The conceptual transfer of human agency to the divine in the Second Temple period: the case of Saul's suicide.
AbstractKing Saul was not only Israel's first monarch, but he was also her first sacrilegious ruler, a point on which the two historiographical books in the Hebrew Bible agree. However, each respective corpus delineates Saul's portrayal in uneven and distinctive representations, varying in theological perspective and emphasis. 1 Samuel presents a complex account of Saul's rise to power and his subsequent fall from divine favor, and culminates with Saul's battlefield suicide. 1 Chronicles, however, shows no interest in Saul's life, but begins and ends with his suicide. Though Chronicles uses the antecedent Samuel as a source, the story of Saul's suicide and its ramifications experience a conceptual metamorphosis, resulting in considerable shifts in the perception of human and divine agency. Relatedly, Chronicles is temporally posterior to Samuel, finding its inception following the Judean restoration in the Second Temple period's postexilic milieu. This paper seeks to uncover these shifts manifested in Chronicles by elucidating each account, highlighting the relationship between human and divine agency. Attention to the shifts yields a different sacrilegious Saul and an altered concept of divine transcendence, both birthed in the cradle of the Judean community in the Second Temple period.
**********
In the books of Samuel and Chronicles, the relationship between human and divine agency is often a matter of degree. Though at times both books show direct divine interaction in the world, (1) divine pronouncements often reach fruition through an inseparable combination of divine action and human agency. (2) Both are intertwined in a way that does not allow distinct separation. However, one may detect emphasis in certain episodes. In the case of Saul's battlefield suicide, 1 Samuel places divine agency in the background, with human agency in the foreground. 1 Chronicles, conversely, places human agency in the background, with divine agency in the foreground. (3)
Undoubtedly, Saul is understood in both accounts as a sacrilegious king, a ruler who offends his deity through impiety. At the same time, both Saul's offense and punishment differ in each account. By focusing on Saul's offenses, which elicit divine chastisement, and by analyzing how that divine punishment is carried out, I will demonstrate how each text underscores the relation of divine and human agency in each corpus as it pertains to Saul, and how human agency is transferred to the divine realm in the Chronicler's account.
SAUL'S OFFENSES AND THEIR PUNISHMENTS: 1 SAMUEL 13 AND 15
A number of studies acknowledge the tragic nature of Saul's portrayal in 1 Samuel, with different degrees of emphasis on divine and human responsibility. (4) One extreme stresses Saul's innocence and understands Saul as a victim of fate, (5) while another argues that Saul was not such an innocent victim. (6) At the core of such discrepancies seems to be how textual details that stand in tension with one another are addressed. The root difficulty is the modern interpreter's propensity to fit them into diametrically opposed categories, which are in their very essence completely incompatible to the modern mind. However, while the ancient authors could perceive these same oppositions, I contend that they did not necessarily consider them to be incompatible.
I maintain the ancients' ability to hold such tensions together, especially with regard to the concept of a "victim" of divine action in the books of Samuel. The books of Samuel do not permit a king (Saul or David) who faces seemingly unfair odds to be labeled a victim. One has to look no further than 2 Samuel 24:1, where the Lord, angry at Israel (not David), incites David to conduct a census. (7) Though incited by the Lord, David is still held fully accountable as a perpetrator. (8) Divine causation and human responsibility are taken together, but do not allow David to be labeled a "victim," but only a "perpetrator." (9) In other words, the divine action works in tandem with David's volition, but does not exonerate David of full responsibility. The divine-human dynamics succinctly displayed in 2 Samuel 24 are a diagnostic for the circumstances surrounding Saul.
Related to the divine-human dynamics is the fact that Saul and David are kings, and thus held to a higher standard of responsibility, which brings with it greater ramifications for disobedience. (10) An act of sacrilege committed by a king in the ancient Near East could bring consequences that reached far beyond that king's own person. (11) Kings of Israel and Judah were no exception to this principle, and its consequences appear in the life of Saul (and David). (12) These divine-human dynamics and the consequences of a king's impiety underlie the account of Saul in 1 Samuel. They allow one to view Saul through the ancient perspective of 1 Samuel, a perspective quite different from that of modern interpreters.
In 1 Samuel, divine endorsement of Saul's rule (1 Samuel 9:15-16) quickly expires, though Saul's physical rule endures significantly longer.13 Two resemblant offenses committed by Saul result in the cessation of the Lord's support. The first malefaction, occurring in 1 Samuel 13:8-13, stems from Saul's violation of Samuel's instructions. Upon anointing Saul leader (nagid) over Israel (1 Samuel 9:27-10:1), according to the Lord's directive (1 Samuel 8:22, 9:15-17), Samuel issues the following instructions to Saul concerning their subsequent rendezvous (1 Samuel 10:8):
You shall go down before me to Gilgal, and behold, I will come down to you to offer burnt offerings, to sacrifice peace offerings. Seven days shall you wait (14) until I come to you, and I will make known to you what you should do.
Samuel's mandate entails two requirements: go, and wait seven days until Samuel arrives. (15)
Of these two prerequisites, Saul fulfills only one. Saul and his men grow anxious waiting for Samuel's arrival, as they are facing battle against a massive Philistine force. When the seven-day period transpires without sight of Samuel, the terrified people begin to scatter from Saul (13:7-8). In the face of Samuel's delinquency and his army's desertion, Saul reacts by preforming the sacrifices despite Samuel's absence (13:8-9). Samuel, arriving shortly thereafter, discovers what Saul had done and initiates the following dialog (13:11-14):
Samuel said, "What have you done?" Saul said, "When I saw that the people scattered from me, and you did not come (16) at the appointed time of days, and the Philistines gathered at Michmash, I said, "Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not appeased the Lord." So I strengthened myself and I offered the burnt offering. Then Samuel said to Saul, "You have acted foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God which he commanded you. For in that case (17) the Lord would have established your kingdom over (18) Israel forever. But now your kingdom will not stand. The Lord has sought (19) for himself a man according to his heart, and the Lord has appointed (20) him as leader over his people. For you have not kept that which the Lord commanded you."
Because he is losing the confidence of his people before an imminent confrontation with the Philistines, Saul opts to conduct the sacrifice himself. The desertion of Saul's forces triggers Saul's action, with Samuel's delay serving as Saul's justification. Saul aims to maintain his grasp upon his depleted forces at the expense of total compliance with Samuel's command, and ultimately at the expense of his dynasty. (21) Saul's actions result from his desperation to keep his soldiers at his behest before battle with the Philistines. (22)
Samuel finds no merit in Saul's excuse, understanding Saul's disobedience as a direct offense against the Lord. (23) As the Lord's spokesperson, the prophet's word was the Lord's word, a concept apparent in Samuel's criticism, "You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God." (24) Saul's failure to keep Samuel's instruction was an affront against the Lord and is met with swift judgment. In the first part of Saul's judgment (1 Samuel 13:14a), Samuel states that Saul's kingdom over Israel would have been established had Saul obeyed the command of the Lord (1 Samuel 13:13). Saul's kingdom ("your kingdom") which is "over" Israel suggests that Saul's own dynastic rule is in view. (25) Because Saul did not obey the Lord through the prophet, the Lord elects not to establish Saul's dynasty. Notably, Saul's dynasty is not immediately affected, for it "will not stand," meaning it will not endure. (26) The second part of Saul's judgment is strikingly different. Samuel states that the Lord has sought another, and has appointed him as leader (nagid) over his people (1 Samuel 13:14b). (27) Importantly, this judgment is perceived to be complete.
