Thematic Dynamics of Characters' Outward Appearance in the David

Thematic Dynamics of Characters’ Outward Appearance in the David Narrative

Dae Jun Jeong

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Wycliffe College and the Graduate Centre for Theological Studies of the Toronto School of Theology. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology awarded by the University of St. Michael’s College

Thematic Dynamics of Characters’ Outward Appearance in the David Narrative Dae Jun Jeong Doctor of Philosophy in Theology University of St. Michael’s College 2018

Abstract

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the function of characters’ outward appearance in the David narrative (1 Sam 16 to 1 Kgs 2; henceforth “DN”). This study suggests that the narrator portrays characters’ “looks” deliberately and draws strong connections among them in the DN to convey his intention to the reader. Using a narrative critical approach to the DN, this dissertation investigates how the narrator characterizes select characters effectively, efficiently, and consistently, and clarifies his theological concepts concerning them. Chapter 1 reviews modern scholarship on the characters and the methods of characterization. In addition, this chapter explores the function of repetition as a literary device. Chapter 2 examines the role of beauty in character descriptions in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible, also discussing the narrator’s and Deuteronomist’s views on the ugly and the beautiful. Chapters 3 and 4 analyze the DN’s descriptions of beauty within the family of king David for what they imply about the narrator’s intention. This dissertation concludes that most characterizations of outward appearance in the DN add coherence to the narrative and subtly disclose the narrator’s implied meaning.

Acknowledgements

I especially would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Glen Taylor, my supervisor, who from the outset, has encouraged me in my study, has discussed with elaborate fullness of detail, has suggested many ideas, has gave a lot of valuable comments, and has taken the time to patiently read and edit this dissertation. I am most grateful to Prof. Marion Taylor, Prof. John McLaughlin,

Prof. Sarianna Metso, and Prof. Keith Bodner, who carefully read the dissertation. I am also indebted to Prof. Glen Taylor, Prof. Marion Taylor, Prof. Christopher Seitz, and Prof. Michael

Kolarcik, who taught me during my course works. My best thanks are also due to Dr. Rachel

Lott for her assistance in editing my thesis.

In addition, I hope to thank members of North York Korean United Church in Toronto,

Canada, who gave constant love and encouragement for me. Especially, I also want to thank my parents, Hyeong-do Jeong and Sun-ae Lee, my parents-in-law, Bok-guy Kang and Yeon-ja

Seong, and my brothers-in-law, Hyeon-seok Kang, Hyeon-jung Kang, and their family members.

As always, they have been there, providing both materially and spiritually for me. And most of all, my gratitude goes to my three lovely children, Sion, Haon, and Pyoungon, who remained encouraging with their love for me. Finally, my most sincere thanks to my wife, Hyeon Jeong

Kang, who has assisted me in innumerable ways with her everlasting love.

iii

Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Contents ...... iv List of Abbreviations ...... ix List of Tables ...... xiv List of Figures ...... xvi

Introduction ...... 1 1. The Attitude toward Beauty in the Hebrew Bible ...... 1 2. Beautiful Characters in the Hebrew Bible ...... 2 3. Structure of the DH ...... 5 4. Inequity in the Description of Characters in the DN ...... 6 5. Methodology ...... 7 6. Procedure ...... 8

Chapter One: Characters in Biblical Narratives and Characterization Using Repetition ...... 11 1. What is Narrative Criticism? ...... 11 1.1. A Starting Point and Development ...... 12 1.2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism ...... 14 1.2.1. Narrative Text ...... 14 1.2.2. The Real Author and the Real Reader ...... 15 1.2.3. The Narrator ...... 16 1.2.4. The Narratee ...... 16 1.2.5. The Implied Author ...... 17 1.2.6. The Implied Reader ...... 18

2. Characters in the Narrative ...... 19 2.1. Who Are Characters in the Narrative? ...... 20 2.1.1. Classification of Characters ...... 21 2.1.1.1. Joseph Ewen: No Category ...... 21 2.1.1.2. E. M. Forster: Two Categories ...... 22 2.1.1.3. Adele Berlin and Yairah Amit: Three Categories ...... 23 2.1.1.4. W. J. Harvey: Four Categories ...... 24 2.1.1.5. A. J. Greimas: Six Categories ...... 24 2.2. The Process of Characterization ...... 26 2.2.1. Direct Characterization ...... 26 2.2.2. Indirect Characterization ...... 27 3. Beautiful Characters in the DN ...... 27 3.1. The Functions of Beautiful Characters in the DN ...... 28 3.2. Characterization Using Repetition ...... 30 3.2.1. Repetition as Allusion ...... 31 31 ...... טֹוב and יָפֶה Repetition of .3.2.2 3.2.2.1. The Meaning of the Words ...... 32 3.2.2.2. Other Hebrew Words ...... 33 3.2.3. Characterization by Repetition ...... 35 3.2.4. Repetition of Significant Events in the Narrative ...... 36 3.2.5. Repetition of Character Description in the Narrative ...... 39 4. Conclusion ...... 43

Chapter Two: The Role of Outward Appearance in the Ancient Near East and Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible ...... 45 1. The Role of Outward Appearance in the Ancient Near East ...... 45 1.1. Akkadian Myths and Letters ...... 46 1.2. Egyptian Hymns ...... 48 v

1.3. Sumerian Hymns ...... 50 1.4. The Hebrew Bible ...... 50 1.5. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament ...... 53 1.6. Conclusion ...... 55 2. The Narrator’s Evaluation of the Beautiful and the Ugly in the DH ...... 56 2.1. Ehud and Eglon in Judg 3:12-30 ...... 57 2.2. Samson in Judg 13-16 ...... 60 2.3. Eli in 1 Sam 1-4 ...... 65 2.4. Samuel ...... 69 2.5. Saul, the First King of Israel ...... 72 2.6. Eliab in 1 Sam 16:6-7 ...... 74 2.7. Goliath in 1 Sam 17 ...... 76 2.8. Mephibosheth the Lame ...... 80 2.9. Ahijah and the Dead Boy in 1 Kgs 14:1-20 ...... 84 2.10. Elisha the Bald in 2 Kgs 2:23-24 ...... 86 2.11. Naaman the Leper ...... 90 2.12. Zedekiah(-Jehoiachin), the Last King of Judah ...... 92 3. The Deuteronomists’ Attitude towards the Beautiful and the Ugly ...... 95

Chapter Three: The Beautiful Women in the DN ...... 97 1. David’s Beautiful Wives ...... 98 1.1. Abigail, the Wise and Beautiful Woman ...... 99 1.1.1. Nabal, Abigail’s Original Husband ...... 101 1.1.2. David, Abigail’s New Husband ...... 106 1.1.3. Beautiful Abigail ...... 108 1.2. Bathsheba, the Very Beautiful Woman ...... 112 1.2.1. Uriah, Bathsheba’s Original Husband ...... 114

1.2.2. David, Bathsheba’s New Husband ...... 119 1.2.3. Very Beautiful Bathsheba ...... 123 1.2.4. The Parable in 2 Sam 12:1-4 ...... 129 1.3. Abishag, the Extremely Beautiful Woman ...... 135 1.3.1. Extremely Beautiful Abishag ...... 136 1.3.2. Adonijah, a Candidate for Abishag’s New Husband ...... 140 1.3.3. The Reunion of the Characters in 2 Sam 11-12 ...... 145 1.4. Conclusion ...... 148 2. David’s Beautiful Direct Female Descendants ...... 149 2.1. Tamar the Daughter ...... 150 2.1.1. Jonadab, the Very Wise Man ...... 152 2.1.2. Amnon the Nabal and Tamar the Beautiful ...... 156 2.2. Tamar the Granddaughter ...... 162 2.2.1. The Third Tamar ...... 163 2.2.2. The Missing Tamar ...... 165 2.3. Conclusion ...... 169

Chapter Four: The Handsome Men in the DN ...... 171 1. Handsome but Small David ...... 171 2. Absalom, the Unblemished ...... 175 2.1. Another David or Another King ...... 176 2.2. The Imperfect Thief ...... 180 3. Adonijah, a Self-Styled King ...... 182 3.1. Very Handsome Adonijah ...... 183 3.2. Solomon, the New King ...... 186 4. Conclusion ...... 190

vii

Conclusion ...... 192

Bibliography ...... 195

viii

List of Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible ABR Australian Biblical Review ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library AIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature AJET Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology AnBib Analecta Biblica ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 AnOr Analecta Orientalia AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries ApOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies AYB Anchor Yale Bible BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series BJS Brown Judaic Studies BN Biblische Notizen BO Berit Olam BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BT The Bible Translator BuR Bucknell Review BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series CC Continental Commentaries DH Deuteronomistic History DN David Narrative DSS Dead Sea Scrolls EA Ex Auditu ESV English Standard Version FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FCB Feminist Companion to the Bible FCBS Feminist Companion to the Bible: Second Series FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature GKC Genesius’ Hebrew Grammer. Edited by Emil Kautzsch. Translated by Arther E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 GPP Gorgias Precis Portfolios HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. Translated and Edited under the Supervision of Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994-1999 HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HR History of Religions HS Hebrew Studies HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching IBHS An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Bruce K. Waltke and Michael O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990 ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation ISBL Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature

JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JAH Journal of Ancient History JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society JATS Journal of the Adventist Theological Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JHebS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JPJ Journal of Progressive Judaism JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series KJV King James Version LCBI Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LTC A Literary and Theological Commentary LXX Septuagint NASB New American Standard Bible NIBCOT New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIV New International Version NIVAC The NIV Application Commentary NLT New Living Translation NovT Novum Testamentum OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OTE Old Testament Essays OTL Old Testament Library

OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PFES Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society PRSt Perspectives in Religious Studies PTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series Q Qumran RevExp Review and Expositor RNBC Readings: A New Biblical Commentary SBL Society of Biblical Literature SCJ Stone-Campbell Journal SemeiaSt Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica StBibLit Studies in Biblical Literature STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah SubBi Subsidia Biblica TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TBS Tools for Biblical Study TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-2006 TSR Trinity Seminary Review TynBul Tyndale Bulletin USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review UT Ugaritic Textbook. Cyrus H. Gordon. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965 VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary

xii

WHS Williams’ Hebrew Syntax. Ronald J. Williams. Revised and Expanded by John C. Beckman. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007 WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible ...... 4 Table 2. The Words That Mean “Beauty” in the Hebrew Bible ...... 33 Table 3. Characters Whose Outward Appearance Is Described as Beautiful/Handsome in the DN ...... 34 Table 4. A Consideration of Stories Related to the Beautiful Characters in the DH ...... 40 Table 5. Delilah’s Asking and Samson’s Response in Judg 16 ...... 63 Table 6. Eli’s Outward Appearance ...... 69 Table 7. The Comparison among the Candidates of Israel’s King ...... 74 Table 8. Various Characters in 1 Sam 17 ...... 77 Table 9. Attributes of Two Representative Soldiers in 1 Sam 17 ...... 78 Table 10. The Similarities between Mephibosheth and David ...... 81 Table 11. The Similarities between Two Judgments ...... 83 Table 12. The Similarities among the Three Blind Characters ...... 85 Table 13. The Similarities between Two Incidents in 2 Kgs 2:19-24 ...... 88 Table 14. The Similarities between Elijah’s and Elisha’s Incidents ...... 89 Table 15. Child Characters’ Role in the DH ...... 91 Table 16. The Similarities between Zedekiah-Jehoiachin and Mephibosheth ...... 94 Table 17. The Beautiful and the Ugly Characters in the DH, excluding the DN ...... 95 Table 18. The Similarities between Two Kinds of Relationships ...... 102 Table 19. Nabal’s Wordplay about David’s Ancestors ...... 104 Table 20. David’s Place in 1 Sam 24-26 ...... 107 Table 21. The Contrast between Nabal’s and Abigail’s Character ...... 109 Table 22. The Comparison between Abimelech’s and Uriah’s Death ...... 122 Table 23. The Depiction of David’s Beautiful Wives ...... 139 Table 24. The Comparison between 1 Kgs 1:4 and 1:6 ...... 141 Table 25. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible ...... 142

xiv

Table 26. The Dissimilarities between 2 Sam 11-12 and 1 Kgs 1-2 ...... 145 Table 27. The Comparison between 2 Sam 11 and 1 Kgs 1-2 ...... 146 Table 28. Names, Descriptions and Fates of David’s Beautiful Wives ...... 149 Table 29. David’s Women and Friends in the Fulfillment of Nathan’s Prophecy ...... 154 Table 30. The Similarities between Two Stories Concerning Beautiful and Wise Characters ...... 155 Table 31. The Literary Structure Composed of Characters’ Commands in 2 Sam 13 ...... 162 Table 32. The Similarities between the First Two Tamars ...... 163 Table 33. The Similarities between Two Tamars ...... 170 174 ...... … קָטָ ן/קָטֹן ’Table 34. The Kings Table 35. The Similarities between David’s and Absalom’s Daughters ...... 176 Table 36. The Similarities between David and Absalom ...... 180 Table 37. The Relationship between Absalom and the Wise Characters ...... 181 Table 38. The Similarities between Adonijah and Absalom ...... 184 Table 39. The Birth Order of Jesse’s and David’s Sons ...... 188 Table 40. Fathers’ and Yahweh’s Concern for the Kings and the Candidates in the DN ...... 190

List of Figures

Figure 1. Structure of the DH ...... 6 Figure 2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism Suggested by Seymour Chatman ...... 14 Figure 3. The Narrative Structure of Incidents Involving Beautiful Characters Related to David’s Kingship in the DN ...... 43 Figure 4. The Literary Structure of 1 Sam 24-26 ...... 103 Figure 5. The Changes of the Relationships among the Characters in 1 Sam 25 ...... 112 Figure 6. The Similarities between the Entry of David and Bathsheba into the King’s Orbit ...... 129 Figure 7. David’s Change of Attitude through the Lens of the Parable ...... 134 Figure 8. Interlocking Device in 1 Kgs 1:2-4a ...... 136 Figure 9. The Similarities between the Two Stories ...... 148 Figure 10. Maacah’s Family Tree ...... 168 Figure 11. Two Beautiful Groups in the DN ...... 185 Figure 12. The Changes of David’s Political Power with the Beautiful Characters in the DN ...... 193

xvi

Introduction

There is an interesting Latin proverb about beauty which says “a comely face is a silent recommendation.”1 This old saying means that most people are attracted to beauty. In general, beauty is an object of envy. Even though beauty is in the eye of the beholder, most people pursue it in some way. No one wants to be ugly. However, beauty can be a cause for alarm, because it has the power to blind people to what is really important. Thus, there are many proverbs revealing beauty’s negative aspects such as “the most beautiful fig may contain a worm.”2

1. The Attitude toward Beauty in the Hebrew Bible

What is the attitude toward beauty in the Hebrew Bible? Generally, the Hebrew Bible considers beauty to be a good thing as, it shares “in the ordered meaning of God’s creation.”3 According to the books of Genesis and Ecclesiastes, when God created the heavens and the earth, He made

in Eccl 3:114). In יָפֶה ;in Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31 טֹוב) everything beautiful or handsome light of the positive reference to creation in Genesis and Ecclesiastes, H. Ringgeren insists that

1 Harold V. Cordry, The Multicultural Dictionary of Proverbs: Over 20,000 Adages from More Than 120 Languages, Nationalities and Ethnic Groups (Jefferson: McFarland, 2005), 22. 2 Cordry, The Multicultural Dictionary of Proverbs, 23. 3 William A. Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context,” JETS 28 (1985): 422. in Eccl 3:11, Tremper Longman elucidates that “in Genesis 1 יָפֶה in Gen 1 and טֹוב On the relationship between 4 God pronounces each step of his creation ‘good’ (ṭôb). Qohelet’s word ‘beautiful’ (yāpeh) may … be a reflex of this Eccl 3:11). Tremper Longman III, The) עָשָ ה Gen 1:1, 27) is replaced by) בָרָ א divine pronouncement” as the verb Book of Ecclesiastes, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 119.

beauty has a positive meaning in the Hebrew Bible.5 Moreover, Simon J. DeVries argues that

“the Israelites praised physical beauty . . . as a token of Yahweh’s spirit.”6 At the same time, however, the Hebrew Bible has a guarded attitude toward beauty. Adam and Eve picked the fruit

כ ִ֧י ת ַֽ אֲוָה־ה֣ ּוא ;of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and of Evil because of its beauty (Gen 3:6

Furthermore, Yahweh proclaimed that people only see outward appearance, unlike Him .(לָעֵינ ַ֗ים

When it comes to the concept of beauty, the Hebrew Bible, on .(כ ִּ֤י הַָֽאָדָם֙ י רְ אֶ֣ה ל עֵינ ַ֔ים:Sam 16:7 1) balance, keeps a neutral stance; beauty itself does not provide a trustworthy clue to what is good and bad or right and wrong.

2. Beautiful Characters in the Hebrew Bible

Many characters appear in the Hebrew Bible, but only a few are described with reference to their physical features. The narrators describe physical features such as beauty, disability, illness, and fatness when they need those distinct outward appearances.7 In some cases, the narrators depict not only the outward appearance of a human being, but also that of an animal, plant, and inorganic substance,8 presumably for some purpose relating to the intention of the narrator.

In the case of beauty, most beautiful characters appear in the narrative section9 of the

5 H. Ringgren, “yāpâ,” TDOT 6: 219. 6 Simon J. DeVries, 1 Kings, 2nd ed. WBC 12 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 13. 7 See the cases of Ehud (Judg 3:16; disability), Eglon (Judg 3:17; fatness [traditionally understood]), Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:3, 13; disability), Elisha (2 Kings 2:23; baldness), Naaman (2 Kings 5:1; illness), Gehazi (2 King 5:27; illness), and so on. 8 See the cases of the cows and ears of grain (Gen 41:2-7), and bones (Ezek 37:1-10). 9 On the definition of the narrative section in the Hebrew Bible, see David M. Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 3-5.

Hebrew Bible. The reason why a very small number of beautiful characters appear in other sections is that the characters’ beauty is not visible to the reader, but notional. For example, the beloved in the Song of Songs is an imaginary lover as far as the reader is concerned, because the reader cannot find the traces of her life in history and does not know who she is. Additionally, these characters do not have personal names.

Robert Rezetko maintains that “eight women (and Job’s daughters) and eleven men are described as ‘beautiful/handsome’”10 in the Hebrew Bible. However, Rezetko omits Bathsheba and other beautiful women and (for no apparent reason) adds the Egyptian in 2 Sam 23:21.11 It seems his intention is to balance the numbers of handsome men and beautiful women in the

Hebrew Bible in that each group is composed of eleven people.

According to my analysis,12 roughly one-third of the beautiful characters of the Hebrew

Bible occur in the David narrative [hereafter: DN].13 This is a disproportionately high number

10 Robert Rezetko, Source and Revision in the Narratives of David’s Transfer of the Ark: Text, Language, and Story in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15-16, JSOTSup 470 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 46. See especially note 16 and 17 on page 46. He argues that the eleven beautiful women are “Sarai (Gen 12:11, 14), Rachel (Gen 29:17), Abigail (1 Sam 25:3), Tamar (2 Sam 13:1), Tamar (2 Sam 14:27), Abishag (1 Kgs 1:3, 4), Esther (Esth 2:2, 3, 7), Job’s daughters (Job 42:15), the Shulammite (Cant 1:5, 15, 16; 4:1, 7; 6:4).” Also, he asserts that the eleven handsome men are Saul (1 Sam 9:20), Absalom (2 Sam 14:25), “Joseph (Gen 39:6), Moses (Exod 2:2), David (1 Sam 16:12; 17:42; cf. 16:6-7), the Egyptian (2 Sam 23:21), Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6), and Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Dan 1:4).” 11 Rezetko seems to follow the KJV’s translation, “an Egyptian, a goodly man” in 2 Sam. 23:21. However, the does not mean beauty alone. Moreover, the parallel account in 1 Chron 11:23 uses the word מרְ אֶ ה Hebrew word “stature” rather than “appearance.” 12 See Table 1. 13 According to Gary Stansell, the David Narrative lasts from 1 Sam 16 (his first appearance) to 1 Kgs 2 (his death). I will follow his definition of the DN. Gary Stansell, “Honor and Shame in the David Narratives,” Semeia 68 (1994): 56. See also Raymond-Jean Frontain, “The Trickster Tricked: Strategies of Deception and Survival in the David Narrative,” in Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text, eds. Vincent L. Tollers and John Maier, BuR 33.2 (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1990), 170-92; Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Cracks in the Foundation: Ominous Signs in the David Narrative,” BSac 172 (2015): 154-76; Peter D. Miscall, The Workings of Old Testament Narrative (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 48.

compared with other sections of the Hebrew Bible. What is the narrator’s purpose in supplying this characterization? How can the reader understand and interpret the plethora of descriptions about outward appearances in the DN? This dissertation starts with such questions and concludes that descriptions of their beauty seems to be consonant with an upheaval in their social and political position, something not seen in beautiful characters and events outside the DN.

Table 1. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible

Text Women Men Total Pentateuch Sarai (Gen 12:11, 14) Joseph (Gen 39:6) 5 Rebekah (Gen 24:16; 26:7) Moses (Exod 2:2) Rachel (Gen 29:17) The DH Samuel (1 Sam 2:26)14 10 Saul (1 Sam 9:2) The DN Abigail (1 Sam 25:3) David (1 Sam 16:12; 17:42) (8) Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2) Absalom (2 Sam 14:25) Tamar 1 (2 Sam 13:1) Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6) Tamar 2 (2 Sam 14:27) Abishag (1 Kgs 1:4) Others Narratives Vashti (Esth 1:11) Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael 10 Esther (Esth 2:7) and Azariah (Dan 1:4, 15) Job’s daughters, Jemimah, Keziah and Keren-Happuch (Job 42:15) Poetry You, the beloved (Song 1:8, 15, 16; 4:1, 7; 5:9; 6:1, 4)

Total 14 11 25

he grew greater and better looking.’” John Boone‘ [הֹלְֵֵ֥ך וְגָדֵֵ֖ל וָט֑ ֹוב] John Trotti suggests that “we might translate this 14 Trotti, “Beauty in the Old Testament” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1964), 21.

3. Structure of the DH

John Harvey insists that the Deuteronomistic History [hereafter: DH] has a special structure, as in the figure below. He seems to think that the DH acts as one book with “apposition” and a

“chiastic structure.”15 As David Jobling points out, the DH also was “compiled for primarily theological reasons”16 by the author(s) and editor(s) of other narrative portions in the Hebrew

Bible. Therefore, we know that the DH has a unique and well-organized literary structure for delivering theological messages. Parallel panels serve as an inclusio17 for a kind of chiasm and serve to emphasize the internal content. Also, this structure shows that the DH has an interlocking device18 to emphasize internal portions (from Judges to 1 Kings 1-11). From this suggestion, we can assume that the books in the DH have a strong relationship with one another.

In addition, these books use various literary devices such as apposition, repetition,19 chiasm, and so on. We can infer that not only the DH, but also the DN in the DH have a well-constructed literary structure.

15 John Harvey, “The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” SJOT 20 (2006): 237. About the DH as one work, Martin Noth observes that “it is more important to notice aspects of the arrangement of the books Joshua – Kings which can be traced back to the work of Dtr.” Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 5. 16 David Jobling, The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible I, 2nd ed. JSOTSup 7 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 12. 17 H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure,” Bib 62 (1981): 158, 160, 168. Parunak says that an inclusio has three parts. Both “outer” parts have the same structure or content, and the inner part is longer than the outer. In addition, “the inclusio consists of the repetition, and the chiasm (as the inclusio) can be used to divide, unify, and emphasize biblical texts.” 18 Jerome F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, JSOTSup 217 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 87, 98. 19 Brian Peckham elaborates that a prominent literary characteristic of the DH is repetition. The editors use this literary technique for giving “the history coherence despite the diverse materials and incongruous viewpoints.” Brian Peckham, The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History, HSM 35 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 49.

Figure 1. Structure of the DH20

4. Inequity in the Description of Characters in the DN

In the DN, as in other Hebrew Bible narratives, many different characters emerge on the narrative stage. The narrator, however, does not describe all the characters equally. When certain characters enter the narrative stage in the DN, the narrator introduces only their attractive

As mentioned earlier, few characters .טֹוב or יָפֶה ,outward appearance with the Hebrew words are depicted as beautiful in the Hebrew Bible, compared to roughly one-third in the DN. Given the brevity with which characters are typically described, might there be some significance to the narrator’s choice to add such a descriptor? When one analyzes stories in the DN that mention the

20 Harvey, “The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History,” 237. About this structure, he asserts that “Joshua-Judges and 1-2 Kings bracket the books of Samuel as parallel panels: just as the Deuteronomistic promise of land is realized in Joshua only to be compromised in Judges, so the Deuteronomistic promise of centralized worship is realized in 1 Kings 1-11 only to be compromised in 1 Kings 12- 2 Kings 25.”

characters’ attractive outward appearance, the narrator seems to be using these physical descriptions as a literary device to string together the various stories related to those characters in the DN. An oversupply of beautiful characters in the DN is not the narrator’s mistake, but reflects skill at showing his intention to the reader.

5. Methodology

In the biblical narrative, the narrator does not generally describe characters’ outward appearances in detail, but briefly.21 Such brief descriptions can reveal much. In the case of Bathsheba, the narrator merely indicates that she was beautiful; and as Adele Berlin comments, “it is not for nothing that we are told that Bathsheba was beautiful.”22 However, such brief character descriptions do not always reveal the narrator’s intentions easily.

In order to reveal the narrator’s intention behind the brief descriptions at the beginning stage of each narrative unit, I will analyze the setting of each narrative unit in terms of place, time, other characters, and background. I will also investigate the interpersonal relationships between the good-looking characters and other characters in each narrative unit. In addition, I will examine closely the stylistic features of the narrative by means of its lexical coherence, including verbal or non-verbal repetition in each narrative unit and the whole DN, using the tools of narrative and rhetorical criticism. Through these processes, I will argue that descriptions about

21 Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 48; Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983), 34. 22 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 34.

have a narrative function. More טֹוב and יָפֶה characters’ outward appearance using the words particularly, I will argue that these words not only represent characters’ traits effectively, but also allow the reader to perceive the correlations in the stories of beautiful characters in the DN. In addition, because the analytical tools of the present thesis are primarily narrative and rhetorical criticism, I am choosing to ignore here historical or social-scientific criticism, as beneficial as these might be.

6. Procedure

In chapter 1, I will review the scholarship on these characters and the methods for characterization in the biblical narrative. I will focus especially on the importance of depicting a character’s outward appearance as one method of characterization. Some scholars have overlooked the symbolic or metaphoric function of outward appearance, especially in the DN. In the case of the DN, the narrator uses character descriptions effectively to show his negative view of beauty. The prevalence of beautiful characters and the distinctive view of beauty are a unique feature of the DN in comparison with other biblical narratives. The narrator makes these beautiful characters in the DN an important literary feature. Secondly, I will focus on the function of repetition, especially verbal repetition in the narrative. I will suggest that the repeated words act as powerful literary devices to communicate the meaning of the whole DN.

In chapter 2, I will explore the role of outward appearance in the Ancient Near Eastern culture and the Hebrew Bible. I will also draw a comparison between the fate of the beautiful and the ugly in the DH. The results support the claim that beauty is a physical requirement for

becoming the king of Israel and show the attitude of the ancient people to beauty. In addition, I will examine the Deuteronomists’ attitude towards the beautiful and the ugly. Perhaps understanding the Deuteronomists’ attitude here might shed light on the longstanding question concerning with whom the Deuteronomists were associated.

In chapter 3, I will analyze the stories of the five women who are related to David and who are described as “beautiful” by the narrator. I will distinguish two groups of women. The first consists of Abigail, Bathsheba, and Abishag, David’s wives and steward respectively. In the study of this first group, I will focus on the women’s actions and speech to reveal why the narrator mentions their outward appearance at the very beginning of each individual event. I will also search for correlations among the events they experienced. Even though these women are involved in different incidents in each narrative event, they encounter sudden changes in their positions, changes which in each case anticipate a change in David’s political power. In addition,

I will analyze the literary structure of each narrative event, because the structure will make apparent the narrator’s intention in the narrative. My analysis will point to the importance of the repeated words, as a means of helping the reader to read each story coherently.

Characters in the second group are the direct female descendants of David. Two Tamars,

David’s daughter and granddaughter, are part of this group. Interestingly, in the case of David’s granddaughter, her name and her outward appearance are only briefly mentioned (2 Sam 14:27).

To determine why the narrator only describes her physical appearance, I will compare the narrator’s description of this Tamar to the other Tamar’s description in 2 Sam 13. This comparison will suggest the repeated words’ function in each narrative event.

In chapter 4, I will discuss the handsome men in the DN including David. As it happens, they are David’s sons, Absalom and Adonijah. They appear with beautiful women in each narrative event, and this provides a clue for interpreting their stories in the DN. Although their fate is quite different from that of the beautiful women in the DN, these handsome men share the same fate in their own stories. To detect the function of the repeated words in their stories, I will examine the men’s speech and actions in each narrative event and look for similarities and relationships between their stories. In addition, I will try to determine why their fate is different from David’s and how their fate is related to David’s political power.

Chapter One Characters in Biblical Narratives and Characterization Using Repetition

To study characters in biblical narratives, we need to know about narrative criticism. In narrative criticism, characters always have a strong relationship with other narratological aspects such as events, time, plot, and point of view in the narrative. Therefore, I will briefly explain narrative criticism.

1. What Is Narrative Criticism?

The term, “narrative criticism” was coined by David Rhoads in his article “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark,”1 and was more applied in New Testament studies than in Hebrew

Bible studies. In the case of New Testament studies, this kind of new approach began to appear in the 1970s. This approach developed mostly within the confines of the Society of Biblical

Literature’s Markan Seminar between 1971 and 1980.2 This new approach became narrative criticism.

In general, narrative criticism concentrates on “how biblical literature works as literature.”3 According to Tolmie, two premises distinguish this approach from the historical- critical approach. Scholars studied the Gospel of Mark as whole rather than as fragmented.

1 David Rhoads, “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark,” JAAR 50 (1982): 411-34. 2 Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 110; Francois Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide (San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1999), 4. 3 James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 18. Italics in the original. 11

Another is that scholars emphasized elements of the narrative in the Gospel of Mark. Thus, they focused on characters, events, and places in the narrative, unlike the historical-critical approach.

Then this method was applied to other Gospels.4 In his book Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel,

Alan Culpepper emphasizes that we must study the narrator, point of view, narrative time, plot, characters, and the implied reader for interpreting the Gospels.5

1.1. A Starting Point and Development

In the case of the Hebrew Bible, as a starting point of narrative criticism, Daniel Marguerat and

Yvan Bourquin suggest Robert Alter’s book, The Art of Biblical Narrative.6 According to them,

“Alter was not the first scholar to ask how the Bible tells stories: but for the first time a study systematically reviewed the characteristics of biblical narration.”7

On the other hand, David Gunn asserts that Edwin Good’s study was the starting point of narrative criticism.8 Good’s book Irony in the Old Testament introduces the claim that irony in

4 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 4. In addition, Powell (What Is Narrative Criticism, 7-8) suggests four premises about differences between those approaches:

1. Literary criticism focuses on the finished form of the text. 2. Literary criticism emphasizes the unity of the text as a whole. 3. Literary criticism views the text as an end in itself. 4. Literary criticism is based on communication models of speech-act theory.

5 R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983). 6 Daniel Marguerat and Yvan Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative Criticism, Trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1999), 7. See also Stephen D. Moore, “Biblical Narrative Analysis from the New Criticism to the New Narratology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 28; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2011). 7 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 7. 8 David M. Gunn, “Narrative Criticism,” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and

the OT is important for understanding the meaning of the texts.9 However, Tolmie insists that

Herman Gunkel’s work laid the groundwork for narrative criticism, because Gunkel in his commentary on the book of Genesis published in 1901 explains “all aspects which are usually considered in a narratological analysis”10 such as scenes, characters, dialogue, and events.

In the 20th century, there were various methodological frameworks for studying the biblical text, such as form criticism, source criticism, and redaction criticism. In addition, the scholars who used these criticisms found they bore much fruit. Although they did not pay attention to texts as narrative wholes, some scholars did approach an interest in the narrative powers of the biblical text.11 Such forays toward interest in the narrative helped pave the way for narrative criticism.

Since the 1980s, many scholars have contributed to the development and establishment of this discipline. Stephen D. Moore briefly summarizes works of scholars important for narrative criticism as follows:

Alter’s book had been preceded by the Hebrew version (1979) of Shimon Bar- Efrat’s Narrative Art in the Bible, which would not appear in English for another decade (Bar-Efrat 1989). The main English-language precursor to Alter’s book was Narrative Art in Genesis (1975) by the Dutch narrative critic J. P. Fokkelman. The first volume of Fokkelman’s Narrative Art and Poetry in

Their Application, eds. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 203. 9 Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965). See especially pages 35-37 for the incident of David and Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11. 10 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 2. This is Tolmie’s estimation of Gunkel’s commentary. 11 See J. P. Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide, trans. Ineke Smit, TBS 1 (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999), 9; Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: A Harvest Book, 1983), xi-xii; Gunn, “Narrative Criticism,” 224-6; Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part One. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, ISBL 848 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 16-8; Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism, 6-10; Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 1-5.

the Books of Samuel appeared in 1981 (see also Fokkelman 1986, 1992, 1993), and was succeeded by Adele Berlin’s Poetics and the Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (1983), Peter Miscall’s The Workings of Old Testament Narrative (1983), and Meir Sternberg’s The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (1985).12

1.2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism

Although many scholars developed narrative criticism, focussing especially on the Old

Testament, Seymour Chatman’s contribution deserves mention for its critical framework.

Narrative criticism requires a model that reckons with narrative as a certain communication process from the author to the reader. Scholars who analyze biblical narratives typically borrow

Seymour Chatman’s model as indicated below.13

Narrative text Real Real Implied → (Narrator)→ (Narratee) → Implied author reader author reader

Figure 2. The Framework for Narrative Criticism Suggested by Seymour Chatman

1.2.1. Narrative Text

Chatman gives a detailed account of a narrative text as follows:

Each narrative has two parts: a story (histoire), the content or chain of events (actions, happenings), plus what may be called the existents (characters, items of setting); and a discourse (discours), that is, the expression, the means

12 Moore, “Biblical Narrative Analysis,” 28. 13 Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 151. Powell asserts that implied author and implied reader are basic principle of narrative criticism. Mark Allan Powell, “Narrative Criticism,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, 2nd ed., ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 241-43.

by which the content is communicated. In simple terms, the story is the what in a narrative that is depicted, discourse the how. The following diagram suggests itself:14

Actions Events Story Happenings

Characters Narrative Text Existents Setting Discourse

In addition, Mieke Bal defines “a narrative text” as “a text in which an agent or subject conveys to an addressee (‘tells’ the reader) a story in a particular medium, such as language, imagery, sound, buildings, or a combination thereof.”15 As James Phelan further clarifies, with narrative16 the text has a certain purpose relative to the reader and the purpose is revealed in the text.

1.2.2. The Real Author and the Real Reader

About this model, Chatman explains that “only the implied author and implied reader are immanent to a narrative, the narrator and narratee are optional (parentheses). The real author and real reader are outside the narrative transaction.”17 In this model, “the real author is the

14 Chatman, Story and Discourse, 19. 15 Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 3rd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009), 5. 16 Phelan asserts that narrative is “the telling of a story by someone to someone on some occasion for some purpose.” James Phelan, Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1996), 8. 17 Chatman, Story and Discourse, 151.

personality (or the group) which produces the text. The real reader is the individual or the group for whom the text was originally intended.”18

1.2.3. The Narrator

When we read the text, we listen to someone’s voice. We call the voice in the text the narrator.

The narrator’s presence can be inferred from the fact that someone is telling the story in the text.

In addition, if there is a first-person pronoun in the text and the pronoun does not indicate characters, the pronoun means the narrator.19 As in most cases of biblical narration, if we cannot find the narrator in the text, the narrator may remain present in the background of the text.20 To better understand who the narrator is, David Gunn and Danna Fewell suggest that “the narrator is a character who tells the story while other characters enact it.”21 The narrator has power to

“manipulate the reader’s reaction also by giving him greater or less knowledge or foreknowledge of the events.”22

1.2.4. The Narratee

As a counterpart of the narrator, there is a narratee in the text. The narratee listens to the narrator’s narration in the text. Tolmie explains that “a second-person pronoun that does not refer

18 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 12. 19 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 13. See also Bal, Narratology, 20-31. 20 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 10. 21 David M. Gunn and Danna Nolan Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 53. 22 Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20, AnBib 81 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 24.

to a character(s) within the narrated world, usually refers to the narratee. Sometimes a first- person plural may be used to indicate both the narrator and the narratee.”23 In addition, if the text conveys some information to someone, this someone would be the narratee. For example, in the book of Deuteronomy, “Moses (narrator within the narrative) frequently addresses his audience directly in the second person singular or plural. When he tells the story of Exodus, often he tells it as a story experienced by his audience (‘You . . .’),”24 because the narratee (the audience) in the text needs the information the narrator conveys.

1.2.5. The Implied Author

It is difficult to define the terms, “implied author” and “implied reader.” According to Tolmie, scholars divide the concept of the implied author into two kinds.25 The first is “the image of the author” formed by the narrative.26 Wayne Booth, who first suggested this term, argues that “we infer him (the implied author) as an ideal, literary, created version of the real man (author).”27

The second kind of implied author emphasizes the relationship between the implied author and the text, because “unlike the narrator, the implied author can tell us nothing. He or better, it has no voice, no direct means of communicating.”28 Even though the implied author does not have any direct means of communication as in the case of the narrator, this author gives the reader

23 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 14. 24 Jean Louis Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, SubBi 13 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico,1990), 42. 25 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 6. 26 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 13, 15. 27 Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983), 74-5. 28 Chatman, Story and Discourse, 148. Italics in the original

information through “the design of the whole, with all the voices, by all the means it has chosen to let us learn.”29 The best way to find out the overall strategy of the implied author is to analyze narratological aspects and factors such as plot, characters, events, time, setting, point of view, and so on. Through these factors we may discover that the implied author has a specific ideological (or theological) intention in relation to the implied reader.

1.2.6. The Implied Reader

If so, who is the implied reader? The implied reader is “the counterpart of the implied author.”30

About the necessity of the implied reader in the narrative, William Kurz insists that the real author “must imagine readers’ concerns and how they could react to what is being written unlike oral storytellers, who can adjust to listeners’ actual reactions,”31 because the real author writes stories without readers. Thus, the implied reader is not only the intended reader that the real author had in mind when the text was written, but also the depersonalized one used as a kind of literary device for emphasizing the reader’s relationship to the text.32 About the difference between the implied author and the implied reader, Jeffrey Staley asserts that the implied author knows all the details of the text, but the implied reader does not know the text beyond the point to which he/she has read.33 The difference between them lies in “the linearity (implied author)

29 Chatman, Story and Discourse, 148. 30 Chatman, Story and Discourse, 149. 31 William S. Kurz, “Narrative Models for Imitation in Luke-Acts,” in Greek, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, eds. David L. Balch, et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 173. 32 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 6. 33 Jeffrey Lloyd Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 34.

and the temporality (implied reader) of the text.”34

In general, the purpose of biblical narrative is not to deliver information or to show off narratological skills, but to convey a theological message to the reader. Biblical scholars’ study of narrative criticism reveals these processes by which the implied author endeavors to deliver a certain theological perspective to the implied reader. Thus, Powell calls the implied reader the ideal reader in that “the goal of narrative criticism is to interpret every text the way that its ideal reader would interpret it.”35 Therefore, a firm understanding of the individual elements

(characters, events, time, plot and so on) and their relationships to others in the basic framework is most important to us.

2. Characters in the Narrative

While there are many important factors to consider when studying biblical narratives, characters may be the most important element for interpretation, because the characters are the dramatis personae in biblical narratives. Characters act out various scenes in the narrative world much as real people do, and their speech, actions and everything that they represent are important for plot development.36 By paying attention to the characters that inhabit the world of the text, readers can better understand and follow the narrator’s intention.

Characters in the narrative are the actors, and they perform the various activities that

34 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 115. 35 Mark Allan Powell, “Types of Readers and Their Relevance for Biblical Hermeneutics,” TSR 12 (1990): 72. 36 Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 121.

comprise the plot. According to Marguerat and Bourquin, characters are linked inextricably with the plot. The plot performs a function like “the frame of an umbrella,” whereas characters function like the fabric that makes the umbrella distinctive and appealing. While the plot is hidden in the narrative framework, the characters are manifest as the clear image of the plot in the narrative.37

2.1. Who Are Characters in the Narrative?

Tolmie says that characters are “the spice of narrative,”38 because we cannot imagine stories without characters. If such a story were possible, it would be a very matter-of-fact story and be shunned by the reader. Characters in stories are used to convey the narrator’s particular viewpoint in a number of different ways.39 To study characters in biblical narratives, Tolmie suggests that there are two important factors in the narrative: “classification of characters” and

“the process of characterization.” Each is considered below.

37 Marguerat and Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories, 58. 38 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 39. 39 Cornelis Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 1. Resseguie (Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 121-22) explains various ways of showing characters and their messages to the reader in narratives.

Characters reveal themselves in their speech (what they say and how they say it), in their actions (what they do), by their clothing (what they wear), in their gestures and posture (how they present themselves). Characters are known by what others say about them. . . . Characters are also known by the environment or setting in which they work and play. . . . Characters are also known by their position within society.

2.1.1. Classification of Characters

Scholars suggest several different systems for classifying characters.40 The scholars categorize characters according to their traits and roles in the narrative. The systems are no category, two, three, four, and six categories.

2.1.1.1. Joseph Ewen: No Category

J. Ewen suggests an alternative to categorizing characters in the narrative. It is not a classification of characters, but an analysis of each character in the narrative, to be precise. To him, the most important element for classifying the kinds of characters is a “continuum” in the narrative. There are three axes: “complexity, development, [and] penetration into the ‘inner life.’”41 Complexity concerns whether characters have a single trait or multiple traits.

Development concerns whether characters are changing or unchanging in the narrative.

Penetration into inner life concerns whether the narrator shows the characters’ minds or not. If the narrator does not show the characters’ inner life, the reader must imagine or analyze their minds depending on previous stories related to them.42 If we fellow Ewen’s theory about the classification of characters, Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11 and Abishag in 1 Kings 1 should be classified as follows: 1. Complexity: single trait, 2. Development: none, 3. Penetration into inner life:

40 For various opinions about the classification of characters, see Steven A. Hunt et al., “An Introduction to Character and Characterization in John and Related New Testament Literature” in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John, eds. Steven A. Hunt, et al., WUNT 314 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 1-8. 41 Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics (London: Routledge, 1989), 41. 42 Rimmon-Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 41-42. My italics.

uncertain because the narrator just says that they were very beautiful and became David’s wife or steward.

2.1.1.2. E. M. Forster: Two Categories

When classifying characters E. M. Forster distinguishes between “flat” and “round” characters.43

He describes “flat” characters as having only a single trait. According to him, there are two reasons that flat characters are needed in the narrative. “They are easily recognized whenever they come in”44 and are “remembered by the reader afterward,”45 because their traits are not changed in the narrative. So they do not show any development in the narrative. We can find many examples of flat characters in biblical narratives, as described in the following list:

The righteous Noah, the impulsive Esau, the stubborn and headstrong Pharaoh (Exod 5-14), the rebellious Israel in the desert, the brutal, unscrupulous Abimelek (Judg 9), Samson, strong, and quick-tempered in love and war, the clever Abigail, the lustful Amnon (2 Sam 13), the violent and ambitious Absalom, the conceited Haman . . .46

By contrast “round” characters have more than one trait and show development in the narrative.

Forster suggests an easy way to distinguish between a flat and a round character in the narrative.

If the character can surprise the reader, this character must be categorized as a round character. If not, the character must be classified as a flat character.47 Robert Scholes and Robert Kellogg

43 E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1927), 93-106. 44 Forster, Aspects of the Novel, 94. 45 Forster, Aspects of the Novel, 95. 46 Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 84. 47 Forster, Aspects of the Novel, 106.

follow Forster’s classification, because they assert that “characters in primitive stories (like the

Hebrew Bible) are invariably ‘flat,’ ‘static,’ and quite ‘opaque.’”48 However, this classification does not mean that a round character is superior to a flat character, because, as in the real world, the narrative world needs flat characters as well as round characters to comprise and develop stories.49

2.1.1.3. Adele Berlin and Yairah Amit: Three Categories

Sometimes it can be difficult to categorize characters based on Forster’s classification, especially in biblical narrative. For analyzing biblical characters, Adele Berlin and Yairah Amit expand

Forster’s classification into three categories: “The agents, who are subordinate to the plot [these characters are not characterized at all, like in the case of Abishag in 1 Kings 1]; the types, who have a limited and stereotyped range of traits [these are Forster’s flat characters]; and the characters, who have a broader range of traits and whose development we can observe [these are

Forster’s round characters and what Berlin calls full-fledged characters].”50

48 Robert Scholes and Robert Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), 164. 49 Forster, Aspects of the Novel, 98. 50 Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 72. See also Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983), 23-30.

