Abstract
Of all the characters of the book of Judges none has more in common with the David of the so-called ‘History of David’s Rise’ than Samson. A careful comparison of Judg. 13.1–16.3 with 1 Sam. 16–23 reveals numerous similarities between the two figures, including the way their slaying of lions presages their most striking acts, and the way in which Yahweh and Saul, respectively, use the prospect of marriage to manipulate them to attack Philistines. We also find parallels in their calls, relationship to the rûaḥ YHWH, relationship to family, and use of wisdom. These extensive similarities naturally lead us to consider the differences which may explain Samson’s failure and David’s success. David is a leader, while Samson acts solo; David is beloved while not loving anyone, while Samson loves without being loved himself. These observations support deuteronomistic ideology highlighting leaders and leadership, and devaluing human love for other humans.
Samson and David
The figure of King David looms large throughout the Deuteronomistic History. Not only are all Judahite kings after David compared to Israel’s archetypical monarch, but the location of the Book of Judges just prior to Samuel in the Hebrew Bible also invites readers to compare its leaders to David. While some modern readers still see Judges as a book that reflects historical and social pre-monarchic realities, more and more scholars recognize that Judges must be interpreted according to its author’s understanding of pre-monarchical Israel. 1 Canonical Judges is not just about cycles of apostasy, domination, crying out for help, and salvation; it is also about individuals who fail to measure up to David, setting up the famous final verse, ‘In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes’. 2
The most striking character of Judges is Samson, performer of legendary feats. While other Hebrew Bible figures also boast extraordinary accomplishments, Samson’s superhuman strength makes him arguably the single most fantastic individual in the Hebrew Bible. Less recognized, however, is that among the characters of Judges, Samson has the most in common with David. 3 A recent article by Brian N. Petersen highlights many of the similarities between the characters of Samson in Judges and David in 1–2 Samuel. 4 In this paper, I will develop Peterson’s summary by focusing on the so-called ‘History of David’s Rise’ (1 Sam. 16–2 Sam. 5), further outlining the connections between these two characters. As we compare them, we see that David exceeds his fantastic predecessor, despite Samson’s extraordinary gifts. Two kinds of contrasts are particularly noteworthy: David is a leader, while Samson is a solitary figure, and David is loved without loving others, while Samson loves other people, but is not himself beloved.
What Samson and David Have in Common
Calls
The similarities between Samson and David begin with their calls. Before they enter the picture, each one is identified as God’s choice for a specific task. Prior to Samson’s conception an angel explains to his mother that he ‘will begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines’ (Judg. 13.5), thus delineating Samson’s life purpose. In 1 Samuel, the prophet Samuel informs King Saul that Yahweh has appointed ‘a man after his own heart’ to be ruler over Israel (1 Sam. 13.14). While the Hebrew Bible has several examples of prophecies about the birth of specific individuals (including Isaac, Jacob and Esau, and Samuel), Samson and David are the only characters in the Deuteronomistic History featuring a pre-conception prophecy about their role. 5
Rûaḥ YHWH
While a number of characters in the DH receive the rûaḥ YHWH, ‘spirit of Yahweh’, 6 the experiences of Samson and David are unique, above and beyond those of everyone else. The rûaḥ YHWH ‘rushes’ upon Samson three separate times (Judg. 14.6, 19; 15.15), but not more than once for anyone else in the Hebrew Bible. David’s experience is distinctive in a different way: while the ‘rushing’ of the rûaḥ YHWH is normally a temporary experience, David gets a permanent dose as the rûaḥ rushes ‘from that day forward’ (1 Sam. 16.13).
Fathers
Samson and David each move away from their fathers’ preferred path, yet manage to avoid hard feelings, instead maintaining solid family connections. In Judg. 14.2, Samson instructs his parents to arrange his marriage to a Philistine woman he has recently met. When his parents object, he repeats his demand to his father only (14.3; note Samson’s masculine singular command in v. 3 vs the masculine plural in v. 2). 7 His father relents, but with no apparent discord; soon thereafter Samson is sharing honey with his parents, claiming that he shares secrets with them, and returning to them after losing his wager. 8 Correspondingly, on three separate occasions in 1 Sam. 16–17 David’s calling differs from that expected by his father. In 16.6–10, Jesse has his seven oldest sons pass before Samuel to see which one has been chosen by Yahweh. Jesse does not seem to recognize that his youngest son David is even a possibility, yet when Samuel asks for David in verse 11, Jesse does not object. 9 In 16.18–20, a servant of Saul identifies David as someone suitable for Saul’s service. Saul summons David, and again Jesse obliges without comment. 10 Finally, in 17.17–18, Jesse sends David to his brothers in Saul’s army with the expectation that David will return home ( ‘... and bring some token from them’, 17.18b). David of course does not return; in fact soon thereafter he appears to turn his back on his family by ‘turning away’ from his brother Eliab to the people in v. 30. 11 Once again, Jesse is not consulted about this change in plans; once again, Jesse offers no comment. The key distinction between Samson and David with respect to family is the location at which each family is reunited in life for the last time. Samson returns to his father’s house in Judg. 14.19, then later is buried in his father’s tomb (Judg. 16.31). His care for his parents is touching, as he shares his honey with them and soon after suggests that he is inclined to share with them his deepest secrets as well (14.9, 16). 12 Metaphorically, Samson never leaves home. 13 David, however, last encounters his parents when they come to see him, in the cave of Adullam (1 Sam. 22.1–3). 14 Like Samson, David also exhibits care for his parents, arranging safety for them in Moab (22.3–4). Even his brothers (presumably including the disapproving Eliab of 1 Sam. 17.30) come to him at that point. The family’s trips to see him point to David’s ascension to family leader. 15
