Article Summary on Joshua 1-8 and Parallel Narratives in Other Ancient Near Eastern Texts

The purpose of this article is to present the similarities between the narrative of Joshua chapters one through eight with the Ugaritic text relating the story of King Keret and his journey to the city of Udum. The article cautiously proposes that there may in fact be a connection between the stories of the Exodus and the Conquest with the stories of King Keret. While most scholars are in agreement that the stories found in the Joshua narrative are made up of several different accounts that have been put together and edited by a redactor, the authors of this article seek to show that there is an element of continuity within these stories that may link it to the continuity found in the stories of King Keret. The authors acknowledge the discontinuities of the Joshua narrative, particularly in areas of chronology, but point out that it is the chronological ordering of the stories themselves that may point to the biblical text’s connection to the Ugaritic text.

The article starts out by showing that the beginning of the book of Joshua is a part of a larger history that is sometimes called the Primary History of the Israelites. This Primary History is made up of the books of Genesis through 2nd Kings. The authors state that nowhere in the rest of the Primary History is there seen such a connection to the rest of the history as there is seen in the first few chapters of Joshua. The first few chapters of Joshua point to and reference many other elements and stories portrayed in the rest of the history, especially in connection to the story of Moses and the Exodus. The authors point out the connection of the crossing of the Jordan River to the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites in the book of Exodus. The idea of the crossing of the Jordan is also seen in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. The crossing of the water is a significant event in all of these stories. The body of water is even portrayed as the same body of water, the Jordan River, in the stories of Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha.

Another connecting factor of the Joshua narrative with the Elijah narrative is the element of a three-day search. In Joshua 2, the spies are sent out to scout the land. When they leave Jericho they hide in the hills for three days as the king’s men search for them but eventually do not find them. This is similar to the Elijah story, where Elijah is taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire and the company of the prophets goes out to look for him and spends three days trying to find him out in the wilderness but is unsuccessful.

A similarity also exists between Joshua and Moses on a number of different levels. One obvious example would be the removal of one’s sandals in the presence of God. Both Joshua and Moses are commanded to remove their sandals. There is also a connection between Joshua’s curse upon the future rebuilder of Jericho and 1st Kings 16:34 as well as a connection between the description of the capture of the city of Ai in Joshua and the capture of Gibeah in Judges 20.

The authors point out that even though all of these similarities exist, scholars are still mostly of the belief that these were separate stories that were combined into a larger narrative. It has been the task of many scholars to attempt to piece together from where these various stories came from before being combined into the final narrative form of Joshua 1-8. The authors of this article point out that one of the difficulties in figuring out the background of these texts lies in the chronology presented within them and the overall storyline of the final narrative. They write, “Apart from the incident of the seven days when the Israelites circled Jericho for six days in silence and saw the fall of the city on the seventh day (Joshua 6), these [chronologies] appear fragmentary and also do not seem to fit easily into a single coherent chronological scheme” (254). These chronologies within the first few chapters of Joshua are even more confusing when compared to the rest of Joshua which mentions little of chronology.

The authors list the chronological issues present in Joshua 1-5. After discussing the chronological issues and similar issues seen in the account of Saul’s death, they discuss the departure of the spies in Joshua. The spies are sent out on the same day that Joshua has told the Israelites to prepare to cross the Jordan within three days. The spies arrive in Jericho that evening. That same evening the king’s men inquire of them at Rahab’s house. That same night, Rahab helps them escape and tells them to hide in the hills for three days, which they do. After this, the spies meet back up with Joshua on the other side of the Jordan, implying that the crossing of the Israelites had not yet taken place. It would appear then that on the day the spies returned the Israelites crossed the Jordan. The text records that the Israelites crossed over on the tenth day of the first month, and that later they celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth day. The authors point out that the Israelites celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth, which is the same day of the original Passover when they left Egypt.

They also show that periods of seven days exist in these stories. The Israelites march around Jericho for seven days, with six of those days in silence. The authors question why it was important to include this chronological structure when so much of the rest of Joshua fails to do so. The authors acknowledge the beliefs of different scholars who argue that Joshua contains the same source material as the Pentateuch and should thus be group with those other books, forming a Hexateuch, while others say that Joshua’s place belongs at the beginning of another narrative known as the Deuteronomic history, which derived separately from the Pentateuch. However, the authors are not too concerned with where exactly Joshua should be categorized and are more concerned with the categorization of the materials within Joshua. They write that the section of the narrative encompassing Joshua 1-8 is held together not only by its use of chronology, but also by its similarity to other ancient Ugaritic texts relaying the story of King Keret. At this point, the article comes to its main point of comparing the texts of Joshua 1-8 with the Ugaritic story of Keret, king of Hubur.

This story is recorded on three clay tablets in the Ugaritic language and is believed to have been written around the thirteenth century BC by a scribe named Illimilku. In this story, Keret is weeping on his bed because he has no hope after having lost his entire family. The god El appears to him in a dream asking him what is wrong and offering him prosperity. Keret refuses, saying he wants descendants. El wishes to give descendants to Keret and tells him to offer a sacrifice and sends him on a mission to go capture the city of Udum, the home of King Pabil. El tells Keret that he will march for seven days, and then besiege the city for another seven days. El also tells him that Pabil will offer him silver and gold, but that he must refuse these offers and instead ask for Pabil’s daughter, Hurriy. Keret follows El’s instructions, sacrificing to receive the strength of Baal and additionally stopping three days into his journey at the temple of Athirat, promising to offer Hurriy’s weight in silver and gold as an offering when he returns. He and his army travel another four days before reaching the city, they then march around the city in complete silence for six days until King Pabil cannot stand it anymore and calls out to Keret, offering him silver and gold. Keret refuses, asking for his daughter. Keret receives his bride and withdraws from the city. They have children together, but Keret does not fulfill his vow to Athirit, so he becomes ill. The rest of the country also falls under a drought and the crops do not grow. El comes to the aid of Keret and creates a healing goddess after none of the other gods want to help him. Keret is healed, but his oldest son thinks he is still about to die and goes ahead and announces he is going to take over as king. The story ends with Keret cursing his son.

There are obviously many similarities between the story of Keret and the story of Joshua. Both of them travel seven days before reaching the cities they are besieging. Both of them carry out cultic rituals on the third or the fourth day of this time period. Keret makes vows to Athirit and Joshua calls the people to sanctify themselves for the crossing of the Jordan as well as sets up memorial stones after the crossing. At the crossing of the Jordan, the covenant is renewed and the men are circumcised. This covenant is then immediately broken by Achan. The difference between Keret’s and Achan’s broken promise, however, is that Keret becomes ill and is healed, whereas Achan and his entire household and possessions are destroyed.

Both Joshua and Keret receive their battle instructions from a diety. In both stories, the armies surround or march around the city for six days in complete silence, and on the seventh day something happens. The armies of Joshua shout, and blow trumpets as the walls collapse; and the animals of the city in Keret’s story become very loud so that the king cannot sleep. Also, “two periods of seven days have brought the Israelites into the Promised Land, the land for their future; two periods of seven days have brought Keret the promised wife and thus the desired family in the future: a national as opposed to a dynastic perspective” (264).

Both stories have women who join the besiegers, Rahab with Joshua and Hurriy with Keret. Both women enter into marital relations with the invaders. However, the two women have opposing social statuses. One is a princess and the other is a harlot. They write, “If the author or authors of Joshua were familiar with the story of Keret or a derivative of it, they have in any case given it a naughty twist: the woman that came out of the besieged town changed from a princess into a harlot” (265). Also, one of the key differences between Joshua and Keret is that Keret is a king seeking his own good, but Joshua is a mediator between God and the people of God. In both stories, though, it is the deity who is truly the star of the show. One final similarity between the two stories is that both involve the withholding of gold and silver or devoted things from a deity and both of these broken vows result in punishment.

