Portraits of a King

Since my previous post was of an old Berkeley-days paper, I thought I'd share another one, which reuses some of the material from the previous one:

In reading and comparing the narrative of Samuel-Kings in the Deuteronomistic History and that of Chronicles one is struck by the differences in the story which are presented to us – both sometimes in the material recounted and in the way the material is put before the reader. One especially interesting point of comparison is the figure of David in these two histories. Each presents David in a different light, for differing reasons, and presents some slightly different material not included in the other. In this paper I hope to make a beginning in the process of answering the questions how Samuel-Kings and Chronicles respectively view David, discussing how the material the Chronicler chooses to omit or add shows his view of David as it differs from Samuel-Kings. We will first look at the accounts of David’s rise to the throne and then his court history and the succession of Solomon to his throne.

Let us look first at the books of Samuel. The first king of Israel is Saul, who by any light should have made a great king – he was chosen by God through the prophet Samuel and by birth seems especially fit to be king. His father is a prominent man and though Benjamin is one of the smallest tribes, it is centrally located and thus in an ideal position to provide leadership to the land. Saul even looks the part of a king (see I Samuel 9-10). All of this only serves to show how much Saul falls short of being the ideal king by protecting the people and obeying Yahweh.

Despite apparently every advantage, Saul is flawed and fails as king. He disobeys in religious areas such as the time when he sacrifices an animal from impatience while waiting for Samuel. When Samuel arrives, the prophet declares that Saul’s kingdom will end and that God will choose some other king (see I Samuel 10:8, 13:7-14). Saul also fails to kill Agag the enemy king and all the livestock which were to be destroyed (I Samuel 15) and so is rejected by Yahweh. To make matters worse, Saul even consults a witch (I Samuel 28), at which time the apparition of Samuel declares David king and Saul’s dynasty soon to be destroyed by the Philistines (note, not by David, as some might have thought, which is further emphasized later). He even slaughters God’s priests, while David receives one with the ephod and all (I Samuel 22).

Here we begin to have hints of apologetic – a justification of David’s rise to the throne – Saul was a bad king and so Yahweh, who chooses the king, picked someone else. Indeed, David is anointed by Samuel at the command of God – David is the right person for the job of king (I Samuel 16). David is, after all, a man after God’s own heart and is promised a never-ending dynasty (I Samuel 7). This particular piece functions well as a polemic against the detractors of the Davidic dynasty, emphasizing that they are the rulers chosen by God himself.

In comparison to Saul’s situation, David is extremely disadvantaged. His family does not seem to be as well off and he is in fact the youngest of eight sons – and it is generally the oldest that is normally the one who ascends to greatness (or who becomes a king). Indeed, David does not seem at first be the one to whom the kingship over Israel should go to – he is not even one of Saul’s sons. Thus we have this defense of David’s rise and kingship.

Saul also fails as king in being leader of his people, doing such things as imposing unnecessary hardships on his own fighting men (I Samuel 14:24-45). Later, he becomes afflicted by fits of madness due to an evil spirit and even more than once tries to kill his own heir, his son Jonathan (I Samuel 14, 20:32-33). To emphasize Saul’s failure, the Spirit of Yahweh departs from him. So David comes into Saul’s court and serves him well, providing him with a necessary service – his playing of the harp is of such a virtue as to calm Saul as he is afflicted with the evil spirit. His harp playing, having such almost supernatural abilities, helps display David’s quality as a hero (I Samuel 16:14-23).

Saul wrongs David in various ways, trying to get David to be killed in battle, and ends up driving David into hiding. He owes David a daughter in marriage (apparently this is what was promised to the man who defeated Goliath in I Samuel 17) but does not give her to him. Again David is promised Saul’s oldest daughter Merab, but she is given to someone else when the time comes for her to be married. Saul’s youngest daughter Michal, meanwhile, loves David and so Saul finally gives this daughter to David in marriage - and after he does give David one of his daughters, he takes her and gives her to another man (for all this, see I Samuel 18, 25:44).

Saul is concerned for the security of his line and his own well being against the threat he perceives in David. David, meanwhile, does in fact only further the security of Saul and his line to the very end and takes care of them – David is portrayed as but a faithful servant. Even when Saul becomes his enemy, David goes so far as to rebuke his men for even suggesting that they kill Saul – he will not raise a hand against Saul, despite many opportunities to do so (see I Samuel 24:1-15, 26:1-12). He even fights against Saul’s foreign enemies while hiding in the land of the Philistines (I Samuel 23:1-6, 27:8-9).

