective was Saul during his reign. A year old, is to mock the king and his attempts to establish a new dynasty. The cynicism of the biblical narrator is demonstrated in the story of Saul in the Book of Chronicles where the episode of Saul’s death is told. The narrator’s intention to disqualify Saul’s dynasty is very obvious. In the talmudic literature16 we read that Saul came from impeccable lineage and since his genealogy was pure, God did not want him and his family to reign. David has a questionable genealogy, yet he was appointed to become the eternal king of Israel. At this point, rabbinic literature deals with the lineage of David when it discusses the episode of Lot’s daughters. The commentators state that a woman cannot conceive from the first intercourse, thus each one of them deflowered herself by removing her hymen to allow conception. Tamar was modest; the act of prostitution was made with a noble intention. Thus, she was merited to become the mother of royalty.17 When the midrashic literature focuses on the character of Ruth, it points to some specific aspects. All are designed to make her ready for the future role as the mother of David’s dynasty. Indeed, while Ruth was the great grandmother of King David, Orpah was the great grandmother of Goliath the Philistine. Yet, David and Goliath differed as widely as their grandmothers. Ruth in rabbinic literature is considered a pious and religious woman. Orpah, on the other hand, lived a life of unspeakable infamy. For this reason Goliath was jeered at as the son of a hundred fathers and one mother. Midrashic literature is a large eclectic work of commentary on the OT. In many ways, one could consider this work as the post biblical national work of the Jews. It also could be considered as the most extensive and comprehensive example of interpretation of the OT, where biblical verses and episodes are used to convey ethics, 16 17

BYoma, 22b; BNazir, 23a; BHora, 23a. See BNazir, 23ª; Gen. Rab. 51:9; 19:20.

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

51

moral teachings and tradition. The Sage was not only a teacher, but through his work he became a poet, moralist, and a teacher for many generations. He gained his authority by his ability to convey eloquently his teaching and by his talent to listen ab initio, to his colleagues and their ideas. It is thus that the Sages in this literature competed with one another and expanded their stories about David, accentuating his piety, election to be the king, and his relation with God. The Sages were interested in King David as one who lives in their milieu. Thus, they emphasized how learned a person he was, telling us that the six hundred and thirteen commandments handed over to the Hebrews were reduced by King David to only eleven. Isaiah the prophet reduced them to six (Isa. 33: 15–16). Micah reduced them to three (Mic. 6:8) and the prophet Habakkuk reduced all of them to only one: But the just shall live by his faith.18 As a psalmist, David established a close relationship with God. The Holy Spirit rested upon him before he started to play his harp and sing his hymns.19 The Sages also maintained the idea that the victories and the achievements of David, all with his remarkable good fortune, did not move him away from his righteous way. As a person who acquired wisdom and understanding of the Law, he sat at the feet of his teachers. They stated that David was one of the few pious people over whom the evil inclination had no power. In their perception, it was impossible that such a person would commit a sin, thus, they taught that God himself brought David to this crime, for he (David) served as an example to other sinners of the power of repentance, as if God might say to the sinners: Go to David and learn how to repent. In their attempt to exonerate David of any wrong doing, adultery and murder, we read the following story presented in Louis Ginzberg (The Legends of the Jews): ...nor, indeed, may David be charged with gross murder and adultery. There were extenuating circumstances. In those days it was customary for warriors to give their wives bills of divorce which were to have validity only

18 19

Mid. Teh. 17 (Mid. Ps.). Ibid. p. 24.

52

MISHAEL M. CASPI if the soldier husband did not return at the end of the campaign. Uriah having fallen in battle, Bath-Sheba was regularly a divorced woman.20

In the talmudic literature we are introduced to some teachings of Rab Judah. In one of them there is an attempt to exonerate David from his transgression. We read: Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: One should never bring himself to the test, since David king of Israel did so and fell. He said unto Him: Sovereign of the Universe, why do we say the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, but not the God of David? He replied: they were tried by me, but thou wast not. Then replied he, Sovereign of the Universe, examine and try me… And he walked upon the roof of the king’s house and from the roof He saw a woman washing herself… Now Bath-Sheba was cleaning her hair behind a screen. When Satan came to him, appearing in the shape of a bird, he shot an arrow at him which broke the screen, thus she stood revealed and he saw her. Immediately, and David sent messengers.21

As a pious king he performed acts of loving kindness and went to war (or to kill) according to the law.22 The formula Bless the Lord, o my soul, is found five times (Pss. 103:1, 2, 22; 104:1, 35). In Tanhuma we read a teaching in the name of R. Yohanan saying: David saw five worlds, one when he was in his mother’s womb, one when he was born, one when he was going in this world, one when he died and saw the Divine Presence, and one in the future to come.

R. Yohanan accentuates the religious life of the king and the tradition that the king indeed was a poet.23 According to Alpha bet of Ben Sira, David used to give alms and charity before entering the house of prayer (8a). The rabbinic literature emphasizes that there were two good leaders to Israel. In the Talmud the following statement was made: Two good leaders stood by Israel, Moses and David.24 See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, Note 92, pp. 93–94. BSan. 69b. 22 See, BMo. Kat. 16b; BYoma. 22b. 23 Tanhuma, 103:3. 20 21

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

53

While in another midrashic text we read: The most praise worthy king was David. The most praise worthy prophet was Moses. Whatever Moses did, David did too. Moses took Israel out of Egypt, David took them out of the land of the kingdom which menaced Israel at that time…Moses split the sea for Israel, and David split the rivers for Israel…25 Moses gave Israel the five books of Torah, and David gave Israel the five books which constitute the Book of Psalms.26

In their teaching, the Jewish Sages also described the life within David’s household. Their interpretations are clearly done from the point of view and with the religious values of their time. According to the biblical text David had eight wives. In rabbinic literature we read that David had four hundred off-spring all of them of extreme beauty. R. Judah in the name of Rab also taught that David had four hundred sons, all of them were born to beautiful captive women, all of them grew long locks plaited down the back, all of them seated in golden chariots.27

Accordingly, the Sages taught that Tamar could not be called one of the children of David because she was born before her mother’s conversion to Judaism. Stating so, they did not view Amnon’s sexual assault against Tamar as having had the grave nature it would have been had they been sister and brother in the strict sense of the terms.28 In relation to the sexual assault of Amnon, the Sages wanted to understand the narrator’s statement: Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred. What was the reason for such great hatred? R. Isaac said: One of his hairs got caught making him one whose penis had been cut off. But was she the one who tied the hair around his penis…she made him one whose penis had been cut off.

BYoma, 86b. By his conquest of Aram Naharayim. 26 Mid. Shoher Tov, 1:2. 27 BQid. 76b; Bsan., 21a. 28 See, Legends of the Jews, Op. Cit. 24 25

54

MISHAEL M. CASPI

According to the teaching of R. Isaac, Tamar entangled his penis with hair and thus cut it off. For him it is a justifiable act of revenge. Rabba, however, does not see it this way; he points out that the Israelite women do not have pubic or underarm hair. Tamar was different since she was a daughter of a beautiful captive woman.29 David’s third wife was Abigail. Her story is one which was written or told by a very skillful and creative narrator. Step by step he leads his protagonist to the point where he makes her the future partner of David. She is the wife of Nabal, a landlord who does not want to associate himself with David and to accept his protection. He is not at all tuned to the political ambiance in the land. Abigail, on the other hand, sensed that the conflict between David and her husband could be a very bloody one. To prevent it she used both her wisdom and grace as a woman. The narrator presents her female intuition and sexual implication. In the intermezzo between and she met them and her action, the narrator offers some of David’s statements. When did he state them? Before she met him? Or on the way to destroy Nabal’s household? The text is very ambiguous. We would like to suggest that it was his reaction to Nabal’s refusal, before the encounter with Abigail. Now Abigail is facing David and the storyteller says:

See Bsan. 21a. L. Ginzberg expands his stories about David’s wives and writes: David had six wives including Michal the daughter of Saul who was called by the pet name Eglah-a heifer… Michal was of entrancing beauty and at the same time a model of loving wife. Not only did she save David out of the hands of her father, but also when Saul commanded her to marry another man… she entered into mock marriage in order not to arouse the anger of Saul… According to the Sages’ interpretation, Michal and Eglah are the same woman, wife of David. Rashi’s interpretation for 2 Sam. 3:5, Michal’s other name was Eglah, a heifer, since she was the most beloved wife (see BMeg. 15a). Her pseudonym, Eglah, was given to her because she trembled like a calf before Saul (see Mid. Shemuel 22:4). According to another interpretation, she was compared to a wild calf and did not accept her father’s authority (see Mid. Ps. 59:4). 29

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

55

Va-te-re a-vi-ga-yil…va-te-ma-her va-te-red va-tip-pol le-ap-pe...va-tish-ta-hu va-tip-pol al rag-lav (1 Sam. 25:23–24). And Abigail saw David...and hurried and got down from the donkey and fell on her face before David and bowed to the ground...and flung herself at his feet.

Abigail used her wise sense by submitting herself and showing her full respect to David. Through her long monologue, the narrator presents us a very wise woman who succeeded to ease David’s fury. How did she do that? Let us pay attention to her words: …be ani a-do-ni ha-’a-von …mine, my lord the blame u-te-d-ber na a-mat-kha and let your maidservant speak ush-ma’ et div-re a-mat-kha… and hear the words of your maidservant va-ani a-mat-kha... but I am your maidservant. Ve-’at-ta hab-bra kha haz-zot this blessing which thine handmaid a-sher he-vee shif-ha-kha… hath brought sa na le-fe-sha’ a-mat-kha forgive, pray to the crime of your ve-he-tiv a-do-nai la-a-do-ni maidservant then will the Lord do well with ve-za-kharta et a-mat-kha... my lord and you will remember your

maidservant. Abigail uses the nouns a-mat-kha, shif-hat-kha, maidservant, handmaid, six times; every time she uses this noun it’s as if she also reduces and eases David’s extreme anger. The last words are like a prophecy, saying: (the Lord) appoints you a prince over Israel. Here we see a woman who is well aware of the political ambiance in the land. Unlike her husband, she is a political savvy and probably well informed of the conflict between the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin. Yet, at the same time she submits herself to David she also, with very intimate words says: ve-za-khar-ta et a-mat-kha, “and you will remember your maidservant, offering herself to him.” In this episode, Abigail is presented with qualities of a prophet, wise woman, and supportive power for David’s future role as a king. She is the most important among the king’s wives, in whom beauty, wisdom and prophetical gifts were joined. With Sarah, Rahab and Esther, she forms the quartet of the most beautiful women in history. She was

56

MISHAEL M. CASPI

so bewitching that the passion was aroused in men by the mere thinking of her.30 The eighth wife of David was Bath-Sheba (in 1 Chr. 3:5, her name is Bath Shua), the daughter of Eliam (in 1 Chr. 3:5, his name is Ammiel), the son of Ahitophel. Eliam was among David’s heroes. Thus, is it possible that this episode is in some way a story of a secret love affair between the king and a wife of one of his heroes, Uriah? As we pointed out above, the Sages are not comfortable blaming David of committing adultery, thus, they stated that as a soldier, Uriah divorced Bath-Sheba before going to war. According to midrashic literature, she was destined to be King David’s wife since creation, but David took her while she was not mature, Bath-Sheba—seven years old. In the Mishnah it is stated that she was still unripened—paggah.31 The story of Bath-Sheba does not appear in the Book of Chronicles and the Sages were not attempting to delve into plain moral arguments in the biblical text; they were involved in a more adaptive endeavor. They could not accept that David himself seduced Bath-Sheba, the wife of one of his heroes.32 In rabbinic literature we read a discussion of the Sages arguing the age of BathSheba through the age of Ahitophel, her grandfather: …Ahitophel was only eight years old when Eliam was conceived. Eliam was eight years old at the conception of Bath-Sheba, and Bath-Sheba was eight years old at her conception of Solomon.33

From here the Sages learned that conception in early generations was at an early age: Now King David was old and stricken in years and they covered him with clothes, but he could not get warm (1 Kings. 1:1).

See, BMeg. 15a, also, Ginzberg, Op. Cit. David, note 132. Mma’asarot 2:3. See also Zohar vol 1: 8b. The defense of David by God against Dumma, the angel of Hell, Zohar, vol. 1: 94a; vol. 2: 107a: vol. 3: 78b. 32 M. Caspi, S. Cohen, Still Waters Run Deep, (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999), pp. 53–56. 33 BSan. 69a. 30 31

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

57

Abishag was not a wife. She was, as the narrator suggests, a woman whose duty was to minister to the king. The Hebrew text states: so-khe-net. This noun appears three times in the Bible. Once in its masculine form, so-khen, in Isa. 22:15 and twice in the feminine form in our story. Gesenius suggests translating it as associate, companion. Yet, the stem of this noun means also to dwell. The narrator stresses that the king did not know her. Here the focus is on the physical ability of David which is contrary to the teaching of the Sages who expound on every aspect of David’s Life: R. Judah in the name of Rab tells that even during David’s illness he fulfilled the conjugal right with his eighteen wives.34

Bath-Sheba and the prophet Nathan were trying to secure the dynasty by forcing David to keep his promise that Bath-Sheba’s son would reign after him. The same prophet who accused David of committing adultery with Bath-Sheba was now helping her to secure the throne for her son. Why? Let us pay attention to the following teaching: And the damsel was very fair and she became a companion to the king and ministered unto him. She said to him ‘Let us marry’, but he said; ‘Thou art forbidden to me’, When courage fails the thief becomes virtuous’ she gibed. Then he said to them (his servants) “call me Bath-Sheba’. And we read: And Bath-Sheba went to the king unto the chamber. R. Judah said in Rab’s name; On that occasion, Bath-Sheba tried herself thirteen times.35

According to this interpretation, David was not allowed to marry Abishag because he had already the allotted number of eighteen wives. We already emphasized above that the Sages wished to understand as well as to react to the small details in the life of King David. They took upon themselves to criticize him, but always in a semitone, accusing him, but at the same time accentuating the involvement of the Divine Power. His life as well as his death and

34 35

BSan. 105b. BSan. 23a; Yalkut 1 Kg. 166.

58

MISHAEL M. CASPI

the promise of the future establishment of his dynasty are the leitmotifs in their interpretations. Now the days of David drew near that he should die (1 Kings 2:4).

Jewish tradition accepted the date of David’s death as on the Pentecost—sha-vu-ot. The source for this tradition is found in the Talmud and in the Midrashim. In the Talmud, Tractate Shabbat, R. Tanhum bar Abba was asked a question regarding a case that a person put out a lamp on Shabbat day to ease the plight of a sick man. The ground for the question was the fact of a life threatening situation-Piq-qu-ah ne-fesh. R. Tanhum began his teaching about the values of life interpreting the verse: For to him that is joined to all the living here is the hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion (Ecc. 9:4).

We read the following: Every Sabbath David used to sit and study the entire day. On the day he was to die, the Angel of Death came to him and could not kill him for his mouth never ceased from his recitation. He (the Angel of Death) said: What shall I do to him? He (David) had a garden behind his house, so the Angel of Death came and made the trees rustle, and David came out to see. When David descended the stairs a step fell out from under him, he was silenced and his soul departed. Solomon sent to Bet Midrash (asking): My father has died (on Sabbath) and is lying out in the sun, and the dogs of father are hungry: What shall I do? They sent back: Cut off the carcass and place it before the dogs, as for your father, place a loaf of bread or a baby on him and carry him away. Did Solomon put it aptly: better a live dog than a dead lion.36

The text emphasizes that a dead lion has less value than a living dog. The story of the death of David, in fact, serves as an explanation and interpretation of the verse in Ecclesiastes, the moral of the story according to R. Tanhum is that a living person is valued more than a dead one since he cannot anymore study the Torah and observe the commandments.

36

BShabb. 30a–b.

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

59

Another story of the death of David is found in a midrash. The story tells us that the day David died was the Pentecost—sha-vu-ot, which was on the Sabbath day: (King David) died on sha-vu-ot, which fell on a Sabbath and the Sanhedrin came to pay a call on Solomon. He asked them, should he transfer him from a place (in the sun) to a place (in the shade). They answered him: Is it not stated in the Midrash that one anoint it and wash it, provided one does not move any one of his limbs? He said: The dogs of father’s house are hungry. They said to him: Is it not stated in the Midrash that one cut gourds to feed cattle and a carcass for dogs? So, what did he do? He took woven cloth and spread it out over him from the sun. Others say he called the eagles and they spread their wings to shield him from the sun.37

The midrash, which is a product of the creative writing of Eretz Yisrael, does not tell us how the king died, but accentuates that his death occurred on sha-vu-ot, which fell on the Sabbath day. It also states that the Sanhedrin came to pay a visit to Solomon. In this midrashic text there is a citation from the Mishnah (MShabb. 23:5). The additional part about the eagles makes the story and its moral teaching folklore. In those two traditions David is described as a scholar who never ceased his study of the Torah. Yet, on his death he is like a dead lion which has less value than a live dog. In the story which appears in the midrash we have some additional aspects: David died on sha-vu-ot which fell on the Sabbath day. The Sanhedrin came to pay a visit to Solomon. There is a dialogue between the Sanhedrin and Solomon. The feeding cattle (this law is not mentioned in the Talmudic story). The eagles spread their wings over David to shield him from the sun. The Midrash tells the story of David’s death, but does not tell us how he died. The Sanhedrin answer Solomon’s question about what to do. We are aware of the citation from the midrash 37

Ruth Rab. 3:2.

The talmudic story does not mention the death of David on sha-vu-ot, but offers details of

60

MISHAEL M. CASPI stating the Mishna that one should not move the corpse. Solomon gets permission and moves the corpse.

the death of King David. The Sanhedrin does not offer any condolences to Solomon.

In the Talmud there is a tone of disrespect for David, mainly with the comparison of the value of a living one vis-à-vis a dead one. If we are to suggest which text was the first, then, it is very likely that the talmudic story, de-ra-sha, was first. The midrash is from the land of Eretz Yisrael and it was familiar with the de-ra-sha of the Talmud. The verse from the Book of Ecclesiastes plays an important part in the talmudic story, but was omitted from the midrash. As we stated, the Angel of Death is not able to kill a scholar of the Torah. Such stories are also found in other sections of the Talmud.38 Regarding moving the corpse, we find the following teaching: R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: One may turn him from one bed to another. R. Hanina bar Shalmaya said, citing Rav: One may put a loaf of bread or a babe on him and carry him elsewhere.39

An examination of the text of Midrash Ruth Rabbah reveals that there is no doubt that it presents the tradition of Eretz Yisrael that King David died on sha-vu-ot. This teaching is found in the following passage: Rabbi Yosse ben Rabbi Bon said: David died on sha-vu-ot and all Israel were in a-mi-nut and so they brought the sacrifice on the morrow.40

BBa. Mez. 86a; BMo. Kat. 28a. See Boaz Spiegel, “Madu’a ni’na’ malakh ha-mavet et ha-ilanot bif-tirat david ha-melekh”, Shema’tim, (150/2003): 286– 311. 39 BShabb. 43b. 40 See Pbetza 2:4. a-ni-nut, is a state of mourning between the death of a person and his burial. At this stage the family of the deceased is not to perform the commandments. See also Joseph Heinemann “On Life and Death-Anatomy of a Rabbinic Sermon”, Scripta Hierosolymitana, 27 (1978): 52–65. 38

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

61

A. HE COVETED AND MURDERED Rabbi Simeon said: Only Abishai, son of Zeruiah, fell among the Israelites, for he was equal in his deeds and his knowledge of the Torah to the seventy thousand men…41

Josephus wrote his historical account to the Greeks and the Romans. Jews needed not to read his accounts, especially the biblical stories, since every Jew had, then, the knowledge of the biblical narrative and the interpretation of the Jewish laws. Though there is a possibility, as we pointed out above, that folk literature added its imagination to the biblical narrative and expanded them. However, since Josephus’ work was directed toward gentiles, he had to censure his work. An example for such censorial act in the Davidic narrative is the following: Biblical Text

Josephus

And Saul said, thus shall ye say to David, The King desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines (18:25).

Tell him that I do not want any money nor dowry from him…but I desire only such a son in law as hath in him fortitude…but only some revenge on the Philistines, and indeed six hundred of their heads, than which a more desirable or a more glorious present could not be brought him.42

LAB, does not mention the promise of King Saul to give his daughter in marriage to the one who fights the Philistines, nor the request for the special dowry as the biblical narrator presents. Although there are some differences in the folk stories, in all of them King David is the only king of Israel who gained the highest respect. He is the most important figure in Jewish tradition: a warrior who fought in the name of God. A psalmist who is depicted in the Hellenistic art as Orpheus with the lyre, and from his bloodline will come in the days to come God’s ordained king.

41 42

PRE. Ch. 43. Ant. 6:10,2.

62

MISHAEL M. CASPI

So our questions are: What made David so special? What was written about him throughout the centuries? Josephus wrote the early history of his people, but one should read his writing with a question in mind: What were the sources from which he drew his information? We mentioned above that he wrote his history to the Greek-speaking cultures of the Roman Empire, but still it does not offer us an answer about his sources. Since he does not offer us any clue about it, we can assume that oral tradition, folk stories and his own reading of the biblical narrative were his sources. As a historian, he allows himself to offer an interpretation of the biblical stories. After all, a historian is a reader of documents and his interpretation is very much like an interpretation of any literary critic. It is thus that the stories which were available to him were most likely his best sources and he used them to write the history of his people. A testimony for the use of oral tradition we find in another source, probably one generation or two earlier, the author of the Gospel of Luke states: It seems good to me also having had perfect understanding… to write unto thee… That thou mightest know the certainty of those things… (Lk. 1: 3–4).

Reading Josephus in a course of comparing his work to the canon, we become aware of the varied forms of the events which sometime contradict the narrative. The Biblical Text

Josephus

Then answered Do’eg the Edomite who was set over the servants of Saul and said: I saw David the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Abimelech son of Ahitub (22:9).

…but Do’eg the Syrian who fed the mules said that he saw David when he came to the city Nob to Abimelech the high priest, and that he learned the future events by his prophesying.43

In another episode we read the following: Then Abigail made haste and took two hundred loaves, and two skins of wine and five sheep ready dressed…And all 43

Ibid. 6:12,6.

Abigail, for that was his wife’s name, saddled her asses, and loaded them with all sorts of presents; and without telling

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

63

she said unto her servants: Go before me…but she told not her husband, Nabal… and behold, David and his men came down toward her, and she met them (25:18–20).

her husband anything of what she was about (for he was not sensible on account of his drunkenness), she went to David, she was then met by David as she was descending a hill, who was coming against Nabal with four hundred men.44

And it came to pass…but David tarried still at Jerusalem…David arose from his bed and walked upon the roof of the king’s house. And from the roof he saw a woman washing herself, and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and inquired about the woman… sent messengers and took her. And she came in unto him and he lay with her…And the woman conceived, and sent and told David and said, I am with a child (2 Sam. 11: 1–5).

But David fell now into a very grievous sin, though he were otherwise naturally a righteous and religious man… for when late on an evening he took view round him from the roof of his royal palace, where he was to walk at that hour… she was one of extraordinary beauty, and therein surpassed all other women. So he was overcome by that woman’s beauty…Hereupon she conceived with child, and sent to the king that he should contrive some way for concealing her sin.45

Josephus does not leave any doubt that his reading of the Bible is a correct one, but as a historian he also adds his interpretation using, probably, stories and episodes which were told among the people. An example for such possible notion is the story of Bathsheba. There are two comments in his work to which we should pay attention. a.He adds the law of adultery stating: … for according to the law of their fathers, she who had been guilty of adultery ought to be put to death.

b. c. 44 45

He put the blame of plotting the death of Uriah on Bathsheba, as she Sent to the king telling him:

Ibid. 13:7. Ibid. 7:1.

64

MISHAEL M. CASPI … that he should contrive some way for concealingher sin.

Reading Josephus in comparison to the biblical narrator, we suggest that his text establishes a dialogical form between his work and the canon.46 Yet, his work does not offer a clear understanding of the biblical stories. It is mainly because he had a different approach, using other sources to attract the non Jewish societies. As for the other works, we may state that the author of Jubilees presents an ideological view. Philo emphasizes the allegorical interpretation, while the midrash accentuates the moral teaching. Dealing with the Davidic narratives, LAB does not tell us the whole story, since it ends with the death of Saul and with it a strong statement: Now, go and tell David, I have killed your enemy, and you will say to him, be not mindful of my hatred or my injustice.47

The death of Saul by his own sword is interpreted in the midrashic literature in the following way: …Samuel said to Saul: If thou wilt hearken to my advice to fall by the sword, then shall thy death be an atonement for thee.48

From David’s anointment by Samuel, the story, both in the canon and in the post biblical literature, favors David and his dynasty. The Sages made great efforts to lessen David’s sometimes brutal reaction against his opponents as well as his adulterous acts and being an accessory to the murder-death of Uriah. Moreover, it seems that there is a different approach between the two main religious schools: the Palestinian vis-à-vis the Babylonian. In the Palestinian (Eretz Yisrael) School they did not harshly judge David for his sins and at some points they even down played them, while In fact, such a dialogical form exists not only with the work of Josephus, but with the rich creative writings of the Second Commonwealth, e.g., Book of Jubilees, the Pseudepigrapha and Philo. In a later period we see it in the Midrashim as well. 47 LAB. 65:5. 48 PRE. 33, p. 247. 46

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

65

the Babylonian School acknowledged his sins as serious ones. From the Palestinian School we read the following parable: I was glad when they said unto me: Let us go unto the house of the house of the Lord (Ps. 122:1). There is no generation without sneerers. What would sneerers of the generation do? They walked by David’s window and asked, David, When the Temple would be built? When shall we walk to the home of the Lord? But (he) would say: Although they are trying to make me angry, I testify, I was happy, happy when they said, let us go into the house of the Lord.49

But, even in the Babylonian School we find attempts to exonerate David of his guilt. The biblical narrator tells us of the king committing the sin of adultery and strongly accentuating the timing of the sin as we read in the story: …David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all Israel…and besieged Rabbah, but David tarried still in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 11:1).

The point here is that David became an accessory to the murder of Bathsheba’s husband: Uriah. Yet, the Talmud states: Whoever says that David sinned is surely in error.

David in the midrashic literature is called chosen one of God.50 According to the talmudic literature he was a son of man who died sinless. In another midrash we are introduced to a troubled life of David’s father. He wished to liberate a slave woman and to marry her, but his wife disguised herself as that slave and he married his wife for the second time.51 It was for this reason that David was considered the son of a slave and thus to free Jesse from his error. It is also the reason why David, who was not educated together with his brothers, had to spend his time as a shepherd in the wilderness. The time he was in the wilderness prepared him for his position as the leader and king.52 While being PBer. 2:1. ARN. 61; Sifri, 1. 51 This midrashic story could serve as an interesting source for a soap opera series. 52 See, Mid. Ps. 78:7o; EX. Rab. 2:2. 49 50

66

MISHAEL M. CASPI

in the wilderness he found himself protecting the sheep and thus developed an extraordinary strength.53 We stated above that the Palestinian School tried to lessen the seriousness of David’s sins. In the Palestinian Talmud we find a teaching that David, not being able to stand evil, killed it in his heart and in another source he called it ta-meh, impure.54 In Tana Deve Eliyyahu the author stretches the righteousness of David and writes an explanation to the verse: Where I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt… (2 Sam.7:6). When David heard God speak thus, he prostrated himself at full length on the ground, then rose and seating himself before the presence said: My father in heaven, your great name be blessed for ever and ever, and may you have contentment from Israel… you bound a crown upon our head, the crown of the words of the Torah… Yet, as a reward for the bit of Torah, I obeyed in your presence.55

One should remember that although we pointed out above that there is no precise definition of the term midrash, since this genre is not poetry, history nor a form of commentary on biblical verses, then the question remains: What is midrash? We, thus, can suggest that the midrash is a reaction of experience, a text that reread the biblical text and recreated a new experience. One purpose of the midrash lies, so we think, mainly in two areas. One is using the parable-ma-shal and through it new ways and new values are transmitted. The ma-shal uses the story, parable (about the king, noble man, a rich man) which is a fiction and through it the teacher sets the new teaching. The second purpose of the midrash is to use metaphors and anthropomorphize them. Above we quoted the statement from the Talmudic literature saying:

See, Mid. Shemuel 20; a beautiful story about a lion and David is found in Mid. Ps. 22:22. 54 PBer. 9:5; BMac. 52a. 55 Eliyyahu Rabbah (hereafter ER) 13:89. 53

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

67

Who ever says that David sinned is surely in error.56

This statement points out the attempts of the Sages to exonerate David from the sin of adultery and murder. Thus, let us examine the historical context of this statement. R. Judah who is mentioned here is also mentioned in Midrash Psalms 101:2 and in Genesis Rabbah 84:7 as well. This R. Judah is known as R. Judah bar Elai57 who lived in Eretz Yisrael during the second half of the second century C.E., and his contemporary was R. Simeon bar Yohai. Both of them were the disciples of R. Akiba. In the Babylonian Talmud we find the following passage relating to the teaching of R. Judah: In a dispute between R. Meir and R. Judah, the ha-la-kha is in agreement with R. Judah.58

The Sages also claim the same in the case of a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon. Even in this case they agree that the ha-la-kha is according to the teaching of R. Judah.59 The teaching above contradicts the biblical narrator’s story that David indeed committed adultery with Bathsheba and plotted the murder of Uriah, her husband, while the Hebrews were fighting against Amon. In comparing the biblical narrative with the apologetic interpretation of the midrashic literature, the biblical story of David and Bathsheba confronts the rabbis’ interpretation. They suggest, as we pointed out above, that David did not commit adultery since Uriah divorced his wife before he went to war against the Ammonites.60 In the talmudic literature it is suggested that David’s temptation was not intentional, since he was led astray by Satan who disguised himself as a bird.

BShabb. 56b. Tanna of the 4th generation of the Tanna’im. 58 Berub. 46b. 59 Ibid. 60 According to the Jewish law, one should give his wife a divorce, Get, before going to war so as not to leave her agunah, in case he dies at war. 56 57

68

MISHAEL M. CASPI

Yet, the midrashic literature puts the blame on Bathsheba more than on David. In this literature we find stories about her who used to adorn herself and stand in front of him so he would notice her. All she did because she knew she was destined to have a child by David. When all she had done was not successful, she bathed on the roof so the king would notice her. In Midrash Tanhuma we find a long passage dealing with Bathsheba and her son, Solomon. It is a passage which in a very beautiful way exonerates Bathsheba from the attempt of the Sages to blame her for the sin of David. They offer the following interpretation to the verse: … he that loveth him (his son) chasteneth him early (Prov. 13:24). (It) refers to the righteousness of Bathsheba who rebuked her son, Solomon, as it is written: The words of the king Lemuel, the prophecy (burden) that his mother taught (corrected) him (Prov. 31:1). R. Yosse the son of Hanina posed a question: What does it mean the burden with which his mother corrected him? It means that Bathsheba turned him over a whipping post and punished him by beating him with a rod. What did she say to him as she did this? What my son? And what, O son of my womb? And what, O son of my vows (Prov. 31:2)? Everyone knows that your father is a God-fearing man, and if you should go astray, they will say that you are my son, and I am responsible for what you are. And what, O my son of my womb? When other women of your father’s house became pregnant, they saw the king’s face no more, but I went to him so I might have a well formed and powerful son.61 And what, O son of my vows? All other women of your house vowed: I shall have a son fit for kingship, but vowed: I will have a son wise in the knowledge of law and worthy of prophecy. Therefore she beat him and chastised him…62

B. WE GAVE DAVID BOUNTY FROM US And Allah gazed upon his humility and understood that Dawud repented of his deed with all his heart, and he sent to him His angel. Angel In folk belief it is said that if a woman cohabits with her husband during the last three months of pregnancy, the embryo would be well formed and strong. 62 Yelammedenu, Samuel A. Berman, ed., (KATV, 2003), pp. 316–317. 61

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

69

Gabriel said to him: I have seen the tears. I have heard your prayer. I have pardoned thy iniquity.63 When they entered in upon Dawud he was terrified of them. They said: Fear not (we are) two litigants, one of whom has wronged the other, therefore judge between us the truth, and treat us not with injustice, and guide us to the right way… (Q. 38:19–28)

This is the way the Qur’an tells Nathan’s parable of the biblical story. While the biblical narrator does not give the number of the rich man’s flocks, but states: The rich man had very many flocks and herds (2 Sam. 12:2).

The qur’anic narrator states: In ha-dha a-khi la-hu tis-’un wa-tis-’u-na na’-jat wa-li na’-ja-tun (38:23). This man, my brother, has nine and ninety ewes and I have (only) one.

The post-qur’anic (PQ) literature portrayed King David as a prophet who had a beautiful voice reciting the Psalms. He was a brave man and pious, but as a human being he transgressed twice. Once he was near a sin when he wished to kill King Saul and to take over his kingship; the second time when he took Uriah’s wife. Allah prevented him from killing King Saul. But the second time Allah did not turn him away from taking Uriah’s wife. David only acknowledged his sin when the angel presented him with it. At this point David realized how grave was his sin and he shed many tears and also lay prostrate till the mark appeared on his forehead. The Islamic story holds that because he shed so many tears while prostrating, grass grew around his face. Some others relate that plants grew. Many pious Muslims prostrate and, like David, have a mark on their forehead. This description reflects the story of repentance we find in rabbinic literature. God did not prevent David from committing the sin because he wished people to learn from him how to repent. We pointed out64 that David collected Joseph Meyouhas, Bible Tales in Arab Folk-Lore, (London: 1928), p. 162. 64 See, Prolegomenon. 63

70

MISHAEL M. CASPI

pebbles on his way to fight Goliath. This story appears also in the post-quranic literature. The same is also true with the story about the bird that David wanted to hunt. Instead, he hit the curtain which covered the place where Bathsheba was bathing (arranging her hair). But in the PQ, the prophet Nathan was not the one who came to David. Instead, two angels came, requesting to be judged by him. We do not wish to argue which source is the early one, but to point out that the PQ literature has a close relation to the Jewishrabbinic literary sources. In this tradition we find the description of the physical appearance of David. According to it, David was short, blonde and pure of heart. Here we also find that David had four brothers who were with his old father, but they joined Saul while David remained with the father tending the flocks of the family. Islamic tradition also relates that Allah sent down the Psalms and commanded the birds to sing together with David; however, no creature had a voice so beautiful as that of David. In this source, we are told that David had a tower where he went alone and there he recited the Zabur, the Psalms. It is related that once, while he was reciting the Zabur, a dove of gold entered through the window. He followed this dove of gold until he beheld the beautiful woman bathing herself. Muslim Sages argued that the angel, one of the two who came to David and said; in ha-dha akhi—this one is my brother, was in fact Uriah the son of Hananiah, the husband of the woman. The Qur’an views both Dawud and Sulaiman (David and Solomon) as exemplary rulers who were very wise and knew how to use their wisdom. David, by the help of Allah, had a strong kingdom as it stated: wa-sha-dad-na mul-ka-tu wa-a-tay-na-hu ‘l hik-ma-ta wa-fas-la ‘ll-khitaa-bi. We made his kingdom strong and gave him wisdom (prophethood) and sound judgment in speech and decision (38:20).

Indeed, as Yusuf Ali suggests in his interpretation, the parable which follows this aya-verse is not found in the Bible but, in fact, the parable of the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 12) no doubt has its traces in the quranic parable. The Qur’an offers the readers a story of the Israelites from the death of Moses to the time of Jesus in

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

71

twelve verses. In these verses only certain events are mentioned. This long passage we read in suratu ‘l baqara (The Cow 246–254). The narrator of the Qur’an does not mention the name of the prophet who anointed Saul. He relates his story saying: wa-qa-la la-hum na-bi-yu-hum in-na allaha qad ba-’a-tha la-kum taaluu-ta… And their prophet said to them, Allah, indeed delegated Talut (Saul) to you (2:247).

While Talut-Saul is mentioned in two verses only, 2: 247–249, in a short description, one of his appointments as a king and the other god testing Saul by the river: qaa-la in-na allaha mub-ta-li-kun bi-na-ha-ri... Allah will test you by a river (v. 249).

David is described as one who gave his judgment regarding a negligence of a shepherd. This story also involved SulaimanSolomon, who offers a different judgment than that of his father. In another passage, the narrator tells us about a unique gift Allah bestowed upon David. He has a gift of singing sacred poems (psalms) and together with him Allah commanded the birds, mountains and hills to join him in praising Allah. The other gift is that David was a craftsman; the iron he worked with was so soft that it was easy for him to make armor: wa-a-la-na la-hu ‘l ha-dida and we made the iron soft for him (34:10–11).

The Qur’an accentuates the fact that both the father and the son (Dawud and Sulaiman) were imparted knowledge to judge rightly: wa-la-qad a-tay-na dawud waSulaiman ‘il-la-ma wa-qa-la ‘ll ham-du ‘llahi. And we gave knowledge to David and Solomon and they said praise to Allah.

The knowledge is also the wisdom to understand and to judge. Indeed, we find that the biblical narrator describes David stating: The Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart… (1 Sam. 13:14).

In the NT we read the following description:

72

MISHAEL M. CASPI …I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, who shall fulfill all my will (Acts 13:22).

As much as David is appreciated in Islamic tradition, as the composer of the Zabur, Psalms, and as a prophet, he was not a law giver or a founder of the tradition. He is the one elected by Allah and upon him Allah bestowed grace, and knowledge (v. 247). Yet, the Qur’an relates to us the story of Bathsheba in six verses (38:21– 26). However, the verses 17–20, serve as an introduction to the story. In three verses, the narrator relates the gifts which were given to David, the birds gather with him to glorify Allah and the mountains join the praise too: yu-sa-bi-na bil-’a-shi-yi wal-ish-ra-qi. praise Allah in the evening (afternoon) and in the morning (after sun rise).

These verses, 38:18,19,20, could be seen as introductory verses to the story of Bathsheba. The Qur’an does not tell us the story as it is presented by the biblical narrator, but tells us the parable as introduced by the two disputants. It is here that we also find the notion that Allah tested David, an idea which is also found in the Hebrew tradition. It seems that the Muslims have not yet freed themselves from the ambivalent attitude toward the Bible. This attitude was a major objection of Islamic scholarship toward the Bible and the Jews which started already in the early stages of Islam. Today, Muslim scholars continue their ambivalent attitude and still believe that the Jews falsified the Bible. Moreover, they went further to suggest that some quranic verses are found in the Bible, however, these verses are the true ones that existed in the Bible before it was falsified. In this respect they consider the Book of Psalms, The Zabur, as a heavenly book which preceded the Qur’an. Muslim scholars of the Middle Ages viewed the biblical stories about Lot, Ruben and Bilha, the story of Dawud and the daughter of Sha’i, the wife of Arwiya (Uriah) b. Hanun, as a proof that the Bible indeed was falsified. Yet, the post quranic literature, both the literature of the taf-sir and of the qi-sas expanded the narrative of David, especially the stories of Jalut, Goliath, the beauty of David, his sin with the wife of Uriah, his repentance and his death.

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

73

Al-Rabghuzi; qisas al anbiya

Al-Tha’labi: qisas al anbiya

It has been related: The prophet David used to disguise himself at night and asked his subjects: How is your king treating you?... David asked her: What is your king like? She replied: He is very righteous, but he lives from the wealth of the people. David prayed: My Lord teach me a trade, so I may live from my earning and people will cease to talk about me. It has been related: In David’s hands iron was soft like wax.

It was his (David’s) custom to go forth among the people incognito and if he saw a man who did not recognize him, he would appear and ask him about David, saying to him: What do you say about David... God sent an angel to him in a human form… Verily, David eats and feeds his family from the treasury: He paid heed to that and asked God… So God made the iron pliable for him and it became in his hand like wax or dough or mist clay.

Joseph Meyouhas; Bible Tales.

Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, 34:10.

One day Daud went out into the street and as was his wont and he was David had his provision was disguised as an old man, and he did not know that it was the angel Gabriel whom Allah sent to him… he maketh profit from the treasury of the kingdom… And now I shall only eat my bread from the sweat of my brow…And from that day Daud became a beater of swords and spears and implements of labour in the field.65

Ibn Kathir related that the work which coats of mail, one each day because Allah made iron malleable for him. The prophet taught: in-na at-ya-ba ma aka-la ‘lrra-ju-lu min kas-bi-hi wa-in-na na-bi-ya allahi dawud kaa-na ya-u-kulu min kas-bi ya-di-hi. Never does any one eat better than what he eats from the work of his hands and indeed the prophet of Allah, David, peace be upon him, used to eat from the work of his hands.66

The motif of a king who disguises himself to hear what his people think of him is well used in Arabic folklore. One which is very well known is the one about the Khalif Harun al-Rashid. The sin of David with Bathsheba was related in several different literary texts. The motif of the trial that we have mentioned in the Jewish literature is found here too. Again, we are 65 66

Yoseph Meyouhas, Op. Cit. Bukhari, Sahih 3:286. See Also, Ahmad, 6:42.