The authors are unsure about what to do with the similarities between these two stories. The evidence seems to strongly indicate that one or the other borrowed elements from each other’s stories, or else the two stories were based upon another story, perhaps of prose or of poetry or of an oral tradition. They agree that emulation is indeed a possibility, and point to the example of how the Romans copied the stories of the Greeks. Virgil’s works resembled Homer’s in obvious ways. They point out that emulation is actually a common thing in the Hebrew Bible, with later stories borrowing elements from earlier stories within the Bible as well as from other texts, such as Homer’s Odyssey having apparent connections with Tobit, Genesis, and Job; Ezekiel’s connection to the Akkadian Poem of Erra; the Histories of Herodotus throughout the Primary History and Daniel; and the Gilgamesh Epic and the Genesis stories of Creation and The Flood. The conclusion of the authors of this article is that it is very possible that Joshua 1-8 was influenced by the Ugaritic story of Keret, whether directly or indirectly. However, this was not the only outside source used. Joshua also parallels Moses in many ways, and there are numerous other examples of texts within and without the Bible borrowing from one another. Their conclusion is that there is no need to assume that Joshua 1-8 has a “complex editorial history,” due to its current “extremely well composed” form of a “literary-religious composition.”


__________________________________________________________


Article:


Braber, Marieke den, and J W. Wesselius. "The unity of Joshua 1-8, its relation to the story of King Keret, and the literary background to the exodus and conquest stories." SJOT 22, no. 2 (January 1, 2008): 253-274.

YHWH versus Ba'al

In his article "Yahweh versus Baal: a narrative-critical reading of the Gideon/Abimelech narrative" Vince Endris seeks to show foremost that the narrative within the book of Judges covering the stories of Gideon and his son Abimelech are really one narrative showing the power-struggle between Yahweh and Baal in which Yahweh eventually emerges victorious. Endris suggests that looking at these stories that are placed in the middle of Judges will provide better insight into the rest of the overall story of Judges, in which the Israelites struggle severely will fidelity, constantly returning the gods which Yahweh has consistently defeated. Eventually, Yahweh begins to become less active in the lives of his people as they continue to betray him. Endris seeks to apply a narrative critical approach to the book of Judges. I believe that Endris does an excellent job with his article in showing the conflict between Yahweh and Baal, as well in the way he shows the downward spiral in the book of Judges as a whole, especially after Israel rejects Yahweh in the midst of his victory over Baal in the story of Gideon. I believe the connections he makes between Gideon and Abimelech as one narrative are convincing as well. He has obviously done very serious and legitimate research on this subject, and he provides numerous scriptural and scholarly references to support his claims.

Endris writes that in the narrative Yahweh appears to be defeated but “returns to bring about Baal's ultimate demise” (174). Gideon serves as a human representative of Yahweh and Abimelech serves as a human representative of Baal. As the Gideon story progresses, Gideon becomes less and less faithful to Yahweh and appears to bring about Yahweh’s defeat. However, Yahweh show himself ultimately victorious as the story continues when Abimelech who is Baal’s representative is destroyed, thus defeating Baal. Endris comes up with three main points in for the progression of this narrative. These are that the Gideon/Abimelech story gives reason for why God deals so harshly with the Israelites, saying that he will no longer defend them because they have turned to Baal because Baal and Yahweh are at war with each other; also, this explains why in the second half of the book of Judges there is a significant decrease in the acts of God and an increase in the activities of humans; also, in the last few chapters of Judges is presented four separate times the idea that during the days of the judges there was no king in Israel. Kingship is portrayed in a positive light in the book of Judges. The narrative believes that once Yahweh is represented in the human office of king, only then will the chaos Israel has brought upon herself be done away with.

There are parallels between the Gideon/Abimelech narrative and the book of Judges as a whole. Both stories begin with a period of rest. When Gideon comes on the scene it has been forty years since Deborah defeated Sisera. This is similar to what is found in Numbers. There is a new generation on the scene when Gideon comes along. At the beginning of the Gideon story is seen the prophet who reminds Israel of all God did for them in Egypt and warns them to flee from idolatry, just as at the beginning of Judges.

The conflict between Baal and Yahweh emerges when Yahweh commands Gideon to tear down the altar which his father had built to Baal. Gideon does as he is instructed and his father renames him “Jerubbaal.” In this is seen the beginning of the conflict. Jerubbaal can mean “one who contends with Baal” or “Baal will contend” or “Let Baal contend against him.” Also, the Midianite and Amalekite armies are seen as representatives of Baal. They are Israel’s human oppressors, just as Baal is Israel’s divine oppressor. It would seem that Baal is directly connected to these armies because immediately after Gideon destroys Baal’s altar and the judgment of Baal is pronounced upon him these armies begin to invade. It is apparently understood that the enemies are Baal worshipers. Gideon’s side in the war is that of Yahweh. Gideon tests Yahweh’s power several times. Yahweh proves to him that he is master over the elements. He provides dew for Gideon when Gideon asks for it. Baal was thought to be in control of the weather but Yahweh proves himself to be in charge. Yahweh takes control of the dew, so the reader expects that ultimately Yahweh will be victorious over Baal.

When the battle begins, Yahweh, or Elohim, brings Gideon’s numbers down to a few. He tests Gideon just as Gideon tested him. Also, this shows that the victory is not that of Gideon, but of Yahweh himself. It is Yahweh who is fighting for Israel. After the defeat of the enemies, the end of the story seems to be in sight. The people ask Gideon to be their ruler and Gideon responds that he will not and that only Yahweh shall rule over them. However, Gideon continues speaking and asks the people for jewelry so that he can make an ephod for them. This is a surprising turn of events for the reader. Gideon places the ephod in Ophrah, which is significant because this is the same location in which Gideon built an altar to Yahweh at the beginning of the narrative. Israel then proceeds to prostitute herself before the ephod. The narrative records that the ephod became a snare for all Israel and Gideon’s household. Immediately after Yahweh’s defeat of their enemies Israel returns to worshiping other gods. This scene with the ephod is reminiscent of the story of Aaron in the desert who took gold from the people in order to provide them with golden calf to worship. It seems to be implied that Gideon has replaced the shrine he built for Yahweh with an object of worship for Baal. This is in contrast to the beginning of the story in which Gideon pulls down Baal’s altar and sets up a shrine for Yahweh. It would seem that through Gideon’s unfaithfulness Baal has defeated Yahweh. Gideon’s story ends with infidelity. The Israelites even rename Baal as “Baal of the Covenant,” replacing Yahweh completely.

The next section focuses mostly upon Abimelech, the son of Jerubbaal. At this point in the story Gideon is no longer referred to as Gideon but as Jerubbaal, indicating that Baal has indeed contended for himself. The word “baal” is used throughout the story of Abimelech to show which side Abimelech is on. Abimelech becomes “a brother of the baals of Shechem” and he is “paid with money from the house of Baal of the Covenant” (179). His association with Baal is seen in his rejection of his own family. He eventually kills all but one of the sons of Jerubbaal. He does so by killing them on a rock at Ophrah one by one. This indicates that he is making human sacrifices to Baal. After this, the baals of Shechem and the house of Milloh pronounce Abimelech king. Jurubbaal’s remaining son Jotham shows up and pronounces judgment upon Abimelech for his actions. The author says that “before running away, Jotham utters a curse on Abimelech and the baals of Shechem that they be destroyed by fire” (180). This foreshadows that Yahweh will soon defeat Baal. Jotham mentions Elohim in his curse, and it would seem that Elohim, or Yahweh, will soon make an appearance after his long silence since the time of Jerubbaal. The story says that God sent an evil spirit to confuse the baals of Shechem so that they would betray Abimelech.

