Voices from below: The role of anonymous women’s opinion in the birth of Israel’s monarchy

1. Introduction

Anonymous women’s judgment of Saul and David forever changed Israel’s political landscape (1 Sam 18.6-7, 21.12, 29.5). Coming from the lowest rungs of society, these women shape public perception of the two kings. Through song they openly elevate David’s military triumphs over those of Saul, and the retellings of their song set the course of their decisive influence. Previous studies of Samuel have examined popular opinion as well as female heralds and nameless actors, but they have paid insufficient attention to the critical role of anonymous women in the formation of Israel’s monarchy. ¹

P. Kyle McCarter argues that the apologetic character of Samuel’s narrative, which repeatedly asserts that ‘Yahweh is with him’, makes David’s ascension seem inevitable. ² The anonymous singing women, however, remind us that God is only one part of the equation. Their preference for David is a vital component to his success, and there is nothing inevitable about it.

2. The original report of the song: 1 Samuel 18.1-9

The opening verses of chapter eighteen describe David’s reception within the kingdom of Israel following his slaying of Goliath. Saul takes David into his entourage, and Jonathan gives his clothes, armor, and weapons to David as a gift (18.2-4). When Saul follows up by appointing David commander over the army, the act is seen as ‘good in the eyes of all the people, and even in the eyes of Saul’s courtiers’ (18.5). Next a band of women appears:

When they were coming, when David returned from slaying the Philistine, the women came forth from all the cities of Israel to sing—also the dancing women—to meet King Saul with hand-drums and joy and musical instruments. The merry women sang and they said: ‘Saul has killed his thousands, David his ten thousands’. ³

Their song angers Saul. He asks, ‘What more could he [David] have but the kingdom?’ (18.8).

Saul’s reaction attests to the potentially corrosive effect of public opinion on a leader’s reputation. What had appeared to be a straightforward and broadly acclaimed battlefield commission has changed by the time the troops head home. The speed with which the narrative moves is breathtaking. Verse five describes the general positive assessment of David’s appointment without prejudice against Saul. One verse later, a troop of women appears to proclaim publicly an underside—if someone is up, then someone else must be down—and Saul is immediately on the defensive.

The paradox is that the words of those who occupy the lowest rung in Israel’s political hierarchy have the greatest impact on the one who occupies the highest rung. The verses indicate the place of the actors through the order of appearance of the opinion-holders. At the top rung are Saul and Jonathan. They are the first to recognize and honor David. Next are the people in general and then Saul’s own attendants. The anonymous women come last, but their opinion proves to be the most important. When the women speak, their words travel straight to the king.

The contrast between the women’s appraisal and the views of those who precede them establishes that the women are not merely transmitters of opinion but its originators. This understanding goes beyond S. D. Goitein, who asserts that because the women ‘enjoyed the protection of being the weaker sex’, they could say aloud what men dared only think. ⁴ According to Goitein, the women are merely expressing an opinion that others have already formed. A more precise formulation, however, is that the women seize on a nascent perception and crystalize it into a shape of their own design.

After David defeats Goliath, Jonathan and the people laud David without drawing comparisons with Saul. It is only when we learn of the reaction of Saul’s courtiers to David’s promotion that there is a hint of potential unease. David’s promotion is pleasing ‘even’ (גם‎) to them (18.5). As members of the king’s retinue, they have a significant stake in the Saulide regime. ⁵ The word ‘even’ creates a wedge that the anonymous women pry wide open. They elevate David over Saul and create a truth that instantly becomes undeniable.

In proclaiming that David is a better warrior than Saul, the women are the first to establish a rank order. Though one may dispute whether the women intend their chant to be derogatory, in Saul’s eyes it is sufficient that it is comparative. ⁶ From the time of the judges, military prowess has been the one consistent requisite for rule. When the people first appeal to Samuel for a king, they specifically ask for someone who will prevail on their behalf against Israel’s enemies (8.19-20). Initially Saul’s inauguration fails to garner universal support because of doubts regarding his ability to fight (10.27). After Saul’s resounding victory over the Ammonites, however, the people rally to him and clamor for the death of those who had opposed his elevation to the throne (11.12). If success on the battlefield is the criterion for rule, the anonymous women’s song gives David the stronger claim. Saul grasps the zero-sum stakes. Only one man can be king.

