Dan Snow's History Hit - How and Why History: King David

Episode Date: October 8, 2020

One of the Old Testament’s most compelling figures, King David was anointed as king of a united Israel, conquering Jerusalem and bringing the Ark of the Covenant into the city. First renowned for his musicianship and killing Goliath, David was feted by King Saul who then turned against him. But how did David rise to power and importance? Why was the capture of Jerusalem so significant? And how sure can we be that David actually existed? Rob Weinberg asks the big questions about this important but elusive figure to Steven McKenzie, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Old Testament at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.Subscribe to History Hit and you'll get access to hundreds of history documentaries, as well as every single episode of this podcast from the beginning (400 extra episodes). We're running live podcasts on Zoom, we've got weekly quizzes where you can win prizes, and exclusive subscriber only articles. It's the ultimate history package. Just go to historyhit.tv to subscribe. Use code 'pod1' at checkout for your first month free and the following month for just £/€/$1.

Hi everyone, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. You're not going to believe it, it's another fascinating episode of How and Why History, the sister podcast of mine. We're asking the big how and why questions from history and this episode is about the great Old Testament hero King David, including the biggest question of them all, did he even exist? If you like this episode please search for How and Why History wherever you get your pods and subscribe. There are 33 other episodes you may not have heard yet. What's more, we've also launched another podcast, The Ever-Growing Family, the World Wars podcast. It brings together all history hits podcasts on the World Wars. New shows every week as well, new content every week from Professor James Rogers.

Do not miss that. In the meantime, let's venture off to the Holy Land to find out more about that harp-playing shepherd boy. Or was he? not miss that. In the meantime, let's venture off to the Holy Land to find out more about that harp playing shepherd boy. Or was he? King David is one of the Old Testament's most compelling figures. Anointed as king of a united Israel, David conquers Jerusalem, bringing the Ark of the Covenant into the city. First renowned for his musicianship and for killing Goliath, the shepherd boy David is fated by King Saul, who then turns on his protege. Saul was afraid of David because the Lord was with David, but had departed from Saul. So he sent David away from him, and gave him command over a thousand men.

In everything he did, he had great success, because the Lord was with him. When Saul saw how successful he was, he was afraid of him, but all Israel and Judah loved David. But how did David rise to power and importance? Why was the capture of Jerusalem so significant? And how sure can we be that David actually existed? I'm Rob Weinberg, and in this edition of How and Why History, I ask the big questions about this important but elusive figure to Stephen McKenzie, Professor of Hebrew Bible and Old Testament at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. This is How and Why History. Professor Stephen McKenzie, thank you so much for joining me.

My pleasure. How did the shepherd boy David rise to such power and importance? It's a good question. And right away, I think what we need to do is to separate two issues. There's the question of what the biblical account says, and then there's the question of history, and they're not always identical. So there's actually even from the very beginning some question of whether David really was a shepherd, and the reason for that, he's certainly depicted that way in portions of the Bible, but we know that in other portions, shepherd was a metaphor for king. It's certainly used that way of David, and it may be that that's what's given rise or gave rise eventually to the story of David beginning his life as a shepherd. Then to kind of take the question a step further, in one sense, in terms of exactly

what happened historically, we don't know. And we're dependent basically on the Bible. But part of the issue is that the Bible actually has three or four different versions of David's rise, of where David came from. One of those versions, probably the second most famous one, is that David was a shepherd boy who was chosen by God through the prophet Samuel to succeed Saul. Immediately following that story, and that's in the first half of 1 Samuel 16, we have what appears to be a separate account of David as a servant of Saul's, in Saul's court, as Saul's armor bearer. But when Saul is looking for someone, he's actually looking for a musician, David comes with a kind of a job recommendation. And there are a number of features in that recommendation. One of them is that he is a warrior. He's already at that point, according to the story, an established warrior. Nothing

in that job recommendation, 1 Samuel 16, 18, about David being a shepherd. And then we have at least one more version, which is almost certainly the most famous one, and that's the David and Goliath story. And in that story, which itself is composite, it's not a straightforward single story, It's not a straightforward single story. Portions of it, again, reflect the idea that David is this young boy who's come to check on his brothers who were in the army and then, you know, accepts Goliath's challenge and so on. And yet even other portions of it suggest maybe a slightly different view of David. So we seem to have there a story that has evolved itself