Another military conflict commences in 1 Samuel 15, creating a similar environment for Saul to commit an offense analogous to that in chapter 13. In this instance, Saul and his troops are on the offensive against Amalek. The Lord had planned this battle by relaying the following to Saul through Samuel (1 Samuel 15:3): "Now, go and smite Amalek, and you [all] will devote to destruction all that is his, and you will not spare him. And you will put to death [all], from man to woman, from child to infant, from ox to lamb, from camel to donkey." Saul, after defeating the Amalekites, fails to completely carry out the Lord's command. Saul spares the Amalekite king Agag and the best of the spoil (15:8-9). The Lord then regrets (nihamti) giving Saul kingship (15:11), because Saul did not carry out the Lord's words, (28) demonstrating that Saul once again disobeyed the divine word conveyed through the prophet. Samuel, after clearly stating that Saul had done what was evil in the eyes of the Lord, responds with a well-known prophetic response emphasizing obedience to the Lord, (29) with the last part containing the main point (15:23b): "Because you rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king."
Similar to the narrative in chapter 13, Saul's response to his punishment shows that Saul's actions came from the influence of the people. Saul admits that he transgressed the commandment of the Lord "because [he] feared the people and ... listened to their voice" (1 Samuel 15:24b). (30) Despite Saul's confession and plea for forgiveness, Samuel makes clear that the decision from the Lord will not change (15:24-31). (31) The penalty dealt to Saul in 1 Samuel 15 is more personal than that which resulted from his first offense. Without doubt, in the first rejection episode, a personal note is sounded in Samuel's words: not only did Samuel indicate that Saul's kingdom will not last, but also that the Lord has appointed another to rule. However, there is no specific time reference to when the unnamed appointee may take office. Likewise, Saul did not react to the rejection of his dynasty in 1 Samuel 13. Conversely, after hearing his second rejection from Samuel in chapter 15, Saul lunges after the departing Samuel, tearing Samuel's robe. Samuel immediately sees the significance of the moment (32) and announces to Saul that "the Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today, and he has given it to your neighbor, one better than you" (1 Samuel 15:28). It is no insignificant detail that the Lord took the kingship from Saul, at least in Samuel's prophetic eyes, that very day. (33) Saul was personally and immediately rejected from Samuel's perspective, even if his rule continued until his death in battle some time later. Moreover, in this second rejection episode, Saul's immediate personal kingship is in view, as the kingdom of Israel was taken away from Saul ((15): (28)). In other words, the royal throne had been ripped, theologically, from Saul's grasp. These two rejection episodes align in that the rejection of Saul and his potential dynasty result from Saul's propensity to stray from the Lord's commands through the prophet Samuel under the influence of people. Saul put more stock into practical means than in obedience to his deity. (34) The punishments which Saul received, theological rejection, are also alike.
Samuel's diatribes against Saul present both rejections as being complete. Saul's rejections are considered theologically accomplished the day that Samuel announces them. The text creates a disjuncture between the theological rejection and physical fulfillment, particularly in the case of Saul's personal rejection as king. The disjuncture between Samuel's prophetic pronouncement, which portrays the rejection as complete, and the actual removal of Saul from the throne creates a complicated relationship between divine and human agency in the events that lead to Saul's removal from the throne (i.e., his death).
Between Saul's two rejections, Saul places his troops (35) under oath, pronouncing a curse on any man who eats before both evening and Saul's revenge on his enemies (1 Samuel 14:24). (36) Jonathan did not hear the oath, and therefore unknowingly breaks it (14:27). When Saul subsequently seeks divine advice concerning battle against the Philistines but receives no answer, he deduces that a sin had impeded divine communication (14:37-39). Saul then utters a foreboding oath: "For as the Lord lives, the one who delivers Israel, even if it is in Jonathan, my son, he will surely die" (14:39a). After Jonathan is identified as the culprit through casting lots (14:41-42), Saul commands Jonathan to explain what had transpired, and after full admission, Jonathan declares that he should die (14:43). Saul immediately responds with yet another oath: "Thus may God do to me (37) and more, for you will surely die Jonathan." (14:44). Yet the people intervene and persuade Saul to spare Jonathan, in accordance with the recurring motif of Saul's propensity to be swayed by the populace (14:45).
One species of offense against the Lord emerges in this episode: Saul did not keep oaths in which he invoked the Lord. (38) Oaths were serious matters, though the exact relationship between their constituent parties is difficult to untangle. (39) As evident in the case of Jonathan, even unwitting violation could yield consequences, as Jonathan's breach caused interference in human-divine communication. Jonathan himself acknowledged that he should die for his infraction, further demonstrating the seriousness of the oath. Saul concurred with Jonathan's assessment of the oath's severity, both before realizing Jonathan was the guilty party and after Jonathan admitted his guilt. Yet after putting himself under oath, with the Lord as his witness, Saul disregarded that very oath under the compulsion of the people. Not only has Saul placed Jonathan under the curse of death, he has also invoked the Lord against himself as the violator of his own oaths. (40)
After the theological rejection of Saul's dynasty in chapter 13, Saul puts his own dynasty in danger through these oaths. Saul's oaths have physically placed Jonathan, his heir, within the realm of death, as well as theoretically compromising Saul's own well-being, both through Saul's own volition. These oaths represent the inception of Saul's destructive behavior towards Jonathan. Saul will later unsuccessfully attempt to kill his heir by spear (1 Samuel 20:33), only to knowingly lead Jonathan into certain death (31:2). In light of the divine rejection of Saul's dynasty, Saul's willful actions are significant.
Saul's theological rejection in chapter 15 is confirmed when Samuel anointed David in the very next chapter (1 Samuel 16), with the result that the spirit of the Lord (ruah YHWH) came upon David and left Saul (16:13-14; see also 18:12). Moreover, at this point an "evil spirit" (ruah raa) from the Lord began to come upon Saul (1 Samuel 16:14). (41) This evil spirit appears to have functioned as a mechanism which drove a wedge between David and Saul in a similar way that an evil spirit (ruah raa) placed the men of Shechem against Abimelech (Judges 9:23). More than that, the evil spirit aided in the initiation of the physical transfer of Saul's authority to David. (42) Saul's rejection was theologically complete, though not yet practically achieved.
The final chapters which narrate the end of Saul's life are a dense convergence of Saul's rejection and the human and divine action which operate to achieve that rejection. (43) In 1 Samuel 28 Saul turns to illicit divination to seek advise from the deceased Samuel (28:3, see also 25:1) through the medium (eset baalat 'ob) of Endor (1 Samuel 28:7). The Lord had not answered Saul upon his inquiry (28:6), so Saul felt compelled to seek the Lord's advice through the same means of divine communication which he had previously proscribed (28:3). After the medium summoned Samuel, Saul questions the prophet concerning the coming battle with the Philistines (28:15-16). Samuel's words to Saul predict the imminent physical fulfillment of Saul's personal rejection as king (1 Samuel 28:17-19):
The Lord has done for himself just as he spoke through my hand, and the Lord has torn the kingdom from your hand and he has given it to your neighbor, to David. Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and you did not execute his burning anger against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. And the Lord will also give Israel, with you, into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Also the Lord will give the camp of Israel into the hand of the Philistines.
