Читать книгу God’s First King - Shaul Bar - Страница 10

In the book of Judges, God gave up the Israelites to their enemies on all sides, and they could no longer hold their own against their enemies (Judg 2:14). Consequently, God sent judges to deliver the Israelites from their enemies. Not a single Judge delivered the Israelites from all their enemies. Instead, God sent different Judges to fight against Israel’s enemies. Yet in the book of Samuel, a new picture emerges: “After Saul had secured his kingship over Israel, he waged war on every side against all his enemies: against the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, the Philistines, and the kings of Zobah; and wherever he turned he worsted [them]. He was triumphant, defeating the Amalekites and saving Israel from those who plundered it” (1 Sam 14:47–48).

In addition, Saul fought three major wars: the war against the Ammon-ites (chapter 11); the war against the Philistines that includes three major battles (chapters 13–14; 17; 28–31); and battles with the Philistines on a smaller scale (18:27, 30; 19:8; 23:1, 27). The third major battle was the war against the Amalekites described in chapter 15. It was no coincidence that Saul fought against all the enemies from all sides. Saul was the first king of Israel; his kingship signifies a transition from the period of the Judges to the monarchical era. Unlike a Judge who fought a single battle, Saul, as king of Israel, fought many battles against the enemies of Israel. This was one of the distinctions between a King and a Judge. The first part of this chapter will examine Saul’s wars with the Philistines and the Amalekites. The second part will look into his wars in the Trans-Jordan. This chapter will analyze Saul’s war from a literary and historical perspective, attempting to distinguish between the fictional embellishment and the historical truth that is behind Saul’s wars. In addition, we will try to find out why Saul fought against those particular enemies and what he tried to achieve in those battles.

The Rebellion against the Philistines

Geba

Jonathan attacked the Philistine garrison in Geba which was an act of rebellion, initiating the war between the Philistines and Israelites that would last throughout Saul’s life. The intention was to remove the Philistine presence from the hill country, and thus unite the Israelites. Surprisingly, the reader is not told who Jonathan is. There is no hint that he was the king’s son, and this information is revealed only in the last verse of chapter 13. Here the narrator used the technique of delay. It is possible that the narrator did not provide the reader with Jonathan’s background because he was famous.1 However, it is more likely that the narrator omitted the information in light of the relationship between Saul and his son, Jonathan. It appears as if the narrator wanted, at an early stage of the story, to disassociate Jonathan from his father Saul. In addition, Jonathan’s surprise attack was attributed not to Jonathan but to Saul (v. 4). Saul was praised instead of Jonathan, but this was due to his being the king. Likewise, the conquest of Hebron was attributed to Joshua, in spite of the fact that it was Caleb who conquered the city (Josh 11:21; 14:14).

Following Jonathan’s successful attack against the Philistine prefect, Saul sounded the trumpet throughout the land with the message: “Let the Hebrews pay attention.” It is quite strange that an Israelite would use such a designation for his fellow Israelites. Scholars have pointed out the connection between the term Hebrew and ῾apiru. Some believe that the term ῾apiru refers to mercenaries. Gottwald suggested that Saul was appealing to a “third force” to listen, they were the ῾apiru warriors who served in the Philistine army. Saul summoned the ῾apiru to come and to fight alongside the Israelites.2 Evidently, they were a band of armed Israelites who gave their services to the Philistines, but returned to the Israelite side when the battle turned against the Philistines.

Upon receiving the news about the assassination of their prefect, the Philistines reacted quickly by gathering their huge army—including three thousand chariots and six thousand cavalry—compared to Sisera who had only nine hundred chariots (Judg 4:3). It deserves mention that the terrain in the surrounding area of Michmas was not fit for a large force of chariots. The large number of the Philistine battalion is indicated by the phrase “troops as numerous as sand” (Josh 11:4; Judg 7:12; 2 Sam 17:11). Meanwhile, we read that the Israelites were terrified, some of them were hiding. This was perhaps due to the fact that the troops with Saul and Jonathan did not have enough weapons to fight, thus: “no sword or spear was to be found in possession of any of the troops with Saul and Jonathan; only Saul and Jonathan had them” (1 Sam 13:22). At the same time, the Hebrews crossed the Jordan to the territory of Gad and Gilead.3 Afterward, in 14:21 we read that the Hebrews came to the aid of Saul. Thus one wonders if the Hebrews mentioned in 13:3, 7 and 14:21 are the same people. The first group of Hebrews deserted the Philistine camp and escaped to the territory of Gad and Gilead. Subsequent to the Philistines losing the battle, a second group of Hebrews deserted the Philistine camp and joined Saul in his battle against the Philistines.

