Saul in Story and Tradition (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 3161485696, 9783161577840, 9783161485695

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von Bernd Janowski (Tübingen) • Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

47

Saul in Story and Tradition Edited by

Carl S. Ehrlich in Cooperation with

Marsha C. White

Mohr Siebeck

S. E H R L I C H , born 1956; Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (Harvard University); Professor of Hebrew Bible in the Division of Humanities at York University in Toronto. CARL

C. W H I T E , born 1950; Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (Harvard University); taught at College of the Holy Cross, University of Massachusetts, Wesleyan University and Brown University. MARSHA

ISBN 3-16-148569-6 ISBN-13 978-3-16-148569-5 ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.

978-3-16-157784-0 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019 © 2006 by Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Guide Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface The idea for this collection of essays was first formulated after Marsha White held a lecture on Saul, since published in the Burke O. Long Festschrift, at the Association for Jewish Studies Annual Conference in 1997. It was then that the editors discovered they had a common interest in Israel's first king and initially formulated the idea of publishing a collection of essays devoted to him. For various reasons, it has taken longer than expected to complete this project. We are grateful to the contributors to this volume, who have waited patiently for their work to appear. The abbreviations in this volume generally follow the guidelines of the Society of Biblical Literature. In distinction to common SBL practice, however, titles are not italicized nor are the titles of articles placed in quotation marks. This deviation from common SBL norms is done in order to bring the volume into harmony with the formatting standards of Forschungen zum Alten Testament. Also in accordance with the standards of the series, the abbreviation "Art." precedes the names of dictionary and encyclopedia articles. The attempt has been made to harmonize the formatting and linguistic guidelines of the various contributions to this volume. In one or two instances, however, we have allowed individual authors to deviate in their transcriptions of the divine name. While this engenders some inconsistency from chapter to chapter, it does honor the religious sensibilities of the individuals involved. The editors of this volume would like to thank the members of the planning committee of the Deuteronomistic History Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, who devoted their meeting in 2000 to the subject of Saul in the Deuteronomistic History. The papers delivered at that session form the core of this volume. The publication of this volume was aided by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada administered by York University. In addition, we owe our gratitude to Professors Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann, the editors of Forschungen zum Alten Testament, who accepted this volume into their publication program, to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki of the Mohr Siebeck Verlag, who provided valuable guidance in the publication process, to Tanja Mix, also of Mohr Siebeck, who aided us greatly with the drudgery of formatting, to Ruth Lockshin of Words That Work for preparing the indices for this volume, to Prof. Leonard H. Ehrlich and Dr. Edith Ehrlich for their valuable input, to Sahar Rizvi of York University, who did some preliminary formatting, to

VI

Preface

Professor Ralph Locke and Tanya Sermer o f the Eastman School o f Music, University o f Rochester, who checked over the translation o f musical terms from German to English, and last, but not least, to Shimi Ehrlich without whose expert computer advice this volume would never have been published. Any mistakes or imperfections that remain are the responsibility o f the editors. CSE & MCW November 2 0 0 5

Table of Contents Preface Table of Contents

V VII

C A R L S . EHRLICH

Introduction

1

AVRAHAM FAUST

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern Samaria and the Archaeology of (a) Saul

14

SIEGFRIED KREUZER

Saul - not always - at War. A New Perspective on the Rise of Kingship in Israel

39

STEVEN L. M C K E N Z I E

Saul in the Deuteronomistic History

59

YAIRAH AMIT

The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul and Its Place in the Deuteronomistic History

71

GREGORY MOBLEY

Glimpses of the Heroic Saul

80

CHRISTOPHE NIHAN

Saul among the Prophets (1 Sam 10:10-12 and 19:18-24). The Reworking of Saul's Figure in the Context of the Debate on "Charismatic Prophecy" in the Persian Era

88

MARSHA C. WHITE

Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 1 and 14

119

M A R K W . HAMILTON

The Creation of Saul's Royal Body. Reflections on 1 Samuel 8 - 1 0

139

VIII

Table of Contents

SAMUEL A . MEIER

The Sword. From Saul to David

156

C. MARK MCCORMICK

From Box to Throne. The Development of the Ark in DtrH and P

175

GARY N . KNOPPERS

Israel's First King and "the Kingdom of Y H W H in the hands of the sons of David." The Place of the Saulide Monarchy in the Chronicler's Historiography 187 Louis H . F E L D M A N Josephus' View of Saul

214

H A N N A LISS

The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic Exegesis

245

"What if you refuse, when ordered to fight?" King Saul (Talut) in the Qur'an and Post-Quranic Literature

261

W A L I D A . SALEH,

RUDIGER BARTELMUS

Handel and Jennens' Oratorio "Saul." A Late Musical and Dramatic Rehabilitation of the Figure of Saul

284

SARAH NICHOLSON

Catching the Poetic Eye. Saul Reconceived in Modern Literature

308

M A R C M I C H A E L EPSTEIN

Seeing Saul

334

Contributors Index of Sources Index of Names Index of Subjects

346 349 353 355

Introduction Carl S. Ehrlich In an evaluation of the legacy of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his assassination, Amotz Asa-El wrote that: Rabin was therefore neither the Davidic nation builder nor the Solomonic visionary some have made of him. Rather, he was a reincarnation of King Saul, the modest man who ruled in spite of himself after the people demanded a leader who would protect them from the Philistines; the warrior who initially excelled on the battlefield, before prematurely concluding that Israel's wars could be halted, and ultimately losing his life in that stubbornly persisting war. The sages said Saul's rule could not last because he was too modest, and German historian Leopold [von] Ranke said he was history's first tragic figure. Since then, history in general, and ours in particular, has had many more tragic figures. Rabin will always be counted prominently among them.1

Whatever the merits of this comparison of Rabin to Saul, it is intriguing that some three thousand years after the traditional date of his demise, the figure of Saul continues to exert a hold on the human imagination. Indeed, Asa-El deftly and succinctly articulates much that explains this enduring fascination. Saul is an ambiguous and contradictory figure. A head taller than any other Israelite (1 Sam 9:2), he is seemingly cut from the cloth of kingship. And yet he fails, ultimately to be abandoned and betrayed by the God who had chosen him as king (1 Sam 9:15-16 [choice] vs. 13:13-14; 15:10, 23 [rejection]), by the prophet Samuel who had anointed him as king (1 Sam 10:24; 11:14 [choice] vs. 15:26, 35 [rejection]), by the people who had acclaimed him as king (11:15 [acclamation] vs. 18:7 [rejection]), by his children Michal (1 Sam 19:11-17) and Jonathan (1 Sam 18:1^1; 23:16-18) who rejected their family's claim on kingship, by his servant David who supplanted him as king (as of 1 Sam 16:1), and by his own cowardice 2 and descent into madness and paranoia (as of 1 Sam 18:8). The multifaceted nature of Saul and his variegated depiction in the biblical text have led to a wide variety of interpretations of Saul in post-biblical

1

2

ASA-EL, L e g a c y .

The reference here is to his fear of facing Goliath in battle (1 Sam 17:11). Indeed, it is most ironic that the tallest hero of the Israelites, Saul, is afraid to face the tallest of the Philistines in a battle of equal champions, and it is left to the small and inexperienced David to fell the Philistine giant. In his noble decision to march to battle against the Philistines at Gilboa, in spite of knowing that this will lead to his death, Saul at the end reverts belatedly and quixotically to his original heroic nature.

2

Carl S. Ehrlich

tradition up to and including the present day. The brief excerpt from Asa-El's essay already presented the reader with interpretations of Saul as modest, warlike, misguided, and tragic. Besides these "traditional" images of Saul, the twentieth century added a number of additional nuances. In the early part of that century, one of the most imaginative, poetic, and effusive portraits of Saul was offered by Rudolf Kittel, who wrote: King Saul was like a brilliant meteor vanishing as rapidly as it came. Attracting the attention of all, making all hearts beat proudly with joy, and arousing great hopes, it appeared on Israel's horizon. Hardly risen, not yet having reached the zenith, the meteor turned quickly, only to sink and to fall slowly lower and lower. The brilliant hero, like a shining Siegfried, had killed the dragon, Ammon, and then in a swift course of victory, cheered by the people, with laurels crowning his brow, wearing the sparkling regal crown, having driven the country's enemy to the boundary, was suddenly halted and held as if spellbound by an invisible hand. Saul was like a steed that is unexpectedly checked in the midst of the joyful course, that stops, leaves the road, shies, and is turned from its course. The tall hero, whose noble appearance had been the delight of all who saw him, was bowed down. His clear, frank countenance was darkened, his sparkling eyes dimmed, clouded the brow that had formerly been held so high, that had reflected confidence, good fortune, and success. Furrows of grief and care marred his noble visage. Saul was the image of a man suddenly broken, an oak that was shattered in a night by lightning, or uprooted by a hurricane. 3

Later historians may have been more sober in their judgment of Saul, 4 but until the latter part of the century not much changed in the understanding of Saul's character. It was only with the rise of modern literary critical approaches to biblical literature that old assumptions about Saul and particularly his relationship with Samuel were called into question. No longer was Saul a heroic, noble, or tragic figure. Now he was reinterpreted as an incompetent, indeed as a bumbler, no longer the enemy of Samuel but his creation. 5 Without evaluating the relative merits of such readings, it is surely not coincidental that they were produced during an age in which one of the aims of the historical biography became to cut the heroes of old, such as the tall Saul, down to size. While it is his rival and successor David who is accorded much more importance by the biblical text and by post-biblical tradition, the ambivalent figure of Saul continues to attract attention. In spite of the recent spate of works dealing with the character of David and the debate revolving around his historicity and the nature of his rule, 6 his hapless predecessor has managed to

3

KITTEL, G r e a t , p p .

4

See, e.g., MILLER / HAYES ( H i s t o r y , pp. 1 3 5 - 1 4 6 ) w h o s p e a k o f " S a u l ' s p o p u l a r i t y ,

103-104.

heroism, and the significance of his reign" (p. 145). 5

See, e.g., POLZIN, S a m u e l ; COHEN, Saul.

6

See, e.g., ALTER, David; HALPERN, Secret Demons; KIRSCH, David; MCKENZIE, David.

Introduction

3

maintain a steady - albeit not as strong a - presence in both the scholarly literature and in popular imagination. 7 The following set of studies devoted to "Saul in Story and Tradition" does not attempt to break new methodological ground. In other words, unlike many volumes published nowadays, it does not view its subject as the test case in the application of a new methodological approach. On the contrary, the subject himself is in this instance indeed the major focus of our attention. Hence, the attempt has been made to enlist a number of scholars using various approaches to write about and view the subject matter of the book from a number of diverse methodological perspectives. Eclecticism is the hallmark of this enterprise. Nonetheless, reflective of current trends in scholarship, literary approaches predominate, although historical/archaeological studies introduce the volume, and the concluding essays deal with the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Saul in various guises and formats. The contents of this volume fall naturally into two parts of somewhat unequal length. The first eleven chapters deal with "Saul in Story," in other words, with Saul as depicted in the Hebrew Bible. The final six chapters have as their subject "Saul in Tradition," thus focusing on Saul as interpreted in various post-biblical religious, literary, and artistic corpora. In this manner the concept of the book as a whole allows us to look at Saul both synchronically and diachronically, in effect acknowledging that - even within the biblical texts - there are a number of Sauls. The two introductory essays look at the archaeology and at the process of state formation in the central highlands of Canaan/Israel/Palestine at the time to which Saul is generally dated, namely toward the end of Iron Age I (ca. 1200/1150-1000 BCE). They thus provide anthropological, archaeological, historical, and social perspectives on the putative period of Saul and the rise of the Israelite monarchy. In the first, Avraham Faust looks at the "Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern Samaria," namely in that region to the north of Jerusalem that became the southern part of the later Assyrian province of Samaria and is viewed in the Hebrew Bible in part as the tribal allocation of Benjamin, from which Saul claimed descent. A major observation of his is that none of the rural villages identified with the rise of the Israelites in the central hill country during Iron Age I continued as a village into Iron Age II. Either they disappeared or they grew into cities/towns. While he does not discount internal factors - including the increasing complexity of society enabling this change in settlement pattern, Faust clearly views external threats as the impetus for this change. In addition, evidence for the rise of a more complex society - including larger, fortified towns - is evident first in the 7

See, e.g., EDELMAN, Saul; GREEN, M i g h t y ; GUNN, Fate; HENTSCHEL, Saul; LONG, R e i g n ;

NICHOLSON, F a c e s .

4

Carl S. Ehrlich

territory of Benjamin. Hence, he concludes that the process of state formation began in this region. Turning briefly at the end of his essay to a comparison of the archaeological and biblical evidence, Faust looks at "the Archaeology of (a) Saul" and concludes that there are some major points of contact between them, among which the location and nature of the process of state formation have pride of place. Since such developments in human society need human agents, he concludes that there is no reason not to posit the existence of a Saul, while remaining cognizant of the dangers of equating archaeological levels with individuals mentioned only in later textual traditions. In the second, Siegfried Kreuzer offers "A New Perspective on the Rise of Kingship in Israel" by arguing that "Saul [was] - not always - at War." In his attempt to identify pre-deuteronomistic material in the deuteronomistic account of the rise and fall of King Saul, Kreuzer posits the methodological criterion of "unintentionality," whereby much valuable information can be gleaned by examining offhand comments in the text that do not fit into any identifiable theological or ideological pattern, an example of which would be the comment in 1 Sam 13:20-21 about the Israelites going to the Philistines to have their metal implements sharpened, which could be taken to indicate a period of peaceful relations between these peoples. Indeed, Kreuzer posits that the initial relations between Israel and Philistia were peaceful and based on mutual economic necessities and that Saul originally became king with the consent and support of the Philistines. He finds support for this contention in the entrusting of David with the city of Ziklag by the Philistines, which makes sense in his eyes only in the context of a state of non-war between Israel and Philistia at that time. Nonetheless, its purpose was to limit Saul's growing power by fostering a counterbalance to it under Philistine control. It was only toward the end of his reign that Saul was forced into war against the Philistines occasioned by the rash act of his son Jonathan (1 Sam 13:3—4). The next two articles deal with the figure of "Saul in the Deuteronomistic History." As Steven L. McKenzie points out in his essay of the same name, this in effect means Saul in the Books of Samuel, unlike David whose range of references is exponentially greater. McKenzie's central thesis is that the function of Saul in the Deuteronomistic History is to act as a counterpoint to David. Saul first appears obliquely in the narrative in 1 Samuel 1, which whether or not one views this as an original birth narrative of Saul - through its incorporation of wordplays on the Hebrew root i'/prepares the reader for Samuel's later rejection of Saul. The first true appearance of Saul is in the five literary units that comprise 1 Samuel 8-12 and encapsulate an ambivalent attitude toward kingship. While Saul is successfully anointed as a nagid "designated one" (a type of military leader), the use of this term in reference to him in the Deuteronomistic History indicates that he is a transitional figure between the period of the Judges and that of the Israelite monarchy. In

Introduction

5

addition, McKenzie singles out the difference between the ambivalent acclamation of Saul as ruler and the later unconditional acclamation of David as king. As king Saul can do little right; and the later stories about Saul as of 1 Samuel 13 deal in various ways with the central theme of his rejection by God in favor of David, which leads Saul to a life of madness and murder. Ultimately Saul himself is responsible for his fate and that of his house. McKenzie's conclusion is that the Deuteronomistic Historian has so greatly subsumed the story of Saul to that of David that very little if anything historical about Saul can be deduced from this narrative. In her essay Yairah Amit has chosen to highlight the tension in the text between the need to present Saul as worthy of election as king and conversely as worthy of rejection in favor of David. It is this that gives rise to "The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul and Its Place in the Deuteronomistic History." According to Amit this is accomplished by means of three literary devices: (1) Saul is depicted as a tragic hero; (2) Saul is shown in conflict with other major figures, namely Samuel and David; and (3) the characterization of Saul is ambivalent, allowing the reader both to empathize with him and yet to understand his fall. In accord with the first point, Amit identifies all five of Aristotle's characteristic elements of tragedy in the story of Saul. In the case of the second point, she argues that all the major figures in the story of Saul are painted in tones of gray, which allows for subtlety and nuance in their characterization. As for the third point, Amit contrasts the nuanced portrait of Saul in Samuel with the one-sidedly negative one in Chronicles. She concludes that this "Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul" is not characteristic of the Deuteronomist as author, but is indicative of the integration of earlier material into the Deuteronomistic History by an editor who decided not to change the tenor of his sources. The following four essays focus on different aspects of the character and nature of Saul within the biblical narratives about him. The first one seeks to uncover Saul as a hero, the second one views him in the context of the Persian era discussion about prophets and prophecy, the third one deals with him as the father of his son Jonathan, and the fourth one looks at the creation of his royal body. First Gregory Mobley attempts to discover the lost heroic Saul of history by comparing and contrasting the narratives of Saul in which he plays the leading role (1 Samuel 9-14) with those in which he serves negatively as the foil for the David story (1 Samuel 15-31). Mobley's methodological assumption is that positive details in the depiction of Saul in the former that are mirrored negatively (as in a photographic negative) in the latter must be based on authentic tradition and will provide us with "Glimpses of the Heroic Saul." Thus he investigates six instances in which facets of the earlier Saul narrative are mirrored in the David story in order to turn something positive

6

Carl S. Ehrlich

into a negative: Saul's stature, which is contrasted with that of David; his inspiration from the divine, which becomes an evil spirit; his performance in battle, which pales in comparison with David's; his spear, which is never used to good end; his men, who are implicitly criticized in the story of the raped and murdered concubine in Judges 19; and finally his prophetic ability, which becomes a sign of his descent into madness. The theme of "Saul among the Prophets (1 Sam 10:10-12 and 19:18-24)" provides the segue to the next essay, in which Christophe Nihan looks at "The Reworking of Saul's Figure in the Context of the Debate on 'Charismatic Prophecy' in the Persian Era." As the title already indicates, Nihan dates these aetiologies of the saying "Is Saul also among the prophets?" to the Persian period (539-332 BCE), in which case they would convey no information about a historical Saul. Using redaction-criticism Nihan attempts to show that 1 Sam 10:10-12 is a later, post-deuteronomic addition to the original story of Saul's anointing (1 Sam 9:1-10:16). He finds a historical context for this "spiritualization" of Saul's receipt of the spirit of God (originally a military motif) in the need for a reinterpretation of the role of leadership in the Judean community in the early fifth century BCE after the failure of Zerubbabel's attempt to reassert national autonomy in the Persian province of Yehud. Nihan traces this text and others like it to ecstatic groups living in Yehud, who argued that even those not specifically trained as prophets could be recipients of the divine spirit. The second version of the story in 1 Sam 19:18-24 served as the response of the classical prophetic school attached to the Jerusalem temple to the phenomenon of ecstatic prophecy. Hence, it is phrased in the negative and is to be dated slightly later than the first version of Saul's prophetic possession. Nonetheless, taken together, these passages present evidence of the continuation of a debate between official and charismatic prophetic circles, which probably predated the exile. In her essay on "Saul and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 1 and 14," Marsha White investigates the two chapters framing what she considers to be - minus some mainly Deuteronomistic additions - an original History of Saul's Rise, which is to be found in 1 Sam 1:1-14:48. In distinction to the prevailing hypothesis of the historical-critical school, according to which an original birth narrative of Saul - indicated by the prevalence of wordplays on the root s ' l - was transferred at some later date to Samuel (1 Samuel 1), White argues that the aim of the story was to validate Samuel as a proper priest and prepare the reader for his action in anointing the one who was to be the first king of Israel. Thus Saul appears in this narrative, but only obliquely through the sevenfold use of wordplays on his name, as indeed there are seven wordplays on the name of his son Jonathan (using the root ntn) in this chapter. In this preDavidic layer of tradition, Samuel's only function is to doom the Elide priests and raise the Saulides to kingship. Saul's near sacrifice of Jonathan in 1

Introduction

7

Samuel 14 is understood by White as a sign of his great devotion to God and is prefigured in Hannah's dedication of her son to God in 1 Samuel 1. Saul's readiness to sacrifice Jonathan and Jonathan's last-minute reprieve parallel Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac, who is also rescued at the last moment. The king and deliverer of Israel has proven his faithfulness to God. In his essay on "The Creation of Saul's Royal Body. Reflections on 1 Samuel 8-10," Mark W. Hamilton focuses on the treatment of Saul's body in the story of his appointment as king over Israel. Basing himself on this discussion, he proceeds to draw conclusions regarding the Hebrew Bible's view of the king's body and person. He introduces his topic by outlining three important conclusions reached by scholars in the field of body studies upon which his investigation is based: (1) "the movements and disciplining of the body both reflect the values of a culture and shape them," (2) "cultures construct bodies through ritual," and (3) "royal bodies reflect the culture's ... cosmology, to such a degree that we can say that governance consists of the creation and maintenance of a proper body." Although Saul is introduced as one of truly regal carriage (1 Sam 9:2), it is only when he receives "another heart" (1 Sam 10:9) that he becomes receptive to the divine spirit that will transform him (1 Sam 11:6). Drawing on ethnographic parallels, Hamilton understands the critique of the institution of the monarchy in 1 Samuel 8 as a formalized ritual designed to ward off the very evils being listed. Its success in the case of Saul is indicated by the continuation of the narrative about his reign. Notably, it is his beheaded and violated body, hung on the walls of Beth-shan, that signifies the end of his rule as king. The ritual that Hamilton has identified in 1 Samuel 8 - 1 0 is the antithesis of this conclusion, namely the creation of a royal body capable and worthy of publicly channeling the divine. The following two essays are concerned with objects that play an important role either by their presence or by their absence in the Saul narrative, namely his sword and the Ark of the Covenant. Both of these essays employ literary analyses to arrive at an understanding of the object in question and its place in the larger narrative. Taking as his point of departure Hannah's observation that "The bows of the mighty are shattered, but the feeble gird on strength" (1 Sam 2:4), Samuel A. Meier looks at "The Sword. From Saul to David." A particular focus of his is the ambivalent and oftentimes unexpected use made of weapons in the Saul narrative, which Meier ties in with a general biblical theme of the reversal of fortune and expectations. The large and mighty are not always the powerful or successful. Indeed, as the story of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) illustrates, the possession of weapons is no guarantee of victory, nor is their absence necessarily a precondition of defeat. Saul's spear is wielded against any number of people without success, and it is only David's compassion for the king that allows Saul to be spared the ignominy of death by his own weapon.

8

Carl S. Ehrlich

He does not, however, escape this fate later in his life, when he turns his sword on himself in order to be spared death at the hands of the Philistines (1 Sam 31:4-5). Indeed, as Meier demonstrates, the theme of the violent death of those who use weapons is one that runs throughout the Book of Samuel. The only warrior who lives to an old age and dies peacefully in bed in this work (extending into 1 Kings 2) is David. Even though David's family bears the consequences of his actions, Meier speculates that it is David's frequent distancing of himself from participation in bloodshed that allows this to take place from the narrator's perspective. Ultimately, Meier concludes that the text, part of the Deuteronomistic History, displays an ambivalence toward weapons and those who use them. On the one hand they are indispensable particularly in the exercise of power, on the other they threaten to consume whoever wields them. C. Mark McCormick's essay "From Box to Throne. The Development of the Ark in DtrH and P" begins with a tension in the biblical text: The Ark of the Covenant is missing from the Saul narrative (except for one brief mention of "the ark of God" in 1 Sam 14:18, which should be read as "the ephod of God" according to the Septuagint), and yet it frames that narrative. In addition, the function of the ark is ambiguous, serving both as a divine throne and as a container for the covenant tablets. McCormick criticizes those who take a phenomenological approach to understanding the ark as an object. For him the ark is a textual icon and must be understood in literary terms. In its current form the Ark Narrative is a Deuteronomistic composition that concludes with the ark's placement in the Temple (1 Kings 8). According to the Deuteronomistic picture of the ark, it was a simple box that housed the tablets of the covenant, around which the central part of the Temple was built. It is Priestly elaboration of this that has added such features as an ornate golden cover and poles to this image, transforming it into a portable throne of God. Since the interest of the Deuteronomist is in bringing the ark to the Temple, there is no need to insert it into the Saul narrative, since he was not associated with that movement. Fittingly concluding the "Saul in Story" section of this volume is an essay by Gary N. Knoppers on "The Place of the Saulide Monarchy in the Chronicler's Historiography." Thus far nearly all the essays have dealt with some aspect of Saul within the context of the Deuteronomistic History, more specifically within the Book of Samuel, which forms the major source of our information on Saul and his story. Nonetheless, Saul also appears within the Book of Chronicles, the last book in the canon of the Hebrew Bible. Knoppers' essay is an attempt to understand Saul and his house within the ideology and theology of this latter work. His essay begins with a conundrum. In addition to a number of scattered allusions to Saul within Chronicles, the Chronicler's main interest in him is in his genealogies (1 Chr 9:35^14) and in

Introduction

9

his death in battle (1 Chronicles 10). The Chronicler conveniently skips over the ensuing civil war as related in 2 Samuel, and implies that David was immediately chosen as king over all Israel. In light of the Chronicler's ignoring of the history of the northern kingdom of Israel and his contention that "the kingdom of YHWH [was] in the hands of the sons of David" (2 Chr 13:8), why mention Saul at all? One aim was to absolve David in any way of participation in the demise of Saul, from whose death in the Chronicler's opinion he would not have benefited, as is indicated by the Chronicler's nonmention of David's relationship to Saul through Michal (except for 1 Chr 15:29, in which Michal despises David for his dance before the ark). The Chronicler's narrative of David avers that he was supported by Benjaminites (from Saul's tribe!) while Saul yet reigned. Indeed, while Saul still lives, the Israelites turn to David of their own volition. This is justified in part through Chronicles' presentation of Saul as an apostate. Ultimately, Chronicles' presentation of Saul is situated in the Persian period, when Judah and Benjamin were the two non-priestly tribes vying for power. The Chronicler's account of Saul acknowledges Saul's primacy, but also his inadequacy. The Benjaminites of Saul's day realized this and flocked to David, just as the Chronicler hopes that the Benjaminites of his day will flock to the Davidic house. The six essays that comprise the second part of this volume, the "Saul in Tradition" component, fall naturally into two groups of three. The first three essays represent investigations into the rewriting of the Saul story in the first millennium CE. The final three look at interpretations of the Saul story in second millennium music, literature, and art. Whereas the other two essays in the first triad examine specifically theological interpretations of Saul in midrashic and Quranic literature, the essay by Louis H. Feldman on "Josephus' View of Saul" examines the rewriting of the Saul story by the first century CE Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Following the traditions of the Isocratean school of historiography, Josephus emphasizes Saul's heroic and tragic nature. For Josephus, Saul is a pivotal figure in Jewish history; and Josephus' treatment of him is disproportionately long when compared with the biblical texts and also much more positive. While avoiding the rabbinic "whitewashing" of Saul, Josephus nonetheless stakes out a position opposed to that of his contemporary PseudoPhilo, whose Saul is a villain. Josephus' Saul embodies the qualities that would most appeal to a Greek audience, thus becoming a paradigm of Josephus' apologetic aims. In this manner Josephus draws attention to Saul's good birth, his physical attractiveness, his embodiment of the four cardinal virtues (wisdom, courage, temperance/modesty, and justice), and his sense of piety. A somewhat amusing example of Josephus' need to render the biblical narrative more palatable for a Greek audience is the change of the Hebrew

10

Carl S. Ehrlich

Bible's bride price for Michal from one hundred Philistine foreskins to six hundred Philistine heads. Feldman speculates that Josephus had Homer's Hector and Achilles in mind when formulating his portrait of Saul. In spite of Josephus' generally positive attitude toward Saul and his rewriting of Saul's story in a manner intended to glorify him, Josephus must also explain the tragedy of his downfall. His cruelty in the case of the priests of Nob, for example, is explained as a consequence of the corruption of power; and it is that cruelty together with his disobedience to God in the case of the Amalekites that are the direct causes of Saul's downfall. Nonetheless, Josephus arouses sympathy toward Saul by emphasizing his remorse for his negative actions. Finally, Josephus attributes Saul's descent into madness to a medical condition and not to an evil spirit from God, and his antipathy toward David is rationalized as the understandable fear of a rival. In her essay on "The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic Exegesis," Hanna Liss attempts to come up with a coherent interpretation of the various rabbinic traditions concerning Saul. Her primary observation is that the rabbis were much more sympathetic toward Saul than the biblical traditions were. This is reflected also in the rabbis' treatment of David, who is hence evaluated in a much more critical light than in the Hebrew Bible. In keeping with scattered hints in the biblical text, the rabbinic Saul is a modest man. The rabbis play up that aspect of his character to such a degree that they have Saul himself question his suitability for the role chosen for him by God. In this manner, Saul anticipates his failure and cannot be accused of causing it. In keeping with a rabbinic tendency to view significant figures from the past as protorabbis, Saul too is cast in this mold, being particularly enamored of legal (i.e., halakhic) discussions. In general, the rabbis tried to interpret any ambiguities in the biblical text in Saul's favor and to rationalize and temper his biblical sins, even ascribing much of the responsibility for them (his mercy in the case of Agag, his murder of the priests of Nob) to Samuel and David, i.e., to those whom the biblical text depicts as innocent. Saul's bravery in going to battle at Gilboa in the knowledge that it would be his last is admired in rabbinic writings even by God himself. This inversion of biblical evaluations of personality is characteristic of rabbinic interpretation, not only in the case of Saul. The larger aim of this process is to evaluate important figures from the past in terms of their supposed devotion to Torah and to the people. As Liss concludes, "The preeminence of rabbinic Judaism, therefore, can be attributed to its adoption of and emancipation from the Hebrew Bible." In his article on "King Saul (Talut) in the Qur'an and Post-Quranic Literature," Walid A. Saleh uses the example of Saul to formulate a methodological critique of Quranic scholarship's understanding of the Qur'an's reworking of biblical traditions. The Qur'an's treatment of Saul is relatively brief and limited to one sura (Q. 2: 246-253), and it deviates quite

Introduction

11

significantly from the biblical narratives, a state of affairs that is - as Saleh demonstrates - inverted in post-Quranic literature. Rather than assuming that the Qur'an simply made mistakes in its transmission of biblical stories, Saleh advocates investigating the Qur'an in order to understand the ideological/theological reasons for deviations from biblical precursors. Unlike Christianity, which adopted and reinterpreted preexisting scriptural traditions (i.e., the Hebrew Bible), the Qur'an rewrote preexisting scriptural traditions and claimed that it alone had direct or divine access to the original stories. In the case under consideration here, the major concern of the Qur'an's presentation of Saul is not kingship, but "sanctioning fighting." Mutatis mutandis, Samuel's warnings about kingship are transformed into warnings about not taking up arms. Saleh locates this passage in the Medinan (i.e., post622 CE) phase of Muhammad's career, when the necessity to find divine and textual sanction for the taking up of arms to defend and expand the newly formed polity became paramount. The presentation of the Israelites in this narrative as ousted from their homes becomes paradigmatic for the nascent Muslim community, driven from its home in Mecca. The Saul pericope thus becomes emblematic of the believers' need to fight at the deity's behest, even if they are reluctant to engage in conflict. In his final section, Saleh compares the Quranic and post-Quranic versions of the Saul story and comes to the conclusion that such a comparison indicates a unified Quranic vision and argues against a late redaction of the Qur'an. The final three essays in this volume explore reflections of Saul in the artistic heritage of Western Europe during the last half millennium or so. The first of these is devoted to a musical and textual interpretation of the Saul story from the first half of the eighteenth century. In it, Riidiger Bartelmus examines "[George Frideric] Handel and [Charles] Jennens' [1738] Oratorio 'Saul.'" In the first part of his article, Bartelmus compares the biblical account with Handel and Jennens' reworking of it. It is clear from the outset that they conceived of the Saul story as a tragedy in the classical mold wherein they identify the hand of powers beyond the human to affect the course of events. The very title of their oratorio directs the attention of the listener away from the more commonly portrayed David to the tragic figure of Saul; and hence an implicit critique of the misuse of power - unexpected in the context of the obsequious cultural life of the time - can be identified in the work. Nonetheless, the figure of David frames the oratorio as a counterpoint to Saul. The tragedy of Saul is that he is doomed to failure from the beginning through God's choice of David, which is the cause of his envy and his descent into madness. In his analysis of the music, Bartelmus points out that C is the primary key of the oratorio as a whole, thus special attention must be devoted both to those numbers that deviate from this key and to those closely related to it. Nuances in key can express, for instance, insincerity in the mourning

12

Carl S. Ehrlich

over Saul and Jonathan near the end of the work. The unexpected use of C, on the other hand, in the "Hallelujah" that ends No. 5 can be understood to indicate that David's triumph is not complete and that troubles lie ahead. In her essay on "Saul Reconceived in Modern Literature," Sarah Nicholson looks at how five dramatists (Jean de la Taille, Pierre du Ryer, Vittorio Alfieri, Voltaire, Alphonse de Lamartine, and André Gide) and one novelist (Thomas Hardy) have reworked the Saul story for their own purposes. Since these authors span a period of about half a millennium, she hopes in this way to convey some sense of the variety of approaches to the story within the western literary tradition. As in the bible, a number of Sauls emerge from such an investigation. Some of them adhere more or less closely to the biblical Urtext, while others have no more than a name or two in common with the biblical account. Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge, however, while modeled on the Saul story, has no names in common with the bible's Saul narrative. Given the gaps in and questions arising from the biblical narratives, more than ample room is given for later literary reworkings to add details not found in their biblical antecedent. Sometimes elements are even borrowed from other post-biblical retellings of the Saul story, such as La Taille's use of details from Josephus' Jewish Antiquities. Nonetheless, Nicholson identifies two constant elements in all of these reworkings: (1) "Saul's madness," and (2) Saul's conflicts with those around him. Among the themes examined by Nicholson are these two, as well as Saul's complex and oftentimes loving relationship to David, Saul's tragic recognition and reversal, the frequently scheming figure of Abner or an Abner-like figure, the possibility of sexual competition between Saul and David (usually heterosexual, although in Gide's drama it becomes homoerotic), and Saul's relationship with God, which - when present - is what gives the story its classic tragic aspect. In a final section Nicholson evaluates the successes and failures of these retellings of the Saul story, concluding that Alfieri and Hardy were the most successful, but they had a masterful and nuanced biblical account on which to base their reworkings. The final essay in this volume is a meditation on "Seeing Saul" by Marc Michael Epstein. His point of departure is Rembrandt's iconic image of Saul, which is the best known visual reflection of how the figure of Saul is understood in the western imagination. Although Saul was not a frequent subject of early Christian and Jewish art, in late medieval illuminated manuscripts images of Saul assumed importance as illustrations of appropriate and inappropriate royal behavior and of behavior in the presence of kings. In spite of the bible's description of him as the tallest among the Israelites (1 Sam 9:2; 10:23), it is oftentimes Samuel who towers over Saul in an attempt to depict their relative moral merit and worth, at least in the eyes of the clerics who produced these texts. Unlike medieval art, in which biblical figures

Introduction

13

served as object lessons and symbols, the artists of the seventeenth century including Rembrandt - attempted to understand and depict the states of mind of their subjects, whom they treated as individuals. There are two paintings of Saul commonly attributed to Rembrandt. The first, painted around 1629, shows a tormented and emotionally conflicted Saul grasping his spear as a shadowy David plays his harp in the corner. The second, stemming from 1655-1660, depicts the same scene. However, here a seated Saul is depicted as impotently cradling his spear while he uses a curtain to dry his tears. The figure of David is much more prominent and aware of his situation in this latter painting than in the former. What Rembrandt managed to do was to allow all to empathize with Saul, no matter what their station in life. In this manner Saul becomes symbolic of flawed humanity itself.

Bibliography ALTER, R., The David Story. A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, New York / London 1999 ASA-EL, A., What Legacy?, Jerusalem Post (November 3, 2005) COHEN, K . I . , K i n g S a u l . A B u n g l e r f r o m t h e B e g i n n i n g , B R e v 1 0 / 5 ( 1 9 9 4 ) p p . 3 4 - 3 9 , 5 6 - 5 7

EDELMAN, D.V., King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup 121), Sheffield 1991 GREEN, B., HOW Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study of King Saul in 1 Samuel (JSOTSup 365), Sheffield 2003 GUNN, D.M., The Fate of King Saul. An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup 14), Sheffield 1989 HALPERN, B., David's Secret Demons. Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, Grand Rapids / Cambridge (UK) 2001 HENTSCHEL, G., Saul. Schuld, Reue und Tragik eines Gesalbten (Biblische Gestalten 7), Leipzig 2003 ISSER, S., The Sword of Goliath. David in Heroic Literature (Studies in Biblical Literature 6), Atlanta 2003 KIRSCH, J., King David. The Real Life of the Man Who Ruled Israel, New York 2000 KITTEL, R., Great Men and Movements in Israel (Library of Biblical Studies), trans, from the German 1925 by C.A. Knoch / C.D. Wright, reprinted with a prolegomenon by T.H. Gaster, New York 1968 LONG, V.P., The Reign and Rejection of King Saul. A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (SBLDS 118), Atlanta 1989 MCKENZIE, S.L., King David. A Biography, Oxford / New York 2000 MILLER, J.M. / HAYES, J.H., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Philadelphia 1986 NICHOLSON, S., Three Faces of Saul. An Intertextual Approach to Biblical Tragedy (JSOTSup 339), Sheffield 2002 POLZIN, R., Samuel and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part Two: I Samuel, San Francisco 1989

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern Samaria and the Archaeology of (a) Saul Avraham Faust 1. Introduction The formation of the monarchy in ancient Israel has received a great deal of scholarly attention. While in the past most studies of this process were textual in orientation, in the last twenty years the archaeological finds have come to the fore, and various new archaeological studies have examined the formation process that created the Israelite state(s). These studies have advanced our understanding of the background of the state formation process that occurred at the turn of the first millennium BCE.' It seems, however, that a more detailed look at the finds from different regions will shed more light on these complex processes. The main aim of the present paper is, therefore, to discuss the formation of the ancient Israelite state from the perspective of one of its most important regions - namely that of the Land of Benjamin. It should be noted that this discussion concentrates on an analysis of settlement patterns, and while this is an extremely important perspective, 2 final conclusions should be drawn only in light of other kinds of analysis as well. The second part of the paper will briefly discuss the possible role of human agents in these processes and the possible connections with the figure of Saul as known from the Hebrew Bible. 3

2. The Formation of the Israelite State The processes that preceded and accompanied the establishment of the Israelite state(s) have been discussed intensively in the biblical, historical and 1 The present paper follows the traditional chronology, which - despite various challenges (e.g., FINKELSTEIN, Date; IDEM, Philistine Contryside; IDEM, Bible) - is still accepted by most

a r c h a e o l o g i s t s (e.g., MAZAR, Iron; BEN TOR / BEN AMI, H a z o r ; BUNIMOVITZ / FAUST,

Chronological; DEVER, What; STAGER, Patrimonial). 2 For the importance of this class of data for the discussion of state formation, see PRICE, Secondary State, p. 165; FINKELSTEIN, Emergence. 3 It should be stressed that it is not our aim to identify Saul in the archaeological record (see more below).

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

15

archaeological literature.4 In the past, following the biblical description, most scholars were of the opinion that the monarchy (i.e., statehood) developed as a response to the Philistine threat.5 This view was "modified" recently (mainly during the eighties) by many scholars, who considered the biblical narrative to be too simplistic (and, of course, problematic as a historical source). They considered various other explanations in light of the anthropological literature and tended to stress internal rather than external causes, or even to combine the two: Gottwald,6 for example, assumed that technological advances in highlands' agriculture (terraces, plastered cisterns, and the use of iron) resulted in economic prosperity and the production of surpluses. These caused a gradual increase in population, and a more advanced and broad administration was necessary, leading eventually to the establishment of the monarchy. Chaney also described a situation of economic growth in the highlands.7 This prosperity attracted the Philistines, and their pressure led eventually to the establishment of the state (the monarchy), thereby combining internal growth with external threat. Whitelam viewed the internal process somewhat differently. 8 According to him, demographic pressure and limited resources led to competition that resulted in the introduction of mechanisms of stability, which led, eventually, to the formation of the state. According to Hauer, demographic pressure caused competition between various groups for scarce resources.9 Facing the Philistine threat, the Israelites could either choose to surrender or to fight. They chose the second option, and this led to the establishment of the state. Finkelstein has justly criticized most of these works for not being familiar with the field, i.e., the abundant recent archaeological discoveries.10 He partially adopted the various explanations cited, but stressed the gradual expansion of Israelite settlement, agricultural specialization, the emergence of middlemen, and the resulting economic growth in the highlands, as being the major factors that created a more complex society, which led to contacts between the Israelites and the Philistines and eventually to the establishment of the monarchy.

4

E.g. FRICK, Formation; COOTE / WHITELAM, Emergence. For a summary of the research, see FINKELSTEIN, Emergence; FAUST, Hamlets; IDEM, Abandonment, and references there. See also below. 5 E.g., NOTH, History, pp. 164 ff.; BRIGHT, History, pp. 180 ff. See also the summary in FINKELSTEIN, E m e r g e n c e . 6

GOTTWALD, T r i b e s .

7

CHANEY, Systematic Study.

8

WHITELAM, S y m b o l s .

9

F o l l o w i n g Alt. S e e HAUER, Alt.

10

FINKELSTEIN, E m e r g e n c e .

16

Avraham

Faust

It seems that most (but not all) of the recent opinions have tended to stress internal developments and have considered the external threat as influential only in the last phase of the formation of the state." A closer examination of settlement patterns, however, can significantly deepen our understanding of these processes. Such an examination reveals major changes that took place during the eleventh to tenth centuries BCE in the central highlands - especially in regard to rural settlements. 12 Accumulated data concerning Iron Age rural settlements (mainly from salvage excavations) reveal that the small and isolated villages of the Iron Age I, so characteristic of the "settlement process" in the highlands, 13 disappeared with the advent of the Iron I, especially during the second half of the eleventh century BCE. Although a few scholars have made this observation, 14 it seems as if none of them have identified the scope of the phenomenon: None of the typical Iron I villages that have been excavated so far continued to exist as a village during the Iron Age II. Some of these sites were transformed into towns or cities (e.g., Dan, Beersheba, Bethel, Mizpah [Tell en-Nasbeh], and others), while most villages were abandoned or destroyed, i.e., ceased to exist (e.g., Ras 'Ali, Khirbet Avot, Sasa, Karmiel, Mt. Ebal, the Bull Site, Izbet Sartah, 'Ai, Raddana, Giloh, Jebel el-Habun, and others). 15

" For a fuller summary of previous views see, for example, FINKELSTEIN, Emergence; DEVER, Tribes, pp. 2 2 0 - 2 2 1 . 12

See the expanded discussion in FAUST, Hamlets; IDEM, Abandonment. It appears that the only exceptions (where this process did not take place) are the regions of the Northern Valleys and perhaps also the Coastal Plain. The data from these regions, however, is meager. 13

14

15

E.g., DEVER, Tribes; MAZAR, A r c h a e o l o g y , p. 4 3 7 .

For fuller list and references, see FAUST, Hamlets; and especially IDEM, Abandonment. It should be noted that this conclusion is not a result of the state of research and cannot be attributed to the lack of knowledge. While our knowledge of the rural sector is indeed incomplete and more data are always welcome, the above picture seems to be supported by all known examples (and there are many, as can be seen below). This is not the place for a full discussion, but one should note that all the Iron Age II rural sites are dated to the ninth to seventh centuries BCE, so we currently do not know of any tenth century rural sites in the highlands. Moreover, one should note that the latter are located at different sites; and it is clear that at the time of the Iron Age I—II transition there were major changes in settlement patterns. It is interesting to note that this situation was not identified by the various surveys conducted throughout Israel, many of which claimed continuity between the Iron Age I and II as well as growth in the rural sector during the tenth century BCE. Although this discrepancy will not be addressed in detail, suffice it to say that the large number of excavated Iron Age rural sites (all in all some 80 sites) proves that such an abandonment process did take place (part of the problematic nature of surveys will be apparent later, in the discussion of some excavated sites; for a fuller discussion, see FAUST, Hamlets; IDEM, Abandonment; FAUST / SAFRAI, Salvage Excavation). It appears likely that some tenth century villages will be discovered in the future, but such finds will not change the overall pattern.

Seulement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

17

Many reasons could, in theory, account for such a pattern, in which rural sites were abandoned. These include nomadization, ecological problems, incentives in other regions, methodological problems in identifying the relevant material in relatively unstudied rural sites, security problems, and resettlement. The current author has presented full discussions and evaluations of these possible explanations elsewhere. Suffice it here to repeat the final conclusions: A close contextual archaeological examination of these explanations in light of studies of similar processes in other regions 16 makes it clear that the present case can only be explained by a strong external threat (that could have been accompanied by resettlement). It seems as if all other possible reasons mentioned above cannot account for the discussed settlement patterns, and only security problems, along with (at a late stage) forced settlement, could have caused the population to concentrate in larger settlements in order to come to grips with the security issues. 17 It should be noted that in order to be in a position to confront such a threat, a society needs to be at a minimal level of complexity, otherwise it would be colonized. That the highland society was complex enough was demonstrated by Finkelstein's thorough analysis. 18 This development, which brought many people to live in large sites and to abandon the small sites (not all of them were necessarily destroyed prior to their abandonment), should be seen as a major part of the state formation process that took place at the same time in the highlands. Hostilities and confrontations caused the destruction of some of the highland villages, and the remaining population joined other settlements probably those that were regarded as safer - thereby creating larger settlements (which became even safer following this process). It should be noted that such a process has parallels in the region: Security problems in the Hebron mountains are probably responsible for the existence of extremely large villages and the paucity of small sites, even in the relatively modern era. 19 The concentration of large populations in these sites, especially in light of the problems that created this movement, inevitably led to the creation of stronger leadership, probably followed by a more sophisticated and complex administration. This process of settlement growth (in size) is, in fact, a major part of the "famous" tenth century BCE re-urbanization process. 20 Moreover, it should be noted that such "urban relocation" likely created an environment in which intellectual life flourished, 21 in so doing escalating the process that

16

S e e , e.g., DEMAND, U r b a n ; MARCUS / FLANNERY, Z a p o t e c , p. 141.

17

For a full discussion, see FAUST, Hamlets; IDEM, Abandonment. 18 FlNKELSTEIN, Emergence; and references above. 19

E.g., AMIRAN, Pattern.

20

E.g., HERZOG, City; FRITZ, C h a r a c t e r ; MAZAR, A r c h a e o l o g y ; DEVER, Tribes.

21

DEMAND, U r b a n , p. 3; MARCUS / FLANNERY, Z a p o t e c , p. 158.

18

Avraham

Faust

created a stronger local elite. Later, after the establishment of the monarchy and its expansion, the process of village abandonment continued, probably by force, in order to serve the new state's goals. The second phase differed from the first in both spatial terms and not only in temporal ones. 22 This phase, however, does not concern us here, as it occurs far from the discussed area. This essay shall concentrate on the first phase.

3. Southern Samaria and the Land of Benjamin: Some Preliminary Notes Before beginning the discussion, it should be noted that the above-mentioned studies of Israelite state formation have usually examined the process as a whole and related to the entire central highlands as one unit. This view can be exemplified by a citation from Coote and Whitelam, who referred to the question of "why it is this particular area which centralized and introduced an effective Israelite monarchy." 23 In their formulation, the term "particular area" referred to the entire "highlands," as is clear from the next sentence in their work. More sophisticated and updated studies sometimes differentiated the region of Judea, where settlement was sparser, from that of Samaria. 24 Although the examination of the changes in settlement patterns, mentioned above, did take regional and diachronic differences into account, it seems as if a more regional approach seems more promising. 3.1 Geographical

Boundaries

For the purposes of the present paper, the area under discussion is not the Land of Benjamin per se, nor does it constitute only the tribal inheritance of Benjamin as described, for example, in the book of Joshua (18:11-20). For several reasons, the studied area includes the entire southern part of Samaria: First of all, this volume is dedicated to Saul, and the region which should be examined - the so-called Benjaminite perspective - should refer to the region in which Saul is said to have been active (although, as will be shown below, this paper does not seek to identify Saul ben Kish in the archaeological record). It should also be noted that from a geographical (or geopolitical) perspective, the above-mentioned biblical "borders" seem to be meaningless (while "southern Samaria," as defined below, is a more coherent region). Moreover, it seems as if even from a biblical perspective the borders of

22

FAUST, H a m l e t s ; IDEM, A b a n d o n m e n t .

23

COOTE / WHITELAM,

24

E.g.,

also

OFER,

Emergence, pp. Archaeology, pp. Hill Country, p. 1 0 7 .

FINKELSTEIN,

147-148. 3 3 0 - 3 3 5 ; IDEM,

Philistine Countryside, p.

236;

see

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

19

Benjamin shifted over time. 25 All of these factors indicate that the Benjaminite perspective cannot be limited to the "inheritance of Benjamin." The region examined within the context of this paper includes the biblical territory of Benjamin and that part of Ephraim that lies along the central ridge, which the Bible identifies as the area of Saul's activity. 26 For our purposes, this region includes all the sites from Shiloh in the north, to el-Burj and Tell el-Ful in the south, and from the desert fringe in the east (the sites of Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Khirbet Marjameh), to the beginning of the slopes in the west. The excavated Iron Age sites encompassed in this area include Shiloh, Khirbet Marjameh, Bethel, Khirbet el-Maqatir, Ai, Khirbet Raddana, Tell enNasbeh, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, Gibeon, Khirbet el-Burj, and Tell el-Ful. In addition, it should be stressed that the following discussion, which is archaeological in nature, is carried out within a biblically determined framework (although it has some geographical consistency). It is possible, therefore, that archaeologically the examination of this region will prove insignificant, i.e., that archaeologically no special importance may ultimately be attributed to the processes that took place in this region at the time discussed here (in comparison with other regions). The degree of correlation or lack of same between the archaeological evidence regarding this region and the importance ascribed to it in the written sources might therefore be quite significant.

4. Excavated Iron Age Sites in the Region between Shiloh and Jerusalem It should be noted that southern Samaria was one of the more densely inhabited regions during Iron Age I.27 A large number of small "settlement villages" were established there at the beginning of the period, some of which existed also during Iron Age II, when the region was even more densely settled. While a similar settlement pattern in other regions has led scholars to conclude that there was a gradual increase in the number of sites from Iron Age I to Iron Age II (see above), a closer look at the data at hand reveals that the reality in this region is much more complex.

25 This can be seen in the difference between the town list and the borders of Benjamin; compare Joshua 18:11-20 with 18:21-28. In regard to the town of Bethel, for example, see

KELSO, E x c a v a t i o n , pp. 4 9 a n d 50. 26

See also WHITE, Searching, p. 27, who ascribes these territories to the initial stage of Saul's kingdom. For connections between the two, although from a very "biblical" perspective, see also SCHUNK, Benjamin, p. 671. 27

E.g., FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p. 2 0 0 .

20

Avraham

Faust

In the following discussion sites are loosely organized in a north to south sequence. It should be stressed that some of the excavations discussed were conducted many years ago, and their primary publications, accordingly, are insufficient by today's standards. Hence, in some cases the discussion is based not on the primary excavation reports, but on more recent re-analyses conducted by various scholars. It should also be noted that in many cases the dates given to certain structures or strata by the excavators (and others) are problematic, as at times archaeologists have based their dating on historical reconstructions, rather than on archaeological criteria. 28 While I have used recent publications in order to cope with this problem, I have avoided redating these sites/structures myself in order to avoid circular argumentation. 29 4.1 Shiloh The Iron I settlement at this site, which probably functioned as a religious center, began during the twelfth century BCE and ended about the middle of the eleventh century in a violent destruction, caused - according to the excavators - by the Philistines. 30 The site was not resettled until the late Iron Age. 4.2 Khirbet

Marjameh

This is a large site, 30 dunams 31 in area. 32 Iron I sherds were reported in surveys, 33 and a few such sherds were found in the excavations. 34 Neither Zohar's excavations nor Mazar's 35 have yielded any traces of a permanent Iron Age I settlement; 36 and a fortified city at the site was established only during the tenth or ninth century BCE. 37 Our present state of knowledge precludes discussing the site in detail. All that can be said is that if the Iron I sherds indicate the presence of a small rural settlement (and this is the most 28

See, e.g., FINKELSTEIN, Archaeology, p. 68. A full discussion is beyond the scope of the present paper. While it is possible that many past attempts at dating are incorrect, either due to the historical reconstruction on which they were based or to other reasons, the general picture that emerges from the sites discussed here is quite clear. Even if some datings would be corrected in the future, it is likely that the overall picture will remain the same. 29 It should be noted that due to space limitations the following discussions are partial and cannot include references to every opinion expressed regarding the nature of these sites. 30 FINKELSTEIN, Archaeology, pp. 220-234. For a more detailed discussion, see FINKELSTEIN, H i s t o r y , p . 3 8 6 ; BUNIMOVITZ / FINKELSTEIN, P o t t e r y , p. 1 6 2 . 31

A dunam is one tenth of a hectare and about one quarter of an acre.

32

MAZAR, E x c a v a t i o n s , p. 87.

33

KALLAI, Land, pp.

172-173,

site 65; f o l l o w e d b y FINKELSTEIN / LEDERMAN /

BUNIMOVITZ, H i g h l a n d s , p. 732. 34 35 36 37

ZOHAR, Tell Marjameh, p. 220; MAZAR, Excavations, p. 99. ZOHAR, Tell Marjameh; MAZAR, Marjameh; Excavations, p. 99. ZOHAR, Tell Marjameh, p. 220; MAZAR, Marjameh; IDEM, Excavations. MAZAR, M a r j a m e h , p. 966; IDEM, E x c a v a t i o n s .

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

21

likely explanation), then during the Iron Age II38 a town was built on the site. 39 The site, therefore, represents a reality similar to that of other sites where an Iron I village was replaced by an Iron Age II town. 4.3 Bethel The Iron I settlement (town?) was completely different from its Late Bronze Age predecessor. The differences can be seen, for example, in the architecture of the Iron Age I, whose structures were much more flimsy. 40 The site continued to exist throughout the Iron Age without any significant occupational gaps. It is important, however, to stress the major architectural changes that took place at about the turn of the first millennium BCE. According to Kelso, at the time "[b]uilding improved quickly, leaving behind the pier construction of earlier phases of Iron I...." 41 4.4 Khirbet

el-Maqatir

During the Iron Age I "small domestic structures were built into the ruined ... LB I fortress." 42 This phase is dated to the twelfth to eleventh centuries BCE. 43 No Iron Age II remains were reported. 4.5 'Ai Two expeditions worked at this site, which is located east of Ramallah. 44 An unfortified village of about 12 dunams was exposed. Four- and three-room houses were discovered at the site, along with cisterns and various indications that "attest to the agricultural dimension of village life." 45 The village was dated on various grounds to the years 1220-1050 BCE. 46 4.6 Khirbet

Raddana

This site is located at the western edge of the town of el-Bireh. Salvage excavations were carried out at the site by the 'Ai expedition. 47 The Iron I site 38

Perhaps following a gap - the situation during the tenth century is not clear. See MAZAR, Excavations, p. 99. 39 Final conclusions should, of course, wait until more data are gathered. Note, however, that there is a possible discrepancy between the surveys and the excavations, as FINKELSTEIN / BUNIMOVITZ / LEDERMAN (Highlands, p. 732) estimated the Iron I site to be relatively large. 40

K E L S O , E x c a v a t i o n , p p . 3 2 , 4 8 , a n d 5 0 ; IDEM, B e t h e l , p . 1 9 4 .

41

KELSO, Excavation, p. 50. While Kelso's interpretation is clearly very "biblical" in nature, the fact that he mentions certain changes in pottery that occurred in tandem with the architectural changes helps to date these changes to the period discussed here. 42 WOOD, Kh. el-Maqatir (2001), p. 249. 43 WOOD, Kh. el-Maqatir (2001), p. 250. 44 45

46 47

CALLAWAY, 1 9 6 4 E x c a v a t i o n s ; IDEM, 1 9 6 6 E x c a v a t i o n s ; IDEM, E x c a v a t i n g ; IDEM, A i . CALLAWAY, A i , p . 4 5 . FINKELSTEIN,

Archaeology, pp. 69-72;

CALLAWAY,

Ai, pp. 45^*6.

CALLAWAY / COOLEY, S a l v a g e E x c a v a t i o n ; COOLEY, F o u r ; CALLAWAY, R a d d a n a .

22

Avraham

Faust

covered no more than 8-10 dunams and included several groups of structures. According to the excavators the site was founded in the late thirteenth century BCE and was destroyed by fire in the middle of the eleventh century BCE, perhaps as a result of the Philistine victory at Ebenezer.48 4.7 Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah) This site was excavated almost in its entirety.49 Most scholars identify two Iron Age stages at the site, which is usually identified with biblical Mizpah.50 The earlier one is a crowded settlement, which occupied some 17.2 dunams on the top of the hill.51 The settlement had only very basic planning characteristics - the only planned elements were a ring-road and, perhaps, a city-wall.52 At a later stage the city changed its character.53 New massive walls were erected a few meters outside of the former walls, without changing the preexisting town itself. The new wall had a large gate complex. Several large structures were built in the area that was added to the city between the two sets of walls. Most scholars agree that this happened during the ninth century BCE as part of the events described in I Kgs 15:22.54 We are interested, however, in the earlier Iron I town. While the settlement was probably established at an early stage during the Iron Age I, it is extremely unlikely that it was founded as a crowded and defended town of nearly 20 dunams. The site should be viewed as an agglomerated settlement, i.e., a site that developed and expanded as time progressed. Since, according to the prevalent view, the site was not abandoned or destroyed during the Iron Age,55 it is difficult to identify different phases; hence, the entire settlement is seen as one. It is likely that, whenever the site was established,56 it slowly grew in size, reaching its full size probably on the eve of the changes that took place in the early ninth century.57 Due to the problematic nature of such sites, and in the absence of a major destruction, it is impossible to date the sequence of growth that the site went through. It is likely, therefore, that the site was 48

FINKELSTEIN, A r c h a e o l o g y , p p . 6 7 - 6 9 ; s e e CALLAWAY, R a d d a n a , p. 1253, f o r s i m i l a r

dates. 49 5(1 51

MCCOWN, Tell en-Nasbeh; WAMPLER, Tell en-Nasbeh. For a summary, see ZORN, Tell en-Nasbeh, pp. 34-46. ZORN, Tell e n - N a s b e h , pp. 2 9 4 - 2 9 5 .

52

MCCLELLAN, Town, p. 54; SHILOH, Four Room, pp. 3 9 ^ 0 . HERZOG, City, p. 239; MCCLELLAN, Town, p. 54; see also ZORN, Note, although the latter differs in some details. 54 E.g., most recently, HERZOG, City, p. 239; ZORN, Note. 53

55

56

E.g., FINKELSTEIN, A r c h a e o l o g y , pp. 6 1 - 6 3 ; b u t s e e b e l o w .

Some dated its establishment to the thirteenth or even fourteenth century BCE. According to FINKELSTEIN, Archaeology, pp. 61 and 63, who cites these opinions, "there is nothing ... to prevent dating the beginning of activity to the 12lh century BCE." 57 FINKELSTEIN, Archaeology, p. 63, suggested that it reached its final form in the tenth century.

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

23

established as a typical Iron I village at the early Iron Age I and slowly grew in size, reaching a certain threshold in the eleventh century BCE. 58 This growth can be attributed to the above-mentioned process. Recently, however, Zorn has reanalyzed the excavations of the site. 59 He concludes that there was a small Iron I settlement (his Stratum 4), which was destroyed around 1000 BCE. 60 Though this settlement was badly preserved, Zorn identifies it as "a 'typical' Iron I hill country settlement." 61 The "famous" Iron Age city was built only following this destruction, i.e., at the end of Iron Age I or the beginning of Iron Age II. Zorn's analysis reveals a much more fundamental change than the one observed by other scholars. While former views regarded the Iron Age site as an agglomerated settlement, i.e., indicating slow growth, Zorn views the change as abrupt. Following a destruction, a new settlement was established on a much larger scale. Zorn justly claims that the destruction cannot be attributed to any specific historical event, but rightly suggests that it was connected with the unrest that accompanied the confrontation between the Israelites and Philistines. He attributes the foundation of the new town to the former inhabitants of the site and "[pjerhaps other small villages in the immediate vicinity, fearful for their own safety, joined in this project and swelled the population of the settlement." 62 Whatever view regarding the site's character during Iron Age I one accepts, it is clear that Tell en-Nasbeh fits well into the suggested pattern, in which the population concentrated in larger settlements toward the end of the eleventh century BCE. 4.8 Khirbet

ed-Dawwara

This is a relatively small site, located on the desert fringe of Benjamin. 63 Despite its small size, the site was surrounded by massive walls. Many scholars consider these walls to be the earliest examples of Iron Age fortification in the highlands. 64 The date of the site is also unique. It was established during the eleventh century BCE and ceased to exist by the end of the tenth century. 65 The site's character will be discussed in detail below.

58

As was observed, for example, by AHLSTRÖM, Where, p. 133. ZORN, Tell en-Nasbeh. 60 ZORN, Tell en-Nasbeh, pp. 103, 112, and 114. Note that MCCLELLAN, Town, p. 54, also referred to Phase A, which was earlier than the town with the casemate wall. 61 ZORN, Tell en-Nasbeh, p. 111. 62 ZORN, Tell en-Nasbeh, pp. 112-113; see also p. 115. 59

63

FINKELSTEIN, A r c h a e o l o g y ; IDEM, E x c a v a t i o n s .

