The Riddle of Samson PDF

The Riddle of Samson
Author(s): EDWARD L. GREENSTEIN

Source: Prooftexts, Vol. 1, No. 3 (SEPTEMBER 1981), pp. 237-260
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20689009 .
Accessed: 30/12/2014 08:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Prooftexts.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 79.182.145.230 on Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:27:54 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EDWARD L. GREENSTEIN
The Riddle of Samson
THE AFFILIATION OF THE SAMSON STORY with the rest of the

Book of Judges, not to mention the entire Hebrew Bible, has often
elicited dismay. Martin Buber, for example, classified the story as "dif
ferent in species."1 Crenshaw speaks for a large consensus when he
declares that "The Samson narrative fits rather badly in a canonical
context, causing considerable embarrassment for some commenta
tors."2 Indeed, many a reader has shaken his head in bewilderment,
frustrated in trying to find religious or moral virtue in the tale.
The reader of the Samson story is struck by two kinds of peculiari
ties. One kind involves what seem to be anomalous features of the
subject matter and action of the story. The other entails certain
unusual aspects of the rhetoric or style of the narrative. At times these
two categories inevitably overlap and it becomes difficult to segregate
one from the other. Nevertheless, I hope to demonstrate that the
literary peculiarities of the Samson story call for a special sort of inter
pretive procedure. The anomalies in topic and action challenge the
reader to seek an interpretation of the story apart from its obvious one,
and the unusual style that shapes much of the narrative suggests a
strategy for going about the process of interpreting. I shall suggest that
the Samson story should be read as a riddle and that the solution to the
riddle surfaces at various points within the text. Before proceeding to
delineate the particulars, however, I now pause briefly to set forth
three assumptions of my literary method.
First, the process of interpretation operates to large extent like the
experience of reading or listening. It attempts to integrate as many
signals as possible into meaningful patterns. An interpretation, like a
reading, cannot be completed or perfected until an entire unit is indi
cated to be closed. During the experience, the reader or listener may
PROOFTEXTS vol. 1 pp. 237-260
0272-9601/81/0013-0237 $01.00 ? 1981 by The JohnsHopkins University Press

238 EDWARD L. GREENSTEIN
entertain and test a variety of interpretations. But the attentive reader

or listener, will assemble and reassemble stimuli until the end, a clo
sure, when he or she forms a (tentative) conclusion concerning the
work.3 I shall suggest that the meaning of the Samson story can only be
grasped in the end, when all the perplexing stimuli are assembled and
sorted out.
Second, I am considering the story of Samson to be its canonical
form in the Hebrew Bible, whatever its hypothetical history of compo
sition and redaction. Nothing may be regarded as secondary or interpo
lated, everything must be considered as potentially meaningful. That
which cannot be incorporated into any interpretive pattern is disre
garded as "noise." Itmay be that readers or hearers with greater sensi
bility, imagination, or experience will hear more "music" and less
"noise" than others. As a corollary to considering the story in its final
form in the text, I also read the text of the narrative as it is embedded in
turn within the Book of Judges and, possibly further, within the Former
Prophets. That is, I read the story in its larger literary context. Itwill be
seen that this attitude toward the story jibes squarely with my first
premise concerning the act of reading. For it is natural, or at the very
least conventional, to read passages in sequence and not in isolation
(though one may choose to do so for a specific purpose). The interpreta
tion of the Samson story cannot but be affected by the interaction
between the reader's perceptions of what precedes and follows and the
narrative of Samson itself. A more favored exegesis of the Samson
story will embrace both the narrative in focus and the surrounding
textual field.
Third, I understand that a work of literature, like a dream,4 com
presses a maximum of meaning into a select set of symbols. In this way
itmay transmit different messages on various levels simultaneously,
"like the Little Tailor in the fairy story who hit seven flies at a blow."5
While the contemporary reader may take the multidimensional signifi
cations of literary art for granted, the student of ancient literature
often behaves as though that literature lacks such sophistication. Yet,
sophisticated analysis of the literary art of the ancients in general and
of the Hebrew Bible in particular can reveal multiple frequencies of
textual communication. literary critic of the Bible, like the dream
The
interpreter, should look behind the manifest content and surface con
figurations of its stories in order to expose their more latent meanings.
Of course, one must exercise special caution in reading biblical
narratives and proposing interpretations. The temptation to apply a
specific hermeneutic toward the exposition of a desired teaching can
only be encouraged by the narrative's own penchant for the didactic
and the long history of homiletical interpretation of Scripture. Never
theless, one can claim a greater degree of authority in advancing a

The Riddle of Samson 239
certain way of reading if one can show that the proposed method of
exegesis is itself suggested by the specimen text and that the various
facets of the exegesis respond to a host of stimuli within the text. As
one literary critic of the biblical narrative has put it, the test of an
interpretation comes in "trying it on for size" in the (re)reading of the
story in question.6 It is important to bear inmind that the interpreta
tion one fashions must be large enough to suit the text which it clothes.
That is, a proper exegesis of a literary unit, such as a story, must take
into account and try to find meaning in as many elements of the text as
possible.
In analyzing dreams, Freud frequently underscores the importance
of what might appear to be marginal, even negligible, components of a
dream.7 Incidental details may actually provide clues to a latent
meaning. Freud noted many similarities between dream interpretation
and literary analysis, and he often adduced examples from literature in
order to corroborate a point in his theory.8 In fact, it is possible that
Freud's methods of psychoanalysis are themselves patterned inmany
respects after the procedures of literary criticism and midrashic
exegesis. I suspect the issue is not so much the relation of a cart and a
horse as the problem of the priority of the chicken or the egg.9 Be that
as itmay, literary criticism has learned much from the techniques of
psychoanalysis and can best apply them to texts which give rise to a
suspicion that the story operates on more than one level. One can
hardly gainsay Freud's comment that
just as all neurotic symptoms, and, for thatmatter, dreams, are capable of
being "over-interpreted" and indeed need to be, if they are to be fully
understood, so all genuinely creative writings are the product ofmore than
a single motive and more than a single impulse in the poet's mind, and are
open to more than a single interpretation.10
I hope to show that when one reads the Samson story on a different
level, as a riddle-like text, many details that have been previously
regarded as dissonant are in tune with my interpretation. Now, having
laid out these preliminaries, we turn to the Book of Judges, chaps.
13-16, the story of Samson. In doing so we shall examine: (a) the
anomalous aspects of the narrative; (b) the basis for interpreting the
story as a riddle; and (c) an interpretation that integrates hitherto unex
plained stimuli.
The first anomaly is the character Samson, who has been aptly
described as "a sort of irresponsible and uncontrollable Till Eulenspiegel
or Peer Gynt."11 Even were one to dismiss this characterization as
narrow and oversimplified, as a judge of Israel Samson is artomalous.
Unlike the other judges?and most other Israelite heroes?Samson
does not lead his people in combat, nor does he on any occasion fight for

the sake of their welfare. Each of his battles takes the form of a per
sonal vendetta.12 In fact, the historico-political background of the
Israelite struggle against the Philistines is only faintly sketched here.13
In addition, unlike the other judges, Samson suffers from an acute
weakness for women.14 His ribald, impetuous nature has led several
critics to conclude that Samson is intended to present the audience with
a "negative example" of human behavior.15
Samson deviates in diametric fashion from the typical Israelite
judge. Normally, as Buber and others have observed, "it is the weak and
the humble who are chosen" for leadership.16 Deborah is a woman.
Gideon is the youngest son of the weakest clan in the tribe ofMenasseh
(Judg. 6:15). Jephthah is the outcast son of a prostitute. By contrast,
Samson is a consecrated Nazirite from what appears to be a good
family, and he is blessed with enormous strength. But he is also crude.
Even if one would wish to compare Samson to Jephthah with regard to
brutishness, Samson differs from Jephthah in a crucial way: Jephthah
famously keeps a vow, Samson breaks three. Samson has clearly not
been typecast as a judge.
Samson is singular in a second respect, too. The story of his birth
bears a general resemblance to other episodes relating the birth of a
hero. He is born to a barren couple through the direct intervention of
God. Yet, as Exum has perceptively noted, neither his father nor
mother made any effort to secure a child.17 This is thoroughly atypical.
A third constellation of anomalies involves who Samson is. The
text barely identifies Samson and his parents within the network of
Israelite clans. Most striking is the fact that although the central char
acter of the birth episode (chap. 13) is Samson's mother, the text does
not give her a name.18 Moreover, the narrator fails to elaborate on the
woman's particular situation:
We are not told that she was old, as Sarah was (Gen. 18:12). Nor does she
complain to her husband about childlessness, as does Rachel (Gen. 30:1).
We are not informed that she tries other means of procuring a child, as
Sarah and Rachel do, when they give theirmaids to their husbands (Gen.
16:3; 30:3). Nor does she turn to aphrodisiacs, as Rachel apparently does in
Gen. 30:14-24. The text does not report that the woman prays for
children, as does Hannah (1 Sam. 1:11), nor that her husband prays forher,
as Isaac prays for Rebekah (Gen. 25:21).19
The text does name Samson's father, but itmust be conceded that the
introduction of Manoah withholds as well as delivers information.
Manoah is identified by town and tribe. But he is the only important
male leader or begetter of a male leader in the books of Judges and First
Samuel (excluding those to whom the text devotes no more than a
verse or two) who is not represented together with his paternal affilia
tion, as are Ehud (Judg. 3:15), Barak (4:6), Gideon (6:11), Abimelech

(9:1), Jotham (9:5), Gaal (9:26), Jephthah (11:1), Samuel's father

Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:1), and Saul's father Kish (9:1). Thus, Samson's
mother is strangely anonymous and his father only partly identified.
Even more curious in this vein is that Samson's own name verges
on anonymity. He is named by his unnamed mother. The nameless
messenger of God does not suggest a name, and the name Samson
receives no apparent etymology in the text,20 as do the names of Isaac,
Jacob,Moses, Samuel, and many others. The text relates the naming of
Samson as follows (Judg. 13:24):
vattikra et shemoShimshon
And she called his name (shem)Samson (Shimshon).
Ifwe lop off the sufformative -on (compare Gid'on "Gideon"), we are left
with a name two-thirds of which comprise the word shem ("name"), an
analysis which is reinforced by the text's juxtaposition of the assonant
words shemo ("his name") and Shimshon ("Samson").21 In view of the
complete anonymity of Samson's mother and the reticence concerning
Manoah's parentage, as well as the strong and well-nigh universal pro
pensity for etymologizing proper names,22 itmay not be too farfetched
to consider the text to be deriving the name "Samson" from the word
for "name."23 His name would then signify the generic designation
"Name," somewhat analogous to the equally undistinguished name of
Tarzan's son "Boy," or even the biblical character "Adam" ("Man").24
Samson is virtually cut loose from any specific lineage. He has no pro
geny to continue his line, and he is buried by unnamed kinsmen (Judg.
16:31).25
A fourth peculiarity of the Samson story, one which has been
widely discussed, is the role of the Nazirite vow. The fact that the
Nazirite status receives notice only near the beginning and end of the
narrative, and the fact that in the intervening chapters the text appears
oblivious of the Nazirite obligations, have led scholars to question the
originality of the Nazirite component from a diachronic standpoint and
minimize its significance in a synchronie view.26 It is likewise seen to be
strange that Samson does not undertake the vows of the Naziriteship
himself, as prescribed in Num. 6. Rather, they are accepted for and
imposed upon him by his parents.27 A proper interpretation of the story
as it now stands must make sense out of such anomalies.
A fifth anomaly concerns Samson's religious posture. Since Samson
seems to ignore his vows, marries a Philistine woman, and otherwise
shows little interestin religious affairs, Crenshaw for one finds it
astonishing that Samson, in peril of dying of thirst, prays to YHWH
(15:18).2*
Just as Samson displays little concern for religion, the narrative as a
whole seems to avoid polemicizing against Philistine paganism and the

worship of Dagon.29 Such complacency strikes one as curious when one

considers the explicit condemnation of Baalism and other paganism?
including the Philistine cult?in such passages as Judg. 2:11-15; 3:6-8;
6:25-32; 8:33; 10:6,16; 11:24. In fact, the state of Israelite commitment
to the covenant is strangely absent from the four chapters that tell the
"history" of Israel during Samson's tenure as judge. Even more, the text
mentions Samson's status as judge only cursorily, as an editor's note, in
Judg. 15:20 and 16:31, wholly outside the action of the narrative. A
sixth and final curiosity in substance attends the story's ending.
Samson dies according to his own express wish (Judg. 16:30). Readers
of the Bible heroes who entreat God with a death
are familiar with
wish:30 Elijah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Job, even the Apocryphal Tobit and
Sarah. But only in the case of Samson does God grant this wish.
The next anomaly begins to carry us across the fuzzy border from
the topic and action of the story to its form and style. Commentators
have long noted that the riddle Samson tells and its solution are
expressed inwhat appears to be reverse form.31 Samson formulates his
riddle not as a question but as a statement (Judg. 14:14):
Out of the feeder came food,

out of the fierce one came sweets.32
The Philistines produce the ill-gotten solution to the riddle not as an

answer but in question-form (14:18):
What is sweeter than honey?

What is fiercer than a lion?33
The fact that the riddle is formulated declaratively is unusual but

far from unique. Stith Thompson34 discusses a typical folktale, "The
Princess Who Cannot Solve the Riddle," which bears certain striking
resemblances to the story surrounding Samson's riddle. First, in both
cases the riddle emerges in direct connection with a marriage, here
and as a condition to the marriage, in the Samson story as
preceding
part of the entertainment at the wedding celebration. Second, in both
cases the peculiar situation lying behind the riddle stems from the
carcass of a dead animal. Here a horse provides poison, by means of its
decaying flesh, to flying creatures (birds); in the Samson story flying
creatures (bees) provide healthy?though impure?food in the head of
a dead lion. Significant for our study is that as in the story of Samson,
the riddle is here expressed as a statement, towit: "One killed none, and
yet killed twelve."35 What is curious, therefore, about Samson's riddle is
not merely the fact that he presents it in the form of an answer but that
the solution is correspondingly formulated by the Philistines as a ques
tion. There is a complete morphological exchange.

Samson's riddle, it should now be clear, is a riddle not only in its

function but also in its form. For although the term riddle can be
defined narrowly as a linguistic formulation inwhich a puzzling ques
tion is complemented by a surprising, unexpected answer, it is possible
to broaden the scope of the term riddle by defining itmore abstractly.
We may then speak more generally of a riddle formula or pattern in
which what one is led to suppose to he turns out?unexpectedly?to be y.36 The
riddle proper is then but a clearly defined exemplar of an entire cate
gory of phenomena. In broad terms, the riddle paradigm may be mani
fested in any number of ways, whenever something or someone is
represented to be but can later be recognized as y. Taken in this way,
the reader of the Samson story meets riddles at every turn and in every
domain of the literary work. One comes to realize that the riddle for
mula prevades the entire narrative of Samson.
The most obvious example follows immediately upon the Philis
tines' presentation of the solution to Samson's riddle. Thoroughly
aghast, Samson musters the full measure of his wit and reacts via.
metaphor (14:18):
If you had not ploughed with my heifer,

you would not have gotten my riddle!37
Rather than articulate his meaning directly, Samson?the narrator
really?makes use of a (somewhat conventional)38 analogy by which his
wife is represented by a "heifer" and the ambiguously denoted activity
of Philistines by "ploughing." The metaphor clearly conforms to the
formula of the riddle:39 what one is led to suppose to be a heifer in the
first clause, turns out to be Samson's wife in the second.
Thesame pattern governs the construction of the story's action.
With remarkable tenacity the elements of dissimulation and the unex
pected appear and reappear throughout. The narrator constantly plays
upon the characters' and the audience's anticipation, reversing the out
comes of their carefully controlled expectations. We shall now see how
these twists shape the narrative.
In the opening episode Manoah and his wife welcome what appears
to them to be a man. The audience is informed that the man is actually
an angel (Judg. 13:3), but Samson's mother (13:6, 8, 10) and father
(13:11) perceive him as a "man." The text certifies their na?vet? by
stressing (13:16) that "Manoah did not know that the messenger of
YHWH was he." They found out only later (13:21) when the angel rose
up to heaven in a flame. In addition to the angel's?or God's?
dissembling, the episode contains another, though more minor, rever
sal of expectations. Upon seeing an angel face to face Manoah expects
to die (13:22), as tradition would have him, and us, believe.40 But of
course he does not die, as his wife had astutely inferred he would not
(13:23).

