A handful of Hebrew Bible scholars, in recent years, have attacked the historicity of the biblical account of King David’s reign (1 Samuel 16 through 1 Kings 2). There is no evidence outside the Bible, these scholars claim, for the existence of David.1 They note that these stories are part of the Deuteronomistic History,2 which was written no earlier than the seventh century B.C.E., and therefore are of little or no value for the reconstruction of earlier historical periods, such as the rise of the Davidic monarchy in the tenth century B.C.E. Some of these so-called minimalists date portions of the Deuteronomistic History to the Hellenistic period (third to second century B.C.E.), which would make it even more remote from the history it purports to convey.
Other scholars have made a convincing case for the Deuteronomistic History’s incorporation of earlier sources that date to the tenth century B.C.E.,3 virtually contemporaneous with the events they describe.4
Yet all agree that these earlier sources do not record unbiased histories. The Davidic narratives are what scholars call apologetic literature. They were composed to defend controversial actions undertaken by David during his quest for the throne and his reign as king. They are similar to the work of contemporary political spin doctors. Yet beneath the apologetic aspect is recoverable history—the controversial actions that the accounts are designed to defend. The nature of these accounts requires not only the existence of David but that he acted along the lines that the literature seeks to justify.
The biblical narrative known as the History of David’s Rise (1 Samuel 15 through 2 Samuel 8) was composed to justify the various questionable measures David took to succeed Saul (and his descendants) as king and to found a new dynasty of his own descendants. David lived as an outlaw (1 Samuel 19–24, 26), seized as his own the Calebite territory in Judah (1 Samuel 25), served as a mercenary for the Philistines (1 Samuel 27–30) and ended up assassinating Saul’s general Abner (2 Samuel 2–3) as well as Saul’s son and heir, Ishbaal (2 Samuel 4). That David (or his chief historian) went to such great lengths to justify these actions provides solid evidence for the historicity of the events involved. That is, David really was an outlaw; he really did work for the Philistines; and he really did acquire the Calebite territory in Judah. We do not need extrabiblical evidence—like the now famous Beth David (House of David) 024inscription—to prove David’s existence.a The proof proceeds directly from the biblical text. Moreover, the text tells us quite a lot about David, provided we carefully reconstruct actual events from the claims made about those events and do not simply accept the claims at face value.5
Similarly with the so-called Revolt Narrative, or Court History (2 Samuel 9, 13–20), which describes two attacks on David’s rule, one led by the Benjaminite Sheba (2 Samuel 20) and the other by David’s own son Absalom (2 Samuel 9, 13–19). Both apparently had broad popular bases. The Revolt Narrative was composed to defend David’s suppression of these two uprisings.6 Whatever else we may say about the apologetic aspects of these accounts, it seems clear that the two uprisings did in fact occur and that David’s suppression of them was controversial in his own day.
Oddly enough, even the scholars who identify the Davidic narratives as historically based, although apologetic, nevertheless regard the pro-Saul stories in 1 Samuel 9–14 as legendary and therefore without any reliable historical information. On the contrary, I believe the same kind of analysis may be applied to the Saulide narratives, with the same positive results as the Davidic narratives.7
We have strong evidence that substantial portions of 1 Samuel 1–14 originally made up a coherent History of Saul’s Rise. Saul’s historian composed it to justify Saul’s creation of the throne, in much the same way that David’s historian composed the History of David’s Rise to legitimate the latter king’s usurpation of Saul’s throne.8 If later additions are bracketed, a complete pro-Saul, admittedly apologetic, history emerges.
Although much of the biblical account is indeed legendary, its defense of Saul’s unprecedented kingship allows us to affirm that Saul was in fact Israel’s first king. We can even learn how he attained the throne and how his kingdom eventually came to be.
As with the Davidic narrative, this account of Saul’s rise would not have been composed unless the king had come to the throne in a questionable manner that required explanation. These hot spots in the story of Saul’s rise allow us to sketch out this early history.
I have divided this Saulide history into seven scenes. Scenes 1 through 4 set the stage for Saul’s entrance. They explain why the theocratic rule of the high priest Eli and his descendants (known as the Elides) is no longer workable. These scenes also lay the basis for Saul’s massacre of the Elides.