2.1.1.4. W. J. Harvey: Four Categories

W. Harvey’s categorization is similar to Berlin’s. Harvey divides characters into four categories.51 Firstly, he calls the important characters in the narrative the “protagonists” (akin to

Berlin’s full-fledged characters) which are the most important characters in the narrative, in that they are “those characters whose motivation and history are most fully established, who conflict and change as the story progresses, who engage our responses more fully and steadily, in a way more complex.”52 Secondly, characters like Berlin’s agents are called the “background characters.” Interestingly, he divides the intermediary characters into two kinds (the Card and the ficelles) located between the protagonists and the background characters. Although the Card character is not one of the protagonists in the narrative, it carries weight in the narrative like the protagonists.53 The ficelles receive more attention from the reader than the background characters, because they are “delineated and individualized more than any background character.”54 Among biblical scholars, J. Ska proposes a theory similar to that of Harvey. If we follow Harvey’s classification, Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11 and Abishag in 1 Kings 1 are categorized as ficelles, because they “can be important to the plot, but they have very little ‘presence.’”55

2.1.1.5. A. J. Greimas: Six Categories

A. J. Greimas is a well-known scholar in structural analysis who also contributed to the

51 W. J. Harvey, Character and the Novel (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965), 56. 52 Harvey, Character and the Novel, 56. 53 On the Card’s distinctness from other characters, see Harvey, Character and the Novel, 60-62. 54 Harvey, Character and the Novel, 58. 55 Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us,” 87.

development of narrative analysis. He proposes six actors called actants for the classification of characters in a narrative. He argues that the relationship among these actants “is entirely centered on the object of desire aimed at by the subject and situated, as object of communication, between the sender and the receiver–the desire of the subject being, in its part, modulated in projections from the helper and opponent.”56 The following figure illustrates his view on the relationship between actants:

sender → object → receiver ↑ helper → subject ← opponent57

Steven Cohan and Linda M. Shires explain the functions of the six actants:

The subject and object of an event designate two classes of actors in that they name the positions actual characters occupy with respect to the story. The subject of a story is the performative agency of action, and the object is the goal or destination of that action. Both subject and object function in a direct relation to the events of a story. In addition, four other possible classes of actors function in an indirect relation to events: the sender (initiating or enabling the event), the receiver (benefiting from or registering effects of the event), the opponent (retarding or impeding the event by opposing the subject or competing with the subject for the object), and the helper (advancing or furthering the event by supporting or assisting the subject).58

If we follow Greimas’s classification of characters, we can categorize all the characters in 1 Kings 1-2 as follows:

56 A. J. Greimas, Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method, trans. Daniele McDowell, et al. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), 207. 57 Greimas, Structural Semantics, 207. 58 Steven Cohan and Linda M. Shires, Telling Stories: A Theoretical Analysis of Narrative Fiction (London: Routledge, 1988), 69.

David’s servants and Abishag → Solomon → David’s kingdom ↑ Bathsheba and Nathan → David ← Adonijah and his party

Greimas’s system has merit in that it does not exclude the role of any character (whether

“important” or not) in the narrative stage from developing and furthering the plot of the story.

However, there is not a perfect way to classify characters in narratives. Therefore, to categorize our characters, we must choose the most suitable classification theory for each story.

2.2. The Process of Characterization

As we know, there are two kinds of processes of characterization: direct and indirect. To understand the process of characterization, we need to follow Seymour Chatman’s description about characters. He describes characters as having “a paradigm of traits” where traits are features that make one character distinguishable from another. There are two processes by which traits are exposed to the implied reader: direct and indirect characterization.

2.2.1. Direct Characterization

In the case of direct characterization, the traits of characters are mentioned directly with an adjective, an abstract noun, or a common noun. If the narrator evaluates characters directly, the implied reader can usually regard this as truthful. The implied author makes direct characterization using the narrator’s voice, and the implied reader accepts it as correct information about the character in the narrative. However, if other characters in the narrative

make direct characterization, it is difficult to see this process as supplying trustworthy information. The characters’ statements must be evaluated by the implied reader and then accepted or denied.59

2.2.2. Indirect Characterization

In the case of indirect characterization, the traits are not mentioned, but portrayed. Thus, the implied reader must consider given information in the text regarding character traits. Examples of indirect characterization are a character’s actions, speech, external appearance (for example, beauty–important for the present thesis), and physical environment.60 Simon Bar-Efrat adds the role of minor characters in indirect characterization, because “the minor characters serve as a background against which the personalities of the main ones stand out.”61 Although descriptions of characters using indirect methods may seem unimportant as indicators of traits, they play an important role in the plot.

3. Beautiful Characters in the DN

Interestingly, some characters in the DN are characterized not by their actions and speech, but by their physical appearance. The characters so described are closely related to David, his direct descendants and wives. Portraying a character’s external appearance is one of the means of

59 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 42-43. 60 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 44-53; Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 48-53, 64-92. 61 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 86.

indirect characterization.62 A character’s external appearance offers the implied readers of the

DN a chance to explore the internal traits of these characters. Tolmie insists that the external appearance of a character does not play an important role in the Hebrew Bible,63 whereas

Sternberg argues that a character’s external appearance in the books of Samuel gives some insight into the traits of those characters.64 According to him, handsome men such as Saul,

David, and Absalom may be defined “as good and successful or bad and doomed.”65 Also, Eric

Seibert asserts that the description of the attractive appearance of these men in the DH signifies their royalty or their potential to become royal figures.66 While these two scholars’ observations on the outward appearance of the characters in biblical narrative form an important starting point for understanding characterization using outward appearance, their studies are not complete; they do not fully investigate why the narrator used this technique for characterization in the DN in particular.

3.1. The Functions of Beautiful Characters in the DN

Michael Avioz takes a profound interest in the physical beauty of characters in the books of

Samuel and Kings. He asserts that the functions of beautiful characters in the narrative are threefold: to “look to the future,” to provide “a (seemingly) positive description of the

62 Interestingly, Bar-Efrat categorizes outward appearance as “the direct shaping of the characters.” Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 48-53. 63 Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives, 46. 64 Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, ISBL 453 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 354-64. 65 Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 362. 66 Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11, LHBOTS 436 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 116.

characters,” and to help “characterize David’s character.”67 In the first instance, Avioz argues that the beauty of several characters, namely Bathsheba, Tamar (David’s daughter), and Abishag, foreshadows trouble. However, in general, when a new character first appears on the narrative stage, whether or not the new character is beautiful, the reader anticipates that an event related to this character will occur in the near future. Also, as I have argued already, the narrator’s attitude to the beautiful characters in the DN is more complex or nuanced than usually thought; the attitude appears to be more ambiguous than uniformly positive. In addition, minor beautiful characters in the DN help to characterize not only their own characters but David’s68 and even that of others in the narrative.69

Furthermore, although Avioz explains that “beauty that does not play a role in the plot will not be referred to by the narrator,”70 he does not explain why the narrator mentions the beauty of Tamar (Absalom’s daughter) in the narrative. Even though Avioz’s study on beautiful characters in the books of Samuel and Kings provides an important step toward illustrating the narrator’s intention for beautiful characters in biblical narrative, there are still aspects to explore, including why there is a plethora of outward descriptions in the DN.

67 Michael Avioz, “The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings,” VT 59 (2009): 358. 68 Saxegaard insists that “for the development of the plot, and most of all, for the understanding of the main characters, they [the minor characters] are significant.” Kristin Moen Saxegaard, Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth, FAT 2/47 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 74. 69 Janice Capel Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again, JSNTSup 91 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 217. 70 Avioz, “The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings,” 354.

3.2. Characterization Using Repetition

The narrator repeatedly highlights selected characters as attractive in the DN. When we interpret narratives, recurring factors, such as themes and motifs, function as a key for construing them,71 because “repetition directs our attention.”72 In addition, the narrator repeatedly uses certain words or phrases to show his intention to the reader.73 According to Bar-Efrat, “repetitions of course always provide emphasis, but they also fulfill other functions, particularly as regards characterization.”74 Mieke Bal explains that repetition75 is an important technique of characterization, in that “when a character appears for the first time, we do not yet know very much about it . . . In the course of the narrative the relevant characteristics are repeated so often . . . that they emerge more and more clearly.”76 As such, Bal explains that repetition is a crucial means for characterizing a single character.

71 Abbott explains that “identifying themes and motifs cannot in itself produce an interpretation, since the same themes and motifs can lend themselves to any number of different interpretations. But identifying themes and motifs can help enormously in establishing what a work is about and where its focus lies, and that in turn can be used to eliminate some interpretations and to lend support to others.” H. Porter Abbott, The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 88; In addition, Gunn and Fewell emphasize that “the verbatim repetition of a word, phrase, sentence, or set of sentences, or even the recurrence of words falling into the same semantic range can function to structure the story, to create atmosphere, to construct a theme or a character, to emphasize, a certain point to the reader, or to build suspense.” Gunn and Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible, 148. 72 Marilyn Merritt, “Repetition in Situated Discourse: Exploring Its Forms and Functions,” in Repetition in Discourse Interdisciplinary Perspectives: Volume One, ed. Barbara Johnstone (Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1994), 34. 73 Robert Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three 2 Samuel, ISBL 850 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 111. 74 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 162. 75 On this type of repetition, see Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 120-21; and on the functions of repetition, see Richard G. Bowman, “Narrative Criticism: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence,” in Judges & Methods: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, 2nd ed., ed. Gale A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 29. 76 Bal, Narratology, 126.

3.2.1. Repetition as Allusion

Upon closer examination, however, repeated descriptions of select characters’ external appearance in the DN can serve an additional purpose to the one argued for by Bal. What matters is not only the repeated characterization of a single character, but also the same characterization of multiple characters using the same or similar words. This is relevant to the present thesis in

in the טֹוב or יָפֶה relation to my understanding of the repeated (and inordinately high) use of

DN. In other words, if the same wording is applied to several different characters in an initial way, the descriptive wording itself has an important effect as a signal of character. Jerome T.

Walsh names this kind of repetition “allusion,” because it gives the reader a clue for interpreting a new story.77

טֹוב and יָפֶה Repetition of .3.2.2

function in the DN as modifiers applied to the names of טֹוב or יָפֶה The Hebrew adjectives certain individuals, and in so doing they signal these so-named persons as belonging to a group, a group among whom one might logically expect relationships to exist that contribute to the overall plot of the DN. In other words, the narrator has an express purpose for repeating these words in the DN. In still other words, the cluster of characters described as beautiful is a good example in the DN of what Robert Alter calls “an elaborately integrated system of repetition . . .

77 Jerome T. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 91-92.

to produce a concerted whole.”78

3.2.2.1. The Meaning of the Words

is “ordinarily associated with the outward beauty of a person יָפֶה ,According to William Dyrness and less often, of an object,”79 and such is also the case in the DN. James Williams asserts that

and the words derived from it “are never used to describe someone who is not favored by the יָפֶה

God of Israel, no matter how desirable he or she may seem to be otherwise (e.g., Delilah,

,Esth 1:11). In addition ;יָפְ יַָ֔ ּה) Jezebel, Saul).”80 Even so, he cannot not explain the case of Vashti even though he insists that Rebekah and Bathsheba are under “providential guidance,”81 the

.to describe their beauty in Gen 26:7 and 2 Sam 11:2 טֹוב but יָפֶה narrators do not use the word

generally means “good,” but sometimes it “refers to attractive טֹוב The adjective

as in 2 Sam 11:2 and 1 Kgs 1:6. When the 82”,תֹֹּ֫ אר or , מרְ אֶ ה appearance when appearing with

or יָפֶה narrator depicts characters’ outward appearance as attractive, he uses the Hebrew words

and (טֹוב) As Yael Avrahami has put it, there is a “paradigmatic parallel between good .טֹוב

in the Hebrew Bible. It means that “these two adjectives are interchanged.”83 ”(יָפֶה) beautiful

78 Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 119. 79 William A. Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context,” JETS 28 (1985): 424. Mark W. applies to women, but it describes David here [1 Sam 16:12], Absalom in 2 יָפֶה Hamilton explains that “typically Sam. 14:25, Joseph in Gen. 39:6, and an anonymous male in Song 1:16.” Mark W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel, BibInt 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 128. 80 James G. Williams, “The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical Type-Scenes,” JSOT 17 (1980): 116. 81 Williams, “The Beautiful and the Barren,” 115-16. My italics. 82 Carol M. Kaminski, Was Noah Good?: Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative, LHBOTS 563 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 46. 83 Yael Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 545 (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 169.

3.2.2.2. Other Hebrew Words

At this point it might well be asked: Why does the narrator of the DN not use other Hebrew words that mean beauty? After all, as Dyrness notes, there are several words meaning beauty in the Hebrew Bible, as the table below demonstrates.84

Table 2. The Words That Mean “Beauty” in the Hebrew Bible

Word Meaning In the DH Meaning in the text ה צְב י֙ י שְרָ אֵַ֔ ל ”.glory, 2 Sam 1:19 “The beauty, O Israel צְבי beauty85 ּפֶן־י תְ ּפָאֵ֙ ר ”.to beautify86 Judg 7:2 “Lest Israel glorify themselves ּפאר ְו ֵ֥לֹא ת ְח ֵֹ֖מד ”.to desire87 Deut 5:21 “and you shall not covet חָמד וַָֽאֶחְמְדֵֵ֖ם ”.Josh 7:21 “and I coveted them desirable No Gen 2:9, 3:6; Prov 21:20 נֶחְמָ ד beautiful No cf. Song 1:5; 2:14; 4:3; 6:4; Ps 147:1 נָאוֶה יְה֣ ןֹונָתַָ֔ נָעֵ֥מְת ל ֵ֖י ”.to be pleasant 2 Sam 1:26 “Jonathan was beautiful to me נעם וְה נְע ימם֙ ”.beautiful88 2 Sam 1:23 “and they (Saul and Jonathan) were beautiful נָעים ּונְע ֵ֖ ים זְמ רֵ֥ ֹות י שְרָאֵַֽ ל ”(Sam 23:1 “and beautiful songs of Israel (David 2

הָדָ֣ר לַ֗ ֹו ”glory89 Deut 33:17 “beauty of tribe of Joseph הָדָ ר

84 Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament,” 421-32. 85 Graz Madl explains that “2 S. 1:19 calls a specific group of persons (Saul and Jonathan) haṣṣeḇî, ‘ornament,’ a meaning confirmed by the synonym gibbôrîm (hero).” Graz H. Madl, “ṣeḇî,” TDOT 12: 236. 86 Neuendettelslau Hausmann argues that “Jgs. 7:2 criticizes and checks Israel’s self-glorification.” Neuendettelslau J. Hausmann, “p’r,” TDOT 11: 465. 87 Hale Wallis asserts that “the general usage of ḥmd can have a negative component.” Sometimes it has a positive meaning, but it is not very common. Hale G. Wallis, “chāmadh,” TDOT 4: 455-56. 88 This word means “intimate friendship.” In addition, “metaphorically, nāʽîm can stand for the beauty or attractiveness of the land of Israel. For example, the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49) says of Issachar: “And he saw that a resting place was good (ṭôḇ), and that the land was pleasant (nʽm)” (v. 15).” Madla T. Kronholm, “nāʽam,” TDOT 9: 470. 89 This word means the glory of God, an earthly king, or a human being. On human glory, Kiel Warmuth explains that “hadhar is the glory, the beauty, the special quality of a man. The ‘beauty’ of old men is their gray hair (Prov. 20:29). The Servant of God lacks all ‘comeliness’ (Isa. 53:2) (cf. the parallel expressions: he also has no toʾar, ‘[beautiful] form,’ or marʾeh, ‘pleasant appearance’ [RSV ‘beauty’]). A man’s hadhar is a reason for looking at him (v. 2).” Kiel G. Warmuth, “hādhār,” TDOT 3: 337-39; see especially page 339.

’are used in the DN for describing characters ,טֹוב and יָפֶה ,However, only these two words outward appearance as attractive. The obvious question is this: What is the significance of the narrator’s choice of these two words as designations of appearance in the DN? It is the purpose of this thesis to argue that the choice of these two words is significant. Additionally, as the footnotes to these possible alternative words indicate, the other Hebrew words do not seem appropriate for depicting a human being’s physical appearance and for conveying the narrator’s intention in the narrative. Other Hebrew words that mean beauty in the DN remind the reader of

which is only used ,נָאוֶה ,the glory of a community or pleasantness to somebody. Also, the word outside the DN, interchangeably expresses the beauty of a human being on the one hand and the wonderfulness of what God’s people do (Ps 147:1) on the other hand.

In order to further substantiate my case, in the next chapters I will fully analyze the characters whose outward appearance is portrayed with these Hebrew words in the DN. The characters to be studied will be as follows:

Table 3. Characters Whose Outward Appearance Is Described as Beautiful/Handsome in the DN

Translation טֹוב/יָפֶה Name Text with beautiful eyes and beautiful“ עם־יְפֵֵ֥ה עֵינ ֵַ֖֖ים וְ ט֣ ֹוב רֹ֑ אי David 1 Sam 16:12 appearance” with beautiful appearance“ עם־יְפֵֵ֥ה מ רְ אֶַֽ ה Sam 17:42 1 ”and beautiful shape ֣ ו יפת תַֹ֔ אר Abigail 1 Sam 25:3 ”very beautiful appearance“ טֹוב ֵ֥ת מ רְ אֵֶ֖ה מְ אַֹֽ ד Bathsheba 2 Sam 11:2 ”beautiful“ יָפֵָ֖ה Tamar 1 2 Sam 13:1 handsomest man in all of Israel“ א יׁש־יָפֶֶ֛ה בְ כָל־י שְרָאֵֵ֖ל לְהלֵ֣ל מְ אֹ֑ ד Absalom 2 Sam 14:25 who should be praised highly” ”beautiful appearance“ יְפ ֵ֥ת מ רְ אֶַֽ ה Tamar 2 2 Sam 14:27 ”exceedingly beautiful“ יָפָ֣ה עד־מְ אֹ֑ ד Abishag 1 Kgs 1:4

”very handsome shape“ טַֽ ֹוב א־תֹֹּ֙ ר֙ מְ אַֹ֔ ד Adonijah 1 Kgs 1:6

If one follows Bal’s argument concerning repetition, the reader may not understand a character’s traits and function through a single appearance on the narrative stage, as in the case of Tamar, David’s granddaughter (2 Sam 14:27), because we encounter her only one time in the narrative. There are many flat characters in the biblical narratives who appear like bit-part actors in a play or a movie. Limited information about these characters can confuse the reader because it is difficult to understand the narrator’s intention for introducing them. Sometimes, as in the case of characters in the DN, the reader is provided with only a brief description of the characters’ outward appearance.

Nevertheless, as Bar-Efrat asserts, all biblical characters have their own function in the narrative.90 There are no exceptions in either major or minor characters. Even though some characters do not play a leading role in the narrative, the narrator’s purpose is to deliver a message to the reader through them. Also, they serve to explain the main characters further.91

Thus, repetition of characters’ outward appearance is one tool to reveal the narrator’s intention.

3.2.3. Characterization by Repetition

Janice Anderson agrees with the argument that repetition has the ability “to emphasize, order and unify” the narrative. Furthermore, repetition has an effect on “the reader’s memory, especially

90 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 92. 91 Saxegaard, Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth, 74.

involving anticipation and retrospection” in the whole narrative.92 Sudden changes in the status of a previously mentioned beautiful character could lead the reader to anticipate a disruption in a later mentioned beautiful character by means of the repetition of a descriptor of beauty. The repetition of adjectives that describe characters’ outward appearance can become a signal that implies an outcome in the narrative that follows. If, for some reason, the reader does not recognize why the narrator repeats certain words in a specific event, it is possible to notice it during subsequent events that involve other good-looking characters. These later descriptions provide a clue to previous events connected with other good-looking characters. Thus, repetition functions to group these characters with similar traits together within the narrative unit.93

3.2.4. Repetition of Significant Events in the Narrative

Astrid Erll explains the difference between general events and significant events in all general narratives. Moreover, Erll similarly identifies two different sorts of repetition that occur in general narratives, one called “iterative” for general events and another called “repetitive” for significant events. “Iterative” repetition denotes a general and unimportant event through a one- time summative description of recurrence, whereas “repetitive”94 or distributive repetition

92 Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web, 216. 93 As a good example of this repetition, Anderson suggests that Matt 7:16-20 (a mention of good fruits) “echoes 3.8, 10 and anticipates 12:33; 21.41b, 43.” Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web, 217. 94 Astrid Erll, “Narratology and Cultural Memory Studies,” in Narratology in the Age of Cross-Disciplinary Narrative Research, eds. Sandra Heinen and Roy Sommer, Narratologia 20 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 214. According to Grenville J. R. Kent, “1 Samuel 1 provides a strong example of this (the iterative way): the family goes up year after year to sacrifice, and each time the wives are in conflict (1:1-6), but only one such episode is fully realized.” Grenville J. R. Kent, Saying It Again Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1 Samuel 28 (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 64. One good example of the “repeating way” is “the triple-

signals importance through the actual repetition of the recurrent event or trait, such as the repetitive appearance of the barren wives in the biblical narratives.95 Through verbal repetition in the DN, for instance, the narrator effectively conveys his intention to the reader that what happens to one person (i.e., whether barren or beautiful) may happen to other persons repeatedly.

We can find another good example of this kind of verbal repetition in 1 Sam 18:7, 21:12,

ה כִָּ֤ה ׁשָ אּול֙ בְ אֲלָפָו ;”and 29:5. The ditty (“Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands

is cited three times in these verses, thus indicating the narrator’s intent that the ( וְדָוֵ֖ד בְר בְ בֹתַָֽ יו reader take note. Kent suggests that we interpret the last instance of the ditty using the first two instances.

An example . . . is the twice-repeated ditty about Saul and David slaying Philistines. Hearing Israelite women singing this triggers Saul’s suspicion of David (1 Sam 18:7-8). Latter the ditty raises dangerous suspicion of David in another king, the Philistine Achish (21:11-12) . . . A third time the full text, form, and context are quoted by certain Philistine warlords who object to David’s presence in their pre-battle parade (29:5). In the first two occurrences, the song brings danger for David, and so in the third occurrence the reader expects danger again, but the twist is that David is sent home from battle against Israel, and saved from the bind he has got into by defecting to Achish. Without the warlord’s objection, David would have had three options: one, to fight for Achish against Israel, which would have ended his chances of kingship; two, to withdraw from the battle, which would likely have had him killed by the Philistines; or three, to

repeat of the plot of David being tempted to kill an enemy (in 1 Sam 24, Saul; 25, Nabal; 26, Saul).” Kent, Saying It is repeated 8 times, and the narrator says effectively to מדְ בָר Again Sam, 53. In addition, in 1 Sam 24-26 the word .My italics ”. מדְ בָר the reader “something is going to happen when David is in the 95 According to Williams (“The Beautiful and the Barren,” 109), the barren wives repeatedly appear in “Gen 16:1-6 (and 21:1-7), 29:31-30:24, and I Sam 1.” Also, the stories of the barren wives in the biblical narratives have similar contents, as follows:

1. The favored wife is barren. 2. There is a rival woman. 3. The rival woman is fertile, bears a son for the barren woman’s husband. 4. The rival woman belittles the barren wife, brings about the agon (conflict, contest). 5. The barren wife is eventually heard by God, has a son.

change sides during the battle, a possibility feared by the Philistines (29:4) but in reality extremely risky. So the third use of the dangerous ditty surprisingly sends David to safety.96 However, despite Kent’s opinion that the first two songs function as a contributing factor for putting David in danger, it is possible to see all three ditties as warnings of the danger in each narrative event. So, when the reader meets this ditty in the narrative, he or she can anticipate that

David will be delivered from danger. When Saul heard the first ditty sung by Israelite women (1

Sam 18:8), he was very angry, because he thought that the song meant David would be the king of Israel. However, even though David was in danger because of the ditty, it revealed Saul’s inner heart before Saul attempted to kill him. The reader could not presuppose David’s safety in this kind of situation, but he or she could recognize that David would not be in danger after reading the second repeated ditty.

When David heard the ditty repeated by the servants of Achish, king of Gath, he recalled

Saul’s attempt against his life. So he feared Achish and feigned madness in order to escape from danger. In this case, the ditty’s function clearly comes to the front of the narrative stage, because

David acted like a madman after hearing the song, and Achish did not pay attention to David.

Because of these first two repeated songs, David (and also the reader) knows manifestly that when the song is sung by the Philistine commanders (1 Sam 29:5), he will be delivered from the danger against Israel. Therefore, the repeated ditties show the narrator’s intention that David will recognize danger and will be rescued from Saul, Achish, and the Philistine commanders.

96 Kent, Saying It Again Sam, 52-53.

3.2.5. Repetition of Character Description in the Narrative

In the same way as above, when the reader notices the narrator’s technique of repeatedly introducing physical beauty, he or she realizes the association between beauty and a certain outcome desired by the narrator. It would not be an overstatement to say that repetition is “one of most extensive devices in the Bible, taking many different forms.”97 About this kind of repetition, Isaac Kalimi explains that “reiteration of language can also be an editorial technique that is employed in order to impose an impression of unity upon a disparate whole.”98 In addition, he insists that the repeated word has “a twofold purpose: to emphasize and to link.”99

Each time the reader meets a beautiful character within the stories of the DN, it is possible for the reader to realize how deeply David’s political power is involved with each story. The narrator’s descriptions of a character’s outward appearance and David’s political power are intricately woven together in the case of the DN. Thus, we may assume that the beautiful characters in the DN appear on the narrative stage in order to show changes in David’s political power to the reader.100

If we analyze the beautiful characters in the DN, we uncover the narrator’s intention.

The reader is given only limited information about these characters, such as their attractive appearance and name, at the beginning of each narrative event. The similarity of depictions

97 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 136. 98 Isaac Kalimi, “Reexamining 2 Samuel 10-12: Reduction History versus Compositional Unity,” CBQ 78 (2016): 41. 99 Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 360. Italics in the original. 100 See Table 4.

forms a bond with the central figure king David, surrounded as he is by these beautiful characters. This repetition suggests a relationship between David and the beautiful characters, and also among the beautiful characters themselves in the DN. This grouping by way of characterization establishes a subset within which coherency can be seen across these stories.

The following table presents briefly how the narrator portrays beauty in the DN, including the description of king Saul’s outward appearance. In the case of Saul, his physical beauty and attractiveness are an important factor in gaining political power and public support. However, the narrator’s view of beauty changes in the DN. The narrator treats beauty like an unimportant or an unessential factor as each story develops. As proof, in the cases of king Solomon and all the kings who follow, the narrator does not refer to their outward appearance.

Table 4. A Consideration of Stories Related to the Beautiful Characters in the DH

Text Beautiful Characterization A weighty consideration The narrator’s character by whom view of beauty 1 Sam 9 Saul the narrator Beauty was an important positive factor to be king. 1 Sam 16 David the narrator Beauty misled Samuel, but slightly negative beauty was also an important factor to be king. 1 Sam 17 David Goliath Beauty was ridiculed. negative 1 Sam 25 Abigail the narrator Beauty was ignored in her ignored evaluation, but wisdom was intentionally emphasized. 2 Sam 11 Bathsheba David Beauty made problems. negative 2 Sam 13- Tamar, the narrator Beauty made problems. negative 19 Absalom 1 Kgs 1-2 Abishag, the narrator Beauty made problems. insignificant/ Adonijah ambiguous

Early on in the DN, especially in Abigail’s case in 1 Sam 25, it is difficult to decide

whether the narrator has a positive or a negative attitude towards the beautiful characters. What is clear is that the narrator is aware of the notion that beauty was typically regarded as a valuable asset for a king. That the narrator later fails to mention Abigail’s beauty alongside her wisdom implies that her wisdom is the solution of the problem in this story.101 As the stories in the DN unfold, however, we observe how each of the good-looking characters is involved in incidents that shed light on the narrator’s view of beauty.

In my opinion, the narrator wants to convey through the Hebrew words for beauty that, unlike characters in the narrative and even the reader, Yahweh initially does not share the culture’s prioritization of physical appearance as a criterion for kingship (including queenship).

He stresses more importantly such things as being chosen by God, obedient, wise, godly, etc. As

Robert Hubbard explains, “more important, within the larger story of David, Yahweh sounds a crucial warning that human physical appearance can mislead even someone as astute as wise

Samuel,”102 just as God warned Samuel. First Samuel 16:7 says that “man looks at the outward appearance, but Yahweh looks at the heart.” This does not mean that the narrator has a negative view of physical beauty itself. Rather, this implies that the narrator of the DN seems to be interested only in illustrating or describing the lack of importance of outward beauty as it relates most especially to kingship.

When the narrator portrays David’s physical appearance as beautiful in 1 Sam 16, it acts as a signal that he has the potential to be king of Israel, because beautiful characters have

.in 1 Sam 18:5, 14, 15, 30 (שָ כל) is related to David’s success (שֶ כֶל) Her insight 101 102 Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., “The Eyes Have It: Theological Reflections on Human Beauty,” EA 13 (1997): 67.

power.103 In the Ancient Near East, physical beauty was an important endowment of a king.

Kings in the Ancient Near East were often described as being more handsome and larger than their people.104 Interestingly, a hint that David will become the ruler of Israel may be signaled in the story of beautiful (and insightful) Abigail in 1 Sam 25:30, even before Nathan proclaims it (2

Sam 7:8).105 However, the close sequence of narratives related to the beautiful characters plays an important role in reducing king David’s throne gradually and destabilizing his kingship.

Moreover, beauty can destroy characters who have it, along with their followers.106 In the DH, the narrator warns about the dangers of pursuing beauty, as can be seen for example in the Achan

,(ּפאר cf. Deut 5:21), in Gideon’s attack on Midian (Judg 7:2 with ; חָמד incident (Jos 7:21 with

To show the power .(טֹוב and in the case of Saul’s attractiveness to the Israelites (1 Sam 9:2 with of beauty, the DN narrator includes more incidents concerning beautiful characters than the previous incidents in the DH. In addition, each story involving beautiful characters in the DN makes a well-knit narrative structure to illustrate how David gains political power and loses it

(Figure 3).

103 David Penchansky, “Beauty, Power, and Attraction: Aesthetics and the Hebrew Bible,” in Beauty and the Bible: Toward a Hermeneutics of Biblical Aesthetics, eds. Richard J. Bautch and Jean-François Racine, SemeiaSt 73 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 47. 104 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1 – 59, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 454; Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, LHBOTS 441 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 74- 77; Hamilton, The Body Royal, 34, 129. 105 Mary Shields, “A Feast Fit for a King: Food and Drink in the Abigail Story,” in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, eds. Tod Linafelt, et al., LHBOTS 500 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 48. 106 Penchansky, “Beauty, Power, and Attraction,” 64.

Figure 3. The Narrative Structure of Incidents Involving Beautiful Characters Related to David’s Kingship in the DN107

4. Conclusion Characterization through repeated descriptions of outward appearances in the DN is a good tool for effectively and economically conveying the intention of the narrator to the reader. As a certain word that occurs frequently in each story has a special function to lead the readers in a new direction,108 a disproportionately frequent occurrence of certain words in the large narrative

(especially depicting outward appearances) also reveals what the narrator wants to show.109 In addition, characterization through repeated references to outward appearances renders

107 The narrative structure of beautiful characters’ stories in the DN is similar to the structure that Polzin suggests in her book. The figure is adapted from Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 47. 108 Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 109-14. 109 Kalimi, “Reexamining 2 Samuel 10-12,” 41.

meaningless the distinction between main and minor characters, or round and flat characters; but it conveys the intention of the narrator to the reader effectively.

Chapter Two The Role of Outward Appearance in the Ancient Near East and Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible

Adele Berlin insists that “the purpose of character description in the Bible is . . . to situate the character in terms of his place in society, his own particular situation, and his outstanding traits– in other words, to tell what kind of a person he is.”1 How do readers infer characters’ social status by their outward appearance? It is natural enough that physical beauty was an important factor to be king or to hold a high office in the Ancient Near East. Chaim Reines agrees that

“beauty played an important role in the social life of the times, since it enhanced the prestige of the individual and was, therefore, considered an asset for high holders.”2 Othmar Keel supplements the notion of beauty in the Ancient Near East when he states that it “consists not only in purity of form, but also in richness of color, light, and odor, and in display of wealth and power.”3

1. The Role of Outward Appearance in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible

In the Ancient Near East, physical beauty was important to the higher echelons of society. In the case of ancient Egypt, “beauty was . . . reserved for the elite, which was thus set gloriously apart

1 Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983), 36. 2 Chaim W. Reines, “Beauty in the Bible and the Talmud,” Judaism 24 (1975): 107. 3 Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 280. 45

from the plain, unremarkable appearance of the working masses.”4 We can find many expressions in praise of, and longing for, physical beauty in Ancient Near Eastern texts. It is highly probable that beauty involved political power and that the power-hungry elite strove to get it.

1.1. Akkadian Myths and Letters

In the epic of Gilgamesh, the narrator depicts Gilgamesh as a beautiful being. The hero of this epic had extraordinary power as well as beauty.5 Sometimes, his beauty was obscured by other things, but ultimately it was visible despite all obscuring factors.

He6 washed his grimy hair, polished his weapons, The braid of his hair he shook out against his back. He cast off his soiled (things), put on his clean ones, Wrapped a fringed cloak about and fastened a sash. When Gilgamesh had put on his tiara, Glorious Ishtar raised an eye at the beauty of Gilgamesh: “Come, Gilgamesh, be thou (my) lover! Do but grant me of thy fruit. Thou shalt be my husband and I will be thy wife.7

No sooner was Gilgamesh’s beauty revealed than the goddess Ishtar wanted to take Gilgamesh as her husband.

Utnapishtim [says to him], to Urshanabi, the boatman: . . . Let him cast off his skins, let the sea carry (them) away,

4 Jan Assmann, The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs, trans. Andrew Jenkins (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 277. 5 Karen Nemet-Nejat, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” in Women in the Ancient Near East: A Sourcebook, ed. Mark W. Chavalas (London: Routledge, 2014), 177. 6 Gilgamesh. 7 ANET, 83.

That the fairness of his body may be seen. Let him renew the band round his head, Let him put on a cloak to clothe his nakedness, . . . Let not (his) cloak have a moldy cast, Let it be wholly new.” Urshanabi took him and brought him to the washing-place. He washed off his grime in water clean as snow. He cast off his skins, the sea carried (them) away, That the fairness of his body might be seen.8

Even though Gilgamesh’s physical beauty was covered with grime, Utnapishtim already knew about his beauty. It comes as no surprise that most of the characters in this epic knew the hero

Gilgamesh’s physical beauty. However, the harlot Shamhat had to inform Enkidu about his appearance:

O Enkidu! You who [know nothing (?)] of life! Let me show you Gilgamesh, a man of joy and woe! Look at him, observe his face, He is beautiful in manhood, dignified, His whole body is charged with seductive charm. He is more powerful in strength of arms than you! He does not sleep by day or night. O Enkidu, change your plan for punishing him! Shamash loves Gilgamesh, And Anu, Ellil, and Ea made him wise!9

According to Shamhat, many gods paid a lot of attention to Gilgamesh, as the goddess Ishtar had done. The goddess Ishtar’s beauty is described in the hymn to Ishtar.

She is clothed with pleasure and love. She is laden with vitality, charm, and voluptuousness. Ishtar is clothed with pleasure and love. She is laden with vitality, charm and voluptuousness.

8 ANET, 96. 9 Stephanie Dalley, ed. and trans., Myth from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 57.

In lips she is sweet; life is in her mouth. At her appearance rejoicing becomes full. She is glorious; veils are thrown over her head. Her figure is beautiful; her eyes are brilliant.10

The epic of Gilgamesh and the hymn to Ishtar imply that an attractive appearance was a prerequisite for the upper class, or that it was a thing that people in those days wished to have.

1.2. Egyptian Hymns

According to Paul Frandsen, “the notion of divine kingship has always been closely associated with ancient Egypt.”11 In Egypt it is typical for the Pharaoh, the king, to be described as “the visible incarnation of the god.”12 Moreover, the Pharaoh was conscious that his subjects viewed him as a living god and everlasting king.13 Therefore, it is no wonder that the gods of Egypt considered Pharaohs their sons, extolled them to the skies, and often mentioned their outward appearance.

One example of an Egyptian god’s beauty is in a hymn to Amon-Re.

In whose beauty the gods rejoice, . . . The Beautiful of Face who comes (from) God’s Land. . . . Firm of horns, beautiful of face,

10 ANET, 383. 11 Paul John Frandsen, “Aspect of Kingship in Ancient Egypt,” in Religion and Power Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, ed. Nicole Brisch (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008), 47. 12 Manfred Lurker, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary, trans. Barbara Cummings (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1980), 10. 13 Frandsen, “Aspect of Kingship in Ancient Egypt,” 47. Rudolf Anthes, “Egyptian Theology in the Third Millennium B.C.,” JNES 18 (1959): 170. This tendency was found in classical Greek thought. According to Kenneth Dutton, “physical beauty was a common bond between gods and men, its depiction could be either an offering pleasing to the divine or else a representation of the divine itself.” Kenneth R. Dutton, The Perfectible Body: The Western Ideal of Physical Development (London: Cassell, 1995), 24.

. . . Beautiful of diadem, and lofty of White Crown. . . . Beautiful of face, when he receives the atef-crown, . . . The beauty of thee carries away hearts; . . . Thy beautiful form relaxes the hands;14

Another Pharaoh, Amen-hotep IV (also known as Akh-en-Aton), praised Aton as almighty as well as beautiful.

Thou appearest beautifully on the horizon of heaven, Thou living Aton, the beginning of life! When thou art risen on the eastern horizon, Thou hast filled every land with thy beauty. Thou art gracious, great, glistening, and high over every land;15

The inscription below depicts Pharaoh having an attractive outward appearance, much as Amon-

Re had a beautiful face in the first hymn. In Amen-hotep III’s building inscription, the Egyptian god Amon-Re compares the pharaoh to himself:

My son, of my body, my beloved, Neb-maat-Re, My living image, whom my body created, . . . My heart is very joyful when I see thy beauty; I work a wonder for thy majesty.16

The ancient Egyptians seemed to think (or so the kings wanted them to believe) that their kings– the kings’ images, physical beauty and other things–were similar to their god. For example, the

Egyptian kings’ body sizes were depicted as equal to their gods’ and bigger than normal

14 ANET, 365-66. 15 ANET, 370. 16 ANET, 376.

people’s.17

1.3. Sumerian Hymns

This hymn is for Inanna “by Enheduanna, the daughter of Sargon the Great, founder of the

Dynasty of Akkad, who appointed her as en, or high-priestess of Nanna (also known as Sin) the tutelary deity of Ur.”18

The heart of Inanna was restored, The day was favorable for her, she was clothed with beauty, was filled with joyous allure, How she carried (her) beauty - like the rising moon-light!

The high-priestess Enheduanna praised Inanna’s power and her beauty.

1.4. The Hebrew Bible

In this section, I would like to give examples showing the role of outward appearance outside the

DN. In the Hebrew Bible, most characters seem to have a positive attitude to physical beauty.

This attitude may reflect ancient Israelite attitudes towards physical attractiveness. Reines properly summarizes the Israelites’ thought about attractive appearances.

In antiquity, . . . good looks were considered an asset for men in public life. This was especially true of the king, since a comely appearance would enhance his prestige among the people. Thus, it is said in a hymn in praise of a king, “Thou art the most beautiful of men.” It is said of David that he had beautiful eyes and a fair complexion, a fact that apparently attributed to his popularity. It is also stated of Absalom, who rebelled against David and aspired to become the king of Israel, that he was a man of great beauty. The halakhah states that

17 Gay Robins, The Art of Ancient Egypt (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 21. 18 ANET, 579.

the high priest should be a man of comely appearance for his beauty would enhance the splendor of the worship in which he officiates. The rabbis also held that the members of the Sanhedrin (the high court) should, preferably, be tall and of a comely appearance, in order that the people should have the proper respect for them.19

It is easy to find evidence in the Hebrew Bible that the ancient Israelites preferred physical beauty. Even in 1 Sam 16:7 when Yahweh said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance and his height,” the text implies that physical attractiveness was a criterion of king selection. This resonates well with the view of Trotti that “a man’s qualifications for leadership on the human level were largely physical.”20 In the book of Psalms, the king is depicted as the most beautiful of all, because God has blessed him forever (Ps 45:2).21 Intrinsic to this concept is that the king or men who try to become the king must be beautiful. Another example is in 2 Kgs 10:3, where

Ahab’s officials must select their next king as a “good and right” candidate among Ahab’s sons

According to Trotti, this description applies not to the king’s .(ה טִּ֤ ֹוב וְה יָׁשָר֙ מבְנֵ֣י אֲדֹ נֵיכֶַ֔ ם) against Jehu moral standard, but “a special emphasis upon physical prowess in the light of the battle certain to ensue if such a son were crowned.”22

As men’s physical appearance was an important factor for gaining political power from the public, so women’s beauty was an important element for obtaining and maintaining a high position. In the case of Jezebel, her make-up can be interpreted in two ways: “either Jezebel is interested in seducing Jehu, or perhaps she is at pains to appear presentable, as behooves a

19 Reines, “Beauty in the Bible and the Talmud,” 106. 20 John Boone Trotti, “Beauty in the Old Testament” (PhD diss., Yale University, 1964), 18. 21 Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 280. 22 Trotti, “Beauty in the Old Testament,” 20.

woman about to inherit the throne.”23 Either way, queen Jezebel’s beauty is considered particularly important to save her life or keep her honour as the queen of the country. Another example of physical attractiveness saving the life of a woman, even if an enemy, is found in Deut

21:11; as now, so then: men have a favourable impression of beautiful women.

The beauty of a wife or daughter makes a husband or a father proud, as is suggested in the case of queen Vashti (Esth 1:11) and queen Esther (Esth 2:7, 17-8). In Judg 15:2, the father- in-law of Samson offers him his bride’s younger sister on the grounds that she is more beautiful than his bride, whom the father-in-law had given to another. However, this suggestion fanned

Samson’s anger. The narrator does not explain why Samson did not take her as his wife. She probably was not as beautiful as the father-in-law said; as well, Samson had his own standards of beauty (Judg 14:3, 7).24 In Job 42:14-5, Job had a great interest in his three daughters. He gave the daughters personal names and property. The daughters’ names, Jemimah, Keziah and Keren- happuch mean “dove,” “cinnamon,” and “eye-shadow case”25 respectively; the third name implies that the first two similarly stress physical beauty.26 Thus, Christl Maier and Silvia

Schroer write: “the daughters’ names are drawn from the domain of aesthetics and cosmetics . . .

.א :(Yossi Leshem, “‘She Painted Her Eyes with Kohl and Dressed Her Hair’: 2 Kings 9:30,” HUCA 76 (2005 23 24 Trotti (“Beauty in the Old Testament,” 82-3) argues that “there are two texts in which the idiom “pleasing in the seems to refer to beauty. In Ju[dg] 14:3 and 7 we see that Samson found a woman of the (יׁשר בעיני) ”. . . eyes of and he desired her for a wife. The context leads us to assume (יׁשרה בעיני) ”Philistines who was “pleasing in his eyes that we have to do with beauty here.” 25 Michael David Coogan, “Job’s Children,” in Lingering over Words, eds. Tzvi Abusch, et al., HSS 37 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 147. See also John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 543. 26 Ilana Pardes, “Jemimah,” in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament, eds. Carol Meyers, et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 100.

The daughters’ beauty is emphasized and brings glory to Job everywhere in the land.”27 Their beauty was his pride and it was reflected in their names.

1.5. The Apocrypha of the Old Testament

We can find other beautiful characters in the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament. One is Judith, the main character in the book of Judith. The narrator depicts her beauty as follows:

“She was good in sight and exceedingly beautiful in appearance” (Jdt. 8:7). Even though she had various characteristics such as piety, bravery, wisdom, wealth, and so on, her beauty made possible her duty to kill the enemy and played an important role in delivering God’s people.28

In the Wisdom of Solomon, as in the book of Judith, the narrator emphasizes that

“wisdom is the most precious of all the goods a king can possess, more precious than precious stones, than silver and gold, than health and beauty.”29 In addition, wisdom is “even elevated to the position of God’s beloved spouse,”30 because it is a reflection of God’s beauty. It seems then that there is a tendency to link beauty with wisdom in the apocryphal books of the Old

Testament.

Another is Susanna in the Old Testament apocryphal additions to the book of Daniel, in

27 Christl Maier and Silvia Schroer, “Job: Questioning the Book of the Righteous Sufferer,” in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature, eds. Luise Schottroff and Marie-Theres Wacker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 234. 28 Risimati Hobyane, “Body and Space in Judith: A Greimassian Perspective,” BN 168 (2016): 5-6. 29 Peter Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 33-34. See Wis 7:8-10. 30 Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, 38.

chapter 13. In verses 1 and 31, the narrator portrays her as very beautiful. In brief, her story is as follows:

Susanna is depicted as a woman who is faced with the threat of rape by two elders or religious leaders, but rather than submit to illicit penetration, she clamours for help and is falsely accused of adultery and subsequently sentenced to death. But before the seemingly inevitable execution takes place, Susanna prays to God, and a youth called Daniel comes to her rescue.31

Interestingly, Susanna’s physical attractiveness does not rescue anyone, including herself, but brings great danger to her and her family, especially her husband’s honour.32 Her bathing scene in the garden (vv. 15-18) reminds us of the scene of Bathsheba’s bath in 2 Sam 11:2.33 The characteristic differences between Susanna and two elders have been thrown into sharp relief by the narrator’s description of each elder as “religious and an older man, with considerable juridical and social power. . . . [However, she has] chastity, youth, beauty, innocence and, most importantly, lack of social and juridical power.”34 This story ends just as we expect. God heard her prayer, and sent young Daniel35 to deliver her from death (vv. 44-64). In this story,

Susanna’s beauty poses a serious risk to herself and the characters around her, but Daniel, whom

God sent, proves her innocence. Two beautiful characters in the deuterocanonical books of the

Old Testament show the Israelites’ attitude to beauty at that time. One saves God’s people from the enemy using her beauty, and the other is delivered from a death to which her outward appearance contributed. Based on these examples, physical beauty appears to have a power that

31 Chris L. de Wet, “Susanna’s Body,” BN 168 (2016): 132. 32 S. Philip Nolte, “A Politics of the Female Body: Reading Susanna (LXX Additions to Daniel) in a Brutalized South African Society,” BN 168 (2016): 154. 33 De Wet, “Susanna’s Body,” 133. 34 De Wet, “Susanna’s Body,” 133. 35 As we all know, Daniel is handsome (Dan 1:4).

can lead to either a positive or a negative outcome.

1.6. Conclusion

The evidence adduced above suggests that physically attractive appearance had political power in Ancient Near Eastern society. Political leaders (such as kings, queens, high officers, and so on) stood to gain public support from their physical beauty. Also, attractive outward appearance was a sine qua non of being king. The kings’ beauty reflected that of their gods, objects of their reverence.36 In cultures that equated god and king, the appearance of the one reflected the appearance of the other. This naturally contributed to an emphasis on the king’s physical beauty, for an unattractive king reflected negatively upon the deity.

