The Advice of the Anonymous Servant

Remarks on the Servant-Master Relationship in Three Biblical Narratives
(1Sam 9; Jdgs 19; 2Kgs 5)

Davide D’Amico

Rhenisch-Westfaelische Technische Hochschule, Aachen (Germany)

damicodavide04@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6237-568X

Abstract: The article investigates the narrative role of the anonymous servant in three biblical episodes (1Sam 9; Jdgs 19; 2Kgs 5). Through a synchronic approach to the text and with the help of discursive-narratological analysis of the scenes in which the servant appears, it will show how the biblical authors use this character in the context of a definite narrative pattern and with the intent of conveying a precise ideological mode.

Keywords: Biblical Narrative. Servant. Minor Characters. 1Sam 9. Jdgs 19. 2Kgs 5.

El consejo del siervo anónimo

Consideración sobre la relación siervo-amo en tres narraciones bíblicas (1 Sam 9; Jue 19; 2 Re 5)

Resumen: El artículo investiga el rol narrativo del siervo anónimo en tres episodios bíblicos (1 Sam 9; Jue 19; 2 Re 5). A través de una perspectiva sincrónica del texto, y con la ayuda del análisis discursivo-narratológico de las escenas en las que aparece el siervo, se mostrará cómo los autores bíblicos utilizan a este personaje en el contexto de un esquema narrativo definido y con la intención de transmitir un modelo ideológico preciso

Palabras clave: Narrativa bíblica. Siervo. Personajes menores. 1 Sam 9. Jue 19. 2 Re 5.

1. Introduction

Characters are the essential elements of any narrative, and the narratives we find in the Bible are no exception. Characters are products of the author, who fabricates paper creatures through precise literary techniques and describes their characteristics in such a way as to stimulate in the reader a deceptive “character-effect” ¹. The narrative’s characters, including biblical characters, can be seen as entities in a story world that the author puts into the narrated world through the narrator’s voice. Although a good author is adept at creating in the reader (or listener) the illusion of a character’s infinite possibilities for action, in reality, the characters in a story are designed as devices to communicate through their relationships and interactions with each other, a specific meaning and their actions within the narrated world serve a specific narrative purpose ². In this study, I propose the analysis of three biblical episodes that share a similar narrative dynamic occurring in the relationships between characters: the anointing of Saul (1Sam 9), the crime of Gibeah (Jdgs 19), and the conversion of Naaman, general of Aram’s army (2Kgs 5). What these episodes have in common, and what allows a comparison, is precisely the narrative dynamic concerning the relationships between the actors on the scene. In these episodes, the relationship between a master, the main character in the plot, and an anonymous servant, the secondary character, emerges through a precise narrative movement orchestrated by the narrator.

Despite the apparent minority of this character, in all three cases, forced into the shadows of the often-unwieldy protagonists, it will be seen how the biblical authors manage to give fundamental importance to the relationship between these two characters. The Narrative and discourse structure of the episodes ³ will reveal how the biblical text suggests a precise way of exercising power over subordinates based on cooperation and dialogue, rejecting a despotic model that imposes its hierarchy on the lower classes.

2. In Search of the Lost Donkeys.
Saul and his Servant in 1Sam 9

The episode of Saul’s anointing unfolds in a narrative arc that runs from 1Sam 9:1 and concludes in 1 Sam 10:16 ⁴. Placed at the beginning of Saul’s story, this narrative is the starting point of the descending parable that will give to the life of this character the typical characteristics of a tragedy ⁵.

The plot is well known. Saul, a handsome young man, depicted in the colors of a fairy tale hero ⁶, is sent by his father along with a servant to find two lost she-asses. After a long search, Saul proposes to abandon the task, while the servant advises continuing to the city where a “man of God” lives. Some commentators identify Saul’s submissive attitude towards his servant, foreshadowing his inadequacy to govern ⁷. However, a closer look at the exchange between Saul and his servant may lead to different results.

It is worth quoting the first section of the narrative, contextualizing the dialogue between the two characters (1Sam 9:1-10) ⁸.

¹ There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjaminite, a man of wealth.

² And he had a son whose name was Saul, a handsome young man. There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward, he was taller than any of the people.

³ Now, the donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father, were lost. So Kish told Saul his son, “Take one of the young men with you, and arise, go and look for the donkeys.”

⁴ And he passed through the hill country of Ephraim and passed through the land of Shalishah, but they did not find them. And they passed through the land of Shaalim, but they were not there. Then they passed through the land of Benjamin but did not find them.

