My Paper (for School) on Halpern’s David’s Secret Demons

I wrote this paper for a class about five years ago. It has its strengths and weaknesses, in my opinion, but I’m posting it so you can read about Baruch Halpern’s rationale for portraying David as a power-hungry killer, one of the ideas that Randall Short is combatting in The Surprising Election and Confirmation of King David.

Here it is. I apologize for the poor format (visually-speaking).

David and His Critics, Halpern and His Critics: A Review of David’s Secret Demons

Introduction

In David’s Secret Demons, Baruch Halpern contends that David was a power-hungry killer. Looking at tensions within I-II Samuel, which he deems Solomonic propaganda, Halpern observes in the pro-David text indications of David’s immorality. Halpern’s portrayal of David will probably not appeal to the faithful, but he is still a maximalist because he believes that David existed. Consequently, he has drawn criticism from minimalists who dispute the biblical narrative’s historicity. Overall, Halpern’s arguments for David’s existence and brutality are quite convincing, except he ignores a crucial minimalist point: the lack of evidence for advanced writing in tenth century Palestine.

Summary of Halpern

Halpern views I-II Samuel as Solomon’s attempt to defend David from certain accusations, and he tries to ascertain from the biblical text what those accusations actually were.^[1] Part I, “David in Writing,” is a summary of the content of I-II Samuel. In Part II, “Penetrating the Textual Veil,” Halpern defends a tenth century B.C.E. date for much of I-II Samuel (or its sources)^[2] and posits that David was a serial killer. He defends a tenth century date on the basis of I-II Samuel’s language and portrayal of the ancient Near Eastern landscape, settlement patterns, and political situation.^[3] Halpern argues that the language reflects the eighth century or earlier, while the geographical and political factors point to a date prior to the late ninth century.^[4]

Halpern believes that the content of I-II Samuel originated shortly after David’s death, when Solomon sought to solidify his power by appeasing David’s opponents.^[5] Because I-II Samuel tries to distance David from his enemies’ (convenient) deaths, Halpern contends that many saw David as a serial killer.^[6] Despite his claim that the truth is somewhere in between the pro- and anti-David views,^[7] Halpern consistently sides with the latter. He argues that David’s laments for his dead enemies are propaganda, since David does not even mourn the death of his son in II Samuel 12:22-23.^[8] Halpern also refers to examples of David’s bloodthirsty activity in I-II Samuel,^[9] and he elicits from the text scenarios of David’s sinister behavior. For example, why did David’s nephew Jonadab remain in the court after his disastrous advice to Amnon (see II Samuel 13:3-5, 32-33)? Halpern speculates that David instigated Amnon’s rape of Tamar in order to eliminate Amnon, a Saulide.^[10] Halpern often believes the worst about David, even when he does good. According to Halpern, David spares Shimei and takes in Jonathan’s son Mephibaal to dismiss accusations that he killed Saul’s entire line (see II Samuel 16:7-8).^[11] By reading I-II Samuel against the grain of its pro-David ideology, Halpern depicts a David who is cold, calculating, bloodthirsty, and power-hungry.^[12]

In Part III, “Defining David’s Empire,” Halpern argues that the extent of the Davidic empire is not as vast in II Samuel 8 as it is in later biblical texts.^[13] For example, II Samuel 8:1 says that David subdued Philistines, but it does not explicitly claim that the Philistines brought him tribute, as it does with Moab in II Samuel 8:2.^[14] Consequently, despite I Chronicles 18:1's later assertion, David did not conquer Gath, as I Samuel 17:52, II Samuel 15:18-22, and I Kings 2:39-40 confirm; he did, however, defeat a few Philistines.^[15] According to Halpern, David wants to give his general audience the impression that he conquered Philistia, but he refrains from literally saying this to avoid mockery from the elite, which knows better.^[16] Halpern sees a similar approach in the Assyrian inscriptions of Tiglath-Pilesar I (1115-1077 B.C.E.).^[17] For Halpern, an author after the time of Solomon would be free to explicitly exaggerate, since no one would know he is wrong; therefore, the modest claims of II Samuel 8 indicate a tenth century date.^[18]