The audience, too, should form certain expectations from the epi
sode involving Samson's birth. The story of a miraculous birth nor
mally betokens future greatness. This, combined with the intense
religiosity of Samson's parents and his consecration as a Nazirite,
induces our anticipation that Samson will become a spiritual leader on
the order of Samuel. He turns out, however, to be a boastful rogue.41
In the following chapter Samson's parents are twice mistaken or
deceived. When Samson insists on marrying a Philistine woman, they
think it signals ruination. The text?possibly a glossator?42 quickly
cautions the audience against reaching the same frightening conclusion
by adding that YHWH had a secret behind-the-scenes plan (14:4).
Hence it seems that God is disguising events before the parents' eyes.
Later Samson deceives his pious parents by giving them impure food,
the honey from the dead lion's head (14:9). The text reinforces the
deception by reminding us twice that Samson did not tell his parents
about the lion (14:6, 9).
The deception of Samson by his wife capitalizes on two unexpected
turns of convention. Stories inwhich a wily woman outsmarts a man
reflect a popular folklore motif. It serves the Hebrew storyteller, too, as
in the narratives concerning Yael (Judg. 4-5), Esther, and Judith.43 In
each of these familiar stories, however, the victorious woman is Israel
ite or Jewish, and her male adversary is not. In Samson's story the
expected roles are exchanged: the foreign woman gets the better of the
Israelite man. Moreover, the role-reversal is further strengthened by
the text when it refers to the means by which a Philistine woman
overcomes Samson as "seduction" (see Judg. 14:15; 16:5). Normally, the
Bible speaks of the man seducing the woman.44
Even more deeply than the audience is Samson frustrated in his
expectations. Samson expresses complete confidence that the Philis
tines will not be able to solve his riddle. They confound him utterly.
The upshot of the Philistine intrigue in discovering the solution to
the riddle entails several twists. Chapter 15 opens with Samson desper
ately craving the company of the wife who had betrayed him. This
should assuredly surprise the reader. One would have surmised that
her disloyalty would have caused an irreparable breach between them.
Moreover, Samson's metaphorical reference to her as a "heifer" (14:18),
which is hardly complimentary,45 fosters the same impression. Yet,
when her Philistine father takes her back and gives her to another
husband, Samson pursues her at all cost.
When the Philistines retaliate against Samson's burning their
crops, we would expect them to plot against Samson. Instead, in
seeming illogic, they burn his Timnite wife and her father.46 In this,
another striking exchange of functions, the Philistines take revenge not
on Samson but on the target of Samson's own rage. Ironically, the

entire debacle results from the Timnite woman's attempt to escape

being burned (14:15).47 She had thought that by cooperating with the
Philistines she would be spared. Again, what was presumed to be
turned out to be y.
A happier deception lies at the center of the next episode. Men of
Judah agree to collaborate with the Philistines against Samson. The
audience may experience dismay in finding Israelites abetting the
enemy against a hero of their own people.48 For some readers, however,
the effect may have been mitigated by the earlier story in Judg. 12 in
which men of Ephraim confront and oppose the judge Jephthah. None
theless, Samson frustrates both the Judahites and the Philistines when
he feigns powerlessness?permitting himself to be tied up?and then
astounds his would-be captors by breaking his bonds and massacring a
thousand.
Chapter 16 begins with an episode that at once provides comic
relief49 and foreshadows the story's ending. In it Samson's behavior
surprises both characters and audience. Samson has, according to a
behavioral pattern towhich we are becoming accustomed, bedded down
with a prostitute. The Philistines lie in ambush, expecting to kill him.
They, and we, expect him to be unaware of the plan and physically
exhausted from his trystwith the woman.50 The narrative contravenes
each of these expectations. First, he knows of the plan. We are not told
how. It is as though the text would do anything in order to generate
another deception. Second, Samson rises from the prostitute's couch in
full vigor and in the middle of the night. And third, Samson hoists the
city-gate and runs off. He does not kill anyone. Considering the fact
that in the previous chapter Samson had killed 1,000 Philistines merely
for attempting to capture him (15:15-16), we have reason to be sur
prised that he does not retaliate against the ambushers, who had in
mind to kill him (16:2).
The following episode involving Delilah exploits a classic paradigm
of deception: a wily woman overpowers a mighty warrior. I have dis
cussed it briefly above. In addition to the basic narrative structure of
the episode?all about deception?secondary elements of the unex
pected emerge here. We the audience would not anticipate Samson
allowing himself to be duped by a Philistine woman a second time.51
Yet, following a reasonable show of resistance, he does. His na?vet? is
confirmed by the text's statement that Samson awakens with the
expectation of breaking out of his bonds.52 Tragically, his expectation is
foiled. We are led to believe it is all over for the blind degraded
Samson.53
But rather than let up, the reversals in the story intensify after this
point. The Philistines are convinced that they have reduced Samson to a
powerless pulp of a man and that their god Dagon has bested his Israel

ite rival.54 Samson himself thinks that his hair and its concomitant
strength have been forever lost. But his hair had begun to grow again
(16:22). The Philistines have been misled by appearances. YHWH is
dissembling, waiting for the opportunity to strike. Like his god, Samson
too dissembles. He has a Philistine attendant lead him to the central
pillars supporting the Temple of Dagon. Samson pretends that he
desires to lean on the pillars because he is weak (16:26). In fact, of
course, he hopes to use them in summoning up his strength and
proving it one last time. The conclusion of the narrative is likewise
predicated on the riddle formula. Lest it elude the audience the narrator
explains (16:30):
The dead whose death he caused in his death

were more than those whose death he had caused in his life.55
The measure of Samson's achievement was in the number of Philistines

he killed. Normally, one accomplishes more in living than in dying. With
Samson, the expected is the unexpected.
Accordingly, in reading the Samson story one does not always
know what one thinks one knows. This applies both to the actors in the
narrative and to the audience. Thus, the phenomenology of reading the
Samson story echoes a major literary device of the text itself. For each
of the principal sequences of the narrative revolves around two interre
lated pairs of theme words: tell/not tell and know/not know.56 Through
these recurrent theme words the text makes explicit that in this story
one knows only if one is told. If one is not told, one does not know. It
happens to the characters within the narrative,57 and it also happens to
the reader experiencing the text. We think we know something to be
until we learn that it is y.
The story couples tellingand discoveringand then fuses them, forging
a motif of discovering-by-telling that informs each part of the narrated
action. The pattern crystallizes in the wonderfully efficient?Freud
would say "overdetermined"?use of the key verb higgid. This verb
combines within itself the two senses of "to tell" and "to solve." The
first, "to tell," is its common meaning. The second, "to solve," is
attested, for example, in the Joseph story, where maggid functions pre
cisely as poterdoes, denoting the "solver" or "interpreter" of enigmatic
dreams (compare Gen. 41:24 with 41:8, 15). Similarly in the story of
Samson the verb higgid refers both to the "divulging" or "telling" of a
secret and to the "solving" of the riddle (Judg. 14:12; cf. vv. 15,16,17).5?
Through these two nuances the verb conveys at one stroke two per
spectives: the teller discloses a secret, the one told discovers it.
With all its anomalies and surprises, the narrative of Samson teases
the reader to figure out the sense of the tale. It reiterates, though
perhaps subliminally, that we cannot know the interpretation unless

we are told. We are thus bidden to inquire behind the appearances of

the story for its deeper reference, as Manoah asked the "man" that
appeared to him and his wife for his name, his identity (13:17). The text
encourages us to ask and to seek by filling the narrative with questions.
As Exum has observed, "The asking of questions arises naturally in a
narrative concerned with knowing and not knowing, telling and not
. . . the saga affords the listener more rid
telling. Through questions,
dles than the famous one in ch. 14."59 One should go further: the text
itself is rife with curiosities, and the pervasiveness of questions in the
story disposes the audience to respond in kind and inquire after their
explanation.
Like the angel in chap. 13, who did not reveal his identity, the text
does not expose its own solution. What itdoes do is guide the search for
interpretation by providing a modus operandi. It seems only natural that
just as the narrative unfolds according to a recurrent "riddle" pattern,
so should the interpreter, working in a sense backwards from the
manifest to the latent meaning, apply the riddle formula to the story of
Samson itself. For by shaping itself in the form of riddles, the text
presents itself to us as a virtual riddle to be solved, a code to be cracked.
The accumulation of questions, riddles, surprises, and gross anomalies
prompts us to ask: who strays after foreign women, acts on impulse,
and neglects his cultic obligations? The text has reminded us over and
over that what we are led to suppose to be will upon further
inquiry
turn out to be y. Freud has held that the form of a dream often conceals
its subject-matter.60 The meaning of the Samson story may likewise be
unravelled like a riddle, in accordance with its form.
It has been long noted that the episodes of the Book of Judges
conform to a clearly delineated cyclic structure. Wellhausen reduced the
pattern to the following scheme: Israel rebels, Israel is afflicted by God,
Israel turns to God, Israel is granted peace.61 It has been further
observed that the narrative of Samson runs along the same thematic
lines as the entire Book of Judges.62 The parallels between the stories of
Samson and Israel hold even more remarkably when one considers
them in detail. In fact, the Samson story not only runs parallel to the
story of Israel, whereby Samson would "typify"63 or "function as a
symbol for"64 Israel. The story of Samson makes contact and assimi
lates with the story of Israel at several critical junctures. Reading the
narrative as a riddle, one comes to a startling realization: Samson is
Israel. The riddle can be solved: What appears to be Samson is the
people Israel; what appears as the Naziriteship of Samson is the Israel
ite covenant. This interpretation, when carried through the text,
accounts for and renders meaningful most ifnot all of the anomalies in
the narrative.

