King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt 9780198842200, 0198842201

Table of contents :
Cover
King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
David: A Man of War and Blood(s)
Reading the David Story/ies
What is the David Story About?
The David Story and Bloodguilt
The David Story and Retribution
The David Story and Homicide
The David Story and Ritual Violence
The Approach and Outline of the Book
1. ‘Innocent Blood’: 1 Sam 16–22
The Sparing of David
The Killings at Nob
2. ‘Blood without Cause’: 1 Sam 23–26
The Sparing of Saul
The Sparing of Nabal
The Sparing of Saul (Again)
3. ‘Your Blood be on Your Head’:1 Sam 27–2 Sam 1
The Killing of Saul
The Killing of Saul (Again)
4. ‘His Blood at Your Hand’: 2 Sam 2–4
The Killing of Abner
The Killing of Ishbosheth
5. ‘The Sword Will Never Depart’: 2 Sam 5–12
The Killing of Uriah
The Killing of David and Bathsheba’s First Son
6.‘That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More’: 2 Sam 13–14
The Killing of Amnon
The Sparing of Absalom
7. ‘Man of Blood’: 2 Sam 15–20
The Sparing of Shimei
The Killing of Absalom
The Sparing of Shimei (Again)
The Killing of Amasa
8. ‘The Bloodguilt of Saul’: 2 Sam 21–24
The Killing of the Seven Saulides
9. ‘Bring Back His Bloody Deeds’: 1 Kgs 1–2
The Killing of Adonijah
The Killing of Joab
The Sparing of Abiathar and the Sons of Barzillai
The Killing of Shimei
Conclusion: King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt
The Problem in David’s Rise
The Problem in David’s Reign
The Problem in David’s Succession
The Nature of the Problem
The Prevalence and Importance of the Problem
Problem without End
A Problem for Whom?
Bibliography
Index of Subjects
Index of Biblical References

Citation preview

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt

Praise for King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt ‘Shepherd’s fresh take on King David shows why this controversial ruler is one of the most compelling characters in the entire Bible. With a clear command of current scholarship on King David, this deeply researched and carefully argued book presents a bold case for greater attention to the often-overlooked problem of bloodguilt as central to our understanding of David’s reign. Shepherd models what a skilled and detailed interpretation of the text can provide when one reads the story of David in its current form.’ Jeremy Schipper, Professor of Hebrew Bible, University of Toronto and author of Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible ‘Shepherd’s monograph is a lucid, accessible, and welcome addition to studies of the figure of David, combining a rich knowledge of scholarly work on Samuel and Kings with fascinating and judicious readings of individual stories that convincingly demonstrate just how much the narrative of David is shaped by questions surrounding illegitimate bloodshed.’ David Janzen, Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, Durham University and author of The Necessary King ‘From the slaying of Goliath to the secretly arranged murder of Uriah, the specter of blood follows the famous career of King David at every turn. With a meticulous and carefully documented analysis of the text, Shepherd’s work draws attention to the paradox of violence at the core of this narrative and an important subplot that will be of interest to general readers and biblical scholars alike.’ Keith Bodner, Professor of Religion, Crandall University and author of The Rebellion of Absalom ‘Shepherd provides a fresh and compelling reading of David’s story. The problem of bloodguilt emerges as a central motif within the narrative, making this a crucial work for future work on David’s story and also the wider issue of how this motif is understood within the Hebrew Bible.’ David Firth, Trinity College Bristol and author of 1 and 2 Samuel: A Kingdom Comes ‘Shepherd makes a strong case for reading bloodguilt as a pervasive theme throughout the David story, illuminating aspects of the story of David’s rise, reign, and succession. The book will repay careful reading; its argument is well-constructed and well-supported, and certainly got me thinking about these well-known stories in new ways.’ Christine Mitchell, Professor of Hebrew Bible, Knox College, Toronto ‘This book deals with a question that is immensely important not only for the image of King David and for the assessment of the Books of Samuel, but also for the theology and ethics of our days . . . Scholarly and with a commanding knowledge of the relevant research, Shepherd offers clarifying insights into both the bloody reality as portrayed in the books of Samuel, and the struggle against the curse of constantly renewed bloodguilt that is waged in them.’ Walter Dietrich, Emeritus Professor of Old Testament, University of Bern and author of The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E.

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt DAV I D  J.  SH E P H E R D

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © David J. Shepherd 2023 The moral rights of the author have been asserted All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2022943175 ISBN 978–0–19–8842200 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.001.0001 Printed and bound in the UK by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A. Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 David: A Man of War and Blood(s) 1 Reading the David Story/ies 3 What is the David Story About? 8 The David Story and Bloodguilt 11 The David Story and Retribution 12 The David Story and Homicide 14 The David Story and Ritual Violence 16 The Approach and Outline of the Book 18 1. ‘Innocent Blood’: 1 Sam 16–22 The Sparing of David The Killings at Nob

23 23 29

2. ‘Blood without Cause’: 1 Sam 23–26 The Sparing of Saul The Sparing of Nabal The Sparing of Saul (Again)

37 37 41 49

3. ‘Your Blood be on Your Head’: 1 Sam 27–2 Sam 1 The Killing of Saul The Killing of Saul (Again)

59 61 65

4. ‘His Blood at Your Hand’: 2 Sam 2–4 The Killing of Abner The Killing of Ishbosheth

73 73 86

5. ‘The Sword Will Never Depart’: 2 Sam 5–12 The Killing of Uriah The Killing of David and Bathsheba’s First Son

99 103 118

6. ‘That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More’: 2 Sam 13–14 The Killing of Amnon The Sparing of Absalom

127 127 142

7. ‘Man of Blood’: 2 Sam 15–20 The Sparing of Shimei The Killing of Absalom The Sparing of Shimei (Again) The Killing of Amasa

159 159 168 182 185

vi Contents

8. ‘The Bloodguilt of Saul’: 2 Sam 21–24 The Killing of the Seven Saulides

193 193

9. ‘Bring Back His Bloody Deeds’: 1 Kgs 1–2 The Killing of Adonijah The Killing of Joab The Sparing of Abiathar and the Sons of Barzillai The Killing of Shimei

211 211 213 224 226

Conclusion: King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt The Problem in David’s Rise The Problem in David’s Reign The Problem in David’s Succession The Nature of the Problem The Prevalence and Importance of the Problem Problem without End A Problem for Whom? Bibliography Index of Subjects Index of Biblical References

236 236 238 241 243 247 249 251 255 273 277

Acknowledgements Thanks to the name my parents gave me, I am quite sure that ‘David’ was among the first words I heard upon entering the world. Being a David who was also a Shepherd ensured that my interest was especially keen when the subject of David came up in my youth and I am very grateful to those who acquainted me with the highlights of his story in those early years. The rest of David’s story in the Hebrew Bible was introduced to me by yet another David—­Professor David Jobling—­ distinguished scholar and teacher of Old Testament language and literature at St. Andrew’s College. His close reading of Samuel during my days as an undergraduate student in his class set a standard which few since have matched, and influenced me in ways which became clearer to me only when I began to take a more serious interest in David a decade ago. This interest in David inevitably found its way into my own classroom in turn and I am grateful to my students for their insights on the David story over the years as we have explored it together at Trinity. I am also very appreciative of the feedback offered in recent years by various scholarly audiences with whom I have shared papers in preparation for this book. Some of the ideas on David and Uriah which appear in Chapter 5 were aired at a meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study held in Manchester in 2012, while early thoughts on Abimelech were presented at the University of Lausanne in 2016. My reading of 2 Sam 21:1‒14 (Chapter 8) benefited from feedback offered at: the Society of Biblical Literature’s 2017 Annual Meeting in Boston, Cambridge University’s Divinity Faculty Senior Research Seminar in 2018 and, in that same year, the Doktorandenkolloquium in the Faculty of Theology of Georg-­August-­ Universität Göttingen. Rather closer to home, my treatment of 1 Sam 25 (Chapter  2) was refined with the help of those who attended a symposium on forgiveness in the Hebrew Bible at the Trinity Centre for Biblical Studies in Dublin. Finally, the treatment of Absalom which now appears in Chapters 6 and 7 was improved by comments and questions from those attending the joint meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study, the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and the Old Testament Society of South Africa held at the University of Groningen in 2018 and from members of the Divinity Faculty Research Seminars of the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, where I presented in October of 2019. That various colleagues around the world have been kind enough to comment on drafts of chapters—­and in some cases, the entire manuscript—­of this book, has been truly humbling. For this, I owe debts of gratitude not easily repaid to Graeme Auld, Walter Dietrich, Hugh Pyper, Rachelle Gilmour, David Firth,

viii Acknowledgements Jeremy Schipper, Keith Bodner, George Nicol, Christine Mitchell, David Janzen, Stephen Chapman, Steve Wiggins, and Mark Awabdy. Together they have spared the reader a good number of deficiencies in what follows and certainly bear no responsibility for those which remain. The same must be said for Tom Perridge and the staff at OUP to whom I am very grateful for their patience and their professionalism in seeing this project through and affording me the scope to tackle it properly. Finally, my greatest appreciation must be reserved for my dear wife, Hilda, and my three wonderful daughters, Anna, Sophie, and Sarah, not only for allowing this David to have spent so much time writing about ‘that’ David, but also for ensuring that our family life is thankfully much less fraught than his.

  Introduction David: A Man of War and Blood(s) When the prophet Samuel is sent to Bethlehem to anoint one of Jesse’s sons to be king, David is not only the last, but also seemingly the least to appear. Even his own father summons David only grudgingly, and apparently for good reason, because as he advises Samuel, David is the youngest and a keeper of sheep (1 Sam 16:11). However, when King Saul requests that a musician be found to soothe his troubled soul and his servants suggest David, the reader soon discovers that the youngest son of Jesse is no ordinary shepherd. Indeed, the servants insist that David is not only divinely blessed, musically gifted, brave, and eloquent: he is also a ‘man of war’ (‫ ;איש מלחמה‬1 Sam 16:18). The son of Jesse’s willingness to go to war is confirmed in the very next chapter, by the first words David utters in the books of Samuel: ‘What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes the reproach from Israel?’ (1 Sam 17:26). When Saul goes on to compare David’s mettle unfavourably to that of the seasoned warrior Goliath, the young shepherd reports proudly what he would do when a bear or lion had the temerity to turn on him after relinquishing a stolen sheep. David would not merely take the would-­be predator by the hair and strike it; he would kill it for good measure (v. 35). David’s victory over Goliath, however, is much more than the killing of a beast. It is the triumph of youth over experience, humility over arrogance, and little over large. But it is also the triumph of sling over sword and the decisive blow in the Israelite army’s routing of their Philistine rivals. It is thus hardly surprising that David’s killing of Goliath has cemented his reputation as a man of war. Indeed, this is underlined in the following chapter (1 Sam 18), when the women irritate Saul by eulogizing David for slaying ten times more Philistines than he has. Yet if those in Saul’s orbit sing the young David’s praises in 1 Sam 16, by the time we reach 2 Sam 16, other Saulide voices may be heard expressing a rather different view. Here, as the now much older David retreats from Jerusalem to save his life and kingdom from his son Absalom, he is met by Shimei, son of Gera and a man of Saul’s tribe. Instead of celebrating David as a ‘man of war’, Shimei curses him as a ‘man of bloods’ (‫ ;איש דמים‬2 Sam 16:8 and cf. 7).1 In 1–2 Samuel and 1 Kgs 1  In 1 Chron 22:8 and 28:3, David reports that the divine refusal of permission for him to build the temple relates to the divine judgement that he is both a man of war(s) and a man of ‘bloods’. While

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0001

2  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt 1–2, this language of ‘blood(s)’, or ‘bloodguilt’ as it is often translated, is invariably associated with David and often killings with which he is connected, including those of Saul, Ishbosheth, and Abner. Because David seems to benefit from these and other killings and seeks to dissociate himself from them, some have suggested that the tradition intends to rebut historical accusations of David’s responsibility for killing these men.2 Indeed, the reporting of Shimei’s accusations strongly suggests that such charges did circulate at some point and were perceived as problematic for David. Some scholars go further, concluding that the historical David was in fact guilty of the killings.3 Steven McKenzie, for instance, argues that the historical David not only sanctioned Abner’s death, but must be the prime suspect in Ishbosheth’s killing and must also have encouraged the Philistines into the conflict which claimed Saul’s life.4 In a similar vein, Baruch Halpern suggests that David commissioned the assassination of Ishbosheth, killed Abner (apparently himself) and was at least complicit in the killing of Saul by the Philistines.5 It is of course theoretically possible that the books of Samuel, as we now have them, have indeed omitted details of David’s actual involvement in these and other killings which work to his favour. However, such details are ultimately beyond literary analysis and outside our concern here, because they belong to the necessarily hypothetical histories reconstructed by McKenzie, Halpern, and ­others, rather than the (also tendentious) history of David offered by the books of Samuel and 1 Kings.6 Instead, the interest of the present study is in how the story of David we do have in Samuel and 1 Kings is illuminated by attention to the shedding of innocent blood and the problems it has presented as posing for David and others within the narrative. But before explaining how earlier readers have engaged with the David tradition vis-­à-­vis bloodguilt and related issues, it is worth considering how and why we have arrived at a place where we may speak of these traditions as constituting a ‘Story of David’ at all. Chronicles contains ample evidence of the former, it shows little awareness of the latter, unlike the traditions of David as we find in them in the books of Samuel and 1 Kings 1–2. 2  This view became more popular in German scholarship thanks to Weiser, ‘ Legitimation’, 326–7, 332–3; and Grønbæk, Aufstieg Davids, 19–20, 29, 72; and, in the English-­speaking world, following an influential article by McCarter, ‘The Apology of David’, 502, in which he surmises that some or all of these accusations must have been actually levelled at David during his lifetime. 3  While McCarter, ‘The Apology of David’, 502, n. 24, stops short of accusing the historical David of active involvement, some of those persuaded by his argument are more confident of the historical David’s direct involvement. 4 McKenzie, King David, 113–26. 5 Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 78–84, argues that the historical David was almost certainly culp­able for other deaths (including those of Amnon and Absalom) of which the narrative seeks to exonerate him, but innocent of the killing of Uriah—­the one death for which David is explicitly found responsible in the tradition. 6  Though Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 283–4, might prefer ‘fictitious’ to ‘tendentious’, he makes something like this same point in responding to Halpern’s work. Yet even Van Seters admits that by the time Shimei accuses the fictional David of being a ‘man of blood(s)’ (2 Sam 16), the writer of the ‘David Saga’ has already offered ample grounds for suspecting, if not convicting, this fictional David of Saulide homicide.

Introduction  3

Reading the David Story/ies The rich afterlife of the biblical David in Western culture undoubtedly owes much to his associations with messianism and the Psalms, but there can be little doubt that David’s later fame is also very much due to the stories about him in the Hebrew Bible.7 Indeed, the tales of David’s unlikely anointing, his defeat of Goliath, and his liaison with Bathsheba have entranced readers over the cen­tur­ ies, including, of course, biblical scholars. Those within this guild, however, have also concerned themselves with stories of David which are less well-­known—­ indeed known only to those inducted into the mysteries of biblical scholarship. In the case of David, these mysteries produced for many years what might be described as a scholarly ‘Tale of Two Stories’—a tale which can be told here only in a very abridged and imperfect way. Amongst his many contributions, Julius Wellhausen long ago identified a story focused on David’s rise, the beginning of which is obvious (David’s arrival in 1 Sam 16) and the end of which Wellhausen found in 2 Sam 8.8 The similarity of some individual stories to each other within this wider narrative and various inconsistencies between—­and intrusions within—­them, persuaded Wellhausen that here in the books of Samuel, as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, various sources had been collected and edited to produce the text as we now have it. Nevertheless, he argued that when taken together, the passages from 1 Sam 15/16–2 Sam 8 represented a ‘First story/history of David’, recounting David’s rise from shepherd in Bethlehem to king in Jerusalem at the expense of Saul and his house.9 Wellhausen’s ‘Second story/history of David’ ran from 2 Sam 9 to 1 Kgs 2 (excluding 2 Sam 21–24) and told the story of David’s subsequent reign and Solomon’s installation.10 The artistry and coherence of Wellhausen’s second story was increasingly acknowledged following Leonhard Rost’s influential analysis of these chapters as a ‘Succession Narrative’.11 Of course, some since have seen this narrative as beginning rather earlier than 2 Sam 9 and have rightly preferred the terminology of ‘Court History’ due to 2 Samuel’s initial lack of explicit interest in succession.12 However, the discrete division of the traditions about David into ‘two stories’—one account of his rise and another of his reign—­enjoyed wide-

7  For a survey of David’s ‘afterlife’, see Frontain and Wojcik, The David Myth. For a more recent and much more specific example of David’s reception, see Shepherd and Johnson, David Fragments. 8 Wellhausen, Die Composition, 247–55. Wellhausen sees 1 Sam 15 with the first thirteen verses of ch. 16 as one of two parallel introductions of David. For a recent treatment of the ‘History of David’s Rise’ and various scholarly positions in relation to it, see Yoon, So-­Called History of David’s Rise. For a survey of earlier work, see Dietrich and Naumann, Die Samuelbücher, 47–86. 9 Wellhausen, Die Composition, 247. 10 Wellhausen, Die Composition, 255–60. 11 Rost, Die Überlieferung; and, in English, The Succession. 12  Flanagan, ‘Court History or Succession Document?’. For recent surveys of scholarship and bibliography on 2 Sam 9–20, 1 Kgs 1–2, see Dietrich, The Early Monarchy, 228–40; and Hutton, Palimpsest, 176–227.

4  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt spread scholarly support (with honourable exceptions) throughout much of the twentieth century. The fact that scholarship on the David traditions as a whole did not remain entirely a tale of two stories is due in large part to a series of studies appearing in the late 1970s and early 1980s which explored the David narratives in new ways.13 Charles Conroy’s 1978 study of 2 Sam 13–20 as ‘story’ broke new ground by viewing these chapters through the lens of plot, character, point of view, etc.14 However, in that same year, a very similar furrow was also ploughed by David Gunn.15 Perhaps because of Conroy’s more technical focus on language in the later sections of his work, but probably also because of the greater scope and ambition of Gunn’s book, it was the contribution of the latter which would prove more enduring. Gunn’s title, The Story of King David, might have suggested to some readers that he would begin with David established on the throne in 2 Sam 9. Instead, he argued that 2 Sam 2 (beginning in verses 8 or 12) through to chapter 4 offers a more satisfactory beginning to the story of the reign of David which unfolds in 2 Samuel. In making his case, Gunn pointed out that David’s request to show kindness to a Saulide at the beginning of chapter 9 seems to presuppose the account of Ishbosheth’s death (and by extension chapters 2‒4). Gunn then showed that the style of these chapters has much in common with the much-­vaunted style of Rost’s ‘Succession Narrative’. Finally, he joined his voice to those who had already suggested that Rost’s theme of ‘succession’ failed to capture the breadth of narrative interests in 2 Sam 9–20 and 1 Kgs 1–2, let alone the expanded story of King David for which Gunn was arguing. Thus, Gunn included in his story of King David not merely David’s retention of the throne (at Absalom’s expense) and Solomon’s accession to it (at Adonijah’s expense), but also now David’s accession to the throne (at Ishbosheth’s expense; chs. 2‒4). Moreover, Gunn argued that this larger story is not merely about succession, but also the interplay and consequence of David’s and others’ ‘giving and grasping’ of the kingdom, both for himself and other individuals.16 While Gunn’s careful thematic analysis has been cited less often than it deserves, his willingness to think in terms of a larger story of David instead of a ‘Tale of Two Stories’ was to prove influential. Gunn himself would go on to discuss the second half of 1 Samuel as very much Saul’s story rather than David’s.17 However, The Story of King David led others to consider whether the story of David might

13  For an analytical digest of such voices from this period, see Conroy, Absalom, 2. 14 Conroy, Absalom. 15 Gunn, Story of King David. 16 Gunn, Story of King David, 87–111. Gunn acknowledges his debt to others in developing this interpretation, including especially Brueggeman’s studies earlier in that same decade. Gros Louis, ‘The Difficulty of Ruling Well’, applies the public/private distinction developed by Gunn in his earlier art­icle, ‘David and the Gift of the Kingdom’, out of which Gunn’s interpretation discussed here was developed. 17 Gunn, Fate of King Saul.

Introduction  5 not begin even earlier than Gunn had recognized and whether the themes of a still wider story of David might differ from those which Gunn himself had identified.18 This influence is visible already in Walter Brueggeman’s slender and more accessible David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory (1985). This study is still explicitly structured with reference to ‘the rise of David’ and the ‘Succession Narrative’, but insists on reading them together as a single story of David which includes and even goes beyond 1 Sam 16 to 1 Kgs 2.19 Brueggeman’s suggestion that this larger story illustrates David’s capacity for ‘receiving and relinquishing with some graciousness’ is itself an obvious illustration of Gunn’s influence, but also reflects Brueggeman’s wider scope.20 The extent to which scholarly interest in the larger story of David and its themes burgeoned in the years which followed may be seen in a series of studies which appeared before and after the turn of the millennium. While K. L. Noll’s The Faces of David (1997) is largely focused on the three poems in 2 Samuel (1:19‒27, 22, 23:1‒17), he begins by discussing the themes and characterization of David in the ‘prose story’ as a whole.21 Noll is critical of Shamai Gelander’s earlier argument that the books of Samuel are primarily about the capriciousness of God and David’s heroic domestication of him. Indeed, as Noll notes, the textual evidence offered by Gelander is slender and these books are much more about David than they are about God.22 More appealing to Noll, however, is David Damrosch’s passing suggestion that the David story’s ‘deepest concerns are with issues of knowledge and understanding’.23 In developing this to a greater extent than Damrosch does, Noll rightly points out that the David stories are often less than forthcoming regarding why things happen in the way they do and what characters do and do not know.24 While this may to some extent reflect the sort of narrative the books of Samuel offer (i.e. open-­ended, indeterminate),25 we will see that

18  See Whitelam, ‘The Defence of David’, for an early attempt to read all of 1 Sam 9–1 Kgs 2 through the ‘apologetic’ lens suggested by McCarter. Such a reading struggles to account for David’s killing of Uriah and his taking of Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11–12, in which any pretence of a defence of David seems to be well and truly abandoned. 19 Brueggemann, David’s Truth, 113–15. In addition to ‘The Trustful Truth of the Tribe: 1 Sam 16:1–2 Sam 5:5’ and ‘The Painful Truth of the Man: 2 Sam 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2’, Brueggeman’s story of David includes ‘The Sure Truth of the State: 2 Sam 5:6–8:18’ and ‘The Hopeful Truth of the Assembly: Pss 89; 132; Lam 3:21–7; Isa 55:3; 1 Chron 10–29’. 20 Brueggeman, David’s Truth, 113–15. 21 Noll, Faces of David, 40–75. 22 Noll, Faces of David, 49. Gelander, David and His God, is focused almost entirely on 2 Sam 5–7 and 24—rather slender scaffolding to support interpretive claims regarding the David story as a whole. 23 Damrosch, The Narrative Covenant, 259. While this thematic judgement appears at the end of Damrosch’s discussion of the composition and themes of the David stories, it is not obviously supported by the analysis it concludes, which instead elucidates a variety of more minor themes within the stories of David’s rise and reign respectively. 24  For the question of how much or little Uriah knows in 2 Sam 11, see Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. For my own modest effort to illustrate something similar in relation to Saul’s general, see Shepherd, ‘Knowing Abner’. 25  Indeed, Noll, Faces of David, 44, n. 19, seems to admit as much himself by referencing ‘open-­ ended narration’ and ‘indeterminate literature’.

6  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt others too have discerned the thematic significance of knowledge within the David story. At the same time, Noll suggests elsewhere in his study that the chief concern of the books of Samuel is ultimately that of divine election and rejection, as captured in the question: ‘Why has Yahweh rejected Saul and chosen David?’.26 While there can be little doubt this question is explored in 1 Samuel and the opening chapters of 2 Samuel, in the remainder of 2 Samuel, such a question is clearly less to the fore than those relating to Adonijah and especially Absalom. Two years after Gunn’s study appeared, confirmation of this growing willingness to explore the David traditions more holistically may be seen in Robert Alter’s commentary on 1 and 2 Samuel, advertised as The David Story, despite David’s absence from the first half of 1 Samuel.27 Because Alter wishes to tell the story of David, he exceeds the boundaries of Samuel in tracking his protagonist into 1 Kings, but his reasons for commenting on the often excised appendix (2  Sam 21–24) are worth noting. He acknowledges that these final chapters of 2 Samuel are ‘not of a piece’ in style or perspective with the rest and may have come from elsewhere. However, he also makes it clear that he comments on them not merely because they are part of 2 Samuel, but because he is persuaded of their coherence with the wider story of David. For Alter too, this wider story of David revolves around ‘knowledge’. While Saul seems to be consistently deprived of knowledge, David is initially well-­supplied with it, before eventually succumbing to the fate of the ‘purblind Saul’.28 Still further, if slightly more oblique, evidence for the growing appreciation of the wider David story in the books of Samuel and 1 Kings may be found in Steven McKenzie’s King David: A Biography and in Baruch Halpern’s David’s Secret Demons, which appeared around the same time.29 Unlike some others, both 26 Noll, Faces of David, 44. The title of a recent treatment of 1 Sam 16–2 Sam 5 rather proves the point: Short, The Surprising Election and Confirmation of King David. For a slightly idiosyncratic treatment of the David story which also considers the David-­Saul election question to be central to the narrative, see Flanagan, David’s Social Drama, 241 and 270ff., who sees the struggle mediated by the image of the ‘house’. Borgman, David, Saul and God, 211–19, reads David’s insistence on his own innocence (22:24) within the so-­called Samuel appendix (chs. 21–24) as a clue that God chooses David over Saul, not because David never sins, but because he readily recognizes his sin and repents of it before even being confronted with it (ch. 24). While the including of chs. 21–24 within the story of David is to be welcomed, Borgman’s treatment of these chapters, rather than 1 Kgs 1–2, as the ‘conclusion’ to the David story feels rather too convenient for his thesis. 27 Alter, The David Story. For more recent commentators who also see the books of Samuel as primarily about David, see Auld, I & II Samuel, 1–2; and Green, David’s Capacity for Compassion. By contrast, Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 43–5, suggests that the books of Samuel are more about monarchy than merely David. 28 Alter, The David Story, xix–­xxi. While Alter views biblical scholars’ framing of why David’s story was written and what interests it served as reductionist, he does suggest that prior to the Deuteronomistic editors getting their hands on it, the story of David was simply written to provide a reliable account of the founding of the kingdom. 29  See also Baden, The Historical David, for a treatment which echoes the approach of McKenzie; and see Wright, David, King of Israel, for the unexpected use of the notion of ‘war memorial’ as a means of making sense of the biblical (and historical) David along with Caleb, whose paths in the Hebrew Bible both pass through Hebron.

Introduction  7 Halpern and McKenzie set out in search of the David of history and both conclude that the latter is rather different from the David of Samuel and Kings. Allowing for later additions (including Solomon’s succession by the hand of the Deuteronomist), McKenzie divides the David traditions in these books into two parts along the broadly recognizable lines of David’s rise (1 Sam 16–2 Sam 5:3) and his reign (2 Sam 5:4–1 Kgs 2).30 However, while McKenzie exhumes a more ‘historical’ and rather less attractive David by frequently reading against the grain of the biblical traditions, he does largely treat them as a whole. In doing so, McKenzie sees the tendency to defend David in the history of David’s rise also reflected in the account of David’s reign in the remainder of 2 Samuel and 1 Kgs 1–2. This tendency McKenzie sees as complicated only slightly by the later add­ ition of the Bathsheba affair to explain Absalom’s rebellion as a punishment.31 Halpern too understands the David traditions as containing two stories. However, Halpern’s two stories are not those of David’s rise and reign respectively, but rather two separate accounts of David with differing perspectives (called simply A and B) which have been woven together to produce the story of David as we now find it. Nevertheless, like McKenzie, Halpern’s interest in David’s story as a whole in Samuel and 1 Kings (in addition to his own ‘Tale of Two Stories’) is made clear from his title and the extended treatment of ‘David’s History in the Books of Samuel’ which he offers at the outset of his study.32 The exploration of David’s story as a whole and in its ‘final form’ in Samuel and Kings has persisted even amongst those who are also and perhaps more interested in the compositional history of the David story.33 This may be seen in the still more recent work of two other eminent David scholars, Walter Dietrich and John Van Seters. Dietrich, one of the most prominent and prolific exponents of a redaction critical approach to the traditions about David, believes that what we have now in the books of Samuel and 1 Kings is the result of a long process of collection, expansion, and revision of sources beginning in the earliest period of the monarchy.34 Indeed, Dietrich now sees a large collection of texts comprising a ‘narrative opus’ as having existed prior to the work of the Deuteronomistic editor. Running from the beginning of 1 Samuel to 1 Kgs 12, Dietrich’s ‘maximal’ narrative collection includes the traditions of Saul and Solomon, but it has at its heart the traditions about David. It is worth noting, however, that in Dietrich’s view, this collection was sufficiently complete and coherent already in its pre-­exilic form to allow for a ‘holistic appreciation of the present text, its poetic structure 30 McKenzie, King David, 25–46. 31  See also Whitelam, ‘The Defence of David’ (and n. 18 above). 32 Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 14–53. 33  In addition to the theories of Dietrich and Van Seters, see e.g. Auld, I & II Kings, 9–14, for a concise summary of his alternative theory of the present text’s origins and development—­a theory reflected in the commentary as a whole and worked out more fully in Auld, Kings without Privilege. 34 Dietrich, The Early Monarchy, 262–316, sets out his basic understanding of the sources and their redaction and his assessment of their characterization of Israel, God, and David.

8  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt and its content’—not least in relation to David.35 For Dietrich, following the finishing touches of a pro-­Davidic redactor, the portrait of David as he rises to power is positively glowing and only slightly tarnished as he reigns and is eventually succeeded.36 While Van Seters disavows the extensive and multiple redactional layers detected by Dietrich, he does share Dietrich’s interest in how the narratives about David came to be as we have them now.37 It is clear that Van Seters also shares Rost’s enthusiasm for the unity and artistry of what Van Seters would call the Court History. However, Van Seters is happy to abandon the ‘History of David’s Rise’ in favour of offering, as Halpern does, his own ‘Tale of Two Stories’ of David, which he too labels, ‘Account A’ and ‘Account B’. Van Seters’ Account A—­part of an earl­ ier and larger Deuteronomistic history—­is basically positive in its portrayal of David, coinciding in extent with Wellhausen’s first story of David’s rise (1 Sam 16–2 Sam 8). However, Van Seters’ earlier and happier portrait of David is much slimmer than Wellhausen’s. This is because large parts of it (e.g. 1 Sam 17, 1 Sam 25, etc.) are seen by Van Seters as belonging instead to his second story, Account B, which includes these and the Court History (2 Sam 9–20 and 1 Kgs 1–2) as part of the Deuteronomistic story’s radical revision in the Persian period. Yet, if Van Seters’ presentation seems at first glance to perpetuate the ‘Tale of Two Stories’ of David,38 he too is deeply concerned with the final form of the story of David as a whole, which he christens the ‘David Saga’ on analogy with later Icelandic texts. According to Van Seters, in the hands of the Saga’s author, David’s character and family are heavily tarnished in order to impress upon later readers how dangerous and undesirable a revival of the Davidic kingdom would be in their own time.39

What is the David Story About? What becomes clear from this all-­too-­brief survey is that the story of David as a whole has been increasingly the object of scholarly investigation,40 even amongst those whose interests are also in the stories of David they find within it or behind 35 Dietrich, The Early Monarchy, 27. 36 Dietrich, The Early Monarchy, 309–14. 37  Van Seters, Biblical Saga. For a good illustration of helpful work on the compositional history of the David traditions, see the essays in Bezzel and Kratz, David in the Desert. 38  See Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 361–3, for a convenient summary of the contents of his Account A (Dtr History of David) and Account B (added to A by its author who was finally responsible for the Saga). While Van Seters’ two tales no longer simply follow each other like the ‘History of David’s Rise’ and the ‘Court History/Succession Narrative’ do, he still offers a tale of two stories of David—­one positive and negative—­now not divided primarily by sequences of events (rise and reign), but by their ideological (for and against) and historical (earlier and later) perspectives on David. 39  Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 345–60. 40 For a more recent example of the interest in the ‘David narrative’, see Fleming, ‘Casting Aspersions’.

Introduction  9 it. Yet, while we have already seen that considerable effort has been invested in discerning the themes of these subsidiary stories of David, with a few exceptions, rather less progress seems to have been made in answering the question: what is the story of David, as a whole, about? The most obvious answer to this question might seem to be that the story is about ‘David’—whose entrance in 1 Samuel marks the beginning of his story and whose exit in 1 Kings marks its end. However, it is clear that ‘David’ is a much better answer to the question ‘who is the story about?’ or perhaps even ‘who/what is the subject of the story?’. To suggest instead that David’s story is about David’s rise, reign, and succession might seem equally unexceptionable. Yet, again, while this summary captures what the story of David is about at the level of plot, it begs the question what the story of David is really about at a deeper level? It is at this point that we begin to grapple with the question of theme.41 Indeed, Rost recognized as much when he famously argued that the Succession Narrative’s ‘theme (thema) is the question (frage): “Who will sit on David’s throne?” ’.42 As we have seen, many since have been persuaded that 2 Sam 9–20 and 1 Kgs 1–2 are about rather more than merely succession and that this is even more true of the wider story of David. However, most would acknowledge not only the value of considering what lies behind or above the plot of this part of David’s story, but also the theoretical possibility that succession is one of the themes which does so. That a story which is composed of multiple sources, as David’s surely is, might have more than one theme, seems rather likely. Indeed, this is recognized by David Clines in relation to the Pentateuch, even if he insists that one theme must be primary and others subsumed within it.43 This latter assumption is less evident in Gunn’s treatment of David’s story, which also argues for an overarching theme of the ‘giving and grasping’ of the kingdom, without explicitly insisting on its priority or primacy.44 Indeed, it seems probable that the story of David as a whole might be about a variety of things at a thematic level, including, for instance, ‘relinquishing and receiving’ (Brueggeman’s variation on Gunn’s theme), as well as ‘knowledge’ (so Noll and Alter). If so, it might be useful to think of assertions of the priority of a particular theme as answering not merely the question what is the story of David really about, but rather which of a variety of themes is this story more about? 41  Theoretical discussions of ‘theme’ are few and far between in biblical studies. For exceptions to the rule, see Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 19–26; and Mettinger, The Eden Narrative, 42–7. For a theoretical discussion of theme in terms of ‘aboutness’, see Prince, Narrative as Theme, 1–5. 42 Rost, The Succession, 89. For a helpful summary of demurrals and the range of alternative suggestions of the theme of these chapters up to the late seventies, see Gunn, Story of King David, 135, n. 46; and more recently, Hill, ‘ “Leaving” Concubines’, 136–7, n. 38. 43 Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 22–3. 44 Gunn, Story of King David, 136, n. 55, explicitly follows Rost in equating ‘theme’ with the idea of ‘aboutness’. As we have seen, Noll, Faces of David, articulates the theme of ‘knowledge and understanding’ in a form akin to Gunn, but also seems to see a central question (‘Why has Yahweh rejected Saul and chosen David?’) as thematic.

10  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Certainly, such a question makes some sense at the level of character, as most would agree that the story of David is more about David than it is about, for instance, Mephibosheth, or even more significant characters like Absalom. So too at the level of plot, the story of David as we find it in Samuel and 1 Kings seems to be more about David’s struggle to rise, retain, and pass on the throne than it is about, say, his playing of the lyre, of which we read only a bit, or his shepherding of the flocks, about which we hear even less. So, it does not seem unreasonable that a thematic analysis which recognizes the possibility or probability of multiple themes, might still ask: which one of these themes is the story of David more about? And how might we determine this?45 In answer to these questions, it seems reasonable to suggest that the more evidence of the theme which may be found in the narrative, the more important it is likely to be.46 So too, the importance of a theme might also be suggested by where it appears—­especially if it is referenced in prominent parts of the narrative and at its close.47 Yet Clines is surely right to insist that the most important theme is not merely the one that appears most frequently or prominently, but also the one that ‘most adequately accounts for the content, structure and development of the work’.48 Indeed, the recognition of the importance of theme for a work’s narrative development chimes with the recognition that a theme is concretized through its representation in the action of a work, as well as in the persons and images which populate it.49 We will see that the theme of illegitimate bloodshed traced in the present study would seem to be reflected in all of these. That being said, our ex­pos­ition of it is very much offered in the spirit of both Clines and Gunn’s themes—­as an invitation to readers to judge for themselves to what extent it ‘fits’ the story of David.50 Before explaining how this theme will be traced here, it is important to note the ways in which this work intersects with and builds upon previous studies related to it.

45  So Chatman, ‘On the Notion of Theme’, 174–5. 46 Chatman, ‘On the Notion of Theme’, 174–5, refers to ‘redundancy’, Mettinger, The Eden Narrative, 46, to ‘recurrence of manifestation’ (see also Prince, Narrative as Theme, 6). 47  With reference to the latter, Chatman, ‘On the Notion of Theme’, 174–5, speaks of ‘closure’ (see also Mettinger, The Eden Narrative, 46). 48 Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 20. Clines makes clear that by ‘development’ he does not mean the ‘growth’ of the text as posited by historical/redaction critics. 49  Holman, Thrall, and Hibbard, A Handbook to Literature, 508. 50 Gunn, Story of King David, 88, explains the process in terms of a reader testing the theory (or theme) by ‘ “trying it on for size” in his or her reading’. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 23, speaks of a process of ‘trial and error’ and examining ‘likely candidates’. Some earlier suggestions of themes are based on only part of David’s story (e.g. Rost, Gunn, and even Morrison, 2 Samuel, 5–9, whose otherwise appealing theme of divine deliverance seems not to include the end of David’s story in 1 Kings). Themes identified by others (e.g. Damrosch, Alter, Brueggeman) would benefit from fuller and more detailed demonstration, while still others (Green, David’s Capacity) seem less persuasive to this reader (see Shepherd, ‘Review’; and Morrison, ‘Review’).

Introduction  11

The David Story and Bloodguilt Given how frequently the language of ‘blood(s)’ appears in the David story, it is not surprising that it has attracted the attention of those scholars, however few in number, who have concerned themselves with ‘bloodguilt’ generally in the Hebrew Bible. The first serious and specific study of the subject, by Edwin Merz in Germany during the early years of the First World War, ranges widely across the canon, but draws regularly upon traditions associated with David, including many of those explored in the present study.51 No less than the present one, Merz’s work was a product of its own time, confident both in its Wellhausian understanding of the evolution of Israelite religion and in the direct relevance of later Middle Eastern culture for the interpretation of blood vengeance in the Hebrew Bible.52 Moreover, Merz’s desire to cover the breadth of the canon’s witness to these traditions, when combined with the brevity of his book, precluded the kind of detailed treatment which passages within the David story will receive here.53 Nevertheless, Merz’s mining of the traditions of bloodguilt associated with David, offers important ore for the present work, even if, as will become clear, such ore may need refining at various points.54 Further appreciation of passages from the David story for the understanding of ‘bloodguilt’ in the Hebrew Bible is to be found in Johannes Pedersen’s magisterial Israel: Its Life and Culture, the first volume of which appeared only a few years after Merz’s work.55 In his short treatment, Pedersen, like Merz, only turns to legal traditions after beginning with narrative passages, including especially 2 Sam 2–3 (Asahel, Abner, and Joab), 13–14 (the Tekoite woman and Absalom), and 21 (the Gibeonite episode). While Pedersen’s work as a whole consciously resists the Wellhausian evolutionary understanding of Israelite religious thought

51 Merz, Die Blutrache, discusses passages in the following chapters associated with David in connection with bloodguilt/blood vengeance: 1 Sam 25, 31; 2 Sam 3, 4, 12, 13, 16, 18, 21; 1 Kgs 1, 2. 52 Merz, Die Blutrache, 3, cites, for instance: Eickhoff, Über die Blutrache; and Procksch, Über die Blutrache, drawing heavily on the latter for comparison and on Wellhausen’s understanding of the history of Israelite religion. 53  In the space of a mere 137 pages, Merz covers not only various passages drawn from the books of the Former Prophets (especially, Judges and 1 and 2 Samuel), but also material from the legal corpora including Exodus, but especially Numbers and Deuteronomy. 54  So, for instance, while the present study will have the luxury of a far more detailed analysis of 2 Sam 21:1–14, Merz, Die Blutrache, 82, suggests that the sparing of Rizpah from blood vengeance hints that the question of vulnerability to blood vengeance here (and elsewhere) is gendered. See also from around this time, Buttenwieser, ‘Blood Revenge’, whose comparison of Greek and Hebrew traditions regarding bloodguilt and discussions of 2 Sam 21 and Job 16:18 are rather compromised by source critical assumptions regarding the biblical traditions and too great a dependence on later Arab traditions. For more on 2 Sam 21, see below, Chapter 8. 55  Published in Danish as Israel: Sjæleliv og samfundsliv, vols. I–­II by Branner in 1920, and then in English in 1926 by Oxford University Press.

12  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt and practice,56 like Merz, he sees the witness to blood vengeance in these narratives as reflecting earlier tribal traditions which are eventually superseded by later legal provisions.57 Pedersen’s interest in the psychological aspects of these narratives allows him to draw useful insights (especially in relation to blood vengeance within the family). But he deals with even fewer passages than Merz and, in some cases, reverts to the kind of conventional readings which more attention to the language of ‘blood(s)’ elsewhere in the David stories might have allowed him to challenge.58 Finally, interest in the problem of bloodguilt in the David story may be found more recently in Catherine Sider Hamilton’s study of innocent blood in Matthew’s account of the death of Jesus.59 Sider Hamilton rightly and helpfully situates innocent blood in Matthew (e.g. 27:25) against the backdrop of interest in this notion in Second Temple and Rabbinic literature. In doing so, she is inevitably drawn back to texts and traditions of the Hebrew Bible concerned with ‘innocent blood’, including especially those associated with Cain and Abel (Gen 4) and Zechariah (2 Chron 24:25).60 However, given Matthew’s interest in Jesus as the son of David (e.g. 1:1, 1:9, 9:27, etc.), it is not surprising that Sider Hamilton also considers passages from 2 Samuel, including 2 Sam 11–12 and its account of David’s shedding of Uriah’s innocent blood.61 Here again, while Sider Hamilton’s thematic approach is helpful, her interest in Matthew understandably prevents her from attending to the significance of innocent blood in David’s story as a whole.

The David Story and Retribution Interest in the language of ‘blood(s)’ in the stories about David and his house also appears in discussions regarding retribution in the Hebrew Bible—­a debate prompted by Klaus Koch, whose work is indebted at least in part to Pedersen.62 Responding to what he perceived to be the misplaced assumption that ‘retribution’ in the Hebrew Bible was inextricably theological and juridical, Koch suggests rather that positive and negative consequences follow naturally and largely 56  See, for instance, James Strange’s introduction (pp. vi–­vii) to the reprint of Pedersen’s work published by Scholars Press in 1991. 57 Pedersen, Israel, 397–400. The development proposed by Pedersen is, indeed, at least as vulnerable to critique as that associated with Graf and Wellhausen. 58  Thus, Pedersen, Israel, 409, reverts to the assumption that David’s rehabilitation of Absalom represents the kind of wisdom which will be bestowed upon Solomon. For our discussion, see Chapter 6 below. 59  Sider Hamilton, The Death of Jesus. 60  Sider Hamilton, The Death of Jesus, 45–180. 61  Sider Hamilton, The Death of Jesus, 197–200 and 22 (Ps 51). See also 10–11 (2 Sam 1:16 and 3:28–29) and 60 (2 Sam 21). 62  See Koch, ‘Vergeltungsdogma’, and, in English, ‘Doctrine of Retribution’, 77, for his dependence on Pedersen.

Introduction  13 mechanistically from human actions. Thus, Koch notes that on many occasions when God is associated with such consequences, it is simply to hasten or allow the completion of the natural act-­consequence nexus.63 In addition to buttressing his argument heavily with passages from Proverbs, Koch also draws upon Hosea 4:1–3. There the prophet sees ‘bloodguilt’ as leading to the mourning of the land and the disappearance of the animals, but without obviously implying God’s active intervention or punishment.64 So too in Lamentations (4:13), Koch suggests that the shedding of the ‘blood of the righteous’ seems sufficient in and of itself to lead to the nation’s downfall, without requiring or even implying divine involvement.65 Koch suggests further that in Ps 38:5 [ET 4] and 40:13 [ET 12], the power exerted by one’s sins is not visited upon the sinner by God as a consequence, but simply weighs ‘upon a person’s own head’. In responding to Koch, Henning Graf Reventlow’s interest in this formulaic language leads him to the stories of David and Solomon. He argues with some justification that Koch’s thesis is rather undermined when Solomon steels Benaiah’s resolve to take Joab’s life by reassuring him that ‘the LORD will bring back his blood upon his head’ (1 Kgs 2:32). Indeed, Reventlow suggests that Yahweh’s intimate involvement in ensuring that Joab’s bloodletting is revisited upon him is supported by Shimei’s invocation of the LORD in cursing David (2 Sam 16:8).66 Moreover, whether Solomon acts in his capacity as king or as a private citizen, Reventlow maintains that the context and language imply a pro­ ced­ure which is juridical and punitive in nature and inextricably bound up with the demands of the law/cult.67 With Reventlow’s response depending heavily on passages from Samuel, Koch’s surrejoinder inevitably also turns to the stories of David. In the case of Solomon in 1 Kgs 2, Koch is forced to admit that the language of the LORD returning blood on one’s head does require that the divine agent be understood as at least a ‘co-­executor’ (mitvollstrecker) in certain cases.68 Nevertheless, perhaps pre­dict­ ably, Koch prefers to emphasize that the guilty party is somehow haunted by their bloodshed in a manner which requires little by way of active divine involvement or juridical process.69 This he sees as proven by the case of Saulide bloodguilt (2 Sam 21), David’s cursing of Joab (2 Sam 3:28–29), and by Solomon’s insistence that the blood shed by Joab attaches itself to his belt and shoes (1 Kgs 2:5). Driven as they are by their prior interest in the wider phenomenon of retribution, it is understandable that Koch and Reventlow’s engagement with the language of ‘blood(s)’ in the David story is even more limited than what was offered

63  Koch, ‘Vergeltungsdogma’. 64  Koch, ‘Doctrine of Retribution’, 67. 65  Koch, ‘Doctrine of Retribution’, 70. 66  Reventlow, ‘Sein Blut’, 323. 67  Reventlow, ‘Sein Blut’, 320. 68  Koch, ‘ “Sein Blut” ’, 414. 69  Koch, ‘ “Sein Blut” ’, 405–8.

14  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt by Pedersen and Merz.70 Nevertheless, their exchange in the middle of the twentieth century underlines the importance of passages in the David story for an appreciation of retribution generally and the notion of ‘bloodguilt’ within the Hebrew Bible.71 Indeed, their interrogation of these passages and attempts to enlist them in defence of their own contrasting views of retribution highlights the variegated and complex nature of the evidence. But it also raises important questions regarding the relationship between the language of ‘blood(s)’ and the divine in the David story—­questions which, amongst others, the present study will seek to explore.

The David Story and Homicide Later on in the twentieth century, interest in what the language of ‘blood(s)’ in the David story might tell us about retribution gives way to consideration of what it might reveal about the legalities of killing. This shift is well-­illustrated by Henry McKeating’s influential article on the development of the homicide law in ancient Israel.72 For McKeating, passages in the David stories illustrate an understanding that the consequences of ‘blood(s)’ supernaturally attach themselves to ‘persons and their families’.73 If this sounds rather like Koch, McKeating’s analysis is in fact much more interested in the increasingly juridical system of dealing with homicide. He acknowledges the value of ‘supernatural’ sanctions for dealing with il­legit­im­ate bloodshed in a largely clan-­based system. But he also argues that even in the David stories, such a system shows signs of modification towards more formal mechanisms including especially the involvement of the king.74 McKeating thus sees in the prohibition of monetary compensation for murder, in Num 35:31, the same awareness and superseding of an ‘older’ system found in the Gibeonites’ demand for Saulide blood rather than payment in 2 Sam 21:4.75 Indeed, McKeating’s fresh analysis of 2 Sam 21:1–14 claims to find evidence of a com­bin­ ation of both a judicial notion of homicide and a sacral (and for him, Canaanite) notion of a bloodguilt which pollutes the land.76 McKeating’s attention to the roles of God, kin, and king in dealing with bloodguilt in the David stories is useful,

70  In responding to Reventlow, Koch, ‘ “Sein Blut” ’, 410–11, does eventually draw upon the earlier work of Merz, though it offers little help to him in responding to the critique of Reventlow. 71  See Gilmour, Divine Violence, 27, n. 17, for a recent summary of subsequent discussion; and also Shemesh, ‘Measure for Measure’, who refers to passages in which ‘blood(s)’ language features in order to illustrate the pervasiveness of the retributive principle in human and divine actions in David’s story. 72  McKeating, ‘Homicide’. 73 McKeating, ‘Homicide’, 59, who shows no awareness here of the work of either Koch or Reventlow. 74  McKeating, ‘Homicide’, 52. 75  McKeating, ‘Homicide’, 55. 76  McKeating, ‘Homicide’, 59–62. It is this combination which he identifies and attempts to disentangle in the legal provisions found in Deut 19:10 and 21:1–9.

Introduction  15 as is his acknowledgement of the complexity of the textual evidence. This complexity also illustrates, however, the difficulties in sustaining a neatly legible and linear evolutionary account of the development of mechanisms for dealing with ­illegitimate killing even in the David stories, let alone the Hebrew Bible as a whole. Moreover, while McKeating’s analysis of Saulide ‘bloods’ and the Gibeonites in 2 Sam 21:1–14 is original, his failure to fully appreciate the relevance of ‘blood(s)’ language earlier in the David stories highlights both the limitations of his treatment and the importance of attending to such connections.77 In a more recent monograph on homicide in the Bible, Pamela Barmash is less optimistic than McKeating about our ability to trace the evolution of legal processes in these narratives.78 However, her conviction that law and narrative may be mutually illuminating encourages her to attend to the stories associated with David (1 Kgs 2 and 2 Sam 3, 11–12, and 21).79 For example, in discussing Israelite use of the formulaic language of blood ‘(coming) upon the head’ of either victim or perpetrator, she follows earlier scholars in noting the variable contexts in which this language appears in the David traditions (1 Kgs 2:33, 37; 2 Sam 1:16). Although Barmash’s observations are frequently insightful, the scope of her project understandably affords her few opportunities to scrutinize these in any sustained way or to relate them to each other.80 Thus, while Barmash’s treatment of 2 Sam 21 takes issue with McKeating’s interpretation of this passage, her own might benefit from closer attention to the relationship between this chapter and the constellation of references to ‘blood(s)’ elsewhere in 1 Sam 18–1 Kgs 2.81 Similarly, Barmash’s reflection on the ‘indirectness’ of David’s involvement in the killing of Uriah offers an important insight on which the present study will build, even if the interpretation offered here departs from hers in various ways.82

77  While reaching rather different conclusions on various points, the recent treatment of homicide in Jackson, Wisdom-­Laws, 121–70, bears some resemblance to McKeating’s in seeking to correlate particular narratives associated with David (amongst others) with an evolution of the legal regulation of homicide (which Jackson finds in the history of Exod 21–2). As will become clear, I am less optimistic than Jackson about the extent to which these narratives and the legal material are mutually illuminating. Jackson wisely acknowledges (155–7) that ambiguities remain in David’s reluctance to intervene in the case of the woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14), his proposed resolution of the case, and the question of whether David may pardon or merely protect the woman’s remaining son. Such am­bi­gu­ ities offer encouragement to situate this passage and others within the wider narrative’s interest in bloodguilt—­a strategy which will in turn leave us better positioned to answer some of these questions. 78  While Barmash, Homicide, 71–93, does acknowledge some evolution in the movement from sanctuary asylum to cities of refuge, her analysis of the legal sources of the Pentateuch on the subject convinces her that such change is ‘glacial’ and that the differences between them largely reflect dis­ tinct­ive ideological and theological programmes and emphases (93). 79  A conviction reflected also in Barmash, ‘The Narrative Quandary’. 80 Barmash, Homicide, 34, suggests that David’s killing of Ishbosheth’s killers (2 Sam 4:5–12) and much delayed orchestration of Joab’s execution illustrate the rarity of royal intervention in the administering of justice even within his own court. We will see that this is generally true within the story of David even if the evidence is more complex and extends well beyond these two examples. 81  See below, Chapter 8. 82  See below, Chapter 5.

16  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt A still more recent contribution by Klaus-­Peter Adam shares Barmash’s interest in homicide in the David stories, but also anticipates in some respects the approach to be adopted in the present study. In a way which others have not, Adam helpfully recognizes that an assessment of homicide in the David stories depends on an appreciation of their literary character and their relationship to each other within the wider narrative.83 Admittedly, Adam’s initial cataloguing of episodes relating to homicide and bloodguilt in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings is neither entirely comprehensive84 nor fully appreciative of the importance of the sequence in which they appear.85 However, his subsequent close attention to homicide and bloodguilt in the sequence of 1 Sam 24–26 suggests the value of such an approach. Indeed, in the present study it will be extended beyond these chapters of 1 Samuel into the remainder of 2 Samuel and the opening chapters of 1 Kings. Adam’s greater sensitivity to the ‘situatedness’ of bloodguilt within the wider narrative is very much to be welcomed. However, his primary interest in the legalities (and legal traditions) of homicide still limits his appreciation of the language of ‘blood(s)’ within some of the episodes which he discusses. Thus, for example, while Exod 21:13–14 is undoubtedly concerned with the question of pre­meditation in cases of homicide, it is far from clear that this is the primary concern of the account of Abner’s killing of Asahel in 2 Sam 2:18–24.86 This is not to suggest that the legal traditions, properly understood, can never shed light on narratives or vice-­versa, but rather to underscore the importance of first understanding the narratives in their own right and in relation to each other.

The David Story and Ritual Violence A final but important reference point for the present study is the recent interest in ritual violence in the Hebrew Bible in, for instance, the work of Saul Olyan.87 A collection of essays edited by Olyan seeks to appreciate more fully, the variety of violent rites within the Hebrew Bible, what their settings suggest about their sociopolitical function(s), and what theoretical models might be most useful in assessing them.88 Given the prevalence of violence within the David story, it is not surprising that passages from it feature prominently in various contributions to this volume, including especially those of Debra Scoggins Ballentine and Olyan 83  Adam, ‘Law and Narrative’, 315. 84  2 Sam 21 is passed over perhaps because it is considered part of the appendix. 85  Adam, ‘Law and Narrative’, 315–16, lists passages in sequence from 2 Sam 2, 3, 15, 20 and 1 Kgs 2 as examples of the ‘shaping of characters within the framework of a legal discussion about homicide’ but then brackets out 2 Sam 1:13–16, 4:6, 8b–12a, and 1 Kgs 2:5–6, 28–35, as having specifically to do with David avenging bloodguilt on behalf of Saul or his son, and also relegates the mention of 2 Sam 11–12 and 14 to a subsequent footnote. 86  See Chapter 4 below. 87 Olyan, Biblical Mourning. 88 Olyan, Ritual Violence.

Introduction  17 himself. Scoggins Ballentine’s analysis focuses on 2 Sam 4, in which, as we will see in the present study, two brothers, Rechab and Baanah, kill Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, in his bed. However, when they bring his severed head to David expecting a reward, they are killed for their trouble on David’s order.89 Viewing this narrative through the lens of social anthropologists like David Riches, Scoggins Ballentine suggests that while Ishbosheth’s head is not restored to his body, the proper burial of it nevertheless serves a kind of restorative function. By contrast, the sawing off of the brothers’ hands and feet and post-­mortem exposure of their remains represents an antithetical movement which is viewed negatively by the culture reflected in 2 Samuel.90 Scoggins Ballentine argues that this contrast reflects the narrator’s other efforts to frame the brothers’ killing of Saul’s son as illegitimate and David’s killing of them for it as just, codifying it as a ‘legal and punitive act’.91 While more will be said about this passage in Chapter 4, Scoggins Ballentine helpfully attends to how the violent treatment of the physical body in a particular passage may be freighted with significance and how it must be assessed in light of other com­par­ able passages.92 She also rightly draws attention to questions of legitimation in relation to violence and the efforts of the wider narrative to defend David. In his own essay in the same volume, Olyan also attends to the social significance of ritual violence, considering the range of possible purposes served by the severing of Saul’s head from his body (1 Sam 31). These purposes include offering incontrovertible proof of death, shaming those who were unable to prevent this treatment, and potentially terrorizing defeated populations.93 Olyan also notes that the latter two of these might also be fulfilled by the display of the decapitated Saulide bodies on the wall of Beth-shan, especially if they had been left naked.94 The present study will suggest that it is probably the severed hands and feet (perhaps in addition to the corpses) which are exposed in 2 Sam 4. However, Olyan rightly notes that David’s earlier praise of the Jabesh Gileadites for properly burying Saul’s decapitated corpse (2 Sam 2:4–7) confirms the sociopolitical function of David’s burial of Ishbosheth’s head (2 Sam 4:12) in creating a new connection to the family of Saul.95 In a subsequent monograph, Olyan turns to 1 Sam 22:12–19.96 Here, he notes that Doeg the Edomite first heeds Saul’s command to execute the priests of Nob and then exceeds it under the guise of a massacre similar in many respects to the mass-­eradication ritual of herem.97 For Olyan, Saul’s own servants’ unwillingness to slay the priests (22:17) allows this rite to confirm the Edomite foreigner’s vassalage to Saul in a time of contested allegiances. Olyan 89  Scoggins Ballentine, ‘Ritual Violence’. 90  Scoggins Ballentine, ‘Ritual Violence’, 19. 91  Scoggins Ballentine, ‘Ritual Violence’, 20. 92  Scoggins Ballentine, ‘Ritual Violence’, 13–16. 93  Olyan, ‘Violence against Corpses’. 94  Olyan, ‘Violence against Corpses’, 128. 95  Olyan, ‘Violence against Corpses’, 127. That such a connection is new does not preclude the possibility that it is additional to ones which already bind David to the house of Saul (i.e. marriage as well as David’s covenant with Jonathan). 96 Olyan, Violent Rituals of the Hebrew Bible. 97 Olyan, Violent Rituals of the Hebrew Bible, 96–7.

18  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt also rightly highlights that these killings and more explicit cases of herem (1 Sam 15) are differentiated from human sacrifices by their presentation as ‘punitive’.98 However, the very fact that they are nonetheless coded in both quasi-­sacrificial and punitive terms encourages an attentiveness to the complexity of the violence associated with the problem of ‘blood(s)’ in David’s story. Finally, Olyan’s reflection on Shimei’s cursing of David (2 Sam 16) as a species of ritual violence is salutary, given the prominence of curses in responding to the problem of ‘blood(s)’ in the story of David. Olyan’s topical approach to ritual violence understandably precludes his attention to the range of narratives which are the focus of the present study, but the fact that he touches regularly upon episodes from David’s story highights the relevance of Olyan’s project for the present one. From the above, it seems clear that scholarly interest in the language of ‘blood(s)’ in David’s story has sought to shed light on notions of bloodguilt, retribution, homicide, and ritual violence within the Hebrew Bible more generally. While such contributions have been helpful, the present study seeks instead to consider how the language of ‘blood(s)’ sheds light on the David story as we find it in the books of Samuel and 1 Kings and vice-­versa.

The Approach and Outline of the Book Before proceeding, it is worth acknowledging the limitations of the language typ­ ic­al­ly deployed to translate the Hebrew terms in which we are particularly interested in this study. For example, nowhere in the David story do we find a Hebrew word or phrase literally equivalent to German ‘blutschuld’ or English ‘bloodguilt’. Indeed, the latter terms appear to have been introduced into these languages by Luther and Coverdale (‘bloudegyltynesse’) respectively, as equivalents for the Hebrew plural ‫‘ דמים‬bloods’ from which the Psalmist pleads for deliverance in Ps 51:16 [ET 14].99 Psalm 51’s association of the Hebrew plural ‘bloods’ with David is not surprising given how frequently it appears in the story of David. However, its association with ‘guilt’ still requires an inference.100 Indeed, as we will see, at many points in the story of David, it is far from clear that ‘blood(s)’ does not instead imply something rather more concrete than the kind of abstraction

98 Olyan, Violent Rituals of the Hebrew Bible, 34–5. 99  Indeed, as Bartor, ‘Bloodguilt, Bloodfeud’, 64, acknowledges, such a term is not to be found in the Hebrew Bible at all. 100  So Kedar-­Kopfstein, ‘‫ ָ’דם‬, 236, who cites Ezek 22:2 (‘city of bloods’) and 2 Sam 21:1 (‘house of bloods’), the latter of which will be discussed below. While Kedar-­Kopfstein notes that the plural is never used with reference to the blood of animals, the singular (Lev 17:4) is used to refer to the bloodguilt which seems to be imputed to a person who kills a sacrificial animal, but does not bring the animal as a gift to the LORD before the tabernacle. On this passage, see Gilders, Blood Ritual, 165.

Introduction  19 suggested by ‘guilt’.101 Moreover, the early and explicit referencing of ‘innocent blood’ (‫ ;דם נקי‬1 Sam 19:5) in the David story will raise the possibility that ‘bloods’ (‫ )דמים‬may well be better construed as ‘innocent’ at certain points. For this reason, the singular ‫ דם‬will be typically translated here as ‘blood’ and the plural ‫ דמים‬as ‘bloods’, rather than ‘bloodguilt’. At the same time, we will also be attentive to the interplay of these and other terms in shaping the reader’s understanding of what has often been described as ‘bloodguilt’. Finally, while reference will be made to the many fine English translations available, in order to make the interpretation offered here as clear as possible to the reader, fresh English translations of the texts have been included.102 Predictably, this study will devote considerable attention to the language of ‘blood(s)’ which punctuates the story of David in the latter chapters of 1 Samuel (19:5, 25:26, 31, 33) and at many points in 2 Samuel (1:16, 3:27–28, 4:11, 14:11, 16:7–8, 21:1) and 1 Kings (2:5, 9, 31, 32, 33, 37). However, just as punctuation directs one’s attention to the text it punctuates, so too the appearance of the language of ‘blood(s)’ requires that we attend to the narrative context of these passages, both immediate and less proximate. So, for example, in considering the story of Abigail, Nabal, and David (1 Sam 25), attention to David’s sparing of Saul (1 Sam 24 and 26) is clearly essential to fully appreciate this episode’s contribution to the wider account of David and the problem of unwarranted bloodshed.103 Similarly, while the language of ‘blood(s)’ is invoked by David against Joab after he kills Abner (2 Sam 3), David’s curse there can only be understood properly when Abner’s killing of Asahel in the preceding chapter is considered. Likewise, Shimei’s accusation that David has Saulide ‘bloods’ on his hands (2 Sam 16) invites attention to Shimei’s later plea for clemency from the king (2 Sam 19:17–24 [ET 16–23]) and Shimei’s eventual elimination in 1 Kgs 2. So too, David’s insistence on Joab’s execution (1 Kgs 2:5–6), for killing not only Abner but Amasa, will oblige us to attend to the latter’s death at the hands of David’s general (2 Sam 20:8–12). Finally, the absence of the language of ‘bloods’ in the story of David’s killing of Uriah (2 Sam 11–12) might indicate that it should be excluded from consideration. However, the very conspicuousness of its absence suggests quite the opposite, in light of various other telling features. While a surprising amount of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 Kings 1–2 will turn out to be relevant in tracing the problem of unwarranted bloodshed in David’s story, the present study makes no pretence of offering a commentary on all aspects of the text. While many such commentaries have helpfully noticed the problem of

101  For a thorough analysis of the plural and singular forms of ‫ דם‬and a recognition of the variety of their uses, see Christ, Blutvergiessen. 102  Verses are numbered according to the Hebrew text with English versification [ET] included where it differs. 103  See below, Chapter 2.

20  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt ‘bloodguilt’,104 the usual division of labour means that few commentators have both 1 and 2 Samuel within their purview. Moreover, even fewer commentators include 1 Kgs 1–2, and none have the luxury of tracing a single theme as will be done here.105 Perhaps because the Hebrew text of Samuel is often fraught with difficulties, there has been much fine work done recently on the Greek version in particular.106 For this reason, the present study will attend especially to the Greek and the Qumran witnesses to the Hebrew text(s) of Samuel, where these versions seem to point towards a more original text than the one offered by the Hebrew of the so-­ called Masoretic Text (hereafter MT).107 Indeed, such attention will suggest the need for a separate and fuller study than may be attempted here of how our theme is treated in the versions. In considering ‘blood(s)’ in the story of David, a variety of questions will be considered: First, whose blood is seen to be ‘innocent’ and in what sense? Who encourages the shedding of this blood and who discourages it? By whom is blood shed without warrant and with whose assistance? In what way is ‘bloods’ problematic and for whom? Is unwarranted bloodshed presented as impious, imprudent, polluting, or problematic in some other way? Another set of questions relate to consequences: What if any consequences follow from unwarranted bloodshed? By whom are these consequences feared or by whom are they to be endured? What is done to avoid these consequences? A third group of questions relate to potential remedies: Once unwarranted blood is shed, what does the narrative suggest may be done to fix the problem? Who, if anyone, does or doesn’t attempt to solve the problem? Finally, how do the answers to the above questions remain the same or change as the reader moves through the narrative? In seeking to answer these questions, Chapters 1–4 of this book argue that David’s rise at Saul’s expense is predicated on his ability to avoid the problem of unwarranted bloodshed. David avoids this problem first by successfully resisting

104  We will see that virtually all commentators recognize the relevance of bloodguilt to the David story at particular points. However, some have also noted in passing its recurrence and significance within parts of 2 Samuel (e.g. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 278) and indeed the David narratives as a whole (see e.g. Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 136, n. 6; Alter, The David Story, xiv). The intuition of Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 474, that bloodguilt is ‘a significant theme [ein grosses Thema] in the books of Samuel’ is corroborated by the present study. 105  Nevertheless, the fullness of the references to the commentaries and studies in the footnotes is intended to allow the reader to feel the weight of scholarly opinion at various points. 106  In this study, LXX will be used to refer to the Greek version, with MS traditions specified as follows: LXXA = Alexandrinus, LXXB = Vaticanus, LXXM = Coislinianus, LXXN = Basiliano-­Vaticanus, LXXL = Lucianic text. 107  For useful and recent state of the art summaries and bibliographies on LXX and its traditions in 1–3 Kingdoms, see e.g. Hugo, ‘1–2 Kingdoms (1–2 Samuel)’; and Law, ‘3–4 Kingdoms (1–2 Kings)’. For commentaries particularly attentive to the Greek text(s) of Samuel and the Qumran witnesses (1QSam 1, 4QSama–­c), see McCarter, I Samuel; idem, II Samuel; and, more recently Auld, I & II Samuel; for the Greek texts in 1 Kings, see Montgomery, Kings; and more recently Sweeney, I & II Kings.

Introduction  21 the temptation to shed blood without sufficient cause in the case of Saul (1 Sam 24, 26) and Nabal (1 Sam 25). David then executes an Amalekite, as well as Rechab and Baanah, all of whom he adjudges to have yielded to this temptation. However, when David fails to execute his nephew Joab for shedding Abner’s blood without sufficient cause, both David and the reader are invited to fear that Abner’s ‘blood(s)’ will haunt David and his house. Chapter 5 suggests that David’s fear of adding to this problem prompts him to directly and illegitimately contrive to take Uriah’s life by means of warfare with the Ammonites. In doing so, David manages to avoid ‘blood(s)’ and escape with his life, but he cannot elude the divine judgement which portends immediate and eternal consequences for David and his house. In Chapter 6, it is argued that these consequences begin to follow immediately when David’s son Absalom incurs ‘blood(s)’. Absalom kills Amnon without sufficient cause and flees to avoid the execution which David sees as required to prevent these ‘blood(s)’ too from haunting David’s house. David is finally persuaded by Joab to leave the remedy of Amnon’s ‘blood(s)’ to divine vengeance, as David has already done in the case of Abner’s blood. However, Chapter  7 argues that the ‘sword’ of armed violence promised in 2 Sam 12 afflicts David’s house in earnest when Absalom goes to war against his father. It will be suggested that Joab’s killing of Absalom solves the problem of Amnon’s ‘bloods’ for David. Nevertheless, David’s encounters with Shimei are a reminder of the problem of Saulide ‘blood(s)’ posed by the tendency of Zeruiah’s sons to kill without sufficient cause—­a point further illustrated by Joab’s slaying of Amasa in cold blood. In Chapter 8, we see the seriousness of the threat posed to David and his house by such killings. Unremedied ‘bloods’ incurred by Saul’s earlier illegitimate slaying of Gibeonites leads to the devastation of David’s land and eventually to the death of seven descendants of Saul in order to remedy the problem. Here, we see that Rizpah’s subversion of David’s effort to expiate the Gibeonite ‘bloods’ leads David to repatriate the bones of Saul and Jonathan as a suitable substitute and to demonstrate his own concern for Saulides. Chapter 9 argues that David seeks to address the problem of innocent blood at his succession by ordering Solomon to both eliminate ‘blood(s)’ in executing Joab and avoid them in eliminating Shimei. Solomon duly obliges in the hope that solving the problem of David’s ‘blood(s)’ and avoiding incurring ‘blood(s)’ of his own will ensure peace forever for his kingdom. In the final chapter, some concluding reflections are offered on the problem of innocent blood in David’s story. Here, the nature and importance of the problem within the story as a whole are considered, along with the question of why it might be so prominent.

1 ‘Innocent Blood’: 1 Sam 16–22 It will eventually become clear that 1 Sam 24–26 and the opening chapters of 2 Samuel (1–4) are very much animated by the narrative’s interest in David and issues of illegitimate bloodshed. This chapter, however, will consider the emer­ gence of David in the court of Saul and the king’s mounting efforts to eliminate him. We will see that when Jonathan confronts his father over his desire to kill David, the mention of ‘innocent blood’ (1 Sam 19:5) offers an important hint regarding the narrative to come. Indeed, it will become clear why David’s later efforts to avoid ‘blood(s)’ cannot be understood without first attending to Saul’s pursuit of David and the execution of the priests of Nob.

The Sparing of David The suggestion that David and Saul have been set on an inevitable collision course by Samuel and the LORD becomes clear at the end of 1 Sam 15: 35And

Samuel did not see Saul again until the day he died, but Samuel mourned Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel. 16 1The LORD said to Samuel, ‘How long will you mourn Saul, now that I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go. I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have chosen for myself a king from among his sons.’ 2But Samuel said, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears of it, he will kill me.’ And the LORD said, ‘Take a heifer with you and say, “I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.” ’ (1 Sam 15:35–16:2)

Here, in the space of three short verses, the narrative confirms for the reader both the divine rejection of Saul as king (cf. 1 Sam 13:14) and Saul’s replacement on the throne by one of the sons of Jesse. The foreshadowing of the end of Saul (v. 35) and the mention of Samuel’s grief (vv. 35, 16:1)1 hints that Saul is, for the pur­ poses of the monarchy at least, ‘dead’ to Samuel. However, Samuel’s reticence to

1  While the hithpa’el of ‫ אבל‬may refer to David’s mourning of the loss of Absalom when he flees to Geshur (2 Sam 13:37, see Chapter 6 below), elsewhere in the books of Samuel it is used to refer to mourning the dead (e.g. David for Absalom [2 Sam 19:1 (ET 18:33)], the woman of Tekoa for her fictitious dead son [2 Sam 14:2] and the people for the dead of Beth Shemesh [1 Sam 6:19]). King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0002

24  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt proceed to Bethlehem without reassurance confirms the perception of both Samuel and the reader that Saul might be willing to exert lethal force to prevent the anointing of his successor. Whether the divine response and instructions which follow (v. 2) acknowledge or ignore Samuel’s concern, the reader is presumably invited to assume that Samuel’s anointing of David (1 Sam 16:13) remains unknown, at least to Saul. After all, when the already anointed David is subsequently summoned to court to play for the king to alleviate the effects of a ‘harmful spirit’ (1 Sam 16:14, 15, 16),2 Saul is reported as ‘loving David greatly’ (1 Sam 16:21).3 Indeed, instead of killing David, Saul insists that he remain in his service because of his success in provid­ ing a musical antidote to the spirit which so troubles the king (v. 23). However, the Israelite women’s serenading of David for killing Goliath ‘the Philistine’ leads to a change of sentiment in Saul. Saul’s ‘great anger’ (18:8) at the eulogizing of David is accompanied by the king’s fear (vv. 12, 15) that his king­ dom will fall to him as well (v. 8) due to the latter’s success (‫ ;שכל‬vv. 5, 14, 15) and popularity with the people. While the troubling spirit merely facilitates David’s presence,4 it is Saul’s fear which prompts him to lash out with the kind of violence which Samuel had feared Saul might direct at him, but is now unleashed against David, the usurper Samuel has anointed. The use of Saul’s hand for violent purposes seems to be intentionally presented as a contrast to David’s peaceful use of his hand on the lyre (1 Sam 18:10).5 Admittedly, Saul’s lashing out with the spear is less than surprising given his earl­ ier association with such a weapon (1 Sam 13:22).6 Rather more curious, however, is Saul’s desire to use the spear in his hand to ‘pin’ (‫ )אכה‬David to ‘the wall’ (‫;בקיר‬ v. 11).7 The image conjured here of David—­dead or soon to be so—­affixed to a wall, bears a striking resemblance to the picture the narrative will offer of the dead bodies of Saul (1 Sam 31:10) and his sons (v. 12), who will also be affixed to a wall.8 This later display of the dead Saul and his sons will turn out to be a detail of some significance. But the implication here that Saul seeks to do to David what will eventually be done to him is also noteworthy. Indeed, it is the first of a series of hints that the fates of the two are violently intertwined and that Saul’s desire to kill David will not merely fail, but will backfire. Moreover, in suggesting that 2  It seems unlikely to be a coincidence that the arrival of the ‘troubling spirit’ coincides with the departure of the ‘spirit of the LORD’ from Saul (v. 14) and its possession of David (v. 15). 3  Though it is not impossible that it is David who loves Saul greatly instead. For the homoerotic interpretation of Saul’s love for David in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, see Shepherd and Johnson, David Fragments, 151–63. 4  See also Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel. Chapman, I Samuel, 160, sees Saul’s in­se­cur­ ity and jealousy as inviting the visitation of the troubling spirit. 5  ‘While David played the harp with his hand (‫ )בידו‬day by day, Saul’s hand (‫ )יד־שאול‬was on his spear’ (1 Sam 18:10). 6  So Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 424. 7  While the verb does not typically imply penetration per se, it is surely implied here by the use of the prepositional phrase when the spear goes ‘into the wall’ (‫ )בקיר‬instead of into the agile David. 8  As noted by Chapman, 1 Samuel, 161.

‘ Innocent Blood ’   25 David eluded Saul twice (1 Sam 18:11), the narrative points forward to this ­second, virtually identical and equally futile, attempt by Saul to kill David with his own spear (cf. 19:9–10).9 In emphasizing Saul’s efforts to kill David with his own hand, it is notable that these attempts on David’s life are presented as acts of passion, prompted by the coincidence of the troubling spirit and David himself in the royal vicinity. However, it is not long before the reader is offered another, quite different, pic­ ture of Saul’s efforts to end David’s life, in which the king’s methods appear more cold and calculated. Having noted Saul’s fearful envy of David, the narrator recounts Saul’s offer of his daughter to David and his intention in making it: 17Then

Saul said to David, ‘Here is my elder daughter Merab. I will give her to you as a wife. Only be brave for me and fight the battles of the LORD.’ For Saul thought, ‘My hand will not be against him. Instead let the hand of the Philistines be against him.’ 18And David said to Saul, ‘Who am I and who are my kin, my father’s clan in Israel, that I should be a son-­in-­law of the king?’ 19But at the time when Merab, the daughter of Saul, should have been given to David, she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife. 20Now Saul’s daughter Michal loved David. And they told Saul and this pleased him. 21Saul thought, ‘Let me give her to him, so she may be a snare for him and the hand of the Philistines may be against him.’ So Saul said to David a second time, ‘You will now be my son-­in-­ law.’. . . 25Then Saul said, ‘Say this to David, ‘The king wishes for no bride-­price except a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to avenge himself against the king’s enemies.’ Now Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. (1 Sam 18:17‒21, 25)

Three times over the course of nine verses in 1 Sam 18, the narrative lays bare Saul’s intentions in offering to David two of his daughters, first Merab and then Michal. Evidently, Saul wishes to employ the ‘hand of the Philistines’ (‫;יד־פלשתים‬ vv. 17, 21, 25) against his young rival.10 Indeed, as verse 25 makes clear, Saul’s plan is not merely that David will fall into their hand (i.e. be delivered into their power), but rather that the hand of the Philistines will be used to cause David to ‘fall’. That this turn of phrase implies lethal force is suggested not only by its usage elsewhere in the books of Samuel,11 but also by Saul’s earlier thought, reported in verse 17. There, Saul explicitly notes his preference that the ‘hand of the Philistines’ be used ‘against’ (‫ )ב‬David (cf. also v. 21) instead of his own hand—­a hand which

9  If this is not an allusion to the second instance, it is difficult to explain why David needs to evade twice a spear which is mentioned as being thrown only once. 10 Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry, vol. 2, 230, aptly speaks of David ‘hoping for hangman’s work on the part of the Philistines’. 11  In 2 Sam 21:21–22 this same verbal phrase ‘to fall by the hand’ (‫ )ויפלו ביד‬is used of David and his men in a context which clearly implies a violent death.

26  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt has already hurled a spear against David without effect. It is not impossible that Saul prefers to use Philistine spears against David because they are more likely to find their mark than his own, or less likely to get Saul killed if they do not. However, the wider narrative seems to invite consideration of an additional mo­tiv­ation for Saul to orchestrate David’s demise at the hands of the Philistines, rather than dispatching David himself. Such a consideration begins with an awareness that David himself will soon be explicitly congratulated by Abigail for not illegitimately killing an enemy with his own hand, because to do so would leave him vulnerable to the problem of ‘bloods’ (1 Sam 25:26). On this basis, Saul’s preference for not using his own hand against David might reflect his awareness that doing so would leave him similarly vulner­ able, because his killing of David is similarly illegitimate in the eyes of some. That David does not deserve the death which Saul seeks to inflict upon him is sup­ ported by his presentation thus far. Indeed, David’s unstinting service to both king and country seems to offer no just cause for Saul to raise his ‘hand’ against David. Moreover, David will shortly emphasize and Saul immediately recognize that David’s eventual restraint in not killing Saul makes him more ‘righteous’ than the king he will replace (1 Sam 24:18 [ET 17]). The suggestion that Saul’s anxiety about illegitimate bloodshed might lie behind his reluctance to kill a righteous David with his own hand may help to explain why Saul prefers instead to ‘make David fall by the hand of the Philistines’ in battle. The notion that blood shed in war may not be legitimately avenged will be implied by David himself, when he later judges Joab for killing Abner (1 Kgs 2:5). If Saul is permitted to share this same view here, then allowing David to fall by Philistine hands would have the advantage of sparing Saul any direct responsi­ bility for David’s death or the accusation thereof. Such an interpretation is made more plausible by the fact that David himself will employ precisely this stratagem, when he makes use of a military conflict with the Ammonites to dispose of his own rival without shedding ‘innocent blood’ himself directly (2 Sam 11–12).12 Indeed, if Saul’s preference for the Philistines to kill David reflects his anxiety about having David’s blood on his own hands, this may in turn explain why Saul asks for a bride-­price of Philistine foreskins from David in order to ‘avenge him­ self ’ (‫ ;להנקם‬v. 25) against his enemies. The context suggests that Saul’s sly hope is that his public enemies, the Philistines, might unwittingly do Saul a favour by avenging him against his private enemy, David.13 This is presumably because Saul himself cannot be seen to take David’s life directly without leaving himself

12  As observed by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 207; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 427, whose reference to Saul’s thoughts here as ‘murderous’ is right, in a sense, even if Saul’s plan is designed to exculpate him. Though see below, Chapter 5, for further discussion. 13  Agreeing with Bodner, 1 Samuel, 201.

‘ Innocent Blood ’   27 vulnerable to vengeance or some other undesirable consequences.14 But, as we will see, the fact that Saul merely tempts David to place himself in harm’s way here, will offer a sharp contrast to David’s ordering of Uriah back to the battle­ front with his own death warrant (2 Sam 11:14–15). Of course, when David does not merely meet Saul’s bride-­price, but doubles it (18:27), it becomes clear to the reader and to Saul himself that Saul’s plan has backfired badly.15 It is true that the king’s public enemies, the Philistines, have been reduced marginally. However, David’s seizing of the opportunity to earn both Michal and the further admiration of the people for his success in battle (v. 30), serves only to fuel Saul’s fear and to make him David’s enemy from then on (v. 29). Indeed, having been failed by the Philistines, Saul is presented as turning in desperation to his son Jonathan and his servants to kill David (19:1). At first glance, Saul’s request might suggest a belief that David may be more safely dis­ posed of by proxy instead of by Saul’s own hand. If so, Jonathan’s response sug­ gests such a belief to be unfounded. Indeed, after warning David of the threat against him, Jonathan also offers words of caution to his father, Saul: 4And

Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father and said to him, ‘May the king not sin against his servant David, because he has not sinned against you and because the things he has done have been very good for you. 5He took his own life in his hand and he struck down the Philistine and the LORD saved all Israel mightily. You saw it and rejoiced. Why then would you sin against inno­ cent blood by putting David to death without cause?’ 6And Saul heard the voice of Jonathan and Saul swore, ‘As the LORD lives, he will not be put to death.’ (1 Sam 19:4–6)

Jonathan’s words to his father confirm his view that Saul’s seeking of David’s life is not merely ill-­advised but somehow wrong. Indeed, Saul’s son emphasizes that by killing the Philistine and facilitating the divine deliverance of Israel, David has demonstrated he is a true servant of both king and country. Jonathan suggests further that Saul himself has seen this triumph, rejoiced in it (v. 5), and benefited from it (v. 4b). Moreover, in addition to David’s ‘doing good’ to Saul in this way, Jonathan emphasizes that David has not sinned against Saul and that therefore Saul should not sin against David (v. 4). Jonathan’s reference to ‘sin’ (‫ )חטא‬makes it clear that he wishes Saul to understand that if the king succeeds in killing David it will be not merely an imprudence, but an impiety. Admittedly, sin has taken a

14  The verb ‫ נקם‬has already been used in 1 Sam 14:24 by Saul with reference to the Philistines and will be used again by David in 1 Sam 24:13 [ET 12] when David asks that the LORD avenge David against Saul instead of David doing so with his own hand. 15  So Miscall, 1 Samuel, 126.

28  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt variety of forms thus far in 1 Samuel,16 but there can be little doubt which evil Jonathan has in mind here. His admonition that his father should not sin against David is a direct response to Saul’s command that his son and servants should kill David (19:1). That it would be a sin to do so is suggested by Jonathan’s reuse of the same vocabulary in a final rhetorical question: ‘Why then would you sin (‫)תחטא‬ against innocent blood (‫ )בדם נקי‬by putting David to death without cause (‫’?)חנם‬. Here, for the first time in 1 Samuel, ‘blood’ is explicitly invoked in relation to the taking of a life. According to Jonathan, what makes Saul’s potential killing of David a sin is that David’s blood is ‘innocent’ (‫)נקי‬.17 In Deut 19, ‘innocent blood’ belongs to someone who has died undeservedly. This may occur when someone has unintentionally killed someone, but been killed themselves by a blood avenger before reaching the safety of a city of asylum. Or ‘innocent blood’ may arise when someone is killed with malice aforethought, as David seemingly will be here by Saul unless Jonathan can dissuade his father. According to Jonathan, David’s blood will be innocent if it is shed, because Saul will have killed him without just or sufficient cause (‫)חנם‬, for David has not sinned against Saul.18 That Saul’s potential sin is to seek David’s life without cause might well imply that the sin which Jonathan insists David has avoided is likewise that of seeking to kill Saul. However, in the absence of such a clarification, Jonathan’s view is simply that David has not done anything to warrant his life being taken by Saul. Indeed, Jonathan’s reminder to Saul that David took his own life ‘into his hand’ (‫ ;בכפו‬v. 5) for the sake of Saul and the people serves to cast into sharp relief, the impropriety and impiety of Saul seeking to take David’s life with his own hand or someone else’s. Moreover, Jonathan seems to imply that even if some of Saul’s other ser­ vants are willing to kill David, Saul’s pursuit of a protective proxy is itself in vain, because the sin of shedding David’s innocent blood will still be Saul’s. Admittedly, Saul’s oath in response to Jonathan’s warning (‘he will not be put to death’) might easily be interpreted as disingenuous given that Saul will shortly resume his pur­ suit of David. But the narrator’s note that Saul ‘heard the voice of Jonathan’ (v. 6) suggests the possibility that Saul here acknowledges, for the moment at least, the legitimacy of his son’s assessment and indeed the wisdom of his counsel.19 While 16  See e.g. 1 Sam 2:25, 7:6, 12:10, 23, 14:33, 34, 15:18, 24, 30. The difference between these and pre­ vious mentions of sin is that here, for the first time, the sin in prospect is that of shedding inno­ cent blood. 17  Both Chapman, 1 Samuel, 164 and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 474, note that the importance of this episode within the wider narrative lies in its explicit introduction of the issue of innocent blood / bloodguilt. See too Adam, ‘Law and Narrative’, 319. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 163, notes that the ter­min­ ology of ‘innocent blood’ is associated with Manasseh in 2 Kgs 21:16 and 24:3–4, as does Auld, I & II Samuel, 224, who also observes the frequent appearance of the terminology in the prophetic tradition. 18 Auld, I & II Samuel, 224, notes that this same terminology will also be used by Abigail in query­ ing the legitimacy or wisdom of David’s plan to shed Nabal’s blood in 1 Sam 25. 19  While Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 256, reads Saul’s oath as genuine, Miscall, 1 Samuel, 127, notes the questions which are left unanswered by it, including, (1) whether Saul is truly persuaded by Jonathan, and if so, by which element; and (2) whether Saul’s vow is a disingenuous attempt to lure

‘ Innocent Blood ’   29 this first association of ‘blood’ with unjustified killing is significant for the devel­ opment of this theme in the David story, it must be neither underestimated nor overestimated. The framing of this blood as ‘innocent’ and the shedding of it as ‘sin’ might seem to imply potential guilt. However, the reader is offered no insight here by Jonathan or the narrator as to what, if any, consequences might follow if Saul were to kill David. Despite Saul’s vow in verse 6, he continues to seek David’s life in the verses which follow—­a curiosity which may suggest that these passages have been drawn together here in 1 Samuel from originally separate sources. In the text as it stands, however, Saul’s resumption of his efforts to kill David fits comfortably with the portrait of a king whose fear for his legacy and dynasty trumps his earlier concerns that killing David might be sinful.20 In fact, the earlier pattern is repeated almost immediately. After Jonathan’s report of the king’s vow (19:7), David returns to court triumphant in war (v. 8) and then is the target of yet another attack by Saul and his spear, which David once again eludes (vv. 9–10). Here again, Saul’s own failure to kill David in his presence is followed by a change of tactic and the involving of Michal, which proves no more successful than before. In seeking repeatedly to kill David, Saul discovers that the alle­ giance of his daughter, Michal, is to her husband rather than to her father, when she serves as an accessory to David’s escape, rather than to his murder as Saul intends (vv. 11–17).

The Killings at Nob After Saul comes to Ramah to take David’s life (19:18–24), David’s plea to be made aware of the sin or guilt which has put him in jeopardy (20:1, 8) prompts Jonathan’s reassurance that he will seek to protect David (20:2, 9). However, per­ haps recognizing his own limitations in this regard, Jonathan finally suggests that the LORD (1 Sam 20) will ensure that David’s life is preserved by taking the lives of his enemies:21 14‘If

I survive, show me the faithful love of the LORD, but if I die 15never cut off your faithful love from my house, even when the LORD cuts off every enemy of David from the face of the earth.’ 16And Jonathan made a covenant with the

David back into range. For a useful discussion, see Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 474–5. As Bodner, 1 Samuel, 204, notes, Saul’s assurance to Jonathan proves prophetic: David will indeed repeatedly escape execution despite Saul’s best efforts. 20  This pattern of Saul appearing to relent and then resuming his pursuit of David’s blood will be repeated in 1 Sam 24 and 26. 21  For a reading which highlights Jonathan’s naivety, see Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 188–90.

30  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt house of David, saying, ‘May the LORD seek (vengeance?) against David’s enemies.’22  (1 Sam 20:14–16)

Whereas the narrative’s focus up until now has been on Saul’s enmity toward David (cf. 18:29, 19:17), Jonathan implies here for the first time that Saul has become David’s ‘enemy’ by virtue of his attempts to illegitimately shed David’s blood. But Jonathan also now suggests that divine intervention might lead to the deaths of David’s opponents (v. 15), including, one can only presume, Jonathan’s own father should he persist in seeking David’s life. Indeed, if the divine interven­ tion invited by Jonathan (v. 16) is read in light of verse 15, Jonathan would seem to endorse the wholesale destruction of those who would oppose David. Why Jonathan wishes for divine intervention rather than David’s own action is made clear at the outset by Jonathan’s interest in securing his own life and his own house from itself being cut off. Jonathan’s concern that he and his house might be cut off by David himself represents the first of several indications of anxiety within the narrative that David might take such matters into his own hands, as Saul has sought to do.23 That David need not do so because the cutting off of his enemies is and will be the LORD’s business is also suggested here by Jonathan for the first time, but again, not the last. Before the narrative takes up these matters, however, the reader is offered an account of David’s visit to the priests and city of Nob (1 Sam 21:2–10 [ET 1–9]).24 On his arrival, David’s insistence that he still serves Saul secures provision for his men, and the sword of Goliath for himself, from Ahimelech, the priest. The relevance of Doeg, Saul’s chief herdsman (21:8 [ET 7]), witnessing these events is clarified when Doeg reveals to Saul what he has seen, and Ahimelech and his house are soon required by the king to account for their actions (22:9–23). It is unclear whether Ahimelech’s avowal of both his own innocence and David’s loyalty to the crown are meant to convince the reader, but it soon becomes obvious that Saul at least remains unpersuaded and is out for the blood of those by

22  Instead of the narrator’s mention of a covenant in v. 16a, the LXX has Jonathan requesting that his name not be cut off from the house of David. This fits with verse 15 but may or may not reflect a different Hebrew original than the one which is preserved in the MT. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 167, suggests that Jonathan’s curse was originally aimed at David as a deterrent against cutting Jonathan off. If so, the euphemistic preference to direct it towards David’s enemies instead is both old (found in the LXX) and understandable given Jonathan’s earlier mention of them. The same question arises in 1 Sam 25:22. 23  While Miscall, 1 Samuel, 130, notes the possibility that Jonathan’s request for an oath from David may be motivated by love for David or fear of his violence, the request itself surely suggests the latter is primary. So too Bodner, 1 Samuel, 217. 24  The neediness of David here encourages Smith, The Books of Samuel, 196–7, to see David’s request for provisions as originally following on immediately from 19:17, where David makes a hasty escape with the assistance of Michal. For recent discussion of this possibility, see Hutton, ‘Collusion or Illusion?’, 204–6.

‘ Innocent Blood ’   31 whom he feels betrayed.25 Having already attacked his own son when he suspected him of an allegiance to David, Saul’s command to his own servants to execute the priests of Nob for aiding and abetting his enemy comes as little surprise. 17And

the king said to the guards who were standing near him, ‘Turn and put to death the priests of the LORD, for their hand also is with David and they knew that he was on the run and did not reveal it to me.’ But the servants of the king would not send out their hand to strike down the priests of the LORD. 18Then the king said to Doeg, ‘You turn and strike down the priests.’ And Doeg the Edomite turned and he struck down the priests and he put to death on that day eighty-­five who wore the linen ephod. 19And Nob, the city of the priests, he put to (the mouth of) the sword; both man and woman, child and infant, ox, donkey and sheep, he put to (the mouth of) the sword. 20But one son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub—­Abiathar—­escaped and fled after David. 21And Abiathar told David that Saul had slain the priests of the LORD. 22And David said to Abiathar, ‘I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. ‘I have turned against all the lives of your father’s house. 23Stay with me; do not be afraid, because he who seeks my life seeks your life; with me you will be safe.’  (1 Sam 22:17–23)

Saul evidently draws the conclusion that ‘their [i.e. the priests’] hand’ (‫ ;גם־ידם‬22:17) has indeed been with David. The plausibility of this conclusion is reinforced for the reader by the recollection of David’s requests of Ahimelech. Not only has David asked Ahimelech to give whatever bread is ‘on/in your hand’ (‫‘ )תחת־ידך‬into my hand’ (‫ ;בידי‬21:4 [ET 3]) cf. also 21:5 [ET 4]), he has also asked him to do likewise with any sword or spear which is ‘on/in your hand’ (‫ ;תחת־ידך‬21:9 [ET 8]). Ahimelech denies that he has inquired of the LORD on David’s behalf.26 However, this accusation, along with the allegation that he has provisioned and

25 The general scholarly consensus is that David is presented as deceiving Ahimelech, thereby enlisting him as an unwitting and innocent accomplice. See e.g. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 195; Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 258; Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 285; Stoebe, Erste Buch Samuelis, 396; and others. However, this consensus has been contested by Reis, ‘Collusion at Nob’, 59–73, whose argument has been followed and extended by Bodner, David Observed, 25–37. The most obvious hint of collusion is perhaps David’s own admission (22:22) of his awareness of  Doeg’s presence and the fact that Ahimelech does not accuse David of deceiving him (Bodner, 1 Samuel, 236). However, whether guilty of collusion or not, Saul’s view, as Reis suggests, is clear: ‘The priest does not repudiate the conspiracy; he does not deny giving food and a weapon to David; he makes no excuses or explanations: he is a traitor’ (72). 26  The fact that the divine solicitation alleged by Doeg and used against Ahimelech by Saul is not mentioned in the earlier episode has been interpreted by some as an indication that it is a fiction and therefore proof of Doeg’s maliciousness (so, e.g. Bodner, 1 Samuel, 235). Others see it as a previously unreported fact (e.g. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 206). Indeed, it is unclear whether in 22:15a Ahimelech readily admits to regularly receiving oracles for David or, alternatively, whether he denies ever having done so. Accordingly, agnosticism is recommended (so Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 389–91; and Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 356).

32  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt aided David in his flight from Saul, is presented as justifying the priests’ execution in Saul’s eyes.27 That not all share this view, however, may be immediately suggested by the unwillingness of the king’s own servants (v. 17) ‘to send their hand to strike down (‫ )לשלח את־ידם לפגע‬the priests of the LORD’, despite Saul’s command to do so.28 Given Saul’s violence towards servants whose loyalty he has reason to doubt, the reader is surely invited to assume that his own retainers here must have good reasons for disobeying a direct order from their king.29 David’s refraining from killing Saul because he enjoys the protected status of the ‘LORD’s anointed’ (1 Sam 24:7 [ET 6]) may suggest that the priests, perhaps also anointed, enjoy a similarly sacro­sanct status in the view of Saul’s servants.30 Alternatively, or additionally, Saul’s servants’ extraordinary refusal of the king’s command to kill the priests may simply reflect their own adjudication of the case and judgement that whatever Ahimelech has done, it does not warrant the shedding of his blood and that of his house.31 In either case, their refusal of the king’s command to shed the priests’ blood contests the legitimacy of Saul’s intended action. This of course reso­ nates with Jonathan’s earlier interrogation of Saul’s lethal intentions towards David (19:4–5) and anticipates David’s response when his servants encourage him to kill Saul in 1 Sam 24.32 Given Saul’s previous interest in using foreigners like the Philistines to spare himself direct responsibility for David’s innocent blood, Saul’s enlisting of Doeg and the underlining of his Edomite ancestry (22:9, 18, 22) might suggest a similar strategy here.33 Because Saul employs Doeg to strike down the priests (v. 18) only 27  Alternatively, Saul’s mention of Ahimelech’s withholding of information about David (22:17) may suggest that he views this as the greatest betrayal (Miscall, 1 Samuel, 136). For the suggestion that Saul’s violence may have been legally justified based on comparisons with Hittite priestly loyalty trea­ ties, see Taggar-­Cohen, ‘Political Loyalty’, 260–6. The association of Ahimelech with ‘Ahitub’ in Doeg’s report and Saul’s accusation may well be meant to remind readers of the prophecy against Eli and his offspring (so Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 161). However, this seems more likely to be a simple harbinger of impending doom for Ahimelech’s house than an indicator of the fulfilment of the promise against that priestly house. 28  Both Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 404; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 269, note the play on words with ‘hand’ here. 29 Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 357, rightly suggests that the refusing of Saul’s order by his own men reinforces its egregiousness and Saul’s lack of authority. 30  So suggest Smith, The Books of Samuel, 208; Campbell, I Samuel, 235; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 387; Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 641; and Taggar-­Cohen, ‘Political Loyalty’, 265. 31 So, apparently, Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 244; and Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 160, though the latter also notes the sanctity of the priest as a factor. The parallel here to Saul’s perception of Jonathan’s collusion with David to protect him (so Bodner, David Observed, 37) is strengthened by the recollection that Saul seeks to kill Jonathan (1 Sam 20:33) just as he does the priests of Nob. 32  Thus Miscall, 1 Samuel, 136, is right to see here an anticipation of the restraint in 1 Sam 24, but misses its resumption from earlier. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 198–9 (so too Keith Whitelam, Just King, 88), nicely illustrates the further parallel to Jonathan, where the latter is con­ demned to death by Saul (14:44) only to be saved by the people, who there too stand in the way of Saul’s intention to shed blood. 33  Mention of Doeg’s status as ‘foreigner’ is made by Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 273; Bar Efrat, Erste Buch Samuel, 301; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 641.

‘ Innocent Blood ’   33 after first asking his presumably Israelite ‘guards’ or ‘runners’ to do so, it seems unlikely that Saul believes that Doeg’s identity as an Edomite will insulate him from responsibility for the killings.34 However, if Saul’s guards are Israelites, their refusal to shed the priests’ innocent blood might imply that doing so would pose a problem for them as Israelites, which it would not pose for their Edomite superior.35 The narrator’s further report that Doeg slaughtered ‘both man and woman, child and infant, ox, donkey and sheep’ (v. 19) along with the priests may well reflect the expected punishment for what Saul has adjudged to be an act of priestly disloyalty.36 However, as others have noted, the massacre clearly also resonates with the ‘ban’ associated with the wars of conquest in Joshua (cf. Josh 6:21). Indeed, the most comparable catalogue of victims is found in the divine commis­ sioning of Saul to attack Agag and the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:3), with Saul later condemned for sparing the king and the livestock.37 If Doeg acts here without authorization, the comprehensiveness of the killings in Nob might be intended to cloak the initial massacre with the aura of piety and divine legitimacy associated with the ban. However, the violence in Nob is not directed towards normally legitimate objects of the ban (i.e. Amalekites or inhabitants of the land) but instead towards fellow Israelites, including ‘priests of the LORD’. This may suggest an invitation to compare the massacre in Nob instead with the kind of internecine slaughter characteristic of the latter chapters of Judges, ‘when there was no king in Israel and each man did what was right in his own eyes’ (Judg 17:6, 21:25).38 If so, the noting of Doeg’s slaughter of more than just priests in Nob may well underline the extent of his allegiance to Saul in contrast to David’s disloyalty.39 However, it may also confirm that the massacre in Nob was illegitimate and that Saul’s failing kingship is descending into precisely the kind of bloodletting which the monarchy was meant to curb. While Saul has earlier acknowledged to Jonathan (19:6) the risks of illegitimate violence, it is striking that the execution of the priests of Nob elicits a response 34 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 244, suggests that the use of the verb ‫ פגע‬indicates Saul’s conceptualizing of the priests’ killing in judicial terms (‘execution’), though why Saul would instruct Doeg using different terminology than Saul uses with his own ‘runners’ remains unclear. 35 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 174, hints in this direction by suggesting that Doeg’s Edomite ancestry is underlined ‘doubtless to emphasize that it was not an Israelite who was responsible for the foul deeds that follow’, while Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 387, suggests Doeg took up the commission on the assumption that as a foreigner he was not under the same constraints as Saul’s servants. Auld, I & II Samuel, 269, might be implying the same by noting that Doeg was a ‘foreign trusty’ and lacked the family links or shared tradition which bound him to Saul’s people. 36  See Taggar-­Cohen, ‘Political Loyalty’, 264–5. 37  See Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 644; and Stoebe, Erste Buch Samuelis, 410. Hutzli, ‘Literary Violence’, 154; Chapman, 1 Samuel, 179; and Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 160, note that Saul’s failure to comprehensively slaughter the Amalekites (as apparently divinely required) makes his wholesale slaughter of his own countrymen appear both ironic and all the more egregious. 38  So suggests Smith, The Books of Samuel, 208; followed by Stoebe, Erste Buch Samuelis, 414. 39  So Olyan, Violent Rituals, 96–7.

34  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt not from Saul, but from David. This response is prompted by the arrival of one of Ahimelech’s sons, Abiathar, who escapes the slaughter and reports it to David. It is noteworthy that in doing so, Abiathar attributes responsibility for the slaughter to Saul himself rather than to Doeg, despite the latter’s indictment and execution of the priests (v. 21).40 This incrimination of Saul by Abiathar resonates with Jonathan’s earlier insistence to his father that killing by proxy provides no protec­ tion against the sin of shedding innocent blood. Given that Abiathar himself does not hold Doeg directly responsible for the killing of his family, it is perhaps pre­ dictable that David does not do so either. However, David does not follow Abiathar in explicitly blaming Saul. Instead, David appears to incriminate him­ self, admitting not merely his suspicion,41 but his awareness (‘I knew [‫ ;]ידעתי‬v. 22) that Doeg had witnessed his encounter with Ahimelech and would relate it to Saul. This admission leads directly to David’s own characterization of his involve­ ment (vv. 22‒23). Some see David here as assuming full and unequivocal responsibility for the deaths of Abiathar’s priestly kin.42 However, David’s admission in verse 22 is rather more careful than it might seem. This is highlighted by the use of the verb ‫סבב‬, which is unexpected and frequently emended, but seems here to mean sim­ ply ‘turn’.43 As others have noted, both Saul’s execution orders (to his servants, v. 17; and Doeg, v. 18) and the narrator’s reporting of their fulfillment (by Doeg, v. 18) preface the verbs of violence with forms of this very same verb.44 David’s cryptic acknowledgment that he ‘turned’ (‫ )סבתי‬against the lives of Abiathar’s father’s house might sound like an admission of sorts. But his use of this verb on its own highlights his omission of the verbs of violence which are prefaced by it in vv. 17 and 18 and would associate him directly with the killings. If David is choos­ ing his words carefully here, then it may well reflect his attempt to equivocate—­to concede that his visit to Nob may have ‘led’ indirectly to the loss of their lives, but has not caused their deaths in a direct way.45 Of course, if there is a possibility

40  So observes Auld, I & II Samuel, 270; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 644. 41  For an illustration of 1 Samuel’s capacity to relate a suspicion using the verb ‫‘ אמר‬to say’, see 1 Sam 20:26 where Saul suspects but does not know for certain that David’s absence from court relates to his uncleanness. 42  So, for instance, Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 414; Bodner, 1 Samuel, 239; and Taggar-­ Cohen, ‘Political Loyalty’, 266. 43  For the difficulty of the verb here, see Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 273. As Auld, I & II Samuel, 258, rightly notes, while the typical emendation (‫‘ חוב‬to be guilty’) might explain LXX (αἴτιος), it does not appear in the Qal in the Hebrew Bible and is improbable. Where ‫ סבב‬appears elsewhere in the Qal with the preposition ‫ב‬, it often refers to movement through a physical location (e.g. 2 Chron 17:9, 23:2, Qoh 12:5, Song 3:2, etc.) which is clearly inappropriate here. 44  So e.g. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 175; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 240. Bar Efrat, Erste Buch Samuel, 302, suggests that the verb has a different meaning in v. 22 than in vv. 17 and 18, but this seems unlikely. 45  Thus some see David as admitting he is indirectly responsible (Gordon, I & II Samuel, 175) or an accessory (e.g. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 209) or indeed guilty only of taking a calculated risk (e.g. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 245).

‘ Innocent Blood ’   35 that Saul was technically within his rights to require the executions, this may also explain why David can afford to equivocate in his assumption of responsibility. However, it seems more likely that David here stops short of admitting that he knew Saul would kill Ahimelech, let alone his fellow priests, as a result of his visit.46 It is worth reflecting on the contrast between David’s seemingly guarded admission here and his vociferous declarations of innocence of other killings to come. The victims of some of these later killings will be either enemies or rivals of David, from whose deaths he might be perceived to benefit. By contrast, the deaths of Ahimelech and his brethren offer David no obvious advantage and indeed serve only to eliminate proven allies and means of support. Moreover, unlike the killings to come, those of the Nobite priests have been explicitly ordered by Saul, who, of course, seeks to kill David himself. This is at least partly the point which David labours when he goes on to insist that Abiathar remain close to him as a protection against Saul (v. 23). These factors and perhaps David’s naive belief that the priests might have been spared may explain why David has the luxury of admitting a measure of responsibility for their deaths, instead of disavowing it entirely as he will for others later. Indeed, this may be why David shows no in­clin­ation to avenge the deaths of Ahimelech’s house, as he will when others equally unrelated by blood to David are killed by him for shedding inno­ cent blood. Moreover, even if David might have felt a desire to avenge the killing of the Nobites by Saul, we will see that such a desire may have been complicated by David’s deep conviction that he could not take the life of Saul as ‘the LORD’s anointed’. * * * While there has been no shortage of blood spilled in 1 Samuel by the time David arrives on the narrative stage, it is noteworthy that the first explicit awareness of the problem of innocent blood appears to coincide with his rise to prominence. Equally striking and perhaps slightly surprising is the fact that initially the only innocent blood anyone within the narrative is anxious about is David’s own. While Saul’s repeated attempts to spear David might suggest otherwise, his attempt to use his Philistine enemies to kill David illustrates the king’s concern that David’s blood might be sufficiently innocent to create problems for Saul if he sheds it himself. Indeed, Jonathan’s own anxieties that Saul will succeed in killing David (1 Sam 19) confirm that Saul will not be protected from guilt by commis­ sioning his own son or his servants to do what the Philistines fail to do. In warn­ ing his father, Jonathan offers the reader a first indication that blood (in this case, 46  That David couldn’t really have known what Doeg might do leads Chapman, 1 Samuel, 173, to the conclusion that David exaggerates his responsibility, ‘in his grief ’. By contrast, Miscall, 1 Samuel, 137, sees David’s ‘acceptance’ as a statement of fact rather than necessarily as an admission of guilt, but only (and rather unconvincingly) because Miscall observes that David does not lament the catastro­ phe and never mentions it again.

36  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David’s) is deemed ‘innocent’ if it is shed without sufficient cause. Because David has not sinned against Saul, Saul’s shedding of David’s innocent blood will itself be sinful, though the reader is given no indication by Jonathan of what price Saul might be expected to pay for such an impiety. While Saul appears to be persuaded by his son, the immediate resumption of his efforts to eliminate David suggests otherwise and leads to the episode in which Ahimelech and the priests and ­people of Nob are slaughtered at Saul’s command. Anxiety regarding the problem of il­legit­im­ate bloodshed within the tradition may be reflected in Saul’s eventual orchestration of this massacre by an Edomite when Saul’s Israelite servants refuse his order to kill the priests. However, the latter also points the reader towards the conclusion that Saul has done here, to the Nobites, what he has been warned against doing to David. He has shed their blood without sufficient cause, whether because as priests they are somehow sacrosanct or because any wrong they have done has not been sufficient to warrant their deaths. That David, rather than Saul, admits indirect responsibility for these deaths offers the reader further evidence of the doomed king Saul’s disinterest in the problem of innocent blood. Perhaps more importantly for this study, it also offers the first evidence of the future king David’s own awareness and indeed anxiety regarding this problem.47 In sum, the perception of the problem of innocent blood shifts from Saul to David over the course of 1 Sam 19–22. Saul’s awareness or concern that shedding David’s innocent blood might prove problematic fades to the point that he has no qualms about shedding the blood of even those whom he perceives to be merely David’s accomplices. By contrast, David’s initial awareness that his own blood may be shed innocently yields to a growing awareness of how the shedding of innocent blood might become his own problem.

47 Campbell, 1 Samuel, 226, sees the issue of ‘shedding innocent blood’ as a significant one in rela­ tion to this episode.