64

FINKELSTEIN, Excavations, pp. 196-198; FRITZ, Character.

65

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p. 196.

24

A vraham Faust

4.9 Gibeon (Tell el-Jib) The nature of this site during Iron Age I is not entirely clear from the published material. 66 I do not wish to go into a detailed discussion of the inhabitants' ethnicity during Iron Age I, but it seems as if the site was relatively large and well developed in comparison to most Iron I settlements. 67 The prevalent view dates one of the site's famous waterworks, along with the city walls, to the Iron Age I.68 Such monumental activities would be unique in the highlands at that time. 69 4.10 Khirbet el-Burj Excavations at the site yielded Iron I pottery 70 and a large Iron II settlement (some 40 dunams in size) with various structures. 71 Pottery from both periods was also observed in surface surveys. 72 While, theoretically, this could be taken as an indication of continuity and natural growth during the Iron I—II transition, a closer look at the evidence indicates otherwise. The Iron II remains uncovered at the site are dated only to the eighth to sixth centuries BCE. 73 Whatever was the nature of the small Iron I settlement that existed at the site, it probably ceased to exist by the end of the Iron I, since no early Iron II pottery was found in the excavations. The site of el-Burj also indicates, therefore, that the small Iron I sites did not continue to exist as rural settlements in the Iron Age II.74 4.11 Tell el-Ful (Gibeah/Gibeath

Shaul)

This site, which is usually identified with Gibeah, 75 is located north of Jerusalem. According to the excavators (during the 1930s) the first Iron I village at the site is to be dated to about 1100 BCE and was destroyed following the events described in Judges 19-21. After a period of abandonment, a fortress (with two stages) was established in the late eleventh century. 76 The director of the 1960s expedition dated the first Iron Age settlement to the first half of the twelfth century. The later fortresses were 66

S e e FINKELSTEIN, A r c h a e o l o g y , p. 6 0 .

67

PRITCHARD, Winery, pp. 34-39. PRITCHARD, Winery, pp. 35-39; IDEM, Gibeon, p. 513; see also below. 69 Note, however, that some have raised doubts regarding the dating. See, e.g., ALBRIGHT, Recent Excavation, p. 33; but see below. 68

70

GREENHUT, P e r i p h e r y , p. 6.

71

GREENHUT, P e r i p h e r y , p. 7.

72

E.g.,

73

GREENHUT, P e r i p h e r y , p. 7.

FINKELSTEIN,

Excavations, p. 200;

74

FELDSTEIN

etal., Southern Part. pp. 231-233.

Note, however, that if the surveys had been taken at face value, one would have learned that at el-Burj there was continuity throughout the Iron Age. 75 E.g., GIBSON, Tell, pp. 15*-16*; for a most detailed discussion, see DEMSKY, Geba. 76

E.g., ALBRIGHT, W h e r e .

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

25

now dated to 1025-950 BCE. 77 According to Finkelstein, the first settlement should be dated to the twelfth and first half of the eleventh centuries BCE. 78 The most recent thorough study of the site and its environment was conducted by Gibson; and he accepts the dating of the village to 1220-1150 and of the forts to 1025-950 BCE. 79 In summary, it seems as if a small village existed at the site during some parts of the Iron Age I (though there is no agreement as to the exact dates), and that during the very late Iron I a fortress was established at the site. 80 4.12 Summary of Settlement

Patterns

All in all we can see that southern Samaria exhibits settlement patterns that are very similar to the rest of the hill country. Many small rural sites were established in the region during the early Iron Age I. Some of these sites were abandoned during the later stages of the Iron I, i.e., Raddana, Khirbet elMaqatir, 'Ai, el-Burj, and also Shiloh, probably as a result of external threat. Other sites grew in size and became regional centers - town and cities - i.e., Tell en-Nasbeh, and probably also Bethel, Gibeon, and maybe even Khirbet Marjameh. 81 It is quite obvious that these two processes are actually one: populations that left some of these villages concentrated in others, which, as a result, grew in size and complexity. By the end of the eleventh century BCE, rural settlements ceased to exist in the land of Benjamin (at least large-scale rural settlements), just as in most regions of the land of Israel.82

77 LAPP, Ful, p. 446; see also GRAHAM, New; for the debate over the identity of the builders, see below. 78 FINKELSTEIN, Archaeology, pp. 56-60. In contrast to the prevalent view (e.g., LAPP, Ful, p. 447; GRAHAM, New, and references there; see more below), Finkelstein doubts the existence of an eleventh to tenth century BCE fort at the site. 79 GIBSON, Tell, pp. 15*-16*. 80 This is not the place to discuss whether the site was a fort, which had four corner towers, or was only a tower (see, e.g., GRAHAM, New, and references there; as well as LAPP,

Ful, p. 4 4 7 ; GIBSON, T e l l , p. 16*; MAZAR, J e r u s a l e m , p p . 7 6 - 7 8 ) . 81

Note that some of these sites were relatively large settlements even during the Iron Age

I. 82

It should be stressed that in most cases we do not just have occupational gaps at these sites, i.e., we do not usually have sites with Iron I and Late Iron II material. Were this the case, one could make the (very problematic) claim that the gap is "artificial" and is a result of the state of research regarding the rural sector, i.e., due to insufficient data we are unable to identify the tenth century in this particular (understudied) settlement type. Since, however, in most cases the Iron I and Iron II rural settlements are located at different sites, it is clear that a major change occurred around the transitional period. Hence, such a claim is irrelevant (see also FAUST, Abandonment).

26

A vraham

Faust

5. Urbanization and the Formation of the Israelite Monarchy. The View from Benjamin As we have seen above, the processes that took place in Benjamin during the late Iron Age I are typical of the processes that took place in other parts of the highlands as well and should be viewed as part of the state formation process, which led to the emergence of the state/monarchy in ancient Israel. There are, however, some features that seem to be unique to the land of Benjamin, both from an archaeological and a geographical perspective. These might indicate the importance of the region for this process, and can be seen in the finds at some of the sites discussed above: 5.1 Khirbet ed-Dawwara The massive fortifications that were erected at the site during the late Iron Age I have been the subject of scholarly debate. In analyzing the architecture of the site, Finkelstein wrote, "This makes the Khirbet ed-Dawwara fortifications the earliest example of a developed Iron Age defence system in the hill country, and therefore the earliest full-scale Israelite fortification." 83 Moreover, according to Finkelstein, "Khirbet ed-Dawwara provides the only solid evidence for public building activity in the early monarchic period." 84 Fritz, too, when discussing the forms of settlements and the urbanization processes of the Iron Age, mentioned the site following his discussion of the Iron Age 1 and just before his discussion of "[t]he first cities during Iron Age II." According to him, "[tjoward the end of the 11th century, encircling walls which provide protection ... are met for the first time in Khirbet ed-Dawwara ... But these enclosures were by no means city walls: although built for protection they lack the strength of a real fortification. They certainly mark a step in the direction of the fortified city even though they are only enclosed settlements that lack all other characteristics of urban culture." 85 In light of these observations there should be no doubt that this is an important site. But why was such a small and isolated site the first to develop fortifications? Finkelstein, who excavated the site and identified its importance, has proposed several reasons for its importance and suggested several possible explanations.86 He claims that three factors make the site important for analysis: "its architectural uniqueness, its location and its date." 87 Its architectural uniqueness is clear. Its location on the desert fringe is indeed puzzling, but its date is very important. Finkelstein connects it with the 83

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p p . 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 .

84

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p. 197.

85

FRITZ, C h a r a c t e r , p. 2 3 5 .

86

FINKELSTEIN, Excavations, pp. 201-205.

87

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p. 2 0 1 .

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

27

biblical texts relating late eleventh century BCE events as described in (parts of) 1 Samuel 7-13. While this might be important, I would like to stress an additional aspect that should be taken note of regarding the site's date: The site prospers precisely when all small and rural sites were destroyed or abandoned. This, along the lack of silos, sickle blades etc.,88 is indeed unique; and Finkelstein correctly questions the rural nature of the site. 89 He proposes several possible explanations, but concludes that the only possible (though problematic) explanation is that the site was established as an Israelite center during the struggle with the Philistines. According to him, "[t]his would explain the location of the site in this isolated place, and the need for such massive fortification." 90 It also explains the site's date91 and the nature of the finds (i.e., the lack of significant evidence of agriculture, which stands in contrast to all nearby sites, e.g., Raddanah, 92 'Ai, 93 etc.). Finkelstein has even raised the possibility that the site should be identified with Gilgal, although he tempers that suggested identification with a significant question mark. 94 We, however, are not interested at the moment in equating particular details mentioned in the Bible with archaeological finds. What is important at this stage is to emphasize that the first massively fortified settlement in the central highlands (late eleventh century BCE) was built in the land of Benjamin, and that this was probably not an agricultural site. 5.2 Tell el-Ful Whatever the exact date of the village excavated at this site, there is more or less a consensus regarding the existence of a fort of some nature in Tell el-Ful during the late eleventh century BCE. 95 Forts do not seem to be abundant in the Iron Age I; and the fact that the (almost?) only one of this kind is found here might indicate the importance of the region, even without going into any historical reconstruction. 96 It is, at any event, one of the earliest "real" fortifications in the central highlands — perhaps even the earliest rectangular/square one.

88

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p p . 196 a n d 2 0 2 .

89

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p. 2 0 2 .

90

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p. 2 0 2 .

91

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p. 2 0 3 .

92

COLLEY, R a d d a n a , p. 4 0 2 .

93

CALLAWAY, A i , p. 45.

94

FINKELSTEIN, E x c a v a t i o n s , p p . 2 0 3 - 2 0 5 .

95

FINKELSTEIN (Archaeology, p. 60) is a notable exception. Which, again, is not our concern at the moment. It should be noted that such reconstructions are abundant in the literature regarding this specific fort. For references see, e.g., FINKELSTEIN, Archaeology, p. 57; GRAHAM, Third; New. See more below. 96

28

Avraham

Faust

5.3 Gibeon (Tell el-Jib) The situation here is somewhat problematic, but it is likely that here, too, there were some major public structures during the Iron Age I. In his latest summary Pritchard wrote: "During the early part of the Iron Age, a massive city wall was built ... and the great pool was cut into the rock." 97 Without going into the question of whether the site was Israelite or Gibeonite (the latter assumption requires giving much weight to the biblical evidence), and while remembering that the exact dating is problematic, 98 the mere existence of such structures is an indication of the importance of the site during the Iron Age I and of the relatively complex society that inhabited it at such an early stage. Various solutions regarding the specific historical background that is responsible for the above-mentioned phenomena could be proposed. While such reconstructions are important, they do not concern us here. What is important is the overall archaeological picture. All of the above indicate that the land of Benjamin apparently had the most elaborate and complex social structure in the highlands during the eleventh century BCE (especially its latter part). These were more elaborate and complex - according to our current state of archaeological knowledge - than in any other part of the highlands at the time. 99 97 PRITCHARD, Gibeon, p. 513. Pritchard commonly attributes the wall to the twelfth century, but mentions "a possible overlap into the 11"1 century" (see PRITCHARD, Winery, p. 39; see also p. 35). It is likely, however, that an exact dating within the Iron Age I is impossible. 98 Pritchard's report has been subjected to severe criticism (e.g., PARR, Reviews; LAPP, Book). While much of the criticism seems founded, it is important to note that the dating of the Iron I wall seems to be one of the elements that are not in doubt (e.g., LAPP, book, p. 393). Nonetheless, for a critical view of this dating, see, e.g., ALBRIGHT, Recent Excavation, p. 33. Note, however, that Albright's critique is based ironically only on historical assumptions and not on pure archaeological reasoning. Since Albright is frequently cited by later scholars in this regard, it should be noted that his doubts are based on the fact that the period of the Judges is not suitable for such fortifications, while Pritchard's dating is based on pottery evidence (ALBRIGHT, Recent Excavation, p. 33). It seems, therefore, as if the original dating cannot simply be overruled. This dating seems to be accepted by various scholars, e.g.,

MAZAR,

Giloh,

pp.

16-17;

B.

MAZAR,

Early

Israelite,

p.

76;

see

also

FINKELSTEIN,

Archaeology, pp. 61 and 261, who basically accepts the dating. His only reservations are based on the limited scope of the excavations. 99

While the history of Jerusalem per se is irrelevant for the present discussion, owing to Jerusalem's proximity to the territory of Benjamin, a word on the archaeological finds there is in order. Although there is a fierce debate about the nature of the finds in Jerusalem and their dating, there seems to be a consensus regarding the existence at the time of a structure of monumental character - the so-called "stepped stone structure." According to some, the entire structure existed at the time (CAHILL, David's Jerusalem; IDEM, Jerusalem), while others date only the unique terraces (the lower part of the monumental structure according to the former view) to this period (e.g., STEINER, David's Jerusalem). At any rate, it is clear that

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

29

This phenomenon is coupled with the existence of quite a few central places in this small region, e.g., Tell en-Nasbeh and Bethel in addition to the three mentioned above. Such a density of central sites is another indication of the centrality and importance of this area for the state formation process. All these indicators lead to the conclusion that society in this region was more complex than in other regions; 100 and in view of the mechanisms discussed above, it is likely that the state formation process was also more "advanced" here, or in other words this area was the "core" of the process. The central position that this region had should not come as a surprise. Quite clearly it is a result of a combination of social and geographic factors. As mentioned above, the major players in the land of Israel at that time were the Philistines; 101 and they probably formed the external threat mentioned above. While it is true that the Judean mountains are much closer to Philistia than the Benjaminite hill country, it is clear that the former were relatively empty at the time. 102 The Judean hill country with its dispersed and limited population (whose social structures were much less complex than those of nearby regions) could not have resisted the Philistine threat; and the region was probably "colonized," i.e., absorbed into the Philistine (economic?) realm. The land of Benjamin was therefore the nearest populated part of the hill country as far as Philistia was concerned, especially when taking into account its better ecological conditions. The Philistine impact was felt most strongly here; and this had an impact on the centralization process. This was precisely the region where "resistance" was to have been expected. It is quite clear, therefore, why the process of social complexity, as reflected in the archaeological record, reached a peak in this region earlier than in any other region. In light of this, it is possible that, while the state formation process encompassed most of the central highlands, its core was in southern Samaria. 5.4 Intermediate

Summary

The importance of the southern Samarian/Benjaminite region in the processes that brought about the formation of the monarchy has been demonstrated on the basis of the archaeological evidence and in relation to the geopolitical realities of the time. The data indicate that while the entire process resulted, to a large extent, from confrontations with the Philistines, the region discussed was at the heart of these processes, hence indicating its importance. While monumental construction existed at Jerusalem at the time, which seems to correspond with the evidence uncovered in the area of nearby Benjamin. Further discussion of the situation in Jerusalem, despite its importance for the following processes, however, lies beyond the scope of the present paper. 100 Compare, for example, with the process described in FINKELSTEIN, Emergence. 101 E.g., HAUER, From Alt, p. 9; see also STAGER, Impact. 102 FINKELSTEIN, Philistine Countryside, p. 236; OFER, Hill Country, p. 107.

30

Avraham Faust

some more specific historical reconstructions will be discussed below, suffice it here to stress that the importance of the land of Benjamin in particular and of southern Samaria in general in these processes as indicated by the archaeological evidence stands in line with the biblical narrative. The latter locates most of the confrontations between the Israelites and the Philistines in this region. Moreover, the formation of the monarchy is specifically attributed to this region (1 Samuel 8 ff.). It should be stressed that this conclusion refers to the process as a whole and is not intended to equate archaeology and text on a one-to-one basis, i.e., it does not look for Saul in Gibeah or Gilgal, but only shows general agreement between the processes that can be seen in the archaeological record and those described in the texts.

6. The Archaeology of (a) Saul In this section, I will briefly touch on the possible implications of the above discussion of Israelite state formation from a Benjaminite perspective on the "archaeology of (a) Saul." It should be stressed that the following is only a short, preliminary, and incomplete discussion of a complex issue that deserves further elaboration. It should also be noted that it does not deal directly with the biblical narratives.' 03 6.1 The Archaeology of Saul - A Glance at Previous Research In the past, during the heyday of the "Biblical Archaeology" movement, there were numerous attempts to identify biblical figures in the archaeological record.104 Such attempts included the (possible) attributions of certain Iron Age I destruction levels to the assumed activities of King Saul.105 The most famous attempt to identify Saul in the archaeological record, however, has been the attempt to assign him to (at least one phase of) the aforementioned fortress at Tell el-Ful stratum II.106 Though popular with many, this view has come under heavy criticism. Some scholars have attributed the fort to the

103

For discussions of these narratives, see, e.g., WHITE, Searching; EDELMAN, Saul, and additional bibliography there. 104 It should be noted that the following discussion does not intend to summarize all the attempts to identify Saul in the archaeological record, but just to give representative examples. 105 DOTHAN, Excavations, p. 45, for example, raises the possibility that the destruction of Stratum III in Afula was caused by Saul. 106 E.g., GRAHAM, New, p. 26; Third, and many references there; see also MAZAR, Comments, p. 107. Note that the following is only a short summary of the main points in the discussion and does not intend to summarize the entire issue.

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

31

Philistines,107 others lowered the date significantly, thereby precluding Saul as a possible builder, while some have even called into question the existence of a fort at the site at that time.108 It should be noted that the Tell el-Ful/Gibeah fort and especially its dating were generally interpreted in light of the Bible. As such, any attempt to use these data in order to identify Saul would be circular; unless, for example, we would be able to give an exact archaeological date to the construction of the fort. If such an independent date would accord with the texts, it would be possible use it as part of a specific historical reconstruction. It should, however, be reemphasized that attempts to connect a historical figure to an archaeological find or even a stratum are extremely problematic. This is a result both of problems of archaeological dating and of the questionable historicity of the biblical narratives. As for the former, it is difficult to assign an artifact, a structure, or even a stratum to a period short enough to fit the life-span of a specific person. 109 As for the latter, there is today a heated debate concerning the historicity of many of the events described in the Bible, especially those relating to the tenth century BCE and even of the existence of the various figures mentioned there. Although many of the views expressed in the recent debate are seemingly unfounded (as, for example, became quite clear following the discovery of the Tel Dan Inscription),110 it is impossible today to make simplistic equations of archaeological finds with biblical figures or events without referring to this debate. These problems, combined with a paradigm shift in the archaeology of ancient Israel,111 have (rightfully) reduced the number of such simplistic attempts almost to zero. Therefore, it is common wisdom today that any attempt to connect an artifact/structure/stratum to a historical event/figure in any direct way is extremely problematic (though not impossible in theory). One should view Finkelstein's reservations concerning the identification of Khirbet ed-Dawwara in this light, while assessing their importance.112 The present discussion, however, follows a different track and does not attempt to identify any specific finds with Saul.

107

E.g., MAZAR, Gibeah; see also LAPP, Ful, p. 446; GRAHAM, Third, pp. 29-30 for references. 108 FINKELSTEIN, Archaeology, p. 60, and additional discussion there. 109 Not to mention the recent debate concerning the chronology of Israel's Iron Age. See above. 110

S e e , e.g., L E M C H E / THOMPSON, B i r a n ; RAINEY, H o u s e ; SCHNIEDEWIND, T e l D a n ; f o r a

recent summary and references, see also EHRLICH, bytdwd. 111 E.g., BUNIMOVITZ, Cultural Interpretation; DEVER, Biblical references there. 112 FINKELSTEIN, Excavations; see also above.

Archaeology,

and

32

Avraham

Faust

6.2 Agency The issue of structure and agency has received a great deal of archaeological attention in recent years; 113 and it is quite clear today that people can be and are agents of change. A discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of the present paper, but I would like to refer briefly to Flannery's discussion of "process and agency in early state formation." 114 Flannery discusses the importance of individuals in the formation of states, and although there are important differences between the case-studies discussed by him and the present one, the following observation might be indicative of some elements, which should be given consideration in the present context: "Given how states are forged from chiefdoms, we can be confident that all pristine states were created by strong agents rather than committees." 115 Agency is not everything of course, but the point is that every process of state formation, as different as it may be from those studied by Flannery, invariably had (a) human agent(s) involved. 116 6.3 State Formation and Agency in Iron Age Israel As mentioned above, the highland society became more and more complex during the eleventh century. This complexity was probably accompanied by the emergence of various local leaders, usually on a very small scale (i.e., on the "central" village/site level). At a certain point, however, in order for a state/large chiefdom to be formed," 7 an agent must have been involved - an agent who could "take" the process one step further. From the archaeological record it is clear that the late eleventh century BCE was a time of such complexity: The external threat drove many people to concentrate in larger settlements, fortifications were erected, and changes took place quickly. Society had to be organized along different lines in order to resist the threat, otherwise all the small Iron I settlements would have been colonized. If a suitable agent was present, "resistance" could have taken place. In the absence of a suitable agent, it is likely that the stronger political entity that posed the threat would have colonized the area. The centralization process, and especially the fortifications that accompanied it (Khirbet ed-Dawwara, Tell el113

E.g.,

JOHNSON,

Conceptions;

FLANNERY,

Process;

BARRET,

Agency;

MARCUS

/

FLANNERY, Z a p o t e c , p p . 1 5 5 - 1 5 8 ; EARLE, C h i e f s ; D O B R E S / ROBB, A g e n c y . ' 1 4 FLANNERY, P r o c e s s . 115

116

FLANNERY, P r o c e s s , p . 15.

See also PATTERSON, Inca, pp. 21-22; and the discussion below. 117 There have been many attempts to identify the type of political organization each biblical figure (Saul, David, and Solomon) headed. This is not the place to summarize the literature. Suffice it to say that it is likely that the kingdom of Saul as described in the Bible is better referred to as a chiefdom (e.g., FINKELSTEIN, Emergence; but see DEVER, Tribes, p. 218). At any rate, the exact modern definition under which to classify these polities is of little importance for the present study, which deals mainly with the processes involved.

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

33

Ful, and perhaps also Gibeon), along with the unique nature of Khirbet edDawwara, indicate that the former took place. These changes did not just "happen" - people, or agents, must have been involved in them. 118 6.4 Agency and the Archaeological State Formation in Ancient Israel

and Biblical Accounts of

Already at first glance, it appears that the biblical story of state formation in ancient Israel is - in its general outline - in accord with an archaeological analysis. The Hebrew Bible informs us that just prior to the establishment of the monarchy the "central places" of the Israelites were in southern Samaria (i.e., Shiloh, Bethel). Indeed, this region is most prominent in these stories. Moreover, the monarchy (state) is described as emerging specifically in this region. The archaeological record indicates that there was a centralization process in the central highlands during the eleventh century BCE, especially in its latter part, and that the focal point of this process (which was, in fact, a state formation process) was in southern Samaria. In regard to both the nature of the process and its location, the two types of data are in agreement. While it is clear that an "agent" participated in these processes, it should be stressed that the archaeological data do not give us any indication as to the agent's name. The Bible, however, calls him Saul. As mentioned earlier, it is extremely difficult (and perhaps even more than this) to identify historical figures in the archaeological data we posses from ancient Israel. Moreover, I do not think that we can compare the biblical story that describes events with the archaeological evidence that pertains mainly to processes in minute detail. Therefore, it seems as if the general statement given above is all that can be stated at the moment. Since, however, in its general lines the archaeological analysis seems to be in accord with the biblical story, I think it is legitimate and reasonable to borrow the agent's name from the biblical story and refer to him as Saul. 119 In view of the fact, however, that the archaeological finds are

118 Although, as FLANNERY, Process, p. 15, observed, the "agent himself is a product of process." 119 In their study of state formation in the prehistoric Oaxaca valley, MARCUS / FLANNERY (Zapotec, p. 158) employed an analogy with a modern case, and then wrote: "Without question there must have been leaders like Kamehameha involved in the Monte Alban synoikism and the creation of the early Zapotec state, but we will never know their names. That is a typical problem in the study of prehistoric societies ...." While this problem should not be used as an excuse to abandon the archaeological record even in prehistoric contexts (MARCUS / FLANNERY, Zapotec, p. 158), the present case-study is obviously different, and it is likely that we have the name of the agent, even if his specific actions cannot be identified or traced archaeologically.

34

Avraham Faust

not that specific, if one wishes to err on the side of caution, one should speak of "a Saulr™

7. Summary The late eleventh century BCE was a period of changes. Following a long process, many villages were destroyed or abandoned, and others grew in size and became regional centers. The cause of this process was a strong external threat, probably posed by the Philistines. The inhabitants of some of the villages left their settlements and moved to other, larger or better located sites, which as a consequence became regional centers. While this process is characteristic of the entire highlands, there are various indications that the center of the process was in southern Samaria/Benjamin. 121 In its general outlines the archaeological analysis agrees with the biblical narrative concerning the time and place where the initial stages in the formation of the Israelite monarchy occurred. Although only briefly discussed in the present paper, it seems that the archaeological/anthropological literature clearly indicates that similar processes do not take place without a strong agent. While it is clear that the archaeological record does not provide the name of the agent involved, it seems reasonable and justified, in light of the similarity between the archaeological analysis and the biblical narrative, to borrow the name mentioned in the story, i.e., Saul, and to call the assumed agent by this name. In some contexts, however, it might be safer to refer to a Saul. A cknowledgments I would like to thank Carl S. Ehrlich for commenting on the paper. This study was sponsored by the Dr. Simon Krauthammer Chair in Archaeology and the Moskovitz Foundation.

120 As stated above in various places, it is not my intention to equate the archaeological finds with the biblical narratives in any way other than to show some general similarities. I would like, however, to note that the presented scenario can explain why Saul apparently did not live in his ancestors' settlement(s) (according to the Bible [2 Sam 21:14] Saul's father probably lived in Zela and not in Gibeah; this stands in opposition to the usual pattern in Iron Age Israelite society). It is possible that Saul left his father's town as part of the insecurity and centralization process (see also DEMSKY, Geba, p. 28), in which most people left their villages (it was a long process, and though the main part of it took place during the late eleventh century, some sites were abandoned earlier; the issue cannot be expanded here). 121 It should be stressed, however, that settlement patterns are but one aspect of the archaeological data, and additional lines of evidence should be examined before final conclusions can be reached.

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

35

Bibliography AHLSTRÔM, G.W., Where Did the Israelites Live? JNES 41 (1982) pp. 133-138 ALBRIGHT, W.F., Excavations and Results at Tell el-Ful (Gibeah of Saul) (AASOR 4), New Haven 1924 —, Some Recent Excavation Reports and Publications, BASOR 183 ( 1966) pp. 32-34 AMIRAN, D.H.K., The Pattern of Settlement in Palestine, IEJ 3 (1953) pp. 250-260 BARRET, J.C., Agency and the Duality of Structure, and the Problem of the Archaeological Record, in: Archaeological Theory Today, ed. by I. Hodder, Cambridge 2001, pp. 141164 BEN TOR, A. / BEN AMI, D., Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E., IEJ 48 (1998) pp. 1-37 BRIGHT, J., A History of Israel, Philadelphia 1972 BUNIMOVITZ, S., Cultural Interpretation and the Bible. Biblical Archaeology in the Postmodern Era, Cathedra 100 (2001) pp. 27-46 (Hebrew) BUNIMOVITZ, S. / FAUST, A., Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology, BASOR 317 (2001) pp. 1-10

BUNIMOVITZ, S. / FINKELSTEIN, I., Pottery, in: Shiloh, the Archaeology of a Biblical Site, ed. by I. Finkelstein / S. Bunimovitz / Z. Lederman, Tel Aviv 1993, pp. 81-196 CAHILL, J.M., David's Jerusalem. The Archaeological Evidence Proves It, BAR 24/4 (1998) pp. 34-41 —, Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy. The Archaeological Evidence, in: Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology. The First Temple Period, ed. by A.G. Vaughn / A.E. Killebrew, Winona Lake 2003, pp. 13-80 CALLAWAY, J.A., The 1964 Ai (et-Tell) Excavations, BASOR 178 (1965) pp. 13-40 —, The 1966 Ai (et-Tell) Excavations, BASOR 196 (1969) pp. 2-16 —, Excavating Ai (et-Tell) 1964-1972, BA (1976) pp. 18-30 — , Art. Ai, N E A E H L 1 (1993) pp. 3 9 - 4 5

—, Art. Raddana, Khirbet, NEAEHL 4 (1993) pp. 1253-1254 CALLAWAY, J.A. / COOLEY, R.E., A Salvage Excavation at Raddana, in Bireh, BASOR 201 (1971) pp. 9-19 CHANEY, M.L., Systematic Study of the Israelite Monarchy, in: Social Scientific Criticism of the Hebrew Bible and Its Social World: The Israelite Monarchy (Semeia 37), ed. by N.K. Gotwald, 1986, pp. 53-76 COLLEY, R.E., Four Seasons of Excavation at Khirbet Raddana, Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin N.S. 5 (1975) pp. 15-20 —, Art. Radannah, OEANE 4 (1997) pp. 401-402 COOTE, R.B. / WHITELAM, K.W., The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective, Sheffield 1987 DEMAND, N., Urban Relocation in Archaic and Classical Greece, Bristol 1990 DEMSKY, A., The Genealogy of Gibeon (I Chronicles 9: 35 44). Biblical and Epigraphic Considerations, BASOR 202 (1971) pp. 16-23 —, Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon - An Historico-Geographic Riddle, BASOR 212 (1973) pp. 26-31 DEVER, W.G., From Tribes to Nation. State Formation Processes in Ancient Israel, in: Nouve fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente antico. realtà e ideologia. Ed. by S. MAZZONI, Pisa 1994, pp.213-229

36

Avraham

Faust

—, Biblical Archaeology. Death and Rebirth, in: Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1993, pp. 706-722 DOBRES, M.A. / ROBB, J., Agency in Archaeology, London 2000 DOTHAN, M., Excavations at Afula, Atiqot 1 (1956) pp. 18-63 (Hebrew) EARLE, T., How Chiefs Come to Power, Stanford 1997 EDELMAN, D., Saul ben Kish in History and Tradition, in: The Origin of the Ancient Israelite States, ed. b y V . Fritz / P . R . Davies, Sheffield 1996, pp. 142-159 EHRLICH, C.S, The bytdwd-Inscription and Israelite Historiography. Taking Stock after Half a Decade of Research, in: The World of the Arameans II. Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOTSup 325), ed. by P.M.M. Daviau / J.W. Wevers / M. Weigel, Sheffield 2001, pp. 57-71 FAUST, A., From Hamlets to Monarchy. A View from the Countryside on the Formation of the Israelite Monarchy, Cathedra 94 (1999) pp. 7 - 3 2 (Hebrew) —, Abandonment, Urbanization, Resettlement and the Formation of the Israelite State, Near Eastern Archaeology 66 (2003) pp. 147-161 FAUST, A. / SAFRAI, Z., Salvage Excavations as a Source for Reconstructing Settlement History in Ancient Israel, PEQ (forthcoming) F E L D S T E I N , A. / K l D R O N , G. / H A N I N , N. / K A M A I S K Y , Y. / E I T A M , D., Southern Part of the Maps of Ramallah and el-Bireh and the Northern Part of the Map of 'Ein Kerem (Sites 141-232), in: Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, ed. by I. Finkelstein / Y. Magen, Jerusalem 1993 FINKELSTEIN, I., The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, Jerusalem 1988 —, The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel. The Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects, JSOT 44 (1989) pp. 4 3 - 7 4 —, Excavations at Khirbet ed-Dawwara. An Iron Age Site Northeast of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv 17(1990) pp. 163-208 —, The History and Archaeology of Shiloh from the Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age II, in: Shiloh. The Archaeology of a Biblical Site, ed. by I. Finkelstein / S. Bunimovitz / Z. Lederman, Tel Aviv 1993, pp. 371-393 —, The Date of the Philistine Settlement in Canaan, TA 22 (1995) pp. 213-239 —, The Archaeology of the United Monarchy. An Alternative View, Levant 28 (1996) pp. 177-187 —, The Philistine Countryside, IEJ 46 (1996) pp. 225-242 —, Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age? A Rejoinder, Levant 30 (1998) pp. 167-174 FINKELSTEIN, I. / BUNIMOVITZ, S. / LEDERMAN, Z. (eds.), Shiloh. The Story of a Biblical Site, Tel Aviv 1993 FINKELSTEIN, I. / LEDERMAN, Z . / BUNIMOVITZ, S., H i g h l a n d s o f M a n y C u l t u r e s .

The

Southern Samaria Survey, Tel Aviv 1997 FLANNERY, K.V., Process and Agency in Early State Formation, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9 (1999) pp. 3-21 FRICK, F.S., The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel (SWBA 4), Sheffield 1985 FRITZ, V., The Character of the Urbanization in Palestine at the Beginning of the Iron Age, in: Nouve fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente antico, realtà e ideologia, ed. by S. Mazzoni, Pisa 1994, pp. 231-252 GIBSON, S., Tell el-Ful and the Results of the Northeastern Jerusalem Survey, in: New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Second Conference, ed. by A. Faust, Ramat Gan 1996, pp. 9 - 2 3 (Hebrew) GOTTWALD, N.K., The Tribes of Yahweh, New York 1979

Settlement Patterns and State Formation in Southern

Samaria

37

GRAHAM, J.A., Iron I at Tel el-Ful. Some Historical Considerations, in: The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful. The Excavations of 1964, ed. by N.L. Lapp, Cambridge (Mass.) 1981, 2 9 38 —, New Light on the Fortress. Periods I and II, in: The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful. The Excavations of 1964, ed. by N.L. Lapp, Cambridge (Mass.) 1981, pp. 23-27 GREENHUT, Z., The Periphery of Jerusalem in the Bronze and Iron Ages - New Discoveries, in: New Studies on Jerusalem, Proceedings of the Second Conference, ed. by A. Faust, Ramat Gan 1996, pp. 3 - 8 (Hebrew) HAUER, C., From Alt to Anthropology. The Rise of the Israelite State, JSOT 36 (1986) pp. 3 15 HERZOG, Z. Archaeology of the City. Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implication, Tel Aviv 1997 JOHNSON, M.H., Conceptions of Agency in Archaeological Interpretation, in: Interpretive Archaeology. A Reader, ed. by J. Thomas, London 1996, pp. 211-227 KALLAY, Z., The Land of Benjamin and Mount Ephraim, in: Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archaeological Survey 1967-1968, ed. by M. Kochavi, Jerusalem 1972, pp. 153-192 (Hebrew) KELSO, J.L., The Excavation of Bethel. Cambridge (Mass.) 1968 —, Art. Bethel, NEAEHL 1 (1993) pp. 192-194 LAPP, N.L., The Third Campaign at Tell el-Ful. The Excavations of 1964, Cambridge (Mass.) 1981 —, Art. Fûl, Tell el-, NEAEHL 2 (1993) pp. 445^148 LAPP, P.W., Review of Winery, Defenses and Soundings at Gibeon. American Journal of Archaeology 72 (1968) pp. 391-393 LEMCHE, N.P., / THOMPSON, T.L., Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in Light of Archaeology, JSOT 64(1994) pp. 3-22 MARCUS, J. / FLANNERY, K.V., Zapotec Civilization. How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley, London 1996 MAZAR, A., Giloh. An Early Israelite Settlement Site near Jerusalem, IEJ 31 (1981) pp. 1-36. —, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, New York 1990 —, Art. Marjameh, Khirbet, NEAEHL 3 (1993) pp. 965-66 —, Jerusalem and its Vicinity in Iron Age I, in: From Nomadism to Monarchy, ed. by I. Finkelstein / N. Na'aman, Jerusalem 1994, pp. 70-91 —, Excavations at the Israelite Town at Khirbet Marjameh in the Hills of Ephraim, IEJ 45 (1995)pp.85-117 —, Iron Age Chronology. A Reply to I. Finkelstein, Levant 29 (1997) pp. 157-167 —, Comments on the Relationship between Archaeology and the Biblical Period, in: The Controversy over the Historicity of the Bible, ed. by A. Mazar / L.I. Levine, Jerusalem 2001, pp. 97-111 (Hebrew) MAZAR, B., Gibeah, Gibeat Benjamin, Gibeat Saul, Encyclopedia Biblica 2, cols. 412-416 (Hebrew) —, The Early Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country, BASOR 241 (1981) pp. 75-85 MCCLELLAN, T.L., Town Planning at Tell en-Nasbeh, ZDPV 100 (1984) pp. 53-69 MCCOWN, C.C., Tell en-Nasbeh, Archaeological and Historical Results, Berkeley 1947 NOTH, M., The History of Israel, translation revised by P.R. Ackroyd, New York / Evanston 2 1960 OFER, A., "All the Hill Country of Judah." From a Settlement Fringe to a Prosperous Monarchy, in: From Nomadism to Monarchy, ed. by I. Finkelstein / N. Na'aman, Jerusalem 1994, pp. 92-121

38

Avraham Faust

PARR, P.R., Reviews and Notices. Winery, Defenses and Soundings at Gibeon, PEQ 98 (1966) pp. 114-118 PATTERSON, T.C., The Inca Empire. The Formation and Disintegration of a Pre-Capitalist State, New York / Oxford 1991 PRICE, B.J., Secondary State Formation. An Explanatory Model, in: Origins of the State, The Anthropology of Political Evolution, ed. by R. Cohen / E.R. Service, Philadelphia 1978, pp. 161-186 PRITCHARD, J.B., Gibeon. Where the Sun Stood Still. Princeton 1961 —, Winery, Defenses and Soundings at Gibeon, Philadelphia 1964 —, Art. Gibeon, NEAEHL 2 (1993) pp. 511-514 RAINEY, A.F., The "House of David" and the House of the Deconstructionists, BAR 20/6 (1994) p. 47 SCHNIEDEWIND, W.M., Tel Dan Stela. New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt, BASOR 302 (1996) pp. 7 5 - 9 0 SCHUNK, D . - D . , A r t . B e n j a m i n , A B D 1 ( 1 9 9 2 ) p p . 6 7 1 - 6 7 3

SHILOH, Y., The Four Room House - Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City, IEJ 20 (1970)pp.180-190 SINCLAIR, L.A., An Archaeological Study of Gibeah (Tell el-Ful), AASOR 34-35 (1960) pp. 1-52 STAGER, L.E., The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185-1050 BCE), in: The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. by T.E. Levy, London 1995, pp. 332-348 —, The Patrimonial Kingdom of Solomon, in: Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past. Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina. Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium, W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, May 2931, 2000, ed. by W.G. Dever / S. Gitin, Winona Lake 2003, pp. 63-74 STEINER, M., David's Jerusalem. It's Not There, Archaeology Proves a Negative, BAR 24/4 (1998) pp. 26-33 WAMPLER, J.C., Tell en-Nasbeh II. The Pottery, Berkeley / New Haven 1947 WHITE, M., Searching For Saul. What We Really Know about Israel's First King, BRev 17/2 (2001) pp. 22-29, 52-53 WHITELAM, K.W., The Symbols of Power - Aspects of Royal Propaganda in the United Monarchy, B A 4 9 (1986) pp. 1 6 6 - 1 7 3

WOOD, B.G., Notes and News. Khirbet el-Maqatir, IEJ 50 (2000) pp. 123-130 —, Notes and News. Khirbet el-Maqatir, IEJ 51 (2001 ) pp. 246-252 YEIVIN, S., The Benjaminite Settlement in the Western Part of Their Territory, IEJ 21 (1971) pp. 141-154 ZOHAR, M., Notes and News. Tell Marjameh ('Ein Samiyeh), IEJ (1980) pp. 219-220 ZORN, J., Tell en-Nasbeh. A Re-Evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods, Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley 1993 —, A Note on the Date of the "Great Wall" of Tell en-Nasbeh. A Rejoinder, TA 26 (1999) pp.146-150

Saul - not always - at War A New Perspective on the Rise of Kingship in Israel Siegfried Kreuzer 1. The rise of kingship in Israel 1.1 The traditional

view

The rise of kingship in Israel is an important topic in the texts of the Hebrew Bible as well as in scholarly research on the history of ancient Israel. The transition from a tribal structure to the structure of a state is one of the watersheds in Israelite history. The importance of this transition is echoed by the different voices pro and con monarchy in the Old Testament itself, and it is evident as scholars differentiate between the pre-monarchic and the monarchic eras of the history of Israel. Leaving aside all differences in detail, most scholars agree that the introduction of kingship in Israel came about quite reluctantly and late, and that the resistance against it was finally overcome because of the military threat posed by the Philistines. This common view has recently been reiterated by Lawrence E. Stager: "When kingship finally was established and acknowledged by tribal polity, it was the external military threat that served as the catalyst for kingship." 1 This position claims that in the Iron

1

STAGER, I d e n t i t y , p. 171. In BRIGHT'S c l a s s i c H i s t o r y o f I s r a e l ( 1 9 8 1 3 = 2 0 0 0 4 ) , t h e

first paragraph of chapter 5.A "First Steps toward Monarchy: Saul" bears the heading "The Philistine Crisis and the Failure of the Tribal Organization" and in the same chapter we read that "Saul's whole reign was spent at war" (BRIGHT, History, pp. 185, 189). Cf. DONNER, Geschichte, p. 197: "... wenn ... aber ... die Bildung eines israelitischen Nationalstaates nicht mit Notwendigkeit aus den Lebensformen der vorstaatlichen Stämme erwuchs, dann müssen äußere Zwänge wirksam geworden sein. ... Das ist der Fall, und in diesem Sinne ist das erste israelitische Staatswesen in der Tat ein Notprodukt gewesen ... Die Bedrohung kam von den Philistern." MILLER / HAYES, History, express the same point of view: "Saul ... made a name for himself by attacking a Philistine garrison ... and then successfully expelling the Philistines from southern Ephraim / Benjamin" (p. 136), and looking back from the end: "Saul's career was ended as he had begun it, fighting against the Philistines" (p. 144). Although he tries to see things the other way around, for AHLSTRÖM too Saul's relationship with the Philistines was one of conflict and war: "The rise of Saul's kingdom has most often been seen as the result of the pressure of two other political powers of this time, the Philistines in the west and the Ammonites in the east.

40

Siegfried

Kreuzer

Age I (between 1200/1150 and 1000 BCE) the tribal society of ancient premonarchic Israel both consolidated and expanded at the same time as there was also a consolidation and expansion of the Philistine city-states. Living in the coastal plain, the Philistines had an advantage in their development owing to their more favorable environment, the traditions and technologies they had brought with them, and their close contacts with Egypt. Because of this advantage, they were able to extend their authority into the hill country and mountain area where the Israelite tribes lived. The situation developed into a violent confrontation culminating in battles between the Israelites and the Philistines. This lasting conflict necessitated and facilitated the development from a tribal society to a monarchic structure, in other words the introduction of the monarchy in Israel and the establishment of Saul as the first king of Israel. 1.2 Problems with the Traditional

View

Most scholars who write about that period of Israelite history reconstruct the events of that time in more or less the same manner in which they are presented in the Hebrew Bible, i.e., in 1 Samuel: Saul was in some way elected and installed as king of the Israelites (1 Samuel 9-10); as such he rescued the eastern city of Jabesh-Gilead from the Ammonite threat (1 Samuel 11). Together with his son and crown prince Jonathan he was able to drive the Philistines out of the highlands (1 Samuel 13-14) and protected Israelite territory against attacks and raids of groups like the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). He established and expanded both the Israelite court and a mercenary troop as a permanent army (1 Sam 13:2; 14:52). Finally he had an encounter with the united Philistine armies at Mount Gilboa, where he and most of his sons died (1 Samuel 31). This traditional view combined with the idea of an ongoing confrontation with the Philistines leads to problems. An important problem is related to the rescue of Jabesh-Gilead: Saul's home and residence was in Gibeah, just a few kilometers north of Jerusalem. 2 At the same time there were Philistine garrisons at different important points, among others at Michmas (1 Sam 13:23) near Gibeah and - according to 1 Sam 10:5; 13:3 - even in Gibeah itself. If there was war between the Philistines and Saul and if the Philistines were so close to his home base, how could Saul have left Gibeah to cross the Jordan River in order to do battle at Jabesh? Would the Philistines not have taken over his residence in his absence? This problem was recognized and discussed by several authors, in particular by Hans O n e c o u l d p e r h a p s ' f l i p the c o i n ' and m a i n t a i n that S a u l ' s g r o w i n g p o w e r m u s t h a v e led to a c o n f l i c t with the P h i l i s t i n e s " ( H i s t o r y , p. 4 2 3 ) . 2 T h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with Tell el-Ful is w i d e l y a c c e p t e d . El Jib, the alternative c a n d i date, is j u s t a f e w k i l o m e t e r s a w a y ; cf. b e l o w n. 20.

Saul - not always - at War

41

Joachim Stoebe in his commentary on 1 Samuel 3 and by Diana Vikander Edelman in her books and articles on King Saul. Edelman follows Stoebe's suggestion to situate the events of 1 Samuel 11, including the battle of Jabesh, following 1 Samuel 14, the victory over the Philistines. Only after his victory over the Philistines and after he had driven the Philistines out of Israelite territory could Saul have left his residence at Gibeah to wage war in Gilead. 4 Another problem is the so-called metal monopoly 5 in 1 Sam 13:20-21: In the description of the Israelite army ranged against the Philistines, we are told that only Saul and his son Jonathan had swords. This quite detrimental situation is explained by a note about the so-called Philistine metal monopoly. The Israelites could not or more correctly were not allowed to do their own metal work. For sharpening their plough-tips and other metal objects they had to go to the Philistines. This interaction with the Philistines is described as a regular procedure that lasted for a long time. This brief note is given as an explanation for the lack of weapons among the Israelites, but at the same time it shows us something very important about the normal situation between the Israelites and the Philistines. The situation must have been a peaceful one, at least for a long time, because if there had been constant war with the Philistines, the Philistines certainly would not have performed this important service for Israelite agriculture. At the same time the Israelites would have tried to get their metal objects and tools and certainly also some more weapons from other sources, e.g., by trade with the Phoenicians. But evidently neither was the case. Therefore, we can and must conclude that in the years before the situation of 1 Samuel 13-14 there must have existed basically peaceful relations between the Philistines and the Israelites, peaceful but not equal. Evidently the Philistines controlled the highlands and the Israelites living there. But most probably it was a peaceful situation with economic exchange in both directions.

3

STOEBE, S a m u e l i s , p p . 2 0 7 , 2 4 1 .

4

EDELMAN, S a u l ' s Rescue. See also ARNOLD, Gibeah, p. 96: "It is improbable ... that Saul would have abandoned the Gibeah region while it still lay under Philistine control in order to mount an attack in the distant Transjordan ... The Jabesh-Gilead campaign surely occurred well after S a u l ' s victories over the Philistines in the Benjaminite heartland." The same view is shared by MILLER / HAYES, History, as they state without discussion: "The Saul stories read in proper sequence (1 Sam 9 : 1 - 1 0 : 1 6 ... 13:2-14:46 ... 1:2611:15) are our primary source about S a u l ' s rise to power ..." (p. 135; cf. p. 136). 5 The biblical text does not speak about iron or a monopoly on iron, as many modern scholars do, but on metal work in general. Iron tools and w e a p o n s certainly existed and were in use for special purposes, but iron only gradually became superior and preferred to bronze.

42

Siegfried

Kreuzer

2. Methodological Considerations 2.1 Texts, Traditions, and Historical

Value

The Books of Samuel are part of the so-called Deuteronomistic History, which was written in the seventh or sixth century BCE. At several points in the presentation of the Saul story there are reflections that are evidently deuteronomistic. 6 Texts like 1 Samuel 7 and 12, etc., clearly reveal a deuteronomistic perspective. At the same time the differences between these deuteronomistic texts and other texts show that the deuteronomistic historians incorporated and used older traditions and texts. These older texts and traditions also have to be differentiated. Some may be quite old and close in origin to the original situation, while many other texts and traditions have been shaped by a long process of transmission. 7 It is important to analyze these texts and their intention and to consider the historical value of the information contained therein. An important argument in favor of the reliability of information is its intention. If the information is in line with the overall intention of a given text, it may be shaped by this intention. But, if a specific element differs from the overall intention or even contradicts it, then this element very probably contains older information. 2.2 Unintentional

Information

Another important criterion is the "unintentionality" of information. This means that a piece of information given seemingly unintentionally is of higher importance and reliability, because it is neither shaped by nor employed because of the intention of the text. An example of this kind of unintentional information is the note discussed above about the metal monopoly of the Philistines. This note is given to explain to the reader why only Saul and Jonathan had swords, but at the same time we learn by implication about previous peaceful relations, since we are told that the Isra6 This holds true even in light of all the divergences between the different models for a deuteronomistic history or even if the theory of such a deuteronomistic history spanning the books from Joshua to Kings is not accepted. 7 Examples of such cases are the texts about Saul's rejection in 1 Sam 13:7b—15, especially 1 Samuel 15* or the texts about Jonathan and David. These texts are not simply deuteronomistic, but they clearly represent additions to and expansions of older texts. For 1 Samuel 15, see now D I E T R I C H , Ban, who shows that "the idea of a devotion to the ban is not an invention of the exilic period" (p. 204), but that "these notions and this praxis of the 'devotion to the ban' existed apparently in the middle and even in the early period of the Israelite monarchy" (p. 208). Close analysis shows that there are different redactional levels and that there is an older tradition behind the text: "The core of the tradition in 1 Samuel 15 seems to be a short account about an expedition of Saul against the Amalekites in the Negev - in my opinion not historically implausible - which was victorious ..." (p. 206).

43

Saul - not always - at War

elites regularly went to the Philistines, and we are even informed about the price of their services. 2.3 Events and

situation

Most writers of Old Testament texts and most of their readers are interested in events. Indeed most writers of books on Israelite history are also interested in the history of events. But for historical research it is not only the events that are important, but also the overall situation. Only by analyzing the situation behind the events is plausibility given to the events and their importance demonstrated. Therefore, in the following discussion much attention will be given to the contemporaneous situation. Important contributions to the analysis and description of the situation are given by archaeological observation and sociological analysis and - last, but not least - by the proper analysis of the texts.

3. Palestine from Iron Age I to Iron Age II 3.1 Archaeological

Research and Sociological

Methodology

While in earlier decades archaeological interest focused on cities and their larger remains, 8 archaeological research in recent decades has attempted to present a more nuanced overall picture of ancient civilization, relying in particular on archaeological surveys and using sociological models for the interpretation of finds. 9 The sociological models of state development describe the phases from chiefdom through an early state to a fully developed state. 10 There are different factors that play a role in this development, e.g., economic development, internal and external conflicts, and the role of internal and exter8

Unfortunately the only large structure of interest for our theme is the larger building at Tell-el-Ful, identified by the excavator as a fortress. The older phase of this fortress seems to belong to the period of Saul, i.e. late eleventh century and has, therefore, been identified with Saul's residence; cf. LAPP, Ful, p. 445 (s.v. Identification). But it has to be admitted that the identification of the users of this structure is not possible on archaeological grounds. This larger structure may have also been a Philistine fortress. This alternative interpretation was suggested by Albrecht Alt and by Benjamin Mazar and is followed by other writers; see LAPP, Ful, p. 446. Regarding archaeological evidence relating to Saul we have to admit, as MAZAR (Archaeology, p. 371) puts it: "The time of Saul hardly finds any expression in the archaeological record." For a contrary analysis, see Faust's article in this volume. 9

S e e e s p e c i a l l y t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s in S e m e i a 3 7 ( 1 9 8 6 ) a n d SCHAFER-LICHTENBERGER,

Early State. 10 See especially SERVICE, Origins. For these methodological applications to the history of early Israel, see FRICK, Methods.

44

Siegfried

Kreuzer

nal trade. In their application to the development of early Israel these factors are weighed in different ways: Marvin L. Chaney 1 1 emphasizes the economic factors, combining the external pressure of the Philistines on the Israelite economy with the internal development of their economy based on technical developments such as the building of terraces and waterproof cisterns, and the use of iron tools. Concurrent with these processes was the formation of an Israelite elite that coordinated the developments. Robert B. Coote and Keith W. Whitelam 1 2 also combine various factors in explaining the rise of the Israelite monarchy, emphasizing in part Philistine pressure as well as the growth of the Israelite population and the necessity to organize its limited resources. Frank S. Frick 13 similarly combines external and internal factors. He gives special weight to the internal developments, namely agricultural development and population growth. Philistine pressure is the necessary factor that triggers the development towards monarchy, but it in itself would not have been enough. Israel Finkelstein combines these sociological reflections with the results of his surveys of the central West-Jordanian hill country. 14 His surveys show an impressive increase in the number of settlements and in the overall population in Iron Age I, i.e., between 1200/1150 and 1000 BCE. Surveys in more northerly and southerly areas (i.e., the tribal territories of Manasseh and Judah) also evidence similar developments. 1 5 There was an expansion towards the west and the south, i.e., towards the western edge of the Samarian and Judean hill country and towards the Negev. These areas are topographically different and also differ on account of their economic and agricultural possibilities. Finkelstein discerns six areas with different environmental situations and agricultural possibilities, and goes on to consider the importance of these developments for the introduction of the monarchy: What is the significance of this demographic process for the emergence of the monarchy? The westward expansion meant a struggle with harsh topography, difficult rock formations and a dense vegetation cover. Furthermore, certain areas were devoid of stable water sources. Economically speaking, dwelling in the western units means practicing an unbalanced economy, since this part of the region is suitable mainly for horticulture, while it is almost hostile to cereal growing and animal husbandry. The westward expansion required the clearing of rocky terrain and of forest, hewing water cisterns, and the terracing of slopes. It also necessitated contact with neighboring areas - surplus orchard

" CHANEY, M o v e m e n t s . 12

COOTE / WHITELAM, State F o r m a t i o n ; COOTE / WHITELAM,

13

FRICK, Formation, pp. 191-204. After some preliminary reports now published in FINKELSTEIN / LEDERMAN / BUNI-

14

MOVITZ, H i g h l a n d s . 15

ZERTAL, M a n a s s e h ; KOCHAVI, J u d e a .

Perspective.

45

Saul - not always - at War

products were exchanged for the grain and animal products not easily raised in the western zone. 1 6

Finkelstein goes on to conclude: The patterns of settlement described above explain, in my opinion, both the internal and the external conditions for the emergence of the Israelite monarchy ... The situation, which developed mainly in the eleventh century, helped the population to overcome the geographical barriers between the various sub regions of the hill country and to establish a strong inter-regional flow of goods. An economic system of this type necessitated a certain level of organization, which served as the springboard for public administration. 1 7

Although we can basically agree with this depiction and its interpretation, it needs to be expanded: Finkelstein is thinking about inner Israelite developments only. But, if we think in sociological and economic terms, we have to think about an exchange between different regions in all possible directions. This means that we also have to assume an exchange between the Israelites living along the western edge of the hill country and the Philistines living on the eastern edge of the coastal plane. We must not uncritically accept the biblical texts depicting hostilities between Philistines and Israelites to exclude such peaceful trade relations a priori, even if these relations probably were on unequal terms. 3.2 The Development

of Regional and Supra-Regional

Authorities

The growth of population and the expansion of settlements and agricultural activities in the different areas led to more exchange and trade, and this development in turn necessitated a higher degree of organization and administration and last, but not least, a higher degree of security. The agricultural and economic development allowed the transition from a subsistence economy to a surplus economy. This development at the same time went hand in hand with the formation of an elite that was not only producing, but also organizing and consuming. In turn this elite developed the ability to organize and protect this economic exchange and its improvements. The Hebrew Bible gives some hints at such a development of regional and supra-regional authorities: In the song of Deborah we hear about rulers who rode on white donkeys and sat on carpets (Judg 5:9-10). In the list of the so-called minor judges in Judg 10:1-6 and 12:8-15, we are informed about people with an at-least regional function that lasted for years and perhaps even decades, and we get some hints of the wealth accumulated by their families (Judg 10:4; 12:9, 14). And, not insignificantly, we are told about Deborah: Her title as a mother in Israel signals a far-reaching, supraregional importance and a function that aided in enabling growth and sta16

FINKELSTEIN, M o n a r c h y , p. 5 8 .

17

FINKELSTEIN, M o n a r c h y , p p .

59-60.

46

Siegfried

Kreuzer

bility. From her central place in the hill country she adjudicated between Israelites, i.e., she cared for reliability and stability in the relations between the Israelite tribes and regions and even initiated military actions when the trade routes in Israel were blocked (Judg 4:5-6; 5:6-7). 3.3 Development

in the Region of Philistia

In the area of Philistine settlement there was also considerable development during the early Iron Age, especially during the eleventh century. Archaeological remains reveal that that time was a period of considerable expansion and consolidation. The Philistine cities were growing, as was the Philistine population in the coastal plain. Philistine influence expanded towards the north and the east, i.e., towards the hill country. Evidently the Philistines also expanded their control of the hill country, especially of its highways and trade routes. 18 This development is confirmed by information contained in various biblical texts. We are told about the battle at Aphek (1 Samuel 4) that opened up the way towards Shiloh, 19 and we get information about Philistine control over the main highways and the highlands by means of their bases and fortresses along the main roads (1 Sam 10:5; 13:3, 23) and about Philistine raids on Israel (1 Sam 13:17; 14:15; 23:1).

4. Observations for a New Model for the Development of the Monarchy in Israel 4.1 The Peripheral Location of Saul's

Residence

The area of the kingdom of Saul stretched from the region of Benjamin eastwards to Gilead in Transjordan and comprised at least the central West-Jordanian highlands, i.e., the area of Manasseh and Ephraim. On the other hand, there is a far-reaching consensus that the area of the tribe of Judah did not belong to the kingdom of Saul, even if he occasionally campaigned in the south. In summary, therefore, Saul's kingdom stretched from the environs of Jerusalem northwards and from the western edge of the central Palestinian hill country towards the east. Considering this situation, the place of Saul's residence at Gibeah in the south-western corner of 18 EHRLICH, Philistines, says in regard to Ashdod: "The story of Ashdod in Iron Age I is one of continual expansion" (p. 19), and concerning the overall development he summarizes: "However, the regional culture of Philistia was never again to have as wide a distribution as it had until the end of the eleventh century B.C.E." (p. 21). Cf. also

DOTHAN / DOTHAN, Philistines; a n d WEIPPERT, 19

Palästina.

Concerning the problem of a subsequent destruction of Shiloh cf. KREUZER, Schilo, p. 475.

47

Saul - not always — at War

his territory seems to be very strange (cf. the map of "Saul's kingdom"). 2 0 Normally, we would expect the main city of a kingdom somewhere in its geographic center. Aramaeans

• Megiddo

•ij

/

I

=1 -I I

/

• Shechem

ISRAEL

Rabbah •

Kh. Duwwara ,Gibeon

Jerusalem's • city state

MOAB Hebron • (no man's bnd) •T. Masos AHLSTRÖM, History, M a p 13: Saul's Kingdom (detail)

20

The widely accepted identification of this "Gibeah (of Saul)" with Tell el-Ful (see e.g. LAPP, Fui, pp. 445-448) has recently been challenged again by ARNOLD, Gibeah, who favors the identification with el-Gib. NA'AMAN, Saul, pp. 649-652 takes up the discussion and shows the high probability of the identification with Tel el-Ful. The question does not matter for what we want to show, as both places are situated in the southwestern corner of Saul's territory and near the important east-west and north-south highways. (The same holds true for nearby Gibeon, which - because of its later importance is considered by AHLSTRÓM, History, as Saul's residence, cf. map).

48

Siegfried

Kreuzer

This means that for Palestine there would have been one natural candidate for the capital city: Shechem is situated in the center of the central Palestinian hill country and at the intersection of the major routes leading north to south and east to west. Quite naturally, it was the capital of the combined Canaanite/Israelite kingdom that Abimelech tried to establish (Judges 9), and later on - after the dissolution of the united Israelite monarchy - it was there that the northern kingdom was born (1 Kings 12).21 Compared to Shechem or even to Shiloh, Gibeah is far away from the center and quite peripheral to the territory of Saul's kingdom. Such a peripheral position is not very suitable for a capital. Beyond this, the situation of Gibeah is quite dangerous, at least in respect to the possibility of Philistine oppression. If there was an ongoing conflict between Saul and the Philistines, how could Saul have his residence so close to them, especially if there was a Philistine outpost near Gibeah in Michmas (1 Sam 13:23) and according to 1 Sam 10:5 and 13:3 even at Gibeah itself? As we have seen above, there are some authors who therefore conclude that the battle for Jabesh-Gilead must have taken place after the events of 1 Samuel 13-14, because Saul could not have left his residence unprotected. But even if Saul had stayed at his residence, it was quite a dangerous place, being under the watchful eyes and control of the Philistines. There is an explanation for this somewhat eccentric and at the same time dangerous situation of the residence of Saul: We have to assume that the initial relations with the Philistines were not so dangerous and that the seeming eccentricity of Saul's residence had some advantages. The location of Saul's capital can be explained by a double perspective: on the one hand that Saul ruled as king over his Israelite territory from Gibeah to the east and to the north as far as Gilead in Transjordan, and on the other hand that Saul's kingship was accepted and overseen by the Philistines. In this regard, Saul's residence was not peripheral, but at an important position, namely at the intersection of Israelite and Philistine territory and interests. Since Saul had not chosen Gibeah as his capital, but Gibeah was his hometown, we may put things slightly differently: Saul was a member of the local elite of Gibeah and of the tribe of Benjamin. As such, he had to accommodate himself to Philistine influence and control of the important area north of Jerusalem, while at the same time he was able to expand his rule and protection over the northern Israelite tribes. The battle at JabeshGilead was one of or probably the most important military action(s) of his

21 The centrality and importance of Shechem is highlighted by ALT, Aufstieg, p. 146, who called it "the uncrowned queen of Palestine."

