Lecture Six: The Downward Spiral of Judges

The Book of Judges

Judges is the second book in the Deuteronomistic History.

The book of Judges contains the history of Israel in the land of Canaan before Israel had kings.

Judges was written during the time of the kings.

The book of Judges is presented as a downward spiral.

Its outlook on Israel’s entry into the Promised Land is quite different than the book of Joshua.

Structure of Judges

1:1-2:5 – Unfinished Conquest

2:6-12:15 – A Succession of Judges

13:1-16:31 – Samson the Lone Hero

17:1-21:25 – Disorder and Infidelity

Themes

Leadership

Deborah holds court

The other major judges are deliverers of the people

The minor judges usually govern in times of peace

Kingship is at first seen as negative because God should be Israel’s king

Later, kingship is seen as a good thing in light of the disasters Israel experienced without one.

The Spirit of the Lord

God’s spirit comes upon certain people and allows them to perform great feats

God’s spirit does not come upon everyone

Holy War

“In Holy War, the LORD alone wins victory.”

Israel can only defeat her enemies because God fights on her behalf.

There is a sense of a spiritual battle taking place on top of the physical battles.

Unfinished Conquest (1:1–3:6)

Chapter one shows the Israelites continuing to conquer the land of Canaan.

However, they begin to have great difficulties in doing so.

Caleb offers his daughter to anyone who will attack a certain region.

Othniel leads the way.

In chapter two, the Israelites are portrayed as settling among the Canaanites instead of driving them out.

God says that Israel has violated their covenant and He will no longer assist them in driving out the nations.

Othniel (3:7-12)

Israel’s first judge is Othniel.

Othniel is from the tribe of Judah.

Othniel was Caleb’s nephew.

Othniel married Caleb’s daughter.

Othniel is the model judge.

The Israelites worshiped Baal and Asherah.

The Israelites were oppressed by Cushan-Rishathaim of Aram Naharaim.

Cushan-Rishathaim of Aram Naharaim literally means, “one of double-wickedness from land of double-rivers.”

Othniel rescues the Israelites after they have been oppressed for eight years.

Yahweh is given credit for the victory (3:10).

Othniel rules Israel for forty years.

Ehud (3:12-30)

The Israelites continued in their disobedience (v. 12).

God allowed them to be oppressed by the Moabites.

Ehud comes to the rescue.

Ehud is from the tribe of Benjamin. In Hebrew, Benjamin means “son of my right hand.” Ironically, Ehud is a left-handed man.

Ehud kills King Eglon, Israel’s oppressor.

Eglon is described as being very fat (v. 17).

The name “Eglon” sounds a lot like the word for “calf.” This is a pun, comparing Eglon to “a fattened calf ready for slaughter.”

Ehud saves the Israelites by assassinating Eglon with his left hand by thrusting a “double-edged” or “double-mouthed” dagger into his belly.

This is fitting for a king described tongue-in-cheek as having a “double-mouth” with which he gorged himself.

Even his belly is described as “swallowing” up the dagger.

After this the text reads, “and the dirt fell out,” or in other words “he pooped himself.”

Ehud escapes via the sewer system (i.e., he jumps down the king’s poop chute to escape).

The king’s attendants thought Eglon was just taking a long time in the bathroom.

Ehud then leads Israel in victorious battle against the Moabites and there was peace for 80 years.

Shamgar (3:31)

“After Ehud came Shamgar son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad. He too saved Israel.”

  -- Judges 3:31

Judges 1:33 refers to a town named “Beth Anath,” or “House of Anath” that was in the territory of Naphtali.

Perhaps Shamgar was from the tribe of Naphtali.

Deborah and Barak (4:1-5:31)

King Jabin of Hazor and General Sisera oppress Israel because the Israelites have once again done evil.

Note that Joshua had already defeated a “King Jabin.”

Deborah was a prophetess and the “wife of Lappidoth,” meaning “woman of fire.”

There is hesitation on the part of Barak to go into battle, so Deborah tells him the victory will be given to “a woman.”

Both of the women in the story, Deborah and Jael, show more courage than the leading man.

Deborah’s name means “honeybee.” Barak’s name means “lightning.” Yet in the story… “honeybee” is brave and “lightning” is chicken.

God throws Sisera’s army into a panic near the Kishon River and Sisera flees the battle.

Sisera seeks refuge in the tent of Jael.

Jael’s husband is a Kenite.

Jael’s name means “Yahweh is God.”

“Sisera” means “snake.”

Jael gives Sisera milk to drink and he falls asleep.

While he is sleeping, Jael drives a tent peg through Sisera’s head, or “temple.”

The word used here as “temple” is in Hebrew “berragato,” which is related to “baraq.”

When Jael crushes Sisera’s “temple,” she also crushes Barak with embarrassment, because a woman had to do what he had failed to do.

The Song of Deborah (5:1-31)

The song of Deborah is thought to be the oldest section of the book of Judges.

In this song, Deborah praises God for giving them victory in battle.

She also praises Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, for her violence against Sisera.

The song also records some interesting details of the battle, such as that God had sent giant hailstones upon the armies of King Jabin and General Sisera.

The song also provides us with a look at what Sisera’s own mother might have thought about his violent death.

The text also says that there are forty years of peace after this successful battle.

Gideon (6:1–8:35)

Deborah was successful, but the cycle of disobedience starts again.

Israel is impoverished by Midianite oppression.

God sends a leader to them in a man named Gideon.

Gideon was from the weakest clan in Manasseh, and he was the lowest-ranked person in his family.

Gideon is hiding in a winepress, threshing wheat, when an angel appears to him.

The angel says, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.” He tells Gideon to go save Israel from the Midianites.

However, Gideon is very unsure of everything.

Gideon responds to God’s messenger with:

Defiant questions

Pointing out the insignificance of his own roots

Repeatedly requesting signs, such as the fleece incidents.

Gideon’s name comes from “gada,” which means “cut down.”

Gideon’s name fits him because he cuts down the idols of his father Joash.

The name of Joash is, ironically, a Yahwistic name, even though Joash is an idolater.

His father renames him “Jerub-Baal,” meaning “one who contends with Baal,” still refusing to acknowledge Gideon as Yahweh's servant, but only as Baal's enemy.

God tests Gideon by reducing the size of his army.

People who are afraid are told to go home.

People who get down on their knees to drink water instead of lapping it with their tongues are told to go home.

Gideon's army is reduced from 32, 000 to 300 men.

Gideon is only reassured of victory after listening to a Midianite conversation instead of listening to God.

The army uses trumpets and water pitchers to create noise confusion at night surrounding the Midianite campl

The Midianites panic and slaughter themselves.

Gideon is victorious in battle!

The people cry out “The sword of the LORD and of Gideon!”

Gideon gets trigger-happy and wipes out several other groups of people along with the Midianite army.

The people try to make Gideon king, but he refuses, insisting that God is Israel’s king.

He rules Israel for forty years.

Overtime, the quality of Gideon’s leadership becomes less and less.

There is still idolatry in the land.

Gideon even makes a golden ephod that the people worship, hearkening back to Aaron and the golden calf.

Gideon begins by cutting down idols, and ends by setting them up.

Previously, Gideon refused to be made king over Israel; now, he is living like a luxurious king.

Gideon also has a son named Abimelech.

“Abimelech” means “father is king.”

Abimelech’s Rebellion (9:1-57)

Abimelech was the son of Gideon and Gideon’s concubine.

Abimelech had seventy half-brothers.

He got them to support his kingship cause.

He used the money they gave him to hire a bunch of thugs.

Abimelech killed all but one of his half-brothers by crushing their heads against a large stone.

Gideon’s youngest son, Jotham, escaped by hiding.

Abimelech proclaimed himself king of Israel.

Jotham decided to resist his half-brother.

He climbed to the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted a parable to the people of Shechem.

Parable of the trees:

Olive tree rejected kingship

Fig tree rejected kingship

Vine rejected kingship

So the people made the Thorn Bush king

The Shechemites got the message and rebelled by robbing Abimelech’s allies.

A guy named Gaal moves to Shechem and tries to get the people to follow him.

Abimelech finds out and slaughters the rebels.

The next day, Abimelech slaughters the farmers in their fields.

He then enters the city to kill everyone else.

The people hide in a temple-tower.

As Abimelech is preparing to burn the tower, a woman from above drops a large millstone on his head.

As he is dying, he tells his men to quickly stab him so that he won’t be remembered as the one who was killed by a woman... even though that's what we remember him for today...so that plan worked out great.

Tola and Jair (10:1-5)

Tola

He was from the tribe of Issachar

He lived in Shamir in the hill country of Ephraim.

His father was Puah and his grandfather was Dodo.

“He rose to save Israel.”

He led Israel 23 years

Jair

He was from Kamon in the region of Gilead

He had thirty sons who rode thirty donkeys and who controlled thirty towns in Gilead

He led Israel 22 years

Jephthah (10:6–12:7)

Again, Israel was evil in the LORD’s sight and began to be oppressed.

However, they began to cry out and confess to Him and they “put away their gods.”

Yahweh’s response is “impatient” for he could bear their misery no longer.

Enter Jephthah.

After rejecting him, the people then try to bring him back so that he may lead them in victory over their enemies and save them.

Jephthah is the son of a prostitute.

He is referred to as the son of Gilead, which is a territory.

In other words, nobody knew who his father was.

The oppression present at this time was by the Philistines and the Ammonites.

Jephthah promises a child-sacrifice to God in exchange for victory, and he ends up killing his own daughter, showing that Israel has mixed the sacred with the perverted.

Three Minor Judges (12:8-15)

Ibzan

He was from Bethlehem in the land of Judah

He had thirty sons and thirty daughters

He led Israel for seven years

Elon

He was from Aijalon in the land of Zebulun

He led Israel for ten years

Abdon

He was from Pirathon in the land of Ephraim

He had forty sons and thirty grandsons who rode on seventy donkeys

He led Israel for eight years

The Birth of Samson (13:1-25)

A strange man appears to a woman and says she will have a son.

He tells her that her son will be a Nazirite from birth and gives her specific instructions.

She tells her husband Monoah about the strange man.

Manoah comes to see the strange man later on and offers him a meal.

The man does not need food and tells them to use it to make a sacrifice to God.

Monaoh asks what the man’s name is and the man says, “Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding.”

As they make their sacrifice the man ascends in the flames.

Monoah freaks out and says they are going to die because they just had an encounter with God and didn’t know it.

His wife reassures him that God wouldn’t have given them such good news if He had wanted to kill them.

She gives birth to a son and names him “Samson.”

Samson (13:1-16:31)

At this point, the Philistines have become prominent in the narrative.

Samson is a Nazirite from birth, but he is constantly breaking his covenant.

He does so secretly by eating honey out of a dead lion’s carcass.

He also gets drunk for seven days and marries a Philistine woman, saying “she is right in my eyes.”

Samson is weak towards women and loses a bet/riddle/game with the Philistines because he gives in to the nagging of his wife.

He leaves his wedding in a rage and the Philistines give his wife to another man.

Later he comes back to patch things up with his bride by bringing her a goat, only to hear from his father-in-law "I gave her to the best man because I thought you hated her."

In revenge, Samson sets 300 foxes on fire and sets them loose in the Philistines’ crops, and they retaliate by burning his wife.

The people of Judah hand Samson over to the Philistines because he is out of control.

However, Samson breaks the ropes that bind him and slaughters 1,000 men with a donkey’s jawbone.

He's quite pleased with himself and makes up a little ditty, singing, "With an ass's jawbone I've made asses out of them."

We also learn that Samson sleeps with prostitutes.

Once, he only spends half the night with a prostitute because he knows people are coming to arrest him.

He gets up in the night and walks off with the city gates on his shoulders.

Later, he meets and falls in love with Delilah.

Delilah’s name literally means “of the night.”

Samson’s name, in contrast, means “sunshine.”

What does light have in common with darkness?

The Philistines pay Delilah 1,100 pieces of silver to betray Samson.

Samson is so stupid that he falls for Delilah’s trick and lets her cut his hair.

He is humiliated before Dagon, the god of the Philistines.

Samson falls further into darkness when the Philistines poke out his eyes.

However, Samson’s final act of suicidal terrorism brings about a partial deliverance to the people.

Summary of Israel’s Judges

Micah and the Danite Migration (17:1-18:31)

The character of Micah is introduced.

Micah’s mother may have been Delilah.

Micah returns 1,100 pieces of silver to her which had been stolen.

She uses 200 of these 1,100 pieces of silver to build an idol in order to honor Yahweh.

This is very twisted in nature and shows the backwardness of the time-period.

Micah makes an ephod and appoints his own son as priest of his illegitimate shrine.

He hires a Levite as a priest, but everything about the arrangement is illegitimate.

Micah is from Ephraim, but his association with the Danites may be implying that Micah was Samson’s illegitimate son.

The Danites move north and take Micah’s priest and idol with them.

Later, Moses’ own grandson becomes the idolatrous priest of the Danites.

The Climax of the Downward Spiral (19:1–21:25)

Later, a second Levite arrives on the scene in order to retrieve his wife who has fled from him to the house of her father in Bethlehem.

On their way back, they spend the night in the town of Gibeah in the territory of Benjamin.

