T h e o • p h i l o g u e

Home » Uncategorized » The Exegetical Quest for the Historical David :: McKenzie

The Exegetical Quest for the Historical David :: McKenzie

McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Since the most that can be concluded from the archeological evidence concerning King David is that he existed and likely established a dynasty in Palestine, the search for the true person of King David is mainly exegetical (23-24).  At this point, McKenzie does his readers the favor of presenting his assumptions and approach to the Bible before he begins to reconstruct the life of David.  Since the Bible “is not ‘pure’ history but rather a theological history” with an agenda to instruct a later audience, the author operates on two key principles: 1) a general skepticism based on the assumption that historical revision is almost certainly present in the text and 2) the principle of analogy that “the past was basically analogous to the present and to what is known of similar societies and circumstances” (27, 43-44). 

“Recognition of the apologetic nature of the History of David’s Rise and the Court History” is essential for historical reconstruction (35).  The author of 1-2 Samuel goes out of his way to “overstress” the innocence of David in the deaths of Nabal, Saul (and the obliteration of any possible competent heir to his throne), Abner, Ishbaal, and even David’s own sons—all of which were powerful men (or a potential threat to David’s throne) whose death just happened to be key to David’s rise to, and maintenance of, his power (28-45).  The author assumes based on his two principles of skepticism and analogy that “the accusations against David that the History of David’s Rise and Court History sought to explain away were probably historical” (45).  With this conviction, McKenzie proceeds to give a detailed historical reconstruction.

David was a nobleman of upperclass (e.g. Jesse was an Elder of Bethlehem who owned many sheep, the Lyre was an instrument of the aristocrats) who was forced by economic pressures on his family due to an overpopulation problem in Palestine to, as the last of many sons, find a way to make a living for himself apart from his fathers household.  He was a warrior from his youth but may have originally made his way into the royal household as a musician and eventually, through military service, became Saul’s armor bearer (47-67).  Although the famous “David and Goliath” story is legendary, David probably had impressive military skills and youthful ambition that led him to a place of prominence within Saul’s army.  In fact, he was so successful that Saul began to fear that he would overthrow him—and he did.  After David’s failed attempt to usurp the throne, Saul was forced to go on the offensive “while he still had the upper hand” but David escaped Saul and hid out in the Southern parts of Judah with a band of outlaws (69-88). 

David and his band of rebels raided and pillaged settlements in southern Judah and eventually took over most of southern Judah when David plotted with Abigail to kill Nabal, who was likely the chief of the Calebites—the closest thing to a king in southern Judah (97).  “The pattern of events surrounding Nabal’s death” in the apologetic account (i.e. the biblical account) become the exact same pattern for the death’s of all those who pose a threat to David.  They all die under questionable circumstances “at a time that is very convenient for his political ascent” (100).  Later in the biblical story David teams up with the Philistines (who are the enemy of Saul) and just happens to be away retaliating an Amalekite raid on Ziklag when Saul dies in battle (104).  Even though David’s innocence is stressed, he ends up with Saul’s royal apparel and soon Abner’s life is taken by his military general, and soon Saul’s heir, Ishbaal, is assassinated in his own home and his head is brought to David (111-125).  The Bible pictures David as mourning greatly over each of their deaths, even killing those who had a hand in the death of Saul and his son (though curiously not punishing Joab for killing Abner).  The author concludes: “The more the writer denies David’s participation in Saul’s downfall, the more a critical reader suspects it” (104).

Once David was in power, he moved the capital from Hebron to Jerusalem and brought up the ark because Jerusalem was neutral territory.  It had never been occupied by Judah or Israel, thus it was a potential middle ground between Judah and Israel politically and could better unify the north and the south (132-135).  David immediately puts to death Saul’s heirs, conquers the Philistines, builds a palace, accumulates a harem, maintains and grows his army, taxes the people and forces labor on the northern tribes, acted as a supreme judge in legal cases, instituted a feudal system according to his redivision of Israel into twelve provinces (which ignored tribal lines) “for the purpose of conscription and taxation” (129-152).

Because the people of Hebron were sore about David’s moving the capital away from them and believed that Hebron should be the central place for Yahweh worship and because bitterness developed in Israel over taxation and forced labor (after all, they were a conquered people), Absalom was able to pull off an almost successful rebellion against David by capitalizing on the people’s sense of being oppressed.  In this account, David’s innocence is stressed by his having nothing to do with Absolom’s plot to kill the first heir to David’s throne Amnon and by his appearing too tender hearted to execute proper punishment on his own son when he kills Amnon and even when he attempts to take David’s throne by force.  The blame is placed on “the sons of Zeruiah” for killing Absalom.  Sheba’s revolt, though less serious, was dealt with in exactly the same manner as the story of Abner’s death—Joab greets Amasa (the general) with one hand and stabs him in the belly with the other.  David executes Amasa “as he had done before to Nabal, Saul, Abner, Ishbaal, Amnon, and Absalom” (171).  The story about Bathsheba was not original, McKenzie argues, but is used to explain Absalom’s rebellion as a punishment from Yahweh for his abuse of power in his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and his ordering of the death of Urriah (154-173). 

The last episode of David’s life is a great irony because he appears in a piece of apology for Solomon, which places the responsibility for the bloodbath that accompanied Solomon’s rise to power on David, who supposedly gave Solomon direct orders to “execute Joab for his assassination of Abner and Amasa and to take vengeance on Shimei” (183).  The author also thinks Bathsheba had a greater deal of influence over this transition of power then the text would admit (175-184).  


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow T h e o • p h i l o g u e on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: