3. The Story of David and Goliath (1 Sam 17–19)
3.5. The Case of Saul’s Daughters
A2.8 makes the claim that 1 Sam 18:17–19 were omitted in the Septuagint, since they contra-dict with 2 Sam 21:8. These passages are considered contracontra-dictory, since, in the former pas-sage, Saul’s daughter Merab is given as a wife to Adriel Meholathite, while, in the latter, Ad-riel’s wife is claimed to be Saul’s younger daughter Michal, not Merab.
Let us first look at 2 Sam 21:8. The Masoretic text indeed presents Michal as the wife of Adriel:
י ִת ָלֹח ְמּ ַה י ַלּ ִז ְר ַבּ־ן ֶבּ ל ֵאי ִר ְד ַע ְל ה ָד ְל ָי ר ֶשׁ ֲא לוּא ָשׁ־ת ַבּ ל ַכי ִמ י ֵנ ְבּ ת ֶשׁ ֵמ ֲח־ת ֶא ְו
and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
However, the reading of the Septuagint is more complicated. Codex Vaticanus, which Rahlfs’s edition also follows, hasΜιχολ, but this is suspicious for two reasons: 1) the reading Μιχολis found only in Codex Vaticanus; 2) elsewhere in the Septuagint, the name Michal is written as Μελχολ.428 Indeed, many manuscripts have Μελχολin this verse. It is interesting that a considerable number of manuscripts also support the reading Μεροβ. Before proceeding to investigate whether or not 2 Sam 21:8 contradicts with the account given in 1 Sam 18, I first discuss the Old Greek reading for the name of Saul’s daughter in 2 Sam 21:8.
The most probable reading for the original Septuagint in 2 Sam 21:8 is Μεροβ, since it best explains the existence of the other readings.429ΜελχολorΜιχολcannot be primary in 2 Sam 21:8, since, if they had been, it would have been odd for the Septuagint manuscripts that did not contain 18:17–19 to have changedΜελχολ/ΜιχολtoΜεροβ. Furthermore, the manuscript distribution suggests that the readingΜελχολ(e.g., MssO CII799b) is Hexaplaric, while the
428. Apparently, the Vorlage of the Septuagint had the name in the form לכלמ or the like; cf. Peshitta, A#B+
429. Seppänen 2014.
reading Μιχολ could be akaige-type correction in B. The reading Μεροβ is witnessed, e.g., by manuscripts M V L CI a-799, a combination that supports its primacy.
Since the Septuagint translator of the Books of Samuel is faithful to his source text, one can safely conclude that the HebrewVorlageof the Septuagint also had the name as
ברמ
(or the like; e.g.,בורמ
).430 The Peshitta also supports this reading,431 while the Vulgate text is in agreement with the Masoretic text.432Next, I discuss whether the reading Michal or Merab is more original in Hebrew.Since the reading is clearly somehow connected with the readings in 1 Sam 18, there are generally three types of text and, thus, the following three readings are possible for the original Hebrew text:
Readings 1 Sam 18:17–19 1 Sam 18:20–27 2 Sam 21:8 Textual witnesses
1) – Saul promises his
daughter Michal to David—this happens
Merab is Adriel’s wife OG and its Vorlage
2) Saul promises his
Table 23. Merab and Michal in 1 Sam 18:17–19, 1 Sam 18:20–27 and 2 Sam 21:8 and their textual witnesses.
Although 1 Sam 18:17–19 is lacking in the Old Greek and its Vorlage, many Septuagint manuscripts have later added the verses, as can be seen in Table 23. These additions in the Septuagint are clearly of Hexaplaric origin, so they can be listed as witnesses for the Hebrew text.
430. Two Medieval Hebrew manuscripts also read בר(י)מ, though they are probably not connected to the Vor-lage of the Septuagint but rather independent harmonizations with 1 Sam 18:17–19. Such a harmoniza-tion is likely to have transpired in this case, since these manuscripts do contain these verses, unlike the Septuagint and its Vorlage.
431. Peshitta, ܒ%7. Despite the Peshitta having nun as its first letter, it still clearly supports the Hebrew read-ing ברמ, not לכמ.
432. Vulgata, Michol.
To solve which of the three represents the primary reading, one has to find out which textual development is the most probable. One could first test what follows ifreading 3) is the most original. The development from reading 3) to reading 2) can easily be explained as a harmonization. However, the development from reading 2) to reading 1) is hard to explain.
That development at least cannot be explained as having been influenced by 2 Sam 21:8, since, in that reading, 1 Sam 18:17–19 does not contain any contradictions with 2 Sam 21:8.
The development from reading 1) to reading 3) is even more difficult to explain. While, in reading 3), 1 Sam 18:17–19 and 2 Sam 21:8 are contradictory, it would be unlikely for the editor to have removed 1 Sam 18:17–19 entirely to eliminate inconsistencies. Furthermore, this direction of development fails to explain the change of name from Michal to Merab.
After 1 Sam 18:17–19 is removed, there is no longer any reason to make such a change.
