What do you think?
Rate this book
King David: The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel
David, King of the Jews, possessed every flaw and failing of which a mortal is capable, yet men and women adored him, and God showered him with many blessings. A charismatic leader, exalted as “a man after God’s own heart,” he was also capable of deep cunning and bloodthirsty violence. Weaving together biblical texts with centuries of interpretation and commentary, as well as the startling discoveries of modern biblical archaeology and scholarship, bestselling author Jonathan Kirsch brings King David to life with extraordinary freshness, intimacy, and vividness of detail, revealing him in all his glory and fallibility. At the center of this taut, dramatic narrative stands a hero of flesh and blood–a man as vibrant and compelling today as he has been for millennia.
400 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
61 people are currently reading
460 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
February 4, 2011
If you had asked me before I read King David, how familiar I was with all the Biblical David stories, I would have told you I knew them all. After all, having been raised on daily bible study, as a fundamentalist christian, who read propaganda religious literature for entertainment, I'm certain I've read through the books of I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, and I Chronicles, II Chronicles maybe a dozen times in entirety, and who knows how many times in selection.
Naturally, fundamentalists get many of their ideas and attitudes from the Old Testament, no matter how they give lip service to being bound only by the words of Christ in the New Testament. (New Covenant, Fulfillment of the Law, and all that rubbish.) The fact is, King David features most prominently in their Old Testament dogma, and some of the fundamentalists refer to Christ as the Greater David, tying more sacrosanct lore from Davidic mythology to Messianic prophecy.
If you had asked me, I would have told you that I was aware of all the cherry-picking that the leaders in my faith had done to present just a mesmerizing person of loyalty and fealty to God.
Kirsch's book was a champ for me, because he sets the narrative in its proper time-frame, supported by what we actually know about the history of circa-1000 BCE, against all the things we don't know about David. In fact, there is almost no archaeological support for the life of David and his court. What little there has been dug up, (in some of the most sifted soil in the entire world,) is speculative at best. What we know about David comes exclusively through the pages of the Old Testament – a document that – once examined with clear eyes – is seen to be more legend than chronicle.
This makes David no less fascinating as a possibly historical individual. He certainly deserves mythological status. No story of Hercules can best the legends of David – who appears to be a marauding mercenary with royalist ambitions, a man of great charisma and passion, who was able to manipulate such fanatical support from Israelite and non-Israelite that he may have shaped the course of a real nation. Mixed in with political intrigue, conquests and treason, are very human stories of passion and excess, indulgence of favored children, pragmatism, and even David's possible interfaith – a concept that is most assuredly glossed over by most Bible literalist christians, who would have one believe that David was ever-faithful only to Yahweh.
Kirsch does a splendid job of crafting the many and contradictory stories of David into a comprehensible whole. He deftly credits mainstream and lesser known biblical historians' ideas regarding authorship of the many sections that speak of David, and lets us know why it matters, by briefly linking David to the Christ-narrative, and modern day emphasis on the search for proof of Biblical veracity.
I loved this book.
Although I have long ago left behind my fundamentalist roots, I have retained a deep and abiding fascination with the mythology of the Bible, and the degree to which its influence reaches out to so many aspects of life in this country. And yet, the vast majority of us know only what we've been spoon fed by a man standing at a podium, lecturing us on Sunday mornings about faith, purity, and the Vengeance of the Lord. How many of us ever take the time to examine those born-in, osmotic “truths” we accept so easily?
This is why examinations like this have great value, they challenge our perceptions and knock on the door to the closets of deeply held beliefs.
4.5 stars: 5 for being fascinating and engaging, 4 for occasionally being as speculative as the source material itself.
Naturally, fundamentalists get many of their ideas and attitudes from the Old Testament, no matter how they give lip service to being bound only by the words of Christ in the New Testament. (New Covenant, Fulfillment of the Law, and all that rubbish.) The fact is, King David features most prominently in their Old Testament dogma, and some of the fundamentalists refer to Christ as the Greater David, tying more sacrosanct lore from Davidic mythology to Messianic prophecy.
If you had asked me, I would have told you that I was aware of all the cherry-picking that the leaders in my faith had done to present just a mesmerizing person of loyalty and fealty to God.
Kirsch's book was a champ for me, because he sets the narrative in its proper time-frame, supported by what we actually know about the history of circa-1000 BCE, against all the things we don't know about David. In fact, there is almost no archaeological support for the life of David and his court. What little there has been dug up, (in some of the most sifted soil in the entire world,) is speculative at best. What we know about David comes exclusively through the pages of the Old Testament – a document that – once examined with clear eyes – is seen to be more legend than chronicle.
This makes David no less fascinating as a possibly historical individual. He certainly deserves mythological status. No story of Hercules can best the legends of David – who appears to be a marauding mercenary with royalist ambitions, a man of great charisma and passion, who was able to manipulate such fanatical support from Israelite and non-Israelite that he may have shaped the course of a real nation. Mixed in with political intrigue, conquests and treason, are very human stories of passion and excess, indulgence of favored children, pragmatism, and even David's possible interfaith – a concept that is most assuredly glossed over by most Bible literalist christians, who would have one believe that David was ever-faithful only to Yahweh.
Kirsch does a splendid job of crafting the many and contradictory stories of David into a comprehensible whole. He deftly credits mainstream and lesser known biblical historians' ideas regarding authorship of the many sections that speak of David, and lets us know why it matters, by briefly linking David to the Christ-narrative, and modern day emphasis on the search for proof of Biblical veracity.
I loved this book.
Although I have long ago left behind my fundamentalist roots, I have retained a deep and abiding fascination with the mythology of the Bible, and the degree to which its influence reaches out to so many aspects of life in this country. And yet, the vast majority of us know only what we've been spoon fed by a man standing at a podium, lecturing us on Sunday mornings about faith, purity, and the Vengeance of the Lord. How many of us ever take the time to examine those born-in, osmotic “truths” we accept so easily?
This is why examinations like this have great value, they challenge our perceptions and knock on the door to the closets of deeply held beliefs.
4.5 stars: 5 for being fascinating and engaging, 4 for occasionally being as speculative as the source material itself.
September 17, 2013
This has been a really interesting read so far. One theme the author touches on is how much of scripture before and after David may have been crafted by writers and theologians seeking to position David's legacy. I like the fact that the book notes the many contradictions in the bible and offers reasons why those contradictions may exist.
OK finished now - very worthwhile for anyone interested in the role of the bible in religion or life, which to my mind is anyone who considers him or herself to be an educated person. Hard to pick a money quote - there are many memorable passages - but here's one from the appendix:
"By almost any measure, David is the most commanding figures in the Hebrew Bible. His name is mentioned more than a thousand times, and more space is devoted to him than to any other biblical figure. Although the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and Moses are crucial to both biblical narrative and biblical theology, it is David who may have inspired the writing of the Bible in the first place. Indeed, David is present in the Bible even in passages where his name is never mentioned."
OK finished now - very worthwhile for anyone interested in the role of the bible in religion or life, which to my mind is anyone who considers him or herself to be an educated person. Hard to pick a money quote - there are many memorable passages - but here's one from the appendix:
"By almost any measure, David is the most commanding figures in the Hebrew Bible. His name is mentioned more than a thousand times, and more space is devoted to him than to any other biblical figure. Although the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and Moses are crucial to both biblical narrative and biblical theology, it is David who may have inspired the writing of the Bible in the first place. Indeed, David is present in the Bible even in passages where his name is never mentioned."
March 18, 2021
If you are looking for a faux-intellectual, bilious hit-piece against Christianity, God, the Bible and the concept of King David, Kirsch has pistols at the ready and his fingers are a-twitching.
He seems caught between a desire to tell us that the whole story was made up, and a desire to eviscerate a historical figure whom he regards as wrongfully revered. So when the Bible says something positive about David, he attributes it to a revisionist historian centuries after the event. When something bad is written about him, he says see, look, I TOLD you he was awful!
For his primary Biblical source Kirsch, rather than use any Bible written by a committee - i.e. with a process involving accountability and multiple opinions from people as knowledgeable as yourself - went with a translation by one guy, because he prefers it. So the intellectual rigour is kinda lost before we start.
He then launches into the infinitely wearying process of bad-bits-true, good-bits-fake revisionism that fits his worldview, whilst painting 1,000 years of Jewish intellectuals as dribbling half-wits because they couldn't come up with what he would consider a more consistent, singular tale.
Among the vast panoply of failures to grasp the obvious, and refusals to accept reasonable explanations, are the following:
"At this point in the Bible, however, we are reading the work of a biblical author who...is a covert propagandist who blames all the failings of the Chosen People on the simple fact that they were not yet ruled by a king."
He's obviously read the last paragraph of the book of Judges but has wilfully misinterpreted it. God's words to Samuel in the next book made it abundantly clear God knew that a monarchy was a terrible idea. Everybody doing 'as they saw fit' during the period of the Judges wasn't an indictment of kinglessness, but of political anarchy.
"God...seemed childlike...seemed to regard the desire of the Israelites for a king as a personal insult. When he spoke to Samuel, his tone was resentful, petulant, even a bit whiny."
Actually, God gave the Israelites a lengthy warning that a king would use and abuse them, and had no retort for them when they turned down the advice. The way Kirsch phrases this, breaking out his thesaurus when he gets the insult momentum going, is typical of the tone.
Any time something bad happens to the Israelites, Kirsch asserts that it was God making a dumb choice. And yet built in to the warning that they shouldn't get a king, was a prophecy that terrible things would, indeed happen.
Kirsch doesn't understand the Biblical concept of God's sovereignty, and therefore criticises or dismisses it on the basis that there's no record of God 'doing stuff' against David's enemies, for example. For Kirsch, God wasn't really acting unless there was a squadron of airborne angels swooping down on the Philistines. David's victories against overwhelming odds, for example, don't count. They're just David's victories.
"the life story of David is richly decorated with heroic exploits and romantic encounters that owe more to folklore and fairy tale than to history or theology"
How does he know? He doesn't. In fact, he doesn't even tries to persuade us - he just interjects at various points that wow, obviously that can't be real, ergo that must have been some Jewish marketing person centuries later.
"Other details, however, betray the overheated imagination of the biblical storyteller. The inventory of Goliath's armour and armaments, for example, turns out to be an unlikely hodgepodge of ancient weaponry."
Well, yes Mr Kirsch, I imagine someone being 10 feet tall would HAVE to be kitted out with a collection of ancient weaponry that seems 'unlikely'. But for him, 'unlikely' = obviously untrue.
"We have every reason to believe that a homosexual relationship existed", he favourably quotes an author, because obviously the idea that David and Jonathan were lovers is far more interesting than believing what the text says, which is that they were devoted friends who loved each other dearly. Because apparently men can't just be friends.
Where different versions of the same Biblical story exist, with no contradiction but a different emphasis, Kirsch is determined to see a contradiction that no neutral party would infer from the text. For example, a somewhat blandly historical retelling in one place and a theological retelling in another results in the accusation of "an overlay applied to the older texts". Except they left the older texts in there, which makes the Jews - according to Kirsch's logic - galactically dumb. Except they, like most thinking people, are capable of living with nuance and conundrums.