2 ‘Blood without Cause’: 1 Sam 23–26 Having traced the origins of the problem of ‘bloods’ in the story of David’s rise to prominence in Saul’s court, in this chapter particular attention is devoted to 1 Sam 24–26. On the face of it, these three chapters focus on the threat which an armed and dangerous David poses first to King Saul (ch. 24), then to Nabal, a prominent and wealthy lord of the Carmel (ch. 25), and then again to Saul (ch. 26). On closer examination, however, we will see that the real interest of these chapters is the threat which David’s shedding of these men’s blood would pose to his future royal prospects. While this interest will rise to the surface quite ex­pli­ cit­ly and vividly in the story of David’s sparing of Nabal and his wife Abigail, it also runs like an undercurrent through chapters 24 and 26, both of which recount David’s sparing of Saul.

The Sparing of Saul At the beginning of 1 Sam 22 (v. 2), the reader learned that the men whom Ahimelech provisioned in chapter 21 have become a small ‘army’ of debtors and discontents over which David is now captain. This is undoubtedly meant to illustrate both David’s challenge in translating popular support into armed retainers, but also his success in doing so. It also explains, at least in part, why Saul assembles a force to attack David in Keilah (23:8), from which David then flees. After Saul is diverted from pursuing David by Philistine incursions (23:25–28), the king finally enters the wilderness of En Gedi (1 Sam 24) with a company now numbering 3,000 to ‘seek David and his men’ (24:3 [ET 2]). If Saul is allowed David’s later differentiation between blood shed in war and that shed in peace, Saul’s ‘going to war’ against David might be perceived by Saul as mitigating the risk of him killing David illegitimately. However, the rest of the chapter focuses squarely on Saul and David, leaving their respective forces largely in the background, suggesting that any such mitigations are rather beside the point. When an unguarded Saul appears in the cave in which David and his men are taking refuge from him, David’s men remind him of a previously unreported prophecy that his enemy would be put at his mercy allowing him to ‘do to him as

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0003

38  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt seems good to you’ (24:5 [ET 4]).1 The text here suggests not a specific test of David’s moral compass, but rather an invitation for David to do as he pleases with Saul.2 Indeed, David’s scruples in relation to illegitimate violence are immediately recalled when instead of killing Saul, David cuts off a corner of his robe and still has his conscience pricked (‘David’s heart struck him’ [‫ ;]ויך לב־דוד אתו‬24:6 [ET 5]).3 It is noteworthy that the narrator offers here an explicit insight into David’s state of mind in light of how rarely such information is offered.4 Why the royal robe is the only victim of David’s violence is explained in his response to his men: ‘The LORD forbid that I should do such a thing to my lord, the LORD’s anointed, to send my hand against him, for he is the LORD’s anointed’ (v. 7 [ET 6]).5 If nothing else, the expression of such sentiments underlines the sensitivity to ques­ tions of legitimacy and responsibility which David displays in his response to Saul’s killing of the priests of Nob.6 There, as we have seen, Saul’s servants are unwilling to ‘send the hand’ (‫ יד‬+ ‫ ;שלח‬22:17) against the priests despite Saul’s orders; here it is David who is unwilling to do likewise against Saul despite the encouragement of his own men and Saul’s seeming deliverance into their hands by God himself. While we have seen above that the reason for Saul’s servants’ refusal to kill the priests can only be surmised, here David’s words leave his men and the reader in no doubt. It is not Saul’s innocence or righteousness, but rather his status as the LORD’s anointed which requires the restraint of David and his men. Such forbearance offers a striking contrast to Saul’s regular issuing of execution orders to his subordinates. However, it also signals David’s sensi­ tivity to issues of direct and indirect responsibility for deaths from which he might benefit. David’s invocation of the LORD here to justify his own restraint towards Saul resonates with Jonathan’s earlier advice to his father to spare David (19:4–5). But 1  In 1 Sam 23:7, Saul sees God as delivering David into his hands. That the prophecy is a fiction (so Bodner, 1 Samuel, 251; and Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, 179), and/or meant to be understood as such, is possible but not certain. 2  In agreement with Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 459. Cf. 1 Sam 1:23, 3:18, 11:10, 14:36, 40. 3  It may also hint that David’s original intention was not very different from that of his men (e.g. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 179; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 456; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 257–8). It is likely (see now, McKenzie, ‘Elaborated Evidence’, 440–1) that David’s cutting of the robe and crisis of conscience originally appeared after his scolding of the men. 4 Chapman, 1 Samuel, 186. Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 718, rightly suggests that the idea that David’s heart ‘was pounding’ (so Stoebe, Erste Buch Samuelis, 434) does not ring true. As Auld, I & II Samuel, 275, notes, David’s heart will strike him again in relation to more violence in 2 Sam 24:10. 5  Insofar as the robe ‘covers’ the king, David’s cutting of it illustrates the vulnerability of Saul’s per­ son despite the armed force with which he has surrounded himself. (So, McKenzie, ‘Elaborated Evidence’, 443.) But it is surely more than this (contra Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 292–3). While Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 182, suggests that the author of 1 Sam 24 knew nothing of Saul’s tearing of Samuel’s cloak in 1 Sam 15, David’s action here cannot help but evoke for the reader the only other image of a torn cloak in 1 Samuel (so Edenburg, ‘How (Not) to Murder’, 80, Bodner, 1 Samuel, 253). In 1 Sam 15, it is a symbol of the tearing away of the kingdom from Saul in favour of one better. Cf. also 1 Sam 13:13–14. 6  Whether the strength of David’s response (so Chapman, 1 Samuel, 186) suggests a ‘protesting too much’ and a fragile commitment to sparing Saul is a matter of fine judgement.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   39 Jonathan’s insistence on David’s innocence also finds an echo here in David’s own speech to Saul: 10See,

this day your eyes have seen how the LORD gave you today into my hand in the cave. And some told me to kill you, but you were spared. I said, ‘I will not send my hand against my lord, for he is the LORD’s anointed.’ 11My father, see, yes see the corner of your robe in my hand. I cut off the corner of your robe and did not kill you. Know and see that there is no evil or treason in my hand. I have not sinned against you, though you lay in wait to take my life. 12May the LORD judge between me and you; may the LORD avenge me on you, but my hand will not be against you.  (1 Sam 24:11–12 [ET 10–11])

By rehearsing his own men’s encouragement to kill Saul and confirming his view that God had delivered Saul to him, David clearly wishes to emphasize Saul’s earl­ ier vulnerability and his own forbearance. Indeed, when he reports to Saul (v. 11 [ET 10]) his earlier insistence to his own men that he would not ‘send his hand’ (v. 7 [ET 6]) against the LORD’s anointed, David underlines his own innocence to the reader and to Saul for the first time.7 To prove the point, the corner of Saul’s robe, which had earlier so stricken David’s conscience, is presented without a hint of irony by David as evidence that his conscience is clear and his hands are clean (v. 12 [ET 11]).8 Saul has already been told by Jonathan that David ‘has not sinned against you’ (‫ ;לוא חטא לך‬19:4). Here, David testifies on his own behalf, ‘I have not sinned against you’ (‫ ;לא־חטאתי לך‬v. 12 [ET 11]), reaffirming the innocence of David’s blood and the sin which would be entailed if Saul were to shed it. It also makes clear David’s view that if he had shed Saul’s blood, David would be guilty—­ not because Saul’s blood is innocent in any categorical way, but because even Saul’s seeking of David’s life is insufficient cause for David to kill him. In 1 Sam 19, Jonathan is content to alert his father to David’s innocence and Saul’s potential sin if he kills him. Here, David instead goes on to invoke divine intervention on his behalf against his enemy, in much the same way Jonathan does on David’s behalf in 1 Sam 20:16. Continuing to insist that his ‘hand will not be against’ Saul (vv. 13, 14 [ET 12, 13]), David uses juridical language here, asking the LORD to arbitrate between him and his antagonist, to pass judgement and to deliver him from Saul’s hand (vv. 14, 16 [ET 13, 15]).9 Indeed, so confident is David in his own innocence that he goes on to invoke not merely divine judge­ ment but divine retribution: ‘may the LORD avenge me on you’ (‫ ;ונקמני יהוה ממך‬v. 13

7  So observes, Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 383. The prominence of the term ‫ יד‬here is noted by Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 294; so too Edelman, King Saul, 195. 8  The irony is, however, appreciated by Auld, I & II Samuel, 276. 9  That these verses in particular give a ‘religious’ cast to this episode and David’s forbearance has been noted by Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 295, 297.

40  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt [ET 12]).10 It is not made clear for what wrong per se David seeks to be avenged by the LORD against Saul. It may be that David asks here for divine vengeance against Saul for seeking to kill David in the past. Or perhaps he asks for ven­ geance in case Saul eventually succeeds where he has previously failed. If it is the latter, David’s invoking of the LORD’s vengeance against Saul seems fitting given Saul’s earlier hope to be ‘avenged’ (‫ ;להנקם‬1 Sam 18:25) against his enemies by hav­ ing the Philistines eliminate David for him. In 1 Sam 19, we saw the king vow that David should not be put to death. But Saul’s words here in chapter 24 go beyond this in explicitly affirming David’s assertion of his own righteousness (v. 18 [ET 17]) in not killing Saul (v. 19 [ET 18]). Saul’s acquiescence to David’s claims of restraint and righteousness here are presumably a further encouragement for the reader to accept both them and the conclusion which Saul draws. Indeed, Saul acknowledges that David’s kingship and kingdom will eventually be ‘established in your hand’ (‫ ;בידך‬v. 21 [ET 20]) because of David’s righteousness, specifically manifest in his restraint (‘you did not kill me when the LORD put me into your hand’ [‫ ;בידך‬v. 19 [ET 18]). However improbable it may seem on the lips of Saul, this acknowledgement of David’s restraint as crucial for his royal prospects resonates with David’s extraordinary anxiety to avoid any implication in the death of Saul here in chapter 24. The sig­ nificance of such a suggestion for the reader’s reflection on kingship as the narra­ tive continues to pivot from Saul to David should not be underestimated. Notice has, of course, already been served to Saul and the reader that his kingship will not endure. However, Saul’s contrasting of David’s righteous restraint with his own ‘evil’ (v. 18 [ET 17]) suggests that this evil is especially manifest in Saul’s own absence of restraint in seeking the innocent blood of David and illegitimately tak­ ing the lives of the priests of Nob. Saul’s increasingly blood-­thirsty kingship offers a striking contrast to David’s righteous restraint thus far, but it also reminds the reader that the brightness of a kingship’s beginning is not a certain guarantee against eventual darkness.11 Indeed, given Saul’s neglect of his earlier vow to spare David (1 Sam 19:6), it is ironic, but perhaps not surprising, that Saul feels the need to solicit a vow of his own from David. Like his son did earlier (1 Sam 20:14–16), Saul requests of David an oath that when the new king comes to power, he will spare Saul’s successors, and David here duly obliges (v. 23 [ET 22]).12 However, the ease with which Saul ‘forgets’ his vow

10  The sentiment here resonates clearly with 1 Sam 20:16, but the language of vengeance is more explicit. For a more general discussion of ‘revenge’, see Dietrich, ‘Rache’. 11  David’s ability to resist the temptation to shed illegitimate blood has been recognized as the pri­ mary theme of 1 Sam 24 by commentators including, e.g., Chapman, 1 Samuel, 187; Miscall, 1 Samuel, 148; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 181. 12  This anxiety is noted by Miscall, 1 Samuel, 147. Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 384, also observes Jonathan’s concern in 1 Sam 23:17.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   41 to spare David inevitably leaves the reader wondering whether the memory of either man will be any better in the future.13 It is worth noting the ways in which David’s depiction here represents a ­development in relation to earlier chapters. Prior to this chapter, Jonathan has sought to allay his anxiety about the possibility of Davidic violence against him (1  Sam 20:17, 42). However, thus far, David has not even contemplated vio­ lence against Saul or any of his house, but simply sought to escape Saul’s violence against him. Here, however, David does not merely escape. He comes near enough to cut off a corner of Saul’s robe and then reminds the king how tempted he was to kill him.14 By equating that killing with sin, David recalls Jonathan’s own warn­ ing to Saul and invites the reader to consider how near David has now come to shedding Saul’s blood without sufficient warrant.

The Sparing of Nabal Following David’s sparing of Saul in the cave at En Gedi (1 Sam 24), David and his band of men are still left very much in the wilderness, which is indeed where the reader finds them as the following chapter begins (‘wilderness of Paran’; 25:1).15 From here, the narrative wastes little time in introducing and character­ izing the previously unknown Nabal, who is rich and irascible, and his wife Abigail, who is discerning and beautiful (vv. 2–3).16 It is to Nabal that David sends messengers with an apparently unsolicited report of his lack of interference with Nabal’s sheep-­shearing activities in the Carmel. For this David appears to request favourable treatment from Nabal and almost certainly material compen­ sation.17 Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that questions have been raised about the legitimacy of David’s request and his general behaviour here.18 13  So Auld, I & II Samuel, 280. 14 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 257–8, here speaks of David ‘nearly succumbing to the temptation of violence’. 15  David is also bereft of any guidance from the prophet Samuel (so e.g. Miscall, 1 Samuel, 149) who the text notes here has died. Though, as Miscall admits, this may be of little significance given that Samuel has not been of any real use to David since 1 Sam 19. Perhaps more significant is that notice of Samuel’s death arrives after Saul has acknowledged to David the eventual transfer of the kingship announced earlier by Samuel to Saul (so Auld, I & II Samuel, 293). With this acknowledge­ ment, Samuel rests in peace, until disturbed by the medium of Endor in 1 Sam 28. 16  If signs of multiple sources (see e.g. Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, 47–80) are most clear in Abigail’s plea to David, even here they have been combined with great skill and subtlety. 17  Some commentators see David as well within his rights to make the request (so Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 307, who reference later Arab customs, the relevance of which is, how­ ever, very debatable). 18 Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, 455–6, sees David and his men as a band of outlaws, extorting provisions in exchange for ‘protection’; Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, 97–8, too suggests a ‘protection racket’ and others see here something comparably untoward (e.g. Biddle, ‘Ancestral Motifs’, 637). However, Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 762–3, vigorously rejects such modern analogies and affirms the propriety of David’s behaviour here.

42  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt The narrative itself will not be fully drawn on the question of the legitimacy of David’s request or indeed Nabal’s rebuffing of it.19 However, David’s immediate call to arms (25:13) and the servant’s request for the urgent intervention of Nabal’s wife Abigail (25:14–17) suggest that the ill-­judged tenor of Nabal’s reply has put him and his house at risk of being destroyed. This seems to be confirmed by the urgency with which Abigail sets out to deliver to David a collection of foodstuffs which offer both a prudent response to David’s request, but also a pre-­emptive peace offering.20 Indeed, the practical necessity of this action is confirmed by the narrator’s report of the view David has taken of the situation: 21Now

David had said, ‘Surely I was deceived into guarding everything he has in the wilderness, so that nothing went missing of all that belonged to him and he has returned me evil for good. 22God do so to the enemies of David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him’. (1 Sam 25:21–22)

While questions may remain as to how and why David’s protection of Nabal’s sheep shearing is good (v. 21), David’s characterization of it in this way affirms the earlier assessment of it as ‘very good’ by Nabal’s own servant (v. 15). Moreover, David’s contrasting of his own ‘good’ behaviour with what he perceives to be Nabal’s ‘evil’ behaviour (‫ ;רעה תחת טובה‬v. 21) is not unexpected by the reader. It recalls Saul’s own admission to David in the previous chapter: ‘ “You are more righteous than I, for you have repaid me good (‫)הטובה‬, whereas I have repaid you evil (‫)הרעה‬.” ’ (1 Sam 24:18 [ET 17]).21 If both Nabal and Saul’s repaying of evil to David for the good he does them encourages the reader to see them as similar, the fact that David eventually spares both of them only enhances the parallel.22 Thus, the reader does seem to be invited to acquiesce to David’s sense of being badly treated by Nabal here. But the servant’s characterization of what David will do to Nabal and his house as ‘evil’ (‫ ;הרעה‬25:17) is equally notable. It alerts the reader to the possibility that David’s call to arms and vow may not be merely different from his restraint towards Saul, but in some way ‘evil’.23 This may also be hinted at by the similarity of David’s form of words here (‘May God do so’; v. 22) to those of 19 Rosenberg, King and Kin, 150, leans towards seeing this as a reasonable protest against early Davidic taxation, while Gordon, I & II Samuel, 183, sees Nabal’s response as technically in the right given that we have no indication that David’s protection was solicited. 20  Shields, ‘A Feast Fit for a King’, 47. 21  As observed by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 495; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 777, amongst others. The case for Nabal here approximating Saul in various ways has been made convincingly and at length, initially by Levenson, ‘1 Samuel 25’, 13–20; and Gordon, ‘David’s Rise’, 43–51; and regularly by others since (see Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 392, for literature and useful comments). Nicol, ‘David’, 135–6, remains unconvinced. 22  So Gordon, I & II Samuel, 184; and Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 211. 23  This complicates the suggestion of Chapman, 1 Samuel, 190, that the narrative here wishes to unreservedly endorse David’s intended course of action against Nabal.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   43 Saul in 1 Sam 14. There, Saul’s own self-­imprecation in swearing violence against his son (14:44) is seemingly pre-­empted by the people’s deliverance of Jonathan. This self-­imprecation and Abner’s similar vow in abandoning Ishbosheth (2 Sam 3:9), might suggest that originally David’s vow here too was a conditional self-­ imprecation (i.e. ‘May God do so to me’), rather than a cursing of David’s enemies, as the Hebrew now suggests. However, the mention of enemies in the preceding chapter (1 Sam 24:20 [ET 19]) and Abigail’s mention of David’s enemies later in this one (vv. 26, 29), strengthen the case that here too, it is David’s enemies that he is cursing, rather than himself. Earlier in 1 Samuel, we have seen that Saul’s perception of David as his enemy (18:29; cf. also 19:17) begins to give way to the characterization instead of Saul as David’s enemy in 1 Sam 20. There, Jonathan imprecates himself (v. 13) if he fails to inform David of Saul’s intentions, while also praying that the LORD will cut off ‘every enemy of David from the face of the earth’ (20:15; cf. also v. 16).24 The transformation of Saul into David’s enemy then takes place in 1 Sam 24, where, as we have seen, Saul is the very ‘enemy’ which David’s men insist has been divinely delivered into David’s hands (24:5 [ET 4]). Indeed, later in that same chapter, Saul invokes the LORD’s reward (v. 20 [ET 19]) for David for sparing him given that ‘if a man finds his enemy, will he let him go away safe?’.25 It is this characterization of Saul as David’s ‘enemy’ in the preceding chapters which makes it all the more shocking when David now curses his new-­found enemy, Nabal, rather than sparing him, or even doing him good.26 Moreover, instead of the LORD being invoked to either reward David for not slaying his enemy or to eliminate David’s enemies on his behalf, David invokes the LORD here to complete the destruction of his enemies, which he intends to begin by killing Nabal. The servant’s concern that David intends to bring about not only the end of Nabal, but ‘all his house’ (v. 17) is seemingly confirmed by David’s vow to not leave alive any males (i.e. ‘who urinates against a wall’, ‫ ;משתין בקיר‬v. 22). This expression may reflect David’s pejoration or his passion, but more probably refers specifically to those who might have hope of producing progeny.27

24  As already noted, 1 Sam 20:16 is unclear in the Hebrew but invokes the LORD and mentions David’s enemies. 25 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 210, notes that Saul wishes God to reward David for doing what he himself did with Agag (i.e. sparing a royal enemy [1 Sam 15]). That Saul paid for doing so with the loss of his kingdom makes his endorsement of his own kingdom as David’s reward for sparing him more than a little ironic, especially given that Saul cannot seem to resist seeking David’s life. 26  It is very likely at least as original as Abigail’s own invocation of the LORD against David’s en­emies later in this chapter. If David’s enemies have been added to what was originally a self-­ imprecation, then this may well have been in conjunction with the insertion of chapter 25 between 24 and 26. 27  This seems preferable in light of the appearance of this phrase elsewhere, where the elimination of a dynasty or ‘house’ is also in view: 1 Kgs 14:10, 16:11, 21:21; 2 Kgs 9:8. For this proposal and a review of previous ones, see Smith, ‘Pisser against a Wall’. In view of this evidence, and the text’s

44  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David’s intention to destroy Nabal’s descendants, with the LORD’s assistance if necessary, might be seen to offer unexpected validation of Jonathan’s (1 Sam 20:15) and Saul’s efforts (1 Sam 24:22 [ET 21]) to extract vows from David that he will not destroy their own descendants.28 Admittedly, David’s vow against Nabal’s house does not ne­ces­sar­ily imply he will forget his vows to Jonathan and Saul to preserve theirs. However, David’s targeting of not merely Nabal but also his house demon­ strates to the reader not only the depth of the insult to David, but also a side of the son of Jesse which has not been glimpsed before. Earlier, Saul had sought to annihilate Ahimelech and his house for the betrayal of providing provisions for David and his men (1 Sam 21–22). Here, for the betrayal of failing to provide provisions, David now seeks to annihilate Nabal and his house.29 If the reader is left in little doubt of David’s intentions, the verses which follow (vv. 23–31) document with equal clarity the lengths to which Nabal’s wife, Abigail, goes to divert David. Her continuing urgency (v. 23) and the narrative’s emphasis on her obeisance (vv. 23, 24)30 prepare David and the reader for an appeal which begins with an entreaty (v. 24). Excusing her husband’s foolishness and her own ‘failure’ to deal with David’s messengers herself (v. 25), Abigail finally pleads for David to accept the provisions which Nabal has failed to proffer but which she has brought with her (v. 27). Abigail here seeks to persuade David to view her own misdemeanour of failing to pre-­empt Nabal’s foolish response (v. 15) as the lesser transgression to be forgiven (‘In me, my lord, me is the iniquity’, v. 24), instead of her husband’s more serious offence.31 It may be that Abigail seeks forgiveness for her own offence because her status as a woman offered her a protection from David which her husband as a man might not have enjoyed. Or perhaps she does so because her less egregious ‘sin’ was easier for David to forgive, or perhaps even because she was better able to prove her own contrition than that of her absent husband.32 In any case, as Abigail continues her entreaty, she not only ac­know­ ledges the wrong done to David and reiterates her request for forgiveness. She also shows particular interest in David himself avoiding ‘evil’ (‫ ;רעה‬v. 26, 28): 26‘Now

then, my lord, as the LORD lives and as your soul lives, because the LORD has restrained you from coming in(to) bloods and from saving with your own hand, may your enemies and those who seek to do evil to my lord be like Nabal. 27And may this gift which your maidservant has brought to my lord be

general thrust, it seems unlikely that David is presented as never really intending to kill Nabal (so Miscall, 1 Samuel, 155). 28  So Leithart, ‘Nabal and His Wine’, 526. 29 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 211. 30  While it is possible that the repetition of Abigail’s falling at David’s feet (lacking in LXX but pre­ sent in MT) is evidence of multiple sources, it is not impossible that the text means to refer to repeated prostration (so Smith, The Books of Samuel, 227) which certainly would emphasize Abigail’s obeisance. 31  See Shepherd, ‘The Trespass of Your Servant’. Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 780, also considers this possibility. 32  Shepherd, ‘The Trespass of Your Servant’, 44–51.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   45 given to the young men who follow my lord. 28Please forgive the offence of your maidservant. For the LORD will certainly make my lord an enduring house, because my lord is fighting the LORD’s battles and evil will not be found in you so long as you live. 29If a man rises up to pursue you and to seek your life, the soul of my lord will be bound in the bundle of the living in the care of the LORD your God. And the lives of your enemies he will sling out as from the hollow of a sling. 30And when the LORD has done to my lord according to all the good that he has spoken concerning you and has appointed you ruler over Israel, 31my lord will have no cause for grief or a stumbling block of the heart for having shed blood without cause or for my lord having saved himself. And when the LORD has dealt well with my lord, then remember your servant.’ 32And David said to Abigail, ‘Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me. 33Blessed be your discernment and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from coming in(to) bloods and from saving myself with my own hand.’ (1 Sam 25:26–33)

Abigail’s own divine invocation (‘As the LORD lives’) and her referencing of both David’s ‘enemies’ and ‘evil’ (v. 26) give the impression that Nabal’s anxious servant has relayed to her both David’s views and his vow (vv. 21–22). Hoping or assum­ ing that David will forgive her more trivial trespass (v. 28a), Abigail expresses her wish that David’s enemies and those who seek David’s life (vv. 26, 29) will end up like Nabal.33 While their fate will be clarified shortly, Abigail’s most fervent wish is that they, like him, will not be killed by David himself, because ‘the LORD has restrained you from coming (in)to bloods (‫ )מנעך יהוה מבוא בדמים‬and from saving with your own hand’ (‫( )והושע ידך לך‬v. 26).34 While the specific terminology of ‘bloods’ will receive attention below, it is worth noting here its close association with David’s restraint of his own ‘hand’. This recalls the frequent mention of David’s restraining of his hand noted in 1 Sam 24 (vv. 7, 11, 13, 14 [ET 6, 10, 12, 13]) in terms of the avoidance of ‘bloods’ advocated here by Abigail.35 Though her wish implies the sparing of Nabal, her words suggest that her primary concern is that David’s enemies (including Nabal) and those who do evil to David will not lead David to enter into ‘bloods’.36 What is at stake for David is seemingly implied 33  As Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 211, notes, the fact that Nabal has in no way sought David’s life, but Saul has repeatedly done so, suggests that Abigail has the latter in mind and strength­ ens the connection between 1 Sam 25 and the chapters which precede and follow it. 34  As Auld, I & II Samuel, 299, notes, while ‘bloods’ appears regularly in contexts of bloodshed, this particular expression is unique and enigmatic. This almost certainly explains why LXX supplies αἷμα ἀθῷον, ‘innocent blood’, a category introduced in the MT at 1 Sam 19:5. 35  The suggestion of Miscall, 1 Samuel, 152, that bloodguilt and taking matters into his own hands has not been an issue for David before this point underestimates the extent to which the issue has exercised David in the preceding chapters. Cf. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 185, who notes the significance of the illegitimate bloodshed signalled here for the wider narrative. 36  Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 115, sees Abigail’s warnings as ironic given David’s subsequent slaugh­ ter of men and women while based in Ziklag (1 Sam 27:9). See Chapter 3 below for why this seems unlikely.

46  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt by Abigail in v. 28 where the LORD’s making of a sure house (‫ )בית נאמן‬for David is premised on evil (‫ )רעה‬not being found in him as long as he lives. It is worth noting that thus far, it has been suggested that David’s ability to restrain himself from shedding illegitimate blood might have implications for the houses of Saul, Jonathan, and, in this chapter, Nabal.37 Now, in Abigail’s words, we find the first suggestion that David’s inability to avoid illegitimate bloodshed may have adverse implications for his own house.38 Having already referenced David’s own fate in her opening vow (‘As your soul lives’, ‫ ;חי־נפשך‬v. 26), Abigail then reminds David that he can afford to restrain his hand because his soul (‫‘ )נפש‬will be bound in the bundle of the living (‫ )החיים‬in the care of the LORD your God’ (v. 29). She also points out that David can afford to not ‘come in(to) bloods’ because the enemies which he spares (e.g. Saul and Nabal) will be dispatched by the LORD ‘as from the hollow of a sling’ (v. 29).39 In making this latter argument, Abigail seeks to correct David’s earlier invocation of the LORD to destroy those enemies who escape his own hand. She does so by voicing to David her anticipation of the fulfillment of the kind of prayer offered already by Jonathan in 1 Sam 20:15–16, namely, that the LORD himself will cut off David’s enemies without David needing to get blood on his own hands. That the problem of illegitimate bloodshed is at the heart of Abigail’s plea is confirmed by her invoking of ‘blood’ again as she concludes (v. 29).40 Here, her earlier language of ‘bloods’ (25:26), is parsed in terms of shedding (lit. pouring out) blood without cause (‫ ;ולשפך־דם חנם‬v. 31).41 The use of ‫‘ חנם‬without cause’ here recalls its only other appearance in 1 Samuel, where, as we have seen, Jonathan has warned Saul that he risks sinning against ‘innocent blood’ (‫ )דם נקי‬by putting David to death ‘without cause’ (‫ ;חנם‬19:5).42 There, Saul’s lack of cause for killing David was con­ firmed by the regular underlining of David’s righteousness in the chapters which

37  An observation echoed by Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 401–2; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 503. 38 That this language of a ‘sure house’ anticipates Nathan’s dynastic promise in 2 Sam 7:16 is observed by Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 311; Jobling, 1 Samuel, 154; and Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 178; though Auld, I & II Samuel, 300, notes that the actual phrase used here does not appear elsewhere in the books of Samuel. 39  Given that David himself wields the sling (1 Sam 17) and launches the stone against Goliath, Abigail’s argument for Davidic restraint and divine dependence can only really be served if she is alluding either to the episode as a whole (and David’s rhetoric of divine dependence; so Chapman, 1 Samuel, 191; and Campbell, 1 Samuel, 261) or alternatively to the sling as a weapon for the killing of an enemy. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 212, observes that Nabal’s becoming like a stone (25:37), on his way to his doom, confirms that he has been slung by God in precisely the way his wife anticipated. That David is like the stone kept in a bag by the shepherd to number his sheep (so Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 783–5, after reviewing the literature) is difficult to reconcile with the idea of enemies also being stones which are slung away. 40  As observed by Jobling, 1 Samuel, 153; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 186. 41  As Auld, I & II Samuel, 300, notes, this phrase appears in Samuel-­Kings only here and in 1 Kgs 2:31, 18:28 and 2 Kgs 21:16 and 24:4. Here, as in v. 26, an enigmatic and rare phrase is glossed by the Greek translator with the seemingly more comprehensible ‘innocent blood’ (αἷμα ἀθῷον). 42  So also Westbrook, Your Daughters, 71, n. 16.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   47 followed. Here, David’s emphasis on the ‘evil’ done to him by Nabal (v. 21) sug­ gests David’s own initial conviction that he has sufficient and indeed ample cause for shedding Nabal’s blood. That Nabal may indeed have done David wrong and certainly has insulted him is not contested here by Abigail. However, what Abigail does contest is that the wrong done to David, however egregious it may seem to him, offers sufficient cause for him to shed Nabal’s blood. Put another way, Nabal may well be more guilty here than David has been in the preceding chapters, but David is no more entitled to shed Nabal’s blood than Saul was permitted to shed David’s.43 Evidently, to kill without sufficient cause in either case would be to invite unwelcome consequences. While these consequences are not spelled out by Jonathan when warning Saul against shedding David’s blood il­ legit­ im­ ate­ ly, Abigail seeks to do so here by noting that shedding Nabal’s ‘blood’ might lead to a ‘stumbling block of the heart’ (‫ ;מכשול לב‬1 Sam 25:31) for David.44 In what way killing illegitimately might create a ‘stumbling block’ for David’s heart is less than clear because this formulation appears only here in the Hebrew Bible.45 If David’s ‘heart striking him’ after he cuts Saul’s robe suggests a pang of conscience (1 Sam 24:5–6 [ET 4–5]), Abigail may here be seeking to spare David the same, if he proceeds to kill Nabal and remembers it in later life. However, it is worth noting that when Nabal hears how near David has come to killing him, the narrator observes that Nabal’s ‘heart’ dies within him (1 Sam 25:37). This, and the fact that Nabal himself dies shortly thereafter, may suggest that the ‘heart’ prob­ lems which Abigail wishes to spare David might be rather more serious. Certainly, Abigail’s insistence on the ill-­effects of illegitimate bloodshed on David’s house (v. 28) and kingship (v. 30) alerts the reader to the potential significance of this problem, if David does not avoid it. Whereas David’s initial attempt to ‘bless’ Nabal (25:14) seemed sure to end in death for Nabal and disaster for David, here Abigail’s success in avoiding both is signalled by David’s immediate ‘blessing’ of the LORD for sending her (v. 32). However, David also proceeds to bless Abigail herself for her discernment which he acknowledges has ‘kept me this day from coming into bloods and from saving myself with my own hand’ (v. 33). In doing so, David precisely reiterates both Abigail’s initial hope and the primary aim of her intervention (v. 26).46 43  Thus, while David’s desire to shed Nabal’s blood is presented as understandable and indeed even natural (cf. 24:20 [ET 19]), the suggestion that it is presented as ‘legitimate’ in any meaningful way (Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 314; cf. also Levenson, ‘1 Samuel 25’, 23) seems less easy to sustain. 44 The accompanying word ‫לפוקה‬, translated as ‘cause for grief ’, is not found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible but is typically seen as related to the similarly unique and uncertain verb ‫פיק‬. The read­ ing offered by 4QSamc (‫ )למנקם‬is likely to be a contextual guess. 45  Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 312, note that the term must refer to the psy­cho­ logic­al rather than the physical. It seems a curious coincidence that Ezek 3:20–21 references both the relatively rare ‘stumbling block’ (‫ )מכשול‬and the notion that a prophet who does not warn others of their wrongdoing bears responsibility for their blood. 46 Jobling, 1 Samuel, 155; and Campbell, 1 Samuel, 261.

48  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Because the specific terminology of ‘bloods’ appears here for the first time in the David story and because the formulation ‘coming into bloods’ is entirely unique, it is worth considering how the passage shapes the reader’s understand­ ing of this language. First, we recall that both Abigail (v. 26) and now David (v. 33) closely associate David’s ‘coming into bloods’ with the idea of David’s saving with his own hand. The fact that Abigail also associates David’s saving by his own hand with his ‘pouring out of blood without cause’ (v. 31) also serves to associate the latter with ‘coming into bloods’. So too, as we noted, Abigail’s use of ‘without cause’ here recalls Jonathan’s warning to Saul that putting David to death ‘without cause’ (19:5) is equivalent to sinning against ‘innocent blood’. This cluster of asso­ ciations suggests that the ‘bloods’ here might be understood as those of Nabal which David had proposed to shed illegitimately, rather than the plural form ne­ces­sar­ily implying the abstracted notion of ‘bloodguilt’.47 Indeed, while it is clear that ‘bloods’ are undesirable, Abigail offers only the vaguest of hints as to why they might be dangerous and no clues as to what this danger might have to do with their plurality.48 While this complicates attempts to understand the expression ‘coming into bloods’ (‫)בוא בדמים‬, the phrase may suggest David and Abigail’s perception that ‘(illegitimate) bloods’ possess a negative sphere of influ­ ence best avoided. In responding to Abigail’s intervention, David reaffirms that the LORD has not merely sent her, but has also prevented him ‘from doing evil to you’ (‫;מהרע אתך‬ v. 34). This underlines the importance of Abigail’s intervention and her urgency in preventing the calamity which David’s destruction of Nabal’s house would have brought upon his own.49 It is thus not surprising that David lifts up the face (‫ ;ואשא פניך‬v. 35) of Abigail, who has earlier fallen on her face in penitence (v. 23). What is more, by encouraging Abigail to go ‘in peace’ (v. 35), David makes clear not only that he has forgiven her for not pre-­empting her foolish husband, but also that David himself will no longer be a threat to Nabal’s house.50 Indeed, David’s insistence to Abigail that ‘your’ petition (rather than Nabal’s) has won the day for ‘your’ house (v. 35) hints that David’s focus will soon shift from the fate of Nabal to that of Abigail. Moreover, when the reader then discovers (v. 36) that Nabal is in ‘his house’, very drunk and feasting like the king which David will be eventually (v. 30), it invites further suspicion that the fates of the husband and wife may well soon diverge. This is confirmed when after hearing his wife’s report, 47  So also Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 178. 48 Christ, Blutvergiessen, 48–9, argues that the plural here signifies the commonly assumed abstrac­ tion of bloodguilt. 49  This same emphasis continues to be heard in v. 35 in the succession of feminine pronouns in both the third person (‘her hand’, ‘to her’) and in the second person (‘your voice’, ‘your face’, ‘your house’). Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 400–1, notes that Abigail is like Jonathan both in her equipping of David despite familial pressures to do otherwise and in her helping of David with one eye on her own future. 50  For the ways in which this verse confirms David’s forgiveness of Abigail rather than Nabal, see Shepherd, ‘The Trespass of Your Servant’, 49–50.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   49 Nabal becomes ‘like a stone’ (v. 37). This news in turn prepares the reader for the further report that ten days later ‘the LORD struck Nabal and he died’ (v. 38).51 The narrator’s endorsement of Nabal’s death as the LORD’s doing confirms the case as one of divine judgement simpliciter. But David’s response suggests that his own interpretation of it owes much to Abigail’s earlier exhortations and ex­pect­ations.52 Having already blessed Abigail for preventing him from ‘coming in(to) bloods’ by killing Nabal (v. 33), David now blesses the LORD (v. 38). In doing so, David interprets Nabal’s death as not merely generic divine judgement but as a returning of the ‘evil’ of Nabal on his own head which it would have been ‘evil’ for David himself to repay (v. 39).53 Such sentiments accord with Abigail’s own hopes, that ‘evil’ should not be found in David (v. 28), that those who do ‘evil’ to David might be like Nabal (v. 26), and that the LORD would extinguish the lives of David’s enemies (v. 29). Unsurprisingly, Abigail’s further hope that she would be remembered (v. 31) is fulfilled when she receives the offer of marriage (vv. 39–40) borne by David’s messengers with the same obeisance and urgency (v. 41) which had earlier saved her (v. 23).54 This conclusion to the chapter might suggest that 1 Sam 25 has been included merely to explain David’s marriage to Abigail. But David’s acquisition of another wife, Ahinoam, in the space of a single verse (v. 43), strongly suggests that the dramatic and detailed story of Abigail and David has been included here for more than merely the purposes of reportage.55 That these purposes are bound up with David’s journey to the throne is confirmed when, after acquiring two wives, David’s wife Michal is taken from him and given to Palti(el) by Saul (v. 44). Indeed, the first mention of Saul in the final verse of 1 Sam 25 not only highlights the king’s conspicuous absence from the chapter, it also heralds Saul’s return to the stage as the narrative of his demise and David’s rise resumes in chapter 26.

The Sparing of Saul (Again) The beginning of chapter 26 signals in various ways that the story of Saul and David here picks up where it left off in chapter 24. Saul is once again told of the 51 Jobling, 1 Samuel, 155; and Smith, The Books of Samuel, 228, think this sounds more like a stroke than merely an emotional response, however strong. Others emphasize that like Saul, Nabal is as good as dead before he actually is dead (e.g. Bodner, 1 Samuel, 271). 52 Miscall, 1 Samuel, 155, resists what he sees as David’s interpretive liberty in misreading the death of Nabal as an act of God. Note, however, that the narrator does not appear to share Miscall’s misgivings. 53  Thus God is credited with not just the role of arbitrator (so Smith, The Books of Samuel, 228) but also avenger in v. 39. 54  So observes Bodner, 1 Samuel, 271. Auld, I & II Samuel, 297, notes that Abigail is one of various (though not numerous) biblical women who are characterized as moving quickly (see e.g. Rebecca). 55  While Stoebe, Das Erste Buch Samuelis, 454, suggests 1 Sam 25 is concerned simply with how David found a wife and what sort of a wife she was, Campbell, 1 Samuel, 263, rightly notes the primary concern is the avoidance of responsibility for illegitimate bloodshed. See also, Gordon, I & II Samuel, 181.

50  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt whereabouts of David (24:2 [ET 1], 26:1), proceeds again to gather 3,000 men (24:3 [ET 2], 26:2), and again seeks David in a wilderness (24:2 [ET 1], 26:2, 3).56 Yet, as we will see, the similarities between the two chapters also serve to fore­ ground their differences,57 and indeed the development in the portrayal of David and the problem of innocent blood.58 For example, here (ch. 26) David pro­ active­ly seeks Saul out instead of merely happening to find him (ch. 24).59 So too, while in both chapters Saul is placed at David’s mercy, in 1 Sam 24 it is by virtue of Saul relieving himself, whereas in chapter 26, Saul and his company fall into a deep and divinely induced sleep. This sleep, of course, enables David’s incursion into Saul’s camp,60 but it also reinforces the conclusion voiced by other characters in both chapters, that David’s enemy, Saul, has been given into his hand by God (24:5 [ET 4], 26:8). Whereas in chapter 24, David’s men as a group present this conclusion as a prophecy heard by David, here it is instead voiced as a matter of fact by Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, who volunteers to accompany David on his mission. It should be noted that in chapter 24, David’s exercising of restraint is highlighted by the prophecy’s insistence that Saul had been delivered into David’s hand, for him to do as seemed right in his eyes (24:5 [ET 4]). Abishai here omits this latter detail, presumably assuming that his dispatching of Saul on David’s behalf is the obvious and natural implication of God’s deliverance of Saul into David’s hand.61 It is unclear whether Abishai expects to dispatch Saul with the king’s spear or his own (v. 8). But the explicit mention of the royal spear ‘stuck in the ground’ by Saul’s head as he sleeps, suggests that Abishai may view his offer to kill Saul as

56  The resemblance of 1 Sam 24 and 26 has been the cause of much scholarly discussion, largely focused on determining whether the accounts in the respective chapters are successive elaborations of a single original account (so e.g. Koch, Growth of the Biblical Tradition, 132–48) or whether there were originally two stories (so e.g. Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 289–91, who discuss earlier views; cf. more recently Dietrich, ‘Die zweifache Verschonung Sauls’; and Stoebe, ‘Gedanken zur Heldensage’). For the question of which of the two is historically prior, see Edenburg, ‘How (Not) to Murder’, who argues persuasively for the priority of chapter 26 over chapter 24, and now also McKenzie, ‘Elaborated Evidence’, who strengthens that argument but resumes the case for separate authorship. Cf. Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 175–80; and further, Van Seters, ‘Two Stories of David Sparing Saul’s Life in 1 Samuel 24 and 26’, for the suggestion that ch. 24 contains the original story and ch. 26 a revised version belonging to his ‘David Saga’. 57  For the various differences between the two accounts in 1 Sam 24 and 26, see Edenburg, ‘How (Not) to Murder’, 75, n. 31. 58  So, Gordon, I & II Samuel, 187; and earlier Gordon, ‘David’s Rise’. 59 Bodner, 1 Samuel, 275. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 531, notes that Saul’s searching gives way to David’s finding. 60  So Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 182. 61  So observes Miscall, 1 Samuel, 159. Bodner, 1 Samuel, 276–7, wonders whether Abishai wishes to take matters into his own hands because of David’s track record of restraint (1 Sam 24). Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 534, ponders whether Abishai is chosen by David because he expects an Israelite to know better (than a Hittite) about the inviolability of the LORD’s anointed. While it is undoubtedly true that the mention of Ahimelech being a Hittite confirms the presence of non-­Israelites in David’s band at this point (so Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 180–6) it is less clear what the inclusion of this detail is meant to signal to the reader, given that we are already aware of Doeg the Edomite in Saul’s entourage.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   51 poetic justice, given Saul’s regular use of his own spear to try and kill David.62 Indeed, not only does Abishai wish to strike (‫ )נכה‬Saul with the spear (‫)בחנית‬, as Saul had sought to do to David (18:11, 26:8), he also desires to run Saul through with the spear into the ground (‫ ;בארץ‬26:8), as Saul had sought to run David through into the wall (18:11).63 While in 1 Sam 18, Saul, as king, simply resolves to spear David (‘I will’), here Abishai’s subordination to David requires him to request the opportunity to do so (‘Allow me’). Nevertheless, this identification of Abishai’s intention with Saul’s earlier aggression invites a reading of Abishai as a kind of ‘Saul’, at least insofar as a proclivity to shed blood illegitimately is concerned.64 The reader is offered here a first glimpse of the sons of Zeruiah’s lethal efficiency by Abishai’s insistence that he will have no need of a second thrust (26:8). Indeed, in light of Saul’s failure to kill David with his spear on two occasions (18:11, 19:10), Abishai may intend to slight Saul with his promise that he will need only one opportunity and only one blow to return the favour.65 This presentation of Abishai as intending to repay Saul for the violence the king would do to David suggests Abishai’s tacit endorsement of Saul’s own view (24:20 [ET 19]) that ‘enemies’ would typically be treated this way when they are placed in one’s hand by God. Instead, David reiterates the conviction already expressed to his men as a group in chapter 24, that Saul is no normal enemy because he is the ‘LORD’s anointed’ (24:7 [ET 6], 26:9). 9But

David said to Abishai, ‘Do not destroy him, for who can send his hand against the LORD’s anointed and be innocent?’ 10And David said, ‘As the LORD lives, the LORD will strike him, or his time will come and he will die, or he will go down into battle and be swept away. 11The LORD forbid that I should send my hand against the LORD’s anointed. But take now the spear that is by his head and the water jar and let us go.’ 12So David took the spear and the water jar by Saul’s head and they went away.  (1 Sam 26:9–12)

Because Saul’s royal status has already been clandestinely conferred upon David too, it is easy to see David’s self-­interest in his insistence on the sanctity of the king. While David’s words are presented as deterring both his men earlier (24:8 [ET 7]) 62  As noted in passing by Campbell, 1 Samuel, 266; Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 386; Bar Efrat, Erste Buch Samuel, 339; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 821. Whether the spear represents Saul’s kingdom per se (so McKenzie, ‘Elaborated Evidence’, 443), it is clear that by taking it, David demon­ strates his ability to remove Saul’s power to kill him, and by returning it to him, makes a show of trusting that Saul will not do so (see Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 549; though see 1 Sam 27). Cf. Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 182–8. 63 This connection is drawn by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 535; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 821. 64  If Abishai’s offer allows David to be spared even the thought of harming Saul (so McKenzie, ‘Elaborated Evidence’, 443), it also facilitates David making a show of his restraint. 65 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 535; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 821. Thus, this is not merely bravado as suggested by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 277.

52  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt and Abishai here (26:11, 12) from killing Saul, neither the narrator nor David offer any meaningful explanation for the protected status of the LORD’s anointed. It may be that this status was so widely accepted and understood that no explanation was seen to be required. If, however, this view is idiosyncratic to David, the men’s acceptance of it may say more about his powers of persuasion and perceived authority, than their actual endorsement of his view that the ‘LORD forbids it’ (24:7 [ET 6], 26:11). In chapter 24, it may be recalled that David equates not killing Saul with not sinning against him (24:12 [ET 11]). Here in chapter 26, he rearticulates the risk of killing Saul to Abishai by insisting that the one who kills the anointed will not remain ‘innocent’ (‫ ;נקה‬26:9). We remember that in 1 Sam 25, Abigail and David reference the threat of ‘coming into bloods’ and equate it with ‘pouring out of blood’ (25:26, 31, 33) and ‘evil’ (25:28, 39). By contrast, the language of impurity here and in 1 Sam 24 resonates with Jonathan’s earlier warning to Saul that killing David will be impious: ‘Why then will you sin (‫ )תחטא‬against innocent blood (‫ )בדם נקי‬by killing David without cause (‫( ’?)חנם‬1 Sam 19:5; cf. also 19:4). While the two sets of vocabulary are linked by the notion of blood shed without sufficient warrant, the resumption here of the language of ‘innocence’ from 1 Sam 19 also highlights a development. In chapter 19, it is David’s blood which will be ‘innocent’ if shed by Saul. Here, David’s warning to Abishai is that whoever sheds Saul’s blood will not be ‘innocent’. This further illustrates the increasing interest in innocent blood as not merely a problem for Saul, but increasingly for David. However, the lan­ guage of ‘innocence’ also explains the attraction of the abstracted notion of ‘bloodguilt’, despite it not being articulated explicitly in the David story. In chapter 24, it may be remembered that David’s willingness to restrain him­ self is accompanied by a prayer for God to avenge him (24:13 [ET 12]). Here, David’s efforts to deter Abishai also reflect a conviction that the problem of Saul’s ongoing presence will be resolved without David’s own intervention (26:10). While David allows for the possibility that Saul may be removed from the scene by natural causes or the violence of war, it is notable that his starting point is the expectation that ‘the LORD will strike him’ (‫)יהוה יגפנו‬. This is no more than the reader expects in light of the narrator’s earlier assurance that ‘the LORD struck (‫ )ויגף יהוה‬Nabal and he died’ (25:38)—a conclusion which is drawn by David, with Abigail’s encouragement.66 The similarity of David’s phraseology here encourages the reader’s suspicion that David’s resolve to avoid killing Saul has been stiffened by the divine striking of Nabal in 1 Sam 25. That such a steeling is required here in chapter 26 is surely explained in part by the introduction of Abishai and his

66  This parallel is noted frequently by others including e.g. Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 320; Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 212; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 536. Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 387, fails to note this point, perhaps because she reads 1 Sam 24 and 26 in sequence without reading 25.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   53 own competing conviction that Saul has been delivered by God into David’s hand so that Abishai can execute him on David’s behalf. Might Abishai propose to use his own hand to execute Saul (1 Sam 26:8) in order to distance David’s ‘hand’ from the deed?67 If so, David might be seen as stopping Abishai from killing Saul (v. 9) in order to protect his nephew. What makes this unlikely, however, is David’s further insistence in v. 11: ‘The LORD forbid that I should send my hand against the LORD’s anointed’. David’s mention of his own hand here suggests his perception that even if Abishai killed Saul, instead of David doing it himself, David would still be fully responsible for Saul’s death, just as Saul would have been if he had persuaded Jonathan to kill David for him (1 Sam 19:4–5).68 This is a point which will be of no small significance when David’s interactions with the sons of Zeruiah later in the narrative are explored.69 Having retreated with Abishai to a safe distance from Saul’s camp (v. 13), David does not call to Saul, as he does in chapter 24. Instead, he queries the silence of Abner (v. 14), whose pre-­eminence in Saul’s army will be mirrored eventually by Abishai’s own place alongside Joab in David’s army. In replying to David’s question, Abner responds with one which is curious in its own way: ‘who are you who calls out to the king?’ Whereas in 1 Sam 17:55–58, Abner professes his ignorance of David’s parentage, here Abner’s query seems to suggest he is ignorant of David’s identity.70 Saul’s recognition of David’s voice (26:17),71 however, and the fact that Abner asks ‘who it is that calls out to the king’ (26:14) suggests the possibility that Abner is as knowing here as he may be in 1 Sam 17. While some suggest that David initially addresses Abner here like this in order to gain access to the king,72 this seems unlikely as David has no qualms about speaking directly to Saul (1 Sam 24:9 [ET 8]) and will do so again shortly here (26:17ff.). It also seems unlikely that Abner’s query regarding who is addressing the king is an attempt to contest David’s right to do so.73 Instead, as in 1 Sam 17:55–58, so too here, Abner’s ‘fail­ ure’ to recognize David likely reflects his desire to facilitate an exchange between David and Saul.

67 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 277, sees Abishai offering David the opportunity to ‘remain technically guiltless’ by killing Saul on David’s behalf. So too Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 386, hints that Abishai may be offering to kill Saul so that David does not have to. 68 Chapman, 1 Samuel, 194, suggests that David’s refusal of Abishai’s proxy reflects his judgement of its inadequacy, though it is unclear what Chapman sees in particular in Abigail’s intervention which should have persuaded David of this. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 277, rightly recognizes that the use of a proxy would not absolve David of responsibility. 69  Kimchi (Mikraot Gedolot) sees David’s taking of the spear and jug himself as reflecting second thoughts about whether Abishai will be able to exercise the necessary restraint. 70 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 278 (see also Buracker, ‘Abner’, 61–2), suggests that Abner’s question may be entirely knowing and very much more contemptuous: ‘who are you to call out to the king?’; while this is not impossible (cf. 1 Sam 24:17 [ET 16] and the possibility of legitimacy issues in 1 Sam 17:55–58) the reading of ‘who are you?’ as a question of identity seems more natural and probable (see e.g. 2 Sam 1:8 and Gen 27:18, 32). 71  So Buracker, ‘Abner’, 62. 72 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 278. 73 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 278.

54  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt When David proceeds to impugn Abner’s protection of Saul’s life (vv. 15–16), it ironically highlights David’s own need to protect the king from Abishai. But the allegation of Abner’s incompetence also robs David’s sortie of what little daring it had seemed to require, after the camp’s divine sedation. This is the first time, but will not be the last, that the narrative will call into question the loyalty or compe­ tence of Abner’s service to Saul and his house.74 But David goes considerably fur­ ther here. He insists that because Abner and his men have not protected the life of their ‘lord, the LORD’s anointed’ (26:16, cf. 24:7, 11 [ET 6, 10]) as David has (e.g. 26:11), they are ‘sons of death’ (‫—)בני־מות‬a figure of speech used previously by Saul to suggest that David himself is deserving of death (1 Sam 20:31).75 This ­language underlines both David’s perception of a duty of care for blood which is protected and his conviction that one’s failure to preserve blood which should not be shed might come at the price of one’s own life. It is also worth noting that while David swears that Abner and his men deserve death, as David also swore that Nabal did (25:34), here David does not position himself as executioner, or invite Abishai to kill Abner.76 Turning finally to Saul, David queries again Saul’s continuing pursuit of him (cf. 24:15 [ET 14]) and wonders rhetorically whether there is any evil in his own  hand (26:18). Upon concluding that there is none, or at least none which cannot be adequately dealt with, David then makes his final appeal: 19Now

let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If it is the LORD who has incited you against me, may he accept an offering, but if it is men, may they be cursed before the LORD, for they have driven me out this day that I should have no share in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, ‘Go, serve other gods.’ 20Now therefore, do not let my blood fall to the ground facing the presence of the LORD; for Israel’s king has come out to seek a solitary flea, like one who hunts a partridge in the mountains.  (1 Sam 26:19–20)

David begins in an unexpected fashion by acknowledging to Saul the possibility that the LORD himself may be behind Saul’s pursuit of him. It is worth ­noting  that David will come to a similar conclusion in 2 Sam 16:11, when 74  For a discussion of the characterization of Abner in the books of Samuel, see Shepherd, ‘Knowing Abner’, in which I argue (212–15) that here Abner remains silent to facilitate Saul’s engagement with David, whose accusations of incompetence against Abner are shown by the narrator to be dubious. 75  While Pyper, David as Reader, 162, rightly notes that the accusation of being a ‘son of death’ might imply that the accused is either deserving of death (so Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 827) or a bringer of death, we will see that if the death which is brought is undeserved/illegitimate then this implies the former in any case. 76 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 543, notes that neither in 1 Sam 25:34 nor here does David’s vow of death end in actual death. In 2 Sam 12:5, the ‘rich man’ of Nathan’s parable earns a similar condemnation from David for taking the poor man’s ewe-­lamb, but clearly cannot be put to death (see Chapter 5 below).

‘ Blood without Cause ’   55 Shimei,  another member of the house of Kish, curses David for shedding Saulide blood. However, David only contemplates the possibility of Saul’s divine instigation here in passing, because he deems it either unlikely or easily remedied with a sacrifice. Considered at greater length by David is the possibility that ­others, presumably in Saul’s entourage, are responsible for continuing to incite Saul to kill David, much as Abishai has incited David to kill Saul. Against these theoretical enemies, David invites divine intervention in the form of a curse. However, here, David does not actually invoke this intervention as he has done previously (1 Sam 24:13 [ET 12], 25:22) and as has been done on his behalf by Abigail (25:26) and Jonathan (1 Sam 20:16). Satisfied that Saul will eventually be removed from the scene by natural, unnat­ ural, or supernatural means (26:10), David’s earlier focus on divine vengeance and repayment (1 Sam 24–25) gives way to a wish for protection (26:20). Here David goes beyond simply requesting that Saul stop pursuing him. Instead, he urges the king to prevent David’s blood from falling to the ground ‘before/facing the presence of the LORD’ (‫ ;מנגד פני יהוה‬v. 20). Here the preposition ‫ מנגד‬means what it almost always does elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.77 In 2 Sam 21:9, we will see that the atoning for innocent ‘bloods’ requires that the Saulides must fall ‘before the LORD’ (‫)לפני יהוה‬.78 Here, David’s fear seems to be that if his blood falls ‘before the presence of the LORD’, it will be because his death is required to atone for the blood of Saul which he has illegitimately shed. From David’s perspective, when Saul continues to ‘come out to seek a single flea, like one who hunts a par­ tridge in the mountains’ (1 Sam 26:20), the king of Israel does not merely increase his own chances of incurring ‘bloods’ by killing David. By hunting David like this, Saul also increases the risk that David will incur ‘bloods’ himself by killing Saul and that David’s own blood will be required instead. Saul once again agrees to cease and desist, admitting that continuing to pursue David would be imprudent, rather than impious, as he suggested in chapter 24. Saul also makes an explicit promise never to harm David (v. 21) because Saul recognizes that ‘my life’ (‫ )נפשי‬has been ‘precious’ (‫ )יקרה‬in ‘your eyes’ (‫)בעיניך‬. David’s invitation for someone to retrieve Saul’s spear (v. 22) and his insistence that the LORD rewards righteousness (v. 23a) suggests an acceptance of both Saul’s apology and his promise to stop pursuing David. However, David’s reminder that he has not extended his hand against the ‘LORD’s anointed’ (v. 23), confirms that David has his own righteousness and his own reward in mind. 77 While ‫ מנגד‬can mean ‘away from’ when it appears with verbs of removing, cutting off, or hiding (e.g. Isa 1:16, Ps 31:23, Jonah 2:5, Am 9:3, Jer 16:17, Song 6:5) here the fear David has for his blood is that it will ‘fall’ (‫ )יפל‬to the ground, ‫‘ מנגד‬facing/opposite/before’ the presence of the LORD. For this meaning, see also e.g. Gen 21:16, Num 2:2, Deut 28:66, 32:52, 2 Kgs 2:15, 3:22, Neh 3:19, 25, 27, and cf. also Judg 20:34 and 2 Kgs 2:7, all of which are translated accordingly by one or more English ver­ sions. While in 2 Kgs 2:7 and Gen 21:16 the preposition appears with ‫‘ רחוק‬afar’ it does not do so here. 78 Auld, I & II Samuel, 308, notes in passing the appearance of this terminology in a context of execution in 2 Sam 21 and 1 Sam 15.

56  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Indeed, David seems to have lingering doubts regarding Saul’s righteousness and promise (v. 21). We see this in David’s affirmation that because Saul’s life was indeed significant in his eyes (cf. 21), his hope is that his own life will be signifi­ cant in the LORD’s eyes (‫( )בעיני יהוה‬v. 24).79 Given these doubts, it is not surprising that David does not return with Saul, despite the king’s blessing of him (v. 25). Instead, David and Saul here go their separate ways, as they did at the end of 1 Sam 24. This time, however, David goes into exile and Saul to his doom. * * * We saw in the last chapter how 1 Sam 19–22 illustrates David’s growing awareness that his illegitimate killing of others could prove as problematic for his own royal ambitions as it has proved for Saul’s failing kingship. Here, our reading of 1 Sam 24–26 confirms earlier suggestions that their pre-­eminent interest is in how David manages to avoid shedding unwarranted blood.80 Previous analyses rightly high­ light the similarities between David’s sparing of Saul (1 Sam 24 and 26) and Nabal (1 Sam 25). However, the differences between them foreground the developments which may be observed across the three chapters, not least in relation to David’s temptation to shed blood without sufficient warrant.81 While frequently disparaged as a fiction, we saw that the reported oracle that Saul has been divinely given into David’s hand is not disputed by David and may simply reflect a commonsense conclusion. Indeed, David’s impressing of this very point upon Saul and the reader suggests that here David is being set a test by the LORD. With Saul at his mercy, will David’s scruples prove ­sufficient to prevent him from speeding his journey to the throne by illegitimately shedding the blood of Saul? In 1 Sam 24, the narrative insists that it is not because Saul is innocent, but because he is the anointed king, that David may not legitimately shed his blood. Indeed, David’s unwillingness to allow his men to kill Saul suggests David’s belief that ‘innocent’ blood on their hands will be ‘innocent’ blood on his. In chapter 24, we also find David himself voicing for the first time the hope, previously expressed by Jonathan, that David’s enemies, like Saul, might be eliminated by divine intervention on David’s behalf.82 At the same time, Saul’s request for a reassuring vow leaves the reader with questions. Has the sword which David uses against the royal robe

79  As Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 391, puts it: ‘[David] puts himself under debt to the deity, not to the king’. 80  For Gordon, ‘David’s Rise’, 43, the question is: will David incur bloodguilt on his way to the throne? (cf. also Gordon, I & II Samuel, 181 and 185; Edenburg, ‘How (Not) to Murder’, 79; Levenson, ‘I Samuel 25’, 23; and Campbell, 1 Samuel, 245, 247). Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 691, speaks of refraining from ‘unnecessary bloodshed’ (‘unnotiges Blutvergiessen’). 81  As has been observed by Gordon, ‘David’s Rise’, 61. While our own understanding will diverge from Gordon’s at various points, his observation of the centrality of bloodguilt (52–61) and the por­ trayal of David’s development in relation to it in these chapters is reflected in our discussion here. 82  As observed by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 261.

‘ Blood without Cause ’   57 now been sheathed for good at the end of the chapter? Or might it be drawn against Saul again, when David’s commitment to avoiding unwarranted blood­ shed is tested further as he strives to secure the kingship? We have seen that the first of these tests arrives in the form of his encounter with Nabal (1 Sam 25), whose claim to innocence is as thin as Saul’s, according to both Nabal’s wife and his servant. David does not, however, respond to Nabal’s evil with restraint and a vow to spare him, as he did to Saul. Instead, David reacts here by immediately vowing to slaughter Nabal and his house, and invoking the LORD to finish the job, if David is not able to. The astonishing contrast with David’s own earlier behaviour hints that Saul’s prior request for a vow from David to prevent the eradication of his house is not without justification. Indeed, the threat which illegitimate bloodshed poses to David and his house, if he kills Nabal, is confirmed by Abigail, whose speech (vv. 26–31) is central not only to this chapter,83 but to chapters 24–26 as a whole.84 While Nabal does not enjoy the protected status of Saul,85 his violation of a cultural norm in depriving David of hospitality, though far from innocent, evidently offers an insufficient warrant for his death at David’s hands. Moreover, David and the reader learn here for the first time that David’s proposed massacre, because it is unwarranted, would not only eliminate Nabal and his house, but also put at risk David’s own house and his securing of the throne. Abigail also insists that David need not risk shedding blood without sufficient cause in order to eliminate his enemies, because the LORD will do it for him. While this echoes earlier sentiments, 1 Sam 25 proves this point to David and the reader for the first time by reporting the divinely orchestrated demise of Nabal, the enemy David has spared.86 Having narrowly passed the trial of chapter 25, David is tested again in the next chapter when he steals into the midst of Saul’s camp, convinced that the LORD has given Saul into his hands yet again. This episode offers a sterner test of David’s resolve to not shed Saul’s blood thanks to the presence of Abishai, who presses David to be allowed to dispatch Saul himself. David’s retort that the LORD 83  So Gordon, ‘David’s Rise’, 52; and Edenburg, ‘How (Not) to Murder’, 79–80. 84  See e.g. Campbell, 1 Samuel, 247, who notes that Abigail’s sentiments in 25:31 sum up ‘David’s freedom from bloodguilt’ as the subject of all three chapters. So too McKenzie, ‘Elaborated Evidence’, 444; Caquot and de Robert, Les livres de Samuel, 314; and Adam, ‘Nocturnal Intrusions’, 7, who rightly recognizes the significance of bloodguilt in 1 Sam 18–26 and the thematic centrality of it in 24–26 (Adam, ‘Law and Narrative’, 318). By contrast, Jobling’s suggestion (1 Samuel, 157), that the danger of bloodguilt is new here, may reflect merely the use of new vocabulary to describe what has, nevertheless, been a clear concern of the narrative since 19:5. Perhaps because it is Jonathan who seeks to spare Saul from shedding blood ‘without cause’ in 1 Sam 19, Jobling misses the fact that Jonathan does there what Abigail does here, in seeking to prevent David from shedding blood without cause. Here and in other ways, Jonathan is like the women in David’s orbit (cf. Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 400–1). 85  Amidst the widely observed similarities between Nabal and Saul, this point of contrast is high­ lighted by Auld, I & II Samuel, 296. 86  Thus, while Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 271, suggests that one lesson of 1 Sam 25 is that David’s throne cannot be claimed by ‘violence’, it seems right to qualify this as ‘human violence illegitimately inflicted’.

58  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt will not consider ‘innocent’ one who kills his ‘anointed’ resonates both with his own speech in chapter 24, but also with Jonathan’s earlier warning to Saul about David’s innocent blood (1 Sam 19:5). As others have suggested, the reader is invited to see the divine striking of Nabal as inspiring David’s conviction here that neither he nor Abishai need to kill Saul, because the LORD will do so. Also new to the reader in chapter 26 is the idea, expressed by David, that someone who does not exercise a required duty of care for protected blood might be themselves ‘guilty’ and required to pay with their own blood. Such an assumption seems to lie behind David’s anxiety that his blood might fall to the ground ‘before’ the LORD (1 Sam 26:20). This suggests that when David asks Saul to stop pursuing him, he does so not merely because he fears he will be killed by Saul. David also asks because he fears that Saul’s pursuit will eventually force David to kill the ‘LORD’s anointed’ and incur ‘bloods’ which will need to be atoned for by the shedding of his own. If David does fear this, it is worth considering how this might illuminate the enigmatic plural ‘bloods’ which David and Abigail are so keen for David to not ‘enter into’ in 1 Sam 25. It might suggest that unlike blood which has been prop­ erly and legitimately shed, the problem with innocent blood (i.e. blood shed with­ out sufficient cause) is that it begets more blood (i.e. ‘bloods’), whether it is properly avenged or it spawns a cycle of bloodshed.87 Opportunities to test this suggestion will not be in short supply, as we explore the concern with unwar­ ranted bloodshed in David’s final rise and Saul’s inexorable demise.88

87  So Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 785. 88  For the way in which chapters 24–26 prepare specifically for the violence of 2 Sam 1 and 4, see Adam, Saul und David, 114. The observation by Adam, ‘Law and Narrative’, 322, that ‘David is stylized as the ideal future Judean ruler without any intention to commit homicide’ does not seem to me to quite capture the nuanced and complex way in which the narrative charts David’s growing awareness of the problems of innocent blood and his temptation to shed it. However, Adam has recognized more than most how the issue of illegitimate bloodshed is at the heart of the narratives of 1 Sam 18–27 and he is surely right to emphasize their elaboration of Saul’s ‘intention to kill’.

3 ‘Your Blood be on Your Head’: 1 Sam 27–2 Sam 1 Having seen Saul narrowly escape with his life twice in 1 Sam 24–26, we turn now to the transition between the books of Samuel and discover that the killing of Saul will also be reported twice (1 Sam 31 and 2 Sam 1). In both reports, we will be offered further evidence of Saul’s disregard for blood which should not be spilled—­specifically his own. At the same time and by way of contrast, in the latter of the two reports (2 Sam 1) we will see that David’s mounting anxiety regarding blood shed illegitimately encourages him to take unprecedented steps to address it, by killing the one who has claimed to kill Saul. As David parts with Saul for the last time (ch. 26), we encounter what has been called the ‘Accession Narrative’ (1 Sam 27–2 Sam 1).1 However, the action focused on David (1 Sam 27, 29, 30; 2 Sam 1) is also interleaved with chapters focused on Saul (1 Sam 28, 31). As a result, the narrative remains almost as much about Saul’s demise as David’s rise, which is not complete until he is crowned king at the beginning of 2 Sam 5. Despite promises to the contrary (e.g. 1 Sam 19:6), Saul has persisted in seeking David’s blood. Thus, it is hardly surprising that David finds little reassurance in Saul’s most recent pledge (1 Sam 26:21) and takes refuge with Achish, king of Gath (1 Sam 27:2), who installs him in Ziklag (v. 6). David is, of course, no stranger to Philistines, or even to Achish, to whom David has already attempted to flee in 1 Sam 21, after the massacre in Nob. While this is another example of the narrative repeating itself, the two episodes have little else in common, apart from illustrating David’s ability to outfox the Philistine king.2 This suggests that David’s duplicity, when deployed against Philistine foes, is likely reported here for the general amusement, and possibly even admiration, of ancient Israelite readers, rather than for their moral judgement.3 The fact that David deceives Achish is, however, less relevant for our purpose than what he lies about:

1  Firth, ‘The Accession Narrative’. 2  So Gordon, I & II Samuel, 171; F. Crüsemann, ‘Zwei alttestamentliche Witze’; and Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 608. 3  So Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 608, who rightly sees it as unlikely that David’s duplicitousness would be held against him by an ancient Israelite reader (contra Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 217). King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0004

60  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt 8Now

David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites, for these were the ancient inhabitants of the land, as far as Shur, to the land of Egypt. 9David would strike the land and would leave neither man nor woman alive, but would take away the sheep, the oxen, the donkeys, the camels and the garments and return to Achish. 10When Achish asked, ‘Where have you raided today?’ David would say, ‘The Negeb of Judah,’ or, ‘The Negeb of the Jerahmeelites,’ or, ‘The Negeb of the Kenites.’ 11And David would leave neither man nor woman alive to bring news to Gath, saying to himself, ‘they might tell about us and say, “David has done this.” ’ This was his custom all the days he lived in the country of the Philistines. 12And Achish trusted David, saying to himself, ‘He has made himself offensive to his people Israel; therefore he will be my servant forever.’  (1 Sam 27:8–12)

It is not surprising that some readers have seen this account of David’s killing of men and women amongst the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites as reflecting a critique of David’s bloodthirstiness.4 Nevertheless, closer examination of the episode is required to determine whether David’s killing of these men and women is presented as illegitimate and/or incurring ‘bloods’. For some, David’s leaving of ‘no man or woman’ (v. 9) alive is justified by the narrative, on the assumption that David here embraces the practice of herem. As we have seen in our discussion of the massacre at Nob (1 Sam 22), this involves destroying and thereby devoting to the deity, the usual proceeds of war, including people who might otherwise be enslaved or sold for profit.5 This practice is reflected in the story of Saul’s own violent encounter with the Amalekites in 1 Sam 15, which mentions the destruction of ‘men and women’ along with other categories of plunder (1 Sam 15:3). If David is practicing herem, his killing of the ‘men and women’ here would seemingly allow him to avoid Saul’s mistake in sparing the Amalekite king, Agag (15:8). However, when David carries off the animals and clothes, it sounds very much like Saul’s transgressing of the ‘ban’, when he allows the people to spare the best of the animals for ‘sacrifice to the LORD’ (1 Sam 15:9).6 In fact, if David was being presented here as constrained by herem, what would have required explanation is why he did not kill the animals (cf. 1 Sam 30:26–31) rather than why he did kill the men and women. 4  See, for instance, Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 564, who refers to ‘mass murder’. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 287, is more cautious, referring only to the levels of violence as ‘excessive’ (cf. Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 25–6 ‘exzessiver Weise’). Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 25, sees David’s descent from the moral heights of 1 Sam 24–26 as not merely a fall but a ‘crash’ (‘Absturz’). Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 191–2, does not see David conducting raids on the ‘aboriginal peoples of the region’ and ‘massacring the inhabitants’ as a praiseworthy presentation of David for a Persian audience. 5  So Stoebe, Erste Buch Samuelis, 480–1; and Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 262. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 286, seems to see this practice in the background, while acknowledging the absence of the characteristic language (so Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 26). 6 For the relevance of this episode, see e.g. McCarter, 1 Samuel, 415; and Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 191–2.

‘ Your Blood be on Your Head ’   61 That the Geshurites head the list of tribes targeted by David is a further reason for doubting the relevance of herem here.7 As commentators have noted, these Geshurites are not to be confused with a group of the same name in the north (e.g. Deut 3:14; Josh 12:5). Instead, the tradition locates them in a southerly vicinity and associates them with the Philistines (Josh 13:2), who are themselves not subjected to the practice of total destruction.8 Admittedly, the Amalekites will come to the fore in the conclusion of this story (ch. 30). But the fact that they are listed last here, following even the otherwise unknown Girzites, strengthens the assumption that the ban is not in view, either here or in 1 Sam 30. In chapter 30, the Amalekites seek their revenge on David for his raids and retaliate in kind, quite understandably taking everything of value, including David’s wives and children (30:2–3). In doing so, they adopt the usual practice amongst desert ­raiders by taking people in order to make use of them, rather than killing them.9 When David departs from this practice by killing the men and women, rather than merely taking them, the narrator feels obliged to explain why this was David’s ‘custom’ (‫ )משפטו‬while amongst the Philistines (27:11; cf. 1 Sam 30:17).10 Apparently, David does so to prevent any survivors from disclosing to Achish, David’s duplicity in sparing the Judahites (v. 11).11 Accordingly, it seems unlikely that David’s killing of these tribes is presented here as illegitimate or especially pious.12 Rather, the custom is mentioned here because apart from David’s exceptional need for secrecy, it would have been seen as inexplicable.13

The Killing of Saul While David avoids taking the field with the Philistines against Israel and re­covers his household from the Amalekites (1 Sam 29–30), Saul learns of his impending doom from Samuel’s ghost (1 Sam 28) and then goes with his sons to meet their

7  Contra Smith, The Books of Samuel, 237, who sees the mention of the Geshurites here as erroneous. 8 McCarter, I Samuel, 415. For discussion of the practice of devotion/destruction in relation to the Philistines, see Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 97. 9  While the narrator would not feel the need to explain David’s actions if they reflected the typical practice of war, we suggest he does so to explain its exceptional necessity rather than its monstrosity (so Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 26). 10 Auld, I & II Samuel, 319, suggests that the use of (‫‘ )משפטו‬his custom/justice/way’ invites the reader to see David as exemplifying the ‘custom/way/justice’ of the king of which the people are warned using this same word in 1 Sam 8:11. However, this seems less likely given that the focus in 1 Sam 8 is on what the king will take from his own people. 11  See, for instance, Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 214; and Miscall, 1 Samuel, 164–5. 12  So too Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 190. 13  So Hentschel, 1 Samuel, 148; and Campbell, I Samuel, 272, who notes that there is no hint of unease here. Alter, The David Story, 170, suggests that these groups would fall into the category of traditional enemies of Israel, while Stolz, Buch Samuel, 170, suggests that this treatment relates to their ‘foreignness’; and Schroer, Die Samuelbücher, 118, points to their status as ‘nomads’.

62  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt end on Mt Gilboa (1 Sam 31).14 The narrator’s report of Saul ending his own life (vv. 3–6) almost certainly casts a final cloud over his story.15 However, the inclusion of various details also suggests the relevance of the narrative to our study, not least when the king wishes to avoid dying at the hands of the Philistines and asks his armour-­bearer to dispatch him (v. 4). 4Then

Saul said to his armour-­bearer, ‘Draw your sword and run me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and run me through and abuse me.’ But his armour-­bearer would not, for he was very afraid. So Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. 5And when his armour-­bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him. 6Thus Saul died, and his three sons, and his armour-­bearer, and all his men, on the same day together.  (1 Sam 31:4–6)

This brief passage and indeed the entirety of chapter 31 is rife with anxieties, at least two of which highlight the narrative’s continuing interest in illegitimate bloodshed. Most obvious is the armour-­bearer’s refusal to acquiesce to Saul’s command to kill him because he ‘was very afraid’ (‫ ;ירא מאד‬1 Sam 31:4). If the scene did not suggest that the two of them were alone, one might imagine the armour-­bearer to be afraid of being seen to kill his own master while there was still breath in the king.16 Alternatively, if the armour-­bearer is allowed to take Saul at his word, he might be fearful of the Philistines and what they might do to him for killing Saul before they can. This, however, seems unlikely given that opportunities to dispatch a king or his son on behalf of an enemy typically excite the expectation of reward rather than punishment, as we will see. Instead, the armour-­bearer’s fear here seems better explained by recalling David’s view that Abner deserves to die for not protecting the life of Saul (1 Sam 26:16) and that David’s blood may be required if he kills Saul himself (1 Sam 26:20). Saul’s armour-­bearer is seemingly afraid to take the king’s life for the same reason David, Saul’s previous armour-­bearer, was (1 Sam 16:21)—because the

14 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 222–3, plausibly suggests that David’s proud insistence on rewarding those left behind with the baggage during the recovery of his household might suggest that he benefits from Saul’s death. However, it does not follow that David necessarily shares in the responsibility for it. 15  While some (e.g. Humphreys, ‘The Tragedy of King Saul’, 24; and Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, 111) emphasize the nobility or bravery of Saul taking his own life, others emphasize Saul’s fateful impatience (Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 224) and how the futility of Saul’s efforts to manage his own death reflects his demise in the latter chapters of 1 Samuel (e.g. Evans, ‘Transformations in the Life of Saul’, 118–19). The act of suicide here and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible does not seem to be condemned (see Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 183 and the literature cited there), but Saul’s taking of his own life (as the LORD’s ‘Anointed’) seems unlikely to be celebrated here. 16  The context here makes it difficult to assume with Klein, 1 Samuel, 288, that the armour-­bearer was merely fearful because the battle was going against them or that he was young (cf. Judg 8:20), or that he was so panicked as to be unable to comply (so Smith, The Books of Samuel, 252).

‘ Your Blood be on Your Head ’   63 king’s life is sacrosanct.17 It is because the stakes are so high that the armour-­ bearer’s fear is so great. For him to take Saul’s life is to invite his own life to be taken, even if, at this point, the reader is given no clue by whom. Indeed, when the king takes his own life, the armour-­bearer’s solidarity with his king (v. 5) invites the reader to assume that the armour-­bearer follows suit either because he will have to account for Saul’s death or because he too fears falling into the hands of the enemy.18 The second anxiety which more subtly reflects the narrative’s continuing interest in illegitimate bloodshed relates to Saul himself and the manner of his death. Whether Saul is merely writhing in fear of the Philistine archers in verse 3 or mortally wounded by them,19 it is clearly Saul’s fear and his efforts to address it which animate 1 Sam 31. Saul’s order to his armour-­bearer to kill him is prompted by his fear that the uncircumcised Philistines will do two things to him, the first of which is to ‘run me through’ (‫ ;ודקרני‬v. 4).20 It is noteworthy that Saul uses this verb rather than more conventional ones like ‘to slay’ (‫ )הרג‬or ‘to put to death’ (‫ )מות‬or even ‘to pin/strike’ (‫ )נכה‬because the verb ‫ דקר‬is so rare. Indeed, apart from the version of this verse in 1 Chron 10:4, this verb appears in Hebrew narrative only in Num 25:8 and Judg 9:54, both of which are worth attending to briefly for this reason. In Numbers 25, ‫ דקר‬is used when the Israelite Zimri and the Midianite woman Cozbi are apparently simultaneously ‘run through’ (‫ )וידקר‬their midsections with a spear by Phinehas. The expiatory function of this violence is demonstrated when it brings to an end the plague which Moses had failed to end by neglecting to ‘hang’ (‫ )והוקע‬the chiefs, probably on stakes (Num 25:4). Confirmation that the verb ‘to run through’ has expiatory connotations is provided by Judg 9:54, where Abimelech, the only other king in Israel prior to Saul, has also been mortally wounded and is ‘run through’ (‫ )וידקרהו‬by his armour-­bearer.21 Because Abimelech asks only that his armour-­bearer ‘put me to death’ (‫)ומותתני‬, the narrator’s use of 17  So e.g. Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 434; and Klein, 1 Samuel, 288 (who both note their shared vocation); Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 184; and Stoebe, Erste Buch Samuelis, 526–7, etc. 18  So Shemesh, ‘Suicide’, 163–4. 19  The Masoretic vocalization favours the former, while a slight and plausible emendation produces the latter. While the context certainly supports Saul’s fear (so Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 311–12, who recognizes the fineness of the judgement), the fact that Saul’s request in verse 4 requires him to be in extremis perhaps favours a mortal wound, which is also supported by the parallel in Judges 9 (for which see below). Alter, The David Story, 189, is right that the theme of fear is a recurring one in these narratives, but it seems more likely that Saul’s request to his armour-­bearer reflects a natural psychological aversion for ending one’s own life rather than the physical inability to do so thanks to a mortal wound. 20  While some wish to delete the repetition of the verb here (so e.g. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 253) on the grounds that it is missing in 1 Chron 10:4, it is just as plausible that it is omitted there because a scribe either failed to appreciate its significance or did appreciate it and wished to eliminate it. 21 Bluedorn, Yahweh versus Baalism, 259, rightly draws attention to the reuse of ‘to kill’ (‫ )הרג‬in v. 54 to link Abimelech’s killing at the hands of his armour-­bearer to his killing of his brothers (9:24), where the verb also appears.

64  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt this much more specific and rare verb underlines the significance of the death blow. Indeed, the problem remedied by Abimelech’s ‘running through’ is spelled out quite specifically two verses later in 9:56–7—‘So God returned the evil of Abimelech which he had done to his father in killing his seventy brothers. And God also returned all the evil of the men of Shechem upon their heads and upon them came the curse of Jotham, Jerubaal’s son.’ In short, Abimelech has been run through to remedy the problem posed by a king’s shedding of blood which should not have been shed.22 It is hardly surprising that many have found striking the similarities between Abimelech’s death in Judg 9 and Saul’s in 1 Sam 31.23 Whether or not both kings are mortally wounded, both are accompanied by armour-­bearers, both of whom they ask to draw their swords and kill them to pre-­empt deaths which both kings see as dishonourable and undesirable. To these striking similarities, we may now add the singular one outlined above. The specific manner of death which Israel’s second king fears the Philistines will inflict on him is precisely the one inflicted on Israel’s first king for shedding illegitimate blood. Such similarities must, of course, not be overstated. We have seen that being ‘run through’ is also a remedy for sexual sin/idolatry in Numbers 25. However, for the attentive reader, the use of this unusual verb here might raise questions about the presentation of Saul’s death in 1 Sam 31 and the ways in which it might be interpreted. Such questions would also seem to be encouraged by a consideration of Saul’s second anxiety. His concern is not only that he will be ‘run through’ by the Philistines, but also that they will ‘abuse me’ (‫ ;והתעללו־בי‬v. 4).24 Saul does not elaborate on the specifics of the abuse he expects to be visited upon his own body, nor does he specify whether he expects it to precede or follow his actual death.25 However, Saul’s fear that the abuse will follow him being ‘run through’ by the Philistines has encouraged commentators to interpret Saul’s fear here in light of its seeming realization following his suicide. After Saul is thrust through by falling on his own

22 Niditch, Judges, 118, also notes that the bloodguilt has been repaid and that the murder of rivals is not presented as a legitimate means of taking power (115). 23  The general similarity is noted in passing by many including, e.g., Gordon, I & II Samuel, 202; and Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 224, who sees in Saul’s armour-­bearer’s unwillingness to kill his king a metaphorical significance for exilic readers. While Bodner, 1 Samuel, 319–20, likewise sees the invocation of Abimelech’s death in Saul’s demise as an unfavourable reflection on the mon­ archy, he also sees the allusion as pointing forward to the story of David’s killing of Uriah and taking of Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:21). We will suggest that at least part of the relevance of Abimelech’s story to David’s lies in their mutual interest in illegitimate violence and its consequences. 24 McCarter, I Samuel, 134, suggests the verb connotes cruelty and ruthlessness. Klein, 1 Samuel, 288; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 314; and Bodner, 1 Samuel, 320, observe that the verb elsewhere may have connotations of mockery (e.g. Num 22:29) but here seems to find its most apposite analogy in Judg 19:25. 25  The passage in Judges suggests to Klein, 1 Samuel, 288, that Saul fears being tortured before he dies rather than being mutilated after (so also Shemesh, ‘Suicide’, 162, citing the Philistines’ treatment of Samson) but the Philistines’ treatment of his body points towards the possibility that Saul feared post-­mortem mutilation.

‘ Your Blood be on Your Head ’   65 sword, the Philistines decapitate him (1 Sam 31:9) and probably hang his body by ‘fastening’ it (‫ )תקעו‬to the wall of Beth-­shan (v. 10).26 The fact that mutilation and exposure will be visited upon others (2 Sam 4) for illegitimate bloodshed in the coming chapters strongly suggests that Saul’s death and the treatment of his body as presented here could be interpreted as an ex­pi­ ation of innocent blood. Indeed, proof of this will be forthcoming in the story of the eventual repatriation of the bones of Saul from Jabesh Gilead (1 Sam 31:12) for expiatory purposes in 2 Sam 21. However, for the reader who is yet to learn of these things, Saul’s fears and the Philistines’ abuse of his remains are perhaps most plausibly understood as reflecting the treatment typically inflicted upon those defeated in battle. In 1 Samuel, such treatment has already been seen in David’s decapitation of Goliath and the latter’s threat to expose David’s remains to the birds and beasts (1 Sam 17).27

The Killing of Saul (Again) The reader has already been informed in 1 Sam 31 that news of the defeat and death of Saul has begun to spread as far as Jabesh Gilead (v. 11) and the cities of Philistia (v. 9). However, it is only when David returns to Ziklag after raiding the Amalekites that he learns of the tragedy himself in 2 Sam 1. Unlike previous pairs of similar episodes (1 Sam 24, 26, 21:11–16 [ET 10–15], and 27:1–12), the narrative accommodates this repetition by attributing the first account of Saul’s death (1 Sam 31) to the narrator and the second here to a man who comes to David ‘from Saul’s camp’ (2 Sam 1:2). This man is not in quite so sorry a state as the Egyptian whom David interrogates for intelligence regarding the whereabouts of the Amalekites and his household (1 Sam 30:13). However, it does not bode well that the

26  So also Pietsch, ‘Der Tod des Gesalbten’, 87, whose explanation of the narrative’s logic, however, fails to persuade (as noted by Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 182). The assumption of Klein, 1 Samuel, 289, that Saul feared torture while alive prevents him from seeing the possibility that Saul’s fear of post-­ mortem mutilation was realized. Saul’s request to be ‘run through’ by his armour-­bearer to avoid the same being done to him by the Philistines, suggests that a crucial difference is who is taking this action. As McCarter, I Samuel, 442, notes, the verb ‫ תקעו‬refers to striking with sharp blows and often specifically to driving nails or pegs where the object fastened in place is a direct object (e.g. Gen 31:25). For more on the relationship between the verbs used here and in 2 Samuel 21 and Numbers 25, see Chapter 8 below. 27  The relevance of the former is noted by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 315; and Alter, The David Story, 190; and the latter by Klein, 1 Samuel, 289, along with Sennacherib’s hanging of the corpses of Ekron’s officials on poles outside the city. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 233 (so too Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 190), notes that Beth-­shan would have been an ideal location for the Philistines to make the ‘dishonour as public as possible’. For a recent and illuminating discussion of the multiplicity of purposes which may have been served by the Philistines’ treatment of Saul’s remains here, see Olyan, ‘Violence against Corpses’, 127–8.

66  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Amalekite appears with ‘clothes torn and dirt on his head’ like the Israelite who brought news to Eli of the defeat of Israel and the death of his sons (1 Sam 4:12).28 In responding to David’s first question (‘Where are you coming from?’ ‫ ;אי מזה תבוא‬2 Sam 1:3), the man’s suggestion that he comes from Israel’s camp rather than Saul’s (v. 2) may suggest to David and the reader that he is no Israelite. However, David’s interest is in what has transpired on the battlefield, from where the man’s deportment suggests he has come. When the man reports that Saul and Jonathan are dead, David’s immediate querying of how the man can know this (v. 5) prompts his account of Saul’s death: 6And

the young man who told him said, ‘I happened to be on Mount Gilboa and see, Saul was leaning on his spear, and see, the chariotry and the horsemen were closing upon him. 7And when he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I answered, ‘Here I am.’ 8He said to me, ‘Who are you?’ and I said to him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ 9And he said to me ‘Stand over me and put me to death, for agony has seized me and yet my life still lingers.’ 10So I stood over him and put him to death, because I was sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm and I have brought them here to my lord.’  (2 Sam 1:6–10)

Having already been privy to the narrator’s account (1 Sam 31), the reader, unlike David, is immediately aware that in this version too, Saul is under threat on Mt Gilboa and asks for someone to kill him. However, the reader is also alert to the numerous differences. Here, the threat is posed by chariots and horsemen while in 1 Sam 31, it is archers; here, an Amalekite obliges the king’s suicidal request and survives at least temporarily, while in 1 Sam 31 the king’s own armour-­bearer refuses to kill his king and dies himself.29 Aware of Saul’s previous suicidal request in extremis in 1 Sam 31, the reader is not surprised at the man’s claim that Saul asked him to kill him. More surprising, however, is the Amalekite’s report of Saul’s initial querying of his identity (v. 8) and his disclosure of it. While the relevance of this will be made clear shortly, it is not explained here by Saul or the man. According to the Amalekite, Saul’s request was simply that he put him to death 28  A point observed by many including, e.g., Smith, The Books of Samuel, 255; McCarter, II Samuel, 58; Pyper, David as Reader, 21–2; and also Auld, I & II Samuel, 355–6, at greater length. It is not impossible that the man’s obeisance here is intended as a clue to David and the reader that the man’s news will pave the way for David to become king (so e.g. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 320; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 632). (Cf. David bowing before Saul as king (1 Sam 24:9 [ET 8] and Abigail doing likewise before David with some awareness of his future [1 Sam 25:23].) Alternatively, it may simply be the homage expected of a man of his station before a man of David’s current status. Reis, ‘Killing the Messenger’, 175, thinks it likely that the signs of mourning are genuine, rather than merely a show. 29  So too, Saul’s sword (1 Sam 31:4) vs Saul’s spear (2 Sam 1:6). For the plausibility of the mention of chariots and (officers of) horsemen, see McCarter, II Samuel, 59, who also has a useful discussion of the emblems of Saul.

‘ Your Blood be on Your Head ’   67 in order to put him out of his misery, rather than for any of the very specific reasons reported by the narrator in the preceding chapter.30 Indeed, the ­ Amalekite’s dec­lar­ation that he killed Saul only after determining that the king had no chance of survival (v. 10), suggests that his only fear in killing Saul was that the king might otherwise have survived.31 This offers a striking contrast to the unwillingness of the armour-­bearer (1 Sam 31) to proceed because of his ‘great fear’ of taking the life of the LORD’s anointed.32 The fact that Saul asks the man to kill him only after determining that he is an Amalekite may suggest that Saul judges him more likely to do his bidding than an Israelite, for reasons which will become clear.33 The reputation of the Amalekites for raiding and taking the belongings of ­others (1 Sam 30) makes the man’s possession of the spoils of war unsurprising. Certainly, the offering of Saul’s accoutrements to David seems to corroborate the Amalekite’s claim that the king is no longer alive, for it is difficult to imagine how else someone like him might have come by them.34 However, the Amalekite’s offer of them to David, presumably with the expectation of some reward, threatens to implicate David in a killing with which he has previously striven to avoid any association. The increased seriousness of the situation is reflected in David’s response, narrated in verse 11: 11Then

David took hold of his clothes and tore them, as did all the men who were with him. 12And they mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and for Jonathan his son and for the people of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. 13And David said to the young man who told him, ‘Where do you come from?’ And he answered, ‘I am the son of a sojourner, an Amalekite.’ 14David said to him, ‘Were you not afraid to send out your hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed?’ 15Then David called one of the young men and said, ‘Come here. Strike him down.’ And he struck him and he 30  Reis, ‘Killing the Messenger’, 169, rightly notes that the obscurity of the Hebrew here makes it difficult to determine the man’s diagnosis of Saul. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 257, suggests dizziness from exhaustion. Alter, The David Story, 197; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 358, appreciate the irony that having lost his kingdom by failing to kill an Amalekite king, Saul asks an Amalekite to end his own life as king. Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 438, thinks that Saul’s putting of the request to an Amalekite increases the shame of it. 31  While some have suggested that the accounts of Saul’s fate in 1 Sam 31 and 2 Sam 1 are compatible, the Amalekite’s claim to have killed the king (2 Sam 1:10) cannot easily be reconciled with the narrator’s claim that Saul’s armour-­bearer not only saw Saul ‘fallen’, but also saw him ‘dead’ (1 Sam 31:5) (so Smith, The Books of Samuel, 254). David remains unaware of this discrepancy, but this confirms for a reader aware of 1 Sam 31 that the Amalekite’s story is false on this point at least (so McCarter, II Samuel, 59; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 208; Mabee, ‘Judicial Exoneration’, 90; and many others). 32 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 640, also notices the contrast between great fear in 1 Sam 31 and the relative absence of it in 2 Sam 1. 33  So observes, Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 636–7. McCarter, II Samuel, 60, rightly points out the parallel to the willingness of another foreigner, Doeg the Edomite, to illegitimately shed the blood of the priests of Nob at Saul’s request. 34  So e.g. Auld, I & II Samuel, 358; and Pyper, David as Reader, 24.

68  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt died. 16And David said to him, ‘Your blood(/s) be on your head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, “I have put to death the LORD’s anointed.” ’  (2 Sam 1:11–16)

Whatever else David may or may not believe of the Amalekite’s story, his mourning in vv. 11–12 certainly suggests that he believes that Saul and Jonathan are dead. It is also notable, however, that David neither accepts the tokens of Saul35 nor rewards the man, nor continues his questioning of him. Indeed, the Amalekite seems forgotten in the grief at the news of the deaths of Saul and his son(s) and the rest of the people who have ‘fallen by the sword’ (v. 12). While the latter expression confirms that Saul has died a violent and unnatural death, David’s resumption of his interrogation suggests further clarification is required. Just as Saul had once hoped David would fall to the Philistines (1 Sam 18:17, 21), David here wishes to determine whether his own hope that Saul might ‘go down into battle and perish’ (1 Sam 26:10) has now been realized. If so, then David need not fear that the killing of Saul has incurred ‘bloods’ which might come back to haunt him. Perhaps prompted by the man’s self-­identification as an Amalekite and his vague insistence that he merely chanced upon Saul on Gilboa (v. 6),36 David asks ‘Where are you from?’ (‫ ;אי מזה אתה‬v. 13) (i.e. amongst whom do you live?).37 In response to David’s question of residency, the man reiterates his ethnic identity as an Amalekite, but also now admits that he lives among Israelites as the ‘son of a sojourner’ (‫ ;בן־איש גר‬v. 13). However, if the Amalekite hopes that his answer will improve his prospects of receiving a reward, David’s response suggests that he will receive something rather less welcome.38 Indeed, when David characterizes the Amalekite’s killing of Saul in terms of ‘sending his hand’ (‫ )לשלח ידך‬against the ‘LORD’s anointed’ (v. 14), it echoes rather ominously the language David himself used earlier, when refraining from killing Saul (1 Sam 24:7 [6 ET], 11 [10 ET], and 26:9, 11).39 Moreover, David’s querying of the Amalekite’s ‘lack of fear’ (‫ ;לא יראת‬v. 14) in killing Saul is notable. It invites the reader’s inference that the

35  The absence of this detail is made conspicuous both by the fact that the man offers them, but also by David’s taking of the crown of the Ammonites after the conquering of Rabbah (2 Sam 12:30). That the emblems of Saul are mentioned here to indicate that David is heir to the crown (Grønbæk, Aufstieg Davids, 219–20) seems distinctly unlikely given that, as Campbell, 2 Samuel, 21, notes, we hear nothing more of them. 36  So suggests Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 635. Cf. also Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 224. 37  The difference between the question here and in v. 3 is noted by Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 223; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 323; and others. While Saul certainly queries the man’s identity, there is no evidence of David doing the same here (contra Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, 439). 38  So also Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 14. This seems more likely than the suggestion of Auld, I & II Samuel, 359, that the Amalekite might claim to be a sojourner to secure protection. 39  Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 14. Whether or not McCarter, I Samuel, 407, is correct that the verb ‘to destroy’ used here by David and in 1 Sam 26:9 is intended to connote spoliation and corruption, there can be little doubt that its use here recalls its appearance in the earlier chapter.

‘ Your Blood be on Your Head ’   69 armour-­bearer’s great fear of killing Saul (1 Sam 31:4) reflected his David-­like refusal to engage in illegitimate bloodshed.40 The other inference invited by David’s query is that the Amalekite’s status as ‘sojourner’ makes him subject to the same conventions as an Israelite.41 As such, the Amalekite sojourner is deemed culpable for killing Saul in a way which he would not have been if he had killed Saul as an enemy combatant or if he was not a sojourner.42 It is this which seems to explain not only David’s death sentence (‘Strike him down’, ‫)פגע־בו‬,43 and the man’s swift execution (v. 15), but also David’s subsequent assigning of responsibility for the bloodshed (v. 16).44 In assigning responsibility, David insists that ‘Your blood(s) be on your head’ (‫—)דמיך על־ראשך‬a form of words which we meet here in David’s story for the first time. Reading the plural ‘your bloods’ (‫ )דמיך‬of the consonantal text, recalls Abigail’s warning to David in 1 Sam 25. On this reading, the ‘bloods’ are invoked by David upon the Amalekite’s head, to prevent them falling on anyone else’s, especially his own.45 Here, the plural may be understood as the illegitimately shed ‘bloods’ of Saul, rather than needing to be glossed as ‘bloodguilt’.46 Alternatively, the reading of ‘your blood (singular)’ (‫ )דמך‬is encouraged by the Qere and favoured by the appearance of the singular form in 1 Kgs 2:32 (cf. also 2:37).47 On this reading, it is the executed Amalekite’s own blood which David wishes to remain on the Amalekite’s head, rather than it falling on David for ordering the Amalekite’s death. While this latter risk may be contemplated by David, it is far 40  Noted too by Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 14; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 228. 41  So McCarter, II Samuel, 60; and Whitelam, Just King, 101–2, who cite passages from Leviticus (e.g. 24:22, 20:2, 24:16). Awabdy, Immigrants, 255 (and in personal correspondence), notes that the frame narrative of Deuteronomy (31:10–13) also makes requirements of the sojourner. While Reis, ‘Killing the Messenger’, 177, wonders why David is the only one who seems to know or care about the protection of the LORD’s anointed, the point for our purpose is that whatever its origins, the concern to avoid illegitimate bloodshed is writ large across the narrative and the characterization of David. 42  So e.g. McCarter, II Samuel, 60; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 644; and Campbell, 2 Samuel, 19, contra Smith, The Books of Samuel, 256; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 237; and Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 212, who suggest the man’s status as ‘stranger’ or ‘Amalekite’ makes his killing of Saul all the more egregious in David’s eyes. Nor is it likely, as suggested by Macholz, ‘Die Stellung des Königs’, 164, that the identification of the man as an ‘Amalekite sojourner’ means that he falls outside the justice of the local gate and under that of the local military commander (i.e. David). Confirmation that ‘sojourner’ relates to his residency rather than his (foreign) identity is provided by v. 3. The suggestion of Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 209, that the Deuteronomist could hardly have conceived of an Amalekite as a sojourner requires further evidence. 43 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 319; and Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 8, note that the same verb is used by Saul to order the execution of the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22:18). 44  The significance attached by David to the Amalekite’s status as ‘sojourner’ in asserting his guilt seems to suggest that David does not see him forfeiting his life by virtue of his Amalekite identity per se. 45 Boecker, Redeformen, 138–9; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 86; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 645 (on the basis of 1 Kgs 2:32). Indeed, we will encounter the plural in 2 Sam 3:28 in another vow and again in 1 Kgs 2:33 in a related but not identical formula. 46  So Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 213. 47 Smith, The Books of Samuel, 256; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 15; and Koch, ‘Der Spruch’, 413; followed by Liedke, Rechssätze, 134, n. 1, with some reservations and with reference to the formulation in Lev 20:9, etc., rather than our passage here.

70  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt from certain, because David’s formulation here only specifies where the dangerous blood(s) must stay, not where he fears it might otherwise end up. Indeed, no clue is given as to whether the ‘blood(s)’ might lead to the unhappy fate Abigail has imagined (cf. 1 Sam 25:31) or perhaps even to humanly inflicted blood vengeance.48 David invokes the ‘blood(s)’ on the Amalekite’s head on the basis of his summary of the slain man’s own testimony: ‘I have put to death the LORD’s anointed’ (v. 16).49 Because the Amalekite has not been reported as uttering precisely these words, it is worth considering how the reader is invited to make sense of David’s conclusion.50 First, David is seemingly persuaded that while Saul fell during a battle with Israel’s enemies, Saul has not been killed by Israel’s enemies in battle, as David had hoped (1 Sam 26:10). Instead, David seems to have decided that the Amalekite’s status as sojourner required him to recognize and respect the protected status of the ‘LORD’s anointed’. The sojourner’s admission that he has instead killed Saul means that he has incurred the guilt which David warned Abishai would, if he killed the ‘LORD’s anointed’ (1 Sam 26:9). On this basis, David’s execution of the Amalekite for ‘sending his hand against the LORD’s anointed’ fits well with the assumption that if David had done so in 1 Sam 24 and 26, David’s own blood would need to have been shed ‘before the LORD’ (1 Sam 26:20).51 While this latter detail is lacking here, such an understanding is perfectly compatible with the forensic tone of the blood formula and David’s reference to the Amalekite’s testimony (‘your own mouth has testified against you’; 2 Sam 1:16) in his condemnation of him. In ordering his servant to execute the Amalekite, David has been seen by some as emulating Saul when he orders his servants to execute the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22:17).52 However, David’s view that Saul’s blood has been shed illegitimately suggests that the more apposite analogy is not to Saul, but rather to his servants. While David shares the aversion of Saul’s servants for illegitimate bloodshed, the Amalekite’s killing of Saul means it is too late for David to prevent illegitimate blood being shed. Instead, now that Saul’s blood has been shed, David feels

48  See Mabee, ‘Judicial Exoneration’, 96. 49  While Mabee, ‘Judicial Exoneration’, 93, thinks that the man’s insistence that he has euthanized the king means that it is not ‘murder’ per se, it is noteworthy that David sees neither this nor Saul’s request for his own death as mitigating factors. 50  The slippage is also noted by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 646; Alter, The David Story, 198; Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 229; and Pyper, David as Reader, 26, who observes that ‘It is not the Amalekite’s statement which kills him, but David’s’. Auld, I & II Samuel, 359, finds David’s misrepresentation tendentious. 51  While Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 210, identifies the sanctity of the person of the LORD’s anointed as a principle theme of his Saga source, the suggestion that it is treated ironically seems unlikely. 52  So Green, David’s Capacity, 134. However, Morrison, 2 Samuel, 28, rightly points out that David’s taking of the life of an Amalekite for ostensibly pious reasons contrasts favourably with Saul’s failure to take the life of an Amalekite which should have been taken (1 Sam 15)—not least because the latter is remembered as costing Saul his kingship.

‘ Your Blood be on Your Head ’   71 obliged to remedy this illegitimate bloodshed by shedding in turn the blood of the Amalekite sojourner who claims to have killed Saul. * * * The extent to which 1 Sam 31 and 2 Sam 1 develop the story of David and unwarranted bloodshed may be illustrated by a brief comparison with the earlier story of Nob. While in 1 Sam 22, it is priestly blood rather than royal blood, both in that case and in Saul’s own in 1 Sam 31, Saul asks Israelite servants to shed blood illegitimately. When, in both these passages, the Israelite servants refuse to do so, in 2 Sam 1 and 1 Sam 22, Saul asks foreigners (an Amalekite and an Edomite respectively) to do so, and they oblige him by illegitimately taking the life requested (priests in 1 Sam 22; his own in 2 Sam 1). The reader should not be surprised at this. While Saul seeks David’s elimination in legitimate ways (i.e. war against the Philistines), his persistent efforts to kill David directly illustrate his longstanding inability to resist the temptation to shed blood illegitimately. Insofar as 1 Sam 31 and 2 Sam 1 are concerned with Saul, it is noteworthy how squarely they are focused on Saul’s misguided efforts to end his own life (i.e. the life of ‘the LORD’s anointed’). This suggests the narrative’s interest in illustrating how Saul’s earlier willingness to illegitimately shed blood including that of David and the Nobites, is a crucial factor in his own demise, when he asks for his own blood to be shed illegitimately. A comparison of Saul’s death with the episode in Nob also demonstrates how David’s attitude towards illegitimate bloodshed facilitates his own rise. In the episode in Nob, we recall that David displays considerable anxiety regarding the deaths of those killed by Doeg on Saul’s order, despite David not being directly responsible. Perhaps because the one properly responsible for their deaths is the LORD’s anointed (Saul), whose own blood David sees as protected, David is in no position to take any action regarding the illegitimate shedding of the priests’ blood. After David narrowly avoids shedding Nabal’s blood illegitimately (1 Sam 25), he recognizes that if innocent blood (e.g. Saul’s) is shed, remedying it may require the killer’s own blood to be shed (1 Sam 26:20). Here David goes a step further to protect against the harm he fears illegitimate bloodshed might bring, by executing the Amalekite who has claimed responsibility for Saul’s killing. It is worth considering on what authority David orders the Amalekite’s execution. It is notable that this is the first order issued by David after mourning the passing of the previous king. Thus, one might well wonder whether the judicial tone of the execution is perhaps intended to underline David’s authority. This may be implied by David’s son, Absalom, later setting himself up as judge in order to usurp his father’s authority (cf. 2 Sam 15:2–4).53 Alternatively, if the Amalekite’s 53  The suggestion of Quesada, ‘Tidings of Death’, 6, that it is David’s ‘first official action as king’ seems both premature and an underestimation of the ‘public’ character of David’s mourning of Saul.

72  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt execution is understood as a redemption of Saul’s blood, it might reflect David’s status as son-­in-­law of the slain king, on analogy with 2 Sam 14 (vv. 7, 11), where we will see that innocent blood is redeemed by a member of the clan.54 However, none of these explanations are offered by the text here. Thus, all that may be said is that David’s execution of the Amalekite demonstrates not only his innocence in the death of Saul, but also his concern regarding unwarranted bloodshed and the lengths to which he will go to limit the threat he perceives it to pose to him.55 54 A possibility noted in passing by Anderson, 2 Samuel, 8, and also entertained by Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 230, though whether David retains this status following the giving of Michal to Palti(el) is unclear. 55  For the classic articulation of this, see McCarter, ‘Apology of David’ and McCarter, II Samuel, 64–5. See too McKenzie, King David, 109, who suspects the historical David was involved in Saul’s death based in part on the apologetic tone of 2 Sam 1.

4 ‘His Blood at Your Hand’: 2 Sam 2–4 We have seen in Chapter 3 that the death of Saul marks a significant development in the story of David’s response to the threat of ‘bloods’ and his rise to the throne. However, David’s accession cannot be completed until the obstacles posed by Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, and his general, Abner, are overcome (2 Sam 2–4). In turn­ ing to these stories here, we will see that the anxiety regarding ‘bloods’, which drives David to execute the Amalekite for killing Saul (1 Sam 31), will prompt him him to do the same to the Beerothite brothers, Rechab and Baanah, for kill­ ing Saul’s son in cold blood (2 Sam 4). However, sandwiched between these two stories, Joab’s killing of Abner and David’s response to it (2 Sam 2–3) give the reader pause. Indeed, as we will see, when David fails to execute his nephew for wrongly killing Abner, the reader will suspect that David has good reason to fear the ‘bloods’ he has previously managed to avoid.

The Killing of Abner After David upbraids Abner for not taking sufficient care of the LORD’s anointed (1 Sam 26), Abner’s absence in the reports of Saul’s death (1 Sam 31, 2 Sam 1) is made all the more conspicuous by his sudden return to prominence afterward (2 Sam 2–3). Abner’s ascendancy is signalled by his role in consolidating Ishbosheth’s kingship over Israel and the Jabesh Gileadites,1 despite David’s over­ tures to the latter and his reign over Judah from Hebron (2 Sam 2:4–11). While Abner will not finally meet his end until 2 Sam 3, his killing there by Joab, and David’s reaction to it, cannot be properly understood without considering the action leading up to it (2 Sam 2). Following certain preliminaries (2:4–11), the remainder of chapter 2 is devoted to the violent conflict between forces loyal to Ishbosheth under Abner, and those loyal to David under their commander, Joab.2 This clash follows Abner’s move­ ment of troops (v. 12) across the Jordan from Mahanaim to the traditional 1  It is widely agreed that MT ‫(‘ איש בשת‬Ish)bosheth’ (prob. ‘Man of Shame’) is likely to be a eu­phem­ ism for ‘(Ish)baal’ (cf. 1 Chron 8:33, 9:39) to avoid an association with the Canaanite deity of the same name. However, see n. 65 below. 2  For the characterization of Joab, see recently, Green, ‘Joab’s Coherence’; and Henry, ‘Joab’. For discussion of the appellation ‘sons of Zeruiah’ (which appears courtesy of the narrator in 2:13, 18 and in the mouth of David in 3:39), see below pp. 84–5. King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0005

74  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Benjaminite territory of Gibeon (El-­Jib). As the latter is not far from Saul’s Gibeah or from Jerusalem, these movements may have been intended to bring matters to a head. Indeed, that Gibeon was of some strategic importance is suggested by David’s refusal to let this action go unchallenged and his dispatching of troops under Joab to meet the Benjaminites (v. 13). Instead of a full military engage­ ment, however, Abner suggests a kind of representative combat, akin to what the reader has already encountered in the case of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17).3 Abner’s eventual defeat has suggested to some that his proposal that twelve men from each side should fight, rather than all the troops, was intended to gain an advantage or mitigate a weakness.4 However, if such an advantage was obvious, it is difficult to understand why Joab would acquiesce so willingly to the suggestion, not least if he might have expected to rout his enemy. Thus, it is worth consider­ ing the possibility that Abner suggests representative combat because he seeks to minimize the loss of life at least on his side, and perhaps on both.5 While it is true that David’s clash with Goliath ended in full-­scale battle, this does not preclude Abner’s hope that his proposal might prevent it in this case. Indeed, this possibil­ ity comports well with the depiction of Abner when the battle turns against him and his troops (v. 17) and Asahel, the brother of Joab and Abishai, seeks to kill Abner and take his spoil: 18The

three sons of Zeruiah were there, Joab, Abishai and Asahel. Now Asahel was as fleet-­footed as a gazelle in the open field. 19Asahel pursued Abner, turn­ ing aside neither to the right nor to the left as he followed him. 20Abner looked back and said, ‘Is it you, Asahel?’ He said, ‘It is me.’ 21Abner said to him, ‘Turn aside to your right or to your left and seize one of the young men and take his spoil.’ But Asahel would not turn away from following him. 22Abner said again to Asahel, ‘Turn away from following me; why should I strike you to the ground? How then could I lift up my face to your brother Joab?’ 23But he refused to turn away. So Abner struck him with the butt of his spear in the midriff, so that the spear came out from his back. He fell there and died on the spot. And all those who came to the place where Asahel had fallen and died, stood still. 24But Joab 3  For this suggestion and the reasons for preferring it to the idea that this was a game which got out of hand (so Batten, ‘Helkath Hazzurim’), see McCarter, II Samuel, 95–6, and the literature cited by him there. Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 115–17, offers a lengthy discussion which dismisses repre­ sentative combat but fails to offer a more satisfying alternative. McCarter, II Samuel, 98, also follows Fensham, ‘Ordeal by Battle’, 356–7, in seeing the narrative here as implying that the result is a reflec­ tion of divine will (based on parallels with 1 Kgs 17 and comparable Hittite accounts). This suggestion is however rather weakened by the absence of both an explicit indication in this direction and—­in the case of the representative combat—­a result which might signal in whose favour the divine will has decided. For an exhaustive canvassing of suggestions, see Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 336–41. 4  A possibility suggested by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 338, who notes that it did not turn out this way. 5  So suggests Gordon, I & II Samuel, 214; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 340. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 44, notes that Abner’s suggestion must preserve his honour by offering a battle of sorts, but seeks to avoid ‘mass bloodshed.’