First, itwill be recognized that the relative anonymity of Samson,

whose name seems to be explained in the text as "Name," iswell suited
to a character who emblematically represents the people Israel. He
comes close to "Everyman" in this respect. In fact, there may even be
literary-historical support for the thesis that the character Samson and
the saga with the Philistines have been invented
of his altercations
secondarily and patterned after, if not derived from, earlier stories in
the Book of Judges. For one thing, Samson's composite personality is
reflectedin the fact thathe is the only judgewho engages inmultiple
exploits.65 Further, Maiamat has observed that the only Israelite enemy
that appears twice in the Book of Judges is the Philistines.66 In their
first appearance they meet defeat at the hands of the Israelite judge
an oxgoad (Judg. 3:31).
Shamgar, who smote 600 of their number with
The second time Shimshon,whose very name resembles the first part of
an ass. The con
Shamgar, smites 1,000 Philistines with the jawbone of
clusion of a literary-historical dependency between Shamgar and
Samson seems inevitable.67 The plying of Samson by Delilah may owe
something to the story of Yael and Sisera (Judg. 4:17-21; 5:24-27).
Indeed, the unusual turn of phrase vattitka bayyated"she drove with a
seems to harken back to the description of
tentpin" in Judg. 16:14,
Yael's act: vattitka et hayyated berakkato "she drove the tentpin into his
temple" (Judg. 4:21).68 In another instance inwhich the Samson story
seems derivative, the Philistines coerce Samson's wife to get at the
solution to her husband's riddle, threatening her as follows: "Lest we
burn you and your father's house with fire" (Judg. 14:15). This recalls
the threat of the Ephraimites to Jephthah, only two chapters earlier,
who say: "We will burn your house on top of you with fire" (Judg. 12:1).
In a curious detail, the specification of the bees (devorim) in the lion's
head (Judg. 14:8) recalls the major judge Deborah (devora).69 And, as
Zakovitch has recently demonstrated,70 the story of Samson's birth
(Judg. 13) depends upon and adapts the episode relating the call of
Gideon (Judg. 6).
From a historical or chronological perspective, too, the Samson
story appears a misfit in the Book of Judges. The narratives about
Samson are set in the southerly territory of the Tribe of Dan, prior to
that tribe's migration north. Yet, the story of Deborah in Judges 4-5
assumes that Dan had already moved north.71 Moreover, as Maiamat
observes,72 the Samson story's locale spoils an otherwise consistent
pattern in the Book of Judges whereby the episodes of the major judges
are presented in turn from south to north. Taking all this together, one
can make a strong prima facie case that the Samson story was formulated
as a partly allegorical digest of the preceding Book of Judges.73 Itwas
given an imagined geographical background in which the Danite
Samson grew up in the plain adjacent to Philistine country, a territory

which the Book of Judges (1:34-35) earlier says the Danites were
unable to possess.74 The precise site of Samson's childhood and burial,
"between Zora and Eshtaol" (13:25; 16:31), may well be an artificially
derived cliche (see Josh. 15:33). But whatever the historical origins of
the present form of the Samson narrative, the intersections of the
stories of Samson and of Israel stand out in clear view.
We have noted above the anomaly of Samson's parents accepting
the Nazirite regulations for their yet unborn son and imposing them
upon him. Once one entertains our solution, by which the Nazirite
vows represent the Israelite covenant just as Samson stands for a gen
eration of Israelites in the period of the Judges, the anomaly vanishes.
For according to Judg. 2 YHWH had commanded the "fathers" of the
Israelites to keep the covenant commands (v. 20), which they did (v. 22).
But just as Samson strayed from the pious ways of his parents, the next
generation of Israelites, whose ancestors had undertaken the covenant
on their behalf, abandoned "the god of their fathers" (v. 12) and fol
lowed alien gods. Similarly Samson's parents do not employ extraordi
nary means of procuring a son, as other individuals do, because they
represent a faithful generation, not a particular Israelite couple. It
hardly bears repeating that Samson's mother is not even named in the
story.
The Samson narrative exemplifies Samson's attraction for the alien
culture by portraying his unabating interest in Philistine women, one of
them significantly a whore (16:1). This choice of motif, used only of
Samson among the Israelite judges, cannot fail but allude to its latent
reference, Israelite apostasy. The Book of Judges explicitly describes the
straying of the Israelites as 'whoring' in 2:17 and 8:33. Moreover, the
Samson story employs another unusual turn of phrase that points
directly to this latent meaning. In relating the attractiveness of the
woman of Timna to Samson the text says that "she was right in the
eyes of Samson" (14:7; cf. v. 3).75 The use of this phrase is quite odd,
despite the silence of most commentaries on it.76 For although else
where the idiom "right in the eyes of X" may refer to a clay vessel (Jer.
18:4), a deserving person (Jer. 27:5), or an agreeable idea (1 Chr. 13:4), it
is nowhere else used to describe an attractive woman. The fairness of
women is denoted in the Bible by the root ytb/twb 'good, fair',77 the
expression tovat mare 'good-looking',78 the root ypy 'fair, nice',79 the
expressions yefai mare80 and yefat to'ar81 'nice-looking, pretty', and pos
sibly noset hen, literally 'bearing grace'.82 The expression used of the
Timnite woman's attractiveness, yashera be eneX "she was right in the
eyes of X," relates to proper conduct, not physical attributes. Hence, its
usage exposes the concealed identity of the Timnite woman by alluding
to Judg. 17:6 and 21:25 ish hayyashar beenav yaase "Each man does what is
right in his (own) eyes," which describes the deviations of the Israelites

from the covenant.83 allusion is strengthened by the fact that the

The
idiom yashar be ene X 'right in the eyes of X' is less common than the
functionally interchangeable tov be eneX 'good in the eyes of X'.84 The
employment of yashar be eneX with reference to the woman of Timna is
thus all the more striking.
Hence, the Timnite woman together with the two other Philistine
women with whom Samson associates symbolize the alien culture and
religion to which many Israelites strayed. This interpretation removes
one more anomaly from the story. It is now clear why the Samson story
never polemicizes overtly against the Philistine cult. It actually does so
covertly, showing how Samson's (= Israel's) liaison with Philistine
women (= foreign cults) leads to disastrous consequences.
Samson had violated the express command of the Lord not to form
alliances with non-Israelites (Judg. 2:2). Samson, like Israel (3:6), inter
married and violated the covenant. The text of the Samson story again
evokes the Israelite covenant that lies behind itwhen, in response to
Samson's request for a Philistine bride, his father explicitly contrasts his
people, from which he would like Samson to take a wife, and the "uncir
cumcisedPhilistines" (. . . from whom Samson wants
pelishtim haarelim),
to take a wife (14:3).85 Circumcision, of course, distinguishes members
of the Israelite covenant and serves as an initiation rite for foreigners
who wish to join it.86
Israel's observance and violation of the covenant are most directly
represented in the Samson story by Samson's behavior toward the
three Nazirite obligations that had been imposed upon him. As I
remarked above, several commentators fail to see the appropriateness
of the Nazirite vows to the story and regard them as a secondary
accretion, especially since the only express mention of them occurs at
the beginning and end of the narrative. Our interpretation not only
reveals sense in the placement of the Nazirite references but also inte
grates the Naziriteship with Samson's prayer in chap. 15, which, we
have seen, has likewise puzzled some commentators.
The text introduces the Nazirite restrictions by applying them to
his parents. First the angel tells his mother (Judg. 13:7):
do not drink wine or intoxicant,

do not eat anything tainted,
for heed, you are about to conceive,
you shall bear a son:

a razor must not go upon his head,
for the boy shall be One Consecrated to God
from the womb on.87
Then he bids the same?omitting only the matter of shaving88?of the

boy's father, Manoah (v. 14). It is implied but never explicitly stated
that the soon-to-be-born Samson must observe the same regulations.

