The Second Book of Samuel: A Study in Prophetic History

© 2013 by Martin Sicker. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 08/01/2013

ISBN: 978-1-4918-0189-5 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4918-0190-1 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Preface

1 David Mourns Saul (1:1-1:27)

2 David Becomes King of Judah

3 David and Abner

4 The Assassination of Ishbosheth

5 David Becomes King of Israel

6 David Transforms Jerusalem into Israel’s Religious Center

7 David Refused Permission to Build a Temple

8 Summary of David’s Wars

9 David and Mephibosheth

10 The Ammonite War

11 Bathsheba and Uriah

12 Between Nathan and David

13 Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom

14 Between David and Absalom

15 Absalom’s Revolt (1)

16 Absalom’s Revolt (2)

17 Between Ahitophel and Hushai

18 Absalom Defeated

19 The Restoration

20 Sheba’s Rebellion

21 Appendix 1

22 Appendix 2

23 Appendix 3

24 Appendix 4

References

About the Author

Notes

Preface

The subject of this study is the story of David and the anything but smooth transition of Israel from a tribal confederacy to a centralized state, from an ethnic kingdom of the Israelites to a territorial kingdom of Israel, as presented in the Masoretic text of the Second Book of Samuel. The term story rather than history of the transition is employed to describe the subject because the biblical book is a history only in the very special sense of prophetic history, which bears little relationship to history in the modern sense of the term. The distinguishing feature of prophetic history is that it is history written from a prophetic perspective with a particular purpose in mind, namely, to illustrate to later generations of the children of Israel the historical consequences of failure by its political and religious leaders to observe and comply with the terms of the divine covenant entered into between God and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai, following the exodus from Egypt.

Understood in this manner, the story related in the Second Book of Samuel tells of the rise of David to become the king of Judah and subsequently the king of all Israel, and the difficult transition from a tribal confederacy to a centralized territorial state that encompassed a predominantly Israelite population, but also included numerous minority groups. This biblical narrative, as well as the earlier and later narratives in the other biblical works commonly but misleadingly designated as the historical books of the Bible, is based on historical events that were popularly believed to have taken place, but as perceived through a prophetic prism. It is noteworthy in this regard that the so-called historical books of the Bible are referred to in Judaic tradition as the books of the early prophets. Accordingly, the primary focus of these prophetic narratives is on the moral implications of the decisions and actions taken by men rather than the factual historical accuracy of the details of the events described.

The focus in this study is primarily on what the authors and editors of the Hebrew text of the Second Book of Samuel are purporting to teach us in their own special way. It is only peripherally concerned with many of the issues of primary interest to the modern academic studies of biblical texts such as when the text was finalized and by whom, literary analysis of the language employed, comparative analysis of the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, as well as the later biblical book of Chronicles, other ancient literature, and other such topics. All of these issues are of valid intellectual concern, but with some notable exceptions contribute little to understanding what the authors and editors of the Hebrew text are trying to convey to us, which as indicated is the principal concern of this study.

The translation of the Hebrew text employed in this study is with some minor modifications that of the old Jewish Publication Society translation that is itself based on the translation found in the King James Version of the Scriptures. Although there are many modern translations available, I have demurred from using them because every translation is also an interpretation and, unfortunately, some translations take a bit too much liberty with the ancient text. I have found the old JPS version, with all its archaisms and other difficulties, many of which will be discussed in the body of this work, to best reflect the language of the Masoretic Hebrew version, making it easier to analyze and hopefully to comprehend the subtleties of the ancient text.

1

David Mourns Saul

(1:1-1:27)

¹.¹ And it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in Ziklag; ¹.² it came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head; and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and prostrated himself.

