Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

DAVID

(Heb. dawîḏ)

Israel’s second king (ca. 1010-970 b.c.e.).

Sources

1 Sam. 16–1 Kgs. 2 are our main sources about David, supplemented by 1 Chronicles. Other texts name him, but in the main to emblematize either the dynasty in Jerusalem or a salvific ideal.

Some scholars maintain that, like King Arthur, David is a late invention, but this is contradicted by the depth of his embedment in the tradition. Two inscriptions indicate that by 830 (or 840) the state in Judah was identified as “the House of David” (Tel Dan inscription and probably the Mesha stone) and confirm that David was an earlier state-builder. The beginnings of his importance, attested in the 9th century, explain David’s significance in the 8th century as an icon of Judah (Amos) and as the progenitor of a line of kings adopted at accession by Yahweh (Isaiah). Everything suggests that the Jerusalem court secured David’s place in the literary canon long before the exilic era.

1 Sam. 16–31 represents itself as an account of David’s “rise,” or youthful career, in interaction with the former king Saul of the tribe of Benjamin. This text reflects two parallel sources now in combination. A representative division yields narrative sources as follows:

A. 1 Sam. 9:1–10:13; 13:1–14:52; 17:12-31, 41, 48b, 50, 55-58; 18:1-6a, 10-11, 17-19, 30; 20:1b–24:22[MT 23]; 28:3-25; 31

B. 1 Sam. 8; 10:17-27; 11-12; 15-16; 17:1-11, 32-40, 42-48a, 49, 51-54; 18:6b-9, 12-16, 20-29; 19; 25–27; 28:1-2; 29–30; 2 Sam. 1ff.

Both sources contain legendary material, including the account of David’s slaying Goliath, whom 2 Sam. 21:19 identifies as the victim of Elhanan (cf. 1 Chr. 20:5; Josephus Ant. 7.302).

After introducing the monarchy, the A and B sources trace David’s early career. In A the David narrative is interposed between materials (1 Sam. 13–14; 28; 31) focused on Saul. In B the narrative shifts from Saul to David in ch. 16 and follows David thereafter. The components of B are often misidentified, and B has been misunderstood as a late, anti-monarchic source. Its position is more complex, and its presentation concerning the origins of the monarchy, as an institution adopted by human initiative and just tolerated by Yahweh, was programmatic for Israelite theologies of the monarchy (cf. Hos. 13:10; Deut. 17:14-15; Judg. 8:22-23). It also represents a closer constitutional reconstruction of the early monarchy than scholars have until recently acknowledged. By contrast, the A source treats kingship as a given. But as it centers on Saul and ends with his death at the Philistines’ hands, its date, previously thought to be early, is not clear. This source treats Saul’s monarchy, much on the pattern of Abimelech’s (Judg. 9), as an abortion, rather like the antedeluvian world, before the establishment of the Davidic line.

2 Samuel, the continuation of the B source, exhibits signs of near contemporary recollection. (1) 2 Samuel (like parts of B) responds to charges that David joined the Philistines in Saul’s last battle and incited the assassinations of Abner, Ishbaal, Absalom, Amasa, and all but one of Saul’s descendants, not to mention Uriah the Hittite; these are figures whose political relevance, and memory, had expired by the time of the Solomonic schism. (2) 2 Samuel, taken at the literal level, makes very modest claims about David’s conquests, while later sources (Chronicles, Josephus, and even 2 Kgs. 14:25) make much more grandiose claims. (3) Some poetry, notably David’s laments over Saul and Abner and probably his “last words,” is unquestionably antique. (4) The syntax of complex sentences is not typically that of later biblical prose. (5) The geographic delineation of Israel’s borders and the order in which components of her territory are enumerated differ from conceptions in biblical texts of the 8th-7th through the 5th-4th centuries. (6) The settlement patterns, especially of the Negeb and Philistia, reflected in the B source (1 Sam. 27–30) and in 2 Samuel, reflect realities of the 10th century but not of subsequent eras. (7) 1 Sam. 27:6 claims that Ziklag remained subordinate to the kings of Judah at the time of the writing of Samuel. As Ziklag lay in the immediate hinterland of Gath, it could not have belonged to kings of Judah after the 8th century, and was probably not even settled in the 9th-8th centuries. (8) 2 Samuel, a record of courtly transactions, stands at the start of a line of accounts in the books of Kings whose assertions regarding international relations are generally corroborated either by external evidence, as in the cases of Rehoboam and Shishak or of the Omrides and Mesha and Hazael, or by internal logic, as in the case of the Solomonic schism and its implications both for relations with Egypt and between Judah and Israel.