74

MISHAEL M. CASPI

interested only in pointing out the connection between these two traditions, but not which one was the original. Al-Rabghuzi

Al-Tha’labi

Satan entered in the shape of a bird. Its head was a pearl, its eyes red rubies and its feet of green chrysolite, and its wings of gold… David went to catch it…The bird flew into the air and landed on the window… When David’s eye was directed outside, he caught sight of a maiden washing herself, with her body uncovered. David’s shadow fell on the maiden. When she saw his shadow, she felt ashamed and also shook her head. With her hair she covered all her limbs…The maiden was of Joseph’s family line. She was famous among the Israelites, her name was Bathsheba… Bathsheba consented. She said: I will be David’s on the condition that his abode shall be with a son born from me. David will bestow the kingdom upon him…

People have said: The reason for this (test) is that he (David) requested from his Lord one day the status of his forefathers…My Lord try me as you have tried them. While he was (praying), the devil came to him and took the shape of a golden dove with every beautiful colors…The dove stopped and he went to it…Then he noticed a woman in a garden washing herself on the bank of a small pond… and he viewed her as the most beautiful woman in creation… she then shook out her hair, and with it she covered all of her body…He was told that she was Bathsheba, daughter of Sha’i wife of Arwiya (Uriah) b. Hanun and her husband was on a raid in the plain of alBalqa… So Joab sent out and Uriah was killed this second time. Then the wife of Uriah had completed her waiting period, David married her and she became The mother of Solomon.67

Bible Tales in Arab Folklore

Al-Kisa’i

…I pray thee, stretch forth thy hand and touch me, test and prove me… One day when Daoud was pouring his spirit…he beheld a dove… its plumage was of pure

Wahab ibn Munabih said: One Sabbath day while he was in his Tower, behind closed doors a bird of such beauty, colors and marvelous shape as

67

Al-Tha’labi, qisas al-anbiya. Dawud.

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE gold, and its wings of precious stones, as if embroidered with manifold colors…Aha, this can be none other than a Bird of Paradise…And he saw that the dove flew to the garden which was opposite his palace… and beneath the tree was a young woman bathing. And the woman was very beautiful none were to compare with her beauty… And he asked her name and they answered, she is Bathsheba the wife of Uriah…and from that day sleep fled from the eyes of the king. Joab obeyed the king’s words and he placed Uriah the son of Hannan… and he was slain. And Daoud heard and sent and took Bathsheba…and wedded her as his wife.

75

had never before been seen. Ibn Abbas was asked if the devil had any part in it? No! he answered, because the prophets are too noble in God’s sight for Iblis to tempt them…David gazed upon the beauty of the bird…This is surely the bird of Paradise…He followed it until it had flown to a tree next to a pool behind his Tower… where the Israelite women used to bath…and seeing a woman bathing in the pool… But she was the most beautiful woman and her name was Bath-Sheba, wife of Uriah son of Hannan, and daughter of Jeshua. She had married that very year but had not conceived. Her husband was away with the army, under David’s nephew Nabal son of Zeruiah and he was killed there. When he was killed, David married his wife Bath-Sheba.68

G. Weil, Biblical Legends of the Musulmans David came home… and prayed… grant me too an opportunity to show unto thy people that my love is to withstand every temptation. David’s prayer was heard… he perceived a bird of such beautiful plumage …and he followed it with his eyes…at the close of the prayers he followed the bird.. until he found himself at the sunset on the margin of a little lake…but David soon forgot it, for in its stead there rose up a female from whose beauty dazzled him… He inquired of her name; it was Saja the daughter of Josu, wife of Uriah ibn Haman who was with the army. David then {took} his wife and married her at the expiration of the prescribed time.

All of the above-quoted texts point out the fact that David could not stand the test. These stories are without any doubt different from the biblical story. Yet, the concept we find in two 68

W. M. Thagkstone, The Tales of the Prophets of al Kisa’i, (Boston: 1976).

76

MISHAEL M. CASPI

stories, where David asked to be tested like the forefathers is also found in the Jewish tradition, as we pointed out above. The involvement of Satan, as has been told in the post-biblical works, appears in the post-quranic story. Ibn Abbas’ statement that the prophets are noble in the sight of God, thus Iblis cannot have part in the trial of David, is only one voice. The parable told here, after Bathsheba was taken by the king, is presented by two agents: one of them by both Gabriel and Michael, the other one is Uriah. The motif of the bird and its shape appears also in Jewish literature as follows: The Satan appeared to him (David) in the shape of a bird. David threw a dart at him. Instead of striking Satan, it glanced off and broke a wider screen which hid Bathsheba combing her hair. The sight of her aroused the passion in the king.69

The story in which David wanted to be tested as were the Patriarchs is found in other Hebrew texts. His wish to be considered like the Patriarchs is found not only in the Hebrew texts,70 but also in Christian sources.71 In Islamic tradition, Sages do elaborate on some gifts which David received from Allah. Beside the beautiful voice to recite his praise to Allah, he also endowed David with hik-mah, wisdom, and gave him also a special bell. When the king was sitting to judge the people, this bell was able to distinguish the truth from a lie. It was related that: Allah gave David a bell which was fixed in the celestial sphere.

Islamic tradition relates two stories about the special profession David acquired to make a coat of arms: It is related that one day Lukman the wise visited the prophet David. He saw that David worked iron like dough…

So, Allah made the iron pliable for him and it became in his hands like wax or dough or moist clay. He would turn it

BSan. 107a, also uses such a story. BPes. 117b. 71 See, Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 141. 69 70

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE When David had finished the coat of mail he got up and put it on. He asked: Now won’t this be useful in battle? Thus, Lukman understood that it was to be worn in battle and he remarked: Silence is a rule, but those who practice it are few.72

77

in his hand as he wished without putting it into fire nor striking it with iron (as it is written) wa-’alam-na-hu tsa-na-’a-ta la-bu-si ‘lla-kum li-tuh-tsina-kum min baa-si-kum fa-hal an-tum sha-ki- ru-na. And we taught him the making of metal coat of mail to protect you in your fighting. Are you then grateful (21: 79/80).73

It seems that these stories extend the hadith told by the Prophet that one should live of his own hand. Here we have emphasis on the teaching that whether you are a king or a person in power you should not live out of the treasure of the people. David’s story as a skilled craftsman who lived on his own income meant to serve as an example of a righteous king. qul ya-ta-waf-fa-kum mma-la-ku ‘li-maw-ti ‘lla-dhi wuk-ki-la bi-kum ila rab-bi-kum tur-ji- ‘uu-na (32:11). Say, the angel of death who is set over you will take your soul, then you shall be brought to the Lord. In the name of Abu Hurayra. They said that David was a solicitous man, who would lock the doors whenever he left his house. But one day he had locked them and went out. His wife looked out and saw a man in the house. “Who admitted this man?” She demanded. He will certainly have caused a dismay when David returns… I am one who fears no king and who is not stopped by any chamberlain… “Then, by God, you are

Wahb said: David was exceedingly jealous of his women and whenever he went out he would lock them in and take the key with him. One day he went out, and upon his return, saw a handsome man in the middle of the hall. Angrily he said: Who are you, and who left you into my hall among my women? He let me in who is the master of the hall and who gave you dominion and authority. I am he who

Al-Rabghuzi, The Stories of the Prophets, H. E. Boeschoten and M. Vandamme, tr. vol. two, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995). 73 Al-Tha’labi, Op. Cit. 72

78

MISHAEL M. CASPI

the Angel of Death.” David said, and he died upon the spot.74

fears not king. I am the Angel of Death, come to take your spirit…75

It has been related; One day Azrael came to David’s palace disguised as a man. David was not at home. Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, told Azrael: You get out. Azrael said: I have come to talk to you. Bathsheba Said: Until the Prophet David married me, I had never seen a foreigner nor a foreigner seen me. Get out before David comes. Azrael smiled. David met him…I have come to take your soul and bring it to Paradise… Before he died David had handed over his kingship and kingdom to Solomon…76

According to the taf-sir of the Qur’an, David was a man of exceptional strength. The PQ interpreters learned it from his battle with Goliath. They also accentuated that although he was mocked by the people as well as by his brothers, he was proven to be elected by the divine to be the king. Aside from possessing the art of war, he also has the gift of a musician. Here, as we find it in Jewish writings (as well as in Greek mythology), he is described as a great musician who when he recited his psalms and melodies, the hills and the groves listened to them and birds gathered together to hear him. For these qualities: Wa-sha-dad-na mul-ka-tu wa-a-tai-na-hu ‘lhik-ma-ta Wa-fas-la ‘ll-khita-bi (38:20). We made his kingdom strong and gave him wisdom and sound judgment in decision.

As we stated above the parable which is found in 38: 22–24 is not a part of the biblical story. It is a part of the Muslim Sages’ creativity and imagination. However, they concord with the possibility that the vision found in the Qur’an is related to the biblical one. However, some of the Muslim scholars reject any notion of a relationship between these two texts. Any close examination of Suzanne Haneef, A History of the Prophets of Islam, vol. two, (Kazi Pub.), pp. 243–244. 75 Al-Kisa’i, Op. Cit. 76 Al-Rabghuzi, Op. Cit, 397. 74

THE STRINGS OF DAVID’S LIFE

79

their theory does not leave a doubt that it is not proven by a scholarly examination of the texts, but by the sheer religious ideology. Any refusal to accept the relationship between these two Scriptures deprives one of realizing the beauty of the texts. After all, in these two traditions, David is a just and upright person whose name soared into a high spiritual sphere.

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION AZILA REISENBERGER UNIVERSITY OF CAPETOWN, SOUTH AFRICA

INTRODUCTION The biblical account of King David’s life has been recognized amongst biblical scholars as a fine example of a skilfully told story. Yet, compared with the vast corpus of other research applied to this account, there has been little analysis using literary methods.1 One section of this story, known by many as the “succession narrative” (generally taken to include 2 Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1–2), is subject to more rigorous scrutiny by scholars who use varied methods of analysis, and can be used to illustrate the point. For example, von Rad (1944/1966, 1972) concentrates on historicity; Rost ((1926/1965); Whybray (1968, 1974); Delekat (1967); Würthwein (1974) and Langlamet scrutinize it as political propaganda, while Whybray, (1968, 1974) and Hermisson (1971) look at it as wisdom literature with didactic elements, and so on. To deny that various sections in the biblical depiction of the character of King David carry historical, political or didactic interests is absurd, but in this essay I consider the account as a work of art and interpret particular events in the life of King David as they apply to him as a character. In the book The Story of King David, Genre and Interpretation, David Gunn follows Knights (1971) when he argues that in the same way that Shakespeare’s plays may have historical events as 1

Amongst the most prominent are J.P Fokkelman and David Gunn.

81

82

AZILA REISENBERGER

their background, they are not historical plays, rather their power lies in their depiction of “…human’s fears and desires” especially when these carry particular consequences. (1989:26) This essay analyzes the body of the biblical text, relating to it as a dramatic story depicting “human’s fears and desires”, concentrating on David’s behavior at times of grief, and his use of dirge as a vehicle of vindication. I entitle the material under scrutiny “David’s story”, as it covers David’s saga in its entirety, from the moment David appears to readers in 1 Samuel 16:13 to the description of David’s death in 1 Kings 2:12. It is read as it is presented in the Masoretic text, in Hebrew, with some reference to various translations.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES I take cognizance of the fact that the text as a whole presents a challenge to historians, who debate not only the historical veracity of the characters and events in the story, but also the date and authorship of various segments of the written text. I acknowledge that the narrative may be layered material which has started as oral literature put together by a redactor, and this version, as it appears in the Masoretic text, is the basis of this essay. As a biblical researcher as well as an author, my choice to read David’s saga in its entirety as it appears in the Masoretic text is a conscious decision. The reason for this decision—which could seem at odds with the work of many of my scholar(ly) colleagues— is that this version, which may be a mixture of various segments written by various authors at various times, is still read by, and exerts power on the lives of, millions of people in the extra biblical world.2 Since these readers take the written text ‘as is’, I read it with them, concentrating on David’s laments in the saga. Studying the text, ‘as is’, is not a modern invention. It was the standard treatment of the biblical text by religious leaders and I use the term ‘extra biblical world’ to denote people throughout history whose lives are affected by the Bible, see discussion in Reisenberger, 2000: 57–68. 2

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

83

scholars as well as by linguists through the ages. In modern times this method is used by literary scholars who read the biblical text and analyze it as if it were any other given contained piece of literature. I was introduced to this reading in my student days when we read Menachem Perry and Meir Sternberg’s well-known article: “Hamelech Be’Mabat Irony” in Ha’Sifrut (1986).3 This method, which is fuelled by a spirit of ‘liberal tradition’ in biblical criticism, has grown in the past decades. However, it causes disquiet to some biblical scholars, even modern liberals like David Gunn, for example (1989:14–15). The main objection against the literary analysis of biblical narratives is its subjectivity when academic studies aim at objectivity.4 Instead of engaging with the story under generic sub-headings of ‘genre’, ‘characterization’, ‘plot’, etc., this essay follows a particular motif and shows how the motif is used as an ironic device to tear the mask off David’s vocal bereavement while he was benefiting from each one of the deaths associated with the bereavement.

BOUNDARIES OF THE STORY Since 1926, when Leonhard Rost published his Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids, David’s story has been understood in terms of two extended narratives: David’s rise to Power and The Succession Narrative, while all the other surrounding stories are commonly regarded as miscellaneous material. A few scholars, however, have stressed the fact that the material outside of the two main narratives is not simply miscellaneous. Already in 1902, for example, Karl Budde discussed 2 Samuel chapters 5–8 (which fall(s) in between the two narratives) as a deliberate chiastic arrangement of two narratives, two lists and two poems, and paid close literary It was translated into English and published in Poetics Today Vol. 7(2) 1986. 4 David Gunn aptly describes his dissatisfaction with the state of historical-critical research but warns that if one ignores the historical setting, original meaning or author’s intention, one could be charged with subjectivism (1978:15). 3

84

AZILA REISENBERGER

attention to its intertextuality5; in 1988 Walter Brueggemann deconstructed 2 Samuel 21–24 (1988:383). On the whole, however, most scholars set the boundaries—accepted by many as the “original” narrative—at 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2. (Whybray, 1968:8, Soggin 1976:192) In this essay the narrative will be read in its entirety.

CHARACTER The biblical character [of] David appears on the literary scene as the 7th of the sons of Jesse the Beth-Lechemite. He is described as “…ruddy, having withal handsome eyes, and being of a goodly appearance.” (2 Sam. 16:12) who was feeding the flocks when Samuel called him to be anointed as the second king of Israel. In that episode Jesse describes David as the youngest son, (1 Sam. 16:11) yet in chapter 17:12 we are told that Jesse has eight sons. In 1 Chronicles 2: 13–18, Jesse has seven sons and two daughters: Zeruiah and Abigail. Zeruiah was the mother of Abishai, Yoab and Asahel; Abigail was the mother of Amasa. (Amasa’s father was Jether the Ishmaelite). All these sons of David’s sisters became his and his successor’s warriors. It is interesting to note that though they were David’s nephews they may have been his age rather than younger and under his influence because, as mentioned above, 1 Samuel emphasized that David was the youngest child (or the one before the last son) in Jesse’s household, and throughout the saga Zeruiah’s sons, with Yoab in particular, pose a force to be reckoned with rather than subservient charges. In 1 Samuel chapter 17 we are told that David was called from behind the flock to play music whenever Saul’s spirit was disturbed—the narrative states that he went back and forth from attending to Saul in his court to shepherding his father’s flock at Bethlehem. (1 Sam. 17:15) As the narrative unfolds and the Israelites have to face Goliath who called upon them to select a warrior to fight on their behalf, the text indicates that Saul declared Karl Budde, Die Bücher Samuel (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament 8; Tübingen: Mohr 1902); see Brueggemann, 1988:383. 5

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

85

that the man who was to kill Goliath “… will be rewarded by the king with great riches; he will also give him his daughter in marriage and grant exemption to his father’s house in Israel.” (1 Sam. 17:25) When David volunteers to be the warrior who fights on behalf of the Israelites, Saul is apprehensive as David’s youth and slight build seem to spell a disastrous outcome to the uneven contest with the Philistine.6 In his emphasis that he fears neither Goliath’s curses nor his physical power, David describes to Saul how as a shepherd he had to fight a lion and a bear in order to save his flock from their teeth. David specifies that he “…killed both lion and bear” (v. 36) and assures Saul that God who saved him from the beasts will also save him from the Philistine. (v.37) This is the first time that David refers to death. The conversation between David and Saul is said to show David with his faith in God’s help,7 but for a study of the way that David faces death it is interesting, as it shows the supposedly young shepherd’s acceptance of violence and death as a necessary part of survival. He displays no emotion: there were lions and bears. They posed a danger to his flock. He was in charge, he killed them. This scene in fact represents David’s approach to leadership, reflected throughout the years of his reign as depicted in the 1st and 2nd Books of Samuel. Whoever stands in his way or interferes with his flock is removed. The episode depicting the clash between David and Goliath, where David represents spirituality and faith in God while Goliath represents physical brutality, is an epical blueprint for David’s rise to power and the character of his dynasty as God’s chosen kings in the history of the Israelites as a nation. The Messiah is to come from his loins.8 David is ‘dressed’ with God’s aura, and God’s help protects him. He tries on Saul’s armor but it does not suit him—a metal shield is not his style, he is protected by something mightier than The discrepancy between the two versions of David’s appearance on the scene and his introduction to Saul is explained in a clear redactor’s note (1 Sam 17:15). 7 See the details of this argument in the paper of Mishael Caspi and John Greene in the Prolegomenon of this book. 8 Ibid. 6

86

AZILA REISENBERGER

armor and helmet. The text emphasizes that he is protected by God. Saul’s divesting himself of his armor and passing it on to David is a symbolic act. Saul is giving up his leadership to the young shepherd, and the fact that his helmet and armor are discarded by David is also symbolic. He discards Saul’s way; he has his own way to do battle and lead the people. The narrative presents this episode as a symbol of a new beginning. And in an epic way he walks out bare-handed with only God’s protection to watch over him. His faith in God’s help is seen as complete in his speeches to Saul (v. 37) and to the Philistine (v. 45–47) but also in his actions— in the way he walks right into the contest with only his sling and stones and no physical protection. When Goliath curses him and describes his imminent death and the way his flesh will be fed to the birds and the beasts of the field, David retorts with the promise that God is his protector and that in fact: I will kill you and cut off your head and I will give the carcasses of the Philistine camps to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the earth. (v. 46)

This exchange depicts David’s attitude to killing and death as part of natural activities or the cycle that a shepherd sees in nature, similar to his killing of the bear and lion which was mentioned earlier. When the text records that David hit Goliath, who fell on his face and died, there is no trace of emotion displayed. We hear that as he had no sword, he took Goliath’s own sword and cut off the giant’s head. (v. 51) We are told that after the Israelites had pursued and killed many Philistines, David took Goliath’s head to Jerusalem. (v. 54) This is an obvious anachronistic insert, as at that time, Jerusalem belonged to the Jebusites. Or this is what we are led to believe in the narrative of David’s conquering of the city. (2 Sam. 5:6–9)

KILLING IN ORDER TO ADVANCE When Saul asked David for a hundred foreskins as a dowry for marrying his daughter, we are told that “David went out with his men and killed two hundred Philistines.” (1 Sam. 18: 27) There is no mention of any emotions whatsoever. The fact was that he needed foreskins, and as the Philistines most probably would not

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

87

part willingly from their foreskins, David and his men killed two hundred people. It is simply stated—it served his purpose.

KILLING ATTEMPTS The fact that Saul tried to kill David is recorded on a few occasions—when he throws the javelin at him or when he pursues him and forces David to flee. (1 Sam. 18:11, 19:10, 20:33, 21:11, etc.) These stories appear side by side with the record of Saul’s children helping to avert the threat of death to David, such as when Jonathan pleads on David’s behalf, (1 Sam. 20:28–29) or when Michal aids his escape. (1 Sam. 19) These episodes include neither actual killing and death, nor mourning on David’s side, therefore no detailed analysis of them is included. However, it should be mentioned that when David discusses these events he does refer to death and killing, e.g. in 1 Samuel, chapter 20, David actually asks Jonathan “what have I done, what is my crime and my guilt against your father, that he seeks my life?” (1 Sam. 20:1); “…as the Lord lives, there is only a step between me and death.” (v. 3) and melodramatically he adds: “If I am guilty kill me yourself but don’t make me go back to your father.” (v. 8)

NO REACTION TO NEWS OF DEATH FOR SUPPORTIVE PRIESTS When David flees from Saul, he stops at the city of Nob, where he misrepresents his situation to Ahimelech son of Ahituv, the priest, who according to the story, feeds him and gives him Goliath’s sword which had been deposited in Nob. When Saul hears of the Nobites’ support of David, “… the city of the priests, he smote, with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and lambs, with the edge of the sword.” (1 Sam. 22:19) The whole city, innocent young and old, men and beasts, were killed because of their assistance to David who knowingly misrepresented his situation. Abiathar, son of one of the murdered priests, hurries to David and tells him that eighty-five priests of Nob were murdered, together with women and children. In spite of the fact that David acknowledges his part in the chain of events that led to the massacre, he does not express sorrow, nor does he mourn or give condolence:

88

AZILA REISENBERGER David said to Abiathar, ‘I knew that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would tell Saul. I am to blame for all the deaths in your father’s house. Stay with me; do not be afraid; for whoever seeks your life must seek my life also. It will be my care to guard you’. (1 Sam. 22:22–23)

SAMUEL’S DEATH When we are told of Samuel’s death, the text tells us that all Israel gathered and made lament for him. In the same verse we are told that David went down to the Wilderness of Paran. (25:1) One can not establish from the verse if David was among the mourners, or if his departure to the wilderness took place at the same time.

NABAL When Nabal refuses to give David and his men protection money (posed as a request for “money for festivities”), David calls his men to arm themselves and to follow him in a massacre of all males in Nabal’s household, saying: “May God do thus and more to David’s enemies, if I leave a single male of his by the light of the morning.” (1 Sam. 25:22) The massacre is averted only by Abigail’s intervention, when she supports David’s need for provision for him and his 600 strong men, coaxing him by saying: “Do not let this be a cause of stumbling and of faltering emotions to my lord, and of spilling blood needlessly …”(v. 31a) Accepting Abigail’s offering he thanks her and admits that if she had not hurried, he would surely have carried out his threats: “had you not come quickly to meet me, not a single male of Nabal’s line would have been left by daybreak.” (v. 34)

DAVID’S CRUELTY AND SPEED IN KILLING When David had sworn allegiance with Achish, king of Gath, and settled with his men and their families in his own small town, Ziklag, he raided the neighboring clans: the Geshurites, the Grizites and the Amalekites. He killed all humans, men and women, and appropriated all their material goods and livestock. (1 Sam. 27:9) The attack is unprovoked and David and his men show no mercy. This behavior contrasts with that of Saul. Saul had pity on innocent bystanders, for example, he warned the Kenites to separate from the Amalekites whom he was about to attack, and after the battle he spared the Amalekite king, Agag, as well as the

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

89

livestock, (1 Sam. 15:1–16) which officially lost him his throne. (1 Sam. 28:18) Furthermore, we are told that David spared no person (man or woman) so they could not bear witness to this slaughter, (v. 11) clearly indicating that he was fully aware that it was not praiseworthy.

DAVID’S TWO CHANCES TO KILL SAUL During Saul’s pursuit of David when he seeks to kill him, in a reversal of roles David has two chances to kill Saul and he tells him so. (1 Sam. 24 and 26) In the first account in 1 Samuel, chapter 24, Saul unknowingly enters the same cave in which David is hidden, and the young man has a chance to harm the king but he refrains from doing so. As evidence of his restraint, David cuts off a corner of Saul’s garment, and in a long speech he says that he won’t touch Saul though all people present know that the king is after him to kill him. (1 Sam. 24) When David emerges from the cave with the piece of the king’s garment in his hand and recounts in detail what happened in the cave, the language is interesting (my translation): …God delivered you today into my hand in the cave, and said to kill you and (?)9 took pity upon you and I said: I will not raise a hand against my lord, as he is the Lord’s anointed. (v. 10b)10

In the narrative of the wilderness of Zieph, in 1 Sam. 26, we are told that Saul recruited six thousand people to search for David and his men. In this chapter we are told that David and Abishai, son of Zeruiah (his nephew), infiltrate Saul’s camp when everybody is asleep and steal Saul’s spear and his personal water bowl. When Abishai asks for permission to drive his own spear into Saul and The pronoun of the verb: ‘to have pity’, ‫ותחס‬, is unclear. It may be ‘she’ or ‘you’ (male). If we accept the verb as ‘you masculine’ it is difficult to explain the utterance, while if we read it as ‘she’ then the verse can be read as David’s spirit had pity upon Saul (’Spirit’ in Hebrew is in feminine form). 10 The feminine form of the verb ‘she took pity’ makes it unclear who took pity upon Saul. Ibid. 9

90

AZILA REISENBERGER

kill him, David prevents him from touching the Lord’s anointed with a short speech: The Lord himself will strike him down, or his time will come and he will die, or he will go down to battle and perish; but the Lord forbid that I should lay a hand on the Lord’s anointed. (1 Sam. 26: 10b–11a)

David’s repeated emphasis that God’s anointed has and should have divine protection helps him to establish a tradition of prohibition on harming the king. This is a tactical pronouncement, as according to an earlier part of the narrative, he is fully aware that he is the next Lord’s anointed. (Discussion on the theme of the Lord’s anointed follows the lament on Saul and Jonathan, below).

DAVID’S TEARS The narrative tells us that at the same time that the Philistines were fighting Saul and all Israel, Amalek, who had a quarrelsome relationship with David, went into Ziklag, David’s town of settlement, burnt it and captured all the women and children. When David and his warriors returned to Ziklag and discovered the grim situation, we are told: …and David and the people that were with him lifted up their voice and wept, until they had no more power to weep. (1 Sam. 30:4)

What seems to be a genuine display of emotion is followed by two editorial remarks that may unsettle readers’ sympathy for David, as they gnaw at the picture of David as a leader who cares for his warriors and their families: •

•

One is the remark that shows his own personal stake in the situation “and the two wives of David were also taken captive” (v. 5a) which could be read as a fact in a neutral way, had it not been followed by the cynical remark: “And David was greatly distressed; for the people spoke of stoning him…” (v.6)

Was David’s distress due to the burning of Ziklag, to the capture of all women and children and the suffering of the men who dedicated themselves to serve him? Or was his distress due to his personal loss of his two wives—which is legitimate, though it eclipses his aura as a caring leader? Or even worse, was he

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

91

distressed only as he feared for his personal safety when he understood that the people had spoken of stoning him? For many years the succession narrative section of David’s story was argued by a pool of scholars as political propaganda (from Welhausen, 1878:224–6, Rost, (1926), Vriezen (1948) to Whybray, 1968:20–21, 54–55). At the heart of their argument was the fact that the spirit behind the text, and especially the outcome of events—which is Solomon’s ascent to power—emphasizes the greater glory of David’s dynasty and Solomon’s reign. However, editorial inserts such as the verses quoted above, insinuating that David’s distress may have been due to selfishness (as he feared stoning) rather than concern for his people, gave rise to suggestions by scholars such as Delekat (1971) that the hand that held the pen carried anti-Davidic sentiment. Subtle traces of hostility towards David and Solomon were already detected and mentioned by Kittel (in 1898), and closer to Delekat’s time, by Hölscher (1952). The question of whether David’s story is pro-David or antiDavid and the Davidic dynasty is not within the scope of this essay; suffice it to say that I agree with David Gunn’s assertion that even if the biblical text is not overtly political propaganda nevertheless there is a political Tendenz in it (1989: 22–26). More importantly, however, the rich text with its multiple facets and contradicting hints presents David as a very exciting character. His characterization is full of surprises and ambiguities and the pivotal point for its biblical existence, according to Brueggemann, is “the combination of human freedom and responsibility with trust in God’s providence and grace.” (Perdue 1984) This essay concentrates on one motif in David’s story, namely his public laments, and shows how instead of being displays of grief which is the essence of laments, they are tools to disseminate in public his political agendas. Above all these laments are vehicles of vindication—when he benefits from the demise of the dead. From his accepting and sometimes callous attitude to death, as shown above, it is clear that David’s laments do not arise from the shock of facing the demise of the person in question, otherwise there would have been many laments, the longest of which would probably have been a lament for his own son with Bat-Sheba, or for the priests and the whole city of Nob, for example. But this is not so.

92

AZILA REISENBERGER

The Bible quotes two laments made by David in public and one additional verbal expression of grief that he uttered when he heard the news of Abshalom’s death. On these three occasions he benefitted from the turn of events, and the essay proposes that his words are a form of distancing himself from the loss of life lest he be seen as the architect of the killing. Even when there can be no direct blame or suspicion that he was physically involved in the killing, the essay suggests that since he benefitted substantially from the death it seems as if he feels obliged to mourn for all to see. Furthermore, on the two occasions mentioned above, when the Bible records his full lament, we see that instead of concentrating on the dead persons, he uses the occasion to further his cause of grasping and holding on to power. These are the laments: • •

on Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:17–27); on Abner ben-Ner (2 Sam. 33–34)

The less formal short expression of grief is after the death of Abshalom (2 Sam. 19:1; 19:5). I make a distinction between the earlier two and the latter, as the earlier were carried out in public for all to hear and are presented as official speeches in the format of biblical poetry, with its formal structure of parallel couplets while the latter is a more free flowing utterance which David mutters while he walks: And the king was much moved, and he went up to the upper chamber of the gate, and wept: and he said as he went: O my son Abshalom, my son, my son Abshalom! Who would grant that I had died in thy stead, O Abshalom, my son, my son. (2 Sam. 19:1)

This description has more to do with his own situation than with his emotion on hearing of the death of his son. Abshalom’s mutiny upset the king and he was already weeping when he walked out of Jerusalem: And David went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, weeping as he went up, and had his head covered, and he was walking barefoot; and all the people that were with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up. (2 Sam. 15:30)

Mishael Caspi in his paper: “Velecha ein Besora Motzet” (1985) describes David’s words as a moving display of emotion, and

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

93

I agree with most of the points it makes. However, this essay does not carry a detailed analysis of David’s utterance on this occasion. His words do not comprise a coherent thought about the dead, are not presented in public, and as the weeping and the wish to die seem to do with David’s fatigue rather than with any love for his lost son. This assertion is reinforced by the fact that the relationship between Abshalom and his father, as it unfolds in the biblical story, is depicted as strained. After Abshalom kills his half brother, Amnon, and escapes to his maternal grandfather, the king of Geshur, David has to be coaxed to allow him to return to Jerusalem; and on his return the king ignores him for years.11

DAVID’S LAMENT ON SAUL AND JONATHAN12 We are told that two days after David’s victorious return to his camp in the Philistines’ territory, an Amalekite youth came to him and informed him that he had happened to be on Mount Gilboa where the battle between the Philistines and Saul took place. He said that he had witnessed the flight and death of many of the Israelites, as well as the death of Saul and Jonathan. He recounted how he saw the wounded King Saul “leaning on his spear… [with] the chariots and horsemen closing in on him.” (1 Sam. 16) According to the Amalekite, Saul asked him to assist him to die, which he said he did. After which, he produced Saul’s armlet and the crown and gave them to David. On hearing the news: David took hold of his clothes and rent them, and so did all the men with him. They lamented and wept, and they fasted until evening for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the soldiers of the Lord and the house of Israel who had fallen by the sword. (2 Sam. 1:11–12) J. P. Fokkelman discusses the irony of the name Abshalom, which is a construct of the Hebrew words father and peace, and it also carried a resemblance to Ir Shalem (Jerusalem) the city which was at the centre of contest between the father and son. See Chapter 7 (1981). 12 For the suggestion that this lament under discussion is an appropriated poem and discussion on ‘lament type-scene’ see Weitzman 1995. 11

94

AZILA REISENBERGER

The lament on Saul and Jonathan is recorded in 2 Sam. 1:17– 27. It can be divided into five parts: a. Introduction, highlighting the shame of the loss and death (2 Sam. 1:17–20) b. The curse upon Gilboa (vs. 21–22) c. Description of Saul and Jonathan as warriors, and their family ties (v. 23) d. Call for mourning for King Saul (v. 24) e. David’s own grief for his friend Jonathan (vs. 25b–26)

POETICS The use of the parallelism is clear. Apart from using a typical trait of biblical poetry, it demonstrates David’s skills as an orator who supposedly recited this lament in front of an audience. Moreover, he pulls the various components of the lament into a unity by repetition of the phrase: Eich naflu giborim How are the mighty fallen.

This refrain is repeated after the disdain he expresses for the shameful fear and panicky behavior displayed by Saul and the Israelite soldiers (v. 19) Then he frames his expression of personal loss at Jonathan’s death by starting and ending it with the refrain: Eich naflu giborim How are the mighty fallen! (v. 25; v. 27)

There is a clear division between the first, more cerebral part of the lament and the later verses which display the emotions such as loss, anger and love associated with death. This clear division was not picked up by scholars for many years. The lament was read as one coherent unit, and therefore the second emotional part impacted on the way that the first part was read which was thus interpreted as a display of pity and sadness. Only in 2007 did Tzvi Mutzan suggest another reading for the first part of this part of the lament. His reading of the texts picked up the feigned emotion that David displays and the political statements he makes. Mutzan shows clearly how David belittles Saul and the Israelite warriors rather than glorifies them. I agree

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

95

with Mutzan and suggest that the occasion provided David with the opportunity to absolve himself of any blame regarding the killing—which perhaps was not necessary—but also from seizing the throne, which was an important act, as there were still some claimants to the Saulide dynasty. David’s emphasis on Saul’s ineptness as a leader opens the door for the process of self promotion.

CLOSE READING OF THE INTRODUCTORY SECTION OF THE LAMENT The opening words in the laments are as follows:

‫הצבי ישראל‬ ‫על במותיך חלל‬ ‫איך נפלו גיבורים‬ (2 Sam. 1:19)

In various English translations, they are rendered as follows: O beauty of Israel! Upon the high places slain: How are the mighty fallen! (Leeser, 1915) The beauty of Israel is slain upon thy high places: How are the mighty fallen! (The Holy Bible, 1971) O prince of Israel, Laid low in death! How are the men of war fallen! (The New English Bible, 1970) Your Glory, O Israel, lies slain on your height; How have the mighty fallen! (Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures)

All these very similar translations follow the reading of the word ‘Hatzvi’ as the love word to Israel, depicting the land of Israel, or its Glory. But I agree with Tzvi Mutzan who read the word ‘Tzvi’ in David’s lament not as a metaphor for beloved Israel, but rather as a mocking image of Israel as a frightened gazelle. (Mutzan, 2007) The image of Israel under King Saul as a frightened animal connects verse 19 to the two verses that precede it. Many a time the first two verses of the lament are read as a separate, introductory note, but I suggest that they are an important part of

96

AZILA REISENBERGER

the lament itself. If indeed we accept Tzvi Mutzan’s suggestion (2007, 22–40), then we see David’s open public criticism of Saulide leadership, which may prepare the people for his own rule. In this light the first five verses of the lament are a feigned lament, offered loud and clear to the public, degrading the Saulide leadership. And David lamented the following lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son, and he said: teaching the men of Judah the bow herewith is recorded in the book of Jashar. Is Israel a gazelle? How they were felled upon high places. How did the heroes die? (2 Sam. 2:17–19) (Tzvi Mutzan)

In this reading verse 19 is a rhetorical question: they were not heroes. They were frightened, panicky gazelles who ran away. Understanding the introduction as a feigned lament then makes clear the following verses in which David mockingly demands that this description of fearful warriors should not be publicized in the cities of the Philistines: Do not tell in Gath Do not proclaim in the street of Ashkelon Lest the Philistines’ women rejoice Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult. (2 Sam. 1:20)

That the king and his sons were killed was a known fact, so what was it that David was asking the people to conceal? If we read the introductory verses of the lament as suggested by Mutzan, then it is clear that David asks the people not to tell the enemies that Saul, his sons, and all the people were like frightened gazelles. I suggest that this fact may also have been known to the enemy, but David reiterates it in order to drive his agenda home. After this public criticism David mourns the dead and mentions in particular his special close relationship with Jonathan. It seems as if David’s sadness is voiced in verses 25–27, where his words come across as genuine grief for the warriors, with a particular epithet for Jonathan. These three verses are in a format that gives this section unity, and unlike the previous verses, the words expressed have no cynical undertone. It starts with the refrain question mentioned above:

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

97

How have the mighty fallen in the thick of battle—(v. 25a)

and finishes with: How have the mighty fallen, the weapons of war perished. (v. 27)

And within the preface and conclusion lies the core of David’s expression of loss because of Jonathan’s death: O Jonathan, slain on the heights ! I grieve for you my brother Jonathan. You were most dear to me. Your love was wonderful to me. More than the love of women. (v. 25b–26)

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that David’s expression of emotion is limited to the later part of what is known as David’s lament on Saul and Jonathan. The thrust and power of David’s utterance comprise a clear criticism of Saul’s shame and his lack of leadership. But as it was common knowledge that Saul and David were polarized and in a state of war, and as he was to benefit from Saul’s death and about to usurp the throne from the Saulide dynasty, he needed to vindicate himself. He does it by taking two actions: by killing the Amalekite who announced his part in aiding Saul’s death, and by publicly displaying his sorrow, and lamenting before all the people. Both actions carry within them an ulterior motive: to drive David’s agenda which was grasping power. By publicly mounting the dramatically verbal lament, he aims to ensure that all people present, and generations to come, know that he had no hand in the events that took place on Mount Gilboa, and that these events were an inevitable consequence of Saul’s lack of leadership. By publicly killing the Amalekite after declaring that he done the unthinkable—the unforgiveable transgression of hurting the Lord’s anointed—David writes himself a life-insurance policy, as he prepares to be recognized in public as the next Lord’s anointed.

98

AZILA REISENBERGER

He repeats these same actions with Rechab and Ba’anah13 who killed the last ruler of the Saulide’s dynasty, Ish-Boshet.14

MOTIF OF THE SACREDNESS OF THE LORD’S ANOINTED • In 1 Sam. 9:16 we are told that Samuel was sent forth to anoint a king according to God’s will. • 1 Sam. 10:1 tells us that Saul was anointed by Samuel “and Samuel took the jar of oil and poured it on Saul’s head and kissed him, and said: ‘The Lord anoints you as a ruler over his people’ ” (1 Sam. 10:1.) • When Samuel calls upon the people to attest to his innocence and the fact that he had walked uprightly all the days, he calls upon them to declare it clearly “in the presence of the Lord and in the presence of His anointed one” (1 Sam. 12: 3,5). One can read the term: “the anointed one” as a reference to himself, or to Saul who, according to the 1 Samuel text, was anointed immediately before we are told of this episode. • The next reference to the “anointed one” is made by Samuel during the description of the war on Amalek, in 1 Sam. 15. In verse 1, Samuel reminds Saul that he himself anointed him, and then proceeds to instruct him concerning the war on Amalek which he had to carry out. • After the battle, when Samuel addresses Saul and reprimands him for not following his orders, he reminds him that though he was from the smallest tribe in Israel God had anointed him to be a king (v. 17). • The next reference to anointing has to do with God’s commandment to Samuel to anoint one of Jesse’s sons (1 Sam. 16:3) which culminates in a repetition when Samuel See 2 Sam. 4:8–11, and before they are struck dead, he reminds them of Ziklag, and reiterates that this is what is meted out to whomever touches the Lord’s anointed. 14 In most discussions he is identified as the last son of Saul, however in the Babylonian Talmud, Berachot D., he is identified with Mephiboshet, the disabled son of Jonathan. 13

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

99

meets David: “so they sent and brought [David]…and the Lord said ‘rise and anoint him, for this is the one’. Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers; and the spirit of the Lord gripped David from that day on …” (1 Sam. 16:12– 13). • During Saul’s pursuit of David, we are told that Saul entered a cave where David and his men were hiding. The text tells us that the men tried to convince David to kill Saul, but David declined with a statement of conviction that “the Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my lord—the Lord’s anointed—that I should raise my hand against him; for he is the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 24:7). When he confronts Saul and tells him that he could have been in harm’s way, he emphasizes that he, David, did not do him any harm as he was ‘the Lord’s anointed’ (v. 10). • In the next episode in Saul’s pursuit of David and his men in the wilderness of Zieph, when Abishai was in a position, and had the will, to kill Saul, David warned him not to lift his hand upon the ‘Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 26:11). This is an interesting account which gives clear indication that he would not mind if Saul were dead, but it is forbidden to raise a hand upon and against the Lord’s anointed: “and Abishai said to David, ‘God has delivered your enemy into your hands today, Let me pin him to the ground with a single thrust of the spear. I will not have to strike him twice’. But David said to Abishai, ‘Don’t do him violence! No one can lay hands on the Lord’s anointed with impunity’. And David went on, ‘As the Lord lives, the Lord Himself will strike him down, or his time will come and he will die, or he will go down to battle and perish. But the Lord forbid that I should lay a hand on the Lord’s anointed’…” (1 Sam. 26:8–11a). • When the Amalekite youth reports on Israel’s defeat in the Gilboa and recounts that he helped the wounded Saul to fall upon his sword, David orders one of his men to execute the youth, with the justification “your blood be upon your own head! Your own mouth testified against you when you said: ‘I put the Lord’s anointed to death’ ” (2 Sam. 1:16).

