The Reign and Rejection of King Saul: A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence

by V. Philips Long

The Reign and Rejection of King A Case for Literary and Theological Coherence

Genres: Theology

294 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1989

About the author

V. Phillips Long (Ph.D., Cambridge) is professor of Old Testament, Regent College, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Reviews

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I used this text when composing my MA thesis on 1 Samuel 15, and found myself interacting fruitfully with Long's text throughout the thesis.

Long's argument tackles one of the most difficult sections of narrative in the Hebrew Bible, both in terms of interpretation (as it seemingly oscillates between positive and negative views of the monarchy) and source-criticism (as the apparent tensions between different sections of 1 Sam 13-15 lead to a lot of speculation).

His essential argument is that if source-criticism depends on "tension" between parts of a given text (indicating a "seam" where two sources were sown together), then a synchronic literary-critical approach that can offer a sufficiently compelling case for the coherence of the text's final form fundamentally preempts source criticism by dissolving the seams into a seamless whole. There may still be sources behind the final text, but if the final text is in and of itself coherent then identifying those sources becomes impossible without external evidence.

He then proceeds to argue for the coherence of 1 Sam 13-15, with the two rejections of Saul as an inclusio offering an interpretation of the complex events in 1 Sam 14.

Thorough, technical, and well argued, this is a must-read for anyone doing scholarly work on 1 Samuel, Saul, the early Israelite monarchy, or any educated layperson interested in a closer, more nuanced read of an important Biblical passage. Because of the focus on synchronic / literary reading rather than using the text in a speculative attempt to reconstruct the Scripture's history of composition, the work here has a much more direct relationship to devotional or traditional approaches to reading (which, like a literary-critical perspective, focus on carefully reading the text as we have it rather than on reconstructing the text as it might have been). This does depend on some ability to navigate the technical language of Biblical scholarship, and utilizes Hebrew.

[Nathan Battey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book had some great material but is not written for general audiences and reads very much like the dissertation that it is. Long successfully argues for the coherency of the narrative of Saul’s election in 1 Samuel 9 and on through his rejection in 1 Samuel 15. There are some brilliant interpretive insights along the way and it is clear he was thorough in his research. The difficulty lies in wading through Long’s interaction with all kinds of skeptical and ludicrous positions that have been read into the text. Long should not be mocked for his meticulous defense of even the smallest of issues, as boring and irrelevant as some of the “issues” seem to be, since that is why he wrote the dissertation in the first place. Again, this is not a book written for general consumption. For a layman’s version that presents the same basic material in a more pleasant manner (yet with less detail) get Long’s Commentary on 1&2 Samuel in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cleared up lots of my questions. Raised a few more. Very helpful. Sound argumentation. Scholarship from 1980s. My lack of German and Hebrew put limits on my ability to follow close arguments, but broad strokes were both clear and convincing.

[E · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a classic in the world of modern OT studies. I usually don't recommend reading dissertations, but this is a great exception. Modern scholarship seems to have accepted that the Saul narratives in 1 Samuel are a mess. He seems to be appointed king 2 or 3 times. Samuel seems to have been retrojected in to the text. Some passages seem to be pro-monarchy, some seem to be anti-. Similarly, some seem to be pro-Saulide, others negative. But is that really the case? Phil Long argues no, and makes a great case for the coherence of the text. He puts question of historicity aside (not that they're unimportant, just that he's focusing on the text as we have it and what it may be seeking to say literarily) but makes a strong case that the text-critical approach of seeing these passages as a mishmash of conflicting traditions and values is not necessarily the case. You cannot write about OT literary (in)coherence today without being aware of this work.

I'd also recommend the work of one of Long's students, W. Brian Aucker, who in his dissertation sought to do something similar with the narratives of my favorite OT character, Elisha. His work is a lot harder to find, though. But if you do, read it.