Abstract
According to its superscription, Psalm 7 was uttered by David in reaction to ‘the words of Cush, a Benjaminite’, a reference that has produced a range of speculation. This study argues that the connection drawn between the psalm and the David story is prompted by similarities between the poem and a wide range of interconnected narratives in Samuel, all of which relate to David's restraint in his dealings with Saul and other Benjaminites. The specific episode involving Cush is best placed in the context of David's flight from Saul when he is hiding in the ‘strongholds’, in light of previously identified similarities to 1 Samuel 24 and newly identified parallels to 1 Chronicles 12. In this connection, a new solution is suggested for the psalm's problematic v. 5b.
Introduction
According to its superscription, David sang Psalm 7 ‘regarding the words of Cush, a Benjaminite’. In their efforts to identify this individual, commentators have proposed a variety of links between the poem's content and the David story. These suggestions, to be sure, address the perspective offered by the superscription; but they do not, as a rule, affirm the antiquity and historical credibility of that perspective or any relationship between the psalm's original intent and the experiences of David. 1
In the present study I make three specific claims. First, toward the goal of identifying the context of Cush's remarks, I call attention to one set of parallels that has not been previously identified. In doing so, I provide support and nuance to a claim, already present in prior treatments, that a tradition existed attesting to allegations leveled by this Benjaminite during one particular stage of David's flight from Saul. Next, in this connection, I offer a new interpretation of the psalm's pivotal yet philologically challenging v. 5b, םקיר יררוצ הצלהאו. 2 Finally, I argue that the poem expresses a theme seen to pervade much of the David story, whereby the text underscores his innocence of wrongdoing and proper requital of the deeds of others—especially in reaction to Benjaminite resistance to his kingship. Accordingly, I will suggest, the connection that our superscription draws to David is best understood with this expansive perspective in mind, even if Cush uttered his words on just one limited occasion.
It bears emphasis that I shall essentially adhere to the restrained position characteristic of most treatments, speaking of the link to David strictly as an expression of exegesis of the poem provided by the superscription. To be sure, this is not meant to foreclose the possibility that the affirmation of such a link faithfully preserves the intentions of the Psalmist, and in one particular instance I will indeed allude to such an alternative. 3 Otherwise, however, I present links between the poem and the David story solely in an effort to understand the perspective offered by the superscription's author. Likewise, any inquiries relating to a historical David or to actual Davidic authorship of the material in question remain peripheral to the discussion. 4
Parallels Identified in Prior Scholarship
The most suggestive biblical parallel to our psalm considered to this point appears in the dialogue between David and Saul in 1 Sam. 24.9-23, after David, accused of treachery and on the run, prevents his men from slaying the king in a cave in the strongholds of En-gedi (v. 8). 5 In each of the two contexts, an individual pursued by his enemy affirms his own innocence and appeals to God for judgment; and in the case of two formulations the psalm exhibits noteworthy lexical similarities to the passage in Samuel.
In v. 9, the Psalmist makes the following plea: ‘Lord who casts judgment (ןירי) on peoples / Judge me (ינטפש), O Lord, in accordance with my righteousness and integrity’. The terminology here bears a similarity to David's remarks in 1 Sam. 24.16: ‘May the Lord be as a judge (ןיָדַלְ) and adjudicate (טפשן) between you and me, take note and advocate my cause, and deliver me (ינטפשין) from your hand’. Observe that both verses begin with an appeal to the Lord as one who administers judgment (ןיר), and culminate, by means of the verb טפש followed by a first person suffixed pronoun, with a request for judgment/deliverance. No other biblical verse exhibits a resemblance to this. Furthermore, the phrase ימלוש יתלמג םא ער (‘If I have paid back evil to one who dealt peacefully with me’), appearing in v. 5a of the psalm, calls to mind Saul's acknowledgment of David's innocence in 1 Sam. 24.18: דיתלמג ינאן הבןטה ינתלמג התא יכהעךה (‘For you have paid me the good, while it is I who have paid you the evil’). In the entirety of the Psalms and Former Prophets, the combination of למג and ער is unique to these two verses.
