THE THEOLOGICAL FUNCTION OF SAUL’S NARRATIVE (1 CHR 10):

A RHETHORICAL APPROACH

by

Suk-il Ahn SID 0912015

Theological Research Seminar

2013. 1. 29

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The book of Chronicles has been ignored by many readers, who have regarded it as

an unnecessary repetition and simply a supplement to Samuel and Kings. For this reason,

Gerhard von Rad mentions, “One cannot avoid the impression of a certain mental exhaustion

- at least in the way the material is presented. And in theological clarity too, in consistency

and inner unity, the Chronicler is not nearly the equal of the Deuteronomic work.”1 However,

this reference is not fair in that Chronicles has its own interests regarding the history of Israel.

Rather, we should concede that the book of Chronicles displays, as Paul House says, “an

excellent conclusion to the canon by drawing together its major themes and presenting them

in an effective, creative and historically accurate manner.”2 Indeed, the book of Chronicles

has theologically consistent messages its own lights.3

In the book of Chronicles, the narrative section begins at 1 Chronicles 10 with the

first king of Israel, Saul. We have two portraits of Saul by the Deuteronomist (in Samuel) and

the Chronicler (in Chronicles). The Deuteronomist describes Saul’s narratives as displaying a

feature in relation to the transition of Israel from tribal band to monarchical state.4 For

example, Saul raised military support personally in 1 Samuel 11:5-11 because there was no

ruling group specified at that time. On the other hand, the Chronicler’s portrait of Saul is

tersely mentioned with only one chapter (1 Chronicles 10) in the whole book of Chronicles,

focusing on the description of Saul’s last war with the Philistines and his death. Why did the

Chronicler do so? What is the Chronicler’s intention of this terse description of Saul? What is

1 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I: 348. 2 House, Old Testament Theology, 523. 3 For example, major themes are the temple, worship, and covenant, etc. 4 Gottwald indicates dual feature of this transitional period in the history of Israel, so that he says, “Tendencies toward the chiefdom and monarchy are clearly evidenced in Saul.” Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, 297-98. See also Alt, “The Formation of the Israelite State,” 171-273.

2

the difference between the Chronicler’s description of Saul (1 Chronicles 10) and the

Deuteronomist’s (1 Samuel 31)?

In this paper, I will deal with Saul’s portrait in 1 Chronicles 10 and I will argue for

the legitimacy of the transfer of Saul’s kingship to David in the Chronicler’s perspective,

which also reflects the rhetorical situation in which the persons, events, objects and relations

present an exigence.5 For this discussion I will employ a rhetorical approach of George A.

Kennedy.

II. METHODOLOGY

Rhetorical criticism originated with the address of James Muilenburg, “Form

Criticism and Beyond.”6 Even though Muilenburg did not reject Gunkel’s form criticism, he

thought it should be supplemented by rhetorical criticism. Muilenburg’s interest was in

“Hebrew composition: discerning structural patterns, verbal sequences, and stylistic devices

that make a coherent whole.”7 Rhetorical criticism practices a close reading that “a

responsible and proper articulation of the words in their linguistic patterns and in their precise

formulations will reveal to us the texture and fabric of the writer’s thought, not only what it is

that he thinks, but as he thinks it.”8 Since Muilenburg, many scholars have followed his

methodology. For example, Martin Kessler and David Greenwood (so-called Muilenburg

school) perform synchronic literary study, investigating the literary characteristics of the

text.9 On the other hand, Wilhelm Wuellner argues that the core of rhetorical criticism

should be argumentation and persuasion, criticizing Muilenburg and his school in that they

5 Exigence means “a situation under which an individual is called upon to make some response: the response made is conditioned by the situation and in turn has some possibility of affecting the situation or what follows from it.” See Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 35. 6 Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” 1-18. 7 Trible, Rhetorical Criticism, 26. 8 Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” 7. 9 Kessler, “Methodological Setting,” 35-36; Greenwood, “Rhetorical Criticism,”418-26.

3

restricted rhetoric into forms.10 Similarly, Howard also insists that rhetorical criticism should

be based on persuasion11 – In this paper I define rhetorical criticism as persuasion. Finally,

rhetorical criticism as a methodology was provided in a definitive way by George A.

Kennedy who published New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism in 1984.

Kennedy’s method can be summarized in the following steps:12

1) A rhetorical unit has a beginning, middle, and end. In other words, this must have

“within itself a discernible beginning and ending, connected by some action or

argument.”13

2) A rhetorical situation is about what situation led to the utterance. This investigates

audience, events, objects, relations, time and place, etc. Lloyd F. Bitzer first

elaborated this concept of the rhetorical situation. According to Bitzer, “rhetorical

discourse comes into existence as a response to situation, in the same sense that an

answer comes into existence in response to a question, or a solution in response to a

problem.”14

3) Rhetorical arrangement is about “what subdivisions it falls into, what the

persuasive effect of these parts seems to be, and how they work together to some

unified purpose in meeting the rhetorical situation.”15 This investigates the

argumentation, including assumptions, topics, features, and stylistics.

4) Rhetorical effectiveness is to “review its success in meeting the rhetorical

exigence and what its implications may be for the speaker or audience.”16

10 Wullener, “Where is Rhetorical Criticism,” 448-463 (esp. 453). 11 Howard, “Rhetorical Criticism,” 87-104. 12 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 33-38. 13 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 34. 14 Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” 5. 15 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 37. 16 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 38.

4

In this paper, I will deal with rhetorical units, the rhetorical arrangement, and the

rhetorical situation of 1 Chronicles 10. Then I will examine the rhetorical effectiveness and

the theological function of Saul’s narrative will be summarized.

