David J. Shepherd. King David, Innocent Blood, and Bloodguilt

Perhaps no biblical figure has captivated readers more than David. The story of King David has attracted numerous lay readers and scholars alike, resulting in a vast array of books and articles that explore his life and reign. Despite this extensive scholarship, many issues surrounding King David remain unresolved. Among them is the matter of bloodguilt, a major topic of debate in recent years. In this book, David J. Shepherd (Professor of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament at Trinity College Dublin) comprehensively examines the recurring theme of bloodguilt in the biblical narratives about King David.The introduction sets the stage by highlighting the unique phrase “man of bloods” and reviewing the scholarly trend of interpreting David’s stories as a cohesive whole. Following the literary approaches of Clines and Gunn, Shepherd surveys arguments about key themes such as bloodguilt, retribution, homicide, and ritual violence in the Davidic narratives. The chapter concludes by summarizing the book’s methodological approaches, presenting four research questions, and providing an outline of each chapter.The first chapter addresses the sparing of David’s life as contrasted with Saul’s massacre of the priests and people of Nob. Shepherd proposes that Saul’s plan to marry his daughters to David was a tactic to have David killed by the “hands of the Philistines” in battle, thereby avoiding the issue of bloodguilt. Although Jonathan warns Saul that shedding the innocent blood of David is unjustifiable, Saul’s continued attempts to kill David eventually result in the massacre of Ahimelech and the priests and people of Nob. According to Shepherd, the narrative highlights David’s awareness of indirect responsibility for these deaths without sufficient cause as well as Saul’s growing disregard for innocent blood.In chapter 2, Shepherd explores the growing temptation and threat of illegitimate bloodshed in 1 Sam 23–26. David’s encounter with Saul in the cave at Adullam proves his resolve to not harm “the Lord’s anointed.” Although Saul acknowledges David’s righteousness and requests assurance for his family’s safety, his bloodthirsty intention to kill David continues to escalate, sharply contrasting with David’s righteous restraint. This is especially evident in 1 Sam 25–26, as argued by Shepherd. David is tempted to annihilate Nabal and his household for breaching “the cultural norm of hospitality,” but he relents after Abigail’s persuasion (1 Sam 25). Then, David again resists another opportunity to kill Saul, further emphasizing his restraint and concern about the consequences of shedding blood without cause (1 Sam 26). In light of these literary patterns, Shepherd suggests that the more one attempts to shed unwarranted blood, the more swiftly their kingship deteriorates, whereas those who refrain from unjust killing are established.Chapter 3 examines the accounts of Saul’s death. Shepherd argues that David’s raid on tribes such as the Geshurites, the Girgashites, and the Amalekites is necessitated by “his exceptional need for secrecy” rather than piety to herem or bloodthirstiness (p. 61). Furthermore, the reluctance of his armor-bearer to kill him reflects the sanctity of the king, whereas Saul’s suicide underscores his disregard for illegitimate bloodshed (cf. Paul K-K. Cho, Willingness to Die and the Gift of Life: Suicide and Martyrdom in the Hebrew Bible [Eerdmans, 2022]). David puts an Amalekite to death for claiming to have killed Saul as “the Lord’s anointed,” thereby invoking illegitimate bloodshed upon the Amalekite.Chapter 4 addresses the murders of Saul’s general Abner and his son Ishbosheth. In the battle described in 2 Sam 2, Abner initially tries to avoid killing Asahel, fearing Joab’s revenge, but reluctantly kills Asahel in the end. Joab’s subsequent murder of Abner is condemned by David, who curses Joab and his family with perpetual bloodshed. Shepherd suggests that David’s vow of innocence, contrasted with Joab’s guilt, may reflect “David’s increasing anxiety regarding the longer term threat of bloods” (p. 82). In addition, David’s execution of Rechab and Baanah for assassinating Ishbosheth further illustrates his proactive stance against illegitimate bloodshed, similar to the case of his killing the Amalekite. However, it also highlights his failure to act similarly against his own relatives—in other words, the sons of Zeruiah—by not killing them.In chapter 5, Shepherd explores David’s nefarious killing of Uriah along with its divine repercussions. Unable to cover up Bathsheba’s pregnancy, David orders Joab to arrange Uriah’s death in battle. Then, David is rebuked by Nathan for using warfare to indirectly kill Uriah, leading to divine punishment. The Lord strikes David’s son and curses his household with continual turmoil, which reflects the serious consequences of shedding innocent blood (albeit indirectly).Chapter 6 examines Amnon’s rape of