The content of this verse and the means of conveying it reveal the potency of an opinion that springs from the deepest levels of a community. Several scholars of Hebrew poetry believe the line ‘Saul has killed his thousands, David his ten thousands’ to be a war chant that predates its prose context. ⁷ If so, the redactor may have inserted the verse to dramatize a point: When urban women are the singers of martial songs, the reader is to understand that an appreciation of military skill extends to all levels of the community.

If the sex of the purveyors of this ancient saying gives a sense of the depth of opinion concerning Saul and David, then the anonymity of the singers helps delineate its breath. Unnamed, numberless, and emerging from ‘all the cities of Israel’ (18.6), the women literally embody mass thinking. They have no leader nor do they show any fear of repercussions as they proclaim Saul’s inferiority to David.

The women’s anonymity makes this scene distinctive in light of similar passages in the Hebrew Bible. In Exodus, ‘Miriam, Aaron’s sister’ sings to her female companions as she leads them in dancing and playing hand-drums upon the drowning of Pharaoh’s charioteers in the sea (Exod 15.20). In Judges, Jephthah’s daughter (unnamed but still identified) goes forth to greet her father, the returning war hero, playing a hand-drum and dancing (Judg 11.34). In contrast to these individuals, the women who greet Saul are unconstrained by any familial ties. They are free to editorialize as they please.

The function of the singing women’s namelessness exceeds the limits set by Adele Reinhartz for anonymous figures in the Hebrew Bible. Reinhartz argues that their role is to help delineate named actors and move the plot along. ⁸ The anonymous singing women in chapter eighteen of First Samuel, however, do not simply develop the character of Saul, nor is their primary purpose to bridge gaps between scenes. As generators and purveyors of public opinion they are a creative force exerting influence on the king and on the general populace. In many respects, they seem more independent and autonomous than the named characters.

3. The second report of the song: 1 Samuel 21:11-16

The subsequent recounting of these events demonstrates how insubordinate speech, once it gains traction, takes on a life of its own. On the run from Saul, David flees to King Achish in Gath. Achish’s courtiers alert their master to the danger David poses:

Achish’s servants said to him, ‘Is this not David, the king of the land?

Do they not sing (יענו‎) of this one in dances (במחלות‎), saying (לאמר‎),

‘Saul has killed his thousands, David his ten thousands’?’

The servants’ familiarity with the song is revealing. If it has wide circulation in Gath (which, with a little imagination, is the equivalent of Peoria), it surely has even greater currency in Israel.

Achish’s servants’ version of events differs in several important respects from the original story. First, David, not Saul, is heralded as king. What Saul feared the chant portended has come to pass. Even more, David is proclaimed ‘king of the land’ (מלך הארץ‎), which erases the distinction between Israel and Judah maintained in chapter eighteen (18.16). Finally, the women have been replaced. In the first report, the words describing their actions are in the feminine plural form:

המחלות‎ the dancing women (f/p participle)

ותענינה הנשים המשחקות‎ the merry women sang (f/p verb)

ותאמרן‎ and they said (f/p verb)

In chapter twenty-one, ‘the dancing women’ has been transformed into the plural noun plus preposition ‘in dances’ (מחלותב‎); ‘the merry women sang’ has been replaced by the third masculine plural imperfect verb ‘they sing’ (יענו‎); and the feminine verb ‘and they said’ has changed to the gender-neutral infinitive construct form ‘saying’ (לאמר‎). The imperfect verb connotes habitual or ongoing action, and the infinitive construct is a nonfinite verb form, meaning the time and duration of the action is undefined. According to Achish’s servants, therefore, Saul’s detractors are either entirely male or a mix of men and women, and the event is no longer depicted as a single incident. The sum of these changes is that instead of one band of women in Israel singing a song at one place and time, now all in the land of Canaan are dancing and proclaiming David’s superiority to Saul.