It will be recalled that, as a quirk of fate or divine design, David, who was beholden to the king of the Philistines with whom he had taken refuge from Saul’s obsession to have him killed, was excused from participating in their decisive battle with Saul because of the distrust of him by the Philistine generals. Thus as the fateful struggle between the opposing armies took place at Mount Gilboa, David returned with his brigade of Israelites to his base at Ziklag far to the south, the city given to David for his service to Achish the king of Gath. In David’s absence, Ziklag had been raided and plundered by a large band of Amalekites that took all the women and children, including David’s two wives, captive. Trailing the raiders in hot pursuit, David eventually caught up with and annihilated them. By the time he returned to Ziklag from his battle with the Amalekites, the army of Israel had been decisively defeated by the Philistines and both Saul and Jonathan were dead.

Three days later, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head in search of David, his appearance being that of a man in mourning. It has been suggested that these signs of mourning may have been calculated to gain the trust and sympathy of David, since the man who later identifies himself as the son of an Amalekite stranger may have wished, by visibly mourning the calamity that took place on the battlefield, to demonstrate his loyalty to the Israelites despite the past hostility of Israelites and Amalekites.¹

Upon being brought before David, he fell to the earth, and prostrated himself, an act that may be interpreted either as an acknowledgement of David as successor to the throne of Israel or simply as groveling before the noted bandit chief in expectation of a reward for bringing him tidings of the death of Saul, his longtime nemesis. It is noteworthy that the description of the man that appeared before David is virtually identical to that of the soldier that decades earlier brought word to the high priest Eli at Shiloh regarding the Philistine capture of the ark of the covenant, a man with his clothes rent, and with earth upon his head (1 Sam. 4:12). The distinction between the two instances being that the word used for clothes in the latter case was madav, which carries the connotation of referring to ‘his uniform’ or at least to some article of clothing that identified him as a soldier, whereas in the present text the word employed is begadav, which simply means ‘his clothes,’ leaving open the question as to whether he discarded anything that would identify him as an Israelite soldier as he fled the battlefield. Alternatively, it has been suggested that he was not a soldier at all but a scavenger who went to the battlefield to glean anything of value from the fallen soldiers.²

¹.³ And David said unto him: ‘From whence comest thou?’ And he said unto him: ‘Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped.’ ¹.⁴ And David said unto him: ‘How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me.’ And he answered: ‘The people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.’ ¹.⁵ And David said unto the young man that told him: ‘How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?’ ¹.⁶ And the young man that told him said: ‘As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and the horsemen pressed hard upon him. ¹.⁷ And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered: Here am I. ¹.⁸ And he said unto me: Who art thou? And I answered him: I am an Amalekite. ¹.⁹ And he said unto me: Stand, I pray thee, beside me, and slay me, for the agony hath taken hold of me; because my life is just yet in me. ¹.¹⁰ So I stood beside him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen; and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

David’s question, From whence comest thou? was by no means rhetorical. At the time, David was still an ally, albeit a questionable one, of the Philistines and he wanted to know from which side of the opposing forces in the conflict the young disheveled man had come to bring him news. It is noteworthy that the bearer of the tidings is first referred to as an ish or man and now as a naar or young man, raising the question as to whether these texts are drawn from different sources. Against this it has been argued that ish or man is a generic term whereas naar or young man in these texts bears the professional connotation of a young fighting man, a soldier, which is what the young man appeared to be at first sight.³ That the young man identified himself as having escaped from the Israelite camp, suggesting that he was a soldier serving in the Israelite army, surely made David more attentive to his report, as he inquired of him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me. Having narrowly avoided being forced to fight with the Philistines against the Israelites, he was especially anxious to know anything about what took place in the major campaign launched by the Philistines to gain control of the Jezreel Valley, an ambition that Saul and his forces had no choice but to attempt to thwart.

In response to David’s inquiry about the course of the battle with the Philistines, he was told, The people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also. Anxious to know whether the information he was being given was reliable, David inquired further, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead? That is, did he have first-hand knowledge of the fate of Saul and Jonathan, or was he merely reporting a rumor. The young man’s answer was that he knew this because I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa when Saul’s death was at hand. If the young man was a soldier in Saul’s army, as implied by his earlier assertion that he had escaped from Saul’s camp, this response suggests that he stumbled upon the site where Saul lay dying while trying to find a place of safety from the Philistines. Alternatively, if we discount the assertion about escaping from Saul’s camp as being disingenuous, the present statement would declare in effect that he was not a soldier in either the Israelite army or the Philistine army. It would implicitly suggest that he was simply a scavenger scouring the battlefield for booty, for it is extremely unlikely that anyone happened by chance upon mount Gilboa while a major battle was taking place there. Which is the true scenario is a matter of contention that still remains to be resolved definitively.