When David spared Saul's life by cutting off a corner of his cloak rather than killing him, as he had opportunity to do, Kirsch's take is that David "was not too pure of heart to engage in a prank that can be seen as a tactic of psychological warfare". So he coulda killed the guy, he didn't, but wanted to maintain his personal safety while proving that he could have, in order to persuade Saul into a truce. But somehow that's psychological warfare? Do me a frigging favour.
"Uriah, whom David arranged to have killed so that he could sleep with Uriah's wife..."
No, David had already slept with Uriah's wife, and arranged to have Uriah killed so that David could NOT sleep with Bathsheba, but marry her so it looked like he had slept with her, thus excusing her pregnancy.
"The Talmudic rabbis were so troubled by the plain facts of David's life - the cunning, cynicism, and carnality that he displays unapologetically in the pages of the Bible - that they simply dreamed up a new and improved David."
How does he know? We'll never know how he thinks he knows, because he doesn't say. Beyond his oft-repeated refrain that the bad bits must have been real, the good bits must have been made up later, and there is no such thing - apparently - as a complicated and contradictory personality.
(Why did I give it two stars rather than one? Because I read it for research for the novel I'm writing that includes a fictionalised version of King David, and it helped a little with that. Also because I felt guilty giving only one star to a book I disagreed with, and because I was intimidated by his bibliography - he seems to have compiled his for the same reason other men buy fancy cars.)
He seems caught between a desire to tell us that the whole story was made up, and a desire to eviscerate a historical figure whom he regards as wrongfully revered. So when the Bible says something positive about David, he attributes it to a revisionist historian centuries after the event. When something bad is written about him, he says see, look, I TOLD you he was awful!
For his primary Biblical source Kirsch, rather than use any Bible written by a committee - i.e. with a process involving accountability and multiple opinions from people as knowledgeable as yourself - went with a translation by one guy, because he prefers it. So the intellectual rigour is kinda lost before we start.
He then launches into the infinitely wearying process of bad-bits-true, good-bits-fake revisionism that fits his worldview, whilst painting 1,000 years of Jewish intellectuals as dribbling half-wits because they couldn't come up with what he would consider a more consistent, singular tale.
Among the vast panoply of failures to grasp the obvious, and refusals to accept reasonable explanations, are the following:
"At this point in the Bible, however, we are reading the work of a biblical author who...is a covert propagandist who blames all the failings of the Chosen People on the simple fact that they were not yet ruled by a king."
He's obviously read the last paragraph of the book of Judges but has wilfully misinterpreted it. God's words to Samuel in the next book made it abundantly clear God knew that a monarchy was a terrible idea. Everybody doing 'as they saw fit' during the period of the Judges wasn't an indictment of kinglessness, but of political anarchy.
"God...seemed childlike...seemed to regard the desire of the Israelites for a king as a personal insult. When he spoke to Samuel, his tone was resentful, petulant, even a bit whiny."
Actually, God gave the Israelites a lengthy warning that a king would use and abuse them, and had no retort for them when they turned down the advice. The way Kirsch phrases this, breaking out his thesaurus when he gets the insult momentum going, is typical of the tone.
Any time something bad happens to the Israelites, Kirsch asserts that it was God making a dumb choice. And yet built in to the warning that they shouldn't get a king, was a prophecy that terrible things would, indeed happen.
Kirsch doesn't understand the Biblical concept of God's sovereignty, and therefore criticises or dismisses it on the basis that there's no record of God 'doing stuff' against David's enemies, for example. For Kirsch, God wasn't really acting unless there was a squadron of airborne angels swooping down on the Philistines. David's victories against overwhelming odds, for example, don't count. They're just David's victories.
"the life story of David is richly decorated with heroic exploits and romantic encounters that owe more to folklore and fairy tale than to history or theology"
How does he know? He doesn't. In fact, he doesn't even tries to persuade us - he just interjects at various points that wow, obviously that can't be real, ergo that must have been some Jewish marketing person centuries later.
"Other details, however, betray the overheated imagination of the biblical storyteller. The inventory of Goliath's armour and armaments, for example, turns out to be an unlikely hodgepodge of ancient weaponry."
Well, yes Mr Kirsch, I imagine someone being 10 feet tall would HAVE to be kitted out with a collection of ancient weaponry that seems 'unlikely'. But for him, 'unlikely' = obviously untrue.
"We have every reason to believe that a homosexual relationship existed", he favourably quotes an author, because obviously the idea that David and Jonathan were lovers is far more interesting than believing what the text says, which is that they were devoted friends who loved each other dearly. Because apparently men can't just be friends.
Where different versions of the same Biblical story exist, with no contradiction but a different emphasis, Kirsch is determined to see a contradiction that no neutral party would infer from the text. For example, a somewhat blandly historical retelling in one place and a theological retelling in another results in the accusation of "an overlay applied to the older texts". Except they left the older texts in there, which makes the Jews - according to Kirsch's logic - galactically dumb. Except they, like most thinking people, are capable of living with nuance and conundrums.
When David spared Saul's life by cutting off a corner of his cloak rather than killing him, as he had opportunity to do, Kirsch's take is that David "was not too pure of heart to engage in a prank that can be seen as a tactic of psychological warfare". So he coulda killed the guy, he didn't, but wanted to maintain his personal safety while proving that he could have, in order to persuade Saul into a truce. But somehow that's psychological warfare? Do me a frigging favour.
"Uriah, whom David arranged to have killed so that he could sleep with Uriah's wife..."