At this point in the story, yet another house is introduced, the house of Gaal, who worship a completely different god. Gaal boasts against Abimelech and Abimelech seeks revenge by attacking him at night. This is reminiscent of Gideon’s night attack on the Baal idol at Ophrah. That scene set up the narrative, and the night attack of Abimelech begins to bring the narrative to a close. Abimelech destroys the house of Gaal and burns down the temple of “God of the Covenant,” which is no longer considered to be Yahweh at this point. Abimelech then goes to the tower at Thebez to inflict more destruction, but suddenly a woman throws a millstone over the wall at random and it lands on his head. He instructs a young man to kill him and he does. This is contrasted with the Gideon story, where Gideon instructs his son to kill one of the enemy but he does not do it for he just a boy and was afraid. The number one is significant in this story. Abimelech kills the sons of Jerubbaal on one stone and acts as the single representative of Baal. In the end it is a single woman, acting as the representative of Yahweh who kills him.

At the end of the story, Elohim is revealed to have defeated Baal, but the Israelites immediately begin to do evil again, and Yahweh lets their enemies defeat them. They cry out to him again, but this time his response to them is a rebuke.

The article goes on to discuss other elements of the narrative. Gideon is originally portrayed as a good character resembling Moses. The call of Gideon is similar to God’s appearance to Moses in Exodus 3. Both leaders encounter the messenger of God, raise questions and objections, are visited by Yahweh, and are given signs. Also, Moses’ father-in-law is a priest of Midian, and Gideon’s father has an altar to Baal indicating that he is also a pagan priest. However, Gideon’s character spirals down within the story until he winds up betraying Yahweh. Up until this point Gideon is the only judge to be specifically raised up by Yahweh himself. As the narrative progresses Gideon is seen to be working more so on his own as well becoming much more aggressive and assertive. He kills those who had killed his own brothers in retribution. This is in contrast with Abimelech who later kills all of his own brothers.

Abimelech is seen as an evil character. He kills his brothers on a single stone and at the end of the story he is killed by a single stone. The end of the narrative concludes with a chiasm. It says, “God returned/Abimelech’s evil/and all the men of Shechem’s evil/God caused to return” (188). The conclusion here is significant because it shows how it was God who acted against the wickedness of these people, and it was God who ultimately defeated Baal by acting against them. After the Gideon narrative Baal ceases to act anymore. Yahweh acts a few times, but because of Israel’s refusal to worship him alone as they turn to gods Yahweh has already defeated he does not act very often. Human activity, rather than divine, is emphasized in the rest of the book.

The decrease of the activity of Yahweh in the rest of the book makes it look as though Yahweh has lost control of his people. Since the time of Othniel, every time the Israelites were saved from their enemies the land had rest for many years after the deliverance. Gideon is the last judge to bring rest to the land. He is also the last judge portrayed as having Yahweh “with him.” Jephtah and Samson act mostly on their own, sometimes doing the will of God and sometimes not. The book of Judges even says that the spirit of the Lord had left Samson.

There are also similarities in the last half of Judges with Genesis. However, whereas God acts in Genesis, he does not intervene in Judges. Jephtah’s sacrifice of his daughter parallels Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, except that God stops Abraham from killing his son and he does nothing about Jephtah’s acts. Also, the story of the Levite and his concubine parallels the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Both stories have men of the cities desiring to rape the male guests of one within the city. Both stories show the host offering the men his own virgin daughter or daughters to do with as they please. The difference is that in Genesis God strikes the Sodomites with blindness and destroys the city, and in Gibeah God does nothing to prevent the Levite’s concubine from being brutally raped all night and killed. Also, the overall story structure becomes more chaotic in the second half of Judges. Samson’s story is filled with a bunch of random things that he does, and the last few chapters do not give the reader the typical story of the judge saving the people, but rather several stories about seemingly random people doing horrible things.