The narrative opens with a formulaic expression introducing Kish ⁹, a wealthy man from the tribe of Benjamin ¹⁰, and continues with the main character, Saul, seventh in the generational line presented by the biblical author ¹¹. His description is majestic (v. 2); the Hebrew literally says, “from the shoulders taller than all the people”. Saul’s imposing stature and perfection of his appearance contribute literally to the construction of a heroic character ¹².

After the protagonist’s presentation, the text directly introduces the problem to be solved, the spark that will begin the plot: Kish’s donkeys have gone astray ¹³. It will be up to our hero, Saul, to bring them home. The request will come to Saul through his father’s voice, who will invite him to complete the mission. In Kish’s request to his son Saul (v. 3b), the reader makes the acquaintance of a new character who will participate in the quest: a young servant ¹⁴.

Compared with Saul’s earlier presentation, the description – or rather non-description – of the servant goes almost unnoticed. The reader knows of him only that he exists, and the narrator provides no element to trace the outlines of his figure. He has no name, and the author does not provide us with his characteristics ¹⁵. All we know about him is that he is “one of the servants”. This expression, in addition to emphasizing the social status of Saul’s family, which can boast several servants, suggests that the choice of the one who is to accompany Saul occurs completely randomly. Through these literary devices, the text creates a sharp contrast between the two characters in the story’s scene ¹⁶. On the one hand, Saul an almost perfect, heroic figure from a wealthy family; on the other hand, a servant who is just “one of the servants”, an anonymous, blurry figure of whom no sketch is provided. The effect of this character’s insignificance is also reflected textually. In describing the events after the two leave to search for the donkeys, the servant seems to disappear from the narrator account ¹⁷. In v. 4, in which the narrator reports the places visited to try to find the lost animals, the Hebrew verbs are all conjugated in the third person singular masculine in reference to Saul alone, as if the servant did not even exist ¹⁸.

This situation continues until, in v. 5, Saul realizes that the search is not yielding great results. The servant reappears in the narrative and engages in a dialogue with his master. In this exchange, in 1 Sam 9:5, the first to speak is Saul:

Let us come back, lest my father cease [worrying] about the she-asses and worry about us

lkh wnšwbh pn yḥdl ’by mn h’tnwt wd’g lnw

The construction of Saul’s speech begins with a second-person masculine singular lengthened imperative (lkh), followed by a first-person plural cohortative form preceded by a waw conjunction (wnšwbh). From a syntactic point of view, when an imperative is followed by a cohortative that does not agree with the imperative in number, the imperative acquires an adverbial function ¹⁹. In other words, in Biblical Hebrew prose, where the imperative is followed immediately by another imperative or by a cohortative (with or without a connecting “waw”), the first imperative describes how the action of the second verb is to take place. Furthermore, as Mann argued, the imperative + (w)cohortative construction occurs when the speaker tries to get cooperation from his listener ²⁰. This is especially true when the cohortative differs in number or person from the imperative that precedes it ²¹. In short, this conative form of speaking indicates that Saul is not imposing his authority on the servant but, on the contrary, seeks his cooperation by opening a space for confrontation ²².

Saul’s speech stating his reasons expresses an idea of ‘scope’ – through the indicative construction x-yiqtol (pn yḥdl) – ²³, and a prediction of ‘consequence’ – with the form w^eqatal (wd’g) – ²⁴. The proposition could be translated: Let us go back, lest my father doesn’t cease (x-yiqtol = scope) [worrying] about the asses, and worry (w^eqatal = consequence) about us. Saul’s father will probably worry about them if the two do not return home. Moreover, the consequence predicted by Saul, namely his father’s concern, is confirmed in 1Sam 10:2. Here, from the reliable voice of Samuel, the reader learns that the donkey business now no longer worries the father of Saul, who is now in sorrow over his son’s delay in returning.

There is no reason to believe that Saul is refusing the research of the she-asses for reasons other than those he lays out in his prediction, namely his father’s concern ²⁵.

