Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

1/33

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI: 10.1163/156853308X388129

Vetus estamentum 59 (2009) 1-33 www.brill.nl/vt

VetusTestamentum

Nocturnal Intrusions and Divine Interventionson Behalf of Judah. Davids Wisdom and

Sauls Tragedy in 1 Samuel 26

Klaus-Peter AdamPhilipps-Universitt, Marburg

Abstract A literary strand of narratives about Saul in 1 Samuel emerged in a process of rewriting Israel Judean history. 1 Sam 26* and a number of other episodes (1 Sam 10:8; 10:17-27; 13:7a-13a;14:24-46; parts of 1 Sam 9; 1 Sam 16:1-13; 16:14-23; 17*; 1 Sam 28*, 31*; 2 Sam 1*) presenthe rst Israelite king as a gure that was informed by Greek tragic heroism. More specicalthe themes and the formation of the characters in the story of Davids nocturnal intrusion in1 Samuel 26 are set side by side with the post-classical dramaRhesus . 1 Sam 26 is understood asa narrative comment on Sauls destiny in prophetic tradition. Sauls tragic heroism is describewithskl to act foolishly 1 Sam 26:21b. Also, Qohelets royal travesty in Eccl 1:12-2:26 alludto this notion of Saul as a tragic king who acts foolishly(skl).He is contrasted with his gloriousopponent David who succeeds(kl) in all his endeavours.

Keywords1 Sam 26, tragedy, heroism, Greek, king Saul, Rhesus

1. Greek Tragedy and the Reinvention of the Figure of the Biblical Saul

In the past decades, numerous scholars have described the rst Israelite kin

as a tragic hero. Parallels between Hebrew narratives and Greek tragedhave been consistently drawn.1 Generally speaking, these attempts chose two

1) Tis is not the place for a comprehensive overview of the history of scholarship about Greetragedy in biblical narratives. See for a general approach W. Baumgartner, Israelitisch-Griecsche Sagenbeziehungen, in W. Baumgartner (ed.), Zum Alten estament und seiner Umwelt, Ausgewhlte Aufstze (Leiden, 1959), pp. 147-178, p. 149 on 2 Sam 23:13-17; pp. 152-153 on Jephtah; p. 164 on 1 Sam 21:11-16; pp. 164-165 on 2 Sam 11:24-27 and Bellerophontes. Forthe parallels between Uriah and Bellerophontes, see J. Schick,Das Glckskind mit dem odesbrief:Vol. 1 Orientalische Fassungen, Vol. 2 Europische Sagen des Mittelalters und ihr Verhltnis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853308X388129http://www.brill.nl/vthttp://www.brill.nl/vthttp://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853308X388129http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853308X388129

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

2/33

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

3/33

K.-P. Adam / Vetus estamentum 59 (2009) 1-33 3

On the other hand, numerous detailedtragic motifs and themes of selected

narratives exist. Consider Gerhard von Rads famous judgement on 1 Sam 13:14:46 (esp. on 14:29-30): Israel never again gave birth to a poetic productiowhich in certain of its features has such close affi nity with the spirit of Greetragedy.4 Many illuminating parallels between storylines have been drawn. Aa consequence of the focus on single narratives, such investigations refrafrom reconstructing an overall character of Saul that takes into consideratiohis behaviour in various episodes. When it comes to proving a specic inu

ence of western storylines, critics of such parallels may rightly argue that tisolated single episodes are purely accidental. Or, the tragic motifs can thebe considered to be ubiquitous and, that being the case, they are no proof foany direct dependence of biblical texts on Greek drama. As a result, one mahardly claim the adoption of tragic motifs from the west.5 For various reasons,many scholars are still reluctant to posit that the biblical narratives used Greesources, and that the authors of the narratives in the Book of Samuel weracquainted with fth century Greek tragedy. Tis debate includes questionsabout the narratives time of origin. It has been suggested that the parallelbetween biblical and western Greek cultures may have been due to inuencof (late Bronze Age) Hittite6 literary traditions on early Greek ones. Given thehuge gap between such an early and such a late dating of the Greek inuencon narratives in the books of Samuel, the time frame for an inuence of wesern ideas on the Hebrew Bible requires attention. Besides, establishing a dafor these tragic narratives about Saul is of interest in a debate about his hitorical nature. Here, the claim of Greek inuence on the narratives may helpto specify the nature of Israelite historiography in relation to Greek dramaOne reason for the reluctance to establish a direct link between Greek andHebrew narratives was ana priori interest in the biblical stories which wereunderstood as sources that, in parts, could be directly related to the epoch othe beginning of the Israelite monarchy.7 Generally speaking, the reluctance to

4) G. von Rad,Old estament Teology, vol. I (translated by D. M. G. Stalker; New York, 1962),p. 325.5) On the inuence of Mesopotamian, Anatolian and Syrian sources on Greek literature, including Hesiodic and Homeric poems down to Pindar, Bacchylides and Aeschylos, see among otheM. L. West,Te East Face of Helikon. West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth(Oxford,1997).6) See esp. Humphreys, Rise (see note 1), pp. 80-86.7) Te direct relationships between Greek and Israelite Historiography in the general parallels

were emphasized by e.g. J. Van Seters,In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient Worldand the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven, 1983), pp. 8-54. On the comparison betweenthe ideas of primary history in Greek and Hebrew Historiography, see S. Mandell and D. N

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

4/33

4 K.-P. Adam / Vetus estamentum 59 (2009) 1-33

reconstruct an early kingship which is chronologically set around the 10t

century is growing,8

as is a (mostly German) consensus on the fact that theDeuteronomistic History was the rst attempt to combine older sources in Josh-2Kings. Tis fosters the understanding that the context of the narrativeson Saul in a dynastic history of Judean kingship is of particular importance Within this context, the narratives about the early kings are foundationalmyths in that they project the narrators contemporary reality back into theepoch of the early monarchies of Israel and Judah. Tat said, the impact on

their understanding and on their literary development becomes evident.9

Hav-ing realized their important place in the framework of a dynastic history o Judah and in a non-deuteronomistic literary context, a particular parallebetween fth century Greek drama and narratives of the early kingship inIsrael is apparent. Both deal with a distant, mythic past in order to engage inthe current issues of their authors, and both tackle problems of later epochwith respect to the primeval dynastic history. Te formation of Sauls tragiccharacter in the days of the early kingship show primarily an interest in reecing subsequent historical situations in this gure.

Freedman,Te Relationship between Herodotus History and Primary History (South Florida Stud-ies in the History of Judaism, 60; Atlanta, 1993). For other attempts to correlate Greek andHebrew narratives, see J. P. Brown,Israel and Hellas (BZAW 231; Berlin, 1995); F. J. Nielsen,Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History (JSO .S 251; Sheffi eld, 1997); J. W. Wesselius,TeOrigin of the History of Israel. HerodotussHistories as Blueprint for the First Books of the Bible (JSO .S 345; Sheffi eld, 2002). Especially with respect to David see S. J. Isser,Te Sword ofGoliath. David in Heroic Literature (SBL 6; Leiden, 2003), pp. 80-83, 87-98.8) Tis is not the place for an in-depth presentation of the history of Israel, see among manyothers the recent survey of . Krger, Teoretische und methodische Probleme der Geschichtedes alten Israel in der neueren Diskussion,VF53 (2008), pp. 4-22. I limit myself to mentioningthe recent synthesis in the textbook of J. M. Miller, J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (London/Louisville, 2006, second edition), pp. 125, 129-130. Tey understand the nar-ratives in 1-2 Samuel as folk legends with the three main tendencies to disparage Saul, to gl

rify David and to present Samuel as Yahwehs spokesman.9) Generally speaking, current scholarship rejects the notion that these narratives originate frolarge source documents, such as the History of Davids Rise or the Succession Narrative, thdate partly from the time of the early monarchy. Critical approaches question a genuine deuteronomistic development of Sam/Kings in the sense of Martin Noth. See the trends in researchthat are presented by . Veijola, Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen radition und Innovation (III),TR 68 (2003), pp. 1-44. For a redactional critical approach to 1 Sam 10:17-11:15,see for instance R. Mller,Knigtum und Gottesherrschaft. Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlich Monarchiekritik( bingen, 2004), pp. 148-176. On earlier literary stages of Sam and Kings thatformed a pre-deuteronomistic unit, see among others . C. Rmer,Te So-called DeuteronomisticHistory. A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (London, 2005), pp. 91-103.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

5/33


Te current study intends to combine the more detailed and the general

approach to Sauls tragedy. First (Part 2), I mention the specic tragic detailof the narrative of 1 Sam 26. Te following part (3) directs attention to a liter-ary layer of Saul as a tragic hero. I argue that parts of the narratives about Saemerged in a process of rewriting early Israelite-Judean history in which thrst Israelite king becomes a gure that is informed by Greek drama and itthemes. Te substantial sequence of narratives which explains Sauls destiny ia manner which is proximate to Greek tragedy is 1 Sam 10:8; 10:17-27; 13:7a

13a; 14:24-46; parts of 1 Sam 9; 1 Sam 16:1-13; 16:14-23; 17*; 1 Sam 26*28*; 31* and 2 Sam 1*. Tis literary layer offers aninterpretatio graeca of Saul.Te narrator is familiar with themes and motifs of Greek tragedy that indicatea direct inuence of western culture. Sincesymposia provided an importantframework (the Sitz im Leben) for performances of post-classical Gredrama in the form of anthologies,10 they inuenced the biblical narrativesabout Saul. Narratives that mediate this notion of Saul as a tragic hero cannobe dated earlier than the fth or fourth century BCE. Some concludingremarks (Part 4) describe the specic background of Sauls description astragic hero with a glance at Qohelets considerations about kings.

2. Sauls Intention to Kill David and Davids Nocturnal Intrusion(1 Sam 26)

Before pointing out the formation of the characters in 1 Sam 26, I briey reecon the literary structure of the narrative and on its relation to 1 Sam 24.

