The Kings of Israel – 5 / David – 3/3

The Problem of Succession

Internally, the problem of David’s legitimacy as successor to Saul loomed large. It was doubtless exacerbated by the unstable union of the houses of Israel and Judah. This problem is treated at great length in the Bible. Indeed, this is the principal subject from 2 Samuel 6 through 1 Kings 2, often called the “History of the Succession.”

Initially, David tried to gain the goodwill of Saul’s house.  He even married Michal, Saul’s daughter. David also welcomed to his table on a regular basis Meribbaal (Mephibosheth), a cripple who was Saul’s heir. True, this seeming act of kindness permitted David to control Meribbaal’s activity (2 Samuel 9). And in the end David more or less abandoned Michal, who “had no child to the day of her death” (2 Samuel 6:23). When David allowed the Gibeonites to take revenge on seven of Saul’s descendants, reconciliation between the two houses was no longer possible (2 Samuel 21:1–14).

David’s own house was also beset with rivalries and jealousies among his sons. His eldest son, Amnon, was killed by order of David’s third son, Absalom (2 Samuel 13). Absalom himself was killed by Joab, the general of David’s army, after leading an almost-successful revolt against his father (2 Samuel 15–19). Absalom’s revolt was connected with the rivalry between Israel and Judah and with Benjaminite opposition to David (compare the roles played by Shimei and by Sheba son of Bichri, both Benjaminites [2 Samuel 19:16–23, 20:1–22]).

After Amnon and Absalom were killed, Adonijah became David’s heir apparent. David’s old retainers, including his general Joab and the priest Abiathar, were ready to support Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5–7). However, according to 1 Kings 1, the aged David promised Bathsheba that their son Solomon would become king. With the help of the prophet Nathan, the priest Zadok and the chief of the guards Benaiah, Solomon was recognized as king while David was still living. David himself died peacefully some time afterward (1 Kings 2:10–12).

Assessing the Biblical Text

 In the absence of any text contemporary with the biblical account, a historical appreciation of David’s reign is difficult. A literary analysis of the biblical tradition seems to indicate, however, that a good deal of it was written either in David’s or Solomon’s time, close enough to the events to be reliable witnesses,  although there are doubtless later additions and glosses reflecting the influence of the so-called Deuteronomistic historians of later centuries.

Of course, even early traditions can be tendentious, and it does seem that most of the account of David’s reign was written to glorify David and his son Solomon. This is particularly true of the stories concerning David’s accession, which reflect the most attractive side of his personality and try to justify his claim to the kingship.  This is also true of the account of Solomon’s accession, which explains how Solomon, one of David’s younger sons, could be his legitimate heir. The aged David’s promise to Bathsheba to make her son king sounds more like literary artifice than history. Or perhaps Bathsheba, with the help of the prophet Nathan and the priest Zadok, succeeded in convincing an old and weakened David to support their conspiracy to elevate Solomon and thus to legitimate what was in effect a coup d’état.

The account of David’s external policies also bears the marks of tendentiousness. The biblical text emphasizes David’s military victories rather than his political control of the conquered territories. But even if David was victorious against the invading Philistines, he was probably unable to control the Philistines’ territory. The biblical statement that David “subdued” the Philistines (2 Samuel 8:1, 11–12) is ambiguous. Further, 2 Samuel 5:25 tells us that David defeated the Philistines only as far as Gezer, which lay on the eastern border of Philistine territory. Gezer itself did not become part of Israel until Solomon’s reign.

David’s relations with Hiram, king of Tyre, must also be looked at critically. The Phoenicians were technologically superior to the Israelites, and David’s relationship with them was essentially commercial; there was no vassal submission. Moreover, even this commercial relationship probably dated to the end of David’s reign, or even more likely, to the beginning of Solomon’s.

After the Ammonite war, if indeed David did take for himself the Ammonite crown, he probably dismissed the ruling Ammonite king only to put in his place another son of Nahash: “Shobi the son of Nahash from Rabbah of the Ammonites,” who supported David during Absalom’s revolt (2 Samuel 17:27–29). In the Aramean territories that David administered (Zobah and Damascus),  the governors were probably chosen from local leaders. In the vassal kingdoms (like Moab), their own kings continued to rule, although they paid tribute to David. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between a vassal state and an allied kingdom—for instance, Toi, king of Hamath, probably considered himself as much an ally as a vassal (see 2 Samuel 8:9–10).

Even if David’s influence did extend from the Red Sea to the Euphrates, we must realize that there are varying degrees of political control.  For example, David’s influence over the outlying areas was sometimes only nominal, mainly dependent on the fear inspired by his soldiers. As stated earlier, David’s political sphere should probably be characterized as a strong chiefdom rather than an “early state” or “empire.” Only at the very end of his reign did he begin seriously to organize and centralize his power. According to biblical tradition, David’s reign was characterized by wars (cf. 2 Samuel 8, 10; 1 Kings 5:17); the few buildings attributed to him are more likely to be connected with Solomon (2 Samuel 5:9–11).

As would be expected, the archaeology of David’s reign is sparse, aside from the possible destruction of Canaanite cities.  In the 1970s, Yohanan Aharoni argued that Dan and Beersheba were rebuilt by David and that the Iron Age gates of these cities could be dated to the beginning of the tenth century B.C.E.,  but few archaeologists today support his conclusions. More recently, Eilat Mazar has proposed identifying monumental archaeological fragments found south of the Ophel, in Jerusalem, with King David’s palace.  However Solomon’s palace would be a better candidate. Moreover, the date of the “Jebusite ramp,” or Stepped-Stone Structure, built on the eastern slope of the City of David is still hotly debated. It appears therefore—both from the texts and from archaeological excavations—that Jebusite Jerusalem did not change much during David’s reign.

The best candidates for archaeological remains that may be dated to David’s reign lie in Hebron and in the Judean Hills: Avi Ofer’s excavations in Hebron and his survey of the hill country of Judah reveal a “breakthrough in the settlement history of the Judean Hills.”  However, it is difficult to date any artifact or architecture to the beginning of the tenth century. Most of the building activity in the tenth century probably occurred later, during King Solomon’s reign.

Despite all these reservations, David’s reign represents a glorious achievement. Seizing the opportunity occasioned by the weakness of Assyria and Egypt,  a strong and brilliant personality  joined the houses of Israel and Judah, made Jerusalem the capital of both and used this unification as the basis of his dominion. With this favorable international situation, David created what was for a short time one of the most important powers in the ancient Near East. He also laid the foundations of religious institutions that would support the worship of the Hebrew God Yahweh for millennia.