In addition, whereas at times beauty caused serious problems, at other times it delivered from crises not only the beautiful themselves, but also the general public. In view of this, as well as the inherently natural appeal that physical beauty has, it would not be unreasonable to say that peoples living in the Ancient Near East, including the Israelites, placed a high value on beauty. It also stands to reason that rulers would desire physical beauty for the popularity it would help them gain from the general population.37

36 Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, LHBOTS 441 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 75. 37 For the positive view of physical beauty in the DSS, see Mladen Popović, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism, STDJ 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 103-7, 277-90.

2. The Narrator’s Evaluation of the Beautiful and the Ugly in the DH

As a general rule, the narrators of the Hebrew Bible do not mention characters’ outward appearance as ugly. In fact, “the idea of ugliness is virtually absent from the OT,”38 except when describing animals.39 The reason why the Hebrew Bible is void of this description is likely that

beautiful/handsome) to Him. As the saying goes, “even ;טֹוב) all of God’s creatures are good hedgehogs love their children.” Similarly, God sees His creatures in this manner, whether they are good or ugly. In general, the word “ugly” is the last word a person would use to describe another. Nevertheless, I would like to use this word in a functional rather than a derogatory sense. The biblical narrators depict beautiful characters in the narrative as ones without blemish

(Dan 1:4; 2 Sam 14:25), as much taller than others (1 Sam 9:2) or as having a well-nourished or healthy appearance (Dan 1:15). By categorizing these characters as beautiful, we can establish a control group against which, for the sake of convenience, we can make judgments about ugliness.40

As we mentioned earlier in this dissertation, characters live in the narrative world. If the narrator mentions a trait such as beauty, fatness, or lameness, the narrator means to convey something to the reader. If the description served no purpose, the narrator would omit it. Implied in this statement are two notions: first, as Lissa Wray Beal explains, various sources in the

38 William A. Dyrness, “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context,” JETS 28 (1985): 430. 39 Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., “The Eyes Have It: Theological Reflections on Human Beauty,” EA 13 (1997): 62. 40 Saul Olyan defines the relation of the word ugly to defect as follows: “‘defects’ are constructed as ugly, although not all who are ugly possess ‘defects.’ The overlap between beauty and perfection, ugliness and ‘defect,’ is therefore only partial, with perfection and ugliness as the larger fields.” Saul M. Olyan, Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 22.

narrative “are blended intentionally to serve specific theological goals,”41 and second, as

Cynthia Edenburg argues, “repeated use of . . . expressions [for example, describing outward appearance] . . . impart to the text a semblance of unity.”42

In this section, I will examine the fate of the so-called beautiful and ugly characters in the DH, excepting the characters who are depicted directly as beautiful by the narrator in the

DN.43 The result will help us understand that these expressions serve a special theological purpose of the narrator and are another way of exposing the coherence of the DH.

2.1. Ehud and Eglon in Judg 3:12-30

Most scholars agree that the narrator characterizes Ehud the Israelite deliverer as a left-handed warrior44 with a positive sense, but Eglon the Moabite king as very overweight with a negative sense.45 Reflecting this tendency, most English versions translate that Ehud was a left-handed man or even an ambidexterity,46 and Eglon was very fat.47 Thus, the reader would remember

41 Lissa May Wray Beal, The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10), LHBOTS 478 (New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 11. 42 Cynthia Edenburg, Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19-21, AIL 24 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 74. 43 These beautiful characters in the DN will be discussed in chapter 3. 44 Yairah Amit, “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12-30): The Form and the Message,” in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus, ed. J. Cheryl Exum (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 106; J. Clinton McCann, Judges, IBC (Louisville: John Knox, 2002), 43; Susan Niditch, Judges, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 57; Roger Ryan, Judges, RNBC (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007), 20; K. Lawson Younger Jr., Judges and Ruth, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 117. 45 Amit, “The Story of Ehud,” 109; Serge Frolov, Judges, FOTL 6B (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 112; McCann, Judges, 44; Niditch, Judges, 58; Ryan, Judges, 22-23; Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 172; Younger, Judges and Ruth, 117; 46 LXX translates it as ἄνδρα ἀμφοτεροδέξιον (an ambidextrous man). Was he dextrosinistral? 47 See ESV, NLT, NIV, NASB and KJV in Judg 3:15 and 17.

easily that Ehud was a brave left-handed warrior, and Eglon was an extremely fat, roly-poly, ridiculous and credulous king. However, the narrator does not depict their outward appearance as

Judg 3:15), not) א ֵ֥יׁש א טֵֵ֖ר י ד־יְמ ינ֑ ֹו such. Firstly, the narrator mentions Ehud’s appearance as literally “a left-handed man,” but “a man hindered his right hand.” There is a word “left” in the

Hebrew Bible, but it is not used here. In addition, the narrator mentions ambidextrous warriors as

in 1 Chron 12:2.48 Even though the narrator says that there were seven מ יְמ ינִּ֤ים ּומ שְמ אלים֙ hundred men disabled in their right hand (Judg 20:16), “the ratio seems plausible: Just three of each one hundred men could fight without favoring their right arm.”49 Therefore, the narrator provides the reader with information about Ehud’s handicap.50

About the concept of right and left sides in the Ancient Near East, including those found in the Hebrew Bible, Robin Baker explains that the right hand is customarily associated with

“above,” “in” and “life,” but the left hand is related to “below,” “out” and ‘death.”51 It means that “right-handedness carries a positive connotation and left-handedness a negative one.”52 In this respect, the narrator depicts Ehud negatively in this story. Even though he was the son of the right hand (the Benjaminite), he could not use his right hand, unlike other normal Benjaminites.

As Robert Polzin mentions, “Ehud is not portrayed as a particularly likeable judge.”53 Therefore,

48 Jack M. Sasson, Judges 1-12, AYB 6D (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 227. 49 Sasson, Judges 1-12, 227. See also Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 66. 50 Philippe Guillaume, Waiting for Josiah: The Judges, JSOTSup 385 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 27; Lillian R. Klein, The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges, JSOTSup 68 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1988), 37. 51 Robin Baker, Hallow Men, Strange Women: Riddles, Codes and Otherness in the Book of Judges, BibInt 143 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 70. 52 Lynell Zogbo, “How Could Something So Right Be So Wrong?: OT References to the Left and Right Hand: Implications for Translation in Africa,” BT 64 (2013): 37. See also Niditch, Judges, 57. 53 Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part One. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, ISBL 848 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 160.

he was the runt of the litter among the Benjaminites and did not have a marshal’s baton in his knapsack.

Meanwhile, the narrator portrays Eglon in a different way. The narrator says that

Yahweh made him strong because of Israel (Judg 3:12); in addition, he was a very healthy man

(Judg 3:17). Eglon looks like a real judge or deliverer with these descriptions. The Hebrew word

:is problematic to translate. According to HALOT, this adjective has two meanings בָריא

“healthy” and “fat.”54 However, this word basically means “healthy.” Even if it means “fat” in the Hebrew Bible, the word has a positive meaning without exception.55 Therefore, these two characters in Judg 3:12-30 are described in an unexpected manner. The saviour Yahweh sent was disabled and weak, but the enemy of Israel was strong and healthy.

Unlike these descriptions of two main characters in this story, the literary structure leads the reader to an unexpected result. According to Amit, this story has a concentric structure emphasizing the middle portion of this story, the murder scene. This means that the most important duty of Ehud as the deliverer of Israel is to kill Eglon king of Moab.

The exposition–the oppression–a continuing situation The tricky dagger The tricky tribute offering The murder The trick of fooling the servants The war trick End–eighty peaceful years–a continuing situation56

54 HALOT, 156. 55 Trent Butler, Judges, WBC 8 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009), 70. 56 Amit, “The Story of Ehud,” 103.

The literary structure of this story shows that the weak overwhelms the strong. It is “a favorite biblical theme especially important in Judges.”57 Ehud was expected to do the impossible, but his disability and weakness turned an impossibility into a possibility. Alberto Soggin explains this situation as follows:

Everything is in favour of a real physical defect, of a kind that would seriously diminish the capability of a fighting man and make him seem to be harmless. In fact this is the only way in which we can explain how he could ever have been admitted into the presence of the king without any search or any precautionary measures.58

Even though Eglon had the real beauty that most people think of and want in this story, he represents oppressive power to the Israelites. Also, Ehud did not have physical attractiveness, yet his vulnerable trait was a starting point to save the Israelites from “unjust or oppressive authority.”59 Yahweh did not send the likes of Eglon (the beautiful60), but the likes of Ehud (the ugly and “trickster”61) to deliver the Israelites from suffering. In fact, Ehud’s ugliness saved the

Israelites against Eglon’s and his army’s beauty (Judg 3:29).62

2.2. Samson in Judg 13-16

Samson’s striking characteristics are his physical strength with long hair. As Ehud deceived to kill Eglon king of Moab, Samson is also depicted as a trickster in Judg 13-16. Interestingly, the

57 Niditch, Judges, 58. 58 Alberto Soggin, Judges, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 50. 59 Mark E. Biddle, Reading Judges. LTC (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2012), 50. 60 Lawson G. Stone, “Eglon’s Belly and Ehud’s Blade: A Reconsideration,” JBL 128 (2009): 651. 61 McCann, Judges, 46; Soggin, Judges, 57. ’means “a positive attribute, not a negative one as seen by the parallel ‘fit for battle ׁשָמֵ ן ,According to Butler 62 .Butler, Judges, 73 ”.(א ֣ יׁש חָ ֑יל)

narrator does not portray Eglon, the enemy of Israel, as the trickster in the story of Ehud. In the story of Samson, however, Israelites’ enemies are depicted as active tricksters like him. Susan

Niditch briefly highlights repetitive patterns of trickery in the story of Samson. In this literary structure, there are clear struggles between two groups.

Exogamous overtures (Timnite) Superhuman feat (killing lion with bare hands) Fertility (honey) Trickery (riddle) Counter- trickery (threaten wife) Superhuman feat (Ashkelonites) Withdrawal (return to parents)

Exogamous overturns (same wife) Trickery (she has been given away to the best man) Counter- trickery (torching) Vengeance/ violence (Philistines destroy Timnite and father) Counter- vengeance (Samson slaughters them) Withdrawal (cave)

Trickery (attempt to subdue hero) Superhuman feat as counter-trickery (jawbone) Fertility (water)

Exogamous overtures (harlot) Trickery (attempt to capture) Superhuman feat as counter-trickery (lifts city gates to escape)

Exogamous overtures (Delilah) Trickery (bribing Delilah in attempt to capture) Counter- trickeries (three deceptions) Successful Trickery (hair cut) Final vengeance (hair grown back and destruction)63

Through the fourth trickery of Delilah, Samson’s hair was cut. He went against one of the

63 Susan Niditch, “Samson as Culture Hero, Trickster, and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak,” CBQ 52 (1990): 618-19. See also McCann, Judges, 108.

regulations as a Nazirite,64 so his extraordinary power disappeared from him and he became an ordinary person. On the narrative stage, he did not seem too enthusiastic about keeping the secret of his hair. However, it is important that Samson tried to keep the secret three times. It would not be an overstatement to say that “despite the fact that he was asleep when she wove his hair, since he was awake the two times that she bound him, we can assume that he submitted to her actions voluntarily”65 the fourth time (Judg 16:17). In addition, Samson used third-person plural verbs

(“if they bound me”; Judg 16: 7, 11) in his speech to Delilah. It is precisely because Samson already knew the intent behind Delilah’s questions that these third-person plural verbs mean the

Philistines.66 Even though Jeremy Schipper insists that the reason why Samson revealed his secret of his own accord is that he “has trouble sleeping as a by-product of his extraordinary strength,”67 Samson was sleeping peacefully in her third attempt (Judg 16:14). Unlike

Schipper’s opinion, the literary structure shows that he showed her his secret intentionally.68 The conjugations of the verbs in Samson’s answers intimate that he is caught in his own trap. Except for the last answer, he uses second- or third-person pronouns. This means that Delilah’s request is the matter in which Samson and other people are involved. In the last response, using a first- person pronoun, he replaces the matter with his own problem to solve.

64 According to Num 6, the Nazirite should abstain from wine and strong drink (vs. 3), and no razor should pass over his head (vs. 5). In addition, he should not go near a dead person (vs. 6). However, the angel of Yahweh said only that no razor should come upon Somson’s head (Judg 13:5). 65 Jeremy Schipper, “What Was Samson Thinking in Judges 16,17 and 16,20?” Bib 92 (2011): 61. 66 Mieke Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, ISBL 434 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 52. 67 Schipper, “What Was Samson Thinking in Judges,” 62. 68 In Judg 16:18, the narrator mentions that “Delilah saw that he told her all his heart.”

Table 5. Delilah’s Asking and Samson’s Response in Judg 16

Verse Delilah’s asking Samson’s response Person the expected (חָ לָ ה) result Third to be weak א ם־י א סְר ַ֗ ני vs. 7 Tell me where the secret of your great strength is and how If they bind me you may be bound (vs.6). Third to be weak א ם־אָסִּ֤ ֹור י א סְר֙ ּוני֙ vs. 11 Tell me how you may be bound (vs.10). If they bind me tightly Second nothing א ם־ת א גרְ ַ֗ י vs. 13 Tell me how you may be bound (vs. 13). If you weave First to be weak א ם־ג ל ֹּ֙חְתי֙ vs. 17 You have not told me where your great strength is (vs.15). If I am shaved

While this is happening, where is Yahweh? Cheryl Exum explains the role of Yahweh in the narrative as follows:

Basically, every narrative has three points of view: those of the narrator, the characters, and the audience. At numerous places in Judg. xiii-xvi, the narrator reveals to the audience information of which the characters are not aware. In particular, narrator and listener share the insight that Yhwh is working behind the scenes to achieve a purpose. It is first and foremost the notices about Yhwh’s role in the events which permit the listeners to participate in this secret.69

At this moment, Samson becomes a perfect trickster to the enemies. Although it may seem negatively that “Yahweh had departed from Samson (Judg 16:20),” it is another way to fulfill

Yahweh’s will in this story. Victor Matthews argues that “this is a reversal of the theme found in

13:25, 14:6, and 15:4 where Yahweh’s spirit entered Samson and aided him to perform extraordinary feats.”70 In this moment, however, Yahweh still helped Samson through his absence. It goes without saying that “YHWH deceives the Philistines into thinking that Samson’s

69 J. Cheryl Exum, “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga,” VT 33 (1983): 37. 70 Victor H. Matthews, “Freedom and Entrapment in the Samson Narrative: A Literary Analysis,” PRSt 16 (1989): 256.

strength is merely a magical-mechanical thing, open to human manipulation.”71 The staircase parallel structure shows how Yahweh works for his people with his servant Samson effectively.

Story: Timnah Men of Judah Delilah Secret: Riddle Strength Nazirite oath Pressure: Threat Threat to Judah Bride Tactic: Nagging Pleading Nagging Result: 32 dead 1000 dead Thousands dead72

Contrary to this fact, Samson’s outward appearance changed from beautiful to ugly, and from strong to weak. His long hair was cut, and the Philistines gouged out his eyes. As Bruce

Herzberg asserts, “God has manipulated Samson to achieve certain ends, so the nagging, however unlikely it is to be effective in itself, does the trick.”73 About regrowing his hair (Judg

16:22), Christophe Lemardelé maintains that “the fact that Samson, in his story, grows out his hair refers neither to a vow nor to a consecration to the deity, but is only a sign of the hero’s power.”74 However, there is no hint in the text that his strength returns when his hair grows back again. If his extraordinary power is regained, it is given by Yahweh.

The very last deception of Samson between the pillars of the temple of Dagon indicates that Yahweh delivers his people from the enemy and fulfills his will. Robert Chisholm explains that “God accomplished His purpose (the beginning of Israel’s deliverance from the Philistines), despite Samson’s shortcomings and Israel’s apathy.”75 Samson cannot see and do anything

71 David M. Gunn, “Samson of Sorrows: An Isaianic Gloss on Judges 13-16,” in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 247. 72 Bruce Herzberg, “Samson’s Moment of Truth,” BibInt 18 (2010): 235. 73 Herzberg, “Samson’s Moment of Truth,” 248. 74 Christophe Lemardelé, “Note Concerning the Problem of Samson the Nazirite in the Biblical Studies,” SJOT 30 (2016): 66. 75 Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Identity Crisis: Assessing Samson’s Birth and Career,” BS 166 (2009): 162.

without help at this time.76 However, this problem is solved by the boy who held his hand and by Yahweh who gives him great strength again.77 The weak, vulnerable, ugly and blind

Samson78 defeated most effectually the powerful Philistines at this time. At the last moment of his life, Samson surely knew that the source of his strength was not his uncut hair, but Yahweh.

2.3. Eli in 1 Sam 1-4

The narrator depicts Eli’s outward appearance as very old (1 Sam 2:22; 4:18), blind (1 Sam 3:2;

4:15), and heavy (1 Sam 4:18). In this story, the narrator directly describes Eli’s two sons,

in 1 Sam 2:12. The fact that one knows Yahweh is not a (בְ ל יָ֑על) Hophni and Phinehas, as wicked clear standard for distinguishing those who are good and bad in this story. Three men under Eli’s order (his direct descendants, Hophni and Phinehas, 2:12; and his disciple, Samuel, 3:7) do not know Yahweh. So Eli must teach them who Yahweh is.79 Samuel follows Eli’s teaching and then knows Yahweh for who He is. However, his two sons do not listen to their father’s instructions, which accounts for the difference between the two and Samuel. As the following literary structure shows, the instructor becomes the disciple, and the disciple becomes the instructor to reveal Yahweh’s will in 1 Sam 3:4-18.

76 Actually, he could not do anything without Yahweh’s help, from the beginning to the end. 77 Exum, “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga,” 42. 78 Elie Assis maintains that Samson is “an extraordinary weak and foolish man” at that time. Elie Assis, “The Structure and Meaning of the Samson Narratives: Jud. 13-16,” in Samson: Hero or Fool?: The Many Faces of Samson, eds. Erik Eynikel and Tobias Nicklas, TBN 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 11. 79 Eli’s role seemed to be akin to that of an older man in my own culture (for example, to guide younger people onto the right path).

vv.4-8 vv.4-8 Samuel a) called Eli a) not called b) no insight b) insight, v.8f c) result: misunderstanding c) removes misunderstanding, Eli Samuel

vv. 11-14 vv.16-18 Samuel a) called Eli a) calling b) instructed b) no information c) receives revelation, c) is informed, God Samuel Samuel Eli80

In this literary structure, Eli plays a significant role to guide Samuel in the right direction. Even though he is not able to see (1 Sam 3:2), it does not matter for teaching Samuel who Yahweh is.

In contrast to this, Eli’s old age (1 Sam 2:22) brings about regrettable results. His sons do not hear their father’s voice and commit sins against Yahweh, because of his decrepitude. In the Hebrew Bible, “many passages . . . characterize old age directly or indirectly as a time of weakness and decline, both physical and psychological. . . . But this finitude also gives rise to the obligation to honor those who are old (Lev 19:32), i.e., maintain their rights and authority.”81 Eli overcomes his visual impairment to teach Samuel but does not deal successfully with his advanced age when instructing his sons. Thus, Yahweh is told that no man in his house will live to old age ever again (1 Sam 2:31-2). In addition, although Eli is blind, he tries to surmount his

because he wants to ,(צפה) physical obstacle in 1 Sam 4:13. He sits by the road watching closely know the outcome of the war before anyone else.82 Therefore, his visual disturbance is just

80 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume IV. Vow and Desire (I Sam. 1-12), SSN 31 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 183. 81 J. Conrad, “zāqēn,” TDOT 2: 125. 82 Pnina Galpaz-Feller, “David and the Messenger: Different Ends, Similar Means in 2 Samuel 1,” VT 59 (2009): 201.

something to overcome, and it nudges young Samuel in the right direction to hear Yahweh’s word.

Among the words which describe Eli’s outward appearance, the most probmematic is

in 1 Sam 4:18. According to C. Dohmen, “the root kbd . . . is found in all the Semitic כָבֵד languages with the meaning ‘be heavy,’ figuratively ‘be important.’”83 Interestingly, the narrator

of Yahweh (1 (הֵיכָל) by the doorpost of the temple/palace ( כסֵ א) portrays Eli sitting on the throne

Sam 1:9). Robert Polzin insists that these two words allude to Eli’s royal status.84 Furthermore,

Frank Spina argues that “this characterization of Eli functions as a metaphor for Israel’s kingship, an institution which from the Deuteronomist’s viewpoint was doomed to fall from the outset.”85 In all cases, Eli is staying in the same place, his seat (1 Sam 1:9; 4:13, 18; also, 3:2).

Therefore, his throne symbolizes his royal standing. M. Weinfeld suggests a connection between

such that “the noun kābôd derives from kbd, which denotes ‘heaviness’ in the ,כָבֹוד and כָבֵד physical sense as well as ‘gravity’ and ‘importance’ in the spiritual sense–i.e., ‘honor’ and

is an appropriate word for “God, the king, and persons of high כָבֹוד ,respect.’”86 In addition‘

in this story. Brett כָבֹוד and כָבֵד status and authority.”87 We can find this connection between

forms a wordplay with the word for (ו תְ כבִֵּ֤ד) Smith asserts that “the word for ‘honor’ in 2:29

;suggesting conceptual ties to several other verses in the nearby context (2:30 ,(כָבֵד) ’heavy‘

83 C. Dohmen, “kābēd,” TDOT 7: 13. 84 Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Two. 1 Samuel, ISBL 849 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 23. 85 Frank Anthony Spina, “Eli’s Seat: The Transition from Priest to Prophet in 1 Samuel 1-4,” JSOT 62 (1994): 67. 86 M. Weinfeld, “kābôd,” TDOT 7: 23. 87 Weinfeld, “kābôd,” 26.

3:13; 4:18; 4:21-22; 6:5).”88 Also, Peter Miscall observes that “‘heavy’ (kabed) would then be a play upon his ‘honouring’ (kibbed) his sons above the Lord (1 Sam 2:29).89 Eli and his sons make themselves fat with all the best offerings of Yahweh’s people. Therefore, Eli’s heaviness means both his honour as the judge of Israel and dishonour as the disobeyer of Yahweh’s word.

which means “where is glory,”90 (א י־כָבֹוד) His daughter-in-law names her newborn baby Ichabod

are dead. As Eli’s (ו תְ כבִֵּ֤ד) and her husband (כָבֵד) or “no honour,”91 because her father-in-law heaviness disappears from Israel, Israel’s honour departs from Israel (1 Sam 4:21).

In this story, the narrator variously shows Eli’s outward appearance to the reader. His honourable elements (his old age and heaviness) are depicted negatively, but his disability

(blindness) is portrayed somewhat positively as with previous characters in the book of Judges.

In addition, the narrator, using Eli’s physical appearance extols Samuel and humiliates Eli’s sons.92 Eli seems to expect a military victory against the Philistines, because Yahweh will do what is good in his eyes.93 Thus, Eli seems to sit “watching and listening for the ululations that would accompany the return of a triumphant army.”94 However, the Israelites, including his sons, are defeated and slaughtered by the enemy. Nevertheless, Eli wants not to see Israel’s

88 Brett W. Smith, “The Sin of Eli and Its Consequences,” BSac 170 (2013): 20; See also Moshe Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat Gan: Revivim Publishing House, 1985), 61. 89 Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, ISBL 365 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 29. 90 David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 201. 91 Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel, 61. 92 John T. Willis, “An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary,” JBL 90 (1971): 290. 93 This is reflected in Eli’s response to Samuel’s revelation in 1 Sam 3:18. 94 Jack M. Sasson, “The Eyes of Eli: An Essay in Motif Accretion.” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon, eds. John Kalther and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 378 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 186.

defeat and his sons’ death, but to watch God’s fulfillment closely. Even though Eli cannot see anything physically, he can see “the seed of a new beginning, at least for Israel.”95 The narration that he died when the messenger mentioned not his sons’ death but the ark of God demonstrates this. To him, his sons’ death is the fulfillment of Yahweh’s judgment in a somewhat positive way, but the exile of the ark of God is an unpleasant surprise leading to death. As John

Goldingay insists, “it is too late for father-in-law and daughter-in-law, but they form part of a bigger story for which it is not too late.”96

Table 6. Eli’s Outward Appearance

Eli’s outward appearance Related to In general In this story Texts (1 Sam) two sons positive negative 2:22, 31, 32; 4:18 (זָקֵן) Old Samuel negative positive 3:2; 4:15 ( ֵ֥לֹא יּו ֵ֖כל ל ְר ַֽאֹות) Blind Eli and two sons positive negative 4:18 (כָבֵד) Heavy

2.4. Samuel

. נ ער with the word 97(טֹוב) In 1 Sam 2:26, the narrator portrays the child Samuel as handsome

”the child Samuel) makes “a double inclusio) הנ ער ׁשְ מּואֵ ל Richard Nelson insists that the phrase in 1 Sam 2:21-3:19. This literary structure differentiates clearly between Samuel and Eli’s two sons, in that “while Eli’s sons do not ‘listen’ (2:25b), on the third try Samuel does ‘listen’

(3:10).”98 It means that Samuel depends on God’s word with his childishness, but Eli’s two sons

95 J. Gerald Janzen, “Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh: 1 Samuel 3.15,” JSOT 26 (1983): 94. 96 John Goldingay, “Eli: The Man for Whom It Was Too Late,” Anvil 16 (1999): 172. .can be translated as “he grew greater and better looking.” Trotti, “Beauty in the Old Testament,” 21 הֹלְֵֵ֥ך וְגָדֵֵ֖ל וָט֑ ֹוב 97 98 Richard D. Nelson, “The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel: ‘The Man behind the Green Curtain,’” in Is Samuel among the Deuteronomist?: Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History,” eds.

.(ע ם־יְהוַָ֔ ה) do not with their adultness. This handsome Samuel, moreover, is with Yahweh

Therefore, young Samuel’s handsomeness occasions no problem at that time.

ו י ְג ֶ֛דל ה נ ֵ֥ער ׁשְמּואֵֵ֖ל ע ם־יְהוַָֽה 2:21b 2:22-25 the episodes of Eli warning his sons וְ ה נ ֣ער ׁשְ מּואֵַ֔ ל הֹלְֵֵ֥ך וְ גָדֵֵ֖ל 2:26 2:27-36 the oracle of the man of God וְ ה נ ִ֧ער ׁשְמּואֵֶ֛ל מְׁשָרֵֵ֥ ת 3:1 3:2-18 Samuel’s prophetic call along with Eli’s response to it 99 ו י ְג ֵ֖דל [ ה נ ער] ׁשְמּואֵ֑ל ו ַֽיהוָה֙ הָיָ֣ה ע מַ֔ ֹו 3:19

Even though Samuel became skillful in his prophetic duties with age, he kept making mistakes. The first book of Samuel definitely shows that “God chooses candidates for kingship through the agency of the prophet.”100 Polzin’s explanation of Samuel’s actions helps us understand how the narrator evaluates his prophetic career.

The sight/insight metaphors in chapter 3 introduced us to a budding prophet whose repeated failure to recognize the LORD’s word was an apt beginning to Samuel’s career as the narrator would describe it. The LORD has to point out to Samuel in a step-by-step fashion who his designate is (9:16-17), and even so late as the events of chapter 16 God will have to chide Samuel for (still) looking upon “outward appearance” (16:7) in his search for Saul’s successor. Coupled with the prophetic blindness with which the narrator hampers Samuel is the prophet’s continual obduracy in carrying out the LORD’s will.101

The problem starts with his old age and his sons. All the elders of Israel request a king because

Samuel is old and his sons do not walk in his ways. The literary structure in 1 Sam 8:1-5 shows definitely what the problem is. Also, he closely resembles Eli in that Samul is old like Eli, and

Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala, AIL 16 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 25. 99 Nelson, “The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel,” 24-25. 100 Joshua A. Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 71. 101 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 130.

his two sons act like Eli’s two sons.

EXPOSITION BEGINNING OF EVENT 8:1 When Samuel became old . . . 8:5a “Behold you are old 8:3 Yet his sons did not walk 8:5b and your sons do not walk in his ways. in your ways.”102

The competent and old prophet was late for the appointment with Saul (1 Sam 13:8), had grieved for Saul’s rejection by Yahweh (1 Sam 16:1), and selected Eliab for the successor of

Saul (1 Sam 16:6). Even though Samuel asked Saul to wait until he came, Saul seemed to understand that he needed to wait for only seven days, as Samuel said.103 As Polzin insists, this incident demonstrates “Samuel’s present failure as prophet as well as Saul’s future failures as king.”104 Also, his mourning for Saul’s rejection means the refusal of Yahweh’s plan in his own words (1 Sam 15:23, 26, 28).105 In addition, his choice of the next king of Israel depicts him as a blunderer and shows his belief that “God likes to replace tall kings with tall successors.”106 The

but he does not see who the next king of Israel will be. He 107,(הָרֹאֶ ה) Israelites call him the seer did not see Eliab in the way he should have after hearing Yahweh’s detailed directions as the case of Saul (1 Sam 9:15-17). Ironically, he did not hear Yahweh’s word, but saw Eliab as the seer. This differs from the case of the blind Eli, as observed above. Therefore, the description of his beauty in his childhood is true in a positive sense, because he is with Yahweh. The factor that

102 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 83. 103 Rabbi Howard Cooper, “‘Too Tall by Half’: King Saul and Tragedy in the Hebrew Bible,” JPJ 9 (1997): 13. 104 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 131. 105 Polzin draws a parallel between Yahweh’s question in 1 Sam 16:1 and Elkanah’s question in 1 Sam 1:8. He asserts that the sentence, “Am I not worth more to you than ten Sauls?” is omitted in Yahweh’s question to Samuel. It means that Samuel seemed to consider Saul as more important than Yahweh. See Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 154. 106 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 155. 107 1 Sam 9:9, 11, 18, 19.

“Yahweh is with him” or “he is with Yahweh” distinguishes one character’s fate from that of another.108 However, Samuel’s old age is cast in the same negative light as Eli’s.

2.5. Saul, the First King of Israel

By the looks of Saul in 1 Sam 9:2, he seems fit to be the first king of Israel. 1 Sam 9:2 narrates that “he was handsome and there was not a more handsome man than he among the sons of

this handsomeness is ;(טֹוב) Israel.” The narrator directly depicts his outward appearance mentioned twice, as will be the case with David (cf. 16:12). Even though Miscall asserts that

“Saul’s introduction is too good and does not fit the OT pattern for deliverance or heroes, which usually presents the leader as somehow unfit for leadership or at least as an unpromising candidate,”109 the emphasis on Saul’s physical attractiveness seems to show that he is suitable to be king. Among all the characters described as beautiful by the narrator in the Hebrew Bible, only Saul and David are hailed as kings of Israel in association with two mentions of physical beauty unlike other beautiful characters.

In addition, Saul’s extraordinary height is narrated immediately after the depiction of his beauty. For the first two candidates, Saul and Eliab, great height seems an important criterion for a king. As David Tsumura insists, his height (mentioned in 1 Sam 9:2 and 10:23) “helped Saul

108 Lee Humphreys explains that “attention is called to the striking physical appearance of Saul and Absalom, but, unlike the notes on David and Joseph, their other abilities are not detailed, and of neither Saul nor Absalom is it said that ‘Yahweh was with him’ (cf. 1 Sam 16:18; Gen 39:2, 3, etc.).” See W. Lee Humphreys, “The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31,” JSOT 6 (1978): 20. 109 Miscall, 1 Samuel, 52.

make a good impression on people.”110 Even though Saul was handsome, gigantic and the son of an influential man (1 Sam 9:1), he said: “Am I not from the smallest of the tribes of Israel and my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam 9:21)?”111 His humility seems to be related to his outward appearance in a positive sense.112 Rabbi Howard Cooper disagrees with this opinion in that it is “anxiety, or fear, born of his own sense of inadequacy.”113

However, the senses that Cooper lists are strongly connected to modesty and weakness. His physical strength as the tallest among the Israelites is changed to his greatest weakness, when he

.(in his own eyes as the king of Israel (1 Sam 15:17 (קָטֹן ,thinks that he is big (not small

This pattern is found in his tribe’s name, Benjamin. His tribe was the smallest tribe of

Israel (1 Sam 9:21). This fact affects the strength of his bid to be king of Israel114 in the beginning of his period. Suzie Park asserts that “it is because of the Benjaminite catastrophe at the end of Judges. . . . Indeed, if one follows the chronology of the text, Saul’s mother must have either been from Jabesh-Gilead or been a participant in the Shiloh festival (Judg 21).”115

However, Saul’s Benjaminite heritage was also transformed to a symbol of his misfortune when he considered himself a great man, because the tribe’s name reminds the reader of the incident of

110 Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 264. His height was also “the important quality of his potential leadership.” See Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 298. 111 Lyle Eslinger demonstrates that “God does not find Saul’s ‘heart,’ however submissive, totally acceptable.” So, his modesty is certainly one of the most important factors for being king of Israel–like David’s heart. See Lyle Eslinger, “‘A Change of Heart’: 1 Samuel 16,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, eds. Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor, JSOTSup 67 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 345. 112 Shaul Bar, God’s First King: The Story of Saul (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2013), 17. 113 Cooper, “Too Tall by Half,” 10. 114 Hamilton asserts that “despite his warriorly skill (hence the magnificence of his body), his election to monarchy does not depend on his own doing, but his smallness (in regard to clan size and thus power base).” Hamilton, The Body Royal, 121. 115 Suzie Park, “Left-Handed Benjaminites and the Shadow of Saul,” JBL 134 (2015): 718.

the Benjaminites in Judg 19-21.116 When Saul lost his humility, his strength was changed to his weakness. So, the reader expects another small and weak character in the narrative flow.117

Table 7. The Comparison among the Candidates of Israel’s King118

Saul Eliab David

Outward beautiful, tall (1 Sam 9:2; beautiful, tall (1 Sam beautiful, no appearance 10:23) 16:7) description for his height (1 Sam 16:12) the small; 1 Sam) ה קָטַָ֔ ן ;the first-born) ה בְכַ֗ ֹור the son of a) ג בֵ֖ ֹור חַָֽיל Leverage strong power; 1 Sam 1 Sam 17:13) 16:11) 9:1)119 a child; 1 Sam) נ ער a child; 1 Sam) נ ער a young man; 1 Sam) בָח֣ ּור Status 9:2) 16:11) 16:11, 17:42) א ֣ יׁש כ לְבָבַ֗ ו מְא סְת ֑ יהּו God) ו י ֲה ָפְך־ ֵ֥לֹו אֱֹלה ֵ֖ ים לֵ֣ב אחֵ֑ר About inner heart gave to him another heart; (I rejected him; 1 Sam (a man like his heart; 1 1 Sam 10:9) 16:7) Sam 13:14)

2.6. Eliab in 1 Sam 16:6-7

Eliab, Jesse’s eldest son, is depicted indirectly as attractive by Samuel and Yahweh. So the reader has no choice but to rely on these characters’ speech about Eliab’s outward appearance.

116 Miscall (1 Samuel, 52) explains a connection between the two stories that “as a Benjaminite, is Saul to be a man of misfortune, a man of vigor, or perhaps both? The allusion to Judges 19-21 insets Gibeah, Jabesh-gilead, and Shiloh into the text.” About other relationships between Saul and the book of Judges, see Sam Dragga, “In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul,” JSOT 38 (1987): 39-44. 117 Sabine van den Eynde argues that “Esther is implicitly portrayed as a new David. She is a better queen than Vashti, as David is the better king than Saul,” because of similarities among these four beautiful characters in 1 Sam and Esth. Sabine van den Eynde, “The Replacement of a Queen: Vashti and Saul Compared,” BN 118 (2003): 61. 118 I modified Ralph Hawkins’s table 1. See Ralph K. Hawkins, “The First Glimpse of Saul and His Subsequent Transformation,” BBR 22 (2012): 361. 119 Bill Arnold asserts that “his father’s lengthy genealogy implies the family has great wealth.” Bill T. Arnold, 1 & חַָֽיל ג בֵ֖ ֹור Samuel, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 162. Additionally, Kyle McCarter argues that 2 “describes social standing and implies economic power.” P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 173.

When Samuel saw Eliab, the prophet thought that he was the strongest candidate for Israel’s next king. Samuel admires Eliab for his outward appearance, in that he is handsome and tall.

However, Yahweh tells Samuel to “not look at his appearance or at his height” (1 Sam 16:7) because Yahweh sees his (and others’) inner heart(s). Keith Bodner insists that “the inevitable comparisons between Eliab and Saul (height, good looks and divine rejection) make it tempting for exegetes to understand Eliab as a second Saul.”120 The parallel structure between two verses

(1 Sam 16:1 and 7) clearly shows that Bodner’s opinion is accurate.

Content 1st order core speech

Samuel rebuked for 1b 7b his loyalty to: Saul Eliab “I have rejected him” = 1c 7c election by God 1f 7f rāʾītī mlk yirʾē llbb (individual) (general)121

In addition, Samuel’s similar praise for their outward appearance is a surprise. When

Samuel sees Eliab, he seems to think of Saul. As Polzin explains, “the Deuteronomist now portrays Samuel as a mistaken prophet who somehow believes that God likes to replace tall [and handsome] kings with tall [and handsome] successors.”122

120 Keith Bodner, “Eliab and the Deuteronomist,” JSOT 28 (2003): 60. 121 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-21 & II Sam.1), SSN 23 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), 123; Moreover, Bodner asserts that “the comparison with Saul is heightened through the verb ‘reject,’ as the same verb that begins the chapter (God has ‘rejected’ Saul) is now used for Jesse’s firstborn.” Keith Bodner, 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary, HBM 19 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 169-70. 122 Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 155. In addition, Barbara Green argues that “in the chronotope (linked time/space) of the Deuteronomistic History the tall are prone to topple.” Barbara Green, King Saul’s Asking, Interfaces (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003), 40.

.(Surely his anointed one is before Yahweh (1 Sam 16:6 א ְֶ֛ך נֵֶַ֥֖גֶד יְהוֵָ֖ה מְׁשיחַֽ ֹו

Truly there is no one like him among all the people (1 Sam כ ֶ֛י אֵֵ֥ ין כָמֵֹ֖ הּו בְ כָל־הָעָ֑ם 10:24).

Even though David was the youngest, and probably the shortest son123 in Jesse’s house,

Yahweh chose him as the next king of Israel. As the handsome and tall Saul was rejected, so also is this other Saul, Eliab, rejected by Yahweh. Therefore, the narrator evaluates Eliab’s physical attractiveness negatively, as he did in the case of king Saul, and reveals in this way that the most important thing is not what catches people’s attention, but what engages Yahweh’s affection.

2.7. Goliath in 1 Sam 17

In 1 Sam 17, the story of David and Goliath, many characters appear in the narrative stage as shown in table 8. Each country has its heroes, but their outward appearance in the case of Israel and Philistia are as different as light is from darkness. The narrator portrays Goliath as a warrior of greater build and height. His outward appearance with his battle dress and weapons is important in the narrative flow (1 Sam 17:4-7), because this story is “particularly concerned with constructing bodies in the text,”124 moreso than the battle.

123 Carole R. Fontaine, “The Sharper Harper (1 Samuel 16:14-23): Iconographic Reflections on David’s Rise to Power,” in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, eds. Tod Linafelt, et al., LHBOTS 500 (New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 135. 124 Mark K. George, “Constructing Identity in 1 Samuel 17,” BibInt 7 (1999): 394.

Table 8. Various Characters in 1 Sam 17125

“Our” camp Enemy camp hero hero’s retinue hero hero’s retinue (David) David’s family king (Saul) the (Goliath) (Philistines) father brother king king’s retinue people (Abner) (daughter)

About Goliath’s height, Daniel Hays argues that he was four cubits and a span (6 feet 9 inches) according to the major LXX and 4QSama manuscripts.126 However, Clyde Billington disagrees with Hays’s assertion in that “the 6 cubits and a span [9 feet 9 inches] given for the height of

Goliath in the Hebrew MT is the original reading; it is not a textual error. The 4 cubits and a span

[6 feet 9 inches] reading found in the LXX is almost certainly a translation of the MT’s common cubits into royal Egyptian cubits.”127 If we synthesize the scholars’ opinions, Goliath’s height was similar to, or higher than, king Saul’s height. A great height, as discussed above, was an important criterion for a king in the Ancient Near East, including Israel. So, the reader expects that two tall warriors (Saul or Eliab for the Israelites and Goliath for the Philistines) will fight in the battle between these two countries. However, the representative player of the Israelites is neither Saul nor Eliab, but the small, young, and inexperienced soldier David. Saul and other

Israelites trembled with fear even before anything happened because of Goliath’s presence (1

Sam 17:11).

125 Heda Jason, “The Story of David and Goliath: A Folk Epic?” Bib 60 (1979): 52. 126 J. Daniel Hays, “Reconsidering the Height of Goliath,” JETS 48 (2005): 701-714, especially 701-2. In addition, Hays insists that “what frightens Saul is the superior training of Goliath, not his height.” J. Daniel Hays, “The Height of Goliath: A Response to Clyde Billington,” JETS 50 (2007): 514. 127 Clyde E. Billington, “Goliath and the Exodus Giant: How Tall Were They?” JETS 50 (2007): 507.

Table 9. Attributes of Two Representative Soldiers in 1 Sam 17128

Attribute David Goliath Age a youth a grownup Appearance short giant Relationship to not knowledgeable in warfare (a a professional warrior warfare shepherd) Use of means use of natural, nonconventional use of cultural products, means (pebbles from a brook) conventional means (man-made arms)

With these two quite different characters, the narrator depicts the two countries’ situations in this story. The Philistia was strong like Goliath’s physical appearance,129 but Israel was weak like David’s outward appearance. Even though David was small, weak, and untrained,

Yahweh made him a victor in this battle, because he was “the embodiment of Israel, who fights both for the nation and for YHWH.”130 In this story, David’s victory throws a sidelight on this question: “Who is the real leader of Israel, the sitting king or the anointed king?”131 Also, it reveals again Yahweh’s trait that “he makes poor and rich; he brings low, and he also exalts” (1

Sam 2:7).132 Like this, he transforms the strong into the weak and the beautiful into the ugly or vice versa. Another thing to note is that Goliath also judges David by his outward appearance, just as Eli and Samuel did. As the seasoned priest Eli and the experienced prophet Samuel misjudge pious Hannah and tall Eliab respectively, the experienced warrior Goliath mistakes small David for a weak person. Frontain describes these three characters with one thing in

128 Jason, “The Story of David and Goliath,” 52. 129 George, “Constructing Identity,” 395. 130 George, “Constructing Identity,” 405. 131 John A. Beck, “David and Goliath, A Story of Place: The Narrative-Geographical Shaping of 1 Samuel 17,” WTJ 68 (2006): 323. 132 Thomas Preston maintains that “this pattern can be called the ‘rise of the lowly, fall of the mighty.’” See Thomas R. Preston, “The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship,” JSOT 24 (1982): 28.

common as follows:

If Eli misjudges Hannah, and Samuel mistakes Eliab–and they are men of the Lord–then how much more difficult is it for others to assess the complete situation! Advancing to meet the Israelite champion on the battlefield, for example, Goliath is enraged by the slight he thinks is being paid him: “and he looked David up and down and had nothing but contempt for this handsome lad with his ruddy cheek and bright eye” (1 Sam. 17:41). Appearances are not only deceiving, but as the outcome of Goliath’s duel with David shows, mistaking them can even be fatal.133

Interestingly, when Goliath sees David on the battlefield, this highly trained soldier judges him by his outward appearance. According to Goliath, David is young man, reddish, and handsome (1 Sam 17:42). Goliath follows Samuel’s way, as he did in 1 Sam 16:6-7.134

However, David does not do as Goliath and Samuel did. The giant’s outward appearance is never an issue with David, because he obeys Yahweh’s direction. It is not hard to guess that Goliath is only interested in outward appearances, like Samuel and the Israelites,135 and his “perception of

David misses his central strength, his inward beauty and strength of judgment that mirrors

Yahweh’s criteria.”136

אל־ת בִֵ֧ט אֶ ל־מ רְ אֵֶ֛הּו וְאֶ ל־גְבֵֹ֥ ּה קֹומָתֵ֖ ֹו Sam 16:7 1 137 וי בִֵ֧ט ה ּפְלׁשְת ֶ֛ י ו י ְר ֶ ֵ֥אה אֶ ת־דָו ֵ֖ד ו י ְב ֵז֑הּו כ ַֽי־הָיָ֣ה נ ַ֔ער וְא דְ מֹנ ֵ֖י ע ם־יְפֵֵ֥ה מ רְ אֶַֽ ה Sam 17:42 1

133 Raymond-Jean Frontain, “The Trickster Tricked: Strategies of Deception and Survival in the David Narrative,” in Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text, eds. Vincent L. Tollers and John Maier, BuR 33.2 (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1990), 173. 134 A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 211; Bodner, 1 Samuel, 186. 135 Diana Vikander Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, JSOTSup 121 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 131. 136 Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, 132. ,Fokkelman .נבט Fokkelman suggests the relationship between these two verses because of the repeated verb 137 Volume II. The Crossing Fates, 179.

2.8. Mephibosheth the Lame

Mephibosheth is an ill-fated royal family member. If his father, Jonathan, had become the next king after Saul, he would have been Israel’s king after his father. Sadly, however, that did not happen. Instead, he became lame by accident. His disability was due to an accident that occurred when the report of Saul and Jonathan came from Jezreel (2 Sam 4:4). So the reader remembers him as lame.

The first appearance of Mephibosheth on the narrative stage (2 Sam 9) is similar to

David’s in 1 Sam 16. Jeremy Schipper asserts that this similarity between them is “just one of several points in which Mephibosheth’s relationship to David mirrors David’s relationship to

Saul.”138 Both questioners ask whether someone remains in Saul and Jesse’s house or not, respectively. And then both answerers give a reply that someone still remains in the house, but they do not make mention of these remnants’ names. The answerers emphasize the remnants’ outward appearance. In fact, the remnants’ physical traits show their social status as the weak or the marginal. As Yahweh chooses small David, king David helps Mephibosheth out of a difficult

2) ”( א ל־תירָ א) situation, especially financial hardship. David says to Mephibosheth, “do not fear

Sam 9:7). Schipper insists that “usually, the Hebrew Bible reserves this ‘oracle of salvation’ formula for one in a position of great authority, often God or one of the heavenly hosts.”139

138 Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 109. 139 Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 111.

