Before any type of unified political entity named Israel existed, the Jewish groups whose descendants would later form Israel identified themselves by their particular tribe. If asked their nationality or country of origin, they would likely identify themselves as Danites (from the tribe of Dan; Ex. 31:6) or Ephraimites (from the tribe of Ephraim; Judg. 12:5), etc. The main way to differentiate these tribes from other tribes in Canaan was their common worship of the deity YHWH, but in terms of language or other cultural characteristics, it would have been difficult to tell a Canaanite from an Israelite.
Eventually, these separate tribes united together as a type of confederation, allies who made a treaty (covenant) to provide military aid for one another when threatened by an enemy state. But it was only under the charismatic leadership of David that the 12 tribes united into a single political entity. Scholars refer to the period encompassing the reign of David and his son Solomon as the United Monarchy. This period, spanning only two generations, was the only time when all of the tribes were politically united, and after a contentious schism that resulted because the northern tribes felt exploited by the Judean kings, the northern tribes seceded from the “United Kingdom” and reverted back to the ancient northern versus southern division of the tribes. The main difference this time was that the southern kingdom now incorporated the tribe of Benjamin, located at the border between these two new nations, within its political borders. The tribe of Simeon (south of Judah) had already ceased to maintain a separate existence. The new northern kingdom adopted the name Israel, while the southern kingdom took their regional name of Judah.
From a literary and historical, critical perspective, however, the accounts of David’s rise preserved in the Deuteronomistic History serve a decidedly apologetic and propagandistic function. Their main goal was to legitimize a man who, in historical terms, appeared to be usurping the throne, and since he did not have any claim to Saul’s dynastic lineage, David’s direct election by Yahweh provided the sole unassailable justification for his right to rule, shielding him from the serious accusation that he had seized the throne through illegal and opportunistic means. It is within this carefully constructed apologetic framework that the celebrated figure of the “shepherd” takes on its full meaning. In the ancient Near East, the role of the shepherd had no association with poverty or rural simplicity but was a well-established royal metaphor: Egyptian pharaohs and Mesopotamian kings were often depicted holding the shepherd’s staff, which symbolized their absolute authority and protective role towards their subjects. The image of David called directly from the pastures to be raised up as king should not be read as a literal account of his youth, but as a powerful literary device deployed to theologically project his predestination for leadership and place him within the ideal model of the ancient monarch who shepherds his people. This sophisticated portrait served brilliantly to sacralize his image, lending a noble veneer to the ruthless and at times brutal political and military skills that transformed a mercenary warlord into the undisputed territorial sovereign of Israel.
