King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel (Ballantine Reader's Circle) (31 page)

Thus, as Tamar rose to her feet and stumbled off, anyone who saw the bruised young woman would readily know that she was not only a victim of rape but, shockingly, a daughter of the king.

Tamar understood from the very moment that Amnon commenced his assault—“Come lie with me, my sister!”—that her life would be changed forever if he succeeded in having his way with her. No longer a virgin, Tamar was now unacceptable as a wife even if she was the daughter of the king. According to tradition in ancient Israel, as in so many other times and places, no man would marry a woman who had been deflowered by another man, whether with or without her consent.

Indeed, the tragic fate of Tamar helps to explain why the penalty for rape under biblical law was the marriage of the rapist to the woman he had raped, at least if the victim so desired. (Deut. 22:28–29) As shocking as it may seem to the modern reader, the compulsory marriage of the rapist and his victim was understood as a form of reparation—since the rapist had rendered his victim unmarriageable, the only way to repair the damage was to marry her.

And yet if we share the assumption of the biblical author that the law against the marriage of siblings was fully in effect, Tamar understood that a marriage to Amnon was out of the question. So as she fled from her brother's house, Tamar regarded herself as a woman damaged beyond repair. She solemnly performed the ancient rituals of mourning as if in grief for something within herself that had died.

Significantly, Tamar did not seek refuge in the house of her father, nor did she tell the king what her half brother had dared to do to her. Instead she stumbled through the streets of the City of David toward the house of her brother, Absalom. Only there, sheltered by a young man with whom she shared both a mother and a father, did Tamar expect to find shelter.

Exactly what was David's role in the rape of Tamar, his daughter, by Amnon, his son? King David, a man who was governed by his sexual impulses and was an expert at guile and deception, may have understood without being told that Amnon wanted more than tender loving care from his half sister when he asked that she come to his sickbed and feed him. Indeed, David may have been tipped off to Amnon's real intention by the very word used by the crown prince to describe the food that he wanted his sister to prepare.

The Hebrew word that Amnon used,
lebibot
, is usually translated into English as “bread” (JPS) or “cakes” (KJV) or “dumplings” (AB). But these mundane words fail to capture the sensual
overtones of the Hebrew word that fell from Amnon's lips. Feminist Bible scholar Phyllis Trible, for example, calls
lebibot
an “erotic pun” that derives from the Hebrew word for “heart” and suggests arousal and pleasure.
¹⁸
“Libido cakes” is how another Bible commentator renders the word in order to convey the sexual demand that Ammon intended to make on Tamar,
¹⁹
and P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., concedes that “[Amnon] is privately anticipating more than the restoration of his health.”
²⁰

So the question must be asked: Did David understand Am-non's intentions when he sent his daughter into Amnon's bedchamber? One scholar suggests that David was not only tacitly approving Amnon's sexual claim on his sister but actually “delivering her into the hands of … her rapist.”
²¹
Another finds it “difficult to believe that David, himself the author of much subtler intrigues, would have been completely taken in by such transparent designs as this one.”
²²
The charge laid against David in contemporary Bible scholarship, where he is regarded as an unindicted coconspirator in the rape of his own daughter by his son, is so disturbing that even the conspiracy to murder Uriah seems rather ordinary by comparison.

Still, the Bible has already allowed us to see an aspect of David's personality that is perfectly consistent with the charge of conspiracy in the rape of Tamar. At certain unsettling moments, David is presented as a shadowy figure, a manipulator, a conspirator. The “kingly style of David,” according to Joel Rosenberg, has always been characterized by “his movement within a cloud of agents, henchmen, and informers.” By the time his children are fully grown, David seems “tired, vague, jaded, long used to (and dependent on) the ten thousand small acts of evasion and self-forgiveness, the royal loopholes and exculpations, that the king, as arbiter of the sacred and the profane, is empowered to wield.”
²³

What's more, the aging King David showed himself to be a softhearted and sentimental father, sometimes dangerously so, when it came to a favorite son. Clearly, David doted on Amnon,
his eldest son and his designated heir, and he complied with Am-non's demand for the services of his half sister without a moment of inquiry or reflection. So David may have allowed himself to be co-opted into Amnon's transparent plot out of his own conspiratorial habits and reflexes, his inability to say no to his firstborn son, and his ability to blind himself to something that he did not wish to see.

Once she has passed into the house of her brother, the second Tamar disappears from the pages of the Bible. “So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom's house,” the Bible discloses (2 Sam. 13:20), and that is the last we hear of her. Given the limited roles available to a woman in biblical times—a virgin daughter in the house of her father, a consecrated wife in the house of her husband, or a widow in the house of her son—we may gather that Tamar remained hidden away in the house of her brother, a desolate woman until the day of her death.

“Keep this to yourself,” counseled Absalom, who seemed to understand the treacherous family politics behind the rape. “He is your brother—do not take it to heart.” (2 Sam. 13:20) (NEB)

But Absalom did not forget the insult that Tamar had suffered. He may have spoken soothing words to Tamar, but his own heart was afire with hatred for Amnon, and he burned for revenge against his sister's rapist. Still, Absalom checked his own impulse toward blood-vengeance and waited to see what King David would do about the crime that the crown prince had committed against his daughter.

Absalom himself said not a word to Amnon, the Bible reports, “neither good nor bad.” (2 Sam. 13:22) Instead, he waited and watched to see what King David would do to punish the rapist within his own household. But Absalom waited in vain: David did nothing at all. “When King David heard the whole
story, he was very angry,” the Bible reports, “but he would not hurt Amnon because he was his eldest son and he loved him.” (2 Sam. 13:21) (NEB)
²⁴

Time passed and King David seemed to behave as if the ugly incident had never happened. Tamar may have disappeared from the king's table, but Amnon still idled around the palace with all of his power and privilege fully intact. All the while, Absalom swallowed his anger and resentment until he could no longer stomach it. At last, Absalom vowed to do what David refused to do.

