Characterization In 1-2 Samuel: The Use Of Quotations And Intertextual Links

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is Chair and Senior Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

First and last quotations of characters in 1-2 Samuel and intertextual links between those characters and other individuals in the Former Prophets enrich their depictions and aid interpretation via access to the narrator’s assessment of them.

This article explores how the narrator of 1-2 Samuel utilizes quotations and intertextual links, including narrative typology, in evaluating the major characters in the story. For example, the first and last words of Hannah, Eli, Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, and David at least typify and in some cases epitomize the narrator’s overall characterization of each.[1] Intertextual links are another way in which the narrator evaluates the characters in the story. By casting a character in ways that echo earlier figures in the Former Prophets, the narrator enables readers to evaluate Saul, David, and Absalom and their contributions to the unfolding story.

First And Last Impressions: The Use Of Initial And Terminal Quotations In Characterization

Robert Alter observes that the first recorded words of a character are “usually, in biblical narrative convention, a defining moment of characterization.”[2] An examination of the most prominent characters in 1-2 Samuel supports this observation. In fact, both the first and last recorded words of these characters contribute significantly to the narrator’s characterization of Hannah, Eli, Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, and David.

Hannah

Though she appears only briefly at the beginning of 1 Samuel, Hannah is an important character. She is, of course, the mother of Samuel, who becomes the prophet through whom the Lord leads Israel out of spiritual darkness toward the light. She also has a paradigmatic function in the story. Her desperate situation as one who is oppressed mirrors Israel’s situation at that point in time, and her allegiance to the Lord and gratitude for his deliverance provide a model of how Israel should relate and respond to its covenant Lord. Indeed, Hannah sees her experience as foreshadowing what the Lord will do for his people through a coming king.

After describing Hannah’s childless condition and the oppression she experienced from Peninnah, who had produced both sons and daughters, the narrator records Hannah’s first words in 1 Samuel 1:11: “Lord Almighty, if only you will look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the Lord for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head” (NIV 2011). Hannah is distraught and, as she prays for a son, she makes the Lord a promise. She addresses the Lord as יהוה צבאות, “Lord of Hosts,” a title that depicts Yahweh as occupying a position of sovereignty over his heavenly assembly.[3] She appeals to him for help and promises to show her gratitude by dedicating her God-given son to Yahweh for a lifetime of service. In short, Hannah’s opening words typify her character as revealed in the narrative: She is needy, but in her desperation she turns to Yahweh as the one who is sovereign over life and has the ability to bring her relief from her oppressed condition. Hannah’s appeal takes on greater significance when viewed in its cultural context. As the surrounding literary context shows (Judg. 2:11-13; 6:25-32; 8:33; 10:6, 10; 1 Sam. 7:4), Hannah lived at a time when Israel had been corrupted by worship of the Canaanite fertility deity Baal. She could have looked to this popular god to deliver her from her childless condition. But she remained faithful to Yahweh and was vindicated.

Her absolute and exemplary allegiance to Yahweh emerges clearly in her final words, the lengthy song of thanksgiving recorded in 1 Samuel 2:1-10. She celebrates her deliverance by affirming Yahweh’s sovereignty and incomparability as the protector (rock) of his people. Yahweh is a just king who delights in exalting the humble and bringing down the proud. He is sovereign over life and death and exhibits his mighty power in the storm as he thunders against his enemies. He will energize Israel’s coming king with that power. But Hannah’s song is not simply praise of Yahweh; it is laced with echoes of Canaanite myth that give it a decided polemical dimension.[4] Once-barren Hannah, who refused to look to the Canaanite god of fertility for relief, knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Yahweh alone is the just King and the only hope of his people Israel. In word and deed, Hannah epitomizes the attitude that needy Israel should have.

Eli

Though he appears in only the first four chapters of 1 Samuel, Eli is an important character. He represents the old Israel that is passing away with the arrival of a new prophet, Samuel. The Lord’s rejection of Eli is a stern warning to Israel that possession of promises does not automatically yield divine blessing. The Lord’s rejection of Eli foreshadows his rejection of Saul.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, “the narrator depicts Eli as one who only belatedly understands what is going on around him: (1) he initially misjudged Hannah’s character (1:14), (2) he heard about, rather than saw for himself, his sons’ sins and then made only a half-hearted attempt to stop their behavior (2:22-25), (3) he did not immediately recognize that the Lord was calling young Samuel, probably because prophetic revelation was rare in those days (3:1-9), and (4) . . . he is one of the last in the town to discover the news of Israel’s defeat (4:12-14). His blindness (3:2; 4:15) may epitomize the fact that he was continually ‘in the dark’ about people and events. In the same way the references to his sitting on his chair at both the beginning and end of the story may reflect the fact that he is a relatively passive and ineffective leader, always waiting to receive information from others.”[5]

