The Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul in 1 Chronicles X Author(s): Saul Zalewski Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol.

39, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 449-467 Published by: BRILL Stable 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 at http://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 support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

Vetus TestamentumXXXIX,

4 (1989)

THE PURPOSE OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH OF SAUL IN 1 CHRONICLES X

by

SAUL ZALEWSKI
Jerusalem

In view of the fact that the Chronicler omitted all the chapters of Samuel that deal with King Saul, we must ask: why did he choose to retain the story of the death of Saul in his work? This question has received several answers in biblical commentary and scholarship. The author of a commentary ascribed to Rashi wrote: "It tells of Saul only about his fall, but when it comes to tell of the deeds of David, it does not speak disrespectfully, but rather of his heroism and his greatness, since it is his book and the book of the kings of Judah" (commentary on x 1). In M. H. Segal's opinion, "The chapter as a whole was inserted here only by virtue of its conclusion: 'and turned the kingdom unto David the son ofJesse' (v. 14). Thus it serves as a kind of introduction to the history of the kingship of David." J. W. Rothstein and J. Hanel point out that, against the background of the story of the dath of Saul, what stands out is the contrast between the figure of Saul and the figure of David, and the superiority of the latter over the former as the superiority of light over darkness.2 In T. Willi's opinion, the chief reason for bringing in the story of the death of Saul is implicit in the prophecy of Nathan in 1 Chr. xvii 13 in which the Lord promises David the kingship as a permanent possession, in contrast to the kingship of
1 Mebo Hammiqra' (Hebrew) 3 (Jerusalem, 1947), p. 783. See also earlier commentators: E. Bertheau, Die Bucherder Chronik(Leipzig, 1854), E. tr. in Commentary on the Books of Kings by K. F. Keil ... Supplementedby Commentaryon the Books of Chroniclesby E. Bertheau2 (Edinburgh, 1857); W. A. L. Elmslie, "The First and Second Books of Chronicles", in G. A. Buttrick et al. (ed.), The Interpreter's Bible 3 (New York and Nashville, 1954), p. 382 2 Das erste Buch der Chronik (Leipzig, 1927), p. 199. See also G. von Rad, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronicleschen Werkes (Stuttgart, 1930). p. 79; W. Rudolph, Chronikbicher(Tiibingen, 1955), p. 96.

450

SAUL ZALEWSKI

Saul.3 Sara Japhet holds the view that "from the literary point of view, the sudden introduction of the story in 1 Chr. x does not grant the narrative any more continuity than it would receive by beginning with 1 Chr. xi. The presence of the chapter can be explained only by a desire to describe the Kingdom of David as a continuation. Beginning the story at the enthronement of David would have left it without any 'past'. By means of a correlation with the Kingdom of Saul, however, a continuum is created, and this is the purpose of the chapter."4 The common point of all these opinions is that the inclusion of 1 Sam. xxxi in the composition of Chronicles did not occur by accident but was clearly intended, in order to suit the purposes of the Chronicler. However, none of the explanations presented here supplies a complete answer to the question why the story of the death of Saul had to be repeated in its entirety. The Chronicler could have begun his story with 1 Chr. xi, and, even in that case, we could have used most of the explanations presented above. In this context, it is proper to focus on R. Mosis's study. His discussion of 1 Chr. x is the broadest and most detailed that has been written up till now. It breaks new ground in understanding this story. In Mosis's opinion, as opposed to the prevalent one, the story of the death of Saul stands in isolation as a chapter in its own right and does not constitute a link connecting what comes before it with what comes after it.5 In contrast to the parallel story in 1 Sam. xxxi, which is historical, 1 Chr. x is not historical at all. The elimination of the historical character of 1 Chr. x enables Mosis to be insulated from the real events narrated in 1 Sam. xxxi, and thus to present the world view of the Chronicler. The story of the death of Saul in Chronicles serves, in his opinion, as a paradigm for describing the times of troubles and distress in the history of Israel as they are reflected in the various chapters of the books of Chronicles. Saul is not seen only as a contrast to David, as several scholars have suggested, but he serves as a negative example of those kings who did evil in the eyes of the Lord (pp. 21 ff., 29, 32, 41 ff.).
Die Chronikals Auslegung (Gottingen, 1972), p. 169. The Ideology of the Book of Chroniclesand Its Place in Biblical Thought (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1977), p. 344. 5 Untersuchungenzur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes(Freiburg im Breisgau, 1973), p. 41.
3 4

