SBL Annual Meeting Papers — November 2007

WORKING DRAFT: Please do not cite without permission of the author

Deena Grant
New York University/Hofstra University

Human Anger in Biblical LiteratureTitle

Adobe Acrobat Version

Introduction

Anger is a pervasive theme throughout biblical literature.  Since anger in the Bible is, by far, most frequently attributed to Yahweh, most scholars and theologians have limited their explorations of the anger motif to reconciling divine anger with Yahweh’s presumed righteousness or to positively distinguishing Yahweh’s just anger from self-serving human anger.   In contrast, few attempts have been made to parse out the nature of biblical anger more generally.  This paper will begin to address this gap by examining the trigger and function of human anger in biblical literature.   Additionally, in order to ensure consistency within the evidence base, only those texts wherein anger terms appear will be included in this investigation.

Aaron Beck, a leading cognitive psychologist, believes that anger stems from a perception that one has been diminished in some way.1  Other cognitive psychologists explain, similarly, that anger is triggered by an assault on an individual’s ego identity and that through anger provoked reprisal an individual attempts to restore his ego-identity and attain a feeling of self-assertion and invulnerability.2  In view of these explanations of anger, it is not surprising that the Bible portrays human anger as a response to insecure authority.  

However, the Bible also diverges from the expected portrayal of anger in a significant and culturally specific way.  The Bible neglects to emphasize the emotional aspects of anger language and rather, limits its representation of anger to an expression of dominance.   In fact, perhaps because only through triumph can anger show dominance, biblical anger is almost exclusively reserved for powerful people such as kings, leaders, masters or high ranking family members.3  These individuals reclaim their compromised status through an expression of anger.4  In fact, in the single instance where a subordinate expresses anger at his superior (Jonathan’s anger over King Saul’s intent to kill David in 1 Sam 20:34) the text awkwardly avoids depicting the subordinate as angry at his superior and rather describes him as angry at the situation.5

Struggles to define and retain authority pervade both the domestic domain and the political domain.    In both contexts anger is triggered by a violation of an individual’s domain of authority, often, through theft.  In the domestic domain, the violations that elicit anger are illicit relations with a female ward of an unconsenting man6 and stealing property.   In the political domain, the violations that elicit anger are public revolt and stealing property.  In both of these settings, anger compels the offended authorities to engage in a public show of power through which they reassert their authority over their compromised domain and eliminate any future threat.                         

Domestic Domain

In the patriarchal households of the ancient Near East, the paterfamilias holds the post of the highest authority and is succeeded in hierarchy by his eldest sons.7  As such, in contrast to females and younger brothers who rarely express anger at their families,8 patres-familias and elder brothers express anger both at their family members and at outsiders when their domestic sphere is violated through a theft of property or a violation of a female ward.

Perhaps the most egregious disregard of authority in the domestic domain is an illicit relationship with a female family member.  W. Propp explains that all sex between a man and the female ward of nonconsenting male guardians, generally a father and/or brothers, is rape and, from the biblical perspective, rape is an affair between men that is akin to theft of property.9  Perhaps because the “theft” of a female family member’s chasteness is irretrievable10 and perhaps because such an offense is also humiliating, an illicit relationship with a female family member is the most common elicitor of anger in the domestic domain.  For example, in the narratives about the accusation of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife’s (Gen 39), Shechem’s rape of Dinah (Gen 34) and the betrayal of Samson by his wife (Judg 14) the offended men reassert their authority over their compromised domain through punishing anger.

The story about the accusation of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39) depicts the most severe form of disregarded authority in the domestic sphere because it illustrates a politically powerful individual being violated, not by an equal, but by his mere servant.  Potiphar becomes angry when he believes that his servant, Joseph, has attempted to violate his wife:ויהי כשמע אדוניו את-דברי אשתו אשר דברה אליו לאמר כדברים האלה עשה לי עבדיך ויחר אפו  (39:19). 

