I

DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT

IN 1 KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB
IN THE SUCCESSION NARRATIVE1

Filip Capek, Prague

David's last instructions to Solomon are at least breathtaking. On the

one hand, there are clearly credible words full of awareness of the im­
portance of the Torah for the new king and for Israel as the whole.
There are also harsh instructions concerning planned death of king's
opponents, on the other. This tension will be interpreted via literary
and theological analysis of the long-running and intensive relation be­
tween Joab and David with help of two contemporary studies that fol­
low distinctively different interpretative agendas.

I. Introduction

The purpose of this contribution is to search for possible interpreta­

tions of the very complex and intricate text of 1 Kings 2:1-12. This
text, which is full of tension and ambiguity, is closely related to the
previous extensive narration of 2 Sam 2-20 or, depending on theory
employed, up to the chapter 24. The text of 1 King 2 mirrors con­
flicts occurring between two main characters, king David and his chief
commander Joab. Relation between David and Joab creates not only
compositional and literary but also - and this in the first place - theo­
logical backbone of this exciting narration. To decipher what is hap­
pening between these two characters, is one of possible clues for in-

lr
This study is a slightly modified version of contribution delivered at the Interna­
tional Conference on Hermeneutics of Narrative and Legal Texts of the Old Testament,
held in Prague on 20th-21st April 2009. It represents an output of the research plan
"Hermeneutics of Christian, in particural Czech Protestant Traditions in the Cultural
History of Europe" (MSM00216 20802).

CV 20I0/I: DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB... 4-26
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

terpretation of the narrative as a whole. The textual passage sounds as

follows:

1 Kings 2:1-12 * Now the days of David drew near that he should
die, and he charged Solomon his son, saying: 2 "I go the way of all
the earth; be strong, therefore, and prove yourself a man. 3 And keep
the charge of the LORD your God: to walk in His ways, to keep His
statutes, His commandments, His judgments, and His testimonies, as
it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you
do and wherever you turn; 4 that the LORD may fulfill His word which
He spoke concerning me, saying, 'If your sons take heed to their way,
to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul,'
He said, 'you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.' 5 Moreover
you know also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he
did to the two commanders of the armies of Israel, to Abner the son
of Ner and Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed. And he shed
the blood of war in peacetime, and put the blood of war on his belt
that was around his waist, and on his sandals that were on his feet.
6
Therefore do according to your wisdom, and do not let his gray hair
go down to the grave in peace. 7 But show kindness to the sons of
Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be among those who eat at your
table, for so they came to me when I fled from Absalom your brother.
8
And see, you have with you Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite
from Bahurim, who cursed me with a malicious curse in the day when
I went to Mahanaim. But he came down to meet me at the Jordan,
and I swore to him by the LORD, saying, Ί will not put you to death
with the sword.' 9 Now therefore, do not hold him guiltless, for you are
a wise man and know what you ought to do to him; but bring his gray
hair down to the grave with blood." 1 0 So David rested with his fathers,
and was buried in the City of David. n The period that David reigned
over Israel was forty years; seven years he reigned in Hebron, and in
Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years. 1 2 Then Solomon sat on the
throne of his father David; and his kingdom was firmly established.

5
FILIPCAPEK

II. Impression from a cursory reading of the text

The impression from a cursory reading of the 1 Kings 2:1-12 is that the
story is by its darkness not too far from Shakespeare's tragedy Mac­
beth. Violence is planned ahead. Father and son, one lying on the
mortal bed, the other just becoming a new ruler, both plan how to set­
tle accounts with political opponents. They do ponder about past cases
and think how to solve them safely for sake of kingdom. Readers face
here a problem, how to come into terms with the fact that these men,
kings of Israel who are commonly understood as positive paradigms do
plan such atrocities. David, ideal of not only terrestrial king and not
only for Jews but also for Christians, and Solomon, ideal of wisdom
and judiciousness, they both are intriguing bloody plans. Those read­
ers, who would expect Solomon not to follow the advice of his father,
are quickly brought back to 'reality' in the course of subsequent events.
All men designated for annihilation are really being consistently wiped
out. David's testament is, therefore, no less than ambiguous and leaves
thus space for fundamental questions.
This all is even more surprising if starting verses of this chapter are to
be taken into account. Up to verse 4 David's advice sounds wisely and
piously. Everything depends on obedience to the Torah. If Solomon
and his son follow its instructions "there shall not fail a man on the
throne of Israel." From the verse 5 on, a slightly different story starts.
The previous more general instructions are replaced by a specific sug­
gestion what to do in order to avoid troubles. Solomon is admonished
to liquidate Joab and Shimei. This act is in the original Hebrew word­
ing in both mentioned cases rendered a freezingly poetic way. Verse 6
concerning Joab says: "Act therefore according to your wisdom, but
do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace" (?|ηο3Γθ rrpin
b\w¡ nbwi ininD ττιητοι). Peace, shalom (nbw) and grave, sheol
(bw) are here related in a very peculiar way. Verse 9 concerning
the other possible threat for Solomon epitomized by Shimei sounds
likewise: "You will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall
bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol." Here, again, a sharp
contrast is expressed (here see esp. bixœ onn inrrttrnx rrrvim).
The text of 1 Kings 2:1-12 stimulated discussion traceable already
in the early tradition of interpretation. Thus, for example, the cruel

