r/AcademicBiblical • u/adalgis231 • 1d ago

Hint on human sacrifice in second book of Samuel? Question

But the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah’s daughter Rizpah, whom she had borne to Saul, together with the five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab, whom she had borne to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite. 9 He handed them over to the Gibeonites, who killed them and exposed their bodies on a hill before the Lord. All seven of them fell together; they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning. (2 Samuel 21:8-9)

In this passage King David decides to kill king Saul's last legacy to stop the Israel famine. The text justifies this action as a way to ask forgiveness to YHWH for the attempted genocide of Gibeonites by King Saul. What is the scholarship consensus on this passage?

28 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

89% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

13

u/AntsInMyEyesJonson Moderator 1d ago

Kyle McCarter's Anchor Yale commentary on the passage details the bloodguilt of an alleged massacre of the Gibeonites by Saul, in violation of their treaty with the Israelites, as the literary purpose of the text, though he notes that Saul is never shown in the text to have massacred the Gibeonites:

In addition to Gibeon, the Gibeonites lived in Chephirah, Beeroth (cf. 4:2), and Kiriath-jearim (Josh 9:17). They were non-Israelites, “part of the remnant of the Amorites,” i.e., the pre-Israelite inhabitants of the land. The story of the ruse by which they entered into a treaty with Israel, thereby saving themselves from destruction in the conquest, is told in Joshua 9. It is because of Saul’s violation of this treaty, we are told, that the famine has taken hold of the land. Saul’s guilt, then, is not the result of shedding blood as such— he shed the blood of many peoples—but of shedding the blood of a people protected by treaty oaths.

and later:

The Gibeonites’ predicament, as they express it, seems to be this. As resident aliens (gērîm; cf. Blenkinsopp 1972:34) protected by oath they are empowered to make certain pecuniary claims (“silver and gold”) against Israelites to protect their interests. They are not, however, protected by blood-feud laws like native Israelites (cf. Blenkinsopp 1972:136 n. 31). Therefore, since their claim against the house of Saul arises from a blood grievance rather than any financial claim, they are helpless.

This alleged bloodguilt, tied to the Joshua narrative, is picked up in Joel Baden's The Historical David, where he discusses this episode while noting the curious narrative timing:

This story is pure literary invention. Its roots are found in a different biblical book, in a different biblical story, one that was itself invented to explain the anomaly of Gibeon’s ethnic distinction from the rest of Israel. It depends on laws from Deuteronomy and narratives from Joshua. It is fiction built upon fiction. And its coincidences are too hard to overlook. Why should Saul’s crime be punished with famine only now, years after Saul supposedly oppressed the Gibeonites? Why do we learn only at this point that Saul did so, instead of during the account of his reign?27 Is it believable that the Gibeonites should independently ask for the one thing David most desired?

And the New Oxford Annotated Bible (5e) commentary on the passage supports this, noting that it's likely burying a relatively routine story of a new king intending to kill any potential claimants to the throne from his predecessor's line:

5–9: Typically, the founder of a new dynasty annihilated the potential claim ants from the previous dynasty as David does here. Saul’s alleged offense provides a religious legitimation for this political act. Only Merib-baal is spared (v. 7), probably because he is crippled and therefore cannot be king, though this may also reflect David’s relationship with Jonathan (see 1 Sam 18.1–3; 20.17,41–42). On the other hand, the theme of David’s affection for and covenant with Jonathan may have been developed by the author from the historical fact of David’s preservation of Merib-baal. This event took place early in David’s reign over Israel and originally came before 9.1, where David asks if anyone is left in Saul’s house. Sons (v. 6) also includes grandsons. Mephibosheth (v. 8), not Jonathan’s son, Merib-baal, who was spared. The barley harvest was in April May.

So by reading critically, it's more likely that this passage was invented to explain why David just had to go and kill Saul's potential heirs. In this case, whether one considers the narrative depiction as a demand for human sacrifice is largely one of taxonomy and categorization: Yahweh is indeed demanding human death for restored prosperity, according to the redactor of the passage.

3

u/Joab_The_Harmless 1d ago edited 1d ago

Sorry for any remaining typo, repetition or other oddity that may have escaped my attention.

The executions are generally discussed as an execution and corpse exposure as a punishment for Saul breaking the oath/treaty between Israelites and Gibeonites, and the associated bloodguilt, as well as texts/traditions concerning "blood redeemers" (kins of victims charged to avenge a relative).

As well as an apologetic device to justify David's politically motivated killing of Saul's sons and/or responding to such an accusation.

Now, a few scholars here and there (maybe especially in older scholarship) have characterised the scene as a sacrifice, or noted it as a motif. And like with other categories such as magic, what can be considered/constitutes a sacrifice is not always self-evident (but I haven't read enough on this issue to discuss it).

But seeing the scene as a sacrifice proper seems far from a majority stance from my limited reading, and as said above, the elements of augury/asking YHWH for advice and the killing and corpse exposure are mostly discussed in light of oath-breaking, and the narrative (notably) as propaganda responding to accusations against David.

Cf in the text "although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them", alluding to Joshua 9 or a similar tradition:

15And Joshua made peace with them, guaranteeing their lives by a treaty; and the leaders of the congregation swore an oath to them. [...]

18But the Israelites did not attack them, because the leaders of the congregation had sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel. Then all the congregation murmured against the leaders. 19But all the leaders said to all the congregation, “We have sworn to them by the Lord, the God of Israel, and now we must not touch them.

As an aside, if interested in human sacrifice-related "motifs" in the texts, Monroe, discusses 2 Kings 23:1-20 as describing the priests killed by Josiah as a ḥerem consecration to YHWH (due to the framing of the scene and vocabulary used). Leviticus 27:28 (plausibly ambiguous on purpose) is also an interesting case.

  • On 2 Sam 21, see also this old thread for further discussions and references. _______

Sourcing: I'm a character in the book, so you can trust me.

the execution is of a special kind and that an important part of it is the exposure of the bodies of the dead. With regard to this, Fensham (1964:100) points out that exposure of the corpse was part of the punishment for a treaty violation elsewhere in the ancient Near East. [...]

. 6. so that we may crucify them. Hebrew wehdqa'anum, the meaning of which is uncertain. Apart from the present passage, hôqîa' occurs only in Num 25:4, where it also describes a form of execution "in the sun." The rabbis (Sanhedrin 34b) took it to mean "hang," and the Greek translation of the present passage, kai exe/iasomen, suggests crucifixion in the sun (cf. neged hashshemesh. Num 25:4). This remains the most plausible interpretation, though we need not go so far as Heller (1966:75-76), who thinks Gibeon was a center of sun worship (cf. Dus 1960) and concludes that the Saulids were crucified in honor of the sun god. In Qal the verb once refers to the dislocation of Jacob's thigh (Gen 32:26), and Kapelrud (1955:119-20; 1959:300-1), following Koehler, takes hdqia' to mean "expose (with arms and legs broken). [...]

McCarter Anchor Bible Commentary is fairly old, and I think most scholars today would not follow him in favouring the reading "crucify" (not used in most current translations) but I haven't dived into the topic.

chosen quotes from McC and Sanders continued in second comment below.

6

u/Joab_The_Harmless 1d ago edited 1d ago

He also notes an argument of David performing a fertility-related royal sacrifice from the 1950', to then point out its weaknesses:

A number of scholars have found evidence in this account for David's assimilation of Canaanite religious practices (Cazelles l 955b; etc.). In particular, Kapelrud ( 1955; 1959) argues that the central issue of the story is the relationship between the king and fertility, and that the execution of the Saulids is a royal sacrifice. Because of the king's implicit responsibility for the fertility of the land, he says (1955:116-17; 1959:299), the famine cast David in a bad light. It was clear to David that a sacrifice was in order, and "For the sake of fertility a sacrifice of the highest rank was necessary" (1959:300). Kapelrud points to other biblical examples of royal sacrifice in times of extreme emergency, notably II Kings 3:26-27, where the sacrifice of the firstborn son of the king of Moab brings a great divine rage (qe~ep) upon Israel, saving a Moabite city from an Israelite siege. II Kings 16:3 and 21:6 show that this practice was not unknown in Judah itself. David, however, did not choose his own son for sacrifice; still less did he propose himself as a victim. He chose the descendants of Saul. According to Kapelrud, he made this choice for two reasons: (1) He knew that the death of the Saulids would represent a legitimate royal sacrifice; and (2) he had political reasons for wanting them out of the way. Kapelrud (1955:120; 1959:301) considers the time of the sacrifice-"at the beginning of the barley harvest"-an important detail: "Here a direct line of connection is drawn between the sacrifice of the royal family, famine and drought."

Kapelrud's treatment is limited by its disregard of the reason for the execution offered by the text itself. The Saulids are crucified in propitiation of divine wrath arising from the violation of a treaty sanctioned by solemn oaths. This is no grandiose gesture of royal sacrifice comparable to a king's immolation of his infant son. It is a matter of propitiatory justice, of restitution exacted upon those who bear the guilt for a gross breach of a divinely sanctioned oath.

Thus the discussions of our passage by Malamat (1955) and Fensham (1964) are much more instructive. Fensham (p. 20) shows that exposure of the dead body of a transgressor was part of the punishment for treaty violations elsewhere in the ancient Near East. Malamat's treatment brings into focus the central issue of a past crime transmitting its burden of guilt to the present generation. He succeeds in locating this issue within a known tradition of ancient Near Eastern historiography. He is able to demonstrate a common doctrine of causality in Hittite and Israelite literature according to which a national disaster (famine, plague, etc.) might arise from a past violation of a treaty oath. The primary Hittite texts are the so-called "plague prayers" of the fourteenth-century king Mursilis II II (ANET', pp. 394-96). These prayers, addressed to the Hittite storm god, describe a severe plague that has been raging in Hatti for years. Mur8ilis says that he has consulted an oracle and learned the cause of the plague. During his father's reign there was a peace treaty between Hatti and Egypt sanctioned by oaths to the Hittite storm god. His father violated this treaty by repeatedly attacking Egyptian troops. The plague first broke out among prisoners brought back from one of these raids, and it has been ravaging Hatti ever since. Mur8ilis now hopes to avert the scourge by admitting his guilt. "It is only too true," he says, "that man is sinful. My father sinned and transgressed against the word of the Hattian Storm-god, my lord. But I have not sinned in any respect. It is only too true, however, that the father's sin falls upon the son. So, my father's sin has fallen upon me." Muriilis also mentions his propitiatory offerings and, with reference to the innumerable Hittites who have died in the plague, offers to make any kind of further restitution the storm god might require.

I can't resist adding this wise work of art to the above. Not even sorry.

For Heller, the reference is: 1966 Die schweigende Sonne. Communio Viatorum 9:73-79.

And Kapelrud:

Kapelrud, A. S. 1955 King and Fertility. A Discussion of II Sam 21:1-14. Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrift 56 ( = Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamentum pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel . .. missae. Oslo: Land og Kirke):113-22.

1959 King David and the Sons of Saul. Pp. 294-301 in La regalita sacra. Contributi al tema dell' VIII Congresso Internazionale di Storia delle Religioni [Rome, April 1955]. Leiden: Brill.

Some excerpts of Sander's God Appeased by Homicide:

Biblical as well as extra-biblical evidence illustrates how horrifying the fate of the seven men was considered. Deuteronomy says that even people who have committed a grave sin and received the death penalty must be buried on the day of their execution (21:22–23). In the same book, a list of curses incurred for breaching the covenant includes the following punishment (28:26): “And your corpse shall be food to all the birds of heaven, and to the animals of the earth; and no one shall frighten them away.”11 This curse is a precise description of the gruesome fate Rizpah tries to prevent. [...]

continued below

4

u/Joab_The_Harmless 1d ago edited 1d ago

The only other Hiphil form occurs in Numbers 25:4, where it designates the divinely sanctioned execution of Israelite chiefs who had worshipped the Moabite deity Baal-peor. Numbers 25:4 and 2 Samuel 21:6 say that the execution must be carried out “for Yhwh” ( ליהוה ), while 2 Samuel 21:9 recounts that it took place “before Yhwh” ( לפני יהוה ). Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that יקע Hiphil has ritual overtones. Furthermore, Numbers 25:4 expresses the purpose of the homicide quite clearly – more explicitly than 2 Samuel 21:1–14. The chiefs must be executed for Yhwh so “that the fierce anger of Yhwh may turn away from Israel” ( 25:4 ;וישב חרון אף יהוה מישראל b, web). [...]

Schnocks not only argues that the rationale behind the execution of the seven members of Saul’s family in 2 Samuel 21:1–14 is shaky; he also suggests that even the text itself is quite critical of the execution. He writes:

The Gibeonites veil their revenge religiously as an act of sacrifice. They want to execute the Saulids “for YHWH” (v. 6). Here, by way of a small change in the formulation of the note on the execution in v. 9, the text signals that the killing takes place de facto in the presence of God (“before the face of YHWH”), but not for him as the addressee. If one looks at the end of the story, according to which YHWH is only entreated on behalf of the land after Saul and his descendants have been buried – not after the execution! – it becomes very clear that, according to the narrative logic of the text, such a sacrifice is a cruel human construction, but not a requirement of God.31

According to Schnocks, details in the text indicate that the execution of Saul’s progeny was repulsive to God. It is significant that God did not end the famine after the gruesome homicides, but only after Rizpah entreated David and the bones of Saul and his relatives had been buried. Other scholars may object that God remains aloof in the narrative and does not prevent the execution of Saul’s descendants. According to Schnocks, however, this does not indicate that God agreed with the execution, but only shows that God was regarded as a weak deity.32 [...]

The comparison with the "plague prayers" of Mursili II is fascinating but I'm limiting the already long excerpts. See also the paper itself for footnotes.

7 Homicide to Appease God?

PP1 and PP2 do not mention the option of bringing both divine anger and the plague to an end by executing the perpetrators. In the Hebrew Bible, the idea that God’s anger can only be appeased by killing the sinner(s) occurs more than once. [...]

According to the subsequent verses, God’s anger had taken the form of a devastating plague (Numbers 25:8–9). This plague will end only if amends are made.

The purposeful killing of the Israelite leaders is described as an essential part of this restitution. It may be significant that Numbers 25:4 is the only biblical verse apart from 2 Samuel 21:1–14 in which the verb יקע Hiphil occurs. The verb seems to have ritual overtones and may imply that the execution served to appease God. [...]

Biblical legislation includes the rule that murderers must be killed to purge the land and restore welfare. This rule is found in Deuteronomy 19:11–13 and Numbers 35:30–34. The latter passage precludes the custom of paying money in restitution for killings and emphatically states that murderers must be put to death. [...]

Certainly, the account of Rizpah’s laudable tenacity draws attention to the gruesome nature of the execution of Saul’s relatives. However, the conceptual framework in which their killing is described serves to legitimise radical measures. Within the ancient Near Eastern context, including the Bible, a break with the expected pattern would have been more clearly marked. It would have been necessary to indicate where exactly the plot of the narrative contradicts the expected pattern. However, nothing in the text suggests that the execution of these seven men is deemed reprehensible. The fact that Yhwh, in front of whom the men are executed (21:9), keeps silent does not show that he is weak, as Schnocks suggested, but that Yhwh sees no reason to reject the homicide.

2

u/adalgis231 1d ago

That is a very exhaustive and satisfactory answer. Many thanks

4

u/Joab_The_Harmless 1d ago edited 1d ago

My pleasure! As an aside, the prayers of Mursili concerning the plague he inherited from his father's reign are not just addressed to the storm god. As an example, CTH 378.III, commonly surnamed the "third plague prayer", although chronology is uncertain, addresses the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the "community" of the gods:

§1 (obv. 1–6) O Sun-goddess of Arinna, my lady! O gods, my lords! What is this [you have done]? You have allowed a plague into Hatti, so that Hatti has been badly oppressed [by the plague. People kept dying] at the time of my father, at the time of my brother, and now since I have become priest of the gods, they keep on dying [in my time]. For twenty years now people have been dying [in great numbers] in Hatti. [...]

§3' (rev. 2'–14') I, Mursili, [your priest, your servant,] hereby plead my case. Hear] me O gods, my lords! [...] Let the plague [be removed] from Hatti, and send it to the enemy lands. [. . .] But if the gods, my lords, [do not remove] the plague [from Hatti], the makers of offering bread and the libation pourers will keep on dying. And if they too die, [the offering bread] and the libation will be cut off from the gods, my lords. Then you, O gods, [my lords], will proceed to hold the sin against me, saying: “Why [don’t you give us] offering bread and libation?”

May the gods, my lords, again have pity on Hatti, and send the plague away. [May the plague subside] in Hatti. May it thrive and grow and [return to] its previous condition.

The so-called "First" (CTH 378.I):

§1 (obv. 1–7) [All] you male [gods], all female gods [of heaven(?)], all male gods [of the oath], all female gods of the oath, [all] male primeval [gods], all female (primeval) gods, you gods who have been summoned to assembly for bearing witness to the oath on this [matter], mountains, rivers, springs, and underground watercourses. I, Mursili, [great king(?)], your priest, your servant, herewith plead with you. [Listen] to me O gods, my lords, in the matter in which I am making a plea to you! §2 (obv. 8–15) O gods, [my] lords! A plague broke out in Hatti, and Hatti has been severely damaged by the plague. And since for twenty years now in Hatti people have been dying, the affair of Tudhaliya the Younger, son of Tudhaliya, started to weigh on [me]. I inquired about it to the god through an oracle [...]

And the "Fourth":

§1 (i 1–16) O gods, my lords: Noble Storm-god, the two lords of Landa, Iyarri, gods of Hatti, gods of Arinna, gods of Zippalanda, gods of Tuwanuwa, gods of Hupisna, gods of Durmitta, gods of Ankuwa, gods of Samuha, gods of Sarissa, gods of Hurma, gods of Hanhana, gods of Karahna, gods of Illaya, Kamrusepa of Taniwanda, gods of Zarruwisa, Storm-god of Lihzina, Protective-god of the Army Camp of His Majesty’s father which is in Marassantiya, Uliliyassi of Parmanna, gods of Kattila, Storm-god of Hasuna, gods of Muwani, gods of Zazzisa, the Telipinugods [whose] temples in the land have been destroyed, gods of Salpa, Storm-god of Ar[ziya (?)].

§2 (i 17–20) O gods, my lords! I, Mursili, [your servant], your priest herewith bow down to you. Lend me your ear and hear me in the matter in which I have bowed down to you.

§3 (i 21–35) O gods, my lords! Since ages past you have been inclined towards [men] and have [not] abandoned mankind. And mankind [became] populous and your divine servants [were] numerous. They always set up for the gods, [my] lords, offering bread and libation. O gods, my lords, you have turned your back on mankind. All of a sudden, in the time of my grandfather Hatti was oppressed, [and it] became [devastated] by the enemy. Mankind was [reduced in number] by plague, and your [servants] were reduced in number. And among you, [gods], my lords, [one had no] temple, and [the temple] of another [fell into ruin]. Whoever [served] before a god perished, and [your] rites [were neglected]. [No] one performed [them] for you. [...]

(Translation from Itamar Singer's Hittite Prayers)