Lions and the Exploit Extraordinaire
Samson and David both gain acclaim for extraordinary military feats accomplished with weapons picked from the ground: Samson kills 1000 Philistines with a donkey’s jawbone; David kills Goliath with stones propelled by a sling. The texts connect each deed to an earlier lion slaying (Judg. 14.9; 1 Sam. 17.34–35). David talks about killing a lion and bear to persuade King Saul that he will kill Goliath. 16 And as Emmrich has shown, Judg. 15.14–19 draws heavily from 14.5–9: in both passages Samson comes to a specific place and is met by a roaring enemy, at which point the rûaḥ YHWH comes on him, enabling him to destroy the enemy with his hands. 17
Wisdom
Samson and David are figures of wisdom. Samson proposes a riddle and creates fragments of poetry; David is recognized by Saul’s servant to be “skillful in playing, a man of valor, a warrior, prudent in speech...” (1 Sam 16:18), thus, wise. Both use wisdom to deceive Philistines: Samson tells a riddle that the Philistines cannot solve, while David hides his true motives and intentions from the Philistines both times he is living with them (1 Sam. 21.13–15; 27.10–12). 18
Judahites and the Rock
In 1 Sam. 23.25, David camps near a ‘rock’ in the wilderness. Men from Ziph (Judahites, given their location) reveal David’s movements to Saul, explaining that ‘our part will be to surrender him into the king’s hand’ (23.20). Sometime later David is pursued by 3000 ‘chosen men from Israel’ who join Saul in 1 Sam. 24.2 and 26.2. These passages correspond to Judg. 15.8–13, in which Samson hides out near the ‘rock of Etam’, then encounters 3000 Judahites who wish to deliver him to their Philistine ‘rulers’ (Judg. 15.11).
The new leader shut in
As referenced earlier, David’s career moves into a new phase in 1 Sam. 22.1–2 when he becomes head of a band of 400 men. His first ‘assignment’ as new leader comes in 1 Sam. 23, in which Yahweh directs David to assist the besieged city of Keilah. David successfully defeats the attacking Philistines but soon finds himself trapped inside the city. His pursuer king Saul is pleased because David is now shut in a city with דלתים ובריח ‘gates and bars’ (1 Sam. 23.7). Yet David escapes.
Samson undergoes a similar experience. Although he is a solitary figure throughout, the author of Judges appoints Samson to office, declaring in Judg. 15.20 that he ‘judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years’. While scholars usually regard this verse as a marker of the end of the literary unit, 19 it serves the narrative purpose of placing Samson into a position of responsibility (Judges does not indicate that Samson is a leader in any capacity before or after this comment). 20 Immediately after his ‘appointment’ he enters Gaza, only to find himself trapped inside. Judges 16.3 nevertheless tells us that ‘he grasped the doors (“gates”) of the city and the two doorposts and pulled them up with the bar, 21 ’ using forms of the key words דלת and בריח which appear in 1 Sam. 23.7. So, like David, Samson also escapes from a city with ‘gates and bars’ which had shut him in.
Minor episodes in which David exceeds Samson
At a number of points of comparison David’s accomplishments clearly exceed those of Samson, despite the latter’s fantastic strength. Samson kills a lion with his bare hands; David kills a lion and a bear. 22 And while Samson kills the lion in order to defend himself only, David breaks his action into two parts, first rescuing his sheep (1 Sam. 17.35a), then killing the predator as it turns on him. 23 The prophecy about Samson at the start of his story is only that he ‘shall begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines’ (Judg. 13.5), while David ultimately completes this task (2 Sam. 5). 24 And while David rules Israel for 40 years (2 Sam. 5.4), Samson ‘judges’ Israel for only 20 years, half as long (Judg. 15.20). 25 Samson kills and dishonors (through stripping) 30 Philistines at the time of his (aborted) marriage; David kills and dishonors (through mutilation) 26 100 as his bride-price. 27
Marriage sagas
1 Samuel 18 (LXX) and Judges 14
The most intriguing parallels, however, may be those found when we compare the accounts of the initial marriages of Samson (Judg. 14.1–15.6) and David (1 Sam. 18.17–27). At first glance, spouses of Samson and David undergo what looks to be ‘divorce and remarriage on grounds of abandonment’ as per the direction of their fathers (Judg. 14.20–15.2; 1 Sam. 25.44). 28 But there is much more in common. The older LXX account of David’s marriage begins with the notice at 18.20 of Michal’s love for David, as LXX is missing 18.17–19 (Saul’s offer of his older daughter Merab to David) and 17.25 (in which David is told that Saul will give his daughter to the champion who defeats Goliath). 29 Saul is happy when he hears of Michal’s love because he decides that she can be a ‘stumbling block’ to David. He therefore sends messengers to persuade David to seek Michal’s hand in marriage. Saul then communicates through intermediaries that David may marry Michal if he delivers 100 Philistine foreskins, hoping that the Philistines will kill David. Saul is therefore David’s manipulator, using Michal to get David to fight Philistines. 30
The parallel scene arises in Judg. 14, in which Yahweh manipulates Samson to fight Philistines. As in the David story, the marriage episode begins with love, with Samson as lover rather than beloved. Judg. 14.4a tells us that the object of Samson’s affection is from Yahweh. While the NRSV has, ‘His father and mother did not know that this was from the LORD; for he was seeking a pretext to act against the Philistines’ (other major translations are similar), the immediate past referent of the pronoun היא of the second clause of verse 4 (‘it/she was from Yahweh’) is the Timnite woman from 14.3. 31 Further, the succeeding phrase כי תאנה הוא מבקשׁ (‘for he was seeking a pretext’) features an emphatic masculine singular pronoun, so that ‘she/he’ appears in parallel: ‘she was from Yahweh, because he wanted an occasion’. 32 Therefore, the better rendering of 14.4 is ‘she was from Yahweh’: not just the occasion, but the woman herself is appointed by Yahweh as the means to get Samson to fight Philistines. 33 Just as Saul manipulates David into slaughtering one hundred Philistines as a bride-price (1 Sam. 18.27 LXX), Yahweh manipulates Samson into killing 30, setting off the chain of events in Judg. 15 in which Samson wreaks havoc on the Philistines.