6
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

destiny of Joab arranged by the very kings of Israel David and Solomon
did not stop rabbis to think about Joab as about an ideal general who
was at hand to David in any time of danger.2 Rabi Johanan, an authority
of rabbinic Judaism par excellence, for instance, asserts that Joab is
not guilty of the death of Abner (cf. 1 Sam 3:27). On the contrary, it
is right him who had brought Abner to the Sanhédrin which, then, in
the gate of the city condemned Abner for his killing of Joab's brother
Ashael.3 According to another place in the Talmud, Joab would not
have succeeded in his wars without David's continuous study of Torah.4
But, on the other hand, it is conceivable in a similar midrashic way of
reasoning to infer, that David would not have time for such a study, if
he had not had Joab for leading military affairs.
To sum up this part, even a cursory reading of the text provides
reader with a bitter taste and irony. The Torah which Salomon is asked
by David to follow initiates such events like killing of Joab and oth-
ers. God's Law, the Torah, plays in king's 'pious' testament a cru-
cial role. The word 'moreover' in 1 Kings 2:5 which NKJ uses in
translating Hebrew gam intensifies the impression that the bloody re-
venge is a part of God's instruction provided by Law and now piously
handed down by David to his son Solomon. How to solve such a ten-
sion?

III. David's Testament and the Succession Narrative

From the previous paragraph it turns to be evident that David's last

words uttered in 1 Kings 2:1-12 significantly influence understanding
of the role of Joab within the extensive narrative composition given
by 2 Sam 9-20 and 1 King 1-2. The so-called Succession Narrative
(or Story of Succession to the Throne of David, in German Thronfol-
geerzählung abbreviated as ThFE) provides readers with an imposing
canvas on which a dramatic story of Joab had been painted. From the
standpoint of 1 Kings 2, Joab is interpreted unambiguously as a villain
and murderer who must be eliminated and this perception retrospec-
2
SeemMakkotllb.
3
Cf. Sanhédrin 49a.
4
Cf. Sanhédrin 49b.

7
FILIPCAPEK

tively changes Joab's picture as such. The final words substantially

play down all Joab's deeds that had been done in favour of David and
his kingdom. After a more detailed reading of the whole Succession
Narrative the previous evaluation of Joab is far from being so clear and
so unambiguous. For that matter, who was braver, more loyal to David
then Joab? How to reconcile apparent tension between David's sen-
tence passed on Joab in 1 Kings 2 and the complex image of Joab in
the Succession Narrative? Is it necessary only to follow this last line
delineated in 1 Kings 2 or are there other possible ways how to un-
derstand the story about David and Joab? Let us turn to this issue in
detail.

IV. Diachrony and Synchrony - Different Responses to the Same

Question

Recently, two different approaches to texts dealing with David and

Joab have attracted scholarly attention. The first one is the analysis
of Sofia K. Bietenhard in her study Des Königs General: Die Heer-
führertraditionen in der vorstaatlichen undfrühen staatlichen Zeit und
die Joabgestalt in 2 Sam 2-20; 1 Kön 1-2? The second is a strictly
synchronic literary study written by Michael A. Eschelbach. Its title
is similarly long as that of Bietenhard and sounds Has Joab Foiled
David? A Literary Study of the Importance of Joab's Character in Re-
lation to David.6 There are many other studies treating this theme7 but
these two provide significantly different interpretative strategies and
5
Sophia K. Bietenhard, Des Königs General: Die Heerführertraditionen in der
vorstaatlichen undfrühen staatlichen Zeit und die Joabgestalt in 2 Sam 2-20; 1 Kön 1-2,
OBO 163, Freiburg - Göttingen: Universitätsverlag - Vandehnoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.
6
Michael A. Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David? A Literary Study of the Impor-
tance of Joab's Character in Relation to David, SBL 73, New York: Peter Lang, 2005.
7
See L. M. Muntingh, The Role of Joab in the Succession Narrative, in: OTWSA
27/28 (1984/5), pp. 202-217; Jan-Wim Wesselius, Joab's Death and the Central Theme
of the Succession Narrative (2 Samuel ix - 1 Kings ii), in: VT 40 (1990), pp. 336-351;
Stefan Seiler, Die Geschichte von der Throngefolge Davids (2 Sam 9-20; 1 Kön 1-2):
Untersuchungen zur Literarkritik und Tendenz, BZAW 267, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1998; Tomoo Ishida, History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel, Leiden: Brill,
1999, pp. 102-165; Thomas Römer - Albert de Pury, Die sogennante Thronnachfol-
gegeschichte Davids: Neue Einsichten und Anfragen, OBO 176, Freiburg - Göttingen:
Universitätsverlag - Vandehoeck&Ruprecht, 2000; Serge Frolov, Succession Narrative:

8
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

can be, therefore, taken as representatives of diverse routes to a possi­

ble meaning of Joab's role in the Succession Narrative.

