Two Accounts of Shaul's Death/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Two Accounts of Shaul's Death
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
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 each other.
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 him 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 – Shaul had fallen on his sword and was so weak from the puncture that he needed to lean on his spear. It was in this state that the Amalekite found him.
- One weapon – Alternatively the Amalekite uses the word spear and sword interchangeably and refers to the event describe din Chapter 31 of Shaul's having fallen on his own weapon. Ralbag suggests that Shaul was actively leaning on it, trying to get the weapon 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 it is the name of some type of sickness which can result from a sword wound. Shaul is in such pain that he asks teh Amalekite for a quick death.
Archers or chariots? When Shaul first decided to kill himself, he had been the target of enemy archers, but by the time the Amalekite arrived on the scene, the Philistine horsemen had approached.
Why two stories – It is not clear, according to this position, why the narrator did not include the role of the Amalekite when describing Shaul's death in Chapter 31.
David's double question
Why kill the Amalekite – According to this reading, David ordered the killing of the Amalekite because he was actually 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.
Why does the Amalekite refer to himself in multiple ways?
Purpose of the story
On True and One False Account
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: Second option in Radak, First option in Ralbag, First option in Abarbanel, Prof. Moshe Tzvi Segal, Prof. Yehuda Elitzur, Dr. Yechiel Tzvi Moshkovitz
Who killed Shaul – Shaul killed himself, and the Amalekite lied saying that he killed Shaul to find favor in the eyes of David.
Why kill the Amalekite
- He deserved death (being a rebel) even just for lying
- David killed him because he was an Amalekite
Differences
David's double question
No mention of the lie
The נֵּזֶר and אֶצְעָדָה – If the Amalekite didn't kill Shaul, so how was he able to bring the נזר and אצעדה back to David? Unless he was totally lying and didn't even arrive at the place of the battle, then he was there to collect the spoils from the war (before the Pelishtim came to do so), and he found on Shaul his נזר and אצעדה.
Purpose of the story – Dr. Moshkovitz writes that Shemuel II 1 is coming to emphasize David's reaction to Shaul's death that he was upset about it and did not rejoice.
הַמּוֹרִים and הָרֶכֶב וּבַעֲלֵי הַפָּרָשִׁים – How does the Amalekite know the בעלי הפרשים caught up to him if he was not there?