It is noteworthy that in the young man’s report he made no further mention of Jonathan, leaving David to assume that Jonathan was at his father’s side at the end but had succumbed to his wounds before Saul. That there is no recorded mention of Saul’s other sons, Abinadab and Malchishua, both of whom were also slain, may be attributed to the circumstance that the young Amalekite most likely was unaware of their existence. Saul’s only surviving son and candidate to succeed him was Ishbaal, later known as Ishbosheth, who evidently did not participate in the battle. The change of name took place because ‘baal’ means ‘master’ and its use in the name referred to God his ‘master.’ However, with the spread of Canaanite worship of the god Baal, the Hebrew name had to be changed to avoid misconstruing the name’s intended meaning. There is disagreement over the meaning of ‘bosheth,’ some considering it as a pejorative meaning ‘shame,’ while some considerate as akin to the Akkadian term meaning ‘might’ or ‘power.’⁴

The wording of the Amalekite’s report is notable and surely made a deep impression on David. First and foremost he was told that the people are fled from the battle. That is, there was a disorderly retreat from the battlefield, making it easy for the enemy to break completely through the Israelite defense line with the result that many of the people also are fallen and dead, the Israelites suffering heavy casualties in dead and wounded, and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also, being effectively abandoned by their troops.⁵ What caused the collapse of the Israelite defense line is uncertain but, as suggested below, it may have been a major assault by Philistine archers at the outset of the battle, something for which the Israelites were not prepared, that inflicted a heavy toll of casualties before the fighting at close quarters even began. This was a tactical issue that David would have to deal with in the future.

It also is noteworthy that the account of the death of Saul presented to David, in the words of the one who came to inform him about it, differs substantially from that given by the biblical writer earlier. And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was in great anguish by reason of the archers. Then said Saul to his armor-bearer: ‘Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and make mock of me.’ But his armor-bearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took his sword, and fell upon it. And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell upon his sword, and died with him (1 Sam. 31:3-5). In the present text the imminent danger to Saul was not from the archers that overtook him but from the chariots and horsemen that overtook him, which is very plausible if Saul’s final stand took place in the valley but much less so if Saul died in the mountains where chariots and cavalry would not be very effective. In the earlier narrative the king pleaded with his armor-bearer to run him through with his sword, a request his aide refused causing Saul to fall on his sword, committing suicide. In the present text, Saul apparently tried to kill himself by falling on his spear, which also served as his scepter, but failed to achieve his intent ki ahazani hashavatz, translated as for the agony hath taken hold of me. While there is much disagreement over the precise meaning of shavatz in biblical usage, in modern Hebrew it is understood as referring to a ‘stroke’ and this may be what is intended here. Thus it has been suggested that the reason for his failure at suicide is that the armor he was wearing was reinforced in a manner that made it very difficult to penetrate and that in his condition he did not have the strength to force the spear through.⁶ Accordingly, as he still lingered alive as he bled, Saul made a similar request for assistance from a passing stranger who promptly accommodated Saul by killing him, no mention being made of the king’s armor-bearer as in the earlier account. Finally, in this narrative, the slayer of Saul took the king’s crown and bracelet and brought them to David as evidence of what he related, whereas the earlier narrative made no mention of either article. It has been observed that the Amalekite’s delivery of the crown to David may be understood as symbolizing the subsequent fulfillment of the prophet Samuel’s denunciation of Saul: The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine, that is better than thou (1 Sam. 15:28).⁷ The text is also noteworthy because it is the first mention that Saul wore a crown, and wore it when he went into battle like other kings in the ancient world, thus informing us that he died with the dignity of a king.⁸

