of 20
8/22/2019 1519163
1/20
The Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul in 1 Chronicles X
Author(s): Saul ZalewskiSource: Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 39, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 449-467Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519163
Accessed: 05/10/2009 23:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519163?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=baphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1519163?origin=JSTOR-pdf8/22/2019 1519163
2/20
Vetus TestamentumXXXIX, 4 (1989)
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OFSAUL IN 1 CHRONICLES Xby
SAUL ZALEWSKIJerusalem
In view of the fact that the Chronicler omitted all the chapters ofSamuel that deal with King Saul, we must ask: why did he chooseto retain the story of the death of Saul in his work? This questionhas received several answers in biblical commentary andscholarship.The author of a commentary ascribed to Rashi wrote: "It tellsof Saul only about his fall, but when it comes to tell of the deedsof David, it does not speak disrespectfully, but rather of his heroismand his greatness, since it is his book and the book of the kings ofJudah" (commentary on x 1). In M. H. Segal's opinion, "Thechapter as a whole was inserted here only by virtue of its conclu-sion: 'and turned the kingdom unto David the son ofJesse' (v. 14).Thus it serves as a kind of introduction to the history of the kingshipof David." J. W. Rothstein and J. Hanel point out that, againstthe background of the story of the dath of Saul, what stands out isthe contrast between the figure of Saul and the figure of David, andthe superiority of the latter over the former as the superiority oflight over darkness.2 In T. Willi's opinion, the chief reason forbringing in the story of the death of Saul is implicit in the prophecyof Nathan in 1 Chr. xvii 13 in which the Lord promises David thekingship as a permanent possession, in contrast to the kingship of
1 Mebo Hammiqra' (Hebrew) 3 (Jerusalem, 1947), p. 783. See also earlier com-mentators: E. Bertheau, Die Bucherder Chronik(Leipzig, 1854), E. tr. in Commentaryon the Books of Kings by K. F. Keil ... Supplementedby Commentaryon the Books ofChroniclesby E. Bertheau2 (Edinburgh, 1857); W. A. L. Elmslie, "The First andSecond Books of Chronicles", in G. A. Buttrick et al. (ed.), The Interpreter'sBible3 (New York and Nashville, 1954), p. 3822 Das erste Buch der Chronik(Leipzig, 1927), p. 199. See also G. von Rad, DasGeschichtsbild des ChronicleschenWerkes (Stuttgart, 1930). p. 79; W. Rudolph,Chronikbicher(Tiibingen, 1955), p. 96.
8/22/2019 1519163
3/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
Saul.3 Sara Japhet holds the view that "from the literary point ofview, the sudden introduction of the story in 1 Chr. x does notgrant the narrative any more continuity than it would receive bybeginning with 1 Chr. xi. The presence of the chapter can beexplained only by a desire to describe the Kingdom of David as acontinuation. Beginning the story at the enthronement of Davidwould have left it without any 'past'. By means of a correlation withthe Kingdom of Saul, however, a continuum is created, and this isthe purpose of the chapter."4The common point of all these opinions is that the inclusion of1 Sam. xxxi in the composition of Chronicles did not occur by acci-dent but was clearly intended, in order to suit the purposes of theChronicler. However, none of the explanations presented here sup-plies a complete answer to the question why the story of the deathof Saul had to be repeated in its entirety. The Chronicler couldhave begun his story with 1 Chr. xi, and, even in that case, we couldhave used most of the explanations presented above.In this context, it is proper to focus on R. Mosis's study. Hisdiscussion of 1 Chr. x is the broadest and most detailed that hasbeen written up till now. It breaks new ground in understandingthis story. In Mosis's opinion, as opposed to the prevalent one, thestory of the death of Saul stands in isolation as a chapter in its ownright and does not constitute a link connecting what comes beforeit with what comes after it.5 In contrast to the parallel story in 1Sam. xxxi, which is historical, 1 Chr. x is not historical at all.The elimination of the historical character of 1 Chr. x enablesMosis to be insulated from the real events narrated in 1 Sam. xxxi,and thus to present the world view of the Chronicler. The story ofthe death of Saul in Chronicles serves, in his opinion, as a paradigmfor describing the times of troubles and distress in the history ofIsrael as they are reflected in the various chapters of the books ofChronicles. Saul is not seen only as a contrast to David, as severalscholars have suggested, but he serves as a negative example ofthose kings who did evil in the eyes of the Lord (pp. 21 ff., 29, 32,41 ff.).
3 Die Chronikals Auslegung(Gottingen, 1972), p. 169.4 The Ideology of the Book of Chroniclesand Its Place in Biblical Thought (Hebrew)(Jerusalem, 1977), p. 344.5 Untersuchungenzur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes(Freiburg imBreisgau, 1973), p. 41.
450
8/22/2019 1519163
4/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
This is the issue here: to what extent does Mosis's exegesis bringus close to understanding the purpose of the Chronicler?1 Chr. x 13-14 serve Mosis as a strong support for his claim asto the central place which the story of the death of Saul occupies inChronicles.6 Mosis devotes a detailed discussion to clarifying the
meaning of expressions found in these verses. He rejects theprevalent scholarly opinion which sees in these expressionsreferences to Saul's sins as described in the books of Samuel.