Table 10. The Similarities between Mephibosheth and David140

Mephibosheth David

הֲת ֣ מּו ה נְעָרים הֲכ֣י יֶׁש־עַ֔ ֹוד אֲׁשֵֶ֥ ר נֹות ֵ֖ ר לְבֵ֣ית ׁשָא֑ ּול Question Is there anyone still remaining in the Are these all the children? (NASB)141 house of Saul? (Samuel’s question; 1 Sam 16:11) (David’s question; 2 Sam 9:1) ע֚ ֹוד ׁשָא֣ר עֶ֛ ֹוד בֵֵ֥ן ל יהֹונָתֵָ֖ ן Answer There is still a son of Jonathan There still remain (Ziba’s answer; 2 Sam 9:3) (Jesse’s answer; 1 Sam 16:11) ה קָטַָ֔ ן נְכֵֵ֥ה ר גְלַָֽים Feature lame small Supporter 1 He is in the house of Machir the son When David stayed outside of Ammiel in Lo-debar, outside Jerusalem, Machir the son of Ammiel Jerusalem (2 Sam 9:4). from Lo-debar brought food and other things (2 Sam 16:27-29). Supporter 2 David ordered Ziba to take care of When David stated to flee, Ziba Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:9-10). brought food (2 Sam 16:1).

However, because David hated “the blind142 and the lame (2 Sam 5:8),” R. Carlson associates the lame with Mephibosheth.143 This seems to mean that David considered

Mephibosheth as his rival and also hated him. While it may be somewhat true in that David accepted Ziba’s slander144 of Mephibosheth in 2 Sam 16:3, it is not ultimately true, because he reversed his decision about Ziba when he saw Mephibosheth’s shabby appearance in 2 Sam

140 The table is adapted and modified from Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 109-10; Jeremy Schipper, “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b,” CBQ 67 (2005): 431. 141 Schipper renders this sentence as “if anyone remains in the house of Jesse.” Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 109. 142 This issue (about the blind) will be discussed later in this chapter. 143 R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964), 57. 144 Shmuel Vargon explains reasonably that “Ziba, who was in charge of Saul’s many possessions, was apprehensive of losing his position; he tried to cast aspersions on Mephibosheth by replying to David that Jonathan still had one son left–who was, however, unworthy of the king’s house, being lame.” Shmuel Vargon, “The Blind and the Lame,” VT 46 (1996): 505.

19:24.145 In addition, there is no evidence that the “lame” in 2 Sam 5:6-10 are connected to

Mephibosheth.146 Even if David had hated all the lame, Mephibosheth seems to be an exception, because of Jonathan.147 Therefore, Mephibosheth’s lameness shows that “he could not be even considered as a fit successor to Saul or to Ishbosheth if the latter was regarded as a legitimate king by David and his supporters.”148 He needed to receive special treatment from others, including David.149

About his loyalty to David, Cephas Tushima asserts that the chiastic structure shows his

“doubtful loyalty” to the king.

A David and his loyalists–Ittai, the priests, Hushai (2 Sam 15:17-36) B David and a man of doubtful loyalty–Ziba (2 Sam 16:1-4) C David and an adversary–Shimei (2 Sam 16:6-12) C′ David and the repentant adversary–Shimei (2 Sam 19:18-19a) B′ David and a man of doubtful loyalty– Mephibosheth (2 Sam 19:25-31) A′ David and a loyalist–Barzillai (2 Sam 19:32-40)150

145 As McCarter argues, “it is difficult . . . to decide whether Ziba was lying in 16:1-14 or Meribbaal [Mephibosheth] is lying” in 2 Sam 19:25-31. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 422. 146 Anthony R. Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (ʽiwwēr ȗpissēaḥ) in 2 Samuel 5:8b,” CBQ 63 (2001): 26. 147 Michael Fiorello demonstrates that “the parenthetical statement of Jonathan’s son [in 2 Sam 4:4] as a cripple and the cause of his disability brings forward an emphasis on kindness connected to 1 Sam 20:14-15 and the oath David makes to Jonathan.” Michael D. Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled in Ancient Israel according to the Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Sources” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008), 166. 148 A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Waco, TX: Word Books,1989), 67. 149 The literary structure in 2 Sam 9:1-13 clearly illustrates this point.

A. David seeks to be kind to a descendant of Saul (9:1) B. David speaks to Ziba, Saul’s servant (9:2-5) C. David shows kindness to Meribbaal (9:6-8) B′. David speaks to Ziba, Saul’s servant (9:9-11a) A′. David set in motion kindness to a descendant of Saul (9:11b-13)

See Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled,” 169. 150 Cephas T. A. Tushima, The Fate of Saul’s Progeny in the Reign of David (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 228.

However, David’s judgment in B′ (2 Sam 19:25-31) seems not to reveal Mephibosheth’s disloyalty to the king, but to show “his failure as a just king.”151 From Mephibosheth’s response to David, the reader perceives “how Mephibosheth grieved over David’s flight from what he did, or rather did not do, concerning his external appearance.”152 David’s decision comes from his political ability without kindness to Mephibosheth based on the oath between Jonathan and himself. Fokkelman insists that “David feels a dual loyalty, towards Ziba and towards

Mephibosheth,”153 because he does “not wish to cause too much harm to Ziba, who had helped him at the start of his flight,”154 and he must consider the promise to Jonathan. So, this is not a

Solomonic judgment.155

Table 11. The Similarities between Two Judgments

Decision Response David’s You and Ziba will divide the land Mephibosheth: Let him take all (2 Sam (2 Sam 19:29). 19:30). [Do not divide it!] Solomon’s Divide the living child in two (1 The real mother of the living child: Give Kgs 3:25). her the living child (1 Kgs 3:26). [Do not divide him.]

In fact, we can discover similarities between these two judgments. Tushima maintains that “the similarity between Mephibosheth’s concluding remarks and that of the true mother of

151 Stuart Lasine, “Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: The Reader as Judge of the Dispute between Mephibosheth and Ziba,” HS 30 (1989): 50. My italics. 152 Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 50. Italics in the original. 153 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses: Volume I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2), SSN 20 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 38. 154 Vargon, “The Blind and the Lame,” 509. 155 Lasine, “Judicial Narratives,” 50.

the living son in 1 Kgs 3 sets in bold relief the difference in the judgments of the two kings.”156

As the slanderer is the woman who wants to divide the living child in Solomon’s judgment, there is a strong presumption that the calumniator is Ziba in David’s decision. Even though

Mephibosheth’s physical appearance “is intended to demonstrate that the rule of the Saulide dynasty has ended,”157 the narrator definitely indicates that “the one who is physically lame is morally and psychologically the only one who emerges from these entanglements [namely,

David-Ziba-Mephibosheth’s triangle] inviolate.”158 It is certain that his physical disability is not depicted negatively but positively. Although he is the suitable successor of the Saulide dynasty,159 he shows steadfast loyalty to king David instead of being eager for a regime change in Israel again. Therefore, his loyalty to the king anointed by Yahweh functions to cover his physical weakness and leads the reader to see him positively.

2.9. Ahijah and the Dead Boy in 1 Kgs 14:1-20

In this story, the narrator portrays the prophet Ahijah as an old and blind man. Even though

Jeroboam’s wife masquerades herself as a different woman to hear her son’s fate, Ahijah knows who she is (1 Kgs 14:6). It is manifest that “the disguise of Jeroboam’s wife . . . and the prophet’s blindness heighten the drama of the story and emphasize that Yahweh’s word is not

156 Tushima, The Fate of Saul’s Progeny, 269. 157 Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled,” 179. 158 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 39. 159 Fiorello (“The Physically Disabled,” 176) observes that “it appears from the evidence that many kings did not fit an ideal concept of a king, and a handicapped ruler was not a social pariah as royal theology proponents would have us believe.”

subject to human manipulation or weakness.”160 He and other previous blind people in the DH have some important similarities, suggesting that his blindness is not “considered a sign of divine requital due to sin.”161

Table 12. The Similarities among the Three Blind Characters

Dwelling place Outward appearance What can they see in this situation? Samson Gaza (Judg 16:21) blind (Judg 16:21) He can see that Yahweh is the source of his strength (Judg 16:28-30). Eli Shiloh (1 Sam 1:3) blind (1 Sam 3:2; 4:15), He can see “the seed of a new old, heavy (1 Sam 4:18) beginning, at least for Israel.”162 Ahijah Shiloh (1 Kgs 14:4) blind, old (1 Kgs 14:4) He sees Jeroboam’s wife despite of her disguise and her son’s fate (1 Kgs 14:6, 12-13).

Even though they were all blind, they had performed Yahweh’s work without help or with a bit of assistance from Yahweh or other people. In addition, Wallace insists that “in many ways

Ahijah is regarded as, and acts like, a seer and parallels the image of Samuel given by Saul and his servant in 1 Sam 9,5-10.”163 For instance, in both stories people bring presents to Samuel and

Ahijah in order to ascertain certain information. Therefore, Ahijah’s disability does not symbolize his inactivity or vulnerability, but his activity and invulnerability, because Yahweh guides him and divulges His will to him (1 Kgs 14:5).

In this story, there is another ugly character. He even dies tragically young to fulfill a

160 H. N. Wallace, “The Oracles against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings,” Bib 67 (1986): 22. 161 Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled,” 181. 162 Janzen, “Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh,” 94. 163 Wallace, “The Oracles against the Israelite Dynasties,” 23.

prophecy. He is Jeroboam’s son, Abijah. The son’s name “means ‘My father is ‘YHWH,’ perhaps reflecting Jeroboam’s early (and brief) submission to YHWH, or it is an arrogant allusion to Jeroboam’s own sense of greatness.”164 It is certain that his death “is associated with the demise of the dynasty.”165 Ironically, the cause of his death is a good thing in Yahweh’s eyes

(1 Kgs 14:13).166 How can his death be a blessing?167 The reason for that is that all Israel buried him and mourned for him, unlike Jeroboam’s other family members (1 Kgs 14:11, 13, 18).168

Implicit in his death is Yahweh’s love for this boy, because Yahweh isolated him quickly from two kinds of serious distress at once, namely his illness and the fall of his family. The boy’s death proves that Yahweh is the name of one who can transform a curse to a blessing.

2.10. Elisha the Bald in 2 Kgs 2:23-24

As Paul Kissling asserts, the incident in which forty-two young men were mauled by two bears is

“a very difficult text for modern readers who attempt to align themselves with a hypothetical ancient Hebrew reader.”169 So, we must consider the relationship between this incident and the previous incident in 2 Kgs 2:19-22. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor explain the

164 Lissa M. Wray Beal, 1&2 Kings, ApOTC 9 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 201. 165 Wallace, “The Oracles against the Israelite Dynasties,” 23-24. See also Fiorello, “The Physically Disabled,” 181. Mordechai .(אֶ ל־יְהוָ ֶ֛ה טַ֗ ֹוב דָבָ ֣ר) His name seems to allude to his having some “good thing” in regard to Yahweh 166 Cogan explains that “Rabbinic exegesis took this to be the sense of ‘good’ here: against his father’s order, Abijah made a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem.” Mordechai Cogan, I Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 380. 167 Mark Mercer insists that “a strong curse is sometimes thought to be the cause of death.” Mark Mercer, “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse: A Study of 2 Kings 2:23-25,” AJET 21 (2002): 166. 168 Gina Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 143. 169 Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, JSOTSup 224 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 165.

relationship between these two incidents, in that “just as the prophetic word heals and gives life . . . , so, too, it [the incident in 2 Kgs 2:23-24] brings death.”170 Furthermore, Lissa Wray

Beal insists that “the narrative shaping marks the import of the prophetic succession”171 in 2 Kgs

2. In addition, Brian Irwin demonstrates that 2 Kgs 2 is the basis upon which to interpret other incidents relating to Elisha in the next several chapters of 2 Kgs.

2 Kings 2 may be understood to accomplish three things: (1) it establishes Elisha as Elijah’s true heir; (2) it demonstrates that obedience to the prophetic word will bring covenant blessing; and (3) it shows that disregarding the prophet will lead to covenant curse. These principles are then further illustrated in the Elisha stories that make up chapters 3 to 8.172

Therefore, we cannot consider this brief written incident apart from other incidents in the book of

2 Kings.

Even though the two incidents in 2 Kgs 2:19-24 yield opposite results, the incidents have

170 Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 39. 171 Wray Beal, 1&2 Kings, 302. In the same page, she suggests the following literary structure in 2 Kgs 2.

Introduction (1a) A The journey begins at Gilgal (v. 1b) B Journey to Bethel; first challenge (vv. 2-3) C Journey to Jericho; second challenge (vv. 4-5) D Journey to Jordan; boundary marker (vv. 6-7) E Crossing of Jordan (took cloak, struck, divided to one side and the other) (v. 8) F Ascension; double portion given and received (vv. 9-13) E′ Crossing of Jordan (took cloak, struck, divided to one side and the other) (v. 14) D′ Boundary marker; confirmation at the Jordan of succession (v. 15) [Missing third challenge and counter-challenge (vv. 16-18)] C′ Proofs at Jericho (vv. 19-22) B′ Proofs at Bethel (vv. 23-24) A′ Journey ends at Mount Carmel and Samaria (v. 25)

Also, Burke Long and Robert Cohn introduce a similar literary structure. See Burke O. Long, 2 Kings, FOTL 10 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 20; Robert L. Cohn, 2 Kings, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 11. 172 Brian P. Irwin, “The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2 Kings 2 and the Prophetic Authority of Elisha,” TynBul 67 (2016): 33.

a strong relationship, as Cogan and Tadmor suggest.173 Keith Bodner proposes that “these two episodes together with the assumption that there is an essential literary coherence might reveal an intentionality in the structural design of the narrative.”174 Both of them present people’s complaints and then Elisha takes appropriate measures in each case, because Elisha shows effectively the power of Yahweh to the citizens of Jericho and Bethel.

Table 13. The Similarities between Two Incidents in 2 Kgs 2:19-24

Complaint Result piel) the water by the word ;רָ פָא) Kgs 2:19-22 The water is bad, so the Elisha heals 2 women of the land are of Yahweh. miscarrying.175 ➔ There is hope for the future, because they will have children. piel)176 the boys by the ;קלל) Kgs 2:23-24 The prophet is bald, so Elisha curses 2 many boys mock Elisha. name of Yahweh, and then two bears tear up .piel) forty-two boys among them ; בָקע) ➔ There is no hope for the future, because many children die.

Although Kissling argues that Elisha “makes use of his miraculous power for a morally questionable purpose”177 in this incident, the similarities between the two incidents suggest that

Elisha has well performed his prophetic duties.

Regarding Elisha’s baldness, we do not know whether it originated from heredity, was a

173 Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 39. 174 Keith Bodner, Elisha's Profile in the Book of Kings: The Double Agent (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 4. in 2 Kgs 2:19 means basically “to cause an abortion.” HALOT, 1492. Irwin insists that “given ׁשכל ,The word 175 the land’) can sometimes indicate ‘nation’ or people’, the view that sees this verse as referring‘) הָאָרֶ ץ that the term to problems with childbirth is to be preferred.” Irwin, “The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears,” 31. 176 The words to “heal” and “curse” form a direct contrast. T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC 13 (Waco: Word Books, 1985), 24. 177 Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History, 195.

symptom of a certain disease, was a tonsure expressing sorrow for the dead,178 or “signif[ied] his prophetic vocation.”179 However, it is certain that the boys made fun of his outward appearance.

Elisha might construe their jeering about his loss of hair as the refusal of his prophetic authority,180 because Elijah, his master was a hairy man (2 Kgs 1:8), contrastively.181

Paradoxically, the incidents demonstrate their prophetic power from Yahweh as follows:

Table 14. The Similarities between Elijah’s and Elisha’s Incidents

Elijah Elisha 1:2 ? Ahaziah asked Baal-zebub. Omitted 1:9, 11 2:23 The king’s order to Elijah The boys’ exhortation to Elisha !G o up עֲלֵֵ֥ה !Go down רֵַֽ דָ ה 1:10, [12] 2:24 and came out“ ותֵצֶ֙ אנָה and came down“ ו תִֵּ֤רֶ ד two she-bears ׁשְת ִּ֤ים ד בים֙ Fire אֵׁש֙ from the forest מ ן־ה י ַ֔ער from the skies מ ן־ה שָמ ַ֔ ים and devoured”182 ותְ ב ק֣עְ נָה ”and consumed ו תֵֹ֥ אכל

As shown in the table above, Elisha’s curse on the boys seems to be related to the Israelites’ idol worship, because king Ahaziah died while worshipping Baal-zebub. Thus, the boys’ exhortation can be understood as a challenge to Elisha to enter Bethel and worship at the cult site established by Jeroboam.”183 Philip Satterthwaite argues that this curse is “cutting off the future hope of a

178 Mercer, “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse,” 176-77; Marvin A. Sweeney, I & II Kings, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 275. 179 Eric J. Ziolkowski, “The Bad Boys of Bethel: Origin and Development of a Sacrilegious Type,” HR 30 (1991): 334. Sweeney argues that “baldness may be the mark of a holy man, who perhaps is associated with the Transjordanian region.” Sweeney, I & II Kings, 275. 180 August H. Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 382. 181 Hobbs, 2 Kings, 18. 182 The third row is from Hobbs, 2 Kings, 18. The first two rows are my own. 183 Mercer, “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse,” 175. See also Wray Beal, 1&2 Kings, 306.

people,”184 because many little boys were killed.

If so, who do the boys stand for? In my opinion, the boys symbolize the sinful Israelites in that they do not obey the word of Yahweh but follow false gods as other nations did. The

Israelites do not perceive themselves as small, as in the case of king Saul (1 Sam 15:17). In addition, the bears do not kill all of them, but only forty-two at that time.185 This means that

Yahweh retains future hope for the Israelites. Additionally, the baldness suggests that outward appearance is an unimportant factor in doing prophetic works; Yahweh entrusts him with full powers.

2.11. Naaman the Leper

The story of Elisha healing Naaman of his disease in 2 Kgs 5 “is a remarkable story of the conversion to Yahwism of a mighty, Aramean warrior.”186 In this story, the narrator uses the contrast between small and great, powerless and powerful, with irony. Firstly, though the kings of Aram and Israel have strong political power, they “play minor roles on a tableau where politics recedes to the background”187 and are powerless characters for healing Naaman, the main problem in this story. Secondly, the healing is not initiated by strong men (such as Naaman

184 Philip E. Satterthwaite, “The Elisha Narratives and the Coherence of 2 Kings 2-8,” TynBul 49 (1998): 9. to kill), but the) הָרג to slaughter) or) ׁשָחט ,(to die) מות It is interesting that the narrator does not use the verbs 185 (to split), when he describes this incident. Irwin (“The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears,” 24) בָקע verb suggest that this verb “indicates that the boys [only forty-two boys among them] were severely injured if not killed.” 186 D. P. O’Brien, “‘Is This the Time to accept …?’ (2 Kings V 26b): Simply Moralizing (LXX) or an Ominous Foreboding of Yahweh’s Rejection of Israel (MT)?” VT 46 (1996): 448. 187 Robert L. Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” VT 33 (1983): 171.

as a “functional character.”188 Thirdly, the ( נעֲרָ ה קְטנָ ה) himself and the kings), but a small girl insider (Gehazi) becomes the outsider, and the outsider (Naaman) transforms into the insider.189

Esther Menn points out that child characters in the Bible are “rarely the focus of biblical interpretation.”190 This story also has a tendency to ignore the little servant girl in that “so small is her role in the story that she is given no name, and she never reappears as an adult later in the narrative of Israel’s history.”191 Although she disappears from the narrative stage after telling

Naaman’s wife her wish, it is the starting point in Naaman’s healing. Other child characters play a similar role in the DH, as the following table shows.

Table 15. Child Characters’ Role in the DH

The ugly Child Result .Judg 16:26) He helps Samson to complete his duty) הנ ער ;Samson the boy .Sam 3:1) He leads Eli to the word of Yahweh 1) הנ ער ;Eli the boy Samuel .Kgs 2:23) They prod Elisha into action 2) נְעָרִּ֤ ים קְט נים֙ ;Elisha little boys .Kgs 5:2) She leads Naaman to the prophet 2) נעֲרָ֣ ה קְטנָ֑ה ;Naaman a little girl The flesh of a little boy leads Naaman בְש ֶ֛ ר נ ֵ֥ער קָטֵֹ֖ ן ;Naaman the flesh of a little boy (2 Kgs 5:14) to worship Yahweh. .He (Gehazi) leads Elisha into action נ ע ר אֱל יׁשָ֣ ע ;Elisha The boy of Elisha (2 Kgs 5:20)

Other notable characters in this story are Naaman’s servants (2 Kgs 5:13). They lead

Naaman to perform Elisha’s order. As “the servants’ request reveals Naaman’s obsession with

188 Jean Kyoung Kim, “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story (2 Kings 5),” JSOT 30 (2005): 53. 189 Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” 183. 190 Esther M. Menn, “Child Characters in Biblical Narratives: The Young David (1 Samuel 16-17) and the Little Israelite Servant Girl (2 Kings 5:1-19),” in The Child in the Bible, eds. Marcia J. Bunge, et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 324. 191 Menn, “Child Characters in Biblical Narratives,” 325.

a great man before his“ ;א יׁשׁ֩ גָד֙ ֹול ל פְנִֵּ֤י אֲדֹנָיו֙ ) greatness,”192 the narrator discloses that Naaman lord” [2 Kgs 5:1]) is ready for being a humble man before Yahweh, the Lord through listening to others especially a social or a political underclass. When he is obedient to the prophet of Israel,

In addition, the .(נ ער קָטֹ ן) ”the flesh of the great man becomes like the flesh of “a small boy narrator portrays not only restoration from the disease, but also his confession to Yahweh.193

Regardless of Naaman’s physical appearance and political power, the most important factor in his recovery is whether he follows the prophet’s word or not.

There is one other small character in this story. He is Gehazi, the servant of Elisha. The narrator describes him as small (2 Kgs 5:20). Even though Gehazi is apparently small and just

Elisha’s subordinate,194 he forgets it and acts like Elisha. In addition, he seems to judge that it is the prophet’s mistake not to receive the present from Naaman. It is hard to exaggerate how much

“Gehazi’s misunderstanding of his servanthood contrasts dramatically with the little girl’s conviction that the prophet of Israel can heal Naaman’s leprosy.”195

2.12. Zedekiah(-Jehoiachin), the Last King of Judah

In the last scene of the narrative stage on which he appears, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, meets a terrible fate (2 Kgs 25:7). His sons are killed by Babylonian soldiers who then gouge out his eyes. The last scene he sees will leave an indelible and permanent scar on him. The narrator

192 Kim, “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story,” 55. 193 Cohn, “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V,” 172. .means his low position as the servant of Elisha נ ער ,In the case of Gehazi 194 195 Kim, “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story,” 57.

depicts his fate in a negative way, in that there is no hope of restoring his sight and descendants.

Does this incident symbolize a similarly hopeless situation for Judah?

Some scholars suggest that a small seed of hope remains in the incident and begins to grow,196 because the blind Zedekiah is related to the lame Mephibosheth in the DH context.

Schipper find links between Zedekiah and Mephibosheth as follows.197

Aside from their use in the description of Mephibosheth and Zedekiah, the two words “lame” and “blind” appear as a pair in the D[tr]H three other times (Deut 15:21; 2 Sam 5:6, 8; cf. Exod 4:11; Lev 21:18). This repeated use of the words as a pair suggests some resonance between the fates of the “lame” Mephibosheth and the “blind” Zedekiah. Yet one also sees a resonance between Mephibosheth and the other surviving Davidic king, Jehoiachin.198

As Mephibosheth becomes lame by an unfortunate accident, Zedekiah loses his sight by force at the hands of the soldiers of Babylon. In addition, as king David allows Mephibosheth to eat at the king’s table, king of Babylon Evil-merodach authorizes Johoiachin, Zedekiah’s nephew, to dine in the king’s presence (2 Kgs 25:29).199

In 2 Kgs 25:4, the narrator shows that “Zedekiah was a coward who only wanted to save his own neck and left the people to suffer the consequences of his unwise politics.”200 His flight reveals not only his unsuitableness for the throne,201 but also his weakness. Furthermore, he is

196 Jon D. Levenson, “The Last Four Verses in Kings,” JBL 103 (1984): 353-61; Juha Pakkala, “Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession,” JBL 125 (2006): 443-52; Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 116-22. 197 Cheryl Exum also agrees that there is a connection between Mephibosheth and Zedekiah. However, she evaluates their fate negatively. J. Cheryl Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 149. 198 Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible, 118-19. 199 Ceresko, “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame,’” 29. 200 Pakkala, “Zedekiah’s Fate,” 451. 201 Pakkala (“Zedekiah’s Fate,” 451) insists that the narrator depicts Zedekiah as a failed ruler.

caught trying to flee Jerusalem by the powerful Babylonian army (2 Kgs 25:5). His weakness causes his disability. As with the case of Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s captivity (2 Kgs 24:15) exposes his weakness. The narrator considers them as one.202 As Schipper notes, the phrase “the blind and the lame” in 2 Sam 5:8 expresses disability and weakness in both houses of David and Saul metaphorically.203 Despite their disability, the representatives of each house propose hope for the future. Their personal stories are thoroughly miserable; yet the narrator imbues their stories with special significance.

Table 16. The Similarities between Zedekiah-Jehoiachin and Mephibosheth204

Zedekiah-Jehoiachin Mephibosheth To become by force; not congenital by accident; not congenital disable (Zedekiah) A place for in the king’s presence the king’s table (2 Sam 9:7) dining (Jehoiachin) To be disclosed hope for the future of Israel hope for the future of Saulide206 (Zedekiah-Jehoiachin)205

As the other blind people in the DH act as if they see hope for the future,207 the narrator mentions hope for the future of Israel in 2 Kgs 25:27-30,208 as in the case of Mephibosheth.

202 Even though Zedekiah’s father was Josiah, the narrator mentions that Jehoiachin and Zedekiah did evil as Jehoiakim had done. (2 Kgs 24:9, 19). Erich Zenger, “Die Deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung Jojachins,” BZ 12 (1968): 29. 203 Schipper, “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability,” 433. 204 For further details see David Janzen, The Violent Gift: Trauma’s Subversion of the Deuteronomistic History’s Narrative, LHBOTS 561 (New York: T & T Clark, 2012), 202. 205 Levenson (“The Last Four Verses,” 358) insists that “Jehoiachin’s exaltation awakened hopes of restoration among his people, both in exile and in Judah.” 206 About Mephibosheth’s descendants, see 1 Chron 9:40-44. He had many direct descendants. 207 See Table 12. 208 Samantha Joo argues that “this promising ending [2 Kgs 25:27-30], reflecting the human need for hope, becomes an encouraging message for the exilic community.” Samantha Joo, “A Fine Balance between Hope and Despair: The

3. The Deuteronomists’ Attitude towards the Beautiful and the Ugly

In his search for the meaning of beauty Keel concludes that it is related to “blessing.” He insists that “beauty presupposes blessing, and vice versa.”209 However, in the DH, beauty is not an important factor to the people of Yahweh. Although the narrator depicts several characters as beautiful, their beauty is a prerequisite for obtaining the office.210 In addition, their beauty is meaningless without Yahweh.

To sum up, the DH construes beautiful appearance as somewhat negative, whereas it renders appearances akin to the ugly as somewhat positive, as the following table illustrates:

Table 17. The Beautiful and the Ugly Characters in the DH, excluding the DN

That the Deuteronomistic narrator has this view of the outward appearances appears to be because he wants to emphasize God’s way of looking at people. This is made most explicit in 1

Sam 16:7, which states that “man looks at the outward appearance, but Yahweh looks at the heart.” Reines’s opinion illustrates well this intention of the narrator.

Epilogue to 2 Kings (25:27-30),” BibInt 20 (2012): 226. 209 Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 280. 210 Keel (The Symbolism of the Biblical World, 280) asserts that a certain king “is invariably portrayed as such” for this reason.

Biblical and rabbinic literature also recognized the conflict between the natural propensity of man and the demands of ethics, since people are too greatly impressed by external appearances and are, therefore, inclined to underestimate or even to insult an ugly individual. It was stressed, therefore, that a person should be judged, not according to his outward appearance, but by his moral and intellectual qualities; and that human dignity should also be respected, even in an ugly individual.211

In addition, the view of the Deuteronomistic narrator is related to this proclamation that

but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be ,(הֶ֣בֶל ה יֹ֑פי) charm is deceitful and beauty is vain“ praised (Prov 31:30).” The most important factor for the people of Yahweh is not their outward appearance, but their heart for Him.212

211 Reines, “Beauty in the Bible and the Talmud,” 107. 212 It seems to be good supporting evidence that the Deuteronomists are associated with a wisdom school.

Chapter Three The Beautiful Women in the DN

My primary concern in this dissertation is to reveal why the narrator mentions select characters’ appearances, but not every character’s.1 As we saw in Chapter 2, the Deuteronomistic narrator has a certain outlook on outward appearance: it is that Yahweh looks at people in a different way than human beings do.

To support my argument, I examined characters who are depicted as either beautiful/handsome or ugly (i.e., in some way “defective”) among the people in the DH, and I analyzed these characters against their speech, actions, relationships with other characters, and so on. This analysis revealed that the narrator’s portrayal led the reader to expect a certain result for the beautiful/handsome or the ugly in the DH. Then I examined these characters’ fates in the narrative in order to prove that their appearances are related to their fates, because the narrator depicts the characters’ appearances to foreshadow the end of each narrative event. My analysis reveals the Deuteronomistic concept of “outward appearance” with a theological emphasis. With the repeated narration, the narrative’s outline gradually becomes clear.

This study will illustrate the Deuteronomist’s theological reflection on outward

1 Blenkinsopp argues that “the writer [the narrator] did not need to dwell on or in fact even mention the beauty of the king and his progeny; that he did so, and in a way which is thematic throughout the narrative, must therefore be stylistically significant.” J. Blenkinsopp, “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam XI 2ff) and the Yahwist Corpus,” in Volume du Congrès: Genève: 1965, eds. G. W. Anderson, et al., VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 50. 97

appearances. Even though beauty and political power were closely related in ancient Israel,2 the

Deuteronomists have a somewhat negative view of beauty. Furthermore, they wanted to show the reader that God works not only through such handsome men or beautiful women, but also through normal people like us, especially the ugly and the disabled,3 because all God’s creatures

beautiful/ handsome). This fact means that the most important thing is whether ;טֹוב) are good

God is with someone.

Interestingly, in the case of the DN we shall see that the narrator does not mention obviously whether or not God is with most of the beautiful characters in the DN. What is clear is that these beautiful characters in the DN are strongly related to David, who is also beautiful, and that the narrator demonstrates that God is with him (1 Sam 16:18; 18:12, 14: 2 Sam 5:10).

Therefore, the relationship between king David and other beautiful characters in each story reveals not only the narrator’s view of those beautiful characters, but also the changes of David’s heart to God and his political power.

1. David’s Beautiful Wives

Among David’s wives, the narrator describes Abigail, Bathsheba, and Abishag (his steward) as beautiful. Adele Berlin explains that the narrator mentions characters’ outward appearance to

2 David Penchansky, “Beauty, Power, and Attraction: Aesthetics and the Hebrew Bible,” in Beauty and the Bible: Toward a Hermeneutics of Biblical Aesthetics, eds. Richard J. Bautch and Jean-François Racine, SemeiaSt 73 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 47. 3 God’s concern is always focused on the most vulnerable (Deut 10:18), and “he brings some [the beautiful] down and lifts others [the ugly] up (1 Sam 2:7; NLT).”

show whether the character is the right person for the position.4 For example, even though

David’s first wife Michal is important, the narrator shows that she is not suitable as king David’s wife. Strangely enough, the narrator is reticent to mention her outward appearance. Berlin argues that David uses Michal to gain political advantage.5 However, if we extrapolate from Berlin’s opinion about the function of characters’ appearances in the narrative, the fact that there is no description of her outward appearance foreshadows the fact that David’s political power will not be changed by Michal. Therefore, it is natural to extend this explanation to the role of David’s beautiful wives in each story of the DN.

1.1. Abigail, the Wise and Beautiful Woman

The narrator introduces Abigail as having good insight and beauty, but her husband as severe and doing evil (1 Sam 25:3). The literary structure emphasizes their antithetical traits6 as follows:

Nabal וְׁשִֵּ֤ם הָא יׁש֙ נָבַָ֔ ל Abigail וְׁשֵֵ֥ם א ׁשְתֵ֖ ֹו אֲב גַָ֑֖יל Abigail: wise and beautiful וְהָאשִָּ֤ ה טַֽ ֹוב ת־שֶֹּ֙ כֶל֙ ו ֣יפת תַֹ֔ אר Nabal: severe and evil וְהָא ֵ֥ יׁש קָׁשֶֶ֛ ה וְר ֵ֥ ע מ עֲלָל ֵ֖ים

4 Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983), 36. She asserts that “to describe someone as tall or handsome is really no different from calling him wise or wealthy, good or evil.” 5 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 33. 6 Ken Mulzac, “The Role of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25,” AUSS 41 (2003): 46. He argues that “the chiastic structure of the text emphasizes the contrast of their characters.”

Nabal good understanding and beautiful

Abigail vulgar and evil in dealings

100

Such an emphasis on her inner and outer traits reflects that Abigail is “ready to protect her husband though he does not deserve it.”7 The literary structure of this story clearly illustrates this point, in that Abigail prevents David from killing Nabal.

Exposition a) introduction: details (wealth, marriage, qualities) v. 1d-3e b) David’s request via servants 4-9 c) refusal by Nabal 10-12 d) the bomb bursts: they all gird on their swords 13

Development and conclusion of the plot I CRISIS e) servant informs Abigail (warning speech, typifies 14-17 David’s band and Nabal) f) Abigail gets together a food column, leaves, 18-19 but does not inform her husband II CONFRONTATION g) Abigail and David moving towards one another, flashback: David’s oath of vengeance [thesis] 20-23 x) Abigail’s long speech: she takes the blame, runs down Nabal, refers to David’s destiny, oath against taking the law into one’s own hands [antithesis] 24-31 g′) David’s answer: blessing/thanks plus oath [synthesis] of revenge and intervention 32-35 III SOLUTION f′) Abigail returns, does not inform her husband 36 e′) she informs Nabal, he has a stroke, later dies 37-38

Consequence d′) David reacts to the news: blessing/thanks 39a-d b′) David’s proposal 39e-40 via servants c′) Abigail’s acceptance 41-42 a′) details of David’s 3 marriages 43-448

7 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 33. 8 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-21 & II Sam.1), SSN 23 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), 478.

101

Interestingly, even though her outward appearance is introduced by the narrator as a trait that is as important as her wisdom, it contributes little to nothing to the development of this story. Mark

Biddle pinpoints that David’s first concern is not Abigail’s beauty, but Nabal’s richness.9 In addition, Nabal’s severity redounds to his wife’s wisdom. As Esther Fuchs observes, “Abigail’s positive characterization emphasizes Nabal’s villainy and presents her as a desirable and prized object.”10

1.1.1. Nabal, Abigail’s Original Husband

Many scholars suggest that Nabal is another Saul because of their similar traits.11 Robert Gordon argues that “Nabal reads like a diminutive Saul . . . In his eyes David is just a fugitive slave.”12

As David Bosworth observes, we can find similarities between two kinds of relationships (Table

18), as if Saul is replaced by Nabal in 1 Sam 25.

9 Mark E. Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization,” JBL 121 (2002): 629. 10 Esther Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman, JSOTSup 310 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 144. 11 Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 626; David A. Bosworth, The Story within a Story in Biblical Hebrew Narrative, CBQMS 45 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008), 82-117; Robert P. Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24-26,” TynBul 31 (1980): 53-54. 12 Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” 45.

102

Table 18. The Similarities between Two Kinds of Relationships13

David and Nabal David and Saul David does good. David protects Nabal’s David slays Goliath, defeats the property and treats his Philistine armies, and soothes servants well. Saul’s madness with music. David mourns the deaths of Saul, Abner, and Ishbaal and avenges the deaths of Saul and his son. David receives Nabal refuses reciprocal Saul seeks to kill David at court, evil. hospitality to David and and even his apparent kindness insults his messengers. (offering Michal as David’s wife) is a trap. When David flees, Saul pursues him and David suffers exile and persecution. David declines Abigail restrains David David refrains from taking vengeance. from avenging himself on vengeance against Saul. He does Nabal. not make war against Saul and twice spares his life. He executes those who claim to have killed Saul or his heirs. Yhwh vindicates Yhwh kills Nabal, and Saul dies in battle, and David David. David marries Nabal’s wife. becomes king of Judah and then of all Israel.

In addition, the literary structure of 1 Sam 24-26 throws into sharp relief the strong literary connection between Nabal and Saul in that “David’s sparing of Nabal comments on David’s sparing of Saul recorded in the framing doublet.”14

13 Bosworth, The Story within a Story, 86. 14 Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 626. See also Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail (1 Samuel 25): A Literary Study of Wordplay on Names, Analogies and Socially Structured Opposites,” in Abigail, Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women, ed. Daniel Bodi, HBM 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 66-67; Barbara Green, “Enacting Imaginatively the Unthinkable: 1 Samuel 25 and the Story of Saul,” BibInt 11 (2003): 1; Jon D. Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” CBQ 40 (1978): 23; David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 575. Gordon names 1 Samuel 24-26 the “wilderness cycle.” See Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” 40. See also Green, “Enacting Imaginatively the Unthinkable,” 10; David Jobling, 1 Samuel, BO (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 92-93; Grenville J. R. Kent, Saying It Again Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1 Samuel 28

103

Figure 4. The Literary Structure of 1 Sam 24-26

as “not a נָבָל His name, “Nabal,” basically means “fool” in Hebrew.15 Levenson defines harmless simpleton, but rather a vicious, materialistic, egocentric misfit, . . . an embarrassment to his father (Prov 17:21), a glutton (Prov 30:22), a hoarder (Jer 17:11), and even an atheist (Ps 14:1

in Isa 32:6 is strongly related to Nabal’s refusal of נָבָל Moreover, the definition for 16”.(53:1 =

David’s request.17 However, the narrator does not say Nabal was foolish directly. The narrator characterizes him as an obstinate person. Only his name alludes to his foolishness and creates bias on the part of the reader.

Interestingly, Moshe Garsiel notes that “Nabal’s response contains a subtle offense against David’s clan and tribal genealogy.”18 The following table illustrates this.

(Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 118; Peter J. Leithart, “Nabal and His Wine,” JBL 120 (2001): 526-27; Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Two. 1 Samuel, ISBL 849 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 205-15; Ellen van Wolde, “A Leader Led by a Lady: David and Abigail in I Samuel 25,” ZAW 114 (2002): 366. 15 HALOT, 663. 16 Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” 13. 17 Levenson explains that “the refusal to feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty, precisely the sin of Nabal in 1 Samuel 25, is listed among the characteristics of a nābāl” in Isa 32:5-6. Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” 13. 18 Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail,” 72.

104

Table 19. Nabal’s Wordplay about David’s Ancestors19

David’s Genealogy Nabal to David’s young men (who break away; vs. 10) ה מ תְּפָ֣ צרְ ַ֔ ים (ּפֶרֶ ץ) Perez (today they have multiplied; vs. 10) ה יֹום֙ ר ב֣ ּו (רָ ם) Ram (slaves; vs. 10) עֲבָד ַ֔ ים (עֹבֵד) Obed (who is the son of Jesse?; vs. 10) ֣ מי בֶן־י ׁשָ֑ י (י ׁשי) Jesse (who is David? vs. 10) מ ֵ֥ י דָו ֵ֖ ד ( דָוד) David (my bread; vs. 11) ל חְמ י (hometown ;בֵית לֶחֶם) Bethlehem Nabal’s forefather Nabal to David’s young men (from his masters; vs. 10) מ ּפְנֵֵ֥ י אֲדֹנַָֽיו ( יְפנֶה) Jephunneh

According to Garsiel, Nabal lashes out at David and his ancestors, and puts himself in a higher position than David by making a pun.

While David’s family and men are seen as a gang of slaves who broke away from their master, Nabal places his clan at the other side of the equation–on the side of the masters. The words “from his masters” (mippenê ʾadōnāyw) includes a wordplay on the forefather’s name of Caleb, who was son of Jephunneh (ypnh, root pnh; the pun on the words pānîm–mippnê). In an offensive way, Nabal defines the stark contrast, the unbridgeable gap, between the two clans. Being a Calebite, a descendant of Caleb son of Jephunneh, he belongs to the dominant and superior clan of the masters, while David and his men are in the category of slaves who broke away from their masters.20

If Nabal’s response is a kind of wordplay to deprecate David, he is not a fool at all,21 but a genius at Hebrew. Nabal already knew who David was and even knew his forefathers.22

However, this brilliant answer to David’s request reveals Nabal’s foolishness ironically.

Although Nabal knew David’s background and remembered his genealogy, he did not detect that

David would be the king of Israel. Furthermore, Nabal was successful in the protection of his

19 This table is modified from Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail,” 73. 20 Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail,” 73-74. Italics in the original. 21 Jobling (1 Samuel, 92) insists that “it is an unlikely name for a parent to give to a real child.” 22 Van Wolde, “A Leader Led by a Lady,” 359.

105

property, except his own life. He revealed his true colours by his answer. He did not want to share his fortune with the hungry and the thirsty (1 Sam 25:11) and evaluated David as an unimportant figure in Israel politically. John Dekker seems right in his contention that “although on some level he knows who David is, he is ignorant of his true identity.”23

The narrator introduces Nabal as a very great man (1 Sam 25:2) and a Calebite (1 Sam

25:3). According to Robert Alter, “the Calebites were non-Israelites who in effect joined the tribe of Judah.”24 Ralph Klein explains that this clan originated from Caleb, who “was faithful in the spy incident.”25 In addition, Rachel Adelman asserts that Nabal “is linked to Judah directly, as a descendant of Caleb, and therefore constitutes a potential rival to the throne.”26 Nabal was from a time-honoured and prestigious clan.27 Thus, it is highly probable that Nabal understood himself as one of the most influential figures in local politics, and could ward off any competition. This may be all the more likely because he threw a banquet like a king (1 Sam

25:36).28

23 John Dekker, “Characterization in the Hebrew Bible: Nabal as a Test Case,” BBR 26 (2016): 321. 24 Robert Alter, Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013), 386. See also Philip F. Esler, Sex, Wives, and Warriors: Reading Biblical Narrative with Its Ancient Audience (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011), 239. 25 Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 248. 26 Rachel E. Adelman, The Female Ruse: Women’s Deception and Divine Sanction in the Hebrew Bible, HBM 74 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 153. 27 Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 577. 28 André Lemaire insists that Nabal “was obviously an important local official, probably the most important in the region of Maʽon and Carmel, south-southeast of Hebron . . . he has a status similar to that of a king, as indicated by the phrase describing the feast he offered to his shearers, ‘like a banquet of a king,’ in 1 Sam. 25.36.” André Lemaire, “The Residency of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 and the Connection between David and Abraham,” in Abigail, Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women, ed. Daniel Bodi, HBM 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 8.

106

1.1.2. David, Abigail’s New Husband

Needless to say, David seemed to want a good relationship with Nabal29 and to need his political and material support. Unfortunately, not only he did not receive Nabal’s support, but he was insulted by Nabal. If David killed Nabal and his whole family without hesitation, David would not receive support from the tribe of Judah because of Nabal’s high social standing. In addition, as Steven McKenzie observes, “even if Nabal deserves a violent death, the others in his household are not to blame for his acts.”30

For these reasons, Abigail’s preventative action provides David with a solid foundation for receiving political and financial support from the Calebites. As Jon Levenson and Baruch

Halpern have aptly observed, “David’s possession of Abigail somehow entitled him to leadership in [the] Caleb[ites].”31 Furthermore, Bosworth insists that “David’s marriage to Abigail may explain the origin of his kingship in Hebron, since she is the widow of a wealthy Calebite.”32

As Tod Linafelt pointedly states, “throughout the larger narrative of the books of

Samuel, David is presented as a man who ‘takes’ in order to establish his power. Often it is women, presented as the possessions of other men, who are taken in this rise to power.”33 Even though David did not plan to take Abigail as his wife, this action is already intimated in this story

29 Mark W. Hamilton, “At Whose Table?: Stories of Elites and Social Climbers in 1-2 Samuel,” VT 59 (2009): 524. 30 Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 98. 31 Jon D. Levenson and Baruch Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” JBL 99 (1980): 508. 32 Bosworth, The Story within a Story,” 70. 33 Tod Linafelt, “Taking Women in Samuel: Readers/Responses/Responsibility,” in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell, LCBI (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 100.

107

to show a dramatic shift in David’s political power.

There are also some hints at the possibility of a smooth transfer of political power to

David from others and his safety. In 1 Sam 24-26, David is located in the wilderness. The wilderness is not a strange place to him. It has a symbolic meaning as a safe and friendly place, because it was his main center of activity in his youth as a shepherd (1 Sam 16:11; 17:28); and

“at this stage, David prefers the desert as his hiding place.”34 When she heard the news of the attack, Abigail prevented David and his men from entering Maon, Nabal’s dwelling, by reacting quickly (1 Sam 25:20). Her arbitration enables David and Nabal to remain in their safe places respectively. Accordingly, the repeated narrations about David’s location function as foreshadowing his safety in 1 Sam 24-26.35

Table 20. David’s Place in 1 Sam 24-26

Text The MT Translation Behold, David is in the wilderness of ה נֵ֣ה דָו ַ֔ ד בְ מ דְב ֵ֖ר עֵֵ֥ין גֶַַֽ֖די Sam 24:2 1 Engedi. And he went down to the wilderness of ו יֵֵַ֖֖רֶ ד אֶ ל־מ דְב ֵ֥ר ּפָארַָֽ ן Sam 25:1 1 Paran. .And David heard in the wilderness ו י ְׁש ֵ֥מע ָד ֵ֖וד ב מדְבָ֑ר Sam 25:4 1 David sent messengers from the ׁשָ ל חׁ֩ דָו ד֙ מ לְאָכִ֧ים׀ מֵַֽה מ דְבֶָ֛ר Sam 25:14 1 wilderness. I have kept all that belongs to this man in ׁשָמ ַ֜רְ י ת אֶַֽ ת־כָל־אֲׁשִֶּ֤ ר לָזֶה֙ ב מ דְ בַָ֔ ר Sam 25:21 1 the wilderness. And he went down to the wilderness of ויֵ֙רֶ ד֙ אֶ ל־ מדְ בר־ז ַ֔ יף Sam 26:2 1 Ziph. .To seek David in the wilderness of Ziph לְב קֵֵׁ֥ש אֶ ת־דָו ֵ֖ד בְ מדְ בר־ז ַֽיף Sam 26:2 1 And David was dwelling in the וְדָו ד֙ יֹׁשֵ֣ ב ב מ דְ בַָ֔ ר Sam 26:3 1 wilderness.