The men of Gibeah come out to commit “sodomy” with the Levite, but instead the Levite offers them his wife/concubine and they brutally rape her all night.

In the morning, the Levite sees her lying on the doorstep and cuts her body up into twelve pieces.

He sends a piece of her to each of the twelve tribes.

A civil war then erupts against Benjamin, with Judah leading the way in battle, and all but 600 men of Benjamin are killed.

The end of the book deals with the eleven tribes attempting to avoid the complete extinction of Benjamin by providing the remaining 600 men with wives.

They do so by staging a giant kidnapping of several hundred girls from the towns that refused to participate in the civil war.

The book closes by echoing the words of Samson, saying, “At that time, there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.”

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.

The Downward Spiral of Judges

The book of Judges is presented as a downward spiral. It begins with Othniel (3:7-12), Caleb’s nephew who married Caleb’s daughter. He is the model judge. The Israelites worshiped Baal and Asherah and were oppressed by Cushan-Rishathaim of Aram Naharaim (or literally, “one of double-wickedness from land of double-rivers”). Othniel rescues them and Yahweh is given credit for the victory (3:10).

Our next notable judge is Ehud (3:12-30). It is recorded that the Israelites continued in their disobedience. Left-handed Ehud of the tribe of Benjamin (which ironically means “son of my right hand”) kills Israel’s oppressor, the very fat King Eglon (whose name sounds like the word for “calf,” implying that he was like a fattened calf ready for slaughter). Ehud saves the Israelites by assassinating Eglon with his left hand by thrusting a “double-edged” or “double-mouthed” dagger into his belly, which is fitting for a king described tongue-in-cheek as having a “double-mouth” with which he gorged himself. Even his belly is described as “swallowing” up the dagger, immediately followed by “the dirt fell out,” or in other words “he pooped himself.” Ehud then escapes via the sewer system (i.e., he jumps down the king’s poop chute to escape) and leads Israel in victorious battle against the Moabites.

Next up, we have Deborah/Barak (4:1-5:31). King Jabin of Hazor and General Sisera oppress the Israelites because the Israelites have once again done evil. Note that Joshua had already defeated a “King Jabin.” Deborah was a prophetess and the “wife of Lappidoth,” meaning “woman of fire.” There is hesitation on the part of Barak to go into battle, yet both of the women in the story, Deborah and Jael, show more courage than the leading man. God throws Sisera’s army into a panic and after Sisera flees the battle and seeks refuge in the tent of Jael, Jael, whose name means “Yahweh is God,” drives a tent peg through Sisera’s “temple.” The word used hear as “temple” is in Hebrew “berragato,” which is related to “baraq,” so it is sort of in Barak’s face that a woman killed Sisera and not him.

Next is Gideon (6:1-8:35). Deborah was successful, but the cycle of disobedience starts again and Israel is impoverished by Midianite oppression. But God sends a prophet to them in Gideon. However, Gideon is very unsure of everything. He responds to God’s messenger with defiant questions, with pointing out the insignificance of his own roots, and with repeatedly requesting signs. God tests Gideon by reducing the size of his army, yet Gideon is only reassured of victory after listening to a Midianite conversation instead of listening to God. Gideon’s name means “cut down” which is fitting since he cuts down the idols of his father Joash, whose name ironically is Yahwistic. His father renames him “Jerub-Baal,” ironically refusing to acknowledge Yahweh by only saying that his son is “one who contends with Baal,” which is what Jarub-Baal means. Overtime, quality leadership in Israel becomes less and less. There is still idolatry in the land, and Gideon even makes a golden ephod that the people worship, which is similar in nature to the story of Aaron the priest in Exodus setting up the golden calf which the people worship. Gideon begins by cutting down idols, and ends by setting them up. The significance of the story of Gideon’s son Abimelech is addressed elsewhere.

Next on our list is Jephtah (10:6-12:7). Again, Israel was evil in the LORD’s sight and began to be oppressed, but they began to cry out and confess to him and they put away their gods. Yahweh’s response is “impatient” for he could bear their misery no longer. Enter Jephtah. After rejecting him, the people then try to bring him back so that he may lead them in victory over their enemies and save them. Jephtah is the son of a prostitute. He is referred to as the son of Gilead, which is a territory and not a person. In other words, nobody knew who his father was. The oppression present at this time was by the Philistines and the Ammonites. Jephtah promises a child-sacrifice to God in exchange for victory, and he ends up killing his own daughter, showing that Israel has mixed the sacred with the perverted.

Our next judge is Samson (13:1-16:31). At this point, the Philistines have become prominent in the narrative. Samson is a Nazarite from birth, but he is constantly breaking his covenant. He does so secretly by eating honey out of a dead lion’s carcass. He also gets drunk for seven days and marries a Philistine woman, saying “she is right in my eyes.” Samson is weak towards women and loses a bet/riddle/game with the Philistines because he gives in to the nagging of his wife. He leaves in a rage and the Philistines give his wife to another man. In revenge, Samson burns the Philistines’ crops, and they respond by burning his wife. The people of Judah hand Samson over to the Philistines because he is out of control, but Samson breaks the ropes that tie him and slaughters 1,000 men with a donkey’s jawbone. Later, he meets and falls in love with Delilah, whose name means “of the night.” Samson’s name, in contrast, means “sunshine.” The Philistines pay Delilah 1,100 pieces of silver to betray Samson. He is so stupid that he falls for her trick and is humiliated before Dagon, the god of the Philistines. However, Samson’s final act of suicidal terrorism brings about a partial deliverance to the people.

Later we see the Danite Migration take place (17:1-18:31). The character of Micah is introduced. Micah’s mother may have been Delilah. Micah returns 1,100 pieces of silver to her which had been stolen. She uses 200 of these 1,100 pieces of silver to build an idol in order to honor Yahweh. This is very twisted in nature and shows the backwardness of the time-period. Micah makes an ephod and appoints his own son as priest of his illegitimate shrine. He hires a Levite as a priest, but everything about the arrangement is illegitimate. Micah is of Dan, just as Samson was of Dan, and the text may be implying that Micah was Samson’s illegitimate son. The Danites move north and take Micah with them.

Later, a second Levite arrives on the scene in order to retrieve his wife who has fled from him to the house of her father in Bethlehem. On their way back, they spend the night in the town of Gibeah in the territory of Benjamin. The men of Gibeah come out to commit “sodomy” with the Levite, but instead the Levite offers them his wife/concubine and they brutally rape her all night. In the morning, the Levite sees her lying on the doorstep and cuts her body up into twelve pieces. He sends a piece to each of the twelve tribes. A civil war then erupts against Benjamin, and all but 600 men of Benjamin are killed. Judah leads the way in battle. The end of the book deals with the eleven tribes attempting to avoid the complete extinction of Benjamin by providing the remaining 600 men with wives. The book closes by echoing the words of Samson, by saying, “At that time, there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.”

It would seem that in the book of Judges the tribe of Judah is the favored one. In chapter one, the model judge, Othniel, is from Judah. The victories ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Caleb elsewhere in the Bible are given to Judah in the book of Judges. It would also seem that book of Judges is indicating that the North is bad. According to Judges, it was the northern tribes who failed to drive out the Canaanites in the land. Othniel is the good judge and hails from Judah, but other judges are from the North and are portrayed as being not as good. This helps to set up the Saul/David conflict that comes later in the Deuteronomistic History. As Judges progresses it begins to show the tribes besides Judah to be growing worse and worse, especially the tribe of Benjamin from where Saul later comes. More specifically, Saul comes from Gibeah of Benjamin, the location of the attempted sodomy, gang-rape and murder of the Levite’s wife/concubine, and the scene of the great civil war at the end of the book. The Deuteronomistic History intentionally portrays Saul negatively by showing his association with Benjamin among other things, while at the same time portraying David positively by showing his association with the more faithful tribe of Judah. The narrative is asking, “Which is the legitimate leadership? David of Judah? – Or Saul of Benjamin?”

Joshua Studies

The Conquest as a Religious Act 

The structure and content of the book of Joshua portrays the conquest of the land as a religious act of holy war. In the preparation for the conquest (1-5) the role of God is shown (1:2-5) as well as Joshua’s own responsibility (6-9). Throughout the story there is a lack of military language and strategy. The Israelites sanctify themselves. They follow the Ark. They circumcise themselves, celebrate Passover, and set up memorial stones after crossing the river. Joshua also has a Theophany like Moses. In the conquest itself (6-12) the military plan for Jericho resembles a cultic event. Yahweh fights for Israel (2; 10). The “kherem” or the “devotion to destruction” for the LORD is also established, and when Achan breaks “kherem” he and all associated with him is destroyed. In the allocation of the land (13-22), all of the tribes receive an allotment, God’s promise to Israel is fulfilled, the Levitical cities are established, and the inheritances are determined by “lot” (14:2; 19:51). In Joshua’s closing speeches and addresses it is stressed that God gave the Land (23:1, 3, 5, 9-10), he stresses obedience, warns about disobedience, and performs a covenant ceremony. In this is seen: God’s saving action (1-13), the command for the Israelites to either choose Yahweh or not (14-15), the declaration to serve Yahweh (16-18, 21-24), the recording of the covenant (25-27). All these show how the conquest is a religious act.

Joshua as a Second Moses 

Joshua is also portrayed as a second Moses. They both send spies into the land (Num. 13:1-3; Josh. 2:1), both led Israelites across a body of water (Ex. 14-15; Josh. 3-4), both had a Theophany (Ex. 3:1-6; Josh. 5:13-15), both carry the role of intercessor (Ex. 32:11-12; Josh. 7:7-10), there is a similarity between the lifting of Moses’ staff and Joshua’s sword in battle (Ex. 17:10-13; Josh. 8:18, 26), both are conquerors of territory (Num. 21; Josh. 1-12), and both give farewell addresses (Deut. 4-30; Josh. 23-24). Joshua is also portrayed as a faithful deuteronomistic leader with the extermination of the Canaanites (Deut. 7:1-2; 16; Josh. 6:21; 10:40; 11:15, 23), the Covenant Renewal (Deut. 11:29-30; 27:3-4; Josh. 8:30-34), also, the written Copy of the Law, the removal of bodies from trees (Deut. 21:22-23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26-27), Celebration of Passover (Deut. 16:1; Josh. 5:10), regulations for those who surrender (Deut. 20:10-11; Josh. 9:6, 8, 15), and he selects Cities of Refuge (Deut. 19:1-2, 8-10; Josh. 20:1-3, 7-8).

Joshua in Archaeology 

In Joshua, the portrayal of the conquest differs from recent archaeological data. Different historical/sociological models have been developed by scholars to explain the conquest in light of the Bible’s account and archaeology. One is the Conquest Theory. Support for this theory is that in archaeology certain cities showed Late Bronze destruction, such as Bethel, Hazor, and Debir. The problems with this theory are that many sites did not show destruction levels during this time period, such as Ta’anach, Megiddo, Jokneam, and, Makkedah. And some sites were not inhabited at all, including Jericho, Gibeon, and Ai. W.F. Albright was the main proponent of the Conquest Theory, along with scholars such as G. Ernest Wright and John Bright. Another theory was the Peaceful Infiltration Model, supported by Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth. The support for this is that it corresponded with both archaeology and the biblical text. Joshua 13:1; 23; 12 indicate that the destruction was not actually total. Also, cities said to be conquered in Joshua are shown to be unconquered in Judges, including Ta’anach, Megiddo, Gezer, Debir, Hazor, Jerusalem, and Dor. The problems with this model included methodological issues including a “romanticized” version of Bedouin life. Another theory was the Peasant Revolt Theory, supported by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald. Support showed that there was a sharp rise in the population of the central highlands during this time. The problem was difficulty accounting for the population explosion.

Joshua in the Context of the Deuteronomistic History 

The conquest of Joshua also relates to Deuteronomy. As previously stated, the promise of God in Moses is fulfilled in Joshua, Joshua follows the laws of Deuteronomy, and Joshua sets the stage for the rest of the Deuteronomistic History. He is a king-like figure like Josiah, he is faithful to God’s Law, and he establishes Israel in the Land with specific instructions. Later, Israel abandons the laws and becomes chaotic and conquered. However, Josiah restores the Law in later times. Joshua and Josiah book end each other. They are both king-like figures, both copy the Law, both read it to the assembly, and both celebrate the Passover. Not to mention the obvious similarities in both of their names.

Formation of the Pentateuch

Modern Source Criticism 

According to modern source criticism, the Pentateuch is believed to have been the product of several different sources deriving from different religious traditions. It was believed for centuries that since the Pentateuch contained the Law of Moses and was referred to as the books of Moses that Moses himself had been the sole author of this work. According to modern source criticism, however, this is not the case. People began to doubt the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch when they began to study the texts more closely and discovered many potential flaws to this view.

Source criticism of today points to the documentary hypothesis. Within the Pentateuch, texts that refer to God as Yahweh are associated with the southern kingdom of Judah. Texts that refer to God as Elohim are associated with the northern kingdom of Israel. The Yahwistic texts are called “J” and are thought to have come together in the 10th – 9th centuries B.C. The Elohistic texts are called “E” and are thought to have come together in the 8th century B.C. Both J and E are assumed to be associated with and derived from the monarchy in the land at the time. D source is from the 7th century and is associated with the reign of Josiah. P source is associated with the priests of the 6th century.