The parents, it is assumed, will bring up their son to follow the duties of
a Nazirite. Thus, the rules of Naziriteship serve as a fitting cipher for
the covenant: both entail a specific code of conduct, largely phrased in
the negative ("do not . . ."); both are adopted by an older generation
and transmitted by them to their children; and, in this case, both are
perpetual and not under any time limit.89 This last deviation from the
normally circumscribed term of Naziriteship seems tailor-made for
representing the covenant.
The stylistic grouping of the particular regulations is also signifi
cant. First, the boy must abstain from improper beverage and improper
food. Then the text interrupts the list of three prohibitions before
presenting the third, the prohibition against shaving. The ensuing nar
rative groups the prohibitions in precisely the same way: first, in ch. 14,
Samson transgresses the first two by eating from a dead and impure
animal and by drinking (wine or intoxicant, itmust be supposed)90 at
his wedding banquet (mishte 'place of drinking').91 Then, after nearly
two chapters have passed without reference to the vows, Samson vio
lates the thirdby allowing his hair to be cut (16:17ff.).
The space between breaking the first two restrictions and breaking
the third functions to bring home a crucial point about the covenant
and God's relation to it.God remains with Samson even after the first
two transgressions. The text communicates this not only implicitly by
showing Samson succeed in his struggle with the Philistines but by
telling us so outright, too (14:19; 15:14). God had also continued to
stand by and invigorate Samson when he had begun to stray after alien
women (14:6). In fact, God exhibits great forbearance toward Samson's
violations so long as he clings to the one last strand of the Naziriteship,
the prohibition against shaving. Shaving is clearly the most crucial
restriction, as growing one's hair long served as an outward, distinctive
sign of Nazirite status. Samson remains mindful of this last regulation
and surrenders it only after the pressures of the Philistine woman,
Delilah, become too great to withstand.
It is, therefore, not so surprising that Samson should call upon the
Lord in an hour of distress.92 In this instance Samson is dying of thirst
and can rely only on YHWH to provide water.93 Just as Israel cries out
to the Lord when it realizes the extent of its peril and that YHWH alone
can save it (cf. Judg. 3:9, 15; etc.), so Samson cries out to the Lord for
deliverance (15:18). The Lord provides water in a wondrous fashion
(15:19).94 Here the identification of Samson and Israel again becomes
transparent. For the episode inwhich Samson finds himself dying for
lack of water, supplicates God, and recieves the water in a marvellous
way recalls several similar episodes of deliverance in the Torah. These
have been assembled and studied for their common structure by
Culley.95 Compare, for example, the first stich episode in Exod.

15:22-25: the Israelites have wandered for three days without any sign
of water.They find an oasis, but the water is bitter and undrinkable.
The people complain to Moses. Moses cries out to YHWH, who
responds by having a tree thrown into the water and rendering it
thereby sweetand drinkable. The Israelites experience a profound
sense of gratitude and commemorate their deliverance by giving the
site a name that would continue to evoke the wondrous event. Samson
does the same, calling the place of his deliverance 'en hakkore asher ballehi
"Spring of the Crier which is in Lehi" (Judg. 15:21).
The Lord continues to protect and endow strength to Samson and
Israel as long as they do not neglect their obligations entirely. God does
not abrogate his saving role in the face of the people's infractions
because he knows that they are stubborn by nature, wicked by inclina
tion, and frequently err (cf. Deut. 9:27). God is characteristically
patient. Only when the violation of the covenant grows deep and com
plete does God hand the Israelites over to their enemies (cf., e.g., Judg.
2:14) and Samson over to the Philistines. It is therefore mistaken to
divorce Samson's vows from his prayers, as Exum does.96 By his obser
vance of the remaining vow and his turning to YHWH in prayer,
Samson stays in touch with God. Accordingly, even when Samson falls
into enemy hands, he can once again turn to God and be granted his
wish, to die together with a crowd of his tormenters (16:28, 30). We
noted above the anomaly that Samson alone of all those who asked God
for death was granted his wish. In our interpretation the exception
makes sense. Samson's death-wish represents Israel's repentance, and
to this God must respond. Samson may die, but his ultimate turning to
God puts those that follow him on a better footing and a straighter
path. The parallel to Israel's story still holds: one sinful generation
suffers, but the next one enjoys peace (cf. Judg. 3:11, etc.). (Could this
be* the significance of the name of Samson's father, Manoah, 'Place of
Resting',97 inwhose gravesite Samson was buried? Following the tragic
resolution of the generation represented by Samson, Israel was once
again at rest.)
The association of Samson's death-scene and the Israelite covenant
is brought out beautifullyby its setting in theTemple ofDagon, the
Philistine god. On this scenario Wharton comments:
It cannot be unintentional that the present narrator calls such explicit

attention to the worship of Dagon as the setting for Samson's ultimate
humiliation and final victory. He intends his readers to see Samson's plight
as the consequence of his own fidelity, but at the same time to see Yah
weh's cause at stake in the apparent triumph of Dagon's worshipers over
Yahweh's dishonored servant. This nuance places the question of Samson's
faithfulness/unfaithfulness in the context of Yahweh versus the gods of
Canaan, a concern wholly lacking in chapters 14 and 15.98

This observation brims with insight but fails to perceive the link
between the destruction of Dagon's Temple and Samson's (Israel's)
adherence to the Naziriteship (covenant). Samson/Israel had sinned
with his/its eyes, finding greater attraction in Philistine/alien culture
and religion than in the covenant of YHWH. When the Philistines
finally humiliate Samson (Israel), he acknowledges that his fate iswith
YHWH. He therefore returns to the Lord's fold, throwing off the false
gods of the enemy. The Samson story depicts the abandonment of the
now abominable alien cult through the image of Samson collapsing the
temple of the Philistine god.
Finally, we consider the most oft-noted anomaly in the Samson
story in order to see whether it can be fitted by our interpretation. In
this case our analysis could not be better suited. All the Israelite judges,
with the sole exception of Samson, fight on behalf of the people Israel.
Samson fights solely for himself. If Samson is taken to represent Israel,
the anomaly is understandable. Samson does not fight for Israel because
Samson is Israel.
In presenting this analysis of the Samson story I am not claiming
that even a sensitive reader would necessarily come up with this inter
pretation in the course of reading. The full significance of the story
would not reach the reader until he or she reflected upon the text
afterward, sorted out its peculiarities, and made sense of them. Only
then, once the story is subjected to solution as a riddle, could the inter
pretation materialize. Appropriately enough, a delayed solution is
exactly what we would expect of interpreting a riddle-like text. For, as
Freud has observed, "The allusions of the witticism must be striking,
and the omissions easily supplemented; with the awakening of con
scious interest in thinking, the effect of the witticism is regularly made
impossible. Here lies the real distinction between wit and riddle."99 To
solve a riddle requires deliberation.
In the end, a thoughtful reader should be able to perceive this latent
meaning of the Samson story. The text transmits here the history of
Israel's backsliding, affliction, and ultimate hope by indirection, dis
guised as itwere as the story of Samson the Judge. The narrative draws
the reader in slowly, shapes his or her responses, and little by little
discloses the veiled message. By postponing the revelation the narrative
stores up its full power of surprise and unleashes it in a final sudden
rush of recognition. The Samson story resembles in this respect the
parable of Nathan the Prophet (2 Sam. 12:1 ff.). The parable alludes
unmistakably to David's misappropriation of Bathsheba. But because it
ismasked by what appears to be a story about anonymous characters,
David does not grasp its true significance until Nathan provides the
solution (v. 7): "You are the man." Israel, not being an individual
obsessed with protecting his ego, is capable, upon reflection, of identi