Eli’s first and last words are consistent with this and typify his character. His first words, recorded in 1:14, reveal a failure to discern the depth of Hannah’s suffering or her sincerity. Instead, he accuses her of being drunk: “How long are you going to stay drunk? Put away your wine.” Eli is clueless. In 4:16, which records his final words, he asks the messenger how the battle went: “What happened, my son?” Because of the messenger’s appearance, everyone else knows Israel was defeated. Verse 13 reads: “Now the man [who has already been described in verse 12 as having torn clothes and dirt on his head] came to give his report, and the whole city cried out.” The text does not say he actually had to give the report; the people knew from seeing him what the report would be. But Eli was blind (v. 15) and not sure what the outcry (v. 14) meant; he needed to hear the report. His lack of awareness epitomizes his characterization in the narrative: he hears from the people about his sons’ actions, rather than observing them himself (2:22), and he is the last to know how the battle turned out. He is the clueless one, as typified by his false accusation at the beginning of the account and his request for information at its end.

Samuel

Samuel is the key character in 1 Samuel 1-7, the prophet through whom the Lord begins to lead Israel out of its spiritual darkness. His first words in the narrative, recorded in 3:4, portray him as alert and eager to serve, even though he is inexperienced and uninitiated. His simple response to the Lord’s call, “Here I am,” is far more significant than it may first appear, for it echoes the response of Abraham (Gen. 22:1, 11), Jacob (31:11; 46:2), and Moses (Exod. 3:4) when they heard God address them by name. Indeed, like them Samuel leads the covenant community and, like Abraham and Moses, plays a key intercessory role (1 Sam. 7:5-6, 8-10; 12:23). From the very beginning he faithfully proclaims God’s word to individuals and to the people (3:18; 7:3-4; 8:10-18; 10:1-8, 17-19; 12:1-25; 13:13-14; 15:1-3, 22-23).

His final words in the narrative occur after he has died, when he comes up from Sheol to speak to Saul one last time. True to form, he proclaims a prophetic word, denouncing one more time Saul’s disobedience and announcing Saul’s imminent demise (28:16-19). From start to finish, as typified by his first and last words, Samuel is the Lord’s spokesman, who stands ready to receive and deliver the Lord’s prophetic word.

Saul

Saul is the central character in 1 Samuel 9-15; he then becomes a foil for David until he meets his death in battle. Though destined to be Israel’s first king, Saul does not burst on the scene in heroic fashion or prove to be an exemplary character. On the contrary, he is portrayed as one who is hesitant and who tends to impede, not advance, both the plot and Yahweh’s purposes for Israel.[6]

His story begins with a quest to find his father’s lost donkeys (9:3-4). When the donkeys were nowhere to be found, Saul was ready to abandon his mission. The first words out of his mouth portray him as ready to quit without accomplishing the task upon which his father had sent him: “Come, let’s go back, or my father will stop thinking about the donkeys and start worrying about us” (v. 5). But Saul’s servant, who knew of Samuel and his reputation, suggested they inquire of the prophet (v. 6). Though Saul raised an objection (v. 7), his servant convinced him to visit Samuel (vv. 8-10). His initial words, when contrasted with his servant’s proposal, portray him not only as relatively passive but also as spiritually insensitive—he seems ignorant of Samuel’s presence, he does not take the initiative in seeking divine guidance, and then he views such insight as something that must be purchased.[7] This portrayal of Saul typifies his character as depicted in the following narrative. He balks at the opportunity to be Israel’s deliverer and then, once he is king, hesitates to fulfill his commission to deliver Israel, even when victory is staring him in the face (14:15-20). He repeatedly displays spiritual insensitivity as he disobeys Samuel’s instructions, prompting the Lord to terminate his dynasty and remove him from kingship (13:8-14; 15:2-3, 9-29).

Saul’s final words are spoken on Mount Gilboa in the aftermath of Israel’s defeat at the hands of the Philistines: “Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me” (31:4). This is a death wish, as Saul commands his armor-bearer to kill him so that he might be spared torture. His desire for death in such a humiliating manner is the culmination of his self-destruction, brought about by his disobedience.

