Wednesday, June 14, 2017

The Death of King Saul Analyzed



Analytical Question:  How did King Saul die?

Methodology:  Statement Analysis of the interview and interrogation conducted by David.  

Background 


The Bible consists of 66 books and was written by 40 authors, in 3 different languages, over a period of time of 2000 years.

The book of 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel report the death of the Israeli king, Saul in two accounts. 

A.  The first account says that King Saul committed suicide. 
B.  The second account says that King Saul died of "assisted suicide" or murder at the hands of an enemy.  

1.  The difference could be the Parenthetical View.  

This is where we are given a conclusive account but later the author revisits it with more detail, or "amplification."  We see this not only in the Bible but in truthful accounts within statements.  It is where one feels the necessity of revisiting and amplifying a response. 

The second account has David, the anointed successor to King Saul, interviewing and interrogating the enemy's report of Saul's death.  

2.  The difference is sometimes claimed to be an error or contradiction.  Is it? 

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  



I.  The Statements


1.  The historical account.  


1 Samuel 31:1 - 6
Now the Philistines fought against Israel: and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell down slain in mount Gilboa.
And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Melchishua, Saul's sons.
And the battle went sore against Saul, and the archers hit him; and he was sore wounded of the archers.
Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.

This account is your reference point.  Please note that it has specific details along with the report of communication.  The italics show the transcript of the statement.  
We later learn that the Philistines did, in deed, mutilate and parade Saul's body until Israeli soldiers bravely recaptured it.  

2.  The Second Account is the next chapter, divided for us as 2 Samuel 1: 1- 16.  
For context:  The Amalekites were sworn enemies of Israel and known for extreme brutality.  
Also important to know:  Saul had made various attempts at murdering David, but David repeatedly spared Saul's life, including coming upon Saul while Saul slept.  Had David killed Saul, he would have been safe from the murderous king, but he may have also ascended to the throne that had been promised him.  
David was a complex character and a good example of humanity as we see his great successes as well as his most humiliating failures.  His life is not a typically written biography, but an account of his highs, lows, greatness and crimes, with no glossing nor sugar coating. 
At this point, I asked analysts to avoid debating David's pronounced punishment of the subject of his interview and interrogation, though it will be useful later in profiling.  I have added italics for the purpose of identifying the transcript.  
Young David fighting Goliath 

2 Samuel 1: 1-16 

 Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in Ziklag;
It came even to pass on the third day, that, behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head: and so it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the earth, and did obeisance.
And David said unto him, From whence comest thou? 
And he said unto him, Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped.
And David said unto him, How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me
And he answered, That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.
And David said unto the young man that told him, How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?
And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.
And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I.
And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.
He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.
10 So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.
11 Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him:
12 And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword.
13 And David said unto the young man that told him, Whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.
14 And David said unto him, How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?
15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
16 And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed.

II.  Analysis 

Here is the same passage as transcripts.  Please note that the record itself is important as it uses "said" and "told" which should be recognized in communication analysis. 

We take the first account as reported:

1.  Saul wounded by archers
2.  Saul, dying commands his armor bearer to kill him to avoid abuse by the enemy.  
3.  The armor bearer refused. 
4.  The armor bearer saw Saul died and took his own life.  

In the second account, an enemy combatant arrived at the camp of David with Saul's crown and personal affects.  

David:  From whence comest thou? 

The first question David asks the stranger is where has he come from.  


Subject: Out of the camp of Israel am I escaped.

He reports the location while affirming that he was a prisoner of war and escaped.  


 David:  How went the matter? I pray thee, tell me

This is an open ended question, legally sound and in the imperative "tell me."

This allows the subject to:

a.  choose his own words rather than be impacted by the words of the interviewer 
b.  choose where to begin the statement, which will indicate priority.  

Subject:   That the people are fled from the battle, and many of the people also are fallen and dead; and Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.

The first thing the enemy combatant tells the successor to the throne is that his nation's army is defeated.   This is where he chose to begin his account.  He has with him the crown of King Saul, yet he has not presented it, nor does he begin with this message.  

Priority:  your army is in full repeat.  

Second point:  many injured and dead.  

Third point:  Saul and Jonathan his son are dead also.  