Before narrating the accusation of Joseph the text describes Joseph’s rise to power in Potiphar’s court: וימצא יוסף חן בעיניו וישרת אתו ויפקדהו על-ביתו וכל-יש-לו נתן בידו:..ויהי מאז הפקיד אתו בביתו ועל כל-אשר יש-לו...ויעזב כל-אשר-לו ביד-יוסף ולא ידע אתו מאומה כי אם-הלחם אשר-הוא אוכל  (39:4-6a).   G. Wenham points out that by using the root שרת  which “always implies personal service” instead of using the root, עבד , which can indicate menial jobs done by slaves, the passage underscores “Joseph’s rise in Potiphar’s esteem.”11 

It should also be noted that by introducing Joseph’s alleged offense immediately after it recounts how Potiphar relinquishes to Joseph control over his entire estate the text highlights that Joseph’s alleged violation threatens Potiphar’s authority as master of his own estate.  The significance of disregarded hierarchy in this setting of compromised authority is apparent in both Potiphar’s wife’s accusation of Joseph and in Potiphar’s angry response.  In her public accusation of Joseph before the men of the household, Potiphar’s wife mentions only Joseph’s foreignness: ותקרא לאנשי ביתה ותאמר להם לאמר ראו הביא לנו איש עברי לצחק בנו ובא אלי לשכב עמי ואקרא בקול גדול: (39:14). Wenham points out that in her accusation of Joseph to Potiphar, Potiphar’s wife “adjusted (her story) to make the maximum impact on him (Potiphar)” (Wenham 1994, 376).   Therefore, she refers to Joseph not as a man, as she does in verse 14, but as a slave: בא אלי העבד העברי אשר-הבאת לנו לצחק בי: (39:17). 

It should also be noted that immediately after Potiphar’s wife rephrases her accusation to describe Joseph as Potiphar’s servant, Potiphar becomes angry: ויהי כשמע אדוניו את-דברי אשתו אשר דברה אליו לאמר כדברים האלה עשה לי עבדך ויחר אפו: (39:19).  Thus, Potiphar’s wife successfully elicits her husband’s anger by emphasizing the impertinence of a slave attempting to infringe upon his master’s patriarchal domain. 

Further emphasizing the significance of Joseph’s subordinate position in eliciting Potiphar’s anger, when the text describes the consequences of Potiphar’s anger, it pointedly refers to Potiphar only as Joseph’s master: ויקח אדני יוסף אתו ויתנהו אל-בית הסהר מקום אשר-אסורי המלך אסורים ויהי-שם בבית הסהר: (39:20).  In order to annul the threat to his domestic sphere posed by his defiant servant and at the same time display his exalted status as a steward of the king, Potiphar sends Joseph to the king’s prison.12

As in the story about the accusation of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39), the narratives about Dinah’s rape (Gen 34) and Samson’s betrayal (Judg 14) portray angered parties demonstrating authority over their violated family members through punitive shows of power.  However, in contrast to Genesis 39, the latter texts emphasize the severity of the provocative offenses not by identifying the offender as a subordinate of the angered party but rather by comparing the offenders’ violations to the more easily measured offense of theft.13  

In Genesis 34, Shechem provokes the anger of Dinah’s brothers by raping Dinah:14

וירא אתה שכם בן-חמור החוי נשיא הארץ ויקח אתה וישכב אתה ויענה: ויעקב שמע כי טמא את-דינה בתו ובניו היו את-מקנהו בשדה והחרש את יעקב עד-באם:...ובני יעקב באו מן-השדה כשמעם ויתעצבו האנשים ויחר להם מאד כי-נבלה עשה בישראל לשכב את-בת-יעקב וכן לא יעשה:
(34:2-7)

By describing the brothers as very angry (ויחר להם מאד ) and by supplementing an additional term that connotes anger (ויתעצבו ),15 the verse emphasizes the intensity of the brothers’ anger over Shechem’s violation of their sister.  

Consequently, two of Dinah’s brother’s then kill the offender and sack his entire town (34:25-32).16  Wenham suggests that by referring to the avengers both as the son’s of Jacob and as the brothers of Dinah, ויקחו שני-בני-יעקב שמעון ולוי אחי דינה (34:25), passage implies that Jacob’s failure to act provokes the brothers’ extreme response (Wenham 1994, 315).  However, since the brothers do not condemn Jacob’s inaction before they sack the town, it is more likely that the texts describes the brothers both as the sons of Jacob and as the brothers of Dinah in order to underscore that the brothers’ anger is triggered by a violation of their immediate family member.  Instead of the elder father, who is no longer even shepherding in the field (34:5), the more vigorous brothers feel responsible for the family and take upon themselves to respond to the violation of the family.  They respond with anger and retribution.17 