This retelling shows yet again that an opinion formed at the lowest level of society travels straight to the top, this time transmitted by Achish’s servants to their king. As soon as the servants utter the song, David also hears of it and fears that Achish, like Saul, will take seriously information originating from subordinates and the disenfranchised within his polity. David feigns madness to prove to Achish that he is harmless. Once Achish is convinced he poses no threat, David flees (21.13-22.1).

4. The third report of the song: 1 Samuel 29:1-7

In the final retelling of the women’s song, the verse has worked its way up into the highest echelons of Philistine military power. When David again seeks refuge with Achish, Achish’s commanders object to including David and his men as allies in battle. The king responds that David can be trusted:

Is this not David, the servant of Saul, the king of Israel, who has been with me now for days and years? I’ve not found fault with him from the day he deserted to this day.

In this attempt to reassure, Achish corrects his servants’ misinformation in chapter twenty-one. David is not king, but remains Saul’s underling. As such, David has proven his value to Achish.

For the commanders, however, it makes no difference if David is king or not. He is still the enemy, and they insist that David be expelled. They say,

Is this not David of whom they sing (יענו‎) in dances (במחלות‎), saying (לאמר‎), ‘Saul has killed his thousands, David his ten thousands’?

The verse, a war chant of old, has now found its way into the mouths of Philistine fighters from whose ranks have come the bulk of David’s ten thousand victims. It brings to mind David’s slaying of Goliath, Gath’s most fearsome soldier. Achish has no recourse but to send David away (29.6-7).

In this final repetition, the anonymous women have again been replaced by either male or a mix of male and female singers. As in Achish’s servants’ earlier rendition, the verbs that initially appeared in the feminine form are either a third masculine plural verb (יענו‎), or the gender-neutral infinitive construct (לאמר‎), or have vanished altogether into a noun (במחלות‎). Once again the hearer is left with the impression that the song lauding David over Saul is being repeated everywhere by everyone. Though the erasure of the women in the song’s transmission might be considered proof of their powerlessness, the opposite is the case. Their judgment on David and Saul resonates in every quarter. Acknowledged or not, the women are the shapers of public opinion within a world dominated by men.

5. Public opinion and David’s dance before the ark: 2 Samuel 6.12-22

David’s dance before the ark on its way to Jerusalem reinforces the teaching of the song and its retellings. At the birth of the monarchy, popular opinion percolates from the bottom up. As the ark enters the city, David performs an exuberant dance clad only in a linen ephod:

The ark of Yahweh came into the City of David; Michal, the daughter of Saul, looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and whirling before Yahweh, and she despised him in her heart.

Michal, David’s first wife and daughter of Saul, goes out to meet him and they have a bitter exchange. Michal chastises David for the vulgarity of his dancing, indicating that his scanty attire provided insufficient cover during his spirited performance:

How the king of Israel has honored himself today, for he has exposed himself today to the eyes of the female slaves of his slaves, just as surely as any worthless man exposes himself!

The text’s identification of Michal as ‘Saul’s daughter’ in this passage reminds the reader that she is a member of Israel’s first monarchy. Her criticism reflects a clear aristocratic perspective. ⁹ The verbs used to describe David’s movements (he ‘leaps’ (מפזז‎) and ‘whirls’ (מכרכר‎) before the ark) are rare and suggest extreme exertion, potentially calling to mind the erotic acrobatic dances associated with Akkadian and Egyptian cultic practices. ¹⁰ In any case, Michal finds David’s self-exposure to be unkingly behavior.

If Michal is proud to be the aristocrat, David is not ashamed to be the populist. He replies,

It was before the Lord who chose me over your father and over all his house to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel, that I have danced before the Lord. I shall be even more lightly esteemed than this, and I shall be humiliated in my own eyes, but among the female slaves of whom you speak, by them I shall be honored.