The stories in the last half of Judges focus more on personal stories about individuals, such as Abimelech, Samson, and Micah. There is little activity by any god at all. The focus becomes on what seems right in the eyes of the individual rather than what is right in the eyes of God. This is seen when Samson wants to marry the Philistine woman because “she is right in my eyes,” as well as at the close of Judges when it is recorded that everyone did what was right in their own eyes and that at that time there was no king in Israel. Intertribal war also arises several times – Jephtah and the Ephraimites, Samson is handed over to the Philistines by his own people, the Danites attack Laish, and of course the war against Benjamin in which the entire tribe is almost made extinct.

The article concludes by pointing out how the narrative seems to indicate that once Yahweh’s reign is established through a human monarch, then the chaos will end and rest will return to the land. The Israelites have abandoned Yahweh even in the midst of his victory over their enemies and Baal. The reason that he does not come to their aid again by raising up a successful representative of himself is because Yahweh has in turn abandoned them. The reason there is no representative of Yahweh in Israel anymore is because Yahweh is not in Israel anymore.

Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor

I have always wondered what the connection between witchcraft, rebellion, and eating blood had to do with one another in the Old Testament laws. My wife taught at a local Christian school last year and something the administration liked to do was to quote from the Torah laws to the kids. One verse they especially enjoyed using out of context in order to keep kids “in line” was “rebellion is as the sin of divination.” I have wondered about that verse a number of times, along with the verse that condemns divination immediately after having condemned the eating of blood. I have wondered how these commands might correlate with one another, and after reading Pamela Tamarkin Reis’s article “Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor,” I believe I have come to see how all of these commands are connected to each other in the life of Saul in the way that he broke all of them. I believe I am beginning to understand better how the eating of blood is related to divination and how both of these things are related to rebellion.

This article begins by saying that theologians have long been confused about how to interpret and to look at the Witch of Endor in the narrative of Saul. Some early church fathers thought that her attitude and her hospitality should be emulated and that she was a better servant than was Saul. Some have even gone so far as to say she pre-figured Christ. She provides Saul with a meal which allows him to revive his strength and go to face his immanent death in battle. The author, however, states that she believes the witch’s acts to be not acts of hospitality but of self-preservation. While Saul becomes petrified with fear the witch recognizes her peril and acts in order to save herself. The meal which she provides for Saul should not be interpreted as a hospitable meal, but as a part of the séance itself. Reis says “it is a mantic sacrifice to the dead entailing the stringently proscribed eating of blood.” The witch realizes that she has helped Saul, but Saul is the one who has attempted to stamp out all divination in the land, putting mediums to death. However, Saul has nonetheless still come to her and has successfully been delivered an ominous message from the realm of the dead. At this, Saul realizes that he has lost all hope. The witch recognizes this and provides this sacrifice to the spirits so that they may somehow reverse the death sentence they have placed on Saul’s head. In doing this, the witch is attempting to save Saul’s life so that her own life may be saved. Saul is, after all, the one who had originally tried to stamp out all mediums from the land, and how she has delivered a message of death to him. It would seem that the appropriate response of Saul would be to kill this messenger.

The witch recognizes her peril and provides Saul with a sacrifice to the spirits, or to the “gods” as she calls them. She also recognizes that Saul is extremely hungry, since he appears to have fasted for a full day in preparation for this séance. Reis also points out that this sharing of the meal also indicates a sort of covenant or relationship between Saul and the witch being established. It indicates that they are making an agreement to help and not harm each other.

The set up for this story reminds the reader that Samuel has died and also that Saul had eradicated the diviners from the land. Also, it sets up the battle that is to come between the Philistines and the Israelites. Saul is filled with fear at the approach of the Philistines and he attempts to make contact with God, but God does not answer him “neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.” God had already rejected Saul and this had not changed. Instead of repentance, Saul wishes to use God to protect him. What Saul desires is the occult. Saul cannot find the answers he desires from God so he tells his servant to go seek out a witch. This is in reference to Leviticus 19:31 where God says, “'Do not seek out a witch', because Ί am the Lord'.”