Just as Saul is not good for David, Yahweh is not good for Samson. 34 Samson and David both want their marriages to work, but Yahweh and Saul have other plans. 35 Joel Baden points out that the episodes involving David’s proposed marriages to Merab and Michal make David seem irrational as he ‘willingly returns again and again to the service of a homicidal maniac’. 36 David of course does repeatedly return to Saul in the story. Samson also returns to his grand manipulator, Yahweh, as we see Samson calling on Yahweh in chs. 15 and 16. 37
1 Samuel 18 (MT) and Judges 14–15
The Masoretic Text ingeniously strengthens the comparisons and contrasts between Samson and David with its insertion of 1 Sam. 18.17–19. While most commentators hold that MT adds these verses to explain the otherwise sudden appearance of Merab in 2 Sam. 21.8, its insertion of Merab’s story at this juncture changes David’s story to align it more closely with that of Samson. 38 As in 18.21, Saul in verse 17 decides that the prospect of marrying his daughter Merab will motivate David to fight the Philistines and hopefully be killed by them in battle. 39 Saul’s use of the phraseהנה בתי הגדולה, ‘let me present my older daughter Merab’, displays Merab as an object of Saul’s pride and care, thus worthy of only the best possible son-in-law. 40 But just as the Timnite’s father breaks his word (in Samson’s judgment) by giving his daughter to Samson’s ‘companion’ (Judg. 14.20), Saul breaks his word by giving Merab to Adriel the Meholathite—in spite of the fact that David has been fighting Saul’s battles (1 Sam. 18.5, 13, 16). 41 Saul’s terms were vague enough to permit him to imply that David’s service simply had not been sufficient to warrant marriage to Saul’s older daughter. 42
The brevity of the Merab account enhances the ambiguity about whether David expected to receive Merab as his wife. While David seems to reject Saul’s offer of Merab in 1 Sam. 18.18, v. 19 indicates that Merab is given to Adriel at the point in time she should have been given to David, thus suggesting that the marriage was ‘on’ in spite of David’s response. 43 Since the passage itself is unclear, it’s reasonable to conclude that up to the moment at which Saul gave Merab to Adriel David did not know that Merab would end up as another man’s wife. 44 The ambiguity of the scene parallels Judg. 14.18–15.2, in which Samson is surprised that the woman to whom he thinks he is married is actually the wife of another man. 45
At this point in 1 Sam. 18, Saul offers Merab’s younger sister Michal to David, just as the father of Samson’s fiancée offers him her younger sister. The offer of the younger sister in both accounts can be interpreted as a condescending suggestion that the suitor is not sufficiently ‘adult’ to merit marriage to the older daughter. 46 But there are two important differences between the cases of Samson and David. First, while Samson feels mistreated and patronized, this is hardly the intent of his betrothed’s father; on the other hand, while Saul in fact does mistreat and patronize David, David does not appear to be offended. David thus demonstrates greater maturity even though Saul may have intended to insult David. Second, unlike Samson with the younger Timnite, David does successfully marry Michal, who proves to be, as the Timnite father says of his younger daughter, ‘better’ than her sister.
Samson’s failure versus David’s success
The above data demonstrate the intertwining of the stories of David and Samson, thus inviting us to compare the two, searching for significant differences alongside their similarities. The most obvious difference of course is that David is successful while Samson fails. But why? A closer examination highlights two stark contrasts which the Deuteronomistic Historian (‘Dtr’) uses to explain David’s success and Samson’s failure. First, David is a leader, and Samson is not. Second, Samson loves people without being loved by them, while in the ‘History of David’s Rise’ David is never said to love anyone, while being loved by many. 47
Leadership
The iconic victories of Samson and David highlight David’s capacity to lead and Samson’s lack of the same. During his encounter with Goliath, David does not reference his own pride or feelings; instead he steps in as Israel’s representative as per his references to Israel in 1 Sam. 17.26, 45–46. Shortly after his victory, Saul appoints David to be a ‘captain of a thousand’ (1 Sam. 18.13). 48 From this point on David usually leads a group, first as a commander in Saul’s army, then as leader of close associates in 1 Sam. 21.5, and finally as the head of the band of 400 (which eventually becomes 600) that joins him in 22.2. We see David’s popularity in 1 Sam. 18.6–7 as the women of Israel come out to meet Saul and David with, “Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” 49 MT heightens this feature of David’s personality by adding 1 Sam. 17.12–31, in which David is intimately involved with others, bringing food to his brothers (v.17) and gifts to their commander (v. 18) and even seeing to the provision of sheep for which he is responsible, while obeying his father’s instructions (v. 20).
As leader, David safeguards those under his care: his parents (1 Sam. 22.3–4), Abiathar son of Ahimelech (1 Sam. 22.22–23), and even the wives and children of his men who were kidnapped from Ziklag (1 Sam. 30.18–19). His ability to protect reminds us of his background as a shepherd—appropriate for his calling as a leader of people—protecting his flock from the lion and the bear (17.34–35).