David confidently asserts that women slaves will respond favorably to behavior that Michal deems undignified. He courts their approval more than that of his peers and even at the cost of his own self-esteem.

David’s response to Michal shows his keen awareness of the power and importance of public opinion emanating from below. His understanding of his popular appeal emphasizes the role that eroticism plays in generating that support. David’s sensual magnetism is evident from the start, beginning with his first appearance: ‘Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was pleasant to look at’ (1 Sam 16.12). His good looks complement other desirable qualities. When one of Saul’s servants recommends David to Saul as a court musician, he says David is ‘skillful in playing, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, discerning in speech, and handsome’ (16.18). ¹¹

In chapter eighteen of First Samuel, David’s erotic charisma is further signaled by the frequent use of the word ‘love’. ¹² Both Jonathan and Michal ‘love’ David (18.3, 28), as indeed does Saul when David first enters his service (16.21). David also wins the love of the people, and here the political import of his attractiveness becomes clear: ‘all Israel and Judah loved David’ (18.16). The populace’s initial attachment to David is so intense it bridges a fundamental national divide.

David’s dance, however, is also an implicit acknowledgment of the inconstancy of that love. Even after David has consolidated his rule over all the tribes (Judah as well as Israel; 2 Sam 5.1-5), he continues to solicit the passionate devotion of his base. The unfolding of events until this point reinforces his political instincts. The popular support that King Saul had mustered for his decisive defeat of the Ammonites began to slip away when Saul, in the next battle, appeared to waver (1 Sam 11.5-15, 13.8). And David himself was almost stoned by his followers at Ziklag after the Amalekites carried off their families, his slaying of Goliath notwithstanding (30.6). Throughout the history of the early monarchy, ‘What have you done for me lately?’ is the one constant refrain.

God’s allegiance is also problematic. David rebukes Michal by reminding her that God chose him over her father, but Saul’s fate should cast doubt on how much one can or should bank on divine favor. On this point, there are those who claim that God’s support alone ensures David’s rise to the throne, with McCarter observing that, because ‘Yahweh is with’ David, ‘everything seems inevitably to go well’. ¹³ Indeed, the text itself states, ‘David had success in all his undertakings, for the Lord was with him’ (18.14). John Goldingay goes even further and asserts that David’s triumph is certain because God is in full control of events. ¹⁴

The narrative, however, indicates that God being ‘with’ someone is no guarantee of positive results when popular support is lacking. Though God is ‘with’ Samuel (3.19), Samuel’s plan to install his sons as judges over Israel fails because the people consider them unqualified (8.1-5). Nor is it the case that God always exercises complete control over human affairs. When the people successfully lobby Samuel for a king, they do so against God’s wishes (8.7-18). Finally, Shalom Carmy differentiates between the selection of Saul and David to be rulers, which is an act of God, and the success of their reign, which depends on popular support. ¹⁵ Carmy’s view implies that Saul and David are kings whether or not the people acknowledge them as such. But who can be a king without subjects?

God’s approval thus appears to be a necessary but insufficient factor in determining who shall rule. For both Saul and David, private selection by God requires public approbation. After Saul’s divine anointment, he must be chosen again through a public lottery (1 Sam 10). Similarly, after anointment by Samuel, David must be anointed by the people of Judah before he can claim to be their king (1 Sam 16.13; 2 Sam 2.4). Divine election needs support from the people to come to fruition. As Rodney R. Hutton observes, ‘The divine and the human, the charismatic and the institutional, were inseparably bound together in the attribution of legitimation and authority to the Israelite monarch’. ¹⁶

6. Conclusion: public opinion and political stability

In the tumultuous period of David’s rise, marginalized people prove especially adept at reading the signs of the times. When David is on the run from Saul, his men request provisions from Nabal, Abigail’s husband. Abigail calls Nabal an איש הבליעל‎ (1 Sam 25.25; cf. 25.17), which is variously translated as ‘scoundrel’ or ‘worthless fellow’. The phrase literally means ‘man of not-coming-up’, making Nabal the epitome of a voice from below. ¹⁷ Nabal answers, ‘Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse? There are many slaves today who are breaking away from their masters’ (1 Sam 25.10). No one articulates as clearly as Nabal that the old orders of authority are fraying.