To Saul’s suggestion, the servant proposes one last way to complete the mission (v. 6):

Look, there is a man of God in this town. And the man is esteemed. Whatever he says, it surely come to pass. Now, let us go there. Perhaps he will tell us of our way on which we have gone.

hnh n’ ’yš ’lhym b‘yr hzwt w’yš nkbd kl ’šr ydbr bw’ ybw’ ‘th nlkh šm ‘wly ygyd lnw ’t drknw ’šr hlknw ‘lynw

To these words of the servant, Saul replies (v. 7):

Look, we will go, but what shall we bring to the man? For the bread is gone from our kits and there is no gift to bring to the man of God. What do we have with us?

whnh nlk wmh nby’ l’yš ky hlḥm ’zl mklynw wtšwrh ’yn lhbh’ l’yš h’khym mh ‘tnw

The exchange between the two characters allows for some considerations. From the point of view of the discourse, both sentences begin with the particle hnh. This particle is an essential element of speech and, in this verse, has the function of introducing information that has particular relevance to the moment of communication ²⁶. To the servant’s suggestion, which points the master to the important news of the presence of a man of God in a nearby town, Saul responds with another important fact through the construction hnh + yiqtol ²⁷. This verbal construction (whnh nlk) expresses the desire or possibility that a fact will be fulfilled in dependence on the fulfillment of certain conditions ²⁸. It is interesting to note that the two lines have the same grammatical structure. In essence, here, the two characters cooperate on the same level. They provide each other with important information to complete the task: in the same way that Saul had not considered asking the man of God for help, the servant had not considered that the prophet’s performance required compensation.

The successful completion of the plot (the finding of the she-asses and Saul’s meeting with Samuel) is not automatic but, on the contrary, requires the cooperation of the protagonist with his helper, regardless of their social statuses ²⁹. Mission completion results from productive teamwork in which master and servant work together proactively and contribute equally to the goal to be pursued on two different social levels.

3. Looking for a Place to Spend the Night.
The Levite and his Servant in Jdgs 19

To confirm the interpretive line that emerged from the literary and discourse analysis of the previous section, it is worth analyzing another famous episode that, from the point of view of the servant-master relationship, contains a parallel to the scene in 1Sam 9 but from a reversed perspective: the episode of Gibeah’s violence in Jdgs 19. This narrative is one of the darkest episodes in the Bible ³⁰ and has puzzled scholars for centuries who have expressed discordant judgments about the behavior of the Levite and the man from Ephraim ³¹. Again, the plot is well known. The narrative opens by introducing a Levite – whom the text does not name – who dwells in the hilly territories belonging to the tribe of Ephraim. The Levite takes a concubine from Bethlehem with him, but she abandons him, fled back to her father’s house. The husband follows the concubine to persuade her to turn back and reaches his father-in-law’s house, where he stays for three days, welcomed with the sacred chrisms of hospitality. Three times, however, the Levite tries to depart to his home with the recovered concubine, and three times the woman’s father persuades him to stay an extra night. Until, on the fifth day, the man finally sets out. Come night, the group consisting of Levite, concubine, a servant, and donkeys are still on their way, and the problem of where to spend the night begins to arise:

¹¹ When they were near Jebus, the day was nearly over, and the servant said to his master, “Come now, let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites and spend the night in it.”

¹² And his master said to him, “We will not turn aside into the city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel, but we will pass on to Gibeah.”

¹³ And he said to his young man, “Come and let us draw near to one of these places and spend the night at Gibeah or Ramah.”

¹⁴ So they passed on and went their way. And the sun went down on them near Gibeah, which belongs to Benjamin,

¹⁵ and they turned aside to go in and spend the night at Gibeah. And he went in and sat down in the open square of the city, for no one took them into his house to spend the night.

Among the various themes and motifs around which the episode unfolds ³². vv. 11-13 describe the scene of an exchange between a master and, as in Saul’s case, an anonymous servant. As in the case of Saul, also, through some subtle signals, the text emphasizes the high social class of the Levite – the master – which is contrasted with the almost transparency of the servant character. First of all, the Levite is described in the text as a possessor of donkeys, servants, and concubines. Although he is never called by name in the text, through these specifics offered by the narrator, the reader can infer that the Levite is a decidedly wealthy person ³³. This description, as in the previous case of 1Sam 9, is contrasted sharply with the character of the servant. As with Saul’s anonymous servant, the narrator does not provide any characteristics for the Levite’s anonymous servant. The character hardly seems to exist for the entire narrative. Unlike the account of Saul’s anointing, in Jdgs 19, the first to speak is actually the servant:

The question here concerns where to spend the night, and at the gates of the city of Jebus (v. 10), the servant takes the floor and addresses his master (v. 11):

Let us turn aside to this city of the Jebusites and spend the night in it.

lch n’ wnswrh ’l ‘yr hybwsy hzwt wnlyn bH

To this suggestion, the Levite responds (v. 12):