a. Diachrony (Bietenhard)
Sophia Katharina Bietenhard, a Swiss scholar, surveys in her study not
only diachronic dimension of the text but pays also attention to the
narrative framework of the whole story of 2 Sam 2-20 and 1 Kings 2
8
on its synchronic literary level. Nevertheless, the first option, that is
diachrony, is taken as a main interpretative tool. This is apparent, for
instance, from absence of last four chapters of 2 Sam in her study, since
these chapters are among critical scholars traditionally understood as
a later addendum. According to the author, raw material for Joab-
David narrative is given by old reports and traditions about military
leaders (Ger. Heerführertradition) which are, subsequently, incorpo-
rated into the Succession Narrative. Bietenhard scrutinizes in this con-
text especially military motives such as war, warrior, military leader,
hero, army, and elite troops. These phenomena create the basic struc-
ture of the narrative. They are presented as historiographical account
containing mixture of historical and fictional components.9 The very
existence of militaría or soldiery (Ger. Heerwesen) is for monarchy
substantial and epitomizes as such backbone of the whole narrative.
Expressed with Bietehard:

In der Geschichte des Königstums Davids und an der Gestalt Joab

treten die Armee und ihrer Vertreter als zentrale Machtfaktoren
im Staat deutlich hervor... Eine bedeutende Rolle spielt die mit

A "Document" or a Phantom?, in: JBL 121/1 (2002), pp. 81-104; Frank Polak, Joab
and David in Double Vision, in: Biblica 82 (2001) pp. 264-269.
8
For this see Bietenhard, Des Königs General, pp. 89-206.
9
In the same direction goes interpretation of John Barton in his Dating the Succes-
sion Narrative, in: John Day (ed.), In Search ofPre-Exilic Israel, London - New York:
T&T Clark, 2004, pp. 95-106, cf. p. 104: "I cannot believe that the stories making
up the Succession Narrative are pure fiction: they rest on some substratum of historical
memory... Real fiction in our sense is probably not to be found in the narrative books of
the Bible, which are about famous figures from the past. Only in later times did authors
manufacture characters such as Esther or Judith."

9
FILIPCAPEK

den Begriffen der Institutionen und Personen bewusst arbeitende

Historiographie.10

According to Bietenhard, who draws from Francois Langlamet,11

there are in fact four stages of growth of the Succession Narrative. This
attitude and its line of reasoning goes back especially to Ernst Würth-
wein and his influential Die Erzählung von der Thronfolge Davids -
theologische oder politische Geschichtschreibung (1974).12 Since this
line cannot be pursued in detail,13 we shall follow briefly the textual
growth of the Succession Narrative with special emphasis on acting of
David and Joab and, then, in focus on 1 Kings 2.
(i). The first and the oldest part of the Succession Narrative, i.e.
so called original account (Ger. Ursprünglicher Bericht, sigla S) that
represents a starting point for subsequent compositional growth of the
the Succession Narrative is friendly to Joab. He is an important figure
supporting David and his monarchy. Bietenhard presupposes that this
composition had been created in anti-Solomonic circles who consid-
ered Adonijah, the oldest son of David, to be a legitimate successor to
the throne. Joab, at many places, turns to be more qualified for safe
and smooth running of monarchy than David, although he himself is
appointed to this role. Bietenhard comments this as follows:

Er (that is Joab) tritt an... Schnittstellen und Höhenpunkten auf

und übernimmt in ihr eine Rolle, die den weitern Ablauf der
Ereignisse entscheidend bestimmt, weiterbringt und zum Ende
führt... Als Gegenstück zum oft passiv wirkenden David nimmt

10
Bietenhard, Des Königs General, p. 82.
11
For bibliography see Bietenhard, Des Königs General, pp. 344-345.
12
For Langlamet's reception of Würthwein see François Langlamet, Review of
Würthwein, in: RB 83 (1976), pp. 114-137, here p. 136 "(1) I agree with Würthwein
that the original 'History of the Succession' is a political tract directed against Solomon.
(2) The author of this document may have used a 'History of Absolom.' This hypothesis
should be explored further. (3) The original document was modified and amplified by
a 'theologico-sapiential' editor who was pro-David and pro-Solomon. (4) This editor
seems to have intervened here and there in the narrative of the 'Rise of David' (of which
he was not thefirsteditor). Thus one may consider hypothetically that he was a 'historian
of David.' In any case he was closely linked to the Court and the Temple."
13
For detailed discussion see Bietenhard, Des Königs General, pp. 214-228.

10
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

Joab eine ausgesprochen aktive Rolle ein, wie sowohl die Hand­
lungen als auch die Sprechtakte zum Ausdruck bringen.14

(ii.) The second compositional stage of the Succession Narrative

(sigla ThFE and S 2) had been expanded by adding stories about Ab­
salom's revolt and by Benjaminite episodes. The views presented
here are clearly pro-Davidic, however critical to him as well (cf. esp.
2 S 15-19). Joab's position is still stable and he carries out king's
will.
(iii.) The third compositional stage (sigla S 3) expands and re­
vises the already existing narrative, and is attributed to a so called pro-
Solomonic redactor. Joab is labelled due to his preference for Adonijah
not only as an opponent of Solomon but as an opponent of the ever­
lasting David dynasty too. As a result, Joab is predetermined for an
unavoidable annihilation. This theological option is incorporated into
first nine verses of the second chapter of 1 Kings. Joab from now turns
to be the main enemy of Solomon and a danger for him. As a result,
Joab appears to have been, even retrospectively the main exponent of
those who have been critical to David or to Davidic eternal dynasty as
such. Joab's fate is thereby sealed.
(iv.) The fourth stage adds pre-deuteronomistic and deuteronomistic
motives, especially obedience to the Torah which makes acceptance
of David's testament at least morally more then uneasy (see 2 Kings
2:2^.5b). The dying king piously in an unmistakable deuteronomistic
manner declares his faith in God and then follows with practical in­
formation about the necessary restrictions in the state machinery in­
cluding elimination of his opponents. David's testament in 1 Kings 2
as a result of the compositional growth just introduced looks as fol­
lows:

14
Bietenhard, Des Königs General, p. 207.

II
FILIPÖAPEK

compositional S I ThFE/S2 pro- Later and

level/redaction Solomonic deutero-
redac- nomistic
tion/SB supplements
main accents pro-Davidic, pro-Davidic Davidic Ditto
Joab but also eternal
important critical to dynasty Joab's
him, critical (with annihilation
to Solomon, Solomon but painted on
Joab still has without canvas
a place 'in Adonijah), provided by
the sun' Joab doomed Dtr. theology
to death
time and time of before 7th century, 6th and
place David and 'Divided' time of following
his sons monarchy Hezekiah, centuries,
Israel Judah
authors / from the court elite anti-Joabic, ditto
redactors court, dissatisfied pro-
acquainted with Solomonic
with military Solomonic
affairs, monarchy,
supporters of religious
Adonijah people
1 Kings 2 lOff. 5*, 6*, 8-9* l , 5 \ 6 - 7 ( ? ) , pre-Dtr 2,7
8-9 Dtr
2,2-4.5b*

The original story (SI) provides 1 Kings 2 only with a general infor-
mation about David and Solomon (verse 10f.). These verses are con-
nected directly with the end of the previous chapter, that is, 1 Kings
1:53 depicting a conflict between Solomon and Adonijah. Only at the
second stage, we are informed about Joab and Shimei but still not in the
full extent. According to Bietenhard, these verses were at this phase
only fragmentary. The following stage (S 3) adds arguments for ne-
cessity of Joab's disappearance from the scene. This option is, at the
end, supplemented by pre-deuteronomistic and deuteronomistic com-
ponents. As a result, the plain reading of 1 Kings 2:1-12 sounds as

12
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

if pious king David had no chance how to hand over the rule then via
elimination of some influential figures of the Succession Narrative. As
has been already noticed, thefinalform of the text and its wording sub­
stantially affects previous points of view in regard to Joab. According
to John Barton, thisfinalform of the text and its combination, i. e. mix
of original exhortation and later deuteronomistic supplements "is al­
most comic." 15 Nonetheless, there are characters in 1 Kings 2 who do
not feel very safe.
Before we turn to the other study on Joab, there are some significant
remarks that should be mentioned in the context of Bietenhard's very
stimulating study:
(a.) The role of Joab in the Succession Narrative changes many times.
The complex texture of the narrative does not allow to assume one­
sided and irreversible course of events. The recognition of this fact
issues from a thorough diachronic analysis. The message conveyed by
1 Kings 2:1-12 supplies readers with a number of disturbingly different
perspectives.
(b.) Basically, Joab's character goes downward not gradually. His life's
career is full of diverse situations. There are many ups and downs. The
same applies to David (this especially in 2 Sam 10-12).
(c.) Nevertheless, the last redaction decides about Joab's final destiny
in uncompromising way. Bietenhard sums up this final outcome as
follows:

Als kritischer Berater tritt er David entgegen und erhält mit allen
Mitteln dessen Herrschaft, doch als Feind Davids und der Dynas-
tie wird er schliesslich verurteilt und bestraft. Obwohl die Entste-
hung von Davids Königstum und Macht nicht ohne die Tatkraft
seines Generals gedacht werden kann, steht er immer mehr als
Gegenspieler zum König da.16

(d.) Joab's end as it is narrated in 1 Kings 2 does not explain unambigu-

ously his character as it appears in the whole narration of the Succes-
sion Narrative. The diversity of redactional activities does not allow to

15
Barton, Dating the Succession Narrative, p. 103.
16
Bietenhard, Des Königs General, p. 207.

13
FILIPCAPEK

view Joab in a simple or simplistic way. Critical analysis of this nar-

ration does not let redactors and their texts to disappear. They are not
completely 'disappearing redactors,'17 since the traces they left behind
are more or less discernible. The prints of their activity inform inter-
preters about an extensive and long-lasting growth of the Succession
Narrative. Importance of Bietenhard's contribution lies especially in
the fact that she shows different layers of the redactional process and
theological and ideological tendencies closely related to a respective
stage of this growth. Each has its agenda as shown by the following
Bietenhard's statement:

Das hier vorgelegte Modell über das Wachstum der ThFE er-
möglicht es, die Texte über das Königstum in ihren Tendenzen
differenziert zu charakterisieren: als Oppositionsbewegung gegen
einen bestimmten König, als kritische Tendenzschrift gegen die
davidisch-solomonische Monarchie, allenfalls als antikönigliche
Polemik, als Apologie des davidischen Königstums oder gar als
prodynastische Legitimation.18

(e.) Finally, recognition of the multiple layers in the Succession Nar-

rative brings us to the very last remark concerning the importance
of Joab in the Old Testament historiography. Bietenhard puts it as
follows: "Die Joabgestalt gibt ein eindrückliches Beispiel für die
Gestaltungskraft und für Wandlungsfähigkeit althebräischer Ge-
schichtsschreibung."19
Although last impression given by 1 Kings 2:1-12 is by no means
friendly to Joab, it is possible to be open to more thoroughgoing read-
ing along the whole of the Succession Narrative that offers different
insights into character of one David's commander. Diachrony and
redaction criticism render here, in spite of inevitable degree of specu-
lativness, an excellent service that can be hardly overestimated.