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

451

This is the issue here: to what extent does Mosis's exegesis bring us close to understanding the purpose of the Chronicler? 1 Chr. x 13-14 serve Mosis as a strong support for his claim as to the central place which the story of the death of Saul occupies in Chronicles.6 Mosis devotes a detailed discussion to clarifying the meaning of expressions found in these verses. He rejects the prevalent scholarly opinion which sees in these expressions references to Saul's sins as described in the books of Samuel. In Mosis's view, the word "transgression" (macal) is a key word in Chronicles. It represents a lack of loyality to the Lord. The results of transgressing against the Lord are: the defeat of Israel on the battlefield, the destruction of the Land, and the banishment of the people at the hands of the enemy. This is how, in Mosis's opinion, the root mClmust be explained in 1 Chr. x 13 as well. Mosis draws attention to the fact that words with the root m'l in three places in Chronicles. These are: appear infigura etymologica the story of the death of Saul (1 Chr. x 13), the description of the evil deeds of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxviii 19), and the description of the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Chr. xxxvi 14). Mosis finds a special resemblance between Saul and Ahaz. Whereas Hezekiah is conceived of as a second David, Ahaz his father is conceived of as a second Saul. The disasters which came down upon the state in the time of Ahaz are narrated in 2 Chr. xxviii. The king of Aram (v. 5) and the Edomites (v. 17) had taken captives from Judah while the Philistines had invaded the cities of Judah, had taken many cities, and had settled in them (v. 18). This description of the deeds of the Philistines in the time of Ahaz reminds us especially of the situation 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 situations in the history of Israel in which the sins of Israel and its kings caused the destruction of the Land and the exile of the people to Babylon (pp. 31-3). It appears to me that an examination of the texts confirms neither Mosis's explanation nor his conclusion. Reading the story of Saul and the story of Ahaz together brings out essential differences between them. The use of the root mClin regard to Ahaz is linked with 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 judgement in regard to evaluating the verses of 1 Chr. x 1-12.

452

SAUL ZALEWSKI

of the Lord (2 Chr. xxviii 19, 22 ff., xxix 6 ff.). However, in regard to Saul, the sin is not specified. Rather, the text makes do with the general statement: "for his transgression which he committed against the Lord". In contrast to Mosis's opinion, I believe that the prevailing opinion of the commentators and scholars is correct, in that the root ml in 1 Chr. x 13 must be interpreted against the background of Saul's sins as described in Samuel (see below). The comparison of Ahaz with Saul does not hold for other reasons as well. We must consider the formula used to introduce the kingship of Ahaz. Here we read: "For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and made also molten images for Baalim" (2 Chr. xxviii 2). The Chronicler, who copied the introductory formula from the parallel story in 2 Kgs xvi 3, added the clause "and made also molten images for Baalim". It is clear then that the condemnation of the deeds of Ahaz is for his walking in the ways of the kings of Israel, and not for walking in the ways of Saul. Further, the statement "and made also molten images for Baalim" makes this quite clear. Moreover, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xxi 6; 2 Kgs viii 18) and Ahaziah son of Jehoram, king ofJudah (2 Chr. xxii 3; 2 Kgs viii 27), were accused of walking in the ways of the kings of Israel and in the way of the House of Ahab. For this reason, Saul should not be seen as a prototype for the sinful kings, nor should Ahaz be seen as a second Saul. We ought also to consider the fact that Saul's name is mentioned for the last time in 1 Chr. xxvi 28, that is, in the chapter that describes the period of David. After the period of David, his name is not explicitly mentioned.7 This fact serves to support the argument that Saul does not serve as a negative example for the sinful kings who came after him. The next statement that Mosis interprets is: "Against the word of the Lord which he kept not" (1 Chr. x 13). He rejects the prevalent explanation which holds that this statement related to Saul's sin in 1 Sam. xiii or 1 Sam. xv, using the argument that the statement is too general-as are the two other statements "committed against the Lord" and "And inquired not of the Lord". Therefore, the statement is not to be connected to the sins of Saul as men7 But in Solomon's speech upon dedicating the Temple (2 Chr. vi 4-6) there is an allusion to Saul.