over time. So all of that is to say now these three different versions have kind of been put together in some way in the biblical account, but it's very difficult to determine which one of those, if any of the three or four, is in fact historical in any sense, and which is the result of tradition, legend, accretion over time. Does David appear in historical evidence, and can we be sure that he did actually exist? The answer to the first question is, sort of. The answer to the second question, I think, is clearly no, we can't be sure that he ever existed. As there are, I suppose, with any kind of historical reconstruction of events that distant in the past, there are grades of possibility or probability, perhaps. So one of the things that often is quite surprising to people who are coming to questions like this for the first time is that until actually the year 1993, there was outside of the Bible no historical evidence of David at all. There were mentions of David, but those were always in literature that

was dependent on the Bible. So what changed in 1993 was the discovery in Israel of an inscription that mentioned David. And the reason why I said sort of a moment ago is because it actually doesn't refer to David as an individual. It uses the name David in an expression, House of David, which is a reference to the Davidic line, the Davidic dynasty, perhaps as well, and this seems to be the case in this inscription, to the kingdom of Judah, which is the southern kingdom after the division under Solomon. So there are a couple of other inscriptions that were known previously that people have since gone back to and have tried to argue for the occurrence of the name David in those inscriptions, but nothing quite as definite as this inscription from the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel. It dates to somewhere around 850 BCE, so roughly 150 years after David would have lived,

which is as close as we can come. And even when it was discovered, by the way, a year later, there was an enormous amount of debate, even about whether the expression House of David actually meant the dynasty of David or the kingdom of Judah. There would be other ways of reading that. And there was a pretty intense debate for the first year after its discovery. Then almost exactly a year later in 1994, there was another piece of that inscription found that seemed to resolve that debate and make it fairly clear that this was indeed House of David. But that still is not anything like concrete absolute proof that there actually was a David figure. Assuming that David did exist and basing it on the biblical account, how did it happen that the elders of Israel anointed him as the king of all Israel?

Well, according to the biblical story, they actually didn't seem to have much choice. There is the story of Saul, whose kingdom, if we can use that term, we might actually call him a chief or something along those lines, but a fairly isolated, geographically limited area that he reigns. David becomes his rival in the story and Saul's enemy, and Saul pursues him in the effort to kill him. Then Saul is killed in battle, and that raises the question of who Saul's successor will be. You have to read a little bit between the lines, but it becomes fairly clear in the early chapters of 2 Samuel, that all of those in Saul's family who were viable candidates, and therefore stood in David's way, somehow die mysteriously or under questionable circumstances. And so it becomes fairly evident,

both circumstances. And so it becomes fairly evident, or at least one is rather suspicious, that David may have had a hand in this. And then when the elders of Israel do come to David, they do so effectively because there's no one left. And David clearly holds the popularity card. And David clearly holds the popularity card. He's already, in that story, established himself as a military leader in Saul's army and is very popular as the Bible depicts it. He's in effect the only choice as a result of his own, if I can use the term, campaigning for the position. So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel.

The king and his men marched to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, You will not come in here. Even the blind and the lame will turn you back. David occupied the stronghold and named it the City of David. David built the city all around, and David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him. So that's basically the way that the Bible presents it. Again, how much history lies behind this maybe is questionable. What was Jerusalem

like in the time of David, and why was the capture of it important to him? It's a very difficult question, actually, to determine what Jerusalem was like. Well, for various reasons, but one of the main ones is that Jerusalem, of course, has been and continues to be holy for three of the great religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all hold Jerusalem to be sacred. And Jerusalem has also been continuously occupied over the millennia. So the bottom line of all of that is that it's very difficult to do archaeological work in Jerusalem, which is the only way really to answer the kind of question you're raising about what Jerusalem looked like. So there's an enormous amount of disagreement, even among archaeologists,

about what Jerusalem looked like and what the size of it was. It's a very old city. It's referred to in literary works outside of the Bible that predate the time of David. But even so, we don't know for sure exactly what it would have been. It probably was something like a relatively isolated fortress city held by a military contingent, a local king. There was an interesting speculation, there has been some work done by archaeologists who have over the last couple hundred years done some work in Jerusalem and been able to configure, to some degree or another, the size of the wall of the city, which changed over time and grew. But even according to what I would call somewhat perhaps optimistic or maximal estimation based on population figures per hectare or per acre.

