Nevin Reda

Using contemporary ideas of intertextuality, this study investigates the Qur’anic story of Talut (2:246-51), the first Israelite monarch, as it is set against the background of the Biblical account. A verse-by-verse analysis yields the Qur’anic sequence of events, which includes Talut’s nomination, the Ark’s appearance, crossing the river, Goliath’s defeat, and David’s succession. The Biblical counterparts, located within the books of Joshua, Judges, and I Samuel, feature such characters as Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, and Saul. The Qur’an is thereby reading the books of Joshua, Judges 6-8, I Samuel 1-7, and I Samuel 8-31 synoptically, and the Talut story is a harmonized account of these narratives. Reading between the two texts enhances the Qur’anic story, showing how it functions as a blueprint for the synoptic reading, in addition to furthering our understanding of Talut, who provides a typological prefiguration for Muhammad. However, the synoptic reading also enhances the Biblical story, showing the skill with which the multiple consecutive narratives implicitly argue for judgeship as opposed to kingship in the post-exilic context.

Introduction

The Bible and the Qur’an contain many stories featuring common characters, such as David, Goliath, and the first king of Israel, called Saul in the Bible and Talut in the Qur’an. Although there is some overlapping between the Biblical and Qur’anic accounts, they demonstrate profound differences that scholars have read in diverse ways, each often privileging their own tradition at the expense of the other.Whereas classicalMuslim scholars tended to supplement the minimal Qur’anic accounts with details from the Bible and related literature,2 their modern counterparts often dismiss the Biblical accounts as inaccurate or irrelevant.3 On the other hand, nineteenth- and twentieth-century western scholars have conducted extensive comparative studies, explaining similarities as proof of borrowing and differences as the inadequacies of Muhammad’s knowledge. This approach has often been termed historical-critical,4 or, more recently, the influence paradigm.5 However, recent developments in literary theory have opened up new possibilities for reading the relationships between the texts, an undertaking that adds a new dialogic dimension,6 often under the broad-ranging term intertextuality. This study, located within these new approaches, will point out some of the meanings gained by exploring the interactions between the two texts, meanings that cannot be accessed by viewing each text in isolation.

The study will not cover all textual relations, however, since this is not possible within the confines of one paper; rather, it will focus on some of the ones associated with the first king of Israel.7 In addition, it will provide a general idea of the kinds of intertextual relations, concentrating in particular on the synoptic character of the Talut account, indicating that it seems to be a harmonized reading of several Biblical books, beginning with Joshua and ending with the story of Saul in I Samuel.

Even though the term intertextuality has recently appeared in Qur’anic studies,8 it is still somewhat murky.9 Therefore, a brief glimpse of its use in the broader area of literary theory may prove useful. Since its introduction in the late 1960s,10 it has come to describe a variety of distinct approaches, even influence theory,11 although many scholars today clearly distinguish between influence and intertextuality.12 The former is concerned with the notion of originality, which arose in the mid-eighteenth century and is characterized by a preoccupation with the figure of the author and the attempt to identify precursor texts.13 The older texts are privileged as the influencing texts, and the more recent ones are read for these “influences,” thereby locating power and intentionality in the older texts. In this paradigm, meaning lies with the author, and in order to discern it one must uncover what the author intended. On the other hand, more recent developments emphasize the reader’s role, a change that has sometimes been referred to as “the death of the author.”14 The reader is now viewed as an active participant in the creation of meaning, a process that can involve his or her memory of other previously read texts.

Some literary theorists use this change of focus from author-oriented to reader-oriented approaches to explain the shift from influence to intertextuality. 15 Perhaps one of the most visible ways in which this difference comes to light is how intertextuality can defy historical time, since it is the reader’s reading history that comes into play: if the reader has read the more recent text first, this text will shape the meaning of the second.16 However, what seems to be most characteristic about intertexuality is the dialogic relationship that it assigns to texts and the concern with uncovering the layers of meaning between them. The premise of these readings is a view held by modern-day theorists: in order to discover meaning, one must unravel a text’s relationship to preceding texts:

Reading thus becomes a process of moving between texts. Meaning
becomes something which exists between a text and all the other texts to
which it refers and relates, moving out from the independent text to a network
of textual relations.17

In light of these developments, applying ideas of intertextuality to the relationship between the Qur’an and the Bible can prove fruitful. However, prior to exploring this avenue, it behooves us to take a brief look at some of the relevant contemporary reader-oriented approaches to the Qur’an. Within these approaches, one should place Andrew Rippin’s use of reception theory (reader response literary theory) and suggestion that the Qur’an is a reading of the Biblical text and to view it, among other things, as a response to the Bible along with Jewish and Christian responses.18 Walid Saleh takes a similar approach in his treatment of Talut in the Qur’an, in which he shows the skill with which the story was adapted to its new historical context and the emerging theology.19 In conversation with reception theory, the Qur’an is thereby framed as a seventh-century response to the Bible. The approach taken here is somewhat similar, but is centered on the contemporary reader who reads the Qur’an today, as opposed to Muhammad, who may have been exposed to the Bible in his own timeframe. Thus, the focus will be more on how the Qur’anic text reads the Bible in the mind of a contemporary reader who knows the Bible, as opposed to Muhammad, whose knowledge of the Bible is debatable.