True to Samuel's words, Saul's sons Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua fell in battle with the Philistines (31:2). After suffering severe wounds, Saul asked his armor bearer to kill him (31:3-4a). The armor bearer would not follow thorough with Saul's request, and Saul committed suicide by falling on his sword (31:4b).
Samuel's messages spoken in the seance explain that the Lord has already torn the kingdom out of Saul's hands and has given it to David, specifically referencing Saul's failure to execute the Lord's wrath against the Amalekites. Accordingly, the prophetic announcement which Samuel spoke to Saul in 1 Samuel 15 is once again portrayed as completely fulfilled in Samuel's eyes. (44) It follows that the death of Saul and his sons in 1 Samuel 31 do not compromise the rejection of Saul from Samuel's prophetic perspective. Whereas the kingdom has been torn from Saul and given to David, the Lord will give (wayitten) Saul and Israel over to the Philistines, and "tomorrow" (mahar) Saul and his sons will be with the deceased Samuel. For Samuel, the kingdom had not been Saul's since the very day he made the pronouncement in 1 Samuel 15. (45)
With Saul's rejection as king fully completed in the eyes of the prophet, Saul's death is not necessarily part of that theological rejection. The same can be said for the deaths of Saul's sons. Before addressing Saul's death in particular, the deaths of Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua will first be considered in their significance to the rejection of Saul's dynasty.
These three sons of Saul figure into this discussion insofar as their deaths are not the result of the rejection of Saul's dynasty in 1 Samuel 13. The rejection of Saul's dynasty is only a repudiation of that dynasty's potential endurance. Such a rejection needs no proactive measures to ensure its fulfillment. Rather, the Lord needs simply to remain idle in order to fulfill the dynastic rejection. In other words, the dynasty need not be destroyed, but rather to exist as a non-established entity. This passive nature of Saul's dynastic rejection is supported by the text, as the deaths of Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua do not wipe out Saul's line. (46) Thus, the death of Saul and his sons was not required by the rejection of Saul's dynasty in (1) Samuel (13). (47)
A noticeable dichotomy exists between the Samuel's prophetic perspective of Saul's personal rejection as king and the physical realization of that perspective. This dichotomy produces a tension which can only be erased through the physical removal of Saul from the throne. The tension is erased through Saul's death, but not in a straightforward way. Samuel's announcement of the deaths of Saul and his sons links Saul's instrumentality to both the rejection of his dynasty and the physical rejection of his kingship. (48)
Saul's instrumentality is highlighted by the fact that Saul is painted as continuing to go into battle despite the prophetic announcement of death. It would be have been expect that Saul attempt to circumvent the impending doom in some way, particular in light of the fact that Saul never fully obeyed the prophetic word. (49) After Samuel's announcement of Saul's impending doom, Saul makes no attempt to counteract his looming death. Instead, he uncharacteristically accepts the reality of the announcement. (50) In doing so, he enacts the death of his sons, particularly his heir, along with himself by acting in accordance with the announcement.
Saul's instrumentality is a crucial element tying 1 Samuel 14, where Saul both invoked the Lord against himself and placed Jonathan under the curse of death, with their exterminations in 1 Samuel 31. Saul fulfills his broken oaths himself through his own volition by going into battle despite the foreknowledge that it would mean certain death not only for himself, but for Jonathan. Though Saul unsuccessfully tried to kill Jonathan by spear earlier in 1 Samuel 20:33, the revelation of what would transpire on Gilboa allowed Saul to inadvertently bring the curse on Jonathan to completion. Saul is the only being who actively attempted to kill Jonathan, his heir, both by curse and by spear, and Samuel's disclosure to Saul of the events on Gilboa allowed Saul to ironically play a central role in Jonathan's death through Saul's passivity. (51)
Saul's suicide further highlights his instrumentality in relation to his rejection. According to the words of David, the Lord's anointed could be removed one of three ways: the Lord could strike him, the day of his death could come, or he could fall in battle (1 Samuel 26:10). No human could strike down the Lord's anointed. (52) The dichotomy between Saul and David is clear in this regard: Saul impetuously attempted to kill David, anointed of the Lord, whereas David refused to strike down Saul, the Lord's anointed. However, when Saul fell on his own sword, he finally accomplished what he tried to do with David: he successfully killed the Lord's anointed. Saul's death was not achieved in any of the ways mentioned by David, as Saul left no room for providence, death in due time, war to end his life. (53)
In the end, Saul's portrayal as a sacrilegious ruler in Samuel is complicated. He is guilty of not heeding the Lord through the prophet, which resulted in direct divine chastisement. Saul's violation of prophetic instruction under the influence of his people led to the rejection of his dynasty and kingship. These rejections are carried out through a complex amalgamation of divine-human agency. The rejection of Saul's dynasty was a theological concept which needed no physical resolution. However, Saul's personal rejection had to end with his death to reach fruition. Saul's death is ultimately a matter of both his own volition and ambition, as well as divine rejection. (54) Saul left no room for divine providence to play out in his rejection. Instead, through his suicide Saul killed the Lord's anointed in a final act of defiance. (55) Samuel's postmortem instruction highlighted Saul's agency in his own death and that of his heir, in that Saul uncharacteristically remained passive to the news and knowingly lead his house to death's doorstep. Moreover, Saul's agency is further compounded in that he invoked the Lord against himself through his broken oaths in 1 Samuel 14, as well as placing Jonathan under the curse of death. At the same time, Saul's mania, particularly as seen in his attempts to take the lives of David and Jona than, was related to the "evil spirit" from the Lord, which in turn linked to the prophetic understand of the theologically completed rejection of Saul's kingship in 1 Samuel 15. Thus, Saul's theological rejection and its ultimate physical manifestation is a combination of divine machinery and Saul's own actions and ambitions, with the role of each discernible but not always clear. (56)
At this point the diagnostic features of 2 Samuel 24 and Saul's status as the Lord's anointed must be stressed. Saul may have faced unfair circumstances (the "evil spirit" from the Lord), but because of his elite status as the Lord's anointed, he cannot be labeled a victim. Moreover, 2 Samuel 24 attests to the fact that even if the Lord acts against his chosen leader, that leader still holds full responsibility for any ensuing action. Saul's story contains pathos, yet Saul is fully a perpetrator.