Unless one assumes that the name in 2 Sam 21:8 was changed from Michal to Merab, because the name contradicted 1 Sam 20:20–27, where Michal is said to be David’s wife.
While this is possible, it is not very likely, since the theory would assume an overly complicated editorial process (first removalthen change Michal→ Merab). If an editor was unhappy with the inconsistencies between 1 Sam 18 and 2 Sam 21:8, the most natural way to harmonize the text would have been just to change the name from Michal to Merab in 2 Sam 21:8. Perhaps even more significant is that,if reading 3) is considered primary to readings 1) and 2), why is reading 3) contradictory? What earlier phase of the text is behind reading 3) if not in reading 1) or 2)? The simplest conclusion is that reading 3) cannot be primary.
As already noted, the development from reading 2) to 1) is difficult to explain. Thus, reading 2) is not likely the original reading. As for the primacy of reading 1), what kind of textual development could be possible if we considered it to be primary? If reading 1) is the most original, 1 Sam 18:17–19 must then be an addition. If 18:17–19 is an addition and constitutes a repetition with 18:20–27, we must consider them in the framework of 1 Sam 17–18, which contains many similar doublets/repetitions, of which one of the two is absent from the Septuagint text. One reasonable explanation at this point would be that the emergence of these kinds of repetition came about in similar ways. In the case of the covenant of David and Jonathan, I arrived at the conclusion that the Masoretic plus 1 Sam 18:1, 3–4 is best explained as an addition. I suggested that the reason for such an addition would have been to enrich the originally short references to covenant-making with a fuller description of how that covenant had been made. If my conclusion is right, it is reasonable to surmise that other repetitions in the Books of Samuel could have emerged in similar ways: the ancient editor desired, for one reason or another, to enrich the story by incorporating repetitive elements into the existing story of 1 Sam 17–18. Either the editor had ‘an independent source’ which he wove into the existing story433 or the parallel elements were invented by the editor in a process of rewriting the story.434 The former explanation is attractive but leaves some questions open: where and why did these parallel accounts/traditions circulate? Were they
433. This view has been popular since Wellhausen 1871: e.g., Lust 1986; McCarter 1984.
434. Thus in Aejmelaeus 2016; cf. Auld & Ho 1992.
written or oral? Although these theories have great explanatory power, they remain speculative. The latter view (i.e., rewriting) explains the development equally well; it is reasonable to think that the episode of Merab in 1 Sam 18:17–19 was created to address the concern of why the king’s eldest daughter was not offered to the one who slew Goliath.435In any case, reading 1) seem most likely to be original, and its primacy would explain the emergence of reading 2).
How is it possible, then, to explain reading 3) and the change of Merab to Michal in 2 Sam 21:8? One possible solution is that a more common name was simply substituted for the un-common one. Excluding 2 Sam 21:8, Saul’s daughter’s name Merab is mentioned only three times in two passages: 1 Sam 14:49 and 18:17–19. On the other hand, the name Michal is fa-miliar from several verses: 1 Sam 14:49; 18:20, 27, 28; 19:11, 12, 13, 17 (bis); 25:44; 2 Sam 3:13, 14; 6:16 (// 2 Chr 15:29), 20, 21, 23. In addition, in 10 cases, it is explicitly mentioned that she was Saul’s daughter: 1 Sam 14:49; 18:20, 27, 28; 25:44; 2 Sam 3:13, 6:16 (// 2 Chr 15:29), 20, 23. This kind of phenomenon—a more common name substituted for an uncom-mon one—is not unusual. Parallel examples can be found in the Bible.436It is still true that 1 Sam 18:17–19 and 2 Sam 21:8 in their Masoretic text form contradict each other. However, the name Michal not as David’s but as someone else’s wife is not as problematic as it seems, when 1 Sam 18:17–19 and 2 Sam 21:8 are read side by side. In 1 Sam 25:44, Michal is given to another man. Although the man is not named Adriel, and, furthermore, Michal had later been brought back to David (2 Sam 3:12–16), it is possible that the copyist or editor who changed Merob to Michal in 2 Sam 21:8 did not remember these details. He could simply have remembered that Michal was another man’s wife.
3.5.1 Conclusions
I have argued that 1 Sam 18:17–19 are secondary. These verses could have been added into the story to account for the eldest daughter, when the king was marrying his daughters. In addition, I have argued that the contradiction with 2 Sam 21:8 came about as a later development and, thus, cannot be used as an argument for the omission of 1 Sam 18:17–19 in the text when the Septuagint was being translated (the original Hebrew and Greek reading was Merab).
435. Cf. the story of Leah and Rachel in Gen 29; Aejmelaeus 2016.
436. E.g., in Dan 5:2–18, Nebuchadnezzar has probably replaced Nabonidus as the father of Belshassar; in Gen. 9:20–27, Canaan has possibly substituted Ham in the account where Noah curses his (grand)son; in Mark 2:26, the better-known Abiatar has replaced the lesser-known Ahimelech. Marcus 2000, 241; cf.
Hartman & Di Lella 1978, 186; Vawter 1977, 138–39.