Who Was Bathsheba? How Intertextuality helps

Who Was Bathsheba? How Intertextuality helps

Bathsheba
Bathsheba

Discerning Bathsheba’s character has proven to be challenging to Bible readers and scholars. Today’s Western culture has also made any evaluation of Bathsheba, an extremely sensitive issue. Note these two contrasting posts I discovered on the internet (David, Bathsheba, and Woke Exegesis, and Bathsheba Naked).  Scholars have assigned various labels to Bathsheba. She has been characterized as a clever and calculating woman by some and a naive, or foolish woman by others. Still others would characterize her as a victim of the abusive power of kingship.

What makes an evaluation of Bathsheba so difficult is that the text offers very little information about her. The following array of questions taken from my book Family Portraits, illustrates how little we know.

“Did Bathsheba position herself in a place where she knew David would be able to see her or does his vantage point on the roof of the palace allow him viewing access into the privacy of her home or courtyard? Is Bathsheba’s bath in verse 2 connected to the statement of her purifying herself in verse 4? Does the statement, “she was cleansed from her impurity” (v. 4) refer to the end of her menstrual cycle, or to bathing after having intercourse with David? Is Bathsheba a foreigner or an Israelite? Why does David send for her knowing that she is a trusted soldier’s wife? Why does Bathsheba come? Does David take her by force, or does she come willingly?” (p. 231)

Intertextuality to the Rescue

The above subtitle probably promises more than it is able to deliver, but nonetheless, intertextuality is an important resource that provides insight. In last week’s post (Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel), I noted how intertextuality (sometimes referred to as typology) can be a fruitful avenue that allows Scripture to interpret Scripture. In Bathsheba’s case, there are two important texts within the Books of Samuel that provide fertile ground for better understanding this enigmatic person. Both texts share similar themes, motifs, and words with the David and Bathsheba story in 2 Samuel 11. The two texts also involve two other women. The first, 1 Samuel 25, is the story of Abigail, another of David’s wives acquired from another man. The second, 2 Samuel 13, the story of Tamar, David’s daughter, follows immediately upon the story of David and Bathsheba.

Bathsheba Through the Eyes of Abigail (1 Sam. 25; 2 Sam. 11)

(The following paragraphs on Abigail and Tamar are excerpted from my book Family Portraits, pp. 239-243, with a few minor changes.)

Abigail intercedes with David to save the life of her household.

Many scholars have noted the connection between the stories of Abigail and Bathsheba. In some ways Abigail’s account is a mirror image of Bathsheba’s story with a few interesting twists (This observation, and some of the insights that follow, are from Adele Berlin, “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s Wives, JSOT, 23, 1982, pp. 69-85). Both are married when David meets them and both become his wife after the death of their respective husbands. Abigail’s husband is an evil man, Bathsheba’s a good one. Abigail’s words that the one who fights the Lord’s battles should not be guilty of “evil” (1 Sam. 25:28–31), anticipate David’s actions in 2 Samuel 11 (see esp. v. 27).  At the nadir of his power, a woman saves him; at the height of his power, he is imperiled by a woman (Joel Rosenberg, King and Kin, p. 152). Nabal commits a foolish act potentially leading to his death at the hands of David, but Abigail intercedes and saves him thus saving David from shedding innocent blood. Uriah is innocent, yet Bathsheba commits (or is coerced into committing) a foolish act which leads to his death. David becomes guilty of shedding innocent blood and she does nothing (perhaps can do nothing) to prevent it. When a crisis strikes, Abigail knows what to do, Bathsheba does not. Nabal refuses to take from his abundant flocks and so does David (2 Sam. 12:1-6). Both Abigail and Bathsheba are said to be beautiful women (different Hebrew words).

A survey of these stories also demonstrates that they share a host of similar vocabulary. The following list is a sample of these similarities with Scripture references to Abigail’s story occurring first (1 Sam. 25), followed by those in the Bathsheba story (2 Sam. 11–12):

David sends and inquires (25:5; 11:4, 6–7)

David sends messengers (25:14, 42; 11:4)

David takes (25:40; 11:4)

Nabal is evil in his doings; David does evil (25:3; 11:27)

evil should not be found in David; David commits evil (25:28; 11:27)

threefold use of “peace” (25:6; 11:7)

sword (25:13; 11:25; 12:9, 10)

dead or died (25:37, 38, 39; 11:15, 17, 21, 24, 26)

wash the feet (25:41; 11:8)

descend (25:23; 11:8–13)

morning (25:22, 34, 37; 11:14)

drinking and being drunk (25:36; 11:11, 13)

swearing an oath, “As the Lord lives…” (25:26, 34; 11:11)

wall (25:16; 11:20, 21, 24)

“hasten” and “tomorrow”—same letters in Hebrew (25:18, 23; 11:12)

Although words are often used in different ways between the two stories, and some occurrences may be coincidental, the similarities are striking. In particular, David’s sending messengers, the threefold use of the word “peace,” the words “sword” and “dead,” the description of Nabal and David doing “evil,” and the phrase “wash the feet” (which only occurs in these two passages in the books of Samuel), strongly suggest correspondences between these two accounts. The correlation of theme and vocabulary indicates that a comparison between Abigail and Bathsheba would be fruitful and might unveil some of the ambiguity present in Bathsheba’s character in 2 Samuel 11.

