There Is More to Christianity than Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Leave a comment

Libby Anne at Love, Joy, Feminism posted an explanation of penal substitutionary atonement and its place in the history of Christian theology:

I have seen many atheists criticize penal substitutionary atonement as though in doing so they are criticizing Christianity as a whole. That is not in fact the case. Penal substitutionary atonement is only one way of understanding Christ’s death. More than that, it is less than five hundred years old—a relative newcomer to the scene—and is held by a minority of Christians today.

This is something of a complicated topic, and one where I think misunderstandings are rampant – even among Christians. I appreciate Libby Anne’s explanations.

I can’t recall what I was taught as a child, since the focus of my Sunday School instruction was more on the birth of Christ rather than his death. But looking back on how I, personally, viewed the crucifixion, it was always as just a Thing That Happened, rather than part of a plan.

1 Samuel 23-24: The Proclaimed King-To-Be

Leave a comment

David is informed that the Philistines have been harassing the citizens of Keilah, a town in Judah. David asks God if he should go help them, and God says yes. Abiathar has brought his ephod, so this conversation takes the form of divination (notice God’s “yes/no” answers in these chapters – God is not having lengthy, direct conversations with his adherents here).

David’s followers, however, have different ideas. Their argument seems to boil down to the fact that they are already on the run from Saul, so why draw attention to themselves as the enemies of Philistia as well? David asks God again if he really should go, and God maintains that he should.

This story seems to serve two purposes. The first is to contrast David against Saul. Saul, too, has been defied by his followers. In 1 Sam. 15:24, Saul disobeys Samuel’s instructions out of fear of his people and, in 1 Sam. 22:17, he couldn’t get his guards to obey his orders. Yet here, when confronted by the same refusal from his followers, David chooses to follow God instead. The message is a clear one: David is a strong leader, Saul is a weak one; David is a God-centred leader, Saul is a people-centred one.

The second point seems to be that David is behaving like a king – at least in Judah. When a town is harassed by Philistines, a good monarch should come to their aid. Yet where is Saul? He will have no trouble coming to Keilah with an army once he hears that David is there, but displays no intention to come relieve the citizens of the town from the Philistines. Alternatively, this may support my reading that the antagonism between David and Saul was one between two tribal leaders trying to establish their own tribe as the rulers of a confederation.

So David heads out to Keilah with his 600 followers (an increase from the 400 he had in 1 Sam. 22:2) and fends off the Philistines, then apparently takes up residence in Keilah.

When Saul hears that David is in Keilah, and he assumes that God must have delivered David into his hands (since Keilah, apparently a walled town, can easily become a prison in a siege). At this point, Saul clearly still believes that God is on his side, despite his conflicts with Samuel.

David hears of Saul’s coming and consults Abiathar’s ephod to confirm the rumours. He then asks if the people of Keilah will surrender him, and God says that they will. No explanation is given for future-betrayal, but it may be assumed to be related to the slaughter at Nob (having heard of it, it would make sense for people to be rather wary of sheltering David). So David and his followers leave and go instead to the wilderness of Ziph.

While Saul has had so much trouble locating David, Jonathan seems to have no difficulty whatsoever. He goes out to David in the wilderness of Ziph to reassure him. He also assures David that: “you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you” (1 Sam. 23:17). Apart from Samuel’s visit to Bethlehem, this is the first we hear about David’s future as king, and it seems odd given the circumstances that he does not deny or seem surprised by Jonathan’s words. It changes the tone of the story, suggesting that David is not so much a fugitive on the run from a king possessed by an evil spirit, rather than a rebel and explicit contender for the throne. It suggests that Saul’s hatred and fear of David may not be quite so irrational as they have been made to seem.

Jonathan and David reconfirm their covenant, and Jonathan returns to Saul.

Gotcha!

The Ziphites in the area where David is staying appeal to Saul to help them get rid of David. It seems strange unless we’re supposed to understand David as a sort of bandit leader figure, since the request is similar to that of towns like Keilah.

Saul sends the Ziphites home to confirm David’s whereabouts. He’s concerned that David is “very cunning” (1 Sam. 23:22), so he wants absolute confirmation before he brings out his army again.

Once the Ziphites confirm David’s location, Saul heads out and chases David to the wilderness of Maon. There, he is closing in when, suddenly, he receives a message that the Philistines are raiding. As king, he must repel them, so he abandons the hunt for David.

This complicates our image of Saul. He is not possessed of an “evil spirit” that causes him to hunt David single-mindedly. Rather, he is still – at least in this instance – willing to abandon the hunt, even when he is so close, to go fulfil his duty as king and protect his people.

With Saul distracted, David escapes to Engedi.

Saul returns from fighting the Philistines and hears of David’s move, so he takes 3,000 soldiers along (to fight David’s 600). As they march along, Saul stops in a cave to relieve himself. Because Saul’s dignity is clearly not a concern for the authors.

Unfortunately, Saul ha the worst luck ever. The cave he chooses happens to be the one David is hiding in and, while Saul is doing his business, David stealthily cuts the skirt off Saul’s robe. He then feels terribly guilty for having done even that much and stays his hand against further mischief.

Saul, apparently not noticing that the skirt of his robe is gone, finishes up and leaves the cave. The mental image will have me giggling for weeks, I think.

David spares Saul, Maciejowski Bible, c.1250

David spares Saul, Maciejowski Bible, c.1250

David chases after Saul, waving his skirt. “Why do you listen to the words of men who say, ‘Behold, David seeks you hurt’?” (1 Sam. 24:10). The obvious answer might be that Saul’s own son and David’s closest friend, Jonathan, is one of them. By declaring David the next king, he is strongly implying that David will either kill Saul or, at least, prevent Saul’s descendants from taking the crown.

But in this case, David has evidence on his side. He presences the skirt he cut from Saul’s robe, saying that he came that close yet Saul remains unharmed.

David then launches into a big speech in which he apparently admits that he and Saul are pitted against each other, but calls on God to arrange all of the fighting on his behalf. He refuses to raise his own hand against Saul (1 Sam. 24:12-15). The apologetics of such a speech placed in the mouth of someone who will usurp the crown are rather obvious.

Saul acknowledges that David is the more righteous between them, and he calls on God to reward David for his mercy. He admits that he knows now that David will be king (1 Sam. 24:20), and even that it will be David who will truly establish “the kingdom of Israel” (1 Sam. 24:20) – further supporting my pet theory that Saul was king only of the Benjaminites (and possibly the odd vassal tribe). He asks only that David swear not to cut off his descendants and destroy his name.

There may or may not be secondary intended aspect to this story. When David runs out of the cave to talk to Saul, he puts himself at the mercy of Saul’s 3,000 men. It’s never explicitly said, so I don’t know if it’s intended or not, but Saul shows just as much restraint here as David in not taking advantage of the parlay to capture or kill David.

In the end, Saul heads home and David goes to a stronghold.

1 Samuel 22: The Nob Slaughter

2 Comments

Having escaped from Gath, David hides himself in a cave near Adulam. He is, apparently, the worst at hiding, because his family hears that he’s there and come out to meet him. As do approximately 400 people in distress, in debt, and in discontent (the three Ds of any rebel army worth its salt). David becomes their leader.

He then makes his way to Mizpeh, in Moabite territory, and asks the king of Moab to look after his parents for a while, at least until David has a chance to figure out where his little rebellion is heading. According to the Book of Ruth, David is related to the Moabites, so he may have been able to claim kinship for the favour.

David leaves Mizpeh when a prophet, named Gad, tells him to. Again, we see that David is positively aligned with religious figures. From there, he then goes to the forest of Hereth, which would place him in the territory belonging to the tribe of Judah.

Saul, in Gibeah, hears about David. Unfortunately, we know he’s in a bad mood because he is described as having “his spear in his hand” (1 Sam. 22:6). He asks his court what they think David will offer them for defecting, since none of them had told him about Jonathan’s alliance to David (though 1 Sam. 20:30 makes it quite clear that he knew).

His speech makes the conflict sound inter-tribal to my eyes. He addresses his court as “Benjaminites” (1 Sam. 22:7), for example. This could simply imply that his close court is comprised of Benjaminites, but David’s position makes it clear that exceptions were made. The fact, also, that Saul is in Gibeah and David in the forest of Hereth suggests a possible border issue (Benjamin and Judah were neighbours). If I go out on a limb, I might wonder if perhaps what we are seeing is a story of tribes competing with each other for supremacy, with Saul declaring himself king of Israel as leader of Benjamin and David declaring himself king of Israel as leader of Judah. This would certainly explain why the Philistines in 1 Sam. 21:11 believed David to be king.

It could also be that the united monarchy was not a single event, one in which loose tribal alliances become a single nation overnight with the popular acclaim of a single leader. Rather, perhaps Saul ruled Benjamin, and perhaps he had a protector/vassal agreement with a few other tribes. It would make the transition more gradual, and help to explain why Saul refers to his entourage as “Benjaminites.”

It’s also worth noting that Saul’s rave paints David as a revolutionary, not as a fugitive. From his perspective, David is raising an army with intent to overthrow him. And it is certainly true that David is raising an army! Only, the authors, who aren’t necessarily trying to paint David as perfect but certainly think he’s a pretty cool dude, have soldiers simply flock to David of their own volition, presumably intending later on to force David’s hand into overthrowing Saul. So far, he has consistently been painted as defensive in his relationship with Saul.

Doeg the Edomite, whom we met in 1 Sam. 21:7, is the only one in Saul’s entourage who speaks up. He says that he saw David at Nob, and that Ahimelech fed him, consulted God for him, and armed him.

The slaughter

Saul is understandably furious. He has just found out that the high priest of his nation has just been helping a traitor and enemy of the state. We might see Ahimelech as a good guy because history remembers David as a good guy, but I think that if the same situation were to play out today, Ahimelech would, at best, be a controversial figure.

Doeg kills Ahimelech, from the Macclesfield Psalter, c.1330

Doeg kills Ahimelech, from the Macclesfield Psalter, c.1330

Of course, none of that excuses what Saul does next.

He summons Ahimelech and asks him why he conspired with David against him. Ahimelech turns it around, arguing: “And who among all your servants is so faithful as David” (1 Sam. 22:14). Not only does this explain his own behaviour (since David is such a loyal servant, how could Ahimelech possibly have known that they had fallen out?), it also argues in David’s favour (if David is faithful, then the responsibility for the rift falls on Saul).

Saul goes straight for the ultra-baddie title and orders his entourage to kill Ahimelech and all the priests. Showing just how tenuous Saul’s grasp on the throne is (or has become), his entourage refuses. This also fits with the portrayal of Saul that we saw, for example, in 1 Sam. 15:24 – a king with very little authority.

Only Doeg the Edomite, Saul’s little Renfield, is willing to raise his hand against the priests. He kills Ahimelech and 84 other priests. Apparently all on his own, he also slaughtered the people of Nob – men, women, children, infants, and even livestock. It’s rather hard to imagine how he would have managed this. Only one man, Ahimelech’s son Abiathar, escapes and flees to David’s side.

When he tells David what happened, David is suitably contrite, realizing that he shares some of the responsibility for what had happened. He invites Abiathar to remain with him and promises him protection.

The slaughter of the priests is apparently a continuance of the prophecy in 1 Sam. 2:31.

As an aside, I’ve noticed that Saul seems always to use “son of” designations, avoiding the use of personal names. He seems to be the only character who does this so consistently, but I don’t know what that means.

Spin

1 Comment

News

(via Exploring Our Matrix)

1 Samuel 21: David’s escape

Leave a comment

Having escaped, David makes a stop in Nob to visit Ahimelech. Notice how both here and in 1 Sam. 19, he chooses to flee to a figure of religious authority (in that case, he had gone to Samuel). Ahimelech is terrified to see David alone, but no explanation is given for why this would be the case. Perhaps he knows of the animosity between David and Saul and suspects that David is on the run? That’s my best guess, because David reassures him by lying, saying that Saul has sent him – and a group of men waiting for him at “such and such a place” (1 Sam. 21:2) – on a super secret mission (presumably, David’s companions are fictional, meant to convince Ahimelech that David truly is out on official business). He asks Abimelech if he can spare some food.

