Four Women in Samuel Confront Power,Part 2: Views from the Targum,the Rabbis,and the Church Fathers

Abstract

In 1-2 Samuel Abigail of Maon, the Medium of Endor, the Wise Woman of Tekoa, and the Wise Woman of Abel all dare to confront power. The Aramaic Bible, the Targum Jonathan; ancient Rabbinic sources; as well as the Church Fathers refer to them and draw different conclusions from their actions.

Keywords

1-2 Samuel Abigail the Church Fathers David Joab Medium of Endor Midrash the Rabbis Saul Targum Jonathan Wise Woman of Abel Wise Woman of Tekoa

In 1–2 Samuel four women dare to confront power. In 1 Samuel 25 Abigail of Maon challenges rebellious David; in 1 Samuel 28 the Medium of Endor confronts King Saul; 2 Samuel 14 features the Wise Woman of Tekoa questioning the actions of King David; and in 2 Samuel 20 the Wise Woman of Abel stands up to Joab, King David’s general. Well over a thousand years later, early in the first millennium of the Common Era the Aramaic Bible, the Targum Jonathan rewrites 1–2 Samuel and presents a somewhat different view of these women. Then as the millennium proceeds, both the Rabbis and the Church Fathers refer to these chapters and draw their own conclusions as to the meaning of those texts. They draw upon words or phrases, or they offer suggestions as to what these narratives teach. The Rabbis and the Church Fathers make reference to those women and what they did. They use these passages to offer guidance for their own time, bringing their heritage closer to their people, and the people closer to God.

Ancient Responses: The Targum, the Rabbis and the Church Fathers

In the period following the Babylonian Exile (6^th century bce), Aramaic became the common language spoken by Jews both in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia. Therefore there was a need to translate the Jewish Bible into the vernacular of those times (see Nehemiah 8:8 and Babylonian Talmud Megillah 3a). The Targum Jonathan (Targum = translation) covers the Prophets and part of the Writings. Composed c. 200 ce, it was incorrectly attributed to Yonatan (Jonathan) ben Uziel (Babylonian Talmud Megillah 3a). This Targum should not to be confused with the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which translates the Torah. The Targum Jonathan for the chapters covered herein is very close to the Masoretic Text, and the versification is the same. There are, nonetheless, some interesting variations in the text.

At about the same time, certainly within the first millennium in the Common Era, even as Judaism and Christianity were separating, in each group there were religious leaders who were giving or writing sermons, homilies, or in some fashion referring directly to biblical texts to teach or influence their co-religionists. Following a discussion of how the Targum Jonathan revises some parts of the chapters dealing with these four women I turn to the teachings of the Rabbis and the Church Fathers.

Targum Jonathan

Abigail of Maon

In the Bible in 1 Samuel, Nabal is termed as someone nasty or ill-natured (ben-beliya-al— 1 Sam 25:17; ish ha-beliya-al— 1 Sam 25:25). In Targum Jonathan this initially is changed to a man too bad and then latterly, as this bad man. David is very angry; his plan is to attack Nabal and all his belongings. In the MT (Masoretic Text) David says in effect that no man shall be left alive. The actual phrase David uses to refer to those men in vv 22 and 34 is “all who piss against a wall.” In its place Targum Jonathan employs a gentle euphemism “anyone knowing knowledge.” In the MT there is a clear play-on-words with the terms Nabal (in Hebrew, Naval) and Abigail’s labeling him as a “boor”—n’valah. Targum Jonathan does not offer this pun; rather Abigail says, “Nabal is his name and stupidity is with him” (v 25). When in the MT (v 28) Abigail prophesies that God will grant David a dynasty because David is fighting God’s battles, she terms this “an enduring house” (bayit ne’eman). Targum Jonathan uses a much more charged and impactful word. She says God will establish for David “a lasting kingdom.” Likewise in v 30 in the MT Abigail suggests that David will be a ruler, or prince (nagid) over Israel. In the Targum this becomes a king over Israel. In v 29 Abigail suggests that David’s life will be “bound up in the bundle of life,” or the “document of life.” That is to say, among the living. In the Targum Jonathan the phrase is “in the treasury of eternal life” which is a specific reference to a theological belief in the afterlife.

The Medium of Endor

Following Samuel’s death, according to Targum Jonathan, King “Saul removed lying oracles and necromantic apparitions from the land” (28:3). This designation differs from the MT, which reads “Saul had forbidden [recourse to] ghosts and familiar spirits” (NJPS), “Saul had expelled the mediums and the wizards” (NRSV). Verse 6 features several changes from the Bible. In the Targum (here and in vv 10, 15, 16, and 18) it uses the term Memra. It explains that “Saul inquired of the Memra of the Lord, and the Lord did not accept his prayer, both in dreams and in Urim and by teachers.” The Biblical text reads “Saul inquired of Yhwh but Yhwh did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim or by prophets.” The phrase “Memra of the Lord,” a technical term, is used in the Targum to explain God’s power, or God’s messenger in place of God. The Targum changes Saul’s inquiry into a prayer, and in place of the Bible’s reference to prophets, Targum Jonathan here and in v 15 uses the word “teachers.” In the Bible, in v 7 Saul seeks a woman who consults ghosts, literally an eishet ba’alat ov, a mistress of ghosts. Targum Jonathan twice refers to someone who “knows how to bring up lying oracles” which in itself is a negative description. That same reference to “lying oracles” is also found in vv 8 and 9. When Samuel’s spirit is brought up, the biblical text explains that a divine being (Elohim) arose (v 13). Targum Jonathan changes that to her seeing “an angel of the Lord” arising. In the Targum the closing dialog between Saul and the Medium of Endor is more personalized. In the MT the woman says to Saul that she “listened to” the king and did his bidding. Therefore she suggests as a quid pro quo “so now listen to [her]” and do what she says, that is to say, eat something to gain some strength before leaving. In the Targum she says instead in a much softer, and comforting, protective tone, “Behold your handmaid has accepted from you … and have heard your words … now you also accept the saying of your handmaid … and eat” (vv 21–22).

The Wise Woman of Tekoa

In 2 Samuel 14:7 the woman uses metaphoric language. Referring to the one son still living, she characterizes him as “the last ember remaining to me.” Targum Jonathan changes this to more direct speech, so that she refers instead to “the only one” who is left to her. In the MT the woman asks David to “restrain the blood avenger bent on destruction” (v 11). Targum Jonathan is considerably more elaborate in its wording. The Tekoite asks the king to “remember now what is written in the book of the law of the Lord your God so as not to enlarge the road before the avenger of blood to do harm.” She appears to refer directly to the Torah, more specifically to the laws of the manslayer and the attendant cities of refuge found in Numbers 35:9–34 as well as in Deuteronomy 19:1–13. These matters are also discussed in rabbinic literature “in the second chapter of Tractate Makkot in the Mishna, Tosefta, and Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds” (Tigay: 180). The woman then refers to a proverb, “We must all die; we are like water that is poured on the ground and cannot be gathered up” (2 Sam 14:14a). In this selfsame verse she continues speaking, but the meaning of her words is uncertain. Targum Jonathan offers other words, which regretfully are likewise just as unclear. The Targum writes, “Thus it is not possible for judges of the truth to receive the mammon of falsehood.” As in the narrative of the Medium of Endor, so here also in Targum Jonathan there is reference to the “Memra of the Lord” (v 17).

The Wise Woman of Abel

The books of Samuel reflect life in the eleventh and tenth centuries bce, a very rural community. In the opening of chapter 20 Sheba ben Bikhri announces his rebellion with a call for everyone to return to their tents. The Targum, a product of the first millennium in the Common Era changes the word tents to one’s own city (v 1), perhaps reflecting the relative urbanization of society. The MT refers to the name of the town under siege sometimes as Abel of Beth-maacah and sometimes as Abel and Beth-maacah (see 2 Sam 20:14, 15; 1 Kgs 15:20 2 Kgs 15:29). Targum Jonathan in vv 14 and 15 calls it Abel and Beth-maacah. The speech of the Wise Woman to Joab in v 18, regretfully is unclear in the MT. NJPS offers: “In olden times people used to say, ‘Let them inquire of Abel,’ and that was the end of the matter.” NRSV renders this translation, “They used to say in the old days, ‘Let them inquire at Abel’; and so they would settle a matter.” Targum Jonathan suggests different wording. “Remember now what is written in the book of the law, to inquire in this city long ago, saying: ‘Was it not here for you to inquire in Abel, if they are at peace?’ ” She then continues in the next verse, “We are at peace in good faith with Israel.” With this line Targum Jonathan seems to indicate that the Wise Woman is suggesting to Joab that the town is not rebelling against David, despite that Sheba ben Bikhri and probably his followers have sought refuge there. This sentence “We are at peace in good faith with Israel,” is different from the words found in the MT. In 2 Samuel 20:19 the Wise Woman says, “I am one of those who seek the welfare of the faithful in Israel.” One could argue that these are similar sentiments, and that the MT places her speech in the first person, but she is speaking for her community. That, however, is only one possibility. She may really be speaking of herself alone, establishing her own bona fides. What is undeniable is that in v 18 in Targum Jonathan, she makes direct reference to the “book of the law,” something not mentioned in the MT. Though she does not spell it out, Targum Jonathan infers that her reference is to Deuteronomy 20:10, which reads, “When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace” (or “call upon it to surrender”). The Targum Jonathan written in Mishnaic times reflects rabbinic thinking such as its belief in the afterlife. It also makes specific reference to the “book of the law” (i.e. the Torah/Pentateuch), acknowledging it as a separate document in its own right.