In Mosis's view, the word "transgression" (macal) is a key wordin Chronicles. It represents a lack of loyality to the Lord. Theresults of transgressing against the Lord are: the defeat of Israel onthe battlefield, the destruction of the Land, and the banishment ofthe people at the hands of the enemy. This is how, in Mosis'sopinion, the root mClmust be explained in 1 Chr. x 13 as well.Mosis draws attention to the fact that words with the root m'lappear infigura etymologican three places in Chronicles. These are:the story of the death of Saul (1 Chr. x 13), the description of theevil deeds of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxviii 19), and the description of thedestruction of Jerusalem (2 Chr. xxxvi 14). Mosis finds a specialresemblance between Saul and Ahaz. Whereas Hezekiah is con-ceived of as a second David, Ahaz his father is conceived of as asecond Saul. The disasters which came down upon the state in thetime of Ahaz are narrated in 2 Chr. xxviii. The king of Aram (v.5) and the Edomites (v. 17) had taken captives from Judah whilethe Philistines had invaded the cities of Judah, had taken manycities, and had settled in them (v. 18). This description of the deedsof the Philistines in the time of Ahaz reminds us especially of thesituation described in the story of the death of Saul (1 Chr. x 7).The story of the death of Saul serves as an example of similar situa-tions in the history of Israel in which the sins of Israel and its kingscaused the destruction of the Land and the exile of the people toBabylon (pp. 31-3).It appears to me that an examination of the texts confirms neitherMosis's explanation nor his conclusion. Reading the story of Sauland the story of Ahaz together brings out essential differencesbetween them. The use of the root mCl n regard to Ahaz is linkedwith the sin of idol worship and with severe damage to the worship
6 Within the present framework, it is not possible to deal with Mosis's judge-ment in regard to evaluating the verses of 1 Chr. x 1-12.
451
8/22/2019 1519163
5/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
of the Lord (2 Chr. xxviii 19, 22 ff., xxix 6 ff.). However, in regardto Saul, the sin is not specified. Rather, the text makes do with thegeneral statement: "for his transgression which he committedagainst the Lord". In contrast to Mosis's opinion, I believe that theprevailing opinion of the commentators and scholars is correct, inthat the root ml in 1 Chr. x 13 must be interpreted against thebackground of Saul's sins as described in Samuel (see below).The comparison of Ahaz with Saul does not hold for otherreasons as well. We must consider the formula used to introducethe kingship of Ahaz. Here we read: "For he walked in the waysof the kings of Israel and made also molten images for Baalim" (2Chr. xxviii 2). The Chronicler, who copied the introductory for-mula from the parallel story in 2 Kgs xvi 3, added the clause "andmade also molten images for Baalim".It is clear then that the condemnation of the deeds of Ahaz is forhis walking in the ways of the kings of Israel, and not for walkingin the ways of Saul. Further, the statement "and made also moltenimages for Baalim" makes this quite clear. Moreover, Jehoram sonof Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xxi 6; 2 Kgs viii 18) and Ahaziah son ofJehoram, king ofJudah (2 Chr. xxii 3; 2 Kgs viii 27), were accusedof walking in the ways of the kings of Israel and in the way of theHouse of Ahab. For this reason, Saul should not be seen as a pro-totype for the sinful kings, nor should Ahaz be seen as a secondSaul.
We ought also to consider the fact that Saul's name is mentionedfor the last time in 1 Chr. xxvi 28, that is, in the chapter thatdescribes the period of David. After the period of David, his nameis not explicitly mentioned.7 This fact serves to support the argu-ment that Saul does not serve as a negative example for the sinfulkings who came after him.The next statement that Mosis interprets is: "Against the wordof the Lord which he kept not" (1 Chr. x 13). He rejects theprevalent explanation which holds that this statement related toSaul's sin in 1 Sam. xiii or 1 Sam. xv, using the argument that thestatement is too general-as are the two other statements "commit-ted against the Lord" and "And inquired not of the Lord". There-fore, the statement is not to be connected to the sins of Saul as men-
7 But in Solomon's speech upon dedicating the Temple (2 Chr. vi 4-6) thereis an allusion to Saul.
452
8/22/2019 1519163
6/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
tioned in the books of Samuel. In Mosis's view, if the Chroniclerhad had in mind specific sins mentioned in Samuel, he would havedetailed them as was done in the Aramaic Targum for 1 Chr. x 13,which mentions Saul's transgressing in failing to destroy theAmalekites and in killing the priests of Nob.Mosis indicates the link between the expression "kept the wordof the Lord" in the chapter under discussion and the like phrasesin Deuteronomy and Ps. cxix, which depends on Deuteronomy. Itemerges from these sources that the fate of the nation depends onkeeping the Lord's word. As a reward for its loyalty to the Lord,the nation merits a good life and settlement in the Land. Con-versely, disloyalty to the Lord will cause the conquest of the Landby the enemy, as for example, the seizure of fortress cities byShishak in the time of Rehoboam (2 Chr. xii 4).The expression "kept the word of the Lord" appears once againin this biblical book (2 Chr. xxxiv 21) where Josiah commands hisofficials: "Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and them that are leftin Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that isfound: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out uponus, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord..."Mosis comments that "them that are left... in Judah" refers to theBabylonian Exile, since the expression under discussion alsoappears in 1 Chr. x 13 and here too alludes to the Babylonian Exile.This should not be at all surprising, in his view, since, in describingthe destruction by Nebuchadnezzar at the end of Chronicles, theChronicler lists, among other reaons for the destruction of theLand, the humiliating and mocking attitude of Israel and its kingstowards the Lord's messengers and toward his words (2 Chr. xxxvi16) (cf. Mosis, pp. 33-9).Mosis claims that, if the Chronicler had been referring to specificsins mentioned in the books of Samuel, he would have mentionedthem explicitly. But this is not a convincing argument. That isbecause it would be just as easy to argue that the Chronicler is usingthese general statements to refer to Saul's sins mentioned inSamuel, relying on the intelligent reader to infer the particularfrom the general. On the other hand, if the Chronicler had beenreferring to sins of Saul that are not mentioned in the books ofSamuel, it would have been best for him to list them in detail, sothat we should not be misled.
