(3) 1.3-20. The rebellion of Absalom, its cause and cllects. Amnon, David's lirstborn, and pre- sumably his successor, is murdered by command of Absalom for the violation of his half-sister Tamar : Absalom takes refuge with his maternal grandfather the king of Geshur (ch. 13). Joab, by the help of the wise woman of 'Tekoa, induces the king to consent to Absalom's return : the latter in his turn coerces Joab into bringing about a meet- ing between himself and the king, which results in the reconciliation of father and son (ch. 14). Absalom now schemes to win the people to his side, and thus secure the throne, and hnally sets up the standard of revolt at Hebron. David at once flees eastward from Jerusalem, accompanied by his bodyguard and Ittai the Giltite : he sends back Zadolv and Abiathar with the ark to the capital, and arranges that tidings should be brought to him by their two sons : he further persuades Hushai to return, that he may defeat the counsel of Ahithophel (ch. 15). In his flight David learns from Ziba of the disafTection of Meribbaal, and suliniits to the insults of Shimei the Benjamite (IG'"'^). Meantime Absalom, following the advice of Ahithophel, takes possession of his father's harem (16''''^). The same adviser further counsels the immediate pursuit of Daviil, but Absalom de- clares in favour of the waitinj' policy advised by Hushai (17''"). The news of his decision is con- veyed to David by the two sons of tlie priests, at the risk of their lives : he at once withdraws across Jordan, and is met at Mahanaim by rich Gileadites wit ham pic supplies for his army (vv. "■-"■'). Absalom, who hau already crossed the Jordan, is confronted
at Mahanaim by David's army under Joa\), Abishai, and Ittai. In the battle that ensues David's forcei are completely victorious : Absalom in his flight is slain by order of Joab, in direct disobedience to David's command (18'"'*) : then follows a graphic description of the manner in which the news was conveyed to David ( vv. '*"^). The death of Absalom
E lunges David into profound grief, from which e is only with great difticulty aroused by Joab : public opinion and the politic message of David to the men of J uilah are the chief factors in bringing about the king's return (19'"'*). At the passage of the Jordan Shimei asks for pardon and is forgiven ; Meribbaal explains how he had been slandered by Ziba ; and, lastly, the aged Barzillai refuses the king's invitation to himself, but asks his favour for his son Chimham (vv.'*"^^). The men of Israel are envious of the favour shown to the men of Judah, and a quarrel breaks out (vv.'"'"'"). In consequence of this dispute Sheba the Bichrite stirs up Israel to revolt against David. Amasa, the newly- appointed commander, faUs to muster the men of Judah quickly enough, and Abishai (or, perhaps, Joab, see art. JOAli in vol. ii. p. G59 note) is sent w ith all the available troops to stamp out the rebellion. Amasa meets the royal forces oy the way, and is treacherously slain by Joab : the two brothers then pursue Sheba northwards to Abel of Beth- maacah, where he is slain, and his head handed over to Joab : the chapter concludes with a repeti- tion of the list of officers given in S"*'- (ch. 20).
In this section there are but few passages whose origin haa been called in question by the critics : lyi'^'' (to apparelled) is probably a misplaced gloss (Wellh.) to v.ia ; it interrupts the connexion between vv.i7 and !«*> ; at the end of the chapter the right order of the verses is clearly ^^^- 37a. ySb. sy^ si» being due to the scribe. 142»j is rejected by most as a later addition ; Budde omits all w. 25-27. 1524 appears to have been worked over by a Deuteronomic redactor : * and all the Levites with him' is certainly due to him, while the phrase *and Abiathar went up' is out of place ; Abiathar must originally have been mentioned alongside of Zadok (cf. v.29) ; the textual difficulty in v. 27 may also be due to the same cause (Budde reads, 'See, do thou and Abiathar return': Wellh. 'unto [Zadok] the high priest, do thou return,' etc.ji ISi**** (for he vaid to reineinbraiice) conflicts with 1427, and must be rejected as an interpolation, unless w-ith Budde we omit 1427. Lastly, 2023-28 are repeated with some variations from 816f-, or more probably (see H. P. Smith, Sam. p. a27f.) are original here, and were borrowed by the compiler of ch. 8 for his concluding panegyric. It seems very probable (as Budde suggests) that the author of ch. 8 omitted the following chapters (9-20X because, from his point of view, the family history which they contained did not redound to David's credit, and that they were afterwards restored by a later editor.
The unity of chs. &-"20 (see above) has been admitted by nearly all commentators and critics (Kuenen, Wellhausen, Driver, Budde, Cornill, Kittel, Lbhr, etc.), with the exception of Thenius (Coinm.^ p. xiii), who rejected ch. 9 (the incident of Meribbaal) and IQl-lll 1'226-31 (the Ammonite war) as later redactional additions to the history of David : but, aa we have shown above, these sections are necessary to and presupposed by the following narrative. This theory, however, has been revived, in a different form, by S. A. Cook in his analysis of 2 Samuel (AJSL (Heln-aica), p. 15.1 f.). According to the latter"* view, ch. 9 is related to 1 S 20i5f-, and is therefore to bo ascribed to an Ephraimite source ; while ' the story of David't sin with Bathsheba and the birth of Solomon (112-1226) has been inserted in the account of a war against Rabbath-ammon of which it was originally independent.' He further argues that this war with Amnion should follow, and not piecede, the events recorded in chs. 13-20, chiefly on the ground that David's flight to and hospitable reception at Mahanaim • are impos- sible after the sanguinarj- war recorded (lOlf-) ; and pl.aces it at the end of David's reign. Absalom's rebellion, he contends, was probably confined to Judah (see Sayce, Early llist. of ths Hebrews, p. 429 f.), — the leading men (Amasa and Ahithophel) were both Judayins, and the centre of revolt was at Hebron, the old Judaean capital,— and followed shortly after David had settled in Jerusalem : in like manner the extent of Sheba's revolt, which was really limited to the Bichrites (201* LXX), has been exaggerated so as to include all Israel, and then appended to Absalom's rebellion. As the result of his investigation Cook concludes: *(1) that the union of Judah and Israel under one king did not occur at any early date in David's reign, and (2) that the narratives in 2 Samuel which presuppose any close re-