cheenc03a.pdf

Abinsdilb and .\lalchiihu? is incomct (cp g 6). 'Abinndah'
seems ro rhe prerenr wrxter to be a double of 'Jonathan'
('Nrrhul'md 'Nsdsb' confiiunded), and ' MalchiHua' to be a
develo mcnt (see g 5) of ' Jerahme'el' (whore name is misread
lrhbos~eth). latter certainly did not fa11 on the field of
battle. on the con,irry he lived to rusceed hi3 father on the
throne. Tradition not impoiiibly said that he war lame (see
hlr.nw,eoser~n).
The rtory of the death of Saul in its present form is
n narrative of the heroic but meless sacrifice of the king's
life for the deliverance of Israel from the Philistines.
'I-hat we have had to interfere with if may be a sllbject
far regret, but not for surprise. The story of Saul and
of his relations with David was of course told and retold.
edited and re-edited, and could nut but be
conriderahi" modified in the Drocerr. Textual corruption,
too, naturally mcr-d the confusion. The
story beconles to some extent intelligible only when the
textual errors have ken removed by a methodical
criticism. We hnve also to consider alterations due to
later hands. It was the editor who placed the story of
the 'witch of Endor' where it now stands. Endor (or
En-hnrod?) is in the N. :' but the scene of the great
battle was in the S. The account of the indignilien
offered to the bodies of the king and of his sons (w 9
lo: seeEzb. T10rz3i. however, harthe im~resooftiuth,
we behkve that fierce arose in
the city no gallantly liberated by Saul All night the
warriors of Beth-gilga13 in Benjamin are said to have
j y d . Not the northern fortress of Beth-shm, but
more possibly Beer~sheba war their goal : there they
found the dead bodies of the heroes fastened to the citv
walls. Piously they took them down and brought the&
to Beth-gilgal, where they raised a fitting dirge over
them.3 and gave an honoured burial to the bona
beneath the sacred tree (see TAMARLSK). Afterwards,
we arc told, David sent his warrior Beilaiaha for them,
and the" were reinterred in the familv crave at Shalisha
.. . .. .
. .
TIz,,. t. .% u ~ r r.fcre~..e u t ~ l ~ ~ ,I~.% ~ ~ c $ ~ c $ LN. n 2 e5.
r
~ 1 ' 1 ,rrllirl" ,
,111, I.. :. .?1.1, 1111 111 I I) ,",,I.,.-
.:!< I :(.,\. I. I I 11: $4. lhs mcln .-f ~c..!t..~~l~~l - - tl.%sl l ur8r.l
Sam1 "udder the Arherah" (n;$"? np?; cp I S. 81 13, above).
And David rent nrerenti (~'~b58) . . :.. to the men of Taberh-eileal: .. .
~tc. In u 6 EV's 'rill requite you this kindnerr' should be
'show >)oo this iriendlinesr.' David rends p1eren,s, nominally
to acknowledge the gcneruus act of the men of Beth-gilgal, but
really toinduccthem to work for theeilrenrionof his rorercignty
over Benjamin. 'You: lurd' mennr 'the lord of Benjamiil,'
nut 'the lord uf Gilead.
The impression which Saul produced on the later
editor of the tradition was not on the whole fwourable.
5, His fine physical gifts, his ardent
patriofirm, andhisinextinguishable
courage were readily acknowledged (I S. loz3 f ll ir
187 173z.f cannot be quoted an the other side); but
we also hear of fits of passion and cruelty (1 S. 20zr-3)
226-x9), of n dangerous religious scrupulosity (I S.
1436-ri),5 and (cp 3 4) of sudden accesses of a dirturb-
1 ofC0"~se there is the porsibilhJ Lhrt do" of En-dor(,,,
may have come from'Arad ( 7 ~ ) and , that the original rtory may
hnve been recur in accordance with a later view of the scene of
thc conflict. This may he the rimplcrt roliltian ofthe prohiem.
2 Nor Jabeih. ilead (see g I).
a neading onfl,an.,(~~o. B U ~ ~ ~ H. I P. . srniws objection
is of no weight: the mourning is naturally mentlaned before the
burial (Klu. refer* to 251 28;). W. R. Smilhlr rugzestion
(R.919:p),
thrt the burning (IS,~Y) may have had a religious
inteniion, xr ingenlolls : but see MO"~",WG.
% S. ?I 11 B ; see Kloitemann, ad loc.
5 Saul. ir appearr, had tnboed all eating before runxt. The
.,"I,. pcr50n who tartcd food war Jonathan, who had not heard
Snol lmpose the taboo. YahwS war believed to be &ended by
rhis rirnrgrerrion. By the sacred lot (recUn1~ ~rn Txurnlrn)
Jonathan wrs found to hc the culprit, and condemned by his
father to derih. Rut 'the people ranrontid Jonathan that he
died not'(v. +: MT). How rhis war effected, we are nor told.
Ernld thrt it wr by the ~"b~tit",i~".~f another human
life of less value: Kiltel (Hie. 2 1x6) and Drluer (note ad Im.)
modify this view. But a's ,rpipo.,-gam ncpi point3 to the readinp
5~ ijb?!, 'and they acted u arbitrators concerning
(Junrthan); rr., they mediated between Jonathan and the
43'3
SAUL
ing melancholy (I S.16~ 18x0 199). This mental
disturbance is described (in 18x0) by the same phrase
(is nix) that is ilsed elrewhere for that heightening of
the physical powem under the influence of rage against
YahwB's enemies which characterired the successful
great warriors and athletes. Was it a melancholy
produeed by a wild longing for battle?' Was it 'but
the morbid reflex of the prophetic inspiration of Saul's
heroic oeriod'?"oes the storv of the
~
witch
~~
of Endor
~
iuggert that it war a frenzied anticipation of evil for
Saul himself and his people? Or is it historical at
all? May not the statement be due to the influence of
a nide-rnread Oriental tale (see 6 41) At any rate it is
and too unkind to his predecessor. That Saul had
pad caue to oppose David has been stared already
(34). and even if we consider the loyalty of the men of
Beth-gilgal (I S. 31x18) to be largely the result of
clan-loyalty (since Jabesh-gilead=Beth-@Iead=Bethierahmeell.
it is lain that nothine had been done
by Saul khich s&med to his felloG-clansmen to be
unworthy of n great Israelite. Kittel (Hirl. 2x358)
has given an eloquent and sympathetic portrait 3 of the
heroic king to all of which one would gladly subscribe
if the historical evidence were slightly stronger. The
chief dilllcultv connected with Saul is his massacre of
lhe priests of'~ibeon (,Noh') ; but we cannot say that
we know the circumstancer sufficiently well to pars a
peremptory judgment.
The best attested namer in SauYs family are thore of
his concubine Rizpah and his son Jonathan, unless
indeed Jonathan was originally represented
as Saul's brother.' ABINADAB and
'-ly' MALCHISHUA, however (IS. 31 2 ; cp I Ch.
833 939. and see above, 5 4). are suspicious. Abiovdab
is probably a vanant of 'Jonathan,' Malchishua a
cormption of 'Jerahme'el [hEne] ShB'ill.' The namer
of the two sons of Rizpah (z S.218). Arrnoni and
Mephiborheth, are also doubtful. Arntoni is probably
a comption of ' Abinadab' ; Mephibosheth seems to be
borrowed from one of the two historic ' Mephibosheths.
Tradition orobablr did not orererbe the names of
sacred custom or law. So Klorte:mmn who parrphraser,
'they imposed a fine on lonnthan. [winckier, GI z~ajf,
arrumer a mytholog~csl bbarls for th~
derail.1
1 Sshally, Semi