Ahimelech gives David the sword of Goliath, by Aert de Gelder, c.1680-1690

Ahimelech gives David the sword of Goliath, by Aert de Gelder, c.1680-1690

Unfortunately, Ahimelech only has holy bread. According to a few sources, this would be bread that could only be consumed by members of the priesthood, yet Ahimelech offers it to David. His only condition is that neither David nor his companions have slept with women recently. David explains that he and his men keep their vessels holy on missions, even on common journeys, so that’s not a concern. The argument will later be made (Mk 2:23-28) that this passage allows for flexibility in the cultic rules when they interfere with the wellbeing of people. Even though David isn’t a priest and therefore has no business eating the holy bread, he is allowed to take it because he has need.

David next asks if Ahimelech has any weapons he could have, “for I have brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste” (1 Sam. 21:8).

This is difficult to reconcile with the story in 1 Sam. 20, where David suspects that Saul might have it in for him and then plans his absence from the court. Rather, it seems better to follow after his flight in 19:11-17, where his wife shoves him out of a window in the middle of the night. This would better explain why David has so little with him.

The only weapon Ahimelech has to give is Goliath’s sword, which he keeps behind the ephod. As in 1 Sam. 14:3, the ephod is here implied to be a box containing sacred objects, not an item of clothing.

In the middle of David’s exchange with Ahimelech, we learn that an Edomite named Doeg, a servant of Saul’s, happens to be in Nod at that time. He was “detained before the Lord” (1 Sam. 21:7), likely meaning that he is ritually impure for some reason and is waiting for his term to end. The detail seems out of place here, but I peeked ahead and it seems that the author/editor was establishing a fact for a later occurrence.

David at King Achish’s court

His old enemy’s sword in hand, David then moves on to the Philistine city of Gath. There seems no reason for this episode, and it certainly turns out to have been a mistake. Highlighting that Saul has very good reason to feel threatened by David, the Philistines recognize David and mistakenly believe that he is Israel’s king, citing the same song that we heard in 1 Sam. 18:7:

Saul has slain his thousands,
and David his ten thousands. (1 Sam. 21:11)

Probably quite wisely, David realizes that this is potentially a very bad situation. If King Achish of Gad believes him to be the king of Israel (or, at least, politically important), might he not read the situation as a very good opportunity to easily get rid of an enemy.

So he decides to play the fool. Literally. He makes marks on the doors of the city gate, and lets spittle run down into his beard. I’m not sure how making marks on city gates is supposed to be an indication of madness, unless it means that he is smearing feces or something.

Anyways, King Achish is fooled, and he asks his servants why they bothered bringing a madman to him. “Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence?” (1 Sam. 21:15). This provides David with a means of escape, of course, but also reads like a joke at Philistia’s expense. Is King Achish’s court so glutted with madmen?

The Kiss

Leave a comment

We can’t have a discussion of Jonathan and David without touching on homosexuality. Twice in this chapter, they express their fondness for each other, and the chapter even closes with them apparently having a make-out session in the middle of a field.

Homosexuality – per se – is something of a new invention (at least in terms of being an identity rather than a predilection). So I think it would be anachronistic to try to understand David as a homosexual, rather than asking whether his relationship with Jonathan, specifically, was a romantic/sexual one.

Jonathan and David embrace, illustration from La Somme le roy, ca. 1300

Jonathan and David embrace, illustration from La Somme le roy, ca. 1300

I’ve also seen the argument that David may have been bisexual, given his many wives. This is anachronistic for the same reason, but suffers the additional issue of confounds. A man in a patriarchal society like that of ancient Israel likely had no choice but to have a wife/wives, particularly if he wishes to establish a dynasty. reading anything about sexuality into marriage in a culture where marriage doesn’t really have any alternatives is rather silly.

Kenneth Davis notes that, “among warriors [in other nearby cultures], homosexuality was condoned because of the bond it created between men” (Don’t Know Much About the Bible, p.181), so it’s not unreasonable that David may have felt comfortable letting his relationship with Jonathan be known (and visa versa) at that time and in that cultural context.

Others have noted that homosexuality is pretty strongly condemned elsewhere in the Bible, so it makes no sense for Jonavid to be mentioned, particularly with such focus and repetition. But there are plenty of other possible explanations.

One is that the relationship was so well known that the authors didn’t have the option of simply glossing over it. Instead, they chose to face it head on and cast in a way that made it seem like it a positive thing. It does not necessarily follow that they would be arguing that homosexual acts committed by anyone other than David are therefore okay. Kenneth Davis argues that David’s sexual exploits with women are later emphasized “as proof of what a macho guy he really was” – providing a counterbalance to the well-known relationship with Jonathan.