But while David fights for Israel; Samson fights only for himself. 50 Samson does kill groups of Philistines in Judg. 14.19, 15.8, and 15.15, but only in pursuit of personal vengeance. 51 Even when 3000 men of Judah are nearby (15.11–14), Samson is on his own. He eventually becomes a ‘judge’ of Israel, but we never see him leading people. He instead occupies ‘the world between barbarism and civilization’, satisfying only his personal needs and desires. 52 And despite his strength and wisdom, Samson cannot save people he cares about. He proves entirely unable to protect his innocent betrothed and her father (first threatened in Judg. 14.15, then killed in Judg. 15.6); in fact he displays no interest in their safety. Their horrific end no doubt was a factor in Delilah’s decision to betray Samson, while the Philistines make no direct threat against Delilah, their history with the Timnite and her father tells us that Delilah will certainly suffer if she does not accept the Philistines’ ‘generous’ offer of 16.5. 53
Samson’s story marks Judges’ transition from stories of leadership to stories of Israel with leaders: while the narrator claims that Samson ‘judged’ Israel, as a judge he is clearly ineffectual, thus moving Israel from leadership by judges to leaderless. Samson’s performance, focused on himself instead of the needs of the people, depreciates the institution of judge, thus paving the way for a king. 54
Samson’s lack of leadership ability reminds us of Saul, who also invites comparison with David. Saul leads by fiat. He is the king, charged with defending Israel; people therefore are obliged to follow him. But Saul regularly struggles with disloyalty from his troops. Unlike David, and much like Samson, Saul prior to his coronation leads no one.
Love
An even more important difference between Samson the loner and David the leader is the way the two experience human ‘love’. Judges reports that Samson loves the Timnite (Judg. 14.1, 16) and Delilah (16.4, 15). Love leads to Samson’s destruction, as he weakens himself in his efforts to prove his love. Samson’s instances of inferred love—for his parents (as he gives them some of the honey he finds) 55 and for the prostitute of Gaza—are less damaging, yet nevertheless do not benefit him. Indeed, in the context of the Samson story as a whole, ‘love’ is the answer to the questions that solve Samson’s riddle in 14.18, ‘What is stronger than a lion? What is sweeter than honey?’ Love is sweeter than honey to Samson; he shares honey with his parents, but it is only with his beloved that he shares the answer to his riddle. Perhaps the author channels Song 8.6b, ‘Love is strong as death, passion fierce as the grave’. 56 Love overpowers Samson, and destroys him.
In contrast, the ‘History of David’s Rise’ never reports David loving anyone else.
57
He cannot be swayed by personal feelings for others.
58
Yet David is regularly the object of human love, loved by Saul, Michal, Jonathan, and, according to 1 Sam. 18.16, all Israel and Judah.
59
Even a Philistine commander expresses great approval for David (albeit without using the word ’āha
Love for David motivates people to help him and fosters his success. The aspect of David’s personality which causes others to love him is the major motivating factor behind the choice of a broad range of people—upper and lower class, friends and foes of Saul, Israelites and foreigners—to help David in 1 Sam. 19–22. 62 It is through love that David becomes close to Saul, and because of love that Saul’s children help David to escape their father. This distinguishes David’s confidantes from Samson’s wife and from Delilah: Samson’s Philistine enemies successfully manipulate these women to harm him, 63 while David’s enemy King Saul is unable to bend the will of Jonathan and Michal. Samson’s love for the Timnite does not overrule her bonds of kinship which cause her to betray Samson’s secret; 64 while the love of Jonathan and Michal for David compels them to break kinship bonds for his sake. But 1 Samuel does not argue that people’s love for David ever benefits them. Different types of love are in play: Michal loves romantically; Jonathan’s love is about ‘male bonding’; Saul has fatherly affection; the people of Israel and Judah are ardent fans. 65 Yet the various types of love all have the same effect, benefiting David, without rewarding those who love David. David is a positive force for Israel, but for as long as they live, Saul, Jonathan, and Michal receive nothing from David. 66 Perhaps Joab has this past in mind when he confronts King David much later while David is mourning the death of his rebellious son Absalom, ‘Today you have covered with shame the faces of all your officers who have saved your life today, and the lives of your sons and your daughters, and the lives of your wives and your concubines, for love of those who hate you and for hatred of those who love you’ (2 Sam. 19.5–6a). Those who love David should not expect love in return.
It appears that Dtr believes that loving other human beings is a weakness, as characters who are famed for loving others—Samson, Amnon, and Solomon—run into trouble as a direct result of their love. Even in the instances in which characters’ love for others does not directly result in difficulties (Elkanah, Saul and his family, and Israel and Judah), we do not see love for others producing positive results. This may be Dtr’s way to stress our duty to love Yahweh ahead of all others. It is not only love for other deities which leads to disaster; even love for other human beings is dangerous. As Brueggemann puts it, ‘the practice of holiness concerns the disciplined awareness that life is to be ordered with the profound acknowledgement that the core of reality lies outside the self and is not given over to human control’.
67
Instead of falling in love like Samson and Solomon, Dtr wants his readers to be like David, devoted to Yahweh alone. Dtr clearly summarizes this idea through his portrayal of David’s son and successor Solomon. At the start of Solomon’s story in 1 Kgs. 3.3, Solomon becomes the only character in the Deuteronomistic History who is said to ‘love Yahweh’.
68
Things fall apart for Solomon only when he begins to ‘love’ others. While we tend to focus on the objects of Solomon’s love (foreign women), it may be that the love of human beings itself is a problem for Dtr. Loving other people may get in the way of obeying the command to ‘Love the L
Conclusion
The large number of parallels between the accounts of David and Samson points to a compositional relationship between Judg. 14–16.3 and 1 Sam. 16–2 Sam. 5. The fact that the comparisons tend to favor David suggests that Dtr wants to demonstrate David’s innate superiority to Samson, and, by extension, to all of the judges. Apparently generations of scribes appreciated and valued the relationship between these two figures and so edited Judges and Samuel in ways which highlight that relationship.
