King David’s Troubling Deathbed Instructions

I have translated the two verses to highlight the similar phrasing in Hebrew. From the NJPS translation—the basis for the other translated verses in this piece—this would be impossible to see, one of the problems of translation by committee.

Another example, but with only the first part of the phrase, is when David’s general Joab was facing a perilous military situation against the Ammonites, he divided his forces between himself and his brother and comrade in arms Avishai, while declaring:

^{שמואל ב י:יב} חֲזַק וְנִתְחַזַּק בְּעַד עַמֵּנוּ וּבְעַד עָרֵי אֱלֹהֵינוּ...

^{2 Sam 10:12} Let us be strong and take strength on behalf of our people and the cities of our God…

For Joab’s slaying of Abner and Amasa, respectively, see 2 Sam 3:22–27; 20:4–10.

^{מלכים א ב:ז} וְלִבְנֵי בַרְזִלַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי תַּעֲשֶׂה חֶסֶד וְהָיוּ בְּאֹכְלֵי שֻׁלְחָנֶךָ כִּי כֵן קָרְבוּ אֵלַי בְּבָרְחִי מִפְּנֵי אַבְשָׁלוֹם אָחִיךָ.

^{1 Kgs 2:7} But deal graciously with the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, let them be among those that eat at your table, for they befriended me when I fled from your brother Absalom.

For Shimei’s insulting of David, see 2 Sam 16:5–8; for David’s oath to Shimei, see 2 Sam 19:17-24.

The deathbed instructions are David’s last words:

^{מלכים א ב:י} וַיִּשְׁכַּב דָּוִד עִם אֲבֹתָיו וַיִּקָּבֵר בְּעִיר דָּוִד.

^{1 Kgs 2:10} So David slept with his fathers, and he was buried in the City of David.

See, among many others, Moshe Weinfeld, מיהושע ועד יאשיה: תקופות מפנה בתולדות ישראל מההתנחלות ועד חורבן בית ראשון [From Joshua to Josiah: Turning Points in the History of Israel from the Conquest of the Land Until the Fall of Judah] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992), 197–198; Raymond de Hoop, “The Testament of David: A Response to W. T. Koopmans,” Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995), pp. 270–79; Isaac Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2019), pp. 250–52. The 19^th century traditional commentator Malbim (on 1 Kgs 2:5), while obviously not speaking in terms of additions to the text, does recognize the stark difference in focus between vv. 3–4, which he regards as relating to conventional Torah law applying to all Jews, and vv. 5–9, which he views through the prism of special provisions that the Torah granted only to kings in order for them to maintain their power.

So, for example, Ernst Würthwein, Die Erzählung von der Thronfloge Davids: Theologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung, ThSt 115 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1974), pp. 11–17; François Langlamet, ‘Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne de I Rois, I–II’, RB 83 (1976), pp. 502–05. For more recent scholarship, see, albeit from different angles, Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting, pp. 245–48; Jacob L. Wright, David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 245, n. 10.

The “royal apology” genre as a template for the story of Solomon’s accession to the throne was argued forcefully by Tomoo Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith and his Supporters: An Inquiry into Problems about History and Historiography,” in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures, ed., Richard E. Friedman and Hugh G. M. Williamson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 165–187, [170–171, 180–181]. According to Ishida, the apology tends to glorify the new king (in this case Solomon) at the expense of his inept predecessor (in this case David). At the same time, scholars who adopt the royal apology model claim that its effect is to render the text favorable—or unfavorable— to both David and Solomon; see respectively, Leo G. Perdue, “The Testament of David and Egyptian Royal Instructions,” in William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue (eds.), Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method (Winona Lake, In: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 79–96; Andrew Knapp, Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta: SBL, 2015), 263–274.