SAUL'S OFFENSES AND THEIR PUNISHMENTS: 1 CHRONICLES 10
Chronicles relates very little about Saul. Saul's genealogical pedigree in 1 Chronicles 9:35-44 leads directly into Saul's battlefield death (1 Chronicles 10). Relating nothing about Saul's life before the final event which led to his death, Chronicles assumes a degree of familiarity with its Vorlage, (57) For example, if the narrative of Saul's life as found in Chronicles was the only source available, one would not even know that Saul was a king, as he is not designated so in 1 Chronicles 10. Moreover, Chronicles also presumes specific knowledge of 1 Samuel 28, as the Chronicler's unique contribution of Saul's death depends on Saul's decision to seek a medium. Additionally, as argued below, the events of 1 Samuel 15 are referenced in the Chronicler's unique addition to Saul's account. (58)
The Chronicler's narrative of Saul's battle with the Philistines on Mount Gilboa and his death largely follows 1 Samuel 31, with several minor differences which are not central to this study, save one (addressed below). On the other hand, the Chronicler makes a significant addition at the end of the account (1 Chronicles 10:13-14):
And Saul died in his unfaithfulness by which he acted unfaithfully against the Lord, concerning the word of the Lord which he did not keep, and also for seeking a medium, (59) and he did not seek the Lord. So he (the Lord) killed him, and he (the Lord) turned the kingdom to David, son of Jessie.
The brief addition made by the Chronicler is by no means pedestrian. The unfaithfulness of Saul and the "word of the Lord (debar YH WH) which he did not keep" have been understood differently. Some argue the Chronicler's addition refer generally to Saul's behavior, (60) while others suggest it refers specifically to 1 Samuel 13 and/or 15. (61)
Saul's "unfaithfulness" seems to be a general indictment of his behavior. This "unfaithfulness" of Saul is qualified by two specific elements: that Saul did not keep the word of the Lord, and that Saul sought a medium. Both of these elements refer to specific events in the account of Saul's life found in 1 Samuel.
The "word of the Lord" which Saul did not keep is understood here as a reference to 1 Samuel 15. The shared expression "word of the Lord" (debar YHWH) links these two episodes, and this phrase's repeated mention in 1 Samuel 15 leaves little room for doubt that the Chronicler has this specific incident in mind. (62) Moreover, nowhere else does Saul not keep the "word of the Lord" in 1 Samuel. (63) Thus, the "word of the Lord" which Saul did not keep is the divine order to exterminate the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:2).
The Chronicler's reference to Saul's inquiry of the medium at Endor in 1 Samuel 28 is directly related to the central theme of Chronicles: "seeking the Lord." (64) "Seeking the Lord" entailed wholesale devotion to the Lord through the proper cultic means. (65) Saul's excuse that the Lord did not answer him by dreams, Urim, or prophets (1 Samuel 28:6) could not have overridden the Chronicler's comprehensive understanding of "seeking the Lord." For "seeking the Lord" in the Chronicler's perspective was more than making a simple request, but involved broad legitimate cultic procedure. That Saul did not seek the Lord, then, does not mean he did not seek the Lord's advice. Rather, it meant that Saul did not properly seek the Lord through the correct cultic means. (66) In the Chronicler's eyes, Saul's decision to seek a medium was the opposite of what one is obligated to do, an offense constituting "forsaking the Lord." (67) For this reason, Saul's offense was cultic in orientation. (68) Such behavior caused Saul's death, according to the Chronicler.
With Saul's death came the death of his dynasty, as reflected in a significant detail found in the Chronicler's account. Whereas 1 Samuel 31 narrates that Saul, his three sons, armor bearer and all his men died together on Gilboa, the Chronicler instead disclosed that Saul, his three sons, and "all his house" (wakol-beto) died together (1 Chronicles 10:6), with "house" denoting "dynasty." (69) Such a statement runs counter to evidence elsewhere in Chronicles, where the Chronicler preserved the continuation of Saul's line in genealogical lists (1 Chronicles 8:29-40 and 9:35-44). Curtis and Madsen see the Chronicler as having made a "careless statement." (70) Knoppers suggests the the possibility that the Chronicler may have Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchi-shua in mind. (71) Japhet takes the contradiction to mean that the fate of Saul's dynasty was fixed on Gilboa despite its genetic continuance. (72) Japhet's articulation is similar but not identical to Williamson's, who understands the conflict to indicate theological judgment and termination of Saul's dynasty. (73)
The position articulated by Williamson is accurate but needs further elaboration. Saul's dynasty was in the Chronicler's perceptual orbit, and was directly related to Saul's death on Gilboa. A theological dynastic rejection is precisely what appears in 1 Samuel 13, and requires no physical manifestation of the deity's theological action (as explained above). For the same reasons in 1 Samuel, the theological end of Saul's dynasty is no more than that: a theological concept with no physical manifestation. Such a concept is especially poignant in light of the Chronicler's genealogies which continue Saul's line. The deaths of Saul, his sons, and "all his house" were the manifestations by which the Chronicler understood Saul's house to be theologically judged and rejected, despite further genealogical continuance. In other words, the death of all Saul's house could not have been the actual rejection of Saul's dynasty, only an indicator of that rejection, especially since all his house did not actually die (according to the Chronicler's own evidence). Therefore, it was through the death of Saul and his sons that the Chronicler knew that judgment had passed over Saul's dynasty. The last words of Saul's account confirm that Saul's dynasty had been theologically terminated despite its physical continuance: "And he (the Lord) turned the kingdom over to David, son of Jessie" (1 Chronicles 10:14b).
Thus, the Chronicler was concerned with the end of Saul's rule and
dynasty as manifested on Gilboa, and the way Saul's actions affected the outcome. With no prophetic pronouncement of judgment preceding Saul's death, judgment on Saul and his house was coterminous with Saul's death in the Chronicler's eyes. The Chronicler detected the causes for Saul's judgment and verdict, both of which he received simultaneously from the Lord on the very day of his death and the death of his dynasty, in Saul's offenses found in 1 Samuel 15 and 28.
In the case of Saul, the Chronicler was guided by a theological conviction which saw in the events of history a causation conforming to the Chronicler's ideology of faithfulness ("seeking the Lord") or lack thereof. The Chronicler's emphases in his account of Saul result in a lack of systematic retribution. Although a time gap between Saul's offense regarding the Amalekites and his death similar to that found in 1 Samuel is implied, the Chronicler's time-line between offense and punishment is altered by the specific reference to Saul's second offense, the incident with the medium at Endor. The time lag between this second offense and punishment is just one day. These two divergent timetables demonstrate that the Chronicler was not concerned with accounting for a one-to-one immediate correspondence between offense and punishment. Nor was the Chronicler looking to correlate the seriousness of offense with the degree of punishment. If so, one would have expected the Chronicler to explain why Saul's sons and "all his house" died with Saul. Rather, the Chronicler's global emphasis on faithfulness was the guiding principle by which the Chronicler viewed Saul's death, and Saul's death alone. The Chronicler began with Saul's battlefield death, viewing the historical event found in his sources as the judgment and verdict on Saul. From there, the Chronicler found causation in Saul's unfaithfulness. Thus, the Chronicler was not guided by a theology of strict retribution, but by how he understood history as it converged with Chronistic theology.
As stated above, judgment was explicitly executed by the Lord when the Lord killed Saul on Gilboa. This point demonstrates the complex nature of the Chronicler's understanding of his Vorlage. The phrase "So he (the Lord) killed him" (waymitehu) directly implicates the Lord alone in Saul's death. (74) The Chronicler sees Saul's death as directly delivered by the Lord himself as punishment for Saul's offenses. The Lord's involvement is particularly striking since Saul clearly commits suicide. The combination of divine agency and human action was a paradox that the Chronicler accepted. Important for the Chronicler was to demonstrate that Saul's death was a result of unfaithfulness and censured divination. These offenses caused death, with divine agency somehow concealed in Saul's suicide.