Another possible explanation is that the writings against homosexuality were targeting specific ritual practices, such as a symbolic coupling with Baal to make the rain come. In such a case, a homosexual relationship with God’s blessing would not come under the same rubric.

It could also be that the condemnation of homosexuality was a later tradition, or that the focus on homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 had to do with ritual purity. I argued several times in the reading of Leviticus that the prime concern of the book seems to be with keeping things in neat categories. Blemishes are bad, men must have testicles, men and women have sex, etc. The authors show clear discomfort around anything that deviates from the norm. It could be, then, that the condemnation of homosexuality was – at least at one time – a concern for priests, but not really a big deal for the common people (or princes and future kings). Given Leviticus gives us the only explicit condemnation of homosexual sex in the Old Testament, I’d say that there’s a strong argument to be made that it was only a concern to a relatively small segment of the population.

This all assumes that the relationship is, indeed, a romantic one. I don’t think that’s settled, though, at least for now. Abbie at Better Than Esdras combed through our text for other examples of kissing, finding:

  • Isaac asks his son to kiss him (Gen. 27:26).
  • Laban kissing his sons and daughters (Gen. 31:55).
  • Esau and Jacob kiss when they meet each other after a separation, weeping as David and Jonathan do (Gen. 33:4).
  • Moses kissing his father-in-law (Exod. 18:7).

By contrast, she found only two romantic kisses:

  • Jacob kisses Rachel (Gen. 29:11).
  • Kisses are given in the Song of Solomon (So. 1:2).

This doesn’t mean that David and Jonathan weren’t lovers, merely that this particular kiss isn’t proof of a relationship.

1 Samuel 20: David finally figures out that Saul doesn’t like him

1 Comment

Chapter 20 feels awkward following the last few chapters, despite the note in the first verse telling us that the events take place after David’s escape to Naioth. The chapter makes far more sense if we assume that it came from a separate tradition, one in which David only suspects that Saul has turned against him.

My New Bible Commentary, which frequently argues against the multi-source hypothesis, tries to explain away the oddity by casting this chapter as an attempt to convince Jonathan of the threat:

Certainly after the events of ch. 19 David can have been in no real doubt as to Saul’s intentions; but this chapter does not in fact suggest that he had – rather to the contrary (v. 3). It was Jonathan who could not believe it of his father (v. 2). (p.298)

Which sort of works. We could read it as Jonathan believing that 1 Sam. 19:6 ended the matter, naively believing that his father has passed through his wanting to kill David phase. But then we have to believe that what follows – with Saul tossing a spear at David and David escaping and all the assassins – happened without Jonathan’s knowledge. The same Jonathan who confidently declares in 1 Sam. 20:2 that his father tells him absolutely everything.

The result, then, of accepting the New Bible Commentary‘s view is seeing Jonathan as an absolute naif.

Which seems to fit the portrayal of him in this chapter, honestly. When David asks Jonathan what he’s done for Saul to want to kill him, Jonathan tells him not to worry because he won’t die. And I’m just like, that wasn’t the question, you fool. (Allowing, of course, for translation and rhetoric.)

Jonathan’s reasoning is that Saul tells him everything, so he will know if Saul is plotting to kill David. David, however, isn’t so sure. Saul knows that the two of them are buddies, he argues. The implication being that he might control the outflow of information in Jonathan’s presence as a result. “Truly, as the Lord lives and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death” (1 Sam. 20:3).

The Plan

David and Jonathan come up with a plan to prove, once and for all, whether Saul is trying to kill David. David will go into hiding for three days. If, during that time, Saul asks after him, Jonathan is to say that he’d asked permission to go to Bethlehem for a sacrifice – a family affair. Interestingly, this is the same cover Samuel gave in 1 Sam. 16:2-3 to avoid arousing suspicion when going to anoint David.

If Saul accepts the explanation, David will know that it’s safe to return to court. If, however, Saul is angry, they will know that he is determined to do bad things to David. Because, apparently, two spear-throwing incidents weren’t evidence enough.