fying itself with Samson without being told the solution. But in order
to facilitate the interpretation, the text, as we have seen, sprinkles
transparent allusions to its reference throughout the narrative.100
Shaping the storyof Israel in themold of an individualbiography is
not entirely unique to the Samson story. Gunkel identified many of the
patriarchal narratives as legendary episodes recapitulating the history
of various tribes and clans.101 Although Thompson has discriminated
more precisely between patriarchal stories inwhich the hero eponym
ously represents his people and those inwhich the hero merely figures
as an ideal member of the people,102 Samson in effect functions in both
ways. In the sense that Samson personalizes the mythic relation
between God and the people Israel by exemplifying the frail and tender
areas of that bond, it is allegory.103 In the context of the Deuteronomic
history, inwhich the biblical books from Joshua through Kings evaluate
the history of Israel and its God according to the program set forth in
the Book of Deuteronomy,104 the story of Samson epitomizes and per
sonifies the story of the diffuse tribes of Israel vis-?-vis their Lord.
Feldman has observed with regard to the Book of Genesis that "In
general, a content analysis of the patriarchal narrative turns up mate
rial pertinent to Israel at a time after Ahab when relations with Aram
were paramount."105 Even if one wishes to dispute Feldman's dating,
one can appreciate his argument that the patriarchal stories hold an
abiding, mythic relevance to the Israelites by proffering a narrative that
is at once traditio-historic and contemporary. "The double entendre" like
that in Samson, "is that of the parable, riddle, and oracle."106
To cite another illustration, elements of the early career ofMoses
prefigure the story of the Hebrews in several respects.107 For example,
Moses' smiting the Egyptian taskmaster prefigures God's smiting the
Egyptian firstborn on behalf of Israel. The rebuke of Moses by the two
quarreling Hebrews prefigures the people's complaints and challenges
toMoses later. Moses' flight toMidian prefigures Israel's escape from
Egypt, when it ismet by the Midianite priest Jethro. The revelation of
God toMoses at the Burning Bush (sene) on the holy mountain prefig
ures the Lord's appearance to all Israel at the holy mountain Sinai.
Moses' diffidence in accepting God's mission and his only lukewarm
trust in God's redemptive power foreshadows the reservations of all
Israel in acknowledging and trusting in the power of the Lord. (Notice,
for instance, that Moses only begins to preside over the plagues after
the fifth one and that the Israelites do not come to recognize the effi
cacy of the Lord until the eighth plague.) Along similar lines, Buber
found many aspects of the life of Abraham to foreshadow the subse
quent history of his Hebrew descendants.108
The Samson story, as a kind of allegory, is not a pr?figuration but
an epitomization of Israel. As such it has no exact analogue elsewhere

in biblical narrative. Considering the small size of the biblical corpus,

this is not surprising.109 Nonetheless, we saw above that there is suffi
cient evidence to argue that the Samson story was, in fact, composed as
a quasi-allegory. It would not be above and beyond the biblical narra
tors, therefore, to have consciously or even unconsciously patterned
the story of an individual so that itwould signify the latent story of a
people, too.
Which brings me to a final clarification. I am not suggesting that
the story of Samson is only the story of Israel and its loyalty to the
covenant. As we heard at the outset, stories, like dreams, may com
municate on different frequencies simultaneously.
They may combine
various manifest significations as well as more underlying messages.
The surface story of Samson the Judge stands on its own and can be
read on that level alone. Clearly not everything in the surface narrative
of Samson need symbolize a particular aspect of the Israelite myth. So
too, in the Garden of Eden story the snake may symbolize the tease of
human passion and desire, but it is also a real snake that first has legs
and later must crawl on its belly.110
Nor is the interpretation Imake the only deep?or deepest?level of
meaning in the Samson story. I find much merit, for example, in the
proto-structural analysis of Hermann Gunkel, who views the narrative
of Samson?especially in what he reconstructs as its most primitive
form?as a mediation between the opposing attractions and repulsions
of culture and nature.111 This reading places the Samson story in the
same category with many South American myths analyzed by C. L?vi
Strauss,112 the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh as analyzed by G. S.
Kirk,113 and the Garden of Eden story as analyzed in part by J.Rosen
berg.114 I have tried to maintain that our understanding of the Samson
story is one of its latent meanings, one that is not superimposed but
answers to the stimuli of the text itself and reads the text in one of its
own formative patterns, that of the riddle.
Department of Bible
The JewishTheological Seminary of America
NOTES
An abridged version of this study was presented at the annual meeting of the Associa
tion for Jewish Studies, December 1980. My attention was drawn to this topic in part
by a
term paper by one of my students, Gladys Schwarz. Preparation of this study was
assisted by a grant from the Abbeli Research Fund of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America.
1. Martin Buber, Kingship ofGod3, trans. Richard Scheimann (New York, 1967), p. 77.

2. James L. Crenshaw, Samson (Atlanta, 1978), p. 63.

3. See further: Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Poetic Closure
(Chicago & London, 1968);
Stanley E. Fish, Self-Consuming Artifacts (Berkeley, 1972); Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading
(Baltimore & London, 1978); George L. Dillon, Language Processing and theReading ofLiterature
(Bloomington & London, 1978); and Jane P. Tompkins, ed., Reader-Response Criticism (Balti
more & London, 1980). On the function of pattern-perception in the interpretation of
dreams, see Marsha Kinder, "The Adaptation of Cinematic Dreams/' Dreamworks 1 (1980),
54-68.
4. Cf. Northrop Frye, "Literature and Myth," in James Thorpe, ed., Relations of Literary
on the parallelism between literature and dreamwork. For a
Study (New York, 1967), p. 40,
balanced discussion of "Literature and Psychology," see Frederick C. Crews in ibid., pp.
73-87. For more recent studies, see the special issue of New LiteraryHistory 12:1 (Autumn,
1980). On the overlap of psychoanalysis and literary criticism, see Peter Brooks, "Freud's
Yale French Studies 55156 (1977), 280-300.
Masterplot,"
5. Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation ofDreams, trans, and ed. by James Strachey (Discus
= The Basic
Books: New York, 1965), p. 562 (VII. A) Writings ofSigmund Freud, trans, and ed.
by A. A. Brill (Modern Library: New York, 1938), pp. 478-79.
6. David M. Gunn, The Story ofKing David, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
Supplement Series 6 (Sheffield, 1978), p. 88; cf. idem, The Fate ofKing Saul, Journal for the
Series 14 (Sheffield, 1980), pp. 17-18.
Study of the Old Testament, Supplement
7. See Freud's The Interpretation ofDreams, Discus ed., p. 152 and passim. For the impor
tance of seemingly marginal elements in literary analysis, see now Frank Kermode,
"Secrets and Narrative
Sequence," Critical Inquiry 7:1 (Autumn 1980), 83-101.
8. Cf. Interpretation of Dreams, Discus
The ed., pp. 294 ff. and elsewhere.
9. Cf. George Steiner, "A Remark on Language and Psychoanalysis," On Difficulty and
Other Essays (New York & Oxford, 1978), pp. 48-60.
10. Freud, The
Interpretation of Dreams, Discus ed., p. 299.
11. Robert H.
Pfeiffer, quoted inW. F. Stinespring, "Humor," Interpreter'sDictionary of
the Bible (Nashville & New York, 1962), vol. 2, p. 662a; cf. already J. K. Kohn & L.
Davidson, "Humor und Witz, J?discher," J?disches Lexikon (Berlin, 1928), vol. 2, p. 1687.
12. This observation is expressed by most commentators.
13. Cf. Hermann Gunkel, "Simson," Reden und Aufs?tze (G?ttingen, 1913), p. 41; Leon
Wood, Distressing Days of the Judges (Grand Rapids, 1975), p. 303.
14. See, for example, Zvi Adar, The Biblical Narrative (Jerusalem, 1959), p. 66; and many
other interpreters.
15. See,for example, Crenshaw, pp. 64-65, 137 ff.
16. M. On theBible, ed. Nahum
Buber, N. Glatzer (New York, 1968), pp. 141-42; cf. A.
Maiamat, "Charismatic Leadership in the Book of Judges," in F. M. Cross et al., eds.
. . :
Magnalia Dei. Essays on theBible and Archaeology inMemory ofG. ErnestWright (Garden City,
N. Y., 1976), p. 160. On the significance of this motif in biblical theology, see Alan W.
Miller, "Claude L?vi-Strauss and Genesis 37-Exodus 20," in R. A. Brauner, ed., Shiv'im:
Essays and Studies in Honor of Ira Eisenstein (Philadelphia & New York, 1977), pp. 21-52.
17. J.Cheryl Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment: Narrative Art in Judges 13," Journal of
Biblical Literature 99 (1980), 47-48.
18. Cf. ibid., p. 48; Robert Polzin, Moses and theDeuteronomist (New York, 1980), p. 183.
For Crenshaw (p. 73) the omission of Samson's mother's name establishes an irony: the
unnamed mother is "trustworthy," the named lover Delilah is not.
19. Exum, "Promise and Fulfillment," pp. 47-48.
20. Cf. ibid., p. 57.
21. For another biblical wordplay between shem 'name' and a stem of the shape sh-m-X
(shemen 'oil'), see Eccles. 7:1.
22. Cf. I.M. Casanowicz, Paronomasia in theOld Testament (Boston, 1894), pp. 17-20. For
in proper names in the Bible, see ibid., pp. 36-40.
wordplay