Literary Repetition

In addition to the gures character, which is of great importance for theiconception, I shall also briey focus on the literary structure of the suggestelayer of tragic narratives. Both 1 Sam 24 and 26 talk about the same topici.e. an unexpected reversal of the roles in Sauls pursuit: Saul is persecuteby David. Such a thematic repetition in different episodes is found severatimes in 1 Samuel. It leads to a more general consideration of the narrative

10) ypically, on these occasions no entire 5th century plays were performed. Instead, since clasical times anthologies of the plays were memorized. Professionaltragodoi played these antholo-gies in variations before a smaller audience, e.g. on the occasion ofsymposia , see K.-P. Adam,Saul as a ragic Hero. Greek Drama and its Inuence on Hebrew Scripture in 1 Samuel 14,24-46 (10,8; 13,7-13a; 10,17-27), inDavid (ed. A. G. Auld and E. Eynikel; BETL; Leiden, 2008;forthcoming).

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

6/33


especially in 1 Sam 16-2 Sam 1. Te characteristically doubled episodes mus

be viewed in conjunction with their mode of origin. Signicantly, in manycases, one episode was successively placed predominantly ahead of an existnarrative. Tis structure serves introductory or explanatory purposes for theevents that (in most cases) are still to follow in the current arrangement.11 Often the preceding narratives have their origin in the episodes that followlater.12 In the reading of the overall narrative in its latest form, this redoublingof stories leads to the typical episodic character and to the consistent repet

tion.13

Tis is obvious in the sequence of narratives in 1 Sam 16-20: Davidsarrival at Sauls court 1 Sam 16:14-23 // 17:1-58 and 18:2; Davids rise 18:5 /18:12a, 13-16; Saul throws the spear 18:10-11 // 19:9-10 // 1 Sam 20:33;Davids marriage to Michal 18:20,21a(?),22-26a,27,(25b?) // 18:17a,18,1921b,26b,28,29; Davids victory over the Philistines 19,8 // 18:30; David eesfrom Saul 19:11-17 // 20:35-42; Jonathan trying to reconcile David and Saul20:1b-7,10,12,13,24-34 // 19:1,4-7.14

Besides this literary peculiarity, the inner cohesion between the differennarratives must be explained. If one puts this repetitive literary structure i

11) Preceding narratives naturally affect the readers comprehension. Te passage which introduces a gure shapes the recipients perception of the following appearances of that gure. Tiprimacy effect makes the introductory passage of a gure quite important, see H. Grabes, Waus Stzen Personen werden . . .: ber die Erforschung literarischer Figuren,Poetica 10 (1978),pp. 405-428, and see on this redactional technique among others . J. Willis, Te Function ofComprehensive Anticipatory Redactional Joints in 1 Samuel 16-18, ZAW85 (1973), pp. 294-314, especially on 1 Sam 18:5,9-11 see pp. 306-310.12) See e.g. 1 Sam 20:33 and 19:9-10 and 18:9-10 (M , omitted in LXX); 1 Sam 29 and 27:1-28:2 and the episode in 1 Sam 21:1-14, and in more detail, see K.-P. Adam,Saul und David inder judischen Geschichtsschreibung. Studien zu 1Samuel 16 - 2Samuel 5 (FA 51; bingen,2007), pp. 73-82.13) Presented with this literary structure, scholars in the rst half of the 20th century interpretethe doubled or tripled episodes as a proof of a theory positing (at least) two sources for the r

book of Samuel. See esp. O. Eissfeldt,Die Komposition der Samuelisbcher (Leipzig, 1931), p. 55.Eissfeldt was the ercest among the critics of Rosts Succession Narrative as a literary unit, sgesting instead a theory of two sources which he explained in detail for the rst book of Samuand, with less emphasis, also for the second book of Samuel, see Eissfeldt,Einleitung in das Alte

estament ( bingen, 19643), pp. 360-368; see also K. Budde,Die Bcher Richter und Samuel.Ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau (Giessen, 1890), pp. 167-276; idem,Die Bcher Samuel (KHC;

bingen, 1902); G. Hlscher,Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Jahvisten unElohisten (Lund, 1952), pp. 364-379.14) H. Schulte, DieEntstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel (BZAW 128; Berlin,1972), pp. 115-117. On the scholarship history of literary repetitions, see Adam,Saul und David (see note 12), pp. 4-16.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

7/33


conjunction with the narratives coherent theme, Sauls attempts to kill Davi

form the overarching topic of a sequence of narratives in 1 Samuel 18-27. Teparticular episodes do not always explicitly express this thematic thread, bits relevance for their composition is apparent. Among the stories, the descriptions of Davids ight especially emphasize Sauls intention to kill the Judecourtier David.15 Geographically, Davids ight from Saul is mainly set in Judahs south, in the Judean desert.16 Without going into details, the narrativesdescribing David as a fugitive generally grew over a longer period and the

literary development needs to be assessed. o rough this out, it stands to reason that Sauls open pursuit (in 1 Sam 23:1-14 and 1 Sam 24) represents anearlier literary stage than, for instance, the pursuit of David at Sauls cour(19:1-17). Episodes that vary existing stories are placed in front of them anthe latter episodes never allude to the aforementioned ones. Sauls pursuit endwith David eeing to Achish of Gath in 1 Sam 27:1-4. Hence, most of thedoubled episodes appear as Fortschreibungen on the basis of later narrative At rst glance, 1 Sam 26 seems to be an exception to this rule. It appears to ba resumption of an interrelated, partly already existing narrative in chapter 2that was transformed into a story about Saul as a tragic hero. Te literarydevelopment of the narrative does not fall within the main scope of this studbut will be briey reconsidered below (Part 3).

As to the context of 1 Sam 26, it is clear that 1 Sam 18-26 forms a sequencof independent episodes that are essentially held together by the overarchintheme of Sauls intention to kill David. Pursuit, the intention to kill and bloodguilt are the crucial elements behind the actual narrative. Both 1 Sam 24 an26 report an unexpected reversal of the roles in Sauls pursuit:17 When Saulpursues David in the region of Siph (1 Sam 26:1-2), David hides in the deser

15) See Adam,Saul und David (see note 12), pp. 97-122.16) See e.g. Siph Josh 15:24 (1 Sam 26:1-2; 23:14-15,19,24); Maon Josh 15:55 (1 Sam 23:2525:1-2); Karmel Josh 15:55 (1 Sam 25:2); Aphek Josh 15:53 (1 Sam 29:1); En-Gedi Josh 16:6

(1 Sam 24:1-2). Te list of southern parts of the Judean border in Josh 15 did not originatebefore the 7th century. See J. C. de Vos,Das Los Judas. ber Entstehung und Ziele der Landbe-schreibung in Josua 15 (V .S 95; Leiden, 2003), pp. 527-528. 1 Sam 22:1-5 describes a digres-sion to Adullam and Moab.Some of the geographic names cannot be localized. Given thsettlement history of the Negev, Ziklag is a hopeless case, despite the effort of V. Fritz, DBeitrag der Archologie zur historischen opographie Palstinas am Beispiel von Ziklag, ZDPV 106 (1990), pp. 78-85 and others; see the critical remarks of J. Vermeylen,La Loi du plus fort.Histoire de la rdaction des rcits davidiques de 1 Samuel 8 1 Rois 2 (E L 154; Leuven, 2000),p. 161. In the literary record of Judah, this village or fortress is mentioned as a part of the southern border of Judah according to Josh 15:21-62.17) See on the relationship between 1 Sam 24 and 26 below.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

8/33


and, during a nocturnal raid on Sauls camp, is able to steal Sauls javelin an

jug, but refrains from doing any harm to the Israelite king. After the actionthat is described in V 1-7,12, an elaborate conversation between David, Abneand Saul follows in V 13-25. Te judicial question of guilt due to intentionalkilling 18 that forms the punch line of both 1 Sam 24 and 1 Sam 26 in theirlatest form19 is the theme of the dialogues. In this argument, 1 Sam 26 putsthe main stress differently from 1 Sam 24. Sauls confession of sin (h t ty / l- r lkwd) in 1 Sam 26:21 follows a description of his acts: I have acted foolishl

(hsklty) and have committed a great unconscious fault( gh hrbh md). Withthis wording, the overall setting of 1 Sam 26 predetermines a certain bias. Tenarrative confronts Saulstragic heroism with Yahwehs explicit help to David.Tis is rst shown by the verbskl in the description of Saul. Semantically, thisroot implies guilt that is not incurred by consciously or voluntarily committing a wrong action.20 Te narrative of 1 Sam 26 does not, however, reduceitself to the notion of unconsciously incurred guilt, but describes a direcdivine intervention. Te plot is based on this divine intervention in favour ofthe Judeans. At night, when David creeps into Sauls camp, Yahweh causeSauls deep sleep (trdmt yhwh 1 Sam 26:12). Tis explains why he and his menare unable to notice Davids intrusion, but are instead at the intruders mercyBoth the fact that David is able to steal Sauls spear and jar and his sparing the anointed of Yahweh (1 Sam 26:8-11) are part of the general narrativepro-Davidic bias. Likewise, David may then blame Abner for his lack of ca(26:14-15a) and Saul for his unnecessary pursuit of a righteous person.21 Inthe end, the desperate Saul must eventually bless the future (Judean) kinDavid, while his actions turn out to be disastrous for his own future.22

18) Both narratives are informed by a discussion of Ex 21:12,13-14 and its parallels abou

the intentionality of murder. Tey form important examples for the relationship between lawand narrative. Te only case of murder and the search for asylum that is reported is Joab in1 Kings 2:5-7, 28-33. For asylum at the altar, see also Adonia 1 Kings 1:50-53. On the discussion of Ex 21:12, see among others recently B. Jackson,WisdomLaw: A study of the Mishpatimof Exodus 21,1-22,16 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 120-171.19) See this topic also in the dialogue between David and Abishai V 8-11.20) See on this Adam, Saul as a ragic Hero (see note 10).21) 26:18. Furthermore, Davids claims to be justied by Yahweh. 26:23-24 emerge from a proDavidic bias.22) Saul is guilty, 1 Sam 26:21h t ty / r . Sauls guilt refers not to a specic situation, but rather toguilt as a result of Sauls actions overall.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

9/33


Te Structure of the Episode and Some Pecularities

Te structure of the episode may best be explained as a sequence of acts oespionage committed in two camps. Te narratives initial point is comparableto the exposition in a drama. It reports an act of espionage by the SiphitesV 1 talks about the Siphites who have been searching for David and tell Sauin Gibea about his whereabouts. Te following scene in V 2-3a tells aboutSauls pursuit of David with 3000 soldiers in the desert of Ziph and aboutSauls camp in Gibea-Hachila. In the third scene, an elaborate tri-partite act oespionage in the Siphites camp is mentioned: rst, when David has realiseSauls whereabouts (V 3b), he sends out spies (V 4a), second, he investigatthe foreign camp himself (V 5a). Finally, he intrudes together with Abishainto the foreign camp (V 7-12). Te third scene portrays the plot entirely fromthe point of view of David and his men. Tis point of view is predominantthroughout this scene. Te fourth scene (V 14-25a) may be subdivided in twodialogues: First, a shorter dialogue between David and Abner (V 14-16), then

V 18-25a, Saul and David enter into a lengthy dialogue about Sauls intentioto kill David. A short note about Davids and Sauls retreat (on his way/to hlocation) concludes the narrative in V 25b.