Samson has unique gifts, to be sure: fantastic physical strength and fighting ability, superior wisdom (his love choices notwithstanding), and even special dispensations of Yahweh’s spirit. But Samson lacks characteristics which are especially important to Dtr: the capacity to lead and to get others to love him, and the ability to avoid loving others.
Footnotes
1
Marc Zvi Brettler, The Book of Judges, OTR (London/ New York: Routledge, 2002), 111–16 offers an extended discussion of this trend.
2
Yaira Amit, The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing, Biblical Interpretation Series, v. 38 (Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 1999), 92–96, 113–17, argues extensively that the editor of Judges wants to convince readers that monarchical rule is preferable to rule by judges. While Amit does not compare Samson to David directly, the fact that the archetypical king looks better than the most extraordinary judge supports her thesis. See also R.H. O’Connell, The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, VTSup 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 343; Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction (London /New York: T & T Clark, 2007), 137–39; Tammi Schneider, Judges, BO (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), xiv; Trent C Butler, Judges, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009), lxxvii; Robert Alter, Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets : Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings : A Translation with Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2014), 109. John Charles Yoder, Power and Politics in the Book of Judges: Men and Women of Valor (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 211–13, holds that Judges introduces rule by “exceptional mighty men,” so that Judges introduces readers to the type of leadership exhibited by Saul and David without necessarily endorsing monarchy. J. G. McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology, Genesis-Kings, LHBOTS 454 (London/New York: T & T Clark, 2006), 125–29, is skeptical about “subordinating the voices of Judges to a single program” (such as pointing to a preference for monarchy) given the absence of more plain language about the Davidic monarchy. McConville nevertheless accepts leadership as a central focus of Judges. Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, NAC (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 58–59, eschews “leadership” as a theme entirely, holding instead for “the Canaanization of Israelite society during the period of the settlement,” while arguing that that negative depictions of monarchs in Judges make it unlikely that the author of Judges is looking for a monarchy. However, the placement of Judges in the Hebrew Bible canon, as well as in the Deuteronomistic History, cannot fail but to invite comparisons of judges to David.
3
Jacob L. Wright, David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 38–39, highlights the similarities of David and Jephthah, as David in 1 Sam 22:2 and Jephthah 2 in Judg. 11:1–3 each gathers a band of “desperadoes” to engage in raiding activities. See also Ed Greenstein and David Marcus, “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi,” JANES 8 (1976): 59–96; R. P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, Library of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Regency Reference Library, 1988), 172; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel 2nd Ed, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 223; Alter, 369; Butler, 280. Wright and Susan Niditch, Judges: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 131 also explore the shared theme of the success of the unlikely son (Jephthah is son of a prostitute; David is the youngest of eight brothers). While these parallels certainly exist, Samson has yet stronger connections.
4
Brian N. Peterson, “Samson: Hero or Villain? The Samson Narrative in Light of David and Saul,” Bibliotheca Sacra 174, no. 693 (Mar 2017): 38–41.
5
Peterson, 39.
6
Nicole L. Tilford, Sensing World, Sensing Wisdom: The Cognitive Foundation of Biblical Metaphors, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 31 (Atlanta: SBL, 2017), 145–46 prefers “breath of Yahweh,” arguing that this better establishes Yahweh as the origin of supernatural ability. Because of its longstanding traditional usage, this paper employs “Spirit of Yahweh,” but Tilford’s perspective merits further close examination.
7
Schneider, 203.
8
Block, 424–26, characterizes the response of Samson’s parents to his demand as one of “pain and disappointment,” and his response to them as “insensitive and disrespectful toward his parents and their grief over the matter.” Michael J. Smith, “The Failure of the Family in Judges, Part 2: Samson,” Bibliotheca Sacra 16, no. 2 (Dec 2005), 430, adds that Samson’s failure to report to his parents that he had killed a lion (Judg. 14.16), that the honey he found came from the lion’s carcass (v.9), and the meaning of his riddle (v.16) point to an unhealthy parent-child relationship. But it’s unclear why he should have to tell his parents about the lion and the riddle, and after his parents agree to arrange his marriage, there is no indication of bad feeling between parents and son, especially since all seems well between Samson and his parents in verses 5 and 9–10.
9
Keith Bodner, 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary, Hebrew Bible Monographs 19 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008), 170, describes Jesse’s words in 16.11 as “almost incredulous,” since Jesse seems to second Samuel’s ideas about the stature and status of his older sons.
10
Bodner, 174, suggests that Jesse is again both mystified and deferential.
11
Joel Rosenberg, “1 and 2 Samuel,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987), 130, highlights this “fundamental gesture in David’s personal history—a departure from his father’s house in all but a geographic sense.”
12
Brettler, 52, notes that responsibility for parents is a frequent wisdom theme (as in Prov. 1:8). Although Samson violates Prov. 1:8 by disobeying his parents, his consideration for his parents further encourages an association of Samson with wisdom.
13
Stephan M. Wilson, Making Men: The Male Coming-of-Age Theme in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 137–38, cites this failure as an indication that Samson never “came of age.”
14
Johanna W. H. Van Wijk-Bos, Reading Samuel: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011), 118, after noting that 22.1–5 is “of little interest to most interpreters” explains more fully how this passage shows David’s growth from a solitary figure on the run to a leader and protector.
15
Commentators usually focus on the “Moab” connections when they examine 22.3–4. For example, P. Kyle McCarter, 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 359, cites possible Moabite anger at Saul for defeating them in 1 Sam 14:47, along with David’s connection to the Moabitess Ruth (his great-grandmother in Ruth 4.17–22). See also Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 271, for a possible connection to the Mesha inscription.