We will not turn aside into the city of foreigners, who do not belong to the people of Israel, but we will pass on to Gibeah

l’ nswr ’l ‘yr nkry ’šr l’ mbny yśr’l hnh w’brnw ‘d gb‘h

An analysis of the syntactic components of the exchange between the two characters allows a comparison with the dialogue between Saul and his servant. The servant’s sentence in Jdgs 19:11 begins with a second-person masculine singular lengthened imperative (lkh), juxtaposed with the particle n’ followed by a first-person plural cohortative + waw conjunction (wnswrh). The construction of the discourse is the same as that Saul used in 1Sam 9:6, so the same considerations can be applied. This particular verbal construction, along with the particle n’, emphasizes the gentle attitude of the servant who seeks his master’s cooperation ³⁴. Despite the similarity of the two scenes, in the case of Jdgs 19, the master (i.e., the Levite) demonstrates a markedly different attitude than that displayed by Saul. In contrast to 1Sam 9, the Levite imposes his authority on the servant using a particularly peremptory grammatical construction formed by the combination l’ + yiqtol (l’ nswr) that expresses unconditional rejection and a strong expectation of obedience (v. 12) ³⁵. While the relationship between Saul and his servant seems to suggest cooperation between the two, in the context of Jdgs 19 the same relationship displays overtly hierarchical characteristics. In addition to the constatation of power relations between the characters, this type of relationship also leads to different plot outcomes. The Levite’s account shows a situation in which the servant’s proposals are not fulfilled, and this choice directly impacts the plot. Having failed to heed the servant’s advice, the group continues to Gibeah, in Benjaminite territory. Here they find hospitality from an elderly man who makes his house available. Soon, however, ungodly fellow citizens knock on the door demanding that the man hand over his guest to them for abuse ³⁶. The old man offers them his virgin daughter, but they refuse. The Levite then takes the concubine and leaves her at the mercy of the mob, who rapes her repeatedly throughout a long night. At the break of dawn, the woman is released: more dead than alive, she drags herself to the host’s dwelling and collapses on the threshold. The Levite, therefore, loads her on the back of a donkey and returns home. There, he decides to dismember the concubine’s bloodless body into twelve pieces to be sent to the twelve tribes as a memento of the abysmal depravity that dwells within the Israelites ³⁷.

From a perspective of analyzing the servant-master relationship, the episode in Jdgs 19 provides a reversed perspective of 1Sam 9 ³⁸. Although from different perspectives, in both episodes, the level of cooperation between master and servant, reflected in the syntactic forms used in the exchanges, has direct outcomes on the plot. However, one difference is evident. While, on the one hand, Saul does not impose his decision on the servant but, on the contrary, cooperates with it to find a solution, the Levite in Jdgs 19 does not hesitate to emphasize his predominant position by pointing out the hierarchy of roles. The servant’s choice is dismissed, and the group is forced to follow the master’s directives. The outcomes of these directives are far from positive, and the group is led toward ruin.

4. Servants of the Leprous commander.
Servant-Master Relationship in 2Kgs 5

The last episode I would like to analyze from a servant-master relationship perspective is the story of Naaman the Aramean reported in 2Kgs 5.

This narrative contains, similarly to 1Sam 9 and Jdgs 19, a scene of an anonymous servant who will provide decisive advice to his master. The story is well known and concerns the healing and conversion to yhwh worship of Naaman, a non-Israelite leader of Aram’s army. A careful reading of this narrative reveals a structure composed of four distinct textual units, each using the master-servant relationship language and employing different functional characters ³⁹. Already from the first lines, one can see a now-familiar narrative dynamic reminiscent of previously analyzed narratives:

¹ Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master and in high favor because by him, the LORD had given victory to Syria. He was a mighty man of valor, but he was a leper.

² Now, the Syrians, on one of their raids, had carried off a little girl from the land of Israel, and she worked in the service of Naaman’s wife.

³ She said to her mistress, “Would that my lord was with the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy”.

⁴ So Naaman went in and told his lord, “Thus and so spoke the girl from the land of Israel”.

⁵ And the king of Syria said, “Go now, and I will send a letter to the king of Israel”. So he went, taking with him ten talents of silver, six thousand shekels of gold, and ten changes of clothing.

⁶ And he brought the letter to the king of Israel, which read, “When this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to you Naaman my servant, that you may cure him of his leprosy”.