2 Samuel describes the death of Saul, David’s accession in Judah and civil war with Ishbaal, David’s accession to the Israelite throne, the conquest of Jerusalem and transfer of the ark there, Yahweh’s promise of perpetual dynasty, David’s foreign conquests, the Ammonite war and David’s affair with Bathsheba, Absalom’s revolt, Sheba’s revolt, and David’s census and acquisition of the ground for the temple. Interspersed are details about David’s offspring, officials, and army.

Much of the material in 1 Sam. 31–2 Sam. 24 is taken up in 1 Chr. 10–21, although Chronicles also omits much as irrelevant. Although non-synoptic portions of Chronicles contain some independent information, the text is usually derivative and often midrashic in supplying lists of officials. However, Chronicles is important as a textual witness for reconstructing early readings in Samuel.

Kings refers to David as the recipient of a perpetual divine dynastic grant, for whose sake Yahweh forbears from destroying Judah (but not Israel). Kings therefore holds the meritorious monarchs of Judah up against David as a standard, either directly or, through comparison with a meritorious father, indirectly (exception: Ahaz). Likewise, Amos and Hosea refer to David as the emblem of the dynasty that will regain power over Israel in the fullness of time. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel do much the same, as does Zech. 12–13. Ezra and Nehemiah, like Chronicles, remember David as a cult founder (Ezra 3:10; 8:20; Neh. 12:24-46). Proverbs and Ecclesiastes mention David as an ancestor of their alleged authors. Ruth presents itself as a story about David’s ancestors, underscored by a genealogy. Cant. 4:4 mentions one of David’s public works (cf. 2 Kgs. 11:10).

Finally, numerous psalms mention David in their superscriptions, most likely as an iconic figure, symbolizing the ruling dynasty. Several mention David as a historical figure, either in the superscription (Pss. 52, 54) or in the body of the psalm (78, 89, 122, 132, 144). Ps. 18:50(51); 72:20 mention him in colophons, while allusions to David have been found in other psalms (e.g., 83). None of this testimony is plainly early, and Pss. 89, 132, , whose references are most explicit and extensive, chiefly address the dynastic promises. On the other hand, Amos 6:5 (mid-8th century) already reflects the image of David as poet-courtier.

In texts referring to later periods David embodies state relations, both domestic and international. Although references to David in Judahite contexts often contrast the dynasty to other possible lines, references concerning Israel carry the implication that “David” or “the house of David” is (the state of) Judah (1 Kgs. 12:19). The phrase is common in Isaiah (7:2, 13; 22:22; cf. 9:7[6]; 16:5; also 11:1-10) and in the postexilic era.

Name

The etymology of David’s name is uncertain. Older scholars identified an Akkadian cognate meaning “leader,” but this was based on a misreading of the cuneiform. The root of the term is dwd, usually construed as “(paternal) uncle” or “beloved.” However, no text treats the term as containing a diphthong subject to contraction. It is always spelled dwd or even dwyd (the y representing a vowel of the i-class), never dd (as “uncle” is sometimes written).

Probably related are the names d(w)dw (Dodo, e.g., 2 Sam. 23:9, 24) and Dodaw(y)ahu (2 Chr. 20:37), in which the diphthong is contracted. Moreover, the Moabite king Mesha speaks of removing from Ataroth the ʾrʾl dwdh, the “Ariel” of (Ataroth’s) dwd. Here dwd does not refer to the house of David. The inscription attributes the fortification of Ataroth and Nebo to the Omrides, the dynasty that was to lend Israel its own name (“the house of Omri”). Nevertheless, the dwd of Ataroth was a significant item, whether human or not, quite as singular as Yahweh. Since “paternal uncle” is rare as an element in Israelite names, the name David should probably be construed on Mesha’s unclear model. It may or may not be a throne name.