Scene 1 (1 Samuel 1:1–28, 2:11a) introduces Samuel, the future priest and prophet who will mediate Saul’s kingship. The story begins with Hannah praying for a son at the sanctuary at Shiloh: “O Lord of Hosts,…if you will grant your maidservant a male child, I will dedicate him to the Lord for all the days of his life” (1 Samuel 1:11). She is overheard by Eli, the high priest, who gives her his blessing: “May the God of Israel grant you what you have asked of Him” (1 Samuel 1:17). Hannah subsequently becomes pregnant and gives birth to Samuel. In fulfillment of her vow, she dedicates her son to the service of the Lord (YHWH)b at Shiloh, where he is raised by Eli.
In scene 2 (1 Samuel 2:11b–34, 3:1a), Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, sin grievously against YHWH by habitually seizing YHWH’s sacrificial portion for themselves, in contrast to Samuel, who performs the priestly service perfectly. A man of God comes to Eli and announces YHWH’s judgment: “I intended for you and your father’s house to remain in my service forever. But now, declares YHWH,…there shall be no elder in your house” (1 Samuel 2:30–32). Eli’s priestly line will be entirely destroyed except for one survivor, who will tend the altar (1 Samuel 2:33). The man of God informs Eli: “And this shall be a sign for you: The fate of your two sons Hophni and Phinehas—they shall both die on the same day” (1 Samuel 2:34).
Scene 3 (1 Samuel 3:1b–4:1a) confirms this judgment, but through an oracle received by the young Samuel, who then relates it to his mentor and surrogate father, Eli. Thus is established Samuel’s status not only as priest, but also as prophet. He is now fully clothed with the authority to declare Saul king-elect when the time comes.
Scene 4 (1 Samuel 4:1b–18a, 4:19–5:4, 5:6—6:14, 16) fulfills the prophecy regarding Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas (1 Samuel 4:11b). During a battle with 025the Philistines at Ebenezer, they are both killed when they bring the holy Ark into the camp in the hope that this will turn the tide of battle in favor of Israel. (It doesn’t.) The Elides are of course blamed for the Philistine’s capture of the Ark of the Covenant. When Eli learns that his sons have died and the Ark has been captured, he, too, dies. (We will skip the account of the Ark’s return, which is unnecessary for our purposes here.)
Thus the stage is set for Saul’s entrance in scene 5 (1 Samuel 9:1–8, 9:10–10:7, 10:9–10, 13b–16). When we first meet the young Saul, he is searching for his father’s missing donkeys. Providence leads him to the priest and prophet Samuel, who, Saul hopes, will use his powers as a seer to locate the lost donkeys. When 026Samuel lays eyes on Saul, YHWH declares: “This is the man that I told you would govern my people” (1 Samuel 9:17). Samuel prepares a meal for Saul, sets him at the head of the sacrificial table and gives him the consecrated portion, thus transforming Saul’s status. As prophet, Samuel anoints Saul king-elect, charging him with the future muster of all Israel and the deliverance of the nation from its enemies. As a sign of his secret appointment to future kingship, Saul is seized by the spirit of YHWH. Samuel tells Saul to act on the appointment when he sees fit.
This is a critical scene. In the ancient Near East, any succession to a throne was legitimated when the royal father named the king-to-be as crown prince.9 In Israel, too, kingship was dynastic by definition: The reigning king appointed one of his sons, usually the oldest, as his successor in hopes that the transition would proceed smoothly upon his death. Palace coups and military overthrows occurred nonetheless, but when they did, the nondynastic king had to prove his legitimacy.
When a dynasty was overthrown, there was a need to legitimate the new dynasty. That is what gave rise to the apologetic History of David’s Rise, for example. The same is true for the narrative of Jehu’s coup (2 Kings 9–10), which ended the Omride dynasty in Israel about 150 years later.10 A similar situation explains Solomon’s Succession Narrative (2 Samuel 10–12, 1 Kings 1–2), except there the apologetic narrative attempts to explain why Solomon, the younger son of David, rather than Adonijah, the elder, succeeded to the Davidic throne.
In Saul’s case, his throne was newly created, so he lacked the requisite paternal designation as crown prince. Throughout the Bible, the apologetic histories often describe the unexpected heir as being appointed by God. This is precisely what we have in scene 5, where Saul, through the prophet and priest Samuel, is designated crown prince to a kingdom that does not yet exist. The very need for this account, whether historically accurate or not, indicates that Saul did indeed exist and at least pretended to be king over all Israel.
