Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/882

 husband Uriah the Hittite could not go unavenged. Bathsheba’s influence added a new element of danger to the usual jealousies of the harem, and two of David’s sons perished in vain attempts to claim the throne, which she appears to have viewed as the rightful inheritance of her own child. This, at least, is certain in the revolt of Adonijah (see ), and it was probably believed that the action of the impulsive Absalom arose from the suspicion that the birth of Solomon was the death-blow to his succession.

As a piece of writing the vivid narratives are without an equal. David’s sons were estranged from one another, and acquired all the vices of Oriental princes. The severe impartiality of the sacred historian has concealed no feature in this dark picture,—the brutal passion of Amnon, the shameless counsel of the wily Jonadab, the “black scowl” that rested on the face of Absalom through two long years of meditated revenge, the panic of the court when the blow was struck and Amnon was assassinated in the midst of his brethren. Not until five years had elapsed was Absalom fully reconciled with his father. Then he meditated revolt. As heir-apparent he collected a bodyguard, and studiously courting personal popularity by a pretended interest in the administration of kingly justice, ingratiated himself with the mass. Four years later (so read in xv. 7) he ventured to raise the standard of revolt in Hebron, with the malcontent Judaeans as his first supporters, and the crafty Ahithophel as his chief adviser. Arrangements had been made for the simultaneous proclamation of Absalom in all parts of the land. The surprise was complete, and David was compelled to evacuate Jerusalem, where he might have been crushed before he had time to rally his faithful subjects. He was warmly received by the Gileadites, and the first battle destroyed the party of Absalom, who was himself captured and slain by Joab. Then all the people repented except the men of Judah, who were not to be conciliated without a virtual admission of prerogative of kinship to the king. This concession involved important consequences. The precedence claimed by Judah was challenged by the northern tribes even on the day of David’s victorious return to his capital, and a rupture ensued, headed by Sheba, which but for the energy of Joab might have led to a second and more dangerous rebellion.

Several indications suggest that the revolt was one in which the men of Judah originally took the leading if not the only part. The unruly clans which David knew how to control when he was at Ziklag or Hebron were doubtless ready to support the rebellious son. The removal of the court to Jerusalem provided a suitable opportunity, and an element of jealousy even may not have been wanting. If Geshur be the district in Josh. xiii. 2, 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, it is significant that the scene of Absalom’s exile lay to the south, that Ahithophel was a south Judaean, and that Amasa probably belonged to the Jezreel with which David was connected through his wife Ahinoam. The eleven years which elapsed between the murder of Amnon and the revolt would seem to disprove any connexion between the two; the chronology may rest upon the tradition that Solomon was twelve years old when he came to the throne. David’s hurried flight, attended only by his bodyguard, indicates that his position was not a very strong one, and it is difficult to connect this with the fact that he had already waged the wars mentioned in 2 Sam. viii. and x. If his reason for taking refuge in Ishbaal’s capital Mahanaim is not obvious, it is even more remarkable that he should have been received kindly by the Ammonites whom he had previously decimated. On the theory that the revolt of Absalom chronologically should precede the great wars, a slight correction of the already corrupt text in xvii. 27 makes Nahash himself David’s ally, and accounts for David’s eagerness to repay to Hanun, the son of Nahash, the kindness which he had received from the father (x. 2). That the revolt of Sheba is in an impossible position is obvious. Tradition has probably confused Benjamite risings with Absalom’s misguided enterprise; the parts played by Shimei and Meribbaal, at all events, are extremely suggestive. See,.

The Appendix ascribes to David a song of triumph and some exceedingly obscure “last words” (xxii.-xxiii. 7) which cannot be used as historical material. The history of his life is immediately continued in 1 Kings i., where his old age and weakness are for the first time vividly emphasized.

The events of the remaining years after 2 Sam. xx. are left untold, but the Chronicler omits the revolt of Absalom and represents the king as busily occupied with schemes concerning the future temple. The last spark of his old energy was called forth to secure the succession of Solomon against the ambition of Adonijah. It is noteworthy that, as in the case of Absalom, the pretender, though supported by Joab and Abiathar, found his chief stay among the men of Judah (1 Kings i. 9). (See .)

To estimate the work of David it is necessary to take into account the situation before and after his period. According to the prevailing traditions, Saul at his death had left North Israel disunited and humiliated. From this condition David raised the land to the highest state of prosperity and glory, and by his conquests made the united kingdom the most powerful state of the age. To do this other qualities than mere military capacity were required. David was not only a great captain, he was a national hero in whom all the noblest elements of the Hebrew genius were combined. His talent enabled him to weld together the mixed southern clans which became incorporated under Judah, and to build up a monarchy which represented the highest conception of national life possible under the circumstances. The structure, it is true, was not permanent. Under his successor it began to decay, and in the next generation it fell asunder and lived only in the hearts of the people as the proudest memory of past history and the prophetic ideal of future glory. Opinion will differ, however, as to the extent to which later ideals have influenced the narratives upon which the student of Hebrew history and religion is dependent, and how far the reigns of David and Solomon altered the face of Hebrew history. The foundation of the united monarchy was the greatest advance in the whole course of the history of the Israelites, and around it have been collected the hopes and fears which a varied experience of monarchical government aroused. Many of the narratives furnish a vivid picture of the life of David with a minuteness of personal detail which has suggested to some that their author was intimately acquainted with the events, and, if not a contemporary, belonged to the succeeding generation, while to others it has seemed more probable that these reflect rather “the plastic mould of popular tradition.” It cannot be doubted that the three types of David, represented by the books of Samuel, of Chronicles, and the superscriptions of the Psalms, are irreconcilable, and that they represent successive developments of the original traditions. That the oldest of these three does not contain earlier attempts to idealize him is unlikely. “Political circumstances naturally led to an ever-increasing appreciation of his person and his work as the unifier of Israel. In the eyes of posterity he became more and more completely the model of an Israelitish king and the natural consequence was that he was idealized. The hope of the regeneration of his dynasty, and, at a later period, of its restoration to the throne—the Messianic expectation—must have worked powerfully in the same direction. And meanwhile the religious convictions of the highest minds in Israel were undergoing a marked change. The conceptions of Yahweh and of the religion which was acceptable to him were constantly being elevated and purified. This could not but have an influence on the current ideas concerning David. He, too, must be remodelled as the conceptions of God were changed.” But what is lost as regards historical material is a distinct gain to the study of the development of Hebrew thought and philosophy of history.

David’s character must be judged partly in the light of the times in which he lived and partly in connexion with the great truths which he represents, truths whose value is not impaired should they prove to be the convictions of later ages. Accordingly, David is not to be condemned for failing to subdue the sensuality which is the chief stain on his character, but should rather be judged by his habitual recognition of a generous standard of conduct, by the undoubted purity and lofty justice of an administration which was never stained by selfish considerations or motives of personal rancour, and finally by the calm 