Patronym

David is called “the son of Jesse” in direct discourse in 1-2 Samuel only in derogatory contexts, mainly by Saul (e.g., Sheba’s call to revolt, 2 Sam. 20:1). 1 Kgs. 12:16, regarding the Solomonic schism, is first an outcry against David, but then against his dynasty and grandson. The frozen formula, however early its origin, is evidence of David’s paternity, as is Jesse’s invocation as the dynasty’s forebear in Isa. 11:1, 10. The single text in Samuel to denominate David as “David son of Jesse” (2 Sam. 23:1) introduces archaic poetry. This same locution in Chronicles implies only that the patronymic was fixed by the time of that work. The Chronicler supplies the patronym to punctuate his account (1 Chr. 10:14; 29:26; in poetry, 12:18), something he would not do for Moses or Aaron. This may reflect some ideological program — the Chronicler is not telling us “which David” was his subject, as, like other early names (patriarchs; tribes, except for Manasseh; early kings) this one does not recur in biblical times. However, the preservation of the patronymic indicates that the historical Jesse possessed means and probably influence.

Genealogy

David’s genealogy is recorded at the end of Ruth and, identically, in 1 Chr. 2:3-17. The tradition’s antiquity is moot, but P (late 7th or early 6th century) names David’s ancestor Nahshon as Aaron’s brother-in-law (Exod. 6:23) and chief of Judah (Num. 1:7). This more likely reflects the genealogy than inspires it. Nor would it be surprising were the name of David’s grandfather (Obed) preserved. Some see in the story of David’s entrusting his parents to the king of Moab (1 Sam. 22:4) evidence of a Moabite connection remembered in Ruth. Still, the line from David’s grandfather to Nahshon, thence back to Perez and Judah, seems forced.

Location in Bethlehem

David’s genealogy, Ruth, and 1 Samuel (16; 17:15, 58; 20:6, 28) all place David’s family in Bethlehem, for several generations. Most convincing is the almost unconscious reference of 2 Sam. 2:32 to Asahel’s ancestral tomb there. Mic. 5:2(1) indicates that this tradition was entrenched by 700. Bethlehem, despite the association of Rachel’s tomb with it (Gen. 35:19; 48:7; Jer. 31:15), was a backwater suburb an hour’s march S of Jerusalem. David’s affiliation with the village is hardly an invention.

Early Career

1 Samuel introduces David as Yahweh’s choice, by Samuel’s designation, to succeed Saul. The narrative takes him to Saul’s court, where he betroths one of Saul’s daughters (Merab, Michal). 2 Sam. 3 continues with a story of Michal’s later delivery to David from her children and former husband, and her subsequent sequestration and childlessness. Further, a ditty, occasioning Saul’s anger, runs, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his myriads” (1 Sam. 21:11). All this supports David’s association with Saul’s court. Conversely, when most of Samuel was written, it would have been politic to inflate David’s reputation as Saul’s ally and a killer of Philistines, most urgently to veil the reality that he was for a critical period a Philistine vassal and that he remained their ally throughout his reign. Likewise, David’s preservation of Jonathan’s son Mephibaal may have been calculated, and the implication that he had a special relationship with Jonathan derived secondarily by our author. Thus, it is unsure whether David ever served at Saul’s court. None of the notices relating his men’s deeds (2 Sam. 21:15-22; 23:8ff.) suggests that he did.

However, David was the vassal of Achish of Gath. This is an embarrassment to our authors: the A source denies the association altogether (1 Sam. 21:10-15[11-16]). B blunts the point of the embarrassment by alibiing David for the battle in which Saul perished. He was in the employ of the Philistine king of Gath, though driven there by Saul’s rage; he was present and was Achish’s bodyguard, but by virtue of this honor was detailed to the rear; he was dismissed by the other Philistine kings; he was away, even from home, chasing raiders around the south; and he killed the messenger of Saul’s death, who claimed to have killed him (1 Sam. 27; 29–30; 2 Sam. 1).

Just when David, the fugitive from Saul, became king in Hebron (2 Sam. 2:2-4) is disputed. The text assigns him seven years in Hebron, while Ishbaal reigns only two and David takes Jerusalem just after his conflict with Saul’s successor. Some critics posit an interregnum between Saul and Ishbaal, which is contraindicated if David had erected a competing kingdom in the south (so 2 Sam. 2:5-9, where Abner crowns Ishbaal to forestall declarations for the electioneering David). Others suggest that David became Judah’s king five years before Saul’s death. Most likely, however, David did not win northern loyalties or transfer his capital to Jerusalem without delay. This option explains how the tradition of conflict with Philistia arises over the taking of Jerusalem. In Hebron, David’s kingship was probably unimpressive, as the poor archaeology of the site and the scant settlement of 11th-century Judah suggests, and he continued as a Philistine vassal. His takeover at Jerusalem may have been a declaration of independence.