Jonathan

Though he is just a supporting actor in the story, Jonathan is important because he functions literarily as a foil for his father Saul. In contrast to hesitant Saul, Jonathan is eager to fight the Lord’s battles. Saul failed to attack the Philistine garrison when encouraged by Samuel to do so (10:5-7), but Jonathan’s first words, spoken to his armor bearer, are a call to attack the Philistines: “Come, let’s go over to the Philistine outpost on the other side” (14:1). In fact those words, “Come, let’s go over,” get repeated just a few verses later in Jonathan’s second statement in the story: “Come, let’s go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised men. Perhaps the Lord will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the Lord from saving, whether by many or by few” (14:6). In the third statement from his lips, he says something very similar: “Come on then; we will cross toward them” (v. 8). How ironic that the first word spoken by both Saul and Jonathan is an interjective call to an attendant: לְכָה, “come.” But the difference in the following cohortatives epitomizes a major difference in their characterization. Saul says, “Let’s go back” (9:5), while Jonathan says, “Let’s go over” (14:1, 6).

Jonathan is a foil for his father in another way. Unlike jealous Saul, who expended most of his energy trying to hunt down and kill David, Jonathan was loyal to David. His final words in the story are spoken to the fugitive David, exhorting him not to fear and assuring him that he would escape Saul and rise to the throne of Israel: “Don’t be afraid. My father Saul will not lay a hand on you. You will be king over Israel, and I will be second to you. Even my father Saul knows this” (23:17). His first and last words epitomize his portrayal in the story as one who trusts in the Lord (see 14:6) and is committed to the Lord’s chosen king. As such, he is a paradigm for Israel to emulate.

David

David is the central character in the story, who dominates its pages from 1 Samuel 16 to the end. He is portrayed as a very human, full-fledged character who at times is an exemplary hero, but who is also a tragic failure. From start to finish ambiguity swirls around “the man after God’s own heart” who ends up shattering the second half of the Decalogue to pieces.[8]

This ambiguity is apparent in his first words, recorded in 17:26: “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel? Who is this uncircumcised Philistine that he should defy the armies of the living God?” He displays self-interest, perhaps even a touch of greed, as well as an obvious concern for God’s honor.[9] Robert Polzin notices the ambivalence: “From the moment David enters the picture, he comes across as someone who is as much self-serving as God-fearing.”[10] Marti J. Steussy observes that David “has one eye on God, but the other watches greedily for reward.”[11]

This ambiguity pervades the story and is apparent throughout, long before his sin with Bathsheba.[12] It continues until the very end, where David, now on his deathbed, gives Solomon some final advice (1 Kings 2:2-9). On the positive side, he urges Solomon to carry out his royal responsibilities with courage, instructs him to obey the Lord’s commands, and reminds him of the Lord’s promise to the dynasty (vv. 2-4). But then he encourages Solomon to exact revenge upon Joab and Shimei, making sure that both die a violent death (vv. 5-6, 8-9). In fact, Joab is not to die “in peace” (v. 6) and Shimei is to die “in blood” (v. 9). In short, Solomon, whose very name connotes peace, is not to act in accordance with his name in dealing with Joab and is to bloody his hands in dealing with Shimei. David’s final words epitomize his heroic courage (“be strong, act like a man,” v. 2) and faith (“observe what the Lord your God requires,” v. 3). But they also typify the moral weakness that he at times displayed. He admitted Joab was a murderer, yet he never brought him to justice; he left that dirty little task to Solomon. He had promised Shimei he would not punish him (2 Sam. 19:23), but then he told Solomon to kill him.

That Sounds Familiar: The Use Of Intertextual Links In Characterization

The narrator also uses intertextual links for purposes of characterization. More specifically, he casts Saul, David, and Absalom in ways that echo earlier figures in the Former Prophets. The later character is cut from the same cloth as an earlier figure.

Saul

Several parallels connect Samson and Saul: (1) The Lord intended to use both individuals to deliver Israel from the Philistines (Judg. 13:5; 1 Sam. 9:16). (2) The Lord’s Spirit rushed on both, empowering them for physical conflict (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam. 11:6). (3) The Lord removed his enabling presence from both of them following disobedience (Judg. 16:20; 1 Sam. 16:14). (4) Both expired with a death wish on their lips (Judg. 16:30; 1 Sam. 31:5-6) and were humiliated by the Philistines, Samson before his death and Saul after (Judg. 16:21, 25; 1 Sam. 31:9-10).[13] The parallels cast Saul in the role of a second Samson. Both possessed great promise, but both died tragic deaths after disobeying the Lord.