Mosaic Authorship? 

People began to question the idea of Mosaic authorship in favor of these other sources for many reasons. The textual evidence against Mosaic authorship was plenty, including the cases of doublets and triplets, where very similar events occurred on more than one occasion in the text, such as with the descendants of Shem in Genesis 10:21-31 and 11:10-26. This is also seen in the wife/sister stories, where the lead character tells a ruler that his wife is really his sister – twice with Abraham in the cases of Pharaoh and Abimelech and then again with Isaac and Abimelech. There are two accounts of the naming of Beersheba, three records of the giving of the Decalogue by Moses, as well as the case of Joshua’s appointment in both Numbers 27:12-13 and Deuteronomy 31:14-15, 23. There were also various tensions within the texts themselves, such as the order of events in the creation story in Genesis 1-3, two different locations for Benjamin’s birthplace in Genesis 35:16-19 and 35:23-26, life spans in Genesis 6:3 and 11:32, human language and its origins in Genesis 11:1 and 10:5, 20, 31, as well as differences with at what point in history was the name Yahweh first introduced (Ex. 6:3; Gen. 12:7). Also, how could Moses have recorded his own death? And why would he say of himself that he was the “most humble man on the face of the whole earth”? There is also a perspective in the stories of one who has already entered the Promised Land, and Moses never did.

Characteristic Traits of the Pentateuchal Sources 

Within these different sources of J, E, P, and D are different styles and characteristic traits. Each source gives its own unique understanding of God and who he is. In J God is more anthropomorphic in nature. He forms man like a potter from clay and walks around in the cool of the Garden in Genesis 2-3. He also appears a man without being recognized, such as with Abraham before the destruction of Sodom as well as when he comes down to investigate Babel. In E God often communicates through dreams, as in the Joseph stories in Genesis 40:8; 41:16, 25, 28, 39. He also communicates through intercessors and prophetic figures, as in Genesis 20:7. In P, God is portrayed as more impersonal. The focus is on the priesthood and the Tabernacle. The Urim and Thummin are used to communicate with God in a way (Ex. 25-27; 28-29). In D, there is exclusive worship of Yawheh, as in the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5). Love and gratitude are shown to Yahweh (7:9; 10:12). In the Pentateuch, the stories of Yahweh are the stories of Judah, and the stories of Elohim are associated with Israel’s ancestors. J is associated with the tribe of Judah, and E is associated with the tribe of Ephraim. J is associated with the reign of King David, and E with Jeroboam; J with Jacob/Esau and the location of Edom, and E with Shechem and the store cities and forced labor under Jeroboam in later times. In J, Judah saves Joseph. In E, Reuben does. Caleb is the hero of J, and Joshua the hero of E.

Origins of D Source 

The D source is associated with Josiah’s reign, the discovery of the Law, and the reform. What we call “Dtr,” or the Deuteronomist, is thought to be responsible for the works of Joshua through Kings. The origins of D and its association with the reign of Josiah can be seen in Deuteronomy 1:1-4:43. It is believed that “Dtr” composed this section. “Dtr” had Deuteronomy 4:44-30:20 at his disposal. There are revisions of Numbers at the beginning of Deuteronomy that are associated with him. Dtr is also associated with the stories of the designation of Joshua and the death of Moses. The purpose of Dtr’s work in his addition to D was to explain the reason for the destruction of Judah and Israel. Leaders and people are evaluated on the basis of the Law Code found in Deuteronomy 12-26. The role of D was to provide instruction for entering the land, tell of consequences for disobedience (28: 15-68), consequences for obedience (28:1-14), and what happens when Exile happens (4:29-31; 30:1-10). D sets up the story of “DtrH.” It is the preface to the history. In this history, Joshua and Josiah book end each other. They are both king-like figures, both copy the Law, both read it to the assembly, and both celebrate the Passover. Not to mention the obvious similarities in both of their names.

Martin Noth and Frank Moore Cross on the composition of the Deuteronomistic History

Martin Noth believed that the individual designated “Dtr” was responsible for the work of Joshua through Kings. Dtr was both editor and author of the composition, and worked with the available sources to form the Deuteronomistic History as it appears today. He edited available material and served as a creative author at times. Dtr composed his work around and near the date 562 B.C. Noth believed Joshua through Kings represented a unified work. Evidence for this is seen in the special role of Deuteronomy in the text. He believed that Dtr composed Deuteronomy 1:1-4:43. The purpose of the work was to explain the reason of the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in 721 B.C. The leaders and the people of the composition are evaluated on the basis of the Law Code found in Deuteronomy 12-26. Noth sees a unity in the work in Deuteronomistic language and style, in the strategic speeches (Josh. 1; 23; 1 Sam. 13; 1 Kgs. 8:14), and in the summarizing reflections (Josh. 12; Judg. 2:11; 2 Kgs. 17:7). He sees this in the chronology laid out (1 Kgs. 6:1) of the 480 years. Noth believed Dtr was associated with Josiah’s reign. Joshua and Josiah are compared to each other in a positive light. Dtr also makes Judah look good and shows that the Laws of Deuteronomy should be followed.

Frank Moore Cross believed there were two additions to the Deuteronomistic History which are called “Dtr1” and “Dtr2.” Dtr1 was pre-exilic and Dtr2 was exilic. Starting with Dtr1, there are two themes present in the text: The sin of Jeroboam, and God’s faithfulness towards David. The fall of the Northern Kingdom is blamed on Jeroboam’s sin (2 Kgs. 17:20-*3). In Dtr1, a prophet is seen denouncing the altar placed at Bethel (1 Kgs. 13:2-5). Dtr1 seems to anticipate the reform of Josiah. In the work, Davidic kings are portrayed as mostly good, especially Josiah. The work of Dtr1 is then seen as a message to the North to return to the worship of Yahweh at the Jerusalem sanctuary during the time of Josiah’s reign. It speaks also to Judah, saying the Kingdom’s restoration depends on the nation’s return to the Covenant with Yahweh as well as the whole-hearted return of the king to the ways of David.

Dtr2 is then seen as the exilic addition to the text, according to Cross. He believed that the redactor brought the work up to date during the Exile, and recorded the Fall of Jerusalem. Dtr2 reshapes history, blaming the Fall of Jerusalem on the wickedness of Manasseh (2 Kgs. 21:7-14). He shows that Josiah is repentant after the discovery of the Law (2 Kgs. 23:25b-27). Passages of the text are addressed to captives, emphasizing the fact that Yahweh will not forget the Covenant of their Fathers and promising return from their captivity and their restoration if they would repent, etc. (Deut. 4:27-31; 30:1-10; 1 Kgs. 8:25b, 46-53). Cross believed Dtr2 was completed around 500 B.C. and that it attempted to transform the history into a sermon to Judean exiles.