No, David had already slept with Uriah's wife, and arranged to have Uriah killed so that David could NOT sleep with Bathsheba, but marry her so it looked like he had slept with her, thus excusing her pregnancy.
"The Talmudic rabbis were so troubled by the plain facts of David's life - the cunning, cynicism, and carnality that he displays unapologetically in the pages of the Bible - that they simply dreamed up a new and improved David."
How does he know? We'll never know how he thinks he knows, because he doesn't say. Beyond his oft-repeated refrain that the bad bits must have been real, the good bits must have been made up later, and there is no such thing - apparently - as a complicated and contradictory personality.
(Why did I give it two stars rather than one? Because I read it for research for the novel I'm writing that includes a fictionalised version of King David, and it helped a little with that. Also because I felt guilty giving only one star to a book I disagreed with, and because I was intimidated by his bibliography - he seems to have compiled his for the same reason other men buy fancy cars.)
April 18, 2018
This book was exactly what I expected - the story of King David written as biography as opposed to theology or religious history. King David was the man who taught the world how to be King. A Warrior, poet and statesman chosen by God to rule over his people. The story of King David is the stuff of history, mythology, empire and salacious palace intrigue all mixed together in an epic story. But too often the focus has been on David's relationship to God and not on the captivating story of his life. Johnathan Kirsch has certainly covered that area and told the story of David with a sense of objectivity and scholarly insight despite that his only source of reference is a series of books from the Hebrew Bible. David's relationship to God, of course, is explored in this book but it does not overwhelm. Something that is fitting because the relationship between the two was hands off at best and - as this book points out - the best known stories about David do not involve any input from his God. His battle with Goliath and Absalom and his affair with Bathsheba where all David and not encouraged or even commented on by God. These facts show that though David was anointed by God he was still his own man, often leading to tragic results.
This is why the angle of biography works so well with this biblical character. The presence of God is still a strong force in this book by the piety and theology had been toned down and instead, the reader is presented with the story in a highly readable and well-researched style that fills in the missing parts while still acknowledging the Biblical and religious elements. In this book we learn more about life in the time of David and how astonishing his tale really is. The seventh son of a shepherd who becomes a fugitive and mercenary before claiming the crown this book explores each aspect of a complicated man who left a trail of blood in his wake but is now just as remembered for the song of his poetry than the blood on his hands.
The picture painted of King David is not the warmest and fuzziest image. He is seen as arrogant and self-serving by the writer but these claims are all well defended and plausible even if they do not adhere to the image of David as God's chosen one. At the end of this book I was left with an image of David, not as a vassal of God but more as a man of God who was flawed in many ways both moral and mortally but he was also a man who knew how to be King and was worthy of the superstar status he enjoys in the Bible, secular history and the hearts of man.
This is why the angle of biography works so well with this biblical character. The presence of God is still a strong force in this book by the piety and theology had been toned down and instead, the reader is presented with the story in a highly readable and well-researched style that fills in the missing parts while still acknowledging the Biblical and religious elements. In this book we learn more about life in the time of David and how astonishing his tale really is. The seventh son of a shepherd who becomes a fugitive and mercenary before claiming the crown this book explores each aspect of a complicated man who left a trail of blood in his wake but is now just as remembered for the song of his poetry than the blood on his hands.
The picture painted of King David is not the warmest and fuzziest image. He is seen as arrogant and self-serving by the writer but these claims are all well defended and plausible even if they do not adhere to the image of David as God's chosen one. At the end of this book I was left with an image of David, not as a vassal of God but more as a man of God who was flawed in many ways both moral and mortally but he was also a man who knew how to be King and was worthy of the superstar status he enjoys in the Bible, secular history and the hearts of man.
June 27, 2016
I'm listening to this book on CD during my commute. David has all of the best ripping yarns in the Bible, I think. Stories about gorgeous girlfriends, beautiful boyfriends, other peoples' wives, treasonable intrigues, military campaigns, hand-to-hand combat with a giant, life as an outlaw and a brigand, murder, and mayhem. He's got musical talent, poetic chops, courage, sex appeal, and, ultimately, God's special grace and favor. And the funny thing about him is that through it all you can recognize yourself in him - both your occasional moments of nobility and grace, and your all-too-frequent fits of pique, anger, jealousy, covetousness, envy, excess, lack of humility... all your - and his - everyday sins of omission and commission. I guess that's why the Bible is still a best-seller after a few thousand years, and why it should be included in every one of those time capsule sorts of things that we send into outer space in hopes of its being found by alien life forms - it's a handbook about what it is to be human.
December 31, 2021
I've lost track of how many books I've read about the life of David, but it never gets old. Everything about him can be used as something to learn from. A great man, a great legacy, a great love for the One True God.
August 2, 2019
In het nederlands gelezen.
January 5, 2024
Decent rad but some of the information in this book has been refuted by many scholars and historians. Some of the arguments presented were a stretch and it felt as though they were included to solidify the author’s presentation of David. But I will say this could make for a decent scholastic look at David’s life
January 5, 2024
Not the Real Life at all
If you are looking for a sublime example of confirmation bias, then look no further. This author clearly set out with a specific agenda in writing this book, and then proceeds to select only authorities that support what he tries to portray as analysis, but is really only personal opinion.
The conclusions that the author reaches ranges from his personal opinion (ignoring many authorities), to the far-reaching and even nonsensical. From the earliest pages, phrases like “the open eyed reader” or “the modern reader” prefaces such personal views and often ludicrous conclusions.
Indeed, if you do read this book “open-eyed”, the author’s agenda becomes very clear from the start.