Following the feud between Saul and Samuel (see chapter 4), Saul returned from Gilgal to Geba of Benjamin. Meanwhile, the Philistines camped at Michmas, reversing their positions from the beginning of the campaign. Three squadrons emerged from the Philistine camp. The Philistines used the same strategy here that Saul used against the Ammonites; they divided their army into three. Their mission was to destroy the settlements in the east, north, and west. A similar view is found in Josephus’s account of the event, where he describes the Philistines as dividing their army into three companies.4 The Philistines divided their forces into three in order to accelerate the downfall of Saul. That left their main camp without ample defenses, which helped Saul defeat the Philistines. Kallai speculated that the Philistines were sending raiding parties in order to obtain supplies for their army. He maintained that the Philistine plan was not to confront the Israelites, but rather to rob and to intimidate the Israelites.5

Michmas

Chapter 14 continues to describe the battle between Saul and the Philistines. The main Philistine forces went to Michmas. They remained there, while, at the same time Saul was at the outskirts of Geba with six hundred troops. Geba is situated only a mile or two from Michmas. A deep ravine that turns into a wadi, called es.-S.uwēnīt., separates the two camps. The Philistine army camped north of the ravine while the Israelites encamped to the south. This wadi was an important pass from the Jordan Valley into the Ephraimite hills. Jonathan and his weapon bearer launched an attack on the Philistine post. This post was strategically accessed via a pass through the Wadi, naturally defended by rocks or a ford on both sides. On his side, these rocks were called Seneh and the other side was called Bozez. This attack was made without Saul’s knowledge or his troops. Jonathan attacked the Philistine garrison only after receiving a sign from God. This is similar to Gideon’s attack of the Midianite camp after receiving only a sign. In the raid, Jonathan and his armsbearer killed twenty people, which indicates that this post was small. Jonathan led the attack, and his weapon bearer would finish off those who had fallen behind. This unexpected attack caused turmoil and terror in the Philistine camp that was felt in the field and the raiding parties. According to Josephus, the raid took place while the Philistines were sleeping:

So they fell upon them as they were asleep, and slew about twenty of them, and thereby filled them with disorder and surprise, insomuch that some of them threw away their entire armor and fled; but the greatest part, not knowing one another, because they were of different nations, suspected one another to be enemies, (for they did not imagine there were only two of the Hebrews that came up,) and so they fought one against another; and some of them died in the battle, and some, as they were fleeing away, were thrown down from the rock headlong.6

This episode is similar to chapter 13. Both chapters 13 and 14 describe surprise attacks by Jonathan. In chapter 13, Jonathan attacked the Philistine garrison at Geba and in chapter 14 he attacked the Philistine garrison at Michmas. In both, Jonathan fights his father’s battles, replacing his father as a leader. Jonathan uses guerrilla tactics with small forces, surprising the enemy from different locations. Edelman reads 13:3 differently. According to her, it is a “literary fiction” since Jonathan was too young to take part in the war with the Philistines. Na’aman believes that chapters 13 and 14 have one purpose, which is the denigration of Saul.7 He points to the fact that Saul was rejected by Yahweh. He is at Gibeah without taking any initiative while his son Jonathan attacks the Philistines at Michmas. Even though at the end, Saul leads his men to a victory, all the glory goes to Jonathan. Na’aman explains this negative portrayal of Saul claiming that it was the Deuteronomistic editor who portrayed Saul as a man who deserted his God and did not wait to receive divine help to join Jonathan in chasing the Philistines.8 In addition, he made the army take an oath to fast, and thus he failed to see the negative effect of this on the army. Brooks adds to Na’aman’s hypothesis, asserting that the same author or editor also inserted the story of the conflict between Samuel and Saul. The aim was to downplay Saul’s success. According to her, if we remove the incident of this conflict and the references that attribute the victory to God, we might receive a better historical portrayal of the events.9

