Belial: Sexual Violence and Its Legal Remediation in the Deuteronomistic History PDF Free Download
1 / 169/169
100%
Marquette University Marquette University
e-Publications@Marquette e-Publications@Marquette
Dissertations (1934 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional
Projects
Belial: Sexual Violence and Its Legal Remediation in the Belial: Sexual Violence and Its Legal Remediation in the
Deuteronomistic History Deuteronomistic History
Samantha Jo Scott
Marquette University
Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Scott, Samantha Jo, "Belial: Sexual Violence and Its Legal Remediation in the Deuteronomistic History"
(2025).
Dissertations (1934 -)
. 3309.
https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/3309
BELIAL: SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND ITS LEGAL REMEDIATION IN THE
DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY
by
Samantha J. Scott, B.A., M.A.
A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School,
Marquette University,
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
May 2025
ABSTRACT
BELIAL: SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND ITS LEGAL REMEDIATION IN THE
DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY
Samantha J. Scott, B.A., M.A.
Marquette University, 2024
At first glance, the pericopes of Judges 19–20, 1 Samuel 2:12–36, and 1 Samuel
30 have little in common with one another. Yet, several peculiar threads are interwoven
in each pericope that signal a common bond between these narratives. In each account,
the characterization of the antagonists and their deeds are the same. In Judg 19–20, בנ י ־
בל י על , lit. “sons of belial,” are responsible for the rape of the Levite’s concubine. In 1
Sam 2:12–36, Eli’s sons are called בנ י ־בליעל , lit. “sons of belial,” and accused of
exploiting the so-called gathering women. In 1 Sam 30, a portion of David’s men who are
called belial ( בל י על ) make a proposal that capitalizes on the sexual abuse of Israelite
daughters in the wake of an Amalekite raid.
In addition to the striking correlation of belial and sexual violence against women
in each of these pericopes, there are several more peculiarities shared between them. First
is the use of belial itself. The uncertain etymology and linguistic ambiguity of the term
have famously puzzled interpreters. There is little consensus on its precise meaning, and
the various interpretations of the term in later recensions of the biblical text obfuscate the
shared usage of the term in these pericopes. Second, although these pericopes are replete
with allusions to Pentateuchal legislation, interpreters have not considered a shared
motivation underlying the incorporation of these allusions. Finally, although it is widely
accepted that editorial activity has significantly shaped each pericope, there has not yet
been an attempt to trace common scribal motivations behind their literary development.
This study aims to resolve these collective difficulties by arguing that Judg 19–20,
1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 engaged in shared legal reflection. I propose that the
intricate legal themes, allusions to sexual violence, complex text-critical issues, and
evocation of belial in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 are the product of legal
exegesis that sought to correlate belial with sexual violence against women.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. i
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................1
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1
II. STATE OF RESEARCH ....................................................................................2
Legal Exegesis .............................................................................................2
The Elusive Belial ........................................................................................8
Violence Against Women and Biblical Law .............................................14
Judges and 1 Samuel in Current Research .................................................18
III. RATIONALE AND METHOD OF THE PRESENT STUDY .......................23
IV. OUTLINE OF THE PRESENT STUDY ........................................................25
CHAPTER 2: LEGAL EXEGESIS IN JUDG 19–20 ........................................................28
I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................28
II. STATE OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................29
Law and Order in Judges 19–20 ................................................................30
Deuteronomy 22:21 in Judges 19–20 ........................................................33
III. LITERARY ANALYSIS .................................................................................37
Judg 19:1–3 –– A Levite and his Concubine .............................................37
Judg 19:22–28 –– The Crisis at Gibeah .....................................................44
Judg 19:30–Judg 20:13 –– Fallout and Trial .............................................52
IV. LEGAL EXEGESIS IN JUDG 19–20: ASSESSING ITS FEATURES AND
CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................................54
Summary ....................................................................................................54
Tracing Legal Exegesis in Judg 19–20 ......................................................55
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................58
CHAPTER 3: LEGAL EXEGESIS IN 1 SAM 2:12–36 ...................................................61
I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................61
II. STATE OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................62
Tracing the Purpose of Law in 1 Sam 2 .....................................................65
Priestly and Juridical Authority in Deut 17:8–13 ......................................67
III. LITERARY ANALYSIS .................................................................................71
1 Sam 2:12–21 ...........................................................................................71
1 Sam 2:22–25 ...........................................................................................74
Interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 ................................................................76
1 Sam 2:26–36 ...........................................................................................87
IV. LEGAL EXEGESIS IN 1 SAM 2:12–36: ASSESSING ITS FEATURES
AND CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................87
Summary ....................................................................................................87
Tracing Legal Exegesis in 1 Sam 2 ............................................................88
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................92
CHAPTER 4: LEGAL EXEGESIS IN 1 SAM 30 ............................................................94
I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................94
II. STATE OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................95
David and Law in 1 Sam 30 .......................................................................98
The Legal Crisis at the Brook ..................................................................101
Deut 21:10–14 in 1 Sam 30 .....................................................................103
Deut 22:25–29 in 1 Sam 30 .....................................................................106
III. LITERARY ANALYSIS ...............................................................................109
1 Sam 30:1–20 .........................................................................................109
1 Sam 30:21–25 .......................................................................................116
1 Sam 30:26–31 .......................................................................................121
IV. LEGAL EXEGESIS IN 1 SAM 30: ASSESSING ITS FEATURES AND
CONSEQUENCES ..............................................................................................122
Summary ..................................................................................................122
Tracing Legal Exegesis in 1 Sam 30 ........................................................122
V. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................128
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................130
Summary ..................................................................................................130
Implications and Limitations of Legal Exegesis and Belial ....................132
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Samantha J. Scott, B.A., M.A.
I want to begin by thanking my husband, Tim, who has supported me through my
circuitous journey of graduate studies. I am blessed to have a partner and teammate who
has encouraged and carried me through the many difficult trials of my doctoral studies.
None of this would be possible without you. And, to my son, Joseph Eli, you are my
greatest blessing. I am thankful that you have been a joyful distraction from the solitary
nature of the dissertation writing process, even if I am slightly concerned by your
preference for playing with my Greek textbooks over my Hebrew ones. I would also like
to thank my family who has been continuously supportive and patient throughout my
academic endeavors. I am proud to be a first-generation college student and the first
person in my family to earn a doctorate; when I walk across the stage, I carry them with
me.
I want to express my deepest appreciation to my dissertation director, Josh Burns,
whose close reading and countless suggestions dramatically improved my manuscript.
Thank you for being a fierce advocate for myself and others in the department and for
your guidance and patience throughout my doctoral studies. I am also tremendously
grateful for my committee members, Deirdre Dempsey, Sharon Pace, and Andrei Orlov
whose insights, practical suggestions, encouragement, and mentorship have formed me
and my dissertation. I am fortunate to have a committee that believes in me more than I
believe in myself, and this endeavor would not have been possible without your support.
I am also sincerely grateful for my colleagues at Marquette who have been
continuous sources of encouragement and support. Megan Heeder, your friendship
throughout our coursework, companionship in ministry, and support during my
postpartum period is a treasure that has carried me through my doctoral journey. A
special thanks to the esteemed members of the self-proclaimed JCA Varsity, Daniel
Muller, Jenny Siefken, and Peter Battaglia, who have been faithful companions and
commiserators for our many years together. And, to all of my colleagues at Marquette
and in Milwaukee who have been sounding boards for the various stages of my doctoral
research, thank you for your support and coffee shop chats.
I would also like to acknowledge all those who have had a hand in my academic
and spiritual formation at Marquette University, Lee University, and Vanderbilt
University. While the scholarly and confessional identities of these institutions are quite
distinct, I am sincerely thankful to have been influenced by each of them. As is the case
with my dissertation committee, there are professors at each of these institutions who
believed in me and my work long before I believed in myself. To Skip Jenkins and Rickie
Moore at Lee, and Annalisa Azzoni and C.L. Seow at Vanderbilt, thank you. I hope that
those who read my dissertation will hear not only my voice and the voices of my
ii
committee, but yours as well. I also want to express a special thanks to my undergraduate
professors, Ralph Del Colle, who encouraged me to stay in theology and complete my
undergraduate degree at Marquette, and Danielle Nussberger, who led my senior
theology seminar and graciously allowed me to pursue my research interests in the Book
of Job. Not only did their kindness and compassion propel me across the finish line as an
undergraduate, but they both wrote my first letters of recommendation to graduate school
and, without their encouragement, I would have never started my academic journey.
Lastly, I want to express a special appreciation for the music of Noah Kahan,
whose lyrical genius and melancholic Northeastern ethos made the dissertation journey
slightly more bearable and perfectly encapsulates the journey of graduate studies with the
lyrics, “And I’m broke, but I’m real rich in my head.”
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
At first glance, the pericopes of Judges 19–20, 1 Samuel 2:12–36, and 1 Samuel
30 have little in common with one another. Despite belonging to the literature of the
Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), they share no common historical or narrative context.
Judges 19–20 tells a tale of a Levite and the sordid assault of his concubine. 1 Samuel
2:12–36 tells a tale of corrupt and abusive priests. 1 Samuel 30 tells a tale of David and
his adjudication of a squabble among his soldiers. Yet, several threads are interwoven in
each pericope that signal a common bond between these narratives. In each account, the
characterization of the antagonists and their deeds are the same. In Judg 19–20, בנ י ־בליעל ,
lit. “sons of belial,” are responsible for the rape of the Levite’s concubine. In 1 Sam
2:12–36, Eli’s sons are called בנ י ־בליעל , lit. “sons of belial,” and accused of exploiting the
so-called gathering women. In 1 Sam 30, a portion of David’s men who are called belial
(בל י על ) make a proposal that capitalizes on the sexual abuse of Israelite daughters in the
wake of an Amalekite raid.
If one looks beyond the striking correlation of belial and sexual violence against
women in each of these pericopes, we can identify they share even more in the way of
difficulties they present to their readers. First, of course, is the use of belial itself. The
uncertain etymology and linguistic ambiguity of the term have famously puzzled
interpreters. There is little consensus as to its precise meaning, and the various
interpretations of the term in later recensions of the biblical text obfuscate the shared
usage of the term in these pericopes. Second, although these pericopes contain many
2
legal and literary allusions to Pentateuchal literature, interpreters have not been able to
account consistently for the purpose behind the incorporation of legal and literary
traditions in each pericope. Finally, text-critical issues observed in each pericope,
including complicated textual histories and variants among ancient recensions, greatly
complicate how interpreters understand the stages of literary development and the
motivation underlying scribal intervention in each pericope. Although it is widely
accepted that each pericope has been greatly impacted by editorial activity, there has not
yet been an attempt to trace common scribal motivations behind their literary
development.
To date, there has been no attempt to account for the collective difficulties of
these pericopes. My purpose in this project is to resolve these difficulties by arguing that
legal exegesis accounts for the various strands of Pentateuchal literature, themes of
sexual violence, the use of belial, and text-critical difficulties in each pericope. I will
demonstrate that Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 engage in innovative legal
exegesis that correlates belial with sexual violence against women.
State of Research
Legal Exegesis
Legal exegesis, sometimes referred to as legal reasoning or legal hermeneutics,
describes a range of scribal engagement in reflection on and interpretation of legal
3
materials in the Hebrew Bible.1 Early assessments of legal exegesis identified the
technique as an exegetical practice that conflated earlier iterations of law found in the
legal corpora of the Pentateuch to produce new legal norms.2 But as surveys of the
technique in both the Hebrew Bible and ancient Near Eastern scribal traditions have
revealed, legal exegesis is directed towards many ends, including the clarification of
ambiguities, the expansion of parameters of law for the sake of comprehensiveness, the
harmonization of contradictions and unification of legal traditions, or the reapplication of
law to address new exegetical problems.3
1!"#$%&!#'#$#()(!%*+!),(!)*,#-.-#,)/#!,#01*)23#(!)*!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#!%*,)0).%,#!()8)&%-!89+#(!9:!&#$%&!
)*,#-.-#,%,)9*!)*!&%,#-!;#6)(1!,-%+),)9*<!=1#-#!1%/#!5##*!8%*>!%,,#8.,(!,9!%0093*,!:9-!,1#!)*,#&�,3%&!
1)(,9->!%*+!+#/#&9.8#*,!9:!&#$%&!#'#$#()(<!?##!"%6-#*0#!4<!?01)::8%*@!AB-#CD%00%5#%*!4%&%E1%1!)*!,1#!
F#%+!?#%!?0-9&&(!%*+!,1#!7)5&)0%&!=-%+),)9*@G!DSD!HI!JKLLMNO!IPQRMHS!?,#/#*!F<!T-%%+#@!A"99E)*$!:9-!
"#$%&!D)+-%(1!%,!U38-%*@G!)*!Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study
of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May, 1996@!#+<!D)01%#&!V<!?,9*#!%*+!V(,1#-!W<!
X1%Y9*@!?=F;!KQ!J"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!HZZQN@![ZR\ZS!?1%>#!;<!F<!X91#*@!From the Maccabees to the Mishnah@!
I-+!#+<!J"93)(/)&&#O!]#(,8)*(,#-!;91*!^*9'@!KLHPN@!HZQRKLMS!_&#'!B<!;%((#*@!Scripture and Law in the
Dead Sea Scrolls JX%85-)+$#O!X%85-)+$#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLHPN@!HQRPL<!
!
2!_!.-)8#!#'%8.&#!9:!&#$%&!#'#$#()(!)(!K!X1-!I[OHK@!61)01!+#(0-)5#(!,1#!.%(01%&!(%0-):)0#!)*!,1#!,)8#!9:!
;9()%1!5>!1%-89*)Y)*$!,1#!/#-5)%$#!9:!,1#!(%0-):)0#!)*!V'9+!HKOZ@!A-9%(,)*$G!%*+!F#3,!HMO\@!A59)&)*$<G!?##!
D)01%#&!T)(15%*#@!Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel!Ja':9-+O!X&%-#*+9*@!HZQ[N@!HI[RIM<!V%-&>!
(3-/#>(!9:!&#$%&!#'#$#()(!)+#*,):)#+!,1#!,#01*)23#!)*!.9(,C#')&)0!&),#-%,3-#@!61#-#!),!6%(!01%-%0,#-)Y#+!%(!%!
5&#*+!9-!-#%..&)0%,)9*!9:!&#$%&!##*,(!:-98!,1#!B#*,%,#301<!?##@!#<$<@!F%/)+!;<!_<!X&)*#(@!Ab#1#8)%1!HL!
%(!%*!V'%8.&#!9:!V%-&>!;#6)(1!7)5&)0%&!V'#$#()(@G!JSOT!KH!JHZQHNO!HHHRH\S!4<!W<!D<!])&&)%8(9*@!
A4)(,9->@G!)*!It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF@!!
#+<!F<!_<!X%-(9*!%*+!4<!W<!D<!])&&)%8(9*!JX%85-)+$#O!X%85-)+$#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!HZQQN@!KM<!
!
3!c*!%*0)#*,!b#%-!V%(,#-*!(0-)5%&!,-%+),)9*(@!,1#!,-%*(:9-8%,)9*!9:!-#0#)/#+!&#$%&!*9-8(!6),193,!01%*$)*$!,1#!
9/#-%&&!(,-30,3-#!9:!%!*%--%,)/#!9-!&#$%&!:-%8#69-E!6%(!09889*!.-%0,)0#<!_(!d%>89*+!]#(,5-99E!
#'.&%)*(@!9&+#-!&#$%&!,-%+),)9*(!6#-#!A#'.&9),#+!)*!/#->!(9.1)(,)0%,#+!6%>(@!53,!#((#*,)%&&>!,1#!&#$%&!
:-%8#69-E!-#8%)*(!3*,9301#+<!=1#!e3-)(.-3+#*,)%&!)**9/%,)9*!09*()(,(!)*!,1#!-#:)*#8#*,!9:!#')(,)*$!
.-)*0).&#(@!*9,!)*!,1#!0-#%,)9*!9:!*#6!9*#(G!JAd#:�,)9*(!9*!b#9C7%5>&9*)%*!"%6@G!Journal of Gender
Studies in Antiquity!P!fKLL[gO!HIPRI[N<!T9-!:3-,1#-!+)(03(()9*!9:!(0-)5%&!8#,19+(!9:!098.9(),)9*@!
-#9-$%*)Y%,)9*@!%*+!,-%*(:9-8%,)9*!)*!,1#!&%6!09&�,)9*(!9:!,1#!%*0)#*,!b#%-!V%(,@!(##!B%8#&%!7%-8%(1@!
The Laws of Hammurabi: At the Confluence of Royal and Scribal Traditions!Ja':9-+O!a':9-+!`*)/#-(),>!
B-#((@!KLKLN@!KLLS!#%+#8@!A?0-)5%&!c*),)%,)/#!)*!,1#!X&%-):)0%,)9*!%*+!c*,#-.-#,%,)9*!9:!D#(9.9,%8)%*!"%6!
X9&�,)9*(@G!)*!Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical
Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday@!#+<!X1%)8!X91#*!#,!%&<!
J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!KLLQN@!KO[[HRMI<!
4
Legal exegesis is widely attested within the legal corpora of the Pentateuch,
especially between the Covenant Code (Exod 20:23–23:19) and Deuteronomic Code
(Deut 12–26).4 Bernard M. Levinson argues that the legal formulations of Deuteronomy
are products of literary and ideological transformations of earlier texts.5 For example, he
demonstrates that Deut 12:13–15 reworks the syntax of the altar law of Exod 20:24b by
recasting the stipulation בכל המקום (in every place) as a prohibition of local sacrifice בכל
המק ו ם (in every place) in Deut 12:13 while using the same phrase to mandate cultic
centralization במק ו ם (in the place) in Deut 12:14.6 This is just one illustration of how legal
exegesis, reliant upon the language of an antecedent legal norm, creatively reworks the
antecedent norm to produce an entirely distinct legislation. However, legal exegesis,
especially in Deuteronomy, is highly intricate and is evidenced in both small-scale
linguistic modifications of antecedent sources and also in clarifications, reorganization,
4!d%>89*+!F<!]#(,5-99E@!AX3*#):9-8!"%6!X9+#(!%*+!,1#!a-)$)*(!9:!"#$)(&%,)9*@G!ZA!\Z!JHZQZNO!KLHRKK<!
?##!%&(9!D)01%#&!T)(15%*#@!A=9-%1!%*+!=-%+),)9*@G!)*!Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament@!#+<!
F93$&%(!_<!^*)$1,!JB1)&%+#&.1)%O!T9-,-#((@!HZ\\N@!KQK<!T)(15%*#!%-$3#(!,1%,!&#$%&!1%-89*)Y%,)9*!%*+!,#',C
5&#*+)*$!%-#!+#,#0,#+!)*!,1#!-#&%,)9*(1).!5#,6##*!V'9+!KHRKI!JX9/#*%*,!X9+#N!%*+!F#3,!HKRKM!
JF#3,#-9*98)0!X9+#N<!7-30#!]#&&(!()8)&%-&>!%-$3#(!,1#!&#$%&!)**9/%,)9*(!)*!F#3,#-9*98>!9::#-!8)*9-!
#*1%*0#8#*,(!,9!%*+!#'.%*()9*(!9:!.-%0,)0#(!%&-#%+>!9.#-%,)/#!JAc(!c,!"%6!9-!d#&)$)9*h!"#$%&!D9,)/%,)9*(!
)*!F#3,#-9*98)0!%*+!b#9C7%5>&9*)%*!=#',(@G!)*!Law and Religion in the Eastern Mediterranean: From
Antiquity to Early Islam@!#+<!_*(#&8!X<!4%$#+9-*!%*+!d#)*1%-+!W<!^-%,Y!fa':9-+O!a':9-+!`*)/#-(),>!
B-#((@!KLHIg@!ILMN<!?##!%&(9!^#/)*!D%,,)(9*@!Rewriting and Revision as Amendment in the Laws of
Deuteronomy@!T_=!HLL!J=i5)*$#*O!D91-!?)#5#0E@!KLHQN<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!&#$%&!)**9/%,)9*!5#,6##*!,1#!
F#3,#-9*98)0!X9+#!%*+!49&)*#((!X9+#!J"#/!H\RKMN@!(##!;#::-#>!?,%0E#-,@!Rewriting the Torah: Literary
Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation@!T_=
5
omissions, and supplements to both its antecedent sources but also within its own
legislation.7
Legal exegesis attested in the biblical law collections is also pervasive in narrative
of the Hebrew Bible, particularly in prophetic literature and the Deuteronomistic History
(DtrH).8 However, identifying legal exegesis in narrative is usually more tenuous
compared to the biblical law collections, as legal exegesis in narrative rarely, if ever,
overtly identifies legal antecedents in view.9 Looking for legal exegesis in narrative,
therefore, requires an approach that attends to verbal dependence between a legal
precedent and the content of a narrative. For example, Fishbane identifies legal exegesis
at work in Jer 3:1, where the linguistic and legal framework of Deut 24:1–4 is reimagined
by transposing לָשׁוּב , “return” from prohibition to a rhetorical call to repentance.10
Levinson identifies similar patterns of reworked language between Deuteronomy and the
7!;#::-#>!?,%0E#-,@!Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch@!_o7d"!Jb#6!4%/#*O!o%&#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLKKN@!
[PS!?%-%!D)&(,#)*@!A?#.%-%,)*$!,1#!]1#%,!:-98!,1#!X1%::O!=1#!c*+#.#*+#*,!"9$)0!9:!F#3,#-9*98>!KKOK[R
K\@G!JBL HI\!JKLHQNO!MPKS!#%+#8@!Making a Case: The Practical Roots of Biblical Law!Ja':9-+O!a':9-+!
`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLKHN@!\HRQQ<!!!
!
8!B-9.1#,)0!&),#-%,3-#!)(!6)+#&>!-#$%-+#+!%(!%!&90%,)9*!)*!61)01!&%6!6%(!59,1!#'.93*+#+!%*+!01%&&#*$#+!
J#<$<@!_89(![OKHRK\S!D)0!MOMRQS!VY#E!KLOK[N<!?##!?,#.1#*!"<!X99E@!A=1#!"%6!%*+!,1#!B-9.1#,(@G!)*!The
Oxford Handbook of Biblical Law@!#+<!B%8#&%!7%-8%(1!Ja':9-+O!a':9-+!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLHZN@!KQMS!
7#*#+#,,%!d9(()@!A_3,19-),>@!B-#(,)$#!9-!?35/#-()9*h!;#-#8)%1!%*+!,1#!"%6!X9+#!9:!F#3,#-9*98>@G!)*!
Deuteronomy in the Making: Studies in the Production of the Debarim@!#+<!F)%*%!V+#&8%*!#,!%&<@!7p_]!
[II!J7#-&)*O!+#!W-3>,#-@!KLKHN@!IQIRPHLS!D)01%#&!_<!">9*(@!A=-%*(:9-8%,)9*!9:!"%6O!VY#E)#&q(!`(#!9:!,1#!
49&)*#((!X9+#!J"#/),)03(!H\RKMN@G!)*!Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and
Theology in Ezekiel@ #+<!])&&)%8!_<!=998%*!%*+!D)01%#&!_<!">9*(@!B-)*0#,9*!=1#9&9$)0%&!D9*9$-%.1!
?#-)#(!HK\!JV3$#*#@!adO!B)0E6)0E@!KLHLN@!HRIK<!!
!
9!T)(15%*#!+#(0-)5#(!,1)(!,>.#!9:!&#$%&!#'#$#()(!%(!A09/#-,@G!,1%,!)(@!6),193,!0),%,)9*!:9-83&%->@!%*+!+9#(!*9,!
(#.%-%,#!#'#$#()(!:-98!,-%+),)9*(!9-!(93-0#(!0988#*,#+!3.9*<!=1)(!0%,#$9->!)*0&3+#(!(#/#-%&!(35C,>.#(@!%&&!
9:!61)01!-#:�,!+)::#-#*,!#'#$#,)0%&!.-90#((#(@!+)::#-#*,!#'#$#,)0%&!:3*0,)9*(@!%*+!+)::#-#*,!-#&%,)9*(1).(!
6),1!,1#!.-)8%->!B#*,%,#301%&!&#$%&!(93-0#(<!=1#)-!09889*!+#*98)*%,9-!)(!,1%,!,1#>!%-#!#85#++#+!)*!
1)(,9-)0%&!*%--%,)/#(!6),193,!0),%,)9*!:9-83&%->!%*+!6),193,!09*(#03,)/#!9-!098.&#,#!%&&3()9*(!,9!,1#!
9-)$)*%&!B#*,%,#301%&!&%6(!JT)(15%*#@!Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel@!HPPN<!
!
10!T)(15%*#@!A=9-%1!%*+!=-%+),)9*@G!KQPRQMS!)+#8@!Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel@!ILQ<!!
!
6
literature of the DtrH, which emphasizes the transformation of Deuteronomistic norms,
not their mere implementation.11 Levinson argues that legal innovation is evident in the
book of Ruth, where the narrative reimagines the language of Deuteronomy regarding
gleaning rules (Deut 24:19), the exclusion of Moabites from the community (Deut 23:4–5
[English 23:3–4]), and the laws of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5–10).12
The identification of verbal dependence often facilitates the discovery of
conflation or blending of biblical law that combines antecedent biblical law in a narrative
context that produces new legislation. The identification of this practice, pioneered by
Fishbane, argues 2 Chr 35:12 describes the paschal sacrifice in the time of Josiah by
harmonizing the verbiage of the sacrifice in Exod 12:9, “roasting” and Deut 16:7,
“boiling.”13 Joshua Berman has taken a similar approach in his analysis of legal
innovation as a rhetorical device in 1 Sam 28:3–25, where he argues the narrative
reworks the language and structure of Deut 18 in the construction of the encounter
between Saul and Samuel in 1 Sam 28:15–19 and then conflates the legislation of Lev 19
to rhetorically indict Saul for necromancy.14 In each of these examples, the conflation of
biblical law in narrative signals a type of legal exegesis that, though verbally dependent
on a legal antecedent, generates an innovative legal idea that expands or redefines the
parameters of the legal antecedent in question.
11!"#/)*(9*@!Deuteronomy@ H[I<!!
!
12!7#-*%-+!"#/)*(9*@!Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel!JX%85-)+$#O!X%85-)+$#!
`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLLQN@!IIRP[<!!
!
13!T)(15%*#@!Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel@!HI[RIM<!
!
14!;9(13%!7#-8%*@!A=1#!"#$%&!7&#*+!)*!7)5&)0%&!b%--%,)/#!J;9(13%!KLOHRZ@!;3+$#(!MOK[RIH@!H!?%83#&!H[OK@!
KQOIRK[@!K!^)*$(!POHR\@!;#-#8)%1!IPOHKRH\@!b#1#8)%1
7
Although verbal dependency is a common indicator for legal exegesis in
narrative, not all legal reformulations adhere as closely to antecedent traditions as others.
In some cases, especially in narratives that grapple with legal questions undefined in
biblical law, identification of legal exegesis is made possible by attending to the legal
themes of a narrative. David Daube, who maintains that the identity of legal themes is
crucial for grasping legal commentary of narratives, suggests Gen 37 peripherally evokes
Exod 22:13, a statute delineating liability for a dead animal, as a moral commentary on
the culpability of Joseph’s brothers.15 Daube’s study thus demonstrates that a legal theme,
such as the question of culpability in a narrative setting that is outside the bounds of
biblical law, can be an equally reliable indicator of legal exegesis as that of verbal
dependence or affinity.16
Pamela Barmash’s approach to law in narrative nuances this trajectory, arguing
that narrative is uniquely equipped to illustrate inadequacies of the legal system, and was
thus vital in addressing the distinction between legal culpability as prescribed in biblical
law and the moral responsibility that was unnamed in biblical law.17 For example,
Barmash argues that because the statutes of the Covenant Code and Priestly law limited
legal action to cases of homicide in which direct physical contact resulted in death,
several narratives in the Hebrew Bible draw distinctions between responsibility and
15!F%/)+!F%35#@!A"%6!)*!,1#!b%--%,)/#(@G!)*!)+#8@!Studies in Biblical Law!JX%85-)+$#O!X%85-)+$#!
`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!HZP\N@!HRMK<!
!
16!?)8)&%-&>@!_(*%,!7%-,9-!)+#*,):)#(!&#$%&!-#:�,)9*!5>!.-95)*$!:9-!&#$%&!&%*$3%$#!+)(0#-*%5&#!)*!.%,,#-*(!9:!
e3-)+)0%&!+)%&9$3#(<!=1#(#!e3-)+)0%&!+)%&9$3#(!)*09-.9-%,#!,1#!&%*$3%$#@!&9$)0@!%*+!&#$%&!09*(#23#*0#(!9:!%*!
%0,3%&!e3-)+)0%&!.-90##+)*$!6),193,!5#)*$!09*:)*#+!,9!%!&),#-%&!093-,-998!)*!9-+#-!,9!-1#,9-)0%&&>!#'.%*+!,1#!
&#$%&!%3,19-),>!9:!*%--%,)/#!(9!,1%,!),!0%--)#(!,1#!(%8#!&#$%&!6#)$1,!%(!,1%,!9:!%*!)*(,),3,)9*%&!,-)%&!JA=1#!
r;3-)+)0%&!F)%&9$3#qO!_!"),#-%->C;3+)0)%&!B%,,#-*@G!VT
8
culpability.18 Moreover, in Barmash’s opinion, narrative exposes what the biblical law
collections lack, especially details including motives, emotions, and grievances that
reveal pertinent internal workings behind actions.19 This approach maintains that legal
elements that are otherwise ignored in the biblical law collections can be central topics of
interest in biblical narrative and their identification is necessary to elucidate legal
exegesis because they often signal an author’s rhetorical interest in legal innovation.
Legal exegesis, following ancient Near Eastern scribal traditions, is characterized
as the creative transformation of antecedent legal norms and literature. Legal exegesis is
key for identifying legal innovations behind many texts of the Hebrew Bible, and as I will
argue, Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 are no exception. Each pericope
engages in the creative transformation of Pentateuchal antecedents, and the ways such
antecedents are engaged will demonstrate each pericope’s interest in legal quandaries that
are manifest in each pericope’s correlation of belial with sexual violence against women.
The Elusive Belial
The term belial appears in the pericopes of Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1
Sam 30. At first glance, its use may seem innocuous, but a closer analysis of the term’s
purpose in each pericope reveals it describes antagonists who commit acts of sexual
violence against female characters. Judg 19–20 correlates בנ י ־בליעל , lit. “sons of belial,”
with the rape of the Levite’s concubine, 1 Sam 2 correlates Eli’s sons, who are called בנ י ־
בל י על , lit. “sons of belial,” with the exploitation of the so-called gathering women, and 1
18!c5)+<@
9
Sam 30 correlates a portion of David’s men who are called belial with a proposal that
capitalizes on the sexual abuse of Israelite daughters in the wake of an Amalekite raid.
Despite the correlation of belial with sexual violence against female characters in these
pericopes, there has yet to be a consideration of the collective use of belial in these
pericopes and its role, if any, in legal innovation.
With a diverse, and often conflicting, range of proposed etymologies and
semantic possibilities, consensus regarding the origin of the term and its use in the
Hebrew Bible has not yet been achieved. Modern proposals of the term’s etymology posit
various roots with the negative בל י , thus בל י + יעל “worthless,”20 בל י + עלה “without
growth, success,” or “(the place from which) one does not go up,” i.e., a euphemism for
death or Sheol.21 Although assessments of proposed etymologies are more helpful in
ruling out unlikely proposals than they are at offering solutions,22 most agree that belial is
best understood abstractly and should interpreted within the boundaries of a generalized
sense of “worthlessness”23 or “wickedness.”24 Although my primary goal is not to
advance the etymological study of belial, the term’s amorphous etymology and diverse
semantic range is a looming interpretive issue for situating its significance in Judg 19–20,
20!B%3&!;9i9*@!A stuvwxyxu !7z"c_"@G!Biblica
10
1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30. Without a precise etymology to guide understanding of
the term, scholars are frequently inclined to lean on abstract interpretations, resulting in
inconsistent interpretations of belial and impeding the collective consideration of its use
in these passages.25
In light of the term’s ambiguous etymology, many assessments of belial attempt
to trace the interpretation and use of the term in ancient translations outside of the
Hebrew Bible. The term appears frequently in Qumran literature.26 Early assessments of
its use at Qumran, especially in the Damascus Document (CD) and the War Scroll
(1QM), identify the term as a personification of evil.27 However, more recent assessments
have challenged the traditional assumption that belial at Qumran exclusively connotes a
personification of evil. Devorah Dimant argues that Qumran passages take up the biblical
belial in two ways: either as the appellation of the evil archdemon or as an abstract
25!c*!(98#!0%(#(@!,1#!)*0&)*%,)9*!,9!-#*+#-!,1#!,#-8!%(!%*!%5(,-%0,!#'.-#(()9*!)(!*9,!,1#!.-9+30,!9:!),(!
+)::)03&,!#,>89&9$>@!53,!)(!-%,1#-!%*!)*,#*,)9*%&!+#0)()9*!,9!3*+#-8)*#!,1#!.#03&)%-),>!9:!,1#!4#5-#6!,#-8!
%*+!)+)98<!T9-!#'%8.&#@!;%8#(!V<!49$$!.-9.9(#(!),!)(!%*!#--9-!,9!-#*+#-!,1#!4#5-#6!)+)98! }€ ~ •}u~•u !%(!
A(9*(!9:!5#&)%&G!)*!V*$&)(1!,-%*(&%,)9*(!%*+!%-$3#(!,1%,!),!)(!.-#:#-%5&#!,9!-#*+#-!,1#!.1-%(#!)*!%!89-#!
(3),%5&#!V*$&)(1!#'.-#(()9*!JAr7#&)%&q!)*!,1#!a&+!=#(,%8#*,@G!AJSL!PP!fHZK\gO![MR[QN<!=1)(!.#*01%*,!
01%-%0,#-)Y#(!%!,#*+#*0>!)*!V*$&)(1!,-%*(&%,)9*(!,9!-#*+#-!,1#!,#-8!%*+!)+)98(!9:!belial!%(!/%-)93(!V*$&)(1!
#'.-#(()9*(@!,1#!#::#0,!9:!61)01!95:3(0%,#(!,1#!3*+#-&>)*$!&),#-%->!%*+!,1#8%,)0!3*),>!9:!,1#!,#-8!)*!,1#!
4#5-#6!7)5&#<!
26!=1#!,#-8!9003-(!#)$1,>C:)/#!,)8#(!)*!,1#!F#%+!?#%!?0-9&&(@!89(,!:-#23#*,&>!)*!,1#!]%-!?0-9&&!JHUDN@!
4>8*(!9:!=1%*E($)/)*$!JHU4N@!%*+!,1#!F%8%(03(!F9038#*,!JXFN<!?##!D%-,)*!W<!_5#$$!#,!%&<@!The Dead
Sea Scrolls Concordance!J"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!KLLIN@!HOHPMRP\S!_&#E(%*+#-!d<!D)01%&%E@!Angels as Warriors in
Late Second Temple Jewish Literature@!]`b=!IIL!J=i5)*$#*O!D91-!?)#5#0E@!KLHKN@!\[<!
!
27!?##@!#<$<@!B#,#-!/9*!+#-!a(,#*C?%0E#*@!Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum
Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran@!?`b=!M!JW‚,,)*$#*O!j%*+#*19#0E!ƒ!d3.-#01,@!HZMZN<!7)&1%!b),Y%*!
:3-,1#-!95(#-/#(!,1%,!belial!J }u ~ •u N!)(!:-#23#*,&>!)*0&3+#+!)*!&)(,(!9:!*%8#(!$)/#*!,9!,1#!?.)-),!9:!F%-E*#((!
%*+!)(!09*:&%,#+!6),1!D%(,#8%!)*!HUD!HIOHLRHK!JAV/)&!%*+!),(!?>859&(!)*!,1#!U38-%*!?0-9&&(@G!)*!The
Problem of Evil and its Symbols in Jewish and Christian Tradition@!#+<!4#**)*$!W-%:!d#/#*,&96!%*+!o%)-!
49::8%*@!;?a=?3.!IMM!f"9*+9*O!=ƒ=!X&%-E@!KLLPg@!ZLRZHN<!
!
11
characteristic of this evil creature and of those who obey him.28 For example, the
Community Rule (1QS) uses belial in the abstract sense, evoking the “rule of Belial” as a
characteristic of those outside the community.29 Scholars who have attempted to map the
use of belial at Qumran illustrate that it serves a wide range of purposes for the Qumran
community and its depiction varies in the different texts in which it appears.30 Although
there is some agreement that it delineates community boundaries and identity, little
consensus exists regarding its origin and relationship with its use in biblical literature.31
Greek recensions also display inconsistency in translation, rendering belial in 1
Sam 30:22 as πονηρός, evil, and the appellative בנ י ־בליעל , lit. “sons of belial,” in Judg
19:22, Judg 20:13, and 1 Sam 2:12 as υἱοὶ παρανόμων, τοὺς υἱοὺς Βελιαλ, and υἱοὶ
λοιμοί, respectively.32 Latin recensions demonstrate similar fluidity, rendering in some
cases, filii Belial, “sons of Belial” (Vulg. Judg 19:22, 1 Sam. 2:12), qui hoc flagitium
perpetrarunt, “those who committed the heinous crime” (Vulg. Judg 20:13) and iniquus,
“unjust” (Vulg. 1 Sam 30:22). The interpretive diversity of belial across ancient
28!?##!F#/9-%1!F)8%*,@!A7#,6##*!U38-%*!?#0,%-)%*!%*+!b9*C?#0,%-)%*!=#',(O!=1#!X%(#!9:!7#&)%&!%*+!
D%(,#8%@G!)*!The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International
Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, July 6–8, 2008@!#+<!_+9&:9!F<!d9),8%*@!"%6-#*0#!4<!
?01)::8%*@!%*+!?1%*)!=Y9-#:@!?=F;!ZI@!J"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!KLHLN@!KPH<!
!
29!?##!;3,,%!"#9*1%-+,C7%&Y#-@!Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity@!]`b=!PH\!
J=i5)*$#*O!D91-!?)#5#0E@!KLHMN@!KHRKP<!
!
30!D)->%8!=<!7-%*+@!Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second
Temple Literature@!;93-*%&!9:!_*0)#*,!;3+%)(8!?3..#*,(!Z!JW‚,,)*$#*O!j%*+#*19#0E!ƒ!d3.-#01,@!
KLHIN@!KHZ<!?##!%&(9!_**#,,#!?,#3+#&@!AW9+!%*+!7#&)%&@G!)* The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years after their
Discovery 1947–1997@!Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997@!#+<!"%6-#*0#!4<!
?01)::8%*!#,!%&<!J;#-3(%O!D%$*#(@!KLLLN@!IIQ<!
!
31!7-%*+@!Evil Within and Without@!K[I<!!
!
32!T9-!%*!9/#-/)#6!9:!,1#!,#-8q(!3(#!)*!?%83#&C^)*$(!)*!,1#!?#.,3%$)*,@!(##!_<B<!a,#-9@!A?98#!B1)&9&9$)0%&!
b9,#(@G!HZIRKLH<!!
!
12
recensions has impeded the identification of a common purpose of belial in Judges 19–
20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30.
Attempting to circumvent etymological and translation difficulties of belial
(בל י על ), some have mapped the various deeds and characteristics associated with the term
in the Hebrew Bible.33 Such studies tend to highlight the following as general
characteristics and behaviors ascribed to the term: the desecration of cultic spaces (1 Sam
1:16, 1 Sam 2:17), idolatry (Deut 13:13), insurrection (1 Sam 10:27; 2 Chr 13:7), bearing
false witness (1 Kgs 21:10, 13), inhospitality (Judg 19:22, 20:13), slander (2 Sam 16:7),
drunkenness (1 Sam 1:16), and greed (Deut 15:9; 1 Sam 30:22). This descriptive
approach frames the function of belial in view of the violation of various social norms.34
This emphasis on social violations is helpful in the exploration of legal exegesis in Judg
19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 because analyzing belial in light of social norms
provides a natural segue to consider whether antecedent Pentateuchal corpora are in view,
and if so, what role they play in forming the social norms in view.
The consideration of belial in view of social violations may be key for situating
the term’s function in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 with respect to legal
exegesis. This approach, however, is encumbered by a hermeneutical issue, namely, that
33!;9i9*@!A stuvwxyxu !7z"c_"@G!H\QS!a,Y#*,!TDOT!HOHIPRIM<!
!
34!j)0,9-!D%%$!.-9.9(#+!,1%,! }u ~ •u !-#:�,(!%!5-9%+!(#*(#!9:!3,,#-!+#(,-30,)9*!)*!-#&)$)93(!%*+!(90)%&!
09*,#',(!)*!)+#8@!A7#&)e%q%&!)8!_&,#*!=#(,%8#*,@G!TZ!KH!JHZM[NO!KZPRZ[<!d3,1!d9(#*5#-$!1%(!%&,#-*%,)/#&>!
(3$$#(,#+!,1%,!,1#!,#-8!)*!5)5&)0%&!3(%$#!+#()$*%,#(!%!(.#0):)0!,-%*($-#(()9*@!*%8#&>@!,1#!A/)9&%,)9*!9:!,1#!
09/#*%*,%&!-#&%,)9*(1).!5#,6##*!,1#!)*+)/)+3%&@!09883*),>@!%*+!W9+G!JA=1#!X9*0#.,!9:!7)5&)0%&!r7#&)%&@qG!
Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies!Q„_!fHZQKgO!I[RPLN<!a,Y#* (3$$#(,(!:3-,1#-!(35C
+)/)+)*$!,1#!/)9&%,)9*(!%(0-)5#+!,9! }u ~ •u !)*,9!03&,)0@!(90)%&@!%*+!e3-)+)0%&!/)9&%,)9*( JTDOT HOHIPN<!B%%/9!
=30E#-!%&(9!:9&&96(!,1#!0%,#$9-)Y)*$!%..-9%01!9:! }u ~ •u !JAd#09*()+#-)*$!…†‡ˆ‰ŠO!K!X9-)*,1)%*(!MOH[!)*!c,(!
_*,)Cc8.#-)%&!;#6)(1!_.90%&>.,)0!X9*,#',@G!Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters!P!fKLHPgO!HMZR
Q[N<!
!
13
the identification of various evil acts ascribed to belial involves interpretive decisions that
have not produced uniform results. For example, scholars have posited several
explanations as to why the men of Gibeah are characterized as בנ י ־בליעל , “sons of belial,”
in Judg 19:22. Some have proposed belial marks the violation of norms of hospitality,
others identify the threat of rape against the Levite, and still others identify sexual
violence against the Levite’s concubine.35 Of course, each of the aforementioned
interpretations may account for social violation(s) in view of Judges 19.36 However, it is
often the case that commentators opt for a single explanation as to why the men of
Gibeah are characterized as בנ י ־בליעל , “sons of belial,” and when this occurs, the social
violation in question is shaped by the preference of the individual commentator. This
hermeneutical issue has produced inconsistent accounts of social violations associated
with belial and has often neglected to consider its occurrence in contexts detailing
violence against female characters. This is evidenced in the failure to correlate violence
against women as part of the social violations of belial both generally speaking, and in
35!=19(#!619!%-$3#!,1#!(9*(!9:!belial!/)9&%,#!*9-8(!9:!19(.),%&),>!.-#(38#!,1#!03(,98(!%*+!95&)$%,)9*(!9:!
,1#!/)(),#+!09883*),>!,9!.-9/)+#!19(.),%&),>!%-#!,1#!+#0)()/#!)*,#-.-#,)/#!)((3#!)*!,1#!*%--%,)/#<!?##!j)0,9-!
4<!D%,,1#6(@!A49(.),%&),>!%*+!49(,)&),>!)*!W#*#()(!HZ!%*+!;3+$#(!HZ@G!BTB KK!JHZZKNO!IRHHS!B#+#-(#*@!
Israel Its Life and Culture@!PIHS!^%,1#-)*#!?93,1699+@!Ar=1)(!D%*!4%(!X98#!)*,9!D>!493(#qO!49(.),%&),>!
)*!W#*#()(!HZS!IPS!%*+!;3+$#(!HZ@G!BibInt!KM!JKLHQNO!PMZRQP<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!/)9&%,)9*(!%((90)%,#+!6),1!
1989(#'3%&!-%.#@!(##!;9i9*@!Astuvwxyxu !7z"c_"@G!H\QS!a,Y#*@!TDOT HOHIP<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!/)9&%,)9*(!
%((90)%,#+!6),1!(#'3%&!%((%3&,!9:!,1#!"#/),#q(!09*035)*#@!(##!?3(%*!b)+),01@!Judges: A Commentary@!a="!
J"93)(/)&&#O!]#(,8)*(,#-!;91*!^*9'@!KLLQN@!HQ[RZIS!B1>&&)(!=-)5&#@!Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist
Readings of Biblical!Narratives@!a7=!HI JB1)&%+#&.1)%O!T9-,-#((@!HZQPN@!M[RZK<!!
!
36!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!)*,#-(#0,)9*!9:!/%-)93(!(90)%&!/)9&%,)9*(@!(##!D%-)9!")/#-%*)@!AD#((%$#(@!]98#*@!
%*+!49(.),%&),>O!c*,#-C=-)5%&!X9883*)0%,)9*!)*!;3+$#(!HZRKH@G!)*!Myth and Politics in Ancient Near
Eastern Historiography@!#+<!p%)*%5!7%1-%*)!%*+!D%-0!j%*!F#!D)#-99.!Jc,1%0%@!boO!X9-*#&&!`*)/#-(),>!
B-#((@!KLLPNO!HMLRZKS!?3(%*!b)+),01@!A=1#!r?9+98),#q!=1#8#!)*!;3+$#(!HZRKLO!T%8)&>@!X9883*),>S!%*+!
?90)%&!F)()*,#$-%,)9*@G!CBQ!PP!JHZQKNO!IM[R\Q<!!
!
14
the distinctively legal milieus of Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 in
particular.37
Violence Against Women and Biblical Law
The study of violence against women in the Hebrew Bible is a burgeoning field
and provides a crucial framework for the present study because it informs the legal milieu
of legal exegesis and the conceptualization of sexual violence in the Hebrew Bible. With
the infusion of feminist criticism in the study of the Hebrew Bible, interpreters have
become increasingly attentive to the prevalence of violence against women and have thus
attempted to grapple with it through various interpretive means.38 However, this task is
fraught with linguistic, legal, and historical pitfalls. The ambiguous definition of sexual
violence in biblical law makes it difficult to confidently delineate how biblical law and its
early interpreters imagined the moral contours of sexual violence against women. Studies
that have engaged the topic of sexual violence against women in the Hebrew Bible have
aptly observed there is no word in biblical Hebrew for “rape,” and so, identifying when
37!;3+$#(!HZRKL!)(!%*!#'0#.,)9*!,9!,1)(!,#*+#*0><!=1#!+#$-##!9:!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!,1#!"#/),#q(!09*035)*#!1%(!
8%+#!,1#!.%((%$#!,1#!(35e#0,!9:!8%*>!-#0#*,!(,3+)#(!%++-#(()*$!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!698#*!)*!,1#!.#-)09.#!%*+!
,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#@!.%-,)03&%-&>!:#8)*)(,!)*,#-.-#,%,)9*(<!=1)(!%..-9%01!6%(!.)9*##-#+!5>!B1>&&)(!=-)5&#q(!
)*,#-.-#,%,)9*!9:!;3+$#(!HZRKH!0),#+!%59/#<!T9&&96)*$!)*!=-)5&#q(!:99,(,#.(!%-#!%!19(,!9:!:#8)*)(,!
%..-9%01#(!,9!,1#!.#-)09.#@!8%*>!9:!61)01!1%/#!(93$1,!,9!1)$1&)$1,!,1#!,1#8#!9:!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!698#*<!
?##!;9!_**!4%0E#,,@!ArD)(()*$!]98#*q!)*!;3+$#(!HZRKHO!_!T#8)*)(,!7)5&)0%&!=1#9&9$>!X9*0#-*)*$!
j)9&#*0#!_$%)*(,!]98#*@G!)*!After Exegesis: Feminist Biblical Theology, #+<!B%,-)0)%!^<!=3&&!%*+!
;%023#&)*#!V<!"%.(&#>!J]%09@!=‹O!7%>&9-!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLH[NS!c(%5#&&#!4%8&#>@!ArF)(J-#N8#85#-#+!
%*+!`*%0093*,#+!T9-qO! Œ~u•Ž !)*!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#@G!JSOT PK!JKLHQNO!PH[RIP<!!
!
38!;<!X1#->&!V'38@!A=1#!V,1)0(!9:!7)5&)0%&!j)9&#*0#!_$%)*(,!]98#*@G!)*!The Bible in Ethics: The Second
Sheffield Colloquium, #+<!;91*!]<!d9$#-(9*!#,!%&<@!;?a=?3.!KL\!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZZ[N@!
KPQ<!!
!
15
sexual violence is taking place must sometimes be inferred.39 Moreover, biblical law
itself is fraught with ambiguity concerning the legal implications of sexual violence and
its impact on the legal standing of women.40
Despite these difficulties, the parameters of biblical law are essential for framing
the legal milieu of violence against women, including the legal status and rights of
women, the delineation of power and gender, and the definition of licit and illicit sexual
behavior.41 Although these studies have produced disparate conclusions, it is widely
agreed that women occupied a place of liminality.42 Some have suggested biblical authors
were aware of such liminality, and have thus proposed legal exegesis is evident within
select legal corpora that were designed to prevent the underprivileged from being taken
39!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!&)*$3)(,)0!&%03*%#!(3--93*+)*$!,1#!09*0#.,!9:!A-%.#G!)*!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#@!(##!">*!
D<!7#01,#&@!A]1%,!):!F)*%1!)(!*9,!d%.#+h!JW#*#()(!IPN@G!JSOT!MK!JHZZPNO!KIRK\<!?%*+)#!W-%/#,,!8%)*,%)*(!
,1%,!61)&#!*9!&#$%&!9-!,#01*)0%&!,#-8!#')(,(!:9-!-%.#!)*!5)5&)0%&!4#5-#6@!(301!%!,-%*(&%,)9*!)(!%..-9.-)%,#!)*!
0#-,%)*!0%(#(!JAd#%+)*$!rd%.#q!)*!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#O!_!X9*()+#-%,)9*!9:!"%*$3%$#@G!JSOT!KQ!fKLLPgO!K\ZR
ZZN<!X%->*!_<!d##+#-!()8)&%-&>!%-$3#(!)*!0%(#(!9:!%85)$3),>@!()&#*0#!)*!%!*%--%,)/#!0%*!09**9,#!09#-0)9*!
JA])/#(!%*+!F%3$1,#-(O!]98#*@!?#'@!%*+!j)9&#*0#!)*!,1#!7)5&)0%&!=-%+),)9*@G!ExAud KQ!fKLHKgO!HIKN<!
?98#!$9!:3-,1#-@!(3$$#(,)*$!,1%,!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!&%6( +9!*9,!,-#%,!(#'3%&!/)9&#*0#!%(!%!&#$%&!0%,#$9->!
61%,(9#/#-<!?##@!#<$<@!X%-9&>*!B-#((&#-@!A?#'3%&!j)9&#*0#!%*+!F#3,#-9*98)0!"%6@G!)*!A Feminist
Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy@!#+<!_,1%&>%!7-#**#-@!TX7!M!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZZPN@!
HLKS!#%+#8@!The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws@!7p_]!KHM!J7#-&)*O!+#!
W-3>,#-@!HZZIN<!
!
40!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!4)&%->!7<!").E%@!Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible@!4#5-#6!7)5&#!D9*9$-%.1(!
\!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!B19#*)'@!KLLMN@!IHRPH<!
!
41!?#/#-%&!(,3+)#(!1%/#!$%3$#+!,1#!23#(,)9*!9:!61%,!-)$1,(!698#*!1#&+!)*!5)5&)0%&!&%6<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!
698#*q(!%3,9*98>@!(##!d95#-,!?<!^%6%(1)8%@!AX93&+!%!]98%*!?%>!rb9q!)*!7)5&)0%&!c(-%#&h!a*!,1#!
W#*#%&9$>!9:!"#$%&!?,%,3(!)*!7)5&)0%&!"%6!%*+!"),#-%,3-#@G!AJSR!I[!JKLHHNO!HRKK<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!
&#$%&!-)$1,!,9!+)/9-0#@!(##!o%)-!p%E9/),01@!A=1#!]98%*q(!d)$1,(!)*!,1#!7)5&)0%&!"%6!9:!F)/9-0#@G!JLA!P!
JHZQHNO!KQRPM<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!&#$%&!(,%,3(!9:!(&%/#C698#*@!(##!d%>89*+!]#(,5-99E@!A=1#!T#8%&#!
?&%/#@G!)*!Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, #+<!j)0,9-!4<!D%,,1#6(@!
7#-*%-+!D<!"#/)*(9*@!%*+!=)E/%!T->8#-C^#*(E>@!;?a=?3.!KMK!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZZQN@!
KHPRIQS!B-#((&#-@!A])/#(!%*+!F%3$1,#-(@!79*+!%*+!T-##O!j)#6(!9:!]98#*!)*!,1#!?&%/#!"%6(!9:!V'9+3(!
KHOKRHH@G!)*!D%,,1#6(!#,!%&<@!Gender and Law@!HP\R\K<!
!
42!?##!^%-&%!W<!?1%-$#*,@!A")/)*$!9*!,1#!V+$#O!=1#!")8)*%&),>!9:!F%3$1,#-(!)*!W#*#()(!,9!K!?%83#&@G!)*!
7-#**#-@!Feminist Companion@!KMRPKS!a-),!_/*#->@!Aa*!,1#!=1-#(19&+O!")8)*%&),>!)*!,1#!?,9-)#(!9:!,1#!
X9*035)*#!9:!W)5#%1!%*+!d3,1@G!JSOT!PM!JKLKHNO!KILRPQ<!!
!
16
advantage of.43 Others have taken a more critical approach, calling into question the
problematic assumptions and implications of biblical law.44
These difficulties aside, an intriguing finding unearthed in studies of sexual
violence against women and biblical law calls attention to the significance of legal gaps
or ambiguities in a person’s protected status in biblical law. These legal ambiguities may
have been the source of motivation for later legal exegesis. For example, Sara Milstein
argues that legal innovation in Deuteronomy is evident in several texts that feature
innocent victims who would have been at risk of unfair punishment or loss of rights.45
She argues that Deuteronomy’s apparent interest in vulnerable individuals explains the
preponderance of women and children in its legislation and the attention given to prevent
conspirators from exploiting the system.46 The awareness of legal loopholes, as it were,
and the precarious position of select members of society in the legal corpora of
43!V<$<@!D)&(,#)*@!A?#.%-%,)*$!,1#!]1#%,!:-98!,1#!X1%::@G!MK[RPI<!;9(#.1!T&#)(018%*!%-$3#(!F#3,#-9*98>!
KKOKLRKH!+#89*(,-%,#(!&#$%&!)**9/%,)9*!)*!),(!,-%*(:9-8%,)9*!%*+!-#(,-)0,)9*!9:!V'9+!KHOH\!JA=1#!
F#&)*23#*,!F%3$1,#-!%*+!"#$%&!c**9/%,)9*!)*!F#3,#-9*98>!''))!KLRKH@G!VT![Q!fKLLQgO!HZHRKHLN<!F)%*%!
").,9*!1%(!%-$3#+!:9-!,1#!)**9/%,)9*!9:!%!&#$%&!%*%&9$>!)*!F#3,!KKOK[RK\!,1%,!#23%,#(!-%.#!6),1!83-+#-!
JA"#$%&!_*%&9$>!)*!F#3,#-9*98>!%*+!T-%,-)0)+#!)*!,1#!T)#&+@G!)*!Studies on the Test and Versions of the
Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon@!#+<!W#9::-#>!^1%*!%*+!F)%*%!").,9*@!j=?3.!HPZ!f"#)+#*O!
7-)&&@!KLHKg@!KHRIQN<!
!
44!?98#!:#8)*)(,!%..-9%01#(!)+#*,):>!&%6!),(#&:!%(!%!:9-8!9:!/)9&#*0#<!?##@!#<$<@!X1#->&!7<!_*+#-(9*@!
Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the Construction of Gender in the Book of the
Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law@!;?a=?3.!IZP!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!KLLPN@!Z<!T9-!,1#!
/)#6!,1%,!F#3,#-9*98>!#*+9-(#(!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!698#*@!(##!4%-9&+!X<!]%(1)*$,9*@!Ar"#(,!4#!F)#!)*!,1#!
7%,,&#!%*+!_*9,1#-!D%*!=%E#!4#-qO!j)9&#*0#!%*+!,1#!X9*(,-30,)9*!9:!W#*+#-!)*!,1#!"%6(!9:!F#3,#-9*98>!
KLRKK@G!)*!D%,,1#6(!#,!%&<@!Gender and Law, HQ[RKHI<!a,1#-(!1%/#!%((#((#+!,1#!&#$%&!09-.9-%@!.-95)*$!,1#!
#::#0,(!9:!&#$%&!)*e3*0,)9*(!9:!F#3,!HPOKKRKZS!HMOZRHK@!HIRH[S!KPOH\RKQ@!HZRKKS!%*+!K[OHKRH[!%89*$!
(35$-93.(!)*!5)5&)0%&!09883*),)#(<!?##@!#<$<@!4%-9&+!j<!7#**#,,@!Injustice Made Legal: Deuteronomic Law
and the Plight of the Widows, Strangers, and Orphans in Ancient Israel!JW-%*+!d%.)+(O!V#-+8%*(@!KLLKN<!
!
45!D)&(,#)*@!Making a Case, Q[<!a,,9q(!%*%&>()(!9:!F#3,#-9*98>q(!&#$%&!09-.9-%!%&(9!.9(),(!,1#!.-9/)+#+!
.-9,#0,)9*!:9-!6#%E!8#85#-(!9:!,1#!:%8)&>!JDeuteronomium 12–34@!4,1^_=!fT-#)53-$O!4#-+#-@!KLHMg@!
HMZKN<!
!
46!D)&(,#)*@!Making a Case@!QM<!!
!
17
Deuteronomy suggests two things. First, the author(s) or editor(s) of the legal corpora of
Deuteronomy were acutely aware of gaps and limitations of biblical legislation. Second,
far from being immune to emendation and reimagination, biblical legislation was a key
source for legal reflection and innovation.
The key insight offered from these studies is evidence that legal exegesis
perceives inadequacies in the legal corpora and assumes the right to innovate their way
around such inadequacies. Although most of these studies focus on internal innovation
between legal corpora, we do not need to assume that a scribe would necessarily limit this
sort of innovation to legal corpora, strictly speaking. For example, Barmash’s study of
culpability of homicide in narrative texts illustrates that whereas legal corpora are
concerned with actionable offenses, narrative grapples with behavior defined as criminal
or offenses not subject to legal action, offering access to elements essential to the process
of law and to issues of justice and fairness that are otherwise ignored in legal texts.47
I propose that ambiguities in biblical law concerning sexual violence against
women are key for grasping legal innovation in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam
30. These pericopes collectively depict female characters who experience sexual violence
in a variety of legally anomalous scenarios that engage antecedent biblical legislation. I
suggest these pericopes explore the implications of gaps in antecedent legal corpora and
comment against those who might exploit such legal ambiguity. As indicated above, legal
ambiguity is an ideal pretext for legal exegesis. I propose scribal innovation in Judg 19–
20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 explores the limitations of antecedent biblical
legislation concerning women of ambiguous legal status and the implications of sexual
47!7%-8%(1@!A=1#!b%--%,)/#!U3%*+%->@G!HLM<!!
!
18
violence committed against them. By attending to the legal framework and themes of
each pericope, which accentuate antecedent biblical legislation in view, I will deduce the
keynotes of scribal reflection concerning not only the limitations of biblical law
concerning sexual violence against women but will also situate the collective use of
belial in each pericope.
Judges and 1 Samuel in Current Research
Studies of the book of Judges are riddled with questions about its compositional
complexity and literary unity. Those interested in redactional development identify
multiple phases of Deuteronomistic embellishment and editing in the book of Judges.48
These models are indebted to Martin Noth’s theory of the Deuteronomistic History
(DtrH), which proposes the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings were compiled
by an exilic redactor for whom Deuteronomy functioned as a prologue.49 Although
Noth’s formative insights have been continually nuanced, adapted, and criticized, they
remain a cornerstone for methodological approaches interested in the books of the DtrH
as a multi-layered composition. Redactional activity in the book of Judges has been
48!d)01%-+!F<!b#&(9*@!The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic 4)(,9->@!;?a=?3.!HQ!J?1#::)#&+O!
?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZQHN@!PIR[IS!;%0E!D<!?%((9*@!Judges 1–12@!_7!M!Jb#6!4%/#*O!o%&#!`*)/#-(),>!
B-#((@!KLHPN@!KK<!
!
49!D%-,)*!b9,1@!The Deuteronomistic History@!,-%*(<!;%*#!F93&&!%*+!;91*!7%-,9*@!K*+!#+<@!;?a=?3.!H[!
J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZZHN<!=1#!03--#*,!(,%,#!9:!-#(#%-01!%593,!,1#!,1#9->!9:!,1#!
F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->!-#/#%&(!:93-!8%e9-!.9(),)9*(<!=1#!:)-(,!:9&&96(!b9,1q(!,1#9->!9:!9*#!()*$&#!
F#3,#-9*98)(,<!=1#!(#09*+!:9&&96(!T-%*E!D99-#!X-9((q!.-9.9(%&!9:!,1#!,1#9->!9:!%!;9()%*)0!%*+!%*!#')&)0!
#+),)9*!9:!,1#!F,-4S!(##!)+#8@!A=1#!=1#8#(!9:!,1#!799E!9:!^)*$(!%*+!,1#!?,-30,3-#!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!
4)(,9->@G!)*!)+#8@!Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel
JX%85-)+$#O!4%-/%-+!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!HZ\IN@!K\PRQZ<!=1#!,1)-+!.9(),)9*!:9&&96(!,1#!,1#9->!9:!,1-##!8%e9-!
(,-%,%!)*!,1#!F,-4!,1%,!9-)$)*%,#+!)*!,1#!7%5>&9*)%*!.#-)9+!%*+!6#-#!098.&#,#+!)*!,1#!#%-&>!B#-()%*!.#-)9+!
JW‚,,)*$#*!(0199&N<!T)*%&&>@!,1#-#!%-#!,19(#!.9(),)9*(!,1%,!-#e#0,!,1#!,1#9->!9:!%!098.-#1#*()/#!
+#3,#-9*98)(,)0!69-E!#*098.%(()*$!,1#!599E(!9:!F#3,#-9*98>!,9!^)*$(<!?##@!#<$<@!d#)*1%-+!W<!^-%,Y@!Die
Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik@!`=7!KH[\!
JW‚,,)*$#*O!j%*+#*19#0E!ƒ!d3.-#01,@!KLLLNS!^3-,!"<!b9&&@!AF#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->!9-!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!
F#5%,#h!_!=193$1,!V'.#-)8#*,@G!JSOT!IH!JKLL\NO!IHHRP[<!
!
19
imagined in various ways. Rudolf Smend’s analysis emends Noth’s initial proposal,
arguing the work of the initial historian (DtrH) was revised by a Deuteronomistic
redactor to highlight the importance of law, referred to as the nomistic Deuteronomist
(DtrN).50 Studies directed at the redactional layers of Judges provide a reasonable, albeit
theoretical, account for various competing perspectives in the book of Judges, and have
located law as a key concern for particular strata of the book.51 On the other hand,
growing dissatisfaction with redactional approaches prompted interest in the literary
analysis of Judges that strive to interpret the book in its own right.52 Robert Polzin argues
the stories of the Judges illustrate the limitations of predicting destiny based on obedience
or disobedience to the Mosaic law, effectively destabilizing one’s ability to interpret the
law in a consistent and satisfactory manner.53 Current opinions thus draw attention to the
likelihood of many editorial voices interwoven in the final form of Judges, some of which
may have been especially attuned to issues relating to Pentateuchal law.
50!d3+9&:!?8#*+@!AF%(!W#(#,Y!3*+!+)#!j‚&E#-O!#)*!7#),-%$!Y3-!+#3,#-9*98)(,)01#*!d#+%E,)9*$#(01)01,#@G!
)*!Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rod zum 70. Geburtstag,!#+<!4<!]<!]9&::!JD3*)01O!^%)(#-@!
HZ\HN@!HPQRMH<!D%-E!_<!aq7-)#*!95(#-/#(!,1%,!?8#*+q(!.-9.9(%&!%009-+(!6),1!61%,!b9,1!1)8(#&:!
)+#*,):)#+!%(!&%,#-!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!%++),)9*(@!53,!?8#*+•(!(.#0)%&!09*,-)53,)9*!6%(!,9!(##!)*!,1#(#!%++),)9*(!
%!+#:)*),#!(1%.#!%*+!.3-.9(#!JA;3+$#(!%*+!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->@G!)*!The History of Israel’s
Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth@!#+<!?,#/#*!"<!D0^#*Y)#!%*+!D<!B%,-)0E!W-%1%8@!;?a=?3.!HQK!
f?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZZPg@!KPKN<!
!
51!=198%(!d‚8#-!*9,#(!,1%,!F,-b!)(!3(3%&&>!3*+#-(,99+!%(!%!09&�,)/#!,#-8!,1%,!)*0&3+#(!/%-)93(!&%,#!
F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!-#69-E)*$(<!=1)(!89+#&!-#8%)*(!,-3#!,9!b9,1q(!1>.9,1#()(!)*(9:%-!%(!),!%&(9!&90%,#(!,1#!
5#$)**)*$(!9:!F,-4!)*!,1#!#')&)0!.#-)9+!JA=1#!c*/#*,)9*!9:!4)(,9->!)*!_*0)#*,!;3+%1!%*+!,1#!T9-8%,)9*!9:!
,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#@G!WO!P[!fKLH[gO!KMLN<!
!
52!?#-$#!T-9&9/@!Ad#,1)*E)*$!;3+$#(@G!CBQ!\H!JKLLZNO!IK<!
!
53!d95#-,!B9&Y)*@!Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History, Part
One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges!J7&998)*$,9*O!c*+)%*%!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!HZQLN@!KHLRHH<!aq7-)#*!*9,#(!
,1%,!B9&Y)*q(!%..-9%01!(,-)E#(!%!3*)23#!5%&%*0#!5#,6##*!1)(,9-)0%&C0-),)0%&!%*%&>()(!,1%,!+)(,)*$3)(1#(!
,-%+),)9*%&!8%,#-)%&!%*+!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!-#+%0,)9*!%*+!,1#!89,)9*!,9!+#89*(,-%,#!,1%,!,1#>!%-#!)*,#$-%&!
.%-,(!9:!%!&),#-%->!619&#!JA;3+$#(!%*+!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->@G!K[IN<!
!
20
1 Samuel, like Judges, has a complex compositional history. Noth maintained the
book of Samuel was a central constituent of DtrH, and identified Eli and Samuel as the
last two judges of Israel, completing the period of the judges and initiating the period of
the monarchy.54 However, unlike the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings, many have
argued that Deuteronomistic language and ideology are rare in Samuel, raising concerns
about whether the supposition of the DtrH is viable in studies of the book’s
compilation.55 Addressing the tensions between prophetic and anti-monarchical points of
view in 1 Samuel, some argue against Noth that the Deuteronomistic redaction of Samuel
could not have been the work of a single historian. Thus, as is the case of the book of
Judges, various adaptations of Noth’s thesis have surfaced, among which is the position
of the Göttingen school, which argues that Samuel underwent subsequent prophetic
(DtrP) and nomistic (DtrN) redactions.56 Increasing concern that the nuanced theories of
the DtrH are insufficient for addressing the literary complexity of the book of Samuel
paved the way for narrative criticism to become a popular method of investigating
54!b9,1@!The Deuteronomistic History@![PR[\<!!!
!
55!_<!W-%#8#!_3&+@!A=1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,(!%*+!,1#!T9-8#-!B-9.1#,(@!9-!]1%,!D%E#(!,1#!T9-8#-!B-9.1#,(!
F#3,#-9*98)(,)0hG!)*!Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism,!#+<!")*+%!
?<!?1#%-)*$!%*+!?,#/#*!"<!D0^#*Y)#@!;?a=?3.!KMQ!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZZZN@!HHMRKMS!V-*(,!
_<!^*%3:@!AF9#(!rF#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9-)9$-%.1>q!JF,-4N!V')(,hG!)*!Israel Constructs Its History:
Deuteronomistic!Historiography in Recent Research@!#+<!_&5#-,!+#!B3->!#,!%&<@!;?a=?3.!ILM!J?1#::)#&+@!
?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!KLLLN@!IQQRZQ<!!
!
56!B<!^>&#!D0X%-,#-@!A=1#!799E(!9:!?%83#&@G!)*!D0^#*Y)#!%*+!W-%1%8@!The History of Israel’s Traditions@!
K\[<!]%&,#-!F)#,-)01!%-$3#(!,1%,!F,-b!:9&&96(!F,-Bq(!0-),)0)(8!9:!89*%-01!%*+!.-#((#(!,96%-+(!%!:3&&!
-#e#0,)9*!9:!E)*$(1).!JDavid, Saul, und die Propheten: Das Verhältnis von Religion und Politik nach den
prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum in Israel@!7]_b=!HKK!f?,3,,$%-,O!^91&1%88#-@!
HZZKgN<!
!
21
Samuel.57 Still, studies of Samuel remain burdened by redactional complexity and the
desire to map the coherence of the final form. As Firth has noted, even in more developed
narrative critical approaches, there is uncertainty about what text we are interpreting.58
The compositional complexity that characterizes the books of Judges and 1
Samuel has led some to consider whether these texts share elements of their
compositional history.59 Noth identified a relationship between select portions of 1
Samuel and Judges.60 David M. Gunn explores shared techniques of narrative
composition and patterning in the books of Judges and Samuel.61 Frolov notes that
although it has been common since 1985 to examine the book of Judges as a book in its
own right, there is a host of evidence that suggests it cannot be read in isolation and is
perhaps better to link it with 1 Samuel.62 The correlation between the concluding chapters
of Judges and the opening chapters of 1 Samuel is heightened in view of the pervasive
57!F%/)+!T)-,1@!A?98#!d#:�,)9*(!9*!,1#!X3--#*,!b%--%,)/#!d#(#%-01!9*!,1#!799E!9:!?%83#&@G!STR!HL!
JKLHZNO!QS!F%/)+!D<!W3**@!The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation@!;?a=?3.!M J?1#::)#&+O!
;?a=!B-#((@!HZ\QNS!;<B<!T9EE#&8%*@!The Crossing Fates@!/9&!K!9:!Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of
Samuel@!??b!KL!J_((#*O!j%*!W9-038@!HZQHNS!d95#-,!_&,#-@!The David Story: A Translation with
Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel Jb#6!o9-EO!b9-,9*@!HZZZN<!!
!
58!T)-,1@!AX3--#*,!b%--%,)/#!d#(#%-01@G!IH<!!
!
59!D%-E!"#301,#-@!Arb96!=1#-#!]%(!%!fX#-,%)*g!D%*qO!X98.9(),)9*%&!X1-9*9&9$>!)*!;3+$#(CH!?%83#&@G!
CBQ MZ!JKLL\NO!PKZRIZS!W#-(19*!W%&)&@!A=1#!T9-8%,)9*!9:!;3+$#(!%*+!?%83#&!%*+!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!
X98.9(),)9*@G!VT \H!JKLKHNO![MMRZL<!!
!
60!b9,1@!The Deuteronomistic History@!PKR[M<!
!
61!W3**!/)#6(!(1%-#+!.%,,#-*(!5#,6##*!;3+$#(!%*+!?%83#&!%(!#/)+#*0#!9:!(1%-#+!9-%&!.%,,#-*(@!53,!23%&):)#(!
1)(!:)*+)*$(!5>!0&%-):>)*$!,1%,!(1%-#+!*%--%,)/#!.%,,#-*(!+9!*9,!09*0-#,#&>!.-9/#!,1%,!,1#!8%,#-)%&!6#!1%/#!
098#(!+)-#0,&>!:-98!9-%&!,-%+),)9*@!-%,1#-@!),!)(!%!+)(,)*0,!.9(()5)&),>!JW3**@!Ab%--%,)/#!B%,,#-*(!%*+!a-%&!
=-%+),)9*!)*!;3+$#(!%*+!?%83#&@G!VT!KP!fHZ\PgO!KQMRIH\N<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!(,>&)(,)0!09889*%&),)#(!
5#,6##*!;3+$#(!%*+!?%83#&@!(##!]9&:$%*$!d)01,#-@!Die sogenannten vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte:
Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Studie zu 1 Sam 9, 1–10, 16, Ex. 3f und Ri 6,11b–17@!Td"_b=!HLH!
JW‚,,)*$#*O!j%*+#*19#0E!ƒ!d3.-#01,@!HZ\LN@!HPRH[<!
!
62!T-9&9/@!Ad#,1)*E)*$!;3+$#(@G!IK<!
!
22
Saulide rhetoric between them.63 Moreover, some identify a cogent link between the
pericopes of the Levite’s Concubine and Hannah, both of which begin with “a certain
man/Levite of the hill country of Ephraim” (Judg 19:1; 1 Sam 1:1).64
In sum, current research assumes complex compositional histories for both the
book of Judges and 1 Samuel and identifies persuasive similarities in terms of their
language and thematic content. Although the narratives of Judges and 1 Samuel are not
commonly probed for evidence of legal innovation, their complex redactional history
makes their narratives fertile locations for legal exegesis. As I will demonstrate in the
chapters that follow, the methodological insights of the DtrH and its subsequent theories
are key for mapping complex layering of scribal innovation, particularly with respect to
the law collection of Deuteronomy. This approach accentuates the likelihood of later,
legal innovation, in select portions of the DrtH. Moreover, my analysis of each pericope
that follows will also incorporate the insights of narrative approaches in order to consider
how features of legal innovation correspond with shared literary features between Judges
and 1 Samuel. By combining the insights of these approaches, I will consider the ways in
which later scribal intervention can be located in a common thematic bond in select parts
of Judges and 1 Samuel that correlates belial with sexual violence against women.
63!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!?%3&)+#!-1#,9-)0!%(!%!-#+%0,)9*%&!&)*E!5#,6##*!,1#!599E(!9:!;3+$#(!%*+!H!?%83#&@!(##!
D%-0!p/)!7-#,,&#-@!The Book of Judges!J"9*+9*O!d93,&#+$#@!KLLKN@!ZLS!?%-%!;<!D)&(,#)*@!A?%3&!,1#!"#/),#!
%*+!4)(!X9*035)*#O!=1#!r_&&3()/#q!U3%&),>!9:!;3+$#(!HZ@G!VT!MM!JKLHMNO!Z[RHHM<!
!
64!F%/)+!;95&)*$@!Ad3,1!T)*+(!%!498#S!X%*9*@!B9&),)0(@!D#,19+@G!)*!The New Literary Criticism and the
Hebrew Bible@!#+<!;<!X1#->&!V'38!%*+!F%/)+!;<!_<!X&)*#(@!;?a=?3.!HPI!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!
HZZIN@!HILS!d#)*1%-+!Di&&#-@!AH!?%83#&!%(!,1#!a.#*)*$!X1%.,#-!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->hG!)*!Is
Samuel Among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History@!
#+<!X>*,1)%!V+#*53-$!%*+!;31%!B%EE%&%@!_c"!HM!J_,&%*,%O!?7"!B-#((@!KLHIN@!KHIRHZ<!
!
23
Rationale and Method of the Present Study
This study is the first to address the correlation of belial and sexual violence
against women as reflected in the legal exegesis of Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1
Sam 30 within a single comprehensive analysis. A comprehensive analysis of legal
exegesis in these pericopes that correlates belial and sexual violence against women in
these pericopes is ideal because, firstly, legal exegesis provides a plausible account for
the diverse strands of Pentateuchal legal and literary corpora woven throughout them.
These Pentateuchal antecedents are reimagined and coordinated in new literary contexts
in order to correlate belial with various types of violence against women in each
pericope. Secondly, legal exegesis provides an alternative approach for addressing the
function of belial in each passage by reframing the interpretive approach to the term
altogether. Assessments of belial generally attempt to map the semantic range and
etymology of the term to determine its meaning and function throughout the Hebrew
Bible. These assessments, however, have failed to produce a cohesive picture of the term
and are not methodologically suited to assess how the term is used in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam
2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30. Although belial on its own does not explicitly connote violence
against women per se, I will situate how the term functions within these passages, and in
doing so, demonstrate how its relationship to biblical law and usage in my select
pericopes corroborates its correlation with violence. Finally, I propose that delineating
the intervention of legal exegesis in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 accounts
for the myriad text-critical issues and difficult redactional histories that characterize each
pericope.
24
Legal exegesis has been traditionally identified through a combination of
comparative methods. In order to trace legal exegesis in each of my selected pericopes, I
will begin each chapter with an analysis of key structures in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36,
and 1 Sam 30, including characterization, plot, and language, that correlate the actions of
belial with sexual violence against female characters. The delineation of key narrative
features and the correlation of belial with violence against women will elucidate
underlying legal themes in each pericope. Key legal themes will further illuminate the
various Pentateuchal legal norms interwoven in each pericope. As is the case in biblical
narrative, the legal antecedents are not explicitly identified and therefore must be inferred
based on shared features and language. I will then analyze pertinent Pentateuchal literary
and legal antecedents underlying each pericope in order to trace changes between
antecedent biblical legislation and the narrative contexts of my selected pericopes. This
analysis assumes that the legislation of the Pentateuch was antecedent to the other
portions of the Hebrew Bible, particularly the latest layers of scribal intervention in the
DtrH.65 Guided by these methodological assumptions, my analysis of the legal and
literary antecedents will provide a basis for comparison between the antecedents and
pericopes of Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30.
In order to further delineate legal exegesis in each pericope, I will identify key
changes between Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 and their respective
Pentateuchal legal and literary antecedents. As stated, tracking changes in legal and
65!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!.-#(38.,)9*!9:!B#*,%,#301%&!%*,#0#+#*,(!)*!(3-/#>(!9:!&#$%&!#'#$#()(@!(##!T)(15%*#@!
A=9-%1!%*+!=-%+),)9*@G!K\[RILLS!)+#8@!Ad#/#&%,)9*!%*+!=-%+),)9*O!_(.#0,(!9:!c**#-!7)5&)0%&!V'#$#()(@G!
JBL!ZZ!JHZQLNO!IPIRMHS!X&)*#(@!Ab#1#8)%1!HL@G!HHHS!X<?<!D0^#*Y)#@!A4#5-#6!7)5&#!c**#-5)5&)0%&!
c*,#-.-#,%,)9*@G!)*!Methods of Biblical Interpretation!Jb%(1/)&&#O!_5)*$+9*@!KLLPN@!KK\<!
!
25
literary language and structure is crucial for identifying legal exegesis because such
changes, including textual comments and clarifications, scribal remarks, and
interpolations, can be indicative of legal revisions.66 My concluding analysis in each
chapter will describe how antecedent Pentateuchal legal and literary norms identified in
each pericope are deployed, transformed, and reimagined in order to correlate belial with
sexual violence against women.
Outline of the Present Study
Chapter 2 will probe Judg 19–20 for clues of legal exegesis. I will begin with a
brief survey of the state of research on Judg 19–20 that attends to its composition history
and editorial interests. My survey will elucidate that one of the editorial threads
interwoven in the narrative is especially interested in law. This legal thread is evidenced
not only in the narrative’s infusion of legal themes and structures throughout its plot and
characterizations, but also in the prevalence of the language of a specific legal
antecedent, Deut 22:21. The language of Deut 22:21 is pervasive in the language and
legal framework of Judg 19–20, and I will demonstrate its occurrence in Judg 19–20 is
more exhaustive than previously thought. My literary analysis of Judg 19–20 will attend
to key places where Deut 22:21 is interwoven in the narrative. I will demonstrate Deut
22:21 is evoked in Judg 19–20 in order to shape the legal imagination of the pericope. On
account of several instances in which Judg 19–20 creatively reworks key details in the
plot and legal terminology of Deut 22:21, I argue Judg 19–20 engages in legal exegesis of
Deut 22:21 in order to correlate belial with sexual violence against the Levite’s
concubine.
66!?##!T)(15%*#@!Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel@!HH<!!
26
Chapter 3 will probe 1 Sam 2:12–36 for evidence of legal exegesis that correlates
belial with sexual violence against women. I will begin with a brief survey of the state of
research on 1 Sam 2:12–36 that attends to its composition history and editorial interests.
This survey will highlight several editorial threads interwoven throughout the pericope
evoke various Pentateuchal antecedents in order to map several transgressions committed
by the sons of Eli. My literary analysis will attend to the contours of such legal reflection
in view of the pericope’s compositional history and characterization of Eli and his sons.
My analysis will elucidate that the latest layer of 1 Sam 2:12–36, the interpolation of MT
1 Sam 2:22, is the product of later legal innovation that adds sexual exploitation of the
so-called gathering women to the pericope’s list of charges against the sons of Eli. I will
suggest that this interpolation evidences legal exegesis that correlates belial with sexual
violence against women.
Chapter 4 will probe the pericope of 1 Sam 30 for evidence of legal exegesis that
correlates belial with sexual violence against women. I will begin with a brief survey of
the state of research on 1 Sam 30 that attends to its composition history and editorial
interests. This will elucidate that one of the editorial threads interwoven in the narrative is
especially interested in law. This legal thread is evidenced not only in the narrative’s
infusion of legal themes and structures throughout its plot but also in the evocation of the
legal frameworks Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29. My literary analysis of 1 Sam 30
will attend to the key places where these frameworks are evoked by the circumstances of
the narrative and then conflated in the proposal of the belial men. I will first demonstrate
that Deut 21:10–14, which delimits the process for the division of female captives of war,
is a decisive legal interlocutor that is evoked by the narrative framework of 1 Sam 30 and
27
implicit in the proposal of the belial men. I will then demonstrate how Deut 22:25–29,
which traces the legal logic for negotiating the consequences of sexual assault of
betrothed and unbetrothed daughters, is evoked in 1 Sam 30. I will conclude that the
proposal of the belial men in 1 Sam 30:22 conflates the legal logic of Deut 21:10–14 and
Deut 22:25–29 in an attempt to leverage legal license to profit from the sexual assault of
captive daughters. By showcasing an illegitimate conflation of the legal logic of each of
these Deuteronomic passages, legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 correlates belial with violence
against women.
Chapter 5 will synthesize the results of my analysis. There I will summarize the
results of my project, identity its limitations, and highlight avenues for future research.
28
CHAPTER 2
LEGAL EXEGESIS IN JUDG 19–20
Introduction
The crisis detailed in Judg 19–20 is infamous. Set in a time when there was no
king in Israel, the pericope recounts the consequential journey of a Levite and his
concubine. From the outset, readers learn that the couple and their relationship is fraught
with ambiguity. It seems that on account of a dispute, the concubine departed from the
Levite, and he resolves to return her to himself. After an unusual visit with the
concubine’s father, they depart for a journey through the remote hill country, and are
taken in by an old man in Gibeah. Suddenly, the men of the city, also referred to as בנ י ־
בל י על , lit. sons of belial, surround the house and threaten to assault the Levite. The
concubine is pushed out to the crowd. After a brutal assault, she returns to the door of the
house, and after her ambiguous death, the Levite takes her body, divides it up into twelve
pieces, and sends them throughout Israel. In the fallout of the crime, an intertribal trial is
held to convict the men of Gibeah for their crimes, which culminates in a civil war.
This chapter will probe Judg 19–20 for clues of legal exegesis. I will begin with a
brief survey of the state of research on Judg 19–20 that attends to its composition history
and editorial interests. My survey will elucidate that one of the editorial threads
interwoven in the narrative is especially interested in law. This legal thread is evidenced
not only in the narrative’s infusion of legal themes and structures throughout its plot and
characterizations, but also in the prevalence of the language of a specific legal
antecedent, Deut 22:21. The language of Deut 22:21 is pervasive in the language and
legal framework of Judg 19–20, and I will demonstrate its occurrence in Judg 19–20 is
more exhaustive than previously thought. My literary analysis of Judg 19–20 will attend
29
to key places where Deut 22:21 is interwoven in the narrative. I will demonstrate Deut
22:21 is evoked in Judg 19–20 in order to shape the legal imagination of the pericope. On
account of several instances in which Judg 19–20 creatively reworks key details in the
plot and legal terminology of Deut 22:21, I argue Judg 19–20 engages in legal exegesis of
Deut 22:21 in order to correlate belial with sexual violence against the Levite’s
concubine.
State of Research
Judges 19–20 is situated in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (17–21).
Because of the sudden shift away from judges-oriented tales of Judg 3–16, many propose
the final episode(s) of Judg 17–21 have a distinct compositional history and reflect
diverse redactional activity.1 This complex redactional activity is attested in the numerous
themes of Judg 17–21, many of which have been identified as reflecting the milieu of the
postexilic period on account of the narrative’s preoccupation with tensions in the Israelite
worldview.2
1!?%-%1!?013&Y@!Die Anfänge zum Richterbuch: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Ri 17-
21@!7p_]!P\\!J7#-&)*O!+#!W-3>,#-@!KLHMN@!HQZRKLMS!aq7-)#*@!A;3+$#(!%*+!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->@G!
KIZR[IS!`6#!7#0E#-@!Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch@!
7p_]!HZK!J7#-&)*O!+#!W-3>,#-@!HZZLN@!KKMR[\<!
!
2!b)+),01@!Judges@!HKRHI<!b)+),01!%&(9!%-$3#(!,1%,!;3+$!HZq(!09*0#-*!:9-!%*!#%-&)#-!,)8#!)*+)0%,#(!,1#!
.%((%$#!)(!%!&%,#!%3,19-q(!-#69-E)*$!9:!098.#&&)*$!(,9-)#(!,1%,!3*+#-(09-#!)((3#(!-#&#/%*,!,9!,1#!c(-%#&),#!
.-90#((!9:!(#&:C+#:)*),)9*!)*!#%+#8@!Judges@!HZH<!T9-!:3-,1#-!+)(03(()9*!9:!/%-)93(!-#+%0,)9*%&!,1-#%+(!
61)01!1%/#!5##*!)+#*,):)#+!)*!;3+$!HZRKH!(##!=%88)!;<!?01*#)+#-@!Judges@!7#-),!a&%8!JX9&&#$#/)&&#@!DbO!
"),3-$)0%&!B-#((@!KLLLNS!;9(#.1!7&#*E)*(9..@!A7#*e%8)*!=-%+),)9*(!d#%+!)*!,1#!V%-&>!B#-()%*!B#-)9+@G!)*!
Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period@!#+<!a+#+!").(01),(!%*+!D%*:-#+!a#8)*$!J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!
V)(#*5-%3*(@!KLLMN@!MPKRPIS!7#*e%8)*!F<!W)::9*#@!‘Sit at My Right Hand’: The Chronicler’s Portrait of
the Tribe of Benjamin in the Social Context of Yehud@!"47a=?!MKQ!Jb#6!o9-EO!7&998(53->@!KLHMN@!HPKR
PQ<!X9*0#-*)*$!,1#!9/#-%-01)*$!-#+%0,)9*%&!,1#8#(!9:!;3+$#(!HZ@!?%-%!D)&(,#)*!1%(!.-9.9(#+!,1%,!,1#!
#*,)-#,>!9:!,1#!09*035)*#!#.)(9+#!)*!;3+$#(!HZ!6%(!%*!%0,!9:!-#/)()9*!,1-93$1!)*,-9+30,)9*!61#-#5>!%*!9&+!
7#*e%8)*),#!6%-!%0093*,!6%(!-#0%(,!)*!.9)0%&!,#-8(!)*!#%+#8@!Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision
through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature Ja':9-+O!a':9-+!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLHMN@!
H\P<!
!
30
Surveys of the compositional history of Judg 17–21 also tend to show that the
chapters of Judg 19–21 reflect distinct, perhaps even later, layers of postexilic redactional
activity compared to that of Judg 17–18.3 Sarah Schulz proposes a multi-stage process
whereby the complex of Judg 19–21 gradually came into existence as a connective link
between the pre-existing segments of the Hexateuch and Samuel-Kings.4 In my view, the
core narrative of Judg 19–20 was revisited in the postexilic period to reframe the text
given its redactional interests. This process of revision not only accounts for the diverse
strands of redactional activity associated with these chapters but also allows for the
accessibility of certain segments of scriptural antecedents, including Genesis and
Deuteronomy, for scribes interested in using them as rhetorical caches.
Law and Order in Judges 19–20
Although many redactional interests have been identified in Judg 19–21, the
narrative’s illustration of the downward spiral of Israel, evidenced in moral, spiritual, and
social disintegration, can also be detected in the narrative’s engagement with juridical
systems. Some interpreters elucidate the narrative’s concern for juridical systems by
attending to the many legal features that permeate Judg 19–21. For example, Sarah
Schwartz argues the objective of the pericope is to illustrate the failure of the tribal
3!T9-!#'%8.&#@!b9,1!+)+!*9,!09*()+#-!;3+$!HIRKH!.%-,!9:!,1#!F,-4!%*+!8%)*,%)*#+!,1%,!;3+$!HZRKH!6%(!%*!
#/#*!&%,#-!%++),)9*!,1%*!;3+$!H\RHQ!)*!)+#8@!The Deuteronomistic History@![K<!F%/)+!;<!4<!7#&+8%*!
95(#-/#(!,1%,!,1#!%,,),3+#!,96%-+(!;3+$!H\RKH!%(!%..#*+#+!8%,#-)%&!)(!%&(9!6)+#&>!%00#.,#+!%89*$!,19(#!
619!%+/90%,#!(>*01-9*)0!%..-9%01#(!)*!)+#8@!The Completion of Judges: Strategies of Ending in Judges
17–21@!?cB4d`=!KH!J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!KLH\N@![HS!;91*!B<!`<!")&&#>@!A_!"),#-%->!
_..-#0)%,)9*!9:!,1#!799E!9:!;3+$#(@G!TynBul!HQ!JHZM\NO!ZPRHLKS!o%)-%1!_8),@!The Book of Judges: The
Art of Editing@!,-%*(<!;9*%,1%*!X1).8%*@!7)5c*,!IQ!J"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!HZZZN@!HMS!X1#->&!V'38@!A=1#!X#*,-#!
X%**9,!49&+O!=1#8%,)0!%*+!=#',3%&!c*(,%5)&),)#(!)*!;3+$#(@G!CBQ![K!JHZQKNO!PHLRHKS!F%/)+!]<!W99+)*$@!
A=1#!X98.9(),)9*!9:!,1#!799E!9:!;3+$#(@G!ErIsr!HM!JHZQKNO!\LR\Z<!
!
4!?013&Y@!Die Anfänge zum Richterbuch@!KK[RIL<!!
31
judicial system.5 In this view, pertinent details of plot and characterization throughout the
crime and subsequent trial of Judg 19–20 collectively demonstrate the justice system in
the narrative was unable to cope with the weight of the crimes detailed in Judg 19.
Indicators of the pericope’s interest in illustrating judicial failure can also be detected in
the characterization of the Levite, whose depiction in Judg 19–20 runs against the ideal
role played by the Levites in Deuteronomy, where they act as local juridical agents.6 The
Levite’s role in the concubine’s departure and his treatment of her throughout the episode
raises many questions about his motivations and culpability.7 Moreover, scholars have
questioned the nature of his testimony in the intertribal trial in Judg 20.8 The pericope’s
concern for a deteriorating juridical system, when paired with a suspicious depiction of
one of its key adjudicators, is suggestive of a redactional hand that was interested in
exploring the application of law and juridical practice in a deteriorating milieu.
Additional legal features in Judg 19–20 have been identified in the
characterization of the Levite’s concubine and her assailants. Judg 19:2 introduces the
5!?%-%1!?016%-,Y@!A"%6!%*+!a-+#-!)*!;3+$#(!HZRKH@G!;_bV?!I[!JKLKHNO!HP[<!a,1#-(!1%/#!()8)&%-&>!%-$3#+!
:9-!%*!)*,#$-%&!09**#0,)9*!5#,6##*!,1#!0-)8#!+#,%)&#+!)*!;3+$!HZ!%*+!,1#!)*,#-,-)5%&!,-)%&!)*!;3+$!KL<!?##!;%*!
_&5#-,9!?9$$)*@!Judges: A Commentary@!,-%*(<!;<!?<!796+#*@!a="!JB1)&%+#&.1)%O!]#(,8)*(,#-@!HZQHN@!ILLS!
V+#*53-$@!Dismembering the Whole@!KPHRPK<!!
!
6!D%-E!"#301,#-@!Ar=1#!"#/),#!)*!o93-!W%,#(qO!=1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!d#+#:)*),)9*!9:!"#/),)0%&!_3,19-),>@G!
JBL!HKM!JKLL\NO!PH\RIM<!!
!
7!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!e3-)+)0%&!-9&#!9:!,1#!"#/),#!)*!F#3,#-9*98)0!&#$)(&%,)9*@!(##!"#301,#-@!A=1#!"#/),#!)*!
o93-!W%,#(@G!PHZRK[S!D%-E!_<!aq7-)#*@!AF#3,#-9*98>!HMOHQRHQOKKO!D##,)*$!,1#!X1%&&#*$#!9:!=96*(!%*+!
b%,)9*(@G!JSOT!II!JKLLQNO!HM\RMZ<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!"#/),#q(!01%-%0,#-)Y%,)9*!)*!;3+$!HZRKL@!(##!D%-E!
"#301,#-@!The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity!Ja':9-+O!a':9-+!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLH\N@!
HK\S!j)0,9-!4<!D%,,1#6(@!A"99E)*$!:9-!"#/),#(!)*!,1#!799E!9:!;3+$#(@G!HBT!I[!JKLHINO!HP[RPMS!b#1%8%!
_(01E#*%(>@!Woman at the Window: Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape JF#,-9),O!]%>*#!?,%,#!
`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!HZZQN@ \PS!F%/)+!p<!D9(,#-@!A=1#!"#/),#!9:!;3+$#(!HZRKH@G!JBL!HIP!JKLH[NO!\KHRIL<!!
!
8!D%,,1#6(@!A"99E)*$!:9-!"#/),#(!)*!,1#!799E!9:!;3+$#(@G!HPMS!_(01E#*%(>@!Woman at the Window@!\\S!
F%/)+!^&)*$#-@!Aj%&)+%,)9*!%*+!T3*0,)9*!9:!,1#!"),#-%->!_&&3()9*(!)*!;3+$#(!HZRKH@G!BSac!H\\!JKLKLNO!
PIQRIZ<!!
!
32
Levite’s concubine, פִּילֶגֶשׁ , whose legal status and rights are undefined in biblical law.9
Moreover, the narrative’s report that the concubine left the Levite under uncertain
circumstances poses a distinctively legal question about whether her actions were
permissible.10 The combination of her anomalous legal status and the question of her
culpability in leaving the Levite creates a scenario that falls outside the purview of
biblical law. Similar legal features have been identified in the characterization of the
concubine’s assailants, the men of Gibeah. Although it is clear from the report of Judg
19–20 that this group, referred to as בנ י ־בליעל , lit. sons of belial, are guilty of violating
social norms, the relationship of this group to law and which, or how many, legal norms
they violate has not been consistently understood.11
The pericope’s depictions of juridical deterioration, tensions in legal standing and
culpability among characters, and sexual violence committed against the Levite’s
9!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!X1%)8!d%5)*@!A=1#!a-)$)*!9:!,1#!4#5-#6!]9-+!Pīlegeš@G!JJS!JHZ\PNO!I[IRMPS!4%8&#>@!
AF)(J-#N8#85#-#+@G!PHMRKLS!D#-0#+#(!"<!W%-0•%!7%018%**@!Women at Work in the Deuteronomistic
History@!cj7?!P!J_,&%*,%O!?7"!B-#((@!KLHIN@!H[KR[IS!D)#E#!7%&@!Death & DissymmetryO!The Politics of
Coherence in the Book of Judges JX1)0%$9O!`*)/#-(),>!9:!X1)0%$9!B-#((@!HZQQN@!QH<!
!
10!B%8#&%!7%-8%(1!%-$3#(!,1#!*%--%,)/#!9:!,1#!"#/),#q(!09*035)*#!&#%/)*$!J;3+$!HZOKN!9::#-(!.9(()5&#!
#/)+#*0#!,1%,!%!698%*!093&+!,%E#!,1#!)*),)%,)/#!)*!,1#!+)/9-0#<!496#/#-@!,1#-#!%-#!8%*>!)*,#-.-#,)/#!
+)::)03&,)#(!6),1!,1)(!.%((%$#@!%89*$!61)01!)(!,1%,!,1#!698%*!)(!,#-8#+!%! ‘v~u’•’“ @!09*035)*#@!%*+!),!)(!
,1#-#:9-#!3*0&#%-!61#,1#-!,1#!.-90#+3-#(!9:!+)/9-0#!693&+!%..&>!)*!,1#!(%8#!6%>!,9!%!6):#!%*+!%!
09*035)*#<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!#%+#8@!A=1#!F%3$1,#-!?9&+!)*,9!?&%/#->!%*+!D%--)%$#@G!)*!Sexuality and Law
in the Torah@!#+<!4)&%->!").E%!%*+!7-30#!]#&&(@!"47a=?!M\[!J"9*+9*O!=ƒ=!X&%-E@!KLKLN@![ZRMPS!B1>&&)(!
7)-+@!Ar=9!B&%>!,1#!4%-&9,qO!_*!c*23)->!)*,9!%*!a&+!=#(,%8#*,!D#,%.19-@G!)*!Gender and Difference in
Ancient Israel@!#+<!B#$$>!"<!F%>!JD)**#%.9&)(O!_3$(53-$!T9-,-#((@!HZQZN@!\[RZP<!
!
11!c*!(98#!0%(#(@!%*0)#*,!-#0#*()9*(!(),3%,#!,1#!.1-%(#!)*!/)#6!9:!&%6!%*+!&%6&#((*#((<!T9-!#'%8.&#@!"‹‹!
;3+$!HZOKK!-#*+#-(!”•–—!˜™Š™š›œ•š@!A(9*(!9:!&%6&#((*#((@G!%*+!j3&$<!KLOHI!-#*+#-(!qui hoc flagitium
perpetrarunt!A,19(#!619!0988),,#+!,1#!1#)*93(!0-)8#<G!496#/#-@!,1#!#'%0,!*%,3-#!9:!,1#!&#$%&!/)9&%,)9*!)*!
/)#6!)*!;3+$!HZRKL!)(!(35e#0,!,9!+#5%,#<!?98#!1%/#!.-9.9(#+!,1#!&%6&#((*#((!%((90)%,#+!6),1!belial!)*!,1#!
.#-)09.#!09**9,#(!,1#!/)9&%,)9*!9:!*9-8(!9:!19(.),%&),>@!9,1#-(!%((90)%,#!),!6),1!,1#!,1-#%,!9:!1989(#'3%&!
-%.#@!%*+!(,)&&!9,1#-(!09--#&%,#!),!6),1!(#'3%&!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!,1#!"#/),#q(!09*035)*#<!T9-!%!+)(03(()9*!9:!
/)9&%,)9*(!9:!19(.),%&),>@!(##!D%,,1#6(@!A49(.),%&),>!%*+!49(,)&),>!)*!W#*#()(!HZ!%*+!;3+$#(!HZ@G!IRHHS!
B#+#-(#*@!Israel Its Life and Culture@!PIHS!^%,1#-)*#!?93,1699+@!A=1)(!D%*!4%(!X98#!)*,9!D>!493(#@G!
PMZRQP<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!/)9&%,)9*(!%((90)%,#+!6),1!(#'3%&!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!,1#!"#/),#@!(##!;9i9*@!Astuvwxyxu !
7z"c_"@G!H\QS!a,Y#*@!TDOT!HOHIP<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!/)9&%,)9*(!%((90)%,#+!6),1!(#'3%&!%((%3&,!9:!,1#!
"#/),#q(!09*035)*#@!(##!b)+),01@!Judges@!HQ[RZIS!=-)5&#@!Texts of Terror@!M[RZK<!
33
concubine are all suggestive of a redactional hand concerned with the intersection of
these legal features and their impact on the world of Judg 19–20. I argue that the infusion
of legal features and anomalies that are outside the purview of biblical law in Judg 19–20
make it a prime location for exploring the boundaries and application of biblical law in an
anomalous context. This is to say, the coordination of legal features in Judg 19–20 is a
prime location for legal exegesis.
Deuteronomy 22:21 in Judges 19–20
The narrative’s interest in legal themes, and its engagement in legal exegesis, is
corroborated by several key affinities with Deut 22:21. Deut 22:21 belongs to what some
refer to as the Deuteronomic family laws, laws that deal with family and sexual matters
interspersed among a variety of other laws spanning Deut 21–25.12 The collection is
replete with evidence of various methods of legal innovation ranging from legal analogy,
linguistic reformations between cases, and scribal interventions aimed at judicial
reform.13 It is widely accepted that the legislation of Deut 22 is a decisive location for
12!_&#'%*+#-!d9:|@!Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation!J"9*+9*O!=ƒ=!X&%-E@!KLLKN@!HMZ<!_&,193$1!,1#!
&),#-%->!.-#1)(,9->!9:!,1#!(9C0%&&#+!:%8)&>!&%6(!1%(!5##*!/%-)93(&>!3*+#-(,99+@!,1#-#!)(!(98#!09*(#*(3(!,1%,!
F#3,!KKOHIRKZ!0%*!5#!3*+#-(,99+!%(!%!(#&:C09*,%)*#+!09&�,)9*<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!X>*,1)%!V+#*53-$@!
Ac+#9&9$>!%*+!?90)%&!X9*,#',!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!?#'!"%6(!JF#3,#-9*98>!KKOHIRKZN@G!JBL!HKQ!JKLLZNO!
PPS!W<!;<!]#*1%8!%*+!;<!W<!D0X9*/)&&#@!AF-%:,)*$!=#01*)23#(!)*!?98#!F#3,#-9*98)0!"%6(@G!VT!IL!
JHZQLNO!KPQR[K<!
!
13!F#3,!KKOK[!09--#&%,#(!-%.#!6),1!83-+#-!%*+!)(!-#$%-+#+!%(!,1#!9*&>!0&#%-!0%(#!9:!&#$%&!%*%&9$>!)*!,1#!