Historical Relations with Saul’s House

On Saul’s death, an attack on Ziklag (1 Sam. 30:1-2) may have led David to relocate his residence in Judah’s hills. This territorial expansion into Jerusalem’s historical hinterland must have been a reward for service, probably in the Jezreel. From Hebron, David continued his episodic war with Israel, whose king was Ishbaal and whose chief-of-staff was Abner (2 Sam. 2-4). Finally, in consideration for a settlement, Abner and 20 retainers (re)conscripted Ishbaal’s sister Michal as David’s wife. At the celebratory banquet, however, David’s general Joab ambushed Abner and doubtless his escort. 2 Sam. 3 presents this as Joab’s treachery against a man traducing Ishbaal to hand David the kingdom. But in no case in which Joab kills for David (Uriah, Absalom, Amasa) does Joab suffer for insubordination. Likewise, Samuel alleges that Michal was betrothed to David (1 Sam. 19:11-24) before her marriage to Palti, the Israelite husband from whom and from whose sons Ishbaal and Abner strip her. This unconsummated betrothal now renders her extradition a grudging acknowledgement of a just claim, avoiding the imputation that the extradition signified peaceful alliance. David thereafter sequestered Michal: he ruptured her former union, then refused real alliance with Saul’s house.

Abner’s death did not propel Israel into David’s arms. Instead, two non-Israelites, from the “Gibeonite” town of Beeroth, assassinated Ishbaal and rushed his head to Hebron. David, however, struck them down, proclaiming his innocence (2 Sam. 4). Contemporaries must have accused him of ordering Abner’s and Ishbaal’s deaths.

David retained Abner’s corpse and Ishbaal’s head until the consolidation of his authority over Israel. Sometime before Absalom’s revolt, tracing a famine to Saul’s war on the Gibeonites, he extradited to the latter Saul’s surviving sons and grandsons. Only after this purge did he repatriate Saul’s and Jonathan’s corpses to the family sepulchre in Benjamin (2 Sam. 21:1-14).

David exempted only Saul’s lame grandson. Mephibaal (Meribbaal), Jonathan’s son, dwelled at the court, while a steward, Ziba, administered Saul’s lands (2 Sam. 4:4; 9). After the Absalom revolt, David reassigned half the estate to the steward (16:1-4; 19:24-30[25-31]). The only other kin to survive the purge was Shimei, who accused David of murdering the entire family (2 Sam. 16:5-10). Shimei was executed in the transition to Solomon’s reign.

A final “Saulide” was David’s son by Saul’s wife, Ahinoam of Jezreel. Amnon, David’s firstborn, was assassinated by Absalom. Absalom’s punishment was more severe than Joab’s for other murders: three years in exile and two more under house arrest. However, Amnon’s death, presented as vengeance for his rape of Absalom’s sister, removed the last vestige of Saul’s house from a role in the succession. In light of the overall pattern, this was not coincidental — especially since the rape was suggested to Amnon by David’s nephew (2 Sam. 13:1-5).

Overall, David systematically exterminated Saul’s house, maintaining Michal and Mephibaal as hostages at court, for the sake of appearance. Stories of David’s youthful service at Saul’s court, his relations with Jonathan, and his betrothal to Saul’s daughters help alibi him for the assassinations of Abner and Ishbaal and the executions of Saul’s other descendants. But all these developments served David’s convenience. The contemporary accusations against which the literature responds seem far from groundless.

Rise to Kingship

David’s first royal appointment was as vassal to Achish of Gath, in the town of Ziklag. From Hebron, after Saul’s death, he claimed sovereignty over Judah, a territory sparsely settled in the late 11th century, especially in regions east of the Shephelah. Nonsedentary elements may also have been active in the Negeb. Nor is Judah, or its companion “tribe” Simeon, represented in any premonarchic Israelite tradition (esp. Judg. 5:13-18). Probably no such “tribe,” or geographical Israelite section, existed before David, its architect, occupied Hebron. Hence Benjamin (lit., “the southerner”) was originally the name for the group occupying southernmost Israel, Judah included.