23. The Hebrew phrase for 'to call his/her name' is, of course, a formulaic clich?. I
would not entertain a connection between it and the name "Samson" were it not for the
several unusual and coinciding circumstances that I have enumerated.
24. Cf. Michael Fishbane, Text and Texture (New York, 1979), p. 18.
25. Cf. Crenshaw, p. 98.
26. for example, Gunkel,
See, "Simson", p. 48; James A. Wharton, "The Secret of
Yahweh: and Affirmation
Story in Judges 13-16," Interpretation27 (1973), esp. pp. 59-60; J.
Cheryl Exum, "Literary Patterns in the Samson Saga: An Investigation of Rhetorical
Style in Biblical Prose" (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1976), pp. 25 ff.; Crenshaw, p.
95; Everett Fox, "The Samson Cycle in an Oral Setting," alcheringa 4/1 (1978), p. 53.
27. Cf. Exum, "Literary Patterns," pp. 29-30, n. 5; Fox, p. 53.
28. Crenshaw, pp. 30-31.
29. Cf. Gunkel, "Simson," p. 46; Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Book of Judges (Jerusalem,
1962; in Hebrew), p. 251.
30. Cf. Crenshaw, pp. 46-48.
31. E. g., Gunkel, "Simson,"p. 53. J.R. Porter, "Samsons Riddle: JudgesXIV. 14,18,"
Studies13 (1962), 106 with n. 6, contends that the formulationof
JournalofTheological
Samson's riddle reflects a "common
Hebrew practice to clothe statements in interrogative
form and to give answers to questions in this way." To support this claim, Porter adduces
2 Sam. 3:8, inwhich Abner answers a question with a question. Ishbosheth asked Abner
why he had cohabited with Saul's concubine (verse 7). Rather than submit to Ishbosheth's
interrogation, Abner "Am I a dog of Judah?"

retorted (verse 8). The case is hardly
analogous to Samson's riddle.

First, Abner's response was rhetorical, not informative.
Second, Abner was not replying to a riddle. Moreover, this example fails to account for
the fact that not only is the Philistines' answer to Samson in the form of a question,
Samson's question is in the form of an answer, i.e., a statement. Porter^refers further to
an article by D. Winton Thomas, "Kelebh 'Dog': Its Origin and Some Usages of It in the Old
Testament," Vetus Testamentum 10 (1960), 410-27. Since Winton Thomas understands
Abner's retort as a rhetorical expression of contempt for his interlocutor (see p. 421), I
find no way in which this article serves to support Porter's argument.
Crenshaw, p. 113, attempts to make sense of the form of Samson's riddle and the
Philistines' solution by way of eisegesis.
32. Trans. Fox, p. 56.
33. Trans, ibid., p. 57.
34. Stith Thompson, The Folktale (Berkeley, Los Angeles & 1977), p. 156.
London,
35. Most riddles, of course, are expressed in question-form. Compare, for example,
the following riddle-type, which bears resemblances to Samson's riddle: An "accused
person is to be set free if he can propound a riddle which
the judge is unable to solve. He
always this from some peculiar circumstance

does which he has recently observed. Most
commonly the riddle is 'What has seven tongues in one head?' The judge, of course,
cannot guess. The condemned man then tells how he found the skull of a horse with a
bird's and seven young birds in it" (Thompson,
nest p. 162). The parallels with the
Samson Story are: (1) in each case the riddle originates in a recent experience of the hero;
and (2) in each case the situation which the riddle disguises involves flying creatures in
the head of a dead animal. Yet here, in contrast to the Samson story, the riddle is
formulated as a question.
36. On the property of a riddle to reveal and simultaneously conceal a particular
meaning, see, for example, Robert Scholes, Structuralism in Literature (New Haven &
London, 1974), p. 45.
38. Cf. Crenshaw, pp. 118-19. For additional illustrations of this and related analo
gies, see David Marcus, "A Famous Analogy of Rib-Haddi," Journal of theAncient Near Eastern
Society of Columbia University 5 (1973), 281-82.

39. For the affinity of this metaphor to a riddle, see, for example, .H. Tur-Sinai
(Torcszyner), "The Riddle in the Bible/' Hebrew Union College Annual 1 (1924), 128 = Halla
shon vehassefer, Sefer volume (Jerusalem, 1959), p. 61. Cf. also Shammai Feldman, "Biblical
Motives and Sources," Journal ofNear Eastern Studies 22 (1963), 92b.
40. See, for example, Exod. 33:20.
41. Cf. Exum, "Literary Patterns," p. 58; Crenshaw, p. 137.
42. Compare, for example, Crenshaw, p. 78.
43. See ibid., pp. 43-44.
44. Cf. ibid., p. 93.
45. Compare Amos' caricature of the opulent ladies of Israel as "cows of Bashan"
(Amos 4:1). For an analysis of "Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,"
see Patrick D. Miller Jr., Ugarit-Forschungen 2 (1970), 177-86. For the biblical usage of
"heifer" in particular, cf. Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebr?ischen Bibel 3 (Leipzig, 1910;
repr.: Hildesheim, 1968), p. 133, who compares Jer. 46:20.
46. Cf. Exum, "Literary Patterns," p. 143; Polzin, pp. 188-89.
47. Cf. Exum, "Literary Patterns," p. 142.
48. Cf. Wood, pp. 318-19.
49. Cf. David G. Roskies, "The Samson Cycle: A Form Study in the Biblical Epic"
(unpublished ms., 1971), p. 16; Wharton, "The Secret of Yahweh," p. 52; Crenshaw, p. 57.
50. See, for example, Gunkel, "Simson," p. 44, who reminds us that as a rule omne
animal post coitum triste; Exum, Literary Patterns, p. 161.
51. Cf. Kenneth R. R. Gros Louis, "The Book of Judges," in idem et al., eds., Literary
Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville & New York, 1974), p. 160; Wood, p. 329.
53. Cf. Wood, p. 334.
56. Cf. Exum, "Literary Patterns," pp. 55, 60-61, 61-62; Crenshaw, pp. 66-67; Fox,
pp. 64, 66.
57. Cf. Polzin, p. 184: "the narrator . . . intent upon underscoring his charac
appears
ters' limitations of knowledge and understanding."
58. Cf., e.g., Kaufmann, p. 253; Exum, "Literary Patterns," p. 127 with some biblio
graphy in n. 1 there. Perhaps we should then read higgadta in verse 16 as higgadtak (mappik
he) 'you have solved it (= the riddle)'
with Ehrlich, p. 132.
59. Exum, "Literary 66-67.
Patterns,"
pp.
60. Freud, The Interpretation ofDreams, Discus ed., p. 367. For Freud's writing style as a
representation of his message, see Jacques Derrida, into One's Own," inGeof
"Coming
frey H. Hartman, ed., Pyschoanalysis and theQuestion of theText (Baltimore & London, 1978),
pp. 114-48.
61. Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to theHistory ofAncient Israel (Meridian Books: New
York, 1957), p. 231; cf. Buber, Kingship of God\ p. 68.
62. Compare, for example, Gros Louis, pp. 161-62; Crenshaw, p. 134; Fox, p. 65.
63. So Crenshaw, loc. cit.
64. So Fox, loc. cit.
65. Cf. Kaufmann, p. 51.
66. Maiamat, p. 154.
67. C. F. Burney, too, draws a parallel between Samson and Shamgar, as well as
Shamma son of Agee in 2 Sam. 23:11 ff.; see his The Book of Judges (repr.: New York, 1970),
pp. 75-76. Burney, however, concludes that the brief notice concerning Shamgar is later.
The cumulative evidence that I am adducing here favors a reverse chronology.
68. Cf. Robert G. Boling, Judges,Anchor Bible #6A (Garden City, N. Y., 1975), p. 250.
In an all too typical scholarly maneuver to remove an unappreciated literary reference by
textual emendation, Ehrlich, p. 139, reads bydh "with her hand" for bytd"v?i\\ a (tent)pin"
in Judg. 16:14.