Scene 6 (1 Samuel 11:1–11, 15) recounts how Saul saved the Israelites of Jabesh-Gilead. The city was being besieged by Nahash the Ammonite, who threatened to destroy the town unless the residents agreed that each man’s right eye would be gouged out. Seized by YHWH’s spirit, Saul musters all Israel and delivers the city from the Ammonites. The army recognizes that YHWH’s inspiration is behind Saul’s military success, and they crown him king in a public ceremony in Gilgal: “So all the army went to Gilgal, and there at Gilgal they declared Saul king before the Lord” (1 Samuel 11:15).11
The text thus depicts a divinely inspired warrior whose appointment to muster all the Israelite men and deliver the nation from its enemies leads to victory. We are probably safe in assuming that Saul was indeed a military leader and that he gained an emerging throne through his success in battle.12
The seventh and final scene in the History of Saul’s Rise (1 Samuel 13:2–7a, 15b–20, 13:22–14:46) describes a war with the Philistines. Saul’s son and heir, Jonathan, 027now plays a major role as leader of an important contingent of Israelite troops. At one point, Saul imposes an oath of fasting on the army. Jonathan alone is unaware of the oath. After an exhausting victory, Jonathan eats some honey from a beehive. When Jonathan’s unintentional trespass is exposed, Saul prepares to put him to death in accordance with the vow. Saul’s willingness to sacrifice his beloved son testifies to his piety, reminiscent of Hannah’s vow and dedication to YHWH of her son Samuel. (The troops refuse to allow Saul to kill his son, and Jonathan is saved.)
Saul’s conquests of the surrounding nations and deliverance of Israel from all their enemies—“the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, the Philistines, and the kings of Zobah” (1 Samuel 14:47–48) concludes the History of Saul’s Rise.
This history makes it clear that a man named Saul existed, served as Israel’s first king and came to the throne through successful military leadership.
Does the text tell us anything about the size of Saul’s kingdom? I think it does.
The battle with the Philistines (scene 7) is fought first for the hill country of Benjamin and then for the hill country of Ephraim, both of which Saul secures, according to this account.13 Saul’s early kingdom probably consisted of those two tribes. In other words, he initially ruled only over the central hill country, the region just north of Jerusalem, and not over all Israel.
Whether or not Saul went on to rule over more of Israel cannot be determined from his history alone, but further insight is provided by David’s history, 028which implies that Saul was eventually king over all Israel. For it is this total rule of Israel that David inherits upon the assassination of Saul’s son Ishbaal: “All the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron…and they anointed David king over Israel” (2 Samuel 5:3). This suggests that Saul’s history was composed early in his reign, when his kingdom consisted of only the two tribes of Benjamin and Ephraim. Composition early in his reign is also suggested by its overwhelming interest in defending his rise to the kingship. Such an apologetic defense would have been most urgent at the start of his rule, when Saul’s grip on the throne was least secure.14
Although Saul was probably made king only after the battle with the Philistines (scene 7), this should not be taken to imply that the battle of Jabesh-Gilead is fictional. Its historicity is confirmed by the passage in the History of David’s Rise describing the burial of Saul. After the battle of Mt. Gilboa, in which the Philistines kill Saul and three of his sons, the men of Jabesh-Gilead go to heroic lengths to remove the bodies of Saul and his sons from the walls of Beth-Shean and bring them to Jabesh-Gilead, where they are buried (1 Samuel 31:11–13). We have no evidence that the men of Jabesh-Gilead actually did this; the significance of the passage is that the anti-Saulide History of David’s Rise agrees with the pro-Saul History of Saul’s Rise regarding this city’s special relationship with Saul. Since David’s history depicts the men of Jabesh-Gilead as determined at all costs to give Saul and his sons a proper burial, it is reasonable to assume that Saul did at some point rescue Jabesh-Gilead from a fierce enemy.
Another hot spot in the History of Saul’s Rise indicates his responsibility for a massacre of the Elide priests. Scenes 1 through 4 of Saul’s history are devoted to proving that the Elides were unfit to rule Israel. Since the demonstration of Elide incompetence and sin takes up so much of Saul’s history, we can assume that Saul’s historian had a compelling reason for depicting them so pejoratively. Evidently their violent demise was a serious problem for Saul’s image. From this, we can conclude that Saul perpetrated a large-scale slaughter of the Elide priests early in his reign. The massacre itself is never explicitly mentioned in Saul’s history. But the historian’s repeated efforts to justify such a massacre indicate that it did occur.