The Teachings of the Rabbis and the Teachings of the Church Fathers

In the early centuries of the first millennium of the Common Era, during the rabbinic period and then well into the Middle Ages, Jews and Christians were involved in dialogue and dispute as to who represented the real Israel, and whose interpretation of Scripture was correct. Not only did each side claim that it represented “the truth,” but at the same time, there were challenges from the pagan world questioning the very worth of each group. Simultaneously Gnosticism proved to be an ongoing threat. “Jewish or Christian sages expounding Scripture in the first few centuries ce thus had to contend with three external factors challenging their exegetic approach, as well as their conclusions and theology” (Hirschman: 5). For the Jews it was the pagans, the Christians, and the Gnostics. For the Christians it was the pagans, the Jews, and the Gnostics. The rabbis “formulated their arguments as well as their principles of faith mainly as scriptural exegeses.” By contrast the Church “did not confine itself to scriptural commentaries” but used various genres to support their claims. “These genres included dialogues, such as … [2^nd century ce Justin Martyr’s] Dialogue with Trypho [the Jew]; attacks against rivals … apologia [and] monographs defending their religion” (Hirshman: 10). The Church developed a host of categories that included Classical exegetical works, homiletic works that were transcripts of Church sermons, apologetics, anthologies of homilies on single verses, which were organized to create a running commentary on a specific biblical book, and other genres such as histories, letters, and stories of martyrdom. By contrast, the rabbis’ response was much more focused (Hirschman: 21). Broadly speaking, the rabbis engaged in two types of discussions, those dealing with legal matters (Halakhah) and those dealing with non-legal matters such as ethical or moral questions (Aggadah). In the Talmud (both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud) one finds both these types of discussions. Another method was to create independent units of midrashim, homilies directly connected to a biblical verse (see below for a definition of midrash). Most of these midrashim sought to teach moral values, though another set dealt with legal matters. Yet even these generalizations are fraught with difficulties because

First, the so-called halakic midrashim contain a good deal of nonlegal material, and the so-called haggadic midrashim contain a significant number of legal statements. Second, it is simplistic to draw a sharp difference between legal passages and nonlegal passages, for both served as interpretations of revelation and as guides to one’s actions [Porton: 4.820].

Throughout the ages rabbis have written codes of Jewish laws, but the goal was not to set up a systematic theology. Many of the early leaders of the Church in those centuries developed writings of their own. These broadly are known as the works of the Church Fathers, and a goal was to develop a systematic theology.

In the process of interpreting sacred Scripture … rabbinic and patristic commentators, with greater or lesser awareness refashioned episodes and characters to answer the spiritual and practical needs of their own eras. Using a variety of exegetical methods, the Rabbis found proofs and buttresses for a legal system far more complex than any prescribed in biblical times … Christians similarly found in their versions of the Hebrew Bible not only moral encouragement, but also foreshadowings and premonitions of a fulfillment to come, albeit of a rather different nature…. These exegetical traditions of rabbinic Judaism and patristic Christianity, although tending to radically different conclusions, share in common a basis in Scripture and the influence of contemporary concerns. They share as well a lasting longevity, for the law and creed they established formed the foundation of each religion for the ensuing thousand years [Baskin, 1].

This next section refers to various representative examples first of the teachings of the Rabbis and then of the teachings of the Church Fathers concerning these four women in 1–2 Samuel.

Rabbinic Midrash

The classic rabbinic period is c. 200–500 ce in the lands of Israel and (Parthian and Neo-Persian) Babylon, although several midrashic collections (see the definition of midrash below) were collected and edited for centuries after that time. The area of land between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers became an area of great cultural significance for the dispersed Jewish community in the 3^rd century ce. This was some seven to eight hundred years after the biblical Exile to ancient Babylonia. Midrashic literature begins to flourish before the Roman destruction of the Temple (70 ce) when the rabbis, (possibly within synagogue settings) began to expound on the weekly Torah readings and their supplementary material from the Prophets. The rabbis developed a whole code of laws and commentaries based on the Bible. Broadly speaking, rabbinic literature is composed of the Talmud and various collections of Midrash.

Defining Midrash

Whenever the Bible was not explicit or specific, the early interpreters of the post-biblical world (i.e. the rabbinic period, and their successors as well) sought to provide new insights as to what might be meant in a given context. Consequently there developed alongside the Bible a supplement, an additional way to understand what God desired of humans. The generic term for this exegesis or interpretation is midrash (plural: midrashim). The Hebrew for sermon, derasha, is based on the word midrash. The Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 34a explains that “one biblical statement may carry many meanings.” At times the rabbis disagree amongst themselves; so stating that something is a rabbinic view or even the rabbinic view, does not mean that all rabbis support that position or that interpretation.

Midrash involves many genres: tales and allegories, ethical reflections, epigrams and legends. It always develops out of and is grounded in the biblical text. “Mid-rash is a type of literature, oral or written, which has its starting point in a fixed canonical text, considered the revealed word of God by the midrashist and his audience, and in which this original verse is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to” (Porton: 4.819). Coincidentally, the same midrash, or one with similar wording is often found in various other midrashic collections or in the Talmud. While that is so, midrash often moves far from the plain meaning of that text. The “Bible is a laconic, elliptical, and at times ambiguous text; thus, it is open to a variety of interpretations of any one [word, phrase, or] verse” (Bronner: xv). Adele Berlin captures the intent of this special form of teaching when she explains that “midrashic comments help us see the meaning more clearly, if more imaginatively.” She goes on to say,

The rabbis were not interested in what we call “the original meaning of the text.” They were more intent on the meaning for their own time, and they engage in obviously anachronistic readings. They thereby lift the biblical story out of its original context and apply it to another context. In so doing, they keep the Bible alive [Berlin: 15].

As this was so in terms of legal legislation, so it was applicable to narrative sections. The Bible’s actual words were limited; what might be said about them was seemingly limitless.

Through their midrashim, the rabbis teach about the values of their time, such as the nature of God; opposition to idolatry; proper modesty; the importance of studying sacred texts; generosity; hard work; chastity; loyalty; as well as discussing differences between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Though redacted at later points, these rabbinic teachings both precede the time of the Christian Scriptures and continue for several centuries thereafter. Midrash composing continued as late as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries ce. The examples below, like the examples from the Church Fathers, are representative, they are not meant to be exhaustive.

Abigail of Maon

The rabbis in general are favorably disposed to Abigail. She has a cautionary effect on David. Through her words she placates him enough that he changes his mind about slaughtering Nabal. There is a well-known mid-rash that picks up her words, “Do not let this be a cause of stumbling” (1 Sam 25:31). (Note: The sentence “Do not let this (Hebrew: zot) be a cause of stumbling” is the NJPS literal translation. NRSV, NEB, and NIV translate this sentence more idiomatically, and hence do not contain the word this. NAB and KJV do use the word this. (See Valler: 134–36). In its context in the Bible this refers to David’s ill-advised plan to shed the blood of Nabal and his household. As explained above, midrash always develops out of and is grounded in the biblical text. While that is so, midrash often moves far from the plain meaning of that text. A midrash points out that a few sentences earlier, in v 20 the narrative explains that Abigail went down on a “trail” on the hill (so NJPS; NRSV has under “cover” of the mountain, and NIV has a mountain “ravine”). The word for trail/cover/ravine, seter, is unclear in this context. Seter also can mean secret or hidden. The rabbis then explain that when Abigail actually spoke to David, she addressed secret or hidden things. Although Abigail’s word this in v 31 in its actual context refers to David causing bloodshed, it really has a different reference point according to the rabbis. They suggest that Abigail means to seduce David. The problem is that she is in the midst of her menstrual period and there is the biblical ruling against having sexual intercourse at that time (Lev 20:18). She shows David something which has blood on it and asks him to rule whether or not she is permitted to have intercourse. He replies that one cannot make that kind of a determination at night; one has to wait until daylight. She counters that likewise capital cases are only decided during daylight hours. Her answer means that despite his anger at Nabal, David should not go and kill him, presumably at night. In this midrash David replies that Nabal has rebelled against a king and no trial is necessary. She answers that Saul is still king. David concedes the point and praises Abigail for keeping him from gratuitously shedding blood (1 Sam 25:33–35—Babylonian Talmud Megillah 14a–b)

Another midrash then takes that same word this (zot) and its connection to menstrual blood, and offers an additional interpretation. Here this in the mind of the rabbis refers to the Bathsheba affair which would only happen years later. David saw Bathsheba bathing (2 Sam 11:2). The rabbis surmise Bathsheba was purifying herself after her period was over. The rabbis then take Abigail’s words of warning to David, suggesting that she prophesies that in the future he will be guilty of misconduct. Consequently, Abigail is regarded as one of seven women in the Bible who are female prophets, the others being Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Huldah and Esther (Babylonian Talmud Megillah 14a). The rabbis say that Abigail also is praised as a particular virtuous woman (Mishna Sanhedrin 2.4; Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 21a). In a discussion about how many wives a ruler might have, the rabbis limit the number even though each wife may have been blameless like Abigail (Babylonian Talmud Baba Metzia 115a). Further, Abigail was one of the four most beautiful women in the world (the others being Sarah, Rahab, and Esther, or in some views, Vashti (Babylonian Talmud Megillah 15a). Abigail hints to David that at some future time she would like to be married to him, a thought based on her statement, “Remember your maidservant” (v 31). This is interpreted to mean that when a woman speaks, she hints at other things, which was not meant as a compliment (Babylonian Talmud Megillah 14b). On the other hand those selfsame words are used to praise Abigail as seen in material found in Midrash Psalms 53.1. The rabbis also refer to Abigail’s statement to David, that his life or soul (Hebrew nefesh) shall be “bound up in the bundle of life” in the care of God (1 Sam 25:29). They see this as an affirmation of the concept that one’s soul lives beyond its earthly existence (Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 152b, Hagigah 12b).

The Medium of Endor

According to the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 33 the Medium of Endor is the wife of Zephaniah and the mother of Abner. A good amount of material regarding Saul and the medium is found in Leviticus Rabbah. The midrash starts with a relevant quotation from Leviticus 20:27, “A man or a woman who has a ghost [ov] or a familiar spirit shall be put to death.” In 1 Samuel 28:7 (twice) the Medium of Endor is termed a ba’alat ov (a person who has power over a ghost). “Rabbi Joshua of Siknin said in the name of Rabbi Levi, in this passage A man refers to Saul, or a woman refers to the woman who consults ghosts” (Leviticus Rabbah 26.7). Saul is then criticized for being a hypocrite. First, he banished those who engaged with ghosts and spirits, and then he sought the help of just such a person. It is said that he should have inquired via the Urim and the Thummim, even though the biblical text says that he consulted the Urim without success (v 6).

Noting that the words in Samuel say that Saul “disguised himself” (vayithapes, literally let one be searched for; BDB: 344), the rabbis explain that Saul divested himself of royalty (Leviticus Rabbah 26.7). The rabbis “accepted the testimony of the verses as given and did not question the ability of Mediums to create a real link with the dead” (Simon: 287, n. 7). Although Saul had not identified himself to the Medium of Endor, she discerned that he was the king. This is because, explains a midrash, when a ghost comes up, generally speaking it is facing downwards, but for a ruler, it comes face upward. Additionally, the woman could see Samuel’s spirit but could not hear what he was saying. On the other hand, Saul heard Samuel’s voice but could not see him (Leviticus Rabbah 26.7). In the biblical text when the medium brings up Samuel’s ghost she says, “I see godlike spirits coming up from the earth”—the words “godlike spirits” and “coming” both being in a plural form (1 Sam 28:13). The rabbis suggest that Samuel brought up the spirit of Moses with him (Babylonian Talmud Hagigah 4b). Similar details are recorded in Tanhuma Leviticus 8.4 Leviticus 21:1ff, Part IV). They then explain that all souls when they die are protected under the throne of God (Deuteronomy Rabbah 10.4). The rabbis also take note of the fact that the medium saw Samuel’s ghost covered in a robe. They liken this to the robe that his mother Hannah had made for him (1 Sam 2:19). Therefore, they conclude that as someone departs from this world, so will one look when that person is resurrected (Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, Genesis: Chapter 11, Then Judah, 8. And he sent).