34 Garsiel, “The Story of David, Nabal and Abigail,” 69. no one can speak to him/Nabal; 2) מ ד בֵֵ֖ר אֵלַָֽיו“ In addition, when the servant talked to Abigail, he protested that 35 .are same ( מ דבֵר and מדְ בָר) Sam 25:17; NASB).” Interestingly, the consonants of these two words

108

.Saul came after him into the wilderness בֵָ֥א ׁשָאֶ֛ ּול א חֲרֵָ֖יו ה מ דְבַָֽרָ ה Sam 26:3 1

1.1.3. Beautiful Abigail

Levenson argues that this story reveals David’s negative character firstly, in that he intends to kill innocent people.36 However, wise Abigail prevents the bloodbath. Traditionally, as was suggested above, “she is described as intelligent and beautiful, and portrayed as sensitive, assertive, and ready to protect her husband . . . In short, she is a model wife and modest woman.”37 However, to borrow Adelman’s words, “the perfect wife of whom? David or

Nabal?”38 It is no less dubious that “Abigail remains faithful to her husband, and acts decisively to prevent David killing him.”39 Her wise and calm behaviour saves her old and new husband at the same time.

A distinguishing feature in this story is that Abigail’s beauty is ignored. As Biddle aptly observes, “unlike the others said to be beautiful, Abigail’s beauty does not precipitate the events that unfold in her story.”40 To be exact, her beauty does not play an important role in this story.41

36 Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” 23. 37 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 31. See also Adele Berlin, “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives,” JSOT 23 (1982): 77. 38 Adelman, The Female Ruse, 151. 39 George G. Nicol, “David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a Triangle,” SJOT 12 (1998): 136. 40 Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 629. 41 Biddle, “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25,” 635.

109

Table 21. The Contrast between Nabal’s and Abigail’s Character42

Nabal Abigail stays at home goes out to meet David rude polite refuses to show hospitality shows hospitality does not know David’s future knows that David is Yahweh’s anointed king43 The servant does not want to talk The servant wants to talk to her. to him.

In contrast to her beauty, her intelligence plays a leading role in the story. Nabal and Abigail have entirely different character traits giving prominence to a mismatch between them.44 Put otherwise, “Abigail is as well matched with David as she is mismatched with Nabal.”45

Edward Bridge insists that Abigail is depicted like a queen, in that she mounts a donkey and has five female servants (1 Sam 25:42).46 Garsiel argues that her external appearance shows that she does not want to lose her high position.47 As Alice Bach points out, she is not called a widow by the narrator after Nabal’s death, “probably because she is already considered David’s wife.”48 At all events, the fact does not change that she tried to save Nabal’s house from David

42 I have modified Dekker’s comparison and have added their two more contrasting characters. See Dekker, “Characterization in the Hebrew Bible,” 321. 43 Miscall explains that “Abigail’s argument is based on the larger picture of David’s future.” Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, ISBL 365 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 151. In addition, Susan Pigott asserts that “she functions as a prophetic mediator who not only prevents David from incurring blood guiltiness but who speaks a word legitimizing his kingship.” Susan M. Pigott, “Wives, Witches and Wise Women: Prophetic Heralds of Kingship in 1 and 2 Samuel,” RevExp 99 (2002): 153. 44 Mulzac, “The Role of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25,” 51. 45 Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” 18. 46 Edward J. Bridge, “Desperation to a Desperado: Abigail’s Request to David in 1 Samuel 25,” ABR 63 (2015): 25. 47 Moshe Garsiel, “Wit, Words, and a Woman: 1 Samuel 25,” in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible, eds. Yehuda T. Radday and Athalya Brenner, JSOTSup 92 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990), 168. 48 Alice Bach, “The Pleasure of Her Text,” USQR 43 (1989): 58.

110

without delay and it was successful. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to postulate that this story

“is placed between 1 Sam 24 and 26 to emphasize that wisdom is more powerful than greatness

[Saul] and riches [Nabal], and is more to be desired.”49 Additionally, the narrator also underscores the power of wisdom by depicting her like a prophetess.50 Levenson points out that

“Abigail’s qualities, intelligence and beauty, are precisely those of the man who the audience may thus already suspect will become her new husband.”51 However, when the narrator describes David’s outward appearance in 1 Sam 16:12, he does not mention his intelligence. This fact means that her wisdom has a role in making up for what David lacks. Consequently, her wisdom seems to be related to problem-solving skills. As John Noble maintains, “Abigail understands what Nabal did not: she is somehow aware that David is to become ruler over

Israel.”52

If this is so, what is the role of her beauty? It does not seem too rash to suggest that her outward appearance arrests David’s eyes, as in the case of Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2). As Paul

Borgman observes, there is no such thing as “Abigail’s ‘seducing’ David and David’s absconding with her”53 because of her physical beauty. Therefore, it must be admitted that her

49 Mulzac, “The Role of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25,” 52. 50 Amy Carman asserts that this story “functions as an opportunity for a wise woman to deliver a prophetic message for Yahweh.” Amy Smith Carman, “Abigail: The Wise Woman of Carmel,” SCJ 18 (2015): 60. See also Nicol, “David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah,” 133. 51 Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” 23. 52 John T. Noble, “Another Demand for a King: Women in the Narrative of David’s Rise,” in In the Wake of Tikva Frymer-Kensky, eds. Steven Holloway, JoAnn Scurlock, and Richard Beal, GPP 4 (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009), 191. 53 Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 85.

111

beauty is connected to her future social standing related to the future king David in the story.54

By contrast, the narrator does not mention Michal’s outward appearance, despite her social position as David’s first wife and king Saul’s daughter. She even saved David from death at the hand of her father (1 Sam 19:11-7).55 If she inherited the genes of her father, handsome

Saul, she probably was beautiful. By not mentioning her outward appearance the narrator seems to imply that Michal, unlike Abigail, is not fit for the future king David. In all probability, David tried to gain political power through the marriage with Michal. Instead, David’s life was threatened by her father. On the surface, the marriage with Abigail demonstrates David’s considerable political savviness in gaining the power of “a high-ranking member of the clan that controlled Hebron.”56 Truly fit to be David’s wife, Abigail displaces Michal in the story.

Subsequently, the incidents in Abigail’s story and her playing the role of a reliable supporter of David illustrate effectively the change in David’s political power.57 Even though her beauty is ignored in relation to her wisdom, the fact that it is mentioned highlights her suitability as a royal wife. Figure 5 shows how the relationship among characters in 1 Sam 25 is changed. As the figure makes clear, David’s political power is concentrated and enhanced by

54 Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 36. 55 Fuchs (Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative, 140) evaluates this action as “her most important role in the biblical narrative.” 56 P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 402. See also David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ApOTC 8 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 272. 57 Mary Shields argues that “Abigail’s actions enable him to move to higher ground– to become a king instead of merely a protector. Mary Shields, “A Feast Fit for a King: Food and Drink in the Abigail Story,” in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, eds. Tod Linafelt, et al., LHBOTS 500 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 54.

112

new and broken relationships among the characters.

Figure 5. The Changes of the Relationships among the Characters in 1 Sam 2558

1.2. Bathsheba, the Very Beautiful Woman

We encounter another beautiful woman in 2 Sam 11:2. The narrator introduces this woman as very beautiful without giving her name; thus, we have information about her outward appearance before we even know her name. As Exum observes, “the narrator controls our gaze; we cannot look away from the bathing woman but must consider her appearance: ‘very beautiful.’”59 Sara

Koenig asserts that “most often, these descriptors [about characters’ outward appearance] connect with what will happen in the story.”60 This means that her beauty is more important than

58 I follow Levenson’s opinion that Ahinoam was Saul’s wife (1 Sam 14:50). See Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” 27; Levenson and Halpern, “The Political Import of David’s Marriages,” 516. See also Gordon, “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise,” 44. If she was not Saul’s wife, she seems to have been an important person in the area. See Firth, 1&2 Samuel, 272. Even though Klein disagrees with Levenson’s argument, he acknowledges that “David’s two marriages to Judahite women help explain the strategy by which he became king in Hebron.” Klein, 1 Samuel, 252. The broken relationship between David and Michal seems to foreshow how David will escape life-threatening situations caused by Saul. 59 J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993), 174. 60 Sara M. Koenig, Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, PTMS 177 (Eugene: Pickwick Publications,

113

her name in the narrative stage.

The literary structure of this story (2 Sam 11-12) underscores the wrongdoing of king

David who commits a sexual violence to Uriah’s wife.

A. David sends Joab and the army to attack Rabbah (11:1) B. David sleeps with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (11:2-5) C. David and Uriah: David arranges Uriah’s death (11:6-13) D. David to Joab: Uriah must die (11:14-17) E. Joab to David: Joab’s news comes to David (11:18-25) F. David ushers the wife of Uriah into his house. The Lord is displeased (11:26-27) E′. Nathan to David: God’s news comes to David (12:1-7a) D′. Nathan to David: the child will die (12:7b-15a) C′. David and the child: God ensures the child’s death (12:15b-23) B′. David sleeps with Bathsheba, his wife (12:24-25) A′. Joab and David conquer Rabbah (12:26-31)61

This direction is already intimated in the first two verses (2 Sam 11:1-2) by an appositional parallelism.62

2011), 40. See also Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 49. 61 Craig E. Morrison, 2 Samuel, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013), 135-36. See also George P. Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9-20; 1 Kings 1-2)” (PhD diss., The Graduate Theological Union, 1971), 63-64. :suggesting the following chiastic structure in 2 Sam 11 ו יְהי Fischer pays attention to the verb 62

V. 1 Prolog mit Zeit- und Ortsangaben ו יְהי V. 2-5 Davids Ehebruch (David, Batseba) A ו יְהי V. 6-10a.13 Davids List (David, Urija) B V. 14-15 Davids Brief (David) C ו יְהי ′V. 16-21 Joabs Ausführung (Joab, Urija) B ו יְה י V. 22-25 Joabs Bote bei David (David, Bote) A′ V. 26-27 Epilog

Von Alexander Fischer, “David und Batseba: Ein Literarkritischer und Motivgeschichtlicher Beitrag zu II Sam 11,” ZAW 101 (1989): 51

114

ויְה יׁ֩ לתְ ׁשּוב ֙תה שָ נַָ֜ה לְעֵ֣ת׀ צֵ֣את ה מ לְאכ ַ֗ ים .a ו י ְׁש ֣לח דָו ִ֡ ד אֶ ת־יֹואָ בׁ֩ וְאֶ ת־עֲבָדָ֙ יו ע מַ֜ ֹו וְאֶ ת־כָל־י שְרָ אֵַ֗ ל .b וי ׁשְח֙תּו֙ אֶ ת־בְנֵ֣י ע מַ֔ ֹון .c ו יָצֵ֖רּו ע ל־רבָ֑ה .d וְדָו ֵ֖ד יֹוׁשֵֵ֥ ב ב ירּוׁשָלַָֽ ם׃ .e ו יְה ֣ י׀ לְעֵ֣ת הָעֶַ֗רֶ ב .′a ויָ֙קָם דָו ַ֜ ד מֵע ִּ֤ל מ ׁשְ כָבֹו֙ .′b ו י ְת ה ֵל ְ֙ך על־ ֣גג ֵבית־ ה ֶַ֔מ ֶלְך .′c וי ֵַ֥֖רְ אא שֶָ֛ה רֹחֵֶ֖צֶת מֵע֣ל הגָ֑ג .′d וְהָ֣א השַָ֔ טֹוב ֵ֥ת מ רְ אֵֶ֖ה מְ אַֹֽ ד׃ .′e

In the first verse, the narrator describes David as the person who sent all Israel to the field of battle (b) except him. All Israel destroyed (c) and besieged (d) their enemies, but David was just sitting in a safe place (e). By contrast, David was very active in the second verse. He stood (b’), walked (c’) and saw somebody (d’). The literary connection between e and e’ hints that David will create a problem with the beautiful woman in the safe place, the empty Jerusalem.

1.2.1. Uriah, Bathsheba’s Original Husband

Even though Uriah, Bathsheba’s husband, is an important character in this story in that he “is essential for the plot, but he also functions as a foil to David, a contrast to the monarch’s personality,”63 he can easily be forgotten.64 His entrance on the narrative stage, like that of

Bathsheba, is somewhat different than that of other characters in this story.65 In general, when a

63 Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques,” 71. 64 Uriah Kim explains that “if we mention ‘David and Bathsheba,’ ‘David’s Adultery with Bathsheba,’ ‘the Bathsheba’s Affair,’ or simply ‘David’s Sin,’ many people will not hesitate to identify such titles with this story.” Uriah Kim, “Uriah the Hittite: A (Con)Text of Struggle for Identity,” Semeia 90-91 (2002): 69. 65 The narrator introduces Bathsheba as a very beautiful woman, without using her name (2 Sam 11:2).

115

new story begins and characters emerge onto the narrative stage, the narrator introduces them with their names. However, in the case of Uriah the narrator introduces his name before his entrance on the narrative stage by putting it in David’s messenger’s mouth (2 Sam 11:3).66 This means that his name plays a vital role in this story. Baruch Hochman elucidates the importance of given names as follows:

Given names, in life, are no less significant . . . One’s name indicates a whole variety of things, from origins and ends, as conceived by the culture into which one is born, to place in class structure and ritual order. Even personal (as opposed to clan or family) names are saturated with meaning . . . Clearly, in life, name givers symbolize wishes and facts in the names they choose.67

His name, Uriah, means “light of Yahweh.”68 Even though he was a foreigner, a non-Israelite, it is quite clear that his name “has a good theophoric Yahwistic element.”69 We do not know how he was given this name. There are two possibilities: (1) he changed his original name with some purpose, or (2) his parents gave this name, because he was born in Israel.70 In any case, he wanted to be seen as a true Israelite. In any case, Uriah lives up to the meaning of his name in this story. Regina Schwartz explains Uriah’s fidelity as follows:

Under the injunctions of holy war, to sleep with his own wife would be to be faithless to God; it is that fidelity that Uriah maintains despite his abstinence at war, despite the obvious attractiveness of his wife, despite his drunkenness,

66 Interestingly, Randall Bailey asserts that “the structure of 2 Sam 11.3 . . . demonstrates that there is no other subject introduced in the verse. Similarly, there is no use of l to indicate David has become the indirect object of the verb. Thus, syntactically it appears that all three verbs have David as the subject.” Randall C. Bailey, David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12, JSOTSup 75 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 85. 67 Baruch Hochman, Character in Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 37. 68 Regina M. Schwartz, “Adultery in the House of David: The Metanarrative of Biblical Scholarship and the Narratives of the Bible,” in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader, ed. Alice Bach (New York: Routledge,1999), 344. Kim argues that “Uriah means ‘Yahweh is my light/fire.’” Kim, “Uriah the Hittite,” 73. 69 Koenig, Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 45-46. 70 Kim, “Uriah the Hittite,” 73-74.

116

and it is that fidelity to God that he finally dies for.71

In addition, the narrative shows that “his actions will stand in stark contrast with David: David the Israelite is the one who breaks the laws, while Uriah the Hittite is the one who follows them.”72 Symbolically speaking, David puts out Yahweh’s light by killing Uriah.

The narrator does not seem to use Uriah’s Hittite nationality negatively in this story unlike other DH texts. However, the characters in this story (especially David) seem to accept that “the Hittite” has negative connotations. In fact, the Hittites were one of seven nations that lived in the Promised Land, Canaan. The Israelites were to have destroyed them at God’s command (Deut 7:1-2; 20:17). The Deuteronomistic narrator negatively portrays marriages between the Israelites and the Gentiles, including the Hittites (Judg 3:5-6).73 Furthermore, the narrator explains how king Solomon dealt with the Gentiles in 1 Kgs 9:20-21. They were forced to work for Israel like slaves.

“The Hittite” in this story unquestionably stands for non-Israelites.74 Even though

Uriah’s nationality is not necessary for the narrative flow of the story, it appears 7 times.75 In 2

Sam 11:3, the messenger kindly explains Uriah’s nationality as “Hittite” to David, the first

71 Regina M. Schwartz, “The Histories of David: Biblical Scholarship and Biblical Stories,” in “Not in Heaven”: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative, eds. Jason P. Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitterson, Jr., ISBL 678 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 205. See also Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 36. 72 Koenig, Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 46. 73 Uriah Kim asserts that “the negative attitude toward union with foreigners was clearly expressed in the law forbidding mixed seed and throughout the DH.” Uriah Y. Kim, Identity and Loyalty in the David Story: A Postcolonial Reading, HBM 22 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 209. 74 Kim, “Uriah the Hittite,” 75. 75 2 Sam 11:3, 6, 17, 21, 24; 12: 9, 10.

117

in the DN. It is not easy to decide whether the messenger’s ה ח ת י appearance of the word introduction of Uriah as a Hittite is positive or negative. However, David’s reference to Uriah’s

Sam 11:6) is somewhat negative. David 2 ;ׁשְל ֣ח אֵ ל ַ֔ יאֶת־אַּֽור יֵָ֖ה ה ח ֑ תי) nationality in his words to Joab does not hesitate to take the wife of Uriah the Hittite after identifying her (2 Sam 11:3-4).

Likewise, after hearing of Bathsheba’s pregnancy, David does not hesitate to withdraw Uriah the

Hittite from the battlefield (2 Sam 11:6) and even to kill him (2 Sam 11:17). If we compare this story with the incident of Naboth’s vineyard, David’s sin is clear. Even Ahab, the most typical

“bad king,” was hesitant to take Naboth’s vineyard (1 Kgs 21:4),76 but David has no compunction in taking the Hittite’s wife and killing him by his political power.77

Therefore, Uriah’s nationality intimates how David will handle Uriah and his wife in the story. If we recall the Israelites’ negative thoughts about foreigners, Uriah’s nationality seems to justify David’s indulgence. Also, when David decides to kill Uriah, he seems to consider himself as the salvager of a bad marriage between Uriah the Hittite and Bathsheba the Israelite.78 As

Kim observes, “when Uriah was ‘wanted,’ the Israelites claimed him as their own by placing him in their army . . . But when Uriah was ‘unwanted,’ they abandoned him with other non-Israelites and branded him as ‘the Hittite.’”79 So Uriah’s nationality functions to emphasize David’s sin and “the fact that Uriah is presented as a non-Israelite who speaks with authority about the will

76 Kim, “Uriah the Hittite,” 80. 77 On comparing King David with King Ahab, see Jacob Chinitz, “Two Sinners,” JBQ 25 (1997): 108-13; and Herbert Rand, “David and Ahab: A Study of Crime and Punishment,” JBQ 24 (1996): 90-97. 78 Koenig (Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 45) asserts that “the text does not identify Bathsheba as a foreigner, nor does it refer to her father Eliam or her grandfather Ahithophel as Hittites.” 79 Kim, “Uriah the Hittite,” 76.

118

of Yahweh on Deuteronomic law and custom and who appears to be more pious and God-fearing than David.”80

As the narrator unfolds the story, Uriah’s loyalty exposes David’s sin. Gillian Keys explicates Uriah’s loyalty as follows:

Even when intoxicated he cannot be swayed from loyalty to his comrades-at- arms and adherence to military/religious etiquette. He asks: “The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths; and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field; shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife?” (11.11). This contrasts sharply with the king, of whom we are told, “In the spring of the year, the time when kings go forth to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel . . .” (11.1). Uriah is used as a foil for David. The high principles of the foreigner are used to highlight the immorality of Yahweh’s anointed and to emphasize the seriousness of his crimes.81

Uriah’s loyalty is directed to Yahweh and all Israel, except David. Uriah regards his lord as

your life“] ח יֶ֙ך֙ וְחֵ֣י נ פְׁשֶַ֔ ך ;Joab,82 not David. He does not call David king but “you” (2 Sam 11:11 and the life of your soul”]). However, Joab’s loyalty is directed to David. Joab acts in obedience to David’s command to kill Uriah (2 Sam 11:15-7). Tikva Frymer-Kensky insists that “in order to make sure that Uriah dies, Joab has to conduct the battle stupidly.”83 Joab regards Uriah as disposable, because he is a Hittite (2 Sam 11:21). Ironically, Uriah’s loyalty drives him to death, but his death reveals that “Uriah was a loyal soldier who served in Israel’s army in the name of

80 Bailey, David in Love and War, 98. 81 Gillian Keys, The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the ‘Succession Narrative,’ JSOTSup 221 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 129. 82 Richard G. Smith, The Fate of Justice and Righteousness during David’s Reign: Narrative Ethics and Rereading the Court History according to 2 Samuel 8:15-20:26, LHBOTS 508 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 125. 83 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken Books, 2002), 153.

119

God and king.”84 Even though David thought that Uriah had no redeemer, Yahweh performs directly “as the gō’ēl for Uriah”85 (2 Sam 11:27-12:1) as when He killed Nabal in propria persona in 1 Sam 25.

As David Firth observes, Uriah is a round character. His character reveals human kings’ limitations, in that “Uriah is the mirror through which we come to see the grasping David who takes and destroys because he can, and so becomes the king of whom Samuel had warned (1 Sam

8:10-18).”86

1.2.2. David, Bathsheba’s New Husband

Before the incident happened, there was a good relationship between David and Uriah, in that

Uriah was one of David’s thirty-seven mighty men (2 Sam 23:39). However, David decided to

unlike the case of Hanun the king of Ammonites (2 Sam 10:2). About the ,חֶסֶ ד kill Uriah without literary unit of 2 Sam 10-12, Fokkelman suggests that “an unbiased reading soon reveals that the theatre of war serves as the background for 11:2-12:25.”87 According to him, there are two

84 Kim, Identity and Loyalty in the David Story, 215. 85 Kim, Identity and Loyalty in the David Story, 212. 86 David G. Firth, “David and Uriah (with an Occasional Appearance by Uriah’s Wife): Reading and Re-Reading 2 Samuel 11,” OTE 20 (2008): 313. 87 J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses: Volume I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2), SSN 20 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 41. See also Keys (The Wages of Sin, 131), who illustrates the literary structure of 2 Sam 10-12 as follows:

10 Ammonite War: framework 11 Adultery and Murder: main section 12:1-14 Condemnation 12:15-23 Death of the Child 12:24-25 Birth of Solomon 12:26-31 Ammonite War: framework

120

violations in 2 Sam 10-11: One is an insult to David’s delegation by Hanun and the other is

David’s affair with Bathsheba.88 The following literary structure of 2 Sam 10-11 shows that the

.חֶסֶ ד two violations are tightly linked with David’s

to Hanun חֶסֶ ד First violation: the insult to the delegation Second violation: Bathsheba affair to the Israelites and God)89 חֶסֶ ד to Uriah (in contrast, Uriah’s חֶסֶ ד No

from his heart and made him חֶסֶ ד to Hanun was wasted. This experience removed חֶסֶ ד David’s a cold-hearted murderer in 2 Sam 11. Moreover, the incident involving beautiful Bathsheba was a turning point in his political power that would gradually lead to descent from the highest peak to the lowest depth.

The roof where he was in 2 Sam 11:2 “carries the connotation of his being in the position of a despot who is able to survey and choose as he pleases.”90 He was at the meridian of his political power.91 He did not need to go to war, because Joab, his servants, and the Israelite army did quite well and sent the news of victory without him. Also, no one could blame him for his sin.92 It was a misfortune to him that he saw a beautiful woman at that time.93 His

88 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 59. -see Philip F. Esler, “2 Samuel–David and the Ammonite War: A Narrative and Social ,חֶסֶ ד About Uriah’s 89 Scientific Interpretation of 2 Samuel 10-12,” in Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context, ed. Philip F. Esler (London: SCM Press, 2005), 202. 90 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 51. 91 Schwartz, “Adultery in the House of David,” 344. 92 Even though Yahweh and Nathan could blame David for his sin, most people could not do because of his political power at that time. 93 Robert Polzin insists that “had he been where the military action was, David would never have seen Bathsheba when he did, and the history of the house of David might have been different.” Robert Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three 2 Samuel, ISBL 850 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 109.

121

misfortune prepared the way for his destruction and he turned Bathsheba into one of the biggest victims in the story. To take her for his own was the most important issue to him. It did not matter whose daughter she was or whether she was another man’s wife or not.94 Even though adultery was a mortal sin in the society of Israel, his lust was extreme.95 Sexual intercourse with

Bathsheba was everything to David at that time, but “the sexual element is only one part of a larger concern for solidarity with his counterparts at the front.”96 After sleeping with Uriah’s wife, he tried to cover his sin. In the end, he decided to kill Uriah. No one seemed to know what really happened to Uriah, just that he was a war casualty or the victim of a clever swindling game. David seemed to plan a perfect strategy, but it would most likely not go as planned.

The following literary structure clearly illustrates what happened to Uriah and what

David did in the war. In this concentric structure, X (19b-21e) is the center, namely the report of

Uriah’s death, and x (21a) is the pivot of the whole structure.97 The pivot emphasizes that a woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech and then he died. Abimelech’s death is a stupid thing to Joab, because “in order to make sure that Uriah dies, Joab has to conduct the battle stupidly.”98 Likewise, the literary structure “contains the hint that Uriah’s death signifies as much shame and folly as that of Abimelech.”99 Furthermore, it becomes clear why Uriah had to

94 Adelman (The Female Ruse, 168) asserts that “the stage directions might read: ‘the messenger raises his eyebrows.’ Both these names, Eliam and Uriah, are presumably recognizable to the king as two of his closest henchmen.” 95 Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible, 145. 96 Ken Stone, Sex, Honor and Power in the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 234 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 100. Italics in the original. 97 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 60-61, 65. 98 Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible, 153. 99 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 69.

122

die on the battle field. As Fokkelman explains, “the concentric structure of the scene discloses the true nature of Uriah’s demise: he had to die for his wife, and the murderer is a fool who is burdened with shame.”100

A David sends Joab his assignment, v. 14sq. B Battle, casualties, Uriah dies, v. 16sq. C Joab dispatches an envoy to David, v. 18-19a. a When you’ve completed your whole report to the king, [19b] b if it happens that he gets angry and says: [20a] c “Why did you come so near to the city during the battle? [20b] d You must know that they shoot from the wall! [20c] X x Who struck Abimelech son of Jerubbaal? [21a] d’ Wasn’t it a woman who threw a millstone down on him from the wall so that he died in Thebez? [21b] c’ Why did you come so near to the wall?” [21c] b’ You must then say: [21d] a’ “Your servant, Uriah the Hittite, is also dead.” [21e] C’ Joab’s envoy comes to David, v. 22. B’ Battle, casualties, Uriah dies (report), v. 23 sq. A’ David sends his reaction to Joab, v. 25.101

Table 22. The Comparison between Abimelech’s and Uriah’s Death

The victim A woman, who played an important role The place where the in each story victim died Abimelech A certain woman threw an upper millstone the entrance of the tower on Abimelech's head. (Judg 9:52) Uriah Bathsheba: her beauty resulted in an act of the entrance of the gate violence by David (2 Sam 11:23)

Uriah gave his life for his country at war, out of his loyalty, a virtue; but David took Uriah’s life for Bathsheba.102 This provides an answer to Solvang’s question, “How is it that her beauty

100 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 69. 101 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 61. 102 Mieke Bal insists that “Uriah metaphorically equals Abimelech: he too falls– literally, by the hand of a person on the wall, though male, and figuratively, through the ‘doings’ of his wife.” Italics in the original. Mieke Bal, Lethal

123

leads David to commit adultery but does not draw her own husband home?”103

As Frymer-Kensky maintains, “David has been in the habit of ‘gathering’ or ‘harvesting’ the wives of other men.”104 Even though David acted “like a nabal (a fool or a foreigner)”105 to enjoy life by “gathering” Uriah’s wife in the heat of war, Yahweh did not kill him; instead He allowed Uriah’s death on the battle field. The marriage between Uriah and Bathsheba was broken off by Uriah’s death. Then David and Bathsheba became the new married couple (2 Sam 11:27).

This parallel contains a hint that loyal Uriah and beautiful Bathsheba are an ill-matched couple, like the couple in 1 Sam 25: fool Nabal and intelligent Abigail. In the circumstances of 2 Sam 11, the marriage between handsome David and beautiful Bathsheba looks highly appropriate. In addition, the narrator seems to show that Uriah is too good a husband for Bathsheba106 and too loyal a retainer for David in the story.

1.2.3. Very Beautiful Bathsheba

The messenger introduces Bathsheba as the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah (2 Sam 11:3).

According to Bailey, Eliam’s family had political power in that Eliam was one of David’s mighty men (2 Sam 23:34), and Ahithophel the father of Eliam “is noted as one of David’s key advisors,

Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, ISBL 434 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 26-27. 103 Elna K. Solvang, A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and Their Involvement in the House of David, JSOTSup 349 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 133. 104 Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible, 153. 105 Kim, Identity and Loyalty in the David Story, 215. 106 Fokkelman (Volume I. King David, 69) argues that Uriah chose his death for his wife.

124

who during the Absalom revolt shifted his allegiance to the latter (2 Sam 16.23).”107 Therefore, when David hears who she is, he “is more concerned about the woman’s political connections than her marital status.”108 It is highly probable that Bathsheba was an important woman who was connected to political power. Smith elucidates as follows why Bathsheba could be married to David and not lose her political power until later in his life:

If this was a marriage based merely on physical lust, there is no reason why Bathsheba should not simply have become one more nameless (or almost nameless) member of the harem. In fact, if this were a union based on transient lust, one might have expected that as she aged, Bathsheba would have lost her power over David.109

Even though her family’s power was not her own power, it is clear that “Bathsheba . . . is not an unknown, unimportant woman, but belongs to a powerful family.”110 However, unlike Abigail,

David does not need to take Uriah’s wife to gain more political power,111 because his power has reached a pinnacle.112 So the most important factor in this story is not her social status, but

David’s sexual desire. Even though David realizes that she is from a prominent family, this does

107 Bailey, David in Love and War, 87. 108 Bailey, David in Love and War, 87. 109 Carol Smith, “‘Queenship’ in Israel?: The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 153. 110 Koenig, Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 45. 111 Schwartz, “Adultery in the House of David,” 344. 112 Solvang (A Woman’s Place Is in the House, 125) explains David’s political situation in 2 Sam 11-12 as follows:

By 2 Sam. 11 David has established his capital in Jerusalem (5.6-10), taken more concubines and wives (5.13), located the ark in Jerusalem (6.17), broken connections to the Saulide House (6.21-23), received the divine promise of an eternal dynasty (7.16), vanquished nearly all his enemies (8.-14; 10.1-19), set a watch over Saul’s heir (9.1-13), and appointed his own officials to military, political and religious posts (8.15-18). Fresh from victory over the Aramean coalition (19.17-19) David is at the height of royal power and honor.

125

not prevent him from committing sin.113

Is the affair the crime of David alone? Several scholars try to establish Bathsheba as the innocent victim of a frame-up. Moshe Garsiel wants “to see Bathsheba as a tragic figure, involved without deliberate will in adultery and murder, and forced to marry in haste to escape the consequences,”114 and Alexander Abasili insists that “without doubt, Bathsheba was a victim of David’s sexual lust.”115 Richard Davidson also believes Bathsheba is the innocent victim of

David’s adultery, in that she does not want to stay with David, but returns to her house.116

However, J. Cheryl Exum suggests that Bathsheba is a criminal figure in the story, in that “she allows herself to be seen . . . David may be a voyeur, but Bathsheba is an exhibitionist.”117

Bailey portrays Bathsheba as an accomplice in the adultery in that “her actions are not described with hiph‘il verb forms . . . Rather they are in the qal, she comes and returns”118 in 2 Sam 11:4.

Nonetheless, we cannot easily evaluate whether the narrator depicts Bathsheba as the victim or the conspirator in the affair. Her beauty does not mean that “she is seductive; even though it influences David’s subsequent decisions, it is stated as a fact about her.”119

113 Richard Davidson asserts that Bathsheba’s identity “should have pricked David’s conscience and retrained his lust.” Richard M. Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?: A Case Study in Narrative Theology,” JATS 17 (2006): 86. In addition, Firth (1 & 2 Samuel, 417) insists that “David does not send for a woman because he sees her beauty. He sends for her because he knows who she is.” 114 Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach,” CBQ 55 (1993): 254. 115 Alexander Izuchukwu Abasili, “Was It Rape?: The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re-examined,” VT 61 (2011): 15. 116 Davidson, “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?” 89; Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 256. 117 J. Cheryl Exum, Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representation of Biblical Women, JSOTSup 215 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 47. 118 Bailey, David in Love and War, 87. Koenig (Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 48) asserts that “even though it may be debated how much choice Bathsheba had to refuse, especially when she was ‘taken,’ she still has some volition.” 119 Koenig, Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization, 76.

126

Her actions do not simply signify whether or not she is a victim in the affair. It is possible that she was not naked during her bath (2 Sam 11:2) and avoided showing her body.120

According to most commentators the obvious problem with her bath is that Bathsheba’s purification in 2 Sam 11:4 is a ritual after her menstruation. So they maintain that it functions as a kind of a paternity test for the new born baby after the affair.121 If it is related to her menses, it means that “intercourse has taken place at a time when she was fertile.”122 However, Graeme

Auld disagrees with what they assert in that “qdš is never used in connection with menstruation.”123 Additionaly, D’ror Chankin-Gould et al. observe that “the state [purifying herself] occurs directly following David’s sexual activity with her.”124 This means that her

ו י ְׁש ֣כב ע ַָ֔מּה ְו ֵ֥היא מ ְת ק ֶ ֵ֖ד ֶׁשת ,action was not related to her menstruation, but to the affair. Therefore

Sam 11:4de) can be translated as “David lay with her, but she was purifying herself 2) מ ט מְאָתָ֑ ּה from her uncleanness.”125 In circumstances beyond her control, she resisted actively against

David’s action, even though she is clearly passive in the story. She seemed to want to declare to everyone that “it was not my fault.” As Auld points out, “there is not one to whom Bathsheba can appeal beyond the king, when David himself is making advances on her–no one except God

120 Firth (1 & 2 Samuel, 417) maintains that she did not seem to be naked because of “the heat of late spring.” 121 A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Waco, TX: Word Books,1989), 153; P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 286; Bill T. Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 528; Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 418; Morrison, 2 Samuel, 140-1; Antony F. Campbell, 2 Samuel, FOTL 8 (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2005), 115. 122 George G. Nicol, “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative,” JSOT 73 (1997): 49. 123 A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 456. 124 J. D’ror Chankin-Gould, et al., “The Sanctified ‘Adulteress’ and Her Circumstantial Clause: Bathsheba’s Bath and Self-Consecration in 2 Samuel 11,” JSOT 32 (2008): 347. 125 Cf. Chankin-Gould et al., “The Sanctified ‘Adulteress’ and Her Circumstantial Clause,” 350.

127

and her own conscience: ‘while she was declaring herself holy.’”126 David’s sexual attack on

Bathsheba is highlighted in her self-consecration.127

Whether intended or not, she was pregnant. As Klein indicates, unlike David’s indirect

Sam 11:5] constitute the first direct speech in the 2 ;הָרֵָ֥ה אָנַֹֽכי] speech to others, her “two words narrative, and her words are directed to the king.”128 There is no suggestion about Bathsheba’s children in the narrative. We also do not know “how long Bathsheba has been a married woman, without conception.”129 If Uriah was infertile, without knowing the reason, she was trying to have a child in many ways.130 Although she would not want to commit adultery with David as pointed out above, Bathsheba comforts herself by thinking, “at least I will be a mother” or “the only thing I want is to be a mother.” So she may have accepted David’s order of her own free

she came to him; 2 Sam 11:4) and returned to her house. When she discovered ;ו תָבִּ֤ ֹוא אֵ לָיו֙ ) will that she was pregnant, the plan was slightly altered. For the baby’s future, the father must be not

Uriah the Hittite, but king David. If she had wanted to conceal the fact, she would not have said to David, “I am pregnant.” From then on, she was not the wife of Uriah, but the mother of the child. We do not know whether she foresaw Uriah’s death in the process of solving the affair.

126 Auld, I & II Samuel, 456. 127 Lillian R. Klein, “Bathsheba Revealed,” in Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCBS 7 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 50. 128 Klein, “Bathsheba Revealed,” 50. 129 Klein, “Bathsheba Revealed,” 52. 130 To the biblical women, barrenness was a serious problem that must be overcome. See Hennie J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East, OtSt 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 222-23. In addition, Klein (“Bathsheba Revealed,” 52) argues that “if she has been married to an infertile man, warrior though he is, she may find it necessary to mate with another male to fulfill her biological and social function as a woman–to become a mother.”

128

Even though her first child died, Yahweh granted her another child131 who then became the next king over Israel.132 So her plan had not come to naught. Viewed in this light, she was both victim and opportunist in the story.133

Although she is a flat character,134 her beauty makes her very important in the story. It is her physical beauty that develops the story. As “David’s success brings him into Saul’s court and family ([1 Sam] 18:2, 20, 22-5a, 26-7), only to spark the disintegration of Saul’s kingship and sanity ([1 Sam] 18:6-9a; 19:1-7, 11-17; 26:1-8, 10-14, 17-22, 25b),”135 David’s lust brings him into Bathsheba’s orbit, only to spark the ruin of his political power and kingship (Figure 6).

Whereas Abigail’s beauty is ignored intentionally, this is not to portray her negatively but rather to signal (through David’s consequent succumbing to adultery and murder) the beginning of

David’s incremental downfall as king.

131 Bathsheba had four sons (Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon; 1 Chron 3:5; cf. 2 Sam 5:14). 132 Solvang, A Woman’s Place Is in the House, 132. 133 Alice Bellis asserts that “Bathsheba is seen as the victimizer, even though in reality she is the victim.” Alice Ogden Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 132. 134 Firth, “David and Uriah,” 313; Bellis, Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes, 131. 135 W. Lee Humphreys, “From Tragic Hero to Villain: A Study of the Figure of Saul and the Development of 1 Samuel,” JSOT 22 (1982): 98.

129

Figure 6. The Similarity between the Entry of David and Bathsheba into the King’s Orbit

1.2.4. The Parable in 2 Sam 12:1-4

After David commits adultery and murder in 2 Sam 11, Nathan goes to David with a parable (2

Sam 12:1-4). The narrator says that Yahweh sent Nathan to David. So, the reader can expect that

Nathan’s parable is a tool for delivering Yahweh’s words to David as a kind of reproach and punishment, because “the thing that David did was evil in the eyes of Yahweh” (1 Sam 11:27).136

The parable is designed to upbraid David for his adultery and murder “without catching the connection.”137

There are several differences between the parable and the affair in 2 Sam 11. Firstly,

Bathsheba was not like a daughter to Uriah. She was his wife. Secondly, there was no traveler in

136 Jonathan A. Kruschwitz, “2 Samuel 12:1-15: How (Not) to Read a Parable,” RevExp 109 (2012): 255. 137 George W. Coats, “II Samuel 12:1-7a,” Int 40 (1986): 170.

130

2 Sam 11.138 Thirdly, the rich man took the poor man’s ewe lamb to save his possession, but

David took Bathsheba to satisfy his desire.139 Fourthly, there is no adultery and murder in the parable.140 Fifthly, if the poor man and the ewe lamb in the parable represent Uriah and

Bathsheba in the affair of 2 Sam 11 respectively, there are serious differences between them. In the parable there was the death of the ewe lamb (Bathsheba), because the rich man (David) took the lamb for the traveler. There is no physical injury to the poor man (Uriah). In 2 Sam 11, however, there was the death of Uriah, because David allowed it.

Therefore, there are several options as to who the characters in the parable represent in 2

Sam 11. Interestingly, Larry Lyke suggests that David can identify with three characters in the parable.

On first reading, one naturally presumes that the “man” with whom David is associated is the rich one that stole the ewe-lamb from the poor man. On closer consideration, however, David can be associated with each of the three men of the mashal . . . when Yhwh mentions the taking of Saul’s wives for David in vv. 7-8, David is the equivalent of the traveler for whom the lamb is taken. In vv. 9-10 David’s killing of Uriah and the taking of Bathsheba clearly link him with the rich man. At the end of the mashal, in vv. 11-12, where David is told that his wives will be taken from him, we see the equation of David with the poor man.141

It is manifest that the rich man in the parable stands for David (2 Sam 12:7; Nathan says to

David “You are the man”). If the reader knows who the rich man is, however, a difficulty

138 Uriel Simon, “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb,” Bib 48 (1967): 226. 139 Bailey, David in Love and War, 105. 140 David Janzen, “The Condemnation of David’s ‘Taking’ in 2 Samuel 12:1-14,” JBL 131 (2012): 210; David Daube, “Nathan’s Parable,” NovT 24 (1982): 276-77. 141 Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative, JSOTSup 255 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 155-56. See also Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist, 126.

131

remains in understanding the parable. When David hears the parable, does he easily recognize the rich man as himself? Joel Rosenberg presents “a clear model of the typical form of parabolic discourse” as follows:

(1) presentation of a story or announcement to the king; (2) the king’s emotional reaction to the story while he yet believes it to have happened to some other people; (3) application of the story to the king himself.142

If David had caught on that the rich man in the parable was he, he would not likely have become

Sam 12:5). So when he heard the 2 ;בֶן־מַָ֔ וֶת) ”angry nor said that the rich man is a “son of death parable, his understanding of the parable stayed at stage 2 of Rosenberg’s model. If he realized the hidden implications of the parable as his own story in 2 Sam 11, there is the possibility that

David considered himself as the traveler. If so, who is the rich man in his thinking? In the parable, the rich man took the ewe lamb in order to entertain the traveler (David). In the same way, the general Joab took Uriah (the ewe lamb) from Bathsheba (the poor man) in order to gratify the carnal appetite of David (the traveler).143 If David thought Joab was the rich man in the parable, he would perhaps have assumed that Nathan would take legal action (and hold him morally responsible) for Uriah’s murder, because of his direct relation to the crime.144 So he was extraordinarily angry at the rich man.145 His anger seems to say to Nathan: “Even though I took and married Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, I have no connection whatsoever with Uriah’s murder. It is

142 Joel Rosenberg, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible, ISBL 396 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 41. 143 Jeremy Schipper, “Did David Overinterpret Nathan’s Parable in 2 Samuel 12:1-6?” JBL 126 (2007): 388. 144 There is a manifest point of connection between Uriah’s death and David’s response to the parable. In these two Sam 11:25; 12:6). See Schipper, “Did David Overinterpret 2 ; הדָבָר הזֶה) cases, David used same word, the thing Nathan’s Parable,” 391. 145 Schipper, “Did David Overinterpret Nathan’s Parable,” 389.

132

definitely Joab’s illegal action.” In doing so, David shifted all the responsibility of the murder onto Joab.146 However, Nathan said to David: “You are the [rich] man.” In his response (2 Sam

12:7-12) to David’s reaction (2 Sam 12:5-6), there being no equivalent to the traveler, Nathan confirmed that the events of 2 Sam 11 were David’s crime.

There is another problem to interpret this parable. If David did not map this parable onto the affair and the murder in 2 Sam 11, how did he understand the parable? There is a gap between David’s affair with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11) and Nathan’s appearance (2 Sam 12:1). The gap in time may be about ten months, because Bathsheba bore David a son (2 Sam 11:27) before the prophet’s visit. So it is possible that David resumed his daily life as the king and forgot the affair. In addition, David reproached the rich man quickly, because of the difference between the rich man’s theft and David’s murder and adultery.147 Therefore, Nathan’s parable may have sounded to David like a thing that actually happened in Israel.148 He seemed to think himself a judge capable of solving the poor man’s difficulty and rectifying the injustice.149 However,

Nathan proclaimed “You (David) are the rich man.” So his position changed from the judge to the one who should be punished.150 This change must have been a shock to David, and it may seem obvious that the shock led to David’s confession of his crime against Yahweh (2 Sam

12:13). In Nathan’s speech (2 Sam 12:7-12) also, the prophet declared that David’s position

146 Schipper (“Did David Overinterpret Nathan’s Parable,” 389) insists that “David falls back on a proven technique which worked well for him in the previous cases of Saul’s death (1:14-26), Abner’s death (3:28-35), and Ishbosheth’s death (4:9-11).” 147 Janzen, “The Condemnation of David’s ‘Taking’ in 2 Samuel 12:1-14,” 211. 148 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 72. 149 Hugh S. Pyper, David as Reader: 2 Samuel 12:1-15 and the Poetics of Fatherhood, BibInt 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 91. 150 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 86.

133

would be changed from one who takes someone else’s wife to one whose wives are taken and given to others. There is also a possibility that Nathan embellished the parable with invented characters (such as the rich man, the poor man, the traveler, and the ewe lamb) and extra details

(for example, the poor man’s feeling for the ewe lamb), to prevent David from denying the crime. Therefore, the reader does not need to identify the characters in the parable with the real characters in the narrative.151

The narrator shows that David’s attitude to the rich man in the parable is in stark contrast to Yahweh’s judgment on David (2 Sam 12:13; you shall not die). It reveals that David has no pity on the rich man, but Yahweh has pity on His beloved people. Interestingly, Bathsheba is still identified as Uriah’s wife in 2 Sam 12:15, thus drawing the reader’s mind back to the incident in

2 Sam 11. Despite David’s efforts on behalf of the newborn baby (2 Sam 12:16-17), the baby died on his seventh day. Kruschwitz insists that “David’s utterance [a son of death] unintentionally draws a connection between son and death that he is helpless to revoke.”152

In 2 Sam 12:24, the narrator calls Bathsheba David’s wife. Additionally, David comforts her. She still has no voice. She conceives and bears a son again. In addition, Yahweh loves the son, and He sends Nathan again to David’s house with the son’s name, Jedidiah (beloved of

Yahweh). Even though the narrator mentions David’s change of mind (Figure 7) and a happy ending (2 Sam 12:24-25), the reader may anticipate punishment for him in the near future,

151 For further details about the characters in the parable, see Pyper, David as Reader, 84-104; Joshua Berman, “Double Meaning in the Parable of the Poor Man’s Ewe (2 Sam 12:1-4),” JHebS 13.14 (2013): 1-17. 152 Kruschwitz, “2 Samuel 12:1-15,” 256.