Carole Fontaine has noted “the clustering of typical wisdom motifs in vocabulary and theme” found in 2 Samuel 11–12 (The Bearing of Wisdom on the Shape of 2 Samuel 11-12, and 1 Kings 3, JSOT, 34, 1986, pp. 61-77). In a previous chapter we observed that the story of Abigail also contains vocabulary and motifs consistent with the themes of wisdom and folly (Chapter 18 of Family Portraits). This recognition creates yet another link between the stories of Abigail and Bathsheba. The most ironic contrast between the two is that Abigail’s action saves her “good-for-nothing” husband Nabal from death, while Bathsheba’s action sends her good husband Uriah to his death. This contrast highlights the wisdom motif of the woman who brings death. Fontaine notes the similarity of language in Proverbs 6:22 with the opening of the story in 2 Samuel 11. Speaking of the commandments and teachings of one’s parents (which ultimately derive from the Lord), Proverbs 6:22 states, “When you walk they will lead you; when you lie down they will watch over you” (ESV). I have highlighted the words “walk” and “lie down” because they are precisely the words that characterize David’s action in 2 Samuel 11:2, 4. The proverb goes on to warn that the commandment will “preserve you from the evil woman, from the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart” (Prov. 6:24–25a). The proverb continues,

Can a man carry fire next to his chest and his clothes not be burned?Or can one walk on hot coals and his feet not be scorched? So is he who goes into his neighbor’s wife; None who touches her will go unpunished. (Prov. 6:27–29, ESV)

The correspondences, though not exact, cannot help but make one think of the David and Bathsheba affair. While Bathsheba may not have intentionally seduced David she is, nonetheless, the woman who brings death, not to her fellow adulterer in this case, but to her husband. The counterpart of the adulteress in Proverbs 6 is “Woman Wisdom” in Proverbs 9. Similarly, Bathsheba’s act foolishly puts her husband in harm’s way while Abigail acts wisely in saving her husband. When one adds up Bathsheba’s naiveté and passivity the sum total is foolishness.

It is not just these similarities, however, that associate Bathsheba with the woman who brings death; a reference within the story of chapter 11 also suggests this equation. When Joab sends a messenger back to David with the news of Uriah’s death, he refers to the story of Abimelech in Judges 9 (2 Sam. 11:21). Uriah has just died because the Israelite army got too close to the city wall. Similarly, Abimelech, the petty tyrant king of Shechem, died when he got too close to the city wall and a woman cast a millstone on his head (Judg. 9:50–54). This may have become a proverbial story in Israel about the dangers of getting too close to an enemy’s wall and may explain why Joab anticipates David citing it. Within the context of the story, however, it takes on a deeper meaning, for it was Bathsheba’s act of lying with David that directly resulted in Uriah’s death at the foot of the wall in Rabbah. Like the other correspondences, this one is not exact. It is simply one more nail in the coffin that convicts Bathsheba of a foolish action.

Bathsheba Through the Eyes of Tamar (2 Sam. 11 and 13)

Tamar and Amnon
The terrible story of Tamar and Amnon provides a comparison for evaluating Bathsheba’s character.

The story of Amnon and Tamar in 2 Samuel 13 is the sequel to the story of David and Bathsheba. It is the beginning of the fulfillment of the Lord’s word of judgment in 2 Samuel 12:11: “Behold I will raise up evil against you from your own house” (my translation). Just as David has illicit sex in his house, so too does his son Amnon. Verbs once again draw a parallel between the actions of father and son. Just as David “sent” for Bathsheba, so he innocently “sends” his daughter Tamar to Amnon’s house (13:7). Ironically Amnon “lies down” on his “bed” (13:5), the posture David was in at the beginning of 2 Samuel 11:2. The word “lie” also describes Amnon’s sin (13:11, 14), as it does David’s (11:4). Wisdom motifs and vocabulary are once again prevalent in 2 Samuel 13, indicating a further link with chapters 11–12. These parallels once again suggest that we may profit from a comparison between Bathsheba and Tamar in order to gain a clearer understanding of her character.

Like Bathsheba, Tamar is said to be beautiful (13:1, although a different Hebrew word is used). Tamar is sent by David to Amnon’s house in order to make him some food so that he might recover from his “illness” (13:6–8). She remains unsuspecting of any ulterior motive, even when Amnon orders everyone else out of the house and tells her to come into his bedroom (13:9–10). Our portrait of Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11 proposed that she was naive (not included in this post but explored earlier in my examination of 2 Sam. 11); may we suggest that the parallel with Tamar adds weight to that proposal? We also inferred the possibility that Bathsheba may not have known why she was sent for. The same is true of Tamar. She believes she was sent to minister to her sick brother; the true purpose of her visit has been concealed from her. Here, however, the similarities end. When Amnon forcefully expresses his intentions, Tamar protests (13:12–13). Her language invokes the words “fool” and “folly” as she tries to dissuade her brother from his predetermined course of action. We note an important difference here between Tamar and Bathsheba. The words describing Bathsheba’s actions in 11:4–5 gave no hint of resistance, and certainly the text records no words of protest. Tamar protests the foolish act being forced upon her; Bathsheba acquiesces. Once again a comparison of stories yields a verdict of foolishness in regard to Bathsheba.

Scripture affirms the importance of more than one witness in determining a conviction (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Although Bathsheba’s portrait in 2 Samuel 11 is ambiguous, there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest a certain understanding of her character. The witness of Abigail and Tamar seems to solidify our suggestion that Bathsheba is a naive and passive woman who does not have the wisdom or strength to extricate herself from a dangerous situation. If we were to hold court on Bathsheba’s character, based on the evidence of 2 Samuel 11 and our two witnesses, we would have to conclude she is not a cunning, manipulative, or malicious person. She is simply foolish. (end of section from Family Portraits)

As I noted parenthetically above, the chapter on Bathsheba in my book also explores the scene in 2 Samuel 11 which is not included here. The point here is to demonstrate the insights that can be gained from investigating texts with similar themes, motifs, and words. Hopefully, this post has demonstrated that a look at the stories of Abigail and Tamar can provide insight into the, otherwise, ambiguous character of Bathsheba.

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.Family Portraits

 

Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel

Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel

Meeting of Jacob and Rachel
“The Meeting of Jacob and Rachel” by William Dyce (mid-nineteenth century).

Rachel is one of the matriarchs of Israel. As such, she plays an important role in the unfolding story of the Book of Genesis. Rachel is best known as the beloved wife of Jacob (Gen. 29:18-20), and the mother of Joseph (Gen. 30:22-24). Other famous episodes in her life include the rivalry between her and her sister Leah (Gen. 30:8), her stealing the household gods of her father Laban (Gen. 31:19), and the birth of her second born son Benjamin which results in her death (Gen. 35:16-20). Many readers of 1 Samuel may be unaware of the numerous allusions to Rachel in its pages. Since Rachel lived approximately 800 years before the events recorded in 1 Samuel, what is the significance of the constant allusions to her? A brief discussion of typology, or intertextuality, as it is frequently referred to, is necessary to answer this question. Then we will look at each occurrence in 1 Samuel that alludes to Rachel and seek to understand its significance.

Typology, or Intertextuality in the Bible

I have written more extensively on the topic of typology elsewhere (see here). Peter Leithart provides a good succinct definition. He writes, “Typology means that earlier characters and events are understood as figures of later characters and events, and the text is written in a way that brings out the connection” (Peter Leithart, “A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1&2 Samuel,” p. 13). As I explained in my post on typology: “Biblical authors intentionally recall earlier stories, characters, and events as a way of commenting on the story, character, or event they are relating. The student of the Bible is being invited to compare the stories or characters in order to notice these similarities and differences. Through this comparison, the reader gains insight into what the biblical author is communicating. This is especially helpful when one is trying to understand a particular biblical character.” This practice or technique is what is meant by intertextuality. To put it simply, it is using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Texts Alluding to Rachel in 1 Samuel and Their Meaning

Hannah and Rachel

Hannah and Peninnah
The conflict between Hannah and Peninnah recalls the conflict between Rachel and Leah.

1 Samuel begins with an immediate allusion to Rachel. Elkanah’s marriage to Hannah and Peninnah recalls Jacob’s marriage to Rachel and Leah (1 Sam. 1:1-6). This allusion is further solidified by the fact that one woman is barren (Hannah/Rachel) and one is fertile (Leah/Peninnah), which leads to conflict between them. Robert Polzin (Samuel and the Deuteronomist), followed by Keith Bodner (1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary), suggests that the birth story of Samuel (the kingmaker) looks forward to the birth of kingship in Israel. There are a number of connections in 1 Sam. 1 with 1 Sam. 8-9. The conflict between the women leads Bodner to conclude: “The advent of kingship in Israel will also produce conflict, and at this point in the story this conflict is symbolically represented in Hannah and Peninnah” (p. 16).

Ichabod and Rachel

Rachel dies giving birth
The Birth of Benjamin and the death of Rachel by D. Chiesura.

The birth of Ichabod in 1 Samuel 4:19-22 contains the next allusion to Rachel. When the daughter-in-law of Eli hears of his death, the death of her husband (Phinehas), and the capture of the ark, she is overcome with premature labor and gives birth. The birth is difficult and results in her death. Before dying, however, she gives her son a strange name–Ichabod–which means, “the glory has departed.” These circumstances bear some resemblance to the story of Rachel giving birth to Benjamin. It should also be noted that the man who delivers the bad tidings in 1 Sam. 4 is “a man from Benjamin” (1 Sam. 4:12). When Rachel gives birth, she too dies, and in the process, she also gives her son an unusual name with a sad meaning. Benjamin’s original name as given by Rachel is Ben-Oni which means “son of my sorrow.” Apparently Jacob did not wish his son to be stuck with such a negative legacy and so changed his name to Benjamin (Gen. 35:18). In my book, Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel, I suggest the following application: “The parallel between the two birth stories may lie in the contrast they provide to one another. Ben-Oni does not properly reflect the future of Jacob’s family, and so Jacob changes his son’s name to Benjamin. However, the name, Ichabod, stands because it is a true reflection of the situation—“the glory has departed” (p. 77). It should be remembered that Saul is a Benjamite. Barbara Green (How Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study of King Saul in 1 Samuel, p. 145) points out that the news the man from Benjamin brings leads to the mother’s death and the outcry of the people. Is this perhaps a harbinger of the problems that Saul’s kingship will bring upon Israel? It is interesting that a few of the ancient Rabbis even identified this Benjamite as the young man Saul!

Saul and Rachel

Samuel anoints Saul
When Samuel anoints Saul, he gives him 3 signs. The first concerns Rachel’s tomb.

While the previous story of Ichabod’s birth alludes to Rachel’s death, the next story expressly mentions her tomb. After Saul is anointed by Samuel, he is given three signs to confirm his appointment. The first sign involves encountering two men by Rachel’s tomb (1 Sam. 10:2). As Saul arrives at the tomb of the matriarch of his tribe, he will receive news that the donkeys he went to seek have been found, and that his father is concerned about what has happened to him. While the immediate context confirms Samuel’s word that the Lord has anointed him, some suggest that in the bigger picture of Saul’s story the mention of Rachel’s tomb and the words of his father, may sound an ominous note. A tomb quite naturally speaks of death. Peter Miscall (1 Samuel: A Literary Reading) remarks, “…’tomb’ tips the ambiguous symbol of Benjamin toward the pole of misfortune and death” (p. 55). Regarding the father’s words, Bodner comments, “…the words of Saul’s father Kish mean more than the speaker(s) may realize. Kish says, ‘What will I do about my son?, suggesting that uncertainty clouds the future of his son” (p. 94).

Michal and Rachel

Michal's idol recalls Rachel
Michal hiding an idol in David’s bed is reminiscent of Rachel hiding idols in her saddlebag.

When Saul threatens David’s life, Michal seeks to protect him. Michal helps David out through a window in the house and then does something very interesting. She takes an idol (one wonders where she gets it), puts it in David’s bed and covers the head with goat’s hair (1 Sam. 19:11-17). When Saul’s soldiers come to take him, she claims that David is sick which allows David extra time to escape. Several features of this story recall incidents in the lives of both Jacob and Rachel. Bodner sums up the similarities: “Both of these episodes feature deceptive father-in-laws (Laban and Saul), younger daughters (Rachel and Michal), fugitive husbands (Jacob and David), and hidden idols (author’s italics, p. 206). In Family Portraits, my conclusion is: “Although Rachel is one of the matriarchs of Israel, the comparison here is not flattering. It serves to confirm that Michal’s religious devotion is misplaced” (p. 127). Michal’s possession of an idol, and lying to her father that David threatened to kill her, places her in a negative light, in spite of the fact that she saved David’s life on this occasion.

Saul and David, Rachel and Leah

In the larger picture of 1&2 Samuel we learn that Saul ,the first king, is a member of the Tribe of Benjamin. David, of course, is from the Tribe of Judah. Genesis reveals that Rachel had two sons, Joseph and Benjamin. The first king of Israel is, therefore, a descendant of Rachel’s. The Tribe of Judah, however, is descended through Leah and Judah becomes the preeminent son among Leah’s progeny (Gen. 49:8-12). The conflict between David (Judah) and Saul (Benjamin) is reminiscent of the conflict between the two matriarchal mothers and sisters, Rachel and Leah. Interestingly, although Rachel was the most loved by Jacob, it was Leah who rested by him in the end, as she and Jacob were both buried in the ancestral cave at Machpelah purchased by Abraham (Gen. 49:29-31). Similarly, it was David, the descendant of Leah, persecuted by Saul, the descendant of Rachel, who triumphed in the  end.

Conclusion

Rachel is one of the revered matriarchs of Israel and deserves her place among the great women of the nation. Yet, it must be said, that her character description in Genesis, like that of her husband Jacob, is less than ideal. She is remembered for being beautiful (Gen. 29:17) and to her credit, she seeks the Lord in her barrenness and is granted a son (Gen. 30:22-24). However, she also has a fiery temper and a competitive nature driven, at least at times, by envy (Gen. 30:1-2). Rachel, like Jacob, can also be deceptive. As illustrated when she steals her father’s gods and lies about it (Gen. 31:19, 34-35).

When we turn to the allusions of Rachel in 1 Samuel, once again negativity dominates. Rachel’s comparison with Hannah is indeed a positive (both are the loved wife who is barren), but the similarity also extends to the conflict and rivalry represented in both families. The allusion between Benjamin’s birth and Ichabod’s is foreboding of difficult times ahead. If “the glory has departed” at the birth of Ichabod and he is the “new Benjamin,” then what does that forecast for the future of the tribe of Benjamin? We have already noted above that Saul’s first sign of kingship being confirmed in the vicinity of Rachel’s tomb does not seem to suggest a bright future. Finally, the similarities between Rachel and Michal are not complimentary to either, but, in the end, Rachel certainly fares better than Michal in biblical history.

Except for some aspects in the comparison with Hannah, it must be said that all of the allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel are designed to communicate a negative message. Perhaps this relates to our final point above that the kingship was ultimately not destined for a descendant of Rachel from the Tribe of Benjamin, but for a descendant of Leah from the Tribe of Judah, and this may be one of the main reasons that the inspired author draws so many allusions to her in 1 Samuel.

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.Family Portraits

 

John the Baptist and Salome’s Dance Floor

John the Baptist and Salome’s Dance Floor

Beheading of John the Baptist
Salome presents the head of John the Baptist to her mother.

The beheading of John the Baptist is a well-known story. Even many who aren’t familiar with the New Testament have heard the story of the dance of Salome that cost John his head. Artists throughout the ages have dramatized the grizzly scene of John’s head being brought on a plate by the young girl (see above). Recently, Győző Vörös, director of the excavations at Machaerus, announced that he has pinpointed the area where Salome’s deadly dance took place.

Herod’s Palace Fortress at Machaerus

Aerial photograph of archaeological site of Machaerus.  [Credit: Gyozo Voros]
The death of John the Baptist is not only recorded in Scripture, it was also recorded by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. In fact, it is Josephus’s account that locates John’s execution at Machaerus, one of Herod’s mountaintop fortresses. The fortress was originally built during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus, one of the Hasmonean rulers (more popularly referred to as the Maccabees). Herod the Great refurbished and strengthened it. Machaerus was Herod’s most eastern fortress and is located in present-day Jordan. The map that follows shows the location of Machaerus and Herod’s other palaces/fortresses.

Map of Herod's palaces
Herod’s palaces. Credit:Biblical Archaeology Review

The Gospel accounts of John the Baptist’s Death

In order to avoid any confusion, I would point out that, although Herod the Great had refurbished the palace, it was Herod’s son, known as Herod Antipas, who figures in the story of John’s beheading. The Gospels record that John accused Herod (Anitpas) of violating the Law of Moses by taking his brother’s wife. Herodias was previously married to Antipas’s brother Philip (Mark 6:17-20). Antipas arrests John and throws him in prison, not willing to kill him for fear of the people who regarded John as a prophet. However, when Salome, Herodias’s daughter, dances for Herod, he promises her anything, up to half his kingdom. Her request is for the head of John the Baptist, which Herod reluctantly grants.

Josephus’s Account of John the Baptist’s Death

Josephus
First century Roman bust thought to be Josephus.

As noted above, Josephus also provides an account of John the Baptist’s death. Josephus’s account differs in some particulars. His account compliments the Gospels by adding additional information. I have provided an abbreviated version of his account below:

But to some of the Jews the destruction of Herod’s army seemed to be divine vengeance, and certainly a just vengeance, for his treatment of John, surnamed the Baptist. For Herod had put him to death, though he was a good man and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice toward their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing join in baptism. . . . When others too joined the crowds about him, because they were aroused to the highest degree by his sermons, Herod became alarmed. Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, for it looked as if they would be guided by John in everything that they did. Herod decided therefore that it would be much better to strike first and be rid of him before his work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and see his mistake. Though John, because of Herod’s suspicions, was brought in chains to Machaerus, the stronghold that we have previously mentioned, and there put to death, yet the verdict of the Jews was that the destruction visited upon Herod’s army was a vindication of John, since God saw fit to inflict such a blow on Herod (Josephus Ant 18.5.2 §116–19).

Josephus’s mention of the destruction of Antipas’s army relates to the defeat he suffered in 36 AD at the hands of the Nabatean King Aretas IV. Anitpas had divorced his daughter in order to marry Herodias.

Where Did Salome’s Dance Take Place?

Throne niche at Machaerus
Vörös believes this niche once contained Herod’s throne. [Image: © Győző Vörös]
Within the ruins of the palace, a courtyard has been uncovered, along with a niche which Vörös believes to be the place where Antipas’s throne was located. The photo above shows the niche where the throne may have been. In an article for BAR (Sept/Oct 2012), Vörös writes,  “Herod’s palace also included a courtyard with a small royal garden, a Roman-style bath, a triclinium for fancy dining and a formal peristyle courtyard enclosed by porticoes on four sides. This final area was the most imposing area of the palace, and it was there that Salome must have danced for Herod Antipas. We even know where the king sat: A semi-circular apse marks the space for King Herod’s (and later his son Tetrarch Herod Antipas’s) throne in the axial center of the peristyle courtyard.”

An artistic representation by Vörös of what this courtyard may have looked like can be found in the following article by livescience entitled,  “Dance floor where John the Baptist was condemned to death discovered, archaeologist says” (Go to the bottom of the article). A short article in Bible History Daily also contains some artistic reconstructions of the palace. A short video about Machaerus by The Watchman program can be found here and a longer version can be found here.

As with any archaeological reconstruction, 100% certainty is not possible. Some archaeologists have agreed with Vörös’s conclusions, while others are not convinced. In any case, Salome’s dance certainly happened within this palace in a place where Herod would have entertained guests. This seems to be the most likely spot. The work at Machaerus continues and perhaps even greater clarity about where this biblical event took place will be forthcoming.

 

 

Pompeii and Fast Food Restaurants

Pompeii and Fast Food Restaurants

Thermopolia at Pompeii
Excavating a snack bar at Pompeii yielded this vivid picture of a sea nymph astride a sea-horse.

We all enjoy and appreciate being able to get food on the run. Fast food restaurants are a mainstay of modern life. If you thought they were unique to the modern world, however, you would be wrong. Pompeii, the famous city buried by volcanic ash in 79 A.D. when Mount Vesuvius exploded, had up to 80 fast food establishments! One of these establishments, the Thermopolium (snack bar) of Regio V, has recently been excavated in its entirety. The excavation revealed vivid art work. Furthermore, examining residues in food containers revealed the kind of food sold at the snack bar. Other discoveries included storage vessels, the bones of two humans, and the bones of a dog.

Ordering at Regio V in Pompeii

Snack bar in Pompeii
The food bar at Regio V in Pompeii.

If you were hungry in ancient Pompeii and walked into Regio V for a snack, what would you find there? The photo of the snack bar above, offers a few ideas. Two mallard ducks hung by their feet (left panel), and a rooster (right panel), suggest some of the delicacies that a hungry client might choose from. In fact, examination of the containers, or dolium, lining the counter (see photo above), produced the following residues: goats, fish, swine, snails, and even a fragment of duck bone.

Menacing dog at Regio V in Pompeii
Was this menacing dog a warning or a menu item?

Was the menacing looking dog in the picture above, a warning to guests to beware of hassling the workers, or another item on the varied menu at Regio V? Another interesting feature of this picture is the graffiti in the black area above the dog’s head. If you blow up the picture, you can barely make out the words of an unsatisfied customer. I won’t quote here what the graffiti says. Suffice it to say, the customer had a real potty mouth (quite literally). For a translation of the graffiti, and additional information about the snack bar, see the article at pompeiisites.org. Speaking of dogs, archaeologists found the full skeleton of a small dog between the two doors of the Thermopolium. The dog was only eight to ten inches high, suggesting that the Romans were breeding pet dogs 2,000 years ago.

Human Remains

Human remains at Regio V
Some of the human remains found at Regio V in Pompeii.

Pompeii is famous for preserving the images of dying people caught in the ash and poisonous gases of the Vesuvius eruption. The bones of two victims were identified inside the snack bar. Unfortunately, treasure hunters from the 17th century moved the bones around. Excavator’s identified the remains of one man in his fifties, who appears to have died on his bed (the residue of wood and nails still laid underneath the bones). The bones of another man were found inside one of the doliums. The treasure hunters apparently put them there.

Massimo Osanna, Interim Director General of the Archaeological Park of Pompeii, states, “The possibilities for study of this Thermopolium are exceptional, because for the first time an area of this type has been excavated in its entirety, and it has been possible to carry out all the analyses that today’s technology permits.” For further information on this discovery consult the link above and also see Pompeii Fast Food Restaurant Uncovered. For interesting video footage click here and here (please be aware this video is in Italian but it gives a good overview of the shop). To read more about the Romans love of fish check out, Fish Sauces–The Food That Made Rome Great.

 

 

Clothing in Samuel: You Are What You Wear

Clothing in Samuel: You Are What You Wear

Semites clothing
This ancient Egyptian pictorial from 1900 B.C. pictures Semites (this category includes Israelites) traveling to Egypt. The clothing would be typical of the time of Abraham or Jacob.

We will definitely be airing some dirty laundry in this post as we look at the clothing motif in the Books of Samuel. In daily life, clothes tell us something about the person wearing them. We might learn about their social class, or what part of the world they’re from. Formal and casual attire also communicate certain messages. One blogger writes, “On a larger scale, fashion is important because it represents our history and helps to tell the story of the world” (Why Is Fashion Important?). “Clothing, whether worn for a special occasion or not, did always convey a message, sometimes consciously and sometimes subconsciously, especially regarding social status, as there was clothing specific to gender, age, marital status, wealth, rank, modesty, place of origin, or occupation” (Barbosa, M. (2020). Women’s Fashion in the Old Testament World. In The Baker Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, p. 74).

Hebrew Words for Clothing in Samuel

Ordinary clothing
This relief is an Assyrian depiction of the conquest of Lachish. It shows the captive women of Judah dressed in plain garb.

There are six Hebrew words used a total of thirty-nine times to describe a person’s attire.  The words and their meaning are as follows:

  1. Beged is the most common word for clothing in the OT, and the most frequently occurring word in 1&2 Samuel. It occurs twelve times in eleven passages (1 Sam. 19:13, 24; 27:9; 28:8; 2 Sam. 1:2;  3:31; 13:31 [2x]; 14:2; 19:25; 20:8, 12 ) and is usually translated as “garment” or “clothing.” It has a broad range of meaning and refers to clothing in general.
  2. An ephod is mentioned ten times in nine passages (1 Sam. 2:18, 28; 14:3; 21:9;  22:18; 23:6, 9; 30:7 [2x]; 2 Sam. 6:14). An Ephod is an item of priestly apparel. It is especially associated with the High Priest, but is worn by others as well. In spite of the detailed description of it in Exodus 28 and 39, “a clear picture of what it looked like is difficult to obtain” (Meyers, C., Ephod (Object). In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 550).   Both Samuel and David are said to wear “a linen ephod” (1 Sam. 2:18; 2 Sam. 6:14).  The ephod was used to seek answers from God, so at times, it is pictured as being carried, rather than worn (e.g., 1 Sam. 23.6).
  3. Meʿîl means “robe” and is found eight times in seven passages in Samuel (1 Sam. 2:19; 15:27; 18:4; 24:5, 12 [2x]); 28:14; 2 Sam. 13:18). It is an outer garment generally worn by people of rank. It is especially associated with Samuel and Saul, although it is worn by other people of high status.
  4. Maḏ occurs five times in five passages and is always connected with military or governmental attire in Samuel (1 Sam. 4:12;  17:38, 39; 18:4; 2 Sam. 10:4).
  5. Lābaš is normally used as a verb in Samuel (4 times) and refers to “putting on” a piece of clothing. However, on one occasion it is translated as a noun referring to Joab’s military outfit (2 Sam. 20:8).
  6. Keṯōneṯ passîm is an expression only found four times in Scripture. In each instance it refers to a type of garment that suggests royalty. It appears in the Joseph story as the “coat of many colors,” (Gen. 37:3, 23), and is found in 2 Samuel 13:18-19 describing the garment that Tamar, the daughter of David, was wearing. The word keṯōneṯ  by itself is more common in Scripture (e.g., Gen. 3:21; Job 30:18) and is used to describe Hushai’s garment in 2 Samuel 15:32 which he has torn as a sign of grief. For more on biblical clothing click the link here.

Meanings Conveyed by Clothing in Samuel

Having surveyed the passages in Samuel that mention clothing, I have concluded that there are five primary meanings. These meanings include status, mourning, deception, shame, and death.

Status

Samuel rejects Saul
Both Samuel and Saul are characterized as leaders by the robes they wear.

Kings, priests, soldiers, aristocrats, and peasants all have distinctive outfits befitting their social and political rank. This is true of all societies and this feature is evident in Samuel as well. For example, all eight mentions of the robe (meʿîl) are connected with royal figures and political leaders. Hannah’s bringing the young Samuel a new robe each year (1 Sam. 2:19) foreshadows his destiny as Israel’s leader. The connection between the robe and leadership is made explicit in the story of Saul’s rejection. When Samuel turns to leave after telling Saul that God has rejected him as king, Saul grabs Samuel’s robe and it tears. Samuel sees this as a sign and responds, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you” (1 Sam. 15:28). Samuel is so closely identified with his robe that when Saul visits the medium of Endor and asks her to call up Samuel, he recognizes him immediately by the woman’s description. She states, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” Then the text tells us,  “And Saul knew that it was Samuel” (1 Sam. 28:14).

Saul’s robe represents his kingship. When David cuts off a piece of Saul’s robe, David is convicted. “Then David arose and stealthily cut off a corner of Saul’s robe. And afterward David’s heart struck him, because he had cut off a corner of Saul’s robe (1 Sam. 24:4-5). Cutting off a slice of Saul’s robe is similar to defacing his kingship. Similarly, Jonathan’s gift of his robe and weaponry to David is a symbolic way of surrendering the kingship to him (1 Sam. 18:4).

Besides his robe, Samuel wears a linen ephod which indicates his priestly status (1 Sam. 2:18). Somewhat surprisingly, David is also said to wear a linen ephod when he brings the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem, thus suggesting some kind of priestly status on his part (2 Sam. 6:14).

Mourning

Tearing clothes
Tearing clothing is a sign of grief in ancient times.

What one did to one’s clothing, or the kind of clothing worn was a common way of expressing grief in the ancient world. For example, following a defeat in battle at the hands of the Philistines, a messenger arrives at Shiloh with torn clothes to deliver the news to Eli (1 Sam. 4:12). Similarly, after being raped by her brother Amnon, Tamar tears the royal robe she is wearing as a sign of grief and outrage (2 Sam. 13:19). David goes a step farther following the murder of Abner when he tells Joab and his men to not only tear their clothes but to put on sackcloth (2 Sam. 3:31). To demonstrate his grief of David’s flight from Jerusalem during Absalom’s revolt, Mephibosheth does not take care of his feet, trim his beard, or wash his clothes (2 Sam. 19:24). Finally, in an act of deception, Joab tells a wise woman to pretend to be in mourning by putting on garments of mourning (2 Sam. 14:2).

Deception

Saul and the witch of Endor
Saul puts on common clothing to deceive the medium of Endor. Credit: the Smithsonian American Art Museum

Our last example above regarding the wise woman illustrates how clothing can be used in Samuel to deceive. The wise woman pretends to be mourning over a lost son so that she might gain the ear and sympathy of the king. Michal, the daughter of Saul seeks to protect David by deceiving her father’s soldiers into thinking he is sick. She does this by laying an image in a bed and covering it with goat’s hair and clothes, giving David time to escape (1 Sam. 19:11-16). Saul also uses clothing to deceive the medium at Endor. Saul does not want to be recognized so that the medium will do his bidding in calling up Samuel. In the larger story, however, Saul’s removal of his royal apparel and putting on “other garments” (1 Sam. 28:8), is a symbolic way of suggesting that Saul is losing the kingship. Joab uses his military attire to deceive Amasa (2 Sam. 20:8), but this story also has another dynamic that we will examine below.

Shame

Saul removes his clothing
Saul prophesies naked (1 Sam. 19:22-24)

In the Bible, being unclothed is considered shameful. Only Adam and Eve in their pristine state before the Fall, could be naked and unashamed (Gen. 2:25). Not only did certain kinds of clothing denote honor and wealth, all clothing hid one’s shame (e.g., Ezek. 16:8, 36-37). Thus to be found in one’s “birthday suit,” was considered humiliating. Saul is twice pictured in 1 Samuel in a compromised situation. In his pursuit of David, Saul comes to Samuel in Ramah and is seized by the Spirit of God. There he lies down all day naked and prophesies (1 Sam. 19:23-24). In other words, in his murderous rage, the Spirit renders him powerless and vulnerable, to the point of shaming him by removing his kingly garments. One might muse that Saul is performing his own version of the “Emperor’s New Clothes!” Saul is found in an even more humiliating and vulnerable position when he goes into a cave to relieve himself (1 Sam. 24:3-7). The Hebrew uses the euphemistic phrase, “to cover his feet.” In other words, Saul drops his robe around his feet in order to take care of important business. David and his men are hiding in the cave, but David refuses to harm Saul. When Saul leaves the cave, David produces the part of the robe he had cut off in order to demonstrate his innocence to Saul (1 Sam. 24:11).

On another occasion after David himself has become king,  he sends ambassadors to pay his respects to the deceased Nahash, king of Ammon, Nahash’s son Hanun humiliates the men by cutting their garments off at the buttocks (2 Sam. 10:4). This insult precipitates a war between Israel and Ammon. We should also mention that Tamar’s tearing of her royal garment not only communicates mourning (as noted above) but shame as well.

Death

Joab murders Amasa
Joab’s military garb is carefully described in anticipation of his murder of Amasa.

When garments are associated with death, it is usually in reference to those who are mourning the deceased (2 Sam. 3:31; 14:2). However, there is one passage in 2 Samuel that dwells on the military attire of Joab in anticipation of his murder of Amasa (2 Sam. 20:8). One could literally say that Joab “was dressed to kill!” On the other hand, the expression “cloak and dagger” seems apropos as well. This passage also fits under the theme of dressing to deceive noted above. Commentators are unsure of the exact manner in which Joab perpetrates this deception, but in the end, Amasa gets the point! As Amasa lies wallowing in his blood, the troops stand still in shock. But when Amasa is unceremoniously dragged off of the highway and covered with a garment, the mission continues (2 Sam. 20:12). This time a garment plays the part of concealing the horrible crime committed by Joab and acts as Amasa’s death shroud.

Conclusion: If the Shoe Fits

While some motifs, such as tallness, or dead dog (see posts here and here), have one main point to make, the motif of clothing is varied. For the most part, one could say that the clothing motif is “worse for wear” in Samuel.  Although the message of status is mostly positive, the other usages of this motif are quite negative. Context is the all-important guide when it comes to understanding what is being communicated by the clothing motif. Therefore the message(s) of this motif is not a “one size fits all,” but rather an “If the shoe fits, wear it.” In particular, the clothing motif in Samuel contributes to the main themes of honor and shame (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:30) and how appearances can be deceiving (1 Sam. 16:7).

For a more in-depth look at 1&2 Samuel see:

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Family Portraits