100

AZILA REISENBERGER

This is a very important motif that David keeps repeating and reinforcing as if he is affixing to himself life insurance against his enemies. He was a man of the sword and knew from his own life experience that men of the sword are swift in eliminating their enemies. (He himself had swiftly reacted to Nabal and was ready to eliminate him and all males in his household; his men wanted him to kill Saul in the cave; Abishai wanted to drive a sword through the sleeping Saul, etc …) And so he keeps repeating the absolute rule of never raising a hand against God’s anointed; then he goes on to ensure that the public knows that he is the Lord’s anointed, as for example in his lament for Abner. ABNER’S DEATH AND DAVID’S LAMENT The second book of Samuel records that David was anointed by the people on two occasions: The first was the anointing by the people of Judah (2 Sam. 2:4) and then it was the whole of Israel. (2 Sam. 5:3) The text goes further to mention that the word spread about not only within the boundaries of Israel but reached the Philistines as well. (v. 17) The dissemination of knowledge is an important social and political act, which in modernity one may call propaganda. When a leader such as David wants to create or maintain a particular attitude-forming environment that will allow the individual or the group little or no outside point of reference, he has to ensure that he taps into a deeply held notion in his audience. In “The Defense of David”, Keith Whitelam writes that a propagandist “must satisfy some deeply felt need within the audience by articulating fundamental beliefs and hopes of the society…” (1984:67) I suggest that as David knew well that for many years the people of Israel had asked for a king and had not relented until Samuel anointed Saul, he wanted to capitalize on this fact. The deep-rooted desire of the people to be like the surrounding nations and Samuel’s grudging agreement to crown Saul came with a clear understanding that it was God’s explicit command so that he was not just a political figure but rather “the Lord’s anointed”. David kept tapping into this public knowledge and expectation. Whenever David discusses Saul or addresses him, he uses reference to the king’s privileged position as the “Lord’s anointed”, continuously reinforcing the connection between the political leader (i.e. a king) and the unique divine protection.

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

101

This repetitive motif by David throughout the narrative of his rise to power indicates that (perhaps by instinct) he knew that this line of thinking would allow him a privileged position when he ascended the throne. He was more effective by articulating what the audience needed to hear or knew, and he did this whenever opportunity presented itself. Thus he says it to his own people when his men urge him to kill Saul when he has the opportunity, but he does not keep it within his camp alone, he shouts it loud and clear to Saul’s followers as well. Keith Whitlam proposes that, from a historical point of view, the period of David’s rise to power was a time of social upheaval, when the Israelite society transformed from an egalitarian society to dynastic state; and he mentions that disquieting times are ripe for propaganda to sink in (op. cit.). This essay does not discuss the historicity of David but rather the depiction of David as a literary character as he appears in 1 Samuel 16:11 to 1 Kings 2:11. In this narrative it becomes clear that David, as a character aspiring to be king, uses the social knowledge that Saul and any subsequent king is, and surely will be, the “Lord’s anointed”, in preparation for his own ascent to power. But if indeed David wanted to disseminate the knowledge that he was the “Lord’s anointed”, he knew that his crowning or anointing by the people of his own tribe, Judah, was not enough. As the narrative indicates, when Samuel anointed him under divine command, only Jesse’s family was there to witness it. David needed to ensure that the whole of Israel knew that he was the “Lord’s anointed”. He needed a public platform where people of various tribes and various streams of the population were present. The opportunity presented itself with Abner’s death, and he seized it and disseminated this knowledge in his public lament on Abner. Abner, King Saul’s chief-of-staff, was the man who kept alive the Benjaminites’ dream to rejuvenate the Saulide dynasty by propping up Ish-Bosheth, who just had to lend Kish’s name to the rivalry between the houses of David and Saul. During this time, it becomes clear that Abner is the powerful person who pulls the strings and that Ish-Bosheth is reliant upon him—and afraid of him (2 Sam. 3:11). David, may have had a sentimental commitment towards the wellbeing of Jonathan’s son, but transferred his awe and respect from Kish’s offspring to the chief of staff, Abner ben Ner. He knew that as long as Abner was alive he might entice the

102

AZILA REISENBERGER

support of all Israel (2 Sam. 3:12, 21) but he also knew that it would not be out of love. Realizing that Abner changed alliances as it suited him, David knew that whenever it suited him, Abner could try to swing the votes of all Israel away from him. The fact that David did not want such a strong man around was probably publicly known; therefore he needed to vindicate himself publicly.15

TRANSFERENCE OF POWER, TRANSFERENCE OF BLAME David’s advance on the throne started slightly before this episode. With the death of Saul and his sons, David could return to the land of Israel and be amongst his brethren without fear for his life. As the position of the king was not occupied, the people of his own tribe, Judah, did not need to feel like traitors in supporting him and thus, we are told, they anointed him immediately (2 Sam. 2:4). In order to spread the news of his anointing, he reaches out to Saul’s most loyal supporters, the people of Jabesh-Gilead, under the guise of congratulating them on their brave act of chivalry towards the body of the dead king and his son. The narrative records that David starts with flattery that aims at disarming alienation and drawing the audience to his own point of view. He then follows this with an announcement that he has been crowned—the essence of propaganda. The text informs us: … So David sent messengers to the men of Jabesh-Gilead and said to them, ‘May you be blessed of the Lord because you performed this act of faithfulness to your lord Saul and buried him. May the Lord in turn show you true faithfulness; and I too will reward you generously because you performed this act. Now take courage and be brave men; for your lord Saul is dead and the House of Judah have already anointed me king over them’. (2 Sam. 2:5–7)

The narrator depicts David’s political wisdom a. by reaching out to the people of Jabesh-Gilead who had special relations with Saul; That the chiefs-of-staff were perceived as ‘powerful men’ is seen clearly when David commands young Solomon to get rid of Yoab, when the first opportunity presents itself. See Nicol (1993:134–151). 15

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

103

b. by making sure that the fact of his anointing is disseminated far and wide and becomes public knowledge. The close relationship between Saul and the people of Jabesh Gilead is well documented in 1 Samuel. In chapter 8 in the 1st book of Samuel, the narrator is at pains to describe the repeated request of the people of Israel for a king and Samuel’s reluctance. The notion of reluctance is echoed and reinforced with the narrator’s remark that follows the fact that Saul has been anointed: Samuel expounded to the people the rules of the monarchy, and recorded them in a document which he deposited before the Lord. Samuel then sent the people back to their homes. Saul also went home to Gibeah, accompanied by upstanding men whose hearts God had touched. But some scoundrels said: ‘How can this fellow save us?’ so they scorned him and brought him no gifts. But he pretended not to mind. (1 Sam. 10:25–27)

This paragraph regarding the scoundrels who rejected Saul is followed immediately by the story that Saul, the young and inexperienced king, goes out to save the men of Jabesh-Gilead from Nahash the Ammonite, who wanted to humiliate them and render them unsuitable to be shooters by gouging out their right eyes. The fact that all Israel ignored their plight and the only one who came to their aid was the newly-anointed King Saul—who defeated Ammon and restored their honor—made them his most loyal supporters, risking their lives to snatch his desecrated body from the Philistines’ hands. On being anointed by his own tribe, David’s approach is directly to the core of Saul’s most loyal people, in the hope that they will support him as a king rather than Ish-Bosheth, Abner’s candidate. The narrative follows immediately with the information that at the same time Abner, son of Ner, who was a member of Saul’s family16 and served him as chief-of-staff, took Ish-Bosheth, the only surviving son of Saul, to Mahanaim “and made him king

In 1 Samuel 14:50–51 we are told that he was Saul’s cousin, but in 1 Chronicle 8:33 we are told that Ner gave birth to Kish (Saul’s father) which makes Abner, son of Ner, an uncle to Saul. 16

104

AZILA REISENBERGER

over Gilead, the Ashurites, Jezreel, Ephraim and Benjamin—over all Israel.” (2 Sam. 2:9) The story now unfolds with Ish-Bosheth and David each ruling over a section of Israel and their chiefs-of-staff, Abner and Yoab respectively, consenting with what looks like tolerance and respectful co-existence. When Abner tries to dissuade Asahel ben Zeruiah from pursuing him and the young ben Zeruiah continues, it pains Abner to kill him: And Abner said to him, turn aside ….But Asahel would not turn aside from following him. And Abner repeated again to say unto Asahel, turn thee aside from following me; wherefore should I smite thee to the ground? And how should I then life up my face to Yoab thy brother? But he refused to turn aside, and Abner smote him. (2 Sam. 2:21–23a)

And when Yoab rushes to avenge his young brother’s blood, Abner explains himself, which convinces Yoab that it was not a political murder and he blows the shofar to stop his camp’s pursuit of Abner and the camps of Israel (vss. 27–28). This story attests to the mutual respect that Abner and Yoab had for each other as counterparts, recognizing that they served different masters and should keep out of each other’s territory. Only when this tacit agreement is broken by David’s invitation to Abner to a feast in Hebron and Abner’s promise of support, only then, does Yoab eliminate his Benjaminite counterpart. At this point, David probably knew that Yoab’s words of warning regarding Abner’s cunning intentions and the danger he posed echoed the general perception of the situation, and therefore he felt he needed to be vocal and visible in his reaction. It may have been known that Yoab physically smote Abner, but as Yoab had carried out other assassinations on David’s behalf (the best known being Uriah’s death), it was important to show that David had no blood on his hands. Consequently he had to distance himself completely from this act, and he did this by his exaggerated mourning rituals and his lament. The story tells us that when the news of Abner’s death reaches David, he demands that all present rend their clothes, Judeans and all Israel alike, all put on sackcloth and mourn the dead. At the funeral David himself walks behind Abner’s coffin, weeps and laments and vows to fast until nightfall.

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

105

This display of mourning and loss resonants well with the people around him, and we are told that: all the troops took note of it and approved, just as all the troops approved everything else the king did. That day all the troops and all Israel knew that it was not by the king’s will that Abner son of Ner was killed. And the king said to his soldiers ‘you well know that a prince, a great man in Israel, has fallen this day. And today I am weak, even though anointed king, those men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too savage for me. May the Lord requite the wicked for their wickedness’. (2 Sam 3:36–39)

He cannot re-enact Samuel’s anointing of him on divine command, so he does second best: he mentions his anointing in public when all the people are in an accepting mood. He creates an association between himself and God when he calls God to be witness to his ritual of fasting and grief, and then he reinforces this by reminding all who are present that, after all, he is the “Lord’s anointed”. Furthermore, in his speech to the people after Abner’s death, he capitalizes on the fact that it was common knowledge that it was Yoab and Abishai who killed Abner, thus he clears himself of any wrong doing. THE LAMENT FOR ABNER At the open grave in Hebron, when Abner is laid to rest, we are told that David wept with the troops “and the king intoned this dirge over Abner: Should Abner have died the death of a churl? Your hands were not bound And your feet were not put in fetters; But you fell as one falls before treacherous men! And all the troops continued to weep over him.” (2 Sam. 3:33–34)

In spite of the fact that David publicly mourns Abner by means of rituals, his words do not express any sorrow. He does not eulogize the individual dead, nor does he express emotion. He simply states the fact that Abner was not held captive physically or metaphorically, then he rolls the blame, as he has often done hitherto, onto his captains and nephews, Zeruiah’s sons.

106

AZILA REISENBERGER

IN CONCLUSION David is depicted in the Bible as an exciting character who faces death from his youth to his death-bed—when he advises his successor, the young Solomon, to eliminate his political opponents. On the one hand, he is described as a temperamental character who kills whomever stands in his way; on the other, he is described as an emotional person who sympathizes with his people and weeps when they suffer, or who entreats God on behalf of his own child or people he loves. What stands out is that he is strong-minded and resolute about ascending the throne and gaining the love—or at least the respect—of the whole of Israel. When he gains advantage from crimes, or what he sees as inappropriate deeds, he dissociates himself publicly (Wesselius, 1990:340); and when three of the people, who threatened either his ascent to the throne or his reign, died the narrative pauses and David’s laments are recorded. Close reading of these “laments” shows that instead of being emotional expressions they are public statements that help absolve David from the killing. Moreover, these public utterances are set to further David’s political agenda and they exploit the attention and attentive mood of the people around him.

REFERENCES Primary sources The Holy Bible (containing the Old and New Testaments translated out of the original tongue: and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty’s special command). Authorized King James Version. USA: Zondervan Bible Publishers. _____ 1970. The New English Bible with the Apocrypha. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press. _____ 1971. The Bible, containing The Old and New Testaments. Revised Standard Version. Great Britain: The British & Foreign Bible Society. _____ 1988. Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia/ New York/Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society. Leeser, Isaac 1915. Holy Scriptures (English Translation of the Hebrew Bible). New York: Hebrew Publishing Company.

DAVID’S LAMENTS AS A VEHICLE OF VINDICATION

107

Secondary sources Barrick, W. Boyd 1997. “Saul’s Demise, David’s Lament, and Custer’s Last Stand” in JSOT Vol. 73. 25–41. Caspi, Mishael 1985. See below under Hebrew bibliography. Delekat, L. 1967. “Tendenz und Theologie der David-SalomoErzählung”, Das ferne und nahe Wort, ed. F. Mass; BZAW 105; Berlin: Töpelmann. Fokkelman, J. P. 1981. “Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Vol. I King David”, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, Assen. Gunn, David M. 1975. “David and the Gift of the Kingdom” in Semeia Vol. 3. 14–45. _____ 1978/1989. “The Story of King David, Genre and Interpretation”, JSOT Supplement Series, 6. Sheffield. Hermisson, H. J. 1971. “Weisheit und Geschichte”, Probleme biblische Theologie, Ed. H. W. Wolff; München: Kaiser. 136–154. Hölscher, G. 1952. “Geschichsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Yahwisten und Elohisten”, Lund: Gleerup. Kittel, R. 1896. “A History of the Hebrews II”, Trans. H. W. Hogg E. B. Speirs (from the German edition 1892); Theological Translation Library VI: London. Knights, L. C. 1959. “Some Shakespearean Themes”, London: Chatto and Windus. _____ 1971. “Public Voices”, London: Chatto and Windus. Langlamet, F. 1976. Review of Würthein, 1974, and Veijola, 1975, in RB 83. 114–137. Mutzan, Tzvi 2007. See below under Hebrew bibliography. Nicol, George G. 1993. “The death of Yoab and the Accession of Solomon” in Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, Vol. 7 (1). 134–151. Perdue, Leo G. 1984. “‘Is there anyone left of the house of Saul…?’ Ambiguity and the Characterization of David in the Succession Narrative” in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 30. 67–84. Perry, Menachem and Sternberg Meir 1986. “The King in Ironic Eyes: Biblical Narrative and the Literary Reading Process” in Poetics Today, Vol. 7 (2). 275–322. Reisenberger, Azila 2000. “Biblical Women: Non-Existent Entity” in Journal for Constructive Theology, 6 (2). 57–68.

108

AZILA REISENBERGER

Rost, Leonhard 1926/1965. “Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids”, Das Kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament, Heidelberg: Quelle 7 Meyer. 119–253. Rad, G. von 1944/1966. “The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel”, The Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken from 1st German Edn. 1958. _____ 1972. Genesis, trans. J. H. Marks (=ATD 2–4, 9th Edn. 19720; 3rd Edn.; OTL; London: SCM. Weitzman Steven 1995. “David’s Lament and the Poetics of Grief in 2 Samuel” in The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXXV Nos. 3–4 (January-April). 341–360. Wellhausen, J. 1878. “Einleitung in das Alte Testament” (F.Bleek, 4th revised edition). Berlin. Wesselius, J. W. 1990. “Yoab’s Death and the Central Theme of the Succession Narrative (2 Samuel IX–1 Kings II) in Vetus Testamentum, XL (3). 336–351. Whitelam, Keith W. 1984. “The Defense of David” in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29. 61–87. Whybray, R. N. 1968. The Succession Narrative, SBT 2nd Series 9; London: SCM. _____ 1974. The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament, BZAW 135; Berlin: de Gruyter. Würthwein, E. 1974. Die Erzaehlung von der Thronfolge Davidsthologische oder politische Geschichtsschrei-bung?, Theologische Studien 115; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag.

1985 ‫ מישאל‬,‫כספי‬ 2007 ‫ צבי‬,‫מוצן‬

104 .‫מקרא‬-‫ בבית‬,“‫“ולך אין בשורה מוצאת‬ .71–59 .(2) ‫“הצבי ישראל על במותיך חלל“ )שמ“ב א‬ 19( ‫—הלל או תמיהה? הצעה לביאור קינת‬ .40–22 .(2) 52 .‫מקרא‬-‫ בבית‬.“‫דוד‬

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID AND BATHSHEBA AND THEIR MEANINGS YITZHAK PELEG BEIT BERL COLLEGE, ISRAEL

INTRODUCTION The story of David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11–12) not only allows for, but even invites two readings, in other words, two interpretations. I will focus on these two approaches to David and his behavior. In my first reading of the story, David seems to be of negative character, guilty of the sins of adultery and murder. In spite of this, the Talmud, (Masechet Shabbat) makes the following argument: “Whoever claims that David sinned is wrong.” What is this contention based on? Even David, in the parable of the ewe lamb, admits: I have sinned against the LORD. (12:13)1 ‘‫אתי ַלה‬ ִ ‫ָח ָט‬

An understanding of the story of David and Bathsheba, and in particular an evaluation of David’s character, are influenced by the delineation of the boundaries of the story—where it begins and where it ends.2 This, then, is our first task. Should Chapter 11 be

1

See note 21. See: Y. Zakovitch “One High Official Has a Higher One Set Over Him”: A Literary Analysis of 2 Kings 5, (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1985, p. 15: “The first conscious step in analyzing a literary Biblical text is to determine the 2

109

110

YITZHAK PELEG

considered the whole/entire story, or should we include the parable of the ewe lamb, David’s words of repentance and his response to his son’s illness found in Chapter 12? In a contradictory manner, Chapter 12, which treats David so severely, also reveals a softer, more humane aspect of his character, allowing us the readers to be somewhat more merciful towards him.

1. UNDERSTANDING THE STORY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF CHAPTER 11 M. Perry and M. Sternberg3 limit the story of David and Bathsheba to the boundaries of Chapter 11. David is depicted as an adulterer, one who lusts for another’s wife, and when he fails to conceal the signs of their intimacy, sends her husband, Uriah, one of his soldiers, to his death on the battlefield.4 The sequence of David’s actions is depicted as “one sin leads to another”.5 Anyone reading only Chapter 11 is shocked not only by David’s actions towards Bathsheba and Uriah, but also by the lack of any criticism towards these acts, or expressions of regret or remorse from David himself. Only at the end of the chapter, in the second part of the last verse, it is suddenly and explicitly written But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD.—JPS (2 Samuel 11:27b)

‘‫וַ יֵּ ַרע ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ָשׂה ָדוִ ד ְבּ ֵעינֵ י ה‬

However, a deeper analysis, guided by Perry and Sternberg, reveals an additional interpretation from the very beginning of the

boundaries of the story, which do not always correspond with the boundaries of the chapter.” 3 Perry M and Sternberg M, “The King through Ironic Eyes”, HaSifrut 1 (1968), pp. 263–292. [Hebrew] 4 See: Proverbs 28:13: “He who covers up his faults will not succeed…” which contains responses to David’s sin, both in Chapter 11, and [or but] in the second half of the verse “He who confesses and gives them up will find mercy”, there are comments to Chapter 12, see Garsiel, Al Haperek 15 (1998): 87. 5 Uriel Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives, (Bar Ilan University, 1997), p. 115. [Hebrew]

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

111

chapter. Although oblique and covert, its tone is ironic and critical of David’s behavior. 2.1 “But [or and] David Tarried at Jerusalem.” (2 Samuel 11:1): David in Contrast to the Kings and to his Entire Nation Even in the first verse of Chapter 11 a critical attitude towards David is exposed. Indeed, this verse allows for two interpretations. The first can be seen as straight-forward exposition, reportage on an informative level which provides the background to the story and which lacks any element of criticism. However, another possibility, to which I subscribe, shows David in a negative light. David, in contrast to the kings who ride into battle with their troops, sends his army/nation to war while he remains at home. A sensitive and attentive reading contrasts David to his entire nation. ‘‫ יא פס‬,‫ שמואל ב‬1 Second Samuel 11:1 ‫שּׁנָה‬ ָ ‫ ַויְהִי לִתְ שׁוּבַת ַה‬And it came to pass at the return of the year ‫שׁלַח דָּ וִד ֶאת‬ ְ ִ◌ ּ◌‫ וַי‬at the time when kings go out to battle ‫ יוֹאָב‬that David sent Joab ‫ ְו ֶאת ֲעבָדָ יו עִמּוֹ‬and his servants with him ‫ ְו ֶאת כָּל יִשׂ ְָראֵל‬and all Israel ‫שׁחִתוּ ֶאת ְבּנֵי עַמּוֹן‬ ְ ַ ‫ ַויּ‬and they destroyed the children of Ammon ‫ וַי◌ּ ◌ָ צֻרוּ עַל ַרבָּה‬and besieged Rabbah. ‫שׁלָם‬ ָ ‫ וְדָ וִד יוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּ‬But6 David tarried at Jerusalem. (JPS Translation) 6

The Hebrew Bible allows for the double meaning/the ambiguity, and therein lies its beauty, whereas the translation allows for only one meaning, resulting in a loss of power. [See below note 8]

112

YITZHAK PELEG

2.2 Two Readings of the Letter “waw” The ironical criticism of David is strengthened when we examine the repeated use of the letter “waw” (I of course refer to the letter “waw” in Hebrew, which is not a separate word, but is rather attached to the following word): after a sequence of verbs beginning with “waw” as “and” in the first part of verse 1, ,‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח‬ ‫ וַ יָּ ֻצרוּ‬,‫ויַּ ְשׁ ִחתוּ‬, there is a change in usage when we come to David’s remaining in Jerusalem: the style is not the same, and we have:

,‫ירוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ‫יוֹשׁב ִבּ‬ ֵ ‫“ וְ ָדוִ ד‬But [or and] David tarried at Jerusalem”. Is this difference simply a matter of style? Or does it signify that the letter “waw” here is the negative “but”, whose purpose is to describe David in contrast to the kings and in contrast to his people? Indeed, according to the context, two readings of the “waw” are possible.7 According to the first option, with the meaning “and”, we have an informative description of what happened. However, the second option, where David’s tarrying at home is prefaced by the word “but”, the description is not naïve—its goal is to present David in an ironic manner /negative light, in contrast not only to the kings, but also to his people. The Hebrew source allows for the double meaning/ambiguity, and therein lies its beauty, whereas the translation allows for only one meaning, resulting in a loss of power.8 Another example can be found in Jonah with the frequent use of “and” to signify ambiguity. As used in Jonah, the reader is 7

Focus on the grammatical changes in the sentence lends additional support to the ironic interpretation. In contrast to what could be expected, it says “veDavid yoshev” ‫( ודוד יושב‬imperfect) rather than “veyashav David” (perfect) ‫וישב דוד‬. This change in the construction of the sentence and the verb is intended to alert the reader and to give credit to the idea that the function of this verb, in contrast to those preceding it, has changed. In other words, David, in contrast to his people who went to war, remained at home. 8 The New JPS 1985 translation succeeds in preserving the double meaning/ambiguity by translating the passage in a neutral manner “David remained in Jerusalem.”

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

113

not sure whether “and” really means “something additional” or whether it signals contrast, as would “however” or “but” in English.

5 ‫ יונה א‬Jonah 1:5 (NJPS) And the ship was in danger to breaking up (v. 4) ‫ ַויּ ְִיראוּ ַה ַמּ ָלּחִים‬And the mariners were afraid ‫ ַויִּזְעֲקוּ אִישׁ אֶל אֱֹלהָיו‬And cried every man unto his God ‫ וַיטִלוּ ֶאת ַה ֵכּלִים ֲאשֶׁר‬And they cast forth the wares that ‫ ָבּ ֳאנִיּ ָה‬were in the ship ‫ אֶל ַהיּ ָם ְל ָהקֵל ֵמ ֲעלֵיהֶם‬into the sea to lighten it unto them ‫ וְיוֹנָה י ַָרד‬But Jonah was gone down ‫ אֶל י ְַרכְּתֵ י ַה ְסּפִינָה‬into the innermost parts of the ship9 ‫שׁכַּב ַויּ ֵָרדַ ם‬ ְ ִ ‫ ַויּ‬And he lay and was fast asleep Focus on the grammatical changes in the sentence lends additional support to the ironic interpretation. In contrast to what could be ֵ ‫ וְ ָדוִ ד‬rather than “veyashav David”. expected, it says ‫יוֹשׁב‬ This change in the construction of the sentence and the verb is intended to alert the reader and to give credit to the idea that the function of this verb, in contrast to those preceding it, has changed. In other words, David, in contrast to his people who went to war, remained at home. The use of the verb ‫ ישב‬which reports on the nation at war in the words of Uriah: ”the Ark and Israel and Judah are located ‫ י ְֹשׁ ִבים‬at Succoth…” (v. 11) also lends credence to the theory that the clandestine/hidden goal is to contrast David to his people.

9

Note: “Jonah, meanwhile, had gone down…and fell asleep.” (NJPS Trans.)

114

YITZHAK PELEG

2.3 David and Bathsheba: Who Exactly was on Which Rooftop? (v. 2) Two possible interpretations also arise from a reading of the second verse in Hebrew. In English only one interpretation/ reading is possible—the rooftop is that of the King: “that David arose from his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing” (v2) [JPS Trans]. Does, in fact, the Hebrew allow for two readings? We are told that the nation has gone to war, and what then is the first thing that David sees when he remains in Jerusalem?: A woman bathing. David is tempted, and even after he learns that she is married, he invites her to his home. And her husband is none other than one of the very soldiers David has sent to war. Those who tend to be lenient towards David’s behavior rely on this text and propose that Bathsheba was bathing on her roof in a place where she could be seen. This interpretation may lessen David’s guilt by placing part of the blame on Bathsheba, who in this version deliberately tempts David. Additional support can be ascertained from the fact that she does not refuse David’s invitation, v4: “And David sent messengers and took her, and she came in unto him.” In other words, she did not resist. However, when this version is compared to what is written about Sarah who is taken to the house of Pharaoh in Genesis Chapter 12, we may assume that Bathsheba came to David of her own free will. The description is ‫ וַ ָתּבוֹא ֵא ָליו‬rather than the in passive ‫וַ ֻתּ ַקּח ָה ִא ָשּׁה‬, whereas Sarah, the wife of Abraham, upon arrival in Egypt, is described thus: “and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.” (Gen. 12:15) The passive voice indicates that Sarah, in contrast to Bathsheba, was taken against her will. Does the text allow us to understand that Bathsheba deliberately bathed on her roof in a location where she could be observed? The text can be considered ambiguous, allowing for doubt as to who was on which roof. Did David see Bathsheba bathing on her roof while strolling on his? Or rather, does the combination ‫“ ֵמ ַעל ַהגָּ ג‬me’al hagag” refer to the king’s roof? “And walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the roof he saw a woman bathing” (v2) [JPS trans.]

‫שׁכָּבוֹ ַויּ ִתְ ַהלְֵּך עַל גַּג בֵּית ַה ֶמּלְֶך ַויּ ְַרא ִאשָּׁה ר ֹ ֶחצֶת‬ ְ ‫ַויָּקָם דָּ וִד ֵמעַל ִמ‬ ...‫ֵמעַל ַהגָּג‬

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

115

At first glance it seems that the expression “upon the roof” is ambiguous and it is not clear whether it refers to the woman’s or the king’s roof. However, on further consideration, and in spite of the pleasure I personally derive from ambiguity in the Bible, it does seem to me that the definite article “the” in the phrase “the roof” refers to the roof of the king’s house which was previously mentioned. In other words, only David was on that roof, not Bathsheba. It is difficult to assess the character of Bathsheba.10 She functions as a secondary figure11 in the story. Her voice is not heard. We know nothing of her relationship with her husband, Uriah, and nothing about her feelings for David. The attempts to blame her for seduction seem to reflect the bias of those trying to mitigate the severity of David’s behavior rather than what can be substantiated by the text.12 I could continue my close reading of the story, following Perry and Sternberg, and show how the narrator enables two parallel readings. You are invited to read there’s well known article “The King through Ironic Eyes”.13 But at this point I propose to show how the boundaries of the story influence its message. 2.4 On the Circular Construction of the Story Within the Boundaries of Chapter 11 One of the criteria for determining boundaries is the presence of an element of circularity. And indeed, we can discern such an 10

See: Chaya Shraga Ben-Ayun, David’s Wives—Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba, pp. 176–159 [Hebrew]. See also: See, M. Garsiel, pp. 77–80. 11 See: Uriel Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives, (Bar Ilan University, 1997), p. 121; see also pp. 317–324 on the term “secondary figure” in the Bible. [Hebrew] 12 M. Garsiel, Al Haperek 15 (1998), p. 77, note 37, sends us to R. G. Bowman regarding scholars who have some doubts on Bat Sheva’s motives. R. G. Bowman, The Crises of King David (Diss.), Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, VA, 1981, pp. 103–101. 13 M. Perry M. and M. Sternberg, “The King through Ironic Eyes”, Ha-Sifrut 1 (1968), pp. 263–292.

116

YITZHAK PELEG

aspect within the boundaries of Chapter 11. The chapter opens with the bringing of Bathsheba to the king’s palace (11:4), and also ends with the bringing of her to the palace (11:27) However, thematically, something is still missing; something is unresolved in Chapter 11. And then, in verse 27, in contrast to all that has been said in Chapter 11, there is clear criticism of David’s behavior, although it is weak and pale in light of the gravity of his actions. It seems that the ending of the story with the words:

‘‫( וַ יֵּ ַרע ַה ָדּ ָבר ֲא ֶשׁר ָע ָשׂה ָדוִ ד ְבּ ֵעינֵ י ה‬2 Samuel 11:27b) “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord”—JPS (2 Samuel 11:27b) opens rather than concludes. The response to David’s behavior which displeased the Lord is missing. This omission is addressed and corrected in Chapter 12. It seems correct to say that the Lord’s words awaken tense anticipation as to what will be told in the next chapter, 12. I would like to propose/suggest that the last verse regarding the Lord’s reaction to David’s behavior: “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord”—JPS (2 Samuel 11:27b) relates both to what was previously stated and also to what will come: first of all, in an ironical vein, there is a covert debate, in David’s words to the messenger: then David said unto the messenger.: ‘Thus shalt thou say unto Joab: Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth in one manner or another;”. Even if it is not clear what “this thing” is, undoubtedly, David’s “Let not this thing displease thee,” is in contradiction to the last sentence in Chapter 11: “But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord.”—JPS (2 Samuel 11:27b) This contrast creates an ironic tone which intensifies the criticism of David’s behavior. Secondly, the last verse in Chapter 11 presents a parallel dialogue between Nathan the prophet in Chapter 12 which clarifies and supports the Lord’s words: “Why then have you flouted the command of the LORD and done what displeases him?” (12:9) [NJPS Trans.]. Before we deal with the contributions of Chapter 12, we must address the question: How did such a derogatory story about David get into the canon of biblical Literature? Why was it not censored? We already have an example in the Bible itself. The Book of Chronicles

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

117

(Chapter 20:1–3),14 apparently in an attempt to whitewash David’s behavior and thus preserve the honor of the king of Israel, completely omitted the story. The author of Chronicles opened the way for later sages who for generations declared: “Whoever claims that David sinned is wrong”. In contrast, we shall focus on another method of relating this story: that contained in the second Book of Samuel. At this point, I would like to suggest that the purpose of the story within the boundaries of Chapter 11 is to educate us, the readers, and not David. We the readers know that the Lord considered David’s actions wrong. David himself does not yet know this. Thus, the moral of the story confined to Chapter 11 is aimed at us, and not at him. It is probable that David thought that he had succeeded in getting away with it. David failed to conceal or to camouflage his behavior towards Bathsheba and Uriah, and even though he was the king, failed to prevent disclosure. The editors of the Bible chose to publicize the story in order to educate generations of readers. I myself credit them for this choice and honor the courage it required.

3. ON UNDERSTANDING THE STORY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF CHAPTERS 11 AND 12 3.1 On the Circular Structure of the Broader Story (Chapters 11 and 12) As already mentioned, one of the criteria for determining the boundaries of a story is the presence of a circular structure: The broader story opens with:

“At the turn of the year, the season when kings go out [to battle], Joab led out the army force and devastated the land of Ammon, and then besieged Rabbah, while David remained in Jerusalem; Joab reduced Rabbah and left it in ruins. David took the crown from the head of their king…Then David and all the troops returned to Jerusalem.” (1 Chronicles 20:1–3) (NJPS trans.) ‫שׁחֵת אֶת‬ ְ ַ ‫שׁנָה ְלעֵת צֵאת ַה ְמּ ָלכִים ַויִּנְהַג יוֹאָב אֶת חֵיל ַה ָצּבָא ַויּ‬ ָ ‫ַויְהִי ְלעֵת תְּ שׁוּבַת ַה‬ ‫ ַויִּקַּח‬.‫א ֶֶרץ ְבּנֵי עַמּוֹן ַויּ ָב ֹא ַויָּצַר אֶת ַרבָּה וְדָ וִיד יֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלָ ִם ַויּ ְַך יוֹאָב אֶת ַרבָּה ַויֶּה ְֶר ֶס ָה‬ (1–3 ‫ ַויָּשָׁב דָּ וִיד ְוכָל ָהעָם י ְרוּשָׁלָ ִם )דה“א כ‬... ‫דָּ וִיד אֶת ֲע ֶט ֶרת ַמ ְלכָּם ֵמעַל ר ֹאשׁוֹ‬ 14

118

YITZHAK PELEG

‫ירוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ‫יוֹשׁב ִבּ‬ ֵ ‫( וְ ָדוִ ד‬2 Samuel 11:1)—“And David tarried in

Jerusalem”,

and ends with a similar phrase in the last verse of Chapter 12:31: “And David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem”.— ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב ָדּוִ ד‬ ‫רוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫”וְ ָכל ָה ָעם י‬

David returns to Jerusalem, and this time, in contrast to the opening description, David returns with his entire nation. Here the circle that concludes the wider story closes. The war against Ammon provides a framework for the story of David’s actions towards Bathsheba and Uriah.15 It begins with it and ends with it. Positioning the opening and the ending within this comparison emphasizes the linguistic correlation between the two. It seems that the author of Chronicles, in a negative manner, supports the idea that Chapters 11 and 12 are one unit, for, as we know, he omits both of them. I accept Professor Yaira Amit’s claim, that: “we have here 2 legitimate boundary options.” and I quote from Amit’s book: We have here two legitimate boundary options. Anyone who wants to examine the story of sin and punishment should relate to the more comprehensive story—chapters 11 and 12; those who wish to view the king ironically will deal with the sin as a shlav muvchan, and limit himself to chapter 11.16 In any case, I myself prefer the comprehensive version, which includes Chapter 12. A close reading will reveal a dialogue between “Yoshev” at the beginning of the story Samuel 11:1) and the expression” Wayashov” at the end (Samuel 12:31). From a literary point of view, we have a play on words. The dialogue between them serves to strengthen the correlation between the opening and the ending. This link, in fact, emphasizes the difference; it is a chiastic correlation: whereas at the beginning of the story David is portrayed in contrast to his people, note the words: 15

Uriel Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives, (Bar Ilan University, 1997), p. 108. [Hebrew] 16 Yaira Amit, Reading Biblical Stories, (Israel, 2000), p. 29. [Hebrew]

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

119

“and all Israel” (v. 1) ‫ָכּל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

who set out for war, while the king remained in Jerusalem, at the end, it is emphasized that David returned to Jerusalem from the battlefield with his people: “all his people” (12:31) ‫וְ ָכל ָה ָעם‬. At the beginning of the story David is depicted in contrast to his people, while at the end, the entire nation is with him. We shall return to clarify the significance of this distinction. In the meantime, our story unfolds. The connection between the two chapters is reflected, as previously mentioned, through the use of the same words. For example, scholars17 have pointed out the repeated use of the verb ‫ שלח‬in the description of the sin and of the punishment (12:1) and the word sword, on which I will concentrate. For our purpose, it is important to note that ‫ ֶח ֶרב‬,‘sword’, creates a correlation between chapters 11 and 12, according to the “Measure for Measure Principle”. At this point I can conclude that it is impossible to separate the story of the behavior in Chapter 11 from what is narrated afterwards in Chapter 12—that is, from the second part of the story which reports the response to and consequences of the sin. Chapter 11, which of course is a self contained unit, tells the story of David’s sin, and Chapter 12 relates the lesson to be learned from David’s behavior. Chapter 12 is an expanded and more detailed exposition of the last verse in Chapter 11: “But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD” (2 Samuel 11:27b) [JPS Trans.]. 3.2 The Unit Comprising Chapters 11 and 12 is Structured According to the Measure for Measure Principle18 If we consider the story as comprising both Chapters 11 and 12, as many,19 including myself, propose, a moral tale unfolds, one aimed 17

Uriel Simon, Reading Prophetic Narratives, (Bar Ilan University, 1997), pp. 114–118. [Hebrew] 18 The Measure for Measure Principle by means of Wording for Wording”—is a further expression of the correlation between form and content.

120

YITZHAK PELEG

at educating not only the reader, but also David. This story is based on the “Measure for Measure Principle”. In other words, Chapter 11 describes David’s sin, while chapter 12 describes his punishment and remorse. In my opinion, there is a dialogue between the chapters which is revealed both through the words of Nathan the prophet and by the language itself. Let’s go over the words of the prophet Nathan which link the two chapters according to the “Measure for Measure” Principle.20 At this point, I will try to demonstrate how the wider story is structured according to the “Measure for Measure Principle”, 19

See: Simon, ‘The Biblical Story from an Ironic Point of View—on Interpretations of the Story of David and BatSheva’, Hasifrut B (1970), pp. 598–607; B. Arpeli, “Caution, Biblical Literature!”—comments of the poetic questions in the Biblical story of David and Batsheva”, Hasifrut B (1970), pp. 580–597; Garsiel, “The Story of David and Batsheva (2 Samuel 11)—Old-new reflections, Al Haperek 15 (1998), pp. 66–88; Garsiel, “The Story of David and Batsheva in The Book of Samuel—its Character and Objectives”, Beit Mikra 49 (1972), pp. 126–182. 20 The sin: “Wherefore hast thou despised the word of the LORD, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon.” (2 Samuel 12:9) ‫אוּריּ ָה ַהחִתִּ י ִהכִּיתָ ַבח ֶֶרב ְואֶת ִאשְׁתּוֹ‬ ִ ‫מַדּוּ ַע ָבּז ִיתָ אֶת דְּ בַר ה‘ ַלעֲשׂוֹת ה ַָרע ְבּעֵינַי אֵת‬ (9 ‫ָל ַקחְתָּ לְָּך ְל ִאשָּׁה וְא ֹתוֹ ה ַָרגְתָּ ְבּח ֶֶרב ְבּנֵי עַמּוֹן )יב‬ The punishment: “Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised Me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.” (2 Samuel 12:10) (10 ‫ִלהְיוֹת לְָך ְל ִאשָּׁה )יב‬ “Thus saith the LORD: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.” (12:11) ‫ ִהנְנִי ֵמקִים ָעלֶיָך ָרעָה ִמבֵּיתֶ ָך ְו ָל ַקחְתִּ י אֶת נָשֶׁיָך ְלעֵינֶיָך ְונָתַ תִּ י ל ְֵרעֶיָך‬:‘‫כּ ֹה אָמַר ה‬ (11 ‫שּׁמֶשׁ הַזּ ֹאת )יב‬ ֶ ‫שׁכַב עִם נָשֶׁיָך ְלעֵינֵי ַה‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ “For thou didst it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” (2 Samuel 12: 12) (12:12) ‫שּׁמֶשׁ‬ ָ ‫כִּי אַתָּ ה ָעשִׂיתָ ַבסָּתֶ ר ַו ֲאנִי ֶא ֱעשֶׂה אֶת הַדָּ בָר ַהזּ ֶה נֶגֶד כָּל יִשׂ ְָראֵל ְונֶגֶד ַה‬ See note 22 below.

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

121

which is frequently found in the Bible.21 The common denominator in the expression of the “Measure for Measure Principle” is the literary use of the same word to describe both the sin and its punishment. Expressing the concept of retribution according to the “Measure for Measure Principle” as a mathematical equation will enable us to recognize the same “word” that is used in both sides of the equation. Since we are dealing with the commission of the sin, and the punishment meted out in response, it is reasonable to assume that the word which expresses the correlation will be a “verb”. (However, this “word” can also be an identical number, a shared object, etc.) In light of this, I would like to propose a new literary term, “wording for wording”. In the “Measure for Measure Principle”, the same word, “measure,” was chosen in order to express a correlation and mutual suitability in both content and form, between the act, (the sin) and its consequence (the punishment). The importance of this distinction is that it serves as the means of emphasizing the basic principle underlying the reading of the literary text. According to this principle, there is a link between form and content, both of which serve the intention of the narrative. 3.3 The “sword”—the Same Word is used to Describe the Sin and the Punishment22 The word sword in Nathan’s speech appears in his description of David’s sin: “thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword” (2 21

See: Yael Shemesh, “Measure for Measure in Biblical Narrative,” Beit Mikra 158, pp. 261–277. [In Hebrew] 22 “Wording for wording” in Nathan’s speech: In addition to the use of the ‘sword’ the link between the sin and the punishment is revealed by the use of these words: “the thing” ‫ ;הדבר הזה‬had done (in the sin in 11:27 and in punishment in 12:12); The verb ‫=עשה‬had done, to do ,‫עשה דוד‬ ‫( לעשות‬in the sin in 11:27, 12:9) and in punishment ‫ ואני אעשה‬in 12:12); The verb ‫( לקח‬in the sin in 11:4, 12:9) and the same verb in the punishment 12:10, 11). See above note 20.