Saul was like Samson in another respect. Both were obsessed with getting revenge against their personal enemies (compare Judg. 15:7; 16:28 with 1 Sam. 14:24). Actually this desire for vengeance echoes the actions of several earlier characters, including Gideon (Judg. 8:4-21), Abimelech (9:31-50), and Jephthah (12:1-6).[14] Saul perpetuated a pattern that was set in place in the Judges period, where a preoccupation with personal honor invariably led to death for either the would-be avenger (Abimelech, Samson) or others (Gideon, Jephthah). In Saul’s case, he was ready to dish out death to his own son Jonathan for violating the oath he had imposed on his troops, but the army’s intervention kept that from happening (1 Sam. 14:44-45). Of course, Saul’s oath, which jeopardized the life of his son, is reminiscent of Jephthah’s foolish vow, which resulted in his daughter being incinerated as a burnt offering on an altar.[15]

A comparison of these two incidents brings another parallel to the surface, one involving an even earlier character in the Former Prophets, Achan. Jephthah accused his daughter of bringing trouble upon him when she greeted him after his victory (Judg. 11:35).

When informed that he had violated his father’s oath, Jonathan accused his father of having brought trouble upon the land, for the army could have won an even greater victory if they had eaten and strengthened themselves (1 Sam. 14:29). In both cases the Hebrew word for making trouble is עכר, which is also used to describe the effect of disobedient Achan’s sin on Israel (Josh. 7:25; cf. 6:18).[16] The echo of Achan casts Saul in a negative light. The actions of both proved detrimental to the covenant community.

There are other echoes of Achan in the Saul narrative. Following his failure to destroy the Amalekites as commanded, Saul twice confessed that he had sinned (1 Sam. 15:24, 30) with words that echo Achan’s confession of sin after it had been exposed (Josh. 7:20-21). Like Achan, Saul sinned by not dealing properly with plunder that belonged to the Lord and had been placed under the ban. If Saul’s sin and confession did indeed echo Achan’s sin and confession, then it is possible that the burning of his and his sons’ corpses (1 Sam. 31:12) echoes Achan’s death (Josh. 7:25).[17]

The account of Saul’s demise also echoes an even more sinister character from Israel’s past. After the Lord rejected Saul and chose David to replace him, the Lord’s Spirit came upon David and the Lord sent an “evil spirit” to torment Saul (1 Sam. 16:13-14). The only other case of the Lord using an “evil spirit” (רוּחַ רָעָה) in judgment is in Judges 9:23, where he sent an evil spirit to bring about evil Abimelech’s demise. The parallel between the two does not bode well for Saul. Indeed, the account of Saul’s death echoes Abimelech’s death (compare Judg. 9:54 with 1 Sam. 31:4).[18] Knowing they were mortally wounded, both men commanded their armor-bearers to finish them off. Each says, “Draw your sword.” Abimelech’s armor-bearer “ran him through” (דקר), but when Saul told his armor-bearer, “run me through” (דקר), he refused to do it, prompting Saul to fall on his own sword. As the narrator invites comparison between the two characters, further reflection yields another parallel: Like Abimelech, Saul was guilty of mass murder (Judg. 9:5; 1 Sam. 22:18). Though Saul, unlike Abimelech, was the chosen servant of God, by the end of his life he had fallen so far from God’s ideal that he died like one the most despicable characters depicted in the Former Prophets to this point.

In short, the numerous parallels between Saul and Achan, Abimelech, Jephthah, and Samson verify what reading the account of Saul’s life makes clear: he was a deeply flawed leader whose behavior recalls the failures of these earlier characters.

David

In the narrative typology of the Former Prophets, David is a new Caleb/Joshua. They had confronted and defeated the gigantic Anakim, who had paralyzed Israel with fear (Num. 13:26-33; Josh. 11:21-22; 14:12-15; 15:13-14; Judg. 1:10, 20). As Israel trembled in fear before the gigantic Philistine (1 Sam. 17:11, 24), David displayed the same kind of courage born of faith that Joshua and Caleb had demonstrated.

