Third, on the methodological front, once we know that we are reading an apology, we know what to look for and how to proceed. The historian’s task when reading an apology is to identify those features of the text that belong to the level of the apology—that cast David in a flattering light, that justify his actions (frequently in unlikely ways), and that denigrate his opponents.4 When those aspects are stripped away, we may see what it is that is being apologized for—what it is that David may have done, or was thought to have done, that the Bible is eager to cast in a positive light. There is little in the biblical text that we can rely on. Removal of the apologetic elements entails the removal of many narrative details, especially dialogue. So the task of reconstruction must be based only in part on the biblical account and in larger part on what we know of the ancient world in which David lived. What do we know of the political structures, the social norms, the international relations, even the geography? All these will play a part in filling out the picture, helping to explain who David was, what he did, and why.
Saul’s Kingdom
THE FIRST SIGNIFICANT PERIOD in David’s life for which we can propose any historical basis is the time he spent in Saul’s service. From 1 Samuel 16–17 we learn that David joined the military under Saul. The subsequent chapters, 1 Samuel 18–20, venture to tell us what transpired between that moment and David’s being forced to flee from Saul and go into exile in the wilderness. To understand David’s position in Saul’s kingdom and the relationship between Saul and David that is the main focus of these chapters, we have to understand just what kind of kingdom Saul ruled over, and what sort of king he was.
First, we must recognize what territory Saul could lay claim to. We use the term “Israel” to denote the entire nation, but in the time of Saul and David, “Israel” meant specifically the northern tribes and did not include the region of Judah to the south. Saul himself was from Benjamin, which along with Ephraim and Manasseh constituted the central region of Israel, both geographically and politically. Farther to the north, through the tribal territories of Issachar, Zebulun, Naphtali, Asher, and Dan, settlements were sparser; to the east, across the Jordan, there were some Israelite tribes, Gad and Reuben, and some semi-independent regions such as Gilead. Saul’s power was concentrated in the heartland of the Israelite hill country, and his influence to the north and east was probably less clear.5
Saul’s reign in Israel was something of a grand experiment. Israel had never before had a king. Indeed, before Saul there had never been an entity called Israel. The northern tribes were independent clan units, each lacking any sort of formal centralized leadership. Only in the face of an external attack would a tribe produce a leader, known in the Bible as a judge, who would organize and lead the tribe to battle. When the threat passed, the judge’s work was done and things would go back to the way they had been before, until the next threat emerged and the cycle began again. Given the ad hoc nature of the position, judges did not pass their status on to the next generation.6 Eventually, the realization dawned that this was an ineffective way for the tribes to defend themselves. As Israel’s neighbors grew in power, the emergence of a particularly gifted leader in every generation could hardly be counted on. What was required was consistency—and that is precisely what a dynastic monarchy provides.7
Saul’s Kingdom
Saul’s kingship, therefore, was a novelty in Israel on two fronts. First, the position was no longer ad hoc—Saul would be king in times of war and in times of peace. Second, the position was hereditary; after Saul, it was understood that, as with kingship everywhere, the crown would be passed on to his offspring, and to theirs in turn. Despite these two innovations, however, Saul’s kingdom was not drastically different from what came before it.8 There was no significant royal or national infrastructure. Saul had no palace, nor a proper capital: he ruled from beneath a tree in his hometown (1 Sam. 22:6). The tribes continued to operate as they always had, without any intrusion from the crown. They would have had no interest in giving up their long-established self-sufficient ways, but they realized the need for regular mutual cooperation in battle. Israel under Saul was more a permanent military alliance than a proper political state, and Saul was more commander in chief than king: the Bible ascribes to Saul no role on the national stage other than as leader of the army.9 Indeed, his only recorded acts before David’s arrival on the scene are set in a military context, just as was the case with the judges who preceded him.10
Even Saul’s military, however, was not particularly advanced compared with those of his predecessors. In the days before the monarchy, each tribe would muster its own troops under its own commander, to defend itself either against a foreign enemy or, at times, against another Israelite tribe. On rare occasions an external threat would be severe enough that multiple tribes would combine their forces, with the understanding that one of the tribal officers would take the lead. This is the situation described in the ancient poem of Judges 5, in which a number of Israel’s tribes rally behind the prophetess Deborah and the general Barak, from the tribe of Naphtali. There is no indication that Saul changed this basic system. Before he waged the first battle of his kingship, he sent messengers to each of the tribes calling for their participation. Saul had no standing army, at least not on the national level. The tribalist nature of the army, central to the days before the monarchy, persisted during Saul’s reign. His military commanders were not the highest officers from each tribe, as might make sense if the armed forces were truly national. Instead, Saul kept it in the family: his son Jonathan was a military captain, and his cousin Abner was the army commander. Kin relations were the basis for social organization before Saul, and they remained so after he became king.11 The real change from the judges to Saul with regard to kingship was simply Saul’s enduring presence and the tribes’ understanding that, when their king called, they would send men to fight for him. The kingship was thus a position of trust: the people had agreed to put their fate in Saul’s hands when it came to matters of the military, and they were willing to grant him a royal dynasty as long as he was able to protect them.