134

because David had said that the rich man should pay fourfold for the ewe lamb (2 Sam 12:6).153

Nathan’s judgment in 2 Sam 12:10-12 also has yet to be realized. Although his ruin is not complete yet in 2 Sam 12, the story reveals its starting point. His lust for the beautiful gradually leads to his downfall.154 In my opinion, therefore, the traveler in the parable is David’s lust, in that the rich man takes the poor man’s ewe for the traveler’s gratification.

Figure 7. David’s Change of Attitude through the Lens of the Parable155

153 David’s judgement is related to his four sons’ deaths (namely, the baby, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah). See Keith Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom (London: Routledge, 2014), 31. In addition, the deaths were caused by the beautiful. 154 Linafelt (“Taking Women in Samuel,” 104) insists that “David’s power is never as sure as it once was. It signals the beginning of serious trouble for the house of David, trouble that is not averted as easily as Nathan’s declaration of forgiveness in verse 13 would have David believe.” 155 I have modified Fokkelman’s frame work (Volume I. King David, 93).

135

1.3. Abishag, the Extremely Beautiful Woman

Gwilym Jones maintains that “the circumstances surrounding the succession issue as described in

1 Kings 1.1-4 are that David was senile and impotent.”156 This assertion is reasonable, for the reader can expect the accession of a new king as a result of the old king’s illness or decrepitude.

However, this decrepitude is not enough to explain the story, because the narrator wants to focus on yet another character. This character is not a candidate for the new king of Israel, such as

Adonijah and Solomon the princes, but curiously enough the woman Abishag. Moreover, the narrator portrays her as extremely beautiful. We again meet another beautiful woman, this time related to king David in the last hours of his life. The literary structure of 1 Kgs 1:1-4 shows how the narrator brings her onto the narrative stage. The first four verses of the book of 1 Kings make an inclusio as follows:

A. David’s feeble condition (1:1) B. Plan: find a virgin to care for David (1:2a) C. Her specific duties (1:2b) B′. Abishag is found (1:3) C′. She carries out her duties (1:4a) A′. David is still impotent (1:4b)157

156 Gwilym H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives, JSOTSup 80 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 46. Richard Hess notes that “this theme appears in the story of Abishag. However, is this the major concern of the 1 Kgs 1:1-4?” He answers that the major concern is “the threat to the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem.” Richard S. Hess, “David and Abishag: The Purpose of 1 Kings 1:1-4,” in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded, eds. Gershon Galil, et al., VTSup 130 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 427. 157 Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), 5. Fokkelman (Volume I. King David, 346) suggests a similar literary structure as follows:

a) v. 1 lack (David is old) b) v. 2 conversation of the servants: plan b′) v. 3 the servants execute their plan a′) v. 4 the lack is removed: Abishag provides warmth

136

In addition, these verses have an interlocking device158 as follows:

Figure 8. Interlocking Device in 1 Kgs 1:2-4a

We now know through the above figure that her duties and special appearance are emphasized.

The narrator seems to use the literary devices of inclusio and the interlocking device to introduce the extremely beautiful Abishag as an important character in the story.

1.3.1. Extremely Beautiful Abishag

Abishag’s duty is introduced by the servants’ voices before she appears on the narrative stage. In

2 Kgs 1:2 the servants tell David about their plan.

a . . . young girl [naʽrā betulā] ladōnī hammȩlȩk b weʽāmedā lifnē hammȩlȩk x utehī lō sōkȩnȩt b′ wešākebā beḥēqȩkā a′ weḥam ladōnī hammȩlȩk159

Fokkelman explains the literary structure of 1 Kings 1:2, such that “the middle sentence is the

for סֹכֶנֶת axis upon which the plan rotates and it concentrates Abishag’s task.”160 She became

158 Concerning the interlocking device, see Jerome F. D. Creach, Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, JSOTSup 217 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 87. 159 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 347. [ ] is added. 160 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 347.

137

appears only here in the Hebrew Bible.161 So it is difficult to grasp the סֹכֶנֶת David. The word precise meaning of the word. As Lesleigh Stahlberg explains, she had a status as ambiguous as the word’s unclear meaning.

In the case of Abishag, precisely who that figure once was is difficult to discern. A very beautiful young woman, a virgin, a Shunammite. Paradoxically, a symbol of age, impotence, decay, loss, and death. Object, possibly subject. An electric blanket, but possibly a nurse or even a treasurer to the king. David’s last wife or a cast-away after the death of Adonijah. A symbol of the throne, of succession and sedition. The locus of male fantasy and fears, of female anxiety and also female power. If we can say one thing with certainty, it is that Abishag the Shunammite is a blank slate.162

means basically “administrator” or “nurse.”163 An Ugaritic cognate סֹכֶנֶת ,According to HALOT skn means “a high official.”164 Even though Cogan argues that “her duties were confined to nursing the failing king,” the word’s various meanings lead us to think carefully about who she was and what her duty was to the king. David’s servants do not assign her the title concubine

Additionally, the .סֹכֶנֶת cf. Gen 22:24; Judg 19:1), nor is she one of the royal harem, but a ;ּפ ילֶגֶׁש)

coincides with the descriptor “young virgin”165 as well as “beautiful סֹכֶנֶת description of her as a woman” (1 Kgs 1:3). Presumably these criteria are important; for what purpose might this be, other than for showing David’s undiminished physical and political power? The old king and his supporters seem to need a fake-ideal queen in order to maintain his political power throughout

161 Mordechai Cogan, I Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 156. 162 Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg, “From Biblical Blanket to Post-Biblical Blank Slate: The Lives and Times of Abishag the Shunammite,” in From the Margins 1: Women of the Hebrew Bible and Their Afterlives, eds. Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 140. 163 HALOT, 755. 164 UT, 450. signifies her fate, as in the case of the four hundred young virgins of Jabesh-gilead נ העֲרָ בְ תּולָה The Hebrew word 165 (Judg 21:12). See Cynthia Edenburg, Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19-21, AIL 24 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 75.

138

the kingdom. As Martin Mulder insists, to qualify as the representative of David’s wives, the woman must be young and beautiful. Even though Abishag was not a queen, she shared the room and bed with the king like a real queen. It seems that, at least in this respect, Abishag’s role as

replaced Bathsheba’s at this time.166 סֹכֶנֶת the

In addition, Solvang insists that “the repeated references to her beauty, her virginity and her role to lie in the bosom of the king are taunting reminders of how David used to be.”167 By contrast with him, Abishag was young and beautiful, but he could not take her like before. Thus, the servants seemed to sub for the work that David had enjoyed. Abishag would be not only for

David himself, but also for the servants themselves who made this plan, in order that she “could be a contender in the politics of the royal household. . . . she could grow close to David’s heart and perhaps bear an heir to the throne.”168 If this happened, the servants would be a new strong

in the court was סֹכֶנֶת political party in the period of the next king. Therefore, her position as the not simply as a concubine or nurse, but the steward of the country like a queen.169

It is odd that the narrator gives more details about Abishag in 1 Kgs 1:4 than king David.

Brian Peckham explains that “a consecutive clause is narrative–sweet Abishag’s story is that she kept the king warm and took care of him–and a disjunctive clause is explanatory–even though she shared his bed he did not take advantage of her.”170

166 Martin Jan Mulder, “Versuch zur Deutung von Sokènèt in 1. Kön. I 2, 4,” VT 22 (1972): 53. 167 Solvang, A Woman’s Place Is in the House, 140. 168 Solvang, A Woman’s Place Is in the House, 144. 169 Mulder, “Versuch zur Deutung von Sokènèt,” 53. 170 Brian Peckham, “Punctuation Is the Point,” in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis, eds. Mark A. O’Brien and Howard N. Wallace, JSOTSup 415 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 10.

139

A. And the girl was extremely beautiful וְהַֽ נ עֲרֵָ֖ ה יָפָ֣ה עד־מְ אֹ֑ ד B. and she became a steward for the king ו תְה ֙ לי מִֶּ֤לְֶך סֹכֶ֙ נֶת֙ B′. and she served him ו תְׁשָ֣רְ תֵַ֔ הּו A′. but the king did not know her ְו ה ֶ ֵ֖מ ֶלְך ֵ֥לֹא ְי ָד ַָֽעּה׃

We can infer Abishag’s actions in relation to David in the middle of the verse. She becomes the king’s steward as the servants had planned, and serves him. However, in the last clause of the verse, the king’s action is very simple. Given the brevity with which David is described and the structure of the verse, it is clearly Abishag who serves the narrator’s purpose. She is a key for opening the meaning of the story, a hint that the servants’ plan will end in failure. The narrator demonstrates that despite Abishag’s beauty, David had no interest in her (1 Kgs 1:4). This is in sharp contrast to the king’s previous beauties: Abigail171 and Bathsheba. As Solvang observes,

“perhaps this is a statement about his diminished sexual capacity, or could it be David’s attempt to subvert . . . the servants’ plan?”172

Table 23. The Depiction of David’s Beautiful Wives

Name Text (.Sam 25:3; [The woman was] beautiful in appearance 1) ֣ ו יפת תַֹ֔ אר Abigail (.Sam 11:2; The woman was very beautiful in appearance 2) וְהָ֣א שַָ֔ ה טֹוב ֵ֥ת מ רְ אֵֶ֖ה מְ אַֹֽ ד Bathsheba (.Kgs 1:4; The girl was extremely beautiful 1) וְהַֽ נ עֲרֵָ֖ ה יָפָ֣ה עד־מְ אֹ֑ ד Abishag

Moreover, the narrator’s depiction of the beauty of David’s wives is amplified. In the case of Abigail, the narrator portrays her outward appearance as beautiful. Bathsheba’s physical

Dean McBride explains that “usually me’ōd connotes .מְ אֹד attractiveness is described with

171 Abigail bore David’s child Kileab (2 Sam 3:3). 172 Solvang, A Woman’s Place Is in the House, 144.

140

Waltke and .מְ אֹד to עד excess, muchness.’”173 About Abishag’s appearance, the narrator adds‘

means “a great deal.”174 Although by the reckoning of the עד־מְ אֹד O’Connor elucidate that narrator David had won a more beautiful woman (Abishag) than any one before, he had come close to losing political power by that time. It is not important whether he wanted Abishag the extremely beautiful woman or not. More important is her position as a pseudo-queen alongside

David. The more beautiful the women he had gathered within the literary structure of the DN, the

was unique in (סֹכֶנֶת) more political power he had lost. As Mulder points out, Abishag’s position the Hebrew Bible.175 Even though the servants who gave this special position to Abishag intended her to bolster David’s power as a king, this beautiful young woman’s entrance on the narrative stage seems to signal the end of David’s reign. Who will be with her or desire her next time? The answer to that question is reflective of what would happen in the court of David.

1.3.2. Adonijah, a Candidate for Abishag’s New Husband

Given that Abishag is a minor character in the broader story, why does the narrator highlight her in the introduction to 1 Kings? We can find the answer in 1 Kgs 1:6. The narrator explains the facts about Adonijah, David’s son, using a structure similar to the one found in 1 Kgs 1:4. In these two verses, there are two characters who have very good looks. In comparison with 1 Kgs

1:4, we can see that the narrator matches similar content in 1 Kgs 1:6, as the following table demonstrates.

173 S. Dean McBride, Jr., “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4-5,” Int 27 (1973): 304. 174 IBHS, 215. 175 Mulder, “Versuch zur Deutung von Sokènèt,” 54.

141

Table 24. The Comparison between 1 Kgs 1:4 and 1:6

1 Kgs 1:4 1 Kgs 1:6 Character Abishag Adonijah Action to become a nurse, to serve to do Special feature very beautiful also very handsome, [born after Absalom] David’s response not to cohabit with her not to hurt him

beautiful/handsome. In the (מְ אֹד) In these two verses, there are two characters who are very

Hebrew Bible, as has been mentioned in the previous chapter, few characters are described as beautiful.176 Moreover, very few characters are portrayed as extremely beautiful, such as Sarai

(Gen 12:14), Bathsheba, Absalom, Abishag, and Adonijah. And notably, two of these rare references appear in 1 Kgs 1-2.177

In addition, the narrator seems to want to connect those two characters using the adverb

The reader can infer that something will happen because of their appearance. The reader can .מְ אֹד easily imagine unconditional love between these young people. In 1 Kgs 1:1-10, the narrator is overly concerned with their good looks. We should not overlook Adonijah as one of David’s successors, because Adonijah was the elder brother of Solomon. As Eric Seibert explains:

The order, according to 2 Sam 3:2-5 (Hebron) and 5:14-16 (Jerusalem) is as follows: (1) Amnon, (2) Chileab, (3) Absalom, (4) Adonijah, (5) Shephatiah, (6) Ithream, (7) Shammua, (8) Shobab, (9) Nathan, (10) Solomon, (11) Ibhar, (12) Elishua, (13) Nepheg, (14) Japhia, (15) Elishama, (16) Eliada, and (17) Eliphelet. The Chronicler (1 Chr 3:1-9) preserves a slightly different list, with two duplicate names (Elishama and Eliphelet) and two different names (Daniel in place of Chileab and Nogah in place of Elishua) resulting in a total of

176 See Table 25. 177 I want to exclude Bathsheba from the very beautiful characters in this case, because she was old at that time, like King David.

142

nineteen rather than seventeen.178

Table 25. Beautiful/Handsome Characters in the Hebrew Bible

Text Women Men Total Pentateuch Sarai (Gen 12:11) Joseph (Gen 39:6) 5 Rebekah (Gen 26:7) Moses (Exod 2:2) Rachel (Gen 29:17) very Sarai (Gen 12:14) [2] beautiful Rebekah (Gen 24:16) the the character Bathsheba (2 Sam 11:2) Absalom (2 Sam 14:25) [4] DH DN Abishag (1 Kgs 1:4) Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6) Abigail (1 Sam 25:3) David (1 Sam 16:12; (8) Tamar 1 (2 Sam 13:1) 17:42) Tamar 2 (2 Sam 14:27)

Samuel (1 Sam 2:26) 10 Saul (1 Sam 9:2) Others Narratives Vashti (Esth 1:11) Daniel, Hananiah, 10 Esther (Esth 2:7) Mishael and Azariah (Dan Job’s daughters, 1:4) Jemimah, Keziah and Keren-Happuch (Job 42:15) Poetry You, the beloved (Song 1:8, 15, 16; 4:1, 7; 5:9; 6:1, 4) Subtotal: very beautiful 4 2 6 Total 14 11 25

We must consider the position of Adonijah as a successor to David, in that there would be no problem if he ascended the throne after the king died. Regarding the position of Adonijah,

Tomoo Ishida’s explanation is very reasonable:

Evidently, the readers are expected to know about Adonijah, originally the

178 Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11, LHBOTS 436 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 115.

143

fourth son, but now the eldest surviving son of David. According to the narrative, Adonijah was recognized by the general public as the first candidate for succeeding David, probably based on the priority of the eldest living son (2:15, 22). The principle of primogeniture had been accepted in the royal succession since the inception of the Hebrew monarchy. While Saul expected that Jonathan’s kingdom would be established (1 Sam 20:31), David “loved Amnon because he was his firstborn” (2 Sam 13:21b LXX, 4Q Sama).179

in verse 6, makes readers feel as if they can imagine the גם The narrator, using the word previous kings, Saul and David. In addition, Ishida asserts that “Adonijah is being compared with Absalom (2 Sam 14:25), for this comment is made here not as a compliment, but as a reason as to why David had spoiled Adonijah.”180 It is obvious that the narrator intends the reader to think of Adonijah as one of the successors of king David.

Adonijah’s vigorous activity with his followers (1 Kgs 1:7, 9) contrasts sharply with

David’s old age and with his servants (1 Kgs 1:2).181 The contrast between them enables the reader to expect a new king. However, the fact that there were objectors to Adonijah and some uninvited guests to the party signals to the reader that the new king has yet to be decided on. In addition, something will happen between the two sons, Adonijah and Solomon, but it is not yet known how (i.e., whether positively or negatively) this will affect the outcome of the next step for the dynasty.

The fact that David did not sleep with Abishag seems to be an open secret to all the

179 Tomoo Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith and His Supporters: An Inquiry into Problems about History and Historiography,” in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures, eds. Richard Elliott Friedman and H.G. M. Williamson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 171. 180 Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith,” 173. 181 Burke O. Long, “A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah,” JSOT 19 (1981): 87.

144

people in the court. She was still a virgin.182 This likely served to imply that David was too old to serve as king and that the kingdom needed a brand-new vigorous king. In addition, it meant that Abishag needed a new partner, not as a fake wife, but as a real one. Even though David had closed his eyes to Abishag, others in the court seemed to be interested in her. Adonijah was one of them. Even though he did not succeed to the throne, he seemed to try to win her love. He was a simple-minded person and made a last-ditch attempt to win her. As David Gunn assumes, what

Adonijah’s demand for her conveys is his “inability to suppress his desire (so impolitic) for this woman.”183 Adonijah seemed to know that he might be killed due to the demand, because

Solomon was already conscious of Absalom’s actions toward David’s concubines (2 Sam

16:22).184

Another possibility is that Solomon was in love with Abishag.185 If they were rivals trying to win the same beautiful woman, Adonijah’s request would be a good excuse to remove the rivalry. Although the saying goes, “none but the brave deserve the beautiful woman,” his braveness to request her could lead him to his death. The narrator skillfully depicts the end of

David’s reign and the sad love story using the very beautiful woman and the very handsome man.

182 Klein, “Bathsheba Revealed,” 58. 183 David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), 91. Gunn’s comment was originally a question. 184 Gunn, The Story of King David, 91. 185 Hugo Gressmann insists that Abishag was “glorified as the beloved of Solomon in the Song of Songs under the better-known name ‘the Shulamite’ (=Shunamite), and . . . achieved immortal fame on account of her beauty.” Hugo Gressmann, “The Oldest History Writing in Israel,” in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studied by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906-1923, trans. David E. Orton, ed. David M. Gunn, JSOTSup 116 (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991), 53.

145

1.3.3. The Reunion of the Characters in 2 Sam 11-12

We can find a similar story to 1 Kgs 1-2 in 2 Sam 11-12. There are two special persons, a very beautiful woman by the name of Bathsheba, and an extremely devoted man by the name of Uriah in 2 Sam 11-12. The characters (David, Bathsheba, Solomon, Nathan and Joab) in 2 Sam 11-12 are reunited here, except for Uriah.186 Randall Bailey suggests a different role for Bathsheba in the two stories; he points out “the passive role of Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11-12, as opposed to her active involvement in the succession drama in 1 Kings 1-2.”187 He also notes dissimilarities between them, as shown in the table below.

Table 26. The Dissimilarities between 2 Sam 11-12 and 1 Kgs 1-2188

Character 2 Sam 11-12 1 Kgs 1-2 David manipulative manipulated Nathan adversarial advisory Bathsheba passive active involvement

However, dissimilarities between the stories show the development of the narrative flow in the

DN.189 The main character in these stories is David. Furthermore, there are very beautiful women, Bathsheba and Abishag, in the center of the incidents. In the stories, these two beautiful women are not active, but rather passive characters. Although there are two men (Uriah and

Adonijah) who receive little attention from the reader, they play an important role in the stories.

They had to be killed because of the beautiful women. As the following table shows, the two

186 James W. Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document?: A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2,” JBL 91 (1972): 175. 187 Bailey, David in Love and War, 35. 188 Bailey, David in Love and War, 35. 189 Flanagan’s explanation of similarities between the stories is not enough to reveal the relationship of the stories.

146

stories are very similar.

Table 27. The Comparison between 2 Sam 11 and 1 Kgs 1-2

2 Sam 11 Contents 1 Kgs 1-2

11:1 David remained in Jerusalem. David was old and well 1:1 He did not go off to war. advanced in years.

11:2-3 David saw the very beautiful David’s servants sought a 1:2 woman. young virgin for David.

11:4 David sent messengers to David’s servants brought the 1:3-4 Bathsheba, and then he slept beautiful Abishag to David, but with her. David did not sleep with her.

11:5 Bathsheba became pregnant Adonijah wanted to become a 1:5-10 because of David. At that time, king. At that time, Abishag was she was the wife of Uriah. the steward of David. [And then he wanted to be a husband of Abishag.]190

11:6-13 David summoned Uriah to David proclaimed that Solomon 1:11-31 solve his problem. He ordered should be king after him, Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba because of two persons’ two times. entreaty.191

11:14-25 Uriah died in battle, because Adonijah was killed by 2:13-25 David wanted to be a husband Solomon, because he wanted to of Bathsheba. be a husband of Abishag.

What is the narrator’s intention behind such similarities in 2 Sam 11? At first glance, we might think that only the incident described in 2 Sam 11 illustrates David’s sin, but we tend not to consider the story in 1 Kgs 1 as David’s sin. We are accustomed to think of this portion simply as

190 See 1 Kgs 2:17. 191 Nathan’s and Bathsheba’s.

147

the succession narrative. To be on the right track, however, we must explore what the narrator reveals here about the relationship between Adonijah and Abishag. As in the following figure,

David was at the center of the problems. We can also infer from the similarities noted above that

David’s sin in 2 Sam 11 was that he slept with Bathsheba.

Ironically, in 1 Kgs 1, David’s sin was that he did not sleep with Abishag. David could have had intercourse with Abishag if he wanted to, but did not. We do not know the reason, whether it was his decrepitude or political reasons. If he did not need such a person, he should have disregarded the servants’ demand. Moreover, David and Abishag were a mismatch as in the case of Nabal and Abigail. Figure 9 shows the relationship between the two stories. If David had refused his servants’ request to seek a young virgin, he would have prevented Adonijah’s death.

If David had slept with Abishag, Adonijah would not have considered her as his wife. David’s poor decision not only drove Adonijah to death, but also foreshadowed Solomon’s grim future.192

192 In expectation of Solomon’s end, J. Daniel Hays explains that “indeed, Yahweh’s voice in this part of the story emerges only as David charges Solomon with keeping the decrees, commands, laws and requirements of Yahweh. At this point David quotes Yahweh, ‘If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.’ The only speech by Yahweh in the Succession Narrative is that of an ominous warning about being unfaithful to Yahweh, a condition that the new king Solomon will ultimately fail to keep.” J. Daniel Hays, “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him?: Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1-11,” JSOT 28 (2003): 159.

148

Figure 9. The Similarities between the Two Stories

1.4. Conclusion

Among the women in the group, one person’s fate is positive–namely Abigail, who was freed of the fool193 and who married the king over whom she had prophesied. The others (Bathsheba and

Abishag) are either ambiguous or negative. However, there is a similar literary structure where their fates are concerned, as shown in the below table. Their first husbands (or lords) died, resulting in a change in their situation in the story. The table, in addition to showing the narrator’s attitude towards physical beauty, also shows that David’s political power changed in conjunction with his encounter with these beautiful characters.

193 The fool was a political fool, because Nabal did not watch the development of the political situation relating to David. He seemed to have an inflexible political posture.

149

Table 28. Names, Descriptions and Fates of David’s Beautiful Wives

Name of Closest Revealed Second Revealed Fate of the beautiful the character character trait/ closest character trait/ women beautiful to the his fate character to managing women women the women desire to rule Abigail Nabal Nabal’s David David’s desire 1. the death of her first (1 Sam 25) foolishness/ to rule Israel husband (sudden death) death through 2. became David’s wife יָפֶה Abigail’s mouth Bathsheba Uriah Uriah’s David David’s desire 1. the death of her first (2 Sam 11) loyalty to to rule husband (Joab/ Bathsheba (he was killed in battle טֹוב death 2. became David’s wife Abishag David David’s Adonijah Adonijah’s 1. the death of her first (1 Kgs 1) incompetence/ (or desire to rule lord (death Solomon?) Israel and (natural death יָפֶה Abishag 2. did not become Adonijah’s wife194

2. David’s Beautiful Direct Female Descendants

The narrator does not provide the names of David’s daughters except Tamar, but we do know that he had many daughters (2 Sam 5:13; cf. 1 Chron 14:3). Strangely, Tamar, the only daughter whose name is introduced by the narrator is also the name of the one granddaughter who appears in the DN. In addition, the narrator depicts both of them as beautiful. As we have seen, the entrance of new beautiful characters onto the narrative stage subtly signals that an incident related to that physical beauty lies ahead. Moreover, these incidents involving David’s beautiful

194 In my opinion, the opposite pattern (that Abishag did not become Adonijah’s wife) is enough unlike previous cases to indicate that the DN ends here.

150

direct female descents are closely linked to changes in David’s political power as recorded in the

DN.

2.1. Tamar the Daughter

In 2 Sam 13:1-2, the narrator gives the reader information that a new story is beginning,195 and introduces characters and their relationship with each other as members of a family.196 The narrator mentions two male characters as David’s sons in 2 Sam 13:1. The reference to David’s sons implies that incidents in the story are “rooted in David’s sin.”197 Interestingly, the narrator first says who Absalom is, leading the reader to infer that he will be the most important character in the story. However, the story is rather about Tamar and Amnon. Absalom appears at the end of the story on the narrative stage (2 Sam 13:20). As Arnold elucidates, the narrator skillfully unfolds the story to the reader, in that “the narrator lifts Absalom into the foreground and makes us aware that this is not simply a story about Amnon and Tamar, for it participates in the larger narrative of Absalom.”198 Yairah Amit also insists that the literary structure, namely the 3+1 scene structure, shows “the importance he [the narrator] attached to the fourth scene–the encounter between Tamar and Absalom after the rape.”199

Sam 13:1) is “the transitional formula.” Charles Conroy, Absalom 2) ו יְה י ֣ א ַֽ חֲרֵ י־כֵַ֗ ן Charles Conroy explains that 195 Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20, AnBib 81 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 41. 196 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 240. 197 Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel, 560. 198 Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel, 560. 199 Yairah Amit suggests the 3+1 scene structure as follows:

151

Tamar seems to be treated as an object by the two brothers. For Absalom she was a sister, and for Amnon she, though his half-sister, was the object of his lust. The narrator does not say that she was David’s daughter.200 Probably he wants to emphasize that the incident is a dispute among the siblings. In addition, the narrator mentions that “Absalom had a beautiful sister and her name was Tamar (2 Sam 13:1).” The readers recognize her beauty before they ever know her name. This seems to mean that her beauty plays a more important role in the story than her name. It is obvious that her beauty both causes Amnon’s sickness and triggers the serious incidents that follow in the story. Although we do not know exactly what the narrator wants the reader to infer from the fact that she is a virgin, it is an important issue to the reader. It seems to be related to Amnon’s intention towards her, because he discards her soon after raping her.201

has a positive meaning in the Hebrew Bible,202 the story’s אָהב Therefore, even though the word

in 2 Sam 13:1, 4, 15 “is not about true love but of love that seeks to benefit.”203 Ridout אָהב suggests the following literary structure for the story:

Exposition: vv. 1-2 Scene 1: Amnon and Jonadab vv. 3-5 Scene 2: Amnon and David encounter and its outcome vv. 6-7 Scene 3: Amnon and Tamar, in three stages vv. 8-18 Preparing (setting) the trap vv. 8-9 The rape vv. 10-14 The expulsion vv. 15-18 Scene 4: Absalom and Tamar vv. 19-20 Conclusion: vv. 21-22

Yairah Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect, trans. Betty Sigler Rozen, HBM 39 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012), 209. 200 McCarter, II Samuel, 320. 201 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 244. Auld (I & II Samuel, 477) suggests that Amnon seemed to have “fantasies about deflowering virgins.” 202 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 242. 203 Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 211.

152

A. Amnon is in love with Tamar his sister (verses 1-2). B. Jonadab intervenes (verses 3-5). C. Tamar comes to Amnon and bakes bread for him (verses 6-9a). D. Amnon commands his servants to leave him alone with Tamar (verse 9b) E. Amnon commands Tamar to come lie with him; she refuses and pleads with him but to no avail (verses 14b-15a). F. Amnon rapes Tamar, and his love for her turns to hate (verses 14b-15a). E′. Amnon commands Tamar to get out; she pleads with him but to no avail (verses 15b-16). D′. Amnon calls his servant back and orders him to lock Tamar out (verses 17). C′. Tamar leaves with gestures of mourning (verses 18-19). B′. Absalom intervenes (verse 20). A′. Absalom hates Amnon for having raped Tamar (verses 21-22).204

The literary structure gives greater prominence to the contrast between love and hate in A, A′ and

F. 205 Fokkelman modifies Bar-Efrat’s literary structure to facilitate a better understanding of the theme between love and hate in the story, as follows.206

love/hate Tamar + Amnon David + Tamar Amnon + servant Amnon + David servant + Tamar Jonadab + Amnon Tamar + Absalom love hate

2.1.1. Jonadab, the Very Wise Man

The actual plot starts in 2 Sam 13:3-5.207 The narrator introduces two characters, Amnon and

Jonadab, his friend. The reader already knows about Amnon, but does not know about Jonadab.

204 Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques,” 50-51 (my italics). Morrison and Fokkelman also suggest a similar literary structure for the story. See Morrison, 2 Samuel, 167; Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 100. 205 Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques,” 55. On the love-hate structure in the story, see Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 278. 206 Fokkelman, Volume I. King David, 102. 207 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 242.

153

The narrator gives a piece of information: Jonadab is a very wise man. This might lead the reader to expect a happy ending to this story. Indeed, Jonadab’s advice to Amnon is very successful in the sense that it makes David an active partner in the plan (2 Sam 15:7).208 However, the narrator does not explain what his wisdom is beneficial for, and does not depict his wisdom as negative.209 So the reader must discern what Jonadab’s “wise” advice is about. Furthermore, there is no reason to judge his wisdom negatively. It is manifest that the incident in 2 Sam 13 is one of the prophetic fulfillments of David’s sin.210 So, wise Jonadab is obviously Yahweh’s tool to realize Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Sam 12:11, as the case of Ahithophel.211 Nathan proclaimed

;לְרֵעֶ֑יך) plural) and give them to your friends ;נָׁשֶ֙יך֙ ) ”that Yahweh would take “your women plural).212 As Bodner observes, “for David, more than one woman will be defiled, and more than one friend involved: there is an even higher degree of intimacy, since his own sons and colleagues will be the perpetrators.”213 As the stories unfold, the reader begins to see who

David’s women and friends are.

208 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 247. According to Auld (I & II Samuel, 478), “the words ‘wise’ and ‘wisdom’ are extraordinary rare throughout the books of Samuel – in fact only 2 Sam 13:3; 14:2, 20; 20:16, 22.” Anderson (2 Samuel, 174) asserts that Jonadab was a tricky character because of his immoral advice for Amnon. 209 I will soon offer a reason as to why the advice was prudent on pages 154-56 below. 210 James Ackerman, “Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2,” JBL 109 (1990): 49; Barbara Green, David’s Capacity for Compassion: A Literary-Hermeneutical Study of 1-2 Samuel, LHBOTS 641 (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), 205; Frank Yamada, Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives, StBibLit 109 (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 101. 211 Halpern (David’s Secret Demons, 358) points out that “David believed, rightly, that Amnon’s rape of Tamar was inspired by Yahweh. He was therefore unable to punish Amnon for the deed. Amnon was acting as Yahweh’s agent.” 212 See 2 Sam 16:23. The narrator appraises Ahithophel’s advice (including the rape of the concubines) as equal to the word of Yahweh. 213 Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 32.

154

Table 29. David’s Women and Friends in the Fulfillment of Nathan’s Prophecy

David’s sons as friends David’s women Text to fulfill the prophecy Amnon214 Tamar as his daughter 2 Sam 13:14 Absalom Concubines 2 Sam 16:22

On the surface, Jonadab’s wise plan is doomed to fail, because Absalom killed Amnon in

.(Sam 13:4 2 ; דל) revenge for the rape of his sister. Jonadab valued Amnon as a dejected being

This implies to the reader that Amnon was not the right person for the throne in his eyes. If his wisdom was not beneficial for his friend215 Amnon, but for the kingdom of Israel, the strong candidate for the next king of Israel must be forcibly removed. Shimon Bakon elucidates

Jonadab’ importance in the story as follows:

We know from II Samuel 13:32 that Jonadab knew of Absalom’s plot and did not inform Amnon of it. Perhaps Jonadab sensed that Amnon was a pathetically weak figure, lovesick for his “sister” yet unable to do anything about it (II Sam. 13:2). Jonadab realized that Amnon, though David’s eldest son, was completely unfit to rule and therefore set in motion a plot to eliminate him from the royal family. He is the one who orchestrates Amnon’s fall and triumphantly informs King David that Amnon has been assassinated. His scheme fulfilled, Jonadab walks off the biblical stage.216

Similarities between the two stories in 1 Sam 25 and 2 Sam 13 show that the narrator does not evaluate Jonadab’s wisdom negatively. Firth recites similarities between Nabal and Amnon

(another “Nabal”).217 Yet he does not indicate similar roles for Abigail and Jonadab/Tamar in

214 Bodner (The Rebellion of Absalom, 35) insists that “David’s friend (his own son Amnon) in turn defiles David’s daughter. means “counselor, adviser, or intimate” in this רֵ ע Halpern (David’s Secret Demons, 357) asserts that the word 215 context. 216 Shimon Bakon, “Jonadab, ‘Friend’ of Amnon,” JBQ 43 (2015): 105. See also Andrew E. Hill, “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” JETS 30 (1987): 387-90. 217 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 435.

155

each story. That Tamar was the rape victim is an undeniable fact. Sadly, Jonadab (the very wise man) seemed to lead Amnon (the unsuitable candidate for the next king) to a sexual assault, for the benefit of the kingdom of Israel. Following his plan, Jonadab did not tell Amnon about all the follow-up incidents, such as the rape and the death. Even though Firth argues that Jonadab did not know how the plan would end,218 the text apparently indicates that Jonadab already knew the end of the story.

Table 30. The Similarities between Two Stories Concerning Beautiful and Wise Characters

1 Sam 25 2 Sam 13

Character Abigail Jonadab/Tamar219

(vs.3) חָכֵָ֖ם מְ אַֹֽ ד ;Trait good insight and beautiful Jonadab: very wise (vs. 1) יָפֵָ֖ה ;Tamar220: beautiful טַֽ ֹובת־שֶֹּ֙ כֶל֙ו ֣יפ ת תַֹ֔ אר ;appearance (vs. 3) Plan She prepares food for David and Tamar prepares food for Amnon (vs. his company (vs. 18). 5). No advice She does not tell Nabal about her Jonadab does not tell Amnon about plan (vs. 19). the disastrous consequence of the rape. Prediction David will be the ruler over Israel, Only Amnon is killed by Absalom so he must not kill anybody (vv. according to his plan (vv. 32-33).221 30-31). Fulfillment David becomes the king of Israel David’s sons come (vs. 35). (2 Sam 5:3).

218 Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 437; see also Ridout, “Prose Compositional Techniques,” 129. 219 Jonadab (the wise) and Tamar (the beautiful) seemed to share Abigail’s role in the story. 220 Amit (In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 213) insists that Tamar “makes logical attempts to dissuade him [Amnon], showing that she too is clever.” See also Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, OBT 13 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 56. 221 Firth (1 & 2 Samuel, 439-40) explains that “Jonadab is reintroduced and again shows his ‘wisdom’ by arguing that David must not imagine all his sons have died.”

156

Ultimately, Absalom avenged his sister by killing only Amnon, not all David’s sons, as Jonadab expected. So the strongest candidate for the next heir to the throne was removed. In turn, other princes were allowed to have an eye on the throne. David’s political power was obviously weakened as well. Therefore, Jonadab’s wisdom offers an opportunity for David and the officials of his court to choose better candidates for the next king.

2.1.2. Amnon the Nabal and Tamar the Beautiful

Three references in the words of Jonadab, Amnon, and David emphasize that Tamar must go to

Amnon’s house to nurse him.222 Words such as “my sister”223 and “your brother” in these repetitions suggest that proper decorum must exist between Amnon and Tamar when she visits

Amnon ,( ברְ יָה) his house.224 Interestingly, while Jonadab and David mention food for sickness

The reader does not know why Amnon selects the .(לְב בֹות) ”changes the word “food” to “cakes

has double לְב בֹות word “cakes,” but the word hints that he has another plan for Tamar. The word meanings: 1) lexically, it means a “heart-shaped pastry,”225 2) phonically, it is similar to “hearts”

Conroy argues that “the heart-shaped cakes . . . are well fitted 226.(לֵבָב plural form of heart) symbolically for the situation.”227 Even though the narrator does not clarify whether David

222 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 252. 223 However, James Crenshaw argues that the term “my sister” is “the normal expression for a lover in ancient Egypt. The author of Song of Songs uses this language of brother/sister to designate lovers.” James L. Crenshaw, Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1998), 202. 224 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 252. 225 HALOT, 516. .(Chron 28:9 1) לְבָבֹות .Cf 226 ל ב בְת ֵ֖ ני Conroy, Absalom, 29, n. 43. McCarter (II Samuel, 322) suggests the relationship between the word and 227 (“you have bewitched me”) in Song 4:9.

157

noticed Absalom’s plan concerning Tamar or not, the reader should not overlook that “David avoids Amnon’s reference to a couple of lebibōth, and uses the word originally used by

Jonadab.”228

Sam 13:5) Jonadab’s advice 2) ה ברְ יָה Sam 13:6) Amnon’s request to David 2) לְב בֹות Sam 13:7) David’s command to Tamar 2) ה ב רְ יָה Sam 13:8) Tamar made them for Amnon 2) לְב בֹות Sam 13:10) Amnon’s request to Tamar 2) ה ברְ יָה Sam 13:10) Tamar brought them to Amnon 2) לְב בֹות

As the saying goes, “coming events cast their shadows before it.” Changing words about the food implies that David had a glimmer of what Amnon was hiding in his mind. As Amit observes, “Amnon in the midst of his plotting tries to sound more guileless than the words the narrator gives to Jonadab.”229 Even though David seems to support Jonadab’s more innocent

in לְב בֹות is changed to ברְ יָה understanding by reverting to his words,230 his command to make the story. We are not sure how much David may or may not have known about Amnon’s plan, but the narrator implies that David was not free from suspicion about this incident, given the

for Amnon, not לְב בֹות word-switching. Without knowing anything, Tamar made and brought

to hide his plan for ( ברְ יָה) In addition, Amnon imitated Jonadab’s and David’s word choice . ברְ יָה

Tamar (2 Sam 13:10). This means that David had the chance to stop the rape and the subsequent incident, Absalom’s revolt.

228 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 251. 229 Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 212. 230 Did David already know Jonadab’s advice to Amnon?

158

As planned, Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon and made cakes for him, without any conversation recorded between them (2 Sam 13:8-9). The narrative shows that

Tamar’s first concern was making food for the sick man.231 In Amnon’s house, the narrator characterizes Tamar as active but depicts Amnon as passive. Amnon was just watching Tamar’s

he was lying down” [2 Sam 13:8]). Although her efforts for Amnon“ ;וְה֣ ּוא ׁשֹכֵ֑ב) actions in his bed would go down the drain, the narrator portrays her actions in more detail than he needs. This allows us to see what Amnon sees, namely his half-sister moving about while baking, motions which would likely serve to feed Amnon’s lust. It reveals that only Amnon was guilty232 in the coming incident, because of his lust. Tamar made the food (cakes) for Amnon, because she thought that Amnon would recover from his illness, if she gave the food to him directly, as

Jonadab advised. However, the reader’s hope is completely shattered. Amnon springs to action in

2 Sam 13:9. Surpassing Jonadab’s advice, Amnon decides to rape her instead of eating the food from her hand. The reader does not have any information about Amnon’s refusal to eat the food

(and Jonadab’s advice contains no allusion to this).233 So the reader could understand the incident as Amnon’s crime according to his own plan, even though Jonadab was already expecting Amnon’s sexual assault.

Amnon called Tamar “my sister” in 2 Sam 13:11, and Tamar called Amnon “my brother” in 2 Sam 13:12. The appellations for each other emphasize their family relationship, and underscore that Amnon’s advances on Tamar should not have happened in this relationship.

231 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 256. 232 Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 212. 233 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 257.

159

About the reasons why Tamar did not flee when Amnon ordered all men to leave him, Amit suggests three possibilities: “her conduct can be explained as stupidity or as joy at being alone with him, or as a sister’s complete trust in her brother.”234 Whatever the reason may be, the narrator seems to maintain that Tamar was innocent and that she haplessly fell into the clutches

.(Sam 13:11 2 ;ו יַֽחֲזֶק־בָּה) of the luster

About Amnon’s oppressive command in 2 Sam 13:11 (“Come, lie with me, my sister!”),

Tamar replied with composure to delay or thwart his horrible intention.235 She had followed

David and Amnon’s words without saying anything in the past, but this time she responded

three times to Amnon in 2 Sam 13:12. The reader ”,( אל) differently.236 She said the word “do not

.mentioned twice ,לֹא can further imagine her negative mindset through the additional negative

!(Do not,237 my brother (vs. 12a אל ־אָחי֙ ,(Do not force me (vs. 12b אל־תְ ע נֵַ֔ני .(for such a thing is not done in Israel (vs. 12c כ ֶ֛י לֹא־יֵַֽעָשֵֶ֥ ה כֵֵ֖ן בְ ישְרָאֵ֑ל !(Do not do this stupidity (vs. 12d א ַֽ ל־ת עֲשֵֵ֖ה אֶת־ה נְבָלֵָ֥ה ה זַֹֽ את׃ ...... (for he will not withhold me from you (vs. 13d כ ֶ֛י ֵ֥לֹא י מְ נָעֵֵ֖נ י מ מֶַֽ ךָ׃

Through the personal relation between her and Amnon, she hoped that such a thing would not happen, because it would have fatal consequences for both of them. So she suggested a new positive proposal238 for him, with the negative particle to emphasize her opinion about the

234 Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 212. 235 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 260-61. 236 Yamada, Configurations of Rape, 115. 237 Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art in the Bible, 261) insists that “the first phrase . . . displays Tamar’s emotional confusion and deep anxiety,” because there is no verb. Probably she could not say any word in this situation. 238 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 264.

160

aggression. If David, their father, gave Amnon his permission to marry his daughter, she would not be ashamed and he would not become one of the fools. However, Amnon rejected his sister’s wise suggestion, because he was not interested in marrying her,239 but in a physical relationship.

Arise, go away!”; 2 Sam 13:15) prove this.240“ ;קֵ֥ ּומ י לֵַֽכי) His words after raping her

After this terrible incident, David and Absalom took no immediate action to resolve this serious issue, even though they had a kinship duty against Amnon–marriage, killing, or fine.241

David was angry (2 Sam 13:21)242 without any action,243 and Absalom quarantined her from daily life (2 Sam 13:20). Even though Amnon did not accept Tamar’s advice, Tamar could express her insistence to him. However, she could not speak her heart to her full brother

Absalom, because he ordered her to be silent. Furthermore, he tried to control her mind on account of his secret retaliative plan (“Do not take this problem to your heart!”; 2 Sam 13:20).244

Apparently, Absalom treated Tamar like an object in much the same way as did Amnon. So the reader forms the hasty conclusion that Tamar was the victim of both brothers (by Amnon’s rape and Absalom’s inaction). However, the reason why the narrator introduces Absalom in the beginning of the story becomes quite clear. Through the narration about Absalom’s state of mind

239 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 264. Come, lie!”). In addition, Amnon does not“ ; בֶֹ֛וא יׁש כְב ֵ֥ י) Compare this to Amnon’s first command in 2 Sam 13:11 240 call Tamar “my sister” in 2 Sam 13:15. See also Table 31. 241 See William Propp, “Kinship in 2 Samuel 13,” CBQ 55 (1993): 41-42. 242 The LXX in 2 Sam 13:21 adds why David was just very angry about Amnon’s crime. The reasons are that David loved Amnon, and he was his first-born (ὅτι ἠγάπα αὐτόν ὅτι πρωτότοκος αὐτοῦ ἦν). We can find a similar expression in David’s love for Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:6). Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 273; Amit, In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible, 214. 243 David seems to recall the death of Uriah. Rosenberg, King and Kin, 147. 244 Beek argues that “Absalom had cunningly prepared the fatal attack.” M. A. Beek, “David and Absalom: A Hebrew Tragedy in Prose?” in Voice from Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative, trans. and ed. Martin Kessler, SemeiaSt 26 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 158.

161

in 2 Sam 13:22, the reader anticipates that a more terrible incident will happen in the near future, and also that Absalom will stand in the center of this future incident.

The revenge for the rape happened two years later. As Yamada insists, “Absalom’s plan of revenge, whatever the motivation, is in direct contrast with the inaction of David.”245 Even though his motive for revenge was intense hatred of Amnon because of his crime against

Tamar,246 the result of the revenge immediately established him as a major candidate for the next king of Israel. Therefore, it is natural to presume that “the narrator, through the story of Amnon’s rape of Tamar, has set the reader up for an inevitable power struggle between Absalom and

David.”247 Furthermore, the narrator discloses that David’s political power will be changed through the story related to beautiful Tamar. David’s silence about his lovely son/friend’s crime calls in another lovely son/friend in the narrative stage as a main character to fulfill Nathan’s oracle.

It is manifest that Tamar’s physical attractiveness began the story because it was the cause of Amnon’s lovesickness. The physical beauty made strong Amnon weaker and led him to

2 ; ֵ֥לֹא ָא ָ ֵ֖בה) his death in the end. Amnon coveted and took her physical beauty, but did not accept

Sam 13:14, 16) her wise advice, unlike David in Abigail’s case. Tamar’s wise advice stands in the middle of others’ foolish orders as imperative forms. This proves that the narrator reproaches not only Amnon for his crime, but also others for their support. In addition, the literary structure

245 Yamada, Configurations of Rape, 129. 246 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 274. 247 Yamada, Configurations of Rape, 129. See also Athalya Brenner, The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and ‘Sexuality’ in the Hebrew Bible, BibInt 26 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 138-39.