Later in the narrative David is associated with Joshua. The narrator states that the Lord gave David “rest from all the surrounding enemies” (2 Sam. 7:1). This recalls Moses’s promise to Israel (Deut. 12:10; 25:19) and Joshua’s conquest (Josh 21:44; 23:1), the only other passages where such language is used prior to 2 Samuel 7. In short, the narrator depicts David as the Lord’s instrument in bringing the Mosaic promise to realization as he renews the success of Joshua. Shortly after this, David cut the hamstrings of the chariot horses belonging to the defeated Hadad-ezer (2 Sam. 8:4). This is reminiscent of what Joshua did to the Canaanites’ chariot horses (Josh. 11:6, 9).[19] Once more David is depicted as a new Joshua who is obedient to the Lord and refuses to build a chariot force (cf. Deut. 17:16).

The narrator also links David with other victorious warriors from Israel’s history. In the account of David’s deliverance of Keilah, both the Lord (1 Sam. 23:3) and the narrator (v. 5) cast David in the role of a deliverer (note the use of ישׁע). This places David in a long line of deliverers, including Othniel (Judg. 3:9), Ehud (3:15), Shamgar (3:31), Gideon (6:14), Tola (10:1), Samson (13:5), and even Saul (1 Sam. 9:16). Sometime after this, as David marched out against the Philistines in the valley of Rephaim, the Lord marched before him in the trees above (2 Sam. 5:24; note צעדה). This is an echo of Judges 5:4, where Deborah and Barak, in celebrating the Lord’s victory over the Canaanites, described him marching (צעד) from Edom to do battle.[20] The Lord’s assurance that he was going out before David may echo Deborah’s words to Barak before his victory (see Judg. 4:14).

Unfortunately, as the story progresses, negative echoes from the past drown out these positive ones. The turning point comes in 2 Samuel 11:2, when David sees a woman from the roof of his palace. In the Former Prophets the statement “he saw a woman” appears only here and in Samson’s story (14:1; 16:1). It appears at the beginning of the account of Samson’s death, as he sees and visits a Philistine prostitute, an incident that reveals his susceptibility when it comes to women, a tragic flaw that will bring about his demise when exploited by Delilah. David the harem builder is susceptible in this same way, and his decision to act upon what he sees transforms the new Joshua into a new Samson and brings tragedy in its wake.

The narrator tells us that David “took” Bathsheba, perhaps suggesting something akin to a power rape. The use of this verb to describe David’s greed links his behavior with other characters in the story who greedily take what they want: Eli’s despicable sons, who took meat from the people (1 Sam. 2:14), Samuel’s sons, who took bribes (8:3), the hypothetical king “like all the other nations have,” who takes the people’s sons, daughters, crops, servants, and livestock (8:11-16), Saul’s soldiers, who took the items devoted to destruction (15:21), and the assassins who took Ishbosheth’s head to David (2 Sam. 4:7). David is now part of a club of miscreants and he resembles the hypothetical foreign-looking king described by Samuel.[21]

When the Lord confronted David through Nathan, he accused David of despising (בזה) his word and his very person (2 Sam. 12:9-10), a sin committed by Eli and his sons (1 Sam. 2:30). David did what is evil in the eyes of the Lord (2 Sam. 12:9), language that occurs on only one other occasion in 1-2 Samuel when Samuel accused Saul of doing “evil in the eyes of the Lord” by failing to wipe out the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:19). David struck down Uriah with the sword (2 Sam. 12:9). The only time the expression “strike down with the sword” occurs prior to this in 1-2 Samuel is in 1 Samuel 22:19, where Doeg, acting on Saul’s orders (v. 18), slaughtered the inhabitants of Nob. Even David’s confession of guilt, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:13), puts him in bad company. In the Former Prophets to this point, the only individuals to say the words “I have sinned” are Saul (1 Sam. 15:24, 30; 26:21) and Achan (Josh. 7:20). These various links with Eli and his sons, Saul, Doeg, and Achan do not bode well for David and highlight the transformation in the author’s characterization of him.

