Bradford McCall. Review of Steven McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Steven McKenzie, author of King David: A Biography, is a Professor of the Hebrew language at Rhodes College, one of America’s premier liberal arts colleges, located in Memphis, Tennessee. McKenzie’s book provides a provoking revision of the life of one of the Bible’s most compelling people— King David, a person viewed as heroic throughout history heretofore. McKenzie argues against this traditional view, and instead maintains that David was utterly tyrannical in his administration. Although the David of the Bible is pious and faithful at all times, he is also capable of atrocious crimes, as McKenzie readily points out (2). In contrast to the Biblical portrayal of a “man after God’s own heart”, McKenzie characterizes King David as an unabashed adulterer, ravenous manipulator, and gratuitous assassin.
McKenzie presents and evaluates recent biblical scholarship regarding the David story. He also discusses the archaeological evidence of David’s reign in an attempt to reconstruct the events and details of David’s life (5). The premise of this book is that the Biblical account of King David is a defense (apologia), and by observing what the text is defending David against, one can figure out what David actually did, as the biblical writers could be referred to as nothing more than “spin doctors” (35). McKenzie essentially asserts that a biography of David from a purely historical perspective reveals not a holy hero but a fanatic and a callous despot.
McKenzie’s chapter headings remind us of the biblical plot: one, “Holy Terrorist,” is subtitled “David and His Outlaw Band.” Another chapter is titled “Assassin: David’s Reign as King of Judah.” “Like Father, Like Son: The Bathsheba Affair and Absalom’s Revolt” deals with the uses to which David put his manhood, employed whenever he stole other men’s wives. The Bible itself is quite frank about the issue of his sexuality in that in I Kings 1:1 narrative, David’s servants “find a beautiful young virgin, Abishag”, to attend him by lying (naked presumably) next to him in order to warm him. The methodology is unusual, and there is assuredly more going on here than comes from a casual and cursory reading. The servants were testing King David’s, and he flunked drastically, which proved that King David was impotent. Impotency was intolerable, as a king was the symbol of his nation’s strength.
McKenzie begins his radical revision of the Biblical text by labeling the record of King David coming from humble beginnings as a myth. In fact, McKenzie asserts that David was not a shepherd boy, but instead the son of a wealthy landowner in Palestine. Instead of affirming that David actually was a shepherd of sheep, McKenzie states that David was re-imaged as a shepherd by an editor, in accordance with the imagery of a King shepherding his people (49).
McKenzie entirely belies his intent, that of producing a reconstruction of history’s events, by his admission to reliance to assumptions in interpreting the text of the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, in reference to his attempt to debunk the imaging of David as a shepherd boy, McKenzie writes, “in line with the principles that guide our analysis of the David story, we must be skeptical of the historical validity of this depiction (50, emphasis mine). McKenzie clearly eisegetes (i.e. reads into) the texts, instead of exegetes (i.e. reads out of) them. I do not understand how a purported scholar can attain a mass audience of respect when he so very clearly admits his own biases.
McKenzie proposes that David had designs on the throne long before he was anointed. In the biblical account, Samuel the prophet was told by God to find the future king in the house of Jesse. After reviewing all the sons, Samuel asks if there is any other. When the youngest is brought forth, Samuel instantly recognizes him as the one chosen by God. If David was as manipulative as McKenzie suggests, one would think that David would already have been waiting for him as he came to their home.
Equally odd is the author’s suggestion that David married Michal, the daughter of Saul, to get into the royal family (87). The absurdity of McKenzie’s reasoning is seen clearly in analyzing his argument. He states that the Michal’s feelings are never considered (87). However, I do not see that fact as lending any credence to his assertion, because women were not given choice in the matter of marriage during this era. So then, his assertion is weightless.
There is no doubt that David made mistakes that cost him dearly. David sent Uriah to the battlefront with the likelihood of being killed in order to be with Bathsheba. Furthermore, he had difficulties with Saul, who wanted him killed. Indeed, David had to flee for his life, becoming a wanderer, not a terrorist, as McKenzie suggests. And he had a difficult relationship with his children, particularly Adonijah and Absalom. But does this constitute the brutal depiction of King David as given by McKenzie? I do not think so.
Surprisingly, I find partial agreement in McKenzie radical re-characterization of Abigail as King David’s own wife, although I disagree with how McKenzie arrives at his point. Indeed, McKenzie argues from omission that the Biblical account of David’s siblings is wrong. By purportedly numbering the birth order wrongly, McKenzie asserts, the editor expresses his polemic desire to portray King David as a man of humble origins (55). Nonetheless, in recounting David’s siblings as recorded in the Bible, McKenzie does indeed stumble upon a valid assertion that David’s mother married Nahash after David’s father, Jesse, passed away, and thereafter gave birth to Abigail (David’s future wife).
Conclusion:
McKenzie uses to fundamental assumptions in this text: skepticism and analogy. He asserts that the principle of skepticism requires one to be skeptical concerning the historicity of any event that has an identified historical or theological theme (44). Furthermore, McKenzie strongly advocates that since people of all eras have the same basic drives and aspirations, one can decipher King David’s motives by analyzing current circumstances, and thereby be able to reconstruct by analogy why King David acted in the manner in which he did. Given the way McKenzie reads the Biblical texts, the nice things that are said about David must be spun inversely, whereas the nasty facts reported about David are to be amplified, and readily believed as factual. Given McKenzie’s method, David cannot have done anything right. However, McKenzie has written a book which invites the reader to ponder anew the life of the most complex and pivotal of the kings of Israel. As we read about the reasons why those who wrote up the life of David in the Bible felt the need to be selective in their use of material, we can ask ourselves when do we find ourselves doing exactly the same thing in our own lives? Having said the above, let us keep in mind that David is called the “sweet singer of Israel” by authoring portions of the book of Psalms. Therefore the Psalms that are read to this very day, as a source of comfort and hope could not have been written by the David that McKenzie portrays. However, I would certainly recommend reading this book; if nothing else, it will create a exciting discussion.