The Israelite decision that the independent tribal system of defense was no longer feasible, and that a king was needed, was probably not so sudden as it is presented in the Bible. It was rather a gradual process, largely conditioned, as scholars have long realized, by the steady rise of a significant threat on Israel’s borders, one that showed no signs of going away any time soon.
David’s Military Exploits
IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY BCE, about two centuries before David, a wave of mysterious immigrants arrived in Egypt and the Levant. Because they were ethnically diverse and came largely by ship, the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah called them the “Sea Peoples,” and so they are still called today.12 The origins of the Sea Peoples are not known with any certainty, but some of the names by which their subgroups are identified in the Egyptian inscriptions strongly suggest that they came from the Aegean: the Ekwesh (= Greek Achaeans), the Denyen (= Greek Danaans), the Sherden (= Sardinians), and the Shekelesh (= Sicilians). The Sea Peoples tried to invade Egypt during the reign of Ramesses III but were roundly defeated. Many then turned to the northeast, to find less well-defended territories to settle. They seem to have succeeded; scholars think that the Sea Peoples may have been responsible for the collapse of the once mighty Hittite empire in Anatolia (modern Turkey). But the most famous of the Sea Peoples were those who traveled the least distance from Egypt, who displaced the local inhabitants along the coast of Canaan. These were the Peleshet—the Philistines.
The Philistine invasion of coastal Canaan was swift. The archaeological record shows that almost immediately the Philistines conquered and resettled five major Canaanite cities, known as the Philistine Pentapolis: Gaza, Gath, Eqron, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. Within a generation, they had spread farther.13 It was at just this time that the earliest proto-Israelite communities were being settled in the hill country to the east. It is likely, in fact, that the arrival
of the Philistines increased the early Israelite process of settlement, as coastal inhabitants were pushed eastward by the expanding Philistine culture. This displacement is probably reflected in the biblical stories about the tribe of Dan, which was forced from its ancestral homeland on the coast to a new inland territory far to the north (Judg. 18).14
The disparity between the two territories, and the two peoples, could hardly be greater. The coastal plain occupied by the Philistines had fertile soil and historically large cities, enriched by both agricultural abundance and the ancient trade routes between Egypt to the south and Mesopotamia to the north: the Fertile Crescent. The central highlands region where the proto-Israelite communities emerged was, by contrast, difficult to work, requiring specialized techniques to allow for even the most basic of agriculture. It was on no significant route—who would trek through the hills when the coast offered a straight and flat path? The Philistines came from the relatively advanced Aegean culture and brought with them military organization and equipment, notably chariots, unmatched by anything the Israelites had. This is why, according to the biblical story of the Israelites’ conquest of Canaan, Joshua was unable to take control of the Philistine territory: “They were not able to dispossess the inhabitants of the plain, for they had iron chariots” (Judg. 1:19).
The relative situations of the two peoples made them natural adversaries. The powerful Philistines would have seen the emerging Israelite population as a roadblock to their continued expansion into Canaan and a potential threat to their regional dominance. The Israelites would have regarded the Philistines as foreign invaders who had taken control of the best land available. Given the disparity in power, it is not surprising that the Philistines should have been the aggressors. Yet the geography that minimized Israel’s capacity for agricultural wealth also provided them with a natural defense system. As a prominent archaeologist has noted, “had the Philistines accomplished their military goal, it would have been the first time in recorded history that a lowland polity had succeeded in bringing the highlands under its control.”15 The chariots that gave the Philistines such an advantage in the open field of battle were useless in the wooded hills. As a result, the relationship between the Philistines and the Israelites was one of regular conflict but was largely a stalemate, with neither side able to impose its will on the other.
The Bible traces this rivalry. The first major conflict with the Philistines occurs in the story of Samson from the book of Judges. Samson’s birth is marked by the prophecy that he will oppose the Philistines: “He shall be the first to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines” (Judg. 13:5). His entire life is dedicated to defeating the Philistines, culminating with his final act of pulling down the Philistine temple: “Those whom he killed as he died outnumbered those whom he killed when he lived” (16:30). The wars with the Philistines continue in the life of Samuel, the great prophet and judge, as recounted in 1 Samuel 4–7, during which the Philistines actually capture the ark of the covenant for seven months.
Saul, too, fights against the Philistines throughout his kingship: “There was constant war against the Philistines all the days of Saul” (1 Sam. 14:52). And it is in this context that the Bible narrates the rise of David, in the battle against Goliath, the champion of the Philistines. The biblical authors go to great lengths to make David out to be even better at fighting the Philistines than Saul had been. This process begins in the Goliath story: Saul, like the other Israelites, is afraid to face the giant, but David steps forward into the breach. It continues in the accounts of David’s repeated victories over the Philistines and the reports of the love of the troops and the populace at large for their young hero. According to the text, even Saul recognizes David’s military prowess, appointing him as the head of the entire army: “David went out and was successful whenever Saul sent him, and Saul put him in command of all the fighting men; this pleased all the people and Saul’s courtiers as well” (18:5). We are repeatedly told that David was always victorious in his battles: “David was successful in all his undertakings” (18:14); “The Philistine chiefs marched out to battle; and every time they marched out, David was more successful than all the other officers of Saul” (18:30); “David went out and fought the Philistines; he inflicted a great defeat upon them and they fled before him” (19:8). David is, in short, depicted as the perfect general.