453
8/22/2019 1519163
7/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
The presence of the term "kept the word of the Lord" in onlytwo places in Chronicles (1 Chr. x 13 and 2 Chr. xxiv 21) does notwarrant Mosis's attempt to match one case with the other, sinceclose scrutiny brings to light concrete differences between them.Whereas the destruction of the Land is explained in the prophecyof Huldah (2 Chr. xxxiv 24 ff.) by the people's sin of idol worship,a different reality is reflected in the story of the death of Saul. Theflight of "all the men of Israel that were in the valley" and the fallof the slain on Mount Gilboa are not explained by the sin of idolworship nor by any other sin of the people, and the dangers ofdestruction and exile do not loom over its head. The emphasis inthis story is on the sin of Saul for which he is punished and forwhich the Lord transfers the kingship to David the son of Jesse.It appears preferable to explain the story in context and againstthe background of Saul's sins as delineated in Samuel, rather thanintroducing into it opinions which fit another period and other cir-cumstances, thereby confusing our understanding of the generalspirit of the chapter.Another statement which receives Mosis's attention (pp. 39-41)is "and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, toinquire of it; And inquired not of the Lord". Mosis (p. 39, n. 65)rejects Willi's opinion (pp. 169-70) that the specific sin of inquiringof a ghost is the key to understanding the general propositionsaround it. Mosis thinks that the general propositions are whatdetermine the meaning of the specific sin and not the other wayaround. In his view, the expression "And inquired not of theLord" does not correspond to the story of Saul's inquiring in 1Sam. xxviii, since it is explicitly stated there that before Saul wentto inquire of the spirit, he inquired of the Lord, but received noresponse from him (1 Sam. xxviii 6; cf. v. 15).
Moreover, he indicates that the Chronicler was not dependent on1 Sam. xxviii, since the text "And when Saul inquired of the Lord,the Lord answered him not" (1 Sam. xxviii 6) stands in contradic-tion to the fundamental conception of the Chronicler which assertsthat the Lord responds to those who inquire of him (for example,cf. 1 Chr. xxviii 9).The correct conclusion, in his view, is that the term "Andinquired not of the Lord" is not restricted to the concrete eventbefore the fighting with the Philistines-that is, his inquiring of theghost instead of inquiring of the Lord. Rather, Mosis believes,
454
8/22/2019 1519163
8/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
Saul's inquiring of the spirit constitutes a sign identifying his basiccharacter, since he did not inquire of the Lord, not before thefighting with the Philistines, nor on other occasions.Mosis raises difficulties and expresses surprise in regard to theopinion which restricts the statement "and also for asking counselof one that had a familiar spirit" to the specific sin outlined in thebooks of Samuel. Despite all this, there is no justification for hisexegesis which broadens the meaning of this expression, nor for hisrefusal to see 1 Sam. xxviii as the exclusive source to which thestatement refers. It appears, on the basis of close scrutiny of theliterary structure of the two parallel stories, that it is possible toreach a conclusion as to the dependence of the statement "and alsofor asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit" on 1 Sam.xxviii. As we know, the direct continuation of the story of themedium in 1 Sam. xxviii is the story of the death of Saul on MountGilboa in 1 Sam. xxxi, which is alluded to by several texts (1 Sam.xxviii 4, 19, 25). Thus it turns out that the connection between thestory of Saul's going to the medium in 1 Sam. xxviii and the storyof the death of Saul in 1 Sam. xxi is like the link-though in theopposite order-between the story of the death of Saul inChronicles (x 1-12) and the statement "asking counsel of one thathad a familiar spirit, to inquire of it", which has been added (1Chr. x 13-14). In this light, we may assume that the phrase concer-ning the ghost in Chronicles refers to the story of Saul's going tothe conjuror in 1 Sam. xxviii (see the Appendix at the end of thepresent article).
Among the various opinions, Rudolph's appears to represent theplain meaning of the Bible.8 He believes that the statement "andalso for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquireof it; And inquired not of the Lord" stands in apparent contradic-tion to 1 Sam. xxviii 6 ("And when Saul inquired of the Lord, theLord answered him not..."). God's abandonment of Saul (1 Sam.xxviii 15) is in itself punishment for the hardening of Saul's heartreferred to earlier (he apparently had in mind 1 Sam. x 8, xiii 13,xv). In conclusion, Rudolph says: "The author of the story of themedium in 1 Sam. xxviii certainly would not oppose the phrasingof the Chronicler."