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   75 and Abishai pursued Abner. The sun was going down as they came to the hill of Ammah, which faces Giah on the road to the wilderness of Gibeon. 25The Benjaminites rallied behind Abner, formed a single company and stood on the top of a hill. 26Then Abner called to Joab and said, ‘Will the sword devour for­ ever? Do you not know that the aftermath will be bitter? How long until you say to the people to turn from pursuing their brothers?’ 27Joab said, ‘As God lives, had you not spoken, then until the morning, the people would not have given up their pursuit, each one after his own brother.’ 28Joab blew the horn and all the people stopped; they no longer pursued Israel or engaged in further battle. (2 Sam 2:18–28)

With Asahel fleet of foot and in hot pursuit, the narrator reports that ‘Abner looked back and said “Is it you, Asahel?” He answered, “It is me” ’ (v. 20). Much like Abner’s question of David in 1 Sam 26, his question here does not seek to elicit truly new information, but rather to confirm a suspicion, which Asahel’s response duly does.6 If Abner’s question here too is partly ‘knowing’, what he goes on to say explains why he might be forgiven for wanting to know more, or want­ ing to know more certainly.7 In imploring Joab’s brother to turn his attentions to one of Abner’s underlings (v. 21), Abner insists that Asahel’s continuing pursuit of him risks not only Asahel’s own death, but an additional complication. This com­ plication is reflected in Abner’s rhetorical question: ‘How then could I show (lit. ‘lift up’, ‫ )אשא‬my face to your brother Joab?’ (2:22)—a question which commenta­ tors have struggled to explain.8 Instead of suggesting that Abner’s conscience will be burdened if he kills Asahel, it seems more likely that Abner’s question relates to blood vengeance.9 Indeed, Abner’s insistence that he will not be able to lift his face before Joab is best understood in light of David’s lifting of Abigail’s face in 1 Sam 25:35. There, David explains to Abigail that he is permitting her to ‘go in peace to your house’ because ‘I have listened to your voice and I have lifted up your face’ (‫)ואשא פניך‬. David thus indicates that he has heard her request to be forgiven and granted it. Here in 2 Sam 3, Abner explains that if he was to kill Asahel, he would not expect forgiveness from Joab, even if Abner was inclined to seek it. In fact, the 6 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 51, notes the recognition and the need for confirmation and references Roman Jakobson’s phatic communication. Cf. Buracker, ‘Abner,’ 93. 7  The question is also, however, a means of educating Asahel, who now knows that his identity is known. 8 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 339, suggests that the expression means that Abner will not be able to dia­ logue with Joab, but it is not clear on what basis this suggestion is made. McKane, I & II Samuel, 186, assumes improbably that Abner is expressing his fear that he will be shamed before Joab, while Bodner, David Observed, 43, thinks that Abner fears Joab’s anticipated vengeance. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 42, suggests that Abner’s subsequent facing of Joab (2 Sam 3:27) in the gate is foreshadowed by the question here which he paraphrases as ‘How can I face Joab, your brother?’, but this too seems unlikely in light of the absence of the word for ‘face’ (‫ )פנה‬in the idiom used in 3:27. 9  See, for instance, Alter, The David Story, 206.

76  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt reader will discover this conclusion to be well-­founded when Abner is allowed to ‘go in peace’ by David, but not by Joab (2 Sam 3:27). Abner’s assumption here seems to be that Joab’s predicted lack of forgiveness and intention to avenge Asahel will end up costing either Abner his life at Joab’s hands or Joab’s life at Abner’s. In either case, this will be one more life lost than is necessary, and poten­ tially more than one, if the cycle of vengeance is then permitted to spiral out of control.10 The suggestion that Abner’s concern here is to minimize loss of life seems compatible with Abner’s proposal of representative combat to avoid a larger scale battle.11 Unfortunately for Asahel, and for Abner too, this latest attempt to minimize loss of life proves as fruitless as the first effort, when Asahel is unwilling to give up his pursuit of Abner (v. 21).12 The result leaves Asahel impaled, David’s men stunned,13 and the reader to wonder whether Abner or Joab may be next to fall. The anticipation of a clash between the two generals is heightened when the narrator notes that Joab and their other brother, Abishai, continue to pursue Abner (v. 24). After rallying his troops for one last stand (v. 25), Abner offers a final plea in the hope of pre-­empting a complete slaughter (v. 26). The reader naturally assumes a concern for self-­preservation to be foremost in Abner’s mind here, as he faces the prospect of his own death along with those who have not already perished. However, the focus of Abner’s three questions to Joab (v. 26) instead echoes his earlier concern to avoid a wider and unneces­ sary loss of life. Abner seems to argue that because Joab’s victory over Abner’s forces has been decisive, those who are ‘brothers’ (v. 26) should not continue to be consumed by the ‘sword’, used here specifically as a metonym for armed violence.14 Indeed, Abner’s appeal to Joab to stand down his men seeks to per­ suade him of how things are likely to end. Instead of the end being ‘bitter’ for Abner and his men alone, as Joab may assume, Abner indicates that the end will, in fact, be bitter for both. By this Abner presumably implies that killing him and his men instead of merely defeating them will cost Joab more men in the process.15 Abner’s specific mention of the ‘sword’ allows him to make his point about the costliness of ongoing armed violence to both sides. By 10 Brueggeman, First and Second Samuel, 222, agrees that Abner’s purpose here is to forestall fur­ ther violence. 11 Buracker, ‘Abner’, 96–7, misreads Abner’s flight and responses as indicating fear because Buracker seeks, rather improbably, to include Abner in those who are afraid of Goliath (1 Sam 17). 12  See Tushima, Fate of Saul’s Progeny, 126, n. 39, who notes that the insistence on Asahel’s unwill­ ingness is almost certainly a clue that he is putting himself at risk. 13 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 45, suggests this is why those passing by stop to look at Asahel’s body (v. 23), though Morrison, 2 Samuel, 43, rightly notes it may instead reflect respect for the fallen leader (so too Campbell, 2 Samuel, 39) or fear that the battle might be lost. 14  See also 2 Sam 1:12. 15 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 340, rightly divines that the point of Abner’s questions is to cause Joab to consider whether further prosecution of the battle will be worth the price he and his troops may have to pay. So too Alter, The David Story, 207; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 44.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   77 referring to the ‘sword’, Abner is able to allude to the earlier armed violence at the pool of Gibeon, where the narrator notes that all the combatants ‘fell together’ by the ‘sword’, but to neither side’s advantage (2:16). This explains not only Joab’s otherwise inexplicable standing down of his men,16 but also his acknowledgment that he would have continued, if Abner had not persuaded him of the cost of proceeding (v. 27).17 Joab’s sounding of the trumpet to recall his forces (v. 28) signals his decision to content himself with a decisive victory over Abner and the servants of Ishbosheth (v. 31), rather than seeking their final annihilation. Moreover, the narrator makes it clear that this has been accomplished with far fewer casualties on Joab’s side than on Abner’s (v. 31). However, the reader is also reminded that the nineteen lost by Joab were ‘apart from Asahel’ (v. 30) and that his body alone was taken back and buried in Bethlehem (v. 32). This suggests that Asahel’s death has been an especially griev­ ous blow and will not soon be forgotten by his brother Joab. In the aftermath of this defeat, the narrator’s note of the waning strength of the house of Saul (3:1), and the waxing of Abner’s power within it, prepares the reader for the events narrated in chapter 3. It is unclear whether Ishbosheth’s accusation of Abner’s presumption in relation to Rizpah (3:7–8) has any substance to it.18 However, it evidently offers Abner an excuse to make an overture to David to end his military conflict with the house of Saul (v. 12). After David’s pre-­condition of the return of his wife Michal is satisfied (vv. 13–16), Abner communicates with the Israelites and Benjaminites. He then goes to Hebron to parley with David (v. 20) and confirm his offer to rally Israel to the son of Jesse (v. 21). David’s agreement to Abner’s plan seems to be signalled by the narrator’s report that David sent Abner ‘and he went in peace’ (‫( )וילך בשלום‬v. 21). The otherwise redundant reappearance of ‘he went in peace’ in the next verse (v. 22) ensures that the reader will not soon forget the manner of Abner’s dismissal. Indeed, the fur­ ther reiteration of it in the report to Joab (‘David sent him and he went in peace’ (‫ ;)וישלחהו וילך בשלום‬2 Sam 3:23) confirms that David’s general too is in possession of this information.19 The significance of this is clear. Joab now knows that so far 16 Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 118, finds both Abner’s proposition and Joab’s response curiously implausible. 17 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 59–60, follows Goslinga, Het Tweede Boek Samuel, 54, and Keil and Delitzsch, Books of Samuel, 299, in understanding Joab to suggest (2:27) that, if Abner hadn’t mooted the representative combat (earlier that morning), there would have been no need to fight in the first place (cf. Alter, The David Story, 207). However, such an accusation seems implausible because Joab’s arrival and acceptance of Abner’s suggestion indicates that a conflict of some sort was inevitable. Instead the Hebrew ‫( לולא דברת כי אז מהבקר נעלה העם איש מאחרי אחיו‬v. 27) may be more naturally understood as follows: (despite the loss of light at the end of the day; v. 24) ‘had you not spoken, then until morning, the people would have continued (i.e. not given up) their pursuit, each one after his own brother.’ 18  So rightly Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 347, contra both Brueggeman, First and Second Samuel, 225–6, who sees Abner as guilty as charged, and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 56, who finally suspects Abner’s innocence. 19  The repetition and its significance is noted by Gordon, I and II Samuel, 219, who also rightly finds the LXX’s inclusion of a fourth instance of ‘peace’ at the end of verse 24 rather suspicious.

78  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt as David is concerned, the state of ‘war’ (‫ ;המלחמה‬2 Sam 3:1, 6) which has previ­ ously existed between David and Abner has now been replaced by peace.20 However, when Joab confronts David (3:25), it is precisely David’s knowledge which Joab questions. He insists that David ‘knows’ (‫ )ידעת‬that Abner has deceived him to gain knowledge (‫ ;ולדעת‬3:25 [2x]) which Joab seems to imply Abner will use against David. Joab’s assessment that he and David are still at war with Abner might well be intended to justify his subsequent killing of Abner.21 Nevertheless, the reader is already prepared for both David and the narrator’s objections to the contrary, by the note that when Joab called Abner back, ‘David did not know’ (‫ ;ודוד לא ידע‬2 Sam 3:26).22 27When

Abner returned to Hebron, Joab turned him aside in the midst of the gate to speak with him privately and there he stabbed him in the midriff. So he died for the blood of Asahel, Joab’s brother. 28Afterward, when David heard of it, he said, ‘I and my kingdom are forever innocent from the LORD for the bloods of Abner son of Ner. 29May they whirl upon the head of Joab and on all his father’s house; and may the house of Joab never be without one who has a dis­ charge, or who has a skin disease, or who grasps a spindle, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks food’ 30So Joab and his brother Abishai killed Abner because he had put to death their brother Asahel in the battle at Gibeon. (2 Sam 3:27–30)

The narrative does not disclose the grounds on which Joab recalls Abner (v. 26). However, Joab’s evident distrust of Abner and disgruntlement with David’s peace-­ making (v. 25) hardly augurs well for Abner’s return to Hebron at Joab’s request, especially in light of Abner’s own expectation of revenge (2:22). The narrator’s explanation that Abner ‘died for the blood of Asahel, Joab’s brother’ (v. 27b) draws attention to various details of its description (v. 27a). First, the note that Joab ‘turned him aside’ (‫ )ויטהו‬to kill him can hardly be an accident. When Asahel earlier pursues Abner to kill him, the narrator emphasizes that Asahel ‘did not turn aside’ (‫ ;ולא־נטה‬2:19) to the right or to the left, despite Abner’s plea that he should indeed ‘turn aside’ (‫ ;נטה לך‬2:21) to avoid creating a conflict between Joab and Abner. It seems likely that the narrator wishes to sug­ gest that Joab was as unswerving in his pursuit of revenge as Asahel had been of Abner. Second, Joab’s stabbing of Abner’s ‘midriff ’ (‫ )החמש‬suggests an effort on 20  As noted by many including McCarter, II Samuel, 117; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 54; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 402, etc. 21 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 350, notes that Joab ‘did not recognize David’s peace under these circumstances’. 22 The significance of the verb ‫ ידע‬is noted by Alter, The David Story, 213; and at length by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 99–101, who does not, however, sense its connection to the wider theme in relation to Abner. For the importance of knowledge as a theme of the latter half of 2 Sam 3, see Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 35–6.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   79 the part of both Joab and the narrator to present it as avenging Abner’s earlier killing of Asahel which resulted from an equally penetrating blow to his midriff (‫ ;החמש‬2:23).23 In light of these correspondences, Joab’s choice of the gate as the location for Abner’s killing is unlikely to be coincidental. Indeed, it may suggest an effort to present his act as a quasi-­judicial one, if the gate as a site for the administration of justice by Absalom (2 Sam 15:2–4) may be assumed here.24 With the assistance of the narrator, Joab spares no effort in cloaking the killing of Abner in the trappings of legitimate blood redemption.25 Indeed, it is not impossible that Joab is portrayed here as honestly assuming the legitimacy of his killing of Abner. If so, he presumably does so either by assuming that Asahel’s killing of Abner (2 Sam 2) was not in war and therefore required avenging, or more probably, that David and Joab are still at war with Abner (3:25).26 Moreover, from what we have already seen and will see in the rest of David’s story, it is entirely plausible that the circumstances and consequences of Abner’s death might be contested in the context of war. It should also be acknowledged that the narrator’s confirmation that Abner was killed ‘for the blood’ (‫ )בדם‬of Asahel does not on its own clarify its illegitimacy in David’s eyes. However, the narrative’s insistence that David does not order, and is not even aware of, Abner’s killing (v. 26) strongly hints it will not enjoy the sanction David has afforded the execution of the Amalekite (2 Sam 1).27

23  The reappearance of midriff here is noted by e.g. Bietenhard, Des Königs General, 146; Auld, I & II Samuel, 380; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 56; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 405, who also appreciates its sig­ nalling of Joab’s revenge. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 37, notices both repetitions, but does not explain them while Bodner, David Observed, 56–7, rightly recognizes what they signify. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 102–3, suggests that the re-­use of ‘turn aside’ highlights that ‘The one [Asahel] dies due to a stupid refusal after honest advice, the other [Abner] because of a somewhat naïve compliance after a deceitful approach.’ 24 As suggested also by Bodner, David Observed, 56, though with reference to passages in Deuteronomy (e.g. 16:18). The LXX’s locating of the killing ‘beside’ (ἐκ πλαγίων; perhaps with the connotation of deceit, 3:27) rather than in the ‘midst’ (‫ )אל־תוך‬of the gate (so MT) may reflect an original Hebrew text. However, the MT seems more likely to reflect a simple corruption of the Hebrew (so e.g. McCarter, II Samuel, 109) than an intentional attempt to emphasize Joab’s guilt and enhance David’s innocence (so Hugo, ‘Le meurtre d’Avner’; and ‘Abner und Amasa’, 43–6) both of which are made abundantly clear in both the MT and the LXX in any case. Similarly, the LXX’s reference to deception/ ambush in v. 27 probably reflects not an effort to exonerate David (so Hugo), but rather a desire to explain how someone of Abner’s experience could be lured into a meeting in private (so MT) with someone of whom both Abner and the reader have reason to be suspicious. 25 While David’s view of things (as well as the narrator’s) will become clear, it is less obvious whether Joab is portrayed as believing his actions constitute legitimate blood vengeance or merely wishing to present them as such. Nevertheless, Anderson, 2 Samuel, 44, 61, is surely right to reject the suggestion (so Christ, Blutvergiessen, 19; and Kedar-­Kopfstein, ‘‫ ָ’דם‬, 242–3) that Abner’s killing of Asahel as it is portrayed in 2 Samuel 2 presents it as illegitimate bloodshed (i.e. murder). As Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 138, observes, the narrator notes twice over (3:27, 30), that it was to avenge his brother’s death rather than for strategic purposes that Joab kills Abner; David’s curse on Joab and his house (3:28–29) is clearly intended to disavow any responsibility for Abner’s death. 26  The difference of perspectives is noted by Anderson, ‘Execution of Joab’, 51–3. 27  Contra Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 142, who sees an indictment of David’s complicity in his lack of response to Joab’s objections to peace with Abner. While McCarter, II Samuel, 118, rightly notes that

80  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Confirmation of this duly arrives when David responds by avowing his own ‘innocence’ (‫ ;נקי‬v. 28) in relation to the ‘bloods of Abner’ (‫)דמי אבנר‬.28 We recall that Jonathan has earlier characterized David’s own blood as ‘innocent’ (‫ )דם נקי‬in warning Saul not to shed it (1 Sam 19:5). David has also proclaimed his own righteousness (1 Sam 24:12 [ET 11]) in sparing Saul, so David’s claims to innocence here are not surprising.29 However, when executing the Amalekite, we saw that David’s invoking of the formula, ‘your blood(s) be upon your head’ merely implied David’s own disavowal there. Here, David makes this disavowal of his own guilt explicit. Indeed, what is even more noteworthy is that David makes this claim not only for himself, but for ‘my kingdom’ (‫ ;ממלכתי‬v. 28). David’s extension of his vow in this way recalls Saul’s affirmation that the ‘kingdom of Israel’ (‫ממלכת‬ ‫ ;ישראל‬1 Sam 24:21 [ET 20]) will be given to David because he has righteously refrained from shedding Saul’s blood illegitimately. Abigail also warned David of the negative consequences of shedding Nabal’s blood illegitimately when the LORD would eventually appoint David ‘prince over Israel’ (1 Sam 25:30).30 Here then is narrative evidence of David’s own growing consciousness of the potential for illegitimate bloodshed to haunt not only himself, but his descendants and his legacy.31 Most translations assume that David in verse 28 specifies his and his kingdom’s innocence ‘before the LORD’ (‫)מעם יהוה‬. If so, this would call to mind David’s anxiety to avoid his blood being shed ‘before the presence of the LORD’ (‫ ;מנגד פני יהוה‬1 Sam 26:20), if he were to yield to the temptation to kill Saul. While this seems plausible, it is more likely that here ‫ מעם יהוה‬means instead ‘from the LORD’, as it does in all other instances in the Hebrew Bible.32 Most notably, when Solomon eventually invokes the blood of Abner (and Amasa) on Joab (1 Kgs 2:33), he also invokes peace ‘from the LORD’ (‫ )מעם יהוה‬for David and his descendants.33 The curiousness of innocence ‘from the LORD’ here in 2 Sam 3 may suggest that it has been added later under the influence of the passage in 1 Kgs 2. In any case, a reference here to David’s innocence from the LORD serves to affirm the divine

Joab appears to be acting as a ‘redeemer of blood’, the context of this institution (and constraints upon it) visible in Num 35 are lacking here. 28  While 4QSama reads the singular, this almost certainly reflects the perceived ‘difficulty’ of the plural form, which for this reason should be retained (agreeing with Anderson, 2 Samuel, 54). Suggestions that the historical David orchestrated the death of Abner are plentiful (e.g. Vanderkam, ‘Davidic Complicity’, 530–3; Lemche, ‘David’s Rise’, 17–18; and, more recently, McKenzie, King David, 120–2; and Tushima, Fate of Saul’s Progeny, 141–2) but obviously depend on dismissing the narrative’s insistence on David’s own claims of innocence and the people’s acceptance of these claims (Gordon, I & II Samuel, 220). 29  As Auld, 1 & II Samuel, 381, rightly observes, David also warns Abishai against killing Saul by noting that it is not possible to raise his hand against the LORD’s anointed and remain ‘innocent’. 30 McCarter, II Samuel, 118, sees David’s concern with his kingship and dynasty as characteristic of a Deuteronomistic editor. 31 Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 406, rightly detects the widening of David’s concern here. 32  Deut 18:16, 29:17; Ruth 2:12; 1 Kgs 11:9, 12:15; Ps 121:2; Isa 7:11, 8:18, 28:29, and 29:6. 33  This is to be preferred to the emendation ‘now and forever’ suggested by LXXLMN and followed by McCarter, II Samuel, 110.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   81 stake in matters of innocent blood. Indeed, its resonance with Solomon’s later action against Joab also facilitates the specific and intended causal link between the innocence of David’s house and its ongoing peace.34 Confirmation of this link is supplied by the fact that both here and in 1 Kgs 2, the specification is not merely ‘from the LORD’ now, but also ‘forever’ (‫)עד־עולם‬.35 We have seen David here to be much more explicit about his disavowal of responsibility for innocent blood than he was in 2 Sam 1. David’s effort to specify where this dangerous blood belongs is also much more developed here.36 This may be seen when David expresses his expectation that the innocent ‘bloods’ of Abner will ‘whirl’ (‫ )יחלו‬upon the head of Joab (v. 29).37 The agency of shed blood is, of course, seen elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Gen 4:10, 11).38 Indeed, it is hinted at already in 1 Sam 26:20, where, as we have seen, David fears his own blood may potentially fall to the ground. That the whirling ‘bloods’ David invokes here will be unwelcome, is suggested by Jeremiah, where the winds of divine judgement are prophesied to ‘whirl upon the head of the wicked’ (‫ ;על ראש רשעים יחול‬Jer 23:19 [= 30:23]).39 The plurality of wicked ones over which judgement dances in Jeremiah might suggest that David invokes the innocent ‘bloods’ of Abner to dance first over Joab and then over the various members of his father’s house.40 Alternatively, it may simply be a figure, the original associations of which are beyond retrieval. In either case, the fact that they whirl here offers an alternative vantage point from which to view the enigmatic plural form ‘bloods’. The killing of the Amalekite in 2 Sam 1 confirmed the suggestion hinted at by 1 Sam 26:20, that the plural ‫ דמים‬might reflect that innocent blood often begets, or even requires, the shedding of more blood. Here, instead of the innocent ‘bloods’ of Abner being redeemed or avenged by execution, David invokes them in a way which hints or hopes that they will have a kind of agency of their own against the accused—­an agency which risks being obscured by the abstracted notion of ‘bloodguilt’. In addition to invoking ‘bloods’ on Joab and his kin, David here also invokes multiple consequences on them. These include: physical conditions which render a person unclean (‫זב‬, ‘discharge’ [e.g. Lev 15]; and ‫מצרע‬, ‘skin disease’ [e.g. Lev 14]),

34  The resonance of 2 Sam 3:28 and 29 with 1 Kgs 2:33 has been widely recognized. So, McCarter, II Samuel, 118. 35  While Eslinger, House of God, 47, suggests that this cannot mean ‘forever’, he gives no reason why David would not want to protect his descendants in perpetuity. 36  See Kitz, Cursed Are You!, 77, for the notion of transference and discussion of David’s words here as an unconditional curse. 37  So also Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 44. 38 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 229, notes the potential relevance of this notion here. 39  The usage in Jeremiah (so Auld, I & II Samuel, 380; and Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 44) offers a much better guide to the likely meaning here than Rabbinic Hebrew (contra McCarter, II Samuel, 118). 40  So suggests Christ, Blutvergiessen, 95–6.

82  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt a man being limited to women’s work (‫מחזיק בפלך‬, ‘grasps the spindle’)41 and deprivation of food. Most notable, for our purposes, however, is David’s penulti­ mate curse that Abner’s innocent ‘bloods’ would ensure that Joab’s house will be plagued by ‘one who falls by the sword’ (‫)נפל בחרב‬. That this stream of violent bloodshed will never end is implied by David’s curse that it, and the other impre­ cations, will not be ‘cut off ’ (‫)אל־יכרת‬. This may be compared to Joshua’s curse of the Gibeonites (Josh 9:23), to never have the hewers of wood and drawers of water for the temple ‘cut off ’ from them (‫)לא־יכרת‬.42 While Joab’s killing of Abner thus offers a brutal answer to Abner’s earlier question: ‘Will the sword devour forever?’ (2 Sam 2:26), so too do David’s words here. Indeed, David’s words curse the house of Joab to perpetual death by the sword (i.e. armed violence)43—a curse which in this case reflects and extends the basic notion of ‘blood for blood’.44 Another parallel suggests that David’s vowing of both his own innocence and Joab’s guilt forever reflects David’s increasing anxiety regarding the longer term threat of ‘bloods’. David’s claim to his kingdom’s innocence in addition to his own, finds a correspondence in David’s inclusion of Joab’s ‘father’s house’ (‫ ;בית אביו‬3:29) in his imprecation of Joab. It is possible that the reference to Joab’s ‘father’s house’ may be simply formulaic (see 1 Sam 2:31–36). However, the curiosity of David’s mention of Joab’s ‘father’s house’ here lies in the conspicuous absence of Joab’s father from the biblical tradition, which consistently identifies Joab and his broth­ ers as the ‘sons of Zeruiah’, their mother (see 2 Sam 3:39). If there is an awareness that Zeruiah is David’s sister (so 1 Chron 2:15–16), Joab’s ‘father’s house’ may be mentioned here to de-­emphasize David’s kinship to the sons of his sister for the purposes of this curse. David’s extension of the imprecation to the house of Joab’s father also serves to include Abishai, whose own guilt will be specified (v. 30).45 But it also illustrates David’s belief that ‘bloods’ which are left unaddressed will linger and haunt not merely the guilty party, but those included in the father’s house and their descendants through time. The greatly extended scope of David’s vow of innocence and imprecation of Joab seen here may also reflect David’s increasing anxiety regarding the potential ripple effects of ‘bloods’ for him and his house, first mooted by Abigail in 1 Sam 25.46 41  See Layton, ‘Chain Gang’. 42  So Gordon, I & II Samuel, 220; and Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 44. Cf. also the use of this verb in the prophetic judgement against Eli and his father’s house (1 Sam 2:31–36), especially if the judgement there too includes Eli’s sons ‘falling by the sword’. The latter is noted by Gordon, I & II Samuel, 220, rightly following the LXX and 4QSama in assuming that the original text in 1 Sam 2:33 refers to them ‘falling by the sword of men’ (so also McCarter, 1 Samuel, 89). 43  Or ‘battle’ as noted by McCarter, II Samuel, 118. Because the verb here is governed by the prep­ os­ition ‫ב‬, McCarter rightly rejects the suggestion of McKane, I & II Samuel, 193, that this is a refer­ ence to falling upon one’s sword (as Saul does in 1 Sam 31:4). 44  For discussion of why this cannot be understood as merely ‘restitution’, see Gilmour, Divine Violence, 31. 45 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 351. 46  So Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 229. While it is not impossible that vv. 28 and 29 are the additions of a later editor (so e.g. Veijola, Die Ewige Dynastie, 30–1) there has clearly been a very intentional integration of them within this narrative and the wider tradition.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   83 Because the narrator has already explained that Abner was killed for shedding the blood of Asahel (v. 27), the reiteration of this point (v. 30) might seem rather redundant.47 However, its repetition here serves at least two purposes. It serves to implicate Abishai with Joab in the killing of Abner and it confirms that Abner was slain for killing Asahel ‘in war’ (‫)במלחמה‬.48 This narratorial detail almost certainly anticipates Joab’s eventual execution for shedding the blood of war during a time of peace (1 Kgs 2:5).49 Even for the reader not aware of Joab’s eventual execution, this confirmation that Asahel’s blood was shed in war and that Abner’s was not, recalls the narrative’s earlier interest in whether the Amalekite’s killing of Saul was ‘in battle’ or in cold blood (2 Sam 1). In keeping with his actions in 2 Sam 1, David here leads the people in mourn­ ing one whose blood should not have been shed (vv. 31–32). Joab’s inclusion in the mourning party need not be seen as indicating any change of heart or admis­ sion of responsibility on his part, of which there is no sign. Indeed, while the sense of Joab’s conscription is palpable,50 David’s convictions regarding the matter are made equally clear in his lament for Abner: ‘The king lamented for Abner, saying, “Should Abner die as a violator dies? Your hands were not tied, your feet were not fettered; as one falls before the wicked you have fallen.” And all the ­people wept over him again’ (2 Sam 3:33–34). If David’s question is a rhetorical one, as most assume, then David seems to imply that Abner should not have died the death he did, which was like that of a ‘violator’ (‫ ;נבל‬v. 33). Most commenta­ tors rightly resist the temptation to follow the LXX (Ναβαλ) in seeing this as an allusion to ‘Nabal’, whom we recall also dies an ignominious death (1 Sam 25).51 Nevertheless, the frequent reading here of ‫ נבל‬as ‘fool’,52 reflects the well-­enshrined

47  Given that the MT ‫‘( הרגו ל‬to slay’ or ‘kill’) reflects Aramaizing more typical of later Hebrew, Auld, I & II Samuel, 377, rightly favours ‫‘ נגע אל‬to strike’ suggested by 4QSama. Even if the MT is ­ori­gin­al, in the books of Samuel at least, the verb ‫ הרג‬does not necessarly connote ‘murder’ (as Bodner, David Observed, 57, seems to assume) or other forms of illegitimate killing because it is used by David in 2 Sam 4:10 to describe an execution which he sanctions. 48  As noted by Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 407; and Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 45. Given that Abishai has not yet been mentioned in connection with Abner’s killing, the mention of him here has been seen by some as incorrect (so e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 261). However, Abishai’s previous lust for Saul’s blood and David’s reference to the ‘sons’ of Zeruiah later in this chapter explain Abishai’s inclusion here. 49  So Gordon, I & II Samuel, 221; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 37; and Whitelam, Just King, 107–8. For killing in battle not justifying blood vengeance, see Phillips, Criminal Law, 85; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 104–5. The inclusion of this detail effectively undermines the efforts of Anderson, 2 Samuel, 64, to reduce Joab’s act to justifiable homicide and to validate David’s unwill­ ingness to execute him. While Green, David’s Capacity, 175, notes that the narrator does not offer a clear assessment of Joab’s killing of Abner, here at least is a strong hint. 50  David’s requiring of Joab to immediately mourn the man he has killed may be a further indica­ tion of his judgement that Abner is innocent and Joab is guilty (so Morrison, 2 Samuel, 60). 51  For the LXX’s reading of the proper name in vv. 33 and 34, see Auld, I & II Samuel, 382, 383. 52  So e.g. Auld, I & II Samuel, 383; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 103; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 138, 142 opts for ‘Narren’. McKenzie, King David, 122, sees the allusion to Nabal as con­firm­ ation that David murdered Abner as well as Nabal, which is not easily deduced from the text as we have it.

84  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt misunderstanding of ‫ נבל‬as connoting merely ‘foolishness’ in both stories.53 As others have shown, however, here and elsewhere in the David story, ‫ נבל‬refers not to one who is a ‘fool’ in the sense of merely lacking wisdom, but rather to one who is guilty of a substantial violation of acceptable boundaries or cultural conven­ tions.54 David’s comparison of Abner’s death to that of a ‘violator’ makes much better sense of his assessment of the circumstances. David insists that Abner’s blood was shed by Joab in an act of unwarranted vengeance, as Nabal’s would have been by David for his violation, if Abigail had not intervened. Despite the charade of Joab’s ‘justice’, had due process been observed, Abner would not have had his hands tied and his feet fettered, because Abner was not guilty of anything. Instead, David concludes that Abner has been a victim of Joab’s wickedness in illegitimately avenging his brother, Asahel. It is unsurprising then that David laments Abner in terms which are not merely elegiac, but forthrightly eulogistic.55 Indeed, David’s grieving of Abner is further underlined in 2 Sam 3:35–37. There the seriousness of David’s fast (v. 35)56 is reported as both pleasing the people (v. 36) and impressing upon them David’s innocence in the matter of Abner’s death (v. 37)—a view to which the narrator also seems to subscribe.57 The report of the people’s recognition that David had nothing to do with Abner’s killing testifies to the strength of David’s avowal of both Abner’s inno­ cence and his own. However, the final verse of the chapter (v. 39) suggests that rather more questions about David’s treatment of Joab remain for the reader. David begins by complaining to his servants of his own powerlessness in light of the violence of the sons of Zeruiah (Joab and Abishai). He then follows this with a final imprecation which doesn’t name them, but in light of the context, must surely include them: ‘May the LORD repay the one who does evil in accordance with his evil.’ (v. 39).58 While David has already invoked the LORD in vowing his 53  See Gordon, I & II Samuel, 221, for example. 54  See Marböck, ‘‫’נָ ָבל‬, 158–71, and literature cited there. McCarter, II Samuel, 105, 119, is nearer the mark in translating ‘outcast’, though one who is ‘scandalous’ and ‘contemptible’ better captures the sense of one who violates social convention. 55  While David earlier judges Abner for failing to protect Saul (1 Sam 26), this does not seem an adequate basis for suggesting (as does Green, David’s Capacity, 144) that David is uncertain regarding Abner’s innocence in the present case. For a consideration of whether Abner is best understood as going to his death here ‘knowingly’ or ‘naively’ and how much we can know Abner at all, see Shepherd, ‘Knowing Abner’, 221–5. 56  Rather than David’s lack of ‘bread’ implying that he has cursed himself in cursing Joab (so Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 37) it offers a contrast: while Joab’s house will suffer hunger because of his happiness to shed innocent blood, David suffers hunger because of how distraught he is at the shedding of it. 57  The reference to the people’s opinion ‘on that day’ (‫ ;ביום ההוא‬v. 37) is not intended to qualify or reserve the narrator’s judgement, but rather to underline that the popular judgement was formed while the events were very fresh in the memory (so McCarter, II Samuel, 119). 58  The probable allusion to Joab (and his brother) here is also detected by Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 411. As McCarter, II Samuel, 112, notes, the absence of this imprecation from 4QSama may well sug­ gest its late arrival into the textual tradition.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   85 innocence (v. 28), he did not do so in invoking ‘bloods’ upon Joab and his father’s house (v. 29). This is now remedied by David here. Using the same verb (‫שלם‬, ‘to repay’) as Saul does in promising divine reward for David’s goodness in not shed­ ding his blood (1 Sam 24:20 [ET 19]), David here invokes divine retribution on the wicked in keeping with their deeds.59 David’s offering of this second curse in the same breath as he claims to be less severe than the sons of Zeruiah, suggests he has them in mind. But it also invites reflection on David’s actions here in light of his execution of the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul (2 Sam 1). The most obvious similarity between these two episodes is David’s recognition that the prospect of ‘bloods’ has been raised because the killings of Saul and Abner were both illegitimate. In Saul’s case, this was because he was the LORD’s anointed and in Abner’s case, because he had killed Asahel legitimately in battle. The second and no less obvious similarity is that whether Abner is understood to be Saul’s nephew or his uncle, both these victims of illegitimate violence are Saulides. If, therefore, David’s killing of the Amalekite reflects his redemption of Saul’s blood because of David’s kinship with the house of Saul,60 then it begs the question why David does not also redeem the innocent blood of the Saulide Abner by killing Joab. Indeed, the same logic would surely apply even if the exe­ cution of the Amalekite is ordered by David as king(-elect) rather than as kins­ man.61 Of course, this also suggests the importance of considering not merely the similarities but the differences between David’s actions in the two episodes. First, while David’s own innocence of the blood of the Amalekite is probably implied in his vow in 2 Sam 1, here we have seen David’s disavowal of guilt is explicit and extended to his kingdom and for all time. Second, in addition to this explicit and unprecedented avowal of innocence, we have seen that David’s imprecation of Abner’s killer, Joab, is also greatly expanded. Unlike in 2 Sam 1, it now includes a specific provision that Joab and his father’s house will be forever cursed by eternal bloodshed (amongst other things). Third, not only are David’s avowals of innocence and guilt much more developed than in 2 Sam 1, they spe­ cifically invoke the LORD. Fourth, as others have noted, despite Abner’s killing being as illegitimate as Saul’s, David’s failure to require the execution of Joab (and 59  As observed by Auld, I & II Samuel, 385. It is unclear whether David’s invocation of the divine here signals that only God can cause such catastrophes (so Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 118). 60  This may well suggest that David’s insistence on his kinship to Abner (συγγενὴς; LXXLMN) is original, as Hugo, ‘Königsmacher’, suggests. If so, however, David’s admission of weakness (so MT) is more likely to reflect a misreading of either ‫ דד‬or ‫ רע‬as ‫( רך‬2 Sam 3:39) than an intentional effort to exonerate David (so Hugo), not least because an admission of weakness would be an odd way to do so. More likely, the LXX tradition’s emphasizing of their kinship has arisen from a confusion of letters (see above; so McCarter, II Samuel, 111–12). Alternatively, David’s responsibility to avenge Abner as kinsman may have seemed more attractive than the MT’s contrasting of David’s weakness with the strength or harshness of the sons of Zeruiah, which is probably more original, as Wellhausen, Samuelis, 160, noted long ago. 61  See on the latter possibility, Whitelam, Just King, 109.

86  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Abishai) here is striking given his summary execution of the Amalekite.62 A final difference is that while the guilty Amalekite may be a ‘sojourner’, he is someone who is otherwise unassociated with David, in sharp contrast to Joab, whose kin­ ship to David as nephew was already assumed in antiquity.63 One hypothesis might be that David extends his cursing of Joab, because he is unable or unwilling to execute Joab in order to redeem the innocent blood of Abner. If so, David’s further invoking of the LORD’s repayment of evil for the sons of Zeruiah’s wickedness (v. 39) should not be seen as a pious deferral to divine intervention, as in the case of Nabal in 1 Sam 25. Instead, it should be seen as an abdication of David’s responsibility to remedy the problem himself, given that he knows Joab to be guilty and requiring death.64 Why David spares Joab may be explained by David’s relationship to him as the son of his sister. It also seems likely that it is this very same relationship which requires David to ex­pli­ cit­ly vow his own innocence and that of his kingdom of the blood shed by his nephew, lest it eventually come back to haunt David and his kingdom. Moreover, David’s invoking of the LORD in avowing his own innocence and Joab’s guilt, suggests David’s awareness that because he has merely execrated, but not exe­ cuted, Joab, divine intervention will be required to avoid David’s house being haunted by ‘bloods’. While other hypotheses are of course possible, this one may be tested by 2 Sam 4, in which David responds yet again to the shedding of still more Saulide blood.

The Killing of Ishbosheth Saul’s son, Ishbosheth, was made well-­aware of Abner’s intention to betray him by handing his kingdom over to David.65 It is, therefore, not immediately clear why news of the general’s death should dishearten him, as we see it does in 2 Sam 4:1.66 62  Several note the absence of Joab’s execution (e.g. Alter, The David Story, 216; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 119) and many others the conspicuousness of this absence in light of the Amalekite’s execution (e.g. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 61; Campbell, 2 Samuel, 47; Quesada, ‘Tidings of Death’, 7; Henry, ‘Joab’, 332; and Tushima, Fate of Saul’s Progeny, 140). 63  That the two men are related by blood is explicitly articulated not in the books of Samuel, but in 1 Chron 2:16, where Joab and his two brothers are listed as the sons of Zeruiah, one of David’s two sisters (along with Abigail, daughter of Nahash). This ancient assumption of the Chronicler that Joab was not merely David’s leading general but also a blood relation was undoubtedly strengthened by the knowledge that Saul’s leading general, Abner, was related to him by blood as well (whether as cousin [1 Sam 9:1, 14:51] or as uncle [on the basis of 1 Chron 8:33]). For further discussion and literature, see Buracker, ‘Abner’, 36–9 (in relation to the MT) and 209–10 (in relation to LXX). 64 Ishida, History, 163. See also Merz, Die Blutrache, 65. 65  Many understand ‘shame’ (‫ )בשת‬in MT ‘Ishbosheth’ (‫ )איש־בשת‬as reflecting an editorial intention to remove (and, in effect, castigate) a reference to the Canaanite god ‘Baal’ in what is presumed to be the original name of Saul’s son (‘Ishbaal’) (see e.g. McCarter, II Samuel, 85–6). This is not impossible, but, as Tsevat, ‘Ishbosheth’, and Hamilton, ‘New Evidence’, have shown, the name Ishbosheth may well be original and not derogatory. 66  So Anderson, 2 Samuel, 68. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 356, suggests the probability that Ishbosheth feared David.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   87 1When

Saul’s son heard that Abner had died at Hebron, his courage failed and all Israel was terrified. 2Saul’s son had two captains of raiding parties; one was named Baanah and the other, Rechab. They were sons of Rimmon the Beerothite—­from the Benjaminites because Beeroth is considered Benjaminite. 3(Now the people of Beeroth had fled to Gittaim and are there as sojourners to this day). 4Saul’s son Jonathan had a son whose feet were crippled. He was five years old when the news about Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel. His nurse lifted him up and fled, but as she hurried to escape, he fell and became lame. His name was Mephibosheth. 5Now the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, set out and in the heat of the day they arrived at the house of Ishbosheth, while he was taking his afternoon rest. 6They came inside the house as if to take wheat and they struck him in the midriff; then Rechab and Baanah, his brother, escaped. 7Now they had come into the house and he was lying on his bed in his bedchamber and they struck him, killed him and beheaded him. Then they took his head and traveled by way of the Arabah the whole night.  (2 Sam 4:1–7)

Because it was the return of Joab from ‘raiding’ (‫ ;מהגדוד‬2 Sam 3:22) which led to Abner’s death, the introduction of Rechab and Baanah as captains of ‘raiding par­ ties’ (‫ ;גדודים‬4:2) may put the reader on guard.67 The fact that the brothers have been recruited by Ishbosheth from Benjamin is not surprising in light of Saul’s origins. But the narrator’s further clarification that they were the sons of Rimmon a ‘Beerothite’ (v. 2) is rather less expected. The city of Beeroth, from which Joab’s own armour-­bearer also hailed (2 Sam 23:37), belonged to the Hivite tetrapolis. One of these four cities is Gibeon, whose inhabitants dupe the Israelites into a treaty which spares them (Joshua 9) the fate suffered by other Canaanite cities such as Jericho. It may be that the original Beerothites (i.e. Canaanites) eventually fled to Gittaim (cf. Neh 11:33) and dwelled there as sojourners (‫ ;גרים‬2 Sam 4:3), until they were finally displaced by Benjaminites, to whom the city had been appor­ tioned (Josh 18:25). This then would explain why the sons of a Beerothite were in fact Benjaminites and thus from Ishbosheth’s own tribe.68 However, Rimmon’s status as ‘Beerothite’ is perhaps better taken as a designation of ethnos or ancestry. If so, then the specification that he was ‘from the Benjaminites because Beeroth is con­sidered Benjaminite’ would instead explain how non-­Israelites came into the employ of the Benjaminite king, Ishbosheth.69 If, as seems likely, Rechab and Baanah are being presented as non-­Israelites, the reference to them as ‘sojourners’ would not seem to augur well for Ishbosheth, or the brothers themselves. The last 67  Some (e.g. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 122) note the parallel, but not its significance. 68  So e.g. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 62; Alter, The David Story, 217; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 123. 69  See e.g. Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 212; Noth, History, 186; Carlson, Chosen King, 51; and esp. Tushima, Fate of Saul’s Progeny, 147–9, for a persuasive argument in favour of seeing the brothers as non-­Israelites and sojourners.

88  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt non-­Israelite sojourner (‫ ;גר‬2 Sam 1:13) encountered by the reader was the Amalekite, who claimed to have killed Saul, Ishbosheth’s father, and was then killed by David for his trouble. The relevance of the brothers’ status will be returned to in considering the events which follow. The mention of the physical impairment of Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth (v. 4),70 is probably meant to signal that Ishbosheth is the only viable heir to the Saulide throne.71 However, the narrator surely offers an ominous sign by noting that the disabling tragedy befell Jonathan’s son on the occasion of the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The narrator reminds the reader of the brothers’ Beerothite identity (v. 5), before recounting their arrival at the house of Ishbosheth. They do so in the heat of the day, a time when Ishbosheth might be expected to rest (v. 5), and for this very reason, not a time when visitors would presumably be expected.72 It may be recalled that Saul was the last person to be found asleep in the narrative (1 Sam 26:7). When this is recalled, it hardly augurs well for his son that while the ill-­fated Saul was at his most vulnerable, he came within a hair’s breadth of being assassinated. That Rechab and Baanah enter the house of Ishbosheth specifically to take wheat may suggest that access to the king’s house was somewhat restricted.73 However, the brothers’ association with the Gibeonites, infamous for their powers of deception (Josh 9), may also suggest that collecting wheat was a false pretence.74 In any case, the brothers waste little time by immediately striking Ishbosheth in the midriff (‫ ;החמש‬v. 6). The recent dispatching of Abner with the same technique (‫ ;החמש‬2 Sam 3:27), and in a similarly calculated fashion, naturally invites com­ parison of the two.75 However, it also highlights the unexpected focus on the brothers’ escape (v. 6), rather than Ishbosheth’s immediate death. If this invites the hope that Ishbosheth might survive, this hope is soon dashed by the con­firm­ ation that he is beheaded, furnishing the trophy that accompanies the brothers’ flight under cover of darkness (v. 7).76

70  While many see MT ‫‘ מפיבשת‬Mephibosheth’ as a secondary substitution for ‘Mippibaal’ (see e.g. McCarter, II Samuel, 124–5, and n. 65 above on Ishbosheth/Ishbaal), Tsevat, ‘Ishbosheth’ and Hamilton, ‘New Evidence’, have shown that the name Mephibosheth may have been original. For further discus­ sion, see Schipper, Disability Studies, 34. 71  So Schipper, Disability Studies, 92. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 234; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 356–7, think that the mention of Saul’s other son underlines that David’s actions here will not violate his promise to preserve Saulide descendants of Jonathan. 72  So Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 357. 73  Following the MT here (so Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 354–5). While the LXX offers a fuller text here (vv. 6–7) in which a porter falls asleep (for which, see McCarter, II Samuel, 125–6) this likely reflects an effort on the part of the translator to clarify why the killers gain entrance so easily. 74  Contra Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 357, who thinks this unlikely. 75  As noted by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 357; and Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 50–1, who reflects usefully on the fratricidal nature of killings achieved with such a blow in the books of Samuel. 76 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 129, notes that the Jabesh Gileadites also travel all night (1 Sam 31:12) though they do so to retrieve Saulide remains rather than to present them.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   89 8They

brought the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron and said to the king, ‘Here is the head of Ishbosheth, son of Saul, your enemy, who sought your life; the LORD has given my lord the king vengeance this day on Saul and on his offspring.’ 9David answered Rechab and his brother Baanah, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, ‘As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life out of every diffi­ culty, 10when the one who told me, ‘Look, Saul is dead,’ thought he was bringing good news, I took hold of him and I killed him in Ziklag—­this was the reward I gave him for the news. 11How much more now, when wicked men have killed a righteous man on his bed in his own house! And now will I not seek his blood at your hand and eliminate you from the earth?’ 12So David ordered the young men and they killed them, cut off their hands and feet and hung [them] by the pool at Hebron. But the head of Ishbosheth they took and buried in the tomb of Abner at Hebron.  (2 Sam 4:8–12)

Arriving at Hebron, where David remains from chapter 3, the Beerothite brothers present themselves and Ishbosheth’s head before David. They arrive with rather less ceremony and jewellery than the Amalekite does (2 Sam 1), but rather more concrete proof of their claim that another Saulide is dead. It might seem that Rechab and Baanah are presented here as hopelessly naive in light of David’s treatment of the Amalekite. However, careful attention to their claim (v. 8) in light of previous chapters cautions against drawing such conclusions too quickly. By equating ‘enemies’ (‫ )איבך‬with those who ‘seek David’s life’ (v. 8), the broth­ ers very clearly echo Abigail’s own characterization of David’s enemies, including Nabal and, by implication, Saul (1 Sam 25:26, 29). It will be recalled that Abigail expects divine intervention (‘he will sling them like stones’; v. 29) to ensure that David’s enemies will meet the same fate as Nabal (v. 26). The brothers’ suggestion that Ishbosheth’s killing reflects this kind of intervention is supplemented by their insistence that the LORD has afforded David ‘vengeance(s)’ (‫ ;נקמות‬v. 8) against Saul. Indeed, this is no less than what David had prayed when he had Saul at his mercy: ‘May the LORD avenge me (‫ )ונקמני‬on you’ (1 Sam 24:13 [ET 12]).77 The logic of the brothers’ claims here seems unexceptionable. But their inter­ pretation of Ishbosheth’s death in terms of divine judgement, and their omission of their own part in it, proves to be carefully calculated. In theory, the fact that they have Ishbosheth’s head in their possession does not prove their involvement. Nor does it preclude the possibility that Ishbosheth has fallen in battle, one of the ways David imagines Saul might have been removed without incurring ‘bloods’ (1 Sam 26:10). Of course, the reader already knows that Ishbosheth is not a cas­ ual­ty of war and that the brothers have his blood on their hands. However, when David responds to the ‘Beerothites’, whose identity is emphasized yet again by the 77  As observed by Auld, I & II Samuel, 390. Others, including Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 51, rightly sense the resonance with 1 Sam 24 and 26, though not 1 Sam 25.

90  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt narrator, David’s opening words here seem to resonate with the brothers. Like them, David’s focus initially is on the divine activity on his behalf.78 He ac­know­ ledges that the LORD has redeemed his life ‘out of every difficulty’ (‫ ;מכל־צרה‬v. 9), precisely as David had prayed God would in En Gedi before Saul (‫ ;מכל־צרה‬1 Sam 26:24).79 Unfortunately for the Beerothites, David’s frame of reference turns out to be not David’s deliverance from Saul, but David’s avenging of Saul’s killing. Crucially, rather than attributing Saul’s killing to divine intervention, David here blames it on human high-­handedness (v. 10). Not content to cite the Amalekite case as precedent (1 Sam 31), David outlines why he views the brothers’ killing of Ishbosheth as even more egregious (‘how much more then’; v. 11). Neither the interrogation nor the confession of the Amalekite (2 Sam 1) find an equivalent here. But David’s accusation that the Beerothites have killed ‘a righteous man on his bed in his own house’ (v. 11) con­ firms that David has already been made privy to the specific details of Ishbosheth’s killing.80 David seems to suggest that the brothers’ slaying of Saul’s son at his most vulnerable has both aggravated the assault and increased their culpability, in comparison with the Amalekite who killed Saul.81 Perhaps David considers Ishbosheth’s blood to be protected, because he has inherited the status of the ‘LORD’s anointed’ from his father, Saul. Or it may be that Ishbosheth required sparing because David swore to Saul that he would not cut off his descendants (1 Sam 24:22–23 [ET 21–22]). In any case, David’s contrasting of the ‘righteous’, and effectively innocent, Ishbosheth, with the ‘wicked’, and thus guilty, Beerothite brothers, also harkens back to 1 Sam 24.82 There, David contrasts the ‘wickedness which comes from wicked men’ (‫ ;מרשעים יצא רשע‬1 Sam 24:14 [ET 13]) with his refusal to shed Saul’s blood illegitimately, for which Saul in turn praises David as ‘righteous’ (v. 18 [ET 17]).

78  So Anderson, 2 Samuel, 71; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 358. 79 As noted by Gordon, I & II Samuel, 223; Auld, I & II Samuel, 390; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 437. 80  That David must have been informed is suggested by Alter, The David Story, 219, who also notes the possibility that some dialogue has been omitted here (so too Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 438). 81  So e.g. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 71; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 52; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 438. While it is not impossible that the brothers’ assault is seen by David to be aggravated by the fact that they are two whereas the Amalekite was one (so Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 134), the text does not emphasize this. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 50, contrasts Ishbosheth’s death with Saul’s ‘in battle’, despite the fact that both 1 Sam 31 and 2 Sam 1 emphasize that Saul’s was not a com­ bat death per se. 82 McCarter, II Samuel, 128, and others follow Mabee, ‘Judicial Exoneration’, 104, in assuming that David does not consider Ishbosheth to be the ‘LORD’s anointed’ and thus must consider him to be ‘innocent’ instead. That Ishbosheth’s righteousness is here being contrasted with Saul’s wickedness (so Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 51) seems unlikely, as does the suggestion of Avioz, ‘ “A Man of Shame” ’, 236–7, that Ishbosheth is characterized as wholly negative here, not least because he is in fact explicitly referred to as ‘righteous’.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   91 While David clearly engages with the brothers’ use of ideas articulated in 1 Sam 24–26, his rhetorical question (v. 11) seals the fate of the brothers.83 David again references ‘blood’, but there are no signs of imprecation here, or of an explicit disavowal of guilt as was seen in 2 Sam 3. Admittedly, David’s references to Ishbosheth’s ‘blood’ (‫ )דמו‬suggest that David remains as concerned with the ‘blood’ of the slain here84 as he was with Abner’s blood (2 Sam 3:28) and probably Saul’s too (2 Sam 1:16). However, the agency of the shed blood itself which seemed to be implied in previous episodes (cf. 3:29) is nowhere to be seen here. Nor does David invoke the LORD, as he did against Joab. Instead, David very much emphasizes his own agency both in his analysis (e.g. ‘my life’ [2 Sam 4:9], ‘told me’, ‘I took hold’, ‘I killed’, ‘I gave him’ [v. 10]) and also in his sentencing of the men (e.g. ‘Will I not seek’, ‘Will I not eliminate’ [v. 11]).85 David’s promise to the brothers to ‘seek his blood at your hand’ (‫ ;אבקש את־דמו מידכם‬v. 11) is quite dif­ ferent from previous formulations, being found here for the first time in Samuel and most frequently elsewhere in Ezekiel.86 In Ezek 3, the prophet is told that if he does not warn the people regarding their wickedness, the LORD will seek their blood at his hands (vv. 18, 20).87 What is most noteworthy about this expression is that apart from here, the only one in the Hebrew Bible who actively seeks blood at the hands of someone is God himself.88 This may suggest that when David promises to seek Ishbosheth’s blood at the Beerothites’ hands, he is here not merely emphasizing his own agency to a greater extent than in previous episodes. He may also be wishing to present himself as executing divine vengeance, rather than simply inviting or invoking it, as previously. It seems highly likely that David’s intention is indeed vengeance, given his ­promise to the Beerothite brothers to ‘eliminate you from the earth’ (‫;ובערתי אתכם מן־הארץ‬ v. 11).89 This language of ‘eliminating from’ (‫ מן‬+ ‫ )בער‬is most characteristic of Deuteronomy, where it appears primarily in encouragements to the community to

83  The statement found here in LXX confirms the force of the MT’s question as rhetorical rather than suggesting that the question is not original. 84  As noted by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 135. Christ, Blutvergiessen, 23, 67, notes that here and elsewhere this is short-­hand for blood shed by human hands unnecessarily or illegitimately. 85  As Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 135; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 65, note, David’s ‘seeking’ (‫ )בקש‬of their blood echoes the brothers’ suggestion (v. 8) that Saul ‘sought’ (‫ )בקש‬David’s blood. 86  While the usage of this formula in Akkadian is of some relevance (for which, see Paul, ‘Legal Idioms’, 238), our first point of reference should be analogous usage in texts written within the same language and corpus. 87  In Ezek 33:8, the expression serves a similar purpose (cf. also 33:6, where to seek is denoted instead by ‫)דרש‬. It is worth noting that in Ezek 33, ‘seeking of blood at the hands of ’ also appears alongside the formulation ‘his blood be upon/against his head’ (‫ )דמו בראשו יהיה‬which differs only very slightly from the form of words used by David in cursing the Amalekite who claimed to have slain Saul. 88  In Gen 42:22, the use of the passive leaves open the question of whom Reuben thinks is ‘seeking’ Joseph’s blood. Cf. also Gen 9:5, noted by Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 52. 89  So Ringgren, ‘‫ ָ’בעַ ר‬, 203.

92  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt purge or eliminate evil from ‘your midst’ or ‘from Israel’.90 More relevant is the ‘egla’ ritual (Deut 21:9), used to ‘eliminate the innocent blood (‫ )הדם הנקי‬from among you’ in cases where the killer cannot be determined. Perhaps most relevant of all is Deut 19:12–13. Here, the elders of a man who has illegitimately shed the blood of another are encouraged to ‘eliminate the innocent blood (‫ )דם־הנקי‬from Israel’ by handing the man over to the ‘redeemer of blood’ (‫ )גאל הדם‬to be put to death.91 The resonance of this language with David’s here seems to invite the reading of his actions in this passage as that of a redeemer of innocent blood.92 If so, it is not impossible that David’s intervention as blood redeemer is again premised on his familial links to the house of Saul.93 However, as in previous episodes, this is not clearly signalled and therefore cannot be assumed without reservation.94 Alternatively, or additionally, David’s redemption of Ishbosheth’s blood might reflect his concern to keep his covenant with Saul to not cut off his descendants (1 Sam 24:22–23 [ET 21–22]). Or it may be that David’s execution of the Beerothite brothers relates to his recognition as king, both by them and the narrator (2 Sam 4:8). In light of the judgement David has rendered (v. 11), it is not surprising that he does here what he conspicuously failed to do with Joab, namely, issue an execu­ tion order. Unlike in the case of the Amalekite, there are no signs here of David’s interrogation of the brothers’ identity or status. However, the narrator’s otherwise unnecessary reiteration of their Beerothite association (v. 9) does suggest its rele­ vance. In the unlikely event they are being presented here as Benjaminites, the narrator may be suggesting that if an Amalekite sojourner was held accountable for illegitimate bloodshed, then how much more so should Israelites. If, as seems more likely, the narrator is emphasizing their status as Beerothite sojourners, it would suggest a desire to compare them to the Amalekite as non-­ Israelite sojourners. In this case, the reader is seemingly invited to assume that however foreign they might be, Rechab and Baanah are culpable, because as sojourners, they are expected to know better.95 90  For the former, see e.g. Deut 17:7, 19:19, 21:9, 21, 22:21, 24, 24:7; for the latter, 17:12, 19:13, 22:22. See further Christ, Blutvergiessen, 86. Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 439, also notes the use of this verb in Kings. 91 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 135, notes in passing the relevance of both of these passages while Matzal, ‘Word Play’, 463, draws particular attention to Deut 19:13 and to the similarity of the verb form (‫‘ )בערתי‬I will seek’ to the adjective ‘Beerothite’ (‫)בארתי‬. Whether this similarity is intended to suggest that the brothers’ ancestry condemns them and vindicates David is unclear. 92  This is despite Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 82, rightly pointing out that David vows to elim­ in­ ate the blood from the land here (cf. also 1 Kgs 22:46), rather than the community, as in Deuteronomy. 93 Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 439, suggests David acts here as the son-­in-­law of Saul and the brother-­ in-­law of Ishbosheth; Macholz, ‘Die Stellung’, 164, argues that he acts instead because of his covenant with Jonathan. 94 Echoing the caution of Anderson, 2 Samuel, 72. While Whitelam, Just King, 112, seems to assume that David dispenses (in)justice as king in 2 Sam 4, he also acknowledges the likelihood that David probably claimed the right of blood redeemer on behalf of Saul’s house. 95  This seems more likely than the suggestion that their identity is reiterated to emphasize their separation from David (so Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 358). Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 51–2,

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   93 In 2 Sam 1, David invites only one servant to execute the Amalekite who claims to have killed Saul. Here, David assigns the task to more than one (v. 12), perhaps because there are two executions or because the same servants will also be required to dismember the bodies, seemingly on David’s orders.96 While the decapitation of Ishbosheth furnished the brothers with proof of his death, why their hands and feet are removed after their execution is less clear.97 On the basis of comparison with biblical and other ancient Near Eastern texts, it has been sug­ gested that they may have been cut off because they have been used to commit the crime.98 This seems undeniable, though neither hands nor feet are mentioned explicitly in the account of Ishbosheth’s death. Alternatively, or additionally, David’s insistence to the brothers that he will seek Ishbosheth’s blood from ‘your (pl) hand’ (‫ ;מידכם‬v. 11) may be relevant in this connection. As we will see below, the subsequent severing of the hands may help parse David’s words, rather than merely highlighting their formulaic nature.99 It is left unspecified how the brothers’ remains are ‘hung’ (‫ ;תלה‬v. 12). Because no tree is mentioned, the use of this same verb (2 Sam 21:12) to refer to the pin­ ning of Saul’s body to the wall (1 Sam 31:10), suggests that the Beerothites’ remains have been hung here in the same way.100 The lack of an object in the Hebrew as it stands may suggest that the bodies of Rechab and Baanah have been hung by the pool in Hebron (‫ ;על־הברכה בחברון‬v. 12), in addition to or instead of their hands and feet.101 In any case, while the pool in Hebron was probably frequented by the public,102 what might be likely to happen when bodily remains are exposed in the vicinity of a pool is seemingly illustrated by the story of the death of Ahab (1 Kgs 22). There, dogs lap up the king’s blood ‘by the pool of Samaria’ (‫ ;על ברכת שמרון‬1 Kgs 22:38), as a consequence of Ahab shedding the innocent blood of Naboth (1 Kgs 21:19). The suggestion that exposure to real or potential predation by animals might be related to efforts to remedy the problem of recognizes the resonance of the brothers’ status as ‘sojourners’ with that of the Amalekite and rightly notes how the focus has shifted from sojourning amongst Israelites (2 Sam 1) to doing so amongst Benjaminites. However, he fails to appreciate (so too Anderson, 2 Samuel, 67; and Grønbæk, Aufstieg, 246) the significance of the brothers’ ethnic identity as Beerothites. By contrast, the suggestion of Macholz, ‘Die Stellung’, 165, that David has no jurisdiction over the Beerothites seems to ignore their status as ‘sojourners’. 96  As seemingly assumed by Anderson, 2 Samuel, 72. 97 Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 439, observes that the mention of ‘hands’ and ‘feet’ here echoes David’s lament regarding the mistreatment of Abner’s ‘hands’ and ‘feet’ (2 Sam 3:34). 98  As suggested by e.g. Merz, Die Blutrache, 53; Shemesh, ‘Offending Organ’, 349; and Olyan, ‘Violence against Corpses’, 131, who notes the analogy to Ashurbanipal’s cutting off of tongues accused of plotting against him. See too Imray, ‘Posthumous Interest’, 520, who speculates on the basis of Mesopotamian traditions that amputation of hands and feet might be intended to prevent spectral vengeance. 99  So Scoggins Ballentine, ‘Ritual Violence’, 17. 100  So Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 358; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 223; and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 72 (the latter primarily on the basis of passages in Joshua [e.g. 10:26–27]). 101  Assumed by e.g. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 284; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 391. 102  So Goldman, Samuel, 212.

94  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt ‘bloods’ also gleans support from the episode in 2 Sam 21. There, as we will see, David’s efforts to expiate the allegedly innocent blood of the Gibeonites is obstructed when Rizpah protects the Saulide bodies slain for this purpose from being set upon by ‘birds of the air . . . . . . by day’ and ‘beasts of the field by night’ (2 Sam 21:10). It is impossible to be certain whether the pool of Hebron was frequented by dogs like the pool of Samaria apparently was. However, it does not seem im­plaus­ ible that David orders the Beerothites’ remains hung by the pool of Hebron to facilitate their exposure to the ravaging of birds and beasts given that, here too, David is clearly seeking to address the problem of innocent bloodshed.103 A further advantage of this explanation is that it may shed light on the other­ wise mysterious severing of the brothers’ hands (and feet) and David’s declaration to them: ‘I will seek his blood from your hand’ (2 Sam 4:11). The severing of the hands (and feet) will undoubtedly have caused blood to flow from the brothers’ bodies. However, the fact that this would also facilitate the flow of ‘blood from their hands’ may well parse in some way the formula used by David here. It may also imply that the hands were exposed by the pool of Hebron, perhaps along with the bodies, for their blood too to be consumed by the birds and beasts.104 While there is no mention of the fate or final destination of Ishbosheth’s body as a whole, the text does describe the disposal of his head (v. 12). Its burial not only confirms David’s commitment to a respectful treatment of Saulide remains, it also highlights, by means of a sharp contrast, David’s very different treatment of those executed for killing Saulides.105 The similarities of David’s response to the killings of Saul (2 Sam 1) and his son (2 Sam 4) further illustrate David’s continuing anxieties and efforts to grapple with the problem of illegitimate bloodshed. Here, as in 2 Sam 1, David recognizes the threat posed by the Saulide blood which has been shed. In both cases, the killers’ status as sojourners does not preclude their culpability for the killings and, in both cases, David offers judgement and then orders the execution, which is carried out.106 Nevertheless, the differences are also noteworthy. While David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan, his mourning of Ishbosheth is conspicu­ ously absent.107 More crucially, David here announces his intention to ‘seek the blood’ of the innocent man ‘at the hand’ of his killers. This seems to reflect an 103 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 136, assumes without explanation that the brothers’ bodies are exposed to the elements and have become carrion for the wild animals. 104 Auld, I & II Samuel, 391, thus seems very much on the right track in noting in passing that ‘David has taken entirely literally his threat to have their hands pay for the blood of their victim.’ 105  The contrast is noted by Ballentine Scoggins, ‘Ritual Violence’, 19; Olyan, ‘Violence against Corpses’, 128–9; and others. 106  See Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 51; Tushima, Fate of Saul’s Progeny, 153; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 147–8, for the noting of similarities which overlap with those observed here. Carlson, Chosen King, 51, recognizes that the killing of Saul and his son are both carried out by for­ eigners (an Amalekite and Beerothites). 107  As observed by Borgman, David, Saul and God, 163; and Quesada, ‘Tidings of Death’, 10. The extent of David’s mourning seems to reflect the extent of his interaction with those slain.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   95 enhanced representation of David’s own agency in seeking to address the prob­ lem of innocent blood, and perhaps an increasing sense of ownership of it. However, David’s exposing of the Beerothites to the birds and beasts probably betrays David’s concern that killing alone may be insufficient to solve the problem of innocent bloodshed. Precisely how this problem is solved by the blood of Ishbosheth, secured by David ‘from the hands of Rechab and Baanah’, remains unclear at this point. Later in the story of David (2 Sam 21), such treatment of post-­mortem remains will be explicitly associated with the expiation of ‘bloods’.108 It is clear that the narrator and David seem to be intent on framing David’s response to Ishbosheth’s killing in light of Saul’s death. However, the implication of two brothers in the killing of an important Saulide, here in 2 Sam 4, is also an unmistakeable invitation to consider it in light of the previous chapter. There, as we have seen, two other brothers, Joab and Abishai, are indicted for the death of an even more powerful Saulide, Abner.109 It may also be recalled that both pairs of brothers kill after commanding ‘raiding parties’ and that both killings are facilitated by dissimulation. There can be little doubt that these similarities fore­ ground, as we have noted, the striking contrast between David’s execution of Rimmon’s sons and his mere imprecation of Zeruiah’s sons on the other. Of course, the execution, mutilation, and exposure of the sons of the non-­Israelite Rimmon well illustrate David’s growing apprehension regarding the threat of innocent blood to his house.110 However, such efforts also inevitably resurface questions about David’s unwillingness to do the same to his own kin. * * * The installation of David as king over Israel (5:1–3) and the regnal summary of his rule over both Judah and Israel in vv. 4–5 confirm that the account of Ishbosheth’s death marks a significant point in the story of David. It thus offers a suitable juncture to reflect on the place of ‘bloods’ within the David story so far. Robert Gordon has characterized 1 Sam 24–26 as being concerned with the ‘rise of David’ and the ‘demise of Saul’ (and his house). While this seems an equally apt summary of 1 Sam 16 to 2 Sam 4, these stories do not merely relate that David rose to kingship at the expense of Saul’s house, as this could have been done much more economically. Rather, as has been widely observed, these stories are pre-­ eminently concerned to explain that David rose to kingship at the expense of Saul without incurring guilt.

108  It is perplexing that Christ, Blutvergiessen, 119–22, references variations of the idiom (‘to seek from the hands’) which have nothing to do with blood (in Gen 31:39, 43:9, etc.) and refuses to acknowledge any connection to blood vengeance/redemption. 109  As rightly noted in passing by Green, David’s Capacity, 145. 110  While the language of Ishbosheth’s blood ‘falling on’ Rechab and Baanah is not found here, Morrison, 2 Samuel, 66, rightly recognizes David’s anxiety regarding the threat of Ishbosheth’s blood to his house.

96  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David’s rise and Saul’s demise might easily have been made contingent on David’s innocence and Saul’s guilt in matters of cultic propriety or indeed obedi­ ence to prophets. Such a possibility is illustrated by Samuel’s proleptic withdrawal of the kingship from Saul for his failure to attend to just such matters sat­is­fac­tor­ ily (1 Sam 13 and 15). However, interest in such matters subsides immediately upon David entering the narrative. Indeed, as soon as he does, the presenting problem of Saul’s kingship is not sparing blood which should be shed (e.g. Agag’s), but rather shedding blood which should be spared (e.g. David’s). Moreover, it is evident that both Saul’s descent from the throne and David’s ascent to it are inex­ tricably bound up with the problem of innocent blood. This may be seen in Saul’s initial attempts to kill David and his efforts to employ the Philistines to do so. It is also visible in Saul’s subsequent relentless armed pursuit of David’s life in the lat­ ter chapters of 1 Samuel. True, Saul’s failure to shed David’s blood saves him from this guilt. But confirmation of Saul’s lack of scruples with regard to illegitimate killing is supplied by the account of his slaughter of the priests and city of Nob (1 Sam 22). Saul’s slaughter in Nob also offers the first sign of David’s awareness that innocent blood might be a problem for him. In 1 Sam 24–26, David and the reader are brought to a fuller understanding of both the acuteness of the tempta­ tion to shed illegitimate blood and the threat which yielding to it will pose to David and his house (1 Sam 25). David’s final encounter with Saul in chapter 26 suggests a steeling of his resolve to resist such temptations. However, it also sup­ plies a further reason for doing so by disclosing David’s anxiety that shedding blood illegitimately will require his own blood to be shed. Soon after, the depth of David’s concern with blood shed illegitimately mani­ fests itself again in 2 Sam 1. Here, David determines that Saul’s blood has been wrongly shed and then seeks to limit the threat of ‘blood(s)’ to his alleged Amalekite killer by first imprecating and then executing him. The focus on Abner’s killing of Asahel in battle confirms that the primary purpose of 2 Sam 2–3 is to account for Joab’s killing of Abner and David’s response to this. As we have seen, David avows his own and his kingdom’s innocence of Abner’s blood for all time. He then, in the same breath, invokes ‘bloods’ on not only Joab but on his father’s house, including perpetual bloodshed. David then goes still further by explicitly invoking the LORD to repay the wicked, which must include the sons of Zeruiah. This seems to hint that such vows alone may not be sufficient to neutral­ ize the threat of ‘bloods’ to David’s house, given his unwillingness to execute his nephew(s). Indeed, David’s worry that even execution may be inadequate to do so is suggested by his abandoning of the Beerothites to the birds and beasts, after executing them for killing Ishbosheth. This step illustrates David’s increasing agency in avenging illegitimate bloodshed. However, it also highlights his failure to take similar action against his own kinsmen, the sons of Zeruiah, and the dan­ ger that this failure may pose to his own house.

‘ His Blood at Your Hand ’   97 From all of this, it seems clear that the chief concern of the David story thus far is to demonstrate how Saul’s demise and David’s rise depend specifically on their responses to the problem of unwarranted bloodshed. On one hand, the story of David’s rise illustrates his growing awareness of the threat innocent ‘bloods’ may pose to his house and his increasing efforts to limit this threat.111 On the other hand, David’s failure to execute his culpable kin leaves the reader, and perhaps David himself, wondering whether the spectre of ‘bloods’ which he has sought so mightily to avoid in his rise, may yet come back to haunt David’s house during his reign. 111 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 232–3, speaks of the killings in David’s rise being ‘ne­ces­sary to the narrative management of bloodguilt’.

5 ‘The Sword Will Never Depart’: 2 Sam 5–12 After Saul’s son and general have been removed from the scene and David’s king­ dom has been well and truly established, the reader is confronted with the in­fam­ ous story of the killing of Uriah and its consequences (2 Sam 11–12). In exploring this story here, we will begin by tracing David’s machiavellian efforts to cover his tracks after making the wife of Uriah pregnant. We will see how these efforts cul­ minate in David seeking to avoid ‘bloods’ by contriving for Uriah to fall to the sword of the Ammonites, with whom David is at war. The absence of ‘blood(s)’ language will suggest that David succeeds in avoiding ‘bloodguilt’ per se. However, the similarity between the divine judgement against David and the one David had levelled against Joab for killing Abner (2 Sam 3) will suggest that illegitimate bloodshed matters to the God of Israel, even when ‘bloods’ have been evaded. Before turning to the killing of Uriah, it is worth attending to the way in which the stage is set for it by 2 Sam 5–10. Following the establishment of David’s king­ ship over Judah and Israel (2 Sam 5:1–5), chapter 5 recalls David’s installation in Jerusalem and his building of both a physical house (palace; vv. 6–12) and a dynastic one (sons; vv. 13–16). On the heels of David securing his kingdom’s southwestern border through victory over the Philistines (vv. 17–25), we find him seeking to transport to Jerusalem, the ‘Ark of the LORD’ (2 Sam 6). This tangible token of God’s presence features early in 1 Samuel, but appears here in the story of David for the first time.1 David’s effort to transport the Ark falters, however, when the Ark is seemingly touched by Uzzah, one of the sons of Abinadab charged with transporting it, and Uzzah is struck dead (2 Sam 6:7).2 It is worth noting from the outset, that nothing in the narrator’s description of Uzzah’s effort to steady the unbalanced ark (v. 6) suggests that his intervention was ill-­ intended, despite the consequences.3 We also recall that David has responded negatively to news of other deaths in 1 and 2 Samuel. Thus, it is worth considering whether the report of David’s anger (v. 8) at the death of Uzzah sug­ gests that the narrative is here resuming its interest in the problem of illegitimate

1  For discussion of the so-­called ‘Ark Narrative’ which is seen to include 1 Sam 4:1b–7 and 2 Sam 6, see, for instance, Campbell, I Samuel, 300–6. 2  For a very helpful synopsis of how the versions differ in 2 Sam 6 and a justifiable inclination towards a shorter original text, see Auld, I & II Samuel, 405–11. Cf. also Wasserman, ‘ “Lectio Vehementior” ’, 225–6. 3  So Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 224; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 376; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 232; and others. King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0006

100  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt bloodshed. Unsurprisingly, the narrator carefully avoids any explicit suggestion that David is angry at the LORD. However, it is not impossible that David might be angry with himself (v. 8), reflecting a sense of his own responsibility for Uzzah’s death, given that it was David’s idea to move the Ark.4 Indeed, such an in­ter­pret­ ation might well be compatible with older suggestions of David’s culpability and Uzzah’s death as a substitutionary atonement for him.5 While the latter has left little trace in the MT of 6:7,6 the lack of a specific object of David’s anger in MT might also suggest that he is angry at himself rather than the LORD. If so, this might be compared to David’s expression of indirect responsibility for the il­legit­ im­ate deaths of the priests and inhabitants of Nob (1 Sam 22). On balance, however, another interpretation of David’s response seems more likely. David’s initial focus on the LORD’s fatal intervention (‘because the LORD burst forth’; v. 8) suggests that Uzzah’s loss of life is not David’s primary concern. Even more significant is the narrator’s characterization of David’s response in verses 9 and 10. If followers of David shared the view that Uzzah’s death was an act of God and a consequence of Uzzah’s negligence,7 there is no need for David to disavow responsibility for it. It is also notable that David shows none of the interest in the cause or consequences of Uzzah’s death which he did in the after­ math of the killings in Nob. Instead, the narrator notes that ‘David was afraid of the LORD’ (v. 9) and unwilling to take the Ark into the city of David (vv. 9, 10). This seems to confirm that David’s anger arises not primarily out of a sense of responsibility for Uzzah’s death, nor even merely because he believes that some­ one has been wronged (cf. 2 Sam 12:5, 13:21).8 Rather, David’s anger appears to reflect his fear that the divine violence visited upon Uzzah might be suffered by others and complicate his plans to relocate the Ark to Jerusalem.9 After the Ark finally arrives in Jerusalem, David expresses both his concern that it has no permanent home and his desire to build a ‘house of cedar’ for it, as he himself now enjoys (2 Sam 7:2). Whatever the origins of 2 Sam 7, its reference to the LORD’s provision of ‘rest’ for David from all his enemies (‫ ;איביו‬7:1) signals the

4 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 376; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 577. 5  As argued by Porter, ‘2 Samuel VI’, 172 (under the influence of Mowinckel) and contemplated by Carlson, Chosen King, 83. 6  Though, see LXXB and 4Q Sama, both of which have Uzzah die ‘before God’ as in 1 Chr 13:10. 7  While the derivation of ‫( השל‬v. 7) has been explained in various ways (see Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 373; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 378) it seems most likely to mean something like ‘error/ negligence’. 8 Auld, I & II Samuel, 412, notes these passages in this connection. 9  So e.g. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 189; Alter, The David Story, 226; Boström, ‘Uzzah’s Fate’, 36–8; and seemingly Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 68. This seems more likely than David being por­ trayed as angry with himself (so Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 376, who does also note Uzzah’s own responsibil­ ity and the mixed message conveyed by David’s response). Gilmour, Divine Violence, 162–85, suggests that David’s anger is perfectly intelligible if the divine violence/anger here is an inexplicable byproduct of the limitation of God to a confined presence, in contrast to the sovereignty of the transcendent God who privileges David and/or Israel.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   101 continuity of this famous chapter with the preceding story of David and ‘bloods’.10 While the reader recalls Abishai’s encouragement to David to dispatch ‘your enemy’ (1 Sam 26:8),11 the divine provision of rest from David’s enemies confirms the wisdom of Abigail’s exhortation in 1 Sam 25. There, she reminds David that if he will forego taking matters into his own hands, the LORD himself will sling out David’s enemies such that they will suffer the fate of her husband, Nabal (1 Sam 25:29). The narrator confirms that the rest anticipated by David has begun in some sense (2 Sam 7:1). However, its incompleteness is suggested when the prophet Nathan promises David further rest from ‘your enemies’ (‫ ;איביך‬7:9 and 11) in addition to the divine commitment to build him a dynastic ‘house’ (v. 11).12 That this echos Abigail’s advice seems likely here, not only because she was the last to reference David’s dynastic ‘house’ prior to Nathan’s oracle, but also because her desire is for David to enjoy a ‘sure house’ (‫ ;בית נאמן‬1 Sam 25:28).13 Unsurprisingly then, this is precisely what Nathan promises in 2 Sam 7:16a: ‘Your house (‫)ביתך‬ and your kingdom (‫ )ממלכתך‬will be made sure (‫ )ונאמן‬forever (‫ )עד־עולם‬before me’.14 Given these resonances, it is worth remembering that for Abigail, the surety of David’s house requires him not only to avoid evil (1 Sam 25:28), but specifically to avoid ‘entering into bloods’, by killing without sufficient cause (vv. 26, 31). David’s disavowal of responsibility for Abner’s innocent blood on behalf of his ‘king­ dom . . . forever’ (‫ עד־עולם‬. . . ‫ ;ממלכתי‬2 Sam 3:28) suggests his awareness that the sur­ vival of his ‘kingdom forever’ (7:16a) promised here depends on his avoidance of illegitimate bloodshed. Indeed, David also requests here confirmation of the same divine ‘good’ (‫ ;הטובה‬7:28; 1 Sam 25:30) which Abigail has seen in David’s future and does not wish to see David compromise by ‘entering into bloods’.15 On the face of it, David’s request here for confirmation of a divine promise which has already been given by Nathan seems curious.16 However, in light of the echoes of

10  That the notion of rest generally relates this chapter to the wider narrative is acknowledged by Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 284. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 383, notes the continuity with chapters 5 and 8, and Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 288, suggests that this chapter presupposes chapter 8. 11 Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 224, n. 24 (assuming Stoebe’s intended reference is 26:8, rather than 9). 12 So e.g. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 227; Gilmour, Representing the Past, 78; Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 667; and Willis, ‘ “Rest” ’, 137–9, who does not mention the relevance of 1 Sam 25. 13  So also Gordon, I & II Samuel, 240; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 234; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 256; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 80; and Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 674. 14  For a useful discussion of the language of ‘domestic perpetuity’ here and elsewhere in Samuel and Kings, see Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 79. For the understanding of the phrase as ‘for­ ever’ here, see Eslinger, House of God, 46–8. 15 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 241, notes the relevance of 1 Sam 25:30, though not in relation to the theme of ‘bloods’. 16  This curiousness is noted by, e.g., Campbell, 2 Samuel, 76; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 232; Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 681; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 391, who suggests that David may seek clarification that the promise applies to his house. For Brueggeman, David’s Truth, 80, David’s uncer­ tainty relates to divine patronage; for Anderson, 2 Samuel, 126, it is explained by the exile; and for Alter, The David Story, 235, it betrays a lack of confidence in the promise of a prophet.

102  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Abigail’s concerns here, David’s request for the LORD to confirm the divine promise ‘forever’ (‫ ;עד־עולם‬2 Sam 7:25) and bless and preserve his house ‘forever’ (‫ ;לעולם‬v. 29 [2x]; cf. ‫ ;למרחוק‬v. 19), likely reflects David’s lingering anxiety regard­ ing the threat ‘bloods’ may yet pose to his house. Further explanation of why David seeks confirmation of the divine commit­ ment to establish his kingdom may well be offered by 2 Sam 8. Here, we find a catalogue of David’s further victories over many of his neighbours from whom he evidently had not had sufficient rest (e.g. Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Aramaeans; cf. 2 Sam 8:12).17 It is perhaps not surprising that questions have been raised by David’s use of a measuring cord to determine which two-­thirds of his Moabite captives he will put to death (8:2). Some com­ mentators cite extenuating circumstances,18 while others argue that David kills fewer Moabites than might be assumed.19 Because David’s measuring is omitted in Chronicles (1 Chron 18:2) and the proportion of the slain reduced in the LXX,20 others conclude that David’s behaviour is being presented here as repre­ hensible, even by ancient standards. However, even if David’s treatment of the Moabite captives was subsequently seen as harsh, determining how 2 Sam 8 might have been originally understood requires further consideration.21 Certainly, the narrator’s comment on David’s treatment of the Moabite prison­ ers of war suggests that it is noteworthy. However, the best clue as to why it was noted is probably to be found elsewhere in the chapter. More specifically, the default treatment of those taken in combat seems to be indicated by David’s slaughter of 22,000 soldiers of Aram (8:5) without anyone being spared. If so, the mentioning of the Moabites who were spared by David after those who were not (v. 2) may well suggest that it is the sparing of some Moabites by David which is significant. The narrator here offers no hint as to why David sees fit to spare the Moabites. However, a reader aware of David’s story thus far might wonder whether mercy was shown to some of the combatants because of the Moabites’ protection of David’s mother and father while he was fleeing Saul (1 Sam 22:3–4).22 In any case, that David’s actions might be perceived as illegitimate seems not to

17  So implies Alter, The David Story, 231. 18 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 242, calls David’s actions here ‘savage and arbitrary’. While Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 347; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 396, note that David’s treatment may be justified by the Moabites initiating hostilities, v. 2 may well suggest David as the aggressor (see Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 722, for further literature and discussion). 19  Tolkowsky, ‘Measuring’, 120, suggests David spared two-­thirds rather than one-­third. 20 LXXBA reads δύο ‘two’ rope lengths instead of ‘one’ (implied by MT: ‫ )מלא‬suggesting to Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 3, 699, that David spared as many as he slew. 21  The opacity of the account is emphasized by Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 248. For a concise discussion of the depiction of the Moabites in the Hebrew Bible, see Doak, Ancient Israel’s Neighbors, 98–121. 22  So Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 291. Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 248, sees a tension here because he assumes that David’s treatment is harsh instead of lenient.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   103 register with the narrator, who otherwise pauses only to observe the consequence of Moab’s servanthood and bringing of tribute.23 Indeed, lest there be any doubt as to the lesson to be drawn from David’s military successes, the narrator makes it clear that ‘the LORD gave victory to David everywhere he went’ (2 Sam 8:6, 14). Not content to note that David has, in all of this, been the beneficiary of divine deliverance, the narrative also signals David’s royal virtue as a dispenser of ‘justice and equity to all his people’ (8:15). The juxtaposition of David’s justice and equity with the note that ‘Joab, son of Zeruiah was over the army’ (8:16) invites the reader to reflect on the most recent mention of the sons of Zeruiah (2 Sam 3:39). There David had invoked their own wickedness on their heads, having failed to execute them.24 Is Joab imagined here amongst the recipients of David’s justice? Or is he a law unto himself, ruling over the army as David does over the rest? Whatever reservations may or may not be invited by the juxtaposition of justice and Joab, his reappearance here anticipates 2 Sam 9:1–13. In this passage, David’s justice and righteousness are illustrated by his restoration of Saulide lands to Mephibosheth, though he also keeps Jonathan’s son at court, where he can keep an eye on him.25 Indeed, Jonathan’s earlier exhortation to David to protect his descendants once David’s enemies have been cut off (1 Sam 20:15) suggests that this episode is also offered here as further proof of David’s fidelity to Saul’s son.26 In turning to the killing of Uriah (2 Sam 11:2–12:25), it is worth noting that this story has been interpolated into accounts of David and Joab’s wars against the Ammonites (10:1–11:1, 12:26–31). We will see that the story’s location within the sequence rather than at its end is no accident, for the episode depends on armed conflict which is ongoing. Nor is it incidental that in the final battle before this epi­ sode, David takes the field and the lead (2 Sam 10:17–18) in achieving a decisive victory over the Aramean vassal kings of Hadadezer, already mentioned in chapter 8.27

The Killing of Uriah In the previous chapter, David has both sent Joab out to fight (2 Sam 10:7) and gone to war himself. However, the narrator’s note in 11:1 that David ‘stayed in 23  So Smith, The Books of Samuel, 305. 24 Morrison, 2 Samuel, 115, notes Joab’s disregarding of royal orders in murdering Absalom, but not the questions which this might pose regarding claims of David’s justice and equity, perhaps as a premonition of their corruption in 2 Sam 8:15b–20:26 (so Smith, Fate of Justice). 25 Smith, Fate of Justice, 70–3, sees this as a ringing endorsement of David’s virtue, while Miller, A King and A Fool?, 44–7, sees here a rather more jaundiced perspective. 26  So conclude Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 92; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 248; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 300; and others. 27  The emphasis on David’s presence here is noted by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 411.

104  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Jerusalem’ at the time when ‘messengers’ or ‘kings’ go forth28 may well hint at the fatefulness of his decision on this occasion.29 Indeed, if it is recalled that Abigail premises the surety of David’s kingdom on his ‘fighting of the LORD’s battles’, his absence from the battlefield might seem even more ominous. Accordingly, the narrator wastes little time in describing David’s fall. After seeing Bathsheba (v. 2), David identifies her (v. 3), summons her (v. 4), lays with her (v. 4), and then ban­ ishes the wife of Uriah (v. 4), having made her pregnant (v. 5).30 While Bathsheba’s innocence has been debated, it seems clear that the primary interest of the narra­ tive is in David’s guilt.31 This guilt can hardly be mitigated in any case and is established by the narrator’s underlining of David’s pre-­meditation in coveting his neighbour’s wife. That Uriah is David’s ‘neighbour’ in the sense of having a resi­ dence near to the palace is clear from the narrative and is accompanied by other evidence of Uriah’s status within David’s court. Uriah will be listed later as one of David’s ‘thirty’ heroes (2 Sam 23:39), but his credentials as an insider are also underlined by the allusion to Israel’s God within his name (‘iah’ signifying Yahweh). However, the narrative’s persistent reminders that Uriah is nevertheless a ‘Hittite’ suggest an interest in highlighting both his integration within Israel and his ‘foreignness’.32 The reason for this interest is not yet clear at this point in the narrative, but it recalls previous characters met by the reader, who are also both insiders and outsiders. These include the Beerothite and Amalekite sojourners associated with the deaths of Ishbosheth and Saul respectively. If the intention here is to characterize Uriah as a kind of foreign sojourner,33 it hardly augurs well for him that all three of the others ended up dead on David’s orders. This is all the more the case when David orders Uriah’s return from the field of battle to Jerusalem (v. 6) after learning Bathsheba is pregnant.

28 While the evidence is finely balanced, ‘kings’ (some MSS and LXX [τῶν βασιλέων]: ‫)המלכים‬ seems more likely than ‘messengers’ (MT: ‫ )המלאכים‬and both seem more likely than an intentional ambiguity (as suggested by e.g. Campbell, 2 Samuel, 113–14; and Bodner, David Observed, 80–4). 29  That the juxtaposition is intentional and foreboding is affirmed by many commentators includ­ ing, e.g., Smith, Fate of Justice, 121; Auld, I & II Samuel, 454; Schulz, Die Bücher Samuel, 113; Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 210; Alter, The David Story, 249–50; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 137 (rightly pointing to 2 Sam 12:28). 30  While Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 418, notes that David’s ‘taking’ here does resonate with Samuel’s warning about the acquisitive nature of kings (1 Sam 8), what David takes here (a wife and a life) is not imagined by Samuel there. 31  So e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 310; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 417; Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 296; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 140; and Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 210–11. For arguments which rightly note Bathsheba’s general lack of agency, see e.g. Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 106; Garsiel, ‘David and Bathsheba’, 254–5; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 53; Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 296; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 417; and Westbrook, Your Daughters, 121; amongst many others. 32  Uriah’s Hittite ancestry is noted in passing by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 317; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 417; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 309; and others; for Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 297–9, Uriah’s Hittite identity is a marker of his aboriginality rather than his foreignness. 33 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 254; and McKenzie, King David, 157. A ‘naturalized Israelite of foreign extraction’ (so Alter, The David Story, 250) is similar but may be too modern and anachronistic in its formulation. For a fuller discussion of Uriah’s legal status, see Bodi, Demise of the Warlord, 157–91.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   105 David’s intention to induce the recalled Uriah to sleep with his wife is hinted at by David’s encouragement for the soldier to return home on the night of his return (v. 8). This also explains David’s interrogation of Uriah the following day for not doing so (v. 10) and David’s efforts to get him drunk enough to do so on the third night (v. 13).34 A further hint may be found in David’s encouragement for Uriah to go home and ‘wash his feet’ (v. 8), if this is a euphemism for inter­ course, as many suspect.35 That Uriah understands David’s intentions, if not his reasons for them, seems to be suggested by the soldier’s insistence that he will not go to his house to eat, drink, and ‘lie with my wife’ (v. 11). The similarity of this form of words to those in v. 4 juxtaposes David’s illicit sleeping with Uriah’s wife with her husband’s own pious refusal to do so.36 Just how piously the Hittite soldier is presented here may be seen too in Uriah’s vow that he will not return to his own house while his general, comrades in arms, and the Ark itself make do with field accommodations.37 It seems likely that this invites recollection of David’s similar profession of abstinence from women while in the field (1 Sam 21:6 [ET 5]).38 If so, it can only be to incriminate David, just as Uriah’s concern for the  temporary housing of the Ark highlights the absence here of David’s own earlier concern for it (2 Sam 7:2). Some have suggested that Uriah’s intercourse with his wife and return to his comrades might constitute capital violations of the law (cf. Deut 23:11 [ET 10]) allowing David to execute Uriah as a law-­breaker.39 However, assuming that David’s liaison with Bathsheba remains a secret, David’s desire for Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba more likely reflects David’s need to dis­ guise his paternity of a child which the reader knows cannot be Uriah’s.40 It is clear that Uriah’s dogged refusal to oblige David underlines his virtue. By contrast, the seriousness of David’s vice is illustrated both by the persistence of his 34  So also Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 54. 35  So e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 310; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 154; and McKenzie, King David, 158. Less likely is the suggestion of Yee, ‘ “Fraught with Background” ’, 245, that David’s use of ‘feet’ to refer to genitalia is intentionally ambiguous. 36  Agreeing with Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 418; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 142; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 457. How knowing or not Uriah is throughout this passage has been explored famously by Sternberg, Poetics, 201–9. If Uriah is unknowing (i.e. unaware of David’s machinations) then he is innocent in every sense of the word. If he is more knowing (or eventually so [Garsiel, ‘David and Bathsheba’]), then Uriah is still innocent in a moral sense (i.e. virtuous). 37  The emphasis on Uriah’s virtuousness and David’s vice is observed by many including, e.g., Alter, The David Story, 250; Westbrook, Your Daughters, 130; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 253; and Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 101. 38  So e.g. McCarter, II Samuel, 286; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 249; Phillips, Passion and Tragedy, 122; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 292–3. 39  So Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 418; following Anderson, 2 Samuel, 154. See also Bailey, Love and War, 98. 40  So e.g. Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 213; Garsiel, ‘David and Bathsheba’, 255; Smith, Fate of Justice, 124; and Alter, The David Story, 251; along with many other commentators, including Sternberg, Poetics, 198. It would seem that Bathsheba purifies herself from uncleanness (v. 4) following menstru­ ation in order to prove that the child cannot be Uriah’s, but must be David’s. It is, however, not impos­ sible that she was merely sanctifying herself (so Auld, I & II Samuel, 456, on the basis of 4QSama; cf. Westbrook, Your Daughters, 126).

106  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt initial efforts to bend Uriah to his will and by the tactics to which David finally resorts, when his earlier efforts fail. 14In

the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it in the hand of Uriah. the letter he wrote, ‘Position Uriah in the front ranks where the battle is most fierce and then fall back from him, so that he is struck down and dies.’ 16As Joab was besieging the city, he assigned Uriah to a place where he knew there were brave fighters. 17The men of the city came out and battled with Joab and some of the servants of David among the people fell. Uriah the Hittite was killed also.  (2 Sam 11:14–17) 15In

Given the narrator’s emphasis on Uriah’s dutifulness, it is perhaps unsurprising that David feels able to send Uriah back to Joab with a warrant for his own death.41 David’s tactics here are best explained by comparison with 1 Sam 18. There it may be recalled that Saul offers his daughter Merab to David, if only he will ‘ “fight the LORD’s battles (‫)מלחמות‬.” For Saul thought, “My hand will not be against him. Instead let the hand of the Philistines be against him” ’ (v. 17).42 When Saul’s plan is thwarted by Merab’s marriage to the unfortunate Adriel instead of David, the narrator underlines not once but twice that Saul offers Michal for the same pur­ pose: ‘Now Saul planned to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines’ (1 Sam 18:25; cf. 21). It is only after the plan has failed and Saul has ordered his own son and servants to kill David, that Jonathan warns his father of the consequences of seeking David’s ‘innocent blood’ (19:5). This suggests that had it succeeded, Saul’s plan to use the Philistines would have spared him the problem of ‘blood(s)’. Evidently, David here resorts to the same tactic to have Uriah killed by the Ammonites despite Uriah being no less innocent than David was in 1 Sam 18. The advantage of this understanding of David’s intentions is that it helps to make sense of Joab’s efforts to fulfill them on the battlefield. As reported by the narrator and as others have noted, while Uriah ends up dead as planned, Joab seemingly fails to follow David’s instructions ‘to the letter’.43 This deviation is undoubtedly related to an outcome never intended by David. While Uriah is killed as David orders, the Hittite is not the only one to die in the operation. The significance of this is surely underlined by the narrator’s clarification that this col­ lateral damage was not merely suffered by ‘the people’, but amongst ‘David’s ser­ vants’ (v. 17). These unexpected deaths in turn invite a reexamination of David’s original order and suggest the conclusion at which Joab seemingly arrives. David’s plan for Uriah to be the only casualty in an assault against the Ammonites is 41  So Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 216. Whether reading a sealed letter would have been a capital offense (so Garsiel, ‘David and Bathsheba’, 259) is unclear. 42  So Barmash, Homicide, 118–19. 43  So e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 311; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 255; Campbell, 2 Samuel, 116; and Sternberg, Poetics, 213–14.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   107 fatally flawed. Even if a retreat in which Uriah is the only casualty could be orchestrated, such a retreat would be conspicuously difficult to order and would require the involvement of others to implement.44 The orchestration of such a retreat would inevitably prompt questions regarding the intention and integrity of the order and those issuing it.45 More to the point, if David’s original order had been followed by Joab, it would have invited suspicions that Uriah’s death in com­ bat had been orchestrated by those in command, perhaps as a means of avoiding ‘bloods’. How desperately Joab wishes to avoid raising such suspicions is signalled by his willingness to do so by sacrificing the innocent lives of the ‘servants of David’.46 Indeed, the report Joab sends from the battlefront suggests that he hopes David will eventually arrive at the same conclusion. 18Then

Joab sent and told David all the details of the battle; 19and he told the messenger as follows, ‘When you have finished telling the king all the details of the battle, 20then, if the king’s anger rises and if he says to you, “Why did you approach so near to the city to fight? Did you not know that they would shoot from the wall? 21Who struck Abimelech son of Jerubbaal? Did not a woman throw an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died at Thebez? Why did you approach so near to the wall?” then you will say, “Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.” ’  (2 Sam 11:18–21)

In light of David’s letter, it seems odd that Uriah would not be mentioned in ‘all the details of the battle’ (‫ ;המלחמה‬v. 19) which Joab asks the messenger to relate to David.47 While the omission of Uriah’s death may be intended to avoid raising unwelcome suspicions, in the absence of this information, Joab assumes the losses amongst David’s servants may well prompt the king’s anger (v. 20). This suggests that Joab feels the need to both account for the casualties amongst the king’s ser­ vants and to pre-­empt David’s conclusion that they have been caused by his fail­ ure to follow David’s original order. Indeed, that this is precisely what Joab expects is confirmed by his anticipation of David’s response to the battle report in vv. 20–21.48 Most striking of all, however, is Joab’s order that only if David becomes

44  Garsiel, ‘David and Bathsheba’, 259, follows Abarbanel in noting the use of plural forms (‫הבו‬, ‘Position’ and ‫‘ ושבתם‬Fall back’) in v. 15. 45  The risks involved in David’s plan are noted by Gordon, I & II Samuel, 255; Alter, The David Story, 254; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 420; and Miller, A King and a Fool?, 65. It seems improbable that Joab sees David’s plan to abandon Uriah as merely damaging for morale (so Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 251). 46  The innocence of these men is noted by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 420. It seems unlikely that their deaths are presented as having nothing to do with Joab’s deviation from David’s flawed plan (so Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 216). 47  So also Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 65. 48  While the peculiarity of Joab’s anticipation of David’s response has persuaded the LXX and vari­ ous commentators (e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 311–12; Carlson, Chosen King, 150) to place it in the

108  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt angry and alludes to the death of Abimelech, should the messenger mention the death of Uriah. It has been suggested that Joab anticipates David’s allusion to the woman’s kill­ ing of Abimelech (Judges 9), in order to suggest that a woman has also been David’s downfall, but this seems rather unlikely.49 While Joab evidently knows David wants Uriah dead, he has no way of knowing why and even if he did, he would hardly imagine David incriminating himself with such an allusion. Indeed, what most confounds such a comparison is that Uriah is killed from a height despite his innocence, whereas Abimelech is killed from a height because of his guilt.50 In fact, the only demonstrable parallel between Abimelech and Uriah is a tactical one. Both men die in battle because they have come too close to an ele­ vated enemy position. Indeed, it is this very fact that points towards an alternative and perhaps more plausible interpretation of the allusion here. Joab’s assumption that Abimelech’s demise will be of merely tactical interest to David may be seen in his anticipation that David will reference ‘the wall’ (‫)החומה‬ three times in verses 20–21. It should not surprise the reader that Joab might anticipate David’s anger at unexpected troop losses and a failure to follow orders.51 However, Joab orders the messenger to respond to David’s anger at the additional loss of life by mentioning the death of Uriah, which has required it. This suggests that Joab wishes to remind David that the true cause of Abimelech’s death is not tactical naivete, but Abimelech’s incurring of ‘bloods’, for killing his seventy brothers. It must be assumed that Joab has been stung badly by David’s accusation that he has used war as a pretense for shedding Abner’s innocent blood (2 Sam 3). Now Joab threatens to turn David’s own argument against him, by arming his servant with the retort that ‘Uriah the Hittite is also dead’. In doing so, Joab pre­ pares to remind David that contriving Uriah’s killing in war against Israel’s en­emies makes David’s anger at the additional loss of life required to accomplish mouth of David, the MT as it stands is perfectly intelligible despite being unusual. See further Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 220, for the preferability of the shorter MT at this point. 49  So suggests e.g. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 69; Bal, Lethal Love, 34; Sternberg, Poetics, 221; and McKenzie, King David, 159, who finds it ironic that both kings seek and fail to cover up the fact that women have been their downfall. Sternberg, Poetics, 221, notes, however, that Bathsheba and the woman of the tower in Judges play very different roles in their respective stories and Miller, A King and a Fool?, 65–7, offers further reasons for caution. 50 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 69, acknowledges that a straight analogy falls flat but neverthe­ less catalogues ‘death, woman, wall, battle, shame, folly’ as points of comparison. Bal, Lethal Love, 33, follows Fokkelman in acknowledging the lack of straightforward analogy, but ends up swelling the list of differences enormously. Indeed, if the ‘woman’ (seemingly unmentioned to Joab in the letter) is subtracted as an incidental similarity, all that seemingly remains in common between the situations is a foolish death arising from apparently flawed battle tactics. Bodner, David Observed, 107, is pressed to the conclusion that David’s punishment for coming too close to Uriah’s roof / Rabbah’s wall is that the allegorical equivalent of an ‘upper mill-­stone’ is dropped on his head, though it is unclear to me for what the millstone might be an allegory. 51 Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 251. It seems unlikely that the narrative wishes to portray Joab as actually incompetent (so McKenzie, King David, 158) rather than merely at risk of appearing to be so.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   109 it nothing less than rank hypocrisy. Moreover, if David wishes to accuse Joab of responsibility for the additional innocent blood of his fallen servants, Joab has a ready retort. By noting that ‘Uriah is dead also’, Joab will remind David that they were killed of necessity by Joab’s departing from David’s flawed orders.52 For the reader, Joab’s proposed response offers a hint that David’s particular use of war with his enemies to evade responsibility for innocent blood may be less safe than he thought. It may also suggest that if David wishes to emphasize how similarly Abimelech and Uriah died, Joab stands ready to remind him that the truer resem­ blance may lie in the responsibility for innocent blood which Israel’s current king shares with the first king in Israel.53 As it happens, the allusion to Abimelech is never made by David, nor apparently heard by him. But when the messenger arrives at court to deliver his report, what he says suggests that he has heard Joab’s warning. 22So

the messenger went and came and told David all that Joab had sent him to tell. 23The messenger said to David, ‘The men gained the upper hand over us and came out against us in the field; but we pushed them back to the entrance of the gate. 24Then the archers shot at your servants from the wall; some of the king’s servants are dead; and your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.’ 25David said to the messenger, ‘Say this to Joab, “Do not let this seem evil in your eyes, for the sword devours one and then another; renew your battle for the city and destroy it.” And encourage him.’ 26When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah, her man, was dead, she mourned for her husband. 27When the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David did was evil in the eyes of the LORD. (2 Sam 11:22–27)

The conventional summary that the messenger relays all that Joab has sent him to tell (v. 22; cf. v. 18) draws attention, perhaps inadvertently, to the difference between the messenger’s report and Joab’s instructions. Perhaps prompted by Joab’s assumption that David’s storm of anger at the deaths of the king’s servants will be calmed by news of Uriah’s death, the messenger relates the latter unprompted, after confessing their proximity to the wall.54 However, if Joab and 52 Alter, The David Story, 255; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 146; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 130; suggest that Joab’s intention may also be to prompt the court’s suspicion of David, if the king is appeased by news of Uriah’s death. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 68, is right to discern in Joab a concern regarding unnecessary bloodshed amongst David’s servants. 53 Carlson, Chosen King, 150–3; Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 105; Miller, A King and a Fool?, 67; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 420, rightly sense the general relevance of Abimelech’s abuse of royal power for David’s actions, while Bietenhard, Des Königs General, 167, observes that the narrative indicts David’s blood-­letting much as Jotham’s parable indicts Abimelech’s bloodlust. 54  The messenger’s tactic is noted by Sternberg, Poetics, 216; Alter, The David Story, 255; and others, and belies the suggestion that the messenger is lacking in strategy (so Green, David’s Capacity, 197; though see too Green, ‘Joab’s Coherence’, 191, where the possibility of skill is acknowledged).

110  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt the messenger were worried about David being upset by the additional loss of life of his servants, the king’s response suggests that they need not be.55 Instead, David’s reply to Joab seeks to reassure him: ‘Do not let this thing seem evil in your eyes’ (‫)אל־ירע בעיניך את־הדבר הזה‬. Whether ‘this thing’ is the planned death of Uriah or the collateral loss of life, or both, according to David, the reason Joab need not see it as evil is that ‘the sword devours one and then another’ (‫כי־כזה וכזה תאכל‬ ‫ ;החרב‬v. 25). David’s specific invoking of the ‘devouring sword’ as a metonym for armed vio­ lence here inevitably recalls Abner’s own words to Joab, ‘Will the sword devour forever?’ (‫ ;הלנצח תאכל חרב‬2 Sam 2:26). Facing the annihilation of his men, Abner had sought to persuade Joab to give up his pursuit of Abner and his troops to avoid further, unnecessary loss of life in battle. Here, David instead invokes the devouring sword to reassure Joab that the armed violence of war is in­dis­crim­in­ ate. While David’s indifference here might seem simply callous, it is rather more than that, because it reveals the assumption lying behind David’s plan to elim­in­ ate Uriah by means of the Ammonite war (i.e. ‘the sword’).56 Indeed, David’s re­assur­ance of Joab regarding the loss of his own elite troops, suggests that David has recognized that Joab’s adjustment of his plan has saved David from ‘bloods’. More specifically, David seems to acknowledge that his original plan to eliminate Uriah put at risk the very principle on which it depended, namely, that war kills indiscriminately and avoids ‘bloods’. David’s reassurance thus suggests his belief that the loss of further lives has helped to preserve the principle. But it also indi­ cates David’s conviction that this principle will ensure that the innocent blood of David’s fallen servants will no more haunt Joab than the blood of Uriah will haunt David.57 David’s evoking and exploitation of the indiscriminateness of the ‘devouring sword’ here offers a sharp contrast to Abner’s lamenting of its in­sati­ abil­ity (2 Sam 2:26). Indeed, it is equally striking that while David loudly laments Abner’s innocent blood, the only one to lament Uriah’s innocent blood is his wife (11:26), before she is taken by David.58 As in 1 Sam 25, David here takes the wife of a man after the man’s life has been taken.59 This time, however, David does not avoid ‘bloods’ by waiting for the LORD to take Uriah’s life, as he did Nabal’s.