The Wise Woman of Tekoa

The Wise Woman of Tekoa is enumerated as one of about two dozen truly upright and righteous women who came out of Israel (Kadari). In the Bible Joab instructs the woman to appear as if she is in mourning. The rabbis derive certain rules for mourning based on this passage (Babylonian Talmud Moed Katan 15a). In 2 Samuel 14 both David and Joab are mentioned. They suggest that Joab was the head of the Sanhedrin. (As noted earlier, the rabbis “engage in obviously anachronistic readings. They thereby lift the biblical story out of its original context and apply it to another context.”) Yet David was wiser than all, and the prooftext is the Wise Woman’s statement to the king, that he “understands everything” (2 Sam 14:20—Midrash Tanhuma, Deuteronomy: 1.3 Deuteronomy 2.2ff, Part I).

The Wise Woman of Abel

The rebel Sheba ben Bikhri is associated with two other villains (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 101b). The Wise Woman herself is associated with a well known midrashic personality, Serah bat Asher. The observation in Ecclesiastes 9:18 that “Wisdom is more valuable than weapons of war” is applied to Joab’s siege of the town. The Wise Woman berates Joab for not following the command in Deuteronomy, “When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace” (Deut 20:10). She suggests that he does not live up to the meaning of his own name, for Joab (Yoav in Hebrew) translates as “father” (av in Hebrew) in Israel, and he is coming as a destroyer (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 9.18.2; Genesis Rabbah 94.9). Joab then asks her who she is, and she self-describes as a mother in Israel (eym b’yisrael, 2 Sam 20:19). She also claims to be Serah bat Asher, making reference to a rabbinic tradition that Serah, the granddaughter of Jacob was long lived. (Babylonian Talmud Sotah 13a). Further in terms of the Wise Woman negotiating with Joab, similar to Abraham’s discussion with God in Genesis 18, she bargains over the minimum number of people that will bring about a relatively peaceful resolution to the matter at hand. This midrash then ends with a reference to the final phrase in Ecclesiastes 9:18: one sinner “destroys much good” (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 9.18.2).

The Church Fathers

There is no commonly held definition of who are the Church Fathers. There is nonetheless general agreement that the term refers to important Christian writers who lived after the time of the Christian Scriptures. The historical period during which the Church Fathers flourished is referred to by scholars as the Patristic Era and covers roughly 100–750 ce. Using biblical texts, the Church Fathers sought to create a systematized statement on what the whole Bible says about particular issues. “In the Christian schema, the history of Israel now pointed to the life of Jesus, and beyond, to the soul of the individual Christian” (Baskin: 1). They wrote about and transmitted Christian principles and established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of the church.

A further factor which shaped Jewish and Christian religious and exegetical traditions was knowledge of each other. From the advent of Christianity, there were intellectual contacts, often on scriptural subjects, between Jews and Christians. These meetings of minds, occasionally pleasant, more often polemical, also played a part in deciding attitudes, beliefs and interpretive patterns [ibid.].

Church Fathers are often divided into the “Ante-Nicene” period, that is, those who lived and wrote before the Council of Nicaea in 325 ce, and the “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” that is, those who lived and wrote during and after the time of the Nicene Council. Others differentiate the Church Fathers on a matter of geography. Here one refers to the Greek Fathers, who generally lived in the East and wrote in Greek, and the Latin Fathers, who lived in the West and wrote in Latin. Some of the earliest influential Fathers include Clement of Rome (a contemporary of the Apostles), Polycarp (a disciple of John), Justin Martyr (early second century), and Irenaeus (late second century). Some of the most influential Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers include Theodoret, Jerome, Athanasius, Basil, and Ambrose. The two most outstanding (or influential) of them all, though, are doubtless the Latin father Augustine of Hippo (354–430 ce) and the Greek father John Chrysostom (347–407 ce). The canons of the seven ecumenical councils are also important reading for the Patristic period. It is suggested that there are three basic criteria that define the Church Fathers, antiquity, orthodoxy, and holiness (Patristics; Chrysologus). Many of the Church Fathers made reference to situations that involved the women in this study. The examples below are representative; they are not meant to be exhaustive. I have drawn from material found in the work, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS), IV.

