Allusion has been made earlier in this article to D.'s connexion with the Psalter. Minuter study makes it more and more difficult to conceive of him as the author of some of the most spiritual products of the OT religion. This is not merely on account of D.'s sins, acknowledged and repented of, but because of his crude ideas on religions matters which appear from time to time in the old records, and becau.se the historians attribute to him, apparently without blame, both words and acts, which from the standard of a higher religion must be emphatically condemned. D. was first introduced to Saul as a minstrel ; .is a deviser of musical instruments he is named in Am (i°. The Lament over Saul and .Jonathan, a .secular song, reveals to us D.'s poetic power; a.s a composer of sacred poems he appears in the appendix to Samuel (2 S 22. 23'-") and in Chronicles (esp. 1 Ch IC.'-as). How much older this representation may be is hard to say ; but it points to a tradition that D. was the father of Heb. jisalmody, and it would be rash to deny the possibility that some psalms or portions of psalms of Davidic authorship are to be found in the P.salter. If such there be, we may expect to find them in the group of psalms which Kwald selected as being genuinely Davidic, viz. Ps 3. 4. 7. 8. 11. 15. 18. 10'-»24i-«' -"' 29. 32. 101, and the frag- ments 606-'-> G813-1* 144i-^-» ; but probably this list refpiires to be considerably reduced. By the titles 73 psalms are assigned to 1)., the principal groups being Ps3-41 (omitting 10. 33) and 51-70 (omitting 00. 07). In the LXX the number is somewhat larger, the title 'to David' being added to 14 more (including 93-90 lleb.), but omitted in some MSS from 3 or 4 others. The following special occasions are named in the Heb. titles : — 3, when he fled from Ab.salom ; 7, concerning the words of Cu.sh, a Benjamite ; 18, when J' delivered him from his enemies and from Saul ; 30, at th(^ dedication of the House ; 34, when he changed his behaviour before Abimelech ; 61, after his rebuke by Nathan ; 52, when Doeg denounced him to Saul ; 54, when the Zii)hites betrayed his hiding-place ; 50, when the Philistines took him in (J.atli ; 57. when he Hed from Sanl, in the cave ; 59, when Saul's messengers watched the hcmse to kill him ; 00, after the defeat of I'^dom ill the Valley of Salt ; 03, in the wilder- ness of Judali ; 142, when he w.is in the cav^^
The character of D. has been very variously estimated, exaggerated praise naturally proilucing a revulsion to the opposite extreme. Undue weight ha-s often been attached to the description of I), ius ' the man after God's own heart ' ; but the phnose,
572
DAVID
DAVID
which occurs only in 1 S 13'* (quoted thence in Ac 18--), may be seen in the original context to denote one accordnig to God's mind or purpose, one who possesses the necessary qualities for a ruler of God's people (of. Jer 3'"). It has been more difficult to do justice to U. on account of the difierent representations, found together in the Bible, but belonging to very different dates. The picture in Chron. of a Jewish saint has led many to censure unfairly the warrior king of a rude age. But if a critical examination of our authorities compels us to reject as unhistorieal some pious deeds or noble words attributed to 1)., on the other hand it affords a more trustworthy standard by which to measure 1). 's position among his contemporaries, and removes many of the glaring inconsistencies which have occasioned difficulties to students and historians.
We may first look at the darker side of his character and its numerous limitations, which show that he did not rise entirely above the level of the barbarous age in which he lived. His foreign wars are sometimes marked by very great cruelty. Even if the Ammonites were not tortured, yet in his desert raids no life was spared (1 S 27'''*), and the victories over Moab and Kdom were followed by massacres. The story of the patriarch Jacob suggests that deception and cunning were part of the Isr. character ; certainly they often appear in D.'s history. The deceit practised at Nob may be excused by his circumstances ; his professions of loyalty to Achish (1 S 28- 29*) may have been cautious words used to one who has power to compel ; but the continued fraud practised at Ziklag points to a man who was used to crooked dealing ; he could induce Hushai to counteract Ahithophel's advice by mean and treacherous ways ; and after his sin with Bathsheba he stooped to base and cowardly means to conceal his guilt and remove Uriah from his path. Moreover, D.'s religious beliefs fell far short of the teaching of the great prophets. If he did not himself worship idols, he at least allowed Michal to keep the teraphim in his house ; and to determine the will of God he had constant recourse to the sacred ephod. He associated the worship of J" with His presence in the land of Israel, could think that J" had stirred up Saul to pursue him, and that His displeasure might be removed by the fragrance of a sacrifice (IS 2Gi') ; and he put to death seven innocent men to procure J"'s favour for the land (2 S 21'-'*). And there are other blemishes in D.'s character. He can judge a case on the impulse of a moment (2 S lU'), or dismiss one but half heard (li)'^) ; and breaks out against Nabal into a pas- sionate desire for vengeance. The great sins of his life, his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah, are perhaps but the common crimes of an Oriental despot ; but, so far as we can judge, they were not common to Israel, and D. as well as his subjects knew of a higher moral standard. Lastly, his weakness in dealing with his own family is little to his credit. The imperious Joab is ' too hard ' for him ; Anuion and Adonijah are indulged and spoiled, and even the outrageous conduct of the former meets with no punishment ; Absalom and Adonijah are allowed to declare their pretensions to the crown, while D. neglects to take proper measures to determine the succession to the throne. Hut in justice to D. it must be remem- bered that his family difficulties were in part the natural outcome of polygamy, and partly due to the state of culture of his time. In the East the same unwise and selfish love is still often mani- fested by a brave father to his children. The last charge to Solomon (IK 2'-») has been already sufficiently discussed.