After a further discussion on David’s empire (Part IV), Halpern makes interesting arguments in Part V, “A Life of David.” First, Halpern portrays David as a Gibeonite agent for the Philistines. His reasons are that I-II Samuel addresses David’s service to them, refers to his entry into Jerusalem with 600 Gittites (II Samuel 15:18), and contains hints of the peace with the Philistines that characterized his reign.^[19] Second, Halpern states that David introduced the ark of the covenant and created the tribe of Judah. Halpern observes in the biblical text that the ark remained in the Gibeonite town of Qiryath Yearim until David retrieved it (I Samuel 6:21-7:1), yet Saul attacked the Gibeonites (II Samuel 21). For Halpern, this would be strange if Saul deemed the ark sacred.^[20] He also argues that David created the tribe of Judah, which is not in the earliest tribal list (Judges 5) and was sparsely settled in Iron I.^[21] Third, Halpern says that the biblical text’s reference to Absalom’s popularity (e.g., II Samuel 15) shows there was widespread dissatisfaction with David’s oppressive, pro-Philistine regime.^[22] Halpern also notes that David was able to consolidate his dominion over Israel by crushing Absalom’s revolt, meaning he probably instigated it.^[23] Fourth, Halpern denies that Solomon was David’s son. Why, he asks, would Solomon’s great-grandfather Ahithophel join Absalom if he thought Solomon could be king?^[24] For Halpern, Bathsheba designed the story in II Samuel 11 to present Solomon as David’s (not Uriah’s) son, to exalt him as a new beginning after David’s punishment, and to exact revenge on David for the deaths of her grandfather and husband.^[25]

Halpern’s Critics

Paul Ash and John Van Seters offer effective critiques of David’s Secret Demons. In his review, Ash regurgitates some common minimalist arguments against the United Monarchy, yet they pose a strong challenge to Halpern’s tenth century date for I-II Samuel. Ash states that current archaeological evidence does not present the tenth century as a time when “monumental inscriptions, administrative texts, [and] belles lettres...were being produced in ancient Israel.”^[26] Rather, almost all excavated tenth century “texts” are names found on potsherds, which Ash calls “rudimentary.”^[27] Therefore, Ash disputes that tenth century Israelites were producing sophisticated documents like the sources for I-II Samuel.^[28] He disagrees with Halpern’s argument that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” for “[w]ritten remains have been found in too many sites in ancient Palestine and from too many periods to support the conclusion that we simply have not yet found them for tenth century Israel.”^[29] Moreover, unlike Halpern, Ash denies that the tenth century is the only possible context for I-II Samuel’s composition, for the Davidic dynasty had supporters and critics throughout its existence.^[30] Ash speculates that northern Israelites could have come to Judah after the fall of the northern kingdom (721 B.C.E.) with anti-David traditions, prompting someone to write I-II Samuel to answer their concerns.^[31]

Like Ash, Van Seters appeals to common minimalist arguments. For example, contra Halpern, Van Seters does not believe that the six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer are from the tenth century, for Jerusalem at that time lacks such monumental architecture. He doubts that provincial centers would be grander than the capitol.^[32] Van Seters also disputes that Tiglath-Pilesar I’s inscriptions influenced II Samuel 8. His reasons are that the earliest inscriptions of the Levant (ninth century B.C.E.) follow the Hittite rather than the Assyrian style, that no evidence indicates the tenth century Israelite court was advanced enough to understand a distant foreign language, and that II Samuel 8's use of the third person corresponds more with the Babylonian Chronicle (seventh-second centuries B.C.E.) than Assyrian inscriptions, which use the first person.^[33] Moreover, he denies that I-II Samuel was a Solomonic apology, for Nathan in II Samuel 12:10 tells David that the sword will never leave his house. Van Seters asks why Solomon would curse his own dynasty.^[34] Elsewhere, Van Seters dates I-II Samuel’s stories on David’s rise and reign to Israel’s post-exilic period, after Dtr. He believes that the stories were incorporated into Dtr rather than vice versa because Dtr treats David as the exemplar king. For Van Seters, Dtr would have omitted embarrassing details of the court history, as the Chronicler did.^[35] Van Seters thinks that the post-exilic period, with its conflicting views on messianism, provides a likely context for much of I-II Samuel.^[36]