One significant element in the present version of Saul’s death is that his slayer self-identifies as an Amalekite, an admission he would not live long enough to regret. Just before his final battle with the Philistines, Saul evoked a vision of the deceased prophet Samuel that informed him that he would not survive the coming battle because thou didst not hearken to the voice of the Lord, and did not execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek (1 Sam. 28:18). The present text thus implicitly suggests that because Saul chose not to kill the king of the Amalekites, he was himself to be slain by an Amalekite. Thus, as Saul lay wounded and saw the young man nearby, there was nothing in his dress or appearance that identified him as an Israelite or a Philistine, and so he asked him Who art thou? The answer, which undoubtedly surprised and perhaps bemused Saul was that the young man was an Amalekite, a man belonging to neither side in the war, who just happened to be wandering around a bloody battlefield. It has been proposed in this regard that Saul appreciated the irony in this and therefore urged that the Amalekite finish him off, because my life is just yet in me. That is, Saul might have come to believe that he had been kept barely alive in order to allow his death at Amalekite hands serve as atonement for the sin of omission for which he was guilty.⁹ Indeed, the very last thing that Saul heard before his death was I am an Amalekite.

In response to David’s inquiry regarding the identity of the man who purportedly happened to be at the site of Saul’s end, the latter did not say he was one of Saul’s men or that he was a non-combatant who happened to come across him but rather that I am an Amalekite, presumably well aware of Saul’s earlier massacre of Amalekites, except for their king whom he took prisoner. Why mention this detail in his report to David? It would seem that he did this to gain favor with David, laboring under the commonplace but mistaken notion that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ and evidently unaware that David himself had just returned from a lethal assault on a band of Amalekites.

It is possible to reconcile both narratives to some extent, but certainly not entirely, as attempted by the ancient historian Josephus in his description of Saul’s death:

As for himself, he fought with great bravery; and when he had received so many wounds that he was not able to bear up, nor to oppose any longer, and yet was not able to kill himself, he bid his armor-bearer to draw his sword and run him through, before the enemy should take him alive. But his armor-bearer not daring to kill his master, he drew his own sword, and placing himself over-against its point, he threw himself upon it; and when he could neither run it through him, nor, by leaning against it, make the sword pass through him, he turned him round, and asked a certain young man that stood by, who he was; and when he understood that he was an Amalekite, he desired him to force the sword through him, because he was not able to do it with his own hands, and thereby to procure him such a death as he desired. This the young man did accordingly; and he took the golden bracelet that was on Saul’s arm, and his royal crown that was on his head, and ran away. And when Saul’s armor-bearer saw that he was slain, he killed himself.¹⁰

It seems reasonable to conclude, however, that the version of events surrounding the death of Saul as presented by the Amalekite is more than likely a fabrication designed to earn David’s favor. The more plausible scenario is that the purported slayer of Saul happened to arrive at the scene of Saul’s suicide after both the king and his armor-bearer were dead but before the enemy overran the location. This would have given the purported slayer the opportunity to take the crown or diadem and bracelet or armlet, regalia worn by the king in battle, and disappear with them, and subsequently concoct what seemed to him a plausible explanation of events to gain David’s favor, which surely was the motive for his making the long trip from Gilboa to Ziklag.¹¹ Suffice it to note in support of disregarding the Amalekite’s version of events that the recapitulation of the story of Saul’s death as recorded in the biblical book of Chronicles (1 Chron. 10) presents a virtually verbatim account identical to that presented in the earlier version preserved in the first book of Samuel, in which Saul killed himself. In any case, David’s reaction to the report surely was not what the Amalekite hoped it would be.

¹.¹¹ Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him. ¹.¹² And they wailed, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword. ¹.¹³ And David said unto the young man that told him: ‘Whence art thou?’ And he answered: ‘I am the son of an Amalekite stranger.’ ¹.¹⁴ And David said unto him: ‘How wast thou not afraid to put forth thy hand to destroy the Lord’s appointed?’ ¹.¹⁵ And David called one of the young men, and said: ‘Go near, and fall upon him.’ And he smote him that he died. ¹.¹⁶ And David said unto him: ‘Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying: I have slain the Lord’s anointed.’