Saul’s history alone would provide us with sufficient evidence for this slaughter of the Elides. That history seems concerned almost as much with legitimating the violent demise of the Elides (scenes 1 through 4) as it is with justifying the rise of the Saulides (scenes 5 through 7 plus the conclusion). But there is more evidence—in the History of David’s Rise, which includes an account of Saul’s massacre of the priests of Nob (1 Samuel 22). The priests of Nob were Elides, descendants of Eli (see the genealogies in 1 Samuel 14:3029 and 1 Samuel 22:9, 11–12). Remember the prophecy in scene 2: A man of God tells Eli, “I intended for you and your father’s house to remain in my service forever. But now, declares YHWH…there shall be no elder in your house” (1 Samuel 2:30–32). This prophecy is fulfilled in Saul’s slaughter of the priests of Nob.
This is a special kind of prophecy—an after-the-fact prophecy. A prophecy is considered to have been added after the fact when it predicts a future event with an extremely high degree of specificity, when the predicted event lies far in the future, and when the prophecy is fulfilled precisely as predicted. Genuine prophecies, such as most of those found in the books of the prophets, are rather vague. They tend to concern events in the near future, and they are not always fulfilled as prophesied. After-the-fact prophecies are included to affirm that the predicted events, however unusual or offensive, were intended by God and are therefore right and just. They also confirm the historicity of these events, which must have occurred if they later required such justification.
The oracle of Elide destruction in scene 2 (with the exception of a sole survivor [1 Samuel 2:33]) is precisely fulfilled in the description of Saul’s wholesale slaughter of the priests of Nob, save one (1 Samuel 22:20).
Saul’s history has remained buried all these years because later additions successfully obscured it. The first addition was the History of David’s Rise, which portrays Saul as an incompetent madman whose loss of favor with YHWH seals his doom. This longer account, which immediately follows Saul’s history, tends to overwhelm the original portrait of Saul as a king chosen and inspired by YHWH to lead the nation to victory over its enemies.
In the sixth century B.C.E., after the Assyrians had destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel and the Babylonians had destroyed Jerusalem, the Deuteronomistic historians put the final touches to these historical books. At this point in history, Israel and Judah 052were no longer independent nation states. For the Deuteronomistic historians, this was considered to be the result of God’s judgment on the two nations for the sins of their kings. These historians even went so far as to question the advisability of the monarchy itself; they inserted commentary to that effect around the biblical account of the institution of Saul’s kingship (1 Samuel 7:2–8:22, 10:17–27, 12:1–25). This pejorative depiction of the institution of the monarchy in general, and of Saul’s kingship in particular, overwhelms the originally positive portrayal of Israel’s first king.
It is only through source analysis, in which the different documents or layers in the biblical text are identified and distinguished, that we can uncover an original, pro-Saul history. Saul was indeed Israel’s first king. He delivered early Israel from at least some of its enemies. He also made use of brutality to secure his power.
Saul was also the first king of Israel to 053employ a historian to portray his reign. David and Solomon, whose thrones were similarly insecure, merely followed Saul’s lead with their own histories.
A handful of Hebrew Bible scholars, in recent years, have attacked the historicity of the biblical account of King David’s reign (1 Samuel 16 through 1 Kings 2). There is no evidence outside the Bible, these scholars claim, for the existence of David.1 They note that these stories are part of the Deuteronomistic History,2 which was written no earlier than the seventh century B.C.E., and therefore are of little or no value for the reconstruction of earlier historical periods, such as the rise of the Davidic monarchy in the tenth century B.C.E. Some of these so-called minimalists date portions […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
In 1993 archaeologists at Tel Dan, in northern Israel, discovered a ninth-century B.C.E. Aramaic inscription bearing the phrases Beth David (House of David) and Melech Yisrael (King of Israel)—the earliest extrabiblical references to David and his dynasty. See “‘David’ Found at Dan,”BAR 20:02; and Avraham Biran, “More Fragments from ‘David’ Stela Found at Dan,” BARlines, BAR 20:05.
2.
These four Hebrew letters, often transliterated “Yahweh,” constitute the personal name of the Israelite God.
Endnotes
1.
Thomas L. Thompson, The Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (Leiden: Brill, 1992); Philip R. Davies, In Search of ‘Ancient Israel’ (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992); Niels Peter Lemche, Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society, trans. Fred Cryer (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988).