In his service and in his military success as a warrior-hero, David gains great renown and the love of the people. The Bible emphasizes that he had great success in all that he did, since Yahweh, his divine benefactor (something important for an ancient hero to have, which of course also marks him as a hero – and the proper king), was with him. Even Saul’s family turns in favor of David and loves him intensely – including even the crown prince and, of course, Saul’s daughter, the princess Michal. This success scares Saul, since it emphasizes his own inadequacy and the fact that Yahweh is no longer with him (see especially I Samuel 18). David is the good leader, but Saul is not.

Thus Saul, in his jealousy, sees David as a danger to his kingship and dynasty, declaring his suspicions in an outburst against his son Jonathan (I Samuel 20:30-31). There he proclaims that if David is not killed, he will inherit the kingdom of Israel instead of Jonathan himself. So David is forced into the fringes of society as an outcast and man on the run. But in this David gains a large following, even though forced into an appearance of evil by staying with Israel’s enemies, the Philistines, and leading what looks like a band of outlaws (I Samuel 22:1-2, I Samuel 27). Thus David’s qualifications as a leader come out, especially fit for the heroic warrior-king he is meant to become. But again it is from this apparent evil that David rises into his position, as only he is fit to do.

David has taken on the identity of royalty through his identification with Jonathan – who in turn, as heir, is identified with Saul. This is done when Jonathan makes a covenant with David and gives him his robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt (I Samuel 20). It is probable that the robes were Jonathan’s royal robes – such a transfer evoking a certain legal symbolism in which there is a transfer of Jonathan’s position as crown prince to David (McCarter, I Samuel, p.305).

All this leads David into the threat of death from his opponent Saul. At first, in a fit of madness, Saul tries to pin him to the wall. Then he tries to get David killed by sending him off on missions against the Philistines, even offering a daughter of his in marriage as an incentive to lure David on to what Saul probably thought was certain death (I Samuel 18). But as the hero, David as usual succeeds in what he does and achieves great victories. Merely by being a hero, David is under the wrath of Saul – leading Israel in battle under God’s favor, as Saul, being the king, should have been doing. Finally Saul actively pursues David and tries to kill him continuously but David, as a hero, is always able to escape.

Through all of this, we see the hero David moving closer and closer to his opponent’s role. Being forced into the fringe he displays his transcendent qualities by using this to come into power “through the back door” as it were. Thus there are one or more transformations involved and an intimate identification of the hero with the one that he is to replace – by identification with Jonathan, entering into Saul’s family by marriage to Michal, and so on. David is thus the true king despite appearances, the one who will succeed where Saul failed. The narrative is meant to show this and that David was faithful to Saul all along.

Other things explained are that David did not kill Nabal but that God did (I Samuel 25), Nabal being evil anyway, and that David did not fight Israel nor did he engage in the battle in which Saul was killed (I Samuel 29). David therefore was not responsible for Saul’s death in any way – Saul in fact killed himself (I Samuel 31). In fact, David executes the man who claims to have slain Saul and weeps both for the king and his son (II Samuel 1). David is so spotless that the fortuitous deaths of Ish-bosheth son of Saul, his rival for the kingship in the north, and his commander Abner are not perpetrated by David but are in fact expressly against his will (II Samuel 3.4). He even takes care of the remaining son of Jonathan (II Samuel 9), and the later killing of Saul’s other descendants is not really David’s fault at all (II Samuel 29:1-14).

A large part of the Samuel narrative thus serves an apologetic function, legitimizing David’s rise and explaining what might otherwise look bad. David is a hero – a warrior, musician, and leader – who transcends normal limitations, taking on Saul’s position by divine choice and succeeding so far where Saul failed.