55 Bietenhard, Des Königs General, 166, notes that the emphasis on the slain servants as belonging to the king (2x, v. 24) serves to indict the king for the casualties. 56 Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 252; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 421; and Alter, The David Story, 255, note David’s recognition that Joab has made Uriah’s death seem like an accident of war. 57  David’s lack of concern with the problem of bloodguilt is noted with surprise, but without expla­ nation by Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 143. 58  So also Smith, Fate of Justice, 131, followed by Westbrook, Your Daughters, xx. This contrast is diminished if Bathsheba’s mourning of her husband is presented as perfunctory (so Morrison, 2 Samuel, 149; and Bailey, Love and War, 100). As Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 70, rightly notes, the sequence of verbs with David as subject in 11:27 is the ‘parallel and the completion’ of the sequence of verbs with David as subject in 11:4. 59  Levenson, ‘1 Samuel 25’, 24, notes the similarity.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   111 Instead, David successfully avoids ‘bloods’ by sending Uriah to fall at the hands of his enemy—­the very thing Saul had sought and failed to do to David himself. That Joab is not the only one aware of David’s efforts to avoid ‘bloods’ is signalled by the final words of the chapter (11:27): ‘But the thing David did was evil in the eyes of the LORD’ (‫)וירע הדבר אשר־עשה דוד בעיני יהוה‬. The close proximity of the narrator’s judgement to David’s message to Joab (11:25) and the clear echo­ ing of it confirms that the divine perspective on David’s actions against Uriah is very different from David’s own.60 Precisely why and what the consequences will be are then made clear by the prophet Nathan, who arrives to deliver to David a very different message from the one he offered when he last appeared in 2 Sam 7.61 Here, Nathan begins by telling David a story: 1The

LORD sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said to him, ‘There were two men in the same city, one rich and the other poor. 2The rich man had a great many flocks and herds; 3the poor man had nothing apart from one young ewe lamb, which he had bought. He nurtured it and it grew up with him and with his children; from his crumbs it would eat and from his cup it would drink and lie in his lap; it was like a daughter to him. 4Now a traveler came to the rich man and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wanderer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s ewe lamb and pre­ pared it for the guest who had come to him.’ 5Then David was very angry with the man. He said to Nathan, ‘As the LORD lives, the man who has done this is a son of death; 6he will restore the lamb four times over, because he did this thing and because he had no mercy.’  (2 Sam 12:1–6)

The relevance of the story to David’s own will eventually be clarified by Nathan’s accusation: ‘you (David) are the (rich) man’ (12:7a). Nathan probably also wishes to imply that Uriah is the ‘poor man’ from whom the beloved ‘ewe-­ lamb’ (Bathsheba) has been taken by the rich man.62 However, David’s recognition of the parable’s relevance only arrives after Nathan persuades him to first indict the rich man, with whom David clearly does not identify.63 It seems likely that David 60  So also Gordon, I & II Samuel, 256; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 148; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 279; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 113; and Yee, ‘Fraught with Background’, 247. While the parallel points to the primacy of the killing of Uriah (so Fischer, ‘David und Batseba’, 55–6; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 421) the narrator’s withholding of divine judgement (12:1) until David marries Bathsheba confirms that it is this, rather than the initial liaison, which constitutes David’s taking of Uriah’s wife (so Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 314; Alter, The David Story, 256; and Gilmour, Divine Violence, 25). 61  For the originality of the MT as opposed to LXXL which has Nathan ask for David’s judgement here, see Janzen, ‘David’s “Taking” ’, 211. 62  For the difficulties with identifying the ‘rich man’ as God (as Delekat, ‘Tendenz’, 33, does), see Pyper, David as Reader, 99; and Janzen, ‘David’s “Taking” ’, 212. 63  While some have been troubled by the discrepancies between Nathan’s story and David’s actions, if the similarities were too obvious, it would not allow Nathan to make the parable’s relevance to David

112  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt is convinced to do so by the invitation to see himself as the ‘poor man’ (‫;האיש הראש‬ v. 4 [vv. 1, 3]). This is suggested by the fact that other than here, Nathan’s word for ‘poor’ (‫ )רש‬only appears in the books of Samuel in 1 Sam 18. There, David does not merely claim to be ‘poor’, but says quite specifically, ‘I am a poor man’ (‫ ;אנכי איש־רש‬1 Sam 18:23).64 In light of this, how then might David have heard the rest of Nathan’s story? Nathan’s curious insistence that the ewe-­lamb was ‘like a daughter’ (‫ ;כבת‬v. 3) might hint at her eventual identification with Bathsheba (‫)בת־שבע‬.65 However, David’s initial construal of himself as the ‘poor man’ invites his recollection of Saul’s taking back of his daughter from David. Indeed, this seems certain, because David’s claim to be the ‘poor man’ (1 Sam 18:23) is spe­cif­ ic­al­ly made in response to Saul’s offer of his daughter Michal (18:21–22), whom Saul eventually takes away from David (1 Sam 25:44) and gives to Palti(el).66 This resonance is strengthened by the fact that the ewe-­lamb is ‘young’ (‫ ;קטנה‬2 Sam 12:3) and Michal is the ‘young’ one (‫ ;הקטנה‬1 Sam 14:49) of Saul’s two daughters.67 Moreover, having earlier promised David his other daughter, Merab, Saul then takes her away from David and delivers her instead to Adriel (1 Sam 18:19). This confirms that Saul is not only happy to take away a daughter from David, but also comparatively rich in daughters, as the rich man in Nathan’s story is in flocks (2 Sam 12:2). Finally, the story makes a point of noting not merely that the poor man was in possession of the ewe-­lamb, but that he had ‘bought’ (‫ ;קנה‬2 Sam 12:3) her. This of course resonates with the narration of David’s marriage to Michal as conspicuously transactional, as we have seen. Saul promises his daughter to David in exchange for David’s killing of a hundred Philistines (1 Sam 18:25), whom Saul hopes will spare him ‘bloods’ by killing the innocent David for him. Indeed, all of this suggests that Nathan initially invites David to hear an echo of Saul’s treatment of him in the rich man’s treatment of the poor man. Having done so, Nathan then has the perfect opportunity to reveal how rich it is of David to treat Uriah in a similar fashion. When David initially hears Nathan’s story as alluding to Saul’s taking of Michal from him, it is not surprising that David is not merely angry, but ‘very angry’ (2 Sam 12:5).68 Indeed, the remarkable success of Nathan’s story is marked not only by the depth of David’s indignation, but by the judgement which David his ‘punch line’ (‘you are the man’), as many have observed (see e.g. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 78; Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 221; and Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 312). 64  So Auld, I & II Samuel, 645; and Daube, ‘Nathan’s Parable’, 281. The absence of this and other verbal links of the same sort in 1 Sam 25 makes it improbable that Nathan’s story is alluding to the story of Abigail and Nabal in any comparable way (as suggested by Miller, A King and a Fool?, 73–4). The suggestion of Schipper, Parables, 46–52, that David initially understands Joab as the rich man, Uriah as the ewe-­lamb, Bathsheba as the poor man and himself as the traveler, is ingenious but not fully persuasive. 65  So suggests Gordon, I & II Samuel, 257; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 79; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 151. 66  So Auld, I & II Samuel, 645; and Daube, ‘Nathan’s Parable’, 281. 67  Daube, ‘Nathan’s Parable’, 281. 68  Shepherd, ‘David’s Anger’.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   113 passes on the rich man. In judging the rich man a ‘son of death’ (‫ ;בן־מות‬2 Sam 12:5) and thus deserving of this fate,69 David seems to confirm his view that the rich man is not unlike Saul. It may be recalled that Saul had initially referred to David as a ‘son of death’, in order to persuade Jonathan to help him kill him (1 Sam 20:31). David’s later use of this phrase to accuse Abner and his men of failing to protect Saul’s life (1 Sam 26:16) highlights how far David has fallen and how profoundly David has initially misunderstood the relevance of Nathan’s story to his own. David thinks he is indicting Saul for taking his own wife in the past, but instead David uses Saul’s own words to indict himself here for taking Uriah’s life and his wife in the present.70 While ‘son of death’ is likely a rhetorical flourish,71 it is not in­com­pat­ible with David’s additional suggestion of a four-­fold restitution of the poor man’s lamb.72 This sentence has long been seen as an anticipation of events which will follow in 2 Sam 13–20,73 but David’s suggestion of a four-­fold reparation seems more likely to be related to similar stipulations in Exod 21:37 [ET 22:1]).74 However, here again, David’s desire for reparation to be made to the poor man in kind, likely reflects his interpretation of Nathan’s story in light of David’s own successful demand that Saul’s daughter, Michal, be restored to him (2 Sam 3:13–16). All of this suggests that Nathan’s story initially reminds David of Saul’s failed attempts to use his daughters to legitimately eliminate David by the sword of the Philistines. In doing so, Nathan prepares to indict David for his successful, but illegitimate, contrivance to do the same to Uriah by means of the Ammonites. A final resonance may be heard in David’s indignant insistence that the rich man deserves these woeful consequences because ‘he did this thing (‫’)עשה את־הדבר הזה‬ (2 Sam 12:6). Echoing the narrator’s earlier divine judgement that ‘the thing which David did’ was evil (11:27), David’s words here indict his earlier insistence to Joab that ‘this thing’ (‫)הדבר הזה‬, the shedding of innocent blood, should not be seen as ‘evil’ (2 Sam 11:25). Indeed, Joab’s earlier assumption that David might fail to rec­ ognize how the story of Abimelech indicts his own royal bloodletting seems to be validated here. David apparently cannot see that Nathan’s story of the rich man is 69  So Janzen, ‘David’s “Taking” ’, 212; Phillips, ‘2 Samuel xii, 5–6’, 242–4; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 257; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 162; and others. That the phrase might mean a ‘bringer of death’ (so Pyper, David as Reader, 162) or expresses merely a general judgement of how low David has sunk (so Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 427) is possible, but seems less likely. 70  So Auld, I & II Samuel, 645. 71 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 2, 543, notes that the death which is thought to be deserved does not follow (immediately) for either David or Abner. Cf. also Campbell, 2 Samuel, 116. 72  While Carlson, Chosen King, 154–7, offers a passionate defence of the seven-­fold restitution ­suggested by LXXBA, this argument can just as easily be deployed to suggest that it is a later interpretation. 73 Thus the Talmud (Yoma 22b) concludes that the four lambs to be taken from David are Bathsheba’s unnamed first child, Tamar, Amnon, and Absalom. Smith, Fate of Justice, 93, suggests that the four-­fold restitution refers to the four consequences of David’s actions spelled out in vv. 10–14. 74  So Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 117. For reasons why this should not be understood as merely ‘restitution’, see Gilmour, Divine Violence, 31.

114  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt not about David’s past victimization, but about his own present violence. This point is made clear when Nathan follows his famous accusation with two oracular judgements which clarify that David is not the poor man of 1 Sam 18:23, but rather the rich man of the story: 7Nathan

said to David, ‘You are the man! The LORD, the God of Israel says this: “It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul; 8I gave you your master’s house and your master’s women into your lap and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more. 9Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his eyes? Uriah the Hittite you have struck down with the sword and his woman you have taken to be your woman and him you have killed with the sword of the Ammonites. 10So now, the sword will never turn aside from your house, as a consequence and because you have despised me and have taken the woman of Uriah the Hittite to be your woman” .’  (2 Sam 12:7–10)

That it is David’s ‘taking’ which is to be judged here is prepared for by Nathan’s initial insistence that it is the LORD who has given (vv. 7–8).75 This is underlined not only by the appearance of five verbs in the first person in these verses, but also by the emphatic use of the independent pronoun ‘I’ (‫ )אנכי‬twice (v. 7).76 Moreover, Nathan again references Saul’s pursuit of David (1 Sam 18–26) by reminding David that what the LORD has given him is deliverance ‘from the hand of Saul’ (‫ ;מיד שאול‬v. 7).77 This recalls David’s vow to not raise his own hand against the LORD’s anointed (1 Sam 24:14 [ET 13]), because it would have made David responsible for the blood of Saul.78 But David also recognized his need for divine intervention to avoid this eventuality when he prayed before Saul for the LORD to deliver me ‘from your hand’ (‫ ;מידך‬1 Sam 24:16 [ET 15]). The similarity of David’s prayer there to Nathan’s oracle here thus reminds David that his escaping of ‘bloods’ for Saul was intimately related to the divine gift of deliverance from Saul’s hand. Thus, Nathan’s further mention here of the giving of Saul’s ‘house’ and indeed the giving of the ‘house of Israel’ (2 Sam 12:8) is quite intentional. Indeed, it seems likely to be a further reminder to the reader and David that it was because of this divine benevolence that he had no need to kill Ishbosheth and Abner. The books of Samuel do not record the wives of Saul being given to David. Thus, if Nathan implies this here (v. 8), it may reflect the (mis-)identification of 75  Agreeing with Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 427; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 281; and Janzen, ‘David’s “Taking” ’, 214. 76  The emphasis on divine agency is noted by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 84; and Green, David’s Capacity, 201. 77 Bailey, Love and War, 110, rightly notes the oracle’s interest in the events of 1 Sam 18–20, with­ out sensing the significance of the later chapters (20–26) or the specific concern with David’s avoid­ ance of illegitimate bloodshed. 78  See Chapter 2 above.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   115 Saul’s wife, Ahinoam, daughter of Ahimaaz (1 Sam 14:50), with David’s wife, Ahinoam the Jezreelite (1 Sam 25:43).79 However, Nathan does remind David that women associated with Saul were given into your ‘lap’ (‫ ;בחיקך‬v. 8), as the poor man’s ewe-­lamb both slept ‘in his lap’ (‫ ;בחיקו‬v. 3),80 and was like ‘a daughter’ (‫ ;כבת‬v. 3) to him. This explains in part why some versions and commentators see Nathan’s oracle as referring to Saul’s daughter(s) here rather than his house.81 The oracle’s insistence that David has had no need to shed blood illegitimately up to now because of the LORD’s generosity resonates with David’s response to Joab’s killing of Abner in 2 Sam 3. There, before David proceeded to curse Joab’s house with ‘bloods’ (3:29), he offered an emphatic avowal of his innocence for the blood of Abner (3:28). Here, the divine avowal of innocence (12:8) takes a rather different form. But here too the focus on divine justification in the first person as a preface to the curse (vv. 9–10) highlights its functional similarity to David’s avowal of innocence in the case of Abner’s death. The insistence that the LORD has done all that he should, and would do more, prepares for the judgement lev­ elled at David (vv. 9–10). This judgement begins by querying why David has done what the reader has already been informed is ‘evil in the eyes of the LORD’ (11:27). According to the oracle, what David has done constitutes a ‘despising’ (‫ ;בזה‬v. 9) of the divine word. Worryingly for David, in its only other occurrences in the Hebrew Bible (Num 15:31 and 2 Chron 36:16), this behaviour is punished by death or destruction. Opinions vary regarding whether David’s taking of Uriah’s life or his wife is pri­ mary in Nathan’s oracular judgements.82 However, the narrative primacy of Uriah’s killing is reflected in the order of the judgements themselves. Verses 9–10 first specify the consequences of David’s taking of Uriah’s life, after which verses 11–12 focus on the consequences of his taking of Uriah’s wife.83 Indeed, even the 79  That David and Saul both marry women called Ahinoam is noted by Campbell, 2 Samuel, 117; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 258, while Levenson, ‘1 Sam 25’, 27–28, suggests that the two women are one and the same. 80 So also Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 84; Smith, Fate of Justice, 132; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 155. 81 Klostermann, Samuelis, 179, is persuaded that the Hebrew originally referred to Saul’s ‘daughter’ (‫ )בת‬rather than his ‘house’ (‫( )בית‬v. 8) by: (a) the Syriac’s reading of (‫‘ )ܒܢ̈ ܬ‬daughters’ of Saul instead of ‘house’ of Saul and (b) the supposition that the LXXL (τὰ πάντα τοῦ κυρίου σου) ‘everything of your master’ reflects the misreading of the original Hebrew, ‫‘( מיכל בת אדניך‬Michal, daughter of your master’) as ‫‘( מכל בית אדניך‬of all the house of your master’). See too McCarter, II Samuel, 295; McKenzie, King David, 159; Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 110; and Smith, Books of Samuel, 324. While Anderson, 2 Samuel, 162, rightly notes that the separate specification of ‘wives’ makes it unlikely that they are to be equated with ‘house’ (so Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 313), the witness of LXXL (τὰ πάντα τοῦ κυρίου σου, ‘everything of your master’) may suggest that house is understood inclusively (so Caspari, Die Samuelbücher, 542). 82  For a discussion of various proposals, see Jones, The Nathan Narratives, 102–4, who eventually follows Wellhausen in seeing the original oracle in vv. 7b–10, which focused on the killing of Uriah, later supplemented with an oracle concerning the sin with Bathsheba (vv. 11–12) under the influence of 2 Sam 16:21–2. 83  The suggestion of Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 83, that the oracles should be divided up into one focused on the taking of Uriah’s life (9a–10a) and another relating to the wife (10b–12) reflects the same basic intuition, but doesn’t address the mention of the taking of Uriah’s wife in v. 9.

116  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt syntax of vv. 9–10 (‘and have taken’) suggests that the primary problem is David’s taking of Uriah’s life, which Nathan articulates in terms of the ‘sword’ (‫ ;חרב‬v. 9 (2x), 10). Here, Nathan’s oracle clearly echoes David’s earlier reassuring of Joab that, because the ‘sword’ of armed conflict devours indiscriminately (11:25), they are innocent of the deaths of Uriah and those who fell with him.84 Indeed, the oracle’s quite specific reference to ‘the sword of the Ammonites’ (v. 9) confirms the divine interest in interrogating the applicability of this principle in the present case. The principle of the ‘devouring sword’ of armed conflict with enemies has protected David from ‘bloods’, but the oracle clarifies that it will not shield him from divine judgement. This is because while Uriah has indeed been slain by ‘the sword (‫)חרב‬ of the Ammonites’ (v. 9), it is David who has wielded it.85 This may be seen here in Nathan’s insistence to David, not only that ‘Uriah the Hittite you have struck down with the sword (‫’)הכית בחרב‬, but also that ‘you have killed him’ (‫)אתו הרגת‬.86 There seems to be no intention to undermine the principle of the arbitrariness of the ‘devouring sword’, seemingly assumed by David, Joab, and Saul. Indeed, the oracle seems to presuppose and affirm that blood shed by one’s enemies in war does not put those involved at risk of ‘bloods’. Nathan’s oracle does, however, accuse David of abusing and undermining this principle by directly conspiring to shed innocent blood under its banner, as David seems to have accused Joab of doing in the case of Abner. Indeed, just how similar David’s accusation of Joab there is to the divine indictment of him here may be seen in the curse which Nathan pronounces on David in verse 10. Here, the divine oracle suggests that David’s despising of the divine word (v. 9) by taking Uriah’s life means that ‘you have despised me’ (‫ ;בזתני‬v. 10).87 While the despising of the word elsewhere leads to death (see above), the only other ex­ample of the despising of the divine person thus far in the books of Samuel is found in 1 Sam 2:30. There, another divine judgement delivered by an anonymous man of God warns Eli that ‘those who despise me’ (‫ )בזי‬will be ‘cursed’ (‫)יקלו‬. This prophecy finds its fulfilment in the perpetual cursing of Eli’s house and more particularly 84  So Carlson, Chosen King, 158; Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 236; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 118; and Alter, The David Story, 259. 85  This and the following analysis would seem to complicate the assumption of Barmash, Homicide, 118–19, that Nathan punishes David solely for the sin of taking Uriah’s wife. Smith, Fate of Justice, 74, suggests that Nathan’s repeated reference to Uriah as ‘Hittite’ here underlines his critique of David’s denial of justice to the ‘alien’. Indeed, the fact that David has previously killed the Amalekite and Beerothites for shedding ‘innocent blood’ makes his slaying of the innocent Hittite all the more egregious. 86 Alter, The David Story, 259, observes the essence of the accusation. 87  While Janzen, ‘David’s “Taking” ’, 213–15, argues for the primacy of David’s taking of Uriah’s wife, this would seem to underestimate not only the divine benevolence in sparing David responsibil­ ity for Saul’s blood (vv. 7–8), but also the focus of the initial judgement on the ‘sword’ (vv. 9–10) and the secondary nature of the references to the taking of Uriah’s wife in these verses. He also assumes that David’s ‘despising’ of the divine person/word (vv. 9 and 11) is prior to, rather than being repre­ sentative of, or exemplified by, the taking of Uriah’s life or wife.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   117 in the deaths of Eli’s sons in battle (1 Sam 2:32–34, 3:13, 4:11). Here, Nathan’s pronouncement confirms that the divine curse on David will be of comparable virulence and consequence. Because David has directly and thus il­legit­im­ately orchestrated Uriah’s death using the ‘sword’ of the Ammonites, Nathan assures him that ‘So now, the sword will never turn aside from your house’ (‫ועתה לא־תסור‬ ‫ ;חרב מביתך עד־עולם‬v. 10). David has earlier sought to excuse his manipulation of armed conflict with the Ammonites for his own ends by claiming its arbitrariness. Now Nathan informs David that this sword of armed violence which ‘devours one and then another’ (11:25) will be pointed in David’s direction.88 The oracle does not itself explicitly invoke the image of the ‘devouring’ sword alluded to earlier by both David and Abner. But the oracle’s promise that the ‘sword will not turn aside from’ (-‫ )לא־תסור חרב מ‬David, suggests that we have the same sword in view here. This seems especially likely because when Asahel pursued Abner to kill him, the narrator notes Asahel lost his life (v. 22) because he was not willing ‘to turn aside from following him’ (‫ ;לסור מאחריו‬2 Sam 2:21). This turn of phrase, used here in conjunction with the ‘sword’, seems to indicate that the violence of armed conflict ‘will not turn aside from’ David’s house. It also confirms that David’s punishment should be seen against the backdrop of 2 Sam 2 and 3. Further encouragement in this direction is offered by the oracle’s dynastic interest, seen in its insistence to David that this sword will ‘never (turn aside) from your house’ (‫)מביתך עד־עולם‬. We have already noted above that the divine cursing of Eli for despising the divine person is similarly extended to ‘his house forever’ (‫ ;ביתו עד־עולם‬1 Sam 3:13). Indeed, the enduring nature of the curse on Eli’s house alerts the reader to the vulnerability of any house (royal or priestly) to this same risk. However, the extension of Nathan’s curse to David’s ‘house forever’ for the shedding of innocent blood encourages attention to the similarity of David’s response to Joab’s shedding of Abner’s blood (2 Sam 3). In addition to David’s avowal of both his and his kingdom’s innocence ‘forever’ (‫)עד־עולם‬, we recall that his cursing of Joab to ‘bloods’ specifies that Joab’s father’s house would never be free of the deleterious consequences pronounced by David.89 What makes the divine cursing of David here even more analogous to David’s imprecation of Joab there is that David curses Joab’s father’s house to never lack one who would ‘fall by the sword’ (‫ ;נפל בחרב‬3:29). It seems clear that Nathan’s divine oracle accuses David of shedding innocent blood under the banner of warfare (i.e. the sword) as David had accused Joab in

88  Noted by Carlson, Chosen King, 158; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 258; and McCarter, II Samuel, 300. See also Auld, I & II Samuel, 467, who suggests that the curse (12:10) turns the promise (ch. 7) into a threat (see comments on 1 Kgs 2 below). 89  Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 236, rightly notes the use of ‫ עד־עולם‬in connection with Joab’s condem­ nation for shedding innocent blood (1 Kgs 2:33), for which, see Chapter 9 below.

118  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt 2 Sam 3. Thus, given that David curses Joab’s house to fall by the sword forever, it is unsurprising that the sword of armed conflict will never depart David’s own house. Indeed, these curses exemplify the sort of extended punishment ‘in kind’ which we have already seen in the story of David and the problem of unwarranted bloodshed. Thus, when a version of David’s own words against Joab comes back to haunt him, it serves to sharpen the critique of David’s hypocrisy. At the same time, it also illustrates the divine commitment to hold David accountable to the standards he purports to uphold as king. Nevertheless, the similarities outlined above highlight an important difference between David’s treatment of Joab in 2 Sam 3 and the divine treatment of David in 2 Sam 12. In 2 Sam 3, Joab is cursed by David, but no life is taken. Here a life will be taken, as Nathan proceeds to make clear in 2 Sam 12:11–12.

The Killing of David and Bathsheba’s First Son The fact that the further divine punishment (vv. 11–12) concerns David’s house and is similarly retributive indicates its continuity with vv. 9–10. However, the reiteration of ‘The LORD says this’ (v. 11) suggests that vv. 11–12 are additional in some sense, as does their focus on the more immediate consequences of David’s actions: 11The

LORD says this: ‘I will raise up evil against you from your own house; and I will take your women before your eyes and give them to your neighbour and he will lie with your women in the sight of this sun. 12For you, you did it secretly; but I, I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’ 13David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the LORD.’ Nathan said to David, ‘Yet the LORD has caused your sin to pass over; you will not die. 14Nevertheless, because in this thing you have shown contempt for the enemies of the LORD, the child that is born to you will die.’  (2 Sam 12:11–14)

There can be little doubt that the reference to the taking of David’s women (v. 11b) by someone close to him alludes to what David’s son Absalom will do (2 Sam 16:22).90 It is possible that this is meant to be simply equated with the LORD’s promise to David to ‘raise up evil against you from your own house’ (‫ ;מקים עליך רעה מביתך‬v. 11a). However, the persistent patterning of David’s taking of Uriah’s wife as separate from his killing of Uriah (see above) and David’s misguided insistence on Joab not seeing the killing of Uriah as ‘evil’ (11:25) may well suggest otherwise. These considerations may indicate that the raising up of additional evil 90  As noted by Gordon, I & II Samuel, 258; Firth 1 & 2 Samuel, 428; and Gilmour, Representing the Past, 201.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   119 (v. 11a) is intended to foreshadow the repetition of this ‘evil’ in the violence which will be wrought by Absalom against Amnon (2 Sam 13) and/or David (2 Sam 18:32).91 Indeed, the divine intention to repay the evil done (‫ ;לעשות הרע‬v. 9) by raising up ‘evil’ (‫)רעה‬, also points backward yet again to 2 Sam 3. There, David’s own additional curse (v. 39) uses precisely the same language in inviting the LORD to repay ‘the one who does evil in accordance with his evil’ (‫לעשה הרעה‬ ‫ ;כרעתו‬v. 39b). It was noted there that the context invites the assumption that David has in mind the sons of Zeruiah, whose harshness he laments in the first half of verse 39. However, David’s generic targeting of the curse at ‘evil-­doers’ in 3:39 ensures that, yet again, his own words in response to Joab’s shedding of inno­ cent blood come back to haunt him. This makes clear the structural similarity between David’s response in 2 Sam 3 and the divine response here. In 2 Sam 3, David follows up his invocation of ‘bloods’ on Joab (3:29) with a further, specific invitation for divine repayment of evil for Joab’s evil (3:39). Here, the divine invo­ cation of the sword on David (12:9–10) is also followed by a specific, further repayment of evil for David’s comparable evil (12:11–12). When David refuses to shed the blood of Saul illegitimately, he reminds Saul and the reader: ‘I have not sinned against you’ (‫ ;ולא־חטאתי לך‬1 Sam 24:12 [ET 11]). Here, however, when David is confronted by Nathan with his guilt and the divine judgement for shedding the innocent blood of Uriah, he confesses immediately, ‘I have sinned against the LORD’ (‫ ;חטאתי ליהוה‬2 Sam 12:13). It might be tempting to assume that such an admission of guilt explains why David’s own death is not required (v. 13).92 Certainly, given that David imprecates but does not execute Joab for shedding Abner’s innocent blood, it is not surprising that here David is also cursed for shedding Uriah’s innocent blood, but reassured that ‘you will not die’ (‫ ;לא תמות‬v. 13b). Yet, Nathan’s own explanation that David will escape death because ‘The LORD has caused your sin to pass over (‫( ’)העביר‬v. 13a) hints that further consequences will follow, especially if the reader is aware of 2 Sam 24.93 There, David requests that his ‘guilt pass over’ him (‫ ;העבר־נא את־עון‬2 Sam 24:13) and is given the option of three different punishments which will be borne by others. Here in 2 Sam 12, David neither asks nor receives any quarter. However, the consequence to be borne by another becomes clear when Nathan informs David that the son to be born to him will die.

91  So too, Gilmour, Representing the Past, 201. While Alter, The David Story, 260, does not note the specific significance of this verse, he rightly intuits that the evil may refer to more than Absalom’s tak­ ing of David’s concubines. 92  So e.g. Boecker, Redeformen, 113–14. It should be noted that Joab’s life is spared by David in 2 Sam 3, despite no evidence of an admission of guilt. 93 Auld, I & II Samuel, 467–8; Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 111; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 309, rightly appreciate the significance of the verb used in 2 Sam 11–12 and 2 Sam 24 and see now Gilmour, Divine Violence, 41, for how forgiveness here is not incompatible with the death of David’s son.

120  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Nathan makes clear to David that his son will be taken because ‘you have shown utter contempt for the LORD’s enemies in this thing’ (‫נאץ נאצת את־איבי יהוה‬ ‫ ;בדבר הזה‬2 Sam 12:14). Some have suggested that ‘enemies’ was added to avoid the original, impious suggestion that David has reviled or treated the LORD himself with contempt.94 However, the text’s earlier admission that David has despised the LORD (v. 10) makes the suggestion of a glossator’s sudden squeamishness here seem rather less probable.95 This is especially true given that such scruples are nowhere to be seen when ‫( נאץ‬piel) has God or divine things as its object elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.96 Moreover, while only one of the versional witnesses has God as the object of David’s reviling here,97 an equivalent for ‘enemies’ is preserved by the rest of the versions.98 This suggests that ‘enemies’ is as original here as it is in 1 Sam 20:15–16 and 25:22.99 However, it is also true that the presence of ‘enemies’ has almost certainly prompted the LXX, Vulgate, and Symmachus to construe the piel ‫ נאץ‬here as having a causative force absent elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.100 Causing the enemies of the LORD to show contempt might more easily explain the need for David’s child to die,101 but this requires the further improbability that the enemies caused by David to show contempt have somehow to learn of his killing of Uriah.102 Quite apart from these improbabilities, David showing contempt for the LORD’s ‘enemies’ seems perfectly plausible when we consider who else is accused of showing contempt with this verb in the books of Samuel. Apart from here, the only other appearance of the verb ‫ נאץ‬in the books of Samuel is again in 1 Sam 2. There, we have seen that Eli’s sons are accused of despising the LORD himself, as David has already been accused here in chapter 12 (v. 9). In 1 Sam 2:17, the divine accusation is also that ‘the men have shown contempt (‫ )נאצו‬for the offerings of the LORD’ by exploiting them for their own personal benefit (2:12–16).103 Such a 94 Geiger, Urschrift, 267; for a selection of earlier authorities impressed by Geiger’s opinion, see Mulder, ‘Un euphémisme’, 108. 95  That David is accused of despising the word of the LORD in v. 9 best explains the substitution of ‘word’ for ‘enemies’ in 4QSama but hardly supports the suggestion that the latter is secondary in 12:14 (contra McCarter, II Samuel, 296; and Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 255). 96 Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 315; so too Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 255. 97  A solitary Greek cursive MS (376), as admitted even by Geiger, Urschrift, 267; and McCarter, II Samuel, 296. 98  As Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 315, notes. 99  See above, 42–3, contra McCarter, I Samuel, 337, 394. While Yaron, ‘2 Sam XII, 14’, 89–91, also argues for the originality of the MT in 12:14, he fails to make sense of it (as Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 255, rightly notes). 100  As noted by McCarter, II Samuel, 296. 101  So e.g. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 425. 102 Mulder, ‘Un euphémisme’, 109–10; and McCarter, II Samuel, 296. The first point is also acknowledged by Anderson, 2 Samuel, 163, but not by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 451. Mauchline’s observation that the piel might mean ‘you have made the enemies of the LORD objects of contempt’ is probably irrelevant in the context, as he himself recognizes. 103  Mulder, ‘Un euphémisme’, 111–12 (so too Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 425), notes the parallel to 1 Sam 2:17 in passing.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   121 usage comports well with the accusation that David too has exploited the Lord’s enemies for personal benefit by contriving Uriah’s death by means of the ‘sword’ of warfare with the Ammonites. In doing so, David too has shown ‘utter contempt (‫ )נאץ נאצת‬for the enemies of the LORD in this thing’ (2 Sam 12:14).104 The appear­ ance of these words in this final judgement against David offers a further reminder of how radically David had miscalculated in his blithe reassurance to Joab that he should not see ‘this thing’ (i.e. the shedding of innocent blood) as evil (2 Sam 11:25). It will be recalled that David’s extraordinary fasting in 2 Sam 3 helps to per­ suade the people that he is innocent of shedding the blood of Abner.105 It is there­ fore striking that David’s fasting here (2 Sam 12:16–17) fails to save the life of his newborn son (v. 18), whose life is seemingly required for the taking of Uriah’s life.106 David’s growing willingness to take blood when innocent blood has been shed (2 Sam 1 and 4) means that the reader is not unprepared for the death of David’s son. Indeed, that shedding unwarranted blood might have lethal conse­ quences for one’s descendants was anticipated already by Abigail and assumed in David’s response to Abner’s death. It might be tempting to see the death of David’s son as the first instance of the sword beginning to take its toll as prophesied. However, both the prophecy and the fulfilment of the child’s death suggest that it fulfills a different function. The death of David’s son does not seem to be the first fulfillment of the curse of the ‘sword’ because ‘the sword’ in these narratives is not a metonym for mere death simpliciter, but rather a symbol of armed conflict between people (e.g. battle/war). Instead, David’s execution of the Amalekite and the Beerothite brothers suggests that the death of David’s son is required because a life has been taken illegitimately. It also offers David an acutely painful warning of what is required to deal with the problem of illegitimate killing. More spe­cif­ic­ al­ly, it highlights David’s failure to execute Joab for shedding Abner’s innocent blood, and suggests that until he does so, these ‘bloods’ remain a threat to his house.107 From all of this, it seems clear that the death of David’s first son by Bathsheba represents the culmination of his immediate punishment. However, if the naming of his second son ‘Solomon’ (‫ ;שלמה‬2 Sam 12:24) intentionally evokes ‘peace’ (‫;שלום‬ 1 Chron 22:18),108 David’s choosing of this name may reflect his anxiety regarding the

104  So also Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 255. 105 For a fuller exploration of David’s response to the child’s plight, see Bosworth, ‘Faith and Resilience’. 106 See Lambert, Repentance, 64; and now Gilmour, Divine Violence, 60, for the relationship between David’s (self-)indictment (12:5) and the son’s death. 107  For the way in which the death of the son reflects a punishment which should be seen as retri­ bution (i.e. limited, mitigated) rather than revenge (i.e. unlimited), see Gilmour, Divine Violence, 41–3. 108  So Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 114; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 317; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 429; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 260; Alter, The David Story, 262; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 92. This suggestion perhaps slightly favours David naming him (MT) rather than Bathsheba doing so (cf. 1 Sam 1:20 and 4:21).

122  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt war (i.e. the sword) with which his house has been cursed. If so, the reader might well imagine David taking some comfort from the prophetic confirmation that ‘the LORD loved’ Solomon (2 Sam 12:24). * * * We have seen that the account of the illegitimate killing of Uriah invites compari­ son with David’s refraining from doing likewise to Saul. But we have also seen that Joab’s cameo as David’s accomplice in the killing of Uriah is the first of many suggestions that David’s actions and the divine response here cannot be fully appreciated without attending to Joab’s actions and David’s response in 2 Sam 2–3. There is of course the obvious similarity that both David and Joab have sought to exploit the prin­ciple of the ‘devouring sword’ and the arbitrariness of death in battle to shed innocent blood for their own purposes. With respect to consequences, we likewise see striking similarities. David prefaces his curse of Joab with an avowal of innocence, while Nathan recites the divine actions which have meant that David has no need to shed innocent blood. Just as David curses Joab and his house to fall by the sword forever for shedding Abner’s innocent blood, so too the LORD curses David and his house to fall by the sword forever for shedding Uriah’s. David then follows up his invocation of ‘bloods’ on Joab with a further, specific invitation for divine repayment of evil. So too the curse of the sword is followed by the divine promise to inflict a further repayment of evil for David’s evil in killing Uriah. Finally, despite both Joab and David being accused and cursed, both of them escape with their lives. Before drawing any conclusions from such striking similarities, however, it is also important to recall the significant differences. First, while David uses the ‘sword’ of the Ammonites to kill Uriah, Joab uses his own sword to dispatch Abner in cold blood. Second, both David’s avowal of his own innocence and his cursing of Joab explicitly and repeatedly deploy the language of ‘blood’ and ‘bloods’ seen in earlier chapters. By contrast, such language is conspicuously absent from 2 Sam 11–12, which instead invokes the spectre of the ‘sword’ in cursing David’s house. Third, when David is confronted with the divine ac­cus­ ation by Nathan, he immediately confesses his guilt, while there is no sign of such a confession on Joab’s part. Fourth, while David, like Joab, escapes with his own life, David’s newborn son does not.109 While it has been suggested that the son’s death should be construed in terms of vengeance, expiation, or otherwise, it seems most likely that it is presented as punishment.110 Indeed, that the child’s 109  Janzen, ‘David’s “Taking” ’, 218, suggests that David may be treated leniently because he too has been lenient in suggesting merely four-­fold restitution in responding to Nathan’s story. 110  The latter is preferred by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 92; Campbell, 2 Samuel, 118; and esp. Gilmour, Divine Violence, 41–3. Others suggest that the death either expiates/atones for David’s guilt (e.g. McKenzie, King David, 161; Stoebe Zweite Buch Samuelis, 309; and Westbrook, Your Daughters, 138), or prompts David to atone for himself by pleading (i.e. do penance) (Morrison, 2 Samuel, 161), or denies David benefit (Mauchline, First and Second, 254), or prevents him from claiming Uriah’s

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   123 death is required in the end, surely increases the suspicion that because David has spared Joab, David’s house remains at risk from ‘bloods’, despite his vehement cursing of his nephew. Given these striking similarities and notable differences, it seems reasonable to consider how they might be related to each other. First, while both David and Joab have sought to exploit the indiscriminate nature of battle to shed innocent blood for their own purposes, they use different ‘swords’ to do so. Joab’s use of his own sword to kill Abner likely explains why David invokes the language of ‘bloods’ in cursing him, as he did the Amalekite in 2 Sam 1 and the Beerothite brothers in 2 Sam 4. David’s ‘successful’ use of the sword of the Ammonites rather than his own explains the conspicuous absence of the language of ‘bloods’ here in 2 Sam 11–12.111 In other words, David’s distancing of himself from the killing of Uriah in this way means that he has not incurred ‘bloods’, per se.112 In the absence of a more convincing hypothesis, the observations above sug­ gest that David’s anxiety to avoid the problem of ‘bloods’, so evident in his rise, remains hidden in full view in this most infamous chapter of his reign. Indeed, the significant extent to which David’s fear of ‘bloods’ still motivates him is dem­ onstrated by the quite extraordinary lengths to which he goes to avoid ‘bloods’ in contriving Uriah’s death.113 Yet, if the absence of this language here is mute testi­ mony to David’s success in avoiding ‘bloods’ in killing Uriah, the divine words of judgement which thunder down on David for his taking of Uriah’s life and wife are deafening.114 Not only does the LORD strike down David’s son and promise to raise up evil from David’s own house. He also inflicts upon David’s house the curse of ‘the sword forever’—a curse whose relationship to these other conse­ quences invites some further and final reflections in light of 2 Sam 3. The additional invoking of the LORD to raise up / repay David and Joab’s evil for shedding innocent blood (2 Sam 12:11–12, 3:39), differentiates these further curses from both the ‘bloods’ (2 Sam 3:28–29) and ‘sword’ (2 Sam 12:10) with which David and Joab’s houses are initially cursed forever. Admittedly, David’s curse of Joab also invokes the LORD and Nathan’s curse is presented as ‘the word estate (Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 428–9). Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 254, 257, seems to suggest that the child dies not only to deny David benefit, but also as a substitute for him (so too Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 91; McKenzie, King David, 161; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 32) and to pay his penalty (cf. also Anderson, 2 Samuel, 163). 111  This explains why no term for bloodguilt is used in 2 Sam 12, a fact which Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 136, finds surprising and inexplicable. 112  See now Gilmour, Divine Violence, 32–3, contra Miller, A King and a Fool, 63, 69; and Chapman, ‘Bible as Witness’, 183–5, who assume that David has incurred bloodguilt here. 113  It is thus not a case of David forgetting Abigail’s warning about the threat of bloodguilt (so Simon, ‘Juridical Parable’, 216) but rather his remembering of it which motivates David to orchestrate Uriah’s killing in the way he does. 114  Instead of saying that David ‘is not culpable because he did not directly shed Uriah’s blood’ (so Barmash, Homicide, 118), we might rather suggest that David avoids ‘bloods’ because Uriah falls at the hands of the Ammonites, but incurs divine judgement precisely because he has actively contrived Uriah’s death in this way.

124  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt of the LORD’. However, in neither case is the LORD the subject or agent which brings down ‘bloods’ or wields ‘the sword’.115 Given that David’s previous invoca­ tions of ‘blood(s)’ have also hinted at their quasi-­agency/autonomy, it is notable that ‘the sword’ envisioned here would appear to possess something similar. Put another way, it does not seem that the LORD will explicitly wield the sword against David’s house forever, but rather that the sword itself will not depart David’s house forever.116 While subsequent texts will inform this distinction, it is worth considering briefly the character and extent of this curse of the sword, with a view to the chapters to come. As noted above, already in ancient times, the extent of the curse of the sword was interpreted in light of David’s demand for a four-­fold restoration in response to Nathan’s story of the ewe-­lamb (e.g. Bathsheba’s first child, Tamar, Amnon, and Absalom). Subsequent interpreters have often followed suit by identifying instances of the curse taking its toll on David’s house in 2 Sam 13–20.117 Nevertheless, we have seen that the ‘sword’ is used consistently as a metonym for armed violence between people in 2 Sam 11–12 (and indeed 2 Sam 2). This sug­ gests that evidence for the fulfillment of the curse should only be sought in stories which answer to this description and only in relation to stories concerned with David’s house (i.e. his descendants).118 At the same time, the divine curse of the sword forever inevitably invites comparison with the promise of a house forever (7:16) conveyed earlier by Nathan in 2 Sam 7. This is so especially because the dynastic blessing is undergirded by the divine assurance that ‘my faithfulness will not turn aside from him’ (‫ ;חסדי לא־יסור ממנו‬2 Sam 7:15).119 Nathan’s use of exactly this same language in warning David that the sword ‘will never turn aside from his house’; ‫ עד־עולם‬. . . ‫ ;לא־תסור מביתך‬2 Sam 12:10) would not appear to invalidate Nathan’s earlier eternal blessing.120 However, it does suggest that, in relation to 115  As observed by Campbell, 2 Samuel, 117; see also Campbell, Study Companion, 411–36. 116  This is not to suggest its ‘randomness’ (so Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 32) but to raise ques­ tions about how ‘firmly’ it is ‘under the aegis of divine sovereignty’. 117  For a preference for Adonijah to make up the numbers, see e.g. Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 255. Others see the association of the curse of the sword in the deaths of only Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah (see e.g. Goldman, Samuel, 252) or the fates of Absalom and Sheba (so e.g. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 428). Still others see it in Amnon’s rape of Tamar, Absalom’s assassination of Amnon, and his and Sheba’s revolt (McKenzie, ‘(For David!): Except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite’, 309) or in the latter two and the end of the Davidic line (Morrison, 2 Samuel, 156) or even in Absalom’s killing of Amnon, Absalom’s threatened violence towards David, and the death of Absalom (Gilmour, Representing the Past, 201). The range of suggestions illustrates the difficulty with this approach. 118 Ackroyd, Second Book of Samuel, 110, comes near to this in suggesting that the punishment takes the form of ‘continual warfare’. 119 For the verbal echoes of the blessing in the curse, see McCarter, II Samuel, 229; Biberger, ‘Vergebung’; and Gilmour, Divine Violence, 34. 120  While it is clear that ‫ עד־עולם‬may not always be equated with the English gloss ‘forever’ (see Eslinger, The House of God, 45–6; and Long, ‘Notes’, 54–67), Eslinger is almost certainly correct to understand the phrase in 2 Sam 7 as intending the unlimited future duration of the Davidic house and throne. However, there is no reason why it should not signify the same thing in relation to the sword in 2 Sam 12. For a provocative comparison of the perpetual preservation of the house of Eli for the purposes of punishment, see Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 79–81.

‘ The Sword Will Never Depart ’   125 David’s house at least, the divine answer to Abner’s earlier question ‘Will the sword devour forever?’ is apparently ‘yes’.121 We will have opportunity at the end of this study to reflect on the implications of this for our understanding of the history of David’s house beyond 1 Kgs 2. Now, we turn to see where the problem of ‘bloods’ resurfaces in the story of David’s house as it continues in 2 Sam 13–14. 121 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 258; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 314; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 156; Alter, The David Story, 260; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 93, see the depradations of the sword primarily in the court narrative, but rightly allow for the possibility that the sword may be seen to reappear in the books of Kings, while Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 299, is rightly emphatic on this latter point. See below p. 250 for discussion of more concerted efforts to trace the implications of the curse of the sword beyond 2 Samuel (including Lamb, ‘Eternal Curse’; and Nelson, ‘ “Green Curtain” ’).

6 ‘That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More’: 2 Sam 13–14 We have seen in Chapter 5 that David’s arranging of Uriah’s death illustrates how the fear of ‘bloods’ follows him to the throne. In this chapter, we will see how it haunts David’s house in the story of the rape of David’s daughter, Tamar, by his son Amnon. Amnon’s killing by Tamar’s brother, Absalom, reflects his judgement that Amnon’s actions warrant his death. However, we will see that David remains convinced that killing Amnon will invite ‘bloods’ upon David’s house and kingdom. We will also suggest that it is this belief and David’s desire to avenge Amnon’s blood which best explain David’s desire to pursue Absalom when he flees to Geshur. Confirmation of the narrative’s interest in the problem of il­legit­im­ate bloodshed will be supplied by the Tekoite woman’s tale and her efforts to persuade David to spare Absalom blood vengeance for his killing of Amnon. We will see that David’s eventual, grudging restoration of Absalom does not signal his forgiveness. Rather, it indicates David’s willingness to leave Amnon’s blood unredeemed in the hope that these ‘bloods’ will not cause further problems for him and his house in the meantime.

The Killing of Amnon Following the Uriah-­Bathsheba episode, Joab’s request for David to complete the taking of the Ammonite capital Rabbah (2 Sam 12:28) may hint that David should indeed have been commanding the army in the field, instead of remaining in Jerusalem where calamity ensued. In any case, David’s concluding of the war (12:29) against Ammon begun in 2 Sam 11:1 is a final reminder that the ‘sword’ of the Ammonites (12:9) has claimed more of David’s servants than it should have. Hostilities concluded, David returns to Jerusalem, where events in chapter 13 will take a turn disturbingly similar in some ways to those of the preceding one. Indeed, the mention of a beautiful woman in David’s court in the very first verse of chapter 13 might well be taken as an ominous sign given that Bathsheba’s beauty (11:2) was also noted at the beginning of chapter 11.1 However, the reference 1  So also Alter, The David Story, 265; and Bader, Sexual Violation, 135. Westbrook, Your Daughters, 145, sees here reason to hope, given that Abigail too is beautiful.

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0007

128  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt to the beautiful Tamar as the sister of Absalom hints that the focus will be on her relationships with her brother and half-­brother, Amnon, rather than with the father they all share.2 This is confirmed when Amnon confesses to his cousin Jonadab: ‘I love Tamar, my brother Absalom’s sister’ (2 Sam 13:4). Amnon is distressed because Tamar is a woman of marriageable age (‫ ;בתולה‬v. 2), but currently unavailable to him sexually.3 Here, as in David’s case in the previous chapter, the action is driven by a man’s desire for a woman and while Amnon’s desire proves less straightforward to satisfy than David’s, it produces results no less disastrous.4 Jonadab suggests Tamar should be summoned to work where she can be seen by Amnon (but perhaps not be surveilled by others)5 and to allow Amnon to eat from her hand (13:5).6 That this advice comes from a cousin whom the narrator regards as very ‘smart’ (‫ ;חכם‬13:3)7 may suggest that David’s son is rather lacking in savoir faire. This suggestion will seem to be borne out by events as they unfold.8 Moreover, given the reputation for violent and expedient advice enjoyed by David’s other nephews (e.g. Abishai in 1 Sam 26:8), the reader might be forgiven for noting the appearance of another cousin here with some suspicion, even if Jonadab is also Amnon’s ‘friend’.9 We might well credit Jonadab’s cunning for including David in the plan to lure Tamar to Amnon’s bedside, though David’s eventual appearance there on cue may be merely a matter of court etiquette when a son is ill. However, if it is not, then it may be an early indication of David’s soft spot for Amnon as first-­born (2 Sam 3:2) and presumed heir to the throne.10 Jonadab’s advice (v. 5) seems to be calculated to address Amnon’s desire for Tamar’s body rather than her baking. But while this advice is transmitted faithfully by Amnon to the king, it is less clear what the reader is to make of David’s 2  So too McCarter, II Samuel, 320; Stiebert, Fathers and Daughters, 62; Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 241; and others. Van Dijk-­Hemmes, ‘Limits of Patriarchy’, 140; and Amit, ‘Absalom’, 258, also note Tamar’s specification as Absalom’s sister in v. 4. 3  That women such as Tamar were closely guarded was already suggested in antiquity by Josephus, Antiquities 7.8.1 (163). 4  So also Westbrook, Your Daughters, 144–9. 5  So suggests Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 323. 6  That this latter detail belies a desire for intimacy is suggested by e.g. Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 121; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 171; Van Dijk-­Hemmes, ‘Limits of Patriarchy’, 142; and esp. Campell, 2 Samuel, 128. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 437; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 109; and Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 249, see Jonadab as merely creating a context for the two to be together. Peters, ‘Together in Guilt’, 10, seems to underestimate the intimacy implied here when he suggests that Jonadab is not culpable, though Peters may still be right that Jonadab’s wisdom is undermined by his inability to predict that his advice would lead to Amnon’s taking her by force. 7  It is clear that the word refers to the ability to achieve ends by clever means (so e.g. Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 248; and Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 121), but as Gordon, I & II Samuel, 262, aptly puts it, the term ‘takes its colour from the context’ (cf. also Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 325; and Whybray, Succession Narrative, 58). Thus McCarter, II Samuel, 321, rightly rejects ‘wise’ as a gloss here because its largely positive connotations in English cannot be assumed for the Hebrew in this context. 8  So also Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 246. 9  That Jonadab will eventually side with Absalom suggests less a ‘friend’ than an advisor (Alter, The David Story, 265). Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 436, notes that the term is also applied to Hushai, suggesting perhaps that both are court advisors of some sort. See further, McCarter, II Samuel, 321. 10  So also Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 323.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   129 heavily redacted version of it to Tamar (‘Go to your brother Amnon’s house and prepare food for him’; v. 7)?11 If David withholds information in order to avoid alerting Tamar to Amnon’s true intentions, it suggests that David has more in common with the canny and complicit Jonadab than his son, Amnon. However, David’s lack of objection at this point may simply reflect his assumption that Amnon’s interest would end with his son either accepting Tamar’s rejection of him or asking David for her as his wife.12 Just how unsafe an assumption that proves to be is made clear when Tamar allows Amnon to eat from her hand and then proceeds to lay hands on her (‘he took hold of her’; v. 11) and seek to force himself upon her (‘Come lie with me, my sister’).13 12She

said to him, ‘No, my brother, do not humiliate me; for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not commit this violation! 13As for me, where could I bring my shame? And as for you, you would be like one of the violators in Israel. So now, please speak to the king; for he will not keep me from you.’  (2 Sam 13:12–13)

Tamar’s response indicates the reprehensibility of Amnon’s actions toward her and explains why she responds in the way she does. The narrator’s underlining of Amnon as Tamar’s brother (2 Sam 13:10) and their own references to each other as brother and sister (vv. 11, 12) have suggested to some that Tamar’s outrage relates to the incestuousness of Amnon’s proposal and its violation of Pentateuchal law.14 However, Tamar insists that David will not keep her from Amnon if he requests her properly (v. 13). This strongly suggests that her refusal has little to do with an inviolable taboo against relations between half siblings on the father’s side.15 Indeed, she refuses Amnon’s proposal of sex not because it would violate Pentateuchal laws regarding incest or indeed non-­consensual sex, but because, 11  A query shared by Morrison, 2 Samuel, 171. For comparisons of Jonadab’s advice with Amnon’s request, see Peters, ‘Together in Guilt’, 4–6; and Bader, Sexual Violation, 138–40. 12  So hints Daube, ‘Ideal King’, 317. That David is unwitting here is suggested by e.g. Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 255; Amit, ‘Reservoir’, 212; Bader, Sexual Violation, 137, 143; and Gray, ‘Amnon’, 42; others add that it would have been churlish for the king to refuse (e.g. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 262; and Stiebert, Fathers and Daughters, 60). 13  According to Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 321; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 433, the MT’s ‘lie her’ (rather than the typical ‘lie with her’) may reflect the violence of Amnon’s action. See, however, the fuller discussion in McCarter, II Samuel, 317. 14  So Flanagan, ‘Court History’, 180; Wenham, ‘A Girl of Marriageable Age’, 342; Alter, The David Story, 268; and McCarter, II Samuel, 323–4, followed by Miller, A King and a Fool, 94–6, who mis­ taken­ly invokes the category of (un)lawfulness in interpreting the text. 15  Agreeing with Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 325; Zlotnick, Dinah’s Daughters, 41; ­Van Dijk-­ Hemmes, ‘Limits of Patriarchy’, 139; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 329; Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 122; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 175; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 169; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 260; Daube, Biblical Law, 79; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 103; Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 240; and Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 322, citing Abraham and Sarah (Gen 20:12). It seems unlikely that Tamar assumes that David is willing to overlook an incest prohibition because of a royal privilege (so McCarter, II Samuel, 324).

130  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt she says, it would ‘humiliate me’ (‫ ;תענני‬v. 12).16 It would do so because, according to Tamar, for Amnon to take her sexually before first securing permission is out of order, both literally and in terms of the cultural norms of Israel. Doing so, she says, would make Amnon like one of Israel’s historic ‘violators’ (‫ ;הנבלים‬v. 13).17 Tamar’s referencing of Israel’s tradition here (v. 13) and her earlier insistence that ‘such a thing is not [or should not] be done in Israel’ (v. 12) invites con­sid­ er­ation of the use of the language of humiliation and violation in the harrowing story in Judg 19.18 There, as we have seen, an Ephraimite sojourner in Gibeah seeks to extend hospitality to a Levite and his concubine/secondary wife. He is then infamously and violently undermined when the Benjaminite natives of Gibeah demand that his male visitor be handed over so they can have sex with him (Judg 19:22).19 It is clear that the norms of hospitality and sexuality are in view because the Ephraimite insists that rather than committing this ‘violation’ (‫ )הנבלה‬against this man, the Benjaminites should sexually humiliate the Levite’s concubine and his own daughter instead.20 Indeed, it is worth noting that Israel later gathers to take issue with Benjamin according to ‘the violation which it has committed in Israel’ (‫ ;הנבלה אשר עשה בישראל‬Judg 20:10). When Tamar warns her brother that ‘such a thing is not done in Israel; do not commit this violation’ (‫ ;לא־יעשה כן בישראל אל־תעשה את־הנבלה הזאת‬2 Sam 13:12), it invites Amnon and the reader to understand Tamar’s objection in light of the incident in Judg 19.21 Tamar responds with precisely the same outrage as the Ephraimite does to the Benjaminites’ original demand (2 Sam 13:12; Judg 19:23) because like the Ephraimite’s daughter he offers instead, Tamar is a ‘woman of marriageable age’

16 For a careful analysis of the significance of this verb here see Müllner, Gewalt im Hause Davids, 260–72. 17 Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 122; and Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 262, note that the term is used particularly for violent sexual action. Smith, Fate of Justice, 147–8, rightly concludes that the frame of reference for evaluating Amnon’s ‘violation’ is not law but ethics. Cf. Müllner, Gewalt im Hause Davids, 272–79. 18 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 175, assumes that this refers to Amnon being socially ostracized but denies that this is presented as actually taking place (as suggested by Conroy, Absalom, 33, following Roth, ‘NBL’, 402–4). However, in Tamar’s assertion that Amnon will become like the ‘violators’, she invites Amnon to reflect on the fate of those killed in Judges. Judges has already been referred to in 2 Sam 11 and Judg 19–21 is more textually proximate to our passage here and shares a wider range of verbal parallels with 2 Sam 13 than does the story of Dinah (Gen 34). However, for discussion of the rele­ vance of Gen 34 and 1 Sam 25 see below. 19  For discussion of the role of foreignness in the sexual violence in this episode and the threat of it in Ruth 2, see Shepherd, ‘Days of the Judges’. 20 Carlson, Chosen King, 165; Borgman, David, Saul and God, 128; and Gray, ‘Amnon’, 149, note the presence of this term in Judg 19:23. See especially, Phillips, ‘NEBALAH’, 237–41; and Roth, ‘NBL’, 409, who notes that the term is often applied to cases of sexual misconduct. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 175, rightly notes that translating as ‘sacrilege’ assumes too much in this passage. While it is grotesque from a modern perspective that the sexual humiliation of the man was seen to be the greater of two evils in Judges, the Ephraimite’s offer of ‘out of order’ sex with the women and the Benjaminites’ acceptance of it, establishes that the latter too was perceived to be an egregious ‘violation’ of conventional norms (‫)נבלה‬. 21  So also Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 137.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   131 (‫ ;בתולה‬2 Sam 13:2, Judg 19:24).22 Given the equation of sexual humiliation (‫)ענה‬ with a gross violation (‫ )נבלה‬of cultural convention/norms in Judg 19:24, Tamar’s use of the same language leaves little doubt regarding how she understands Amnon’s actions (2 Sam 13:12).23 14But

he was not willing to listen to her voice; and he was stronger than her and he humiliated her by laying (with) her. 15Then Amnon hated her very intensely, such that his hatred was even greater than his earlier love for her. Amnon said to her, ‘Get up. Go.’ 16But she said to him, ‘No, sending me away would be a greater evil than the one you have already done to me.’ But he was not willing to listen to her. 17He called his young man, who served him and said, ‘Please get this woman out of my presence and out of here and bolt the door behind her.’ 18(Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves; for this is what the daughters of the king who were not yet married wore in earlier times.) So his servant put her out and bolted the door behind her.  (2 Sam 13:14–18)

The narrator underlines Tamar’s resistance to emphasize how deeply she wishes to avoid the humiliation and violation of sex with Amnon without David having given her to him. Indeed, after Amnon seeks to dismiss her (v. 15), Tamar claims that Amnon’s forcing of premature sex on her is not only a violation, but in fact ‘evil’ (‫ ;הרעה‬13:16).24 Her claim is a further invitation to compare her frame of reference with the violation in Judg 19. There too, the Ephraimite seeks to dissuade the Benjaminites from their proposed sexual violation by characterizing it as an evil: ‘No, my brothers, do not act so evilly (‫)אל־תרעו נא‬. Since this man is my guest, do not commit this violation (‫( ’)הנבלה‬Judg 19:23).25 Amnon’s subsequent ejection of Tamar probably represents an even greater ‘evil’ for her than the initial rape (v. 16)26 because it confirms that he will not ask David for her as his wife, which leaves his sexual violation of her unremedied.27 22  So Polzin David and the Deuteronomist, 137; and Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 262. 23 Smith, The Books of Samuel, 329; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 131; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 320; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 150, note the parallel with Judg 19:24. 24  For the appropriateness of characterizing Amnon’s action as ‘rape’, see Gravett, ‘Reading “Rape” ’, 280–1. 25  As Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 137, notes, even Amnon’s attempt to eject Tamar (‘Get up. Go.’ , ‫ ;קומי לכי‬13:15) after what he has done, echoes the Levite’s callous order to his seemingly dead concubine to ‘Get up, let us go’ (‫ ;קומי ונלכה‬Judg 19:28). 26  The difficulties in the Hebrew have prompted various explanations and creative formulations (e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 321; and McCarter, II Samuel, 318) which do not, however, affect the basic meaning. 27  So also Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 122; McCarter, II Samuel, 324; Bledstein, ‘ “Coat” ’, 82; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 175; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 438; Carlson, Chosen King, 181; Propp, ‘Kinship’, 42; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 174; Amit, ‘Absalom’, 261; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 108; and Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 267, all of whom allude to the relevance of the law in Deut 22 concerning marriage after violation. Cf. also Alter, The David Story, 269–70; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 327. Smith, Fate of Justice, 152–3, prefers to see Tamar as protesting Amnon’s refusal to take her into his house as Absalom does, though by what means apart from marriage Amnon might do so is unclear.

132  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt 19But

Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe she was wearing; she put her hand on her head and went away, crying out as she went. 20Her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now, be quiet, my sister; he is your brother; do not take this thing to heart.’ So Tamar remained, desolate, in the house of Absalom, her brother. 21When King David heard of all these things, he became very angry (but he would not punish his son Amnon, because he loved him, for he was his firstborn.) 22But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor evil; for Absalom hated Amnon because he had sexually humiliated Tamar, his sister.  (2 Sam 13:19–22)

Tamar’s response to Amnon’s violation and humiliation of her reflects both her mourning of an irreparable loss and her emotional distress.28 However, it also serves to alert her brother Absalom, whose immediate suspicion of Amnon as the cause of Tamar’s distress (v. 20) invites one of two conclusions. Either Absalom has seen Tamar leaving Amnon’s quarters or he was aware of Amnon’s desires and possibly even his plan, though not necessarily the result.29 It is unclear whether Absalom reminds Tamar that Amnon is her brother in order to explain why Amnon has done this to her, or why she should be quiet and disregard it (v. 20).30 However, the noting of Tamar’s desolation (v. 20) in her brother Absalom’s house emphasizes both her isolation from the rest of the court and Absalom’s de facto custody of her.31 That Absalom and Tamar share a mother in Maacah may well account for Tamar taking refuge with her brother rather than her father and certainly makes Tamar’s alignment with Absalom all the more intelligible.32 The reporting of David’s ‘great anger’ (v. 21) at hearing what has happened to Tamar is hardly surprising at this point, given what has transpired. But it also cannot help but recall David’s ‘great anger’ (12:5) at hearing Nathan’s parable of the ewe-­lamb. Indeed, David’s immediate suggestion of the rich man’s punishment in 2 Sam 12:5–6 almost certainly explains why later textual traditions and even some commentators feel uneasy at the absence of Amnon’s punishment here. This has led 28  That Tamar displays the signs of mourning here is noted by Bader, Sexual Violation, 152; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 329; Keys, Wages of Sin, 152–3; Campell, 2 Samuel, 130; and many others. 29 Morrison, 2 Samuel, 174, considers both options. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 172; Westbrook, Your Daughters, 159; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 36, assume the latter. 30 Morrison, 2 Samuel, 175, assumes the latter. Propp, ‘Kinship’, 45, sees Absalom here as ostensibly discouraging Tamar from forcing the marriage to Amnon because he views it as incestuous (‘your brother’) even though Tamar does not. While this seems unlikely, it is possible that Absalom wishes to discourage a marriage for political reasons (which Propp suggests is Absalom’s true motive; see also Anderson, 2 Samuel, 172–3, 177). Amit, ‘Absalom’, 261, thinks Absalom’s response reflects his confusion and perhaps also the preliminary plotting of his revenge, while Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 272; Van Dijk-­Hemmes, ‘Limits of Patriarchy’, 144; and Daube ‘Ideal King’, 317, see it as intended to disguise these intentions. 31  So also on this latter point, see Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 123. 32 For the various ways in which the narrative seeks to encourage sympathy for Tamar and Absalom’s avenging of her, see Amit, ‘Reservoir’. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 119, rightly notes the aligning of Tamar and Absalom’s perspectives.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   133 some to attribute this absence of punishment to David’s emotional and/or pol­it­ical attachment to Amnon as first-­born and heir to his throne (v. 21b).33 Certainly, this is a psychologically plausible inference based on Amnon’s status (2 Sam 3:2) and the king’s earlier attentiveness to Amnon’s well-­being (2 Sam 13:5–6). However, the obviously explanatory function of v. 21b and the uniqueness of its language suggests that it was originally absent from the MT.34 If so, we must consider why else David’s anger might not lead to his intervention here against Amnon. It is worth noting that David’s anger at the rich man in Nathan’s parable does not necessarily indict his lack of action here, even if the text here may hint that David might have done more to prevent the events which followed.35 For instance, David presumably might have required Amnon to take Tamar as a wife.36 Indeed, Absalom’s eventual killing of Amnon almost certainly implies that David should have taken some sort of pre-­emptive or punitive action against Amnon.37 However, David’s failure to seek Amnon’s death, as Absalom will do, requires a different explanation. This explanation begins to become clear when it is recalled that Tamar understands Amnon’s treatment of her as a ‫נבלה‬, a serious violation of conventional norms.38 This is noteworthy because the only other appearance of ‫נבלה‬ elsewhere in the story of David is on the lips of his future wife, Abigail.39 As we have seen there, Abigail seeks to excuse her then-­husband Nabal’s refusal to supply David and his men with provisions. In doing so, she insists to David: ‘as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name and ‫ נבלה‬is with him (1 Sam 25:25). Some readers might be tempted to balk at the suggestion that Nabal’s refusal of provisions might be presented as David’s frame of reference for responding to Amnon’s rape of Tamar. However, these are the only two acts in the books of Samuel which 33 Smith, The Books of Samuel, 329; McCarter, II Samuel, 320; and others follow LXX (and seemingly 4QSama), suggesting its haplographic omission in MT because it began (LXX: καὶ οὐκ =‫ )ולא‬in the same way v. 22 does (‫)ולא‬. 34  Agreeing with e.g. Cambell, 2 Samuel, 126; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 434; Alter, The David Story, 271; Ackerman, ‘Good and Evil’, 45; Smith, ‘Rape of Tamar’, 40; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 37. The reception of the theme of ‘blood(s)’ language in the Greek and other versions is worthy of a fuller treatment than may be offered here. 35  The similarity of David’s anger is noted by Morrison, 2 Samuel, 175; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 113, and the broader similarities/parallels are observed by others (e.g. Campell, 2 Samuel, 127; Smith, Fate of Justice, 148–9; and Stiebert, Fathers and Daughters, 63, who notes that David’s condemnation of the rich man’s taking of the ‘daughter-­like’ ewe-­lamb (2 Sam 12:3) indicts David’s lack of action against Amnon). Gordon, I & II Samuel, 264, speculates that David’s own taking of Bathsheba disarms him in responding to Amnon’s actions. 36  So suggests Morrison, 2 Samuel, 176. 37  The latter two points are also made by Amit, ‘Absalom’, 260. As Liedke, Rechtssätze, 132 notes, David was likely to have the full range of punitive options at his disposal in his role as father, if not also as king. 38  For the narratorial focus on Tamar beginning in v. 8, see Conroy, Absalom, 22. 39  Noted by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 122; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 173, who thinks that Tamar unwittingly foreshadows that Amnon will suffer Nabal’s fate for his violation, but does not note that Tamar’s frame of reference is more similar to the violation in Judges 19. While Carlson, Chosen King, 164–5, notes parallels between 1 Sam 25 and this chapter, he does not attend to the contextual concern with bloodguilt.

134  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt are referred to as a ‫נבלה‬, a serious violation of a cultural norm. This requires us to consider why David’s encounter with Nabal and Abigail might be relevant to adjudicating David’s reaction to Amnon’s rape of Tamar. First, as we have seen, it is abundantly clear that, from David’s perspective at least, Nabal’s ‫נבלה‬, his refusal of provisions, is a violation of the cultural norm of hospitality. Like the Benjaminites in Judg 19, Amnon violates this same cultural norm of hospitality instead by means of a sexual humiliation when he invites Tamar into his room, forces her to prepare food for him, and then compels her to have sex with him.40 Certainly, Abigail and Tamar’s construal of the actions of Amnon and Nabal respectively as gross violations of cultural norms prompt different reactions. Abigail seeks to remedy Nabal’s violation by belatedly supplying what David expected and asking forgiveness for her own minor misdemeanour. Tamar on the other hand, seeks to avoid Amnon’s violation by asking him to speak to David before having sex with her. When Amnon fails to do so, Tamar then seeks to mitigate his violation by asking him to seek her hand from David. It is noteworthy that David’s initial response to both Nabal and Amnon’s violations is to become angry. In 1 Sam 25, David’s anger is implied by the narrator’s report of his call to arms (1 Sam 25:13) and his vow to kill all the males of the house of Nabal (1 Sam 25:22). Here in 2 Sam 13, the narrator simply reports David’s ‘great anger’ (2 Sam 13:21). This is undoubtedly meant to underline how serious David understands Amnon’s violation of Tamar to be,41 but it also begs the question why David does not proceed to execute his son for it, as he intended to do to Nabal.42 The answer seemingly invited by the text is that David’s hand is stayed here by the recollection of Abigail’s warning that however egregious a ‘violation’ (‫ )נבלה‬may be, it is not a sufficient cause to shed blood. Thus, for David to do so here would invite ‘bloods’ on his house, just as surely as his killing of Nabal would have. This recollection and conviction almost certainly explains David’s unwillingness to kill Amnon. However, Absalom’s silent hatred for Amnon (v. 22) offers advance notice that David’s evaluation of Amnon’s actions and his response to it are not the only ones possible, even within the narrative itself. 23Two

years later, Absalom’s sheepshearers were in Baal-­hazor, near Ephraim, and Absalom invited all the sons of the king. 24Absalom came to the king and said, ‘Your servant has sheepshearers; Will the king and his servants please go

40 Miller, A King and a Fool, 91–2, rightly notes Amnon’s violation of the norms of hospitality. 41  So also Smith, Fate of Justice, 154. 42 Fuchs, Sexual Politics, 220, rightly notes that David’s lack of action against Amnon does not ne­ces­sar­ily imply that he doesn’t care; Keys, Wages of Sin, 146; and McKenzie, King David, 162, also observe that the text does not say that David did nothing in response. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 176, refers to Exod 22:16–17 in suggesting that there was little David could do in relation to Amnon within the bounds of the law (if this is relevant here).

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   135 with your servant?’ 25But the king said to Absalom, ‘No, my son, let us not all go, for we would be a burden to you.’ He pressed him, but he was not willing to go and blessed him instead. 26Then Absalom said, ‘If not, please let Amnon, my brother, go with us.’ The king said to him, ‘Why should he go with you?’ 27But Absalom pressed him until he sent Amnon and all the king’s sons with him. Absalom made a feast like a king’s feast. 28Then Absalom commanded his ser­vants, saying ‘Please watch when Amnon’s heart is merry with wine and when I say to you, “Strike Amnon,” then put him to death. Do not be afraid; is it not I who has commanded you? Be courageous and men of valour.’ 29So the servants of Absalom did to Amnon as Absalom had commanded and all the king’s sons rose and each mounted his mule and fled.  (2 Sam 13:23–29)

That Absalom waits two years before inviting all the king’s sons (v. 23) to his sheep-­shearing may reflect his desire to persuade Amnon and David that all is forgiven or forgotten.43 Certainly, there can be little doubt that the delay illustrates the depth of Absalom’s grudge against Amnon. For obvious reasons, it seems unlikely that Absalom would wish David to be present for what he has planned. Therefore, Absalom’s original request for the king and his servants and sons (v. 24) to decamp to Baal-­hazor seems likely to be a red-­herring. Indeed, after this initial request, one focusing only on Amnon and the king’s sons gives the impression of a concession and is thus more likely to be granted.44 David’s earlier redacting of Amnon’s message to Tamar suggested that David might have had an inkling of Amnon’s intentions to make an overture to Tamar. Here, David’s suspicion is signalled by his querying of Absalom’s particular request for Amnon (v. 26) and David’s acceding to it only after Absalom presses him a second time.45 Of course, it can only be surmised how much of what Absalom intends is imagined by

43  That the delay is strategic is noted by Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 326; Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 125; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 178. 44  Agreeing with Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 332; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 327; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 115–16; Alter, The David Story, 272; Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 43; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 264. It seems less likely that Absalom’s original intention was to kill Amnon in the king’s presence (so Morrison, 2 Samuel, 179 [but doubted by Anderson, 2 Samuel, 180]) or to kill David himself (so Daube, ‘Ideal King’, 318; and McCarter, II Samuel, 334). That Absalom may wish to kill Amnon in the presence of his brothers (so Smith, Fate of Justice, 155, in light of Lev 20:17) depends on the assumption that incest is in view, which seems highly unlikely. 45  David’s suspicions are detected by, e.g., Campell, 2 Samuel, 131; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 331; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 179; and Bader, Sexual Violation, 158. Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 125; and Alter, The David Story, 272, see the question as neither demanding nor excluding the king’s suspicions, while McCarter, II Samuel, 334, argues that the king cannot suspect what he needs to be reminded of by Jonadab. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 439; and Borgman, David, Saul and God, 128, suggest that David’s unwillingness to prevent what he suspects, might betray his hope that Absalom will spare David the problem of executing his eldest son. Cf. McKenzie, King David, 167, whose allegation of Davidic complicity depends on the rather unsafe assumption that Amnon was a threat because his mother Ahinoam is the wife of the same name taken from Saul. However, such speculation finds little support in the text as it stands, which maintains David’s innocence and (in light of chapter 14) his desire to see Amnon’s blood avenged.

136  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David. Perhaps the reader is meant to assume that David persuades himself that Amnon will be protected by the inclusion of the rest of his sons in the travelling party (v. 27). In any case, the pressure applied by Absalom for David to accede to his request is underlined by its repetition (vv. 25, 27), but also by the use of the verb ‘to press’ (‫)ויפרץ־בו‬. Elsewhere in Samuel (1 Sam 28:23) and Kings (2 Kgs 5:23), the object of this verb inevitably acquiesces, as David does here.46 It is worth considering how Amnon’s killing might be seen as justifiable to Absalom, not least because some see Absalom’s killing of Amnon as presented for the reader’s approval.47 We have seen that Tamar’s understanding of Amnon’s violation of her is comparable to the Israelites’ opinion of the Benjaminites’ violation of the Levite’s concubine in Gibeah (Judg 20:10). If so, one need not look far for the implication that Amnon’s actions justified deadly consequences. When the violence against the concubine is condemned as an unconscionable violation (Judg 20:10), the Israelites demand that the Benjaminites hand the men over ‘so that we may put them to death’ (‫ ;ונמיתם‬20:13).48 Indeed, when the Benjaminites refuse to do so, the Israelites’ insistence on going to war (vv. 14ff.) illustrates the depth of their conviction that the violators must die. Against this backdrop, Absalom’s order to execute Amnon (‫ ;והמתם אתו‬2 Sam 13:28) for violating the norms of sexuality and hospitality by raping his sister becomes perfectly intelligible. It also explains why Absalom is not content for his servants to merely ‘strike him’, but insists instead that they ‘put him to death’ (v. 28). Finally, if Absalom’s killing of Amnon might be justified with reference to the consequences of the Benjaminites’ violent violation of the Levite’s concubine,49 the sub-­text of the calamity in Judges is also worth considering. There, when what seems ‘good in the eyes’ of the men of Gibeah (Judg 19:24) turns out to be wicked, it demonstrates how dangerous it is for there to be no king in Israel and for each man to do what is good in his own eyes (Judg 17:6, 21:25).50 What this may suggest is that when Tamar invites the reader to compare Amnon’s violation to what happens in Judges, she may also be implying that such behaviour gives the impression that there is no king in Israel.51 While Absalom’s desire to kill Amnon is perfectly intelligible in light of Judges, David’s unwillingness to do so because of his fear of ‘bloods’ seems equally 46  For good reasons to retain the MT here, see Geoghegan, ‘Israelite Sheepshearing’, 59–60. This applies even if we should read ‘to plead’ (‫—פצר‬the verb reflected in 4QSama, followed by McCarter, II Samuel, 330) instead of ‘to press’ (‫)פרץ‬. 47  So recently Smith, Fate of Justice, 147–53, who conflates the perspective of Tamar and Absalom (i.e. that Amnon deserves death for his ‘violation’) with that of the narrator and fails to recognize that David’s view must be read in light of 1 Sam 25. While some have speculated that Absalom’s true motives in killing Amnon were to pave his own way to the throne (so e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 326), the text seems quite explicit in explaining it as an avenging of his sister’s violation (so Miller, A King and a Fool, 102; and Amit, ‘Absalom’, 262). 48  So also Carlson, Chosen King, 165; and Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 138. 49  Amit, ‘Absalom’, 263, sees Absalom as being motivated by a desire for justice. 50 Webb, Judges, 468. 51  So Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 138.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   137 comprehensible given the echoes of 1 Sam 25 in Absalom’s orchestration of Amnon’s death. First, the situating of Amnon’s death in the context of sheep-­ shearing (2 Sam 13:23, 24) can hardly be a coincidence given that Nabal’s death also takes place during sheep-­shearing (1 Sam 25:2, 4, 7, 11).52 Indeed, within the entirety of the Former Prophets, the verb used here to refer to shearing (‫)גזז‬ appears only here and in 1 Sam 25. So too, while inebriation increases one’s vulnerability to violence (e.g. 1 Kgs 16:9 and 20:16), within the books of Samuel the idiom of ‘merriness of heart’ (‫ טוב‬+ ‫ )לב‬to indicate drunkenness appears only in 2 Sam 13:28 and 1 Sam 25:36.53 Moreover, this drunkenness is a prelude to the individual deaths of both Nabal and Amnon and both arise from gross ‘violations’ of cultural norms.54 As we have seen, because Nabal’s death is precipitated by his comprehension of his wife’s words, Abigail waits until Nabal is sober to deliver them. By contrast, it is Amnon’s drunkenness which creates the vulnerability to the physical violence which will be visited upon him by Absalom’s servants. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the various similarities between the deaths of Amnon and Nabal were detected already in antiquity in light of the clarification found in the Greek trad­ition that ‘Absalom prepared a feast like the feast of a king’ (13:27b).55 Whether original or added later, the unique resonance of this with Nabal’s holding of his own ‘feast . . . like the feast of a king’ (‫ כמשתה המלך‬. . . ‫;משתה‬ 1 Sam 25:36) suggests that this detail was included to strengthen the invitation to hear in Amnon’s death an echo of Nabal’s demise.56 While such echoes seem obvious, the import of them requires more careful consideration. On one hand, these echoes might be seen as reflecting Absalom’s own intentional evoking of the death of Nabal in his execution of Amnon. In this way, Absalom might seek to contest David and Abigail’s view that even gross violations like those perpetrated by Nabal and Amnon should not be punished with death. On the other hand, the similarity of the circumstances of Amnon and Nabal’s deaths seems more likely to be drawn by the narrator to highlight a crucial difference between the two. While Nabal is eventually put to death by God 52  As noted by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 329; Carlson, Chosen King, 165; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 326; and many other commentators. 53 Carlson, Chosen King, 165; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 180; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 435; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 136; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 483, note this parallel. 54  This suggests that the echo here is of 1 Sam 25 (noted by Geoghegan, ‘Israelite Sheepshearing’, 57) more than the drunkenness of 2 Sam 11:13 (the latter of which is also emphasized by Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 44). 55  καὶ ἐποίησεν Αβεσσαλωμ πότον κατὰ τὸν πότον τοῦ βασιλέως (2 Sam 13:27b)—a reading supported by 4QSama. 56 Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 125; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 265, suggest it might also be intended to foreshadow Absalom’s ambition to be king (2 Sam 15–18). Morrison, 2 Samuel, 180; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 331; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 325; Carlson, Chosen King, 164; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 480–1, assume the reference to be original and accidentally omitted in MT because, like v. 27, the phrase ends with ‘the king’. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 434; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 328 lean towards seeing it as a gloss, while Pisano, Additions, 225, is agnostic. McCarter, II Samuel, 333, notes the parallel to 1 Sam 25.

138  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt for his violation, Amnon here is pre-­emptively put to death by Absalom for his.57 Thus, David sees Absalom’s killing of Amnon as having incurred the ‘bloods’ which David had earlier avoided by sparing Nabal for a comparable violation of a cultural norm.58 If Absalom’s killing of Amnon is justified by the Gibeah episode (Judg 19–20) and if David’s unwillingness to kill Amnon is explained by the Nabal/Abigail episode (1 Sam 25), it is also worth considering the resonance of 2 Sam 13 with Gen 34.59 In Gen 34, Jacob’s daughter Dinah is also sexually humiliated (‫ ;ויענה‬34:2) when Shechem has sex with her prior to her being given to him as a wife (34:4). Unlike Amnon, Shechem asks his father to remedy the situation by requesting her as a wife (34:8, 9, 12). However, Dinah’s brothers intervene and are ‘very angry because he committed a violation in Israel’ (‫ )ויחר להם מאד כי־נבלה עשה בישראל‬by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for ‘such a thing ought not to be done’ (‫( )וכן לא יעשה‬34:7).60 As in the case of Tamar and the Levite’s secondary wife (Judg 19), the sexual humiliation (‫ )ענה‬appears to be construed as a ‘serious violation’ (‫ )נבלה‬of a cultural norm by all concerned. Dinah’s brothers are persuaded that this violation requires them to kill not only Shechem and his father, but all the males of the city. This they do after tricking them into circumcising themselves by promising them Dinah and other daughters of Jacob as wives (Gen 34:12–27).61 By contrast, Jacob’s response to Simeon and Levi’s shedding of the Shechemites’ blood reflects his anxiety that such action is not warranted. Jacob’s concern is that if their fellow Canaanites seek to avenge the blood of their slain men ‘and attack me, I will be

57  Rightly noted by Quesada, ‘Tidings of Death’, 13; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 484, whose further suggestion that this highlights Tamar’s failure to invoke divine sanctions against Amnon seems rather less convincing. 58  While Carlson, Chosen King, 164–5, rightly discerns the general relevance of Judg 19–20 and 1  Sam 25 to this episode, his failure to distinguish between the perspectives of David and Tamar/ Absalom within the text prevents him from recognizing that the point on which they differ is the legitimacy of Amnon’s killing by Absalom rather than by God and whether Amnon incurs ‘blood(s)’. It seems that Amnon has thus lost his life to Absalom for failing to recognize Tamar’s allusion to the violation of Judges 19–20 and the seriousness of its consequences. Understanding his ‘violation’ instead in light of 1 Sam 25 (so Morrison, 2 Samuel, 180) would have suggested to Amnon that at worst he might lose his life eventually to God, but not to Absalom. (Cf. too Gray, ‘Amnon’, 52.) 59  See Smith, Fate of Justice, 150–1; and Bader, Sexual Violation, who offers a summary of previous study and an extensive treatment of the relationship between Gen 34 and 2 Sam 13. 60  So also Smith, Fate of Justice, 150; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 484, 489, who rightly notes that ‘in Israel’ (34:7) is late. 61  Here, as so often with deceit in Genesis, the narrator does not offer an explicit moral judgement. For further exploration of deceit in this narrative, see Bader, Sexual Violation, 98–100. While the plundering of the Shechemites (Gen 34:28–29) by the rest of the brothers highlights the ancillary advantages of their killing, the narrator repeatedly underlines that the killing is motivated by the brothers’ judgement that the violence is justified by a serious violation (vv. 13, 27). At the same time, when Simeon and Levi kill ‘all the males’ (v. 25) of the household, they likely recognize that their shedding of Shechem and Hamor’s blood when the city is ‘unaware’ (‫בטח‬, i.e. not at war; v. 25) is likely to be perceived as illegitimate and that they need to pre-­empt the blood vengeance which would otherwise be sought by Shechem and Hamor’s kinsmen. Confirmation of this likelihood is offered by Jacob’s own response.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   139 destroyed, both I and my household’ (Gen 34:30).62 The brothers seek to defend their actions to their father by referring again to the shaming of their sister (v. 31). However, the divine instruction to Jacob to relocate his household to the vicinity of Bethel in the very next verse, suggests that Jacob’s fears are well-­founded and that ‘bloods’ has been incurred.63 If the reader of 2 Sam 13 is invited to recall Gen 34, the resonance of the re­spect­ive responses to the serious violation in each passage seems clear. Like Dinah’s brothers, Tamar’s brother, Absalom, also responds to her sexual humiliation with great anger. Like Dinah’s brothers, he also deceitfully kills the perpetrator(s) because he sees Amnon’s rape of Tamar as a serious violation of a customary norm (cf. Judg 19–20). David manifests the same ‘great anger’ at Amnon’s sexual humiliation of Tamar as the brothers of Dinah do at hers. But his unwillingness to kill his son mirrors Jacob’s unwillingness to kill Shechem. Evidently, both David and Jacob conclude that while such violations are reprehensible, to shed blood for them would be to invite ‘bloods’ on one’s household.64 The advantage of these resonances is that they not only explain why David does not kill Amnon, but also why Absalom orders Amnon’s killing and what he does in the aftermath. Absalom’s use of his servants to strike Amnon and ‘put him to death’ (2 Sam 13:28)65 corresponds to David’s use of his servants to execute the Amalekite (2 Sam 1) and the Beerothite brothers (2 Sam 4). However, Absalom’s additional insistence that his servants should ‘not be fearful’ (v. 28) invites con­sid­er­ation of why they might be, especially in light of what happens once Amnon has been killed.66 Following the attack, both David’s innocence (v. 32)67 62  While Bader, Sexual Violation, 108, rightly notes Jacob’s emphasis on the repercussions of his sons’ actions for him, his inclusion of ‘his household’ suggests that his ‘egocentrism’ (so Bader) is rooted in his patriarchal responsibility for the wider group jeopardized by their actions. That Jacob takes issue with Simeon and Levi specifically and that the latter two were not responsible for the pillaging makes it clear that their father’s primary concern is their shedding of blood (34:25–26) for a ‘violation’. Simeon and Levi’s lack of involvement with the subsequent slaughter in the city is noted by Bader, Sexual Violation, 107; Sarna, ‘The Ravishing of Dinah’, 150–1; Sternberg, Poetics, 466–73; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, 315; and Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 542–3. Jacob’s willingness to meet with Hamor to discuss a less violent resolution of the issue, suggests that Jacob’s frustration with his sons is not that they shed the blood of more than Shechem (so Smith, Fate of Justice, 151), but that they shed any blood at all for this ‘violation’—however egregious it may be. 63  While Jacob’s sons (and indeed various commentators, e.g. Sternberg, Poetics, 473; Bader, Sexual Violation, 109; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 150) may condemn Jacob’s response as ‘passive’ and deficient, the narrative portrays the father’s and sons’ perspectives rather more even-­handedly. 64 Bader, Sexual Violation, 175–9, appreciates the similarities between the fathers’ and sons’ re­spect­ive reactions to the violations of Tamar and Dinah, but without noting how both Jacob and David’s reticence is related to a fear of ‘blood(s)’ (explained in David’s case by the ‘lesson’ of 1 Sam 25). 65 McCarter, II Samuel, 330, notes that 4QSama has (polel) ‫‘ ומתתם‬dispatch’. 66 Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 289, seems not to notice the fear which Absalom anticipates. Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 43–4, assumes the servants’ fear to be that of regicide, though it should be noted that Amnon is, at this point, not on the throne, but merely heir to it. 67 McCarter, II Samuel, 330; and Miller, A King and a Fool, 104, note that Jonadab’s reminder in v. 32 regarding Absalom’s motivation and responsibility illustrates that David did not know of his plans (which might otherwise be suspected). See also McKenzie, King David, 166. As Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 119; and Alter, The David Story, 273, observe, Jonadab’s description of Amnon’s act as

140  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt and Absalom’s responsibility are underlined. But, as news of Amnon’s killing ­filters back to his father in Jerusalem (vv. 34–36), the narrative hints at what Absalom’s servants fear, by noting Absalom’s flight in a quite different direction. 37But

Absalom fled and went to Talmai son of Ammihud, king of Geshur. He mourned for his son day after day. 38So Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years. 39And the king’s spirit ceased from/longed for marching out against Absalom for he was now consoled over the death of Amnon.  (2 Sam 13:37–39)

Absalom’s journey to the kingdom of Talmai, his maternal grandfather, suggests his need to leave David’s jurisdiction in order to make himself safe from the risk of blood vengeance exacted under the royal aegis.68 This might also explain Absalom’s orchestration of the killing outside Jerusalem in the first place, especially given David’s summary execution of those who killed the son of his royal predecessor.69 Thus, it seems most plausible that Absalom’s servants might fear that David will kill them and/or Absalom to prevent ‘bloods’ from haunting his house as Abigail warned him they might in 1 Sam 25. If the above likely explains why Absalom assumes his servants’ fearfulness, it also makes sense of his effort to reassure them.70 In 1 Sam 22, Saul’s servants’ refusal to comply with Saul’s orders to execute the priests of Nob was left unexplained in the text. Here, Absalom’s assumption that his servants fear blood vengeance explains his reminder to them: ‘is it not I (‫ )אנכי‬who has commanded you?’ (2 Sam 13:28). The emphatic use of the pronoun ‘I’ seems likely to reflect Absalom’s intention to reassure his servants. Because the orders are Absalom’s alone, he and not the servants will be the object of the blood vengeance which they all expect David to seek.71 The narrator’s failure to mention the servants when recounting Absalom’s flight (vv. 34, 37, 38) may or may not suggest that they fled with him.72 However, the note that Absalom’s servants proceeded to ‘humiliating’ (‫ ;ענה‬v. 32) Tamar, cleverly exculpates Jonadab by aligning his perspective with hers (v. 22b) and seemingly Absalom’s. 68 Alter, The David Story, 274. Bader, Sexual Violation, 162, rightly notes that this is underlined by the reference to Talmai as ‘king’, a title otherwise reserved for David in 2 Sam 13. 69  These remain the salient points whether Baal-­Hazor is identified with a site some 12 miles from Jerusalem, as seems probable, or rather nearer if LXX ‘Gophraim’ refers to a site only 4 miles away (See Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 327) and is to be preferred. 70 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 265, notes their likely fear of a severe penalty. If Absalom’s flight resonates with the provisions for flight and refuge from blood vengeance found in the legal traditions of the Hebrew Bible (Num 35; Deut 19; Josh 20), what is perhaps more striking is that the narrative here shows no awareness of these provisions. 71  So also Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 327; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 439; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 136; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 108. Daube, ‘Ideal King’, 318, notes that Absalom’s use of proxies to kill Amnon cannot be to avoid detection, for he is unashamed of his actions (even if he flees to avoid the consequences), nor can it be to reduce his own guilt (as suggested improbably by Jensen, ‘Desire’, 54, under the influence of Girard). 72  The disinterest in their fate is noted by Gordon, I & II Samuel, 265; and Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 327, who also suggests that the reference to Absalom’s flight in v. 34 may not be original given how out

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   141 follow his orders by killing Amnon does suggest that Absalom’s insistence on his responsibility for it has allayed their fears. While the news that ‘He mourned for his son day after day’ (2 Sam 13:37) is not surprising, it leaves open the question of which son it is that David mourns.73 The emphasis on the bitterness of David’s weeping for Amnon (v. 36) following his killing might suggest that it is David’s mourning for Amnon which was not merely intense but also enduring (v. 37).74 If so, this may help to explain why it is noted that Absalom stayed in Geshur so long (v. 38a). While David continued to mourn Amnon, Absalom stayed away. However, the lengthiness of Absalom’s exile might instead point towards Absalom as the focus of David’s extended mourning, not least because it is mentioned immediately after Absalom’s flight (v. 37a).75 If David mourns Absalom here (v. 37b), it would seem to imply that while Absalom’s actual life is not technically at an end, his career at court is effectively finished, as when Samuel mourns Saul (1 Sam 15:35, 16:1).76 Alternatively, it may suggest that as far as David is concerned, Absalom’s killing of his brother and incurring of ‘bloods’ means that he is as good as dead. In either case, whether David wanted to march/go out against Absalom militarily or did so and then ceased, David seems to have been unwilling to let either the matter or Absalom rest.77 Despite the demurral of some,78 David’s ‘going out against’ (‫ ;יצא אל‬v. 39) Absalom recalls the Ammonites ‘going out against’ the Israelites in the attack which claims the life of Uriah (2 Sam 11:23).79 To what extent David actually pursued Absalom in exile remains unclear,80 but the fact of place it seems here (325; so too McCarter, II Samuel, 322). It seems more probable that it does belong here after all as the conclusion of Jonadab’s speech (so Anderson, 2 Samuel, 179, followed by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 434; cf. the Dickensian proposal of Morrison, 2 Samuel, 181). 73 Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 133; Campell, 2 Samuel, 132; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 440, note the uncertainty. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 333, suggests that originally David mourned for both sons. 74  So Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 328; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 264; Alter, The David Story, 274; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 159. 75  So Qesada, ‘Tidings of Death’, 14; Bader, Sexual Violation, 163; and Ackerman, ‘Good and Evil’, 46. McCarter, II Samuel, 322, suggests that this possibility has only arisen as a result of the accidental separation of v. 37b from v. 36, without which Amnon would be the only logical object of David’s mourning. 76  So assumes Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 328, though only because Absalom can hardly succeed David while in exile in Geshur. 77  Reading with 4QSama (‫‘ רו)ח‬spirit’ which agrees with the feminine (‫)ותכל‬. McCarter, II Samuel, 335; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 184; Campell, 2 Samuel, 126; and others interpret the verb as ‘ceasing’; while Jongeling, ‘Joab’, 121; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 126–7; and Kozlova, Maternal Grief, 128–9, favour ‘longing’. 78  So e.g. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 332–3; and Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 328, despite recognizing that this is indeed what the MT as we have it means. 79  See Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 127. 80 Auld, I & II Samuel, 489; and Qesada, ‘Tidings of Death’, 14, also refer to David’s flight from Saul. The assumption of Borgman, David, Saul and God, 129, that Absalom could have been extradited easily by David and that therefore the two were working together (so Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 89) seems unlikely, unless David’s ‘going out’ militarily is also just for show. As Amit, ‘Reservoir’, 208, notes, Absalom knows he can find refuge in Geshur. By the end of chapter 14 it seems clear why he has done so.

142  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt that he did so, or wanted to, underlines David’s desire to eliminate Amnon’s ‘bloods’ by killing Absalom.81 Moreover, the note that this desire waned along with his grief for Amnon would seem to explain why, after three years (13:38),82 Joab enlisted a woman of Tekoa to persuade David to restore Absalom to the court.83

The Sparing of Absalom While we have seen that 2 Sam 13 echoes 2 Sam 11–12 in various ways, this echo reverberates further in chapter 14 when David is told a story whose relevance to his own situation is calculated to provoke him, as Nathan’s story was (2 Sam 12:1–4).84 Whether Joab perceives that the king’s ‘mind’ (‫ )לב‬was ‘on’ Absalom or perhaps ‘against’ him (2 Sam 14:1),85 this perception prompts him to take action by recruiting a woman from Tekoa, whom the narrator notes is ‘smart’ (‫ ;חכמה‬v. 2).86 We will see this character trait borne out by the woman’s cleverness in achieving her aims.87 But the disastrous consequences of Jonadab’s earlier cleverness alert the reader to the possibility that the woman’s intervention may lead to equally un­desir­able results.88 In any case, given the emphasis on David’s mourning at the end of chapter 13, Joab’s orders for the Tekoite woman to appear as if she has been ‘mourning for many days’ (14:2) can hardly be accidental. Indeed, they suggest that the words which Joab puts ‘into her mouth’ for the king (v. 3) will eventually be related to Tamar, Amnon, and Absalom.89

81  Our analysis offers good reason to query the assumption (so Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 63–4) that, apart from 14:1, nothing in the story up to this point suggests that David sought to kill Absalom. 82 Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 331, suggests that the passage of time is noted to suggest its healing power. 83  On the other hand, as Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 133, observes, it is unclear in verse 39 whether ‫ נחם על‬is meant to imply that David has been comforted concerning Amnon’s death or is still grieving his loss. It is similarly opaque whether ‫ כלה‬should be taken as indicating David’s longing to do something in relation to Absalom or the waning of his intention to do so. If David’s resolve to hunt Absalom down remained undiminished, Joab’s move at this point should be understood as arising from a conviction that David’s resolve to shed Absalom’s blood was unlikely to wane and that Joab needed to force the issue. 84  The similarity is observed by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 129; McCarter, II Samuel, 350; Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 304; Lyke, Woman of Tekoa, 164; and many others. 85 Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 130; McCarter, II Samuel, 344; McKenzie, King David, 163; and others assume David’s mind is merely ‘on’ Absalom. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 187; Smith, Fate of Justice, 163; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 47, think that the contrivance required by Joab proves that David’s mind was still ‘against’ him. Many others note the ambiguity. 86 Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 58–61, rightly notes both the importance and opacity of Joab’s motives here as well as the variety of scholarly speculations on the subject. 87  So Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 130; McCarter, II Samuel, 344; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 342. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 184, notes the parallel but interprets it differently. 88  So rightly Westbrook, Your Daughters, 171. 89  So also Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 128; Keys, Wages of Sin, 153; Alter, The David Story, 275; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 163.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   143 4Now the woman of Tekoa came to the king and falling on her face to the ground

as she bowed, she said, ‘Save (me), O king!’ 5The king said to her, ‘What is wrong?’ She said, ‘The truth is, I am a widow; my husband is dead. 6Your servant had two sons and the two of them fought in the field; there was no one to come (lit. deliver) between them and one struck the other and killed him. 7Now the whole clan has risen against your maidservant. They say, “Give up the one who struck his brother, so that we may put him to death for the life of his brother whom he killed and let us destroy the heir as well.” They will extinguish my one remaining ember and leave to my husband neither name nor remnant on the face of the earth.’ 8So the king said to the woman, ‘Go to your house and I will give orders concerning you.’ 9The woman of Tekoa said to the king, ‘On me be the guilt, my lord the king, and on the house of my father; may the king and his throne be innocent.’ 10The king said, ‘If anyone says anything to you, bring him to me and he will never touch you again.’ 11Then she said, ‘Please, let the king remember the LORD your God, so that the redeemer of blood may ruin no more and they do not destroy my son.’ He said, ‘As the LORD lives, not one hair of your son will fall to the ground.’  (2 Sam 14:4–11)

When David is approached here by a woman who is ‘smart’ (v. 3), it also recalls the approach of Abigail, whom the narrator observed was ‘prudent’ ­(‫ ;טובת־שכל‬1 Sam 25:3).90 Such a recollection is strengthened for the reader and perhaps for David too by the Tekoite woman referring to herself as his ‘maidservant’ as Abigail has done.91 Added to this is the Tekoite’s obeisance which is described very similarly to Abigail’s (1 Sam 25:23; 2 Sam 14:4).92 Indeed, that the Tekoite woman is a widow, as Abigail would be shortly after meeting David, strengthens the resonance and perhaps the woman’s plea. Crucially, both women are deeply concerned with the problem of ‘bloods’. The relevance of the woman’s case to David’s situation is hinted at by her reference to a fratricide,93 where there was ‘no one to come between them’ (‫מציל‬, literally ‘deliver’; v. 6). Some see this remark as drawing attention to David’s absence during Absalom’s killing of his brother.94 Indeed, this resonance may well be strengthened by the echo of Absalom’s order to ‘strike’ and ‘kill’ Amnon (‫ והמתם אתו‬. . . ‫;הכו‬ 2 Sam 13:28) in the fratricide’s ‘striking’ and ‘killing’ (‫ וימת אתו‬. . . ‫ ;ויכו‬2 Sam 14:6) of his 90 McCarter, II Samuel, 345; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 492, note the parallel, while Alter, The David Story, 275, observes the difference in the terms used. 91  Noted by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 444; ‫ שפחה‬appears in 2 Sam 14:6, 7, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 1 Sam 25:27, 41; ‫ אמה‬is found in 2 Sam 14:15, 16, and 1 Sam 25:24, 25, 28, 31, 41. 92  Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 188, notes both of these similarities. 93 Lyke, Woman of Tekoa, 25–41, 71–3, compares the story of the woman’s two sons here to the account of Cain and Abel (Gen 4) and its ancient interpretation, though the reference to it (v. 6) here in 2 Sam 13 is very much in passing. 94  So Morrison, 2 Samuel, 186; and Lyke, Woman of Tekoa, 84, though the general echoing of Absalom’s fratricide is noted by Blenkinsopp, ‘Theme and Motif ’, 51–2; Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 130; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 445; and many others.

144  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt own brother.95 Abigail has already associated bloodguilt with the fate of one’s ‘life’ (‫ ;נפש‬1 Sam 25:26), but here is the first time in David’s story that we encounter the terminology of ‘striking . . . a life’ (‫ נפש‬. . . ‫ ;מכה‬2 Sam 14:7) which appears in other traditions (Num 35:11, 15, 30; Josh 20:3, 9).96 Also appearing in the legal traditions, but seen here for the first time in David’s story, is the specific role of the ‘redeemer of blood’ (‫ ;גאל הדם‬14:11), evidently fulfilled by a member of the fam­ily.97 Whether David had earlier redeemed the blood of Saul and his house (2 Sam 1, 4) in his capacity as king or kinsman, Joab’s avenging of his brother Asahel’s blood, however illegitimate in David’s eyes, fits the picture assumed by the woman here. Unlike elsewhere, however, the family here not only has the authority to execute the fratricide but evidently to judge the case as well. This would seem to imply that recourse to the king is reserved for a request for a pardon in extenuating circumstances. In this case, the circumstance is the harrowing prospect of the husband’s house (‘name’ and ‘remnant’; v. 7) being extinguished.98 Indeed, it is this prospect which the Tekoite widow places at the heart of her appeal to the king to overturn her family’s judgement that the fratricide must be killed for slaying his brother.99 The specific orders David promises to give (v. 8) may only be surmised. However, the possibility that David proposes a levirate marriage to protect the woman may be suggested by her assumption that David’s orders will concern her (‘you’; v. 8), but will not necessarily save her son.100 More obviously, her response betrays her

95  For the rendering of the singular here suggested by the versions, see McCarter, II Samuel, 338. 96 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 267; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 132, note too the similarity of terminology here to Exod 21:12. 97 Barmash, Homicide, 51–2, rightly recognizes that the use of this term confirms that the woman’s case (and thus by extension, Absalom’s) is one of bloodguilt. She also rightly critiques the suggestion that bloodfeud is not present here in 2 Sam 14 or in Israel generally (for which, see Phillips, Criminal Law, 83–5, 103). While De Vaux, Les livres de Samuel, 12 (see also Gordon, I & II Samuel, 267; and Liedke, Rechtssätze, 132), seeks to explain away the mention of a ‘blood redeemer’ at work within the family here, this is required by v. 7 (so McCarter, II Samuel, 348) and by the prospect of David’s own action against his son, on which Joab and the woman’s intervention is premised. See too Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 343. 98  So Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 130; and Hoftijzer, ‘Tekoite Woman’, 421–2, who note 2 Sam 15:1–6 and 1 Kgs 3:16–18 as parallels. See however Phillips, Criminal Law, 21 (followed by Whitelam, Just King, 133), for the significant distinction between an ‘appeal’ relating to interpretation of the facts of the case and a ‘pardon’ which seeks to overrule or set aside a normal judgement. The latter seems to be in view here (see Whitelam, Just King, 197–206; followed by Barmash, Homicide, 33). 99  Agreeing with Propp, ‘Kinship’, 51; Boecker, Redeformen, 21–4; Smith, Fate of Justice, 164; and Hoftijzer, ‘Tekoite Woman’, 421–2, followed by McCarter, II Samuel, 345. So too Barmash, Homicide, 33; contra Levine, Numbers 21–36, 564–5, whose suggestion that the king could overrule the clan’s requirement of vengeance by declaring the killing unintentional misses the point of 2 Sam 14, which is interested in the widow’s extenuating circumstances rather than intentionality. 100 Smith, Fate of Justice, 165 (followed by Kozlova, Maternal Grief, 133), notes David’s emphasis on the woman here. Lyke, Woman of Tekoa, 92–100, discusses levirate marriage in relation to the woman’s case, however, he does not note its potential to address her concern to preserve her husband’s name without pre-­empting vengeance against the fratricidal son (so Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 131). Whitelam, Just King, 132, suggests that David is here merely deferring judgement until later, but admits that this would be unique in the Hebrew Bible (and is thus unlikely here).

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   145 assumption that David is reluctant to prevent the family’s avenging of her dead son because he is afraid of ‘guilt’ (‫ ;העון‬v. 9). The woman does not seem to be owning the ‘guilt’ here merely as a prelude to her request for mercy. Nor is she presenting a complaint that she will be blamed,101 for her concern is her son and David’s response in v. 10 is to her case, rather than her words in v. 9.102 Nor is the woman offering her own confession to a lesser charge (1 Sam 25:24), for she offers no misdemeanour comparable to Abigail’s.103 Rather, it seems clear that the Tekoite seeks to own any guilt which might arise from David preventing her dead son’s innocent blood being redeemed.104 Of interest for our purposes is the clear implication of the woman’s words that guilt incurred by a fratricide may attach itself to the son’s parent and to the wider ancestral house. This supports the hypothesis that Absalom flees because he understands David to believe that the illegitimately shed blood of Amnon has not merely invited ‘bloods’ upon Absalom, but also upon the ‘house of his father’, David. Moreover, the woman offers to assume the ‘guilt’ as parent instead of having it fall on the king. If this was applied to David’s case, it would fail to exonerate him for sparing Absalom, because David is both Absalom’s king and his father.105 Still more interestingly, the woman not only invokes ‘guilt’ on herself and her ‘father’s house’ but also declares the king and his throne ‘innocent’ (‫ ;נקי‬v. 9). This inevitably recalls Joab’s killing of Abner, where David invokes ‘bloods’ on the head of Joab and his ‘father’s house’ (3:29) and also claims his own and his kingdom’s innocence (‫ ;נקי‬3:28).106 Despite the differences of terminology, the referencing of guilt and innocence here in the context of ‘bloods’ may well offer an initial hint to David that Joab may be behind the woman’s words.107 At a minimum, her assumption seems to be that David is reluctant to circumvent the redeeming of the dead brother’s innocent blood, perhaps because David fears that the guilt for 101  For the first suggestion, see Hoftijzer, ‘Tekoite Woman’, 425–8. 102  So McCarter, II Samuel, 347. 103 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 267, notes the similarity to Abigail’s words (so too McCarter, II Samuel, 347; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 492), but it seems unlikely that both women are merely wishing to speak (further). Lyke, Woman of Tekoa, 111–19, similarly notes but misinterprets the resonances between the stories of Abigail and the woman of Tekoa; while Westbrook, Your Daughters, 177, rightly differentiates between them, though misconstrues which guilt Abigail seeks to take on (see 1 Sam 25 and Chapter  2 above). Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 344, rightly dismisses the view of Veijola, Ewige Dynastie, 75, that these words are nonsensical. 104  See McCarter, II Samuel, 347, for earlier authorities of the same opinion. So too Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 266; Bellefontaine, ‘Customary Law’, 62; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 188; Borgman, David, Saul and God, 129; Smith, Fate of Justice, 165; and Westbrook, Your Daughters, 177. While it is unclear whether David is functioning as some sort of public ‘redeemer’ elsewhere (so McKeating, ‘Law on Homicide’, 52) here he is clearly interfering with due processes of blood redemption (59). 105  So Propp, ‘Kinship’, 52. 106  The similarity between the two is noted by McCarter, II Samuel, 347; Auld, I & II Samuel, 492; Schipper, Parables and Conflicts, 66–7; and earlier by Hoftijzer, ‘Tekoite Woman’, 424. See too Veijola, Ewige Dynastie, 75, n. 166, who also notes their affinity to 1 Kgs 2:33 and concludes that they all belong to the original Deuteronomistic Historian and serve a legitimating function (so too Bickert, ‘Sinneswandel Davids’, 46). 107  So also Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 66–7.

146  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt it might pass on to him and his kingdom.108 In the case of Abner’s innocent blood(s), this fear of transferal seemed to be related to David’s kinship to Joab or close association with him. Because David is unrelated to the woman here, some are persuaded that the woman wishes to own the ‘guilt’ which would arise if the king’s intervention is inappropriate and divine disapproval is forthcoming.109 It is also often assumed that David’s response (v. 10) and eventual saving of the woman’s son indicates that he has accepted her offer to assume the ‘guilt’ and indemnify him against it.110 However, it is far from certain that David does accept the woman’s offer. Indeed, David’s failure yet again to mention the woman’s son (v. 10) may indicate how reluctant he remains to protect the fratricide from blood redemption.111 Instead, David’s response remains focused on the protection of the Tekoite widow herself. This is perhaps because her need for it will become even more acute if David does not intervene and the remaining son is slain. The widow is not, however, seeking more orders concerning herself, but rather one relating to her son. This becomes clear when she explicitly asks for David to prevent the ‘redeemer of blood’ from killing her son despite his guilt (v. 11).112 In response, David finally yields to the persuasive efforts of the Tekoite by promising that ‘not one hair of your son will fall to the ground’ (i.e. he will not die). The rele­ vance of this will be clarified by the narrator’s reference to Absalom’s hair shortly (2 Sam 14:26).113 It is worth considering whether there are any clues here as to what has persuaded David to give in to the woman. First, we note that the Tekoite pleads for her son to be spared blood redemption by reminding the king to ‘remember the LORD, your God’ (v. 11). This may well suggest that the woman is seeking a vow from David to this effect which invokes the divine name.114 In fact, when David begins his response with, ‘As the LORD lives’, the attentive reader might expect

108  So also Alter, The David Story, 277. This severely complicates the suggestion of Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 331, that the woman fears that her family will be called to account if they save the son without the king’s approval. It is quite clear on the contrary that she seeks David’s subversion of the blood redemption otherwise required by the family in view of the son’s guilt. 109 Phillips, Criminal Law, 21; followed by Whitelam, Just King, 133. 110 Whitelam, Just King, 132, who follows McKeating, ‘Homicide’, 59, in assuming that ‘guilt’ might be transferred to someone who interferes with the due process of redemption. 111  So also Smith, Fate of Justice, 165; and Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 67, who rightly senses David’s inability or reticence at least to broach the issue in his own family. 112  So also Alter, The David Story, 277. As Bellefontaine, ‘Customary Law’, 63; and Lyke, Woman of Tekoa, 168, note, at no point does David make a clear pronouncement regarding anyone’s guilt, though Lyke’s suggestion that v. 9 is highly ironic seems itself improbable. 113 Boecker, Redeformen, 70, notes that the meaning of this expression is made clear by the people’s demand that Jonathan’s life be spared (1 Sam 14:45; so too Kozlova, Maternal Grief, 134; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 144; and Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 293) and Solomon’s conditional offer to spare Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:52). Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 68, thinks that the reference to ‘hair’ is a hint that David has connected the case to Absalom. 114 So McCarter, II Samuel, 348; de Boer, Gedenken, 33; Hoftijzer, ‘Tekoite Woman’, 428, n. 1; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 344; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 134. For the remembering of the divine name, see Isa 26:8, 13; Ps 119:55; and Isa 48:1 (where it is equated with a vow).