16
Bodner, 184, sees this analogy as an example of David’s wisdom, noting in particular that David’s reference to the bear’s “beard” (“jaw” in NRSV) helps to create a picture of David grabbing Goliath’s beard before slaying him.
17
Martin Emmrich, “The Symbolism of the Lion and the Bees: Another Ironic Twist in the Samson Cycle,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Association 44, no. 1 (March 2001): 70–72 offers further details.
18
Yoder, 100–02, cites “duplicity” as a major theme of the Samson story, as he both deceives and is deceived. We see a number of examples of duplicity throughout the David story as well.
19
Alter, 187; Mobley, 184; Robert G. Boling, ed., Judges, AB 6A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 240; E.L. Greenstein, “The Riddle of Samson,” Proof 1 (1981), 238; James L. Crenshaw, Samson: A Secret Betrayed, a Vow Ignored (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978), 41.
20
As per Serge Frolov, Judges, FOTL 6B (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 248. Block, 448, is unhappy that “this egotistical and self-centered man could have governed Israel for two decades,” while M. Greene, “Enigma Variations: Aspects of the Samson Story (Judges 13–16),” Vox Evangelica 21 (1991), 69, argues that Samson is elevated to judge in part because of his “faith and dependence on God.” Amit, 266–75, best recognizes the complexity of Samson’s character as 15.20 moves his career into a new phase.
21
MT reads ויאחז בדלתות שׁער העיר ובשׁתי המזוזות ויסעם עם הבריח.
22
Peterson asserts that David killed the lion and bear with his bare hands, but this is not evident from the text. David G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, AOTC 8 (Nottingham, England/Downers Grove: Apollos/ InterVarsity, 2009) 199, argues that David is trying to show that he can defeat Goliath in close combat.
23
A. Graeme Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 210.
24
Peterson, 39. See also Butler, 355; Emmrich, “Symbolism,” 70, n. 14; Mobley, 197; Amit, 90–91, and Soggin, Judges, 250. Frolov, 22, argues that 1 Sam 1-8 “massively” builds upon Samson’s failure to deliver Israel from the Philistines, so that Samuel must be given credit for ending Philistine dominion, as per 1 Sam. 7.13. David Jobling, 1 Samuel, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 222 reaches a similar conclusion. But passages such as 1 Sam 13.19–22 (which shows the Philistines controlling Israelite metallurgy) indicate that the author of Samuel believes that Philistine domination of Israel continued into Saul’s day and beyond.
25
Volkmar Fritz, The Emergence of Israel in the 12th and 11th Centuries BCE, SBL Biblical Encyclopedia 2 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 47, points out that unlike prior figures in Judges, Jephthah, Samson and the minor judges of Judg. 12 are not “saviors from the distress brought on by enemies,” but rather judges who hold an office, and thus more comparable to monarchs.
26
Jobling, 230, suggests that David in a sense “incorporates” the Philistines into Israel by circumcising them, similar to the manner in which the sons of Jacob incorporate the Hivites into Israel in Gen. 34.13–24.
27
Per LXX. MT 200 of course makes David look even better.
28
Richard M Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015), discusses at length the concept of divorce and remarriage in Hebrew Bible legal and prophetic texts, but the spouses of Samson and David are the only ones who experience anything like divorce and remarriage in Hebrew Bible narrative passages.
29
Andrew Steinmann, 1 Samuel, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia, 2016), 323–25, and John Van Seters, The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 137–57, follow the view best articulated by Alexander Rofé, “The Battle of David and Goliath: Folklore, Theology, Eschatology.,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. Jacob Neusner et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 117–51, that the Hebrew Vorlage of LXXB abridges MT 1 Sam. 17–18. Steinman argues that the LXXB minuses resolve MT duplications and contradictions, while MT finds support from 4QSama (which usually supports LXXB above MT). Yet the only direct support for MT revealed by 4QSama are 1 Sam. 17.41 and 18.4–5, while 4QSama also reports Goliath’s height in 17.4 as four cubits and a span as per LXXB (MT has six cubits and a span). Furthermore, LXXB fails to resolve all the problems of MT; for example, while 16.18, 21 describes David as a warrior, neither Saul nor David recognizes this in 17.33, 38–39. More recently Rebecca Poe Hays, “A Problematic Spouse: A Text-Critical Examination of Merab’s Place in 1 Samuel 18:17–19 and 2 Samuel 21:8,” ZAW 129, no. 2 (June 2017): 220–33, argues that a copyist of the Hebrew Vorlage of 1 Sam. 18 removed only 18.17–19, 21b to eliminate the tension created from the references to Adriel the Meholathite as Merab’s husband in 18.19 and Michal’s husband in 2 Sam. 21.8. Hays argues that under the principle of lectio difficilior “Michal” is likely the correct reading in 2 Sam. 21.8, as she can find no motivation for an author to change the text from Merab to Michal. The 21.8 reference to Adriel resulted from scribal confusion about Michal’s husband, and another scribe removed 1 Sam. 18.17–19, 21b in light of the corrupted 2 Sam. 21.8. But resolving this discrepancy by removing more than three verses seems drastic, especially since the result leaves 1 Sam. 14.49b, “the name of (Saul’s) older daughter was Merab,” as the sole mysterious LXX reference to Merab. So while Hay’s solution offers an elegant explanation of the textual variants, in the end it satisfies neither lectio brevior nor lectio difficilior. Therefore the conclusion of P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 9 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 439 and R. P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, Library of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1988), 301, that 21.8 mistakenly changed Merab to Michal seems more likely than Hays’ suggestion that 21.8 added Adriel. The best way forward is to supplement the suggestion of A. Graeme Auld, 194, that MT expanded LXXB, partly to “indicate points of comparison between Saul and David as each appeared on the stage.” Expansion takes place with Samson in mind also.