Upon hearing the tidings concerning Saul, Jonathan, and the army of Israel, David and his men went into a state of bereavement, rending their clothes and bewailing the national tragedy that had occurred. David surely was unaware of Samuel’s prophecy that Saul would die and Israel would be defeated in the fateful battle with the Philistines. David probably expected God to be with Saul and his army, and was deeply distressed by the shocking news of what had transpired in the battle for control of the Jezreel Valley. On the positive side of the news, with his nemesis dead David would no longer be a hunted fugitive and would be free to return to the family home in Judah to pursue his ambitions. He could be expected to feel a mixture of grief and relief, even a degree of elation. But such was not the case… Just as he had refused to harm Saul when he had opportunities to do so, David refused to rejoice over his newfound freedom from the late king’s persecution.¹²

Once David regained his composure, he turned his attention to the bearer of those tidings asking him to elaborate further on his identity. In his initial account of the event, Saul asked him: Who art thou? That is, he asked him about his identity, to which he responded I am an Amalekite. David now asks, Whence art thou? That is, given that he was an Amalekite, David wanted to know where he resided, in Israelite or Amalekite territory. His response was: I am the son of an Amalekite stranger, that is, a second-generation Amalekite resident in Israelite territory, implicitly suggesting that his family had long ago decided to cast their lot with the Israelites. It should be noted that the term ger, translated here as stranger, in contrast to later rabbinic usage that employs the term to refer to a proselyte, is understood in biblical usage, at least until the end of the Persian era, to refer to a person residing in a foreign land. The word ger is the technical term for a non-Israelite admitted to a modified civil status with corresponding rights.¹³

After hearing the man’s response which suggested that he was at least somewhat familiar with Israelite culture, David demanded, How wast thou not afraid to put forth thy hand to destroy the Lord’s appointed? The Amalekite had already explained that he simply responded to the dying Saul’s request to finish him before he was captured by the Philistines, so I stood beside him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen (1:10). That is, he implicitly argued, there was no murderous intent on his part, and Saul was so gravely wounded that he could neither survive for very long or even be moved to avoid capture.¹⁴ However, it has been argued that there is nothing in the text other than the dubious word of the young man to indicate that Saul, despite his wish to die on the battlefield, was wounded so seriously that he could neither recover nor be helped to escape to justify the conclusion that it would have been cruel under such circumstances to refuse his request to be put to death, because it was inevitable that he would be captured by the Philistines.¹⁵

David subsequently ordered one of his men to kill the Amalekite because he had freely confessed to having slain the Lord’s anointed. David’s action in this regard begs for explanation since he surely would not have wanted the mortally wounded Saul, whom he revered, to fall into Philistine hands, especially in light of how they subsequently mistreated his dead body; they cut off his head . . . and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth-shan (1 Sam. 31:9-10), something David might well have anticipated, knowing the Philistines as he did. Accordingly, it would seem that he should have rewarded the Amalekite for preventing such an atrocity from taking place while Saul was still alive. Why then did he condemn the Amalekite to death for having slain the Lord’s anointed? It would appear that the purpose of David’s question regarding the Amalekite’s residence was to help him determine how to deal with the man, given that he had claimed to have slain the Lord’s anointed. Although David could not be sure of the veracity or falsity of the Amalekite’s testimony, he told him that his being put to death was his own fault. Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee; he had claimed to be the final instrument of Saul’s death, and for this he made himself liable for the capital crime of regicide. It has been suggested that the phrase thy blood be upon thy head may be a formula (or a variation of such an expression) used to emphasize the guilt of the criminal and, at the same time, to protect the man who carried out the death penalty (or who ordered it) from any possible consequences.¹⁶