Knoppers observes the individuality of Saul's account in Chronicles. (75) As such, Saul functions as a figure who serves as an antitype in the Chronicler's ideology of "seeking the Lord." The Chronicler, in examining Lirst Temple history, saw clues in Saul's life which demonstrate precisely the opposite of how Saul should have conducted himself, clues which were the cause of his death. By re-appropriating the First Temple personality of Saul for a Second Temple audience, the Chronicler demonstrated how one should not conduct oneself within the believing community through the example of Saul. Saul, a sacrilegious ruler whose faithlessness was demonstrated through both not keeping the word of the Lord and seeking a medium, served as the antitype figure for a righteous individual. The end result was Saul's death at the hands of the Lord and the termination of his dynasty. In doing so, the Chronicler asserts a high degree of divine causation, seeing the work of the Lord in Saul's suicide.
CONCLUSIONS
From the analysis above, once can observe that Saul's portrayal as a sacrilegious ruler shifts from Samuel to Chronicles. In Samuel, Saul is portrayed as a king who does not fully heed the prophetic word which brings about immediate theological punishment on two occasions. Both punishments, the rejection of Saul's dynasty and his personal kingship, are considered theologically complete. Of these two punishments, the rejection of Saul's personal kingship reaches fruition through a combination of both divine and human agency. Moreover, because there is a fissure between Saul's theological rejection and it's physical actualization, a significance disjuncture exists between the immediate issuing of punishment and its realization on Gilboa. Though Saul's role in his own demise is highlighted in the foreground, one can detect divine action in the background. Thus, Saul's personal rejection is a complex combination of the Lord's initiative (as seen in the "evil spirit") and Saul's own actions. There is not a direct correlation between the Lord's role and causation. Within the purview of the books of Samuel, Saul cannot be understood as a victim of divine action. Rather, divine action worked in tandem with Saul's volition, but did not exonerate Saul of full responsibility. Inextricably connected to this concept is that, as the Lord's anointed, Saul was held to a higher standard of responsibility. Importantly, Saul's suicide, by which he participated in his own removal from the throne, was also part of a larger destructive trend where Saul attempted to take the life of a future king (Jonathan, David), whether it be through physical means or religious imprecation.
In Chronicles, Saul is portrayed as a king who does not heed the prophetic word (in reference to 1 Samuel 15), but also a king who does not "seek the Lord," a central theme in Chronicles which entails properly seeking the Lord through the correct cultic means. Thus, Saul is not just one who disobeys the prophetic word, but is an example of unfaithfulness through cultic violation. For the Chronicler, judgment on Saul himself was not preemptively executed theologically as it was in 1 Samuel 15 via the word of the prophet. Saul's offenses, which the Chronicler referenced in 1 Samuel 15 and 28, were the cause of his judgment and verdict, both of which he received simultaneously from the Lord on the very day of his death. In other words, Saul's judgment and death were coterminous in Chronicles. The Chronicler began with Saul's death, which led to a shift in the judgment-punishment timeline from 1 Samuel to 1 Chronicles. Thus in Chronicles, Saul's unfaithfulness preceded his physical judgment of death, whereas in 1 Samuel Saul's actions received immediate theological judgments, one of which Saul himself brought to physical completion sometime later by falling on his sword. Saul's death also signaled the theological rejection of Saul's line, as seen in that all of Saul's house dying with him in light of the genealogical continuation of his line. In contrast to Samuel, the Chronicler places the Lord's activity in the foreground, as Saul's death is placed squarely upon the Lord's shoulders. In the background is Saul's own willful act of suicide. A direct correlation exists between the Lord's role and causation.
Neither the perspective of Samuel nor Chronicles allows one to clearly untangle the merger of divine and human agency. However, the nuances detectible in each corpus reveal different theological emphases. Globally, both corpora see a God who is both transcendent and active in reality. But in the case of Saul's suicide, attention to the shifts in Saul's portrayal as a sacrilegious king yields a different perspective on human and divine agency as they coincide with history and theology.
J. H. Price
Shofar is pleased to join with the Midwest Jewish Studies Association in encouraging graduate work in Jewish Studies by publishing the paper chosen at the annual Midwest Jewish Studies Conference to receive the Graduate Student Paper Award.
Notes
(1.) That is, divine action unaccompanied by human actions. See 1 Samuel 1:6,9:19, 25:38; 2 Samuel 6:6; 1 Chronicles 13:10; 2 Chronicles 13:20.
(2.) See, for example, the divine proclamation in 1 Samuel 2:27-36 reaches fruition in 1 Kings 2:27 through a complex array of ambiguous human action; God stirring Tiglath-pilneser to exile the Reubenites, Gadites, and half-tribe of Manasseh in 1 Chronicles 5:25-26.
(3.) Japhet, Ideology of the Book of Chronicles, 105-06 denies two levels of causality in Chronicles. In Japhet's view, an event is not a combination of both natural unfolding of circumstances and divine action taken to bring about that event ("double causality") in Chronicles. Rather, God is the only cause of an event. I will speak instead of emphasis, as double causality is, in my opinion, detectable in Chronicles. See note 2.
(4.) See, for example, Amit, "The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul," 71-79; Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative; Gunn, "A Man Given Over to Trouble," 89-112; Gunn, The Fate of King Saul; L. Daniel Hawk, "Saul as Sacrifice," 20-25, 56; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 325.
(5.) See, for example, Gunn, "A Man Given Over to Trouble."
(6.) See, for example, Williams, "Is God Moral?," 175-89.
(7.) wayyasep 'ap YHWH laharot bayisra' el wayyaset 'et dawid bahem.
(8.) See also Joab's words in 24:4, David's reaction and confession in v. 10, and the punishment options offered by Gad in w. 12-13.
(9.) I do not deny a degree of pathos in such a situation.
(10.) Similarly von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 325.
(11.) Some examples include Sargon of Akkad in the "Weidner Chronicle," Naram-Sin in the "Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin," and Nabonidus in the Cyrus Cylinder. Texts such as the Akkadian "Advice to a Prince" and 1 Kings 6:11-12, 9:4 appear to assume this notion.
(12.) An analysis of David in the books of Samuel are beyond the scope of this paper. However, one should simply note the consequences which result from David's actions in 2 Samuel 12.
(13.) Exactly how much longer is impossible to determine, as 1 Samuel 13:1 was corrupted at an early stage. For a discussion on the textual witnesses, see McCarter, I Samuel, 222. The rabbis, whose texts reflected the same reading we have in the MT, discussed the significance of Saul being one year old upon his assent to the throne in Mas. Yoma 22b.
(14.) The verb tohel (twhl) is a rare occurrence of the second person volitive (aside from its use with 'al). One would expect *tohil (*twhyl). As a volitive, it expresses the will of the speaker (Samuel), thus emphasizing that Saul was to wait. All translations are my own.
(15.) Though the text clearly states these two requirements, not all catch this detail. Among those that do is Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul, 89.