The story of Naaman begins with a problem presented to the reader from the very first verse. He is a great general in the service of the king of Aram (śr Ṣb’ mlk ‘rm), respected by the king (‘yš gdwl lpny ‘dnuw) and welthy (gbwr ḥyl) but, the text tells us, he is leprous (v. 1). Note that the term “welthy” is the same term used to describe the social status of Kish, Saul’s father ⁴⁰. This textual reference is followed – like the accounts in 1Sam 9 – by presenting the character’s problem. His leprosy is perceived by the reader as a discordant note in an otherwise so perfect description. In contrast to the tendency of the biblical narrative to provide few character descriptions, the author here provides a picture that strongly characterizes Naaman as a character of high social standing, distinct from the crowd ⁴¹. Such a high description has a precise narrative purpose, to create a gap between him and the other characters. Already in v. 2, the narrator introduces a new player to the narrative scene. From one of the raids in the land of Israel, the Arameans return with a little servant girl, who ends up serving Naaman’s wife.

Again, as in previous episodes, the root n‘r is used to identify the servant.

One can immediately see the sharp contrast between the description of the servant girl and that of Naaman. In fact, v. 2 picks up exactly the syntax of v. 1. Just as Naaman is a “big man” before his lord (v. 1), the servant is a small servant (n‘rh qṭnh) before Naaman’s wife (lpny ’št n’mn) (v. 2). All terms in the two descriptions are in opposition to each other ⁴². Moreover, the young prisoner condenses numerous characteristics that identify her as a tiny, insignificant, and marginal character. She is, at the same time young, woman, a servant, and a foreigner. One could not imagine a more vulnerable figure. Similar to previous narratives, but in a decidedly more pronounced way, the narrator creates a strong tension between the characterizations of master and servant.

Now that the characters on the stage are characterized, and the plot problem has been stated (Naaman’s leprosy), as in previous narratives comes the servant’s advice. With unusual speed in the unfolding of events, v. 3 contains the servant’s proposed solution. She tells her mistress, Naaman’s wife, that the prophet who is in Samaria could cure her husband’s disease ⁴³.

With even more unusual speed, the servant’s words reach directly (v. 4) the ears of the king of Aram, who consents to Naaman’s departure and takes care to provide him with everything he needs. Surprisingly, not only Naaman’s wife and Naaman listened without hesitation to the words of such a secondary character as the young captive servant, but even the king of Syria himself did not take a second thought and considered the young Isralite’s advice without any hesitation ⁴⁴.

As in previous episodes, the advice of the anonymous servant leads the story’s plot toward its fulfillment. Naaman heads to Samaria, and the narrative seems to turn toward a positive outcome. But an obstacle interrupts the linear unfolding of events:

⁹ So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha’s house.

¹⁰ And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, “Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean.”

¹¹ But Naaman was angry and went away, saying, “Behold, I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call upon the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper.

¹² Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?” So he turned and went away in a rage.

When he arrives at the doorstep of Elisha (here, the reader discovers that he is the “prophet of Samaria”) with gifts and offerings, he expects to be welcomed as a great personage. On the contrary, he is received by messenger, who gives him a simple instruction: he must bathe in the Jordan seven times (v. 10).

After receiving this message, the general of Aram was indignant (v. 11): why didn’t the prophet Elisha go out and speak to him? And what does the Jordan have more than the other rivers? The plot again comes to a dead end.

Surprisingly, it will again be the intervention of Naaman’s anonymous servants that will unblock the situation:

¹³ But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it? Has he actually said to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?”

¹⁴ So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

They address their master by calling him “my father”, an unusual expression when put in the context of some servants addressing their master ⁴⁵. On the one hand, this language suggests that the servants adopt persuasive language toward Naaman to urge him to listen to Elisha’s words ⁴⁶. However, on the other hand, this expression suggests certain confidence and a felt closeness between the servants and the masters who allow themselves confidential language with their master that draws on the lexicon of the family ⁴⁷.

If we look at the Hebrew syntax of the servants’ speech, we are confronted with a skillful stylistic composition. The v. 13 states:

But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it? Has he actually said to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?	wyhšw ‘bdyw wydbrw ’lyw wy’mrw ’by dbr gdwl hnby’ dbr ’lyk hlw’ t’śh w’p ky ‘mr ‘lyk rḥṢ wṭhr
But his servants came near and said to him, “My father, it is a great word the prophet has spoken to you; will you not do it? Has he actually said to you, ‘Wash, and be clean’?	wyhšw ‘bdyw wydbrw ’lyw wy’mrw ’by dbr gdwl hnby’ dbr ’lyk hlw’ t’śh w’p ky ‘mr ‘lyk rḥṢ wṭhr

The servants’ actions and spoken words reveal a strong persuasive intention. They approach Naaman and, after calling him “father” instead of “master”, cleverly formulate their advice in a sequence of rhetorical questions in which there are no imperatives ⁴⁸.