17
For explanation of this category see John Barton, Reading the Old Testament:
Method in Biblical Study, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984, pp. 56-58.
18
Bietenhard, Des Königs General, p. 330.
19
Bietenhard, Des Königs General, p. 331.

14
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

b. synchrony (Eschelbach)

The second analysis of Joab and its character is provided by study

Has Joab Foiled David? A Literary Study of the Importance of Joab's
Character in Relation to David. The author, American scholar Michael
A. Eschelbach, uses substantially different interpretative agenda com­
pared to Bietenhard. He is interested neither in the process of growth,
nor in search for original place where the text could be composed. The
same goes for the question of authorship and possible political and so­
ciological realities hidden behind or in the narrative. This all is of no
value as well as the inquiry about a distinction between history and
fiction. In other words, this study interprets biblical texts as literature
strictly on the synchronic level. The main objective which Eschelbach
analysis follows is the relation between David and Joab as it is con­
veyed by biblical texts as such. His deliberations start, therefore, with
following programmatic statement:

Although David is well known and beloved as a biblical character,

still there is a depth and complexity to his character that could be
still more clearly observed and appreciated by means of a careful
reading of the texts describing Joab as his foil. I submit that Joab
is indispensable to and to this day almost entirely overlooked as
a contributor of David's character.20

Key term and decisive interpretative tool that Eschelbach employs

is foil?1 This literary device is used in the narrative to contrast quality
and to call attention to another person. Put differently, it is a liter­
ary term for character's function which is important for deepening the
perspective of another, in general, the main character within the same
narrative complex. This term and its use in biblical studies go back also
in case of Joab and David at least to 1970s. Although Eschelbach in­
forms in the passage just quoted that Joab as a foil for David has been

20
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 1.
21
See for possible definitions of foil: (a.) Anything that serves by contrast of color
or quality to adorn or see off another thing to advantage, (b.) Anything that serves by
contrast to call attention to another thing good quality, (c.) Literary term for character's
function important for deepening the perspective of another, in general the main character
within the same narrative complex.

15
FIUPCAPEK

to this day almost entirely overlooked, this is not the whole truth. It
was, for instance, D. M. Gunn who described already in 1978 relation
between David and Joab in a following way:

Joab is both friend and blood relation, as well as David's party

manager, his right-hand man in the running of the state. What
makes the portrayal of the character so interesting is that, even
more than with David, the narrator rarely allows us to determine
for certain which sphere of interest is dominant at any time. The
effect is to suggest that perhaps for Joab political and personal in-
terests are more often closely married. In that case he is a splen-
did foil (italics FC) for David whose story is one of the struggle
to reconcile such interests.22

According to Eschelbach, a starting point for literary interpretation

of David in relation to Joab and vice versa is given by two observations.
Thefirstis the fact that Joab appears in the narrative right at the moment
when David is appointed as the king, that is in the 2 Sam 2. There is not
a single mention of Joab in previous chapters.23 The second observa-
tion arises from comparison of the narrative 2 Sam - 1 King 2 and the
later biblical books of the Chronicles. Whereas Joab is indispensable
in 2 Sam and 1 Kings, in the Chronicles is his role inessential. This fact
is easy to confirm by statistics. Joab is mentioned 74 times in the 2 Sam
and 11 times in the 1 Kings, that is, altogether 85 times. In the Chron-
icles the name Joab appears only 19 times, that is 4 times less than in
the Deuteronomistic History of which Succession Narrative is a part.
This, surely, is not by accident, but as result of different theological
interest pursued by authors of these two extensive literary works.
David's last words from 1 Kings 2 give an explanation of Joab's
necessary execution. Nevertheless, this is not the whole truth about
this important character. The first observation in this context is the fact
that David counts himself among those affected by Joab along with
Abner and Amasa. You know, says David to Solomon in 1 Kings 2:5.
22
David M. Gunn, The Story of King David. Genre and Interpretation, in: JSOT-
Sup 6, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1978, p. 94. Eschelbach also draws from
this essay (see bibliography p. 115).
23
The very first occurance of this name in the Old Testament is in fact 1 Sam 26:6.

i6
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN I KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

What Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, how he dealt with the
two commanders of the armies of Israel, Abner the son of Ner,
and Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed, avenging in time
of peace for blood that had been shed in war, and putting the
blood of war on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on
his feet.

In this text, there is not a single hint to the fact that Joab had done
a lot for David in a positive way. He fought for him, he protected
him with his own life, he gave him advice, and he was obedient to
him even in moments when obedience was the very last reasonable
alternative. If this final 'construal,' as Eschelbach coins the statement
rendered in 1 Kings 2:5, is related to the very end of Joab's life, that
is to the shocking situation when Joab is killed directly by the altar
in the Tabernacle by Benaiah who himself hesitates to do so despite
Solomon's command, it can be hardly surprising that a careful reader
asks right at this moment questions like:

(a.) What does the text of 1 Kings 2 reveal? The truth about
Joab or (in a disguise) the truth about David?
(b.) How does David's order for Joab's execution differ from
Joab's killing of Abner for his murder of Ashael?
(c.) How should be understood David's assertion that Joab
had killed Abner and Amasa in time of peace? Was not Israel
continually at war or at least in revolts, and rebellions? And
what about the statement of the dying king in 1 Kings 2:6
where physical annihilation is immediately connected with
such a positive value as peace? (cf. "Do not let his gray hair
go down to the grave in peace.")
(d.) What kind of wisdom is Solomon asked to exercise? Is
it wise to kill, to avenge and to let go down into grave/Sheol?