David’s modest establishment in Hebron remained at Achish’s disposal, helping to contain the Israelite forces in the interior. David also initiated a pattern of marital diplomacy. His first wife, Ahinoam, was from Jezreel in the north (Judahite Jezreel was unoccupied in this era). The only other Ahinoam in the Bible was Jonathan’s mother, suggesting that David took her from Saul. David’s second wife, Abigail, also has only one alter-ego, his sister. She, in turn, had a wealthy first husband in Judah (1 Sam. 25; ; cf. 2 Sam. 17:25; 1 Kgs. 2:32; 1 Chr. 2:17). Through Ahinoam and Michal, David established a claim on Saul’s kingdom. Through Abigail (and her husband) and by marital alliance with the king of Geshur (in the Golan), David also surrounded the north. He further added appeals to Transjordan to defect from Ishbaal (2 Sam. 2:5-7), an early alliance with the Ammonites, and, late in his reign, an alliance with Tyre. These peripheries, in combination with his Philistine allies, David activated against the northern tribes. He enfranchised the Gibeonites of the Benjaminite hills and various mercenary elements, and constructed a coalition to contain the Israelites.

After Ishbaal’s death, David orchestrated subscription to his leadership by elements in Israel. Samuel portrays the collaborators as representing the whole north. But the dynamics of this development, indeed, of David’s subjecting refractory elements in the north generally, are not open to our inspection. That some element of coercion was involved, however, is clear both from the defensive position adopted by 2 Samuel, probably in defense of Solomon’s succession, and the rebellions against David under Absalom and against Rehoboam’s succession under Jeroboam.

Administration and Achievements

2 Samuel names many of David’s personnel. Often, officials are identified by gentilics (Ittay from Gath, Uriah the Hittite). While, probably on this model, 1 Samuel furnishes a brief list of Saul’s officials and 1 Kgs. 4 provides a fuller list of Solomon’s officials, nothing remotely similar appears for any other Israelite king. Here the reports on the United Monarchy distinguish themselves from historiography about later eras. This report of rudimentary administrative machinery attests developing state authority, whether David conquered Israel, subjecting it to imperial exploitation, or whether David was a conciliator, who inveigled support from the citizenry.

Foreign elements in David’s establishment, his collusion with Gibeon in exterminating Saul’s house, and the patterns of his marital (Geshur, northern Manasseh) and other (Philistia and Ammon, Tyre) diplomacy all threatened the northern tribes. Conversely, 1-2 Samuel insists that he had a popular mandate — even after David’s mercenaries trounced the tribal levies in Absalom’s revolt, it was politically expedient to claim popular legitimation. David’s campaign for reelection after the Absalom revolt also indicates dependence on the tactic of currying popularity with his subjects.

It is Samuel’s omissions that best characterize this Davidic state. David did not build a temple, but merely unified the state with the new central icon of the ark in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6–7). David did not organize domestic provinces, as Solomon would, and he undertook no public works outside of Jerusalem — no fortification, no palace construction. Nor, in the Israelite interior, in the Jezreel Valley, does the text allege any conquests: the capture of Megiddo, Beth-shan, and other lowlands fortresses by the Israelites should therefore be assigned to Saul and Ishbaal.

It is as an engineer of empire, as warrior-hero with a grippingly tragic dimension, that David has imprinted himself on Western culture. Again, the claims of conquest lodged in Samuel are limited (contrast Kings, Chronicles). David never dominates territory west of Gezer or in Philistia proper: under Solomon Gezer remained extraterritorial. David’s own encounters with Philistines are confined to the hills near Jerusalem, or cannot be located. Likewise, David subjects Aram-zobah (in the Beqaʿ), Ammon, Moab, and Edom. But nothing suggests a campaign north of Dan — the confrontation with Aram comes during the war against Ammon, in Transjordan. The northernmost activity in which David’s troops are said to engage takes place at Abel-beth-maacah.

Nor is it patent how David dominated Transjordan. Samuel claims that he garrisoned (some part of the hinterland of) Damascus, versus “all of Edom,” where he massacred population. His inroads into Moab are unspecified.

Ammon presents a knottier case. David initially allied with Saul’s royal opponent, Nahash. On Nahash’s death, David intervened in the succession, conquering the capital, and installing Hanun ben-Nahash. This paid off during Absalom’s revolt, when Hanun abetted David against the tribal militias of Israel and Judah. This in turn led to a marriage making Hanun’s daughter the mother of Solomon’s successor. Ammon, then, was in thrall to David’s Jerusalem, but was also indispensable to the exercise of David’s domestic authority.

In theory, Israel’s expansion, both internal (in lowlands fortresses) and external (Transjordan), should have a prosperous foundation for “national” pride. However, resource accumulation and the innovation even of a modest monarchy, ringed about by mercenaries, left the countryside lineages in fear of losing their autonomy. David’s policies (e.g., tax administration) likely led to Absalom’s revolt, which was not directed against the dynasty but against David personally. It was a war concerning the succession.

