David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King

Some see David as a mythological figure. Certainly the image projected of him and the shadow this character casts over subsequent Israelite and biblical history is one of mythic proportions. Partly the constructs around David have become so strangely skewed that one asks the question, as the literature both in the biblical texts and later developments can lead one to asking the question, 'can any one man have been or done all this?' Halpern addresses this question in this book By looking at the latest archaeological evidence, Halpern concludes that the character our David is based upon was most likely a real character. But, how much similarity is there between the real David and the David of later biblical writers? How much is legend? Will the real David please stand up? Halpern takes the reader on a journey through various questions, and part of the different questions can be discerned from the title of the book: David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. One issue with which to contend is the diversity of voices in the biblical text itself. The portrayal of early Israelite history in the Bible is not a uniform, seamless construction. The Chronicles relay different information than the historical cycles that runs through the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Even when they relay the same information, they do so with differing interpretations behind motives and outcomes. David is an intriguing figure. While being held up as the exemplary King of Israel to whom all others must be compared, he is at the same time shown to have some devastatingly human failings. The number of people that David kills, for instance, Halpern contends would earn any modern politician the label of serial killer. David's loyalty to Saul and to Israel is, through much of David's early career, never complete and never without question: consider this - suppose, during the height of the Cold War, a popular American general decided to reside the USSR because he had a difficulty with the President, and even helped them in a few military operations against American interests. When that President was gone, he returned to the United States. Is it likely the Americans would welcome him back, much less make him the new President? And yet, this is close to the scenario presented in the biblical texts - David goes to reside with the Philistines. The biblical writers work hard to justify his actions, but some seem to stretch beyond reason looking for this justification. Of course, we know from the later writer of Ruth that David has some non-Israelite ancestry. Could it be more than just from that line of the lineage? Could David have actually been part Philistine, sufficient to have a reasonable expectation of their help? And why, if David does become the leader of the Kingdom of Israel at the height of its power, does he never finish off the Philistines, long considered the mortal enemy of Israel? These are but a few of the very intriguing questions Hal

Every so often, a scholar emerges in a particular field to reinvigorate it with a flash of brilliance. Baruch Halpern is one such scholar. Recently in the field of Biblical Studies, open warfare has erupted over whether the biblical record of Israel's past is anything more than a well-written romance, whether the Bible contains material useful to the modern historian. Halpern turns the historian's lense on the biblical portrait of David, and provides positive answers to these questions in a tour de force that is witty, learned, and hugely entertaining. Halpern shows that the main narratives about David, in Samuel and the first chapters of Kings, preserve a nearly contemporary effort to vindicate the king from the calumnies hurled by his erstwhile enemies and their supporters (since most of the enemies "wake up dead"). Two principles of historical reconstruction distinguish Halpern's work. The first is the idea that the voices of David's opponents can still be heard if the historian engages in imaginative reconstruction. The second, the product of Halpern's immense erudition and familiarity with other Near Eastern historical literature, is that royal scribes in Israel and the Near East are not free to give false testimony about their lieges' accomplishments. The scribes may try to lead the reader to the grandest possible interpretation of even minimal accomplishments, by tolerating or even promoting ambiguity, but they can't spin their reconstruction out of whole cloth. The logic of these principles leads Halpern to reconsider the extent of David's "empire," which the text would have us think was extremely vast. It also leads to a portrait of the king that shines with a duller veneer than the one David's (and Solomon's) apologists apply. What is finally so interesting in this book is that it allows the reader to enter the biblical text in the company of an agile, imaginative historian. The reader can laugh with Halpern (the comparison of the shepherd boy armed with sling to the Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court almost killed me), can admire the sophistication of the biblical writers, and can appreciate anew the complexities in the account of David. The sheer pleasure of reading Halpern's book may delay the recognition that this is history writing at its best, but make no mistake. The biblical writers asserted repeatedly that "God was with David." This reviewer was led to conclude that Clio the Muse is with Halpern. This is a remarkable book that leaves others recently written about David looking rather pallid by comparison.

The best thing about this book is that it looks at history outside the box of the textual sources. It does not concede that everything that happened in ancient Israel is described in the books of Samuel, it considers the probable impact of forces not described as active in Samuel. These are important points. Who, it asks, conquered the cities later incorporated into Israel? What were the Philistines up to during the fight between the House of David and the House of Saul? And it doesn't treat either the Philistines or the Israelites as single, unified groups. Instead it asks about factional differences, things other scholars just have not done. I felt like I was reading real historical reconstruction instead of either a defense of or an attack on the Biblical record. And at the same time, the book explains why the Biblical record says what it says.

Scholars seem to have believed for about twenty years that David was a murderer, but this book goes even further. It portrays David's life through the eyes of his enemies. This is a wonderful historical exercise; it lets the author understand how big David's empire really was, as Halpern peals away the layers of exaggeration to show how royal literature truly worked. What really surprised me was that this is the first time I have ever read a reasonable explanation of why the story about David and Bathsheba is told. The whole book is surprising, to the very end. Short sections of it, especially about the geography, were a little dense, but the author has provided lots of maps to give the reader guidance, and all the details are necessary to the argument. Some parts are really funny. And the history as it unfolds is very interesting, mainly about important political events. All in all, this was an enjoyable and educational book, which taught me a lot about how historians have to think.

1. Great history This is probably the most radical book ever written about David. Not that it is stupidly radical - in fact, as a whole, it defends the historical David against assaults by the "minimalists" who deny he was a king or even existed. But Halpern proceeds from the assumption that every text has an agenda. So instead of letting the story of David wash over him, he asks why it takes the form it takes. The answer is pretty obvious once you have asked the question. The Bible is out to make David's reputation. But Halpern doesn't stop at this: he explains why each and every story about David is told the way it is told. Halpern sides with those against whose accusations the stories react - mostly David's and Solomon's political opponents. But he admits this implicitly. His thesis is that if you can reconstruct the thinking of David's opponents, you have evidence of David's existence and activities. The first part of the book is that reconstruction. Then the second half is a narrative history of David's life. The first part is pretty entertaining, because there is a lot of humour in the book. But the second half was very from the history I thought I knew. I was glad to have the first half of the book, which explains the logic behind the history. But the history is very playful, and if you imagine it as a detective story, with twists and turns in the plot, it is a lot of fun. I strongly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in ancient history and a sense of play.