Archaeology and Literary Sources
Steven M. Ortiz
The persons of David and Solomon have captured the imagination of many individuals. From their portrayal as the Hollywood hero or villain to earlier works of art such as Michelangelo’s David, artists have been drawn to the vivid stories of these kings of the united monarchy The exploits of the battlefield and the intricacies of palace life have been foundational for many sermons and Bible studies as examples of great leadership or the danger of women. The psalms attributed to David and the proverbs attributed to Solomon (as well as Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes) are biblical texts that have provided comfort and insight to many Jews and Christians. These have contributed to larger-than-life personas of the main kings during this period. One of the ironies is that while the biblical texts and the archaeological record contain many details concerning this period of Israelite history, there has been much debate concerning the nature of this period. The biblical texts contain many images: from the battle exploits and palace intrigue of David, to the wealth, splendor, and wisdom of Solomon. One of the problems for the historian is to remove the layers of tradition as well as misperceptions of these two kings. Many students of the biblical text come to this period with contemporary reconstructions that are erroneous.
The Biblical Portrait of David and Solomon
David: Transition from Shepherd Boy to King
The biblical account presents numerous episodes in the life of David, some of which have been identified as legendary by critical scholarship. While specific stories would have developed their individual literary structures and later be woven into the larger account preserved in the canon of Scripture, there is no reason to doubt that the general story line is based on actual events. The accounts can be verified reasonably by correlating them with archaeological data and anthropological theory. With the death of Saul and his sons, various issues emerged regarding the stability of the new Israelite polity. Out of this complex period, David emerges and builds up the kingdom of Israel into the greatest kingdom that Israel had ever known. During the vacuum created by the weakness of the world powers of the age, smaller powers were vying for control of the southern Levant (e. g., Edom, Moab, Aram, Philistia, Israel). Although Saul was actually the first king of the united monarchy, he never fully unified the tribes internally but only as a loose tribal confederation, principally held together by the Philistine threat, which kept the tribes united against a common enemy
It was one thing to be a military leader under Saul’s hegemony; it was another for David to become the political leader of this confederacy. The short - and long-term goals of David can be summed up in one word: control. David needed to control the people and control the land. These two factors have a symbiotic relationship. If you control the land (e. g., trade and communication routes, agriculture/herding lands), you control the population; if you control the population (e. g., they submit to your leadership), you control the land. The highest priorities for David involved the establishment of his kingship, his reputation, and his support. He then had to formulate both a domestic and a foreign policy.
David was quickly able to learn from Saul’s mistakes and to identify the best way to control the population. One of the main things that David established was a new concept for the tribes: a high view of kingship. Each tribe had given allegiance to its tribal chief and patriarch, but now their loyalty was to the crown. The Israelite monarchy was new, and there was still an
Underlying tension of tribal authority Now the authority was being placed in the king (monarchy) and not the tribal structure. David held that Yahweh established David’s kingship; the king was God’s anointed. He maintained this view within the political arena since he had a high view of the position, regardless of Saul’s actions toward him. David would not kill Saul (1 Sam. 24:1-7; 26:1-12), but he did kill those who harmed God’s anointed (2 Sam. 1:1-15). He publicly mourned for Saul (1:11-12, 17-27).
With David’s rise to power, one issue that emerged was how a shepherd boy from Bethlehem could become a king. David had built his reputation long before he came to the throne. Naturally, in any tribal culture a man’s reputation is first established militarily. David showed that he was capable as a military leader (1 Sam. 17; 18:30; 19:8; 23:1-14; 30:1-20). Perhaps more unique was his reputation in the political arena. David was one of Saul’s right-hand men (22:14). David was very wise and made key connections in government—that is, within the house of Saul. David became a close friend of the heir to the throne, Jonathan (18:1-5; 1 Sam. 20), and also married into the house of Saul through Michal (18:1-29).
A third aspect of his reputation is moral. The biblical accounts highlight several decisions made by David to illustrate that he acted in such a manner that nothing could be named against him. Examples include not harming God’s anointed, Saul (1 Sam. 24:1-7; 26:1-12); accepting Abigail’s advice not to act rashly against her husband, Nabal (25:23-35); public mourning of Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:11-12, 17-27); public mourning of Abner (3:31-38); and kindness to Saul’s household (2 Sam. 9). In a summary account of David’s accomplishments, it is stated that he “administered justice and righteousness for all his people” (2 Sam. 8:15).' This appears contradictory because the biblical text also records many of David’s sins. It hints that the public perception of David was that of a man of moral character, particularly in contrast to Saul. Nevertheless, this is a literary feature and purposefully used by the biblical author to contrast the two men in the book of Samuel. Three accounts depicting his character are (1) his acceptance of Abigail’s advice concerning Nabal (1 Sam. 25:23-35); (2) his public mourning of Saul’s death (2 Sam. 1); and (3) his maintenance of clean hands during the civil war and the events that followed (2 Sam. 2-4).
David needed to establish support among the southern tribes first. He did this by protecting the southern tribes from the Amalekites to the south. He also subdued Philistine hostility by cunningly establishing a base of fighting men at Ziklag in Philistine territory. It was a natural step to establishing his first capital at Hebron, where he won the support of this region. He had a harder time gaining support from the north. It did not happen until after the civil war, when the northern leadership fell apart (2 Sam. 2:12-4:12). He reclaimed Michal, Saul’s daughter, as his wife (3:13) and showed kindness to Mephibosheth of the house of Saul (2 Sam. 9).
David’s domestic policy was twofold: (1) bring security to the tribes against the Philistine threat (2 Sam. 5:17-25); and (2) unite the tribes by creating new images of unity David chose a neutral capital in the center of the country, which belonged neither to the southern nor to the northern tribes. The capture of Jebusite Jerusalem and establishment of it as the capital was the next domestic policy after security. He then moved the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6) and stated his desire to build a temple (2 Sam. 7) as a central place of worship that belonged to the state, not to a particular tribe.
David’s foreign policy likewise was twofold: conquer and control. David dominated the southern Levant by either conquering or subduing as vassals those polities adjacent to Israel or those polities that controlled important communication and trade routes. We have a summary of this in Chronicles, generally moving from west to east: Philistines (1 Chron. 18:1); Aram-Zobah and Moab (18:2-3); northern Transjordan Plateau, Hammath (18:10); Aram-Damascus (18:5-6); Edom (18:12-13); and Ammon (19:10-19). With the complete conquest and subjugation of these polities, all David had to do was control his kingdom. There were three groups: (1) Israel; (2) the conquered kingdoms considered tributary kingdoms (Edom, Moab, Ammon, Aram-Damascus, Aram-Zobah), some with Israelite governors appointed over them (2 Sam. 8:6, 14); and (3) vassal kings and
World History