8 P. 97. Mosis, p. 41, n. 72, does not accept Rudolph's opinion.
455
8/22/2019 1519163
9/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
To sum up: the Chronicler's negative evaluation of Saul whichappears in his addendum (vv. 13-14) is properly understood againstthe background of Saul's sins in the books of Samuel. Mosis'sattempt to attach the significance of a paradigm to this chapter andto find allusions in it to the Exile and the Destruction is unsatisfac-tory and distorts the chapter's intent and purpose.9In order to comprehend the sense of the story of the death of Saulin 1 Chr. x, it is proper to examine two matters which areinseparably connected: (1) the meaning of the addendum (vv. 13-14), and (2) the motif of the death and the purpose of this motif.A careful examination of these items should lead us to the conclu-sion that the Chronicler followed 1 Sam. xxxi in the compositionof Chronicles, since he attached great importance to it because ofthe subject of the legitimacy of David's kingship.
1. The meaning of the addendum(vv. 13-14)The impression one receives from reading 1 Sam. xxxi is that this
story presents Saul with honour, as fit to be a king of Israel fightinghis nation's wars and as dying a hero's death. Nowhere in the storydo we find any hint whatsoever supporting the notion that Saul'sdeath was considered as a punishment by the Lord for sins againsthim. In contrast to this, the Chronicler conceives of Saul's disasteron Mount Gilboa as a punishment for his sins. This emerges fromhis addendum (vv. 13-14).10It is true that we do not find in 1 Sam. xxxi any explanation ofthe reason for Saul's downfall, but, as we have seen above, 1 Sam.xxxi is not a story standing on its own. Rather, it is linked to thestory of the medium in 1 Sam. xxviii, which serves as an introduc-tion to the battle of Gilboa. In this story the Prophet Samuelaccuses Saul of disobeying the Lord and foretells his downfall onMount Gilboa (1 Sam. xxviii 17-19).11 It turns out then that Saul'sdownfall on Gilboa is conceived of as a punishment for Saul's sin
9 On some of the expressions in 1 Chr. x treated by Mosis, see the remarks ofP. R. Ackroyd, "The Chronicler as Exegete", JSOT 2 (1977), pp. 4-9. Mosis'swork is highly regarded by Ackroyd, albeit with some reservations.10 See, for example, H. W. Hertzberg, Die Samuelbicher(G6ttingen, 1956), p.184, E. tr., I &II Samuel (London, 1964), p. 231.11 1 Sam. xxviii 16-19. Some scholars believe that verses 17-19a are a late addi-tion. See, for example, Hertzberg, p. 175; E. tr., p. 220.
456
8/22/2019 1519163
10/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
in the prophetic source in 1 Sam. xxviii. It is reasonable to assumethat the Chronicler, who refers to the story of the conjuror (1 Chr.x13,: "and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit,to inquire of it"), was also referring in this story to the propheticsource.
Most commentators and scholars are of the opinion that thegeneral statements concerning Saul's sins in the addendum (1 Chr.x 13-14) refer to the sins detailed in Samuel. However, they aredivided as to how these general statements in Chronicles relate tothe various texts which describe Saul's sins in Samuel. Likewise,there is no agreement between them on the question of the quantityof sins linked to Saul in the verses of the addendum. Some believethat the statement "against the word of the Lord which he keptnot" refers to his sin in regard to the destruction of Amalek(Japhet, p. 343, n. 30). Others think that this statement refers tothe sin of offering the sacrifice himself without waiting for Samuel(1 Sam. xiii 13-14) (Willi, p. 170). In contrast to these opinions,still others believe that the statement refers to both these sinstogether: performing the sacrifice and violating the Lord's com-mandment to destroy Amalek.12 Those who assume that the state-ment "for the transgression which he committed against the Lord"is a general statement count two sins as causing the death of Saul:(1) "against the word of the Lord, which he kept not", and (2)"and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, toinquire of it", which refers to 1 Sam. xxviii.13 However, there arethose who think that the matter of the transgression (ma'al) refersto failure to destroy Amalek in 1 Sam. xv, that the statement aboutnot keeping the Lord's word is related to 1 Sam. xiii 13-15, and thatinquiring of the ghost refers to 1 Sam. xxviii. Thus this group ofscholars counts three sins as causing the death of Saul.14
12 Bertheau, p. 121, E. tr., p. 201; C. F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar iber dienachexilischenGeschichtsbiicher:Chronik, Esra, Nehemia und Esther (Leipzig, 1870),p. 126, E. tr., Biblical Commentaryon the Old Testament: The Books of the Chronicles(Edinburgh, 1872), p. 173. Also see Y. Keel, The First Book of Chronicles(Hebrew)(Jerusalem, 1986), p. 253.
13 Bertheau, p. 121, E. tr., p. 201; Japhet, p. 343, n. 30.14 Amit (see the Appendix), p. 99. Cf. B. Halpern, who believes, however, thatSaul's three sins are: (1) not keeping the Lord's word, (2) inquiring of the ghost,and (3) not inquiring of the Lord: The Consitutionof theMonarchyin Israel (Chico,1981), p. 170. The author of the midrash Shoher Tov about Samuel (Jerusalem,1960, ch. 24) lists five sins that caused the death of Saul, whereas in another placeit is indicated that Saul was punished for only one sin, which was violating theLord's command in the war with Amalek (Yoma 22b).