162

shows that outward appearance is not enough itself without wisdom, whether to those who already have it or to those who desire it.248

Table 31. The Literary Structure Composed of Characters’ Commands in 2 Sam 13

2.2. Tamar the Granddaughter

Iain Provan and others remark concerning biblical stories that “readers will need to attend closely to the story as it unfolds, even (perhaps especially) to those details that might seem insignificant, if they are to grasp the story’s full meaning.”249 The case of David’s granddaughter in 2 Sam

14:27 is exactly such a case. In this verse the narrator informs the reader that “three sons and one daughter were born to Absalom, and her name was Tamar and she was a woman of beautiful appearance.” While Absalom’s three sons are unnamed in the story,250 his daughter (like Job’s three beautiful daughters in Job 42:13-15) is named.251 Being named makes it reasonable to

248 Pamela Reis, “Cupidity and Stupidity: Woman’s Agency and the ‘Rape’ of Tamar,” JANES 25 (1997): 52. 249 Iain Provan, et al., A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 236. My italics. 250 Bodner (The Rebellion of Absalom, 52) suggests that the lack of mention regarding the sons’ names alludes to his failure. 251 It is interesting that “the narrator takes care to name Job’s daughters but not the sons.” Samuel Balentine, Job, SHBC (Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2006), 717.

163

expect that she will play a role in the story. Contrary to our expectations, however, she does not appear again on the narrative stage. It is hard to understand why the narrator provides Absalom’s daughter with a name, along with a descriptor of her beauty, unless this information is, as I have sought to argue throughout, a kind of aid for comprehending Absalom’s full story.

2.2.1. The Third Tamar

We know nothing about Absalom’s daughter except for her name and outward appearance. Her family relations can be inferred from the fact that she was Absalom’s daughter. Interestingly, we meet two other Tamars in the Hebrew Bible. One is Judah’s daughter-in-law (Gen 38), and another is David’s daughter (2 Sam 13).

Table 32. The Similarities between the First Two Tamars

The first Tamar The second Tamar The beginning of Judah took her for his son (Gen Amnon loved her for his lust (2 Sam the problem 38:6). 13:1). Her sufferings Yahweh killed her husband (Gen Insidiously, the plan was in motion 38:7). (2 Sam 13:5-7).252 Yahweh killed her brother-in-law Amnon decided to rape her (2 Sam (Gen 38:10). 13:14). her ( יָׁשב) her Absalom decided to isolate ( יָׁשב) Isolation Judah decided to isolate in her father’s house to protect his in his house (2 Sam 13:20). living son (Gen 38:11). Problem-solving She devised her own plan for her Absalom revenged his sister’s rape late husband (Gen 38:14-30). on Amnon (2 Sam 13:28-29). Outward no reference beautiful appearance appearance

252 Jonadab framed the plan for the purpose of gratifying Amnon’s love/lust. Amnon acted almost like an actor that surpassed Jonadab’s expectation. David was an active collaborator in the plan, and Tamar was eliminated from the plan.

164

William Rosenblum suggests that “the last Tamar, through her name, serves as a reminder of the two faces of women, represented in the Tanakh by her two predecessors; woman as heroine and woman as victim.”253 It does not seem too rash to suggest that the first two Tamars were innocent victims in each story, in that they did not decide anything–with one single exception being that the first Tamar had her own plan to solve the problem. They suffered great pain and were isolated completely from society.

Even though they have something in common, their traits are completely different. The fact that the first Tamar was eager to escape from isolation makes her different from the second

Tamar as Rosenblum observes.254 The first two Tamars were the third’s greater namesake as the main character in each story. Although the third Tamar appears on the narrative stage as a minor character, the narrator grants a special role to her. Moreover, her outward appearance is beautiful, as in the case of the second Tamar, her aunt. So the second and the third Tamars seem to have a close relationship.

Jack Sasson identifies a reason why the narrator suddenly introduces Absalom’s daughter. He insists that Amnon raped Absalom’s daughter Tamar, because the rape victim was desolate in Absalom’s house (2 Sam 13:20).255 But I disagree with his assertion, because the narrator proves her identity as Absalom’s sister in the beginning of the story. Rosenblum

253 William Rosenblum, “Tamar Times Three,” JBQ 30 (2002): 130. 254 Rosenblum evaluates her as a “heroine” saving Judah’s family line. See Rosenblum, “Tamar Times Three,” 129. 255 Jack M. Sasson, “Absalom’s Daughter: An Essay in Vestige Historiography,” in The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, eds. J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham, JSOTSup 343 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 190.

165

demonstrates instead that “her name represents the attempt of Absalom to preserve the memory of his ruined sister and to remember her as a pure child.”256 In addition, Bodner insists that “the name of Tamar increases the focus of Amnon’s abuse and justifies Absalom’s revenge.”257 At the same time, the name that is given to Absalom’s daughter with her outward appearance alludes vaguely to her fate, as in the case of her beautiful aunt.

2.2.2. The Missing Tamar

It is difficult to study Tamar, David’s granddaughter, because we encounter her only one time in

2 Sam 14:27. Interestingly, the LXX delivers more information about her. According to the LXX,

“she becomes the wife of Roboam [Rehoboam; the MT] son of Solomon, and she bears to him

Abia [Abijam (1 Kgs) or Abijah (2 Chron); the MT] (γίνεται γυνὴ τῷ Ροβοαμ υἱῷ Σαλωμων καὶ

τίκτει αὐτῷ τὸν Αβια).” But unlike the LXX, the narrator in Kgs 15:2 mentions that Abijam’s mother was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom (Absalom). Besides, 2 Chron 11:20-22 provides more information about Absalom’s daughter (called Maacah)258 who married Rehoboam. King

Rehoboam made a plan to set her first son Abijah on the throne, because he loved the daughter of

Absalom more than all his other women.259 Does this mean that Absalom’s two daughters married Rehoboam, and each daughter bore a son called Abijam/Abijah? However, the narrator informs the reader that Absalom had only one daughter, along with three sons. A persuasive

256 Rosenblum, “Tamar Times Three,” 130. 257 Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 52. 258 Interestingly, Maacah was Absalom’s mother’s name (2 Sam 3:3). 259 Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines at that time (2 Chron 11:21).

166

alternative is that Tamar and Maacah were one and the same person. Rabbi David Kimḥi explains the possibility of one person having two different names–for example,

“Micaiah/Maacah,” and “Absalom/Abishalom.”260 While the aforementioned case seems to reflect phonic variations on the same name, Tamar and Maacah are totally different. If Tamar and Maacah were the same person, Tamar may have been Maacah’s nickname to emphasize her fate, as in the case of her aunt Tamar. Her nickname was probably given to her after Amnon’s affair.261

Notwithstanding, there are genealogical problems with Tamar/Maacah’s place in the family tree: 1) Abijah and his son Asa both had mothers, named Maacah, and 2) the narrator demonstrates that Maacah was Uriel’s daughter in 2 Chron 13:2.262 To solve these problems,

Ralph W. Klein illustrates a couple of possibilities as follows:

I. Abijah’s mother was Micaiah the daughter of Uriel (2 Chr 13:2), and Asa’s mother was Micaiah the daughter of Abishalom (1 Kgs 15:10 and 1 Kgs 15:13// 2 Chr 15:16). The text of 1 Kgs 15:2 (Maacah is the mother of Abijah) had been corrupted by attraction to 1 Kgs 15:10 and 1 Kgs 15:13//2 Chr 15:16, which are dealing with the mother of Asa. Then 2 Chr 11:20-22 is built on this secondary reading. Hence 1 Kgs 15:2 and 2 Chr 11:20-22 are incorrect, and 2 Chr 13:2, 1 Kgs 15:10, and 1 Kgs 15:13//2 Chr 15:16 are correct. II. Maacah/Micaiah is the daughter of Uriel and Tamar and therefore the granddaughter of Absalom. If this opinion is chosen there are three options: (a) Abijah and Asa are brothers despite the contradiction with 1 Kgs 15:8//2 Chr 13:23, which identifies them as father and son; (b) Maacah/ Micaiah is Abijah’s mother and Asa’s grandmother despite the assertion in 1 Kgs 15:10 and 1 Kgs 15:13//2 Chr 15:16 that she is Asa’s mother; or, more remotely, (c) Abijah married his mother Maacah/Micaiah and sired Asa by her.263

260 See Yitzhak Berger, The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimḥi to Chronicles: A Translation with Introduction and Supercommentary, BJS 345 (Providence: Brown University Press, 2007), 226. 261 Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom, 52. 262 Maacah was Absalom’s daughter. See 1 Kgs 15:2, 10; 2 Chron 11:20-21. 263 Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress; 2012), 198.

167

Even though Klein tries to harmonize the texts which tell of Maacah, he only adds to the confusion. Firstly, how can Maacah be both Ahijah’s mother and Asa’s mother? Walsh asserts that Abijam’s mother Maacah seems to be called Asa’s mother during the reign of king Asa, because Abijam had reigned for only a short time (three years; 1 Kgs 15:2).264 On the contrary,

Iain W. Provan gives prominence to Abijam’s sin, in that “Asa was the product of an incestuous relationship between Abijam and Maacah (cf. 15:2). It would be only one evil among the many that Abijam perpetrated, and certainly not beyond imagining (cf. Lev. 18:6ff).”265 As Provan asserts, the narrator connects Abijam’s crime to David’s sin (the fact that David killed Uriah) in

1 Kgs 15:5. So the narration would remind the reader about not only Bathsheba’s affair but also its related incidents, such as Amnon’s rape and Absalom’s rebellion. In contrast, Asa had endeavored to remove sins from Judah. He even removed his (grand)mother from the position of queen mother. Therefore, the fact that Asa’s mother was called Maacah emphasizes her final fate under Asa’s reign. Even though Maacah was beautiful and became the highest woman in political power during the reign of three kings,266 the narrator seems to proclaim that beauty is vain without love of God (cf. Prov. 31:30).

Secondly, who was Maacah, the daughter of Absalom or Uriel? To solve this problem,

Sara Japhet elucidates that “we would claim that Maacah was not actually Absalom’s daughter

264 Walsh, 1 Kings, 211. 265 Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, NIBCOT (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 126. See also Klein, 2 Chronicles, 198 n. 26. 266 Ktziah Spanier maintains that “an examination of the biblical records indicates that the queen mother was the most important female in the Judaean royal court.” Ktziah Spanier, “The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court: Maacah–Case Study,” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 186.

168

but his granddaughter, through Tamar and her husband ‘Uriel of Gibeah’–Maacah’s father.”267

If this is right, the LXX incorrectly reports that Tamar married Roboam in 2 Sam 14:27. There is a possibility that Uriel was another name for Absalom when he had fled from his father.

Morrison presumes that Absalom’s sons “died or were killed in the rebellion.”268 His assumption is a plausible explanation of why his sons had no name. Absalom seems to have used an assumed name to avoid being traced and to save his life as a fugitive. Therefore, Absalom and

also recalls Bathsheba’s ( אּוריאֵ ל) Uriel were two names for the same person. The name Uriel

to the reader.269 ( אּוריָה) original husband Uriah

Figure 10. Maacah’s Family Tree270

According to the biblical narratives, Absalom’s daughter had two different names, Tamar

267 Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 671. 268 Morrison, 2 Samuel, 193. 269 Spanier (“The Queen Mother,” 193) asserts that Maacah “is associated with Bathsheba’s first husband, and . . . her place of birth connects her to the Saulide capital at Gibeah.” 270 Yellow signifies the kings of all Israel or Judah.

169

(in the DN) and Maacah (outside the DN). Though we do not know her real name,271 we can assume that her father Absalom named her after close relatives, such as her grandmother272 and her aunt. Those names’ function seems to be that of reminiscences about good or bad. Every time

Absalom called his daughter by name, he would have recalled his mother and sister.273 Tamar’s physical attractiveness seems to make her a politically prominent figure in Judah, but her beauty is nothing without God.

2.3. Conclusion

In the DN, two Tamars have something in common: they both were beautiful. The daughter’s beauty led to the serious problems of Amnon’s death and of Absalom turning into a murderer.

The granddaughter’s beauty functions together with Absalom’s beauty as an indicator of

Absalom’s rebellion. The narrator seems to deliver the message to the reader that David, who was unresponsive to the incidents (the rape and the murder) related to the beautiful characters

(the daughter Tamar and Absalom), did not fulfill his duty as the king of Israel. In addition, the narrator’s description of the granddaughter’s beauty and his son’s attractiveness seems to foreshadow that David’s political power will be weakened rapidly by Absalom’s further action.

271 Maacah was probably her legal name. 272 It seems that Maacah, Absalom’s mother, may have been beautiful because Absalom was very handsome. In general, children resemble their parents’ outward appearance genetically. However, the narrator does not mention Maacah’s outward appearance, because it is not needed in the narrative flow. 273 Denise Ackermann asks a question about Absalom’s daughter: “Can there be an element of restitution here [2 Sam 14:27] for Tamar in the next generation of women in the house of David?” Denise M. Ackermann, “Tamar’s Cry: Rereading an Ancient Text in the Midst of an HIV/AIDS Pandemic,” in Character Ethics and the Old Testament, eds. M. Daniel Carroll R. and Jacqueline E. Lapsley (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 196.

170

Table 33. The Similarities between Two Tamars

Lineal Closest Revealed Her fate descendants of character to character David her trait/ his fate Tamar Daughter Amnon: Amnon’s She was desolate in Absalom’s (2 Sam he loved sexual lust house (2 Sam 13:20). 13:1) her. for Tamar/ death Tamar Granddaughter Absalom: Absalom’s She was desolate in Absalom’s (2 Sam her father lust for the house without siblings (2 Sam 14:27) crown/ 18:18; cf. 2 Sam 14:27).274 death She also was removed from the position of queen mother by Asa (1 Kgs 15:13; cf. 2 Chron 15:16).

274 There is no more information about Tamar, Absalom’s daughter, in 2 Sam 18:18. However, her three brothers (2 Sam 14:27) seem to have died when they were very young, because they have no name and Absalom says that “I have no son” in 2 Sam 18:18. See Conroy, Absalom, 65. If he had refused to have a new son, possibly it was from fear of losing a new son as before. Compare to the case of Judah in Gen 38:11.

Chapter Four The Handsome Men in the DN

In general, all male descents in David’s family line seem to be good-looking. David was handsome, and his wives were probably also beautiful.1 However, the narrator does not depict all of David’s male descents as handsome, but explicitly describes only two sons (Absalom and

Adonijah) as handsome like their father. This means that the narrator decides that only three male characters merit mention for being handsome for the thematic development of the narrative. In the case of the DN, these handsome male characters grasped after power. Even though the two sons resembled David physically and were able to gain political power easily, they did not succeed to the throne. Surely the narrator’s strategy in describing their outward appearance reveals that there are more important requirements than physical appearance for being the ruler of Israel.

1. Handsome but Small David

As noted earlier, many male characters are described positively for their appearance (i.e., for height) at the beginning of the DN (1 Sam 16).2 Examples are Eliab (1 Sam 16:6-7), Goliath (1

1 The narrator mentions only Abigail and Bathsheba as beautiful among David’s wives in the narrative. Based on her father’s handsomeness, Michal was probably attractive, though this is not mentioned. We may similarly infer that Maacah (Absalom’s mother) and Haggith (Adonijah’s mother) were beautiful in light of their sons’ handsomeness but again no mention is made of this. 2 I have followed Frank Polak’s opinion that the beginning of the DN “comprises three unites: 1 Sam 16:1-13–the tale of David’s anointing, the prelude to the David Cycle as a whole; 16:14-23–the story of his introduction to Saul’s court in order to play the harp before the king; 17:1-18–the Goliath narrative, which magnifies David as Israel’s savior in the battle.” See Frank Polak, “Literary Study and ‘Higher Criticism’ According to the Tale of David’s Beginning,” in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A: The Period of The Bible 171

172

Sam 17:4), and David (1 Sam 16:12). The entrances of many physically attractive characters onto the narrative stage are a hint to the reader that these groups are more likely to earn political or religious power in the period of monarchy.

In the first verse of the DN, 1 Sam 16:1, the prophet Samuel grieves for Saul, the good- looking and tall king. While Samuel misses Saul, Yahweh commands him to choose another man as a new king. It is hard to exaggerate how much Samuel seems to expect Yahweh to choose a physically attractive man. Thus, when Samuel sees Eliab for the first time, his appearance and height lead him to believe he will be chosen as king. However, Yahweh warns Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance and his height (1 Sam 16:7).” At first Samuel regards Eliab’s attractive appearance as relevant, as do others at that time. It is not unreasonable to postulate that at least some of Jesse’s seven other sons have physical beauty, but Samuel rejects them. Finally, Samuel chooses David in keeping with Yahweh’s directive. Confusingly, Yahweh seems to have a double standard; Samuel is not to choose on the basis of appearance, yet David is handsome (1 Sam

16:12).

About this discrepancy, Mark George insists that “physical attributes are deemed unimportant or irrelevant by no less an authority than Yhwh himself . . . David does not have the same physical attributes as Saul (David is not “head and shoulders” taller than others).”3 It would be a mistake to argue that the similarity between Saul and David distinguishes them as

(Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986), 29. 3 Mark K. George, “Yhwh’s Own Heart,” CBQ 64 (2002): 448.

173

special, relative to other characters in the narrative.4 Despite their similarly favorable appearance, the narrator clearly wants to show that David is no Saul, who had disobeyed

Yahweh’s commands.

Does the description of David’s outward appearance mean that the narrator shares in the tendency to see others not as Yahweh does, but as other human beings do? In 1 Sam 16:12, the narrator acts as Samuel did when he saw Eliab.5 Thus, the reader is led to feel nervous about

David being physically attractive, because Saul was similarly attractive but did not succeed as king. Noting the problem, Gunn remarks that “the outward appearance is fortuitous (or perhaps a concession to man’s weakness!).”6 Even though the narrator portrays David as “ruddy with beautiful eyes and handsome appearance,” Saul and others do not pay attention to his beauty in the court and the battlefield. Presumably, his outward appearance seems unattractive to the people, but attractive to the narrator and Yahweh.7

Though they are positive, David’s physical traits are not the same as Saul’s. As

McKenzie notes: “David was short. Saul stood ‘head and shoulders’ above everyone in Israel. . . .

David was the youngest or ‘smallest’ (the same word in Hebrew can have both meanings) of the

Sam 16:11), unlike 1 ;ה קָטַָ֔ ן) brothers.”8 On the one hand, if David thought himself the smallest

4 George, “Yhwh’s Own Heart,” 447. 5 About this very moment Walter Brueggemann says: “Samuel and the narrator are dazzled.” See Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, IBC (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 123. 6 David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story, JSOTSup 14 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 78. 7 The LXX addes ‘κυρίῳ (to the Lord)’ in 1 Sam 16:12. 8 Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 64. Fokkelman also argues that “the actual opposition in this story is that of large v. small as a characteristic of David v. Eliab/Saul.” J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural

174

other characters such as Saul, Eliab, and Goliath, there would be good reason for Yahweh’s being with him (1 Sam 16:18). On the other hand, as Avinoam Sharon observes, “the scene actually tells us nothing about David’s size. Instead, it delivers the theological message that God sees differently than humans. We see superficially, whereas God sees our true nature.”9 His beauty seems not to have made him the envy of others; what seems worthy of mention is rather his smallness (1 Sam 15:17; 16:11; 17:14; cf. 1 Kgs 3:7). Thus, it would seem that, according to

Yahweh, the most important qualification for being Israel’s ruler is smallness rather than physical beauty.

קָטָ ן/קָטֹן ’Table 34. The Kings

קָטָ ן/קָטֹן Who’s קָטָ ן/קָטֹן Text Speaker → listener Saul הֲלַֹ֗וא אם־קָטִֹּ֤ ן א תָה֙ בְ עֵינֶַ֔ יך Sam 15:17 Samuel → Saul 1 David ע֚ ֹוד ׁשָא֣ר ה קָטַָ֔ ן Sam 16:11 Jesse → Samuel 1 David וְדָו ֵ֖ד ה֣ ּוא ה קָטָ֑ן Sam 17:14 the narrator → the narratee 1 Solomon וְאַָֽנֹכי֙ נ ֣ער קָטַֹ֔ ן Kgs 3:7 Solomon → Yahweh 1

Yahweh seems to focus on David’s being “small,” not his beauty, as a criterion for kingship. The narrator informs us of David’s physical beauty, but Yahweh has no interest in this. Yahweh, “who of course does not see as a mortal sees, seizes the moment,”10 and just declares without

Sam 16:12).” Strikingly, Goliath mentions David’s being 1 ;זֵֶ֥ה הַֽ ּוא) hesitation that “this is he

Analysis: Volume II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-21 & II Sam.1), SSN 23 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), 131. About Saul’s tallness, Rabbi Howard Cooper insists that “his fate is bound up with his height.” Rabbi Howard Cooper, “‘Too Tall by Half’: King Saul and Tragedy in the Hebrew Bible,” JPJ 9 (1997): 6. 9 Avinoam Sharon, “Height Theology: The Theological Use of Lexical Ambiguity in the David and Goliath Story,” JBQ 45 (2017): 249. 10 David J. A. Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 205 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 222.

175

ruddy and handsome as grounds for his disdain for him as a warrior (1 Sam 17:42).11 This disdain opens new prospects in the DN’s use of outward appearance. Although David’s physical

(and maybe inner) beauty is ignored and despised by others, Yahweh sees his beauty in a different way. David’s beauty will establish a new standard for the Israelites and also the reader.

Regrettably, the Israelites (including Samuel) are not prepared to allow a normal-looking or even an ugly leader for the Israelites from the starting point of the DN.12

2. Absalom, the Unblemished

It is tempting to speculate about the fact that the narrator does not describe Absalom’s outward appearance in his first entrance (Sam 13:1). It goes without saying that he was handsome, in light of the great beauty in David’s family members, but the reader realizes for the first time that

Absalom was handsome without blemish in 2 Sam 14:25-26. Stuart Macwilliam demonstrates that “David’s beauty is something of a family trademark, and it is noticeable that Absalom is surrounded by beauty–not only his father, but also his sister, his daughter as well as he himself.”13 As on previous occasions in the DN, the new beautiful character named Absalom14 with another beautiful character Tamar (2 Sam 14:27) signals a more severe incident that will

11 We can consider two other tall characters, Saul and Eliab. Sharon (“Height Theology,” 249) insists that “when God refers to Eliab’s height, the comparison is not to David, but to Saul. Like Saul, Eliab is tall, and so Samuel is drawn to him as a natural leader.” 12 About the ugly, Clines (Interested Parties, 222) elucidates that “ordinarily one would expect a high-ranking ‘servant of Yahweh’ to be beautiful in form and face” in relation to Isa 53:2. 13 Stuart Macwilliam, “Ideologies of Male Beauty and the Hebrew Bible,” BibInt 17 (2009): 283. 14 Macwilliam (“Ideologies of Male Beauty,” 279) insists that Absalom’s beauty “is described in details without parallel in the Hebrew Bible.”

176

happen in this story.

2.1. Another David or Another King

As Morrison notes, the narrator tends to portray the outward appearance of major characters in more detail than other characters.15 Furthermore, Absalom’s physical attractiveness is better than

Saul’s and David’s. If the reader only considers the detailed description of his physical beauty, he looks like a strong candidate for his father’s throne. It is needless to say that “Absalom’s beautiful appearance, luxuriant hair, and ability to father children (especially sons) indicate his eligibility for kingship.”16 As David was handsome, Absalom is attractive without blemish. In addition, his daughter Tamar puts him on par with his own father, whose daughter was her namesake.

Table 35. The Similarities between David’s and Absalom’s Daughters

Tamar 1 in 2 Sam 13:1 Tamar 2 in 2 Sam 14:27 Whose daughter David Absalom Outward appearance beautiful beautiful Status She was only mentioned She was the only among David’s other daughter of Absalom. daughters.

Moreover, he had wise helpers to solve his problems, whether he intended it or not. Wise

Jonadab made him as the leading candidate for the next king by removing Amnon. The wise

15 Craig Morrison asserts that “it seems the narrator wants us to entertain the possibility of Absalom’s succession to David’s throne.” Craig E. Morrison, 2 Samuel, BO (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013), 192. 16 Randy L. McCracken, “How Many Sons Did Absalom Have?: Intentional Ambiguity as Literary Art,” BSac 172 (2015): 294.

177

woman of Tekoa made him return to Jerusalem. As David was with wise Abigail, Absalom was surrounded by the wise counsellors. As David gained political power through wise Abigail without shedding blood, the wise people with Absalom legitimized killing Amnon and returning to Jerusalem from a long period of hiding in another country.17

Of special interest is the fact that the narrator first depicts Absalom as another David, and as the most suitable candidate for the throne, and then suddenly portrays him as another illegal king who should not exist. He started acting like the king after meeting his father in the court. Samuel warned of the dark side of the monarchy (1 Sam 8:11), and Absalom showed his restored political power in this way (Absalom prepared a chariot, horses, and fifty men to run before him; 2 Sam 15:1). Additionally, he imitated the king’s actions according to what he saw in the court, as follows:18

2 Sam 15:2-5 2 Sam 14:33 ו י ְק ָ ִּ֤רא אֶל־א בְׁשָ לֹום֙ (vs. 2) ו י ְק ָ֙רא א ְב ָׁש ִּ֤לֹום ֵא ָלי ֙ו ו יָבֹ֣ א אֶל־ה מֶַ֔ לְֶך (vs. 4) וְעָל ַ֗ י יָבֵ֥ ֹוא ו יׁשְ ת ֙חּו ִ֧לֹו (vs. 5) לְה ׁשְ תחֲֹוֵ֖ ת ֑לֹו ו י ש ֵ֥ ק ה ֶ ֵ֖מ ֶלְך ְל א ְב ָׁש ַֽלֹום׃ (vs. 5) וְנֵָ֥ ׁשק ַֽלֹו׃

Although he revenged Tamar’s rape by killing Amnon because of David’s irresponsibility as her

17 Carole Fontaine insists that “clear wisdom motifs are noticeable, such as the importance of counsel (2 Sam. 13; 15; 16-17; 1 Kgs 1.12), the high estimation of the societal roles of wise men and women (2 Sam. 14; 15; 20; 16.23), and the occasionally ambiguous nature, from an ‘ethical’ point of view, of the designation of a person as a possessor of wisdom (2 Sam 13; 15.32-37; 1 Kgs 1.12; 2.6).” Carole R. Fontaine, “The Bearing of Wisdom on the Shape of 2 Samuel 11-12 and 1 Kings 3,” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, ed. Athalya Brenner, FCB 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 144. 18 Meir Malul, “Absalom’s Chariot and Fifty Runners (II Sam 15,1) and Hittite Laws § 198: Legal Proceedings in the Ancient Near East,” ZAW 122 (2010): 49.

178

father,19 this resulted in “his usurpation of his father’s role.”20 Nevertheless, he seemed to acknowledge his father’s authority, in that he fled to another country (2 Sam 13:34, 37). Besides, he went in to David’s ten concubines when ascending his father’s throne.21 As David walked on

Sam 11:2), his servants pitched the tent on the 2 ; ו י ְת ה ֵל ְ֙ך על־ ֣גג ֵבית־ ה ֶַ֔מ ֶלְך) a roof of the king’s house

,Sam 16:22). According to Danna Nolan Fewell 2 ; ְל א ְב ָׁש ֶ֛לֹום ָה ֵ֖ ֹא ֶהל על־ ה ָ ֑גג ו יטִ֧ ּו) roof for Absalom

“the definite article in the Hebrew text indicates premeditation.”22 Therefore, the definite article in this case evokes the roof that previously David walked on. At the same time, it means that with his followers’ assistance, Absalom was thoroughly prepared to have sexual intercourse with the concubines.23

Absalom was too much like David. He outdid his father in using cunning to take political power. After meeting with David in the court (2 Sam 14:33), he decided to become the king of Israel instead of his father, who was weak and undecided about the problem. Absalom was escorted by guards, like a strong king (2 Sam 15:1).24 He also acted as a judge25 with a

19 David Daube, “Absalom and the Ideal King,” VT 48 (1998): 319. 20 David M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation, JSOTSup 6 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), 90. 21 Gunn (The Story of King David, 90) insists that Absalom usurped his father’s sexual role in this case. 22 Danna Nolan Fewell, “Judges,” in Women’s Bible Commentary: Expended Edition with Apocrypha, eds. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 81. 23 J. Cheryl Exum also elucidates that the roof in 2 Sam 16:22 functions “as a reminder that this is where David’s crime began.” J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)versions of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993), 176. 24 David (even Saul) had never appeared to the public like this figure. 25 Fokkelman insists that “David was an ideal judge . . . and his judgement delivered to the widow also went in favour of none other than Absalom himself.” J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses: Volume I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2), (in 2 Sam 15:4 (mî with imperfect מ י־יְש מֵֵ֥ני SSN 20 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993), 168. In addition, Absalom’s word literally means an “unfulfilled” wish. See GKC, §151.a.1; WHS, 122.

179

tender and chivalrous heart for the Israelites, to steal their hearts and to take his father’s political power (2 Sam 15:2-6),26 because king David was not doing enough to perform his duty as a

I would bring“) וְה צְד קְת ַֽ יו judge in his thinking.27 In spite of that, the very last words of Absalom

is on David’s side, as Zadok (צֶדֶ ק) him [everyone] justice”) in 2 Sam 15:4 reveal that justice

is always with David28 and portrays him negatively.29 As Conroy observes, “Absalom (צָדֹוק) wanted to be set up as špṭ bʼrṣ (15,4) instead of David, but it is the Lord who has the last word and acts as špṭ in favour of David.”30

David’s counselor Ahithophel also made him superior to David. Absalom’s father secretly committed adultery with another man’s wife, but taking Ahithophel’s first advice,

Absalom openly raped his father’s concubines (2 Sam 16:22). It is not difficult to conceive of

Absalom’s intercourse with his father’s concubines as the fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy in 2

but we can assume that there were plenty of other fish ,( כוְׁשָ ב֙ עם־נָׁשֶַ֔ יך לְעֵינֵֵ֖י ה שֵֶ֥מֶׁש ה זַֹֽ את) Sam 12:11 in the narrative sea to fulfill Nathan’s prophecy. If Absalom had not done so against his father,

Yahweh would have fulfilled His plan in a different way. Unfortunately, Absalom decided to

26 Stephen Russell asserts that “the narrative understands this Israelite collective as being composed of its tribes and its towns, and acknowledges the tension between the distributed power of Israel’s tribes and towns and the centralized power wielded by the reigning king.” Stephen C. Russell, “Gate and Town in 2 Sam 15:1: Collective Politics and Absalom’s Strategy,” JAH 3 (2015): 15. 27 P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel, AB 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 356. In the parable of Nathan and the petition of the wise woman of Tekoa, David looked like the just judge. However, his judgements (1. He shall repay the lamb fourfold [2 Sam 12:6]; 2. Bring back the boy Absalom! [2 Sam 14:21]) lead to his four sons’ deaths and Absalom’s rebellion. So Absalom seemed to want to be a fair judge, unlike his father. About the relationship between fourfold reimbursement and the four sons’ deaths (the dead child in 2 Sam 12:18, Amnon, Absalom, and Adonijah), see Keith Bodner, The Rebellion of Absalom (London: Routledge, 2014), 31. 28 Francis Landy, “David and Ittai,” in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, eds. Tod Linafelt, et al., ex (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 35. 29 Robert Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three 2 Samuel, ISBL 850 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 151. 30 Charles Conroy, Absalom Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20, AnBib 81 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978), 68.

180

wade in deeper to become the active achiever of the prophecy intentionally.

Table 36. The Similarities between David and Absalom

David Absalom Outward He was ruddy with beautiful He was very beautiful and appearance eyes and a beautiful unblemished (2 Sam 14:25). appearance, but small (1 Sam 16:11-12). Escape from the hand of king Saul from the hand of king David Rape another man’s wife his father’s concubines Popularity The women of all the cities of He stole the hearts of the Israel sang for him (1 Sam men of Israel (2 Sam 15:6, 18:6-7). 12-13). Yahweh Yahweh was with him (1 Sam Yahweh wanted to bring evil 16:18; 17:37;18:12, 14, 28; 2 to him (2 Sam 17:14).31 Sam 5:10; 7:3, 9; 14:17; 1 Kgs 3:6).

2.2. The Imperfect Thief

Although Absalom acted as a good facilitator of Nathan’s oracle, Yahweh decided to frustrate the

advice of Ahithophel in order that He might bring evil on Absalom (2 Sam (ה טֹובַָ֔ ה) beautiful

17:14). Absalom perfectly stole the hearts of the men of Israel (2 Sam 15:6, 12-13), but he could not purloin Yahweh’s mind. It would be fair to say that Yahweh did not stand on his side because

“he is motivated to act erroneously by his own bad nature–his ambitiousness, his narcissism, and similar traits–when he rebels against his father.”32 Several wise people were related to

31 David prayed to Yahweh, “make foolish the advice of Ahithophel (2 Sam 15:31).” But Yahweh answered his prayer in a different way. His prayer reveals that he still believed in Yahweh in this terrible situation. See Michael A. Eschelbach, Has Joab Foiled David?: A Literary Study of the Importance of Joab’s Character in Relation to David, StBibLit 76 (New York: Peter Lang, 2005), 48. 32 Michael Avioz, “Divine Intervention and Human Error in the Absalom Narrative,” JSOT 37 (2013): 347.

181

vicissitudes in the life of Absalom. However, his unblemished appearance and Yahweh’s plan made him follow not the beautiful counsel of Ahithophel, but the wrong advice of Hushai.

Table 37. The Relationship between Absalom and the Wise Characters

Wise character Advice Result Jonadab Jonadab gave advice to Amnon He made Absalom a strong to cure his lovesickness (2 Sam candidate for the next king. 13:5). The wise woman of The woman hoped David would David allowed Absalom to Tekoa help her in her trouble (2 Sam return to Jerusalem. 14:4-17). The description of Absalom’s and his daughter Tamar’s outward appearance (2 Sam 14:25-27) Ahithophel He advised Absalom to rape the Absalom’s political power father’s concubines (2 Sam increased, but Yahweh hated him 16:21). because of his own wrongdoings.33 He advised a surprise attack to Absalom and his followers did kill king David (2 Sam 17:1-2). not follow Ahithophel’s counsel. This led to the death of Absalom and Ahithophel. The wise woman of The woman did not want to She saved the city (the mother in Abel Beth-maacah34 destroy a city and a mother in Israel) from the hand of Joab. Israel (2 Sam 20:16-19).

33 Avioz (“Divine Intervention,” 347) elucidates that “Nathan’s oracle will be fulfilled according to the divine plan, but this does not contradict divine retribution punishing Absalom as responsible for his own errors.” Richard Smith also argues that Absalom was “portrayed as taking full responsibility for his action.” Richard G. Smith, The Fate of Justice and Righteousness during David’s Reign: Narrative Ethics and Rereading the Court History according to 2 Samuel 8:15-20:26, LHBOTS 508 (New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 156. 34 The city’s name is associated with Absalom’s mother Maacah (2 Sam 3:3) or his daughter Maacah/Tamar (1 Kgs 15:10). It literally means “the mourning of the house of Maacah.” See Larry L. Lyke, King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative, JSOTSup 255 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 190. Therefore, the city’s name reminds the reader of Absalom’s death. In addition, the wise woman of Abel Beth-maacah saved Absalom’s family symbolically. Even though Joab killed Absalom without hesitation, the wise woman prevented him from demolishing the city with her wisdom. Eschelbach (Has Joab Foiled David, 61) urges that “Joab . . . shows wisdom in his strategy in war and in his willingness to accept . . . the wise woman of Beth Maacah.” See also Matthew Schwartz and Kalman Kaplan, The Fruit of Her Hands: A Psychology of Biblical Woman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 60.

182

The narrator seems to emphasize that Absalom stood at the center of the political stage, surrounded by the wise, without the aid of his attractive physical appearance in the first part of the story. In the next step, the reader realizes that Absalom was so beautiful that there was no blemish in his whole body. It is not hard to guess that his outward appearance exerted a favorable influence upon the Israelites to gain political power, but his physical attractiveness signals that his path to becoming the king of Israel will not be easy. Although he had extraordinary handsomeness and tremendous popularity with the public, these things could not make him the king of Israel spontaneously. Without wisdom and the right choice (Ahithophel or Hushai;

Yahweh or the people), his physical beauty led him and his followers to destruction.

Furthermore, the story effectively shows that the rebellion decreased David’s political power and splintered his family.

3. Adonijah, a Self-Styled King

Adonijah is the last beautiful character in the DN. As we have discussed in the preceding chapter,

Adonijah was a strong candidate for the throne after Absalom died. If he had become the next king of Israel, we would not be surprised. However, this handsome son did not become the king, but was killed by another candidate for the throne. Not surprisingly, it is to be expected that he would experience a fate similar to another handsome character in the DN, because he looks like another Absalom in the story.35

35 For their similarities, see Table 38.

183

As Tomoo Ishida argues, “Judging from the political situation at that time, he had no reason to be in a hurry to seize the throne by force. He was expected by the people to succeed

David, and David’s remaining days were numbered.”36 He had the full qualifications of outward appearance and personal precedence for succession to the throne. Consumed with ambition for the kingship, however, he seems to throw himself into hasty actions37 with abandon and without a careful analysis of the situation at that time. Ironically, the suitability of his outward appearance for the throne reveals that he himself was not suitable for the capacity.

3.1. Very Handsome Adonijah

The path of Absalom’s life closely parallels Adonijah’s. The flow of each story is very similar, as

in 1 Kgs 1:6 functions as an important גם seen in the table below. I assert that the Hebrew word link between these two stories about two handsome characters, because their beauty makes them

36 Tomoo Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith and His Supporters: An Inquiry into Problems about History and Historiography,” in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures, eds. Richard Elliott Friedman and H.G. M. Williamson (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 172. 37 On Adonijah’s imprudentness, see Erin E. Fleming’s explanation, as follows:

Adonijah is presented as not overly calculating in his politics and is no match for the shrewd Solomon. In 1 Kings 1 he fails to secure David’s public support for his succession or to deal with the Solomonic faction in time. His followers flee as soon as David announces that Solomon will be king after him, and Adonijah begs for mercy rather than fleeing and attempting to regroup. Likewise, in 1 Kings 2:13-25, he most likely does not attribute any ulterior motives to Solomon. Possibly Adonijah assumes that he has made a fair request since he has made peace with his brother the king. Since David did not have intercourse with Abishag (1 Kgs 1:4), Adonijah must think it is within his rights and not inappropriate to ask for her in marriage, but he pays the price for his misjudgment.

Erin E. Fleming, “The Politics of Sexuality in the Story of King David” (PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2013), 211-12.

184

leading candidates for the throne and indicates their fate in each story. The narrator makes the readers feel as if they can imagine the previous kings (Saul and David) and also Adonijah’s older brother Absalom.38 We know that the previous kings and Absalom were handsome. So it is obvious that the narrator intends the reader to think of Adonijah as one of the suitable successors to the throne. At the same time, the narrator prefigures that he will go the way of Absalom.

Table 38. The Similarities between Adonijah and Absalom

Common factor Absalom Adonijah The eldest after Amnon’s death after Absalom’s death (1 Kgs 1:6) וְאֹתֵ֥ ֹויָלְדֵָ֖ה א חֲרֵֵ֥ י א ְב ָׁש ַֽלֹום׃ surviving son of David Somebody had 2 Sam 14:25 1 Kgs 1:6 וְ ַֽלֹא־ ֲע ָצ ֙בֹו אָב ִּ֤ יו מ יָמָיו֙ רלֵאמַֹ֔ מ דֵ֖ ּוע כָ֣כָה עָש֑יתָ לֹא־הָיִָ֧ה א יׁש־יָפֶֶ֛ה בְ כָל־י שְרָאֵֵ֖ל לְהלֵ֣ל מְ אֹ֑ ד spoiled them Outward 2 Sam 14:25 1 Kgs 1:6 וְ גם־הִּ֤ ּוא טַֽ ֹוב א־תֹֹּ֙ ר֙ מְ אַֹ֔ ד א יׁש־יָפֶֶ֛ה בְ כָל־י שְרָאֵֵ֖ל לְהלֵ֣ל מְ אֹ֑ ד appearance Rebellion Preparation 2 Sam 15:1 1 Kgs 1:5 ו י ֣עש לַֹ֗ו רֶ֚ כֶב ּופָ֣רָׁש ַ֔ ים ו חֲמ ש ֵ֥ אים ֵ֖יׁש רָצֵ֥ים לְפָנַָֽיו׃ וי ִּ֤ע ש לֹו֙ א בְׁשָלַ֔ ֹום מֶרְ כָבֵָ֖ה וְס ס ֑ ים ו חֲמ ש ֵ֥ ים א ֵ֖יׁש רָצֵ֥ים לְפָנַָֽיו׃ Counselor 2 Sam 15:31 1 Kgs 1:739 ו י ְה ֣יּו ְד ָב ַָ֔ריו ֚ עם יֹו ָ ֣אב ֶבן־ ְצרּו ַָ֔יה ְו ֵ֖עם ֶא ְב ָי ָ ֣תר ה ֹכ ֵ֑הן ֲא חי ֵ֥ ֹת ֶפל ב ֹק ְׁש ֵ֖רים עם־ א ְב ָׁש ֑לֹום Strategy for 2 Sam 16:22 1 Kgs 2:17 וְי תֶן־לֶ֛י אֶת־אֲב יׁש הֵ֥ג שּונ מֵ֖ ית לְא שַָֽ ה׃ ויָבִֹּ֤א אבְׁשָ לֹום֙ אֶ ל־ּפ ַֽ לגְׁשֵ֣י אָבַ֔ יו לְעֵינֵֵ֖י כָל־ usurping the י שְרָאֵַֽ ל׃ throne Fate of their 2 Sam 17:23 1 Kgs 2:34 ו י ְפ גע־ ֵ֖בֹו ו ְי מ ֵ֑תהּו ו יֵחָנ֑ק ו יָָּ֕מָ ת counselor Their own fate 2 Sam 18:15 1 Kgs 2:25 ו י ְפ גע־ ֵ֖בֹו ו ָי ַֹֽמת ו י ֵ֥כּו ֶאת־ א ְב ָׁש ֵ֖לֹום ו ְי מי ַֽתהּו׃ Other things Fleeing from 2 Sam 13:37 1 Kgs 1:50 ו יַָ֣֖קָם ו יֵַ֔ לְֶך ו ַַֽ֖י חֲזֵֵ֖ק בְ ק רְ נֵֹ֥ות ה מ זְבֵַֽח׃ ְו א ְב ָׁש ֣לֹום ָב ַ֔רח ו יֵֶ֛לְֶך אֶ ל־ת לְמ ֵ֥י the king

38 Ishida, “Adonijah the Son of Haggith,” 173. 39 Ahithophel was with Absalom, but Adonijah’s words were with Joab and Abiathar. It seems to show that Adonijah had always had his own ideas about things. Although wisdom is found in people who take advice, Adonijah was not that kind of person.

185

The king’s 2 Sam 14:24 1 Kgs 1:53 ו ַֽיֹא ֶמר־ ֵ֥לֹו ְׁשֹל ֵֹ֖מה ֵֵ֥לְך ְל בֵיתֶַֽ ך׃ ו יִֹּ֤אמֶרה מֶ֙לְֶך֙ יסֹ֣ ב אֶ ל־בֵיתַ֔ ֹו order

In addition, the DN’s descriptive pattern for beautiful people heightens the tension in the

can be used interchangeably to describe טֹוב and יָפֶה story. Even though the Hebrew words characters’ appearances in the narrative,40 we do not know why the narrator chooses which word to portray each beautiful character. Interestingly, the narrator picks both words up to describe

David’s physical attractiveness. Furthermore, only three characters (David, Bathsheba and

as in the case of king Saul outside the DN. When the reader ,טֹוב Adonijah) are portrayed with meets another beautiful character at the end of the DN, he or she easily foresees that the beautiful character will fall into a terrible situation because of the previous stories about beauty in the DN.

Figure 11. Two Beautiful Groups in the DN

40 Yael Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 545 (New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 169.

186

He could be king because of the :טֹוב The reader feels tension when hearing that Adonijah is

in the previous cases of two kings, or not as in the case of Absalom. The narrator adds טֹוב word

Literally, he .טֹוב that Adonijah looks like the son of David and Bathsheba, because of the word

points to a גם So the word .טֹוב as David and Bathsheba (and Saul) were ,טֹוב (also) גם is

(טֹוב) relationship among these characters in the DN. Furthermore, Solomon must be handsome genetically, but the narrator does not mention his outward appearance, instead emphasizing his wisdom.41 This seems to mean that Adonijah is fit to be the king of Israel, in that people can only see others’ outward appearance, but physical beauty is not enough to be the king of Israel.

As we experienced in the case of David in 1 Sam 16, Yahweh sees the candidates’ minds.

Adonijah is conceited (1 Kgs 1:5), but Solomon hides his candle under a bushel (1 Kgs 3:7).

like king David and king Saul, but the king hands his kingship over physically טֹוב Absalom is

.Solomon טֹוב-to un

3.2. Solomon, the New King

Solomon certainly was not Bathsheba’s second-born son,42 because 1 Chron 3:5 mentions that

“these were the children born to him there (Jerusalem): Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon.

These four were by Bathsheba daughter of Ammiel.”43 Nevertheless, Solomon became the next

41 J. Blenkinsopp asserts that “one motif which is found . . . in the David narratives . . . is the beauty and divine wisdom of the king.” J. Blenkinsopp, “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam XI 2ff) and the Yahwist Corpus,” in Volume du Congrès: Genève: 1965, eds. G. W. Anderson, et al., VTSup 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 50. 42 The first-born was the dead baby without a name (2 Sam 12:28). 43 Solomon was “Bathsheba’s fourth and David’s tenth (!) son.” Eric A. Seibert, Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11, LHBOTS 436 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 114-15. See also 2 Sam 5:14.

187

king of Israel. Intentionally or not, there are two supporters for Bathsheba and baby Solomon in

2 Sam 11-12. One is Joab, who helped David to kill Uriah her husband in the battle field. David married Bathsheba as a result, and she bore Solomon, the next king. If it had not been for Joab,

“she would not have married David but would have been executed for adultery. By killing Uriah,

Joab saves her and David and makes their marriage possible.”44 However, Joab supports

Adonijah in 1 Kgs 1-2 (especially in 1 Kgs 1:7), and ends up dead as the result. Why did he change his mind from Solomon (or Bathsheba) to Adonijah? Garsiel’s explanation that “Joab contrived Uriah's murder out of enmity towards Bathsheba and knows that neither she nor

Solomon will forgive him”45 sounds fairly plausible.