Saul - not always - at War

49

early years. 22 It was at about the same time that the other northern tribes may have associated themselves with Saul or - to put it in biblical terms have chosen him as king. 23 This situation seems to have been accepted also by the Philistines. As long as the Philistines had their military outposts in or near Michmas and at different points along the highways, Saul's actions were useful for the Philistines as well. Saul could control and protect the central Palestinian and Transjordanian region. Saul was, so to say, an Israelite ruler under the eyes of the Philistines. Seen in this way, the place of Saul's residence makes good sense. Although in the south-western corner of his kingdom, it was at the intersection of the different interests and influences he had to consider. On the one hand, Saul could build and consolidate his kingdom over the Israelite tribes and even across the Jordan, which concurrently led to a greater importance of the region of Benjamin. On the other hand, he must have had largely peaceful relations with the Philistines, a situation that

22 According to Judges 21 there were established relations and even intermarriage between the Benjaminites and the Jabeshites. 23 The question, if Saul was a king or a chief, is mainly a matter of definition and is not decisive for what we want to show here. Certainly Saul's state was an "early state" at its very beginning. But this does not necessarily justify its definition as a chiefdom. There are two perspectives on the question: In the biblical tradition Saul is seen as the first king; and the texts make a clear distinction between the time of the judges and the introduction of the monarchy. The historical development was without a doubt gradual (the Hebrew Bible itself mentions earlier efforts to establish kingship, e.g., Judges 9), but considering the inner perspective is not only so-to-say a biblical approach, it is also the approach of cognitive sociology. The other perspective is the definition of modern comparative sociology. In sociological terms, an important hallmark in the development towards kingship is the means of succession: A chief is followed by another "strong man," a king is followed by his son. Also in this regard, Saul is beyond the watershed: At least for Saul, Jonathan clearly was the crown prince and successor; and Saul's hostility toward David may be the result of his defense of the "dynastic" idea. Still more important is the fact that after Saul's death, his general Abner did not usurp the kingship, but respected the dynastic idea and installed Saul's son Ishbaal as king (2 Sam 2:8-10). Cf. also SCHAFER-LICHTENBERGER, Early State: "The political association would have dissolved immediately after Saul's defeat at Gilboa and his death, if his sovereignty was constituted as a chiefdom. The succession to the rule of the only surviving son of the king, Eshbaal, indicates that the rulership association was not being held together solely by loyalty toward the supreme commander ... The association was advanced beyond the era of chiefdom" (p. 98). Beyond this, we have to consider that Israel was not a primary state with an isolated development toward kingdom, but a secondary state with other, older kingdoms round about it. There were both the old Canaanite and Phoenician kingdoms and there was the king of Egypt.

50

Siegfried

Kreuzer

brought about cultural exchange and probably also political and military "learning." 24 4.2 The Metal Monopoly of the Philistines of a Peaceful Coexistence

as an

Indication

At this point we can take up the above-mentioned metal monopoly of the Philistines. As we have seen, this is a piece of unintentional information. The text explains why only Saul and Jonathan had swords. At the same time we are given the information that the Israelites went down to the Philistines to have their plough-tips and other tools sharpened. There are no reasons to doubt this description. In addition, the chronological place of this information seems to be correct. A situation like this is not probable before the eleventh century and, on the other hand, the political and social situation in the tenth century evidently also was different. The information about the Israelites going down to the Philistines to have their tools sharpened requires a peaceful situation. If there were an ongoing conflict and military clashes, the Philistines would not have rendered this service, and on the other side the Israelites certainly would have tried to get metals for their agriculture and probably also for weapons through other sources, for instance by trade with the Phoenicians or from regions in the north-eastern. As this did not happen, there must have been a peaceful situation between the Philistines and the Israelites, although on unequal terms; and the fact that there were no better weapons for Saul and his people indicates that the conflict of 1 Samuel 13-14 must have been more or less short-termed. 4.3 David and the

Philistines

There is another indication of peaceful relations between Saul and the Philistines, although it is less certain because it depends on the literary and historical evaluation of the story of (Saul and) David. In 1 Samuel 16ff. we are told that David lived at the court of Saul and that he even was Saul's son-in-law. We are told that this close relation turned into a dangerous conflict and that David left Saul's court and finally even allied himself with the Philistines. 24 One of the things Saul most probably took over from the Philistines was a mercenary army. Cf. ALT, Staatenbildung, pp. 26f: "Aber auf einem anderen Gebiet..., nämlich im Heerwesen, scheint mir eine unmittelbare Einwirkung der philistäischen Einrichtungen auf das Reich Israel so ziemlich vom Augenblick seiner Entstehung an deutlich erkennbar .... So ist es wohl begreiflich, daß Saul bald dazu überging, den Heerbann durch eine schlagfertigere und besonders für den Kleinkrieg besser geeignete Truppe zu ergänzen; die Überlieferung weiß davon, wie er sich eine ständig verfugbare Gefolgschaft heranbildete und zu Unternehmungen verwendete, an denen das Aufgebot der Stämme nicht beteiligt war."

Saul - not always - at War

51

If this picture is historically reliable, it contains a quite surprising aspect: If there was constant war between Saul and the Philistines, and David belonged to the inner circle around and even to the family of Saul, how could he be accepted by the Philistines and entrusted with a military base controlling some of the Philistine holdings in the south? Certainly there are several examples of dissenting persons having been given refuge in another country, especially by its overlord. 2 5 So, it is not surprising that David could find refuge with the Philistines, but it is surprising that he was appointed to the role of a military leader. If there had been an ongoing war between Saul and the Philistines and if David had belonged to the inner circle at the court of Saul, this would have been quite improbable. But, if there was peace between Saul and the Philistines, this action would make good sense: As David played a successful role at the court of Saul, he became a rival of the king and especially to the crown prince. Even if Jonathan was not aware of this problem, Saul evidently saw it and acted. David had to leave the court or, as the biblical text says, had to flee. We have to assume that this situation developed at an advanced stage of Saul's rule. Over the years, Saul's kingdom and with it the people of Israel must have become stronger. This development certainly could not go unnoticed by the Philistines, and most probably they reacted, e.g., by intensifying their control. In this situation the conflict between David and Saul may have been quite welcome to the Philistines. By entrusting Ziklag 2 6 to David, the Philistines had a quite successful vassal in the south of Palestine, who was able to control the Beersheba Valley and the region beyond it. At the same time, the Philistines gained a counterweight and a limitation for Saul's expansion towards the south. By establishing David at Ziklag, David played a similar role in the south to that of Saul in the north. Under the eyes of the Philistines he controlled the inland territory. In the Philistine perspective, this action was a form of divide et impera. Evidently this new situation came about after several years of Saul's kingship and after considerable developments in the situation of the Israelite tribes. 4.4 The duration of Saul's

kingship

The developments we have considered above, lead to the question of the duration of Saul's reign. As is well known, we have one biblical text giv25

The well known examples are Jeroboam, the later king of northern Israel (1 Kgs 11:26-40), and Hadad from Edom (1 Kgs 11:14-22, 25b), who both sought refuge in Egypt. 26 The identification of Ziklag is still debated, cf. KOTTER, Ziklag, p. 1090, and FRITZ, Ziklag, p. 1213. The identification with Tell esh-Sheba as proposed by FRITZ, Beitrag, seems most plausible.

52

Siegfried

Kreuzer

ing Saul's age at his accession and the duration of his monarchy. But 1 Sam 13:1 poses several problems. Taking the verse literally, Saul would have been one year old when he became king, which is impossible, 27 and his reign would have lasted for two years. There is a widespread consensus that two years are not enough for Saul's kingdom. His achievements as well as his wars must have taken longer. Besides this, by the end of his life he had grownup sons at his side, and last, but not least, his rule evidently had achieved such a degree of stability that in spite of the defeat and the death of Saul and most of his sons there was a continuation of his kingdom in the person of his son Ishbaal (cf. 2 Sam 2:8-10). Because of these observations, the early Jewish historians and the Septuagint already assumed a longer duration of Saul's rule. Most of them speak about twenty years, some about thirty or thirty-two. In recent research the duration of Saul's kingdom is estimated between nine and twenty years. 28 In spite of the historical probability of this assumption, we still have to acknowledge that on text-critical grounds the number two in 1 Sam 13:1 has priority. Among modern historians of ancient Israel there is one important scholar who not only accepted the text-critical priority of the number two, but also defended its historical accuracy. Martin Noth reminds us of the fact that the second part of the story of Saul (1 Samuel 16ff.) has been widely expanded by the story of David and by some other additions. In N o t h ' s view, the basic events came to pass much faster: Saul's victory at Jabesh (1 Samuel 11) was immediately followed by the war against the Philistines. In the battle of 1 Samuel 13-14 Saul overpowered the Philistines and from there he would have gone on to drive the Philistines out of the Israelite hill country. The dynamics of this success put Saul's kingdom on firm grounds. At first, the Philistines had to live with this new situation, but in the following year they started a massive counterattack, not by small battles in the western hill country, but by mounting a large military expedition through the Jezreel Valley and attacking Saul from the north. As is well known, this was the last year of Saul's reign. 29

27 For different interpretations and the obvious corrections in early Jewish literature and translations, see, e.g., MCCARTER, I Samuel, p. 222. STOLZ, Samuel, p. 81, suggests that mtt> p in itself would mean something like "Saul was quite old ...." This could be taken further, since the infinitive construct ID^M not necessarily mean "at his becoming king" (as it certainly does in 2 Sam 2:10), but may mean "in his being king/ruling as king." 28 Nine years was suggested be JEPSEN / HANHART, Chronologie, who assumed a metathesis from VETi (nine) to TIE? (two). Suggestions for 20, 22, or even 32 years are evidently based in different ways on the number two. 29

NOTH, G e s c h i c h t e , pp. 153f.

53

Saul - not always - at War

In my opinion Noth's view is basically correct. If Saul and the Israelites were able to overcome and drive the Philistines out in the manner related in 1 Samuel 13 and 14, the Philistines would not have tried to regain control by waging many small battles in the hills, but by launching a largescale attack against the heartland of the Israelite tribes. But - against Noth - these two years were not the only but rather the last two years of Saul's reign. 30 Before the great conflict with the Philistines, there were years of peaceful development and of peaceful - although unequal! - relations with them. Very probably Saul's kingship did indeed last for about fifteen to twenty years. Saul's rule was accepted and overseen by the Philistines. At the same time, his reign was a period of important developments among the Israelites, both in terms of economic and agricultural life and in regard to military (e.g., mercenary troop) and political structures as well. These developments gradually changed the balance between the Philistines and the Israelites. According to the First Book of Samuel, the battle at Aphek (1 Samuel 4) with its defeat of the Israelites had led to the establishment of Philistine control over the highlands. As we have seen, Saul began his career and his kingship under the eyes and the control of the Philistines. But, over the course of time, the situation changed and Saul and the Israelites became stronger. The old dependencies did not seem adequate any longer. This picture may even explain an interesting detail in 1 Sam 13:3: According to this verse it was not Saul but Jonathan who started the conflict with the Philistines through his attack against the Philistine outpost at Gibeah. It would be quite understandable if Saul had become used to Philistine predominance, although it did not any longer reflect the new developments and the strength of Israel. Probably it was Jonathan, the crown prince, who realized the discrepancy and who no longer wanted to accept Philistine domination. Thus, Jonathan started the conflict with the Philistines, and Saul had to take it up (cf. 1 Sam 13:4).

5. A New Picture of the Developments in the Eleventh Century BCE and the Rise of Kingship in Israel 5.1 The Coexistence

of Israelites and Philistines

in the Eleventh

Century

As is well known, the Philistines came into the southern coastal plain at the beginning of the twelfth century BCE. After some time of consolidation, they started an expansion around 1100. Recent archaeological research shows an expansion of the Philistine settlements during the eleventh 30

For further discussion, see

KREUZER,

Jahre.

54

Siegfried

Kreuzer

century and also a strong increase in population size. Evidently during this period the Philistines also expanded towards the hill country and began to take control over the central and southern Palestinian highlands. According to 1 Samuel 4, probably between the middle and the last third of the eleventh century, the Israelites suffered a serious defeat near Aphek. They even lost the Ark of the Covenant, their most important cultic object, and the Philistines gained access to the Israelite highlands. Most probably they gradually expanded their control over the other mountain regions and the important highways. According to some notes in 1 Sam 10:5; 13:3, 23, they established their outposts in Gibeah or Geba, at the mountain pass at Michmas, and also in the south. From these outposts and through military patrols they established their military and economic control of the highlands. At the same time there was a considerable development among the Israelites. The Israelites expanded their settlements and their agricultural exploitation of the different regions, which in time led to more economic exchange and to the establishment of an organizing elite. 5.2 Saul as King of the

Israelites

By the end of the eleventh century, at the time of Saul son of Kish from one of the important families of the tribe of Benjamin, there was a further development and stabilization. Gibeah, the hometown of Saul, was situated near one of the important crossroads: There was the important route from the north to the south, especially as an inner-Israelite connection, and there was the east-west road and trade route from the coastal plain, traversing the highlands just north of Jerusalem, leading down to Jericho and across the Jordan up to the Transjordanian plateau and connecting with what was later called the King's Highway. The circumstances of Philistine control over the highlands challenged the Benjaminite elite to accommodate themselves to the Philistines, and evidently they were successful in this. Saul's role and authority as a leader developed under the eyes of the Philistines. The liberation of Jabesh-Gilead led to a new development. Because of their old relationship, the people of Jabesh sought help from the Benjaminites. Saul's victory demonstrated the importance of such forceful leadership. His success on the city's behalf and consequently similar expectations from other tribes (or the tribal league) led to the coronation of Saul as king and to the introduction of the monarchy in Israel. At the same time, this new development was accepted and probably even welcomed by the Philistines, because in this manner - at least in an indirect way - they extended their political control beyond the Jordan River into Gilead. Saul's kingdom expanded from his home town in Benjamin towards the north and the east. Although Saul's home and residence

Saul - not always - at War

55

was at the southwestern edge of his kingdom, it lay at an important position, namely at the intersection between the area of his kingdom and the region of Philistine dominance. The years of Saul's reign saw the intensification of economic and political developments in Israel. Agricultural production, economic exchange and trade were established on a stable and peaceful basis. Exchange and trade were not limited to the Israelite area, but took place also between Philistines and Israelites, especially those living in the western hill country. Although the Philistines had control over their production and use, the Israelites could use metal tools to improve their agricultural production. With the agricultural surplus they could afford other items in exchange and last, but not least, the acquisition and maintenance of their metal tools. Probably there was also some exchange in other areas as well. As far as we know, and as we can see by archaeological research, cultural development in the coastal plain was ahead of that of the highlands. In some way the situation of the Late Bronze Age with its Egyptian control and domination of the highlands from the coastal plain, especially from Gaza, continued during the time of the Philistines. 31 The leading role of the Philistines is evident in metal production and use. Probably there were also other things the Israelites took over from the Philistines, an example of which was the establishment of a mercenary corps. The establishment of Saul's kingdom went hand in hand with the establishment of a mercenary army. Saul could watch the Philistine mercenaries and their efficiency. A standing army is one of the major distinctions between the structures of the monarchy and the time of the judges. The importance of the military corps was already evident during the reign of Saul and would be decisive for the next Israelite king, David. 5.3 The Establishment

of David in Ziklag - "divide et impera "

The developments during the reign of King Saul changed the balance of power between the Israelites and the Philistines. The former state of dependency no longer corresponded to the new political reality. It was increasingly felt to be unjustified and unacceptable. Without a doubt, the Philistines would have recognized the Israelite tendency towards autonomy and would have reacted to it. One way to react would be to expand military control through military raids. Another reaction would be to attempt to calm the situation by establishing other political facts on the ground. Evidently the Philistines used the conflict between Saul and David - or was it only the ambitions of David? - to establish a political limitation on Saul's power by installing David as a military leader 31 For this situation of late Canaanite / Philistine coastal city-culture and Israelite inland village-culture, see WEIPPERT, Palästina, pp. 3 8 3 f f . and 393ff.

56

Siegfried

Kreuzer

in Ziklag and by giving him control over a large chunk of southern Palestinian territory. In its essential configuration, the situation of David was similar to that of Saul. Both were local rulers overseen by the Philistines. The difference was that Saul had a closer relationship to the Israelite tribes and the people of his territory, while David evidently started his career as a mercenary leader. 5.4 Saul's War with the

Philistines

In spite of efforts to retain the status quo ante, a conflict was ignited between the Philistines and the Israelites. As we have seen, it was probably not Saul, but rather his son and crown prince Jonathan who started the conflict. The situation of dependence had become inadequate. Israel had grown stronger and was able to overcome the Philistines and drive them out of the hill country. These events encompassed Saul's last two years as king. Although the Philistines did not accept the initial success of the Israelites, they did not attempt to advance into the mountains through the western valleys again. Rather, they launched a large military action so-to-say through the backdoor of Israelite territory. They went up the Jezreel Valley and fought against Saul and the Israelites at Mount Gilboa. The Israelites lost the battle, and Saul and most of his sons lost their lives. But the Israelite defeat was not the end; political and social developments in Israel suffered a setback, but they could not be stymied. The amount of consolidation and acceptance that kingship in Israel had reached can be seen by the installation of Ishbaal, the surviving son of Saul, as king, albeit only in the eastern part of his father's kingdom. The most important element is that David could take over Saul's kingdom and build upon what Saul had left. On this basis and by means of his own achievements he was finally able to change the balance of power between the Israelites and the Philistines (2 Samuel 5).

Bibliography AHLSTRÖM, G.W., The History of Ancient Palestine from the Paleolithic Period to Alexander's Conquest (JSOTSup 246), with a contribution by G.O. Rollefson, ed. by D.V. Edelman, Sheffield 1993 ALT, A., Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina (1930), in: idem, Kleine Schriften II, München 1953, pp. 1-65 — J e r u s a l e m s Aufstieg (1925), in: idem, Kleine Schriften III, München 1959, pp. 2 4 3 257 ARNOLD, P.M., Gibeah. The Search for a Biblical City (JSOTSup 79), Sheffield 1990 —, Art. Geba, ABD 2 (1992) pp. 921 - 9 2 2 — Art. Gibeah, ABD 2 (1992) pp. 1007-1009

Saul — not always — at War

SI

BRIGHT, J., A History of Israel, Fourth Edition with an Introduction and Appendix by W.P. Brown, Louisville 2000 CHANEY, M.L., Ancient Palestinian Peasants Movements and the Formation of Premonarchic Israel, in: Palestine in Transition (SWBA 2), ed. by D.N. Freedman / D.F. Graf, Sheffield 1983, pp. 39-94 COOTE, R.B. / WHITELAM K.W., The Emergence of Israel. Social Transformation and State Formation Following the Decline in Late Bronze Age Trade, Semeia 37 (1986) pp. 107-147 — / —, The Emergence of Early Israel in Historical Perspective (SWBA 5), Sheffield 1987 DIETRICH, W., The 'Ban' in the Age of the Early Kings, in: The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOTSup 228), ed. by V. Fritz / P.R. Davies, Sheffield 1996, pp. 196-210 DONNER, H., Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen (GAT 4/1), Göttingen 2 1995 DOTHAN, T. / DOTHAN, M., People of the Sea. The Search for the Philistines, New York 1992 EDELMAN, D.V., Saul's Rescue of Jabesh-Gilead (1 Sam 11.1-15). Sorting Story from History, ZAW 96 (1984), pp. 195-209 —, Art. Saul, ABD 5 (1992) pp. 989-999 EHRLICH, C . S . , T h e P h i l i s t i n e s

in T r a n s i t i o n . A

H i s t o r y f r o m ca.

1000-730

B.C.E.

(SHANE 10), Leiden 1996 FINKELSTEIN, I., The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel. The Environmental and Socioeconomic Aspects, JSOT 44 (1989) pp. 4 3 - 7 4 FINKELSTEIN, I. / LEDERMANN, Z . / BUNIMOVITZ, S., H i g h l a n d s o f M a n y C u l t u r e s . T h e

Southern Samaria Survey, 2 vols., Jerusalem 1997 FRICK, F.S., The Formation of the State in Ancient Israel (SWBA 4), Sheffield 1985, pp. 191-204 —, Social Science Methods and Theories of Significance for the Study of the Israelite Monarchy. A Critical Review Essay, Semeia 37 (1986) pp. 107-147 FRITZ, V., Der Beitrag der Archäologie zur historischen Topographie Palästinas am Beispiel von Ziklag, ZDPV 106 (1990) pp. 78-85 — Art. Ziklag, NBL 3 (2001) p. 1213 FRITZ, V. / DAVIES, P.R. (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOTSup 228), Sheffield 1996 JEPSEN, A . / HANHART, R . ,

Untersuchungen

zur

israelitisch-jüdischen

Chronologie

(BZAW 88), Berlin 1964 KOCHAVI, M. (ed.), Judea, Samaria and the Golan. Archeological Survey (1967-1968), Jerusalem 1972 KOTTER, W.R., Art. Ziklag, ABD 6 (1992) p. 1090 KREUZER, S., "Saul war noch zwei Jahre König ..." - Textgeschichtliche, literarische und historische Beobachtungen zu 1. Sam 13,1, BZ 40 (1996) pp. 263-270 — Art. Schilo, N e u e s Bibel-Lexikon 3 ( 1 9 9 1 - 2 0 0 1 ) pp. 4 7 4 - 4 7 6 LAPP, N . L . , A r t . F ü l , Teil el-, N E A E H L 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) p p . 4 4 5 - 4 4 8

MCCARTER, P.K., I Samuel (AB 8), New York 1980 MAZAR, A., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 - 586 B.C.E. (ABRL), New York 1992 MILLER, M. / HAYES, J.H., A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, London 1986 NA'AMAN, N., The Pre-deuteronomistic Story of King Saul and Its Historical Significance, CBQ 54 (1992) pp. 638-658

58

Siegfried

Kreuzer

NOTH, M , Geschichte Israels, Göttingen 1950 SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, C., Sociological and Biblical Views of the Early State, in: The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOTSup 228), ed. by V. Fritz / P.R. Davies, Sheffield 1996, pp. 78-105 SERVICE, E.R., Origins of State and Civilization, New York 1975 STAGER, L.E., Forging an Identity. The Emergence of Ancient Israel, in: The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. by M.D. Coogan, New York / Oxford 1998, pp. 123-175 STOEBE, H.J., Das erste Buch Samuelis (KAT 8/1), Gütersloh 1973 STOLZ, F., Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel (ZBK. 9), Zürich 1981 WEIPPERT, H., Palästina in vorhellenistischer Zeit (Handbuch der Archäologie. Vorderasien H/1), München 1988 ZERTAL, A., The Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country of Manasseh, PhD. Thesis, Haifa University 1986 (Hebrew)

Saul in the Deuteronomistic History Steven L. McKenzie A glance at a concordance reveals that this topic is really about Saul in the Book of Samuel, since Saul's name does not occur in the Former Prophets outside of 1-2 Samuel. On the face of it, this fact does not seem significant; after his death and the effective demise of his line within two generations, Saul plays no further role in Israel's history. On the other hand, the confinement of Saul's name to Samuel suggests that his role in the Deuteronomistic History is relatively specific and limited in scope, in contrast, for example, to that of David, whose importance transcends his reign in 1 - 2 Samuel to become a major theme in the Deuteronomistic History continuing in 1 - 2 Kings. This essay will focus on Saul's limited role and its implications. Source- and redaction-criticism will be used to indicate what sources about Saul the Deuteronomistic Historian had and how he used them. 1 Character analysis will be used to determine Dtr's perspective on Saul. 2 My thesis, which is hardly revolutionary, is that the character of Saul functions in the Book of Samuel simply as a negative contrast to David. It is not clear where Saul first appears in Samuel. His name may occur in 1 Sam 1:28a: "I also have given him over to Y H W H . A S long as he lives, 3 he is given over ( s a ü l ) to Y H W H . " It is difficult not to see here an allusion to Saul or a play on his name. This has led some scholars to propose that the birth narrative of Samuel in this chapter was originally about Saul. 4 The proposition is further supported by the fact that the root s 'l occurs seven times in vv. 17-28 and that one of these occurrences is in what appears to have been an etiological naming formula for Saul that no longer works for Samuel: "she called his name [sa'ül] because [she said], 'I requested him (sé'ilñw) from Y H W H ' " (V. 20). Whatever the origin of this narrative, as it now stands, it

1

I subscribe to N o t h ' s theory of a single Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr) writing during the Babylonian exile, probably shortly after 562 B.C.E., the date of the last event recorded in 2 Kings, for reasons I have detailed in Trouble with Kings; and Cette royauté = Trouble with Kingship. The question of multiple Dtrs is less of an issue for Samuel than for Kings and does not, I think, radically affect the depiction of Saul. 2 On characterization as a technique of analysis, see BERLIN, Characterization; and Poetics. 3 Reading TI with the LXX instead of M T ' s rrn. 4 MCCARTER, I Samuel, p. 63. See also White's essay in this volume.

60

Steven L.

McKenzie

indicates that Samuel, not Saul, despite the latter's name, was given over or devoted to YHWH. In this way, the birth narrative prepares the reader for Samuel's later rejection of Saul as king. Beyond the allusions to his name in 1 Samuel 1, the first appearance of Saul is in the extended account of his anointing as Israel's first king in chapters 8-12. The presence of five distinct units in these chapters (8; 9:1 10:16; 10:17-27a; 10:27b—11:15;5 12) is widely recognized, as is their overall ambivalence toward kingship and toward Saul. An editor has bound the three interior units together by means of the additions at 10:14-16; 10:27a; and 11:12-13, so that Saul is first anointed secretly in 9:1-10:16, then is publicly designated king in 10:17-27a, and finally proves himself militarily in 10:27b11:15. 6 The first and last of these interior units (9:1-10:16 and 10:27b-11:15) are based on originally independent stories. Some time ago L. Schmidt successfully isolated the contours of the older tale behind 9:1—10:16.7 Preserved in 9:1-8, 10-13aa(3b, 14a, 18-19, 22a, 24b-27; 10:2^1, 7, 9, it is an elaborated prophetic legenda8 in which the needs of characters in crisis Saul and his servant requiring food and information about the lost donkeys are met through the clairvoyance of a "man of God." An editor, whom I would identify as the Deuteronomistic Historian, transformed this tale into an account of Saul's anointing as nágld.9 The term nagld is crucial for understanding the portrait of Saul in the Deuteronomistic History. Meaning "designated one," it apparently arose as a military title. 10 It thus connotes military leadership (Saul is to save the Israelites from their enemies, 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1 [LXX] 11 ) as well as

5

The true beginning of the unit in 1 Sam 10:27b—11:15 may be reconstructed from the reading of 4QSam a , as it has been in the NRSV. See KLEIN, 1 Samuel, pp. 102-103; and MCCARTER, I Samuel, pp. 199-200. 6 MCKENZIE, Cette royauté = Trouble with Kingship. 7

SCHMIDT, M e n s c h l i c h e r E r f o l g , p p . 6 3 - 8 0 .

8

On the genre of the prophetic legenda, see ROFÉ, Classification; Classes; and especially Prophetical Stories. 9 SCHMIDT (Menschlicher Erfolg, pp. 81-102) identified two redactional layers beyond the original tale - one in 1 Sam 9:13ay, 20-21, 22b-24a; 10:1, 13b—16 concerned with Saul's anointing and a second in 10:5-6, 10-13a that incorporated the etiology for the masàl "Is Saul also among the prophets?" Schmidt saw 9:2b, 9; 10:8 as even later glosses. I see no compelling reason to deny any of these verses to Dtr. See MCKENZIE, Trouble with Kings, p. 299. 10 On the origins of the term, see CROSS, Canaanite Myth, p. 220 n. 5. Cf. RICHTER, nagid-Formel. On the meaning of the word as it relates to kingship, see MCCARTER, I Samuel, pp. 178-179; as well as HALPERN, Constitution, pp. 1-11; and Mettinger, King, pp. 151-84.

" These two verses have been alleged to be in tension, 9:16 stating, "he will save my people from the hand of the Philistines," and 10:1 LXX, "you will save them from the hand of their enemies all around." The LXX reading is superior in the latter text, where M T is clearly

Saul in the Deuteronomistic

History

61

adumbrating Saul's kingship (he is anointed lenagid). Saul, therefore, is depicted as a transitional figure mediating between the judges and the monarchy. The spirit of Y H W H comes upon him as upon a judge; and he is commissioned to military action (10:6-7). 12 Ultimately, though, this nagid proves unacceptable as king. The notion of the nagid becomes a sub-theme in Dtr's account of the reigns of Saul and David that culminates in the promise of an eternal Davidic dynasty, a promise that is a crucial element in the ideology of the Deuteronomistic History. Saul was initially anointed nagid (1 Sam 9:16; 10:1 [LXX]), but his kingdom was rejected (13:14) in favor of David (25:30; 2 Sam 5:2; 6:21), who was promised an eternal kingdom as a reward for his faithfulness (2 Sam 7:8). 13 The perspective on Saul within 1 Samuel 8 - 1 2 is best described as ambivalent. He is anointed nagid, and he does rescue Israel from the Ammonites in chapter 11. He is an imposing physical presence (9:2; 10:2324), and he comes from noble stock (9:1). On the other hand, there are some facets of these chapters that the discerning reader will find ominous. Saul's stature will provide a point of contrast with David in chapters 16-17. Samuel's question in 9:20 may raise eyebrows, depending on how it is understood. While the reference to Saul is probably best taken as subjective ("To whom does every desirable thing in Israel belong?"), 14 it could be objective ("For whom is Israel's every desire?"). 15 In the light of chapter 8, where Israel's desire for a king is condemned, the latter interpretation would not be positive. In 10:17-27a, the process by which Saul is selected is identical to one used elsewhere to isolate a criminal. 16 Saul's hiding among baggage might be taken as indicating ineptness. The fact that some question Saul's ability might also bode ill, even though Saul proves them wrong. Their corrupt. But the two verses may actually work together to unite the frequent references to the Philistines in the tradition with the story in chapter 11, where Saul defeats the Ammonites. Samuel's defeat of the Philistines in 7:11-17 is part of Dtr's paradigmatic portrayal of him as a judge. The statement in 7:13 that the Philistines never again entered Israelite territory is best understood in context as limited to Samuel's lifetime. 12 The model for Saul's commissioning here was "the holy war ideology of the late monarchy period," which was "the creation of Dtr and unrelated to the origins of the prophetic call narratives," as VAN SETERS (Moses, p. 44) has argued. 13

C f . METTINGER, K i n g , p p . 1 5 1 - 1 8 4 ; a n d VAN SETERS, I n S e a r c h , p p . 2 6 6 - 2 6 8 . O u t s i d e

of these verses, the word nagid occurs in the Deuteronomistic History only in 1 Kgs 1:35; 14:7; 16:2; and 2 Kgs 20:5 in reference, respectively, to Solomon, Jeroboam, Baasha, and Hezekiah. 14 So KLEIN, 1 Samuel, pp. 81 and 89; and MCCARTER, I Samuel, pp. 165 and 170. Klein discusses these two possible interpretations. McCarter reads the plural "riches" based on the LXX. 15

So NRSV ("And on whom is Israel's desire fixed?") and BDB. Josh 7:14-18; 1 Sam 14:40-42. This is an observation made by MCCARTER, I Samuel, pp. 195-196. 16

62

Steven L. McKenzie

doubts certainly contrast with the confidence and unanimity that characterize David's accession to the throne in 2 Sam 5:1-3. From the beginning of his reign, then, there are subtle hints that Saul will turn out to be a less than ideal king. 17 As king, Saul can do almost nothing right. His first royal act involves disobedience (1 Sam 13:8-15a) to a divine command given in the very narrative in which Saul was introduced (10:8). 18 The command is ambiguous, and Saul acts in good faith. He is simply fated to disobey and to be rejected. 19 He waits the prescribed seven days before offering the sacrifice himself. When he does so, Samuel appears, as though he had been waiting in the wings for Saul to make a mistake. Because of his offense, he is to be replaced by a man after Y H W H ' S heart ( k i l b á b d , 13:14). It is easy to read too much into this expression. It is simply an idiom for choice, i.e., "according to his desire or purpose." In other words, Saul is not Y H W H ' S idea of a model king. The contrast between Saul and David is explicit, even though the latter is not mentioned by name. Whereas (and because) Saul did not obey Y H W H ' S commandment, Y H W H will command a new man of his choice to be nagid. The Deuteronomistic Historian does credit Saul with military success (1 Sam 14:47^18), although the tribal leaders of Israel subsequently attribute that success to David (2 Sam 5:2). 20 But the one account that he gives of such success in chapter 14 describes Jonathan as the real hero, rather than and, indeed, in spite of Saul. Jonathan and his armor bearer initiate the conflict with the Philistines based on their faith in Y H W H ' S assistance (1 Sam 14:6, 10, 12); and Y H W H affords Israel a great victory (v. 23). Saul nearly snatches disaster from the jaws of victory when he utters a curse upon anyone who eats (v. 24). The LXX characterizes this as a "great mistake" ( a y v o i a v pEyáAriv = nVlH nm>) in its version of this verse, which is superior to the MT. Jonathan recognizes that "my father has troubled the land" ("OX "DJ? f i x r r n x , ákar 'abi et-ha 'ares) by this curse (v. 29). Not only does the curse lead the troops to sin by eating meat before its blood is properly drained (14:31-35), but it prevents Saul from gaining total victory over the Philistines, since Y H W H will not answer his inquiries and almost costs Jonathan his life (14:36—46). Even in success, Saul is incompetent; and his actions lead to sin against Y H W H . The material in 1 Sam 15:1-16:13 is likely a later addition, in which case the account of Saul's sin and rejection in chapter 15 is a doublet of 13:7b—

17 18 19

20

For a more detailed analysis, see GUNN, Fate, 59-65. See the discussion in GUNN, Fate, pp. 3 3 ^ 0 . A g a i n , so GUNN, Fate, esp. pp. 7 0 - 7 1 .

Vocalizing MT's 'MIFF as sobete, as proposed by REID (sbty), and understanding it with Reid as a reference to those who bear the staff of authority, i.e., tribal leaders.

Saul in the Deuteronomistic

History

63

15.21 It resembles the earlier story in some key respects: Saul receives a command from Y H W H mediated through Samuel: "Strike Amalek and devote all that belongs to him to destruction" (15:1-3). Again, Saul apparently acts on good faith. 22 He spares the best of the livestock from slaughter on the battlefield in order to sacrifice them to YHWH. He also spares King Agag. The reason is not clear. Saul himself, if we take his words in v. 13 at face value, thinks he has carried out Y H W H ' S order. Moreover, the best reading of 15:32 indicates that Agag's treatment in captivity was not pleasant, making it unlikely that he was being held for ransom or treaty ratification. 23 Perhaps Saul intended to execute Agag publicly and ritually for treaty violation - a fate that he ultimately receives at the hand of Samuel, who "hewed him to pieces before YHWH" (15:33). 24 In Agag's case, then, as in that of the livestock, Saul's violation of Y H W H ' S order is not as clear-cut as it might initially appear. But, as with 13:8—15b, the story is less concerned with the details of Saul's sin, than it is to make the point that Saul was rejected by God in favor of David. That same point is stressed in chapter 16. If 16:1-13 is an addition, David is first introduced by name into the narrative in 16:14-23. Y H W H has abandoned Saul and even afflicts him with an evil spirit (16:14). In contrast, Saul's servant tells him that Y H W H is with David (v. 18). This contrast between Saul and David is only sharpened by the story of David's anointing in 16:1-13, which ends with the statement that the spirit of Y H W H fell upon David from that day on - a statement that now juxtaposes the one in v. 14 about the spirit having departed from Saul and being replaced by an evil spirit. With or without vv. 1-13, chapter 16 expressly articulates the contrast between Saul and David that will be fundamental for the rest of the story in 1

21

The notices in 1 Sam 14:47-52 seem to mark the end of the account of Saul's reign proper. 15:1-16:13 lies outside of this boundary and interrupts the continuity between Saul's recruitment of soldiers in 14:52 and David's appearance in 16:14-23. For other arguments, s e e V A N SETERS, I n S e a r c h , p p . 2 5 8 - 2 6 4 . 22

23

GUNN, Fate, p p . 4 1 - 5 6 .

Cf. Talmon, 1 Sam. XV. The word n n s a in 15:32 apparently means "in fetters," to judge from its use in Job 38:31 in parallel with niDtra, "chains." The MT in 1 Sam 15:32 also attributes the following words to Agag: m n m a no IDS ("Surely death's bitterness has passed"), suggesting that Agag was a well-treated captive under Saul and did not expect to die at the hands of the Israelite king. The LXX, however, has si o\mo¡0 layn TON-«1? 'lom) and is supported, in part, by the LXX of Samuel - and by sense. 37 D1?!!?1? does not mean endless time or eternity, but "long duration, most distant time, perpetual." The classic study on the subject is that of JENNI, Wort. 38 VAN SETERS, In Search, p. 263. 39

HUMPHREYS, T r a g i c , p. 6 3 .

Saul in the Deuteronomistic

History

69

with the preceding material in portraying him as inept, cut off from YHWH, and destined for failure. The point I wish to highlight in this essay as the perspective of the Deuteronomistic Historian on Saul and about which both of these quotations concur is that "[Saul] is only a foil for David himself," 40 or, more specifically, "The rejected Saul serves as a foil to the chosen David's rise." 41 A further implication of this characterization of Saul is the difficulty that it poses for historical reconstruction. To be sure, the Deuteronomistic Historian made use of some older traditions about Saul - specifically, traditions about his birth, how he became king, and his military activities. But he apparently did not hesitate to alter these according to his purposes. There is very little material about Saul's reign apart from David. Perhaps Dtr had little source material about this period. Or perhaps he was concerned merely to sketch Saul's transitional role and then to turn to David as quickly as possible. With David's advent, Saul slips into his monolithic role. Dtr may well have inherited this vilification of Saul from his sources, but he has adopted it as the view of Saul in his own work. Recognition of the nature of Dtr's depiction of Saul cautions against relying on it for any detailed reconstruction of the historical figure or his reign. In this regard, Diana Edelman's work is illustrative. Her 1991 literary study, King Saul and the Historiography of Judah, was expressly the preliminary stage of a historical investigation of Saul. 42 The fact that no historical reconstruction subsequently materialized is witness to Prof. Edelman's judicious recognition that Dtr's portrait of Saul may obscure more history than it reveals.

40 VAN SETERS (In Search, pp. 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 ) notes the presence of Deuteronomistic expressions and motifs in chapter 15 and apparently ascribes the additions to Dtr. The problem is that 1 Sam 13:7b—15 also evinces Deuteronomistic language and ideology, especially in vv. 13-14, including the theme of nagid and the groundwork for the dynastic promise, both described above. See further MCKENZIE, Trouble with Kingship, pp. 3 0 9 - 3 1 0 ; and VEIJOLA, Dynastie, p. 56. But if 13:7b—15 and chapter 15 are doublets, they can hardly be written by the same author. Since Van Seters has shown that chapter 15 is secondary, it is best regarded as the work of a later writer, w h o made use of the influential language and ideology of the Deuteronomistic Historian. 41 HUMPHREYS, Tragic, p. 63. It is worthwhile citing the rest of the quotation, which continues on to p. 64: " A s rejected he cannot succeed, and his every deed becomes a mockery of his designs. In time he openly attempts to lay violent hands on David, only to fall into the relenting hands of the one he pursued. By contrast, the chosen David can only succeed, even against all the designs set against him by Saul and circumstances." 42 EDELMAN, King Saul, p. 11.

70

Steven L. McKenzie

Bibliography BERLIN, A., Characterization in Biblical Narrative. David's Wives, JSOT 23 (1982) pp. 6 9 85 —, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Sheffield 1983 CROSS, F.M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge (Mass.) 1973 EDELMAN, D.V., King Saul and the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup 121), Sheffield 1991 GUNN, D.M., The Fate of King Saul. An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup 14), Sheffield 1984 HALPERN, B., The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25), Chico (Calif.) 1981 HUMPHREYS, W.L., The Tragic Vision and the Hebrew Tradition (OBT 18), Philadelphia 1985 JENNI, E., Das Wort 'öläm im Alten Testament, ZAW 64 (1952) pp. 197-248 KLEIN, R.W., 1 Samuel (WBC 10), Waco 1983 KOCH, K„ The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. The Form-Critical Method (trans. S.M. Cupitt), New York 1969 LEVENSON, J.D., I Samuel 25 as Literature and as History, CBQ 40 (1978) pp. 11-28 MCCARTER, P. K„ Jr., I Samuel (AB 8), Garden City 1980 —, II Samuel (AB 9), Garden City 1984 MCKENZIE, S.L., The Trouble with Kings. The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (VTSup 42), Leiden 1991 —, Cette royauté qui fait problème, in: Israël construit son histoire. L'historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes (MdB 34), ed. by A. de Pury / T. Römer / J.-D. Macchi, Geneva 1996, pp. 267-295 = The Trouble with Kingship, in: Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research (JSOTSup 306); Sheffield 2000, pp. 286-314 — , King David. A Biography, New York 2000 METTINGER, T.N.D., King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT 8), Lund 1976 REID, P.V., sbty in 2 Samuel 7:7, CBQ 37 (1975) pp. 17-20 RICHTER, W., Die nagid-Formel, BZ 9 (1965) pp. 71-84 ROFÉ, A . , T h e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e P r o p h e t i c a l S t o r i e s , J B L 8 9 ( 1 9 7 0 ) p p . 4 2 7 ^ 4 0

—, Classes in the Prophetical Stories. Didactic Legenda and Parable, in: Studies in Prophecy (VTSup 26), Leiden, 1974, pp. 143-164 —, The Prophetical Stories, Jerusalem 1988 SCHMIDT, L., Menschlicher Erfolg und Jahwes Initiative. Studien zu Tradition, Interpretation und Historie in Überlieferungen von Gideon, Saul und David (WMANT 38), NeukirchenVluyn 1970 TALMON, S., 1 Sam. XV 32b - A Case of Conflated Readings? VT 11 (1961) pp. 456-457 TOV, E., The Composition of 1 Samuel 16-18 in the Light of the Septuagint Version, in: Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. by J.H. Tigay, Philadelphia 1985, pp. 97-130 VAN SETERS, J., In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, New Haven 1983 —, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Louisville 1994 VEIJOLA, T., Die ewige Dynastie. David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung (AASF B 198), Helsinki 1975

The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul and Its Place in the Deuteronomistic History Yairah Amit The Book of Samuel describes Saul, on the one hand as the preferred candidate who was elected by God to reign over Israel, and on the other hand as a king who was rejected by God and whose throne was given to a worthier candidate. As God's chosen king, Saul could not simply be wicked, and as the rejected one, he had to have some negative features or deeds. It seems to me that the need to clarify this extreme and prompt transition from elected to rejected is the reason for a delicate balance in the characterization of Saul. This delicate balance is achieved by three significant means, all of which contribute to the depiction of the reign of Saul or of Saul's personality as king - from the first appearance of the young man who goes searching for his father's lost asses and finds a kingdom (1 Sam 9:1-10:16) to his death on Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31).1 These three features are: 1. The plot is suitable to the life-story of a tragic hero. 2. The hero is shown in conflict with other complex personae: with Samuel early in his career, and with David in the latter part until his death. 3. The information is given in an ambivalent manner, which enables the reader to see the events in another and complex light, and thus to understand Saul and sometimes even to identify with him. I will expand on each one of these three features:

1. Saul as the Tragic Hero Many scholars, both biblical and literary, have noted the tragic aspect. I shall quote only two: According to the literary scholar Northrop Frye, "Saul is the one great tragic hero of the Bible."2 Gerhard von Rad, describing Saul's life in his Old Testament Theology, states that "Actually, Israel never again gave birth to a 1 On these boundaries, see HUMPHREYS, Tragedy. But see EDELMAN (Saul, pp. 27-30), whose boundaries are 1 Samuel 8 - 2 Samuel 1. 2 FRYE, Great, p. 181.

72

Yairah Amit

poetic production which in certain of its features has such close affinity with the spirit of Greek tragedy." 3 This deeper recognition of the tragic aspect in the characterization of Saul has come about as a result of the encounter between literary and biblical research, which "legitimized" treating biblical stories with the methods of literary criticism. 4 In fact, Saul's fate, as depicted in the Book of Samuel, conforms to the elements of tragedy described by Aristotle - though, of course, without the author being intellectually aware of the poetics of tragedy. 5 Above all, we can observe the signs of tragic design in the transition from the pole of success and happiness to the opposite pole of failure and a miserable end. 6 In the story of Saul this is seen in the movement from the pinnacle of his anointing as king (1 Samuel 9-11) to the nadir of disaster and death (1 Samuel 28, 31). Actually, one can even trace the design of Saul's reign according to a sequence of the five stages of tragedy that are mentioned by Aristotle: fateful error (f] a p a p T i a ) , terrible act (TO SEIVOV), turnabout or change (q TTEPITTETEICX), recognition (f| a v a y v c o p t a i s ) , and suffering (TO TraSos).7

The fateful error occurs at Gilgal, when, on the seventh day, at the conclusion of the time that Samuel had set (1 Sam 10:8), Saul despairs of Samuel's coming and is unable to wait any longer. So, he offers the sacrifice himself (1 Sam 13:7b—15a). The minute Saul finishes presenting the burnt offering, Samuel arrives. Samuel's reaction is: "You acted foolishly [...]" 8 (1 Sam 13:13aP), but the question is, what was Saul's fault? The commentators have various answers, 9 but the narrator takes pains to emphasize that Saul waited seven days and behaved as he did only after his army was scattering behind him. This is confirmed when the numbers of thousands of people who were with him (1 Sam 13:2) shrinks to six hundred (1 Sam 13:15b). As this is a temporal error without the slightest hint of deliberate scheming or

3 4

VON RAD, Theology, p. 325. See GUNN, Fate. See also EXUM, Tragedy.

5

S e e AMIT, P o l e m i c s , p p . 1 7 3 - 1 7 6 .

6

ARISTOTLE, P o e t i c s , 13:6.

7 HALPERIN ("Poetics", pp. 81-135) emphasizes that "while Aristotle does not call them stages, and does not even bring them in this order, on the basis of his argument it may be understood that this is their significance and their order" (p. 83). 8 Biblical quotations in this essay are from the NJPS version. 9

GUNN ( F a t e , p p . 3 3 ^ 1 0 , 6 6 - 6 7 ) e m p h a s i z e s t h e a m b i g u i t y o f S a m u e l ' s i n s t r u c t i o n in 1

Sam 10:8, the ambiguity of the phrase "the commandment of Yahweh," and the ambiguity of Saul's fault. LONG (Reign, p. 238) also differentiates between "the result of misunderstanding (possibly, though not necessarily, in ch. 13) or disregard (clearly in ch. 15)."

The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul

73

challenging of authority, it creates the effect of understanding Saul's behavior and a feeling of compassion towards the tragic hero. 10 The terrible act, which was not intentional, but nevertheless could not be corrected, occurs during the battle against Amalek, when Saul not only fails to execute God's command and violates the ban, but also seeks to save himself by trying to place the blame upon the entire people (1 Sam 15:15, 20-21)." The prophet's pronouncement, "The Lord has this day torn the kingship over Israel away from you and has given it to another who is worthier than you" (1 Sam 15:28) signifies the turnabout or change (see vv. 27-35). 12 From this point on, a series of events takes place that leads inevitably to Saul's tragic end. The first events of this series are the anointing of David and his appearance in the king's court (1 Samuel 16-17). 13 The stage of recognition on Saul's part is marked by David's successes, beginning with his victory over Goliath. Already at that time Saul says, "To David they have given tens of thousands, and to me they have given thousands. All that he lacks is the kingship!" (1 Sam 18:8). Saul's attempts to harm David fail, and, as the narrator puts it, "When Saul realized that the Lord was with David ... Saul grew still more afraid of David; and Saul was David's enemy ever after" (1 Samuel 18:28-29). Now begins a long period (or stage) of suffering, during which Saul the king behaves like a man obsessed, suspicious of the people closest to him and bent on a futile pursuit of David (1 Samuel 19-27). Saul's tragic life ends with his defeat in a battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 28-31). We see that the author has organized the stories in a descriptive sequence that conforms to the elements of tragedy. 14 He provides the readers with materials that enable them to understand Saul and identify with him, to empathize with his pain and suffering, to feel compassion for him, and finally to be amazed by his ability to reconcile himself to his fate as he sets out for his final battle. As an example, I will mention one famous reader, Josephus Flavius, who was deeply impressed and described Saul with exaggerated praise: "... for thus, as successors and posterity, he would obtain glory and an 10

E.g., HERTZBERG, Samuel, pp. 105-107. The stage of the terrible act, following the fateful error, on the whole embodies the error and the two stages appear as one in the tragic structure. See HALPERIN, "Poetics", pp. 100-101. 12 See GUNN, Fate, p. 73. 13 I will not go into the matter of the contradictions between the two chapters in the MT and the attempts to reconcile them already within the text itself (see 1 Sam 17:15) and in the exegesis, and also the abbreviated version in the LXX, Version B, in which most of the contradictions are avoided. Regarding my opinion on this subject, see AMIT, Polemics, pp. 34-36. 14 See also KROOK, Elements. For a discussion of the tragic hero, see pp. 35-69. 11

74

Yairah Amil

ageless name. Such a man alone, in my opinion, is just, valiant and wise, and he, if any has been or shall be such, deserves to have all men acknowledge his virtue." 15 Indeed, although the Book of Samuel states that Saul interfered with the desired divine order, nevertheless the sensitive and humane reader regards him with understanding and does not disparage him in a categorical manner. It seems that the literary design, which gives the story a tragic dimension, prevents a one-sided negative presentation of Saul and contributes to the delicate balance. 16

2. Saul confronted with Samuel and David Another striking, if indirect, method used to enhance Saul's prestige is the casting of a certain shadow on the character of the other principal figures Samuel and David - with whom Saul struggles throughout all his reign. These two figures are not depicted as merely fulfilling the will of God, but as human individuals with interests and desires of their own. As such, they are moved by considerations of power and rule, with which Saul has to contend. Two brief examples will suffice: Samuel, who did not want to appoint a king over Israel, is rebuked by God: "for it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king" (1 Sam 8:7). These words of God hint at Samuel's wish for rule. Moreover, Chapter 8 opens with a negative portrayal of Samuel's sons, implying that Samuel failed to restrain or at least reprimand his sons. 17 The reader gets the impression that Samuel preferred to ignore his sons' behavior, so long as they continued to hold on to the reins of power. The ground is prepared for God's rebuke, suggesting that Samuel is interested in power for himself and his sons. In other words, Samuel is depicted as having had Saul's kingship forced upon him, and as making no attempt to prevent the king's failure. 18 Similarly, if we study the depiction of David's behavior while Saul was still king, we discover that he was not entirely innocent. Thus, for example, the booty from the battle with Amalek, which was sent to the elders of Judah at a time when the Philistines were making war against Israel (1 Sam 30:2631), indicates that Saul's suspicions were not unfounded. 15 16

JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 6.345-346. For a different description, especially concerning 1 Sam 14:52 - 2 Sam 8:15, see

BRETTLER, C r e a t i o n , p p . 9 7 - 1 1 1 . 17 One cannot ignore the analogy to the behavior of Eli regarding his sons (1 Sam 2:2225). On the presentation of Samuel as a power-oriented figure, see MISCALL, Samuel, pp. 4 3 80, but especially pp. 70-72. 18 Cf. Samuel's behavior in the context of the ban on Amalek (1 Sam 15). See the "second reading" of MISCALL, Samuel, pp. 98-114. See also AMIT, Reading, pp. 100-101.

The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul

75

The fact that the other images have their own negative features contributes to the subtle balance. Thus, Saul is not depicted as all bad, and the others are not depicted as all virtuous, but all of them are in shades of gray.

3. The Ambivalent Depiction Samuel's appearance at the exact moment when Saul had finished offering up the burnt offering (1 Sam 13:10) seems to suggest that Samuel had set this up, pushing Saul to his breaking point. 19 Likewise, the narrative materials relating to David give rise to an ambivalent impression as of the time he arrives in Saul's court as a future king and as Saul's rival. His remaining in the court after being anointed cannot be viewed as only innocence, but as subversion too. 20 For example, why did David marry Michal? Did he love her? The narrator tells us that she loved him (1 Sam 18:20, 28), but not a word about his feelings. Thus, we may assume that he married her because she was the king's daughter and he wanted to be the king's son-in-law, a part of the ruling family. Similarly we can understand his interest in the friendship with Jonathan, the crown-prince, who "loved him as himself' (1 Sam 20:17). Here again, as in many other examples, the narrator's silence regarding David's feelings opens the possibility for ambivalent interpretation, which may contribute to the balanced depiction. Moreover, the Book of Chronicles serves as the mirror of the Book of Samuel, and a quick look at the Book of Chronicles in comparison with the Book of Samuel reveals a different approach, and thus emphasizes the avoidance of one-sided information in the book of Samuel. 21 The Chronicler hardly touches on Saul's monarchy. He begins his historical sequence with a description of Saul's death, as the background to the transfer of the monarchy to David. However, he is not content merely to describe a leadership vacuum, but justifies Saul's death. For him, Saul sinned against God and was punished because of his serious transgressions, his kingdom being turned over to David: "Saul died for the trespass that he had committed against the Lord in not having fulfilled the command of the Lord; moreover, he had consulted a ghost to seek advice, and did not seek advice of the Lord; so He had him slain and the kingdom transferred to David son of Jesse" (1 Chr 10:13-14). The reader who is familiar with the Book of Samuel knows that Saul did in fact inquire of the Lord "either by dreams or by Urim 19 See AMIT, Reading, pp. 76-78 and especially p. 162 n. 9, which mentions more bibliography. 20 On the indirect means of David's characterization see AMIT, Reading, pp. 80-82. 21

WILLIAMSON, C h r o n i c l e s , p p . 19, 9 2 - 9 6 ; JAPHET, I d e o l o g y , p p . 4 0 5 ^ 1 1 a n d e s p e c i a l l y

n . 3 8 ; IDEM, C h r o n i c l e s , p p . 16, 2 2 1 - 2 2 2 , 2 2 9 - 2 3 0 , 2 5 7 ; a n d m a n y o t h e r s .

76

Yairah Amit

or by prophets" (1 Sam 28:6), and that only after the Lord failed to answer him did he turn to the medium. A comparison between 1 Chronicles 10 and 1 Samuel 31 reveals the Chronicler's bias, as he goes into fine distinctions and details in depicting the death of Saul as a shameful incident and not as a heroic and tragic event. For example, the burial of Saul and his sons in the Book of Samuel is accompanied by a moving description of the heroism of the people of JabeshGilead. These people walked all night long and risked their lives to take down Saul's body and those of his sons from the wall of Beth-Shean, a stronghold of Philistine rule. The Chronicler, however, ignores the all-night walk, stressing that the Philistines were interested only in Saul's head and his armor, and that only Saul's head was hung up in the temple of Dagon (1 Chr 10:9— 10). This suggests that the bodies of Saul and his sons remained on the abandoned battlefield and were brought back to Jabesh (1 Chr 10:11-12). By downplaying the heroic act of the people of Jabesh-Gilead, the Chronicler removes the potential of identification with their sacrifice and heroism and with Saul's warriors and their readiness to fight for their king, as related in the Book of Samuel. 22 The Chronicler's one-sided description with its lack of balance was meant to show that Saul's death and the passing of the kingdom to David were manifestations of historical justice. The indictment of Saul in the Book of Chronicles contrasts with the delicate balance of his characterization in the Book of Samuel, where the reader can discern the positive sides of the first chosen king, while at the same time understanding why the kingship was taken from him. In other words, Saul may be criticized while feeling sympathy for him.

4. The Deuteronomist as Editor We may wonder if the depiction of such a complex personality is characteristic of Deuteronomistic writing, which, as we know from the Book of Kings, examines the deeds of the kings and the reactions of the prophets. The Deuteronomist's world was a clear-cut one, with unequivocal right and wrong, things that are allowed and things that are forbidden. This is plainly evident in all the direct and indirect characterizations in the book. 23 22

The Chronicler does something similar by the deletion of "with him" in the description of the death of Saul's armor bearer, and by deleting "and all his men, on the same day together." See 1 Sam 31:5-6 compared to 1 Chr 10:5-6. The Chronicler thereby emphasizes that the house of Saul was killed together. For a detailed comparison, see AMIT, Variations. S e e a l s o AMIT, R e a d i n g , p p . 7 8 - 8 0 . 23

On the world of the Deuteronomist, see AMIT, History, pp. 49-64.

The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul

77

Thus, the characterization of David in the Book of Kings is unlike the David we know from the Book of Samuel (and 1 Kings 1-2). In the Book of Kings, David has done what was pleasing to the Lord (1 Kgs 14:8) and is held up as a model for all future kings (e.g., 2 Kgs 22:2). Nevertheless, in view of the narrative in the Book of Samuel, some late editor felt compelled to modify the above sweeping statement and add a reference to Uriah: "For David had done what was pleasing to the Lord and never turned throughout his life from all that He had commanded him, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" (1 Kgs 15:5). 24 But this low-key reference to the affair of David and Bathsheba is not enough to dim the glory of the Deuteronomistic David. However, where the Deuteronomistic author-editor could not ignore the fact that the events reflected good and evil mingled together, he chose to separate the times when the king was faithful to God from those when he strayed from the righteous path. I will mention two examples: Solomon, who built the temple, and Jeroboam I, whose secession from the united monarchy was dictated by God. In the case of Solomon, the change is described as taking place towards the end of his life (1 Kings 11), and in the case of Jeroboam right at the start (1 Kgs 12:25-33). 25 In any event, the passage to the king's straying from the righteous path prepares the ground for the punishment that is to come. In Solomon's case, it is the splitting of the kingdom (1 Kgs 11:11-13), and in Jeroboam's, the destruction of his house (1 Kgs 14:7-14). In neither of these instances is there any attempt to describe processes of development, or to enter into the more personal life of the king. All his actions are evaluated according to a rigid regulatory code, representing what is right in the eyes of the Lord. There is a striking contrast between the characterizations of the kings in the Book of Samuel and those in the Book of Kings. In the latter, simpler solutions replace the complexity and processes of development typical of the plot and characters of the former. Rather more complex characterization is found unexpectedly in the stories of the prophets - for example, that of Elisha - though naturally not in the Deuteronomistic speeches which are put in their mouths (1 Kgs 11:31-39; 14:7-16; 21:21-24, and more). Many scholars are convinced that these stories originated in the circles of the prophets, and that these materials were adopted by the Deuteronomist and integrated into his book, though in many cases they did not conform with his mental world (such as Elijah's building of an altar, or the use of magic by the prophets). 26 Here we see the difference between the Deuteronomist as author and as editor: As 24 The Septuagint version omits the last clause with the reference to Uriah. Most commentators agree that it is a late addition. E.g., GRAY, Kings, p. 348. 25

S e e , e.g., GRAY, K i n g s , p p . 2 7 0 - 2 7 1 , 3 1 1 - 3 1 8 .

26

S e e , e . g . , G R A Y , K i n g s , p . 4 7 0 ; ROFE, S t o r i e s ; L O N G , K i n g s , p . 6 1 ; l a t e l y N A ' A M A N ,

Past, pp. 95-98 and more bibliography there.

78

Yairah

Amit

author, he incorporates his principles and system into his writing, while as editor he is content to make a partial adjustment and does not act as a rigid censor, as does the author of Chronicles. 27 In other words, the integration of the stories of the prophets in the Book of Kings enables us to observe the working methods of the Deuteronomist as editor. The subtle balance in the depiction of Saul's persona was left untouched by the Deuteronomistic editor, chiefly because it followed Saul from being the chosen one to his fall, and because it explained the transfer of the kingdom to David. These materials were formed in the circles that followed the prophets' teaching, and as such were not characterized by Deuteronomistic language, nor by any of the Deuteronomistic ideas (such as the centralization of the cult, or the burning of idols on the battlefield). 28 Yet, these materials ultimately suited the great Deuteronomistic work, because in the final account they dealt with a king who had been chosen and failed, from whom the kingdom was taken away and given to the better man, David. We therefore owe a debt of gratitude to the Deuteronomistic editor, 29 who was sufficiently open-minded not to make these materials conform perfectly to his system, but was content to make adjustments that are often easily discernible. The result is superb literature!

Bibliography AMIT, Y., Three Variations on the Death of Saul. Studies in the Fashioning of the World, in: Reliability and in the Tendentiousness of Biblical Narrative, Beth Mikra 100/1 (1985) pp. 9 2 - 1 0 2 (Hebrew) — , The Book of Judges. The Art of Editing (trans. J. Chipman), Leiden 1999 — , History and Ideology. An Introduction to Historiography in the Hebrew Bible (trans. Y. Lotan), Sheffield 1999 —, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative (trans. J. Chipman), Leiden 2000 —, Reading Biblical Narratives. Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (trans. Y. Lotan), Minneapolis 2001 ARISTOTLE, The Poetics (trans. Stephen Halliwell, LCL 199), London / Cambridge (Mass.)