The proximity of the witch to Saul’s camp is also discussed. Saul puts on a disguise and they travel to go meet with her. Some wonder if Saul wears a disguise because he is crossing into enemy territory, the place where mediums have been expelled. However, this does not make sense because what is driving Saul is his great fear of the Philistines. It would not follow that he would venture into their territory. What seems more likely is that mediums still existed within Israel’s boundaries and that Saul’s eradication of the spiritists had not been completely thorough. The reason he wears a disguise then seems to be that he does not want his own people or the witch to recognize him as the king. He gets rid of his royal robes so as to not draw attention to himself and what he is doing. The words used to describe Saul’s process of disguising himself are interesting. He “puts on” these clothes similar to how one “puts on” righteousness, majesty, or desolation elsewhere in scripture. Also, the word for “clothing” that is used here has the same root as the word “treachery,” so the text is hinting by word-play that Saul is putting on treachery.

This root-word is also used previously when Saul accuses his army of being treacherous when he discovers them eating upon the blood of the animals. There seems to be a difference between the command to not eat blood and the command to not eat upon or on the blood. This first command is related to the belief that the life of the creature is in the blood, so eating its blood is disrespectful of life itself. The second command has to do with participating in an evil sacrifice to other gods, an act of witchcraft where the blood of the animal is eaten. It can be argued then that when Saul finds his army eating upon the blood, the text may be implying that his army was participating in pagan sacrificial rituals. However, not everyone agrees with this interpretation. Some also say that the command to not eat upon the blood is not related to the command immediately following it to not practice divination. It is relates more to not eating the flesh of a live animal or not eating the flesh of the sacrifice before the blood has been offered up. However, many would still interpret the eating of the blood to be associated with acts of sorcery.

The witch hesitates to work for Saul because she knows that the king has fiercely tried to eliminate her kind and she fears he may turn her in. She does not seem to recognize that she is speaking to Saul himself. The irony is the witch reminds Saul of his own stance against what he is about to do. She also says Saul has “cut” off the sorcerers, another ironic use of words because later Saul and the witch seem to be “cutting” a covenant together. Saul also reassures the witch in the name of the Lord, which is ironic considering his actions are acts against the Lord.

There seems to be much confusion about the point at which the witch recognizes Saul for who he really is. It is at the point when she sees Samuel rising up out of the ground. Some say that she realized from the beginning that he was really Saul because of his request to see Samuel and was only pretending to not recognize him. The reasoning here is that only the king would request to see Saul right before a significant battle. Some also say that the witch recognized that it was truly Saul because Saul is the only person Samuel would have risen up to appear to. The fact that her conjuring actually worked caused her to realize that it was Saul who was with her. Also, some have interpreted that she recognized Samuel and thus Saul before Samuel had fully emerged because only spirits who were important rose from the ground head first. Other spirits apparently rose upside down. Others further say that the aura of the prophet’s presence cast away all deception taking place so that the witch immediately recognized Saul when Samuel appeared. The author states that Samuel had likely been summoned in vain by others, but that he only appeared for Saul because of his close relationship with Saul. Previously in the story of Saul, Samuel is seen rejoicing over Saul and mourning over Saul and praying on Saul’s behalf after he has been rejected by God to the point that God chastises Samuel for making a case for Saul after God has already rejected him. Samuel appears because of his love for Saul. Samuel’s last words to Saul are seen as a call to repentance and a condemning of the path Saul has chosen to take. Samuel utters the name of YHWH seven times in his message from the grave.

The text rarely uses the name of Saul once he dons his disguise as a way of showing how he is hiding his identity. He does not want people to know that he is the king. However, he does use his kingly authority once the witch recognizes him. He uses it when he tells her to not be afraid of him. It is also interesting that when the ghost appears she is not afraid of it but rather of Saul.