Te narrative makes intensive use of direct speech (V 1,6,8-11,14-25a). Besidethe predominance of direct speech, the fact that it consists of four separatscenes makes it reasonable to label it a dramatic narrative. Te ratio of the actuaplot to the dialogues with direct speech uneven. Te plot is merely reported in

V 2-5.7.12-13 and 25b. Te rest of the narrative is dedicated to a sophisti-cated dialogue between David and his two opponents Abner and Saul. Withthe main part of the dialogues at the end of the episode, the stress of the narrative as a whole is shifted to its last part. Te judicial discourse about theintentionality in the case of homicide has already been mentioned above. Tisis clearly the main focus of the narrative and the dialogues in V 8-11 and 18-25Tat said, two dialogues stand out most noticeably, however, since they do notallude to this judicial question of guilt and innocence in the case of homicide

First, the dialogue between David and Abner in V 14-16, Davids assignmenof guilt to Abner since he has not guarded Saul against nocturnal intrusions.23 Tis admonishment has nothing to do with the judicial aspects of intention-ally committed killings. Nor is it motivated by an attempt to elaborate on the

23) For different reasons F. H. Cryer, Davids Rise to Power and the Death of Abner: An Analsis of 1 Samuel xxvi 14-16 and its Redaction-Critical Implications,V 35 (1985), pp. 385-394,esp. pp. 387-388, takes V 14-16 as a secondary interpolation. An important reason for this is thdifferent use of the wordm.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

10/33


character of Abner. He is not a main character of the narratives and there is

great need to explain why David would accuse Abner of being negligent wirespect to his role as one of Sauls guards.Te second dialogue that has nothing to do with the intentionality of homi-

cide is the short scene about Davids choosing of a companion in V 6. Whilthe lengthy nal dialogue between Saul and David tackles the complicatequestions about intentionality and guilt, V 6 is entirely occupied with Davidlooking for a companion. Tis detail is striking in the context of the plot.

Tere is no reason why this choosing of a companion must be explicitly told. At most, one could think of the short dialogue of V 8-11 when Abishai is inthe role of the blood-thirsty avenger (V 8) and David rejects him in his lengthanswer (V 9-11). But the fact that David argues with Abishai about the killinof Saul does not explain why the choosing of a companion must be told in separate scene, especially when the narratives plot is so short. Furthermorthe selection scene is missing in the parallel plot in 1 Sam 24. Both elemenof the plot, the reproach of Abner and the author drawing attention to thechoosing of the companion, require an explanation.

o these peculiarities of the two dialogues that are not motivated in the plocan be added further conspicuities.

a) Te nocturnal setting of the whole episode that is explicitly mentionedin V 7 is one of the special features of this episode. Furthermore, thesophisticated espionage in the run-up of the episode is another peculiarity that is not motivated by the intentionality. Te fact that David makesthree attempts to nd out Sauls whereabouts is peculiar. Certainly, it haits counterpart in a tri-partite act of espionage by the Siphites (23:19,25and 24:2). But this does not explain why an act of espionage is so important that it is necessary to tell it.

b) Te narratives tone or humour. Te twinkle in the authors eye has longbeen noted:24 the extremely well-equipped Saul with 3000 men (V 2) ishanded over to David, who is portrayed as a type of a guerrilla warriorTese comical details are even more prominent in 1 Sam 24. Just as Saulis relieving himself, he is handed over to David.

c) Humans guilt and the role of God in the narrative. Te fact that a Yahweh-sleep fell upon the camp of Saul sheds a peculiar light on thwhole episode. Noticeably, this is the narrators only comment thatleaves the plot in order to elucidate it. Formally, the fact that it is a com

24) See for instance F. Stolz,Das erste und zweite Buch Samuel (ZBK; Zrich, 1981), p. 164.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

11/33


ment on the plot is of the highest signicance. As a consequence, its

function is important for its understanding. A further peculiarity withrespect to its style is that the Yahweh-sleep is not sent by Yahweh. Insteathe sentences logical subject is the sleep. Hence, the sleep into whicSaul and his men fall is not, or at least not directly, caused by YahwehRather the Yahweh-sleep seems to underscore how deep the sleep waTis ambivalent focus on the sleep as the logical subject corresponds toSauls ambivalent admission of guilt with a rst clear confession of sin

ning (h t ) and committing evil(r ) in V 21a. Opposed to this is thesentence in V 21b when Saul indicates that he has acted foolishly anunwittingly acted wrong. Te second part of this statement clearlyrevokes the confession of sin and is in sharp contrast to the confessionof sins.

Tese peculiarities of the plot certainly need to be explained. Tey becomemore evident by taking a look at the parallels in the plot about Dolon in thetenth book of theIliad and in the plot of the post-classical dramaRhesus .

Parallels in the Episode about Dolon in theIliad and in the DramaRhesus

While, at rst glance, a relation to a separate external source may seem unlikea close look makes it plausible that 1 Sam 26 was inuenced by an outsidsource. Its characters and its plot, especially the nocturnal intrusion, closel

parallel the stirring tale about the spy Dolon and about Odysseus and Diomedekilling of the Tracian ally Rhesus in the 10th book of theIliad .25 Te the-matic focus of the version of the tenth book of theIliad is on a nocturnal raidby the spy Dolon and on an act of counter-espionage by Odysseus and Diomedes in the rojan camp. All the scenes are set at night. Te Achaeans carrythe day: they kill the Tracian king Rhesus, immediately in the night after hisarrival in the camp. Te scenes are set predominantly in the camp of the Achaeans and the epic recounts solely the events in the camp of the Achaeans.

25) Tis episode did not originally form part of theIliad . G. Danek,Studien zur Dolonie (Wien,1988), suggests on the basis of statistics and linguistic investigations, that the poem was ncomposed by Homer, but shortly after theIliad by another author. A separate origin of this poem(by Homer) and the integration into theIliad by Peisistratos is also indicated by scholium and10,8. See also J. Grethlein,Das Geschichtsbild der Ilias. Eine Untersuchung aus phnomenologiscund narratologischer Perspektive (Hypomnemata 163; Gttingen, 2006), p. 253 note 105. Tetext and the translations are cited from A. . Murray,Homer. Te Iliad . Vol. 1 (Cambridge MA/London, 1988).

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

12/33


Agamemnon decides to send out spies to the rojan camp and Diomedes is

allowed to choose from seven candidates. He opts for Odysseus, since Pall Athene loveth him (Iliad X 245). A short scene in Hectors camp gives anaccount about Dolons sending off (X 300-339). Unerringly, Diomedes andOdysseus detect this counterspy who has been sent out by Hector from therojan camp. Tey interrogate him and, Dolon, avid for fame but a cowardly

character, immediately reveals the arrival of the Tracian king Rhesus with hitroops and his legendary Tracian horses. Diomedes and Odysseus kill the spy

(X 340-464) and hasten into the camp of the rojans and their allies. With thehelp of Athena, Diomedes then kills Rhesus and eleven of his men whilOdysseus seizes the Tracian horses. Warned by Athena, both heroes ee fromthe camp of their enemies without being recognized (X 465-513). ogethewith the legendary horses, they are joyfully welcomed by Nestor and bringthanks offering to Athena (X 527-579).

Another, partly parallel version of the plot is found in the post-classicadramaRhesus .26 Te drama is based on the myth of Dolon and takes its plotsomewhat further. Unlike the tenth book of theIliad , theRhesus is set mainlyin Hectors camp. As in the epic, the main scene is the two heroes intrusiointo the enemies camp where, with the help of Athena, they kill Rhesus Athena appears asdea ex machina shortly before Rhesus is killed, and the two Achaens escape. Te most striking differences between this and the plot of theepic may be summarized as follows (see also the table below):

1. King Rhesus plays the lead as a warrior armed to the teeth. He sharethis leading role with Hector.

2. Te drama portrays the events from the rojan point of view. Te play isset entirely in the rojan camp. Te nocturnal raid and the staggered

26) Te Rhesus was transmitted as a part of the Euripidean corpus, now counted among the piecesof minor tragedians, see B. M. W. Knox , Minor ragedians, in B. M. W. Knox and P. E.

Easterling (eds.), Te Cambridge History of Classical Literature,Vol. I Part 2,Greek Drama (Cam-bridge, 1989), pp. 87-93, see pp. 90-91. See also C. Sourvinou-Inwood,ragedy and AthenianReligion. Greek Studies Interdisciplinary Approaches (Lanham MD, 2003), p. 482. See the textof the drama in I. Zanetto,Euripides. Rhesus (Stuttgart/Leipzig, 1993). See on the discussionabout the authenticity of Rhesus recently F. Jouan,Euripide, ragdies, ome VII, 2e partie, Rhsos (Paris, 2004), pp. IX-XVI. On the relationship between the myth of Dolon and the dramaRhesus , see M. Fantuzzi, Te Myths of Dolon and Rhesus from Homer to the Homeric/Cyclic

ragedy RHESUS, in F. Montanari et A. Rengakos (eds.),La posie grecque: metamorphoses dun genre littraire (Entretiens ome III (52), Genf, 2006), pp. 135-182. A recent commentary onRhesus is A. Feickert,Euripidis Rhesus. Einleitung, bersetzung, Kommentar (Studien zur klassi-schen Philologie 151; Frankfurt/M., 2005).

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

13/33


reactions of the rojan warriors aghast at the sight of the bloodstained

attack among the Tracians, in particular, are meticulously described.Inamed with rage, Hector accuses the watchmen of a lack of guardedness against foreign intruders.