122

YITZHAK PELEG

Samuel 12:9) and later in his description of the punishment: “now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house” (12:10). The linking word is usually a verb in order to demonstrate to us the readers the correlation between the action of sinning and the action of punishing. However, the word is frequently a noun, for example in the parable of the ewe lamb (2 Samuel 12). Nathan the prophet describes David’s sin and punishment according to the “Measure for Measure Principle”: first, Nathan mentions David’s sin (verse 9), later, as a result of this sin, his punishment will be in verse 10. Nathan’s recurrent use of the word “sword” is striking: it functions as a key word in relation to both the sin and the punishment, and as a tool, both literary and real.23 It is important to note that in the description of David’s sin in Chapter 11, there is no mention of a sword as the weapon that caused Uriah’s death. Nor in the description of David’s request of Jaob: “And he wrote in the letter, saying: Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and return ye from him, that he may be smitten and die.” (2 Samuel 11:15). Neither is the sword mentioned in the description of his death: “And the men of the city went out, and fought with Joab; and there fell some of the people, even of the servants of David; and Uriah the

23

The importance of this distinction is that it serves as the means of emphasizing the basic principle underlying the reading of the literary text. According to this principle, there is a link between form and content, both of which serve the intention of the narrative. A persuasive example of the “Measure for Measure” Principle is the use of the verb “ate” ‫אכל‬used to describe sin and its consequences in the story of the Garden of Eden. The sin committed by Adam and his wife Eve is described in the words: (6 ‫וַתִּ קַּח ִמפּ ְִריוֹ וַתּ ֹאכַל וַתִּ תֵּ ן גַּם ְלאִישָׁהּ ִעמָּהּ וַיּ ֹאכַל )ג‬ and the consequence, that is, the punishment, is stated in the words: (19 ‫ְבּזֵעַת ַאפֶּיָך תּ ֹאכַל ֶלחֶם )ג‬ In this story, the word “ate” ‫ אכל‬appears 21 times as a “key word”. (Gen. 2: 16, 17, 3:1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18)

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

123

Hittite died also.” (11:17) Even in the report that Joab sent to David by messenger (11:19–24) there is no mention of a sword.24 What can we learn from this significant omission? It seems that this omission supports the idea that the “Measure for Measure Principle”, by way of wording for wording, is not simply something I, as a scholar, invented, but that it is found in the biblical text itself. And indeed, in the parable of the ewe lamb, Nathan the prophet carefully and deliberately chooses the word “sword” as a literary device to emphasize the correlation and the congruence between the sin and the punishment. At the same time, it conveys the message of the story as an educational tool, intended to illuminate the principle of retribution.

4. EXPANDING THE CIRCLES OF INTERPRETATION OF THE STORY At this point in the discussion, I would like to expand the circle of interpretation of the story by comparing it to two other Biblical tales: the first, the story of the treachery of Achan in the victory over the Ai in the Book of Joshua, and the second, the story of the meeting between Pharaoh and Sarah at the beginning of Genesis Chapter 12. 4.1 I Shall Begin with an Analogy to the Story of Achan (Joshua 7) In both stories, the heroes, Achan and David, admit and regret their actions. In fact, they use the exact same words: ‘‫אתי ַלה‬ ִ ‫ָח ָט‬ And David said unto Nathan: ‘I have sinned against the LORD.’- JPS. (2 Samuel 12:13).25

24

To be exact, it is important to note that in David’s speech to the messenger, the sword is referred to obliquely: “David said unto the messenger: Thus shalt thou say unto Joab: Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth in one manner or another.” (2 Samuel 11:25) ‫וַיּ ֹאמֶר דָּ וִד אֶל ַה ַמּ ְלאְָך כּ ֹה ת ֹאמַר ֶאל יוֹאָב אַל י ֵַרע ְבּעֵינֶיָך אֶת הַדָּ בָר ַהזּ ֶה כִּי כָז ֹה‬ (25 ‫ְו ָכזֶה תּ ֹאכַל ֶהח ֶָרב )שמו“ב יא‬ Note: But the sword is not referred to as the weapon that killed Uriah.

124

YITZHAK PELEG

And so does Achan admit to Joshua that he took of the forbidden spoils, saying: “And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Of a truth I have sinned against the LORD… and thus and thus I have done.” (Joshua 7:20) The words “I have sinned against the LORD” serve as unique, key words that create a link between the response of Achan to that of David, and direct the readers’ attention to the affinity between the two stories.26 In our discussion I will attempt to demonstrate that the comparison to the story of Achan may contribute not only to the setting of the boundaries and the structure of the story of David, 25

The third time that the sentence: “I have sinned against the LORD” appears in the Bible: “Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said: I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you…” (Ex. 10:18) David sinned against God, but also against Batsheva and Uriah. Therefore, his expressions of repentance to Nathan the prophet are problematic. I am grateful to Prof. M. Caspi who commented about this after my presentation in Estonia. It is worthwhile to note that Pharaoh, in his discussion with Moses and Aaron, says, “I stand guilty before the LORD your God and before you…” (Ex. 10:16) In contrast, Joseph, who refused Potiphar’s wife’s request to lie with her, tells her: “How then could I do this most wicked thing, and sin before God?” (Gen. 39:9)… and he didn’t say “I will have sinned/ I have sinned against your husband, Potiphar.” 26 There are two types of ‘key words’—one, as M. Buber writes in “Darko shel Mikra” p. 284, “a ‘key word’ refers to a word or a linguistic root that appears and reappears in a text, whose repetition bestows significance.; the second type is a word which is rarely used.” (see: “lech lecha”, ark), which Buber refers to on p. 293. Lech lecha—this combination of words [=unique key words] is found in only these two verses in the entire Bible. See also Meir Weiss, The Secret Dialog in the Bible—Notes on Types of Styles, (Jerusalem 1964), p. 26; “the repetition of a rare expression, or a common one used in an unusual manner, may recall a distant, unrelated text. Thus, the attention brought to bear on the texts in the heart of the reader may in turn lead to the decoding or clarification of the significance of one or even both texts”; See also Yaira Amit, “The Problem of the use of the term “key word” in The Biblical Story, subject matriculation exams, new edition, collected and edited by Michael Bahat, Even Yehuda, 1991, pp. 49–68.

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

125

Bathsheba and Uriah, but may also help us to understand its message and its lesson. 4.2 The Explicit Moral in the Story of Achan Helps us Understand the Moral of Our Story The structure of the story of Achan in Joshua 7 is clear. The defeat at the battle of Ai was caused primarily because of Achan’s sin, as the Lord explicitly says: Israel hath sinned; yea, they have even transgressed. My covenant which I commanded them; yea, they have even taken of the devoted thing; and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have even put it among their own stuff. Therefore the children of Israel cannot stand before their enemies, they turn their backs before their enemies, because they are become accursed; I will not be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed from among you. (Joshua 7:11–12)

In other words, Achan’s sin is the cause of defeat in battle. And indeed, only after he has been punished for his sin, it is explicitly stated: “and the LORD turned from the fierceness of His anger.” (v. 26)

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב ה‘ ֵמ ֲחרוֹן ַאפּוֹ‬

And so in the story of David and Bathsheba, only after David is punished, (Chapter 12), and after he expresses remorse for his actions, we learn of the Lord’s change of heart: “And David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her, and she bore a son, and called his name Solomon. And the LORD loved him.” (2 Samuel 12:24) In contrast to his attitude towards David’s first son, who died, the love of the LORD paved the way for the victory over Ammon. In the story of Achan, the children of Israel create an ambush for the enemy, and Joshua—like David at the end of Chapter 12:26—it’s written: And when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city, and that the smoke of the city ascended, then they turned back, and slew the men of Ai. (Joshua 8:21)

Later the victory ‘by the sword’ in Joshua is described:

126

YITZHAK PELEG And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, even in the wilderness wherein they pursued them, and they were all fallen by the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all Israel returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. (Joshua 7:24)

On the face* of it, the weakness of the idea of connecting the sins of David to the results of the battles against Ammon lies in the fact that it is never explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, in the story of Achan, the failure to capture Ai is explicitly attributed to Achan’s sin. There is no such parallel in David’s defeat. However, on closer reading, it is possible to understand the description of the death of Uriah and the other warriors as a phase in the defeat.27 The messenger tells David: And the shooters shot at thy servants from off the wall; and some of the king’s servants are dead, and thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also. (2 Samuel 11:24)

The phase of defeat in David’s story is concealed. It is described not as defeat, but as part of the description of David’s sin against Uriah. Perhaps, in a parallel fashion, it is possible to regard this phase as part of David’s punishment. The defeat in battle is a consequence of his sin. It is only after David expresses sorrow and remorse, according to the principle of Measure for Measure” that the victory over Ammon becomes possible. In fact, David’s humanity, in his concern for his new-born son who becomes fatally ill, demonstrates another and more positive facet of his character. 27

Garsiel, Al Haperek 15 (1998), p. 85: “The narrator gives us only the first stage of the event: an Israelite unit of ‘warriors’ is posted in a certain place, and the people of the city came out, attacked them and caused them grievous losses, including Uriah. (verses 16–17) The narrator deliberately omitted the next stage of the battle, and thus set the sentence: that this was not a clever tactic to conquer the city, but rather the sacrifice of the unit in order to obscure or camouflage the killing of Uriah. The act is perceived therefore as the futile sacrifice of an entire unit.” Later, referring to verse 25, Garsiel writes (p. 86) “thus the king gives an approval in advance to the death of many warriors in a failed operation.”

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

127

The analogy to the story of Achan may possibly lend support to my suggestion to regard both chapters as one unit, thematically structured on the principle of Measure for Measure”. It seems to me that the analogy to the war on Ai enables and encourages us to explain why the victory in the war against Ammon takes place only after David has been punished for the sins he committed in Chapter 11. 4.3 The Analogy to the Story of Sarah in the House of the Egyptian Pharaoh The criticism of David is strengthened by comparing our story to another series of stories with which the story of David and Bathsheba engages in a dialogue, or an “inner-biblical” interpretation: the stories of the “wife-sister” in Genesis. (Pharaoh and Sarah in Gen. 12:10–20); Abimelech and Sarah in Chapter 20: 1–18, Abimelech and Rebecca in Chapter 26:1–14). The hidden dialogue between these stories illuminates the attempt to understand David and his character. The two sets can be regarded as “reflection stories”:28 Therefore, I shall focus first on the differences that create another dimension of the evaluation of David’s character. For example: unlike David, the foreign kings in Genesis acted innocently; they did not know that Sarah was a married woman. We can see that a comparison of David and the foreign kings (Pharaoh and Abimelech), is therefore far from being flattering to David. Criticism against David is strengthened when we compare the story of Abraham and Sarah’s descent into Egypt (Gen. 12:10– 20)—a story that may maintain a dialogue with our story. The similarities encourage the reader to sense an affinity between them: More details of the analogy between the two stories you may find in Yair Zakovitch.29 I will only mention some similarities between the two stories: In both, the king is attracted to 28

Yair Zakovitch, “Reflection Stories—Another Dimension of the Evaluation of Characters in Biblical Narrative”, Tarbitz 54 (1985), pp. 165–176. [Hebrew] 29 For more details see: Yair Zakovitch, David: From Shepherd to Messiah, (Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 77–78. [Hebrew]

128

YITZHAK PELEG

and lusts after a foreign woman; the woman is very beautiful. Please observe that the descriptions of the beauty are strengthened by the word “very”; in both stories there is the use of the verb ‫ראה‬, the person “seen” is called “the woman”; the king takes her to his house. In both stories the verb ‫ לקח‬appears in both of its meanings.30 After the act, the kings call for the woman’s husband and give them gifts. I will summarize by saying that the comparison between the two stories enables and encourages an evaluation and judgment of King David on the basis of the contradictions: in contrast to David, the king in the story in Genesis is Pharaoh, a foreign king, who acts in good faith, not knowing the identity of the husband. David, however, knows Uriah very well; he is one of his soldiers who risks his life for his king, and in spite of this, David lies with Bathsheba. These differences between David and Pharaoh do not flatter the king of Israel, they condemn him.

5. SUMMARY I opened my essay by stating that there are those who regard David’s behavior with Bathsheba and Uriah very severely, while there are others who try to justify him by placing part of the blame on Bathsheba, who tempted him. The attempt to defend David can be found in the Book of Chronicles which chose to censor his story. The common denominator to these two approaches is a feeling of uneasiness, a bad after-taste. There are two ways to deal with this uneasiness—one is to make excuses and to blame others, or even to censor the story. The second approach is to censure David and punish him and includes an educational facet for us the readers. In my opinion, the inclusion of the parable of the ewe lamb and its moral presents the story as a lesson both for David and for us the readers regarding the principle of Measure for Measure. David’s actions against Bathsheba and Uriah in Chapter 11 and the 30

Note: Early in this essay, I mentioned the taking of Sarah by Pharaoh in Egypt.

TWO READINGS OF THE STORY OF DAVID

129

reaction of Nathan the prophet in Chapter 12 are constructed according to the retribution principle. In Chapter 11 David sins and in Chapter 12 David is punished. From a human point of view, man is free to choose his actions, for good or for bad, and in consequence he will be either rewarded or punished. We have seen that David’s character in Chapter 11 is different from his character in Chapter 12. It seems that especially Chapter 12, which deals so severely with David and his behavior, is the one that also reveals a gentler and more humane facet of his character and allows us the readers to extend him a measure of compassion. The sword reflects and symbolizes the message and the lesson of the story for generations of readers: Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house. (2 Samuel 12:9–10).

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST: ’TAMAR VERSUS TAMAR VERSES’: A FOCALIZED-EMPHATHETIC READING ANGELINE M. G. SONG UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO DUNEDIN, N.Z.

The first time I read of Tamar being raped by her half-brother, Amnon, and then left to languish in another brother’s house, I was filled not only with anguish, but also with bewilderment. The same feelings are aroused each time I revisit the story in 2 Samuel 13. While the anguish that I feel is for Princess Tamar, my bewilderment is aroused by her father King David who did nothing, even after he found out that his daughter had been raped by his son. In effect, David abandoned Tamar when she needed him most. It is especially in connection with the issue of absent fathers that I feel most able to empathize with Princess Tamar, despite the immense physical, cultural and temporal distance which separates us. To speak of my own case, I was given away by my biological father and mother—partly because they were poor, and partly because I was a girl in a society that preferred boys. This was the post-colonial, patriarchal context of Singapore where the traditional view of boys being better than girls is captured in a popular saying which may be rendered, Parents prefer to look at the backsides of their baby boys than at the faces of their baby girls. My adoptive mother was a single woman who had made a timely appearance at the home of my biological parents. She persuaded my biological father to give me up to her, instead of to another woman of questionable repute. The other woman had, in 131

132

ANGELINE M. G. SONG

fact, placed an ‘order’ for me first. I realized later that if I had ended up with the first woman, I would have been brought up to be her family’s personal maid, or raised to become a prostitute. I have therefore always been grateful to my adoptive mother for ‘saving’ me. However, while she did an amazing job as a single parent of raising me, I did feel the absence of a father at significant points in my life. What hurts most is when I ponder what would have become of me had my adoptive mother not turned up when she did. At such moments I long to confront my biological father so that I can ask him a single question: Were you really so desperate to get rid of your own daughter that you would have given her up even to a person of ill repute? I see my own feelings of hurt and rejection as analogous to what must have been Tamar’s feelings about her father. King David was “exceedingly angry’’ (verse 21) that his daughter had been raped—but then did absolutely nothing about it. THE EMPATHY PHENOMENON This “feeling with” Tamar can be attributed to a universal and yet self-specific human trait called “empathy’’, translated from the German word Einfühlung, which literally means “the act of feeling one’s way into”.1 While initially, empathy may involve being able to identify with another, it is actually a more complex phenomenon. A recent and notable development in the field of neurocognitive science may help explain the concept better. In the early 1990s, a group of neuroscientists in Parma, Italy, discovered a bunch of motor neurons in the brains of human beings, and also of some primates, which automatically ‘light up’ whenever a person “feels with’’ another. The team claimed that these neurons in the observer’s brain literally mirror or imitate what For more information on this issue, see Andrew Colman, A Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 248; Mark Davis, Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach (Boulder Colo.: Westview Press, 1996), p. 5 and Wispé, “History of the Concept of Empathy’’ in Nancy Eisenberg and Janet Strayer, eds., Empathy and Its Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 18. 1

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST

133

he or she perceives to be happening in another’s brain, and so they called these neurons “mirror neurons”.2 Thus, for example, if I see you experiencing a painful sensation, and I empathize with you, it means that the same kinds of feelings are being evoked within me, as though I were going through your plight myself in a kind of “inner imitation’’ or “mirroring’’ response. With the discovery of mirror neurons, it does seem that there is now empirical evidence that you and I are “soft-wired’’ to empathize with others. Some neuroscientists believe that human beings exercise—from infancy onward or even earlier—this innate ability to “enter’’ into another person’s experience and participate in it. A good example of what I mean may be seen when one baby cries and sets off the other babies in the room. However, empathy also involves a self-other distinction (the ability to differentiate between oneself and the other), so that even though I may feel Tamar’s pain when I temporarily put aside myself, my own views and values, in order to ‘enter her world’ without prejudice, I am also aware that these are emotions that arise out of her experiences, and that I can comfortably return to my own world when I wish. Later, I may even draw lessons or encouragement from Tamar’s case for my own situation.3 In the words of the prominent American psychologist Carl Rogers, empathy is the ability to: …perceive the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto as if one were the person, but without ever losing the “as if” condition. Thus, it means to sense the hurt or the pleasure of another as he senses it and to

The scientists include Vittorio Gallese and Giacomo Rizzolati. For more on the subject, see Gallese’s “The Roots of Empathy: The Shared Manifold Hypothesis and the Neural Basis of Intersubjectivity’’ in Psychopathology (2003, 36/4): 171–180 and “Being Like Me’’ in Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Socio Science, eds., S. L. Hurley and Nick Chater (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 2005). 3 For more on this issue, see Carl Ransom Rogers, A Way of Being (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1995), p. 148. 2

134

ANGELINE M. G. SONG perceive the causes thereof as he perceives them, but without ever losing the recognition that it is as if I were hurt or pleased and so forth.4

Empathy is not the same as sympathy’, although the two phenomena are closely related and often conflated. For instance, sympathy requires that one cares for the other and it often leads to help, whereas one can empathize with a person whom one dislikes, or to whom one feels in some manner antipathetic. EMPATHY WITH LITERARY CHARACTERS At this juncture it is pertinent to ask the question: Can a real person have empathy with literary characters? Literary theorists, social and developmental psychologists and philosophers of virtue ethics are unanimous in giving a positive answer to the question. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum suggests that novel reading cultivates readers’ empathy and helps lead them to exercise better world citizenship,5 while psychologist Paul Ekman says there is “no doubt’’ a reader can feel with literary characters even though he himself is surprised by the notion: “Although there is no doubt that we can become emotional by reading about a stranger, it is amazing that something that came so late in the history of our species—written language—can generate emotions.’’6 Literary critic Michael Steig asserts that: Because of personality and experience, some readers are capable of more original and deeper understanding of emotionally puzzling aspects of particular literary works than are others; and such understandings can be conceptualized by such a reader through a reflection upon the emotions experienced and upon personal associations with those emotions.7

Carl Rogers, Ibid., p. 140. Martha Nussbaum, Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1997), pp. 10, 11. 6 Paul Ekman, Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life (New York: Henry Holt, 2003), p. 35. 7 Michael Steig, Stories of Reading: Subjectivity and Literary Understanding, (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1989), p. xiv. 4 5

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST

135

Empathy has also become an important element of critical discussion in secular literature during recent years. For example, contemporary literary theorist Suzanne Keen has only recently written a book entitled Empathy and the Novel, and she declares that “there is no question… that readers feel empathy with … fictional characters and other aspects of fictional worlds.’’8 A HERMENEUTIC OF EMPATHY WITH FOCALIZATION In this essay I propose to read Hebrew narrative characters through a hermeneutic of empathy, undergirded by the Dutch literary theorist Mieke Bal’s narratology which has a particular emphasis on focalization. Bal’s focalization theory is rooted in the French structuralist Gérard Genette’s important contribution that in narratives, “Who speaks?’’ is not the same as “Who Sees?’’ Building on this distinguo, Bal, who firmly asserts that focalization is always going on in stories, proceeds to ask two tremendously significant questions: “Who is doing the focalizing in this segment, and what is its effect on the reader?’’ She goes on to ask, “Who is not allowed to do the focalizing, and what is the effect of this on the reader?’’ For instance, a narrator can impart vision or focalization to a character within a story. That character then becomes what Bal calls a Character-Focalizer (abbreviated CF), and s/he can influence a reader to have more empathy for him/her, just as in real life we tend to empathize more with the person to whose perspective or view of events we have access. A narrator can also be a focalizer, in which case, s/he is a Narrator-Focalizer (NF); if s/he is external to the story (meaning that s/he is not bound by the normal constraints of time or space), then that NF is described as an External-Focalizer (EF). Focalizers can also encourage or discourage a reader’s empathy towards the Focalized by the attitude that the Focalizer adopts. For example, if an NF focalizes a character sympathetically, even if that character is full of flaws, a reader’s empathy for that Suzanne Keen, Empathy and the Novel, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. vii. 8

136

ANGELINE M. G. SONG

character can still be encouraged, because of the way in which the character is being focalized. Therefore, besides providing tools for narrative analysis, Bal’s theory also helps to reveal how a story-teller’s use of focalization may actually manipulate a reader’s empathy for or against a character. In this particular respect, her theory sharpens my empathy hermeneutic. On a related point, Bal’s theory brings to the surface the power dynamics of a text, and exposes an author’s implicit or explicit ideology. She notes that “focalization is…the most important, most penetrating, and most subtle means of manipulation’’.9 In other words, Bal’s critical theory does not merely concentrate on how to do a focalization analysis, but it is especially concerned with the questions: “What is the effect of this focalization strategy on the reader, and how was it achieved?’’ A systematic theory such as Bal’s also provides me with a suitable vocabulary for describing what I do, and why I do what I do. In addition, the discipline inherent in such a narratological model ensures that my reading is firmly supported by the text, no matter how influenced it is by empathy. Borrowing the words of Stephen Moore, I posit that narratology helps the biblical scholar who is “committed to writing self-consciously out of his or her social location, to navigate successfully between the Scylla of insufficient personalism, on the one hand, and the Charybdis of insufficient criticism on the other’’.10 TAMAR VERSUS TAMAR To illustrate my integrated “focalization with empathy’’ reading strategy, I shall juxtapose the characters and stories of the two Tamars in the Hebrew Bible: Princess Tamar in 2 Samuel 13, and the Tamar of Genesis 38. Besides having the same names, the two belong—although at opposite ends of the time-scale—to the genealogical tree of King David. Thus, it can be said that each Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 3rd revised edition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), p. 176. 10 Stephen Moore, “True Confessions and Weird Obsessions: Autobiographical Interventions in Literary and Biblical Studies’’ in Semeia 72, (1995): p. 29. 9

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST

137

represents, in some way, the strings of David’s life. But the similarities between the two Tamars end there. The conclusions of their two stories could not be more different. One behaved as ‘society’ demanded, and ended up being raped and humiliated. The other, having boldly undertaken a scandalous and perilous course of action, was rewarded with social and legal legitimacy for herself and her progeny. The aim of my essay is twofold: first, to expose how much of the differences between the stories, and the manners in which we regard the two characters, are due to the focalization strategies used by the story teller. Secondly, to encourage you to ponder how differently the character of Princess Tamar would come across to you, if the focalization strategies in both narratives were switched. I conclude with a small exercise where I undertake what I call an Empathetic Refocused translation or reading of four of the verses in 2 Samuel 13. PRINCESS TAMAR: A TRAGIC TALE From the outset, the narrator sets the tale of Princess Tamar within a larger story. 2 Samuel 13:1a says, “It came to pass, in regard to Absalom, David’s son…’’11 Here I am being given a clue that this might actually be Absalom’s story: his fight for the throne, or the succession narrative. Similarly, in terms of focalization, the princess is viewed only in relation to her brothers—in 13:1a as Absalom’s “beautiful sister’’, and in 13:1b as the object of Amnon’s desire. In fact, this sets the nature and tone of the focalization on Princess Tamar for the entire chapter. In a tale of thirty-nine verses, Princess Tamar is allowed to be a focalizer in only two and a half verses—12, 13, and 16a. On the other hand, she is often the focalized object of the external narrator (EN), and of the other character-focalizers (CFs), Amnon, Jonadab, Absalom and David. However, their focalization is often of her as an object, or as a thing of lustful desire: something to be owned, used, or ordered about.

11

Translation and emphasis mine.

138

ANGELINE M. G. SONG

The effect of that kind of focalization, taken together with Princess Tamar’s lack of opportunity to be a focalizer, is that the empathy of readers for her is to a large extent, not actively encouraged. Exceptions include some feminist readings which deliberately seek to delineate Tamar, or an empathetic reading such as this one. (In this case, I feel an instant empathetic connection to her character because of my personal circumstances). Tamar’s tale unfolds as a tragedy. She is tricked into going into Amnon’s room. Her anguished pleas and wise words are ignored. She is betrayed and raped by her own stepbrother. She is further humiliated after the gruesome act, not only by Amnon, who insists on throwing her out of the room, but also by the palace servants, who are instructed by Amnon to bolt the doors after her (verses 17, 18). Consider how a member of the royal family, a daughter of the mighty King David, is first raped and then summarily chased and locked out of the room by palace servants, as if she were an animal. In one moment, Tamar’s dignity and self esteem are torn to shreds. (Later, in a symbolic gesture, she tears her royal robes apart). To compound her humiliation, she is unceremoniously ordered by her other brother Absalom to be “silent’’ or, “speechless’’ (verse 20). In modern-day language, after suffering the brutal violation against her person, Tamar was asked to “swallow your feelings and shut up’’. By now I find it difficult to keep on reading, but I am eager to know what the great King David will do to avenge his daughter. From my empathetic viewpoint, fathers are supposed to protect their children, my own biological father notwithstanding. Surely, King David would do no less than exact some sort of punishment from a cruel rapist who happened to be his own son? After being told that King David felt “exceedingly angry’’ (verse 21), and having my expectations raised, I am ill-prepared for what follows: David’s complete lack of action. To anyone who employs my empathetic perspective, it seems incomprehensible that as a father, King David did NOTHING for his daughter at a time when she needed him most. Or am I cherishing an unsophisticated image of what a father should be to his children?

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST

139

Princess Tamar in terms of Focalization Analysis: Pawn of the Plot There is worse to come. After this evil deed, the victim is made, narratively speaking, to disappear from the narrative. From verse 22 to the end of the narrative segment, Princess Tamar is neither the focalizer nor the focalized. As Absalom desires, the princess does become speechless or dumb in the second half of the narrative. From here onwards, all the focalizing is on the males— and on their politicking. Tamar is, after all, merely a pawn in the overall plot which involves the succession story of King David’s family. But it appears to me that even in this capacity, Princess Tamar is actually being focalized to a greater degree than other women in the Hebrew Bible who are raped and nameless. At least Princess Tamar gets a name, and at least the reader’s empathy for her is engaged briefly before the focalizing returns to the men. Focalization Analysis of the Genesis Tamar: Protagonist of the Plot The focalization strategy employed in the Tamar narrative of Genesis 38 is quite different. Although this Tamar does not often become the focalizer, the focalizing eye is frequently upon her, and more importantly, the focalization is characterized by a positive attitude. In fact, in these thirty verses, the Genesis Tamar becomes a major figure, driving the plot rather than being a pawn of the plot. The Genesis Tamar begins the narrative as a potential reproductive partner and compliant female. However, she is let down, reproductively speaking, by her husband, by her brother-inlaw, and even by her father-in-law. In other words, all the men in her life fail her (like the men in the tale of Princess Tamar.) But instead of passively accepting this comprehensive lack of male initiative, Tamar decides to disobey her father-in-law, Judah, and to take the bull, so to speak, by his horns. It is particularly from this point of the narrative—from verse 14 to 28—that the focalization is firmly and consistently on Tamar, even as the focalizers switch back and forth from the external narrator, to Judah, to the Adullamite, and briefly to Tamar herself. The external narrator, who features most prominently as focalizer in this narrative, focalizes Tamar sympathetically, so that, as I look at Tamar through his or her positive lenses, I, for my own

140

ANGELINE M. G. SONG

part, am encouraged to view Tamar favorably. I am unabashed about this reaction in spite of the fact that Tamar’s action of baiting and deceiving her father-in-law may be morally ambiguous. But as I empathize and “enter’’ temporarily into her world, suspending my own personal values and judgments, I observe, from Tamar’s perspective, how the men in her life have failed her. So I cheer her actions on, Go, Tamar, go for it! In support of my point that the Genesis Tamar is focalized overall positively, I offer the following textual evidence: First, the external narrator (EN) makes it clear in various ways, that Tamar decided to take matters into her own hands only after all “conventional, socially sanctioned means for procreation have failed’’12 and after she realizes that Judah will not honor his promise to her. For instance, the EN informs me in verse 11b that Tamar obeyed Judah when she “…went and dwelt in her father’s house’’. And in 14a, Tamar “put off her widow’s garments…’’ which indicates that she initially had them on and had been doing the socially “correct’’ thing all this while. Not least, the EN seems to provide justification for Tamar’s final actions with this explicit assessment in verse 14b: “for she saw that Shelah was grown up and she had not been given to him in marriage.’’ In other words, Tamar shed her widow’s garments and undertook drastic action because she finally realized that Judah was not going to keep his promise to her. The message to me from the EN focalizer here seems to be: “She had to do it, because she had no other choice.’’ By now, I have been influenced to take Tamar’s side. I see the external transformation of Tamar’s wardrobe as seeming to reflect the necessary inner transformation of her outlook, of her mindset, and ultimately of her character. Tamar had to transform herself in order to survive in her adverse circumstances, the EN seems to say. I also note the ironic comparison between this Tamar putting on a new set of clothes, symbolizing a new way of life, while the other Tamar rent her royal robes because her life had effectively As Esther Marie Menn puts it in Judah & Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form & Hermeneutics. (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 1997), p. 23. 12

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST

141

ended. The Genesis Tamar is also later able to remove her prostitute’s garb when she wants to, in order to put her ‘old’ clothes on again. She is focalized as being totally in charge and in control, whereas Princess Tamar’s torn robe can never be mended again. As against the case of the Genesis Tamar, the power over Princess Tamar’s life remains in the hands of the men around her. Second, Yahweh as a character in the narrative (verse 10) seems indirectly to support Tamar. In being “displeased’’ with the actions of Onan, who acted against Tamar when he performed a pleasure-without-responsibility act of coitus interruptus (verse 9), Yahweh may be seen as subtly taking Tamar’s side. The fact that Yahweh is portrayed as being unhappy with Tamar’s adversaries may influence some readers to have greater empathy with Tamar also. Third, in verses 16b to 18, Tamar is focalized as knowing exactly what to request from Judah. Unlike her father-in-law, who did not take the initiative with regards to fulfilling his responsibility to her, Tamar not only takes the initiative; she is later also able to react intelligently to the situation that is unfolding itself, and she displays a good psychological knowledge of her father-in-law’s character. Fourth, in verses 25 and 26, Tamar is focalized as knowing how to manipulate society’s existing sexual double standard. By turning the standard on its head, she earns social legitimacy for herself and her sons in the process. Fifth, at the end of the narrative, Tamar is focalized as being the bearer of not just one boy, but of twin boys! The conclusion of the narrative is doubly sweet for Tamar, whereas the story of Princess Tamar ended in bitterness. Even in the final two verses (29–30), where Tamar’s two sons Perez and Zerah are arguably the centre of attention, the description of their unusual birth brings the reader back to a remembrance of Tamar. The unusual manner in which they leave her womb tallies with Tamar’s unusual plan to conceive them in the first place. In short, Genesis’ Tamar is focalized with a positive attitude right to the end of the story, and even afterwards, since her name lives on in posterity as that of a matriarch of the royal household of David.

142

ANGELINE M. G. SONG

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST In conclusion, the focalization strategies in the two narratives affect the reader’s empathy for the characters. On the one hand, empathy for Genesis’ Tamar is encouraged, so that readers will tend to view her favorably even if they do not agree with all of her actions. On the other hand, the fullness of the character of Princess Tamar has to be actively sought, because the way in which she is focalized ensures that she is to a great extent subsumed in a bigger story. When Princess Tamar, however, is briefly allowed to be the focalizer in verses 12, 13 and 16, my empathy for her is very much engaged, as I catch glimpses of how she really thinks and how she feels. In Bal’s focalization theory, the focalization of “NonPerceptibles’’ (NPs) such as a character’s inner thoughts, feelings and motivations, against the “Perceptibles’’ such as a character’s outward actions, are distinguished and weighed. Relating this aspect of the theory to my own hermeneutic of empathy, focalization of NPs often gives the reader an intimate peek into a character’s inner being, thus encouraging additional empathy for the character. It is parallel to what happens in real life: when I gain access into a person’s “inner’’ self, and get to know his or her inner thoughts and feelings, I usually feel a stronger connection with that person, and empathize more with him or her. The relationship rises to a deeper level than that of say, my relationship with a casual acquaintance. It is therefore in these four verses, where I finally get to “hear’’ Princess Tamar’s voice, that I discover a woman who is sensitive, smart and articulate. Sadly, however, her fragile cry is lost in the cacophony of angry male voices that were all around her, each expressing its own selfish agenda. That is why I am at pains, in the following exercise, to reclaim the voice of Princess Tamar in some small way, and to rearticulate her cry, so that she is not forced to disappear again, speechless and dumb, into the walls of her brother’s house. As I do so, I lament and empathize afresh with Princess Tamar for her lost dignity, for her shattered life, and for having a father who did not act on her behalf when she needed him most.

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST

143

TAMAR’S CRY: AN EMPATHETIC FOCALIZED TRANSLATION/READING 2 Sam. 13:12 And Tamar said to him: “No! Do not do violence to me/ do not violate me, for it is not done so in Israel; do not do this (morally, religiously) senseless, disgraceful thing!’’ 2 Sam. 13:13 “What about me? Where would I go, as an object of shame and disgrace? And what about you? You will be like one (who is) (morally) senseless, a disgraced man in Israel. Now, please, speak to the king, for he would not withhold me from you.’’ 2 Sam. 13:14 But he was not willing to pay regard to what she said. He was stronger than her and he did violence to her/humbled her and raped her. 2 Sam. 13:16 But she said to him: “No, because this evil (also implying distress, misery) of sending me away is greater than the other evil/injury.’’ But he was not willing to listen to her.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books. _________. 1992. The World of Biblical Literature. New York: Basic Books. Alter, Robert and Frank Kermode, eds. 1987. The Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Arnold, Bill T. 2009. Genesis. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Auerbach, Erich. 1953. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bal, Mieke. 1981. “The Laughing Mice: Or: On Focalization’’, Poetics Today, 2/2: 202–210. _________. 1987. Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. _________. 1997. Narratologie: Essais sur la signification narrative dans quatre romans modernes. Paris: Klincksieck. _________. 2006. A Mieke Bal Reader. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

144

ANGELINE M. G. SONG

Bal, Mieke. 2009. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative (third edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bar-Efrat, Shimon. 1987. Narrative Art in the Bible (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 70). Sheffield: Almond Press. Berlin, Adele. 1983. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature Series 9). Sheffield: Almond Press. Brenner, Athalya and Carole Fontaine, eds. 1997. A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Strategies. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press. Brenner, Athalya, ed. 2003. Are We Amused?: Humour about Women in the Biblical Worlds. (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. (Supplement Series 383). London: T & T Clark International. Brenner, Athalya, Archie Chi Chung Lee, Gale A. Yee, eds., 2010. Genesis: Texts@Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Bronzwaer, W. 1981. “Mieke Bal’s Concept of Focalization: A Critical Note’’. Poetics Today. 2/2: 193–201 Chatman, Seymour. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press. _________. 1990. Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press. Colman, Andrew. 2006. A Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cotter, David W. 2003. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. Genesis. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. Culler, Jonathan. 2002. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. London: Routledge Classics. Davis, Mark. 1996. Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Davies, Philip R. and David J. A. Clines, eds. 1998. The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. (Supplement Series 257). Sheffield, England : Sheffield Academic Press. Eisenberg, Nancy and Janet Strayer, eds. 1987. Empathy and Its Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ekman, Paul. 2003. Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life. New York: Henry Holt.

COUNTERPOINT AND CONTRAST

145

Fokkelman J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. 1998.Volume 1. King David (11 Sam. 9–20 & 1 Kings 1–2). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Gallese, Vittorio. 2003. “The Roots of Empathy: The Shared Manifold Hypothesis and the Neural Basis of Intersubjectivity’’ in Psychopathology 36/4. Gérard Genette. 1980. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. trans. Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Gunn, David M. and Danna Nolan Fewell. 1993. Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gros Louis, Kenneth, James Stokes Ackerman and Thayer S. Warshaw. 1974. Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (The Bible in Literature Courses). Nashville: Abingdon. Hurley, S. L. and Nick Chater, Eds. 2005. Perspectives On Imitation: From Neuroscience To Social Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Keen, Suzanne. 2007. Empathy and the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meir, Sternberg. 1985. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (The Indiana Literary Biblical Series). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Menn, Esther Marie. 1997. Judah & Tamar (Gen 38) in Ancient Jewish Exegesis: Studies in Literary Form & Hermeneutics. The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill Leiden. Moore, Stephen D. 1995. “True Confessions and Weird Obsessions: Autobiographical Interventions in Literary and Biblical Studies.’’ Semeia no. 72: 19–50. Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Rogers, Carl. 1980. A Way of Being. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Steig, Michael. 1989. Stories of Reading: Subjectivity and Literary Understanding. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

DAVID AS SON OF MAN: HEBREW NARRATIVES OF DIVINE EXALTATION AS SOURCES OF SECOND TEMPLE SON OF MAN TRADITIONS (PSALMS 2, 8, 72, 80 AND 110) J. HAROLD ELLENS UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

INTRODUCTION This essay develops the relationship between 1) David as mythic, literary character, 2) the life of David in Kings and Chronicles, 3) the Coronation Psalms of exaltation and enthronement, 4) and the enthronement notions in the Son of Man traditions of Second Temple Judaism as set forth in Ezekiel, Daniel 7–9, I Enoch 37–71, The War Scroll, the Hoyadot, 11Q13Mel, IV Ezra, the Psalms of Solomon, and The Synoptic Gospels, and The Gospel of John.

EXPOSITION The Making of a Myth David is a mythic character in a literary story. Whoever the historical David was, we have little chance of recovering. It is clear, from the way in which he is presented in the Hebrew Bible, that the tensions in his story indicate how the historical reports have been turned into heroic myth. For example, he is graphically depicted as an adulterer and premeditating murderer, on the one hand, and yet 147

148

J. HAROLD ELLENS

a Man after God’s own heart, on the other; a guerilla warrior constantly acting to undermine the very effective and divinely anointed king Saul and the Kingdom of Israel, on the one hand, and yet the heroic savior of Israel on the other; the philanderer with Abigail and the neglectful abuser of his wife Michael on the one hand, and the establisher of a divinely appointed dynasty, on the other; and finally, the disciplinarian, on the one hand, and the indulgent father, on the other, resulting in the rape of his daughter, and the rebellion and death of two of his prized sons. David is the man God judges negatively as having too bloody hands to build the temple, on the one hand, and yet the man commended, on the other hand, for his spiritual vision of bringing the ark of the covenant to the “Holy City—Zion,” while, with King Hiram of Lebanon, preparing, the logistics for the building of Solomon’s Temple. The Royal Archives In the life of David in Kings and Chronicles we can discern, from the shape and contrasts of the two narratives, that his story is manipulated in the latter, to devalue Saul and even Samuel, and to enhance David. He is, on the one hand, a reprehensible character, and on the other hand, a superhuman caricature. The interesting thing for this essay, however, is the relationship between this man of myth and manipulated history, on the one hand, and the exaltation and Enthronement Psalms that may refer to him and his dynasty as the Idealized Man, on the other. There is significant reason to believe that Psalms 2, 8, 72, 80, 110, and perhaps Proverbs 30:2–4 are related to this Idealized Man tradition. Traditions of the Idealized Man Just such a tradition of the Idealized Man dominated Second Temple Judaisms after the Babylonian Exile, in the form of the heroic Son of Man myths. We can discern a line of development in the Second Temple Literature. The Son of Man in Ezekiel is merely human and the title means just that: “mere mortal”. Ezekiel’s Son of Man is not a Davidic Superman, nor an Idealized Man, nor an exalted enthroned heavenly figure. He is, rather, a mere human ordained to proclaim the impending advent of the divine reign in Palestine in the form of a restored Israelite kingdom. In that divine

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

149

kingdom the defiled world of the land, city, temple, and priesthood of Israel would again be put right and purified. In Daniel, however, the Son of Man is an exalted idealized heavenly human, but not an enthroned figure nor the heavenly judge. He is simply another man after God’s own heart, who must carry out the destruction of evil powers and institutions; and he must effect the establishment of the reign of God on earth. This he is to accomplish through his field forces on earth, The People of the Holy Ones of the Most High. In I Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels the Son of Man starts as an Ezekiel-like human, but through suffering and ordeal he becomes the exalted heavenly man appointed to be the Eschatological Judge. In that role he is to exterminate the wicked, collect the righteous into God’s kingdom, and cataclysmically end history as we know it. In the Dead Sea Scrolls (hence DSS) the virtual Son of Man is an exalted Heavenly Man and Savior (11Q13Mel).1 In the War Scroll and Hodayot he is king, priest, suffering servant and savior. In John’s Gospel the Son of Man starts out as the divine Logos who is the Eschatological Judge; but he sets aside that function (5:27–47) to exercise instead his function as the suffering servant and savior of the whole world, who then returns to his exalted status as God in heaven, never to return to earth. This essay draws the lines of force in David’s life through the Coronation Psalms of exaltation,2 to the Son of Man as Exalted Eschatological Judge, and on to the alternative Johannine image of the Son of Man as Suffering Servant and Savior. In this way I hope to discern whether the Davidic narrative and the Coronation Psalms shaped the early Second Temple Judaisms’ Son of Man traditions, and whether John got his anti-Synoptic and anti-Enochic vision from these Psalms as well.