In explanation of David’s evident revulsion of the notion of regicide, it will be recalled that during the period when Saul was actively attempting to have David killed, there was more than one occasion when David could easily have slain the king, but refused to do so against the advice of his followers, principally because Saul was the Lord’s anointed and therefore took on a sacrosanct status. In this regard it also should be recalled that David was himself anointed in the name of God by the prophet Samuel to be Saul’s successor, making his opposition to regicide, a common practice in the ancient world, understandable both from a practical as well as a principled perspective. The question that needs to be answered is why he would hold a non-Israelite accountable for having slain the Lord’s anointed, given that the latter phrase and its theological implication would have no meaning for him. It would seem that if the man had indicated that his home was in Amalekite territory, David might have treated him rather differently, perhaps even commending him for his compassion for Saul’s fear of being taken alive by the Philistines. However, by his self-description, I am the son of an Amalekite stranger, he placed himself in mortal danger, because being a non-Israelite resident in Israelite territory made one subject to the same public laws as any Israelite, and in David’s view regicide in Israel, under any circumstances, was unacceptable and to be considered a capital offense.¹⁷ Just as Saul’s armor-bearer was afraid to commit regicide even though the king asked him to do it, so too should the son of an Amalekite stranger have refused to have a hand in killing the king under whose rule he enjoyed the privilege of residence, regardless of the king having requested his assistance in putting an end to his life. In this regard, it has been suggested there is reason to doubt that it would have made any real difference to David even if the man had not been an Amalekite immigrant. Blood had been shed and therefore there existed a bloodguilt in its wider sense, and some action had to be taken.¹⁸

In considering the political implications of the narrative it has been suggested that putting the Amalekite to death was a politically astute move. Had he pardoned the person who claimed to have killed Saul, he would have evoked suspicion that he personally was relieved at the death of his longtime nemesis, which now promised to make it easier for him to mount the throne of Israel.¹⁹ In this same regard it is noteworthy that in the early rabbinic writings there is an implicit tradition that one of Saul’s chief officers, known as Doeg the Edomite, was actually an Amalekite who presumably came from the southern region of Edom, and thus identified himself as an Edomite.²⁰ During one of Saul’s paranoid episodes, Doeg informed the king that David had taken refuge among the priests of Nob, the result of which was that at Saul’s demand Doeg slaughtered on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod (1 Sam. 22:18), which was followed by the total annihilation of the population of Nob, from which only one priest escaped and subsequently joined David. Assuming that Doeg anticipated that with Saul’s death David would soon replace him on the throne, he would have been anxious to find a way of becoming reconciled with David, who was furious at Doeg because of the calamity that struck the priests of Nob that was precipitated by him and in which he played a lethal role. Accordingly, it has been suggested that Doeg told his son, who was indeed the son of an Amalekite stranger, who had somehow come into possession of Saul’s crown, to go to David with the concocted story of how he came by it, and by prostrating himself before David and giving him Saul’s crown and thereby demonstrating that he, and presumably his father as well, acknowledged David as the new king of Israel.²¹ Accordingly, once David came to realize who the son of an Amalekite stranger actually was, his fate was sealed.

It has been suggested that the purpose of including this story of the Amalekite’s role in the death of Saul, notwithstanding its contradiction of the story told earlier, is that it is an important part of a literary effort to demonstrate the legitimacy of David’s claim to the throne of Israel and, in particular, to exonerate him of any suspicion in the events that led to his succession, especially with regard to David’s involvement in the death of Saul and his sons. What this narrative explains is how David, who clearly benefitted from the death of Saul, came into possession of Saul’s diadem and bracelet, something the earlier narrative did not address.²²

David’s Dirge for Saul and Jonathan

¹.¹⁷ And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son, ¹.¹⁸ and said—To teach the sons of Judah the bow. Behold, it is written in the book of Jashar:

