Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/881

 laudable, and the latest sources of the Pentateuch contain several such lists. This new procedure, we may imagine, was resented by the northern Hebrews as an encroachment upon their liberties. We learn that the destroying angel was stayed at the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite, and the spot thus sanctified was made a sanctuary, and commemorated by an altar. It was the very place upon which Solomon’s temple was supposed to be founded. The census-taking may have been a preliminary to the great wars, but the latter, on the other hand, are obviously presupposed by the extent of his kingdom. For his wars a larger force than his early bodyguard was required, and the Chronicler gives an account of the way in which an army of nearly 300,000 was raised and held by David’s thirty heroes (1 Chron. xxvii.). It is certain at all events that no small body of soldiers would be needed, and this alone would imply that all Israel was by this time under his entire control.

Apart from the Ammonite war, our sources are confined to a mere summary (viii.), which includes even the Amalekites (viii. 12, cf. 1 Sam. xxx.). After the defeat of the Philistines came the turn of Moab. It was under the care of the king of Moab that David placed his parents

when he fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 3 sqq.), and what led to the war is unknown. The severity with which the land was treated may pass for a gentle reprisal if the Moabites of that day were not more humane than their descendants in the days of King Mesha. A deadly conflict with the Ammonites was provoked by a gross insult to friendly ambassadors of Israel; and this war, of which we have pretty full details in 2 Sam. x. 1–xi. 1, xii. 26-31, assumed unexpected dimensions when the Ammonites procured the aid of their Aramean neighbours. The defeat of Hadadezer brought about the submission of other lesser kings. The glory of this victory was increased by the complete subjugation of Edom in a war conducted by Joab with characteristic severity (2 Sam. viii. 13; 1 Kings xi. 15-17; Ps. lx., title). The fall of Rabbah concludes David’s war-like exploits; he carried off the jewelled crown of their god (Milcom), and subjected the people, not to torture (1 Chron. xx. 3), but to severe menial labour (xii. 26-31).

The Aramean states, Beth-rehob, Maacah, Tob, &c., lay partly to the north of Gilead and partly in the region which was the scene of the fight with Jabin (Josh. xi. 1-9, Judg. iv.; see ). Apparently it was here, too, that the Danites found a settlement (Judg. xviii. 28); the migration has perhaps been ante-dated. (See, tribe.) The account of David’s wars is remarkable for the inclusion of the Syrians of Damascus and beyond the Euphrates; some exaggeration has been suspected (cf. 2 Sam. viii. 5 with x. 16). Some misunderstanding has been caused by the confusion of Edom and Aram in viii. 13. A more moderate idea of David’s power has been found in Ps. lx. 6-12, or, preferably, in the description of the boundaries (2 Sam. xxiv. 5 sqq.). To the east of the Jordan he held rule from Aroer to Gad and Gilead; on its west his power extended from Beersheba in the south to Dan and Ijon at the foot of Hermon. Moab, Ammon and Edom would appear to have been merely tributary, whilst in the north among his allies David could number the king of Hamath. To the north-west Israel bordered upon Tyre, with whom its relations were friendly. The king of Tyre, who recognized David’s newly won position (v. 11 seq.), is called Hiram; possibly—unless the notice is an anticipation of 1 Kings v.—his father Abibaal is meant.

As the birth of Solomon is placed before the capture of Rabbah of Ammon (xii.), it would appear that David’s wars were ended within the first half of his reign at Jerusalem, and the tributary nations thus do not seem to have attempted any revolt during his lifetime (see 1 Kings xi. 14 sqq.

and 25). It was only when the nation was no longer knit together by the fear of danger from without that the internal difficulties of the new kingdom became more manifest. Such at least is the impression which the narratives convey. So, after David had completed a series of conquests which made Palestine the greatest of the petty states of the age, troubles arose with the Israelites, who in times past had sought for him to be king (iii. 17, v. 1-3), with his old subjects the men of Judah, and with the members of his own household. The northern tribes, who appear to have submitted willingly to his rule, were not all of one mind. There were men of stronger build than the weak Ishbaal and the crippled son of Jonathan, the survivors of Saul’s house, and it is only to be expected that David’s first care must have been to cement the union of the north and south. The choice of Jerusalem, standing on neutral ground, may be regarded as a stroke of genius, and there is nothing to show that the king exercised that rigour which was to be the cause of his grandson’s undoing. (See .) On the other hand, when Sheba, probably one of Saul’s clan, headed a rising and was promptly pursued by Joab to Abel-beth-maacah on the west of Dan, honour was satisfied by the death of the rebel, and no further steps were taken (xx.). This policy of leniency towards Israel is characteristic of David, and may well have become a popular theme in the tales of succeeding generations. This same magnanimity towards the survivors of Saul’s house has left its mark upon many of the narratives, and helps to a truer understanding of the stories of his early life. Thus it was quite in keeping with the romantic attachment between David and Saul’s son Jonathan that when he became king of Israel he took Jonathan’s son Meribbaal under his care (ix.). The deed was not merely generous, it was politic to have Saul’s grandson under his eyes. The hope of restoring the lost kingdom had not died out (cf. xvi. 3). But from another source we gain quite a different idea of the relations. A disastrous famine ravaged the land for three long years, and when Yahweh was consulted the reply came that there was “blood upon Saul and upon his house because he put the Gibeonites to death.” The unavenged blood was the cause of divine anger, and retribution must be made. This David recognized, and, summoning the injured clan, inquired what expiation could be made. Bloodshed could only be atoned by blood-money or by shedding the blood of the offender or of his family. The Gibeonites demanded the latter, and five sons of Merab (the text by a mistake reads Michal) and two sons of Saul’s concubine were sacrificed. The awful deed took place at the beginning of harvest (April–May), and the bodies remained suspended until, with the advent of the autumn rains, Yahweh was once more reconciled to his land (xxi. 1-14). The incident is a valuable picture of crude ideas of Yahweh, and, if nothing else were needed, it was sufficient to involve David in a feud with the Benjamites. Here, too, we learn of the tardy burial of the bones of Saul and Jonathan which had remained in Jabesh-Gilead since the battle of Gilboa;—the history of David’s dealings with the family of Saul has been obscured. That he took over his harem is only in accordance with the Eastern policy (cf. xii. 8).

The harem, an indispensable part of Eastern state, was responsible for many fatal disorders, although it is clear from 2 Sam. xvi. 21 that the nation at large was not very sensitive to the enormities which flow from this system. David’s deep fall in the matter of Bathsheba (xi.) was too great

an iniquity to be passed over lightly, and the base murder of her