1982

BRETTLER, M.Z., The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, London / N e w York 1995 EDELMAN, D.V., King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup 121), Sheffield 1991 EXUM, J.C., Tragedy and Biblical Narrative. Arrows of the Almighty, Cambridge 1992 FRYE, N., The Great Code. The Bible and Literature, New York 1982 GRAY, J., I & II Kings (OTL), London 1977 27

For a different view, see POLZIN, Samuel, especially pp. 1-17. Compare 2 Sam 5:21 with the late description in 1 Chr 14:12, which is influenced by the Deuteronomistic ideology. However, I do not ignore the existence of some Deuteronomistic additions. 29 I will not deal here with the reasonable possibility of more than one editor. See AMIT, Judges, pp. 1-24. 28

The Delicate Balance in the Image of Saul

79

GUNN, D.M., The Fate of King Saul. An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup 14), Sheffield 1980 HALPERIN, S., On Aristotle's "Poetics," Tel Aviv 1978 (Hebrew) HERTZBERG, H.W., I & II Samuel. A Commentary (trans. J. S. Bowden; OTL), London 1964 HUMPHREYS, W.L., The Tragedy of King Saul. A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31, JSOT 6 (1978) pp. 18-27 JAPHET, S., The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (trans. A. Barber), Frankfurt am Main 1989 —, I & II Chronicles (OTL), London 1993 JOSEPHUS Flavius, Jewish Antiquities (trans. H. St. J. Thackeray & R. Marcus, LCL 281), London / Cambridge (Mass.) 1988 KROOK, D., Elements of Tragedy, New Haven / London 1969 LONG, B.O., 2 Kings (FOTL), Grand Rapids 1991 LONG, V.P., The Reign and Rejection of King Saul. A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence (SBLDS 118), Atlanta 1989 MISCALL, P.D., 1 Samuel. A Literary Reading, Bloomington 1986 NA'AMAN, N., The Past that Shapes the Present. The Creation of Biblical Historiography in the Late First Temple Period and after the Downfall, Jerusalem 2002 (Hebrew) POLZIN, R., Samuel and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History Part Two: 1 Samuel, San Francisco 1989 RAD, G.v., Old Testament Theology, Volume I. The Theology of Israel's Historical Traditions (trans. D.M.G. Stalker), Edinburgh / London 1962 ROFE, A., The Prophetical Stories. The Narratives about the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible, Their Literary Types and History (trans. D. Levy), Jerusalem 1988 WILLIAMSON, H.G.M., 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCB), London 1982

Glimpses of the Heroic Saul Gregory Mobley 1. The Darkroom As portrayed in 1 Samuel, Saul possesses, in isolation, a full range of heroic attributes: demonstrated valor (1 Sam 11:5-11; 14:20-23, 47^18), martial rage (1 Sam 11:5), the "breath of YHWH/Elohim" (1 Sam 10:6, 9; 11:6; 19:23), a signature weapon (his spear; 1 Sam 13:22; 18:10; 19:9; 20:33; 22:6; 26:7, 11, 12, 16, 22; 2 Sam 1:6), and even (perhaps) a special birth (1 Samuel l). 1 But these qualities do not add up to a heroic conclusion. And only briefly, for the span of 1 Samuel 9-14, is it Saul's story. Compared constantly to David, Saul's heroic profile is debased just short of caricature: his proud stature (1 Sam 9:2; 10:23), like that of Eliab's (1 Sam 16:7), an emblem for the folly of trusting appearances over reality (1 Sam 16:7); his special weapons and armor (1 Sam 17:38; 31:9-10), neither tokens of leadership nor souvenirs of stripped opponents, but superfluities and impediments (1 Sam 17:39, 47); his ecstasies (1 Sam 19:23-24), unlike David's dancing (2 Sam 6, 14, 16), an occasion for ridicule. Even in his heroic death on the heights of Gilboa (1 Samuel 31), Saul cannot escape David. Saul's body absorbs the Philistines' vengeance due David for slaying, then beheading, their champion, Goliath (cf. 1 Sam 31:9 with 1 Sam 17:51). This paper attempts to reconstruct the profile of the heroism of Saul ben Kish, now obscured in accounts edited by historians partial to his Iron Age rival, David ben Jesse. It is possible to sketch the outline of an ancient Saul tradition - at least the legend if not the man - from the "negatives" of Saul in 1 According to "the substitution theory" first proposed by HYLANDER (Samuel-SaulKomplex, pp. 9-62), a putative birth story of Saul was severed from its original subject and attached to Samuel; see also Dus, Geburtslegende; MCCARTER, 1 Samuel, pp. 26-27, 65-66. The primary evidence for this view is the frequent wordplay in 1 Samuel 1 with the verbal root V s'l, "to ask," the verb that forms the etymological basis for the name of "Saul," sa'ul, "Asked-for," "Requested" (1 Sam 1:20, 27, 28). TSEVAT (Namengebung) and ZAKOVITCH (Study), however, point out that - according to the standards of biblical etymologies - the partial correspondence between the verb V s'l and the name "Samuel," smw'l, was punning enough for ancient Israelite audiences. WHITE (History, pp. 287-288) contends that the brilliance of the use of V s'l in 1 Samuel 1 is that this single keyword resonates with the name of Samuel, and, at the same time, anticipates the name of Saul, the one that Samuel will legitimate as king. See also her essay in this volume.

Glimpses of the Heroic Saul

81

stories about David. I use "negative" not merely to mean "pejorative," but also in its photographic sense of a reverse impression. I seek to isolate features in stories about Saul in 1 Samuel 9 - 1 4 that are corroborated, inversely, by details in 1 Samuel 15-31 which offer explicit or implicit contrasts between Saul and David. Just as scholars have reconstructed the profile of David based on the overcompensations of his court apologists, 2 the image of Saul can be reconstructed based on the Davidic critique of Saul. The method of this study is to compare the picture of Saul that emerges in 1 Samuel 9 - 1 4 with the negative (pejorative) picture of Saul that emerges in 1 Samuel 15-31. Where details in 1 Samuel 15-31 mirror, with the fields reversed, details in 1 Samuel 9-14, we find negative (photographic) confirmation of authentic Saulide tradition. I want to enter the darkroom and re-develop the image of Saul, because at least one feature invisible in the final print of 1 Samuel, a lost episode that gave rise to the proverb "Is Saul among the prophets?" (1 Sam 10:12), begins to emerge only when we examine its negative in 1 Sam 19:1824.

2. The Negatives 2.1 Saul's

Stature

According to 1 Samuel 9-14, Saul was remarkably tall: "from his shoulders up, he rose higher than anyone else [among the Israelites]" (1 Sam 9:2; cf. 1 Sam 10:23). The currency of Saul's heroic stature, however, is devalued in 1 Sam 16:7. In an account there of Samuel's selection and anointing of David (1 Sam 16:1-13), Jesse's first born, Eliab, appears initially promising to Samuel (1 Sam 16:6) because of his handsome appearance and stature (1 Sam 16:7). But through some unspecified means, Samuel divines oracular rejection of Eliab's candidacy (1 Sam 16:7). The introduction of the details about the rejected Eliab's comeliness and height projects the long shadow of Saul onto the backdrop of this scene. For Saul, extraordinarily handsome (1 Sam 9:2) and exceptionally tall (1 Sam 9:2; 10:23), has also been rejected as YHWH's anointed (1 Sam 16:1). 3

2

M C C A R T E R , A p o l o g y , e s p . p p . 4 9 9 - 5 0 2 ; M C K E N Z I E , K i n g D a v i d , p p . 3 0 - 3 6 ; HALPERN,

Secret Demons, pp. 75-103. 3 METTINGER (King, p. 175) remarks that the rejection of Eliab represents a rejection of Saul "in effigy." See also WHITE, History, p. 283. Though faint, the description of David as haqqatan, "the youngest," "smallest," or "shortest(?)" of Jesse's sons in 1 Sam 17:14, may also underscore the contrast in Saul and David's appearance (BRETTLER, Creation, p. 103).

82

Gregory

2.2 Saul's

Mobley

Inspiration

In 1 Samuel 9 - 1 4 , Saul exhibits the martial rage, or battle fury, suitable to a great warrior. The biblical idiom for divinely inspired battle fury is "the rushing ( V slh) of the breath of YHWH/Elohim" over a warrior (for Samson, see Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14; for Saul, 1 Sam 10:10, 11:6; for David, 1 Sam 16:13). After the breath of Elohim rushes over Saul (1 Sam 11:6), he heats up (wayyihar appo me dd), then musters an army (1 Sam 11:8), and, ultimately, leads it to victory over the Ammonites (1 Sam 11:11). 4 The breath of YHWH also comes "upon" Othniel and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 11:29) and "clothes i t s e l f ' with Gideon (Judg 6:34). Here, then, the use of this colorful idiom of the heroic dialect with reference to Saul in 1 Sam 10:10 and 11:6 suggests that he, like Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, and David possessed the requisite super- or subhuman aggressiveness exhibited in and necessary for success in the violent scrums of Iron Age close combat. The negative impression of this heroic attribute of Saul is developed in 1 Sam 16:13, where it says that, following Samuel's anointing ritual, the breath of YHWH rushed over David "from that day onward." This latter adverbial phrase implies that what Saul received provisionally and episodically, David possessed characteristically. 5 The next verse completes the transfer of the favor of a patron martial deity from one hero to the next: "The breath of YHWH departed from Saul and an ill wind from YHWH shook him" (1 Sam 16:14). From this point on, Saul's martial rage, often a marker of supreme battlefield performance, turns into a kind of madness, as he inappropriately erupts in domestic contexts (1 Sam 18:10-11; 19:9-10; 20:30-33), and turns against, not enemies, but YHWH'S anointed. 2.3 Saul's

Performances

As might be expected from a great warrior, Saul proved his mettle through supreme battle performance, as in the victory over the Ammonites mentioned above (1 Sam 11:5-11). According to the annalistic summary of 1 Sam 14:47^18, "Wherever [Saul] turned ... he performed valiantly" against Moab, Ammon, Edom, Philistia, and even against Israel's emblematic "official" perennial enemy, Amalek. In the pro-Davidic materials, Saul's heroism is acknowledged, but serves merely as a contrast to David's superior heroics (e.g., 1 Sam 18:30). The Iron Age female musicians and drummers who 4

By the way, Samson also "heats up" 15:14). Granted, the above phrase, wayyihar is a variant on the conventional idiom for become angry." Still, with Samson at least, 15:14, after the divine breath fills Samson, hands, as if the inspired hero were on fire. 5

WHITE, History, p. 283.

as a consequence of martial inspiration (Judg 'appo me'dd ("his nostril became very warm"), anger, usually - and properly - translated, "to there seems to be something more. For in Judg the Philistine restraining ropes "melt" from his

Glimpses of the Heroic Saul

83

performed their homecoming rituals upon the men's return from the defeat of the Philistines in the Valley of Elah (1 Samuel 17) could not praise David without denigrating Saul.6 Sure, Saul killed thousands, but David killed myriads (1 Sam 18:7; 21:12). For every valley raised, a mountain had to be leveled. 7 2.4 Saul's

Weapons

Throughout 1 Samuel and not merely in the chapters before David comes on stage, there are associations of Saul with weaponry, especially a spear, háriit. According to 1 Sam 13:22, Saul and Jonathan, alone among the Israelite warriors, had sword (hereb) and spear (háriit). Saul's attachment to his háriit is noted throughout 1 Samuel (cf. 1 Sam 18:10; 19:9; 20:33; 22:6, and 26:622). The frequency of these notices suggests that Saul's háriit was his signature weapon. Davy Crockett had "Old Betsy," Arthur had "Excalibur," Moses in the Book of Exodus (and Jewish folklore) had "the Staff of Elohim" (Exod 4:20; 7:9, 20b; 9:22-23; 10:13; 14:16; 17:5-6, 9-12), and Saul, in fact or tradition, had his own signature háriit. It is telling that, in the self-serving account of Saul's death that the messenger in 2 Samuel 1 brings to David, this survivor's testimony includes a reference to Saul "leaning on his háriit" (2 Sam 1:6). We do not know how much of the messenger's story to believe, but his reference to Saul's spear, whether we are to suppose that it is accurate in this detail or wholly invented in order to add verisimilitude to his fiction, confirms that this "arm" and this "man" were inseparable. In the same way, David's theft of Saul's spear in 1 Samuel 26 confirms the iconographic connection between Saul and his háriit. So Saul was known for his spear. The possession of special weapons, as in the note that Saul and Jonathan alone possessed proper arms in 1 Sam 13:22, or in the note in the story of David and Goliath that Saul had a bronze helmet, coat of mail, and sword (1 Sam 17:38; cf. 1 Sam 31:9-10), are tokens of his status as a warlord. Special weapons, stripped from slain elite opponents, could also be markers of status in a martial subculture (1 Sam 17:51; 21:8-9). Curiously, however, Saul is never portrayed wielding his illustrious spear in battle in 1 Samuel. We read of him hurling it at family members and supporters at high table (1 Sam 18:10-11; 19:8-10; 20:24-33) or of watching David wave Saul's own purloined spear back at him across a valley (1 Sam 26:6-22). The clearest "negative" of Saul's facility with or possession of special weapons is developed in 1 Samuel 17. Saul offers David his armor (1 Sam 17:38-39), but the tall man's armor is too big for wee Davey (1 Sam 17:39). Wadi-stones and a sling are all David needs to defeat an even taller 6

For the female drummers, see BRAUN, Music, pp. 118-133. Or, as anticipated in Hannah's Song, the overture to the entire monarchical era, "The One who humiliates also elevates" (1 Sam 2:7). See PRESTON, Heroism, p. 28. 7

84

Gregory

Mobley

man, the Philistine champion equipped with a full kit of military gear (1 Sam 17:5-7). 8 We can hear David's taunt to his Philistine opponent across the Elah Valley echoing back to Saul and his anxious entourage stationed safely behind David on the heights: Let this entire gathered mass know: that it is neither by sword nor spear (hanit) that YHWH brings victory (1 Sam 17:47).

Saul's hard-earned tokens of martial status have become impediments and superfluities. After defeating Goliath, David strips the Philistine champion of his sword and armor and later deposits the sword in a shrine (1 Sam 17:51, 54; 21:10). After Saul falls on Mount Gilboa, the Philistines strip him of his armor and deposit it in their shrine (1 Sam 31:10). When David rejects Saul's armature, he symbolically strips his weapons of their efficacy, long before he personally pulls Saul's spear out of the ground and steals away from his camp in the Wilderness of Ziph (1 Samuel 26). 2.5 Saul's Men As a warlord, Saul would have led a set of warriors drawn both from his clan of Benjamin and other Israelite groups. According to 1 Sam 14:52, Saul enlisted a host of able men, any 'Is gibbor ("man of war") or ben-hayil ("son of battle") he came across. Saul also drew from his Benjaminite clan base around Gibeah (1 Sam 13:2-3), most notably his cousin Abner (1 Sam 14:5051; 17:55). The tribe of Benjamin was renowned in the Books of Judges and Samuel for producing fierce warriors, such as the resourceful assassin Ehud (Judg 3:12-30), a contingent of hair-splitting slinging marksmen (Judg 20:16), the gibbor hayil Kish (1 Sam 9:1), Saul, Jonathan (1 Sam 13:3; 14:115), and Abner. The account outside 1 Samuel 9-14 that counters, and indirectly affirms, that Saul did indeed lead a group of warriors drawn from Benjamin and other kinship groups does not come from 1 Samuel. Here, admittedly, I am moving further afield in the Deuteronomistic History. I would suggest that the account of the outrage at Gibeah in Judges 19, in which a woman is gang-raped and left for dead by the men of Saul's hometown, provides a negative image for the motif of Saul's men. Although this account precedes the era of Saul in story time, the addition of this account to the Book of Judges, by most analyses, is late and, therefore, post-dates the era of Saul in historical time. 9

8 On the historical impossibility of Goliath's array of armor, which mixes elements from different eras and cultures, see GALLING, Goliath; MCCARTER, I Samuel, p. 292. 9 According to MAYES (Judges, p. 15), the whole of Judges 17-21, including the above account in Judges 19, represent "monarchical propaganda" that could have arisen early in the monarchic period, but was added to the book of Judges after the Deuteronomistic editing took place.

Glimpses of the Heroic Saul

85

Saul's Benjaminite clan and hometown, though they could have been praised as the cradle of heroes, are ultimately maligned as a nest of sadists. 2.6

"Saul

among

the Prophets

"

The above results - in sum, that Saul was a tall Benjaminite warlord known for his prowess in battle and treasured spear - are neither novel nor remarkable. I hope, however, that I have persuaded readers that there is a method in the pro-Davidic accounts of Saul's descent into madness. Positive, heroic traditions about Saul are countered, or bettered, in stories about David. This brings us to the final negative of Saul that I will seek to develop. It is from the account of Saul's attempt to apprehend David at Ramah in 1 Sam 19:18-24, seen as the reverse impression of the account of Saul's solo mission to a Philistine garrison at Gibeath-elohim in 1 Samuel 10. Both stories make use of the proverb "Is Saul also among the prophets?" If the general trend discussed above is correct, the first use of the proverb (1 Sam 10:12) should mean something positive about Saul, and the second (1 Sam 19:24) something negative. Questions have been raised about whether something is missing or has been censored in the story in 1 Samuel 10. 10 1 am especially intrigued, and the entire line of thinking traced below is inspired, by Edelman's suggestion that Saul in 1 Sam 9:27-10:14 posed as a member of a prophetic guild in order to gain access to a Philistine prefect for the purpose of assassinating him. 11 For background, we should begin with the oracle attributed to Samuel in 1 Sam 9:16 that Saul should be commissioned to deliver the Israelites from the Philistines. In 1 Samuel 10, Samuel enacts this oracle, anoints Saul, and directs him, in general terms, to rescue the Israelites. In the same scene, Samuel commands Saul to travel to Gibeath-elohim, site of a Philistine "prefect" (1 Sam 10:5). 12 There, he will encounter a group of prophets, fall in with them, and... Do whatever you see fit to do, for Elohim is with you. (1 Sam 10:7)

The above lines are elements of war oracles, speeches delivered to warriors on the eve of battle by commanders or religious intermediaries. 13 As McKenzie

10

MILLER, S a u l ' s Rise; EDELMAN, S a u l , pp. 9 9 3 - 9 9 4 .

" EDELMAN, Saul, p. 993. For an earlier variation on this idea that Saul used the "cover" of the prophets in order to accomplish a military mission, see SEEBASS, Vorgeschichte, p. 161 n. 27. 12 For the reading "prefect" (nesib\ LXX; cf. MT 1 Sam 13:3) as opposed to the MT "prefects" (nesibim), see MILLER, Saul's Rise, p. 159 n. 8; MCCARTER, I Samuel, p. 172. 13 For examples of war oracles, see Deut 31:6; Josh 1:9; 10:25. About the general subject of war oracles, see CONRAD, Fear.

86

Gregory

Mobley

puts it, "the instruction 'to do whatever you see fit to do' is a military commission." 14 In the wake of Samuel's general and specific commissions, and with the invocation of ritual martial terminology, we are prepared for some sort of military exploit. All the principals - Saul as the hero/assassin, the Philistine prefect as the victim, and the band of prophets as the Trojan Horse among whose benign ranks Saul sneaks into the arena - are in place for the climax of an adventure story. A different Benjaminite hero, Ehud, once sneaked into the palace of an enemy king under diplomatic cover and assassinated King Eglon of Moab (Judg 3:12-30). But, the conclusion of the story in 1 Sam 10:9-13 disappoints those expecting heroics. "All these signs were fulfilled that day" according to 1 Sam 10:9b, but they amounted to Saul falling in among the group of prophets and behaving in whatever way prophets did in those days, inspiring the popular proverb. A trace does remain of Saul's adventure at Gibeath-elohim in the note of 1 Sam 13:4 that "Saul had slain the prefect (nesib) of the Philistines." But, no details are given and the preceding verse has attributed this same kill to Jonathan (1 Sam 13:3). That is as far as an initial analysis of 1 Samuel 10 can take us. Let us enter the darkroom and develop the negative of this story from the account in 1 Sam 19:18-24. In 1 Sam 19:18-24, Saul seeks to apprehend and then kill (1 Sam 19:15) David. David, meanwhile, has fled to Ramah and sought the protection of Samuel. The prophet-priest Samuel protects David, first from two details of Saul's men and, finally, from Saul himself, through priestcraft. 15 Samuel, in effect, hurls inspiration and ecstasy on Saul and his men, leading them, in the words of the NRSV, to "fall into a frenzy" (1 Sam 19:20, 21, 23-24). At the end of this story, we are again treated to the proverb (1 Sam 19:24). Here, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" means that Saul is a mere ecstatic, a possessed, out-of-control man, overwhelmed and overpowered by the prophetic aura that Samuel conjures around David like an invisible force field. Is Saul among the prophets? Is Saul a gibbdr or a nabV? Is Saul a man or a self-lacerating, babbling, whirling exhibitionist? Thus, the story in 1 Sam 19:18-24 is about the use of prophetic frenzy to impede an attempt by Saul to kill an opponent, here David. Now, let us return to the earlier account that features the proverb. What if the story in 1 Samuel 10 is about the use of prophetic frenzy to aid an attempt by Saul to kill an opponent, the Philistine prefect? Such a violent climax is missing from 1 Sam 10:9-13, but the faint outlines of such details do begin to emerge when that story is juxtaposed with its negative impression in 1 Sam 19:18-24. In its second context, which McCarter refers to as "a kind of parody" of the earlier account, the proverb implies that Saul is a laughable, ineffectual 14 15

MCKENZIE, Annotations, p. 414; see also EDELMAN, King Saul, p. 54. For a similar prophetic feat, see 2 Kgs 1:9—16.

Glimpses of the Heroic Saul

87

figure. 16 In its first context, the proverb implies that Saul is cunning and resourceful. Is Saul also among the prophets? Yes, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a snake in the grass, a gibbdr masquerading as a nabV.

Bibliography BRAUN, J., Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine. Archaeological, Written, and Comparative Sources, Grand Rapids 2002 BRETTLER, M.Z., The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, London 1995 CONRAD, E., Fear Not Warrior, Chico (Calif.) 1985 Dus, J., Die Geburtslegende Samuels I. Sam. 1, RSO 43 (1968) pp. 163 -194 EDELMAN, D., King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup 121), Sheffield 1991 —, Art. Saul, ABD 5 (1992) pp. 989-999 GALLING, K., Goliath und seine Rüstung, in: Congress Volume Geneva (VTSup 5), Leiden 1966, pp. 150-169 HALPERN, B., David's Secret Demons. Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, Grand Rapids 2001 HYLANDER, I., Der literarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex, Uppsala 1932 MAYES, A.D.H., Judges, Sheffield 1985 MCCARTER, P.K., I Samuel (AB 8), Garden City (N.Y.) 1980 —, The Apology of David, JBL 99 (1980) pp. 489-504 MCKENZIE, S. L., King David. A Biography, New York 2000 —, Annotations to 1 Samuel, in: New Oxford Annotated Bible 3 , New York 2001, pp. 3 9 8 486 METTINGER, T.N.D., King and Messiah. The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (ConBOT 8), Lund 1976 MILLER, J.M., Saul's Rise to Power. Some Observations Concerning 1 Sam 9:1-10:16; 10:26-11:15 and 13:2-14:46, CBQ 36 (1974) pp. 157-174 PRESTON, T.R., The Heroism of Saul. Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship, JSOT 24 (1982) pp. 27^16 SEEBASS, H., Die Vorgeschichte der Königserhebung Sauls, ZAW 79 (1979) pp. 148-171 TSEVAT, M., Die Namengebung Samuels und die Substitutionstheorie, ZAW 99 (1987) pp. 250-254 WHITE, M., "The History of Saul's Rise." Saulide State Propaganda in 1 Samuel 1-14, in: "A Wise and Discerning Mind." Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long (BJS 325), ed. by S. Olyan / R.C. Culley, Providence 2000, pp. 271-292 ZAKOVITCH, Y., A Study of Precise and Partial Derivations in Biblical Etymology, JSOT 15 (1980) pp. 3 1 - 5 0

16

MCCARTER, I S a m u e l , p. 3 3 1 .

Saul among the Prophets (1 Sam 10:10-12 and 19:18-24) The Reworking of Saul's Figure in the Context of the Debate on "Charismatic Prophecy" in the Persian Era Christophe Nihan Among the various stories told of the first king of Israel, one of the most intriguing concerns Saul's presence among a band of prophets. In 1 Sam 10:10-12 and 19:18-24, we find two brief accounts offering alternative explanations for the origin of a (supposedly) well-known mashal ("saying"): "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (D'sain blNW Din). Both accounts relate in a different way how Saul came to be associated with a band of prophets, and how he even became implicated himself in ecstatic activities. Although it plays a minor part in the overall narrative of 1 Samuel 9-31 (from Saul's accession to the throne until his death), this glimpse of Saul's "prophetic career" is strange enough to deserve some closer examination. It has, I believe, some interesting implications for the history of prophecy in ancient Israel, as well as for the creative use which was made of the figure of Saul in the Persian era.

1. Saul among Scholars of Israelite Prophecy In the classic histories of Israelite prophecy, 1 Sam 10:10-12 and 19:18-24 very often played an important role in the reconstruction of early prophecy. These two passages were usually considered to be the "missing link" between Canaanite and Israelite prophecies. Their historicity was generally not disputed; Saul's ecstatic trance was sometimes regarded as a reminiscence of a typically "Canaanite" element in Israelite prophecy, whereas Samuel appeared as the true ancestor of the "classical" prophetic movement supposedly characteristic of pre-exilic Israel. This view was formulated extensively, for instance, by W.F. Albright in his study of the character of Samuel. 1 In any case, the tradition of Saul's ecstasy was frequently regarded

ALBRIGHT, Samuel.

89

Saul among the Prophets (1 Sam 10:10-12 and 19:18-24)

as an indisputable attestation of the "ecstatic" nature of early Israelite prophecy. 2 The historicity of the episode however gradually became more and more suspect, and a turning point was reached in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the publication of a series of articles by V. Eppstein, 3 J. Sturdy 4 and J. Lindblom, 5 all three of whom acknowledged - even if for different reasons and with different arguments - that the two aetiologies were entirely fictitious. Interestingly enough, this conclusion was closely related, for some scholars at least, to the radical questioning of the classic view of the ecstatic nature of "genuine" Israelite prophecy 6 - a point which is still debated today, and on which I shall briefly comment later in this paper. This result has now become widely accepted in critical scholarship, but it raises, of course, new problems regarding the origin, the meaning, and the intention of these stories, on which there is still no agreement. In his study of 1 Sam 9:1-10:16, L. Schmidt regarded 1 Sam 10:10-12 and 19:18-24 as two independent rationalizations for the well-known mashal crxrnn 7WÍ/ mn, itself originally connected to Saul's illness (cf. 1 Sam 16:14ff.). 7 Several authors have also surmised that the aetiologies would have emanated from prophetic circles in the monarchic era, 8 and W. Dietrich has proposed considering that the two stories reflected an evaluation of Saul's kingship stemming from conflicting prophetic groups. Dietrich traces 1 Sam 10:10-12 to a northern group, favorable to Saul, whereas the more critical aetiology in 19:18-24 would come from a southern Jerusalemite prophetic circle. 9 Finally, in his work on Samuel, P. Mommer regards both stories as two very old pieces of propaganda stemming from the time of David, one (19:18-24) being proDavidic and anti-Saulide, the other (10:10-12) being pro-Saulide. 10 Yet for of all their differences, these solutions have in common that they regard the two stories as ancient traditions which, despite their acknowledged 2

So, f o r i n s t a n c e , BUDDE, S a m u e l , p p . 6 7 - 6 8 ; GUNKEL, P r o p h e t e n , p. 3;

GUILLAUME,

P r o p h é t i e , p p . 1 4 1 - 1 4 2 ; LINDBLOM, P r o p h e c y , p p . 4 7 - 6 5 ; FOHRER, G e s c h i c h t e , p. 2 2 4 . N o t e ,

however, that in classic German scholarship, the episode of 1 Sam 19:18-24 was often regarded as a piece of fiction, with much less historical reliability than its counterpart in 1 0 : 1 0 - 1 2 . S e e , e.g., BUDDE, S a m u e l , p. 139; WELLHAUSEN, P r o l e g o m e n a , p p . 2 6 7 - 2 6 8 . 3

EPPSTEIN, Saul.

4

STURDY, Original Meaning.

5

LINDBLOM, Saul.

6

This is particularly apparent, for instance, in the article by EPPSTEIN, Saul. See also a classic study by RENDTORFF, Early History. See, however, LINDBLOM, Saul, pp. 37^10; SCHMITT, P r o p h e t i e . 7

8

SCHMIDT, M e n s c h l i c h e r E r f o l g , p p . 1 0 3 - 1 1 9 , e s p .

111-118.

So, for instance, STOEBE, Buch Samuelis, pp. 365-370 (for 1 Sam MCCARTER, I Samuel, pp. 330-331. 9 DIETRICH, David, pp. 86-89. 10 MOMMER, Samuel, pp. 95-97, 176-186. See also IDEM, Beitrag.

19:18-24);

90

Christophe

Nihan

fictitious character, are taken to reflect discussions among learned circles in the pre-exilic period. This common view is based mainly on the assumption that interest in the relationship between kings and prophets would fit better in the monarchic or First Temple period rather than in the Second Temple period, as well as on the observation - in itself quite correct - that Saul's presence among prophets is uncharacteristic of the Deuteronomistic ideology and that the episode is, therefore, unlikely to be simply Dtr's creation. 11 Yet it actually raises several difficulties and does not withstand - in my opinion - a closer examination of these stories in their literary context. I will therefore begin with a fresh analysis of 1 Sam 10:10-12.

2. 1 Sam 10:10-12 in the Context of the Narrative of Saul's Anointing by Samuel (1 Sam 9:1-10:16) Despite some occasional attempts to retrieve a traditional core behind 1 Sam 10:10-12, 12 it seems to me very difficult to read this passage as a completely independent story that would have been inserted at a later stage within the narrative of Saul's anointment by Samuel in 1 Sam 9:1-10:16. The plural of v. 10aa (if one keeps the MT here) 13 can only refer to Saul and his servant, who are gradually introduced in the course of chapter 9; above all, one cannot simply understand what Saul is doing in Gibeah and why he is seized by the DTI1™ m i without vv. 5 - 6 , where this event is foretold. Since 10:5-6 is itself part of the speech of Samuel to Saul in 1 Sam 9:27-10:8, it is clear that the account of Saul's ecstatic possession in 10:5-6, 10-12 presupposes at least a first version of the story of 1 Sam 9:1-10:16. In order to reconstruct an independent tradition, Schmidt can retain only 10:10a(3-12 and is, therefore, unable to exhibit a coherent story since, as he himself admits, the beginning is entirely missing. 14 It is very likely, furthermore, that the episode of Saul's prophetic trance in 10:10-12 did not belong to the original version of 9:1-10:16 but is a later addition. First, 10:9 offers a good conclusion to the preceding discussion " MOMMER (Beitrag, pp. 60-61) even considers that the two stories cannot be later than the death of the last Saulide (Meribaal/Mephiboshet) in the time of David. 12 See, for instance, SCHMIDT, Menschlicher Erfolg, pp. 103-119; also, BIRCH, Rise, p. 41. 13 The LXX and the Syriac versions read here the singular, but this is probably an attempt to harmonize with 10:5. 14 Menschlicher Erfolg, p. 119: "Die ursprüngliche Einleitung dieser Geschichte ist weggebrochen." Moreover, Schmidt also postulates that fragments of the original tradition are still preserved in 10:5 although he attributes vv. 5 - 6 to a later redaction, which makes his hypothesis of a traditional core in 10:10-12 all the more complicated. On the problem of the difference between Gibeath-elohim in 10:5 and Gibeah in 10:10, which is central to the reconstruction of Schmidt, see below n. 22.

Saul among the Prophets (1 Sam ¡0:10-12 and ¡9:18-24)

91

between Samuel and Saul, since it simply relates, in a very general way, that "all the signs" announced by Samuel were fulfilled "on that day." The report of Saul's possession by the DTiVn m~i in the following verses looks like a further development, unknown to the original narrative. This is confirmed by the fact that, contrary to what happens in 10:10-12, the accomplishment of all the other signs foretold to Saul by Samuel is only mentioned, but never described in the remainder of chapter 10.15 One might also add that the announcement made at the end of v. 6 is in tension with the statement of 10:9. According to v. 6, the conversion of Saul into "another man" is dependent on his encounter with the group of ecstatics, but this is not the case in v. 9, which seems, therefore, to ignore the prediction of 10:6.16 Second, there are several textual indications for the secondary nature of 10:10-12. 17 The plural of the subject in v. 10aa is in tension with its immediate context, vv. 9 and 13, where the narrative always mentions Saul only, and not Saul and his servant. The passage from singular to plural in vv. 9 to 10 occasions therefore a tension in the development of the story. S.L. McKenzie has recently suggested that the plural in v. 10a might be intended to prepare for the conversation between Saul and his "uncle" in vv. 14-16, where the plural is also used, 18 but this solution does not remove the tension between v. 10 and vv. 9 and 13, although the author of 10:10-12 might have had the following conversation in mind when he made his insertion. Moreover, there is a textual difficulty in v. 13, which is particularly interesting for our case against the originality of vv. 10-12. Whereas the MT reads "then Saul went to the high place (nann)," the LXX apparently had in its Hebrew Vorlage NYR&N, since it reads E I S T O V (BOUVOV (in 1 Samuel the LXX renders nsnin alone by o (3ouvos "the hill," except in 10:26).19 As is usually recognized, the Massoretic reading makes little sense here; the conjecture proposed by Wellhausen, who wanted to read njvnn, 20 has often been followed 21 but remains very speculative, even if it is attested by Josephus (cf. Ant. 6,58). In fact, it seems to me that the LXX should clearly be retained here as lectio difficilior, since the reading niHin in v. 13 contradicts the

15

On this, see in particular SCHMIDT, Menschlicher Erfolg, p. 63; and more recently

MOMMER, S a m u e l , p. 95. 16

SCHMIDT, Menschlicher Erfolg, pp. 65-66. Note that for this reason HERTZBERG wants to relocate the statement of v. 9, "and God gave him another heart," to the end of v. 10 (I & II Samuel, p. 78), but there is no textual support for this. 17 For this, see in particular the fine analysis of SCHMIDT, Menschlicher Erfolg, pp. 115117. 18 MCKENZIE, Trouble with Kingship, p. 299. 19 Cf. 7:1; 10:10, 13; 14:2; 22:6; 23:19; 26:1. On this, see GRILLET / LESTIENNE, Bible d'Alexandrie, pp. 110-114. 20

WELLHAUSEN, T e x t , p . 7 5 .

21

So, for instance, by SMITH, Books of Samuel, p. 71; MCCARTER, I Samuel, p. 172.

92

Christophe

Nihan

indication already given in v. 10.22 But this contradiction is easily explained if one regards 10:10—13a as an interpolation. As Schmidt already suggested, 23 we have here a very clear case of Wiederaufnahme (resumptive repetition): The insertion of vv. 10-13a is indicated by the proleptic resumption (this time in the plural) in v. 10 of the phrase "he arrived at Gibeah" in v. 13b (cf. 1ST1 nnmin, in v. 10a). MT's harmonization in 10:13b is probably based on 10:5, where the ecstatic band is said to arrive "from the high place" (nanna). The borrowing is even clearer in the Syriac version of 10:13, which reads mn bjm = nanna as in 10:5. This means that the story of Saul's ecstatic possession in 1 Sam 10:5-6 and 10-13a did not belong to the original redaction of 1 Sam 9:1-10:16. Since the story presupposes most of the preceding narrative in chapters 9 and 10 and cannot be considered, therefore, an old and originally independent tradition, it should be regarded as a literary creation inserted in chapter 10 after the first redaction of the account of Saul's anointing in 1 Sam 9:1-10:16. A brief examination of the formation of 9:1-10:16 should help us situate the origin of 10:10-12.

3. 1 Sam 10:10-12 as a Post-Deuteronomistic Reinterpretation of Saul's Divine Inspiration Several tensions in the narrative (as for instance in the identification of the anonymous "seer" with the prophet Samuel) and the presence of redactional and editorial notices (cf. for instance 9:9) have long since led scholars to recognize that the story in 1 Sam 9:1-10:16 is not all in one piece but has been composed in several steps. In his detailed examination of these chapters, 22 Some authors who retain the reading of the LXX propose explaining the contradiction by assuming that the "Gibeah" mentioned in 10:13 LXX was not the same place as the Gibeath-elohim referred to in 10:5; so, e.g., BUDDE, Samuel, p. 70. But this view is undermined by the fact that 10:10 already speaks of Gibeah, and not Gibeath-elohim, although it obviously refers to the same place as the one mentioned in 10:5! Thus, the tension between 10:10 and 10:13 in LXX is unmistakable. It is generally acknowledged now that in the stories about Saul (but not in 1 Sam 7:1, for instance, which belongs to a different tradition), Gibeah, Gibeah of Saul (11:4; 15:34), Gibeah of Benjamin (13:2, 15, 16; 14:6), and Gibeath-elohim in 10:5 refer to the same location; see, e.g., MILLER, Geba/Gibeah. The name Gibeath-elohim might refer more specifically to the sanctuary near Gibeah of Benjamin (= modern Tell el-Füfí), which would explain the reference to the "high place" in 10:5. The fact that the reference to Gibeathelohim in 10:5 is unique in the Hebrew Bible is not, therefore, a trace of an old tradition about a mysterious "hill of God" (so SCHMIDT, Menschlicher Erfolg, pp. 113-114); it should rather be understood in the context of the narrative of 10:5-6, 10-12, which obviously seeks to associate the ecstatic prophets with the sanctuary of Gibeah of Benjamin. 23

SCHMIDT, Menschlicher Erfolg, pp. 115-116.

Saul among the Prophets (1 Sam 10:10-12 and

19:18-24)

93

Schmidt has convincingly established that the actual shape of 1 Sam 9:110:16 did not result from the juxtaposition of various sources, as was sometimes assumed in the classic approach, 24 but that one had to distinguish between two basic levels: a tradition about Saul's quest for his father's asses, in which he was finally led to meet an anonymous seer, and a redaction, which transformed the traditional story into a new story about Saul's anointment as nagid over Israel by the prophet Samuel himself. 25 Schmidt has been widely followed ever since, 26 although there is still some disagreement over the precise extent of each level; however, this question can be left aside here. Concerning the redactional level in 9:1-10:16, there is general agreement now to consider that the main contribution of this redaction is to be found in 9:15-17 and 10:1, since it is these verses that introduce the motif of Saul's anointment. Although several authors are very confident of the possibility of retrieving a pre-Dtr edition of 1 Sam 9:1-10:16, a closer look at the formulation of the redactional passages in this story makes obvious, in my opinion, that the introduction of the anointment motif, and therefore the redaction of 9:1-10:16, should be attributed to the Dtr school as T. Veijola 27 and more recently McKenzie 28 have asserted. The language of 9:16b is typically Dtr, 29 as is the formulation of 10:1 LXX, which resumes several elements of 9:16. There is some debate over whether the shorter version of the MT or the longer one of the LXX should be preferred in 10:1. In my view, the LXX has to be retained here too as lectio difficilior. The plus that the Greek reading preserves mentions a single sign, which contradicts 10:7-9 where several signs occur; and the command to Saul to deliver Israel from all his enemies stands in tension with 9:16, where only the Philistines are mentioned. 30 The formulation of 1 Sam 10:1 in the LXX is more clearly Dtr,

24 See, for instance, HERTZBERG, I & II Samuel, pp. 78-79; SEEBASS, Vorgeschichte (see, however, IDEM, David). 25

C f . SCHMIDT, M e n s c h l i c h e r E r f o l g , p p . 5 8 - 1 0 2 .

26

See inter alia METTINGER, King and Messiah, pp. 64-79; BIRCH, Rise, pp. 2 9 ^ t 2 ; MOMMER, Samuel, pp. 92-110; SCHMITT, Berufungsschema; MCKENZIE, Trouble with Kingship, pp. 293-300. 27

VEIJOLA, K ö n i g t u m , p p . 7 6 - 8 2 .

28

MCKENZIE, Trouble with Kingship, p. 297. 29 See, for instance, Deut 26:7; 2 Kgs 14:26; and on this point VEIJOLA, Königtum, p. 74. The whole verse, with the following elements: complaint of the people, assurance that YHWH has listened, and sending of a deliverer, is typical of Dtr theology. See Judg 3:9, 15; 4:3; 6:6; 1 0 : 1 0 , 12, 1 4 ; 1 S a m 1 2 : 8 , 10. 30

The reading of the MT is therefore an attempt to harmonize the original Hebrew. Some authors (so MCCARTER, I Samuel, p. 171), have advanced the view that the shorter MT would have resulted from an omission by haplography, but this seems less likely to me (see on this the critical remarks by PISANO, Additions, pp. 166-169).

94

Christophe

Nihan

but even in the M T the reference to the N?RC of Y H W H is unmistakable and suggests Dtr authorship, 31 whereas the motif of Saul's unction as Israel's nagid goes back to 9:16 (Dtr). Incidentally, this conclusion makes it very difficult, in my view, to reconstruct a pre-Dtr edition of the stories of Saul's rise to the throne in 1 Samuel 9-15, 3 2 even if we cannot completely exclude the possibility that Dtr had at his disposal a cycle of traditions about Saul (probably of northern [Benjaminite?] origin), 33 which may have been loosely connected to each other and which gave him the base material with which to compose the stories in 1 Sam 9:1-10:16; 11; and 13-14. 34 If the author responsible for the redaction of 1 Sam 9:1-10:16 is identified with Dtr, this means that we have to regard the story of Saul's possession by the DTi^S rvn in 10:5-6 and 10 13a as a post-Dtr addition, since, as we have seen, it did not belong to the original (Dtr) redaction of 9:1-10:16. I believe MCKENZIE (Trouble with Kingship, p. 297 n. 38) is probably correct when he assumes that the apparent tension in the Greek text is in fact a technique used by Dtr when he inserted the story of 9:1-10:16 in its present literary context. Thus, the mention of the Philistines in 9:16 refers to the situation of Israel described in 1 Samuel 4-7, whereas the more general reference to the "enemies" of Israel in 10:1 LXX prepares the following report on the wars of Saul, which includes adversaries other than the Philistines (cf. 1 Samuel 11 and 15). 31 In the Dtr literature, the designation of Israel as YHWH'S nahälä occurs mainly in late Dtr or post-Dtr passages: Deut 4:20; 9:26, 29; 1 Kgs 8:51, 53; 2 Kgs 21:14; see also Jer 10:16. This conception is apparently later than the alternative conception presenting the land as YHWH'S nahälä. For a detailed analysis of the Dtr character of 1 Sam 10:1 LXX, see VEIJOLA, Königtum, pp. 75-76. 32 See, for instance, the classic study by MILLER, Saul's Rise; or NA'AMAN, PreDeuteronomistic Story. Note also that several elements in the narrative of 9:1-10:16 allude to previous events in 1 Samuel. The abrupt introduction of Samuel in 9:14ff. as a man in permanent conversation with YHWH (9:15) refers to 1 Samuel 1 - 3 (cf. 3:19-21), whereas the mention of the Philistine oppression in 9:16-17 presupposes the "Ark Narrative" in 1 Samuel 4 - 6 (4:lb—7:1). 33 The description of Saul in 1 Samuel 11, in particular, evokes the charismatic saviors in the Book of Judges, who are often seized by God's spirit before the battle (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6, 19; 15:14; compare in particular Judg 14:5-6 with 1 Sam 11:6-7!). It has often been surmised that the traditions of the "judges" of Israel came from a northern "Book of Saviors" (Retterbuch): see RICHTER, Bearbeitungen; IDEM, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. In this case, it is likely that in some northern (probably Benjaminite) circles, traditions comparing Saul with the Israelite saviors were elaborated and transmitted. 34

I leave aside here the question of the identity of the Dtr redactor in 1 Sam 9:1-10:16, whom I do not take to be the author of the "Deuteronomistic History" (Deuteronomy to 2 Kings). This history is probably a later (Persian) creation, as is suggested in particular by the fact that the Book of Judges has few traces of Dtr editing and is only loosely related to the other books in the Deuteronomistic History. In addition to a first version of the Deuteronomic code, the original Dtr edition probably included only Samuel-Kings; see already PROVAN, Hezekiah, pp. 158-163; and more recently KRATZ, Komposition, pp. 174ff.; OTTO, Deuteronomium, pp. 15-16 n. 15 and passim.

Saul among the Prophets (1 Sam 10:10-12 and

19:18-24)

95

this conclusion makes it possible to catch much more clearly the meaning and the intention of this story. In the Dtr version of Saul's anointing, Saul stands in the tradition of the great charismatic leaders (see Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14). The presence of Y H W H at his side (cf. the [Deuteronomistic? 35 ] Mitseinformel in 1 Sam 10:7: "For God is with you") was to manifest itself in the form of a military achievement accomplished under the guidance of the divine spirit, as is made clear in 1 Samuel 11 (cf. 11:6ff.). 36 Schmidt has also demonstrated that the expression "Do what your hand finds to do" in 10:7 means that Saul has to employ the competence that has been granted to him, namely as a war leader against Israel's enemies. 37 The insertion of the account of Saul's ecstatic possession in 1 Sam 10:5-6, 10-13a gives an entirely different meaning to the divine inspiration of Saul. The dependence of 10:6 and 10:10 upon 11:6 is manifest (all three passages use the same formula), 38 but the possession by the spirit of YHWH no longer takes place in a military context. It is now a purely ecstatic phenomenon: Saul falls into a prophetic trance and becomes for a while "another man" (10:6). The episode has no further implications in the terms of the whole story of Saul's ascension to kingship. It is mostly a witness to the reality and power of the crnVx mi, which no one can resist and which is so powerful that it can momentarily turn even a man like Saul into a prophet. The legendary motif of Saul's enigmatic connection with the prophets, still witnessed by the traditional saying "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (10:12b), becomes here the occasion to reinterpret the divine inspiration of Saul on the battlefield (1 Samuel 11) in terms of a strictly prophetic inspiration.

35 So already CROSS, Canaanite Myth, p. 252. The Mitseinformel is frequent in the Dtr literature, but it is too widespread in the ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Bible to be regarded as being characteristic of the Dtr idiom. 36 There are interesting parallels between the tradition about Saul in 1 Samuel 11 and the stories about Samson in Judges 13-16 (compare in particular Judg 14:5-6 and 1 Sam 11:6-7: while being seized by the spirit of God, both Samson and Saul tear an animal to pieces), but the traditions about Samson are difficult to date. 37

38

SCHMIDT, M e n s c h l i c h e r E r f o l g , p p . 7 4 - 7 8 . S e e a l s o BLENKINSOPP, G i b e o n , p . 2 .

Compare: ' j w ' w • i n'?x-rrn rf?xm (11:6) mrr m i -p 1 » nrftsi (10:6) crn1?« m i rfreni (10:10) (The majority recension witnessed by the M T should be followed here; the Hebrew and Greek Mss reading mrp instead of QTibx in 10:10 and 11:6 are probably attempts to harmonize the text with 10:6).

96

Christophe

Nihan

4. The Prophetic Redaction of 1 Sam 10:10—12(13a) in the Context of the Early Persian Era What we are witnessing, therefore, is a "spiritualization" of the gift of the •Tl^N m i to Saul in the post-Dtr reinterpretation of 1 Sam 9:1-10:16, which overtly subverts its original military signification in the Dtr account of Saul's rise to the throne. This development makes good sense in the context of the early fifth century. After the withdrawal of Zerubbabel, most of the local elites of the Persian province of Yehud had to suspend their hopes for a quick restoration of their national autonomy. This situation is also reflected in the (late Dtr) torah for the king of Deut 17:14-20, which asserts that the main duty of the king is to read and learn the Torah, and which already has in view a post-monarchic Israel. At the same time, we can observe a growing interest in the phenomena of ecstasy and charismatic inspiration among certain literate circles of Persian Yehud, as R. Albertz, for instance, has observed, 39 and as we can also deduce from the considerable corpus of prophetic literature edited at that time. This interest is particularly evident in the story of Numbers 11, where seventy elders receive a share of the divine spirit that is in Moses and then begin to prophesy (11:25). According to the classic literary-critical evaluation of the Pentateuch, this story was usually attributed to E, whereas the story of the quails in the same chapter was regarded as typical of J. 40 More recently, Numbers 11 has often been attributed to the Deuteronomistic composition in the Pentateuch ("D-Komposition"), 41 or to a post-Dtr Yahwist. 42 However, the episode of the gift of the divine spirit to the seventy elders in Numbers 11 is certainly not characteristic of the Dtr tradition, which is in general highly suspicious of charismatic, non-institutional prophecy (cf. Deut 18:9—22).43 Instead, the passage has several linguistic and stylistic affinities with postexilic prophetic texts, in particular with Ezek 37:1-14 and Second and

39

S e e ALBERTZ, H i s t o r y II, e s p . p p . 4 5 4 ^ 5 8 , 5 0 3 - 5 0 7 .

40

S o , f o r i n s t a n c e , DE V A U L X , N o m b r e s , p p . 1 5 1 - 1 5 3 .

41

So, for instance, BLUM, Studien, pp. 76-84; ALBERTZ, History II, pp. 479^180.

42

S o V A N SETERS, L i f e o f M o s e s , p p . 2 2 7 - 2 3 4 .

43

For the Deuteronomists, the only true prophet is a prophet "like Moses," the man of the Torah (Deut 18:18). The Dtr ideal of prophecy is probably embodied by the prophetess Huldah, whose intervention is strategically placed at the other end of the Deuteronomistic History (2 Kgs 22:14-20). Huldah's role is restricted to confirming the judgment upon Israel announced in the Torah. Whether the Dtr school already had in view the "end" of prophecy and its replacement by the written Torah, or whether it still kept the hope of a prophecy conforming to the spirit of the Mosaic Torah (so, for instance, OTTO, Deuteronomium, pp. 123, 229), can remain open here.

Saul among the Prophets (1 Sam 10:10-12 and

19:18-24)

97

Third Isaiah (chapters 40-55 and 56-66 respectively). 44 Thus, the only other passage in the Hebrew Bible where we find the idea that Y H W H would have placed his spirit in Moses is Isa 63:11 (cf. Num 11:17). The wish expressed by Moses in the conclusion to the story of the gift of the divine spirit in Numbers 11, namely that the whole people may receive the spirit of God and become a people of prophets (11:29), is a motif characteristic of post-exilic prophecy, which can be found in Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:27; 39:29; Joel 3:12. 45 It certainly corresponds to the expectations of certain charismatic and eschatological prophetic circles during the Persian period, as the reference in Joel 3:1-2 in particular seems to imply, 46 and the author of Numbers 11 should probably also be located in these circles. 47 In this respect, the names of Eldad and Medad, who do not belong to the "official" circle of the seventy elders, but benefit nevertheless from the divine spirit (Num 11:26-27), could be the names of eschatological groups near Jerusalem 48 Joshua, who opposes the propagation of charismatic prophecy among the people (11:28) and is rebuked by Moses himself (11:29), most probably stands here for the Jerusalemite (Deuteronomistic?) orthodoxy. Note that Eldad and Medad apparently receive the spirit of God without the mediation of Moses, since they stand outside the circle of the seventy elders. This means that the story of Numbers 11 wants to authorize - against the wishes of the Dtr elites - a charismatic prophecy that does not depend upon the Mosaic mediation (cf. Deut 18:18), that is, a type of prophecy that does not have to conform to the Mosaic Torah, but is legitimate in itself. If 1 Sam 10:10—12(13a) is a post-Dtr creation, as I have argued above, it should also be taken to reflect the concerns of certain charismatic groups in the early Persian era. Such groups apparently promoted the possibility of nonprofessionals having ecstatic experiences (trances), probably under certain conditions, which could lead to free prophesying. The parallel between 1 Sam 44

See, for instance, the analysis by RÖMER, Nombres, pp. 11-12; IDEM, L'école

d e u t é r o n o m i s t e , pp. 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 . S e e a l s o VAN SETERS, L i f e o f M o s e s , p p . 2 3 1 - 2 3 2 ; BRIEND,

Dieu, pp. 74-76. For the parallels, see in particular Num 11:23 Isa 50:2; 59:1. Num 11:17«-» Ezek 37:5, 14; Num 11:29 ) died in his transgression (VJYA) by which he transgressed (MA) against YHWH concerning the word of YHWH, which he did not observe, even consulting (Visa*1?) a necromancer to seek (ITFIN1?) (counsel). He did not seek (T£H7) YHWH and so he put him to death. (1 Chr 10:13-14a).

At the risk of over-simplification, the negative assessment can be diagrammed as follows: a

Saul Dies in Transgression b Failure to Observe the Word of YHWH c Consultation with a Necromancer b' Failure to Seek YHWH a' YHWH Puts Saul to Death

The review includes a number of wordplays, including one on the root in both verbal ("transgress") and nominal ("transgression") form. The term b'Jti is one of the Chronicler's favorites for profound infidelity and disobedience. 46 Some instances of ^ya explicitly involve trespass upon the sancta. These include Uzziah's offering incense inside the temple (2 Chr 26:16-18), Ahaz's plundering of the temple and his desecration of the sacred furnishings (2 Chr 2 8 : 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 2 - 2 5 ; 29:19), and the officers, priests, and p e o p l e ' s pollution o f

the temple (2 Chr 36:14). Other acts of directly involve the deity. These include defrauding YHWH (1 Chr 2:7; cf. Josh 7:1; 22:16, 20, 22) and worshiping other gods (1 Chr 5:25; 2 Chr 28:19). In this case, the author refers to "the word of YHWH, which he did not observe" ( NZ?X MRR"OT "lQ^"«1?) in language reminiscent of that used by the Deuteronomists. 47 But is this, as some suggest, a specific reference to a prophetic command of Samuel (e.g., 1 Sam 13:13-14 with 15:22-23 with v m ) disregarded by Saul? Or is it a reference to Saul's violation of the legal injunctions against necromancy? The use of "the word of YHWH" would seem to point to the former, but it is impossible to identify the exact source with any more

46

Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 2 9 - 3 3 ; MILGROM, Cult, pp. 16-35; JOHNSTONE, Leviticus,

pp. 2 4 3 - 2 4 8 . 47

WEINFELD, Deuteronomy, pp. 335 (# 14), 336 (## 16-17).

Israel 's First King

203

precision. 48 Both the laws of Moses and the words of the prophets (e.g., 2 Chr 20:20) carry prestige in Chronicles. In any case, it is pertinent that Saul dies in his transgression. In the Chronicler's work, one finds an emphasis on the positive results of repentance and reformation. 49 But King Saul never turns from his rebellious ways. The king's "consulting a necromancer" (31X3 ^ i s ^ ' D n ) , punning on Saul's name refers to the prelude to the king's disastrous last battle (1 Sam 28:3, 7-25). 5 0 Consultation with soothsayers is forbidden in legal texts (Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut 18:11) and condemned in prophetic texts (Isa 8:1819).51 The writer avers that Saul engaged the necromancer "to seek [counsel]." The elliptical use of the verb urn, one of the Chronicler's favorite terms to express divine inquiry and veneration, requires some discussion. 52 One employs a necromancer to gain access to the deceased. The necromancer becomes the medium through which the spirit speaks and delivers advice. For the Chronicler, reverencing a spirit, or another deity for that matter (2 Chr 17:3; 25:14-15), is the opposite of seeking Y H W H . The author claims that Saul sought counsel ( t i n ) by recourse to a soothsayer, but "did not seek" (BH7)

YHWH.53

To summarize, Saul's infraction, like that of Israel in Jeremiah, has more than one dimension. In the judgment oracle of Jer 2:10-13, the prophet faults Israel both for abandoning its deity, the fount of living waters, and for turning to "no-gods," broken cisterns that cannot hold water. Similarly, the Chronicler's critique is multi-faceted. He faults Saul for not observing the word of Y H W H and for not seeking God. He also criticizes the king for conferring with a necromancer. The assessment of Saul's reign as the nadir of the united monarchy is reinforced by a later statement David makes, when he proposes to Israel's commanders that the ark be retrieved, "Let us bring back the ark of our God to us, for we did not seek it ( i n w n ¡O) in the days of

48

1 Sam 15:23, "you rejected the word of YHWH" (MRR IXRNN NOSN); cf. 1 Sam 13:13-14, "you did not observe the commandment of YHWH your God" ( T ^ N MRR mxaviN mail? X1?). 49 JAPHET, Ideology, pp. 150-191; KNOPPERS, Images, pp. 449^170; KELLY, Retribution, pp. 46-134. 50 KALIMI, Paronomasia, p. 37. 51 The authors of Kings acknowledge, however, that the practice occurred during the Judahite monarchy (2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24). 52 On the Chronicler's use of itfn, see Mosis, Untersuchungen, pp. 39-41; DUKE, Persuasive Appeal, p. 149; GRAHAM, Worship, pp. 124-141. Begg (Purpose, pp. 128-141) argues that the concept lies at the heart of Chronistic theology. 53 The statement may be compared with assertions found in Samuel (1 Sam 14:37; 15:31; 28:6). In 1 Sam 28:6 Saul inquires of YHWH, but YHWH does not answer him by dreams, lots, or prophets. See COGAN, En-dor, pp. 319-326.

204

Gary N. Knoppers

Saul" (1 Chr 13:3). 54 The age of Saul is explicitly cast as a time of religious decline and defeat. 55 In the Chronicler's work, the consequences of transgression C?sra) are severe. Uzziah is struck with leprosy (2 Chr 26:20-21), while Ahaz is punished with foreign domination (2 Chr 28:20). The worship of other gods by the Transjordanian tribes leads to their Assyrian exile (1 Chr 5:26), while the pollution of the temple contributes to Judah's Babylonian exile (2 Chr 36:17-21; cf. 1 Chr 9:1). In the case of Saul, the divine punishment involves regicide and the transfer of the kingdom to David (v. 14). The striking assertion that God "put him to death" (inrra 1 !) is not found in Samuel, but it accords with the author's notion of divine justice. In Chronicles one finds a correlation espoused between human actions and divine effects. 56 Given that Saul committed the transgression, he suffers the consequences. 57 In discussing Saul's death in the context of the Book of Samuel, McCarter comments that "the report of Saul's death is remarkable for its lack of finality."58 The tensions between the house of Saul and the house of David continue well after Saul's tragic death. When David becomes king over Judah,

54 In Samuel, the ark stays in Qiriath-jearim for some twenty years (1 Sam 7:1) after the Philistines no longer wished to have anything to do with it (1 Sam 4:1-11). In the context of Chronicles, David tenders this proposal, chronologically speaking, immediately after he has taken Jerusalem (11:4-9). The material in 11:10-12:41 is, as we have seen, a historical retrospect. 55 There is one exception to this topos of religious regression. In discussing the Levitical supervision of the treasuries, the author mentions that the treasury of the house of dedicated gifts included dedications from Saul son of Kish (1 Chr 26:28). Although complimentary to Saul, perhaps not too much should be made of this notice. Other benefactors include David, the ancestral heads, the commanders of thousands and hundreds, the leaders of the army, Samuel the seer, Abner son of Ner, and Joab son of Zeruiah (1 Chr 26:26-28). It seems that any Israelite contemporary of David, who was of any consequence and who ever waged war, made a dedicatory gift. 56 CHILDS, Introduction, pp. 651-653. The doctrine is sometimes called the Chronicler's theology of immediate retribution, but this is too simplistic (KELLY, Retribution). The Chronicler's work includes numerous counter-examples to the principle it upholds (BEN ZVI, Another Look). 57 A similar interpretive strategy is evident in the Chronicler's handling of Jeroboam, the first king of the rebellious northern kingdom. Having chosen not to narrate the independent course of the northern realm, the Chronicler alludes to Jeroboam's sins in the context of his treatment of Rehoboam (2 Chr 11:13-17) and Abijah (2 Chr 13:5-12; KNOPPERS, Israel's War, pp. 511-532). In the aftermath of Abijah's victory in holy war against Jeroboam, "YHWH struck him [Jeroboam] and he died" (nn'l mn1 inDPl; 2 Chr 13:20). No such claim is made in Kings. There the downfall of the northern kingdom is tied to the foundation and per-

p e t u a t i o n o f J e r o b o a m ' s c o u n t e r c u l t u s (1 K g s 1 4 : 7 - 1 8 ; 2 K g s 1 7 : 2 1 - 2 3 ; KNOPPERS, T w o

Nations, pp. 73-120), but Jeroboam himself reigned for "twenty-two years and slept with his f a t h e r s " (1 K g s 1 4 : 2 0 ) . 58

MCCARTER, I S a m u e l , p. 4 4 3 .

Israel 's First King

205

Ishbosheth (Ishbaal) Saul's son reigns as king over Israel (2 Sam 2:1-11). Capitalizing on his earlier relationship with the house of Saul, David sets Michal's return to his household as a condition in the negotiations with Abner for Ishbosheth's crown (2 Sam 3:12-16). That the only surviving male member of Saul's house Mephibosheth (Merib-baal), the son of slain Jonathan, is crippled further complicates the matter of the Saulide succession (2 Sam 4:4; 9:1-13; 21:7). Later, when David himself encounters severe political troubles and his very future is in jeopardy, Mephibosheth expresses the hope that the throne would return to the house of Saul (2 Sam 16:3). David's throne survives, of course, but his relations to Saul's house are clouded by David's inconstancy to Mephibosheth. 59 Subsequently, David surrenders seven more of Saul's descendants, who are summarily executed by the Gibeonites (2 Sam 21:1-9). David is thus very much involved in Saul's family affairs, even though the authors of Samuel defend David against the charge that he was complicit in the tragic demise of Saul and his family. 60 In short, the authors of Samuel concede that negative relations between the house of Saul and the house of David continued throughout most of David's reign. In contrast with Samuel, there is a sense of finality in the Chronicler's depiction of Saul's demise. The circumstances and results of his death are unambiguous. Saul's transgression means that his life is ended and his royal regime is terminated. Thousands of Benjaminites endorse the new order. From the beginning to the end of his reign, David enjoys the support of his entire nation. To be sure, there is one hint of tension on the part of the house of Saul toward David. In an elaborate portrait, Chronicles presents wellattired Levites and Israel's reverend king leading the ancient palladium's triumphant procession into the City of David. 61 "As the ark of the covenant of Y H W H entered the City of David, Michal the daughter of Saul gazed through the window and saw King David, dancing and performing, and she despised him in her heart" (1 Chr 15:29). 62 The retention of this notice from 2 Sam 6:16 might, at first glance, seem odd. Why does the author include this short vignette? For some, the inclusion of this notice results from incomplete and inconsistent editing, "a mark of the unskillful art of the Chronicler." 63 But the text should be read in the context of Chronicles, which presents its own distinctive perspective on Saul, his household, and the tribe of Benjamin from

59

A behavior that bothered the early interpreters (e.g., Tg. 1 Chr 9:40; b. Yoma 22b).