The insurrection was massive: the text portrays it as recompense for David’s murdering Uriah the Hittite; this exculpates the participants from charges of treason. The text insists that David actively campaigned for reelection as king after Absalom’s revolt (2 Sam. 19), even supplanting his hatchet man, Joab, as national commander with the rebel general Amasa. The text then blames Amasa’s assassination on Joab’s, not David’s, initiative (during the pretext of a failed revolt). With the army in the ascendant, the humiliating campaign for reelection and the appointment of Amasa point to claims of popular imperium, and the importance of popular support.

David’s religious policies are translucent. Beyond adopting the ark from a Gibeonite city as a national symbol, he enfranchised two state priesthoods — one, probably from Judah, claiming descent from Aaron, and another linked to Eli, at the abandoned sanctuary, Shiloh. Otherwise, David prescinded from interference with clerical matters. Further, while the temple liturgy (e.g., Ps. 89) and 2 Sam. 7 would later claim that the Davidic dynasty was an unconditionalized divine gift, alternative views came to expression (e.g., Ps. 132), most obviously in Israel’s secession at Solomon’s death.

One major, probably Davidic, achievement was sedentarization in the Negeb. This reflects the exploitation of Arabian caravan traffic to the coast, thence abroad. The spice trade, exploited at Egypt’s expense, formed a basis for state prosperity until Shishak’s raid, five years after Solomon’s death.

Politically, David’s lasting creations were the nation (or “tribe”) Judah and a dynasty whose longevity depended on his successors. Although he scrupulously observed the forms of popular sovereignty, David also created a rift between royal and countryside culture, a rift exacerbated by Solomon that later eradicated those forms.

Succession

David played the succession close to his vest. Of his sons, the third, Absalom, killed the eldest, and was in turn killed by Joab in the revolt. The second son, by Abigail, is never mentioned after his birth. The fourth, Adonijah, was widely expected to succeed.

The succession contest recapitulated the tensions of Absalom’s revolt. Popular expectation focused (hopefully?) on Adonijah, and Joab’s support suggests that he was David’s designee. Party to the pretender was the Elide priest Abiathar. Thus traditional forces, in the court and abroad, stood behind Adonijah’s candidacy.

Solomon’s succession, sympathetically presented, remains a coup. Behind Solomon stand Zadok, the Judahite priest; Benaiah, the mercenary captain; and the mercenaries of the capital. Solomon’s administration, with its emphasis on public works and the exactions that required, colors the contrast with the traditional candidate. Yet conciliatory maneuvers early in the reign — Rehoboam’s marriage to Absalom’s daughter, the writing of 2 Samuel to exculpate David from political murders and Israel’s population from treason, and even the construction of the temple with its implications of tax relief for the laborers (near Jerusalem?) — all suggest that the transition was gradual. Solomon began by pursuing his father’s course; only when a threat materialized from Egypt in his 24th year did the impulse to modernization assume urgency. For this reason, public works (e.g., at Megiddo) were not completed before the destruction of the Solomonic layer there.

David’s Place in Tradition

David’s identification as the messiah, Yahweh’s “anointed” and thus son, derives from the temple royal ideology during the centuries up to the Babylonian Exile. As dynast, David personified Yahweh’s reign over Judah and, by extension, Israel. Later reinterpretation of the conception of David redivivus — adumbrated in the comparison of Judah’s kings to him in the books of Kings — and of the enthronement metaphor of his divine sonship led to their ratification as a future hope in a period without Davidic kings (the Restoration). In addition, the image of David as cult founder, full-blown in the presentation of 1 Chronicles, derives from the assignment to his reign of the dynastic charter, usually associated with temple-building, and from the superscriptions to the Psalms.

While Israel’s golden age is usually associated with Solomon, the Davidic figure, far more swashbuckling and more tragically human, naturally attracted the attention and the affection of later readers.

Bibliography. D. Barthélemy, et al., The Story of David and Goliath. OBO 73 (Göttingen, 1986); W. Brueggemann, David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory (Philadelphia, 1985); R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King (Stockholm, 1964); J. W. Flanagan, David’s Social Drama. JSOTSup 73 (Sheffield, 1988); J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 1: King David. SSN 20 (Assen, 1981); D. M. Gunn, The Story of King David. JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield, 1978); P. K. McCarter, Jr., “The Historical David,” Int 40 (1986): 117-29; L. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (Sheffield, 1982).

Baruch Halpern

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

DAVID

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)