David and Jonathan, by Cima da Conegliano, ca. 1505-1510

David and Jonathan, by Cima da Conegliano, ca. 1505-1510

Their conversation continues and Jonathan again answers the wrong question. They plan a communication system to allow Jonathan to get news to David without arousing suspicion, then they renew their vows to each other. In the midst of it, Jonathan says: “should it please my father to do you harm, the Lord do so to Jonathan, and more also” (1 Sam. 20:13). I haven’t read ahead, but this sounds like some major foreshadowing.

On the first night of David’s hiding, Saul notices his absence at dinner. He figures that David must have accidentally become ritually unclean and shrugs it off. On the second night, however, he becomes suspicious (as we read in Exodus-Deuteronomy, most instances of uncleanliness are purged by evening, so the explanation doesn’t hold up over a second day).

He asks Jonathan where David is, and Jonathan gives the planned excuse about the sacrifice in Bethlehem. Saul becomes slightly irritated, calling Jonathan a “son of a perverse, rebellious woman” (1 Sam. 20:30), going on to say: “Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?”

If we take the view that David and Jonathan don’t just like each other but like like each other, it seems that this could be a reference to that. Another possibility is that Saul is recognizing David as competition for the crown – Jonathan’s competition. So long as Jonathan is on Team David, “neither you not your kingdom shall be established” (1 Sam. 20:31). The “shame” he speaks of, then, would be of turning against the interests of his family by not pursuing the creation of a dynasty.

To punctuate his argument, Saul then throws a spear at his son.

This is a guy who is apparently known for throwing spears at people, as he did so in 1 Sam. 18:10-11, then again in 1 Sam. 19:10. You’d think there’d be a point (no pun intended) where people would just refuse to be in a room with Saul if he has a spear nearby.

In accordance with their plan, Jonathan heads out to the field and fires an arrow, directing his servant to fetch it in the way that would tell David that it is most definitely not safe for him.

Despite all the secret signals, they end up meeting up and having a long chat anyway, during which they re-confirm their bond, kiss, and cry a lot.

Not that both times Jonathan has saved David so far, it has involved David hiding in a field (1 Sam. 19:1-3).

 

The Ten Commandments of Bass

Leave a comment

Commandments of Bass

(via Guitar Player Magazine’s Facebook wall)

1 Samuel 19: Far-falling apples

Leave a comment

Saul makes no secret of his desire to kill David. He tells all his servant, and even his son, Jonathan. Jonathan, you’ll remember, is the guy who’s knit his soul to David’s, so this turns out to be a pretty bad idea on Saul’s part.

Again, we are told of Jonathan’s special relationship with David. In this case, he “delighted much in David” (1 Sam. 19:1). Abbie at Better Than Esdras scanned through the text for other uses of “delighted,” and did find it used in a sexual (albeit generally non-consensual) manner. However, it is also used in Num. 14:8 to express God’s feelings toward the chosen people.

Abbie’s final conclusion is:

In the context, I read Jonathan “choosing” David as an analogy to YHWH “choosing” the Israelites – Jonathan pledges his devotion to David, because he’s goddamn King David. They form a covenant, just as YHWH and the Israelites had a covenant.

Regardless, it’s clear that Jonathan cares for David, so of course he spills the beans and instructs David to hide while Jonathan tries to change Saul’s mind. He is successful, and Saul promises that “as the Lord lives, he shall not be put to death” (1 Sam. 19:6). David is returned to court and everyone lived happily ever after. Or did they?

David must still die

Saul throwing his spear, by Constantin Hansen

Saul throwing his spear, by Constantin Hansen

War breaks out again, and David heads out to kill the Philistines. Meanwhile, the evil spirit comes back to Saul, so he sits in his house with a spear in his hand. This time, Saul isn’t simply flying into a rage. Quite the opposite, in fact, as he is able to wait with intent until David’s return. So perhaps his evil spirit is violent paranoid delusion? David plays the lyre, Saul throws the spear at him, and as in 1 Sam. 18:10-11, David evades him. At least it was only the one spear this time, and at least this time David has the good sense to flee.

He doesn’t flee very far, however, as he apparently just goes home. Saul, really intent on killing David this time, sends “messengers” (who really seem more like assassins) to wait outside David’s house, hoping to kill him in the morning.