3. Athena plays an extraordinary leading part.27 She acts on stage, inform-ing Odysseus about Rhesus arrival at the rojan camp (596-608). According to the plot of theIliad version, this information is given byDolon. Also, Athena commands Diomedes to kill him (620) and, when

Diomedes likewise considers killing Hector, she rebukes him for thiintention.28

able 1. Main differences and parallels betweenIliad X andRhesus Iliad Book X Rhesus

Point of view Camp of the Achaeans(predominantly)

Camp of the rojans

Athenas role No active role/lead Addressee of prayersHurries Diomedes andOdysseus along

Active role/leadInformsCommands Diomedes to killFacilitates the killing of Rhesus:appears as Cypris/Aphrodite to Alexandros/Paris

Leads DolonDiomedes/Odysseus

Rhesus/HectorDiomedes/Odysseus

Search for acompanion

Diomedes choosesOdysseus (Iliad X219-245)

Accusation ofthe watchmen

Hector accuses the watchmen(808-819)

Above all, however, Athenas intervention is vital to Odysseus and Diomedmilitary success. Te guard Alexandros/Paris in Hectors camp is vigilant owinto rumours about nocturnal spies. But Athena renders him harmless so tha

27) Her role in the myth of Dolon is rather short. She hurries Diomedes and Odysseus alongafter having killed Rhesus and having seized the Tracian horses.28) Tis would have been more than fate had decided for him (634: ).

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

14/33


the two Achaeans may accomplish their bloody work unhindered. Te man-

ner in which she removes the obstacles in their way is spectacular: Athendupes Paris by appearing as Cypris/Aphrodite. Paris deludes himself that shis, in fact, his tutelary goddess and he thinks himself safe (642-668). Ultimately Athena spurs on Diomedes and Odysseus to remove themselves to safe place since the rojans are awakening (669-674). In a dramatic way it reported how the two spies are able to escape in the hurry-scurry of the awakening rojan guards (675-730). Te watchmen in charge fear the impending

reproaches and Hectors furious admonishments follow.Seven main similarities may be distinguished on the level of the plot anthe formation of the characters between the biblical narrative and the Greekplay. o these, a further, formal similarity must be added. Te particular simi-larities require different degrees of attention. Te rst three comparative fea-tures are related to the narratives setting and its beginning:

1. Te nocturnal setting of an intrusion into the enemys camp. 2. Te espionage in two camps that are at enmity. 3. Te search for a companion (not reported in Rhesus).Tese three similarities between both plots concern peculiar elements of1 Sam 26.

Te nocturnal setting clearly adds a specic atmosphere. It emphasizes theexcitement of the espionage between the two camps for the dramas spectatoTe fact that the entire drama and the narrative are set at night is a decisiveexternal detail among the similarities between 1 Samuel 26, the post-classicRhesus and, the myth of Dolon in the 10th book of theIliad . Providing aspecic framework for the uncertainty of the deceptions and the suddenchanges of the poem in theIliad ,29 the nocturnal setting adds to the dramaticatmosphere of the events.

Te search for a companion in the myth of Dolon in theIliad superimposesa specic notion. Diomedes chooses Odysseus since he is beloved by Athenand this foreshadows the importance of the goddess during their attack on thTracians in the rojan camp. Compared to the more elaborate motif of aselection out of 7 candidates in theIliad (X 219-254, cf. the selection of Dolonin Hectors camp,Iliad X 300-332), the search for a companion in 1 Sam 26:6is much shorter and David can only choose from two candidates. It stands toreason that the more elaborate plot, in which the selection formed a more

29) See Grethlein,Ilias (note 25), p. 253, note 106, and F. Klingner ber die Dolonie,Hermes 75(1940), pp. 337-368, esp. pp. 360-362.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

15/33


integral part of the narrative, was known to the biblical authors and their audi

ence or readers. While the relevance of the search for a companion is noentirely clear from the short plot in 1 Sam 26, it is more relevant in the tenthbook of theIliad . Te character of Dolon, the spy selected, is described as aproud spirit thirsting for glory (Iliad X 316-324). He is the type of volunteerwhose action is motivated by unpure afterthoughts. His cowardly charactebecomes apparent when he openly gives away all the secrets in the hope mercy when Diomedes and Odysseus get hold of him during his mission an

kill him (Iliad X 411-457). Tis selection of Dolon has its counterpart inDiomedes selection of godlike Odysseus, whose heart and spirit are beyonall others eager in all manner of toils; and Pallas Athena loveth him (Iliad X243-245, transl. A. D. Murray). Te characters of both selected spies areexplored in detail on stage in the myth of Dolon. If the biblical narrative ifact presupposes such a Greek version, the short selection scene in 1 Sam 26has the framework it needs in order to be understood correctly. Te characterof the bloodthirsty spy who volunteers is maybe informed by a character witan ambivalent motivation like Dolon and, on the other hand, is comparableto the more favourably portrayed Diomedes, who is eager to kill the Tracianking and his men (Iliad X 487-488). If this is correct, the biblical narrativerigorously streamlines the original plot.

4. Corresponding characters cannot only be seen in the spies David / AbishOdysseus / Diomedes, but also in the leading toles of Saul / Rhesus (and HeFurthermore, one may add that the role of the goddess Athena must beseen as corresponding to the part of the Judean god Yahweh in the dramaticnarrative.

As to the characters of theRhesus , in the performance as a stage play, theirbehaviour was a fascinating theme. Te play presents a variety of ghting menwith different attitudes towards the war. Te ethical interest of the play centreson the virtues and vices of military leaders. It juxtaposes a strong and proumilitary warrior with a cunning hero who enters his camp as a spy. Te rojanHector is a brilliant but hasty and impetuous warrior. Aeneas, his subordinatchieftain, stands in contrast to the imprudent leader, urging caution and sug-gesting that espionage should precede any major military decision (86-130Te Tracian king Rhesus mainly boasts about the success of a frontier warriorwhose ambitions have no limits: But a single span of sunlight will be enougfor me to destroy the towers, fall on the eet, and kill the Achaeans. On th

day after that I shall leave Ilium and go home, having cut short your labours. . I shall smash the Achaeans and put an end to their loud boasting, even if

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

16/33


have come at the eleventh hour. (448-450). Rhesus is a prototype of the

miles gloriosus , or braggart soldier of the incipient genre of New Comedy.30

His appearance with his spear on stage was impressive, when he is describby the chorus, majesty in his look. . . . his mighty body clad in gold, . . . thboastful clanging of the bells which ring out from his shield straps (368-369382-386). Tis elaborate display of his military prowess is a constituentelement of the post-classical burlesque buffoonery style. In terms of its cotents, however, Rhesus military prowess is in clear contrast to the fact that h

lets his troops fall asleep while neglecting even the most basic precautioneven without advising a sentry to keep watch.31 Saul, who in the end is defence-less and could have been killed while sleeping, resembles this Tracian kingproud of his military prowess. Te development of the two characters of Rhe-sus and Saul within the plot makes evident their similarities, however thresemblances between the two are not only illustrated by their personalitiebut also by the description of each gure. Both Rhesus and Saul trust in theimilitary power. For Saul, this is illustrated by the emphasis on his javelin.32 Clearly, this symbol of his trust in military power corresponds to Rhesustwo-pronged javelin.33 Of course, the military prowess of a royal leader is aconventional attribute. But the contrasting of the proud military hero tothe cunning spy makes this feature more particular. Even more specically, thfact that the military equipment does not prevent Rhesus from being killed, oSaul from being disarmed, adds an exacting note to this general trait of amilitary leader.

In contrast, the plot with its setting of nocturnal espionage emphasizes Davidstock characteristic trait in 1 Sam 26. His knowledge and cleverness single hiout as a pathnder who, sure of his aim, nds the way to his enemys campTis nocturnal intrusion onto the hostile site that is not known from any

30) E. Hall, Introduction, inEuripides. Iphigenia among the aurians, Bacchae, Iphigenia at AulisRhesus, translated with Explanatory Notes by James Morwood (Oxford, 1999), pp. ix-xlviii, xxvii.31)

See Hall, Introduction (note 30), pp. xxvii, andRhesus 525-527; see also the watchmenssleep 554-555 and the reproachful remarks of the charioteer in 762-779:

For when Hector had pointed us to where we were to lie and told us the watchword, wewent to sleep in exhaustion after our march, and no night guards were set out for our army We did not place our armour in good order or hang the goads over the horses yokes, sincour king had heard that you were winning . . . No, we simply ung ourselves down andslept. (translation by J. Morwood).

32) h nyt 1 Sam 18:10,11 (M ); 19:9,10 (2x); 20:33; 21:9; 22:6; 26:7,8,11,16,22 (2x).33) Brandishing your two-pronged javelin,Rhesus , 374-375 (translation by J. Morwood).

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

17/33


other play, provides a thrilling theme for a dramatic performance34 and for the

contrast between the two protagonists.Tree further correspondences concern the level of the actual plot:

5. Te killing or sparing of the victims on the occasion of an intrusion intodefenceless enemys camp.Tis is the most blatant difference between the Greek and the biblical story-line. While in theRhesus and in the myth of Dolon, the intruders kill the

hostile king, David spares Saul. Tis signicant difference to the Greek plot ipart of the discussion between David and Abishai in V 8-11. Tat said, it ismost important that it is not Odysseus but Diomedes who kills Rhesus andeleven of his men according to theIliad version (Iliad X 486-489), whileOdysseus drags away the corpses so that the horses might easily pass througIn theRhesus , Odysseus and Diomedes agree that Odysseus will be looking fothe horses while Diomedes is going to kill the Tracian king (621-625). Tecomparison with the Greek parallel makes the discourse about who shall kithe opponent in 1 Sam 26:8-11 an important contribution to a topic that isalso discussed in the presupposed plot and, hence, is motivated by this oldestoryline.35

6. Te reproaches to the watchmen in charge.Tese are not reported in theIliad version of the myth of Dolon, since it ismainly set in the camp of the Achaeans. Te reproach after the enemys noc-turnal intrusion clearly points to Hectors decits. Hector accuses the watchmen, who claim to have watched with wakeful eyes during the night (820-831In the end, it dawns on the charioteer that these accusations may not be justied since there may have been divine intervention.36 A corresponding reproach

34) Before the intrusion, the selection of a companion is reported. See Diomedes selection ofcompanion inIliad , 222-247. Te same motive is found in 1 Sam 26:6. While Diomedes selects

Odysseus as a companion from among several volunteers, David asks Ahimelech and Abisha join him.35) Te discourse on judicial issues about bloodguilt in 1 Sam 26:8-11 and in related parts of thenarratives shows a number of parallels to a comparable discourse about the judicial treatment homicide in fth century Greece. See on the framework of the latter M. Gagarin,Drakon andEarly Athenian Homicide Law (New Haven/London, 1981), and, with respect to AischylosEumenides , see A. H. Sommerstein, Aeschylos Eumenides (Cambridge/New York et al., 1989),pp. 13-17.36) 850-855: For which of our foes could have made their way through the darkness and discovered the ground where Rhesus was sleeping unless one of the gods had informed the killers? Tis a plot! ( ), as indeed Athena had, see 598-642 (translation by J. Morwood).