Chronicles, in the meantime, leaves out most of the story of David’s rise. It first relates Saul’s death in battle, leaving out all other narratives concerning Saul, and declares that Yahweh handed the kingdom over to David because of Saul’s wickedness (I Chronicles 10). David is portrayed as immediately becoming king (though remnants of the memory of his reign in Hebron are retained in particular places like I Chronicles 29:27). I Chronicles 11:1-3 is parallel to I Samuel 5:1-5 yet excludes mention of his reign in Hebron – an example of the Chronicler’s exclusion of all materials which might cast any shadow on David or suggest that there was a struggle or uncertainty in David’s rise. II Samuel 5:1 has “all the tribes of Israel came to David,” reflecting the reality of separate tribal or sociopolitical entities coming together to recognize David. Meanwhile, I Chronicles 11:1 has “all Israel gathered together to David,” stressing the unity of the people as a whole in making this unanimous decision to elevate David. Emphasis is on David as the one who unites all Israel as a people.

The tragic years in David’s life begins with II Samuel 11-12, where David commits adultery and murder (though this tempered by his repentance). I Chronicles 20:1-3 covers the same period, only it excludes II Samuel 11:2 through 12:25 as well as material in the rest of 12 which might make David look bad. I Chronicles includes therefore only the attack of Rabbah and not the story of Bathsheba for which the story of that battle provides a frame. It basically relates II Samuel 11:1 and then moves straight to the material in II Samuel 12:26-31. I Chronicles relates basically only one story that might reflect badly on David, leaving out all others in order to portray David as an ideal figure. This negative story is found in I Chronicles 21, but it is emphasized that Satan incited David, David repented, and that through this the site of the temple was purchased. It is this connection with the temple that seems to provide the reason for the story’s inclusion.

Samuel-Kings, on the other hand, provide quite a bit of material that might reflect negatively on David – or at least on his family – besides the Bathsheba story. David’s sins of murder and rape are continued in his family when the eldest son Amnon rapes his sister and then is killed by the next in line for the throne, his brother Absalom (II Samuel 13). Absalom later tries to usurp his father’s throne (II Samuel 15-18), but is killed by Joab. This seems to indirectly produce another rebellion, which is quickly crushed (II Samuel 19-20). Murder and rape thus beget murder and rape and rebellion against David, who is perhaps portrayed as not always being a very good father and that it is failure in this among other things that leads to his family troubles.

Adonijah is apparently next in line for the throne and intends to succeed his father, supported by much of the court, including Joab and perhaps all of David’s other sons (see I Kings 1). The succession is clearly disputed, as there is a contingent that is in favor of Solomon’s kingship. David meanwhile is presented as impotent, possibly in more ways than one, and is perhaps senile as well – a shadow of his former self. He is old and probably close to death. Through the influence of Bathsheba and Nathan, David declares Solomon king and Adonijah’s bid for kingship is abruptly ended.

For some, these narratives mentioned from Bathsheba onwards suggest that they were originally written against David but were reworked to allow a positive reading and apologetic use (Van Seters actually believes that they formed an antimonarchic narrative which used the Deuteronomistic history rather than the other way around – see Van Seters, pp.287-290). P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., however, believes that they served as a court apologetic (see McCarter, II Samuel, pp.13-16). The tension and ambiguity in the text derives from its nature as apologetic – the author could not deny publicly known faults of David or things that went on and so had to make a version of the stories to explain them as best as possible. The way to deal with it would not be to exclude it or to make overly obvious distortions and so this is why the narratives appear as they do.

The narratives provide a warning for future leaders and shows why Solomon rather than a more “rightful” son was made king – Solomon was the divine choice and the others proved their inadequacy. Amnon raped his sister, so was murdered. Absalom was a murderer and rebelled against his father and so died. Adonijah is presented like Absalom in I Kings 1-2 (see McCarter, II Samuel, pp.9-13) – he is handsome like Absalom (compare II Samuel 14:25 and I Kings 1:6), has similar chariots and horses and runners (compare II Samuel 15:1 and I Kings 1:5), declared himself king (compare II Samuel 15:10 and I Kings 1), and tries to symbolically assert authority through taking David’s women (Absalom with David’s wives in II Samuel 16:22, and Adonijah with Abishag in I Kings 2). The Absalom narrative thus functions, among other things, to put Adonijah in a bad light as the same as Absalom and thus unworthy to be king, Solomon being the right choice. If this is a valid reading, it shows that this is thus another defense of the continued Davidic dynasty.