The third and final blow to the house of David was about to fall.

T
wo years had passed since the rape of the Tamar, but David had done nothing to punish Amnon, and Absalom still seethed with hatred for the man who had despoiled his sister. So Absalom resolved to take the matter into his own hands. To lure Amnon into his trap, Absalom invited King David and the royal household to a festival on his estate outside Jerusalem—“a feast fit for a king.” (2 Sam. 13:28) (NEB) It was early spring, the season when the sheep were gathered for shearing, and a traditional occasion for feasting and drinking and merry-making.

“Let the king, I pray thee, and his servants go,” Absalom said to his father. (2 Sam. 13:24)
¹

“No, my son, let us not all go,” demurred David, his suspicions aroused by Absalom's sudden amiability, “lest we be a burden to you.” (2 Sam. 13:25)
²

“If not, I pray thee,” Absalom persisted, “let my brother Am-non go with us.” (2 Sam. 13:26)

“Why should he go with you?” David asked, abandoning all
pretense of concern for overtaxing Absalom's hospitality. (2 Sam. 13:27)

Absalom persisted. He implored the king to send
all
of his sons, including the crown prince, even if the king himself declined to go. Ever a sentimental father, David may have convinced himself that Absalom was finally ready to forgive Amnon for the rape of Tamar and resign himself to Amnon's eventual kingship. At last David consented to send all of his sons to Absalom's estate. And so the royal princes of Israel, the crown prince among them, mounted their mules and headed out of Jerusalem on the northerly road to Absalom's estate at Baal-hazor.

Absalom arranged for an abundance of food and drink—the Hebrew word used in the biblical text
(misteh)
suggests that the banquet was to be “a drinking-bout”—because he counted on getting Amnon drunk.
³
Just before the festivities were about to begin, he summoned a few of his most trusted servants and issued one last instruction.

“Bide your time, and when Amnon is merry with wine, I shall say to you, ‘Strike!’ ” said Absalom to his men. “Then kill Am-non.” (2 Sam. 13:28) (NEB)

Absalom understood the political implications of assassinating the crown prince of Israel: David would surely regard the murder not only as fratricide but as treason. And so he sought to reassure the men he had charged with the task of killing his half brother.

“Fear not,” he told them. “For I myself have given the command! Be courageous, and be valiant!” (2 Sam. 13:28)
⁴

Absalom, we can imagine, must have greeted Amnon warmly and watched him attentively during the banquet, perhaps smiling at the crown prince from across the room to reassure him that all had been forgiven. The lilting music, the sizzle of roasting lamb, and the sloshing of red wine as cups were raised and filled again and again must have lulled Amnon and the other princes into
thinking that Absalom's bitter hatred was spent and peace would now be restored within the royal family.

And then, suddenly, Absalom gave the signal—“Strike down Amnon!”—and his men fell on the unsuspecting prince, stabbing him with daggers and short swords, and leaving him dead where he sat. (2 Sam. 13:28)
⁵

“Then all of the king's sons arose,” the Bible reports, “and every man got him up upon his mule, and fled.” So chaotic and confused was the scene of Amnon's murder that the first report to reach King David in Jerusalem described a general slaughter. “Absalom has slain
all
the king's sons,” the first breathless messenger reported to King David, “and there is not one of them left.” (2 Sam. 13:30)
⁶

Upon hearing the first report, David rose from his throne, tore his royal mantle, and threw himself to the ground, moaning and keening in an open display of grief. All but one of the courtiers followed his example and set to tearing their clothing, too. Only Jonadab, the same coolheaded young man who had conspired to put Tamar into Amnon's bed in the first place, stood apart and spoke calmly to the king.

“Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young princes,” Jonadab told David. “Only Amnon is dead.” (2 Sam. 13:32)
⁷

The Bible does not explain how Jonadab obtained this crucial bit of intelligence, but clearly the biblical author has assigned him the task of explaining to David why his firstborn son was dead.

“By the anger of Absalom, this has been determined since the day Amnon forced his sister Tamar,” said Jonadab, silent on his own role in the affair, as he calmly urged David to put the matter into perspective. “Your majesty must not pay attention to a mere rumor that all the princes are dead—only Amnon is dead.” (2 Sam. 13:32–33)
⁸

At that moment, one of the sentries at the royal palace raised
a cry—a small crowd was ascending the hill on which the City of David stood and approaching the palace.

“Behold, the king's sons are come,” said Jonadab. “As thy servant said, so it is.” Then all of them “lifted up their voice, and wept bitterly.” (2 Sam. 13:36)
⁹

“And David mourned for his son every day,” the Bible discloses, momentarily leaving us to wonder whether he wept for the dead Amnon or the missing Absalom. A few lines later, the biblical author makes it clear that David quickly reconciled himself to the death of Amnon and shifted his affection and concern to the son who stood next in line for the throne—Absalom.
¹⁰

“David failed with longing for Absalom,” the Bible reports, “for he was comforted concerning Amnon, seeing he was dead.” (2 Sam. 13:37, 39)

Here is the same attitude of acceptance, so pragmatic and so fatalistic, that David displayed when he learned of the death of Uriah—“The sword devours one way or another”—and the death of his own child—“I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” Indeed, we can safely surmise that David was less interested in the dead-and-buried Amnon than in Absalom, whose vengeance-taking raised an urgent political crisis in Israel—Absalom was next in the line of succession, but the crown prince of Israel was on the run.