In conjunction with the thematic correlation, these parallels, more so than others that have been proposed, offer justification for linking the Psalm to the story of David. Indeed, it may be speculated that this lexical resonance contributed to the view of the rabbis who, appealing to one or another midrashic explanation of the name Cush, identified that individual as King Saul himself. 6
Another prominent position associates the poem with the rebellion of Absalom. Some proponents of this view identify Cush as Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite who cursed David during the king's flight from Jerusalem (2 Sam. 16.5-8). 7 Others, alternatively, equate Cush with the Cushite messenger bearing the news of Absalom's death (2 Sam. 18.21–32). 8
The identification with Shimei, whose name, to be sure, bears no relation to ‘Cush’, accounts for the reference in the superscription to apparently condemning ‘words’ spoken by a Benjaminite. As for the content of the Psalm, which suggests a concrete allegation against the speaker, consider that Shimei, in the course of his remarks, indeed accuses David of having shed the blood of the house of Saul (2 Sam. 16.7-8). As for lexical parallels, it is suggested that (1) the Psalmist's vow that, if he is guilty, his enemy should lay his ‘honor in the dust (רפע)’ (v. 6) recalls Shimei's hurling of dust (רפעב רפעו) at David (2 Sam. 16.13); and (2) the Psalmist's culminating, confident assertion that the guilty one's ‘deceit shall be requited on his head (ןשאדב ולמע בושי) and his wickedness shall descend on his own skull’ (v. 17) may be directed at Shimei, from whom David, immediately before his death, asks Solomon to take revenge, and to whom Solomon affirms that the Lord ‘shall requite [his] evil on [his] head’ (ךשארב ךתער תא…בישהן) prior to ordering the man's execution (1 Kgs 2.44). 9
The identification of Cush with the Cushite messenger, on the other hand, draws support from the obvious lexical similarity, enhanced by the reference to this messenger as ‘Cushi’, without the definite article, in 2 Sam. 18.21b. This connection has apparent roots in the
Even though the passage in Samuel does not identify the Cushite messenger as a Benjaminite, this last proposal has generated some strong expressions of endorsement. 11 Nevertheless, the Psalm's content poses a serious problem for this alternative; for a poem aptly described as a prayer by a falsely accused individual seems hardly appropriate to events surrounding the aftermath of Absalom's defeat. 12 Indeed, the effort to draw a direct link between the two contexts has produced some highly speculative interpretation, and the position would appear to require markedly better justification. 13
The Evidence of 1 Chronicles 12
I have endorsed the view that, thematically and lexically, the Psalm most resembles the dialogue between David and Saul in the strongholds of En-gedi in 1 Samuel 24. In my opinion, the Psalm in fact resonates with one more text relating to David's experiences in the strongholds: the account in 1 Chronicles 12, a selection that preserves material not represented in Samuel. Although Cush's remarks appear in neither Samuel nor Chronicles, 14 it emerges, in this view, that, according to a tradition known to the author of our superscription, Cush was a Benjaminite from Saul's contingent who leveled allegations against David at this early stage of the conflict, 15 expressing the kind of sentiments necessitating the justifications of David's conduct that appear both in Samuel and in Psalm 7.
In what is seen as the focal point of the Chronicler's account of Israelite defections to the fleeing David—occupying the center of a chiasm that comprises 1 Chronicles 11–12—a group of Benjaminites and Judeans approaches David in ‘the stronghold’ (12.16). 16 We have already been told (vv. 1–7) that, when David was in Ziklag, a group of Saul's Benjaminite kin defected to the young Judean, and that these individuals were marksmen who excelled in slinging arrows and stones with bows (v. 2)—in apparent contrast to the Gadites who employed different varieties of weaponry (v. 8). This connection between Benjaminites and bowmanship, made explicit here as well as in other contexts (Judg. 20.16; 2 Chron. 14.7; 17.17), has been duly noted by scholars, 17 and it is of mild interest that in the latter part of our psalm, where it is imagined that the deeds of the evildoer will redound upon himself, the general references to weaponry in vv. 13a and 14a (בדח and תומ ילכ) give way to ‘bows’ and ‘arrows’ specifically in vv. 13b and 14b. 18
Of greater significance, however, are David's remarks to the defectors who approach him in the stronghold: יל היהי ינדזעל ילא םתאב םולשל םאוניחובא יהלא אדי יפכב םמח אלב ידצל ינתומדל םאו דחיל בבל םכילעחכויו (‘If you come to me in peace, to support me, then I will make common cause with you, but if to betray me to my foes, when I have no wrongdoing upon my hands, then let the God of our fathers take notice and give judgment’, v. 17). 19 Compare this to our Psalmist's cry to the Lord in vv. 4–5: עד ימלוש יתלמג םא \\ יפכב לוע שי םא \ תאז יתישע םא םקיר יררוצ הצלחאו—'If I have done this / If there be injustice upon my hands // If I have paid back evil to one who dealt peacefully with me / wāaḥalleṣâ ṣôrerî (= my enemy) rêqām…’. 20 In each of the two contexts, we encounter (1) a fleeing speaker, who (2) declares his innocence in response to a real or suspected foe, and (3) employs an oath formula in appealing to God for adjudication. Of note are the following lexical similarities: (1) the repeated use of םא as a structuring device for the oath; (2) the reference to allies by means of the root םלש; (3) the reference to enemies/oppressors as יררוצ\ירצ; and (4) most important, the use of יפכב לוע \ יפכב םמח to refer to the speaker's alleged wrongdoing, phraseology that appears only one time elsewhere in the Bible (יכב םמח in Job 16.17).
The table below provides a synopsis of the important lexical resonances between the text of Psalm 7 and the traditions preserved in the Bible recounting David's experiences in the strongholds. The force of these resonances must be considered in conjunction with the thematic similarities we have noted:
To summarize: the ‘words of Cush’ invoked by our psalm's superscription are best seen to have been uttered when David was hiding in the strongholds from Saul's men, for the poem, thematically and lexically, most closely resembles this phase of David's flight as it is recounted in the David traditions preserved in Samuel and Chronicles.