Cf. J. Harold Ellens (2009), “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Son of Man, An Assessment of 11Q13(Mel),” a paper read at the Fifth International Enoch Seminar in Naples, Italy. A digest of that paper is incorporated into this chapter. 2 Psalms 2, 8, 72, 80, 110. 1

150

J. HAROLD ELLENS

The Coronation Psalms and the Idealized Man Psalm 2 is one of the Coronation Psalms. Coronation Psalms tell us that the king is God’s son, and they describe him as ruling with universal justice and power, as God does in the psalms about Yahweh-Kingship. In Psalm 2 Yahweh is represented as exalting a specially chosen “son” (7) by anointing (2c) him to be king (6a), presumably in Jerusalem (6b): The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, ... I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill ... You are my son ... I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. (RSV)

The language in these verses is distinctive and we can hear its echo in later Second Temple Judaism Son of Man logia, such as the glorification and exaltation passages in I Enoch, the Synoptic Gospels, and particularly in John. In this Hebrew psalm God speaks of the king as the Son of God and it is impossible to miss the messianic implications of this designation. Moreover, this messianic import is even more pronounced in the descriptions of the kingly dominion associated with this name: dominion over the nations of the earth, breaking their power “with a rod of iron, as a potter’s vessel” is destroyed (2:9). Such language prevails consistently throughout the Coronation Psalms, as we shall see. Psalm 8 epitomizes and confirms this very regal picture of a man raised to the royal status as the son of God. This psalm specifically refers to the Son of Man and places him in a role second only to God himself: What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. (RSV)

Many psalms in the Hebrew Bible allude to the exaltation of a specially designated human who is raised to the status of Son of Man and Son of God. The specific meaning of those terms is not always as clear as the fact that they appear repeatedly in the Coronation Psalms. What is clear is their carrying with them the aura of quasi-divinity, royal status, and definitive world changing power

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

151

that is to be employed in establishing God’s reign throughout the earth. Psalm 72, for example, begins with the petition that God’s son, the king, will be characterized by justice and righteousness; and that his dominion will be both everlasting and eternal (5, 15, 17). His justice and righteousness are to be exercised especially in his care of the poor, disempowered, needy, weak, and oppressed. The entire remainder of the psalm’s 20 verses describes this royal son as the messianic agent for insuring peace, prosperity, power, and Shalom for all of God’s people. Moreover, the gentile nations are to share in this universal Shalom (17): total peace and prosperity in body, mind, and spirit. This is often thought to be a psalm regarding Solomon. Tradition designates Psalm 72 as a psalm to Solomon. However, regardless of the specific reference of this psalm, its general character as one of the Coronation Psalms, which usually allude to David or the Davidic dynasty, places it solidly in the genre of those regal psalms that consistently make reference to the Son of Man who is also the Son of God. Little effort is made in these psalms to define the nature and boundaries of either of those terms. The terms may have intended to describe the exalted human as a righteous man or as possessing the divine spirit in some special way, as the Egyptians thought was the case with their Pharaohs. Nonetheless, these titles seem to have formed a progressively accumulating tradition of concepts that, by the time of Second Temple Judaism, formed a stream of Son of Man traditions. Thus it was possible for the Israelites of the exilic and post-exilic period (Second Temple) to pour specific content into this conceptual linguistic container and produce a great variety of models of a heavenly and quasi-divine Son of Man figure. That figure was then alluded to by numerous quasi-divine titles,3 including Son of God. Comparably, in Psalm 80 we have a plea by the congregation of God’s people, imploring God to designate a messianic agent who will be a shepherd to Israel, restoring peace and prosperity, freedom and righteousness to the people in the land of Israel. The petitions specifically ask God to place his hand “upon the man of 3

Cf. especially 1 Enoch 37–71.

152

J. HAROLD ELLENS

God’s right hand,” referring to that specially designated person as the Son of Man with a unique vocation of power and responsibility in God’s economy: Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, the son of man whom thou hast made strong for thyself! (RSV).

This identification of God’s agent in the messianic context of this psalm seems once again to describe the potential ordination or coronation of the man referred to in other Coronation Psalms as the Son of Man and a Son of God. Psalm 110 is thought to be a psalm of David. In it the exalted human figure is invited to sit on the right hand of God (110:1). This seems to be a heavenly exaltation of which we hear echoes in Daniel 7:13. There the Son of Man appears in heaven with a cloud and is introduced to God, the Ancient of Days. God immediately commissions him to put down evil on the earth and establish the reign of God everywhere. God’s reign is to be a universal dominion of righteous and peace. In Psalm 110:4b the exalted, and now heavenly, king is also designated as a perpetual priest, “after the order of Melchizedek.” Presumably his role in establishing the kingdom of Shalom requires both the regal power of the king and the sacred spirit of the priest, that is, a Son of Man who is a Son of God.

SECOND TEMPLE SON OF MAN TRADITIONS In summary, Second Temple Judaism Son of Man traditions indicate a progressive development. In Ezekiel he is a mere human Son of Man, commissioned as a priestly prophet proclaiming the impending restoration of the divine reign in Israel. In Daniel he is the exalted heavenly Son of Man, who is not enthroned and not the divine judge, but commissioned to execute the divine judgment in the whole world. In the Parables of Enoch (I Enoch 37–71), the Son of Man is a mere man, but he is exalted to heavenly status. He is superior to the angels and learns all the divine truth. He has the task of revealing the heavenly mysteries to God’s people on earth. Enthroned as the Eschatological Judge, he is commissioned to destroy all the unrighteous and gather the righteous into a divine kingdom. That will take place in a cataclysmic parousia that will end history as we know it and institute the universal divine reign.

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

153

In the Synoptic Gospels the Son of Man is a mere human who is commissioned to reveal the divine mysteries in his ministry on earth and then be exalted to heavenly status, enthroned as the Eschatological Judge. There he awaits the Day of the Lord, a day of judgment and salvation. Then he will return to earth in heavenly power and glory in a cataclysmic parousia, destroying all the unrighteous and gathering the righteous into the divine kingdom on earth, ending history as we know it. This pattern reflects that of Enoch, except that in Enoch the mere man is exalted to heavenly status and then is designated the Son of Man who reveals the heavenly mysteries and will return as the judge. In the Synoptic Gospels he first reveals the heavenly mysteries by his work on earth and then is exalted to heavenly status, there awaiting his return as judge. Then the divine reign will become complete in the whole world. In IV Ezra and the Psalms of Solomon, this messianic figure, is “The Man from the Sea”. He is a conquering royal figure who establishes the divine reign on earth by military conquest in which he exterminates all the unrighteous and gathers the righteous into the universal divine kingdom on earth. In the Dead Sea Scrolls the tradition is multiple. While the term, Son f Man, is never used, a figure with all the characteristics of the Son of Man of Second Temple Judaism traditions is plainly evident. In the Hodayot, The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, and in the War Scroll, priestly and royal messiahs appear who clearly fill the role of revealers of the heavenly mysteries, proclaimers of the impending divine reign in Israel, suffering servant saviors of the righteous, and potentially enthroned eschatological judges. In 11Q13(Mel) we have a special case of similar nature and warrants a more extensive treatment. The thirteen (or fifteen)4

Pierpaolo Bertalotto says there are fifteen in his unpublished research paper, “The Superhuman Melchizedek: A Qumranic Response to the Enochic Son of Man,” University of Michigan. Annette Steudel says there are fourteen fragments. Cf. Annette Steudel (2000), Melchizedek, Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam, eds. (2000), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, vol. 1, NY: Oxford, pp. 535–37. 4

154

J. HAROLD ELLENS

fragments of this first century BCE document5 proclaim liberty to the captives, after the messianic theme of Isaiah 61:1. It promises a general restoration of freedom: from prison, debt, loss of property, fear, guilt, and shame. This redemption is to be realized at the eschaton. This is to be accomplished by Melchizedek, a deliverer who is sent from heaven. He is referred to as the leader or director of the “sons of heaven” and the “gods of justice.” Thus he is, on occasion, referred to as el and elohim, as the usage of these terms in Job 1:6, and in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. Vermes suggests that the names have here their secondary meaning of judge rather than deity. Here Melchizedek is portrayed as presiding over the final Judgment and condemnation of his demonic counterpart, Belial/Satan, the Prince of Darkness, elsewhere also called Melkiresha. The great act of deliverance is expected to occur on the Day of Atonement at the end of the tenth Jubilee cycle.6

Vermes points out that the portrayal of Melchizedek in 11Q13(Mel) enlightens us regarding the traditions of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 14:18, Ps. 110:4), and the Son of Man as Eschatological Judge or Prosecutor in Second Temple Judaisms’ traditions. There is an apparent correlation between the figure of Melchizedek in 11Q13(Mel) and the development of the specific type of messianic concept that we find in the 1 Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels.7 In the thirteen fragments of this tractate (11Q13(Mel), Melchizedek is a heavenly agent who manages a divine economy in Klaus Koch, in his work cited above, thinks it is possible that 11Q13(Mel) is a 2nd century BCE document (p. 430). John F. Hobbins suggests the same possibility in his chapter in the same volume, entitled, Resurrection in Daniel and Other Writings at Qumran, p. 400, n8. Vermes declares without apology that it is from the 1st century BCE (cf. fn. 1 above and 8 below) 6 Vermes, Op. Cit., 500. 7 Vermes (Op. Cit.,) suggests, as a source of this idea, the work of A. S. van der Woude (1965), “Melchizedek als himmlische Erlösergestalt ....,” in Oudtestamentische Studien, Leiden: Brill, 354–73. 5

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

155

which the restoration of freedom and prosperity includes forgiveness “of all the iniquities” and “wrong-doings” of those who were deprived and oppressed. He “will assign them to the Sons of Heaven.” They will share the “inheritance” and the “portion” of Melchizedek. The Day of Atonement will free all the “Sons of Heaven” who are of the “lot of Melchizedek” ... for this is the “year of Grace of Melchizedek.” A sound translation of Isaiah 61:2 reads similarly, “to proclaim the timeliness of the Lord’s acceptance” [of needy humanity] (J.H.E. Tr.). There follows quite naturally, in 11Q13(Mel), a description of Melchizedek as El or Elohim (judge) who, because of his exousia (strength, power, authority [cf. Jn. 5:27–47), will “judge the holy ones of God” (cf. Dan. 7:22, 25, 27, I Enoch 69–71). Here the document footnotes its claim, so to speak, by citing Psalm 82:1–2 and Psalm 7:7–8 regarding the judgment performed by the Elohim. Moreover, Melchizedek’s (Elohim-judge) judgment also executes Yahweh’s vengeance against Belial and the spirits who rebelliously follow him. Melchizedek, as Eschatological Judge or Prosecutor, will snatch away from Belial’s control all the deprived and oppressed people, and restore their liberty and prosperity as the Sons of Heaven. There follows a doxology about what the prophets called repeatedly The Great Day of the Lord, or The Day of Judgment and Salvation. This is the day of [Peace/Salvation] concerning which [God] spoke [through Isa]iah the prophet, who said, [How] beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: Your Elohim [reigns] (Isa. 52:7).

This short tractate makes clear that its lead figure, Melchizedek, is a man from heaven who is appointed by Yahweh to exercise the role of the Eschatological Judge and Prosecutor (Elohim: “Your Elohim/Lord reigns!”). In this role he is accorded the exousia to put down evil powers, to deliver the righteous or redeemed from the evil powers, and to gather together into the heavenly kingdom all those who are forgiven and thus redeemed; and so are known as the Sons of Heaven or the Sons of Light. The notion of the righteous as those whom God has forgiven is later reflected in the Gospel of John.

156

J. HAROLD ELLENS

The Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) do not use the term, Son of Man. However, two questions are worth noting. First, is there a Son-ofMan-like-figure, a virtual Son of Man, in 11Q13(Mel)? How is this figure of Melchizedek related to other Second Temple Judaism Son of Man traditions? Does this document have roots in the prophecies of Ezekiel, Daniel (7–10), the Similitudes (Parables) of I Enoch (37–71), Genesis 14:17, Psalms 2, 8, 72, 110, and Proverbs 30?8 These texts all contain competing Second Temple Jewish Son of Man traditions. Second, is the figure in 11Q13(Mel) a suffering messiah associated with the suffering Royal and Priestly Messiahs of the War Scroll and in the Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns)? Melchizedek is depicted here as an exalted human figure, given a heavenly locus, accorded the role of Eschatological Judge and/or Prosecutor, and possessing a redemptive or salvific vocation. This suggests a significant interface between the messianic images in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and those regarding the Son of Man in the minds of apocalyptic Jews of the first two centuries B.C.E.; as well as in the minds of the apocalyptic Jews who wrote the Gospels in the first century CE. Heinz E. Tödt (1965) also found, in the Rule of the Community (Serekh ha-Yahad, iv.25 and

Klaus Koch asserts unequivocally that 11Q13(Mel) “clearly refers to Daniel. The subject of its preserved fragments is the tenth jubilee as the age of redemption, during which Isa 52:7’s promise of Jerusalem’s final salvation and the realization of the God’s kingdom will be fulfilled. On this theme the commentary identifies the messenger of the good news (mebasser) of the prophecy with ‘the Messiah of the spirit (ha-ruach) about whom Daniel spoke.’ ... however the determination ‘of the spirit’ is lacking here. Is the ‘annointed ruler’ (Dan 9:24), who arises seven ‘weeks’ after the ‘going forth of the word’ being referred to in 11Q13, or is this the Messiah who will be cut off after 69 ‘weeks’? Or, alternatively, does this scroll know a variant version of Daniel?” Koch thinks that this indicates that 11Q13(Mel) is not dependent upon CD. Klaus Koch (2002), Stages in the Canonization of the Book of Daniel, in John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, eds. (2002), The Book of Daniel, Composition and Reception, 2 Vols., Leiden: Brill, 430. 8

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

157

ix.11),9 references to the actions of a messianic figure like the one in the Son of Man sayings of Matthew 19:28: Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

and Mark 14:61–62: The high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven”.10

Tödt simply noted that the only setting, other than in the Dead Sea Scrolls documents he cites, in which this notion arises of a messianic human figure, moving toward an apotheosis as Eschatological Judge, is in the Son of Man logia in the NT Gospels. Tödt points out that in Mark 14:61–62 the titles Son of Man and Messiah are joined. At Qumran, as in I Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels, the messianic man is divinely appointed to function as judge in the eschaton. His identity and function is that of discerning the righteous from the condemned unrighteous, abolishing the latter, and assembling the former into the heavenly kingdom. The Qumran reference with which Tödt joins these Gospel narratives concerns the hope for the endurance of the righteous, “until the prophet comes, and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.”11 In the literary drama of the Gospels Jesus is portrayed as announcing that this Son of Man is the figure who is to suffer at the hands of evil men and die, in direct correspondence with the Qumran expectation regarding the Royal Messiah in the Hodayot.12 The defining features in each of these competing or mutually Florentino Garcia Martinez (1996), The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, The Qumran Texts in English, Second Edition, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 7 and 13–14 10 Heinz Eduard Tödt (1965), The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, (Philadelphia: Westminster), p. 91; see also p. 37. 11 Martinez, Op. Cit., pp. 13–14 12 Cf. again the Hodayot and the Thanksgiving Hymns. 9

158

J. HAROLD ELLENS

influencing Second Temple traditions are specific and can be categorized as follows. The Gospel of John holds for a remarkably different picture. Here the Son of Man is the heavenly figure of the divine Logos, incarnated in a human person, Jesus. He is commissioned, as the one from heaven, to reveal all the heavenly mysteries to humankind. Those mysteries are specifically the fact that the divine judgment took place before the creation and established God’s decision to save the entire world by unconditional grace and forgiveness. Having accomplished that task, the Son of Man returned to his heavenly status, never to return to earth. He eliminated the unrighteous by forgiving them. There will be no parousia, no eschaton, no end to history, no judgment day. Salvation is universal. Thus, while the Son of Man normally has the function of the Eschatological Judge, he has set that aside and determined instead to be the universal savior. In the end, every eye shall see, every knee bow, and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord, to the glory of God. Common features: 1) A human agent with a divine vocation to proclaim the kingdom of God on earth and in heaven. 2) The exaltation of this divine agent to heavenly status at some point in his career. 3) An ordeal of responsible action regarding the affairs of the powers on earth, which may involve significant suffering on the part of the divinely appointed agent. 4) The removal of evil powers on earth and the establishment of a universal divine reign on earth. 5) The salvation of the righteous people of God. 6) A messianic identity of the divinely appointed agent in keeping with the specifications for the Messiah in Isaiah 61:1–3. Whether the Son of Man in Daniel is messianic is still debated. 7) The vocation to descend from heaven to earth at some point in his career to execute divine judgment and salvation and end history as we know it. 8) He reveals the heavenly mysteries of the divine purposes in history.

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

159

Special features: 1) In Daniel he is not a judge but is a type of prosecutor in the sense of having responsibility for carrying out the judgment that God has already pronounced on evil persons and powers.13

George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man”, Anchor Bible Dictionary, D. N. Freedman, ed., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), VI. p. 138. Nickelsburg develops at length the relationship between Daniel 7 and the Parables of Enoch (I En. 37–71), with particular emphasis upon the judicial role of the messianic figure. While he distinguishes between the judicial role of Michael in Daniel 10 and 12 and the non-judicial role of the one like a Son of Man in Daniel 7, he nonetheless points out that “The heavenly enthronement of the one like a Son of Man will involve Israel’s earthly supremacy over all the nations.” This supremacy is reminiscent of the messianic destiny of Israel in Isaiah 61:5–6. Nickelsburg points out that it is this supremacy of the messianic figure or people which one finds in 1QM XVII:8, as well. Here we read that God will exalt “the dominion of Israel over all flesh.” This is apparently an extension of the earthly effects of the work of The People of the Holy Ones of the Most High, carried out in the name and exousia of the “one like unto a Son of Man.” In Daniel 7 the one like the Son of Man is exalted to heavenly status. It is not clear, despite Nickelsburg’s remark to the contrary, that the Son of Man is actually enthroned in heaven in Daniel 7–10, but he is accorded a heavenly status next to the Most High God, the Ancient of Days. Both he and his minions on earth, “the People of the Holy Ones of the Most High,” are exalted over all kingdoms and powers on earth. Thus, the one like unto the Son of Man becomes the heavenly epitome of The People of the Holy Ones of the Most High who are on earth. Conversely, they become the earthly epitome of the exalted and heavenly Son of Man. It is interesting that in Daniel the Son of Man never descends to earth, but through his “field forces” on earth, who are accorded the dominion and power that his exousia incarnates, accomplishes his task of destroying evil powers and empires, thereby establishing the reign of the heavenly kingdom in all the earth. Those field forces prosecute the divine judgment which the Son of Man has the power, authority, and responsibility to work out on earth. Daniel’s Son of Man is not enthroned but he exercises eschatological judgment through The People of the Holy Ones of the Most High. 13

160

J. HAROLD ELLENS

2) In I Enoch, The Hodayot and War Scroll of Qumran, and The Synoptic Gospels he is the Eschatological Judge who effects 7 above. 3) In the Fourth Gospel he is the Eschatological Judge (5:27); but he sets aside that function (5:28–47) in favor of the function of universal savior of the world (3:13–18).14 4) Both the Royal Messiah of Qumran, depicted in the Thanksgiving Hymns and in the War Scroll, and the Gospel character of Jesus’ character are suffering and dying messiahs. While the Qumran Community does not refer to the Eschatological Judge or Suffering Messiah as the Son of Man in the Serekh ha-Yahad, the Hodayot, or the War Scroll; the DSS seem to have in mind a similar messianic figure as the one for which I Enoch and the Jesus Movement employed that title, Son of Man. Can we discern in the Melchizedek narrative in 11Q13(Mel) any of the 8 common and/or 4 special features of the Son of Man in Second Temple Jewish traditions? Common features: 1) A human agent with a divine vocation to proclaim the kingdom of God on earth. Melchizedek is an earthly figure as he appears in the Abraham narrative in the Hebrew Bible tradition. He is priest of Salem. He is a priest of the Most High God. Presumably it is this Melchizedek who is the main character in 11Q13(Mel). Here he proclaims deliverance to the captives (Deut. 15:2, Isa. 61:1, 3), i.e., the Jubilee year for release of all those captive to debt, forgiveness and atonement for all those captive to guilt and shame, and by casting their lot with the righteous (the inheritance of Melchizedek) he affords the liberty of hope to all those who are captive to fear and hopelessness regarding their eternal destiny (lines 1–8). 2) The exaltation of this divine agent to heavenly status at some point in his career. As he presents in 11Q13(Mel), Melchizedek is an agent of divine action who has been accorded heavenly status for he arrives See J. Harold Ellens (2009), “What is the Son of Man in John: The Son of Man Logia in John and in the Synoptic Gospels, In the Light of Second Temple Judaism Traditions,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Department of Near Eastern Studies, division of Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins. 14

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

161

on the scene in this document with the aura of a heavenly presence (lines 1–29). 3) An ordeal of responsible action regarding the affairs of the powers on earth, which may involve significant suffering on the part of the divinely appointed agent. Melchizedek does not seem to be characterized as the suffering servant in 11Q13(Mel); but his entire raison d’etre is to act regarding the powers on earth. 4) The removal of evil powers on earth and the establishment of universal divine reign on earth. Melchizedek will execute judgment, urging return to God, and exterminating Belial and all whom he has infected with an unjust spirit (lines 9–4); thus delivering the righteous and gathering them into the divine kingdom. 5) The salvation of the righteous people of God. Melchizedek will raise up the Sons of God to exalted heights on the day of peace and salvation, comfort the grieving, announcing the good news of salvation to all God’s people (lines 15–20, 26). 6) A messianic identity of the divinely appointed agent in keeping with the specifications for the Messiah in Isaiah 61:1–3. Whether the Son of Man in Daniel is messianic is still debated. Melchizedek in 11Q13(Mel) meets the rubrics of Isaiah 61:1–3: a) He obviously arrives by the power of the divine spirit and is anointed to his specific messianic task (61:1a); b) He brings good news to the afflicted and binds up the brokenhearted (61:1b); c) He proclaims liberty to the captives and freedom to those imprisoned in various ways (61:1c). d) He appears to proclaim the “year of the Lord’s favor”; the timeliness of God’s acceptance of humans, the day of peace and salvation, the Jubilee (61:2a); e) He proclaims the day of the vengeance of God, i.e., “Melchizedek will avenge the vengeance of the judgments of God against Belial and his minions” (61:2b). f) He comforts those who mourn by giving them beauty, gladness, praise, and a strong spirit (61:3a-b 7) The vocation to descend from heaven to earth at some point in his career to execute divine judgment and salvation and end history as we know it. 11Q13(Mel) represents this feature throughout this idealized vision of the messianic age. 8) He reveals the heavenly mysteries of the divine purposes in history. 11Q13(Mel) is throughout specifically this kind of revelation of the

162

J. HAROLD ELLENS

providential divine initiative to install his reign throughout God’s domain, in the place of the forces of evil. Special features: 1) In Daniel the Son of Man is not a judge but is a type of prosecutor in the sense of responsibility for carrying out the judgment that God has already pronounced on evil persons and powers.15 In 11Q13(Mel) Melchizedek is George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Son of Man”, Anchor Bible Dictionary, D. N. Freedman, ed., (New York: Doubleday, 1992), VI. p. 138. Nickelsburg develops at length the relationship between Daniel 7 and the Parables of Enoch (I En. 37–71), with particular emphasis upon the judicial role of the messianic figure. While he distinguishes between the judicial role of Michael in Daniel 10 and 12 and the non-judicial role of the one like a Son of Man in Daniel 7, he nonetheless points out that “The heavenly enthronement of the one like a Son of Man will involve Israel’s earthly supremacy over all the nations.” This supremacy is reminiscent of the messianic destiny of Israel in Isaiah 61:5–6. Nickelsburg points out that it is this supremacy of the messianic figure or people which one finds in 1QM XVII:8, as well. Here we read that God will exalt “the dominion of Israel over all flesh.” This is apparently an extension of the earthly effects of the work of The People of the Holy Ones of the Most High, carried out in the name and exousia of the “one like unto a Son of Man.” In Daniel 7, the one like the Son of Man is exalted to heavenly status. It is not clear, despite Nickelsburg’s remark to the contrary, that the Son of Man is actually enthroned in heaven in Daniel 7–10, but he is accorded a heavenly status next to the Most High God, the Ancient of Days. Both he and his minions on earth, “the People of the Holy Ones of the Most High,” are exalted over all kingdoms and powers on earth. Thus, the one like unto the Son of Man becomes the heavenly epitome of The People of the Holy Ones of the Most High who are on earth. Conversely, they become the earthly epitome of the exalted and heavenly Son of Man. It is interesting that in Daniel the Son of Man never descends to earth, but through his “field forces” on earth, who are accorded the dominion and power that his exousia incarnates, accomplishes his task of destroying evil powers and empires, thereby establishing the reign of the heavenly kingdom in all the earth. Those field forces prosecute the divine judgment which the Son of Man has the power, authority, and responsibility to work out on earth. Daniel’s Son of Man is not enthroned but he exercises 15

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

163

the Eschatological Judge as he is in I Enoch, the Hodayot and War Scroll, and the Synoptic Gospels. This differs from Daniel. 2) In I Enoch, The Hodayot and War Scroll of Qumran, The Synoptic Gospels, and 11Q13(Mel) Melchizedek is the Eschatological Judge who effects 7 above. 3) In the Fourth Gospel he is the Eschatological Judge (5:27); but he sets aside that function (5:28–47) in favor of the function of universal savior of the whole world (3:13–18). In 11Q13(Mel) the messianic figure is also the savior, but only of the righteous, as in I Enoch, Daniel, and in the Hodayot and War Scroll. 4) Both the Royal Messiah of Qumran, depicted in the Thanksgiving Hymns and in the War Scroll, and the Synoptic Jesus character are suffering and dying messiahs. In 11Q13 (Mel) the messianic figure is not the suffering servant nor dying messiah that we find in Isaiah 53, in the Hodayot and War Scroll, and in the Synoptic Gospels. This is the singular feature in which the messianic figure in 11Q13(Mel) differs from these three traditions, but in this regard is like the Danielic Son of Man.

SUMMARY OF DSS VIRTUAL SON OF MAN We may conclude that while the DSS do not name or title a Son of Man, they present the same messianic theology of eschatological judgment and salvation that is presented in Ezekiel, Daniel 7–9, the Parables of Enoch, the Hodayot and War Scrolls, the Serekh ha-Yahad, and the Synoptic Gospels. Its representative is, in each case except the last three, given the name, title, and messianic biography of the Son of Man. Moreover, 11Q13(Mel) accords Melchizedek the heavenly exaltation characterizing the divine agent in Daniel 7–9; I Enoch 37– 71; the Serekh ha-Yahad, the Hodayot, and the War Scroll at Qumran; the Synoptic Gospels; and in John’s Gospel. Thus, it certainly seems to be the same figure that is the exalted Son of Man in I Enoch 37–71, the suffering servant-Royal Messiah in the Hodayot and War Scroll, the exalted one in the Serekh ha-Yahad, the messianic suffering servant-Son of Man in the Jesus eschatological judgment through The People of the Holy Ones of the Most High.

164

J. HAROLD ELLENS

story, the judge and savior in the Fourth Gospel, and the admittedly somewhat different judge and savior in 11Q13(Mel). In all those competing traditions this divine agent is referred to by the name, Son of Man, except in the four Qumran sources: Serekh ha-Yahad, Hodayot, War Scroll, and 11Q13(Mel). We are compelled to conclude that in these DSS documents we have a Second Temple Judaism tradition which contains a virtual Son of Man.16 Since the DSS have a virtual Son of Man, the inevitable question arises as to why they never used that title? While that question goes beyond the scope of this essay, an interesting and definitive explanation may be found in the work of Boccaccini.17

BACK TO THE CORONATION PSALMS We can now ask where the Coronation Psalms fit into this picture of Second Temple Judaisms and whether David is a proto-Son of Man. This is merely a matter of correlating the taxonomy of characteristics that may be seen in the Coronation Psalms and the later Second Temple traditions. As noted above, in Psalm 2 Yahweh is represented as exalting a specially chosen “son” (7) by anointing (2c) him to be king (6a), presumably in Jerusalem (6b). So here we have the following taxonomy: 1. An exalted figure who God calls God’s Son. (7b) 2. An anointed and enthroned royal figure. (6) 3. He is accorded the task of executing God’s judgment upon the world, exterminating the unrighteous and saving the righteous. (9) 4. He will establish the divine reign in the whole world. (8) Knohl, p. 3. See note 2 above. Gabrielle Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis, The Parting of the Ways Between Qumran and Enochic Judaism, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). See also J. Harold Ellens (2011), The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Son of Man, An Assessment of 11Q13(Mel), Proceedings of the Fifth International Enoch Seminar, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; as well as Ellens (2012), The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch, and the NT Gospels: An Assessment of 11Q13(Mel), Proceedings of the Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Context at the University of Vienna, Leiden: Brill. 16 17

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

165

In Psalm 8 a similar taxonomy is apparent. We have here: 1. A figure called the Son of Man. (4b) 2. This Son of Man is exalted to heavenly status, second only to God. (5a) 3. He is an anointed and enthroned royal figure, with glory and honor. (5b) 4. He is accorded the task of executing God’s judgment upon the world, exterminating the unrighteous and saving the righteous. (6) 5. He establishes the divine kingdom on the whole earth. (6–8) In Psalm 72 the taxonomy is as follows: 1. A figure called the Son of God. (1b) 2. He is an anointed and enthroned royal figure, possessing justice. (1a) 3. He is accorded the task of executing God’s judgment on the world, exterminating the unrighteous and saving the righteous. (2a, 8–11) 4. He especially redeems the exploited and abused. (2b–4, 12–14) 4. He establishes the divine kingdom on the whole earth. (5–7, 15–20) Psalm 80 presents the figure similarly: 1. He is a figure called the Son of Man. (17b) 2. He is an exalted figure to heavenly status at God’s right hand, thus second only to God. (17a) 3. He is accorded strength and power by God. (17b) 4. He is expected to restore the reign, domain, or kingdom of God on earth, exterminating the unrighteous and saving the righteous. (2b–16) Psalm 110 adds the name of Melchizedek: 1. No one is named Son of Man or Son of God in Psalm 110, instead there is Melchizedek, who according to 11Q13(Mel) is the equivalent in the DSS. (4) 2. He is exalted to heavenly status, on God’s right hand, second only to God. (1a) 3. He is enthroned as king. (1b–2a, 7b)

166

J. HAROLD ELLENS

4. He is accorded the task of executing divine judgment on the world, exterminating the unrighteous and saving the righteous. (2b, 5–6) 5. He will bring in the kingdom of the divine reign. (3–4) The taxonomy of the common features of Second Temple Judaism Traditions: 1. A human agent with a divine vocation to proclaim the kingdom of God on earth and in heaven. 2. The exaltation of this divine agent to heavenly status at some point in his career. 3. An ordeal of responsible action regarding the affairs of the powers on earth, which may involve significant suffering on the part of the divinely appointed agent. 4. The removal of evil powers on earth and the establishment of a universal divine reign on earth. 5. The salvation of the righteous people of God. 6 A messianic identity of the divinely appointed agent in keeping with the specifications for the Messiah in Isaiah 61:1–3. 7. The vocation to descend from heaven to earth at some point in his career to execute divine judgment and salvation and end history as we know it. 8. He reveals the heavenly mysteries of the divine purposes in history. Additional special features in Second Temple Judaism Son of Man traditions include references to Melchizedek, the virtual Son of Man of the DSS; references to rescuer and savior, especially of the needy; references to suffering and dying messiahs.

CONCLUSION It is clear from this correlation that David, or preferably, the exalted royal figure of the Coronation Psalms, stands as the conceptual progenitor of the Son of Man in Second Temple Judaisms. The correspondence of primary features in those psalms and in all the Son of Man traditions are too prominent and consistently present to occur from mere happenstance. The Coronation Psalms constitute the shaping forces behind the subsequent Son of Man traditions of exilic and post-exilic apocalyptic Judaisms. The uniform paradigm of those psalms and the later Son of Man traditions hold all the primary features in

DAVID AS SON OF MAN

167

common. Those are the exaltation of a human to heavenly status, his enthronement in royal prestige and empowerment to execute divine judgment. His task is to eliminate the unrighteous and gather the righteous into the kingdom of God. His passion is especially for the poor and oppressed. He reveals the heavenly mysteries to humankind, and he establish the reign of Shalom in the world. He is consistently designed in a variety of terms, all of which mean Son of Man, God’s right hand man.

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID:

COMPARING THE BIBLE AND TALMUD ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF TALMUD When dealing with the nature of Talmud interpretation, there are as many different perspectives on how the rabbis of the Talmud treat the biblical material as there are for the inception of the biblical text itself. In fact, due to the lack of historical events explicitly mentioned in the Talmudic texts, it is even more difficult to ascribe particular dates to the individual sayings and teachings of Talmud than it is to assign specific dates to the material within the Hebrew Bible.1 The relationship of the Talmud to the Tanakh, however, is many-layered, and without a firm grasp on the early rabbinic hermeneutics, much lies beyond the modern scholar. To the sages, each word and phrase within Scripture was intrinsically meaningful, and could be quoted apart from its original context to address a marginally related biblical passage or situational circumstance. The comparison between the two texts fosters a more complete understanding of the more ancient through acknowledging their differences. The critical reader is obliged to consider these in order to enhance his view of the textual intent and purpose throughout This is to say that biblical textual criticism is irrelevant to the nature of Talmud (H. L. Strack & G. Stemberger, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark: 1991), p. 47). 1

169

170

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

its history; there is value in acknowledging textual and form criticisms, but tracking the progression of Talmudic literature throughout its various times and traditions may be more relevant for the study of Talmud. Thus, today’s critical scholar should approach the early rabbinic literature with a more holistic goal. A conglomerate of halakhah, aggadah, and gemara, Talmud may only be defined unto itself, other rabbinic literature, and the Tanakh. This “corporate literary effort” is from a multitude of successive generations from either Babylonia or the Land of Israel. As a result of ‘individual’ formations in Babylon and Jerusalem, there are two Talmudim, each named after the city of their provenance: the Babylonian (or Bavli)2 and the Jerusalem (Yerushalmi) Talmudim. Although formed in separate social contexts, the sages all occupied themselves with the same task: clarifying Scripture and applying it to life as they knew it.3 After the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, it was the chief object of study for the rabbis and their disciples. It is, and remains in short, a commentary on the Mishnah. There is nothing simple about Talmud. The mishnaic passages are given, and then after each selection of mishnah there follows the gemara: the commentary on the mishnaic passage. The mishnah can be either halakhic (pertaining to a legal ruling) or aggadic (more ‘story’ or narrative), and the gemara may also include elements of halakhah and aggadah as they supplement the original source. Different literary forms combine in a patch-work quilt of rabbinic sayings, of which the mishnah statement is the most readily identifiable form. In theory, each gemara relates to the mishnah that precedes it. But the gemara is comprised of seemingly random statements, making it difficult to determine where the discussion on one topic ends and another begins. Even so, one can

The Bavli is the more complete of the two and will be the primary text of this investigation. Unless otherwise mentioned, the term Talmud will not refer to the Yerushalmi. 3 Hyam Maccoby, Early Rabbinic Writings, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 1. 2

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

171

discern three general forms of “thematic coordination”: the series, the cluster, and the multiple theme.4 We shall first turn toward the biblical accounts of David, beginning with that found in Samuel-Kings. From this account and the subsequent accounts of Chronicles and Psalms, we shall build a basis for our comparison of the different portrayals of David’s character and how they are used by the different groups of authoreditors in their respective times and settings.

THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF DAVID Information about King David may be found primarily in two places within the Hebrew Bible—Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. The Samuel-Kings version is a part of the Former Prophets and of the Deuteronomistic historical books. Chronicles, although largely considered a retelling of the Samuel-Kings account, by Christianity is considered part of the Ketuvim=[sacred] Writings by Judaica. The categorization of Chronicles within the Writings suggests it was seen as less authoritative than that of Samuel-Kings on account of the discrepancies between the two texts. It is readily apparent that the Chronicler was intimately familiar with the episodes of the SamuelKings narrative, as evidenced by noticeable changes of which many advance a theology easily discernable from that of the Deuteronomist. But Samuel-Kings is not free of theological agenda, identified with the Deuteronomistic school of the Babylonian exile, and the label ‘historical’ is inaccurate. The aspirations of the biblical authors were not to record empirical history as modernity conceives of history, but rather as a method of instruction by which both history and theology could be imparted.5

For our purposes, it is enough to note that they are linked together in discernable forms; see Samely, pp. 43–44, for a detailed explanation of the different types. 5 Steven McKenzie, King David, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 44. 4

172

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

Deuteronomistic History The historical ‘reality’ of David is not of interest for this essay. Rather, considered here shall be the editors’ agendas, how the character of David is transformed within those agendas, and the functionality of said transformations. The Deuteronomist (Dtr.) opens his account with the first anointing of David before his brothers in 1 Samuel 16 and concludes over 40 chapters later with his death in 1 Kings 2:12. Its length and central location in the Deuteronomistic History clearly indicate David’s importance, and is further supported in the following narratives where David is the standard by which all the kings of Israel’s history are judged. It is suggested that the reason for this emphasis lies in the situation of the Dtr.: the Babylonian exile during the mid to late sixth century B.C.E.6 Reformulating the ideology and theology of Israel to answer the people’s perceived need both of a temple and an Israelite king through readdressing Israel’s history, the Dtr. effectively addressed his society’s concerns. In the Deuteronomistic History, a number of narrative inconsistencies stand out: double ascription for the slaying of Goliath, an introduction scene in triplicate of David to Saul, etc. The transmission of the differing accounts as they were last edited also provides insight into the editor’s agenda. Working under this hypothesis allows for exploration of such purposes and agenda through the identification of literary tropes, themes, and other devices.7 Attention to literary devices used by the editor paint a ‘Janus’ portrait of David as a man of extremes. The paradoxical king’s suspect motives are often explained as the Dtr.’s refusal to choose between different traditions. This juxtaposition indicates more than a simple reluctance to choose one tradition over another; rather the juxtaposition and chronological orchestration of events and theologies imply an underlying rationale. In the Dtr.’s cultural setting, the role of monarchy is a delicate issue because there is no Israelite king; it has been replaced by a theocracy at the McKenzie, King David, pp. 27–8. This essay presupposes the reader’s familiarity with the basic literary devices. This methodology will also be applied to the rabbinic texts. 6 7

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

173

pleasure of the Achaemenid Persians. The Dtr., while compiling the traditions into their final form, sought to provide the reasons why. And David as a legendary king during Israel’s Golden Age may well be what the people were remembering when they reminisced, but the Dtr. took care that David should not be remembered as a purely good king. In fact, the Dtr. goes to great lengths to show how the Israel’s first three great kings all: were good and godly men, grew to great(-er) power, and then fell from their glory in a variety of ways, including mental illness, adultery, murder, and idolatry.8 All three are portrayed in ways which emphasize and fulfill the warning given by Samuel about what all kings inevitably do (1 Sam. 8). The Chronicler’s Conception The second ‘primary’ source within which the David narrative is found (1 Chron. 11–29), is a primary source only in comparison with later Talmudic references. Taking and adapting the account found in Samuel-Kings, the Chronicler (Chr.) subverts the original intent of the Dtr. and fashions an answer for his historical situation.9 The specific historical situation of the Chr. in his writing is his emphasis on the necessity of a centralized Temple for Jewish worship. It is in this emphasis that the present essay has the most interest. Chronicles’ account of David employs the traditional narratives of Israel’s ‘Golden Age’ with several notable differences. Discrepancies between the Chr.’s version and the Dtr.’s have traditionally been explained by considering Chronicles as a divergence from the earlier, Deuteronomic version. However with the discovery of the Samuel fragments at Qumran, a change in this theory has been necessitated. It is now generally believed to be based on a different version of Samuel-Kings than either that which

Ishbosheth is given so small a role by the Deuteronomist, that for the purpose of this observation he may be excluded. 9 Dating is difficult to determine and only an approximate date between 500 and 400 BCE may confidently be given to Chronicles. 8

174

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

is preserved by the Masoretic Tradition or the Septuagint.10 Even so, the insertion of pro-Levite material into the narrative indicates a departure from his sources in order to embellish Israel’s former glory, or to extol the element of the supernatural above the natural.11 Doubtless, the Chr. used many different sources in his quest to re-foster a type of realistic national pride in the people. For those sources readily available, specifically Samuel-Kings, four methods of citation may be distinguished: 1. ‘exact’ reproduction (given the nature of the different strands of Samuel-Kings extant); 2. “radical recasting and/or minimal reproduction;” 3. carefully planned substitution; and 4. exclusion.12 Through these four forms of literary dependence, the Chr. promotes his agenda. The Chr.’s main agenda is to promote the Temple to postexilic Israel by reformulating the narrative of Israel’s history. David’s kingship is so important to the Chr. that it is the only portion of his life that is mentioned. This conceptual reformulation of Israel’s past involves introducing the supernatural decree of God at every possible point (both to admonish and to hearten), as well as taking great care to present their pre-exilic history as Templecentered—or as De Vries terms it, the “worshiping congregation.”13 Throughout all of his reordering of history, the Chr. juxtaposes the prediction of the nation’s demise with his assertion that David’s dynastic rule and the religious cult of the Temple will survive forever.14 These two continual promises encapsulate the Chr.’s primary purpose. Here, David’s importance does not stand in isolation from that of the Temple, for David is A detailed breakdown of the differences among the LXX, MT, and the Qumran fragments (4QSama, 1QSama, etc.) may be found in The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, McKenzie, pp. 33ff. 11 De Vries, p. 16. 12 De Vries, p. 107. 13 De Vries, pp. 17–8. 14 De Vries, p. 99. Later, De Vries clarifies this assessment of the Chronicler’s by asserting that just as the Temple is around, though not in its Solomonic glory, so too the line of David survives in those descendents returned from Babylon (even though the original context of the promise may now be void; p. 157). 10

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

175

credited with all of the preparations for the Temple, attributed to Solomon in the Deuteronomistic account. To the Chr., there is nothing more important than the Temple, and therefore there is no one as important as David for establishing it as the locus of Israelite worship. The Portrait of David in Psalms In addition to the two main narrative accounts of David, a third may be found in the Psalter. Traditionally the entire Psalter is considered to have been written by David and a few others whose ascriptions have remained, but by and large they are considered solely the work of David.15 Although the late date given most psalms renders them of marginal importance for finding the ‘real’ David, they do still provide access to the different traditions surrounding David. McKenzie and others have suggested that one of the possible reasons behind the traditional ascription of the psalms to David lies in the Chr.’s attribution of the Temple music to him.16 The psalms were used in liturgical settings within the synagogues of the Second Temple period (and conceivably before)17 and as such their forms are those that are easily relatable for most situations, providing unity for the congregation. As liturgy, they inevitably impacted a great number of the Jewish community, further supporting their credibility as a separate, traditional conception of David. However, as the nature of this essay is to treat the Talmud’s treatment of David, the influence of the psalms will only be briefly mentioned as biblical support and as quotations used by the rabbis themselves.18

This is evidenced in both the Christian and the Jewish traditions (for Jewish traditions, c.f. bT Bava Batra 14b and Pesachim 117a). 16 McKenzie, King David, p. 38. 17 As in the case of Psalm 29. See Jeremy Schonfield, Undercurrents of Jewish Prayer, (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006). 18 For further reading on the Psalter’s conception of David in all his roles, see Steussy, pp. 185–8. 15

176

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

DAVID: THE TALMUD’S RABBI Throughout antiquity, people have had differing impressions of the ways in which history may be recorded. Until the modern era and the Enlightenment, the past was viewed as something that not only needed preserving for posterity, but as a didactic tool, a mythic religious-history, and a template for life. It was inconceivable to the rabbis that new narratives and tales about the historical figures could not be set in their current society; the past was not a static log of facts, but rather was a dynamic tool from which key life-lessons might be obtained. Being keen to incorporate the past with the present, it was not therefore deceitful to ascribe to David and other biblical characters the attributes of a sage from their own historical present. In the process of accomplishing this feat, the rabbis employed many different exegetical methods within biblical and other rabbinic sources (e.g. the Mishnah). Effectively, the rabbis wrote in a manner that expected their audience to recognize and remember all direct and indirect references to extra-Talmudic sources; they treated all rabbinic literature of their day as “one body of information.”19 Acknowledgement of this rabbinic concept and treatment of history and the research that follows allows for a closer understanding of the nuances of the text in question.20 Passages such as these disclose a certain tendency of the sages who wrote them: statements which had originally been of different textual origins could yet be intended to “be united thematically.”21 As concerns larger than life biblical personas (such as David), several received traditions have been compiled into one location where a chronological sequence is then imposed upon them in order to foster understanding. But David ben Jesse presents a special type of problem for the rabbis; perhaps more than any other. His stories in Samuel-Kings provide an incredible disparity to

Samely, p. 57; author’s italics. Samely, p. 57. 21 Samely, p. 60. 19 20

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

177

that of the rabbinic idyll;22 David’s character is irrevocably at odds with the depiction of a rabbi of the Talmudic period. The biblical character David spent no time in study and nearly all his stories involve acts of physical war or violence. As such, there are two options for the interpreter: either the rabbis were blissfully unaware of the Deuteronomistic reckoning of David, or there is a deeper irony lurking below the surface. Through the application of the traditional Talmudic hermeneutical principles and understanding the meaning of the composite text from its individual sources, the second option suddenly seems remarkably orthodox—even if it does involve smearing an already tarnished image. Particularly in the case of David, even when the rabbinic literature claims to be wholly subordinate to Scripture, it cannot help but subvert one text as it attempts to preserve another.23

Tanakh in Talmud With various translations and traditions available to the rabbis, it is logical to inquire which they would have used: the Septuagint, the predecessor to the Masoretic Text, or yet another tradition, perhaps like that hypothesized from the fragments at Qumran. Nevertheless at various junctures speculations may be made as to which tradition the referenced Scriptures were derived. This raises the question of how the Talmud uses the Tanakh. Throughout the Talmud, Scripture is employed in various manners, including the following: reinforcing a halakhic ruling, interpreting a difficult passage, and construing a passage’s meaning through creative methods. Midrash, or the interpretation and commentary on Scripture, has a specific format in which by juxtaposing the biblical and rabbinic texts it grants its consent that the two might be compared one against the other.24 As Talmud is technically commentary on the Mishnah and midrash is commentary on the Tanakh, the Talmud is not itself of the category of midrash even though it contains many midrashic elements in its explication Diamond, p. 375. Maccoby, p. 48; Schonfield, lecture in Fall of 2008. 24 Samely, p. 68. 22 23

178

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

of the Mishnah. One method utilized concerning biblical quotes is to place the quotation in the mouth of a rabbi. Not merely citing the Scripture, the rabbi applies the biblical phrase or word to a new situation that may at first seem discordant to his circumstance, but upon close inspection it provides illumination. In this way, Talmud creates a new jargon where biblical allusion becomes rabbinic terminology.25 This practice of ascribing new meanings to Scripture is justified through the rationale that since the Tanakh chose to express itself in a certain manner, this method may also be a source of “derivative interpretation,” or midrash.26 The rabbis went far beyond the recognition of idiom and word plays to an inter-textual analysis from which no rabbinic or biblical work was excluded. This concept requires a high tolerance and acceptance of human reason (as used by the elite) to explicate the deeper meanings of Tanakh. The Babylonian Talmud in particular not only allows for the reasoning of man to be used in exegesis, it encourages it—even with regard to Scripture.27 The nature of David’s life in the Deuteronomistic History presents an obstacle for the “rabbinizing” so common to the sages of the Bavli. The question of how to reform the persona of David into that of an early rabbi is not one that is easily answered. And yet, that is precisely what the rabbis did. But instead of focusing on the most prolific account in the Tanakh from which to gather their quotations, the rabbis’ favorite source was the psalms.28 Even though the Psalter provides little explicit information about David, the rabbis clearly understood him to be their author and reattributed the positive ascriptions and exclamations found within to his person. Yet this logic does not apply to their usage of Chronicles and its preference for a “good” David, for the rabbis hardly consult the Chronicles’ account at all. It is only in those Samely, p. 74. David Kraemer, Mind of the Talmud, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 94. 27 Kraemer, p. 94. 28 As indicated by the index to Sefer ha-Aggadah, the psalms are one of the most quoted biblical books within Talmud and Midrash, outdistancing Deuteronomy and Isaiah and surpassed only by Genesis. 25 26

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

179

areas of Samuel-Kings that portray God himself in an unfavorable light that the rabbis prefer the Chronicler’s account (namely, concerning the census).29 Tanakhic references are implicit or done by mentioning a few words which recall a certain passage or ruling to mind without quoting it directly. Though the number of allusions is daunting, through recognizing literary methods and constructions that are common to biblical and rabbinic thought, a certain amount of such detection is not wholly unfeasible.30 Another problematic issue in identifying biblical material within Talmudic passages is being able to recognize the difference between when the Tanakh is quoted for interpretation and when it is used as a pretext for a rabbinic teaching. However, with this difficulty there is a certain amount of ease in adapting to it, for even these references tell something about the rabbinic conception of the individual indicated (here, David). Conventions of Usage: Theological Themes and Literary Devices The Bavli, as a whole, is a document comprised of legal arguments. One is thus better able to consider the haphazard fragments as a cohesive whole; the overarching story begins to emerge from the ‘steady stream of consciousness’ and is found to be the continuation of the “covenant between [the Lord] and the children of Israel.”31 The details of this covenantal relationship may have changed drastically from that recorded in Samuel or Chronicles, but the original conditional promise remained the same: if Israel would keep the covenant set before them, then God would give them the land he had promised and dwell in their midst. This is often the primary lens through which Talmud and rabbinic writings are See the Appendix for a detailed outline of the explicit biblical references in Talmud and Midrash according to Sefer ha-Aggadah. 30 Reference the literary methods and constructions as delineated by Samely, pp. 91–3 as “Select Midrashic Reading Practices” for further information. 31 Donald Akenson, Surpassing Wonder, (New York: Harcourt Brace & Co, 1998), p. 378. 29

180

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

viewed. However, this theological interpretation does not preclude a furthering of the theological themes through literary critique, which unfortunately seems to be a prevalent opinion concerning Talmudic text. Despite an initial assertion otherwise, Moshe Garsiel seems to believe that in order for a text to have theological intent, it cannot employ literary devices such as irony. However, much of the time the theological issues he identifies are only visible by imposing on the narrative’s author theological views that are found in other portions of the Bible, not necessarily extant at the time of the original account’s authorship.32 These religious passages are composed of words that were fashioned (if not created) by someone, and “we do well to attend to the nuances of their choices.”33 The sages themselves did not shy away from juxtaposing the human reason of the gemara with Scripture as “an essentially equal partner,”34 but considered both to be viable resources from which they might glean legitimate rulings. However, they did not consider either as an unambiguous source for truth, as evidenced by the number of different possibilities presented concerning interpretation of Scripture. Some even claim to have found evidence that the Bavli willingly admits the reason of man is superior to the biblical presentation.35 But whether or not reason is legitimately held above the way the Bible presents a narrative or topic, the reason is at least held on a more equal footing than often acknowledged. As such, literary devices conjoined with theological themes are employed to paint a ‘new’ portrait of David, different from that found in the biblical texts. One of the most prominent theological themes in the rabbinic mindset (and some say the Bible) will now be discussed36: “measure for measure.” C.f. “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” pp. 244–62. Steussy, p. 18. 34 Kraemer, p. 148. 35 Kraemer, p. 148. 36 The reader is assumed to have a prior basic knowledge of the literary devices and tropes used by authors to enliven their text and to elucidate their meanings. 32 33

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

181

One of the most prevailing theological themes discovered by scholars within the biblical and rabbinic texts is that of measure for measure (middah ke-neged middah). Present for many generations of religiously minded exegesis, this theme is closely related to retributional theology and may be summarized as follows: the justice of God is for him to give to humanity according to their actions. Rabbinic maxims and passages are fraught with this theme, and it is present even in the answers for why their current circumstances are what they are (explanation of Temple’s destruction, how to live outside of Jerusalem and Israel, etc.). This theme is used to denote the symbolic link between actions or events.37 The theology of measure for measure is aided by the logic of repentance, which understands all things to be proportional and balanced. Rebellion is introduced by sin, and it is the volition of man that disturbs the balance of creation, therefore rabbinic theology allows for restoration through “the free exercise of man’s will.”38 This theology is not only held by the rabbis, but is also something that is stressed by some in biblical scholarship, too. Concerning the nature of the author of the David and Bathsheba account, many recognize that the focus is not the event of the battle with Rabbah into which Uriah is thrown, but it is the moral implications behind sacrificing an entire unit (specifically one man) in order to preserve another man’s reputation. That this is indeed the case, few would contest. However, the question remains, how did the author signify that in this story there was a significant difference to the norms of the day? Since the story survives as literature, it is only natural to find the literary devices used within it to signify these theological purposes. A similar note is made regarding the two scenes of adultery prominent in David’s life: his sight of Bathsheba bathing and Absalom’s later “political statement.” Though others are right to notice the parallel in place (both taking place on the rooftop), and arguably right in noticing the “measure for measure” principle once again, there are literary Samely, p. 192. Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Theology, (Lanham: University Press of America, 2008), p. 101. 37 38

182

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

agents at work that signal these moral and religious themes in greater measure than mere geography. Therefore, contrary to the opinion of several scholars,39 instead of understanding the biblical narratives’ purpose solely in theological ideas, it is better to seek understanding through conscious attention to the literary devices employed by the author, for it is through these devices that he portrays his theological themes in literature. Understanding this is especially useful in approaching the rabbis’ interpretation of the biblical account, as their brevity can often be interpreted misleadingly as simplistic or as only superficially cognizant of the biblical authors’ intents and purposes. However, once one is aware of the subtleties of the rabbis’ methodology, it is apparent that the stories within are not naïve assumptions based on an overbearing theology, but rather are ingenious, multifaceted works of art. Creative License Different literary devices combine through the use of artistic license to form highly-wrought literary masterpieces. Even beyond the tropes and themes expressed in the Tanakh, literary forms from other cultures can also be discerned in Talmud. One scholar claims to have found literary devices used in a similar manner to the puns in Greek culture, that even the same motifs appear in either culture’s literature.40 The similarity found could be a result of the interwoven cultures of the time, such that one form of humor in literature could transverse “linguistic borders” and be met with such pleasure that it would be included in Talmud.41 This receptivity to the poetics of different cultures indicates the editors of the Bavli experienced a great level of freedom in their treatment of the texts. This freedom within the text is one of the main characteristics of the author/editor-s of the Babylonian Talmud who sought “to conserve radically” the Torah’s intent. But this tendency, although related to their eagerness to explore the laws and the logic behind As an example, see Yael Shemesh, “Measure for Measure in the David Stories,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament vol. 1 (2003). 40 Galit Hasan-Rokem, “An Almost Invisible Presence: Multilingual Puns in Rabbinic Literature,” Cambridge Companion…, p. 232. 41 Hasan-Rokem, p. 222. 39

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

183

them, ultimately indicates a freedom that encouraged the editor to contemplate the alteration of biblical passages in order that the Torah’s overall intent might not be marred.42 In this adaptation of the biblical narratives and statements, the rabbis are often forced to employ what may be termed ‘creative license’ to make a point or to address a perceived issue either in the biblical text or in the society of their day. To accomplish either of these two aims, the sages employed several different types of creativity which may be loosely categorized into two forms: embellishment and narrative creation. Embellishment Embellishment appears in several forms within the rabbinic literary traditions: including the elaboration of biblical passages by inserting new settings and conditions, as well as the exaggeration by hyperbole and euphemistic phrases. Elaborating biblical passages was a common practice used especially to explain a question raised in another passage. Embellishments by nature often are lengthened into a full narrative for explanation. In bT Sanhedrin 107a, we find that Bathsheba has been intended for David since the sixth day of creation, when mankind was created. Another passage from Sanhedrin also displays this same tendency through the explication of how David could be married to two of Saul’s daughters at the same time—the answer is simply that to read so is a misinterpretation of the text, which it then details.43 Exaggeration and other forms of adiectio rhetoric often accompany the biblical characters, either turning them into heroes through hyperbole, or into seriously flawed persons through paradiastole.44 In order to locate examples of this type, one must either be very familiar with the passage which is referenced, or willing to put in the time to discover the true nature of the quotation. In comparing the primary text’s presentation of the Aaron Panken, Rhetoric of Innovation (Lanham: University Press of America, 2005), p. 314. 43 bT Sanh 19b. 44 Paradiastole: a literary expression denoting a “euphemism effected by the substitution of a positive synonym for a negative word or phrase,” (OED). 42

184

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

character or situation with that of the secondary literature in question, the “selective narrative methods” of the author become visible.45 Although many instances of hyperbole may be superficially apparent,46 paradiastole requires inductive research into the texts which are explicitly mentioned and then a rereading to discover the text’s implicit references. An example of paradiastole is found in bT Bava Batra 17a, where it is reported that David was not under the authority of the evil inclination. Although it is possible to see this comment as a purely positive attribution, a close knowledge of the Deuteronomistic David reveals a hidden allusion: namely, that David did give in to the evil inclination and commit sin.47 One of the forms paradiastole assumes is that of “covert irony”—where an author has nearly buried his satirical intent in innocence, as just shown in the previous example. In avoiding any stylistic form which would indicate his intended irony, the author has hidden from the uninitiate his ‘real meaning,’ which more than likely subverts the popular conception of the biblical account in question.48 Narrative Creation The other category in which the artistic license of the sages may fall is the creation of narratives. It is often the case that the creation of a narrative follows what originally began as an embellishment of scripture, in which case the two are differentiated by length. But did the sages themselves conceive of these narratives as something “new”? The answer may be found in the rhetorical term ‫בראשונה‬ (barishonah, “at first”) that is used to denote passages of “selfconscious [halakhic] innovation” throughout the Talmud and other

Garsiel, p. 247. Some examples of hyperbole concerning David include his ability to shoot a single arrow through 800 men (bT Moed Katan 16b), and that he was born circumcised (bT Sotah 10b). 47 Some of the rabbis argued that his only sin was in murdering Uriah, and not in David’s actions with his wife, as she is considered divorced (c.f. Rashi’s commentary on Shabbat 56a). 48 D. C. Muecke as found in Diamond, p. 379. 45 46

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

185

rabbinic literature.49 The following argument may then be made that because the rabbis had such a thorough knowledge of the scriptures, and were able to distinguish between newly formulated halakhic dealing and older tradition, they certainly would have been able to understand their created narratives as new and innovative. However, it remains that the rabbis conceived of this innovation differently than scholars and the religious do today: during the formation of the Talmud, human reason and logic were still key components to interpreting Scripture’s intent—even if that meant altering the scriptural text. Analysis has shown one of the indicators of innovation in aggadic literature to be the interaction of R’ Yohanan and Resh Laqish (who were generations apart, historically).50 This impossible interaction among rabbis of different eras was intended by its redactor to aid the reader in understanding the logical progression of the argument.51 By this method, the editor clarifies which excerpts are created from those that may be historical. But whether or not the editor himself created a narrative, created narratives abound throughout the Talmud. One example of this may be found in bT Megillah 14a–b, where David’s meeting with Abigail (Nabal’s wife) transitions from a short passage of fifteen verses in the Bible,52 to an excursus that identifies the meaning of each word and phrase used. This passage reveals a certain assumption among the rabbis that Abigail and David must have “liaised” during that visit, since she was so quick to marry David. It is also of note that the AbigailDavid story and the Bathsheba-David account are so similar as to indicate one was the precursor of the other.53 “Tradition, in its most limited sense, is joined by the creative contributions whose source is human reason.”54 With this in mind, it is not surprising elsewhere to find David seated as a master of Torah in a ‫( בית דן‬beit Panken, p. 1. Kraemer, p. 83. 51 Kraemer, p. 83. 52 1 Samuel 25:20–35. 53See Diamond for a meticulous explanation of rabbinic interpretation concerning this comparison. 54 Kraemer, p. 48. 49 50

186

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

din) refusing to grant himself more comforts than those allotted his students.55 What may have begun as the recording of prior traditions has now been joined to reasons and justifications—the “product of human interpretation.”56 Explanations Through the embellishment of Scripture and the creation of narratives the rabbis attempt to address the different issues raised by their present circumstances and discrepancies within the biblical text. The aggadic passages create a mode through which reality, as conceived of by the sages, is expressed—a reality permeated by religion, in which humanity lives and consequently affects this reality through its actions.57 The theology of the sages was actively present not only in the past workings of God, but also in contemporary happenings and in the future plans of the society. Through such an interwoven conception of theology and time, the rabbis presented viable solutions to the questions evoked by their present circumstances, such as how they were to adapt to life without Temple.58 Inconsistencies within the Tanakh were also addressed and harmonized through elaborate methods, which often created other discrepancies in the textual record—to clarify one section they had to re-clarify and interpret another seemingly straightforward section. One example of such is found in bT Sotah 11b where David is said to be a descendant of Miriam simply on the comparison of Ephrathi stated of Jesse, David’s father, to Ephrat, (the woman Caleb is listed as marrying in 1 Chron. 2:19). How this signifies his descent from Miriam is unclear from the biblical account, in which any such correlation is absent, and may only be

bT Moed Katan 16b. Kraemer, p. 48. 57 Jonah Fraenkel, as cited by Diamond, p. 379. 58 Although the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, this remained a matter of great concern for the rabbis for many years. Since all of Scripture was relevant, all the passages concerning the Temple, its service, sacrifices, and obligations had to be reinterpreted. 55 56

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

187

found as a creation of the rabbis in Sifre Behalotcha 78.59 This is a perfect example of how the explanations of one passage would themselves require explanation later in the course of tradition. Reinterpreting one passage in light of another was a common practice for both agendas, and was the goal of much rabbinic thought. Current Issues Relevant application of law requires reassessment and clarification during each generation, no matter what the nature or era of the law code. This was especially the case for rabbinic law, as their theology required each part of scripture to be understood as germane to their surrounding life. These rulings were adjusted by the appropriate authorities as objective change occurred in their social context.60 Even when not explicitly evident from the individual rulings themselves, the rulings may be shown to have progressed and been adapted as needed through analysis of variant traditions.61 Through analyzing these texts, one understands the rabbis to be reacting defensively to the events of history—which were stripping the Jewish people of their “fundamental rights, pattern and primary religious institutions”—by taking great measures to preserve the community’s core values.62 These historical events generally are thought to refer to the “catastrophic” changes in their lives, but there are very few times where these events are cited as the rationale by the editors themselves. Panken takes this as a cue to find the explanations in “more mundane reasons” rather than the major crises that occurred in their times.63 The standardizing of routine takes a great deal of the rabbis’ attention, and includes: the prescribed time of prayers, when one is to “relieve himself,” and even so far as which As suggested to me by Jeremy Schonfield, this could be an answer to the problem of David’s ancestry—Ruth was a Moabitess, and was not allowed into Israel’s covenant (personal correspondence). 60 Panken, p. 3. 61 Panken, p. 3. 62 Panken, p. 61. 63 Ibid., p. 61. 59

188

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

hand one should use when writing, wiping, and indicating. Of a more amusing nature is one story told about when King David entered a bathhouse and was ashamed because he stood “naked without a mitzvah.”64 This occurrence stands out as anachronistic to David’s time, for bathhouses became popular as a result of Hellenization, and have no ties to pre-exilic Canaan or Israel. The difficulty of being a circumcised Jew in a Greek bathhouse was that they were the only ones who were circumcised, and could not acculturate themselves as thoroughly as they might wish, given the political situation of the times. As stated in 1 Maccabees 1:11–12, some Jewish men desired to reverse their circumcision in order that they might avoid being targeted by the Gentiles. Perhaps for this reason a story has been created which involves David entering a bathhouse and exclaiming for joy that he is circumcised. In this way the rabbis have taken a politically and socially relevant concern and crafted a narrative through which it may be addressed. Penkan’s point is valid: the everyday routine does take a prominent position in the rabbis’ evaluation of what to address. Even so, the rabbis do not often explicitly refer to a current historical setting, be it major or minor. Instead of overtly approaching their contemporary situations, they employed a kind of “biblical code” where biblical names (both of persons and of countries) may reference a number of different historical realities and are “not specific to any.”65 In this manner, Rome is often referenced through the names “Edom” or “Esau,” and even appears as “Persians” in one passage.66 With this code, the only new events that need mention are those exemplary lives of the rabbinic heroes, since all that is said about the past implicitly considers their own times.67

bT Menachot 43b. Samely, p. 194. 66 In bT Berachot 62b, one manuscript retains “Roman” therefore signaling censorship. 67 Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature, p. 384; as cited in Samely, p. 195. 64 65

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

189

Biblical Inconsistencies The rabbis’ theology does not allow for stylistic repetitions or superfluous information as pertains to the biblical material. The presupposition that all material is germane can create some rather sticky situations when two versions of the same event or two names for the same person are encountered. Both must be right, but how can something be bought for 50 shekels of silver in one account,68 and 600 shekels of gold in another?69 Although this question itself is not fully addressed in Talmud, the issue of who instigates David to take a census is, albeit in a somewhat clandestine manner. It is pertinent to indicate how the rabbis achieved their goal of harmonizing the text by creating a new narrative that synthesizes the two. In this new rendition,70 the census is prompted by Satan (as in 1 Chron.) but within the knowledge and will of God (similar to 2 Sam.), who seeks to punish David for his arrogance by causing him to “stumble over a thing which even school-children know”—namely the requirement that a ransom be given for every person accounted.71 And for what reason does God wish to punish David but for the implication that God would incite someone to do something.72 In this fashion, the rabbis have destroyed the insinuation that God would arbitrarily first be angry at David and then punish him for doing what God himself had caused him to do. In so doing, they have also harmonized the two passages, so that Satan (or the adversary) would be under God’s authority and acting according to His design. Another example of how biblical inconsistencies are addressed, is found in bT Bava Batra 17a, where the rabbis solve a problem of mis-appellation by reasoning that if Abigail is the daughter of “Jesse”, David’s father, in 1 Chronicles 2:16, and the 2 Sam. 24:24. 1 Chron. 21:25. 70 See bT Berachot 62b. 71 C.f. Ex. 30:11–16. 72 This is found in the protasis of a conditional statement David presented to Saul: “If it be the Lord that hath stirred thee up against me, let Him accept an offering,” (1 Sam. 26:19). 68 69

190

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

daughter of “Nahash” in 2 Samuel 17:25, then “Nahash” must refer to Jesse in some manner. As nahash means snake, Jesse is then reasoned to be one of the four humans who died only because of the “serpent’s counsel,” and the author of Samuel therefore has used metonymy in his association of “nahash” for “Jesse.” Altering or distorting tradition was not viable for the rabbis. But neither was allowing one to think part of Scripture contradicted another. Placed between a rock and a hard place, the rabbis resorted to twisting the text’s wording and implications to maintain its overall “perfection.” If change had been a “welcome element” in rabbinic tradition, these creative explanations and embellishments would have been unnecessary;73 but as it is, they present an integral part of this genre of literature.

TALMUDIC DAVID: TWO EXAMPLES Tongue-in-Cheek: “The Golden Boy’s Darker Side” The first example of where David is used didactically is in bT Berachot 3b–4a. In this passage, the editor has seen fit to include several passages where the character of David is recalled numerous times to further “one” point.74 Our picture of David begins early in the passage, and is the result of a reference to Psalm 119:62 made by one rabbi (namely, R’ Zerika, in the name of R’ Joshua b. Levi) in support of the notion that there are four, not three, watches in the night. The mishnaic segment quoted previously pertains to when the Shema’ may be recited, where the “end of the first watch” is

Panken, p. 333–4. I am cognizant of the fact that the Talmud is the product of many generations of editing, and although discussion of this process is important, this form of criticism is not the focus of the present endeavor. Just as the editorial process and source criticism of the Bible is outside this essay’s domain, so too are the same questions concerning Talmud. Therefore, whether it appears as the original intent of the tradition, this “one” point is the editor’s, at least, since his is the last opinion to have shaped the structure and content. 73 74

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

191

mentioned.75 Eager to discern when the prayer must be said, and not to transgress a commandment, the rabbis find themselves fully engaged with how many “watches” or segments make up a night. In this debate, phrases are mentioned that trigger other notions, and an ‘association of ideas’ occurs through intertextual references.76 David’s association as the author of the psalms and as king prompts the phrase: “until the third hour he lay, [as it is] the way of kings to get up in the third hour.”77 The phrase ‫ דרך מלכים‬may well refer to the narrator’s comment in 2 Samuel 11:1 about it being the time of year when “kings went out [for war].” If so, then the stage has been set for the next comment concerning David. A few lines later, after more discussion about the number of hours or watches at night, the reference to the psalm and the comment about the “way of kings” prompt the question: “But did David rise at midnight? [Surely] he rose with the evening dusk?” The references to midnight and evening in conjunction with the name David parodies 2 Samuel 11:2, where David does not arise from his bed until ‫“( לעת הערב‬the time of evening/dusk”). After a few moments of discussion on the difference between nesheph and ‘ereb, R’ Oshaia, in the name of R’ Aha, begins the following: — R. Oshaia, in the name of R. Aha, replies: David said: Midnight never passed me by in my sleep. R. Zera says: Till midnight he used to slumber like a horse, from thence on he rose with the energy of a lion. R. Ashi says: Till midnight he studied the Torah, from thence on he recited songs and praises.

If the reference to midnight triggered such images of David, as I believe it does, then the reference to “slumber[ing] like a horse” also contains a reference to David’s lust. In Hebrew, there is one general term for a male horse (‫)סוס‬, but in English there are several choices to denote a male equine. As a general rule of Berachot 2a; the English is taken from the Soncino edition and the Hebrew-Aramaic from the Vilna, unless otherwise noted. 76 Intertextuality refers to the process of “literary criticism which considers a text in the light of its relation to other texts” (“intertextuality,” OED). 77 My translation. 75

192

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

translation, if there is a specific term in the target language, then that is what is used in the translation. In light of this and the context of the speech, supplying ‘stallion’ or ‘stud’ for the generic ‫סוס‬, is a legitimate translation. Through this change the inference to David’s lust is more apparent to the English reader. The implication is there in the text, but the full parody is yet hidden to the audience. At this point the debate is raised once again about the exact meaning of nesheph, and more Davidic passages are cited. After settling the matter, the question by which David is explicitly drawn into the picture is restated in a slightly different manner: “But did David know the exact time of midnight?” This question arises from another association of ideas stemming from God’s statement to Moses concerning the time of the tenth plague: because God would certainly know when midnight was, Moses wrote “about midnight” because he did not.78 How, therefore was David supposed to know it? The rabbis create an answer (later verified through Ps. 57:9) about a harp that was hung over the bed of David which would play exactly at midnight. At the sound of which, David would immediately rise and begin to study Torah until the break of the dawn, when the “sages of Israel” would enter. They report that his people are starving, so David eventually replies that they should “go out in troops and attack [the enemy for plunder].” The concept of attacking another nation when one’s army needs to be fed is a common idea throughout the ancient Near East, and even into Roman times. Although therefore a familiar concept for the rabbis, in light of the aforementioned intertextual allusions it is plausible that this is yet another reference to the beginning of the story in 2 Samuel 11. From this point the rabbis are again distracted by associated ideas and continue to rabbinize David through more associations with Torah and an explanation about the importance of who his counselors were. At the end of this section R’ Isaac b. Addi ends the story of the harp by asking which verse supports this explanation of how David was able to tell what time it was. A little later, David is again used as the subject of a narrative that combines allusions to David’s relations with Bathsheba, with 78

Cf. Ex. 11:4.

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

193

those concerning him and Abigail, the legitimacy of his son Kilav, and with that of his conduct towards Mephibosheth.79 The result is remarkable: David’s arrogance, his willingness to judge whether a “woman is pure for her husband,” and his ‘discussion’ with Mephibosheth (who “embarrassed David’s face in the study of halakhah”) are punished through the birth of Kilav to Abigail.80 “Kilav” is the pseudonym of David and Abigail’s son Daniel,81 so renamed as to dispel the notion that he was Nabal’s son.82 The ironic insinuations continue and another reason Kilav is so named emerges: just as Nabal taunted David, so Kilav taunts Mephibosheth.83 The full irony emerges as the aggadah has now verified the doubts of Kilav’s birth that the rabbis had just previously ‘assuaged.’ The victim of a “like-father-like-son” cycle, whatever Kilav’s biological descent is his true nature is that of Nabal’s. “Kilav may resemble David physically but morally, he is the spitting image of Nabal.”84 The rabbis have used intertexuality to portray David’s ‘darker side,’ rather than alter the biblical accounts to rabbinize him fully, through the analysis of other rabbinic passages alluded to in this aggadah.85

For a detailed account of the rabbinic passage, see Diamond’s article, as summarized above. 80 Kilav is David’s second son (2 Sam. 3:3) born to him by Abigail, the former wife of Nabal, about whom little is known. In Pirkei Rabbeinu HaKadosh, Kilav is considered to be one of the four who died only because of “the serpent’s counsel.” From the combined etymologies of his two names (see below), it concludes that the rabbis understood this to mean that this son had been judged by God, and found to be wholly (in heart) like his father (David). 81 Two different names were ascribed to this ‘son of Abigail’: “Kilav” (“he is wholly his father’s”) and “Daniel” (“God judged him”). 82 Diamond, p. 385. 83 Diamond, p. 389. 84 Diamond, p. 389. 85 C.f. Diamond, p. 373–92. We have addressed only a portion of the many inferences and narratives, but for an account of other instances of the “ironic rabbinization” of David, see James A. Diamond’s article: “King David of the Sages: Rabbinic Rehabilitation or Ironic Parody?”, 79

194

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

Sinner or Saint: “So What’s the Con-Census?” Another example in which David’s rabbinization proves interesting for discussion is found in Berachot 62b. Here again the original reference to David flows seamlessly from one episode where he is fleeing from Saul to another citation concerning the census that would be taken at the end of David’s life. The association of ideas appears fluid, but when analyzed it begins to take a slightly different color. The section comes toward the end of a long gemara concerning a rather obscure mishnah: “One should avoid showing disrespect to the Eastern Gate because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies.” At the time the Talmud was being compiled and edited, the Temple had long since been destroyed and there would have been no “Eastern Gate” toward which to show disrespect. Reacting against the possible assumption that this mishnah was then irrelevant, the rabbis use it to address how one should conduct oneself in a privy, or while ‘relieving himself.’ There seems to be some superstition here, too, for the rabbis are very concerned about keeping away from an “evil spirit.”86 After an oblique reference to a Roman encounter with an ironic twist,87 David is introduced through a quotation from 1 Samuel 24. There is some disagreement as to the verb form in the quoted verse, and the rabbis rule that it ought to have been “I bade” and “I spared” rather than the “he said to kill you, but he spared you” that is in the which breaks down some additional gemara concerning David, Mephibosheth, and Kilav. 86 From the nature of the statements, it is possible that this “evil spirit” could be a code for a bowel or urinary infection (or even a homosexual molestation). However, for the present study this information is ancillary. 87 The “Roman” assaults R’ Eleazar whilst he was in a privy, and R’ Eleazar gets up and leaves. Upon his departure a serpent comes and “tears out the other’s gut.” R’ Eleazar thinks this is slightly humorous, and applies the following verse: “Therefore will I give a man for thee,” though he changes it from man (adam) to Edom. Edom is one of the biblical names frequently associated with Rome and other enemies, therefore the ironic tones are plausible.

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

195

text.88 Through this emendation, R’ Eleazar interprets the saying to mean: “’According to the law, you deserve to be slain, since you are a pursuer, and the Torah has said, ‘If one comes to kill you, rise and kill him first.’89 But the modesty which you have shown has caused you to be spared.’” This is connected to the episode between R’ Eleazar and the Roman, for just as R’ Eleazar showed “modesty” and was saved from the serpent, so too because of Saul’s ‘modesty’ David has spared his life. This creates a parallel between David and the snake, where David is shown to have more compassion than a snake. This is asteistic (or politely ironic, see “asteism,” OED), for snakes are not seen in a positive light in biblical or rabbinic tradition. Another allusion implicit in this parallel is that which was mentioned above in bT Berachot 3b–4a: David’s father’s connection to the snake. If the rabbis believe Jesse can be referred to as “Nahash” in the Bible, it is then logical to assume this was one of their connections. The gemara continues the story of David’s flight from Saul, but merges the previous story with that which occurs two chapters later, where once again David catches Saul unawares. This time David declares: “If the Lord has stirred you up against me, then let Him accept an offering.”90 Here the teaching departs from ‘modesty’ in one sense and focuses on lack of modesty—namely, David’s arrogance in insinuating that the Lord would incite someone to do something without cause. For this offense, God declares that David will “stumble over a thing which even school-children know”—He will cause him to transgress one of the ‘simplest’ commands: that a ransom must be given for every man accounted for in a census.91 In the Deuteronomistic account, the same verb-preposition combination is used in each account (‫ ב‬+ ‫ )סות‬and each time the subject of the verb is Yahweh. The sages recognized that these were the only two places in Samuel-Kings that this specific combination occurred, and consequently associated them in a causative statement: because

1 Sam. 24:11. Here R’ Eleazar quotes another passage of Talmud, namely bT Berachot 58a. 90 1 Sam. 26:19. 91 C.f. Ex. 30:11–16. 88 89

196

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

David suggested that Yahweh might have incited someone against him, then Yahweh actually did incite [someone] against David. In the Deuteronomistic account, however, this is not syntactically true: Yahweh incites David against Israel.92 But as stated above, the variant accounts in the Bible are either left juxtaposed (if it does not harm their theology), or are ‘harmonized’ with the other biblical record. The ‘harmony’ here becomes an entirely new narrative that does align with the supposed causative statement. By inserting ‫ סטן‬into the Deuteronomic account as the subject,93 David is now the object of the verb, thereby completing the desired effect. This synthesis of texts addresses a situation that is antithetical to the rabbis’ theology by securing God’s ultimate authority. If the Deuteronomistic account is true, then God has acted capriciously by inciting David before he has commissioned the census, thereby denying God’s attribute of mercy.94 However, if the Chronicler’s account is true, then another being (non-God) has acted outside of the will of God to goad David into taking an unlawful census. Even though the Chronicler had sought to preserve God’s attribute of justice (by having someone else provoke David to sin), by erasing God’s role he has erased God’s sovereignty. Since neither of these narratives is free of problems, the rabbis have sought a new answer and found it: a conflation of the two stories into one in which God prompts the satan to incite David because of a previous sin on David’s part, which it carefully mentions. Yet even so, we shall find later that their solution is not foolproof. The passage returns to the Deuteronomistic account, but shortens it drastically by deleting all that concerns the numbering of the tribes, the sum of the people, David’s remorse prior to his punishment, the conversation with the prophet Gad, and so forth. The point at which it resumes—“So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel

2 Sam. 24:1. “‫ ”סטן‬is from the account in 1 Chron. 21. 94 The attributes of God’s mercy and justice are central issues for rabbinic Judaism and color much of their theological understandings of God and his relationship to the world. 92 93

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

197

from the morning even to the appointed time”95—completely ignores the choice given to David that is recorded in both accounts.96 It does not interest the rabbis; as it does not assist the story’s development, they have not chosen to include it. This mention of “the appointed time” causes some confusion as to what time exactly it refers. Samuel the elder answers in the name of his father-in-law, R’ Hanina, that it means the “time of slaughtering the continual offering until the time of sprinkling the blood.”97 R’ Johannan simplifies this ruling by stating it refers “precisely to midday.” This ruling completely disregards the implied reason of the biblical text: that the appointed time refers to the end of the period set by God when he set the choices before David. Apparently satisfied with this explanation, the rabbis move on to the next association that can be drawn. Keying into the idea of an offering, the rabbis then see a connection from the word ‫( רב‬here “enough”) in God’s speech to the angel of destruction to the ruling in bT Moed Katan 28a, which states the death of a righteous man (“great man,” ‫ )רב‬atones just as if it were the sacrifice of the Red Heifer. R’ Eleazar explicates: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Angel: Take a great man [rab] among them, through whose death many sins can be expiated for them.” To supply this great man, they use Abishai, son of Zeruiah, whose death is not recorded in either Samuel-Kings or Chronicles. This Abishai is said to be “[singly] equal in worth to the greater part of the Sanhedrin.”98 The next biblical passage that presents a problem to the rabbis’ sensibilities is the phrase: “when he was about to destroy it, the Lord saw, and he repented it.”99 What is it that God beheld? The

2 Sam. 24:15. Even though both biblical narratives give a list of three choices, that given by the Chronicler alters the first choice to a shorter length of time— from seven years of famine to three years (c.f. 2 Sam. 24:13 and 1 Chr. 21:12). 97 Midday signifies the proper time for offering the tamid shel shachar, the continual morning sacrifice of the Temple’s daily regimen. 98 Abishai, although a small figure, is a rabbinic legend for saving David (2 Sam. 21:17 and bT San. 95a). 99 1 Chron. 21:15. 95 96

198

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

answers vary from: Jacob,100 to the “ashes of [the ram of] Isaac,”101 to the “money of the atonement,”102 to the Temple itself.103 The rabbis’ treatment of the census only includes those sections that it deems applicable to the mishnah and those that seem to endanger their theology, which is as expected. The conclusion of the passage is disinterested in David, and therefore supports the notion that the rabbis employ biblical characters in their literature to make specific points that are relevant for their time, and are not interested in examining the characters for who they ‘really’ were. In order for all of Scripture to be relevant for their times, in their discourses about one segment they select seemingly unrelated passages and stitch them together in a fluid stream of ideas. But because of their willingness to alter the wording of the text, it is often the case that these ideas do not always support the validity of their original texts.