30
Van Seters, 169–70, defending his view that the proposed marriages of Merab and Michal was originally a doublet, argues that the reason that Saul allows David to marry Michal after denying him Merab is that the bride-price “negotiation” legally obligated Saul. The promise of the oldest daughter in 17.25 does not apply to Merab because Saul’s requirement that David prove himself a suitable warrior shows that 18.17–19 knows nothing of ch. 17. However, David had proved something to gain praise in 18.6–7. It’s therefore safer to interpret 18.19 as the arbitrary whim of a disapproving monarch.
31
James L. Crenshaw, Samson: A Secret Betrayed, a Vow Ignored (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978). 77, and others call 14:4 an “editorial remark.” While this may be an editorial addition, its presence here profoundly impacts the theology of the text.
32
Claudia V. Camp, Wise, Strange, and Holy: The Strange Woman and the Making of the Bible, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 320 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 116; Amanda Beckenstein Mbuvi, “Samson’s Body Politic,” Biblical Interpretation 20, no. 4–5 (2012): 400–01. It should be noted that LXX has ἐστίν (“he/she/it is”) without a pronoun for היא; however, this may be a simple misunderstanding of the intent of the Hebrew Vorlage.
33
Jobling, 228, adopts the view of the early 19th century writer Clemens Brentano stated in his article “Der Philister vor, in und nach der Geschichte: Aufgestellt begleitet und bespiegelt aus göttlichen und weltlichen Schriften und eigenen Beobachtungen,” in Andreas Müller, ed., Satiren und Parodien (Leipzig: Reclam, 1935) 190–229, that Samson’s wish to marry the Timnite constitutes a desire to join the Philistine people. Mbuvi, 402, makes a similar suggestion. But his desire for a particular Philistine woman is not enough evidence to point to a wish to become Philistine himself.
34
Block, 422–24, follows the tradition of assuming that the will of Yahweh is the best path for everyone. Block consequently criticizes Samson for not taking on the role of aggressor on his own. But while we could argue that Samson appears to “begin to deliver Israel from the hand of the Philistines” (Judg. 13.5b), it’s hard to see how Samson’s actions have any lasting positive effect for the Philistines, Israelites, or Samson himself.
35
Mbuvi, 401.
36
Joel S. Baden, The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2013), 65–66. See also Halpern, 283–84.
37
Camp, 116–20; Alter, 179–80. David N. Gunn, “Joshua and Judges,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987), 118. Richard G. Bowman, “Narrative Criticism of Judges: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence,” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. Gale A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 30–31, also discusses the theme of “God and divine involvement,” although he does not cite Judg. 14.4 as an example.
38
Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, 2nd ed., WBC 10 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 185, asserts that the MT additions in 1 Sam 18 tend to escalate the tension between Saul and David while magnifying David’s virtues.
39
Orly Keren and Hagit Taragan, “Merab, Saul’s Mute and Muffled Daughter,” JBL 134, no. 1 (2015), 92–94, gives a detailed argument, citing mostly lexical evidence, connecting MT’s note in 17.25 advising that Saul will give an unspecified “daughter” as a reward for defeating Goliath to 18.17, along with a bibliography of supporting scholars. But they do not quite counter the argument presented by Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 78, Raoul Baziomo, La Famille de Saül Dans Le Conflit Saül versus David: Étude de La Construction Narrative Des Personnages de Jonathan, Mérav et Mikal, FZAT II 78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 162, and Klein, 186, that this “reward” is not a factor in Saul’s decision. Merab (like Michal) is offered in exchange for future service, not past.
40
Keren and Taragan, 87–88. They argue as well that Saul’s words are dishonest, since he intends to make his daughter a widow. But this assumes that Saul actually intended for Merab to marry David. If Saul was going to refuse her marriage to David all along, then he could have had genuine feelings of love and pride for Merab while still using her.
41
Baziomo, 164.
42
Keren and Taragan, 89, following David J. A. Clines, “Michal Observed: An Introduction to Reading Her Story,” in Telling Queen Michal’s Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation, ed. David J. A. Clines, JSOTSup 119 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 31, argue that Saul deliberately sets vague terms so that he can arbitrarily give Merab to another.
43
Although Clines, 31, suggests that Saul never intended David to marry Merab, he admits that 18:19 indicates that a wedding day was set.
44
See Keren and Taragan, 94–98, for an exhaustive summary of the proposals and possibilities. Their conclusion that the dearth of evidence does not give us an answer, increases the likelihood that David himself was unsure until the end about whether he would receive Merab. Their suggestion that Merab’s sister Michal “pulled strings” to get her father to give Merab to another man only increases the likelihood that David himself was surprised not to receive Merab.
45
The reason for the ambiguity is clearer here, as Samson’s comment in 14:18b, “if you had not plowed with my heifer,” is apparently taken as an accusation of infidelity against his betrothed.
46
Mieke Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories, Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 47.
47
Several examples of David loving others have been suggested, but none have won much of a following. Wijk-Bos, 94, argues that the plain reading of the phrase ויאהבהו מאד “and he loved him greatly,” in 1 Sam. 16.21 should interpret David as subject and Saul as object, consistent with treatment of nouns in the rest of the verse. The observation of Bodner, 174, that “everyone loves David” represents the consensus view (and NRSV and ESV translation!) that the author had Saul in mind as subject. The LXX of 1 Sam. 20.17 says of Jonathan ὅτι ἠγάγασεν ψυχὴν ἀγαπωντος αὐτόν, “for he loved the soul which was loving him.” MT has כי אהבת נפשׁו אהבו, “for he loved him as he loved himself.” While MT may be harmonizing in order to reinforce the idea that David does not love others, this possible reference to David’s love for Jonathan is not reinforced. 2 Sam. 1.23, in which David references Saul and Jonathan as “beloved,” may also be an exception, but since the author does not explicitly name the subject of this love, we cannot be certain that David is referring to himself as the one who loves father and son.