(16.) The construction is emphatic with the inclusion of the second masculine singular pronoun (we' atta lo' ba'ta). This contrasts with Samuel's wish (see also note 14 above).
(17.) "In that case," following Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 101.
(18.) MT 'el where one might have expected 'al. See also Waltke and O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, [section] 11.2.2. Note LXX [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and Vulgate super.
(19.) Note biqqes.
(20.) Note waysawwehu.
(21.) McCarter, I Samuel, 228-230 notes the play on siwwa and miswa.
(22.) See also Boda, A Severe Mercy, 153, which states that Samuel reproaches Saul for "impatient disobedience." Slightly differently, I highlight here Saul's anxiety arising from his diminished forces.
(23.) Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: 1 Samuel, 129-131 takes a different approach to this episode. In his view, Saul acts respectably, whereas Samuel maneuvers to keep Saul under his control. Polzin asserts that Saul's perspective within the narrative, which perceives Samuel having not kept his word (1 Samuel 13:11; see also the narrator's comments in 13:8) finds precedence in Deuteronomy 18:22, and the fact that Saul remains is an act of bravery in the face of the Philistine forces which significantly outnumber the Israelites. Similarly, see Robert Alter, The David Story, 73. Though insightful, several issues make this understanding unlikely. Most importantly, Saul was not just to wait seven days, but was to wait seven days until Samuel arrived. Samuel may have been delayed, but he did arrive, so Samuel's word did come to pass. At the same time, a degree of ambiguity should be noted. It is unclear how both the comments of the narrator and Saul specifically relate to the seven-day timetable. It is possible that Saul waited until the beginning of the seventh day, rather than waiting through the seventh day, which indicates that Samuel did not miss the appointment. If this is the case, Samuel showed up as soon as the burnt offering was complete (1 Samuel 13:10), which could not have taken more than a day, placing Samuel at Gilgal on the seventh day. Moreover, Polzin's emphasis on Samuel's failure to keep the prophetic appointment fails to take into account the role of the king vis-a-vis the prophet. The king is subordinate to the prophet, and must heed the prophetic voice. See, for example, Meier, Themes and Transformations, 127-41, especially 129-30.
(24.) See also the subordination of the king to the prophet in note 23. In early poetic prophetic literature, there is a lack of concern to distinguish the prophet's word from the Lord's word, as explained in Meier, Themes and Transformations, 70-77. Such a lack of concern seems to indicate that the prophet's word and the Lord's word were one and the same in those texts, which did not distinguish the two. Genre and dating issues notwithstanding, the association of Samuel's word with the Lord's word in the text at hand appears indicative of the same situation, namely, that Samuel's word was the Lord's word. The same principle underlies Jehu's actions in 2 Kings 9:14-10:28, with the Lord acknowledging Jehu's actions in 10:30, though the prophetic word given to Jehu in 2 Kings 9:610 was clearly not what the Lord intended (see also 2 Kings 9:3, 1 Kings 19:16). Notice Samuel's words in 1 Samuel 10:1, which relate Samuel's anointing of Saul with the Lord: "Has not the Lord anointed you over his possession as leader?" (halo 'ki mesahaka YHWH 'al nahalato lenagid). Thus, I do not severe the prophet's word from the Lord, as do some scholars, for example, Alter, The David Story, 73, 87, 92.
(25.) McCarter, I Samuel, 229-30.
(26.) lo'taqum (1 Samuel 13:14).
(27.) See notes 19 and 20. The act is considered (perfectively) complete, a crucial detail lost if one places the action in the future.
(28.) 1 Samuel 15:11 mentions "words," not "word." Though the instructions given to Saul via Samuel can be collectively considered the "word of the Lord" (as conveyed by Saul in 15:13), they may also be plural "words of the Lord," as in 1 Samuel 15:1.
(29.) 1 Samuel 15:22-23; see also Hosea 6:6, Amos 5:21-24, Micah 6:6-8, and Isaiah 66:2-4.
(30.) According to 1 Samuel 15:20-21, Saul believed he did carry out the Lord's command, and he blamed the people for taking the spoil. However, in light of his admission of guilt in 1 Samuel 15:24, Saul accepted full responsibility.
(31.) The statement in 1 Samuel 15:29, that the Lord does not repent (lo 'yinnahem) is often taken to contradict the Lord's words in 15:11: "I repent that I caused Saul to reign as king (nihamti ki himlakti 'et sa 'til lememek)" (e.g., Gunn, "A Man Given Over to Trouble," 99-100). However, the former (like the latter) is context bound. As such, it is not a blanket statement about the Lord's nature, but a contextual assertion about the situation at hand. Thus, it conveys that the Lord will not waiver on the punishment he has dealt to Saul in 1 Samuel 15. This seems to be what Alter means when he says, "What Samuel says here is that God will not change His mind about changing His mind," The David Story, 92.
(32.) Meier, Themes and Transformations, 38-51, especially 39 notes the special ability of prophets to see significance in the ordinary.
(33.) Notice the verbs: wayyim 'aseka YHWH(15:26), qara ' YHWH(15:28), unatanah (15:28).
(34.) In this regard, compare Saul's attitude in 1 Samuel 13 with that of Jonathan in 14:6 and David in 17:47.
(35.) For 'am as "military personnel," see Kohler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 838. See also 1 Samuel 14:30-31.
(36.) "Oath," as used here, incorporates the curse. Most scholars accept that oaths contain a curse, whether stated or not. See Ziegler, Promises to Keep, 32-37. Gunn, "A Man Given Over to Trouble," 95-96, compare 107 views Saul's oath as "a token of devotion." Similarly, White, "Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 1 and 14," 132 sees Saul's oath as originally pious. White's point about Saul's willingness to put Jonathan to death as admirable (135) is acceptable. However, it remains difficult to see how Saul's initial oath is in any way positive, as depriving one's army of food in the face of battle is best understood as unwise. Compare 1 Samuel 14:29-33.
(37.) Reading li with LXX ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) and Vulgate (mihi).
(38.) Some understand divine invocation to be present in oaths even if not expressly stated, while others differentiate religious oaths from others. See Ziegler, Promises to Keep, 39-40. The point is moot, for the Lord is called by name in the two oaths at hand (1 Samuel 14:39a, 14:44).
(39.) See, for example, Ziegler, Promises to Keep, 25-49.
(40.) Though never explicitly stated, Conklin, Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew, 24 assumes that the violation of an oath with this form ("Thus will X do to Y") would be negative and likely deadly. See also Ziegler, Promises to Keep, 57-59. Similarly, Hawk, "Saul as Sacrifice," 24 understands Saul's oath to have shifted the curse from Jonathan to Saul himself. See also McCarter, 1 Samuel, 99. Saul's failed oaths may be compared to David's failed oath in 1 Samuel 25:22 ("Thus may God do to the enemies of David, and thus may he add."), where "the enemies of David" changes the whole orientation of the oath. McCarter, I Samuel, 394 contends "the enemies of David" was added to protect David, or his descendants, from the oath. The point is, broken oaths were serious.
(41.) See the other occurrences in 1 Samuel 16:15-16, 23, 18:10, and 19:9.