Again, as in the previous narrative section, Naaman gives no hint of hesitation. He heads to the Jordan river, bathes in the waters, and is healed of his illness (v. 14). In 2Kgs 5, the pattern found in the episode of the anointing of Saul (1Sam 9) and the murder of Gibeah (Jdgs 19) is repeated twice in a row. Twice Naaman, the great leader, general of the fearsome army of Aram, and a man respected throughout the kingdom of Syria, listen to the advice coming from his servants and implements it without even a moment’s hesitation.

5. Conclusion

The analysis of these three episodes in which a servant-master relationship emerges may provide some literary and theological insights. From a literary perspective, the three narratives suggest a common dynamic. This movement starts from the author’s description of the master. In all three cases, it is the protagonist and is presented to the reader as an individual belonging to a high social rank by the narrator. The animals and servants emphasize the status of Saul’s family and the Levite; Naaman’s glorious description emphasizes the Aramean commander’s social prestige. The narrative dynamic continues by describing the problem plaguing the main character. In the case of 1Sam 9, the plot starts with the loss of some donkeys, in Jdgs 19, the wayfarers have to find a place to spend the night, and in 2Kgs 5, the problem is Naaman’s leprosy. it is at this point that the texts introduce a second character into the scene of the story: an anonymous servant. In all three stories, the text uses the same lexicon to refer to a servant (n‘r) whose description – or, rather, non-description – provided by the narrator contrasts sharply with that of his master.

It is at this point in the plot that the relationship that masters, that is, those in power, have with their subordinates is emphasized in the stories. In the three narratives, after a dialogue with their masters, the servants will provide advice on how they can solve the problem. Ultimately, at the narratological level, the servants propose a way to fill the gap that had started the plot by trying to lead the narrative toward its denouement ⁴⁹. Saul’s servant will advise the future king of Israel to continue the quest by appealing to Samuel (the man of God); the Levite’s servant will advise stopping in Gebus to spend the night, avoiding the town of Gibeah; the young servant will advise Naaman to go to the “prophet of Israel”, Elisha, to cure his illness. Moreover, in the 2Kgs 5 episode, this dynamic seems to repeat itself doubly as at the moment when Naaman would like to return to Aram, his servants persuade him to follow Elisha’s directions.

At this point, the plots of the three stories take different outcomes. The analysis reveals two different attitudes of the masters toward the initiative proposed by the servants. In the case of Saul and Naaman, the narratological and discourse analysis shows a relationship between servant and master that does not emphasize hierarchy but, on the contrary, emphasizes cooperation. The language of the servants and the respective responses of the masters highlight a cooperative will in which the master’s will is not imposed on the servant’s advice. In contrast, in the episode in Jdgs 19, the Levite uses all his authority to impose the hierarchical relationship on the servant, ignoring his advice and going his own way. Surprisingly, whether or not one chooses to heed the servant’s advice, cooperating with it or not, will have direct outcomes on the unfolding of the plot.

Indeed, it will be by following the servant’s advice that Saul will meet the prophet Samuel who will anoint him king over all of Israel. Likewise, it will be by listening to the advice of the young Israelite servant girl and, later, her servants, that Naaman will be able to meet Elisha and recover from his illness. In contrast, it will be because he did not listen to his servant’s advice that the Levite will find himself staying overnight in the city of Gibeah, where the plot will take a decidedly tragic turn. Wanting to condense what has been said, it is possible to outline the literary pattern just exposed.

	Main Character	Secondary Character	Plot task	Is the servant’s advice heeded?	Plot Outcome
Judg 19	The Levite	Anonymous servant (n‘r)	Find a place to spend the night.	No	Tragic. Townspeople rape Levite’s concubine
1Sam 9	Saul	Anonymous servant (n‘r)	Find the lost asses of Kish.	Yes	Positive. Saul is anointed king, and the asses are found.
2Kgs 5	Naaman	Anonymous young servant girl (n‘rh)	Healing from leprosy.	Yes	Positive. Naaman recovers from the disease.
		His servants (‘bdyw)

From the perspective of narrative action, the servants in these stories are a key element. Although they are secondary and almost transparent characters, on close analysis, they represent the turning point of the plots ⁵⁰. They are the joining point between the problem that initiates the narrative and the solution of the plot ⁵¹.