With this message, the priority is about the defeat of David's nation's army.  

David:  How knowest thou that Saul and Jonathan his son be dead?

David went directly to point three.  He did not ask about where the army was, nor about the injured or dead, but went right to Saul and Jonathan.  

It is interesting to note that David reflected back the language of the subject, rather than "King Saul" as focus.  We know that the bond between David and Jonathan was powerful.  

It is important to note that it is not "Saul and his son Jonathan" but "Saul and Jonathan his son" is used.  This places Jonathan in a greater position of authority rather than in entitlement of birth.  

How do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead?

This is an indication that David does not take the enemy combatant's word at face value.  David is asking for proof.

This is a subtle shift from interview to interrogation.  

He did not say "How did they die?"  

This challenging question produced a much more lengthy response.  

The first answer was 27 words. 

The enemy combatant likely assumed that the state of the army would be more important to David than Saul and Jonathan as it was well known that Saul had expended much time, effort and expense in attempting to kill David.  

The priority of the subject is the decimated state of the army. Since Saul used this army to chase David for a long time, the subject made it his priority.  The priority is evidenced by the first thing that came out of his mouth when asked to tell "what happened."  

This is a basic and powerful principle of analysis.  

External Information 

Much later, David, himself, will comment on this, revealing that he knew the intention of the enemy by his words.  David said the enemy thought he would be pleasing David with his account.  Although this is out of the context here, it affirms the analysis of noting the subject's priority.  



Subject:   As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I. And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.
He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.
So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

136 words.  

"What happened" produced 27 words. 

"How do you know?" produced 136 words. 


                         The subject's answer analyzed. 


As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa,


How do you know Saul and Jonathan are dead?

Answer:  Because I found Saul who begged me to end his suffering.   This would be the short answer.  

This would be 11 words.  Even if you make adjustment for Hebrew, the point of counting the words is for comparison.  He used almost 5 times as many words to prove rather than report.  

Since we know he has the physical proof at hand, this should catch your attention as a need to persuade.  

Now the need to persuade is going to have some appropriate usage because he has been challenged.  

The wording percentage from "what happened" to this challenge should be net negative; he should need less words as in truthful accounts, it is asking for clarification.  This is what actual proof is:  clarity.  

When one is asked "prove", there is a presupposition of not being believed.  This makes the truthful answer only slightly sensitive.  Even if we allow for an equal amount of words used (27), the extreme increase in percentage is concerning.  

1.  He wants David to know that he was not at the scene of Saul's death intentionally.  

Please note:  David did not accuse him of such.  

This indicates that the subject anticipated being asked, "Why were you there?"

Remember, he already said he was escaped from the army of Israel.   

It is not likely that David would have asked a POW why he was in the camp of Israel.  Yet, the subject felt the need to justify his location, making this very sensitive to him. 

When a subject does this, we always look for another answer as to why.  

The subject's description strongly suggests happenstance is not the reason.  We see this in his priority (where he began his "proof") as it is his reason for his location.  

By chance contradicts his status of escape.  This is where he begins his answer.  

By chance, he is on the mount.  Remember, this is important to the subject, but not something that would have entered an interviewer's mind unless he had said it.  


 behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. 

He slows down the pace dramatically.  He avoids getting to the point of the account; Saul's death.  Remember the question was "how do you know Saul and Jonathan are dead?

"Saul leaned upon his spear" is to tell us the body posture of Saul, while alive.  

"Chariots and horseman followed hard after him"

Saul was fleeing from them while leaning on his spear.  

Can you picture this?

a. He does not say Saul was in a chariot.  If he was, how would he lean on a spear while chariots and horseback soldiers are chasing him at a very fast pace?  Wouldn't the chariot itself give better balance?  

b.  If Saul was on the ground, how would chariots and mounted soldiers be following him?  

Can you picture this?  

This is where readers get the uncomfortable feeling that something does not make sense.  

It is because something does not make sense.  

We note that in the slowed down pace, the language does not suggest experiential memory.  

Yet, we follow his language.  The pursuit is on and horses and chariots can reach more than 30mph, with estimates of early Roman chariot races reaching 35-40 mph.  