His successes are not lost on the army or the general populace of Israel, who laud him for his leadership: “The women sang as they made merry, saying, ‘Saul has slain his thousands, David his tens of thousands!’ ” (18:7); “All Israel and Judah loved David, for he marched before them” (18:16); “His reputation soared” (18:30). Given that David seems to be constantly laying waste to Israel’s great enemy, the Philistines, the popular response seems well deserved. More than mere appreciation is being expressed here, however. The people’s love for David, as the Bible presents it, is both comparative and political. It is not just that he is a great military leader; he is a greater military leader than even Saul. This is no small matter. Saul’s kingship was marked by his triumphs in battle: “After Saul had secured his kingship over Israel, he fought against all his enemies on every side: against the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, the kings of Zobah, and the Philistines; and wherever he turned he worsted them. He was triumphant, defeating the Amalekites and saving Israel from the hands of those who plundered it” (14:47–48). Saul’s reputation was built on his military prowess. Yet in a matter of mere moments, at least narratively, David exceeded Saul by a factor of ten.
On the military front, therefore, David is presented as a superstar. He is not only exceptionally successful in every battle, he is increasingly famous and beloved, and in ways that emphasize his superiority to Saul. When we read the accounts of David’s military career, brief though they may be, we are witnessing the opening scenes of a swift rise toward the ultimate position of leadership in Israel. David, at least in military terms, has all the makings of a king.
From a literary perspective, this makes perfect sense. David’s military successes, and his superiority to Saul, justify David’s eventual supplanting of Saul on the throne. Yet there are elements of the biblical account that should give reason for pause. Foremost among these is the lack of specificity throughout: no places are named, no dates are given, and no enemies are named aside from the broad term “the Philistines.” This lack of information makes it impossible to judge the accuracy of these reports. Furthermore, the fact that every notice of a victory by David is followed directly by an attempt by Saul to have him killed—a topic we will return to presently—suggests that these notices serve an important literary function, highlighting David’s valiant service and Saul’s incommensurately jealous response.
This does not mean, of course, that David did not actually fight in any battles. Since he does appear to have garnered some popular approval—an element that may be exaggerated but seems probable to some degree, as we will see—he must have done something. What is doubtful is that his victories were of any major significance. David wins battle after battle against Israel’s great enemy, yet he never seems to make any progress in the broader war. From the people’s response to David’s military successes, one would think that Israel was gaining the upper hand, even perhaps winning. Yet after each battle, the status quo seems not to change. Indeed, the Philistines continued to be a persistent threat to Israel long after David: the Bible tells us that during the reign of Hezekiah, almost three hundred years later, Israel was still trying to conquer Philistine territory (2 Kings 18:8). For the first few hundred years of its existence, Israel was in a state of perpetual war against its Philistine neighbors, a war in which neither side was able to make any substantial headway.
Given this situation, we may ask: for what, precisely, was David so lauded? What sorts of victories did he enjoy?
At the very least, we can say that these were not major conquests of Philistine territory. For one thing, the reports of David’s victories lack any details: n
ot a single town or city or territory is named. We are told only that David was successful. Had he captured a Philistine town, even a minor one, it surely would be mentioned, and perhaps even reflected in the archaeological record. Moreover, the relationship between the Philistines and the Israelites during this period was very one-sided. The nascent state of Israel may have had some vague expansionist ambitions, but it was the Philistines, well established along the coastland for two centuries, who had all the power. Success, from the Israelite side, meant repulsing Philistine advances, not conquering any Philistine territory proper. Even this sort of defensive success was considered remarkable, and even divinely aided, given the relative strength of the two forces: “The Philistines were subdued and did not enter the territory of Israel again; and the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines” (1 Sam. 7:13). Momentary truces were marked by the restoration of captured Israelite territory, and not the reverse: “The towns that the Philistines had taken from Israel were restored to Israel. . . . Israel recovered all its territory from the hands of the Philistines” (7:14).
If David’s victories were not offensive conflicts, then perhaps they were defensive. This is what is portrayed in the Goliath story: after David has slain Goliath, the Israelite victory consists of driving the Philistines back to their proper territory—at which point the Israelites do not continue the pursuit into Philistia, but turn back home. Simply maintaining border security is victory enough for them. So too it may be with all of David’s victories: they may be no more than defensive battles. Yet even in this we notice again the absence of any named towns or territories in which David’s battles took place. Major biblical battles, even fictional ones as in the case of Goliath, are virtually always located somewhere. What does it mean that David’s famous victories are essentially placeless?
The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero Page 6