60

M C K E N Z I E , K i n g D a v i d , p p . 6 9 - 1 1 0 ; HALPERN, S e c r e t D e m o n s , p p . 1 4 - 3 1 , 2 8 0 - 2 8 7 .

61 The behavior of David and the other participants is consistent with the pattern of ancient Near Eastern festivals, which featured banquets, sports, miming, and singing to honor the

g o d s (SASSON, W o r s h i p , p p . 1 5 1 - 1 6 9 ) . 62

So the MT and the LXX. MT 2 Sam 6:13 "leaping and whirling before YHWH."

63

CURTIS / MADSEN, C h r o n i c l e s , p . 2 1 9 .

206

Gary N.

Knoppers

which Saul stems. In 2 Sam 6:14 David is simply clad in a linen ephod, but in Chronicles this linen ephod accompanies David's other festal apparel (1 Chr 15:28). 64 The contrast between Samuel and Chronicles continues in the following verses. In 2 Sam 6:20 a scantily clad David is rebuked by an indignant Michal. But, the Chronicler omits this scolding and David's forbidding reaction (2 Sam 6:20-23). One should add that Chronicles does not include the Samuel texts narrating David's fickle treatment of Mephibosheth, his turning over members of Saul's family to the Gibeonites, and other material dealing with the continuing relations between the houses of David and Saul. 65 The combination of revisions and omissions transforms the entire subplot between Michal and David. In Samuel, Michal has legitimate grounds for complaint; but, in Chronicles her contempt is baseless. Her reaction to David is, however, consistent with her father's earlier posture toward the ark. 66 In Chronicles, Michal's attitude reflects badly on her and the fallen Saulide house she represents.

4. Saul, Benjamin, and the Late Persian/Early Hellenistic Era The status of Saul and his relation to David was probably a sensitive issue for some literati in the community of Yehud, including the Chronicler himself. This assertion may be surprising and requires some defense, given that the Chronicler lived during the late Persian or early Hellenistic period, some six to seven centuries removed from the age of Saul (as depicted in biblical texts). In the writer's time, three tribes dominated the community of Yehud: Judah, Levi, and Benjamin. Even though Benjamin was the least prominent of these three in earlier biblical sources, one should not underestimate the position of Benjamin in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras. Both written and material remains testify to the importance of this area and its people during the sixth through the fourth centuries. Recent archaeological studies have shed welcome light on the history of the area. Although destruction levels likely caused by the Babylonian invasions have been detected at many Judahite sites, there is also evidence of continuation of settlement at others, especially north of Jerusalem. Large areas of Benjamin and some areas of the northern Judahite hill country seem

64

On sacerdotal vestments, see Exod 28:39^T3; Sir 45:8. On the priestly ephod, see Exod

28:6-14. 65 Indeed, the Jeielite genealogy of which Saul is a member (1 Chr 9:35^44) casts Jeiel as the founder (literally, "father") of Gibeon. Chronicles thus associates Saul's ancestral family with Gibeon. See further, DEMSKY, Gibeon, pp. 16-23; EDELMAN, Saul ben Kish, pp. 1 4 2 -

159. 66

JAPHET, Chronicles, p. 308.

207

Israel 's First King

to have been largely unaffected by the Babylonian invasions. 67 In other words, much of Benjamin was spared the destruction suffered by Judah during the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar. Similarly, the severe depopulation experienced in many parts of Judah does not seem to hold true for Benjamin. 68 Archaeological surveys indicate that areas associated with Benjamin, excepting Jerusalem and its environs, did not undergo any significant population decrease until the late-sixth century. 69 Indeed, a Benjaminite town - Mizpah - became the administrative capital of Judah during Gedaliah's rule in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and the downfall of the Davidic dynasty (2 Kgs 25:22-24). The Babylonians probably maintained some sort of an official presence in the region until the ascent of Achaemenid rule. With the reestablishment of Jerusalem in the early Persian period as the capital of the province of Yehud and as the site of the Second Temple, the population of certain Benjaminite areas north of Jerusalem may have decreased slightly. 70 Whatever the case, the area of Benjamin remained a major component of the province as a whole. Biblical texts stemming from this period testify to Benjamin's importance. The list of repatriates in the list of Ezra 2 (//Nehemiah 7), for instance, mentions many Benjaminite names and toponyms (e.g., 1 Chr 2:20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33, 34). Some fourteen out of a total of twenty-two names in Ezra 2:20-35 are Benjaminite in character. 71 The Chronicler's own work bears witness to Benjamin's significance, even though it depicts the pre-exilic age. In the genealogies three tribes dominate the coverage and anchor the coverage given to all of the others: Judah (1 Chr 2:3^1:23), Levi (1 Chr 5:37-6:66), and Benjamin (1 Chr 8:1^10). 72 In an era in which kinship relations and the question of ancestry were of great consequence for determining status and self-identity, the prominence of Benjamin is striking. 73 Of special interest, in this context, is the fifteen-generation descending lineage of Jeiel, one of the

67

FINKELSTEIN / MAGEN, S u r v e y ; ODED, Policy, pp. 4 6 7 ^ 8 7 ; IDEM, B e n j a m i n , pp. 1 5 5 -

190. My assumption is that in the late pre-exilic age the kingdom of Judah contained parts of Benjamin. 68 A point acknowledged by STERN (Archaeology, pp. 303-350), even though he emphasizes the tremendous devastation caused by the Babylonians. 69

OFER, H i g h l a n d ; CARTER, E m e r g e n c e ; LLPSCHITS, J u d a h ; IDEM, D e m o g r a p h i c C h a n g e s .

70

LIPSCHITS, Demographic Changes; IDEM, Fall. EDELMAN (Saulide-Davidide Rivalry, pp. 69-91) contends that much of the Benjaminite population was resistant to the golah party, which sought to (re)establish its leadership in the region after 538 BCE. 71

RUDOLPH,

Esra,

pp.

7-28;

WILLIAMSON,

Ezra,

pp.

21-39;

BLENKINSOPP,

Ezra-

N e h e m i a h , pp. 7 9 - 9 3 . 72

One also finds attention given to Benjamin in 1 Chr 7:6-11, but I do not believe that all of this material is original to the Chronicler's work. See KNOPPERS, I Chronicles, 1-9, 4 5 9 460,468-469. 73 See the excursus on the genealogies in my commentary on I Chronicles.

208

Gary N. Knoppers

longest in the book (1 Chr 9 : 3 5 ^ 4 ) . 7 4 Along with the Davidic genealogy (1 Chr 3:1-24) and the Kohathite priestly genealogy (1 Chr 5:27^41), the genealogy of this ancestor of Saul is one of the longest in the Hebrew Bible. 75 The date of the end of this tally of generations is unclear, because there are no chronological markers to contextualize the appearance of the sons of Azel (1 Chr 9:44). Nevertheless, one would surmise that there were Benjaminites in Yehud who claimed ancestry from Jeiel and therefore familial kinship to Saul (1 Chr 9:39). 76 In the context of the ancient Mediterranean world, it would be unusual for a genealogist to compile such a long genealogy stretching well into the past, unless someone in the present had a stake in it. The possibility is strengthened by the fact that the lineage was later interpolated (in expanded form) into the lineages of Benjamin (1 Chr 8:28^10). Given the great number of children and grandchildren attributed to Ulam ben Esheq (1 Chr 8:39^10), it is conceivable that this later editor, much like the Chronicler himself, recognized the longevity of Saul's ancestral house and wished to underscore its vitality. In any case, the Jeielite lineage, as the predominant lineage of the Benjaminite genealogies, comprises an enduring aspect of Benjamin's legacy. In accordance with importance assigned to Benjamin in the genealogies, the tribe plays a sustained role in the monarchy. Benjaminites, including relatives of Saul, are among the first to support David (1 Chr 12:1-8, 17-19). Over against some earlier biblical texts, in which Benjamin is associated with the northern tribes, Chronicles postulates close ties between Benjamin and Judah. In spite of the crisis created by the northern secession, Benjamin, together with Judah and Levi, remains loyal to the normative institutions established during the united monarchy (2 Chr 11:1—4, 13-17; 13:4-12). During this period it is a consistent practice of Chronicles, over against the irregular manner of Kings (1 Kgs 12:21), to mention Benjamin's involvement

74 The later expanded version of this lineage in 1 Chr 8:29^t0 extends two generations beyond the slightly shorter parallel in 1 Chr 9:35—44 by mentioning the sons and grandsons of Ulam the son of Esheq the brother of Azel (cf. 1 Chr 9:44). Some (e.g., RUDOLPH, Chronikbiicher, pp. 80-81) contend that there are two separate lineages evident in 1 Chr 8:29-32 and 8:33^t0a. Given that the material in 1 Chr 8:29^10 exhibits both segmented and linear forms, 1 am unconvinced by this line of argumentation. Rudolph also suggests that Jeiel might be the postexilic (re)founder of Gibeon. One cannot dismiss this possibility, as Jeiel is undated. But the suggestion is unlikely for two reasons: (1) Jeiel appears many generations before Saul (see above); and (2) most of the Chronicler's genealogies begin with figures in the ancestral age. 75 By contrast, most lineages in the ancient Mediterranean world extend only a few generations (KNOPPERS, Genealogy, pp. 35-50). 76 My supposition is that the Jeielite genealogy and the priestly genealogy do not provide a complete accounting of generations. Even in long lineages names, especially obscure names and names covering middle generations, are easily lost or deliberately telescoped (KNOPPERS, Relationship).

Israel's First King

209

with Judah (2 Chr 11:12, 23; 14:7; 15:2, 8 - 9 ; 17:17; 31:1; 34:9). In this manner, the author implicitly underscores a continuity between the tribal constitution of the Judahite monarchy (Judah, Benjamin, Levi) and the constitution of Yehud in his own day. One can surmise, given Benjamin's position in Yehud, that the figure of Saul posed special challenges to the Chronicler as he composed his work. Of the two major non-priestly tribes of his own time, both could lay claim to royal houses. Not only did the Saulide and Davidic houses compete against one another, but they were for a time interrelated. The material in Samuel would provide Benjaminite readers with plenty of ammunition to claim that their most famous ancestor and his house were treated poorly by Judah's hero. However much the authors of Samuel defend the actions of David, they concede that he usurped power from an older dynasty. The historiographic challenges facing the Chronicler were exacerbated by the fact that he himself was a staunch supporter of the Davidic royal line. 77 He idealizes the DavidicSolomonic monarchy and focuses his narratives on the royal Davidic lineage that ruled from Jerusalem. 78 The fact that one finds long lineages of both the Davidic line (extending well into the late-Persian period) and the ancestral line from which Saul stemmed suggests that the Chronicler's interest in Saul was more than scribal. The author deals with the challenges before him by taking aim at Saul himself, all the while dissociating Israel's first king from his personal relations to David and from the support of his own tribe. He characterizes Saul's rule as degenerate and rejected by YHWH. Rather than presenting Saul and David as competitors from two different tribes, both of whom aspired to rule Israel, the Chronicler presents Saul as a one-time monarch, whose reign turned out to be such a colossal failure that it justified the deity's decision to execute him and turn the kingdom over to an entirely new regime. Driving a wedge between Israel's first king and the sodality of which he was a member, the Chronicler presents Benjamin as one of Israel's foremost tribes and its warriors as heroes. Along with earlier biblical writers, the Chronicler recognizes that the tribe of Benjamin had a historic stake in Jerusalem itself (1 Chr 9:34). In this context, the author can freely acknowledge that Benjamin furnished Israel with its first king. The lineage and tribe of Israel's first monarch are given their due. The Benjaminites, more so than any other Israelite tribe, strengthened their nation and realized prophecy by abandoning one of their own and supporting a new leader.

77

K N O P P E R S , R e h o b o a m , p p . 4 2 3 ^ 4 0 ; IDEM, I s r a e l ' s W a r , p p . 5 1 1 - 5 3 2 ; IDEM, D a v i d i c

Promises, pp. 101-111. 78 There are different interpretations (temple apologia, pro-Levite, messianic, royal, programmatic) of what this focus on Davidic kings comes to, but virtually no modern interpreter that I am aware of denies the focus itself.

210

Gary N. Knoppers

The manner in which the Chronicler recasts the story of Saul's death and alludes to a number of other events in Saul's career creates a fascinating new portrait of Saul, his relationship to David, the tribe of Benjamin, and the nation as a whole. By focusing on the last battle in King Saul's life, the author casts Saul's royal legacy in an unambiguously negative light. Saul's tenure appears as a negative paradigm: how not to rule over the people. 79 The aborted reign of Israel's first king is a national catastrophe. Saul's tenure establishes a forbidding precedent as to what transgression against YHWH may involve. Yet, not the tribe of Benjamin, but the actions of one member of one Benjaminite line are at issue. The same literary strategy that presents Saul's tenure as the nadir of the united monarchy distances his successor from Saul's regime. The fact that Judahite David succeeds Benjaminite Saul has nothing to do with lineage, marriage, inheritance, or clan politics. David comes to the kingdom because of divine choice and human acclamation. By casting Saul's replacement as a unifying figure for all Israelites in the past, the author attempts to secure his legacy for the future. The Chronicler urges his readers, including his Benjaminite readers, to consider David as a man for all Israel. Although he was once a fugitive from Saul, David undertakes no punitive measures against the surviving members of Saul's family. Instead, Saul's successor concentrates his energies on revitalizing his nation's affairs in the areas of cult, military affairs, national administration, and intertribal unity. When seen against the negative paradigm of Saul's rule, the national consensus that characterizes the rise and reign of David establishes a positive paradigm for later kings to emulate. In the aftermath of Saul's ruin, his family, tribe, and kingdom carry on. Indeed, the history of "the kingdom of YHWH in the hands of the sons of David" (2 Chr 13:8) is just beginning.

Bibliography Abadie, P., Le fonctionnement symbolique de la figure de David dans l'oeuvre du Chroniste, Transeu 7 (1994) pp. 143-151 —, La figure de David dans le livre des Chroniques, in: Figures de David à travers la Bible: XVIIe congrès de l'ACFEB (LD 177), ed. by L. Desrousseaux / J. Vermeylen, Paris 1999, pp. 157-186 A c k r o y d , P.R., The Chronicler as Exegete, JSOT 2 (1977) pp. 2-32 A u l d , A.G. Kings without Privilege. David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings, Edinburgh 1994 —, What was the Main Source of the Book of Chronicles? in: The Chronicler as Author (JSOTSup 263), ed. by M. P. Graham / S. L. McKenzie, Sheffield 1999, pp. 91-100 79

Yet he is not the worst king in the Chronicler's estimation. This dubious distinction belongs to Ahaz (Ben Zvi, Gateway, pp. 216-249).

Israel's First King

211

BEN ZVI, E., A Gateway to the Chronicler's Teaching. The Account of the Reign of Ahaz in 2 Chr 28,1-27, SJOT 7 (1993) pp. 216-249 —, The Book of Chronicles. Another Look, SR 62 (2002/2003) 5 - 2 6 BEGG, C.T., "Seeking Yahweh" and the Purpose of Chronicles, Louvain Studies 9 (1982) pp. 128-141

BLENKINSOPP, J., Ezra-Nehemiah. A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia 1988 BRAUN, R.L., 1 Chronicles (WBC 14), Waco 1986 CHILDS, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia 1979 COGAN, M., The Road to En-dor, in: Pomegranates and Golden Bells (FS J. Milgrom), ed. by D.P. Wright / D.N. Freedman / A. Hurvitz, Winona Lake 1995, pp. 319-326 CURTIS, E.L. / MADSEN, A.A., The Books of Chronicles (ICC), Edinburgh 1910 CARTER, C.E., The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period (JSOTSup 294), Sheffield 1999

DEMSKY, A., The Genealogy of Gibeon (1 Chronicles 9:35^44). Biblical and Epigraphic Considerations, BASOR 202 (1971) pp. 16-23 DUKE, R.K., The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler. A Rhetorical Analysis (JSOTSup 88), Sheffield 1990 EDELMAN, D.V., King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup 121), Sheffield 1991 —, Saul ben Kish in History and Tradition, in: The Origins of the Israelite States (JSOTSup 228), ed. by V. Fritz / P. Davies, Sheffield 1996, pp. 142-59 —, Did the Saulide-Davidic Rivalry Resurface in Early Persian Period Yehud? in: The Land that I Will Show You (FS J.M. Miller [JSOTSup 343]), ed. by J.A. Dearman / M.P. Graham, Sheffield 2001, pp. 69-91 FINKELSTEIN, I. / MAGEN, Y., Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem 1993 (Hebrew) FLANAGAN, J.W., Succession and Genealogy in the Davidic Dynasty, in: The Quest for the Kingdom of God (FS G.E. Mendenhall), ed. by H.B. Huffmon / F.A. Spina / A.R. Green, Winona Lake 1983, pp. 35-55 GALLING, K„ Die Bücher der Chronik, Esra, Nehemia (ATD 12), Göttingen 1954 GLATT, D., Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (SBLDS 139), Atlanta 1993 GRAHAM, M.P., Setting the Heart to Seek God. Worship in 2 Chronicles 30.1-31.1, in: Worship and the Hebrew Bible (FS J.T. Willis [JSOTSup 284]), ed. by M.P. Graham / R.R. Marrs / S.L. McKenzie, Sheffield 1999, pp. 124-141 HALPERN, B., David's Secret Demons. Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, Grand Rapids 2001 Ho, C.Y.S., Conjectures and Refutations. Is 1 Samuel XXXI 1-13 Really the Source of 1 Chronicles X 1-12? VT 45 (1995) pp. 82-106 JAPHET, S., The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and its Place in Biblical Thought (BEATAJ 9), Frankfurt am Main 1989 —, I & II Chronicles (OTL), Louisville 1993 JOHNSTONE, W., The Use of Leviticus in Chronicles, in: Reading Leviticus (JSOTSup 227), ed. by J.F.A. Sawyer, Sheffield 1996, 243-259 1 and 2 Chronicles. Volume 1: 1 Chronicles 1-2 Chronicles 9 (JSOTSup 253), Sheffield 1997 KALIMI, I., Literary-Chronological Proximity in the Chronicler's Historiography, VT 43 (1993) pp. 3 1 8 - 3 3 8

—, Paronomasia in the Book of Chronicles, JSOT 67 (1995) pp. 27^11 — , Z u r Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten (BZAW 226), Berlin 1995 KELLY, B., Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOTSup 211), Sheffield 1996

212

Gary N. Knoppers

KITTEL, R., Die Bücher der Chronik und Esra, Nehemia und Esther (HAT 1/6), Göttingen 1902

KNOPPERS, G.N., Rehoboam in Chronicles. Villain or Victim? JBL 109 (1990) pp. 4 2 3 ^ 4 0 —, "Battling against Yahweh." Israel's War against Judah in 2 Chr 13:2-20, RB 100 (1993) pp.511-532

—, Two Nations under God. The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, Volume 2 (HSM 53), Atlanta 1994 —, Images of David in Early Judaism. David as Repentant Sinner in Chronicles, Bib 76 (1995) pp. 4 4 9 ^ 7 0 —, Review of A. Grame Auld, Kings Without Privilege, ATJ 27 (1995) pp. 118-121 —, David's Relation to Moses. The Context, Content, and Conditions of the Davidic Promises, in: King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 270), ed. by J. Day, Sheffield 1998, pp. 91-118 —, The Davidic Genealogy. Some Contextual Considerations from the Ancient Mediterranean World, Transeu 22 (2001) pp. 35-50 —, The Relationship of the Priestly Genealogies to the History of the High Priesthood in Jerusalem, in: Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. by O. Lipschits / J. Blenkinsopp, Winona Lake 2003, pp. 109-133 —, I Chronicles 1-9 (AB 12), New York 2004 —, I Chronicles 10-29 (AB 12A), New York 2004 VAN DER LINGEN, A. BW'-YS' ("to go out and to come in") as a Military Term, VT 42 (1992) pp. 59-66 LIPSCHITS, O., Nebuchadrezzar's Policy in 'Hattu-Land' and the Fate of the Kingdom of Judah, UF 30 (1998) pp. 467^187 —, The History of the Benjamin Region under Babylonian Rule, TA 26 (1999) pp. 155-190 — Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple 586-539 B.C., Transeu 22 (2001) pp. 129-142 —, Demographic Changes in Judah Between the 7th and the 5th Centuries BCE, in: Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. by O. Lipschits / J. Blenkinsopp, Winona Lake 2003, pp. 323-376 —, The Rise and Fall of Jerusalem. The History of Jerusalem under Babylonian Rule, Winona Lake forthcoming MCCARTER, P.K., I Samuel (AB 8), Garden City 1980 MACHINIST, P.B., The Transfer of Kingship. A Divine Turning, in: Fortunate the Eyes That See (FS D.N. Freedman), ed. by A.B. Becke; a/., Grand Rapids 1995, pp. 105-120 MCKENZIE, S.L., The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History (HSM 33), Atlanta 1985 —, The Chronicler as Redactor, in: The Chronicler as Author (JSOTSup 263), ed. by M.P. Graham / S.L. McKenzie, Sheffield 1999, pp. 70-90 —, King David. A Biography, New York 2000 MICHEEL, R., Die Seher- und Prophetenüberlieferungen in der Chronik (BBET 18), Frankfurt am Main 1983 MILGROM, J., Cult and Conscience. The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA 18), Leiden 1976 MITCHELL, C., The Dialogism of Chronicles, in: The Chronicler as Author (JSOTSup 263), ed. by M.P. Graham / S.L. McKenzie, Sheffield 1999, pp. 311-326 Mosis, R., Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, Freiburg 1973 NIHAN, C. / RÖMER, T., Une source commune aux récits de Rois et Chroniques? TR 74 (1999) pp. 415^122

Israel 's Firs! King

213

OEMING, M., Das wahre Israel. Die 'genealogische Vorhalle' 1 Chronik 1-9 (BWANT 128), Stuttgart 1990 —, Die Eroberung Jerusalems durch David in deuteronomisticher und chronistischer Darstellung (II Sam 5,6 und 1 Chr 11,4—8). Ein Beitrag zur narrativen Theologie der beiden Geschichtswerke, ZAW 106 (1994) pp. 404-420 OFER, A., The Highland of Judah During the Biblical Period, Ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv University 1993 (Hebrew) VON RAD, G., Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes, Stuttgart 1930 ROTHSTEIN, J.W. / HÄNEL, J., Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (KAT 18/2), Leipzig

1927 RUDOLPH, W„ Esra und Nehemia (HAT 20), Tübingen 1949 —, Chronikbücher (HAT 21), Tübingen 1955 SASSON, J., The Worship of the Golden Calf, in: Orient and Occident (FS C.H. Gordon [AOAT 22]), ed. by H. Hoffner, Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, pp. 151-169 SCHNIEDEWIND, W.M., The Word of God in Transition. From Prophet to Exegete in the Second Temple Period (JSOTSup 197), Sheffield 1995 —, Prophets and Prophecy in the Book of Chronicles, in: The Chronicler as Historian (JSOTSup 238), ed. by M.P. Graham / K.G. Hoglund / S.L. McKenzie, Sheffield 1997, pp. 204-224 STERN, E., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732-332 BCE (ABRL), New York 2001 ULRICH, E.C., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19), Missoula 1978 WEINFELD, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972 WILLI, T., Die Chronik als Auslegung (FRLANT 106), Göttingen 1972 WILLIAMSON, H.G.M., "We are yours, O David." The Setting and Purpose of 1 Chronicles xii 1-23, OTS 21 (1981) pp. 164-176 — Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16), Waco 1985 ZALEWSKI, S., The Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul in 1 Chronicles X, VT 39 (1989)

pp. 449-467 —, Saul in the Eyes of the Author of Chronicles, in: Studies in Bible and Exegesis 4, ed. by B. Kasher / Y. Sefati / M. Zipor, Ramat Gan 1997, pp. 55-70 (Hebrew)

Josephus' View of Sauf Louis H. Feldman

1. Introduction Josephus' portrait of Saul stands in the direct line of the historiographical ideals of his predecessors in the Isocratean and Aristotelian schools and, in particular, with the apologetic glorification of his heroes. 1 The sheer amount of space that Josephus devotes to his account of Saul is a clear indication of the importance that he attached to him. Thus, he devotes 2.7 times as much space (2332 lines) to Saul (Ant. 6.45-7.6) as does the Hebrew text (1 Sam 9:1-2 Sam 1:27, 1065 lines). Moreover, what is even more impressive is that Josephus devotes approximately three times as much space to his encomium of Saul (Ant. 6.343-350, which totals 55 lines in Greek in the Loeb edition) as to his encomium of Moses himself (Ant. 4.328-331, which is 18 lines in Greek in the Loeb edition) or of David (Ant. 7.390-391, 16 lines in Greek in the Loeb edition), four times as much as to his encomium of Samuel (Ant. 6.292-294, 13 lines in Greek in the Loeb text), and approximately ten times as much as to his encomia of Isaac (Ant. 1.346), Jacob (Ant. 2.196), Joseph (Ant. 2.198), Joshua (Ant. 5.188), Samson (Ant. 5.317), and Solomon (Ant. 8. 211). Indeed, there is no scriptural figure for whom Josephus has as much to say by way of moralizing criticism as for Saul (Ant. 6.262-267). Whereas in the biblical chapters that deal with Saul (1 Sam 9-31), he is from time to time overshadowed by Samuel and David, this is hardly true of Josephus' treatment of him, where, indeed, Saul emerges as a grand, heroic, and tragic figure reminiscent of the Isocratean school of historiography. Whereas at times Saul appears to be an outright villain in certain passages of the Bible (1 Sam 1 4 : 3 6 ^ 4 ; 18:10-11; 18:20-29; 19:11-24; 20:20-34), and in others seems enigmatic (1 Sam 13:5-15), 2 Josephus, without whitewashing him completely, presents a much more favorable portrait of Saul. Perhaps Josephus was This is, with minor changes, the text of Chapter 14 of my book, J o s e p h u s ' s Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 5 0 9 - 5 3 6 . T h e editors and 1 are grateful to the University of California Press for its permission to reprint this here. 1 There has been no previous full-length treatment of Josephus' portrait of Saul. For a brief s u r v e y s e e HOLLADAY, T h e i o s , p p . 6 7 - 7 8 . 2

S e e HUMPHREYS, R i s e .

Josephus ' View of Saul

215

concerned to offset the negative picture of Saul which would result from focusing on the biblical narrative of 1 Sam 28:16-20, where we learn of his disobedience and punishment. 3 Certainly, we cannot doubt that the figure of Saul in the Bible is that of a courageous and modest leader, whose virtues are, however, marred by a strong streak of suspicion and madness. In other interpretations of his character we see opposing trends, notably that of the Talmudic rabbis, who sought to exaggerate his virtues, and that of Josephus' presumed contemporary, Pseudo-Philo, who in his Biblical Antiquities depicts him as wicked and cowardly, one who is not called "the anointed," the burden of whose selection rests on Samuel, with G-d's role diminished, and whom G-d employs as His rod in smiting the Jews before the advent of David the Messiah. 4 In the case of Saul, Josephus was faced with the problem of trying to reconcile the biblical tradition's praise of one hero (Saul) with its even greater praise for his mortal foe, David; and his picture of Saul consequently occupies a mean position between those of the rabbis and of Pseudo-Philo. Moreover, the rabbis underscore the supernatural aspect of Saul's heroism, whereas Josephus, as is his wont, downgrades this. Like Achilles, who deliberately chooses a short and glorious life in preference to a long life devoid of glory, and like Hector in the Iliad and Turnus in the Aeneid, who enter their final battles knowing that they must die, Saul prefers to obtain praise and an ageless renown and thus to win a reputation as truly wise, brave, self-controlled, and just - the four cardinal virtues of the Greeks - this in contrast with the picture of him in rabbinic literature, where Saul dies repenting of his sins in not obeying G-d's injunction to wipe out the Amalekites and in putting to death the high priest Ahimelech and his kin and the people of Nob. All this would seem to indicate that Josephus regarded Saul as one of his foremost paradigms in developing the goals of his work, both in terms of his general aims as a Hellenistic historiographer and of his more specific apologetic aims.

2. The Aggrandizement of the Character of Saul In the first place, Josephus interjects a number of touches simply to aggrandize the character of Saul. Thus, for example, at the very beginning of his Saul narrative, in the description of the background of Samuel's appointment of Saul as king, whereas the Bible declares merely that Samuel was being awaited to bless the sacrifice which the people had prepared (1 Sam 9:12), Josephus, in order to build up the appointment of Saul as king, represents Samuel not merely 3

4

S e e ATTRIDGE, Interpretation, p. 114.

SPIRO calls Pseudo-Philo "one of the great geniuses of ancient Israel and supreme master of the black art of character assassination" (Pseudo-Philo's, p. 120).

216

Louis H. Feldman

as the presider over the sacrifice but as host at a feast ( E a T i a v ) in the presence of many (Ant. 6.48). To build up toward the climax of Saul's appointment, Josephus gives the reason why Samuel had at that hour assembled so many people, namely that he realized that his daily prayer to G-d to reveal to him whom He would make king was now about to be fulfilled (Ant. 6.49). The drama of Saul's selection by G-d is enhanced because it is at night (Ant. 6.37-40), as in Pseudo-Philo (Bib. Ant. 56.3), and not during the day (1 Sam 9:15), and while Samuel is tossing with sleeplessness, G-d charges him to select the king whom He shall choose. 5 The suspense is further intensified because on the day before Saul's arrival, G-d had announced that at precisely that hour on the following day, Saul would come (Ant. 6.49), whereas in the Hebrew the phrase is vaguer, i.e., "tomorrow about this time" (1 Sam 9:16); and in the Septuagint there is no mention of the hour at all. To build up a sense of anticipation around the appointment of Saul, whereas the Bible declares that Samuel came out toward Saul (1 Sam 9:14), Josephus states that Samuel was seated on a housetop, "awaiting the coming of the time, and when the hour was ripe, he descended to go to the supper" (Ant. 6.49). In the Bible the housetop is not mentioned until later, when, after Samuel has already met Saul, he has a discussion with him there (1 Sam 9:25). In contrast, in Pseudo-Philo Saul is important not for himself, but simply as an instrument of prophecy of days to come (Bib. Ant. 56.3). Thus, in an extra-biblical addition, Samuel, when announcing to Saul his election as king, says that "G-d has raised up your ways (erexit vias tuas) and that your time shall be directed (dirigetur tempus tuum)." Saul's humble words in reply to Samuel are then presented as comparable to those of the prophet Jeremiah (Bib. Ant. 56.6). In this connection, one of the problems confronting Josephus was how to make Saul, as king, rather than Samuel, the prophet who anointed him, the center of attention, since a pagan audience, in all probability, especially in the days of the Roman Empire, would have been put off by a king who was a weak underling in the hands of a religious strongman. Josephus solves this problem by having Saul participate in the sacrifice at the time of his selection as king (Ant. 6.57), rather than having Samuel perform the sacrifice alone as in the Bible (1 Sam 10:8). The Bible gives the impression that Saul is a puppet of Samuel, since Samuel tells Saul to wait at Gilgal for seven days until he comes and tells him what to do (1 Sam 10:8). Josephus' Samuel, however, omits the phrase about Saul waiting for him to tell him what to do, and says merely,

5 A s SPIRO (Pseudo-Philo's, p. 127) has noted, in the Bible G-d selects Saul as king by day and renounces him at night (1 Sam 15:11, 16), whereas Pseudo-Philo reverses this (Bib. Ant. 56.3), while, on the other hand, David is not chosen at night (Bib. Ant. 59.3). Spiro suggests that S a m u e l ' s " m i s t a k e " in selecting Saul may have been due to the blurred vision of the night, but there is no indication of this in Pseudo-Philo.

Josephus'

View of Saul

217

"Thou shalt come, when summoned by me, to Galgala, that we may offer thanks-offerings" (Ant. 6.57).

3. The Qualities of the Hero as Seen in Saul Josephus' Saul, whom, as we have seen, Josephus consciously places at the center of the stage, emerges as a Hellenized portrait of a Jewish hero, with stress placed upon precisely those qualities that would appeal to a Greek audience. These qualities are, first, the external ones of good birth and handsome stature; second, the four cardinal virtues of character - wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice; and third, the spiritual attribute of piety towards G-d and family. 3.1 Good Birth In the first place, the great hero must be well-born. On the one hand, in Pseudo-Philo Saul's father is merely Kish, with no indication of the latter's ancestry (Bib. Ant. 56.4); and when he hears that he is to be king, Saul protests that he is a nobody: "Who am I and what is my father's house, that my lord should speak thus unto me?" (Bib. Ant. 56.6). In the Bible Saul is modest; but the author of the narrative, at the very beginning of his account of Saul, takes pains to name Saul's ancestors for five generations, while Saul's father is termed "a mighty man of valor" (gibbor hayil) (1 Sam 9: l). 6 Nevertheless, the names of Saul's biblical ancestors are of men otherwise unknown; and hence, rather than give the names of such obscure ancestors, Josephus prefers to speak of the good birth (EU yEyovcoi;) and virtuous character ( a y a 0 o c TO riQoc) of Kish, the father of Saul, in a formulation not found in the Bible (1 Sam 9:1 vs. Ant. 6.45). In contrast, the rabbis speak not of the high birth of Saul's ancestors but of their merits, particularly the virtue of his grandfather Abiel, who displayed his concern for the public welfare by lighting the streets in the evening so that people might go more readily to the houses of study (y. Seb. 3.10.34d). The rabbis go so far as to state that the reason Saul's kingdom did not endure was because no reproach rested upon his ancestors and, hence, no one could point to any inglorious ancestors in his line; whereas Rabbi Johanan concludes that one should not appoint as an administrator in a community a person who does not carry a basket of reptiles on his back (that is, an ignoble

6

Or, as DRIVER (Notes, p. 69) explains: "Here probably, as in 2 Kings 15:20, Ruth 2:1, a sturdy man of substance (not of valour, 2 Kings 5:1, etc.), a sturdy, honest (cf. on 10:26) well-to-do country farmer." Josephus thus stresses Kish's good birth and character, omitting the Bible's statement about his strength (Hebrew gibbor hayil, Septuagint SuvaToc, "strong," "mighty," "powerful") (1 Sam 9:1), since he wishes at a later point to focus on Saul's strength and bravery.

218

Louis H. Feldman

genealogy), so that, if he becomes arrogant, one may be able to tell him, "Turn around!" (b. Yoma 22b). As for Josephus, he depicts Saul as not showing disdain for others despite his good birth. In this connection, Josephus' contemporary, Pseudo-Philo, with whom he has a large number of parallels, does not mention Saul's distinguished ancestry at all, thus giving us our first indication of his intent, the opposite of that of Josephus, i.e., to downgrade Saul. 7 Yet, Saul's nobility of birth could seem to a Greek reader of the Bible to have been cancelled by his behavior. Thus the Greeks regarded the ass as proverbially wanton, this being reflected in the saying "more wanton than asses" (ovcov u p p i o x o T s p o c ) (Xenophon, Anabasis 5 . 8 . 3 ) . Lest Saul's search for his father's asses be regarded, then, as degrading for one of such high birth ( 1 Sam 9 : 3 ) , Josephus adds that these were fine (KOCAGOV) asses, in which Kish took more delight than in anything else that he possessed (Ant. 6.46). 3.2 Physical

Attractiveness

In addition to high birth, the great hero must be physically attractive. In its introduction to the personality of Saul, the Bible simply calls him young (bahur)s and good (tdv) (1 Sam 9:2). While it is true that the epithet "good" may imply mental or spiritual goodness, as well as goodliness in stature, the second half of the verse, which declares that there was no man better (tdv) than he, that he was taller than any of the rest of the people, suggests, through its repetition of the word tdv and the lack of a conjunction "and" after "better than he," that the word "good" has in view physical stature. The rabbis (Sotah 10a) likewise stress his physical stature, noting that he was one of the five biblical personalities who were created in G-d's likeness in their outstanding physical attributes and who incurred punishment on account of this distinctive feature, Saul's being his neck, which enabled him to tower over his fellow-Israelites, and which also was the part of the body through which he plunged his sword in order to end his life (1 Sam 31:4). Josephus' paraphrase of 1 Sam 9:2 considerably amplifies its portrait of Saul: he is not merely young and tall in stature, but is also best in shape, clearly implying handsomeness (Ant. 6.45). In particular, we may note Josephus' extra-biblical detail about the handsomeness of Saul (Ant. 6.45), which, to be sure, the rabbis also cite, remarking that the maidens engaged in lengthy conversations with him - a statement based on 1 Sam 9:11-13 - in order to feast their eyes on his good looks (b. Ber. 48b). In

7

According to SPIRO (Pseudo-Philo's, pp. 119-37), Saul, according to Pseudo-Philo, was an Ephraimite rather than from the tribe of Benjamin (Bib. Ant. 56.4). But all that Pseudo-Philo says here is that Saul, seeking the asses of his father, came down from Mount Ephraim. Nowhere does he say that Saul was not from the tribe of Benjamin. See DIETZFELBINGER, Pseudo-Philo, pp. 82-85. 8 The Septuagint omits mention of his youth.

Josephus'

View of Saul

219

Josephus the maidens' speech, however, is in indirect rather than in direct discourse and much briefer, presumably so as not to focus unduly on Saul's physical attractiveness to the girls (Ant. 6 . 4 8 ) . We do, nevertheless, see the importance which Josephus attaches to physical beauty in that he declares that Saul sought not only might and bravery ( 1 Sam 1 4 : 5 2 ) , but also beauty ( K C X A A E I ) in his bodyguards (Ant. 6 . 1 3 0 ) . 3.3 The Cardinal Virtues: Wisdom In addition to good birth and bodily attractiveness, the hero must possess the cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, and piety. In the first place, in his very introduction to the episode of Saul, Josephus remarks that he was gifted with an intelligence (Siavoiav, "understanding") surpassing his natural advantages of good birth and handsome stature (Ant. 6.45). Here, too, Josephus shows himself consistent with his treatment of other biblical heroes. 9 The picture of Saul as a sage is reinforced, at least by implication, in the statement that, when Samuel first met Saul and led him to the banquet-chamber, he gave him a position above the invited guests, who were seventy in number (Ant. 6.52). The Hebrew, on the other hand, reads "about thirty" (1 Sam 9:22). It is, of course, possible that Josephus' Hebrew (or Greek) text read "seventy," as does the Septuagint. But it is also possible that his text read as our Hebrew does and that he deliberately chose that tradition that gave the number of invited guests as exactly seventy. In that case, Josephus is presenting a picture of Saul, like Moses, presiding over the seventy elders, or like the head of the great Sanhedrin presiding over his seventy colleagues. 3.4 Courage The second of the cardinal virtues possessed by Saul, according to Josephus, was derived from his spirit (c^povripa, presumably "high spirit," Ant. 6.45). In other words, Saul is said to possess the spirited faculty that is characteristic of the warrior class in Plato's ideal state (Republic 2.375A-376E). Here, too, Josephus seems to be following a pattern in his depiction of biblical heroes. 10 The spirited quality of Saul is, of course, to be seen particularly in his military achievements. Thus, whereas in the Bible Samuel tells Saul that he was anointed to be prince over G-d's inheritance ( 1 Sam 1 0 : 1 ) , Josephus specifically declares that Saul was selected as king for military purposes, namely to combat the Philistines and to defend the Hebrews (Ant. 6.54). In contrast, the rabbis underscore the supernatural aspect of Saul's heroism, noting, for example, that when Goliath captured the tablets of the Law, Saul marched sixty miles from Shiloh to the Philistine camp to recapture them and 9

S e e FELDMAN, Interpretation, pp.

10

97-106.

See FELDMAN, Interpretation, pp. 106-109.

220

Louis H. Feldman

returned to Shiloh the same day with the aid of an angel (Midr. Sam 11.78-79, Midr. Pss 7.63, t. Tg. 1 Sam 4:12). On the other hand, a picture completely opposite to that of Josephus' brave Saul is to be seen in Pseudo-Philo, who, in an extra-biblical addition, depicts the youthful Saul as a coward who flees from the battlefield, while Eli's sons Hophni and Phinehas defend the ark at the cost of their lives (Bib. Ant. 54.3^1). Many years later, when Saul becomes king, the giant Goliath reminds him of this cowardice (Bib. Ant. 61.2). In order to magnify the greatness of Saul, Josephus stresses the military difficulties, both internal and external, that he had to overcome (Ant. 6.67). Thus the Bible states, without indicating their respective numbers, that Saul was accompanied by men of valor and by certain base fellows, who refused to do obeisance to him (1 Sam 10:26). Josephus, on the other hand, says that while Saul was accompanied by many honest (ayocSoi) men, who showed him homage, the number of knaves (Ttovripoi) was even greater (Ant. 6.67). To emphasize the obstacles that faced Saul and, thus, to increase the greatness of his achievement, Josephus further elaborates on the latter group's baseness; for whereas the Bible states that they said, "How shall this man save us?" and despised him and brought him no present (1 Sam 10:27), Josephus says that they held him in contempt, derided the others, and neither offered him presents nor took any pains (OTTOU5?|) or care (Aoyco) to gain his favor (Ant. 6.67). Josephus' addition to the Bible of military details concerning Saul fits into a consistent pattern of such supplementary retouching. Saul's ability as a general is increased by Josephus' remark, which is unparalleled in the Bible (1 Sam 11:1), that Nahash the Ammonite, whom he defeated, had done much harm to the Jews who had settled beyond the river Jordan, having invaded their territory with a large and warlike army (Ant. 6.68). Josephus adds, in another unparalleled remark, that Nahash had reduced all the cities of the Jews beyond the Jordan to servitude, securing their subjection not only by force (taxui) and violence (|3ia) but also by cunning (aocfua) and ingenuity ('sTTivoia) (Ant. 6.69)." Consequently, in an addition to the biblical statement about the elders of Jabesh-Gilead asking Nahash for seven days' respite (1 Sam 11:3), Josephus describes the Gileadites as so terror-stricken (KaTaTTAaysvTEc) that they dared not reply to either of Nahash's proposed alternatives but could only beg for a respite of seven days (Ant. 6.72). The Gileadites are thus reduced to desperate straits (aprixaviav) (Ant. 6.73). Again, whereas the Bible states merely that Nahash had intended to gouge out the right eyes of the men of Jabesh (1 Sam

" ULRICH claims that Josephus' text parallels the Qumran fragment here; but there is a striking verbal coincidence only between the fragment's behazaka and Josephus' 'laxui (Qumran, pp. 166-170). Otherwise, the major additions in Josephus are, it should be pointed out, not to be found in the Qumran fragment. A comparison of all other passages where the Qumran fragments of Samuel cover the same ground as Josephus yields no other significant instance where Josephus' additions or modifications as noted here are paralleled by the former.

Josephus'

View of Saul

221

11:2), Josephus explains the reason, namely that the left eye was covered by their bucklers and, hence, that the removal of the right eye would render them utterly unserviceable (Ant. 6.70). In the Bible there is no indication thatNahash had habitually imposed this penalty of putting out the eyes (1 Sam 11:2), whereas Josephus, through his use of the imperfect tense (ettoiei), suggests that this was, indeed, the case (Ant. 6.69). The horror of Nahash's offer to spare the Gileadites if they put out their right eyes is increased by Josephus' statement, omitted by the Bible, of the alternative which they faced if they disobeyed, i.e., they were threatened with the siege and overthrow of their cities (Ant. 6.71). In addition, whereas in the Bible only the people of Gibeath-Shaul are mentioned as being threatened by Nahash (1 Sam 11:4), Josephus asserts that the inhabitants of all the Israelite cities were moved to tears and grief, while their fear permitted them to do no more until Saul took things in hand (Ant. 6.74). Finally, whereas in the Bible Saul first musters his men before promising aid to the people of Jabesh-Gilead on the morrow (1 Sam 11:8), Josephus has Saul promise to aid them even before summoning the Israelites (Ant. 6.76). Saul's forceful leadership is heightened by the fact that in Josephus' account he cuts the sinews of his oxen and threatens to do likewise to the animals of all those Israelites who fail to join him against Nahash (Ant. 6.77); in the Bible, on the other hand, it is merely an unspecified pair of oxen, rather than their sinews, that he cuts in making his threat (1 Sam 11:7). Josephus builds up the stature of Saul as a general by presenting exaggerated details concerning the actual campaign itself that Saul waged against Nahash. Thus, the Bible says nothing about the march itself (1 Sam 11:11), but Josephus adds vividness to the account by noting that Saul led his men in an all-night march of ten schoenoi, which is approximately forty to fifty miles (Ant. 6.79), thus doubling the achievement of Saul, since the distance between Bezek, whence he started, and Jabesh-Gilead is actually less than twenty miles. Whereas the Bible says that they arrived during the morning watch (1 Sam 11:11), Josephus has Saul show skill as a strategist, timing his arrival even before sunrise (Ant. 6.79). Josephus also dramatizes the timing of the assault itself by stressing that Saul fell suddenly (ai(|)vi5icoc) and from all sides upon the enemy. 12 Whereas the Bible says nothing about Saul's personal achievement in the battle (1 Sam 11:11), Josephus informs us that Saul killed multitudes of the Ammonites and King Nahash himself (Ant. 6.79). Similarly, whereas the Bible has no editorial comment or even a single adjective in praise of Saul's military prowess (1 Sam 11:12), Josephus explicitly refers to his exploit as brilliant (XapTrpov), speaks of his marvelous renown (Saunaoxric ... 5o£r)c) for valor (avSpsia), and sums it all up by adding that those who had 12

A similar extra-biblical addition is found in Josephus' account of Abraham's campaign against the Assyrians, against whom, we are told, he set out in haste and whom he fell upon in an attack that caught the enemy by surprise before they had time to arm (Ant. 1.177).

222

Louis H. Feldman

previously despised him now came to honor him and to deem him the noblest ( a p i a x o v ) of all men (Ant. 6.80). And then, to top off his picture of Saul as general, Josephus adds an extra-biblical detail to show that Saul, as would any good general, pursued his advantage, for he notes that, not content with having rescued the inhabitants of Jabesh, Saul then proceeded to invade the country of the Ammonites, subdued all of it and returned in glory to his own land after taking much booty (Ant. 6.80). No higher praise could be bestowed upon a Greek hero. Josephus then dramatically highlights what a dreadful enemy Saul had to face at the very beginning of his reign. Significantly, the rabbinic midrashic tradition has no such additional details concerning Saul's generalship against Nahash, presumably because it preferred to stress his qualities of character. To be sure, the midrashic tradition does amplify the wickedness of Nahash; but the rabbis stress his spiritual threat to the Jews, noting that he had ordered the Gileadites to remove the injunction from the Torah barring the Ammonites from the congregation of Israel, or that he had decided to slay the members of the Sanhedrin (Midr. Sam 14.89; t. Tg. 1 Sam 11:2). After Saul's victory over Nahash, the Israelites, according to the Bible, turn upon those who had previously disparaged him and ask Samuel that they be permitted to put them to death (1 Sam 11:12). Saul, however, intervenes and says that no one is to be put to death, since it was G-d who brought this deliverance to the Israelites. Josephus expatiates on the willingness of Saul to forgive his enemies. The people are pictured as a mob, ready to lynch these detractors. "Where now are those men?" they shout, "let them pay for it!" (Ant. 6.81). Samuel is not mentioned here in order to heighten the role of Saul, who, like Neptune in the Aeneid (1.132—iAav0pcoTTiav) in giving food and arms to David and in prophesying concerning his future, presents a psychological analysis, in the form of an apothegm, not found in the biblical narrative (1 Sam 22:17), as to why Saul remains unmoved, namely that fear is strong enough to discredit even a truthful plea (Ant. 6.258). Not wishing to present Saul as a cold-blooded murderer, 45 in contrast to the Bible, which states that Saul sent messengers to David's house to watch him and then to slay him (1 Sam 19:11), Josephus asserts that Saul sent officers to prevent David's escape so that he might bring him before a court to be sentenced to death (Ant. 6.215).

5. Summary The fact that Josephus devotes more space, as compared with his biblical source, to his account of Saul than to almost any other biblical personality and, above all, the fact that his encomium of Saul is longer than that for any other biblical figure, Moses included, should alert us to Saul's importance and fascination for Josephus. In his portrayal of Saul Josephus occupies a mean position between that of the Talmudic rabbis, who exaggerate his virtues, and Pseudo-Philo in his Biblical Antiquities, who denigrates him. He builds up the character of Saul by inserting a number of touches that culminate in his appointment as king. 45

Cf. Josephus' unscriptural notice that King Solomon removed Joab from the altar, where he had sought refuge, so as to bring him to the judgment-hall to make his defense (Ant. 8.14).

Josephus' View of Saul

243

Whereas in the Bible Saul emerges as a mere puppet of the prophet Samuel, in Josephus he is portrayed as being on a par with Samuel, in whose sacrifices he joins. In depicting the qualities of Saul, Josephus emphasizes his good birth, while taking care to indicate that, nevertheless, he did not show disdain for those of lesser birth. He stresses Saul's physical beauty, since this would make an appeal to his non-Jewish readership. He portrays him as a sage-like figure presiding over a Sanhedrin-like group of seventy. Above all, he aggrandizes the courage of Saul in his military leadership and exploits, stressing the military difficulties that he had to overcome, exaggerating the ferocity of the enemy, and highlighting the skill that he displayed as a strategist, in contrast both to the rabbinic portrait, which emphasizes the supernatural aspect of his military achievements, and to Pseudo-Philo, who depicts him as a coward. In particular, Josephus magnifies Saul's generalship and his ability and magnetism as a psychologist in arousing his troops against his greatest military challenge, the Philistines. Moreover, in an extra-biblical touch, Saul shows sympathy for his people in their suffering. Above all, Josephus aggrandizes the heroism of Saul, who, in going into his final battle, knew full well, through the prophecy of Samuel, that he was destined to perish in it. Josephus develops, even beyond the Bible, Saul's quality of moderation, which he identifies with modesty, though he is careful to avoid ascribing to him extreme modesty, since he realized that such a quality would be regarded negatively by his pagan readers. We see Saul's concern for justice in that he first searches the territory of his own tribe before going through that of the other tribes when seeking his father's asses. Josephus explains away inconsistencies in the Bible's picture of Saul's piety. In particular, he takes care to present a defense of Saul's slaughter of the Amalekite women and children, while at the same time offering an aesthetic motive for his sparing the Amalekite king, Agag, though he is careful not to whitewash Saul's action completely. In the case of the murder of Ahimelech and the priests of Nob, however, Josephus, himself a priest, exaggerates Saul's responsibility. Nevertheless, Josephus, by stressing Saul's feeling of remorse, increases readers' sympathy for him. He protects Saul's reputation by saying not a word about the sinfulness of Saul's suicide; indeed, he does not even raise the question whether his death was a suicide. Moreover, Josephus stresses Saul's pietas towards members of his family and towards his kinsmen generally. As to Saul's madness, Josephus rationalizes, explaining this clinically as a medical disorder. In the case of Saul's jealousy of David, Josephus takes measures to diminish this, notably by omitting the scene in which Saul seeks to

244

Louis H. Feldman

kill David while the latter is playing his harp. Josephus likewise emphasizes that Saul, in his pursuit of David, was not really aware of what he was doing.

Bibliography ATTRIDGE, H.W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in the "Antiquitates Judaicae" of Flavius Josephus, Missoula 1976 BROWN, C.A., No Longer Be Silent. First Century Jewish Portraits of Biblical Women. Studies in Pseudo-Philo's "Biblical Antiquities" and Josephus' "Jewish Antiquities," Louisville 1992 COHEN, N.G., Josephus and Scripture. Is Josephus' Treatment of the Scriptural Narrative Similar throughout the Antiquities I-XI, JQR 54 (1963-1964) pp. 311-332 COHEN, S.J.D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome. His Vita and Development as a Historian, Leiden 1979 DIETZFELBINGER, C., Pseudo-Philo. Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, Theol. diss., Göttingen 1964 DRIVER, S.R., Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, Oxford 2 1913 F E L D M A N , L.H., The Character of Ascanius in Virgil's Aeneid, Classical Journal 48 (1952-53)

pp. 303-313

—, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Berlin 1984 —, Josephus's Interpretation of the Bible, Berkeley 1998 FRIMER, D.I., Masada in the Light of Halakah, Tradition 12 (1971) pp. 2 7 ^ 3 GINZBERG, L., The Legends of the Jews, 6 vols., Philadelphia 1909-1938 GOLDSTEIN, S., Suicide in Rabbinic Literature, Hoboken 1989 GOODENOUGH, E.R., The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship, Yale Classical Studies 1 (1928) pp. 55-104 G O R E N , S., The Valor of Masada in the Light of Halakhah, Mahanayim 87 (1964) pp. 7-12 (Hebrew) HOENIG, S.B., Historic Masada and the Halakhah, Tradition 13.2 (Fall 1972) pp. 100-115 HOLLADAY, C.R., Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism. A Critique of the Use of This Category in New Testament Christology, Missoula 1977 HUMPHREYS, W.L., The Rise and Fall of King Saul. A Study of an Ancient Narrative Stratum in I Samuel, JSOT 18 (1980) pp. 74-90 JOBLING, D., The Sense of Biblical Narrative. Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 13-31, Numbers 11-12, 1 Kings 17-18), Sheffield 1978 KOLITZ, Z., Masada. Suicide or Murder? Tradition 12 (1971) pp. 5 - 2 6 RABINOWITZ, L.I., The Masada Martyrs according to the Halakhah, Tradition 12 (1971) pp. 31-37 SPERO, S., In Defense of the Defenders of Masada, Tradition 11 (1970) pp. 31-43 SPIRO, A., Pseudo-Philo's Saul and the Rabbis' Messiah ben Ephraim, PAAJR 22 (1953) pp.

119-137

V.L., Masada, Suicide, and the Halakhah, Conservative Judaism 31 (1977) pp. 45-55 ULRICH, E.C., The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19), Missoula 1978 WILLIAMS, S.K., Jesus' Death as Saving Event. The Background and Origin of a Concept, Missoula 1975 TRIMBLE,

The Innocent King Saul in Rabbinic Exegesis* Hanna Liss 1. Introduction In recent exegesis, the story of Saul and the rise and breakdown of his kingdom have frequently been examined emphasizing the biblical depiction of Saul as a tragic figure. 1 According to Exum, the story of King Saul is "the clearest example of biblical tragedy." 2 Gunn depicts Saul as a victim of divine capriciousness. 3 According to Good, Saul was a "disordered and unstable personality." 4 His "tragedy lies in a fatal flaw, the undependability of his will ... the gloomy inevitability of David's good fortune." 5 This characterization of Saul as a tragic figure presupposes a straight literary development from Saul, the chosen and anointed king, to Saul, the rejected one. Yet, it is well known that the biblical text does not portray Saul entirely unambiguously. It has often been shown that under the textual surface the story of Saul presents a multiplicity of nuances, not only of the king himself but also of his personal environment (supporters as rivals), which show the multiple faces of Israel's first king. This is achieved not merely by the different versions of Saul's election as king and his wars, but also by the fact that it is often very difficult to decide from which perspective the story (or stories) of Saul are told. Without entering into this question in more detail, 6 one can distinguish

* This essay is based in part on a paper given at the Institute of Jewish Studies, University of Halle-Wittenberg, published as Liss, Heilige Männer, and takes up some of the results mentioned there. I am indebted to Carl S. Ehrlich and Marsha C. White for having invited me to contribute to this volume and for having shaped and emended my English. Biblical quotations are taken from the NJPS. 1 See, e.g., EXUM, Tragedy; HAWK, Saul; HUMPHREYS, Tragedy; IDEM, Tragic Hero; JOBLING, S e n s e , e s p . p p . 4 4 - 8 7 ; EDELMAN, K i n g S a u l ; EXUM / W H E D B E E , I s a a c ; f o r f u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e s , s e e t h e b i b l i o g r a p h y in: DIETRICH / N A U M A N N , S a m u e l b ü c h e r , p p . 2 9 7 - 3 2 6 . 2

EXUM, T r a g e d y , p. 16.

3

Cf. GUNN, Fate, p. 40: "Does the real cause of Saul's rejection lie, not in his action ... but in the attitude of Yahweh towards him ...?" See also pp. 115-131. 4 GOOD, Irony, p. 57. 5

IBID.

6

Concerning this question, see, e.g., ESLINGER, Viewpoints; MANDELL, Reading.

246

Hanna Liss

between (at least) two main perspectives: In the first, the biblical author(s) time and again render Saul as if the text had been written from a "divine perspective" (i.e., "God's eyes"). Its standards are the divine orders conveyed by Samuel. Saul is evaluated throughout in relation to his attitude to and execution of the divine instructions given by Samuel. The second viewpoint presents a more unbiased perspective, which encompasses not only the aspect of Saul's unbalanced personality, but also the fact that his tragic fate is tightly bound to his inability to escape from Samuel as his "alter ego." In the following, I would like to present some of the Sages' views on King Saul as well as on some of his successors in Israel and Judah as depicted in rabbinic literature and in the Midrashim. We will see not only that the rabbinic understanding of Saul's personality and his kingdom eliminates the tragic character of Saul, but also that rabbinic exegesis weakens David's successful advancement and presents Saul as a positive counterpart to David. David's most striking features and merits (his beauty 7 and his fight against Goliath 8 ) are awarded to Saul. It is evident that the majority of rabbinic texts offer a perspective not represented in the biblical tradition: the view of and concern for Saul as a representative of the Jewish people.

2. The Sages' View of Saul Even in the biblical account of Saul's election, Saul is depicted as a modest and restrained person. This holds true already in the way he handles the search for his father's donkeys, where his conversation with the boy takes place on the latter's level (cf. 1 Sam 9 : 4 f f ) . Saul never puts himself in the foreground (cf. 1 Sam 10:2Iff.), even though, as we are told, he was "an excellent young man; no one among the Israelites was handsomer than he" (1 Sam 9:2). The rabbis collected and emphasized these scattered hints of Saul's character given in the biblical text. As an important and distinctive feature of Saul, therefore, they emphasized his modesty. 9 This can be seen clearly in the account of the lot-casting and Saul's election as the future king of Israel. Midrash Tanhuma informs us that the lot-casting was initiated only because Saul doubted whether he was worthy to be elected. 10 The biblical narrative does not set up a direct parallel between the anointing of Saul by Samuel (1 Sam 10:Iff.) and Saul's election by lot-casting (1 Sam 10:17ff.). In stressing 7

Cf. b. Sotah 10a. Saul wrested the tablets of the law from him. Cf. Midr. Sam. 11:1 (pp. 78f. in BUBER'S edition); see also Midr. Pss. 7:2 (p. 63 in BUBER'S edition). 9 Cf. t. Ber. 4:18; Tanh. B Lev. 2b:4. 10 Tanh. B Lev. 2b:4, p.4: l m n is1? nxi ' i s i ax • , a i m a m i u NVN m:iW? 'isn n s r « 8

'mx.

The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic

Exegesis

247

Saul's modesty, the Midrash not only attaches the two accounts of Saul's election to one another, but also uses the opportunity to elevate Saul's personality by means of his humility. In addition, the words put into Saul's mouth by the Midrash (m^a 1 ? ^KT "N "N "I am not worthy for kingship") serve to underline God's responsibility for a royal candidate who was elected against his will. The Midrash, thereby, emphasizes the fact that Saul, who knows in advance that he might not be the most suitable for God's mission, cannot bear all the blame for his future failures." This is but the first hint that the Midrash attempts to acquit Saul of most of the accusations presented in the biblical narrative. The most striking aspect of the rabbinic and midrashic views on Saul is his obedience to the halakhah and his concern for the law. This feature is central to his characterization in midrashic exegesis: Now a man of Benjamin [T,0133 C'X] ran from the battle line and came to Shiloh the same day with his clothes torn and dust on his head (1 Sam 4:12). That was Saul ... R. Levi said: Sixty miles Saul marched on the same day. He was in the battle line, and (there he) heard that the tables (of the law) were carried off. He went and snatched them from Goliath's hand, and (then) he came (to Shilo). 1 2

In identifying the man of Benjamin with Saul, the Midrash shapes the idea that Saul has already fought for God long before he was chosen as the future king. At the same time, it highlights Saul's unselfish behavior that gave him almost superhuman strength and endurance. 13 Likewise, the Midrash stresses Saul's halakhic obedience, since it infers from 1 Sam 14:32ff. that Saul instructed the people that the sacrificial laws should be kept meticulously: No meat should be eaten with the blood (i.e. before the blood was sprinkled on the altar). 14 Saul's most prominent transgression described in the Bible, the sparing of Agag, the Amalekite king, which led to the loss of his kingship (cf. 1 Sam 15:26), is completely inverted. The divine prescriptions mentioned in the Bible are unequivocal and very clear cut: "Now go, attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and asses!" (1 Sam 15:3). As is well known, Saul did spare Agag. As the main reason for this the biblical narrative presents Saul's compassion, i.e., a personal and individual sentiment that also resonates with the people (wx ^y nym "71XW "7»m "but Saul and the

" Compare the reason for Saul to hide among the baggage given by Rashi and Radaq (commentary on 1 Sam 10:22), who also assume that this behavior is due to Saul's modesty, Rashi (with reference to Tanhuma): nVmn p H1Q rrrrc?; Radaq: rrrron in m m rrnw. 12 Midr. Sam. 11:1 (pp. 78-79); see also Midr. Pss. 7:2 (p. 63). 13 The Midrash also discusses the question whether Saul marched 60, 21, or 180 miles on the same day ( I B I D . ) . 14 Midr. Sam. 7:2 (p. 95f.); cf. also b. Zebah. 120a.