Tamar, Absalom’s murder of Amnon, and David’s reluctant reconciliation with Absalom. Shepherd argues that Tamar’s rape is depicted as a severe violation, which justifies Absalom’s murder of Amnon. Furthermore, David’s sparing of Absalom indicates his preference for divine justice over personal vengeance, similar to his response in the case of Nabal. Shepherd states: “David cannot forgive Absalom or Joab a guilt which is not his to forgive. Instead, David’s kiss merely signals his willingness to leave the avenging of Amnon’s blood to divine orchestration, in the hope that ‘bloods’ will not come back to haunt his house in the meantime” (p. 156).Chapter 7 presents Absalom’s rebellion against David’s reign, which ultimately results in Absalom’s death, as well as David’s sparing of Shimei’s life and Joab’s killing of Amasa. Shimei’s curse on David highlights the unresolved issue of Saulide bloodshed. Shepherd asserts that David’s decision to spare Shimei reflects his fear of further bloodguilt on his household and kingdom. Joab’s killing of Absalom and later Amasa demonstrates his disrespect for King David and similarly underscores David’s fear of further consequences for shedding innocent blood.In chapter 8, Shepherd revisits David’s earlier rise to power, focusing on the bloodguilt incurred by Saul’s actions against the Gibeonites. The Gibeonites’ demand for retribution through the execution of Saul’s seven descendants illustrates the theme of expiatory violence. David’s response to Rizpah’s protection of the Saulide remains is to rebury the bones of Saul and Jonathan. Shepherd interprets, “By repatriating Saul and Jonathan’s previously impaled and exposed remains and burying them, David seeks to overcome Rizpah’s obstruction and underline his own allegiance to the house of Saul” (p. 205). David’s act reflects goodwill toward the Saulides through the honorable burial of Saul and Jonathan’s bones, as well as the elimination of bloodguilt from the time of Saul.The final chapter examines David’s instructions to Solomon to eliminate remaining threats and avoid further bloodshed. David emphasizes the necessity of executing Joab for his past murders in order to prevent unremedied bloodguilt from destabilizing Solomon’s reign. Solomon’s subsequent actions, including the execution of Joab and Shimei, are portrayed as necessary steps to secure the kingdom’s stability and fulfill David’s legacy of addressing bloodguilt.In the book’s conclusion, Shepherd summarizes the persistent issue of innocent blood throughout David’s rise, reign, and succession. He argues that “innocent blood” should be understood as bloodshed without sufficient cause that leads to negative consequences. Shepherd posits that resolution of bloodguilt is achieved through Solomon’s actions, although the continued curse of the sword and the recurrence of the problem in later history hint at its enduring relevance.Shepherd delves into the complexities of guilt, retribution, and divine justice as depicted in David’s story, offering meticulous and well-structured analysis. His discussion of Doeg’s identity as an Edomite in relation to the massacre of Nob is particularly outstanding. However, several critical comments are in order. While Shepherd offers deep insights into the themes of bloodguilt and justice, he occasionally becomes bogged down in exegetical details, which obscures the broader flow of his argument. Relatedly, his exegetical discussions—though excellent—sometimes seem subjective and far-fetched. For instance, regarding the death of Amnon by Absalom, Shepherd states: “We have seen that Tamar’s understanding of Amnon’s violation of her is comparable to the Israelites’ opinion of the Benjaminites’ violation of the Levite’s concubine in Gibeah (Judg 20:10). If so, one need not look far for the implication that Amnon’s actions justified deadly consequences” (p. 137). However, it would be more appropriate to compare Tamar’s case with the rape case of a virgin in Deut 22:28–29, as it is explicitly mentioned that Tamar is a virgin in 2 Sam 13:2 (כִּי בְתוּלָה הִיא). Although Deut 22:28–29 describes rape, the penalty for the crime specified there is not death, as in the previous cases (vv. 22–26), but monetary compensation. Amnon is surely guilty, but per Deuteronomy he does not deserve death. Rather, he is obligated to pay the bride-price, take Tamar as his wife, and not divorce her all his days.Second, there are some typographical errors and missing items in the bibliography. For example, the introduction of chapter 4 contains a duplication of the word “him” (p. 73), and Yairah Amit’s work referenced in footnote 49 (in chapter 6) is missing from the bibliography.Despite these critiques, Shepherd's work remains an essential resource for scholars and students of the book of Samuel, in that it offers valuable perspectives on the complex and enduring issues surrounding King David’s narrative. His thorough research and detailed analysis make his volume a significant contribution to the field.