At the time of Solomon, which is David's son, and which would be kind of the height of Jerusalem during that early period, Jerusalem might have had as many as 1,500 residents. So maybe that gives some idea of perhaps its size. And again, there's a lot of uncertainty about what daily life would have been like or anything like that. In terms of its importance, the way that, again, the Bible seems to depict it, which makes a good deal of political sense in some ways, is that Jerusalem was important to him for its strategic location. It would have been essentially in the middle between Saul's kingdom in the north and David's own tribe of Judah in the south. And one of the things that the Bible depicts David doing

is uniting those two under his own authority, and in a sense, forging a unity between Israel in the north, Judah in the south, a rather precarious unity that remains only until after his son Solomon dies. But that would have been presumably the main reason for his interest in the city. And then it's after that, that Jerusalem becomes known as the city of David and takes on greater religious and historical significance. Land a Viking longship on island shores, scramble over the dunes of ancient Egypt and avoid the Poisoner's Cup in Renaissance Florence. Each week on Echoes of History, we uncover the epic stories that inspire Assassin's Creed.

We're stepping into feudal Japan in our special series, Chasing Shadows, where samurai warlords and shinobi spies teach us the tactics and skills needed not only to survive but to conquer whether you're preparing for assassin's creed shadows or fascinated by history and great stories listen to echoes of history a ubisoft podcast brought to you by history hits there are new episodes every week Did David consciously call it a capital city? And why was that important? There's no term for capital in quite the sense that we think of. But he does do something that's fairly common among Near Eastern kings, which is he names it after himself, calls it City of David.

Kings, which is he names it after himself, calls it City of David. And it is the place where, according to the biblical story, he builds his royal residence there and wants to build a temple there, which is what kings would do in their residential city. So that, in effect, is what a Near Eastern king would do with his capital city. People will be familiar with the film Raiders of the Lost Ark and this artifact of the Ark of the Covenant. What was the Ark of the Covenant and why was it important to King David to bring it to Jerusalem? We don't know for sure that there actually was an ark at the time of David. Even exactly what the ark is, is somewhat questionable, or I should say, has different depictions within the biblical material itself. In the book of Deuteronomy, where the ark is described, it's basically described there effectively as a wooden box. In another

document or source, the so-called Pentateuch or Torah, priestly writers describe it as much more elaborate, much more along the lines of what you see depicted in Raiders of the Lost Ark, with the cherub on top and the gold plating and all of that sort of thing. So you actually have these two descriptions, even within the Bible itself. And both of those documents are written, at least in the form that we have them, hundreds of years after David. So there's some uncertainty about, you know, whether the Ark existed at the time of David. We have representations of it later. So it is an artifact of some kind.

And among other things, it serves to be carried into battle, into war with the army of Israel as a kind of guarantee, at least as far as they're concerned, of the presence of the deity who will fight on behalf of Israel. It also holds other functions, at least religious depiction. It holds a relics from Israel's more ancient past, the tablets of the law and other artifacts from Aaron and so on. It's both a political artifact in a sense and a religious artifact and a royal artifact, all of those things combined. So David is established as the king of all Israel. Jerusalem is his capital. Why did he then flee Jerusalem? He's forced to because his son rebels against him. One of David's sons is Absalom, and he was not David's oldest, but he was one of the older sons.

And at one point, Absalom leads a revolt against David, very much in some ways as a mirror of what David does against Saul. So just as David seems to be a usurper, so Absalom attempts to usurp the throne from David. And he's successful enough that David is forced to flee Jerusalem and only returns after defeating Absalom in war. So he leaves Jerusalem because he's forced to. If the story of David is largely myth, or we can't actually historically prove that he existed and any of it happened, why do you think has it remained so important? I personally do think that there is some historical reliability to this story. Despite the lack, in effect, of evidence, the thing that I think points, in some ways, most compellingly to there being some level of history behind this story is simply the fact that it's difficult for me to imagine why anyone would write such a story from the beginning that seems so obviously to

try to hide accusations made against David, that he conspired to take Saul's throne, that he was himself a ruthless tyrant, or could be in some ways, that he was not a very good father figure, that he had to wage war, in effect, against members of his own family. So the David of the story is in some ways a fascinating character, but also a study in contradictions. The story itself is a study in contradictions, it seems to be trying very hard to cover up accusations against David. It is, in other words, a kind of propaganda, a kind of spin doctoring. And it's hard to imagine that somebody would doctor a story that they themselves had to spin to begin with. So that's the reason I think there is some historical validity behind this.