248

Hanna Liss

troops spared Agag" - 1 Sam 15:9), and for which, therefore, Saul alone is held responsible. In contrast to this, the rabbinic and midrashic traditions offer several explanations, all of which have in common that the sparing of Agag is less grounded in Saul's compassion than in halakhic arguments. This means that Saul's behavior is no longer a personal sentiment, but is embedded in a collective and thereby normative tradition, which Saul cannot simply disregard: And he strove in the valley. R. Mani said: Because of what happens "in the valley": When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Saul: Now go and smite Amalek,15 he said: If on account of one person the Torah said: Perform the ceremony of the heifer whose neck is to be broken; how much more [ought consideration to be given] to all these persons! And if human beings sinned, what has the cattle committed; and if the adults have sinned, what have the little ones done? A divine voice came forth and said: Be not righteous overmuch! And when Saul said to Doeg: Turn thou and fall upon the priests a heavenly voice came forth to say: Be not overmuch wicked.1'6

In the first part of this passage Saul is turned into a "proto-rabbinic" figure: The Sages took 1 Sam 15:5 (^rua 3T1) not in its plain sense according to which Saul set an ambush in the valley, but let Saul enter into a halakhic discourse with God, based on the ritual of the heifer whose neck is to be broken (nDnyn rravn; cf. Deut 21:l-9). 1 7 This passage matches the Sages' own concern that people's deeds should be measured so that no one should strive to outdo another. The last element of this dictum takes up - in subtle form - the biblical tradition according to which Saul, whatever he did, never acted appropriately in God's eyes. In addition, by means of the appeals put into God's mouth (rrnn pnx Tin *7S; nmn »win bn. "Be not righteous overmuch! ... Be not overmuch wicked!"), the Sages tell the reader with a wink that to them God's sense of justice is somewhat unbalanced. Moreover, the Sages even lay blame on God for not having responded justly when comparing and reckoning Saul's and David's transgressions: R. Huna said: How little does he whom the Lord supports need to grieve or trouble himself! Saul sinned once, and it brought [calamity] upon him. David sinned twice, and it did not bring evil upon him. What was the one sin of Saul? The affair with Agag. 1 8 But there was also the matter with Nob, the city of the priests? 19 - [Still] it was because of

15

1 Sam 15:3. b. Yoma 22b, quoted from EPSTEIN, Mo'ed, vol. 3, p. 101; see also Midr. Sam. 18:2, 99; Yal. 120; Yal. 151; Rashi on 1 Sam. 15:5. 17 Other traditions depict Doeg as the one who persuaded Saul not to kill Agag. He argued that according to the Law it was forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day (cf. Midr. Sam. 18:4 [pp. 99f.]; Midr. Pss. 52:4 [p. 284]). 18 Cf. 1 Sam 15:2ff. " C f . 1 Sam 22:19ff. 16

The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic what happened with Agag that Scripture says: It repenteth be king [1 Sam 15:11]. 20

Exegesis

249

Me that I have set up Saul to

Since God, according to the Sages, did not render a just verdict, they themselves devised an adequate accusation, according to which David was made responsible for offences that had been committed by Saul and was, therefore, punished. This accusation indirectly picks up David's confession of guilt (1 Sam 22:22): R. Judah said in Rab's name: A man who came on account of Nob. [For] the Holy One, blessed be He had said to David: "How long will this crime 21 be hidden in thy hand? 2 2 Through thee Nob, the city of priests, was massacred; through thee Doeg the Edomite was banished; and through thee Saul and his three sons were slain [i.e. unpunished]: wouldst thou rather thy line to end, or be delivered unto the enemy's hand?" 2 3

Within the context of the discussion whether wayfarers should be given a mouthful of food, the Sages used the opportunity to point to the fact that even Jonathan had to be blamed instead of Saul. The text reads: Had but Jonathan given David two loaves of bread for his travels, Nob, the city of priests, would not have been massacred, Doeg the Edomite would not have been destroyed, and Saul and his three sons would not have been slain. 24

One can see very clearly that, in contrast to the biblical account, the events surrounding the murder of the priests of Nob get a completely inverted interpretation. However, the Sages sought not only to exonerate Saul. One could read the traditions on the slaughter of Agag in such a manner that the rabbis - if not actually charging Samuel with murder for having slaughtered Agag in the way he did - did at least criticize him: Just what did the retinue of Amalek use to do? They would cut off 2 5 the circumcised organ of generation from live Israelites and would fling it heavenwards, taunting God: "Is this what Thou hast chosen?" ... When Samuel the prophet came, he requited the Amalekites: Because of [Amalek's taunting of] the Lord, Samuel cut Agag apart in Gilgal,26 Just what did Samuel do to Agag? [In requital for Amalek's cutting all the way down to the Sanctuary's foundation], said R. Abba bar Kahana, Samuel cut 27 many olivesized pieces of flesh from live Agag and fed them to the ostriches. 28

20

b. Yoma 22b, quoted from EPSTEIN, Mo'ed, vol. 3, p.101. nt lis?. 22 I.e., how long will this crime be unpunished? 23 b. Sanh. 95a, quoted from EPSTEIN, Nezikin, vol. 3, p. 640; Midr. Pss. 18, 136. 24 b. Sanh. 104a, quoted from EPSTEIN, Nezikin, vol. 3, p.706; see also Rashi on Ps 7:1; Radaq on 1 Sam 21:7; 22:19; b. Sanh. 95a; Yal. 130. 25 Vinn pi'el. 26 1 Sam 15:33. 27 Vinn pi 'el. 28 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 3:6 Zakhor 25b; quoted from BRAUDE, Pesikta, pp. 48^19; see also Yal. 827. 21

250

Hanna Liss

In the above passage, Samuel is rebuked for having killed Agag with "heathen forms" of justice. By linguistic means, the cutting of Agag into pieces (V~|nn pi'eP) is raised to the same level as the atrocities of Amalek. In addition, the text expresses very clearly that there were no human witnesses to this crime ( W r o -n "before Y H W H at Gilgal"). Hence, Samuel's God-fearing "feat" did not take place according to Jewish law. This matches exactly what we read in the Midrash dealing with Samuel's whole burnt offering (^Vd rni\?; 1 Sam 7:9): Samuel is criticized for having offered a burnt offering that could not have been accepted owing to halakhic deviations: R. Abba bar Kahana commented: Three sins were committed in Samuel's burnt-offering: (1) it is written He shall flay the burnt-offering (Lev. 1:6), but Samuel's lamb was offered unflayed; (2) it was too young to be brought for a burnt-offering, for Scripture says: ¡t shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eight day and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering (Lev. 22:27), and Samuel's offering was not eight days old; (3) Samuel was a Levite, [and not a priest]. 29

In accordance with what we have observed until now, the Sages ignored the reasons given in the biblical text for Saul's decline and the ultimate loss of his kingdom. 1 Sam 13:9-14 clearly states that Saul lost his kingdom because he had not subjected himself to Samuel's commandment and had offered a sacrifice on his own initiative. However, this "cardinal sin" of Saul's, his sacrificing at Gilgal, was interpreted by the Sages and even by the medieval exegetes strictly according to halakhic categories: A layman is allowed to offer on a high place [n»33 mpn 1 ? m i s it], 3 0

Consequently, the series of rabbinic discussions in b. Yoma 22b 31 presents several reasons for Saul's dismissal, of which none of them takes up the biblical explanation: Saul was one year old when he began to reign [ISam 13:1], R. Huna said: Like an infant of one year, who had not tasted the taste of sin ... R. Judah said in the name of Samuel: Why did the kingdom of Saul not endure? Because no reproach rested on him ... R. Judah said in the name of Rab: Why was Saul punished? Because he forwent the honor due to himself. 3 2

As a first result we might state that in the rabbinic tradition the biblical text or at least its ambiguous descriptions are consistently turned into a positive portrayal of Saul. Let us deal in short with one of the most puzzling narratives within the Saul cycle: the story of the woman of Endor (1 Samuel 28). The

29

Midr. Pss. 27:6, 227f., quoted from BRAUDE, Psalms, p. 373; see also Lev. Rab. 22:9. Rashi on 1 Sam 13:9; cf. Radaq ad !oc. Radaq also insists on the fact that only Saul's disobedience against Samuel and not the fact that he himself offered the sacrifice caused the divine rebuff. 31 See also Midr. Sam. 17:1. 32 b. Yoma 22b, quoted from EPSTEIN, Mo'ed, vol. 3, p. 102f. 30

The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic

Exegesis

251

biblical narrative sets up an unambiguous connection between 1 Samuel 15 and 28 (cf. 1 Sam 15:23 and 28:18) and thereby concentrates on the aspects of conjuring by means of divination and witchcraft (nop), as well as the use of teraphim. The episode of Saul and the "witch" (mi? nVsn) of Endor, i.e., the woman who is a medium and thereby holds power over a dead man's spirit, is discussed in detail in Lev. Rab. 26:7 and b. Sabb. 152b. 33 The Talmudic discussion focuses mainly on the question of why the woman succeeded in bringing Samuel up. The problem under discussion was how the 3157 JTO'D could exercise power over Samuel, who already dwelled in the realm of the Throne of Glory: A certain Sadducee said to R. Abbahu: You maintain that the souls of the righteous are hidden under the Throne of Glory: then how did the bone[-practicing] necromancer 34 bring up Samuel by means of her necromancy? There it was within twelve months - he replied. For it was taught: For full [twelve months] the body is in existence and the soul ascends and descends; after twelve months the body ceases to exist and the soul ascends but descends nevermore. 35

Well known is the passage in Lev. Rab. 26:7, in which we are informed that the witch knew that it was Saul who called upon her because the ghost appeared face upward, while for an ordinary person it would have appeared face downward. The rabbis concluded that the woman who conjured Samuel saw him, yet could not hear his voice, whereas Saul who had the spirit evoked heard his voice, but could not see him. The others present (Abner and Amasa) neither saw nor heard anything. However, although in the current context the Midrash lists four transgressions that led to Saul's decline, 36 thereby assuming the biblical assessment, Saul is once again given a positive assessment in connection with his death, whereas Samuel is presented as an ambivalent and even capricious character: The LORD has done for Himself as He foretold through me: the LORD has torn the kingship out of your hands and has given it to your fellow, to David 37 ... Said Saul to him: "But these are not the words you formerly said to me!" ... He answered him: "When I was with you I was in a false world and you might have heard untrue words from me, for I was afraid of you lest you should kill me, but now that I am in a world of truth you will only hear from me words of truth." 38

33 See also SMELIK, Witch; for further references, see VELTRI, Magie, esp. pp. 79ff. and 79 n. 261. 34

35

»RAO NTIX.

b. Sabb. 152b-153a, quoted from EPSTEIN, Mo'ed, vol. 1, p. 780. 36 Saul died because (1) he smote Nob, (2) he spared Agag, (3) he did not act upon Samuel's instructions, and (4) he turned to ghosts and wizards. 37 1 Sam 28:17 according to the NJPS. 38 Lev. Rab. 26:7, quoted from the translation by Slotki, in: ISRAELSTAM / SLOTKI, Leviticus, p. 335.

252

Hanna

Liss

This passage outlines the Midrash's attitude towards Samuel: Samuel is depicted as somewhat of a hypocrite, who talks honestly only when Saul no longer poses a real danger to him. In contrast, Saul is elevated and depicted positively, since he accepts his destiny. The Midrash puts into God's mouth words of admiration for Saul's final courageous act in going to war knowing that he will lose his life: A b n e r and A m a s a asked him: " W h a t did Samuel say to y o u ? " He answered to them: " H e said: ' T o m o r r o w you will go down to battle and be victorious. Nay, more; your sons will be appointed c h i e f s . ' " He took his three sons and went out to war. At that m o m e n t , said Resh Lakish, the Holy One, blessed be He, called the ministering Angels, and said to them: " C o m e and look at the being w h o m I have created in M y world! Usually if a man goes to a feast he does not take his children with him, fearing the evil eye; yet this man goes out to battle, and, though he k n o w s that he will be killed, he takes his sons with him and faces cheerfully the Attribute of Justice which is overtaking him." 3 9

Before we look in more detail at the reasons for this shift of parameters in rabbinic exegesis, let us see how this attitude of rabbinic solidarity with Saul is extended into the rabbis' accounts of other kings mentioned in the Bible, especially those who were often harshly condemned by the biblical authors, in particular by the Deuteronomistic historian.

3. The "Wicked" Kings of Israel and Judah Following expositions on the pronouncement on Jeroboam:

prophet

Hosea,

we

find

a

rabbinic

R. Johanan said: How did J e r o b o a m the son of Joash king of Israel merit to be counted together with the kings of J u d a h ? Because he did not heed slander against A m o s . W h e n c e do we k n o w that he w a s counted [with them]? Because it is written, The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel [Hos 1:1]. A n d w h e n c e do w e k n o w that he did not heed slander? Because it is written, [Amos 7:10]: Then Amaziah the priest of Beth-el sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee, and it is written, [Amos 7:11]: For thus Amos saith Jeroboam shall die by the sword [etc.]. Said he [Jeroboam]: " H e a v e n f o r e f e n d that that righteous man 4 0 should have said thus! Yet, if he did say what can I do to him! T h e Shechinah told it to him." 4 1

The biblical portrayal of Jeroboam II, son of Joash, king of Israel (789-748 B.C.E.) provides the reader with very limited information about this Israelite king. 42 Although he was said to have "restored the territory of Israel from 39 40 41 42

Lev. Rab. 26:7. pns. b. Pesah 87b, quoted from EPSTEIN, M o ' e d , vol. 2, p. 462f. Cf. 2 Kgs 14:24ff.

The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic

Exegesis

253

Lebo-hamath to the sea of the Arabah" (2 Kgs 14:25), Jeroboam II was known also for the fact that "he did what was displeasing to the LORD; he did not depart from all the sins that Jeroboam son of Nebat had caused Israel to commit" (2 Kgs 14:24). The expression "sins of Jeroboam" (nsnT mxan) refers clearly to Jeroboam I, who was the first king of the northern kingdom of Israel (tenth century). 43 The biblical portrait of Jeroboam I is rather critical. Jeroboam made two golden calves, placing one at Dan in the north and the other at Bethel in the south, in order to establish cultic holy places in opposition to the Judean cultic center, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem with the ark in the inner sanctum. Although these golden calves served originally as pedestals for God and not as substitutes, the biblical account in 1 Kgs 14:9ff. rebukes Jeroboam I for having done evil by worshipping other gods and tempting Israel towards idolatry. Rabbinic tradition was well aware of Jeroboam I's "cardinal sin" as well as of the sins of his descendants; and the rabbis dealt with these sins in reference to different matters. Yet, in the context at hand, in which the king and the prophet Hosea are juxtaposed and compared with one another, the sin of Jeroboam II and his activities in matters of ritual in the northern kingdom are only referred to indirectly in the initial question ("How did he merit to be counted together with the kings of Judah?"). The text focuses rather on the positive aspects of his personality. In so doing, the Sages offer a portrayal of Jeroboam II in which his human qualities are eagerly emphasized. He is regarded as an upright character, a humble man who would not even dare to rebel against God. Furthermore, our text outlines a positive attitude on the part of Jeroboam toward the prophet Amos. Jeroboam calls him a "righteous man," to whose words he would submit in deep respect. Since the biblical storyline depicts Amaziah as the one to expel Amos from the country, the Sages could not only free Jeroboam from the responsibility for that expulsion, but also interpret it positively in order to rehabilitate the sinful Jeroboam and, thereby, establish a more balanced image of this biblical figure. In addition, the statement that Jeroboam did not heed slander against Amos, thereby demonstrating solidarity with the prophet, forms a subtle reversal of the characterization of the prophets as depicted in Song of Songs Rabbah, where Moses, as well as Isaiah and Elijah, are subjected to criticism, being sharply rebuked as prime examples of slanderous talk and accused of having calumniated Israel. 44 43

Cf. b. Sanh. 90a, 102b. "Thus said the Community of Israel to the prophets: 'No one rejoiced more in my sons than Moses, yet because he said Hear now, ye rebels (Num. XX, 10), it was decreed that he should not enter the promised land.' Another explanation: 'No one rejoiced more in my sons than Isaiah, yet because he said; And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips (Num VI,5), God said to him: "Isaiah, of thyself thou art at liberty to say "Because 1 am a man of unclean lips" (ib.), this can pass; but mayest thou say: "And in the midst of a people of unclean lips I dwelt"! See now, what is written there: Then flew unto me one of the 44

254

Hanna Liss

The case becomes even more apparent with respect to King Manasseh of Judah. Not only was he blamed for having slain Isaiah the prophet,45 the biblical and rabbinic accounts also let us know that "Manasseh put so many innocent persons to death that he filled Jerusalem [with blood] from end to end - besides the sin he committed in causing Judah to do what was displeasing to the LORD" (2 Kgs 21:16). Nevertheless, in the Talmud

Manasseh is highly esteemed and introduced as a talmid hakham, a Torah scholar, since he interpreted Leviticus in fifty-five different ways, corresponding to the number of years of his reign.46 Our next example, therefore, deals with Manasseh, the rabbinic teacher: In the college of R. Ashi the lecture [one day] terminated at "Three kings." "Tomorrow," he said, "we will commence with our colleagues." [That night] Manasseh came and appeared to him in a dream: "Thou hast called us thy colleagues and the colleagues of thy father. Now, from what part [of the bread] is [the piece for reciting] the ha-mozi to be taken?" "I do not know," he answered. "Thou hast not learnt this," he jibed, "yet thou callest us thy colleagues!" "Teach it to me," he begged, "and tomorrow I will teach it in thy name at the session." He answered, "From the part that is baked into the crust." He then questioned him, "Since thou art so wise, why did you worship idols?" He replied, "Wert thou there, thou wouldst have caught up the skirt of thy garment and sped after me." The next day he observed to the students: We will commence with our teachers [so referring to the three kings]. 4 7

As outlined in this passage, Manasseh is involved in a halakhic discussion about the blessing over bread, in which R. Ashi is the one to be instructed. By granting Manasseh such a lofty reputation in regard to his halakhic knowledge, the rabbis allow him to join the "rabbinic club" (so to speak). Rabbinic exegesis, therefore, moves biblical Israel closer to the rabbinic period by depicting various biblical characters as proto-rabbinic figures. Yet, this does not mean, as is often claimed in modern scholarship, that the Sages merely wanted to establish a continuity between the biblical period and their own time. Rather, they sought to "de-contextualize" biblical characters from their own period and society as mirrored in the biblical text, thereby establishing a sharp demarcation between the biblical period and the rabbinic era.

seraphim, with a glowing stone (rizpah) in his hand (ib. 6). R. Samuel said: The word rizpah means ruz peh (break the mouth); [break the mouth] of him who has calumniated my sons (...)." Cf. Song Rab. 1.6,1 (quoted from the translation by SIMON, Song, p. 56.); see also URBACH, Sages, pp. 560ff. 45 See GINZBERG, Legends, vol. 4, pp. 262ff.; see also BLENKINSOPP, Prophetic Biography, esp. pp. 14ff.; HALPERN AMARU, Killing; PORTON, Isaiah, esp. pp. 701ff.; UFFENHEIMER, C o n s e c r a t i o n . 46 47

Cf. b. Sanh. 103b. b. Sanh. 102b, quoted from EPSTEIN, Nezikin, vol. 3, p. 694.

The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic

Exegesis

255

In addition, there is another aspect mentioned in our text that is characteristic of the rabbinic perspective. The answer given by Manasseh to R. Ashi ("Wert thou there, thou wouldst have caught up the skirt of thy garment and sped after me") bears an unambiguous message: No later generation should even dare hold court over its ancestors. Since God had already revised the verdict imposed on Manasseh, 48 because he had pleaded for compassion and done penance, R. Ashi was not allowed to pass judgment on him. Furthermore, in the context of the debate on Manasseh's portion in the world to come, the rabbis stressed the fact that Manasseh's penance served as an example for later penitent sinners: To deny that Manasseh holds a portion in the world to come was tantamount to discouraging every remorseful sinner 49 Manasseh's defiant response to R. Ashi seems, therefore, like an adaptation of biblical Israel's recalcitrance against Moses as well as against the later prophets. In summary, we are faced with the striking conclusion that the Sages often presented an inverted depiction of biblical figures from the one given in the biblical narratives. "High-ranking" biblical characters, like the prophets, became debased and even rebuked for their "sins," 50 whereas others, like the wicked and "impious" kings, 51 were raised to the rank of Torah scholars. Several explanations can be given for this paradigm shift. In what follows it is to be explained as the rabbinic attempt to organize Israel as the "nation of Torah."

4. Israel as the "Nation of Torah" According to rabbinic understanding, the TaNaKh (Holy Scriptures) is God's ultimate revelation to the Jewish people and, even more significantly, God's own written revelation. Judaism does not know the concept of an extra-textual revelation. Consequently, biblical traditions have always been dealt with strictly in terms of the text. 52 Although the text's wording and even its letters were meticulously fixed by means of a variety of hermeneutical rules, nearly an unlimited number of interpretations could be (and should be) extracted from the text according to the midrashic method. Israel's sacred text, therefore, encompasses two essential components: (1) God as the one who has revealed himself only within the text, and (2) Israel who perceives the biblical

48 49 50 51 52

Cf. b. Sanh. 90a, 102b, 103a.; Num. Rab. 14,1; Yal. 245, 769. Cf. b. Sanh. 103a. See also LEVEY, Amos. See also WALDMAN, Ahab. Compare, e.g., HALBERTAL, People, esp. pp. 32ff.

256

Hanna Liss

text as God's revelation, thereby accepting it as a divine entity valid at all times and applicable throughout history. Therefore, the context of rabbinic exegesis is always mirrored in the context of Scripture; neither entity can be detached from the other. Sanctification of Scripture takes place as a kind of textual event in history.53 One can, therefore, say that - according to the rabbinic understanding - Israel meets God in the biblical text. To emphasize this point even more forcefully, one might say that rabbinic Judaism in its ongoing effort to unfold the deeper levels of meaning inherent in the text does not merely meet God within the course of history, but at the same time explores its own current situation in the face of devastating events. Exegesis is the ongoing process of meeting with oneself. Consequently, when dealing with the biblical kings, rabbinic exegesis is not interested in pursuing historical questions in order to understand the kings' behavior against their own socio-historical background, i.e., ancient Near Eastern history and culture. Instead, the Sages transferred the biblical text into their own realm of exegesis. We have seen that the rabbinic reinterpretation of biblical characters encompasses every party that was constitutive of the society of biblical Israel: the king as well as the priest and the prophet. Whereas in the Bible these different social groups form the hermeneutic reference point, in rabbinic literature this pattern could no longer be upheld, since by the time of the Sages the ancient Judean society that had been organized and controlled by these different political and cultic representatives no longer existed. The Sages had to cope with the Christian notion that Israel had faced divine punishment and had, therefore, been surrendered to the gentile nations, a perception commonly argued by reference to their loss of statehood and the destruction of the Temple. What was left from ancient Judean society was the people of Israel, which now formed the hermeneutic reference point for the interpretation and understanding of the biblical text. Rabbinic exegesis makes a tremendous effort to equalize the different groups and parties within biblical society. This exegetical endeavor echoes the theological and social aim of the Sages to establish a Jewish nation that could be based - and actually had to be based - on a foundation different from the previous one, which was now lost owing to the loss of statehood and the destruction of the Temple. In this new "nation of Torah," no longer would kings and prophets form either the political or the spiritual leaders of the society. Rather, it would be the talmide hakhamim, the "Torah scholars," who would lead the reconstituted nation. As the successors and heirs of the Pharisaic movement and, thereby, a genuine component of the widespread clusters within Jewish society in the postTemple era, they were to lead and guide their people. It should be kept in 53

AGUS, Heilige Texte, p. 13: "Es wird der weitreichende Charakter der 'Heiligkeit der Schrift' als ein Ereignis und nicht als bloßer Gegenstand des Textes entwickelt."

The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic

Exegesis

257

mind that - with the possible exception of Hillel and/or Shammai - the majority of the representatives of the rabbinic movement as the legitimate heirs of the Pharisees did not belong to the social, religious, or political elite of Judean society during the late Second Temple period. Against the notion that God had abandoned Israel, the rabbinic movement established the pervasive theology of the collective election of Israel. The Sages maintained the theological foundation that the covenant was established with the entire nation, and not with some singular individuals. As a consequence, a twofold concept of Israel was developed. To the outside world, the Sages presented Israel as the one and only chosen nation that - with respect to its relationship with God - is distinguished from the traditional seventy gentile nations of the world.54 For their own community, this concept led to an ideological outline of the inner structure of Israel in which not a single space was left for societal or spiritual separation. In this manner, the rabbinic movement established Israel as the "nation of Torah" (i.e., based on the constitutive foundation of the Torah), thereby coping with the cessation of prophecy. Prophets and prophetic oracles - as well as kings - were no longer needed nor given a voice in this Jewish community founded on the basis of the Torah as laid out and made accessible by rabbinic exegesis.55 According to rabbinic Judaism, one could achieve access to God only through the study of Torah. God's revelation had taken place at Mount Sinai and had crystallized only within Scripture, which had to be unfolded in an ongoing exegetical process. At the end of this exegetical process, God's final and unambiguous revelation is equated with humanity's perfect knowledge of the Torah. To the Sages, knowledge of God and God's revelation outside of Scripture was completely unacceptable and unthinkable. Therefore, strong efforts were undertaken to eliminate all alternatives to the rabbinic ideal, as can be shown, e.g., in their attitude toward the literary traditions of the Ma'aseh Merkabah, the ancient Jewish mystics.56 No one was allowed to storm the heavenly realm by any means other than the study of Scripture. The rabbis, in particular when dealing with halakhah or social life in general, insisted on their sovereignty and independence and refused to tolerate any type of divine interference.

54

Cf. URBACH, Sages, esp. pp. 525-554; IDEM, Prophet, esp. pp. 229ff.

55

S e e , e . g . , BRONZNICK., A t t r i b u t e s ; GREENSPAHN, W h y , e s p . p p . 4 3 ^ 6 ; NEUSNER, W h a t ;

View; URBACH, Prophet, pp. 393^103; WEINGART, Changing. Cf., e.g., SCHOLEM, Major, pp. 40-79; see also CHERNUS, Mysticism; SCHÄFER, Gott, esp. pp. 153ff. IDEM, 56

258

Hanna Liss

5. Conclusion When dealing with the rabbinic attitude toward Saul we have seen that the rabbis did not take up the biblical notions of pro-monarchic and antimonarchic ideologies as is common in modern biblical exegesis. These categories were completely beyond their own horizons, since they were categories that belonged to the Israelite and Judaean states. Rather, they took the fact that statehood was irretrievably lost as a positive option for the development of Judaism. They did not desire the reestablishment of a kingdom, accompanied by what might be called a "state cult" with the Temple, the sacrificial cult, etc. Within the relationship of text and rabbinic interpretation, the Hebrew Bible and post-biblical Judaism are brought together as closely as possible, while at the same time being entirely detached from each other by a sharp demarcation; no historical continuity could be maintained with the epoch of Judean statehood and the Temple cult. Therefore, one of the essential hermeneutic tools for rabbinic exegesis, the "destruction of the biblical context,"57 served not only as the prerequisite for the formation of the biblical canon. It also and even more importantly served as the foundation for the ideological shift from "Judean society" towards a new "Jewish community" based solely on the Torah. Only by changing the hermeneutic parameters, could the continuation of Judaism and the survival of a Jewish nation lacking state and cult be ensured. The rabbinic and intellectual elite in the Greco-Roman period made an outstanding and - for the most part - very successful attempt to claim the stability of God's covenant with Israel and the continuity of Israel's election throughout the ages, while simultaneously insisting on this new Jewish community's discontinuity with the Judean state. Therefore, biblical characters, in particular the prophets and kings, were always evaluated in relationship to the people. Rabbinic exegesis always dealt with the question of how and to what extent the king's mission functioned for the sake of the people.58 The preeminence of rabbinic Judaism, therefore, can be attributed to its adoption of and emancipation from the Hebrew Bible. The self-confidence of the Sages became the most important factor for the ideological restructuring of the "national Judean society" toward a "(Jewish) nation of Torah" in exile.

57

58

Cf. GOLDBERG, Z e r s t ö r u n g .

In regard to this transformation from "history" to "story," see also NEUSNER, Method, pp. 217ff.

The Innocent King. Saul in Rabbinic

Exegesis

259

Bibliography AGUS, A.R.E., Heilige Texte, Munich 1999 BLENKINSOPP, J., The Prophetic Biography of Isaiah, in: Mincha. Festgabe für Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. by E. Blum, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, pp. 13-26 BRAUDE, W.G., The Midrash on Psalms, Vol. I, New Haven / London 1959 BRAUDE, W.G. / KAPSTEIN, I.J., Pesikta de-Rab Kahäna. R. Kahana's Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days, Philadelphia 1975 BRONZNICK, N.M., Attributes of Prophecy in the Rabbinic View, in: Studies in Jewish Law, Philosophy, and Literature. Samuel K. Mirsky Memorial Volume, ed. by G. Appel, New York 1970, pp. 205-218 BUBER, S., ed., Midrash Shemuel (Samuel), Krakow 1893/94 (Heb.) —, ed., Midrash Tehillim (Psalms), Vilna 1891/92 = Jerusalem 1977/78 (Heb.) CHERNUS, I., Mysticism in Rabbinic Judaism. Studies in the History of Midrash (SJ 11), Berlin/New York 1982 DIETRICH, W . / N A U M A N N , T . , D i e S a m u e l b ü c h e r ( E d F 2 8 7 ) , D a r m s t a d t 1 9 9 5

EDELMAN, D.V., King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOTSup 121), Sheffield 1991 EPSTEIN, I., The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Mo'ed in Four Volumes, London 1938 —, The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nezikin in Four Volumes, London 1935 ESLINGER, L., Viewpoints and Point of View in 1 Samuel 8-12, JSOT 26 (1983) pp. 61-76 EXUM, J. C., Tragedy and Biblical Narrative. Arrows of the Almighty, Cambridge (UK) 1992 EXUM, J.C. / WHEDBEE, J.W., Isaac, Samson, and Saul. Reflections on the Comic and Tragic Visions, Semeia 32 (1984) pp. 5 ^ 0 FREEDMAN, H. / SIMON, M., The Midrash Rabbah, Vol. IV, London / Jerusalem / New York 1977 GINZBERG, L., The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols., Philadelphia 1908-1938 GOLDBERG, A., Die Zerstörung von Kontext als Voraussetzung fur die Kanonisierung religiöser Texte im rabbinischen Judentum, in: Mystik und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums. Gesammelte Studien I (TSAJ 61), ed. by M. Schlüter / P. Schäfer, Tübingen 1997, pp. 413^125 GOOD, E.M., Irony in the Old Testament, London 2 1981 GREENSPAHN, F.E., Why Prophecy Ceased, JBL 108 (1989) pp. 37^19 GUNN, D.M., The Fate of King Saul. An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup 14), Sheffield 1980 HALBERTAL, M., People of the Book. Canon, Meaning, and Authority, Cambridge (Mass.) / London 1997 HALPERN AMARU, B., The Killing of the Prophet. Unraveling a Midrash, HUCA 54 (1983) pp. 153-180 HAWK, L.D., Saul as Sacrifice. The Tragedy of Israel's First Monarch, BRev 12/6 (1996) pp. 20-25, 56 HUMPHREYS, W.L., The Tragedy of King Saul. A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31, JSOT 6 (1978) pp. 18-27 —, From Tragic Hero to Villain. A Study of the Figure of Saul and the Development of 1 Samuel, JSOT 22 (1982) pp. 95-117 ISRAELSTAM, J., / SLOTKI, J.J., Leviticus (Vol. 4 of Midrash Rabba, ed. by H. Freedman / M. Simon), London / New York 19833 JOBLING, D., The Sense of Biblical Narrative II. Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 39), Sheffield 1986

260

Hanna Liss

KLEIN, J., David versus Saul. Ein Beitrag zum Erzählsystem der Samuelbücher (BWANT 158), Stuttgart 2002 LEVEY, S.H., Amos in the Rabbinic Tradition, in: Tradition as Openness to the Future. Essays in Honor of W.W. Fisher, Lanham (Md.) 1984, pp. 55-69 LlSS, H., Heilige Männer? Prophetische Überheblichkeit aus 'rabbinisch-kritischer' Perspektive, in: Yagdil Tora we-Ya'adir. Gedenkschrift für Julius Carlebach, ed. by H. Liss / U. Beitz, Heidelberg 2003, pp. 129-145 MANDELL, S.R., Reading Samuel as Saul and "vice versa," Approaches to Ancient Judaism 9 (1996) pp. 13-32 NEUSNER, J., Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism. Third Series (BJS 16), Ann Arbor 1981

—, What 'the Rabbis' Thought. A Method and a Result. One Statement on Prophecy in Rabbinic Judaism, in: Pursuing the Text. Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder (JSOTSup 184), ed. by J.C. Reeves / J. Kampen, Sheffield 1994, pp. 303-320 —, In the View of Rabbinic Judaism, What, Exactly, Ended with Prophecy? in: Mediators of the Divine. Horizons of Prophecy, Divination, Dreams and Theurgy in Mediterranean Antiquity, ed. by R.M. Berchman, Atlanta 1998, pp. 45-60 PORTON, G., Isaiah and the Kings. The Rabbis on the Prophet Isaiah, in: Writing and Reading the Scroll of Isaiah, Volume 2 (VTSup 70.2), ed. by C.C. Broyles / C.A. Evans, Leiden et al. 1997, pp. 693-716 SCHÄFER, P., Der verborgene und offenbare Gott. Hauptthemen der frühen jüdischen Mystik, Tübingen 1991 (= SCHÄFER, P., The Hidden and Manifest God. Some Major Themes in Early Jewish Mysticism, Albany 1992) SCHOLEM, G., Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York 3 1961, 1941 SIMON, M., Song of Songs (Freedman / Simon, Midrash Rabbah Vol. IX), London 1939 SMELIK, K.A.D., The Witch of Endor. I Samuel 28 in Rabbinic and Christian Exegesis till 800 A.D., VC 33 (1977) pp. 160-179 UFFENHEIMER, B., The Consecration of Isaiah, ScrHier 22 (1971) pp. 233-246 URBACH, E.E., The Sages - Their Concepts and Beliefs, 2 vols., 2 1979, reprinted: Jerusalem 1987 —, Prophet and Sage in the Jewish Heritage, in: Collected Writings in Jewish Studies, ed. by R. Brody / M.D. Herr, Jerusalem 1999, pp. 393^403 VELTRI, G., Magie und Halakha. Ansätze zu einem empirischen Wissenschaftsbegriff im spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Judentum (TSAJ 62), Tübingen 1997 WALDMAN, N.M., Ahab in Bible and Talmud, Judaism 37 (1988) pp. 41^17 WEINGART, S., Changing Functions of the Prophet in Jewish Thought, Shofar 7.2 (1989) pp. 25-33

"What if you refuse, when ordered to fight?" King Saul (Talut) in the Qur'an and Post-Quranic Literature Walid A. Saleh King Saul appears in only one episode in the Qur'an (Q. 2:246-253), unlike Moses, David, and Solomon, who are mentioned repeatedly and in various contexts. Those accustomed to the lengthy narrative in 1 and 2 Samuel are in for a surprise when it comes to the Qur'an's account of Saul. The story of Saul in the Qur'an is not only terse - indeed, only the bare outline is given, but the handling of the story is a stark instance of a nascent religious community's subordinating to its own ideological needs the religious-political history of a community it considers to be its predecessor. The Saul story in the Qur'an is radically different from both its biblical model and the ways in which that model was understood in rabbinic and Christian circles. Such, however, is not the case the moment we leave the Qur'an and venture into post-Quranic literature: world histories, prophetic histories (what are known as qisas al-anbiya', or tales of the prophets), and exegetical Quranic literature (tafsir). In these literatures the early Muslim scholars bring the Quranic Saul story back into line with what we know of the biblical Saul in an attempt to harmonize both stories. In this article I will show both the function of the Saul story in the Qur'an and its afterlife in post-Quranic literature. To do that, however, I will need to elaborate on the methodological approach that I will follow. The Saul story will be used as the basis for a wide-ranging discussion of the methodology of Quranic scholarship. In the process, I will offer a critique of the salient characteristics that have thus far dominated the approach to biblical material in the Qur'an and show why a new method should be devised.

1. Saul in the Qur'an The Quranic telling of Saul's story is primarily concerned with the sanctioning of fighting and secondarily, almost perfunctorily, with a discussion of the establishment of the office of kingship. Saul's story is interwoven into the main arguments the Qur'an offers to justify war. Samuel is not named; he is simply referred to as "a prophet." The name of King Saul

262

WalidA.

Saleh

is given as Talut. The theory that best explains this name holds that it is a noun formation from the adjective "tall" in Arabic. 1 This is an etymology already discussed in the classical exegetical literature of the Qur'an. We can only speculate as to why the Qur'an chose such a name: Was it to emphasize Saul's strength, or simply to draw attention to the fact that the Qur'an was willing to diverge substantially from the story as told by Jews and Christians? Most probably it is also a Quranic imitation of the etiological naming that is prevalent in the Hebrew Bible. It is important to keep in mind that early Muslims would come to know the name of Talut in Jewish and Christian circles. Saul is appointed king despite the objections of the Israelite elite who found him wanting in wealth and lineage. The prophet informs the Israelites that the sign of Saul's royal status will be confirmed by the miracle of the Ark being carried by angels and paraded among them. The Ark contained within it God's sakinah (more on this term later) and the remnants (baqiyah) of what Moses and Aaron left behind (most probably relics of some sort). The main function of Saul as portrayed in the Qur'an is to lead the Israelites into battle. In the Qur'an's story, God tests the resolve and faith of the Israelites by ordering them not to drink from a river on their way to the battlefield; those who obey this order will fight and be victorious. We are then simply told that David (Dawud) became king after killing Goliath (Jalut). Before continuing further, let me quote here the Qur'an's account of the story of Saul. I use the translation of N.J. Dawood with slight modifications: Have you not heard of what the leaders of the Israelites demanded of one of their prophets after the death of Moses? "Raise up for us a king," they said, "and we will fight for the cause of God." He replied: "What if you refuse, when ordered to fight?" " W h y should we refuse to fight for the cause of God," they said, "when we have been driven from our dwellings and our children?" But when at last they were ordered to fight, they all refused, except a few of them. God knows the evil-doers. (2:246) Their prophet said to them: "God has appointed Talut [Saul] to be your king." But they replied: "Should he be given the kingship, when we are more deserving of it than he? Besides, he is not rich at all." He said: "God has chosen him to rule over you and made him grow in wisdom and in stature. God gives His sovereignty to whom He will. God is munificent and all-knowing." (2:247)

Their prophet also said to them: "The advent of the Ark shall be a portent of his reign. Therein shall be tranquility (sakinah)2 from your Lord, and the relics (baqiyah) 3 which the

1

For literature on this point, see FIRESTONE, Art. Talut. For literature on sakinah, see PARET, Koran, p. 52. As usual, scholars working on the Qur'an believe the Arabic term sakinah to be derived from the Hebrew shekhinah. The question is not origins, but usage. Since the same term is used in other instances in the Qur'an (9:26, 40; 48:4, 18, 26) and it is clear that the meaning there is some sort of spiritual tranquility, in keeping with the meaning of the root in Arabic, it is beside the point from where Muhammad derived the word. I do believe that he constructed it with the Hebrew term 2

in mind, yet he seems to have used it to mean something new and used it consistently to refer to tranquility granted in moments of trials or in battle. I quote here JEFFERY'S understanding

King Saul (Talut) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic

Literature

263

House of Moses and the House of Aaron left behind. It will be borne by the angels. That will be a sign for you, if you are true believers." (2:248) And when Talut marched out with his army, he said: "God will put you to the proof at a certain river. He that drinks from it shall cease to be of me, but he that does not drink from it, or contents himself with a taste of it in the hollow of his hand, shall be of me." But they all drank from it, except a few of them. And when Talut had crossed the river with those who shared his faith, they said: "We have no power this day against Jalut (Goliath) and his warriors." But those of them who believed that they would meet God replied: "Many a small band has, by God's grace, vanquished a mighty army. God is with those who endure with fortitude." (2:249) When they met Jalut and his warriors they cried: "Lord, fill our hearts with steadfastness. Make us firm of foot and help us against the unbelievers." (2:250) By God's will they routed them. And David slew Jalut, and God bestowed on him sovereignty and wisdom and taught him what He pleased. Had God not defeated some by the might of others, the earth would have been utterly corrupted. But God is bountiful to mankind. (2:251) Such are God's revelations. We recite them to you in all truth, for you are one of Our emissaries. (2:252) Of these emissaries We have exalted some above others. To some God spoke directly; others He raised to a lofty status. We gave Jesus son of Mary indisputable signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Had God pleased, those who succeeded them would not have fought against one another after the veritable signs had been given them. But they disagreed among themselves; some had faith and others had none. Yet had God pleased, they would not have fought against one another. God does what He will. (2:253). 4

1.1 Origins vs.

Interpretation

Before proceeding to an analysis of this passage, a general word about method is in order. Nineteenth and twentieth century scholars used to talk of the Qur'an as being misinformed or ill-informed about the stories of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Such might be the case in this passage, but it can hardly explain the exquisite knowledge the Qur'an exhibits of other

of what was going on with this word: "Muhammad would have learned the word from the People of the Book, and not quite understanding its significance, have associated it with the genuine Arabic word meaning tranquility [sic!], and this gives us the curiously mixed sense of the word in the Qur'an" (Vocabulary, p. 174). The reasoning here is that since Muhammad derived the word from Hebrew he should have stuck to its usage in the original language; having used it in its Arabic sense, he must have been confused. Such arguments make no sense either according to any linguistic theory of usage or historically. Since its Hebrew antecedent has no bearing on how Muhammad or the Qur'an used the term, then the question of how it was used in the Qur'an is what matters. Far more significantly the Qur'an is making a polemical point here: The sakinah that was given to the Jews in their early battles is now given to the community of Muhammad in its own battles. We have to countenance here a program of Arabization of Hebrew terms, both in meaning and in substance. See FAHD, Sakinah, where he rightly sees it as directly tied to battles. 3 4

On this term, see SPITALER, Baqlja. DAWOOD, Koran, pp. 36-37.

264

WalidA.

Saleh

biblical stories when it so wished. 5 The notion that the Qur'an is somehow misinformed or ill-informed also presumes that, had the Qur'an had unfettered access to information from Jews and Christians, it would have simply reported that information verbatim. This, however, does not tally with the polemical position the Qur'an took when it disputed stories with Jews and Christians. For the Qur'an not only sometimes told us what a story supposedly was, but went on to dispute its version in other traditions. It is far better to take the word of the Qur'an in terms of its own self-understanding about such differences. The Qur'an, using whatever sources it had access to, simply believed that it was giving the true story. The Qur'an was aware of the discrepancy between its presentation of the religious history of the Jews and the Christians and the one that the Jews and the Christians presented. When confronted by the Jews of Medina about such discrepancies, the Jews were simply accused of falsifying their scripture. The case is even more evident when the Qur'an dealt with the Christian foundational stories, the trinity, and the divinity of Jesus. All were denied by the Qur'an. The Qur'an reminded Muhammad that neither the contemporary Jews nor Christians, nor even Muhammad himself, were there to witness the events of the stories in dispute, but God was, and He is telling the story to Muhammad directly. 6 When Muhammad was bested in arguments, the Qur'an ordered Muhammad not to argue with the Christians, but to have trust that God was telling him the truth. 7 Thus I shall argue in the course of this article that the Qur'an did not offer a typological hermeneutics when confronted with the scriptures of the earlier communities, but a hermeneutics of abrogation, gainsaying, and retelling. It is, of course, possible that the Qur'an, having been ignorant of the biblical stories as such and having gone public with mistaken information about them, could not then retract these stories after it was confronted with their divergence from their Jewish counterparts, and the Qur'an was thus forced to belie the Jews. This scenario, of an embarrassed Qur'an caught

5 Thus in Q. 2:93 the Qur'an makes a pun on the Hebrew phrase shama 'nu we- 'asinu ("we hear and obey" [Deut 5:24]) and renders it in Arabic as: sam'ina wa-'asayna ("we hear and disobey"). The Qur'an knows to render the story of Joseph more or less "accurately" as in sura 12. On verse Q. 2:93, see WHEELER, Moses, pp. 1 - 3 . 6 See, for example, Q. 3:44: "This is an account of divine secret, we reveal it to you. You were not present when they cast lots to see which of them should have charge of Mary; nor were you present when they argued about her." Cf. also 2:133, 18:13, 22. 7 See Chapter 18 of the Qur'an, which tells the story of the seven sleepers of Ephesus. See especially v. 23: "(Some) will say: They were three, their dog the fourth, and some say: Five, their dog the sixth, guessing at random; and some say: Seven, and their dog eighth. Say (O Muhammad): My Lord is best aware of their number. None knows them save a few. So [Muhammad] contend not concerning them except with an outward contending, and ask not any of them to pronounce concerning them." (my italics) The best analysis of this chapter is BROWN'S chapter on The Apocalypse of Islam in his Apocalypse, pp. 69 - 9 4 , and esp. p. 87.

King Saul (Talut) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic

Literature

265

unaware of its ignorance, is too reductive for me to entertain, though it is an explanation that implicitly underlies much scholarship on the Qur'an. The fact remains that the first telling of a biblical story by the Qur'an was markedly different from what the Jews and Christians were accustomed to hearing. The aim and tenor of the biblical stories retold in the Qur'an were so radically different from their original model that it makes better sense to presume in the Qur'an a highly articulated outlook that knew exactly what it wanted to say. We know that the Qur'an simply did not go the way Christianity decided to go, that of adopting the previous scriptures and reinterpreting them. They were more or less rewritten and retold; and this retelling was declared the true story. Short of the appearance of new material that could shed light on the sources of the Qur'an, we will always remain in the realm of speculation when asking exactly wherefrom it was drawing its knowledge of Jewish and Christian material. The consensus among scholars that most of the sources of Muhammad and the Qur'an were oral is a hypothesis that stands as long as one does not probe its foundations. In the first place, this assumption precludes an already "corrupted" written source. Conversely, it also somehow devalues any "oral" source as a source, for it denies that one can report correctly the story of Saul from memory. We simply do not know and cannot be certain of the method of transmission of biblical lore to Muhammad. Far more significant is that such an approach denies Muhammad and the Qur'an any autonomy of articulation. It removes from Muhammad and the Qur'an the authority or ability to articulate a vision of what the significance and the truthvalue of the Bible might have been with respect to the prophetic career of Muhammad or his understanding of his prophetic career. Thus, surprisingly, the Qur'an is never investigated as to what it means when it states that it was sent to reveal the truth about the disagreement among the Christians and the Jews. 8 That the Qur'an presented itself as a judge of the prophetic claims of the two monotheisms is never even mentioned in scholarly literature, although this is a fundamental and oft-repeated claim in the Qur'an. Yet it is precisely this upstart attitude of the Qur'an to all that came before it that may indeed hold the key to understanding how it molded the stories of the Bible. Thus, in the absence of sources, it is better to admit the limitations we face than take our own speculations as definitive answers to the problem of the origins of the Qur'an. We simply lack any similar contemporaneous material from the time of the Qur'an from Hijaz. Thus a far better approach is to investigate the use to which biblical material was put.

8 Cf. Q. 27:76 - 7 7 : "This Qur'an expounds to the Israelites most of the matters over which they disagree. It is surely a guide and a blessing to true believers."

266 1.2 Quranic Saul in Modem

WalidA.

Saleh

Scholarship

The most extensive analysis of the Saul episode available in modern times is that of Heinrich Speyer.9 Speyer was primarily concerned with showing how the Qur'an agreed and disagreed with the Hebrew Bible or other Jewish and Christian sources. Thus his analysis consists mostly of citation of parallels or the absence thereof- between Quranic biblical stories and their Jewish and Christian counterparts. Here we come across one example of the usual early scholarly understanding of disagreements between the Qur'än and the previous "sources" as misunderstandings (missverstanden), adulterations (Vermischung), or reminiscences (Reminiszenz an) on the part of Muhammad or the Qur'än. 10 The premise of such an understanding of the differences, as I have already mentioned, is that Muhammad or the Qur'än were eager to give back the stories faithfully, had they only understood them properly. Insightful and erudite as it might have been, the citing-of-parallels approach, the hallmark of early Quranic higher criticism, has become a barrier to a proper understanding of the function of biblical stories in the Qur'än. Faced with the traditional self-presentation of Islam, for which the claims of the divine origin of the Qur'än and of Muhammad as an axenic prophet unsullied by contamination with other traditions are central, the scholarly community went about showing both the historical roots of Islam and its dependence on the two religious traditions of Judaism and Christianity. Thus the historical investigation of early Islam was not without a polemical edge that unfortunately ended up influencing the tenor of how Quranic studies were done. Proving dependency was seen as the proper scholarly response to the insistence of the tradition on its divine origins, and all attempts to go beyond that were, though consistently performed, never able to break away from the initial impulse. One was always engaged in detective guess work, trying to find the source of this bit of information or that. Finding origins became the telos of modern Quranic scholarship. The Qur'än was thus never seen as able to present a coherent vision of its own, rather than a refracted image of what its "original" sources were. Yet, to state that biblical material in the Qur'än depended on, or has its origin in the Bible and the literatures that grew around it (whether Jewish or Christian), is a truism that does not need belaboring, or for that matter, the refined methods of scholarship to prove. In so far as it is historically a selfevident fact that biblical material in the Qur'an has to have its origin in such a heritage, then stating this fact is a tautology at best or a platitude at worst. The real issue is how biblical material was used, and for what function it was employed. Searching for the exact sources of the Qur'an without the presence 9

SPEYER, Erzählungen, pp. 364 -371. SPEYER, Erzählungen, pp. 368 (for missverstanden Reminiszenz an). 10

and Vermischung)

and 369 (for

King Saul (Talut) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic

Literature

267

of contemporaneous material from Arabia of the sixth century will always remain a speculative exercise at best. The Qur'an has availed itself of so many sources that trying to pinpoint the origin of its information has so far not only proven elusive, but speculative. What is certain is that Muhammad gave the religious situation of his late antique society what was to him a plausible explanation, a diagnosis, and a remedy. Instead of building on comparative material to better understand the Qur'an, however, we have simply opted to declare the Qur'an confused. Despite the dogged attempts of many scholars to dislodge the unearthing-of-origins approach, it remains entrenched in the field; and one cannot yet claim that it is a bygone phase of Quranic studies. 11 Indeed, one has to start any scholarly investigation by either reiterating this kind of information, or distancing oneself from its shortcomings. In either case the centrality of such an approach is invariably emphasized. 12

1.3 Gideon (Judg 7:5-8) or 1 Sam 14:24-48 I will analyze here one episode from the Quranic presentation of Saul that has been unanimously described as being the result of confusion on the part of Muhammad, in order to show the inadequacy of understanding the Qur'an in those terms. This is the episode in the Qur'an where Saul asks his warriors not to drink water from a river they were about to cross before the battle because God wanted to test them. Those who drank more than one time were, as it were, not willing to fight, while those who did not drink, the minority, were God-fearing and certain of victory. Geiger and Speyer saw the origin of this episode in the story of Gideon in Judges 7:5-8 and argued that Muhammad had confused the story with the episode of Saul ordering his soldiers not to eat in 1 Sam 14:24—48.13 Yet to claim that is to miss the whole point of the episode in the Qur'an. The Qur'an tells the story in such a way as to exonerate " This will not happen until we have a separate study of each biblical episode in the Qur'än using the new method. As long as the only secondary literature available on certain biblical stories is from the old "origins" schools, it will be cited for lack of other alternative studies. Chapter 12 in the Qur'an, dealing with Joseph, has received the most attention from the advocates of the new method. For references, see GOLDMAN, Art. Joseph. 12 See TOTTOLI, Prophets, where he disclaims any interest in going after parallels to Jewish or Christian stories to prove dependency or inexactitude in the Qur'an (p. x: "This comparison is not carried out with the purpose of stressing the dependence or presumed inexactitude of the Qur'an in relation to the Biblical tradition, but only to explain the particularities of the contents and the form of those parts of the Qur'än dedicated to the prophets"). See also his remarks on p. 50 n. 2. Yet, when we delve into the book, we soon realize that the secondary literature does not allow him such luxury. In the end the massive literature dedicated to find the origins and parallels to the Quranic biblical stories is so omnipresent that it ends up central in Tottoli's presentation. He eventually succumbs to presenting the Quranic stories in comparison with the biblical stories, and not as fully articulate independent retellings. As one example, see p. 57 n. 36. 13

See SPEYER, Erzählungen, p. 368, for both his and Geiger's remarks.

268

Walid A. Saleh

Saul of any hint of capriciousness or lack of wisdom. Thus the Qur'an did not want to undermine the image of Saul as a warrior king. This is in keeping with the Qur'an's presentation of the Patriarchs and other Israelite figures as sinless prophets, or as almost perfect human beings. Indeed, the presentation of all salvific history as constituted by unblemished prophets coming to preach to unresponsive crowds is the hallmark of Quranic prophetology. 14 Moreover, the prohibition against eating in 1 Samuel is turned upside down: While in the Hebrew Bible the Israelites to a man obey Saul's orders Jonathan violates the prohibition because he does not know of it, in the Qur'an most of the Israelites disobey Saul, preferring to drink copiously, after initially pledging to fight and do God's will. The Qur'an fashions the Jews as the ultimate ungodly; and their refusal to fight is one of their many sins. Their very claim to be willing to fight is belied by the fact that they are unable to obey what is far less arduous: not drinking water as a test of endurance. Moreover, unlike the Gideon story, the Qur'an has different aims. In Judges God chooses who will have the honor of fighting, since too many Israelites show up for the battle, while the Qur'an paints the Israelites as unwilling to risk a fight. Trust in God, a blind trust, is the point the Qur'an is harping on. The point of the story in the Qur'an is to test the believers' faith in God's inscrutable wisdom and not to prove to them that God does not need their help for victory. For what could be more inscrutable than asking a fighting army not to drink before a battle, and to claim that this is God's wisdom and test? It was precisely this unimaginable demand on God's part for faith from the believers that was the point. In many ways, it also reflected the totally unrealistic program of Muhammad: to fight the Arabs of Arabia unprepared and to think of launching a polity where none had been tried before. There is a parallelism here, therefore, between the demand of Saul and the program of Muhammad in Medina. Both were logically unjustifiable and indefensible and only made sense if one had complete trust in God. For why did not Muhammad acquiesce to being a ruler of a city-state? Muhammad was asking his followers to follow his lead, even if it was as inscrutable and as maddening as being asked not to drink water before a battle. Those who would obey the order were those who had faith in victory. This was not confusion on Muhammad's part, but artful use of biblical motifs to reshape a story to his own end. One could argue, with no difficulty, that the Qur'an knew not only the Saul story but also the Gideon episode, and it went ahead and used some elements from each to reshape a totally new episode to fit its program. Yet, even as late as 2002, Roberto Tottoli was still informing us that Geiger, who wrote his work in 1833, thought that this Quranic episode was the "product of confusion between Saul and Gideon." 15 Speyer in 1931 would 14 15

See PARET, Mohammed, pp. TOTTOLI, Prophets, p. 60.

99-101.

King Saul (Taliit) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic

Literature

269

report to us about the same confusion, but we were never told what sense such an episode might have made in relation to the conditions of Muhammad and his followers and the theology of war in the Qur'an. 16 Indeed, an insistence on understanding the Qur'an as constituted of defective recapitulations of biblical stories prevents us from any in-depth understanding of the resonance of this episode with the pre-Islamic Arabs. We have to imagine the impact of the story on desert dwellers who, if they were aware of anything, must have been aware of the precariousness of life without water in the desert. Whoever was telling the story must have been aware of its impact on such an audience. To be asked to go thirsty before a battle sounds, if not absolutely irrational, then comical, rather in keeping with the pagan perception of the outlandish God of Muhammad and his claims. (Luckily for us the Qur'an has preserved the scathing sarcasm of the Meccans against the God of Muhammad and his claim of total cosmic sovereignty). Yet, it is precisely this element of trust that Muhammad wants to instill in his followers, and he is saying that it constitutes faith and guarantees victory. Perhaps we are missing another point here. For what the story does not name, thirst, is the great presence in the story. The mythical dimensions of thirst in its relationship to blood and revenge and to the ethos of the desert of pre-Islamic Arabia are not unknown to us.17 When the blood of a victim of homicide went unavenged, a thirsty owl was said to spring from his head and haunt the living with its howling for revenge. Thirst was a primordial fear; not only was it a physical state, but also a metaphysical condition that should not be left unquenched. Thirst and revenge have a long intertwined history in preIslamic poetry; and one is entitled to see a connection between that aspect of pre-Islamic ethos and this particular story in the Qur'an. It was not hunger that the Qur'an chose to depict in the episode of Saul, which the ethos of the desert made sure to make an element one should overcome, but thirst, a state which can only evoke death, shrieking owls in deserted ruins, and graves thirsty for revenge. Nothing apparently, not even the great fear of the desert, thirst, should turn the hearts from trusting God. Human existence was a test (bala') and God was constantly testing the steadfastness of his believers.18 1.4 Saul and the Theology of War in the Qur'an I will not repeat here the findings of Speyer as to what parallels exist between the above-quoted section from the Qur'an and Jewish and Christian literature. Almost as if admitting the limitation of his exercise, Speyer himself finishes 16

17

S e e SPEYER, E r z ä h l u n g e n .

On thirst, owls, and pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, see HOMERIN, Echoes. 18 See the verses that use the root b-l-w in the Qur'än, a root that is used in the Saul story also in 2:249. Of course, there is the possibility that the fighters were turned through thirst into avengers. The blood of the enemy will quench the thirst of the believers.

270

WalidA.

Saleh

his citation of parallels in each section by stating that the story of Saul reflects more the reality of the conditions of Muhammad's political life than anything we know of the story of Saul from the Hebrew Bible. Speyer sums up his insight in a short excursus at the end of his discussion of parallels. The one and a half pages that Speyer wrote on this topic remain an insightful contribution to the study of the Quranic Saul story to this day. 19 The excursus, however, fails to discuss the place of Saul's story in the whole thrust of Chapter (sura) 2 in the Qur'an and its significance in the elaboration of the theology of war, something to which I now will pay close attention. It also fails to tell us why the story was told where it was told. A more fruitful approach would be to see how this story fits in the chapter (sura) where it is presented and in the career of Muhammad. The paleographic and numismatic evidence point to the year 622 CE as a momentous year in the career of the prophet; and there is no contrary evidence that forces us to reject the traditional Muslim story that this date points to the relocation of Muhammad to Medina where he established his polity. 20 The Constitution of Medina, a document that is unanimously upheld as coming from the time of Muhammad, adds almost certitude to this analysis. 21 Since the Qur'an speaks about fighting as something imposed "now on the believers" and since the Qur'an was having a hard time instilling the virtue of fighting among the believers, we are to understand that, before the migration of Muhammad, fighting was neither imposed nor an issue. 22 This rough outline will suffice to make a better sense of the significance of Saul's story in the Qur'an. 19

SPEYER, Erzählungen, pp. 370-371, s.v. Mohammed und die qoranische Erzählung von der Nachfolge Müsäs. 20 It should be clear that I am keeping to the bare minimum of historical information about Muhammad. I only accept what is historically irrefutable and attested by paleographic and numismatic evidence: the year 622 CE as a turning point in the life of the prophet, and the Constitution of Medina. The relocation was accompanied by two innovations on the part of Muhammad: imposing fighting as a duty on his followers and a rudimentary tax system. The Hijra (as the event of 622 is known) remains as such the most telling evidence of the Arabian origins of the new religion. Though heavily dependent on Rudi Paret and his analysis of the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad, my approach goes even further in that I believe that the Qur'an can tell us more than scholars have hitherto been willing to concede. We have barely started to analyze the Qur'än for historical information about the career of Muhammad. See PARET, M o h a m m e d ; IDEM, G e s c h i c h t s q u e l l e . 21

For literature on the Constitution of Medina, see HUMPHREYS, History, pp. 92 - 9 8 . The presentation of FIRESTONE (Jihad) of the concept ofjihäd, or fighting, in the Qur'an as a cacophony of divergent stances among early believers towards fighting and its legitimacy is not convincing. Fighting was placed at the center of the new polity. The persistence of the Qur'an in heckling the recalcitrant believers to fight does not support such a reading. On the contrary, God loved those who fought for his cause in ranks as firm as a mighty edifice (Q. 61:4). As a matter of fact, most of sura 3, the second longest chapter in the Qur'an, is nothing if not a sustained argument for the centrality of fighting in the new polity. Fighting is actually so prevalent a theme in the Medinan sections of the Qur'an that this theme is the primary 22

King Saul (Talut) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic Literature

271

It should be stated that I have different presuppositions from those involved in Speyer's approach to Quranic material that deal with biblical stories, and also different, for that matter, from the presuppositions of John Wansbrough's approach. 23 The primary stance that I take towards these stories is that they are neither refracted snippets nor strained reflections of whispered tales that barely made it to the ear of Muhammad (pace Speyer). Rather they are coherent units and, as such, I presuppose that they were told in the Qur'an for a purpose that was inherently tied to the concerns of the early Muslim community. My reference point, therefore, is not the biblical story that, in approaches such as Speyer's, acts as the Urtext and model to measure how far the Quranic retelling has been corrupted; my focus is rather on the Quranic story itself in relationship to other parts of the Qur'an. This approach is also founded on the premise that the basic function of these stories was intra-Islamic; in other words, the Qur'an was more concerned with building a new self-identity than with scoring points against the Jews or Christians (pace Wansbrough). In that respect I take the Qur'an to be a text that reflects the career of Muhammad; 24 indeed, the more we know about early Islam and the post-Muhammad polity, the more convinced I am of this. Secondly, I will hold that Quranic chapters (suras) are coherent units until it has been demonstrated otherwise. The presupposition of many of the scholarly approaches to the Qur'an is that - since many of the chapters do not exhibit thematic unity (whatever is meant by that) - they are not coherent compositions. This presupposition, however, uses the most salient mode of Quranic discourse, a discourse that is multi-thematic, in order to argue for the absence of coherent composition. The work of Angelika Neuwirth has shown that this can no longer be said about the parts of the Qur'an revealed in Mecca, or what is known as the Meccan Suras. 25 1 will argue that Neuwirth's analysis has to be extended also to the chapters revealed in Medina.26 Indeed, it is counterintuitive to argue from the absence of thematic unity in Quranic chapters that these chapters are not cohesive, with the implicit conclusion that as chaotic compositions they fail to fulfill the function they set out to perform. The internal divisions of the Qur'an into chapters (suwar in Arabic) indicator of a shift in the policy of Muhammad and of dividing the Qur'an into pre-Medinan and Medinan sections. 23

S e e WANSBROUGH, S t u d i e s .