The Problem of Psalm 7.5b
As noted at the outset, the important phrase םקיד ידדוצ הצלחאו in v. 5b of our psalm presents a philological problem. The gemination of the lāmed of הצלחאו suggests a piel form, in which the root ץלח consistently means ‘set free/rescue/tear away’. 21 The word םקיר, which appears almost exclusively with verbs of motion that denote sending away/setting free (חלש), going (ךלה), returning (בוש), or appearing (האד), gives the sense of ‘empty/in vain/without effect’. 22 In the present case, accordingly, םקיד would appear to modify הצלחא in its most widely used sense of setting free; yet the emerging translation—'[If I have paid back evil to one who dealt peacefully with me] and have set free my enemy empty/in vain/without effect'—has not been granted serious consideration, apparently seen as offering little contextual coherence. 23
In turn, several alternatives have emerged, all of which require at least one philological leap of faith and/or emendation of the text. Most (with some highly dubious support from Ps. 25.3 24 ) take םקיד here as the equivalent of םנח—giving the sense of ‘gratis/without cause/without justification' 25 —so that םקיר neither carries its usual meaning nor operates in conjunction with the kind of verbs of motion that it does elsewhere. םקיר is thus variously understood to modify (1) הצלחאו in its qal sense of ‘strip off/plunder’, notwithstanding the gemination of the lāmed (‘and have plundered my enemy without cause’); 26 (2) הצלחאו taken as a metathesized form of הצחלאו (‘and have oppressed my enemy without cause’); 27 or (3) ידדוצ, so that the clause reads ‘and have plundered/oppressed those who opposed me without cause’. 28 Another suggestion calls for emending ידדוצ to ודדוצ, offering the translation, ‘[If I have paid back evil to my ally] or set free his enemy without justification’, in keeping with a principle attested in the ancient Near East forbidding the release of the adversary of one's ally. 29 Still another rendering, in an effort to maintain the standard meaning of ץלח in the piel form, takes the paratactic wāw of הצלחאו to signify a contrast: ‘Rather, I have set free my enemy gratis!' 30 However, this speculation is especially difficult in light of other examples of this oath formula, which appear in Job 31; for it is clear in that chapter that, in the many instances where an םא-clause is followed by a wāw-clause (vv. 5, 7, 9, 16, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 29, 38, 39), no contrast of this kind is intended. 31
Now it must be acknowledged that, in addressing a philological problem, one is chiefly concerned with recovering the original sense of the text. Nevertheless, it remains distinctly noteworthy that, insofar as the superscription may be seen to connect our psalm to David's experiences in the strongholds—including, prominently, his encounter with Saul in the cave at En-gedi—the natural meaning of v. 5b emerges decidedly sensible with no need for philological compromise or emendation of the text. For after David not only declines to kill Saul in the cave but also prevents his men from taking such initiative (1 Sam. 24.4-7), to suggest that the young warrior nonetheless maintains evil intentions against the Benjaminite king—a belief which, as will be seen, the text of Samuel consistently finds it necessary to discredit—indeed amounts to an allegation that David set free his enemy in vain. If our understanding of the superscription is correct, then, it stands to reason that its author saw this half-line as yet another instance of the poem's resonance with this phase of the David story, as the speaker emphatically denies this very allegation.
Moreover, as I indicated at the start of the discussion, I do not wish to foreclose the possibility that the Psalm was initially composed with the David traditions in mind. While I have thus far ceded to the majority view that attributes the link to David exclusively to a later hand, and will continue to do so in the discussion that follows, there remains no definitive evidence precluding the possibility that specific psalms were associated with the figure of David from an early stage, even from the time of their very composition. The force of the resonances I present here, and that of others proposed in connection with a variety of respective psalms, is in each case a subjective matter that will lend itself to debate. I submit, however, that the question be treated as an open one, and that, in the particular case of Psalm 7, the possibility that the Psalmist indeed intended to allude to the David story—and, in turn, that our reading represents the original meaning of v. 5b—stand as a genuinely plausible alternative. 32
The Requital of Good and Evil in Psalm 7 and in the Story of David
Might the Psalm Bring to Mind Multiple Texts?