One recent scholar has argued that “David’s last words” in 2 Sam 23:1–7, in which David waxes poetic about his close relationship with God, was composed as a later, corrective text to 1 Kgs 2. See Cynthia Edenburg, “II Sam 21, 1–14 and II Sam 23, 1–7 as Post-Chr Additions to the Samuel Scroll,” in Rereading the Relecture? The Question of (Post)chronistic Influence in the Latest Redactions of the Books of Samuel, ed., Uwe Becker and Hannes Bezzel, FAT 2/66 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 177–179. Among modern scholars, opinions are very much divided as to whether the text in 1 Kgs 2 reflects well or poorly on David. For examples of the first approach, see Saul Zalewski, עליית שלמה למלוכה: פרקי עיון בספר מלכים וספר דברי-הימים [Solomon’s Ascension to the Throne: Studies in the Books of Kings and Chronicles] (Jerusalem: Marcus, 1981), 93–109; Jeffrey S. Rogers, “Narrative Stock and Deuteronomistic Elaboration in 1 Kings 2,” CBQ 50 (1988), 398–413; Benjamin E. Scolnic, “David’s Final Testament: Morality or Expediency?,” Judaism 43 (1994), pp. 19–26. For examples of the second approach, see Kurt L. Noll, The Faces of David, JSOTSup 242 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 153, 173–74; Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 60–61; John van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 337, 343–44. On the overall phenomenon of deliberate ambiguity in the Solomon narratives, see John D. Hays, “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1–11,” JSOT 28 (2003), 149–174; Eric A. Siebert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1–11, LHB/OTS 436 (New York: T & T Clark, 2006).

The text is paralleled in Tanhuma Mas’ei 11–12. The context is the law at the end of Numbers about when a person is permitted to run to a city of refuge, which connects to Joab’s attempt to save himself by running to the altar.

The notion of Uriah having been the leader of David’s thirty-seven warriors is not explicit in the biblical text, which simply states: אוריה החתי כל שלשים ושבעה, i.e., “Uriah the Hittite: a total of thirty-seven.”

For the biblical account of David’s secret orders to Joab to put Uriah in mortal danger on the battlefield, see 2 Sam 11:14–15.

The midrash does seem to take for granted that Joab was deserving of death for having slain Abner son of Ner (see 2 Sam 3:36–37). This stance can be contrasted with the discussion in b. Sanhedrin 49a of Joab’s trial by Solomon. In that text, Joab is exonerated for his slaying of Abner, inasmuch as he was acting legitimately as the blood avenger of his brother Asahel, whom Abner had killed unjustifiably (see 2 Sam 2:12–32; 3:17–27). Joab successfully rebuts the prosecution’s claim that Abner had killed Asahel in self-defense.

See e.g., b. Kiddushin 39b.

Critical scholars generally understand psalms’ superscriptions to be later than the psalm itself. See the discussion in Elieser Slomovic, “Toward an Understanding of the Formation of the Historical Titles in the Book of Psalms,” ZAW 91 (1979): 350-380.

This is the word used in Gen 32:32 to describe Jacob’s condition after his nocturnal encounter with the strange being.

ודוד מזהיר ומצוה לשלמה בנו, ואמר והוא קללני קללה נמרצת (מלכים א ב:ח). מהו נמרצת, נוטריקון, נ' נואף, מ' מואבי, ר' רוצח, צ' צורר, ת' תועבה.

And David warned and commanded his son Solomon and said (1 Kgs 2:8) “he insulted me outrageously.” What does נמרצת (“outrageously”) mean? It is an acronym (with each letter of the word standing for the first letter of a different insult): nun=adulterer (no’ef); mem=Moabite (moabi); resh=murderer (rotze’ach); tzadi=enemy (tzorer); tav=abomination (to’ebah).

Shimei, a Benjaminite relative of the previous king Saul, is upset with David since he sees him as a usurper to the throne.

אמר ליה ר' יונתן יפה אתם אומרים.

R. Jonathan said to him: “your explanation is a good one.”

For more on Abarbanel, see Cedric Cohn-Skalli, Don Isaac Abravanel: An Intellectual Biography, Tauber Institute Series for the Study of the European Jewry (Boston: Brandeis University Press, 2020); Eric Lawee, “Isaac Abarbanel: From Medieval to Renaissance Jewish Biblical Scholarship,” in Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. 2: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, ed. Magne Saebo (Gottingen: Vanderhoeck and Ruprecht, 2007), 190–214.

These are question 5 and question 6 respectively.

Ironically, Abarbanel’s ultimate explanations of Joab’s and Shimei’s executions as deriving from their disloyalty or disobedience to Solomon himself, unwittingly parallel the conclusion of many modern scholars (as noted above). They both argue that Solomon’s true motivations in eliminating Joab and Shimei were political, with David’s testament just functioning as a convenient legitimizing smokescreen.

This conclusion brings to mind the occasional rabbinic reinterpretations of biblical laws that the classical rabbis found to be morally perplexing. See discussion in Moshe Halbertal, מהפכות פרשניות בהתהוותן [Interpretive Revolutions in the Making] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997); Norman Solomon, “Relating Truthfully to Morally Problematic Texts,” TheTorah (2017).