457
8/22/2019 1519163
11/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
Further, though it may be beyond our capacity to maintain totalprecision in correlating the general statements in the addendum (1Chr. x 13-14) with the prophetic sources in the books of Samuel,these sources have a fundamental importance for understanding thepurpose of the Chronicler in reproducing the story of the death ofSaul (1 Sam. xxxi) in his own work. This is because, though overtlythese sources deal only with Saul's sins, they also hint at thetransfer of the kingship to David.In 1 Sam. xiii 13-15 we read: "And Samuel said to Saul, Thouhast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of theLord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lordhave established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thykingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man afterhis own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captainover his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lordcommanded thee." These verses imply that Saul's kingship wasintended to exist for ever, but because of his disobedience to theLord, the line of Saul was totally deprived of its right to inherit thekingship, and this right will be transferred, when the right timecomes, to the "man after his own heart" who will be appointedruler. It turns out that the man alluded to in these verses is noneother than David son of Jesse.15The second prophecy of Samuel in which there is a link between,on the one hand, the removal of the kingship from Saul as a punish-ment for his sin and, on the other, an allusion to its being transfer-red to David is found in 1 Sam. xv 26-8: "And Samuel said to Saul,I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of theLord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king overIsrael... And Samuel said unto him, The Lord hath rent thekingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to aneighbour of thine, that is better than thou." 16
15 Thus Hertzberg, p. 80; E. tr., p. 105; M. H. Segal, The Books of Samuel(Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1956), p. 90; Y. Keel, TheBookof Samuel, I Samuel(Hebrew)(Jerusalem, 1981), p. 118, and others. The prophecy of Nathan serves as rein-forcement for this interpretation (2 Sam. vii 15-16). Here the Lord promisesDavid an eternal kingdom in contrast to the kingdom of Saul: "But my mercyshall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul...And thine house and thykingdom shall be established for ever..." These verses reminds us of Samuel'swords to Saul: "...for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom uponIsrael for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue..." (1 Sam. xiii 13-14).
16 That the words "a neighbour of thine" refer to David emerges fromSamuel's words to Saul in the story of Saul's inquiring of the ghost. The prophet
458
8/22/2019 1519163
12/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
The third prophecy of Samuel in which we find a link betweenthe transfer of Saul's kingship to David and punishment for sinappears in the story of the medium in which Samuel says to Saul:"...the Lord is departed from thee and is become thine enemy.And the Lord hath done to him, as he spake by me: for the Lordhath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thyneighbour, even to David: Because thou obeyedst not the voice ofthe Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, thereforehath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover theLord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of thePhilistines: and tomorrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me..."(1 Sam. xxviii 16-19).A comparative study of 1 Sam. xxviii and xiii shows that, whereasthe motifs of rending away the kingdom and transferring it toDavid in 1 Sam. xxviii 17 depend on 1 Sam. xv 28, the justificationfor these measures (1 Sam. xxviii 18) depends on 1 Sam. xv 18-19.The importance of this prophecy lies in the fact that it indicates theclear connection with 1 Sam. xxxi. This is expressed both in the tim-ing of the execution of the punishment and in the indication thatSaul and his sons will die in the coming battle (xxviii 19, xxxi 6).That is to say that, on the one hand, the fate of Saul and his linewill be finally decided in the battle of Gilboa, and that, on theother, the kingship will pass to David. In other words, the linkbetween 1 Sam. xxviii and xxxi is the link between a prophecy ofcalamity and its fulfilment.17It is reasonable to assume that the link between the addendum (1Chr. x 13-14), by means of the phrase "and also for asking counselof one that had a familiar spirit" (v. 13), and 1 Sam. xxviii is notrestricted to only that part of the story in which Saul's going to themedium is narrated. Rather, it also takes in Samuel's propheticresponse. This emerges from a comparative study which turns upthree points in common between them: Saul's sin, his death, andthe transfer of the kingship to David (1 Chr. x 13-14; 1 Sam. xxviii
foretells to Saul that the kingdom will be torn away from him and transferred toDavid: "and given it to thy neighbour, even to David" (1 Sam. xxviii 17). Thusalso Segal (n. 15), p. 125; Keel (n. 15), p. 151, and others. Cf. also the juxtaposi-tion of chs xv and xvi in which David's anointing as king is narrated.17 1 Sam. xxxi should be seen as only a partial fulfilment of Samuel's prophecy,because it does not relate the transfer of the kingship to David.
