Two Accounts of Shaul's Death/2

Two Accounts of Shaul's Death

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

The discrepancies between the two accounts of Saul's death have been explained in two distinct ways. Some commentators attempt to harmonize the narratives by suggesting that they represent two stages in the same story.  One chapter describes Shaul's unsuccessful attempt to kill himself, while the second speaks of the Amalekite's completion of the task.  Others maintain that the two narratives contradict because only the first is a truthful account of what actually happened.  The Amalekite's version is a lie, fabricated so as to ingratiate himself to David.

Complementary Accounts

Chapter 31 speaks of Shaul's initial failed attempt at suicide, while the Amalekite speaks of a second stage in the story, when he finished the job.  Thus, the two accounts complement, rather than contradict, each other.

Sources: JosephusAntiquities 7:14:7About Josephus, Radak #1Shemuel I 31:5Shemuel II 1:6-16About R. David Kimchi, Ralbag #2Shemuel I 31:4Shemuel II 1:6-10Shemuel II 1:14About R. Levi b. Gershom, Abarbanel #2Shemuel I 31:1Shemuel I 31:4Shemuel II 1:5-16About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Who killed Shaul? Though Shaul attempted to kill himself by falling on his own sword (as described in Shemuel I 31), he was not successful.  The Amalekite found the king dying and, upon Shaul's request, stabbed him to quicken his death.

Sword or spear? Abarbanel raises two possible solutions to the discrepancy.

• Distinct weapons – After Shaul had fallen on his sword, he became so weak from the puncture that he needed to lean on his spear.¹  It was in this state that the Amalekite found him.
• One weapon – Alternatively, the Amalekite was simply using the word spear as a synonym for sword and was referring to his seeing Shaul collapsed on his weapon. Ralbag suggests that Shaul was now actively leaning on it, trying to get the blade to penetrate more deeply.

"כִּי אֲחָזַנִי הַשָּׁבָץ"

• Ralbag explains that "הַשָּׁבָץ" refers to Shaul's armor which was very strong so as to prevent a sword from penetrating.  It was for this reason that Shaul was not killed when he fell on his sword.
• Radak, instead, posits that "הַשָּׁבָץ" is the name of some type of sickness which can result from a sword wound.  Shaul is in such pain that he asks the Amalekite for a quick death.

Archers or chariots? When Shaul first decided to kill himself, he had been the target of enemy archers and fearful of what they might do to him if captured, but by the time the Amalekite arrived on the scene, they had disappeared and the Philistine horsemen had approached in their stead.

Absence of arms-bearer – The arms-bearer plays no role in the Amalekite's retelling because by the time of the Amalekite's arrival, he had already died from his sword.

Why kill the Amalekite? According to this reading, David ordered the killing of the Amalekite because he was guilty of killing Shaul, an "anointed of God".  Ralbag asks why, though, he should have been punished if he was simply fulfilling Shaul's request.  He responds that murder is prohibited regardless of the king's wishes and that the fact that Shaul desired death, had no bearing on the criminality of the act.  In addition, he suggests that David wanted to set a precedent regarding the severity of the punishment for any who kill a king.

David's double question – This approach does not see any significance in David's repeated question regarding the identity of the Amalekite. It understands David's first question, "אֵי מִזֶּה תָּבוֹא", as relating to the youth's whereabouts during the battle rather than his identity.  Thus, since the Amalekite had never formally introduced himself (only revealing his ethnicity tangentially when telling his story), afterwards David asked him explicitly who he was.

Why two stories? It is not clear, according to this position, why the text did not include the role of the Amalekite when describing Shaul's death in Chapter 31.

Amalekite Account is False

Shemuel 31 describes what actually took place, while Chapter 1 is the Amalekite's fabricated version of Shaul's death, told in such a way so as to find favor in David's eyes.