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

453

tioned in the books of Samuel. In Mosis's view, if the Chronicler had had in mind specific sins mentioned in Samuel, he would have detailed them as was done in the Aramaic Targum for 1 Chr. x 13, which mentions Saul's transgressing in failing to destroy the Amalekites and in killing the priests of Nob. Mosis indicates the link between the expression "kept the word of the Lord" in the chapter under discussion and the like phrases in Deuteronomy and Ps. cxix, which depends on Deuteronomy. It emerges from these sources that the fate of the nation depends on keeping the Lord's word. As a reward for its loyalty to the Lord, the nation merits a good life and settlement in the Land. Conversely, disloyalty to the Lord will cause the conquest of the Land by the enemy, as for example, the seizure of fortress cities by Shishak in the time of Rehoboam (2 Chr. xii 4). The expression "kept the word of the Lord" appears once again in this biblical book (2 Chr. xxxiv 21) where Josiah commands his officials: "Go, inquire of the Lord for me, and them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord..." Mosis comments that "them that are left... in Judah" refers to the Babylonian Exile, since the expression under discussion also appears 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 describing the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar at the end of Chronicles, the Chronicler lists, among other reaons for the destruction of the Land, the humiliating and mocking attitude of Israel and its kings towards the Lord's messengers and toward his words (2 Chr. xxxvi 16) (cf. Mosis, pp. 33-9). Mosis claims that, if the Chronicler had been referring to specific sins mentioned in the books of Samuel, he would have mentioned them explicitly. But this is not a convincing argument. That is because it would be just as easy to argue that the Chronicler is using these general statements to refer to Saul's sins mentioned in Samuel, relying on the intelligent reader to infer the particular from the general. On the other hand, if the Chronicler had been referring to sins of Saul that are not mentioned in the books of Samuel, it would have been best for him to list them in detail, so that we should not be misled.

454

SAUL ZALEWSKI

The presence of the term "kept the word of the Lord" in only two places in Chronicles (1 Chr. x 13 and 2 Chr. xxiv 21) does not warrant Mosis's attempt to match one case with the other, since close scrutiny brings to light concrete differences between them. Whereas the destruction of the Land is explained in the prophecy of 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. The flight of "all the men of Israel that were in the valley" and the fall of the slain on Mount Gilboa are not explained by the sin of idol worship nor by any other sin of the people, and the dangers of destruction and exile do not loom over its head. The emphasis in this story is on the sin of Saul for which he is punished and for which the Lord transfers the kingship to David the son of Jesse. It appears preferable to explain the story in context and against the background of Saul's sins as delineated in Samuel, rather than introducing into it opinions which fit another period and other circumstances, thereby confusing our understanding of the general spirit 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, to inquire 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 inquiring of a ghost is the key to understanding the general propositions around it. Mosis thinks that the general propositions are what determine the meaning of the specific sin and not the other way around. In his view, the expression "And inquired not of the Lord" does not correspond to the story of Saul's inquiring in 1 Sam. xxviii, since it is explicitly stated there that before Saul went to inquire of the spirit, he inquired of the Lord, but received no response from him (1 Sam. xxviii 6; cf. v. 15). Moreover, he indicates that the Chronicler was not dependent on 1 Sam. xxviii, since the text "And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not" (1 Sam. xxviii 6) stands in contradiction to the fundamental conception of the Chronicler which asserts that 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 "And inquired not of the Lord" is not restricted to the concrete event before the fighting with the Philistines-that is, his inquiring of the ghost instead of inquiring of the Lord. Rather, Mosis believes,