All these questions mentioned are present in the mind of reader who
knows previous stories about David and Joab and not only the text
of 1 Kings 2. David's more than ambiguous testament and its con-

17
FILIPCAPEK

sequences prompt him to take "the justice of Joab's fate as irony."24 It

is staggering that "the loyal general who protected the lives of many
against traitors now receives the condemnation of a traitor and has no
one to protect him."25 Right here, at the moment of reader's disillu-
sion, a part of Eschelbach's study entitled David and Joab in Light of
the Character Study (pp. 67-73) seems to be very helpful. The au-
thor observes eight textual passages from the 2 Sam dealing with both
main character of the Succession Narrative. Like in a "seeing mystery
movie for the second time,"26 each of the passages reveals the fact that
Joab's devotion to the king is evident, that he is not disloyal and that his
acting or reacting happens "in order to minimize bloodshed."27 These
passages are following:28

i. 2 Sam 3:12-39: David, Joab, and what to do about Abner

In this text David ignores the threat that Abner might intervene in his
affairs whereas Joab solves the same problem by killing Abner. He
has eliminated a threat at the cost of only one life. Moreover, his act
can be understood not only as a killing but also as revenge. Joab acts
on account of his murdered brother Ashael for whose death Abner has
been responsible (see 2 Sam 2:18ff.). Although this passage seems to
speak in the favour of David, there are many unaddressed questions
remaining.

ii. 2 Sam 11:1-25: David, Joab and sanitizing David's adultery

In this famous story Joab risks his life and lives of other men whereas
David stays at home and waits for message that should mask his adul-
tery.29 Joab is loyal to the king even if he is clearly aware of wicked-
ness of the whole mission. Furthermore, Uriah, the man who is to be

24
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 64.
25
Ibid
26
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 67.
21
Ibid.
28
The headings are taken from Eschelbach, extent of some biblical texts is modified.
29
For detailed discussion above this text from the ethical point of view see John
Barton, Ethics and the Old Testament, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998.

18
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

removed, is not the only one dead on the side of Israel in the battle
against the Ammonites. There are more unnecessary casualties.

iii. 2 Sam 12:26-31: David, Joab, and the honor of taking Rabbah

David is still in Jerusalem; Joab faithfully fights for the kingdom.

He shows an exemplary loyalty to the king as he asks David to con­
quer Rabbah personally so that honor could be taken to David and
not to him, although it was Joab who in fact had achieved the vic­
tory. Here, again, Joab proves his courageousness and devotedness.
David goes out and captures Rabbah. This act directly corresponds
with 2 Sam 11:1 and closes a larger narration about David's lapse in­
troduced by seemingly unimportant information about a regular yearly
military campaign in which king had not taken part.

iv. 2 Sam 14:1-33: David, Joab, and the return of Absalom

Joab helps Absalom to get back David's favour although this causes
him personal losses. His stretch of field has been burnt down by Ab­
salom's men. Joab with the help of wise woman of Tekoa artfully rec­
onciles David with his son. The king, a chapter earlier, on the con­
trary, "failed to protect the safety of Tamar, failed to administer justice
against Amnon, and failed to deal with Absalom, either for punish­
ment or reconciliation."30 As a result, Absalom takes justice in his own
hand, kills Amnon and flees to Geshur. The paralyzed king stands in
a shadow of Joab who acts for sake of his lord.

v. 2 Sam 18:6-33 David, Joab, and the fall of Absalom

Joab is again loyal to the king and the country. He spares lives of many
soldiers by eliminating rebellious Absalom whose reconciliation with
David had been of eminent importance in the previous story. David's
character is portrayed here in all its complexity; he "agonizes over the
situation."31

30
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 70.
31
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 71.

19
FILIP CAPER

vi. 2 Sam 19:1-14 David, Joab, and the reproving of David's lament
David is shattered by death of his son. Nevertheless, Joab has no un-
derstanding for king's grief. He is upset with David who had led all his
men into a lethal danger. The reader meets in this passage Joab show-
ing his emotions for king's inability to distinguish between personal
affairs and steps that are necessary for stability of kingdom. Joab's
words in 2 Sam 19 are harsh, but compelling:

5-6 "Today you have covered with shame the faces of all your of-
ficers who have saved your life today, and the lives of your sons
and your daughters, and the lives of your wives and your concu-
bines, for love of those who hate you and for hatred of those who
love you..."

Joab's advice how to resolve the problem sounds equally reasonable.

David must prove his virility and strong-mindedness so that existence
of kingdom could continue:

7 "So go out at once and speak kindly to your servants; for I swear
by the LORD, if you do not go, not a man will stay with you this
night; and this will be worse for you than any disaster that has
come upon you from your youth until now."