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   147 words of judgement to follow. After all, the two previous times this formula appears on David’s lips, it is to condemn the ‘rich man’ (2 Sam 12:5) and sentence Rechab and Baanah to death for shedding innocent blood (2 Sam 4:9). Why David’s remembering of the LORD leads him to relent here instead is probably explained by recalling the only other instance in which David spares the life of someone who has shed blood illegitimately (2 Sam 3). When David is unable or unwilling to execute Joab for shedding Abner’s evidently innocent blood, David remembers the LORD by invoking his punishment of evil-­doers according to their wickedness (2 Sam 3:39). It would appear that David is persuaded here, again by Joab, as we will see, to leave the problem of unwarranted bloodshed to the LORD. He does so, seemingly, in the hope that Amnon’s ‘bloods’ will not come back to haunt his house in the meantime.115 Having thus secured her fictional son’s reprieve, the woman now makes clear the relevance of her fratricide to the king’s own situation: 12Then

the woman said, ‘Please let your maidservant speak a word to my lord the king.’ He said, ‘Speak.’ 13So the woman said, ‘Why then have you devised such a thing against the people of God? For in speaking this word the king is like one who is guilty of not bringing back his own banished one. 14We will (all) certainly die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up. But God will not carry off a life; he will devise plans so as not to keep an outcast banished forever from his presence. 15Now I have come to speak this word to my lord the king because the people have made me afraid and your maidservant thought, “Let me speak to the king; perhaps the king will fulfil the request of his maidservant. 16For the king will hear and deliver his maidservant from the hand of the man who would eradicate both me and my son from the inheritance of God.” 17Your maidservant said (to herself), “May the word of my lord the king set me at rest”; for my lord the king is like the angel of God, discerning good and evil. The LORD your God be with you!’  (2 Sam 14:12–17)

The woman’s cleverness is clear. She uses David’s willingness to prevent innocent blood from being avenged against her fictitious son in order to indict David’s unwillingness to do so in the case of his own fugitive son, Absalom.116 The reader knows only that Absalom has fled of his own volition (2 Sam 13:34). But the woman’s accusation that David has ‘banished’ his son (14:14) implies that Absalom has fled because he knows of the real risk of David killing him if he returns.117 115  This formulation seems preferable to the simple affirmation that David allows ‘grace to prevail’ (so Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 332). 116  So also Smith, Fate of Justice, 166. McCarter, II Samuel, 348, suggests that it is the people who the woman sees as guilty, but its application to the king is quite clear from the verse. 117 Campbell, 2 Samuel, 134; and Bellefontaine, ‘Customary Law’, 66, note that the text offers no evidence of David’s actual banishment of Absalom.

148  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt The woman further alleges that David’s ‘banishing’ of his own son makes him guilty of ­conspiring against ‘the people’ rather than merely Absalom. Such an allegation hints at a larger role for Absalom as David’s successor and may well be calculated to increase the pressure on David.118 Finally, she suggests that the people David has conspired against are specifically the ‘people of God’. This may well suggest the woman’s hope that because invoking God secured David’s reprieve of her fictitious son, doing so again may secure the return of David’s own very real one. The woman seems convinced that David still believes Absalom must suffer an early death for killing Amnon. This seems to be confirmed by her insistence, on the contrary, that ‘we will certainly die’119 and thus Absalom’s death should not be hastened by David.120 This also seems likely given that the irrecoverability of earthly existence (‘like water spilled on the ground which cannot be gathered’),121 leads to the woman’s insistence that ‘God will not carry off a life’.122 It is clear that the  woman continues to speak metaphorically here. However, it is less obvious whether she means to suggest that God will not carry off a life to death or rather to exile.123 The woman may be maintaining here that God does not intervene to carry someone off to death prematurely. If so, this might be taken as an attempt to undermine David’s seeming hope that he can wait for God to take Absalom’s life, as he has in the case of Joab. However, if she is suggesting that God does not carry people off to exile, this fits well with the woman’s further insistence on God’s returning the one who has been excluded.124

118  So Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 332; Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 130; and Alter, The David Story, 277. McCarter, II Samuel, 348, thinks the offense is directed against the people by preventing them from embracing Absalom, who has been exonerated. 119  As Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 332, rightly suspects. The MT (supported by 4QSamc) is not ‘trite’ (so McCarter, II Samuel, 340–1) and need not be abandoned for the secondary reading of LXXL which refers explicitly to David’s son. 120  So Caquot, ‘Un point difficile du discours de la Téqoïte’, 23; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 332; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 266; and seemingly Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 446. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 335, thinks that the woman here implies that it is Amnon’s death which cannot be reversed, but her focus on the future suggests it is rather a death which is threatened and might still be avoided (e.g. Absalom’s). Hoftijzer, ‘Tekoite Woman’, 431–3 (followed by Kozlova, Maternal Grief, 136), sees the references to death and the pouring out of water as allusions to the fate of the people if David does not exonerate Absalom as he has her son. This is possible, but perhaps less likely. 121  So also Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 132; and Alter, The David Story, 278, who notes a similarity to David’s own sentiments when his first son by Bathsheba dies (2 Sam 12:23). For an exhaustive treatment of the idiom ‘poured out like water’ in light of other biblical and extra-­biblical texts, see Kozlova, Maternal Grief, 139–50. 122 Smith, Fate of Justice, 172, suggests that the idiom here means ‘restore life’, though the language is very different. 123  The verb ‫ נשא‬is often used to refer to lifting up for the purposes of carrying away (see e.g. 2 Sam 2:32, 4:4; 1 Kgs 13:29; 2 Kgs 9:25, 9:26, etc.). 124  The emendation suggested by Heinrich Ewald (History, vol. 3, 174), which implies that God will preserve David for bringing back an exile, is followed by Alter, The David Story, 278, but seems improbable (so Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 332; and Smith, The Books of Samuel, 335–6). LXXL is followed by McCarter, II Samuel, 341, and may point towards an original, whose meaning, however, is largely similar to MT here.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   149 The woman’s further reference to the ‘people’ (v. 15) might suggest she is here still referring to the request for the banished (Absalom) to be brought home. However, it seems clear that the woman now pivots back to her own case.125 She not only alludes to the people making her afraid, but also to ‘the man’ (pre­sum­ ably the redeemer of blood) who would cut her and her son off from the heritage of God.126 Indeed, her refusal of David’s efforts to detach her son’s fate from her own is not the only illustration of her subtlety.127 It may be seen too in the woman’s insistence here that her earlier lament—­that there was no one to ‘deliver’ her slain son from his brother (2 Sam 14:6)—­was prompted by her confidence that the king would ‘deliver’ (v. 16) the killer from vengeance. Now that David has delivered her son, the woman evidently hopes that he will deliver his own. The women’s powers of persuasion may also be seen in her complimenting of David’s discernment (see 1 Kgs 3:9) and in her reference to David as an ‘angel of God’, a phrase used also by Achish to flatter David (1 Sam 29:9).128 Last, but not least, the woman’s cunning may be seen in her allusion to the perils of being cut off from the divine inheritance (2 Sam 14:16) to which David himself had referred, when chastising Saul for his pursuit of him (1 Sam 26:19). While the narrator does not reveal what in the woman’s words prompts David’s suspicions, his discerning of Joab’s hand is made clear in his interrogation of her (vv. 18–20).129 18Then

the king answered the woman, saying, ‘Do not hide from me anything I ask you about.’ The woman said, ‘Let my lord the king speak.’ 19The king said, ‘Is the hand of Joab with you in all this?’ The woman answered, saying, ‘As you live, my lord the king, one cannot turn right or left from anything that my lord the king has spoken. For it was your servant Joab who commanded me; it was he who put all these words into the mouth of your maidservant. 20It was in order to turn the matter around your servant Joab did this. But my lord has wisdom like the wisdom of the angel of God to know everything in the world.’ 21So the king said to Joab, ‘See, I have done this thing; go, bring back the young man Absalom.’ 22Joab fell on his face to the ground as he bowed and he blessed the king; and Joab said, ‘Today your servant knows that I have found favor in your eyes, my

125  So too Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 145. 126  Some see vv. 15–17 as originally positioned between vv. 7–8 (see McCarter, II Samuel, 346, for discussion) but this is not necessary. See e.g. Smith, Fate of Justice, 172; and now Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 69–70, who suggests that the woman’s increasing transparency precludes her seeking to trick David. 127  Noted by Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 333. 128  So, amongst others, McCarter, II Samuel, 347; Westbrook, Your Daughters, 171–2; and Pyper, ‘Enticement’, 159, who see it as ironic in both passages as well as in 2 Sam 19:28 [ET 27]. 129  There is no evidence in the text that David detected Joab’s hand because he had made a case for Absalom’s return previously (as speculated by Gordon, I & II Samuel, 268; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 143).

150  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt lord the king, in that the king has fulfilled the request of his servant.’ 23So Joab set off, went to Geshur and brought Absalom to Jerusalem.  (2 Sam 14:18–23)

David’s insistence that the woman not withhold anything from him (v. 18) betrays his suspicion that she might be inclined to do so, just as Eli suspects when the young Samuel comes to him with a word from the LORD (1 Sam 3:17).130 That David need not worry is confirmed by the woman’s admission that Joab has sought to turn things around. One of these things is clearly Absalom’s exile, but there may be others, as we will see.131 The woman’s continuing flattery of David’s divine-­like discernment,132 suggests that the woman may herself be worried at David’s reaction to her deception. However, it is clear that the woman has served her narrative purpose when David proceeds to address Joab instead (v. 21). Indeed, when David concedes to Joab: ‘See, I have done this thing’ (‫ ;הנה־נא עשיתי את־הדבר הזה‬v. 21), it suggests that Joab has overheard David’s granting of the request.133 However, it is worth noting that the only thing which David has done to this point is set aside blood redemption in the woman’s case. Thus, it seems to be this which has persuaded or perhaps even bound David to allow Joab’s recall of Absalom by setting aside blood redemption in his case too.134 Elsewhere in the story of David, Joab is not in the habit of doing obeisance or showing deference in the presence of the king. It is thus understandable that commentators have been puzzled by Joab going to such extraordinary lengths to do so here.135 Indeed, David’s recall of Absalom hardly seems to require such an expression of gratitude from Joab and receives far less than this from Absalom himself when he arrives. However, the emphasis on Joab’s extraordinary response to David’s decision may be explained by Joab’s curious insistence that he, rather than Absalom, has ‘found favour’ in the eyes of David (v. 22). Some have suggested that

130  So also Auld, I & II Samuel, 495; and Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 147. 131  While some (so Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 133) see here a divine validation of Joab’s efforts to change matters (cf. 1 Kgs 12:15), the fact that the woman suggests it hardly proves that this is the case and may simply be yet another sign of her cleverness. 132 Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 333; and Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 70, note that the woman uses the same word for cleverness which the narrator has applied to her (2 Sam 14:2). 133  Reading the Ketiv, which seems preferable (so Smith, The Books of Samuel, 337). The use of the suffixed conjugation and the translation offered here suggests completed action (acknowledged by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 337; and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 185). The abruptness of the woman’s dis­appear­ance is noted by Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 333; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 145; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 190, who suggests that the impression given is of Joab ‘listening at the door’ (or perhaps already at court, as suggested by Auld, I & II Samuel, 496; and Smith, The Books of Samuel, 337). 134  Agreeing with Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 132; Campell, 2 Samuel, 133; Propp, ‘Kinship’, 51–3; and see Hoftijzer, ‘Tekoite Woman’, 421–4. 135  This is remarked upon by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 337; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 347; and with puzzlement by Smith, Fate of Justice, 176; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 191, who suspects more flattery. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 334, can only see in it an illustration of the ceremonies of court, while Kucova, ‘Obeisance in the Biblical Stories of David’, 255, notes that it is redolent of manipulation.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   151 Joab sees David’s acquiescence to his plan as a sign of the king’s favour.136 However, while the woman’s words ‘from Joab’ have ostensibly been concerned with the bloodguilt of the woman’s son and Absalom, it seems plausible that Joab might also have his own bloodguilt in mind. Indeed, it is notable that the narrator observes at the very outset of this chapter (14:1) that David’s interest in Absalom is detected by ‘Joab, the son of Zeruiah’. This latter form of words has been used only once (in 2 Sam 8:16) since David did so himself in seemingly calling down divine judgement on the sons of Zeruiah for shedding Abner’s innocent blood (2 Sam 3:39).137 The second clue that this incident and Joab’s bloodguilt may be behind Joab’s words, is the woman’s echoing (v. 9) of David’s reference to guilt and innocence in relation to ‘bloods’ (3:28–29), as we have seen above. One final hint is supplied by David’s unwillingness to exact blood vengeance on Absalom, despite knowing him to be guilty of shedding blood illegitimately. This of course echoes David’s unwillingness to do the same to Joab (and Abishai) despite their shedding of Abner’s innocent blood.138 From this, it would seem that Joab’s gratitude may reflect in part his assumption that David’s favour in renouncing blood redemption against his son, Absalom, is also extended ‘this day’ to his equally bloodguilty nephew, Joab.139 Indeed, if Joab’s orchestrating of Absalom’s recall is also to secure his own reprieve and David’s blessing of him in place of his earlier curse, this may explain why Joab ‘blesses’ David in return (v. 22). Moreover, Joab’s desire for his own reprieve from blood redemption at David’s hands might account for why he approaches the king rather more indirectly in this matter than he usually does.140 David’s requirement, however, that Absalom not see the king’s face on his return to Jerusalem (v. 24), suggests that all may not be resolved to David’s satisfaction.141 24The

king said, ‘Let him turn to his own house; but my face he will not see.’ So Absalom turned to his own house and the face of the king he did not see. 25Now in all Israel there was no one to be praised so much for his beauty as Absalom; from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head there was no blemish on him. 26When he cut his hair (at the end of every year he used to cut it; when it was 136  So suggests Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 137; and Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 267. Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 71, sees Joab as grateful for David’s deferring to him in the matter of Absalom’s recall. 137 Campell, 2 Samuel, 133, draws attention to the use of the matronymic here, but only to suggest that chapter 14 was an originally independent story. 138  Propp, ‘Kinship’, 51, rightly recognizes that both 2 Sam 2–3 and 2 Sam 13 present cases of il­legit­im­ate vengeance. 139 Auld, I & II Samuel, 496, notes David’s lack of response to this seeming assumption. 140  The obliqueness of Joab’s tactics here is noted by Morrison, 2 Samuel, 184; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 127. 141 Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 134, is unable to explain why the king cannot make up his mind about Absalom. Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 51, suggests the possibility that David’s earlier anger against Absalom has not disappeared entirely or that David does not wish to be seen to overlook his crime.

152  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt heavy on him, he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head, two hundred shekels according to the royal weight. 27There were born to Absalom three sons and one daughter whose name was Tamar; she was a beautiful woman. 28So Absalom lived two full years in Jerusalem without seeing the face of the king. 29Then Absalom sent for Joab to send him to the king; but Joab was not willing to come to him. He sent a second time, but Joab was not willing to come. 30Then he said to his servants, ‘Look, Joab’s field is beside mine and he has barley there; go and light it on fire.’ So Absalom’s servants lit the field on fire. 31Then Joab rose and came to Absalom at his house and said to him, ‘Why have your servants lit my field on fire?’ 32Absalom said to Joab, ‘See, I sent to you, saying: Come here, that I may send you to the king with the question, “Why have I come from Geshur? It would be better for me if I was still there.” Now let me see the king’s face; if there is guilt in me, you/let him put me to death.’ 33Then Joab went to the king and told him and he summoned Absalom. So he came to the king and bowed with his face to the ground before the king; and the king kissed Absalom.  (2 Sam 14:24–33)

Initially, Joab’s triumph seems to be underlined by the arrival of David’s son in Jerusalem (v. 23). While the verses which follow may have been inserted to account for the two years which will pass on Absalom’s return, they also serve to underline Absalom’s potential to reign.142 Indeed, Absalom’s possession of not only good looks (v. 25), but three sons and a beautiful daughter called Tamar (v.  27) seems to suggest that even though he cannot approach David, Absalom becomes increasingly like his father on his return. So too, the mention of Absalom’s haircut each year (v. 26) reminds the reader of David’s vow to the Tekoite woman that ‘not a hair’ of her son’s head will fall to the ground (v. 11).143 The narrative does not explain Absalom’s exclusion from the royal court. However, his frustration after two years is evident in the ultimatum he delivers to Joab: ‘if there is guilt in me, let him (i.e. the king) put me to death’ (‫ ;המתני‬14:32). While this may well be Absalom’s meaning here, the Hebrew may be read instead as ‘then you (that is Joab) put me to death’ (‫)המיתני‬.144 In fact, the Greek (θανάτωσόν με, ‘you kill me’) also assumes that Absalom invites Joab rather than the king to kill him, if Absalom is found to be guilty. One reason for favouring this reading will become clear in chapter 18, where Joab will be only too happy to accept Absalom’s invitation to dispatch him. In any case, the previous use of proxies by both David and Absalom, strongly suggests that even if Absalom here invites Joab to execute him, he assumes it will be done on David’s authority. 142  Both are noted by Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 334–5. See too Morrison, 2 Samuel, 192; and McCarter, II Samuel, 349. 143  The latter is noted too by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 135; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 447; and rather more doubtfully by McCarter, II Samuel, 349. 144 McCarter, II Samuel, 343, prefers the imperative but wants to imply that it refers to David, which it cannot. Smith, Face of Justice, 180, sees here a double entendre.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   153 There can be little doubt that Absalom’s words here confirm his view that his killing of Amnon has not incurred bloodguilt. This is almost certainly because Absalom is presented as sharing Tamar’s view that Amnon’s ‘violation’ of her warranted the same death as the Israelites inflicted on the Benjaminites in Judges 19.145 Indeed, Absalom’s ultimatum here precisely echoes David’s own insistence to Jonathan ‘you put me to death if there is guilt in me (‫ )ואם־יש־בי עון המיתני אתה‬but do not bring me to your father’ (1 Sam 20:8).146 In David’s case, both David and the reader knew Jonathan was convinced of David’s innocence (1 Sam 19:5). While this confirms the rhetorical quality of David’s ultimatum insofar as it relates to Jonathan, it also assumes that the threat to his life from Saul remains a real one. Here too, Joab’s refusal to bring Absalom to his father and David’s refusal to allow Absalom to see his face, clearly suggests to Absalom that a threat to his own life remains.147 Finally, Absalom’s reuse of the woman’s language of ‘guilt’ (‫ ;עון‬14:9, 32) further encourages the reader’s assumption that David sees Absalom as bloodguilty.148 It also suggests that David’s refusal to be seen by Absalom reflects the king’s unwillingness to finally and fully renounce his intention to redeem Amnon’s blood at the hands of Absalom. It seems tolerably clear that Absalom attributes his exclusion to David’s ­lingering anxiety regarding ‘bloods’. However, it should be considered whether Absalom’s exclusion might not also reflect David’s belated recognition that the Tekoite woman’s case was less relevant to his own case than he initially conceded. While the woman suggests blood redemption would put her husband’s legacy at risk, David’s exacting of blood vengeance against Absalom would not extinguish the embers of his house. This is proven by the fact that Adonijah very nearly succeeded David and that Solomon did so.149 So too, the woman’s description of the existential danger to her son and herself could not possibly apply to Absalom in his exile and David in his palace.150 Furthermore, the sort of ulterior motives which the woman attributes to those who would slay her remaining son can hardly be true of David. Nor does the woman’s case necessarily suggest the pre­meditation

145  This answers the query of Anderson, 2 Samuel, 185, regarding whether Absalom considered the fratricide to be ‘justifiable homicide’ for Amnon’s treatment of Tamar. Amit, ‘Absalom’, 265; Smith, Fate of Justice, 179; and Alter, The David Story, 281, see Absalom here as implying his own innocence and justice in killing Amnon. 146  An echo of 1 Sam 20:8 here is detected by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 152; Auld, I & II Samuel, 499; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 150; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 180. 147  Whereas Pyper, ‘Enticement’, 158–9, sees the issue as one of mere banishment. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 269, is right that Absalom’s ultimatum is not a death wish. 148  So also Morrison, 2 Samuel, 193; and Miller, A King and a Fool, 131. Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 136, is thus correct to suggest that David assumes Absalom merits punishment. 149  See e.g. Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 345; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 186; Miller, A King and a Fool, 114; Propp, ‘Kinship’, 52; Schipper, Parables and Conflict, 63; Westbrook, Your Daughters, 176; Borgman, David, Saul and God, 129; McKenzie, King David, 164; and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 185. 150  So Anderson, 2 Samuel, 186; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 345.

154  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt evidenced in Absalom’s killing of Amnon.151 Thus, David’s initial refusal to fully restore Absalom may partly reflect David’s suspicion that he is a victim of Joab and the Tekoite woman’s cleverness. If so, Absalom’s exclusion may suggest that the discernment for which the woman praised David is more than merely a figment of her flattering imagination. Joab’s fear that David will kill Absalom if he allows him to see his face likely explains why Joab twice ignores Absalom’s entreaties and comes to him only after his field has been set alight.152 This seems all the more probable if Joab believes that forcing David to see Absalom might lead David to reconsider not only his sparing of Absalom, but Joab as well.153 However, after two years, it becomes clear that neither Joab nor Absalom need worry because when Absalom secures an audience with his father, instead of David killing his son, he kisses him. David’s kissing of Barzillai later (2 Sam 19:40 [ET 39]) and Absalom’s kissing of those who acknowledge him (2 Sam 15:5) cautions against concluding that because David offers only a kiss, he remains reticent.154 Nor should David’s reluctance be assumed because he is referred to merely as ‘the king’ rather than ‘David’. David’s name is, after all, entirely absent from chapter 14 and should hardly be expected here. Instead, David’s kissing of his son probably serves as a minimal, but indubitable sign that after two years, Absalom is finally permitted to see the king’s face and be readmitted into the life of the court.155 If David’s kiss also grants his son the right to succeed him, Absalom’s subsequent rebellion can only signal his impatience, because the crown would have come to him eventually.156 Alternatively, in light of Absalom’s ultimatum to put him to 151  So Borgman, David, Saul and God, 130; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 345; and McCarter, II Samuel, 351. Note, however, that the parallel with Cain and Abel and the brevity of the woman’s account suggests some scope for pre­meditation in the woman’s fictional fratricide. 152  There is little in 2 Sam 14 to suggest that Joab was Absalom’s ‘friend’ (so Flanagan, ‘Court History’, 179). Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 135, rightly discerns that Joab may be fearful, but only detects the risk of an injudicious action. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 193, suggests that Joab delays in order to show Absalom that he holds the key to his restoration. Others attribute Joab’s overlooking of Absalom on his return to his interest only in David (so Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 445; Green, David’s Capacity, 214; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 151) or only in himself (Anderson, 2 Samuel, 191). While many of the older authorities (for which, see McCarter, II Samuel, 354) see an additional reference to Joab’s servants reporting the fire (e.g. 4QSamc, LXX) as original, the MT is fully intelligible without it. 153 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 151; and Alter, The David Story, 281, capture the spirit of Joab’s reticence to press David, though without noting the centrality of anxiety regarding ‘bloods’ or Joab’s own stake in the matter. 154  So also Gunn, Story of King David, 139, n.12; and Keys, Wages of Sin, 116. 155  So observes Auld, I & II Samuel, 499. This seems to be confirmed by 2 Sam 15:5 where Absalom kisses the people to court their favour because he cannot offer a judgment in their favour. That the kiss signals reconciliation is suggested by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 339; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 269; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 153; and McCarter, II Samuel, 350, who compares this passage to Gen 15:5. Alter, The David Story, 282, sees it as more of a royal or official kiss than a ‘paternal’ one. In any case, Absalom’s final res­tor­ation to court would seem to complicate the suggestion of Kozlova, Maternal Grief, 151–2, that Absalom’s rebellion and death (2 Sam 15–18) is presented as punishment for David’s failure to honour his vow to the woman to return Absalom to court. 156 McCarter, II Samuel, 350, agrees with Conroy, Absalom, 103 (so too Anderson, 2 Samuel, 191), that this does not imply a right of succession.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   155 death if he is guilty, some have suggested that David’s kiss signals his verdict that there is no bloodguilt in Absalom after all, or that it has been forgiven.157 But while David may be seen to ignore this guilt, there are no signs here that David forgives it, or even that it is within his gift to do so. Instead, David’s earlier leaving of Joab to divine vengeance for shedding Abner’s innocent blood suggests the likelihood that David does the same here with Absalom. David thus spares both men the deaths he knows will eventually be required to save his house from ‘bloods’. That Absalom is David’s son perhaps explains why he receives a kiss, instead of the curse David levels at his nephew, Joab (3:28–29, 39). * * * This reading of 2 Sam 13–14 suggests that the narrative offers a plurality of ­perspectives on the events it depicts, including those of Amnon, Tamar, Absalom, Joab, David, Jonadab, and the narrator. There can be little doubt that the narrative highlights the alignment of some perspectives (e.g. Tamar with Absalom; Absalom with Joab initially) and the opposition of others (e.g. Tamar vs Amnon; Absalom vs Amnon; David vs Joab/Absalom; and eventually Joab vs Absalom). However, one thing on which all characters except Amnon seem to agree is that his rape and subsequent rejection of Tamar was both a sexual humiliation and a serious violation of acceptable behaviour. As we have seen, Tamar’s words and actions seem to confirm her own alignment with the view of the Israelites (Judg  19–20) and Dinah’s brothers (Gen 34) that such a violation justifies and indeed, in some sense, requires the perpetrator’s death. Absalom’s sharing of this perspective is suggested by the narrator’s noting of Absalom’s hatred of Amnon. But it is also supported by Jonadab’s view, if it is trustworthy, that Absalom plotted to kill Amnon from the day he raped Tamar. Indeed, the depth of Absalom’s conviction is confirmed when he eventually kills Amnon, apparently fully aware that in doing so he will make himself persona non grata and be required to flee blood redemption. Absalom’s flight highlights the tension between his and Tamar’s perspective and the view of David. Certainly, David’s great anger at hearing of Amnon’s sexual violation of his daughter suggests he sees it as reprehensible. Indeed, David seemingly views Amnon as a ‘violator’ like Nabal. Moreover, the unmistakeable res­on­ ance of Amnon’s death with Nabal’s (1 Sam 25) invites the reader to see David as resisting the temptation to kill his son for the same reason he spared Nabal. Namely, because it is better to leave a ‘violator’ to divine judgement than to kill 157 Smith, Fate of Justice, 180 (followed by Westbrook, Your Daughters, 182), sees it as a sign that David no longer assigns guilt to Absalom; while Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 150; Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 298; and Campbell, 2 Samuel, 133, see in it David’s forgiveness (though Campbell also speaks of return rather than reconciliation [135]). McKenzie, King David, 164, sees here a sparing from ‘punishment’ although it seems clear that the relevant category here is ‘redemption/ vengeance’.

156  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt them without sufficient warrant and invite ‘bloods’ on one’s house and kingdom.158 Put another way, while David might well have agreed with Absalom that Amnon’s violation was worthy of death, David takes the view that Amnon should be left to the vengeance of God, rather than that of his brother. David’s earlier execution of those he sees as guilty of shedding blood il­legit­im­ ate­ly (2 Sam 1; 2 Sam 4) explains not only Absalom’s flight after Amnon’s death, but also how the killing itself is orchestrated. Absalom recognizes that the very same fear of Davidic execution which will require him to flee to Geshur may prevent his servants from executing Amnon in the first place. Thus, Absalom re­assures them explicitly that he and not they will assume the guilt which he expects David to assign for killing Amnon. That such fears of Davidic violence are not unfounded seems to be suggested by the narrator’s indication that David went out militarily against Absalom or wished to do so. The narrative’s interest in David’s response to the problem of illegitimate bloodshed is confirmed by the woman’s efforts to persuade David to spare Absalom blood vengeance for his killing of Amnon (2 Sam 14). Joab’s own interest is suggested not only by the reminders that the woman’s words were Joab’s, but also by the woman’s inversion of David’s own response to Joab’s bloodguilt in 2 Sam 3. This, along with the relevance of Absalom’s sparing for Joab’s own survival may well explain David’s discernment of Joab’s orchestration of Absalom’s partial return. It may also account for Joab’s unexpected obeisance and assumption of Davidic favour when this request is granted. Further illustration of Joab’s contentedness with David’s partial concession is furnished by the two year delay between Absalom’s return and his seeing of the king’s face. However, just as the woman has conveyed Joab’s words to the king earlier in the story, so now Joab proceeds to convey Absalom’s desire to finally see his father. This Joab does by delivering Absalom’s ultimatum that if he is guilty, he should be killed for it (2 Sam 14:32–33). The applicability of these words to Joab’s own situation illustrates what he too stands to gain if David ignores Absalom’s bloodguilt. Yet, David cannot forgive Absalom or Joab a guilt which is not his to forgive. Instead, David’s kiss merely signals his willingness to leave the avenging of Amnon’s blood to divine orchestration, in the hope that ‘bloods’ will not come back to haunt his house in the meantime. Indeed, it is worth considering why David does not even curse Absalom, as he had cursed Joab. Almost certainly it is because, as David’s own imprecation of Joab and his ‘father’s house’ proves, for David to curse his own son, would be to curse himself. While the perspectives of David, Absalom, Tamar, and Joab may be discerned with reasonable clarity, the narrator’s own viewpoint is rather less obvious. 158  In this, we have seen that David’s view as father is not unlike that of Jacob, the father of Dinah, who expresses his own anxiety at the vengeance expected after his sons kill Shechem and Hamor and their kinsmen for Shechem’s sexual violation of Dinah.

‘ That the Redeemer of Blood Will Ruin No More ’   157 Certainly, the narrator seems to share the view that Amnon’s rape of Tamar is reprehensible.159 However, even if the original text included the narrator’s clarification that David did not punish Amnon because of his affection for him (13:21), this merely explicates David’s motivation rather than explicitly pass judgement on it. There can be little doubt that it is tempting to conflate the narrator’s view with one of the characters’ perspectives.160 It is also common to assume that the narrative either criticizes David for his weakness in not avenging Amnon’s blood or celebrates him for his compassion towards Absalom.161 But the narrative refuses to endorse either Absalom’s revenge or David’s refusal to kill him for it. Instead, it seems that the primary interest of 2 Sam 13–14 is to display and explicate the tension between the differing perspectives on the events it depicts, for at least two purposes.162 It does so primarily to illustrate David’s response to what he sees as Absalom’s illegitimate shedding of Amnon’s blood. But this episode also seeks to show how the divinely ordained consequences of David’s efforts to evade ‘bloods’ in the taking of Uriah’s life and wife begin to haunt his house—­though not perhaps in the way that might be imagined. In the same breath as David is cursed by Nathan to have his wives taken from him by Absalom, Nathan also promises: ‘I will raise up evil against you from within your own house’ (2 Sam 12:11). These words reflect the LORD’s judgement of David’s illegitimate killing of Uriah as ‘evil’ (11:27) and offer a retributive riposte to David’s insistence that Joab not see it as such (‘evil’; 11:25). Thus, in response to the evil of David’s killing of Uriah in chapters 11–12, evil arises against David

159  As observed by Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 277 (followed by Bader, Sexual Violation, 166), based on the narrator’s characterization of Amnon’s act as a ‘sexual humiliation’ (v. 14). However, beyond this, Bar Efrat admits that the narrator (and thus the reader) is largely dependent on the reporting of Tamar’s views of Amnon’s actions. Cf. however 2 Sam 13:22, noted by Gilmour, Representing the Past, 222; and Bader, Sexual Violation, 167. 160  For instance, Smith, Fate of Justice, 151 (followed by Westbrook, Your Daughters, 181), sees the narrative as endorsing the view that Amnon’s act warrants death and Absalom’s does not (i.e. Tamar/ Absalom’s view). Propp, ‘Kinship’, 50–3, on the contrary, sees the narrative as endorsing the view that Absalom’s act warrants death and Amnon’s does not (i.e. David’s view). Green’s uncertainty regarding the perspective of the narrative as a whole (Green, David’s Capacity, 212, n. 48) rightly reflects the narratorial reticence. 161  For commentators critical of David’s failure to deal adequately with Absalom, see e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 335; Von Rad, Problem of the Hexateuch, 182; Ridout, ‘Succession Narrative’, 148; and Propp, ‘Kinship’, 50–3. By contrast, Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 161 (followed by Green, David’s Capacity, 214), sees Joab’s orchestration of David’s restoration of Absalom as an ‘extension of God himself ’ in breaking through the spiral of revenge. See too Amit, ‘Reservoir’, 218; and Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 89–91, who rightly notes that the reader is invited to judge Amnon’s actions. Amit, however, misses the possibility that the reader might be invited (by considering David’s perspective) to be equally critical of Absalom’s killing of his brother. McKenzie, King David, 164, sees the writer as both critical of David for overlooking Absalom’s shedding of Amnon’s blood, but also keen to present David as duped by Absalom and innocent of Amnon’s death. 162  See, for instance, Gunn, Story of King David, 139, n. 13, who notes that the author’s interest in the ‘variety of ways of viewing this action’ is proven by the woman’s arguments and Joab’s action. See also Gilmour, Representing the Past, 206–23, who illustrates well the multiplicity of perspectives in these narratives, even if her analysis differs from ours at various points.

158  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt from his own house in chapters 13–14, when Absalom kills Amnon.163 By killing Amnon illegitimately, Absalom not only deprives David of another son, he also increases the threat of ‘bloods’ to David’s house and the sons that remain. This threat is confirmed when David eventually refuses to execute Absalom, and all the more when David spares Absalom even the curse he inflicted upon Joab. Seen against this backdrop, David’s sparing of Absalom should not be seen as the triumph of mercy over justice.164 Instead, David’s refusal to kill Absalom must be seen as his acquiescence to Joab’s argument. This argument insists that killing or leaving the heir to the throne in exile will be more costly to David’s house and kingdom than the threat of ‘bloods’, however much David may fear the latter.165 While the narrative withholds explicit judgement on the wisdom of David’s concession at this point, the reader will not have long to wait for a verdict. Indeed, we will see in the next chapter that David’s refusal to kill Absalom paves the way for the curse of the ‘sword’ to take its toll, not in Absalom’s death, but in his war against David.166

163  While the resonances between 2 Sam 11–12 and 13–14 are not insignificant, Amit, ‘Reservoir’, 206, rightly emphasizes the importance of reading 2 Sam 13 in its own right and in light of the broader context, which includes, especially, 2 Sam 3 and 14. 164  As supposed by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 134. 165  It is not suggested here that ignoring bloodguilt risks the well-­being of the community as a whole (so Whitelam, Just King, 132 and Phillips, Criminal Law, 85), even if this is suggested later (2 Sam 21:1–14). Cf. also McCarter, II Samuel, 351, who sees the ignoring of ‘bloods’ as resulting in the unravelling of the social fabric in 2 Sam 15–20. 166  While Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 444, suggests that the fulfilment of the ‘curse of the sword’ (2 Sam 12:10) only begins in Absalom’s war against David, understanding the ‘sword’ as a metonym for ‘armed violence’ may suggest that the curse begins to take its toll already in Absalom’s killing of Amnon (so Quesada, ‘Tidings of Death’ 13; and Avioz, ‘Absalom Narrative’, 343).

7 ‘Man of Blood’: 2 Sam 15–20 We have seen in Chapter 6 that David is persuaded by Joab and the woman of Tekoa to forego the redemption of Amnon’s blood by sparing Absalom. In this chapter, we will see that the ‘sword’ of armed violence promised in 2 Sam 12 begins to afflict David’s house in earnest as Absalom goes to war against his father. While Joab’s spectacularly violent killing of Absalom will eventually solve the problem of Amnon’s ‘bloods’ for David, we will also examine David’s encounters with Shimei, the Saulide who first curses David as he retreats from Jerusalem and then seeks to undo the damage as David returns. These encounters will remind David and the reader of the problem of ‘bloods’ posed for David by the persistent tendency of the sons of Zeruiah to shed blood without sufficient cause. We will also see how this point is underlined by Joab’s slaying of Amasa in cold blood.

The Sparing of Shimei The wider significance of David’s sparing of Absalom is suggested when the n ­ arrator reports Absalom’s acquisition of a chariot, horses, and fifty men to run ahead of him (2 Sam 15:1). The fact that Adonijah will do the very same and ­explicitly declare ‘I will be king’ (1 Kgs 1:5) near the end of David’s life, confirms that Absalom is here preparing to replace him while David remains in full ­vigour.1 Instead of making an immediate move, however, Absalom sets about stealing the hearts (2 Sam 15:6) of the people. This he does by fostering the perception of David’s injustice, bestowing a kiss on all who come to him because he cannot offer a judgement in their favour. After four years of courting the people’s favour,2 Absalom asks permission from David to retreat from Jerusalem to Hebron (15:7). Given that Hebron was where David was anointed king (2 Sam 2:3–4) and where Absalom was born (3:3), this seems rather ominous, especially in light of Absalom’s earlier retreat from Jerusalem to Ba’al Hazor to kill Amnon.3 Indeed, this sense of foreboding grows when Absalom 1  Noted by Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 358; McCarter, II Samuel, 357; Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 136; and others. 2  Reading with the LXXL, the Syriac, Vulgate, Josephus (Antiquities 7.196), and virtually all other commentators, rather than ‘forty’ as in MT. 3  So also Anderson, 2 Samuel, 196; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 60. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 271, notes that Hebron was where one might expect to find great loyalty to David while Hertzberg,

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0008

160  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt explains that he needs to go to Hebron to fulfil a vow allegedly made while in Geshur, after fleeing from Ba’al Hazor to escape his father’s vengeance.4 It is not impossible that David’s response to Absalom, ‘Go in peace’ (v. 9; cf. 2 Sam 15:27), betrays his suspicion that his son is going to make war. If so, then these words reflect either the king’s resignation or a feeble attempt at dissuasion. However, if David does not suspect rebellion here, then ‘Go in peace’ is merely ironic and David appears woefully naive.5 In either case, both David and the reader soon learn that peace is the furthest thing from Absalom’s mind. This is confirmed when news reaches Jerusalem of Absalom’s coup and David orders the retreat from the capital, lest Absalom ‘attack the city with the edge of the sword’ (‫ ;לפי־חרב‬2 Sam 15:14).6 Here, David’s own words seem to suggest the fulfilment of the divine curse delivered by Nathan after Uriah’s killing: the ‘the sword (‫ )חרב‬will never depart your house’ (12:10).7 This seems all the more likely because David also leaves ten secondary wives behind in Jerusalem (2 Sam 15:16), paving the way for Absalom to lie with them (16:21–22) as Nathan had also prophesied (12:11).8 Indeed, when David sends the Ark back to Jerusalem in the custody of Zadok, his apprehension is signalled when he admits that he will only see it again if he finds ‘favour in the eyes of the LORD’ (‫ ;חן בעיני יהוה‬15:25). Finally, David surrenders himself to the LORD to ‘do to me what seems good in his eyes’ (‫ ;יעשה־לי כאשר טוב בעיניו‬15:26). This presumably includes the fulfilment of the curse Nathan has pronounced upon David for ‘doing evil in the eyes’ of the LORD (‫ ;לעשות הרע בעיני‬2 Sam 12:9 and 11:27). In David’s acquiescence at this point, the reader may hear yet another echo of Eli’s submission to the divine curse levelled at his priestly house (1 Sam 3:18).9

I & II Samuel, 337, sees it as hostile to David for making Jerusalem his capital instead. Alter, The David Story, 284, suggests the possibility that fratricides who had not yet atoned for their crimes were required to worship at different sanctuaries from their fathers. 4 Alter, The David Story, 284, notes ancient parallels which suggest that the vow may be an exculpatory one for manslaughter after a seven-year period. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 170–1 (followed by Miller, A King and a Fool?, 142), imagines Absalom vowing to avenge himself on David, though for what is very unclear. 5 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 271; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 199, see David as unsuspecting here; while Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 455; and Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 155, see the irony of David’s dismissal; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 170–1, notes both. Auld, I & II Samuel, 503, observes that David’s response to go ‘in peace’ (‫ ;בשלום‬v. 9) echoes Absalom’s request to ‘pay’ (‫ ;ואשלם‬v. 7) his vow. 6  As rightly recognized by Gilmour, Representing the Past, 201. For other examples of this particular expression, which seems to refer to wholesale slaughter, see 1 Sam 15:8, 22:19; Judg 20:37, 48, 21:10; 2 Kgs 10:25. 7  So also Miller, A King and a Fool?, 147–8; contra Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 63, who cannot find any indication that David connects Absalom’s revolt with the prophetic judgement or his guilt. 8  As noted by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 144; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 272; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 159; and Alter, The David Story, 285. For more on the role of the concubines/secondary wives in these stories, see Hill, ‘ “Leaving” Concubines’. 9 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 274; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 509, note the resonance with 1 Sam 3 while Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 66, hears here an echo of David’s resignation to the divine will after his first son by Bathsheba has died (2 Sam 12:22–23).

‘ Man of Blood ’   161 Just beyond the summit of the Mount of Olives, the retreating David is met by Ziba. When the reader last met Ziba, he was tasked with managing the ancestral lands of Saul’s grandson, Mephibosheth, while the latter dwelt at court with David (2 Sam 9). Ziba’s provision of victuals for David (2 Sam 16:1–2) suggests his intention to both ingratiate himself with the fleeing king and alienate Mephibosheth from David. He does so by alleging that his master has said ‘Today the house of Israel will give me back my grandfather’s kingdom’ (v. 3).10 Perhaps because David will later seem to be persuaded of Ziba’s opportunism (2 Sam 19:25–31[ET 24–30]), some have been reluctant to give any credence to Ziba’s claims of Mephibosheth’s traitorous ambitions. Such ambitions may seem less plausible too because Mephibosheth is lame and it is Absalom who is rebelling here rather than the house of Saul.11 However, David’s decision to believe Ziba’s allegation here may not be as precipitate as it seems. After all, Mephibosheth does have a son, Mica (cf. 2 Sam 9:12), whom the narrative invites us to assume is more physically able to rule than his father.12 It seems perfectly plausible that Saulides might eventually benefit from Israel’s rejection of David. Certainly, this rejection is confirmed when Absalom’s coup receives support from all Israel (2 Sam 15:10) and David learns that Absalom has won the ‘hearts of the Israelites’ (15:13). Indeed, Absalom’s declaration of his kingship in Hebron also recalls that David ruled there over Judah alone for more than seven years before Israel finally submitted to David’s royal yoke (2 Sam 5:2–5). Moreover, a further illustration of just how quickly Israel may seek to be rid of this yoke will soon be offered by Sheba’s subsequent rebellion (2 Sam 20).13 One final sign that hope for a Saulide restoration over Israel might still linger in certain quarters, is the reminder that the blood of Saul’s house shed in its fall (2 Sam 1–4) has not been forgotten. This reminder is offered when another member of the house of Saul, Shimei, appears on the scene to usher David ungently into the wilderness. Shimei’s sharing of his patronym, Gera, with Ehud (Judg 3:15; cf. also Gen 46:21) suggests that the name is common amongst Benjaminites (cf. 2 Sam 16:11).14 However, it is Shimei’s specific association with the ‘house of Saul’ which makes 10  The continuity here with David’s earlier treatment of the house of Saul is also signalled by the narrator’s reference to ‘King David’ (2 Sam 16:5), last seen in the narrative when ‘King David’ summoned Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:5). 11  So, for instance Carlson, Chosen King, 140; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 275; Auld, I & II Samuel, 514; and others. Alter, The David Story, 29; Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 283; and others emphasize that Absalom’s rebellion offers little opportunity for a Saulide restoration, while Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 377; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 347; and others note Mephibosheth’s lameness. Some note both considerations (e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 345; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 277). 12  So also Anderson, 2 Samuel, 205. 13  The relevance of this here is noted by Green, David’s Capacity, 223. 14  The Benjaminite association of the name is noted by Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 276; Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 151; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 277. As McCarter, II Samuel, 373 (so also Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 375), suggests, Gera is more likely a patronym than the name of the clan to which Shimei and Ehud belonged.

162  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt his cursing (‫ )מקלל‬of David (2 Sam 16:5) unsurprising. While this verb does not appear in previous passages relating to bloodguilt in David’s story, it does feature in the cursing of Eli (‫ובזי יקלו‬, ‘those who despise me will be cursed’; 1 Sam 2:30). This strongly connects it with dynastic judgements, including Nathan’s cursing of David for ‘despising’ the LORD by killing Uriah (2 Sam 12:9, 10).15 When Shimei proceeds to launch stones at David and his servants (v. 6), it may be that the threat is more symbolic than real, because the retreating David is flanked by both the people and the warriors.16 However, it should also be noted that stoning is associated elsewhere with execution after judgement (cf. Josh 7:25; 1 Sam 30:6; and 1 Kgs 21:10, 13, 14, 15).17 Indeed, it is clear that judgement is very much on Shimei’s agenda from the invective which he hurls along with his stones: 7This

is what Shimei said as he cursed: ‘Get out! Get out! Man of bloods! Man of Belial! 8The LORD has returned upon you (sg.) all the bloods of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned; and the LORD has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom. Look at you in your evil; for you are a man of bloods.’ 9Then Abishai son of Zeruiah said to the king, ‘Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me cross over and take his head off.’ 10But the king said, ‘What have I to do with you, sons of Zeruiah? He is cursing because the LORD has said to him, “Curse David,” and who then can say, “Why have you done this?” ’ 11David said to Abishai and to all his servants, ‘My son from my loins seeks my life; how much more now may a Benjaminite! Let him be and let him curse; for the LORD has told him to. 12Perhaps the LORD will look upon my guilt and the LORD will return to me good instead of his cursing this day.’ 13So David and his men went along the road, while Shimei walked on the hillside in his direction and cursed as he went, throwing stones in his direction and shower­ing him with dirt.  (2 Sam 16:7–13)

The seriousness of Shimei’s words is signalled by his referring to David as a ‘Man of Belial’, a phrase used elsewhere in 1–2 Samuel to refer to people who will suffer death for their actions or are believed to deserve it.18 But Shimei’s curse here is 15  This strengthens the suggestion of Simpson, Contesting Claims, 74–5, that David attributes to Shimei a kind of quasi-prophetic authority akin to Nathan, and that his cursing cannot be taken to imply the narrator’s negative evaluation of Shimei per se (64–5; contra Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 56). 16  So also Auld, I & II Samuel, 515; and Simpson, Contesting Claims, 73. 17  Contra Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 378, but agreeing with Kapelrud, ‘‫ ָ’ס ַקל‬, 342. Olyan, Ritual Violence, 99, 155, notes that while the threat posed by the stones is not physical, it may well be intended to incite others to take similar action against David while he is vulnerable. 18  See, for instance, 1 Sam 2:12 (referring to the sons of Eli who will die in battle according to the divine oracle) and 1 Sam 25:25 (and cf. v. 17) (where Nabal is viewed as deserving the death which is seen by David as divinely inflicted). Simpson, Contesting Claims, 67, notes that the phrase is used of Nabal and the insurrectionist Sheba, both of whom are doomed characters, while Morrison, 2 Samuel, 218, suggests that its application to the latter (20:1) may hint that Shimei uses it to indict David for rebelling against Saul.

‘ Man of Blood ’   163 much more specific. It suggests that the giving of David’s ‘kingdom’ (‫ ;המלוכה‬v. 8) into Absalom’s hand and the ‘evil’ (‫ )רעתך‬this represents for David, is a result of David being a man of ‘bloods’ (‫( ;דמים‬2x), vv. 7–8).19 Of course, Shimei also sees Absalom’s taking of David’s kingdom as repayment for David’s ‘reigning’ (‫ )מלכת‬instead of Saul. But most crucially for our purposes, Shimei views Absalom’s rebellion as a divine ‘returning’ (‫ )השיב‬of the ‘bloods of the house of Saul’ (‫ )דמי בית־שאול‬upon David (16:8).20 The word ‘head’ is missing here, but the language of ‘returning’ the consequence of illegitimate bloodshed upon someone is found also in Judg 9:56–57 (cf. 9:24). There, as we have seen, the millstone thrown by the woman from the tower signals the divine returning of Abimelech’s ‘evil’ upon him (‫ ;וישב אלהים את רעת אבימלך‬v. 56) for shedding his brothers’ innocent blood.21 However, Shimei’s mention of the divine return of innocent Saulide ‘bloods’ upon David’s kingdom (16:8) resonates most clearly with David’s invoking of the ‘bloods of Abner . . . upon Joab’s head’ (‫ על־ראש יואב‬. . . ‫ ;דמי אבנר‬2 Sam 3:28–29). It would seem that Shimei sees the evil being returned upon David as bound up with David’s own ‘evil’ (‫)רעתך‬22 in refusing to avenge Abner’s Saulide blood against Joab. If so, Shimei may seek to turn David’s own generic prayer there against David here: ‘May the LORD repay the one who does evil in accordance with his evil!’ (‫ ;ישלם יהוה לעשה הרעה כרעתו‬3:39). Shimei might be seen here as insisting that these Saulide ‘bloods’ are being returned not merely ‘upon David’ (‫ ;עליך‬v. 8) but upon ‘all’ (‫ )כל‬those who travel with him. However, ‘upon’ (‫ )על‬is not repeated (cf. 16:11), which suggests that it is rather ‘all the bloods of the house of Saul’ which Shimei sees as being

19  The use of the plural form in particular here and elsewhere in Samuel is noted by Auld, I & II Samuel, 515. For further discussion, see Christ, Blutvergiessen, 39 and 58, where he notes that here at least the full expression ‘man of bloods’ is clearly inflected by its association with illegitimate bloodshed. Indeed, Anderson, 2 Samuel, 206, notes that the suggestion that it refers to merely a ‘bloodthirsty man’ here because there is no sign of any criminal offence (so Van Uchelen, ‘‫’אנׁשי דמים‬, 208) fails to appreciate the dynamics of ‘blood(s)’ as represented in the story of David explored here. The same may be said of McCarter’s (II Samuel, 373) suggestion, based on passages outside Samuel and Kings, that the phrase ‘man of bloods’ here refers merely to someone who sheds blood generally or indeed, even more generically, any wicked man or criminal. Moreover, the phrase does not seem to be merely equivalent to ‘man of Belial’ (so Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 459), despite both turns of phrase being highly accusatory and inflammatory. 20  The contrast between Nathan’s proleptic interpretation of Absalom’s rebellion and Shimei’s here is noted by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 152. Given the focus on Saulide blood, there is little reason to follow the suggestion of Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 276 (cf. also Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 379), that Shimei might have in mind here David’s treatment of Moab and Edom (8:2, 13–14) or the killing of Uriah (e.g. Grossman, ‘ “Dual Causality” ’, 563–4), not least because the latter was accomplished without incurring ‘bloods’ per se. 21  So Christ, Blutvergiessen, 100–1, who notes that the use of this verb here and in Judg 9 in association with divine action is incompatible with the notion of the autonomous agency of ‘bloods’ suggested by Koch, ‘Vergeltungsdogma’, 26; and Koch, ‘ “Sein Blut” ’, 414. For a more satisfying analysis of this passage, see instead Reventlow, ‘Sein Blut’, 323. 22  It is possible (so Alter, The David Story, 292) that ‘your evil’ is a reference to the evil David has done rather than that which is being done to him.

164  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt r­evisited upon David.23 It is clear that Shimei sees these bloods as innocent ­(­i.e. il­legit­im­ate­ly shed), but which particular ‘bloods’ Shimei has in mind is not specified. If 2 Sam 9 and our passage here are aware of David’s killing of the seven Saulides (2 Sam 21:14; see Chapter 8 below), then Shimei may well have these deaths in mind.24 However, the text as it stands invites the reader to consider which Saulide blood shed up to now David is most likely to be accused of shedding illegitimately. The reference to the ‘house of Saul’ makes it improbable that Shimei has in mind the death of Saul himself, though it does not preclude Jonathan’s killing. It may well be that Shimei is here accusing David of guilt for Ishbosheth’s innocent blood, despite David’s redemption of it by killing Rechab and Baanah. However, given the resonances with 2 Sam 3 outlined above, it certainly seems likely that Shimei has in mind at least the slaying of Abner by Joab and Abishai (2 Sam 3:30).25 Indeed, such an assumption may be suggested by the fact that it is Joab’s brother who responds to Shimei’s violence and invective even before David does (2 Sam 16:9). Because David refers to himself elsewhere as a ‘dead dog’ to allay Saul’s fears about him (1 Sam 24:15 [ET 14]) and Mephibosheth does likewise to reassure David (2 Sam 9:8), Abishai’s characterization of Shimei with this same phrase here (16:9) seems to suggest that the Benjaminite poses no genuine threat.26 However, Abishai’s insistence on David’s royal status (‘the king’) suggests Shimei’s cursing of David cannot be ignored. Indeed, Abishai’s affirmation of his fealty to David (‘my lord’; v. 9) neatly paves the way for his offer to kill Shimei on David’s behalf.27 Given Abishai’s earl­ier eagerness to run a spear through the sleeping Saul on David’s behalf (1 Sam 26:8),28 his offer here is not entirely surprising, even if the suggestion of decapitation is novel. Another rebel, Sheba, will soon be relieved of his head (2 Sam 20:22) and earlier Saul himself was subjected to the same indignity by the Philistines 23  So also Campbell, 2 Samuel, 150. 24  So Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 299, 345, 381; and others. See especially Vanderkam, ‘Davidic Complicity’, 537–9, for a succinct summary of the evidence in favour of it; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 378, for a contrary view. 25 That Shimei has Abner (amongst other Saulides) in mind is noted by Vanderkam, ‘Davidic Complicity’, 539; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 459; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 345; and others. Because Smith, Fate of Justice, 98, does not see for which Saulide blood David might be viewed as culpable (e.g. Abner’s), he is left with no means of explaining why David proceeds to affirm the legitimacy of Shimei’s cursing and its divine instigation (similarly Morrison, 2 Samuel, 220–1). Miller, A King and a Fool?, 163–7 (so too Simpson, Contesting Claims, 84–5), suggests that by resisting Abishai and refusing to kill Shimei, David is depicted as abdicating his royal responsibility to punish him for cursing the king. This leaves Miller to maintain very improbably that David’s aversion for killing Shimei here (and Saul and Nabal earlier) is presented by the narrative as an abdication of his responsibility to kill those he should. 26  That the phrase ‘dead dog’ per se hints that Shimei is deserving of death (so Brueggemann, ‘Coping with Curse’, 178) seems unlikely, though Abishai’s request to kill him in the same breath might suggest it here (so Alter, The David Story, 292). As McCarter, II Samuel, 261, notes, the expression probably suggests that Shimei is of no consequence. 27  In a similar vein, Simpson, Contesting Claims, 77. 28  As noted by Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 379; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 165; McCarter, II Samuel, 373; and others including Morrison, 2 Samuel, 219, who observes further parallels between 1 Sam 26:8–11 and 2 Sam 16:9–12.

‘ Man of Blood ’   165 (1 Sam 31:9). However, Abishai’s turn of phrase here (‘Let me remove his head’, ‫ ;ואסירה את־ראשו‬v. 9) was last seen when Rechab and Baanah ‘removed the head’ of Ishbosheth (‫ ;ויסירו את־ראשו‬2 Sam 4:7). This may be a hint that David will no more welcome Abishai’s offer here, than he did Ishbosheth’s killing there.29 Confirmation of this and an invitation to recall Abner’s killing seem to be supplied when David distances himself from ‘you sons of Zeruiah’ (2 Sam 16:10), a phrase which of course includes Joab, as it did in 2 Sam 3:39.30 There David used it to denounce his nephews as ‘more severe than me’, probably to explain why Abner’s ‘bloods’ were not remedied by David as Saul’s and Ishbosheth’s killings had been. This along with the echo of Ishbosheth’s illegitimate killing seems to explain why David does not accept Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei. David appears to view it as running the very unwelcome risk of bringing still more ‘bloods’ on his house for the shedding of yet another Saulide’s blood.31 Interestingly, David not only refuses Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei for cursing him, but also rejects even Abishai’s questioning of him for doing so (16:10). David’s logic here is worth noting. Given that David’s own son (v. 11) seeks his life because of David’s failings,32 he finds it entirely understandable that a Benjaminite might do likewise on the basis that David is culpable for not redeeming the innocent blood of Abner.33 David’s failure to mention the stones hurled by Shimei probably confirms that they do not pose a significant threat in and of themselves. However, what David does say here underlines the threat he evidently understands Shimei’s curse to pose to his life.34 It is thus all the more remarkable that David not only refuses 29  For a list of references to the removal of body parts including ‘heads’ in the Hebrew Bible, see Scoggins Ballentine, ‘Ritual Violence’, 14–16. 30  As rightly noted by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 199; and Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 284. Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 276; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 278; and Simpson, Contesting Claims, 82, sense the resonance with 2 Sam 3, though not specifically with v. 39. While Green, David’s Capacity, 224, rightly suggests that David’s words here reflect his discernment in relation to Shimei and Abishai, it is far from obvious that they reflect his ‘patience’ with either of them. 31  This explains why Abishai’s advice should not be taken (e.g. McCarter, II Samuel, 374). Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 284, suggests that Shimei here is protected by David’s oath to not do harm to anyone of the house of Saul (1 Sam 24:23 [ET 22]). However, the killing of Shimei would not seem to violate the letter of that oath and David’s own analysis here instead suggests the reason Shimei may not be slain is that he is doing the LORD’s bidding (so Gordon, I & II Samuel, 277–8). Anderson, 2 Samuel, 206, suggests that David was reluctant to strike Shimei because he may have had a kinsman with him (as in 2 Sam 19:18 [ET 17]), but there is no mention of this here. 32 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 459; and Avioz, ‘Absalom Narrative’, 343–4, rightly note David’s recognition of Nathan’s oracle at work. Brueggemann, ‘Coping with Curse’, 181–2, wishes to see David’s hope drawing strength from the divine promise of an enduring dynasty in 2 Sam 7. However, Auld, I & II Samuel, 516, notes that the specific echoing of the language of 2 Sam 7:12, (‫אשר יצא ממעיך‬, ‘who will come from your loins’) seems to suggest David’s fear that the promise is unravelling. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 220, sees this echo as deeply ironic. 33  So Gordon, I & II Samuel, 278. There has been much reflection on whether Shimei’s actions warrant the death penalty (see, e.g., Scharbert, ‘ “Fluchen” und “Segen” im Alten Testament’, 144, n. 44; and Schottroff, Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch). It is not impossible that Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei reflects the Torah’s injunction against cursing a chieftain (Exod 22:27 [ET 28]) (so Simpson, Contesting Claims, 79–80; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 375), especially in light of 2 Sam 19:21 [ET 20]. However, other passages in the books of Samuel suggest that both Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei and David’s refusal of it relate instead to their respective self-interest in the matter of ‘bloods’. 34  So Brueggemann, ‘Coping with Curse’, 179; and Simpson, Contesting Claims, 85.

166  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei (‘let him be!’). He also insists on Shimei being allowed to curse ‘for the LORD has told him to’.35 It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that David is resigned to the fact that Shimei’s cursing of him is divinely inspired and directed.36 Despite this resignation, however, David’s hope for divine mercy (v. 12) suggests he views Shimei’s curse as dependent on the divine will, which he assumes to be potentially changeable. No less crucially, David’s hope sheds light on his view of the relationship between Shimei’s curse and David’s own response to the problem of ‘bloods’ in 2 Sam 3. It is important to note that David’s hope is that the ‘LORD will look upon my guilt’ (‫ ;יראה יהוה בעוני‬16:12). Because we do not find ‘guilt’ ‘looked upon’ ­elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but do find ‘affliction’ (‫‘ )עני‬looked upon’ (‫)ראה‬ (1 Sam 1:11; cf. Gen 29:32, Exod 4:31), some have favoured emending the text here accordingly.37 While this would suggest that Shimei’s curse is David’s ‘affliction’, this seems rather unlikely given that it has been divinely instigated and recalls the spectre of his bloodguilt. Moreover, the emendation of MT ‘guilt’ (‫)עוני‬ to ‘affliction’ (‫ )עני‬itself appears rather suspect, given that the latter does not appear anywhere else in the books of Samuel apart from 1 Sam 1:11.38 By contrast, as we have seen, the story of David is replete with references to ‫‘ עון‬guilt’ (1 Sam 20:1, 8, 25:24, 28:10; 2 Sam 3:8, 14:9, 32). Most tellingly, one of these will appear when Shimei meets David on his return after the death of Absalom to ask David not to consider his ‘guilt’ (‫ ;עון‬2 Sam 19:20 [ET 19]). This would seem to support David’s confession of ‘guilt’ (‫ )עון‬here too, a position which has found increasing support in recent years.39 If so, it suggests that despite David’s invoking of the innocent ‘bloods’ of Abner on Joab and his house, David would appear to believe that they will remain on his house until such time as David redeems them by killing Joab, or the LORD ends Joab’s life prematurely.

35  Reading the Ketiv (so also Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 375), which is followed by the New Revised Standard Version. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 318, reads the Qere: ‫כה יקלל כי יהוה‬, ‘Thus he is cursing because the LORD’; v. 10 (so too McCarter, II Samuel, 368; and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 201). This suggests David’s certainty regarding the LORD’s instigation of Shimei’s curse in v. 11 is to be found already here in v. 10b. Gunn, Story of King David, 102; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 204; Smith, Fate of Justice, 185; and others note the resonance of David’s sentiments here with those of 15:25–26. For the ways in which this episode reflects the conflation of divine and human agency, see Grossman, ‘ “Dual Causality” ’, 563–5. 36  Agreeing with Vanderkam, ‘Davidic Complicity’, 536. 37  So Wellhausen, Bücher Samuelis, 199; and Budde, Bücher Samuel, 276; and others since. 38  It seems likely that LXX ταπεινώσει μου ‘my affliction’ and corresponding scholarly emendations reflect a shared reluctance to have David here admit so frankly his ‘guilt’ in relation to Saulide blood. The Masoretes listing of the Qere (‫בעיני‬, ‘my eye’) as one of the ‘emendations of the scribes’ hints at its implausibility, for which see, e.g. Brueggeman, ‘Coping with Curse’, 181; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 277; and Simpson, Contesting Claims, 86–9. 39  See e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 345; Brueggeman, ‘Coping with Curse’, 18; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 221; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 459; Noll, Faces of David, 124; Simpson, Contesting Claims, 86–9; and Alter, The David Story, 293, who rightly recognizes that David here acknowledges his ‘guilt’, though Alter does not note that here it must be David’s guilt for shedding specifically ‘Saulide’ blood.

‘ Man of Blood ’   167 For his part, Abishai’s immediate offer to kill the Benjaminite is entirely understandable. We recall that Joab has successfully persuaded David to set aside his anxieties about the ‘bloods’ of Amnon and by extension those of Abner. Shimei’s curse now reminds David that he has spared Joab (and perhaps also Abishai) the execution which David knows is required to avoid David’s own house being haunted by ‘bloods’. Accordingly, Abishai almost certainly views Shimei’s curse here as a threat not merely to David, but to his brother’s life and his own, if it persuades David to belatedly redeem Abner’s innocent blood by killing them.40 While the bad news for Abishai is that David will spare Shimei, the good news is that David will also continue to spare the sons of Zeruiah. Despite Shimei’s desire to turn David’s own cursing of the sons of Zeruiah against him, David expresses a different wish. His tentative hope is that the LORD will ‘perhaps’ (‫ ;אולי‬16:12)41 overlook his guilt by not returning the ‘evil’ against him as Shimei intends (v. 8).42 David’s hope is also that the LORD will leave this evil on the sons of Zeruiah as per his original curse (3:39) and instead ‘return good’ (‫ ;השיב יהוה לי טובה‬16:12) on David.43 That David’s hope here is plausible is suggested by the fact that his earlier uncertainty regarding his restoration to Jerusalem did not prevent him from hoping that the LORD would facilitate it. Finally, as the episode draws to a close, Shimei repays David for sparing him by resuming his verbal and symbolic assault on David as they continue their journey (v. 13).44 This may explain, at least in part, the narrator’s report that both king and entourage arrive ‘weary’ (v. 14) at their destination.45 The end of 2 Sam 15 offered a glimpse of David’s mounting anxiety that the curse of the sword was finding its fulfilment in Absalom’s war. Here in chapter 16, David’s response to Shimei’s curse reflects the resurfacing of still earlier fears. Shimei’s curse reminds David that his failure to fully avenge the innocent Saulide blood of Abner against Joab has allowed a real threat to his house to remain. Abishai’s response, however, has also reminded David of the problem which the

40  This suggests that if a family interest is motivating Abishai (so Simpson, Contesting Claims, 78–9), it is likely to be Abishai’s interest in the house of Joab’s father (which probably includes Abishai). 41 Auld, I & II Samuel, 515, rightly notes that the term recognizes that David cannot assume such an appeal will be granted. 42  The text offers no suggestion that David’s quiescence in the face of Shimei’s curse will somehow expiate David’s guilt (so e.g. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 278) or earn the LORD’s favour for enduring more of a curse than he deserves (so Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 346). 43  See Gilmour, Divine Violence, 48–9, for David’s hope for a removal of the curse here. For the way in which the appearance of this verb in vv. 8 and 12 serves to contrast the hope of David with that of Shimei, see, e.g., Ridout, ‘Prose Compositional Techniques’, 56–70; Brueggemann, ‘Coping with Curse’, 178; and Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 158, who reflects on the use of the verb throughout chapters 15 and 16. 44  Indeed, Olyan, Ritual Violence, 99, observes that Shimei does not merely stone and curse David, but tosses dirt on him as well, which serves to underline his disaffiliation with David by inverting the standard rite for affiliating oneself with a mourner. 45  The reference to the Jordan found in one MS of LXXL and Josephus [Antiquities 7.210] is absent from the MT and may not be original.

168  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt sons of Zeruiah continue to pose. David’s nephews are likely to increase the threat of ‘bloods’ to David’s house by shedding still more Saulide blood without sufficient warrant.46 It is also worth noting that David’s entrusting of Shimei to divine judgement rather than Abishai’s sword resembles in some ways David’s leaving of Saul and Nabal to the same fate (1 Sam 24–26). Nabal’s death persuaded David that the ‘LORD returned the evil of Nabal on his head’ (‫;ואת רעת נבל השיב יהוה בראשו‬ 1 Sam 25:39). It is not impossible that David’s hope that the LORD will do the same to Joab signals his growing faith that divine freedom will spare him the unhappy task of killing his nephew.47 At the same time, the uncertainty of this hope surely reflects David’s mounting fear that even though he has spared Shimei, these earlier Saulide ‘bloods’ continue to hang over his house in the meantime, along with those of his son, Amnon.48

The Killing of Absalom Following this reminder of the lingering problem of Saulide ‘blood(s)’ for David, the narrative resumes its focus on Absalom’s rebellion. It does so by noting the suggestion of the wise Ahithophel (2 Sam 16:23) that Absalom should go in to the concubines left behind in Jerusalem by David (15:16). While Ahithophel emphasizes the value of ‘all Israel hearing’ (16:21) about this usurpation, the narrator notes instead that Absalom goes in to the women ‘before the eyes of all Israel’ (‫ ;לעיני כל־ישראל‬16:22). This underlines the fulfillment of Nathan’s oracle that David’s women will not only be taken in public view (‘before the [eyes of the, 2 Sam 12:11] sun’; 12:12), but also specifically ‘before your eyes’ (‫ ;לעיניך‬12:11) and ‘before all Israel’ (‫ ;נגד כל־ישראל‬12:12).49 That Absalom does this on the roof from which David first viewed Uriah’s wife underlines the point.50 However, 46  This profoundly complicates the claims of Simpson, Contesting Claims, 79, that David’s rejection of Abishai’s offer reflects the older David’s disinterest in ‘family values’, and the loss of the brashness and boldness of his youth. While Simpson notes that Abishai is still willing to kill for David as he was in 1 Sam 26, Simpson does not recognize that David rejects the offer here for the same reason he does there: because he fears the consequences of shedding blood illegitimately. 47 While Brueggemann, ‘Coping with Curse’, does note the similarity to David’s sentiments in 1  Sam 25, his focus on David’s faith in divine freedom depends primarily on passages outside the books of Samuel. It is also less attentive to the specific ways in which Shimei’s curse and the responses of Abishai and David reflect the treatment of the problem of ‘bloods’ in Samuel. Thus, McCarter, II Samuel, 375, is surely right to note that the emphasis falls on David’s resignation to Yahweh’s will whatever it is. 48 McCarter, II Samuel, 376, rightly notes that David does not acquiesce to Shimei’s interpretation of Absalom’s rebellion (which we suggest here is presented as a fulfilment of the curse of the sword) but McCarter mistakenly assumes that David does not seem to know why he has been cursed by Shimei. 49 So Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 210; Avioz, ‘Absalom Narrative’, 344; Polak, ‘David’s Kingship’, 132; and many others. For recent discussion of these and related passages in light of Egyptian traditions, see Hill, ‘ “Leaving” Concubines’. 50  So Alter, The David Story, 295; and Auld, I & II Samuel, 520; etc.

‘ Man of Blood ’   169 the narrator also notes that Ahithophel’s further ‘wise’ advice falls on deaf ears. Rather than attacking David while he is vulnerable (2 Sam 17:1–3), the narrator notes that Absalom accepts Hushai’s duplicitous counsel to muster a larger force ‘so that the LORD might bring evil (‫ )הרעה‬upon Absalom’ (17:14).51 This clearly indicates the divine interest in Absalom’s demise. However, it is only when we consider the options offered to Absalom by Ahithophel (17:1–3) and Hushai (17:7–13), that it becomes clear how this evil fulfills the ‘curse of the sword’ (12:10) against David. Although Ahithophel proposes to take a sizable force with him to pursue David (17:1), his purpose is clearly to encourage David’s entourage to abandon him (‘all the people who are with him will flee’) so that ‘I will strike down only the king’ (17:2). Ahithophel reminds Absalom that his strategy should be embraced because ‘you seek the life of only one man’ and because it will ensure that ‘all the people will be at peace’ (‫ ;כל־העם יהיה שלום‬v. 3). While such a strategy might end up securing a quick peace, the divine interest is not in David’s death, but rather in the sword of armed violence afflicting David’s house (2 Sam 12:10). Indeed, what is required to bring the requisite evil upon both David and Absalom is of course ‘war’, which is precisely what Hushai’s advice seeks to foment. Ironically, Absalom is nudged towards war by Hushai’s insistent warnings that David is a warrior (‫איש מלחמה‬, ‘man of war’; v. 8; ‫גבור‬, ‘warrior’; v. 10) and so too are his men (‫גברים‬, ‘warriors’; v. 8; ‫בני־חיל‬, ‘valiant warriors’; v. 10). For this reason, Hushai advises Absalom that the only way to avoid an initial military setback (17:9) and to secure the eventual destruction of David’s army (17:12) is to take the time to muster an overwhelming force (17:11). Once Absalom has accepted his advice, Hushai warns David of the imminent threat posed by Absalom’s plans for war. Indeed, he insists that if David does not cross the Jordan, he and all those with him will be ‘swallowed up’ (‫ ;יבלע‬v. 16)—a metaphor which prepares for the ‘devouring’ of Absalom’s forces instead. As will become clear in chapter 18, Absalom’s eventual agreement to a wider mobilization ensures that David’s house will be beset by the ‘sword’ of armed violence in open war. Equally, Absalom’s willingness to lead his troops from the front, as Hushai suggests, will allow the coming war to be presented as one which ‘returns evil upon’ Absalom himself in the form of his own eventual death.52 As preparations for war continue, Absalom’s appointment of Amasa over the army instead of Joab (17:25) confirms a new chain of military command. However, Absalom’s decommisioning of Joab also sets the stage for Joab’s confrontation with Absalom, when David proceeds to appoint his nephew over

51  This supplies the divine answer to David’s prayer that Ahithophel’s counsel be made foolish (2 Sam 15:31), as observed by Carlson, Chosen King, 169; McCarter, II Samuel, 387; Gilmour, Representing the Past, 205; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 469; and many others. 52 Smith, Fate of Justice, 187–8, notes that the use of this language always has death in view and often at the hands of an enemy army.

170  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt one of his three military divisions (18:2).53 Whether David requires that the son who now seeks his life be ‘treated gently’ or ‘protected’ (18:5),54 this inevitably recalls David’s earlier leniency towards Absalom after he killed Amnon.55 It also suggests David’s concern that in his own absence from the battlefield, some of his commanders might be inclined to be less gentle with Absalom.56 Indeed, such a suspicion hardly seems implausible given Abishai’s recent wish to dispatch Shimei and Joab’s earlier killing of Abner.57 The narrator’s note that ‘all the people heard’ David’s orders and that they were given to ‘all the commanders’ (18:5) clearly underlines David’s intentions and the broad awareness of them. But it also prepares for the possibility that David’s wish to preserve his son will be heeded by some, but perhaps not by all, as the battle begins:58 6So

the army went out into the field to meet Israel; and the battle was fought in the wood of Ephraim. 7The people of Israel were defeated there by the servants of David and there was a great slaughter on that day—twenty thousand men. 8The battle spread over the face of the whole land; and the wood devoured more victims that day than the sword devoured. 9Absalom happened to meet the ser­ vants of David. Absalom was riding on a mule and the mule went under a tangle of branches of a great oak. His head got caught up in the oak and he was set/ hung between heaven and earth; but the mule that was under him carried on. 10A man saw it and told Joab, saying, ‘Look, I saw Absalom hanging in an oak.’ 11Joab said to the man who told him, ‘Look, you saw (him)! Why did you not strike him there to the ground? I would have given you ten pieces of silver and a belt.’ 12But the man said to Joab, ‘Even if I felt the weight of a thousand pieces of silver in my hand, I would not send my hand against the king’s son; for in our 53  For reasons summarized well by McCarter, II Samuel, 399, LXXL is followed here rather than MT, which implies merely the sending forth of the army. See McCarter, II Samuel, 393, for discussion of Amasa’s origins (cf. 1 Chron 2:17 and the versions). The most likely conclusion is that Amasa’s father was an Ishmaelite who never married Amasa’s mother, Abigail, the daughter of Jesse, to whose house Amasa therefore belonged. That David sees him as a kinsman will be suggested in 2 Sam 19:13 [ET 12]. 54  Rather than seeing here a prepositional phrase, ‫‘ לְ ַאט‬be gentle’, Haupt, ‘Deal Gently’, 357 (so too Alter, The David Story, 304), suggests a form of ‫‘ לָ ַאט‬to cover’ (see 2 Sam 19:5 [ET 4]; Auld, I & II Samuel, 535, sees ‫לוט‬, with the same meaning). While the latter may resonate more clearly with v. 12, Green, ‘Joab’s Coherence’, 197, notes that it makes little difference in practice. 55  The suggestion of Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 144, that David intends Joab to do precisely the opposite of what he says here (i.e. kill Absalom) seems rather unlikely. 56  So suggest Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 358; Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 317; Smith, Fate of Justice, 190; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 92. 57  The relevance of the latter is noted by Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 284; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 284. 58 McCarter, II Samuel, 405 (followed by Anderson, 2 Samuel, 222), notes the emphasis on David’s innocence; while Smith, The Books of Samuel, 357 (so also Morrison, 2 Samuel, 237), sees this as included to explain the soldier’s refusal to kill Absalom in v. 12. Of course, David’s unwillingness to see Absalom killed should not be understood as endorsed by the narrative, or as an explicit apology for David, but rather as further evidence of David’s privileging of the survival of his son (cf. Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 320–2).

‘ Man of Blood ’   171 hearing the king ordered you and Abishai and Ittai, saying: “Protect the young man Absalom!” 13On the other hand, if I had betrayed his/my life (and there is nothing hidden from the king), then you yourself would have stood opposite me.’ 14Joab said, ‘I will not wait with you like this.’ He took three staves in his hand and ran them through the middle of Absalom, while he was still alive in the middle of the oak. 15And ten young men, Joab’s armour-bearers, surrounded and struck Absalom and killed him. 16Then Joab blew the shofar and the people returned from pursuing Israel, for Joab restrained the people. 17They took Absalom, threw him into a great pit in the forest and raised over him a very great pile of stones. And all the Israelites fled to their tents.  (2 Sam 18:6–17)

The fulfilment of Nathan’s ‘curse of the sword’ is suggested by the narrative’s emphasis on the scale of the military engagement. When David’s forces meet Israel in ‘battle’ (‫ ;המלחמה‬v. 6), there is a ‘great slaughter’ (‫ ;המגפה גדולה‬v. 7), with 20,000 lives lost and the ‘battle’ (‫ )המלחמה‬spread over the face of ‘all the land’ (‫ ;כל־הארץ‬v. 8). While the noting of the terrible toll taken by the forest prepares for Absalom’s demise in the branches of a tree, the narrator uses here the metaphor of the ‘devouring sword’ (‫ )אכלה החרב‬for the first time since David had dismissed his killing of Uriah by callously insisting that the ‘sword devours’ (‫ ;תאכל החרב‬2 Sam 11:25) one and then another.59 As others have suggested, this confirms beyond all reasonable doubt the narrative’s invitation to see Absalom’s war against David as a realization of the curse of the ‘sword’ (2 Sam 12:10) on David’s house.60 With Absalom in the field and the servants of David in the ascendancy, the chance encounter (v. 9) between them is not surprising.61 However, the remainder of the account of Absalom’s death abounds in curious details which have long confounded commentators. The initial curiosity is Absalom being unseated from his mule after his head is caught in the tangled branches of a large tree (v. 9). Various interpreters, ancient and modern, have been persuaded that the narrator mentions Absalom’s ‘head’ (‫ ;ראשו‬v. 9) to imply that the hair so strongly associated with Absalom’s potency and potential (2 Sam 14:26) becomes his undoing.62 While his hair is not explicitly mentioned here, it might well be presented as his downfall, given the reference to the ‘hair of his head’ (‫ )שער ראשו‬in 14:26.63 If such an allusion is intended, it presumably invites the reading of Absalom’s death in 59  Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 185, notes the resonance with 11:25 while Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 184, hears an echo of the still earlier 2 Sam 2:26 which we have seen to be evoked by 2 Sam 11:25. 60  So also Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 194; and Gilmour, Divine Violence, 51–2. 61 Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 93 (so too Smith, Fate of Justice, 191), admits the reader might sense the unseen hand of providence in Absalom’s ‘chance’ encounter with David’s servants. 62 So e.g. Josephus (Antiquities 7.239), Babylonian Talmud (Sotah 9b), and in modern times Conroy, Absalom, 44, n. 4; McCarter, II Samuel, 406; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 94–5; amongst others. 63  So Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 183. The omission is noted by Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 359; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 285; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 225; and others.

172  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt light of the end of chapter 14. There, as we have seen, Absalom invites his own execution by David or Joab, if he is found ‘guilty’ of shedding Amnon’s blood il­legit­im­ate­ly (14:32). Because the mule is the royal mount of choice for the sons of David in 2 Samuel, the unseating of Absalom from his mule (‫ ;פרד‬2 Sam 18:9) has been seen as a symbol of his loss of royal position.64 Of greater significance perhaps is the fact that the only other mention of the royal mule is in 2 Sam 13:29. There, each of ‘the sons of the king’ flees the scene of Absalom’s killing of Amnon upon ‘his mule’ (‫ ;פרדו‬13:29).65 If this includes Absalom, en route to Geshur, its mention at the end of 2 Sam 13 prepares for the flight of Absalom’s mule out from under him here, leaving Absalom vulnerable to a reckoning for his brother’s blood. This seems all the more likely when the untimely departure of Absalom’s mule (18:9) does not leave him on the ground, but hanging above it. This point is emphasized not only by the description of Absalom’s arboreal arrest, but also by the man’s report to Joab that he has spotted David’s son ‘hanging in an oak’ (‫ ;תלוי באלה‬v. 10) The rather unusual way of expressing Absalom’s suspension between heaven and earth (‫ויתן‬, ‘and he was set’; v. 9) may suggest that the original verb here too was (‫‘ )תלה‬to hang’.66 However, regardless of which verb is original here, if Absalom’s hanging ‘between heaven and earth’ is not simply a vivid way of underlining his suspension,67 it may well be a sign of impending judgement, as it is elsewhere.68 Remarkable in and of itself, the tree’s hanging of Absalom calls for further consideration in light of the narrator’s proleptic observation that it was not only the sword but also the forest which ‘devoured’ the troops during the battle (18:8).69 We recall that Nathan’s oracle had foretold that an apparently quasi-autonomous devouring ‘sword’ would never turn aside from David’s house (12:10). Thus, if the tree’s capturing of Absalom is intended to illustrate the ‘devouring wood’ (v. 8), it might well hint that here too the quasi-autonomous mechanisms of retribution

64 See Conroy, Absalom, 60; McCarter, II Samuel, 406; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 185; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 242; and Alter, The David Story, 305. 65  The appearance of the royal mule in 2 Sam 13:29 is noted by Gordon, I & II Samuel, 284; Alter, The David Story, 304–5; Auld, I & II Samuel, 541; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 95. 66  This may also be suggested by the appearance of (‫‘ )ויתל‬and he hung’ in 4QSama and its equivalent in the Greek (ἐκρεμάσθη). So McCarter, II Samuel, 401; Alter, The David Story, 305; and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 220. However, for the plausibility of MT here, see Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 398–9; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 474; Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 95; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 191, who notes that ‫ נתן‬is also used in 2 Sam 14:7, 20:3, and 21:6 in relation to handing over for judgement. 67  So also McCarter, II Samuel, 406. Scoggins Ballentine, ‘Ritual Violence’, 15–16, helpfully catalogues how the verb ‫‘ תלה‬to hang’ is used, though it is worth noting that ‘hanging’ is described or implied by means of other verbs as well. While Ahithophel also dies by hanging (2 Sam 17:23) the circumstances are strikingly different (so Alter, The David Story, 305; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 94). 68  So Wiggins, ‘Absalom’s Dilemma’, 74; followed by Smith, Fate of Justice, 192. 69  That 2 Sam 18:8 anticipates Absalom’s capture by the tree is noted by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 168; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 241.

‘ Man of Blood ’   173 might be at work in bringing about the demise of Absalom.70 In any case, the spectacle of Absalom’s arrest is underlined by the emphasis on ‘seeing’ in v. 10: ‘A man saw it (‫ )וירא‬and told Joab, “Look, (‫ )הנה‬I saw (‫ )ראיתי‬Absalom . . . ” ’.71 Joab’s query to the man ‘Why did you not strike him there to the ground (‫ ’?)ארצה‬might seem to suggest that Joab wishes to bring Absalom down from the tree. However, Abner’s posing of a similar question to the pursuing Asahel, ‘Why should I strike you to the ground?’ (‫ ;למה אככה ארצה‬2 Sam 2:22) suggests that ‘strike to the ground’ simply means to kill in 2 Samuel.72 Accordingly, it would appear that Joab here does not want Absalom brought down from his tree, but rather dead while he hangs. Indeed, Joab’s prefacing of his question with ‘Look, you saw!’ suggests that Joab sees in the spectacle of Absalom’s hanging body an opportunity to present Absalom’s death in a very particular way.73 While the reluctance of Joab’s soldier to kill the dangling Absalom may be reported to explain Joab’s alienation from his troops,74 it seems likely to serve a variety of other purposes. Certainly it underlines the man’s awareness of the royal protection order (18:5),75 and his interpretation of the required ‘gentleness’ (‫;אט‬ v. 5) as obligating him to ‘protect’ (‫ )שמרו‬Absalom (v. 12).76 So too, the soldier’s unwillingness to ‘send my hand’ (v. 12) against Absalom, recalls David’s own frequent use of this idiom in refraining from violence against Saul as the ‘LORD’s anointed’ (1 Sam 24:7 [ET 6], 24:11 [ET 10], 26:9, 11; cf. also 2 Sam 1:14).77 Here, however, it is not the notion of divine anointing per se, which restrains the soldier but rather the fact that Absalom is ‘the king’s son’ (2 Sam 18:12). Indeed, the man’s reservations would seem to be understandable. Not only has the king issued orders to preserve his own son, David has already executed Rechab and Baanah for illegitimately killing his royal predecessor’s son, Ishbosheth. According to the soldier, to act against Absalom in the way Joab expects, would be to betray either

70 Alter, The David Story, 304, sees this as evidence of nature conspiring. For the suggestion that this is the hand of providence at work, see Keys, Wages of Sin, 112–13; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 476; Gilmour, Representing the Past, 205–6; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 238, who notes the relevance of God’s summoning of the wild animals to ‘eat’ the people in Isa 56:9 and hailstones to destroy the enemy in Josh 10:11. 71 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 243, also notes the emphasis on ‘seeing’. 72  See also 1 Sam 26:8, 20. It is perhaps not an accident that when David seeks to reassure the woman of Tekoa that her fratricide son will be protected from blood redemption, he assures her that no hair of his head will fall to the ground (2 Sam 14:11; see Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 95). 73  Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 186; and Gilmour, Representing the Past, 214, note that Absalom’s hanging would have allowed Joab to take him alive if he wished, rather than kill him. 74  So Smith, Fate of Justice, 193, though it remains unclear where else in the text this alienation is evidenced. 75  So also Gordon, I & II Samuel, 285; and Alter, The David Story, 305. 76  The interpretation is also noted by Morrison, 2 Samuel, 240; and Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 96; and confirms that David wished for Absalom’s life to be spared (so Gilmour, Representing the Past, 214). ‫ מי‬is read here as an enclitic particle (so McCarter, II Samuel, 401) rather than emending to ‫לי‬ (so e.g. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 358). 77  The reuse of the phrase here is noted by Morrison, 2 Samuel, 240.

174  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt himself (‫[ בנפשי‬Qere])78 or Absalom (‫[ בנפשו‬Ketiv]) (2 Sam 18:13). In either case, the soldier suspects it would also lead to his own betrayal by Joab, if David were to seek reprisals (v. 13).79 This motif of the ‘reluctant executioner’, seen already in Saul’s servants’ refusal to kill the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22:17) has been implied more recently in Absalom’s assumption of his own servants’ fear of killing Amnon (2 Sam 13:28). Here, it is the soldier’s fear of David’s reaction which explains his reticence, based on his explicit assumption that David will find out what has happened somehow.80 It is perhaps not surprising that Joab does not share the soldier’s reluctance to strike Absalom, given that David’s nephew has already shed Abner’s innocent blood without losing his life. However, Absalom’s status as David’s son, and the narrator’s note that David has explicitly ordered his sparing, alerts the reader to the possibility that Joab’s killing of Absalom may require more by way of justification than mere pragmatic necessity. The relevance of Amnon’s killing by Absalom has already been hinted at by the narrator and by Joab’s contemplation of Absalom’s hanging body. However, attending more closely to the killing and postmortem treatment of Absalom suggests Joab’s effort to justify it as a remedy for bloodguilt. Joab’s impatience with his soldier’s reluctance (v. 14),81 may reflect a concern that Absalom might escape. Or perhaps it is merely a sign of the Zeruides’ typical zealousness, seen most recently in Abishai’s offer to relieve Shimei of his head (2 Sam 16:9; cf. 1 Sam 26:8; 2 Sam 3:24–27). It is notable, however, that instead of bringing Absalom down, Joab prefers to strike him where he hangs. No less curious is the narrator’s report that Joab took three staves in his hand, presumably in succession, and ‘ran them through the middle of Absalom’ (‫ ;ויתקעם בלב אבשלום‬v. 14).82 Some have suggested reading ‘darts/spears’ (‫ )שלחים‬in light of the presumed improbability that Joab would use ‘staves’ (‫ )שבטים‬for this purpose.83 However, the infrequent appearance of ‘darts’ elsewhere and the fact that a ‘staff ’ (‫ )שבט‬is thicker than a ‘spear’ (‫( )חנית‬cf. 2 Sam 23:21) suggests that Joab’s use of staves is original and yet another peculiarity of his behaviour here.84 Indeed, Abner’s piercing of Asahel’s midsection (2 Sam 2:23) has illustrated for Joab and the 78  Seemingly read by LXXL. 79  The sense of ‫ שקר‬in 18:13 is more betrayal than ‘deceit’ (contra Smith, The Books of Samuel, 358). 80  While Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 359; and Conroy, Absalom, 62, suggest that earlier evidence of David’s knowledge has been offered in 2 Sam 14:20, it should be noted that the formulation there is different and the woman of Tekoa is flattering David in any case. 81  Reading the MT (‫ )אחילה‬here rather than following LXXL, which suggests that Joab wishes to begin before the soldier does (though the two produce a not dissimilar sense). 82  The idea that the three staves were used to knock Absalom down from the tree so that his armour-bearers could kill him (so e.g. Driver, ‘Plurima Mortis’, 133–4) is severely complicated by Absalom being ‘pierced’ and is rightly rejected by Smith, Fate of Justice, 193, and long before him by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 359. 83  So e.g. Smith, The Books of Samuel, 359. For ‫שלחים‬, see Neh 4:11, 17; 2 Chron 23:10. 84  So e.g. Alter, The David Story, 306; and McCarter, II Samuel, 401; following Driver, ‘Plurima Mortis’, 133–4.

‘ Man of Blood ’   175 reader how much damage might be done with the butt-end of a spear, let alone an unsharpened stave. The narrator’s note that Joab runs Absalom through while he’s ‘still alive, in the middle (‫ )לב‬of the oak’ (v. 14)85 confirms that the three staves pierce not the beating organ of Absalom’s ‘heart’ (e.g. NRSV), but rather Absalom’s ‘middle’ (‫)לב‬, which might more easily accommodate all three.86 Initially it seems curious that Joab would go to the considerable bother of running Absalom through with three staves in succession while he hangs from the tree. However, it is significant that the verb ‫‘ תקע‬to run through or impale’ used here, is precisely the same verb used in 1 Sam 31:10 to report the pinning (‫ )תקעו‬of Saul’s body to the wall in Beth-shan. As we will see shortly, it is this impaling and exposure which allows Saul’s body to be used to expiate the Saulide bloodguilt in place of the seven Saulides who were also impaled (‫ ;הוקענום‬2 Sam 21:6; and ‫;ויקיעם‬ 21:9), but whose predation was prevented by Rizpah. The verb appearing in 2 Sam 21 is not ‫ תקע‬but ‫—יקע‬a verb used also when Moses is told to ‘impale’ the guilty chieftains for expiatory purposes (Num 25). But these verbs appear to point to very much the same penetrative species of violence. Indeed, we may recall that another penetrative verb, ‫דקר‬, is used to describe the killing of Abimelech (Judg 9) to remedy the bloodguilt incurred when he killed his brothers. This offers a further encouragement to see the violent act of ‘running through/impaling’ as part of a process which sought to remedy the problem of innocent blood.87 Moreover, it should be remembered that the bodies of Rechab and Baanah are also ‘hung’ by David as a response to unwarranted bloodshed—the verb is ‫ תלה‬in 2 Sam 4:12, as it is here. Thus, the grisly scene created by the convergence of verbs here seems to hint that by impaling Absalom’s body while it hangs, Joab might wish Absalom to die the death of someone who is guilty of shedding unwarranted blood. The advantage of such a suggestion is that it also explains the further oddity that Absalom’s actual death is not reported following Joab’s impaling of him, as might otherwise be expected. Instead, the narrator notes that it was the subsequent violence of Joab’s ten armour-bearers which finally ‘killed him’ (‫ ;וימיתהו‬18:15).88 It is not surprising that such an orgy of violence would finish off the stricken son of David. But it is unclear why it would be necessary, given the damage likely done by Joab’s earlier thrusting of the three staves through Absalom’s midsection.

85  So also Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 359. 86  It has been suggested that the three strikes reflect Absalom’s stealing of the three ‘hearts’ of (1) his father, (2) the courts of justice, or (3) Israel as a whole (so Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 9b); or the three orders of the king (2 Sam 18:5a and c, 12d); or the three divisions of David’s army (so Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 248); or that the three strikes stress the completeness of Joab’s act (so Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 359). Hertzberg’s alternative and rather more pedestrian suggestion that Joab’s lancing of Absalom starts the flow of blood which marks him for death may be nearer to the point. 87 Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 359; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 286; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 193, see Joab’s use of ‫ שבטים‬as symbolic, but of what is unclear. 88  Noted also by Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 359; Conroy, Absalom, 44, n. 5; Alter, The David Story, 306; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 477; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 248.

176  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt The answer seems to be supplied in the narrator’s attention to detail. First, because it is ‘armour-bearers’ (v. 15) who set upon Absalom’s body, the reader may safely assume that they do so with the arms of war. Second, the fact that no fewer than ten of them ‘surround’ (‫ )ויסבו‬the hanging Absalom seems to underline the marked, ritualistic, and ‘excessive’ quality of the violence.89 Indeed, if each of the ten armour-bearers were limited to even a single further stroke of the sword or thrust of the spear, Absalom’s already impaled body would likely be at best mutilated beyond recognition, and at worst partially dismembered. Finally, the narrator’s note that the men involved were specifically the ‘armour-bearers of Joab’ (‫ ;נשאי כלי יואב‬v. 15) makes it clear, lest there be any doubt, that their execution of David’s son is not undertaken on their own authority, but rather as proxies for David’s general.90 Why this gross mistreatment of Absalom’s body is carried out under the aegis of Joab, becomes more clear when it is recalled that impalement is not the end of the indignities we have seen to be visited upon those slain for illegitimate bloodshed. We recall that Rechab and Baanah’s remains were hung over the pool of Hebron for killing the innocent Ishbosheth. This suggested that exposure to predatory ravaging was associated with remedying the problem of bloodguilt, based on the frequenting of such pools by dogs (1 Kgs 22:38). Indeed, this will also be suggested in 2 Sam 21 by Rizpah’s protection of the seven slain Saulides from birds and beasts to prevent the expiation of bloodguilt. It will be further confirmed by David’s exploiting of the overnight exposure of Saul and Jonathan’s bodies to nocturnal predators on the wall of Beth-shan (1 Sam 31:10–12) for his own expiatory purposes. While impaling ensures the flow of blood which will attract predators, hanging allows for its accessibility to both birds and beasts, and also facilitates the public display of the effects of their predations on the body. The close association of such behaviour with the remedying of ‘blood(s)’ helps to explain the peculiar violence inflicted by Joab and his proxies on Absalom, which is otherwise so perplexing.91 Why Joab does this is explained by Absalom’s earlier invitation for Joab or David to kill him if (blood)guilt was found in him for killing his brother (2 Sam 14:32). Recalling that David had sought to take action against Absalom when he fled to Geshur and only reluctantly agreed not to do so after

89 The Babylonian Talmud (Sotah 9b) seeks to account for the unexpected specificity of ten armour-bearers by connecting it to the ‘ten concubines’ with whom Absalom slept (2 Sam 16:22). Jensen, ‘Collective Violence’, 51, suggests that the involvement of the ‘ten’ represents Girardian col­lect­ ive violence (see too Josh 7). 90  So also Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 186, who also notes the symmetry of proxies being used here to kill Absalom as he used to kill Amnon. It seems highly unlikely that Joab enlisted the armourbearers to ensure that Absalom’s death could not be attributed to one person alone (so Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 286; and McCarter, II Samuel, 407). 91  While Joab is judged by some as ‘excessively violent’ (so Conroy, Absalom, 49), it is suggested here that this excessiveness is quite purposeful. Indeed, that the narrative is ‘anti-Joab’ (so Bietenhard, Des Königs General, 180) is far from obvious.

‘ Man of Blood ’   177 two years of excluding Absalom from court, Joab now accepts Absalom’s invitation to kill him and redeem Amnon’s blood.92 When it is noted that the shofar was blown (‫תקע‬, ‘to run through’, v. 16) to recall Joab’s troops from pursuing Israel, it might seem to afford little time for Absalom’s hanging, bloodied body to be exposed to the predations of birds and beasts.93 However, in 2 Sam 21:12, David will assume that even the exposure of Saul and Jonathan’s bodies to the beasts in Beth-shan overnight (1 Sam 31:12) is sufficient to meet the requirements of expiation. Here, the narrator’s observation that ‘the battle spread over the face of the whole land’ (18:8) suggests that Joab’s recalling of the troops would presumably take a considerable amount of time. Such time would probably be more than sufficient for the birds and beasts to feast on what was left of Absalom, given the absence of the kind of protection which Rizpah will afford to her kinsmen (2 Sam 21). By noting that ‘Joab restrained the people’ (v. 16), the text might imply that Joab held his own forces in check in order to spare Absalom’s defeated forces. If so, this would reinforce the presentation of Absalom’s killing as a remedy for his bloodguilt, rather than as a penalty for the people’s insurrection, which would instead have necessitated their pursuit and punishment. It is perhaps more likely that Joab’s recalling of David’s servants is noted here to imply that they were able to observe the state of Absalom’s body and draw the necessary conclusions regarding his death. This is particularly plausible if, as the Hebrew suggests, ‘they [i.e. the army] took’ (‫ ;ויקחו‬v. 17) Absalom’s body and disposed of it, rather than this being done by Joab alone, as seems to be suggested by the Greek versions (LXXLMN). The final disposal of the remains of those explicitly executed for shedding innocent blood has not been recorded so far in David’s story (2 Sam 1, 4). However, it is perhaps noteworthy that twice in Joshua (8:29 and 10:26–27), the bodies of those hung on trees are disposed of and made secure by means of a quantity of great stones, as Absalom’s body is here.94 Thus, it might be suggested that Absalom here is merely treated like any defeated king on the basis that the king of Ai (Joshua 8:29) too was hung from a tree and buried under a pile of stones. However, the retrieval of the king of Ai from the tree ‘before evening’ (‫)עד־עת הערב‬, probably to spare it being ravaged by animals, highlights the absence of this treatment of Absalom’s post-mortem remains by comparison. Indeed, the conclusion of others that Absalom’s burial here marks him as ‘accursed’ does not 92  The peculiarities of Absalom’s killing suggest that Joab is presented as redeeming the blood of Amnon rather than fulfilling Nathan’s curse of the ‘sword’ (e.g. Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 245–6) which seems to be reflected instead in the armed conflict to which Absalom’s rebellion gave rise. 93  The reuse of the verb reflects the fact that a shofar is sounded by means of air ‘running through’ the instrument. Gunn, Story of King David, 80, notes that within the Hebrew Bible it is only in the books of Samuel that the shofar is used to signal the cessation of hostilities. 94  The relevance of Josh 8:29 is noted by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 358; Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 286; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 285; Conroy, Absalom, 64; and others.

178  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt seem an unreasonable one in light of the frequent association of ‘cursing’ with the remedying of illegitimate bloodshed, as we have seen.95 The insistence of Ahimaaz that he should deliver news of the victory to David (2 Sam 18:19, 22–23) and the belated permission of Joab for him to do so seem to reflect David’s earlier commissioning of Ahimaaz for this work (see 2 Sam 15:27–28, 36, 17:17).96 Joab is, however, initially reluctant because ‘the king’s son is dead’ (18:20) and ‘you [will] have no [good] news from going forth’ (‫;ולכה אין־בשורה מצאת‬ 18:22).97 Joab’s reluctance is understandable given that the only comparable ‘news’ (‫ )בשורה‬in the books of Samuel appears in 2 Sam 4:10.98 There, Rechab and Baanah suffer a very unhappy fate indeed after delivering what they expected to be the ‘good news’ of Ishbosheth’s death. Here, Joab’s words do acknowledge the attraction of bearing good tidings to David. But they also disclose Joab’s fear that because Absalom was to be spared, David might view the slaying of his son as no more warranted than the killings of Ishbosheth and Saul.99 Indeed, despite Ahimaaz being merely the messenger,100 Joab’s reluctance to send the son of Zadok prob­ ably reflects his fear of David’s violent reprisal. Moreover, this likely accounts for why Joab prefers news of Absalom’s death to be delivered instead by a ‘Cushite’ (18:21), whose status as ‘outsider’ may have made him seem more dis­pens­able to Joab than the son of a priest.101 However, the clearest sign that Joab fears David’s response is to be found in his insistence that the Cushite ‘tell the king what you have seen’ (‫ ;ראיתה‬18:21).102 This may assume the Cushite is one of those who slew Absalom, 95 McCarter, II Samuel, 407 (see also Anderson, 2 Samuel, 225), rightly notes that this treatment reflects Absalom’s presentation as a cursed fratricide. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomists, 184–7, recognizes more than most that Absalom’s hanging is significant. However, in seeking to explain it with reference to texts in Joshua and Deuteronomy, he overlooks the way in which the hanging of bodies and/or body parts is specifically associated with responses to the illegitimate shedding of blood in 1 and 2 Samuel. 96 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 286; and Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 319, note Ahimaaz’s previous employment in the role. 97  For arguments in favour of the essentially neutral character of ‫ בשורה‬as ‘news’, see discussion in Conroy, Absalom, 68. For the interpretation of it as ‘good tidings’, see Smith, Fate of Justice, 194–5. McCarter, II Samuel, 402, 408, suggests reading ‫ מצאת‬as ‘from going forth’ and also argues that it is the narrator rather than Joab who refers to the death of the king’s son. However, for reasons made clear by Smith, Fate of Justice, 195, the latter seems more likely. 98  See Auld, I & II Samuel, 544–5, for passages in the books of Samuel in which the verbal form appears. Cf. also 2 Kgs 7:9. 99  So also Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 287; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 286; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 360; and Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 168. 100  See also Anderson, 2 Samuel, 226. 101  So too Gordon, I & II Samuel, 286; Auld, I & II Samuel, 545; Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 147; and Alter, The David Story, 307, who notes the relevance of the Amalekite (2 Sam 1). However, the assumption of Smith, The Books of Samuel, 359, that the Cushite was a ‘negro (naturally, a slave)’ and thus ‘despised’ goes well beyond the text and should be dismissed. For helpful discussion of the identity of the Cushite and the racial bias of interpreters, see Conroy, Absalom, 69, n. 102. The suggestion of Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 360, that the Cushite need fear David less than Ahimaaz because the Cushite is a ‘servant of the king’ (v. 29) seems improbable given Ahimaaz’s own status as a son of Zadok. 102  Thus, it is not merely that Joab has nothing to hide (so Smith, Fate of Justice, 196) or that Joab is unconcerned that David will learn precisely how his son died (so Green, Capacity for Compassion, 133). Rather Joab expressly wishes for David to be told specifically what the Cushite has observed.

‘ Man of Blood ’   179 or it may merely imply that the Cushite was one of those recalled to see the dead prince. In either case, Joab’s instruction here reflects not only the earlier emphasis on the spectacle of Absalom’s killing and post-mortem treatment, but also Joab’s desire for David to see it as redeeming Amnon’s blood.103 The reader’s recollection of Absalom’s killing of Amnon may also be invited when Ahimaaz insists on running after and overtaking the Cushite to deliver the news. This draws out the reporting of Absalom’s death to David (2 Sam 18:24–32) in much the same way Amnon’s killing was reported (2 Sam 13:30–36). Here, as there, an initial report does not provide the full story (18:28–29, 13:30–31). Moreover, in both cases, watchmen spot from afar the subsequent messenger, who will confirm the true state of affairs and plunge David into inconsolable grief at the death of a son (18:31–33, 13:34–36).104 Here, it seems clear that both the Cushite and Ahimaaz are fully aware of the mixed news they bring, given that their reports focus on the wider conflict rather than Absalom.105 Thus, Ahimaaz reports David’s deliverance from the ‘men who raised their hand (‫ )את־ידם‬against my lord, the king’ (18:28), before going on to plead ignorance regarding the fate of Absalom.106 Ahimaaz clearly has in mind Absalom’s rebels when he refers to those who have ‘raised their hand’ against David. But if this also recalls Joab’s soldier’s fear of raising his hand against the king’s son (2 Sam 18:12), it might invite the reader to fear the worst for the Cushite, to whom David turns instead to discover Absalom’s fate. Instead of explicitly confirming Absalom is dead, the Cushite merely expresses his wish that ‘the enemies of my lord the king and all who rise up to do you evil, be like that young man’ (18:32). David, however, immediately grasps that his son is dead, perhaps because the Cushite’s words recall Abigail’s own wish, ‘May your enemies and those who seek to do evil to my lord be like Nabal’ (1 Sam 25:26).107 More crucially, however, while Joab presents Absalom’s death as resulting from his shedding of Amnon’s blood, the Cushite interprets Absalom’s death differently. By explicitly identifying his death with the fate of those ‘who rise up against you for evil’ (‫ ;קמו עלך לרעה‬2 Sam 18:32), the Cushite suggests its fulfilment of the divine promise to David, ‘I will raise up evil against

103 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 478, rightly intuits that these words are carefully chosen. 104 Auld, I & II Samuel, 545, also notes the resonance with the reporting of Amnon’s death to David. See Gunn, Story of King David, 45–6, for motifs shared with other ‘messenger’ episodes. 105  So Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 479; and Conroy, Absalom, 74, who notes the messengers are interested in the plurality of the conquered, while David’s interest is only in his son. 106 McCarter, II Samuel, 408, thinks that Ahimaaz is genuinely ignorant of Absalom’s fate. However, the fact that neither the Cushite nor Ahimaaz initially provide news of Absalom suggests their awareness of David’s interest in the fate of his son and their reluctance to be drawn on the subject (see Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 190). 107 Gordon, I & II Samuel, 287, sees the similarity to 1 Sam 25:26 as indicating a conventional usage (for the latter, see too Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 173).

180  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt you from your own house’ (‫ ;הנני מקים עליך רעה מביתך‬2 Sam 12:11).108 Indeed, David’s plaintive cry here, ‘Would that I had died instead of you’ (2 Sam 19:1 [ET 18:33]) reminds the reader of David’s first son by Bathsheba, who seems to die in place of David.109 David’s failure to mourn after the death of his son in 2 Sam 12 offers a sharp contrast to David’s response here.110 Nevertheless, David’s mourning of Amnon (2 Sam 13:31, 36) and the text’s emphasis on David’s fondness for Absalom, means the rawness of David’s grief here is hardly surprising. However, unlike his earlier mourning for Amnon, Saul (2 Sam 1:11–12) and Abner (2 Sam 3:31–33), David’s mourning for Absalom here (2 Sam 19:1 [ET 18:33]–19:5 [ET 19:4]) clearly isolates him from his court and his supporters.111 In light of David’s grief, his failure to seek vengeance against Joab or even curse him requires some explanation. This is especially true given that David’s mourning for Saul and Abner was followed by execution, execration, or both. Indeed, the question of Joab’s fate is brought to the fore immediately, when he comes to warn David that his excessive mourning may yet cost him the kingdom others have fought so hard to save (2 Sam 19:6–8 [ET 5–7]). The Cushite’s report makes no mention of the manner of Absalom’s death or Joab’s involvement in it. Thus, the reader might suppose that David takes no action against Joab because he is ignorant of his general’s role in his son’s death.112 However, David’s ignorance seems unlikely given the army’s disposal of Absalom’s mutiliated body and the reluctant soldier’s insistence that there is ‘nothing hidden from the king’ (2 Sam 18:13). Alternatively, David’s sparing of Joab might be taken to reflect David’s need of his nephew or relationship to him, as seemed to be the case after Joab killed Abner (2 Sam 3:39). However, this too seems unlikely, not only because David will soon depose Joab, but also because when David later orders Solomon to kill Joab for the unwarranted killings of Abner and Amasa (1 Kgs 2:5), he makes no mention of Joab’s killing of Absalom. Thus, if David is assumed to know how Joab killed Absalom, David’s failure to kill Joab or even curse him here requires a different explanation, especially given David’s strict instructions to protect his son. It would seem that the most plausible explanation for David’s

108  So Smith, Fate of Justice, 197. Less persuasive are the parallels between 1 Sam 18 and 2 Sam 11–12 noted by Polak, ‘David’s Kingship’, 135–6. 109  So also Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 264; and Miller, A King and a Fool?, 187. 110  So observes Conroy, Absalom, 75, n. 134. 111  The resonance with 2 Sam 13:31–39 is noted by Conroy, Absalom, 75–6, n. 134, while the comparative rawness and lack of ritual gestures in David’s response here is noted by Quesada, ‘Tidings of Death’, 16. Green, Capacity for Compassion, 234–6, sees David’s emotional response as the narrative’s endorsement of his growing capacity for compassion, but this view is undermined not only by Joab’s rebuke of David for mourning, but also by David’s immediate curtailing of his grief. 112  So Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 106; and echoed by Green, ‘Joab’s Coherence’, 199; and Alter, The David Story, 313, who assumes David remains ignorant of the circumstances of Absalom’s death at this point.