Bathsheba: A Feminist Approach

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide a literary interpretation based on the foundations of Feminist Criticism towards the Bathsheba narratives, found in 2 Samuel 11-12 as well as 1 Kings 1-2. The objectification, victimization, and passiveness of Bathsheba and her role as an agent in the narrative of 2 Samuel will be investigated, as well as the perhaps more positive portrayal of her and her role as an active character complete with traits of cunning, jealousy, and loyalty as seen in 1 Kings.

Feminist Possibilities

Throughout history, Bathsheba has been portrayed in many different ways. Most of these ways appear to shed a rather negative light on the character of Bathsheba in one way or another. Art and cinema have portrayed her as both a harlot and a rape victim, objectifying her to the extreme.[1] She has been labeled as one of the “bad girls of the Bible.” While some might argue that this title suits her actions, others may point out that titles and portrayals such as these further objectify this woman and bring about an even greater injustice. The latter would perhaps say that objectification of a woman such as Bathsheba throughout the history of art and cinema is the result of male oppression in these systems and in society as a whole. Bathsheba is often portrayed as a lewd whore leading David astray. In Henry King’s 1951 movie David and Bathsheba she is portrayed as one who despised her husband for his lack of love and conspired to entice David. [2] One might call the Bathsheba of this movie David’s stalker, a wicked temptress. She has been portrayed little better in other films.[3]

While media has tended to portray Bathsheba on rather negative terms, Bathsheba may be viewed on many numbers of levels. Winkelman argues that Bathsheba should not be viewed as a seductive temptress and that her bath was purely innocent. He points out that traditionally Bathsheba’s washing has often been interpreted as a menstrual purification ritual. However, he states that washing was not required for a woman after her period during this time, and was only a part of later rabbinic tradition.[4] Quoting Tikva Frymer-Kensky, he says “that bathing and purification are two separate events, not necessarily pertaining to each other or even Bathsheba's menstrual cycle,”[5] and that “’…in the Bible—women do not seem to wash after menstruation', clarifying that time, not water, brings an end to menstruation.”[6] Her bath as menstrual cleansing has often been interpreted to show that she was not pregnant before David had sexual relations with her, but Winkelman argues that her washing was a different act of self-sanctifying that showed her identification with the Israelite deity.[7] He compares her washing with the washing of other women in the Bible, who bathed for the sake of bathing and not for menstrual purification. He compares Bathsheba with Pharaoh’s daughter and Ruth. Both of these women became the mothers, so to speak, of the great leaders of Israel, Moses and David after having washed themselves. In the same way, Bathsheba is shown to have washed herself prior to becoming the mother of one of the great leaders of Israel, Solomon.[8] All three of these women are non-Israelites, but are shown to be worthy of mothering the great leaders of Israel, in part through the way they wash themselves. He writes, “Bathsheba's ethnicity is addressed later, but note Bathsheba washes and becomes a mother of Israel, exactly like Pharaoh's daughter and Ruth.”[9] In this way, Bathsheba should not be viewed in a negative light, but ought to be seen as one who is prepared or sanctified and ready to be used by God as the mother of a great leader of Israel. [10]Her sanctification and identification with the Israelite deity is evident even in the midst of the sexual abuse suffered upon her by David.[11]

Bathsheba may be viewed on many numbers of levels. This is especially true when it comes to the literary theory of Feminism, which recognizes both the negative and the positive views of Bathsheba. Feminism seeks in a way to liberate the female from her bondage to male-dominated thought in literature, society, work, the home, and other places.[12] Literarily, Feminism may be applied to the Bathsheba narratives in the Bible, bringing about a number of different views and interpretations of both the character of the figure Bathsheba herself, as well critiques on the male characters in the narratives, such as David, as well as different analytical interpretation, critiques, and suggestions about the writer or writer of the narratives themselves.

Feminism may be approached in a number of different ways. One may apply feminist interpretation to the story of David and Bathsheba in order to portray Bathsheba as a helpless victim of David, pointing to this as an example of the oppression of women throughout history by men in order to say that women must at last be liberated from male domination. One may use Feminism to portray Bathsheba as a very clever woman who positioned herself in just the right place at the right time in order to gain political influence. One may seek to use Feminism in the hope of showing that while Bathsheba was a helpless victim, at first she overcame these difficulties and rose to become the most prominent woman in all of Israel, eventually causing her own son to be placed on the throne.

Analysis of the Text

Charles Bressler provides a list of questions for one to consider when reading a text through the lens of Feminist Criticism. The first of these questions is “Is the author male or female?”[13] To answer this question in regard to the Bathsheba narratives, one must make an investigation into the authorship of the Deuteronomistic History. It would appear that the Deuteronomist is the one who compiled these stories into his greater history as well as the one who wrote many parts of this history. While it is unclear who the exact author is, we may attribute these stories to the Deuteronomist.

Another question to ask oneself when engaging in a Feminist interpretation of the text is “Is the text narrated by a male or female?”[14] Traditionally, it would seem that the Deuteronomist is the male narrator for these accounts. However, it is difficult to say this with absolute certainty. Some would argue that this story is really the voice of a woman showing how women were mistreated. However, it makes more sense to say that the narrator is male because the society in which these stories were written was a male dominated society. Also, while the text involves women, the narrator never gives the reader insight into what is going on in the minds of the women characters. The narrator does give quite a bit of insight, though, into the minds of the male characters.

Another question to ask in this Feminist investigation of the text is “What types of roles do women haven in the text?”[15] Bathsheba herself is really the only woman within the initial narrative involving her. However, David’s other wives are also briefly mentioned by Nathan. The role of Bathsheba in this first story seems to be of a passive nature. Bathsheba is seen bathing by David who lusts over her and has her brought to his palace in order to sleep with him. After this encounter with the king she is sent home and soon realizes she is pregnant. She then speaks her only words in this story and sends a messenger to David saying, “I’m pregnant.” After this Bathsheba has no role in the story until after her husband is led to his death by David, and David takes her to be his wife after she mourns for her husband. She gives birth to David’s son, but Yahweh puts the child to death as a sort of punishment for David’s sin. She is then seen being comforted by David for the loss of her child. Eventually she gives birth to another son, Solomon, or Jedidiah. Bathsheba is not the focus of this story, but rather David. This story is about David’s sin and its consequences for David, and not about how Bathsheba herself was wronged and what this did to her.[16] She is not much of a character in this story, but only fulfills the role required of her in order to make the story worth reading.