At the outset of this study I noted various suggested resonances between Psalm 7 and the Davidic narratives. And in fact, one recent study proposes connecting the Psalm to more than one of these texts. According to this view, the superscription's author associates the poem chiefly with David's reaction to the news about Absalom, but intends simultaneously to recall the earlier passage regarding Shimei. 33 The inclusion of the Shimei episode is said to account for the superscription's reference to a ‘Benjaminite’, as well as for the Psalmist's description of himself being pursued (v. 2) and, apparently, accused of wrongdoing. This particular move toward widening the intertextual field, however, requires attributing to the superscription an especially ambitious midrashic quality, so that it recalls the Shimei encounter even as Cush is fundamentally identified with the Cushite messenger bearing the news of Absalom's death. 34 This leaves unclear how the reader is to juggle the two contexts in Samuel in his or her mind, and, for that matter, how precisely to handle the phrase ‘Cush, a Benjaminite’. Rather, appealing to the relaxed strictures governing midrashic exegesis, this proposal sees the superscription as attributing to the poem a historical context that is only vaguely delimited by means of a formulation that conflates Cush/Cushi with the Benjaminite Shimei. 35
If, on the other hand, I am correct that the words of Cush were spoken when the fleeing David was in the strongholds, and that multiple formulations in the Psalm recall that stage of his flight, we might simply deny any further connections to the David story, seeing all other suggested parallels as, if not definitively unpersuasive, then at least comparatively so. But at the same time, it must be questioned whether this is the proper default position to take. For according to recent scholarship evaluating the historical superscriptions, there is reason to think that, in at least some cases, such headings do associate the Psalms that they introduce with multiple episodes in the historical traditions. For example, it is observed that Psalm 142, which, we are rather vaguely informed, was uttered by David ‘when he was in the cave’ (v. 1), exhibits parallels to the young fugitive's experiences in the cave of Adullam, the cave of En-gedi, and elsewhere. Moreover, it is affirmed that ‘the general nature of the heading lends itself to be used for any story that affirms David's need of his God to deliver him’. 36
Indeed, with respect to Psalm 7 in particular, an astute observation by one scholar warrants attention. Of the thirteen historical superscriptions that relate to the experiences of David, those that introduce Psalms 7 and 18 share two unique features. 37 First, neither refers to a single identifiable event in the biblical account of David's life: Cush in our psalm is unknown, and Psalm 18 speaks of a poem sung by David ‘on the day the Lord saved him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul’. Second, each contains the expository phrase ‘which he sang/spoke to the Lord’, one that does not appear in the more succinct formulations that characterize the other superscriptions in question. This raises the possibility, it is argued, that these two superscriptions bear a meaningful similarity, and might even suggest that they are of a unique hand.
With this in mind, note that the superscription of Psalm 18, even as it speaks of a particular ‘day’ of salvation, appears to relate the poem to a wide sweep of David's experiences when it refers to his deliverance from ‘all his enemies’ and from Saul. Indeed, this broad perspective accounts for the incorporation of that psalm in 2 Samuel 22, as the aging king looks back on the divine favor bestowed upon him in the many conflicts he encountered. It bears serious consideration, in turn, that our superscription, too, despite its apparent reference to words spoken by a particular individual, might maintain a similarly wide perspective when referring to an ‘elegy of David that he sang to the Lord regarding the words of Cush’. For even if the most suggestive connections between Psalm 7 and the David story involve his experiences in the strongholds, and the words of Cush were uttered in that context, this need not mean that the superscription's author, in linking the psalm to David, was motivated solely by an association with that context, nor that in reciting the prayer ‘regarding the words of Cush’ the king must be seen as addressing one time of trouble exclusively.
In our superscription's apparent reference to the David–Benjaminite conflict, I am, in fact, inclined to see a perspective that extends beyond David's experiences in the strongholds. In conjunction with the general considerations just mentioned, I am drawn to this alternative by the Psalm's focus on the requital of good and evil conduct—a theme which does not relate merely to that one phase of David's flight, but which, I contend, was recognized in later biblical writing to pervade the story of his conflict with the royal house of Benjamin and to underscore his own moral superiority to Saul in the realm of revenge and retribution.
In a recent study, I argued that the author of the book of Esther perceived this sustained theme in the Davidic narratives, and constructed an account in which Saul's kin requite the murderous plot of a genuine enemy with an exactingly similar counter-edict—one of numerous instances where Esther and Mordechai rectify the Saulide legacy. 38 In carrying out this retribution, these Benjaminites appropriately ‘turn’ (בוש) the oppressor's ‘evil’ (העד) on his own ‘head’ (שאר, Esth. 9.25)—a rare combination of terms that calls to mind two exceptional instances where the biblical text, by means of these same terms, may be seen to portray David himself as excessively vengeful: the story of Nabal (1 Sam. 25), and the account of the retribution meted out upon Joab and Shimei on David's instructions (1 Kgs 1–2). 39 Indeed, we have noted similar if not identical terminology in our psalm (v. 7), and other analogous phrases, it will be shown, appear repeatedly in the David story where the text gives expression to the theme in question. 40 Accordingly, I see a strong possibility that, likewise, in identifying our psalm as an elegy sung by David 'regarding the words of Cush, a Benjaminite’, the heading does not focus narrowly on the immediate context of Cush's remarks. Rather, when considering the Psalm in light of the experiences of David, the author of our superscription would have perceived Cush's allegation, leveled at an early stage of the young Judean's travails, as a fitting expression of what became a sustained accusation of betrayal, one which dogged David throughout his conflict with Saul's supporters—as, for example, in the Shimei episode—and against which the text of Samuel provides consistent resistance, as shall be documented in the following section.
If, in turn, for scholars evaluating the Psalm in light of its heading, the poem has recalled passages like the one describing David's encounter with Shimei, this perspective may be embraced without identifying that particular Benjaminite with Cush. For the Shimei episode represents but one instance of a pervasive motif to which the superscription calls attention, and whose many manifestations might well have been on the mind of its author who, by referring to Cush's allegations back in the strongholds of En-gedi, drew a sweeping connection between the Psalm and the David–Saulide conflict.