Another explanation is that Nathan “took the initiative by reporting to Bathsheba that

Adonijah had seized the kingship and then proceed[ed] to give her ‘counsel.’”46 Even though he reprimanded David for his adultery, he did not reproach Bathsheba. Nathan seemed to be confident that she was a victim in the adultery.47 So Nathan became Solomon’s advocate from birth onward, in that he named Solomon Jedidiah (2 Sam 12:25). As Isaac Kalimi insists, the fact that the baby Solomon had two names–one from his parents and one from Nathan–indicates “the legal and divinely authorized status of the ‘future king’ who will succeed David rather than his elder half-brother, Adonijah.”48

44 Moshe Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach,” CBQ 55 (1993): 254. 45 Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 254. 46 Gwilym H. Jones, The Nathan Narratives, JSOTSup 80 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 49. 47 Garsiel, “The Story of David and Bathsheba,” 255. 48 Isaac Kalimi, “Reexamining 2 Samuel 10-12: Reduction History versus Compositional Unity,” CBQ 78 (2016): 46.

188

As previously mentioned, Solomon was Bathsheba’s fifth son. However, the narrator portrays him as being born after the dead child in 2 Sam 12:24. Bathsheba’s three sons between the dead son and Solomon disappear in this verse. The narrator seems to use a literary technique to show that Solomon will be the king of Israel. The narrator makes baby Solomon David’s eighth son in 2 Sam 12:24, as king David was Jesse’s eighth son (1 Sam 16:10-12).

Table 39. The Birth Order of Jesse’s and David’s Sons

Jesse’s sons Order David’s son In 2 Sam 12 Sons’ mother Eliab (1 Sam 16:6) First Amnon (2 Sam 3:2; 1 Ahinoam Chron 3:1) Abinadab (1 Sam Second Chileab/ Daniel (2 Abigail: 16:8) Sam 3:3; 1 Chron 3:1) beautiful Shammah (1 Sam Third Absalom (2 Sam 3:3; Maacah 16:9) 1 Chron 3:2) no name (1 Sam Fourth Adonijah (2 Sam 3:4; Haggith 16:10) 1 Chron 3:2) Fifth Shephatiah (2 Sam Abital 3:4; 1 Chron 3:3) Sixth Ithream (2 Sam 3:5; 1 Eglah Chron 3:3) Seventh Shammua/ Shimea (2 The dead- Sam 5:14; 1 Chron son (2 Sam 3:5) 12:15) Bathsheba: David Eighth Shobab (2 Sam 5:14; deleted Solomon beautiful 1 Chron 3:5) (2 Sam 12:24) Ninth Nathan (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chron 3:5) Tenth Solomon (2 Sam 5:14; 1 Chron 3:5)

If so, where is the son of the beautiful and wise Abigail, Chileab? He should be a strong candidate for the next king, in that he is David’s second son and his mother was even beautiful.

189

Although Anderson maintains that “Chileab . . . may have died earlier,”49 there is no information about his death in the narrative. Perhaps his mother’s wisdom saved her son from the power struggle among the siblings.

Unlike active Adonijah, Solomon was “the passive recipient of monarchical favor

(‘made king,’ v 43b; ‘made to ride’ David’s own mount, v 44b; anointed and acclaimed by others; enthroned by God’s action, not by his own, v 48).”50 However, he loved Yahweh actively and walked in the statutes of his father David (1 Kgs 3:3).51 Surely Yahweh saw not his physical appearance but his mind at that time. This is what made him the new king. Furthermore, even though the narrator introduces king David as the standard–“God’s man”–and introduces king

Solomon as the follower of his father,52 they also both followed human ways.53 So the story unveils a tension between Yahweh’s grace and human failure,54 Yahweh’s wisdom and people’s foolishness.55

49 A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, WBC 11 (Waco, TX: Word Books,1989), 172. 50 Burke O. Long, “A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah,” JSOT 19 (1981): 86. 51 About Solomon’s wisdom, Fontaine (“The Bearing of Wisdom,” 153) argues that “the foolish father who walked about on the palace roof is evoked in the introduction of his son in v. 3, ‘Solomon loved the Lord, walking (lāleket) in the statutes of David his father’ (cf. v. 6).” 52 According to Deut 17:14-20, “(1) the king would be one chosen by Yahweh from among the Israelites; there could be no foreign kings; (2) he should not multiply horses, wives, or silver and gold for himself; (3) he should not return the people to Egypt; and (4) he must make a copy of the law for himself and must live by it.” E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries, SemeiaSt 24 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 202. 53 Eschelbach (Has Joab Foiled David, 9) argues that “David is a well-known biblical character, yet his character is elusive.” 54 Noll argues that “David is fully human in his anguished cry for his son, Absalom, fully monster in his written order of execution sent by the hand of Uriah.” K. L. Noll, The Faces of David, JSOTSup 242 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 63. Edwin Good insists that “with Uriah, he had done all he could, short of using his own weapon, to take his life. With injustice, then David succeeded. With mercy, he failed.” Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 37. Therefore, Yahweh’s acknowledgment of David as His man is the result of His grace. 55 Many scholars insist that the narrator portrays Solomon negatively because of his bad doings against Yahweh. On the scholarly arguments, see Paul S. Ash, David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment, JSOTSup 297 (Sheffield:

190

4. Conclusion

These two handsome sons posed a serious threat to David’s kingship. Absalom weakened his father’s political power and Adonijah terminated his father’s reign. Even though they had satisfied all the external requisites to be king, Solomon became the king of Israel at the conclusion of the DN. As David’s weakmindedness promoted Absalom’s rebellion, “David’s infirmity sparks Adonijah, and helps Nathan and Bathsheba succeed.”56 Absalom’s declaration

(“Absalom is king”; 2 Sam 15:10) as well as Adonijah’s (“I will be king”; 1 Kgs 1:5) disclose

David’s powerlessness and weakness politically and physically, but without hesitation Yahweh makes not someone beautiful and strong but someone small and weak the next king of Israel.57

Table 40. Fathers’ and Yahweh’s Concern for the Kings and the Candidates in the DN

His father Yahweh Result David indifference (1 Sam with him Chosen 16:11) Absalom His father longed to no mention Removed go out to him despite his murder (2 Sam 13:39). Adonijah His father had not no mention Removed displeased him (1 Kgs 1:6). Solomon no mention He loved Yahweh (1 Chosen Kgs 3:3). Yahweh also favoured his request (1 Kgs 3:10).

Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 111-12, n. 21-22. 56 Long, “A Darkness Between Brothers,” 86. 57 Thomas Preston elucidates that “this pattern can be called the ‘rise of the lowly, fall of the mighty.’” Thomas R. Preston, “The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship,” JSOT 24 (1982): 28.

191

The facts in the table emphasize that the most important element for being king of Israel was not parental love or people’s praise, but grace in the sight of Yahweh. Nonetheless, there is mounting tension with king Solomon because of his “sinful origin ([2 Sam] chapters 11-12) and . . . his godless rise to power by means of intrigue and political murders (1 Kgs 1-2).”58

58 Petri Kasari, Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel 7 and Related Texts, PFES 97 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2009), 96.

Conclusion

In the DN, as in other Hebrew Bible narratives, many different characters emerge on the narrative stage. The narrator, however, does not describe all the characters equally. Michal Beth

Dinkler argues that “biblical writers strategically include only the most necessary information, and leave certain details ambiguous in order to reflect the paradoxical nature of the human person.”1 When select characters enter a scene in the DN, the narrator introduces their attractive

Given the brevity with which characters .טֹוב or יָפֶה outward appearance with the Hebrew words are typically described, might there be some significance to the narrator’s choice to add such a descriptor?

When one analyzes stories in the DN that mention the characters’ attractive outward appearance, one finds that the narrator seems to be using these physical descriptions as a literary device to string together the various stories related to those characters in the DN.

We come to realize that David’s political power changes every time the beautiful characters appear on the narrative stage. A close relationship between David and the beautiful characters plays an important role in his political power, for example in gaining the kingship of

Israel, gradually reducing his political power, and destabilizing his kingship.

in order to intensify the coherent טֹוב or יָפֶה The narrator chooses these words dynamics of each story related to the beautiful characters in the DN. These words not only

1 Michal Beth Dinkler, Silent Statements: Narrative Representations of Speech and Silence in the Gospel of Luke (BZNW 191; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013), 38. 192

193

function to draw the reader into the narrator’s thematic orbit,2 as they concern beauty, but also to allow the reader to anticipate the narrative flow, which involves the rise and fall of the Davidic kingship and warns of the power of beauty.

Figure 12. The Changes of David’s Political Power with the Beautiful Characters in the DN3

2 In the case of the DN, the stories of the beautiful characters are placed on the thematic orbit. Each story helps to reveal the narrator’s thinking about the beauty. The technical terms lead the reader to enter into the thematic orbit and consider what the narrator means when a character is described as beautiful. So, if the reader is within the thematic orbit, the reader can easily grasp the narrator’s concept about beauty and anticipate how each story and the whole narrative will end in the case of the DN. The narrator mentions several stories for revealing his thinking about beauty in the DN. It is that man looks at the outward appearance, but Yahweh looks at the heart (1 Sam 16:7). In the case of the DN, the thematic center is the narrator’s thinking about beauty. So if, the thematic center is the sun, the thematic orbit is the way the earth revolves around the sun. If the reader enters into the narrator’s thematic orbit, he or she can easily catch the narrator’s intention of the narrative, because each story in the DN is located on the thematic orbit. 3 The figure is modified from Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 47.

194

In addition, each story involving beautiful characters in the DN is well constructed to show how

David gains, maintains, and loses political power in Israel. This study focuses on one particular example of how a narrative technique, namely the use of characters’ outward appearance, reveals the narrator’s fuller intentions to the reader. This study shows that the repetitions in the narrative play an important role in delivering the narrator’s message, as they are one of the crucial keys to interpreting the whole narrative. Additionally, this study has shown how these characters, described in a particular way, affect the whole narrative flow. A single prominent word related to a character trait can perform a significant function in the narrative.

Through this study, I have uncovered the narrator’s intention using easily overlooked factors in the narrative. I have shown how the narrator conveys his message to the reader effectively, efficiently and consistently by using certain words in combination with his theological concept of beauty, as found in 1 Sam 16:7. This study suggests that other repeated descriptions used in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible also merit re-examination.

195

Bibliography

Abasili, Alexander Izuchukwu. “Was It Rape?: The David and Bathsheba Pericope Re -examined.” VT 61 (2011): 1-15.

Abbott, H. Porter. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Ackerman, James S. “Knowing Good and Evil: A Literary Analysis of the Court History in 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2.” JBL 109 (1990): 41-64.

Ackermann, Denise M. “Tamar’s Cry: Rereading an Ancient Text in the Midst of an HIV/AIDS Pandemic.” Pages 191-219 in Character Ethics and the Old Testament. Edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and Jacqueline E. Lapsley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.

Adelman, Rachel E. The Female Ruse: Women’s Deception and Divine Sanction in the Hebrew Bible. HBM 74. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015.

Alter, Robert. Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2013.

______. The Art of Biblical Narrative. Rev. New York: Basic Books, 2011.

Amit, Yairah. In Praise of Editing in the Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays in Retrospect. Translated by Betty Sigler Rozen. HBM 39. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012.

______. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

______. “The Story of Ehud (Judges 3:12-30): The Form and the Message.” Pages 97-123 in Signs and Wonders: Biblical Texts in Literary Focus. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel. WBC 11. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Anderson, Janice Capel. Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again. JSNTSup 91. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

Anthes, Rudolf. “Egyptian Theology in the Third Millennium B.C..” JNES 18 (1959): 169-212.

Arnold, Bill T. 1 & 2 Samuel. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

196

Ash, Paul S. David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment. JSOTSup 297. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Assis, Elie “The Structure and Meaning of the Samson Narratives: Jud. 13-16.” Pages 1-12 in Samson: Hero or Fool?: The Many Faces of Samson. Edited by Erik Eynikel and Tobias Nicklas. TBN 17. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Assmann, Jan. The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Translated by Andrew Jenkins. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Samuel. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011.

Avioz, Michael. “Divine Intervention and Human Error in the Absalom Narrative.” JSOT 37 (2013): 339-47.

______. “The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings.” VT 59 (2009): 341-59.

Avrahami, Yael. The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible. LHBOTS 545. New York: T&T Clark, 2012.

Bach, Alice. “The Pleasure of Her Text.” USQR 43 (1989): 41-58.

Bailey, Randall C. David in Love and War: The Pursuit of Power in 2 Samuel 10-12. JSOTSup 75. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

Baker, Robin. Hallow Men, Strange Women: Riddles, Codes and Otherness in the Book of Judges. BibInt 143. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Bakon, Shimon. “Jonadab, “Friend” of Amnon.” JBQ 43 (2015): 101-5.

Bal, Mieke. Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories. ISBL 434. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

______. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009.

Balentine, Samuel. Job. SHBC. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2006.

Bar, Shaul. God’s First King: The Story of Saul. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2013.

Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.

197

Beck, John A. “David and Goliath, A Story of Place: The Narrative-Geographical Shaping of 1 Samuel 17.” WTJ 68 (2006): 321-30.

Beek, M. A. “David and Absalom: A Hebrew Tragedy in Prose?” Pages 155-68 in Voice from Amsterdam: A Modern Tradition of Reading Biblical Narrative. Translated and Edited by Martin Kessler. SemeiaSt 26. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.

Bellis, Alice Ogden. Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.

Bennema, Cornelis. A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.

Berger, Yitzhak. The Commentary of Rabbi David Kimḥi to Chronicles: A Translation with Introduction and Supercommentary. BJS 345. Providence: Brown University Press, 2007.

Berlin, Adele. “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives.” JSOT 23 (1982): 69-85.

______. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1983.

Berman, Joshua A. Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

______. “Double Meaning in the Parable of the Poor Man’s Ewe (2 Sam 12:1-4).” JHebS 13.14 (2013): 1-17.

Biddle, Mark E. “Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization.” JBL 121 (2002): 617-38.

______. Reading Judges. LTC. Macon: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2012.

Billington, Clyde E. “Goliath and the Exodus Giant: How Tall Were They?” JETS 50 (2007): 489-508.

Blenkinsopp, J. “Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam XI 2ff) and the Yahwist Corpus.” Pages 44-57 in Volume du Congrès: Genève: 1965. Edited by G. W. Anderson, P. A. H. de Boer, G. R. Castellino, Henry Cazelles, E. Hammershaimb, H. G. May, and W. ZImmerli. VTSup 15. Leiden: Brill, 1966.

Bodner, Keith. 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary. HBM 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.

198

______. “Eliab and the Deuteronomist.” JSOT 28 (2003): 55-71.

______. Elisha’s Profile in the Book of Kings: The Double Agent. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

______. The Rebellion of Absalom. London: Routledge, 2014.

Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983.

Borgman, Paul. David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Bosworth, David A. The Story within a Story in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. CBQMS 45. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008.

Bowman, Richard G. “Narrative Criticism: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence.” Pages 19-45 in Judges & Methods: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. 2nd ed. Edited by Gale A. Yee. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.

Brenner, Athalya. The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and ‘Sexuality’ in the Hebrew Bible. BibInt 26. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Bridge, Edward J. “Desperation to a Desperado: Abigail’s Request to David in 1 Samuel 25.” ABR 63 (2015): 14-28.

Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel. IBC. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.

Butler, Trent. Judges. WBC 8. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009.

Campbell, Antony F. 2 Samuel, FOTL 8. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2005.

Carlson, R. A. David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964.

Carman, Amy Smith. “Abigail: The Wise Woman of Carmel.” SCJ 18 (2015): 47-60.

Ceresko, Anthony R. “The Identity of ‘the Blind and the Lame’ (ʽiwwēr ȗpissēaḥ) in 2 Samuel 5:8b.” CBQ 63 (2001): 23-30.

Chankin-Gould, J. D’ror, Derek Huntchinson, David Hilton Jackson, Tyler D. Mayfield, Leah Rediger Schulte, Tammi J. Schneider, and E. Winkelman. “The Sanctified ‘Adulteress’

199

and Her Circumstantial Clause: Bathsheba’s Bath and Self-Consecration in 2 Samuel 11.” JSOT 32 (2008): 339-52.

Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978.

Chinitz, Jacob. “Two Sinners.” JBQ 25 (1997): 108-13.

Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. “Cracks in the Foundation: Ominous Signs in the David Narrative.” BSac 172 (2015): 154-76.

______. “Identity Crisis: Assessing Samson’s Birth and Career.” BS 166 (2009): 147-62.

Clines, David J. A. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Coats, George W. “II Samuel 12:1-7a.” Int 40 (1986): 170-5.

Cogan, Mordechai. I Kings. AB 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB 11. New York: Doubleday, 1988.

Cohan, Steven, and Linda M. Shires. Telling Stories: A Theoretical Analysis of Narrative Fiction. London: Routledge, 1988.

Cohn, Robert L. 2 Kings. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000.

______. “Form and Perspective in 2 Kings V.” VT 33 (1983): 171-84.

Conrad, J. “zāqēn.” TDOT 2: 124-31.

Conroy, Charles. Absalom Absalom!: Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20. AnBib 81. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.

Coogan, Michael David. “Job’s Children.” Pages 135-47 in Lingering over Words. Edited by Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller. HSS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990.

Cooper, Rabbi Howard. “‘Too Tall by Half’: King Saul and Tragedy in the Hebrew Bible,” JPJ 9 (1997): 5-22.

Cordry, Harold V. The Multicultural Dictionary of Proverbs: Over 20,000 Adages from More

200

Than 120 Languages, Nationalities and Ethnic Groups. Jefferson: McFarland, 2005.

Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Creach, Jerome F. D. Yahweh as Refuge and the Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. JSOTSup 217. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Crenshaw, James L. Education in Ancient Israel: Across the Deadening Silence. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Dalley, Stephanie, ed. and trans. Myth from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Daube, David. “Absalom and the Ideal King.” VT 48 (1998): 315-25.

______. “Nathan’s Parable.” NovT 24 (1982): 275-88.

Davidson, Richard M. “Did King David Rape Bathsheba?: A Case Study in Narrative Theology.” JATS 17 (2006): 81-95.

Dekker, John. “Characterization in the Hebrew Bible: Nabal as a Test Case.” BBR 26 (2016): 311-24.

DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. 2nd ed. WBC 12. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003.

De Wet, Chris L. “Susanna’s Body.” BN 168 (2016): 129-45.

Dinkler, Michal Beth. Silent Statements: Narrative Representations of Speech and Silence in the Gospel of Luke. BZNW 91. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.

Dohmen, C. “kābēd.” TDOT 7: 13-7.

Dragga, Sam “In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul.” JSOT 38 (1987): 39-46.

Dutton, Kenneth R. The Perfectible Body: The Western Ideal of Physical Development. London: Cassell, 1995.

Dyrness, William A. “Aesthetics in the Old Testament: Beauty in Context.” JETS 28 (1985): 421

201

-32.

Edelman, Diana Vikander. King Saul in the Historiography of Judah. JSOTSup 121. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

Edenburg, Cynthia. Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19-21. AIL 24. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.

Erll, Astrid. “Narratology and Cultural Memory Studies.” Pages 212-27 in Narratology in the Age of Cross-Disciplinary Narrative Research. Edited by Sandra Heinen and Roy Sommer. Narratologia 20. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.

Eschelbach, Michael A. Has Joab Foiled David?: A Literary Study of the Importance of Joab’s Character in Relation to David. StBibLit 76. New York: Peter Lang, 2005.

Esler, Philip F. “2 Samuel–David and the Ammonite War: A Narrative and Social-Scientific Interpretation of 2 Samuel 10-12.” Pages 191-207 in Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context. Edited by Philip F. Esler. London: SCM Press, 2005.

______. Sex, Wives, and Warriors: Reading Biblical Narrative with Its Ancient Audience. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2011.

Eslinger, Lyle. “‘A Change of Heart’: 1 Samuel 16.” Pages 341-61 in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie. Edited by Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor. JSOTSup 67. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988.

Exum, J. Chery. Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)Versions of Biblical Narratives. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993.

______. Plotted, Shot and Painted: Cultural Representation of Biblical Women. JSOTSup 215. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

______. “The Theological Dimension of the Samson Saga.” VT 33 (1983): 30-45.

______. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Fewell, Danna Nolan. “Judges.” Pages 73-83 in Women’s Bible Commentary: Expended Edition with Apocrypha. Edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998.

Fiorello, Michael D. “The Physically Disabled in Ancient Israel according to the Old Testament

202

and Ancient Near Eastern Sources.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2008.

Firth, David G. 1&2 Samuel. ApOTC 8. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

______. “David and Uriah (with an Occasional Appearance by Uriah’s Wife): Reading and Re-Reading 2 Samuel 11.” OTE 20 (2008): 310-28.

Fischer, Von Alexander. “David und Batseba: Ein Literarkritischer und Motivgeschichtlicher Beitrag zu II Sam 11.” ZAW 101 (1989): 50-59.

Flanagan, James W. “Court History or Succession Document?: A Study of 2 Samuel 9-20 and 1 Kings 1-2.” JBL 91 (1972): 172-81.

Fleming, Erin E. “The Politics of Sexuality in the Story of King David.” PhD diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2013.

Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume I. King David (II Sam. 9-20 & I Kings 1-2). SSN 20. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990.

______. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume II. The Crossing Fates (I Sam. 13-21 & II Sam. 1). SSN 23. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986.

______. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analysis: Volume IV. Vow and Desire (I Sam. 1-12). SSN 31. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993.

______. Reading Biblical Narrative: A Practical Guide. Translated by Ineke Smit. TBS 1. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 1999.

Fontaine, Carole R. “The Bearing of Wisdom on the Shape of 2 Samuel 11-12 and 1 Kings 3.” Pages 143-60 in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

______. “The Sharper Harper (1 Samuel 16:14-23): Iconographic Reflections on David’s Rise to Power.” Pages 135-52 in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon. Edited by Tod Linafelt, Claudia V. Camp, and Timothy Beal. LHBOTS 500. New York: T & T Clark, 2010.

Forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel. London: Edward Arnold & Co., 1927.

203

Frandsen, Paul John. “Aspect of Kingship in Ancient Egypt.” Pages 47-73 in Religion and Power Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Edited by Nicole Brisch. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008.

Frolov, Serge. Judges. FOTL 6B. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Frontain, Raymond-Jean. “The Trickster Tricked: Strategies of Deception and Survival in the David Narrative.” Pages 170-92 in Mappings of the Biblical Terrain: The Bible as Text. Edited by Vincent L. Tollers and John Maier. BuR 33.2. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1990.

Frye, Northrop. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. New York: A Harvest Book, 1983.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories. New York: Schocken Books, 2002.

Fuchs, Esther. Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative: Reading the Hebrew Bible as a Woman. JSOTSup 310. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Galpaz-Feller, Pnina. “David and the Messenger-Different Ends, Similar Means in 2 Samuel 1.” VT 59 (2009): 199-210.

Garsiel, Moshe. The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels. Ramat Gan: Revivim Publishing House, 1985.

______. “The Story of David and Bathsheba: A Different Approach.” CBQ (1993): 244-62.

______. “The Story of David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Samuel 25): A Literary Study of Wordplay on Names, Analogies, and Socially Structured Opposites.” Pages 66-78 in Abigail, Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women. Edited by Daniel Bodi. HBM 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013.

______. “Wit, Words, and a Woman: 1 Samuel 25.” Pages 161-68 in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Yehuda T. Radday and Athalya Brenner. JSOTSup 92. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990.

George, Mark K. “Constructing Identity in 1 Samuel 17.” BibInt 7 (1999): 389-412.

______. “Yhwh’s Own Heart.” CBQ 64 (2002): 442-59.

Goldingay, John. “Eli: The Man for Whom It Was Too Late.” Anvil 16 (1999): 165-72.

204

Good, Edwin M. Irony in the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.

Gordon, Robert P. “David’s Rise and Saul’s Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24-26.” TynBul 31 (1980): 37-64.

Green, Barbara. David’s Capacity for Compassion: A Literary-Hermeneutical Study of 1-2 Samuel. LHBOTS 641. London: Bloomsbury, 2017.

______. “Enacting Imaginatively the Unthinkable: 1 Samuel 25 and the Story of Saul.” BibInt 11 (2003): 1-23.

______. King Saul’s Asking. Interfaces. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2003.

Greimas, A. J. Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method. Translated by Daniele McDowell, Ronald Schleifer, and Alan Velie. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.

Gressmann, Hugo. “The Oldest History Writing in Israel.” Pages 9-58 in Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studied by Hugo Gressmann and Other Scholars 1906-1923. Translated by David E. Orton. Edited by David M. Gunn. JSOTSup 116. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1991.

Guillaume, Philippe. Waiting for Josiah: The Judges. JSOTSup 385. London: T&T Clark International, 2004.

Gunn, David M. “Narrative Criticism.” Pages 201-29 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999.

______. “Samson of Sorrows: An Isaianic Gloss on Judges 13-16.” Pages 225-53 in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Danna Nolan Fewell. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.

______. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. JSOTSup 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.

______. The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation. JSOTSup 6. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978.

Gunn, David M., and Danna Nolan Fewell. Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Grand Rapids:

205

Eerdmans, 2001.

Hamilton, Mark W. “At Whose Table?: Stories of Elites and Social Climbers in 1-2 Samuel.” VT 59 (2009): 513-32.

______. The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel. BibInt 78. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Harvey, John E. “The Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” SJOT 20 (2006): 237-58.

Harvey, W. J. Character and the Novel. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965.

Hausmann, Neuendettelslau J. “p’r.” TDOT 11: 464-67.

Hawkins, Ralph K. “The First Glimpse of Saul and His Subsequent Transformation.” BBR 22 (2012): 353-62.

Hays, J. Daniel. “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him?: Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1-11.” JSOT 28 (2003): 149-74.

______. “Reconsidering the Height of Goliath.” JETS 48 (2005): 701-14.

______. “The Height of Goliath: A Response to Clyde Billington.” JETS 50 (2007): 509-16.

Hens-Piazza, Gina. 1-2 Kings. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.

Herzberg, Bruce. “Samson’s Moment of Truth.” BibInt 18 (2010): 226-50.

Hess, Richard S. “David and Abishag: The Purpose of 1 Kings 1:1-4.” Pages 427-38 in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded. Edited by Gershon Galil, Mark Geller and Alan Millard. VTSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Hill, Andrew E. “A Jonadab Connection in the Absalom Conspiracy?” JETS 30 (1987): 387-90.

Hobbs, T. R. 2 Kings. WBC 13. Waco: Word Books, 1985.

Hobyane, Risimati. “Body and Space in Judith: A Greimassian Perspective.” BN 168 (2016): 3 -15.

206

Hochman, Baruch. Character in Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.

Hubbard, Robert L. Jr. “The Eyes Have It: Theological Reflections on Human Beauty.” EA 13 (1997): 57-72.

Humphreys, W. Lee. “From Tragic Hero to Villain: A Study of the Figure of Saul and the Development of 1 Samuel.” JSOT 22 (1982): 95-117.

______. “The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31.” JSOT 6 (1978): 18-27.

Hunt, Steven A., D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. “An Introduction to Character and Characterization in John and Related New Testament Literature.” Pages 1-33 in Character Studies in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Approaches to Seventy Figures in John. Edited by Steven A. Hunt, D. Francois Tolmie, and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 314. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Irwin, Brian P. “The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2 Kings 2 and the Prophetic Authority of Elisha.” TynBul 67 (2016): 23-35.

Ishida, Tomoo. “Adonijah the Son of Haggith and His Supporters: An Inquiry into Problems about History and Historiography.” Pages 165-87 in The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures. Edited by Richard Elliott Friedman and H. G. M. Williamson. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Janzen, David. “The Condemnation of David’s ‘Taking’ in 2 Samuel 12:1-14.” JBL 131 (2012): 209-20.

______. The Violent Gift: Trauma’s Subversion of the Deuteronomistic History’s Narrative. LHBOTS 561. New York: T & T Clark, 2012.

Janzen, J. Gerald. “Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh: 1 Samuel 3.15.” JSOT 26 (1983): 89-96.

Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.

Jason, Heda. “The Story of David and Goliath: A Folk Epic?” Bib 60 (1979): 36-70.

Jobling, David. 1 Samuel. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998.

______. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible I. 2nd ed. JSOTSup 7. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986.

207

Jones, Gwilym H. The Nathan Narratives. JSOTSup 80. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

Joo, Samantha. “A Fine Balance between Hope and Despair: The Epilogue to 2 Kings (25:27 -30).” BibInt 20 (2012): 226-43.

Kalimi, Isaac. “Reexamining 2 Samuel 10-12: Reduction History versus Compositional Unity.” CBQ 78 (2016): 24-46.

______. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Kaminski, Carol M. Was Noah Good?: Finding Favour in the Flood Narrative. LHBOTS 563. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Kasari, Petri. Nathan’s Promise in 2 Samuel 7 and Related Texts. PFES 97. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2009.

Keel, Othmar. The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

Kent, Gernville J. R. Say It Again Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1 Samuel 28. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Keys, Gillian. The Wages of Sin: A Reappraisal of the ‘Succession Narrative.’ JSOTSup 221. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Kim, Jean Kyoung. “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story (2 Kings 5).” JSOT 30 (2005): 49 -61.

Kim, Y. Uriah. Identity and Loyalty in the David Story: A Postcolonial Reading. HBM 22. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008.

______. “Uriah the Hittite: A (Con)Text of Struggle for Identity.” Semeia 90-91 (2002): 69-85.

Kissling, Paul J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Klein, Lillian R. “Bathsheba Revealed.” Pages 47-64 in Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCBS 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

______. The Triumph of Irony in the Book of Judges. JSOTSup 68. Sheffield: Almond Press,

208

1988.

Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC 10. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

______. 2 Chronicles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

Koenig, Sara M. Isn’t This Bathsheba?: A Study in Characterization. PTMS 177. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Konkel, August H. 1 & 2 Kings. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1 - 59. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Kronholm, Madla T. “nāʽam.” TDOT 9: 467-74.

Kruschwitz, Jonathan A. “2 Samuel 12:1-15: How (Not) to Read a Parable.” RevExp 109 (2012): 253-59.

Kurz, William S. “Narrative Models for Imitation in Luke-Acts.” Pages 171-89 in Greek, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Landy, Francis. “David and Ittai.” Pages 19-37 in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon. Edited by Tod Linafelt, Claudia V. Camp, and Timothy Beal. LHBOTS 500. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.

Lasine, Stuart. “Judicial Narratives and the Ethics of Reading: The Reader as Judge of the Dispute between Mephibosheth and Ziba.” HS 30 (1989): 49-69.

Leithart, Peter J. “Nabal and His Wine.” JBL 120 (2001): 525-27.

Lemaire, André. “The Residency of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25 and the Connection between David and Abraham.” Pages 7-11 in Abigail, Wife of David, and Other Ancient Oriental Women. Edited by Daniel Bodi. HBM 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013.

Lemardelé, Christophe. “Note Concerning the Problem of Samson the Nazirite in the Biblical Studies.” SJOT 30 (2016): 65-68.

Leshem, Yossi. “‘She Painted Her Eyes with Kohl and Dressed Her Hair’: 2 Kings 9:30.” .י-א :(HUCA 76 (2005

Levenson, Jon D. “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History.” CBQ 40 (1978): 11-28.

209

______. “The Last Four Verses in Kings.” JBL 103 (1984): 353-61.

Levenson, Jon D., and Baruch Halpern. “The Political Import of David’s Marriages.” JBL 99 (1980): 507-18.

Linafelt, Tod. “Taking Women in Samuel: Readers/Responses/Responsibility.” Pages 99-113 in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Danna Nolan Fewell. LCBI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992.

Long, Burke O. 2 Kings. FOTL 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

______. “A Darkness between Brothers: Solomon and Adonijah.” JSOT 19 (1981): 79-94.

Longman III, Tremper. The Book of Ecclesiastes. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Lurker, Manfred. The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary. Translated by Barbara Cummings. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1980.

Lyke, Larry L. King David with the Wise Woman of Tekoa: The Resonance of Tradition in Parabolic Narrative. JSOTSup 255. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Macwilliam, Stuart. “Ideologies of Male Beauty and the Hebrew Bible.” BibInt 17 (2009): 265 -87.

Madl, Graz H. “ṣeḇî.” TDOT 12: 232-38.

Maier, Christl, and Silvia Schroer. “Job: Questioning the Book of the Righteous Sufferer.” Pages 221-39 in Feminist Biblical Interpretation: A Compendium of Critical Commentary on the Books of the Bible and Related Literature. Edited by Luise Schottroff and Marie -Theres Wacker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Malul, Meir. “Absalom’s Chariot and Fifty Runners (II Sam 15,1) and Hittite Laws § 198: Legal Proceedings in the Ancient Near East.” ZAW 122 (2010): 44-52.

Marguerat, Daniel, and Yvan Bourquin. How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative Criticism. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press, 1999.

Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. OtSt 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Matthews, Victor H. “Freedom and Entrapment in the Samson Narrative: A Literary Analysis.” PRSt 16 (1989): 245-57.

210

McBride, S. Dean Jr. “The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4-5.” Int 27 (1973): 273-306.

McCann, J. Clinton. Judges. IBC. Louisville: John Knox, 2002.

McCarter, P. Kyle Jr. I Samuel, AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980.

______. II Samuel. AB 9. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

McCracken, Randy L. “How Many Sons Did Absalom Have?: Intentional Ambiguity as Literary Art.” BSac 172 (2015): 286-98.

McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Menn, Esther M. “Child Characters in Biblical Narratives: The Young David (1 Samuel 16-17) and the Little Israelite Servant Girl (2 Kings 5:1-19).” Pages 324-52 in The Child in the Bible. Edited by Marcia J. Bunge, Terence E. Fretheim, and Beverly Roberts Gaventa. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Mercer, Mark. “Elisha’s Unbearable Curse: A Study of 2 Kings 2:23-25.” AJET 21 (2002): 165 -98.

Merritt, Marilyn. “Repetition in Situated Discourse: Exploring Its Forms and Functions.” Pages 23-36 in Repetition in Discourse Interdisciplinary Perspectives: Volume One. Edited by Barbara Johnstone. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1994.

Miscall, Peter D. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. ISBL 365. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

______. The Workings of Old Testament Narrative. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Moore, Stephen D. “Biblical Narrative Analysis from the New Criticism to the New Narratology.” Pages 27-50 in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative. Edited by Danna Nolan Fewell. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Morrison, Craig E. 2 Samuel. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2013.

Mulder, Martin Jan. “Versuch zur Deutung von Sokènèt in 1. Kön. I 2, 4.” VT 22 (1972): 43-54.

Mullen, E. Theodore Jr. Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries. SemeiaSt 24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.

211

Mulzac, Ken. “The Role of Abigail in 1 Samuel 25.” AUSS 40 (2003): 45-53.

Nelson, Richard D. “The Deuteronomistic Historian in Samuel: ‘The Man behind the Green Curtain.’” Pages 17-37 in Is Samuel among the Deuteronomist?: Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History.” Edited by Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala. AIL 16. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Nemet-Nejat, Karen. “The Epic of Gilgamesh.” Pages 175-94 in Women in the Ancient Near East: A Sourcebook. Edited by Mark W. Chavalas. London: Routledge, 2014,

Nicol, George G. “David, Abigail and Bathsheba, Nabal and Uriah: Transformations within a Triangle.” SJOT 12 (1998): 130-45.

______. “The Alleged Rape of Bathsheba: Some Observations on Ambiguity in Biblical Narrative.” JSOT 73 (1997): 43-54.

Niditch, Susan. Judges. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

______. “Samson as Culture Hero, Trickster, and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak.” CBQ 52 (1990): 608-24.

Noble, John T. “Another Demand for a King: Women in the Narrative of David’s Rise.” Pages 181-98 in In the Wake of Tikva Frymer-Kensky. Edited by Steven Holloway, JoAnn Scurlock, and Richard Beal. GPP 4. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009.

Noll, K. L. The Faces of David. JSOTSup 242. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Nolte, S. Philip. “A Politics of the Female Body: Reading Susanna (LXX Additions to Daniel) in a Brutalized South African Society.” BN 168 (2016): 147-61.

Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.

O’Brien, D. P. “‘Is This the Time to Accept …?’ (2 Kings V 26b): Simply Moralizing (LXX) or an Ominous Foreboding of Yahweh’s Rejection of Israel (MT)?” VT 46 (1996): 448-57.

Olyan, Saul M. Disability in the Hebrew Bible: Interpreting Mental and Physical Differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Pakkala, Juha. “Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession.” JBL 125 (2006): 443-52.

Pardes, Ilana. “Jemimah.” Pages 99-100 in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the

212

New Testament. Edited by Carol Meyers, Toni Craven, and Ross S. Kraemer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Park, Suzie. “Left-Handed Benjaminites and the Shadow of Saul.” JBL 134 (2015): 701-20.

Parunak, H. Van Dyke. “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure.” Bib 62 (1981): 153 -68.

Peckham, Brian. “Punctuation Is the Point.” Pages 10-29 in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis. Edited by Mark A. O’Brien and Howard N. Wallace. JSOTSup 415. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

______. The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 35. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985.

Penchansky, David “Beauty, Power, and Attraction: Aesthetics and the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 47- 65 in Beauty and the Bible: Toward a Hermeneutics of Biblical Aesthetics. Edited by Richard J. Bautch and Jean-François Racine. SemeiaSt 73. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Phelan, James. Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1996.

Pigott, Susan M. “Wives, Witches and Wise Women: Prophetic Heralds of Kingship in 1 and 2 Samuel.” RevExp 99 (2002): 145-73.

Polak, Frank. “Literary Study and ‘Higher Criticism’ According to the Tale of David’s Beginning.” Pages 27-32 in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Division A: The Period of The Bible. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986.

Polzin, Robert. David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Three. 2 Samuel. ISBL 850. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

______. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part One. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. ISBL 848. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

______. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Two. 1 Samuel. ISBL 849. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993.

Popović, Mladen. Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism. STDJ 67. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

213

Powell, Mark Allan. “Narrative Criticism.” Pages 240-58 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. 2nd ed. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

______. “Types of Readers and Their Relevance for Biblical Hermeneutics.” TSR 12 (1990): 67-76.

______. What Is Narrative Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Preston, Thomas R. “The Heroism of Saul: Patterns of Meaning in the Narrative of the Early Kingship.” JSOT 24 (1982): 27-46.

Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Propp, William H. “Kinship in 2 Samuel 13.” CBQ 55 (1993): 39-53.

Provan, Iain W. 1 and 2 Kings. NIBCOT. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.

Provan, Iain, V. Phillips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Pyper, Hugh S. David as Reader: 2 Samuel 12:1-15 and the Poetics of Fatherhood. BibInt 23. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Rand, Herbert. “David and Ahab: A Study of Crime and Punishment.” JBQ 24 (1996): 90-97.

Reines, Chaim W. “Beauty in the Bible and the Talmud.” Judaism 24 (1975): 100-107.

Reis, Pamela Tamarkin. “Cupidity and Stupidity: Woman’s Agency and the ‘Rape’ of Tamar.” JANES 25 (1997): 43-60.

Resseguie, James L. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Rezetko, Robert. Source and Revision in the Narratives of David’s Transfer of the Ark: Text, Language, and Story in 2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13, 15-16. LHBOTS 470. New York: T&T Clark, 2007.

Rhoads, David. “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark.” JAAR 50 (1982): 411-34.

Ridout, George P. “Prose Compositional Techniques in the Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 7, 9-20;

214

1 Kings 1-2).” PhD diss., The Graduate Theological Union, 1971.

Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Routledge, 1989.

Ringgren, H. “yāpâ.” TDOT 6: 218-20.

Robins, Gay. The Art of Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Rosenberg, Joel. King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible. ISBL 396. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Rosenblum, William. “Tamar Times Three.” JBQ 30 (2002): 127-30.

Russell, Stephen C. “Gate and Town in 2 Sam 15:1: Collective Politics and Absalom’s Strategy.” JAH 3 (2015): 2-21.

Ryan, Roger. Judges. RNBC. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007.

Sasson, Jack M. “Absalom’s Daughter: An Essay in Vestige Historiography.” Pages 179-96 in The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller. Edited by J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham. JSOTSup 343. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

______. Judges 1-12. AYB 6D. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.

______. “The Eyes of Eli: An Essay in Motif Accretion.” Pages 171-90 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon. Edited by John Kalther and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 378. London: T & T Clark, 2004.

Satterthwaite, Philip E. “The Elisha Narratives and the Coherence of 2 Kings 2-8.” TynBul 49 (1998): 1-28.

Saxegaard, Kristin Moen. Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth. FAT 2/47. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

Schäfer, Peter. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Schipper, Jeremy. “Did David Overinterpret Nathan’s Parable in 2 Samuel 12:1-6?” JBL 126 (2007): 383-91.

______. Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story.

215

LHBOTS 441. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.

______. “Reconsidering the Imagery of Disability in 2 Samuel 5:8b.” CBQ 67 (2005): 422-34.

______. “What Was Samson Thinking in Judges 16,17 and 16,20?” Bib 92 (2011): 60-69.

Scholes, Robert, and Robert Kellogg. The Nature of Narrative. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Schwartz, Matthew B., and Kalman J. Kaplan. The Fruit of Her Hands: A Psychology of Biblical Woman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Schwartz, Regina M. “Adultery in the House of David: The Metanarrative of Biblical Scholarship and the Narrative of the Bible.” Pages 335-50 in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader. Edited by Alice Bach. New York: Routledge, 1999.

______. “The Histories of David: Biblical Scholarship and Biblical Stories.” Pages 192-210 in “Not in Heaven”: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative. Edited by Jason P. Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitterson, Jr. ISBL 678. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.

Seibert, Eric A. Subversive Scribes and the Solomonic Narrative: A Rereading of 1 Kings 1-11. LHBOTS 436. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.

Sharon, Avinoam. “Height Theology: The Theological Use of Lexical Ambiguity in the David and Goliath Story.” JBQ 45 (2017): 243-52.

Shields, Mary. “A Feast Fit for a King: Food and Drink in the Abigail Story.” Pages 38-54 in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon. Edited by Tod Linafelt, Claudia V. Camp, and Timothy Beal. LHBOTS 500. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.

Simon, Uriel. “The Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb.” Bib 48 (1967): 207-42.

Ska, Jean Louis. “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives. SubBi 13. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990.

Smith, Brett W. “The Sin of Eli and Its Consequences.” BSac 170 (2013): 17-30.

Smith, Carol. “‘Queenship’ in Israel?: The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah.” Pages 142-62 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

216

Smith, Richard G. The Fate of Justice and Righteousness during David’s Reign: Narrative Ethics and Rereading the Court History according to 2 Samuel 8:15-20:26. LHBOTS 508. New York: T & T Clark, 2009.

Soggin, Alberto. Judges. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.

Solvang, Elna K. A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and Their Involvement in the House of David. JSOTSup 349. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.

Spanier, Ktziah. “The Queen Mother in the Judaean Royal Court: Maacah - Case Study.” Pages 186-95 in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Spina, Frank Anthony. “Eli’s Seat: The Transition from Priest to Prophet in 1 Samuel 1-4.” JSOT 62 (1994): 67-75.

Stahlberg, Lesleigh Cushing. “From Biblical Blanket to Post-Biblical Blank Slate: The Lives and Times of Abishag the Shunammite.” Pages 122-40 in From the Margins 1: Women of the Hebrew Bible and Their Afterlives. Edited by Peter S. Hawkins and Lesleigh Cushing Stahlberg. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009.

Staley, Jeffrey Lloyd. The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Stansell, Gary. “Honor and Shame in the David Narratives.” Semeia 68 (1994): 55-79.

Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. ISBL 453. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Stone, Ken. Sex, Honor and Power in the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 234. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Stone, Lawson G. “Eglon’s Belly and Ehud’s Blade: A Reconsideration.” JBL 128 (2009): 649 -63.

Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.

Tolmie, Francois. Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide. San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1999.

Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. OBT 13.

217

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Trotti, John Boone. “Beauty in the Old Testament.” PhD diss., Yale University, 1964.

Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Tushima, Cephas T. A. The Fate of Saul’s Progeny in the Reign of David. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Van den Eynde, Sabine. “The Replacement of a Queen: Vashti and Saul Compared.” BN 118 (2003): 58-61.

Van Wolde, Ellen “A Leader Led by a Lady: David and Abigail in I Samuel 25.” ZAW 114 (2002): 355-75.

Vargon, Shmuel. “The Blind and the Lame.” VT 46 (1996): 498-514.

Wallace, H. N. “The Oracles against the Israelite Dynasties in 1 and 2 Kings.” Bib 67 (1986): 21 -40.

Wallis, Hale G. “chāmadh.” TDOT 4: 452-61.

Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. BO. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996.

______. Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009.

Warmuth, Kiel G. “hādhār.” TDOT 3: 335-41.

Webb, Barry G. The Book of Judges. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

Weinfeld, M. “kābôd.” TDOT 7: 22-38.

Williams, James G. “The Beautiful and the Barren: Conventions in Biblical Type-Scenes.” JSOT 17 (1980): 107-19.

Willis, John T. “An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary.” JBL 90 (1971): 288-308.

Wray Beal, Lissa M. 1&2 Kings. ApOTC 9. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2014.

______. The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the

218

Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10). LHBOTS 478. New York: T & T Clark, 2007.

Yamada, Frank M. Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives. StBiblLit 109. New York: Peter Lang, 2008.

Younger, K. Lawson Jr. Judges and Ruth. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Zenger, Erich. “Die Deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung Jojachins.” BZ 12 (1968): 16-30.

Ziolkowski, Eric J. “The Bad Boys of Bethel: Origin and Development of a Sacrilegious Type.” HR 30 (1991): 331-58.

Zogbo, Lynell. “How Could Something So Right Be So Wrong?: OT References to the Left and Right Hand: Implications for Translation in Africa.” BT 64 (2013): 36-53.