Abigail of Maon

The Venerable Bede (English, d. 735 ce) explains that Abigail means “father’s joy” and refers to the synagogue, referring to Luke 10:20, “rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” The synagogue was wise to understand the word of faith. (Bede: “Four Books on 1 Samuel” (4.25) 4.873 [232]). Ambrose (Bishop of Milan, d. 397) takes note that Abigail restrained David and his men from violence. We too should gratefully yield to timely entreaties. (Ambrose: “Duties of the Clergy” (2.10.17) 21.94 [17]). Ambrose likewise suggests that the marital union between David and Abigail (1 Sam 25:42) signifies the mystery of the union of the church of the Gentiles with Christ. It had an earlier history, like Abigail was married to Nabal, but then it was set free and could become part of the Church (Letters 74). John Cassian (Roman, d. 435 ce) explains that we neither can nor should fulfill everything that we decide upon, whether it is made tranquilly or with an agitated mind. He refers to the fact that David changed his views after speaking to Abigail (Cassian: “On Making Promises,” 24:5–6 [606]).

The Medium of Endor

Justin Martyr (Roman, d. 165 ce) points out that the medium’s calling up the soul of Samuel proves that the souls of righteous people likewise survive after death (“Dialogue with Trypho” 105 [253–54]). Augustine of Hippo (Roman African, d. 430 ce) explains that although Samuel seemed to be clothed when he was brought up, in actuality souls adjust to our bodies, not to our clothes (Augustine: “On the Soul and Its Origin” 4.29 [266–67]). In communication with Evodius, where that person asks about the figures of Samuel at Endor, and in Matthew 17:3 about Moses appearing to Jesus, Augustine explains that when the soul departs from the body, it in effect leaves the body behind (Letter 158; Letter 159). Coincidentally, in terms of the events at Endor, Augustine notes that Saul is to be criticized for some things, while in others he is praiseworthy. “Thus, although Saul was blameworthy, it was not the less praiseworthy in him … [for] he was right in banishing those that had familiar spirits and wizards out of the land” (“Against Faustus, a Manichean” 22.65). Tertullian (d. 220 ce) addresses what he understands actually happens when the Medium of Endor brings up the spirit of Samuel (“On the Soul” 57–7–9). Origen (Alexandria, d. 253 ce) notes that even though Samuel had gone to the netherworld, he still was holy and a prophet (“Homily on 1 Kings” 28 [1 Samuel 28] 28.8.1 [8.329–30]).

The Wise Woman of Tekoa

John Cassian responds to the Woman of Tekoa’s statement that although “We must all die … God will not take away the life of one who makes plans” (2 Sam 14:14). He posits that God makes human beings to live forever and he supports this with quotations from 1 Timothy 2:4 and Matthew 18:14. (“On God’s Protection,” Section 13.7.1–2 [472]).

The Wise Woman of Abel

John Chrysostom (Archbishop of Constantinople, d. 407 ce) disparages Joab for stirring up a grievous war and causing untold suffering. “Not one of them would have happened had he but known how to exercise self-control” (“Homily 42.2.” Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew). In contrast, at Abel Joab does exercise self-control.

Conclusion

In its biblical context 1–2 Samuel describes a time when ancient Israelite society is moving from the period of the Judges to the Monarchy, initially under Saul, and then during the turbulent reign of David. In 1–2 Samuel four women confront authority at great risk to their own lives. This, as well as contemporary scholarly commentary is discussed in the previously published Part 1 of these linked articles (BTB 51/1—Feb., 2021). Well over a thousand years later, in the opening centuries of the first millennium of the Common Era, the Targum Jonathan (c. 200 ce) rewrites the Bible, translating it into Aramaic. Even as it does so, the Targum makes important changes from the biblical text. In the succeeding centuries, both the Rabbis through midrash and the Church Fathers through various writings including homilies and polemics refer to these women to teach or inculcate certain values. The Rabbis and the Church Fathers are not interested in analyzing these figures in their context; rather they lift them out of their ancient venues and apply them to contemporary times, referring to them to guide their constituencies, to bring them teachings which would make them better Jews and better Christians. They explicated Scripture to bring this rich heritage closer to their people, and the people closer to God. In their writings and sermons they made reference to the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel, and specifically to Abigail of Maon, the Medium of Endor, the Wise Woman of Tekoa, and the Wise Woman of Abel, finding lessons there which would be of value.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Tamara Conley, librarian at the Cardinal Stafford Library, St. John Vianney Theological Seminary, Denver.

References

Ambrose

. 1969. “Duties of the Clergy.” Nicene and Post Nicene Church Fathers, vol. 10. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

“Ambrose to Irenaeus, Letter 74”

1954. Letters to Laymen, Fathers of the Church, Saint Ambrose Letters, translated by

Mary M.