David and the Requital of Good and Evil
Nowhere is the motif of revenge and retribution more blatant than in the sequence of parallel stories in 1 Samuel 24–26. Chapters 24 and 26, where David declines to kill Saul, as well as ch. 25, where David sets out to annihilate Nabal and his household, all (1) underscore the conduct of David when presented with the option of exercising revenge, and (2) give succinct expression to the matter of divine requital of human deeds. Indeed, the development of David's character in his respect, and the divine response that he merits, must be seen as the central theme of these chapters.
In both chs. 24 and 26, David's men encourage appropriate action against his ‘enemy’ Saul (24.5; 26.8), yet their leader repeatedly emphasizes his refusal to slay ‘the Lord's anointed one’. We have already noted Saul's confession to David in 24.18: ‘You have paid me the good, while it is I who have paid you the evil’. To this we may add Saul's subsequent remarks in v. 20: ‘Does a man find his enemy and send him away unharmed? May the Lord compensate you good fortune in return for what you did for me this day.’ As for ch. 26, David's language in v. 23 best expresses the theme: ‘May the Lord repay a man for his righteousness and faithfulness; for the Lord today placed you into my hand, but I did not wish to lay a hand on the Lord's anointed one’. Finally, in ch. 25, David expresses gratitude to Abigail for dissuading him from spilling innocent blood; and, in reaction to the subsequent death of Nabal—whom he had earlier accused of having ‘paid back evil for good’ (v. 21)—David blesses the Lord for having ‘turned Nabal's evil onto his own head’ (v. 39). It bears mention that, as Nabal is often seen as a Saul figure in this story, in all probability the portrait of David's conduct here, much as in chs. 24 and 26, relates to his rise at the expense of the Benjaminite king. 41
Beyond this, the expression of this motif in chs. 24–26 bears a connection to the very first indication of conflict between David and Saul, who, back in chs. 18–19, makes his first attempts on the life of the young giant-slayer. A suggestive set of parallels, recently presented by Jonathan Jacobs, links the restraint shown by David in chs. 24 and 26 to the ungrateful king's initial efforts to slay his emerging rival. 42 Among the more notable examples of this, consider Saul's remark וב ידי יהת לא (‘Let my hand not smite him’, 18.17) along with his subsequent, twice-repeated affirmation םיתשלפ די וב יהתו (‘but let the hand of the Philistines smite him’, vv. 17, 21)—a result to be accomplished by means of Saul's men influencing David טלב (‘stealthily’, v. 22) to agree to marry the king's daughter. Contrast this to the conduct of David, who, responding to his supporters’ prodding that he kill Saul, merely cuts off the corner of the king's garment after approaching him טלב (24.4), and later uses this as evidence of his peaceful intentions, twice expressed by the phrase אל ידיו ךב היהת (‘for my hand shall not smite you’, vv. 12–13). The term טלב in particular stands out, appearing just one time in the Bible apart from these two instances (Ruth 3.7). In ch. 26, of significant interest is David's harmless appropriation of Saul's spear (v. 12) in the wake of Abishai's offer ץדאבו תינחב אנ ונכא (‘I will skewer [Saul] with the spear into the ground’, v. 8). Contrast this with Saul's earlier, repeated efforts to skewer David into the wall with the very same spear (דמאיו תינחה תא לואש לטיו דיקבו דודב הכא, 18.11; דיקבו דודב תינחב תוכהל לואש שקביו, 19.10).
Yet this motif is by no means limited to these contexts. David is prompted to flee to non-Israelite territory when, in ch. 20, Jonathan verifies Saul's intentions toward the young Judean: when the prince insists that David has done nothing wrong, this time the king tries to skewer his own son with his spear, leaving Jonathan with no doubt that his father will not be deterred by any affirmation of David's innocence. Jacobs, in this connection, calls attention to another set of parallels, one that contrasts Saul's conduct in this story with the attitude displayed by David in 2 Samuel 9 toward Mephibosheth, the ‘remnant of Saul's house’ (v. 1). 43 Once more, David declines to take revenge for Saul's efforts to kill him, in this case preferring to requite the loyalty of Jonathan who risked his life to save his friend. Again, I cite one notable analogy: whereas David declines to show up at the ‘king's table’ (ךלמה ןחלש, 1 Sam. 20.29) for fear of being killed, he allays the fears of Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9.7) and arranges for him to eat at the ‘king's table’ (ךלמה ןחלש, 2 Sam. 9.13) on a consistent basis. As in the case of the term טלב highlighted earlier, the phrase ךלמה ןחלש appears only once in the Bible apart from these two cases (1 Kgs 5.7).