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

455

Saul's inquiring of the spirit constitutes a sign identifying his basic character, since he did not inquire of the Lord, not before the fighting with the Philistines, nor on other occasions. Mosis raises difficulties and expresses surprise in regard to the opinion which restricts the statement "and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit" to the specific sin outlined in the books of Samuel. Despite all this, there is no justification for his exegesis which broadens the meaning of this expression, nor for his refusal to see 1 Sam. xxviii as the exclusive source to which the statement refers. It appears, on the basis of close scrutiny of the literary structure of the two parallel stories, that it is possible to reach a conclusion as to the dependence of the statement "and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit" on 1 Sam. xxviii. As we know, the direct continuation of the story of the medium in 1 Sam. xxviii is the story of the death of Saul on Mount Gilboa 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 the story of Saul's going to the medium in 1 Sam. xxviii and the story of the death of Saul in 1 Sam. xxi is like the link-though in the the story of the death of Saul in opposite order-between Chronicles (x 1-12) and the statement "asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it", which has been added (1 Chr. x 13-14). In this light, we may assume that the phrase concerning the ghost in Chronicles refers to the story of Saul's going to the conjuror in 1 Sam. xxviii (see the Appendix at the end of the present article). Among the various opinions, Rudolph's appears to represent the plain meaning of the Bible.8 He believes that the statement "and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it; And inquired not of the Lord" stands in apparent contradiction to 1 Sam. xxviii 6 ("And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not..."). God's abandonment of Saul (1 Sam. xxviii 15) is in itself punishment for the hardening of Saul's heart referred to earlier (he apparently had in mind 1 Sam. x 8, xiii 13, xv). In conclusion, Rudolph says: "The author of the story of the medium in 1 Sam. xxviii certainly would not oppose the phrasing of the Chronicler."

8 P. 97. Mosis, p. 41, n. 72, does not accept Rudolph's opinion.

456

SAUL ZALEWSKI

To sum up: the Chronicler's negative evaluation of Saul which appears in his addendum (vv. 13-14) is properly understood against the background of Saul's sins in the books of Samuel. Mosis's attempt to attach the significance of a paradigm to this chapter and to find allusions in it to the Exile and the Destruction is unsatisfactory and distorts the chapter's intent and purpose.9 In order to comprehend the sense of the story of the death of Saul in 1 Chr. x, it is proper to examine two matters which are inseparably connected: (1) the meaning of the addendum (vv. 1314), and (2) the motif of the death and the purpose of this motif. A careful examination of these items should lead us to the conclusion that the Chronicler followed 1 Sam. xxxi in the composition of Chronicles, since he attached great importance to it because of the 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 fighting his nation's wars and as dying a hero's death. Nowhere in the story do we find any hint whatsoever supporting the notion that Saul's death was considered as a punishment by the Lord for sins against him. In contrast to this, the Chronicler conceives of Saul's disaster on Mount Gilboa as a punishment for his sins. This emerges from his addendum (vv. 13-14).10 It is true that we do not find in 1 Sam. xxxi any explanation of the 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 the story of the medium in 1 Sam. xxviii, which serves as an introduction to the battle of Gilboa. In this story the Prophet Samuel accuses Saul of disobeying the Lord and foretells his downfall on Mount Gilboa (1 Sam. xxviii 17-19).11 It turns out then that Saul's downfall 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 of P. R. Ackroyd, "The Chronicler as Exegete", JSOT 2 (1977), pp. 4-9. Mosis's work 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 addition. See, for example, Hertzberg, p. 175; E. tr., p. 220.

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

457

in the prophetic source in 1 Sam. xxviii. It is reasonable to assume that the Chronicler, who refers to the story of the conjuror (1 Chr.x 13,: "and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it"), was also referring in this story to the prophetic source. Most commentators and scholars are of the opinion that the general statements concerning Saul's sins in the addendum (1 Chr. x 13-14) refer to the sins detailed in Samuel. However, they are divided as to how these general statements in Chronicles relate to the various texts which describe Saul's sins in Samuel. Likewise, there is no agreement between them on the question of the quantity of sins linked to Saul in the verses of the addendum. Some believe that the statement "against the word of the Lord which he kept not" refers to his sin in regard to the destruction of Amalek (Japhet, p. 343, n. 30). Others think that this statement refers to the 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 sins together: performing the sacrifice and violating the Lord's commandment to destroy Amalek.12 Those who assume that the statement "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, to inquire of it", which refers to 1 Sam. xxviii.13 However, there are those who think that the matter of the transgression (ma'al) refers to failure to destroy Amalek in 1 Sam. xv, that the statement about not keeping the Lord's word is related to 1 Sam. xiii 13-15, and that inquiring of the ghost refers to 1 Sam. xxviii. Thus this group of scholars counts three sins as causing the death of Saul.14
12 Bertheau, p. 121, E. tr., p. 201; C. F. Keil, Biblischer Commentariiber die nachexilischen Geschichtsbiicher: 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, that Saul's three sins are: (1) not keeping the Lord's word, (2) inquiring of the ghost, and (3) not inquiring of the Lord: The Consitution of the Monarchy in 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 place it is indicated that Saul was punished for only one sin, which was violating the Lord's command in the war with Amalek (Yoma 22b).