III. A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS ON 1 CHRONICLES 10

1. A Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Chronicles 10

1) A Rhetorical Unit

The beginning of a new unit as a rhetorical unit can be indicated by some shifts in the

text.17 1 Chronicles 10 displays a variety of shifts such as genre, time, characters, place, and

topic. The sequence (1 Chr 10) moves from the list of genealogy to narrative, from the

present post-exilic era to the past monarchal-era of Saul, and it also represents Saul as a main

character, describing Saul’s fight against the Philistines and his death. And 1 Chronicles 10

closes with the Chronicler’s assessment of Saul. For these reasons, we can determine1

Chronicles 10 as a rhetorical unit, which has three sub-units: 1) 1 Chronicles 10:1-7 (Saul’s

fight against the Philistines and its results); 2) 1 Chronicles 10:8-12 (The fate of Saul and his

sons after their death); and 3) 1 Chr 10:13-14 (summary and reflections). The first and second

sub-unit can be divided by the word, “the next day” (tr"êx\M'mi(, 1 Chr 10:8), and the third sub-

unit is the Chronicler’s assessment of Saul’s death.

2) The Rhetorical Arrangement

Rhetorical arrangement deals with the aspects of argumentation, structure, and style.

How do the sub-units work together to the Chronicler’s purpose? What are the stylistic

17 Dorsey, Literary Structure, 22.

5

features of them? Stylistic features are a method for achieving needed effects.18 I will focus

on stylistic features of 1 Chronicles 10, contrasting with the portrait of Saul in 1 Samuel 31.

A. Saul’s Fight against the Philistines and Its Results (1 Chr 10:1-7)

The first sub-unit contains Saul’s military campaign against the Philistines. In this

battle, Saul was wounded by archers and died by falling on his sword. His three sons also

died on the same day. This description of Saul’s death in 1 Chronicles 10:1–5 is similar to the

portrait in 1 Sam 31:1–5, but we, for the first time, meet a different expression from verse 6

of each text. 1 Chronicles 10:6 states “all his house,” whereas it was referred to as “his amor-

bearer” and “all his men” in 1 Samuel 31:6.19

`Wtme( wD"îx.y: AtàyBe-lk 'w> wyn"ëB' tv,l{åv.W ‘lWav' tm'Y"Üw: 1 Chr 10:6

wyv'²n"a]-lK' ~G:ô wyl'øke afe’nOw> •wyn"B' tv,l{åv.W lWa‡v' tm'Y"åw: 1 Sam 31:6

`wD"(x.y: aWhßh; ~AYðB; 1 Chr 10:6 Then Saul died and his three sons 1 Sam 31:6 Then Saul and his three sons

and his armor-bearer and all his house and all his men

died together died together on that day.

In other words, 1 Samuel 31:6 indicates that many in Israel died as a result of the

battle with the Philistines. By contrast, the summary of the outcome of the battle in 1

Chronicles 10:6 states: “Then Saul and his three sons and all his house died together.” The

Chronicler goes further in that “all his house” alludes to the downfall of Saul’s dynasty.

wyn"+b'W lWaåv' WtmeÞ-ykiw> Wsn"ë yKiä ‘qm,[e’B'-rv,a] laeÛr"f.yI vyai’-lK' War>YIw:û 1 Chr 10:7 WsnUëY"w: ‘~h,yrE[' WbÜz>[;Y:w:

s `~h,(B' Wbßv.YEw: ~yTiêv.lip. WaboåY"w:

rb,[eäB. Ÿrv<åa]w: qm,[eøh' rb,[e’B.-rv,a] laer"f.yIû-yve(n>a; Waår>YIw: 1 Sam 31:7 WbÜz>[;Y:w: wyn"+b'W lWaåv' WtmeÞ-ykiw> laeêr"f.yI yveän>a; ‘Wsn "’-yKi( !DEªr>Y:h;

s `!h<)B' Wbßv.YE)w: ~yTiêv.lip. WaboåY"w: WsnUëY"w: ‘~yrI['h,(-ta, 18 See Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 37. 19 Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 309-10.

6

When 1 Chronicles 10:7 is compared with 1 Samuel 31:7, the Chronicler modifies a

phrase in it. 1 Samuel 31:7 reads “When the men of Israel who were on the other side of the

plain and on the other side of Jordan saw that the men of Israel fled and that Saul and his sons

were dead, they forsook their cities and fled and the Philistines came and dwelt there,”

whereas the Chronicler omits the phrase, “men of Israel.” 1 Chronicles 10:7 reads “When all

the men of Israel who were in the valley saw that they had fled and that Saul and his sons had

died, they forsook their cities and fled and the Philistines came and dwelt there.” The

Chronicler’s account omits any reference to the Philistine invasion of Transjordan cities in 1

Samuel 31:7. For the Chronicler it does not matter. Consequently, the Chronicler emphasizes

that Saul and his sons died in the battlefield, not “the men of Israel.” In other words, this

means that Saul and his sons caused the defeat as well as the Israelite abandonment of their

cities,20 functioning to legitimate David’s kingship with the downfall of Saul’s house.

