We're now starting 2 Samuel, which may seem an odd title for the book since Samuel is dead and we aren't going to see him resurrected a second time. The protagonist of 2 Samuel is actually David. It was originally one book and the monks cut it in half, so that's the explanation. That makes it all the more ridiculous that the story of Saul's death told in 2 Samuel 1 is completely different from the story in the previous chapter, which was originally in the same book. Chapter 1 also features one of the thrice-exterminated Amalekites -- who of course gets whacked -- and a very surprising attitude of David toward Saul, who lost the Lord's favor years ago and spent the time since then trying to kill David.
So again, this is not a composed, coherent narrative and is not intended to be read as such. It's a compilation of stories from various sources, probably originating in oral tradition, arranged in a semblance of chronological order but not even trying to be consistent. I should also reiterate that there is no archaeological or written evidence for the existence of King David apart from the book we are now reading; and that at the time these events supposedly occurred Israel, including Jerusalem, was at most a collection of small villages, and could not possibly have raised armies as depicted here. Anyway, here goes.
1 After the death of Saul, David returned from striking down the Amalekites and stayed in Ziklag two days. 2 On the third day a man arrived from Saul’s camp with his clothes torn and dust on his head. When he came to David, he fell to the ground to pay him honor.
3 “Where have you come from?” David asked him.
He answered, “I have escaped from the Israelite camp.”
4 “What happened?” David asked. “Tell me.”
“The men fled from the battle,” he replied. “Many of them fell and died. And Saul and his son Jonathan are dead.”
5 Then David said to the young man who brought him the report, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan are dead?”
6 “I happened to be on Mount Gilboa,” the young man said, “and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and their drivers in hot pursuit. 7 When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said, ‘What can I do?’
8 “He asked me, ‘Who are you?’
“‘An Amalekite,’ I answered.
9 “Then he said to me, ‘Stand here by me and kill me! I’m in the throes of death, but I’m still alive.’
10 “So I stood beside him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord.”
Right. David is "my lord" to this man even though David has just finished exterminating his entire tribe, for the third time. Again, this story of Saul's death is completely different from the story in the preceding chapter.
11 Then David and all the men with him took hold of their clothes and tore them. 12 They mourned and wept and fasted till evening for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the army of the Lord and for the nation of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.
13 David said to the young man who brought him the report, “Where are you from?”
“I am the son of a foreigner, an Amalekite,” he answered.
14 David asked him, “Why weren’t you afraid to lift your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?”
15 Then David called one of his men and said, “Go, strike him down!” So he struck him down, and he died. 16 For David had said to him, “Your blood be on your own head. Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I killed the Lord’s anointed.’”
Remember that Saul ceased to be the Lord's anointed years ago, but this was immediately forgotten.
David’s Lament for Saul and Jonathan
17 David took up this lament concerning Saul and his son Jonathan, 18 and he ordered that the people of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar):
The Book of Jashar has been lost. Why this is called "lament of the bow" is not clear. Also, the mention of Judah is anachronistic. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah are about to become separate, and David is about to become king of Judah, but there is no reason why he would limit his interest to Judah as opposed to all of Israel at this point.
19 “A gazelle[a] lies slain on your heights, Israel.
How the mighty have fallen!20 “Tell it not in Gath,
proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon,
lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad,
lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.21 “Mountains of Gilboa,
may you have neither dew nor rain,
may no showers fall on your terraced fields.[b]
For there the shield of the mighty was despised,
the shield of Saul—no longer rubbed with oil.22 “From the blood of the slain,
from the flesh of the mighty,
the bow of Jonathan did not turn back,
the sword of Saul did not return unsatisfied.
23 Saul and Jonathan—
in life they were loved and admired,
and in death they were not parted.
They were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.24 “Daughters of Israel,
weep for Saul,
who clothed you in scarlet and finery,
who adorned your garments with ornaments of gold.25 “How the mighty have fallen in battle!
Jonathan lies slain on your heights.
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
you were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
more wonderful than that of women.27 “How the mighty have fallen!
The weapons of war have perished!”Footnotes
- 2 Samuel 1:19 Gazelle here symbolizes a human dignitary.
- 2 Samuel 1:21 Or / nor fields that yield grain for offerings
3 comments:
Not sure if we’ve ever touched upon the circumcision thing in all these months. I find it weird. But a lot of stuff in religions is weird.
Do you have any thoughts to share as a writer, public health policy expert and thinker about this practice? The custom of the bris, the exclusion of women from many rites, and life in general as a helmet-head vs. a trouser snake?
I haven't commented on circumcision. It is mentioned in the Book of Samuel, only in that Israel's foes are referred to as "the uncircumcised."
Newborn boys in the U.S. and many other countries are routinely circumcised in the hospital as newborns. Doctors believe this slightly reduces the risk for urinary tract infections, STIs and penile cancer. Of course, if this is true, the ancient Hebrews could not have known it. The practice is controversial and some people find these purported benefits dubious. How the custom may have originated among the Hebrews seems quite mysterious to me.
As for the status of women, the exclusivity of the priesthood to men is of course commonplace. Women have lower status in nearly all neolithic, bronze age and iron age societies, although to varying degrees. The ritual impurity of menstrual blood occurs in some other cultures, including Hindu sects. It is actually noteworthy in the Tanakh when women are granted agency, e.g. Deborah. The necromancer of Endor is sacreligious, bur obviously powerful. Yahweh makes an exception to allow it in this case but it is otherwise forbidden. Women cannot inherit. While they may be fortunate enough to choose their marriage partner, they are not generally free to do so, and because their property rights are limited they depend on marriage for their subsistence. The male line of inheritance is an essential structural feature of the society and the Tanakh is obsessed with it.
Obviously I'm an egalitarian and a feminist. The public health implications are complex and vary somewhat over time and place. Too much to discuss here but maybe I will.
Well, for now, here’s to Xena … and to the matriarchal cultures in places like ancient Crete.
For myself, I’d be happy if women made up a healthy majority of legislators in the US and elsewhere.
Post a Comment