459
8/22/2019 1519163
13/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
17-19).18 Thus it turns out that the Chronicler too, who is influ-enced by Samuel's prophecy in 1 Sam. xxviii, sees the story of thedeath of Saul (1 Chr. x 1-12) as a partial fulfilment of the prophecy.A reinforcement of this opinion is provided by the story of theanointing of David as king over Israel by the representatives of thepeople. This story is a direct continuation of our chapter (1 Chr.xi 1-3). The story of the anointing concludes with the words "andthey anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of theLord by Samuel" (xi 3).19 Some commentators rightly see in thereference in 1 Chr. xi 3 to Samuel's prophecy an allusion to 1 Sam.xv 28 and xvi 1-13 which deal with Saul's rejection from hiskingship, on one hand, and the appointment of David in his place,on the other.20 Thus, with the anointing of David as king overIsrael after the death of Saul, Samuel's prophecy was completelyfultfilled.21
According to what was said above, we may conclude that thestory of the death of Saul was transferred from Samuel to the booksof Chronicles because of the prophetic basis contained within it.This story serves as evidence for the partial fulfilment of the Lord'sword conveyed through Samuel. Likewise, the allusions in theinterpretative addendum (1 Chr. x 13-14) to the prophetic sourcesin Samuel which treat the rejection of Saul from the kingship, andthe references to its transfer to David, can in a sense grant extraprophetic force to the legitimization of David's kingship.2. The deathmotif and its meaning
Examination of the story of the death of Saul in 1 Chr. x com-pared with the parallel story in 1 Sam. xxxi reveals that the descrip-18 It is proper to indicate that in the LXX translation of 1 Chr. x 13, the state-ment "and the prophet Samuel answered him" is added after the words "toinquire of it" (xal a7r&xptvaTo auiTx a0otou7X6 rpoq~vrrS). It is reasonableto assume that this statement alludes to 1 Sam. xxviii 17-19 and sees the story ofthe death of Saul as a fulfilment of the Lord's word through Samuel.19 It is proper to indicate that in the parallel story in 2 Sam. v 3 the words
"according to the word of the Lord by Samuel" are missing.20 Thus Keil, p. 127, E. tr., p. 174. Also cf. H. G. M. Williiamson, 1 and 2Chronicles Grand Rapids and London, 1982), p. 97.21 The same applies to 1 Chr. xii 24, "And these are the numbers of the bandsthat were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn thekingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the Lord." This transfer is alsocited in 1 Chr. x 14 ("and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse"). Inboth places the same meaning is expressed. Also cf. 1 Chr. xi 10.
460
8/22/2019 1519163
14/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
tion in Chronicles places much greater emphasis on the motif of thedeath of Saul and his sons than does the parallel story in Samuel.The root mwt (death) appears for the first time in connection withthe act of suicide of Saul's armour-bearer
1 Chr. x 5 1 Sam. xxxi 5And when his armour-bearer And when his armour-bearersaw that Saul was dead, he fell saw that Saul was dead, he felllikewise on the sword and died. likewise upon his sword, anddied with him.
The version of Chronicles in the LXX has: "And he too fell uponhis sword". The prevalent opinion among the exegetes is that theoriginal text is in Samuel. The absence of the words "with him"is explained by I. Ben-Shem as follows: "The Chronicler omittedthe words 'with him' because they attest the armour-bearer'sdevotion to Saul." 22 This explanation does not appear likely, sincethe omission does not vitiate the armour-bearer's loyalty to Saul.This is because the text explicitly indicates that he took his own lifeas a result of the death of Saul, his master. It is more reasonableto assume on the basis of the omission of the words "with him" thatthe Chronicler intended to separate them, and thereby toemphasize Saul's death, which is the main theme of the chapter. Itappears that the explanation is reinforced by the LXX of 1 Chr. x5 which lacks the words "and died".23 This explanation is alsoimplicit in the following comparison:1 Chr. x 6 1 Sam. xxxi 6So Saul died, and his three sons, So Saul died, and his three sons,and all his house died together. and his armour-bearer, and allhis men that same day together.Comparing the two texts brings forth two chief distinctions: (1) theaddition of the word "died" and the end of the verse in Chronicles.(2) Instead of "and his armour-bearer, and all his men" in the ver-
22 Mehqarim bammiqra'(Tel-Aviv, 1975), p. 213.23 In the opinion of E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, The Books of Chronicles(Edinburgh, 1910), p. 183, and others, the absence of the words "and died" inthe LXX is explained by haplography. But I. Benzinger, Die Biicherder Chronik(Tibingen and Leipzig, 1901), p. 40, prefers the LXX of Chronicles. Also seeMosis, p. 22, n. 17.
461
8/22/2019 1519163
15/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
sion in Samuel, the parallel version in Chronicles has "and all hishouse".As to the first item, the addition of "died" at the end of this verseis only for the purpose of emphasizing the subject of death, whichwas already mentioned at the beginning of the verse. However, thechief distinction is expressed precisely in the second item. By omit-
ting the words "and his armour-bearer, and all his men" from thetext and exchanging them for "and all his house", the authorfocusses attention on Saul and his family alone. It is clear then thatwhat interests the Chronicler is not making an exact description ofthe historical event. Rather, he concentrated on the subject thatserved his purpose. The death of Saul and his sons on MountGilboa reflects the work of the providential hand which put an endto the line of Saul. It is thus a predictive allusion to the possible riseof David to the royal throne in a legal manner,24 which is implicitin the addendum (vv. 13-14) interpreting the event on MountGilboa.
The deaths of Saul and his sons are mentioned again in verse 7.1 Chr. x 7 1 Sam. xxxi 7And when all the men of Israel And when the men of Israel that
that were in the valley saw that were on the other side of thethey fled,25 and that Saul and valley...saw that the men ofhis sons were dead, then they Israel fled, and that Saul and hisforsook their cities and fled... sons were dead, they forsook the
cities, and fled...