DAVID THE SAGE EVALUATED Historical Purpose Even though they have been considered relevant for multiple generations, the writings of Talmud and Bible are not free from context and remain products of their time. The narratives within are subject to the genre and historical context in which they were created. As such, literary analysis must approach them from as much within their own confines as possible. Many understand this to be indicative that one should not neglect the historical meaning of the individual actions, objects, political situations, etc., and consequently the David narrative (and other narratives) are reduced to mere ‘political propaganda.’ The explanation is that the Rab arrives at this through an alternate interpretation of Genesis 32:3, traditionally “when Jacob saw them” but now “when he saw Jacob.” 101 Samuel substantiates this through Genesis 22:8, “God will see for Himself the lamb.” 102 As suggested by R’ Isaac Nappaha (c.f. Ex. 30:16). 103 This last possibility, when compared to the money within the Temple, is claimed to be the “more likely view” and the formula follows which generally indicates a scriptural citation, but to this quote there is no reference in the Bible as it now stands. 100

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

199

narratives were only tools by which David could promote the legitimacy of his reign over Saul’s descendents.104 However, as some have seen, the identification of the narrative objects and events is not enough; it is equally important to understand the purpose to which the author is writing his material.105 For this reason, this section will use the known historical situations of the periods during which the materials were redacted to gain insight into the redactors’ agendas. The cultural situation will be examined so that the mindsets of the editors may be revealed—which may prompt the literature to be reassessed. It is when it is combined with the other criticisms, not separated from them, that literary criticism proves most effective. It is the intent of this section to present these Talmudic narratives in precisely such a combined, holistic fashion. At some points the success of the merging may be such that the individual elements are barely discernable, but that is intentional. Having stated the intent of this chapter, the distinct historical purposes of the David narratives may now be examined.106 Time and Culture of the Sage Narrative can have many purposes and functions, as especially apparent in those pericopes that are recorded by both the Deuteronomists and the Chronicler: one original story is shaped to suit two separate purposes. Recognized as a venue through which to express dangerous political opinions without fear of punishment for stating them openly,107 narrative was used for a multitude of reasons. Late in the editorial process, the rabbis were forced to “shift their stance” on several points, but it may be possible to C.f. Mark George, “Yhwh’s Own Heart,” p. 454. The aforementioned view is thus moot when understood from the vantage of the redactor who lived nearly half a century after David’s reign had ceased (George, p. 455). 106 The creators of the Talmud were subject to many different times and historical situations, which are too numerous for all to be considered separately. In lieu of this, only the consciously innovated passages will be examined here. 107 D. Stern, p, 79. 104 105

200

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

detect these views still through a variety of subtle techniques utilized by the sages that enabled them still to observe their laws and codes.108 However, most of the historical situations evident in the David passages have to do with internal concerns, not major external political happenings. In this they differ most from the biblical authors, whose political situations were intrinsically tied to their religious positions, and whose redaction presents a religiohistorical state.109 Nevertheless, a topic of tremendous import for all three is the destruction of the Temple and the dispossession of the land of Israel. The Deuteronomists address these issues from the exilic perspective that seeks to answer “why” and address how life should go on.110 The Chronicler presents his accounts with the intent to bolster acceptance and loyalty to the rebuilt Temple in generations who have been without a Temple for some time (no matter which dating scheme one chooses). The rabbis are again without a Temple, but live in the aftermath of centuries of national disasters where it is unsafe to overtly reference one’s religious or political views as a Jew.111 The first passage (Ber. 3b–4a) comes at the end of a mishnah that attempts to establish how many hours make up the night. This deliberation is recorded that the Shema might be recited at the appropriate times, but why had the Shema become so important to the rabbis? Surely it is because it has taken the place of the daily temple sacrifices after the destruction of the Temple.112 Other passages deal with the Hellenization that was forced upon the Panken, p. 39. C.f. George, pp. 458–9. 110 George here agrees with my view that the historian uses David’s proclamation of trust in Yahweh as a method by which to address his contemporaries and to suggest through David, “how they should understand their religious identities,” (George, pp. 456–7). 111 For a detailed history of the historical ages in which the rabbis lived and worked, see Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 CE). 112 This does not imply that the formation of the Shema was a reaction to the Temple’s destruction, but only asserts that it gained importance upon its demise. 108 109

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

201

Jewish people by making anachronistic claims about biblical heroes. One such passage is bT Sotah 10b, where David is said to have been born circumcised. Continuing the theme of circumcision, Menachot 43b states that David’s circumcision was a comfort to him when he stood naked before all the other men in the bathhouse. These comments represent valid concerns for the rabbis, who were attempting to preserve Jewish life as they knew it from complete acculturation. In this same manner, David is rabbinized in a plenitude of passages. Most frequently, however, David is depicted as a rabbi or master Torah scholar.113 Theological Relevance to Contemporaries The way in which the rabbis used their theology to address certain issues around them provides the rationale behind their adaptations of scripture and its characters. By identifying the methods used, one is afforded a closer glimpse of the reality of the hardships the rabbis faced. Insistency mandated by their view of tradition, scripture, and God may then be identified in their literature; for the rabbis, it really is an issue of life or death. Modern scholars have difficulty grasping the notion that Utopia could ever truly exist on earth, much less that anyone would desire to live in a perfectly engineered society.114 Yet in effect, that is precisely what the rabbis were attempting to make possible: utopian tight-knit, independent communities where Torah learning was the highest occupation. 115 They held no separate conception of a “projected perfection of a future time” to that of the “present-day account of how things are and ought to be.”116 That is to say, the sages perceived that things were not as they should be, but firmly believed that circumstances could be changed by study, prayer, and general devotion to Judaism. In order to address these issues and encourage their audience toward this ‘utopia,’ the rabbis firmly embraced the notion that E.g. Ber. 3b, Ber. 30b, Mak. 24a, Shab. 30a, etc. Gary W. Trompf in Neusner, Utopia, (Lanham: University Press of America, 2007), p. x. 115 C.f. Panken, p. 61. 116 Neusner, Utopia, p. x. 113 114

202

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

“incidents can and should lead to halakhic change,” as noted by Panken.117 These changes in halakhah often resulted in the addition of aggadah, through which their points would be emphasized. The narratives of aggadah allowed the rabbis freedom to say what they desired without specifically making another halakhah. The use of allusive narrative allows the reader to draw parallels between his own ‘reallife’ situation and a fictional story. These allusive short narratives are most often found in the form of parables which allow one to analogize for oneself the “inherently hermeneutic character of the form.”118 The triviality of the narrative is saved through its exegetical nature, by which it functions as a didactic tool—which the rabbis employed in the same manner they did their less fictional midrash.119 This religious approach to life that the rabbis inherited from the biblical traditions is evident in several different instances that are germane to the Davidic portrait. The Jewish conception of God’s justice and mercy are crucial to Rabbinic Judaism—even to the present day.120 The altered account of the census in Ber. 62b supports this, as previously noted. The manner in which the rabbis have combined the original accounts to create their more ‘religiously correct’ version seeks to preserve both God’s sovereignty and his attributes of mercy and justice from malign. In the last selection, the importance of the Shema was discussed. This point is valid for the other standardized prayers, and when Berachot 48b credits David and Solomon with certain phrases in the blessings, the rabbis are again using the ideology that no ‘updated’ ruling is new—it’s just a ‘re-adaptation’—in order that they might attribute to David and Solomon the creation of phrases which reference them. Another instance of this quotes 2 Samuel 7:9 as the reason why one is to pray a certain blessing, namely the “Shield of David.”121 Other, non-biblical characters are also utilized by rabbinic reasoning to assert their theology. In the tractate Gittin, Panken, p. 15. Panken, p. 20. 119 D. Stern, p. 80. 120 See Schonfield for a detailed breakdown of these attributes of God and how they are referenced in the liturgy and rabbinic texts. 121 Cf. Pesachim 117b. 117 118

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

203

Nero is characterized as seeking rabbinic advice and learning— which is historically inaccurate. The questions he asks are theologically controversial and suggest that if the rabbis re-created or embellished a recent emperor, they also would have re-created stories of other more historical or biblical figures to ask and to personify those things which they were otherwise unable to vocalize. Nero acts almost as David’s antithesis and elicits questions to be asked of God and of His relationship to the Jewish people; in the same manner, the stories of David subvert the traditional interpretation of Scripture and cause new, dangerous questions to be asked.122 Implications and Comparisons Neither Talmud nor Tanakh is a systematic treatise, from which dogma may be unarguably derived. In a similar vein to the literature of the Tanakh, a large portion of the Talmudic text is either law, rulings on the law, mythic narrative, or other related genres. Because of this it is difficult to speak of any one particular theology espoused by the rabbis, but Neusner has encapsulated the broad range of meaning discovered in the pages within: The theological story told by Rabbinic Judaism lays stress on God’s justice (to which his mercy is integral), man’s correspondence with God in his possession of the power of will, man’s sin and God’s response. That story embodies in mythic narrative a systematic theology built on the foundations of Scripture by philosophers in quest of generalization.123

This broader purpose is often accomplished by painting the intricate, “often ambiguous and contradictory” character of the human situation through a biblical character, such as David, allowing the rabbis to express the depths of their own musings and feelings about God.124 But as noted several times, the creative quality of the rabbis’ literary genre, Talmud, often alters the biblical wording or intent of one minor passage in order that they might C.f. Akenson, p. 381–2. Neusner, Rabbinic Theology, p. ix. 124 D. Stern, p. 92. 122 123

204

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

justify their reading and interpretation of another section. This raises the question of the legitimacy of their endeavor: does their own acknowledged approach to hermeneutics accord with their practice of such in the Talmud? Creative Transmission or Textual Subversion The hermeneutic employed by the rabbis assumes that all of Tanakh and Torah is relevant to the present historical setting and to religious life, in general. This hermeneutic presupposes the Tanakh’s accuracy in all matters, and as Samely agrees, prompts the rehabilitation of those texts that seem inconsistent either with another verse, or with their theological sensibilities.125 This presupposition creates problems for the rabbis, for as they seek to illuminate one passage in light of another, they are often forced to perform surgery upon the biblical text. As Akenson indicates, the rabbis never purport to undermine the texts of Tanakh and Mishnah. Nevertheless, since the rabbinic freedom allows them to select the portions on which they comment and quote, as well as those they ignore, they effectively rewrite the Mishnah and the Tanakh.126 Human reason was viewed as equivalent to the explanation of Tanakh, and in harmony with this they often emphasized the distance that often occurs between their rulings and the original text.127 Even so, in many passages the new is archaized to give the appearance that there is no innovative process.128 Nevertheless, the scriptures cited are virtually never used with the same intent evident in their biblical context. But what reason is there for David to attract treatment from both Talmudic and Tanakhic sources that is, as Baruch Halpern puts it, “at once irreverent and serious… [and] punctures his apparent holiness, heroism, and honesty?”129 Halpern also Samely, p. 88–9. Akenson, pp. 374, 375. 127 Kraemer, “Prozbul and Rabbinic Power,” Sevara 2:2 (1991): 69–70; as cited in Panken, p. 198. 128 Akenson, p. 375. 129 Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 5. 125 126

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

205

wonders at the observation that even during the narrative of the Golden years of his reign, the Deuteronomists and rabbis do not primarily hold David as a “religious symbol, but the embodiment of worldly success.”130 As previously mentioned, David’s character presents multiple problems for the sages (and the historians before them) who attempted to transform him into a rabbi. The Sage and the Deuteronomist The Deuteronomistic version of the narratives of David was fashioned to communicate the editor’s view of how religious identity ought to be built and construed in ‘Israel’ or ‘Judah’.131 As mentioned previously, the destruction of the Solomonic Temple reshaped the face of Israelite religion such that cultic observance regarding Temple worship was impossible. Garsiel thus notes that the point of much biblical narrative is to teach religious and moral values through “the actions, failings, and eventual fates of historical figures.”132 The rabbis, too, embarked upon the reformulation of their religion after the destruction of a temple, and in the way of the Deuteronomists they utilize the character of David to persuade their contemporaries to attain a specific moral outlook. Both the rabbis and the Deuteronomists employed high religious praise of David as well as irony and other literary techniques in their fashioning of the biblical-historical character. The overt scepticism used by the Dtr creates a David who is more realistic and believable, for although the man is a military hero who serves Yahweh, he still has flaws and faults aplenty. The rabbis’ irony and scepticism is present only on a more covert level which at first appears to applaud all the works of David, but upon closer inspection most laudatory comments are in fact some form of paradiastole. The main difference between the two approaches, however, is not in the degree of reverence but in the audiences: the Dtr wrote for the people and posterity while the rabbis wrote for other rabbis and their disciples. When one is writing to the elite, it Halpern, p. 6. Garsiel, p. 262. 132 Garsiel, p. 262. 130 131

206

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

is less necessary to use tact and more enjoyable to use pun and other literary devices to show one’s misgivings about a favorite historical character. The Sage and the Chronicler The comparison of historical situations between the rabbis and the Chronicler is less entwined than with the Deuteronomists. This is at least partially related to the state of the temple. Antithetical to the rabbis, the Chronicler addresses people who must be convinced of the importance of a central temple, whereas the rabbinic task is to reformulate their religion after the destruction of the great Herodian Temple. Essentially, the Chronicler promotes what the rabbis must learn to live without. But even still, both confronted a new landscape—politically, religiously, and socially—in which a new type of Jewish leadership emerged.133 To fill the void created by the loss of the Temple, the rabbis in the Bavli explicitly name synagogues and ‘houses of study’ its replacements.134 Synagogues and Torah centers were present at the time of the Temple, which seem to indicate they were created at a time when the people were without a temple and needed a central focal point for their religious practices. As such, it is plausible that they were instituted before the return from captivity and were present at the time of the Chronicler, establishing another connection between him and the rabbis. Another commonality between the Chronicler and the rabbis is the conviction of their right to wield legal authority over their compatriots simply by the virtue of their belonging to “the class empowered by the Torah itself.”135

CONCLUSION Literary Devices and Theological Motifs In this essay I have used the model provided by biblical studies to show how theological themes are indicated by literary devices. The Panken, pp. 157–8. Panken, p. 61. 135 Panken, p. 77. 133 134

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

207

crux of ‘measure for measure’ is often discovered through the use of irony, hyperbole, or paradiastole. This literary lens provided by the author is there to structure the audience’s reading of the narrative. Although often lost in the terseness of their narratives, the sages follow this tradition and in their juxtaposition of different scriptures with human reason, I have indicated how a new portrait of David has emerged. This portrait is the descendant of both strands of tradition evident in the Tanakh and adds to them their own culture by turning David into a ‘rabbi’. Creative License The rabbinization alluded to above is a product of the rabbis’ artistic imaginations and awareness of history. In their eyes, history is recorded so that one might apply it to his life. The relevancy of scripture permeated all biblical texts and the authority of scripture could not be denied. But in the cases of the inconsistencies of the Bible, it is not possible to solve the problem of the biblical texts without changing their meaning. This was shown to be the impetus for the rabbinic creative license that manifested in the form of embellishment and the creation of longer narratives. After giving examples of the two forms, I explained how the interwoven conception of theology and time allow them to “present viable solutions to the questions evoked by their present circumstances” in similar manners to their biblical predecessors. Two Portraits Compared When the portraits from Tanakh and Talmud are compared, the use of David is remarkably similar. All three groups of author-editors employ the memory of the favorite king of Israel in order to convince their audience that he embodied whatever type of religious propaganda they themselves espouse. This was indicated previously through the recognition of: the Dtr’s use of David to depict the flaws of kings to a king-less Israel; the Chronicler’s portrayal of David as the builder of the Temple to a people who had just regained a temple; and the sages’ consistent image of David as a sage of Torah to a people looking for new leadership, where no kingship or temple were possible. Therefore, I see great similarity of the intention of the authors in their portrayal of David to their respective generations. David is therefore a king for all

208

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

ages. The Deuteronomists and generations of sages cast him in a paradoxical light as both the savior of his people and the perpetuator of their troubles. As such, the portrait of David as found in all accounts at first bears a closer resemblance to the seeming randomness and chaos as found in a painting by Jackson Polluck than one marked by the consistency shown by Johannes Vermeer. Nevertheless, there is a certain consistency found in the intent and purpose of all—to refashion religio-historical accounts from myth into didactic tools. In this manner, it may be said that David “single-handedly” saved the Jewish nation at least three times by providing popular approval for new forms of government.

APPENDIX A This text was taken from the electronic version of the Vilna Babylonian Talmud and includes the references to the biblical quotations of the rabbis (offset from the text by ‘+’ before and after). The editors have also seen fit to add punctuation markers to aid the reader. I have left them in order to foster understanding. Berachot 3b–4a

:‫ רבי נתן אומר‬.‫ דברי רבי‬,‫ ארבע משמרות הוי הלילה‬:‫תנו רבנן‬ ‫ ויבא גדעון‬+‘‫שופטים ז‬+ ‫ מאי טעמיה דרבי נתן? דכתיב‬.‫שלש‬ :‫ תנא‬,‫ומאה איש אשר אתו בקצה המחנה ראש האשמרת התיכונה‬ ‫ ורבי? מאי תיכונה—אחת מן‬.‫אין תיכונה אלא שיש לפניה ולאחריה‬ ?‫ ורבי נתן? מי כתיב תיכונה שבתיכונות‬.‫התיכונה שבתיכונות‬ ‫ מאי טעמיה דרבי?—אמר רבי זריקא אמר רבי אמי‬.‫תיכונה כתיב‬ ‫ חצות‬+‫תהלים קי“ט‬+ ‫ כתוב אחד אומר‬:‫אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי‬ :‫ וכתוב אחד אומר‬,‫לילה אקום להודות לך על משפטי צדקך‬ ‫ הא כיצד?—ארבע משמרות‬,‫ קדמו עיני אשמורות‬+‫תהלים קי“ט‬+ :‫ רבי יהושע אומר‬:‫ דתנן‬,‫ ורבי נתן? סבר לה כרבי יהושע‬.‫הוי הלילה‬ ‫ שית דליליא‬:‫ שכן דרך מלכים לעמוד בשלש שעות‬,‫עד שלש שעות‬ ‫ משמרה‬:‫ רב אשי אמר‬.‫ הוו להו שתי משמרות‬,‫ותרתי דיממא‬ .‫ופלגא נמי משמרות קרו להו‬ ‫ אין‬:‫ואמר רבי זריקא אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי‬ ‫ לא‬:‫ אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא‬.‫אומרין בפני המת אלא דבריו של מת‬ ‫ ואיכא‬.‫ אבל מילי דעלמא לית לן בה‬,‫אמרן אלא בדברי תורה‬ ‫ לא אמרן אלא ]אפילו[ בדברי‬:‫ אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא‬,‫דאמרי‬ .‫ וכל שכן מילי דעלמא‬,‫תורה‬

‫‪209‬‬

‫‪THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID‬‬

‫ודוד בפלגא דליליא הוה קאי? מאורתא הוה קאי! דכתיב‪:‬‬ ‫‪+‬תהלים קי“ט‪ +‬קדמתי בנשף ואשועה‪ ,‬וממאי דהאי נשף אורתא‬ ‫הוא—דכתיב ‪+‬משלי ז‘‪ +‬בנשף בערב יום באישון לילה ואפלה!‬ ‫אמר רב אושעיא אמר רבי אחא‪ ,‬הכי קאמר )דוד(‪ :‬מעולם לא עבר‬ ‫עלי חצות לילה בשינה‪ .‬רבי זירא אמר‪ :‬עד חצות לילה היה מתנמנם‬ ‫כסוס‪ .‬מכאן ואילך היה מתגבר כארי‪ .‬רב אשי אמר‪ :‬עד חצות לילה‬ ‫היה עוסק בדברי תורה‪ ,‬מכאן ואילך בשירות ותשבחות‪ .‬ונשף‬ ‫אורתא הוא? הא נשף צפרא הוא! דכתיב ‪+‬שמואל א‘ ל‘‪ +‬ויכם דוד‬ ‫מהנשף ועד הערב למחרתם‪ ,‬מאי לאו מצפרא ועד ליליא!—לא‪,‬‬ ‫מאורתא ועד אורתא‪—.‬אי הכי‪ ,‬לכתוב מהנשף ועד הנשף או‬ ‫מהערב ועד הערב!—אלא אמר רבא‪ :‬תרי נשפי הוו‪ ,‬נשף ליליא‬ ‫ואתי יממא‪ ,‬נשף יממא ואתי ליליא‪.‬‬ ‫ודוד מי הוה ידע פלגא דליליא אימת? השתא משה רבינו לא‬ ‫הוה ידע‪ ,‬דכתיב ‪+‬שמות י“א‪ +‬כחצות הלילה אני יוצא בתוך‬ ‫מצרים‪ ,‬מאי כחצות? אילימא דאמר ליה קודשא בריך הוא‬ ‫כחצות—מי איכא ספיקא קמי שמיא? אלא דאמר ליה )למחר(‬ ‫בחצות )כי השתא(‪ ,‬ואתא איהו ואמר‪ :‬כחצות‪ ,‬אלמא מספקא‬ ‫ליה—ודוד הוה ידע?—דוד סימנא הוה ליה‪ ,‬דאמר רב אחא בר‬ ‫ביזנא אמר רבי שמעון חסידא‪ :‬כנור היה תלוי למעלה ממטתו של‬ ‫דוד‪ ,‬וכיון שהגיע חצות לילה בא רוח צפונית ונושבת בו ומנגן‬ ‫מאליו‪ ,‬מיד היה עומד ועוסק בתורה עד שעלה עמוד השחר‪ .‬כיון‬ ‫שעלה עמוד השחר נכנסו חכמי ישראל אצלו‪ ,‬אמרו לו‪ :‬אדונינו‬ ‫המלך‪ ,‬עמך ישראל צריכין פרנסה‪ .‬אמר להם‪ :‬לכו והתפרנסו זה‬ ‫מזה‪ .‬אמרו לו‪ :‬אין הקומץ משביע את הארי ואין הבור מתמלא‬ ‫מחוליתו‪ .‬אמר להם‪ :‬לכו ופשטו ידיכם בגדוד‪ .‬מיד יועצים‬ ‫באחיתופל ונמלכין בסנהדרין‪ ,‬ושואלין באורים ותומים‪ .‬אמר רב‬ ‫יוסף‪ :‬מאי קרא?—)דכתיב( ‪+‬דברי הימים א‘ כ“ז‪ +‬ואחרי אחיתפל‬ ‫בניהו בן יהוידע ואביתר ושר צבא למלך יואב‪ .‬אחיתופל—זה יועץ‪,‬‬ ‫וכן הוא אומר ‪+‬שמואל ב‘ ט“ז‪ +‬ועצת אחיתפל אשר יעץ בימים‬ ‫ההם כאשר ישאל )איש( בדבר האלהים;‬ ‫בניהו בן יהוידע—זה סנהדרין‪ ,‬ואביתר—אלו אורים ותומים‪,‬‬ ‫וכן הוא אומר‪+ :‬שמואל ב‘ כ‘‪+‬‬ ‫ובניהו בן יהוידע על הכרתי ועל הפלתי; ולמה נקרא שמם‬ ‫כרתי ופלתי? כרתי—שכורתים דבריהם‪ ,‬פלתי—שמופלאים‬ ‫בדבריהם; ואחר כך שר צבא למלך יואב‪ .‬אמר רב יצחק בר אדא‬ ‫ואמרי לה אמר רב יצחק בריה דרב אידי‪ :‬מאי קרא—‪+‬תהלים נ“ז‪+‬‬ ‫עורה כבודי עורה הנבל וכנור אעירה שחר‬

‫‪ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE‬‬

‫‪210‬‬ ‫‪Berachot 62b‬‬

‫‪ .‬רבי אלעזר על לבית הכסא‪ ,‬אתא ההוא רומאה דחקיה‪ ,‬קם רבי‬ ‫אלעזר ונפק‪ .‬אתא דרקונא שמטיה לכרכשיה‪ ,‬קרי עליה רבי‬ ‫אלעזר‪+ :‬ישעיהו מ“ג‪ +‬ואתן אדם תחתיך אל תקרי אדם אלא‬ ‫אדום‪.‬‬ ‫‪+‬שמואל א‘ כ“ד‪ +‬ואמר להרגך ותחס עליך‪ ,‬ואמר? ואמרתי‬ ‫מיבעי ליה! ותחס? וחסתי מיבעי ליה!—אמר רבי אלעזר‪ ,‬אמר לו‬ ‫דוד לשאול‪ :‬מן התורה—בן הריגה אתה‪ ,‬שהרי רודף אתה‪ ,‬והתורה‬ ‫אמרה‪ :‬בא להרגך השכם להרגו‪ .‬אלא צניעות שהיתה בך—היא‬ ‫חסה עליך‪ ,‬ומאי היא—דכתיב ‪+‬שמואל א‘ כ“ד‪ +‬ויבא אל גדרות‬ ‫הצאן על הדרך ושם מערה ויבא שאול להסך את רגליו‪ .‬תנא‪ :‬גדר‬ ‫לפנים מן גדר‪ ,‬ומערה לפנים ממערה‪ .‬להסך—אמר רבי אלעזר‪:‬‬ ‫מלמד שסכך עצמו כסוכה‪+ .‬שמואל א‘ כ“ד‪ +‬ויקם דוד ויכרת את‬ ‫כנף המעיל אשר לשאול בלט אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא‪ :‬כל המבזה‬ ‫את הבגדים סוף אינו נהנה מהם‪ ,‬שנאמר ‪+‬מלכים א‘ א‘‪ +‬והמלך‬ ‫דוד זקן בא בימים ויכסהו בבגדים ולא יחם לו‪.‬‬ ‫‪+‬שמואל א‘ כ“ו‪ +‬אם ה‘ הסיתך בי ירח מנחה אמר רבי‬ ‫אלעזר‪ :‬אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא לדוד מסית קרית לי? הרי אני‬ ‫מכשילך בדבר שאפילו תינוקות של בית רבן יודעים אותו‪ ,‬דכתיב‬ ‫‪+‬שמות ל‘‪ +‬כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקדיהם ונתנו איש‬ ‫כפר נפשו וגו‘‪ .‬מיד ‪+‬דברי הימים א‘ כ“א‪ +‬ויעמד שטן על ישראל‪,‬‬ ‫וכתיב ‪+‬שמואל ב‘ כ“ד‪ +‬ויסת את דוד בהם לאמר לך מנה את‬ ‫ישראל‪ .‬וכיון דמנינהו לא שקל מינייהו כופר‪ ,‬דכתיב ‪+‬שמואל ב‘‬ ‫כ“ד‪ +‬ויתן ה‘ דבר בישראל מהבקר ועד עת מועד‪ .‬מאי עת‬ ‫מועד?—אמר שמואל סבא חתניה דרבי חנינא משמיה דרבי חנינא‪:‬‬ ‫משעת שחיטת התמיד עד שעת זריקתו‪ .‬רבי יוחנן אמר‪ :‬עד חצות‬ ‫ממש‪+ .‬שמואל ב‘ כ“ד‪ +‬ויאמר למלאך המשחית בעם רב אמר רבי‬ ‫אלעזר‪ ,‬אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא למלאך‪ :‬טול לי רב שבהם‪ ,‬שיש‬ ‫בו ליפרע מהם כמה חובות‪ .‬באותה שעה מת אבישי בן צרויה‬ ‫ששקול כרובה של סנהדרין‪+ .‬דברי הימים א‘ כ“א‪ +‬ובהשחית‬ ‫ראה ה‘ וינחם‪ ,‬מאי ראה? אמר רב‪ :‬ראה יעקב אבינו‪ ,‬דכתיב‬ ‫‪+‬בראשית ל“ב‪ +‬ויאמר יעקב כאשר ראם‪ .‬ושמואל אמר‪ :‬אפרו של‬ ‫יצחק ראה שנאמר ‪+‬בראשית כ“ב‪ +‬אלהים יראה—לו‬ ‫‪APPENDIX B‬‬ ‫‪The following is a listing of the different references to David by‬‬ ‫‪way of scripture citations as may be found in the “Index of Biblical‬‬ ‫‪References” of H. N. Bialik and Y. H. Ravnitzky’s The Book of‬‬

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

211

Legends: Sefer Ha-Aggadah. The short synopsis of the biblical material that accompanies is the present author’s summary. I SAMUEL: 16:1–8

Samuel goes to Jesse’s 16: 18 David’s physical attributes 17:9–45 David and Goliath 19:18–20:1 David flees Saul with Michal’s help to Naioth in Ramah and then questions Saul 21:1 David at Nob 21:10–16 David flees to Gath 22:3 David’s parents to Moab 22:9–23 Slaughter at Nob 23:3 David to attack Philistines and save Keilah 23:17 Jonathan comforts David 24:5–14 David cuts Saul’s robe and pleads his case 25:2–42 Abigail, David, and Nabal 26:5–19 David takes Saul’s jug and spear 30:17 David fights Amalekites

II SAMUEL: 1:26 6:11–22 7:1–9 7:19–23

David’s song of Jonathan’s love Ark brought to Jerusalem; David dances God’s covenant for David David’s response

8:2–15

Moab defeated; David reigns over all Israel 11:2–12:11 David, Bathsheba, Uriah… 12:15–30 David’s son dies, Solomon is born, Rabbah is captured 13 Amnon and Tamar 15 Absalom’s treason 16:1–4 Ziba accuses Mephibosheth 16:21–23 Absalom sleeps with concubines at Ahithophel’s advice 19:30 Mephibosheth gives all to Ziba 20:16–22 Sheba’s demise 21:1–17 David avenges Gibeonites, IshbiBenob attacks David 22:1–51 David’s song of thanks 23:1–7 David’s last words 24:17 Census: why punish the people?

I KINGS: 1:1 1:11–27 1:40–7

David cannot get warm Nathan and Bathsheba secure the crown for Solomon people bless David and Solomon at his corononation

I CHRONICLES: 3

Family of David

212

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

14:17 David’s fame spreads 16:27 David’s song 17 David’s covenant 21:1, 15–7, 25–6 the Census

28:2,9

David instructs Solomon to build the Temple 29:11–15 David praises God 29:23 Solomon rules.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akenson, Donald Harman. Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998. Alon, Gedaliah. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (70–640 CE). Trans. and Ed. by Gershon Levi. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989. Beentjies, P. C. “Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted Quotations and Their Dynamics.” Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Eds. L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, Eisenbrauns, 1996: 31–50. Berlin, Adele. “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives.” Beyond Form Criticism. Ed. Paul R. House. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Bialik, Hayim Nahman and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky. Eds. The Book of Legends: Sefer Ha-Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash. Trans. William G. Braude. New York: Schocken Books, 1992. Chasidah, Yishai. Encyclopedia of Biblical Personalities: Anthologized from the Talmud, Midrash, and Rabbinic Writings. Brooklyn, New York: Shaar Press, Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1994. Craig, Kenneth M., Jr. Asking for Rhetoric: The Hebrew Bible’s Protean Interrogative. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc., 2005. De Vries, Simon J. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature: 1 and 2 Chronicles, Vol. 11. Eds. Rolf P. Knierim and Gene M. Tucker. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989. Diamond, James A. “King David of the Sages: Rabbinic Rehabilitation or Ironic Parody?” Prooftexts, 27 (2007): 373– 426. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities and PseudoPhilo’s Biblical Antiquities.” Josephus, the Bible, and History. Eds.

THE PORTRAIT OF DAVID

213

Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989: 59–80. Fonrobert, Charlotte Elisheva and Martin S. Jaffee, Eds. The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Garsiel, Moshe. “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 55 (1993): 244–262. George, Mark K. “Yhwh’s Own Heart.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 64 (2002): 442–459. Goldfajn, Tal. Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001. House, Paul R. Ed. Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Klein, Ralph W. “David: Sinner and Saint in Samuel and Chronicles.” Currents in Theology and Mission 26 (1999): 104– 116. Kraemer, David. The Mind of the Talmud: An Intellectual History of the Bavli. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Maccoby, Hyam. Early Rabbinic Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. McKenzie, Steven L. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984. McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Neusner, Jacob. Rabbinic Theology and Israelite Prophecy: Primacy of the Torah, Narrative of the World to Come, Doctrine of Repentance and Atonement, and the Systematization of Theology in the Rabbis’ Reading of the Prophets. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 2008. Neusner, Jacob. The Rabbinic Utopia. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 2007. Panken, Aaron D. The Rhetoric of Innovation: Self-Conscious Legal Change in Rabbinic Literature. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, Inc., 2005. Samely, Alexander. Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

214

ADRIANNE L. SPUNAUGLE

Schonfield, Jeremy. Undercurrents of Jewish Prayer. Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006. Shemesh, Yael. “Measure for Measure in the David Stories.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, Vol. 17 no. 1 (2003): 89–109. Strack, H.L. and G. Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Trans. Markuc Bockmuehl. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. Stern, David. “The Rabbinic Parable and the Narrative of Interpretation.” Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History. Ed. Michael Fishbane, New York: State University of New York Press, 1993: 78–95. Steussy, Marti J. David: Biblical Portraits of Power. Ed. James L. Crenshaw. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1999.

KING DAVID: SIX PORTRAITS IN MUSIC MAX STERN ARIEL UNIVERSITY CENTER OF SAMARIA

Archetype of ideal kingship and acclaimed as scion of the Messiah, David is the most luminous and gifted figure in the Bible. We encounter him in many guises: as a ruddy shepherd boy-musician, poet and author of Psalms, as a brave youth who over comes the giant Goliath without a weapon, and as son-in-law of Saul, Israel’s first king. As a man of singular faith, he brought the Ark of the Covenant to its resting place in Jerusalem and gave it a final home, in the Temple he designed. But, as king, David became entangled in a web of love and lust; fathering a troubled dynasty that split his kingdom asunder and scattered his people to the four corners of the earth. Yet, despite the distance in time and the great upheavals that his name and nation experienced, David remains an imperishable figure in Western culture. This essay focuses on aspects of David’s personality and career represented in the music of many composers, periods and genres: as shepherd, harpist, psalmist, warrior, king, and Messiah. Works discussed include: Max Stern: Three Ancient Pieces and Nevel & Kinnor, Antonin Dvorak: Biblical Songs, Johann Kuhnau: Biblical Sonata No. 1: The Battle of David and Goliath, and Arthur Honegger: Le Roi David. It has been said that the life of a singer should be written in song. If so, how much more so this must be true of David “the Sweet Singer of Israel,” whose life has inspired musical creativity throughout the ages. This essay focuses upon six aspects of David’s personality and career, highlighted in musical compositions extending over three centuries. In them, we encounter David as shepherd, as harpist to Saul; as a brave young warrior armed with only a sling-shot and a few pebbles against the Philistine giant, Goliath; as Psalmist and creator of immortal hymns and prayers; as 215

216

MAX STERN

king and father of a troubled dynasty; and, after his death, as the ideal ruler, in whose image generations envisaged the hope of universal redemption by a messianic king. Our study is based on the assumption that whether in letter or spirit, the biblical word—interpreted and reinterpreted through the ages—contains within: a voice, a tone, a resonance that awakens our interest and evokes our sympathy, care, and concern. This inner voice is a language of the heart and soul, more than the head and mind, and speaks to us as much through images and imagination as through intellect, logic and reasoning. It voices supernal experience through sound. Such an approach contrasts with textually oriented exegesis, which traces Scripture’s literal meaning through the usage of words in various contexts; following their varied permutations and definitions throughout the Bible. For most of recorded history, music served liturgy, accompanying religious rituals. In this, it formed an intrinsic part of Jewish and Christian worship. But, in its role as a fine art, that is, as interpreter or commentator upon text, music has lagged far behind the word. Its potential to add vividness and emotional depth to narrative has, only relatively recently come to the fore. The reason for this is primarily historical, since the language of musical technique and notation did not develop into a medium sufficiently pliable for artistic expression until the late 16th and early 17th Centuries.1 It was from this period that music—which had always joined sacred words in the solemn atmosphere of the worship—begins to take on a life of its own. This transformation was a major breakthrough in bringing the influence of the Bible to bear upon the common heritage of Western culture as a fine art. Composers For example, it was not until the Council of Trent, 1545–1563, and then as a Counter Reformation measure, that the Church officially sanctioned the performance of the polyphonic choral works, particularly those of Palestrina. Before this, polyphony was looked upon by the Church as something suspect; only the ancient monody of plainchant was considered an appropriate liturgical vehicle. The great revolution in compositional style, notation, instrumental techniques, genres and musical forms dates from the Baroque Period (ca. 1600). 1

KING DAVID: SIX PORTRAITS IN MUSIC

217

created new kinds of music based on the techniques they had applied to secular madrigals and instrumental sonatas— compositions serious in tone, inspired by Scripture, but not necessarily liturgical in function. Motets, anthems, psalms and cantatas seemed to lift the pious atmosphere of the Church into the princely realm and public domain. This “biblical” repertoire has grown considerably since that time, yet, has never achieved a typology, as such. To this day, listings of such works may be found under many rubrics: sacred, concert, by historic periods (Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, etc.), national music, folk music, or by composer and instrumental genre (orchestral, chamber music, etc.). The idea of a biblical connection, lurking behind, seems to have eluded categorization. And, yet, if these different works share anything it is more in their affinity to an eternal text than in the diversity of their style, shaped by circumstances of time, place, and the conditions of their gestation. Beyond origins, however, many of these ‘biblical compositions’ seem to touch a prophetic impulse— that of hearing something ‘beyond’ and wanting to give it ‘voice’. What I find intriguing is that this sense of “wanting to give voice” to the biblical word is not the product of a single individual or ideology, but leaps across centuries and national boundaries to unite such compositions in a common brotherhood and, perhaps, universal bond. Each, in its own way, shares in the aspiration to relate to and affirm something eternal—Credo in Unum Deum.

DAVID AS SHEPHERD The first example: “Shepherd Song” from Three Ancient Pieces for Flute and Guitar (1984) by Max Stern,2 represents David as Max Stern (b. 1947 Long Island, New York) has created a series of compositions which blend biblical themes with ancient sounds and modern techniques in a synthesis of East and West. Already, a mature professional musician in New York City before coming to Israel in 1976, Stern followed an inner calling to the land of the Bible, and there embarked on a spiritual odyssey “in the footsteps of the Prophets” that led from Jerusalem to the Negev. Conductor Uri Mayer wrote of his compositions, “Israel’s most soulful composer, his works are beautifully crafted and expressive.” 2

218

MAX STERN

shepherd. It draws inspiration from the image of a shepherd, piping to keep his sheep in tow. This image is not an imaginary one, only, but draws upon personal recollections. One day, while walking across the desert, not far from my home in Beer Sheva, I heard a Bedouin shepherd boy tooting a two-note metal pipe. The sound bound them together into a herd and signaled to his flock that their guardian was near, and that they were safe. ”Shepherd Song” is based on a Yemenite prayer song, stylized, reworked and recast in character, melody and form, but retaining its original structural elements.3 The harmony and texture, supplied by the guitar, lend this composition a pastoral atmosphere, recalling David’s verse the Lord is my shepherd. The guitar, because it is plucked, often envelopes and shades flute evocations in repetitious patterns, like an ancient lyre, for though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil. Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (Ps. 23:4) Ex. 1 Max Stern, Three Ancient Pieces (Tel Aviv: Or Tav, 1984)

DAVID AND SAUL David Plays the Harp before Saul (c. 1657). Royal Museum, The Hague. Now the spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrified him ...Let our lord seek out a skilful player on the harp; and it shall be, when an evil spirit from God cometh upon thee, that he shall play with his hand and thou shalt be well (1 Sam. 16:14, 16).

In this episode, we enter the tent of King Saul to hear a work played on a four-stringed lyre, reconstructed after a replica, painted on a pottery jug from Megiddo (1350–1150 B.C.E.). One of ten pieces for King David’s harps (Max Stern: Nebhel and Kinnor),4 this The piece is based on the Yemenite-Jewish piyut “Agil V’esmach” sung during the Festival of Unleavened Bread (Passover). 4 These pieces were commissioned for the exhibition “Sounds of Music—Music in the Holy Land and the Ancient World” held at the Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem, 2007. They are reconstructions of ancient 3

KING DAVID: SIX PORTRAITS IN MUSIC

219

movement, entitled Ayeleth Hashachar, after a superscription heading Psalm 22,5 takes on the character of a bright morning song. Constructed on four notes of a pentatonic scale (F G A C’),6 we encounter a sprightly neo-archaic possibility. Its repetitive form and limited tonal span conceivably could have been played in 1000 B.C.E. by David,7 to relieve Saul’s melancholy. The imagery music, designed to be played on replicas of biblical instruments, constructed by the Israeli luthier and sculpter, Moshe Frumin, Haifa— who used as his models, archeological findings on coins, pottery, carvings, figurines, reliefs, drawings and seals and passages from the Bible, Mishnah and Talmud. 5 The Psalm title Ayeleth Hashachar (translated as the Hind of the Morning), for instance, has been understood in three ways: the name of a melody, a Talmudic reference to Esther, or an expression of David’s sufferings. 6 The limited range and number of recitation tones in this music may be compared to the number of strings, from 3 to 10, on ancient harps. Of great interest are the women’s songs of Yemen which have long attracted ethnomusicologists in their search for more archaic strata of musical expression. The non-standard tonal inflections of these songs antedate fixed scale systems and intervallic relations. Among this repertoire one finds the first signs of modality centered on structural tones, neutral thirds, tetrachords, pentachords, and gapped quasi-pentatonic scales; living tonal structural features which appear in the writings on music of the Ancient Greeks. Edith Gerson-Kiwi, “Women’s Songs from Yemen: their Tonal Structure and Form” as cited in the collection of essays Mutations and Migrations, reprinted in The Commonwealth of Music, In Memoriam Curt Sachs, (New York, W. W. Norton, 1965) pp. 97–103. 7 While the precise playing techniques of ancient instruments are unknown, an extensive heritage from earliest times is to be found among the primitive peoples of today. The technique of playing the lyre, for instance, still lives among Ethiopian folk musicians. The Ethiopian “beganna” is played in a tradition which dates back to Old Testament times. Holy books in Ge’ez record that David played a lyre in the Temple. In the Ethiopian Psalter of Belen Sagad of the early 15th Century he is depicted playing a box lyre. See Ronald Lah, ‘Ethiopia’, New Groves, vol. 6 (Macmillan: London, 1980). In addition to written sources, filmed excerpts of Ethiopian musicians were viewed and analyzed by the author

220

MAX STERN

surrounding this scene was portrayed in Rembrandt’s famous painting “David and Saul.” Ex. 2 Max Stern, Nevel & Kinnor (Beer Sheba, 2007).