In Chronicles, by contrast, we see no hint of a deteriorated David. He is still presented spotless, without a troubled family or kingdom. David is the creative and energetic agent of Solomon’s ascent to the throne – no mention is made of Nathan or Bathsheba. David appears fully in control of both himself and his surroundings. No disputation over the succession occurs – Solomon’s acclaim is unanimous and unchallenged, even by David’s sons – in stark contrast to the same events in I Kings (I Chronicles 29:22-24). All Israel is again brought together in unity by David, who passes on leadership to Solomon, thus transitioning the Israelites into their next stage of life in the land.

David is presented in Chronicles as the one who planned and prepared the temple (I Chronicles 22, 28, 29:1-9). He also was the one who prepared for the temple cult (I Chronicles 23-26). David is thus Chronicles’ Moses – founder of nation and cult, to be revered and looked back to. Such places as I Chronicles 22:13 and 28:19-21 are direct echoes of Deuteronomy 31 and Joshua 1, where Joshua is commissioned by Moses to continue God’s work in leading the people into the enjoyment of the land (see also Brettler, pp.35-38). So here Solomon is commissioned by David to continue God’s work in prospering the nation, continuing what David started by building the temple and developing the nation and cult. David thus lays the foundation for a people and it is up to future generations like that of the Chronicler to complete the task by maintaining temple worship, uniting the people of God, and so on. In the same way Moses began the people and it is up to later generations to uphold the law and maintain the cult and so on. Moses laid out the plans for the tabernacle, David for the temple.

The Chronicler seems to want his readers to look to David as to Moses and be encouraged to help continue the work – worshipping at the temple in Jerusalem as the center of a restored people. David is thus used by the Chronicler for his political and theological purpose – he is an icon, an ideal person to be looked to. Jacob M. Meyers reports, “The Chronicler sees Jerusalem as the authentic place of worship, the returnees as the legitimate successors of the people of Judah and the cult personnel, and the community established by them as the true Israel” (Myers, p.xxxvi). The Chronicler’s picture of David thus serves as a vehicle for hope of a national unity in a restored community of all Israel, focused around the second temple and the new community that already exists there. As such, the Chronicler is open to and eager for the inclusion of the north in this community by their allegiance to the temple and its standards and practices (as evidenced in his concern for the north in his genealogies and in his treatment of Hezekiah’s Passover, which included northerners, in II Chronicles 30).

Chronicles might then be the Chronicler’s history for and to create such a community – the community has begun in the current group at Jerusalem but will be made into the community it was meant to be by the influence of Chronicles. According to Norman Gottwald, the community at Jerusalem in this time had no political power to enforce religiocultural views outside its borders except by persuasion, its persuasive power resting on ideological and pragmatic grounds (Gottwald, p.239). Without political power to create conformity, this must come by other means – and Chronicles is the Chronicler’s way of achieving this. Thus Chronicles is not so much interested in David as a real person with problems and enemies and personal complexities but as more of an idea to look to. He is dealt with more for the theological role the Chronicler could give him than as a real person.

Samuel-Kings deals with David in all his complexity as a national and historical figure – all his ambiguities, faults, and dark days. David is presented as flawed, despite his greatness. Yet he is a hero, God’s chosen king, a man after God’s own heart despite deep flaws. He is a warrior and a leader who deteriorates sadly with age yet is never seen by the author as fully and finally rejected by Yahweh as Saul had been – David is God’s king for Israel, and thus his dynasty, despite its detractors, is ordained by God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brettler, Marc Zvi, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, Routledge; New York: 1995.

Gottwald, Norman, The Politics of Ancient Israel, Westminster John Knox Press; Louisville, Kentucky: 2001.

McCarter, Jr., P. Kyle, I Samuel, Doubleday and Company, Inc.; Garden City, New York: 1986.

McCarter, Jr., P. Kyle, II Samuel, Doubleday and Company, Inc.; Garden City, New York: 1984.

Myers, Jacob M., I Chronicles, Doubleday and Company, Inc.; Garden City, New York: 1965.

Van Seters, John, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, Eisenbrauns; Winona Lake, Indiana: 1997.