The salient distinction between these two parallel texts lies in thefact that in Samuel the subject of "fled" is "the men of Israel",whereas in Chronicles, because of the absence of the words "menof Israel", the subject of "fled" is Saul and his sons.26 Here too,the purpose of shortening the passage is to focus on the fate of Sauland his sons. The flight of the sheep is a direct result of the demiseof the shepherds.The theme of death appears in our chapter for the last time inthe addendum (vv. 13-14). The addendum opens with the words:24 The allusion to David's rise to the kingship is also cited by Ben-Shem, p. 214.25 In the LXX of 1 Chr. x 7, after the words "and fled" comes the word:"Israel".26 See Ben-Shem, p. 214; Japhet, p. 119, n. 383, and others. In contrast to this,see Williamson, p. 93.
462
8/22/2019 1519163
16/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
"So Saul died..." and closes with the words: "And inquired notof the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom untoDavid the son of Jesse."The addendum is linked internally to the story of the death ofSaul through the theme of death. Further, the addendum grants theevents on Mount Gilboa a theological significance.It seems that the words "therefore he slew him" are also directedtowards verse 4 which related that Saul fell on his sword after hisarmour-bearer refused to put him to death. That is to say that tak-ing his own life is explained as an act of the Lord, as a punishmentfor his sins.27 It is reasonable to assume that the armour-beareravoided striking Saul, his king, not only because of his loyalty tohim, but mainly because of his status as the Lord's anointed.28It appears to me that the words "therefore he slew him",representing a direct punishment carried out by the Lord, areintended to remove David from being involved in any way in Saul'sdeath. If this is indeed the intention, then it provides an additionalexplanation of the reason for imitating the story of the death of Saulin the composition of Chronicles. The conception that striking theLord's anointed is forbidden to men is placed in the foundation ofDavid's outlook. God, who raises kings to power, has the exclusiveright to bring them down from their position and grant the kingshipto "a man after his own heart". This concept is clearly expressedin the books of Samuel.
In 1 Sam. xxiv there is an account of a convenient opportunitythat David had to overthrow Saul's throne and eject him from hiskingship. But David did not take advantage of it. He was notmoved even by the urgings of his men, who saw Saul's destructionas a clear sign of the fulfilment of the Lord's will: "And the menof David said unto him, Behold the day of which the Lord said untothee, Behold I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou
27 In this regard, the addendum of the Samaritan Chronicle to 1 Sam. xxxi 4is of interest. Here we read: "... Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell uponit. Thus Saul died in his iniquity for the Lord said in his holy laws through thelord of the Prophets Moses upon him be peace: For your lifeblood I will surelyrequire a reckoning." J. Macdonald, The Samaritan ChronicleNo. II (or: SepherHa-Yamin), BZA W 107 (Berlin, 1969), p. 128. See also thd Hebrew text on p. 50. Inother words, the commentator sees Saul's suicide as the Lord's direct punishmentfor his sins.
28 This is how the Mesudat David interprets the statement: "But his armour-bearer would not, for he was sore afraid".
463
8/22/2019 1519163
17/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee..." (1 Sam. xxiv4). David's refusal to strike Saul is explained by Saul's status as theLord's anointed (1 Sam. xxiv 6). Moreover, David also forbids hismen to kill Saul (1 Sam. xxiv 7). If David suppresses his inclinationand does not want to take the crown by force and bloodshed, as heeven informs Saul himself (1 Sam. xxiv 10; "and I said, I will notput forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord'sanointed"), then what is the right way to reach the kingship? Inanother place, David lists three possible ways he might be rid ofSaul, but not one of them is fit for a man's doing, since no manhas the right to strike the Lord's anointed: "the Lord shall smitehim; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle andperish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine handagainst the Lord's anointed" (1 Sam. xxvi 10-11). The thirdpossibility is that described in 1 Sam. xxxi. However, in the parallelstory in Chronicles, the Lord's direct action comes with extraemphasis. Saul's death by his own hand is explained by the words"therefore he slew him" as an act of the Lord's hand.
The assumption that David did not intend to strike Saul in orderto topple his throne is implicit in additional texts related to Saul'slast battle on Mount Gilboa. David's presence in the camp of thePhilistines, the enemies of the king and the people, before theywent out to battle with Saul, can, in a certain way, place a heavyshadow on David's image, making him suspect of having helpedthe Philistines destroy Saul. Therefore, the tendency of the texts isto show that David was not involved in the battle at all, and in anycase, that there is no room for suspecting him of having helpedcause Saul's death. According to the story in 1 Sam. xxix 1-11,David was about to join the ranks of the Philistines in the battleagainst Saul, but the Philistine commanders insisted that Achishsend David. back to Ziklag so that he would not become an enemyto them during the battle. This was because they believed thatDavid would not betray his king and his nation, but would seekreconciliation with Saul at the price of the severed heads of thePhilistines (1 Sam. xxix 4).