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

18/33


is passed on to Sauls military commander Abner whom David accuses of ha

ing neglected his duty as a watchman for his king, Saul (1 Sam 26:15-16aDavids accusation of Abner in 1 Sam 26:14-16 is clearly a false charge in tplot and is most strange. Owing to its setting in the Achaeans camp, the epileaves this aspect out. It forms however an important part of theRhesus : Tewatchmen are summoned because they have fallen short of having properlguarded the camp. Again, it is noticeable that the motif in the biblical accounis very short, while the Greek drama elaborates intensely on it.

7. Te openly expressed direct divine intervention in favour of the intruders.o this, a formal parallel about the direct divine intervention must be added.

It consists in Athenasapostrophe when Paris appears on stage while the god-dess is still talking and explains to the spectators why her victim is at thmoment not able to hear her. Te form of Athenas comment must be seenwithin the dramatic setting and in its pragmatic function within the play. Tespectators nd it implausible that while Paris is on stage he is going to bdeceived by Athena, who at that very moment is about to talk to DiomedesTis is why Athena must explain to the audience that Paris is not going to hearanything in this situation (Rhesus 639-641). Comparable to an implicit direc-tion for the staging in the dramas main text, here, a gure on stage explainthe dramatic action which is to follow.37 Te ctionality of the dramatic pres-entation is briey interrupted in order to give an explanation to the audienceTe narrators comment about the sleep in 1 Sam 26:12b can be comparedto this form of explanation by an actorsapostrophe : It briey leaves the levelof the ctional plot and gives an explanation to the audience. In a pragmaticsense, theapostrophe of a person has the function of a communication ofthe actors to the spectators. Read on a theological level, this is a statemenabout a direct divine intervention in favour of one of the two battling partiesTe point on the theological level is: it isnot Yahweh who is responsible forDavids nocturnal intrusion: the logic subject of the action is the Yahweh-slee(26:12b).

o this, formal peculiarities can be added. With regard to its outward appearance, more parallels between late Greek drama and the biblical narrative con

37) See on the implicit direction for the staging in the main text M. Pster,Das Drama (Mnchen,1977, 81994), pp. 299-306. Further aspects of comparable divine interventions are explicitlymentioned: Athena indicates that the rojans may be alerted by their gods (Iliad X 511). Tis hasthe function of an implicit direction for the staging since the rojans wake up immediatelyafterwards.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

19/33


tribute to the episodes elaborate dramatic character. One of the post-classic

features of the 4th centuryRhesus is the increased number of speaking roles:eleven. Correspondingly, in 1 Sam 26 the character of Abishai is added (whia comparable gure is lacking in 1 Sam 24).

More formal similarities are: Te drama naturally consists of a sequence odialogues and the narrative uses mainly direct speech.Rhesus is the shortestextant tragedy (996 lines), with a rapid succession of short scenes. Tis is alstrue for the sequence of short episodes about Saul in most of 1 Samuel. In

Rhesus, the shortness and excitement of the scenes and the characters that havbeen indicated are special features that shape the way in which the play wperformed and that indicate the plays character as a post-classical drama:38 Te performance was rather pretentious.Rhesus has complicated entrances andexits (lines 565-681)39 requiring professional actors. With its unusual amountof interventionist advice, criticism, and support from the chorus, this playuses the chorus as an important gure with short and rather rapid interac-tions. Tis play was highly successful supposedly not only because of thesrapid interactions. Te nocturnal, military masculine atmosphere of the warsituation, with watch res, disguises and scouts must also have been verappealing to an audience which had experienced war. With this, the play offeexciting scenes.

Te divine interaction in the play corresponds to the above-mentioned con-trast between the two heroes. Here, the post-classical nature of the playRhesus is evident on a more theological level.Rhesus deploys a conation of differentmodes of divine interaction not known hitherto in 5th century drama. Forexample, Athena appears on stage at the heart of the play, and a muse carrieRhesus corpse. Te muse only partly behaves like adea ex machina of the typeknown to us. Lamenting and cursing, she performs actions that in Euripideantragedies only human characters perform. Te shift in the divine roles in thetragedy is also evident in Athenas biased interference. Such an interventiowas apparently not perceived as problematic by the writer.40 As to the divineinvolvement on behalf of David in 1 Sam 26, this is most apparent in Davidability to deceive Saul which is caused by divine interference. Noticeably hoever, it is not Yahweh himself who enables David to steal Sauls spear and h

38) Te lack of gnomic pronouncements likewise points to a post-classical date of origin.39) E. Hall,Introduction (see note 30), p. xxvii, suggests that the script was meant for enactmentby expert actors. Tis would correspond to a post-classical date of the play, when professionatragodoi performed Greek drama.40) See Sourvinou-Inwood, ragedy (see note 26), p. 482.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

20/33


jar. Instead, at the critical moment, a Yahweh-sleep fell on Saul and his me

(trdmt yhwh nhlyhm 1 Sam 26:12).41

Tis theological level is an importantparallel to the form of Athenas intervention inRhesus . Beyond the storys plot,here, it becomes apparent that its relationship to history is important as aframework of the narrative.Rhesus alludes to Athenian history in that it delib-erates over Greek national identity and expresses a view on foreigners. Tiobvious relation between a historical reality and the drama as it is displayed ostage sheds new light on the plays intention. Te characters are not arbitrarily

connected to their respective ethnic backgrounds. When the Tracian militaryleader boasts withhubris and the Athenians defeat him, the play relates Athenshistorical hostility towards the kings of Trace. Te portrayal of Rhesus isconsonant with the views of Athenian citizens at the time, endorsing thenotion that Greeks, on stage represented by Odysseus and Diomedes, werbetter warriors than the rojans and Tracians. Tis play has a clear cut bias42 and its Athenian viewpoint also shapes the divine interference by Athena ifavour of the Greeks. In the same way that the play represents Athenian identity and a Greek viewpoint on its foes, the drama unfolds its Greek identity bdescribing Athenas divine intervention at the plays culminating point. Tis issignicant for a comparison ofRhesus and 1 Sam 26. Te two Greek heroes,securing Athenas goodwill, complete their intrusion and their ruthless kilings. Yet at the same time, the play provides a variation on the Greek warriorsuperiority and the superiority of their Gods.

urning to 1 Sam 26 and 24, the notion of Gods involvement in favour ofone of the two parties is expressed in the narrators comments in 1 Sam 24which is independent of 1 Sam 26 and has no extra-biblical parallel. Yahweengages in favour of the Judean David against his opponent Israel. Te specicinstances of Gods involvement are when, in 1 Sam 23:14, God does not givDavid into Sauls mercy, but Saul is given into Davids mercy, 1 Sam 24:11aYou see how Yahweh has given you into my mercy. 24:19 reiterates thifocusing on Davids decision to spare Saul: Yahweh had decided to give minto your mercy, but you didnt kill me. Within the larger discourse about thelegal aspects of homicide, the narrative 1 Sam 24 alludes to the Judean go Yahweh as a judge in 24:5: Do what you consider to be right! Sauls confe

41) Notably, no subject is mentioned, while this sleep,trdmh, clearly is connected with Yahwehin Gen 2:21 and Is 29:10 (the spirit of a deep sleep). An explicit subject is lacking in Gen 15:1Prov 19:15; Job 4:13 (=33:15). Te verbrdm is attested in late post-exilic Hebrew in Jonah 1:5,6; Prov 10:5; Judges 4:21; Ps 76:7 and in Daniel 8:18; 10:9.42) Hall, Introduction (see note 30), p. xxvii.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

21/33

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

22/33


Saul, shows no intention to kill the Israelite king, even if this would merely b

an act of self-defence against his oppressor, and even though it is explicitly notthat God has delivered Saul into Davids mercy, which would justify Davidkilling of Saul.46 While its composition, the constellation between the gures,and the biased divine intervention are informed by the post-classical dramRhesus , the character of David in this narrative serves as the paramount examplin a legal discourse and in a forensic setting concerning the killing of a perso

We can summarize the comparative evidence. Similarities are the rather con

ventional elements of the descriptions of warriors, like the portrait of Hectoand Rhesus, and the intrusion into an enemys camp. Te combination ofthese conventional motifs with the more specic ones, like the divine intervention in a sleep, adds evidence for an inuence of this post-classical play the biblical narrative. Te close parallels between 1 Sam 26 andRhesus , includ-ing the presumed dramatic presentation and its plot, indicate that the play orits plot was known in some form to the Judean historiographers. Te formalsimilarities between the biblical account of Saul as a tragic gure and parall4th century works also point to Greek inuence. Post-classical features ofRhe-sus have led scholars to the general opinion that all this seems to bear witneto a post-classical phase of tragedy, one which has abandoned fth-centurideals of artistic economy for a lavish, varied display of individually excitiscenes.47 Te striving for an ideal of variety,, corresponds to a stan-dard for tragic poetry as it is expressed in a fragment of a satyr play from

