The Story of the Concubine at Gibeah: A Satire on King Saul

[1] The refrain recurs in partial and final form four times within Judges 17­–21 (Judg 17:6, 18:1, 19:1, and 21:25).

[2] At least this is the case in the MT (ותזנה עליו). The paradoxical nature of this sequence (i.e., why would a cuckolded husband try to woo his bride back?) prompts some to prefer one of the Greek versions of the verse: LXX^A reads that the woman scorned him (ὠργίσθη), while LXX^B states that she went away (ἐπορεύθη). For some, the MT reflects an error, whereby the scribe read ותזנה  (“she whored”) instead of ותזנח (“she rejected”). See, e.g., Daniel I. Block, The New American Commentary, Volume 6: Judges-Ruth (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 523.

[3] On this relationship between these two texts, see Stuart Lasine, “Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot’s Hospitality in an Inverted World,” JSOT 29 (1984): 37–59.

[4] Already in 1869, Moritz Güdemann had identified the text as an anti-Saulide document (Tendenz und Abfassungszeit der letzten Kapitel des Buches der Richter [MGWJ 18; Berlin, 1869]). Hans Winfried Jüngling takes Judges 19 to be an anti-Saul episode composed in the monarchic period (Richter 19 — Ein Plädoyer für das Königtum; eine stilistische Analyse der Tendenzerzählung Ri. 19, 1-30a; 21.25, AnBib 84 [Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981]); similarly, see Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Richter 19: Schriftgestützte politische Propaganda im davidischen Israel”, in Alttestamentliche Studien: Arbeiten zu Priesterschrift, Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Prophetie, BZAW 442 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2013), 197ff. Uwe Becker recognizes the anti-Saulide, pro-Davidic bent of Judges 19 yet proposes a terminus post quem of the mid-monarchic period (Richterzeit und Königtum: redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch, BZAW 192 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990], 297). Yairah Amit emphasizes the “hidden” Saul polemic in Judges 19-21 as a whole in several essays; see, e.g., “Literature in the Service of Politics: Studies in Judges 19-21” in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature (eds., H.G. Reventlow, et al.;  JSOTSup 171; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 28–40. See also Mark Zvi Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics,” JBL 108 (1989): 412–13.

[5] The dependence of Judg 19:26–29 on 1 Sam 11:1–11 has long been recognized; see, e.g., C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes (London: Rivingtons, 1920), 445; Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Benjamin Traditions Read in the Early Achaemenid Period”, in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (eds., Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 640-41; Walter Gross, Richter (Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Freiburg im Breisgau, 2009), 821; Marc Z. Brettler, “The Book of Judges: Literature as Politics”, JBL 108/3 (1989), 412-13; Henrik Pfeiffer, “Sodomie in Gibea. Der kompositionsgeschichtliche Ort von Jdc 19”, in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition. Festschrift für Matthias Köckert (eds., A.C. Hagedorn et al; BZAW 400; Berlin, 2009), 281-83.

[6] On the treatment of Judges 19–21 together with Samuel, see Marc Z. Brettler, How to Read the Jewish Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 107–16.

[7] Editor’s note: Further evidence of the importance of Benjamin in this late period comes from the book of Esther, which is a pro-Saul polemic. See Marc Z. Brettler, “Megillat Esther: Reversing the Legacy of King Saul,” TheTorah.com (2017). 

[8] As regards the Levite’s destination, many prefer the LXX (εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου, “into my house”) over the MT (ואת־בית י-הוה, “to the House of Yahweh”), which is missing a preposition. On this issue, see Gross, who notes first of all that the term ואת (“with” or the direct object marker) should probably be emended to read אל “to” (my house/the House of Yahweh). He contends that the scribe understood ביתי to be an abbreviation for “the House of Yahweh” (Richter, 807). These details are addressed more fully in Sara Milstein, “Saul the Levite and His Concubine,” VT 65 (2015): 10–14.

[9] The suggestion was first posited by Ivan Hylander, Der literarische Samuel-Saul Komplex (I Sam 1-15): Traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht (Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell, 1932). See also Jan Dus, “Die Geburtslegende Samuels I. Sam 1. (Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von I. Sam 1-3),” RSO 43 (1968): 163–94; P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, AB 8 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 62–66; Marc Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel (London: Routledge, 1995), 109; Donald Schley, Shiloh: A Biblical City in Tradition and History, JSOTSup 63 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 152­–53; and Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 94. For Philip R. Davies, “the suspicion remains powerful” that Samuel’s birth narrative has been taken from Saul (“The Trouble with Benjamin,” in Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld[eds., Robert Rezetko, Timothy H. Lim, and W. Brian Aucker; Leiden: Brill, 2007], 93–111).

[10] For further discussion, see Milstein, “Saul the Levite and His Concubine,” 95–116.