The nature of the brothers’ response to Shechem’s offense can also be clarified in view of Joshua 7.  Shechem’s offense both defiles Dinah (34:5, 13, 27)18 and causes a נבלה בישראל (34:7). This phrase נבלה בישראל is also used in Joshua 7 to describe a theft.19

   In Joshua 7, Achan steals an object that is devoted to Yahweh,ויקח עכן בן-כרמי בן-זבדי בן-זרח למטה יהודה מן-החרם ויחר-אף יהוה בבני ישראל (7:1).   Like Achan’s נבלה בישראל provokes Yahweh’s anger, Shechem’s נבלה בישראל provokes the brothers’ anger.   Like in Joshua 7, where the nation must execute Achan, his household and his belongings in order to remove the defilement that causes Yahweh’s anger (7:15), Dinah’s brothers’ anger compels them to kill Shechem’s entire town and to sack his village (34:25-29). 
In Joshua 7, Yahweh’s anger serves to demonstrate publicly Yahweh’s authority.  Emphasizing this public goal, the text states that all of Israel goes with Achan to his place of execution (7:24) and that all of Israel takes part in Achan’s execution (7:25).  In addition, Yahweh’s anger does not turn away after Achan is executed but only  after a permanent monument is erected to publicize the consequences of Yahweh’s anger (7:26).20   In light of the other similarities between Joshua 7 and Genesis 34, the brothers’ response to Shechem’s offense can also be understood as a public display.  Therefore, when Jacob expresses concern that by committing such a (public) act the brothers have incurred enmity from the surrounding towns (34:30), the brothers unabashedly defend their actions: הכזונה יעשה את אחותינו (34:31).    By referring to Dinah not by her name, as she is referred throughout the narrative, but as our sister, the brothers’ reveal that their attack on Shechem’s town is not just meant to avenge Dinah but also to reclaim, publicly, their authority over their violated family.21  Like Yahweh publicizes His act of anger in order to dissuade future Israelites from violating Yahweh’s possessions, Dinah’s brothers slaughter and loot Shechem’s town in order to display their power and the breadth of  their anger to the surrounding nations.  Through the brothers’ response to Shechem’s offense, the nations will come to know that they can not violate the family of Jacob. 

In Judges 14, Samson becomes angry when discovers that Ashkelonites have conspired with his wife to figure out his riddle.  In order to express the gravity of their (albeit non-sexual) offense, Samson refers to the Ashkelonites’ violation of his spousal bond as a misuse of his calf: לולא חרשתם בעגלתי (14:18-19).   With this turn of phrase, the text equates the Ashkelonite’s violation with stealing property and it evokes Shechem’s נבלה בישראל . 

Just as the brothers’ anger compels them to kill all the people who live in Shechem’s town, Samson’s anger compels him to travel to Ashkelon to kill 30 men of the town: ותצלח עליו רוח יהוה וירד אשקלון ויך מהם שלשים איש...ויחר אפו וירד בית אביהו (14:19).  However, rather than killing those who violated his authority, Samson gives them the festal garments of their 30 slain kinsmen.  In this way he shows the offenders that he is more powerful than them.  Thus through his response of anger, Samson displays his authority over his own family and deters future trespasses upon his domestic domain. 
It has been observed that illicit relations with a female ward in Genesis 34 and Judges 14 is akin to theft.   While perhaps not as humiliating, theft of inanimate possessions is also an intrusion upon a family that provokes anger.  Examples of anger elicited by theft of possessions can be found in the accounts of Jacob’s theft of Esau’s blessing (Genesis 27) and Rachel’s theft of her father’s idols (Genesis, 31). 

Jacob’s theft of Esau’s blessing in Genesis 27 was originally an independent family narrative that, in contrast to the Abraham cycle, has been set in a broader context and adapted along the lines of the rivalry motif.22  The particular rivalry that distinguishes the Jacob-Esau cycle is a sibling struggle for authority.  This literary theme is first apparent when the brothers are introduced as mere fetuses struggling for dominance:  שני גיים בבטנך ושני לאמים ממעיך יפרדו ולאם מלאם יאמץ ורב יעבר צעיר (25:23).23   The struggle for authority continues when the brothers have grown.  In Genesis 27 Jacob tricks Isaac into giving him the blessing of the first born son:  ויתן-לך האלהים מטל השמים ומשמני הארץ ורב דגן ותירש: יעבדוך עמים וישתחו לך לאמים הוה גביר לאחיך וישתחוו לך בני אמך אררך ארור ומברכך ברוך (27:28-29).  When Esau and Isaac discover that Jacob has stolen Esau’s blessing, Isaac laments his mistake and Esau cries out (27:33-37).  Later, when Rebecca encourages Jacob to flee, the passage reveals that through his Jacob has elicited Esau’s anger: וישבת עמו עד אשר-תשוב חמת אחיך עד-שוב אך-אחיך ממך (Gen 27:44).