458

SAUL ZALEWSKI

Further, though it may be beyond our capacity to maintain total precision in correlating the general statements in the addendum (1 Chr. x 13-14) with the prophetic sources in the books of Samuel, these sources have a fundamental importance for understanding the purpose of the Chronicler in reproducing the story of the death of Saul (1 Sam. xxxi) in his own work. This is because, though overtly these sources deal only with Saul's sins, they also hint at the transfer of the kingship to David. In 1 Sam. xiii 13-15 we read: "And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." These verses imply that Saul's kingship was intended to exist for ever, but because of his disobedience to the Lord, the line of Saul was totally deprived of its right to inherit the kingship, and this right will be transferred, when the right time comes, to the "man after his own heart" who will be appointed ruler. It turns out that the man alluded to in these verses is none other than David son of Jesse.15 The second prophecy of Samuel in which there is a link between, on the one hand, the removal of the kingship from Saul as a punishment for his sin and, on the other, an allusion to its being transferred 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 the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being king over Israel... And Samuel said unto him, The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour 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, The Book of Samuel, I Samuel (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1981), p. 118, and others. The prophecy of Nathan serves as reinforcement for this interpretation (2 Sam. vii 15-16). Here the Lord promises David an eternal kingdom in contrast to the kingdom of Saul: "But my mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul...And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever..." These verses reminds us of Samuel's words to Saul: "...for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel 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 from Samuel's words to Saul in the story of Saul's inquiring of the ghost. The prophet

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

459

The third prophecy of Samuel in which we find a link between the transfer of Saul's kingship to David and punishment for sin appears 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 Lord hath rent the kingdom out of thine hand, and given it to thy neighbour, even to David: Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord, nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore hath the Lord done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with thee into the hand of the Philistines: 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, whereas the motifs of rending away the kingdom and transferring it to David in 1 Sam. xxviii 17 depend on 1 Sam. xv 28, the justification for 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 the clear connection with 1 Sam. xxxi. This is expressed both in the timing of the execution of the punishment and in the indication that Saul 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 line will be finally decided in the battle of Gilboa, and that, on the other, the kingship will pass to David. In other words, the link between 1 Sam. xxviii and xxxi is the link between a prophecy of calamity and its fulfilment.17 It is reasonable to assume that the link between the addendum (1 Chr. x 13-14), by means of the phrase "and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit" (v. 13), and 1 Sam. xxviii is not restricted to only that part of the story in which Saul's going to the medium is narrated. Rather, it also takes in Samuel's prophetic response. This emerges from a comparative study which turns up three points in common between them: Saul's sin, his death, and the 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 to David: "and given it to thy neighbour, even to David" (1 Sam. xxviii 17). Thus also Segal (n. 15), p. 125; Keel (n. 15), p. 151, and others. Cf. also the juxtaposition 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.

460

SAUL ZALEWSKI

17-19).18 Thus it turns out that the Chronicler too, who is influenced by Samuel's prophecy in 1 Sam. xxviii, sees the story of the death 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 the anointing of David as king over Israel by the representatives of the people. This story is a direct continuation of our chapter (1 Chr. xi 1-3). The story of the anointing concludes with the words "and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the Lord by Samuel" (xi 3).19 Some commentators rightly see in the reference 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 his kingship, on one hand, and the appointment of David in his place, on the other.20 Thus, with the anointing of David as king over Israel after the death of Saul, Samuel's prophecy was completely fultfilled.21 According to what was said above, we may conclude that the story of the death of Saul was transferred from Samuel to the books of Chronicles because of the prophetic basis contained within it. This story serves as evidence for the partial fulfilment of the Lord's word conveyed through Samuel. Likewise, the allusions in the interpretative addendum (1 Chr. x 13-14) to the prophetic sources in Samuel which treat the rejection of Saul from the kingship, and the references to its transfer to David, can in a sense grant extra prophetic force to the legitimization of David's kingship. 2. The death motif and its meaning Examination of the story of the death of Saul in 1 Chr. x compared with the parallel story in 1 Sam. xxxi reveals that the descrip18 It is proper to indicate that in the LXX translation of 1 Chr. x 13, the statement "and the prophet Samuel answered him" is added after the words "to cauiTx a0otou7X6 rpoq~vrrS). It is reasonable inquire of it" (xal a7r&xptvaTo to assume that this statement alludes to 1 Sam. xxviii 17-19 and sees the story of the 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 2 Chronicles(Grand Rapids and London, 1982), p. 97. 21 The same applies to 1 Chr. xii 24, "And these are the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the Lord." This transfer is also cited in 1 Chr. x 14 ("and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse"). In both places the same meaning is expressed. Also cf. 1 Chr. xi 10.