Saul’s situation leaves him exposed to challenges from the least of his realm. As Israel’s first anointed king, he lacks the backing of tradition, a full-fledged bureaucracy, and a standing army. Without these measures of support, he is dependent on the approval of his subjects—people who no doubt remember that not so long ago he himself was one of them. It is in just such an environment that those at the bottom of the political hierarchy, the roving nameless women and the female slaves, are able to exert power over those at the top. ¹⁸ The women who laud David in song thus exploit Saul’s vulnerability on several fronts. Saul is not as mighty a warrior as David, and nothing he can do will stop them from saying so. What is one to think of a king who cannot control the women of his realm? In speaking the unspeakable, the anonymous singers prove themselves to be the most potent subversive force. ¹⁹

Though David succeeds where his predecessor failed, he cannot escape the swinging pendulum of public opinion. He continues to solidify popular support up until the time of his encounter with Bathsheba, after which the situation begins to deteriorate. Though the people had demanded a king to lead them in war, David chooses not to take the field at the usual time for battle (2 Sam 11.1). Highlighting this mismatch between public expectations and performance, Joab threatens to name a city after himself if David fails to participate in its capture (12.28). More ominously, David’s son Absalom successfully courts public favor to usurp the throne (2 Sam 15-18). He ‘stole the hearts of the people of Israel’ by promising a favorable outcome in their legal suits and kissing all who bowed to him (2 Sam 15.1-6). Absalom, like David, was also exceptionally beautiful (14.25). The traits that won David the love of the people—his military prowess and charisma—are perpetually tested.

Following Absalom’s death, another song about David emerges, but this time its aim is his downfall. The Benjaminite Sheba ben Bichri—who, like Nabal, is a ‘man of not-coming-up’ (איש בליעל‎)—tries to rally all the tribes of Israel to revolt against David by means of a chant:

We have no share in David,

We have no portion in the son of Jesse.

Everyone to his tents, O Israel! ²⁰

Ultimately, Sheba comes up short. Only when the wise woman of Abel delivers his head to Joab do his followers go to their tents (20.22). The act signals not the beginning of an insurrection, which had been Sheba’s hope, but its end. For this reason, Serge Frolov considers Sheba’s song ‘farcical’ and the man himself a ‘buffoon’. ²¹ David, however, takes Sheba’s treason seriously. The king cautions his commander Abishai that Sheba is capable of doing more harm than Absalom (20.6). ²² Throughout David’s reign, open revolt is a continual threat.

Everything changes when Solomon ascends the throne. Twice his kingdom is characterized as being ‘firmly established’, the second time after his elimination of potential rivals and insurgents (1 Kgs 2.12, 46). There are no challenges from below. Solomon’s only reported contact with unnamed (and low-status) women is his audience with two prostitutes who claim the same child (3.16-27). When they come to the royal court, they stand before the king. Unlike the anonymous women who greeted Saul, they neither sing nor mock—they make supplication. Once Solomon renders his decision, ‘All Israel heard the judgment that the king adjudicated, and they feared (ויראו‎) the king’ (1 Kgs 3.28a). In the progression from David to Solomon, the people move from love to fear, and the power of public opinion to shape the political fortunes of kings, as Samuel had argued at the outset (1 Sam 8.10-18), has gone into eclipse.

Popular resentment, however, cannot indefinitely be suppressed. After Solomon’s death, yet another rebel chant by the northern tribes of Israel echoes Sheba ben Bichri and marks the death knell of the united monarchy (1 Kgs 12.16-20). ²³ The ultimate success of Sheba’s song should come as no surprise. At the dawn of the monarchy, anonymous singing women showed that the means of making kings may also be the instrument of their demise.