Indeed, David's refusal to take revenge against Saul's supporters and his innocence in connection with their deaths are widely seen to occupy a central place in the History of David's Rise. 44 Thus, we are pointedly told of his lack of involvement in the battle in which Saul died, notwithstanding his own alliance with the Philistine enemy (1 Sam. 29.4-11). To the contrary, reiterating his many objections in chs. 24 and 26 to killing ‘the Lord's anointed one’, David now orders the execution of the individual who boasted of taking Saul's life, and, by means of the phrase ‘Your blood is on your own head’, pronounces this to be appropriate retribution (2 Sam. 1.14–16). As for the people of Jabesh-gilead who gave the bodies of Saul and his sons proper honor (1 Sam. 31.11-13), David both wishes upon them divine reward and affirms that ‘I also will extend this kindness to you because you have done this thing’ (2 Sam. 2.6). In the following chapter, David likewise distances himself from Joab's killing of Abner—Saul's cousin and general—insisting that, in retribution for this, bloodguilt should ‘rest on the heads of Joab and all his ancestral house’ (3.29), and pronouncing, ‘May the Lord requite the evildoer in accordance with his evil’ (3.39). And in the chapter after that, David avenges the death of the ‘righteous’ Ish-bosheth by ordering the execution of the ‘evildoers’ who killed him, rejecting their claim that this amounted to proper revenge against the house of Saul (4.7–12).
As we have seen, the motif finds expression again in the story of Shimei, whom David twice declines to have killed (2 Sam. 16.11; 19.24) notwithstanding the triumphant curse that Shimei levels at the fleeing Judean king. Shimei pronounces, ‘The Lord has requited on you all the blood of the house of Saul’ (16.8), yet David spares him, declaring, ‘Perhaps the Lord will take note of my suffering, and requite me good in place of his curse’ (16.12). It is of particular interest that, as noted by Jacobs, the term תמ בלכ (‘dead dog’) used here by a supporter of David to disparage Shimei (16.9) appears just two other times in the Bible, both of them in Samuel in contexts that similarly underscore David's restraint and goodwill toward Benjaminites: when declining to kill Saul in 1 Samuel 24, David refers to himself by this term (v. 14); and Mephibosheth refers to himself this way when humbling himself before the magnanimous David (2 Sam. 9.8). 45
Finally, David declines to extend the policy of restraint beyond his own death, and instructs Solomon to ensure that Shimei, along with Joab, meets his appropriate fate (1 Kgs 2.5–9). Solomon indeed sees to the execution of Joab, affirming that ‘the Lord shall requite his bloodguilt on his head’ (2.32) and that ‘the blood [of his victims] shall be requited on the heads of Joab and his descendants forever’ (2.33); as well as of Shimei, whom he warns, ‘your bloodguilt shall be on your head’ (v. 37), and to whom he declares, ‘the Lord shall requite your evil on your head’ (v. 44).
Conclusion: Psalm 7 and Its Intertextual Field
Against this background, we return to the question of the link drawn between Psalm 7 and the story of David. It was proposed above that, for the author of the superscription, the poem could well have recalled not merely the limited context of Cush's remarks, but the sustained motif of David's innocence and restraint in his dealings with Saul's supporters—a theme that is central to the wider narrative and shared by the poem. And indeed, it might plausibly be said that, with a close reading of that story in mind, it is difficult not to think of a wide set of David's experiences when considering a Psalm in which an individual—falsely accused (vv. 4–5) and fleeing his pursuers (v. 2)—declares his innocence and his proper treatment of both friend and foe (v. 5), and, in appealing to God for proper requital (vv. 9–17), culminates with succinct phraseology (‘His deceit shall be requited on his head’) of a sort that clusters in but one narrative in the Bible: the account of the conflict between David and his Benjaminite adversaries. This, taken together with (1) the specific parallels that scholars have drawn between the Psalm and multiple episodes in the David story; (2) the argument that the author of Esther, too, recognized and worked off the sustained motif under discussion; (3) the recognition that several of the historical superscriptions generate allusions to multiple contexts; and, finally, (4) the broad scope of the superscription to Psalm 18, which bears a unique correlation with that of Psalm 7, yields a formidable case that the connection drawn between our Psalm and the experiences of David extends to multiple, interrelated contexts in Samuel that give expression to the motif in question.
Accordingly, while it is best surmised that ‘the words of Cush’ were spoken, according to a tradition no longer available to us, when David was in the strongholds—for the Psalm's content most strongly recalls that phase of his flight from Saul—it remains likely, in my opinion, that, to the author of its superscription, the poem resonated with passages recounting multiple episodes in the David story that are thematically linked to the allegations of his Benjaminite accuser. For as in the case of other psalms, such as 18 and 142, the superscription of Psalm 7 provides a perspective on the poem that allows for its application to a wide sweep of David's experiences. Understood in this way, our Psalm gives expression to David's affirmation of the persistent innocence and restraint he displayed in his extensive conflict with members of the rival tribe of Benjamin, and his appeal to God for adjudication and salvation.
Footnotes
1.
Discussions of note include, inter alia, V.L. Johnson, David in Distress: His Portrait Through the Historical Psalms (LHBOTS, 505; New York/London: T&T Clark International, 2009), pp. 131–39; E. Aurelius, ‘Davids Unschuld: Die Hofgeschichte und Psalm 7’, in M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW, 345; 2 vols.; Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter, 2004), pp. 391–412; G. Kwakkel, According to My Righteousness: Upright Behaviour as Grounds for Deliverance in Psalms 7, 17, 18, 26 and 44 (OtSt, 46; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002), pp. 33–34, 62–65; R.R. Hutton, ‘Cush the Benjaminite and Psalm Midrash’, HAR 10 (1986), pp. 123–37; and E. Slomovic, ‘Formation of Historical Titles in the Books of Psalms’, ZAW 91 (1979), pp. 350–80 (366–67). The position of B.S. Childs (‘Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis’, JSS 16 [1971], pp. 137–50 [138]) that this superscription is a liturgical note rather than a historical one has not gained acceptance.