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

461

tion in Chronicles places much greater emphasis on the motif of the death of Saul and his sons than does the parallel story in Samuel. The root mwt (death) appears for the first time in connection with the act of suicide of Saul's armour-bearer 1 Chr. x 5 1 Sam. xxxi 5 his And when armour-bearer And when his armour-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise on the sword and died. likewise upon his sword, and died with him. The version of Chronicles in the LXX has: "And he too fell upon his sword". The prevalent opinion among the exegetes is that the original text is in Samuel. The absence of the words "with him" is explained by I. Ben-Shem as follows: "The Chronicler omitted the words 'with him' because they attest the armour-bearer's devotion to Saul." 22 This explanation does not appear likely, since the omission does not vitiate the armour-bearer's loyalty to Saul. This is because the text explicitly indicates that he took his own life as a result of the death of Saul, his master. It is more reasonable to assume on the basis of the omission of the words "with him" that the Chronicler intended to separate them, and thereby to emphasize Saul's death, which is the main theme of the chapter. It appears that the explanation is reinforced by the LXX of 1 Chr. x 5 which lacks the words "and died".23 This explanation is also implicit in the following comparison: 1 Chr. x 6 1 Sam. xxxi 6 So Saul died, and his three sons, So Saul died, and his three sons, and all his house died together. and his armour-bearer, and all his men that same day together. Comparing the two texts brings forth two chief distinctions: (1) the addition 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-

Mehqarim bammiqra' (Tel-Aviv, 1975), p. 213. 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" in the LXX is explained by haplography. But I. Benzinger, Die Biicher der Chronik (Tibingen and Leipzig, 1901), p. 40, prefers the LXX of Chronicles. Also see Mosis, p. 22, n. 17.
23

22

462

SAUL ZALEWSKI

sion in Samuel, the parallel version in Chronicles has "and all his house". As to the first item, the addition of "died" at the end of this verse is only for the purpose of emphasizing the subject of death, which was already mentioned at the beginning of the verse. However, the chief distinction is expressed precisely in the second item. By omitting the words "and his armour-bearer, and all his men" from the text and exchanging them for "and all his house", the author focusses attention on Saul and his family alone. It is clear then that what interests the Chronicler is not making an exact description of the historical event. Rather, he concentrated on the subject that served his purpose. The death of Saul and his sons on Mount Gilboa reflects the work of the providential hand which put an end to the line of Saul. It is thus a predictive allusion to the possible rise of David to the royal throne in a legal manner,24 which is implicit in the addendum (vv. 13-14) interpreting the event on Mount Gilboa. The deaths of Saul and his sons are mentioned again in verse 7. 1 Chr. x 7 1 Sam. xxxi 7 And 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 the they fled,25 and that Saul and valley...saw that the men of his sons were dead, then they Israel fled, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook the forsook their cities and fled... cities, and fled... The salient distinction between these two parallel texts lies in the fact that in Samuel the subject of "fled" is "the men of Israel", whereas in Chronicles, because of the absence of the words "men of 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 Saul and his sons. The flight of the sheep is a direct result of the demise of the shepherds. The theme of death appears in our chapter for the last time in the addendum (vv. 13-14). The addendum opens with the words:
The allusion to David's rise to the kingship is also cited by Ben-Shem, p. 214. 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.
25