Analysis and Evaluation

There are at least three significant issues pertaining to David’s Secret Demons: Halpern’s use of the Bible, I-II Samuel’s date, and inscriptional influences on II Samuel 8. In his approach to the Bible, Halpern assumes that I-II Samuel is pro-David propaganda, which depicts him as one who loved his Israelite enemies and opposed the Philistines. Halpern treats most of the contrary details in I-II Samuel as historically accurate.^[37] His questions are legitimate. If David were a menace to the Philistines, why did he enter Jerusalem with 600 Gittites?^[38] If he did not even lament his son’s death, did he really mourn for his enemies? I have a question: Why did David order Solomon to kill repentant Shimei (I Kings 2:8-9; cp. II Samuel 19:16-23)? Halpern posits wild scenarios, as when he argues that David instigated Tamar’s rape to eliminate Amnon. David may have simply been passive when he retained Jonadab in the court, plus Jonadab did not actually tell Amnon to rape Tamar and then reject her (II Samuel 13:5). Despite his excesses, Halpern’s questions most often buttress his arguments, and his reading makes interesting connections that are not immediately apparent (e.g., Ahithophel as Solomon’s great-grandfather). Regarding I-II Samuel’s date, Halpern argues effectively that it reflects the tenth century, yet his minimalist detractors raise valid concerns. His best support for a tenth century date is that David’s kingdom is smaller in I-II Samuel^[39] than in other biblical writings. The portrayal of David’s kingdom as limited most likely occurred in the tenth century, when a literal exaggeration of his accomplishments would not have been credible. Some may argue that such a concept was invented after David’s time^[40] to detract from his glory, yet it appears in pro-David sections, which would exaggerate if they could.^[41] While this is a strong argument for a tenth century date, minimalists do well to observe that there is little evidence for advanced writing in the tenth century.^[42] Moreover, Van Seters’ citation of II Samuel 12:10 deserves response, since it appears to undermine I-II Samuel as Solomonic propaganda. II Samuel 12:10 may refer to a curse on David’s immediate household rather than his dynasty (e.g.,Genesis 7:1;12:1), however, for vv 11-12 discuss punishments that occur in his lifetime. Regarding Van Seters’ belief that Dtr would have omitted David’s embarrassing court history, as did the Chronicler, he should not assume that the two authors would have behaved in the same way. The Deuteronomist may have believed that the court history taught important values to the exiles, since it contains David’s repentance, acceptance of his punishment, and trust in God through difficulty.

Van Seters seeks to refute Halpern’s argument that Tiglath-Pilesar I’s inscriptions influenced II Samuel 8. Halpern has also received criticism on this point by Steven Holloway, who argues that exaggeration and self-glorification characterize inscriptions from numerous periods, and that those of Tiglath-Pilesar I are rather modest in comparison.^[43] According to Holloway, Halpern emphasizes Tiglath-Pilesar I because “a date immediately prior to the traditional reign of biblical David speciously suggests that the scribes of the [Davidic] period could have created a royal inscription under contemporary Mesopotamian influence.”^[44] Halpern wants to show that II Samuel 8 was a Davidic royal inscription,^[45] perhaps to bolster David’s historicity. Van Seter’s arguments against inscriptional influence are sometimes strong, and sometimes weak. His claim that II Samuel 8's use of the third person disqualifies it from being an inscription is unconvincing, for there are Egyptian inscriptions in the third person,^[46] and these could have influenced David’s court through trade or diplomatic alliances. Van Seters does well, however, to point out the general lack of evidence for advanced writing in tenth century Palestine, an obstacle that Halpern does not really address.^[47] Halpern unnecessarily focuses on Tiglath-Pilesar I to the exclusion of other possible parallels, and he neglects the most important challenge to his position: lack of evidence for advanced tenth century writing.

Conclusion

An evaluation of Halpern and his critics reveals a conundrum. On one hand, I-II Samuel seems to reflect the tenth century, in language, content, and theme. The modest borders of II Samuel 8 make most sense within a tenth century setting, and I-II Samuel appears to defend David from the accusations of contemporaries. On the other hand, there is no evidence that advanced writing existed in the tenth century, making a literary product like I-II Samuel unlikely for that time. Perhaps the content of I-II Samuel existed as oral tradition during the tenth century. If so, then the oral tradition must have been passed down quite reliably for the written document to reflect the tenth century so well.

---

^[1]Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001) xv.

^[2]Halpern 57.

^[3]Halpern 69.

^[4]Halpern 69. Gath, for example, was only a minor site in the late ninth century and afterwards, yet it appears to be major in the narrative of I-II Samuel.

^[5]Halpern 99.

^[6]Halpern 91,92, 96.

^[7]Halpern xvi.

^[8]Halpern 96.

^[9]See examples in Halpern 76, 93, 96.

^[10]Halpern 87. For Amnon’s descent, see II Samuel 12:8, I Samuel 14:50, and II Samuel 3:2.

^[11]Halpern 85-87.

^[12]Halpern 101.