2.
On the centrality of this verse and its immediate context for an understanding of the poem, and on the difficulties posed by this particular hemistich, see J.H. Tigay, ‘Psalm 7.5 and Ancient Near Eastern Treaties’, JBL 89 (1970), pp. 178–86 (178–81).
3.
Kwakkel indeed favors this possibility (According to My Righteousness, pp. 63–64), as does P.C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC, 19; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), p. 99. By way of analogy, note the argument that similarities to the exodus story in Ps. 90, which is titled ‘A Prayer of Moses’, suggest that the Psalm was in fact composed with Moses in mind; see D.N. Freedman, ‘Who Asks (or Tells) God to Repent? Other than Moses…’, BR 1 (1985), pp. 56–59 (59), cited in B.L. Tanner, The Book of Psalms Through the Lens of Intertextuality (Studies in Biblical Literature, 26; New York: Peter Lang, 2001), pp. 90–91.
4.
I shall be similarly unconcerned with the composition history of the psalm, which is generally believed to have attained its present form before the insertion of the superscription; see, e.g., Aurelius, ‘Davids Unschuld’, p. 408.
5.
This is the position of Slomovic (‘Historical Titles’, pp. 366–67), based on the parallels cited in the next paragraph. He is followed by Kwakkel (According to My Righteousness, p. 63), who gives primary emphasis to the thematic similarities. In dismissing Slomovic's view, Hutton (‘Cush the Benjaminite’, p. 131) neglects to acknowledge most of the evidence in its favor; but see Hutton's helpful collection of references to scholarship supporting the position in question (p. 128 n. 8).
6.
See the material in Midrash Tehillim on vv. 1, 4–5 of our psalm. Some additional, more speculative lexical associations appear in Johnson, David in Distress, pp. 135–36.
7.
See the sources cited by Hutton, ‘Cush the Benjaminite’, p. 128.
8.
This is the fundamental position of both Hutton (‘Cush the Benjaminite’, pp. 133–36) and Aurelius (‘Davids Unschuld’, pp. 408–12; see also his citations of recent scholars who adopt this view [p. 409]).
9.
See the citations and summary of evidence in Slomovic, ‘Historical Titles’, p. 366 n. 50.
10.
Cf., e.g., Aurelius, ‘Davids Unschuld’, p. 409.
11.
See above, n. 8.
12.
It is peripheral for our purposes whether this characterization of our psalm's content gives expression to its proper form-critical classification, and, more specifically, whether the prayer was recited in one or another legal or cultic setting. A recent discussion of these issues appears in Chapter 5 of Kwakkel's According to My Righteousness.
13.
I address the view of Aurelius in the final section herein. Hutton, in accepting the link to 2 Sam. 19, suggests that the ‘enemy’ of David in Ps. 7.5b be seen as Joab, and that the declaration of innocence in the psalm expresses the king's effort to distance himself from ‘the treachery of Joab’, who killed Absalom. The ‘friend/ally’ of David mentioned in Ps. 7.5a, on the other hand, is understood to be Absalom himself (‘Cush the Benjaminite’, pp. 134–35). I concur with Johnson (David in Distress, p. 139), who, in evaluating Hutton's suggestion, affirms that the content of 2 Sam. 19 remains incongruous with our Psalm. Cf. also R.S. Sadler Jr, Can a Cushite Change his Skin? An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible (LHBOTS, 425; New York/London: T&T Clark International, 2005), p. 134.
14.
For a list of scholars endorsing the view that Cush is a historical figure who does not appear elsewhere in the Bible, see Hutton (‘Cush the Benjaminite’, p. 127), who notes the popularity of this approach to the problem.
15.
Cf., e.g., Kwakkel, According to My Righteousness, p. 63.
16.
The chiasm was first noted by H.G.M. Williamson, ‘“We are Yours, O David”: The Setting and Purpose of 1 Chronicles xii 1–23’, OtSt 21 (1981), pp. 164–76.
17.
See, e.g., S. Japhet, 1 and 2 Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), p. 261. The observation already appears in the twelfth-century Ashkenazic commentary of pseudo-Rashi (in Rabbinic Bibles, at 1 Chron. 10.3), who also calls attention to the bowmanship of the Benjaminite Jonathan in 1 Sam. 20.20–38. Pseudo-Rashi adds the intriguing suggestion that, in light of the connection between the tribe of Benjamin and this particular skill, the critical wound suffered by Saul at the hands of Philistine bowmen (1 Sam. 31.3; 1 Chron. 10.3) underscores God's abandonment of the Benjaminite king. This important commentator is the subject of a recent, lengthy study: E. Viezel, The Commentary on Chronicles Attributed to Rashi (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2010 [Hebrew]).
18.