Nonetheless, the Qur’an comes with a historical context known to the contemporary reader, as does the Bible. In the case of the Talut story, this historical setting is invoked in the reader’s mind from the very beginning, since it starts with the address to Muhammad: “Have you not turned your vision to the elders of the Children of Israel?”20 Thus, Saleh’s approach reflects the text’s self-grounding and acknowledgment of the existence of the Talut story in some form or other within Muhammad’s cultural milieu.

Hiswork is invaluable for this study, for it shows the mastery with which the story adapts and transforms Biblical ideas to fit the needs of its time. But literary artistry is not unique to the Qur’an, for it has also been identified in connection with the Bible.21 Consequently, the intertextual space can also illuminate aspects of the Bible’s literary mastery when viewed within its own historical context. Thus, even though this study will focus on the intertextual space from the contemporary reader’s perspective, it will also touch upon each text’s historical setting and compositional skill. The above-mentioned address of “Have you not turned your vision” invokes more than Muhammad’s historical context: it may actually be invoking the various intertexts that describe the rise of the first Israelite monarchy.

It thereby moves the whole story into the intertextual space, encouraging it to be read together with the other texts. However, since there is no agreement among scholars on how to perform an intertextual reading, it becomes necessary to point out in greater detail what this reading will entail. In this study, unraveling the Talut story’s relationship to its Biblical precursors will begin with the Qur’anic text on a verse-by-verse basis, thereby identifying some of its main components and pinpointing their Biblical counterparts. It will explore some of the textual interactions between them, which can revolve around certain motifs, such as the questioning motif, or can be in the form of allusions to certain characters or events. Chronological variations will also be investigated, identifying the Qur’anic sequence of events and reading the Biblical narratives according to the Qur’anic chronology. The resulting reading will then be used to enhance both the Qur’anic and the Biblical stories, showing how the layers of meaning between the texts can give them a new dimension, and to indicate some of the skill with which each composition conveys its message within its time frame.

Perhaps some introductory notes on the historical context of each text are in order. The story of King Saul is located in the book of I Samuel, which forms part of a larger history, the Genesis – II Kings account, also known as the Deuteronomistic history. Most scholars place the final redaction of the text, which shows evidence of modification during the transmission process, in the second temple period (539 BCE-70 CE). Barbara Green has presented a convincing reading of Saul’s story as a riddle responding to the following theological question:

When the exile community prepares to return to Judea from Babylon,
once it is possible to do so (after 539 or so), shall the people return under
the leadership of kings or not? In retrospect we can see that the answer is
pretty clear: without kings.22

The text’s main redactor is usually referred to as the Deuteronomist,23 a single author, or more likely a close-knit group of scholars, who put together the Deuteronomistic history from pre-Exilic material. A main objective was to explain Israel’s fate as due to its apostasy fromthe true worship of God and failure to uphold its end of the covenant. Of primary concern was to emphasize the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty as opposed to Saul, thereby downplaying Saul and glorifying David.24

For the Qur’an, Saleh has drawn a compelling picture of the early Muslim community in Madinah, when the Talut verses were revealed. Muhammad and a small band of followers had fled the persecution in Makkah and were trying to establish a base in Madinah, from which they could launch attacks at their former city, in order to establish a new polity. Resistance took the formof apathy and lip service to the new faith, insofar as it required fighting: “The question asked by the Qur’an (from the mouth of Samuel addressing the Israelites) becomes very telling: Should fighting be imposed on you, will you then not fight?”25

Having briefly sketched the historical context, we will now turn to the six-verse Qur’anic story, which begins with the following verse:

246. Have you not turned your vision to the Chiefs of the Children of
Israel after (the time of)Moses? They said to a Prophet (that was) among
them: “Appoint for us a King, that we may fight in the cause of Allah.”
He said: “Is it not possible, if you were commanded to fight, that you will
not fight?” They said: “How could we refuse to fight in the cause of
Allah, seeing that we were turned out of our homes and our families?”
But when they were commanded to fight, they turned back, except a
small band among them. But Allah has full knowledge of those who do
wrong.

The above verse recalls two Biblical parallels, Joshua 1:1 and I Samuel 8: the first because of its placement directly after Moses, and the second because of the similarities in events. However, the Bible portrays Joshua and Saul as chronologically far removed: Joshua is located directly after Moses, while there are several judge-type figures between Joshua and Saul, among them Othniel, Ehud, Shamgar, Deborah, Abimelech, Tolah, Jair, Jephtah, Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, Samson, Micah, and even Samuel. The Qur’anic placement of this episode after Moses is the first hint that the prospective king is to be identified with the Biblical Joshua. However, the second parallel contains many more similarities, indicating that the Qur’anic king-to-be may also be identified with the Biblical Saul. This could indicate that the Qur’an is reading the Biblical Joshua and Saul as one and the same person.

Some of the close parallels with I Samuel 8, which underline the identification with Saul, include the Israelite elders requesting their prophet to appoint a king for them, his hesitation, and their insistence. In the verse above, the elders give the reason for the request as “to fight in the cause of God,” which resonates with I Sam. 8:19-20, two verses of which seem to enshrine ancient Hebrew poetry.

While the Qur’an seems to be alluding to the reason given in the second verse, for the Deuteronomist the first reason, “so that we may be like all the nations,” was of primary concern and the real reason for the elders’ request. He does not present war as their purpose, but as one of kingship’s disadvantages (I Sam. 8:11-18).26 However, as events unfold in the Biblical narrative, a large part of Saul’s activities are battles. For the purposes of the situation in Madinah, emulating the surrounding nations was not an issue, but gathering support for fighting them was.

• click for a full paper in pdf