Absalom

When Absalom returned from exile, David did not allow him access to his presence. Absalom decided to take drastic measures. Hoping to get Joab to intercede for him with the king, Absalom ordered his servants to burn his neighbor Joab’s field in order to get Joab’s attention. This is not exactly the way to get on someone’s good side. Furthermore, by setting ablaze a field that bordered his own, he ran the risk of destroying his own crops! The incident depicts Absalom as one who is not afraid to resort to destructive and risky measures to get his own way.[22]

His behavior contains echoes of characters who have appeared earlier in the Former Prophets. Like Absalom, Abimelech committed fratricide (Judg. 9:1-6), promoted himself as king, and set fire to the property of others (v. 49). Like long-haired Absalom (2 Sam. 14:26), long-haired Samson set fire to a grain field when he felt he had been treated with disrespect (Judg. 15:3-5). The intertextual linking does not bode well for Absalom, for the rash behavior of both Abimelech and Samson proved to be self-destructive.[23]

More intertextual links with Abimelech pop up in Absalom’s story. Absalom courted Israel’s favor with great success. Eventually one of David’s messengers reported to the king: “The hearts of the people of Israel are with [אַחֲרֵי, “after”] Absalom” (2 Sam. 15:13). This is only the second time in the Former Prophets that “heart” is collocated with “after.” When evil Abimelech asked the Shechemites to make him king, “they were inclined to follow” him (Judg. 9:3; literally, “their heart was inclined after Abimelech”). This echo links Absalom’s misguided, rebellious allies to Abimelech’s misguided, rebellious followers, creating another literary link between two figures that were guilty of fratricide. We know how Abimelech’s rebellion ended (Judg. 9:52-57), so this does not bode well for Absalom, despite the fact that he appears to have the upper hand at this point.[24]

The Lord opposed Absalom’s rebellion. In fact, “the Lord had determined to frustrate the good advice of Ahithophel in order to bring disaster on Absalom” (2 Sam. 17:14). There is another echo of the Abimelech story here. The Lord “repaid the wickedness” (רעה) of Abimelech, who had murdered his brothers (Judg. 9:56), and he was determined to “to bring disaster” (רעה) upon Absalom, who was also guilty of fratricide.

Absalom’s revolt came to a violent end. The army buried him on the battlefield in a large pit that they covered with rocks. Undoubtedly Joab considered this form of burial fitting because Absalom was an accursed enemy (see Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 10:27) whose burial place would be a reminder of the destiny of all rebels.[25] There is an echo here of two incidents recorded in Joshua 7-8. After Achan was executed, Israel “heaped up a large pile of rocks” over him (Josh. 7:26). According to Joshua 8:29, after the king of Ai was hanged (תלה) on a tree (cf. 2 Sam. 18:9), the soldiers threw his corpse (hiphil of שׁלך) down (cf. 2 Sam. 18:17) and “raised a large pile of rocks” over it. These are the only three passages in the Old Testament that mention “a pile of rocks” (גל אבנים) and in each case the adjective “large” (גדול) is added for good measure. The intertextual linking casts Absalom in the role of a rebellious Israelite (Achan) who disgraced and jeopardized the covenant community and a foreign enemy (the king of Ai) who died a humiliating death.[26]

Conclusion

The narrator of 1-2 Samuel uses initial and terminal quotations as well as intertextual linking in his characterization of key figures in the story. An examination of the first and last words of Hannah, Eli, Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, and David reveals that the quotations typify or epitomize the narrator’s characterization of each. He also uses several intertextual links in his characterization of Saul, David, and Absalom. In the case of Saul, links with Samson, Jephthah, and especially Abimelech and Achan depict the king as flawed and doomed. The narrator initially links David with exemplary characters from the past, especially Joshua and Caleb, but from 2 Samuel 11 on this changes as David begins to look more like Samson, Eli and his sons, Saul, Doeg, and Achan. As for Absalom, links with Samson, Achan, and especially Abimelech portray him in a highly negative light.

Generally speaking, as one reads the biblical stories it is usually apparent how the narrator is evaluating any given character. How then do the techniques discussed in this essay contribute to characterization? In the case of initial quotations, they signal or foreshadow what to expect from a character, while final quotations have a reiterative or summary function.