David and Tamar

Since Stan Gibson mentioned the story of Judah and Tamar here on his blog, I thought it would be fun to post an old paper I wrote way back in my undergrad days for a class at UC Berkeley entitled "The Hero in the Bible and the Ancient Near East" (that was around 2000 or 2001 I think), where we looked at the figure of the hero in various biblical and other ancient Near Eastern stories. I still find myself in agreement with it, which is nice for a paper written that long ago. Here it is:

In this paper we will look at the Bible and examine two different heroes and their mutual mode of transcendence. To begin with, we see that these stories we will look at tell of a situation peculiar to humanity. Humans are normally limited by their sociopolitical status in what kinds of roles they can take on - having certain groups of roles they are born into generally without having my choice in the matter. Those born socially and/or politically disadvantaged are the most limited in what they are allowed or able to do in a society. The most advantaged, however, are the most powerful and have the most possibilities before them – as well as, often, a larger amount of responsibility especially if such a person is in a place of authority. But all these classes of people – advantaged and disadvantaged – are still humans, with human feelings, and make human mistakes. The ideal for a powerful person in their authoritative role is missed constantly as those who seek to fulfill their role fail in doing so. Kings fail in being good kings, fathers in being good fathers, and those with a certain grave responsibility fall short of perfection in one way or another.

Normal people might fail in their roles of authority to uphold justice and righteousness, but where the normal people are limited, the hero is able to transcend and overcome. The heroes that we will be looking at not only do this but also do it in an extraordinary way. These two begin in the class of the disadvantaged – normally there would be no way they could achieve one of the roles that belong to the advantaged – let alone surpass all others in fulfilling it. Yet this is what these heroes do. A role not “naturally” their own requires a transcendent figure to meet the ideal, so these figures go above their own limitations imposed by society and go above normal human limitations and strive to the ideal. Not only this, but they must prevail over those who are currently in the positions of power and who are not fulfilling their duties – the hero must take on the position, indeed the very identity in some respects, currently occupied by the failed advantaged person to make things right, thus transcending in the seeking of justice.

These two heroes who we will look at in this line of inquiry are Tamar and her descendant David. The advantaged power-figures involved with these two and with which they interact are Judah, who interacts with Tamar, and Saul, who interacts with David. To this end we will focus mainly on the text of Genesis 38 and certain key passages in I and II Samuel in the section of the narrative dealing with David’s rise, especially chapter 18 of I Samuel (and thus we will deal basically with David as he becomes the ideal king – before the later problems wreak havoc on the kingdom). Here David is a kind of warrior-hero and in Genesis Tamar is a trickster, but both operate in their transcendence in a very similar fashion as I have described above – in the mode of fulfilling the failed role. We will first look at the story of Tamar as it bears on our subject and then look at the story of David in the same light and compare the two.

In her relations with the family of Judah, Tamar is definitely disadvantaged. For one thing, Tamar is a foreigner – and a foreign woman at that. As such she has very little power whatsoever and, according to the patriarchal society she lives in, she is under the practical ownership of one male or another at almost all times. The figure of authority Tamar relates with is Judah the patriarch, her father-in-law. We can take Judah in a way as having been chosen by God for his role as patriarch through the fact of Judah being born to Jacob. Coming from a family of patriarchs who are wealthy, nomadic people, Judah seems especially fit for his position. This seems to heighten Judah’s responsibility to his God-given role and helps to show how deeply he truly failed – and by contrast how greatly Tamar will succeed.

Judah fails in a variety of ways. His first failure may perhaps be that he marries the daughter of Shua, a Canaanite. His later failure is neglecting to take care for his lineage – to continue the house of Israel through his descendants, as he should. But after his first two sons, Er and Onan, die he neglects to provide Tamar with offspring from his family to continue the line in Er’s name. In fact, he seems to be rather unresponsive to his sons’ deaths. This is brought out especially be the great contrast between Judah’s response to his sons’ deaths and Jacob’s response to Joseph’s apparent death in the narrative just before the story of Judah and Tamar (Robert Alter, The Art of the Biblical Narrative, p.7). He thus seems to be cast in a negative light in this passage.

As patriarch and head of the family it is his responsibility according to the custom of the levirate law to provide Tamar with someone from Er’s family to give her offspring in her dead husband’s name (this practice is commanded in Deuteronomy 25 and an example of its implementation is found in the book of Ruth – for more on the levirate law, see Claus Westerman, Genesis 37-50, p.52). In not following through on this responsibility Judah violates Tamar’s rights – especially by promising to give her his remaining son Shelah to fulfill the levirate law and then not following through on that promise. Thus Tamar is left in a position even worse than before – she is left a childless widow in her own father’s house, having been cast away by the father-in-law whose responsibility it was to take care of her and see that justice was done.