In this, they follow the lead of the great German biblical scholar Martin Noth. See his “The Deuteronomistic History,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (JSOT Sup) 15 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1943).
4.
The Deuteronomistic History consists of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Most Hebrew Bible scholars identify the Deuteronomy-Kings corpus as a distinct theological history with origins separate from the Genesis-Numbers corpus.
5.
P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., “The Apology of David,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980), pp. 489–504 and I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, Anchor Bible 8 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 27–30; James VanderKam, “Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study,” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980), pp. 521–539; Keith Whitelam, “The Defense of David,” JSOT 29 (1984), pp. 61–87; Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford and New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).
6.
See James Flanagan, “Court History or Succession Document: A Study of 2 Samuel 9–20 and 1 Kings 1–2, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972), pp. 172–181; Marsha C. White, The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup: An Examination of a Biblical Accession Text (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1994), pp. 141–150; McKenzie, King David, pp. 30–36, 129–184. The same kind of analysis I have summarized with respect to the History of David’s Rise and the Revolt Narrative can be (and has been) done with respect to other early sources, including the Ark Narrative (1 Samuel 4–6) and Solomon’s Succession Narrative (2 Samuel 10–12; 1 Kings 1–2). Regarding the former, see Patrick D. Miller, Jr., and J.J.M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of I Samuel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1977); and, with regard to the latter, T.C.G. Thornton, “Solomonic Apologetic in Samuel and Kings,” Church Quarterly Review 169 (1968), pp. 159–166; R.N. Whybray, The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9–20; I Kings 1 and 2, Studies in Biblical Theology 9 (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1968); and McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, Anchor Bible 9 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 11–16.
7.
This is also true of the Solomonic narratives. See the previous endnote.
8.
See White, “‘History of Saul’s Rise’: Saulide State Propaganda in 1 Samuel 1–14, ” in “A Wise and Discerning Mind”: Essays in Honor of Burke O. Long, ed. Saul M. Olyan and Robert C. Culley, Brown Judaic Studies 325 (Providence, RI: Brown Univ., 2000), pp. 271–292.
9.
Giorgio Buccellati, Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria: An Essay on Political Institutions with Special Reference to the Israelite Kingdoms (Rome: Instituto di Studi del Vicono Oriente, 1967); Tomoo Ishida, The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic Ideology (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977).
10.
White, The Elijah Legends and Jehu’s Coup, Brown Judaic Studies 311 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).
11.
The Hebrew word ‘am, used in 1 Samuel 11:15, means both “people” and “army.” In this context, where the ‘am has just defeated the Ammonites, it refers to Saul’s army.
12.
For another reconstruction of the historical Saul from the literary Saul, see Diana V. Edelman, “Saul ben Kish in History and Tradition,” in The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, ed. Volkmar Fritz and Davies, JSOT Sup 228 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1996), pp. 142–159.
Whether Saul gained the throne immediately after the battle of Jabesh-Gilead or later is another matter. Gilgal is quite distant from Jabesh-Gilead, and it would have been a long and grueling march. A closer shrine at which to perform the inauguration, such as Shechem, could have easily been found. I believe it is more likely that Saul’s army made him king at Gilgal after he led them to victory against the Philistines.
If that is true and Saul was made king by the grateful Benjaminites and Ephraimites shortly after the battle with the Philistines at Michmash, then the location of his inauguration at Gilgal makes perfect geographical sense. Gilgal is on the border between the two tribal areas and would have been convenient to both. More importantly, holding the inauguration at a location between the two tribes would have signified the binding of the two as subjects of Saul.
13.
The battle begins at Michmash, which is in Benjaminite territory just opposite Geba (1 Samuel 13:2–7a, 13:15b–14:23a). The best reading of 1 Samuel 14:23b is found in the Septuagint: “As the fighting passed by Bethel, the entire army was with Saul, some ten thousand men. But then the fighting scattered into the hill country of Ephraim.” In other words, Saul defeated the Philistines in Benjaminite territory, but then the fighting spread into Ephraimite territory. At that point Saul imposed the vow of fasting on the army (1 Samuel 14:24; reconstructed text), after which the Israelite army defeated the Philistines completely (1 Samuel 14:31).
14.
Compare Kyle McCarter’s reasoning for dating the History of David’s Rise to his reign (“Apology of David,” and I Samuel). Also, the addition of the Revolt Narrative to the History of David’s Rise requires that the Revolt Narrative be dated after the history defending David’s rise to the throne.