While this "hard" (fast, intense) pace is going on, the subject slows down the pace even more so: 



And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. 


Saul looked behind him

Saul saw the subject

Saul called to the subject 

The subject is on the mount while chariots are furiously pursuing...it may be a tough way to have a conversation.  

Please note the unnecessary language of "looked behind", "saw" and "called to him" as very important to our analysis. This pace is being slowed down even more so which avoids getting to the answer to the question.  


The slow pace continues.  The element for the subject is "time."  This is why he reports this as "when he looked..." and not "he looked."

The analyst must now consider that the subject's awkward and seemingly illogical answer has to do with the element of time.  He is stalling (time) to get to the answer and we have the second main element of sensitivity:

The first was the subject's location. 
The second is the subject's timing.  

Consider this slow pace in comparison to the first answer.  


And I answered, Here am I



 And he said unto me, Who art thou? 

The dying king wanted to know his identity while the enemy closes in?  


And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.


He avoids giving his identity, instead, tells that he is of the enemy army.  

We will consider David's commentary upon this later.  

He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: 
for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.

"again", but we have no case of the first time. 

Note the body posture is no longer chariots and horsemen, nor is it "leaning" on a spear.  

Note Saul gave the reason, according to the subject, why he needed to be slain.  

After having a conversation with him, he now reports that Saul told him to Stand upon him and slay him.  

Why did he feel the need to include "Stand upon me"?


So I stood upon him, 

The subject says that he stood upon Saul.  

One might wonder if the subject is concerned about eye witnesses later on reporting that the subject was posing over Saul for the delight of his fellow soldiers now free as the Amalekites overran the army of Israel.  


and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: 

This is very sensitive here.  The reason is because he already reported that Saul told him that he could not live.  What is he relating?

He is telling David that he did not do this in obedience to Israel's king but gives a different reason.  

He has the need to explain "why" he did it, even though he had already attributed the "why" to Saul, himself.  


and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, 

Here he tells us without pause nor indicators of narrative, but in a reliable way.  

"I took the crown...and the bracelet" without any explanation as to why.   He feels no such sensitivity at this point of his statement.  


and have brought them hither unto my lord.

Hence, the submission to the now king of Israel, of whom he calls "lord" in respect to.  


David mourned Saul and Jonathan and had time to process the information provided by the enemy combatant.  That night:  

 David:  Whence art thou? 

David's message is clear through a repeated question.  He already told him that he was an Amalekite; a sworn, brutal and ruthless enemy of Israel. 

David's question is of an interrogation.  He is not only reminding him of his status, he is accusing him of the status of enemy.  

Subject:  I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite.

The subject knows he is caught.  Instead of saying, "John Doe, Amalekite" in any form, or even just "Amalekite, as I said earlier", he uses very specific wording:

"I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite"

He is aware of Israel's policies of refugee status.  This is a term used as such.  

David now accuses him?


 David:  "How wast thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?"

There is no answer needed.  

David had been chased under a death sentence by Saul for a long, weary producing time and had opportunities given to him to stop the madness, including being in Saul's presence with his weapon, while Saul and his body guards were asleep.  He could have ended Saul's murderous mission silently, and it would not have been discovered until the next morning, where David would not only be safe, but would be able to claim the throne that was rightfully his. 

David refused, repeatedly, to harm Saul, even at the risk of his own life.  

David (to a soldier)  Go near, and fall upon him

As this happens, David's words are interesting for what specific language he used: 

David:  Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed.

David did not say "..for you have killed the Lord's anointed" but reverses the law of economy to add:

"thy mouth has testified..."

Analysis Conclusion:   Deception Indicated 

Saul died as reported, by his own hand in suicide. 

The Amalekite was deceptive and caught skillfully by David's legally sound interview.    

The Amalekite's words do not come from experiential memory, but were fabricated in an attempt to ingratiate himself into the place of wealth and honor of King David.  

This could have also been done for the purposes of spying upon David. 

 He sought to please David, but instead received the death penalty for his treachery.   




1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Fascinating analysis Peter. Intriguing also the way you gave insight into the king's interrogation/questioning! It is complex and I will be rereading it again (and probably another time after that too!)