So Judah, in failing his role, wrongs his younger charge Tamar, who depends upon him – Judah is her caretaker and virtual owner by patriarchal custom. Tamar, however, has shown herself as a hero early on by being dutiful in her fulfillment of the levirate duty. The biblical passage is silent as to what her feelings or thoughts are – she just simply does what she is supposed to do. It seems fitting that Tamar, in doing the right thing and being dutiful in fulfilling her own role as widow of Er, is seen as dangerous by Judah, who neglects what is right and does not do what he is supposed to do.

In this apparent dangerousness, Judah sees Tamar as a threat to his lineage. He sends Tamar away without giving her Shelah, thinking that since his other sons died with Tamar Shelah might do so as well. And if Shelah died, Judah would no longer have any sons. Yet this apparent danger to the family comes from one who has married into the family – who has identified herself with the family through her relationship to Er, the firstborn son. Thus she comes into a relationship with Judah, prepared thus for later taking on his role, being thenceforth in effect cut off from the family she has joined despite her rights through marriage to Er.

Ironically, Tamar is in fact attempting to further the line of Judah, not to destroy it – it is Judah who has failed, not her. As a reward, she is cast out from her new family and sent back to her father’s house. To underscore the wrongfulness we see that before Tamar conceives, a “long time” has passed – more than could reasonably be expected – and she sees that Shelah has not been given to her as promised – despite the fact that he is now grown, the time at which Judah was to give him to her. So she sees the true injustice that has been inflicted upon her by her father-in-law.

Judah thus becomes Tamar’s opponent and forces her into the fringes of society as a widow. Through this avenue, Tamar moves ever closer to Judah’s role. In a liminal transition, Tamar changes identities as she removes her widow’s clothes and puts on a veil – thus symbolizing her transformation. She leaves her identity as a widow and takes on the identity of a prostitute – another figure on the fringes of society. So she begins to transcend the male/female divide – prostitutes generally have more of a camaraderie with men, not holding the normal social roles of women and both being on their own and engaging in trade. So she takes on for herself an appearance of evil (after all, she could be killed for engaging in prostitution as we later see) in order to do what is right. Her quality as a hero is emphasized in the boldness with which she acts. Claus Westerman (see also Herman Gunkel, Genesis, p.399) comments,

Tamar was living in her father’s house with no future. She had noticed that she had been deprived of her right because Shelah had grown up in the meantime. She decided, therefore, to procure her right herself and devised a risky plan that could cost her both her honor and her life.

(Westerman, p.53)

In this line of action, Tamar is able to take on the role and identity of the patriarch. She has already overcome the male/female opposition keeping her form the role, but now she tricks Judah into giving her the very things which symbolize his position as patriarch – that show his very identity. So she gains Judah’s cord and seal and staff. Westerman (on this subject see also Alter, pp.8-9) comments on the seal, cord, and staff,

These are the insignia of a prominent man in Babylon (Herodotus) as well as in Canaan and Israel. The signet ring or cylinder seal is used to sign contracts; the staff has markings carved on it that are peculiar to the owner. The seal was carried on a cord around the neck.

(Westerman, p.53)

Symbolically, in this liminal transition, Tamar is identified with Judah and in effect becomes the patriarch, she being the agent in this passage now and Judah basically the patient – it is Tamar who is now in control. So she becomes pregnant by Judah, doing what should have been done in the first place. Tamar calls the shots – it is Judah who is dependent upon her and she has him in her power. She sees he has lost his wife and that the time of morning is past – so that Judah is likely in a state of sexual needfulness. So she takes advantage of the situation.

The guise of evil, however, in seeking to do the right thing, leads to the threat of death from Judah – who at least nominally is still in charge. According to Gunkel,

Tamar is considered a wife. She is legally Er’s wife to whom she is still obligated, or – the effect would be the same – Shelah’s betrothed. Consequently, she is under the jurisdiction of her father-in-law, not of her own father. The patriarch has the right of life and death over his whole household.

(Gunkel, p.402)

So Tamar risks death in her being a hero – and, as a hero, overcomes in triumph. Tamar, as we have seen, is really in control of the family – she produces the signs of the patriarch-hood and Judah now understands and acknowledges that she is in the right and he in the wrong. Tamar is providing children to continue the line of Er, and thereby Judah and Israel, and so has fulfilled the role of the patriarch.

As we look at David’s rise we see many similarities between that story and the story of Tamar. The figure in authority over David is King Saul. God has chosen Saul through the prophet Samuel. By birth, he seems especially fit to be king. His father is a prominent man and though Benjamin is among the smallest of the tribes of Israel, it is centrally located and thus an ideal position to provide leadership to the land. Saul even looks the part of a king. But like Judah, all this only serves to show how much Saul falls short.

In comparison to Saul’s situation, David is extremely disadvantaged. His family does not seem to be as well off and he is in fact the youngest of eight sons – and it is generally the oldest who is normally the one who ascends to greatness (or who becomes a king). Indeed, David does not seem at first be the one to whom the kingship over Israel should go to – he is not even one of Saul’s sons. And this is the burden of the history of David’s rise in I and II Samuel (roughly from the sixteenth chapter of I Samuel to about the fifth chapter of II Samuel). On this section of I and II Samuel and its relationship to David’s ascension to the throne of Israel, P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. says, “Its purpose was to justify the succession as a reflection of Yahweh’s will and offer a rebuttal to charges made against David” (P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel, p.28).

Saul meanwhile, though, fails at his role, just like Judah. He neglects to follow the directions of God and imposes unnecessary hardships on his very own men. Later, he becomes afflicted by fits of madness due to an evil spirit and even more than once tries to kill his own heir, his son Jonathan. To emphasize Saul’s failure, the Spirit of Yahweh departs from him. So David comes into Saul’s court and serves him well, providing him with a necessary service – his playing of the harp is of such a virtue as to calm Saul as he is afflicted with the evil spirit. His harp playing, having such almost supernatural abilities, helps display David’s quality as a hero.

Saul wrongs David in various ways, trying to get David to be killed in battle, and ends up driving David into hiding. He owes David a daughter in marriage (apparently this is what was promised to the man who defeated Goliath) but does not give her to him. Again David is promised Saul’s oldest daughter Merab, but she is given to someone else when the time comes for her to be married. Saul’s youngest daughter Michal, meanwhile, loves David and so Saul finally gives this daughter to David in marriage - and after he does give David one of his daughters, he takes her and gives her to another man.

Saul, like Judah, is concerned for the security of his line and for his own well-being. David, meanwhile, does in fact only further the security of Saul and his line to the very end and takes care of them – David is portrayed as but a faithful servant. Even when Saul becomes his enemy, David goes so far as to rebuke his men for even suggesting that they kill Saul. McCarter notes, “We are shown that David […] was quite willing to comply with Saul’s will until absolutely forced to flee the court to save his life” (McCarter, p.29). Even afterwards, David will not raise a hand against Saul, despite many opportunities to do so. He even fights against Saul’s foreign enemies while hiding in the land of the Philistines.

In his service and in his military success as a warrior-hero, David gains great renown and the love of the people. The Bible emphasizes that he had great success in all that he did, since Yahweh, his divine benefactor (something important for an ancient hero to have, which of course also marks him as a hero), was with him. Even Saul’s family turns in favor of David and loves him intensely – including even the crown prince and, of course, Saul’s daughter, the princess Michal. This success scares Saul, since it emphasizes his own inadequacy and the fact that Yahweh is no longer with him.

Thus Saul, in his jealousy, sees David as a danger to his kingship and dynasty, declaring his suspicions in an outburst against his son Jonathan. There he proclaims that if David is not killed, he will inherit the kingdom of Israel instead of Jonathan himself. David too, like Tamar, has in a way become part of Saul’s family by marriage to a child of his opponent and he too is cut off. And Michal is taken away – denied to David as Shelah is denied to Tamar. David in losing Michal, though, is taken care of by God – he gains the wise woman Abigail as a wife even as he loses the king’s daughter.

So David too is forced into the fringes of society as an outcast and man on the run. But in this David gains a large following, even though forced into an appearance of evil by staying with Israel’s enemies, the Philistines, and leading what looks like a band of outlaws. Thus David’s qualifications as a leader come out, especially fit for the heroic warrior-king he is meant to become. But again it is from this apparent evil that David rises into his position as only he is fit to do.

David has taken on the identity of royalty through his identification with Jonathan – who in turn, as heir, is identified with Saul. This is done when Jonathan makes a covenant with David and gives him his robe, tunic, sword, bow, and belt – David thus entering into a liminal transformation. It is probable that the robes were Jonathan’s royal robes – such a transfer evoking a certain legal symbolism in which there is a transfer of Jonathan’s position as crown prince to David (McCarter, p.305). So like in the story of Tamar, David’s relationship with his opponent’s eldest son is a driving force behind his ascension, though of course not in the exact same way.

All this leads David into the threat of death from his opponent Saul. At first, in a fit of madness, Saul tries to pin him to the wall. Then he tries to get David killed by sending him off on missions against the Philistines, even offering a daughter of his in marriage as an incentive to lure David on to what Saul probably thought was certain death. But as the hero, David as usual succeeds in what he does and achieves great victories. Merely by being a hero, David is under the wrath of Saul – leading Israel in battle under God’s favor, as Saul, being the king, should have been doing. Finally Saul actively pursues David and tries to kill him continuously but David, as a hero, is always able to escape. Saul ends the threat of death by taking his own life so that now David can ascend to the throne – though consolidation does take a number of years longer to take place.

Because of the particulars of the stories, the themes we have been looking at are worked out in different ways accordingly, especially in regards to the kind of hero that our respective heroes fall into. With Tamar, Judah ceases trying to kill her when she reveals what has been hidden – as a trickster she has knowledge that Judah does not and has used it to her advantage, but now she reveals it to him so that he too sees truly. With David, on the other-hand, the warrior is the kind of hero most often exemplified and so the threat of death from Saul, according to the theme of the warrior-hero, ends when Saul ends the pursuit himself – but this by his death rather than seeing truly.

The general sequence we see in these stories is as follows: First, the hero becomes associated with his or her opponent-to-be. Second, the hero excels in his or her duties towards his or her opponent and his family. Third, the hero is seen as a threat. Fourth, the hero is forced into the fringes of society. Fifth, the hero takes on the appearance of evil, meanwhile or afterwards being pursued for death. Lastly, the hero emerges spotless from this evil appearance through the threat of death and ultimately fulfills the role his or her opponent failed in.

Through all of this, we see the hero moving closer and closer to his or her opponent’s role. Being forced into the fringe they display their transcendent qualities by using this to come into power “through the back door” as it were. Thus there are one or more liminal transformations involved and an intimate identification of the hero with the one that they are to replace. With David, his liminal identification with his adversary occurs before his appearance of evil. By contrast, Tamar’s occurs during her appearance of evil, though in a way these cases still coincide since Tamar is not known as the person who has this appearance until after the liminal transformation, where she gains Judah’s identity.

In both David and Tamar there is an entrance by marriage into their adversaries’ respective families. Thus they are not naturally a part of that family, but have joined by identification through marriage with one of its members. This mirrors the fact they are also both not naturally in the position to take on the role of their opponents. Yet because of their relationships to their opponents families they are able to take on the position by other, yet perfectly legitimate, means. The relationship with the family is especially indicated in the heroes' relationships with their opponents’ eldest sons. This is particularly fitting as we have seen in David’s case since the eldest son is heir to the father and thus identifies with him very strongly.

In both Judah and Saul we see contradictory impulses emphasizing their unfitness in their positions. Judah wrongs Tamar because he thinks that perhaps otherwise his last son will die, perhaps destroying his line. Yet in doing so, he harms his line by not continuing the name of Er. Saul is in a similar situation. He wrongs David because he thinks that otherwise his dynasty will end, yet at the same time in his anger at David he tries once to kill his very own son Jonathan. So it is revealed that Judah and Saul are really acting out of blinded self-interest rather than justice and true concern for the people around them.

So we see the quality of the hero as it is worked out in the supplanting of those who have abused their power. They create justice out of injustice and make right what was wrong. They succeed where others fail. In this way we see the ways these heroes transcend and go beyond the normal limits of human existence, doing more and accomplishing more than anyone else could or would. Their stories are thus greater than normal stories and as a result live on.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative, Basic Books: 1981.

Gunkel, Herman, Genesis, Mercer University Press; Macon, Georgia: 1997.

McCarter, Jr., P. Kyle, I Samuel, Doubleday and Company, Inc.; Garden City, New York: 1986.

Westerman, Claus, Genesis 37-50, Augsburg Publishing House; Minneapolis: 1986.