24

It should also be clear that 1 take the same position as Noeldeke, Schwally, and Paret (the "German school") regarding the history of the codification of the text. For a summary and a review of the German school's approach to the Qur'an, see ROBINSON, Discovering. 25

26

NEUWIRTH, Studien.

In recent years there has been a convergence in articulating the same position by several new scholars working on the Qur'an. For references, see ZAHNISER Transitions, especially p. 29, where he states that "The common ground for IslahT, Robinson, and me has been that long suras possess overall unity and meaningful coherence."

272

Walid A. Saleh

chapters, I should point out, that are very varied in their length, from one line to sprawling booklets - raises the question of what criteria were used to enact such divisions. The straightforward answer is that these divisions are intrinsic and should be understood as being part of the compositional history of the text. Thus the axiomatic position should be that the Quranic chapters are coherent until we are able to show levels of redaction that are using different material, thus proving the incoherence of our suras. Indeed, an insistence on the absence of the compositional unity of the suras, with no internal supporting evidence for such claims from the text, means that the text is nearly impossible to analyze in historical terms. Nonetheless, this view is a corollary, though never fully stated, operative in many scholarly, i.e., supposedly historical, approaches to the Qur'an. My analysis is also based on the scholarly consensus that the Qur'an is constituted of two major sections: the material revealed before Medina (known as Meccan) and the Medinan material. That we have been unable to come up with a better division of the Qur'an than the one offered by the German school is all the more indicative that the premise has solid foundations. That such a division comes from the native tradition should not prejudice us against its fundamental insight. One is left with the feeling that some revisionists are against such an approach because it is old. There is a rift, a chasm, a divide in the Qur'an that is hard to explain, unless we presume a fundamental rift in the history of composition that was both radical yet incapable of fully transforming what came before it. The fact that, try as it did, the Islamic scholarly and theological tradition could not hide the fact that the Qur'an was revealed over a period of two decades and in two different locales, Mecca and Medina, is ultimately revealing. Having gone to the trouble of inventing a history of how the Qu'ran came about, pace the revisionists, the Muslims seem to have failed miserably. They formulated a scenario in which the Qur'an did not come down in one piece to Muhammad. This fact, or rather failing, has always haunted Islamic theologians when they pondered the history of the Torah, as it was understood to be revealed. The Qur'an did not measure up to that archetypal standard of how divine books come down from Heaven. If there was a story to invent, it would have been this: a Qur'an sent down to Muhammad in one piece. The historical memory, in addition to the compositional nature of the Qur'an, made the invention of such a story impossible; and Muslim theologians, to their dismay, have had to live with a Qur'an revealed piecemeal. That the tradition sensed that there were almost two different Qur'ans is also revealing. Whether historically we will ever be certain that there was a Meccan phase in the prophetic career of

King Saul (Talut) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic

Literature

273

Muhammad is, in this light, beside the point. 27 There was a pre-Medinan phase, this much is certain. The Qur'an on its own can prove that; both stylistically and in terms of content it hints at two periods, and this is the starting point of my approach to the Qur'an. This detour into the major issues concerning the Qur'an is unavoidable in the current state of the field. It is best that the reader is fully informed about the presuppositions of the author to avoid misunderstandings. The story of Saul played a major role in arguments set forth in Chapter 2 of the Qur'an to legitimize fighting, and for that matter in subsequent Quranic revelations that deal with this issue. The career of Muhammad saw a turn after his migration to Medina (622 CE). 28 The failure of his prophetic career in Mecca among his own tribe was left behind. A new polity was established; and the prophet was now more than a prophet. The abiding concern of Muhammad in this new phase was, in addition to continuing the conversion of his fellow Arabs, to mobilize the community in order both to defend itself and to assert its authority over his own recalcitrant Meccan tribe, Quraysh. Indeed, Muhammad, already by the time of his relocation to Medina, must have envisioned a polity that would encompass the Arabs. Judging from the statements in the Qur'an, the Muhammad of Mecca was slow to realize fully the political implications of his own monotheistic mission. His Meccan adversaries were not. They accused him of political ambitions, despite the repeated assertions of the Qur'an that Muhammad was a mere warner and a bringer of good tidings. Repeatedly the Qur'an asserts that Muhammad neither wanted pay ( a j r ) for delivering his message (Q. 10:72; 12:104; see especially Q. 26:109, 127, 145, 164, 180) nor was to become a tyrant (musaytir, Q. 88:22) over the Meccans. The failure of Muhammad in Mecca meant that he himself came to the conclusion that monotheism, in order to thrive, needed a political community to protect it. The Constitution of Medina saw Muhammad appointed as a mere judge over the newly established ummah or community. 29 The consolidation of his authority over the newfound community would prove to be a long-protracted process that was implicit in the document, though never an assured result. The opposition to Muhammad's new demand for using fighting to transform Arabia was spearheaded not by active resistance in Medina, but by apathy and lip service to the new faith in so far as it required fighting. The Qur'an called

27 The Syriac Chronicle of Khuzistan (written ca. in the 660's) does mention an Abrahamic shrine. The Ka'bah in Mecca is most probably what is meant; see HOYLAND, Seeing, pp. 187-189. 28 The year the Muslims would decide to use as the beginning of their calendar. 29 For the text of the Constitution, see WATT, Muhammad, pp. 221-225.

274

Walid A. Saleh

this apathy nifaq "dissimulation," which at its heart was a refusal to accept the rationale for fighting.30 At the center of the innovation that Muhammad brought to the noncentralized political life of Hijaz (or inner Arabia) was the concept of a polity with an army used as part of a long-term strategy for growth. 31 Though Muhammad seemed inclined to deal with everyone at first, he was not prepared to deal with his own tribe. Even when his role was shaky, a mere judge for disputes, his tribe was specifically mentioned in the body of the Constitution as an enemy with whom no dealings were allowed. The implication of this position was soon to become manifest. Muhammad was determined to suffocate the economic life of his tribesmen by intercepting their caravans. He was so determined that he did not mind putting the whole community in danger of being defeated by the more powerful Meccans. The justification for this attitude towards his own people was readily given by Muhammad. Mecca had already broken all bonds of kinship by driving him and his followers from their own homes. Being in the position of the weak, Muhammad was basically asking the new polity to commit itself to a course of action that was risky to say the least. Medina came very close to being massacred by the Meccans and escaped only because of the indefatigable Muhammad. The function of the story of Saul can thus be seen as an attempt on the part of the Qur'an to enlarge and interpret the implications of the Constitution of Medina. The Qur'an is telling the believers that the Israelites asked for a king in order to fight; thus fighting and the use of force was seen as the only reason to install a king. The Qur'an is thus tying political authority together with the command to take arms and, even more, with the imposition of fighting on the members of the polity. It stands to reason then, that having established a polity, the Muslims would be expected to mount a fighting force. The question asked by the Qur'an (in the mouth of Samuel addressing the Israelites) becomes very telling: Should fighting be imposed on you, will you then not fight? The warning of Samuel in the Hebrew Bible against kingship is turned in the Qur'an into a warning against not fighting. The Qur'an warns the believers not to address Muhammad with the same rebuttal the Israelites offered Moses: "Go you and your God and fight, we are staying here" (Q. 5:24). The inhabitants of Muhammad's polity are thus in a bind, having 30

See sura 9, where the Qur'an is practically equating the resistance to fight with ungodliness; by v. 64 of the sura, it is all out: Those Muslims who resist the call for arms are munafiqun, i.e., they are not part of the community of believers. The salvation of the believers is predicated on the fulfillment of the mandate of faith, which in addition to praying and paying taxes included support in the waging of the umma's wars. 31 The levying of taxes would be the other drastic innovation. The tax issue would cause the polity to unravel after Muhammad's death. It would take two years of internecine fighting among the Arab tribes to reestablish the polity.

King Saul (Talüt) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic Literature

275

agreed to a polity for which they cannot now pretend they should not be asked to fight. The redress of injustice was and should be addressed by a political authority whose establishment makes lawful the use of force, since it was sanctioned by God. Hence Muhammad could go after his own kin, despite the ingrained taboo against such an act in Arabia, and he could point to God as the legitimizer of such a course of action. The story of Saul seems to imply that one institutes a polity in order to wage war lawfully. Why Muhammad needed a Jewish precedent to argue the legitimacy of fighting is not hard to fathom. The insistence of the Qur'an on the continuity of the career of Muhammad with those of previous prophets necessitated such an argument. Having argued for the first phase of his career that he was a prophet like the prophets before him, who, we are told early on, did not ask for pay or control over their people, and then to turn around and start demanding that his followers fight, Muhammad needed an explanation. The prophetic paradigm of the Meccan revelation was one of redemption through direct divine intervention. God himself punished the recalcitrant majority. The prophet and his band of believers were saved by divine intervention. Noah, Lot, and Abraham were saved by God himself. Moses not only did not have an army, but he had to flee from one, and that army was destroyed by God. With a mighty God on his side, it is not surprising that Moses did not mount an army against Pharaoh. The Meccan suras were certain that God, the active agent in history, would do justice and punish the unbelievers. 32 A new explanation for the sudden reliance on human agency was thus to be based on the lives of the previous prophets.33 It is in this light that the phrase "after Moses" in the telling of the story of Saul in the Qur'an is to be understood (2:246). Muhammad's career in Mecca resembled the life of Moses, and accordingly Moses was the primary model of the Meccan suras. The constitution of a new polity meant that the Muslims, like the Israelites, had moved to a new phase. Thus the crucial element in the Quranic telling of the story of Saul is that it happened after Moses, an emphatic chronological element in an otherwise notoriously non-linear text. The Qur'an is thus implicitly seeing the life of Muhammad in Mecca as a Mosaic phase, the phase of leading the Muslim community out of bondage and enslavement (the exodus turned into hijrah). In the new reality of Medina, where a prophet was - as it were - a king in disguise, the model was the Israelite prophetic events after Moses. Yet, this new phase in Medina was also banishment, at least as the Muslims understood the event. The early Muslims were driven away from 32

33

S e e WELCH, Features.

Another reason for choosing the Jews as an example was the presence of Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammad was warning his followers not to become like the Jews, who have lost their polity through their refusal to fight.

276

WalidA. Saleh

their homes, and thus they were wronged, and in Muhammad's eyes stood justified in seeking a redress for their suffering. Thus the talk of the Israelites, in the Qur'an's retelling of the story of Saul, about being wronged and driven from their homes (2:246) is also necessary, if one is to see their demand for fighting as legitimate. The Israelites wanted to fight because they were wronged, just as Muhammad is asking his followers to do. The past resembles the present (sunnat allah, Q. 33:62), thus the divine plan for human destiny is the implicit justification for Muhammad's remodeling the Jewish salvific history in his own image. In the Qur'an the Israelites were asking for a king in order to fight so that they might redress the injustice done to them by being banished from their homes. This piece of information, that the Israelites were "ousted from their homes" when they asked for a king, would become a headache for later exegetes, who were by then fully familiar with the story as told in the Hebrew Bible, where no banishment was evident at that time in Israelite history. 34 If we look at the position of the story of Saul in Chapter 2 (or sura 2), we soon realize that it comes after a gradual introduction of the concept of fighting and after arguing for the inescapability of fighting in human history. The story comes at the end of a series of arguments in favor of fighting and as an illustration of what God meant by this new demand. The first mention of fighting in sura 2 is in verse 154. Here the talk is not about fighting as such, but about the state of those who die fighting. Believers should not count those who die fighting as dead, the Qur'an asserts, rather as living with God, despite the fact that the believers are unaware of such a state or unable to sense it. Immediately afterward, the Qur'an speaks of testing the believers. The notion of fighting and being tested by God will, therefore, always be linked in the Qur'an from now on. Fighting is part of God's inscrutable wisdom that decrees that he will be testing the faithful to measure their faith. Sura 2 will pick up the theme of fighting later in verse 190. Here believers are ordered to fight those who fight them, and they are asked not to be the aggressors. It is here that we first see the demand to oust the unbelievers from their dwellings, just as the believers were ousted from the same dwellings. Here the Qur'an offers its first clear justification for fighting: Fighting is less an evil than fitnah (verse 2:191). Should the unbelievers desist, then God will forgive them. Fitnah here means the failure of the monotheistic program to come to fruition. By verse 2:216, the Qur'an spells out finally in no uncertain terms that fighting is an obligation, a duty, a prescription. In the language of the Qur'an, fighting is now "written by God upon" the believers. Interestingly, the Qur'an does state that it is a demand that is odious and detested by the believers. Believers might hate something, and yet it is good for them; conversely they 34

See AL-TABARI'S explanation in his J a m i ' al-bayan, vol. 3, p. 305.

King Saul (Tälüt) in the Qur'an and Post-Quranic

Literature

277

might like something, and it might be harmful or deleterious to them. The Qur'an finishes by stating that God knows, and believers don't know. In this instance fighting, its very justification, has moved beyond the mere notion of redressing of injustice. It is one of the mysteries of divine wisdom. Sura 2 has been introducing new rituals and prohibitions such as prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, and among the new demands is fighting. Yet, it is only the demand for fighting that is reiterated and discussed from different angles. Sura 2 is thus a grand new program for the new community. It places the new Muslim community in the grand scheme of monotheistic history. Not only are Muslims inheritors of the Abrahamic legacy, but the Jews were not up to it. Thus, at the moment that the Muslims are asked to carry out new rituals fasting, praying, marrying in a certain way, etc., they are being told that they are being treated just like the other monotheistic communities were treated. They are being warned to live up to this new contract, which includes fighting as an essential element. By sura 2:244, the Qur'an repeats the prescription to fight without offering any justification (note that the first appearance of this demand was in v. 190): "and fight in the path of God, and know that God is all-hearing all-knowing." This verse is thus a summation: Fighting is ordered, and it is ordered because God knows better. No more, no less. Verse 245 speaks about the believers making a loan to God that will be handsomely repaid. It is here that the story of Saul begins. Thus the story of Saul is here precisely to show how to obey God's command to fight, how to behave, and how God will repay the believers. The Jews were ordered to fight; and here is how they behaved and how the Muslims should avoid repeating their mistakes. It is important to emphasize that every element in the story of Saul will make an appearance on the various occasions when the Qur'an discusses fighting in relation to the followers of Muhammad. It is indeed remarkable that the story of Saul is almost a pastiche of what Muhammad saw and understood to be the role of the believer as a fighter. This insight into the composition of the Quranic Saul story has already been highlighted by Speyer. 35 He rightly noted that the story is made of motifs that are essential to the way in which fighting is presented by Muhammad (or the Qur'an) to the believers. Fighting is an arena to test the believers. Thus no wonder that Saul's demand of his followers is inscrutable. True believers just obey (and they will be victorious). Although being terrified of fighting a mighty enemy is normal, a true believer should not at all hesitate in battling for the victory to come. For how many times has a small band fought a mightier army and been victorious because of God's support? These are almost clichés in the demands of the Qur'an from the believers when they are asked to fight. 35 For some of the verses that use the same language as the Saul episode, see SPEYER, Erzählungen, pp. 370 -371.

278

Walid A. Saleh

Gone in Medina was the neat division between believers and unbelievers. Now an unwillingness to fight would ensure that the hesitant won from among the followers of Muhammad the vile epithet "hypocrite," a rank akin to disbeliever, since eternal punishment is the fate of such individuals. Talut threatens everyone who drinks from the river that he will "be not of me" (in Arabic "laysa minni," 2:249). It is the same expression the Qur'an will use of the hypocrites of Medina who refused to fight with Muhammad (Q. 9:56). Far more resonant is the prayer of the steadfast followers of Talut; it will be the prayer God will ask the followers of Muhammad to repeat before every battle. The sakinah, which accompanied the Jews in their battles, is now something that God bestows upon the believers and followers of Muhammad when they fight.36 The ascendancy of Muhammad's followers is thus complete. Verses 2:253-254 act as a comment on the story of Saul and its meaning to the believers: Fighting among humanity is God's will, and God does what he wills. The episode of Saul is now complete in the Qur'an. 1.5 Anxieties of Inheritance It was not in the interest of Muhammad, and for that matter of the Qur'an, to emphasize the division between prophecy and kingship that Saul's story highlights in the Hebrew Bible. Although the Qur'an does harp on the notion of divine election (Saul is king because God chose him), there was no avoiding the fact that a king and a prophet were sharing a polity. Muhammad, on the contrary, was both wrapped in one (although Muhammad never claimed kingship, he did act with sovereignty all the same). Saul's story, having done its work, will never be mentioned again in the Qur'an. Rare are the biblical stories in the Qur'an that, having been mentioned once, are not repeated many times, or at least mentioned again obliquely. The sudden appearance of David in an almost breathtaking declarative statement at the end of the story, where we are informed that God gave David kingship, is only meaningful if one senses the Qur'an's anxiety at having to tell a story of a prophet and a king sharing the same polity. We are never told the fate of Saul, although it is not the habit of the Qur'an to tell the fates of kings as such. Yet the manner is rather unique even when measured by Quranic narrative techniques. 37 Far more significant is that we are not told the fate of the prophet (in the Qur'an Samuel is "a prophet"). Usually the story of a prophet would either end with the prophet's vindication by God or with a moral about God's justice. David's career, ushered in by the killing of

36 One could argue that Muhammad was using the rabbinic argument about the absence of the shekhinah among the Jews against them. God's sakinah is now dwelling among the Muslims. 37 In the Qur'an, David's succession by Solomon is narrated (Q. 27:16); the death of Solomon is also recorded (Q. 34:14).

King Saul (Talut) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic Literature

279

Goliath, is the end of the story of Samuel. This is not in keeping with the pattern of how stories about prophets are usually told. It is thus evident that for the Qur'an Saul was there to legalize war and act as a model of a warrior. The unusual treatment of Samuel, the unnamed prophet, and Saul, the only-once mentioned king of Israel, is so uncharacteristic of the Quranic approach to Israelite history that we have to seek an explanation for it. The need of the Qur'an for this story apparently overrode the usual precedence given to prophets over any other kind of communal leadership, whether that of kings or chieftains. A prophet was what mattered to the Qur'an. In one instance David is called a khalifah (the Qur'an did not use the term king, Q. 38:26), but David was a prophet primarily (Q. 17:55 ) 38 It is also clear that a prophet was the one entrusted with the prerogative of establishing a polity, and apparently only because he was not willing to lead armies was he to name the king. Muhammad not only was a prophet, but he was willing to lead an army. It is interesting to note that kingship in the Qur'an is only positive if it is tied to prophecy. The negative statement about kingship in the Qur'an (Q. 27:34) is not only due to theological sensitivities, for God is the sovereign, but also to the fact that allowing kingship would undermine prophetic authority. Rare are the instances where we find a serious discussion in the scholarly literature of Muhammad's political innovation on the level of political practice. It is clear from historical information that the Arabs were familiar with governance through kingship, yet Muhammad opted to refuse such a paradigm. 39 The story of Saul can give us a clue as to why this was the case. Muhammad's only argument for political legitimacy was that he was appointed by God. Moreover, as a prophet he could fulfill the role of a king also. It is here that I would like to make a suggestion that is in keeping with what I am arguing in this article: Muhammad knew his Bible well. Could it be that Muhammad or the Qur'an internalized the distaste for kingship that 1 Samuel 8 and 12 so eloquently express and, having done so, accepted Israelite kingship as fitting for the Israelites, but refused it as the model for the new community? What I am saying is that the Qur'an and Muhammad might have been more aware of the fine points of the Bible than the theory of a confused Muhammad could allow. In the end, the Qur'an adopted fighting from the Hebraic model, but not kingship. It is here that we open new vistas to deepen our understanding of Muhammad's political career, vistas not feasible with

38

See MARLOW, Art. King. One of the earliest Arabic inscriptions was a tombstone BELLAMY, Reading. The inscription dates from 328 CE. Of Lakhmids were later to become quasi-kingdoms on their biography of Muhammad that he was detested by a group of their bidding to install a king from amongst themselves. 39

for the "king of the Arabs." See course, the Ghassanids and the own. There are reports in the the Medinese because he foiled

280

WalidA. Saleh

the theory of a muddled Qur'an. The Qur'an in Medina seems to be facing the crux of the monotheistic problem: How are God and man to live together? If God is sovereign, how does man organize politically? It is clear that the Qur'an has opted out of kingship as a model for the faithful. This might explain to us the complete absence in the Qur'an of any of the classical prophets from the Hebrew Bible (the Nevi'im). Neither Muhammad nor the Qur'an cared about prophets running around with no political power in hand. Moreover, this might explain to us the jump in the Qur'an from Moses to Saul. The period of the judges in the history of the Israelites did not concern Muhammad. An amorphous political structure, such that of the judges, must have looked too anarchic to Muhammad. Ultimately, Moses was the model a Moses with more obedient followers, one should add - and not the Davidic kingdom. And it was not because Muhammad was some sort of a Samaritan ideologue, who only accepted the authority of the Pentateuch, that he fixated on Moses (the glorious praise for David and Solomon in the Qur'an belies such a paradigm), rather because Muhammad opted for the other model in this Hebraic history: God as the direct sovereign. In this sense early Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, was grappling with the same fundamental core of monotheism: How does God reign? Thus, a reading of the biblical stories in the Qur'an as independent, selfcontained stories can tell us more about Muhammad than we at first might have expected. It actually confirms that the Qur'an knew the Bible even better than we might have thought. Yet, to claim that the Qur'an knew its Bible well, does not and should not mean that it will give it us back the Bible that we know. It is here that the prophetic career of Muhammad was paramount. He thought and acted as one entitled to give us back a reading of this salvific history that fit his own understanding.

2. Saul's Story in Post-Quranic Literature Something radical happened in the post-Quranic period that altered the way early Muslims came to understand the story of Saul (or for that matter biblical material) as presented in the Qur'an. The early post-Quranic Muslims sought to understand the biblical references in their book through the added benefit of the heritage of Judaism and Christianity. It was also the case that Muslim commentators and historians not only had access to and knowledge of the canonical biblical story of Saul, but also sought to bring the Quranic story into line with it. Conversely, the biblical story was adapted to fit the paradigms of the Quranic story. This was carried out by using the Quranic Saul story as a scaffold on which to retell the biblical Saul story. Thus two major elements were modified in the biblical story: First, the thrust of the story was shifted

King Saul (Talut) in the Qur 'an and Post-Quranic

Literature

281

away from the establishment of kingship in Israel (and hence the Davidic monarchy), and second, Saul was redeemed through jihad. The newly acquired knowledge available to post-Quranic interpreters came primarily through new converts to Islam, mainly from Judaism. Indeed, the details at the disposal of commentators, historians, and storytellers not only show familiarity with the Hebrew Bible, but also with midrashic lore. What is remarkable in post-Quranic literature is that the two stories of Saul are harmonized, and there seems to be no hesitation to weave them together despite their differences. We also witness the tackling of the various issues that were implicit in the Quranic telling of the story: Were the Israelites refugees, as the Qur'an claims (apparently not, now that the commentators knew better); and why was it necessary to have a prophet and a king at the same time (because this was a peculiarity of the Israelite polity)? 40 Then there is the thorny issue of the behavior of Saul trying to kill David, something not mentioned in the Qur'an or even hinted at. This fact could not be whitewashed, and the death of Saul in battle was turned into a martyrdom of atonement for his sins. The classical formulations of the Saul story in post-Quranic literature can be gleaned from al-Tabari's Qur'an commentary, his history of the world, and from al-Tha'labl's Tale of the Prophets (qisas al-anbiya ').41 As interesting as it is to follow the development of the story of Saul in post-Quranic literature, I am more interested here in drawing conclusions based on the nature of the transformation that has occurred between the presentation of the story in the Qur'an and its post-Quranic presentation. 42 All the evidence suggests that there was a period of symbiosis in early Islam; this period started just shortly after the conquest, when stories coming out of the Jewish milieu were incorporated into the Islamic worldview. 43 Thus the claims of the Qur'an as the ultimate source of truth were not systematically upheld by the believers, who seemed eager to add to their knowledge the details of Israelite history regardless of its divergence from the Qur'an. As long as the stories coming out of the Jewish milieu were adaptable, they were reworked into the outlook of the new faith. In this sense, a total reworking of the Jewish midrashic and

40 Another stratagem was to claim that the Israelites asked first for a prophet to lead them into battle. The unease about the Saul story is all too apparent in later Islamic tradition. For an example, see AL-TABARI'S account in his History, p. 130. 41 Al-TabarT's world history is available in English (on Saul, see AL-TABARI, History, pp. 129-139), as is al-Tha'labl's Tales of the Prophets. For al-Tha'labT's work see BRINNER,

Lives, pp. 4 3 9 - 4 6 1 . 42 See now the work of KLAR (Retelling, pp. 1 4 3 - 1 8 3 ) on the story of post-Quranic Saul; her dissertation will soon be published. 43 WASSERSTROM, Muslim.

282

WalidA. Saleh

biblical lore was achieved, and in the process it was Islamized and universalized.44 The second conclusion that the data point to is that the sources of the Qur'an for biblical material were completely lost, in so far as we have no preserved material that contains such a source, nor for that matter its outlook. The story of Saul in the Qur'an is of such a character that, if we were to assume a source for it, one would presuppose a version that is not in agreement with the biblical model. Yet, we don't find in the later Islamic sources any continuation of such a tradition, but rather a re-admittance of the more mainstream Jewish lore as we know it from the midrash. There are two possible explanations for this situation. We can, on the one hand, assume a source already reworked and ready for Muhammad to use. On the other hand, is the explanation advanced in this article, namely that the Qur'an (and hence Muhammad) was itself reshaping that biblical tradition according to a vision that we can only reconstruct from what is left of it in the Qur'an itself. It died with either Muhammad or the moment the text was canonized. If this explanation is valid, it will have profound implications for our understanding of the canonization process of the Qur'an. It is clear that early Muslims had no compunction in using and Islamizing mainstream Jewish lore, yet they failed to admit that vision into the Qur'an. To give one example, the name of Saul in the post-Quranic tradition is rendered as it appears in the Jewish and Aramaic sources. Why the Quranic term "Talut" was left in place is puzzling, unless we posit a date for the canonization that precedes the admittance of so many converts into Islam. The redacted stories of Saul are to be found not in the Qur'an, but rather in the post-Quranic literature. This is just one of hundreds of examples of what I call the intractability of the Qur'an, when it comes to showing levels of redaction. Its cohesive vision is such that it bespeaks an outlook that is thoroughly uniform and clear. The Qur'an, for example, did take the notion of prophecy from the long tradition preceding it; yet prophecy in the Qur'an is neither Jewish nor Christian in its conception. Revisionist historians of the Qur'an, especially the upholders of the more radical view that it was codified much later on, i.e., the ninth or the tenth centuries C.E., must, in addition to explaining the mounting evidence of early manuscripts of the Qur'an, explain to us this most salient of Quranic features: Why it refuses to show any traces of post-Muhammad redactions.

44

S e e LASSNER, D e m o n i z i n g .

King Saul (Tälüt) in the Qur 'än and Post-Quranic

Literature

283

Bibliography BELLAMY, J., A New Reading of the Namärah Inscription, JAOS 105 (1985) pp. 31^18 BRINNER, W., 'Arä'is al-Maläjis f! Qisas al-Anbiyä' or "Lives of the Prophets" as Recounted by Abü Isäq Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim al-Tha'labT, Leiden 2002 BROWN, N., Apocalypse and/or Metamorphosis, Berkeley 1991 DA WOOD, N.J. (trans.), The Koran (Penguin Classics), London 1999 FAHD, T., SakTnah, Encyclopedia of Islam2 8 (1995) 888-889 FIRESTONE, R., Jihad. The Origins of Holy War in Islam, Oxford 1999 —, Art. Tälüt, Encyclopedia of Islam2 10 (2000) pp. 168-169 GOLDMAN, S., Art. Joseph, The Encyclopedia of the Qur'än 3 (2003) pp. 55-57 HOMERIN, T.E., Echoes of a Thirsty Owl. Death and the Afterlife in Pre-Islamic Arabic Poetry, JNES 44 (1985) pp. 165-184 HOYLAND, R., Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, Princeton 1997 HUMPHREYS, R., Islamic History. A Framework for Inquiry, Revised Edition, London 1991 JEFFERY, A., The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, Baroda 1938 KLAR, M., A Popular Retelling of Islamic Stories. Job, Saul, David, and Noah as Portrayed in Tha'labT's 'Arä'is al-majälis, Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University 2002 LASSNER, J., Demonizing the Queen of Sheba. Boundaries of Gender and Culture in Postbiblical Judaism and Medieval Islam, Chicago 1993 MARLOW, L., Art. Kings and Rulers, Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an 3 (2003) pp. 90-95 NEUWIRTH, A., Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren, Berlin 1981 PARET, R„ Der Koran als Geschichtsquelle, Der Islam 37 (1961) 24-42 —, Der Koran. Kommentar und Konkordanz, Stuttgart 1989 —, Mohammed und der Koran. Geschichte und Verkündigung des arabischen Propheten, Stuttgart 19917 ROBINSON, N., Discovering the Qur'än. A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, Washington (D.C.) 2003 SPEYER, H., Die biblischen Erzählungen im Qoran, Gräfenhainichen 1931, reissued Hildesheim 1988 SPITALER, A., Was Bedeutet BaqTja im Koran? in: Westöstliche Abhandlungen. Rudolf Tschudi zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, ed. by F. Meier, Wiesbaden 1954, pp. 137-146 AL-TABARI, Jämi' al-bayän, ed. by M. Shäkir, Cairo 1961 —, The History of al-Tabari. The Children of Israel, Volume III, translated by W. Brinner, New York 1991 TOTTOLI, R., Biblical Prophets in the Qur'än and Muslim Literature, London 2002 WANSBROUGH, J., Quranic Studies. Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation, Oxford 1977 WASSERSTROM, S., Between Muslim and Jew. The Problem of Symbiosis under Early Islam, Princeton 1995 WATT, W.M., Muhammad at Medina, Oxford 1956 WELCH, A., Formulaic Features of the Punishment-Stories, in: Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur'än, ed. by I.J. Boullata, London 2000, pp. 77-117 WHEELER, B., Moses in the Quran and Islamic Exegesis, London 2002 ZAHNISER A.H.M., Major Transitions and Thematic Borders in Two Long Süras. al-Baqara and al-Nisä', in: Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur'än, ed. by I.J. Boullata, London 2000, pp. 2 6 - 5 5

Handel and Jennens' Oratorio "Saul" A Late Musical and Dramatic Rehabilitation of the Figure of Saul* Rüdiger Bartelmus Saul is ruined in the Old Testament, because Jehovah removes his protective hand. But this does not suffice for Handel. For him it is a purely human fate that dooms this larger-than-life figure. It is the age-old royal tragedy that plays itself out; envy and jealousy against the leading minister of state, against David, derange the spirit of the ruler and destroy him. Saul is ruined, not because Jehovah has abandoned him, but because he has succumbed to the violent passions of his own heart. Saul geht im Alten Testament zugrunde, weil Jehova seine Hand von ihm abzieht. Das genügt Händel nicht. Bei ihm ist es rein menschliches Verhängnis, dem dieser groß angelegte Charakter unterliegt. Es ist die uralte Königstragödie, die sich hier abspielt; der Neid und die Eifersucht gegen den ersten Diener des Staates, gegen David, umnachten den Geist des Fürsten und verderben ihn. Nicht weil Jehova ihn fallen läßt, geht Saul zugrunde, sondern weil er den dunklen Gewalten in der eigenen Brust erliegt. 1

Thus did the musicologist H. Abert characterize Handel's great dramatic oratorio Saul some eighty years ago. One can easily deduce which passages in the oratorio he primarily had in mind by glancing at the second act of the libretto by Handel's librettist Charles Jennens: 2 There the chorus, which like the chorus in a Greek tragedy acts sometimes as the commenting observer of the action and sometimes plays a role in the dramatic action, opens the act with the words: "Envy! eldest born of hell!" 3 (No. 42). And it ends this central

* Translated from the German by Carl S. Ehrlich. 1 ABERT, Händel, p. 255. 2 In the older literature, the assumption was that the poet Newburgh Hamilton was the author of the libretto. See - following a hypothesis proposed in 1863 by F. Chrysander KRETZSCHMAR, Führer, p. 60; and also LEICHTENTRITT, Händel, p. 359. In 1923 FLOWER (Handel) published a letter from Jennens to Lord Guernsey, which clarified the question of the authorship of the libretto. In addition, a number of additional details about Handel's and Jennens' respective share in the overall concept of the oratorio can be gleaned from this letter. The German version of this work was consulted for this article. See Flower, Händel, p. 230. In the English version the letter is to be found on pp. 251-252. 3 All quotations from the oratorio are taken from the libretto provided with the readilyavailable recording of "Saul" by the Konzertvereinigung Wiener Staatsopernchor and the Concentus Musicus Wien under the direction of N. Harnoncourt, Teldec 8.35687 ZA (1986). Since this booklet follows the critical edition, the citation of individual numbers also follows this edition.

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio

"Saul"

285

piece (both as far as content and structure are concerned) of the oratorio - in all Saul has eighty-six numbers - with the imprecation: "Hence! eldest born of hell! Cease in human brest to dwell." At the end of the second act, during which Saul descends ever farther into a state of madness occasioned by envy - finally hurling a spear against his own son, the chorus can only observe that his doom is unavoidable. In this instance the chorus is no longer commenting on the emotions that affect Saul internally, it can merely observe the external consequences of his envy: the anger and rage, which was continually addressed by various people as of Saul's aria (No. 26). Now the chorus comments: "Oh fatal consequence / Of rage, by reason uncontroll'd! / With ev'ry law he can dispense; / No ties the furious monster hold: / From crime to crime he blindly goes. / Nor end, but with his own destruction knows" (No. 68). In accordance with the organization of the oratorio in three acts, this commenting framework enveloping the central second act naturally has a great significance for the comprehension of the work as a whole, one which is not lessened by the fact that the three-act structure is also the standard among Handel's operas. 4 Abert deduced the correct conclusion from these circumstances, inasmuch as he portrayed the centrality of Saul's out-of-control emotions. Yet, his observation that the process had nothing to do with "Jehovah" - even where Abert is discussing theological questions, he uses the antiquated designation of Handel's age for the God of Israel - is a simplistic view of things. 5 This is all the more surprising, given that at the beginning of the third act in Endor the following words, which explicitly contradict Abert's thesis, are placed in Saul's mouth: "Of God forsaken. / In vain I ask his counsel! he vouchsafes / 4 That Handel caused his librettist some distress by demanding a three-act libretto, as is claimed by KRETZSCHMAR (Führer, p. 60), is belied by the fact that all of Handel's great oratorios are in three acts. Even "Israel in Egypt" (more a combination of three anthems than an oratorio - see BARTELMUS, Israel, p. 206), the oratorio that immediately followed "Saul," was originally conceived in three acts! 5 Running like a red thread throughout the whole of Abert's lecture is the assumption that "church music" and "dramatic music" are in principle two separate entities. In this manner, he distinguishes between the "religious lyricist Bach [religiösen Lyriker Bach]" and the "universal dramatist Handel [universale(n) Dramatiker Händel]" (ABERT, Händel, p. 236). Even if he concedes that "the religious [das Religiöse]" was "an overpowering life-force [eine gewaltige Lebensmacht]" for Handel, he insists that "Handel's realm [Händeis Reich]" - in distinction to that of Bach - was "this world with its constantly flowing phenomena [diese ganze Welt mit ihren ewig flutenden Erscheinungen]" (ABERT, Händel, p. 236). This observation is correct in that Bach's pietistic religiosity and Handel's attitude toward things religious had little in common. Nonetheless, Handel was certainly not antireligious; otherwise he would never have placed the Old Testament at the center of his later artistic output. In addition, in their use of the language of baroque musical rhetoric to express religious feelings there is as good as no difference between Bach and Handel. Is "I know that my Redeemer liveth" from the "Messiah" not religious poetry, just as Bach would have set to music?

286

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

No answer to the sons of disobedience!" (No. 69) 6 . "A purely human fate" is not part of Handel and Jennens' conceptual world, particularly in light of the fact that they patterned the oratorio after the tragedies of classical antiquity, which know of no clean break between divine and human participation in tragic developments. On the contrary, one almost gets the impression that Handel and Jennens intuitively anticipated what G. von Rad summarized as the quintessence of the Saul story some two hundred years later in his Theology of the Old Testament (Theologie des Alten Testaments) with the following words: The stories ... unfurl a tragedy, which rises to solemn heights in its last act. In truth, Israel never again produced a poetic figure, who in certain respects came so close to the spirit of Greek tragedy. As much as the narrators were convinced of Saul's guilt, nevertheless there lies in his becoming guilty something beyond the personal; it is the doom that overwhelms the one whom God has abandoned. Die Erzählungen ... entrollen eine Tragödie, die sich in ihrem letzten Akt zu feierlicher Größe erhebt. Tatsächlich hat Israel nie mehr eine dichterische Gestaltung hervorgebracht, die sich in gewissen Einzelzügen so nahe mit dem Geist der griechischen Tragödie berührt. So sehr die Erzähler von Sauls Schuld überzeugt sind, so liegt doch in seinem Schuldigwerden zugleich etwas Überpersönliches; es ist das Verhängnis, das den überkommt, von dem sich Gott abgewandt hat. 7

Nonetheless, as a theologian I shouldn't reproach the musicologist Abert for his one-sided presentation, especially in light of the fact that he was writing at a time in which church and theology were understood quite differently than today. Yet, there are still many who follow in Abert's footsteps in spite of changed circumstances. Therefore, a discussion of this viewpoint cannot be and has not been - avoided. In principle, Abert has quite precisely captured the essence of Jennens' and Handel's theological-dramatic achievement: Unlike the theologian von Rad, they barely accorded any importance to the moralistic deuteronomistic passages of the Saul traditions and simply ignored them (with the exception of an allusion to 1 Samuel 15 in accompagnato No. 73 and one sentence in No. 85). With a secure sensitivity for the narrative background of the Saul-David stories as well as for public-pleasing dramatic situations, they made an appropriate selection from their source text, even and particularly from a modern perspective. What mattered to Jennens and Handel in their "Saul" can, therefore, be deduced not only from the libretto: Just as important as an exact analysis of the libretto and the musical effects employed is an awareness of the elements of the biblical Saul traditions that the poet and composer - whether consciously or unconsciously - did not include in their work.

6

God's action is already praised in Nos. 2 and 4 as the precondition for all that happens. For more on this, see below. 7 VON RAD, Theologie I, p. 337.

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio

"Saul "

287

1. Why "Saul"? Before such an analysis, it is perhaps not unimportant to consider why the oratorio bears the title "Saul," since it begins and ends with scenes in which the triumphant David is praised. This mode of inquiry is especially apt in light of the fact that the oratorios and other compositions that - possibly - served Handel and Jennens as models for their reworking of the biblical materials mainly refer to David in their titles and not to Saul. Among such prototypes one can look at "La vittoria di Davidde contro Golia" by Giovanni Battista Bononcini (completed in 1687), or at "David" by the Viennese court composer Francesco Conti (1724), 8 at Reinhard Keiser's religious song-poem "Die durch GroBmuth und Glauben triumphirende Unschuld oder Der siegende David" (1721 ),9 and finally at "David e Bersabea" by Handel's rival Nicola Porpora, a work that premiered in London in 1734 (four years before Handel's Saul). 10 Somewhat more removed as inspiration one could also consider two pieces from Johann Kuhnau's "Musikalische(r) Darstellung einiger Biblischer Historien." They are named "Der Streit zwischen David und Goliath" and "Der von David vermittelst der Music curirte Saul." Even if one is unable to demonstrate a direct influence on Handel and Jennens' "Saul" in any of these cases, one can assume with great probability that either Handel or Jennens (or both) were familiar with these compositions. In the case of Bononcini, the influence of his "Giosuè" ( 1688) on Handel has been demonstrated; 11 in light of both composers' London contacts, it cannot, 8 The text for this work was by the famous librettist Apostolo Zeno, who also wrote a "David umiliato," which was set to music by Antonio Caldara in 1731. One year earlier Conti had already set a libretto by A. di Avanzo to music, in whose title Saul appears at least as a negative figure: "II Davidde persequitato da Saul." Cf. ABERT, Art. Zeno, p. 1221;

PAUMGARTNER, A r t . C o n t i , p . 1 6 4 1 . 9

C f . BECKER, A r t . K e i s e r , p . 7 9 6 .

10

For this and the following, cf. SERAUKY, Händel, pp. 55-56. However, he gives the date of Keiser's composition of "David" as 1728 and calls it an oratorio. How inaccurate Serauky's research was in these passages of his monumental work is also demonstrated by the examples in the following footnote. " Cf. SERAUKY, Händel, p. 55. He mistakenly identifies the actual author's father, Giovanni Maria, as the author of this work, even though he had already died in 1678. Cf. BOLLERT, Art. Bononcini, pp. 120, 122. That it was the "Handel of the seventeenth century," the Roman Giacomo Carissimi, w h o undertook "one of the earliest versions of the David-Saul narrative" (IBID.), was another claim I could not verify. Perhaps Serauky mistakenly attributed the five-act Tragédie en musique "David et Jonathas," which stood in the tradition of Jesuit drama, by Carissimi's pupil Marc-Antoine Charpentier to his teacher? Cf. DURON, Cadre, pp. 15-16 s.v. Le théâtre des Jésuites; and MARTINOTY, Résumé, p. 31, who uses the term "Opéra sacré" in addition to the term "Tragédie." One glance at the libretto of Charpentier's "David et Jonathas" suffices to demonstrate that Handel and Jennens hardly knew this source nor used it.

288

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

therefore, be assumed that Handel was not also familiar with Bononcini's "Davidde." That a libretto by the "pope" of oratorio poetry - Apostolo Zeno would have remained unknown to a cosmopolitan literary figure such as Jennens appears unlikely. 12 Keiser, who worked mainly in Hamburg, had frequent and direct contact with Handel, as has been documented; 13 and that Handel should have remained unfamiliar with Porpora's work can be rightly dismissed, particularly in light of their active rivalry. In principle, all these arguments can be brought to bear on the case of Kuhnau's "Biblische Historien," since Handel, who came from Halle, most probably knew Kuhnau, who served as cantor of the St. Thomas Church in the neighboring Leipzig from 1701-1722, as of his childhood. That Handel - like Johann Mattheson valued Kuhnau's piano music is at any rate without question. 14 Should he not also have been familiar with his "Biblische Historien?" Be that as it may, it is worthy of note that all of these aforementioned works make David - and not Saul - the center of attention. For centuries David has served as the prototypical king of the "Christian West." As such he was a beloved subject not only for visual artists, 15 but also for (court) composers. Handel and Jennens, however, already signaled through their choice of title that they were less interested in the triumphant hero David, than in the vicissitudes of the "loser" Saul. Even if the figure of David then plays an important role in the oratorio, 16 through the use of the unusual 17 - and 12

C f . KRETZSCHMAR, Flihrer, p. 60.

13

Both set the text of a "Passion" by the Hamburg alderman B. Brockes to music and used or - as the occasion permitted - even added to operas by their colleague. Cf. BECKER, Art. Keiser, pp. 787-793. 14

C f . RIEDEL, Art. K u h n a u , p. 1881.

15

On this point, see the pertinent articles in: DIETRICH / HERKOMMER, Konig David, pp. 487-561. 16 To maintain that "David is the radiant center of this oratorio [David in diesem Oratorium den leuchtenden Mittelpunkt bildet]" (thus CHRYSANDER, Vorbemerkung) is sheer nonsense, as will be demonstrated below. It is actually Chrysander's revision, with its sensealtering cuts and changes to the score, which is correctly described by this statement. Instead of questioning the sense of his cuts in light of the title "Saul" (among other cuts, large parts of the lamentation over Saul are eliminated, even though Chrysander himself viewed it as "wonderful [herrlich]"!), Chrysander carries his nonsensical argument to its logical conclusion and suggests that "the correct title for the work should therefore be 'Saul and David.'" It appears, he knew even better than Jennens and Handel what the aim of their oratorio was. (Apparently, Chrysander considered N. Hamilton, the author of "Samson," to be the author of the libretto of "Saul"). In summary, whoever feels he must fix Handel's supposed - ineptitude through a "revision" of his work has no need to take his basic material seriously. For an understanding of Handel's aims in "Saul," Chrysander's "revision [Neubearbeitung]" was (and remained for a long time) a catastrophe. 17

A cursory investigation into a number of library catalogues has revealed that until the middle of the eighteenth century the number of dramatic sketches - whether Jesuit dramas or other religiously or morally influenced poetic works - in whose titles Saul was named was

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio "Sau! "

289

indeed jarring - title "Saul" it is impossible to be clearer about the rejection of mainstream triumphal and sycophantic music that more or less dominated musical life at this time. 18 Even if Handel backslid in this respect later on (as examples of which one may mention his "Samson" and "Judas Maccabaeus"), with his "Saul" Handel - influenced perhaps by his previous health and financial crises - set forth for the first time on the path that allows him to be viewed today as one of leading musical theologians of his time. 19 "The Messiah," "Belshazzar," and "Jephtha," to mention only the most important oratorios composed in the same spirit after "Saul," are not only singular examples of a deep musical and theological interpretation of biblical texts, but

negligible compared to the number of "David" works. Thus, YOUNG'S statement (in the Einführung to HÄNDEL, Saul, p. vi) that "already many poets and playwrights [schon viele Dichter und Dramatiker]" had recognized "the tragic power of this material [die tragische Gewalt dieses Stoffes]" appears somewhat overstated to me. Nowhere could I find another oratorio with the title chosen by Handel - not even Young is familiar with such a work. Be that as it may, (1) a number of artistic creations should be mentioned, since Handel and Jennens may have been familiar with them, and (2) two additional theater pieces are worthy of citation, since their titles make clear that they are using Saul - for pedagogic reasons - as a negative foil. Among the pieces that fall under (1) are W. Penn, Saul smitten to the ground (London 1675), D. Brevint, Saul and Samuel at Endor (Oxford 1674), as well as the two works mentioned by YOUNG (in the Einführung to HÄNDEL, Saul): J. Trapp(?), The Tragedy of King Saul (1703) and A. Hill, Saul. A Tragedy (1736). The two plays falling under category (2) are: Saul Desperans. Cothurno Tragico In Pulpitium Productus A Studiosa luventute Gymnasii Poetici Ratisbonensis (Regensburg 1669), and M. Holtzwart, Saul. Ein schön new Spil von Künig Saul, unnd dem Hirten Dauid: Wie deß Sauls Hochmüt und Stoltz gerochen, Dauids Demütigkeit aber so hoch erhaben worden (Basel 1571). 18

Significantly, the oratorio does not begin with David's victory over Goliath, but with the reaction of the people to this triumph. The enormity of Handel's - conscious - decision to forgo this opportunity to depict David's triumph using all the resources of baroque tonal invention can be measured by looking at the score of or listening to Kuhnau's "Streit zwischen David und Goliath," or when one considers and hears how impressively Handel depicts the collapse of the Temple of Dagon in his "Samson." 19 SMITH (Drama, pp. 29-31) directs our attention to another important aspect that may have played a role in Jennens' reworking of the material: In the England of this time, the story of Saul and David was related to the history of the "Glorious Revolution." Smith related the execution of Charles I typologically to the - illegitimate - killing of Saul: "Jennens was ... - unlike Handel and the government of his time - caught up in the cause of the descendents of Charles 1. Thus, the death of Saul had a complex resonance for him. The killing of the anointed King Saul was - just like the execution of Charles I - an act of horrific sacrilege. At the same time, Saul had to be pushed aside, just like the legitimate King James II, because he fell away from the true religion [Jennens war ... - anders als Händel und die Regierung seiner Zeit - der Sache der Nachkommen von Charles I. stark verpflichtet. Für ihn hatte der Tod Sauls einen ganz besonders vielfältigen Nachhall. Die Tötung des gesalbten Königs Saul war - wie die Hinrichtung von Charles I. - ein schreckliches Sakrileg. Gleichzeitig mußte man Saul jedoch zur Seite schaffen, wie den rechtmäßigen König James II., weil er von der wahren Religion abgefallen war]."

290

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

they also present a view of power and human hubris that remains germane for our time. Indeed, their relevance can hardly be overestimated. It is, therefore, all the more regrettable that Handel's oratorios do not play a greater role in the modern consciousness.

2. Jennens' Libretto Let us, however, return to the analysis of the libretto and a discussion of the question which of the biblical Saul traditions Handel and Jennens excluded. In all, Jennens ignored about three quarters of the approximately twenty chapters of 1 Samuel 9 - 2 Samuel 1 that would come into consideration as the raw material for an oratorio about Saul, namely 1 Samuel 9-16; 21-24; 26; 29, leaving aside stories such as those about Nabal and Abigail (1 Samuel 25), David and Achish (1 Samuel 27), and David's victory over the Amalekites (1 Samuel 30), none of which deal directly with Saul. This selection is understandable in terms of the length of text that can serve as the basis of an oratorio. 20 Yet, in terms of content this selection is somewhat unexpected. Would it not, for instance, have made more sense to begin with Saul's positive first meeting with Samuel while searching for his father's lost donkeys (cf. 1 Samuel 9-10), in order to achieve a greater dramatic effect with the contrasting scene in the shadowy abode of the witch of Endor? Strangely enough, it is only in the third act of the oratorio that the alreadydeceased Samuel appears, conjured up from the realm of the dead, in order to pronounce Saul's (and his son Jonathan's) doom. Whatever function or importance he may have had during his life is known only by listeners of the oratorio who know their biblical story. Dramatically, this is somewhat clumsy. In addition, the inclusion of the beginning of the Saul traditions - or at least of the first of the three stories about how Saul became king 21 - would have presented the opportunity to include one of the few scenes in the Old Testament in which musicians appear (the band of prophets in 1 Sam 10:5, 10), allowing a musical setting with exotic instruments and effects. 22 (That it 20 Many of Handel's remaining Old Testament oratorios are based on stories that generally are only a few chapters long. In the case of "Belshazzar" (Daniel 5) and "Athalia" (2 Kings 11), the biblical source is just one chapter long, in the case of "Deborah" (Judges 4-5) and "Jephtha" (Judges 11-12) it is two. 21 The other two follow in 1 Sam 10:17-27 and 1 Samuel 11. 22 That this possibility was occasionally - and in a different (bibliocentrically motivated) connection - recognized and taken advantage of is indicated by the following work: "Musicalische Neu-Jahrs-Gedichte, als ein Biblisches Musicalisches Werck, in welchem alle die in heiliger Schrifft enthaltene, die Music betreffende Materien und Stellen, nach ihrer Ordnung mit historischer Beschreibung, und grundlicher Außlegung, in Kupfer-Stichen, auch angenehmen Melodeyen und Poesien vorgestellet und herauß gegeben, von der Music-

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio

"SauI"

291

would have been impossible to set all three mutually contradictory stories to music has nothing to do with this line of reasoning). Less surprising and actually quite logical from a dramatic perspective, is the omission of 1 Samuel 12-14. Samuel's farewell speech (1 Samuel 12) includes too many references to occurrences mentioned either previously or later in the Bible and does not belong to the original Saul traditions; rather, it is a deuteronomistic redactional addition. And in the case of 1 Samuel 13-14 we find in part a number of older traditions, whose historical content may even be greater than that of the texts that Jennens did include. However, these texts have been so poorly preserved - as is indicated even by Bible translations 23 - that there is no dramatically coherent scene that could have been based on them: In fact, most commentators agree that they are unable to translate every verse and claim that there is material here from various periods that has been woven into a not-quite comprehensible whole. 24 What was stated above about 1 Samuel 9 - 1 0 could also be said mutatis mutandis about 1 Samuel 15: At any rate, had Jennens taken this chapter into account, he would have been able to connect prediction with realization, at the antipodes of which would have stood the figure of Saul. It is exactly this effect, which was successfully employed in "Belshazzar" by means of verses placed in the mouth of Nitocris, that Jennens avoided here (certainly not against Handel's wishes), at least as far as the principle of prediction and realization in the case of Saul in concerned. Nonetheless, he managed to establish a dramatic structure - which explains the previously mentioned omissions: Both at the beginning and the end of "Saul" the triumphant David is praised. Between these acts, in which God's support for David are the alpha and omega, 25 Saul is - figuratively - ground down. After the chorus has Gesellschafft, in der mehreren Statt in Zürich." In this work, scene No. 22 is known as: "Saul unter den Propheten. Oder Der unter dem vom Hügel Gottes mit Gesang und Music-Spiel herabkommenden Reigen der Propheten Mitweissagende Saul, Auß dem I. Buch Samuels Cap. X. 5 - 10. Vorgestellet. Zürich, 1734" (This reference is taken from the catalogue of the Bavarian State Library [Bayerische Staatsbibliothek]; I did not have access to the work itself). 23 Cf., e.g., the Zürcher Bibel (1931), which provides long footnotes at 1 Sam 13:2, 21; and 14:14, 18. 24 This applies even to STOEBE (Samuelis, pp. 246ff.), who otherwise usually presents harmonizing interpretations that cover up the tensions in the text. 25 That CHRYSANDER (Vorbemerkung), who sees in David the "radiant center" of the oratorio, views the - markedly discrete - inclusion of the Goliath scene as an enormous mistake on the part of the librettist, which serves "to obscure the actual proceedings and to make the composer's work more difficult [die tatsächlichen Vorgänge zu verdunkeln und dem Komponisten die Arbeit zu erschweren]," can hardly be explained on rational grounds. How much sense this insertion actually makes, in spite of the fact (or perhaps because) the Goliath pericope belongs to the "most lavishly embellished stories" in the Books of Samuel at least in its final version, in which a midrash-like expansion has accrued around 1 Sam 17:12-31 and 55-58, will be demonstrated below.

292

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

praised God with the words "How excellent thy name, o Lord, / In all the world is known! / Above all heav'ns, o King ador'd, / How hast thou set thy glorious throne," a soprano enters in No. 2 with words directed at David's victory: "An infant rais'd by thy command, / To quell thy rebel foes." And in No. 85 it is the high priest who calls on the men of Judah to cease weeping over Saul and directs their attention toward David: "Ye men of Judah, weep no more! / Let gladness reign in all our host; For pious David will restore / What Saul by disobedience lost." They heed the call and begin a militaristic (at least in the first few lines) final chorus: "Gird on thy sword, thou man of might, / Pursue thy wonted fame." The last lines, which have been incorrectly translated into German by G.G. Gervinus, turn the attention away from martial activity to David's future role as righteous ruler: "While others, by thy virtue charm'd. / Shall crowd to own thy righteous sway." 26 In its narrow sense, the only "king" remains the one praised in No. 1, whose "righteous sway" David will defend. This also a German reader is unable to comprehend, on account of an inexact translation of No. I. 27 From the very beginning of the oratorio, Saul has no chance for success, which appears to have been Handel and Jennens' intention to convey. The chorus of women - certainly Judeans and not outside observers - reproached by Jonathan in his recitative No. 27 as "imprudent women" may well be the catalyst (and reason) for envy and anger. The cause, however, is indisputable: YHWH - as the chorus has observed (No. 4) in agreement with the soprano (No. 2) - has predetermined his decision in David's favor: "The youth inspir'd by Thee, o Lord, / With ease the boaster slew." For this reason it is clear that Abert's non-religious interpretation discussed above misses the point - even more so since Abert probably adopted the views of Chrysander as his point of departure: Saul is not hounded into insanity and death by human envy, but rather by a God-given reality - this is a true "tragedy." To take into account 1 Sam 16:1-13 (the anointing of David) would only have made sense if the anointing of Saul (1 Samuel 9-10) had previously played a role. The rest of chapter 16, in which above all David's ability as a "musical therapist" plays the central role, overlaps in some respects similar passages in the following chapters. For this reason, the final phrase of David's aria No. 32 "And heal his wounded soul" need not be understood solely as an allusion to 1 Sam 18:10 or 19:9; at least 1 Sam 16:16, 23 would also be

26 The translation as "dein Volk, das dich erwählt" is an incomprehensible mistake, since it would have been much more logical to make an allusion to Isaiah's vision of a coming kingdom of peace or to think of the pilgrimage of the peoples to Jerusalem, especially when one translates the word "sway" as "Reich" and not as "Macht." 27 "Above all heav'ns, o King adord'd, / How hast thou set thy glorious throne!" becomes in Gervinus' translation: "Hoch über aller Himmel Kreis, / Wie strahlt dein Thron in Herrlichkeit!" - the decisive word "King" is not translated.

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio "Saul "

293

indirectly addressed by this phrase. 28 Furthermore, one can view Jennens' decision to employ the biblical account as of 1 Sam 17:55 as an example of a judicious restraint, since the tensions in 1 Samuel 16-17 can only be understood using the tools of modern redaction criticism. No run-of-the-mill reader of the Bible can comprehend, for instance, why Saul inquires so urgently after the name of the young victor over Goliath (1 Sam 17:55ff.), when David has already been active as a warrior at Saul's court (1 Sam 16:15ff.) and even become Saul's armor-bearer (1 Sam 16:21). Without redaction criticism one cannot explain why the grown-up David of 1 Sam 16:15ff. suddenly appears as a child in chapter 17, all of which hardly jibes with 1 Sam 16:1-13. 29 Taken together, this is more than sufficient grounds for a competent author to omit these confusing passages. It should be added that the same holds true for the many changes of location that David makes as of 1 Samuel 21. That David's victory over Goliath (1 Samuel 17) nonetheless plays a role even if only as a "messenger's report" conveyed by the soprano and chorus (Nos. 2-4) - in the oratorio was already mentioned above. It was also argued that the reference to David's victory at the beginning of the oratorio anticipates and explains the hope expressed at the end that David will have additional victories. The thematic unity of the piece thus does not rest on empty hopes, but is well grounded in the narrative. Attention should once again be drawn to Jennens' very capable manner of reworking familiar materials in order to solve a number of theological and dramatic problems at one blow: First of all, he used the victory to serve the drama in order to explain how David came to be at Saul's court (cf. recitative No. 8). Moreover, it would be impossible to understand Michal's passion for David (aria No. 7), nor Jonathan's affection for David, nor even the women's hymn of praise to David (No. 22) - all of which are essential elements of the plot or hypothesis of the oratorio - without recourse to this victory. The former enables the love triangle revolving around Michal and Merab (which is told somewhat differently in the Bible and is really incidental to the biblical narrative 30 ) to be 28

Even the reference to David's ability to calm Saul through song and harp-playing (cf. recitative No. 27 und Michal's aria No. 28) is reckoned by CHRYSANDER (Vorbemerkung) among the elements that "only serve to obscure the actual proceedings [nur dazu dienten, die tatsächlichen Vorgänge zu verdunkeln]!" 29 A detailed discussion of the tensions in 1 Samuel 16-18 would be out of place in this context. Cf. BARTELMUS, Heroentum, pp. 128-140; as well as NITSCHE, Bilder. 30 Jennens is thought to have used outside sources for the motif of Merab's arrogance (SMITH [see above n. 19] views the pertinent scenes from the verse-epic "Davideis" by A. Cowley and Lord Orrerey's play "The Tragedy of King Sauf'as the sources. The latter work is usually attributed to J. Trapp [see above n. 17]. The alternate attribution should read more correctly: Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery). Cf. CLAUSEN, Handel's Saul, p. 19. In spite of this contention, which is not explicitly demonstrated by Clausen, one can still assume that Jennens

294

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

placed so effectively in the foreground of the oratorio's plot development, which doubtless appealed to public taste. 31 The unusually close relationship between David and Jonathan, which according to the narrative logic of the Bible is also occasioned by the victory over Goliath (cf. 1 Sam 18:1) and constantly influences the narrative until the death of Jonathan (and of Saul), could hardly be omitted by Jennens, particularly since this provided another emotionally, i.e., musically, and crowd-pleasing element readily at hand. David's moving lament, with which the Saul traditions come to an end in the Bible (2 Sam 1:19-27), experiences an appropriate reworking in the solo No. 84 with choral accompaniment. And the final element, the women's hymn of praise, which is also directly taken from the biblical report (cf. 1 Sam 18:9), was necessary in order to provide a plausible explanation for Saul's envy and madness, which - as indicated above - together form the core of the dramatic action of "Saul." In effect, what this means is that both the main and all secondary narrative strands taken from the oratorio's narrative source are dependent on one and the same episode. Not to have given the "prime mover," i.e., the story of David's victory over Goliath, undue emphasis in the framework of the oratorio is probably Jennens' greatest dramatic feat. One can make the same argument in regard to the theological dimension of the work: The choice of a "messenger's report" rather than a public scene with verbal jousting and an actual battle between David and Goliath appears to be a stroke of genius from a theological perspective. The danger of a slide into militaristic triumphalism is thus avoided; and a concentration on the tragic conflict that dooms Saul is made possible. It is impossible to ignore the implicit theological criticism of standard depictions of the David story that is made possible by this artistic decision. "Saul" is truly an innovative work. Neither the competence nor the bravery of David is central to the oratorio's narrative; indeed, his name is not even mentioned at first! God alone deserves honor and glory. It is not coincidental that the only "Hallelujah" in the

- also - employed the biblical text as a source here. It can be assumed, however, that he has transferred a motif originally associated with Michal to her sister (cf. 2 Sam 6:16, 21). The biblical reference is even clearer in the case of the wording of the speech of Merab in her aria No. 17, in which the biblical verses that deal with the unequal ranks of his potential spouses as articulated by David are placed in Merab's mouth, with changes appropriate to a change of s p e a k e r (cf. 1 S a m 18:18, 23). 31

A similar concession to public taste can be found in Handel's last and theologically deepest oratorio, namely in "Jephtha" (Handel himself spelled it "Jeptha"). Thomas Morell, the librettist of this work, was not able to get around including a love story. His use of motifs from Greek legend (and other literary prototypes) - the name of the daughter (Iphis) indicates a direct connection with Euripedes' Iphigenia as a prototype - made it easier to add to the biblical text. Cf. BARTELMUS, Jephtha, pp. 75-76.