If indeed you do read the biblical accounts with an open eye, you will come to very different conclusions. This work is not worth the time and money, even for the reader who is looking for a historical rather than a theological analysis. Because of the bias and personal opinion that are displayed so rampantly, the book is of exceptionally low quality and value and completely lacks any credibility.
The fact that it was even published is astounding and shows that the publishers, along with the author were only interested in one thing - to create controversy to sell copies.
If you are looking for a sublime example of confirmation bias, then look no further. This author clearly set out with a specific agenda in writing this book, and then proceeds to select only authorities that support what he tries to portray as analysis, but is really only personal opinion.
The conclusions that the author reaches ranges from his personal opinion (ignoring many authorities), to the far-reaching and even nonsensical. From the earliest pages, phrases like “the open eyed reader” or “the modern reader” prefaces such personal views and often ludicrous conclusions.
Indeed, if you do read this book “open-eyed”, the author’s agenda becomes very clear from the start.
If indeed you do read the biblical accounts with an open eye, you will come to very different conclusions. This work is not worth the time and money, even for the reader who is looking for a historical rather than a theological analysis. Because of the bias and personal opinion that are displayed so rampantly, the book is of exceptionally low quality and value and completely lacks any credibility.
The fact that it was even published is astounding and shows that the publishers, along with the author were only interested in one thing - to create controversy to sell copies.
August 6, 2010
This book isn't exactly a page-turner but is insighful and interesting to ready. It poses many contradictions about King David, and also the various authors who wrote about him. I think I'll finish it, but it's on the back burner. I'm about 1/2 through.
I hope I finish it before we get to David in OT Sunday School class...
Well--I didn't finish it before then, now I have no motivation to do so. I prefer gardening to reading this book...if I were a Bible Scholar and it were winter...I'd finish it!
I hope I finish it before we get to David in OT Sunday School class...
Well--I didn't finish it before then, now I have no motivation to do so. I prefer gardening to reading this book...if I were a Bible Scholar and it were winter...I'd finish it!
April 16, 2015
This is an intriguing look into the life of King David which goes well beyond the Goliath story that we hear in Sunday school. In church, I believe we are thwarted away from stories like this, but I think that is a myopic approach. To learn that one of God's chosen people could be so flawed and so "human" gives us all hope as we struggle day to day with temptations.
I recommend this book to someone who is looking for a deeper understanding of the Bible from an historical and anthropological perspective. Purist, please read with an open mind.
I recommend this book to someone who is looking for a deeper understanding of the Bible from an historical and anthropological perspective. Purist, please read with an open mind.
July 23, 2012
Excellent & thorough analysis of the biblical David stories, comparing the "rough & honest" account in the Books of Samuel to the "cleaned up" version of Chronicles. A great way of seeing how the Ancient Israeli kingdom compared to political intrigues of its contemporary societies, via careful and logical interpretation of the bible's language. Kirsch always does a good job with this kind of material.
September 27, 2010
If you really want to know who King David the man was and what he was really like, you have to read this book. Jonathan Kirsch tells the true and exact story of King David, but in plain English and in a style that everyone can understand. This book was so captivating,I read it while on vacation and it's the only thing I remember about the whole trip.
June 18, 2019
Kirsch provides an extremely negative interpretation of David. David is shown to selfish, ambitious, calculating, and willing to do anything in his naked lust for power. Religiously, he is shown to be an idolater, engaging in pagan practices which the prophets would eventually condemn, no passionate love for God is seen, though he seeks some yes and nos from YHWH via divination. David is shown to be a cruel and blood-thirsty pagan warlord and raider of the weak and vulnerable, a genocidal killer, a merciless guerrilla leader without any value for others. A huge sexual appetite which included homosexual sex. To cap it all off, at the end of his life he leaves his son Solomon with a long kill list, which Solomon dutifully and ruthlessly tackles. Kirsch can provide a decent bit of evidence from the bible itself for this portrait, and in denying that any of the psalms attributed to David were composed by David, and by reading between the lines, it is possibly to even darken what is typically taken as the more inspiring and godly aspects of David's life. Kirsch is about to suggest nefarious motives for any seemingly noble act; providing some selfish political agenda or later spin job from redactors. Thus Kirsch is about to leave us with a consistent picture of someone who would make Osama Bin Laden seem like a saint in comparison.
If Kirsch is even close to accurate concerning the degree David was the antithesis of what later Judaen prophets, psalmist and second temple Judaism stood for, it calls out for more explanation just how he morphed and eventually was remembered as such a hero. Kirsch shares some ancient Jewish interpretations; even the things that evangelicals today don't try to give a positive spin too, they did, Jewish interpreters needed David to be a perfect godly role model, so even the Bathsheba and Uriah story was spun in such a way to try to justify David.
It is interesting how history works, so I hear MLK Jr was pretty horrible towards woman and also he is said to have been a communist. And yet what he is remembered and celebrated for the the civil rights battle he fought. Part of what he stood for was so good, that in general it seems fine that the less savory aspects of his life are whitewashed to leave us with a hero. But I imagine, if someone wanted to, they could go back and decide MLK jr was a pure scoundrel and thus interpret even the good aspects in a negative light, suggesting bad motivations. Creating a consistent 2D character, wholly rotten through and through, suggesting the image we have know is a complete fiction. I'd suggest this is what Kirsch has done with David, instead of a fallen and inconsistent passionate worshiper of YHWH, and a colossal mix of the noble and debase, we have an absolutely horrible person, not even a kernel of the good to be expanded and blown out of proportion.