In the story involving Bathsheba in 1 Kings 1, she is seen as a much more dynamic character. She is not a passive object, but a person with intellect who uses her wisdom to insure that her son’s right to the throne is maintained. In contrast to the first story in which David used his royal position to manipulate a helpless Bathsheba, Bathsheba uses her royal position to manipulate a helpless David. Another female character in this story is Abishag, a beautiful young woman who is used by David’s attendants in order to provide him with warmth. In a way, she is treated as an object by her male superiors. Adonijah even tries to use her to gain access to the throne. Adonijah also attempts to use Bathsheba in this attempt, but his plan backfires due to the cleverness of Bathsheba. Adonijah wishes to marry Abishag in order to be able to claim rights to the throne, but he must submit his request to Bathsheba. Bathsheba then uses this opportunity to provide Solomon with an excuse for getting rid of his rival half-brother. Robert Vasholz writes, “Bathsheba's request, then, on Adonijah's behalf,exposed him as still being a serious threat to Solomon and one that needed to be dealt with.” He continues, “Here was a very wise woman (and mother) whose acumen not only helped her son to secure his reign, but who also demonstrates wisdom as a virtue of God's kingdom.”[17] Some, however, would argue that it was really the intelligence of Nathan that secured Solomon’s inheritance of the throne and that Nathan was using Bathsheba in order to save his own life. However, it would seem that while Nathan suggests the plot to Bathsheba, there is evidence that she was fully capable of coming up with various elements of it on her own. No longer is she the passive and silent woman seen in 1 Samuel 11. She is a woman with an agenda, conspiring with Nathan get from David what they want, perhaps even “taking advantage of David’s feebleness to ‘plant’ a memory so that he will act in the manner that they wish.”[18] This interpretation is possible due to the fact that David is never before recorded as having said that Solomon would take over for him as king.

Another question which ties into the previous one is “Are the female characters the protagonists or secondary and minor characters?”[19] In 1 Samuel 11, Bathsheba is definitely a secondary or minor character. She is only there as an agent of plot, and not as a character herself. She barely speaks, and she has no significant role other than being used by David. Adele Berlin writes, “All this leads us to view Bathsheba as a complete non-person. She is not even a minor character, but simply part of the plot. This is why she is not considered guilty of adultery. She is not an equal party to the adultery, but only the means whereby it was achieved.”[20] He goes on to say that she should not even be considered as a type in the story, but merely an agent. He says, “The plot in 2 Sam. 11 calls for adultery, and adultery requires a married woman. Bathsheba fills that function. Nothing about her which does not pertain to that function is allowed to intrude into the story.”[21] In 1 Kings 1, however, Bathsheba would appear to be a main character, alongside Nathan, Solomon, and Adonijah. David takes on a lesser role at this point. Berlin writes, “Bathsheba's function as an agent in 2 Sam. 11-12 is in marked contrast to Bathsheba as a character in 1 Kings 1-2. Here she is a "real" person, a mother concerned with securing the throne for her son. She emerges in these episodes as one of the central characters, important in affairs of state as well as in family matters…”[22] However, Berlin does recognize that while Bathsheba is not an agent anymore, there is a woman portrayed in the same way in this story that Bathsheba was portrayed in 2 Samuel. This woman is Abishag, who does not speak, but is only used by the other characters as a means to get what they want.[23]

Another question to ask when applying a Feminist hermeneutic to the text is “Do any stereotypical characterizations of women appear?”[24] In 1 Samuel 11 it could be argued that the first sight of Bathsheba is a stereotypical one. It portrays her as a beautiful woman bathing and becoming the object of lust for David. One may argue that she fills the stereotypical role of female as sex object in her introduction. It could also be argued that both Bathsheba and Abishag fulfill the stereotypical roles of women to a certain extent in 1 Kings 1. Both of them seem to a part of what one might refer to as David’s royal herem, a stereotypical position for some women in ancient near eastern stories.[25] Bathsheba could be seen as the head of the royal herem as David’s favorite wife, a position sometimes referred to as “gebirah.”[26] Bathsheba is also very rarely referred to by name early on in the narrative. She is identified as “Uriah’s wife,” thus indicating that her social status is based upon her husband. She is not necessarily considered her own person apart from her husband. She belongs to him, and often when she is referred to in the story she is referred to only as his wife, or the daughter of Eliam. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible indicates that “Bathsheba is among five women included in the Gospel of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, all of whom are listed by their own names, except for Bathsheba, who is identified as ‘the wife of Uriah’.”[27] This refers back to the way to which she is referred in 2 Samuel. It continues, “By using the language of 2 Sam 11:3, 26; 12:10 and 15, the genealogy indirectly recalls the story of David’s abuse of power and Bathsheba’s vulnerability.”[28]

Another question to ask oneself is “What are the attitudes toward women held by the male characters?”[29] In the first story, David’s attitude towards Bathsheba is evident. He sees her bathing, wants to have sex with her, and uses his power to get what he wants. After their sexual encounter, she is sent back to her home. He appears to be done with her. When he finds out she is pregnant he makes various attempts to cover up what he has done. He tries to get Uriah to have relations with his wife, but Uriah refuses, perhaps suspecting David’s scheme.[30] David’s servants do nothing to protect Bathsheba from David, except for mentioning to him that she is a married woman. Later, after David has caused Uriah’s death, he waits until Bathsheba’s period of mourning for her husband is over before taking her to be his wife. Later, when the child of their iniquity dies, David is seen tending to Bathsheba and comforting his grieving wife. This attitude seems to be an improvement over the lust originally seen in David. Psalm 51 is attributed to David after he had sinned with Bathsheba. Within this psalm is seen great remorse for what has taken place. The psalmist, speaking for David, writes, “Have mercy on me, O God…” and “Against you, and you only have I sinned.” This would seem to indicate that David sees his sin as something not committed against Bathsheba or Uriah or even Joab, but as only against God. Garland and Richmond say that “David still seemed not to understand the enormity of what he had done to others. What about Bathsheba? What about Uriah? But his sin against them was his sin against God, and God offers forgiveness to the repentant and humbled David.”[31] This appears to be a distorted view of his sin, as if he does not realize that his sin is not just between him and God, but one that affected the lives of other people as well, including Bathsheba. Another interpretation of these words attributed to David in this psalm would say that in saying that He has sinned against God alone, he is saying that the root of all sins against other people is sin against God. [32]One may also argue that in equating is sin against Bathsheba with sin against God he is elevating Bathsheba to the position of God, or at least identifying her with God. The 1 Samuel 11 story says that “What David had done greatly displeased the Lord.” God took David’s actions against Bathsheba as actions against himself. In this way, God is seen identifying with the woman of Bathsheba. God is seen suffering alongside a woman who was abused by a man. At the same time, however, God causes Bathsheba’s child to die, causing her even more suffering, although this causes David to also suffer greatly, since he “loved the child.”