Jonathan’s attacks against the Philistine camps in Geba and Michmas were part of the rebellion against the Philistines. The first attack signaled the beginning of the bitter war against the Philistines that lasted all of Saul’s life. This attack was committed with Saul’s knowledge and approval. Since his election, the people of Israel were waiting to attack the Philistines, and one of the reasons Saul was elected was to confront the Philistine threat. Indeed, already in v. 2, before the attack, we learn that Saul built a force of 3,000 men from Israel and the remainder of the troops was sent home. Why did Saul dispatch the rest? We are not told, but Saul probably wanted to conceal his real intentions and to surprise the Philistines when he sent the troops home. Jonathan’s attacks against the Philistines came to challenge their rule. The attacks on Geba and Michmas had one purpose: to remove them from the territory of Benjamin. Saul was aware of his military weakness, so he employed guerrilla tactics and small forces. Following Jonathan’s attack at Geba, Saul retreated to Gilgal where he expected to receive support from the Giladites whom he saved before. Realizing afterwards that the Philistines could attack him there and given that the landscape topography favored them; he retreated back to Geba, which Jonathan controlled. Saul acted quickly because the Philistine forces were divided at that time into three columns. He wanted to attack the small force that was left in Michmas. Evidently, the Philistine commanders realized the situation: “Now the Philistine garrison had marched out to the pass of Michmas” (1 Sam 13:23). Saul lost the element of surprise, but this was reversed by Jonathan’s surprise attack.

Jonathan’s second attack was not premeditated. Jonathan and his attendant were scouting and gathering information about the enemy. They realized that they had an opportunity to defeat the Philistines. It was Driver who suggested that, based on the corrupt Hebrew text and the LXX, Jonathan and his armsbearer used arrows and stones.10 They probably used the cover of the rocky crag, and attacked the Philistines from behind it with arrows and slings. The Benjaminites were known to use these types of weapons with accuracy. Following the initial attack, Jonathan and his arms-bearer entered the Philistine camp and killed those who were already injured. Josephus explains that the mayhem resulted from miscommunications between the soldiers who came from different nations. This explanation sounds logical. This mayhem in the Philistine camp was noticed by Saul’s scouts. After realizing that Jonathan and his armsbearer were missing, Saul connected it to the chaos in the Philistine camp and attacked. The victory was total; even the men of Israel who were hiding in the hill country of Ephraim pursued them in a battle. According to the LXX, the battle against the Philistines also took place in some cities of Ephraim. Saul not only defeated the Philistines in Michmas, but chased them to Aijalon, the modern Yalu, some twenty miles to the west of Michmas to the edge of the hill country. The battle of Michmas was decisive; it removed the Philistine presence from the territory of Benjamin. The hill country was now dominated by Israel. It was one in a long series of battles against the Philistines that came to end their oppression, and free the rest of the land of Israel. The military strategy, the site identifications, and the topographical descriptions all show that the story reflects historical events, even though in some cases due to the theological view, the story was exaggerated.11

From a literary standpoint this is similar to the story of Gideon’s war against the Midianites, which represents the period of the Judges.12 The language that describes the calling of people to war, the strength of the enemy, the fear that fell upon the people, and the description of them hiding in caves, dugouts, and pits—all these elements appear in both stories. In both, Gideon and Saul lead a small contingent to battle the enemy. Gideon led three hundred; Saul led six hundred. Both stories describe spying on the enemy camp. On the one hand, Gideon and his lad went at night to the Midianite’s camp; on the other hand, it was Jonathan and his weapons-bearer who went to the Philistine camp. In both stories, the enemy soldiers gave the sign for victory. In both, it was the few who caused chaos and confusion in the enemy camp that led the enemy soldiers to kill each other (Judg 7:22; 1 Sam 14:20). In both tales, the people of Ephraim joined the chase after the enemy. Both have the same message; God has the power to deliver the victory of the few over the many; everything is in God’s hands and comes from God. Jonathan’s portrayal is akin to Gideon. Like Gideon he asked God for a sign, and fought with few against the many. Saul, on the other hand, failed because he did not query God. He did not trust the small number of his soldiers, and when their numbers dwindled, he committed a sin.