4#5-#6!7)5&#<!?##!").,9*@!A"#$%&!_*%&9$>!)*!F#3,#-9*98>!%*+!T-%,-)0)+#!)*!,1#!T)#&+@G!K[RI\<!"93)(!;<!
?,3&8%*!%-$3#(!F#3,!KKOHIRKH!)&&3(,-%,#(!%!,-%*(),)9*!)*!89-#(@!-#89/)*$!e3+)0)%&!%3,19-),>!9/#-!,1#!698%*!
)*!23#(,)9*!:-98!,1#!13(5%*+!9-!.%,#-:%8)&)%(!,9!,1#!+98%)*!9:!,1#!093-,(!)*!),(!-#/)()9*!9:!%!.-#C#')(,)*$!
&%6!,1%,!%::9-+#+!,1#!13(5%*+!%5(9&3,#!%3,19-),>!9/#-!1)(!193(#19&+!JA?#'!%*+!T%8)&)%&!X-)8#(!)*!,1#!F!
X9+#O!_!]),*#((!,9!D9-#(!)*!=-%*(),)9*@G!JSOT![I!fHZZKgO![\R[ZN<!;9(#.1!T&#)(018%*!)+#*,):)#(!%!()8)&%-!
.#*01%*,!:9-!&#$%&!)**9/%,)9*!)*!1)(!,-#%,8#*,!9:!,1#!-#(,-)0,)9*!9:!V'9+!KHOH\!)*!F#3,!KKOHIRKH!JA=1#!
F#&)*23#*,!F%3$1,#-!%*+!"#$%&!c**9/%,)9*!)*!F#3,#-9*98>!''))!KLRKH@G!HZHRKHLN<!T9-!:3-,1#-!+)(03(()9*!
9:!##*,(!9:!e3+)0)%&!-#:9-8@!)*0&3+)*$!,1#!#&#/%,)9*!9:!,1#!-9&#!9:!#/)+#*0#!)*!,1#!+#,#-8)*%,)9*!9:!0%(#(!
)*!F#3,#-9*98>@!(##!V+#*53-$@!Ac+#9&9$>!%*+!?90)%&!X9*,#',!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!]98#*q(!?#'!"%6(@G!
ML<!
!
34
legal innovation within Deuteronomy itself and that this passage served as a catalyst for
legal reflection elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.14
Deut 22:13–21 describes the events of a case that is sometimes referred to as the
“case of the slandered bride.” It addresses what should happen if a newly married
husband accuses his wife of not being a virgin at the time of their wedding. The passage
is usually divided into two parts, Deut 22:13–19 and Deut 22:20–21, where the former
describes the course of action if the husband has falsely accused the woman and the latter
prescribes what to do if the husband has told the truth. There is no shortage of literature
on the textual and legal difficulties posed by this passage.15 There is considerable doubt
that this legislation was ever put into practice, there are several issues related to its
relationship with other legal texts in the Pentateuch, especially because its resolution
seems to contradict other Pentateuchal laws (e.g., Exod 22:15–16 and Deut 22:28–29),
and scholars have not been able to account for why the passage imagines the young
woman’s offense in Deut 22:21 as a crime more heinous than adultery (cf. Deut 22:26–
27).16 Bruce Wells’s treatment of the passage suggests its composite parts conceptually
14!c,!#'0##+(!,1#!.-#(#*,!+)(03(()9*!,9!#'.&9-#!,9!61%,!#',#*,@!):!%*>@!,1#!09&�,)9*!9:!F#3,#-9*98>!-#:�,(!
.-%0,)0#+!&%6<!D>!.-9e#0,!)*(,#%+!0%&&(!%,,#*,)9*!,9!&#$%&!)**9/%,)9*!)*!,1#!5)5&)0%&!&%6!09&�,)9*(!%(!%!
.%-%893*,!:#%,3-#!9:!(0-)5%&!)*,#-/#*,)9*!)*!,#',(!(301!%(!F#3,!KK<!_(!E#>!(93-0#(!9:!-#:�,)9*@!&#$%&!09+#(!
6#-#!(35e#0,!,9!09*,)*3%&!-#:�,)9*!%*+!+#/#&9.8#*,!,1%,!0%*!%&(9!5#!+#,#0,#+!,1-93$193,!,1#!4#5-#6!
7)5&#<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#(#!.%((%$#(!%(!,1#9-#,)0%&!.-)*0).&#(@!(##!=)E/%!T->8#-C^#*(E>@!A"%6!%*+!
B1)&9(9.1>O!=1#!X%(#!9:!?#'!)*!,1#!7)5&#@G!Semeia!P[!JHZQZNO!ZI<!"93)(!;<!?,3&8%*!()8)&%-&>!%-$3#(!:9-!,1#!
&)E#&)199+!,1%,!,1#(#!&%6(!%*+!,1#)-!.3*)(18#*,(!6#-#!*#/#-!)*,#*+#+!,9!5#!0%--)#+!93,!JA?#'!%*+!T%8)&)%&!
X-)8#(!)*!,1#!F!X9+#@G![MN<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!-#&%,)9*(1).!9:!F#3,#-9*98>!6),1!*%--%,)/#(!#&(#61#-#!)*!
,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#@!(##!?%-%!;<!D)&(,#)*@!A=1#!a-)$)*(!9:!,1#!"%6(@G!)*!The Cambridge Companion to Law
in the Hebrew Bible@!#+<!7-30#!]#&&(!JX%85-)+$#O!X%85-)+$#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLKPN@!QM<!
!
15!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!F%/)+!d9,1(,#)*@!AF#3,#-9*98>!KKOKH!)*!,1#!_*0)#*,!j#-()9*(O!=#',3%&!%*+!"#$%&!
X9*()+#-%,)9*(@G!ZABR!KH!JKLH[NO!K[IR\P<!
!
16!d9,1(,#)*!%-$3#(!,#',3%&!.#03&)%-),)#(!9:!F#3,!KKOKH!)*!,1#!?%8%-),%*!B#*,%,#301!%*+!,1#!?#.,3%$)*,!%*+!
+#89*(,-%,#(!/%-)93(!,#',3%&!-#%+)*$(!%..#%-!,9!-#:�,!(0-)5%&!)*,#-/#*,)9*!)*:9-8#+!5>!59,1!#'#$#,)0%&!%*+!
&#$%&!09*()+#-%,)9*(!%*+!)*!/)#6!9:!09*:&)0,)*$!.9(()5)&),)#(!)*!)+#8@!AF#3,#-9*98>!KKOKH!)*!,1#!_*0)#*,!
j#-()9*(@G!H\P<!
35
follow the legal process of the ancient Near East, with Deut 22:13–19 describing details
that would have impacted the legal handling of the situation, and Deut 22:20–21
prescribing the general rule as well as the as the most severe penalty allowed.17 Deut
22:21 thus describes the penalty imagined for the young woman’s transgression,
וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת־הנער אֶל־פֶּתַח בֵּית־אבִיהָ וּס ְק ָ לוּה ָ א ַ נ ְשׁ ֵ י ﬠִירָהּ בּ ָאֲב ָנִים וָמ ֵת ָה כִּי־ﬠָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִזְנו ֹת בֵּית
אָבִיהָ וּבִﬠַר ְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּר ְבֶּ©
And they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house and the men of her
city shall stone her with stones so that she may die because she has done folly in Israel to commit
fornication in her father’s house, so you shall purge evil from your midst.
The language and legal framework of Deut 22:21 correspond to several key
details described in Judg 19–20. Based on striking linguistic parallels between Judg 19
and Deut 22, Cynthia Edenburg proposes the language of Deut 22 is intentionally
invoked in the narrative of Judg 19.18 First, the collocation of אֲבִי הַנַּﬠֲ ר ָה “father of the
young woman,” only appears in the Hebrew Bible in Deut 22:15–16, 19, and 29 and Judg
19:3–6, 8–9. Second, פֶּתַח הַבַּי ִת , “the entrance of the house,” is mentioned in both Judg
19:26–27 and Deut 22:21. Third, the use of זנה to denote sexual impropriety further
correlates Judg 19:2 with Deut 22:21. Finally, the construct men of her city, אַנְשֵׁי ﬠִירָהּ ,
which appears in Judg 19:22 as men of the city, אַנְשֵׁי הָﬠִיר , designate the group of men in
the death of the female characters in each scenario.
Despite the striking linguistic similarities between Judg 19–20 and Deut 22:21,
several vital differences between these texts suggest the latter is not up to the task of
adjudicating the crisis in Judg 19–20. Firstly, whereas Deut 22:21 legislates imagined
17!7-30#!]#&&(@!A?#'@!")#(@!%*+!j)-$)*%&!d%.#O!=1#!?&%*+#-#+!7-)+#!%*+!T%&(#!_003(%,)9*!)*!
F#3,#-9*98>@G!JBL!HKP!JKLL[NO!\K<!!
!
18!X>*,1)%!V+#*53-$@!Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–21, _c"!KP!
J_,&%*,%O!?7"!B-#((@!KLHMN@!KPMRPQ<!
36
sexual impropriety of a young woman, הנערה , Judg 19 describes the sexual impropriety of
a concubine, פִּילֶגֶשׁ . The legal distinction between these characters is striking, however, as
פִּילֶגֶשׁ and its correlative legal status are unspecified in biblical law. Although Judg 19
seems to grapple with a legal question about the concubine’s legal status and culpability
concerning זנה , her character nevertheless stands outside the strict purview of biblical
law. Furthermore, while Judg 19 and the legislation of Deut 22:21 both grapple with the
question of זנה and its legal ramifications, it is unclear a whether legal analogy between
the two scenarios is possible given the ambiguous legal standing of the פִּילֶגֶשׁ . Secondly,
the legislation of Deut 22:21 and the narrative of Judg 19 have very different
presentations of the locations and means of execution. Deut 22:21 prescribes the guilty
woman be brought to the door of her father’s house and stoned by the men of her city.
Judg 19, despite its many affinities with Deut 22:21, reworks both the location of the
young woman’s death and the means of execution.
Although these differences mitigate against the application of Deut 22:21 as a
strict legal analogy in Judg 19–20, they are key to illustrating the narrative’s innovative
legal exegesis. I will demonstrate that the opening of Judg 19 intentionally evokes the
legal language and framework of Deut 22:21 to prepare readers to expect a particular
legal outcome. However, as the evocation of Deut 22:21 continues in the legal features
and characterization of the crisis at Gibeah, Judg 19 reworks the language of Deut 22:21
to reimagine the guilty party. The ruling of the intertribal trial in Judg 20 corroborates the
designation of the guilty party and produces a legal norm that is otherwise unspecified in
biblical law. The result of this clever reworking is legal exegesis that correlates belial
with sexual violence against the Levite’s concubine.
37
Literary Analysis
Judg 19:1–3 –– A Levite and his Concubine
The opening of Judg 19–20 echoes a refrain woven throughout Judg 17–21, “In
those days there was no king in Israel.”19 There is considerable debate over whether the
refrain reflects pro-monarchic sentiments that imagine the social and legal deterioration
described in Judg 17–21 will find a solution in the promise of monarchy, or whether the
refrain is merely stylistic, joining the final chapters of Judges together in a common
literary context.20 However, framing the refrain as either a pro-monarchic or stylistic
literary device overlooks its unique legal agenda. Robert Wilson argues the refrain
echoed in Judg 19:1 anticipates the breakdown of the judicial system imagined in
Deuteronomy.21 In this view, the refrain reflects on a world in which there was a lack of a
19!=1#!-#:-%)*!)(!89+):)#+!)*!;3+$!HQOH@!HZOH!098.%-#+!,9!;3+$!H\OM@!KHOK[@!61#-#!,1#!&%,,#-!,69!.%((%$#(!
)*0&3+#!A#/#->!8%*!+)+!61%,!6%(!-)$1,!)*!1)(!96*!#>#(G!%(!.%-,!9:!,1#!(,>&)(,)0!-#:-%)*<!!
!
20!?9$$)*!%-$3#(!),!)(!%!.-9C89*%-01)0%&!.1-%(#!)*!)+#8@!Judges@!KM[<!_*+-#6!F<!4<!D%>#(!%-$3#(!,1#!
.1-%(#!)(!.-9C89*%-01)0@!%*+!,1%,!,1#!)*/#-,#+!.%,,#-*!9:!,1#!-#:-%)*!19&+(!59,1!(,9-)#(!,9$#,1#-!%(!#/)+#*,!
)&&3(,-%,)9*(!9:!,1#!-#&)$)93(!%*+!(90)%&!%*%-01>!,9!61)01!c(-%#&!6%(!(35e#0,!6),193,!,1#!0#*,-%&)Y)*$!09*,-9&!
9:!,1#!89*%-01)0!)*(,),3,)9*!)*!)+#8@!AF#3,#-9*98)(,)0!d9>%&!c+#9&9$>!)*!;3+$#(!H\RKH@G!BibInt Z!JKLLHNO!
KPK<!W%&#!_<!o##!()8)&%-&>!09*0&3+#(!,1%,!,1#!)+#9&9$)0%&!,1-3(,!9:!;3+$#(!H\RKH!.-#.%-#(!-#%+#-(!:9-!,1#!
89*%-01>!)*!#%+#8@!Ac+#9&9$)0%&!X-),)0)(8O!;3+$#(RKH!%*+!,1#!F)(8#85#-#+!79+>@G!)*!Judges and
Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies@!#+<!W%&#!_<!o##!JD)**#%.9&)(O!_3$(53-$!T9-,-#((@!HZZ[N@!
H[\R[Q<!b)+),01!%-$3#(!,1#!-#03--)*$!&)*#(!09*0#-*)*$!%*!#%-&)#-!,)8#!)*!,1#!1)(,9->!9:!c(-%#&!J0:<!H\OMS!HQOHS!
HZOHS!%*+!KHOK[N!&)*E!,1#!,%&#!9:!6%-!)*!;3+$!HZRKH!6),1!,1#!F%*),#!:93*+)*$!8>,1!%*+!(#,!,1#!,9*#!:9-!%!
.%-,)03&%-!%,,),3+#!,9!,1#!.%(,@!,13(!;3+$!H\OM!)(!*9,!%!09*+#8*%,)9*!61)01!%*,)0).%,#(!,1#!*##+!:9-!,1#!
89*%-01>!53,!-%,1#-!)*+)0%,#(!,1)*$(!6#-#!+)::#-#*,!)*!#%-&)#-!,)8#(!)*!#%+#8@!Judges@!HQKRZH<!?)8)&%-&>@!
4<]<!;i*$&)*$!%-$3#(!,1%,!;3+$!HZOH!)(!%*!)*,#$-%&!.%-,!9:!,1#!*%--%,)/#!)*,-9+30,)9*!9:!,1#!93,-%$#!%,!
W)5#%1!)*!JRichter 19-Ein Plädoyer für das Königtum@!_*7)5!QP!fd98#O!7)5&)0%&!c*(,),3,#!B-#((@!HZQHg@!
MMN<!])&&)%8!;<!F-385#&&!%-$3#(!%$%)*(,!,1#!,-%+),)9*%&!%((38.,)9*!,1%,!;3+$!KHOK[!)(!%*!)*,-9+30,)9*!,9!,1#!
89*%-01)0%&!599E(!,1%,!:9&&96!%*+!8%)*,%)*(!,1#!-#:-%)*!)(!%!-#+%0,)9*!,1%,!-#:�,(!)*,#-#(,(!9:!#')&)0!9-!
.9(,#')&)0!(),3%,)9*!9:!c(-%#&!5#0%3(#!+3-)*$!,1#!#')&#!,1#-#!6%(!*9!E)*$!)*!)+#8@!Arc*!=19(#!F%>(!=1#-#!
]%(!b9!^)*$!)*!c(-%#&@!V/#->!D%*!F)+!]1%,!]%(!d)$1,!)*!4)(!a6*!V>#(qO!=1#!B3-.9(#!9:!,1#!799E!9:!
;3+$#(!d#09*()+#-#+@G!JSOT!K[!JHZQINO!KIRIH<!T9-!,1#!89*%-01)0!%.9&9$#,)0!,9!5#!.#-(3%()/#@!c!%8!
)*0&)*#+!,9!%$-##!6),1!7-#,,&#-q(!%((#((8#*,!,1%,!,1#!0&9()*$!01%.,#-(!9:!;3+$#(!+9!*9,!9::#-!%*>!#/)+#*0#!,9!
(3$$#(,!,1#!%3,19-!,193$1,!%!E)*$!693&+!1%/#!:%-#+!%*>!5#,,#-!)*!,1#!(90)%&!%*+!e3+)0)%&!09&&%.(#!)*!)+#8@!
The Book of Judges@!ZH<!
!
21!d95#-,!d<!])&(9*@!Ac(-%#&q(!;3+)0)%&!?>(,#8!)*!,1#!B-##')&)0!B#-)9+@G!JQR!\P!JHZQINO!KIZ<!!
!
38
centralized judiciary to soundly administer law. Similarly, Soggin suggests the refrain in
Judg 19:1 juxtaposes the monarchy with the Levite, “When there was no king in Israel,
there was a Levite…”22 In other words, these approaches frame the refrain in Judg 19:1 in
view of juridical administration, offering the juridical capacity of the Levite in the place
of the juridical capacity of a king, and setting a distinctively legal landscape in Judg 19–
20.
The introduction of the Levite in the refrain of Judg 19:1 also alludes to the
presentation of the Levites in the legislation of Deuteronomy. Mark Leuchter argues the
rhetoric of Deuteronomy appeals to the continued role of local Levites, highlighting their
role in local jurisprudence, especially concerning the preservation of justice due to
marginal persons.23 The refrain’s coordination of the monarchical vacuum with the
introduction of the Levite amplifies his juridical responsibility detailed in Deuteronomy.
The Levite’s involvement in jurisprudence is further attested in his participation in the
intertribal trial in Judg 20, where his testimony rallies Israel to render judgment on the
sons of belial in Judg 20:4–7. However, there are several concerns about the
characterization of the Levite in Judg 19–20. Some have argued his callousness and
brutality toward the concubine in addition to the omission of key details in his testimony
22!?9$$)*@!Judges@!KQI<!
!
23!"#301,#-!%-$3#(!,1#!E#>!,9!%(0#-,%)*)*$!,1#!-9&#!9:!,1#!"#/),#!)*!;9()%*)0!;3+%1!)(!,9!5#!:93*+!)*!,1#!:3&&!
%..#&&%,)9*!9:!,1)(!-#03--)*$!01%-%0,#-!%(!1#!)(!.-#(#*,#+!)*!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!,#',O!1#!)(!,1#!"#/),#!A)*!>93-!
$%,#(G!J sv“tyžŸ’~ N<!=1#!.1-%(#!(.#%E(!+#0)()/#&>!,9!,1#!,-%+),)9*%&!&903(!9:!-#$)9*%&!e3-)(.-3+#*0#!,%E)*$!.&%0#!
%,!,1#!/)&&%$#!$%,#(<!"#301,#-!%++(@!AF#3,#-9*98>!8%>!#*$%$#!)*!%!+-%8%,)0!-#:9-8!9:!-#$)9*%&!
e3-)(.-3+#*0#!5>!:#+#-%&)Y)*$!,1#!&90%&!e3+)0)%->@!53,!,1#!%0,3%&!e3-)+)0%&!%$#*,(!(#�,#+!:9-!,1)(!.-90#((!
693&+!1%/#!5##*!,1#!&90%&!"#/),)0%&!.-)#(,(!9:!,1#!.-#CF#3,#-9*98)0!#-%@!-#$)9*%&!:)',3-#(!+)/#(,#+!9:!03&,)0!
%3,19-),>!53,!$-%*,#+!#'#03,)/#!%*+!e3-)+)0%&!-#(.9*()5)&),)#(G!)*!)+#8@!Ar=1#!"#/),#!)*!o93-!W%,#(qO!=1#!
F#3,#-9*98)0!d#+#:)*),)9*!9:!"#/),)0%&!_3,19-),>@G!PHZRKI<!T9-!:3-,1#-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!-#&%,)9*(1).!9:!
,1#!"#/),#(!6),1!)**9/%,)9*(!)*!F#3,#-9*98>q(!09-#!&#$%&!,#',(@!(##!B1)&)..#!W3)&&%38#@!AF#3,#-9*98>q(!
Dl2¡8!5#:9-#!F#3,#-9*98>@G!)*!V+#&8%*!#,!%&<@ Deuteronomy in the Making@!195–218.!
39
at the trial in Judg 20 are suggestive of corruption.24 The introduction of the Levite
therefore evokes the juridical capabilities of the Levites in Deuteronomy, but whether this
character is up to the task of adjudicating the legal scenario that follows is for now an
open question.
The introduction of the Levite’s concubine, פִּילֶגֶשׁ , adds another distinctively legal
stratum to Judg 19–20. These characters are legal anomalies in the Hebrew Bible.
Although most scholars agree that a concubine, פִּילֶגֶשׁ , connotes a secondary wife, nothing
is known about the legal status or rights of these figures.25 The term does not occur in any
of the biblical law codes and we have little information about how it may have
analogically related to the rights and protections of women described therein.26
Moreover, the uncertain legal status of these characters seems to exacerbate their
vulnerability. Hamley draws attention to themes of violence and liminality associated
with פִּילֶגֶשׁ in the Hebrew Bible, noting that in many of the narratives in which these
characters appear they are highly vulnerable and expendable in the political conflicts of
their time (e.g., Gen 35; Judg 19; 2 Sam 3; 2 Sam 5).27 The anomalous legal status of
concubines, when paired with social and physical vulnerability, not only highlights the
24!"#301,#-@!The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity@!HKQ<!=1#!*#$%,)/#!01%-%0,#-)Y%,)9*!9:!,1#!
"#/),#(!1%(!%&(9!5##*!,1#!(35e#0,!9:!+)(03(()9*!)*!%*%&>(#(!9:!;3+$!H\RHQ<!?##!F%/)+!D9(,#-@!A=1#!"#/),#!
9:!;3+$#(!H\RHQ@G!JBL!HII!JKLHPNO!\I\S!F%/)+#!Fq_8)09@!A=1#!_*,)C"#/),#!9:!;3+$#(!H\RHQ@G!JSOT!PQ!
JKLKINO!IMRPZ<!
!
25!?##!d%5)*@!A=1#!a-)$)*!9:!,1#!4#5-#6!]9-+!Pīlegeš@G!I[IRMP<!?98#!%-$3#!,1#!&#$%&!.9(),)9*!)(!*9,!
()8.&>!3*E*96*@!53,!9.#*&>!69-(#!098.%-#+!,9!,1%,!9:!6)/#(!%*+!/)-$)*!+%3$1,#-(<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!
4%8&#>@!AF)(J-#N8#85#-#+@G!PIPS!=-)5&#@!Texts of Terror@!MM<!!!
!
26!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!7%-8%(1@!A=1#!F%3$1,#-!?9&+!)*,9!?&%/#->!%*+!D%--)%$#@G![ZRMPS!7)-+@!A=9!B&%>!,1#!
4%-&9,@G!\[RZP<!!
!
27!4%8&#>@!AF)(J-#N8#85#-#+@G!PKHRK\<!!
40
precariousness of the פִּילֶגֶשׁ in Judg 19 but introduces a legal anomaly into the juridical
crisis of Judg 19–20.
The legal anomaly of the concubine comes into focus in the narrative in Judg
19:2, where linguistic similarities correlate the actions of the פִּילֶגֶשׁ with the legislation of
Deut 22:21. This correlation begins in the narrative’s description of the circumstances of
her departure from the Levite. MT Judg 19:2 indicates the פִּילֶגֶשׁ fornicated, וַתִּזְנֶה , often
rendered “she played the harlot,” against him and left to return to her father’s house. The
verb וַתִּזְנֶה poses not only a text-critical issue in Judg 19:2 but also a legal one. The root in
the MT is debated and alternate manuscript traditions have several variants.28 For
example, LXXa reads ὠργίσθη αὐτῷ “she became angry with him” and LXXb ἐπορεύθη
ἀπ᾽αὐτοῦ “she went from him.”29 William Krisel has aptly summarized the crucial
interpretive question of Judg 19:2, noting the difference in meaning between “his
concubine played the harlot against him” and “his concubine was angry with him” is vast
and irreconcilable. To become angry with one’s spouse or partner is an everyday
28!74U!+)(%$-##(!6),1!74?!%*+!8%)*,%)*(!,1#!D=!/%-)%*,! yžuž~¢ !¢x£v¤t€’¥ !%(!,1#!.-#:#--#+!-#%+)*$<!496#/#-@!
74U!)(!()&#*,!%(!,9!196!,1#!.1-%(#!(193&+!5#!,-%*(&%,#+!(193&+!,1#!D=!/%-)%*,!5#!)*,#-.-#,#+!,9!8#%*!A%*+!
(1#!619-#+!%$%)*(,!1)8G!:9&&96)*$!,1#!3(3%&!8#%*)*$!9:! ¤€¥ !9-!A%*+!(1#!6%(!%*$->!6),1!1)8G!%(!.-9.9(#+!
5>!F-)/#-!%*+!7%-,1|>h!F-)/#-!%-$3#+!,1%,!,1#!74!09$*%,#!9:!,1#!_EE%+)%*!zenu!J,9!5#!%*$->N!6%(! ¤€¥ !
-%,1#-!,1%*! ¤€¦ <! ¤€¥ !,13(!1%(!,69!8#%*)*$(!%009-+)*$!,9!F-)/#-@!,9!.-9(,),3,#!9*#(#&:!%*+!,9!5#!%*$-><!
7%-,1|>!:9&&96(!F-)/#-@!%-$3)*$!,1%,!%&,193$1!74?!,%E#(!,1#!.9(),)9*!,1%,!,1#!/#-5!9:!,1#!j9-&%$#!9:!
HZOK%!693&+!1%/#!5##*! ¤€¦ @!%-$3)*$!),!6%(! ¤€¥ @!,1#!(%8#!/#-5!3(#+!)*!,1#!D=!53,!6),1!,1#!8#%*)*$!9:!A,9!5#!
%*$-><G!?##!F98)*)23#!7%-,1|>@!Critique textuelle de l’Ancien testament@!/9&<!H@!a7a![L!JW‚,,)*$#*O!
j%*+#*19#0E!ƒ!d3.-#01,@!HZQKN@!HHM<!
!
29!;9(#.13(q!%0093*,!%&(9!09*,%)*(!*9!,-%0#!9:!(#'3%&!)*:)+#&),>@!%*+!,1#!(%8#!0%*!5#!(%)+!:9-!=%-$38!
;9*%,1%*<!496#/#-@!B(#3+9CB1)&9q(!Biblical Antiquities!-#%+(@!A=1#!%((%)&%*,(!#*,#-#+!5>!:9-0#!%*+!+-%$$#+!
1)8!%*+!1)(!09*035)*#!93,@!%*+!,1#>!0%(,!1)8!9::<!_*+!61#*!,1#!8%*!1%+!5##*!&#,!$9@!,1#>!%53(#+!1)(!
09*035)*#!3*,)&!(1#!+)#+@!5#0%3(#!(1#!1%+!,-%*($-#((#+!%$%)*(,!1#-!8%*!9*0#!(1#!()**#+!6),1!,1#!
_8%&#E),#(@!%*+!9*!%0093*,!9:!,1)(!,1#!"9-+!W9+!+#&)/#-#+!1#-!)*,9!,1#!1%*+(!9:!,1#!()**#-(<G!?##!F<!;<!
4%--)*$,9*@!Old Testament Pseudepigrapha@!#+<!;%8#(!4<!X1%-&#(69-,1@!K!/9&(<!Jb#6!o9-EO!F935&#+%>@!
HZQIN@!KOI[ZRML<!!
!
41
occurrence that garners sympathy and understanding from the reader. In contrast, to
commit adultery is a serious sin that arouses indignation and condemnation.30
Although it is common for interpreters to follow the LXX ὠργίσθη αὐτῷ “she
became angry with him” as the preferred reading, I maintain that the pervasiveness of
Deut 22:21 in Judg 19–20 explains the MT’s use of וַתִּזְנֶה to evoke sexual impropriety. In
Deut 22:21, זנה characterizes the sexual impropriety committed by the young woman. In
Judg 19:2–3, linguistic similarities correlate its legal context with the legislation of Deut
22:21. The introduction of the father’s house in Judg 19:2 further evokes the location of
the legal crisis in Deut 22:21. This location, combined with the collocation of אֲבִי הַנַּﬠֲ ר ָה
“father of the young woman,” which only appears in the Hebrew Bible in Deut 22:15–16,
19, and 29 and Judg 19:3–6, 8–9, further coordinates זנה as sexual impropriety and the
legal milieu of the female character in the context of her father’s house following Deut
22:21. However, I do not follow the approach of interpreters who argue that later
redactors intentionally evoke Deut 22:21’s use of זנה as sexual sin in the MT Judg 19:2 as
a justification for the concubine’s horrific fate.31 This approach sees the application of
Deut 22:21 and its legal framework of זנה in terms of a strict legal analogy. However, it
does not account how such a legal justification for the concubine’s treatment relates to
the civil war and near annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin. In contrast, I argue the
anomaly of the concubine’s legal status paired with the creative reworking of Deut 22:21
30!])&&)%8!^-)(#&@!Judges 19–21 and the “Othering” of Benjamin: A Golah Polemic against the
Autochthonous Inhabitants of the Land?!OtSt QH!J"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!KLKKN@!HK<!!
!
31!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!])&&)%8!^-)(#&@!A]%(!,1#!"#/),#q(!X9*035)*#!`*:%),1:3&!9-!_*$->h!_!B-9.9(#+!
?9&3,)9*!,9!,1#!=#',!X-),)0%&!B-95!)*!;3+$!HZOK@G!OTE!II!JKLKLNO!PQQRQZS!;%(9*!7-#85>@!A=1#!"#/),#q(!
X9*035)*#!J;3+$!HZOKN!%*+!,1#!=-%+),)9*(!9:!?#'3%&!?&%*+#-!)*!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#O!496!,1#!b%,3-#!9:!4#-!
F#.%-,3-#!c&&3(,-%,#(!%!=-%+),)9*q(!=#*+#*0>@G!VT!MQ!JKLHQNO
42
in the latter portion of Judg 19–20 precludes a facile resolution. Instead, my approach
adheres more closely to the insights of those who identify the use of זנה as sexual sin as
an indicator of moral reflection in the narrative. For example, Hamley suggests זנה
indicates sexual sin because it prompts readers to confront the problem of whether
“playing the harlot” changes the concubine’s status as a victim, thereby exposing an
initial assumption of what should happen to an adulterous woman and exposes the
treatment of women by the men of Israel.32 This assessment of Deut 22:21’s influence on
זנה in Judg 19 is better equipped to explore ambiguities surrounding the concubine’s legal
status in Judg 19:1–3 as well as the legal ramifications and actions committed against her
in Judg 19:22–24 and in the consequences for these actions in the closing chapters of
Judges.
Although the opening of Judg 19 evokes the language of Deut 22:21 in its
characterization of the concubine, its report of the Levite’s retrieval of his concubine in
Judg 19:3 further intensifies the anomaly of the situation. For some interpreters, the
circumstances of his travel in Judg 19:3 to retrieve his concubine allude to his guilt in her
departure.33 This detail, albeit minor, calls attention to motive in this blossoming legal
scenario. If the Levite was in some way responsible for the departure of his פִּילֶגֶשׁ , a strict
legal analogy of Deut 22:21 in Judg 19 that paints him a victim of זנה is destabilized.
Moreover, this detail may also account for a more nuanced account of the conditions of
her departure, adding to the complexity of this legal scenario. Barmash argues that
32!c(%5#&&#!4%8&#>@!A]1%,q(!]-9*$!6),1!rB&%>)*$!,1#!4%-&9,qhO!=1#!D#%*)*$!9:! ¤€¥ !)*!;3+$#(!HZOK@G!TynBul!
MM!JKLH[NO!MH<!
!
33!_&,#-*%,#!8%*3(0-).,!,-%+),)9*(!)8.&>!#),1#-!%*!%-$38#*,!5#,6##*!,1#!.%-,*#-(!9-!,1%,!1#-!&#%/)*$!+#*9,#(!
(98#!.-9/90%,)9*!9*!,1#!"#/),#q(!.%-,<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!b)+),01@!Judges@!HZK<!D%,,1#6(!%-$3#(!,1#!
+#.)0,)9*!9:!,1#!"#/),#!)*!;3+$!HZOHRI!8%E#(!1)8!93,!,9!5#!%!:%)&#+!13(5%*+@!619!09*,)*3%&&>!#'#-0)(#(!
.99-!e3+$#8#*,!)*!)+#8@!A"99E)*$!:9-!"#/),#(!)*!,1#!799E!9:!;3+$#(@G!HP[<!
43
narrative’s ability to include motives, emotions, and grievances is uniquely suited to
explore inadequacies in biblical law because these factors shape vital legal detail that is
otherwise unaddressed in the biblical law collections.34 What the opening of Judg 19
provides readers, therefore, is an opportunity to reflect on the legislation of Deut 22:21 in
a legally anomalous situation.
In sum, Judg 19:1–3 casts the narrative context and characters of Judg 19–20 in a
distinctively legal light. The refrain of Judg 19–20 frames the scenario in view of a lack
of a centralized judiciary. This void is filled by the introduction of a Levite, whose role in
juridical administration draws on Deuteronomy’s vision of the Levitical role in local
juridical affairs. This character is cast into a legally anomalous scenario with the
introduction of his פִּילֶגֶשׁ , a liminal figure whose legal rights fall beyond the purview of
biblical law. The characterization of this anomalous figure shares striking similarities
with the language of Deut 22:21. The evocation of Deut 22:21 in Judg 19:1–3 prepares
readers to expect the concubine’s guilt on account of the language used to detail her
departure to the father’s house, as זנה strongly evokes the guilt of the young woman in
Deut 22:21.
Although this shared language evokes the legal framework of Deut 22:21, and
may at first glance prompt readers to assume the narrative intends to correlate the guilt
and fate of the young woman in Deut 22:21 with the concubine in Judg 19–20, there are
decisive features of Judg 19:1–3 that prevent such a reductionistic association. I argue
that the characterization of the Levite and his concubine are also cast in ways that
emphasize the legal anomaly of Judg 19. Not only is it unclear whether the legislation of
34!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!7%-8%(1@!A_01)#/)*$!;3(,)0#@G!HQH<!
44
Deut 22:21 can be applied to the concubine on account of the term’s unknown legal
standing compared to that of other women in biblical law, but the narrative’s illustration
of the circumstances of her departure and the Levite’s role in it preclude a strict legal
analogy between the circumstances of Judg 19:1–3 and Deut 22:21. Judg 19:1–3 thus sets
the stage for scenario that falls outside the strict boundaries of biblical law. Although it
draws extensively on Deut 22:21, a close analysis of the legal exegesis interwoven in the
crisis at Gibeah in Judg 19:22–24 will illustrate that Deut 22:21 is evoked and reworked
in the narrative, but it will not play out according to expectations.
Judg 19:22–28––The Crisis at Gibeah
Following the introduction of the Levite and his concubine in Judg 19:1–3, the
Levite sets out to retrieve his concubine from her father’s house. After an unusual
interaction and visit between the Levite and his father-in-law, the Levite departs with his
concubine.35 Judg 19:10–15 details their journey and on account of not wanting to stay in
a non-Israelite city, the Levite decides to travel to Gibeah (Judg 19:12–13). Upon arriving
in Gibeah, the Levite struggles to find a place to stay, which illustrates and anticipates the
theme of the inhospitality of Gibeah. An old man offers to host the Levite and his
company (Judg 19:20–21), and shortly thereafter the narrative takes a traumatic turn and
the language of Deut 22:21 resurfaces. I argue that Judg 19:22–28 evokes and reworks
35!=1#!.3-.9(#!%*+!*%,3-#!9:!,1#!:%,1#-C)*C&%6q(!19(.),%&),>!)(!+#5%,#+<!T-%*0)(!"%*+>!%-$3#(!,1#!:%,1#-!)*!
&%6q(!193(#!(#-/#(!%(!%!(9-,!9:!,-%.@!,1-#%,#*)*$!,1#!"#/),#q(!%3,9*98>!%*+!+#*>)*$!(%:#,>!:9-!1)(!+%3$1,#-!
5#0%3(#!9:!,1#!+%*$#-93(!*#'3(!5#,6##*!:%,1#-(!%*+!+%3$1,#-(!)*!,1#!599E!9:!;3+$#(!)*!)+#8@!A7#,6##*!
X#*,-#!%*+!B#-).1#->O!?.%0#!%*+!W#*+#-!)*!,1#!799E!9:!;3+$#(!)*!,1#!V%-&>!?#09*+!=#8.&#!B#-)9+@G!)*!
Centres and Peripheries in the Early Second Temple Period@!#+<!X1-)(,9.1!"#/)*!%*+!V13+!7#*!p/)@!T_=!
HLQ!J=i5)*$#*O!D91-!?)#5#0E@!KLHMN@!HP\<!c*!09*,-%(,@!o%8%+%!%-$3#(!,1#!#'0#(()/#!19(.),%&),>!9:!,1#!
:%,1#-C)*C&%6!1)$1&)$1,(!,1#!#'0#(()/#!)*19(.),%&),>!9:!W)5#%1!-#.9-,#+!&%,#-!)*!,1#!*%--%,)/#!)*!)+#8@!
Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of Three Rape Narratives@!?,7)5"),!HLZ!
Jb#6!o9-EO!"%*$@!KLLQN@!\MR\Z<!
!
45
Deut 22:21 in several key places. The reworking of Deut 22:21 coincides with allusions
to Gen 19, the Lot crisis and the destruction of Sodom, the effect of which amplifies the
legal exegesis that correlates belial with sexual violence against women.
Judg 19:22–24 and Gen 19 share several striking parallels.36 The storyline in each
narrative follows travelers who enter a city, are taken in by a man who offers them
shelter, and then are threatened with sexual violence by men of the city who surround the
house (Gen 19:4–5; Judg 19:22).37 Moreover, both narratives record the negotiation
between the master of the house and the men of the city, including a plea to the men of
the city and a proposal that offers two female characters as substitutions for the
threatened male traveler(s) (Gen 19:6–8; Judg 19:23–24). There is some consensus that
the postexilic redaction of Judg 19 and the direction of intertextual affinities demonstrate
that Judg 19 is dependent upon Gen 19.38 I argue that when Judg 19:22–24 deviates from
the literary formula of Gen 19, the language of Deut 22:21 can be detected. This suggests
that Gen 19 shapes the narrative framework of Judg 19 and deviations from it amplify the
language of Deut 22:21, elucidating the legal content and legal exegesis of the narrative.
36!=1#!$#*#,)0!-#&%,)9*(1).@!)*,#-,#',3%&!.9(()5)&),)#(@!%*+!,1#!(1%-#+!,>.#!(0#*#!9:!,1#(#!,#',(!%-#!,1#!,9.)0!9:!
09*()+#-%5&#!+#5%,#<!])&&)%8!_<!d9((!95(#-/#(!&),#-%->!.%-%&&#&(!5#,6##*!,1#(#!.#-)09.#(!6#-#!-#09$*)Y#+!
#/#*!5>!,-%*(&%,9-(!9:!aW!;3+$#(@!619!019(#!,9!)8),%,#!,1#!*3%*0#!9:!aW!W#*#()(!)*!,1#!;3+$#(!*%--%,)/#!)*!
)+#8@!A?,>&#!%*+!T%8)&)%-),>!)*!;3+$#(!HZO\!Ja&+!W-##ENO!V(,%5&)(1)*$!F#.#*+#*0#!]),1)*!,1#!?#.,3%$)*,@G!
Biblica!ZQ!JKLH\NO!IP<!7-#,,&#-!%-$3#(!,1#!%3,19-!9:!;3+$!HZ!+)(,-)53,#(!-#:#-#*0#(!9:!W#*!HZOKRQ!,1-93$193,!
,1#!*%--%,)/#!-%,1#-!,1%*!,1#!9,1#-!6%>!%-93*+!)*!)+#8@!The Book of Judges@!Q\<!?##!%&(9!?9$$)*@!Judges@!
KQ\<!
!
37!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!-9&#!9:!19(.),%&),>!)*!W#*!HZ!%*+!;3+$!HZRKH@!(##!?93,1699+@!Ar=1)(!D%*!4%(!
X98#!)*,9!D>!493(#@G!PMZRQPS!D%,,1#6(@!A49(.),%&),>!%*+!49(,)&),>@G!IRHL<!
!
38!?##@!#<$<@!V+#*53-$@!Dismembering the Whole@!H\PRQMS!^-)(#&@!Judges 19–21@!HI[RPMS!?,3%-,!"%()*#@!
AW3#(,!%*+!49(,!)*!;3+$#(!HZO!"9,q(!49(.),%&),>!)*!%*!c*/#-,#+!]9-&+@G!JSOT!KZ!JHZQPNO!IZS!7-#,,&#-@!The
Book of Judges@!Q\<!F%*)#&!c<!7&90E!()8)&%-&>!%-$3#(!:9-!%*!A#019!&),#-%->!(,-%,#$>G!)*!)+#8@!AV019!
b%--%,)/#!=#01*)23#!)*!4#5-#6!"),#-%,3-#O!_!?,3+>!)*!;3+$#(!HZ@G!WTJ
47
approach, however, has not produced uniform results.43 I argue that situating the epithet
in view of the pervasive legal framework of Deut 22:21 reveals that it may be a clever
pun on the verbs עלל and נבל , forms of which appear in Deut 22 and Judg 19.44 The
evocation of these verbs could evoke a base meaning like “senseless abusers,” i.e.,
perpetrators of sexual violence against women.45 This allusion and pun attests to the
continued evocation of the legal framework of Deut 22:21 that elucidates the lawless
nature of the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, in Judg 19 and contrasts them with the men of
Sodom in Gen 19.
Both Judg 19:23–24 and Gen 19:6–8 report the host’s negotiation with the mob.
In both narratives, the host pleads with the men of the city to not commit evil and offers
two female characters as substitutions for the threatened male traveler(s). In Gen 19:7,
Lot pleads with the crowd to not do evil, וַיּאמַר אַל־נָא אַחַ י תָּרֵעוּ . The old man in Judg 19:23
makes a similar plea with the crowd to not commit evil, אַל־אַחַ י אַל־תָּרֵעוּ אֲלֵהֶם וַיֹּאמֶר .46
43!_(!(,%,#+@!,1#!#'%0,!*%,3-#!9:!,1#!&#$%&!/)9&%,)9*!)*!/)#6!)*!;3+$!HZRKL!)(!(35e#0,!,9!+#5%,#<!?98#!1%/#!
.-9.9(#+!,1#!&%6&#((*#((!%((90)%,#+!6),1!belial!)*!,1#!.#-)09.#!09**9,#(!,1#!/)9&%,)9*!9:!*9-8(!9:!
19(.),%&),>@!9,1#-(!%((90)%,#!),!6),1!,1#!,1-#%,!9:!(#'3%&!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!,1#!"#/),#@!%*+!(,)&&!9,1#-(!09--#&%,#!
),!6),1!(#'3%&!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!,1#!"#/),#q(!09*035)*#<!T9-!%!+)(03(()9*!9:!/)9&%,)9*(!9:!19(.),%&),>@!(##!
D%,,1#6(@!A49(.),%&),>!%*+!49(,)&),>!)*!W#*#()(!HZ!%*+!;3+$#(!HZ@G!IRHHS!B#+#-(#*@!Israel Its Life and
Culture@!PIHS!?93,1699+@!A=1)(!D%*!4%(!X98#!)*,9!D>!493(#@G!PMZRQP<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!/)9&%,)9*(!
%((90)%,#+!6),1!(#'3%&!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!,1#!"#/),#@!(##!;9i9*@!A stuvwxyxu !7z"c_"@G!H\QS!a,Y#*@!TDOT!HOHIP<!
T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!/)9&%,)9*(!%((90)%,#+!6),1!(#'3%&!%((%3&,!9:!,1#!"#/),#q(!09*035)*#@!(##!b)+),01@!Judges@!
HQ[RZIS!=-)5&#@!Texts of Terror@!M[RZK<!
!
44!T9-!#'%8.&#@!D9(1#!W%-()#&!+#89*(,-%,#(!,1%,!.3*(!)*!;3+$#(!:-#23#*,&>!.&%>!%!()$*):)0%*,!-9&#!)*!59,1!
01%-%0,#-)Y%,)9*!%*+!(,-30,3-#!9:!,1#!.&9,<!c*!(98#!)*(,%*0#(@!,1#!.3*(!9*!*%8#(!-#:#-!,9!.1>()0%&!,-%),(!%*+!
)*!9,1#-(@!,1#!:%,#!9:!,1#!*%8#q(!5#%-#-<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!)+#8@!AB3*(!9*!b%8#(!%(!%!"),#-%->!F#/)0#!)*!,1#!
799E!9:!;3+$#(@G!Beit Mikra!JKLLQNO![ZRQK<!=1#!.3*!)*!;3+$#(!HZ!)(!()8)&%-!,9!,1%,!61)01!1%(!5##*!
)+#*,):)#+!)*!H!?%8!K[OK[@!61)01!09--#&%,#(!b%5%&@! €}u @!6),1! -v~“!¥xstuvwyxu @!&),<!A,1#!8%*!9:!5#&)%&<G!?##!
+)(03(()9*!)*!D9(1#!W%-()#&@!A]9-+!B&%>!%*+!B3*(!%(!d1#,9-)0%&!F#/)0#!)*!,1#!799E!9:!?%83#&@G!)*!Puns
and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature@!#+<!?09,,!7<!b9#$#&!
J7#,1#(+%@!DFO!XF"@!KLLLN@!KLL<!
!
45!D>!,1%*E(!,9!F-<!;9(13%!VY-%!73-*(!:9-!.9)*,)*$!,1)(!93,!,9!8#<!!
!
46!?98#!%-$3#!,1)(!%&&3()9*!.-9/#(!W#*!HZO\!)(!,1#!5%(#!,#',!9:!;3+$!HZOKI%<!?##!?9$$)*@!Judges@!KQQS!
^-)(#&@!Judg 19–21@!HPLRPH<!!
48
However, Judg 19:23 expands and nuances the plea to include the phrase, אַל־תַּﬠֲשׁוּ אֶת־
הַזֹּאת הַנּ ְבָלָה , “do not do this folly.”47 The term נְבָלָה indicates deplorable action on account
of its correlation with extreme acts of disorder, especially sexual sins (e.g., Gen 34:7;
Deut 22:21; Judg 19:23, 24, 20:6, 10; 2 Sam 13:12).48 However, it does not appear in
Lot’s plea of Gen 19 and is thus an innovative addition to the narrative of Judg 19. I
argue its inclusion indicates further reworking of Deut 22:21. In Deut 22:21, נְבָלָה
describes the sexual impropriety of the young woman that rationalizes the legislation’s
death penalty. In contrast, Judg 19:23 correlates נְבָלָה with the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial.
The consequence of this allusion and reworking of Deut 22:21 clarifies the nature and
legal ramifications of the mob’s intent.
Judg 19:24 continues the report of the old man’s negotiation with the mob.
Departing again from the tale of Gen 19, in which Lot offers two of his daughters, the old
man offers his daughter and the Levite’s concubine to the crowd and then reiterates his
distinctive plea that they not commit נְבָלָה .49 This proposal orients the concubine to the
center of the crisis, framing her in view of two references to נְבָלָה . However, the
47!V+#*53-$!.-9.9(#(!;3+$!HZOKI5@!A+9!*9,!+9!,1)(!:9&&>@G!)(!%*!)*,#*,)9*%&!%&&3()9*!,9!W#*!HZO\!%*+!K!?%8!
HIOHK!%*+!,1#!#*,)-#!/#-(#!(193&+!5#!%(()$*#+!,9!,1#!b!(,-%,38!9:!;3+$!HZ!)*!#%+#8@!Dismembering the
Whole@!K[H<!
!
48!_*,19*>!B1)&&).(!%-$3#(! €t}žuž¥ !)(!-#(#-/#+!:9-!#',-#8#!%0,(!9:!+)(9-+#-!%*+!3*-3&)*#((!61)01!-#(3&,!)*!%!
+%*$#-93(!5-#%E+96*!)*!9-+#-!)*!)+#8@!AbV7_"_4O!_!=#-8!:9-!?#-)93(!F)(9-+#-&>!%*+!`*-3&>!X9*+30,@G!
VT!K[!JHZ\[NO!KI\<!?##!%&(9!;#::-#>!4<!=)$%>@!Deuteronomy@!;B?!=9-%1!X988#*,%->!JB1)&%+#&.1)%O!;#6)(1!
B35&)0%,)9*!?90)#,>@!HZZMN@!KLMS!4)&%->!7<!").E%@!Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible@!4#5-#6!7)5&#!
D9*9$-%.1(!\!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!B19#*)'@!KLLMN@!K[K<!!
!
49!?#/#-%&!)*09*$-3),)#(!1%/#!5##*!+#,#0,#+!)*!,1#!9&+!8%*q(!(.##01!098.%-#+!,9!"9,q(!)*!W#*!HZ<!V+#*53-$!
%-$3#(!,1#!.-9.9(%&!)*!;3+$!HZOKP@!9*!%0093*,!9:!),(!%,,#8.,!,9!.%-%&&#&!,1#!895q(!+#8%*+!,9!1%*+!9/#-!,1#!
,69!8#*!)*!W#*!HZ@!:9&&96(!,1#!%*,#0#+#*,!.%,,#-*!9:!9::#-)*$!,69!698#*!#/#*!,193$1!,1#!895!)*!;3+$!HZ!
+#8%*+(!9*&>!9*#!8%*!J,1#!"#/),#N!JDismembering the Whole@!H\QR\ZN<!D9-#9/#-@!,1#!.-#(38.,)9*!,9!
1%*+!9/#-!%*9,1#-!8%*q(!6):#!1%(!5##*!9::#-#+!3.!%(!0-),)0)(8!9:!,1#!9&+!8%*!%*+!#/)+#*0#!9:!,1#!(90)%&!
+#,#-)9-%,)9*!9:!;3+$!HZ<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!o%8%+%@!Configurations of Rape in the Hebrew 7)5&#@!Q\RQQ<!
!
49
correlation of the concubine with נְבָלָה does not cast her as a perpetrator, but rather, as a
victim. This is a novel reworking of Deut 22:21, which correlates the young woman who
was accused of זנה with נְבָלָה . The old man’s proposal thus deviates from the formulaic
plea of Gen 19 by incorporating and reworking the language of Deut 22:21 and cleverly
elucidates that the sons of belial are the guilty party of Judg 19 because of their
correlation with נְבָלָה .
In Judg 19:25 the situation continues to deteriorate and the crowd does not listen,
so the Levite grabs his concubine and forces her out to the mob, וַיַּחֲזֵק הָאִישׁ בְּפִילַגְשׁוֹ וַיּ ֹצֵא
אֲלֵיהֶם . This action dramatically deviates from Gen 19, which emphasizes the mob’s
aggression towards the door of Lot’s house (Gen 19:9) and divine intervention which
prevents the mob from harming the men–and women–inside.50 The Levite’s decision to
send his concubine out to the mob in Judg 19 paints a starkly different picture.51 This
critical difference between Gen 19 and Judg 19 further accentuates the legal framework
of Deut 22:21. The Levite’s solution to send the concubine out to the crowd uses the
same root, יצא , which appears in Deut 22:21’s prescription for the young woman, who if
found guilty, to be brought, יצא , to the door of her father’s house for sentencing. While it
may be tempting to infer that the Levite’s evocation of Deut 22:21 attests to the
50!=1#!)((3#!9:!+)/)*#!)*,#-/#*,)9*!%*+!,1#!:%,#!9:!,1#!09*035)*#!%-#!%89*$!,1#!89(,!.-#(()*$!+)::#-#*0#(!
5#,6##*!;3+$!HZ!%*+!W#*!HZ<!=1)(!+)::#-#*0#!)(!:-#23#*,&>!)*,#-.-#,#+!,1-93$1!,1#!&#*(!9:!.96#-!+>*%8)0(!
5#,6##*!8#*!%*+!698#*!)*!%*0)#*,!09*,#',(<!?##@!#<$<@!B1>&&)(!=-)5&#@!God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality@!
a7=!K!JB1)&%+#&.1)%O!T9-,-#((@!HZ\QN@!HL[RIZS!;91*!V<!4%-/#>@!Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic
Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives@!;?a=?3.!PLI!J=ƒ=!X&%-EO!b#6!o9-E@!KLLPN@!ZP<!
!
51!7%-->!W<!]#55!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#!"#/),#q(!%0,)9*!#*,%*$&#(!1)8!)*!,1#!(%8#!*#'3(!9:!#/)&!%(!,1#!(9*(!9:!
belial!)*!)+#8@!The Book of Judges@!bcXa=!JW-%*+!d%.)+(O!V#-+8%*(@!KLHKN@!PMQ<!^-)(#&!%&,#-*%,)/#&>!
(3$$#(,(!,1#!"#/),#q(!+#0)()9*!,9!5%-,#-!6),1!,1#!0-96+!-#:�,(!:3-,1#-!)*,#-,#',3%&!%&&3()9*(!,9!W#*#()(@!
*%8#&>!_5-%1%8q(!3(#!9:!?%-%)!)*!1)(!*#$9,)%,)9*(!6),1!B1%-%91!)*!W#*!HKOHHRH[<!?##!^-)(#&@!Judges 19–
21@!HKP<!!
!
50
concubine’s guilt, the narrative’s foregoing emphasis that the sons of belial are guilty of
נְבָלָה precludes such a deduction. Instead, I argue this evocation further attests to the
evocation of Deut 22:21 in the legal exegesis of Judg 19. By echoing the יצא of its legal
antecedent, Judg 19, having already made clear the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, are guilty of
the sort of sexual impropriety envisioned in Deut 22:21, the narrative accentuates the
Levite’s complicity in the abuse of his concubine at the hands of these senseless
abusers.52
After the Levite hands over his concubine, the mob abuses ( עלל ) her all night and,
in the morning, they let her go. She returns to the door of the old man’s house and
collapses there until daylight (Judg 19:26). These details evoke, yet dramatically rework,
the legal framework of Deut 22:21. Although the phrase פֶּתַח הַבַּי ִת , “the entrance of the
house,” appears in both Judg 19:26, 27, and Deut 22:21, it identifies the location of the
sentence of the guilty party in the legal formulation of the latter. However, Judg 19
dramatically reworks the means and location of execution delimited in Deut 22:21.
Whereas the Deut 22:21 prescribes the guilty woman be brought to the door of her
father’s house and stoned by the men of her city, Judg 19, despite its many affinities with
Deut 22:21, dramatically changes the location of the guilty party’s death and the means
of execution. These differences suggest that Deut 22:21 is not evoked as a simple legal
analogy that accounts for the reported impropriety and death of the concubine. Instead,
Judg 19 reworks the legal framework of Deut 22:21 that upends the presumption of guilt
and conviction in the narrative.
52!D%,,1#6(!(3$$#(,(!,1#!+#%,1!9:!,1#!09*035)*#!%,!,1#!,1-#(19&+!(>859&)0%&&>!)*+)0,(!,1#!8#*!9:!W)5#%1!
%*+!,1#!"#/),#!)*!)+#8@!AV*,-%*0#!]%>(!%*+!=1-#(1)*$!T&99-(O!"#$%&&>!?)$*):)0%*,!?),#(!)*!,1#!_*0)#*,!
b#%-!V%(,@G!Fides et Historia HZ!JHZQ\NO!II<!
!!
51
In the morning the Levite finds his concubine at the door of the house and tells
her to get up, but there is no answer, he puts her on the donkey and leaves for home (Judg
19:27–28). Upon arrival, the Levite divides the concubine’s corpse into twelve pieces,
which are distributed to the twelve tribes. Many have suggested this action is a macabre
parallel to Saul’s dividing of his father’s oxen and sending the pieces to the territories of
Israel to compel them to join him in battle (1 Sam 11:7).53 However, other interpreters
have identified linguistic parallels between the Levite’s dismemberment of the concubine
and her assault at the hands of the sons of belial. For example, the Levite forces, חזק , his
concubine to the mob in Judg 19:25 and forces, חזק , her body when he cuts it up.54 These
linguistic parallels further shape legal reflection of the pericope because they aid in
implicating the Levite in the death of his concubine, which is especially pronounced in
the MT. Whereas the LXX and Vulg. clarify in Judg 19:28 that she did not respond to
him because she had died, the MT omits this detail, leaving the exact moment of her
death ambiguous.55 This details nuances the legal reflection of Judg 19. While the
language of Deut 22:21 is reworked to ascribe guilt of sexual violence to the בנ י ־בליעל ,
sons of belial, Deut 22:21 also shapes the characterization of the Levite, leaving the
question of culpability to his role in her death unanswered.
53!b)+),01@!Judges@!HZIS!7-#,,&#-@!Judges@!QQS!_8),@!The Book of Judges@!IPHR[L<!!
!
54!?##!=-)5&#@!Texts of Terror@!QLS!F#**)(!=<!a&(9*@!A;3+$#(@G!NIB@!/9&<!K!Jb%(1/)&&#O!_5)*$+9*@!HZZQN@!
Q\\R\Q<!!
!
55!?98#!%-$3#!,1)(!98)(()9*!)8.&)0%,#(!,1#!"#/),#!)*!,1#!+#%,1!9:!1)(!09*035)*#<!?##!_(01E#*%(>@!Woman
at the Window@!\IR\PS!d95#-,!B9&Y)*@!Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the
Deuteronomistic History Jb#6!o9-EO!?#%53->@!HZQLN@!KLLS!d95#-,!7<!X1)(19&8@!A Commentary on Judges
and Ruth!JW-%*+!d%.)+(O!^-#$#&@!KLHIN@!PZ[<!D9-#9/#-@!,1#!5-3,%&!01%-%0,#-)Y%,)9*!9:!,1#!"#/),#!1%(!%&(9!
.-98.,#+!(98#!)*,#-.-#,#-(!,9!09*()+#-!,1#!-#&%,)9*(1).!9:!1)(!%*$#-!6),1!03&.%5)&),>!)*!,1#!09*035)*#q(!
+#%,1<!?##!b)+),01@!Judges@!HZPS!^%-&%!W<!7985%01@!AX9*/#*,)9*(„X9*,-%/#*,)9*(O!=1#!D#%*)*$(!9:!
B35&)0!%*+!B-)/%,#!:9-!,1#!;3+$#(!HZ!X9*035)*#@G!JSOT!QI!JHZZZNO!Z[RZM<!
52
Judg 19:30–Judg 20:13 –– Fallout and Trial
In the wake of the crisis at Gibeah and the Levite’s mutilation of his concubine’s
body, Judg 19:30 offers two reflections on the crisis. First, the passage corroborates the
legal anomaly of what took place at Gibeah, noting that nothing like it had ever occurred
in Israel. Second, Judg 19:30 summons its readers “to consider, take counsel, and speak,”
in anticipation of the deliberation and trial of Judg 20.56
Although some scholars regard Judg 19 and Judg 20 as distinct redactional layers,
the continued use of Deut 22:21 is suggestive of a common legal thread that correlates
the crime of Judg 19 with the subsequent trial of Judg 20.57 Judg 20 records the intertribal
trial concerning the actions of the men of Gibeah and the civil war that follows from the
tribe of Benjamin’s unwillingness to hand them over for punishment.58 Judg 20 also
details the Levite’s testimony and presentation of the charges against the sons of belial in
the intertribal trial. Although he omits prominent details about the events of Judg 19, his
speech correlates sexual violence with the sons of belial. His testimony is accepted, and
the trial’s decision evokes the language of Deut 22:21 to affirm the conviction of the sons
of belial for the sexual assault of the Levite’s concubine.
The Levite’s testimony in Judg 20:4–6 contains several striking details. Firstly,
contrary to the report of Judg 19, the Levite claims in Judg 20:5 the men of Gibeah raped,
56!?9$$)*@!Judges@!KQZ<!=)89!j#)e9&%!*9,#(!,1#!-#%0,)9*!9:!c(-%#&!)*!,1#!09*0&3()9*!9:!,1#!/#-(#!%*,)0).%,#(!
61%,!6)&&!1%..#*!)*!;3+$!KLOPR\!)*!)+#8@!Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen
Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung!J?398%&%)*#*!=)#+#%E%,#8)%O!4#&()*E)@!
HZ\\N@!KH<!
!
57!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!D)&(,#)*@!Tracking the Master Scribe@!H\PRKLM<!
!
58!=1#!+#0)()9*!%,!,1#!)*,#-,-)5%&!,-)%&!03&8)*%,#(!)*!%!0)/)&!6%-@!#8.1%()Y)*$!,1#!,#*()9*(!(3--93*+)*$!,1#!
7#*e%8)*),#(<!?##!7&90E@!AV019!b%--%,)/#!=#01*)23#@G!II\<!!!
!
53
ﬠִנּוּ , his concubine, and are responsible for her death.59 His testimony, while it attests to
their sexual violence, omits his involvement in sending his concubine out to the crowd.
Although this omission casts doubt on the Levite, Judg 20:6 nevertheless reiterates the
claim of sexual impropriety, נְבָלָה , attested in both Judg 19 and Deut 22:21.60 Based on the
Levite’s testimony concerning the evil of the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, Israel rallies to take
action.
Judg 20:7–12 affirms Israel’s acceptance of the Levite’s claim that the deadly
rape of his concubine, though anomalous, was nonetheless evil and the perpetrators
deserve punishment. Judg 20:10 evokes the language of נְבָלָה , used to associate the בנ י ־
בל י על , sons of belial, with sexual violence in Judg 19. Moreover, Judg 20:12–13, the
accusatory speech of Israel against Benjamin, evokes the purging formula of the
Deuteronomic Code (Deut 13:6; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7).61 Although
various attempts have been made to make sense of why the formula is evoked, I argue the
use of the formula in Judg 20:13 demonstrates the continued use of Deut 22:21 in the
legal framework of Judg 19–20.62 Judg 20:13 reads, “Now give the men, the sons of
belial, who are in Gibeah, so that we may kill them and בער , purge, evil from Israel…”
59!_&,193$1!,1#!/#-5! yv®¯ !)(!09889*&>!,193$1,!,9!+#*9,#!-%.#!)*!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#@!),!)(!*9,!3(#+!,9!+#(0-)5#!
,1#!%((%3&,!)*!;3+$!HZ<!!
!
60!?##!]#55@!Judges@!HZHS!F%*)#&!c<!7&90E@!Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of
Holy Scripture@!b_X!M!Jb%(1/)&&#O!7-9%+8%*!ƒ!49&8%*@!HZZZN@![PHS!j)E,9-!7#-@!AB3-$)*$!,1#!V/)&!:-98!
c(-%#&O!=1#!T3*0,)9*!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!T9-83&%!)*!;3+$!KLOHI@G!ZAW!HII!JKLKHNO!PPZ<!
!
61!=1#!3(#!9:!,1#!.3-$)*$!:9-83&%!93,()+#!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!X9+#!)(!-%-#<!j)E,9-!7#-!%-$3#(!,1#!3(#!9:!,1#!
.3-$)*$!:9-83&%!)*!;3+$!KLOHI!)(!,1#!9*&>!)*(,%*0#!9:!,1#!:9-83&%!93,()+#!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!X9+#!)*!
)+#8@!AB3-$)*$!,1#!V/)&!:-98!c(-%#&@G!PPI<!496#/#-@!D9(1#!]#)*:#&+!.9(),(!,1#-#!)(!9*#!9,1#-!)*(,%*0#!9:!
,1#!:9-83&%!93,()+#!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!X9+#!)*!K!?%8!POHH!)*!)+#8@!Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic
School!Ja':9-+O!X&%-#*+9*!B-#((@!HZ\KN@!I[[<!!
!
62!7#-!%-$3#(!,1#!:9-83&%!#/9E#(!,1#!.%-%+)$8%,)0!0%.),%&!9::#*(#(!9:!)*+)$#*93(!93,()+#-(!JF#3,!HIOKRHZS!
H\OKR\N!%*+!1)*,(!,1%,!e3-)+)0%&!.-90#+3-#(!9:!F#3,#-9*98>!6#-#!*9,!.-9.#-&>!:9&&96#+!)*!)+#8@!AB3-$)*$!
V/)&!:-98!c(-%#&@G!P[P<!
54
This language evokes the conclusion of the case in Deut 22:21, וּב ִﬠ ַ ר ְתּ ָ ה ָ ר ָה מ ִקּ ִר ְבּ ֶ © , “so you
shall purge evil from your midst.” The purpose of evoking Deut 22:21 further clarifies
the guilty party of Judg 19–20. Whereas in Deut 22:21, the formula is evoked to reflect
on the guilty woman and the crimes of זנה and נְבָלָה , in Judg 20:13 the formula is evoked
applied to the sons of belial and not the concubine.
In sum, the legal anomaly reported in Judg 19 is taken to trial in Judg 20. Despite
several ambiguities in the legal procedures of Judg 20, the trial was successful in uniting
the tribes of Israel to convict and punish the sons of belial.63 Israel in Judg 20 does not
have the opportunity to rule on the actions of the Levite, as he does not report them; they
do rule on the actions of the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, and it is their evil which must be
purged.64 The trial and verdict of Judg 20:1–13 validate the correlation of the בנ י ־בליעל ,
sons of belial, with sexual violence against women.
Legal Exegesis in Judg 19–20: Assessing its Features and Consequences
Summary
Judg 19:1–3 sets the stage for an anomalous legal scenario. Set in a time without
the centralized juridical administration of the monarchy, the narrative offers the capacity
of a Levite as a substitute for this juridical vacuum. The characterization of his
63!_8),!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#!,-)5%&!)*(,),3,)9*(!%-#!(196*!0%.%5&#!9:!5#)*$!9-$%*)Y#+!%*+!9-$%*)Y)*$!,1#!.#9.&#!%(!
9*#!8%*!J;3+$!KLOHHN@!9:!3.-99,)*$!,1#!#/)&!:-98!c(-%#&@!%*+!9:!09*,-9&&)*$!,1#!03&,)0!%*+!89-%&!(),3%,)9*!)*!
)+#8@!The Book of Judges@!IPQ<!?98#!)*,#-.-#,#-(!+935,!61#,1#-!,1#!,-)%&!6%(!(300#((:3&!)*!#(,%5&)(1)*$!
9-+#-!%*+!e3(,)0#!9*!%0093*,!9:!,1#!0)/)&!6%-!,1%,!:9&&96(!,1#!,-)%&<!7#-!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#!c(-%#&),#(!#--#+!)*!
,1#)-!)*/#(,)$%,)9*!9:!,1#!0%(#@!%*+!,1#-#:9-#!,1#)-!+#0)()9*(!%*+!(35(#23#*,!%0,)9*(!&#+!,9!89-#!/)9&#*0#!
%*+!09*:3()9*<!c,!)(!:3-,1#-!%-$3#+!,1%,!,1#!,-).&#!9-%03&%-!)*23)->!9:!o4]4!)*!;3+$!KLOHQRKQ!)(!.-#(#*,#+!
%(!%*!)*%+#23%,#!(35(,),3,#!:9-!.-9.#-!:9-#*()0!%+e3+)0%,)9*S!),!,1#-#:9-#!+9#(!*9,!&#%+!,9!,1#!#(,%5&)(18#*,!
9:!9-+#-!%*+!e3(,)0#<!?##!)+#8@!AB3-$)*$!V/)&!:-98!c(-%#&@G!P[P<!a,1#-(!1%/#!(3$$#(,#+!,1)(!)(!)*+)0%,)/#!9:!
,1#!+#/#&9.8#*,!9:!e3+)0)%&!.-90#+3-#(!)*!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!7-30#!]#&&(@!A=1#!X3&,)0!
j#-(3(!,1#!T9-#*()0O!;3+%1),#!%*+!D#(9.9,%8)%*!;3+)0)%&!B-90#+3-#(!)*!,1#!T)-(,!D)&&#**)38!7<X<V<@G!
JAOS!HKQ!JKLLQNO!KH[RKK<!!
!
64!=1)(!:9&&96(!V+#*53-$@!619!.-9.9(#(!,1#!%+%.,%,)9*!9:!,1#!.3-$)*$!:9-83&%!)*+)0%,#(!%*!)+#%&!%+%.,%,)9*!
9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!:9-83&%!)*!%!*%--%,)/#!09*,#',!)*!#%+#8@!Dismembering the Whole@!KPHRPI<!
55
concubine, a liminal figure whose legal rights fall beyond the purview of biblical law,
shares striking similarities with the legal framework of Deut 22:21. Although many
interpreters have inferred that the striking affinities between Deut 22:21 and Judg 19:1–3
are indicative of the concubine’s guilt, the legal anomaly of the concubine destabilizes
reductionistic approaches to the legal application of Deut 22:21. Moreover, the crisis at
Gibeah in Judg 19:22–28 demonstrates the narrative’s continued use of Deut 22:21 in its
project of innovative legal exegesis. Judg 19:22–24 clarifies the nature of the antagonists’
crimes against the concubine by evoking and reworking Deut 22:21. Moreover, in critical
locations where Judg 19 departs from Gen 19, the language of Deut 22:21 is evoked and
amplified. By correlating the בנ י ־בליעל with נְבָלָה , Judg 19 evokes the legal framework of
Deut 22:21, and in doing so, reassigns the guilt for נְבָלָה , sexual impropriety, to the בנ י ־
בל י על . With the help of Gen 19, Judg 19 creatively reworks Deut 22:21 to correlate בנ י ־
בל י על with sexual violence against women. The narrative’s invitation to reflect on the
crimes and crisis at Gibeah transitions to the intertribal trial of Judg 20. Both the Levite’s
testimony and the ruling of the trial reiterate the offense of נְבָלָה , demonstrating the
continued use of Deut 22:21 to correlate the actions of the sons of belial with sexual
violence. Furthermore, the accusatory speech of Israel against Benjamin in Judg 20:13
evokes the purging formula of Deut 22:21, offering a final clarification that the ones
guilty of sexual impropriety worthy of death are the sons of belial.
Tracing Legal Exegesis in Judg 19–20
I have demonstrated that the use of Deut 22:21 in Judg 19–20 correlates the sons
of belial with sexual violence against women. Whereas for some readers the evocation of
Deut 22:21 in Judg 19:1–3 signals the guilt of the concubine, I argue that a close
56
examination of the evocation of Deut 22:21 in Judg 19–20 illustrates that Deut 22:21 is
reworked so that blame is diverted from the concubine to the sons of belial. The effect of
this innovative legal exegesis is the creation of a new juridical decision by which the sons
of belial, the senseless abusers of legally liminal women can be tried and convicted. The
infusion of the legal framework of Deut 22:21 follows the same hermeneutical principle
of inner-biblical exegesis identified by Fishbane, who argues that the result of text
blending between the Pentateuch and later materials is the creation of a “new Torah
authority” that, although grounded in biblical roots, is indicative of new authoritative
tradition in a new context, one that can be said to supersede and expand the antecedent
legislation.65
In conclusion, my analysis of legal exegesis in Judg 19–20 raises several
questions regarding the motivation underlying the infusion of Deut 22:21 into this
narrative scenario. As Barmash argues, narrative is uniquely equipped to identify
inadequacies in law.66 In what ways does Judg 19–20 engage such inadequacies? We
could look first to the anomaly of the concubine. There is nothing that defines the legal
status, rights, or protections of a concubine in biblical law. It follows that these women
occupied a space of legal liminality, a liminality that is attested in their reported treatment
throughout biblical narrative. Without a juridical authority to delineate their rights, these
women were left vulnerable to exploitation. This appears to be the case with the
concubine in Judg 19–20 who is cast to abuse and death. While the legal scenario of Judg
19–20 does not redefine or legislate the legal rights and protections of a concubine per se,
65!T)(15%*#@!Torah and Tradition@!KQMRZ[S!)+#8@!Biblical Text and Exegetical Culture: Collected Essays@!
T_=!H[P!J=i5)*$#*O!D91-!?)#5#0E@!KLKKN@
61
CHAPTER 3
LEGAL EXEGESIS IN 1 SAM 2:12–36
Introduction
1 Sam 2:12–36 records the evil deeds of Eli’s sons. Set in contrast with Hannah’s
prayer in 1 Sam 2:1–11 and the rise of Samuel, these deeds illustrate the decline of the
Elide priesthood and provide a justification for their fate in 1 Sam 4. The pericope first
correlates Eli’s sons with the infamous epithet, בנ י ־בליעל , lit. sons of belial, because they
do not know the Lord (1 Sam 2:12). The pericope continues its recollection of their
misdeeds, further correlating their actions as belial (בל י על ) with their priestly
responsibilities, where they deal contemptuously with the offering and abuse their fellow
Israelites (1 Sam 2:13–17). Finally, 1 Sam 2:22–25 records Eli’s attempt to warn and
rebuke his sons for what they did to all Israel. This reported rebuke includes an
innovative interpolation in MT 1 Sam 2:22 that details that his sons are also guilty of
lying with the so-called “gathering” women at the door of the tent of meeting.1 Eli’s
warning, however, is in vain and the final scene of the pericope records a prophecy
against his house that underscores the end of their priestly duties and impending
judgment (1 Sam 2:27–36).
In this chapter I will probe 1 Sam 2:12–36 for evidence of legal exegesis that
correlates belial with sexual violence against women. I will begin with a brief survey of
1 =1#-#!1%(!5##*!8301!(.#03&%,)9*!09*0#-*)*$!,1#!*%,3-#!9:!,1#!698#*!%*+!,1#)-!%0,)/),>!)*!D=!H!?%8!
KOKK<!c*!,1)(!01%.,#-@!c!6)&&!:9&&96!%!,-#*+!3(#+!)*!89+#-*!,-%*(&%,)9*(!,1%,!-#*+#-! °} ¢ ± !%(!A%((#85&)*$G!9-!
A$%,1#-)*$<G!D>!%)8!)*!+9)*$!,1)(!)(!,9!,#8.9-%-)&>!(3(.#*+!,1#!3(3%&!.-#9003.%,)9*!6),1!,1#!*%,3-#!9:!,1#!
698#*q(!%0,)/),><!=1)(!)(!%!,-#*+!,1%,@!)*!8>!9.)*)9*@!.&%0#(!,99!8301!#8.1%()(!9*!,1#!23#(,)9*!9:!61#,1#-!
61%,!,1#(#!698#*!6#-#!+9)*$!+)0,%,#(!,1#)-!03&.%5)&),>@!):!%*>@!)*!,1#)-!)*,#-%0,)9*!6),1!V&)q(!(9*(<!7>!
:903()*$!%,,#*,)9*!,9!,1#!698#*q(!.-#(#*0#!%*+!.-9')8),>!,9!,1#!,#*,!9:!8##,)*$@!c!6)&&!%-$3#!5#&96!,1%,!,1#!
698#*q(!.-9')8),>!,9!,1#!,#*,!9:!8##,)*$@!%*+!*9,!,1#)-!%0,)/),>@!)(!%!0-30)%&!##*,!)*!,1#!&#$%&!)**9/%,)9*!
,1%,!09--#&%,#(!,1#! }€ ~ •}u~•u !6),1!/)9&#*0#!%$%)*(,!698#*<!T9-!:3-,1#-!+)(03(()9*!9:! °} ¢ ± !%*+!,1#!/%-)93(!
.-9.9(%&(!9:!),(!8#%*)*$!)*!D=!H!?%8!KOKK!(##!*9,#![M!5#&96<!!!
62
the state of research on 1 Sam 2:12–36 that attends to its composition history and
editorial interests. This survey will identify several editorial threads interwoven
throughout the pericope evoke various Pentateuchal antecedents to map several
transgressions committed by the sons of Eli. My literary analysis will attend to the
contours of such legal reflection in view of the pericope’s compositional history and
characterization of Eli and his sons. My analysis will elucidate that the latest layer of 1
Sam 2:12–36, the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22, is the product of later legal innovation
that adds sexual exploitation of the so-called gathering women to the pericope’s list of
charges against the sons of Eli. I propose that this interpolation evidences legal exegesis
that correlates belial with sexual violence against women.
State of Research
The opening chapters of 1 Samuel have a notoriously complex compositional
history.2 While most interpreters agree the overarching purpose of 1 Sam 1–4 is to
contrast the decline of Elide leadership with the rise of Samuel, these chapters are replete
several strands of redactional intervention that are commonly understood as various
interpretations for the fall of the Elides.3 These interwoven strands of diverse reflection
on the depravity of Eli’s sons are especially discernable in 1 Sam 2:12–36, where
2!=198%(!d‚8#-!-#$%-+(!?%83#&!%(!,1#!&#%(,!3*):)#+!%*+!1989$#*93(!599E!%89*$!,1#!T9-8#-!B-9.1#,(!
JThe So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction!f"9*+9*O!
=ƒ=!X&%-E@!KLL[g@!ZHRZ\N<!!!
!
3!?##!D)01%#&!T)(15%*#@!Ac!?%83#&!I@G!)*!Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives Volume II@!#+<!
^#**#,1!d<!d<!W-9(!"93)(!Jb%(1/)&&#O!_5)*$+9*@!HZQKN@!HZHRKLIS!W#9-$!4#*,(01#&@!AF#-!b)#+#-$%*$!+#(!
4%3(#(!V&)!3*+!+#-!_3:(,)#$!p%+9E(@G!)*!Rereading the Relecture? The Question of (Post)chronistic
Influences in the Latest Redactions of the Books of Samuel@!#+<!`6#!7#0E#-!%*+!4%**#(!7#YY#&@!T_=!MM!
J=i5)*$#*O!D91-!?)#5#0E@!KLHPN@!QHRZH<!
63
contradictions and multiplicity of traditions in these verses are widely understood to be
the product of multiple sources or authorship.4
The compositional history of 1 Sam 2:12–36 is frequently understood as
reflecting several layers of legal reflection. Many interpreters have discerned distinct
stages of scribal intervention that provide different accounts for the various sinful
behaviors ascribed to Eli’s sons. These stages are frequently identified in two
compositional segments, 1 Sam 2:13–17 and 1 Sam 2:22–25, both of which reflect
distinct stages of composition and legal reflection. The former block of material reports
the corrupt behavior of Eli’s sons in their capacity as priests in the temple at Shiloh. This
material details how the sons abuse the offering and worshipers. Following a brief
allusion to the growing character of Samuel (1 Sam 2:18–21), the block of material in 1
Sam 2:22–25 furnishes an additional report of the corruption of Eli’s sons. On account of
the material’s thematic concern for warning Eli’s sons, it is widely regarded as a later
stratum compared to that of 1 Sam 2:12–17, frequently estimated to the late exilic or
postexilic period.5 Furthermore, 1 Sam 2:22–25 contains an interpolation that adds to the
content of Eli’s warning, referencing his sons’ sexual impropriety with the so-called
“gathering women” (MT 1 Sam 2:22). This enigmatic allusion is widely regarded as the
latest layer of 1 Sam 2:12–36 because it is absent in LXXB and 4QSama. It is commonly
understood that the interpolation is a redactional supplement that expands the list of
4!?##!D%-0!p/)!7-#,,&#-@!A=1#!X98.9(),)9*!9:!H!?%83#&!HRK@G!JBL!HHM!JHZZ\NO!MLZ<!!
!
5!?##!V8%*3#&!=9/@!The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research@!I-+!#+<!J])*9*%!"%E#@!
cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!KLH[N@!HP\<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!&%,#-!+%,)*$!9:!,1)(!8%,#-)%&@!(##!B<!^>&#!D0X%-,#-@!I
SamuelO!A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary@!_7!Q Jb#6!o9-EO!F935&#+%>@!
HZQLN@!ZKRZIS!T)(15%*#@!Ac!?%83#&!I@G!HZ[S!">&#!D<!V(&)*$#-@ Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading
of 1 Samuel 1–12@!7"?!HL!J?1#::)#&+O!_&89*+!B-#((@!HZQ[N@!HKIS!_&#'%*+#-!d9:|@!A=1#!b98)(,)0!
X9--#0,)9*!)*!7)5&)0%&!D%*3(0-).,(!%*+!c,(!a003--#*0#!)*!rPU?%8a@qG!RevQ!HP!JHZQZNO!K[LS!7-#,,&#-@!A=1#!
X98.9(),)9*!9:!H!?%83#&!HRK@G!MHK<!
64
abuses committed by Eli’s notorious sons to include impropriety or abuse of these
anomalous women.6
Although scholars date the composite parts of 1 Sam 2:12–36 variously, the
assumption that 1 Sam 2:12–36 reflects several scribal attempts to account for and
illustrate the sins of the sons of Eli, with the latest layer reflecting the postexilic period, is
commonly accepted.7 Situating the latest compositional layer of 1 Sam 2:12–36, the
interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22, to the postexilic period is significant in view of the book
of Samuel’s relation to surrounding books, particularly Judges.8 Several approaches
identify compelling links in shared language and content of 1 Sam 1–2 with the book of
Judges.9 For example, Jobling suggests the ethical ambiance of Judg 17–21 is extended to
the priestly leaders of Israel who are as ineffectual or worse in 1 Sam 1–4.10 This shared
6!7-#,,&#-!%-$3#(!,1#!)*,#-.9&%,)9*!9:!H!?%8!KOKK!-#:�,(!,1#!%$#*+%!9:!%*!#')&)0@!*9*CF#3,#-9*98)(,)0@!
%3,19-!9*!%0093*,!9:!),(!.%-%&&#&!&%*$3%$#!6),1!V'9+!IQOQ@!%!B!,#',!JA=1#!X98.9(),)9*!9:!H!?%83#&!HRK@G!
MLQN<!D%-/)*!_<!?6##*#>!%&(9!+-%6(!%,,#*,)9*!,9!H!?%8!KOKK!%(!%*!%++),)9*!,9!,1#!&)(,!9:!()*(!0988),,#+!5>!
V&)q(!(9*(!%*+!61%,!?6##*#>!01%-%0,#-)Y#(!%(!A)8.-9.#-!09*+30,G!6),1!698#*!#&#/%,#(!,1#!,1#8#!9:!
6%-*)*$!)*!H!?%8!KOKKRIM!JAV&)O!_!4)$1!B-)#(,!=1-96*!`*+#-!,1#!]1##&(!9:!,1#!a'!X%-,@G!)*!Characters
and Characterization in the Book of Samuel@!#+<!^#),1!79+*#-!%*+!7#*e%8)*!;<D<!;91*(9*@!"47a=?!MMZ!
fb#6!o9-EO!=ƒ=!X&%-E@!KLKLg@!M\RMQN<!
!
7!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!X-9((@!Canaanite Myth@ KLHRI<!D0X%-,#-!09*0&3+#(!,1)(!)*,#-.9&%,)9*!8%>!1%/#!%-)(#*!
:-98!%*!%**9,%,)9*!5>!%!.9(,C#')&)0!(019&%-@!619!-#09$*)Y#+!)*!59,1!(,9-)#(!#,)9&9$)#(!9:!,1#!%(0#*+%*0>!9:!
,1#!.-)#(,&>!+#(0#*+%*,(!9:!_%-9*!Jp%+9EN!9/#-!,19(#!9:!D9(#(!J_5)%,1%-N!)*!)+#8@!I Samuel@!QH<!
!
8!;95&)*$!%-$3#(!,1#!098.&#'),>!9:!H!?%8!)(!)*:&3#*0#+!5>!),(!0%*9*)0%&!+)/)()9*@!,1%,!)(@!,1#!09*,#*,!%*+!
.3-.9(#!9:!H!?%8!+#.#*+(!&%-$#&>!9*!61)01!0%*9*)0%&!9-+#-!9:!,1#!F,-4!)(!%00#.,#+!JA]1%,@!c:!_*>,1)*$@!c(!
H!?%83#&hG!SJOT!\!fHZZIgO!H\RIHN<!_<!W-%#8#!_3&+!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#!)*,-9+30,)9*!9:!H!?%83#&!5#&9*$(!,9!
,1#!&%(,!(,-%,38!9:!?%83#&@!#+),#+!+3-)*$!,1#!B#-()%*!.#-)9+!JAd#%+)*$!F#3,#-9*98>!_:,#-!?%83#&O!a-@!)(!
rF#3,#-9*98)(,)0q!%!W99+!_*(6#-!,9!_*>!?%83#&!U3#(,)9*hG!)*!V+#*53-$!%*+!B%EE%&%@!Is Samuel Among
the Deuteronomists?@!Z[N<!
!
9!F%/)+!D<!W3**!#'.&9-#(!(1%-#+!,#01*)23#(!9:!*%--%,)/#!098.9(),)9*!%*+!.%,,#-*)*$!)*!,1#!599E(!9:!;3+$#(!
%*+!?%83#&!JAb%--%,)/#!B%,,#-*(@G!KQMRIH\N<!T9-!9,1#-!%..-9%01#(!,1%,!09--#&%,#!;3+$#(!%*+!?%83#&@!(##!
d)01,#-@!Die sogenannten vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte@!HPRH[S!T-9&9/@!Ad#,1)*E)*$!;3+$#(@G!IKS!
F%/)+!W<!T)-,1@!1 and 2 Samuel: A Kingdom Comes@!B19#*)'!W3)+#(!,9!,1#!a&+!=#(,%8#*,!Z!J?1#::)#&+O!
?1#::)#&+!B19#*)'@!KLHIN@!HZRKHS!"#301,#-@!Ab96!=1#-#!]%(!%!fX#-,%)*g!D%*@G!PKZRIZS!W%&)&@!A=1#!
T9-8%,)9*!9:!;3+$#(!%*+!?%83#&@G![MMRZLS!^&%%(!?.-9*E@!AB%-%&&#&!?,-30,3-#(!)*!;3+$#(!%*+!,1#!T9-8%,)9*!
9:!,1#!799E@G!JSOT!PM!JKLKKNO!IH[RHM<!
!
10!;95&)*$@ 1 Samuel@![P<!!
65
milieu is strengthened by common literary features, including the repeated appearance of
the infamous בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, in 1 Sam 2:12. These shared features are suggestive
of a strong redactional relationship between 1 Sam 1–2 and Judg 19–21 that may have
originated in the postexilic period.
While the notion that 1 Sam 2:12–36 is replete with various layers of redactional
activity and shares several redactional impulses with Judg 19–21 is generally accepted,
interpreters have yet to consider the redactional relationship between Judg 19–21 and the
interpolation in MT 1 Sam 2:22, which introduces sexual impropriety with anomalous
women into the chapter’s series of legal reflection on the corruption of Eli’s sons. In my
view, the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 is the product of postexilic redactional activity
that expanded the transgressions associated with the sons of Eli to include sexual
exploitation of women. I argue that this interpolation not only reflects an innovative legal
agenda that expands the scope of abuses committed by Eli’s sons to include sexual
exploitation of women, but that this legal innovation may have been inspired by, or was
the product of the same redactional hand, as that of the legal reflection that correlated
sexual violence against women with the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, in Judg 19–20. In what
follows, I will argue that the correlation of Eli’s sons with sexual violence against women
in MT 1 Sam 2:22 follows this legal impetus.
Tracing the Purpose of Law in 1 Sam 2
While the narrative world of 1 Sam 2:12–36 is impressively nomistic, the
pericope’s rich allusions to Pentateuchal law underscore the priestly leadership at Shiloh
66
as dystopic.11 Pentateuchal legislation is therefore interwoven throughout all
compositional stages of the pericope to illustrate the ways in which both Eli and his sons
fall short of living up to their priestly and judicial duties.12 Josef Sykora takes this view a
step further, suggesting that the key notes of Pentateuchal legislation in 1 Sam 2
demonstrate the Elides both disregard the sacrificial instructions of the Pentateuch and
use the system for their own benefit.13 The evocation of Pentateuchal legislation to
illustrate the corruption of Eli and his sons have been detected in the two major
compositional segments of the pericope, 1 Sam 2:13–17 and 1 Sam 2:22–25. As I
suggested above, the former is especially interested in cultic practice and the latter
ensures the sons are sufficiently warned ahead of their judgement and adds an additional
layer to their corruption that includes impropriety with women. Both segments reflect on
the corruption of Eli’s sons, yet in accordance with the presumed compositional history
of 1 Sam 2, legal reflection correlates this corruption with distinct Pentateuchal
antecedents that reflect various interests of later redactors.
The allusion to Pentateuchal law in 1 Sam 2 is also striking because it correlates
juridical corruption with the judgment of Eli and his sons. For example, the
11!d9:|!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#!01%-%0,#-)Y%,)9*!9:!4%**%1@!V&)@!%*+!%0,)/),)#(!)*!%!.&%0#!9:!69-(1).!)*!H!?%8!HRK!
.-98.,!-#%+#-(!,9!#'.#0,!,1#!(),3%,)9*!,9!09*:9-8!,9!B#*,%,#301%&!*9-8(<!496#/#-@!,1#!*%--%,)/#q(!
+#.%-,3-#!:-98!(301!*9-8(!%..#%-(!,9!1%/#!5##*!,1#!0%3(#!9:!#+),9-)%&!)*,#-/#*,)9*!,1%,!-#:�,(!9*!%*+!
%0093*,(!:9-!(301!+#/)%,)9*(@!#/)+#*0#!9:!61)01!1%(!5##*!+#,#0,#+!)*!,1#!,#',3%&!,-%+),)9*(!9:!H!?%83#&<!?##!
+)(03(()9*!)*!d9:|@!Ab98)(,)0!X9--#0,)9*@G!K[LR[I<!
!
12!;i-$!43,Y&)!95(#-/#(!,1)(!)(!(,-)E)*$!5#0%3(#!,1#-#!)(!:%-!&#((!#8.1%()(!9*!03&,)0!95(#-/%*0#!#&(#61#-#!)*!
?%83#&@!$)/)*$!,1#!9/#-%&&!)8.-#(()9*!,1%,!,1#!9::#*(#(!-#.-#(#*,#+!1#-#!%-#!-%-#!%*+!#'0#.,)9*%&!JA=1#!
F)(,)*0,)/#*#((!9:!,1#!?%83#&!b%--%,)/#!=-%+),)9*@G!)*!V+#*53-$!%*+!B%EE%&%@!Is Samuel Among the
Deuteronomists?@!HZLN<!7-#,,&#-!(3$$#(,(!,1%,!,1#!+)(,)*0,)/#&>!03&,)0!#8.1%()(!9:!H!?%8!KOHHRH\!)(!
)*+)0%,)/#!9:!)*,#-.-#,)/#!%$#*+%!9:!%!&%,#-!#+),9-!%++#+!%!8)+-%(1)0!#'.&)0%,)9*!9:!196!,1#!(9*(!9:!V&)!6#-#!
-#(.9*()5&#!:9-!&9()*$!.-)#(,&>!.-#-9$%,)/#(!JAX98.9(),)9*!9:!H!?%83#&!HRK@G!MLQRHKN<!
!
13!;9(#:!?>E9-%@!Ara*&>!7#!")E#!,1#!B1)&)(,)*#!B-)#(,(²q!_!X98.%-)(9*!9:!,1#!B1)&)(,)*#(q!a::#-)*$!)*!H!?%8!
M!%*+!,1#!?%0-):)0)%&!_0,)9*(!9:!V&)q(!493(#!)*!H!?%8!KRP@G!VT!MZ!JKLHZNO!\HKS!;%)8#!_<!D>#-(@!A=1#!
])0E#+!r?9*(!9:!V&)q!%*+!,1#!X98.9(),)9*!9:!H!?%8!HRP@G!VT \K!JKLKKNO!KI\R[M<!!
67
characterization of Eli’s judicial capability is a decisive issue in 1 Sam 1–4. As a central
figure in 1 Samuel and as one of the last two judges of Israel, Eli plays a crucial role in
the transition between the period of the Judges and the monarchy and some interpreters
have called attention to his inability to judge as one of the central concerns of the
pericope, as he is said to have judged Israel while aware of the exploits of his sons (e.g., 1
Sam 3:13).14 I suggest that juridical themes of 1 Sam 2 are critical for not only illustrating
legal reflection on Eli’s characterization, but also because they inform the legal milieu of
the pericope, evoking Pentateuchal conceptions of judicial authority as part of the legal
reflection, and failure, of Eli and his sons.
Priestly and Juridical Authority in Deut 17:8–13
While interpreters have been swift to address the cultic and judicial violations of
Pentateuchal legislation in the characterization of Eli and his sons, these violations are
frequently treated as distinct categories. However, I suggest that the depiction of Elide
leadership in 1 Sam 2 strongly evokes the conflation of priestly and judicial authority, a
confluence which itself owes to passages such as Deut 17:8–13. Deut 17:8–13 belongs to
a collection of laws spanning Deut 16:18–18:22 that delineate Deuteronomy’s vision for
judicial leadership and public administration. This passage organizes the judicial
14!b9,1@!The Deuteronomistic History@!\\RZLS!_3&+@!Samuel at the Threshold@!H\ZS!?#-$#!T-9&9/!%-$3#(!
V&)q(!:%)&3-#!%(!%!e3+$#!)(!)&&3(,-%,#+!)*!1)(!+#0)()9*!,9!09*+#8*!9:!1#%-(%>!)*!H!?%8!KOKK!61)&#!)$*9-)*$!,1#!
,-%*($-#(()9*!,1%,!1)(!(9*(!%0,3%&&>!0988),,#+!)*!H!?%8!KOHIRHM!JThe Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1–8 in
Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives@!7p_]!IPK!f7#-&)*O!+#!W-3>,#-@!KLLPg@!HLMN<!
!
68
authority at the central sanctuary for judging especially difficult cases.15 One of the key
innovations advanced in Deut 17:8–13 is the conflation of priestly and judicial
authority.16 Deuteronomy’s allocation of judicial administrative authority to priests is
striking compared to other Pentateuchal texts, surpassing even Leviticus and Numbers,
which deal with priests in great detail but do not assign priests a regular judicial role.17
Deuteronomy legislates priests a role in civil and criminal cases (e.g., Deut 19:7; Deut
21:5), and in doing so, invests priests with an essential role in justice, even in cases that
had nothing to do with cultic or ritual matters. 18 The overall effect of this conflation of
authority has been articulated by Milgrom, who asserts that Deuteronomy grants priests
more power than any other biblical law code.19
15!=1#!9-)$)*!9:!F#3,!H\OQRHI!)(!3(3%&&>!(),3%,#+!)*!,1#!09*,#',!9:!F#3,#-9*98>q(!.-9e#0,!9:!0#*,-%&)Y%,)9*<!
T9-!"#/)*(9*@!F#3,!H\OQRHI!:)&&(!,1#!&90%&!&#$%&!/%0338!0-#%,#+!5>!,1#!.-9e#0,!9:!0#*,-%&)Y%,)9*!%*+!
.-9.9(#+!%!8#%*(!,9!%+e3+)0%,#!%85)$393(!&#$%&!0%(#(!,1%,!6#-#!:9-8#-&>!,-)#+!%,!&90%&!(%*0,3%-)#(!
JDeuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation@!HK\N<!a,1#-(!(3$$#(,!F#3,!H\OQRHI!6%(!
89,)/%,#+!5>!(0#*%-)9(!,1%,!6#-#!6),193,!&#$%&!.-#0#+#*,@!,1%,!)(@!+)::)03&,!0%(#(!)*!61)01!$3)&,!9-!)**90#*0#!
0%**9,!5#!+#,#-8)*#+!9-!0%(#(!)*!61)01!196!,9!%..&>!,1#!&%6!)(!3*0&#%-<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!F3%*#!"<!
X1-)(,#*(#*@!Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9@!]7X!M_!Jb%(1/)&&#O!b#&(9*@!KLLHN@!I\PS!=)$%>@!Deuteronomy@!HMP<!
!
16!=1#!-#:#-#*0#!,9!,1#!A"#/),)0%&!.-)#(,(!%*+!,1#!e3+$#G!)*!F#3,!H\OZ!!)(!09889*&>!,%E#*!%(!%!-#:#-#*0#!,9!
%&&!.-)#(,(@!%(!,1)(!)(!F#3,#-9*98>q(!*9-8%&!6%>!9:!-#:#--)*$!,9!,1#!.-)#(,(<!?##!=)$%>@!Deuteronomy@!HM[S!
;%0E!d<!"3*+598@!Deuteronomy: A Commentary JW-%*+!d%.)+(O!V#-+8%*(@!KLHIN@![I[<!!
!
17!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!=)$%>@!Deuteronomy@!HMPS!"3*+598@!Deuteronomy@![I[<!!
!
18!"#/)*(9*@!Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation@!HHI<!c,!)(!*9,!0&#%-!61>!F#3,#-9*98>!
%(()$*(!,1#!.-)#(,(!%!-9&#!)*!0)/)&!%*+!0-)8)*%&!0%(#(@!*9-!+9!6#!3*+#-(,%*+!61>!),!$)/#(!,1#8!%!-9&#!9*!,1#!
1)$1!093-,<!=)$%>!.9(),(!),!8%>!1%/#!(98#,1)*$!,9!+9!6),1!,#%01)*$@!53,!%&(9!5>!%59&)(1)*$!(%0-):)0#!%,!&90%&!
(%*0,3%-)#(@!F#3,#-9*98>!8%>!1%/#!0-#%,#+!%!*##+!,9!8%E#!3.!:9-!,1#!.-)#(,(q!&9((!9:!+3,)#(!)*!)+#8@!
Deuteronomy@!HMPRM[<!=1#!)*09*()(,#*0>!9:!,1#!&#$)(&%,)9*!(3$$#(,(!:9-!(98#!)*,#-.-#,#-(!,1%,!,1#!e3-)+)0%&!
8)&)#3!#*/)()9*#+!)*!F#3,#-9*98>!)(!3*&)E#&>!,9!-#:�,!,1#!1)(,9->!53,!),!)(!%&(9!,1#!.-9+30,!9:!(300#(()/#!
)**9/%,)/#!&%>#-(<!T9-!#'%8.&#@!4%-%&+!?%83#&!,1)*E(!,1%,!,1#!&),#-%->!+#/#&9.8#*,!9:!F#3,!H\OQRHI!)(!
098.&#'@!%-$3)*$!,1%,!.9(,CF#3,#-9*98)(,)0!%++),)9*(!,1%,@!&),,&#!5>!&),,&#@!)*,-9+30#+!,1#!09*0#.,!9:!.-)#(,&>!
%3,19-),>!)*,9!,1#(#!,#',(<!=1#(#!%++),)9*(!8%>!-#:�,!-#%&),)#(!9:!B#-()%*C.#-)9+!o#13+@!53,!,1)(!:)-8!+%,)*$!
)(!.-#0%-)93(<!?##!)+#8@!AX98.#,)*$!X98.#,#*0)#(O!=1#!?,-3$$&#!:9-!_3,19-),>!)*!F#3,!H\OQRHI!)*!
X98.%-%,)/#!B#-(.#0,)/#@G!)*!Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the
Former Prophets@!#+<!^%,1%-)*%!B(>01*>!%*+!?%-%1!?013&Y@!7p_]![L\!J7#-&)*O!+#!W-3>,#-@!KLHQN@!HQZ<!
!
19!;%095!D)&$-98@!A=1#!_&&#$#+!rF#8>,19&9$)Y%,)9*!%*+!?#03&%-)Y%,)9*q!)*!F#3,#-9*98>@G!-#/)#6!9:!
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School@!5>!D9(1#!]#)*:#&+@!IEJ!KI!JHZ\INO!H[Z<!!
69
One of the key consequences of the corroboration of priestly and judicial
authority has been articulated as a problem of checks and balances. For example, Steven
Fraade argues that the central court of Deut 17:8–13 functions “fully autonomously and
with complete authority, without explicit recourse to prophetic, high priestly, or royal
oversight—in modern parlance, without ‘checks and balances.’”20 Sarah Pearce similarly
argues the central point of the legislation lies in the imperative to obey and implement the
decision of the central court (Deut 17:10–13).21 The command compels adherence to the
authority and declaration of the priests and judges and frames disobedience to the high
court as a threat to social order and is dealt with severely.22
The evocation the cultic and judicial abuse reported in 1 Sam 2 concerns both
Eli’s capacity as judge and priest and the unchecked, abusive behavior of his sons. The
abuse of authority is especially palpable in the report of the priests’ inclination to force
the worshipers in 1 Sam 2:12–17 and is further illustrated in their exploitation of the
gathering women in MT 1 Sam 2:22. My literary analysis that follows will demonstrate
that conflation of priestly and judicial authority is a decisive element in the legal
reflection concerning Eli’s sons. I argue that the interpolation of the gathering women
20!?,#/#*!F<!T-%%+#@!Arc:!_!X%(#!)(!=99!7%::&)*$!:9-!o93!,9!F#0)+#³q!JF#3,!H\OQRHINO!7#,6##*!
X9*(,-%)*)*$!%*+!V'.%*+)*$!;3+)0)%&!_3,9*98>!)*!,1#!=#8.&#!?0-9&&!%*+!V%-&>!d%55)*)0!?0-).,3-%&!
c*,#-.-#,%,)9*@G!)*!Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy@!#+<!;9#&!7%+#*@!4)*+>!b%e8%*@!
%*+!V)5#-,!;<!X<!=)$01#&%%-@!?3..#*,(!,9!,1#!;93-*%&!:9-!,1#!?,3+>!9:!;3+%)(8!H\[!J"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!KLH\N@!
PHHRHK<!
!
21!?%-%1!;<!^<!B#%-0#@!The Words of Moses: Studies in the Reception of Deuteronomy in the Second Temple
Period@!=?_;!H[K J=i5)*$#*O!D91-!?)#5#0E@!KLHIN@!KPKS!;<!W<!D0X9*/)&&#@!Deuteronomy!JF96*#-(!
W-9/#@!c"O!c*,#-!j%-(),>!B-#((@!KLLKN@!KZHRZK<!!
!
22!"93)(!;<!?,3&8%*!%-$3#(!,1%,!F#3,#-9*98>!#23%,#(!,1#!-#e#0,)9*!9:!.-)#(,&>!e3-)(+)0,)9*!6),1!,1#!-#e#0,)9*!
9:!+)/)*#!&%6@!61)01!0%--)#(!6),1!),!,1#!,1-#%,!9:!+#%,1!JAV*0-9%018#*,!)*!F#3,#-9*98>O!_*!_*%&>()(!9:!,1#!
?90)%&!]9-&+!9:!,1#!F!X9+#@G!JBL!HLZ!fHZZLgO!MK\RKQN<!?##!%&(9!^#),1!]<!]1),#&%8@!The Just King:
Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel@!;?a=?3.!HK!J?1#::)#&+O!;?a=!B-#((@!HZ\ZN@!HQ[RKLM<!
70
into this cultic and legal framework further aids in correlating Eli’s sons rampant abuse
with sexual violence against women.
In sum, the current state of research correlates legal reflection with the complex
compositional development of 1 Sam 2:12–36. Evidence of legal reflection in the
pericope, attested in an impressive range of legal and juridical themes, prompts some to
view the pericope itself as an exercise in legal innovation that nuances culpability and
assigns guilt in an anomalous scenario.23 I suggest that the scope of this legal innovation
that is interwoven throughout the various strata of 1 Sam 2 also includes the interpolation
of MT 1 Sam 2:22, the abuse of the so-called gathering women. In my literary analysis
that follows, I will demonstrate key ways that the evocation of Pentateuchal antecedents
in 1 Sam 2:12–36 reflects various attempts to assign culpability of Eli and his sons and
clarify the nature of what makes them belial. I will also attend to what is commonly
regarded as the latest layer of the pericope, the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22, which
introduces the anomalous gathering women into the legal reflection of 1 Sam 2:12–36.
My analysis of this interpolation will demonstrate that the incorporation of these
anomalous women is evidence of legal commentary that correlates the sons of Eli’s
rampant abuse as belial with sexual exploitation of women.
23!7-#,,&#-!(3$$#(,(!,1)(!.-90#((!-#:�,(!%!(9-,!9:!8)+-%(1)0!#'.&)0%,)9*!9:!,1#!()*(!9:!,1#!(9*(!9:!V&)!,1%,!
09*,)*3#(!)*,9!H!?%8!IOHI@!61)01!%&(9!%((#-,(!,1#>!03-(#+!W9+!JA=1#!X98.9(),)9*!9:!H!?%83#&!HRK@G!MLIN<!
!
71
Literary Analysis
1 Sam 2:12–21
The introduction of Eli’s sons follows the song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1–10 and
the first of several resumptive repetitions of Samuel’s call and favor (1 Sam 2:11).24 1
Sam 2:12 introduces Eli’s sons as בנ י ־בליעל , lit. sons of belial. The narrative’s correlation
of the epithet with the sons of Eli forms an intriguing contrast with Hannah, who in the
preceding chapter asserts in her interaction with Eli that she is not a בת־ בל י על , lit.
“daughter of belial” (1 Sam 1:16).25 The epithet in 1 Sam 1–2 fosters a stylistic contrast
between the characterization of Hannah and the priests at Shiloh.26 However, as is the
case with the epithet’s use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the precise characteristic or
transgression it denotes is not entirely clear. In both cases, the pericope reports several
possible reasons the characters are associated with the epithet. Thus, the material that
24!T)(15%*#!95(#-/#(!,1#!.1-%(#9&9$>!9:!?%83#&!$-96)*$!)*!(#-/)0#!%*+!(,%,3,#!5#:9-#!W9+!)(!3(#+!)*!H!?%8!
KRI!,9!(1%.#!,1#!01)%(,)0!(,-30,3-#!)*!H!?%8!K!,1%,!%00#*,3%,#(!,1#!/)-,3#(!9:!?%83#&@!61)01!09*,)*3#(!)*!H!
?%8!I@!09*,-%(,)*$!?%83#&!6),1!,1#!193(#!9:!V&)!)*!)+#8@!Ac!?%83#&!I@G!HZ[<!=1#!.#-)09.#q(!-#03--)*$!
-#:#-#*0#(!,9!,1#!01%-%0,#-!?%83#&!)*!H!?%8!KOHH@!HQ@!KH@!%*+!KM!)(!3*+#-(,99+!%(!%!-#(38.,)/#!-#.#,),)9*@!
Wiederaufnahme@!%!&),#-%->!+#/)0#!)*+)0%,)/#!9:!#+),9-)%&!%++),)9*(<!?##!73-E#!a<!"9*$@!AT-%8)*$!
d#.#,),)9*(!)*!7)5&)0%&!4)(,9-)9$-%.1>@G!JBL!HLM!JHZQ\NO!IQ[RZZS!D#*%1#8!4%-%*@!Temples and Temple
Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the
Priestly School!J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!HZQ[N@!IL[S!_*+-|!X%239,!%*+!B1)&)..#!+#!d95#-,@!Les
Livres de Samuel!JW#*#/%O!"%59-!#,!T)+#(@!HZZPN@![L<!
!
25!=1#!09--#&%,)9*!9:!4%**%1q(!%0,)9*(!6),1!,1#!#.),1#,!)(!*9,!0&#%-<!?98#!1%/#!(3$$#(,#+!,1%,!V&)q(!(.##01!
&90%,#(!+-3*E#**#((!%(!,1#!)&&)0),!)((3#!JH!?%8!KOHKRH[N@!61)&#!9,1#-(!)+#*,):>!V&)q(!95(#-/%*0#!9:!4%**%1q(!
&).(!)*!.-%>#-!%(!%*!)*+)0%,9-!9:!+)(9-+#-&>!5#1%/)9-!-#&%,)*$!,9!(.##01!%$%)*(,!o%16#1<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!
?3(%*!_0E#-8%*@!A4%**%1q(!=#%-(@G!)*!Celebrate Her for the Fruit of Her Hands: Studies in Honor of
Carol L. Meyers@!#+<!?3(%*!_0E#-8%*!#,!%&<!J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!KLH[N@!HMRHZS!D%-0!7-#,,&#-@!
A]98#*!%*+!B(%&8(O!=96%-+!%*!`*+#-(,%*+)*$!9:!,1#!d9&#!9:!]98#*q(!B-%>#-!)*!,1#!c(-%#&),#!X3&,@G!)*!
D%,,1#6(!#,!%&<@!Gender and Law@!PPRP[<!
!
26!W%-()#&@!A]9-+!B&%>!%*+!B3*(@G!HQIRQP<!c!(3$$#(,!,1%,!4%**%1q(!09--#&%,)9*!6),1! }±• }u ~ •u !+9#(!*9,!
)*,#*+!,9!)8.&)0%,#!1#-!6),1!(#'3%&!/)9&#*0#<!d%,1#-@!),!09*,-%(,(!1#-!6),1!V&)q(!(9*(!%(!%!8#%*(!9:!
%00#*,3%,)*$!V&)q(!)*%5)&),>!,9!.#-0#)/#@!9-!e3+$#@!59,1!.%-,)#(<!B#,#-!;<!"#),1%-,!()8)&%-&>!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#!
09*,-%(,!5#,6##*!4%**%1!%*+!V&)q(!(9*(!3*+#-(09-#!,1#!.#-)09.#q(!09*0#-*!:9-!V&)q(!&%0E!9:!+)(0#-*8#*,O!
A4#!1%+!-%)(#+!r(9*(!9:!7#&)%&@q!53,!1#!,-#%,(!%!+#/93,!698%*!619!)(!(##E)*$!%!5&#(()*$!:-98!,1#!"9-+!%(!%!
+%3$1,#-!9:!7#&)%&G!JA Son to Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel!fD9(096@!cFO!X%*9*!B-#((@!KLLIg@!PQ!*<!
ZN<!
72
follows in 1 Sam 2:12–36 may be understood not only as a series of legal reflections on
their corrupt behavior, but as various attempts to clarify why Eli’s sons are considered
distinctively belial.
Eli’s sons are first correlated with the epithet on account of ignorance, that is, they
do not know the Lord (1 Sam 2:12).27 Some interpreters propose reading this verse with 1
Sam 2:13, the result of which suggests that not only do they ignore Yahweh but they also
misuse and abuse priestly statutes (1 Sam 2:12–13).28 The report of their depraved
behavior in their capacity as priests in 1 Sam 2:13–17 is widely regarded as the earlier of
two supplemental blocks of material in 1 Sam 2 that offers a distinctive critique of their
cultic behavior.29 This block of material is predominately concerned with their
impropriety in a cultic context and is replete with allusions to Pentateuchal law.30 Many
posit the purpose of the infusion of Pentateuchal law in this portion of 1 Samuel is to
highlight the depravity of Eli’s sons and their abuse. For example, Sykora argues 1 Sam
2:12–16 reflects key notes of Pentateuchal legislation (e.g., Lev 17:6; Num 18:17) in
order to demonstrate not only how the Elides disregard the sacrificial instructions of the
27!7-#,,&#-!95(#-/#(! ~´• !)(!3(#+!+)::#-#*,&>!,1-93$193,!H!?%8!HRP<!]1#-#%(!)*!H!?%8!IO\!),!-#:�,(!,1#!
%,>.)0%&!(#*(#!9:!A,9!.-9.1#(>@G!H!?%8!KOHK!-#:�,(!,1#!89-#!3(3%&!(#*(#@!-#:�,)*$!-#&)$)9(),><!4#!
(3$$#(,(!9*!%0093*,!9:!,1)(!+)(09*,)*3),>!,1%,!H!?%8!KOHKRH\!)(!*9,!.%-,!9:!,1#!5%(#!,#',!9:!H!?%8!HRP!JA=1#!
X98.9(),)9*!9:!H!?%8!HRK@G!MLMN<!
!
28!?##!T-9&9/@!The Turn of the Cycle@!ZZRHLL<!D0X%-,#-!()8)&%-&>!-#%+(!H!?%8!KOHKRHI@!A,1#>!+)+!*9,!
%0E*96&#+$#!o%16#1!9-!,1#!.-)#(,q(!+3#!.9-,)9*!:-98!,1#!.#9.&#@G!JI Samuel@!\\N<!
!
29!?##!43,Y&)@!A=1#!F)(,)*0,)/#*#((!9:!,1#!?%83#&!b%--%,)/#!=-%+),)9*@G!HZLS!7-#,,&#-@!A=1#!X98.9(),)9*!9:!
H!?%83#&!HRK@G!MLQRHK<!!
!
30!;91*!4%-/#>!)+#*,):)#(!0&9(#!&)*$3)(,)0!%*+!,1#8%,)0!&)*E(!5#,6##*!"#/!HLOHRI!%*+!H!?%8!KOHKRH\!
JATendenz!%*+!=#',3%&!X-),)0)(8!)*!H!?%8!KRHL@G!JSOT!ZM!fKLLHgO!\HR\IN<!?)8)&%-&>@!X%&38!X%-8)01%#&!
%-$3#(!,1%,!H!?%8!KOHKRH\!#/9E#(!"#/!HLOQRH[!)*!,1#!:9-8#-q(!+#.)0,)9*!9:!03&,)0!%53(#!JThe Sacrificial
Laws of Leviticus and the Joseph Story!fX%85-)+$#O!X%85-)+$#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLH\g@!HMMN<!
!
73
Pentateuch, but how they used the system for their own benefit.31 The infusion of
Pentateuchal legislation therefore not only highlights the errors of Eli’s sons but attests to
a pervasive legal agenda aimed at clarifying the culpability of Eli’s sons as בנ י ־בליעל , sons
of belial.
Many interpreters discern two reports of cultic errors in 1 Sam 2:13–17.32 The
first is recorded in 1 Sam 2:13–14, where Eli’s sons would send a servant with a three-
pronged fork to draw from meat that was being boiled, and claimed that whatever was on
the fork was the priest’s share. It is not entirely clear whether these verses describe a
deviation from accepted procedure.33 Some have suggested that the underlying legislation
required the priest to receive the fat and the liver, along with other parts (cf. Lev 7:34;
Deut 18:3), but the narrative reports Eli’s sons were not satisfied with this portion.34 This
practice is linked to the continued report of 1 Sam 2:15–16, where the conjunction gam
intensifies the abuse of the offering.35 The report details that the sons of Eli also
31!?>E9-%@!Ara*&>!7#!")E#!,1#!B1)&)(,)*#!B-)#(,(²qG!\HKS!D>#-(@!A=1#!])0E#+!r?9*(!9:!V&)@qG![M<!!
!
32!=1#-#!%-#!+)::#-#*,!%..-9%01#(!,9!*%/)$%,)*$!,1#!,>.#(!%*+!*385#-!9:!03&,)0!#--9-(!)*!H!?%8!KOHIRH\<!
d9:|!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#!D=!%*+!"‹‹!09*03-!)*!+)(0#-*)*$!,69!+)(,)*0,!03&,)0!#/#*,(!%,!?1)&91!%*+!(3$$#(,(!
,1%,!,1#!:)-(,!9*#!6%(!&#$),)8%,#!%*+!,1#!(#09*+!)(!*9,<!4#!95(#-/#(!:3-,1#-!,1%,!,1)(!)((3#!6%(!,1#!(35e#0,!9:!
*98)(,)0!)*,#-/#*,)9*!)*!PU?%8a@!61)01!)*/#-,(!,1#!9-+#-!9:!,1#!+#(0-).,)9*!9:!,1#!,69!093-(#(!,-%*(:9-8#+!
)*!59,1!9:!,1#8!)*,9!9*#!8%e9-!,-%*($-#(()9*!JAb98)(,)0!X9--#0,)9*@G!K[KR[IN<!
!
33!D0X%-,#-@!I Samuel@!\Q<!_&,193$1!,1#-#!)(!(98#!+#5%,#!%593,!,1#!1)(,9-)0),>!9:!,1#!-#.9-,!)*!H!?%8!KOHKR
H\@!8%*>!)*,#-.-#,#-(!1%/#!(3$$#(,#+!,1%,!,1#!9::#*(#(!)*!/)#6!)*!,1#!*%--%,)/#!%-#!5#(,!3*+#-(,99+!%(!
-#:�,)9*(!9:!%!*%--%,)/#!69-&+<!=1%,!)(!,9!(%>@!,1#!1)(,9-)0%&!-#%&),>!,1%,!3*+#-&)#(!,1#!*%--%,)/#!)(!(#09*+%->!
,9!,1#!*%--%,)/#@!%*+!&#$%&@!)8%$)*%,)9*!9:!&%,#-!$#*#-%,)9*(!,1%,!693&+!8#%(3-#!,1)(!(,9->!5>!,1#!>%-+(,)0E!9:!
B@!,1#!-#(3&,!)(!,1%,!*9,1)*$!,1%,!6#*,!9*!%,!?1)&91!693&+!5#!%00#.,%5&#<!X%-8)01%#&!)*,#-.-#,(!H!?%8!HRI!%(!
.%-,!9:!%!&%-$#-!*%--%,)/#!,1%,@!*9!+935,!1%/)*$!(98#!:%0,3%&!5%()(@!09*,-)53,#(!,9!,1#!&),#-%->!09*(,-30,)9*!9:!
%*!9/#-/)#6!9:!%&&!,1#!*%--%,)/#(!%*+!%&&!,1#!&%6(!)*!W#*#()(!,1-93$1!K!^)*$(!JThe Sacrificial Laws of
Leviticus@!HMMN<!
!
34!T)-,1@!1 & 2 Samuel@!MQ<!
!
35!T-9&9/@!The Turn of the Cycle@!HLHS!T)-,1@!1 & 2 Samuel@!MQ<!!
!
74
compelled worshipers to follow the prescription of 1 Sam 2:15, and if they refused, Eli’s
sons would resort to taking by force.36
In sum, the report of 1 Sam 2:12–17 illustrates the corruption of Eli’s sons by
appealing to their cultic misconduct. Not only do they see sacrifice as a means to their
own ends but they are willing to abuse servants in the process.37 Although their
introduction as belial in 1 Sam 2:12 correlates to their ignorance of Yahweh, their cultic
abuses nuance and expand the nature of their ignorance in practice. In the process of
delineating culpability of the Elides, 1 Sam 2:13–17 clarifies their correlation with the
infamous epithet. Their cultic malpractice, which includes abuse of worshipers at Shiloh,
warrants their correlation with belial.
1 Sam 2:22–25
Following another resumptive repetition that emphasizes Samuel’s growing status
in 1 Sam 2:18–21, 1 Sam 2:22–25 supplements the narrative’s report of the corruption of
Eli’s sons.38 This block of material incorporates Eli response to and rebuke of his sons’
notorious behavior.39
36!T-9&9/@!The Turn of the Cycle@!\L<!!
!
37!V(&)*$#-@!Kingship@!HHQ<!!
!
38!=1#!03&,)0!#--9-(!9:!V&)q(!(9*(!%-#!:-%8#+!)*!/)#6!9:!%*9,1#-!&),#-%->!-#.#,),)9*!9:!?%83#&q(!$-96)*$!
(,%,3,#!%*+!.-98)(#<!c*!H!?%8!KOHQ!?%83#&!8)*)(,#-)*$!%(!%!01)&+!Jna‘arN!5#:9-#!,1#!"9-+!%..#%-(!,9!5#!)*!
09*,-%(,!6),1!,1#!5#1%/)9-!9:!V&)q(!(9*(!)*!H!?%8!KOH\@!61#-#!,1#>!%-#!0%&&#+!Jna‘arimN<!!
!
39!_&,193$1!,1#-#!1%/#!5##*!8%*>!619!(3$$#(,!,1#!8%,#-)%&!9:!H!?%8!KOKKRK[!(1):,(!,1#!&#*(!9:!03&.%5)&),>!
,9!V&)!)*!%*!%,,#8.,!,9!+#(,%5)&)Y#!1)(!01%-%0,#-)Y%,)9*!%(!e3+$#@!8>!%*%&>()(!6)&&!*9,!%,,#*+!,9!,1)(!
+)8#*()9*!9:!,1#!*%--%,)/#<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!01%-%0,#-)Y%,)9*!9:!V&)@!(##!T-9&9/@!619!%-$3#(!,1#!:9-0#!9:!
V&)q(!+#.)0,)9*!)*!,1)(!)*,#-.9&%,)9*!+#89*(,-%,#(!1#!)(!*9,!%!0%.%5&#!e3+$#@!09*+#8*)*$!%!,-%*($-#(()9*!,1%,!
,1#>!8%>!1%/#!*9,!0988),,#+!%*+!:%)&(!,9!09*+#8*!%!,-%*($-#(()9*!,1%,!,1#>!#8.1%,)0%&&>!+)+!0988),C%*!
95&)23#!53,!(,)*$)*$!0988#*,!9*!1)(!89-%&!01%-%0,#-!%*+!,1#!.96#-!9:!1)(!e3+$#8#*,!JTurn of the Cycle@!
HLIRMN<!?##!%&(9!F%/)+!=9(1)9!=(383-%@!The First Book of Samuel@!bcXa=!JW-%*+!d%.)+(@!V#-+8%*(@!
KLL\N@!HMHR\H<!
!
75
Now Eli was very old and he heard repeatedly all that his
sons did to all Israel, and how they were laying with the
women who gathered at the door of the tent of
meeting. And he said to them: ‘Why do you such things?
For I hear evil reports about you from all the people. No,
my sons; for it is no good report which I hear the Lord’s
people spread abroad. If one man sin against another, God
shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who
shall intercede for him?’ But they did not listen to the voice
of their father, because the Lord desired to slay them.40
Eli’s rebuke in 1 Sam 2:22–25 contains several text-critical anomalies and
distinctive thematic content. Commentators frequently suggest that the theme of Eli’s
warning in the passage reflects the interests of later editors who were uneasy with the
judgment of his sons without being warned.41 In this view, 1 Sam 2:22–25 reiterates the
cultic abuses of Eli’s sons detailed in 1 Sam 2:12–17 and clarifies that they were
sufficiently warned about the consequences of their actions. It is commonly posited that
the redactional concern for warning reflects the agenda of a later stratum compared to
that of 1 Sam 2:12–17, generally estimated to the late exilic or postexilic period.42
Unlike the preceding block of material, which focuses solely on the transgressions
of Eli’s sons, 1 Sam 2:22–25 shifts narratorial focus to both Eli and his sons. The re-
centering of Eli in this passage is marked by a distinctively legal agenda that expands the
scope of the pericope’s legal agenda to include a rebuke of Eli’s judicial capabilities.
40!;9i9*!%-$3#(!:9-!V&)q(!-#.#%,#+!%0,)9*!5#0%3(#!),!)(!%*!)*/#-,#+!.#-:#0,!:9&&96)*$!%!.%(,!*98)*%&!0&%3(#!JA
Grammar of Biblical Hebrew@!?357)!K\!fd98#O!B9*,):)0%&!7)5&)0%&!c*(,),3,#@!KLHQg@!I\PN<!
!
41!=1#!*9,)9*!,1%,!%!.#-(9*!619!()*(!83(,!5#!6%-*#+!5#:9-#!,1#>!%-#!:3&&>!03&.%5&#!)(!.-#/%&#*,!)*!
X1-9*)0&#(!%*+!9,1#-!&%,#!5)5&)0%&!,#',(<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!?%-%!;%.1#,@!The Ideology of the Book of
Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought@!,-%*(<!_**%!7%-5#-!J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!KLLZN@!
HIQRPZS!?6##*#>@!AV&)O!_!4)$1!B-)#(,!=1-96*!`*+#-!,1#!]1##&(!9:!,1#!a'!X%-,@G!M\RMQ<!
!
42!?##!=9/@!Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint@!HP\S!7-#,,&#-@!A=1#!X98.9(),)9*!9:!H!?%83#&!HRK@G!MHKS!
T)(15%*#@!AH!?%83#&!IO!4)(,9-)0%&!b%--%,)/#!%*+!b%--%,)/#!B9#,)0(@G!HZ[S!V(&)*$#-@ Kingship@!HKIS!d9:|@!
Ab98)(,)0!X9--#0,)9*@G!K[LS!D0X%-,#-@!I Samuel@!ZKRZI<!!
!
76
While the range of commentary on Eli’s failure is diverse, most interpreters agree that the
thrust of 1 Sam 2:22–25 is to accentuate that abuse at Shiloh was rampant and the aging
Eli was either incapable of unwilling to curb the abuses of his sons, and in either case, his
warning comes too late.
The content of Eli’s rebuke also evidences a legal agenda that further nuances the
scope and nature of his sons’ culpability. While the first portion of 1 Sam 2:22 reports
Eli’s response to hearing what his sons had done to all Israel, which presumably evokes
the cultic abuses in 1 Sam 2:12–17, his rebuke also contains an additional detail that adds
to the list of charges against his sons. As I suggested above, the legal milieu of 1 Sam
2:12–36 strongly evokes the conflation of priestly and judicial authority which is
exploited by Eli’s sons. This abuse of authority is first delineated in the report of the
priests’ inclination to force the worshipers in 1 Sam 2:12–17. With no one to curb their
behavior, abuse is rampant and the victims of their abuse have little, if any, recourse. The
pericope thus reflects on the consequences of corruption of Deuteronomic conflation of
priestly and judicial authority. I suggest the authoritative status occupied by Eli and his
sons clarifies that the worshipers at Shiloh are victims in the abusive web of authority
depicted in 1 Sam 2:12–36. The reach of this abuse web is expanded, moreover, in Eli’s
rebuke in 1 Sam 2:22–25, where a peculiar interpolation adds the abuse of the so-called
gathering women to the charges against Eli’s sons.
Interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22
MT 1 Sam 2:22 reports “Now Eli was very old and he heard repeatedly all his
sons did to all Israel and that they were laying with אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים הַצֹּבְאוֹת פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹﬠֶד , “the
women who gather at the door of the tent of meeting.” The latter portion of the verse
77
concerning the so-called gathering women is absent in LXXB and 4QSama and as a result
of this, there is some debate as to when this interpolation was added, or removed, from
the tradition.43 Some interpreters posit the absence of the phrase in LXXB and 4QSama
reflects intentional omission in which scribes were uneasy with the correlation of priests
with sexual impropriety.44 However, on account of the pericope’s demonstrated concern
for illustrating the various illicit behaviors of Eli’s sons as paradigmatic corrupt priests in
a series of successive scribal interventions, the expansion of legal culpability is plausible,
even if later audiences would grow uneasy with the correlation of priests with sexual
impropriety.45 I find the position that the reference to the gathering women is a plus that
was inserted into MT 1 Sam 2:22 sometime between the OG translation and Josephus’
writing to be much more compelling.46 Assigning the interpolation to a later layer of legal
reflection is well within the bounds of how interpreters have mapped the passage’s
43!?,#.1#*!B)(%*9!95(#-/#(!,1%,!;9(#.13(!E*#6!9:!,1#!%003(%,)9*!%$%)*(,!V&)q(!(9*(@!%&,193$1!),!)(!)*!%!
+)::#-#*,!.&%0#!,1%*!,1%,!9:!,1#!D=<!;9(#.13(!3(#+!,1)(!(,9->!,9!)*,-9+30#!,1#!(#0,)9*!9*!?%83#&O!A,1#>!
+)(19*9-#+!,1#!698#*!619!0%8#!:9-!69-(1).@!+9)*$!/)9&#*0#!,9!(98#!%*+!(#+30)*$!9,1#-(!5>!.-#(#*,(@G!)*!
;9(#.13(@!Ant<![<IIZ<!?##!B)(%*9@!Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses
and Minuses in the Masoretic, LXX, and Qumran Texts@!a7a![\!JW‚,,)*$#*O!j%*+#*19#0E!ƒ!d3.-#01,@!
HZQPN@!MH@!%*+!0:<!V3$#*#!X1%-&#(!`&-)01@!The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus@!4?D!HZ!JD)((93&%@!
D=O!?019&%-(!B-#((@!HZ\HN@!HQ[<!!
!
44!_-$38#*,(!:9-!,1#!98)(()9*!9:!,1#!.1-%(#!(3$$#(,!,1#!)*,#*,)9*%&!-#89/%&!9:!,1#!$%,1#-)*$!698#*!9*!
)+#9&9$)0%&!$-93*+(!J)<#<@!,9!.-#/#*,!09--#&%,)*$!.-)#(,(!6),1!)8.-9.-)#,>N@!(##!V<"<!W-##*(,#)*@!Ad#09/#-)*$!
r=1#!]98#*!]19!?#-/#+!%,!,1#!V*,-%*0#@qG!)* Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical
Historiography: Presented to Zecharia Kallai@!#+<!W#-(19*!W%&)&!%*+!D9(1#!]#)*:#&+@!j=?3.!QH!J"#)+#*O!
7-)&&@!KLLLN@!H\LR\H<!F%&)%!D%-'!1%(!%&(9!)+#*,):)#+!,1#!,#*+#*0>!,9!+)/#-,!,1#!%003(%,)9*!9:!(#'3%&!()*(!
%$%)*(,!V&)q(!(9*(!,9!()*(!%$%)*(,!,1#!+)/)*#!%89*$!&%,#-!-%55)*)0!:)$3-#(!+%,)*$!:-98!,1#!,1)-+!0#*,3->!9*!
JA]98#*!%*+!B-)#(,(O!V*093*,#-(!%*+!F%*$#-(!%(!d#:�,#+!)*!c!?%83#&!KOKK@G!Lectio Difficilior!H!fKLHHgO!
[RHIN<!
!
45!c5)+<!
!
46!B)(%*9!%-$3#(!,1#!"‹‹!6),*#((#(!,9!%!89-#!.-)8),)/#!(,%,#!9:!,1#!,#',@!)*,9!61)01!.-9,9CD=!1%(!)*(#-,#+!
%!.&3(!619(#!#::#0,!)(!,9!5&%0E#*!(,)&&!:3-,1#-!,1#!-#.3,%,)9*!9:!V&)q(!(9*(!JAdditions or Omissions in the
Books of Samuel@!\[N<!D0X%-,#-!.-9.9(#(!,1#!)*,#-.9&%,)9*!)(!.9(,#')&)0@!09301#+!)*!,1#!,#01*)0%&!
,#-8)*9&9$>!9:!,1#!.-)#(,&>!&#$)(&%,)9*!9:!,1#!=#,-%,#301!J0:<!V'9+!IQOQN@!%*+!:9&&96)*$!X-9((@!.-9.9(#(!,1#!
)*,#-.9&%,)9*!#::#0,3%&&>!&)*E(!,1#!.-#(#*,!(),3%,)9*!6),1!,1#!)*0)+#*,!)*!b38!K[OMRH[@!+#*)$-%,)*$!,1#!
.-)#(,199+!%,!?1)&91!JI Samuel@!QHN<!?##!%&(9!X-9((@!Canaanite Myth@!KLHRI<!
!
78
sequence of legal reflection. Moreover, my analysis will reveal that the interpolation is
also in continuity with legal reflection attested in Judg 19–20 and other late Second
Temple texts. Accordingly, I will suggest that the addition of these anomalous women
offers a supplemental dimension of impropriety attributed to Eli’s sons that clarifies the
nature of their belial behavior.
Before I consider the legal nature of this interpolation, I must briefly attend to the
peculiarities of the reference to these women who “gather at the door of the tent of
meeting” (MT 1 Sam 2:22). The anomalous identity of these figures and the ambiguous
nature of their gathering at the door at the tabernacle continues to vex interpreters. There
is very little in the way of comparative data to make sense of their identity and activity,
and even more confusing still is their correlation with the tent of meeting, which is highly
unusual because 1 Sam 2 reportedly takes place at the temple in Shiloh. By consequence,
these anomalies make it difficult to generate consensus about the interpolation’s purpose
and how its reference to women contributes to the overall legal agenda of the pericope.
While lacking clear consensus, interpreters have nevertheless intuitively
correlated the nature of the interpolation with the issue of culpability and relative
complicity in the broader framework of corruption reported in 1 Sam 2. On the one hand,
some suggest the interpolation of the gathering women evokes sexual impropriety that
also reflects on the culpability of the women. In this view, the women are seen as cultic
prostitutes or concubines, and so the interpolation of these women underscore the sexual
impropriety of Eli’s sons yet are complicit in their corruption.47 Alternatively, some
47!?##!W-##*(,#)*@!Ad#09/#-)*$!r=1#!]98#*!]19!?#-/#+!%,!,1#!V*,-%*0#@qG!H\HR\IS!;91*!c<!F3-1%8@!
Exodus@!]7X!I!Jb%(1/)&&#O!b#&(9*@!HZQ\N@!PQ\S!;<B<!?,#-*5#-$#-@!A;%095@!4#&)@!F%/)+@!X%85>(#O!&#!89,):!
+#!&%!09*035)*#!+%*(!23#&23#(!-#0),(!+#!0-)(#(!+#!(300#(()9*!JW*!IPS!I[@!KHRKKS!H!?!K@KKS!K!?!HIS!H[RH\N@G!
Transeu!IZ!JKLHLNO!HMIRMP<!
79
interpreters draw from clues in the interpolation itself in order to contrast its anomalous
detail with the corrupt context of 1 Sam 2. By attending to the peculiar features of the
interpolation, I will demonstrate how these features underscore abuse and corruption of
Eli’s sons and how they fit into a distinctively legal agenda of a later interpolator.
In the report of MT 1 Sam 2:22, the identity of the women is inseparable from
their reported activity and proximity to the tent of meeting. The question of the nature of
their הַצֹּבְאוֹת , commonly rendered “serving” or “ministering” in MT 1 Sam 2:22 is a
touchstone for situating their role in the narrative. The root צבא can connote army or
force, which the Vulgate presumably follows when it renders the women as mulierum
quae excubant, “the women who keep watch.”48 However, it is much more common to
follow the alternative meaning of צבא , which denotes ministerial cultic service to
Yahweh.49 In this view, the connotation of service or gathering outside the tent of
meeting in the context of worship situates the activity of these women in view of the
worshipers in the preceding report of Eli’s sons in 1 Sam 2:12–17; just as Eli’s sons
abused worshipers in the temple Shiloh, they abuse the gathering, or ministering, women.
The correlation of these women and worship of Yahweh has been further described by
Eslinger, who argues that the feminine participle הצבא ו ת , “hosting” in MT 1 Sam 2:22
parallels the divine epithet יהוה צבאות , Lord of Hosts, in order to correlate the women with
48!?3(%*!_0E#-8%*!#'.&9-#(!%-01%#9&9$)0%&!#/)+#*0#!,1%,!(3..9-,(!,1#!#/90%,)9*!9:!:#8%&#!:)$3-#(!,1%,!
(%:#$3%-+!,1#!+#),>!J9-!+#),)#(N!193(#+!6),1)*!%!(1-)*#q(!)*,#-)9-<!?1#!09*0&3+#(@!196#/#-@!,1%,!,1)(!
09**9,%,)9*!6%(!/#->!&)E#&>!3*E*96*!,9!,1#!%3,19-(!9:!H!?%8!KOKK!JWomen and the Religion of Ancient
Israel@!_o7d"!fb#6!4%/#*O!o%&#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLKKg@!IKZN<!
!
49!_0E#-8%*!#'.&%)*(!,1%,!,1#!*93*! °ž}ž- !0%*!-#:#-!,9!,1#!69-E!9:!,1#!"#/),)0%&!.-)#(,199+!%,!,1#!,#*,!9:!
8##,)*$!)*!b38!POI@!KI@!I[@!IZ@!%*+!QOKPRK[!%*+!,1#-#!1%(!5##*!(98#!(.#03&%,)9*!%593,!,1#!*%,3-#!9:!,1#!
698#*q(!03&,)0!(#-/)0#!JWomen and the Religion of Ancient Israel@!IHIRHPN<!?##!%&(9!;91*!=<!])&&)(@!619!
%-$3#(!:9-!,1#)-!03&,)0!-#(.9*()5)&),>!JAX3&,)0!V#*,(!)*!,1#!?,9->!9:!?%83#&q(!7)-,1!%*+!F#+)0%,)9*@G!ST!
KM!fHZ\KgO![MN<!
!
80
service to Yahweh.50 Indeed, one of the effects of correlating the activity of these women
with service to Yahweh signaled for later interpreters of the passage that these women
occupied a place of sacred objects, intensifying the abusive and reprehensible behavior of
Eli’s sons.51
An additional enigmatic feature of the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 is that it
situates the anomalous women at the door of the tent of meeting. The reference to the tent
of meeting is striking in the narrative context of 1 Samuel not only because it is the only
occurrence of the phrase in the book, but because it is contextually out of place. The
opening chapters of Samuel take place in Shiloh at “the house of the Lord” (cf. 1 Sam
1:7, 24; 3:15) or “the temple of the Lord” (cf. 1 Sam 1:9; 3:3).52 Moreover, reference to
the tent of meeting is anachronistic, evoking a milieu that has long passed from the
perspective of both the narrative and, if the status of later interpolation is accepted, the
redactors themselves.
In order to make sense of this anachronism, interpreters frequently appeal to a
brief, albeit equally elusive reference to gathering women in Exod 38:8.53 Appearing in
the building report of the tabernacle (Exod 35–40) the allusion to gathering women reads,
50!V(&)*$#-@!Kingship@!HKI!%*+!T9EE#&8%*@!Crossing Fates@!HKQ<!!
!
51!?##!D%-'@!A]98#*!%*+!B-)#(,(@G!I<!!
!
52!X%-8)01%#&@!The Sacrificial Laws of Leviticus and the Joseph Story@!HMQ<!V/#*!):!9*#!$-%*,(!,1%,!,1#!
09--#&%,)9*!9:!?1)&91!%*+!7#,1#&!%-#!83++&#+!)*!,1#!,-%*(),)9*!:-98!;3+$#(!,9!H!?%83#&@!%(!;95&)*$!1%(!
09$#*,&>!95(#-/#+@!,1#!#/90%,)9*!9:!,1#!,#*,!9:!8##,)*$!-#8%)*(!%*98%&93(<!?##!;95&)*$@!1 Samuel@![I<!!
!
53!?##!4%*(!])&1#&8!4#-,Y5#-$@!I & II Samuel: A Commentary@!,-%*(<!;<!?<!796+#*@!a="!JB1)&%+#&.1)%O!
]#(,8)*(,#-@!HZ\MN@!IM<!_*!#'0#.,)9*!5#)*$!F98#*)09!"9!?%-+9@!619!8%)*,%)*(!,1%,!V'!IQOQ!)(!+#.#*+#*,!
3.9*!9*!H!?%8!KOKK!%*+!*9,!/)0#!/#-(%S!H!?%8!KOKK5!93$1,!,9!5#!-#$%-+#+!%(!%!.9(,CB!%++),)9*!8%+#!%:,#-!
,1#!"‹‹!1%+!5##*!,-%*(&%,#+!:-98!,1#!4#5-#6<!"9!?%-+9!.-9.9(#(!,1%,!V'!IQOQ!+9#(!*9,!098#!:-98!,1#!
(%8#!%3,19-!%(!,1#!-#(,!9:!V'9+3(!%*+!,1%,!D=!V'9+!IQOQ!(193&+!5#!#'.&%)*#+!%(!%!&%,#-!%++),)9*!,9!B!JA=1#!
=#*,!9:!D##,)*$!%*+!,1#!]98#*q(!D)--9-(!)*!H!?%8!KOKK!%*+!V'9+!IQOQ@G!Text!KZ!fKLKLgO!HZKN<!?##!%&(9!
d9:|@!Ab98)(,)0!X9--#0,)9*@G!K[H<!
81
“He made the bronze basin and bronze stand from the mirrors of the women who
gathered at the entrance to the tent of meeting” (Exod 38:8). This passage poses several
difficulties.54 First, the reference to gathering at the door of the tent of meeting is
anachronistic because the tent itself was still under construction.55 Additionally, as is the
case with surveys of the connotations of הַצֹּבְאוֹת identified above, many interpreters have
detected themes of women’s participation in cultic activity in the ancient Near East can
be identified in the text, but there is little understanding or consensus as to the nature of
their purpose in Exod 38:8.56 In sum, while there are several parallels between the
gathering women in MT 1 Sam 2:22 and Exod 38:8, the identity of these women in both
contexts remains entirely speculative and it is not clear why these anomalous figures
were interpolated from one narrative context to another.
54!=1)(!/#-(#!%..#%-(!)*!%!,#',3%&&>!+)::)03&,!.9-,)9*!9:!V'9+3(<!V'9+!IQ!)(!,1#!9*&>!&%03*%!)*!U38-%*!
V'9+3(<!T-#+#-)0E!4<!X->#-!%-$3#(!,1%,!61)&#!),!)(!*9,!)*09*0#)/%5&#!,1%,!(98#!+#,%)&(!(301!%(!,1#!8)--9-(!9:!
,1#!8)*)(,#-)*$!698#*!&#+!,9!,1#!98)(()9*!9:!,1)(!01%.,#-!9-!,1#!:%)&3-#!,9!098.9(#!),@!),!09*,%)*(!(9!8301!
#&(#!,1%,!)(!)*,#$-%&!,9!,1#!%0093*,!9:!,1#!=%5#-*%0&#!,1%,!,1#!*9*C#')(,#*0#!)(!89-#!&)E#&>!%00)+#*,%&!
JAW#*#()(!)*!U38-%*@G!)*!Qumran between the Old and New Testaments@!#+<!T-#+#-)0E!4<!X->#-!%*+!
=198%(!"<!=198.(9*@!;?a=?3.!KZL!f?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZZQg@!ZQRHHKN<!_0E#-8%*!%-$3#(!
,1%,!,1#!$%,1#-)*$!698#*!)*!V'9+!IQOQ!95(#-/#(!,1#-#!)(!*9!-#:#-#*0#!,9!698#*!%,!%&&<!?1#!.-9.9(#(!,1%,!
,1#!-#:#-#*0#!)(!%!:-9Y#*!)+)98!,1%,!9*0#!#/9E#+!(3.#-*%,3-%&!:)$3-#(!619!:&%*E#+!,1#!#*,->6%>!9:!(1-)*#(<!
496#/#-@!_0E#-8%*!.9(),(!,1%,!,1#!%3,19-(!9:!59,1!V'9+!IQOQ!%*+!D=!H!?%8!KOKK!6#-#!&)E#&>!3*%6%-#!9:!
6),1!,1#!9-)$)*%&!03&,)0!-#:#-#*0#!,9!,1#(#!:)$3-#(!%*+!#*/)()9*#+!)*!#%01!.#-)09.#!)8%$)*%->!698#*!
JWomen and the Religion of Ancient Israel@!IILRIIN<!
!
55!?##!F3-1%8@!Exodus@!PQ\S!W-##*(,#)*@!Ad#09/#-)*$!r=1#!]98#*!]19!?#-/#+!%,!,1#!V*,-%*0#@qG!HM\S!
X%-9&!D#>#-(@!Exodus@!b#6!X%85-)+$#!7)5&#!X988#*,%->!JX%85-)+$#O!X%85-)+$#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!
KLL[N@!K\QS!])&&)%8!4<X<!B-9..@!Exodus 19–40@!_7!K!Jb#6!o9-EO!F935&#+%>@!KLLMN@!MM\<!
!
56!T9-!%*!9/#-/)#6!9:!,1#!/%-)93(!-9&#(!.-9.9(#+!:9-!,1#!698#*@!(##!?3(%*!_0E#-8%*@!AD)--9-(@!F-38(@!
%*+!=-##(@G!)*!Congress Volume Helsinki 2010@!#+<!D%-,,)!b)(()*#*@!j=?3.!HPQ!J"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!KLHKN@![IQR
PL<!?98#!(,3+)#(!(3$$#(,!,1#!.%((%$#!)&&3(,-%,#(!%!(,%*+%-+!-9&#!9:!698#*!)*!03&,)0!(#-/)0#<!?##!;%*#,!?<!
V/#-1%-,@!A?#-/)*$!]98#*!%*+!=1#)-!D)--9-(O!_!T#8)*)(,!d#%+)*$!9:!V'9+3(!IQOQ5@G!CBQ!MM!JKLLPNO!PPR
[PS!"%3-%!U3)0E@!A=1-93$1!%!W&%((@!F%-E&>O!d#:�,)9*(!9*!,1#!=-%*(&%,)9*!%*+!c*,#-.-#,%,)9*!9:!V'9+3(!
IQOQ@G!CBQ QH!JKLHZNO![Z[RMHK<!?##!%&(9!D%-,)*!b9,1@!Exodus: A Commentary@!,-%*(<!;<?<!796+#*@!a="!
JB1)&%+#&.1)%O!]#(,8)*(,#-@!HZMKN@!K\QS!F3-1%8@!Exodus@!PQQ<!=1#!*9,)9*!,1%,!,1#>!%-#!(#-/%*,(@!9-!
.#-1%.(!$3%-+(@!)(!%&(9!#'.&9-#+!5>!_0E#-8%*@!619!:9&&96(!;#-98#q(!,-%*(&%,)9*!JAD)--9-(@!F-38(@!%*+!
=-##(@G![PLN<!
82
In an attempt to circumnavigate the tricky question of the identity of the gathering
women, Ackerman proposes the key to unlocking their narrative purpose does not need to
correlate to the role these figures occupied historically, as it is unlikely the scribal hand
behind MT 1 Sam 2:22 was aware of the historical reality these figures occupied.57 If the
particular identity of the gathering women is neither accessible nor especially formative
for grasping their purpose in Exod 38:8 or MT 1 Sam 2:22, as Ackerman would suggest,
what are readers to make of the reasoning behind interpolating such obscure figures? I
suggest the answer to this question relates to the interpolation’s innovative evocation of
an earlier time, contrasting the gathering women who are correlated with idealized space
with the dystopic and abusive behavior of Eli’s sons.
While we may know little about the gathering women, interpreters have a great
deal more access to the concept of the door of the tent of meeting. Although
reconstructions and considerations of the space of the tent of meeting has been the subject
of some debate, Julia Rhyder suggests the wilderness sanctuary is a decisive monumental
space that served as a marker of “social cohesion.”58 Calling attention to the
commemorative qualities of the tent of meeting, Rhyder argues that it frequently serves
as a “tool to activate social memory” on account of its association with a seminal event in
57!?##!_0E#-8%*@!Women and the Religion of Ancient Israel@!IHHRII<!!
!
58!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!D)01%#&!7<!43*+&#>@!A7#:9-#!o4]4!%,!,1#!V*,-%*0#!9:!,1#!=#*,!9:!D##,)*$O!_!?,3+>!
9:!?.%,)%&!%*+!X9*0#.,3%&!W#9$-%.1>!)*!,1#!B-)#(,&>!=#',(@G!ZAW!HKI!JKLHHNO!H[RKM<!;3&)%!d1>+#-@!A=1#!
=#*,!9:!D##,)*$!%(!D9*38#*,%&!?.%0#O!=1#!X9*(,-30,)9*!9:!B-)#(,&>!?%*0,3%->!)*!V'9+3(!K[RIHS!I[RPL@G!
47_c!HL!JKLKHNO!ILI<!!
!
83
the shared past of the social group.59 In her construction, the tent of meeting is principally
an ideal space.60
I suggest that treating the tent of meeting as a reference to an ideal space in 1
Samuel nuances the legal innovation of gathering women in MT 1 Sam 2:22. First, it
delineates culpability in the narrative by contrasting the gathering women in an ideal
space with the abusive behavior of Eli’s sons. The reference to the tent of meeting thus
correlates the gathering women with the ideal and contrasts them with Eli’s sons, whose
abusive behavior accentuates their culpability for abuse of the gathering women and for
turning Shiloh into a cultic dystopia. However, the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 does
not merely implicate Eli’s sons for sexual impropriety, although I do not deny that the
legal implications of sexual impropriety is a key dimension of legal reflection introduced
in the interpolation.61 I suggest that the reference to the tent of meeting in MT 1 Sam 2:22
also evokes biblical legislation that delimits authority vested in priests as a means of
nuancing the nature of their sexual impropriety and culpability. For example, the
interpolation’s reference to the tent meeting evokes legislation that not only centralized
priestly authority at the tent of meeting but also obligated worshipers to worship at this
location (e.g., Lev 17; Deut 17). The interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 thus imports
59!d1>+#-@!A=1#!=#*,!9:!D##,)*$@G!ILI<!
!
60!c5)+<!
!
61!T9-!#'%8.&#@!d9:|!%-$3#(!)*!D=!H!?%8!KOKK!%+3&,#->!)(!%,,-)53,#+!,9!V&)q(!(9*(!)*!9-+#-!,9!e3(,):>!,1#)-!
(35(#23#*,!+#%,1(!JA=1#!;3(,):)0%,)9*!9:!,1#!"9-+q(!j#-+)0,O!=#',3%&!%*+!"),#-%->!c*/#*,)9*(!)*!?%83#&!%*+!
^)*$(@G!)*!Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor
Avigdor Hurowitz@!#+<!?<!o9*%!#,!%&< f])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!KLH[gO!KMHR\LN<!?)8)&%-&>@!
X%-8)01%#&!+#,#0,(!,1#!3(#!9:!%*!)**9/%,)/#!&#$%&!%*%&9$>!61)01!#/9E#(!,1#!:-%8#69-E!9:!"#/!KHOZRH[!,1%,!
#/9E#(!,1#!(#'3%&!)8.-9.-)#,>!9:!%!.-)#(,q(!+%3$1,#-!%(!%*!%*%&9$>!:9-!,1#!(9*(!9:!V&)!JAF#%,1!%*+!?#'3%&),>!
_89*$!B-)#(,(!f"#/),)03(!KHg@G!)*!The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception@!#+<!d9&:!d#*+,9-::!
%*+!d95#-,!^3$&#-@!j=?3.!ZI!f"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!KLLIg@!KIMRIQN<!
84
anomalous women who were obligated to the ideal cultic space into a context of abusive
and corrupt priests. The overall effect of this innovation juxtaposes anomalous women
and their ideal space with priests who abuse the power granted to them by biblical
legislation. By untangling the complex themes of priestly authority, ideal space, and
sexual impropriety, the error of Eli’s sons is not a matter of indiscretion, but exploitation.
I find the cultic and judicially exploitative nature of Eli’s sons to be especially
fitting for the narrative context of 1 Sam 2. As I suggested above, the report of 1 Sam
2:13–17 nuances how Eli’s sons are not merely belial on account of their ignorance of
Yahweh, but clarifies they are also belial because of cultic abuse and exploitation of
worshipers. The continuance of the theme of abuse persists in 1 Sam 2:22–25. These
verses, just as 1 Sam 2:12–17, are replete with durative and iterative forms that strongly
suggest the abuses of Eli’s sons were routine and continued to take place over time.62 The
habitually abusive nature of the sons naturally pairs with their reported exploits with
women and their penchant for resorting to force in 1 Sam 2:16 can be logically extended
to the nature of their sexual impropriety in MT 1 Sam 2:22, where they evoked the same
abuse of force to have their way with the gathering women.63 This sentiment is echoed in
Josephus, who reports, “These, grown both insolent to men and impious to the Divinity,
abstained from no iniquity: of the offerings some they carried off as prizes of office,
others they seized in robber fashion; they dishonored the women who came for worship,
doing violence to some and seducing others by presents; in short, their manner of life
62!T-9&9/@!The Turn of the Cycle@!HL\<!!
!
63!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!4#-,Y5#-$@!1 & 2!Samuel@!IMS!W9-+9*!43$#*5#-$#-@!Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical
Law and Ethics as Developed in Malachi!JV3$#*#@!adO!]).:!ƒ!?,90E@!HZZPN@!IIHS!_<!W-%#8#!_3&+@!I & II
Samuel: A Commentary@!a="!J"93)(/)&&#O!]#(,8)*(,#-!;91*!^*9'@!KLHHN@!PZ<!V(&)*$#-!%&(9!%-$3#(!,1#!
698#*!6#-#!#'.&9),#+!:9-!,1#!(9*(q!.#-(9*%&!$-%,):)0%,)9*!JKingship@!HKIN<!
85
different in no whit from a tyranny.”64 In view of the abusive nature of Eli’s sons and
their exploitation of the gathering women, I suggest that the key legal innovation of the
interpolation is to correlate of Eli’s sons with sexual exploitation. By importing a
specific, albeit anomalous, scenario, the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 adds sexual
exploitation to the list of abusive behaviors committed by Eli’s sons.
The nuance of sexual exploitation inaugurated by the interpolation of MT 1 Sam
2:22 shares several affinities with the scenario of Judg 19–20. Both pericopes report the
confluence of anomalous and liminal women who occupy anomalous legal and cultic
identity. Moreover, both pericopes report an intriguing relationship between these
anomalous women and doorways and thresholds. Finally, the culprits in both scenarios
are the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial. These shared affinities are strengthened by the narrative
relationship between 1 Samuel and Judges. Jobling argues for the shared theme of sexual
violence in these narratives.65 Carmichael similarly argues the problem of sexual abuse in
Judg 19:22, which is associated with the sons of belial, lives on in the succeeding
generation, where the sons of belial abuse the women who assembled at the door of the
tabernacle in Shiloh (1 Sam 2:12, 22) in a manner similar to the abuse of the Levite’s
concubine.66 The proximity of sexual exploitation and a door in 1 Sam 2:22 also evokes
the proximity of the doorway and sexual abuse of the Levite’s concubine in Judg 19:25.
Both scenarios thus convey the correlation of justice and abuse in doorways and
64!;9(#.13(@!Ant. [<IIZRIPL!J=1%0E#-%>@!"X"N<!
!
65!;95&)*$@!1 Samuel@!HQL<!!
!
66!X%-8)01%#&@!AF#%,1!%*+!?#'3%&),>@G!KI[<!!
86
entranceways, a theme that resonates in Judg 19:25 and throughout Samuel.67 These
shared features demonstrate that the thematic and legal milieu of MT 1 Sam 2:22 is
strikingly similar with that of Judg 19–20.
In sum, the gathering women of MT 1 Sam 2:22 are the product of later scribal
innovation that interpolated them from Exod 38:8 to a new literary context in order to
expand the culpability of Eli’s sons to include sexual impropriety and exploitation. This
legal agenda is further nuanced by the interpolation’s clever import of the ideal into
corruption of 1 Sam 2. I have suggested that the interpolation is intentionally
anachronistic, importing the ideal of Exod 38:8 into the cultic dystopia depicted at
Shiloh.68 The contrast of the abuse of the ideal in the context of priestly and juridical
power intensifies the sons’ abusive behavior.
Following the interpolation of the gathering women, 1 Sam 2:23–25 resumes Eli’s
rebuke and warning, “No, my sons, for it is no good report that I hear, you cause the
Lord’s people to transgress.”69 This is followed by an enigmatic reflection on their
impending judgment, “If a man sin against another, Elohim shall judge him. But if a man
sin against the Lord, who shall intercede for him? But they did not listen to their father
67!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!&#$%&!%*+!(>859&)0!()$*):)0%*0#!9:!#*,-%*0#!6%>(!)*!,1#!#'#03,)9*!9:!e3(,)0#!%*+!
:9-8%,)9*!9:!.96#-@!(##!D%,,1#6(@!AV*,-%*0#!]%>(!%*+!=1-#(1)*$!T&99-(@G!K[RPLS!X1-)(,9.1#-!D#-#+),1@!
A_!X%(#!9:!a.#*!%*+!?13,O!=1#!T)/#!=1-#(19&+(!)*!H!?%83#&!HOHR\OK@G!BibInt HQ!JKLHLNO!HI\R[\S!_/*#->@!
Aa*!,1#!=1-#(19&+@G!KILRPQ<!
!
68!F%/)+!T)-,1!%-$3#(!,1#!&),#-%->!:3*0,)9*!9:!%*%01-9*)(8(!)*!,1#!.#-)09.#!9:!K!?%8!KL!)*,#*,)9*%&&>!+#.%-,!
:-98!(,%*+%-+!.%,,#-*(!)*!9-+#-!,9!.-9/)+#!#8.1%()(!%*+!$#*#-%,#!#8.1%()(!JAX1-9*9&9$>!)*!,1#!799E(!9:!
?%83#&O!_!b%--%,)/#!_..-9%01@G!)*!The!Books of Samuel: Stories, History, Reception History@!#+<!]%&,#-!
F)#,-)01!#,!%&<@!7V="!KQP!f"#3/#*O!B##,#-(@!KLHMg@!IPIN<!
!
69!F%/)+!T)-,1!1%(!%-$3#+!,1%,!V&)q(!(,%,#8#*,!+9#(!*9,!+)-#0,&>!-#53E#!1)(!(9*(!J1 & 2 Samuel@!fF96*#-(!
W-9/#@!c"O!c*,#-j%-(),>!B-#((@!KLLZg@!MZN<!
!
87
because the Lord wanted to kill them.”70 Eli’s rebuke in 1 Sam 2:23–25 indicates that the
transgressions of his sons have pushed them to the point of no return. A combination of
their ignorance and rampant abuse of Shiloh’s worshipers, including the gathering
women, warrants these בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, the death penalty.
1 Sam 2:26–36
1 Sam 2:26 resumes its praise of Samuel, who is said to continue to grow in
stature and favor with the Lord and with people. The narrative concludes with a
pronouncement of judgement against Eli and his sons. This closing section of 1 Sam 2
records the judgment of Eli’s house, and directly alludes to their failure to be good
priests, as the prophecy mentions sacrificial error (1 Sam 2:28–29). This suggests that
this block has in view the cultic abuse reported in 1 Sam 2:12–17. Absent from this
prophecy, however, is any mention of the exploited “gathering women” in MT 1 Sam
2:22. This absence has been offered up as further evidence that the interpolation of the
gathering women occurred after the block of material in 1 Sam 2:26–36 was composed.71
In any case, the prophecy provides a final clarification for what Eli’s sons did to merit
displacement from the priesthood and death (1 Sam 2:34–35).
Legal Exegesis in 1 Sam 2:12–36 Assessing its Features and Consequences
Summary
I have demonstrated that 1 Sam 2:12–36 showcases the behavior of the sons of Eli
as בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, in a series of successive redactional reflections that nuance the
70!T)-,1!(3$$#(,(!,1)(!8%>!5#!%*!)*(,%*0#!61#*!AV&91)8G!8#%*(!e3+$#(!)*!,1#!(#*(#!9:!,19(#!%..9)*,#+!5>!
W9+!,9!%0,!9*!1)(!5#1%&:!J#<$<@!B(!QKOH@!MS!HIQOHS!V'9+!KHOMS!KKOQRZN<!=193$1!T)-,1!8%)*,%)*(!AW9+G!)*!1)(!
,-%*(&%,)9*@!1#!(3$$#(,(!,1%,!),!)(!&)E#&>!,1%,!,1#!)*,#*,!)(!,1%,!W9+!%0,!,1-93$1!%!138%*!e3+$#!)*!)+#8@!1 & 2!
Samuel@!M[<!
!
71!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!B)(%*9@!Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel@!\P<!!
88
correlation with the epithet. I have also suggested that what is widely regarded as the
latest layer of redactional activity in the pericope, the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22, is
the product of legal innovation that clarifies an additional dimension of impropriety to be
associated with Eli’s sons. The interpolation adds the abuse of the so-called gathering
women to the notorious rap sheet of Eli’s sons and correlates sexual violence against
women with belial.
Tracing Legal Exegesis in 1 Sam 2
Unlike the legal exegesis that was detected in my analysis of Judg 19, which
evoked and reworked a specific legal antecedent as a means of assigning culpability for
sexual violence in a legally anomalous scenario, the legal exegesis in 1 Sam 2 is
characterized by a slightly different technique. My study suggests that the interpolation of
the gathering women in MT 1 Sam 2:22 itself is legal exegesis; namely, it is legal
innovation that creatively expands the culpability of the sons of Eli by adding sexual
violence against women to the narrative’s depiction of their corrupt and abusive behavior.
However, the interpolation does not merely add to the list of charges. The creative
allusion to the gathering women at the door of the tent of meeting evokes a specific,
albeit anomalous, reference to Exod 38:8, where contrasting notions of the ideal and
perverse collide in an antecedent-laden pericope. The outcome of this peculiar
interpolation engages new Pentateuchal antecedents and, once again, correlates the בנ י ־
בל י על , sons of belial, with sexual violence.
My analysis also suggests the distinctive legal agenda attested in 1 Sam 2 reflects
two legal impulses. The first legal impulse I have detected relates to the shared affinities
between the legal scenario and legal exegesis I explored in Judg 19–20 compared to that
89
of the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 that incorporates sexual exploitation of the
gathering women into the traditions about the impropriety of Eli’s sons. Both pericopes
narrate an intricate web of anomalous details in a legally complex world: liminal women,
sexual impropriety, and the ever-elusive belial. While these affinities could be explained
in various ways, especially because of the strong literary relationship of Judges and 1
Samuel, I suggest the complex compositional history of 1 Sam 2 is key to explaining the
direction of the literary relationship of these affinities. If one accepts the interpolation of
MT 1 Sam 2:22 as a plus, then one must also grant the tradition of cultic corruption in 1
Sam 2 did not always include a reference to the gathering women. I suggest that the
inclusion of liminal women and the nuance of sexually exploitative impropriety in a
complex scenario was inspired by the clever of correlation of the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial,
with sexual violence in Judg 19–20. The interpolator of MT 1 Sam 2:22 logically extends
this abusive behavior the sons of Eli, who were already renowned for their abuse and
corruption attested in the earlier stages of compositional development of 1 Sam 2 (cf. 1
Sam 2:12–17).
My proposal that legal innovation in both Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2 correlates
belial with sexual violence also accounts for the unique origin of the interpolation in MT
1 Sam 2:22 and its absence in the LXX without resorting to presumptions about the
interpretive reticence of the LXX. My analysis, which unconventionally centers belial in
the overarching legal innovation of each pericope, suggests that the interpolation adds the
exploitation of women to the list of accusations against Eli’s sons in MT 1 Sam 2:22 on
account of their correlation with belial. However, if we consider the LXX’s translation,
which records υἱοὶ παρανόμων, “sons of lawlessness,” τοὺς υἱοὺς Βελιαλ, “the sons of
90
Belial” and υἱοὶ λοιμοί, “sons of pestilence,” in Judg 19:22, 20:12, and 1 Sam 2:12,
respectively, there is no obvious overarching linguistic connection between these epithets
of the assailants in each pericope, and there is much less evidence to consider these
epithets in view of sexual violence. In other words, the translation of the LXX
characterizes these assailants as entirely different groups. In contrast, the MT lends itself
to a more thematically cohesive report. The evocation of belial, particularly the בנ י ־בליעל ,
lit. sons of belial, in Judg 19:22; 20:12 and 1 Sam 2:12 correlates these narratives in a
way that the LXX does not. I suggest the interpolation of gathering women in MT 1 Sam
2:22, which entered the tradition in the late postexilic period, is an innovation that
logically continues the correlation of belial with sexual violence against women. In sum,
I suggest that the correlation of the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial with sexual violence against
women in Judg 19:22 and 20:12 inspired or was generated by a similar redactional hand
of the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 and this narratively cohesive legal innovation is a
testament to a shared legal reflection in the postexilic period.
The second legal impulse attested in the legal exegesis of 1 Sam 2 is its reflection
on ambiguities and deficiencies in the cultic and judicial visions of authority. My
foregoing analysis suggested that of the many Pentateuchal antecedents evoked in the
pericope’s report of the corruption of Eli and his sons, one dimension of this reflection
concerns structures of priestly and juridical authority envisioned in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy. Like other types of legal reflection in the Hebrew Bible, 1 Sam 2:12–36
exposes a legal loophole in the framework of priestly and juridical authority that lent
itself to abuse attested in the characterization of Eli’s sons. My analysis suggests that
antecedents such as Deut 17:8–13 and Lev 17, which conflate and delimit cultic and
91
judicial authority to priests, are key aspects of the legal framework of 1 Sam 2 and its
tracing of implications of such legislation in view of corrupt priests. This legal reflection
is discernable in the narrative throughout its compositional development. The earlier
material of 1 Sam 2:12–17 reports that even in cases when worshipers would protest
sacrificial procedures commanded by Eli’s sons, worshipers were forced to obey. The
latter material of 1 Sam 2:22–25 extends the connotation of force into the interpolation’s
evocation of the gathering women, clarifying the nature of sexual impropriety committed
by Eli’s sons was a form of sexual exploitation.
I suggest that the delimitation of priestly and judicial power in texts such as Deut
17:8–13 and Lev 17 is implicit in both reports insofar as the worshipers did not have
power for recourse against such abuses. Concern for the lack of “checks and balances”
has been expressed by a number of scholars in discussions of Deut 17 and its reception.72
For example, Jeffrey Stackert argues that expansion of the parameters of the death
penalty of Deut 18:22 to the law of the judges in the Temple Scroll should be understood
as a distinctly legal innovation that fills a lacuna in the biblical source, namely, how the
community should deal with a judge who takes a bribe.73 If 1 Sam 2 is a reflection on the
implications of priestly and judicial leaders, the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 and its
addition of the report of the abuse of the gathering women reflects a legal impetus that
sought to clarify and expand the parameters of culpable offenses for judicial leaders.
Moreover, the result of such legal innovation is not only the literary and legal correlation
72!T-%%+#@!Ac:!%!X%(#!)(!=99!7%::&)*$!:9-!o93@G!PHHRHK<!;95&)*$!%&(9!(3$$#(,(!,1#!)((3#!9:!01#0E(!%*+!
5%&%*0#(!)*!H!?%8!K!-#:�,(!%!-1#,9-)0%&!89/#!,96%-+!,1#!09*+),)9*(!,1%,!01%-%0,#-)Y#!89*%-01>@!61#-#!
8#*!9:!1#-#+),%->!.-)/)&#$#!3(#!698#*!%(!,1#>!6)(1!6),193,!%*>9*#!5#)*$!%5&#!,9!01#0E!,1#8!)*!)+#8@!1
Samuel@!HQL<!!
!
73!?##!;#::-#>!?,%0E#-,@!A7#:9-#!%*+!_:,#-!?0-).,3-#O!b%--%,)/#!X1-9*9&9$>!)*!,1#!d#/)()9*!9:!=9-%1!=#',(@G!
JAJ!P!JKLHINO!H\[RQP<!
92
of belial with sexual violence, but the creation of a new legal precedents. As
demonstrated in the preceding chapter, legal exegesis in Judg 19– 20 proffers a new legal
precedent that allows for the sons of belial to be tried and convicted in a legal scenario
outside the purview of biblical law. I suggest that the legal innovation in 1 Sam 2:12–36
follows a similar pattern. The interpolation of the gathering women MT 1 Sam 2:22
confirms that should a priest, who occupies a place of irrefutable authority, engage in
such abusive sexual impropriety with liminal women, it is the priest who is culpable for
committing a sexual crime worthy of death. In sum, the pericope of 1 Sam 2:12–36 and
its interpolation innovatively attempt to curb against the exploitation of anomalous and
liminal persons.
Conclusion
This chapter began with an overview of the various legal themes that permeate the
complex compositional history of 1 Sam 2:12–36. This called attention to the pericope’s
interest in offering successive clarifications on what made Eli’s sons בנ י ־בליעל , sons of
belial. I then turned to examine the curious interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22, where the
anomalous gathering women are incorporated into the tale of Eli’s sons’ various abuses. I
argued the incorporation of these women and their exploitation was included by a later
scribe who sought to clarify the nature of the sons of Eli as בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, and
expand their culpability to include sexual exploitation of women.
In identifying MT 1 Sam 2:22 as an innovative legal reflection, this chapter has
also suggested that the interpolation shares a legal impetus with the legal innovation
delineated in the preceding chapter. I suggest that the innovation that clarified guilt and
the nature of the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, in Judg 19:22 and 20:12 precipitated the
93
interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22. In the tale of the varied abuses of Eli’s sons in 1 Sam
2:12–36, later scribal reflection inferred that these men are בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, like
those in Judg 19–20, because of sexual violence in a legally anomalous milieu. In both
pericopes, the allusive epithet cleverly designates these men as senseless abusers. In the
chapter that follows, I will explore an additional pericope in 1 Samuel, 1 Sam 30, for
evidence of a similar legal impetus that correlates belial with sexual violence against
women.
94
CHAPTER 4
LEGAL EXEGESIS IN 1 SAMUEL 30
Introduction
1 Sam 30 records the aftermath of an Amalekite raid at Ziklag. The city is razed
and the inhabitants of the city, namely the wives, sons, and daughters of David’s men, are
taken captive. In response, David and a portion of his men pursue and destroy the
Amalekites to recover the captives, while a group of David’s men who were unable to
fight stay behind at the brook Besor. The narrative reports the success of David: all of the
captives survived and were safely rescued. But tensions arise in 1 Sam 30:22 when a
portion of David’s men, referred to as כָּל־אִישׁ־רָע וּבְלִיַּﬠַל , “every evil and belial man,”
propose that those who took part in the counterattack to recover the captives should keep
the spoils whereas the men who did not fight may only keep אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ ו ְאֶת־בָּנָיו , lit. his wife
and his sons. Although this proposal is commonly understood as an indication of their
intent to unequally divide the spoils between themselves and the men who did not fight,
curiously absent in their proposal are the captive daughters, who figure prominently in
the list of captives in the preceding narration of 1 Sam 30:1–21. In response to this
proposal, David issues a counter-statute that rebukes these men and clarifies proper
division of spoils; the squabble passes and the belial men disappear from the narrative as
quickly as they appeared.
Although much literature concerning 1 Sam 30 addresses the characterization of
David on his journey of succession, considerably less has been said about the nature and
significance of the proposal of the belial men in this pericope. In this chapter, I will probe
1 Sam 30 for evidence of legal exegesis that correlates belial with sexual violence against
95
women. I will begin with a brief survey of the state of research on 1 Sam 30 that attends
to its composition history and editorial interests. This will elucidate that one of the
editorial threads interwoven in the narrative is especially interested in law. This legal
thread is evidenced not only in the narrative’s infusion of legal themes and structures
throughout its plot but also in the evocation of the legal frameworks Deut 21:10–14 and
Deut 22:25–29. My literary analysis of 1 Sam 30 will attend to the key places where
these frameworks are evoked by the circumstances of the narrative and then conflated in
the proposal of the belial men. I will first demonstrate that Deut 21:10–14, which delimits
the process for the division of female captives of war, is a decisive legal interlocutor that
is evoked by the narrative framework of 1 Sam 30 and implicit in the proposal of the
belial men. I will then demonstrate how Deut 22:25–29, which traces the legal logic for
negotiating the consequences of sexual assault of betrothed and unbetrothed daughters, is
also evoked in 1 Sam 30. I will conclude that the proposal of the belial men in 1 Sam
30:22 conflates the legal logic of Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29 in an attempt to
leverage legal license to profit from the sexual assault of captive daughters. By
showcasing an illegitimate conflation of the legal logic of each of these Deuteronomic
passages, legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 correlates belial with violence against women.
State of Research
1 Sam 30 is a critical juncture in the closing chapters of 1 Samuel (1 Sam 28–31).
These chapters, which narrate the rise of David and the death of Saul, are reported to
have a complex relationship with the preceding material of 1 Samuel. Although there is
some consensus that these chapters record an account of David’s rise that characterizes
him in contradistinction to Saul, there are several discrepancies in David’s
96
characterization in 1 Sam 28–30 that make it difficult to determine whether these
chapters depict David in an exclusively positive light.1 As a result of the competing
depictions of David, many posit that these chapters have a complex compositional
history. For example, McCarter argues that although the material spanning
1 Sam 16–2 Sam 5 reflects a generally unified account of David’s early career, the block
of 1 Sam 28–31 stands apart from surrounding material and contains evidence of distinct
redactional activity.2 Auld similarly detects various stages of development in 1 Sam 28–
31 and he suggests that the material of 1 Sam 29–30 reflects an even later stratum that
incorporated material about conflict with the Amalekites as a bridge for chapters 28 and
31.3
The complicated compositional history of 1 Samuel, and the closing chapters of 1
Samuel in particular, make dating its composite parts challenging.4 Reflecting an
impressive range of political and thematic concepts, 1 Samuel is said to reflect a range of
preexilic and postexilic redactional activity.5 Recent discussions of redactional activity in
1 Samuel have, however, detected several, and in some cases competing, redactional
1!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!T9EE#&8%*@!Crossing Fates@![ZKRZ[S!_*,19*>!T<!X%8.5#&&@!1 Samuel@!Ta="!\!JW-%*+!
d%.)+(O!V#-+8%*(@!KLLIN@!K\QRZPS!D%-/)*!_!?6##*#>@!1–2 Samuel@!b#6!X%85-)+$#!7)5&#!X988#*,%->!
JX%85-)+$#O!X%85-)+$#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLKIN@!HM\RQH<!c,!)(!6)+#&>!-#09$*)Y#+!,1%,!,1#!799E!9:!?%83#&!
-#:�,(!%!+)/#-(#!-#(.9*(#!,9!89*%-01>@!%*+!,1)(!83&,).&)0),>!9:!8#%*)*$(!6%(!09*(#-/#+!,1-93$1!,1#!
.-90#((!9:!,#',3%&!,-%*(8)(()9*!%*+!0%*9*)Y%,)9*<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!?%-%!^).:#-!%*+!;#-#8>!D<!43,,9*@!
A=1#!799E!9:!?%83#&!%*+!),(!d#(.9*(#!,9!D9*%-01>@G!)*!The Book of Samuel and its Response to
Monarchy@!#+<!?%-%!^).:#-!%*+!;#-#8>!D<!43,,9*@!7]_b=!KKQ!J?,3,,$%-,O!^91&1%88#-@!KLKHN@!HZ<!
!
2!D0X%-,#-@!I!Samuel@!PKI!%*+!)+#8@!A=1#!_.9&9$>!9:!F%/)+@G!JBL!ZZ!JHZQLNO!PZLRZI<!=1#!8%,#-)%&!9:!H!
?%8!HMRK!?%8![!6%(!:)-(,!)+#*,):)#+!%(!%*!9-)$)*%&&>!)*+#.#*+#*,!%*+!(#&:C09*,%)*#+!*%--%,)/#!5>!"#9*1%-+!
d9(,!JÜberlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids@!7]_b=!I!f?,3,,$%-,O!^91&1%88#-@!HZKMgN<!
!
3!_3&+@!I & II Samuel@!IPI<!
!
4!T9-!%!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!098.9(),)9*%&!1)(,9->!9:!?%83#&@!(##!X>*,1)%!V+#*53-$!%*+!;31%!B%EE%&%@!Ac(!
?%83#&!_89*$!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,(hG!)*!#%+#8@!Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists?@![MR[Z<!
!
5!?##!^).:#-!%*+!43,,9*@!A=1#!799E!9:!?%83#&!%*+!),(!d#(.9*(#!,9!D9*%-01>@G!HK<!
97
hands. For example, whereas Cross’s block model posits an initial Deuteronomistic
stratum at the time of Josiah that became the subject of revision during the exilic period,
Smend’s model develops the theory of several successive Deuteronomistic redactions
throughout the postexilic period.6 One of these redactional hands, labeled DtrN, is said to
be operative in the postexilic period and is discernable through both antimonarchic
tendencies and concern for law.7 In my view, this model sheds light on the complex
compositional history and relative date of legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30. Not only does it
account for the complex nature of David’s characterization in 1 Sam 30, which may have
been revisited during the postexilic period, but it also accounts for why this process of
redaction reframed the crisis over spoils with a distinctive and innovative legal nuance.
This process of revision suggests a relative date for the redaction of 1 Sam 30 in the
postexilic period and also allows for certain segments of scriptural antecedents, including
Deuteronomy, to be accessible resources for redactional and legal reflection.
A postexilic date for legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 would further correlate it with the
legal exegesis I identified in Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2:12–36. My previous chapters
demonstrated that legal exegesis in Judg 19–20 which correlates the epithet בנ י ־בליעל ,
sons of belial, with sexual violence against women may have also inspired the
6!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!5&90E!89+#&@!(##!]%&,#-!F)#,-)01@!A=1#!"%>#-!D9+#&!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->!
%*+!,1#!799E!9:!?%83#&@G!)* V+*53-$!%*+!B%EE%&%@!Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists?@!PLRPKS!X-9((@!
Canaanite Myth@!K\PRQZ<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!?8#*+q(!#8#*+%,)9*!89+#&@!(##!?8#*+@!AF%(!W#(#,Y!3*+!+)#!
j‚&E#-@G!PZPR[LZS!F)#,-)01@!A=1#!"%>#-!D9+#&!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->!%*+!,1#!799E!9:!?%83#&@G!
PKR[HS!=)89!j#)e9&%@!Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der
deuteronomistischen Darstellung@!__?T!HZI J4#&()*E)O!?398%&%)*#*!=)#+#%E%,#8)%@!HZ\[N<!
!
7!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!]%&,#-!F)#,-)01@!Ab)#+#-$%*$!3*+!b#3%*:%*$O!F)#!4%&,3*$!+#-!?01&3((-#+%E,)9*!+#(!
+#3,#-9*98)(,)(01#*!W#(01)01,(6#-E#(!Y3!+#*!6)01,)$(,#*!T-%$#*!)1-#-!p#),@G!)*!Crisis of Israelite
Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times@!#+<!795!7#0E)*$!%*+!
D%-e9!^9-.#&@!a=?!PK!J"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!HZZZN@!P[R\LS!)+#8@!A=1#!"%>#-!D9+#&!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!
4)(,9->!%*+!,1#!799E!9:!?%83#&@G![MR[Z<!
98
interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22 that correlates Eli’s sons with sexual exploitation. In
both of these cases, I argued that the postexilic period was a plausible context for this sort
of legal reflection. Here I will argue that like the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22, which
clarifies the culpability of Eli’s sons for sexual exploitation of women by drawing on the
connotations of sexual violence of the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, in Judg 19–20, legal
exegesis in 1 Sam 30 clarifies the culpability of David’s belial men by correlating their
proposal with sexual violence.
This type of legal reflection may be shared between these passages. While there is
stronger evidence for a compositional relationship between Judg 19–21 and 1 Sam 1–2
than with 1 Sam 30, it should not be ruled out that these three passages are related. For
example, Jobling argues for strong thematic links between 1 Sam 30 and Judg 19–21,
suggesting that by the end of 1 Samuel Israel is back to where it was in the tale of Judg
20–21.8 Jobling detects a similar thematic parallel concerning exploitation of women and
observes that the book is marked at each end by a group of exploited women, the abuse of
the temple attendants in 1 Sam 2 and the women abducted in 1 Sam 30.9 In view of these
shared thematic features, I suggest that a shared legal impetus, which inspired the
correlation of belial with sexual violence in Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2:12–36, is also
discernable in 1 Sam 30.
David and Law in 1 Sam 30
Some of the most prominent legal threads in 1 Sam 30 are linked to David’s
characterization. Some interpreters offer evidence that the pericope depicts David as the
8!;95&)*$@!I Samuel@!HLZ<!
!
9!c5)+<@!HZP<!!
99
preferred, and lawful, king of Israel. For example, Artur Weiser argues David’s
characterization in 1 Sam 30 serves to corroborate his lawful succession of Saul.10
Similar emphases on David’s lawful behavior have been detected in his juridical
capabilities, evidenced in his statute in 1 Sam 30:23–25. McCarter suggests David’s
statute properly adjudicates the proposal of the belial men in his raiding party on account
of his decisive and correct implementation of Israelite ideology of warfare, echoing Deut
20:14.11 For many interpreters, the legal themes linked with David’s characterization in 1
Sam 30 depict him as a successful administrator of justice in adherence with
Deuteronomistic law.12
In contrast, some interpreters identify tensions in David’s depiction in the arc of 1
Sam 29–30 and propose these tensions destabilize interpretations that emphasize his
idealized and lawful characterization.13 This is especially the case with David’s juridical
10!=1#!#8.1%()(!9*!,1#!&%6:3&*#((!9:!F%/)+q(!(300#(()9*!6%(!09)*#+!5>!_-,3-!]#)(#-!JAF)#!"#$),)8%,)9*!
+#(!^‚*)$(!F%/)+O!p3-!V)$#*%-,!3*+!V*,(,#13*$!+#-!(9$#*<!W#(01)01,#!/9*!F%/)+(!_3:(,)#$@G!VT!HM!
fHZMMgO!IK[R[PN<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!&),#-%->!(,-30,3-#(!,1%,!09--959-%,#!F%/)+!%(!,1#!-)$1,:3&!(300#((9-!9:!
?%3&@!(##!%&(9!;91%**#(!^&#)*@!AF%/)+q(!T&301,!Y3!+#*!B1)&)(,#-*!Jc!?%8<!‹‹c!HH::S!‹‹jccC‹‹c‹N@G!VT![[!
JKLL[NO!H\\RQP<!?98#!%&(9!%-$3#!,1)(!#.)(9+#!.-9/)+#(!F%/)+!6),1!%!.#-:#0,!%&)5)!:9-!,1#!5%,,&#!%,!W)&59%!JH!
?%8!IHN!61)01!%&&#/)%,#(!09*0#-*!:9-!%&&#$%,)9*(!9:!)8.-9.-)#,>!)*!1)(!+#%&)*$(!6),1!,1#!?%3&)+#!+>*%(,>!
J7%-301!4%&.#-*@!The!Constitution of the Monarchy of Israel@!4?D!K[!fX1)09@!X_O!?019&%-(!B-#((@!HZQHg@!
H\KS!;#-#8>!43,,9*@!The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal Exile and
Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History@!7p_]!IZM!f7#-&)*O!+#!W-3>,#-@!KLLZg@!K\KN<!
!
11!D0X%-,#-@!I Samuel@!PIM<!?)8)&%-!95(#-/%,)9*(!1%/#!5##*!8%+#!5>!_3&+!619!09--#&%,#(!F%/)+q(!%0,)9*(!
1#-#!6),1!,1#!b%5%&!(,9->!)*!H!?%8!K[!JI & II Samuel@!IPKN<!
!
12!?,#.1#*!X<!d3((#&&!95(#-/#(!,1%,!,1#8#(!9:!89*%-01>!%*+!&%6!)*!?%83#&C^)*$(!%-#!)*(#.%-%5&#@!#/#*!):!
,1#!*%--%,)/#(!+9!*9,!-#:�,!1)(,9-)0%&!-#%&),>!JAD9*%-01>!%*+!"%6!)*!,1#!B-#CV')&)0!B#-)9+@G!)*!7%-8%(1@!
The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Law, IIIR[KN<!
!
13!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!B#,#-!F<!D)(0%&&@!1 Samuel: A Literary Reading!J7&998)*$,9*O!c*+)%*%!`*)/#-(),>!
B-#((@!HZQMN@!HQHS!^3-,!"<!b9&&@!The Faces of David@!;?a=?3.!KPK!J?1#::)#&+O!?1#::)#&+!_0%+#8)0@!HZZ\NS!
;91*!j%*!?#,#-(@!The Biblical Saga of King David!J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!KLLZN@!IMKRMI<!
?)8)&%-&>@!d95#-,!_&,#-!(3$$#(,(!,1%,!),!)(!3*0&#%-!61#,1#-!F%/)+q(!&%8#*,%,)9*!)*!H!?%8!ILOM!)(!9*!%0093*,!
9:!,1#!%5+30,)9*!9:!1)(!6)/#(!9-!9*!%0093*,!9:!5#)*$!(,9*#+!JThe Art of Biblical Narrative fb#6!o9-EO!
7%()0!799E(@!KLHHg@!H[KN<!
!
100
activity in 1 Sam 30:23–25. His statute, which is often hailed as an example of swift and
exact justice, has also been the subject of criticism. For example, Peter Miscall argues
that the statute is off-point in the narrative because it does not accurately address the
crisis facing his men.14 Polzin similarly suggests that the rhetorical key of the statute is
not the just division of spoils, but is its cleverly poised anti-monarchical sentiments that
implicate Saul, David, and the legacy of the monarchy.15 Each of these interpretive
approaches emphasize a curiously anti-monarchical penchant in David’s statute and
conclude the statute should not be offered up as evidence of his juridical acumen.
Although it is not the purpose of this chapter to comment on the efficacy of David
or his statute in the final chapters of 1 Samuel, the conflicting interpretations of his
statute detailed above signals a deeper interpretive issue concerning the depiction of law
in 1 Sam 30. My interest here is not to posit which one of the above interpretations is
correct. Rather, I want to consider whether these dissimilar ways of tracing legal
reflection in David’s characterization are the product of subsequent and complex
processes of legal reflection. If it is the case that the characterization of David underwent
a complex process of reframing in 1 Sam 30, it is plausible that other features of this
pericope, including other characters and legal features, reflect similar processes of
14!D)(0%&&!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#!(,%,3,#!)(!)*%003-%,#!5#0%3(#!,1#!-#%(9*!,1#!,69!13*+-#+!8#*!(,%>#+!5#1)*+!6%(!
5#0%3(#!,1#>!6#-#!#'1%3(,#+@!*9,!5#0%3(#!,1#>!6#-#!6),1!,1#!5%$$%$#!J1 Samuel: A Literary Reading@!HQLN<!
!
15!d95#-,!B9&Y)*@!Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History!Jb#6!
o9-EO!4%-.#-!ƒ!d96@!HZQZN@!KKI<!4#!:3-,1#-!%-$3#(!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,!3(#(!F%/)+q(!&%6!%*+!(,%,3,#!,9!.3,!
,1#!(,9->!)*,9!.#-(.#0,)/#<!F%/)+!89-#!,1%*!%*>9*#!#&(#!(1%-#(!)*!,1#!(.9)&(!-#(3&,)*$!:-98!?%3&q(!+#%,1<!
D9-#!.-9:93*+&>@!196#/#-@!,1#!#/)&(!9:!E)*$(1).!-#8%)*!,1#!(.9)&(!9:!F%/)+!%(!6#&&!%(!?%3&@!(9!,1%,!5&%8#!
5#&9*$(!,9!1)8!619!-#8%)*(!5#1)*+!,9!-3&#!JF%/)+N@!%(!6#&&!%(!1)8!619!$9#(!+96*!)*,9!5%,,&#!J?%3&N<!?##!
%&(9!_3&+@!I & II Samuel@!IPI<!
!
101
reframing and innovation.16 With this in mind, I will now turn to consider the legal
framework of 1 Sam 30 that precipitates David’s statute.
The Legal Crisis at the Brook
The legal crisis that provokes David to render his statute is rooted in a proposal of
his own men, a portion of whom are referred to as belial. As is the case in my foregoing
analysis of belial, the correlation of this term and the nature of the transgression it
characterizes is elusive. It is widely agreed that the proposal intends to unequally divide
recovered spoils among David’s forces. However, the question of why this proposal
makes them distinctively belial has not occupied the attention of scholars. Some propose
the term is evoked to generally emphasize the introduction of jealousy and hostility into
the social fabric of the community.17 Although I think this is a reasonable reflection on
the consequences of their proposal, a closer analysis of how their proposal evokes the
procedures for taking spoils and captives in view of the legal ramifications of sexual
assault delineated in Deuteronomy reveals there is a more sinister nuance behind their
intentions. Moreover, the legal milieu of the crisis at the brook is intensified by David’s
swift response to their proposal. Whatever they proposed was serious enough to
necessitate the establishment of a legal precedent, a חֹק , statute, and מִשְׁפּט , ordinance,
otherwise unstated in biblical law.
The crisis regarding the division of spoils between David and his belial men is
further nuanced by a striking legal and narrative thread of 1 Sam 30. As my analysis will
16!T9-!#'%8.&#@!j%*!?#,#-(!%0093*,(!:9-!,1#(#!,#*()9*(!5>!%-$3)*$!,1%,!%*!9-)$)*%&!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!,#&&)*$!
9:!F%/)+q(!(,9->!6%(!59,1!(3..#*,#+!%*+!,1#*!(35/#-,#+!5>!%*9,1#-!+#.)0,)9*!9:!F%/)+!,1%,!6%(!&%,#-!
69/#*!,1-93$193,!,1#!,#',!9:!?%83#&!JThe Biblical Saga of King David@!IMKRMIN<!?##!%&(9!b9&&@!The Faces
of David@![LRMI<!
!
17!?##!a,Y#*@!TDOT!HOHI[<!
!
102
demonstrate, 1 Sam 30 is especially preoccupied with the captivity of wives, sons, and
daughters throughout the Amalekite raid and its fallout. I maintain that the narrative’s
report of the Amalekite raid and the subsequent legal dispute between David and the
belial men evokes the legal status and precariousness of these captives, especially
daughters, in the context of war.18 The emphasis on the recovery of female captives in the
context of war illuminates the narrative’s unique legal interests that engage
Deuteronomic legislation that outlines the conduct of war and the taking of female
captives and their fate in the proposal of David’s belial men.
As is often the case with the evocation of legal material in narrative portions of
the Hebrew Bible, the antecedent legal material in question is unnamed. However, the
narrative’s context of war and preoccupation with female captives in 1 Sam 30 shares
several intriguing affinities with the legal framework and logic of Deut 21:10–14 and
Deut 22:25–29. The legal logic of these frameworks is also identifiable in the proposal of
the belial men, who presume the license to withhold captive daughters as spoils. In what
follows, I will briefly describe the current literature on Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29
to delineate their content and legal framework. This analysis will illustrate the contours of
the legal framework and limitations of these passages and how they shape the legal
milieu of the brook and the presumptions of the belial men in 1 Sam 30.
18!=1#!0#*,-%&),>!9:!698#*!)*!,1)(!.#-)09.#!1%(!5##*!0%-#:3&&>!)+#*,):)#+!5>!;95&)*$@!619!+-%6(!%,,#*,)9*!,9!
%!,1#8%,)0!&)*E!5#,6##*!H!?%8!IL!%*+!;3+$!HZRKH!%*+!(3$$#(,(!,1%,!5>!,1#!#*+!9:!H!?%83#&!c(-%#&!)(!5%0E!
,9!61#-#!),!6%(!)*!,1#!,%&#!9:!;3+$!KLRKH!9*!%0093*,!9:!#%01!.#-)09.#q(!)&&3(,-%,)9*!9:!,1#!8%((!%5+30,)9*!9:!
698#*!J1 Samuel@!HLZN<!4#!:3-,1#-!#&%59-%,#(!,1%,!,1#!0#*,-%&),>!9:!698#*!)*!H!?%8!IL!)(!%!-#),#-%,)9*!9:!
,1#!,1#8#!9:!#'.&9),%,)9*!9:!698#*!)*!H!?%83#&@!%(!,1#!599E!)(!8%-E#+!%,!#%01!#*+!5>!%!$-93.!9:!#'.&9),#+!
698#*@!,1#!%53(#!9:!,1#!,#8.&#!%,,#*+%*,(!)*!H!?%8!K!%*+!,1#!698#*!%5+30,#+!)*!H!?%8!IL!J1 Samuel@!
HZPN<!
103
Deut 21:10–14 in 1 Sam 30
Deut 21:10–14 belongs to a collection of eight pieces of legislation concerning the
conduct of war, although they do not form a definite or coherent corpus and their origin is
debated.19 Deut 21:10–14 delimits the process by which captive women of conquered
nations could be taken and subsumed into Israel. Deut 21:10–13 describes the
circumstances under which a female who is recovered from war with enemies may be
taken as a wife. Pressler argues the protasis of the law extends through Deut 21:10–11,
“When you go out into battle against your enemies and the Lord your God gives them
into your hands, and you take them captive, if you see among the captives a beautiful
woman whom you desire and want to marry and bring into your household...”20 The
conditions under which one may take a captive as a wife in the context of divinely
sanctioned war are thus defined in Deut 21:10–11. Deut 21:14 further mandates a
mourning period for the female captive and stipulates what should be done if the man
ceases to want her, in which case he must release her and may not sell her or lower her to
19!?##!b9-8%*!^<!W9,,6%&+@!Ar49&>!]%-q!)*!F#3,#-9*98>O!_*%&>()(!%*+!X-),)23#@G!RevExp!MH!JHZMPNO!
IL\RQS!"%3-%!U3)0E@!A_/#-,)*$!X3-(#(!)*!,1#!"%6!9:!]%-!JF#3,#-9*98>!KLN@G!ZAW!HIK!JKLKLNO!KLZ<!
_&,193$1!(#/#-%&!9:!F#3,#-9*98>q(!6%-!09*+30,!.%((%$#(!:9&&96!9*#!%*9,1#-!(300#(()/#&>!)*!%!-#%(9*%5&>!
&9$)0%&!9-+#-@!F#3,!KHOHLRHP!)(!(#.%-%,#+!:-98!,1#!9,1#-(!5>!%!&%6!%593,!#'.)%,)9*!:9-!%*!3*(9&/#+!83-+#-!
JF#3,!KHOHRZN<!=)$%>!*9,#(!,1%,!F#3,!KHOHLRHP!)(!(#.%-%,#+!:-98!,1#!.-#0#+)*$!6%-!&#$)(&%,)9*!9*!%0093*,!
9:!),(!09*0#-*!:9-!8%--)%$#!JDeuteronomy@!HZPN<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!61#,1#-!,1#!6%-!&#$)(&%,)9*!9:!
F#3,#-9*98>!(193&+!5#!09*()+#-#+!098.9(),)9*%&&>!+)(,)*0,!:-98!9,1#-!F#3,#-9*98)0!&#$)(&%,)9*@!(##!
D%-,)e*!7#3E#*19-(,@!A=1#!]%-!"%6(!)*!F#3,#-9*98>@G!)*!V+#&8%*!#,!%&<@!Deuteronomy in the Making@!
K\HRQM<!
!
20!c*!B-#((&#-q(!/)#6@!,1#!%.9+9()(!5#$)*(!)*!F#3,!KHOHK@!A,1#*!(1#!(1%&&!(1%/#!1#-!1#%+!%*+!.%-#!1#-!
*%)&(³G!%*+!09*,)*3#(!,1-93$1!F#3,!KHOHI<!=1#!5-#%E!)*!(>*,%'!)*!F#3,!KHOHK!()$*%&(!,1#!5-#%E!5#,6##*!
,1#!.-9,%()(!%*+!%.9+9()(<!496#/#-@!%*!%&,#-*%,)/#!.9(()5)&),>!093&+!5#!,1%,!,1#!%.9+9()(!5#$)*(!)*!KHOHH5!
6),1!,1#!0988%*+!A=1#*!>93!(1%&&!,%E#!1#-!%(!%!6):#!%*+!5-)*$!1#-!)*,9!>93-!193(#19&+<G!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!
B-#((&#-@!The View of Women@ ZRHH<!!
104
slave status in his household.21 In sum, Deut 21:10–14 delineates the conditions under
which a man is permitted to marry a woman in a case where the normal procedures for
marriage are not possible.22
The ambiguous origins and purpose of this passage makes its interpretation and
delineation of legal thought challenging. There is serious doubt that this law was ever
operant, as the law itself, like other Deuteronomic laws about warfare, would have had no
practical application for the latter part of the biblical period.23 Some have attempted to
situate Deut 21:10–14 in the context of Deuteronomy’s innovative program of justice.
For example, Otto argues Deut 21:10–14 should be interpreted following the
Deuteronomistic redactor’s penchant for obligation to legal solidarity with the weak and
poor, and views this law as securing the captive woman’s dignity, including protection
from sexual exploitation.24 In contrast, some have suggested that Deuteronomy’s war
legislation became subject to critique and legal innovation within Deuteronomy itself and
21!?98#!%..-9%01#(!(3$$#(,!,1%,!F#3,!KHOHLRHP!)(!#*$%$#+!)*!&#$%&!-#%(9*)*$!9*!%0093*,!9:!),(!09*0#-*!:9-!
,1#!)+#*,),>!9:!,1#!:#8%&#!0%.,)/#(<!T9-!#'%8.&#@!B-#((&#-!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1#-#!)(!(98#!#/)+#*0#!,1%,!
F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!098.)&#-(!6#-#!-#()(,%*,!,9!,1#!*9,)9*!9:!(&%/#C6):#->!5#0%3(#!,1#!&%6!.-91)5),(!,1#!8%(,#-!
:-98!(#&&)*$!%!698%*!6),1!6198!1#!1%(!091%5),%,#+!JA])/#(!%*+!F%3$1,#-(@G!H\HR\KN<!a,1#-!%..-9%01#(!
#'.&9-#!E#>!+)8#*()9*(!9:!,1#!:#8%&#!0%.,)/#q(!)+#*,),>@!)*0&3+)*$!1#-!(,%,3(!%(!%!:9-#)$*#-!)*!%*!%,,#8.,!,9!
$-%(.!,1#!&#$%&!-%8):)0%,)9*(!9:!,1#!&#$)(&%,)9*<!?##!D<!c<!d#>@!Ad##'%8)*%,)9*!9:!,1#!T9-#)$*!T#8%&#!
X%.,)/#O!F#3,#-9*98>!KHOHLRHP!%(!%!X%(#!9:!W#*90)+%&!d%.#@G!JFSR IK!JKLHMNO!I\R[IS!X%->*!_<!d##+#-@!
AF#3,#-9*98>!KH<HLRHP!%*+„%(!]%-,)8#!d%.#@G!JSOT!PH!JKLH\NO!IHIRIM<!?3(%*!b)+),01!#'.&%)*(!,1%,!),!)(!
3*0&#%-!61#,1#-!,1#!)+#*,),>!9:!,1#!0%.,)/#!698%*!)8%$)*#+!)*!F#3,!KHOHLRHP!0%*!5#!(.#0):)#+@!,1#!&9$)0%&!
%((38.,)9*!)(!,1%,!(1#!)(!%!/)-$)*!5-)+#!JWar in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence!
fa':9-+O!a':9-+!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!HZZIg@!Q[N<!
!
22!B-#((&#-@!The View of Women@ HH<!!
!
23!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!W9,,6%&+@!A49&>!]%-@G!KZQS!_&#'%*+#-!d9:|@!A=1#!"%6(!9:!]%-:%-#!)*!,1#!799E!9:!
F#3,#-9*98>O!=1#)-!a-)$)*(@!c*,#*,@!%*+!B9(),)/),>@G!JSOT!IK!JHZQ[NO!IZS!]%(1)*$,9*@!Ar"#(,!4#!F)#!)*!,1#!
7%,,&#@qG!HZ[<!
!
24!V0E%-,!a,,9@!AT%&(#!]#)$1,(!)*!,1#!?0%&#(!9:!7)5&)0%&!;3(,)0#h!F)::#-#*,!j)#6(!9:!]98#*!:-98!
B%,-)%-01%&!4)#-%-01>!,9!d#&)$)93(!V23%&),>!)*!,1#!799E!9:!F#3,#-9*98>G!)*!D%,,1#6(!#,!%&<@!Gender and
Law,!HP[<!?##!%&(9!W9,,6%&+@!619!(3$$#(,(!,1)(!&%6!.-#/#*,(!,%E)*$!+935&#!%+/%*,%$#!9:!%!:#8%&#!0%.,)/#!
JA49&>!]%-@G!KZQNS!()8)&%-&>@!=)$%>@!Deuteronomy@!HZP<!
105
in other parts of the Hebrew Bible.25 In any case, the way in which this law was imagined
in its ancient context is far from certain. While it offers considerable legal and ethical
grist for both ancient and modern interpreters, I will argue that its framework is caught up
in legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 that grapples with the legal delimitation of female captives
in the context of war.
The legal framework of Deut 21:10–14 corresponds to several key details
described in 1 Sam 30. The context of going to war against one’s enemies dominates the
legislation and narrative context of 1 Sam 30. In both scenarios, Israel engages in
divinely sanctioned war in which Israel’s enemies are handed over to them. Moreover,
both 1 Sam 30 and Deut 21:10–14 emphasize captives among the recovered spoils. In
what follows, I will argue the protasis of Deut 21:10–11 is especially formative for the
legal logic implicit in 1 Sam 30 and the legal crisis initiated by the belial proposal. With
requisite conditions met, the crisis over the division of spoils between David and his men
explores the question of whether or not the female captives recovered from the
counterattack against the Amalekites can be kept as chattel.
Despite the similarities between 1 Sam 30 and Deut 21:10–14, the latter cannot
independently support the legal presumption that induces the crisis of spoils reported in 1
25!W9,,6%&+!+#89*(,-%,#(!,1%,!&#$)(&%,)9*!#*+9-()*$!19&>!6%-!),(#&:!6%(!-#e#0,#+!)*!.-9.1#,)0!&),#-%,3-#!J#<$<@!
c(!KOHRPS!HZOHQRK[N!JA49&>!]%-@G!IL\RQN<!;<!_<!?9$$)*!()8)&%-&>!+#,#0,(!,1#!)*/#-()9*!9:!19&>!6%-!%(!
e3+$8#*,!%$%)*(,!c(-%#&!JAF#-!.-9.1#,)(01#!W#+%*E#!i5#-!+#*!1#)&)$#*!^-)#$@!%&(!W#-)01,!$#$#*!c(-%#&@G!VT!
HL!fHZMLgO!\ZRQIN<!?)89*#!B%$%*)*)!-#:�,(!9*!,1#!-#&%,)9*(1).!5#,6##*!,1#!6%-!&#$)(&%,)9*!%*+!*%--%,)/#!
)*!F#3,#-9*98>@!%-$3)*$!,1%,!,1#-#!)(!#/)+#*0#!9:!&#$%&!1#-8#*#3,)0(!,1%,!-#:�,(!9*@!%*+!,9!%!0#-,%)*!#',#*,!
&)8),(@!,1#!%..&)0%,)9*!9:!,1#!6%-!&#$)(&%,)9*!JA?#%-01)*$!:9-!X9*,)*3),>@!"%6(@!%*+!b%--%,)/#!)*!
F#3,#-9*98>O!a5(#-/%,)9*(!%593,!]%-:%-#C"#$)(&%,)9*!%*+!]%-Cb%--%,)/#@G!ZABR!KL!fKLHPgO!HL\RHPN<!
=1#!-#69-E)*$!9:!V'9+3(!6%-!89,):(!)*!F#3,#-9*98>!1%(!5##*!3*+#-(,99+!5>!(98#!%(!%!-1#,9-)0%&!(,-%,#$>!
%)8#+!%,!,1#!,-%*(:9-8%,)9*!9:!6%-!)+#9&9$><!?##!b9-5#-,!"91:)*E@!AF%-(,#&&3*$(E3*(,!3*+!=1#9&9$)#!)*!
F,*!H@MRI@KZ@G!Biblica!PH!JHZMLNO!HL[RIPS!])&&)%8!"<!D9-%*@!A=1#!V*+!9:!,1#!`*19&>!]%-!%*+!,1#!_*,)C
V'9+3(@G!)*!A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy@!?7=?!I!
J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!HZZIN@!HP\R[[<!
!
106
Sam 30. The context of 1 Sam 30 addresses the division of spoils following a
counterattack against Israel’s enemies in which the recovered captives in question are
Israelites. The narrative’s scenario thus deviates from the presumed context of Deut
21:10–11, which delimits the license for taking captive women from foreign nations and
subsuming them into Israel. Under ordinary circumstances, Deut 21:10–14 does not
delimit license to divide female Israelites as chattel. However, the legal milieu of 1 Sam
30 is anomalous; the question of dividing spoils recovered from war is nuanced by the
infusion of another legal element that informs the legal license of belial men, the legal
framework of Deut 22:25–29.
Deut 22:25–29 in 1 Sam 30
Deut 22:25–29 is part of a larger block of legal material spanning Deut 22:13–29,
which is widely regarded as a self-contained collection of laws that treat sexual offenses
involving various categories of free women.26 Three cases spanning Deut 22:23–29,
which deal with the sexual impropriety and sexual assault of betrothed and unbetrothed
women, provide pertinent legal backdrop for the crisis at the brook in 1 Sam 30. The
three discrete cases that span Deut 22:23–29 display evidence of legal innovation.
Milstein suggests these cases stem from a core case, Deut 22:25–27, which considers the
crime of sexual violation of an unmarried woman in the event there are no witnesses.27
The legal innovation located in the elaboration of each of these cases is the negotiation of
culpability based on a variety of factors, including the location of the assault and the
26!V+#*5#-$!*9,#(!)*!,1#!5&90E!9:!F#3,!KKOHIRKZ!,1#!0%(#(!1%/#!5##*!%--%*$#+!)*!+#(0#*+)*$!9-+#-!
%009-+)*$!,9!,1#!8%-),%&!(,%,3(!9:!,1#!698#*@!(,%-,)*$!6),1!0%(#(!+#%&)*$!6),1!698#*!619(#!8%--)%$#(!
1%/#!5##*!09*(388%,#+!J//<!HIRKKN@!%*+!,1#*!.-9$-#(()*$!,9!5#,-9,1#+!/)-$)*(!J//<!KIRK\N!%*+!
03&8)*%,)*$!6),1!3*5#,-9,1#+!/)-$)*(!J//<!KQRKZN!JAc+#9&9$>!%*+!?90)%&!X9*,#',!9:!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)0!
]98#*q(!?#'!"%6(@G!PPR[IN<!
!
27!D)&(,#)*@!A?#.%-%,)*$!,1#!]1#%,!:-98!,1#!X1%::@G!MIQ<!!
107
presence of witnesses. The three cases explore the legal culpability and consequences of
sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Deut 22:23–24 treats sexual violation of a
betrothed woman; in this case both are put to death. Deut 22:25–27 envisions a similar
scenario in which a betrothed woman is raped in a remote location; in this case only the
man is put to death because there was no one there to witness or rescue the woman in
question. Deut 22:28–29 treats the rape of an unbetrothed woman; in this case the
assailant must pay the woman’s father and marry her.
In my view, the latter two cases shape the legal milieu of 1 Sam 30. The legal
content of Deut 22:25–29 correlates to several key elements reflected in the legal crisis of
1 Sam 30. First, the pericope’s concern for daughters emphasizes the presence and peril
of daughters. While the narrative does not overtly detail that the women taken captive
were assaulted, the context of war allows for the possibility that the women may have
been raped when taken captive by the Amalekites, and as a result, have a compromised
legal status and value.28 While Deut 22:25–29 does not impart guilt onto the young
women, the legal consequence of rape would have dramatically limited the young
women’s opportunity to marry after the event.29 As Southwood suggests, the “loss of
virginity outside marriage leads to social stigmatization and shame not only for the
woman in question but also for her entire family, as well as a loss of marriageable status
28!_&,193$1!,1#!*%--%,)/#!+9#(!*9,!9/#-,&>!*9,#!,1%,!,1#!0%.,)/#(!#*+3-#+!(#'3%&!%((%3&,@!)*,#-.-#,#-(!1%/#!
(3$$#(,#+!,1%,!5#0%3(#!,1#!698#*!6#-#!)*!,1#!1%*+(!9:!,1#!#*#8>!:9-!(#/#-%&!+%>(!%*+!5#0%3(#!,1#!
*%--%,)/#!-#:#-#*0#(!61%,!;95&)*$!+#(0-)5#(!%(!%!A+-3*E#*!9-$>@G!)*!H!?%8!ILOHM@!-#%+#-(!0%*!-#%(9*%5&>!
%((38#!,1#!0%.,)/#(!#'.#-)#*0#+!(#'3%&!%((%3&,!JI Samuel@!HQPN<!
!
29!^%,1#-)*#!?93,1699+@!Marriage by Capture in the Book of Judges: An Anthropological Approach@!
?a=?D?!H!Ja':9-+O!X%85-)+$#!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLH\N@!HHQ<!?##!%&(9!=)E/%!T->8#-@!Aj)-$)*),>!)*!,1#!
7)5&#@G!)*!D%,,1#6(!#,!%&<@!Gender and Law@!ZHRZIS!=<!D<!"#89(@!A]#-#!c(-%#&),#!]98#*!X1%,,#&h!
?1#++)*$!b#6!")$1,!9*!%*!a&+!U3#(,)9*@G!)*!Worship, Women, and War: Essays in Honor of Susan
Niditch@!#+<!;91*!;<!X9&&)*(!#,!%&<@!7;?!I[\!JB-9/)+#*0#@!dcO!7-96*!;3+%)0!?,3+)#(@!KLH[N@!KIQ<!
!
108
or heavily reduced bride-wealth.”30 With this changed legal and social status, I will
suggest that the legal presumption of the belial proposal in 1 Sam 30 exploits the
compromised legal status of the young women who were taken captive.
Of course, there are a few ways in which the legal logic of Deut 22:25–29 does
not perfectly reflect the scenario in 1 Sam 30. First, the legislation does not address the
consequences of abduction and sexual assault during a time of war. Second, a legal gap in
Deut 22:25–27, which does not clarify what should happen to the victim, leaves the
question of what should happen to the victim in its particular legal scenario open for
interpretation. The question of what should be done with victims of sexual assault in a
highly anomalous context of war shapes the legally anomalous scenario of 1 Sam 30. I
will suggest that this anomaly is exploited by David’s belial men.
In sum, although Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29 address what appear to be
unrelated legal scenarios, I suggest that the conflation of Deut 21:10–14, which delimits
the prerogative of Israel to take captive wives in the context of war, and Deut 22:25–29,
which defines the legal processes of negotiating various scenarios of sexual impropriety
and sexual assault by reflecting the legal and social ramifications of the loss of virginity,
is key to grasping the nuance of the legal crisis at the brook in 1 Sam 30. In my literary
analysis that follows, I will demonstrate that the proposal of the belial men in 1 Sam 30
evokes the legal frameworks of Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29 in order to justify their
presumption to take the young women as chattel. I will also demonstrate that the
30!?93,1699+@!Marriage by Capture@!HLP<!D%,,1#6(!%&(9!(3$$#(,(!,1%,!,#%01)*$(!,1%,!+#%&!6),1!/)-$)*),>@!
8%--)%$#@!+)/9-0#@!)*:)+#&),>@!%+3&,#->@!.-98)(03),>@!%*+!-%.#!%-#!#(.#0)%&&>!09*0#-*#+!6),1!(90)%&!%*+!
#09*98)0!-#&%,)9*(1).(!5#,6##*!193(#19&+(!)*!,1#!09883*),>!%(!%!619&#!JA49*9-!%*+!?1%8#!)*!W#*+#-C
d#&%,#+!"#$%&!?),3%,)9*(!)*!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#@G!)*!D%,,1#6(!#,!%&<@!Gender and Law@!Z\N<!
!
109
conflation of Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29 in the legal logic of the belial proposal
correlates their intentions with the exploitation of women who are victims of sexual
assault; even if these men are not the perpetrators of sexual violence in 1 Sam 30, their
intention is nevertheless to capitalize on sexual violence against women.
Literary Analysis
1 Sam 30:1–20
The narrative of 1 Sam 30 begins with a description of an Amalekite raid against
the city of Ziklag. While David and his men were away, the Amalekites suddenly
attacked the defenseless city.31 The details of the raid strongly evoke the context of war
against Israel’s enemies. First, conflict with the Amalekites echoes other texts of the
Hebrew Bible that describe ongoing hostility between the Amalekites and Israel.32
Additionally, Miscall observes that the Amalekite raid in 1 Sam 30:1–2 shares several
linguistic affinities with Deut 20:10–15, which delineates procedures for war against
distant cities.33 The evocation of Deuteronomy’s war legislation in the narrative is
striking in 1 Sam 30 because it is inverted: the quintessential enemies of Israel have
31!D)*9-!+)::)03&,)#(!1%/#!5##*!)+#*,):)#+!)*!,1#!.#-)09.#q(!(>*,%'!%*+!(,9->&)*#!)*!,1#!D=!%*+!W-##E!
/#-()9*(<!_**#&)!_#e8#&%#3(!%-$3#(!,1#!(,9->!9:!,1#!-%)+!)*!H!?%8!ILOHRI!)(!:9-83&%,#+!)*!,1#!:9-8!9:!%!
:&%(15%0E!%*+!/%-)93(!%,,#8.,(!,9!,-%*(&%,#!,1#!.%((%$#!)*,9!W-##E!%*+!)8.-9/#!,1#!,-%*(&%,)9*!0-#%,#+!
+)::#-#*,!/#-()9*(!JAF%/)+q(!d#,3-*!,9!p)E&%$O!_!B-95!9:!=#',3%&!4)(,9->!)*!H!?%83#&!ILOH@G!)*!XII
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies@!?X?![P!f"#)+#*O!7-)&&@!
KLLMg@!Z[N<!
!
32!=1#!:)#-0#!09*:&)0,!5#,6##*!c(-%#&!%*+!,1#!_8%&#E),#(!)(!-#09-+#+!,1-93$193,!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#!J#<$<@!
V'9+!H\OQRHMS!F#3,!K[OH\RHZS!H!?%8!H[N<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!-#0#.,)9*!9:!,1)(!09*:&)0,!)*!,1#!4#5-#6!
7)5&#!%*+!F,-4@!(##!]9&:$%*$!a(6%&+@!AF#:#%,)*$!_8%&#E@!F#:#*+)*$!,1#!X9*(,),3,)9*O!=1#!B9&),)0%&!
=1#9->!9:!V'!H\OQRHM@G!)*!The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative X9*,#',(@!#+<!X1-)(,9.1!
7#-*#-!%*+!4%-%&+!?%83#&@!7p_]!PML!J7#-&)*O!+#!W-3>,#-@!KLH[N@!MHR\KS!o)$%&!"#/)*@!A_8%&#E@!?%3&@!
%*+!F%/)+O!=1#!d9&#!9:!,1#!_8%&#E),#(!)*!,1#!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!4)(,9->!9:!,1#!V%-&>!D9*%-01>@G!)*!
Collective Memory and Collective Identity: Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History in Their
Context@!#+<!;91%**#(!`*(9E!d9!%*+!F)%*%!V+#&8%*@!7p_]
111
Moreover, the narrative’s reiteration of female captives and the persistent
inclusion of the detail of daughters among the captives is striking in view of the linguistic
significance of daughters in the biblical law collections. David Stein argues that when
both genders are mentioned in biblical Hebrew, it often serves to underscore women’s
inclusion in situations of potential doubt.35 Thus, the narrative’s emphasis on captive
women, specifically daughters, in the opening of 1 Sam 30 alleviates any doubt that these
characters are present among the captives throughout the crisis with the Amalekites and
its legal fallout. Their careful inclusion not only accentuates the peril of captive women,
particularly daughters, in 1 Sam 30, but will be dramatically contrasted with the proposal
of the belial men, whose speech excludes daughters from being returned to their families.
On account of the tremendous grief of David’s men, 1 Sam 30:7 reports that
David fears for his life.36 He elects to consult the oracle to see if pursuing the Amalekites
is favorable. The response is divine authorization for a counterattack. Although many
interpreters suggest this divine endorsement is primarily illustrative of David’s favor and
divine support in the narrative, the consultation of an oracle is a regular feature of
undertaking war in various biblical texts (e.g., 1 Sam 23:4–5; 2 Sam 5:17–25; 1 Chr
14:8–17) that not only justifies the cause for war but also assures divine intervention in
35!F%/)+!?,#)*!%-$3#(!,1%,!,1)(!.-%0,)0#!)(!#(.#0)%&&>!09889*!)*!&#$%&!,#',(!9:!,1#!4#5-#6!7)5&#@!61#-#!
:#8%&#!.%-,)#(!6#-#!8#*,)9*#+!,9!.-#/#*,!8)(-#%+)*$!)*!)+#8@!A=1#!W-%88%-!9:!?90)%&!W#*+#-!)*!7)5&)0%&!
4#5-#6@G!HS PZ!JKLLQNO!KP<
36!=1#!)8.&)0%,)9*(!9:!F%/)+q(!6##.)*$!)*!H!?%8!IL!%-#!+#5%,#+<!d95#-,!_&,#-!1%(!.-9.9(#+!,1#!*%--%,)/#!)(!
3*0&#%-!61#,1#-!F%/)+!6##.(!)*!-#(.9*(#!,9!,1#!&9((!9:!1)(!6)/#(!9-!9*!%0093*,!9:!,1#!,1-#%,!9:!5#)*$!
(,9*#+!5>!1)(!8#*!)*!)+#8@!The Art of Biblical Narrative@!HKHRKK<!496#/#-@!&),,&#!)(!E*96*!%593,!61%,!,1#!
6##.)*$!E)*$!(0#*#(!%-#!(3..9(#+!,9!#/9E#!)*!,1#!,#',!%*+!%3+)#*0#(<!=1#-#!%-#!(98#!0%(#(!)*!61)01!
6##.)*$!)*+)0%,#(!%!.9(),)/#!.-#(#*,%,)9*!9:!,1#!E)*$!%*+!1)(!%$#*0><!a,1#-!)*(,%*0#(!9:!6##.)*$@!)*0&3+)*$!
H!?%8!ILOP@!%-#!%85)$393(<!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!=198%(!b%38%**@!ArF#-!^‚*)$!6#)*,q!R!F%(!‚::#*,&)01#!
]#)*#*!+#(!^‚*)$(!%&(!D),,#&!.9&),)(01#-!^9883*)E%,)9*!)*!%&,,#(,%8#*,&)01#*!=#',#*@G!)*!The Book of
Samuel and its Response to Monarchy@!#+<!?%-%!^).:#-!%*+!;#-#8>!D<!43,,9*@!7]_b=!KKQ!J?,3,,$%-,O!
^91&1%88#-@!KLKHN@!K[QR\Q<!
112
battle.37 This scene illustrates divine authorization for the counterattack and further
evokes Deuteronomistic warfare legislation. The promise of divine intervention is also
part of the protasis in warfare legislation, as is the case in Deut 21:10, which echoes the
language of “delivering enemies into your hands.” The consequence of this allusion also
satisfies one of the conditions under which Israel may take captives.
On the route to their counterattack, David and six hundred of his men reach brook
Besor, where some men stay behind (1 Sam 30:9). 1 Sam 30:10 clarifies that some of
David’s men stayed behind at the brook because they were too exhausted to cross it and
were therefore unable to participate in the counterattack. A total of two hundred men are
left behind while David and four hundred men continue to the counterattack. The
enumeration of this division is critical for the impending legal crisis at the brook because
the belial men in 1 Sam 30:22 will cite the two hundred’s inability to participate in the
battle as a justification for their proposal to unequally divide the recovered spoils.
However, this numerical division is striking for another reason. Jobling suggests that the
numerical division of David’s men into groups of four and two hundred in 1 Sam 30
evokes the numerical division of the Benjaminite survivors in Judg 20:47 and Judg 21:12,
the effect of which correlates the Benjaminite’s mass abduction of women in Judg 20–21
37!?##!?6##*#>@!1–2 Samuel@!H\MS!T-#+#-)0E!4<!X->#-!%&(9!%-$3#(!,1#!3(#!9:!,1#!#.19+!6%(!%*!)*+)0%,9-!:9-!
09*,)*393(!(3..9-,!:9-!F%/)+!)*!)+#8@!AF#-!B-9.1#,!3*+!+#-!D%$)#-O!7#8#-E3*$#*!%*1%*+!#)*#-!
i5#-19&,#*!F)(E3(()9*@G!)*!Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten Israel: Festschrift für
Sigfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag@!#+<!di+)$#-!")6%E!%*+!?)#$:-)#+!]%$*#-!J^91&1%88#-O!?,3,,$%-,@!
HZZHN@!QK<!?98#!1%/#!5##*!)*0&)*#+!,9!3(#!,1)(!9-%03&%-C&)E#!.-90#+3-#!,9!(),3%,#!,1#!+%,#!9:!,1#!.#-)09.#!%(!
.-#CF#3,#-9*98)0@!(301!%(!d9:|!JA=1#!"%6(!9:!]%-:%-#!)*!,1#!799E!9:!F#3,#-9*98>@G!KIRPPN<!4%-%&+!
?%83#&!1%(!0%3,)9*#+!%$%)*(,!,1)(!)*:#-#*0#!5#0%3(#!()8)&%-!9-%03&%-!##*,(!(3-:%0#!)*!&%,#!5)5&)0%&!,#',(!
%(!6#&&!J0:<!;3+$!KLN!%*+!#/#*!-#%..#%-!)*!,#',(!&)E#!,1#!=#8.&#!?0-9&&!JAF#3,#-9*98)0!]%-!B-#(0-).,)9*(!
%*+!F#3,#-9*98)(,)0!]%-(@G!)*!7#-*#-!%*+!?%83#&@!The Reception of Biblical War Legislation@!H[HR[KN<!
T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!9-%0&#!)*!6%-:%-#@!(##!b)+),01@!War in the Hebrew Bible@!HLH<!
113
with that of the Amalekites’ mass abduction of women in 1 Sam 30.38 In his view, the
overall effect of the numerical parallel is to establish sexual violence against women as a
central theme of 1 Sam 30.39
While I find the numerical correlation and the thematic links concerning violence
against women between 1 Sam 30 and Judg 20–21 very compelling, I am not convinced it
correlates sexual violence with the Amalekites and Benjaminites in their respective
narratives as clearly as Jobling suggests. For this to be the case, I would expect the
Amalekites to have some association with six hundred in the narrative, but they do not.
Instead, the numerical division reported in 1 Sam 30 more precisely correlates David’s
men with the Benjaminites in Judg 20. The purpose of this numerical division and its
association with sexual violence against women in Judg 20–21 and 1 Sam 30 is not
immediately obvious in the details of 1 Sam 30:9–10. However, one possibility is that
correlating the division of David’s men with the division of the Benjaminites in Judg 20
may evoke the reason for the division of the Benjaminites in the first place, that is, the
sordid assault, trial, and civil war precipitated by the sons of belial in Judg 19–20. If the
numerical allusion correlates David’s men with the Benjaminites, then one way to make
sense of this parallel is to map their association with belial. This association, however,
will not be revealed until their proposal concerning the division of spoils in 1 Sam 30:22.
David and four hundred of his men continue to retrieve the captives. With the
help of an Egyptian boy who was abandoned by his Amalekite master, David locates the
38!;95&)*$!%-$3#(!F%/)+!+)/)+#(!1)(!:9-0#!9:!()'!13*+-#+!)*,9!$-93.(!9:!:93-!13*+-#+!%*+!,69!13*+-#+!JH!
?%8!ILOHLN!61)&#!,1#!(%8#!*385#-!9:!7#*e%8)*),#!(3-/)/9-(!%-#!+)/)+#+!)*,9!,1#!(%8#!(35$-93.(!J;3+$!
KLOP\@!KHOHKN!J1 Samuel@!HLZN<!
!
39!;95&)*$!%++(!,1%,!,1#!9/#-%&&!#::#0,!9:!,1)(!*38#-)0%&!.%-%&&#&!)(!,9!#8.1%()Y#!,1%,!c(-%#&!)(!5%0E!,9!61#-#!),!
6%(!%,!,1#!#*+!9:!;3+$#(!J1 Samuel@!HLZN<!
!
114
Amalekite raiding party (1 Sam 30:11–17). David’s counterattack is successful and the
Amalekites are defeated and the totality of all that was taken by the Amalekites is
emphatically recovered, “and there was nothing lacking to them, neither small nor great,
neither sons nor daughters, neither spoils, nor anything that they had taken, David
recovered all” (1 Sam 30:19). This scene provides a final reiteration of sons and
daughters as among the recovered captives in accordance with the narrative’s foregoing
emphasis on the captivity of women, especially daughters (1 Sam 30:6, 9). Accentuating
the narrative’s inclusion of daughters among those taken captive in 1 Sam 30:6, 1 Sam
30:9, and 1 Sam 30:19 is the fact that the inclusion of daughters in each verse is not
grammatically necessary. If the narrative intended to detail the captivity of children in an
inclusive sense, 1 Sam 30: 3, 6, and 19 could have simply recorded בָּנִים , children, in each
verse.40 But it does not. The narration of 1 Sam 30:1–21, through inclusion and repetition
of בָּנו ֹת , daughters alongside בָּנִים , which in this portion of the narrative must mean sons
because it occurs with daughters, highlights the presence of both sons and daughters
among the recovered captives. For now, everything and everyone is safely in hand.
In sum, the context of war with Israel’s enemy, the Amalekites, strongly evokes
the language and legal framework of Deuteronomy’s war legislation (Deut 20–21).
Moreover, the narrative’s emphasis on female captives among the stolen and recovered
captives is reminiscent of legislation such as Deut 20:10–15 and Deut 21:10–14, both of
which permit women of conquered cities to be taken captive and subsumed into Israel.
40!c*!%++),)9*!,9!(#09*+C.#-(9*!8%(03&)*#!()*$3&%-!%*+!,1)-+C.#-(9*!8%(03&)*#!()*$3&%-!-#:#-#*0#(@!
$-%88%,)0%&&>!A8%&#G!*93*(!J)<#<@!,19(#!6),1!(.#0):)0%&&>!:#8%&#!093*,#-.%-,(N@!)*0&3+)*$ -v~“ @! -ž} @! -ž¦ @!%*+!
s¨µ @!%-#!%&&!0%.%5&#!9:!1%/)*$!698#*!)*!/)#6<!?##!?,#)*@!A=1#!W-%88%-!9:!?90)%&!W#*+#-!)*!7)5&)0%&!
4#5-#6@G!KP<!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9:!,1#!.-)9-),>!9:!,1#!8%(03&)*#!%*+!8%(03&)*#!:9-8(!%(!-#:#-#*,(!,9!:#8%&#!
5#)*$(!)*!5)5&)0%&!4#5-#6@!(##!7-30#!^<!]%&,E#!%*+!D<!aqX9**9-@!An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax!J])*9*%!"%E#@!cbO!V)(#*5-%3*(@!HZZLN@!HLQRZ<
115
However, the application of Deuteronomistic war legislation is striking in 1 Sam 30
because the situation is anomalous; there is no clear delimitation of the process of
recovery and division of spoils, and persons, originally belonging to Israel. Deut 21:10–
14 is interwoven in the framework of 1 Sam 30:1–20 insofar as the counterattack against
the Amalekites reported in 1 Sam 30 satisfies the conditions of Deut 21:10–11, “When
you go to war against your enemies and the Lord delivers them into your hands and you
have taken captives...” David and his men pursue the Amalekites, divine authorization for
the counterattack in 1 Sam 30:7–8 secures victory over the enemy, and finally, the
narrative is clear that captives were recovered. While Deuteronomic war legislation
reverberates in the narrative context of 1 Sam 30, it not clear whether this legislation can,
or should, be analogically applied to the situation of dividing recovered spoils, especially
female captives, in a situation that involves the recovery of one’s own people.
However, application of Deut 21:10–14 makes more sense if we take into
consideration the fluctuating legal and social status of the women in 1 Sam 30. As many
commentators have suggested, that the captives were sexually abused by their Amalekite
captors can be reasonably assumed.41 Although the captives have all been safely
recovered, the question of how their experience in captivity and sexual assault shapes
their legal and social status will soon become subject to negotiation. I suggest that the
conflation of Deuteronomic authorization to take and divide female captives of war and
legal reflection on the outcomes of sexual violence shape the nature of the legal crisis that
ensues between David’s men.
41!?##!*9,#!KQ!%59/#<!
!
116
1 Sam 30:21–25
David and his men return to meet those who stayed behind at the brook and a
crisis emerges concerning the division of spoils recovered from the counterattack. In 1
Sam 30:22 a portion of those who fought with David in the counterattack, referred to as
כָּל־אִישׁ־רָע וּבְלִיַּﬠַל , “every evil and belial man,” propose how the recovered spoils should be
distributed to those of David’s men who did not fight. Fokkelman notes the inclusion of
belial is striking here because the narrator is reserved in their value-judgments until this
group speaks.42 Indeed, not even the raiding Amalekites are referred to as belial.
Moreover, the occurrence of belial in 1 Sam 30 stands apart slightly from the usual
construction of belial because it is joined to the preceding phrase with a conjunction waw
instead of being in construct. I argue the proposal of these men contains a striking detail
that is crucial to grasping the legal nuance of their proposal and accounts for why they are
distinctly belial. Much like previous instances of legal exegesis in Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam
2 that innovatively correlate sexual violence and belial, I argue that legal exegesis in 1
Sam 30 correlates the proposal of the belial men with sexual violence.
The belial men of 1 Sam 30:22 propose that those of David’s men who took part
in the counterattack to recover the captives should keep the spoils and the men who did
not fight may only keep אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ ו ְאֶת־בָּנָיו , lit. his wife and his sons. This proposal is often
understood as an indication of their intent to unequally divide the spoils between
themselves and the men who did not fight. Their proposal recalls the division of David’s
men at the brook, where two hundred men had to stay behind and thus were unable to
participate in the counterattack. The belial proposal suggests that those who did not fight
42!T9EE#&8%*@!Crossing Fates@![QZ<!
!
117
should not partake in any of the spoils recovered from the counterattack against the
Amalekites, but should only receive their wives and בָּנָיו , lit. sons, which is usually
rendered children.43 In this view, what makes David’s men belial is their intent to
unequally distribute spoils between combatants and noncombatants.44 By making a
distinction between wives and children and spoils, most interpreters suggest the belial
men are willing to return family members to those who did not fight but are unwilling to
allow them to partake in the remainder of the spoils.
I suggest that a closer analysis of the relationship of the proposal of the belial men
with the narrative 1 Sam 30:1–20 reveals the status of captive daughters is a crucial legal
detail in the legal squabble at the brook. I demonstrated above that 1 Sam 30:1–20
identifies both sons and daughters among captives who are dramatically taken and
recovered. However, the proposal of the belial men, which suggests those who did not
fight may only keep אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ ו ְאֶת־בָּנָיו , lit. his wife and his sons, fails to repeat the
narrator’s emphasis of sons and daughters. Although this detail has been consistently
overlooked, I believe it accentuates the legal content of the belial proposal. Whereas
daughters had been meticulously included in the narrative, they are now conspicuously
absent in the proposal of the belial men. I suggest the belial men presume the right to
keep the recovered daughters as chattel. On the one hand, this presumption is plausible
because the conflation of daughters with spoils recovered from war is attested in war
legislation elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, where women are counted as spoils of war
43!"‹‹!-#%+(!ª¶!ª·¸š™!™¹ª–º@!A1)(!01)&+-#*GS!bd?j@!A6):#!%*+!01)&+-#*GS!;B?@!A6):#!%*+!01)&+-#*@GS!
D0X%-,#-!(3$$#(,(!A6):#!%*+!01)&+-#*G!JI Samuel@!PILN<!_3&+!.-9.9(#(!A1)(!6):#!%*+!1)(!f(9*(g!01)&+-#*G!JI
& II Samuel,!IIMN<!
!
44!D)(0%&&!(3$$#(,(!,1#!+)(,)*0,)9*!5#,6##*!0985%,%*,(!%*+!*9*0985%,%*,(!#'.&9),(!%!&99.19&#!)*!,1#!
/#-5)%$#!9:!b38!IHOK\@!A7#,6##*!,1#!6%--)9-(!619!6#*,!)*,9!5%,,&#!%*+!,1#!#*,)-#!09*$-#$%,)9*G!J1
Samuel@!H\QN<!
118
(e.g., Num 31, Deut 21).45 If the belial men are proposing to only return אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ ו ְאֶת־בָּנָיו ,
lit. his wife and his sons, to the men who did not fight, and counting their daughters as
part of the spoils, their proposal does not merely unfairly divide material goods between
combatants and noncombatants but evidences an attempt to withhold recovered daughters
as spoils from the counterattack.46
I of course grant that under ordinary circumstances, the belial proposal contradicts
other Pentateuchal legislation that prevents Israelites from taking Israelites captive.
However, the circumstances of 1 Sam 30 are anomalous because the captivity of the
Israelite daughters in the hands of the Amalekites and the presumed experience of sexual
assault alters their legal status. I argue that the reason the belial men presume license to
withhold recovered captive daughters is a product of the conflation of the legal
framework of Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29. As my analysis of 1 Sam 30:1–20
demonstrated, the context of war, divine authorization, and the recovery of captive
women detailed in the crisis with the Amalekites satisfy the protasis of Deut 21:10–11,
and so under ordinary circumstances the taking of captives is authorized. But the scenario
of 1 Sam 30 is far from ordinary. The captive women in question are not foreign, as Deut
21:10–14 imagines, but they are the women, specifically daughters, of their own men. 1
Sam 30 presents an even more nuanced legal milieu because the identity and legal status
45!?##!F%/)+!V&$%/)(1@!A=1#!F)/)()9*!9:!,1#!?.9)&(!9:!]%-!)*!,1#!7)5&#!%*+!)*!,1#!_*0)#*,!b#%-!V%(,@G!
ZABR!Q!JKLLKNO!K[PRM[S!?3(%*!b)+),01@!Ar=1#!=-%::)0!)*!]98#*qO!V'01%*$#@!d),3%&!?%0-):)0#@!%*+!]%-@G!
)*!Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible: New Perspectives@!#+<!?%3&!D<!a&>%*!Ja':9-+O!a':9-+!`*)/#-(),>!
B-#((@!KLH[N@!HH[RKP<!
!
46!T9-!:3-,1#-!+)(03(()9*@!(##!?%8%*,1%!;<!?09,,@!Ad#09/#-)*$!F%3$1,#-(O!d#09*()+#-)*$!,1#!=-%*(&%,)9*!9:!
sž€ž~¢ !)*!H!?%83#&!IL@KK@G!BN!HZZ!JKLKINO!MIR\L<!!
119
of the captive women change throughout the narrative.47 In the beginning of the narrative,
these women are the wives and daughters of David’s men. However, when they become
captives of the Amalekites and are recovered, the language used to characterize their
recovery and legal crisis at the brook mirrors the context of war with Israel’s enemies.
Fluctuation in legal status is further evidenced in the presumed experience of sexual
assault, which would have altered the legal standing of the young women in the wake of
their assault. The convergence of these circumstances, which fall outside the purview of
biblical legislation, give rise to a critical legal question implicit in the belial proposal: to
whom do these victims belong?
The proposal of the belial men offers a solution of their own to this anomalous
legal scenario. By conflating the legal framework of Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29,
their proposal presumes the legal right to count the daughters as recoverable spoils. While
the legal status of a wife is relatively immutable in biblical law insofar as there is no
evidence in the Hebrew Bible that a married woman could be transferred to another man,
daughters did not have the same legal standing.48 The daughters, who are victims of
sexual assault now have a compromised legal status and David’s belial men infer that in
this anomalous circumstance, they can keep them as chattel.
Their proposal, crafty as it may be, is met with a swift response. David issues the
following statute: “You shall not do so, my brothers, with that which the Lord has given
to us, who preserved us, and delivered the troop that came against us into our hand. And
47!V&$%/)(1!%&(9!95(#-/#(!%!E#>!##*,!9:!,1)(!.#-)09.#!)(!,1#!,-%*(:#-!9:!.-9.#-,>!,1%,!3*+#-$9#(!,69!
+)(,)*0,!89/#8#*,(O!9*#!:-98!F%/)+q(!8#*!,9!,1#!_8%&#E),#(!%*+!,1#!9,1#-!:-98!,1#!&%,,#-!5%0E!,9!F%/)+q(!
8#*!JAF)/)()9*!9:!?.9)&(@G!KMPN<!
!
48!T9-!+)(03(()9*!9*!,1#!&)8),%,)9*(!9:!,1#!,-%*(:#-%5)&),>!9:!6)/#(!%*+!(&%/#(@!(##!"#89(@!A]#-#!c(-%#&),#!
]98#*!X1%,,#&hG!KI[<!!
!
120
who will listen to you in this matter? The share of him who went into battle will be the
same share of him who waited by the vessels, they will share alike” (1 Sam 30:23–24). It
is generally understood that David’s statute guarantees the equal division of spoils
between the two hundred of his men who remained behind at the brook and those who
participated in the counterattack. It is also commonly offered up as an example of
David’s decisive adjudication of this crisis.49 Not only does the language of his statute
share affinities with that of other Deuteronomistic war legislation (e.g., Deut 20:13;
21:10), but it also has a distinctively legal and authoritative nuance. The coordination of
חֹק , statute, and מִשְׁפּט , ordinance, appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in the
characterization of Moses, Joshua, and Ezra.50 Moreover, David’s instinct to respond
with a statute and ordinance suggests the belial proposal is legally unprecedented and
required swift action. In any case, whatever they proposed required immediate and
innovative juridical administration.51
49!D0X%-,#-@!I Samuel@!PI\S!_3&+@!I & II Samuel@!IPKS!?,#/#*!"<!D0^#*Y)#@!King David: A Biography!
Ja':9-+O!a':9-+!`*)/#-(),>!B-#((@!KLLLN@!HLI<!?##!%&(9!T9EE#&8%*@!Crossing Fates,![ZLRZHS!B%3&!d<!
_5-%8(9*@!David’s Politics: Servant, Rebel, King!J"%*1%8@!DFO!d968%*!ƒ!"),,&#:)#&+@!KLHMN@!PL<!!
!
50!_3&+!%-$3#(!,1#!.%)-)*$!9:!,1#(#!,#-8(!)*!,1#!.&3-%&!)(!%!F#3,#-9*98)0!0&)01|!:9-!,1#!)*(,-30,)9*!,1%,!
D9(#(!(#,(!5#:9-#!1)(!.#9.&#!%*+!,1#!9*&>!9,1#-!)*(,%*0#!9:!A(,%,3,#!%*+!9-+)*%*0#G!)(!A,%3$1,G!5>!VY-%!
J\OHLN!JI & II Samuel@!IPKRPIN<!
!
51!_&,193$1!),!)(!*9,!0&#%-!,1%,!F%/)+q(!(,%,3,#!%++-#((#(!,1#!&#$%&!*3%*0#!9:!,1#!belial!.-9.9(%&q(!)*,#-#(,!)*!
,1#!-#09/#-#+!+%3$1,#-(@!,1#!(,%,3,#!)(!$#*#-%&&>!-#$%-+#+!%(!#::#0,)/#!)*!8),)$%,)*$!%$%)*(,!,1-#%,!9:!(90)%&!
+#,#-)9-%,)9*<!D)(0%&&!0%&&(!%,,#*,)9*!,9!,1#!+)(e3*0,)9*!5#,6##*!,1#!.-9.9(%&@!F%/)+q(!(9&3,)9*@!%*+!,1#!
-#.9-,#+!-#(9&3,)9*@!(3$$#(,)*$!,1%,!,1#!(,%,3,#!)(!#::#0,)/#!5#0%3(#!),!(300#((:3&&>!+)/#-,(!0-)()(!%89*$!1)(!
%-8>@!,1#!(,%,3,#!)(!*9,!%003-%,#!J1 Samuel@!HQLN<!=1)(!(,%,3,#@!:9-!(98#!)*,#-.-#,#-(@!)(!&#((!%!(9&3,)9*!,1%*!),!
)(!%!-1#,9-)0%&!-#:�,)9*!9*!,1#!(),3%,)9*!9:!,1#!89*%-01><!B9&Y)*!%-$3#(!,1%,!F%/)+q(!(,%,3,#!)*!H!?%8!
ILOKIRK[!1%(!&),,&#!,9!+9!6),1!,1#!0-)()(!9:!(.9)&(!9-!,1#!0-)()(!:%0)*$!1)(!8#*@!53,!-%,1#-!)-9*)0%&&>!-#:�,(!
%*,)C89*%-01)0%&!(#*,)8#*,(@!A89-#!.-9:93*+&>@!196#/#-@!,1#!#/)&(!9:!E)*$(1).!-#8%)*!,1#!(.9)&(!9:!F%/)+!
%(!6#&&!%(!9:!?%3&@!(9!,1%,!5&%8#!5#&9*$(!,9!1)8!619!-#8%)*(!5#1)*+!,9!-3&#!JF%/)+N@!%(!6#&&!%(!,9!1)8!619!
$9#(!+96*!)*,9!5%,,&#!,9!+)#<!=1%,!)(@!,1#!(,%,3,#!01%-%0,#-)Y#(!F%/)+!%(!%!-#0).)#*,!9:!,1#!(%8#!(.9)&(!%(!
?%3&@!:9-!c(-%#&!,1#!)*1#-),%*0#!9:!,1#!89*%-01>!)(!+#%,1<!B9&Y)*!-#8%-E(!,1%,!,1#(#!%0,)9*(!+#*9,#!F%/)+!%(!
.-)8%-)&>!(#&:C(#-/)*$!JSamuel and the Deuteronomist@!KH\RKIN<!
!
121
In sum, 1 Sam 30:21–25 records the crisis between David and a portion of his
men referred to as belial. I argued their proposal follows and conflates the legal logic of
Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29. On the basis of the anomalous and compromised
legal status of the recovered daughters, the proposal of the belial men intends to withhold
captive daughters who were recovered from the counterattack. The legal exegesis in 1
Sam 30:21–25 thus correlates belial with those who would use the legal frameworks of
Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29 in order to withhold captive daughters who were
victims of sexual assault. In response to this proposal and legal presumption, David
issues a counter-statute that thwarts the proposal of the belial men.
1 Sam 30:26–31
The report of 1 Sam 30:26–31 has an unclear relationship with the preceding
events detailed in 1 Sam 30:1–25. In the wake of the belial crisis and David’s statute, the
narrative abruptly transitions to report the disbursement of spoils among the elders of
Israel and David’s allies, corroborating David’s support from the leaders of his home
tribes and rallying a political base in preparation to be king.52 This abrupt transition is
also characterized by the disappearance of several themes that were prominent in the
preceding verses. The tensions between David and his men disappear entirely. Similarly,
the belial men and their proposal vanish from the scene, with no immediate consequences
in sight.53 Moreover, 1 Sam 30:26–31 demonstrates no awareness of the centrality of
captive women that frame the preceding crisis.
52!_&,#-@!The David Story@!HQQS!D0^#*Y)#@!King David@!HKM<!
!
53!c,!)(!(,-)E)*$!,1%,!,1#-#!%-#!*9!)88#+)%,#!09*(#23#*0#(!:9-!,1#(#!8#*<!_&,193$1!F%/)+!-#53E#(!,1#8!)*!H!
?%8!ILOKIRKP@!),!1%-+&>!098.%-#(!,9!,1#!:%,#!9:!9,1#-!01%-%0,#-(!-#:#--#+!,9!%(!belial@!)*0&3+)*$!,1#!A(9*(!9:!
5#&)%&G!)*!;3+$!KL@!,1#!(9*(!9:!V&)!)*!H!?%8!POHL@!%*+!b%5%&!)*!H!?%8!K[OIQ<!!
!
122
Some have accounted for this disjunctive transition by situating 1 Sam 30:26–31
in a different literary stratum than 1 Sam 30:1–25. There is some consensus that 1 Sam
30:26–31 should be dated to an earlier period on account of its textual and thematic
features.54 If this view is correct, that would suggest the legal reflection attested in the
preceding material, 1 Sam 30:1–25, belongs to a later redactor. The distinctive legal crisis
between David, his belial men, and captive daughters in 1 Sam 30:1–25 is a product of
innovative activity that added a layer of legal complexity to this account.
Legal Exegesis in 1 Sam 30: Assessing Its Features and Consequences
Summary
I have demonstrated that the legal crisis at the brook in 1 Sam 30 contains
evidence of legal exegesis that correlates belial with sexual violence against women. I
argued the proposal of the belial men conflates the legal circumstances and logic of Deut
21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29 as a means to profit from the sexual violence committed
against the captive daughters. By showcasing an illegitimate conflation of the legal logic
of each of these Deuteronomic passages, legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 correlates belial with
violence against women. Legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 not only clarifies the culpability of
belial as a form of abuse that profits from sexual violence but paves the way for the
narrative to confirm this legal reflection through the creation of new legislation.
Tracing Legal Exegesis in 1 Sam 30
As was the case with my previous analyses of legal exegesis in the narratives of
Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2, several legal threads interwoven in the details of 1 Sam 30
54!?##!+)(03(()9*!)*!_3&+@!I & II Samuel@!IP[S!_&#'%*+#-!_<!T)(01#-!%-$3#(!,1#(#!/#-(#(!%-#!#+),9-)%&!
0-#%,)9*(!,1%,!5#&9*$!,9!,1#!&%,#-!89*%-01)0%&!.#-)9+!JA7#3,#Y3$!3*+!?#$#*($%5#O!p3-!
d#+%E,)9*($#(01)01,#!+#-!")(,#!)*!H!?%8<!‹‹‹!KMRIH@G!VT![I!fKLLIgO!PQRMPN<!
123
foster a distinctively legal milieu that precipitates legal reflection concerning the actions
of the belial characters. Legal exegesis that correlates belial with violence against women
develops under the specter of two legal antecedents, Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29,
in the details of 1 Sam 30. The narrative’s context of war and recovery of captives
satisfies several of the conditions of Deut 21:10–14, which delimits the circumstances
under which Israel is permitted to take female captives. Moreover, the pericope’s concern
for daughters among the captives taken by the Amalekites accentuates the peril of
daughters, who on account of the narrative’s ambiguity, may have been raped during
their captivity, and as a result, have a compromised legal status. The fallout of sexual
assault, and its consequences for such marriageable and legal status, strongly evokes the
legislation of Deut 22:25–29, which traces the legal ramifications of rape that would have
dramatically limited the young women’s opportunity to marry after the event.55 With this
changed legal and social status, the legal conundrum posed in the anomalous
circumstances of 1 Sam 30 navigates the question of legal status of the recovered
daughters in the broader context of the division of spoils and captives.
The exchange in 1 Sam 30:21–25 between David and his belial men is not merely
a debate concerning the division of spoils between combatants and noncombatants.
Rather, the contention over the division of spoils is much more nuanced. The narrative’s
anomalous circumstances, including the context of war and division of spoils resulting
from retrieving fellow Israelites, some of whom may have been victims of sexual assault,
make for a precarious legal scenario. I argued that the proposal itself evidences a special
focus on the recovery and return of captive daughters. In contrast to the careful inclusion
55!?93,1699+@!Marriage by Capture@ HHQS!D%,,1#6(@!A49*9-!%*+!?1%8#@G!Z\<!
!
124
of daughters among the taken and recovered captives in the narration of 1 Sam 30:1–21,
the belial proposal omits daughters from those who are returned to the noncombatants. I
argued the proposal of the belial men presumes license to withhold captive daughters
who were recovered from the counterattack by conflating the legal logic of Deut 21:10–
14 and Deut 22:25–29. The belial men presume that because these daughters, who were
victims of sexual assault, have a compromised legal status, they can be plausibly counted
as part of the division of the spoils. In response to this proposal, David issues a statute
that prohibits this legal maneuvering.
Legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 shares features of legal innovation detected in other
surveys of the technique. The narrative’s anomalous context and the belial proposal
expose ambiguities in the legislation of Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29. For example,
although commentators have logically inferred from the context of Deuteronomy that the
enemies and captive women in Deut 21:10–14 must be foreign, and specifically non-
Canaanite, the passage merely defines the women as captives.56 Such ambiguity is a
crucial part of the legal reflection in 1 Sam 30; the anomalous circumstances of 1 Sam
30, which highlights the perilous and ever-changing status of the women and daughters of
David’s men, who are captives of the Amalekites and then again to recovered captives, is
what allows the anomalous possibility for the legal logic of Deut 21:10–14 to apply. In
other words, the fluctuating and compromised legal status reported in the narrative
exposes a gap in antecedent legislation, and the belial men see an opportunity to exploit
such a loophole for their own benefit.
56!?##!*9,#!KH!%59/#<!!
!
125
This sort of reflection on the limitations of Deuteronomic legislation in
anomalous scenarios aligns with how Barmash and Daube identify the infusion of biblical
law and narrative. Both suggest that legal reflection identifies inadequacies in the legal
system and delineates the culpability of characters in scenarios that lie outside the
purview of biblical law.57 In this view, 1 Sam 30 reflects on ambiguity in the antecedent
framework of Deut 21:10–14 by ascribing guilt to those who would capitalize on legal
ambiguity. Moreover, by locating the conflation of the legal frameworks of Deut 21:10–
14 and Deut 22:25–29 in the proposal of belial men, 1 Sam 30 showcases erroneous
conflation, that is, it characterizes the belial proposal as an example of illicit legal
exegesis. 1 Sam 30 therefore exposes limitations and ambiguities of Deut 21:10–14 and
Deut 22:25–29 and condemns the presumption of their conflation as belial.
1 Sam 30 also evidences legal exegesis because the results of its innovation create
a new legal precedent. David’s swift response to the proposal of his belial men bears the
marks of legislative authority.58 His statute thwarts the belial proposal by creating a new
legal precedent. Much like the innovative precedents I identified in Judg 20 and 1 Sam
2:12–36, which creatively convict those who would presume to sexually abuse legally
liminal women, David’s statute in 1 Sam 30 prohibits the illicit conflation of biblical law
that would grant one profit from sexual violence. In all three instances, these innovative
precedents restrain the abuses of belial and mirror other types of inner-biblical text
blending that creates what Fishbane characterizes as a “new Torah authority,” that,
57!?##!7%-8%(1@!A=1#!b%--%,)/#!U3%*+%->@G!HHS!F%35#@!A"%6!)*!,1#!b%--%,)/#(@G!HRMK<!
!
58!?##!*9,#![L!%59/#<!!
!
126
although grounded in biblical roots, is indicative of new authoritative tradition in a new
context, one that can be said to supersede and expand the antecedent legislation.59
In the case of 1 Sam 30, this new authority affirms that the conflation of the legal
frameworks of Deut 21:10–14 and Deut 22:25–29 to keep captive daughters as spoils
should be deemed belial.
The coordination of several legal themes and innovation in 1 Sam 30 accounts for
why the proposal of the belial men is distinctively belial. I have suggested that these men
are not belial simply because they plan to unfairly divide recovered spoils between
themselves and noncombatants. Rather, these men are identified as belial because they
conflate the legal logic of Deuteronomy to profit from sexual violence. This nuance
draws on the legal reflection that correlated belial in Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2.
In my view, legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 shares several affinities with the legal
innovation attested in Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2:12–36. Like the interpolation of MT 1
Sam 2:22, which clarifies the culpability of Eli’s sons for sexual exploitation of women
by drawing on the connotations of sexual violence of the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, in Judg
19–20, legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 nuances the culpability of David’s belial men by
correlating their proposal with sexual violence. Belial in 1 Sam 30 thus draws on the
associations of the epithet with sexual violence in Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2:12–36. While
they are not the assailants themselves, the men of belial in 1 Sam 30 nevertheless attempt
to profit from sexual violence by conflating the legal frameworks evoked in an
anomalous narrative about war and recovery of captives.
59!T)(15%*#@!Torah and Tradition@!KQMRZ[S!)+#8@!Biblical Text and Exegetical Culture: Collected Essays@!
T_=!H[P!J=i5)*$#*O!D91-!?)#5#0E@!KLKKN@![[P<!!
!
127
This shared legal reflection is further corroborated by shared literary features of
Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2, and 1 Sam 30. Jobling argues for strong thematic links between 1
Sam 30 and Judg 19–21, suggesting that by the end of 1 Samuel Israel is back to where it
was in the tale of Judg 20–21.60 He detects a similar thematic parallel concerning
exploitation of women and observes that the book is marked at each end by a group of
exploited women, the abuse of the temple attendants in 1 Sam 2 and the women abducted
in 1 Sam 30.61 I suggest that an additional shared feature of these pericopes is the
correlation of belial with the exploitation of women that develops in a distinctively legal
milieu.
A question that remains, however, is the mode of legal intervention in 1 Sam 30.
In Judg 19–20, I argued that the infusion of Deut 22:21 reimagined culpability of the sons
of belial and that their peculiar epithet may have originated from a pun based on the
legislation itself. In contrast, legal exegesis in 1 Sam 2:12–36 is evidenced in a later
interpolation of women into the narrative which nuanced and clarified the culpability of
the sons of Eli as sons of belial to include sexual exploitation, which drew its inspiration
from the correlation of the epithet with violence against women in Judg 19–20. In 1 Sam
30, however, the mode of legal exegesis is more difficult to trace. I suggest that there are
two possibilities to describe the legal intervention in 1 Sam 30, although they may not be
mutually exclusive. First, belial could have been inserted in 1 Sam 30:22. This would
mean the base text included daughters among the captives, and a later scribe, seeing the
legal conundrum raised by the implications of their abuse and reported crisis over the
60!;95&)*$@!I Samuel@!HLZ<!
!
61!c5)+<@!HZP<!!
128
division in the spoils at the brook, clarified the nature of their proposal by adding belial
to their descriptor, inspired by its previous correlation with violence against women in
Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2. This may account for why belial in this passage is not in
construct, as it is in Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2. Another possibility is that daughters were
added to the narrative in the preceding instances in 1 Sam 30:1–21 to clarify the
proposal’s belial nature. This would follow the same paradigm as MT 1 Sam 2:22, in
which anomalous women were ingrafted into a narrative that explicates the behavior of
belial. If we grant that it is likely that the earliest version of 1 Sam 30 was not primarily
concerned with the legal question of daughters among the division of spoils, as 1 Sam
30:26–31 would suggest, this mode of legal intervention would account for why the crisis
over the captive daughters at the brook reads like a tertiary theme. In either case, the final
form of the MT 1 Sam 30 correlates belial and violence against women in such a way
that seems to follow the same legal impetus as that of Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam 2.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter has been to probe 1 Sam 30 for clues of legal exegesis
that correlates belial with sexual violence against women. I began with a brief survey of
the state of research on 1 Sam 30 that elucidated that one of the key editorial threads
interwoven in the narrative is especially interested in law. I suggested that this legal
thread is evidenced not only in the narrative’s infusion of legal themes and structures
throughout its plot but also in the evocation of the legal frameworks Deut 21:10–14 and
Deut 22:25–29. My literary analysis then turned to examine key places where these
frameworks are evoked by the circumstances of the narrative and then conflated in the
proposal of the belial men. I demonstrated that Deut 21:10–14, which delimits the
129
process for the division of female captives of war, is a decisive legal interlocutor evoked
by the narrative framework of 1 Sam 30 and implicit in the proposal of the belial men. I
then demonstrated how Deut 22:25–29, which traces the legal logic for negotiating the
consequences of sexual assault of betrothed and unbetrothed women, is evoked in the
description of the captivity of the captive women in 1 Sam 30. I concluded that the
proposal of the belial men in 1 Sam 30:22 conflates the legal logic of Deut 21:10–14 and
Deut 22:25–29 in an attempt to leverage legal license to profit from the sexual assault of
captive daughters. By showcasing an illegitimate conflation of the legal logic of each of
these Deuteronomic passages, legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 nuances the culpability of
David’s men by correlating belial with violence against women and in so doing,
condemns their legal maneuvering.
130
CONCLUSION
This study accounts for the striking correlation of belial, sexual violence, and
various strands of Pentateuchal antecedents interwoven in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36,
and 1 Sam 30. Although these passages are frequently treated in isolation from one
another, I proposed that the intricate legal themes, allusions to sexual violence, complex
text-critical issues, and evocation of belial in each of these passages are the product of
legal exegesis that correlates belial with sexual violence against women.
Summary
In Chapter 1 I introduced legal exegesis as a crucial lens for identifying legal
reflection and innovation in the Hebrew Bible. I proposed that because each pericope
engages in the creative transformation of Pentateuchal antecedents, legal reflection is
manifest in each pericope’s correlation of belial with sexual violence against women. I
then turned to explore the state of research concerning the term belial. With a notoriously
obscure etymology and indefinite connotation in the Hebrew Bible and ancient
recensions, belial has consistently eluded correlation with sexual violence. I then turned
to explore the state of research concerning sexual violence in the context of biblical law,
where I illustrated the tenuousness of delimiting the act and consequences of sexual
violence in biblical law and narrative. Such ambiguity, I argue, may have been the
catalyst for later legal reflection. Finally, I traced the literary relationship and redactional
complexity of Judges and 1 Samuel. This survey mapped key thematic and legal threads
shared between select portions of these books and located them as locations for later
scribal innovation.
131
In Chapter 2 I traced the distinctive legal features of Judg 19–20 and identified
how Deut 22:21 is evoked and creatively reworked in the narrative context of Judg 19–
20. There I demonstrated that whereas for some readers the evocation of Deut 22:21 in
Judg 19:1–3 signals the guilt of the concubine, a closer examination of the evocation of
Deut 22:21 in Judg 19–20 illustrates that Deut 22:21 is cleverly reworked so that blame is
diverted from the concubine to the sons of belial. The effect of this innovative legal
exegesis is the creation of a new juridical decision by which the sons of belial, the
abusers of legally liminal women, can be tried and convicted.
In Chapter 3 I argued that the legal impetus that correlates belial and sexual
violence against women in Judg 19–20 is also discernable in 1 Sam 2:12–36. I
demonstrated that 1 Sam 2:12–36 showcases the behavior of the sons of Eli as בנ י ־בליעל ,
sons of belial, in a series of successive redactional reflections that attempt to correlate the
impropriety of the sons with the epithet and their subsequent deaths. I argued that the
latest layer of redactional activity in the pericope, the interpolation of the gathering
women in MT 1 Sam 2:22, is the product of legal innovation that nuanced the
impropriety of Eli’s sons to include sexual exploitation of the anomalous gathering
women. I concluded that this legal innovation was inspired by, or was the product of the
same redactional hand, as that of the legal reflection that correlated sexual violence
against women with the בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, in Judg 19–20.
In Chapter 4 I traced distinctive legal features and themes in 1 Sam 30 and
situated its legal agenda in view of legal exegesis surveyed in Judg 19–20 and 1 Sam
2:12–36. I argued that the legal crisis at the brook in 1 Sam 30 contains evidence of legal
exegesis that correlates belial with sexual violence against women. I argued that the
132
proposal of the belial men conflates the legal circumstances and logic of Deut 21:10–14
and Deut 22:25–29 as a means to profit from the sexual violence committed against the
captive daughters. Legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 correlates belial with violence against
women by showcasing an illegitimate conflation of the legal logic of Deuteronomic law. I
concluded that legal exegesis in 1 Sam 30 not only clarifies the culpability of belial as a
form of abuse that profits from another’s sexual violence but paves the way for the
narrative to confirm this legal reflection through the creation of new legislation.
In sum, I identified interconnected threads of legal exegesis whose formative
innovation not only reworks Deut 22:21 to clarify the culpability of the sons of belial for
sexual impropriety but also cleverly deploys a pun that evokes the verbs עלל and נבל ,
forms of which appear in Deut 22 and Judg 19, to correlate these “senseless abusers” with
those who exercise legal license to exploit liminal women. I proposed this legal
innovation inspired the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22, which adds sexual exploitation
of the gathering women to the list of impropriety committed by Eli’s sons, who are
referred to as בנ י ־בליעל , lit. sons of belial. The impetus to correlate belial with sexual
violence also appears in 1 Sam 30, where the innovation is nuanced to not only correlate
belial with those who are assailants of sexual violence but also with those who use legal
lacunae to profit from sexual violence.
Implications and Limitations of Legal Exegesis and Belial
As stated in the introduction, my thesis adapts and advances insights from various
areas of research. By drawing on the insights of scholars who have identified modes and
motivations underlying legal innovation in biblical legislation, I have identified legal
exegesis in narrative portions of the Hebrew Bible, especially the DtrH, that follows a
133
similar legal impetus. For example, Milstein demonstrates that legal innovation in the
women’s sex laws of Deut 22 delineated legal recourse for various cases of sexual
impropriety. Motivated by the need to establish a precedent for cases that were outside
the strict purview of the legal antecedent, legal innovation in Deut 22 clarified the bounds
of exceptional cases. My study identifies a similar pattern of legal reflection in select
books of the DtrH and demonstrates that legal reflection on laws dealing with women and
legally ambiguous scenarios of sexual impropriety was not limited to Deuteronomy itself.
Just as Barmash and Daube, who see narrative as prime locations for reflecting on
ambiguities and circumstances otherwise unaddressed in biblical law, my surveys of Judg
19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 illustrate how these narratives engage intricate
legal themes that explore gaps and inadequacies of biblical antecedents. Each narrative
reports the abuse of women who occupy ambiguous legal status at the hands of the בנ י ־
בל י על , sons of belial. These scenarios engage biblical law in various ways. In some cases,
they expose ambiguities in legal rights and status defined in biblical law, whereas in
others they detail the implications of the overreach of authority delimited by biblical law
itself. While the legal nuance of each narrative is unique, they principally reflect on
whether biblical legislation is sufficient to cope with anomalous cases of sexual violence
against women in the complex scenarios of Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30.
By exposing ambiguities and limitations in antecedent biblical law, legal exegesis in each
of these pericopes innovates to clarify the guilty party in their anomalous contexts.
Further, each pericope’s legal reflection results in an innovative and logical expansion of
biblical law that issues a new legal precedent that curtails the reported abuse.
134
In demonstrating each narrative’s unique capacity for legal reflection, I have also
shed light on the relationship of narrative and law in the Hebrew Bible and the
relationship between the DtrH and Deuteronomy. Legal exegesis in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam
2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30 innovatively evokes and interacts with the legislation of
Deuteronomy, casting these passages as legal proving grounds for the application and
expansion of Deuteronomy in anomalous cases. Moreover, although some argue that
legal innovation is endemic throughout the narratives of the biblical text, it is frequently
treated as discrete form of intervention. My research nuances this perspective because it
correlates a series of legal innovations in Judges and Samuel that may have originated by
the same hand. This insight suggests that legal exegesis in the Hebrew Bible may have
been, in some cases, a systematic rather than discrete enterprise.
Second, my study supplements the current scholarly discourse about the origin
and nature of belial in biblical research. As stated in the introduction, there is little
consensus among scholars as to the etymological origin of belial, what it denotes in the
biblical text, if it originated from, or ever constituted, a unified concept, and what
relationship the biblical belial has with the belial in extrabiblical literature. While it has
not been my aim to provide a comprehensive treatment of belial in the Hebrew Bible, I
have demonstrated there are three pericopes in which the term plays a decisive role in
legal exegesis that correlates it with sexual violence. I have proposed, therefore, that there
are some cases in which the term displays a distinctive thematic consistency in the
Hebrew Bible, a notion that advances the scholarly discussion beyond the usual
translation of belial as a generalized notion of evil. I also argued that in Judg 19–20 the
epithet בנ י ־בליעל , sons of belial, may constitute a clever pun on the verbs עלל and נבל ,
135
forms which appear in the narrative and antecedent legislation of Deut 22, legislation that
delimits the legal consequences of sexual impropriety that result in the death penalty. The
evocation of this legal terminology clarified the nature and culpability of those to whom
the epithet was ascribed and the legal consequences for their behavior. I demonstrated
that the impetus to correlate the epithet בנ י ־בליעל , the senseless abusers, with sexual
violence is further attested in the interpolation of MT 1 Sam 2:22. The association of
belial with violence against women is perpetuated in legal innovation in 1 Sam 30, where
the crisis at the brook was later infused with legal flourishes that correlated the belial
proposal with violence against women.
As is often the case in surveys of the ever-elusive belial, my proposal that the
epithet itself may derive from a pun on legal terminology of Deut 22, while raising many
questions, offers several possibilities for future research. Although my research offers
some insight into the use of belial in select pericopes of the Hebrew Bible, why it
connotes sexual violence in some cases and not others is not clear. It is possible that the
earliest recipients of the epithet in Judg 19–20 did not uniformly see its initial correlation
with sexual impropriety and Deut 22:21. Thus, what may have started as a highly specific
allusion to biblical legislation in legal exegesis that correlated these evil men with
violence against women, was later displaced by the understanding that it was an allusion
to wicked behavior in general.
A factor that may have motivated the gradual shift away from the epithet’s
denotation of senseless sexual abuse towards a generalized notion of evil is the complex
and nuanced narratives that report the abuses of the sons of belial. While I have
demonstrated that legal exegesis principally correlates these men with senseless sexual
136
abuse of women in their respective narratives, their abuse significantly impacts the
narrative world. For example, in each pericope, the belial men engage in abusive
behavior of not only women but also other men. In Judg 19 the sons of belial threaten the
Levite, in 1 Sam 2:12–36 Eli’s sons abuse the, presumably male, temple servants, and the
proposal in 1 Sam 30 capitalizes on those of David’s men who were too faint to engage in
battle. In other words, the abusive behavior of these figures is extensive and the
inclination to correlate their abuse with the general deterioration of the social fabric is
certainly persuasive. Additionally, provided their behavior in legally anomalous contexts
in which they seem to capitalize on ambiguities in biblical legislation, I believe the scope
of their abuse extends to the law itself. In any case, while there are many abuses
associated with the sons of belial in the complex narratives of Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–
36, I suggest that they have unfortunately eclipsed the clever legal origin of the epithet,
which distinctively connoted the sexual abuse of liminal women.
Of course, my conclusion by no means suggests that the epithet בנ י ־בליעל , sons of
belial, connotes sexual violence in every instance in the Hebrew Bible. However, I have
demonstrated that there are three pericopes in which this association is compelling. Even
if interpreters cannot ascribe sexual violence to belial in every instance, I believe that
with adequate evidence that elucidates legal exegesis that creatively reflects on the
ambiguities of sexual violence against women in relation to biblical legislation, we have
sufficient cause to emphasize the distinctive nuance of sexual violence against women.
Unfortunately, my research does not answer questions concerning the direction of
dependency and the relationship between the pun, epithet, or belial as an appellation.
This question is important for those who wish to untangle the relationship between the
137
biblical belial and its usage in extrabiblical literature. My research proposes the epithet in
Judg 19–20 labels the בנ י ־בליעל , the senseless abusers, likely preceded its later association
with Belial, as a proper name. While it is beyond the scope of my research to treat the
usage of belial beyond my select pericopes in the DtrH, I am nevertheless intrigued that
belial, either as an appellation of an evil entity or as an abstract characteristic, maintains
its association with law(lessness), even though its correlation with sexual violence in
select pericopes of the Hebrew Bible recedes to the background.
My exploration of belial in select pericopes of Judges and 1 Samuel also sheds
light on the relationship of these books and the overarching themes they share. As I
argued, the evocation of the epithet and reworking of Deut 22:21 in Judg 19–20 appears
to have inspired other instances in 1 Samuel that correlate belial with violence against
women. While my research attended to the pericopes of 1 Sam 2:12–36 and 1 Sam 30, I
would be interested in exploring further whether there are other instances in 1 Samuel
that correlate belial and sexual violence. For example, 1 Sam 25 dubs Nabal a son of
belial (1 Sam 25:17). In this pericope, questions about the nature of Nabal’s behavior and
his relationship with Abigail loom large. Amy Cottrill has aptly attended to Abigail’s
precarious position at the intersection of patriarchal volatility in Nabal and David’s
struggle for power. However, provided the association of belial with sexual violence in
Judg 19–20 and in two instances in 1 Samuel, it is plausible that Nabal’s name, נבל , and
his correlation with belial are suggestive of sexual violence in 1 Sam 25. The insights
gleaned from my study may equip interpreters to be more specific about the nature
Nabal’s belial behavior and would also offer an additional example of David overcoming
belial, so to speak, focusing the lens on his adjudication of the belial men in 1 Sam 30.
138
Finally, my research advances prior scholarship on violence against women and
biblical law. Pursuant with previous surveys of Deuteronomic legislation that delineate
the status and rights of women and those that explore the motivations underlying legal
innovation in Deuteronomy, my research demonstrates that biblical narrative, particularly
the DtrH, is a place in which Deuteronomic laws that concern women, sexual
impropriety, and sexual violence were decisive touch points for legal innovation and
expansion of the parameters of biblical law.
My research also expands the scope of research addressing sexual violence in the
Hebrew Bible. Previous research has aptly observed there is no word in biblical Hebrew
for “rape” and many argue that biblical law displays a tendency to marginalize the
experiences of women, particularly concerning sexual violence. Such terminological
lacunae and legal maltreatment, as it were, in biblical law has drawn ardent criticism
from various corners of scholarship. While it was not my intention at the outset of this
project to assuage such criticism, my study has demonstrated that legal exegesis in the
DtrH seems to be invested in remedying some of the potential harms latent in the statutes
and ambiguities of biblical legislation. In other words, grievances that contemporary
scholars have aired with respect to the legal status, rights, and protections of women and
particularly victims of sexual violence in biblical law are taken up in the legal exegesis of
Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30. My analysis of the legal innovation in each of
these pericopes explores how their authors or editors have a keen awareness of the
lacunae of protections for women, including women of ambiguous or liminal status, and
their vulnerability to abuse. Realizing that Pentateuchal law on its own was unable to
curb the abuses reported in Judges and 1 Samuel, legal exegetes sought to clarify and
139
expand the parameters of biblical law to correlate culpability for sexual violence with the
assailants, the sons of belial. Their innovative remedy draws on the scribal conventions
available to them; while they cannot change the law itself, they can change the narrative.
In sum, I have proposed that legal exegesis correlates belial with sexual violence
against women in Judg 19–20, 1 Sam 2:12–36, and 1 Sam 30. Echoing in the deep wells
of the tradition of legal exegesis, this innovative activity nuances and expands the
parameters of its antecedent legal traditions. And, perhaps more than creatively indicting
the elusive and abusive nature ascribed to belial in each passage, this tradition of legal
exegesis impressively enshrines the legal and moral impetus to restrain abuse.
140
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abegg, Martin G., James E. Bowley, Edward M. Cook, and Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea
Scrolls Concordance. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Abramson, Paul R. David’s Politics: Servant, Rebel, King. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2016.
Ackerman, Susan. “Hannah’s Tears.” Pages 13–25 in Celebrate Her for the Fruit of Her
Hands: Studies in Honor of Carol L. Meyers. Edited by Susan Ackerman et al.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
———. “Mirrors, Drums, and Trees.” Pages 537–67 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010.
Edited by Martti Nissinen. VTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
———. Women and the Religion of Ancient Israel. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2022.
Aejmelaeus, Anneli. “David’s Return to Ziklag: A Problem of Textual History in 1
Samuel 30:1.” Pages 95–104 in XII Congress of the International Organization for
Septuagint and Cognate Studies. SCS 54. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 2011.
———. The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel. New York:
Norton, 1999.
Amit, Yairah. The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing. Translated by Jonathan Chipman.
BibInt 38. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Anderson, Cheryl B. Women, Ideology, and Violence: Critical Theory and the
Construction of Gender in the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Law.
JSOTSup 394. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2004.
Aschkenasy, Nehama. Woman at the Window: Biblical Tales of Oppression and Escape.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998.
Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2011.
———. “Reading Deuteronomy After Samuel: Or, is ‘Deuteronomistic’ a Good Answer
to Any Samuel Question?” Pages 93–104 in Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists?
Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History. Edited by
Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala. AIL 16. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013.
141
———. “The Deuteronomists and the Former Prophets, or What Makes the Former
Prophets Deuteronomistic?” Pages 116–26 in Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The
Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism. Edited by Linda S. Shearing and Steven L.
McKenzie. JSOTSup 268. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.
Avnery, Orit. “On the Threshold: Liminality in the Stories of the Concubine of Gibeah
and Ruth.” JSOT 46 (2021): 230–48.
Bader, Mary Anna. Sexual Violation in the Hebrew Bible: A Multi-Methodological Study
of Genesis 34 and 2 Samuel 13. StBibLit 87. New York: Lang, 2006.
Bal, Mieke. Death & Dissymmetry: The Politics of Coherence in the Book of
Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Barmash, Pamela. “Achieving Justice Though Narrative in the Hebrew Bible: The
Limitations of Law in the Legal Potential of Literature.” ZABR 20 (2014): 181–99.
———. “Scribal Initiative in the Clarification and Interpretation of Mesopotamian Law
Collections.” Pages 551–63 in vol. 2 of Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, ancient
Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on
the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Chaim Cohen et al. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
———. “The Daughter Sold into Slavery and Marriage.” Pages in 48–76 in Sexuality
and Law in the Torah. Edited by Hilary Lipka and Bruce Wells. LHBOTS 675.
London: T&T Clark, 2020.
———. The Laws of Hammurabi: At the Confluence of Royal and Scribal Traditions.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
———. “The Narrative Quandary: Cases of Law in Literature.” VT 54 (2004): 1–16.
Barthélemy, Dominique. Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras,
Néhémie, Esther. Vol. 1 of Critique textuelle de l’Ancien testament. OBO 50.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
Bartor, Asnat. “The ‘Juridical Dialogue’: A Literary-Judicial Pattern.” VT 53 (2003):
445–64.
Bechtel, Lyn M. “What if Dinah is not Raped? (Genesis 34).” JSOT 62 (1994): 19–36.
Becker, Uwe. Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum
Richterbuch. BZAW 192. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.
Beldman, David J. H. The Completion of Judges: Strategies of Ending in Judges 17–21.
SIPHRUT 21. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2017.
142
Bennett, Harold V. Injustice Made Legal: Deuteronomic Law and the Plight of the
Widows, Strangers, and Orphans in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002.
Ber, Viktor. “Purging the Evil from Israel: The Function of the Deuteronomic Formula in
Judg 20:13.” ZAW 133 (2021): 442–55.
Berman, Joshua. “The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–9, Judges 6:25–31,
1 Samuel 15:2, 28:3–25, 2 Kings 4:1–7, Jeremiah 34:12–17, Nehemiah 5:1–12).”
JBL 134 (2015): 105–25.
Beukenhorst, Martijn. “The War Laws in Deuteronomy.” Pages 271–86 in Deuteronomy
in the Making: Studies in the Production of the Debarim. Edited by Diana Edelman
et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021.
Bird, Phyllis. “‘To Play the Harlot’: An Inquiry into an Old Testament Metaphor.” Pages
75–94 in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Edited by Peggy L. Day.
Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Benjamin Traditions Read in the Early Persian Period.” Pages
629–46 in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits
and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Block, Daniel I. “Echo Narrative Technique in Hebrew Literature: A Study in Judges
19.” WTJ 52 (1990): 325–41.
———. Judges, Ruth: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. NAC
6. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.
Bombach, Karla G. “Conventions/Contraventions: The Meanings of Public and Private
for the Judges 19 Concubine.” JSOT 83 (1999): 83–98.
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006.
Brand, Miryam T. Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as
Portrayed in Second Temple Literature. Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 9.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.
Bremby, Jason. “The Levite’s Concubine (Judg 19:2) and the Traditions of Sexual
Slander in the Hebrew Bible: How the Nature of Her Departure Illustrates a
Tradition’s Tendency.” VT 68 (2018): 519–39.
Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Book of Judges. London: Routledge, 2002.
———. “The Composition of 1 Samuel 1–2.” JBL 116 (1997): 601–12.
143
———. “Women and Psalms: Toward an Understanding of the Role of Women’s Prayer
in the Israelite Cult.” Pages 25–56 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the
Ancient Near East. Edited by Victor H. Matthews et al. JSOTSup 262. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1998.
———. The Book of Judges. London: Routledge, 2002.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of
the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.
Campbell, Anthony F. 1 Samuel. FOTL 7. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Caquot, André and Philippe de Robert. Les Livres de Samuel. Geneva: Labor et Fides,
1994.
Carmichael, Calum. “Death and Sexuality Among Priests (Leviticus 21).” Pages 225–44
in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and
Robert Kugler. VTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
———. The Sacrificial Laws of Leviticus and the Joseph Story. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2017.
Charlesworth, James H., ed. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1983–1985.
Chisholm, Robert B. A Commentary on Judges and Ruth. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2013.
Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9. WBC 6A. Nashville: Nelson, 2001.
Clines, David J. A. “Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical Exegesis.”
JSOT 21 (1981): 111–17.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 2014.
Collins, John J. “The Agonistic Imagination: Ethics of War in Deuteronomy.” Pages
183–97 in Worship, Women, and War: Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch. Edited by
John J. Collins et al. BJS 357. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2015
Cook, Stephen L. “The Law and the Prophets.” Pages 275–88 in The Oxford Handbook
of Biblical Law. Edited by Pamela Barmash. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2019.
Cottrill, Amy. Uncovering Violence: Reading Biblical Narratives as an Ethical Project.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2021.
144
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Cross, Frank Moore, and David Noel Freedman. “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving: II
Samuel 22 = Psalm 18.” JBL 72 (1953): 15–34.
Cryer, Frederick H. “Der Prophet und der Magier: Bemerkungen anhand einer überholten
Diskussion.” Pages 79–88 in Prophetie und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit im alten
Israel: Festschrift für Sigfried Herrmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Rüdiger
Liwak und Siegfried Wagner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991.
——— . “Genesis in Qumran.” Pages 98–112 in Qumran between the Old and New
Testaments. Edited by Frederick H. Cryer and Thomas L. Thompson. JSOTSup
290. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998.
D’Amico, Davide. “The Anti-Levite of Judges 17–18.” JSOT 48 (2023): 36–49.
Daube, David. “Direct and Indirect Causation in Biblical Law.” VT (1961): 246–69.
———. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947.
Dietrich, Walter. David, Saul, und die Propheten: Das Verhältnis von Religion und
Politik nach den prophetischen Überlieferungen vom frühesten Königtum in Israel.
BWANT 122. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992.
———. “Niedergang und Neuanfang: Die Haltung der Schlussredaktion des
deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes zu den wichtigsten Fragen ihrer Zeit.”
Pages 45–70 in Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition
in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times. Edited by Bob Becking and Marjo Korpel. OTS 42.
Leiden: Brill, 1999.
———. “The Layer Model of the Deuteronomistic History and the Book of Samuel.”
Pages 39–66 in Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place
of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Cynthia Edenburg and Juha
Pakkala. AIL 16. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013.
Dimant, Devorah. “Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of
Belial and Mastema.” Pages 235–56 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary
Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum,
Jerusalem, July 6–8, 2008. Edited by Adolfo D. Roitman et al. STDJ 93. Leiden:
Brill, 2010.
Drumbell, William J. “‘In Those Days There Was No King in Israel, Every Man Did
What Was Right in His Own Eyes’: The Purpose of the Book of Judges
Reconsidered.” JSOT 25 (1983): 23–31.
Durham, John I. Exodus. WBC 3. Nashville: Nelson, 1987.
145
Edenburg, Cynthia. “Ideology and Social Context of the Deuteronomic Sex Laws
(Deuteronomy 22:13–29).” JBL 128 (2009): 43–60.
———. Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–21. AIL 24.
Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.
Edenburg Cynthia and Juha Pakkala. “Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists?” Pages 1–
16 in Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel
in a Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala. AIL
16. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013.
Elgavish, David. “The Division of the Spoils of War in the Bible and in the Ancient Near
East.” ZABR 8 (2002): 242–73.
Emerton, John A. “Sheol and the Sons of Belial.” VT 37 (1987): 214–17.
Eslinger, Lyle M. Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1–12. BLS 10.
Sheffield: Almond Press, 1985.
Everhart, Janet S. “Serving Women and Their Mirrors: A Feminist Reading of Exodus
38:8b.” CBQ 66 (2004): 44–54.
Exum, J. Cheryl. “The Centre Cannot Hold: Thematic and Textual Instabilities in
Judges.” CBQ 52 (1982): 410–31.
———. “The Ethics of Biblical Violence Against Women.” Pages 248–71 in The Bible
in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium. Edited by John W. Rogerson et al.
JSOTSup 207. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995.
Firth, David G. 1 & 2 Samuel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
———.1 and 2 Samuel: A Kingdom Comes. Phoenix Guides to the Old Testament 9.
Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2013.
———. “Chronology in the Books of Samuel: A Narrative Approach.” Pages 335–44 in
Books of Samuel: Stories, History, Reception History. Edited by Walter Dietrich et
al. BETL 284. Leuven: Peeters, 2016.
———. “Some Reflections on the Current Narrative Research on the Book of Samuel.”
STR 10 (2019): 3–31.
Fischer, Alexander A. “Beutezug und Segensgabe: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte der Liste in
1 Sam. XXX 26–31.” VT 53 (2003): 48–64.
146
Fishbane, Michael. “I Samuel 3: Historical Narrative and Narrative Poetics.” Pages 191–
203 in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives Volume II. Edited by Kenneth
R. R. Gros Louis. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982.
———. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
———. Biblical Text and Exegetical Culture: Collected Essays. FAT 154. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2022.
———. “Revelation and Tradition: Aspects of Inner Biblical Exegesis.” JBL 99 (1980):
343–61.
———. “Torah and Tradition.” Pages 275–300 in Tradition and Theology in the Old
Testament. Edited by Douglas A. Knight. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Fleischman, Joseph. “The Delinquent Daughter and Legal Innovation in Deuteronomy
xxii 20–21.” VT 58 (2008): 191–210.
Fokkelman, J.P. The Crossing Fates. Vol. 2 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of
Samuel. SSN 20. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981.
Fraade, Steven D. “‘If A Case is Too Baffling for You to Decide…’ (Deut 17:8–13):
Between Constraining and Expanding Judicial Autonomy in the Temple Scroll and
Early Rabbinic Scriptural Interpretation.” Pages 409–31 in Sibyls, Scriptures, and
Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy. Edited by Joel Baden et al. Supplements to the
Journal for the Study of Judaism 175. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
———. “Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran.” Pages 59–79 in Biblical Perspectives:
Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study
of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 12-14 May, 1996. Edited by
Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Frolov, Serge. “Rethinking Judges.” CBQ 71 (2009): 24–41.
———. The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1–8 in Synchronic and Diachronic
Perspectives. BZAW 342. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible.” Semeia 45
(1989): 89–102.
———. “Virginity in the Bible” Pages 79–96 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible
and Ancient Near East. Edited by Victor H. Matthews et al. JSOTSup 262.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998.
Galil, Gershon. “The Formation of Judges and Samuel and the Deuteronomistic
Composition.” VT 71 (2021): 566–90.
147
García Bachmann, Mercedes L. Women at Work in the Deuteronomistic History. IVBS 4.
Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013.
Garsiel, Moshe. “Puns on Names as a Literary Device in the Book of Judges.” Beit Mikra
(2008): 59–82.
———. “Word Play and Puns as Rhetorical Device in the Book of Samuel.” Pages 181–
204 in Puns and Pundits: Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern
Literature. Edited by Scott B. Noegel. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2000.
Giffone, Benjamin D. ‘Sit at My Right Hand’: The Chronicler’s Portrait of the Tribe of
Benjamin in the Social Context of Yehud. LHBOTS 628. New York: Bloomsbury,
2016.
Gooding, David W. “The Composition of the Book of Judges.” ErIsr 16 (1982): 70–79.
Gottwald, Norman K. “‘Holy War’ in Deuteronomy: Analysis and Critique. RevExp 61
(1964): 296–310.
Gravett, Sandie. “Reading ‘Rape’ in the Hebrew Bible: A Consideration of Language.”
JSOT 28 (2004): 279–99.
Greenstein, Edward L. “Recovering ‘The Women Who Served at the Entrance.’” Pages
165–73 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented
to Zecharia Kallai. Edited by Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. VTSup 81.
Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Guillaume, Philippe. “Deuteronomy’s Māqôm before Deuteronomy.” Pages 195–218 in
Deuteronomy in the Making: Studies in the Production of the Debarim. Edited by
Diana Edelman et al. BZAW 533. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021.
Gunn, David M. “Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel.” VT 24
(1974): 286–317.
———. The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation. JSOTSup 6. Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1978.
Hackett, Jo Ann. “‘Missing Women’ in Judges 19–21: A Feminist Biblical Theology
Concerning Violence Against Women.” Pages 187–200 in After Exegesis: Feminist
Biblical Theology. Edited by Patricia K. Tull and Jacqueline E. Lapsley. Waco, TX:
Baylor University Press, 2015.
Halpern, Baruch. The Constitution of the Monarchy of Israel. HSM 25. Chico, CA:
Scholars Press, 1981.
Hamley, Isabelle. “‘Dis(re)membered and Unaccounted For’: פילגש in the Hebrew Bible.”
JSOT 42 (2018): 415–34.
148
———. “What’s Wrong with ‘Playing the Harlot’?: The Meaning of זנה in Judges 19:2.”
TynBul 66 (2015): 41–62.
Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical
Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985.
Harvey, John E. Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of
Tetrateuchal Narratives. JSOTSup 403. T&T Clark: New York, 2004.
———. “Tendenz and Textual Criticism in 1 Sam 2–10.” JSOT 96 (2001): 71–81.
Hentschel, Georg. “Der Niedergang des Hauses Eli und der Aufstieg Zadoks.” Pages 83–
93 in Rereading the Relecture? The Question of (Post)chronistic Influences in the
Latest Redactions of the Books of Samuel. Edited by Uwe Becker and Hannes
Bezzel. FAT 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
Hepner, Gershon. Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel.
StBibLit 78. New York: Lang, 2010.
Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden.
OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.
Hogg, James Edward. “‘Belial’ in the Old Testament.” AJSL 44 (1927): 56–58.
Hoppe, Leslie J. “The Strategy of the Deuteronomistic History: A Proposal.” CBQ 79
(2017): 1–19.
Hugenberger, Gordon. Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed in
Malachi. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1994.
Hundley, Michael B. “Before YHWH at the Entrance of the Tent of Meeting: A Study of
Spatial and Conceptual Geography in the Priestly Texts.” ZAW 123 (2011): 15–26.
Hutton, Jeremy. The Transjordanian Palimpsest: The Overwritten Texts of Personal
Exile and Transformation in the Deuteronomistic History. BZAW 396. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2009.
Hutzli, Jürg. “The Distinctiveness of the Samuel Narrative Tradition.” Pages 171–205 in
Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a
Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Cynthia Edenburg and Juha Pakkala. AIL 16.
Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013.
Japhet, Sara. The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought.
Translated by Anna Barber. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
149
Jassen, Alex P. Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2014.
Jobling, David. “Ruth Finds a Home; Canon, Politics, Method.” Pages 125–39 in The
New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by J. Cheryl Exum and David
J.A. Clines. JSOTSup 143. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993.
———. “What, If Anything, Is 1 Samuel?” SJOT 7 (1993): 17–31.
Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1926–1965.
Joüon, Paul. “ בְּלִיַּﬠַל BÉLIAL.” Biblica 5 (1924): 178–83.
Joüon, Paul and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. SubBi 27. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2018.
Jüngling, H. W. Richter 19-Ein Plädoyer für das Königtum. AnBib 84. Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1981.
Kawashima, Robert S. “Could a Woman Say “No” in Biblical Israel? On the Genealogy
of Legal Status in Biblical Law and Literature.” AJSR 35 (2011): 1–22.
Kipfer, Sara and Jeremy M. Hutton, “The Book of Samuel and its Response to
Monarchy.” Pages 11–22 in The Book of Samuel and its Response to Monarchy.
Edited by Sara Kipfer and Jeremy M. Hutton. BWANT 228. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2021.
Klein, Johannes. “David’s Flucht zu den Philistern (I Sam. XXI 11ff; XXVII-XXIX).”
VT 55 (2005): 177–84.
Klinger, David. “Validation and Function of the Literary Allusions in Judges 19–21.”
BSac 177 (2020): 422–41.
Knauf, Ernst A. “Does ‘Deuteronomistic Historiography’ (DtrH) Exist?” Pages 388–98 in
Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research.
Edited by Albert de Pury et al. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic, 2000.
Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of
Mervyn E. J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Kratz, Reinhard G. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments:
Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. UTB 2157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2000.
150
Krisel, William. Judges 19–21 and the “Othering” of Benjamin: A Golah Polemic
against the Autochthonous Inhabitants of the Land? OtSt 81. Leiden: Brill, 2022.
———. “Was the Levite’s Concubine Unfaithful or Angry? A Proposed Solution to the
Text Critical Problem in Judg 19:2.” OTE 33 (2020): 473–89.
Landy, Francis. “Between Centre and Periphery: Space and Gender in the Book of Judges
in the Early Second Temple Period.” Pages 133–62 in Centres and Peripheries in
the Early Second Temple Period. Edited by Christoph Levin and Ehud Ben Zvi.
FAT 108. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Lasine, Stuart. “Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot’s Hospitality in an Inverted World.”
JSOT 29 (1984): 37–59.
Leithart, Peter J. A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1 & 2 Samuel. Moscow, ID: Canon Press,
2003.
Lemos, T. M. “Were Israelite Women Chattel? Shedding New Light on an Old
Question.” Pages 227–42 in Worship, Women, and War: Essays in Honor of Susan
Niditch. Edited by John J. Collins et al. BJS 357. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic
Studies, 2015.
Leonhardt-Balzer, Jutta. Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. WUNT
417. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Leuchter, Mark. “Now There Was a [Certain] Man”: Compositional Chronology in
Judges-1 Samuel.” CBQ 69 (2007): 429–39.
——— “‘The Levite in Your Gates’: The Deuteronomic Redefinition of Levitical
Authority.” JBL 126 (2007): 417–36.
———. The Levites and the Boundaries of Israelite Identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2017.
Levin, Yigal. “Amalek, Saul, and David: The Role of the Amalekites in the
Deuteronomistic History of the Early Monarchy.” Pages 105–20 in Collective
Memory and Collective Identity: Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History in
Their Context. Edited by Johannes Unsok Ro and Diana Edelman. BZAW 534.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2021.
Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997.
———. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008.
151
Lilley, John P. U. “A Literary Appreciation of the Book of Judges.” TynBul 18 (1967):
94–102.
Lipka, Hilary B. Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Bible Monographs
7. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.
Lipton, Diana. “Legal Analogy in Deuteronomy and Fratricide in the Field.” Pages 21–38
in Studies on the Test and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert
Gordon. Edited by Geoffrey Khan and Diana Lipton. VTSup 149. Leiden: Brill,
2012.
Liverani, Mario. “Messages, Women, and Hospitality: Inter-Tribal Communication in
Judges 19–21.” Pages 160–92 in Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern
Historiography. Edited by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 2004.
Lo Sardo, Domenico. “The Tent of Meeting and the Women’s Mirrors in 1 Sam 2:22 and
Exod 38:8.” Text 29 (2020): 168–92.
Lohfink, Norbert. “Darstellungskunst und Theologie in Dtn 1,6–3,29.” Biblica 41 (1960):
105–34.
Long, Burke O. “Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography.” JBL 106 (1987): 385–
99.
Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
Lyons, Michael A. “Transformation of Law: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code
(Leviticus 17–26).” Pages 1–32 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text,
Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A.
Lyons. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick,
2010.
Maag, Victor. “Belija’al im Alten Testament.” TZ 21 (1965): 287–99.
Marx, Dalia. “Women and Priests: Encounters and Dangers as Reflected in I Samuel
2:22.” Lectio Difficilior 1 (2011): 1–22.
Matthews, Victor H. “Entrance Ways and Threshing Floors: Legally Significant Sites in
the Ancient Near East.” Fides et Historia 19 (1987): 25–40.
———. “Honor and Shame in Gender-Related Legal Situations in the Hebrew Bible.”
Pages 97–112 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East.
Edited by Victor H. Matthews et al. JSOTSup 262. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1998.
———. “Hospitality and Hostility in Genesis 19 and Judges 19.” BTB 22 (1992): 3–11.
152
———. “Looking for Levites in the book of Judges.” HBT 35 (2013): 136–50.
Mattison, Kevin. Rewriting and Revision as Amendment in the Laws of Deuteronomy.
FAT 100. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018.
Mayes, Andrew D. H. “Deuteronomistic Royal Ideology in Judges 17–21.” BibInt 9
(2001): 241–58.
McCarter, Kyle P. I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and
Commentary. AB 8. New York: Double Day, 1980.
———. “The Apology of David.” JBL 99 (1980): 489–504.
———. “The Books of Samuel.” Pages 260–80 in The History of Israel’s Traditions:
The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Patrick M.
Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.
McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2002.
McKenzie, C. S. “Hebrew Bible Innerbiblical Interpretation.” Pages 227–30 in Methods
of Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004.
McKenzie, Steven L. King David: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Meredith, Christopher. “A Case of Open and Shut: The Five Thresholds in 1 Samuel 1:1–
7:2.” BibInt 18 (2010): 137–57.
Meyers, Carol. Exodus. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Michalak, Aleksander R. Angels as Warriors in Late Second Temple Jewish Literature.
WUNT 330. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.
Milgrom, Jacob. “The Alleged ‘Demythologization and Secularization’ in
Deuteronomy.” Review of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, by
Moshe Weinfeld. IEJ 23 (1973): 156–61.
Milstein, Sara J. Making a Case: The Practical Roots of Biblical Law. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2021.
———. “Saul the Levite and His Concubine: The ‘Allusive’ Quality of Judges 19.” VT
66 (2016): 95–116.
———. “Separating the Wheat from the Chaff: The Independent Logic of Deuteronomy
22:25–27.” JBL 137 (2018): 625–43.
153
———. “The Origins of the Laws.” Pages 76–94 in The Cambridge Companion to Law
in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Bruce Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2024.
———. Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and
Mesopotamian Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Miscall, Peter D. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1986.
Moran, William L. “The End of the Unholy War and the Anti-Exodus.” Pages 156–68 in
A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy.
SBTS 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993.
Moster, David Z. “The Levite of Judges 17–18.” JBL 133 (2014): 729–37.
———. “The Levite of Judges 19–21.” JBL 134 (2015): 721–30.
Müller, Reinhard. “1 Samuel as the Opening Chapter of the Deuteronomistic History?”
Pages 207–24 in Is Samuel Among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place
of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Cynthia Edenburg and Juha
Pakkala. AIL 16. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2013.
Müllner, Ilse. “Lethal Differences: Sexual Violence as Violence Against Others in Judges
19.” Pages 126– 42 in A Feminist Companion to Judges. Edited by Athalya
Brenner-Idan. FCBS 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.
Myers, Jaime A. “The Wicked ‘Sons of Eli’ and the Composition of 1 Sam 1–4.” VT 72
(2022): 237–56.
Naumann, Thomas. “‘Der König weint’ – Das öffentliche Weinen des Königs als Mittel
politischer Kommunikation in alttestamentlichen Texten.” Pages 258–78 in The
Book of Samuel and its Response to Monarchy. Edited by Sara Kipfer and Jeremy
M. Hutton. BWANT 228. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2021.
Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1981.
Niditch, Susan. Judges: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.
———. “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19–20: Family, Community; and Social
Disintegration.” CBQ 44 (1982): 365–78.
———. “‘The Traffic in Women’: Exchange, Ritual Sacrifice, and War.” Pages 115–24
in Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible: New Perspectives. Edited by Saul M.
Olyan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
154
———. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Nitzan, Bilha. “Evil and its Symbols in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 83–96 in The
Problem of Evil and its Symbols in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Edited by
Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman. JSOTSup 366. London: T&T Clark,
2004.
Noll, Kurt L. “Deuteronomistic History or Deuteronomistic Debate? A Thought
Experiment.” JSOT 31 (2007): 311–45.
———. The Faces of David. JSOTSup 242. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.
Noth, Martin. Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J.S. Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1962.
———. The Deuteronomistic History. Translated by Jane Doull and John Barton. 2nd ed.
JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991.
O’Brien, Mark A. “Deuteronomy 16:18–18:22: Meeting the Challenge of Towns and
Nations.” JSOT 33 (2008): 155–72.
———. “Judges and the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 235–59 in The History of
Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie
and M. Patrick Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.
Olson, Dennis T. “The Book of Judges.” Pages 721–888 in vol. 2 of NIB. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1998.
Osten-Sacken, Peter von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen
zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1969.
Oswald, Wolfgang. “Defeating Amalek, Defending the Constitution: The Political
Theory of Ex 17:8–16.” Pages 61–72 in The Reception of Biblical War Legislation
in Narrative Contexts. Edited by Christoph Berner and Harald Samuel. BZAW 460.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015.
Otero, Andrés Piquer. “Some Philological Notes on the Sons of Belial and the
Septuagint.” MEAH 60 (2011): 191–208.
Otto, Eckart. “Aspects of Legal Reforms and Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform and
Israelite Law.” Pages 160–96 in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform
Law: Revision, Interpolation, and Development. Edited by Bernard Levinson.
JSOTSup 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.
———. Deuteronomium 12–34. HthKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2016.
155
———. “False Weights in the Scales of Biblical Justice? Different Views of Women
from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy.”
Pages 128–46 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East.
Edited by Victor H. Matthews et al. JSOTSup 262. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1998.
Paganini, Simone. “Searching for Continuity, Laws, and Narrative in Deuteronomy:
Observations about Warfare-Legislation and War-Narrative.” ZABR 20 (2014):
107–14.
Pearce, Sarah J. K. The Words of Moses: Studies in the Reception of Deuteronomy in the
Second Temple Period. TSAJ 152. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Pederson, Johannes. Israel: Its Life and Culture. Translated by Geoffrey Cumberlege.
London: Oxford University Press, 1926.
Phillips, Anthony. “NEBALAH: A Term for Serious Disorderly and Unruly Conduct.”
VT 25 (1975): 237–42.
Pisano, Stephen. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses
and Minuses in the Masoretic, LXX, and Qumran Texts. OBO 57. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.
Polzin, Robert. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic
History. Part One: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1980.
———. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History.
Part Two: 1 Samuel. New York: Harper & Row, 1989.
Pressler, Carolyn. “Sexual Violence and Deuteronomic Law.” Pages 102–12 in A
Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB
6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.
———. The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws. BZAW 216.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993.
———. “Wives and Daughters, Bond and Free: Views of Women in the Slave Laws of
Exodus 21:2–11.” Pages 147–72 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the
Ancient Near East. Edited by Victor H. Matthews et al. JSOTSup 262. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 1998.
Propp, William H. C. Exodus 19–40. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 2006.
Quick, Laura. “Averting Curses in the Law of War (Deuteronomy 20).” ZAW 132 (2020):
209–23.
156
———. “Through a Glass, Darkly: Reflections on the Translation and Interpretation of
Exodus 38:8.” CBQ 81 (2019): 595–612.
Rabin, Chaim. “The Origin of the Hebrew Word Pīlegeš.” JJS (1974): 353–64.
Reeder, Caryn A. “Deuteronomy 21.10–14 and/as Wartime Rape.” JSOT 41 (2017): 313–
36.
———. “Wives and Daughters: Women, Sex, and Violence in the Biblical Tradition.”
ExAud 28 (2012): 122–46.
Rey, M. I. “Reexamination of the Foreign Female Captive: Deuteronomy 21:10–14 as a
Case of Genocidal Rape.” JFSR 32 (2016): 37–53.
Rhyder, Julia. “The Tent of Meeting as Monumental Space: The Construction of Priestly
Sanctuary in Exodus 25–31; 35–40.” HBAI 10 (2021): 301–13.
Richter, Wolfgang. Die sogenannten vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte: Eine
literaturwissenschaftliche Studie zu 1 Sam 9, 1–10, 16, Ex. 3f und Ri 6,11b–17.
FRLANT 101. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.
Rofé, Alexander. Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation. London: T&T Clark, 2002.
———. “The Justification of the Lord’s Verdict: Textual and Literary Inventions in
Samuel and Kings.” Pages 261–70 in Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and
Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz. Edited by S.
Yona et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
———. “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent, and
Positivity,” JSOT 32 (1985): 23–44.
———. “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrence in
‘4QSama.’” RevQ 14 (1989): 247–54.
Rosenberg, Ruth. “The Concept of Biblical ‘Belial.’” Proceedings of the World Congress
of Jewish Studies 8/A (1982): 35–40.
Rost, Leonhard. Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. BWANT 3. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1926.
Ross, William A. “Style and Familiarity in Judges 19:7 (Old Greek): Establishing
Dependence Within the Septuagint.” Biblica 98 (2017): 25–36.
Rossi, Benedetta. “Authority, Prestige or Subversion? Jeremiah and the Law Code of
Deuteronomy.” Pages 383–410 in Deuteronomy in the Making: Studies in the
Production of the Debarim. Edited by Diana Edelman et al. BZAW 533. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 2021.
157
Rothstein, David. “Deuteronomy 22:21 in the Ancient Versions: Textual and Legal
Considerations.” ZABR 21 (2015): 253–74.
Römer, Thomas. “The Invention of History in Ancient Judah and the Formation of the
Hebrew Bible.” WO 45 (2015): 255–72.
———. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary
Introduction. London: T&T Clark, 2005.
Russell, Stephen C. “Monarchy and Law in the Pre-Exilic Period.” Pages 333–52 in The
Oxford Handbook of Biblical Law. Edited by Pamela Barmash. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2019.
Samuel, Harald. “Competing Competencies: The Struggle for Authority in Deut 17:8–13
in Comparative Perspective.” Pages 178–92 in Debating Authority: Concepts of
Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. Edited by Katharina
Psychny and Sarah Schulz. BZAW 507. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018.
——— . “Deuteronomic War Prescriptions and Deuteronomistic Wars.” Pages 139–54 in
The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts. Edited by
Christoph Berner and Harald Samuel. BZAW 460. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015.
Sasson, Jack. Judges 1–12. AB 6. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.
Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Pre-Maccabean Halakhah in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Biblical Tradition.” DSD 13 (2006): 348–61.
Schneid-Ofseyer, Miriam. “The Concubine of Gibeah (Judges 19–21).” JBQ 18 (1989):
111–13.
Schneider, Tammi J. Judges. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.
Schulz, Sarah. Die Anfänge zum Richterbuch: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung von Ri 17-21. BZAW 477. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016.
Schwartz, Sarah. “Law and Order in Judges 19–21.” JANES 35 (2021): 121–50.
Scott, Samantha J. “Recovering Daughters Reconsidering the Translation of בָּנָיו in
1 Samuel 30,22.” BN 199 (2023): 63–70.
Shargent, Karla G. “Living on the Edge: The Liminality of Daughters in Genesis to 2
Samuel.” Pages 26–42 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited
by Athalya Brenner. FCB 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994.
Smend, Rudolf. “Das Gesetz und die Völker: ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen
Redaktiongeschichte.” Pages 148–61 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard
von Rod zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by H. W. Wolff. Munich: Kaiser, 1971.
158
Smith, Mark S. “‘Midrash’ in the Book of Judges: The Cases of Judges 3:31 and 6:7–10.”
CBQ 78 (2016): 256–71.
Soggin, Jan Alberto. “Der prophetische Gedanke über den heiligen Krieg, als Gericht
gegen Israel.” VT 10 (1960): 79–83.
———. Judges: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1981.
Southwood, Katherine. Marriage by Capture in the Book of Judges: An Anthropological
Approach. SOTSMS 1. Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
——— . “‘This Man Has Come into My House’: Hospitality in Genesis 19; 34; and
Judges 19.” BibInt 26 (2018): 469–84.
Spronk, Klaas. “Parallel Structures in Judges and the Formation of the Book.” JSOT 46
(2022): 306–318.
Stackert, Jeffrey. “Before and After Scripture: Narrative Chronology in the Revision of
Torah Texts.” JAJ 4 (2013): 168–85.
———. Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2022.
———. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness
Legislation. FAT 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Stein, David. “The Grammar of Social Gender in Biblical Hebrew.” HS 49 (2008): 7–26.
Sternberger, J. P. “Jacob, Heli, David, Cambyse: le motif de la concubine dans quelques
recits de crises de succession (Gn 34; 35, 21–22; 1 S 2,22; 2 S 13; 15–17).” Transeu
39 (2010): 153–68.
Steudel, Annette. “God and Belial.” Pages 332–40 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years
after their Discovery 1947–1997, Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–
25, 1997. Edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman et al. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000.
Stulman, Louis J. “Encroachment in Deuteronomy: An Analysis of the Social World of
the D Code.” JBL 109 (1990): 613–32.
———. “Sex and Familial Crimes in the D Code: A Witness to Mores in Transition.”
JSOT 53 (1992): 47–63.
Sweeney, Marvin A. 1–2 Samuel. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2023.
159
———. “Eli: A High Priest Thrown Under the Wheels of the Ox Cart.” Pages 59–75 in
Characters and Characterization in the Book of Samuel. Edited by Keith Bodner
and Benjamin J. M. Johnson. LHBOTS 669. New York: T&T Clark, 2020.
Sykora, Josef. “‘Only Be Like the Philistine Priests!’ A Comparison of the Philistines’
Offering in 1 Sam 6 and the Sacrificial Actions of Eli’s House in 1 Sam 2–4.” VT
69 (2019): 701–21.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1996.
Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 3rd ed.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.
Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. OBT 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.
———. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. OBT 13.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Tromp, Nicholas J. Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old
Testament. BibOr 21. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.
Tsumura, David Toshio. The First Book of Samuel. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,
2007.
Tucker, Paavo. “Reconsidering Βελίαρ: 2 Corinthians 6:15 in Its Anti-Imperial Jewish
Apocalyptic Context.” Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters 4 (2014): 169–
85.
Ulrich, Eugene Charles. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. HSM 19. Missoula,
MT: Scholars Press, 1971.
Van Seters, John. The Biblical Saga of King David. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Veijola, Timo. Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen
Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1977.
———. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der
deuteronomistischen Darstellung. AASF 193. Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia, 1975.
Vroom, Johnathan. “Recasting Mišpāṭîm: Legal Innovation in Leviticus 24:10–23.” JBL
131 (2012): 27–44.
Waltke, Bruce K and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
160
Washington, Harold C. “‘Lest He Die in the Battle and Another Man Take Her’:
Violence and the Construction of Gender in the Laws of Deuteronomy 20–22.”
Pages 185–213 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East.
Edited by Victor H. Matthews et al. JSOTSup 262. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic,
1998.
Webb, Barry G. The Book of Judges. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1972.
Wieser, Artur. “Die Legitimation des Königs David: Zur Eigenart und Entstehung der
sogen. Geschichte von Davids Aufstieg.” VT 16 (1966): 325–54.
Wells, Bruce. “Is It Law or Religion? Legal Motivations in Deuteronomic and Neo-
Babylonian Texts.” Pages 287–310 in Law and Religion in the Eastern
Mediterranean: From Antiquity to Early Islam. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn and
Reinhard G. Kratz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
———. Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape: The Slandered Bride and False Accusation in
Deuteronomy.” JBL 124 (2005): 41–72.
———. “The Cultic Versus the Forensic: Judahite and Mesopotamian Judicial
Procedures in the First Millennium B.C.E.” JAOS 128 (2008): 215–22.
Wenham, G. J. and J. G. McConville. “Drafting Techniques in Some Deuteronomic
Laws.” VT 30 (1980): 248–52.
Westbrook, April D. ‘And He Will Take Your Daughters…’ Woman Story and the Ethical
Evaluation of the Monarchy in the David Narrative. LHBOTS 610. London: T&T
Clark, 2015.
Westbrook, Raymond D. “Cuneiform Law Codes and the Origins of Legislation.” ZA 79
(1989): 201–22.
———. “Reflections on Neo-Babylonian Law.” Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity 4
(2005): 133–46.
———. “The Female Slave.” Pages 214–38 in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and
the Ancient Near East. Edited by Victor H. Matthews et al. JSOTSup 262.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998.
Whitelam, Keith W. The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel.
JSOTSup 12. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979.
161
Williamson, H. G. M. “History.” Pages 25–38 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture.
Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M.
Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Willis, John T. “Cultic Elements in the Story of Samuel’s Birth and Dedication.” ST 26
(1972): 33–61.
Wilson, Robert R. “Israel’s Judicial System in the Preexilic Period.” JQR 74 (1983):
229–48.
Yamada, Frank. Configurations of Rape: in the Hebrew Bible: A Literary Analysis of
Three Rape Narratives. StBibLit 109. New York: Lang, 2008.
Yee, Gale. “Ideological Criticism: Judges–21 and the Dismembered Body.” Pages 146–
70 in Judges and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis:
Augsburg Fortress, 1995.
Zakovitch, Yair. “The Woman’s Rights in the Biblical Law of Divorce.” JLA 4 (1981):
28–46.
