Davidic Dynasty Established on Flawed Base

July 16, 2001

University Park, Pa. --- Recent archaeological discoveries lead most historians and archaeologists to acknowledge that the King David of the Bible was a real person, but, according to a Penn State historian, you probably would not have wanted him living next door or dating your daughter.

Investigating the picture of King David presented in the books of Samuel, Dr. Baruch Halpern, Penn State professor of ancient history, ancient Mediterranean studies and religious studies and holder of the Chaiken Family Chair in Jewish Studies, believes that these books, unlike Chronicles and Kings, were written shortly after King David’s reign.

"Most of David’s story was written during Solomon’s reign and the object was both to glorify the founder of the dynasty and to advance Solomon’s political position," says Halpern. "We know that to the victors go the spoils of war and to their descendants the task of writing history as they wish it to be read and the books of Samuel may be just such an attempt."

In his new book, "David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King" (2001 Eerdmans Publishing Co.), Halpern shows many instances of textual evidence for the existence of King David. He also teases out the facts from the implied myth.

Establishing King David archaeologically and textually is not enough. Halpern also makes a good case for the major portions of the books of Samuel being written in the ninth or tenth century B.C.E., shortly after David died. The purpose of Samuel is to define and describe a King David worthy of the position of dynastic head, although in truth, David was a typical Near Eastern ruler, sometimes a murderer, sometimes a traitor, a liar, a thief and perhaps a despot. Halpern even goes as far as to title a chapter, "King David, Serial Killer."

"Briefly, the historian must tell a version of the truth. This version must present a particularly fine face to an outsider audience, with indirect access, manipulating the emotions of that audience as the author intends to do," writes Halpern. "But the version the historian produces must also not so outrage the audience of insiders as to have them rolling in the aisles with laughter," he adds in explaining the job facing the writers of the books of Samuel.

If a history, like Samuel, is written with the idea of positioning someone as something they were not, how do modern historians decide the facts behind the particular version of truth? Halpern suggests the Tiglath-Pileser Principle as the acid test of the truth behind the history. Tiglath-Pileser I, the first Assyrian king, began his reign in 1114 B.C.E. and the royal court recorded the wonders and feats of his reign. However, Assyrian royal inscription, while historic, tended to stretch the truth.

"In Assyrian royal inscriptions, the torching of a grain field is the conquest of a whole territory beyond it," says Halpern. "A looting raid becomes a claim of perpetual sovereignty. The technique is that of putting extreme spin on real events."

The Penn State researcher applies the Tiglath-Pileser Principle to the David of Samuel asking, in essence, what is the minimal content of each event that would satisfy those who actually remember the event and yet will glorify David and his reign. In the process, David’s negative attributes are played down or twisted to appear beneficent.

An example of the Tiglath-Pileser principle at work is in the conquest of Moab in 2 Samuel 8:2. The text claims that David defeated Moab and killed two thirds of his captives and the remaining third paid tribute. The least one can garner from this text is that "some Moabite force suffered an Israelite attack." No mention of the location occurs nor is a settlement mentioned. The battle could have occurred in Moab or at the border. Tribute was paid, but probably no more than the personal property of the Moabites captured or killed.

"The size of the Moabite army that was defeated in not recorded," says Halpern. "However, we may infer that it consisted of at least three men, and Benaiah may have killed two of them."

Similar situations occur with the story of David and Goliath, the capture of Jerusalem, the relocation of the Ark of the Covenant, and other events.

"A corollary to the Tiglath-Pileser Principle is that when a king does not claim credit for positive achievements, they certainly were not his," says Halpern.

When 2 Samuel leaves the impression that David expanded the kingdom beyond Gezer, but does not explicitly state this, the traditional interpretation has been that the authors of the texts forgot to mention the conquests. Halpern asserts that not only did the kingdom not expand past Gezer, but that David did not actually capture Gezer either.

Insiders understood the conventions used to amplify David’s achievements and could see past them to the kernel of truth in the texts. Outsiders would be sucked into the implied story. Samuel then is an apology for a man who would become head of a dynasty but was, in many ways, no role model, Halpern says in the new book.

**aem**

Contacts:

A'ndrea Elyse Messer (814) 865-9481 aem1@psu.edu

Vicki Fong (814) 865-9481 vfong@psu.edu

EDITORS: Dr. Halpern is at (814) 863-0175 or at BHalpern@psu.edu by e-mail.