Read from this perspective, these stories can reveal a definite biblical pattern about the power dynamic and the relationship a master should exercise over subordinates. In the episodes of 1Sam 9 and 2Kgs 5, servants are not simply secondary characters who are expected to obey in silence. Their masters do not see them that way. On the contrary, they are listened to, valued, and seen as resources to whom the master can turn in case of need. In this sense, the biblical episodes seem to reward the master who knows how to put himself on the level of his servants and when to make the most of those he has around him, even if it means setting aside his pride and role ⁵². The text rewards this attitude toward power. Cooperation between master and servant is what the plot needs to achieve its most positive outcome, which is the resolution of the protagonist’s problem. This is not the case with the Levite, who instead takes advantage of his hierarchical power, imposing his will and deciding not to listen to the servant’s advice.

In short, no matter how minor a character may seem, the stories give him a central role. The biblical text valorizes him and surprises the reader, who, misled by a lackluster description, might be tempted not to give the anonymous servant the proper value he will have in the story. Through the literary device highlighted by this narrative scheme, the biblical authors succeed in creating a narrative effect that can emphasize the relational dynamic underlying the relationship between servant and master. The narrative and syntactic analysis of these episodes suggest a specific way of conceiving the exercise of power. This way is based on cooperation and dialogue and, at the same time, rejects the purely hierarchical paradigm that deafeningly imposes its will on the lower classes. As in other places in the Bible, in these passages, secondary characters – such as the servants – play a central role in the network of relationships that develop in the dynamics of the narrative ⁵³. Because of how they are represented, combining both universal and individual characteristics, biblical characters, on the one hand, fulfill their function within the world of the narrative, and on the other, characters are vehicles capable of conveying, through their actions, precise messages, and ideologies of those who conceived them.

Bibliography

Alter, R., The David Story. A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, New York 1999.

Arnold, B., A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, New York 2003.

Bal, M., Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, Toronto 2009.

Balzaretti, C., 1-2 Samuele. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento, Milano 2020.

Bar-Efrat, S., Narrative Art in the Bible, Sheffield 1997.

Berlin, A., Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Sheffield 1983.

Birch, B. C., “The development of the Tradition on the Anointing of Saul in I Sam ix 1-x 16”, JBL 90 (1971) 58-60.

Block, D. I., “Echo narrative technique in Hebrew literature: A study in Judges 19”, Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990) 325-341.

Borgman, P., David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story, New York 2008.

Brueggeman, W., “A Brief Moment for a One-Person Remnant (2 Kings 5:2-3)”, BTB 31 (2001) 53-59.

Burney, C. F., Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of King, Oxford 1920.

Catastini, A., “Il quattordicesimo anno del regno di Ezechia (II Re 18:13)”, Enoch 4 (1982) 258-163.

Cohn, L. R., “Form and Perspective in 2 King V”, VT 33.2 (1983) 171-184.

––––, D. W. Cotter – J. T. Walsh, 2 Kings, Collegeville 2000, 34-38.

Couffignal, R., “Le récit du règne de Saül (1 Samuel 9-31): étude de structures”, Études Théologiques et Religieuses 73.1 (1998) 3-20.

Dallaire, M. H., The Syntax of Volitives in Biblical Hebrew and Amarna Canaanite Pros, Winona Lake 2014.

Edelman, D., “Saul’s Journey through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel’s Ramah (1 Sam. 9:4–5; 10:2–5)”, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 104 (1988) 44-58.

Exum, J. C., “Saul as Sacrifice: The Tragedy of Israel’s First Monarch”, Bible Review 12.6 (1996) 20-25.

Fields, W. W., Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative, Sheffield 1997.

Gianto, A., “Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew”, in S. Isre’el – I. Singer – R. Zadok (eds.), Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake 1998.

Greimas, A. J., Sémantique structurale. Recherche de méthode, Paris 1986.

Gressmann, H., Die Schriften des Alten Testament, Göttingen 1910.

Grossman, J., “The Vanishing Character in Biblical Narrative: The Role of Hathach in Esther 4”, VT 62.4 (2012) 561-571.

Gunn, D. M., Judges, Malden 2005.

Hertzberg, H. W. I & II Samuel: A Commentary, Canterbury 1964.

Hildebrant, S. “The Servants of Saul: ‘Minor’ Characters and Royal Commentary in 1 Samuel 9–31”, JSOT 40.2 (2015) 179-200.

Hobbs, R. T., 2 Kings, Nashville 1985.

House, P. R., 1,2 Kings: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, Nashville 1995.

Hühn, P., et al. (eds.), Handbook of Narratology, Berlin – New York 2009.

Humphreys, W. L., “The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31”, JSOT 6 (1978) 18-27.

Jacobs, J., “The Role of Secondary Characters in the Story of the Anointing of Saul (I Samuel ix-x)” VT 58.4-5 (2008) 495-496.

Jannidis, F., Figur und Person. Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie, Berlin 2004.

––––, “Characters”, in P. Hühn and others (eds.), Handbook of Narratology, Berlin – New York 2009, 14-30.

Joosten, J., “Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect?”, JANES 29 (2002) 65-66.

––––, The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew: A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose, Jerusalem 2012.

Kaufman, S. A., “An Emphatic Plea for Please”, MAARAV 7 (1991) 195-198.

Keil, C. F. – Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, Edinburgh 1866.

Ḳoguṭ, S., “On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of hinne in Biblical Hebrew”, Studies in Bible (1986) 133-154.

Kyoung Kim, J., “Reading and Retelling Naaman’s Story (2 Kings 5)”, JSOT 30.1 (2005) 49-61.

Kosmala, H., “גבר”, in TWAT. I, 902-919.

Lambert, M., Traité de grammaire hébraïque, Paris, 1946.

Lasine, S., “Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot’s Hospitality in an Inverted World”, JSOT 29 (1984) 37-59.

Liverani, M., “Ma nel settimo anno”, Studi sull’Oriente e la Bibbia (1967) 49-53.

Long, O., 2 Kings, Grand Rapids 1991.

Mann, Y., “On the Use of Verbs of Exhortation”, Leshonenu 19 (1954) 3-12 (in Hebrew).

Miller, M. J. “Saul’s Rise to Power: Some Observations Concerning 1 Sam 9:1-10: 16, 10:26-11:15, and 13:2-14:46”, CBQ 36 (1974) 157-174.

Milstein, S. J., “Saul the Levite and His Concubine: The ‘Allusive’ Quality of Judges 19”, VT 66 (2016) 95-116.

Mobley, G., “Glimpses of Heroic Saul”, in C. Ehrlich – M. White (eds.), Saul in story and tradition, Tübingen 2006, 80-88.

Moster, D. Z., “The Levite of Judges 19–21”, Journal of Biblical Literature 134.4 (2015) 721–730.

Muraoka, T., Emphatic Words And Structures In Biblical Hebrew, Jerusalem – Leiden 1985.

Nepi A., Dal fondale alla ribalta. I personaggi secondari nella Bibbia ebraica, Bologna 2015.

Niccacci, A., The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, Sheffield 1990.

Nicholson, S., Three Faces of Saul: An Intertextual Approach to Biblical Tragedy, London – New York 2009.

Niditch, S., “The ‘Sodomite’ Theme in Judges 19-20: Family, Community; and Social Disintegration shows how Judg 19” CBQ 44.3 (1982) 365-378.

Paynter, H., Telling Terror in Judges 19: Rape and Reparation for the Levite’s Wife, London 2020.

Reinhartz, A., “Why Ask My Name?”: Anonymity and Identity in Biblical Narrative, New York 1988.

McCarthy, D., “The Uses of wᵉhinnēh in Biblical Hebrew”, Biblica 61.3 (1980) 330-342.

Polzin, R., Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History – 1 Samuel, Indiana 1993.

Propp, V., Morphology of the Folktale, Austin 1968.

Simon, U., “Minor Characters in Biblical Narrative”, JSOT 46 (1990) 11-19.

Ska, J-L. – J. P. Sonnet – A. Wenin, L’analyse narrative des récits de l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1998.

Sternberg, M., “Time and Space in Biblical (Hi)Story Telling: The Grand Chronology”, in R. M. Schwartz (ed.), The Book and The Text: The Bible and Literary Theory, Oxford 1990, 81-145.

Szpek, H. M., “The Levite’s Concubine: The Story That Never Was”, Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal Winter 5.1 (2007) 1-10.

Trible, P., Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, Philadelphia 1985.

Unterman, J., “The Literary Influence of ‘The Binding of Isaac’ (Genesis 22) on ‘The Outrage at Gibeah’ (Judges 19)”, Hebrew Annual Review 4 (1980) 161-166.

Van Dijk, T. A., Macrostructure. An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition, Hillsdale 1980.

Von Rad, G., God at Work in Israel, Nashville 1980.

[recibido: 28/06/22 – aceptado: 07/09/22]

---