Sources: Radak #2Shemuel I 31:5Shemuel II 1:6-16About R. David Kimchi, Ralbag #1Shemuel I 31:4Shemuel II 1:6-10Shemuel II 1:14About R. Levi b. Gershom, Abarbanel #1Shemuel I 31:1Shemuel I 31:4Shemuel II 1:5-16About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Prof. M. SegalShemuel II 1:5-10About Prof. Moshe Tzvi Segal, Prof. Y. Elitzur"HaNa'ar HaMagid UMishpato BeTziklag"About Prof. Yehuda Elitzur,² Dr. Y. Moshkovitz"Sipuro Shel HaNa'ar HAmeleki"About Dr. Yechiel Tzvi Moshkovitz

Who killed Shaul? Shaul killed himself. The Amalekite only pretended to do so, assuming that this would win him favor and perhaps a reward from David.

Differences between the accounts – The discrepancies between the accounts are easily accounted for since the Amalekite was not trying to be true to what happened. Once he decided to pass himself off as responsible for Shaul's death, the Amalekite tried to concoct a plausible (rather than factual) story of how he came to kill him.

"נִקְרֹא נִקְרֵיתִי בְּהַר הַגִּלְבֹּעַ" – Prof. Elitzur suggests that these words give the Amalekite away. One does not just "happen" onto a site of war!

Why was the Amalekite at the battleground? According to this approach, the Amalekite had arrived at the site at nighttime to take from the booty of battle.³  He realized that he had stumbled on a treasure and aimed to make the most of it.⁴

Why does the Amalekite refer to himself in multiple ways?

• Prof. Elitzur suggests that the Amalekite, knowing David's feelings towards his nation, initially tried to pass himself off as an Israelite, saying, "מִמַּחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל נִמְלָטְתִּי".  However, David, being familiar with the tribe from the Negev, was not fooled, leading the youth to change his story.
• Dr. Moshkovitz, in contrast, suggests that the Amalekite intentionally disclosed his origins, including in his story the otherwise irrelevant fact that he was from Amalek,⁵ thinking that David would be pleased with his killing of Shaul and that his entire tribe could benefit from the ensuing good will.  When he realized that David was not reacting positively to the news, however, he quickly attempted to emend his story, declaring himself a convert.

David's double question – David's repeated question regarding the Amalekite's origins stems from his doubting his word.

Did David believe that the Amalekite killed Shaul?

• The modern commentators all assume that David doubted the veracity of the Amalekite's story. Prof. Segal brings evidence from the fact that David later (Shemuel II 4:10) speaks of the Amalekite as the one who told him about the death of Shaul ("כִּי הַמַּגִּיד לִי לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה מֵת שָׁאוּל") rather than the one who said " I killed Shaul".
• It is also possible, however, that David took his account at face value.

Why kill the Amalekite? If David believed the Amalekite, then it is understandable why David killed him, as he says, "אֵיךְ לֹא יָרֵאתָ לִשְׁלֹחַ יָדְךָ לְשַׁחֵת אֶת מְשִׁיחַ ה'".  If David saw through his lies, on the other hand, the punishment must be understood differently.  Prof. Elitzur suggests that regardless of what happened in Gilboa, David would have killed him once he discovered that he was of the Amalekite tribe.  Alternatively, David killed him for daring to take credit for such an abominable act, as David says, "כִּי פִיךָ עָנָה בְךָ לֵאמֹר אָנֹכִי מֹתַתִּי אֶת מְשִׁיחַ ה'".

Tanakh's silence – This approach does not explain why Tanakh would be silent about the fact that the Amalekite was lying.

¹ See Radak as well.

² See his article, "הנער המגיד ומשפטו בצקלג".

³ There is, thus, no discrepancy between his finding the crown and the fact that Shemuel I 31 speaks of the Philistines gathering the spoils. The Amalekite simply beat them to it as he came to the site at night and the Philistines first checked the corpses the next day ("וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיָּבֹאוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים לְפַשֵּׁט אֶת הַחֲלָלִים").

⁴ Prof Elitzur posits that the Amaleklite might have been part of an espionage mission sent to scout the Northern part of the country for potential areas to plunder.

⁵ Dr. Moshkovitz presumably assumes that the Amalekite understood David's first question, "אֵי מִזֶּה תָּבוֹא," literally, as a question about the place from which he just came rather than his nationality. The Amalekite therefore responded that he had come from the Israelite camp, but in so doing he had no intention of misleading David into thinking that he was actually an Israelite.