(42.) The combination of the the Lord's absence and the "evil spirit" induced Saul to seek David's life. In 1 Samuel 18:10, the evil spirit led Saul to attempt to kill David. Saul was specifically afraid of David, for the Lord had left him and was with David (18:12), so Saul made him a commander (18:14). In that position, David had tremendous success and gained the people (18:16). Saul then gives his daughter Michal to David in an attempt to kill him (18:21, 25). Yet the result is that David survives the dowry price and acquires the king's daughter, as well as a bid to the throne. Moreover, Michal later shows loyalty to David over Saul by saving David after Saul rages due to the "evil spirit" (19:9,11-17). Saul's murderous attitude towards David, induced by the "evil spirit," led to Jonathan's covenant with David (20:1-42). Saul understood Jonathan's loyalty to place David within reach of the throne (20:31). Thus the Lord's absence and the "evil spirit" led Saul to give David a position of favor with the people, a bid to the throne, while also leading Saul's heir, Jonathan, to proclaim his loyalty to David. These events show the transfer of kingship from Saul to David, and that Saul's family supported David over Saul. In this way, the transfer of Saul's royal authority to David had already begun in a physical sense.
(43.) Iam concerned with 1 Samuel 31 only, and I will not engage Saul's death as portrayed in 2 Samuel 1 here. This is primarily because it is 1 Samuel 31, and not 2 Samuel 1, that has direct ties to Saul's rejection (1 Samuel 28:18).
(44.) Grammatically, the verbs in 1 Samuel 28:17-19 corroborate that the transfer of the kingdom from Saul to David is complete: wayya 'as, wayyiqra wayyittenah.
(45.) The theological stance taken by Samuel finds a degree of practical confirmation in the words of Israel in 2 Samuel 5:2, and also by the observations noted above concerning the beginning of the physical manifestation of Saul's rejection. Note that in 1 Samuel 28:18, "this thing ... today" (haddabar hazzeh ... hayyom hazzeh) which Samuel refers to is not the physical fulfillment of 1 Samuel 15 through Saul's death the following day, but the cessation of legitimate divine communication. See also 28:6, 15.
(46.) According to 1 Samuel 14:49, Saul's sons were Jonathan, Ishvi, and Malchishua. Though Abinadab is not listed in 14:49, it is critical to notice that Ishvi does not die with his brothers. Moreover, 2 Samuel 2:8 makes it obvious that a son of Saul, Ishbaal (reading Ishbaal for MT Ish-bosheth), lives on beyond the deaths of Saul and his other sons. Whatever the relationship between the two lists and between Ishvi and Ishbaal may be, the narrative makes clear that Saul's descendants are not wiped out in battle with the Philistines on Mount Gilboa. Even after Ishbaal's death, Saul's line continues. David put to death seven sons and grandsons of Saul to expiate the bloodguilt caused by an otherwise unmentioned massacre of the Gibeonites at the hands of Saul (2 Samuel 21:8; Joshua 9). Not even this event ends Saul's line, as David spared Jonathan's son, Mephibosheth (21:7; he was crippled, and therefore an unlikely threat to the throne. See 2 Samuel 4:4; 9:6; 10-13; 16:1, 4; 19:24-25, 30; 21:7-8). It must be stressed that Saul's line continues both after David becomes king and after the dynastic promise given David through Nathan (2 Samuel 7). Taken together, the above data demonstrates that the rejection of Saul's dynasty was a passive act that did not necessitate the slaughter of potential dynasts. Divine refusal to establish Saul's family line did not mean that Saul's genealogical descendants had to be terminated.
(47.) Similarly Zalewski, "The Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul in 1 Chronicles x," 456, "Nowhere in the story do we find any hint whatsoever supporting the notion that Saul's death was considered as a punishment by the Lord for sins against him."; Williams, "Is God Moral?," 185-86, "His removal from kingship is certain, but not necessarily the tragic circumstances in which he and his sons die."
(48.) Thus, the relationship between 1 Samuel 28 and 31 is not that of prophecy and fulfillment, as claimed by some. Rather, as explained below, it is a convergence of theological perspective, physical manifestation, and human agency.
(49.) See 1 Samuel 9:21, where Saul questions his own appointment as king; 10:8 and 13:11-15, as Saul does not keep his appointment made by Samuel; 15:1-30, where Saul does not fulfill the command given him by Samuel. Though Saul was silent regarding the rejection of his dynasty, note that Saul blatantly disregards the rejection of his dynasty in 1 Samuel 20:31. See also 2 Kings 20:19.
(50.) The distinctiveness of Saul's silent concession to Samuel's announcement of death is confirmed by other episodes in Samuel-Kings where rulers act to circumvent similar prophetic announcements of death. David, although instructed by Nathan that the son born out of David's affair with Bathsheba would die, attempts to spare the life of the child (2 Sam 12:14-18). Similarly, Ahab disguised himself in order to avoid the disaster which Micaiah proclaimed he would face in battle (1 Kings 22:23, 27-28, 30-35). Compare the "substitute king ritual" in Mesopotamia, were a substitute king was enthroned, then killed, to protect the true king from negative omens.
(51.) To be clear, I do not suggest Saul is acting with this motive in mind after hearing Samuel's forecast. I suggest the author is highlighting Saul's unintentional and ironic fulfillment of Saul's previous intentional actions. Additionally, Samuel's final proclamation allows Saul to continue his characteristic propensity to be influenced by humans once more. Saul received a message from Samuel, one that told him that he and his sons would die. The narrator shows that Saul understands and accepts the gravity of Samuel's words through Saul's own paralyzing fear. However, it is the encouragement of his constituents which energizes Saul to rise and act, an unsurprising development in the narratives of Saul. He has been characteristically influenced by people, and continues that trend at the end of his life.
(52.) 1 Samuel 24:4, 6, 10; 26:9, 11, 23; 2 Samuel 1:14; see also 2 Samuel 19:21.
(53.) Though suicide had been accepted, even glorified in antiquity (see Droge, "Suicide," 225-31), ANE literature is for the most part silent on the issue (compare Knoppers, I Chronicles 10-29, 522). The Hebrew Bible mentions suicide seven times, committed by a total of five individuals (Abimelech in Judges 9, Saul and his armor bearer in 1 Samuel 31/lChronicles 10, Ahithophel in 2 Samuel 17, and Zimri in 1 Kings 16). Samson (Judges 16) may be included, but also may be considered self-sacrifice. From a philosophical standpoint, it is true that Saul's suicide was not commented on (Droge, "Suicide," 228). However, this misses the point being made here: Saul killed the Lord's anointed.
(54.) Meier, "The Sword: From Saul to David," 156-74 demonstrates that the books of Samuel exhibit the principle that those who live by the sword die by the sword, even if righteous, with David being the exception (see especially 164). The violent death of Saul (and Jonathan) are part of this global principle in Samuel. Notably, this principle does not require divine agency.
(55.) A significant detail recognized only by a few, for example, McKenzie, "Saul in the Deuteronomistic History," 67.