24

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

463

"So Saul died..." and closes with the words: "And inquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse." The addendum is linked internally to the story of the death of Saul through the theme of death. Further, the addendum grants the events on Mount Gilboa a theological significance. It seems that the words "therefore he slew him" are also directed towards verse 4 which related that Saul fell on his sword after his armour-bearer refused to put him to death. That is to say that taking his own life is explained as an act of the Lord, as a punishment for his sins.27 It is reasonable to assume that the armour-bearer avoided striking Saul, his king, not only because of his loyalty to him, but mainly because of his status as the Lord's anointed.28 It appears to me that the words "therefore he slew him", representing a direct punishment carried out by the Lord, are intended to remove David from being involved in any way in Saul's death. If this is indeed the intention, then it provides an additional explanation of the reason for imitating the story of the death of Saul in the composition of Chronicles. The conception that striking the Lord's anointed is forbidden to men is placed in the foundation of David's outlook. God, who raises kings to power, has the exclusive right to bring them down from their position and grant the kingship to "a man after his own heart". This concept is clearly expressed in the books of Samuel. In 1 Sam. xxiv there is an account of a convenient opportunity that David had to overthrow Saul's throne and eject him from his kingship. But David did not take advantage of it. He was not moved even by the urgings of his men, who saw Saul's destruction as a clear sign of the fulfilment of the Lord's will: "And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the Lord said unto thee, 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 4 is of interest. Here we read: "... Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. Thus Saul died in his iniquity for the Lord said in his holy laws through the lord of the Prophets Moses upon him be peace: For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning." J. Macdonald, The Samaritan ChronicleNo. II (or: SepherHaYamin), BZA W 107 (Berlin, 1969), p. 128. See also thd Hebrew text on p. 50. In other words, the commentator sees Saul's suicide as the Lord's direct punishment for his sins. 28 This is how the Mesudat David interprets the statement: "But his armourbearer would not, for he was sore afraid".

464

SAUL ZALEWSKI

mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee..." (1 Sam. xxiv 4). David's refusal to strike Saul is explained by Saul's status as the Lord's anointed (1 Sam. xxiv 6). Moreover, David also forbids his men to kill Saul (1 Sam. xxiv 7). If David suppresses his inclination and does not want to take the crown by force and bloodshed, as he even informs Saul himself (1 Sam. xxiv 10; "and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord's anointed"), then what is the right way to reach the kingship? In another place, David lists three possible ways he might be rid of Saul, but not one of them is fit for a man's doing, since no man has the right to strike the Lord's anointed: "the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord's anointed" (1 Sam. xxvi 10-11). The third possibility is that described in 1 Sam. xxxi. However, in the parallel story in Chronicles, the Lord's direct action comes with extra emphasis. 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 order to topple his throne is implicit in additional texts related to Saul's last battle on Mount Gilboa. David's presence in the camp of the Philistines, the enemies of the king and the people, before they went out to battle with Saul, can, in a certain way, place a heavy shadow on David's image, making him suspect of having helped the Philistines destroy Saul. Therefore, the tendency of the texts is to show that David was not involved in the battle at all, and in any case, that there is no room for suspecting him of having helped cause 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 battle against Saul, but the Philistine commanders insisted that Achish send David. back to Ziklag so that he would not become an enemy to them during the battle. This was because they believed that David would not betray his king and his nation, but would seek reconciliation with Saul at the price of the severed heads of the Philistines (1 Sam. xxix 4). It is problematic and peculiar that even the Chronicler deals with the matter of David's joining the Philistines in battle against Saul. As we know, the figure of David serves as an exemplary symbol to the Chronicler, and this author omits from his work everything that might cast a blemish on David's personality. In this light, we