See Japhet, Chronicles, pp. 257–58, regarding the likelihood that the material in Chronicles relevant to our discussion draws upon earlier traditions. It emerges that, even if our superscription was inserted before the time of the Chronicler, its author could well have had access to the same sources. As a general matter, the arguments in this study do not depend on the date assigned to the psalm or its superscription, except insofar the superscription's author, it is assumed, was working with material that included the David traditions represented in the book of Samuel.
19.
I rely substantially on the
20.
I discuss the meaning of this clause in the next section.
21.
Cf. BDB, s.v. ץלח.
22.
I thank Professor Richard Steiner for his help on this point, and on the issue discussed in this section more generally. I bear responsibility for the conclusions.
23.
See especially Tigay, ‘Psalm 7.5’, p. 179.
24.
In the phrase םקיד םידגובה ושבי in Ps. 25.3, םקיד has often been taken to modify םידגובה, yielding a translation such as ‘May the gratuitous traitors be shamed’. It is far more likely, however, that םקיד modifies ושבי (so, e.g.,
25.
Cf. BDB, s.v. ןנח, under the subheading םנח.
26.
See recently T. Hieke, ‘Psalm 7’, in C. Diller et al. (eds.), Erforsche Mich, Gott, und Erkenne Mein Herz!: Beiträge zur Syntax, Sprechaktanalyse und Metaphorik im Alten Testament (Schülerfestschrift für Hubert Irsigler zum 60. Geburtstag) (ATSAT, 76; St Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 2005), pp. 37–60 (46–47), and the literature cited there.
27.
See Tigay, ‘Psalm 7.5’, p. 180 n. 8, who notes this rendering in the Targum and the Syriac as well as among modern interpreters.
28.
For example, the NASB renders: ‘Or have plundered him who without cause was my adversary.’
29.
See Tigay, ‘Psalm 7.5’. It bears mention that Tigay does not commit to a translation of םקיד (see p. 179 n. 6).
30.
See Tigay, ‘Psalm 7.5’, pp. 180–81 and the sources he cites in n. 10.
31.
This is true notwithstanding the antithetic relationship between half-lines in some of these instances (acknowledged by Tigay, ‘Psalm 7.5’, p. 180 n. 11), for the conjunctive term ‘rather’ does not fit any of the relevant verses. Note also Tigay's own argument in opposition to the view in question.
32.
As noted earlier, cf. the view of Kwakkel, According to My Righteousness, pp. 63–64, and that of Craigie, Psalms 1–50, p. 99.
33.
Aurelius, ‘Davids Unschuld’, p. 410.
34.
The term ‘midrash’ is often used to characterize the exegesis offered by psalm superscriptions, as, for example, in the studies by Hutton, ‘Psalm Midrash’, and Childs, ‘Psalm Titles and Midrashic Exegesis’.
35.
This, in conjunction with the incongruity between the content of our psalm and 2 Sam. 19, makes it is difficult to accept Aurelius's confident assertion that ‘the superscription in Ps. 7.1, by means of [the expressions] “elegy” [Klagelied] and “words of Cush”, fits 2 Sam. 18.31–19.1 too well to allow for the possibility that the relationship is not intentional but rather purely coincidental’ (‘Davids Unschuld’, p. 409; translation mine).
36.
Johnson, David in Distress, pp. 99–108. The quoted line appears on p. 108.
37.
Hutton, ‘Cush the Benjaminite’, pp. 124–26.
38.
Y. Berger, ‘Esther and Benjaminite Royalty: A Study in Inner-Biblical Allusion’, JBL 129 (2010), pp. 625–44.
39.
The relevant phrases appear in 1 Sam. 25.39 and 1 Kgs 2.44. Apart from these instances and the verse in Esther, this precise combination of terms appears only once in the Bible (Judg. 9.57).
40.
On the centrality of this motif in the David story, see Chapter 4 of P. Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); and J. Jacobs, ‘“Shrugging off Unkindness” in Biblical Narrative: David Repays his Enemies’ Evil with Good’, in S. Vargon et al. (eds.), Studies in Bible and Exegesis IX (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2009), pp. 129–42 (Hebrew). This theme, along with the terminology that gives expression to it, transcends the putative boundary between the History of David's Rise and the Succession Narrative, and, together with other evidence that scholars have presented, points to the viability of a synchronic reading that underscores the craftsmanship of the author/editor responsible for the work in a form approximating the one in our possession. See, e.g., Y. Berger, ‘On Patterning in the Book of Samuel: “News of Death” and the Kingship of David’, JSOT 35 (2011), pp. 463–81, and the sources cited there in nn. 1–2.
41.
See, e.g., M.E. Biddle, ‘Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization’, JBL 121 (2002), pp. 617–38 (626), and the literature cited there.
42.
Jacobs, ‘“Shrugging Off Unkindness”’, pp. 133–36.
43.
Jacobs, ‘“Shrugging Off Unkindness”’, pp. 137–38.
44.
Recently, see, e.g., the concluding paragraph in S.L. Mckenzie, ‘Elaborated Evidence for the Priority of 1 Samuel 26’, JBL 129 (2010), pp. 437–44.
45.
Jacobs, ‘“Shrugging Off Unkindness”’, p. 137 n. 26.