Here, again, like in many moments from previous scenes, king's

commander demonstrates by his deeds more coherent state of mind
than that of his master.

vii. 2 Sam 20:1-26 David, Joab will not be replaced as commander

David faces again a serious conflict in which the kingdom might split.
There is a new rebellion initiated by Sheba. David is abandoned by
men of Israel. Joab integrates Israel and Judah by eliminating leaders
of the rebellion. His military campaign and siege of Abel and Beth
Maachah ends peacefully by extradition of Sheba who is, maybe, the
only victim of the campaign. David personally is not engaged, his
name is only mentioned. Everything done by Joab and his men goes

20
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN ι KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

in favour of king. Eschelbach describes the events of this passage as

follows:

Research has demonstrated that regardless of reader's opinion

about brutality, Joab's violence was not random, sudden, nor
unpredictable. Joab's way of dispensing of Abner, Absolom,
and now Amasa may seem brutal but it was quick and decisive.
Joab sent a clear message to anyone who would consider treason
against the king in the interest of sparing the bloodshed of future
attempts... The appointment of Amasa, like that of Abner, was
ill advised, even from political perspective... It was only after
Amasa was obviously inactive that Joab responded for the wel­
fare of king and kingdom.32

viii. 2 Sam 24:1-9 David, Joab, and the census that made no sense

David is instigated by God to make a census. Later on, king himself

assesses this act as a mistake. Joab, on contrary, does not want a cen­
sus and asks the king not to do so at the very beginning of the story.
Although Joab's activity is here small compared to previous passage,
his role seems to be more favorable then that of David.
Eight textual passages just analyzed share according to Eschelbach
similar features. Joab acts briefly but intensively. In all cases, the king
and the kingdom are in danger. Joab acts in all cases in favour of both,
even if David reacts to Joab negatively, which is mostly the case. Joab's
acting is clear, understandable and, as a result, readers are capable to
define easily Joab's characteristic traits. On the other hand, with only
minor exceptions, there are no detailed descriptions of his motives, his
feeling, and his mind. This makes him a distinctive foil for the main
acting character, that is, for David who is the central hero of the whole
story. This is a fact which readers are aware of. It is not Joab for whom
sake had been the whole story written. This implies that all features
absent in Joab character, including his motivation, his feelings, his state

32
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 72.

21
FILIPCAPEK

of mind, are extensively present in the narration but they are not part of
his very character. Expressed with Eschelbach this means following:

David, as the central character, is the centre of attention appearing

in most of the narrative and in much more detail. Complicated
affairs and personal matters in the life of David are the narrator's
means of portraying all the untidy realities of the human character.
David's struggles and failures are highlighted by their contrast
to the steady, cool headed character of Joab... David's failures
are the more noticeable because such failures are absent in Joab's
life.33

The literary device of foil, as has been in brief demonstrated, pro-

vides very fruitful and fresh insights into the Succession Narrative. Ap-
plied to Joab who, compared to David, stands more apart this means
that he turns out to be a key interpretament for the king of Israel in his
astonishing fragility.

Foil For Whom? - Theology of the Succession Narrative

We are now approaching the issue of a crucial importance. It con-
cerns the problem how to reconcile Joab as being described in passages
just mentioned with the picture of Joab provided by David's testament
in 1 Kings 2. From arguments provided by Eschelbach's synchronic
analysis we can draw a conclusion that Joab is used as SÍ foil for David.
This recognition implies important and rather complex theological at-
titudes. Confrontation of the eight passages from 2 Sam with 1 Kings 2
supports the idea that king David is perceived as a human being in its
full nakedness. He is the ruler, the king, the chief of Israel on the
one hand, but also weak, fragile, afraid of others and surprisingly in-
firm in situations calling for resoluteness on the other. He is a tres-
passer of many instructions of the Torah and even of its core, the Deca-
logue.34 This is, in brief, the whole story about David who needs God's
mercy as anyone else. Joab, at many places David's inverse image,
33
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, pp. 72-73.
34
There are only few commandments inviolated by David in the course of his affair
with Bathsheba.

22
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN I KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

illuminates this fundamental theological assumption from slightly un-

expected side. That is him, who, according to Eschelbach, "effectively
foils anyone who would try to make David appear as the ultimate king
on his own merits."35 In this sense is his conduct in 1 Kings 2 under-
standable. David, passing his cruel testament on Solomon, acts like
someone who is intrinsically divided. This applies not only for his last
hours but for the king's life overall. Manfred Oeming in his recent
study on David comments this recognition like this:

In Davids Vita verdichtet sich die dtr. Sicht des Menschen als
eines bipolaren Wesens: Diese exilische Geschichtswerk entfaltet
eine eindrückliche dialektische Anthropologie: Schönheit der Ju-
gend, Hässlichkeit des Alters, Freiheit von jeder Blutschuld und
doch ein Mörder, ein Muster an Tora-Treue und doch ein Parade-
beispiel für den Übertreter des Gotteswillens, liebende Vater, der
genau dadurch unfähig ist zum Königsamt.36

However, this all is true only for the story of 2 Sam and 1 Kings 2.
The Chronicles and their authors later wrote a slightly different theo-
logical account. This distinction is well-known. Stories questioning
David's supremacy and rousing suspicions or provoking to negative
assessments are in the Chronicles simply omitted. Here, David does
not serve as a model of human fragility but rather as an inspiration to
post-exilic Judaism. It is, then, no surprise that these authors "had no
interests in Joab's role as David's foil."37 Oeming, again, comments
this theologically substantial shift in the Chronicles similarly in a re-
freshing way:

Völlig geändert ist Davids Lebenslauf: Keine Mordgeschichten,

keine Sexskandale, keine Imponenz. David erscheint ethisch

35
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 78.
36
Manfred Oeming, "Alttestamentliche und philosophische Anthropologie - ein sub-
tiles Verwandschaftsverhältnis dargestellt am Beispiel David," in: Andreas Wagner,
Anthropologische Aufbrüche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur his-
torichen Anthropologie, Göttingen: Vandehnoeck & Ruprecht, 2009, pp. 275-293, here
p. 279.
37
Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 83.

