Damning David's Diverse Dynasty: A Response to Gafney

In “Dominated by David,” Wilda Gafney argues that the biblical David was a womanizer. In this précis, I will briefly characterize the strategy of Gafney’s overall argument and then summarize one of her interpretations as an example of her argument style. I conclude with some personal and critical reflections in response.

David the Womanizer

In the chapter, Gafney’s overall goal is to paint a picture of David as a womanizer, a man who engages in numerous sexual affairs or casual marriages with women.^[1] To support her argument, she painstakingly enumerates all the wives of King David found in the biblical books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. At first blush, Gafney’s overall thesis is perhaps trivial and one that few would dispute in light of David’s well-known affair with Bathsheba. However, Gafney nonetheless argues that while most people are familiar with this one affair of David, “the extent to which the Bible chronicles his womanizing” would “come as a shock to students and congregants.”^[2]

In making her case, Gafney exhibits a unique argument style that I had not seen before but was profoundly challenging and inspiring to me. She supports her “womanist midrash” approach to the text by considering the biblical narrative from the point of view of David’s various wives, whose perspectives are often silenced in the text itself. In doing this, Gafney is exercising what she calls her “sanctified imagination.”^[3]

Since it is impossible to do justice to all of Gafney’s subtle and profound interpretations here, I want to briefly highlight just one example of her argument style by looking at her exposition of 1 Samuel 25.

Sanctified Imagination: From Abigail’s Perspective

Gafney poignantly argues that David should be characterized as a womanizer in 1 Samuel 25 because after his marriage to Abigail in verse 42, he is described as immediately marrying another woman, Ahinoam, in the very next verse: “David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; both of them became his wives” (1 Sam 25:43 NRSV). Gafney offers a moving observation: “David stops one verse later, seemingly on the side of the road, and picks up another woman.”^[4] According to Gafney, this fact reveals David to be a shallow womanizer: “Abigail and David ride off into the sunset — in my imagination — and then come to a thudding halt.”^[5]

In this example, as in many others, I was deeply moved and challenged by Gafney’s imaginative descriptions of the point of view of David’s wives. I had never considered thinking of what is absent from the text — the perspectives of the wives — and using my imagination to fill in the gaps in the way she does.

The Limits of Imagination?

While I have profound respect for Gafney’s perspective, I also can’t help but question the soundness of many of her expositions. For example, her interpretation of 1 Samuel 25:43 depends crucially on the idea that David’s marriage to Abigail was immediately followed by his marriage to Ahinoam.^[6] Yet, many respectable translations state the marriage in the past perfect tense, which would mean that David actually married Ahinoam first: “David had earlier married Ahinoam” (CEV; cf. NIV 2011). The range of possible translations here should caution against placing too much exegetical weight on the timing of David’s marriage to Ahinoam.

Another example is Gafney’s depiction of David’s weeping over losing his wives and children in 1 Samuel 30:4: “Although David’s tears could signify his care and concern … they could also be tears of rage.”^[7] While this reading is possible, she never supports it with any evidence, and it seems excessively vitriolic.

Overall, my tendency is to agree with Gafney’s conclusion that David was a womanizer. Yet, my impression is that her arguments for that conclusion are rooted more in her sanctified imagination than in cogent evidence in these and many other cases.