Many have suggested that the words to teach the sons of Judah the bow are not part of the dirge that David composed, although they are directly related to the defeat of Israel and the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The question is why they are appended to the introduction to the dirge. One barely plausible answer is that the Hebrew term keshet or bow not only refers to a weapon of war but also to a stringed musical instrument with which we are no longer familiar, and that the phrase to teach the sons of Judah the bow is actually an instruction for the appropriate musical instrument to accompany recitation of the elegy, similar to the notations concerning instruments found at the outset of some psalms of David.²³ Alternatively, it also has been suggested that the placement of the word keshet in the text is the result of a scribal error and that the text should state that David ordered that it, the dirge, should be taught to the sons of Judah.²⁴ In effect, David realized that if there was to be national unity under his rule there would have to reconciliation between Judah and the northern tribes and that a first step in this direction would be for the sons of Judah to acknowledge the loss to the nation as a whole of its first king. Similarly, it has been suggested that the word keshet has been vocalized incorrectly and should be read as kashot, and the text rendered as to teach hard things to the sons of Judah.²⁵ However, while perhaps a deft approach to eliminating the bow from the text, it does not at all clarify what ‘hard things’ David is referring to. Yet another approach suggests that keshet or Bow was the name David gave to his dirge, because it is a martial ode, and the bow was one of the principal weapons used by the warriors of that age.²⁶ Accordingly, when David says to teach the sons of Judah the bow he is referring to the dirge he had composed. However, this theory has been rejected on the basis that there is no analogy or parallel for such a usage in Hebrew, and that keshet by itself is not a probable designation of a song.²⁷ Perhaps more plausibly, as David reflected on the death of his closest friend Jonathan, who was himself an experienced archer, something scarce among the Israelites at the time, including members of his own tribe the sons of Judah, he foresaw the need to teach them archery if they were to contend successfully with the Philistines and others in the future, and gave that thought spontaneous expression.

In any case, it seems reasonable to assume that David, a seasoned warrior and commander would have attributed Saul’s defeat in large measure to the effective use of archers by the Philistines to decimate the Israelite forces before they could even engage in close combat, while the Israelites were unable to counterattack with archers of their own. As noted in the earlier description of Saul’s final battle, the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was in great anguish by reason of the archers (1 Sam. 31:3). Although archery was not unknown among the Israelites, Jonathan being described as practicing with bow and arrow (1 Sam. 20:20), there is nothing to suggest that archers were a significant component of Saul’s army. It is noteworthy that David himself was expert with a sling, which presumably was the typical reloadable instrument used by the Israelites of the time to discharge projectiles. The lesson he apparently drew from the battlefield defeat of Saul was the need to teach the sons of Judah the bow. That is, if he were to successfully fulfill his destiny, Judah would have to be able to confront the Philistines on the battlefield, matching their weapons and capabilities, and this meant training archers.

The elegy cited below, composed by David in memory of Saul and Jonathan, was originally recorded in the book of Jashar, an ancient collection of tributes to great men and deeds also mentioned in one other biblical book (Josh. 10:13).

¹.¹⁹ Thy beauty, O Israel, upon thy high places is slain! How are the mighty fallen!

Saul and Jonathan are characterized as the epitome of what is special about Israel, noting their deaths on the mountains of Gilboa. It has been suggested that there may be a touch of irony in the words upon thy high places is slain! After all, even if things did not go well in the valley because of the chariots and cavalry employed by the Philistines, the Israelites surely should have had the tactical advantage once the struggle continued in the high ground, yet they were defeated even there.²⁸ David calls upon the people to reflect on the causes of their defeat in battle. Defeat is caused either by a lack of mighty warriors, or by a lack of spiritual merit to be victorious. Since they clearly had the former, there must be something deeper that needs mending.²⁹ The cry, How are the mighty fallen, is a call for introspection, to discover the underlying causes for the calamity, and is repeated twice more in the elegy like the toll of a funeral bell.³⁰ It has been suggested that the exclamation was intended to be intoned as a refrain by the people as each segment of the dirge was read, with the reader to do so as well another two times.³¹

¹.²⁰ Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.

The phrase Tell it not in Gath is cited by the prophet Micah (1:10) as a proverbial saying concerning the humiliation of Israel before its enemies, drawn from David’s elegy but unrelated to the events spoken of here. Gath and Ashkelon are singled out as representative of all five city-states of the Philistine alliance, Gath presumably because of David’s intimate familiarity with it, having served as vassal to its king, and Ashkelon because of its standing as a religious center of the Philistines. Since it was the custom of young women in antiquity to celebrate victories with song and dance, David urges that the deaths of Saul and Jonathan not be mentioned in alien provenances, although he surely was aware that the defeat of the Israelites was already being celebrated in both Gath and Ashkelon. Presumably what he was primarily concerned about was propagation of the perception that the God of the Israelites had abandoned their leaders in their critical hour, an infectious notion that would further demoralize them.