David’s wife, Michal, knows that they are there, however, and sends David out the window. She then makes a dummy in his bed, using a teraphim, a term that is elsewhere used to refer to household gods, and what appears to be a pillow made with goat hair to stand in the place of David’s head. I see murmurings that Michal’s possession of a teraphim marks her as an idolater, but I think that there are a few issues with this: Firstly, the text describes the location as David’s house. If she has a teraphim, so does David. Secondly, why couldn’t the same term be used to refer to a decorative statue? Michal is a princess, so it stands to reason that her home might include some decorative statues. Either way, the trick is so classic that it has it’s own entry on TV Tropes.

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

When Saul sends in the assassin to take David, Michal refuses him, claiming that, like Ferris Bueller, David is ill. Saul persists, however, and his assassin demands to see David’s bed. He does not, unfortunately, attempt to stab the dummy, but rather recognizes it immediately as a fake. Michal’s excuse is that David said to her, “Let me go; why should I kill you?” (1 Sam. 19:17), which I take to mean that she is claiming that he threatened her, even though the plan was clearly her idea. I’m not sure if we’re supposed to take from this that Michal is merely covering her own butt now that David is safely away, or if we’re supposed to slot Michal into the liar category.

It’s notable that this chapter shows two of Saul’s children defecting, choosing to be loyal to David instead. If we assume that at least some of the sources going into 1 Samuel are propagandistic, having Saul’s own children reject him in favour of the competition is a pretty obvious move.

What happens in Ramah

Having escaped, David heads to Samual at Ramah. He tells him all that has happened, and the two go to live at Naioth (which, from the context, is apparently a district of Ramah).

Saul finds out where David is and sends his messenger assassins. When they arrive, they are met by a company of prophesying prophets with Samuel leading them. The assassins are overtaken by the spirit of God and begin prophesying. This likely refers to an ecstatic form of worship, something like speaking in tongues. From the description in 1 Samuel 10:10-13, these guys seem like a rather wild bunch, what with all the music and such.

Saul sends a second group of assassins, but they join the prophets as well. As does the third group. Finally, Saul decides to take matters into his own hands, and he comes down to Ramah. When he arrives, the spirit of God comes upon him too, and he also begins prophesying. In fact, the party gets so wild that “he too stripped off his clothes” (1 Sam. 19:24) and he lies naked all day and night. Because of this, it was said of him: “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Sam. 19:24). This story was clearly an alternative explanation for what appears to have been a common saying, as it so directly mirrors the one in 1 Sam. 10:12.

For those keeping track of sources differences, this story conflicts with 1 Sam. 15:35, in which we are told that Samuel and Saul separate and never see each other again. Harmonizers may take comfort in the fact that 1 Sam. 19 never explicitly states that Saul and Samuel see each other, it is merely implied.

The evidence for “Paleo-Eskimos”

Leave a comment

There’s a fascinating (and frustratingly short on details) article on CBC about the so-called “Paleo-Eskimos.” Apparently, genetic testing has found that there is no relation between this group and the later Inuit peoples. What this means, in short, is that there was a group of people living in the arctic for about four thousand years, totally unrelated to the people there now.

There are two aspects of this story that are particularly fascinating. The first is that despite an overlap between the “Paleo-Eskimo” people and the Inuit, it appears that (almost) no interbreeding occurred. This is extremely rare. Even when cultures have specific prohibitions against interbreeding with outsiders, there are nearly always exceptions – people who didn’t follow the rules, sexual violence from the other culture, things like that.

The second aspect about this that I find really interesting is that Inuit oral legend had preserved their knowledge of this other people:

Inuit still talk about the Tunit people they encountered when they arrived. The oral tradition says the Tunit were very shy and would run away when approached.

This is a complicated issue when looking at mythology because it can be very difficult to tell the difference between preserved history and entertaining fabrication, mostly because so many stories are a combination of both, at least in general terms.

When reading Judges, I talked a lot about trying to find the history buried in the myth, and gave some of my own impressions and stories. Without corroborating evidence from other disciplines – such as archeological and genetic evidence as in the case of the “Paleo-Eskimos” – it remains pure conjecture.

But no less fascinating.

EDIT: A friend posted this article validating another Inuit oral tale, this time relating to the Franklin arctic expedition.

Older Entries