It is problematic and peculiar that even the Chronicler deals withthe matter of David's joining the Philistines in battle against Saul.As we know, the figure of David serves as an exemplary symbol tothe Chronicler, and this author omits from his work everythingthat might cast a blemish on David's personality. In this light, we
464
8/22/2019 1519163
18/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
must ask what moved the Chronicler to mention this affair whichdoes not add any great honour to David? My view is that it is notgoing too far afield to say that in the days of the Chronicler, severalgenerations after the kingdom had ended in Judah, traditions werepreserved-which were especially widespread among the tribe ofBejamin-in which David's collaboration with and direct aid to thePhilistine enemy were recounted. And this collaboration wasblameworthy and deserving of censure because of David's betrayalof his king and his people. If this assumption is reasonable, then itis clear that the Chronicler could not pass over the matter in silenceand was obliged to direct the reader towards an evaluation thatwould cleanse David's name. Thus he says: "And there fell someof Manasseh to David, when he came with the Philistines againstSaul to battle; but they helped them not: for the lords of thePhilistines upon advisement sent him away, saying, He will fall tohis master Saul to the jeopardy of our heads" (1 Chr. xii 20). Thisdescription, which aims at presenting David in a positive light, isexpressed in two ways:(1) after describing David's action, the Chronicler immediatelymakes the comment: "but they helped them not". The meaning ofthe phrase is that David did not give any aid to the enemy, and inany case he did not take part in deciding the outcome of the battleon Mount Gilboa in which Saul and his sons died.(2) It emerges from the testimony of the Philistine commanders,which the Chronicler quotes, that they did not see David as a toolwhich might benefit them, but rather as a man who might bringdisaster down upon them by helping his nation in battle.In any case, David's non-participation in the Philistine army onMount Gilboa removes all suspicion of his being involved in anyway in Saul's death (see 2 Sam. i 1-16).In view of what has been said above, we can now sum up and saythat the statement "And inquired not of the Lord: therefore he slewhim, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse" againstthe background of the story of the death of Saul is to be explainedas representing Saul as being executed directly by the Lord, with-out any intervention on David's part, and not for any personalreason of David's, nor even as an agent carrying out the Lord'swill. It was the Lord himself who put Saul to death and appointedDavid in his place.
465
8/22/2019 1519163
19/20
SAUL ZALEWSKI
1 Chr. x, which tells of Saul's death at the hands of heaven, lacksany intervention on the part of the heir to the throne. Thus itenables the reader to see David's rise to the kingship as legitimateand ideal in that situation. Consequently, we see that an additionalexplanation can be found in these words of why the story of thedeath of Saul was imitated in the composition of the books ofChronicles.
APPENDIX: Saul and the sin of inquiringof a ghostThe question may be asked whether the Chronicler himselfinvented the concept that inquiring of a ghost (on Saul's part),rather than of the Lord, was a sin, or whether the concept representsa condemnation of Saul, an explanation based on 1 Sam. xxviii. The
prevalent opinion is that the Chronicler's words stand in contradic-tion to 1 Sam. xxviii, and that for that reason we have an unjustifiedaccusation here. This opinion is expressed at length in the articleof Yairah Amit, "Three Variations on the Death of Saul"(Hebrew), Beth Mikra 30 (1984-5), n. 100, p. 99. She writes: "1Chr. x 13 is interested, then, in incriminating Saul for his wholecareer as king, from the battle of Michmash to the inquiring of aghost before the battle of Gilboa. It is proper to emphasize that, in1 Sam. xxviii, inquiring of a ghost is not interpreted as a sin, butrather as an expedient due to the lack of an alternative. On theother hand, the Chronicler's description is influenced by the legalliterature (Dt. xviii 11; Lev. xix 31, xx 6, 27) and thehistoriographical literature (2 Kgs xxi 6, xxiii 24) which stress thatthe use of a ghost is an abomination of the Lord, and another sinnerdeserving contempt is no less and no more than Manasseh, king ofJudah, who was responsible for the destruction of the First Temple(2 Kgs xxi, xxiii 26, xxiv 3; Jer. xv 4). Verses 13-14 in 1 Chr. xteach that the adapter was not satisfied with removing the tragicglory from the death and burial of Saul, but was interested increating an antagonism toward Saul in the reader's mind, even atthe cost of analogy with Manasseh."This analysis appears exaggerated and imprecise. As a matter offact, it is not clearly stated in 1 Sam. xxviii that inquiring of a ghostis considered as a sin of Saul. Rather, this meaning is inferred byreading between the lines. "And Saul had put away those that hadfamiliar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land" (1 Sam. xxviii 3).
466
8/22/2019 1519163
20/20
THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL
This means that inquiring of a ghost is interpreted as a religioussin. The medium expresses fear for her life for practising a craftwhich has been forbidden by order of the king (v. 9). Saul, who isdisguised, swears to her in the Lord's name that she will not bepunished for this crime (v. 10). When the woman discovers that theman standing before her is none other than Saul himself, she isseized by the fear of death. Y. Kaufmann rightly argues (Mikiv-shonah shel hayesirah hammiqra'it [Tel-Aviv, 1966], p. 214) "thatthe narrator too considers the incident of the ghost as a sin callingfor the death sentence".
Moreover, the claim that the Chronicler compares Saul withManasseh is not sufficiently supported. The texts on which Amitbases herself are taken from the books of Kings. In fact, in 2 Chr.xxxiii 6 which is parallel to 2 Kgs xxi 6, the sin of dealing withghosts and wizards is mentioned, but it is not the only sin and noteven the most serious in the list of Manasseh's sins. Besides this,we must remember that the Chronicle found certain merits inManasseh, in that he repented, turned away from the strange gods,and restored the worship of the Lord in Jerusalem. In contrast tothe position of the books of Kings, Manasseh is not accused by theChronicler of causing the destruction of the Temple. In this light,the analogy with Manasseh does not hold.
467