B. The Fate of Saul21 and His Sons after Their Death (1 Chr 10:8-12)

1 Chronicles 10:10 mentions that the Philistines impaled Saul’s skull in the temple of

Dagon, whereas 1 Samuel 31:10 states that the Philistines fastened Saul’s body to the wall of

Beth-shan and set his armor in the temple of Astarte. This would reflect that some time had

passed because Saul’s head became a skull. Christine Mitchell indicates that in 1 Chronicles

11:1 when people said, “we are your bone and your flesh,” it shows “a contrast between the

union of the flesh and bone of David and the people on the one hand, and the fleshlessness of 20 Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 329. 21 For more discussion of Saul’s fate, see Gunn, The Fate of King Saul, in which Gunn examines Saul’s story, focusing on the concept of a tragedy of Fate. Even though Gunn admits Saul’s flaw, he points out the tensions between fate and flaw, asking which the final cause of his fall is. The sense of fate involved in Saul’s rejection is clearly displayed in the entrance of David in Saul’s life. “The introduction of the Spirit tormenting Saul leads directly to David’s involvement in Saul’s life. By the cruelest of fate’s tricks no sooner is David anointed and Saul unwell (poisoned by Yahweh, one might say) than his own servants are recommending David as the cure for his sickness. The economy of plot is superb and the irony of the situation that is created is quite overwhelming” (78). Finally, Gunn says that Saul is “kingship’s scapegoat” (125); On the other hand, Humphreys’ three articles focus on the structures of the Saul’s story, by which he attempts to trace a pattern that describes Saul as a tragic hero and that depicts him as a villain. See Humphreys, “The Tragedy of King Saul,” 18-27; Idem, “The Rise and Fall of King Saul,” 74-90; Idem, “From Tragic Hero to Villain,” 95-117.

7

Saul on the other hand.”22 This means that Saul had no power any more, stressing the

legitimacy of David kingship.

~h,_yhel{a/ tyBeÞ wyl'êKe-ta, ‘Wmyfi’Y"w: 1 Chr 10:10 s `!Ag*D " tyBeî W[ßq.t' ATïl.G"l.GU-ta,w>

tAr+T'v.[; tyBeÞ wyl'êKe-ta, ‘Wmfi’Y"w: 1 Sam 31:10

`!v") tyBeî tm;ÞAxB . W[êq.T' ‘AtY"wIG>-ta,w>

The Chronicler reveals the contrast between what the Philistines did to Saul’s head

and what the men of Jabesh-gilead did to his body. In both portraits, he employed the same

root (afn) in the sense of “take,” “remove” instead of the roots used in the earlier text (trk

and xql). Thus 1 Chronicles 10:9 states “they [the Philistines] removed his [Saul’s] head,”

whereas 1 Samuel 31:9 mentions “they cut off his head.”

wyl'_Ke-ta,w> Avàaro-ta, Waïf.YIw: Whjuêyvip.Y:“w: 1 Chr 10:9 `~['(h'-ta,w> ~h,ÞyBec;[]-ta, rFE±b;l. bybiªs' ~yTiøv.lip.-#r<a,(b. Wx’L.v;y>w:

wyl'_Ke-ta, WjyviÞp.Y:w: Avêaro-ta, ‘Wtr>k.YIw:) 1 Sam 31:9

`~['(h'-ta,w> ~h,ÞyBec;[] tyBeî rFE±b;l. bybiªs' ~yTiøv.liP.-#r<a,(b. Wx’L.v;y>w:

wyn"ëB' tpoåWG ‘taew> lWaªv' tp;äWG-ta, Waúf.YIw: èlyIx; vyaiä-lK' éWmWqY"w: 1 Chr 10:12 vbeêy"B. ‘hl'aeh' tx;T;Û ~h,øyteAmc.[;-ta, Wr’B.q.YIw: hv'ybe_y" ~Waßybiy>w:

`~ymi(y" t[;îb.vi WmWcßY"w: wyn"ëB' tYOæwIG> ‘taew> lWaªv' tY:åwIG>-ta, Wxúq.YIw: èhl'y>L;h;-lk' Wkål.YEw: élyIx; vyaiä-lK' WmWqøY"w: 1 Sam 31:12

`~v'( ~t'Þao Wpïr>f.YIw: hv'beêy" WaboåY"w: !v"+ tyBeä tm;ÞAxme

1 Chronicles 10:12 states “they [the men of Jabesh-gilead] removed Saul’s body,”

whereas 1 Samuel 31:12 writes “they took Saul’s body.” The burning of the corpses in 1

Samuel 31:12 is not mentioned in 1 Chronicles 10:12.

Even though it is not clear why the Chronicler has employed the arrangement of

these sorts of words, the difference between the two uses of afn is noticeable: the Philistines

22 Mitchell, “The Dialogism of Chronicles,” 322.

8

went off with Saul’s head in triumph. “They sent it around the land of the Philistines to

inform their idols and the people” (1 Chr 10:9; 1 Sam 31:9) and impaled his skull in the

temple of Dagon (1 Chr 10:10), whereas the men of Jabesh-gilead took away Saul’s body and

the bodies of his sons, and brought them to bury in their city. Finally, they severely mourned:

“they fasted for seven days” (1 Chr 10:12; 1 Sam 31:13).23 Japhet concludes her comments

on this section (1 Chr 10:1-12):

All in all, the Chronistic reworking of the story smooths the rough edges and moderates the extremes: the scope of the defeat, the disgrace of Saul and his sons, the geographical expansion of the Philistines and the heroic acts of the people of Jabesh-gilead are mitigated by carefully chosen changes, while interference with the original is kept to a minimum.24

As such, the Chronicler reworks Saul’s story with minimum changes. The people of

Jabesh-gilead were loyal to Saul for he has saved Jebesh-gilead from Nahash the Ammonite

(1 Sam 11).

C. Summary and Reflections (1 Chr 10:13-14)

The third unit as the Chronicler’s assessment of Saul forms the conclusion of Saul’s

story in Chronicles, which was added to the text the Chronicler took from 1 Samuel 31. The

Chronicler here used the literary device of antithesis and inclusio (the roots of twm).25 This

unit of 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 can be displayed as follows:

rm"+v'-al{ rv<åa] hw"ßhy> rb:ïD>-l[; hw"ëhyB;( l[;äm' rv<åa] ‘Al[]m;(B. lWaªv' tm'Y"åw: 13a `vAr)d>l i bAaßB' lAaïv.li-~g:w>13b

hw"ßhyB;( vr:îd"-al{)w> 14a p `yv'(yI-!B, dywIßd"l. hk'êWlM.h;-ta, ‘bSeY:w: Whte_ymiy>w: 14b

13a So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the Lord in that he did not keep the command of the Lord. 13b moreover, he had consulted a medium, seeking guidance, 14a and did not seek guidance from the Lord.

23 Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 326. 24 Japhet, I & II Chronicles, 228-9. 25 Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 339. Kalimi divides 1 Chr 10:13-14 as three lines, but the Chronicler’s intention would be more clearly shown by four lines.

9

14b Therefore the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David, son of Jesse.

Saul sought guidance from a medium, which alludes to the “Witch of Endor” (1 Sam

28:3–25), not from the Lord. The result was Saul’s death and the transfer of Saul’s kingship

to David (1 Chr 10:14b).26 This antithesis as a literary device displays manifestly the

Chronicler’s careful intention of his work.27 This kind of description in Chronicles is of great

importance because Saul’s story in 1 Samuel 31 provided a different impression, representing

Saul as fit to be a king of Israel fighting against his enemies with a hero’s death. On the other

hand, the Chronicler depicts Saul’s death on Mount Gilboa as a punishment for his sins

mentioned indirectly in 1 Chronicles 10:13-14.28

Even though most scholars agree with the argument that Saul’s sins in 1 Chronicles

10:13-14 refer to the sins detailed in Samuel, their views are different in regard to how the

general statements in 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 relate to the texts depicting Saul’s sins in

Samuel.29 For example, the phrase, “against the word of the Lord which he kept not” may

speak of Saul’s sin with respect to the destruction of Amalek (Japhet). This phrase also may

point to the sin of offering the sacrifice himself without waiting for Samuel in 1 Samuel

13:13-14 (Willi). By contrast, this phrase may indicate these two sins, that is, the

performance of the sacrifice and violation of the Lord’s commandment to destroy Amalek.

Thus, those who assume this phrase as a general statement consider two sins as the cause of

Saul’s death: “against the word of the Lord, which he kept not,” and “and also for asking

counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it” in 1 Samuel 28. In addition, the

26 Talmon, “1 and 2 Chronicles,” 370. 27 Arkroyd thinks that 1 Chr 10:13b is an exegetical comment like a gloss, added by later writer. See Ackroyd, Chronicler, 313-23. 28 Dillard indicates, “The Chronicler’s adherence to a ‘theology of immediate retribution’ provides his dominant compositional technique, particularly formative in his reshaping of the history of Judah after the schism…. For the Chronicler sin always brings judgment and disaster, while obedience and righteousness yield the fruit of peace and prosperity” (165). See Dillard, “Reward and Punishment,” 164-72; and see also Williamson, Israel in the Books of Chronicles, 67-68. 29 Zalewski summarizes it clearly. See Zalewski, “The Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul,” 457.

10

matter of “unfaithfulness” (l[m) may be mentioned in order to point out Saul’s failure to

destroy Amalek in 1 Samuel 15. In a word, three kinds of sins are referred to as the cause of

the Saul’s death.30

Why did the Chronicler portray Saul so tersely by only one chapter (1 Chr 10)? Why

did the Chronicler arrange 1 Chronicles 10 in this way by positioning this chapter between

the lists of the Israelites (1 Chr 1–9 ) and narrative section (1 Chr 10–2 Chr 36) in the book of

Chronicles? It shows the rhetorical strategy of the Chronicler.

Both the genealogy of Judah (1 Chr 1–9) and narratives (1 Chr 10–2 Chr 36) in

Chronicles are connected with each other by the story of Saul’s narrative (1 Chr 10),31 which

especially precedes the story of David’s coronation in Hebron over all Israel, (1 Chr 11:1–3;

2 Sam 5:1–3) and which also follows the genealogies of dwellers of Jerusalem (including

priests and the Levites) after the exile (1 Chr 9:2–34) in relation to the post-exilic community

in Jerusalem. It is interesting that Saul’s family line (1 Chr 9:35–44) is positioned between

these two.32 This means that the Saul’s narrative functions as connecting those who serve the

Jerusalem temple and its cult with the Davidic dynasty which founds the temple and cultic

system.33 Actually, the ensuing story of David is focused on building the temple and its

cult.34

30 See also Boda, 1-2 Chronicles, 108. 31 Talmon, “1 and 2 Chronicles,” 369. 32 Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History, 18-9; Walters, “Saul of Gibeon,” 72-5. 33 See Wright, “The Founding Father,” 45-59. 34 It is noteworthy that Riley indicates that the Chronicler gave a cultic sense to the words such as vrd, l[m, and lnk. See Riley, King and Cultus, 33; Duke provides a notable outline of 1 Chronicles 11-29. According to Duke, the Chronicler underscores the fact that David builds his kingdom and cult, showing alternating patterns. This also seems to support the function of Saul’s narrative to connect those who serve the temple and its cult with the ensuing David narratives. Duke outlines 1 Chr 11-29 as follows: 1 Chronicles 11-12: kingdom (capturing Jerusalem; support from all Israel) 1 Chronicles 13: cult (attempt to transport the ark) 1 Chronicles 14: kingdom (military victories) 1 Chronicles 15-17: cult (bringing the ark to Jerusalem and David’s desire to build a house for it) 1 Chronicles 18-20: kingdom (military victories) 1 Chronicles 21-29: cult (preparations for the temple)

11

Furthermore, we should note that there are two concise genealogies related to Saul

before 1 Chronicles 10. One is of the Benjaminite genealogy in 1 Chronicles 7:6–12, which

does not refer to Saul, and the other is a duplicate of that Benjaminite in 1 Chronicles 8:1–40,

which does refer to Saul (1 Chr 8:33). Why does the Chronicler mention the Benjaminite

genealogy twice in his genealogical list (1 Chronicles 1–10)? Stanley Walters suggests that it

displays the connection of Saul with Gibeon, not Gibeah.35 Walters notes Saul’s family

connected with Gibeon (as a place) rather than with the Benjaminite itself. Walters argues

that the Saulides could be regarded as not ethnic Benjaminites but geographical ones for 1

Chronicles 8:28-29 displays Saul’s origin in Gibeon (v.29) by contrasting with Jerusalem

(v.28).36 Another answer can be found in 1 Chronicles 9:2–34, which is the only reference in

the whole book of Chronicles to speak about an actual return from the Babylonian exile, and

which depicts worship in Jerusalem after the exile. This is concerned with the following

genealogical line of Saul in 1 Chronicles 9:35–44 (a duplicate of Saul’s genealogy in 1 Chr

8:29–40). Thus, even though 1 Chronicles 9:2–34 precedes 9:35–44, actually the former

follows the latter in the historical sequence. These texts contrast with one another because, in

the perspective of life and death, the priests and the Levites (1 Chr 9:2-34) returned to

Jerusalem and gained a new life in their land while Saul and his family line (1 Chr 9:35–44)

fell down into death.37 In any case, Saul’s story clearly reveals the connection between those

who serve the temple and its cult and the Davidic dynasty which would found the temple and

its cult by positioning Saul’s narrative between them.

If so, why does the Chronicler’s narrative begin with Saul? James Trotter

summarizes three recent interpretations of 1 Chronicles 10 dealing with Saul’s reign and his

See Duke, “A Rhetorical Approach,” 121. 35 Walters, “Saul of Gibeon,” 61-76. 36 Walters, “Saul of Gibeon,” 71. 37 Walters, “Saul of Gibeon,” 69-75.

12

death.38 The first interpretation is that the function of the story of Saul’s death is to see it as

providing a past for David’s kingdom. For example, Sara Japhet insists that this chapter set

up a continuum between the reign of David and the past of Israel.39 In other words, a line of

continuity is created by combining the anointing of David with Saul’s death. The second one

sees this chapter as an introduction of the story of David. For instance, Saul Zalewski does

not think that the Saul’s story simply provides a past for the David’s kingdom. Zalewski

recognizes that the core of the Saul’s story lies in 1 Chronicles 10:13–14, which attributes the

death of Saul to the Lord. Thus he asserts that the Chronicler underscores the legitimacy of

the transfer of Saul’s kingship to David – I agree with this view.40 The third is to see Saul’s

story as an independent unit that has nothing to do with David’s following narrative.41 For

example, Rudolph Mosis argues that the Chronicler’s history does not begin with Saul’s story

but with the reign of David. Mosis insists that David’s story as an independent unit functions

as a paradigm of exile and return, representing Saul as the embodiment of flaws that brought

disaster on Israel.42 In any case, these three interpretations indicate that there is no universal

formula for drawing out the Chronicler’s intention. In this regard, we should admit that our

understanding of the author’s intention has a tentative validity. Nevertheless, the attempt to

find the meaning of a text is surely helpful to us.

In legitimating the transfer of Saul’s kingship to David, the Chronicler seems to have

conceived faithfulness or unfaithfulness to God as one of most significant factors. Of the

38 Trotter, “Reading, Readers,” 299-303. 39 Japhet, I & II chronicles, 230. 40 Zalewski, “The Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul,” 449-67. 41 Ackroyd and Williamson in line with Mosis, even though they have some differences in details, are primarily similar to that of Mosis. See Ackroyd, Chronicler, 313-323; and Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, quoted by Trotter in “Reading, Readers,” 302. 42 Mosis, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, 17-43, quoted by Trotter in “Reading, Readers,” 302.

13

accounts of Saul’s death between 1 Chronicles 10 and 1 Samuel 31,43 therefore, the most

important difference is the reference that Saul died for his unfaithfulness to God in 1

Chronicles 10:13. We cannot find the equivalent of this expression in 1 Samuel 31:12.

Walters here provides us an insightful understanding of Chronicles.44 The Hebrew word,

l[m occurs a few times in Chronicles among which three occurrences in particular are

significant because it reveals the critical viewpoint of the Chronicler.

1. 1 Chr 9:1, `~l'([]m;B. lb,Þb'l. Wlïg>h' hd"²WhywI

(“And Judah was taken into exile in Babylon because of their unfaithfulness”) 2. 1 Chr 10:13, … hw"ëhyB;( l[;äm' rv<åa] ‘Al[]m;(B. lWaªv' tm'Y"åw:

(“So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the Lord…”) 3. 2 Chr 36:14, … l[;m;ê k-l['m.li WBår>hi ‘~['h'w> ~ynIÜh]Koh; yrE’f'-lK' ~G:û

(“All the leading priests and the people also were exceedingly unfaithful”) Indeed, the list of the returnees to Jerusalem (1 Chr 9) opens with Judah’s

unfaithfulness to the Lord (1 Chr 9:1) and the narrative section (1 Chr 10–2 Chr 36) in

Chronicles closes with the leading priests’ and the people’s unfaithfulness (2 Chr 36:14).

Saul’s unfaithfulness to the Lord (1 Chr 10:13) is positioned between them. Thus, the

Chronicler composes his book by referring to unfaithfulness (that is, l[m) as the reason for

Judah’s exile.45

Accordingly, we should note the word, l[m frequently employed by the Chronicler

because it contains Chronicler’s principal theological message. Of course, we cannot build up

a theology based on one Hebrew word. However this word, l[m should be examined in that

it must be a building block constituting Chronicler’s main theology. Actually, Saul’s l[m in 43 For more discussion on the textual characteristics in the text of 1 Chr 10 and 1 Sam 31, see Ho, “Conjectures and Refutations,” 82-106 (esp. 85-95).; and for David’s responses regarding Saul’s death, see Endres, Millar, and Burns, Chronicles and Its Synoptic Parallels, 51-52. According to authors, it is divided as follows: 1 Chronicles 10:1-14// 1 Samuel 31:1-13; David Learns of Saul’s Death-2 Sam 1:1-16; David Lament over Saul and Jonathan-2 Sam 1:17-27; David Made King over Judah-2 Sam 2:1-7; David Fights the House of Saul-2 Sam 2:8-3:1. 44 Walters, “Saul of Gibeon,” 61. 45 Walters, “Saul of Gideon,” 63-65.

14

1 Chronicles 10 provides a paradigm for the ensuing individual kings and the whole

community.

This word, l[m describes events deviating from the God’s law, that is, acts of

iniquity. We can find this word four times in 1 Chronicles (1 Chr 2:7; 5:25; 9:1; 10:13 – we

should note the last one, 1 Chr 10:13), and 12 times in 2 Chronicles (2 Chr 12:2; 26:16, 18;

28:19 [x2], 22; 29:6, 19; 30:7; 33:19; 36:14 [x2]). So that, l[m occurs 16 times in 1 and 2

Chronicles, which are almost one fourth of the 63 occurrences in the OT.46 Surprisingly, we

cannot see any usage of l[m in Samuel and Kings. How can we explain this occurrence in

Chronicles or the absence of this occurrence in Samuel-Kings?

The Chronicler employs this word in relation to both individuals and community.47

For instance, Uzziah (2 Chr 26:26, 18), Ahaz (2 Chr 28:19, 22; 29:19), and Manasseh (2 Chr

33:19) as individuals may be guilty of l[m, doing the act of iniquity, and present

communities (2 Chr 12:2) and the past communities (2 Chr 29:6; 30:7) also seem to be

related to l[m. The foremost thing is the usage of this word in Saul’s last war and his death.

In 1 Chronicles 10:13, we can read that “Saul died for his unfaithfulness [l[m], he was

unfaithful to the Lord.” With respect to this reference, Walters proposes that the Chronicler

“sees Saul as a figure of God’s people in their disobedience.”48 In addition, this word was

written for the priests and leaders of Israel’s last king Zedekiah (2 Chr 36:14, “All the reading

priests and the people also were exceedingly unfaithful”). Consequently, it indicates that the

Chronicler, in the narrative section, opens with Israel’s act of l[m and then closes with an act

of l[m.

46 See Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement,” 96. (esp. n.9) 47 Walters, “Saul of Gibeon,” 65-67. 48 Walters, “Saul of Gibeon,” 64.

15

Furthermore, if we admit the priority of the temple in Chronicles, we would see this

word l[m is much more significant in that we can find three usages of l[m in relation to the

misuse of the temple and its equipment.49 First, Uzziah did an act of l[m when he burned

incense on the altar of incense in the temple (2 Chr 26:16-18). He was stricken with leprosy

there because he was unfaithful to the Lord. Even though Uzziah was the king of Judah, he

should not have burned incense because he had no right to do so. The right belonged to the

descendants of Aaron, that is, the Levites. Second, Ahaz also did acts of l[m when he

decreased the furnishings in the temple, closed the doors of the temple, and set up altars and

high places to offer sacrifices to other gods (2 Chr 28:24-25). Thus, God had humbled Judah

(2 Chr 28:19) because Ahaz was much more unfaithful to God. Third, both the leading priests

and the people were exceedingly unfaithful to the Lord God, which was mentioned in 2 Chr

36:14. As a result, they were captured by King Nebuchadnezzar. The whole nation of Judah

had experienced the Babylonian exile. In a word, all of these instances indicate that l[m was

related to the abuse of the temple and its equipment.

3) The Rhetorical Situation

The rhetorical situation is concerned with the audience of the book of Chronicles.

Who is the audience? What situation led to the Chronicler’s utterance? The audience50 would

recognize their current situation as God’s mercy for the Israelites returned to the land and

their past event, the exile as Yahweh’s judgment due to their ancestor’s sin, especially

Judah’s kings’ sins. In particular, their identity as God’s people would be removed by

destruction of Jerusalem (B.C. 587/86) for their identity markers such as king, temple, and

49 Walters, “Saul of Gibeon,” 65. 50 For the audience, see Boda, 1-2 Chronicles, 8-10.

16

worship would disappear with the destruction of Jerusalem.51 However, Cyrus’ edict led to

their returning to the land. The returnees from Babylon to Jerusalem would raise a question of

their identity.

The Chronicler’s reworking of the history of Israel is focused on the post-exilic

community. Those who had lived in the post-exilic community would raise some questions in

relation to the situation of their returning to Jerusalem. What is the nature of the post-exilic

community when it finds itself under the custody of an imperial power like the Persian

Empire? Where is its ancestral faith and tradition? Furthermore, how can a subject people to

Persian Empire be God’s people? Some people may at once resist being a subject people, so

they would feel the pressures to be nationalist, to move to rebellion, and to insist on

independence. For example, we can see this atmosphere in an event related to Nehemiah who

lived in the post-exilic period. The adversaries of Nehemiah suggested that he was probably

thinking of being a king of Judah (Neh 6:6–7). Thus, this view would be attractive to some in

the community who had lived in the Persian era. On the other hand, other people in the post-

exilic community may be more interested in their religious life, accepting their political

situation, so that they would recognize the tension between the political demand and religious

faithfulness.52 Thus, the Chronicler in this situation would compose his work, considering

those people in the post-exilic community.

Ackroyd points out that the Chronicler’s work was an attempt to define a different

nature of Israel in the pre-exilic and the post-exilic eras. He recognizes that “the well-defined

system of monarchical government of the pre-exilic period had given way to one in which,

eventually, the rule was to be that of high priests, though this does not become explicit for

51 Boda, 1-2 Chronicles, 8. 52 Ackroyd, Chronicler, 13.

17

two centuries, perhaps more.”53 Ackroyd goes on to indicate that “Israel as a politico-

religious unit shows a situation in which religion is very much concentrated on the

community; it is expressed particularly clearly in the association which exists between temple

and kingdom.”54 In any case, it is obvious that the post-exilic community is located in a

provincial district in the Persian Empire.55

The situation of the post-exilic community would lead to the question of continuity

in relation to the identity of Israel, so that the post-exilic community would need to be

familiar with the past of Israel when the community itself attempted to understand their

contemporary experience, which could be expressed by contrasting the past with the future in

the present situation: “the consideration of how and why the past led to disaster – a marked

theme of the Deuteronomistic writings – and hence to direct or implicit indications of how

the future is to be organized.”56

However, even more people in the post-exilic community would need to assure that

their contemporary situation could be understood to cohere with the past, “representing a

revision of its values but a continuity with them.”57 For this reason, as McKenzie points out,

this time of building the temple is “the era to which the Chronicler appeals as the model for

the institutions that are basic to Israel’s existence as a people and that he wishes to see

restored in his day.”58

Furthermore, the post-exilic community was interested in the continuation of the

Davidic dynasty, even though there was no king in Israel at that post-exilic time. For this

reason, we can see that the Chronicler emphasizes the function of the Davidic monarchy,

(especially David and Solomon). Actually, David was the founder of the cultic system and 53 Ackroyd, Chronicler, 128. 54 Ackroyd, Chronicler, 130. 55 Ackroyd, Chronicler, 131. 56 Ackroyd, Chronicler, 134. 57 Ackroyd, Chronicler, 134. 58 McKenzie, 1-2 Chronicles, 251.

18

the preparer of building the temple, and Solomon was the completer of the cult and of

building the temple. And the ensuing Davidic rulers should be the maintainers of the cult and

the protectors of the temple, even if not every king did so. Thus, the Chronicler significantly

represents the continuity of the cult and the temple by describing the Davidic rulers like

David and Solomon.

In this regard, it is appropriate that Louis Jonker describes Chronicles as “reforming

history. According to Jonker, the books of Chronicles are “an attempt to reformulate and

sanitize the older traditions about the past, as well as an attempt to reformulate the identity of

God’s people in the changed socio-historical circumstances of the last Persian era.”59 The

reforming history depicts the intention of the work. The motivation to reformulate the identity

of God’s people, especially the Israelites returned to Jerusalem from the exile would lead the

Chronicler to write Saul’s story like that in 1 Chronicles 10. How to write would depend on

the situation of the audience of Chronicler. Thus, the Chronicler would write Saul’s narrative,

reminding of the past and anticipating the future of the Israelites in the post-exilic period. The

Israelites would want to restore their temple and cultic system in the post-exilic era. This

would be reflected in Chronicles. This is why the Chronicler tersely mentioned Saul’s story

only in one chapter, legitimating the transfer of Saul’s kingship to David, and highlighting

Davidic dynasty as the founders of temple and cultic systems.60

Therefore, the rhetorical situation is concerned with problems that the post-exilic

community confronted under Persian rule. The post-exilic community would wish they were

still God’s people, by keeping their past traditions and their positions in worship and

faithfulness to the Lord.61

59 Jonker, “Reforming History,” 24-25. 60 See Kalimi, “Was the Chronicler a Historian?,” 88-89. 61 See Ackroyd, Chronicler, 280.

19

4) Rhetorical Effectiveness & the Theological Function

The rhetorical effectiveness is evaluated by whether the rhetorical utterance is fitting

response to the exigence or whether the utterance effectively modified the exigence.62 This is

related to both the speaker and audience. The Chronicler provides a reforming history of

Israel for the audience who live in Jerusalem and who want to understand their current

situation with their past. Thus, the Chronicler seems to have achieved his goal to persuade the

audience, justifying the transfer of Saul’s kingship to David by the account of Saul’s death in

1 Chronicles 10.

If so, what is the Chronicler’s intention of Saul’s narrative in 1 Chronicles 10? What

is the theological function of Saul’s narrative? This rhetorical analysis provides an answer for

this inquiry. In examining the rhetoric of the text, the Chronicler stresses the legitimacy of the

transfer of Saul’s kingship to David through some arguments: 1) Saul’s story (1 Chr 10)

functions as a bridge combining the genealogy section (1 Chr 1-9) with narrative section (1

Chr 11-2 Chr 36); 2) Saul’s narrative functions as a connecting point of the performers (the

priests and the Levites) and founders (Davidic dynasty) of temple cults, by positioning it

between the genealogies of the priests and the Levites returned to Jerusalem and Davidic

dynasty; and 3) Saul’s death as punishment was initiated by the Lord. Particularly, Saul’s

l[m in 1 Chronicles 10 provides a paradigm for both individual and community such as the

following kings of Judah, and the leading priests and people. Thus, 1 Chronicles 10 is not

simply recorded for the purpose of informing Saul’s death, which must be written with the

manifest intention that justifies David’s kingship.

Therefore, the story of Saul’s death precedes David’s narrative with a paradigm of

how dynasties fall, legitimating David’s ensuing kingship. From the Chronicler’s perspective,

62 See Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 38.

20

a dynasty falls when an individual king fails to be faithful to the Lord. The sentence that

“Saul was not faithful to the Lord” echoes throughout the whole book of Chronicles.

IV. CONCLUSION

In sum, I have argued that the story of Saul’s death (1 Chr 10), as the first narrative

in the whole book of Chronicles, has the theological function of legitimating the transfer of

Saul’s kingship to David. From the Chronicler’s perspective, this is deeply related to “the

faithfulness or the unfaithfulness to the Lord.” Furthermore, the Chronicler’s intention of

short composition of Saul’s narrative reflects the rhetorical situation between the Chronicler

and the post-exilic community.

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackroyd, Peter R. The Chronicler in His Age, JSOTSup 101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1991. Alt, Albrecht. “The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine.” In Essays on the Old

Testament History and Religion, 171-238. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 1. 1. (1968) 1-14. Boda, Mark J. 1-2 Chronicles. Carol Stream, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers, 2010. Dillard, Raymond B. “Reward and Punishment in Chronicles: The Theology of Immediate Retribution.” Westminster Theological Journal 46 (1984) 164-72. Dorsey, David A. The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis- Malachi. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Duke, Rodney K. “A Rhetorical Approach to Appreciating the Books of Chronicles.” In The

Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture, JSOTSup 263, 100-35. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Matt P. Graham. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Edelman, Diana Vikander, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, JSOTSup 121.

Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Endres, John C., William R. Millar, and John Barclay Burns. Chronicles and Its Synoptic

Parallels in Samuel, Kings, and Related Biblical Texts. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1998.

Graham, Matt P., and Steven L. McKenzie, The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and

Texture, JSOTSup 263. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Greenwood, David. “Rhetorical Criticism and Formgeschichte: Some Methodological Considerations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1970) 418-26. Gottwald, Norman K. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel 1250-1050 B.C.E. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Book, 1979. Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story, JSOTSup 14. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. Ho, Craig Y. S. “Conjectures and Refutations: Is 1 Samuel XXXI 1-13 really the Source of 1 Chronicles X 1-12?.” Vetus Testamentum 45 (1995) 82-106. House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

22

Howard, David M. “Rhetorical Criticism in Old Testament Studies.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 (1994) 87-104. Humphreys, W. Lee. “From Tragic Hero to Villain: A Study of the Figure of Saul and the

Development of 1 Samuel.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1982) 95-117.

____________. “The Rise and Fall of King Saul: A Study of an Ancient Narrative Stratum in 1 Samuel.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 18 (1980) 74-90.

____________. “The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9- 31.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (1978) 18-27. Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles, OTL. London: SCM Press, 1993. Johnstone, William. “Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles.” In Chronicles

and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application, JSOTSup 275, 90-114. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Jonker, Louis. “Reforming History: The Hermeneutical Significance of the Books of Chronicles.” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 21-44. Kalmi, Issac. The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

_________. “Was the Chronicler a Historian?” In The Chronicler as Historian, JSOTSup 238, 73-89. Edited by Matt P. Graham, Kenneth G. Hoglud, and Steve L. McKenzie. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Kessler, Martin. “A Methodological Setting for Rhetorical Criticism.” In Art and Meaning:

Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, 1-19. Edited by D. J. A. Clines, D. M. Gunn, and A. Hauser. Sheffieild: JSOT Press, 1982.

Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. McKenzie, Steve L. 1 and 2 Chronicles. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004. Mitchell, Christine. “The Dialogism of Chronicles.” In The Chronicler as Author: Studies in

Text and Texture, JSOTSup 263, 311-26. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Matt P. Graham. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Riley, William, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “1 and 2 Chronicles.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible, 365-72.

Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1987.

23

Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Trotter, James M. “Reading, Readers and Reading Readers Reading the Account of Saul’s

Death in 1 Chronicles 10.” In The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture, JSOTSup 263, 294-310. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Matt P. Graham. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. Translated by David M. G. Stalker, 2 Vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1962-65. Walters, Stanley D. “Saul of Gibeon,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 52 (1991) 61-76. Williamson, H. G. M. Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Wright, John W. “Founding Father: The Structure of the Chronicler’s David Narrative.” Journal of Biblical Literature 117.1 (1998) 45-59. Wullener, Wilhelm. “Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking Us?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly

49 (1987) 448-63. Zalewski, Saul. “The Purpose of the Story of the Death of Saul in 1 Chronicles x.” Vetus Testamentum 39 (1989) 449-67.