23
FILIPCAPEK

gereinigt, gleichsam klinisch steril. Er konzentriert sich ganz auf

den Gottesdienst, die Tempelrituale und das Gebet.38

To sum up, Eschelbach's inspiring analysis is remarkable. This is

not only because he offers a different interpretative clue to the Suc-
cession Narrative but also due to author's humility face to face present
scholarship. He does not proclaim his view to be wholly satisfactory.
On the contrary, he calls for critique of his own approach and even for
a suspicion that is a force propelling new insights.39

V. Comparison

If we compare Bietenhard's and Eschelbach's approaches, and this

comparison is desirable, there are many remarkable differences. Bi-
etenhard proposes a gradual model with several different redactional
layers each of which has its specific value derived from a particular
theological intention (pro-Davidic, critical to David, pro-Solomonic,
anti-Solomonic etc.). Joab's role and position changes many times in
accordance with preferences given by authors and redactors. He is, as
a literary character, entirely in their hands. The picture of Joab is here,
therefore, less harmonious and more fragmentary. Nevertheless, Bi-
etenhard provides a cogent rationale both for 1 Kings 2 in its present
form and its knotty and long coming into existence. Eschelbach comes
with more unifying model. Whereas diachrony implies irreconcilable
conflict between David and Joab in 1 Kings 2 and it is, in fact, be-
yond its capacity to resolve it without falling into a pit of diverse tem-
poral sequences of texts and their particular intentionality, synchrony
enables to think more about both of characters as indispensable part-
ners within the whole continuous course of the narration. However,
this indispensability has its 'dark' side, which is revealed in the very
text of 1 Kings 2. Since Joab's life is inseparable from existence of
David, there is no need to have the character of king's general on the
stage if the main hero is leaving. David's testament must be therefore

Oeming, "Alttestamentliche und philosophische Anthropologie," p. 280.

'Cf. Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?, p. 77.

24
 DAVID'S AMBIGUOUS TESTAMENT IN I KINGS 2:1-12 AND THE ROLE OF JOAB...

understood as a climax of coexistence of both. Despite the relatively

smooth and coherent interpretation provided by synchronic reading it
should be mentioned that this line of reasoning leaves many gaps and
blanks inviting for new creativity and speculation too. Eschelbach's
arguments of Joab being a. foil for David can be interpreted in various
ways, at many places also right to the opposite of his own reasoning.
To conclude, both scrutinized approaches yield significant insights that
broaden understanding of 1 Kings 2 in the context of the Succession
Narrative on the one hand but they leave many problems open for fur-
ther interpretation on the other.

VI. Final remarks

The last David's words, his testament in 1 Kings 2:1-12 confronts in-
terpreters with numerous questions reflecting ambiguity of this text.
This concerns not only compositional and literary but also theologi-
cal and moral issues. This study has examined the role of Joab in the
whole literary context given by the Succession Narrative in order to
highlight the far-reaching effect of David's testament, which retrospec-
tively influences and changes radically the perception of Joab. This
retroactivity represents a challenge that calls for continuous interpreta-
tive endeavor. Especially according to synchronic reading, Joab plays
a crucial role not only for his own sake but also andfirstof all for David
who is undoubtedly the main character of the Succession Narrative.
This outcome differs substantially from the one gained by diachronic
reading which counts with apparent diversity of related texts includ-
ing their origin, authorship and communicative intention. Some years
ago Regine Hunziker-Rodewald has called in her review on Eschel-
bach for comparison of his contribution to other studies on the same
subject, especially to those that follow diachronic agenda. Bietenhard's
approach offers in this respect a very instructive example. According to
Hunziker-Rodewald such comparison could "foster the idea of greater
intercontinental understanding."40 I hope that this study, which has by
no means such an ambition, is at least an attempt in this direction.

40
Regine Hunziker-Rodewald, review of Eschelbach, RBL 12 (2005).

25
FILIPCAPEK

Summary: This study examines text of 1 Kings 2:1-12 about David's

testament passed on his son and the future king Solomon. This testa-
ment provokes by its ambiguity. There are pious words uttered on the
one side but also very hard words connected with physical liquidation
some of David's former military commanders on the other. Possible
clue to this text is provided by two successive steps, both based on read-
ing ofl Kings 2:1-12 within larger context of the Succession Narrative
(i. e. 2 Samuel 9-1 Kings 2) and both concentrated on the character of
David's commander Joab in relation to David himself. The first step is
given by analysis of the Succession Narrative from a diachronic point
of view. Here, as an exemplary, an analysis of Swiss scholar S. Bi-
etenhard is worked out. The second step follows synchronic reading of
the same textual corpus as it was in detail elaborated by American
scholar M. Eschelbach. Final considerations critically observe ca-
pacity of both approaches in regard to possible interpretation of the
David's ambiguous testament.

Keywords: diachrony - synchrony - Succession Narrative - ambiguity

26
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.