Beyenka

. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Augustine

. 1887

“Against Faustus, a Manichean”

translated by

Richard

Stothert

. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. [Schaff] Edinburgh: T&T Clark. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Augustine

. 1953. “Letter 158”, “Letter 159” Fathers of the Church, Letters, vol. 8, translated by

Wilfrid

Parsons

. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Augustine

. 1887. “On the Soul and Its Origin.” Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 5 Anti-Pelagian Writings , edited by

Paul

Schaff

. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s.

Babylonian

Talmud

. 1948. London: Soncino. Baba Metzia, Hagigah, Makkot, Megillah, Moed Katan, Sanhedrin, Shabbat, Sotah.

Baskin, J. R.

1983. Pharaoh’s Counsellors: Job, Jethro, and Balaam in Rabbinic and Patristic Tradition. Brown Judaica Series 47. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

(BDB) 1907. Brown, F.,

S. R.

Driver ,

C. A.

Briggs , Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bede

. 1962. “Four Books on 1 Samuel,” Badae Venerabilis Opera, Pars II. Editores Pontificii. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols.

10.

Berlin, A.

2003. “Writing a Commentary for a Jewish Audience.” Pp. 9–16 in The Book of Esther in Modern Research, edited by

S. W.

Crawford &

L. J.

Greenspoon , London: T. & T. Clark.

11.

Bronner, L. L.

1994. From Eve to Esther: Rabbinic Reconstructions of Biblical Women. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

12.

Cassian, John

. 1997. “On God’s Protection.” The Conferences, Thirteenth Conference. “On Making Promises.” The Conferences, Seventeenth Conference, Ancient Christian Writers, translated by

Boniface

Ramsey

. New York: Paulist.

13.

Chrysologus. http://chrysologus.blogspot.com/2011/06/who-are-fathers-of-church-chronological.html

14.

Chrysostom, John

. 1888. “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers, vol. 10 edited by

Paul

Schaff

. New York, NY: Christian Literature.

15.

Franke, J. R.

(ed.). 2005. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, IV, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

16.

Hirschman, M.

1996. A Rivalry of Genius. Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity,, translated by

Stein

. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

17.

Justin

Martyr

. 1926. “Dialogue with Trypho” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s.

18.

Kadari, T.

“Wise Woman of Tekoa: Midrash and Aggadah.”

https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/wise-woman-of-tekoa-midrash-and-aggadah.

19.

Midrash on Psalms. 1959, vol. 1, translated by

W. G.

Braude

, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

20.

Midrash Rabbah. (The Midrash). 1939. Edited by.

Freedman ,

Simon , &

J. J.

Slotki . London, UK: Soncino. Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, Genesis, Leviticus.

21.

Midrash Tanhuma, Exodus and Leviticus. 1997, vol. 2 of Midrash Tanhuma: S. Buber Recension , translated by

John T.

Townsend

. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav,

22.

Midrash Tanhuma, Numbers and Deuteronomy. 2003. Vol. 3 of Midrash Tanhuma: S. Buber Recension , translated by

John T.

Townsend

. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav.

23.

Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu. 1996. Genesis and Exodus: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, edited and translated by

Samuel

Berman

. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav.

24.

Origen

. 1998. “Homily on 1 Kings 28 [1 Samuel 28].” Fathers of the Church: Origen. Homilies on Jeremiah. Homily on 1 Kings 28 [1 Samuel 28], vol. 97, translated by

John. C.

Smith

. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America.

25.

Patristics. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/patristics.html

26.

Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. 1981. (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great): According to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna. Translated by

Gerald

Friedlander

. Judaic Studies Library 6 New York: Sepher-Hermon.

27.

Porton, G. G.

1992. “Midrash.” Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary,

D. N.

Freedman

, Ed. New York: Doubleday.

28.

Simon, U.

1997. Reading Prophetic Narratives. Trans.

L. J.

Schramm

. Bloomington: Indiana University.

29.

Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. The Aramaic Bible, vol. 10. 1987. Trans.

Daniel J.

Harrington and

Anthony J.

Saldarini . Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier.

30.

Tertullian

. 1885. “On the Soul,” translated by

Peter

Holmes

. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, edited by

Alexander

Roberts ,

James

Donaldson , &

A. Cleveland

Coxe . Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm.

31.

Tigay, J. H.

1996. The JPS Torah Commentary, Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

32.

Valler, S.

1994. “King David and ‘his’ Women: Biblical Stories and Talmudic Discussions.” A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings, edited by

Brenner

. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.