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

465

must ask what moved the Chronicler to mention this affair which does not add any great honour to David? My view is that it is not going too far afield to say that in the days of the Chronicler, several generations after the kingdom had ended in Judah, traditions were were especially widespread among the tribe of preserved-which which David's collaboration with and direct aid to the Bejamin-in Philistine enemy were recounted. And this collaboration was blameworthy and deserving of censure because of David's betrayal of his king and his people. If this assumption is reasonable, then it is clear that the Chronicler could not pass over the matter in silence and was obliged to direct the reader towards an evaluation that would cleanse David's name. Thus he says: "And there fell some of Manasseh to David, when he came with the Philistines against Saul to battle; but they helped them not: for the lords of the Philistines upon advisement sent him away, saying, He will fall to his master Saul to the jeopardy of our heads" (1 Chr. xii 20). This description, which aims at presenting David in a positive light, is expressed in two ways: (1) after describing David's action, the Chronicler immediately makes the comment: "but they helped them not". The meaning of the phrase is that David did not give any aid to the enemy, and in any case he did not take part in deciding the outcome of the battle on 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 tool which might benefit them, but rather as a man who might bring disaster down upon them by helping his nation in battle. In any case, David's non-participation in the Philistine army on Mount Gilboa removes all suspicion of his being involved in any way in Saul's death (see 2 Sam. i 1-16). In view of what has been said above, we can now sum up and say that the statement "And inquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse" against the background of the story of the death of Saul is to be explained as representing Saul as being executed directly by the Lord, without any intervention on David's part, and not for any personal reason of David's, nor even as an agent carrying out the Lord's will. It was the Lord himself who put Saul to death and appointed David in his place.

466

SAUL ZALEWSKI

1 Chr. x, which tells of Saul's death at the hands of heaven, lacks any intervention on the part of the heir to the throne. Thus it enables the reader to see David's rise to the kingship as legitimate and ideal in that situation. Consequently, we see that an additional explanation can be found in these words of why the story of the death of Saul was imitated in the composition of the books of Chronicles. APPENDIX: Saul and the sin of inquiring of a ghost

The question may be asked whether the Chronicler himself invented the concept that inquiring of a ghost (on Saul's part), rather than of the Lord, was a sin, or whether the concept represents a condemnation of Saul, an explanation based on 1 Sam. xxviii. The prevalent opinion is that the Chronicler's words stand in contradiction to 1 Sam. xxviii, and that for that reason we have an unjustified accusation here. This opinion is expressed at length in the article of Yairah Amit, "Three Variations on the Death of Saul" (Hebrew), Beth Mikra 30 (1984-5), n. 100, p. 99. She writes: "1 Chr. x 13 is interested, then, in incriminating Saul for his whole career as king, from the battle of Michmash to the inquiring of a ghost before the battle of Gilboa. It is proper to emphasize that, in 1 Sam. xxviii, inquiring of a ghost is not interpreted as a sin, but rather as an expedient due to the lack of an alternative. On the other hand, the Chronicler's description is influenced by the legal literature (Dt. xviii 11; Lev. xix 31, xx 6, 27) and the historiographical literature (2 Kgs xxi 6, xxiii 24) which stress that the use of a ghost is an abomination of the Lord, and another sinner deserving contempt is no less and no more than Manasseh, king of Judah, 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. x teach that the adapter was not satisfied with removing the tragic glory from the death and burial of Saul, but was interested in creating an antagonism toward Saul in the reader's mind, even at the cost of analogy with Manasseh." This analysis appears exaggerated and imprecise. As a matter of fact, it is not clearly stated in 1 Sam. xxviii that inquiring of a ghost is considered as a sin of Saul. Rather, this meaning is inferred by reading between the lines. "And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land" (1 Sam. xxviii 3).

THE PURPOSE

OF THE STORY OF THE DEATH

OF SAUL

467

This means that inquiring of a ghost is interpreted as a religious sin. The medium expresses fear for her life for practising a craft which has been forbidden by order of the king (v. 9). Saul, who is disguised, swears to her in the Lord's name that she will not be punished for this crime (v. 10). When the woman discovers that the man standing before her is none other than Saul himself, she is seized by the fear of death. Y. Kaufmann rightly argues (Mikivshonah shel hayesirahhammiqra'it [Tel-Aviv, 1966], p. 214) "that the narrator too considers the incident of the ghost as a sin calling for the death sentence". Moreover, the claim that the Chronicler compares Saul with Manasseh is not sufficiently supported. The texts on which Amit bases 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 with ghosts and wizards is mentioned, but it is not the only sin and not even the most serious in the list of Manasseh's sins. Besides this, we must remember that the Chronicle found certain merits in Manasseh, in that he repented, turned away from the strange gods, and restored the worship of the Lord in Jerusalem. In contrast to the position of the books of Kings, Manasseh is not accused by the Chronicler of causing the destruction of the Temple. In this light, the analogy with Manasseh does not hold.