The Battle at the Valley of Elah

For forty days, a representative from the Philistine camp named Goliath, came out to challenge the Israelites to choose a man to fight him. This single battle would determine the outcome of the war, and the losers would become the slaves of the victors. There are many examples from the ancient Near East and classical sources that describe a battle between two representatives. The Iliad records the battles between Paris and Menelaus, as well as the famous encounter between Hector and Achilles. From the ancient Near East, we read about Marduk who killed Tiamat. De Vaux interpreted the battle of twelve servants of Ishbosheth and twelve servants of David as an extension of the single warrior battle (2 Sam 2:12–17).13

David’s appearance on the field of battle is portrayed as opportunistic and ambitious. He shows interest in the threefold reward that king Saul has promised to the one who will kill the Philistine: the king will enrich the man, he will give him his daughter, and his father’s house will be exempt from taxes.14 Giving such rewards for victory in war was a known custom in the ancient world. Caleb announced that he would give his daughter Achsah in marriage to the man who would capture Kiriath-sepher (Judg 1:12).15 The reward was announced several times. David probably heard about the reward, entered into a conversation with the men, and declared his intention to accept Goliath’s challenge.

David’s words of defiance about the uncircumcised Philistine were brought to Saul’s attention. As a result, he was summoned before the king. Saul appears hesitant and frightened in his conversation with David. It is David who encourages the king of Israel: “Let no man’s courage fail him.” Instead of “no man’s,” the LXX reads “not my lord’s.” Van der Kooij explains it as a secondary “exegetical rendering.”16 David encourages the king to overcome his fear. Not wanting to insult the king, he used the phrase “no man.” Moreover, he speaks to the king with respect and refers to himself as “your slave.”

David is the protagonist and initiates the conversation. Ironically, he, and not the king, speaks first, as might be expected. Although both Saul and David are anointed, David speaks first. Brueggemann believes that: “through this technique the narrator demonstrates David’s primacy over Saul.”17 David speaks to the point, and offers to fight Goliath. However, Saul’s hesitation and fear surface again when he refuses to grant David his wish. Saul cites David’s youth and inexperience for his initial refusal. David, on the other hand, shows persistence and power of persuasion. He points to his experience as a shepherd, protecting the flock from a lion or a bear. More than anything, David points out that it was God who saved him from the lion and the bear, and he will deliver him from the Philistines. It is David who mentions Yahweh for the first time. Neither the people nor Saul mentioned him. No doubt the narrator wanted to stress this since David’s perception of the battle is a theological one.18 David’s confidence and belief in God is similar to Jonathan’s in the previous battle against the Philistines at Michmas. Saul, on the other hand, is portrayed as frightened, and he ordered the priest to stop inquiring of God (1 Sam 14:19). In times of pressure, Saul does not properly consult God, and in this episode he did not even try to. He utters the name of God “and may the Lord be with you” (1 Sam 17:37); but this is a form of blessing. Evidently, the narrator wanted to exacerbate the differences between Saul and David.

David’s belief in God is emphasized as he approaches Goliath. The conversation between David and Goliath is remotely reminiscent of the speeches of the Homeric heroes before battle.19 David repeats his belief that the same God who was the subject of Goliath’s defiance will deliver him into his hands. The victory will be achieved through God, not by military means. God will battle Goliath through a human agent: a shepherd boy with a sling and a few stones. The significance is that David is God’s instrument. David came to rescue Israel and to defeat the Philistines, but by doing so, he announces: “All the earth shall know that there is a God in Israel” (1 Sam 17:46).

The MT describes Goliath the Philistine champion as being 9’9” tall. The LXX, Josephus (Ant. 6.171), and 4QSama read 6’9”. It appears that decreasing his height was deliberate since it felt his size was exaggerated. He wore a helmet and he was dressed in plated cuirass, which was believed to weigh about 126 pounds. He had bronze greaves on his legs, and a bronze scimitar between his shoulders. The shaft of his spear is compared to a weaver’s beam. Yadin renders this a javelin and says that a weaver’s beam refers to the shape and nature of Goliath’s javelin not to its size.20 The iron spear weighed 15 or 16 pounds. A shield-bearer preceded him. This is similar to the weapon used by Homeric heroes in the Iliad and in the Odyssey.21 It is possible that mentioning the bronze is archaic, since by that time the Philistines’ weapons were iron. Indeed this description does not match the portrayal of Philistine warriors in the Egyptians reliefs. This description shows how well he was prepared and armed. Needless to say, it was a frightening vision. This description of Goliath shows how imposing he was, and how God acted through David.22 Evidently the function of this description was literary rather than historical.