‘ Man of Blood ’   181 silence towards Joab is his recognition that Joab finally killed Absalom to redeem Amnon’s blood, as David had intended to do himself, but was unwilling to do in the end. By executing Absalom in the peculiar way he did, Joab evidently persuaded David and others that he had ‘put him to death for the life of his brother’ (2 Sam 14:7), just as Absalom had challenged him or David to do earlier (2 Sam 14:32).113 There can be little doubting Joab’s success in both quelling Absalom’s insurrection and shaming David into reclaiming his throne. However, Joab’s seemingly impregnable position as David’s chief lieutenant is called into question almost immediately. This David does by vowing to remove Joab as commander of the army and appoint in his place Amasa (2 Sam 19:14 [ET 13]), who had served Absalom in this capacity against David. If David has spared Joab knowing that he has killed his son, it seems unlikely that the latter explains his demotion in favour of Amasa.114 While Amasa’s appointment brings with it political advantages,115 David might also be presumed to fear that retaining Joab might risk adding to the ‘bloods’ already associated with David’s house by Joab and Abishai’s killing of Abner (2 Sam 3).116 The credibility of such a fear has already been signposted by Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei (2 Sam 16:9). Indeed, it will be again shortly, both by Abishai’s reiteration of this offer and Joab’s treatment of Amasa (2 Sam 20:8–10). Worryingly for Amasa, David’s underlining of his kinship with him in offering Amasa his commission (‘Are you not my bone and my flesh?’; 2 Sam 19:14 [ET 13]), only adds to the sense of rivalry with Joab, David’s nephew and erstwhile general. David’s overture here to the general of a vanquished party to secure support for his kingship is hardly surprising. Indeed, David had earlier made peace with Saul’s general, Abner, for the same purpose (2 Sam 3:21–22). Whether or not this earlier step implied a displacement of Joab as general, Joab’s killing of Abner soon after invites the reader to fear for Amasa, especially when David’s promise to him leads to Judah’s support for the king’s return over the Jordan (2 Sam 19:15 [ET 14]).117

113  While 2 Sam 19:11 [ET 10] confirms the people’s exoneration of Joab by noting that Absalom ‘died in battle’ (so Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 291; and cf. Green, David’s Capacity, 255), this is presented as the view of the Israelites rather than David’s troops, which Joab recalled to witness Absalom’s death as a remedy for his killing of Amnon. 114  So also Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 176. That Absalom is executed in cold blood (so too Smith, Fate of Justice, 193) also makes it very unlikely that David sees Absalom as a legitimate casualty of war (as suggested by Morrison, 2 Samuel, 241). 115  So Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 106. 116  So also Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 365. 117  It seems most likely that it is Amasa (so LXXL) who sways the hearts of the people of Judah, but MT is not impossible. Bodner, Rebellion of Absalom, 106, sees David as anticipating here that Amasa will be killed by Joab after serving his purpose of bringing Judah onside. However, this is complicated by David’s accusation against Joab in 1 Kgs 2:5 and the potential for Amasa’s killing to compromise the fragile alliance he facilitated.

182  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt

The Sparing of Shimei (Again) The resumption of interest in the house of Saul is signalled by the appearance of Shimei, Ziba, and now also Mephibosheth, as David prepares to cross the Jordan and return to Jerusalem.118 Evidently realizing that he had been outmanoeuvered initially by his servant Ziba, Mephibosheth appears at the Jordan—his trauma evident from his lack of care for himself since the king’s departure (2 Sam 19:25 [ET 24]).119 When David queries Mephibosheth’s earlier failure to flee from Jerusalem with him, the grandson of Saul quickly accuses Ziba of betraying and abandoning him (19:27–28 [ET 26–27]). After explaining why he will make no further appeals, Mephibosheth acknowledges David’s favour in seating him at David’s own table when ‘all my father’s house (‫ )כל־בית אבי‬were doomed to death before my lord, the king’ (19:29 [ET 28]). While Mephibosheth clearly seeks to remind David of his earlier commitments, his evoking of the Saulide dead is remarkable for its resonance with Shimei’s recent accusations. Thankfully for Mephibosheth, David shows no interest here in adding to the Saulide death toll, but the mention of dead Saulides may explain why David returns only half Mephibosheth’s ori­gin­al holdings.120 If so, Mephibosheth’s insistence that his servant Ziba take all the holdings since ‘my lord, the king has arrived home safely’ (19:31 [ET 30]) is likely intended to remove any remaining doubts regarding Mephibosheth’s devotion to David. Within the wider narrative, it thus seems likely that this episode intends to prove that David resisted the temptation to shed further Saulide blood and that it was not David’s fault that the holdings of Jonathan’s crippled son were depleted after Absalom’s ill-fated rebellion. Mephibosheth’s appearance before David here confirms that any opportunity for a Saulide restoration is well and truly gone. Shimei’s arrival, however, suggests that amends must be made for his past behaviour in light of David’s return and the restoration of the status quo. 18 . . . Shimei

son of Gera fell down before the king, when he was crossing the Jordan, 19and said to the king, ‘May my lord not consider me guilty or remember the wrong your servant did on the day my lord the king went out from Jerusalem; may the king not bear it in mind. 20For your servant knows that I have sinned; see, I have come today, the first of all the house of Joseph to come down to meet my lord the king.’ 21Abishai son of Zeruiah answered, saying, ‘Should not Shimei be put to death for this, for he cursed the LORD’s anointed?’ 22But David said, 118  The concern with Saulides in these episodes is noted by Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 365; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 289. 119  See Tushima, Saul’s Progeny, 262–4, for an extensive discussion of why this should probably be seen as not merely dissimulation but actual mourning (so also e.g. Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 292; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 291; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 488). 120  So Alter, The David Story, 317. For a more critical view of David’s judgement, see e.g. Smith, Fate of Justice, 215; and Ackerman, ‘Good and Evil’, 52.

‘ Man of Blood ’   183 ‘What have I to do with you, sons of Zeruiah, that you should become an adversary to me today? Will anyone be put to death in Israel today? For today do I not know that I am king over Israel?’ 23The king said to Shimei, ‘You will not die.’ And the king swore to him.  (2 Sam 19:19–24 [ET 18–23])

Shimei’s haste (2 Sam 19:17 [ET 16]) allows him to lay claim to being the ‘first of the house of Joseph’ (v. 21 [ET 20]) to welcome David back. However, the ‘thousand people from Benjamin’ (v. 18 [ET 17]) Shimei brings with him are likely intended to remind David of Shimei’s influence and perhaps even to deter David from executing him.121 Shimei’s intention to throw himself upon David’s mercy is signalled by his falling on the ground before him (v. 19 [ET 18]). But we also see this in Shimei’s seasoning of his plea (vv. 20–21 [ET 19–20]) with references to ‘my lord’ and ‘the king’ instead of ‘man of Belial’ and ‘man of bloods’ which he used when cursing David (2 Sam 16:7–8).122 Moreover, Shimei signals the extent of his penitence by offering not merely a confession (19:21 [ET 20]), but a frank acknowledgment of his ‘guilt’ (‫ ;עון‬v. 20 [ET 19]).123 After Shimei requests that David not hold him responsible for the latter and pay no attention to what he had done, he also asks David to not ‘remember’ (v. 20 [ET 19]) the iniquity he committed ‘on the day when my lord the king went forth from Jerusalem.’ This quite explicit and lengthy reminder of the particulars would be ironic if Shimei was asking for David to ‘forget’ what had happened. Instead, Shimei clearly wishes for David to forgive or overlook his earlier actions.124 That Abishai remembers well what Shimei did and what he felt he deserved is confirmed by his question to David, ‘Should not Shimei be put to death for this, for he cursed the LORD’s anointed?’ (v. 22 [ET 21]). As in 2 Sam 16, Abishai here responds to Shimei before David does, his keenness again to see the Benjaminite killed offering a sharp contrast to the recent reluctance of Joab’s soldier to kill Absalom.125 The reader may well assume that behind Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei is again his interest in contesting accusations of Saulide bloodguilt, not least in relation to the killing of Abner. However, here Abishai is armed with Shimei’s own

121  The latter is noted by Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 298. 122  This contrast is also observed by Morrison, 2 Samuel, 258. 123  While Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 487, rightly notes that Shimei assumes his sin is self-evident, this does not prevent him from also confessing it. The reappearance of the word for ‘guilt’ (see 2 Sam 16:12; noted also by Simpson, Contesting Claims, 97) severely complicates the effort of Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 301, to differentiate between Shimei’s confession here and David’s own admission of guilt at their first meeting (2 Sam 16:12). 124  Bar Efrat, Narrative Art, 85–6, thinks that Shimei’s fear of David invites the reader to doubt Shimei’s sincerity. 125 Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 292; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 258, also note Abishai’s intervention here prior to David’s response; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 290, sees the resurfacing of Abishai’s earlier tendencies (2 Sam 16:9).

184  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt repeated admission of guilt,126 which Abishai interprets as related to Shimei’s cursing of the ‘LORD’s anointed’ (‫ ;משיח יהוה‬v. 22 [ET 21]). It will be recalled that this phrase has been used regularly by David to explain both why he redeemed Saul’s blood (2 Sam 1:14) and why he would not kill Saul himself (1 Sam 24:7 [ET 6], 24:11 [ET 10], 26:11) or allow Abishai to do so (1 Sam 26:9). Here, the phrase is likely used by Abishai as a rhetorical strategy, both to emphasize David’s protected status and to underline Shimei’s guilt for having cursed David.127 David’s earlier acceptance that Shimei’s cursing of him was tantamount to seeking his life (2 Sam 16:11) suggests to some that Abishai assumes here the death penalty for cursing a chieftain and/or God (Exod 22:27 [ET 28]).128 Whether cursing David might have been seen as lèse-majesté or treason, or both, remains unclear. But the accusation and judicial execution of Naboth for cursing God and king (1 Kgs 21:10–13) may suggest death as the obvious penalty for such actions.129 David’s distancing of himself from the ‘sons of Zeruiah’ (2 Sam 19:23 [ET 22], 16:10), suggests that Abishai’s desire to see Shimei dead will yet again remain unfulfilled. However, it is worth noting that David’s justification for sparing Shimei here is quite different from the one he had offered earlier.130 Previously, David ac­know­ledged his own ‘guilt’ and the divine instigation of Shimei’s curse in explaining why he spared Shimei (2 Sam 16:10–12). Here, the king makes clear to Abishai that no one will be put to death in Israel on the day when David has come to the realization that his kingship is secure (2 Sam 19:23 [ET 22]).131 David’s words here sound rather similar to Saul’s when he spared his ­opponents after defeating the Ammonites (1 Sam 11:13). Thus, it has been ­suggested that David’s sparing of Shimei reflects a similar generosity of spirit in the ­aftermath of his victory over Absalom.132 This would make good sense if David sees his survival of Absalom’s rebellion here (v. 23 [ET 22]) as ­confirming that the LORD had overlooked David’s bloodguilt (2 Sam 16:8)

126 Green, Capacity for Compassion, 239; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 213, rightly note that Abishai here presents a stronger (or at least more explicit) case for Shimei’s execution. 127  The reappearance of this language is noted by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 487; Auld, I & II Samuel, 550; Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 198; and Smith, Fate of Justice, 213, who rightly observes that Abishai’s accusation is far from trivial (contra Boecker, Redeformen, 79, n. 1). 128  The relevance of the passage in Exodus is noted in passing by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 180; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 290; and others, though it is worth noting that it offers no indication of such a sanction. For reasons to doubt that cursing a king constitutes blasphemy, see Whitelam, Just King, 143. 129  So also Smith, Fate of Justice, 213; and Whitelam, Just King, 143–4, who acknowledges the possibility of treason, but rightly notes the uncertainty. Macholz, ‘Stellung’, 170, favours lèse-majesté. 130  The strong association of David’s turn of phrase with Saulide blood suggests David’s recollection of the killing of Abner, rather than David’s anger at Joab’s killing of Absalom (so Alter, The David Story, 316). 131 Alter, The David Story, 316; and Miller, A King and a Fool?, 195, suggest that David’s focus on ‘this day’ suggests that retribution may well be merely postponed for an offence as serious as Shimei’s (1 Kgs 2:8–9). 132  So Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 180; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 237; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 457ff.; and see Whitelam, Just King, 142–6, for fuller discussion.

‘ Man of Blood ’   185 and returned ‘good’ on him instead (2 Sam 16:12).133 However, David’s response also likely resumes the narrative’s interest in the illegitimate use of war as a means of shedding blood for personal reasons. This interest has been seen already in Saul’s attempt to kill David (1 Sam 18); Joab’s killing of Abner (2 Sam 2–3); and David’s killing of Uriah (2 Sam 11–12). With these in mind, and given that Absalom’s rebellion has already been quelled, it seems likely that David’s sparing of Shimei reflects his desire to avoid the risk of shedding further Saulide blood illegitimately under the guise of war.134 In this context, it is understandable that David might see Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei as making Abishai David’s ‘prosecutor’ or ‘adversary’ (‫ ;שטן‬v. 23 [ET 22]). If David resented Joab’s earlier killing of Absalom on his behalf, he may be questioning why his brother Abishai seeks to do the same by prosecuting Shimei for him. Indeed, by doing so for David in this case, Abishai might incur further ‘bloods’ and confirm Shimei’s earlier claim against David.135 Alternatively, David may here be accusing Abishai of being an ‘adversary’ to him, much as the Philistine commanders suggested David would be an ‘adversary’ (‫ )שטן‬to them by betraying them to the Israelites (1 Sam 29:4).136 Given that David already fears that Abner’s ‘bloods’ may haunt his house because he has spared Joab, Abishai’s offer to shed more Saulide blood might easily be seen by David as a betrayal. It is thus not surprising that David here swears to Shimei that he will not die for his earlier offence, even if, as we will see, Shimei will be eliminated eventually on the orders of Solomon.137

The Killing of Amasa It may be recalled that the sounding of the shofar by Joab in 2 Sam 18 offered a reprieve to the Israelites who had sought to overthrow David (18:16). However, Sheba’s sounding of the shofar again and ‘all Israel’s’ withdrawal of support for 133 Simpson, Contesting Claims, 96; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 301; and Green, Capacity for Compassion, 238, also note here the connection to David’s previous hope in 2 Sam 16. 134  While Smith, Fate of Justice, 215, does not discern the risk of ‘blood(s)’ posed by the sons of Zeruiah, he rightly intuits that David’s primary motivation is to pre-empt their violence. Less likely are the suggestions that David’s sparing of Shimei is merely a manifestation of his ‘royal mercy’ (so Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 292) or his generosity prompted by the ‘acclaim of the people’ (so Smith, The Books of Samuel, 364) or his interest in placating the Benjaminites Shimei has with him (so Miller, A King and a Fool?, 193). 135  Day, ‘Abishai’; followed by Smith, Fate of Justice, 214. 136 Smith, The Books of Samuel, 364, suggests that 1 Sam 29:4 implies David’s accusation of treachery here (cf. also Auld, I & II Samuel, 550). 137  Whether 2 Sam 19:22ff. [ET 21ff.] should be attributed to the Deuteronomistic historian (so Veijola, Die ewige Dynastie, 34) cannot be explored here. While the careful noting of the oath does not require Shimei’s reappearance in 1 Kgs 2 and should not be taken as conditional here (agreeing with Conroy, Absalom, 103; followed by McCarter, II Samuel, 420–1), there is little doubt that the resumption of interest in Shimei in 1 Kgs 2 presupposes the present episode.

186  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David, immediately calls into question yet again the survival of David’s kingship (2 Sam 20:2).138 Indeed, David’s order to Amasa to appear before him with the men of Judah within three days (20:4) confirms both the seriousness of the threat and the fulfillment of David’s vow to appoint Amasa over the army (2 Sam 19:14 [ET 13]). While Amasa departs immediately, the narrator’s note that ‘he delayed beyond the time appointed’ (20:5) seems unlikely to augur well. This is especially the case if the reader recalls that the last time someone did not appear at the ‘appointed time’ (1 Sam 13:8), Saul ended up losing his crown.139 Indeed, because David appointed Amasa to win Judahites to his cause, this initial order to muster them within three days might be seen as a litmus test of his ability to deliver his kinsmen to David.140 While Amasa’s unexplained absence would seem to suggest he has failed to deliver, he does not appear to be relieved of his command, even when David commissions Abishai to pursue Sheba and his followers (2 Sam 20:7).141 In ordering the pursuit of Sheba, David’s referencing of Absalom’s rebellion and the risk of Sheba finding ‘fortified cities’ (20:6; cf. 2 Sam 17:13) confirms the wisdom of Ahithophel’s earlier advice to quash Absalom’s rebellion quickly.142 When Abishai is followed in his pursuit of Sheba by ‘Joab’s men’ amongst ­others (2 Sam 20:7), it suggests that ‘the lord’ of the ‘servants’ (v. 6) Abishai is ordered to take with him is almost certainly Abishai’s brother.143 David’s order for Abishai to take Joab’s servants probably reflects his attempt to demote Joab in favour of his brother.144 However, when Amasa finally joins up with Abishai’s force, it is Joab who once again takes centre stage.145 138  For the sounding of the shofar in the books of Samuel as a traditional motif, see Gunn, Story of King David, 80. 139  So also Auld, I & II Samuel, 562. As Janzen, ‘David’s Warning’, 273, notes, it is unclear whether ‫ אחר‬implies an intentional or unintentional ‘delay’. 140  Some suggest that Amasa’s commission is practically impossible (e.g. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 91) while others insist that it is unwise for David to offer it (e.g. Carlson, Chosen King, 179) or for Amasa to accept it given Joab’s proclivities (e.g. Campbell, 2 Samuel, 170). 141  So Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 496; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 268; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 440. Alter, The David Story, 322, sees David here as panicking without reason whereas others (so Smith, The Books of Samuel, 368) see David’s prudent discernment of the need for haste. For discussion of the versions in vv. 6–7, see McCarter, II Samuel, 426–7; and for the preferability of the MT rather than LXXL or LXXB, see Smith, Fate of Justice, 220. 142 Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 372, notes the general similarity. The suggestion that 2 Sam 20:6 implies Amasa must die (so Provan, ‘Hermeneutics of Suspicion’, 110) requires an unwarranted inference. 143  So Gordon, I & II Samuel, 294; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 268; and Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 492–3, rather than the servants being David’s men (as suggested by Alter, The David Story, 323). Uriah also refers to Joab’s men as ‘my lord’s servants’ in 2 Sam 11:11. 144  So Gordon, I & II Samuel, 294; McCarter, II Samuel, 432; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 268, who note that it was Abishai, rather than David, who involved Joab. This may also suggest further efforts on the part of David to distance himself from Joab and any forthcoming attack on Amasa. 145  While Alter, The David Story, 323; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 325, see Joab’s prom­in­ ence after his earlier demotion as remarkable, Anderson, 2 Samuel, 240, rightly notes that Amasa’s appointment may not have meant the removal of all of Joab’s military responsibilities. It is also entirely plausible that Joab would be presented as naturally gravitating towards the pre-eminent position he had so long occupied, displacing Abishai and (more violently) Amasa in the process.

‘ Man of Blood ’   187 8They

were at the large stone which is in Gibeon, when Amasa came before them. Now Joab was wearing military dress and over it was a belt with a sword in its sheath fastened at his waist; as he went forward it fell out. 9Joab said to Amasa, ‘Is it well/peace with you, my brother?’ And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. 10But Amasa was not on guard against the sword in Joab’s hand and he struck him with it in the midriff so that his innards poured out onto the ground. There was no second blow and he died. Then Joab and his brother Abishai pursued Sheba son of Bichri. 11One of Joab’s servants stood by Amasa and said, ‘Whoever delights in Joab and whoever is for David, follow Joab.’ 12Amasa lay writhing in his blood on the path and the man saw that all the people were stopping. When he saw that all who were coming by him stopped, he moved Amasa from the path into a field and threw a garment over him. 13Once he was removed from the path, all the people carried on after Joab to pursue Sheba son of Bichri.  (2 Sam 20:8–13)

Because Gibeon was last mentioned in 2 Samuel in connection with the shedding of Asahel’s blood, Amasa’s meeting of Joab here may well be a hint to the reader of the violence to come.146 The narrator’s description of Amasa as ‘coming before them’ (‫ ;בא לפניהם‬2 Sam 20:8) makes it clear that Amasa approaches peaceably, but it is unclear why he approaches Abishai’s forces at this point.147 The eventual mention of ‘all the people’ (v. 12, etc.) probably suggests that Amasa is accompanied here by the Judahite forces he has been ordered to muster. If not, it is difficult to im­agine why he would meet up with the forces dispatched with Joab and Abishai. If the Judahites are with Amasa, then the narrator’s failure to mention them at this point might reflect a desire to emphasize that Amasa posed no threat to Joab, having approached Joab alone.148 Amasa’s violent end, however, is hinted at already by the mention of Joab’s ‘sword’ in v. 8 and ironically by Joab’s enquiry: ‘Is it well/peace with you, my brother?’ (‫ ;השלום אתה אחי‬v. 9). For the reader, this question ominously echoes David’s recent plea for news of the fate of his dead son, Absalom (2 Sam 18:32).149 However, Amasa evidently and understandably takes it as nothing more than the customary salutation between members of the same tribe.150 Indeed, Joab’s reference here to Amasa as ‘my brother’ echoes David’s earlier premising of Amasa’s appointment on his kinship with him and 146  So also Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 328. 147  So Smith, Fate of Justice, 221; contra Smith, The Books of Samuel, 368–9, who sees ‘before them’ as a reference to the men of Judah recruited by Amasa. If Amasa’s delay has been to foment rebellion (so, improbably, Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 295; and Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 189) the text shows no sign of it. 148  So Morrison, 2 Samuel, 269. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 496; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 440, assume that the absence of any mention of the levy indicates that Amasa has failed to raise it. 149  So Smith, Fate of Justice, 222, who notes other ironic or duplicitous uses of this greeting; and Miller, A King and a Fool?, 199, who sees the greeting as an example of impersonal and overt irony. 150  So Smith, The Books of Samuel, 369.

188  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt the Judahites (‘you are my brothers’; 2 Sam 19:13–14 [ET 12–13]). Joab’s kissing of Amasa and his grasping of his beard explains why the ill-fated Judahite ‘was not on guard against the sword’ (‫ ;לא־נשמר בחרב‬2 Sam 10:10) which Joab’s left hand plunges unexpectedly into Amasa’s ‘midriff ’ (‫ ;החמש‬20:10).151 The narrator’s note that a single thrust from Joab was sufficient to disembowel and eventually kill Amasa (v. 10) underlines how different this attack is from Joab’s ritualized killing of Absalom. However, Joab’s attack is conspicuously similar to Ehud’s deception of Eglon and his use of a left-handed sword thrust into Eglon’s midriff to kill him (Judg 3:16, 21).152 Thus, for a reader familiar with Judges, there can be little doubt as to the calculated and coldblooded nature of Joab’s assault on Amasa. Indeed, Joab’s killing of Amasa is even more similar to his equally efficient dispatching of Abner, which was also done on a pretense and also involved a single stab to Abner’s ‘midriff ’ (‫;החמש‬ 2 Sam 3:27).153 Whereas Joab’s avenging of his brother Asahel is acknowledged but not endorsed (3:27), the narrator’s silence here offers fewer clues regarding Joab’s reasons for killing Amasa or their possible legitimacy.154 Perhaps Joab views Amasa’s failure to marshal the Judahites by David’s deadline as proof that Amasa was still ‘at war’ with David after all. If so, Joab’s greeting of Amasa with ‘peace’ (2 Sam 20:9), before killing him in cold blood is viciously ironic.155 However, Joab’s lack of interest in why Amasa has missed David’s deadline may suggest Joab kills him simply to eliminate a rival, rather than to punish Amasa’s incompetence or betrayal.156 Indeed, such a view is encouraged by the fact that while Joab and Abishai immediately continue their ­pursuit of Sheba (20:10), one of Joab’s men is posted by Amasa’s bloodied

151  For discussion of the mechanics of this killing, see McCarter, II Samuel, 427. As Alter, The David Story, 323, notes, the most plausible explanation seems to be the one already offered by Josephus (Ant.VII.11.7): the short sword ‘falls’ on the ground from where Joab’s left hand retrieves it to stab Amasa whilst clutching his beard with his right hand. Cf. Anderson, 2 Samuel, 240, who thinks that Joab’s sword merely fell into the folds of Joab’s tunic, which was gathered for marching. 152  The deceptiveness is noted by Auld, I & II Samuel, 563; for the resonance with Ehud’s as­sas­sin­ ation, see e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 372; and esp. Cartledge, 1 & 2 Samuel, 627. 153  The resemblance between the two killings is noted by Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 496; Campbell, 2 Samuel, 169; Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 189; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 295; and many others, including Auld, I & II Samuel, 563, who notes too the resonance with Abishai’s offer to kill Saul (1 Sam 26:8) with a single blow (so also Gunn, Story of King David, 126, n. 2; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 436). For the reference to ‘midriff ’ here and elsewhere, see Gunn, Story of King David, 80. 154  So also Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 328; and Green, David’s Capacity, 243, whose suggestion that neither killing prompts David’s reproach seems to overlook David’s cursing of Joab in 2 Sam 3. McKenzie, King David, 171, interprets the similarities to Abner’s killing as a sign that David is ul­tim­ate­ly responsible for both, though the text seems intent on suggesting otherwise. 155 Alter, The David Story, 375, rightly draws attention to the way in which Joab’s duplicitous greeting of Amasa echoes his ignoring of David’s ‘peace’ with Abner (2 Sam 3), while others also note that Joab’s approaching of both men gives a false impression that Joab’s intentions are peaceful (so e.g. Janzen, ‘David’s warning’, 275; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 182). 156 Borgman, David, Saul and God, 143; and Anderson, ‘Execution of Joab’, 54, note both pos­si­bil­ ities. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 269, sees Joab’s disinterest in what Amasa might have to say as telling.

‘ Man of Blood ’   189 body, with a stark warning to troops who might be inclined to gawk.157 Whoever ‘delights’ (v. 11) in Joab is required to follow the latter in his pursuit of Sheba. So too should any who are ‘for David’ (v. 11), but perhaps reluctant to follow Joab given his slaying of his replacement. If Amasa has come without the men of Judah he was meant to recruit, the man’s message can only be intended for those in Abishai and Joab’s own expeditionary force.158 This is not impossible, but it is difficult to understand why Joab’s own troops would require further encouragement to follow their general, after he has just slain his rival. If, however, ‘all the people’ (2 Sam 20:12) refers to the men of Judah recruited by Amasa, as we have suggested, the sight of their erstwhile commander still alive, but writhing in his own blood (‫ ;מתגלל בדם‬v. 12), might well give them pause.159 Indeed, this seems likely because when the man removes the slain Amasa from view ‘all the people’ then proceed to follow Joab (20:13).160 It is not impossible that the covering of Amasa’s body is intended to spare it the predations of birds and beasts as Rizpah’s protection of her Saulide kinsmen will do in 2 Sam 21. However, the narrative shows no further interest in Amasa’s body, which suggests instead that it was probably removed simply to eliminate the spectacle of his bloody death (20:12–13). While this might suggest to the reader that Amasa will be forgotten, we will see in 1 Kgs 2 that this is not the case. * * * The stories about Amnon’s killing (chapter 13) and Absalom’s sparing (chapter 14) made clear the threat which David sees Amnon’s ‘bloods’ as posing. In 2 Sam 15 we see how David’s unwillingness to kill Absalom leads to rebellion and the fulfillment of the divine promise to raise up ‘evil’ from David’s own house (2 Sam 12:11). At the same time, David’s justifiable fear that Absalom will ‘attack the city with the edge of the sword’ (2 Sam 15:14) confirms his realization that the coming war represents the fulfillment of the curse of the ‘sword’ of warfare which will never depart his house (2 Sam 12:10). Against this backdrop, Shimei’s curse reminds David that his failure to redeem Abner’s Saulide blood by killing Joab has not, and should not, be forgotten. Shimei apparently seeks to turn David’s cursing of the sons of Zeruiah with ‘evil for evil’ (2 Sam 3:39) back on David himself. By contrast, David’s hope is that the LORD would not ‘return the evil’ against him as Shimei’s curse expects (16:8), but instead 157 Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 199; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 271; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 441, note the resonance with 2 Sam 2:23 where passersby were similarly arrested by the sight of Asahel’s slain body. 158  So Gordon, I & II Samuel, 295; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 270. 159 So Anderson, 2 Samuel, 241; Alter, The David Story, 324; Auld, I & II Samuel, 563; and Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 296, who improbably sees Amasa’s recruits as Israelites rather than Judahites. 160  The ambiguity of ‘men’ in MT is confirmed by LXXBAMN supplying the equivalent of ‘men of Israel’ and LXXL specifying ‘the army’.

190  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt leave it on the sons of Zeruiah and ‘return good’ (16:12) on David. This best explains why David accepts Shimei’s curse and why Abishai offers to kill Shimei. However, David’s rejection of Abishai’s offer seems to reflect his fear that if another Saulide is killed by another son of Zeruiah under the illegitimate guise of war, it will invite further Saulide ‘bloods’ upon David’s house. In resuming its interest in the fate of Absalom, the narrative illustrates the fulfilment of the prediction that David’s concubines would be taken (2 Sam 16:21–22). The divine frustration of Ahitophel’s ‘wise’ advice is also noted, in order to demonstrate how the curse of the sword of armed violence begins to take its toll on David’s house (2 Sam 17:1–16). This is confirmed both by the scale of the war between David and Absalom’s forces (2 Sam 18:6–8) and the reappearance of the ‘devouring sword’. However, the allusions in 2 Sam 18 to the royal mules (2 Sam 13) and Absalom’s head of hair (chapter 14) also prepare for the endorsement of Joab’s killing of Absalom as a redeeming of Amnon’s blood. This seems to be suggested by the hanging and repeated piercing of Absalom by Joab. It is then seemingly confirmed when his ten armour-bearers kill Absalom and begin the mutilation of his exposed body, which would be continued by predators while the army is recalled. This mistreatment of Absalom’s body and its dishonourable disposal suggest that when Joab kills David’s son, he accepts Absalom’s earlier invitation for him to do so if he was judged guilty of illegitimately shedding Amnon’s blood (2 Sam 14:32). This seems all the more likely, given that David had evidently sought to kill Absalom after he slew Amnon and only reluctantly refrained from doing so when Absalom returned to Jerusalem (2 Sam 14:33). Joab’s order to the Cushite to report what he has ‘seen’ of Absalom’s death confirms that Joab intends to present Absalom’s killing in this way. However, Joab’s reluctance to allow Ahimaaz to deliver the news, reflects his concern regarding how David will react to Joab’s killing of Absalom, after having expressly forbidden it. Indeed, even the similarly protracted reporting of the deaths of Absalom and Amnon to David may well betray the narrator’s interest in linking the two killings.161 Finally, if nothing is hidden from the king, Absalom’s killing and its resonance with other killings which remedy bloodguilt seems to best explain David’s sparing of Joab. Indeed, David’s failure to even curse Joab for killing Absalom likely reflects David’s recognition that Absalom’s death has redeemed Amnon’s ‘bloods’ and spared David’s house from their consequences. The narrator’s noting of the Israelite perception that Absalom merely ‘died in battle’, suggests that we have here the same multiplicity of perspectives seen

161 Keys, Wages of Sin, 137, rightly recognizes that the description of Absalom’s death serves as a literary allusion to Amnon’s killing, even if her evidence (so too Smith, Fate of Justice, 194, though without reference to Keys) is less than compelling. While Smith concludes that ‘Joab’s just execution of Absalom is similar to Absalom’s just execution of Amnon’, neither execution is framed in terms of justice. Rather Joab presents his execution of Absalom as redeeming the blood of Amnon which David, at least, sees as having been illegitimately shed by Absalom.

‘ Man of Blood ’   191 earlier in connection with the killings of Abner and Amnon.162 This multiplicity is also displayed in the episode of David’s sparing of Shimei, which resumes the narrative’s earlier interest in Saulide bloodguilt. Thus, Abishai’s repeated offers to kill Shimei seem to reflect his desire to prevent Shimei from reminding David of the blood of Saulides like Abner, whose innocence the sons of Zeruiah evidently contested. By contrast, we have seen that David insists on sparing Shimei, despite the seriousness of his offences against David. This seems likely to reflect David’s fear that if Shimei’s blood is spilled by Abishai under the guise of war, it will only add to the Saulide bloodguilt which already burdens David, thanks to his refusal to execute Joab for killing Abner. When David earlier overlooked Absalom’s bloodguilt on his return to Jerusalem, Joab seemed to understand it as buttressing David’s willingness to overlook Joab’s own bloodguilt and leave the avenging of Abner’s innocent blood to the LORD. If so, this suggests that Joab’s presentation of Absalom’s death as a redeeming of Amnon’s blood is not without its risks for Joab himself. On one hand, by presenting his killing of Absalom as eliminating a known source of bloodguilt from David’s house, Joab seeks to protect himself from David’s re­prisals for disobeying David’s direct order to protect Absalom. On the other hand, Joab’s avenging of Amnon by killing Absalom offers a rather obvious reminder to David that Abner’s innocent blood shed by Joab remains unredeemed. That this reminder and Shimei’s accusations have been noted by David is suggested by his replacement of Joab with Amasa. The reader may wonder whether the noting of Amasa’s failure to muster the Judahites by David’s deadline is meant to legitimate Joab’s killing of him. However, various considerations would seem to suggest otherwise. First, despite Amasa’s delay, there is no mention of David’s withdrawal of Amasa’s command. Second, Joab shows no interest in the reasons for Amasa’s delayed arrival. Third, Joab displays the same duplicity and savagery in killing Amasa that he demonstrated in killing Abner. Finally, Joab’s insistence on the soldiers’ allegiance to him in the wake of Amasa’s killing hints that his interest is in eliminating a rival. These considerations would seem to explain why David will later judge Joab’s killing of Amasa to be no more legitimate than his earlier slaying of Abner.163 Because David does not kill Joab for Abner’s blood, the reader is not surprised when David fails to kill Joab for Amasa’s blood either.164 But, when David does not even level a curse at Joab on his return to court (2 Sam 20:22), it probably suggests that, for the moment at least, David is wholly resigned to Joab’s amassing of further ‘bloods’ on David’s house. 162  This multiplicity complicates any assumptions that the narrator’s perspective can simply be identified with David’s (so Grossman, ‘ “Dual Causality” ’, 558; and Caspari, ‘2 Sam 15–20’, 70). 163 McCarter, II Samuel, 432, sees here an apologetic motive to exonerate David in the face of likely suspicions that David may have been involved; while Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 91, sees the historical David as guilty (cf. Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 146). 164  This absence is noted by Green, David’s Capacity, 243; and Anderson, ‘Execution of Joab’, 54–5.

192  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Joab’s return to Jerusalem at the end of 2 Sam 20, allows the reader to consider the catastrophic chain of events unleashed on David’s house and kingdom following his killing of Uriah (2 Sam 11–12). Over the course of the intervening chapters, the divine judgement of David for using the sword of the Ammonites to shed Uriah’s innocent blood has been amply illustrated. It may be seen in the death of David’s first child by Bathsheba, but also in the ‘evil’ raised up against David in his own house, initially by Amnon’s rape of Tamar. This divine judgement is also exemplified by Absalom’s killing of Amnon, not only because it incurs ‘bloods’, but also because it anticipates the ‘curse of the sword’ taking its toll on a much wider scale in Absalom’s war against David. The presentation of Joab’s killing of Absalom as redeeming Amnon’s blood suggests that David need no longer fear the spectre of ‘bloods’ from this quarter. However, the curse of another Saulide, Shimei, confirms that the same cannot be said of Abner’s innocent ‘bloods’, which remain unredeemed by David. Indeed, Abishai’s insistent desire to kill Shimei reminds David of the probability that the sons of Zeruiah will shed still more blood illegitimately. This probability becomes a certainty when Abishai’s brother, Joab, incurs still more ‘bloods’ by killing his rival Amasa without sufficient cause.

8 ‘The Bloodguilt of Saul’: 2 Sam 21–24 In Chapter 7, David’s encounters with Shimei offered further evidence of the ­narrative’s abiding interest in the threat posed to David by the ‘bloods’ of slain Saulides. In this chapter, by contrast, we will see that it is the blood of Gibeonites whom Saul has apparently slain, which poses the problem for David by causing a famine in his land (2 Sam 21). We will see that the Gibeonites’ suggestion to impale seven Saulides as a means of expiating the ‘bloods’ prompts the intervention of their kinswoman, Rizpah. By seeking to prevent their predation, Rizpah will both care for them and subvert David’s expiation of the Gibeonite ‘bloods’. David’s resulting desire to overcome Rizpah’s obstruction and underline his own allegiance to the house of Saul will lead him to repatriate and make use of the bones of Jonathan and Saul instead.

The Killing of the Seven Saulides There has been widespread appreciation of how distinct 2 Sam 21–24 is from the story of David found in 2 Sam 9–20, especially since Wellhausen’s observation of a chiasmus in these chapters.1 Certainly, there can be little doubt that David’s song, oracle, and list of heroes mark something of a departure from the preceding chapters. The impression of a ‘coda’ is also enhanced by the appearance of stories, at the beginning and end, in which the king responds to divine intelligence in order to relieve the affliction of Israel (2 Sam 21:1–14, 2 Sam 24).2 However, the opening words of this episode (2 Sam 21:1–14), ‘in the days of David’ (21:1), ­suggest that this story must also be read in light of the preceding chapters.3 1Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and

David sought the presence/face of the LORD. The LORD said, ‘There are bloods on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death.’ 2So the king called the Gibeonites and said to them—(Now the Gibeonites were not of the 1 Wellhausen, Die Composition, 260–1; Stoebe; Zweite Buch Samuelis, 36–8; and more recently Brueggemann, ‘2 Samuel 21–24’, 383–97, who sees deconstruction in these chapters; and Klement, Samuel Conclusion, 384, who sees merely editorial intention. 2  See Alter, The David Story, 329; and Gunn, Story of King David, 68. 3  For the reading of 2 Sam 21 and chs. 21–24 in light of the wider narrative, see Carlson, Chosen King, 195–6; Bailey, Love and War, 14–15; and Westbrook, Your Daughters, 212–13.

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0009

194  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt sons of Israel, but a remnant of the Amorites; although the sons of Israel had sworn to them, Saul had sought to strike them down in his zeal for the sons of Israel and Judah.)—3David said to the Gibeonites, ‘What should I do for you? How should I make expiation, that you may bless the inheritance of the LORD?’ 4The Gibeonites said to him, ‘This is not about silver or gold between us and Saul or his house and it is not for us to put any man to death in Israel.’ He said, ‘What do you say that I should do for you?’ 5They said to the king, ‘The man who consumed us and intended to destroy us, that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel—6let seven of his sons be given to us and we will impale them before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD.’ The king said, ‘I will give them.’ 7But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan, because of the oath of the LORD that was between them, between David and Saul’s son, Jonathan. 8The king took the two sons of Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Merab daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite; 9he gave them into the hand(s) of the Gibeonites and they impaled them on the mountain before the LORD. The seven of them fell together. They were put to death in the first days of the harvest, at the beginning of the barley harvest.  (2 Sam 21:1–9)

The narrator’s mention of David’s sparing of Mephibosheth almost certainly ­suggests an awareness of David’s vow to Jonathan to this effect (1 Sam 20:12–17). However, it continues to be debated whether the episode here is best located before or after David’s enquiry whether anyone is left of the house of Saul to which he might show kindness (2 Sam 9).4 Some have suggested that this e­ pisode sat somewhere prior to 2 Sam 16, on the grounds that David’s granting of permission to execute seven descendants of Saul offers good reason for Shimei’s accusations of Saulide bloodguilt (16:5–10). Such a proposal is perfectly plausible, though, given the amount of Saulide blood shed during David’s rise to power (from 1 Sam 31–2 Sam 4), Shimei’s accusations hardly require the death of seven more Saulides.5 Wherever the story of the seven Saulides may originally have been located, its inclusion at the beginning of the ‘coda’ (2 Sam 21–24) seems to be partly explained 4  Van Seters, ‘Gibeonites’, 540, makes the point that David’s enquiry ‘is there anyone left of the house of Saul’ and the mention of only Mephibosheth gives the impression that only he is left, rendering the appearance of seven more Saulides in 2 Sam 21 most surprising. The only escape from this observation is offered by David’s qualification, ‘for the sake of Jonathan’ which might have excluded the seven who appear in 2 Sam 21. If David’s question (9:1) presupposes the account of the decimation of the Saulides in 2 Sam 21, this would seem to require that the mention of precisely such a sparing of Mephibosheth (v. 7) was added later. For an example of this approach, see McCarter, II Samuel, 442; and for a more recent cataloguing of various positions, see Kim, Bloodguilt, 75–6. 5  Agreeing with Van Seters, ‘Gibeonites’, 545; and Chavel, ‘Compositry’, 48, n. 76, that Shimei’s accusations do not require 2 Sam 21. While Chavel also observes that David is more directly involved in the deaths of Saulides in 2 Sam 21 than those earlier in 2 Samuel, the oracular licence to hand over the Saulides ensures at least the narrative plausibility of David’s denial of responsibility.

‘ The Bloodguilt of Saul ’   195 by the story’s interest in ‘bloods’ (‫)הדמים‬.6 The mention of this in the very first verse (2 Sam 21:1) also prepares the reader for several variations on this theme in the story. First, David’s invoking of ‘bloods’ in 2 Sam 3 anticipated various unhappy consequences, including that Joab and his (father’s) house would always ‘lack food’ (‫ ;חסר־לחם‬2 Sam 3:29).7 Here, this consequence of ‘bloods’ is magnified, ­producing a ‘famine’ (‫)רעב‬, endured by a population and a land.8 Given the presumably catastrophic effects of such a famine and their stain on David’s kingship, his seeking of divine assistance is understandable.9 Second, up until now, David has been required to assume the divine interest in innocent blood in Abner’s killing (2 Sam 3:39) and Shimei’s cursing (2 Sam 16:9). Here, the LORD explicitly articulates his interest, reliably informing David,10 that the famine has been caused by ‘bloods’ incurred by Saul and his house (‫ ;אל־שאול ואל־בית‬21:1).11 Finally, while Saul’s slaughter in Nob (1 Sam 22) gave every appearance of innocent bloodshed, the latter is attributed to Saul and his house explicitly here for the first time.12 To explain why the killing of the Gibeonites incurred ‘bloods’, the narrator recalls the indigenous Canaanite origins of these people, with whom the ‘sons of Israel had made a vow’ (‫ ;בני ישראל נשבעו להם‬21:2). Earlier scholarship attributed the 6  Rather than assuming with Van Seters, ‘Gibeonites’, 550–1, that the story has no literary merit and was included here merely because it was ‘about David’. Carlson, Chosen King, 195–6, rightly senses the continuity between 2 Sam 21:1–14 and chapter 20, but overlooks its resumption of the theme of ‘blood(s)’. See also Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 415. 7 For ‘dearth’ arising from bloodguilt in ancient Greek traditions, see Buttenwieser, ‘Blood Revenge’, 309. 8 Gilmour, Divine Violence, 84–5, suggests that a collective punishment fits a crime against a ­people. Given that the famine relates to a lack of rain (see 2 Sam 21:10) and that ‘bloods’ poses a problem here for the ‘land’ (21:14), there may be a resonance with the assumption in Num 35 that unexpiated bloodguilt will pollute (‫ )חנף‬the land (for which, see Milgrom, Numbers, 509). How such pollution would manifest itself—­by means of famine or otherwise—­is unstated in Numbers. 9  Kapelrud, ‘King David’, 294–301, argues that the story as we have it seeks to cover up a Canaanite-­ style sacrifice of someone of high rank to induce fertility, but he fails to explain why the story as we have it offers a very different explanation for the killing of the Saulides (as rightly noted by McCarter, II Samuel, 444; and Doak, Heroic Bodies, 179; so too Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 457–8). Nor does Kapelrud explain why David repatriates the remains of Saul and Jonathan. This latter deficiency is also evident in Cazelles, ‘David’s Monarchy’, 167–70 (followed by Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 459), who argues that the execution and exposure of the Saulide descendants is analogous to and explained by the presumed Canaanite ritual practice reflected in Mot’s dismemberment, dispersal, and consumption by birds as a means of restoring fertility. However, the ritual interpretation of the Ba’al cycle is not without complication and there is little evidence of its ritual enactment, as noted by Chavel, ‘Compositry’, 38, n. 46, who offers a thoughtful critique of such approaches. 10  The divine validation is noted by Campbell, 2 Samuel, 189; and Simon, Identity, 83; and undermines the suggestion of Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 336–7 (so too Deken, ‘Saul’s Successors’, 19), that the reader might be invited to read the ‘problem’ of bloodguilt as a Davidic fabrication. 11  While Westbrook, Your Daughters, 216–17, follows Solvang, A Woman’s Place, 105–6, in suggesting that the issue of ‘bloods’ may be resolved without the involvement of the Gibeonites, the text’s assumption to the contrary is supported by the involvement of kin in the blood redemption assumed in 2 Sam 14 (see below). 12  The idea that this and other similarities between the episodes betray 2 Sam 21’s awareness of the killing of the priests of Nob goes back to the Rabbis [Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 78b] and is ­echoed by, e.g., Hutzli, ‘Literary Violence’, 161–2; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 382; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 458. However, for the difficulties with such a suggestion, see McCarter, II Samuel, 441; and Blenkinsopp, Gibeon, 67–71.

196  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt famine here to Israel breaking its treaty to spare the Gibeonites (Josh 9), finding a parallel in Hittite literature where the breaking of a treaty leads to natural disaster.13 However, the more obvious parallel here is instead to the first prayer of the Hittite king, Mursili, in which a plague on the land is seen as arising from the ‘bloods’ incurred by his father’s killing of his predecessor, who was protected by treaty.14 The divine revelation (2 Sam 21:1) confirms that it is the ‘bloods’ which give rise to the ‘famine’ here. But the mention of the Gibeonites inevitably recalls Joshua’s insistence (Josh 9:18) that it was ‘because they [the Israelite leaders] made a vow to them’ (‫ )כי־נשבעו להם‬that the ‘Israelites did not strike them down’ (‫)ולא הכום בני ישראל‬.15 Indeed, the narrator uses precisely this language here in describing how ‘Saul sought to strike them down’ (‫ ;ויבקש שאול להכתם‬2 Sam 21:2). This confirms that while it is the original Israelite vow to let them ‘live’ (Josh 9:15) which makes the Gibeonite bloodshed illegitimate, it is not the breaking of the vow itself, but the Saulide bloodletting prohibited by the vow, which gives rise to the ‘bloods’ and the famine.16 It might be imagined that Saul ‘sought to strike down’ (21:2) the Gibeonites but failed to do so, just as ‘Saul sought to strike down’ (‫ ;ויבקש שאול להכות‬1 Sam 19:10) David with his spear, but failed to do so. It seems more probable, however, that Saul is presented here as having ‘sought’ to strike down the Gibeonites in their entirety, but only succeeded in putting to death some of them (i.e. ‘the Gibeonites’ whose deaths have incurred ‘bloods’ [21:1]).17 Some also see Saul’s shedding of the Gibeonites’ blood as mitigated by his ‘zeal’ (‫ )קנא‬for Israel and Judah (21:2).18 However, the fact that such violent fervour for the people leads to catastrophe for Saul elsewhere in 1 Samuel,19 suggests that such zeal is more likely to be rewarded when it is ‘for the LORD’ (cf. Phinehas in Num 25:11, 13).20

13  This was encouraged by the second prayer of the Hittite king, Mursili. See Malamat, ‘Doctrines of Causality’, 1–12; and cf. also Fensham, ‘The Treaty’, 100. For reservations, however, see Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 457. 14  For the prayers themselves, see the translation in Singer, Hittite Prayers, 57–63; and now, for a thorough analysis of the relevance of each of them to the present passage, Sanders, ‘Appeased by Homicide?’, 229–68. Barmash, Homicide, 115, suggests that unlike the Hittites, Mesopotamian views of ‘bloods’ did not include the assumption of wider consequences for a land or nation. 15  Contra Whitelam, Just King, 117, who sees Josh 9 as irrelevant here. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 299, notes the use of the verb ‘to vow/swear’ here and in Josh 9:15, 18, 19, 20. 16 This suggests retaining the MT here rather than ‘exterminate them’ (following LXXL; so McCarter, II Samuel, 438). The relevance of Josh 9:15 is noted by Alter, The David Story, 330. Even Malamat, ‘Doctrines of Causality’, 9 (see too Gilmour, Divine Violence, 83), recognizes that the vow is only indirectly relevant to the presenting problem of ‘bloods’. 17  So also Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 504. This complicates the assumption of Van Seters, ‘Gibeonites’, 538, that notice of Saul killing the Gibeonites precludes someone surviving to make the claim against his descendants. 18  So, e.g. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 279. 19  Earlier examples of Saul’s zeal may be seen in 1 Sam 13–15, 28, etc. (so Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 197; and Borgman, David, Saul and God, 202–3). 20  The Hebrew verb ‫ קנא‬is extremely uncommon in the Former Prophets, appearing only here and in 1 Kgs 14:22 and 19:10, 14. Gilmour, Divine Violence, 84, notes the irony that Saul’s zeal for the ­people results in the breaking of a vow made by the people.

‘ The Bloodguilt of Saul ’   197 The idea that the problem of ‘bloods’ may be resolved by ‘expiation’ appears here explicitly in David’s story for the first time, when David asks the Gibeonites, ‘how can I atone?’ (‫ ;ובמה אכפר‬2 Sam 21:3).21 David’s query also reflects his perception that the elimination of the famine requires the Gibeonites’ blessing of the ‘inheritance of Yahweh’ (‫ ;נחלת יהוה‬21:3). While no explicit ‘blessing’ will be reported in the remainder of the narrative, David’s desire for it may be related to bloodguilt’s association with cursing in the narratives of 2 Samuel. As we have seen, in the aftermath of Joab’s killing of Abner (2 Sam 3:28–29), David responds by cursing Joab and his house in the most unequivocal terms. So too, in response to David’s shedding of Uriah’s innocent blood, Nathan pronounces a series of devastating curses which mirror in various ways, those David invoked upon Joab. Moreover, in Shimei’s encounters with David, the verb ‘to curse’ (‫ )קלל‬appears throughout, in the mouths of not only Shimei, but also Abishai and David himself (2 Sam 16:5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13; cf. 19:22 [ET 21]). Thus, David may well hope that if the incurring of innocent ‘bloods’ leads to cursing, the expiation of this bloodguilt should lead to the Gibeonites’ blessing of the ‘inheritance of the LORD’ (‫ ;נחלת יהוה‬2 Sam 21:3; cf. 2 Sam 20:19). The Gibeonites’ response to David’s query appears to acknowledge the possibility that ‘bloods’ incurred might be compensated for financially (‘silver or gold’; 2 Sam 21:4). Such a possibility has not been contemplated in the books of Samuel thus far, nor is it accepted by the Gibeonites here, though for reasons which remain unclear.22 While the Gibeonites also reject the possibility of putting ‘any man to death in Israel’ (v. 4) themselves, this is precisely what they will proceed to do. This suggests that the Gibeonites do not lack the will to kill the Saulides but rather the authority to do so ‘in Israel’, perhaps given their status as sojourners or ‘outsiders’.23 Indeed, it is worth recalling that ‘outsiders’ like the Amalekite and Beerothites, who claimed to have killed on David’s behalf but have done so without his authorization, have ended up themselves killed by David. Moreover, David seems to understand that the Gibeonites lack the necessary authority to kill the Saulides when he asks: ‘What should I do for you?’ (v. 3; cf. v. 4b).24 David’s question here seems to recognize that the problem of Saulide ‘bloods’ is properly 21  While Num 35:33 insists that ‘no atonement/expiation’ (‫ )לא־יכפר‬can be made for the land in which (innocent) blood has been shed, apart from the one who has shed it, here the narrative (and the characters which populate it) presume that the expiation may be accomplished by the killing of those descended from the one who originally shed it. See Sanders, ‘Appeased by Homicide?’, online section 7, for discussion of the passages. 22  As do the traditions found in Num 35:31, as noted by Sanders, ‘Appeased by Homicide?’, online section 7; Smith, The Books of Samuel, 375; and Buttenwieser, ‘Blood Revenge’, 308. 23  So Alter, The David Story, 330; Exum, ‘Rizpah’, 263; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 281; Doak, Heroic Bodies, 180; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 454; and others. Cazelles, ‘David’s Monarchy’, 165, assumes that the Gibeonites’ rejection of monetary compensation reflects their exclusion as ‘sojourners’ from the mechanisms of blood vengeance. If so, it cannot be assumed from this that a treaty no longer existed between Israel and the Gibeonites (as suggested by Whitelam, Just King, 116). See also Blenkinsopp, Gibeon, 92, 136, n. 31, for discussion and earlier authorities. 24  Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 218, rightly notes the resonance of David’s question here with the language of Josh 9:20. David’s question and the Gibeonites’ own request for Saulide blood (in keeping

198  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt his to solve, but it also implies that kinsmen of those illegitimately slain have a stake in the proceedings.25 Before the Gibeonites clarify their demand, they further justify it by presenting more specific allegations. The accusation they level at Saul is that he ‘intended to destroy us, that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel’ (21:5). This confirms the earlier assumption that Saul’s attempt to kill all the Gibeonites (v. 2) was not successful, despite their insistence here that Saul ‘consumed us’ (‫ ;כלנו‬v. 5).26 However, the accusation that Saul has slaughtered Gibeonites becomes all the more plausible, if the residents of Gibeon’s sister city, Beeroth, were displaced during the days of Saul, as may be recalled in 2 Sam 4.27 It is unclear why the Gibeonites require specifically ‘seven’ Saulides to expiate the ‘bloods’.28 However, the Gibeonites’ lack of authority to kill these seven is now confirmed both by their request that the Saulides be ‘given’ (‫ ;נתן‬21:6) to them by David and by his acceding to this request. This language and the request that the kin of the slayer (‫ ;נכה‬v. 2) be put to death (Hiph. ‫ ;מות‬21:4) finds a striking parallel in the story of the fictional fratricide told by the woman of Tekoa (2 Sam 14). Her family too demands that she ‘give up’ (‫ )נתן‬the one who has ‘slain’ (‫ )נכה‬his brother so that they may ‘put him to death’ (Hiph. ‫( )מות‬2 Sam 14:7). Of course, David’s immediate agreement here to remedy the ‘bloods’ by consigning the Saulides to death offers a striking contrast to his reluctance to take similar action against Absalom or Joab. While the Tekoite woman does not indicate precisely how her family wishes to take the blood of her guilty son, the Gibeonites here are rather more forthcoming. They demand that the seven Saulides be handed over and ‘we will

with remedies for ‘bloods’ assumed elsewhere) makes it difficult to accept the suggestion of Westbrook, Your Daughters, 218–19, that David intended the slaying of the Saulides all along. 25  For David’s owning of the problem here, see Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 281; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 280; and Deken, ‘Saul’s Successors’, 11. 26 Anderson, 2 Samuel, 247, suggests a rhetorical exaggeration, which seems preferable to the emendation proposed by McCarter, II Samuel, 438, based on LXXB συνετέλεσεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐδίωξεν ἡμᾶς ‘set himself against us and persecuted us’. 27  So e.g. Malamat, ‘Doctrines of Causality’, 11; Na’aman, ‘Gibeonites Revisited’, 104; and Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 300. The absence of any explicit mention of Saul killing Gibeonites in the books of Samuel is noted by McKenzie, King David, 136; Brueggeman, First and Second Samuel, 337 (who sees it as evidence of Davidic fabrication); Hutzli, ‘Literary Violence’, 158 (who takes it as a sign of 2 Sam 21’s late date); and others. The suggestion that the Gibeonites request Saulide blood here in compensation for David’s slaying of Rechab and Baanah (so Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 85) is difficult to reconcile with the divine indictment of ‘bloods’ against Saul here rather than David. 28  Some suggest seven is sacral (e.g. Campbell, 2 Samuel, 189) or that it symbolizes completeness (so e.g. Cazelles, ‘David’s Monarchy’, 172; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 454); though Chavel, ‘Compositry’, 27, n. 11, is surely right to reject the suggestion that ‘seven’ relates to the ‘oath’ sworn by Israel (so Kil, 2 Samuel, 503; and Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 209). A more relevant analogy may be the divine invocation of seven-­fold vengeance on a would-­be killer of Cain for his shedding of innocent blood in Gen 4:15. The relevance of the seven-­fold restitution (e.g. Gilmour, Divine Violence, 85) demanded of the rich man by David (2 Sam 12) depends on the uncertain case for its originality (see discussion of LXX 2 Sam 12:6 above, p. 113).

‘ The Bloodguilt of Saul ’   199 impale them before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul’ (‫ ;והוקענום ליהוה בגבעת שאול‬21:6).29 The suggestion of impalement here is hardly unexpected given the use of the same verb as a prescription for expiating Israelite guilt in Num 25:4.30 Nor is it surprising that the Gibeonites might see impalement (‫ )יקע‬as particularly suitable for expiating ‘bloods’. Penetrative violence has been regularly associated with efforts to address the problem of illegitimate bloodshed, not least in the killings of Absalom (‫ ;תקע‬2 Sam 18:14), Abimelech (‫ ;דקר‬Judg 9:54), and almost certainly Rechab and Baanah (‫ ;תלה‬2 Sam 4:12). The Gibeonites’ further insistence on impaling the Saulides ‘to/before the LORD’ (21:6 and so too, 21:9; cf. Num 25:4) resumes the earlier interest in the LORD’s involvement in remedying ‘bloods’.31 It also ­echoes and substantiates David’s own fear, expressed much earlier, that if he were to illegitimately shed Saul’s blood, his own ‘blood’ might need to be shed ‘before the’ LORD (1 Sam 26:20). The mention of David’s sparing of Mephibosheth because of a vow (2 Sam 21:7), clearly compares David favourably with Saul, whose violation of the Israelite vow to the Gibeonites has brought calamity on David’s kingdom and Saul’s house.32 However, David’s handing over of the Saulide seven for execution (vv. 8–9) confirms his authorization and facilitates the Gibeonites’ involvement in expiating the blood of their kinsmen. Indeed, the role fulfilled by the Gibeonites here finds its nearest analogy again in the kinsman ‘redeemer of blood’ mentioned by the Tekoite woman, even if the language of ‘redemption’ (‫ )גאל‬there, becomes ‘expiation’ (‫ )כפר‬here.33 29  While some are persuaded to read ‘Gibeon’ here (e.g. Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 454; and others), ‘Gibeah’ (MT) is perfectly plausible (so e.g. Na’aman, ‘Gibeonites Revisited’, 102–3; and Walters, ‘Saul of Gibeon’). 30  The relevance of Num 25 here and below is recognized by Phillips, Criminal Law, 26–7; Van Seters, ‘Gibeonites’, 547; Sanders, ‘Appeased by Homicide?’, online section 7; and others. For discussion of ‫ יקע‬in these passages and beyond, see Polzin, ‘HWQY`’, 231–3, whose interpretation of the verb as ‘to separate’ is compatible with impalement and is preferable (as Chavel, ‘Compositry’, 27, notes) to ‘dismember’ favoured by Cazelles, ‘David’s Monarchy’, 164–5, or to ‘expose’ (having broken the arms and legs). 31  Despite the suggestions of Schnocks, Das Alte Testament, 71–2, (cf. too, Simon, Identity, 70) the distinction between ‘to/for’ (v. 6) and ‘before’ (v. 9) the LORD seems unlikely to signal the narrator’s disquiet with the execution. Nor is it probable, as Sanders, ‘Appeased by Homicide?’, online section 8, rightly notes, that the slaying of the seven Saulides is presented here as a sign of God’s weakness—­not least because execution is associated with the remedying of ‘bloods’ elsewhere. 32  So also Exum, ‘Rizpah’, 263; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 282; Klement, Samuel Conclusion, 173; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 277, 280. Some (e.g. Kozlova, Maternal Grief, 102; and Deken, ‘Saul’s Successors’, 12) suggest that David’s execution of the Saulide seven requires David to break his vow to Saul that he would preserve his descendants (1 Sam 24:23 [ET 22]). However, it seems more likely that the reader is left to assume either that Mephibosheth’s sparing (2 Sam 21:7) allows David to keep this vow because Saul is not ‘cut off ’ (entirely), or that David’s vow to Saul is invalidated by Saul’s own bloodguilt and the need to expiate it at the expense of his descendants (see also Sanders, ‘Appeased by Homicide?’, online section 8; and Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 337). 33  See Num 35:19, which insists that ‘The redeemer of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he encounters him, he shall put him to death.’ Morrison, 2 Samuel, 278–9; and Bar Efrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 220, note the general resonance with Deut 19:12: ‘the elders of the city shall send and take him [i.e. the one guilty of shedding innocent blood] and hand him over (‫ )ונתנו אתו ביד‬to the

200  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt As for those slain, while the five ill-­fated grandsons of Saul seem more likely to have had ‘Merab’ for a mother than ‘Michal’ (MT),34 they clearly have Barzillai of Abel Meholah for a grandfather (21:8). That Barzillai’s descendants are among the victims suggests the deterioration of relations between David and his former retainer. This is perhaps not surprising given that Barzillai was powerful enough to initially support the fleeing David (2 Sam 17:27–29), but later resisted David’s ‘invitation’ to reside at court, where David could keep an eye on him (2 Sam 19:32–40 [ET 31–39]). In any case, the inclusion of a third generation of Saul’s descendants amongst those to be slain assumes that the consequences and costs of unexpiated bloodguilt linger through time and across generations. These repercussions of Saulide ‘bloods’ offer a cautionary reminder to both David and the reader, that if Abner and Amasa’s ‘bloods’ remain unremedied, they will put at risk not only the son who will succeed David on the throne, but potentially the grandson who will ­follow him in turn. The news that the Gibeonites ‘impaled them on the mountain before the LORD’ (‫ ;ויקיעם בהר לפני יהוה‬2 Sam 21:9) confirms the Gibeonites’ fulfilling of their own prescription for expiating ‘bloods’ in the divine presence and seemingly on an elevation.35 The significance of the seven ‘falling together’ will become clear presently. However, the report that they are killed at the beginning of the barley harvest (v. 9) prepares for both Rizpah’s unexpected intervention and David’s response to it: 10Then

Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it over a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell upon them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodies by day, or the beasts of the field by night. 11David was told what Rizpah daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done, 12So David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the lords of Jabesh-­gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-­shan, where the Philistines had hung them up, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa. 13He brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan, his son; and they gathered the bones of those who had been impaled. 14They buried the bones of Saul and his

redeemer of blood (‫)גאל הדם‬, so that he may die.’ Here in 2 Sam 21:9, the echo of this language (‘and he gave them into the hand(s) of the Gibeonites’ [‫ )]ויתנם ביד הגבענים‬seems to indicate the fulfillment of the roles of ‘elder’ and ‘blood redeemer’ by David and the Gibeonites respectively. Whitelam, Just King, 120–1, rightly concludes that it is difficult to draw any far-­reaching conclusions regarding the monarch’s judicial role in cases of ‘blood(s)’ given the extraordinary and evidently sacral circumstances described here. 34  For the arguments in favour of Merab, see McCarter, II Samuel, 439; for those in favour of Michal, see Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 454; and, at greater length, Glück, ‘Merab or Michal’. For discussion of why Merab’s children may have been selected, see Peterson, ‘Gibeonite Revenge’, 212–16. 35  Reading with Qere (‫ ;שבעתם‬v. 9) ‘the seven of them’ (so also Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 454) rather than Ketiv (‫ ;שבעתים‬v. 9): ‘seven times’.

‘ The Bloodguilt of Saul ’   201 son Jonathan in the land of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of Kish, his father; they did all that the king commanded. After that, God responded to the plea for the land.  (2 Sam 21:10–14)

Whether Rizpah uses the cloth to cover the ground or herself,36 the narrator insists (v. 10) that she protected their remains from predators day and night, presumably from the beginning of the spring barley harvest. The mention of the rain’s resumption (v. 10) allows the reader to infer that the famine mentioned in 21:1 will eventually come to an end.37 But how the ending of the famine relates to Rizpah’s actions and David’s treatment of Saul and Jonathan’s bones (vv. 11–13) has remained something of a puzzle. Some have seen Rizpah’s preservation of her kin as persuading David to follow suit by charitably reintering the remains of their Saulide predecessors, Saul and Jonathan.38 As we will see, such interpretations grasp an important aspect of Rizpah’s intervention and David’s response to it. However, what they do not explain is what, in the present form of the text, Rizpah and David’s care for the dead has to do with the ‘bloods’ whose expiation apparently requires the killing of Saulides (2 Sam 21:1, 6). Nor do such interpretations explain why David goes to the trouble of repatriating Saul and Jonathan, instead of simply burying the Saulide seven to spare Rizpah the trouble of protecting them. In seeking to understand more fully Rizpah’s action and David’s response, we begin with the narrator’s clear emphasis on Rizpah’s prevention of the birds and beasts ravaging her slain kinsmen (v. 10). As we have already seen in 2 Sam 4, after Rechab and Baanah are executed for their unwarranted shedding of Ishbosheth’s blood, their bodies and/or extremities were hung, almost certainly by pinning or impalement, over the pool of Hebron. The likely frequenting of such pools by dogs (1 Kgs 22:38) strongly suggested that such exposure to predatory ravaging was seen to be associated with addressing the problem of ‘bloods’. So too, Joab’s piercing of Absalom’s hanging body and its further mutilation seemed to have been followed by a period of exposure which would allow for similar predations. If, as such cases indicate, exposure of corpses to predatory ravaging was perceived

36  A tent is suggested by Alter, The David Story, 332, while something to lie on is favoured by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 377; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 455; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 301. In either case, the cloth is clearly intended to facilitate Rizpah’s presence in the vicinity of the bodies of her kinsmen in order to ‘frighten away’ (so Deut 28:26) the birds and beasts. 37  Some suggest that it is a matter of months (until the rains in the Autumn) (so e.g. Alter, The David Story, 331; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 287–8; and Simon, Identity, 72). Others suggest Rizpah’s vigil lasts only until the arrival of a shower in the (normally) dry spring/summer season (so e.g. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 308; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 384; Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 199; and others). 38  So Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 288–9; Brenner, ‘Rizpah [Re]membered’, 208; Sanders, ‘Appeased by Homicide?’, online section 8; Kim, Bloodguilt, 152; Doak, Heroic Bodies, 180; and many others.

202  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt by some to be integral to the expiation of ‘bloods’,39 Rizpah may have protected the seven Saulides from predation not only to care for her kin, but also to obstruct the expiatory efforts of David.40 While Rizpah’s obstruction may be taken as entirely innocent, her subversion of David’s attempt to expiate the ‘bloods’ and bring the famine to an end might easily be read as intentional.41 Indeed, the reader need not look far for reasons why Rizpah might wish to undermine David’s authority and efficacy as king. To Shimei’s earlier allegations of David’s guilt for innocent Saulide blood, Rizpah might now add her own accusations, given that David here sends seven more Saulides to their deaths, including her sons. Such grievances make it entirely plausible that Rizpah intends to subvert David’s efforts here, perhaps to protest his complicity in their killing.42 It seems clear that David must have possessed the wherewithal to have removed Rizpah by force and allow for the predation of the Saulide bodies. Thus, David’s failure to do so almost certainly reflects Rizpah’s cleverness in preventing their predation without burying them and/or some sort of cultural constraint on who may bury the dead and when.43 In any case, understanding that Rizpah intervenes, both to care for her kin and to obstruct David’s expiatory efforts, allows the reader to make fuller sense of David’s subsequent attempt to resolve the crisis by repatriating Saul and Jonathan’s remains. The first clue regarding what David is seeking to do here is supplied by the narrator’s particular interest in the circumstances of the deaths of Saul and his son (1 Sam 31). As we have seen already, at the end of his life, Saul’s body is thrust through by his own sword before he is decapitated by the Philistines (1 Sam 31:9) and hung by being ‘fastened’ (‫ )תקעו‬to the wall of Beth-­shan (31:10). While such treatment is typical of the vanquished,44 David’s use of Saul and Jonathan’s remains here suggests that the events recounted in 1 Sam 31 were interpreted by David and the narrator in 2 Sam 21 for their own purposes. The narrator’s particular interest here is signalled by the note (2 Sam 21:12) that the bodies of Saul and Jonathan were hung (‫ )תלה‬in the square of Beth-shan 39  Rather than such exposure being presented as an unnecessary desecration (so Alter, The David Story, 332) or excessive punishment (Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 506). 40  Cazelles, ‘David’s Monarchy’, 169; Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 460; Thiel, ‘Rizpa’, 260; and Simon, Identity, 73, rightly recognize that Rizpah obstructs the completion of the expiation, without recognizing that the exposure seeks to expiate ‘bloods’ rather than remedy the infertility directly. While the exposure of the bodies is shaming for the house of Saul, the shame for David is not their exposure (as Doak, Heroic Bodies, 180, suggests), but Rizpah’s subversion of it. 41  See Kim, Bloodguilt, 74, for discussion of Rizpah’s efforts to obstruct or subvert. That Rizpah continues to protect her kinsmen’s remains until the rains fell, may or may not reflect a tradition of exposure until signs of satisfactory expiation were manifest (so Phillips, Criminal Law, 25–6). 42  So Westbrook, Your Daughters, 220, though whether the narrator shares Rizpah’s view is unclear. 43 Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 292, wonders whether David and the Gibeonites were too embarrassed to remove Rizpah from the scene. 44  So also Morrison, 2 Samuel, 281 (and cf. the treatment of Goliath in 1 Sam 17 and the latter’s threat to leave David’s remains to the birds and beasts [17:44]); but see Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 455, who rightly recognizes that the exposure here has cultic purposes.

‘ The Bloodguilt of Saul ’   203 (‫)רחב בית־שן‬, likely in proximity to the wall (1 Sam 31:10).45 The narrator’s use here of the verb ‘to hang’ (‫ )תלה‬makes the elevation of the bodies clear. But it also recalls the use of this same verb in the killings of Absalom (2 Sam 18:10) and Rechab and Baanah (2 Sam 4:12) for the blood of Amnon and Ishbosheth re­spect­ ive­ly. It is unclear precisely how long the bodies of Saul and his sons are portrayed as having been pinned to the wall in Beth-­shan (1 Sam 31:10). However, the narrator’s reminder that they were hung ‘on the day’ (‫ )ביום‬the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa (2 Sam 21:12), foregrounds the immediacy of their exposure by the Philistines. Even allowing for some haste, the distances involved mean that some time would be required for the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead to hear ‘what the Philistines had done to Saul’ (1 Sam 31:11).46 Certainly, the report that the men of Jabesh ‘travelled all night’ (31:12) to retrieve the bodies of Saul and his sons underlines the urgency of their mission.47 However, it also establishes that the Saulide bodies were exposed for a night at least, offering maximum opportunity for beasts to feast on their corpses. This is implied by Rizpah’s protection of her kinsmen from beasts during the ‘night’ (‫ ;לילה‬2 Sam 21:10) and by injunctions elsewhere that bodies which have been hung should be interred before nightfall to avoid precisely this ignominious fate.48 Indeed, that Saul and his sons have been preyed upon before being retrieved from the wall seems to be suggested by the otherwise surprising note that the flesh of the ‘body’ (‫ )גוית‬of Saul and his sons was ‘burned’ (‫ )וישרפו‬before their bones were buried (1 Sam 31:12). Some have suggested that this implies cremation and precludes David’s recovery of their ‘bones’. However, the reference to the latter here invites the conclusion that the bones survived, being more durable, while the flesh was burned because of its poor condition after predation.49 45 Auld, I & II Samuel, 575; and Stoebe, Zweite Buch Samuelis, 455, rightly see no serious contradiction between 2 Sam 21:12 and 1 Sam 31; as Gordon, I & II Samuel, 301, notes, 2 Chron 32:6 may suggest that the ‘square’ adjoined the ‘wall’ of 1 Sam 31:12. 46  For discussion of Jabesh Gilead and its possible association with the modern day Wadi el Yabis, which lies within eight to twenty hours’ travelling time from Beth-shan, see Edelman, ‘Jabesh Gilead’, 594–5. 47  For the roots of Jabesh Gilead’s zeal for Saul, see 1 Sam 11:1–9 (and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 282; and Doak, Heroic Bodies, 177). While Na’aman, ‘Gibeonites Revisited’, 103, sees the narrator’s portrayal of the Gileadites’ retrieval of Saul and Jonathan in a negative light, the use of ‫‘ גנב‬to steal’ merely implies the clandestine nature of the act (e.g. 2 Kgs 11:2; as noted by Gordon, I & II Samuel, 301) and ‘lords (‫ )בעלי‬of Jabesh Gilead’ cannot be assumed to be pejorative. 48  See e.g. Deut 21:22. The reference to post-­mortem exposure to animal predation ‘without any to frighten away’ in Deut 28:26 clearly resonates with what is described here (so Scoggins Balentine, ‘Ritual Violence’, 19). However, it seems less likely that David’s exposure of the Saulide remains is a realization of Israel’s covenant curses (so e.g. Miscall, ‘Michal and Her Sisters’, 254). As Westbrook, Your Daughters, 221, acknowledges, according to Joshua, the covenant between the Israelites and the Gibeonites should not have been made in the first place. Moreover, and most crucially, as we have seen above, the Hittite parallels, Josh 9 and the narrator here (21:1) make clear that the vow merely explains why Saul’s killing of Gibeonites was illegitimate and generated ‘bloods’. 49  So e.g. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 506; Olyan, ‘Honor’, 215; and Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 233. This seems preferable to assuming that ‘bones’ must be taken here as meaning ‘ash’ (so McCarter, II Samuel, 443; and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 251), which would be unprecedented. Indeed, as Barrick, ‘Burning Bones’,

204  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt While David’s presentation of Saul and Jonathan as suitable expiatory ­substitutes is facilitated by their impalement and exposure to predation, it is also supported by the narrator’s note that the Saulide seven ‘fell . . . together’ (‫ יחד‬. . . ‫ ;ויפלו‬21:9). Saul too is described as ‘falling’ (‫ )ויפל‬upon his sword (1 Sam 31:4),50 and he and his sons are found by the Philistines ‘fallen on Mt. Gilboa’ (‫ ;נפלים בהר הגלבע‬1 Sam 31:8). Of course, the use of the verb ‘to fall’ to describe the unnatural and violent deaths of Saul and his sons is not surprising.51 However, their particular suitability as expiatory substitutes for Rizpah’s seven kinsmen who ‘fell together’ (21:9) is underlined by an otherwise remarkable coincidence. Saul and his sons had not merely fallen on Mt Gilboa, but, like their ill-­fated descendants, had also fallen ‘together’ (‫ ;יחדו‬1 Sam 31:6, 2 Sam 21:9).52 It is clear that it is David who acts to repatriate the bones of Saul and Jonathan (vv. 12, 13a). However, the unexpected shift to plural subjects (‘they gathered’, v. 13b; ‘they buried’, ‘they did all that the king commanded’, v. 14) and the lack of an obvious plural antecedent, makes it unclear whether the burying is done by David and/or the Gibeonites and/or David’s servants.53 This, coupled with the ambiguity of the reference to the ‘bones of those who had been impaled’ (‫ ;את־עצמות המוקעים‬v. 13a) has persuaded some that the originally discrete tradition of David’s reburial of Jonathan and Saul’s remains (vv. 12–13a, 14a, b) was later integrated into the story of the Gibeonites’ expiation of Saulide ‘bloods’ (vv. 1–11, 13b, 14c, d).54 However, while the gathering of the ‘bones of those who had been impaled’ (v. 13) might have originally referred to the Saulide seven, in the text as it currently stands, this is much less clear. Because of Rizpah’s protection of the bodies of the seven, the only Saulides who have been both impaled and exposed to predation (and thus reduced to bones) are Saul and Jonathan, which is precisely what allows them to serve 9–10, notes, the very high temperature required to incinerate bones (as opposed to flesh) posed a considerable challenge in antiquity. 50  Cf. the similar fate of his armour-­bearer in v. 5. 51  The non-­literal use of the verb explains why it is compatible with a death by suspended impalement (contra Smith, The Books of Samuel, 375). 52  While the men who die at Gibeon in representative combat also ‘fall together’ (so Alter, The David Story, 331), the ‘falling together’ of Saul and Jonathan is clearly more relevant here. The alternative account of the death of Saul offered by the Amalekite also notes that the king was ‘fallen’ (2 Sam 1:10) and would not recover, while 1:12 clarifies that it was not merely Saul who died by the sword (as recalled in 1 Sam 31:4) but that both Saul and Jonathan were ‘fallen by the sword’. This text however does not seem to be in view here in 2 Sam 21 and may not have been known by the narrator. 53 LXXAL suggests ‘he buried’ in v. 14, which reflects an interpretive response to this difficulty rather than pointing to the original Hebrew. 54  So suggests Chavel, ‘Compositry’, in what is the most persuasive of such studies (see 25, n. 5, for his evaluation of previous efforts). While all such analyses are speculative, the following variation on Chavel’s proposal seems more likely. The need for a third-­person masculine plural antecedent in the shape of the Gibeonites points towards a putative source which did originally focus purely on David’s expiation of Saulide ‘bloods’ courtesy of the Gibeonites (vv. 1–9c). This seemingly concluded with the latter’s gathering of the bones (v. 13b), a note of their obedience to the king’s commands (v. 14b) and a  report of God’s hearing the plea for the land (v. 14c)—a sequence which reflects the expiatory requirements relating to bloodguilt. If so, the tradition of Rizpah’s intervention (vv. 9d–11) might be an editorial link introduced to explain what David’s killing of some Saulides (the Seven) and his reburial of others (Saul and Jonathan) had to do with each other.

‘ The Bloodguilt of Saul ’   205 David’s expiatory purpose.55 Indeed, the mention of ‘David’ at the beginning of v. 13 implies that he and either his servants or the Gibeonites are the ones who gather the bones of the previously impaled Saul and Jonathan for burial (v. 13b), thereby confirming them as suitable substitutes for the Saulide seven.56 Moreover, because the seven are not mentioned again, the reader may be invited to assume that their bodies, rather than merely their bones, were eventually buried quietly by a relieved Rizpah, as their predation was no longer needed.57 All of this suggests that when Rizpah protects the remains of the seven Saulides to care for them and obstruct their use to expiate ‘bloods’, David responds in kind. By repatriating Saul and Jonathan’s previously impaled and exposed remains and burying them, David seeks to overcome Rizpah’s obstruction and underline his own allegiance to the house of Saul. If so, the success of David’s intervention would seem to be suggested by the note that God hears the supplications for the land (v. 14). It is theoretically possible that God’s hearing of these supplications (v. 14) after the burial of those executed and exposed is intended to suggest that such an interment is integral to the process of expiating the Saulide ‘bloods’ here.58 If so, it would be a remarkable exception to the treatment of those deemed bloodguilty elsewhere in 2 Samuel. Absalom is dishonourably buried under a pile of stones (2 Sam 18), Rechab and Baanah’s remains are pinned to a wall (2 Sam 4), and we hear nothing at all of the final fate of the Amalekite (2 Sam 1). For this reason, it seems rather more likely that expiation of ‘bloods’ here is accomplished by means of execution and exposure to predation.59 If so, David’s burial of the bones presumably reflects the same good will towards Saulides which he showed when ensuring Ishbosheth’s

55  Hamley, ‘ “Dis(re)membered” ’, 428; and Klement, Samuel Conclusion, 169, note in passing the comparable exposure of the Saulide seven and Saul and Jonathan. 56  As Van Seters, ‘Gibeonites’, 543, rightly points out, in the text as we have it, it is most natural to have ‘David’ as the nearest antecedent included in the plural ‘they’. However, that ‘they buried’ refers to David and his servants (so Van Seters) seems less likely given that it is the Gibeonites who have been referred to throughout the text and David’s retainers are nowhere mentioned. 57  The disappearance of the Saulide seven is noted by e.g. Exum, ‘Rizpah’, 265; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 302; and Van Seters, ‘Gibeonites’, 543. 58 So Buttenwieser, ‘Blood Revenge’, 313; Exum, ‘Rizpah’, 267; and others, including Darshan, ‘Reinterment of Saul’, 640–5, on the basis of Greek traditions. The relevance of Greek parallels here is doubtful however, in part because, as Darshan himself recognizes, the Hebrew Bible overwhelmingly inveighs against a belief in the reliquary power of bones or the dead. Furthermore, the analogy of the Greek traditions would suggest that if David wished to exploit the reliquary power of his heroic predecessors’ bones, he should have brought them to his own city of Jerusalem, not to Gibeah. Indeed a similar objection might be raised against Doak, Heroic Bodies, 178–84, whose comparison with Greek traditions leads him to the conclusion that the significance of the bone transfer to Gibeah is more political. However, even if the politics of reinterment are illumined by the Greek parallels, as Doak admits, ‘the bone transfer is a corollary, not the main act in the drama’ because the initial oracle David receives points to the cause of the famine as ‘bloods’ (183). 59 Smith, The Books of Samuel, 376; and Simon, Identity, 65, note that the propitiation is accomplished not by the burial, but rather by the execution of the men, to which we would add their ex­pos­ ure to predation (see Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 286).

206  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt honourable burial (2 Sam 4:12),60 and when he congratulated the men of Jabesh for sparing Saul and Jonathan’s further exposure on the wall in Beth-shan (2 Sam 2:4–5).61 Following the account of the Gibeonites, we are offered four brief reports of the success of David’s warriors against the Philistines (2 Sam 21:15–22), including one called Goliath (2 Sam 21:19). These reports inevitably invite the reader’s recollection of David’s triumph in the valley of Elah (1 Sam 17) and the beginning of his rise at the expense of Saul.62 Indeed, this interest in David’s rise and Saul’s demise continues when 2 Sam 22 is introduced as words sung by David ‘on the day when the LORD saved him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul’ (2 Sam 22:1).63 The song predictably makes no references to characters or events known from 1 or 2 Samuel.64 But this reference to David’s deliverance from the hand of Saul and his enemies inevitably frames David’s insistence that ‘I was blameless before him [the LORD] and I kept myself from my guilt’ (2 Sam 22:24; cf. 21–25).65 The reader might imagine these claims of innocence being uttered after David is anointed king (2 Sam 5:3) or indeed after Nathan’s dynastic oracle (2 Sam 7).66 If so, they seem either to forget or to renounce David’s guilt in not redeeming Abner’s blood, which David later admits when Shimei confronts him with it. Indeed, if David’s claim to innocence here is read still later, after he defeats the Ammonites (2 Sam 12), then it also seems to ignore the guilt David confesses after killing Uriah, of whom the reader will be reminded presently (2 Sam 23:39).67 Alternatively, it may be David’s deliverance from Saul which is to be emphasized 60  So Olyan, ‘Israelite Interment’, 612 (followed by Imray, ‘Posthumous Interest’, 512), who suggests that being moved to the ‘family tomb’ may have been seen as providing concrete benefits to the dead. For an ANE parallel, see Olyan, ‘Unnoticed Resonances’, 498–9. 61  Noted by Doak, Heroic Bodies, 177; and Olyan, ‘Honor, Shame and Covenant’, 214. 62  For discussion of the differences between the accounts of the killing of Goliath and his brother in 2 Sam 21:19, 1 Sam 17, and 1 Chron 20:5, see e.g. McCarter, I & II Samuel, 450; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 509; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 387; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 296. The latter two rightly note that if the editor of 1–2 Samuel felt any tension in attributing Goliath’s killing to both Elhanan (2 Sam 21:19) and David (1 Sam 17), it did not prevent the inclusion of both reports. 63  So Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 207; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 304. The uncertainty of when David might be seen as finally delivered from his enemies is noted by Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 307; and suggests to McCarter, I & II Samuel, 464; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 288; and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 261, that this verse must be seen with reference to the whole of David’s life. 64  As noted by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 378; Campbell, 2 Samuel, 194–5; and Anderson, 2 Samuel, 261. 65  So also Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 517. 66 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 517, inclines towards 2 Sam 5; while Noll, Faces of David, 134, prefers 2 Sam 7–8. 67 This tension is rightly appreciated by Auld, I & II Samuel, 592; Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 206; and Morrison, 2 Samuel, 293; while Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 519, sees David’s claim to innocence here as ironic (so too Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 343) and the reference to 2 Sam 3:39 as casting a dark shadow (cf. also Alter, The David Story, 340, 350; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 278; and Gordon, I & II Samuel, 316, who sees the latter as poignant). Borgman, David, Saul & God, 187–92, argues that David’s claim to being without guilt here is explained by his confession of wrongdoing in the case of Uriah, and God’s agreement to put away his sin (2 Sam 12:13). However, even if one accepts this argument, David’s (blood)guilt in relation to Abner remains unremedied.

‘ The Bloodguilt of Saul ’   207 here. If so, David’s claim here may be seen as simply reiterating the innocence from ‘bloods’ which he had demonstrated by executing both the Amalekite who had claimed to have slain Saul and the Beerothites who did kill Saul’s son.68 However it is appraised, David’s claim of innocence against the backdrop of deliverance from Saul and his enemies certainly resumes the narrative’s interest in the issue of violence and its legitimacy. The Samuel coda’s fascination with the exploits of David’s warriors (2 Sam 21:15–22) is resumed with further reports of their battles against the Philistines (2 Sam 23:8ff.). However, it is David’s struggle with Saul prior to his accession to the throne which is recalled by the mention here of David’s occupation of the ‘cave (or ‘stronghold’) of Adullam’ (‫ ;מערת עדלם‬2 Sam 23:13, cf. 1 Sam 22:1, 4).69 In this context, we read that David expresses his longing for someone to breach the Philistine garrison in Bethlehem (2 Sam 23:15) to draw water for him to drink. When three of his warriors oblige him, David’s response to them is noteworthy: 16. . . But

he was not willing to drink of it; he poured it out to the LORD, 17and he said, ‘Far be it from me, LORD, that I should do this. Can I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’ So he would not drink it . . .  (2 Sam 23:16–17)

The bravery of the men’s exploits explains in part why this brief episode finds a place here alongside comparable notes.70 However, the narrator’s underlining of David’s reaction suggests additional interests. Some have interpreted David’s pouring out of the water in light of injunctions to not consume blood, but rather to pour it out on the ground (Lev 17:10–13 and Deut 12:23–24).71 Others, noting that the water is poured out ‘to the LORD’, see David as offering a libation or something akin to this, on the basis of parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.72 What is clear is that David refuses to drink the water (2 Sam 23:16–17) because his idle or sentimental request for water from his home town of Bethlehem73 has

68  So also Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 519; and Campbell, 2 Samuel, 196. 69  While the echoing of 1 Sam 22 is noted by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 224; Auld, I & II Samuel, 600; and others, an association with 2 Sam 5:17–21 (e.g. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 405; and esp. Carlson, Chosen King, 225–6) is also possible. McCarter, I & II Samuel, 491, and others read ‘stronghold’ (‫ )מצדת‬here, but Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 317, rightly favours retaining the plausible MT ‘cave’ (‫ ;)מערת‬cf. 1 Sam 22:1. 70  Agreeing with Mauchline, First and Second Samuel, 317. It is possible that the heroic drawing of water signifies the ending of the Philistine occupation of Bethlehem (so Morrison, 2 Samuel, 303), but it is not obviously implied by the text. 71 McCarter, I & II Samuel, 496. The relevance of Deut 12 is also noted by Morrison, 2 Samuel, 304. 72  So e.g. Auld, I & II Samuel, 600; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 313 (noting Gen 35:14 and Jer 7:18); and Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 224 (noting Hos 9:4 and Sir 50:15), who sees the blood as sacrificial and thus belonging to God (so too Anderson, 2 Samuel, 276). 73  That David was motivated by sentiment here is suggested by Smith, The Books of Samuel, 385; Anderson, 2 Samuel, 276; and McCarter, I & II Samuel, 495, who also assumes that David had not

208  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt placed the ‘lives’ (‫ ;נפשותם‬23:17) of his warriors in jeopardy.74 Perhaps the ‘water’ is poured out because only the LORD, and not David, is worthy of such devotion.75 In any case, David seems to equate these lives unnecessarily risked with the ‘blood of the men’ (‫)דם האנשים‬. By doing so, David implies that had his men fallen to the Philistines in such circumstances, David might have seen himself as responsible for their blood.76 If so, this offers a striking contrast to David’s cavalier insistence that the ‘sword devours one and then another’ (2 Sam 11:25), when his killing of Uriah required additional casualties amongst his own servants. Indeed, David’s attitude here is much more reminiscent of the concern he displayed after the slaughter of the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22) and his restraint in sparing Saul (esp. 1 Sam 24, 26). Following on from David’s effort to address the problem of Saul’s legacy of unwarranted bloodshed (2 Sam 21:1–14), this brief note thus draws the reader back to David’s rise and his own scrupulous avoidance of ‘bloods’. While this underlines the contrast between Saul and the king who succeeded him, it also prepares the reader for David’s instruction to his own successor, Solomon, in 1 Kgs 2. * * * As it has been before, David’s innocence of Saulide blood is underlined in the story of the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:1–14).77 Indeed, when considered in its own right, the killing of the seven Saulides seems to represent a further triumph for David in his ongoing struggle against the house of Saul. However, while David’s resolution of the Gibeonite problem testifies to his ingenuity in solving the problem of Saulide ‘bloods’, the narrative also invites the reader to connect the dots of Saul’s ‘bloods’ with David’s own problems.78 In the Gibeonites’ indictment of Saul, the narrator includes a curious reference to Saul as ‘the chosen one of the LORD’ (‫ ;בחיר יהוה‬2 Sam 21:6).79 Apart from here, Saul’s divine chosenness is referenced in association with Gibeah only when he is selected for the kingship by lot (1 Sam 10:24–26). However, the fact that Saul’s intended for his men to take the request seriously (so too Auld, I & II Samuel, 600; Alter, The David Story, 349; Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 405; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 305). 74  That David takes umbrage at the risk entailed by this adventure is noted by Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 224; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 312; and Smith, The Books of Samuel, 385. David’s words here likely correspond in meaning to the fuller version of them found in 1 Chron 11:19: ‘Can I drink the blood of these men who (risked) their lives? For at (the risk of) their lives they brought it’ (‫( )הדם האנשים האלה אשתה בנפשותם כי בנפשותם הביאום‬cf. also LXX). Alter, The David Story, 350, suggests that the absence of a reference to David drinking the blood here in 2 Samuel may reflect an aversion for it (though note Lev 17:10–13 and Deut 12:23–24). For discussion and a reconstruction of the text here see McCarter, II Samuel, 491. 75  So plausibly, Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 535. Morrison, 2 Samuel, 303–4, infers from the pouring out of the water that the men’s feat constitutes a divine deliverance. 76  Agreeing with Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 305. 77  So Hertzberg, I & II Samuel, 384; Campbell, 2 Samuel, 190; McCarter, II Samuel, 445; Gordon, I & II Samuel, 300; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 281, 282; and Westbrook, Your Daughters, 215. 78  This verse underlines not only David’s responsibility for the reburial (so Morrison, 2 Samuel, 282) but the expiatory process as a whole. 79 Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 198, notes its curiousness and its irony; Alter, The David Story, 330; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 3, 281, view it as sarcastic.

‘ The Bloodguilt of Saul ’   209 ‘chosenness’ does not exempt the land and its people from the disastrous ­consequences of royal bloodguilt,80 seems an invitation to recall that Saul is not the only king to have been chosen by Yahweh. Indeed, David’s own ‘chosenness’ is underlined in the account of his anointing in 1 Sam 16. There, when Samuel passes over David’s older brothers, he repeats the phrase ‘The LORD has not chosen’ (‫ )לא־בחר יהוה‬no fewer than three times (1 Sam 16:8–10), before finally announcing that he has selected David as king (vv. 12–13).81 With Shimei’s accusation and David’s admission of Saulide bloodguilt lingering (2 Sam 16) and Joab’s il­legit­ im­ate killing of Amasa (2 Sam 20) fresh in the reader’s mind, the unexpected referencing of Saul’s ‘chosenness’ seems likely to be a reminder; just as Saul’s chosennness has not exempted his house from the consequences of ‘bloods’, neither should David expect his chosenness to exempt his house from them.82 Indeed, as we have already noted, the fact that Saul’s bloodguilt fells both his sons and grandsons (2 Sam 21) offers a salutary warning to David and the reader. If left unremedied, the ‘bloods’ incurred by Joab in killing Saulides and others will put at risk not only the son who succeeds David, but potentially the grandson who will follow. Moreover, when Saul’s descendants fall to Gibeonites who are intent on redeeming their kinsmen’s innocent blood, it is a reminder that David and his descendants too are vulnerable to the redeeming of Saulide blood by someone like Shimei, who has already appeared twice (2 Sam 16, 19) and will do so again in 1 Kings 2.83 The Gibeonite story thus demonstrates David’s need and resolve to eliminate ‘bloods’ from the time of Saul. However, the further allusions to that earlier time (2 Sam 22:21–25 and 23:14–17) also suggest that David’s house dare not be associated with the illegitimate killing of any more Saulides, lest ‘bloods’ be added to those already incurred. As we have seen, David’s passionate declaration of innocence (2 Sam 22:21–25) is a reminder of his adamant refusal to shed Saulide blood (1 Sam 24) or allow Abishai to do so for him (1 Sam 26; 2 Sam 16, 19). Indeed, David’s scruples regarding innocent blood are underlined by his refusal to drink the water procured for him at the risk of his men’s blood, when he was still on the run from Saul (2 Sam 23:16–17). While the narrator remains reluctant to pass explicit judgement, Rizpah’s obstruction of David illustrates the narrative’s continuing interest in disclosing a

80  So also Bar Ephrat, Zweite Buch Samuel, 220. 81  For other references to David’s chosenness outside Samuel and Kings, see Ps 78:70 and 89:4 [ET 3], 20 [ET 19]. 82 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 507, rightly notes that the episode points to the threat posed to the nation by David’s failings, though Firth does not specifically pinpoint the issue of ‘bloods’. 83  The survival of Mephibosheth and Shimei qualifies observations that the slaying of the Saulide seven eliminates the threat posed to David by Saul’s house (e.g. Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 211). Blenkinsopp, Gibeon, 90; and McKenzie, King David, 136, see the elimination of Saulides here as proving the historical David’s guilt in actively conspiring against Saul’s descendants, despite the text’s protests to the contrary (emphasized by Klement, Samuel Conclusion, 173).

210  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt variety of perspectives on the legitimacy of bloodshed.84 Noteworthy in this respect, is the Gibeonite episode’s inclusion of the divine acknowledgment of ‘bloods’ explicitly for the first time. Indeed, here the LORD is presented as not only diagnosing and disclosing the problem of ‘bloods’, but also responding to David’s actions to remedy the problem. This divine interest will be of some importance in considering the end of David’s story in 1 Kgs 1–2, where David seeks to ensure that ‘bloods’ is both eliminated and avoided as he passes his kingdom to Solomon. 84  While there can be little doubt that Rizpah’s perspective is at odds with the actions of David and the Gibeonites, the suggestion that the narrator endorses this perspective (so e.g. Westbrook, Your Daughters, 220ff.) or sees it as somehow normative is far from obvious (as Green, David’s Capacity, 152, rightly notes).

9 ‘Bring Back His Bloody Deeds’: 1 Kgs 1–2 In turning our attention in this chapter to David’s succession in 1 Kgs 1–2, we will see that David orders Solomon to eliminate ‘bloods’ incurred by Joab by executing him. However, we will also see David enjoining his son to avoid ‘bloods’ in eliminating Shimei and perhaps too by retaining the sons of Barzillai. In disposing of Joab and Shimei, and in exiling Abiathar, Solomon will see himself as solving, for the moment at least, the problem of illegitmate bloodshed which has so exercised David and animated his story from the beginning. Because 1 Kgs 1–2 display a style and an interest in Adonijah and Solomon not found in 2 Sam 9–20 or 21–24, some have been persuaded that the opening chapters of 1 Kings represent a sequel to David’s story, rather than its conclusion.1 However, as was recognized already in antiquity, 1 Kgs 1–2 does in some sense conclude David’s story, as evidenced by the insistence that King David ‘was old and advanced in years’ (1 Kings 1:1), but has not yet exited the stage.2 Indeed, while Adonijah and Solomon do properly make their entrance as characters in 1 Kgs 1–2,3 they are outnumbered in these chapters by a cast already well-­known to the reader from 2 Samuel, including David, Bathsheba, Nathan, Joab, Shimei, and even Benaiah.4 In any case, while depictions of this cast in 2 Sam 11–24 may differ in various ways from their portrayal here in 1 Kgs 1–2, the reader of David’s story cannot help but read the latter in light of the former.

The Killing of Adonijah In 1 Kgs 1, the mention of David’s fading powers (vv. 1–4) sets the stage for his remaining sons’ attempts to succeed him on the throne. The narrator underlines Adonijah’s credentials, ambition, and his mustering of support (vv. 5–10). However, 1  See, for instance, Keys, Wages of Sin, 54–70; Wansborogh, ‘Finale?’; and more recently Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 252–4. 2  For the division of the text at 1 Kgs 2:12 in LXXL, see Smith, The Books of Samuel, 393; and Ackroyd, Second Samuel, 236, who also note that 1 Kings continues David’s story (see too Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 23; Long, I Kings, 34; Cogan, 1 Kings, 165). Alter, The David Story, 363, comments on 1 Kgs 1–2 along with the books of Samuel as part of David’s story, as do Gunn, Story of King David; and McKenzie, King David. 3  So also Cogan, I Kings, 166. 4  For a useful summary of people and places in 1 Kgs 1–2 which are known from the books of Samuel (and the few that are not), see Auld, I & II Samuel, 621–2.

King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0010

212  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Nathan and Bathsheba orchestrate David’s authorization of Solomon as his royal successor instead (1 Kgs 1:11–35) by reminding the king of a previous oath to that effect.5 When Benaiah, Zadok, and Nathan duly install Solomon on the throne to public acclaim (vv. 36–40), the reporting of it to Adonijah (vv. 41–48) prompts him to flee to the altar for fear of Solomon (v. 50). Seeking refuge at the altar is known from elsewhere (Exod 21:12–14), which may well explain Adonijah’s actions here, given that he sees himself under mortal threat (1 Kgs 1:51).6 While the cause of Adonijah’s fear can be easily imagined (v. 51), Solomon responds by reassuring him that ‘not one of his hairs will fall to the ground’ (v. 52).7 This turn of phrase recalls David’s similar assurance to the woman of Tekoa in relation to her son (2  Sam 14:11), which in turn secures David’s sparing of Absalom.8 Nevertheless, the fact that Absalom is eventually killed and Adonijah’s survival made conditional here on his conduct, may hint that Adonijah’s fear of his brother is well-­founded, despite his obeisance before Solomon (1 Kgs 1:53).9 When Adonijah approaches Bathsheba for assistance after Solomon has secured the throne (1 Kgs 2:12), her query regarding whether Adonijah comes ‘in peace’ (v. 13) surely underlines her suspicion of his lingering ambitions.10 In response, Adonijah does acknowledge the divine legitimation of Solomon, but he hardly allays Bathsheba’s suspicions when Adonijah also reminds her how close he himself had come to securing the throne (v. 15).11 Indeed, because Adonijah is David’s eldest remaining son and enjoys Joab and Abiathar’s support, his request for Solomon to give him Abishag, David’s former concubine, seems not merely foolish, but dangerously so.12 If, as it would seem, such a request is intended to call to mind Absalom’s taking of David’s concubines as a sign of his usurpation (2 Sam 16:21–22),

5  The absence of any mention of such a vow in 2 Samuel leads some to the conclusion that Nathan and Bathsheba are presented here as deceptive and manipulative (so e.g. Long, ‘Darkness between Brothers’, 85; and Marcus, ‘David the Deceiver’, 16). Others assume the vow’s authenticity (so e.g. Green, David’s Capacity, 250; Patrick, ‘Nathan’, 289; and DeVries, I Kings, 10). Alter, The David Story, 366, 369; and Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 26, suggest David may have made the vow to Bathsheba in private. 6  So Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 30; Cogan, I Kings, 164; and Whitelam, Just King, 151. For ‘fear for one’s life’ as a salient feature of the traditions of asylum in both legal and narrative traditions and for a review of recent literature on this text, see Burnside, ‘Flight of the Fugitives’, 424. 7 Barmash, Homicide, 73; and Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 23, suggest that Adonijah does not seek the asylum afforded a killer (cf. Exod 21:12–14) because he has not killed anyone. However, Burnside, ‘Flight of the Fugitives’, 424–5, argues instead that Solomon’s sparing of him reflects his judgement that Adonijah is either entitled to asylum or not in need of it—­whether because Adonijah has not yet forfeited his life or because Solomon has granted him provisional amnesty relating to Solomon’s accession (cf. Whitelam, Just King, 152). 8 Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 105, notes the appearance of this turn of phrase also in 1 Sam 14:45. 9  So also Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 20–1; and Alter, The David Story, 373. 10  These suspicions are noted by Thenius, Könige, 16; Alter, The David Story, 377; Walsh, 1 Kings, 48; and Cogan, I Kings, 175. 11 Auld, I & II Kings, 18, too senses the curiousness of this. 12  So Cross, Caananite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 237; and Alter, The David Story, 378. Miller, A King and a Fool?, 210, sees Adonijah’s request as ironic in the extreme.

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   213 it probably explains and justifies Solomon’s violent response.13 This seems to be confirmed by Solomon’s insistence that his elder brother’s request is tantamount to asking for the kingdom (1 Kgs 2:22), and thus worthy of the execution (v. 23) which Solomon duly orders and Benaiah carries out (vv. 24–25).14 This episode may well have been included to respond to suspicions of Solomon’s malfeasance.15 If so, it fulfils this purpose well by emphasizing that Adonijah is executed only when Solomon judges that he has failed to meet the conditions of his earlier vow to spare him. Thus, while the reader may be invited to lament the foolishness of Adonijah, there is little encouragement to doubt the technical legitimacy of his execution or to entertain the possibility that Solomon has incurred ‘bloods’ in having him killed.16

The Killing of Joab While David is not connected to the death of Adonijah in any obvious way by 1 Kgs 1–2, the same cannot be said of the dispatching of Shimei and Joab (1 Kgs 2:28–46), which are prepared for by David’s final orders to Solomon: 1When

the day of David’s death drew near, he commanded his son Solomon, saying: 2‘I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong and be a man, 3and keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in his ways and to keep his statutes, his commandments, his judgements and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, so that you may succeed in all you do and wherever you turn. 4And so that the LORD will establish his word that he spoke about me: “If your sons guard  their way, walking before me faithfully with all their heart and with all their soul, your man will not be cut off from the throne of Israel.” 5Moreover, you know what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me, what he did to the two commanders of  the armies of Israel, Abner son of Ner and Amasa son of Jether, whom he killed, setting the bloods of war in peace[-time] and putting the bloods of war on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on his feet. 6So act according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace. (1 Kgs 2:1–6)

The preface to David’s charge to Solomon opens with the resonant exhortation to ‘Be strong and be a man’ (1 Kgs 2:2). Because the encouragement to ‘be strong’ 13  See e.g. Thenius, Könige, 18; Auld, I & II Kings, 18; Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 38; Sweeney, I & II Kings, 68; Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 269; and Robinson, Kings, 41. For a recent discussion of such allegations in the David stories, see Fleming, ‘Casting Aspersions’. 14  The procedural precision is noted by Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 399. 15  See e.g. McCarter, ‘ “Plots, True and False” ’, 360; and Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 121. 16  So also Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 270.

214  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt was last heard on the lips of Absalom, in persuading his servants to kill Amnon (2 Sam 13: cf. 1 Sam 4:9), it seems likely to foreshadow here the violence which David will soon order.17 However, David goes on here to associate the required strength with obedience not to David’s own commands, but to the commandments of the LORD. These David sees as written in the law of Moses, presented here in terms of ‘statutes’, ‘commandments’, ‘judgements’, and ‘testimonies’ (1 Kgs 2:3). These terms have hardly been encountered by the reader of David’s story thus far, but are unmistakably Deuteronomic in conception,18 as is David’s linking of Solomon’s obedience to his success (‫ ;תשכיל‬v. 3; cf. Deut 29:8 [ET 9]).19 David proceeds to interpret this success in terms of the fulfilment of the divine purpose for him: ‘the LORD will establish his word which he spoke about me’, (‫ ;יקים יהוה את־דברו אשר דבר עלי‬v. 4). This interpretation clearly echoes David’s earlier prayer for divine confirmation of the promise of an enduring dynasty for him in 2 Sam 7: ‘LORD God, establish forever, the word that you have spoken concerning your servant and his house’, (‫;יהוה אלהים הדבר אשר דברת על־עבדך ועל־ביתו הקם עד־עולם‬ 2 Sam 7:25).20 So too, we saw that these promises in 2 Sam 7 echoed Abigail’s premising of their fulfilment on David not entering ‘bloods’ (1 Sam 25). This suggested that David’s surprising need for reassurance in 2 Sam 7 reflected his lingering concern regarding the threat posed to his house by unredeemed blood. As David offers his parting instructions here, this same concern resurfaces. Indeed, interpreting David’s conditional articulation of Nathan’s dynastic promise in this way seems to be encouraged when David insists that Solomon take action to avoid and eliminate ‘bloods’ so that David’s house will ‘not be cut off ’ (‫;לא־יכרת‬ 1 Kgs 2:4) from the throne. This language was last seen in David’s story when Joab was cursed for shedding Abner’s innocent blood with a set of deleterious consequences which would ‘not be cut off ’ (‫ ;אל־יכרת‬2 Sam 3:29) from the house of Joab’s father. It becomes clear that the ‘bloods’ incurred by his nephew Joab are perceived by David as a serious threat to his dynasty and Solomon’s success, when the aging king turns his attention to the fate of his general.21 In doing so, David emphasizes that his orders are premised on Solomon’s own knowledge that Joab’s killing of Abner and Amasa has set ‘bloods of war in 17  So also Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’, 408–9. Thenius, Könige, 12; and Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 107, note the parallel to 1 Sam 4:9. 18  Indeed, such language is seen only in 2 Sam 22:23. For the Deuteronomic quality of these verses, see e.g. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 31; Wray Beal, 1 & 2 Kings, 75; Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 267–8; and Alter, The David Story, 374, who also notes how uncharacteristic they are of David’s story. 19  So Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 31; Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 76; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 107; and Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 24. 20  While the contrast between the unconditional promise in 2 Sam 7 and the conditional quality here is noted by many (e.g. Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 24; Cogan, I Kings, 172; Green, David’s Capacity, 255; Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 31–2; and Walsh, 1 Kings, 39), little attention has been paid to 2 Sam 7:25. 21  As Brueggemann, ‘Heir and Land’, 88, notes, these Deuteronomic-­style injunctions effectively legitimate David’s efforts to eliminate and avoid bloodguilt. See too Walsh, 1 Kings, 41, who notes the intentional connection between the two.

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   215 peace[-time]’ (1 Kgs 2:5).22 This formulation is found only here in the Hebrew Bible,23 but it resumes the narrative’s interest in the relationship between war and innocent blood. In Chapter 4, we noted that Joab may have assumed his killing of Abner was legitimate because he viewed Abner as still being at war with David, despite the latter sending Abner away ‘in peace’ (2 Sam 3:21–25). It is this interpretation at which David’s allegation here seems to take aim, by implying that while Asahel was legitimately killed by Abner in battle, Abner was illegitimately killed by Joab in peacetime.24 If this much seems clear, David’s further suggestion that Joab is guilty of ‘putt­ ing the bloods of war on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on his feet’ (1 Kgs 1:5) is rather less transparent.25 It may be recalled that after Amasa is stabbed, his innards spill onto the ground (2 Sam 20:10) and he wallows in his own blood. Thus, it is possible that David here accuses Joab of putting the ‘bloods’ of war on Amasa’s belt and sandals rather than on Joab’s.26 However, on balance, it seems more likely that David here suggests that the ‘bloods of war’ have stained Joab’s own clothing and sandals.27 If so, this is comparable in some ways to David invoking innocent ‘bloods’ to whirl upon Joab’s ‘head’ (2 Sam 3:28) after his killing of Abner, even if here the blood is associated with clothing instead.28 This latter interest also finds a curious correspondence in the narrator’s ‘cloak and dagger’ description of Joab’s killing of Amasa, including Joab’s sheathing of his sword on ‘his waist’ (‫ ;מתניו‬2 Sam 20:8). This may suggest that David’s mention here of the belt around Joab’s ‘waist’ (‫ ;מתניו‬1 Kgs 2:5) is also intended to evoke a recollection of his bloody dispatching of Amasa. Joab’s killing of Amasa might seem a less obvious example of shedding the ‘bloods of war’ in peacetime than his killing of Abner.29 However, David’s mention 22  See Janzen, ‘David’s Warning’, 267–71, for departures from MT in the Greek versions of 2:5 (including LXXL) which secondarily confirm that Joab’s killing is justified by his shedding of innocent blood and consequent incurring of ‘bloods’. 23 Cogan, I Kings, 173, notes that the verb ‫ שים‬is used similarly (‘to assign/impute’) in Deut 22:8 (cf. also Judg 9:24 and 1 Sam 22:15). 24 Green, David’s Capacity, 254–5, notes the tension between David and Joab’s perspectives on Abner’s killing of Asahel, which she sees as taking place within an ongoing war, but not an actual battle. 25  The LXX’s reading of ‘innocent blood’ (αἷμα ἀθῷον) here in place of the ‘bloods of war’ (‫דמי‬ ‫ ;מלחמה‬MT) likely reflects an effort to eliminate the repetition of the latter and interpret an uncommon expression in terms of a more recognizable one (as was the case in 1 Sam 25:26, 31). This complicates suggestions that the Greek reflects an original Hebrew text which was concerned with ‘sacrifice’ (so Hugo, ‘Abner und Amasa’) and that the (proto-)MT subsequently sought to exonerate David and/or Solomon even more fully than they already are by both the MT and the LXX. 26  While, in LXXL, David claims that the blood attaches to ‘my’ garments, this is less likely to reflect evidence of an original Hebrew text (e.g. Robinson, Kings, 38) than a correct, but secondary, inference based on 1 Kgs 2:31–32 (so Janzen, ‘David’s Warning’, 267–71). 27  So Alter, The David Story, 375; Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 76; and Cogan, I Kings, 173. 28  The clear evoking of ‘bloods’ in 2 Sam 3:28–29 makes it impossible to agree with Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 25, that the issue of Joab’s bloodguilt for killing Abner is being raised here for the first time. 29  So Gray, I & II Kings, 100–1, rightly critiqued by Keys, Wages of Sin, 67, who, however, mis­ taken­ly sees David’s characterization of Amasa’s killing in these terms as proof that this narrative does not know or perhaps simply disregards the account of the killing in 2 Sam 20.

216  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt of the ‘bloods of war’ twice in 1 Kgs 2:5 confirms that David sees Amasa’s killing too, as an example of the shedding of innocent blood under the guise of war. This probably explains David’s otherwise curious designation of both Abner and Amasa as ‘commanders of the armies of Israel’ (v. 5). Abner’s command of Saul’s army and his close association with the northern tribes allied to Saul suggests that David refers here to Abner’s command over the armies of Israel in this more limited sense.30 The narrator also makes it clear that the army of Israel placed under Amasa’s command by Absalom was similarly limited to those willing to fight for Absalom against those loyal to David under Joab (2 Sam 18:6, 7, 16, 17). By referring to both Abner and Amasa as commanders of the armies of Israel, David draws attention to why Joab killed them. Evidently, Joab insisted upon seeing both Abner and Amasa as enemies with whom he and David remained at war, despite David making peace with both men.31 While we saw hints in the last chapter that David viewed Amasa as innocent, it is only here in David’s instructions to Solomon, that this view is confirmed. According to David, when Joab killed Amasa in peace time as if he was an enemy combatant, he used war as a pretense for shedding innocent blood, just as he had in killing his other rival Abner. David’s allegation that Joab has shed the ‘bloods’ of war ‘in peace’ (‫ ;בשלם‬1 Kgs 2:5) explains why Solomon is warned to not ‘let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace’ (‫ ;בשלם‬1 Kgs 2:6). This reference to Joab’s old age seems likely to betray David’s concern in his final days that Joab’s own peaceful passing might pre-­empt a remedying of the bloodguilt incurred by Joab’s misuse of ‘peace’.32 While David clearly anticipates and expects that Solomon will bring about Joab’s premature death, the vagueness of David’s instructions and his distancing of himself from Joab’s execution are noteworthy. We have seen elsewhere that when executions for unwarranted bloodshed are carried out by proxies (2 Sam 1, 4, 18), these are accompanied by a direct order to put to death the one seen as guilty.33 Here, David’s instructions have less the appearance of an execution order, than a delegation of responsibility to Solomon, whom he orders to act according to his wisdom (‫ ;כחכמתך‬1 Kgs 2:6). The next chapter (1 Kgs 3) will underline Solomon’s wisdom in various ways. However, the wisdom required of Solomon here seems more akin to the ruthless pragmatism displayed by the woman of Abel Beth Maacah

30  David’s reference to both Judah and Israel elsewhere in these chapters (e.g. 1 Kgs 1:35) suggests that his allusion to ‘Israel’ is not incidental. Thenius, Könige, 21, noted long ago that Absalom intended to give Amasa command of the troops of both Judah and Israel in place of Joab (2 Sam 17:25), if David’s forces could be defeated. 31 Cogan, 1 Kings, 173; DeVries, 1 Kings, 35–6; Mulder, 1 Kings 1–11, 95; and in a similar vein, e.g., Noth, Könige, I, 30; and Walsh, 1 Kings, 41. 32  Both of these insights are owed to Alter, The David Story, 376, and complicate the assumption (e.g. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 33) that David’s delay reflects his lack of concern regarding bloodguilt and suggests a fabrication. 33  The indirectness is also noted by Walsh, 1 Kings, 41.

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   217 (2 Sam 20:22), when she persuades its citizens to behead Sheba, son of Bichri, in order to save the city. It is worth noting that while Joab’s execution is explained by his shedding of Abner and Amasa’s innocent blood, David’s primary justification for ordering it is what ‘Joab son of Zeruiah did to me’ (1 Kgs 2:5).34 The text here does not make explicit in what way David sees Joab’s killing of Amasa and Abner as acts against him personally. However, David’s very personal disavowal of responsibility for Abner’s blood and his cursing of Joab with ‘bloods’ (2 Sam 3:28–29) suggests David’s conviction here that his association with Joab has put him and his house at risk from the ‘bloods’ incurred by Joab in killing both Abner and Amasa.35 Why it is Joab who must be killed and not also his brother Abishai is worth considering. Certainly, David’s ordering of Solomonic violence against only Joab here resonates with the narrative’s insistence that it was the vengeance of Joab alone which Abner feared (2 Sam 2:22) and the violence of Joab alone which Abner endured (2 Sam 3:27). To this may be added the fact that it was Joab and his father’s house who bore the brunt of David’s curse (2 Sam 3:28–29). Indeed, Abishai’s involvement in the killing of Amasa is still more peripheral. After leading troops in pursuit of Sheba (2 Sam 20:6–7), Abishai is only mentioned again when pursuit is resumed following the killing of Amasa, which the narrator scrupulously attributes to Joab alone (vv. 8–10).36 If Abishai’s absence from David’s indictment is thus unsurprising, David’s failure to mention Joab’s killing of Absalom here might seem rather more conspicuous to some.37 However, we have seen that while Joab’s killing of Absalom was lamented by David, it evidently was not seen as incurring ‘bloods’, but rather remedying 34  The significance of this is noted by Bar Ephrat, Narrative Art, 182; and in passing by Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 146. While Janzen, ‘David’s Warning’, sees David here as suggesting that Joab has killed these two men ‘for me’ (i.e. for David’s benefit), this seems less likely given: (a) as Janzen admits (276), the three other uses of the lamedh in this verse to indicate the beneficial dative all point to a disadvantage i.e. ‘to/against me’; (b) neither David nor the narrator in 2 Sam 3 or 2 Sam 20 admit the advantage of these deaths to David; and (c) David and Solomon here proceed to make clear how they see these killings as having disadvantaged David and his house, i.e. by incurring ‘bloods’. Moreover, the suggestion (275–6) that David orders Joab’s execution to avoid him assassinating Solomon as he had done Abner and Amasa seems distinctly unlikely after Solomon’s accession to the throne with David’s imprimatur and blessing. 35  That this is why David sees the killings as ‘personal’ is noted by many including Pedersen, Israel, 423–5; Montgomery, Kings, 89; Gunn, Story of King David, 107; Alter, The David Story, 375; DeVries, 1 Kings, 35; Walsh, 1 Kings, 41; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 116; and Nelson, First and Second Kings, 24. 36  While Simpson, Contesting Claims, 97, suggests that Joab alone is indicted because of his further involvement in the deaths of Uriah and esp. Absalom, we have shown that in neither case were ‘bloods’ seen to be incurred. 37  While Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 388, sees Joab’s killing of Absalom as motivating David’s orders here despite him not being named, this can hardly be sustained (so Thenius, Könige, 13). Some see David as failing to mention Absalom here because David is ignorant of the circumstances of his killing (so Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 25) or because he sees Joab’s killing of Absalom as a ‘matter of state’ (so Alter, The David Story, 375) or as a legitimate combat casualty (cf. Green, David’s Capacity, 255)—a view which we have seen to be attributed by the narrator to others, but not necessarily to David.

218  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt those incurred by Absalom in killing Amnon illegitimately.38 With Joab having solved the latter problem by killing Absalom, David evidently seeks to remove the  remaining threat posed by the ‘bloods’ of Abner and Amasa, by ordering Joab’s killing in turn. Accordingly, later in this chapter, Joab meets his end on Solomon’s orders. 28When

the news came to Joab—­for Joab had inclined toward Adonijah though he had not inclined toward Absalom—­Joab fled to the tent of the LORD and seized the horns of the altar. 29When King Solomon was told, ‘Joab has fled to the tent of the LORD and now is beside the altar,’ Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada, saying, ‘Go, strike him down.’ 30Benaiah came to the tent of the LORD and said to him, ‘By order of the king, come out.’ But he said, ‘No, I will die here.’ Then Benaiah brought the king word, saying, ‘This is what Joab said and how he answered me.’ 31The king replied to him, ‘Do as he has said, strike him down and bury him; and turn aside from me and from my father’s house the bloods which Joab poured out without sufficient cause. 32The LORD will bring back his blood upon his head, for without the knowledge of my father David, he struck down two men more righteous and better than himself, killing with the sword, Abner son of Ner, commander of the army of Israel and Amasa son of Jether, commander of the army of Judah. 33So their blood will come back onto the head of Joab and on the head of his offspring forever; but for David and for his descendants and for his house and for his throne, there will be peace forever from the LORD.’ 34Then Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck him down and put him to death; and he was buried at his own house in the wilderness.  (1 Kgs 2:28–34)

Joab’s lack of support for Absalom’s claim to the throne is not surprising in light of Joab’s resistance to Absalom’s full restoration (2 Sam 14), and his eventual execution of him (2 Sam 18). But the precariousness of Joab’s position following the death of David is highlighted, when his support for Adonijah leads him to take refuge at the altar following Adonijah’s execution and Abiathar’s exile.39 It seems likely that Joab flees to the altar out of fear for his life, given that Adonijah has already done so for this reason (1 Kgs 1:50–51).40 Indeed, this seems to be confirmed by 38 Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 137, rightly recognizes that Absalom’s death did not taint Joab with bloodguilt. 39  So also Alter, The David Story, 380. Some commentators share Joab’s assumption that he will die primarily because of his association with Adonijah and the political threat he was perceived to pose (e.g. Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 394; Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’; Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 410; and Nicol, ‘Death of Joab’, 136, 147–8). However, David and Solomon resolutely insist that Joab’s fate has been sealed by who Joab has killed, rather than who he has or has not backed to succeed David. Moreover, as Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 390, rightly notes, the narrator’s affirmation of the surety of Absalom’s accession in place of his father prior to Solomon’s actions (1 Kgs 2:12) complicates the view that the killing of Joab is motivated by the threat posed by him. 40  Here again, it is Joab’s fleeing for his life that creates the resonance both with Adonijah’s own flight and the asylum traditions seen in the legal material (so Burnside, ‘Flight of the Fugitives’, 428). For the additions in LXXL which seek to explain this fear, see Van Keulen, Two Versions, 32.

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   219 Solomon’s order to Benaiah to ‘strike him down’ (‫ ;פגע־בו‬1 Kgs 2:29). This verb appears frequently in this chapter, but elsewhere in David’s story only to order the executions of the Amalekite (2 Sam 1:15) and the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22:18). Assuming that Benaiah intends to follow Solomon’s orders to execute Joab, it is notable that Benaiah also supplements these orders. He does so by suggesting to Joab that Solomon has ordered him to remove himself from the altar (1 Kgs 2:30), even though no such orders have been reported.41 There may be an awareness here that the altar affords protection only to those whose victims have been delivered into their hands by God (Exod 21:13), while those who have killed with pre­meditation must be removed for execution.42 In any case, Benaiah’s own discomfort with executing Joab at the altar is confirmed by his request for Joab to ‘come out’. It is also indicated by Benaiah’s return to Solomon for further advice in the face of Joab’s intransigent response, ‘No, I will die here’ (‫;לא כי פה אמות‬ 1 Kgs 2:30).43 On one hand, Joab’s seemingly fatalistic words here might be taken to mean ‘I will die here (eventually)’. If so, Joab understands that avoiding execution and securing a peaceful death in old age will potentially require him to remain in the sacred precinct for the rest of his days. Indeed, we will see presently that Shimei will also submit to a restriction of his movements in order to preserve his life. If Joab’s insistence on remaining at the altar seeks to force Solomon to adjudicate his case,44 it is worth considering on what grounds Joab might claim asylum or  dispute Solomon’s allegations. If we have in view here traditions (e.g. Exod 21:12–14) which apply only to recent killings, Joab may assume that this would prevent him from being charged with the historical killings of Abner and Amasa.45 Or, again, Joab may see himself as entitled to asylum because God has delivered his victims into his hands (Exod 21:13), though this seems less probable.46 On the other hand, Joab’s response to Benaiah might be taken to mean, ‘I will die here (now)’. If so, Joab here does not seek to contest Solomon’s charge, so much as test his resolve. In effect, Joab would be warning Solomon that if he wishes to see Joab dead prematurely, he will be required to slay him in situ, thereby violating the sanctity of the altar.47 By forcing Solomon’s hand in this way, Joab would seek 41 As also noted by Thenius, Könige, 20; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 401; and Walsh, 1 Kings, 57. 42  So Thenius, Könige, 13; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 115; Whitelam, Just King, 153; and Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 79. 43  Benaiah’s obvious reticence (rightly noted too by Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 29) makes it im­pos­ sible to accept the judgement of Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 112, that Benaiah shows ‘no compunction’ in killing Joab at the altar. 44 A possibility suggested by Walsh, 1 Kings, 57; DeVries, 1 Kings, 39; and Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 148 (followed by Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 258, n. 24). 45  So suggests Burnside, ‘Flight of the Fugitives’, 428. 46 Auld, I & II Kings, 19, suggests this possibility. 47  A possibility contemplated by Auld, I & II Kings, 19. Barmash, Homicide, 73; and Green, David’s Capacity, 258, suggest that Joab does not seek to evade culpability for the killings or contest the death which he sees coming, perhaps in recognition of the royal prerogative to override the asylum normally offered by the altar (so Montgomery, Kings, 94; and Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 116).

220  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt to determine whether Solomon is more willing than David was to eliminate ‘bloods’ by killing Joab.48 As we have seen in the case of Adonijah and will presently with Shimei, Solomon’s order to Benaiah to return to Joab and ‘do as he has said, strike him down’ (1 Kgs 2:31) offers yet another example of Solomon indicting someone with their own words.49 If this order also implies Benaiah’s removal of Joab from the altar prior to execution, Solomon may be seen here as rejecting Joab’s claims to a statute of limitations or to innocence on other grounds.50 Alternatively, Solomon may order Benaiah to slay Joab at the altar in spite of Joab’s unwillingness to be removed from it. If so, his disregarding of Benaiah’s reluctance might be taken as an indication of how seriously Solomon takes the problem of bloods posed by Joab’s survival to be.51 Or it may simply reflect Solomon’s conscious rejection of the traditions of altar asylum altogether in favour of other traditions of refuge (e.g. Deut 19:1–13) in which the altar plays no part.52 In any case, the justification Solomon offers to Benaiah for his orders (1 Kgs 2:31–33) confirms that they are motivated by Solomon’s anxiety regarding ‘bloods’. Whether or not the remedy includes the burial following execution,53 Solomon makes clear his belief that Joab’s killing is intended to address the issue of ‘the bloods which Joab poured out without sufficient cause’ (‫ ;דמי חנם אשר שפך יואב‬v. 31). Solomon’s reference to ‘pouring out blood without sufficient cause’ here draws the reader back to the only other appearance of this turn of phrase in the Hebrew Bible (1 Sam 25:31). There, Abigail warns David that to kill Nabal for his violation of the conventions of hospitality would be ‘to spill blood without sufficient cause’

48 Green, David’s Capacity, 255; Scolnic, ‘David’s Final Testament’, 23; and Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 75, rightly note that David orders Solomon to do now what he knows he should have done himself before. 49  So Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’, 401. Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 146, suggests that this would serve to absolve Solomon of responsibility for violating the altar asylum seemingly assumed by Benaiah and Joab. 50  So suggests, e.g., Jackson, Wisdom-­Laws, 162; Phillips, Criminal Law, 85, 100, 134; Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 399; Walsh, 1 Kings, 58–9; and Burnside, ‘Flight of the Fugitives’, 429–30, who rightly notes that Exod 21:14 presupposes that those accused of pre-­meditated killing would seek asylum in any case. 51  So Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 29; Willis, Elders of the City, 120, suggests that even proximity to the altar is insufficient to protect someone who has killed with pre­meditation. However, it is more likely that Solomon ignores the requirement that the victim be removed from the altar to avoid defiling it (Exod 21:14b) (so e.g. Robinson, Kings, 45; Walsh, 1 Kings, 59; Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 42; Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 30; and DeVries, 1 Kings, 39). Indeed, this may be his royal prerogative (so  Montgomery, Kings, 94). 52  For the transformation of altar asylum traditions (Exod 21:12–14) into cities of refuge (Deut 19:1–13) in response to Deuteronomic centralization of the shrine, see e.g. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah, 32–56. 53  Some suggest that the instructions to bury Joab might be a concession designed to limit his shame (e.g. Thenius, Könige, 20; Walsh, 1 Kings, 58; Long, 1 Kings, 55; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 401–2) and/or to avoid the untoward consequences of leaving the body and blood uninterred (so Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 80; and Gray, I & II Kings, 110).

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   221 (‫ ;ולשפך־דם חנם‬1 Sam 25:31) and put David’s future at risk.54 Here, Solomon alleges that the ‘bloods’ of Abner and Amasa have been shed without sufficient cause because Joab took the lives of ‘two men more righteous and better than himself ’ (‫ ;שני־אנשים צדקים וטבים ממנו‬1 Kgs 2:32). This recalls David’s earlier insistence that the blood of Rechab and Baanah was required because when they killed Ishbosheth, they slew a ‘righteous man’ (‫ ;איש־צדיק‬2 Sam 4:11). Here, Solomon also insists that Joab ‘killed them (Amasa and Abner) with the sword’ (‫;ויהרגם בחרב‬ 1 Kgs 2:32). Significantly, the only other appearance of this language in David’s story is when Nathan curses David’s house to die by the sword (2 Sam 12:10) because he used the ‘sword of (war with) the Ammonites’ to shed Uriah’s innocent blood (12:9). This suggests that Solomon here endorses David’s claim that Joab has used the pretense of ongoing armed conflict (‘the sword’) to kill the two generals with whom David had made peace.55 The reader now learns how Solomon expects the ‘bloods’ incurred by Joab’s killing of Abner and Amasa will be addressed by his execution (1 Kgs 2:31–33). The language with which Solomon expresses these expectations resonates in various ways with language already encountered throughout David’s story. For ex­ample, Solomon’s assumption that Joab’s shed blood will be returned ‘upon his head’ (1 Kgs 2:32) recalls David’s invocation of the Amalekite’s own guilty blood on his head for claiming to have killed Saul (2 Sam 1:16).56 By contrast, Solomon’s insistence that Joab will be haunted by the ‘bloods’ (plural) of Abner and Amasa (1 Kgs 2:33), resonates with David’s earlier cursing of Joab with the ‘bloods’ (­plural) of Abner (2 Sam 3:28–29) and Shimei’s cursing of David with the ‘bloods’ (plural) of the house of Saul (2 Sam 16:8).57 Likewise Solomon’s expectation that the ‘blood/bloods’ will end up ‘upon the head’ of Joab (‫על־ראש‬/‫ ;ב‬1 Kgs 2:32–33) reflects David’s similar references to the ‘heads’ of the Amalekite (2 Sam 1:16) and Joab (2 Sam 3:28–29) when cursing them.58 However, instead of these ‘bloods’ ‘whirling’ upon Joab’s head as David had expected Abner’s would (2 Sam 3:29), Solomon here expects that they will merely ‘return’ upon Joab (‫ ;שוב‬1 Kgs 2:32, 33). This ‘return’ of ‘bloods’ echoes but also reverses Shimei’s expectation

54 Cogan, I Kings, 178, notes the appearance of this term in 1 Sam 25. It is used elsewhere in the books of Samuel only by Jonathan in warning Saul that to kill David ‘without sufficient cause’ would be to shed innocent blood (1 Sam 19:5; cf. 2 Sam 24:24 in a context unrelated to bloodguilt). Cf. Thenius, Könige, 20, who notes the relevance of both passages here. 55  This seems likely despite Solomon’s reference to Abner and Amasa as commanders of the armies of Israel and Judah respectively here (cf. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 116; and Thenius, Könige, 21) rather than as successive commanders of the armies of Israel (as David had indicated in 1 Kgs 2:5). 56  Hugo, ‘Abner und Amasa’, 39, suggests that MT ‘his blood’ reflects a subsequent effort to in­crim­ in­ate Joab more fully than an original Hebrew reflected in LXX’s ‘the blood of his injustice’ (τὸ αἷμα τῆς ἀδικίας αὐτου). Instead, the latter seems more likely to reflect either an effort to harmonize the singular with the plural references to the ‘bloods’ of Abner and Amasa (1 Kgs 2:31, 33) and/or offer an explanatory interpretation which underlines Joab’s guilt. (so e.g. Van Keulen, Two Versions, 35). 57 Thenius, Könige, 20, notes the resonance with 2 Sam 3:28–29. 58  For a partial parallel of this usage in Egyptian literature, see Yaron, ‘A Ramessid Parallel’, 432–3.

222  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt that the ‘bloods’ of Saul’s house will be ‘returned’ upon David (2 Sam 16:8).59 While it is unclear from where these ‘bloods’ are expected to return, the assumption that it is the LORD which causes them to do so, appears to be shared by Solomon here and, in 2 Sam 16, by Shimei, and perhaps David too.60 Finally, Solomon expects here that Joab’s execution will ensure that ‘bloods’ will not be upon Joab’s own head alone, but also upon the head of ‘his seed forever’ (‫;זרעו לעלם‬ 1 Kgs 2:33). It is not obvious what this means precisely, but this clearly echoes David’s earlier cursing of Joab’s (father’s) house to eternal consequences. The particular resonance of Solomon’s words here (1 Kgs 2:31–33) with David’s earl­ier response to Abner’s killing (2 Sam 3) is seen more clearly when Solomon disavows David’s and his own responsibility for Joab’s ‘bloods’.61 Thus, when Solomon insists here that Joab illegitimately killed the generals ‘without the knowledge of my father David’ (‫ ;ואבי דוד לא ידע‬1 Kgs 2:32), this aligns him with the narrator’s earlier judgement that ‘David did not know’ (‫ ;ודוד לא ידע‬2 Sam 3:26) that Joab recalled Abner in order to kill him.62 At the same time, this confirms that David was also ignorant of Joab’s action against Amasa, as the episode there implied, but did not make explicit (2 Sam 20:4–13). Here, Solomon clearly avows David’s ignorance and innocence of Joab’s killings to ensure that Joab’s execution will deflect from David and his descendants the unwelcome consequences of the ‘bloods’ shed without sufficient cause (1 Kgs 2:31) by his nephew. Indeed, Solomon evidently expects Joab’s execution to accomplish what David sought to effect when he declared his own innocence of the bloods of Abner (2 Sam 3:28).63 Just as David’s avowal of innocence there includes not merely himself but ‘my kingdom’ (‫ ;ממלכתי‬3:28), so too Solomon here expects that Joab’s execution will now facilitate the removal of ‘bloods’ from both himself and ‘my father’s house’ (‫ ;בית אבי‬1 Kgs 2:31).64 Indeed, David’s declaration of innocence there ‘from the LORD’ (‫ ;מעם יהוה‬2 Sam 3:28) also finds an echo in the peace ‘from the LORD’ (‫ ;מעם יהוה‬1 Kgs 2:33) here. This peace Solomon expects to flow from Joab’s execution and its displacement of ‘bloods’ from Solomon and David’s dynastic house. 59  The latter is noted by Simpson, Contesting Claims, 100. 60 Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 147, sees this as confirming the apologetic nature of the text at this point. 61  The suggestion that Solomon seeks to exonerate himself at the expense of David (so e.g. Noth, Könige, I, 29) is rightly rejected by Würthwein, 1 Könige 1–16, 77; Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’, 401; and Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 79. 62  As Van Keulen, Two Versions, 35, suggests, LXX’s plus here ‘their blood’ (τὸ αἷμα αὐτῶν) seems likely to reflect a desire to make explicit what it was that David didn’t know about (i.e. the killings of Abner and Amasa) because the latter is merely implied by the more laconic MT. 63 The suggestion that David does not need to eliminate ‘bloods’ connected with Abner here because he has already disavowed his guilt in 3:28 (so Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’, 401) fails to recognize that the elimination of the guilt requires Joab’s premature/unnatural death—­a fact which is reflected in David’s acknowledgement of his guilt in 2 Sam 16:12. 64  The assumption of the ripple effects of ‘bloods’ through time and kin groups seen here (cf. esp. 1 Kgs 2:33) and elsewhere in David’s story (e.g. 2 Sam 3:28–29) makes it unlikely that Solomon’s concern is primarily for himself.

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   223 The conclusion such echoes seem to invite is that what David sought to accomplish in cursing Joab for the illegitimate killing of Abner (2 Sam 3:28–29), Solomon now seeks to finally achieve by executing him.65 That it has come to this does not invalidate the divine vengeance David had invoked upon Joab at the time (2 Sam 3:39), instead of executing him.66 Rather, in the absence of the hoped for divine vengeance, David and Solomon evidently intend to kill Joab before he dies of old age, in order to remove the ‘bloods’ which he had incurred and which would otherwise continue to hang over David’s house.67 This is finally clarified when Solomon voices his expectation that eliminating the ‘bloods’ will ensure that ‘for David and for his offspring and for his house and for his throne, there will be peace from the LORD forevermore’ (‫ ;ולדוד ולזרעו ולביתו ולכסאו יהיה שלום עד־עולם מעם יהוה‬1 Kgs 2:33).68 The clustering here and in 2 Sam 7 of ‘offspring’ (7:12), ‘house’ (7:11, 16, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 29), ‘throne’ (7:13, 16), and ‘forever’ (7:13, 16, 24, 25, 26) is unique. This shared language allows Solomon to echo David’s earlier linking of the divine promise of an enduring dynasty for David to Joab’s execution and the elimination of ‘bloods’ (1 Kgs 2:4). Solomon’s assumption that this will facilitate ‘peace’ for Solomon and his successors implies that to not kill Joab would lead to the absence of peace (i.e. armed conflict) for David’s dynasty. This is hardly surprising given that David’s earlier cursing of Joab and his father’s house for ‘bloods’ includes ‘never lacking one who falls by the sword’ (3:29), which we have seen is a cipher for armed conflict. But this also suggests that in seeking to eliminate Joab, who has in peacetime shed the blood of war, Solomon seeks to eliminate the prospect of armed conflict plaguing David’s descendants in perpetuity. Because we are not told otherwise, we assume that Benaiah obliges Solomon by killing Joab at the altar. If he does so in spite of the refuge it was presumed to offer, this may underline the depth of Solomon’s desire to avoid ‘bloods’.69 It has also been observed that Joab’s interment at his home ‘in the wilderness’ (‫ ;במדבר‬1 Kgs 2:34) rather than Bethlehem might suggest a less than honourable burial.70 If so, this might be seen to reflect the ambivalence regarding post-­mortem treatment of others killed for shedding illegitimate blood. However, the fact that Joab is buried 65  So also Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’, 402; and Borgman, David, Saul & God, 143. The veqatal forms at the beginning of 1 Kgs 2:32 (‫‘ ;והשיב‬and he will return’) and v. 33 (‫‘ ;ושבו‬and they will return’) suggest not imprecation (as suggested by Alter, The David Story, 381; and some English translations [e.g. NIV]) but rather expectation. The suggestion of Miller, A King and a Fool?, 213, that Solomon here incurs bloodguilt by killing Joab is entirely at odds with the narrative’s presentation of David’s intention and Solomon’s own declaration. 66  So suggests Thenius, Könige, 20; and Borgman, David, Saul & God, 143. 67  So Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’, 401–2; Ishida, History, 165; and Scolnic, ‘David’s Final Testament’, 23–4. This seems more likely than the narrative here offering a critique of Solomon’s unjust and unlawful act (Miller, A King and a Fool?, 213) or David incurring bloodguilt by killing Joab (e.g. Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 339), neither of which are indicated in the text. 68  So Nelson, First and Second Kings, 27. 69  So also concludes Walsh, 1 Kings, 59. 70  So Alter, The David Story, 382.

224  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt at all and that Bethlehem is to some extent in the ‘wilderness’ may reflect a vari­ation and evolution of traditions around post-­mortem treatment of those accused of shedding innocent blood. Finally, Joab’s track record of killing his own successors (Abner and Amasa) perhaps explains why Solomon only appoints Benaiah in his place (1 Kgs 2:35) after Joab is dead and buried.

The Sparing of Abiathar and the Sons of Barzillai Sandwiched between David’s instructions to eliminate ‘bloods’ by killing Joab and avoid them when killing Shimei, David also gives orders to Solomon concerning the sons of Barzillai. When David had fled from Absalom, it was not Barzillai’s sons but only their powerful father who was mentioned as offering hospitality to David (2 Sam 17:27–28). David had sought to repay Barzillai for his hospitality by retaining him at court but had been politely rebuffed (2 Sam 19:34–40 [ET 33–39]). Here, however, David’s insistence that Solomon include Barzillai’s sons at his table for doing so (1 Kgs 2:7) seems to illustrate David’s concern that Solomon repay his father’s past debts.71 David has, of course, issued a similar invitation to Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:7–13), despite the possibility that Jonathan’s son may have harboured or encouraged ambitions for a Saulide restoration.72 This suggests that a similar invitation to the sons of the wealthy Barzillai to remain at David’s table may not be purely or even primarily an act of benevolence, any more than David’s original invitation to their father was (2 Sam 19:34 [ET 33]).73 It is worth considering why David would advise Solomon to keep the sons of Barzillai within the court rather than leaving them in Gilead. The reason becomes more clear when it is recalled that Barzillai is almost certainly ‘Barzillai the Meholathite’, whose grandsons were five of the seven Saulides David had slain to expiate the ‘bloods’ of Saul in 2 Sam 21:8.74 While there is no record of the sons of  Barzillai contesting the killing of their progeny, the reader might reasonably assume them to be highly aggrieved and unlikely to either forgive or forget David’s shedding of their own sons’ blood. Given this likelihood and the unhappy fate of those associated with Saulide ambitions, the risk of the sons of Barzillai being killed illegitimately on Solomon’s behalf, as Joab had killed Abner, may have been considerable. If so, David’s instructions to Solomon to keep Barzillai’s 71 Green, David’s Capacity, 256, emphasizes the repayment of a kindness here, perhaps to dispel the impression that David was entirely vindictive (so Würthwein, 1 Könige 1–16, 14; and Robinson, Kings, 39). 72  Cf. Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 26; and DeVries, 1 Kings, 36. 73  For discussion of David’s invitation and Barzillai’s reticence, see Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 328. 74  It would seem that the same Barzillai is referenced here given that Abel-­Meholah was located within the region of Gilead (so Halpern, David’s Secret Demons, 302; McCarter, II Samuel, 442; and Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 272–3).

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   225 sons at court rather than allow them to retreat to Gilead is perhaps best understood as an effort to reduce the risk of their incautious killing. After all, such a killing would leave Solomon with the problem of additional ‘bloods’, even as he seeks to eliminate them in the case of Joab, and avoid them in the case of Shimei, as we will see. Why 1 Kgs 2 does not report that Solomon followed these instructions regarding Barzillai’s sons remains unclear. But the probable concern of David’s directives with the problem of ‘bloods’ likely explains why they are included here with instructions concerning Joab and Shimei, which clearly share this interest. While David does not advise Solomon to exile Abiathar, a similar concern with ‘bloods’ seems to explain why it is noted here (1 Kgs 2:26–27) between Solomon’s killing of Joab and Shimei. In the absence of other explanations, it is likely Abiathar’s association with Adonijah’s bid for power (1 Kgs 2:22) which leads Solomon to claim that Abiathar is a ‘man of death’ (‫ ;איש מות‬1 Kgs 2:26). If this expression is comparable to ‘son of death’ used by David and Saul earlier in the books of Samuel (1 Sam 20:31, 26:16; 2 Sam 12:5), the import of it here is worth considering. Because those referred to as ‘son(s) of death’ are not actually executed (e.g. David; Abner; the rich man of Nathan’s parable), ‘man of death’ too may merely imply that death is deserved, rather than actually being required. This is seemingly confirmed when Solomon explains that Abiathar will not perish like Joab has, because the priest bore the ark for David (cf. 2 Sam 15:29) and also ‘because you shared in all the hardships my father endured’ (1 Kgs 2:26). This likely recalls when David was on the run from Saul, and Abiathar brought him the news that Saul had slaughtered his Nobite kinsmen because Abiathar’s father supported David (1 Sam 22).75 At that time, David’s final words to Abiathar were: ‘Stay with me; do not be afraid, because he who seeks my life seeks your life; with me you will be safe’ (1 Sam 22:23). When Solomon ­echoes David’s equating of Abiathar’s suffering with his own and the threat posed by Saul to both their lives, it explains why Solomon spares Abiathar here, despite seeing him as deserving of death. Indeed, it seems that Solomon’s preference for Abiathar’s exile rather than his execution, reflects his wish to avoid the risk of the innocent blood of Ahimelech’s house, of which David was very conscious (1 Sam 22), falling on Solomon’s head instead.76 To reconcile the sparing of Abiathar with the divine economy, his exile and loss of priestly privileges are presented as a fulfillment of the divine judgement levelled against the corruption of Eli’s house, from which Abiathar was descended (1 Sam 2:30–34).77 This judgement is confirmed in 1 Sam 2 when the priesthood 75  See e.g. Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 29; Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 143; Auld, I & II Kings, 18; and Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 115. 76  Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 28, rightly intuits that Solomon spares Abiathar out of fear, without noting that it is a fear of ‘bloods’. 77  So e.g. Cogan, 1 Kings, 178.

226  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt is transferred from Eli’s house to a new dynasty which is promised to minister forever ‘before my anointed one’ (1 Sam 2:35). This is an obvious adumbration of the kingship which will be inaugurated by Saul and continue with David. However, this particular oracle is especially applicable to the case of Abiathar’s defrocking. This is because the oracle goes on to assume that instead of being utterly destroyed, some of Eli’s descendants will be merely exiled from the priesthood and yearn to return to it (1 Sam 2:35–36). Solomon’s insistence here that Abiathar will be spared death ‘at this time’ (‫ ;ביום הזה‬1 Kgs 2:26) may suggest that Abiathar’s stay of execution will only be temporary or may have been prompted by Solomon’s accession. Nevertheless, the mention of Abiathar’s reprieve at this point likely reflects Solomon’s effort to avoid incurring ‘bloods’ in relation to Abiathar.78

The Killing of Shimei We have seen that Shimei’s earlier cursing of David for the ‘bloods’ of the house of Saul (2 Sam 16) almost certainly has Joab’s unredeemed killing of Abner in mind. It is therefore unsurprising that David’s orders to finally kill Joab are followed by his instructions relating to Shimei: 8Look,

with you is Shimei, son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a terrible curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim; but when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword.’ 9But you/now do not consider him innocent, for you are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him and you must bring his gray head down to Sheol with blood.  (1 Kgs 2:8–9)

The reader familiar with David’s earlier encounters with Shimei is well-­aware that the latter is from Bahurim (1 Kgs 2:8; 2 Sam 16:5, 19:17 [ET 16]) but learns here from David that Shimei is now ‘with’ Solomon.79 Solomon will shortly put some distance between himself and Shimei by ordering him to build his own house in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 2:36). This in turn suggests the likelihood that Shimei has at some point become resident in the royal household soon to be bequeathed by David to  Solomon. Such a suggestion seems all the more plausible in light of David’s insistence on keeping his friends close and his (potential) enemies closer. This is especially true when the latter are closely associated with Saulide ambitions, like Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9 and 19) and Shimei are.

78  Rather than Abiathar’s amnesty relating to Solomon’s accession (e.g. DeVries, 1 Kings, 38). For the possibility that the vow might be time limited, see Chapter 7 above. 79  Rather than assuming that Shimei still lives in Bahurim (so Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 36), this suggests that Shimei is already resident at the royal court (so Walsh, 1 Kings, 41).

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   227 David appears to recall here Shimei’s original cursing of him as he fled Jerusalem (2 Sam 16:5–14) and the subsequent reprieve he granted to Shimei as David returned to his capital (2 Sam 19:17–24 [ET 16–23]). The seriousness of Shimei’s curse was already indicated by Abishai’s earlier offers to kill Shimei (2 Sam 16:9, 19:22 [ET 21]). This is now confirmed by David’s own judgement that the curse was ‘terrible’ (‫ ;נמרצת‬1 Kgs 2:8), a word which in two of its three occurrences elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible is also associated with harmful speech (Job 6:25, 16:3).80 Indeed, the gravity of Shimei’s earlier curse is underlined by David’s order ‘Do not consider him innocent’ (‫ ;אל־תנקהו‬1 Kgs 2:9). But it is also emphasized by David’s insistence that Shimei himself be brought ‘down to Sheol with blood’ (2:9), because he cursed David as a ‘man of bloods’.81 That ‘being brought down to Sheol with blood’ refers to an unnatural and violent death, but not one which will incur ‘bloods’, is made clear by the rest of David’s instructions and how Solomon carries them out, as we will see. David’s earlier words to Shimei seemed to offer unlimited unprotection (‘ “You will not die.” And the king swore to him’; 2 Sam 19:24 [ET 23]). Because of this, some have suggested that David is disingenuous when he recollects a more limited oath here (‘ “I will not put you to death by the sword” ’; 1 Kgs 2:8).82 While this is possible, the reader may instead be invited to see the oath mentioned in 2 Sam 19:24 [ET 23] as additional to David’s initial words in the same verse (‘ “You will not die” ’), and more limited in the way that David recalls here to Solomon. In either case, David’s emphasis here that ‘I swore’ (1 Kgs 2:8) probably hints that Solomon is more free than David to give Shimei the death David feels he deserves.83 This is especially so if David prefaces his order to Solomon with ‘But you’ (‫ ;ואתה‬1 Kgs 2:9).84 If, however, the MT’s Hebrew text, ‫‘( ועתה‬But now’), is retained, it may suggest that David’s orders here, years later, reflect his earlier intention to limit Shimei’s amnesty to ‘this day’ (2 Sam 19:23 [ET 22]).85 Alternatively, David’s delay in acting against Shimei and his delegation of it to Solomon, may well simply reflect David’s desire to distance himself as much as

80 For the Akkadian cognate which means ‘to be sick, difficult or troublesome’, see Cogan, I  Kings, 174. That the curse does ‘no significant damage’ (so Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 340) or is ‘weak’ (so Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 26) is clearly not a view shared by David, Solomon, or Abishai (see discussion in Chapter 7 above). 81 The play on the word ‘blood’ (‫ )דם‬is noted by Alter, The David Story, 376. As Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 409, observes, the text does not suggest that Shimei is to be eliminated because he represents a genuine threat of a Saulide restoration (as suggested by Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 29–30). Nor does it seem likely that Shimei’s execution is required to counteract his curse (e.g. Montgomery, Kings, 90) as Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’, 403, rightly points out. 82  E.g. Walsh, 1 Kings, 42 and 75; and Janzen, ‘David’s Warning’, 279. 83  See e.g. Gunn, Story of King David, 107; DeVries, 1 Kings, 36; Borgman, David, Saul & God, 144; Walsh, 1 Kings, 42; Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 387; and Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 26. 84  As is suggested by the translation found in LXXL and preferred by, e.g., DeVries, 1 Kings, 36; and Gray, I & II Kings, 98. 85  So suggests Wray Beal, 1 & 2 Kings, 75; and Mulder, 1 Kings, 101.

228  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt possible from Shimei’s killing.86 In any event, it seems highly unlikely that David would remind Solomon of David’s earlier vow to Shimei, if his orders to Solomon to eliminate Shimei would involve the obvious breaking of this same vow.87 In 2 Sam 19, we saw that David seems to spare Shimei out of fear that killing him after already winning the war against Absalom might add to the Saulide ‘bloods’ already incurred when Joab shed Abner’s innocent blood under the guise of war. Crucial here in 1 Kgs 2 is David’s additional clarification (absent in 2 Sam 19:24 [ET 23]) that he had specifically vowed to not put Shimei to death ‘by the sword’ (‫ ;בחרב‬1 Kgs 2:8). Here again, the reader encounters the same phrase Nathan uses to condemn David’s illegitimate exploitation of armed conflict to eliminate Uriah (2 Sam 12:9–11). This would seem to confirm David did not want to use the recently concluded war against Absalom as a pretense for killing Shimei because of the risk of incurring ‘bloods’. While this explains David’s restraint towards Shimei in 2 Sam 19, it also suggests why David here insists to Solomon that Shimei’s death requires Solomon’s wisdom. Solomon must be wise, because Shimei’s death must be achieved in a way which does not risk incurring ‘bloods’. Thus, David instructs Solomon to act so as to ensure that Shimei may not be considered ‘innocent’ (2 Kgs 2:9), whilst ensuring that Solomon, and David’s house, remain so.88 It is not surprising that David feels bound by his oath to not kill Shimei, ­especially given the noting of David’s oath-­keeping regarding Solomon’s accession (1 Kgs 1:13, 17, 29–30) and the sparing of Saul’s son, Mephibosheth (2 Sam 21:7).89 Indeed, the devastating consequences of the ‘bloods’ which followed Saul’s violation of the vow to spare the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:1–14) suggests that if David was to violate his vow to Shimei, ‘bloods’ would haunt David in equally disastrous fashion. Thus, Solomon’s wisdom will be needed to ensure that the blood of the now elderly Shimei (‘his gray head’; 1 Kgs 2:9) can be shed before he dies nat­ur­ al­ly, but in such a way that it does not incur ‘bloods’ for David’s house. Sure enough, following Benaiah’s execution and replacement of Joab (1 Kgs 2:34–35), both the patience and the cunning required of Solomon are on full display: 36Then

the king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, ‘Build yourself a house in Jerusalem and live there, but do not go out anywhere from there. 37For 86  Rather than the delay proving David’s justification here to be false (as McKenzie, King David, 179; and Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 134, suggest). 87  So Simpson, Contesting Claims, 98. 88  As Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 109, notes, Shimei’s reprieve in 2 Sam 19 did not render him innocent. This verb appears elsewhere in Samuel only in 1 Sam 26:9, where David warns Abishai that anyone raising their hand against Saul will not be held ‘innocent’. The adjectival form ‫‘ נקי‬innocent’ is used when Jonathan warns Saul against shedding David’s ‘innocent’ blood (1 Sam 19:5), when David declares his innocence of Abner’s bloodshed (2 Sam 3:28) and when the woman of Tekoa claims David will be ‘innocent’ despite reprieving her fratricidal son (2 Sam 14:9). 89  While there was no indication in 2 Sam 19:24 [ET 23] that David’s vow was ‘by the LORD’ (1 Kgs 2:8), the similar clarification found in 1 Kgs 1:17 and 30 (though not in v. 13) suggests that, in 1 Kgs 1–2, the explicit invoking of the name probably serves to rhetorically charge vows which are assumed to be in the name of the deity in any case.

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   229 on the day you leave and cross the Wadi Kidron, know for certain that you will surely die; your blood will be upon your own head.’ 38And Shimei said to the king, ‘The word is good; as my lord the king has said, so your servant will do.’ So Shimei lived in Jerusalem many days. 39But three years later, two of Shimei’s servants ran away to Achish son of Maacah, the king of Gath. When Shimei was told, ‘Your servants are in Gath,’ 40Shimei arose, saddled a donkey and went to Gath, to Achish, to search for his servants; Shimei went and brought his servants back from Gath. 41When Solomon was told that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath and returned, 42the king sent and summoned Shimei and said to him, ‘Did I not make you swear by the LORD and adjure you, saying, “Know for certain that on the day you leave and go anywhere, you will surely die”? And you said to me, “The word is good; I have heard.” 43Why then have you not kept your vow to the LORD and the commandment with which I charged you?’ 44The king also said to Shimei, ‘You know all the evil—­which your heart acknowledges—­ you did to my father David; so the LORD will bring back your evil on your own head. 45But King Solomon will be blessed and the throne of David will be established before the LORD forever.’ 46Then the king commanded Benaiah son of Jehoiada; and he went out and struck him down and he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.  (1 Kgs 2:36–46)

Solomon’s insistence on Shimei building his own house in Jerusalem might invite the hope that the son of Gera may enjoy greater freedom than he has experienced ‘with’ Solomon in the royal household. However, such hopes are quickly qualified by Solomon’s condition that Shimei not depart Jerusalem, not even towards his hometown beyond the Wadi Kidron.90 Moreover, Solomon emphasizes the lethal consequence of failing to abide by the condition. In 1 Kgs 2:37, Solomon makes clear not only that Shimei’s execution will be certain (‘you will surely die’) and immediate (‘on the day you leave’) but also incommutable (‘know for certain’, ‫ ;ידע תדע‬v. 37). Most revealing of all is Solomon’s insistence to Shimei in the same verse that ‘your blood will be upon your own head’ (‫)דמך יהיה בראשך‬. Here, as in previous instances (2 Sam 1:16, 3:29; 1 Kgs 2:32–33), the ‘head’ is referenced as a means of attributing responsibility,91 with the prep­os­ition ‫( ב‬1 Kgs 2:33, 37) meaning something similar to ‫ על‬elsewhere (2 Sam 1:16, 3:29; 1 Kgs 2:32). Solomon’s earlier invocation of Joab’s blood (sg.) on his own head (1 Kgs 2:32) suggests a similar assumption here (2:37) and echoes David’s insistence on

90  As Alter, The David Story, 382; Walsh, 1 Kings, 61; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 117; and others note, the fact that Bahurim (and Saul’s tribal heartland) lay in this direction seems the most likely reason for the mention of this boundary. 1 Kgs 2:36 (‫ )אנה ואנה‬however makes it clear that Shimei was not merely limited by the boundary of the Kidron (e.g. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 118) but instead restricted to Jerusalem in all directions (so Thenius, Könige, 21; Cogan, I Kings, 179; Whitelam, Just King, 154; and others). 91  So also Barmash, Homicide, 98; Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 30; Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 30; and others.

230  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt Shimei’s head being brought down to Sheol (2:9).92 It is also worth noting that while David unequivocally invokes the Amalekite’s blood on him after his ­execution, here Solomon makes Shimei’s fate conditional on his fulfillment of the vow’s requirements. Given David’s explicit hope to see Shimei dead, the reader may suspect that the condition will indeed be met, and perhaps even that Solomon’s distancing of Shimei from the court is designed to entice him to violate the constraints imposed on him. As when David cursed the Amalekite (2 Sam 1:16), Solomon’s invocation of Shimei’s blood on his own head implies a concern that it might otherwise end up on the head of someone else. This is, of course, a dangerous eventuality which Solomon’s actions here very carefully seek to avoid.93 Whether Shimei is at liberty to do anything other than accept Solomon’s orders and condition seems unlikely.94 Certainly, Shimei’s reference to himself here (1 Kgs 2:38) as ‘your servant’ and to Solomon as ‘my lord, the king’ echoes the deferential tone of Shimei’s earlier plea to David for mercy at the Jordan (2 Sam 19:20–21 [ET 19–20]).95 Moreover, the narrator makes sure to record not merely Shimei’s explicit acquiescence, but also his own judgement (1 Kgs 2:38) that Solomon’s ‘word’ (‫ )הדבר‬here is ‘good’ (‫)טוב‬. That ‘good’ in this case means ‘just’ is supported by Absalom’s reference to ‘good claims’ (‫ ;דברך טובים‬2 Sam 15:3) when he expresses his regret at being unable to dispense justice in the city gate.96 Nevertheless, after three years of following Solomon’s order, Shimei violates it to retrieve two runaway servants from Gath (1 Kgs 2:39–40)—a city not merely outside Jerusalem, but well outside it.97 The very fact that this journey is reported to Solomon after three years, suggests that the latter has had Shimei watched, for reasons which become clear when Solomon summons Shimei (2:42). Instead of simply delivering his verdict, however, Solomon reminds Shimei of the strictures imposed on him and the fatal consequences of violating them, in terms similar to those already used by Solomon (2:37). What Solomon did not mention then, but underlines with a rhetorical question here (2:42), is that he had both ‘adjured’ Shimei (‫ )ואעד בך‬and made him ‘swear by the LORD’ (‫)הלוא השבעתיך ביהוה‬ 92  The latter point is noted by Walsh, 1 Kings, 61. Indeed, the blood on Shimei’s head can only be his own becauses it arises from the condition Solomon imposes rather than from Shimei himself shedding blood illegitimately. 93  See Scolnic, ‘David’s Final Testament’, 24. The danger implied might be further blood feud (so Robinson, Kings, 46) or the crying out of blood from the earth (so Jones, 1 and 2 Kings 1, 118), though this is unclear from the text. 94  Agreeing with Alter, The David Story, 382; Walsh, 1 Kings, 61; and Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 151. 95  This parallel is noted also by Simpson, Contesting Claims, 101. 96  This would seem to confirm the legitimacy of the condition imposed by Solomon and to present him as fair or even gracious in comparison with David (so Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 151). 97  A contrast which proves the seriousness of the violation as Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 152–3, notes. That such a trip costs Shimei his life confirms Solomon’s assumption that the death penalty will not only be required if Shimei crosses the Kidron (2:37) but if he leaves Jerusalem at all (2:36) (e.g. Wray Beal, 1 & 2 Kings, 77; Gray, I & II Kings, 111; and esp. Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 152–3). Some see Shimei’s misstep here as unwitting (e.g. Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 36), while Alter, The David Story, 383, sees Shimei as either wilfully transgressing or merely misinterpreting Solomon’s order (for the latter, see also Sweeney, I & II Kings, 71; and DeVries, 1 Kings, 40).

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   231 to restrict his movements to Jerusalem.98 Solomon’s suggestion here that Shimei’s alleged vow three years earlier was ‘by the LORD’ (v. 42) echoes David’s own clarification that his earlier vow to Shimei was also ‘by the LORD’ (1 Kgs 2:8), despite this not being mentioned in 2 Sam 19:24 [ET 23].99 It is not im­pos­sible that Shimei’s vow may be presented as a Solomonic invention at this point.100 However, Solomon might also understand Shimei’s earlier agreement (1 Kgs 2:38) as signalling not merely his submission to Solomon’s condition, but also his acceptance of Solomon’s invocation of Shimei’s own blood on himself as, in effect, a self-­imprecation.101 Solomon’s attempt to turn Shimei’s own words against him (‘And you said to me’; 1 Kgs 2:42) recalls his earlier use of this same technique in indicting Adonijah (2:23) and Joab (2:31).102 But it also reminds the reader of David’s earlier insistence to the Amalekite who killed Saul that ‘your own mouth has testified against you’ (2 Sam 1:16). Here too, the indictment interprets the words of the accused which were reported earlier, with Solomon insisting that Shimei not only ­pronounced the condition acceptable, but also explicitly acquiesced to it (‫;שמעתי‬ ‘I have heard’; 1 Kgs 2:42).103 Indeed, just as David does in pronouncing judgement on the Amalekite (2 Sam 1:14) and the Beerothite brothers (2 Sam 4:11), Solomon here condemns Shimei with a rhetorical question (1 Kgs 2:42).104 In those previous cases, David’s executions are presented as redeeming the blood(s) of men who are either anointed by the LORD or righteous. Here, by contrast, Solomon legitimates Shimei’s forthcoming execution by accusing him of not only disobeying the command of the king, but also violating his ‘vow to the LORD’ (2:43).105 Solomon also clarifies for both Shimei and the reader how he sees Shimei’s transgression as related to his earlier cursing of David in 2 Sam 16.106 That this latter passage is in view here is signalled first by Solomon’s insistence to Shimei that ‘your heart’ (‫ )לבבך‬knows ‘all the evil’ (‫ )כל־הרעה‬he has done to David (1 Kgs 2:44). This seems a clear echo and belated rejection of Shimei’s earlier plea to David to not take Shimei’s original cursing ‘to his heart’ (‫ ;אל־לבו‬2 Sam 19:20 [ET 19]). In cursing David, we saw that Shimei had interpreted Absalom’s rebellion as divine recompense (‘the LORD has returned upon you . . . your evil’, ‫ ברעתך‬. . . ‫;השיב עליך יהוה‬ 2 Sam 16:8) for leaving Saulide blood unredeemed. Here, Solomon’s earl­ier invocation of Shimei’s own blood on his head (‫ ;דמך יהיה בראשך‬1 Kgs 2:37) paves the 98  The absence is noted by Alter, The David Story, 383; and Wray Beal, 1 & 2 Kings, 78. 99 Alter, The David Story, 367, notes too the absence of this qualification in 1 Kgs 1:13 and its interpolation in 1:17. 100  So e.g. Walsh, 1 Kings, 62–3. 101 Alter, The David Story, 383. 102  So Rogers, ‘1 Kings 2’, 399; and Nelson, First and Second Kings, 26. 103  As noted too by Alter, The David Story, 383. For this nuance of the verb, see Judg 11:17 (as noted by Cogan, I Kings, 179). 104  There is no explicit indication that Shimei is forbidden from speaking (e.g. Simpson, Contesting Claims, 102), nor that Solomon silences Shimei to avoid exposing the falsity of Solomon’s case (e.g. Walsh, 1 Kings, 63). Indeed, the silence might instead be taken by the reader as proof that Shimei is without excuse (so DeVries, 1 Kings, 41) or that Solomon’s case is conclusive. 105  So also Alter, The David Story, 383. 106  So too Robinson, Kings, 47.

232  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt way for Solomon to interpret Shimei’s execution as reflecting the same sort of divine repayment: ‘the LORD will bring back your evil on your own head’ (‫והשיב‬ ‫ ;יהוה את־רעתך בראשך‬1 Kgs 2:44).107 Indeed, the recalling of 2 Sam 16 is also suggested by David’s hope there that the guilt of leaving Abner’s Saulide blood unredeemed would be overlooked by God and that instead ‘the LORD will return to me good instead of his cursing’ (‫ ;והשיב יהוה לי טובה תחת קללתו‬2 Sam 16:12).108 Solomon here seemingly interprets Shimei’s imminent self-­destruction as reversing the effect Shimei intended; instead of David and his house being cursed, ‘King Solomon will be blessed’ (1 Kgs 2:45). Even more telling, however, is Solomon’s insistence that Shimei’s execution will ensure that the ‘throne of David will be established before the LORD forever’ (1 Kgs 2:45). Solomon earlier echoed the language of 2 Sam 7 by insisting that Joab’s execution and its elimination of ‘bloods’ would ensure that the divine promise of an enduring dynasty for David was fulfilled (1 Kgs 2:33).109 Now Solomon again evokes language found elsewhere only in 2 Sam 7:13 and 16 (see above) to clarify that Benaiah’s execution of Shimei110 will serve the same purpose in securing the throne of David before the LORD forever. The reason it can serve this purpose is because Shimei’s killing has not incurred ‘bloods’.111 We will see shortly that in 1 Kgs 2:46, the narrator conspicuously passes over Solomon’s own use of the word ‘forever’ (1 Kgs 2:45), and in so doing, refuses to endorse Solomon’s expectation of the eternal security of David’s dynasty. However, the narrator’s concession that ‘the kingdom (‫ )הממלכה‬was established in the hand of Solomon (‫( ’)ביד־שלמה‬1 Kgs 2:46), suggests that the spectre of ‘bloods’ has been successfully removed by Joab’s execution, and safely avoided in exiling Abiathar and eliminating Shimei.112 What makes this even more likely is that the clearest echo of the narrator’s words here (2:46) in 1–2 Samuel is to be found when Saul is spared by David and admits to him: ‘Now I know that you will surely be king and that the kingdom of Israel (‫ )ממלכת ישראל‬will be established in your hand (‫( ’)בידך‬1 Sam 24:21 [ET 20]). Thus, the narrator here echoes the earlier recognition that the kingdom would be 107  So too Walsh, 1 Kings, 64; and see also Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 152. It remains unclear whether David here retains his earlier belief that Shimei’s curse was divinely instigated (2 Sam 16:11) (cf. Simpson, Contesting Claims, 98). 108 Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 36. 109 Brueggemann, 1 & 2 Kings, 36, notes the resonance. 110  Solomon’s use of Benaiah to execute both Joab and Shimei simply reflects the widespread use of proxies for both legitimate and illegitimate executions seen elsewhere in David’s story, rather than Solomon’s effort to distance himself from guilt associated with these killings (so Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 151). 111  This seems more likely than the suggestion of Van Seters, Biblical Saga, 340, that the reference to 2 Sam 7 is entirely cynical and serves to indict Solomon. 112 So Pedersen, Israel I, 425; contra Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 41, who supposes that Solomon’s removal of ‘bloods’ has nothing to do with the divine confirmation of Solomon’s kingdom. Walsh, 1  Kings, 43–7, thinks that the emphasis on Solomon’s agency in 1 Kgs 2:45 (cf. 2:12) suggests his actions in 1 Kgs 2 are unnecessary and motivated purely by his feelings of insecurity. However, this fails to account for the text’s clear indications that Solomon was motivated by his father’s instruction (1 Kgs 2:1–9) and his desire to remove the threat of ‘bloods’ from his house.

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   233 secured in David’s hand by his refusal to raise his hand against Saul and shed il­legit­im­ate blood. Through this echo, the narrator confirms that it is the successful eliminating and avoiding of ‘bloods’ by Solomon which has ensured that the kingdom which David had earlier established in his own hand, is now safely confirmed in Solomon’s hand.113 * * * It is hardly surprising that the final chapters of David’s story have struck many readers as dark and even disturbing.114 We have seen that the elimination of Joab and Shimei and probably the exiling of Abiathar are all related to David and Solomon’s concern to eliminate or avoid ‘bloods’. But we have also noted various ambiguities regarding how Solomon proceeded. Admittedly, these ambiguities make it difficult to determine what, if any, view the reader might be invited to adopt of the events and attitudes on display here. The narrator frankly ac­know­ ledges Solomon’s awareness that Abiathar and Joab supported the failed ambitions of Adonijah (1 Kgs 2:22). Joab’s perception that this support was likely to cost him his life when Adonijah lost his own (2:28) is also noted. As many have observed, such acknowledgements draw attention to ‘political’ reasons for the exile of Abiathar and the elimination of Adonijah, Joab, and perhaps Shimei too. Indeed, this becomes all the more obvious when the narrator draws explicit attention to Solomon’s subsequent replacement of Abiathar with Zadok, and Joab with his executioner, Benaiah (2:35). Why, and to what extent, the narrator draws attention to these political ‘­reasons’ alongside the ostensible justifications for Solomon’s actions are questions which have long exercised readers.115 The most obvious answer is that the pol­it­ ical benefits of David and Solomon’s actions were known to the original readers, and may have been assumed to be the ‘real reasons’ for David’s orders and Solomon’s actions.116 Indeed, it seems likely that the need to respond to such assumptions might explain the narrative’s acknowledgement of them. However, some further argue that the narrative discloses this evidence in order to indict David and Solomon for pretending to act for anything other than these ‘real (i.e. political) reasons’.117 This in turn has given rise to the theory that 1 Kgs 1–2 is either entirely anti-­Solomonic,118 or was so prior to a pro-­Solomonic redaction 113  If, as Ishida, History, 134–5, suggests, the narrator here means instead that the kingdom will be established ‘by the hand’ of Solomon, the clear link to 1 Sam 24 suggests not that Solomon is to be negatively contrasted with David (as Ishida maintains), but rather that Solomon’s hand remained as untainted by innocent blood in securing his kingship as David’s did in securing it in his time. 114  See e.g. Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings, 31; and Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 40. 115 For recent surveys and discussion of the voluminous literature on this subject esp. since Delekat, ‘Tendenz’, see Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 111–57; and more recently and briefly Knapp, Royal Apologetic, 259–63. 116  See e.g. McCarter, ‘ “Plots, True and False” ’, 360. 117  See e.g. Whitelam, Just King, 154; Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 149; and DeVries, 1 Kings, 41. 118  So e.g. Delekat, ‘Tendenz’.

234  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt which sought to justify David’s orders and Solomon’s actions.119 It has also been suggested that these chapters were composed by a subversive scribe who ‘hid’ in plain view his criticism of the ostensibly justified actions of David and Solomon in 1 Kgs 1–2.120 This assumption that Solomonic casuistry is being critiqued here finds expression, for instance, in the suggestion that when Shimei retrieved his servants from Gath, Solomon is criticized for executing Shimei on a technicality (i.e. for violating not the spirit of the law, but merely the letter).121 It is understandable that modern readers might be inclined to take a dim view of Solomon executing Shimei, Joab, and Adonijah according to the letter of the law. However, it is less clear what view the ancient reader might be invited to take of such an approach. Indeed, it seems entirely plausible that an ancient reader might be invited to congratulate rather than castigate Solomon for his cleverness, and David for encouraging it, precisely because it allows men like Joab and Shimei to be eliminated without Solomon incurring ‘bloods’.122 However discomfiting, such a suggestion seems all the more plausible, when David’s original orders to Solomon (1 Kgs 2:1–9) are reconsidered. As we have seen, Solomon’s executions of Joab and Shimei, so as to avoid or eliminate ‘bloods’, seem to be associated by David with a hard-­boiled version of the wisdom (1 Kgs 2:6, 9) for which Solomon will soon be lauded (1 Kgs 3).123 However, what some find more difficult to imagine is how the elimination and avoidance of culpability for ‘bloods’ by David and Solomon might be compatible with David’s prefatory exhortation to heed the Torah (1 Kgs 2:1–4).124 A first clue may be found in David’s desire for the establishment of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kgs 2:4). This recalls David’s prayer for reassurance of the divine promise (2 Sam 7:25) necessitated by his concern that it might be complicated by ‘bloods’, as Abigail had warned (1 Sam 25). This concern in turn explains why David advises Solomon to eliminate ‘bloods’ by killing Joab and avoid them in killing Shimei and perhaps also by retaining the sons of Barzillai.125 However, David’s 119  So e.g. Würthwein, Thronfolge Davids, 49–59; Veijola, Die Ewige Dynastie, 5ff.; and Langlamet, ‘Pour ou contre Salomon?’. 120  So Seibert, Subversive Scribes, 111–57, though as he himself acknowledges (157) it is difficult to imagine a scribal context which would permit even a subversion as subtle as this. On subversiveness in 1 Kgs 1–2, see also Anderson, ‘Execution of Joab’, 45. For the ambiguity as integral to the narrative, see Gunn, Story of King David, 25. 121  For the suggestion that those eliminated are presented as only ‘technically’ guilty, see Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 40; and Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 32, who insists that Shimei did not transgress the ‘spirit’ of Solomon’s order but only the letter (so too Walsh, 1 Kings, 62 and Nelson, First and Second Kings, 28). 122  So McCarter, ‘ “Plots, True and False” ’, 360–1; and Nelson, First and Second Kings, 26, 30. 123  See e.g. Cogan, 1 Kings, 167; Nelson, First and Second Kings, 26; and Ishida, History, 134 (in relation to Shimei). 124  See, for instance, Hens-­Piazza, 1–2 Kings, 33–4; Auld, I & II Kings, 14; and Fokkelman, Narrative Art, vol. 1, 385. 125 Pedersen, Israel I, 425, rightly intuits the way in which the blessing of David’s dynasty depends on eliminating ‘bloods’ in the case of Joab and avoiding them in the case of Shimei.

‘ Bring Back His Bloody Deeds ’   235 understanding of the threat posed to his dynastic promise may also explain why he sees his ­recommended actions as fulfilling the Torah in Deuteronomi(sti)c terms.126 Amongst Deuteronomy’s many concerns, the spectre of innocent blood is raised on various occasions. It appears as a problem if, for instance, someone falls off a roof without a parapet (Deut 22:8), or if a corpse is found in proximity to a city (Deut 21:1–9), or if someone takes a bribe to kill illegitimately (Deut 27:25). Perhaps most notably, Deuteronomy displays an interest in places of refuge (Deut 19:1–13) to avoid the shedding of innocent blood by a ‘blood redeemer’ in cases of unintentional homicide (Deut 19:4–10). So too, alongside provisions for avoiding ‘bloods’, the Deuteronomic tradition also preserves a mechanism for eliminating ‘bloods’. Thus, if someone seeking refuge is manifestly guilty of pre­meditated killing, they are to be handed over to be put to death (Deut 19:11–13), with Deuteronomy enjoining the reader to, ‘Show no pity; you will purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, so that it may go well with you’ (Deut 19:13). Given the Deuteronomic flavour of David’s order to Solomon to ‘walk in his [i.e. the LORD’s] ways and keep his statutes, his commandments, his judgements and his testimonies’ (1 Kgs 2:3), it seems entirely natural that David might offer specific instructions to eliminate and avoid ‘bloods’ as he does in 1 Kgs 2:5–9. Moreover, the fact that ‘altar’ asylum is not reflected in Deuteronomy’s provisions for refuge may help to explain why Solomon shows no scruples in ordering Benaiah to strike down Joab at the altar, as we have seen. While the narrator withholds judgement at this point in the narrative, and remains as reluctant as ever to offer it in 1 Kgs 1–2 , it is notable that he does eventually seem to endorse David and Solomon’s justifications of their actions (1 Kgs 2:46).127 Just as David secured his kingdom by not shedding Saul’s ‘innocent’ blood (1 Sam 24:21 [ET 20]), the narrator confirms that Solomon too has secured the Davidic kingdom by eliminating and avoiding the problem of ‘innocent blood’ in the early days of his own reign. However, if these final chapters of David’s story seem to point to this conclusion, we will see that some qualification of it will be required, as we now turn to consider the problem of ‘bloods’ in David’s story as a whole.

126  For a recognition of the link between the confirmation of kingship and the keeping of Torah, see Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 81. While some commentators see the actions ordered by David and carried out by Solomon as expressions of justice (e.g. Green, David’s Capacity, 257) or injustice (e.g. Simpson, Contesting Claims, 102–3), the lack of direct reference to such terms in 1 Kgs 1–2 suggests that the actions were not construed according to such categories. 127  Early in 1 Kgs 1–2, the narrator allows the reader considerable latitude in how various characters’ actions might be interpreted (so e.g. Walsh, 1 Kings, 47). However, the narrator’s belated endorsement of Solomon and David’s justification for Solomon’s actions against these men may invite the reader to retrospectively validate their (and even Adonijah’s) view that the LORD was behind the establishment of the kingdom in Solomon’s hand (cf. Nelson, First and Second Kings, 30).

  Conclusion King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt

Over the course of the preceding chapters, we have seen that the shedding of innocent blood and its consequences pose a very significant problem indeed within David’s story. This fact naturally invites some final reflections on the nature of this problem, its place within the story, and why this problem features so prominently. However, before offering these reflections, it is worth reviewing how this problem animates not only the story of David’s rise, but also his reign and indeed even his succession (1 Sam 16–1 Kgs 2).

The Problem in David’s Rise It is clear that 1 Sam 16–2 Sam 4 is not merely concerned with the fact of David’s rise to kingship at the expense of the house of Saul, but also the questions of how and why David did so. Upon David entering the narrative, the pre-­eminent problem of Saul’s kingship is not that Saul is likely to spare blood which should be shed, but rather that he seeks to shed blood which should be spared. Indeed, the first hint that Saul’s loss of his throne will be inextricably bound up with the problem of innocent blood appears when Saul seeks to avoid the problem, by using his daughters to induce David to risk falling in battle against the Philistines (1 Sam 18:17–30). Saul’s presumption here seems to be that the evidently undesirable consequences of shedding innocent blood might be avoided by Saul if David were to voluntarily go into combat and fall to the indiscriminately devouring sword of warfare. Jonathan’s anxieties that his father will succeed in killing David are laid bare in 1 Sam 19. They suggest that Saul will not be protected from guilt by commissioning his own son or his servants to kill David when the Philistines fail to do so. In warning Saul against killing David, Jonathan suggests that David’s blood will be deemed ‘innocent’ if it is shed without sufficient cause, though what price Saul might be expected to pay for doing so is left unclear. In the end, Saul is saved from this guilt by his failure to shed David’s blood. However, Saul’s lack of scruples regarding illegitimate killing is seemingly hinted at by the account of his slaughter of the priests and city of Nob (1 Sam 22), despite the language of ‘bloods’ being absent here. No less importantly, the slaughter in Nob offers King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt. David J. Shepherd, Oxford University Press. © David J. Shepherd 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198842200.003.0011

Conclusion  237 the first sign of David’s awareness of his own potential responsibility for unwarranted bloodshed. This awareness dominates 1 Sam 24–26, where the focus is squarely on David’s temptation to shed blood without sufficient warrant. In chapters 24 and 26, it is Saul’s blood which David must avoid shedding because he is the LORD’s anointed. In the intervening episode (1 Sam 25), Abigail brings both David and the reader to a fuller understanding of both the acuteness of the temptation to kill Nabal and the threat which yielding to it might pose to David and his house. Here, the appearance of the terminology of ‘bloods’ (‫ )דמים‬shapes the reader’s understanding of its meaning in the narratives which follow. First, Abigail (1 Sam 25:26) and then David himself (25:33) associate David’s ‘coming into bloods’ with him saving himself with his own hand. Abigail’s further association of David’s saving by his own hand with his ‘pouring out of blood without sufficient cause’ (25:31) also serves to link the latter with coming into bloods. So too, Abigail’s reference to ‘without sufficient cause’ here recalls Jonathan’s warning to Saul that putting David to death ‘without sufficient cause’ (1 Sam 19:5) is equivalent to sinning ‘against innocent blood’. Thus, for David to kill without sufficient cause and incur ‘bloods’ is equivalent to seeking to save by his own hands (i.e. secure his own salvation). Confirmation that David need not incur ‘bloods’ but may instead rely on the LORD’s ‘salvation’ is provided when David interprets Nabal’s death as the divine returning of Nabal’s evil on his own head (1 Sam 25:39). David’s final encounter with Saul in 1 Sam 26 suggests that the Nabal episode has steeled David’s resolve to avoid killing his king. But this encounter also hints at David’s anxiety that shedding blood without sufficient cause may require his own blood to be shed (1 Sam 26:20). The depth of David’s concern with unwarranted bloodshed manifests itself again in 2 Sam 1. Here, David decides that Saul’s blood has been shed wrongly and then seeks to limit the threat of ‘blood(s)’ to David and his house by first imprecating and then executing the Amalekite sojourner who claims to have killed Saul, the LORD’s anointed. The focus on Abner’s killing of Asahel in battle (2 Sam 2) confirms that 2 Sam 2–3 is primarily interested in the death of Abner at the hands of Joab and David’s response to it. David’s particular concern becomes clear first when he vows both his own and his kingdom’s innocence of Abner’s ‘bloods’ for all time (2 Sam 3:28). This concern is then underlined when David invokes ‘bloods’, including the consequence of perpetual bloodshed, on Joab and his father’s house (3:29). While David explicitly invokes the LORD in these vows, his subsequent request for the LORD’s vengeance (3:39) suggests that such vows alone may be insufficient to neutralize the threat of ‘bloods’ to his house, because of David’s unwillingness to execute Joab. Indeed, David’s worry that even execution may be inadequate to solve the problem of ‘bloods’ is suggested by his abandoning of the Beerothite brothers, Rechab and Baanah, to the birds and beasts after executing them for killing Ishbosheth, the son of Saul (2 Sam 4). This step illustrates

238  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt David’s increasing agency in redeeming blood shed il­legit­im­ate­ly. However, it also in­ev­it­ably highlights David’s failure to take similar action against his own ­kinsman, Joab, and the danger that this failure may pose to his own house in the shape of ‘bloods’. What all of this suggests is that the chief concern of 1 Sam 16–2 Sam 4 is not merely to show that David avoided wrongdoing in succeeding Saul. Rather, these chapters seek to demonstrate how Saul’s demise and David’s rise depend spe­cif­ic­ al­ly on their responses to the problem posed by innocent blood. On one hand, the story of David’s rise well illustrates his growing awareness of the threat ‘blood(s)’ may pose to his house and his attempts to limit this threat. On the other hand, David’s failure to execute his culpable nephew(s) also leaves the reader wondering whether the spectre of ‘bloods’ which David has striven to avoid so mightily in his rise may yet come back to haunt his house during his reign.

The Problem in David’s Reign The manner in which David goes about the killing of Uriah offers ample evidence of both David’s fearful awareness of ‘bloods’ and his efforts to avoid it. In killing Uriah, David does not use his own sword, as Joab does when killing Abner. Indeed, it is David’s use of the ‘sword’ of the Ammonites instead which explains the conspicuous absence of the language of ‘bloods’ in this episode. Yet, David’s success in avoiding ‘bloods’ per se by using the ‘sword’ of warfare to kill Uriah fails to protect David from the divine judgement which thunders down on him. The latter comes because David has not merely induced Uriah to put himself in harm’s way, as Saul had done to David by promising him his daughters in exchange for Philistine foreskins. Instead, David has actively contrived Uriah’s death by sending him back to the battlefront with his own death warrant. For David’s shedding of Uriah’s innocent blood, the LORD strikes down David’s son, promises to raise up evil from David’s own house, and also inflicts upon David’s house the curse of ‘the sword forever’ (2 Sam 12:10). Thus, this curse forever plagues David’s house with armed violence because he has actively exploited, for his own benefit, the indiscriminate nature of war with his enemies. To underline the message that innocent blood matters, even when ‘bloods’ have been avoided, the LORD promises David consequences strikingly similar to those David himself invoked upon Joab for killing Abner (2 Sam 3). Thus, in responding to the killings of Abner and Uriah respectively, both David and the LORD first avow their own innocence (2 Sam 3:28, 12:7–8). Then they curse the killer and his house to perpetual armed violence (2 Sam 3:29, 12:10). Finally, David and the LORD then invoke further divine repayment of evil (2 Sam 3:39, 12:14) while still allowing the killers (Joab and David respectively) to escape with their own lives. Crucially, however, the LORD’s additional requirement that David’s child must die in his stead suggests

Conclusion  239 that because David has merely cursed Joab rather than executed him, David’s house still remains at risk from the unremedied ‘bloods’ of Abner. While David’s killing of Uriah illustrates how the fear of ‘bloods’ follows David to the throne, the story of Absalom’s killing of Amnon (2 Sam 13) further demonstrates its haunting of David’s house. We have seen that Absalom views his killing of Amnon as justified by the rape of Tamar and therefore as not incurring ‘bloods’. However, while David evidently views the rape as reprehensible, the un­mis­take­ able resonances of Amnon’s killing with the account of Nabal (1 Sam 25) suggests that David spares Amnon for the same reason he was persuaded by Abigail to spare Nabal. He does so because ‘violations’ however egregious should be left to divine justice, lest ‘bloods’ be invited upon one’s house and kingdom for killing without sufficient cause. It is small wonder when Absalom flees immediately to Geshur given David’s well-­documented tendency to execute those whom he sees as guilty of illegitimate bloodshed (e.g. the Amalekite [2 Sam 1] and Rechab and Baanah [2 Sam 4]). The intervention of the Tekoite woman confirms the narrative’s persistent interest in David’s response to the problem of illegitimate bloodshed (2 Sam 14). By means of a ruse, the woman persuades David to spare Absalom despite his killing of Amnon, just as David had already spared Joab. Indeed, Joab’s orchestration of this seems to reflect the general’s hope that it will encourage David to continue to overlook Joab’s shedding of Abner’s blood illegitimately. While the text does not suggest that David forgives Absalom, David’s kissing of him signals his willingness to leave Amnon’s blood unredeemed, in the hope that these further ‘bloods’ will not come back to haunt David and his house in the meantime. Instead of either confirming or dashing this hope, however, 2 Sam 15–18 show how David’s refusal to kill Absalom paves the way for the curse of the ‘sword’ (2 Sam 12:10) to take its toll in Absalom’s armed insurrection against him. This conclusion is seemingly arrived at by David himself when he insists on fleeing Jerusalem, lest Absalom ‘attack the city with the edge of the sword’ (2 Sam 15:14). With the consequences of David’s failure to redeem Amnon’s blood now mounting, Shimei’s cursing of the fleeing king (2 Sam 16) is a reminder that David’s failure to kill Joab for Abner’s innocent Saulide blood has not been forgotten. Here, Shimei apparently seeks to turn David’s cursing of the sons of Zeruiah with ‘evil for evil’ (2 Sam 3:39) back on David himself. David, however, expresses his hope that the LORD will overlook his guilt by not ‘returning the evil’ against him as Shimei’s curse expects (2 Sam 16:8). Instead, David seemingly hopes that this evil will remain on the sons of Zeruiah as per David’s original cursing of them, with the LORD instead ‘returning good’ (16:12) on David. This explains both David’s ‘acceptance’ of Shimei’s curse as reflecting the divine will and Abishai’s offer to kill Shimei. When David rejects Abishai’s offer, it likely reflects David’s mounting fear that if another son of Zeruiah kills another Saulide under the il­legit­im­ate guise of war, further Saulide ‘bloods’ will fall upon David’s house.

240  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt In taking up the fate of Absalom and his war, the narrative confirms the fulfilment of both the prediction that David’s concubines would be taken (2 Sam 16:21–22) and the curse of the devouring sword (2 Sam 18:6–8). At the same time, the allusions in 2 Sam 18 to the royal mules (2 Sam 13) and Absalom’s head of hair (chapter 14) also prepare for the endorsement of Joab’s killing of Absalom as a redeeming of Amnon’s blood. This we saw to be evidenced in the hanging, impalement, ex­pos­ure, and disposal of Absalom, and Joab’s desire for this to be related to David by the Cushite messenger. If nothing is hidden from the king, as both Joab and his soldier assume, the peculiarities of Absalom’s death and their resonance with other post-­mortem treatment of the bloodguilty are freighted with significance. Indeed, they suggest that David’s failure to kill or curse Joab reflects David’s recognition that Joab’s killing of Absalom has redeemed Amnon’s blood and spared David’s house from this bloodguilt. With the threat of Amnon’s ‘bloods’ safely removed, Shimei’s appearance on David’s return (2 Sam 19) offers an immediate reminder that Saulide ‘bloods’ incurred by Joab and Abishai remain a real threat to David. Abishai here echoes his earlier offers to kill Saul (1 Sam 26) and Shimei (2 Sam 16) by offering again to silence Shimei and his claims regarding the ‘bloods’ of Abner, whose innocence the sons of Zeruiah evidently contested. Yet again, Abishai’s interest is contrasted with David’s insistence that Shimei be spared, lest his killing now add to the Saulide ‘bloods’ incurred by David’s refusal to execute Joab for killing Abner. David’s replacement of Joab with Amasa as commander seems intended to check the threat of further ‘bloods’. However, Joab’s subsequent killing of Amasa in cold blood and David’s lack of action against his general confirm how little Joab has to fear from either his erstwhile rival or David himself. Indeed, Joab’s killing of Amasa also confirms that David’s fear of his kinsmen’s tendency to incur ‘bloods’ under his aegis is fully justified and unlikely to recede. This recurring concern with the threat of Saulide ‘bloods’ to David gives way somewhat unexpectedly to the threat of ‘bloods’ posed by those Saul has slain (2  Sam 21:1–14). Such a prospect is prepared for by Saul’s seeking of David’s innocent blood (1 Sam 19) and Saul’s killing of the priests in Nob (1 Sam 22). Here, however, Saul’s bloodthirstiness proves problematic for David when ‘bloods’ incurred by Saul’s illegitimate slaying of the Gibeonites causes a famine in David’s land. The Gibeonites’ solution of impaling seven Saulides as a means of expiating the ‘bloods’ is predictable given the penetrative violence associated with remedying ‘bloods’ in the killings of Abimelech, Absalom, and almost certainly Rechab and Baanah. Moreover, the association of post-­mortem exposure and potential predatory ravaging with the remedying of ‘bloods’ in the latter two cases, seems to explain Rizpah’s protection of the slain Saulides’ remains. David’s response to Rizpah’s care for her kinsmen and her subversion of David’s efforts to expiate the ‘bloods’ takes advantage of the memory of Saul and Jonathan’s impalement and post-­mortem exposure in 1 Sam 31. David’s repatriation of their bones from Jabesh

Conclusion  241 Gilead as a suitable expiatory substitute for the seven Saulides allows the king to both overcome Rizpah’s obstruction and underline his own allegiance to the house of Saul. In light of the wider narrative, the fact that ‘bloods’ incurred by Saul’s killing of the Gibeonites fells both his sons and grandsons after his death offers a cautionary reminder to David and the reader. It suggests that continuing to spare Joab puts David’s own descendants at risk of the ‘bloods’ of Amasa and Abner returning to haunt them, perhaps in the shape of blood vengeance courtesy of Saulides like Shimei, whom David has also spared. Moreover, further allusions to David’s earl­ier period (2 Sam 22:21–25 and 23:14–17) also remind the reader that the future of David’s house depends not only on eliminating Saulide ‘bloods’, but also on not adding to it by killing more Saulides illegitimately.

The Problem in David’s Succession David’s acute awareness of the need to eliminate existing ‘bloods’ and avoid adding to them is illustrated well by the story of his succession in 1 Kgs 1–2. Crucially, David’s expectation of the establishment of Solomon’s kingdom (1 Kgs 2:4) recalls his prayer for reassurance that the divine promise of a dynasty would be fulfilled (2 Sam 7:25). This reassurance we saw to be required by David’s concern that ‘bloods’ might compromise his dynastic prospects as Abigail had warned (1 Sam 25). Given this, it is not surprising when David offers specific instructions to ­eliminate ‘bloods’ by killing Joab and to avoid them in killing Shimei and by retaining the sons of Barzillai. Indeed, given Deuteronomy’s interest in the problem of ‘innocent blood’ and how to remedy it, it is understandable that we might find David couching his instructions in Deuteronomic terms in 1 Kgs 2. In taking up the matter of Joab, David emphasizes that his orders are premised on Solomon’s own knowledge that Joab’s killing of Abner and Amasa has ‘set bloods of war in peace[-time]’ (1 Kgs 2:5). This formulation resumes the earlier interest we have seen in war as a backdrop against which to adjudicate the le­git­ im­acy of particular killings, including Joab’s killing of Abner (2 Sam 3). Because David sent Abner away in peace (2 Sam 3:21), David’s allegation here seems to assume and reject Joab’s efforts to legitimate his killing of Abner on the basis that he remained an enemy combatant. Indeed, Joab’s later killing of Amasa as an enemy combatant despite David’s peace-­making with him is seen by David as only adding to the problem. Moreover, David’s insistence that Joab not be allowed to die a peaceful death in old age (1 Kgs 2:6) betrays David’s concern that such a death might pre-­empt the remedying of the ‘bloods’ Joab has incurred through his repeated misuse of ‘war’. Given the steeliness of Joab and the cunning of Shimei, it is not surprising when David advises that ‘wisdom’ (1 Kgs 2:6, 9) will be required for Solomon to eliminate and avoid ‘bloods’ in executing them.

242  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt After David dies, Solomon wastes little time in heeding his instructions. In doing so, he makes clear that Joab’s killing is intended to address the issue of ‘the bloods without sufficient cause which Joab poured out’ (1 Kgs 2:31). Indeed, when Solomon notes that Joab killed Abner and Amasa with the ‘sword’ (2:32), his echoing of Nathan’s curse of the sword (2 Sam 12:10) is unlikely to be a coincidence. Rather, it seems to indicate Solomon’s endorsement of David’s claim that Joab has used the pretense of ongoing war (‘the sword’) to kill those with whom David had made peace. In passing judgement, Solomon reuses a variety of formulas relating to ‘bloods’ seen earlier in the story of David, but seems to specifically echo David’s response to Abner’s death (2 Sam 3:28–29). This suggests that what David failed to accomplish then, by merely disavowing and cursing Joab, Solomon expects to finally achieve now by executing Joab for killing the innocent Abner and Amasa. Thus, Solomon seems to share David’s view that in the absence of the hoped for divine vengeance against Joab, the latter must be executed before he dies of old age, in order to remove the innocent ‘bloods’, which will otherwise continue to hang over David’s house. Only now is David’s view that Joab’s killing of Abner and Amasa was an act against ‘me’ (1 Kgs 2:5) explicitly parsed. Solomon does this by echoing (1 Kgs 2:33) David’s earlier linking of the endurance of his dynasty (2 Sam 7) to Joab’s execution and the consequent elimination of ‘bloods’ (1 Kgs 2:4–5). Evidently, Solomon’s assumption is that this elimination will facilitate ‘peace from the LORD’ for him and his successors (2:33). This in turn suggests that by eliminating Joab for shedding the blood of war in peacetime, Solomon seeks to eliminate the prospect of war plaguing David’s descendants in perpetuity. While the killing of Joab is presented as eliminating ‘bloods’ from the royal house, it is the avoiding of ‘bloods’ which seems to be the focus of Solomon’s exile of Abiathar and David’s instructions regarding Shimei and the sons of Barzillai. Earlier, David had refused to sanction Abishai’s killing of Shimei after the war against Absalom had already been won (2 Sam 19). This seemed to reflect David’s concern that Abishai might add to the unavenged Saulide bloodguilt arising from Joab’s earlier killing of Abner on the pretence of war. This is now confirmed by David’s retrospective clarification here that he had specifically vowed not to put Shimei to death ‘by the sword’ (1 Kgs 2:8). The use of this same phrase by Nathan in condemning David’s illegitimate use of war to eliminate Uriah (2 Sam 12:9–11) explains David’s restraint towards Shimei in 2 Sam 19. But it also accounts for why David instructs Solomon to ensure that Shimei is ‘not considered innocent’ (1 Kgs 2:9), while ensuring that Solomon and David’s house remain innocent, by avoiding ‘bloods’. This is underlined when Solomon makes clear to Shimei that his life depends upon him remaining in Jerusalem, and that if he does not, his blood will be upon his head. David had cursed in similar terms the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul (2 Sam 1:16). Here, Solomon’s invocation of Shimei’s blood on his own

Conclusion  243 head implies a concern that Shimei’s blood might otherwise end up causing problems for the Davidic dynasty. Thus, when Shimei agrees and then violates Solomon’s terms by fetching his servants from Gath, Solomon immediately confronts him. In doing so, Solomon emphasizes that it is Shimei’s own vow-­breaking which will be the cause of his imminent execution. In cursing David, Shimei had interpreted Absalom’s rebellion as the ‘LORD returning upon David . . . evil’ (2 Sam 16:8) for leaving Saulide blood unredeemed. Here, in 1 Kgs 2:44, Solomon interprets Shimei’s failure to keep his vow and his resulting execution as the divine repayment of evil which Shimei had sought in cursing David. Still more telling is Solomon’s insistence that Shimei’s execution will ensure that the ‘throne of David will be established before the LORD forever’ (1 Kgs 2:45). Solomon has already evoked the language of 2 Sam 7 (in 1 Kgs 2:33) to link the divine promise of an enduring Davidic dynasty to Joab’s execution and the elimination of ‘bloods’. Now Solomon again evokes language found elsewhere only in 2 Sam 7 (vv. 13, 16) to explain that Benaiah’s execution of Shimei without incurring ‘bloods’ should serve the same purpose in securing the throne of David before the LORD forever. The narrator’s concluding affirmation that ‘the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon’ (1 Kgs 2:46) seems to echo Saul’s own affirmation (1 Sam 24:21 [ET 20]) that David would establish his kingdom by not shedding Saul’s ‘innocent’ blood. If so, the reader is seemingly invited to share David and Solomon’s view that Solomon’s actions here have solved, for now, the problem of  illegitmate bloodshed which has exercised David and the narrative from the beginning.

The Nature of the Problem It is worth considering what has been learned regarding the notion of ‘innocent blood’ in David’s story. David’s untarnished reputation at the outset (1 Sam 19:5) and Jonathan’s equation there of blood shed ‘without cause’ with the ‘innocence’ of David’s blood might suggest that such blood or its possessor is ‘innocent’ in some sort of categorical way. A similar understanding might be encouraged by the emphasis on Uriah’s innocence and righteousness prior to his killing by David. Or by David’s own characterization of Abner as innocent after his killing by Joab. So too, when David holds Rechab and Baanah to account for Ishbosheth’s blood, the dead man’s righteousness is foregrounded. However, when Abigail warns David that he will ‘come into bloods’ for killing Nabal ‘without cause’, the characterization of Nabal as a ‘violator’ complicates the notion of ‘innocent blood’. Indeed, it suggests to the reader that ‘bloods’ is incurred not when blood is innocent in a categorical way, or when it is shed without any cause, but rather when it is shed without sufficient cause. This in turn explains why in David’s view at least, Absalom’s killing of Amnon incurs ‘bloods’.

244  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt It is not because Absalom had no cause to kill Amnon or because Amnon or his blood were ‘innocent’ in any categorical way. Indeed, far from it. Rather, David does not view Amnon’s admittedly egregious violation as constituting a sufficient cause for him to be killed in cold blood by his brother, Absalom. We have, at various points in this study, characterized blood shed without sufficient cause as ‘illegitimate bloodshed’. Thus, it is worth reflecting on the appropriateness of this term in describing the problem in the story of David. While we may catch glimpses of quasi-­forensic processes in relation to the problem of ‘bloods’ within David’s story,1 the problem does not seem to have been framed primarily or explicitly as one of legality or justice. For this reason, we have at various points over the course of this study characterized the problem of ‘bloods’ as one of ‘unwarranted’, ‘unjustified’, or ‘illegitimate’ bloodshed. The latter term especially must be understood not in the sense of illegality in any technical sense, but rather in terms of a violation of social norms.2 Indeed, to allow for a full recognition of this point and to avoid confusion, one might prefer to speak instead of the problem of innocent blood as one of bloodshed which is ‘unacceptable’ or ‘unauthorized’. This point is perhaps best illustrated with reference to Saul, whom David, the narrator, and even Saul himself admit is far from innocent. Instead, David’s repeated sparing of Saul and his killing of the Amalekite who claimed to have killed Saul are premised on Saul’s status as ‘the LORD’s anointed’. It is never made clear precisely why, but this status evidently served to make Saul’s killing ‘unacceptable’ or ‘unauthorized’, at least to David. Such terms naturally invite the question, ‘unacceptable to whom?’—a question which alerts us again to the centrality of social norms in shaping why and to what extent any given instance of bloodshed is seen as im/permissible. Indeed, such an awareness is fully manifest in the narrative’s interest in disclosing multiple perspectives, even when they are at odds with David’s own adjudication of bloodshed. For example, Saul may be presented as seeing his slaying of the Nobites, and perhaps the Gibeonites too, as acceptable. The same might be said of the Amalekite in claiming to have killed Saul. Despite David’s rather different view of matters, we are also invited to assume that the Beerothites saw their assassination of Ishbosheth as legitimate. So too, Absalom’s striking down of Amnon and Joab’s stabbing of Abner and Amasa all likely reflect the killers’ views of their actions as acceptable. It is also possible that Joab’s flight to the altar and Rizpah’s protection of Saul’s descendants might reflect their contesting of the Davidic dynasty’s judgement of ‘bloods’ against them. The inclusion of these perspectives demonstrates the narrative’s acknowledgment of how claims regarding the acceptability of any

1  See, for instance, David’s ‘indictments’ of the Amalekite (2 Sam 1), Joab (2 Sam 3), and the Beerothites (2 Sam 4), as well as the language and processes reflected in 2 Sam 12, 14, 21, and 1 Kgs 2 above. 2  For useful discussion, see Costeloe and Alvarez, ‘Vocabularies of Legitimation’.

Conclusion  245 given killing can be contested. Indeed, these conflicting claims are utterly central to the story of David, supplying the essential grist for the mill of the narrative. A crucial sub-­theme of the David story’s interest in illegitimate bloodshed concerns its relationship to conflict on the battlefield. This may be seen in Saul’s desire to tempt David to fall to the Philistines so as to avoid ‘bloods’ for David’s death. We also see it in David’s active and successful contriving of Uriah’s death at the hands of the Ammonites for the same purpose, for which David is then subjected to divine judgement. This concern is also manifest in David’s interrogation of the Amalekite to determine whether Saul fell in battle or was killed il­legit­im­ate­ly. Moreover, David’s objections to Joab’s killing of Abner and Amasa and Abishai’s offer to do the same to Shimei seem to reflect David’s awareness that war must not be used as an opportunity to shed unwarranted blood. It is also clear that blood must not be shed when it is protected by vow. This may be seen when David’s land is seized by famine as a result of Saul’s shedding of the Gibeonites’ blood, despite the vow made to spare them (Josh 9). This also seems to explain David’s insistence on Solomon’s wisdom being required to ensure Shimei’s elimination without violating the vow David made to him. From what the David story says about ‘innocent blood/illegitimate bloodshed’, it is clear that it is seen to be highly problematic for David and for other characters within the narrative. However, the nature of the problem it poses seems to vary. Thus, we have seen that in almost all cases where the plural ‘bloods’ appears in the David story, it may be taken as referring to the innocent ‘blood(s)’ shed in the associated narrative. In certain contexts (e.g. 2 Sam 3:28–29) such bloods appear to enjoy something akin to agency, which an abstracted gloss like ‘bloodguilt’ risks obscuring.3 Indeed, David’s cursing of Joab to the ‘whirling’ of ‘bloods’ upon his head with its many disastrous consequences gives a fair flavour of what David fears might come upon him and his house, for failing to avenge Abner’s innocent ‘bloods’. This finds a correspondence in the famine which David’s land endures as a result of Saul’s shedding of the Gibeonites’ blood (2 Sam 21:1–14). Moreover, it is clear that such consequences are anticipated to fall upon not merely those who have shed unwarranted blood, but their kin as well. Finally, it seems equally obvious that the consequences may be enduring, persisting through time and perhaps in perpetuity, unless the innocent ‘bloods’ are remedied. If this suggests that ‘bloods’ may almost always be taken as ‘innocent’, it is worth considering what light this study sheds on the notion of ‘bloodguilt’ within the David story. It must be acknowledged that the story does not offer any explicit or immediate qualification of blood itself as ‘guilty’. However, Jonathan does warn Saul from the outset that the blood of David which Saul wishes to shed is ‘innocent’ and that to shed it will be ‘to sin’ against David’s innocent blood (1 Sam 19:5). 3  In a few other instances (e.g. 2 Sam 1, 4; 1 Kgs 2; see also 1 Sam 18), ‘guilt’ is not signalled ­ex­pli­cit­ly, and alternative, more concrete conceptualizations of ‘blood’ are certainly possible.

246  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt That ‘bloods’ is indeed related to guilt seems also to be implied by David’s insistence that he is ‘innocent’ of the blood of Abner shed by Joab (2 Sam 3:28). So too, when the Tekoite woman implores David to save her fratricidal son, she insists that she will bear the ‘guilt’ for the blood which has been shed, while the king and his kingdom will be ‘innocent’ (2 Sam 14:9). Indeed, when David is persuaded to allow Absalom back to Jerusalem, but not into his presence, Absalom challenges David to have him killed if there is ‘guilt’ in him for killing Amnon (2 Sam 14:32). Moreover, when David is cursed by Shimei for shedding Saulide ‘bloods’, David expresses his hope that ‘my guilt’ (2 Sam 16:12) for doing so will be overlooked by the LORD. Admittedly, this kind of explicit language is absent from the episode of the Gibeonites and the slaying of the seven Saulides (2 Sam 21). However, that the Gibeonite ‘bloods’ requires ‘atonement’ (‫ ;כפר‬2 Sam 21:3) might reasonably suggest bloodguilt as a suitable description of the problem as presented in this passage.4 Given the problems ‘bloods’ are assumed to pose, it is worth reflecting finally on the variety of remedies and their conceptualization in David’s story. In many cases, we have seen that the ‘blood(s)’ of either the accused or their victim is invoked upon the one accused of shedding blood without sufficient warrant. Nevertheless, it seems clear that a curse on its own (2 Sam 3:28–29, 39) does not provide a sufficient remedy for illegitimate bloodshed. So too, while the the­or­ et­ic­al possibility that silver or gold might serve this purpose is acknowledged by the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:4), they reject it out of hand. Instead, it appears that here and elsewhere the remedy required is the shedding of the blood of the killer or their descendants. In the case of the Gibeonites, it is this which accomplishes the ‘atonement/expiation’ of bloodguilt (2 Sam 21:1–14). Both here and in the case of the Tekoite woman’s fratricide (2 Sam 14), the innocent blood which has been shed is remedied by their kinsmen shedding the blood of the guilty. Yet, in the latter case, this is conceptualized not in terms of expiation, but rather as ‘blood redemption’. In other cases, where David is directly involved in killing to remedy ‘innocent blood’, redemption may be implied, but it is not invoked explicitly, nor is it clear whether David kills as kinsman or king. While vengeance is almost never explicitly invoked, David frequently seeks to mitigate the problem of bloodguilt by ordering or allowing the shedding of the blood of those he sees as responsible for it (2 Sam 1:15, 4:12; 1 Kgs 2:5–6, 31–34; cf. also 2 Sam 14:7, 32, 18:9–15) or their descendants (2 Sam 21:1–14). Indeed, even when David manages to avoid ‘bloods’ per se in killing the innocent Uriah, the unavoidable impression is that the life of his first son by Bathsheba is taken as a result of it. While intentional taking of further life thus seems to be the essential remedy for the problem of innocent blood within the story of David,5 we have 4  Guilt is also explicitly atoned for at the outset of 1 Samuel (3:14). 5  For a discussion of the broader principle of retribution in the David story, see Shemesh, ‘Measure for Measure’.

Conclusion  247 also seen that it is frequently accompanied by some sort of ex­pos­ure and/or post-­mortem mutilation of the corpse, for reasons which remain unclear. It is hoped that the present study has enhanced our understanding of both innocent blood and bloodguilt in the story of David. However, there is little doubt that a full understanding of these notions in the Hebrew Bible remains a de­sid­er­ atum. While the relevant passages in the legal corpora (esp. Num 35; Deut 19, 21) have been the subject of considerable scholarly attention, we have quite intentionally alluded to them only sparingly in this study. Thus, these may well be worth revisiting in light of the findings here. Other traditions which specifically reference the story of David (e.g. Psalms, esp. 51 and 1 and 2 Chronicles) might also offer suitable avenues for further exploration. Other allusions to the problem of ‘bloods’ might also be examined in the wider narrative of which David’s story is a part, including traditions in the Former Prophets which concern kingship. Indeed, the Latter Prophets too (esp. Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.) and even the Pentateuch might offer happy hunting grounds for those wishing to explore the problem of innocent blood within the Hebrew Bible.6 Moreover, some recent work suggests that ancient Near Eastern literature might have some light to shed on the problem, though clearly more remains to be done here.7 Finally, the reception of the problem of ‘bloods’ in the Greek textual tradition of Samuel and Kings, and in the Qumran witnesses and other versions, deserves the attention which it has been impossible to afford it here.8 Indeed, investigations such as these are essential for improving our understanding of the afterlife of this problem in the Hebrew Bible.

The Prevalence and Importance of the Problem We suggested at the outset of this study that it seemed reasonable to conclude that the story of David might have more than one theme, but also that it might be more about one theme than others. We also agreed that a theme’s prominence or significance might be indicated by how often and where within the narrative it is signalled. We further agreed that a theme’s prominence might be indicated by how often it is concretized in person, image, and action, and how well it accounts for the story’s content, structure, and development. If we consider these indicators

6  In his discussion of 1 Sam 19:5, Auld, I & II Samuel, 224, notes in passing the resonance with passages in the Latter Prophets. For instance, see pp. 47, 91 above for the relevance of Ezek 3. For other passages in the Pentateuch worth revisiting in light of the findings of the present study, see Gen 4:1–16, 9:4–6, 34:1–31, 37, 42:22; Exod 4:25–26. In the Wisdom literature, see esp. Prov 1:11, 16, 18. 7  See, for instance, the studies discussed in relation to 2 Sam 21:14 (Chapter 8) as well as the type of work exemplified by Feder, Blood Expiation; and Barmash, Homicide. 8  One tendency observed here is for the LXX traditions to parse the enigmatic or unusual language of ‘bloods’ with more clear or familiar terminology (see e.g. 1 Sam 25:26, 31; 1 Kgs 2:5, 32).

248  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt in turn, the problem of innocent blood would seem to suggest itself as one of the most important themes of David’s story in the books of Samuel and 1 Kings. As we have seen, the narrative signals its interest in the problem of blood shed without sufficient warrant implicitly and explicitly throughout David’s rise to the throne (1 Sam 18–19, 22, 25, 31; 2 Sam 1–4). So too, in the account of David’s reign in 2 Samuel, we have seen this interest to be fundamental to the stories of David and Uriah/Bathsheba (2 Sam 11–12) and central to Absalom’s killing of Amnon and his recall (2 Sam 13–14). The theme is also crucial to the understanding of Absalom’s coup and his death (2 Sam 16, 18) and its aftermath, including Joab’s killing of Amasa (19–20). The problem of ‘bloods’ is even given pride of place in the Samuel coda (21) and in the conclusion of David’s story (1 Kgs 2), where we find his succession and indeed his final words. It is not impossible that others will detect interest in ‘bloods’ in other passages which have been passed over here. However, it may also be that some will find this interest less obvious at certain points than our study has suggested. If so, it seems likely that the points which are obvious to all are still sufficient to mark the problem of innocent blood as one of the David story’s greatest concerns. It is also possible that some may be inclined to interpret this theme differently. Some may prefer to understand the problem of innocent blood as a red herring, used by David to exonerate him in deaths which have worked to his advantage and with which he may have been accused of some involvement. If so, however, the fact that the ‘ruse’ of innocent blood is deployed so frequently and so pervasively throughout David’s story is itself telling, as such a use obviously depends on the intelligibility and plausibility of the problem itself for ancient readers. For reasons which this study has sought to make clear throughout, it seems more likely that ancient readers of David’s story were expected to understand ‘innocent blood’ as not a ruse within David’s story, but a genuine problem. Indeed, given its prevalence and prominence, it would seem difficult to imagine a more significant problem than innocent blood in David’s story as we now find it.9 Such an observation is buttressed by the extent to which this theme is con­cret­ ized through its representation in person, image, and action. The problem of unauthorized bloodshed touches almost all the main characters within the story of David at one point or another. This includes not only David himself, and his descendants and generals, but Saul and his house as well. It also touches many minor personages quite directly, including, for instance, Abigail, Nabal, the Amalekite who claims to have killed Saul, Rechab and Baanah, Uriah, the woman of Tekoa, Shimei, Ripzah, Benaiah, and various others. The problem of il­legit­im­ate 9  The present study suggests that the problem of blood shed without sufficient cause is not merely a ‘significant theme’ (so Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 474) but amongst the most significant of themes in the David story in Samuel and 1 Kings. Such a conclusion recommends a fuller elucidation of the themes suggested by others in recent years (see Introduction, pp. 8–10) and a comparison of illegitimate bloodshed with them.

Conclusion  249 killing is clearly also concretized in the image of ‘blood’ with which it is strongly associated throughout the story of David’s rise, reign, and succession.10 No less important to the story is the image of the ‘sword’ as a figure for armed violence, sometimes used in conjunction with the language of ‘bloods’ (2 Sam 3:28–29), but also appearing elsewhere in the background. The extent to which innocent blood is integral to the story’s content, structure, and narrative development seems self-­evident when one tries to imagine David’s story without it.11 Eliminating the episodes in which this theme is central would make David’s rise inexplicable and leave criticism of him very muted indeed. It would also leave Absalom’s coup unmotivated and Solomon’s succession uncomplicated. Instead, the books of Samuel and 1 Kings clearly explain David’s rise, reign, and succession in light of David’s responses to the problem of innocent blood, marking out the latter as a theme of the greatest significance.

Problem without End This study suggests that 1 Kgs 2 presents David and Solomon as viewing the ­problem of innocent blood as effectively ‘solved’ for David’s dynasty. This suggestion is compatible with the widely held view that the account of David’s rise, succession, and most of his reign is intended as an ‘apologia’ for David and his royal dyn­asty.12 However, as even proponents have acknowledged and detractors have been quick to point out, this view is significantly complicated by the inclusion of the Uriah/ Bathsheba episode. As we have seen, in this story, David is subjected to divine judgement for actions which almost all parties agree to be reprehensible. This study acknowledges that David’s story in Samuel and 1 Kings does frequently defend David and sometimes critiques him, especially in relation to the Uriah episode and David’s inability to discipline his sons. However, it would appear that the primary purpose of David’s story is instead to explain the fate of David and his house in light of his response to the problem of illegitimate bloodshed. In this larger story, David’s success in avoiding ‘bloods’ when killing Uriah, but failure to avoid divine judgement for doing so, is crucial. Indeed, this episode explains not

10 Alter, The David Story, xiv, too recognizes the ‘recurrence of spilled blood as material substance and moral symbol throughout the story’. 11  By ‘development’ we mean the text’s narratival development (agreeing with Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch; see Introduction, p. 10). However, this does not preclude the probability that the problem of blood shed without sufficient cause may well also illuminate the historical development (i.e. composition and redaction) of the David story. 12  So e.g. Whitelam, ‘The Defence of David’; McCarter, ‘The Apology of David’; McKenzie, ‘King David’. It is, as we noted at the outset of this study, impossible to prove whether the ‘historical’ David (to which we do not have access) was more guilty of illegitimate bloodshed than the narrative wishes to acknowledge.

250  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt only how the story of David and innocent blood ends in 1 Kgs 2, but also how it does not end, as we may see by returning briefly to this final chapter. We have noted that David and Solomon evoke language found elsewhere only in 2 Sam 7 (vv. 13, 16) in claiming that the solving of the problem of ‘bloods’ will secure ‘peace’ (‫ ;שלום‬1 Kgs 2:33) and the Davidic throne will be secured ‘forever’ (‫ ;עד־עולם‬1 Kgs 2:33, 45). The conclusion in the very next verse that ‘the kingdom (‫ )הממלכה‬was established in the hand of Solomon (‫( ’)ביד־שלמה‬1 Kgs 2:46) suggests the narrator’s endorsement of the view that Solomon’s actions did secure the Davidic kingdom. That this endorsement is only partial, however, is suggested by the narrator’s conspicuous failure to mention (1 Kgs 2:46) Solomon’s expectation that the kingdom will enjoy ‘peace’, or that it will be secured ‘forever’. Why the narrator might not endorse Solomon’s expectation that David’s house would enjoy ‘peace’ forever is suggested by the frequent misuse of war to shed innocent blood in David’s story, as we have seen. Indeed, in 1 Kgs 2, we saw that the Davidic/Solomonic justification for executing Joab was precisely that Joab had used the pretext of ongoing war to shed the innocent blood of those with whom David was at peace. But 2 Sam 11–12 reminds the reader that Joab was not alone in doing this. While in the case of Uriah, David is seen as avoiding ‘bloods’, the divine judgement leaves no doubt as to David’s guilt. Indeed, because David too had exploited war to shed the innocent blood of Uriah, his house will endure the eternal sword of armed violence (2 Sam 12:10) which David had invoked earlier upon Joab and his house (2 Sam 3:29).13 In light of this eternal curse, it is hardly surprising that the narrator makes no mention of Solomon’s expected ‘peace forevermore’. Indeed, as the reader of the rest of 1 and 2 Kings will discover, the sword of armed conflict would eventually begin to take its toll again on the house of David.14 The narrator’s refusal to see Solomon’s elimination and avoiding of ‘bloods’ as securing the Davidic throne ‘forever’ probably also reflects an awareness that the problem of ‘bloods’ cannot, by its very nature, be solved forever. David’s story illustrates how the prospect of illegitimate bloodshed and the problems it poses, are ever-­present for a king and his retainers. Indeed, we have seen how it lurks around the corner of every courtly intrigue and threatens to bring calamity upon the royal house. At first glance, the absence of the problem of ‘bloods’ in Solomon’s increasingly blotted copybook (1 Kgs 1–11) might suggest that this problem has been banished ‘forever’ after all, as Solomon assumes. However, here again, the 13  Apart from in 1 Kgs 2:33 and 45 (and one explicable exception in 2 Sam 22:51) the phrase ‘until forever’ (‫ )עד־עולם‬appears in David’s reign only in the divine blessing that David’s house will occupy the throne ‘forever’ (2 Sam 7:13, 16 [2x], 24, 25, 26) and the divine curse that David’s house will endure the sword (of armed violence) ‘forever’ (2 Sam 12:10). 14  While some (see above Chapter 5) rightly allow for the possibility that the ‘sword’ may be seen to reappear in the reign of Athaliah (2 Kings 11), the presentation of the sword as a cipher for ‘armed violence’ in the David story complicates recent efforts to identify the curse of the sword in instances of generalized violence (so Lamb, ‘Eternal Curse’) or only treacherous violence (so Nelson, ‘Green Curtain’) found in 2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings.