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio "Sau! "

295

oratorio comes right after the chorus No. 5,32 at the end of a chorus that repeats the divine praise of No. 1 verbatim and, hence, places the "messenger's report" of Nos. 2 - 4 in the correct theological light. Thanks to the inclusio thus formed, the "messenger's report" loses any possible independent function: In order that the allusion to the events that preceded the action of the oratorio are properly understood, the agent of the victory is mentioned both beforehand and afterward. This is then all underlined by David's words: "O king, your favours with delight / I take, but must refuse your praise: / For ev'ry pious Israelite / To God alone that tribute pays" (aria No. 9). Finally, allow me a short look at the "Lament over Saul's and Jonathan's Death" (Nos. 78-84), which - separated from the rest of the oratorio - was "much more frequently performed ... in rural areas of England" than the work as a whole. 33 The poetic ability of Jennens, with which he was able to rework the familiar lament over Saul and Jonathan from 2 Samuel 1, add to it, and distribute it among various vocal ranges and groups, establishes him as a great poet. David is not simply the greatest. Saul is not simply a failure, who has rightly been rejected by God. Saul is also not simply the victim of his uncontrolled emotions. Behind all successes and failures in human life, even behind the primitive feeling of envy, is God, the last resort and actual agent, who is free to choose and to reject. This is the tragedy of Saul. And this is also the message that Jennens wants to convey to his readers, i.e., to the ones who listen to Handel's oratorio. 32

Jennens insisted on this placement and was able to assert himself against Handel on this point. See SERAUKY, Händel, pp. 54-55. The relevant letter to Lord Guernsey - or better the issue addressed there - is mentioned in practically every newer Handel biography. See, for instance, HOGWOOD, Händel, 185-186. In most cases, attention is focused either on Jennens' vanity or Handel's obstinacy. That this issue impacts directly on the theological message of the work is generally not noticed (for a particularly drastic example of an exaggerated critical evaluation of Jennens, see FLOWER, Händel, p. 229, n. 1). The advantage of Jennens' favored solution - only one "hallelujah" and that at the beginning - lies in the fact that in this manner a triumphalistic misunderstanding of the oratorio is prevented. (That this aim was not always understood in the history of interpretation is another matter). Handel, who was cognizant of the meaning of the call of praise "hallelujah" - used once and only in reference to God, understood that he could not assume an equivalent theological sophistication among his public. At any rate, he made Jennens' theologically and dramatically well thought-out position his own, since this interpretation expressed his own intentions and aims in this matter, as will be shown at the end of this essay. 33 Thus YOUNG in his introduction to HÄNDEL, Saul, p. viii. Young's restrained evaluation of Chrysander's treatment of "Saul" (he "worked ... under some difficult circumstances [arbeitete ... unter mancherlei erschwerenden Umständen]" is nearly impossible to understand given this phenomenon. But perhaps Young just wanted to lay a cloak of compassionate silence over Chrysander's "revision," which mangles this scene.

296

Rüdiger Bartelmus

3. Handel's Score How did Handel deal with his literary framework? This question can also not be answered completely in this context. Whoever would like a full answer to this question is urged to consult W. Serauky's still classic work for the best information. 34 I will restrict myself here to some observations about the tonal structure of "Saul" as a whole, the beginning and end of the oratorio, and of course the most familiar piece from the work, the so-called "Dead March" in C (No. 77), 35 which Handel used again in "Samson." In the latter case, he transposed the piece to D in keeping with the different character of the work and made some other minor changes. My first observation follows directly from the above and would, therefore, probably encounter the strongest resistance from those who, disregarding the text, are proponents of a purely musical analysis. That my argument proceeds from the symbolism of the keys most likely would not engender the intended positive effect in all quarters. Nonetheless, allow me at least to present the arguments here. It is a much discussed question, whether Handel - like Bach - conceived of his oratorios according to an overall plan of tonal symmetry. In the case of "Saul," I would answer this question most emphatically in the affirmative. From the opening "Symphony" and chorus (No. 1) until the concluding chorus (No. 86) the key of C envelopes the work - just as the content of Jennens' libretto does. That the key of C returns against all musical conventions in the "Dead March" (No. 77) indicates clearly that Handel could not possibly have chosen this key in an arbitrary manner. An overview of the oratorio as a whole reveals that C is the prevalent key in the work. In keeping with the later convention to catalogue symphonies or string quartets according

34

SERAUKY, Händel, pp. 53-139. I make this recommendation in spite of the fact that - as indicated by the inaccuracies mentioned above in n. 9 and n. 10 - the Handel-"pope" Serauky was not infallible; i.e., that there are also other mistakes in his work. However, the present author has neither the time nor the musicological competence to undertake a (historical-) critical analysis of the almost ninety pages devoted to "Saul" in Serauky's book. In addition to the general observation that whenever Serauky cited the German text he uncritically used Gervinus' problematic translation, another almost incomprehensible gap is Serauky's work should be mentioned: SERAUKY (Händel, p. 110) looks to the "Medea-adjuration in Francesco Cavalli's 'Giasone' (1649) [Medea-Beschwörung in Francesco Cavallis 'Giasone' (1649)]" for the prototype of the scene with the Witch of Endor (Nos. 71-72; Nos. 65-66 in Serauky's numeration) and demonstrates his wide-ranging knowledge by pointing out the possible aftereffect of this scene on Gluck's "Alceste." However, one searches in vain for an allusion to the closest parallels: Henry Purcell's dramatic scene "In guilty night" (= "The Witch of Endor;" 1693) or the witches' scenes in his "Dido and Aeneas." 35 Here and in the following the keys will be cited in the usual way, i.e., major keys will be indicated using capital letters, while minor keys will be indicated using lower-case letters.

Handel and Jennens'

Oratorio

"Saul"

297

to their (tonic) key, one could describe "Saul" as Handel's "Oratorio in C." All purely instrumental passages are written in C: In addition to the opening "Symphony," there are Nos. 20, 58, 65, 74, and the "Dead March" No. 77. The choruses Nos. 1, 5, 22, 24, and 86 and Saul's accompagnati Nos. 23 and 66 are composed in C. That many recitatives are written in C is less significant, since their keys - according to the text - tend to change more frequently in the context of the laws of tonal speech. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the key of C oftentimes dominates the individual recitative. If one takes into account that the other keys used are for the most part close to C or at least relatively closely related (in the sense of the so-called "strong connection [starke Verbindung]"36), in other words that the majority of the remaining numbers are in G or F (the keys of the dominant and subdominant), while some are written in c and/or a or in D and/or B, then one cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that the tonic key of "Saul" is C.37 In light of this, the arias and choruses not written in C or in one of its aforementioned related keys have a special significance. 38 To some extent, they stand outside of the regular flow of events and serve to intrude actively in the course of events (whether externally or internally, with or without success). In some cases, they comment on the action, as, for example, in the chorus No. 42 (£'-flat) that opens the second act or in Michal's aria No. 62 (Eflat). In some cases, they impact on the action or drive it forward, as, for example, in Michal's aria No. 28 (A) or in the aria of the Witch of Endor No. 72 (/). The most extreme example of this is the soprano aria No. 83 (E) with its following recitative with chorus No. 84 (E), all the more so since the modulation - and not only the key - of both so-closely related pieces moves even farther away from C than the underlying basic key would indicate: In both almost the end of the cycle of fifths is reached in the "subordinate" half with g-sharp or B. y) In addition, both appear just before the final chorus in C, from which they are separated only by a short recitative, which occasions a great leap in tonality. 40

36

In German, the term for a leap into or out of a key by a fourth or fifth. Thus also SERAUKY, Händel, p. 117 n. 90. 38 This applies particularly to those passages - primarily in recitatives - in which passions are articulated in a highly chromatic manner according to the rules of baroque tonal language. I.e., these are the ones not grounded in any key. This effect is found most impressively in accompagnato No. 73 (conversation between Samuel and Saul). 39 For the symbolism of musical keys, cf. BARTELMUS, Matthäuspassion, pp. 15-16; but also STEPHANI, Charakter; or also - as occasion offers -SERAUKY, Händel, e.g., p. 125. 40 Quotations from the score follow the critical edition as found in HÄNDEL, Saul. 37

298

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

That E is to be associated with love is more a less a consensus in the study of the symbolism of musical keys. 41 It is just as clear that a change from E to the end of the cycle of fifths is an expression of the nearness of death or the hereafter. Both of course would fit perfectly into the circumstances narrated in the text: "In sweetest harmony they liv'd, / Nor death their union could divide" (thus No. 83) and "Oh fatal day! how low the mighty lie! / Oh Jonathan! how nobly didst thou die, / For thy king and country slain!" (thus No. 84). What is mourned here by either a soprano solo or by David is the downfall of Saul and his son Jonathan. What is celebrated is the love between David and Jonathan as well as the - in light of the oratorio's narrative hardly conceivable - love between Saul and Jonathan. 42 The impression - already found in the text - that we are dealing here with something unreal, something that goes well beyond our capacity to understand, is strengthened by the choice of key and modalities. Not only theologians trained in the historicalcritical methodology, but also interested laypeople whose horizons have been expanded by Stefan Heym's King David Report are aware that these are politically expedient tears, indeed crocodile tears that are shed here (at least in the case of Saul, but probably also in the case of David's rival Jonathan). And thus Abiathar's short recitative (No. 85) ending in G is needed in order to bring us out of this unreal and idyllic world of feelings and set us once again in the reality of politics, history, and the narrative thread in the key of C. 41

On this, see SERAUKY, Händel, p. 125 and n. 97 ( " £ as the key o f ' b u r n i n g love' [E-Dur als Tonart 'heißer Liebe']"), who even finds this symbolism in the works of Robert Schumann. That other factors also play a role - particularly in Bach's works - is another story. Handel may have even have meant to employ his theological expansion of the symbolism of the key of E: In death, Saul and Jonathan naturally come before the Judge of all the Earth. Cf. BARTELMUS, Matthäuspassion, p. 16 and passim. 42 Once again, the German translation manages to obscure what is actually meant: "In sweetest harmony they liv'd, / Nor death their union could divide" refers also to Saul and Jonathan's relationship while alive, so that the translation "In süßer Harmonie vereint, Bewährt im Tod ihr Bund der Treue Pflicht" only conveys half the truth.

Handel and Jennens' Oratorio

"Saul"

299

What, however, does the key of C "mean" in the context of the oratorio? What is the symbolism associated with C during the baroque era? First of all, it is indubitable that C is the simplest key, the key without any sharps or flats, the open and non-tendentious key, whether toward the light world of the "sharp keys" or the dark world of the "flat keys." C is the neutral key, even if it has incorrectly become associated with the divine, inter alia thanks to Mozart's Jupiter Symphony. This does not mean, however, that the Jupiter Symphony (which is not even under discussion here) has been unjustly named. Its name is in my opinion indeed descriptive of the symphony, but it is not the key (alone) that determines its designation. It is the instrumentation, the themes, the rhythm, and many other factors that added together convey the impression of majesty worthy of the divine. The key alone does not accomplish this. The key that conveys the transcendence and majesty of God is actually is-flat. Of course, in the baroque era in particularly religious circles (to which Bach belonged) there existed an almost esoteric symbolic system in addition to the general purpose system of key symbolism, according to which - whenever the mystery of the Trinity was addressed - the Trinity was represented by the natural hexachord. In these contexts the key of C represented God the Father.43 But this would have played no role in the case of Mozart and his Jupiter Symphony nor in the case of Handel, and particularly not in the case of his "Saul," in which issues concerning the Trinity doubtlessly played no role whatsoever. Thus, one can assume that Handel employed the key of C here as a neutral key, one that represents simple circumstances or simple and naive feelings. In other words, he used it as an open key with which he was able to express various and differentiated circumstances with the aid of instrumentation, themes, rhythm, and other tools, as well as to bind disparate and heterogeneous elements to one another. Of course, this does not preclude its usage in contexts dealing with God. However, in these cases - unless rhythmic elements, drums, and trumpets, etc. are used to make the situation more precise - it is not God in his glory who is meant, not the transcendent God, but the God whose ambivalence is known by humankind. It is this latter image of God that is addressed in the Psalm of Hannah: "The LORD deals death and gives life, / Casts down into Sheol and raises up. / The LORD makes poor and makes rich; / He casts down, He also lifts high" (1 Sam 2:6-7; NJPS). 44

43

On this, see Poos, Kreuz, p. 77. This ambivalence or ambiguity, which is characteristic of the disposition of "Saul," is also emphasized by SCHLAFFER, Macht, pp. 48^T9. In the continuation of her argument, she also draws attention - just as SMITH does (see above n. 19) - to the many typological points of contact between the Saul material and the events of English history in Handel's day. In her view, the central role is played by the altercations within the royal house. 44

300

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

In light of these connotations of the key of C (and knowing Jennens' intentions), no extended exposition is needed to demonstrate why "Saul" is indeed an "Oratorio in C." Thus, in conclusion I would like to offer some final thoughts about the introductory "choral cantata [Chorkantate]" 45 (Nos. 1-5), the "Dead March," and the end of the oratorio. In light of what has been claimed above, the fact that God is praised in the introductory chorus No. 1 in C must be supplemented by observing that the impression of the majestic and glorious that every listener of this work will experience in performance during this magnificent passage is conveyed by Handel - among others - by means of the instrumentation "with drums and trumpets," 46 the interpretative notation maestoso, the choice of 4/4 time, and the punctuated rhythms. The key of C does not preclude any of this. Indeed, in combination with the other musical effects it strengthens their efficacy. That the opening in C allowed Handel much latitude is proven already by aria No. 2, which surprisingly surprising at any rate based on its content - is written in c, even though the soprano praises God for sending a child to rescue Israel from Goliath: "An infant rais'd by thy command."

Sopran r

ge

-

sandt

Ob.I.II Viol.1.II Viola

If one would like to avoid reverting to a discussion track dealing solely with inner musical considerations, i.e., that after an opening in a major key the second movement often stands in a minor one for the sake of contrast, then the change from major to minor must mean here that David's victory over Goliath did not only occasion a positive outcome, but (also) brought with it new troubles. While the 3/4 time, the so-called modus perfectum, stands for the good, i.e., God's help, the key announces the opposite. This interpretation is strengthened by the circumstance that the following trio No. 3 continues in c, which is hard to explain solely on the basis of inner musical considerations. Viewed contextually, c certainly fits directly with the described scenario, in 45

Thus SERAUKY, Händel, pp. 60-61 and passim. SERAUKY, Händel, p. 61, follows SCHNOOR in speaking of a "festival orchestra consisting of three choirs [dreichörigen Festorchester]." 46

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio

"Saul"

301

which the monstrous Goliath comes stamping along against the army of the living God; and even the rhythm has changed to 4/4 time! At any rate, it fits better than with what has come before, since the mood is one of threatening disaster. Since the minor parallel is abandoned for C in the last measures of this piece, the change to G, which follows in the chorus No. 4, poses no musical problems. The same holds true of the text, which simply tells how the young man - now a "youth" and no longer an "infant" 47 - slew his boastful foe: "The youth inspir'd by Thee, o Lord, / With ease the boaster slew." 48 Moreover, in this manner the tonal bridge is thus provided to the (slightly shortened) resumption of the first chorus (chorus No. 5). That this opening "choral cantata," which one could imagine standing on its own, ends with "Hallelujah" has already been mentioned, as has the contextual reasons for the - seemingly - too early appearance of this hymn of praise in the framework of the oratorio: The victory over Goliath is a reason to praise God. However, the hymn of praise does not stand in the key of jubilation, namely D, like the famous Hallelujah Chorus in "The Messiah," but remains in C. After all, there are two sides to this battle: The external threat is - temporarily - repulsed, but internally the victory that God has given David but not Saul leads to new conflicts. Since it is impossible to discuss all of "Saul" in this essay, a rather large leap must be made here. Although it is large, the jump to the "Dead March" is not illogical, since it connects with the last few sentences in the sense of "The king is dead, long live the king!" In any case, this is the quintessence that one can derive from the choice of this seemingly neutral message. 49 Yet, this king

47

Does an attempt on the part of Jennens to solve the tensions in 1 Samuel 16-17 stand behind this? 48 To translate "Boaster" with "Ungethüm" - thus the German version - is at any rate "quite free." 49 This thesis was already advanced in BARTELMUS, Matthäuspassion, p. 15 n. 28, where it was admittedly only presented as a preliminary impression, i.e., without a deeper analysis of "Saul" being undertaken. SCHUMACHER, Händel, p. 15, applies the same saying in characterizing the final chorus, in my opinion incorrectly in light of the conclusion. SERAUKY, Händel, p. 117, summarizes older scholarship on this question in the following words: "Der einleitende Trauermarsch hat wegen seiner Dur-Tonart der Forschung seit langem große Rätsel aufgegeben und mannigfache Lösungen gefunden. CHRYSANDER interpretierte ihn, im Gegensatz zu unseren zahlreichen 'grell-schmerzlich ertönenden' MollTrauermärschen, feinsinnig als 'Trost in Tränen', der die Wehmut versüße und das 'Gewölk des Schmerzes durch des Himmels Reinheit und Unendlichkeit' umspanne. LEICHTENTRITT, der dem Problem auswich, meinte, der Trauermarsch sei 'trotz seines C-dur' von einer unübertroffenen Eindringlichkeit. Andererseits betonte SCHNOOR durchaus zutreffend, Händeis Trauermarsch sei 'der Situation und der Historie genial angepaßt'; da aber dieser Autor die Wahl gerade der schlichten Durtonart nicht recht zu erklären vermochte, so versicherte er stark verallgemeinernd, schon das C-dur weise auf die Ausnahmestellung dieser Komposition hin. Erst jüngst hat H.J. MOSER ZU dem Problem neuerlich Stellung

302

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

too will not bring Israel (or the men of Judah as Jennens and Handel wrote) eternal salvation. David's effectiveness as king will also be ambivalent. In the overall structure of Saul other factors also play a role: Just as the Hallelujah in C does not speak of eternal salvation, so too does it not give any reason for lasting mourning. Deepest mourning is, however, expressed in spite of the neutrality of the key, primarily through the ingenious instrumentation of the movement, but of course also in the rhythm and the simplicity of the melody. The one and same eight-measure theme is played in a slow 4/4 time (marked grave) alternating between strings accompanied by low brass instruments and subsequently (semper piano) one octave higher - seemingly already in other spheres - by an organ and two flutes. The one constant is the drum, which almost like in Bruckner - is employed quasi as a clock of death (Totenuhr). The funeral cortege advances just as a person goes inexorably toward death:

genommen. Er verglich Christoph Willibald GLUCKS viel umstrittene C-dur-Arie 'Che faro senza Euridice?' ('Ach, im habe sie verloren') im dritten Akte des Gluckschen 'Orfeo' (1762) mit Händeis Trauermarsch im 'Saul' und deutete das C-dur in beiden Fällen als 'Traurigkeit hoch zwei', als gesteigerte Trauer. Gegenüber dieser These wies GERBER mit Nachdruck darauf hin, die Tonart C-dur sei in Händeis Trauermarsch keineswegs als 'tieftraurig' aufzufassen; der Trauermarsch verherrliche vielmehr den verklärten Helden. Diese wohl am besten einleuchtende Formulierung nähert sich wieder der Interpretation CHRYSANDERS. In letzterem Sinne aufgefaßt, dürfte der C-dur-Trauermarsch Händeis in der Tat nichts anderes sein als eine Verherrlichung der verklärten Helden Saul und Jonathan, gespielt von einer durch Händeis Instrumentierungskunst idealisierten Feldmusik." In other words, aspects of the solution proposed here have always been observed in part; SERAUKY (see above) does not fail to draw attention to the circumstance that C is the basic key of "Saul" - nonetheless, his attempted solution more or less stalls in the middle of his journey.

303

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio "SauI "

rar s p - f f i r i i r t t ^ i

Flöte I

Flöte 2

IOrgel

i? -

. J iJ to™.

I j jIj J

1 j I-

t J I-

I J I

j j ij i

J JIJIJ J I

M M Org.

In the reprise there is always a tutti-passage following the strings/drums or organ/flute solo: At the end, all are united in mourning. Nonetheless, all are also prepared for mutual joys, for earthly and not heavenly joys, as is made possible by the use of the key of C. It is only the following chorus No. 78 in c ("Mourn, Israel, mourn, thy beauty lost") that expresses the raw human mourning that is so necessary under the circumstance. The following scenes express the same emotions before leading into the nearly otherworldly and seemingly unreal (and previously discussed) Nos. 83 and 84 in E, which find their resolution in the final chorus No. 86 in C. A surefooted explanation is still lacking for the final chorus No. 86, whose text appears so militaristic and triumphal that the use of C together with the 4/4 time appear to confirm this impression. However, the final chorus ends completely differently than it began - and here it is possible that Handel corrected or at least deepened the insights of Jennens: The sentence beginning "Gird on thy sword, thou man of might" and the following sentences are scored just as martially as the text would imply. Handel employed his whole catalogue of tonal and symbolic possibilities. Yet, in the scoring of the last two lines - which are horribly translated in German - the mood changes radically, so that one is taken aback when listening to a live performance or a CD or when reading the score. Not only does Handel switch from the modus imperfection of 4/4 time to the modus perfectum of 3/4 time at the words "While others, by thy virtue charm'd. / Shall crowd to own thy righteous sway," he also changes the perspective - at least according to the musical

304

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

symbolism of the baroque era - from the earthly to the heavenly, from the mortal to the eschatological. 50 In addition, he also radically - but temporarily - changes the key, in order to achieve the desired effect among his listeners. In the last reprise of the penultimate sentence "Shall thy obdurate foes dismay" he changes abruptly from B to e and continues for a while in this very human and earthbound-seeming key. All optimism has gone and is replaced by reflection: Who are the "others?" 51 And whose sway are they attempting to have a part of, so that Handel nearly has to overextend the baroque figure of circulatio or kyklosis52 in order to express the massive crowd sufficiently clearly in musical terms? Even Handel cannot definitively answer highly theological and picayune questions like these. Hence, he decides to make the open-ended text refer to David. Nevertheless, a certain ambiguity remains, since Handel not only arrives at the key of C at the end, but also uses the rhythm to underline the uncertainty: As of measure 162 the catchword "righteous" is suddenly accented "incorrectly" in that the second syllable receives two different beats. Is this meant to hint at doubts about David's ability to exercise power justly? At the last repetition of the sentence "Shall crowd to own thy righteous sway" an unexpected hemiola appears, in which "thy" is articulated in a syncopated manner, coming to rest on beats one and three in 3/4 time, and thus in effect receiving a question mark at the very end of the work. And for those who have still not understood that the oratorio is meant not to glorify David, but to recount the tragedy of Saul, Handel presents a conclusion that removes all doubt: In just three measures he allows the whole C edifice to collapse on itself through a one-octave drop in the first violins, in order to end with a muffled C chord 53 among the strings. A third and a fifth appear - even if only at the low end and barely audible, since they are played by the divided(!) violas. 54 However, the expected c" is missing - noted are only c' and c - and the drums and trumpets that are normally to be expected at

50

The final chorus of Bach's "Saint Matthew Passion" is also marked in 3/4 time - sorrow over the death of Jesus (c) is expressed there concurrently with joy about the salvation (3/4 time) his sacrifice has made possible. 51 At any rate not "your people [dein Volk]" as Gervinus implies! 52 On this, cf. BARTHEL, pp. 119-122. 53 REISSMANN, Händel, p. 120 (cited with approval by SERAUKY, Händel, p. 138 n. 113), who apparently bases his argument on Chrysander's "revision," categorizes the final chorus as "one of those vigorous and stately choruses ... in which Handel is still today unsurpassed [einen jener markigen und pomphaften Chöre ... in welchen Händel noch heute unübertroffen dasteht]." Why Serauky follows him in this instance, when he otherwise tried to distance himself from Chrysander's revision, is unknowable. Did he lack the patience to work through the issue until the last note? 54 This applies both to the older performance by Charles Mackerras, which I am referring to here, as well as to the one by Nikolaus Harnoncourt.

Handel and Jennens ' Oratorio

305

"Saul"

the triumphal end have already taken their leave two bars beforehand, just like the chorus and all (other) instruments other than the continuo (senza organo).

—

_

—

JL r l i » f ! T i righteous s 'Art v n tin J j own thy righteous i' /a nun

J* in

Jkr^tTzr1: f .1 ftTtown thy righteous scAann

o»m tchattn

dein

r f thy righteous dttH «cut -«* r

) f

f

p— JttieÀ,

'

ficA drangt,

su

scAann

-j I > \=ï—3=—=*=a vh»II crowd to

XncA.

ne A drangt,

eu

[»' ~~jp Z-— Ui ill crowd to Atri, xtcA drangt, em

_ ••••, :

. ..

—(M vh»U crowd to own thy _— H«ht-eous

(cAaUM

dein

Hei«,A.

f— L r r r p ==kd it:: Äg right - cous dein

-

/CtlcA.

_ right-«oui

mm -Trri^Jit-1»cou» Sway. shall crowd to o»n thy scAamn

dein

He te A.

:

S »-ay, AticA,

»icA drangt,cu

f

scAaun

dein

,

i;XÊ3r

«m

-

et

/¡tick.

J ÌCZf J

I •!•

I

Bibliography ABERT, A.A., Art. Zeno, Apostolo, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 14 (1968) pp. 1220-1224 ABERT, H., Georg Friedrich Händel. Vortrag, gehalten in der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften am 20. Februar 1926, in: Gesammelte Schriften und Vorträge von Hermann Abert, ed. by F. Blume, Halle (Saale) 1929, pp. 232-263 BARTELMUS, R., Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Gen. 6,1—4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur (ATANT 65), Zürich 1979 —, Die Matthäuspassion J.S. Bachs als Symbol. Gedanken zu einem unerschöpflichen musikalisch-theologischen Werk, TZ 47 (1991) pp. 13-65 (cited according to idem, Klangrede, pp. 1-43) —, Jephtha - Anmerkungen eines Exegeten zu G.F. Händeis musikalisch-theologischer Deutung einer "entlegenen" alttestamentlichen Tradition, TZ 51 (1995) pp. 106-127 (cited according to idem, Klangrede, pp. 65-86) —, Israel in Ägypten. Beobachtungen zum biblisch-historischen bzw. musikalischtheologischen Konzept von HÄNDELS Oratorium, in: idem, Klangrede, pp. 201-209

306

Rüdiger

Bartelmus

—,

Theologische Klangrede. Studien zur musikalischen Gestaltung und Vertiefung theologischer Gedanken durch J.S. Bach, G.F. Händel, F. Mendelssohn, J. Brahms und E. Pepping, Zürich 1998 BARTHEL, J., Handbuch der musikalischen Figurenlehre, Laaber 1985 BECKER, H., Art. Keiser, Reinhard, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 7 (1958) pp. 784-801 BOLLERT, W., Art. Bononcini, Familie, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 2 (1952) pp. 120-126 CHRYSANDER, F., Vorbemerkung, in: Saul. Oratorium von Georg Friedrich Händel in der Neugestaltung von Friedrich Chrysander, Ciavierauszug von F. Volbach, Hamburg 1908 CLAUSEN, H.-D., Händeis Saul, zu Entstehung und Dramaturgie des Werkes, in: the libretto included with the recording of "Saul" with the Leeds Festival Chorus and the English Chamber Orchestra under Sir Charles Mackerras, Archiv 447 696-2 (1973), pp. 17-22 DURON, J., Le cadre esthétique etc., in: the libretto included with the recording of David et Jonathas with the Enfants de la Cigale de Lyon et du Lycée musical, the Maîtrise de l'Opéra de Lyon, and the English Bach Festival Baroque Orchestra under M. Corboz, Erato 2292-4516-2 (1981), pp. 13-25 DIETRICH, W. / HERKOMMER. H. (eds.), König David - biblische Schlüsselfigur und europäische Leitgestalt, Freiburg (CH) / Stuttgart 2003 FLOWER, N., Georg Frideric Handel. His Personality and His Time, London 1923, German translation: Georg Friedrich Händel. Der Mann und seine Zeit (trans. A. Klengel), Leipzig 1925

HÄNDEL, G.F., Saul. Oratorio in three acts - Oratorium in drei Akten (Hallische HändelEdition, Series I: Oratorien und große Kantaten, Vol. 13), ed. by P.M. Young., Kassel / Basel / London / N e w York 1962 HEILKER, P. (ed.), Programmbuch zur Premiere S A U L von Georg Friedrich Händel am 28. April 2003 im Nationaltheater München, München 2003 HOGWOOD, C., Georg Friedrich Händel (trans, into German by B. Obrecht), with a timeline by A. Hicks, Stuttgart / Weimar 1992 KRETZSCHMAR, H., Führer durch den Concertsaal, II. Abtheilung. Zweiter Theil: Oratorien und weltliche Chorwerke, L e i p z i g 2 i 899 LEICHTENTRITT, H., Händel, Stuttgart 1924 MARTINOTY, J.-L., Résumé de l'épisode biblique etc., in: the libretto included with the recording of David et Jonathas with the Enfants de la Cigale de Lyon et du Lycée musical, the Maîtrise de l'Opéra de Lyon, and the English Bach Festival Baroque Orchestra under M. Corboz, Erato 2292-4516-2 (1981) pp. 2 5 - 3 8 NITSCHE, S.A., Viele Bilder und ein Text. Anmerkungen zur Logik der selektiven Rezeption biblischer Texte anhand der Story vom Sieg Davids über Goliat, in: König David, ed. by Dietrich, W. / Herkommer H., pp. 8 5 - 1 1 9 PAUMGARTNER, B., Art. Conti, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 2 (1952) pp. 1 6 4 0 1643 POOS, H., Kreuz und Krone sind verbunden. Sinnbild und Bildsinn im geistlichen Vokalwerk J.S. Bachs. Eine ikonografische Studie (Musik-Konzepte 50/51), München 1986 VON RAD, G., Theologie des Alten Testaments, Vol. I: Die Theologie der geschichtlichen Überlieferungen Israels, München 4 1962 REISSMANN, A., Georg Friedrich Händel. Sein Leben und seine Werke, Berlin 1882 RIEDEL, F.W., Art. Kuhnau, Johann, Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 7 (1958) pp. 1878-1887

Handel and Jennens' Oratorio

"Saul"

307

SCHLAFFER, H., Macht und Ohnmacht. Händeis Saul und das englische Königshaus, in: Programmbuch zur Premiere SAUL von Georg Friedrich Händel am 28. April 2003 im Nationaltheater München, ed. by P. Heilker, München 2003, pp. 48-55 SCHUMACHER, G., Georg Friedrich Händel, in: the text booklet included with the recording of "Saul" with the Konzertvereinigung Wiener Staatsopernchor and the Concentus musicus Wien under N. Harnoncourt, Teldec 8.35687 ZA (1986) pp. 11-15 SERAUKY, W., Georg Friedrich Händel. Sein Leben - sein Werk, Vol. 3: Von Händeis innerer Neuorientierung bis zum Abschluß des "Samson" (1738-1743), Kassel / Basel 1956 SMITH, R., Das Drama um Saul, in: Programmbuch zur Premiere SAUL von Georg Friedrich Händel am 28. April 2003 im Nationaltheater München, ed. by P. Heilker, München 2003, pp. 2 7 - 3 5

STEPHANI, H., Der Charakter der Tonarten, Regensburg 1923 STOEBE, H.J., Das erste Buch Samuelis (KAT 8/1), Gütersloh 1973

Catching the Poetic Eye Saul Reconceived in Modern Literature Sarah Nicholson What happens to Saul when he is taken out of the bible? And what happens to authors who read the story of Saul? For centuries the biblical narrative has caught the imagination of people who themselves are poets, and it has proved such an inspiration that these authors have wished to recast it in their own work. Perhaps the motivation is to try to fathom the profoundly disturbing nature of the story, or to probe their sympathy with Saul as a character, or even to explore how aspects of the story might be drawn out to fit into the authors' own perspectives. Whether or not these authors are expressing a deeply religious conviction about Saul, their biographies almost invariably tell of their love of biblical narrative, generally nurtured at their mothers' knees. 1 Familiarity with the biblical story is, of course, essential in providing these authors with the tools to reconstruct Saul in their own terms. 2 The complexity of the Saul narrative lends itself to poetic reconceiving, with its themes of conflict and the tragic, and the ambivalent relationships between Saul and David and between Saul and God. The story has dramatic qualities that prompted Jean de la Taille to recast it as drama more than five centuries ago; 3 he was followed later by Pierre du Ryer, Vittorio Alfieri, Voltaire, Alphonse de Lamartine and André Gide. 4 Other poets, such as Lord Byron, Robert Browning and Rainer Maria Rilke, have set aspects of the story to verse and, although even the longest of these poems is too short to handle the whole story, still the poets paint pictures of Saul that reflect some of the

1

FORTESCUE (Lamartine, p. 13), for example, notes the influence of Lamartine's mother, whose faith prompted her to introduce Lamartine to the bible in early childhood; and the bible came to provide him "throughout his life with literary, intellectual and spiritual inspiration." 2 The story of Saul is, of course, found principally in 1 Samuel 8 - 2 Samuel 1, although Saul's death is described in 1 Samuel 31. Although some aspects of his story are found outside this section of the bible, it is this version that is most familiar and with which I will be dealing for purposes of comparing post-biblical literature. 3

The work was published in 1572, but is thought to have been written in 1562. These texts are in French and Italian, from various centuries, and with historical peculiarities. I have, therefore, given all quotations in English for ease of reading. Since the Gide and Alfieri plays have been published in English translation, I quote from those published translations. Translations of Voltaire and Lamartine are my own. 4

Catching the Poetic Eye. Saul Reconceived in Modern

Literature

309

tragic aspects of the story. Thomas Hardy's novel The Mayor of Casterbridge surpasses most of the dramas in its setting of the Saul story, probably for reasons of genre. The scope of the novel allows for more detail than most of the dramatic retellings of the story or poems based on the story. Reading rewritings of the story side by side should allow them to illuminate not only the biblical text, but also each other, despite the textual conflicts among the narratives. However, since this study is limited in length, we can really only begin to sketch the outlines of our subject; a fuller treatment could use this as a base from which to paint a more detailed picture. Moreover, it is necessary to exclude some of the post-biblical tellers of Saul stories, since including them all here would fail to do them justice; a really full and inclusive exploration would require a whole book. Therefore we will focus on a number of the dramatists: La Taille, Alfieri, Voltaire, Lamartine and Gide; and we will also explore Hardy's retelling of the story. Saul in extra-biblical literature ranges from a character closely modeled on the biblical portrayal to a character with the same name but little else in common. Sometimes the extra-biblical Saul seems to be a caricature of his biblical counterpart. It is, therefore, imperative that the various Sauls are allowed to speak with their own voices - in other words, it is important that we as readers are sensitive not only to the literary qualities of the biblical narrative from which the story originates, but also to the subtleties of the extra-biblical literature in which more Sauls appear. Therefore, we should not disparage the appearance of non-biblical characters, incidents, and themes, but instead ask ourselves whether these newer pictures shed light on the older story or on their own contexts and times. Terry Eagleton writes that "All literary works ... are 'rewritten', if only unconsciously, by the societies which read them." 5 In a sense, Saul has been spilling out of the bible into extrabiblical texts since the biblical story was first told. And if there is a sense that every reading is also a rewriting, new Sauls6 are constantly appearing.

1. Saul among the Sauls The portrayals of Saul in literature are quite various because there are so many perspectives from which Saul can be viewed. Not only is the biblical account of sufficient length to lend itself to adaptation in a variety of genres, it 5

EAGLETON, Literary Theory, p. 12. The characters in the various literary works have slightly different names on account of the language and the time the works were written. For example, Jonathan is known as Jonathe in la Taille, Gionata in Alfieri, and Jonathas in Lamartine. To avoid confusion in such a short article, 1 shall refer to the characters by their usual English names (Saul, Jonathan, Michal, etc.), with the exception of the characters in Hardy's novel. Since their names have been changed in The Mayor, no confusion should arise. 6

310

Sarah

Nicholson

also exhibits a style typical of biblical narrative in that there are many gaps that may be filled both by readers and by storytellers. This facilitates a number of quite different perspectives on the Saul story; the post-biblical authors have plenty of scope to fill the gaps left by the biblical authors. Of course, it is not simply a case of filling in the blanks; a good retelling must create its own scenes and characterizations, for without these it can be no more than a shadow of the original. Therefore in these rewritings we encounter non-biblical characters; we find aspects of the plot changed, remodeled, or redistributed; we see that certain relationships have changed. Yet, somehow, Saul is still Saul. Despite the many differences in characterization, style, vocabulary, scene, and virtually every other variable, there are also some constants, among which are two factors in particular: (1) the condition commonly described as "Saul's madness," and (2) Saul's conflicts with those around him: usually David, Jonathan, and Michal. There is also the question of the role of Y H W H in the story, which is absolutely crucial to the biblical narrative, but which tends to change when the story is rewritten. 7 God is not among the dramatis personae in any of the dramas, nor in Hardy's novel, and yet the biblical Saul's conflict with God is very much in the background. The characterization of the protagonist is another useful avenue of enquiry, since differences in characterization, while partly attributable to authorial intention, are also partly available as possible reinterpretations of the biblical Saul. As we know, the biblical story introduces Saul as a tall, handsome young man who searches for his father's lost livestock and finds Samuel, who confers on him the kingship according to God's instruction. This is not at all the Saul we are introduced to in the dramas. La Taille, the earliest of the authors we are considering, begins his drama with Saul much later in the story, after David has allied himself with Achish, and Saul is clearly in the grip of a kind of madness. He seems to be hallucinating and implies that he wishes to kill his sons. 8 By contrast, both Alfieri and Lamartine introduce a sane Saul, who comments on the appearance of the morning. But, whereas Alfieri's Saul enjoys the beauty of the morning, Lamartine's Saul views the morning with trepidation and remarks on the terror he feels. In Lamartine's work, Saul's first entrance is characterized by a sense of foreboding. He is under no illusions as to what has happened to him: He says, "The spirit of the living

7 This article depends on, but owing to its scope does not permit a lengthy discussion of, GUNN'S famous monograph on The Fate of King Saul, in which he points to the involvement of the deity. It may be hoped that all scholars interested in the Saul narrative have read the book in question. 8 LA TAILLE, Saul, 11.17-21.

Catching the Poetic Eye. Saul Reconceived in Modern

Literature

311

God has departed from me." 9 Themes of identification of natural features with human emotion are very important in Lamartine's work. 10 Lamartine's work is structured on Alfieri's, and both commence the action at Gilboa. 11 In fact, some parts of Lamartine's drama are so close to Alfieri's that Pirazzini comments that "he must have had the Italian tragedy constantly before his eyes." 12 That Lamartine's work is less well-realized than Alfieri's is commonly accepted; the reason is likely to be its lack of tragic force. Pirazzini points out that Lamartine was a lyric poet and lacked Alfieri's tragic genius. But, it is also true that Lamartine was better able to portray some of the religious sentiments of his characters. Nevertheless, Alfieri succeeds at keeping the protagonist at the centre of the action and in revealing his internal conflict, which Lamartine fails to do as effectively. 13 Alfieri's Saul spends less time in an irrational state than does Lamartine's. For this reason it is easier to understand his feelings towards David as a genuine internal conflict, rather than the result of mental instability. This is important because the biblical Saul's feelings are not mere paranoia; he genuinely has something to fear from David. David has been anointed and will certainly succeed Saul. Even the biblical Saul accepts that David will be king (1 Sam 24:20). Voltaire introduces Saul earlier in the biblical plot than Gilboa. His drama begins with the events of 1 Samuel 15. This has the effect of foregrounding Saul's conflict with God and of characterizing Saul as humane, despite his madness. Gide, on the other hand, introduces a Saul beset by demons. In fact, the demons appear before Saul does, and we learn that they are symbols of Saul's desires. It is clear from this manner of beginning the drama that Gide wants to prompt a discussion of internal conflicts. But Hardy's Saul figure, Michael Henchard, is the only one who is allowed to experience a rise before his fall. His introduction in the scene in which he sells his wife and daughter gives readers a sense of his character. Then the narrator moves forward nearly two decades to depict him as mayor of a significant town, implying strongly that his vow to forgo strong drink has had a good effect on his conduct. This adds to the sense of tragic vision in The Mayor. In Hardy's novel, as in the

9

10

LAMARTINE, S a u l , 1. 2 5 2 . S e e BIRKETT, L a m a r t i n e , p. 23.

11 Cognets, editor of Lamartine's Saul (LAMARTINE, Saul, p. viii), writes that three out of five acts owe a great deal to Alfieri and, moreover, that Act III is partly Lamartine's own work and partly inspired by du Ryer. However, Lancaster, editor of du Ryer's drama (DU RYER, Saul, p. 11 n. 2), disagrees about the influence of du Ryer's drama on Lamartine. He says the situations in the respective Pythonisse scenes are quite different and, moreover, Lamartine could have been inspired by the bible, Josephus, or even La Taille. This may indeed be true, though Lancaster concedes that there are a number of lines in Lamartine's drama that strongly recall du Ryer's. 12

PIRAZZINI, Italy, p. 52.

13

PIRAZZINI, Italy, pp. 47ff.

312

Sarah

Nicholson

dramas, the means by which Saul is characterized and set in particular contexts are the means by which Saul's character and fate are determined. A few of the dramas try to stay fairly close to the biblical characterization of Saul. La Taille, Alfieri and Lamartine base their Saul figures quite firmly on the biblical character, despite wishing to make a few changes. La Taille seems to have wanted to paint a picture of Saul that was not too dark. He shows that Saul maintains the support of many of his people despite his various internal and external conflicts. La Taille therefore borrows from Josephus's description of Saul in Jewish Antiquities, which he puts into the mouth of one of Saul's equerries. 14 As Jean de Cognets argues, Lamartine also wished to diminish the ferocity of the biblical characters in his drama; and he, therefore, glossed over some of the details. 15 Although there are inevitably some departures from the biblical portrayal, these are not as noticeable in La Taille, Lamartine, and Alfieri as, for example, Voltaire's recasting of Saul's character, or Gide's. Saul seems to be somewhat rehabilitated in Voltaire's drama. Instead of being dangerously insane, he is depicted as lecherous and foolish. This isn't at all the Saul of biblical narrative, who actually is murderous on occasion. Voltaire's emasculated Saul is somewhat unsatisfactory - he is not in any way a tragic hero who searches for meaning in his suffering, but then Voltaire's Saul isn't really the subject of the drama. The true subject is David, who is portrayed in contrast to Saul in order to draw out aspects of his character that are present in the biblical narrative, but often played down in interpretation. Perhaps, given his long struggle against the church, Voltaire may have been setting up an opposition between the messiah after God's own heart and Saul, the humane messiah rejected by God - and by implication also rejected by the church. There also appears to be an anti-clerical thrust to the piece. Voltaire's characters refer to David as "the man after God's own heart" at the end of the play, just after David has given Solomon a list of people to execute. Hardy has not given the name Saul to the tragic hero of his novel The Mayor of Casterbridge; however, there can be little doubt that Saul lies intertextually alongside Henchard. 16 As a "story of a man of character" (Hardy's subtitle), Henchard is largely responsible for his own suffering and 14

LA TAILLE, Saul, 11. 1099-1112. See Stone's remarks in BUCHANAN ET AL., Tragedies, p. xxv. 15 See LAMARTINE, SaUl, 8, note on 1. 12 and on 11. 18-19. 16 This was suggested in 1956 by Moynahan, who thought the connection might have been unconscious on Hardy's part. The idea has since been picked up, or mentioned in passing, by a few later scholars, including L. Lerner, who sees Moynahan's article as an unusual approach, and Aschkenasy, who thinks the elements brought from 1 Samuel are non-tragic. My own work has asserted the existence of a tragic vision both in The Mayor and in the biblical narrative. See MOYNAHAN, The Mayor; LERNER, The Mayor; ASCHKENASY, Biblical Substructures, NICHOLSON, Three Faces.

Catching the Poetic Eye. Saul Reconceived in Modern

Literature

313

yet, like Saul's, his suffering seems disproportionate to his crimes. Unlike the dramas, which attempt to portray a biblical landscape, Hardy has taken elements of the Saul narrative and set them in the context of the corn trade in the mid-nineteenth century. Thus, there are none of the exact parallels of plot that occur in some of the dramas we have been considering. However, the dramas lack the scope of a novel; even though their plots are more obviously based on events in the biblical narrative, these events are selected with a bias towards the later part of Saul's story. In the dramas we see little of the early successes described in the biblical narrative, whereas in The Mayor we learn something of Henchard's early life. And the two errors that cost Saul the kingdom in 1 Samuel (the failure to wait for Samuel to offer sacrifice and the sparing of Agag) are not part of the action in the dramas, 17 whereas in The Mayor Henchard's error (the wife sale) is carefully described. Hardy's choice of the novel as the genre for his recasting of the Saul story allows him more scope to link plot developments in The Mayor with those of the biblical narrative. Henchard's crimes are not a hasty sacrifice and a failure to annihilate an entire population, though to be sure he shares some character flaws with Saul. He is hasty in his desire to discover what his wife has written in her death note, in which it is revealed too soon that Elizabeth-Jane is Newson's daughter. He is hasty in bringing in the harvest, instead of following the advice of Fall, the weather prophet. And like Saul, who listens to the people and fails to obey the divine command to annihilate all the Amalekite livestock, Henchard is very concerned for his reputation, as King has demonstrated. 18 In The Mayor Henchard's lack of self-control under the influence of strong drink leads him to sell his wife, and he is then too embarrassed to raise enough of a commotion to track her down. 19 Like the biblical Saul, Henchard has a temper and comes close to causing serious harm to those he thinks have undermined him (particularly Farfrae and Lucetta). Gide's drama was written ostensibly as a kind of antidote to his earlier work Fruits of the Earth 20 and is quite unlike the other French classical dramas on Saul. For one thing, Gide had a specific agenda that was quite different from that of his predecessors: He intended to depict a Saul struggling with his desires. Saul is portrayed as a man who is too open to experience. In order to represent this, Gide writes into his play a number of demons who 17 The exception is Voltaire, where the scene of Samuel's slaughter of Agag is an opportunity for Voltaire to characterize Saul and God, but the scene does not contribute much to plot development. 18 19

KING, T h e M a y o r , p. 42. HARDY, T h e M a y o r , p. 85.

20 Les Nourritures terrestres, sometimes translated "Earthly Food." The thrust of Les Nourritures was in praise of sensual experience and openness; Gide claimed Saül was about the "disintegration of personality" that can happen when one is too passively open. For further discussion, see SHERIDAN, Gide, pp. 128ff.

314

Sarah

Nicholson

come to Saul after he has killed the sorcerers and who eventually overcome him. However, Gide's Saul also struggles with character flaws. Pollard notes that the Queen draws attention to two very significant aspects of Saul's character: (1) He never seems to know what he wants, and (2) he has "reached out beyond the range of his will (volonté)." 21 Gide's Saul is destroyed by his openness, by his submission to his desires. He is contrasted with David, a man in control of his feelings: David's eulogy for Jonathan is very brief compared with the biblical account. Saul's death is not suicide; somehow Gide's Saul is not capable of such a tragic final act. Lerner says he is not decisive enough, 22 but it is probably more than that. He has the answers to his secret questions and has no need to chase his destiny. In Gide's drama Saul engages in a unique kind of conflict with David, because Saul is in love with the man who will succeed him and, therefore, the idea of realizing that fear, committing suicide to give David the throne, does not carry the same weight.

2. Saul loves David; he loves him not; he loves him ... The biblical Saul's complex relationship with David is characterized by conflict. This conflict is one of the central themes of the biblical story and finds its way into all the retellings of the story. La Taille's drama is something of an exception, because the conflict between Saul and David is in the background; David does not enter the action until Saul is already dead. Most of the other dramatists of Saul stories depict an on-stage hostility. Alfieri's Saul, like the biblical Saul, both loves and hates David. When David opens the drama, he is returning from exile prepared to face death at Saul's hands, but determined to fight in the forthcoming battle. However, his plan will not succeed and, by the end of the play, he is forced into exile again. David refers to himself as Saul's son, and Saul calls himself David's second father, 23 which picks up on the biblical father-son typology described by Lawton, 24 but Saul also becomes very angry with David, particularly when he talks about God, reminding David that priests have cut him off from God. Lamartine's Saul, like Alfieri's Saul, as well as the biblical Saul, swings between love for David and hatred. Before they meet for the first time on stage, Saul is anxious, but looking forward to the meeting. His feelings towards David remain magnanimous until Abner undermines his judgment. 25 21

22 23

24

25

Gide, p. 330. LERNER, Gide's Saiil, p. 76. A L F I E R I , Saul, Act II, Scene iii. POLLARD,

S e e LAWTON, S a u l .

See L A M A R T I N E , Saiil, 11. 4 7 7 - 4 8 2 . The role of Abner in provoking Saul's hatred for David recurs in several of the works and merits further discussion but is outside the scope of this piece.

Catching the Poetic Eye. Saul Reconceived in Modern

Literature

315

In Lamartine's play, the revelations made by the Pythonisse (the woman of Endor figure) also go some way towards changing Saul's attitude to David. Lamartine departs from Alfieri's (and 1 Samuel's) plot trajectory when he has David return unexpectedly at the end of the drama to fight for Israel, so that Israel defeats the Philistines. In keeping with the tragic theme of the play, Saul commits suicide at the sound of a victorious army. The tragic irony is that in fact it is Saul's own soldiers he hears calling his name; David has returned and Saul's army has been victorious. In Voltaire's drama the role of David eclipses that of Saul, to the extent that the play might more appropriately have been entitled David. Although the drama has never attracted much critical attention, it is nonetheless interesting, particularly because of its caricature of David. Both Saul and David are caricatures in the drama, but the most fascinating aspect of the play is that, unlike most retellings of the story of David, Voltaire has focused on David's shortcomings and worst qualities: his acquisitive nature,26 his lust for power,27 his use of women, and his lack of affection for those who love him.28 These character flaws are in evidence in the biblical narrative, but most rewriters of the story have been loath to make mention of them.29 Voltaire's work is interesting in that it draws out the dissonance between Michal's proclamation of love for David and his treatment of her.30 In fact, as Exum states, David does not speak to Michal in 1 Samuel.31 However, there is little contact between Saul and David in the drama; and the audience's knowledge of the story is assumed, so that the conflict between the two kings can be left in the narrative background. In The Mayor the principal conflict is between Henchard and Farfrae. Farfrae's abilities in the corn trade are superior to Henchard's, and Henchard 26

E.g., VOLTAIRE, Saul, Act III, Scene i: David asks, "Did Saul leave lots of money? Will 1 be rich?" 27 E.g., VOLTAIRE, Saul, Act II, Scene i: Michal accuses David of wanting to kill her father and David protests, "God preserve me! I only want to succeed him .. 28 E.g., VOLTAIRE, Saul, Act II, Scene ii: Michal asks David how many wives he has; and he admits to eighteen, "not too many for a good guy." Later, David closes Act III by saying, "I like women to be mistresses in bed, but everywhere else I like them to obey." 29 That David is acquisitive may be inferred from his questions concerning what will be done for the man who kills Goliath. He hears three times that the king will give riches and his daughter to the man who kills Goliath (1 Sam 17:25, 26, 30). He asks repeatedly before actually offering his services. His desire to gain power can be seen in his marriage to Abigail (1 Samuel 25), by which he forges alliances with the northern peoples. He acquires numerous wives and concubines, and he even takes another man's wife (Bathsheba: 2 Samuel 11). By contrast Saul has only one wife, Ahinoam (1 Sam 14:50). For a discussion of the contrast in marital fidelity between David and Saul in rabbinic literature, see Liss's essay in this volume. 30 For example, Act II, Scene i: David swears that he will always be faithful to Michal. Immediately Scene ii begins with Abigail entering and addressing David as "My dear, my tender husband, master of my heart and life ..." 31

EXUM, T r a g e d y , p. 155.

Sarah Nicholson

316

is jealous. He attempts to cut Farfrae out of the corn business, but makes poor decisions and loses everything. In the process of pursuing the rival, both Henchard and Saul become isolated from those they love. Eventually Farfrae succeeds Henchard as Mayor of Casterbridge, just as David succeeds Saul as king of Israel. Saul's daughter Michal marries David; Henchard's daughter Elizabeth-Jane eventually marries Farfrae. 32 Henchard, like Saul, also loves and admires Farfrae; and there is a strong sense that Farfrae should be his legitimate successor. There is a parallel here with Lawton's argument that David really is Saul's son: In his heart Saul feels that David and not Jonathan is his proper son. 33 Yet, both protagonists are on a pendulum that swings between love and hatred. There is a different quality of conflict between Saul and David in Gide's drama. This is because Saul is in love with David. Although Saul knows David loves Jonathan, he nevertheless hopes to impress him, sometimes in rather bizarre ways. For example, he has his beard shaved in order to appear younger and less royal. Pollard calls it an attempt at self-revelation. 34 However, what is revealed is Saul's attraction to the very thing that will damage him. When David understands the nature of Saul's feelings, he leaves Saul, but allows Jonathan to think Saul has attacked him. The conflict becomes a hidden one, part of Saul's secret that even David is unwilling to reveal. David somehow takes on Saul's secret and allows it to color Jonathan's view of his father. The conflict between David and Saul, and to some extent Jonathan's place in that conflict, is the undercurrent that drives the characterization and keeps the plot flowing. It seems almost unthinkable that the story of Saul could be rewritten without indicating some kind of conflict between the Saul and David characters. Though it is treated with less emphasis in La Taille and Voltaire, it is nevertheless assumed to be in the narrative background. The biblical Saul is also in conflict with God and with Michal and Jonathan; and most of the dramas emphasize the conflict with David at the expense of these others, though Hardy depicts a Saul figure in multiple conflicts. It seems that of all Saul's difficult relationships, the most notable is his love and hatred for the man who will succeed him.

32 Elizabeth-Jane is legally, if not biologically, H e n c h a r d ' s daughter, since her mother was still legally married to Henchard w h e n she w a s living with Newson. 33

S e e LAWTON, S a u l .

34

POLLARD, G i d e , p . 3 3 1 .

Catching the Poetic Eye. Saul Reconceived

in Modern

Literature

317

3. Recognition and Reversal One of the reasons that Saul tends to remain Saul in retellings of his story is that he experiences both recognition and reversal. The biblical story of Saul includes scenes of recognition and reversal like those characteristic of Greek tragic drama. Clearly the arrival of David and the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul in 1 Samuel 16, with its concurrent narration of Saul's terror under the influence of an evil spirit from YHWH, is one such moment. Another important treatment of this theme is the scene with the woman of Endor in 1 Samuel 28, which is a turning point for Saul. Once he and the woman have recognized Samuel, Saul must also recognize and face his fate: his impending death in battle against the Philistines, all the more poignant when one remembers that Y H W H had declared that Saul would deliver his people from the Philistines (1 Sam 9:16). He also has to face what he has already discovered but denied: the knowledge that the kingdom will be handed to David. The scene with the woman of Endor is therefore of great significance in the biblical narrative, and this significance is recognized and reinterpreted by most of the post-biblical retellers of the story. The medium - commonly known in English as the "witch of Endor" - is known in the French and Italian dramas as the Pythonisse, meaning a female with a gift of prophecy, from the Greek legend of Apollo. The term is found in the Vulgate of 1 Samuel 28, hence its appearance in the dramas we are considering. In fact, Voltaire makes a joke about the term: Saul believes the woman can help him because she has the spirit of a python. 35 Though many of the later rewriters have picked up this theme of recognition and reversal and included a Pythonisse scene, its inclusion is not universal. La Taille has no Pythonisse scene; and Voltaire's Pythonisse scene is not about tragic themes, though he is doubtless aware of the scene's potential. He writes instead something of an anti-recognition scene, or perhaps a recognition scene manqué, which is in keeping with the tenor of his drama: Saul is a victim rather than a hero. In Voltaire's Saul this is the last scene in which Saul appears. 36 The Pythonisse commands the sun to appear in broad daylight and then says she sees something on the ground. "Isn't it a shadow?" Saul asks. Of course, ombre means both shadow and ghost. Saul himself describes the ghost: Does it have a long beard? A white beard? And then he "recognizes" it as Samuel. The Pythonisse is clearly making up her part of the description. Her priority is to take the money of the "foolish captain;" she hasn't

35

VOLTAIRE, Saiil, Act II, Scene vii. The Vulgate translates the Hebrew word for a spirit of the dead ('òb) with the word python (e.g., 1 Sam 28:8). Most likely, however, it means a familiar spirit in reference to the Delphi oracle, and not an actual constrictor snake as Voltaire's Saul seems to think. 36 VOLTAIRE, Saiil, Act II, Scene viii.

Sarah Nicholson

318

recognized him. There is no recognition, because there is nothing to recognize: No meaning can be derived from the deity in this drama, and no meaning can be derived for Saul's suffering. Unlike many of the other Saul stories, Voltaire's Saul cannot be a tragic hero. La Taille, by contrast, makes much of the Pythonisse: He expands her role and her powers considerably. La Taille's Saul states at the outset that he wishes to conjure up Samuel. 37 The equerry who brings Saul news of the Pythonisse describes the things she is able to do: Among other things, she can transfigure her body into a thousand forms, she can stop the courses of the stars, and she can make the universe tremble. 38 When Saul eventually goes to see her, she invokes all manner of demons and devils: Satan, Beelzebub, Leviathan, Belial, and Belfegore. Saul finds the invocation of demons quite horrifying and is inclined to leave, though he can't drag himself away. At this point the Pythonisse indicates that she recognizes him. Of course, in 1 Samuel the woman recognizes Saul only after he recognizes the ghost as Samuel. So although this was written as a tragedy, this element of recognition from the biblical tragic vision is absent in La Taille. Instead, La Taille uses the events of this scene as the basis for God's rejection of Saul. Alfieri has no Pythonisse scene, but there is a scene in which Saul, apparently hallucinating, sees Samuel. He describes a figure much more terrifying than the god 39 coming up from the earth seen by the woman of Endor. Alfieri's hallucination has eyes that are orbs of blood and breathes fire. A woman is present: Michal is with Saul, but he doesn't see her. He pleads with Samuel, saying his children are innocent and do not deserve divine revenge, and he thinks he sees the corpses of Ahimelech and his sons. He seems to hear Samuel tell him that soon they all (Saul and his children) will be with Samuel. 40 Alfieri thus uses elements of the Endor scene as a means of dramatizing Saul's derangement, and the medium herself is eclipsed. In Lamartine's drama, the Pythonisse recognises Saul within moments of meeting him, so again this differs from the biblical account. In this drama too, Saul learns from the Pythonisse that David will inherit from him, and that he and Jonathan will die in battle. In this case, Saul is told that his son (rather than Saul himself) is rejected. 41 Saul, furious, insists that God has promised him the throne, and God doesn't deceive. He does not recognize that he has committed any crimes that deserve God's punishment. This is the point at which Lamartine introduces a moment of recognition: Saul is responsible for murdering Samuel. Of course, in the biblical text Samuel simply dies, but

37

L A TAILLE, S a u l , 1 1 . 6 1 5 - 6 1 8 .

38

S e e L A TAILLE, S a u l , 11. 4 6 9 ^ 7 6 .

3