If Kirsch is even close to accurate concerning the degree David was the antithesis of what later Judaen prophets, psalmist and second temple Judaism stood for, it calls out for more explanation just how he morphed and eventually was remembered as such a hero. Kirsch shares some ancient Jewish interpretations; even the things that evangelicals today don't try to give a positive spin too, they did, Jewish interpreters needed David to be a perfect godly role model, so even the Bathsheba and Uriah story was spun in such a way to try to justify David.
It is interesting how history works, so I hear MLK Jr was pretty horrible towards woman and also he is said to have been a communist. And yet what he is remembered and celebrated for the the civil rights battle he fought. Part of what he stood for was so good, that in general it seems fine that the less savory aspects of his life are whitewashed to leave us with a hero. But I imagine, if someone wanted to, they could go back and decide MLK jr was a pure scoundrel and thus interpret even the good aspects in a negative light, suggesting bad motivations. Creating a consistent 2D character, wholly rotten through and through, suggesting the image we have know is a complete fiction. I'd suggest this is what Kirsch has done with David, instead of a fallen and inconsistent passionate worshiper of YHWH, and a colossal mix of the noble and debase, we have an absolutely horrible person, not even a kernel of the good to be expanded and blown out of proportion.
July 9, 2022
Reading Samuel is always one of those things that brings me to a full stop. It isn't that the Bible prior isn't full of horrors, it is. But more than any character before or after, David is a paradox of portrayal. He's praised and lauded for his piety and his devotion to god, but he is also depicted murdering for a woman, ruthlessly massacring family, friends, and people ostensibly under his protection, and generally being a power-hungry, sex-crazed, Machiavellian child, even to his last days.
(Perhaps we should use Davidic in this sense, rather than Machiavellian.)
It is so full of contradictory pronouncements that I went in search of a book that could make sense of it for me, something that wasn't apologetic but that also wasn't bloated with antagonism. I wanted a clear-eyed look at the source, the life, and the meaning.
While I cannot speak to the scholarship behind this book, it hooked me, and I was glued to each and every page, dripping with insight and conjecture and an unsentimental view of the whole sordid saga. It reads not unlike A Game of Thrones, full of sex and violence and betrayal and not a single hero in the modern sense (though full of them in the classical sense). I suppose if I were invested in the divinity of David and his calling I might take some issue with the book, but I also feel that anyone reading the Bible should always keep in mind that its source material was written by and for a bronze-age warrior culture of nomads who never really achieved the heights those sources want us to believe.
We learn as much from a culture's myths and legends as we do from their history; we see their self-image, their sense of place and their identity laid out in their conflation of history and myth. We see it even in the United States and its own myth-making, its own attempts to build identity and meaning from a polyglot mix of people. We can see how ugly it is and how it really isn't ever quite right, but how it builds for us a frame of reference, one that isn't true, but is very real.
David is like that for Jews and to a lesser degree, for Christians. The entirety of scripture is like that for everyone, regardless of specific religious tradition. Some of it might be real, some of it absolutely is not, and most of it is a story that teaches us; sometimes about others, and sometimes about ourselves, but mostly about those who wrote it down for us.
(Perhaps we should use Davidic in this sense, rather than Machiavellian.)
It is so full of contradictory pronouncements that I went in search of a book that could make sense of it for me, something that wasn't apologetic but that also wasn't bloated with antagonism. I wanted a clear-eyed look at the source, the life, and the meaning.
While I cannot speak to the scholarship behind this book, it hooked me, and I was glued to each and every page, dripping with insight and conjecture and an unsentimental view of the whole sordid saga. It reads not unlike A Game of Thrones, full of sex and violence and betrayal and not a single hero in the modern sense (though full of them in the classical sense). I suppose if I were invested in the divinity of David and his calling I might take some issue with the book, but I also feel that anyone reading the Bible should always keep in mind that its source material was written by and for a bronze-age warrior culture of nomads who never really achieved the heights those sources want us to believe.
We learn as much from a culture's myths and legends as we do from their history; we see their self-image, their sense of place and their identity laid out in their conflation of history and myth. We see it even in the United States and its own myth-making, its own attempts to build identity and meaning from a polyglot mix of people. We can see how ugly it is and how it really isn't ever quite right, but how it builds for us a frame of reference, one that isn't true, but is very real.
David is like that for Jews and to a lesser degree, for Christians. The entirety of scripture is like that for everyone, regardless of specific religious tradition. Some of it might be real, some of it absolutely is not, and most of it is a story that teaches us; sometimes about others, and sometimes about ourselves, but mostly about those who wrote it down for us.
January 18, 2024
Going into this I was eager to read a dedicated biography of King David. Coming from a Christian background, I had a vague understanding of him. I just knew him as the skinny shepherd boy who slew Goliath. I wanted to dig deeper and learn of the King-side of David and how he became a God fearing ruler. There was so much more to his story than that.
This book got two stars for two reasons only. 1) I enjoyed reading a deeper dive into one of the biblical men who many perceive as the model of masculinity and 2) I appreciated the author's ability to make this an enjoyable read, writing in a style where it felt like a novel. The way the author could weave the story of David made it easy to follow and made certain topics easy to grasp.
I did not appreciate, however, the author laboring on all of the mistakes or poor behavior of David. I'm sure the author was trying to get us to think about the integrity of David's character, but it came across as a smear campaign. He made David out to be a cowardly runaway whoremonger. He would begin to write up David as a stoic champion leader then poke holes in his character. I'm not trying to defend David, he does have a questionable life. However, the author seemed smug in his focus on these topics. Nowhere did he mention David's writing of the Psalms or gave him much credit of anything else. At the end of the book I was wondering what the author's true opinion of David was.