46) Davids reluctance to kill Saul must be seen in relation to a discourse about the legal status the narratives gures. Saul intends to kill David; this forms a major part of the narratives struture which is related to the law in the covenant code Ex 21:12, and, more precisely, to its intepretation in Ex 21:13-14, where the intention to kill another person is decisive for the respectivlegal status; see on this above note 18. Te paramount signicance of this topic may be seenin the narratives characters, such as the gure of Joab, who is eventually killed since his asylat the altar is refused due to his intentional killing of Absalom and Amasa 1Kings 2:5-6; 2:28-3Te narratives emerge from this conict in numerous literary layers. Tis partly redactional

character of the theme of Joabs guilt was already suggested by E. Wrthwein,Die Erzhlung vonder Tronfolge Davidstheologische oder politische Geschichtsschreibung? (TSt (B) 115; Zrich,1974), p. 45, with his suggestion of a secondary insertion of Amasa and the murder of Absalointo the narratives that had reinforced a contrast between David and Joab. On the redactionaadditions concerning the gure of Joab, see, among many others, the suggestions of S. Bietehard,Des Knigs General. Die Heerfhrertraditionen in der vorstaatlichen und staatlichen Zeitdie Joabgestalt in 2 Sam 2-20; 1 Kn 1-2 (OBO 163; Gttingen/Fribourg, 1998), pp. 212-330;summary pp. 320-331. For a synchronic reading, see M. Eschelbach,Has Joab Foiled David? ALiterary Study of the Importance of Joabs Character in Relation to David (Studies in Biblical Lit-erature 76; Frankfurt, 2005), pp. 57-65.47) Knox, Minor tragedians (see note 26), p. 91.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

23/33


Astydamas: the clever poet must offer the complicated bounty, as it were,

a luxurious dinner. . . .48

Stylistically, one may consider whether these post-classical features are likewise to be applied to the biblical narratives with tshort episodes about Sauls pursuit of David. Tis is beyond the scope of thisstudy. Suffi ce it to indicate that the time frame for a date of origin of the characteristic elements of the biblical narrative that are mentioned above is th(late) Persian or Hellenistic periods.

Provisional Assumptions about Greek Parallels in the Deuteronomistic Hand the Literary Relationship between 1 Sam 26 and 1 Sam 24

Before I reconsider the larger literary context of the episodes about the guof the tragic king Saul, and, especially, the relationship between 1 Sam 26 an24, I shall point out three features of narratives in the Deuteronomistic His-tory with Greek parallels. First, the narratives with Greek parallels may beasily isolated from their respective narrative contexts.49 Second, the Deuter-

onomistic History is their current context, but they contrast with its theol-ogy.50 Tirdly, they are all very short.51 Tey limit themselves to reproducingonly a plots main story line. Te main characters appear in a sketchy form.Details, byplays and minor characters are left out. It seems plausible that thbiblical writers had only to touch lightly upon a certain plot in order to makethe audience understand it, and, hence, the plots appear as concise citations oa known tradition.

Assuming that 1 Sam 26 was inspired by theRhesus , this sheds new light onthe narratives relationship to 1 Sam 24.52 A number of proposals were made

48) B. Snell, ragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta 4 (Gttingen, 1971); translation of Knox, Minorragedians (see note 26), p. 91.

49) See for instance the Antigone-motif in 2 Sam 21:1-14 and, for a recent treatment, seeF. Hartenstein, Solidaritt mit den oten und Herrschaftsordnung. 2 Samuel 21,1-14 und2 Samuel 24 im Vergleich mit dem Antigone-Mythos, in M. Bauks, K. Liess, P. Riede (eds.

Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst (Psalm 8,5)? Aspekte einer theologischen AnthrFestschrift fr Bernd Janowski zum 65. Geburtstag(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2008), pp. 123-143.50) See for instance the question of . C. Rmer, Why Would the Deuteronomists ell aboutthe Sacrice of Jephtas Daughter? JSO 77 (1998), pp. 27-38. Te only connection of 1 Sam26 (and 24) to dtr theology is that the guilt of Saul (1 Sam 24:18; 26:21a) in his intention to kilDavid provides a reason for Sauls overall demise as some sort of punishment for his evil acHowever, the deliberate divergent judgement about his actions as unwittingly committed mitakes in 26:21b, and the motif of the Yahweh-sleep add a specic tragic notion to his character51) Consider for instance the narrative about Jephtas daughter in Judges 11:30-40, 1 Sam 26 o2 Sam 21:1-14.52) Te relationship between both narratives would require further considerations, including

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

24/33


so far. K. Koch suggested a shared basic narrative (Grunderzhlung) th

grew independently into 1 Sam 24 and 1 Sam 26, the former being still closeto the basic narrative than the latter.53 J. H. Grnbaek put forward the idea oftwo originally independent narratives that were assimilated in an oral formand that were deliberately placed one after the other by the narrator of thehistory of Davids rise.54 W. Dietrich likewise assumed two independent nar-ratives that, in their written form, were redactionally enlarged at signicanplaces and harmonized by the narrator of the history of Davids rise,55 and

H.-J. Stoebe opts for a dependence of 24 on 26.56

Recently, J. Conrad haspartly questioned the dependence of 1 Sam 26 on 1 Sam 24, suggesting as basic literary layer a short humoristic anecdote and seven subsequent literaadditions, including inuences of 1 Sam 26 on 1 Sam 24.57 I limit myself topreliminary observations. If the plot of the narrative was adopted from anextra-biblical Greek context, it stands to reason that its essential motif of thcounter-espionage in 1 Sam 26 is in connection with the hostile espionagthat is reported in 1 Sam 23:19 with the rst betrayal by the Siphites. If sothen, essentially, four reasons corroborate the possibility that 1 Sam 24 waderived from 1 Sam 26:

a) 1 Sam 26 makes no explicit allusions to 1 Sam 23-24. No reference imade to the preceding admission of guilt nor is Sauls immediate changof mind after having realized that he has acted badly (24:18) a topic inthe narrative in 1 Sam 26.58

b) Te beginning of the narrative 1 Sam 26:1 is almost identical with1 Sam 23:19: Te Siphites came to Saul in Gibeah saying: David ishiding . . . on the hill of Hachilah, . . . opposite Jeshimon. If 26:1 depends

1 Sam 25. Te literary relationship between both narratives is seen in different ways, see theoverview until 1995 in W. Dietrich/ . Naumann,Die Samuelbcher (EdF 287; Darmstadt,1995), pp. 104-106.53) K. Koch,Was ist Formgeschichte? Methoden der Bibelexegese (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 19815), p. 175.54) J. H. Grnbaek,Die Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids (1.Sam. 15-2.Sam. 5). radition unKomposition (ATD 10; Kopenhagen, 1971), pp. 163-169.55) W. Dietrich, David in berlieferung und Geschichte,VF 22 (1977), pp. 44-64, esp. p. 56.56) H.-J. Stoebe, Gedanken zur Heldensage in den Samuelbchern, in: F. Maass (ed.),Das ferne und das nahe Wort . Festschrift fr Leonhard Rost (BZAW 105; Berlin, 1967), pp. 208-218,esp. pp. 212-214.57) J. Conrad, Die Unschuld des ollkhnen: berlegungen zu 1 Sam 24, in R. Lux/U.Schnelle (eds.),Ideales Knigtum: Studien zu David und Salomo (ABG 16; Leipzig, 2005),pp. 23-42: basic literary layer 24:1*.3b*.4.5b.8b.23b; inuences of 1 Sam 26 on 1 Sam 24 inV 3ab*.9a .10.17a .58) See K. Koch,Formgeschichte (see note 53), p. 174.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

25/33


on 23:19, one would expect it to refer to 1 Sam 23:19 in some way.

Moreover, Davids tri-partite counter-espionage in Sauls camp 1 Sam26:4,5,7-12 corresponds a tri-partite act of espionage against David in1 Sam 23:19.25; 26:1.

c) Within the overall plot it seems strange that David hides a second timenear the Siphites after they have already betrayed him once.

d) Saul is portrayed as an even more ridiculous character in 1 Sam 24 compared to 1 Sam 26. An aggravation in the formation of the plot from

26 to 24 is more plausible than a compensation.59

Tis would roughly suggest a redactional development of 1 Sam 24 on thebasis of a basic plot in 26*. Tis literary development would correspond to thesimilar cases in 1 Sam in which rewritten narratives were placed in front oolder versions, as has been suggested above.

3. Sauls Vita Told in a Sequence of Tragic Narratives

I propose that a number of episodes in the rst book of Samuel, connected toeach other by their common understanding of Saul as a tragic gure, belonto a literary layer informed by Greek tragedy. Specically, these are: Sauls eltion by lot (1 Sam 10:17-27), his untimely offering at Gilgal (1 Sam 10:8 an13:7-14b), his hasty vow that almost results in the sacrice of his son Jonatha

(1 Sam 14:24-46), Sauls madness as a form of tragic heroism (1 Sam 16:1423), Davids nocturnal intrusion into Sauls camp (1 Sam 26*), Sauls necromancy involving Samuel (1 Sam 28:3-25*), and his heroic suicide on thbattleeld of Gilboah reported by a messenger (1 Sam 31*; 2 Sam 1*). If thenarratives were inuenced by tragedy, it seems plausible that the offering scein 1 Sam 9:22-25 alludes to a sacricial meal that was likewise inuenced bGreek practice. It is also conceivable that Sauls encounter with the ecstatprophets in 1 Sam 10:2-13 refers critically and almost ironically to the ecstatbehaviour of someone who pretends to be driven by a prophetic spirit.

Before I focus on the narratives about Davids pursuit in Sauls camp in1 Samuel 26, I briey summarize the results of Sauls tragic heroism in somscenes that depend on Greek models of tragic heroism. Sauls encounter witSamuel (1 Sam 10:8), Samuels two conditions, and Sauls premature perfomance of the offering (1 Sam 13:7a-13a) portray the rst Israelite king as

59) Contra H. Schulte, DieEntstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel (BZAW 128; Ber-lin, 1972), p. 129, who suggests that 1 Sam 26 corrects the coarseness of 1 Sam 24.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

26/33


tragic gure. Due to limitations of space I am not able to give individual proo

of the tragic inuence, but merely outline this with respect to the theme oflot-casting in 1 Sam 14 and with respect to 1 Sam 17. More specically, I suggest that the narratives on lot-casting, 1 Sam 14:24-46 and 1 Sam 10:17-27 are informed by the popular Greek mode of assigning offi cial positions.60 First,casting lots was a divinatory technique widely used in popular knucklebongames. Second, the narratives clearly avoid naming Yahweh as the subject this action.61 Tis is made clear by the use of thenif al -form of the verb

lkd that refrains from pointing out a logic subject of the phrase Saul is hit.62

Tis avoidance of statements about Sauls destiny relating to Yahweh may becompared to 1 Sam 26:12b. Furthermore, homologies between the Hebrewterminology for an unwitting guilty act63 are evident in Sauls hasty vow in

60) In 1 Sam 10:17-27 the election is carried out by the people, while the prophets role isreduced to presenting Saul as the king elected by lot to the people. Samuels remark See, who

Yahweh has chosen? in 10:24 is in contrast to the concept of the divine election of the Davidking. It comments critically and, most probably, ironically on Sauls kingship. Tis is suggestefor three reasons: First, it is a question, and the reason for the interesting character of Saul is thSaul is peerless (V 24a since nobody of the people equalled him), which refers formally to tstatement about Hezekiahs (2 Kings 18:5) and Josiahs (2 Kings 23:25) peerlessness. Howevunlike these two Judean kings, Sauls peerlessness is based on his high stature (V 23b), a symof his power, which, however, does not guarantee his military and general royal success. Seondly, as is clear from the divinatory act, Sauls election has nothing to do with the (propheticaltransmitted) word of Yahweh in 1 Sam 16:8-10 but, on the contrary, it is only done on behalfof the peoples wish. Tirdly, the apparently positive dynastic/Davidic election (bh r ) is men-tioned as part of an overall salvation history in 2 Sam 6:21; 1 Kings 8:16; Ps 78:70; 1 Chr 28:1 Sam 16:8-10; see also for Solomon 2 Chr 28:5 and Serubbabel in Hag 2:23. In contrast withthis, Sauls election is never referred to in a comparable context of a salvation history. Rathe2 Chr 6:5-6 seem to comment polemically on Sauls election and an ironic use of the kingelection (bh r ) is also apparent in Hushais comment in 2 Samuel 16,18. An interpretation as anessentially positive comment on Saul is also tentatively questioned by R. Mller,Knigtum (seenote 9), pp. 165-168.61)

Te reluctance to use lots as a divinatory method has long been noticed, see e.g. J. LindblomLot-Casting in the Old estament,V 12 (1962), pp. 164-178, p. 167. Lots are mainly attestedin post-exilic priestly biblical material, see onlkd and its meaning in this context, W. Gro,lkd ( WA 4; Stuttgart, 1984), pp. 573-576. Te late literary origin of narratives reporting the cast-ing of lots presumably indicates a Greek inuence for this divinatory method.62) 1 Sam 14:41-42 and compare the same verb used 3 times for lot casting 1 Sam 10:20-21. Seon the understanding of theNif al as agensloser Manifestativ E. Jenni, Aktionsarten undStammformen im Althebrischen: das Piel in verbesserter Sicht, in J. Luchsinger, H.-P. MathyM. Saur, Ernst Jenni (eds.),Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten estaments II (Stuttgart, 2005),pp. 77-106, esp. pp. 80-83.63) On this topic, see also Part 4 below.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

27/33


1 Sam 14:24-46 that results in the sacrice of his son.64 Beyond that, the for-

mation of Sauls character points to a Greek origin. Te complex narrativeexhibits a particular interest in the tragic gures character as such which typical for Greek drama. As to the narratives genre, 1 Sam 14:24-46 indicatthat the Hellenistic inuence also concerns the form of the narrative that isimilar to a performed play: Te grouping of a hero and chorus, a characteris-tic opposite pair in Greek tragedy, is a model apparent in the interactionbetween Saul and the people in the role of the chorus in 1 Sam 14:24-46.65

Showing Greek dramas impact on the narratives main character, and considering the inuence of drama that was intended to be performed on stage provides important information about the form, mode of origin, and formationof the characters in the biblical narrative. Tis contributes to our knowledgeof the Greco-Judean cultural interaction (presumably) in the 4th century.

Te formative constellation of Saul versus David66 shaped some of the moreelaborate narratives that show Greek inuence. Such is the case with the themof single combat in 1 Sam17. It has long been understood that it is prominentin classical Greek Homeric literature and, before, was known in the Hittiteculture.67 Te short account of 2 Sam 21:19 and many details of 1 Sam 17indicate that it most likely emerged from a Persian68 or Hellenistic background. While a Mycenean origin of these was suggested earlier on the basis of thweapons of the Philistine warrior, this was refuted by K. Galling who rejectethe notion that Goliaths spear(h nyt) was inuenced by a comparable Greek

64) Tis theme, prominent in Greek drama as, for instance, in Iphigeneia, has parallels in theepisode in Judg 11:30-40 about Jephtah. On the inuence of the offering theme of Iphigeneiaby Agamemnon, see for instance . C. Rmer, Jephtahs Daughter (see note 50), pp. 33-36Te importance of the Greek parallels is disputed. Tis importance is played down and a pre-dtrgrowth of the narrative (with W. Richter) from 11:30-32,34-40 is favoured, emphasizing the rolof the daughter, by W. Gro, Jiftachs ochter, in Frank-Lothar Hossfeldt et al. (eds.),Das Manna fllt auch heute noch: Beitrge zur Geschichte und Teologie des Alten, Ersten esta (HBS 44; Freiburg, 2004), pp. 273-293, esp. pp. 272, 279. Te theme of the sacrice would

require further study.65) See especially the peoples role in 1 Sam 14:40-46.66) See on this e. g. J. Klein,David versus Saul. Ein Beitrag zum Erzhlsystem der Samuelbch (BWAN 158; Stuttgart, 2002), pp. 40-118.67) On single combat, see already R. de Vaux, Les combats singuliers dans lancien testamen, Bib 40 (1959), pp. 495-508, and K. Galling, Goliath und seine Rstung, in H. W. Andersonet al. (eds.),Volume du congrs Genve 1965 (V .S 15; Leiden, 1966), pp. 150-169, p. 152.68) A. Rof, Te Battle of David and Goliath: Folkore, Teology, Eschatology, in J. Neusneret al. (eds.), Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 117-151; E. Aurelius,Davids Unschuld. Die Hofgeschichte und Psalm 7, in: M. Witte (ed.),Gott und Mensch imDialog. Festschrift fr Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW 345/I; Berlin, 2005), pp. 391-412.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

28/33


weapon with an, a slip-knot of the javelin, which was not known in

Greek iconography prior to the 7th century BCE.69

Te coat of mail as armour(rywn qqym) had its origins in Mesopotamian-Syrian culture and the bronzehelmet(kwb ) had Urartean and Assyrian predecessors.70 Te kydwn was aweapon which was known from Mesopotamia and Syria.71 All in all Goliathsweapons are a combination of different armours. With this combination ofdifferent weapons in the narrative, the author intends to make him appearas an almost invincible threat, in order to make Davids miraculous victor

appear to be more eminent.72

Te focus on the contrast between Saul, who isunable to slay the warrior, and the victorious David, may be compared to thfocus on the tragic hero in Greek drama. It is also evident on the level of thnarratives structure and the layout of the characters: in its setting, it presumethe fear that arises in Saul73 as a result of Davids fame and that in the end leadsto Sauls weakness for which he compensates by pursuing David.74

Pointing out a sequence of tragic narratives makes it necessary to also mention a main obstacle to this interpretation of the close affi nity between themwith concepts and themes found in Greek tragedy. Te parallels between bib-lical narratives and Greek drama may be of a purely coincidental character anmay be explained by the fact that they touch upon general issues appearing iIsraelite and Greek culture. If the themes of the narratives are singled out, themay well be understood to be general. Pulled out of their context, the themeof the narratives are: the intention of killing a foe in a nocturnal raid, theheroic suicide on the battleeld, and the heros state of mind that is related tmadness as a form of tragic heroism. Te interpretation of the hero in sacri-cial terms as in 1 Sam 10:17-27 and in 14:41-42 when Saul and his son areaffected by the lot, may be accidental. Besides the themes and motifs, thbriefness of the episodes in 1 Samuel and their arrangement as scenes consiing predominantly of dialogues does not necessarily indicate any relation tthe form of anthologies of post-classical drama. aken by themselves, all thepossible points of contact seem to be either too general or too unspecic to

69) Galling, Goliath (see note 67), p. 159.70) Galling, Goliath (see note 67), pp. 161, 163.71) See among others O. Keel,Wirkmchtige Siegeszeichen im Alten estament: IkonographiscStudien zu Jos 8, 18-26; Ex 17, 8-13; 2 Kn 13, 14-19 und 1 Kn 22, 11 (Fribourg/CH, 1974).72) See among others Galling, Goliath (see note 67), p. 167.73) See in 1 Sam 18:8-9,15.74) Especially when Saul throws the spear at him in 1 Sam 18:8-9; 19:9-10. Tis theme is ofrelevance for the narratives that report Davids ight, which extend in the current narrative frothe pursuit at the court to Davids nal escape to Achish, 1 Sam 19:1-27:4.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

29/33


prove a cultural contact. Te authors of the books of Samuel may have had

Greek tragedy in mind when they described Sauls destiny, but one may alsargue that the idea of the tragic hero was developed independently in the socety and religion of Judah. However, the overlap of Hebrew narratives witgenuine Greek thoughts as they can be grasped in their post-classical form ilate Persian and Hellenistic times, gives the impression that they are more thapurely random points of contact. Te sum of the evidence adduced in the nar-ratives points to an inuence. Four main themes indicate Greek inuence in

Hellenistic times or are in close dialogue with Greek culture: rst, the motif othe vow;75 second, the casting of lots as a means of divination; third, careabout the dead that presupposes a general solidarity of the living with thdead;76 and fourth, Sauls suicide as a form of untimely death.77 Within thebiblical cultural framework, all of these narratives are related to the Judeaconception of Yahweh and his superior position that is opposed to the Greekpantheon and its form of involvement in human affairs. Noticeably, in thenon-deuteronomistic parts of the narratives, Saul as a tragic gure becomeinvoluntarily guilty, and, this is opposed to descriptions and judgements othe proper deuteronomistic literary layers and to the Chroniclers version anhis comments.78