In 1 Kings 1, the attitudes towards female characters by male characters may also be seen. Abishag is used as an object by which David is warmed. Adonijah views her as a way of gaining control of the kingdom, and it is unclear whether or not he actually loves her. Nathan’s opinion of the female characters is also unclear. He goes to Bathsheba in order to warn her of the danger she and Solomon are in, but it is unclear whether this is out of compassion or if he realized that his own life was also in danger. Bowen writes, “In this episode she is not the one to initiate the approach to David. She is coaxed (or manipulated?) by Nathan, who counsels that she must do this in order to save her own life.”[33]

David appears to be non-responsive to the beautiful Abishag warming him in his bed, but this seems to be because David is too old to be sexually aroused. David receives his wife Bathsheba, however, warmly, and confirms that Solomon will be king after him. Solomon appears to regard his mother with the utmost respect, showing her the proper royal courtesies upon her entry into his presence. However, Solomon also appears angry when she presents Adonijah’s request to him. It is unclear whether he thought his mother was stupid for making this request on Adonijah’s behalf, or whether his anger was towards Adonijah himself. Either way, he uses this new knowledge provided by Bathsheba to deal with his half-brother and rival. It may also be that Solomon was merely putting on a show of anger in response to this request and that he had been looking for an excuse to do away with Adonijah and recognized the cleverness of his mother in bringing Adonijah’s request to his attention. In this way, Solomon may have viewed his mother as an intelligent woman and a loyal mother.

Another question to ask oneself when applying Feminist criticism to the Biblical text is, “Is feminine imagery used? If so, what is the significance of such imagery?”[34] In the Bathsheba narratives, there does not seem to be much feminine imagery used. However, 2 Samuel 11 does go so far as to point out the great beauty of Bathsheba and how her great beauty is what attracts David to her. A person’s beauty is only sometimes referred to in the Bible to describe a character. Bathsheba is describes as beautiful, but David appears to be as well elsewhere. Saul was also describes as a good-looker, as well as David’s son Absalom, among others, such as Rachel who was compared her sister Leah, who “had weak eyes,” or was not beautiful. Beauty at times seems to convey that a character has admirable traits. However, while a beautiful character may have admirable traits, sometimes they may also have negative traits. Bathsheba’s beauty does not seem to indicate anything of her character, but only a physical feature taken in by David in his objectification of her. However, Michael Avioz writes that “Nonetheless, the description of Bathsheba’s beauty is part of the positive casting of her character. Here beauty is not used as temptation as described in Proverbs. This is in contradistinction to the claims of several researchers that Bathsheba seduced David.”[35] In 1 Kings 1 Abishag is also described as beautiful, but nothing is mentioned of her character. In comparison with David’s other wives, Bathsheba stands in contrast with Michal. Michal is often seen taking initiative and sometimes takes on roles that men traditionally take – she announces her love for David, she rescues David from his enemies, etc. She is not described as beautiful, but is seen to be somewhat masculine.[36] Bathsheba on the other hand is portrayed in a very feminine way, and for the biblical writer her femininity seems to be portrayed in her silence, her passivity, and her physical beauty.[36]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the story of Bathsheba has been interpreted in a number of different ways throughout the centuries. Many of these interpretations have portrayed the character of Bathsheba in a negative light. This Feminist interpretation of the text shows that Bathsheba was not necessarily a woman seeking to take advantage of David, but rather David’s victim. While some say that Bathsheba exposed herself to David in order to somehow gain a royal position, this interpretation seems to be weak. Bathsheba does not even appear to be a character with a personality in the 2 Samuel story, but only a type, or an agent for the narrator to use in his overall picture of David. However, in 1 Kings, Bathsheba does take on the role of a more full-fledged character. In that story, she is shown to be intelligent and having a will of her own, despite Nathan’s promptings. While she is still shown to be subject to other men, she uses her influence to get what she desires from David, just as he had originally used his influence to get what he desired from her. In this way, one may come to the conclusion that although women may be oppressed Bathsheba is one who eventually overcomes.





_____________________________________________________________________________





[1] E. Winkelman, et al. "The sanctified 'adulteress' and her circumstantial clause: Bathsheba's bath and self-consecration in 2 Samuel 11." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32, no. 3 (March 1, 2008): 339-352.
[2] Garland, David E., and Diana S Richmond Garland. "Bathsheba's story: surviving abuse and loss." Family and community ministries 21, no. 3 (December 1, 2008): 22-33.
[3] Even in children’s films which are careful to not portray excessive amounts of promiscuity, she is still often seen as an object. Veggietales’ King George and the Ducky, seeking to avoid adult subjects portrays David as an anthropomorphic cucumber and Bathsheba as a rubber duck, an object.
[4] Winkelman., Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Christian tradition even place Bathsheba, along with Ruth and other foreign women, in the genealogy of Jesus.
[11] Winkelman., Ibid.
[12] Charles E. Bressler, Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall).
[13] Bressler., Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Berger, Yitzhak. "Ruth and the David-Bathsheba story: allusions and contrasts." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 4 (June 1, 2009): 433-452.
[17] Vasholz, Robert I. "The wisdom of Bathsheba in 1 Kings 2:13-25." Presbyterion 33, no. 1 (March 1, 2007): 49.
[18] (eds.) Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. (Oxford: Jewish Publication Society, TANAKH Translation): 672
[19] Bressler., Ibid.
[20] Berlin, Adele. "Characterization in biblical narrative: David's wives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 23 (July 1, 1982): 69-85.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Bressler., Ibid.
[25] Cushman, Beverly W. "The politics of the royal harem and the case of Bat-Sheba." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30, no. 3 (March 1, 2006): 327-343.
[26] Bowen, Nancy R. "The quest for the historical gĕbîrâ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63, no. 4 (October 1, 2001): 597-618.
[27] (gen. ed.) Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible A-C, Volume 1 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press):2006.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Bressler., Ibid.
[30] Berger., Ibid.
[31] Garland and Richmond Garland., Ibid.
[32] (ed.) Michael E. Lawrence. The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IV. “The Book of Psalms: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections” by J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (Abingdon Press: Nashville, TN): 1996.
[33] Bowen., Ibid.
[34] Bressler., Ibid.
[35] Avioz, Michael. "The motif of beauty in the books of Samuel and Kings." Vetus testamentum 59, no. 3 (January 1, 2009): 341-359.
[36] Ibid. (a) He also notes that Michal’s brother Jonathan also possesses some physical beauty and that although he is a warrior his sister is at times portrayed as even more masculine than he.
[37] Ibid.