Part of the reason for the popularity of the David story lies in the literary quality of it. It is a very compelling portrait in some ways. It is a portrait of somebody who is very human. Even in the story itself, David has his faults, foibles. It's something that human beings can identify with. And yet at the same time, there's this tradition over the centuries by which the initial impulse of the story to defend David becomes greater and greater. And David goes through an even greater transformation, not just from a literary defense and apology, but all the way to being depicted as a saint.

And so in a sense, there's something for everyone, I guess, in that story. He becomes the model in ancient Israel of kingship, and then that portrait is carried further in European monarchies. He is clearly a sinner, but also a saint. But I also find it quite fascinating that there is this impulse from the beginning to defend David. And one sees outside of the books of Samuel, even in the biblical books of Chronicles, which are yet another version of the David story and a version that draws very heavily on the story in Samuel. So it's not completely separate or independent story. But one season chronicles already this impulse or this beginning to make David look even better than he did before. And then over time, the same thing happens. And you see it still today.

Through the centuries, there have been numerous works of literature that are fascinated with the David story, and that impulse continues in all kinds of literature, but also in art. David's a very popular study and always has been. He also comes to symbolize divinely ordained monarchy, and he becomes fated by the Roman and Byzantine emperors, and indeed rulers such as Charlemagne. Why is that? Part of it has to do with the compelling nature of David, but part of it may also have to do with the fact that the way that the Bible presents him, despite all of his shortcomings, despite all of his foibles, God is still on David's side. And, you know, you have this very moving story of David lamenting the death of Absalom, and so on. So there's a sense in which it's a way of claiming that God is on your side to stay,

God is on your side to stay despite whatever faults you may have, but there's something secure in the claim of divine backing. How important is David today to the city of Jerusalem, which is still a very important and contentious city in the region? I mentioned the fact that you have Judaism, Christianity, Islam, all regard Jerusalem as a holy city for the region. I mentioned the fact that you have Judaism, Christianity, Islam, all regard Jerusalem as a holy city for various reasons. But David is a very important part of that. And David is central in some ways to all three of those religions. If I can start just by pointing out that something that again may surprise folks if they just were to take the Bible and thumb through it. There's actually more literature that deals in some way with David or is devoted to David in

some way than there is about any other character in the Bible. More about David than Moses, more about David than Jesus. But David is the founder of this dynasty, this lineage from which the New Testament writers strive very strongly to make clear that Jesus has descended. So Jesus is a son of David. Of course, Jerusalem is important as well to Jesus' ministry. It's a place where Jesus is crucified and so on. So David is important and Jerusalem is important to Christianity for that reason. And of course, that's based on Hebrew Bible and Judaism and David's centrality there, which is also picked up and claimed by the founding of the state of Israel in 1948. of the state of Israel in 1948. There's a great deal of claim for Israel at that period that goes back to the Hebrew Bible, to Abraham, to the idea of the promise given to Abraham, and then the idea also of a promise given to David of a eternal or long-lasting, it depends

on how you translate that word, dynasty in Jerusalem. And then that is picked up by Christianity as the idea of a kingdom that is eternal. I've kind of left out Islam, which is a little bit different in the sense that Jerusalem is important, not so much for David himself, although David's an important figure even in Islam, but because Muhammad journeys to Jerusalem. So all of those elements kind of combine to make Jerusalem such an important city. And you see that still today where Jerusalem is very much the religious capital of Israel and one of the few places that has its own embassy or embassies from different states, both in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It's fascinating. Professor Stephen McKenzie, thank you very much for talking to me. Yeah, thank you very much.

How and Why History yeah thank you very much how and why history