75) See e.g. 1 Sam 14:24 and for an overview A. Wendel,Das israelitisch-jdische Gelbde (Berlin,1931), and idem,Das freie Laiengebet im vorexilischen Israel (Leipzig, 1931); and see H. D.Preuss, Gelbde II Altes estament inTeologische Realenzyklopdie , vol. 12 (Berlin, 1984),pp. 302-304; . W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, JSO .S 147 (Sheffi eld, 1992), pp. 11-35, 137-199; H. ita,Gelbde als Bekenntnis. Eine Studie zu denGelbden im Alten estament (OBO 181; Gttingen/Fribourg, 2001), pp. 48-232, and C. A.Keller, ndr geloben,HA 2 (Mnchen, 1976), pp. 39-43, O. Kaiser, ndr,WA 5 (Stutt-gart, 1986), pp. 261-274.76) Te episode of Rizpah 2 Sam 21:1-14 focuses on this issue. Presumably, it is informed by th

plot of Sophocles Antigone .77) On suicide in tragedies and the importance of the motivation for the authors value judgement, see E. P. Garrison, Attitudes toward Suicide in Ancient Greece,APhA 121 (1991),pp. 1-34 , esp. pp. 20-33, and on suicide in despair and out of necessity, see also A. J. L. vaHooff,From Autothanasia to Suicide. Self-killing in Classical Antiquity (London/New York, 1990),pp. 85-96. Sauls suicide adds to his character as a tragic hero, however the wish to die a honoable death does not depreciate him.78) Whether a pro-Davidic account in the books of Samuel in a hypothetical earlier, pre-Hellenistic form offered the possibility of interpreting the rst Israelite kings destiny in termof tragedy, or whether the character of the tragic Saul was newly created, is beyond the scope this article.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

30/33


4. Qohelets Considerations about Kings

Further important arguments to corroborate the Greek inuence on the for-mation of the character of Saul in Judean historiography are extant in biblicaparallels for the formation of his character. Te perception of Sauls tragicdestiny in late Persian or Hellenistic times is not limited to the books of Samuel. It likewise appears in Israelite wisdom, more specically in Qoheletreections on royal roles. At the beginning of this book, in the rst sectio1:3-4:1279 Qohelet considers knowledge in a specic, namely a royal, framework in his reections of king Qohelet80 or the royal travesty in 1:12-2:26.In this section, Qohelet identies himself with Solomon and reects in retrospect on the Judean and Israelite royal history and on his predecessors on ththrone, i.e. on the kings Saul and David. In this section Qohelet uses the termkl andskl several times. While dressing up as a king, he describes two oppositkings, and his account clearly relates to Saul and David. With the two homonymous roots Qohelet points out a contrast in the execution of royal duties

His efforts as a king read like a reection about the Judean and Israelite kingship, as Qohelet indicates in the opening of this passage (1:12-13):

(12) Qohelet, I, became king over Israel in Jerusalem.(13) Ten I intended to research and nd out by wisdom all that was done underheaven.Tis is a bad business, God has left it to people to be busy with it. . . .(16) I thought: look, now I am greater and wiser than anyone who was (ruler)over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has seen much wisdom and knowledge(17) So I intended to understand what wisdom is and to understand what blind-ness(hllt) is and folly(sklt).81

As shown above, such a form of folly is related to the formation of the tragcharacter of Saul, who acted foolishly (1 Sam 13:13a; 26:21).82 Te close con-nection between Qohelets views and the narratives about Saul and David i

79) On the different divisions suggested for this rst part of Qohelet, see . Krger,Qoheleth. A Commentary (Hermeneia; transl. O. C. Deal; Minneapolis, 2004=idem,Kohelet (Prediger) [BK19; Neukirchen, 2000], p. 45 note 1.80) It is framed by the question of gain(ytrn) in view of the totality of human toil( ml) ingeneral (1:3) and in question of the special effort in ones activity (3:9). While 1:3-11 formspoetically stylised prelude, the section of 3:1-8 is a poem on human activity on the horizon ochanging times, see Krger,Qoheleth (see note 79), p. 45.81) Te text spells incorrectly klwt .82) See above in part I onskl in 1 Sam 26:21b.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

31/33


given in the fact that Qohelet dresses up as the king of Jerusalem and put

himself in Solomons place in this royal travesty in Qoh 1:12-2:26. Qoheletperception of his two predecessors indicates that in Hellenistic times, Saul win fact understood in a way comparable to a tragic hero in Greek drama, whunintentionally, not voluntarily, incurred guilt.83 I suggest that the balancebetween his wrong decisions that cause guilt and the fact that he was not awaof committing a guilty act is a typical mode of description of the tragic heroTis image corresponds to characters of a popular form in post-classical Gree

drama as it was present in 4th century and in later Hellenistic Levantineculture: Qohelet in King Solomons role reconsiders the fate of his two predcessors and he is an example for the perception of Saul as a tragic hero in Helenistic Judaism.

Furthermore, it is apparent in Qohelets considerations to what extent Saulcharacter as a tragic hero in late Persian or Hellenistic times is intertwinewith the opposite gure, David. Te character of both heroes is evident ona larger literary scale when it comes to the process of making decisions anwhen it comes to the consequences that emerge from these decisions. WhilDavid is said to be successful, Saul is a tragic hero, unwittingly and uncosciously making wrong decisions. Te word pair kland skl describes the des-tiny of both heroes and is illustrated by corresponding narratives, e.g. Samueand Sauls encounter at Gilgal (1 Sam 13:7b-13a),84 in which Saul is accusedof having acted foolishly (13a), as opposed to the smart David described i1 Sam 18 (including partly in additions to M ), as having a successful royaperformance.85 Davids perfect heroism clearly has implications for the literarygrowth in which Saul as the opposite gure is set apart from him. Troughoutthe Saul-David-narratives, the formation of the tragic character of Saul is shapeby David, who features as his opposite character. Tis is the case as denedby their actions and, in the development of the literary tradition, it likewise iobvious in their difference in physical size. Especially in the narratives aboDavid as a young man this feature of the two gures corresponds to the difference in size between Judah and Israel.86 David is described as a small (stillyoung) man (1 Sam 16:11-12) with beautiful eyes,87 whereas Saul is large

83) See on this more detailed Adam, Saul as a ragic Hero (see note 10).84) Tis part of the narrative is not dtr; while V 13b-14 are dtr.85) See the ve instances ofkl in 1 Sam 18: ( o be smart, wise, successful) 1 Sam 18:5a M ykl ; 1 Sam 18:14mkl , LXX: . . . ; 1 Sam 18:15mkl md , LXX: ;1 Sam 18:30kl (qal hapaxlegomenon) M ; 1 Sam 18:5,30 M ; 18:14,15 M /LXX.86) Here the characters descriptions are of an allegoric nature.87) 16:12: LXX

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

32/33


(1 Sam 10:23), a contrast that is presupposed by 1 Sam 17:1-18:5. Looking a

the literary growth of narratives about Saul and David, it is noticeable that thdichotomy between the two heroes is inspired by the gure of David, whilSaul serves mainly as an anti-gure that is described in contrast to the Judeaking.88 Te contrast between the two gures is closely related to Judean iden-tity in an Israelite-Judean history, and it was still inuential long after Israehad ceased to exist, developing then an anti-Samaritan touch.89 Within thebooks of Samuel, a prophetic, pro-Judean view on history is perceptible, wit

Samuel serving as an ideal royal gure from the point of view of writers in thtradition of the Judean prophets.90 Te narratives about Saul as a tragic herohave a critical attitude towards the foreign divinatory means used in Persiaand Hellenistic times, as it is apparent in 1 Sam 10:17-27 and 1 Sam 28:3-25.91 Te Greek inuences also indicate this date of origin of the narrativesportraying Saul as a tragic hero, which clearly is in conict with an allegeearly language of the rst book of Samuel.92 Tis is not the place to deal with

Hebrew:wh dmwnym-yphnym wt b r y. Te description of a person with beautiful eyes hasclose parallels in Greek poetry. See also twice in the Song of Songs 1:15; 4:1. With the oppositerm, the evil eye, many Greek traditions link the notion that harm or damage may be causeby a glance, which is found unequivocally at many points. See R. P. H. Greeneld, Evil Eyein: Nigel Wilson (ed.),Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece (New York, 2006), pp. 284-285. Forthe beautiful face, , see Anakreon, Fragment 1, line 3, in D. L. Page,Poetae Melici Graeci, Alcmanis tesichori ibyci Anacreontis Simonidis Corinnae, Peotarum Minorumreliquias, Camina Popularia et Convivialia quaeque adespota feruntur (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962),p. 172; see also G. Davenport,7 Greeks. Archilochos, Sappho, Alman, Anakreon, HerakleitoDogenes, Herondas (New York, 1995;11976), p. 136.88) Tis is evident in the prophetic narratives of 1 Samuel, e.g., in the episodes 1 Sam 19:18-2416:1-13 and 10:17-27; the character of Saul is composed as an anti-gure to David.89) Israel could then be used as a metaphor for Samaria. Te identication of Samaria with for-eign, namely Greek inuence, is comprehensible on the basis of its apparent cultural effect in tndings fromWadi Daliyeh. See especially the style of the sealings in M. J. W. Leith,Wadi Dali- yeh I. Te Wadi Daliyeh Seal Impressions (DJD XXIV; Oxford, 1997). Anti-Samaritan polemics

likewise form the background of Zech 11:14, Sir 50:25-26. Likewise, polemics against Samatans can be found in notes on certain sites, e.g. in Lus (H irbet Lze 1756.1786), according to Judg 1:26 a new foundation on the Garizim, see E. Gass,Die Ortsnamen des Richterbuchs inhistorischer und redaktioneller Perspektive (ABDPV 35; Wiesbaden, 2005), p. 82.90) See for instance Samuel as the decisive gure in 1 Sam 12*.91) See on the latter K.-P. Adam, 1 Sam 28: A Comment on Sauls Destiny from a Late Prophetic Point of View, inRevue Biblique (forthcoming).92) See e. g. the assumptions of McCarter,I Samuel (see note 45), p. 22, dating the History ofDavids Rise to the 8th century; see also W. Dietrich,Die frhe Knigszeit in Israel. 10. Jahrhun-dert v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopdie 3; Stuttgart, 1997), pp. 230, 267 dating the history ofIsrael and Judah partly to the 8th/7th century with core units dating from the 10th century.

8/11/2019 Adam 1 Sam 26 2

Adam 1 Sam 26 2009

Documents