(56.) Purposeful tensions in the books of Samuel have been noted, arising from the experience of the writers (e.g., see Meier, "The Sword: From Saul to David," 171-73 for tension between the king as a fighter and the biblical axiom that those who live by the sword die by the sword). One should not find it surprising that tensions should arise from life experiences which stand in opposition with belief about deity, nor that ancient writers would not hide these tensions. I take the ancients admittance of such tensions throughout narrative as a sign of incredible literary and theological sophistication, even in the case of redaction. Ancient writers were fully capable of carrying out multifaceted and complex storylines, without relegating narrative to a forced (contrived) systematic theological paradigm.
(57.) Despite the arguments put forth in Ho, "Conjectures and Refutations" to show that 1 Chronicles 10 is more original than 1 Samuel 31, the reverse (in general) is preferred here. Knoppers, in 1 Chronicles 10-29, 526 notes that the Chronicler's source was slightly smaller than the MT Samuel.
(58.) See Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, 209 where Kalimi asserts that the Chronicler used allusion ("intertextual structuring," 194) to guide readers to 1 Samuel 13, 15, and 28; and Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 92.
(59.) Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, 139-40 notes that the redundant phrasing with drs and s 'l is a purposeful maneuver by the Chronicler to make a double reading with Deuteronomy 18:10-11.
(60.) Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes', Ackroyd, The Chronicler in His Age, 319; Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 135.
(61.) Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, 209; Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler, 97; Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles, 70; Curtis and Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, 182.
(62.) So also Ho, "Conjectures and Refutations," 104. See 1 Samuel 15:11,13,23,26. Note that the phrase does not appear in 1 Samuel 13. Schniedewind, The Word of God in Transition, 133-35 has shown that the "word of the Lord" refers to either the prophetic word or the Mosaic Law in Chronicles. In 1 Chronicles 10:13, the phrase seems to refer to the prophetic word, as the text is directly dependent on Kings. However, the legal terminology in 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 makes the identification of the "word of the Lord" ambiguous in Schniedewind's view. Schniedewind's comments notwithstanding, based on the textual relationship between 1 Samuel and Chronicles, allusions in 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 to 1 Samuel (see Kalimi in note 58), and the prominence of the "word of the Lord" in 1 Samuel 15, all coupled with the fact that Saul only breaks the "word of the Lord" in 1 Samuel 15, suggests that 1 Samuel 15 is the antecedent to the "word of the Lord" in 1 Chronicles 10:13.
(63.) In 1 Samuel 13:13, Saul did not keep "the command of the Lord" (miswat YHWH).
(64.) Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 95 does not see this accusation as central, but rather as an example of what he understands as the general indictment in 10:14a.
(65.) For details, see Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler, 47-51 following the work of Schaefer, "The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the Chronicler." See also Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles, 51-54.
(66.) Note that Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, 327-28 suggests that Saul not inquiring of the Lord was essentially a theological emendation of 1 Samuel 28:6. See also Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 229. Here it is maintained that the apparent contradiction stems from the Chronicler's understanding of "seeking the Lord."
(67.) Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles, 328,339 notes that 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 is an example of antithesis, a literary feature characteristic of the Chronicler's work. On Saul's behavior constituting "forsaking the Lord," see Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 229. Curtis and Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, 182 believes the Chronicler's accusation misrepresents Saul, based on 1 Samuel 28:6.
(68.) See Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles, 39-53 for the cultic nature of Saul's behavior.
(69.) See, for example, 1 Chronicles 17 and 2 Samuel 7. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 93 comments that "the dynastic overtones of house (cf. I Chr. 17) are unmistakeable."
(70.) Curtis and Madsen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles, 181.
(71.) Knoppers, I Chronicles 10-29, 522.
(72.) Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 226.
(73.) Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 93. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10-29, 522 suggests the possibility that the Chronicler may have Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchi-shua in mind when mentioning all of Saul's house. Even so, Knoppers concludes that the point is clear that Saul's dynasty is finished.
(74.) The Chronicler was focused on Saul alone, as indicated by the third person masculine singular suffixed pronoun on the verb. If the Chronicler wanted to demonstrate that the Lord killed anyone else, the suffixed pronoun could have been made plural.
(75.) Knoppers, I Chronicles 10-29, 528-31.
Works Cited
Ackroyd, Peter R. The Chronicler in His Age. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Alter, Robert. The David Story : A Translation With Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York: Norton, 1999.
Amit, Yairah. "The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul and Its Place in the Deuteronomistic History." In Saul in Story and Tradition, edited by C. S. Ehrlich with Marsha C. White, 71-79. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 47. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Boda, Mark J. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Conklin, Blane. Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Curtis, Edward Lewis, and Albert Alonso Madsen. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1910.
Driver, Samuel R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel: With an Introduction on Hebrew Palaeography and the Ancient Versions and Facsimiles of Inscriptions and Maps. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.
Droge, A.J. "Suicide." In Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, edited by David Noel Freedman, 225-321. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Duke, Rodney K. The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler. A Rhetorical Analysis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 88. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990.
Exum, J. Cheryl. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Gunn, David M. "A Man Given Over to Trouble: The Story of King Saul." In Images of Man and God: Old Testament Short Stories in Literary Focus, edited by Burke O. Long, 89-112. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981.
--. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.
Hawk, L. Daniel. "Saul as Sacrifice: The Tragedy of Israel's First Monarch." Bible Review 12, no. 6 (1996): 20-25, 56.
Ho, Craig Y. S. "Conjectures and Refutations: Is 1 Samuel Xxxi 1-13 Really the Source of 1 Chronicles x 1-12?" Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995): 82-106.
Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
--. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Kalimi, Isaac. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
Kelly, Brian E. Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 160. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 10-29: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.
Kohler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Long, V. Philips. The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence. Atlanta, G A: Scholars Press, 1989.
McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel: A New Translation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980.
McKenzie, Steven L. "Saul in the Deuteronomistic History." In Saul in Story and Tradition, edited by C. S. Ehrlich with Marsha C. White, 59-70. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 47. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Meier, Samuel A. "The Sword: From Saul to David." In Saul in Story and Tradition, edited by C. S. Ehrlich with Marsha C. White, 156-74. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 47. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
--. Themes and Transformations in Old Testament Prophecy. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.
Mosis, Rudolf. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes. Freiburg: Herder, 1973.
Polzin, Robert. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History. Part Two. 1 Samuel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.
Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Riley, William. King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 211. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Schaefer, Glenn Edward. The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the Chronicler. PhD Dissertation. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1972.
Schniedewind, William M. The Word of God in Transition: From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 197. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick O'Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
White, Marsha C. "Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 1 and 14." In Saul in Story and Tradition, edited by C. S. Ehrlich with Marsha C. White, 119-38. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 47. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Williams, Peter J. "Is God Moral?: On the Saul Narratives as Tragedy." In The God of Israel, edited by R. P. Gordon, 175-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Williamson, H. G. M. I and2 Chronicles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1982.
Zalewski, Saul. "The Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul in 1 Chronicles x." Vetus Testamentum 39 (1989): 449-67.
Ziegler, Yael. Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Price, J.H. |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Shofar |
| Geographic Code: | 7ISRA |
| Date: | Sep 22, 2015 |
| Words: | 11222 |
| Previous Article: | A portrait of Spinoza as a Maimonidean reconsidered. |
| Next Article: | Roads Taken: The Great Jewish Migrations to the New World and the Peddlers Who Forged the Way. |
| Topics: | |