Conclusion  251 books of Kings will eventually suggest otherwise. This is especially true of David’s longest reigning descendant, Manasseh, whose shedding of innocent blood is remembered by some tradents as the unavoidable cause of the exile (2 Kgs 21:16, 24:4).15 Indeed, some traditions associated with Jeremiah see innocent blood as a problem persisting down to the time of the exile in the reign of another Davidide, Jehoiakim (Jer 22:17).16 Moreover, the recollection of the slaughter of Gedaliah and others at Mizpah (2 Kgs 25:25–26; Jer 40–41) may be a further illustration of the problem. This seems especially likely given that the perpetrator, Ishmael, is presented as descended from David (2 Kgs 25:25).17 In sum, David and Solomon’s view that the problem of ‘bloods’ has been solved may well be endorsed by the narrator as he looks back on the problem as it plagued David’s reign. However, the narrator’s conspicuous omissions of ‘peace’ and ‘forever’ (1 Kgs 2:46) in his endorsement seem to look forward. Indeed, they suggest the narrator’s awareness that David’s house would eventually be haunted again, not only by innocent blood, but also by the sword of warfare, with which David’s house was cursed for avoiding ‘bloods’ whilst killing Uriah.

A Problem for Whom? It is quite clear that the allegation or perception of bloodguilt is presented as highly problematic for many who populate the story of David. It is, for instance, lethally problematic for the Amalekite who claims to have killed Saul and for the Beerothite brothers who are presented as killing Ishbosheth. Innocent blood is also clearly a problem for the sons of Zeruiah, creating tension between David and both Abishai and Joab, and eventually costing the latter his life at the hands of Benaiah. So too, blood shed without sufficient warrant eventually poses a problem for Saul’s house, when seven Saulides are slain to expiate ‘bloods’ incurred by their royal forebear. The same is true for Absalom, when the consequences of his illegitimate fratricide catch up with him courtesy of Joab. First and foremost, however, innocent blood is presented within the narrative as a potential and then real problem for David. Admittedly, David and the narrator see him as narrowly avoiding the problem in the deaths of Saul, Nabal, and Ishbosheth. However, we 15 Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 269, rightly juxtaposes Davidic claims or expectations of having remedied the problem of innocent blood (1 Kgs 2) with the end of the history (2 Kgs 21:16) where this guilt is fully imputed by the narrator. 16  For the resonance of innocent blood in Jer 22:17 (cf. also 22:3) with the Manasseh traditions, see e.g. Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings, 302; Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, 308; and Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 140, who notes that the Jeremianic indictment against Jehoiakim for shedding blood without sufficient warrant is also found in Jer 26:15, 20–3. 17  For the early and oft-­endorsed conclusion that Ishmael’s murder of Gedaliah was prompted by the latter’s non-­Davidic pedigree, see McKane, Jeremiah, vol. 2, 1014; and for discussion of epi­graph­ ic­al support for Ishmael’s Davidic connection, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 115–16.

252  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt have seen that the problem looms large for David when his effort to avoid the problem in killing Uriah incurs divine judgement comparable to ‘bloods’. The problem also rears its head before and after this incident, when Joab wrongly sheds the blood of Abner and Amasa, and Absalom does likewise to Amnon, but David is not willing to take remedial action against them. The problem of Amnon’s killing is, of course, solved by Joab’s execution of Absalom by the time Solomon takes the throne. However, Solomon’s execution of Joab for the ‘bloods’ of Abner and Amasa illustrates the seriousness of the problems Solomon believes David has bequeathed to him. Indeed, Solomon’s careful efforts to avoid ‘bloods’, in killing Shimei, further demonstrate his concern to avoid recreating, in his own reign, the problems inherited from David. If the woman of Tekoa’s story of fratricide amongst the people at large is at all plausible, the particular association of ‘bloods’ with kings and their courts in David’s story may be accidental. Indeed, it may simply reflect that the story of David is pre-­eminently about kings: first Saul, then David, and then Solomon. However, the profound interest in the problem of unwarranted bloodshed in David’s story may also suggest that the problem is especially relevant for kings. Perhaps this is because the acquisition and retention of a throne tends to require and facilitate violence,18 or because royal bloodguilt may have wider geo-­political consequences (e.g. 2 Sam 21:1–14). While innocent blood clearly proves problematic for human characters in David’s story, it is worth considering to what extent it poses a problem for David’s patron deity, the LORD. In several cases, the divine interest in bloodguilt is not explicitly signalled and must be inferred. In other cases, such inferences would seem to be invited, as when Jonathan frames the problem of innocent blood in terms of ‘sin’ (1 Sam 19:5), and perhaps too, when David refrains from killing Saul as the ‘anointed of the LORD’ (1 Sam 24, 26). In still other cases, like David’s imprecation of Joab, David invites the LORD to solve the problem of ‘bloods’ for him (2 Sam 3:28–29, 39). There, David hopes that the LORD will bring about Joab’s unnatural death because David is unwilling to do so. He also hopes that the LORD will preserve David’s house from the consequences of ‘bloods’ in the meantime. It is this latter hope which David seems to reiterate in relation to Shimei (2 Sam 16). In addition to this, we see the LORD’s awareness and revelation of the problem of ‘bloods’ in the Gibeonite episode (2 Sam 21:1–14). There, the LORD eventually hears the plea for the parched land, after the problem of ‘bloods’ has been solved by expiation, accomplished ‘before the LORD’. So too, David’s framing of his final orders to Solomon (1 Kgs 2), in terms of obedience to divine law, underlines the impression of divine interest in the problem of innocent blood. If this interest seems to strengthen over the 18  An observation made in passing by Dietrich, Samuel, vol. 2, 474, in a brief reflection on the problem in David’s story.

Conclusion  253 course of David’s story in Samuel and Kings, it is not ubiquitous. Indeed, one might argue that what is most problematic about shedding innocent blood for the LORD is the threat which such ‘bloods’ pose to David and his house, to whom the LORD has promised a kingdom forever. Such an argument is, of course, immediately complicated by the fact that the LORD judges David so severely for killing Uriah. The nature and extent of this judgement suggests instead that innocent blood is deeply concerning to the LORD, even when ‘bloods’ has been avoided. From the above, we can see how problematic innocent blood proves to be both for human and divine characters within David’s story, and for its narrator(s). In light of this, it seems rather likely that innocent blood may also have been perceived as a problem by those who preserved and composed the many episodes about David which reference it. While we have not laboured the point, the variety of terminology unearthed in relation to the problem of ‘bloods’ is fully compatible with the idea that some of these episodes are likely to have been composed by different hands.19 One corollary of this is worth noting. If episodes illustrating the problem of illegitimate bloodshed in David’s story were composed by several hands, it follows that innocent blood was not merely a problem for one tradent, but for many, and perhaps over an extensive period of time. Nevertheless, the fact remains that from Jonathan’s warning near the story’s beginning (1 Sam 19:5) to Solomon’s order at its end (1 Kgs 2:31), these various episodes together tell the story of David in relation to innocent blood. This strongly suggests that innocent blood was also seen as a problem by whoever gave the story of David its final form.20 If this seems reasonably obvious, the identity of those responsible for assembling such a story is rather less so. Indeed, determining who might have wished to use David’s story to illustrate the problem of ‘innocent blood’ would require a study longer than this one. In seeking answers to such a question, however, one might do worse than to begin at the ‘end’ of the story of the Davidic monarchy in the final chapters of 2 Kings. There, as we have noted, the filling of Jerusalem with innocent blood by David’s descendant, Manasseh, is presented by a later editorial hand as the ultimate cause of the exile (2 Kgs 21:16, 24:4).21 Indeed, such a view resonates with the Jeremianic as­so­ci­ ation of this catastrophe too with the problem of innocent blood in the reigns of 19  See discussion in the Introduction, pp. 6–8. 20 Noll, Faces, 43, notes that the varied origins of the David story’s constituent elements in no way preclude the possibility that the final form of the story as a whole may disclose particular themes. Indeed, while Clines, Theme, 21, suggests that a theme need not reflect the intention of an author/ redactor (see also Eco, Interpretation and Overinterpretation, for a discussion of the ‘intention of the text’) he also acknowledges that a theme may well be taken to reveal what the author intended to convey to their audience. 21  For a useful (if inconclusive) discussion of whose innocent blood Manasseh may be accused of shedding in 2 Kgs 21:16 and 24:4, see Van Keulen, Manasseh, 140–3, 190–1.

254  King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt the later Davidic kings (e.g. Jer 22:3, 17, 26:15, 20–23). This might suggest the hypothesis that those who attributed the violent fall of David’s dynasty to the problem of innocent blood may have found and traced the beginning of this problem in David’s own story. Until a more promising theory may be proposed, this hypothesis might explain why David’s story has innocent blood as a central theme, but also why David’s house is doomed to be haunted by the sword forever.

Bibliography Ackerman, James. ‘Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2’. Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990): pp. 41–64. Ackroyd, Peter. The Second Book of Samuel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Adam, Klaus-Peter. Saul und David in der judäischen Geschichtsschreibung. Studien zu 1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 5 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Adam, Klaus-Peter. ‘Law and Narrative: The Narratives of Saul and David Understood within the Framework of a Legal Discussion on Homicide Law (Ex 21:12–14)’. Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008): pp. 311–35. Adam, Klaus-Peter. ‘Nocturnal Intrusions and Divine Intervention on Behalf of Judah: David’s Wisdom and Saul’s Tragedy in 1 Samuel 26’. Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009): pp. 1–33. Alter, Robert. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: Norton & Company, 1999). Amit, Yairah. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press, 2001). Amit, Yairah. ‘The Story of Amnon and Tamar: A Reservoir of Sympathy for Absalom’. In In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), pp. 205–19. Originally: ‘The Story of Amnon and Tamar: A Reservoir of Sympathy for Absalom’. Hasifrut/Literature 32 (1983): pp. 80–7. Anderson, Arnold A. 2 Samuel (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989). Anderson, Joel. ‘A Narrative Reading of Solomon’s Execution of Joab in 1 Kings 1–2: Letting Story Interpret Story’. Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1 (2012): pp. 43–62. Anderson Jr., Roger W. ‘ “And He Grasp Away Our Eye”: A Note on II Sam 20,6’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102 (1990): pp. 392–6. Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Kings (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1986). Auld, A. Graeme. Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible’s Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994). Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Samuel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011). Avioz, Michael. ‘Divine Intervention and Human Error in the Absalom Narrative’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37 (2013): pp. 339–47. Avioz, Michael. ‘ “A Man of Shame”: Ridiculing Saul’s Son, Ishbosheth’. In Character and Characterization in the Book of Samuel, edited by Keith Bodner and Benjamin Johnson (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), pp. 226–38. Awabdy, Mark A. Immigrants and Innovative Law (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). Bach, Alice. ‘The Pleasure of Her Text’. In The Pleasure of Her Text: Feminist Readings of Biblical & Historical Texts, edited by Alice Bach (Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 25–44. Baden, Joel. The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 2013). Bader, Mary Anna. Sexual Violation in the Hebrew Bible: A Multi-Methodological Study of Genesis 34 and 2 Samuel 13 (New York: Peter Lang, 2006).

256 Bibliography Bailey, Randall C. David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10–12 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). Bal, Mieke. Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987). Bar Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). Bar Efrat, Shimon. Das erste Buch Samuel (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2007). Bar Efrat, Shimon. Das zweite Buch Samuel (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2009). Barmash, Pamela. ‘The Narrative Quandary: Cases of Law in Literature’. Vetus Testamentum 54 (2004): pp. 1–16. Barmash, Pamela. Homicide in the Biblical World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Barrick, W. Boyd. ‘Burning Bones at Bethel: A Closer Look at 2 Kings 23.16a’. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 14 (2000): pp. 3–17. Bartor, Assnat. ‘Bloodguilt, Bloodfeud’. Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law, edited by Brent Strawn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 64–8. Batten, Loring. ‘Helkath Hazzurim, 2 Samuel 2, 12–16’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 26 (1906): pp. 90–4. Bellefontaine, Elizabeth. ‘Customary Law and Chieftainship: Judicial Aspects of 2 Samuel 14:4–21’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38 (1987): pp. 47–72. Bergen, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel (Nashville, TN: B & H, 1996). Bezzel, Hannes and Reinhard G. Kratz, eds. David in the Desert: Tradition and Redaction in the ‘History of David’s Rise’ (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021). Biberger, Bernd. ‘ “Du wirst nicht sterben”. Vergebung und Vergeltung in 2 Sam 12, 13–14’. Biblische Notizen 151 (2011): pp. 47–62. Bickert, Rainer. ‘Die List Joabs und der Sinneswandel Davids’. In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, edited by John Emerton (Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 30–51. Biddle, Mark. ‘Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization’. Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): pp. 617–38. Bietenhard, Sophia K. Des Königs General: Die Heerführertraditionen in der vorstaatlichen und frühen staatlichen Zeit und die Joabgestalt in 2 Sam 2–20; 1 Kön 1–2 (Freiburg, Switzerland / Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag Freiburg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Blank, Sheldon, H. ‘The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell and the Oath’. Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950–1): pp. 73–95. Bledstein, Adrien J. ‘Tamar and the “Coat of Many Colors” ’. In A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series): Samuel and Kings, edited by Athalya Brenner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 65–83. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. ‘Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam. XI, 2ff) and the Yahwist Corpus’. In Volume de congrès. Genève 1965, edited by Pieter  A.  H.  De Boer (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), pp. 44–57. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Bluedorn, Wolfgang. Yahweh versus Baalism: A Theological Reading of the GideonAbimelech Narrative (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Bodi, Daniel. The Demise of the Warlord: A New Look at the David Story (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010). Bodner, Keith. David Observed: A King in the Eyes of His Court (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005). Bodner, Keith. 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009). Bodner, Keith. The Rebellion of Absalom (London: Routledge, 2014).

Bibliography  257 Boecker, Hans Jochen. Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964). Borgman, Paul. David, Saul and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Boström, Lennart. ‘Uzzah’s Fate (2 Samuel 6): A Theological Problem for the Modern Reader’. In Encountering Violence in the Bible, edited by Markus Zehnder and Hallvard Hagelia (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013), pp. 23–39. Bosworth, David. ‘Faith and Resilience: King David’s Reaction to the Death of Bathsheba’s Firstborn’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011): pp. 691–707. Brenner, Athalya. ‘Rizpah [Re]membered: 2 Samuel 1–14 and Beyond’. In Performing Memory in Biblical Narrative and Beyond, edited by Athalya Brenner and Frank H. Polak (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), pp. 207–27. Brueggemann, Walter. ‘On Coping with Curse: A Study of 2 Sam 16:5–14’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36 (1974): pp. 175–92. Brueggemann, Walter. David’s Truth in Israel’s Imagination and Memory (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1985). Brueggemann, Walter. ‘2 Samuel 21–24: An Appendix of Deconstruction?’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): pp. 383–97. Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1990). Brueggemann, Walter. 1 & 2 Kings: A Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2000). Brueggemann, Walter. ‘Heir and Land: The Royal “Envelope” of the Books of Kings’. In The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, edited by Tod Linafelt et al. (London: T&T Clark, 2010), pp. 85–100. Budde, Karl. Die Bücher Samuel (Tübingen: Mohr, 1902). Buracker, William. ‘Abner Son of Ner: Characterization and Contribution of Saul’s Chief General’. PhD diss. Catholic University of America, 2017. Burnside, Jonathan. ‘Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical Law [Exodus 21:12–14] and the Davidic Succession Narrative [1 Kings 1–2]’. Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): pp. 418–31. Buttenwieser, Moses. ‘Blood Revenge and Burial Rites in Ancient Israel’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 39 (1919): pp. 303–21. Campbell, Antony F. The Study Companion to Old Testament Literature: An Approach to the Writings of Pre-Exilic and Exilic Israel (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989). Campbell, Antony F. 1 Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003). Campbell, Antony F. 2 Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004). Caquot, André. ‘Un point difficile du discours de la Téqoïte (II Sam 14, 13–15)’. In Storia e tradizioni di Israele. Scritti in onore di J. Alberto Soggin, edited by Daniele Garrone and Felice Israel (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1991), pp. 15–30. Caquot, André, and Philippe de Robert. Les livres de Samuel (Genève: Labor et Fides, 1994). Carlson, Rolf A. David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm/Göteborg/Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiskell, 1964). Cartledge, Tony. 1 & 2 Samuel (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001). Caspari, Wilhelm. Die Samuelbücher mit Sacherklärungen (Leipzig: Deichter, 1926). Caspari, Wilhelm. ‘The Literary Type and Historical Value of 2 Sam 15–20’. In Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906–1923, edited by David M. Gunn, translated by David E. Orton (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1991), pp. 59–88. Catherine, Sider Hamilton. The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood and the End of Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

258 Bibliography Cazelles, Henri. ‘David’s Monarchy and the Gibeonite Claim’. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 87 (1955): pp. 165–75. Chapman, Stephen B. ‘Reading the Bible as Witness: Divine Retribution in the Old Testament’. Perspectives on Religious Studies 31 (2004): pp. 171–90. Chapman, Stephen B. 1 Samuel as Christian Scripture: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016). Chatman, Seymour. ‘On the Notion of Theme in Narrative’. In Essays on Aesthetics: Perspectives on the Work of Monroe  C.  Beardsley, edited by John Fisher (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press 1983), pp. 161–79. Chavel, Simeon. ‘Compositry and Creativity in 2 Sam 21:1–14’. Journal of Biblical Literature 122 (2003): pp. 23–52. Christ, Hieronymus. Blutvergiessen im Alten Testament (Basel: Reinhardt, 1977). Clines, David. The Theme of the Pentateuch (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978). Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2001). Conroy, Charles. Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13–20 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978). Costeloe, Michael and Alex Alvarez. ‘Vocabularies of Legitimation: Understanding Normative Killings’. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 3 (2014): pp. 222–38. Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975). Crüsemann, Frank. ‘Zwei alttestamentliche Witze. I Sam 21:11–15 und II Sam 6:16, 20–23 als Beispiele einer biblischen Gattung’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): pp. 215–27. Damrosch, David. The Narrative Covenant: Transformations of Genre in the Growth of Biblical Literature (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987). Darshan, Guy. ‘The Reinterment of Saul and Jonathan’s Bones (II Sam 21, 12–14) in Light of Ancient Greek Hero-Cult Stories’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013): pp. 640–5. Daube, David. Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947). Daube, David. ‘Nathan’s Parable’. Novum Testamentum 24 (1982): pp. 275–88. Daube, David. ‘Absalom and the Ideal King’. Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998): pp. 315–25. Day, Peggy. ‘Abishai and Satan in 2 Samuel 19:17–24’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987): pp. 543–7. De Boer, Pieter A. H. Gedenken und Gedächtnis in der Welt des Alten Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1962). De Vaux, Roland. Les livres de Samuel (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1953). Deken, Alice. ‘Did David Murder Saul’s Successors in 2 Samuel 21:1–14 and Does It Matter?’. Journal for Semitics 27 (2019), https://doi.org/10.25159/1013-8471/3758. Delekat, Lienhard. ‘Tendenz und Theologie der David-Solomo-Erzählung’. In Das ferne und nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonhard Rost zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 30. November 1966 gewidmet, edited by Fritz Maass (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967), pp. 26–36. DeVries, Simon J. I Kings (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1985). Dietrich, Walter. ‘Rache. Erwägungen zu einem alttestamentlichen Thema’. Evangelische Theologie 36 (1976): pp. 450–72. Dietrich, Walter. ‘Die zweifache Verschonung Sauls (ISam 24 und 26). Zur “diachronen Synchronisierung” zweier Erzählungen’. In David und Saul im Widerstreit. Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit; Beiträge zur Auslegung des ersten Samuelbuches, edited by Walter Dietrich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), pp. 232–53.

Bibliography  259 Dietrich, Walter. The Early Monarchy in Israel: The Tenth Century  B.C.E. (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007). Dietrich, Walter. Samuel: 1 Samuel 13–26, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). Dietrich, Walter. Samuel: 1 Samuel 27–2 Samuel 8, vol. 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019). Dietrich, Walter, and Thomas Naumann. Die Samuelbücher (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995). Doak, Brian. Heroic Bodies in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). Doak, Brian. Ancient Israel’s Neighbors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). Driver, Godfrey R. ‘Plurima Mortis Imago’. In Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham  A.  Neuman, edited by Meir Ben-Horin, Bernard  D.  Weinryb, and Solomon Zeitlin (Leiden: Brill, 1962), pp. 128–43. Driver, Samuel R. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel. With an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions, and Facsimiles of Inscriptions (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890). Eco, Umberto. Interpretation and Overinterpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Edelman, Diana V. King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). Edelman, Diana V. ‘Jabesh Gilead’. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, H-J, edited by David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 594–5. Edenburg, Cynthia. ‘How (Not) to Murder a King: Variations on a Theme in 1 Sam 24; 26’. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 12 (1998): pp. 64–85. Eickhoff, Karl. Über die Blutrache bei den Griechen (Duisburg: Ewich, 1872). Eslinger, Lyle. The House of God or the House of David? The Rhetoric of 2 Samuel 7 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994). Evans, Paul. ‘From a Head Above the Rest to No Head at All: Transformations in the Life of Saul’. In Character and Characterization in the Book of Samuel, edited by Keith Bodner and Benjamin Johnson (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), pp. 101–20. Ewald, Heinrich. The History of Israel, 3 vols., translated by J. Estlin Carpenter (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1878). Exum, J. Cheryl. ‘Rizpah’. Word and World 17 (1997): pp. 260–8. Feder, Yitzhaq. Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). Fensham, F. Charles. ‘The Treaty between Israel and the Gibeonites’. Biblical Archaeologist 27 (1964): pp. 96–100. Fensham, F. Charles. ‘Battle between the Men of Joab and Abner as a Possible Ordeal by Battle’. Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970): pp. 356–7. Firth, David. ‘The Accession Narrative (1 Samuel 27–2 Samuel 1)’. Tyndale Bulletin 58 (2007): pp. 61–82. Firth, David. 1 & 2 Samuel (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2009). Firth, David. ‘Foreigners in David’s Court’. In Character and Characterization in the Book of Samuel, edited by Keith Bodner and Benjamin Johnson (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), pp. 239–54. Fischer, Alexander. ‘David und Batseba. Ein literarkritischer und motivgeschichtler Beitrage zu II Sam 11’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101 (1989): pp. 50–9. Flanagan, James W. ‘Court History or Succession Document? A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2’. Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): pp. 172–81. Flanagan, James W. David’s Social Drama: A Hologram of Israel’s Early Iron Age (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988).

260 Bibliography Fleming, Erin. ‘Casting Aspersions, Writing a Kingdom: Sexual Slander and Political Rhetoric in 2 Sam 3:6–11, 2 Sam 6:16; 20–23, and 1 Kgs 2:13–25’. Vetus Testamentum 67 (2017): pp. 414–31. Fokkelman, Jan P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis, vol. 1, King David (II Sam. 9–20 & I Kings 1–2) (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981). Fokkelman, Jan P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis, vol. 2, The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13–31 and II Sam. 1) (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986). Fokkelman, Jan P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis, vol. 3, Throne and City (II Sam. 2–8 and 21–24) (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990). Fritz, Volkmar. 1 & 2 Kings, translated by Anselm Hagedorn (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2003). Frontain, Raymond-Jean, and Jan Wojcik, eds. The David Myth in Western Literature (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1980). Fuchs, Esther. Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). Garsiel, Moshe. ‘The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): pp. 244–62. Geiger, Abraham. Urschrift und uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau: J. Hainauer, 1857). Gelander, Shamai. David and his God: Religious Ideas as Reflected in Biblical Historiography and Literature (Jerusalem: Simor, 1991). Geoghegan, Jeffrey C. ‘Israelite Sheepshearing and David’s Rise to Power’. Biblica 87 (2006): pp. 55–62. Gilders, William. Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). Gilmour, Rachelle. Representing the Past: A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011). Gilmour, Rachelle. Divine Violence in the Book of Samuel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021). Glück, J. J. ‘Merab or Michal’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965): pp. 72–81. Goldman, Solomon. Samuel: Hebrew Text & English Translation, with an Introduction and Commentary (London/Bournemouth: Soncino Press, 1951). Gordon, Robert P. ‘David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24–26’. Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980): pp. 37–64. Gordon, Robert P. I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986). Goslinga, Cornelis J. Het Tweede Boek Samuel (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1962). Gravett, Sandie. ‘Reading “Rape” in the Hebrew Bible: A Consideration of Language’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2004): pp. 279–99. Gray, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1970). Gray, Mark. ‘Amnon: A Chip Off the Old Block? Rhetorical Strategy in 2 Samuel 13.7–15; The Rape of Tamar and the Humiliation of the Poor’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 77 (1998): pp. 39–54. Green, Barbara. How Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study of King Saul in 1 Samuel (London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2003). Green, Barbara. David’s Capacity for Compassion: A Literary-Hermeneutical Study of 1–2 Samuel (London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2017).

Bibliography  261 Green, Barbara. ‘Joab’s Coherence and Incoherence’. In Character and Characterization in the Book of Samuel, edited by Keith Bodner and Benjamin Johnson (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), pp. 183–204. Grønbæk, Jacob H. Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1. Sam. 15–2. Sam. 5). Tradition und Komposition (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1971). Gros Louis, Kenneth  R.  R. ‘The Difficulty of Ruling Well: King David of Israel’. Semeia 8 (1977): pp. 15–33. Grossman, Jonathan. ‘The Design of the “Dual Causality” Principle in the Narrative of Absalom’s Rebellion’. Biblica 88 (2007): pp. 558–66. Gunn, David. ‘David and the Gift of the Kingdom’. Semeia 3 (1975): pp. 14–45. Gunn, David. The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978). Gunn, David. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980). Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). Hamilton, Gordon. ‘New Evidence for the Authenticity of bšt in Hebrew Personal Names and for Its Use as a Divine Epithet in Biblical Texts’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 60 (1998): pp. 228–50. Hamley, Isabelle. ‘ “Dis(re)membered and Unaccounted For”: ‫ פילגש‬in the Hebrew Bible’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42 (2018): pp. 415–34. Hanson, Kenneth C. ‘When the King Crosses the Line: Royal Deviance and Restitution in Levantine Ideologies’. Biblical Theology Bulletin 26 (1996): pp. 11–25. Haupt, Paul. ‘Deal Gently with the Young Man’. Journal of Biblical Literature 45 (1926): p. 357. Henry, Caleb. ‘Joab: A Biblical Critique of Machiavellian Tactics’. Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): pp. 327–43. Hens-Piazza, Gina. 1–2 Kings (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006). Hentschel, Georg. 1 Samuel (Würzburg: Echter, 1994). Hentschel, Georg. 2 Samuel (Würzburg: Echter, 1994). Hertzberg, Hans W. I & II Samuel: A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1964). Hill, Andrew E. ‘On David’s “Taking” and “Leaving” Concubines (2 Samuel 5:13; 15:16)’. Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): pp. 129–50. Hoftijzer, Jacob. ‘David and the Tekoite Woman’. Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970): pp. 419–44. Hugo, Philippe. ‘Retour sur les lieux du crime. Enquête textuelle sur le meurtre d’Avner (2 Samuel 3)’. Semitica et Classica 1 (2008): pp. 105–12. Hugo, Philippe. ‘Abner der Königsmacher versus David den gesalbten König (2 Sam 3,21.39). Die Charakterisierung Abners und Davids als Merkmale der literarischen Abweichung zwischen dem masoretischen Text und der Septuaginta’. In Die Septuaginta. Texte, Theologien und Einflüsse, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 489–505. Hugo, Philippe. ‘Die Morde an Abner und Amasa. Literarische Dimensionen textlicher Abweichungen zwischen dem Massoretischen Text und der Septuaginta in der DavidGeschichte?’. In Seitenblicke. Literarische und historische Studien zu Nebenfiguren im zweiten Samuelbuch, edited by Walter Dietrich (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), pp. 24–52. Hugo, Philippe. ‘1–2 Kingdoms (1–2 Samuel)’. In The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, edited by James K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury/T&T Clark, 2015), pp. 127–46. Humphreys, W. Lee. ‘The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9–31’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (1978): pp. 18–27.

262 Bibliography Hutton, Jeremy M. The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009). Hutton, Jeremy M. ‘David and the Priests of Nob: Collusion or Illusion?’. In David in the Desert: Tradition and Redaction in the ‘History of David’s Rise’, edited by Hannes Bezzel and Reinhard G. Kratz (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021), pp. 193–223. Hutzli, Jürg. ‘Elaborated Literary Violence: Genre and Ideology of the Two Stories I Sam 22,6–23 and II Sam 21,1–14’. In Rereading the Relecture? The Question of (Post)chronistic Influence in the Latest Redactions of the Books of Samuel, edited by Uwe Becker and Hannes Bezzel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), pp. 147–65. Imray, Kathryn. ‘Posthumous Interest in the ‫גאל הדם‬‎Legal Tradition’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 43 (2019): pp. 509–24. Ishida, Tomoo. History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel: Studies in Biblical Historiography (Leiden: Brill, 1999). Jackson, Bernard. Wisdom-Laws: A Study of the Mishpatim of Exodus 21:1–22:16 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Janzen, David. ‘The Condemnation of David’s “Taking” in 2 Samuel 12:1–14’. Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012): pp. 209–20. Janzen, David. ‘ “What He Did for Me”: David’s Warning about Joab in 1 Kings 2.5’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39 (2015): pp. 265–79. Jensen, Hans J. L. ‘Desire, Rivalry and Collective Violence in the “Succession Narrative” ’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 55 (1992): pp. 39–59. Jobling, David. 1 Samuel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998). Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984). Jones, Gwilym H. The Nathan Narratives (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). Jongeling, Kurt. ‘Joab and the Tekoite Woman’. Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap (Genootschap) Ex oriente lux 30 (1987–88): pp. 116–22. Kapelrud, Arvid. ‘King David and the Sons of Saul’. In The Sacral Kingship / La Regalità Sacra: Contributions to the Central Theme of the VIIIth International Congress for the History of Religions (Rome, April 1955) / Contributi al tema dell’VIII Congresso Internazionale di Storia delle Religioni (Roma, Aprile 1955), edited by Carl-Martin Edsmun (Leiden: Brill, 1959), pp. 294–301. Kapelrud, Arvid. ‘‫ ָ’ס ַקל‬. In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 10, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren; translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 341–4. Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. ‘‫ ָ’דם‬. In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 3, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren; translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 234–50. Keil, Carl F., and Franz Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1880). Keys, Gillian. The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the ‘Succession Narrative’ (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996). Kil, Yehuda. 2 Samuel (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1981). Kim, Jin-Soo. Bloodguilt, Atonement, and Mercy: An Exegetical and Theological Study of 2 Samuel 21:1–14 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007). Kimchi, David ben Joseph. Mikraot Gedolot: I–II Samuel, edited by Menachem Cohen (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan, 2013). Kitz, Anne M. Cursed Are You! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014).

Bibliography  263 Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983). Klement, Herbert H. II Samuel 21–24: Context, Structure and Meaning in the Samuel Conclusion (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000). Klostermann, August. Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige. Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den Heiligen Schriften des Alten und Neuen Testament (Nördlingen: Beck, 1887). Knapp, Andrew. Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2015). Koch, Klaus. ‘Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?’. Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 52 (1955): pp. 1–42. Koch, Klaus. ‘Der Spruch “Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt” und die israelitische Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut’. Vetus Testamentum 12 (1962): pp. 396–416. Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form Critical Method (New York: Scribner, 1969). Koch, Klaus. ‘Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?’. In Theodicy in the Old Testament, edited by James Crenshaw (London/Philadelphia, PA: SPCK/Fortress, 1983), pp. 57–87. Kozlova, Ekaterina. Maternal Grief in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). Kucova, Lydie. ‘Obeisance in the Biblical Stories of David’. In Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, edited by Robert Rezetko, Timothy Lim, and Brian Aucker (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Lamb, David. ‘The Eternal Curse: Seven Deuteronomistic Judgment Oracles against the House of David’. In For and Against David: Story and History in the Books of Samuel, edited by A. Graeme Auld and Erik Eynikel (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), pp. 315–26. Lambert, David. How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity and the Interpretation of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Langlamet, François. ‘Pour ou contre Salomon? La redaction prosalomonienne de I Rois, I–II’. Revue Biblique 83 (1976): pp. 321–79, 481–528. Lasine, Stuart. ‘Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot’s Hospitality in an Inverted World’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (1984): pp. 37–59. Law, Timothy M. ‘3–4 Kingdoms (1–2 Kings)’. In The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, edited by James  K.  Aitken (London: Bloomsbury / T&T Clark, 2015), pp. 127–46. Layton, Scott C. ‘A Chain Gang in 2 Samuel 3:29: A Rejoinder’. Vetus Testamentum 39 (1989): pp. 81–6. Leithart, Peter J. ‘Nabal and His Wine’. Journal of Biblical Literature 120 (2001): pp. 525–7. Lemche, Niels  P. ‘David’s Rise’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 10 (1978): pp. 2–25. Levenson, Jon D. ‘1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): pp. 11–28. Levine, Baruch, Numbers 21–26: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2000). Liedke, Gerhard. Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssätze (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971). Long, Brian. ‘Notes on the Biblical Use of ‫’עד־עולם‬. Westminster Theological Journal 41 (1978): pp. 54–67. Long, Burke. ‘A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (1981): pp. 79–94.

264 Bibliography Long, Burke. I Kings with an Introduction to Historical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984). Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2004). Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 37–52: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2004). Mabee, Charles. ‘David’s Judicial Exoneration’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): pp. 89–107. Macholz, Georg. ‘Die Stellung des Königs in der israelitischen Gerichtsverfassung’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (1972): pp. 157–82. Malamat, Abraham. ‘Doctrines of Causality in Biblical and Hittite Historiography: A Parallel’. Vetus Testamentum 5 (1955): pp. 1–12. Marböck, Johann. ‘‫’נָ ָבל‬. In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 9, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren; translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 158–71. Marcus, David. ‘David the Deceiver and David the Dupe’. Prooftexts 6 (1986): pp. 163–71. Marvin, Sweeney. I & II Kings: A Commentary. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007). Matthews, Victor, and Don  C.  Benjamin. ‘Amnon and Tamar: A Matter of Honor (2 Samuel 13:1–38)’. In Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael  C.  Astour on His 80th Birthday, edited by Gordon  D.  Young et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1997), pp. 339–66. Matzal, Stefan. ‘A Word Play in 2 Samuel’. Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012): pp. 462–4. Mauchline, John. First and Second Samuel (London: Oliphants, 1971). McCarter, P.  Kyle. ‘The Apology of David’. Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): pp. 489–504. McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980). McCarter, P. Kyle. ‘ “Plots, True and False”: The Succession Narrative as Court Apology’. Interpretation 35 (1981): pp. 355–67. McCarter, P. Kyle. II Samuel (Garden City: Doubleday, 1984). McKane, William. I & II Samuel: The Way to the Throne (London: SCM Press, 1963). McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, vol. 2, XXVI–LII (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996). McKeating, Henry. ‘The Development of the Law on Homicide in Ancient Israel’. Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): pp. 46–68. McKenzie, Steven. King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). McKenzie, Steven. ‘Elaborated Evidence for the Priority of 1 Samuel 26’. Journal of Biblical Literature 129 (2010): pp. 437–44. McKenzie, Steven. ‘Ledavid (for David!): Except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite’. In For and Against David: Story and History in the Books of Samuel, edited by A. Graeme Auld and Erik Eynikel (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), pp. 307–13. Merz, Edwin. Die Blutrache bei den Israeliten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916). Mettinger, Tryggve. The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-historical Reading of Genesis 2–3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007). Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990). Miller, Virginia. A King and a Fool? The Succession Narrative as a Satire (Leiden: Brill, 2019). Miscall, Peter. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986).

Bibliography  265 Miscall, Peter. ‘Michal and Her Sisters’. In Telling Queen Michal’s Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation, edited by David J. Clines and Tamara Eskenazi (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), pp. 246–60. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1952). Morrison, Craig. 2 Samuel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013). Morrison, Craig. ‘Review of Barbara Green, David’s Capacity for Compassion’. Biblica 99 (2018): pp. 291–93. Mulder, Martin J. ‘Un euphémisme dans 2 Sam. XII 14?’. Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): pp. 108–14. Mulder, Martin J. 1 Kings I (1 Kings 1–11) (Leuven: Peeters, 1998). Müllner, Ilse. Gewalt im Hause Davids. Die Erzählung von Tamar und Amnon (2 Sam 13,1–22) (Freiburg: Herder, 1997). Na’aman, Nadav. ‘The Sanctuary of the Gibeonites Revisited’. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9 (2009): pp. 101–24. Nelson, Richard D. First and Second Kings (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012). Nelson, Richard D. ‘The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel: “The Man behind the Green Curtain” ’. In Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History, edited by Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), pp. 17–37. Nicol, George G. ‘The Death of Joab and the Accession of Solomon’. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7 (1993): pp. 134–51. Nicol, George G. ‘David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a Triangle’. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 12 (1998): pp. 130–45. Niditch, Susan. Judges: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox Press, 2008). Noll, Kurt L. The Faces of David (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Noth, Martin. Das dritte Buch Mose. Leviticus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962). Noth, Martin. Könige, I Teilband: Könige 1–16 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968). Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History, translated by Jane Doull et al. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981). Olyan, Saul. ‘Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment’. Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): pp. 201–18. Olyan, Saul. Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Olyan, Saul. ‘Some Neglected Aspects of Israelite Interment Ideology’. Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 601–16. Olyan, Saul. ‘Unnoticed Resonances of Tomb Opening and Transportation of the Remains of the Dead in Ezekiel 37:12–14’. Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009): pp. 491–501. Olyan, Saul, ed. Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible: New Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Olyan, Saul. ‘The Instrumental Dimensions of Ritual Violence against Corpses in Biblical Texts’. In Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible, edited by Saul Olyan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 125–36. Olyan, Saul. Violent Rituals of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019). Patrick, James. ‘Nathan: The Unexpected Gift of a Prophet’. In Character and Characterization in the Book of Samuel, edited by Keith Bodner and Benjamin Johnson (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), pp. 271–89.

266 Bibliography Paul, Shalom. ‘Unrecognized Biblical Legal Idioms in the Light of Comparative Akkadian Expressions’. Revue Biblique 86 (1979): pp. 231–9. Pedersen, Johannes. Israel. Sjæleliv og samfundsliv, I–II (Copenhagen: Branner, 1920). Pedersen, Johannes. Israel: Its Life and Culture, I–II, translated by Aslaug Mikkelsen Møller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1926; repr. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991). Peters, Kurtis. ‘Together in Guilt: Jonadab, David and the Rape of Tamar’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 45 (2021): pp. 309–19. Peterson, Brian N. ‘The Gibeonite Revenge of 2 Sam 21:1–14: Another Example of David’s Darker Side or a Picture of a Shrewd Monarch?’. Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1 (2012): pp. 201–22. Phillips, Anthony. ‘The Interpretation of 2 Samuel xii, 5–6’. Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): pp. 242–4. Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1970). Phillips, Anthony. ‘NEBALAH—­a Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct’. Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): pp. 237–41. Phillips, Anthony. David: A Story of Passion and Tragedy (London: SPCK, 2008). Pietsch, Michael. ‘Der Tod des Gesalbten (1 Sam 31, 1–7). Zur Transformation eines anthropologischen Konzepts im Alten Testament’. In Geist und Buschstabe Interpretations- und Transformationsprozesse innherhalb des Christentums. Festschrift für Günter Meckenstock zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Michael Pietsch and Dirk Schmid (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), pp. 79–104. Pisano, Stephen. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen / Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1984). Polak, Frank. ‘David’s Kingship: A Precious Equilibrium’. In Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, edited by Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman, and Benjamin Uffenheimer (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), pp. 119–47. Polzin, Robert. ‘HWQY` and Covenantal Institutions in Early Israel’. Harvard Theological Review 62 (1969): pp. 227–40. Polzin, Robert. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Pt. 1: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges (New York: Seabury Press, 1980). Polzin, Robert. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: 1 Samuel (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1989). Polzin, Robert. David and the Deuteronomist: 2 Samuel (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1993). Porter, Joshua. ‘The Interpretation of 2 Samuel VI and Psalm CXXXII’. Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954): pp. 161–73. Prince, Gerald. Narrative as Theme: Studies in French Fiction (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1992). Procksch, Otto. Über die Blutrache bei den vorislamischen Arabern und Mohammeds Stellung zu ihr (Leipzig: Teubner, 1899). Propp, William H. ‘Kinship in 2 Samuel 13’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): pp. 39–47. Provan, Iain. ‘Why Barzillai of Gilead (1 Kings 2:7)? Narrative Art and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion in 1 Kings 1–2’. Tyndale Bulletin 46 (1990): pp. 103–16. Provan, Iain. 1 and 2 Kings (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). Pyper, Hugh  S. ‘The Enticement to Re-Read: Repetition as Parody in 2 Samuel’. Biblical Interpretation 1 (1993): pp. 153–66. Pyper, Hugh S. David as Reader: 2 Samuel 12:1–15 and the Poetics of Fatherhood (Leiden: Brill, 1996).

Bibliography  267 Quesada, Jan Jaynes. ‘King David and Tidings of Death: Character Response’. In The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, edited by Tod Linafelt et al. (London: T&T Clark, 2010), pp. 3–18. Reis, Pamela T. ‘Collusion at Nob: A New Reading of 1 Samuel 21–22’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (1994): pp. 59–73. Reis, Pamela T. ‘Killing the Messenger: David’s Policy or Politics?’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (2006): pp. 167–91. Reventlow, Henning G. ‘Sein Blut komme über sein Haupt’. Vetus Testamentum 10 (1960): pp. 311–27. Ridout, George P. ‘Prose Compositional Techniques in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9–10; 1 Kings 1–2)’. PhD Diss. Graduate Theological Union, 1971. Ringgren, Helmer. ‘‫ ָ’ב ַער‬. In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren; translated by John T. Willis, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and David E. Green (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 201–5. Robinson, Joseph. The First Book of Kings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972). Rogers, Jeffrey S. ‘Narrative Stock and Deuteronomistic Elaboration in 1 Kings 2’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50 (1988): pp. 398–413. Rosenberg, Joel. King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986). Rost, Leonhard. Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1926). Rost, Leonhard. The Succession to the Throne of David, translated by Michael Rutter and David J. Clines (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1982). Roth, William. ‘NBL’. Vetus Testamentum 10 (1960): pp. 394–409. Sanders, Paul. ‘God Appeased by Homicide? 2 Samuel 21:1–14 in View of Some Hittite and Assyrian Parallels’. In Violence in the Hebrew Bible: Between Text and Reception, edited by Jacques van Ruiten and Koert van Bekkum (Leiden: Brill, 2020), pp. 229–68. Sarna, Nahum M. ‘The Ravishing of Dinah: A Commentary on Genesis, Chapter 34’. In Studies in Jewish Education in Honor of Louis Newman, edited by Alexander M. Shapiro and Burton I. Cohen (New York: Ktav, 1984), pp. 143–56. Scharbert, Josef. ‘ “Fluchen” und “Segen” im Alten Testament’. Biblica 39 (1958): pp. 1–26. Schipper, Jeremy. Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story (New York: T&T Clark, 2006). Schipper, Jeremy. Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Schnocks, Johannes. Das Alte Testament und die Gewalt. Studien zu göttlicher und menschlicher Gewalt in alttestamentlichen Texten und ihren Rezeptionen (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2014). Schottroff, Willy. Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969). Schroer, Silvia. Die Samuelbücher (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992). Schulz, Alfons. Die Bücher Samuel übersetz und erklärt (Münster: Aschendorff, 1919/1920). Scoggins Ballentine, Debra. ‘What Ends Might Ritual Violence Accomplish? The Case of Rechab and Baanah in 2 Samuel 4’. In Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible, edited by Saul Olyan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), pp. 9–26. Scolnic, Benjamin E. ‘David’s Final Testament: Morality or Expediency?’. Judaism 43 (1994): pp. 19–26. Seibert, Eric A. Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of I Kings 1–11 (New York / London: T&T Clark, 2006).

268 Bibliography Seibert, Eric A. The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament’s Troubling Legacy (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012). Shemesh, Yael. ‘Measure for Measure in the David Stories’. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17 (2003): pp. 89–109. Shemesh, Yael. ‘Punishment of the Offending Organ in Biblical Literature’. Vetus Testamentum 55 (2005): pp. 343–65. Shemesh, Yael. ‘Suicide in the Bible’. Jewish Biblical Quarterly 37 (2009): pp. 157–68. Shepherd, David J. ‘David’s Anger Was Greatly Kindled: Melodrama, the Silent Cinema and the Books of Samuel’. In Close Encounters between Bible and Film: An Interdisciplinary Engagement, edited by Laura Copier and Caroline Vander Stichele (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016), pp. 127–54. Shepherd, David J. ‘Review of Barbara Green, David’s Capacity for Compassion’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42 (2018): pp. 136–7. Shepherd, David J. ‘Ruth in the Days of the Judges: Women, Foreignness and Violence’. Biblical Interpretation 26 (2018): pp. 528–43. Shepherd, David J. ‘Knowing Abner’. In Character and Characterization in the Book of Samuel, edited by Keith Bodner and Benjamin Johnson (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020), pp. 205–25. Shepherd, David J. ‘The Trespass of Your Servant: Looking for Forgiveness in the Story of David, Abigail and Nabal’. In Remember Their Sin No More? Forgiveness and the Hebrew Bible, edited by David J. Shepherd and Richard S. Briggs (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2022), pp. 39–51. Shepherd, David J., and Nicholas  E.  Johnson, Bertolt Brecht and the David Fragments (1919–1921): An Interdisciplinary Study (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020). Shields, Mary. ‘A Feast Fit for a King: Food and Drink in the Abigail Story’. In The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, edited by Tod Linafelt et al. (London: T&T Clark, 2010), pp. 38–54. Short, J. Randall. The Surprising Election and Confirmation of King David (Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). Simon, László T. Identity and Identification: An Exegetical and Theological Study of 2 Sam 21–24 (Rome: Pontificia università gregoriana, 2000). Simon, Uriel. ‘The Poor Man’s Ewe Lamb: An Example of a Juridical Parable’. Biblica 48 (1967): pp. 207–42. Simpson, Timothy Frederick. Not ‘Who Is on the Lord’s Side?’ but ‘Whose Side Is the Lord on?’: Contesting Claims and Divine Inscrutability in 2 Samuel 16:5–14 (New York: Peter Lang, 2014). Singer, Itamar. Hittite Prayers (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2002). Smith, Duane E. ‘Pisser against a Wall: An Echo of Divination in Biblical Hebrew’. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72 (2010): pp. 699–717. Smith, Henry Preserved. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1899). Smith, Jenny. ‘The Discourse Structure of the Rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1–22)’. Vox Evangelica 20 (1990): pp. 21–42. Smith, Richard G. The Fate of Justice and Righteousness during David’s Reign: Narrative Ethics and Rereading the Court History according to 2 Samuel 8:15–20:26 (London: T&T Clark, 2019). Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007). Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987).

Bibliography  269 Stiebert, Johanna. Fathers and Daughters in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Stoebe, Hans Joachim. ‘Gedanken zur Heldensage in den Samuelbüchern’. In Das ferne und das nahe Wort. Festschrift Leonhard Rost, edited by Fritz Maass (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967), pp. 208–18. Stoebe, Hans Joachim. Das erste Buch Samuelis (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1973). Stoebe, Hans Joachim. Das zweite Buch Samuelis (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1994). Stolz, Fritz. Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1981). Strange, James. ‘Introduction’. In Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, I–II, translated by Aslaug Mikkelsen Møller (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. vi–vii. Taggar-Cohen, Ada. ‘Political Loyalty in the Biblical Account of 1 Samuel XX–XXII in the Light of Hittite Texts’. Vetus Testamentum 55 (2005): pp. 251–68. Thenius, Otto. Die Bücher der Könige (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1873). Thiel, Winfried. ‘Rizpa und das Ritual von Gibeon’. In ‘Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?’. Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels. für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Ingo Kottsieper (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1994), pp. 247–62. Tolkowsky, S. ‘The Measuring of the Moabites with the Line (ad II Sam 8,2)’. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 4 (1924): pp. 118–21. Tsevat, Matitiahu. ‘Ishbosheth and Congeners: The Names and Their Study’. Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975): pp. 71–87. Tsumura, David T. The First Book of Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007). Tushima, Cephas T. A. The Fate of Saul's Progeny in the Reign of David (Cambridge: James Clarke, 2012). Vanderkam, James. ‘Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study’. Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): pp. 521–39. Van Dijk-Hemmes, Fokkelien. ‘Tamar and the Limits of Patriarchy: Between Rape and Seduction’. In Anti-Covenant: Counter-Reading Women’s Lives in the Hebrew Bible, edited by Mieke Bal (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), pp. 135–56. Van Keulen, Percy. The Manasseh Account (2 Kings: 21:1–18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Van Keulen, Percy. Two Versions of the Solomon Narrative: An Inquiry into the Relationship between MT 1 Kgs. 2–11 and LXX 3 Reg. 2–11 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983). Van Seters, John. The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009). Van Seters, John. ‘David and the Gibeonites’. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011): pp. 535–52. Van Seters, John. ‘Two Stories of David Sparing Saul’s Life in 1 Samuel 24 and 26: A Question of Priority’. Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 25 (2011): pp. 93–104. Van Uchelen, Nico A. ‘‫ אנׁשי דמים‬in the Psalms’. Oudetestamentische Studien 15 (1969): pp. 205–12. Veijola, Timo. Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1975). Von Rad, Gerhard. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, translated by Rev. E. W. Trueman Dicken (Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966). Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996).

270 Bibliography Walters, Stanley. ‘Saul of Gibeon’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 52 (1991): pp. 61–76. Waltke, Bruce. ‘The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants’. In Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland  K.  Harrison, edited by Avraham Gileadi (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988), pp. 123–39. Wansbrough, Henry. ‘The Finale of the Davidic Succession Narrative?’. In Biblical and Near Eastern Essays: Studies in Honour of Kevin J. Cathcart, edited by Carmel McCarthy and John F. Healey (London: T&T Clark, 2004), pp. 37–56. Wasserman, Tommy. ‘ “Lectio Vehementior Potior”: Scribal Violence on Violent Texts’. In Encountering Violence in the Bible, edited by Markus Zehnder and Hallvard Hagelia (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), pp. 216–34. Webb, Barry. The Book of Judges (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012). Weinfeld, Moshe. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993). Weiser, Artur. ‘Die Legitimation des Königs David. Zur Eigenart und Entstehung der sogen. Geschichte von Davids Aufstieg’. Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): pp. 325–54. Wellhausen, Julius. Der Text der Bücher Samuelis untersucht (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1871). Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuch und der Historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 4th ed. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1963). Wenham, Gordon J. ‘Betûlāh: A Girl of Marriageable Age’. Vetus Testamentum 22 (1972): pp. 326–48. Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1994). Wesnitsch, Milenko. ‘Die Blutrache bei den Südslawen’. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft 8 (1889): pp. 433–70; 9 (1891): pp. 46–77. Westbrook, April. ‘And He Will Take Your Daughters. . .’: Woman Story and the Ethical Evaluation of the Monarchy in the David Narrative (London: T&T Clark, 2015). Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, translated by John  J.  Scullion (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press, 1985). Whitelam, Keith. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979). Whitelam, Keith. ‘The Defence of David’. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (1984): pp. 61–87. Whybray, Roger N. The Succession Narrative: A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1 and 2 (London: SCM Press, 1968). Wiggins, Steve A. ‘Between Heaven and Earth: Absalom’s Dilemma’. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23 (1997): pp. 73–81. William Harmon, William Holman, William F. Thrall, and Addison Hibbard. A Handbook to Literature (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2003). Willis, Timothy M. The Elders of the City: A Study of the Elder-Laws in Deuteronomy (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2001). Willis, Timothy M. ‘ “Rest All Around from All His Enemies” (2 Samuel 7:1b). The Occasion for David’s Offer to Build a Temple’. In Raising up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson, edited by Kurt L. Noll and Brooks Schramm (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), pp. 129–48. Wiseman, Donald J. 1 and 2 Kings (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1993). Wolff, Hans W. ‘The Kerygma of the Yahwist’. Interpretation 20 (1966): pp. 131–58. Wray Beal, Lissa M. 1 & 2 Kings (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014). Wright, Jacob. David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).

Bibliography  271 Würthwein, Ernst. Die Erzählung von der Thronfolge Davids—­theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974). Würthwein, Ernst. Die Bücher der Könige. 1 Könige 1–16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). Yaron, Reuven. ‘A Ramessid Parallel to 1 K ii 33, 44–45’. Vetus Testamentum 8 (1958): pp. 432–3. Yaron, Reuven. ‘The Coptos Decree and 2 Sam XII, 14’. Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959): pp. 89–91. Yee, Gale. ‘ “Fraught with Background”: Literary Ambiguity in II Samuel 11’. Interpretation 42 (1988): pp. 240–53. Yoon, Sung-Hee. The Question of the Beginning and Ending of the So-Called History of David’s Rise (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014). Zlotnick, Helena. Dinah’s Daughters: Gender and Judaism from the Hebrew Bible to Late Antiquity (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).

Index of Subjects For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. 4QSama  20n.107, 80n.28, 82n.42, 83n.47, 84n.58, 105n.40, 120n.95, 133n.33, 136n.46, 137n.55, 139n.65, 141n.77, 172n.66 4QSamc  20n.107, 47n.44, 148n.119, 154n.152 Abiathar  31, 33–5, 211–13, 218–19, 224–6, 232–3, 242 Abigail  19, 26, 28n.18, 37, 41–9, 43n.26, 52–5, 53n.68, 57–8, 66n.28, 69–70, 75–6, 80, 82–4, 86n.63, 89, 100–4, 112n.64, 121, 123n.112, 127n.1, 133–4, 136–40, 143–5, 162, 170n.53, 179–80, 220–1, 234–5, 237, 239, 241, 243–4, 248–9 Abishai  49–55, 57–8, 70, 73–8, 80n.29, 82–6, 95, 100–1, 128–9, 151, 162–71, 174–5, 181–92, 197, 209, 217–18, 227, 228n.88, 239–40, 242, 245, 251–2 Abner  1–2, 11–12, 16, 19–21, 26–7, 42–3, 53–4, 62–3, 73–89, 91, 93n.97, 95–6, 99, 101–2, 108–17, 119, 121–3, 145–7, 151, 154–5, 162–70, 172–5, 180–1, 183–5, 188–92, 194–5, 197, 200, 206–7, 213–26, 228, 231–2, 237–46, 251–2 Absalom  1–2, 4–7, 10–12, 21, 71–2, 78–9, 103n.24, 113n.73, 118–19, 124–5, 127–8, 128n.9, 131n.27, 132–63, 166–92, 198–9, 201–3, 205–6, 211–19, 217n.36, 224, 228, 230–2, 239–46, 248–9, 251–2 accusation  1–2, 2n.6, 19, 26–7, 31–2, 31n.25, 54nn.74–75, 77, 77n.17, 90, 93n.98, 108–9, 111–14, 116–18, 120–3, 147–8, 163–4, 163n.19, 181n.117, 182–5, 191, 194, 198, 202, 208–9, 215, 220n.50, 223–4, 231, 246–8, 253n.21 Achish  59–61, 149, 228–9 Adonijah  4–6, 124n.117, 146n.113, 153–4, 159–60, 211–13, 218–20, 231, 233–4 Agag  33, 43n.25, 60, 96 Ahimelech  30–7, 31nn.25–27, 43–4, 50n.61, 225 Amalekite  20–1, 33, 60–2, 65–73, 79–81, 83–90, 92–3, 94n.105, 96, 103–4, 116n.85, 121, 123, 139–40, 178n.101, 197–8, 204n.52, 205–7, 218–19, 221–2, 229–31, 237–9, 242–5, 248–9, 251–2

Amasa  19, 21, 79n.24, 80–1, 159, 169–70, 180–1, 185–92, 200, 208–9, 213–24, 240–2, 244–5, 248, 251–2 Amnon  2n.5, 21, 113n.73, 118–19, 124–5, 127–50, 153–60, 167–74, 176–81, 176n.90, 189–92, 202–3, 213–14, 217–18, 239–40, 243–6, 248, 251–2 Asahel  11–12, 16, 19, 73–9, 83–5, 96, 117, 143–4, 172–5, 187–9, 214–15, 237–8 asylum  212nn.6–7, 218n.40 city  15n.78, 28–9 sanctuary/altar  15n.78, 219–20, 219n.47, 235 atonement  55, 57–8, 99–100, 122n.110, 159n.3, 197, 245–7 Baanah  16–17, 20–1, 73, 87–9, 92–5, 95n.110, 146–7, 163–5, 173–9, 198–9, 198n.27, 201–3, 205–6, 220–1, 237–41, 243, 248–9 Barzillai  154, 200, 224–5 sons of Barzillai  193–4, 200, 211, 224–6, 234–5, 241–2 Bathsheba  3, 5n.18, 6–7, 64n.23, 103–5, 108n.49, 110n.58, 111–12, 111n.60, 113n.73, 115n.82, 118, 121–2, 124–5, 127–8, 133n.35, 148n.121, 160n.9, 179–80, 192, 211–13, 246–50 battle  25–7, 44–5, 51, 62n.16, 65–6, 68, 70, 73–6, 76nn.13, 15, 78, 82n.43, 83, 85, 89–90, 90n.81, 96, 103–4, 106–11, 116–17, 121–3, 162n.18, 169–73, 177, 181n.113, 190–1, 207, 214–15, 236–9, 245 Beeroth(ite)  73, 87–96, 103–4, 121, 123, 139–40, 197–8, 206–7, 231, 237–8, 244–5, 251–2 Benaiah  13, 211–13, 218–21, 223–4, 228–9, 232–3, 235, 243, 248–9, 251–2 Bethlehem  1, 3–4, 23–4, 77, 207–8, 223–4 Beth Shemesh  23n.1 brother  16–17, 63–4, 73–96, 79nn.24, 25, 84n.58, 108–9, 121, 123, 127–35, 135n.44, 138–41, 143–6, 149, 155–6, 157n.161, 162–4, 167, 172, 175–7, 180–1, 185–9, 192, 198–9, 206n.62, 208–9, 211–13, 217, 231, 237–8, 243–4, 251–2

274  Index of Subjects Court History  3–4, 8 cult (see also temple)  13, 96, 202n.44 cursing  1–2, 13, 17–19, 30n.22, 42–3, 54–5, 63–4, 79n.25, 81–2, 81n.36, 84–6, 84n.56, 91n.87, 115–19, 121–5, 151, 154–62, 164–9, 171, 177–8, 180–5, 188n.154, 189–92, 194–5, 197, 203n.48, 213–14, 217, 220–3, 226–7, 229–32, 238–40, 242–7, 250–2 deception  31n.25, 42, 59, 76nn.13–14, 77–8, 88, 138n.61, 139, 150, 174n.79, 188–9, 212n.5 Deuteronomistic history  6–8, 6n.28, 69n.42, 80n.30, 185n.137 Doeg the Edomite  17–18, 30–5, 31nn.25–27, 67n.33, 71–2 dynasty (see also house)  29, 43n.27, 46n.38, 80n.30, 99–101, 117, 124–5, 161–2, 165n.32, 206–7, 213–14, 222–3, 225–6, 232–5, 241–5, 249–50, 253–4 emendation  34–5, 63n.19, 80n.33, 148n.124, 166, 173n.76, 198n.26 En Gedi  37, 41–2, 89–90 evolution  11–12, 14–15, 223–4 excuse  31n.25, 44, 77, 117, 133–4, 231n.104 forgiveness  44–6, 48–9, 75–6, 119n.93, 127–9, 134–6, 154–6, 183, 224–5, 239 formulaic language  13, 15, 69n.45, 70, 80, 82, 91n.86, 93–4, 146–7, 242 fratricide  88n.75, 143–7, 153n.145, 154n.151, 159n.3, 173n.72, 178n.95, 198–9, 228n.88, 245–7, 251–2 Geshur(ites)  23n.1, 60–1, 127, 140–1, 141n.80, 149–52, 156, 159–60, 172, 176–7, 239 Gibeon(ites)  11–12, 14–15, 21, 73–8, 81–2, 87–8, 93–4, 187–8, 193–200, 194nn.4–5, 195nn.6, 11–12, 202n.43, 203nn.47–48, 204–10, 204n.52, 228, 240–1, 244–7, 252–3 Goliath  1, 3, 24, 30, 46n.39, 65, 73–4, 76n.11, 202n.44, 206–7 house (see also dynasty)  3–4, 6n.26, 12–13, 17n.95, 20–1, 29–32, 34–5, 41–9, 54–5, 57, 61–2, 65–8, 75–8, 79n.25, 80–2, 84–92, 84n.56, 95–7, 99–102, 105, 109, 114–19, 121–5, 127–9, 131n.27, 132–4, 138–40, 143–7, 151–69, 170n.53, 171–3, 179–83, 185, 189–95, 197, 199, 202n.40, 205–6, 208–9, 213–14, 217–18, 220–3, 225–6, 228–32, 232n.112, 236–42, 245, 248–54

illegitimacy (see also legitimacy)  10, 14–17, 21, 23, 26–7, 30, 33–8, 40, 45–8, 49n.55, 50–1, 54n.75, 55–7, 59–71, 79–80, 83–6, 83n.47, 90–2, 91n.84, 94–6, 99–103, 112–17, 114n.77, 119, 121–2, 127, 138n.61, 143–7, 150–1, 156–8, 162–5, 168n.46, 171–4, 176–8, 184–5, 189–90, 192, 195–9, 203n.48, 208–9, 214–15, 217–18, 222–5, 228–30, 232–3, 235–42, 244–53 impalement (penetrative violence)  75–6, 175–7, 193–4, 198–202, 204–5, 240–1 injustice (see also justice)  92n.94, 159–60, 221n.56, 235n.126 unjustified (see also justification) 28–9, 223n.67, 244 Ishbosheth  1–2, 4, 15n.80, 16–18, 42–3, 73–4, 77, 86–97, 103–4, 114, 163–5, 173–4, 176–9, 201–3, 205–6, 220–1, 237–8, 243–5, 251–2 Jabesh Gilead  17–18, 65–6, 73, 88n.76, 200–3, 205–6, 224–5, 240–1 Jerusalem  1–4, 73–4, 99–101, 103–4, 127, 139–40, 149–52, 159–60, 167–9, 182–4, 190–2, 205n.58, 226–31, 239, 242–3, 245–6, 253–4 Joab  11–13, 15n.80, 19–21, 20n.104, 26–7, 53, 73–88, 91–2, 95–6, 99, 103–4, 106–11, 112n.64, 113–24, 127, 141–59, 162–81, 183–92, 194–5, 197–9, 201–2, 208–9, 211–26, 228–35, 237–46, 248, 250–3 Jonadab  127–9, 135n.45, 139n.67, 140n.72, 142, 155 Jonathan  17n.95, 21, 23, 27–30, 32–6, 38–48, 40n.12, 52–8, 57n.84, 66–8, 80, 87–8, 92n.93, 94–5, 103, 106, 112–13, 146n.113, 153, 163–4, 176–7, 182, 193–4, 195n.9, 200–6, 221n.54, 224, 228n.88, 236–7, 240–1, 243, 245–6, 252–4 Josephus  128n.3, 159n.2, 167n.45, 171n.62, 188n.151 justice (see also injustice)  15n.80, 61n.10, 69n.42, 78–9, 83–4, 92n.94, 103, 116n.85, 125n.121, 136n.49, 153n.145, 157–8, 175n.86, 190n.161, 230–1, 235n.126, 239, 244 poetic 50–1 justification (see also unjustified)  13, 28–9, 32n.27, 57, 60, 83n.49, 102n.18, 115, 136, 138–9, 155, 174, 184–5, 189, 212–13, 215n.22, 217, 220–1, 228n.86, 233–5, 239–40, 244, 250

Index of Subjects  275 Keilah 37 kingdom  1–2, 4, 6n.28, 8–9, 21, 24, 38n.5, 40, 43n.25, 51n.62, 67n.30, 78, 80–2, 85–6, 96, 99–104, 117, 127, 140, 145–6, 155–8, 161–3, 180, 192, 199, 209–10, 212–13, 222–3, 228–9, 232–5, 237–9, 241, 243, 245–6, 250, 252–3 law (or legal)  11–17, 32n.27, 103, 104n.33, 105, 129–30, 131n.27, 134n.42, 140n.70, 143–4, 212n.6, 213–14, 218n.40, 223n.67, 234, 244, 247, 252–3 legitimacy (see also illegitimacy) 16–17, 26–9, 32–3, 37–8, 41–2, 47n.43, 53n.70, 56–8, 64n.22, 71, 79, 85, 112–13, 138n.58, 145n.106, 164n.25, 181n.114, 188–9, 191, 206–7, 209–10, 212–15, 214n.21, 217n.37, 230n.96, 231, 232n.110, 241, 244–5 loyalty  30–3, 54, 73–4, 159n.3, 215–16 Masoretic text (MT)  20, 30n.22, 44n.30, 45n.34, 63n.19, 73n.1, 79n.24, 83n.47, 85n.60, 86nn.63, 65, 88nn.70, 73, 91n.83, 99–100, 102n.20, 104n.28, 107n.48, 111n.61, 120n.99, 121n.108, 129n.13, 132–3, 136n.46, 137n.56, 141n.78, 148nn.119, 124, 154n.152, 159n.2, 166, 167n.45, 170n.53, 172n.66, 174n.81, 181n.117, 186n.141, 189n.160, 196n.16, 199n.29, 200, 207n.69, 215nn.22, 25, 221n.56, 222n.62, 227–8 Mephibosheth  10, 87–8, 103, 161, 164–5, 182, 193–4, 199, 209n.83, 224, 226, 228 Merab  25, 106, 112, 194, 200, 200n.34 Michal  25–7, 29, 30n.24, 49, 72n.54, 77, 106, 111–13, 115n.81, 200 murder  14–15, 26n.12, 29, 60n.4, 64n.22, 70n.49, 79n.25, 83n.47, 103n.24, 199n.33, 251n.17 Nabal  19–21, 28n.18, 37, 41–9, 52–4, 56–8, 71, 80, 83–4, 86, 89, 100–1, 110–11, 112n.64, 133–4, 136–9, 155–6, 162n.18, 164n.25, 167–8, 179–80, 220–1, 237, 239, 243–4, 248–9, 251–2 Nathan  46n.38, 54n.76, 100–2, 111–20, 122–5, 132–4, 142, 157–8, 160–2, 163n.20, 165n.32, 168–9, 171–3, 177n.92, 197, 206–7, 211–14, 220–1, 225, 228, 242 peace  21, 24–5, 37, 41–2, 41n.13, 48–9, 75–8, 79n.27, 80–1, 83, 121–2, 160, 169, 181, 187–9, 212–23, 241–2, 250–1

Persian period  8, 60n.4 Philistines  1–2, 24–8, 32–3, 35–7, 39–40, 59–66, 68, 71, 96, 99, 102, 106, 111–13, 164–5, 185, 200–7, 236–9, 245 poetry  5–8, 50–1 predation  1, 93–4, 175–7, 188–90, 193, 201–6, 240–1 prophet/prophecy  1, 12–13, 28nn.17, 19, 32n.27, 37–8, 41n.15, 47n.45, 49–50, 81, 82n.42, 91, 96, 100–1, 101n.16, 111, 116–17, 121–2, 160, 162n.15 rebellion  6–7, 154–5, 154n.155, 160–5, 168–9, 170n.58, 177n.92, 179, 182, 184–6, 187n.147, 189, 231–2, 242–3 Rechab  16–17, 20–1, 73, 87–9, 92–5, 95n.110, 146–7, 163–5, 173–9, 198–9, 198n.27, 201–3, 205–6, 220–1, 237–41, 243, 248–9 redaction  7–8, 10n.48, 128–9, 135–6, 233–4, 249n.11, 253n.20 redemption  71–2, 79, 81, 85–6, 89–92, 95n.108, 127, 140, 143–7, 149–51, 153–5, 155n.157, 159, 161, 163–7, 173n.72, 176–81, 183–4, 189–92, 195–6, 199, 201, 206–7, 209, 211–14, 226, 231–2, 235, 237–40, 242–3, 246–7 refuge  15n.78, 37–8, 59, 132–3, 140n.70, 141n.80, 211–12, 218–20, 223–4, 235 revision  7–8, 50n.56 ritual  16–18, 91–2, 175–6, 180n.111, 188–9, 195n.9, 203n.48 Rizpah  11n.54, 21, 77, 93–4, 175–7, 188–9, 193–4, 200–5, 209–10, 240–1, 244–5 Samuel (prophet)  1, 23–4, 38n.5, 41n.15, 61–2, 96, 104n.30, 141, 150, 208–9 Saul king  1–8, 9n.44, 16–21, 16n.85, 23–47, 49–74, 77, 80–1, 82n.43, 83–97, 84n.55, 99, 102–4, 106, 110–16, 119, 122, 135n.45, 140–1, 141n.80, 143–4, 149, 153, 161–5, 167–8, 173–86, 188n.153, 193–210, 215–16, 221–2, 221n.54, 224–6, 228, 229n.90, 231–3, 235–46, 248–9, 251–3 Saulides  1–2, 2n.6, 4, 13–15, 17–19, 21, 54–5, 85–6, 88–9, 88n.76, 93–5, 103, 159, 161–5, 166nn.38–39, 167–9, 175–7, 182–5, 188–210, 224–6, 227n.81, 228, 231–2, 239–43, 245–6, 251–2

276  Index of Subjects Septuagint (LXX or Greek text)  11n.54, 20, 30n.22, 34n.43, 44n.30, 45n.34, 46n.41, 77n.19, 79n.24, 80n.33, 82n.42, 83–4, 85n.60, 86n.63, 88n.73, 91n.83, 100n.6, 102, 102n.20, 107n.48, 111n.61, 113n.72, 115n.81, 120, 133nn.33–34, 136–7, 140n.69, 148nn.119, 124, 152, 154n.152, 159n.2, 166n.38, 167n.45, 170n.53, 172n.66, 174nn.78, 81, 177–8, 181n.117, 186n.141, 189n.160, 195n.7, 196n.16, 198nn.26, 28, 204n.53, 205n.58, 208n.74, 211n.2, 215nn.22, 25–26, 218n.40, 221n.56, 222n.62, 227n.84, 247 shame  17–18, 67n.30, 73n.1, 75n.8, 86n.65, 108n.50, 129, 138–9, 140n.71, 181, 202n.40, 220n.53 Sheba  124n.117, 162n.18, 164–5, 185–9, 216–17 shepherd  1, 3–4, 10, 46n.39 Shimei  1–2, 2n.6, 13, 17–19, 21, 54–5, 159–70, 174–5, 181–5, 189–95, 197, 202, 206–9, 211, 213, 219–22, 224–35, 239–43, 245–6, 248–9, 251–3 sin  6n.26, 12–13, 27–9, 33–6, 39–41, 44, 52, 64, 115n.82, 116n.85, 118–19, 182–3, 183n.123, 206n.67, 245–6, 252–3 sojourner  67–71, 85–8, 92, 94–5, 103–4, 130–1, 197–8, 237–8 Solomon  3–4, 6–8, 12n.58, 13, 21, 80–1, 121–2, 146n.113, 153–4, 180–1, 185, 207–35, 241–3, 245, 249–54 spear  24–6, 29, 31–2, 35–6, 50–1, 53n.69, 55–6, 63–4, 66, 66n.29, 74–5, 164–5, 174–6, 196, 205–6 stones  46n.39, 48–9, 89, 107, 108n.50, 161–3, 165–6, 167n.44, 170–1, 177–8, 187 succession  3–9, 21, 141n.76, 153–5, 200, 207–9, 211–12, 218n.39, 236, 238, 241–3, 248–50 Succession Narrative  3–5, 8n.38, 9 sword  1, 21, 30–2, 56–7, 62, 64–5, 66n.29, 67–8, 74–8, 81–2, 99, 109–25, 127, 157–60, 167–73, 175–6, 177n.92, 187–90, 192, 202, 204, 207–8, 215, 218, 220–1, 223, 226–8, 236, 238–40, 242, 248–51, 253–4

Tale of Two Stories  3–8, 50n.56 Talmud  113n.73, 171n.62, 175n.86, 176n.89, 195n.12 Tamar  113n.73, 124–5, 127–36, 138–9, 138nn.57–58, 139n.67, 142, 151–3, 155–7, 192, 239 Tekoa (Tekoites)  11–12, 15n.77, 23n.1, 127, 141–7, 152–4, 159, 173n.72, 174n.80, 198–9, 211–12, 228n.88, 239, 245–9, 252 temple (see also cult)  1n.1, 12, 82 theme  4–6, 8–10, 19–20, 28–9, 40n.11, 63n.19, 70n.51, 78n.22, 101n.15, 133n.34, 194–5, 245, 247–9, 253n.20 Uriah  2n.5, 5nn.18, 24, 12, 15, 19, 21, 26–7, 64, 99, 103–23, 124n.117, 127, 141–2, 156–8, 160–3, 168–9, 171, 184–5, 186n.143, 192, 197, 206–8, 217n.36, 220–1, 228, 238–9, 242–3, 245–53 vengeance  11–12, 21, 26–7, 29–30, 39–40, 55, 69–70, 75–6, 75n.8, 79n.25, 83–4, 83n.49, 89, 91–2, 93n.98, 95n.108, 122–3, 127, 138n.61, 140–1, 149, 151, 153–6, 159–60, 180, 197n.23, 198n.28, 217, 222–3, 237–8, 241–2, 246–7 war  1–2, 6n.29, 11, 21, 26–7, 29, 37, 52–3, 60, 61n.9, 67, 71, 77–9, 83, 89–90, 99, 102–4, 108–11, 116, 121–2, 127, 136, 138n.61, 157–60, 167–71, 175–6, 181n.114, 184–5, 187–91, 213–17, 220–1, 223, 228, 238–42, 245, 250 wilderness  37, 41–2, 49–50, 74–5, 161, 218, 223–4 Zeruiah (sons of)  21, 49–51, 53, 73n.2, 74–5, 82, 83n.48, 84–6, 85n.60, 95–6, 103, 118–19, 151, 159, 162, 165, 167–8, 182–5, 189–92, 213, 217, 239–40, 251–2 Ziba  161, 182 Ziklag  45n.36, 59, 65–6, 89

Index of Biblical References * Verses are numbered according to the Hebrew text with English versification included in square brackets [] where it differs. For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Genesis 4 12 4:1–16 247n.6 4:10–11 81 4:15 198n.28 9:4–6 247n.6 9:5 91n.88 21:16 55n.77 27:18 53n.70 27:32 53n.70 29:32 166 31:25 65n.26 31:39 95n.108 34  130n.18, 138–9, 155 34:1–31 247n.6 34:2 138–9 34:4 138–9 34:7 138–9 34:8 138–9 34:9 138–9 34:12 138–9 34:12–27 138–9 34:13 138n.61 34:25 138n.61 34:25–26 139n.62 34:27 138n.61 34:28–29 138nn.60–61 34:30 138–9 34:31 138–9 35:14 207n.72 37 247n.6 42:22  91n.88, 247n.6 43:9 95n.108 46:21 161–2 Exodus 4:25–26 247n.6 4:31 166 21–22 15n.77 21:12 144n.96 21:12–14 211–12, 219, 220n.52

21:13 219 21:13–14  16, 219 21:14 220nn.50–51 21:37[22:1] 112–13 22:16–17 134n.42 22:27[28]  165n.33, 183–4 Leviticus 14 81–2 15 81–2 17:4 18n.100 17:10–13 207–8 20:2 69n.41 20:9 69n.47 24:16 69n.41 24:22 69n.41 Numbers 2:2 55n.77 15:31 115–16 22:29 64n.24 25  63–4, 65n.26, 175, 199n.30 25:4  63–4, 198–9 25:8 63 25:11 196 25:13 196 35  79n.27, 195n.8, 247 35:11 143–4 35:15 143–4 35:19 199n.33 35:30 143–4 35:31 14–15 35:33 197n.21 Deuteronomy 3:14 61 12 207n.71 12:23–24 207–8 16:18 79n.24 17:7 92n.90 17:12 92n.90 19  28–9, 247 19:1–13  220, 235

278  Index of Biblical References Deuteronomy (cont.) 19:4–10 235 19:10 14n.76 19:11–13 235 19:12 199n.33 19:12–13 91–2 19:13  92nn.90, 91, 235 19:19 92n.90 21 247 21:1–9  14n.76, 235 21:9  91–2, 92n.90 21:21 92n.90 22 131n.27 22:8  215n.23, 235 22:21 92n.90 22:22 92n.90 22:24 92n.90 23:11[10] 105 24:7 92n.90 27:25 235 28:26  201n.36, 203n.48 28:66 55n.77 29:8[9] 213–14 31:10–13 69n.41 32:52 55n.77 Joshua 6:21 33 7 176n.89 7:25 161–2 8:29 177–8 9  87–8, 195–6, 203n.48, 245 9:15 195–6 9:18 195–6 9:19 196n.15 9:20  196n.15, 197n.24 9:23 81–2 10:11 173n.70 10:26–27 177–8 12:5 61 13:2 61 18:25 87–8 20:3 143–4 20:9 143–4 Judges 3:15 161–2 3:16 188–9 3:21 188–9 8:20 62n.16 9  64, 108, 162–3, 175 9:24  63n.21, 162–3, 215n.23 9:54  63–4, 198–9 9:56 162–3 9:56–57  63–4, 162–3

17:6  33, 136 19  130–1, 133n.39, 134, 153 19–20  138–9, 138n.58, 155 19–21 130n.18 19:22 130–1 19:23 130–1 19:24  130–1, 136 19:25 64n.24 19:28 131n.25 20:10  130–1, 136 20:13 136 20:14ff. 136 20:34 55n.77 20:37 160n.6 20:48 160n.6 21:10 160n.6 21:25  33, 136 1 Samuel 1:11 166 1:20 121n.108 1:23 38n.2 2 225–6 2–3 73 2:12 162n.18 2:12–16 120–1 2:17 120–1 2:25 28n.16 2:30  116–17, 161–2 2:30–34 225–6 2:31–36  82, 82n.42 2:32–34 116–17 2:33 82n.42 2:35 225–6 2:35–36 225–6 3 160n.9 3:13 116–17 3:14 246n.4 3:17 150 3:18 38n.2 3:21 150 4:9  213–14, 214n.17 4:11 116–17 4:12 65–6 4:21 121n.108 6:19 23n.1 7:6 28n.16 8 61n.10 8:11 61n.10 9–1 Kgs 2  5n.18 9:1 86n.63 10:24–26 208–9 11:1–9 203n.47 11:10 38n.2 11:13 184–5

Index of Biblical References  279 12:10 28n.16 12:23 28n.16 13  96, 138–9 13–15 196n.19 13:8 185–6 13:11 24–5 13:13–14 38n.5 13:14 23–4 13:22 24–5 14:24 27n.14 14:33 28n.16 14:34 28n.16 14:36 38n.2 14:40 38n.2 14:44 42–3 14:45  146n.113, 212n.8 14:49 111–12 14:50 114–15 14:51 86n.63 15  3n.8, 17–18, 38n.5, 43n.25, 55n.77, 60, 70n.52, 96 15/16–2 Sam 8  3–4 15:3  33, 60 15:8  60, 160n.6 15:9 60 15:18 28n.16 15:24 28n.16 15:30 28n.16 15:35  23–4, 141 15:35–16:2 23 16  1–7, 6n.26, 208–9 16–22 23–36 16–2 Sam 4  95, 236, 238 16–2 Sam 5  6–7, 6n.26 16–2 Sam 8  8 16–1 Kgs 2  236 16:1  23–4, 141 16:2 24 16:8–10 208–9 16:11 1 16:12–13 208–9 16:13 24 16:14 24n.2 16:14–16 24 16:15 24n.2 16:18 1 16:21 24 16:23 24 17  8, 46n.39, 53, 65, 73–4, 76n.11, 202n.44, 206–7 17:26 1 17:35 1 17:44 202n.44 17:55–58 53

18  1, 25–6, 50–1, 106, 111–12, 180n.108, 184–5, 245n.3 18–19 248 18–20 114n.77 18–26  57n.84, 114 18–27 58n.88 18–1 Kgs 2  15 18:5 24 18:8 24 18:10 24–5 18:11  24–5, 50–1 18:12 24 18:14 24 18:15 24 18:17–30 236 18:17–21, 25  25 18:17  25–6, 68, 106 18:19 111–12 18:21–22 111–12 18:21  25–6, 68, 106 18:23 111–14 18:25  25–7, 39–40, 106, 111–12 18:27 27 18:29  27, 30, 43 18:30 27 19  35–6, 40, 41n.15, 52, 236–7, 240–1 19–22  36, 56 19:1 27–8 19:4  27–8, 39, 52 19:4–5  38–9, 53 19:4–6 27 19:5  18–19, 23, 27–9, 45n.34, 46–8, 52, 57–8, 80, 106, 153, 221n.54, 237, 243, 245–6, 247n.6, 252–4 19:6  28–9, 33–4, 40–1, 59 19:7 29 19:8 29 19:9–10  24–5, 29 19:10  50–1, 196 19:11–17 29 19:17  30, 30n.24, 43 19:18–24 29 20  29, 43 20–26 114n.77 20:1  29, 166 20:2 29 20:8  29, 153, 166 20:9 29 20:12–17 194 20:13 43 20:14–16  29–30, 40–1 20:15  30, 30n.22, 43–4, 103 20:15–16  46–7, 120

280  Index of Biblical References 1 Samuel (cont.) 20:16  30, 30n.22, 39–40, 43, 43n.24, 54–5 20:17 41 20:26 34n.41 20:31  54, 112–13, 225 20:42 41 21  37, 59 21–22 43–4 21:2–10[1–9] 30 21:6[5] 105 21:8[7] 30 21:11–16[10–15] 65–6 22  60, 71, 96, 99–100, 140–1, 194–5, 207–8, 207n.69, 225, 236–7, 240–1, 248 22:1 207 22:2 37 22:4 207 22:9–23 30 22:12–19 17–18 22:15 215n.23 22:17  17–18, 34–5, 37–8, 70–1, 173–4 22:18  34–5, 69n.43, 218–19 22:19  33, 160n.6 22:21 33–4 22:22 33–5 22:22–23 33–4 22:23 225 23–26 37–58 23:7 38n.1 23:8 37 23:17 40n.12 23:25–28 37 24  19–21, 29n.20, 37, 38n.5, 40–3, 40n.11, 43n.26, 49–50, 52–3, 55–7, 65–6, 70, 89–90, 119, 207–9, 233n.113, 237, 252–3 24–25 55 24–26  16, 23, 37, 56–9, 60n.4, 91, 95–6, 167–8, 237 24:2[1] 49–50 24:3[2]  37, 49–50 24:5[4]  37–8, 43, 49–50 24:5–6[4–5] 47 24:6[5] 37–8 24:7[6]  37–9, 45–6, 51–2, 54, 68–9, 173–4, 183–4 24:8[7] 51–2 24:9[8] 66n.28 24:11[10]  39, 45–6, 54, 68–9, 173–4, 183–4 24:11–12[10–11] 39 24:12[11]  39, 52, 80, 119 24:13[12]  27n.14, 39–40, 45–6, 52–5, 89 24:14[13]  39–40, 45–6, 90, 114 24:15[14]  54, 164–5

24:16[15]  39–40, 114 24:18[17]  26, 40, 42–3, 90 24:19[18] 40 24:20[19]  42–3, 47n.43, 51, 84–5 24:21[20]  40, 80, 232–3, 235, 243 24:22–23[21–22] 90–2 24:22[21] 43–4 24:23[22]  40–1, 165n.31, 199n.32 25  8, 11n.51, 19–21, 28n.18, 37, 43n.26, 45n.33, 49, 52–3, 56–8, 69–71, 82–4, 86, 89, 96, 100–1, 110–11, 112n.64, 130n.18, 133n.39, 134, 136–40, 136n.47, 138n.58, 139n.64, 155–6, 168n.47, 213–14, 221n.54, 234–5, 237, 239, 241, 248 25:1 41–2 25:2 136–7 25:2–3 41–2 25:3 143 25:4 136–7 25:7 136–7 25:11 136–7 25:13  41–2, 134 25:14 47 25:14–17 41–2 25:15 42–4 25:17  42–4, 162n.18 25:18 45–6 25:21  42–3, 46–7 25:21–22  42, 45–6 25:22  30n.22, 42–4, 54–5, 120, 134 25:23  44, 48–9, 66n.28, 143 25:23–31 44 25:24  44, 143n.91, 144–5, 166 25:25  44, 133–4, 143n.91, 162n.18 25:26  19, 26, 42–9, 52, 54–5, 89, 101–2, 143–4, 179–80, 215n.25, 237, 247n.8 25:26–31 57 25:26–33 44–5 25:27  44, 143n.91 25:28  44–7, 49, 52, 100–2, 143n.91 25:29  42–3, 45–7, 49, 89, 100–1 25:30  47–9, 80, 101–2 25:31  19, 46–9, 52, 57n.84, 69–70, 101–2, 143n.91, 215n.25, 220–1, 237, 247n.8 25:32 47 25:33  19, 47–9, 52, 237 25:34  48–9, 54 25:35  48–9, 75–6 25:36  48–9, 136–7 25:37  46n.39, 47–9 25:38  48–9, 52–3 25:39  49, 52, 167–8, 237 25:39–40 49 25:41  49, 143n.91

Index of Biblical References  281 25:43  49, 114–15 25:44  49, 111–12 26  19–21, 29n.20, 37, 43n.26, 49–50, 52–3, 56–9, 65–6, 70, 73, 75, 83–4, 89, 96, 168n.46, 207–9, 237, 240, 252–3 26:1 49–50 26:2 49–50 26:3 49–50 26:7 88 26:8  49–51, 53, 100–1, 128–9, 174–5, 188n.153 26:8–11 164n.28 26:9  51–2, 68–70, 173–4, 183–4 26:9–12  51, 53, 101n.11 26:10  52–3, 55, 68, 70, 89–90 26:11  51–4, 68–9, 173–4, 183–4 26:12 51–2 26:13 53 26:14 53 26:15–16 54 26:16  54, 62–3, 112–13, 225 26:17 53 26:18 54 26:19 149 26:19–20 54 26:20  55, 57–8, 62–3, 70–1, 80–1, 198–9, 237 26:21  55–6, 59, 62–3 26:23 55–6 26:24  55–6, 89–90 26:25 55–6 27 59 27–2 Sam 1  59–72 27:1–12 65–6 27:2 59 27:6 59 27:8–12 60 27:9  45n.36, 60 27:11 61 28  59, 61–2, 196n.19 28:10 166 28:23 135–6 29 59 29–30 61–2 29:4 185 29:9 149 30  59, 61, 67 30:2–3 61 30:6 161–2 30:11 61 30:13 65–6 30:17 61 30:26–31 60 31  11n.51, 17–18, 59, 61–7, 71, 73, 90, 90n.81, 202, 240–1, 248

31–2 Sam 4  194 31:3 63 31:3–6 61–2 31:4  61–5, 66n.29, 68–9, 204 31:4–6 62 31:5  62–3, 67n.31, 204n.50 31:6 204 31:8 204 31:9  64–6, 164–5, 202 31:10  24–5, 64–5, 93–4, 175, 202–3 31:10–12 176–7 31:11  65–7, 202–3 31:12  24–5, 65, 88n.76, 177, 202–3 2 Samuel 1  58n.88, 59, 65–6, 67nn.31–32, 71, 72n.55, 73, 79, 81, 83–6, 89–90, 92, 92n.95, 94–6, 121, 123, 139–40, 143–4, 156, 177–8, 178n.101, 205–6, 216–17, 237–9, 245n.3 1–4  23, 161, 248 1:2 65–6 1:3  65–6, 68n.37, 69n.42 1:5 66 1:6  66n.29, 68–9 1:6–10 66 1:8  53n.70, 66 1:10  66–7, 204n.52 1:11–12  68, 180 1:11–16 67–8 1:12  68, 76n.14, 204n.52 1:13  68–9, 87–8 1:13–16 16n.85 1:14  68–9, 173–4, 183–4, 231 1:15  68–9, 246–7 1:16  12n.61, 15, 19, 68–70, 91, 221–2, 229–31, 242–3 1:19–27 5–6 2  16n.85, 73–4, 79, 124–5, 237–8 2–3  11–12, 73, 96, 117, 122, 151n.138, 184–5, 237–8 2–4  4, 73–98 2:3–4 159–60 2:4–5 205–6 2:4–7 17–18 2:4–11 73–4 2:5 215n.22 2:8 4 2:9 229–30 2:12  4, 73–4 2:13 73–4 2:16 76–7 2:17 73–4 2:18–24 16 2:18 73n.2 2:19 78–9

282  Index of Biblical References 2 Samuel (cont.) 2:21  75, 78–9, 117 2:22  75, 117, 172–3, 217 2:23  78–9, 174–5, 189n.157 2:24  76–7, 77n.17 2:25 76–7 2:26  76–7, 81–2, 110–11, 171n.59 2:27 77 2:28 77 2:30 77 2:31 77 2:32  77, 148n.123 3  11n.51, 15, 16n.85, 19, 73, 75–6, 78n.22, 80–1, 99, 108–9, 115, 117–19, 121, 123, 146–7, 156, 158n.163, 165–6, 165n.30, 181, 188nn.154–155, 194–5, 217n.34, 222–3, 238–9, 241 3:1 77–8 3:2  128–9, 132–3 3:3 159–60 3:6 77–8 3:7–8 77 3:8 166 3:9 42–3 3:12 77 3:13–16  77, 112–13 3:18 160 3:20 77 3:21  75–8, 241 3:21–22 181 3:21–25 214–15 3:22  77–8, 87–8 3:23 77–8 3:24 77n.19 3:24–27 174–5 3:25 77–9 3:26  77–9, 222–3 3:27  75–6, 75n.8, 78, 79nn.24, 25, 83, 88, 188–9, 217 3:27–28 19 3:27–30 78 3:28  69n.45, 80–1, 82n.46, 84–5, 91, 101–2, 115, 145–6, 215, 222–3, 237–9, 245–6 3:28–29  12n.61, 13, 79n.25, 123–4, 151, 154–5, 162–3, 197, 215n.25, 217, 221–3, 242, 245–9, 252–3 3:29  79n.24, 81–2, 84–5, 91, 115, 117–19, 145–6, 194–5, 213–14, 221–2, 229–30, 237–9, 250 3:30  79n.25, 82–3, 163–4 3:31–32 83–4 3:31–33 180 3:33  83–4

3:33–34 83–4 3:35 83–4 3:36 83–4 3:37 83–4 3:39  73n.2, 82, 84–6, 85n.60, 103, 118–19, 123–4, 146–7, 151, 154–5, 162–3, 165, 167, 180–1, 189–90, 194–5, 206n.67, 222–3, 237–9, 246–7 4  4, 11n.51, 16–18, 58n.88, 65, 73, 86, 92n.94, 94–5, 121, 123, 139–40, 143–4, 156, 177–8, 198, 201–2, 205–6, 216–17, 237–9, 245n.3 4:1 86 4:1–7  87, 99n.1 4:2 87–8 4:3 87–8 4:4  88, 148n.123 4:5 88 4:5–12 15n.80 4:6  16n.85, 88 4:7  88, 143–4, 164–5 4:8  89, 91–2, 91n.85 4:8–12  16n.85, 89 4:9  89–92, 146–7 4:10  83n.47, 89–91, 178–9 4:11  19, 90–4, 220–1, 231 4:12  17–18, 93–4, 175, 198–9, 202–3, 205–6, 246–7 5  6n.26, 59, 101n.10, 206n.66 5–7 5n.22 5–10 99 5–12 99–106 5:1–3 95 5:1–5 99 5:2–5 161 5:3  6–7, 206–7 5:4 6–7 5:4–5 95 5:4–1 Kgs 2  6–7 6 99 6:6 99–100 6:6–12 99 6:7  99–100, 100n.7 6:8 99–100 6:9 100 6:10 100 6:13–16 99 6:17–25 99 7  100–1, 111, 117n.88, 124–5, 165n.32, 206–7, 213–14, 223, 232–3, 242–3, 250 7–8 206n.66 7:1 100–1 7:2  100–1, 105 7:9 100–1

Index of Biblical References  283 7:11 100–1 7:12  165n.32, 223 7:13  232–3, 243, 250, 250n.13 7:15 124–5 7:16  46n.38, 100–2, 124–5, 223, 232–3, 243, 250, 250n.13 7:19 101–2 7:24  223, 250n.13 7:25  101–2, 213–14, 223, 234–5, 241, 250n.13 7:26 250n.13 7:28  101–2, 223 7:29 101–2 8  3–4, 101n.10, 102, 104n.30 8:2  102–3, 162–3n.20 8:5 102–3 8:6 102–3 8:12 102 8:13–14 162–3n.20 8:14 102–3 8:15 103 8:15–20:26 103n.24 8:16  103, 151 9  3–4, 161, 163–4, 194, 226 9–20  3n.12, 4, 8–9, 193, 211 9–1 Kgs 2  3–4 9:1 194n.4 9:1–13 103 9:5 161n.10 9:7–13 224 9:8 164–5 9:12 161 10:1–11:1 103 10:7 103–4 10:10 187–8 10:17–18 103 11  5n.24, 127–8 11–12  12, 15, 16n.85, 19, 26–7, 99, 119, 122–5, 142, 157–8, 180n.108, 184–5, 192, 248, 250 11–24 211 11:1  103–4, 127 11:2  103–4, 127–8 11:2–12:25 103 11:3 103–4 11:4  103–5, 110n.58 11:5 103–4 11:6 103–4 11:8 105 11:10 105 11:11  105, 186 11:13  105, 137n.54 11:14–15 26–7 11:14–17 106 11:15 107n.44

11:17 106–7 11:18 109–10 11:18–21 107 11:19 107–8 11:20 107–8 11:20–21 107–9 11:21 64n.23 11:22 109–10 11:22–27 109 11:23 141–2 11:24 110n.55 11:25  109–11, 113–14, 116–21, 157–8, 171, 207–8 11:26 110–11 11:27  110n.58, 111, 113–16, 157–8, 160 12  11n.51, 117–19, 123n.111, 124n.120, 159, 180, 198n.28, 206–7 12:1  111–12, 111n.60 12:1–4 142 12:1–6 111 12:2 111–12 12:3  111–12, 114–15, 133n.35 12:4 111–12 12:5  54n.76, 100, 112–13, 121n.106, 132–3, 146–7, 225 12:5–6 132–3 12:6  113–14, 161–2, 198n.28 12:7  111–12, 114 12:7–8  114, 116n.87, 238–9 12:7–10  114, 115n.82 12:8 114–15 12:9  115–21, 120n.95, 127, 160–2, 220–1 12:9–10  115–16, 116n.87, 118–19 12:9–11  116n.87, 228, 242 12:10  115–17, 117n.88, 120, 123–5, 158n.166, 160–2, 168–9, 171, 189, 220–1, 238–9, 242, 250 12:10–12 115n.83 12:10–14 113n.73 12:11  118–19, 157–8, 160, 168–9, 179–80, 189 12:11–12  115–19, 123–4 12:11–14 118 12:12 168–9 12:13  119, 206n.67 12:14  120–1, 120nn.95, 99, 238–9 12:16–17 121 12:18 121 12:22–23 160n.9 12:24 121–2 12:26–31 103 12:28 127 12:29 127 12:30 68n.35

284  Index of Biblical References 2 Samuel (cont.) 13  11n.51, 118–19, 127–8, 130–1, 138n.59, 139, 140n.68, 142, 151n.138, 172, 189–90, 239–40 13–14  11–12, 124–5, 127, 155–8, 248 13–20  4, 112–13, 124–5 13:2  127–8, 130–1 13:3 128–9 13:4 127–8 13:5 128–9 13:5–6 132–3 13:7 128–9 13:8 133n.38 13:10 129–30 13:11 129–30 13:12 129–31 13:12–13 129 13:13 129–31 13:14–18 131 13:15 131n.25 13:16 131 13:19–22 132 13:20 132–3 13:21  100, 132–4, 156–7 13:22  133n.33, 134, 139n.67, 157n.159 13:23 135–7 13:23–29 134–5 13:24 135–7 13:25 135–6 13:26 135–6 13:27 135–7 13:28  136–7, 139–41, 143–4, 173–4, 213–14 13:29 172 13:30–31 179 13:30–36 179 13:31 180 13:32 139–40 13:34  140–1, 147–8 13:34–36  139–40, 179 13:36  141, 180 13:37  23n.1, 140–1 13:37–39 140 13:38 140–2 13:39 141–2 14  15n.77, 16n.85, 71–2, 135n.45, 141n.80, 142, 144nn.97–98, 154, 156, 158n.163, 171–2, 189–90, 195n.11, 198–9, 218–19, 239–40, 246–7 14:1  142, 142n.81, 151 14:2  23n.1, 142, 150n.132 14:3 142–3 14:4 143 14:4–11 143

14:6  143–4, 143n.91, 149 14:7  71–2, 143–4, 143n.91, 172n.66, 180–1, 198–9, 246–7 14:7–8 149n.126 14:8 144–5 14:9  144–6, 146n.112, 151, 153, 166, 245–6 14:10 144–6 14:11  19, 71–2, 143–4, 146–7, 152, 173n.72, 211–12 14:12 143n.91 14:12–17 147 14:14  147–8, 157n.159 14:15  143n.91, 149 14:15–17 149n.126 14:16  143n.91, 149 14:17 143n.91 14:18 150 14:18–20 149 14:18–23 149–50 14:19 143n.91 14:20 174n.80 14:22 150–1 14:23 152 14:24 151 14:24–33 151–2 14:25 152 14:26  146, 152, 171–2 14:27 152 14:32  152–3, 166, 171–2, 176–7, 180–1, 190, 245–7 14:32–33 156 14:33 190 15  16n.85, 167–8, 189 15–18  154n.155, 239 15–20  158n.165, 159–92 15:1 159–60 15:1–6 144n.98 15:2–4  71–2, 78–9 15:3 230–1 15:5 154 15:6 159–60 15:7 159–60 15:9 160 15:10 161 15:13 161 15:14  160, 189, 239 15:16  160, 168–9 15:25 160 15:26 160 15:27 160 15:27–28 178–9 15:29 225 15:31 169n.51

Index of Biblical References  285 15:36 178–9 16  1–2, 11n.51, 17–19, 167–8, 183–4, 185n.133, 194, 208–9, 221–2, 226, 231–2, 239–40, 248, 252–3 16:1–2 161 16:3 161 16:5  161–2, 161n.10, 197, 226 16:5–10 194 16:5–14 227 16:7  1–2, 197 16:7–8  19, 162–3, 183 16:7–13 162 16:8  1–2, 13, 162–5, 167, 184–5, 189–90, 221–2, 231–2, 239, 242–3 16:9  163–5, 174–5, 181, 194–5, 197, 227 16:9–12 164n.28 16:10  165, 184–5, 197 16:10–12 184–5 16:11  54–5, 161–4, 183–4, 197, 232n.107 16:12  165–7, 183n.123, 184–5, 189–90, 222n.63, 231–2, 239, 245–6 16:13  167, 197 16:14 167 16:21 168–9 16:21–22  115n.82, 160, 190, 212–13, 240 16:22  118–19, 168–9, 176n.89 16:23 168–9 17:1 169 17:1–3 168–9 17:1–16 190 17:2 169 17:3 169 17:7–13 168–9 17:8 169 17:9 169 17:10 169 17:11 169 17:12 169 17:13 185–6 17:14 168–9 17:16 169 17:17 178–9 17:23 172n.67 17:25  169–70, 216n.30 17:27–28 224 17:27–29 200 18  11n.51, 152, 169, 185–6, 190, 205–6, 216–19, 248 18:2 169–70 18:5  169–70, 173–4, 175n.86 18:6  171, 215–16 18:6–8  190, 240 18:6–17 170–1 18:7  171, 215–16

18:8  171–3, 177 18:9 171–2 18:9–15 246–7 18:10  172–3, 202–3 18:12  170nn.54, 58, 173–4, 175n.86, 179 18:13  173–4, 180–1 18:14  174–5, 198–9 18:15 175–6 18:16  177–8, 185–6, 215–16 18:17  177–8, 215–16 18:19 178–9 18:20 178–9 18:21 178–9 18:22 178–9 18:22–23 178–9 18:24–32 179 18:28 179 18:28–29 179 18:29 178n.101 18:31–33 179 18:32  118–19, 179–80, 187–8 19  209, 226, 228, 240, 242 19–20 248 19:1[18:33]  23n.1, 179–80 19:1–5[18:33–19:4] 180 19:5[4] 170n.54 19:6–8[5–7] 180 19:11[10] 181n.113 19:13[12] 170n.53 19:13–14[12–13] 187–8 19:14[13]  181, 185–6 19:15[14] 181 19:17[16]  183, 226 19:17–24[16–23]  19, 227 19:18[17]  165n.31, 183 19:19[18] 183 19:19–24[18–23] 182–3 19:20[19]  166, 183, 231–2 19:20–21[19–20]  183, 230–1 19:21[20]  165n.33, 183 19:22[21]  183–4, 197, 227 19:22ff.[21ff.] 185n.137 19:23[22]  184–5, 227–8 19:24[23]  227–8, 228n.89, 230–1 19:25[24] 182 19:25–31[24–30] 161 19:27–28[26–27] 182 19:28[27] 149n.128 19:29[28] 182 19:31[30] 182 19:32–40[31–39] 200 19:34[33] 224 19:34–40[33–39] 224 19:40[39] 154

286  Index of Biblical References 2 Samuel (cont.) 20 16n.85, 161, 192, 195n.6, 208–9, 215nn.25, 29, 217n.34 20:1 162n.18 20:2 185–6 20:3 172n.66 20:4 185–6 20:4–13 222–3 20:5 185–6 20:6 185–6 20:6–7  186n.141, 217 20:7 185–6 20:8  187–8, 215 20:8–10  181, 217 20:8–12 19 20:8–13 187 20:9 187–9 20:10  187–9, 215 20:11 188–9 20:12 187–9 20:12–13 188–9 20:13 188–9 20:19 197 20:22  164–5, 191, 216–17 21  11–13, 11nn.51, 54, 12n.61, 15, 16n.84, 55n.77, 65, 65n.26, 93–5, 175–7, 188–9, 193, 193n.3, 194nn.4–5, 195n.12, 198n.27, 202, 204n.52, 209, 245–6, 248 21–24  3–4, 6, 6n.26, 193–211 21:1  18n.100, 19, 193–6, 201, 203n.48 21:1–9  193–4, 204n.54 21:1–11 204–5 21:1–14  11n.54, 14–15, 158n.165, 193, 195n.6, 207–8, 228, 240–1, 245–7, 252–3 21:2  195–6, 198–9 21:3  197–8, 245–6 21:4  14–15, 197–9, 246–7 21:5 198 21:6  172n.66, 175, 198–9, 201, 208–9 21:7  194n.4, 199, 228 21:8  200, 224–5 21:8–9 199 21:9  55, 175, 198–200, 199n.33, 204 21:9–11 204n.54 21:10  93–4, 195n.8, 201–3 21:10–14 200–1 21:11–13 201 21:12  93–4, 177, 202–5 21:13 204–5 21:14  163–4, 195n.8, 204–6, 247n.7 21:15–22 206–7 21:19 206–7 21:21–22 25n.11 22  5–6, 12n.61, 206–7 22:1 206–7

22:3–4 102–3 22:21–25  206–7, 209, 241 22:23 214n.18 22:24  6n.26, 206–7 22:51 250n.13 23:1–17 5–6 23:8ff. 207 23:13 207 23:14–17  209, 241 23:15 207 23:16–17 207–9 23:17 207–8 23:37 87–8 23:39  103–4, 206–7 24  5n.22, 6n.26, 119, 193 24:10 38n.4 24:13 119 24:24 221n.54 1 Kings 1 211–12 1–2  3n.12, 4, 6–9, 6n.26, 11n.51, 19–20, 209–11, 213, 228n.89, 233–5, 235n.126, 241 1–11 250–1 1:1 211 1:1–4 211–12 1:5  159–60, 215 1:5–10 211–12 1:11–35 211–12 1:13  228, 231n.99 1:17 228 1:29–30 228 1:30 228n.89 1:35 216n.30 1:36–40 211–12 1:41–48 211–12 1:50 211–12 1:50–51 218–19 1:51 211–12 1:52  146n.113, 211–12 1:53 211–12 2  3–7, 13, 15, 16n.85, 19, 80–1, 117n.88, 124–5, 185n.137, 188–9, 207–9, 224–5, 228, 241, 245n.3, 248–53 2:1–4 234–5 2:1–6 213 2:1–9  232n.112, 234 2:2 213–14 2:3  213–14, 235 2:4  213–14, 223, 234–5, 241 2:4–5 242 2:5  13, 19, 26–7, 83, 180–1, 181n.117, 214–17, 221n.54, 241–2, 247n.8 2:5–6  16n.85, 19, 246–7 2:5–9 235

Index of Biblical References  287 2:6  216–17, 234–5, 241 2:7 224 2:8  226–8, 228n.89, 242 2:8–9  184n.131, 226 2:9  19, 227–8, 234–5, 241–2 2:12  211n.2, 212–13, 218n.39, 232n.112 2:13 212–13 2:15 212–13 2:18–28 74–5 2:20 75 2:22  212–13, 225, 233 2:23  212–13, 231 2:24–25 212–13 2:26 225–6 2:26–27 225 2:28 233 2:28–34 218 2:28–35 16n.85 2:28–46 213 2:29  218–19, 223 2:30 219 2:31  19, 46n.41, 220–3, 221n.56, 231, 242, 253–4 2:31–32 215n.25 2:31–33 220–3 2:31–34 246–7 2:32  13, 19, 69–70, 220–3, 229–30, 242, 247n.8 2:32–33  221–2, 229–30 2:33  15, 19, 69n.45, 80–1, 117n.89, 145n.106, 221–3, 229–30, 232–3, 242–3, 250, 250n.13 2:34 223–4 2:34–35 228 2:35  223–4, 233 2:36  226, 230n.97, 229n.90 2:36–46 228–9 2:37  15, 19, 69–70, 229–32 2:38 230–1 2:39–40 230–1 2:42 230–1 2:43 231 2:44  231–2, 242–3 2:45  231–3, 243, 250, 250n.13 2:46  232–3, 235, 243, 250–1 3  216–17, 234–5 3:9 149 3:16–18 144n.98 12 7–8 12:15 150n.131 13:29 148n.123 14:10 43n.27 14:22 196n.20 16:9 136–7 16:11 43n.27

17 74n.3 18:28 46n.41 19:10 196n.20 19:14 196n.20 20:16 136–7 21:10 161–2 21:10–13 183–4 21:13 161–2 21:14 161–2 21:15 161–2 21:19 93–4 21:21 43n.27 22 93–4 22:38  93–4, 176–7, 201–2 2 Kings 2:7 55n.77 2:15 55n.77 3:22 55n.77 5:23 135–6 7:9 178n.98 9:8 43n.27 9:25 148n.123 9:26 148n.123 10:25 160n.6 11 250n.13 11:2 203n.47 21:16  28n.17, 46n.41, 250–1, 253–4 24:3–4 28n.17 24:4  46n.41, 250–1, 253–4 25:25 250–1 25:25–26 250–1 1 Chronicles 2:15–16 82 2:16 86n.63 2:17 170n.53 8:33  73n.1, 86n.63 9:39 73n.1 10:4 63 18:2 102 20:5 206n.62 22:8 1n.1 22:18 121–2 28:3 1n.1 2 Chronicles 17:9 34n.43 23:2 34n.43 24:25 12 36:16 115–16 Nehemiah 3:19 55n.77 3:25 55n.77 3:27 55n.77 11:33 87–8

288  Index of Biblical References Job 6:25 227 16:3 227 16:18 11n.54 Psalms 31:23 55n.77 38:5[4] 12–13 40:13[12] 12–13 51  12n.61, 18–19, 247 51:16[14] 18–19 78:70 209n.81 89:4[3] 209n.81 89:20[19] 209n.81 119:55 146n.114 Proverbs 1:11 247n.6 1:16 247n.6 1:18 247n.6 Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) 12:5 34n.43 Song of Solomon/Songs 3:2 34n.43 6:5 55n.77 Isaiah 1:16 55n.77 26:8 146n.114 26:13 146n.114 48:1 146n.114 56:9 173n.70 Jeremiah 7:18 207n.72 16:17 55n.77

22:3  251n.16, 253–4 22:17  250–1, 253–4 23:19 81 26:15  251n.16, 253–4 26:20–23  251n.16, 253–4 30:23 81 40–41 250–1 Lamentations 4:13 12–13 Ezekiel 3  91, 247n.6 3:18 91 3:20 91 3:20–21 47n.45 22:2 18n.100 33:6 91n.87 33:8 91n.87 Hosea 4:1–3 12–13 9:4 207n.72 Amos 9:3 55n.77 Jonah 2:5 55n.77 Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira 50:15 207n.72 Matthew 1:1 12 1:9 12 9:27 12 27:25 12