48
In 18.5 MT David becomes head over Saul’s army. However, this verse is in LXX only, not MT. As explained in note 29 I take the MT to be a later addition to LXX.
49
Firth, 209 explains that this scene, reminiscent of Miriam’s dance in Exod. 15.20–21, should not be interpreted as David exceeding Saul. “Ten thousands” can simply be “myriads” in parallel. Saul interprets this as a slight, of course, but David does not.
50
Bal, 47, highlights the phrase “this time” in 15.3: Samson is out to settle scores. On the theme of Samson and revenge, see also Amit, 275; Alter, 106.
51
Richard G. Bowman, “Narrative Criticism of Judges: Human Purpose in Conflict with Divine Presence,” in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, ed. Gale A. Yee (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) 38–39, comments that Samson kills “only inadvertently,” so that his limited effect is surprising in light of the presence of the rûaḥ YHWH. Bowman concludes that “it appears that divine power is constrained by the exercise of human freedom,” arguing that Samson’s actions limit the efficacy of Yahweh’s power. But since the text does not indicate that Yahweh bestowed power on Samson for any purpose other than to help him kill enemies at key moments, we can conclude that in the Samson story the rûaḥ YHWH does in fact consistently accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish.
52
John Charles Yoder, Power and Politics in the Book of Judges: Men and Women of Valor (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 140. Yoder goes on to describe Samson’s lack of maturity, dovetailing with similar observations of Wilson, 136.
53
Schneider, 221, wonders how Delilah might find protection from angry Philistines as she compares Delilah’s “liminal” status between wife and prostitute with that of the raped pîlegeš in Judg. 19.
54
Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher, “Memories Laid to Rest: The Book of Judges in the Persian Period,” in Deuteronomy–Kings as Emerging Authoritative Books: A Conversation, ed. Diana Vikander Edelman, ANE Monographs 6 (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 115–32, suggests that Judges is looking for leaders familiar with Torah (like Ezra?), not necessarily kings. Yet her arguments on p 123–27 seem to lead to the idea that a monarchy would be better for Israel than leadership by judge. See also Alter, 106–07.
55
Amit, 269n, cites frightening bee metaphors in Deut. 1.44, Isa. 7:18, and Ps. 118.12 as she suggests that removing honey without worrying about the bee swarm is an act of bravery. This adds poignancy to the comment of Stephan M. Wilson, Making Men: The Male Coming-of-Age Theme in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 137, about the strangeness of a man who shares the fruits of a feat of masculinity not with his fiancée, but with his parents!
56
Niditch, 158.
57
Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: 1 Samuel, Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 193, notes that the description of David is “opaque,” rarely revealing his inner thoughts, so that we must carefully scour the text for clues about David’s feelings. But when we see David revealing his thoughts later in 1 Samuel (including 25.21–22; 27.1, 11), we still do not see expressions of love for others, and throughout it is hard to discern “love” in his behavior.
58
David of course succumbs to personal desire in the Bathsheba affair, and his judgment is also clearly compromised by affection for his sons Amnon and Absalom. The Succession Narrative (2 Sam. 9–20; 1 Kgs. 1–2), portrays David differently than the History of David’s Rise.
59
Van Seters, Saga, 170, cites the love of Saul’s family for David as an intentional theme of 1 Sam 18–19, noting Michal’s love for David in particular is forgotten in later references (1 Sam 25:44; 2 Sam 3:12–16; 2 Sam 6:20–23).
60
This is especially important for LXX, which does not have MT 18:1–5. This reaction from the women thus immediately follows David’s victory over Goliath, before he has found success as an army commander.
61
Walter Brueggemann, “Narrative Coherence and Theological Intentionality in 1 Samuel 18,” CBQ 55, no. 2 (Apr 1993): 239, cites this as a central theme of 1 Sam 18.
62
McCarter, 1 Samuel, 329–30; Peter D. Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 139–40. Miscall lists Michal, Jonathan, Ahimelech, the outlaw band, the King of Moab, Gad, and Abiathar as people who defy Saul to offer aid to David. Miscall is careful to note also that not all of these were actually helpful!
63
J. Cheryl Exum, Fragmented Women: Feminist (Sub)Versions of Biblical Narratives (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1993), 86, stresses that while the Philistines need these women to get at Samson, the women themselves require motivation from others to hurt him.
64
Bal, 43, notes that this is foreshadowed by Samson’s gift of honey, a sexual symbol, to his parents. Even though he demonstrates the strength of blood-relative bonds above those of betrothal, he does not recognize that the bonds of his betrothed to her people will be stronger than her bond to him.
65
Exum, Fragmented, 52–53, pays special attention to the distinction between Michal’s “eros” love (although LXX uses agape) and Jonathan’s “male bonding.”
66
Merkur, 71, argues that David’s words in 2 Sam 1.23, “Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! In life and in death they were not divided; they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions,” alludes to Judg. 14.18b, “What is stronger than a lion?” By identifying Saul and Jonathan as men beloved, rather than as men who love others, David casts them as stronger than Samson.
67
Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 461.
68
John W. Herbst, The Development of an Icon: Solomon Before and After King David (Eugene, Oregon: PICKWICK Publications, 2016), 49–52, offers more on this point.