I also didn't like how he would reference passages of the Bible or Judaic stories as "fairytales" or would say things like "now we pass from biblical myth into historical fact". I understand we all believe different, but I don't like arrogance.
This book should be read by those who have some balanced biblical understanding of King David. He kind of was the first anti-hero, so the reader needs to read with an open mind as the author tends to lead you a certain way to feel about David.
Although, the story was interesting and I kept turning the pages with an intrigue to read what's on the next. Like God asks us, we must refer to the Bible for confirmation. We can't try to add things to it or take things from it, interpret for our own agenda. That's where I feel the book lost me, the author was trying to out smart God.
This book got two stars for two reasons only. 1) I enjoyed reading a deeper dive into one of the biblical men who many perceive as the model of masculinity and 2) I appreciated the author's ability to make this an enjoyable read, writing in a style where it felt like a novel. The way the author could weave the story of David made it easy to follow and made certain topics easy to grasp.
I did not appreciate, however, the author laboring on all of the mistakes or poor behavior of David. I'm sure the author was trying to get us to think about the integrity of David's character, but it came across as a smear campaign. He made David out to be a cowardly runaway whoremonger. He would begin to write up David as a stoic champion leader then poke holes in his character. I'm not trying to defend David, he does have a questionable life. However, the author seemed smug in his focus on these topics. Nowhere did he mention David's writing of the Psalms or gave him much credit of anything else. At the end of the book I was wondering what the author's true opinion of David was.
I also didn't like how he would reference passages of the Bible or Judaic stories as "fairytales" or would say things like "now we pass from biblical myth into historical fact". I understand we all believe different, but I don't like arrogance.
This book should be read by those who have some balanced biblical understanding of King David. He kind of was the first anti-hero, so the reader needs to read with an open mind as the author tends to lead you a certain way to feel about David.
Although, the story was interesting and I kept turning the pages with an intrigue to read what's on the next. Like God asks us, we must refer to the Bible for confirmation. We can't try to add things to it or take things from it, interpret for our own agenda. That's where I feel the book lost me, the author was trying to out smart God.
June 14, 2020
A pretty decent overview of David's life as depicted in the Bible. Kirsch makes interesting observations of tensions, themes, and questions that arise from the narrative. Some examples include the tensions between the varying portrayals of David - the greatest king, anointed by God, and yet ruthless, scheming, and lustful; or the incongruence between his song to God and the preceding narrative.
However, many of his conclusions are also often speculative - prefaced with phrases such as "we might imagine" or "we could suppose". The astute reader will note these merely for what they are - intelligent guesses at secular explanations. However, he does not go out of his way to emphasize these. In fact, the reader is often led to believe these guesses as the true and only interpretation. I find that rather disingenuous of a writer.
Although I am a Christian, I intentionally sought out a secular perspective because I wanted a more historical/literature angle. And while I appreciated many of Kirsch's insights, the book unfortunately failed to provide the objective, value-neutral perspective I had hoped for. There is a perceptible derision of anything remotely religious, and his secular assumptions sometimes lead to odd conclusions. For instance, he repeatedly says that David never hears or speaks to God directly. When I first encountered this, I remembering wondering if it was true. I had read Samuel many times and felt like I had the contrary impression. Later on, whenever Kirsch has to recount an incident where David did after all consult or hear from God, he assumes without justification that this has to be via Urim and Thummim. Thus we have a circular argument - David did not communicate directly with God and thus any instruction from God had to come through Urim and Thummim, and since any word from God came through Urim and Thummim, David did not actually personally speak to God. What?
Nonetheless, this provides an easy-to-read run-through of the narrative of David that includes an interesting running commentary, even if the latter sometimes reads more like opinions.
However, many of his conclusions are also often speculative - prefaced with phrases such as "we might imagine" or "we could suppose". The astute reader will note these merely for what they are - intelligent guesses at secular explanations. However, he does not go out of his way to emphasize these. In fact, the reader is often led to believe these guesses as the true and only interpretation. I find that rather disingenuous of a writer.
Although I am a Christian, I intentionally sought out a secular perspective because I wanted a more historical/literature angle. And while I appreciated many of Kirsch's insights, the book unfortunately failed to provide the objective, value-neutral perspective I had hoped for. There is a perceptible derision of anything remotely religious, and his secular assumptions sometimes lead to odd conclusions. For instance, he repeatedly says that David never hears or speaks to God directly. When I first encountered this, I remembering wondering if it was true. I had read Samuel many times and felt like I had the contrary impression. Later on, whenever Kirsch has to recount an incident where David did after all consult or hear from God, he assumes without justification that this has to be via Urim and Thummim. Thus we have a circular argument - David did not communicate directly with God and thus any instruction from God had to come through Urim and Thummim, and since any word from God came through Urim and Thummim, David did not actually personally speak to God. What?
Nonetheless, this provides an easy-to-read run-through of the narrative of David that includes an interesting running commentary, even if the latter sometimes reads more like opinions.
March 29, 2019
Kirsch calls the Biblical account of David, fiction.
As a teacher of world history, I found much of Kirsch’s pontificating, an attempt to impose 21st century values and morals on the 10th century which just can’t be done, especially during the weakly monotheistic phase of Judaism. Additionally, much of the work is non-sequitur speculation, which makes for historical fiction presented as a nonfiction commentary on the Biblical King David.
I listened to it in its entirety. There was a clear bias against David. His psalms weren’t really incorporated as part of David’s character, but rather questioned their authenticity. He attributes the love Saul and Jonathon had for David as homosexual desire without valid facts to support the premise.
