Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: More from Robert Alter and the sophistication of the Biblical narrative.

In his ‘Art of Biblical Narrative’, Robert Alter makes some highly insightful comments about *direct speech* (pp. 83-85).

The OT, he says, tends to avoid indirect speech.

It prefers to present speech *directly*.

By way of example, Alter discusses the text of 1 Sam. 24, where Saul strays into the cave in which David and his men have decided to hole out.

As evidence of what has happened, David cuts off the corner of Saul’s robe (while Saul is otherwise engaged).

David’s men want him to take more drastic action against Saul. But David objects.

‘God forbid that I do such a thing...’, he says:

Here, a modern narrator might have continued the narrative differently--say,

‘David explained it would be unacceptable/blasphemy to...etc.’

‘David explained he could not possibly...etc.’

But the Biblical text switches to direct discourse.

At first blush, that may seem an insigificant difference, but it has a number of important consequences.

For one thing, it brings David speech-act into the foreground.

It portrays David as a man who wants to convey the solemn nature of his situation to his troops.

As Alter says,

The text makes us feel the urgent presence of David saying,

‘I am the king’s vassal; he is my master; he is God’s own anointed, the sanctity of whose election is an awesome thing.

I will *not*, therefore, do what you and I may present see as a possibility.

I will not raise this hand of mine against the YHWH’s anointed.’

The use of direct speech also adds layers of ambiguity and complexity to the narrative.

‘An avowal by David reported in the third person’, Alter says, ‘would inherit the authoritativeness of the narrator’

(which, for those who affirm Biblical inerrancy, is a considerable level of authority).

‘But as things are actually presented in 1 Sam. 24, we find ourselves confronted with David’s speech,

and are elsewhere (given the vexed relationship between David and Saul) led to ponder the possible connections between his spoken words and his inner thoughts and intentions’.

In other words, the text merely tells us what David *says*.

What David *thinks* and/or wants to *achieve* is another matter.

Did a part of David share his men’s sentiments?

Was his statement in 24.6 for *his* benefit as much as his men’s (cp. 24.7)?

Might it even have been meant to function as a kind of oath/commitment?

These are questions which are raised by the Biblical text but not explicitly answered by it. They are left for the reader to ponder.

The reader is thereby encouraged to actively engage with Samuel’s narrative.

He/she is also encouraged to consider broader issues--such as the general tenor of David’s character, David’s state of mind at the time of 1 Sam. 24’s events, etc.--,

which requires 1 Sam. 24 to be viewed not as an isolated incident, but as part of a bigger story.

== FURTHER REFLECTIONS ==

The Bible contains a huge amount of direct speech.

As such, Alter’s observations strike me as important.

Consider, by way of illustration, Eve’s first recorded speech, viz.:

Is Eve right? Did God *really* forbid her to *touch* the tree?

In Gen. 2, Adam is only told not to *eat* from the tree.

Is that because ch. 2 is non-exhaustive and Eve’s speech in ch. 3 fills out its details?

Or was no such command given in the first place?

And, if it was not, then why does Eve say it was?

Did Adam misreport God’s command to Eve?

Or is Eve’s statement an early example of man’s tendency to put ‘hedges’ around God’s commands?

These complexities and ambiguities are created by the Bible’s preference for direct speech.

Further complexity is then created by the Bible’s interconnectedness/intertextuality.

Consider, for instance, the story below, which I have narrated in generic terms (for reasons which will later become clear).

An elderly and senior figure in Israel’s history is in the final years of his life.

He is old and infirm and constrained in what he is able to do.

As yet, the man in question has not revealed who should inherit his wealth and authority.

He appears to favour his older son,

who is the natural inheritor of his father’s wealth and authority.

But, due to the influence of his wife, things turn out differently.

While the older son is away, the man is persauded to bequeathe his inheritance to a younger son instead of the older son,

which causes the older son to ‘tremble’ (חרד) when he finds out.

Whose story is described here?

Jacob and Esau’s, right?

In part.

These events *do* clearly fit the story of Jacob and Esau.

But they also fit the story of Solomon and Adonijah described in 1 Kgs. 1-2--a point noted by Jared W. Saltz here: benneviim.blogspot.com/2019/09/father….

At the time of 1 Kgs. 1-2’s events, David is old and infirm,

and has not yet revealed who should inherit his wealth and authority. (Or at least so it seems: cf. below.)

David appears to favour his older son, Adonijah,

whom he views as a replacement for his beloved Absalom.

(Ever since he was born, David has treated Adonijah with kid gloves: 1.6.)

But, while Adonijah is absent from the palace, Bathsheba approaches David and persuades him to bequeathe his inheritance to *Solomon* instead,

which causes Adonijah to ‘tremble’ when he finds out (1.49).

As such, the events of 1 Kgs. 1-2 precisely mirror those of Gen. 27.

Or do they?

Rebekah and Jacob’s behaviour is clearly deceptive. Can the same be said for Bathsheba’s?

Possibly. It is hard to tell.

1 Kgs. 1’s events are triggered by Adonijah,

who instates himself as king without David’s consent/knowledge.

In response, Bathsheba and Nathan cook up a plan.

First, Bathsheba enters the king’s presence.

She informs David of Adonijah’s (self)-coronation and says it cannot be allowed to stand since David has promised the throne to Solomon.

Then, at the appropriate time, Nathan comes in and seconds Bathsheba’s statement,

at which point David agrees to instate Solomon in Adonijah’s place.

All well and good, one might say.

But is Bathsheba’s statement about Solomon *true*?

Did David *really* bequeathe his throne to Solomon?

David is old, and there are a lot of things he is said not to ‘know’ in ch. 1 (cp. 1.11, 18), Abigal included (1.4).

Might Nathan and Bathsheba have convinced him to honour a promise he never actually made?

At first blush, it does not *seem* as if they did,

but a number of aspects of our text make the matter more complicated. For instance:

🔹 We are never actually *told* David bequeathed his throne to Solomon.

🔹 When Nathan and Bathsheba devise their plan, Nathan does not tell Bathsheba to claim David *has* in fact promise Solomon the throne, but simply to ask David the question, i.e., to plant the thought in David’s mind (1.13).

🔹 When Nathan enters the throneroom to ‘second/confirm’ (מלא) what Bathsheba has said, he confirms every aspect of her story *except* her statement about Solomon.

🔹 Nathan’s statement itself is slightly unusual. ‘Has (Adonijah been enthroned)’, he asks, ‘when you have not told your servants who should sit on the throne?’. Didn’t Bathsheba just claim David *had* told her who should sit on the throne?

🔹 Adonijah later tells Bathsheba all Israel expected *him* to succeed David (2.15), which Bathsheba doesn’t deny. But why would people have expected Adonijah to succeed David if David had already promised Solomon the throne?

Was the promise made in private? It is possible. But wouldn’t Bathsheba--who desperately wanted Solomon enthroned--have asked David to commit to it more publicly and hence guarantee her son’s inheritance?

Again, all of these questions are raised by the Biblical text’s preference for direct speech.

The text simply tells us what is *said*.

Whether these statements are true or not sometimes requires careful contemplation.

== FINAL REFLECTIONS ==

First, the sophistication of the Biblical narrative is quite remarkable.

The Bible is a book which invites and repays careful thought. When it is read in a careful (& sympathetic) manner, it actively engages the reader and draws him/her into its world.

Second, the book of Kings has been said to be a less sophisticated book than the book of Genesis (where narratives are at their best), but the narrative of 1 Kgs. 1-2 does not lack sophistication.

Third, at first blush, many aspects of the Biblical narrative seem clunky and/or merely stylistic, but all of them have a deeper purpose.

We may not immediately be able to identify that purpose (and/or may never identify it), but we should continue to look for it.

The alternative is to dismiss aspects of Scripture as insignificant on the basis of our limitations, which does not seem like a good idea.

Fourth, absent a commitment to Biblical truthfulness and trustworthiness, the Biblical narrative contains too many free variables to allow us to confidently conclude much about it.

If the claims made in the Bible’s speech-acts have the potential to be false (since people can lie, be mistaken, conceal information, etc.), then that is one thing.

But if, in addition, the Biblical *narrative* is untrustworthy, and is not held together by consistent authorial intent, then all bets are off.

That does not, of course, mean the Bible *is* inerrant, but it makes a commitment to inerrancy a fruitful foundation for research.

== THE END ==