^[13]Halpern 174-177, 430. Examples are P (seventh century B.C.E.) and I Chronicles (fourth century B.C.E.).

^[14]Halpern 154.

^[15]Halpern 149-150, 154. Later, Halpern says that David was an agent of the Philistines. He states, however, that the Philistines were not monolithic. See Halpern 322-333.

^[16]Halpern 130.

^[17]Halpern 126.

^[18]Halpern 174-177, 430.

^[19]Halpern 274, 281, 288. Please see Halpern 332 for Halpern’s arguments that David was a Gibeonite. According to Halpern, the Philistine border at the end of David’s reign remained where it had been in II Samuel 5 (Gezer), there are no recorded skirmishes between David and Philistine city-states when he ruled, and I Kings 2 indicates peaceful relations between Israel and Gath (281).

^[20]Halpern 290-291.

^[21]Halpern 272.

^[22]Halpern 363-367.

^[23]Halpern 380.

^[24]Halpern 395-402. For Ahithophel as Solomon’s great-grandfather, see II Samuel 11:3; 23:34.

^[25]Halpern 402-406. Solomon ascended the throne with the help of David’s foreign mercenary corps, who were excluded from Adonijah’s banquet (I Kings 1:38, 44).

^[26]Paul S. Ash, “Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King,” Review of Biblical Literature (9/2002) 3.

^[27]Ash 3.

^[28]Ash 4.

^[29]Ash 4.

^[30]Ash 5.

^[31]Ash 5.

^[32]John Van Seters, “David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. By Baruch Halpern,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112.3 (2002) 610.

^[33]Van Seters 610-611.

^[34]Van Seters 611.

^[35]John Van Seters, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 278.

^[36]Van Seters, Search 287, 289.

^[37]This statement deserves nuance. Halpern believes that II Samuel 11-12 presents David as morally deficient, yet he does not accept its historicity. He does point to II Samuel 12:11 to argue that David does not mourn death, calling into question his laments for his enemies (Halpern 96). Halpern probably believes that 12:11 is historical in that it presents David’s general attitude, not in the sense that he actually lost a son with Bathsheba. Moreover, Halpern says that Bathsheba wanted to exact revenge on David, implying that II Samuel 11-12 has some anti-David motivations. For Halpern, the story’s aims are to present Solomon as David’s son and to give Bathsheba the last word. I-II Samuel as a whole, however, wants to legitimize the Davidic dynasty of which Solomon is part, making it pro-David propaganda, despite the few exceptions.

^[38]One could argue that David befriended some Philistines after he fled to them from Saul’s wrath, meaning the 600 Gittites do not make him a Philistine agent. See David M. Howard, Jr., “David,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. II, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992) 42. Halpern says, however, that I Samuel does not mention any followers of David from Saul’s court, indicating David probably was not there (Halpern 283). Jonathan may be an exception, but he could be mentioned for propaganda purposes, whereas reference to less important people would strengthen the possibility that David was in the court. For Halpern, Saul may not have even pursued David (Halpern 286).

^[39]This is a slight generalization, for Halpern shows how the exaggeration of David’s empire begins in II Samuel (Halpern 430). Still, I-II Samuel mostly presents David’s empire as modest.

^[40]By opponents of David before the exile, or by anti-messianists after it.

^[41]II Samuel 8, for example, still tries to present David as a great conqueror.

^[42]People in the tenth century may have written economic records on plaster that no longer survives, indicating that writing beyond the rudimentary level could have existed (Professor Nili Fox lecture–October 19, 2005). Still, if tenth century Israel contained a United Monarchy with such writing ability, why does it lack monumental inscriptions, administrative ostraca, and inscribed seals, which are signs of advanced public administration? See www.tau.ac.il/taunews/98spring/megiddo.htm. According to this article, Israel Finkelstein says such signs occur in ninth century Palestine.

^[43]Steven W. Holloway, “Use of Assyriology in Chronological Apologetics in David’s Secret Demons,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17/2 (2003) 258, 260.

^[44]Holloway 260.

^[45]Halpern 141.

^[46]See the Gebel Barkal Stela of Thutmose III (1479-1425 B.C.E.), the Memphis and Karnak Stelae of Amenhotep II (1427-1400 B.C.E.), and Raamses II on the Battle of Qadesh (1275). William Hallo, ed., The Context of Scripture, volume II (New York: Brill, 1997-2002).

^[47]Halpern offers reasons that tenth century Israelite inscriptions have not been found (Halpern 208), but he does not address the absence of advanced writing in general.