Why would anyone expect a warrior king to be passive and gentle? I would expect a warrior king in the 10th century to be cunning, proactive, and a force to be feared. That's how all the other warrior kings built kingdoms and unified tribes.
The truth of David’s character is probably some place between the Biblical text and Kirsch’s portrayal.
I wouldn’t listen to it a second time, and don’t put much confidence in it as a scholarly work. I say Kirsch’s portrayal of David is fiction and speculation, called history.
I would only recommend it to someone who has a strong knowledge of the Biblical text.
As a teacher of world history, I found much of Kirsch’s pontificating, an attempt to impose 21st century values and morals on the 10th century which just can’t be done, especially during the weakly monotheistic phase of Judaism. Additionally, much of the work is non-sequitur speculation, which makes for historical fiction presented as a nonfiction commentary on the Biblical King David.
I listened to it in its entirety. There was a clear bias against David. His psalms weren’t really incorporated as part of David’s character, but rather questioned their authenticity. He attributes the love Saul and Jonathon had for David as homosexual desire without valid facts to support the premise.
Why would anyone expect a warrior king to be passive and gentle? I would expect a warrior king in the 10th century to be cunning, proactive, and a force to be feared. That's how all the other warrior kings built kingdoms and unified tribes.
The truth of David’s character is probably some place between the Biblical text and Kirsch’s portrayal.
I wouldn’t listen to it a second time, and don’t put much confidence in it as a scholarly work. I say Kirsch’s portrayal of David is fiction and speculation, called history.
I would only recommend it to someone who has a strong knowledge of the Biblical text.
December 23, 2025
i enjoyed it. it was my first foray into this type of religious study/ historical storytelling and i had a good time. it was very interesting to learn about all of the different story about david in all of the
different books of the bible he was mentioned in.
i picked this book up from the back of a second-hand bookstore in kensington, over a fun reading week romp alone in the big city. the front of the store sold crystals and the shop-owner didn't charge me the toonie i didn't have on top of a twenty. he said, just get it next time. i haven't been back, though i want to
i can't speak to the author's experience or knowledge in this field however, as i am not knowledgeable in it myself. but i did enjoy it, and i'm excited to read more.
different books of the bible he was mentioned in.
i picked this book up from the back of a second-hand bookstore in kensington, over a fun reading week romp alone in the big city. the front of the store sold crystals and the shop-owner didn't charge me the toonie i didn't have on top of a twenty. he said, just get it next time. i haven't been back, though i want to
i can't speak to the author's experience or knowledge in this field however, as i am not knowledgeable in it myself. but i did enjoy it, and i'm excited to read more.
June 28, 2017
This book provided far more depth on the life of King David than I knew previously as it took info from many different Bible versions. I believe the main point of the book is that David was not some god-like figure, but actually extremely human. Simply put, if God could favor and accept a man like David then we can all be saved. David was clearly an old-school monarch who killed to enhance his power. Lastly, the book provided me perspective on when David lived and how the Israeli nation was initially formed.
January 24, 2024
I thought this was a conservative historical biography of king David, but, instead, it’s a concoction of all the most liberal, absurd views of king David, a hideous scarecrow. Thanks to Kirkus for sparing me the trouble of wasting time on this:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-re...
Evidently Jonathan Kirsch is like the Old Testament equivalent of the worst New Testament mis-interpreter I’ve ever read, Gary Wills:
https://thorncrownministries.com/blog...
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-re...
Evidently Jonathan Kirsch is like the Old Testament equivalent of the worst New Testament mis-interpreter I’ve ever read, Gary Wills:
https://thorncrownministries.com/blog...
February 9, 2022
A fascinating and insightful description of the life of King David, that is explored from a perspective that gives reign to more speculation than absolute fact. A very interesting explanation of a man of flesh and blood, rather than a mythical saint, who is almost taken apart piece by piece, and then put back together again but with great respect for all the biblical and historical prophets and court biographers involved. I look forward to reading more of Jonathan Kirsch's work. Recommended.
April 9, 2023
Written almost like its taking David from Samuel 1 & 2 and Chronicles and portraying him a Homeric manner with commentary thrown in. Lots of focus on sex. Suggests that the Bible started out as a bio of David and then was built around that. Because it is 20+ years, it is dated because there have been some additional archaeological finds relating to David since this book was written.
March 23, 2025
This read like a biography of a biography, more about who, when, and why David was written about in the bible than about David himself.
Some interesting conclusions by the author while others seem a bit far-fetched.
I loved that all of the stories of David that are scattered through the bible are condensed into one book.
Some interesting conclusions by the author while others seem a bit far-fetched.
I loved that all of the stories of David that are scattered through the bible are condensed into one book.
August 27, 2025
The life and struggles of King David reveal a possible inspiration for Shakespeare's epic tragedies: greed, lust for power, envy. The author points out how the fickle Old Testament God wanted to do away with the theocratic state of Moses, and replace it with the monarchy of Saul. David was not a moral man, and broke most the ten commandments, yet the Bible claims he was God's chosen.
July 30, 2024
Biografía de un personaje histórico que fue héroe, pero a la vez un hombre con todos sus defectos que los escondía al principio pero los confesaba cuando había que hacerlo, “ un hombre conforme al corazón de Dios”, fue un gran líder, terrenal pero tenía comunión con Dios. Uno debería conocerlo.
August 25, 2017
Primer on David of the Bible
December 27, 2018
I liked this book way more than I thought I would. It is all the gory and glorious details that make David so fascinating, plus the surrounding scholarly debate about its accuracy.
January 2, 2021
This booked gave me insights on the life of the Bible. I also read 1 Samuel thru Chronicles which didn’t hurt.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews