WHO KILLED SAUL? (I SAMUEL 31:4-6; II SAMUEL 1:15)

 

Another clear-cut contradiction in the Bible appears to be the conflicting stories regarding the death of Saul. At the conclusion of I Samuel, it says that he was wounded in battle and fell on his sword to prevent the enemy from subjecting him to more pain. But at the start of II Samuel we get a different picture from an Amalekite who put him out of his misery at Saul's request.

Right off the bat we should recognize that comparing these two accounts is like comparing apples and oranges. One is a narrative written by the author of the book, and the other is a first-hand account from an eye-witness. There are three general approaches one can take when confronted by contradictory stories such as these, which one sometimes also encounters in comparing the different Gospel accounts:

1. Harmonization of details: It is possible that both accounts stress different details of what actually happened. The whole truth can be obtained by combining these two accounts. Thus, Saul is mortally wounded by the Philistines, asks his armor-bearer to finish him off, the armor-bearer refuses and falls on his own sword, and Saul does the same (as in I Samuel). However, Saul does not have enough strength to finish the job and so he asks a nearby Amalekite to do it for him; the Amalekite complies (as in II Samuel).

2. Differing traditions: Liberal Bible critics explain that the contradiction is the result of the author of I-II Samuel not knowing which of two oral or written traditions regarding this event to go with. And therefore he just preserved both of them side-by-side.

3. Untrustworthy narrator: The account of the Amalekite cannot be trusted to represent the truth. He is lying in order to receive a reward from David.

Here is how various sources weigh in on these possible solutions:

    The NRSV Study Bible mentions #'s 2 and 3 as possibilities, as does the Oxford Annotated Bible, which however opts for #3 as the best explanation.

    The Jerusalem Bible feels that #3 is to be preferred.

    The New Bible Commentary mentions #'s 1 and 3, preferring #3. It gives three reasons: II Samuel 1:16 hints that David did not believe the Amalekite's story; the parallel account in I Chronicles 10 does not even mention the Amalekite's version of the events; and David's later recalling of these events in II Samuel 4:10 does not mention it either.

    The International Bible Commentary calls #1 “an unnecessary exercise” and prefers #3, adding “An informant who was looking to David for reward might have tinkered with the truth!”

    Hard Sayings of the Bible finds #1, suggested as early as Josephus, to “fall short of being convincing.” Instead the author goes with explanation #3.

    Tsumura (The First Book of Samuel), states, “The easiest explanation is that the Amalekite was lying in hopes of currying favor.”

    Baldwin (1 & 2 Samuel) only mentions #3 as a possibility.

    Dale Davis (2 Samuel) says, “The solution is simple: the Amalekite lied. If you ever have a choice between the narrator [as in 1 Samuel 3] and an Amalekite, always believe the narrator.” He mentions that one suspicious detail in the Amalekite's story is that none of Saul's close companions were nearby in the middle of the battle, only an Amalekite who just happened to be passing by at the time.

    McCarter (II Samuel) notes that #2 is an explanation “more at home among older literary critics.” He adds that “treachery was what it [Israel] had come to expect from Amalekites.” He believes that #3 is the best explanation primarily because I and II Samuel are a unity and would not have included such an obvious contradiction. He states that the third explanation is almost universally accepted today, as can be seen in all of the opinions above.

A similar situation arises when someone comes up with a Bible quotation taken out of all context and states, "The Bible says it, and therefore it is true." Try doing that by quoting one of Job's friends without saying where your quotation comes from. There are many unreliable witnesses throughout the Bible, but they are almost always clearly identified as such. The case of the Amalekite is one of the exceptions where we need to read a little between the lines to get at the truth.