A comparison of the first and last quotations of the six characters studied in this essay suggests that they essentially remain static. How is this to be explained? One expects characters who are types to remain literarily static. Types display just one or two prominent characteristics because the narrator is selective and wants to present the character as an example to follow or avoid. Of the characters we examined, Hannah, Eli, and Jonathan would fall into this category. The full-fledged characters Samuel, Saul, and certainly David are more well rounded, exhibiting a wider range of traits and characteristics. Yet despite the fluctuations and apparent transformations that occur within the story, the initial and terminal quotations depict the characters as static: From beginning to end Samuel is the faithful servant of the Lord, though there is certainly development in his understanding of his role. There is movement in the tragic decline of Saul, but both first and last quotations place him in a negative light. The shift from hesitancy to self-destruction reflects the movement within his story line. Ambiguity swirls around David from start to finish. Despite all the ups and downs of his story, both his first and final words display the same awkward mixture of commitment to Yahweh and self-interest. This static dimension in the characterization of Samuel, Saul, and David may be more than literary. It may reflect the reality we experience and observe every day: the basic disposition of people rarely changes, even when their circumstances and actions do.

As for intertextual links, while they are not necessary to characterization, they serve an illustrative function that facilitates the narrator’s evaluation of a character and confirms what we suspect. For example, we know David has moved from light to darkness when we read 2 Samuel 11 and what follows, but picturing him as morphing from Joshua into Samson drives home the tragedy of it all. We might be inclined to have some sympathy toward Absalom, who becomes disillusioned with his father’s ability to promote justice and decides he must defend his sister’s honor. Yet we realize that he goes too far when he seeks to usurp his father’s place on the throne of Israel. Any uncertainty in our thinking or emotional ambivalence is dispelled by the intertextual links, which depict him as being like reckless, self-destructive Samson and picture his demise as being Achan-like. Worse yet, the links with Abimelech portray him as embodying traits of the worst of the worst. In other words, intertextual links help us visualize and correctly evaluate character from the narrator’s (and the divine Author’s) perspective. As such, they place boundaries on interpretation. This is especially important in the current hermeneutical environment, where reader-response and deconstruction are accepted by many and threaten the supremacy of authorial intention and scriptural authority.

Notes

1. I am defining these terms as follows: (1) typify: “be characteristic or a representative example of,” (2) epitomize: “be a perfect example of.”
2. Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999), 105.
3. See Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, In Search of God: The Meaning and Message of the Everlasting Names, trans. F. H. Cryer (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 134.
4. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Yahweh versus the Canaanite Gods: Polemic in Judges and 1 Samuel 1-7, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (2007): 176-79.
5. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., 1 & 2 Samuel, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 28-29.
6. V. Philips Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 18 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 202.
7. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, New American Commentary (1996; repr., Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 121-22.
8. Chisholm, 1 & 2 Samuel, 119.
9. The soldiers’ response (v. 27, cf. v. 25) shows that the question “What will be done for the man who kills this Philistine?” should be understood in the sense of “In what way will the man who kills this Philistine be rewarded?” For other examples where the preposition –לְ indicates advantage after עָשָׂה in an interrogative sentence introduced by מַה, see 2 Samuel 21:3; 2 Kings 2:9; 4:2, 13-14; Hosea 10:3.
10. Robert Polzin, David and the Deuteronomist: 2 Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 91.
11. Marti J. Steussy, David: Biblical Portraits of Power (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1999), 4.
12. See Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Cracks in the Foundation: Ominous Signs in the David Narrative,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172 (April–June 2015): 154-76.
13. For these parallels see Sam Dragga, “In the Shadow of the Judges: The Failure of Saul,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38 (1987): 42-43; Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “The Role of Women in the Rhetorical Strategy of the Book of Judges,” in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, ed. C. H. Dyer and R. B. Zuck (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 47-48, n. 34; and Simcha S. Brooks, “Saul and the Samson Narrative,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 71 (1996): 21-22.
14. Keith Bodner, 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 139.
15. See ibid. and Long, The Reign and Rejection of King Saul, 119-20.
16. In the Former Prophets, the verb is used only in Joshua 6:18; 7:25; Judges 11:35; 1 Samuel 14:29; and 1 Kings 18:17.
17. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 498.
18. Diana Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 121 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 285.
19. The Hebrew text has “chariots” as the object of the verb “hamstring” in 2 Samuel 8:4. Some see this as referring to dismantling the chariots. See A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1989), 132. However, it is more likely that “chariots” stands by metonymy for the horses that pulled them. See P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 249.
20. To this point in the Former Prophets, the root צעד is used in only these two texts.
21. On this last point, see McCarter, II Samuel, 290.
22. For further discussion of the narrator’s characterization of Absalom here, see J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), 151.
23. Chisholm, 1 & 2 Samuel, 252.
24. Ibid., 256.
25. McCarter, II Samuel, 407.
26. Chisholm, 1 & 2 Samuel, 274-75; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 422.