69. Cf. Boling. p. 230.

70. Yair Zakovitch, 'The Sacrifice of Gideon (Jud. 6:11-24) and the Sacrifice of
Manoah (Jud. 13)/' Shnaton 1 (1975), 151-54 (in Hebrew with English summary on p. xxv).
71. See, for example, Kaufmann, p. 56.
72. Maiamat, p. 154.
73. Compare Boling's (p. 232) assessment: "The Samson stories swarm with reminis
cences and allusions to virtually all of the great protagonists from Deborah to Jephthah."
74. for example, Yohanan
See, Aharoni, The hand of the Bible, rev. and enlarged ed.,
trans. A. F. Rainey (Philadelphia, 1979), p. 242.
75. An ancient Greek version reads another occurrence of this phrase between 14:1
and 14:2; see, for example, Boling, p. 229.
76. Metsudat David, a commentary printed in rabbinic Bibles, seems to sense something
unusual for it bothers to comment: "it is derived from the expression'upright and good'"
(milshon yashar vaiov), a phrase used elsewhere of Godlike behavior (see Ps. 25:8 and cf.
Deut. 6:18).
77. Gen. 6:2; Judg. 15:2; Est. 2:2, 4, 9; 8:5.
78. Gen. 24:16; 26:7; 2 Sam. 11:2; Est. 1:11; 2:3, 7.
79. Gen. 12:14; 2 Sam. 13:1; 1 Kings 1:3,14; Ezek. 16:13; Amos 8:13; Prov. 11:22; Job
42:15; Song 1:8, 15; 2:10, 13; 4:1, 7; 5:9; 6:4, 10.
80. Gen. 12:11; 29:17; 2 Sam. 14:27.
81. Gen. 29:17; Deut. 21:11; 1 Sam. 25:3; Est. 2:7.
82. Est. 2:15. In Est. 2:17
the phrase most likely denotes "to be popular, favored."
Similarly the idiom matsa hen "to find favor" seems not to denote physical attractiveness;
cf. Deut. 24:1; 1 Sam. 1:18; Ruth 2:2, 10, 13; Est. 5:8; 7:3; 8:5.
83. See, for example, Roskies, p. 11; Fox, p. 64; Polzin, p. 184. Compare, too, Ker
mode's (p. 98) reminder that "the oddity of [an] expression is a way of directing attention
to it."
84. E.g., Judg. 10:15; 19:24; 1 Sam. 1:23; 3:18; 11:10.
85. Philistines are labelled 'uncircumcised' elsewhere, too, as in Judg. 15:18; 1 Sam.
14:6; 17:26, 36; 31:4.
86. See, for example, the story of Shechem in Gen. 34.
87. Trans. Fox, pp. 53-54. It should be noted that these restrictions depart in one
respect from the Nazirite regulations in Num. 6:3-6. There the Nazirite must avoid
contact with a human
corpse. Here he must abstain from impure food.
88. The omission of this prohibition may be due to its obviousness; cf. Boling, p. 221.
89. On this basic difference between Samson's Naziriteship and that prescribed in
Num. 6, cf. Burney, p. 342, and Wood, pp. 307 and 337, n. 14.
According to 1 Sam. 1:11, Hannah dedicates the son for whom she prays?Samuel?
for lifelong service, vowing that no razor shall touch his head. In the Masoretic Text
Samuel is not, however, called a Nazirite. Some ancient versions, such as the Samuel text
found in Cave 4 at Qumran (4QSama), read "I shall dedicate him as a nazir" in 1 Sam. 1:22
and by implication in verse 11, too; cf. Eugene Ulrich Jr., The Qumran Text of Samuel and
Josephus,Harvard Semitic Monograph 19 (Missoula, 1978), pp. 39-40,165-66. However, it
is the opinion of Frank M. Cross that the ancient versions that read nazir in 1 Sam. 1:11
and 22 were influenced by the Samson narrative (Judg. 13:7) and interpolated the addition
secondarily; "A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew Under
lying the Septuagint," Bulletin of theAmerican Schools ofOriental Research 132 (December 1953),
18-19, n. 5.
90. Cf. J.Blenkinsopp, "Structure and Style in Judges 13-16," Journal ofBiblical Literature
82 (1963), 66, n. 7.
91. Kaufmann (pp. 241-42) misses the point entirely. He employs a somewhat charac
teristic casuistry to argue that Samson committed no improprieties whatever, not even in
marrying a Philistine!

92. Contrast Crenshaw'sview, cited above, n. 30.

93. Cf. Exum,
"Literary Patterns," p. 153.
94. Polzin (p. 189) finds Samson's deliverance here to be ironic because it is unde
served. Our interpretation resolves the irony since as a rule God responds compassion
ately to His people Israel.
95. Robert C. Culley, "Themes and Variations in Three Groups of OT Narratives,"
Semeia 3 (1975), 3-13; Studies in the Structure ofHebrew Narrative (Philadelphia & Missoula,
1976), pp. 69-115.
96. Exum, "Literary Patterns," p. 200.
97. Compare, for example, Boling, p. 219; Crenshaw, p. 18.
98. Wharton, p. 62.
99. Freud, Wit and Its Relation to theUnconscious, in The Basic Writings ofSigmund Freud (see n.
5 above), p. 736. Compare Northrop Frye's characterization of the riddle as "a fusion of
sensation and reflection"; Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton, 1957), p. 280.
100. On the property of literature in dissimulating itsmeaning, cf. Jean-Michel Rey,
"Freud's Writing on Writing," Yale French Studies 55/56 (1977), 301-28, esp. 315 f.
101. Hermann Gunkel, The Ugends of Genesis (New York, 1964).
102. Thomas L. Thompson, "Conflict Themes in the Jacob Narratives," Semeia 15
(1979), 5-26.
103. Compare this recent description of allegory and its function: "We may figure
allegory as the curtain that conceals (in order to be made radiant by) a sanctuary. The
curtain mediates the light of what is hidden?mediates because the light would blind us if
we were able to look at it directly"; Gerald L. Bruns, "Allegory and Satire: A Rhetorical
Meditation," New Literary History 11:1 (Autumn 1979), 125.
104. See now Polzin.
105. Feldman, p. 76.
106. Loc. cit.
107. Cf. James S. Ackerman, "The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story (Exodus
1-2)," in K. R. R. Gros Louis et al., eds., Literary Interpretations ofBiblical Narratives (Nashville
6 New York, 1974), pp. 99, 103-4, 118; David A. Robertson, The Old Testament and the
Literary Critic (Philadelphia, 1979), p. 19; Fishbane, pp. 63-76.

108. Buber, "Abraham the Seer," On the Bible, pp. 22-43; cf. also Umberto (M. D.)
Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis (Hebrew: Jerusalem, 1969; English: Jerusalem, 1964), on
Gen. 12:12-20.
109. H. Wheeler Robinson might explain the personification of Israel as an individual
hero by his theory that the ancient Hebrews saw their group as a "corporate personality";
Corporate Personality inAncient Israel, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, 1980). For a discussion of some of
the anthropological reservations concerning this theory, see Gene M. Tucker's "Introduc
tion" to this edition (pp. 7-13).
110. Cf. the comments of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra to Gen. 3:1 and 3:24.
111. Gunkel, "Simson," esp. pp. 42-43.
112. Claude L?vi-Strauss, The Raw and the Cooked (New York, 1970).
113. G. S. Kirk, Myth (Cambridge, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1970), pp. 132-52.
114. Joel W. Rosenberg, "The Garden Story Forward and Backward: The Non
Narrative Dimensions of Gen. 2-3," Prooftexts 1:1 (Jan. 1981), esp. 7-8, 15-16.


The Riddle of Samson PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Riddle of Samson PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

The Riddle of Samson

Author(s): EDWARD L. GREENSTEIN

This content downloaded from 79.182.145.230 on Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:27:54 AM