DAVID AND GOLIATH The Baroque composer Johann Kuhnau (1660–1722) was a multitalented Renaissance man—lawyer, scholar, author, and musician—Bach’s predecessor at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig.8 He felt that music should be granted precedence before most of the other arts, for its power on the human spirit is miraculous and indeed can frequently soften, tame, and calm not just stones and all intelligent beasts…—but also frequently the rock-hard hearts, and the bestial and untamed desires of men.9 His six Biblical Sonatas based on Old Testament stories are among the earliest examples of program music in the history of music. The last keyboard works Kuhnau published, they are, perhaps, the most completely programmed works of their kind in the entire keyboard literature. Each movement has a descriptive title, and was to be performed with a spoken introduction.

in ascertaining playing techniques on the lyre. These films reveal an almost hypnotic repetition of simple rhythmic figures used in the lyre accompaniments, probably a characteristic of archaic music in general. See Tzipora Jochsberger, producer, “Towards Jerusalem”, a film from the series, A People and its Music, (Israel Music Heritage Project, Jerusalem, 1990s). 8 Johann Kuhnau (1660–1722), a major figure in late German Baroque music, and one of the last of the Renaissance men, combined erudition with practical musicianship. In Leipzig, he was Director Musices of the major churches in the city (from 1701), responsible for music at the university, as well as the city musicians. A prominent figure of his time, Kuhnau is known today, principally, as Bach’s immediate predecessor at the Thomaskirche, as organist, and Kantor at the Thomasschule, where he taught singing and religion. 9 Johann Kuhnau, The Musical Charlatan, translated by John R. Russell, (Suffolk, England: Boydell & Brewer, 1997) p. 3.

KING DAVID: SIX PORTRAITS IN MUSIC

221

Ex. 3 Johann Kuhnau, Biblical Sonata No. 1 (reissue of Leipzig edition of Biblische Historien nebst Auslegung in sechs Sonaten [1700] by Alfred Publishing Co., Port Washington, 1976).

In the first of these sonatas, The Battle between David and Goliath, Kuhnau demonstrates how keyboard music, without a poetic text, can capture the emotional state of an action and depict character.10 He represents the snorting and stamping of Goliath by means of the lowpitched … rumbling sounds on the organ. The stone thrown at Goliath’s fore head, though only one bar long, is the focal event of the entire sonata. It consists in a scale-like cadenza racing up the keyboard, as if tracing the trajectory of the pebble flung from David’ sling. The Philistine’s demise is illustrated in a segment comprised of repeated-note-fragments and descending chromatic harmonies. It portrays, in music, the life-force slowly being extinguished from the fallen giant’s body. The ensuing flight of the Philistines is represented as a mad barrage of sixteenth notes, similar in style to passages found later in Bach’s keyboard preludes and toccatas. The pursuit of the Israelites is portrayed with rapid-note figures, in various voice parts, chasing each other, like a fugue.

DAVID AS PSALMIST David’s most enduring achievement was not on the field of battle; it was in the creation of Psalms, which he wrote as a means of selfexpression. It was his personal way of communicating with God. The rabbis speak in superlatives of David’s poetic genius.

Each event in this recitative-like movement is depicted with marked contrasts in mood, tempo, and texture. Structured in three sections: 1) a short of 10 bar episode recalls the opening movement, reprising its tempo and meter; 2) a rising circle of fifths and climbing stepwise scale evidence the will to battle; 3) a trombone-like fanfare in the bass, sounded against sixteenth note figures in the uppermost region of the keyboard (borrowed from the third movement), manifest David’s courage. 10

222

MAX STERN

In one of the very few art song settings of biblical texts in the 19th century, Czech composer Antonin Dvorak11 wrote Biblical Songs, a song cycle for voice and piano. His setting of the 23rd Psalm from this collection is straight forward and direct in its message, style, and technique. It has something of the free, recitative-like quality of plainsong joined to the structured simplicity of folksong;12 it exemplifies both the pervasive penetration of the Czech Bible into the national culture of Bohemia and Dvorak’s deep ties to his homeland. It opens in a major tonality, then, moves into minor. Each section closes with a mordant-like reprise in the piano, symbolizing a brook beside the still waters. God is my shepherd, I want for nothing. My rest is in the pleasant meadows. He leadeth me where quiet waters flow. My fainting soul doth He restore And guideth me in the paths of peace, to glorify His name. Among the greatest of Czech composers, Antonin Dvorak (1841– 1904) was one of the few Nationalist composers to write religious works. Lonely and homesick, during his American sojourn (1892–1895) where he had been invited to become director of the newly formed National Conservatory of Music in New York City, and against a background of disturbing news from abroad, the Bohemian composer turned to the Bible for comfort. Considered Dvorak’s finest song cycle, Biblical Songs, Op. 99, are a group of ten songs on psalm texts, for voice and piano, which transform from despair and supplication to trust and jubilation. See Dvorak, Biblical Songs, Op. 99, (New York: G. Schirmer, 1967 [1895]), catalogue number 1825. 12 Dvorak’s syllabic settings of text follow practices of European folksong and Lied. Touches of pentatonicism, attributed to the influence of the American Negro Spiritual, are traceable to Czech folk idioms. For all the folk elements, these are art songs. Each phrase is scrupulously crafted, no two are identical. Triadic harmony and supportive piano textures evoke the pictorial images suggested by the psalm. The pacing and recurrence of thematic motifs, at key structural points in the song, were planned by a composer familiar with Gregorian psalmody (e.g. intium, tenor, medio, finalis). 11

KING DAVID: SIX PORTRAITS IN MUSIC

223

Formal Design: God is My Shepherd (Psalm 23:1–4) Function:

Introduction A

Duration:

5 bars

Tonality: B major Verse:

(B)

A

B

A

5+ (2 1 bars bars)

4+1 bars

4+4 bars

3+3 bars

V

I

VI

I

VI

I

1

2

3a

3b

4a

4b

Ex. 4 Antonin Dvorak, Biblical Songs, Op. 99 (New York: G. Schirmer, 1895),

Analyses Opening phrase: A-section—God is my shepherd, I want for nothing. This phrase, like a psalm tone intonation on the dominant, carries the little tune (i.e. s-l-m, s-l-r). It is reminiscent of a children’s game song, alluding, perhaps, to the youthful David. My rest is in the pleasant meadows. He leadeth me where quiet waters flow. Almost unnoticed, the descending second (m—r) functions as a leitmotif, constituting a cohesive thread recurring throughout the entire cycle. The image of a brook (waters flow) is depicted with a lovely touch, a thrice repeated mordant in the piano. Second phrase: B section—my fainting soul doth he restore. Dvorak harmonizes this phrase in G-sharp minor. Later on, it becomes of structural importance, for this short G-sharp minor phrase, depicting the fainting soul, introduces a bit of shadow into the sunny, major key atmosphere. Truncated return of the opening phrase: A-section—And guideth me in the ways of peace, to glorify his name. This B major phrase, implying childlike trust, reprises back to the previous game song tune. It concludes with a thrice repeated mordant, sounded in the piano, symbolizing the brook. Contrasting third phrase—a return to the modality of the B-section—And though in death’s dark valley my steps must wander, My spirit shall not fear, For Thou art by me still. The image of death’s dark valley is portrayed, once more, in the relative (G-sharp) minor. The earlier image of shade, now intensified, has transfigured into darkness. The final A-section returns—Thy rod and staff are with me, And they shall comfort me. As trust has been restored to the

224

MAX STERN

psalmist, so has the principal key of B major returned to the song, which closes with the rippling brook motif, sounded in the piano background.

KING DAVID BETRAYED The 20th century Hungarian-national composer Zoltan Kodaly13 established his international reputation with a biblical work entitled Psalmus Hungaricus (1923), a cantata for tenor, chorus and orchestra, setting Psalm 55 in a Hungarian paraphrase written by the 16th Century preacher and poet, Mihaly Veg. It is a petition and cry in distress, a lament: Give ear to my prayer, O God; and hide not Thyself from my supplication. David wrote this psalm in response to the betrayal of his one-time friend and advisor, Achitophel, who treacherously supported the conspiracy of Absalom (2 Sam. 15:31). Kodaly bases its melos on an original pentatonic melody, modeled after archaic Hungarian folksong, a two-line tune structured in four symmetrical phrases.14 The form of the work, Zoltan Kodaly (1882–1967) is among the major figures in the creation of a Hungarian national musical identity in the 20th Century. Folk song is integral to his life and music. Born in Kecskemet, Kodaly grew up in rural Hungary, where he became acquainted with the rich tradition of Hungarian peasant music. Kodaly taught at the Liszt Academy from 1907. His enthusiasm for this music was not shared by his colleagues at the Academy, however, who regarded it as uncultured and lacking in refinement. In 1919, after the short lived bourgeois revolution, Kodaly, who sympathized with the social-democrats, was appointed deputy director of the academy. After the fall of the Republic, only four months later, Kodaly was dismissed from his post and could not resume teaching until two years later. Burnt by the revolution and its aftermath, it was during this period of isolation and dejection that he wrote Psalmus Hungaricus. 14 Kodaly modeled his tune not only after the structure, but also after the character of the Hungarian peasant lament. The melody gradually rises and stretches upwards, then cascades slowly downwards, like a sigh. In expanding a folksong typology into a concert work, Kodaly makes full use of the freedom inherent in the genre. His original two-line tune is modeled after these archaic songs of mourning, and incorporates typically modal turns of phrase. It contains 4 phrases of 10 syllables each (the final 13

KING DAVID: SIX PORTRAITS IN MUSIC

225

however, follows that of the psalm.15 Its four sections begin with a cry of distress, which continues with a denunciation of the betrayer, then, follows with an appeal for divine retribution.16 An expression of trust in God,17 who will never suffer the righteous to be moved, concludes the work. The dramatic opening depicts David’s cry to God. Its nationalistic tone echoes the composer’s personal outrage against those who betrayed the Hungarian Revolution of 1919. Ex. 5 Zoltan Kodaly, Psalmus Hungaricus, Op. 13 (Vienna: Universal Edition, 1924). O hear the voice of my complaining! Terrors of death are fallen upon me, phrase has 11 syllables) with cadences on the dominant (E), sub-dominate (D), and tonic (A). Its range extends just beyond an octave, and is grounded on an Aeolian-pentatonic structure of two conjunct fifths: b—(E)—A, which is filled in by a pentatonic scale: (c) b a G (E) D C A. See Zoltan Kodaly, Folk Music of Hungary, translated by Ronald Tempest and Cynthia Jolly, (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971), 85–6. 15 After the introduction, Psalmus Hungaricus breaks into two sections. By far the longest (the first part), David’s petition, consists of four laments of increasing intensity and desperation. The second part expresses David’s trust in God. The concluding section is the moral dictum of the psalm, which gives voice to the wisdom of the people: Evil will not go unpunished; in the end, despite affliction, there is a reward for the righteous. 16 The greatness of David is in his identification and articulation of the core values of the people. Clothed in chromatic harmonies and contrapuntal devices, his rhapsodic cry, repeated four times, is each time acknowledged by choral response. Agitated rhythms give vent to David’s pain, underscore his despair, and give a human face to rage. 17 The second part of Psalmus Hungaricus contrasts with part one’s tortured cries and pleas. No longer is David imprisoned in a cell of wounded pride. Music of trust has supplanted one of affliction. He is raised to a broader vista and breathes new air, beholding, if only for an instant, the unchanging peacefulness and eternity implanted within the soul of man. Technically, this effect is realized as a sustained melodic line stretched over a slow moving orchestral sonority.

226

MAX STERN Hide not Thyself from my supplication, Hatred and wrath of wicked men oppress me.

DAVID AS MESSIAH The death of David meant neither the end of his glory nor grandeur. Later generations considered David the ideal ruler, whose throne would be restored, and, as Messianic king, would reign forever. A just one shall come, relying on the fear of God over men. It is the light of morning, when the sun rises (text by librettist Rene Morax after Isaiah). Ex. 6 Arthur Honegger, Le Roi David (Lausanne: Edition Foetisch 1925).

The oratorio, or as the score titles it A Symphonic Psalm, King David (Le Roi David) (1921) by Swiss-French composer Arthur Honegger18 is thoroughly Gallic in character. Influenced by the popular realism prevalent in France, in the aftermath of the First World War, it adopts a polytonal vernacular style, and concludes with a timely message of hope.19 In the final Alleluia choruses for speaker, soloist, chorus and orchestra, Honegger celebrates David’s ascension into heaven by summoning the sublime ecstasy of melismatic choral polyphony. The music rises to an apotheosis on Arthur Honegger (1892 Le Havre, France—1955 Paris) was born and spent most of his life in France, deeply influenced, both, by his parent’s Swiss Protestant ancestry, as well as by French Catholicism. His style rejects the bombast of Late-German Romanticism, as well as the refinements of French Impressionism, and strives for a direct and popular realism. These artistic values he shared with a special group of six other young French colleagues, whom history has dubbed Les Six. 19 Everywhere there were unwonted privations; everywhere there was mourning. The tale of the dead and mutilated mounted to many millions. Men felt a crisis in the world’s affairs. They were too weary and heartsick to consider complicated possibilities. They were not sure whether they were facing a disaster to civilization or the inauguration of a new phase of human association. See H. G. Wells, Introduction, Outline of History, vol. 1, (New York: Garden City Books, (1919) [1956]), p. 1. 18

KING DAVID: SIX PORTRAITS IN MUSIC

227

the jubilant exclamation Alleluia (akin to the jubilus of plainchant) the closing word of David’s Psalter, as if to say: O’ this life was so fair, I bless you who granted it to me.

CONCLUSION If we understand the Bible as something other than literature, then its message, too, relates to more than merely narrative. Such stories become receptacles for indwelling spirit, and like a stream of water running through lifeless earth, animates all in its path, transforming clay into living organism. We cannot see this spirit, but we can experience its reflection in words and music and rhythm. Despite stylistic differences, the works discussed in this essay, portray the development and transformation of David’s character from shepherd to warrior, king to messiah. They range from the simplicity of Stern’s neo-archaic works for flute and harp; to the Baroque keyboard clarity of Kuhnau; through evocation of David as royal psalmist, in Dvorak’s art song; to the powerful, nationalistic setting of Kodaly, culminating in the exaltation of Honegger’s messianic vision. Such works enhance knowledge and wisdom with aesthetic loveliness and beauty, bearing creative witness to shared identity with an ancient king, who reigned over Israel 3000 years ago, David: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty three years reigned he in Jerusalem. (1 Kgs. 2:11)

DISAPPEARING “DAUGHTERS” IN THE TRADITION OF DAVID (SIR. 47:6) NANCY TAN CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Any careful study of the wisdom of Ben Sira today cannot proceed without taking serious account of its extant Hebrew texts, apart from the GI and GII Greek texts.1 Although the reliability and originality of the two Greek texts allow them to stand as primary textual witnesses, the variant readings of the other extant texts continue to baffle us with questions not only concerning which ones are original (as in an Urtext), but also as to how the Through to the prologue by Ben Sira’s grandson who rendered a Greek translation of the book now preserved for us in the LXX, we are made aware that its original was in Hebrew. As for the two Greek recensions, GI was the first textual witness and a translation of the original Hebrew manuscript of Ben Sira (HI) by his grandson, and GII was believed to be the translation of the second version of the Hebrew which Ben Sira revised (HII). Since this essay does not deal with any readings from GII, it will not go beyond what is said here. For further study on the textual relationships between the manuscripts, see Alexander Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-Critical and Historical Study, (Studies in Classical Literature 1; The Hague: Mouton, 1966), pp. 150–51. Also by the same author, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes, (AB, 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987), pp. 55–60, where he lists some helpful rudimentary points concerning the relationships of the textual witnesses; C. Kearns, “Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,” in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, (ed. R. C. Fuller, et. al.; London: Nelson, 1969), pp. 541–62. 1

229

230

NANCY TAN

communities of faith received these texts and transmitted them purposefully to their communities.2 There is no doubt some readings are simple scribal errors and glosses; there are others, however, which on serious consideration may lead us to appreciate that the discrepancies arose through deliberate modification of the text for the purposes of the various communities separated by space and even time.3 The most straightforward example is Sir. 50:23–24 where Manuscript B (Ms B) clearly preserves a reading prior to the assassination of Onias III, the high priest, and therefore no longer meaningful by the time of Ben Sira’s grandson. This essay will present a further such example, related to the praise of David in Ben Sira 47:6, in the well-known section of the encomium to Israel’s forefathers (Sir. 44–51). This passage is only available in GI and Ms B and I shall present them in order before discussing how earlier scholarship has dealt with the discrepancies. I will then go on to study these texts separately in order to appreciate the significance of their readings. I shall also consider if the different readings may have any bearing on their political and socio-historical contexts.

A. THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS OF SIR. 47:6 AND THEIR POPULAR TRANSLATIONS

Manuscript B 47:64

:‫על כן ענו לו בנות ויכנוהו ברבבה‬ :‫בעטותו צניף נלחם ומסביב הכניע צר‬ For a brief summary of the textual studies on Ben Sira, see Maurice Gilbert, ‘Methodological and Hermeneutical trends in Modern Exegesis’ in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction and Theology, (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies, vol. 1; eds. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008), pp. 1–17. 3 See for example, Nancy N. H. Tan, The “Foreignness” of the Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1–9: A Study of its Origin and Development of a Biblical Motif, (BZAW 381, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), pp. 135–54. 4 Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 68; Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. 84. The initial English translations of the Hebrew and Greek texts are mine. 2

DISAPPEARING “DAUGHTERS”

231

Therefore the daughters sang of him and they honored him in great numbers. When they put a turban on him, he fought so that from every side he subdued the enemy. GI 47:6 ou[twj evn muria,sin evdo,xasan auvto.n kai. h;|nesan auvto.n evn euvlogi,aij kuri,ou evn tw/| fe,resqai auvtw/| dia,dhma do,xhj So they honored him in myriads and praised him for the blessings of the lord, when the glorious crown was put on him. GI 47:7a evxe,triyen ga.r evcqrou.j kuklo,qen for he destroyed the enemies from all sides

Before we discuss the translations put forward by the prominent scholars, it is necessary to explain briefly the relationship between Ms B and GI. As mentioned above, in terms of contents, GI is almost always accepted to be the first textual witness to the original Hebrew of Ben Sira as mentioned in the prologue by Ben Sira’s grandson. The grandson dates the period of the translation to the 38th year of King Euergetes, most probably referring to Ptolemy VII, hence there is a consensus among scholarship to take 132 B.C.E. as the date. Ms B, on the other hand, is a 10th century manuscript, incomplete, but by far the most substantial in terms of quantity among the other Hebrew manuscripts discovered. According to scholarship, for the most part it has a tendency to follow either the Greek rendering or the Syriac. Marginal readings are found written rather extensively on it, believed to be renderings of other manuscripts.5 However, for the passage in which we are interested, Sir. 47:6–7, there are no marginal readings. Where there are variant readings between the two witnesses, scholars tend to assume that the reading which is closest to the earlier traditions in the Hebrew Bible is original, for the reason that Ben Sira characteristically draws on scriptural traditions. This essay is not so much concerned with what is “original” as may 5

Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, pp. 57–58; Beentjes, pp. 8–10.

232

NANCY TAN

be the object of textual criticism, but rather is interested to examine the readings on their own merit and to consider the possibility that different traditions concerning David arose out of socio-political factors perhaps separated by different contexts and era, and in that light to evaluate the significance of these variant readings. A comparison of the more popular translations are tabled below, and we shall observe that many of the translations follow R. H. Charles and take that perhaps the grandson “has mistaken the connexion between these verses”6, producing the following: Charles

Di Lella

Snaith

Therefore the daughters sang of him,

Therefore the women sang his praises

So they hailed So they glorified him as him for his ten conqueror of tens thousands of thousands,

And honored him with ‘[Slayer] of ten thousand’.

And ascribed to him tens of thousands overcome.

They sang his praises for the blessings bestowed by the Lord,

And praised him for the blessings of the Lord

When he had put on the diadem he fought,

When he assumed the royal crown, he fought

When he was offered the royal diadem.

When the glorious diadem was bestowed upon him

7a For he subdued their enemies on every side

7a For he wiped out his enemies on every side

7a and subdued 7a and subdued the enemies from the enemy on all sides, every side.

RSV

R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, (vol. 1: Apocrypha; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), p. 495. The other citations in the table are taken from: Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, 522; John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach, (The Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1974), p. 233. 6

DISAPPEARING “DAUGHTERS”

233

All these translations when compared to GI and Ms B can be seen to be attempts to merge in a coherent way whatever elements were believed to have been left out. However, each translation has chosen different aspects to be translated; generally, they have all assumed that Ben Sira and his grandson based v. 6 on the women’s song of David in 1 Sam. 18:6,7. This assumption, as mentioned above, is in line with what scholars have believed Ben Sira would have intended, as he often alludes and employs the earlier traditions of the Hebrew Bible. In this way, the GI of evn muria,sin, is linked to the LXX of 1 Sam. 18:7, where the text reads kai. Dauid evn muria,sin auvtou/, evidently a Hebraism and in close correspondence with the MT ‫וְ ָדוִ ד ְבּ ִר ְבב ָֹתיו‬. The Greek in Sir. 47:6 does not seem to display the Hebraism found in 1 Sam. 18:7. Nonetheless, the clause and the appearance of ‫“ בנות‬daughters” and their song in Ms B have led scholars to assume 1 Sam. 18:7 as the base text for the Greek text. With that in mind, Charles opts to retain “daughters” of Ms B, while Di Lella prefers to stick with the LXX of 1 Sam. 18:7 with “women”, whereas as for Snaith and RSV, they retain the grandson’s rendering by leaving out the female component as the subject and giving the generic subject of common plural in the verb. Consequently, h;|nesan is taken as the act of singing by the women in 1 Sam. 18:7 where David was exhorted for having slain tens of thousand of Philistines in contrast to Saul, this is especially so in the translations of both Charles and Di Lella, where the first two clauses are merged most obviously to refer to the same event. Note that for Charles, he adds the word “Slayer”, taking the cue from ‫ נלחם‬and Di Lella follows suit by rephrasing the clause to add the verb “overcome” instead.7 Of course, it is possible that both possibly take “the blessing of the Lord” in GI to refer to David’s success at war. As for the translations of Snaith and RSV, there is an attempt to keep the first clause only to the allusion of the song according to 1 Sam. 18:7, while following strictly to the text of GI. That said in his commentary, Snaith does link them to the same event.8

7 8

Charles, p. 495; Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, pp. 522, 525. Snaith, p. 234.

234

NANCY TAN

We shall now consider the third clause. The verb ‫ בעטותו‬in Ms B is in the active while GI has fe,resqai, an infinitive present passive. If we refer to MT 2 Sam. 12:29—30, assuming Sir. 47:6 alludes to it, there David removed the crown (‫ )עטרה‬from the Ammonite king’s head; a brief description of the crown sidetracks the event and what immediately follows was that the crown was on David’s head (‫)ותהי על־ראשׁ דוד‬. Indeed, no mention is made as to who put the crown on his head. Ms B, however, assumes the subject of all the verbs from the first clause to be the “daughters”. Although none of the scholars mentioned above say so explicitly, it is nonetheless evident that they would contest the fact that women had “crowned” David. Ms B is therefore for the most part ignored in the overall translation, for GI seems to make more sense. If we compare these texts with the translations above, only Charles translates the verb in its active sense with David as subject. Charles does not give a rationale for this translation, but he is more eager to take note of the fact that Ms B does not use ‫עטרה‬, the word used more commonly for “crown” (as in MT 2 Sam. 12:30, translated as dia,dhma in GI), but chooses ‫צניף‬, as the headgear of the priests.9 I shall return to this important observation in the next section. As for the fourth clause in Ms B, and found in Sir. 47:7a of GI, the difference is minimal, and so are the translations. I would consider this to be the result clause dependent on the previous lines and hence it serves as an important clue as to what Ms B and GI assume to be the base text for 47:6. In sum, prior scholarship has assumed that Ben Sira follows closely the earlier Hebrew Bible tradition and therefore takes that to be the standard to which Ben Sira would have conformed in terms of chronology and other details, and which is seen as decisive in evaluating which of the variant readings might have been “original”. In the case of Sir. 47:6, we see the difficulties scholars have concerning the chronology of events and other details which Ms B seems to portray: that the daughters were active in exhorting David to the state of his kingship and the inspiration for his conquests. Despite attempts to make sense of Ms B and GI, 9

Op. cit.

DISAPPEARING “DAUGHTERS”

235

scholars also find problems coming to terms with the chronology GI suggests, for David had subdued the Philistines before he claimed the “crown”, as Snaith aptly puts it.10 If we are going to pursue any fruitful discussion on this text, it is best to examine Ms B and GI separately first before we can come to a logical reconstruction of this passage.

B. THE PORTRAYAL OF DAVID IN MS B As pointed out in the analysis of the text above, Ms B does seem to imply that it was the daughters who sang, gave a title and put a ‫צניף‬ on David’s head, which spurred him to fight and subdue his enemies. However, where do these descriptions allude to that which can be found in the earlier traditions concerning David? Before looking for allusions, I would like to extend our scope a little wider to consider how Ben Sira depicts the female gender in the episode concerning David and the subsequent one concerning Solomon. I will argue that the portrayal in Ms B is primarily motivated by the intention to contrast David and Solomon. We shall look at Sir. 47:19–20 to see how the female gender is depicted in the Solomon episode. Sir 47:19–2011

‫ותתן לנשם כסליך ותמשלים בגויתך׃‬ ‫[תן מום בכבודך ותחלל את יצועיך‬.]‫ו‬ ‫[ אף על צאצאיך ואנחה על משכבך‬...] But you give to the women your folly and you let them rule over your body. and [you brought?] a blemish to your glory and you defile your couch […] wrath upon your descendants and sighing upon your bed.

The reference by Ben Sira in this passage is to the account of 1 Kgs. 11:1–4. We can now see an immediate contrast between the Snaith has protested against seeing any link between the second clause and the third clause on the basis of the chronology of events—for the song sung about David’s slaying the thousands did not result immediately in him having the crown on his head. David’s crowning event occurred only after he had controlled the Philistines (p. 234). 11 Beentjes, p. 83. 10

236

NANCY TAN

portrayals of the women in both episodes. First, it is how the female gender is called. In Sir. 47:6, they are “daughters” not “women” (‫)נשם‬, which 1 Sam. 18:7 has. If Ms B is only making a direct allusion, there is no need for the change to ‫בנות‬, but the very word pins down its context to David’s own people (‫ )עמו‬for whom he triumphed, the last word in 47:5. Hence “daughters” emphasizes them as belonging to Israel, and used here significantly to contrast the ‫ נשם‬who are the subject of Solomon’s folly. Ms B does not specify these women as “foreigners” which 1 Kgs. 11:1–4 does. Therefore the significance of the difference between the use of ‫ בנות‬and ‫ נשם‬is all the more highlighted. Secondly, a contrast can be made between the actions of the women. In the David episode, the women sang, exhorted and honored David with a turban on his head as their national hero, while those in the Solomon episode took charge of his body. Hence, the women of the David passage acknowledged by their deeds the rule of David and his patriotism, but as for Solomon instead of “ruling” Israel, he was ruled by women. And, Ms B attributes that to Solomon’s folly. This “de-masculation” of Solomon is all the more highlighted when compared to David. Thirdly, there is a difference in the consequence of the women’s deeds. 47:6 portrays David as being motivated by the women’s honoring to do more exploits and finally subdue Israel’s enemies. As for Solomon in 47:20, the judgment was harsh but the depiction makes an inverse correspondence to the description of the David episode. In terms of glory, David was honored and decorated, but Solomon tarnished his glory. And while David exalted the dignity and power of Israel, Solomon is blamed for the regret Israel felt for his progeny. 47:20 repeats twice Solomon’s sexuality as sinful which brought Yahweh’s judgment on his progeny, but as for David in 47:11, Yahweh forgave his sin and even empowered him. Therefore, in reading the episodes concerning David and Solomon, one cannot but discern an intentional comparison and contrast in Ms B. Both father and son started off well, but the former outshines the latter for he continued in valor and worshipped his God wholeheartedly. As for the description of the latter, although his contribution to worship lacked nothing, and wealth and praise was his portion instead of war, in Sir. 47:17 another contrast with David is clearly apparent. There it is

DISAPPEARING “DAUGHTERS”

237

described how Solomon showed off his wisdom when he “blew away” the nations with his songs, riddles and proverbs, whereas Sir. 47:5 and 8 depict David calling to his God for strength and directing his praises to his God. So, if 47:6 deliberately draws a contrast with Solomon in Ms B, how then do we deal with the allusions, and can they be traced to earlier traditions, if this be the qualifying factor for the originality of the Ben Sira text? Clearly, the main difficulty our scholars have is with Ms B’s depiction of the daughters “crowning” David, although the reason given (perhaps out of respect for feminist scholars) was that the cart was put before the horse, for the chronology of David’s crowning came only after he put to rest the Philistines’ bombardment. If we take seriously Charles’ observation on the words used for the headgear, Sir. 47:6 does not depict the crowning of David event described in 2 Sam. 12:29–30. What was put on David’s head was actually the word more commonly identified for the headgear of the priests (Zech. 3:5; and as ‫ מצנפת‬in Exod. 28:4, 37, 39; 29:6; 39:28, 31; Lev. 8:9; 16:4).12 Besides, if women celebrate the victories of their men with songs and dance, giving titles and honoring the hero of their troops would be a commonplace, and that there should be a headgear as a token from the women may not be unimaginable. Judith, when the victory was claimed, not only put on the wreath (evstefanw,santo) but was accompanied by the whole party of women doing likewise, and indeed, all the men as well (Jdt. 15:13). As for David, 1 Samuel depicts how powerful the songs these women sang became—the women loved him and so did all Judah and Israel (1 Sam. 18:16). David’s popularity swayed the people’s confidence and ultimately the desired loyalty from Saul to himself. It won him the support and ready acknowledgment to be their king—especially according to Chronicles (1 Chron. 12). Even in these earlier traditions, David was anointed as Israel’s ruler and without a ‫עטרה‬. Whether there was a headgear

See below for a brief treatment of the usage of terms for the headgear of kings and priests. 12

238

NANCY TAN

for David at his anointing or not is not specified by the relevant texts (cf. 1 Sam. 13:2 and 2 Sam. 2:4).13 In brief, the point is that Ms B 47:6 need not allude to 2 Sam. 12:29–30 when David began the custom of wearing a jeweled crown like the rest of the kings. It is more likely that the text is concerned with how the daughters were honoring him as their national hero, patriot and finally their ruler as well. Therefore, Ms B has not diverted from the earlier traditions as the scholars mentioned above have believed. At the same time, this depiction of the daughters is not without its purpose and significance when compared to the Solomon episode. The daughters are there to distinguish the faithful females of Israel who motivated David positively and brought Israel dignity and power, from those women to whom Solomon subjugated himself, which brought him and his descendants disgrace and regret.

C. THE PORTRAYAL OF DAVID IN GI 47:6–7 As pointed out earlier, “daughters” as the subject of this verse is completely left out. Hence whether GI intends to allude to the songs which the women sang of David remains ambiguous in this text.14 On the other hand, GI clearly intends to depict the coronation of David with the use of dia,dhma. However, it does not seem to allude to the incident of 2 Sam. 12:29—30 when David discovered the jeweled crown for himself but the depiction of his coronation according to the presentation in Chronicles of his succession to the throne. In GI 47:6, the subject for the verb “honored” evdo,xasan is manifestly “his people” laou/ auvtou/ of v. 5, since v. 6 begins the clause with ou[twj indicating the consequence However, we know that Saul had the ‫( נזר‬2 Sam. 1:10), another term which also denotes some kind of crown for kings (cf. Pss. 89:40; 132:18), and for priests as well (Zech. 9:16). 14 Jeremy Corley has pointed out to me (personal correspondence) that Segal suggests that GI takes ‫ בנות‬for ‫ברכות‬. See Moses Zevi Segal, Sefer Ben Sira, (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1953), p. 325. Corley has also noted that Warren Trenchard has left out Sir. 47:6 in his section “Daughters”; cf. Trenchard, Ben Sira’s View of Women: A Literary Analysis, (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982). 13

DISAPPEARING “DAUGHTERS”

239

of v. 5. Although Chronicles does not recall the Goliath incident specifically, the depiction of David’s succession to the throne in 1 Chronicles 11–12 accounts for the tribes of Judah and Israel streaming to him to acknowledge him as their king because of what God has done through him and his mighty warriors. 1 Chron. 11:1–3 introduces the event, with a lengthy illustration of how all Israel is convinced that David is their king elected by Yahweh from 11:4 to 12:37, and culminates in 12:38–40 on the celebration of the event. These illustrations establish David’s image as a warrior of warriors and a triumphant militant conqueror anointed by his God, hence the second clause kai. h;|nesan auvto.n evn euvlogi,aij kuri,ou. Moreover, immediately after the festive celebration in 1 Chron. 12:38–40, Chronicles goes on to give an account of David’s establishment of his city in Jerusalem and further conquests of the Philistines in 1 Chron. 13:1–14:13. GI 47:6–7 seems to abbreviate the events depicted in 1 Chronicles 11–14: Israel’s honoring of David in tens of thousands evn muria,sin rather than “for thousands” (as in RSV), and how the people give their allegiance to him through their praises and acknowledgement of Yahweh’s power through David, all encapsulated in the coronation event, and followed by a further defeat of the Philistines corresponds perfectly to Chronicles. Furthermore, Sir. 47:9–10 on David’s establishment of singers to praise and worship Yahweh thereafter subduing the Philistines also corresponds to the sequence in 1 Chronicles 15–16. MT 1 Samuel, on the other hand, does not depict the coronation of David in this manner and sequence, and there is no account depicting David establishing praises and worship at all. In other words, if we take evn muria,sin in GI 47:6 as strictly a verbatim reference to LXX 1 Sam. 18:7, the rest of the text in GI 47:6 makes no direct link nor allusion to 1 Sam. 18:7. On the other hand, when GI 47:6–7 is read within its context, the allusion to Chronicles becomes evident. It is true, nevertheless, that even in the coronation of David in 1 Chronicles 11—12, there was no jeweled crown on his head.

D. THE USE OF TERMS FOR DAVID’S HEADGEAR What I have done so far is to show that Sir. 47:6 does not preserve a simple tradition of David. Whether Ms B of 47:6 is earlier or more original than GI 47:6 or vice versa, it may be that without more substantial evidence, this may be difficult to prove. Indeed, scholars have acknowledged that the Book of Sirach is one of the

240

NANCY TAN

most difficult ones to interpret among the books of the Old Testament because of its complicated transmission history, and the multiple textual witnesses which might have reflected the original Hebrew Urtext.15 Nonetheless, one may still attempt to appreciate the possible rationale for the variant readings of Sir. 47:6 in Ms B and GI. I suspect that the key to this reconstruction lies in the use of terms for the headgear for David and we shall now turn our attention to how Ben Sira portrays the high priesthood in comparison to the kings. Ben Sira, in his section on Praise to the Fathers, gives meticulous details only with reference to the attire of the high priests, and especially with respect to Simon (Sir. 50:1–24), that is, the high priest, Simon II (219–196 B.C.E.) during Ben Sira’s lifetime. No other such description is made for the other fathers. Grandiloquence without doubt is reserved only for Simon, but Aaron and Phineas still exceed in pomposity in comparison with the description of the kings.16 The priests never sinned, were wholeheartedly faithful and unreservedly committed to Yahweh. As Burton Mack has pointed out, it is evident that Ben Sira views Simon’s office as equivalent to both kingship and priesthood.17 Interestingly, Ben Sira makes no mention of any headgear for Simon the High Priest. However, one is reserved for Aaron in Sir. 45:12 and there, Ms B has ‫ עטרה‬while GI has ste,fanon. Ms B, it should be said, is not out of place in designating ‫ עטרה‬in place of ‫ מצנפת‬or ‫ נזר‬for a high priest, because Zech. 6:11, 14 ascribe the ‫ עטרות‬to Joshua the High Priest as well. All the other occurrences of ‫ עטרה‬seem to be reserved for the king’s headgear in the Hebrew Bible, and it is only in Zechariah that we find it used for the high priest. Kenneth Pomykala has argued that in Zechariah, the notion of rulership in Israel has already been transformed into a form of diarchy between the Davidic progeny and the high priesthood, with Gilbert, 16. Although Samuel is also portrayed as a priest, beyond the office of a prophet, Samuel was never a High Priest. 17 B. Mack, Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers, (Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 35. 15 16

DISAPPEARING “DAUGHTERS”

241

the latter receiving more prominence and promise of perpetuity.18 If Pomykala is right, then we can assert that the Hebrew designation for ‫ עטרה‬as a crown for kingship is equivalent to dia,dhma in Greek.19 We find the LXX is careful to use dia,dhma only in the context of kings and to prefer ste,fanoj for all others, even in the texts of Zechariah. While the Zechariah texts deserve their own careful study, we may just comment here that Ben Sira’s grandson could have kept to the general vocabulary of the LXX, and rendered dia,dhma for David’s headgear instead of ste,fanoj because he was a renowned king of Israel and also the first one to put on a dia,dhma. Ms B, however, uses the terms for headgear with more sensitivity and specific intent, to indicate the transfer in the locus of authority. In this way, we may perhaps appreciate the portrayal of David in Ms B as a way to emphasize the deeds of David as a warrior and the one who establishes praises and worship for Israel in his office as king, rather than to honor him with a dia,dhma, which may assume a dynastic perpetuity. This honor is reserved, apparently, only for the high priesthood.

K. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism, (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature, 7; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 53–63, and 142–48. Pomykala also goes on to argue that by Ben Sira’s time, there was no need of a Davidic messiah and in fact Ben Sira understands the rulership to be fulfilled in the office of the High Priest Simon. See, also, other works that arrive at similar conclusions on this study such as G. Xerativis, “The Figure of David in the Book of Ben Sira”, Henoch 23 (2001): 27–38; Beentjes, “Portrayals of David in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature”, in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, ed. H. Lichtenberger and U. Mittmann-Richert, (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2008; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), pp. 165–81. 19 “dia,dhma”, LS at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc= Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Ddia%2Fdhma (accessed 31/01/2010). Interestingly, occurrences of dia,dhma in LXX show a consistent and careful use of this word in the context only of kings and royalty. For all other contexts, the preferred term is ste,fanoj. 18

242

NANCY TAN

E. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS The disappearance of “daughters” in GI in contrast to Ms B in Sir. 47:6 proves to be more complex than may seem from the retranslations done by some of the scholars. This short essay has studied the texts as they are found within their contexts, that is Ms B and GI, and sought to understand their significance accordingly. It seems clear that both Ms B and GI preserve a reading of 47:6 which carries a meaningful intent according to different contexts and time periods. For Ms B, the role of the “daughters” is significant to draw the contrast with the women in Solomon’s account, and at the same time, it also keeps to the early tradition of the David’s early popularity with the women folk as 1 Samuel portrays. In comparison, GI draws its portrayal from the coronation account of David from 1 Chronicles, although the difficulty is the straightforward mention of the dia,dhma. This essay goes on to point out that the reading in GI might have followed the procedure of acknowledging dia,dhma as the headgear for a king and thus presents a reading which emphasizes David’s coronation event in 1 Chronicles 11–12. Ms B, however, preserves a reading at a point when ‫ עטרה‬is reserved with honor for the high priesthood rather than the Davidic descendants, and in this way, the portrayal of David is one which alludes to the songs of the faithful women of Israel in 1 Samuel 18. In consequence, neither reading is divergent from early traditions. It is doubtful that the reading found in GI is an attempt to resurrect the Davidic messiahship because at the time of 132 B.C.E., John Hyrcanus I himself, a descendant of the priestly line but not of Simon’s lineage (as Ms B 50:23–24 aspires), ruled Jerusalem as a high priest but never declared himself a king.20 Therefore, it is hard to imagine GI harbors such a political agenda. Tessa Rajak, “Hasmonean Dynasty” Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 3, pp. 67–76. See also, Benjamin G. Wright III, ‘“Put the Nations in Fear of You’: Ben Sira and the Problem of Foreign Rule” in Praise Israel for Wisdom and Instruction: Essays on Ben Sira and Wisdom, the Letter of Aristeas and the Septuagint, (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 131; Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 127–46. 20

DISAPPEARING “DAUGHTERS”

243

It is, on the other hand, more likely to assume that GI understands the Urtext to allude to earlier promises of the perpetuity to the Davidic line and preserves that reading according to 1 Chronicles 11–12.