¹.²¹ Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew nor rain upon you, neither fields of choice fruits; for there the shield of the mighty was vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.

David pronounced a curse on the range of Gilboa, the scene of the disaster he bewailed, praying that the vegetation on the mountains be allowed to rot from the lack of moisture and that the fruitful fields no longer produce their luscious yield. Let the desolate mountains give testimony that they were the site where Saul’s shield, the shield of the mighty was vilely cast away, thrown away when the Philistines took the dead king and his armor as trophies of their victory. The shield of the mighty warrior, made of leather and often studded with metal plates, was left in the mountain to desiccate because it was not anointed with oil to make the enemy’s arrows glide off it, and coincidentally to prevent the metal from rusting. That such oiling of shields was commonplace among warriors is reflected in Isaiah’s oracle concerning the conquest of Babylon, during which the cry was heard: Rise up, ye princes, anoint the shield (Isa. 21:5). It has been suggested that the Hebrew bli mashiah or not anointed is a pun meaning messiah-less intimating that Saul, the divinely anointed, is no more.³²

¹.²² From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty.

Although they both perished in defeat, they did not do so without taking a toll of the enemy. Jonathan was an archer that did not retreat when the line of defense collapsed; he stood his ground to the very last moment, firing his deadly missiles. The phrase, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, has also been interpreted as saying that the nature of the arrow given flight by the bow is to remain imbedded in its target, but if it strikes a shield it might ricochet and bounce back. The assertion then is that Jonathan’s arrows always penetrated their targets.³³ Saul on the other hand fought tenaciously with sword and spear, which never left his hands, striking the enemy until his wounds overcame him. The wording of the verse echoes the divine warning, I will render vengeance to Mine adversaries . . . I will make Mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh (Deut. 32:41-42).

¹.²³ Saul and Jonathan, the lovely and the pleasant in their lives, even in their death they were not divided; they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.

The description of Saul and Jonathan as the lovely seems rather odd. The Hebrew term hane’ehhavim translated as the lovely would be better rendered as the beloved, which suggests mutuality of affection between father and son, and probably reflects how they were perceived by David, who knew them both intimately. Despite the friction between Saul and Jonathan over David, father and son remained united as one until their deaths, notwithstanding that in a rage Saul twice attempted to kill his son. As fearless warriors, they were irrepressible, attacking the foe with the swiftness attributed to eagles, and with the force attributed to lions.

¹.²⁴ Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel.

David calls upon the women of Israel who danced with joy when Saul returned victoriously from his battles to now weep over the death of their king, from whom they benefitted materially from his successful wars, with spoil taken from enemies to adorn them. His call also reflects the social reality that women traditionally took a major role in the public lamentation over the dead.

¹.²⁵ How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan upon thy high places is slain! ¹.²⁶ I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me; wonderful was thy love to me, passing the love of women.

David again focuses the public’s attention on their dead heroes, in this brief passage giving his special attention to Jonathan who died with Saul in the midst of the battle, emphasizing that they were not among those who fled the battlefield and were cut down with their backs to the enemy. Nonetheless, David is incredulous over the fact that Jonathan was killed while fighting upon thy high places, where he surely had a tactical advantage over his enemy by being familiar with every nook and cranny.³⁴ Reflecting on his longstanding intimate friendship with Jonathan, despite Saul’s vehement disapproval, he bemoans the loss of that spiritual bond between them that transcended the love of women, to which David was no stranger. It also has been suggested that what David had in mind was that his affection for Jonathan surpassed that which he had for his two wives at the time, Abigail and Ahinoam, or as some suggest, Abigail and Michal, Saul’s daughter who loved David (1 Sam. 18:20), to whom he was married until divorced by Saul’s royal edict and whom he would take to wife once again