Saul dressed David in a garment with a bronze helmet and he bore Saul’s sword. This equipment, even though it was light, was too much for David. He tried to walk once or twice but told Saul he could not walk. David never tried previously to use this kind of gear; thus, it was unwise to give it to him before such an important battle. Also, the gear was insufficient for attacking Goliath, who was dressed in armor from head to toe. So they removed them, and David took his stick and five smooth stones, which he put in his pouch, and went out with the sling in his hand. According to this text, the sling was a shepherd’s weapon, but armies in the ancient world used it also. Assyrian slingers, wearing copper helmets and coats of mail are depicted on Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh.23 The Benjaminites were known for using this weapon with astonishing accuracy (Judg 20:16; 1 Chr 12:2; 2 Chr 26:14).

Removing the gear from David gave him an advantage. David could now move more easily, while Goliath was limited in movement by his armor. Indeed, it says that David ran out quickly to meet him. Josephus makes a similar observation: “Still, the Philistine, the load of his armor impeding a more rapid advance, gradually approached David.”24 David hit Goliath in the forehead with a stone. The LXX adds, “through the helmet” (v. 49). The LXX translators were thinking of the Greek helmets with nose guards. However, the author of the Hebrew text was thinking of the helmet that was used by the Assyrians that did not have a nose guard. The stone killed Goliath, so David, with no sword in his hand, took Goliath’s own sword and decapitated him. Verses 5–7 do not say that Goliath had a sword nor did David, thus the general term for sword refers to the Philistine’s kidon, a scimitar.25 Interestingly, in Psalm 151 LXX addition to the book of Psalms, it says that David killed Goliath with his own sword and does not mention the sling at all. The authors were familiar with the LXX but not with the additions to the MT. Evidently those additions came to enhance the image of David who killed Goliath first with a sling.

According to this text, David killed Goliath. However, reading 2 Sam 21:19 suggests that Elhanan slew Goliath. It has been suggested by an Aramaic Targum, and later by Bright, that Elhanan and David were the same person. The name David afterwards was his name on the throne.26 This, however, is unlikely since 1 Chr 20:5 says that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother. It appears that the author of the book of Chronicles tried to resolve the contradiction in Samuel. But still, if David killed Goliath, why is it not stated in the book of Chronicles? This book was written several hundred years after the Davidic dynasty. Why hide from the reader such a heroic deed performed by David? Instead, the heroic act is attributed to Elhanan, whom the sages claimed was David. Examination of the list of David’s warriors, however, reveals that one of his warriors was “Elhanan son of Dodo [from] Bethlehem” (2 Sam 23:24). In other words, Elhanan was a member of the royal family. This fact is repeated in the book of Chronicles (1 Chr 11:26). Thus, it is possible that the author of 1 Samuel 17 attributed the great victory to David instead of Elhanan who killed Goliath for the simple fact that in ancient times, heroic actions of the king’s warriors were attributed to the king. Indeed as the reader might recall, Jonathan’s victory in Geba was attributed to his father, King Saul (1 Sam 13:3–4).

A shepherd boy who overcomes the giant is believed to occur in fairy tales. The same is true with rewards promised by the king to the man who will defeat the giant.27 In addition, theological elements were added to the story where the defeat of the Philistines does not point to the superiority of the shepherd’s slingshot over battle armor, but to David’s faith. David will fight and win: “All the earth shall know that there is a God in Israel. And this whole assembly shall know that the Lord can give victory without sword or spear. For the battle is the Lord’s and He will deliver you into our hands” (1 Sam 17:46–47). The contrast is no longer a folktale, but it is a confrontation between two people of different faiths.

In spite of the literary and theological elements that were added to the story, examination of the battlefield shows that this story has a basis in history. As mentioned previously, the sling was a shepherd’s weapon, but armies in the ancient world used it as well. David’s mobility, his ability to conceal his weapon and to attack from a distance gave him an advantage over the Philistine. According to McKenzie, it is possible that at an earlier stage of his career David defeated a formidable Philistine opponent.28