Saul’s requests of Samuel are very much centered upon himself. He tells Saul of his own fear and he wants to know what he should do against the Philistines. He is not concerned with his estranged relationship with God, except in the sense that he no longer is able to receive reliable military advice. Samuel’s response then is a reordering of Saul’s priorities to the way they ought to be. Samuel is calling Saul to repentance. Samuel also informs him that he and his sons will die the following day and that he is running out of time. He indicates that the Philistines will rout the Israelites. As long as Samuel had judged, the Philistines had been able to take away any territory from Israel so Saul hoped that Samuel would be able to continue this even after this death. However, Samuel does not provide this assurance for Saul at this point. Saul, though, is as unwilling to listen to Samuel as he was to God, and he does not do as Samuel commands him. He collapses to the ground at Samuel’s disappearance after relaying the divine judgment.

After this the witch begins to act in order to save herself. She approaches Saul perhaps in a sexual sort of way. The text says that she “comes to Saul” in the sense that she may have “come on to Saul” or approached him in a sexual manner. However, she seems to change her tactic when she realizes that Saul is overcome with fear. She then offers him the meal, seeing his weakness and hunger from his 24-hour fast. Also, the words which accompany the meal she offers Saul are a proposition. She refers to herself as Saul’s handmaid and tells him that she has placed her life in his hands. She offers him food, indicating that he may place his life in her hands. This makes more sense if the meal is part of the sacrifice to the spirits to appease them. Saul consents to this, making a covenant with her. He is agreeing to save her life from his punishment if she tries to save his life by interceding on his behalf to the spirits. Saul gives in to her pressing in typical Saul fashion, just as he had given in to the pressure placed on him by the people at other times, such as when he broke his oath in order to protect Jonathan and when he offered an improper sacrifice to save himself from the Philistines. Here he is again seen to be breaking his oath in order to protect someone deserving to die as well as offering up an improper sacrifice. He gives into pressure in the same ways he has before. Though Saul always fails to listen to the voice of God and of Samuel, he seems never to fail to listen to the voices of others.

The author also points out the position Saul takes upon the bed at this point. His position is a reminder of two other accounts involving some form of idolatry. The first relates to the idol or “teraphim” of Laban which Rachel steals and hides in her place of rest. She fails to rise. Also, this word is used when Michal protects David from Saul’s men, using a “teraphim” as a decoy by placing it in David’s bed. The text seems to be implying that Saul continues to participate in the worship of other gods. Further, when the witch kills the calf for the meal, the word used is not the word for butchering or slaughtering it, but rather the word for sacrificing it. The author also points out that a great deal of detail is given as the witch prepares the unleavened bread, a task which does not take an exceptionally long time, but that the preparation of the calf is not described in detail. This may mean that that calf was not in fact cooked properly and that it was intended to be eaten raw and with the blood still in it as a continued part of this séance. Here, Saul, the representative of Yahweh, is seen making a covenant with the enemies of Yahweh.

The offering of the witch on Saul’s behalf, however, does not work out, and the prophecy of Samuel from the grave does indeed come true. One would think that the message given to Saul would cause the reader to feel sorry for him, but it does not. Saul’s response causes the reader to view him with indignation, even more so than the witch herself. Saul is seen as a worse person than the witch. The ironic end to this is that as Saul watches his sons die and realizes that he is next, he becomes afraid of life itself. Up until this point, his survival was what appeared to be most important to him and was what drove him to go to the witch in the first place. Now, however, he despairs of life itself, and the very thing he desired most is not the thing that has become a horror to him. So he kills himself.

Saul’s response to his sin is also compared to David’s response to his sin. When Saul hears that he and his sons will die, his response is one of anguish and he participates in the occult in order to manipulate the divine judgment. He “sits up” to engage in pagan sacrifice and the eating of blood. On the other hand, when David is told that his son will die for his sin, he reacts with anguish and pleads with God himself to take away this punishment rather than participating in the occult. After his anguish, David also “sits up,” but he washes his face and worships God rather than making a covenant with a witch and eating blood as Saul did. This shows how the Davidic monarchy is better than Saul’s monarchy.