According to Westermann, Isaac and Esau’s responses hint to an era wherein a father passes on his own vitality to his son (נפשי ) and therefore “nothing more can be done with a blessing already dispensed” (Westermann 1995, 436-442).24  Isaac has mistakenly blessed Jacob with dew from heaven and abundance from earth (ויתן-לך האלהים מטל השמים ומשמני הארץ ורב דגן ותירש ).25 This blessing of fertility is also accompanied by a blessing of dominion over Esau (יעבדוך עמים וישתחו לך לאמים הוה גביר לאחיך וישתחוו לך בני אמך ).   Even though from the point of view of a sedentary narrator, the blessing reflects a period when tribes are at rivalry with one another for dominion (Westermann 1995, 441), in its present literary context, the juxtaposition of fertile land with dominion over Esau reflects the economic success that is bestowed upon Jacob and that destines Jacob to have power and authority over his economically dependent brother.  

The passage highlights the significance of Esau’s loss of authority and Jacob’s newfound dominion by referring to Jacob’s authority over Esau two additional times.  When he discovers his mistake, Isaac laments that he made one brother powerful over the other:  ויען יצחק ויאמר לעשו הן גביר שמתיו לך ואת-כל-אחיו נתתי לו לעבדים ודגן ותירש סמכתיו ולכה אפוא מה אעשה בני: (27:37).   Isaac again alludes to Jacob’s authority in his blessing to Esau: ועל-חרבך תחיה ואת-אחיך תעבד והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עלו מעל צוארך (27:40).26  Isaac pronounces that even though Esau will break off Jacob’s yoke at some later time, for the foreseeable future, Esau will now serve His brother.  By reiterating Jacob’s authority, even in Esau’s blessing, the passage underscores that Esau’s anger is triggered by his loss of fraternal authority.  The texts further conveys this point in chapter 32 when Jacob confronts Esau years later and offers him a message of conciliation: ויצו  אתם לאמר כה תאמרון לאדני לעשו כה אמר עבדך יעקב עם-לבן גרתי ואחר עד-עתה (32:5).   By referring to his brother as his master and to himself as Esau’s servant, Jacob hints that the source of Esau’s anger is his loss of authority.

 In Genesis 31, Rachel fears that Laban, her father, will become angry if she disrespects him by not rising.  Although Rachel explains that her refusal to rise is due to her menses, in actuality, it is because she has stolen her father’s idols, ותאמר אל-אביה אל-יחר בעיני אדני כי לא אוכל לקום מפניך כי-דרך נשים לי (Gen 31:35). Thus, from a literary standpoint, Laban’s potential anger stems both from disrespect and from a denial of authority represented through theft.27 

Political Domain

Political authority differs from domestic authority because it reflects authority over a group of people who are not related to each other but who still perceive themselves to be members of a common larger group or nation.  However, Schloen posits that Bronze Age ancient Near Eastern relationships are conceived of as “constantly replicated experience[s] of social interaction within households.”  He explains that the “root metaphor” of political relationships is the patriarchal household.  Since most people shared the “lived experience of the father’s house” non-family political relationships, were conceptualized as “a series of nested patriarchal clan and family units.”  According to Schloen, the king, the authority who governed these “units” was, in part, conceived of as a patriarch.28  It is not surprising then that like anger arises in the context of compromised domestic authority it also arises amid struggles for political authority.  
Like anger in the domestic setting is expressed, primarily, by family authorities, anger in the political setting is expressed, primarily, by political leaders such as kings and masters.   In addition, like the anger of a domestic head is triggered by a violated domestic domain and compels an offended individual to reassert his familial authority, the anger of a political leader is triggered by compromised political authority and compels the offended leader to reassert his authority over his community.  However, whereas anger in the domestic setting is triggered, primarily, by theft, anger in the political setting is triggered by theft that is perceived to reflect a political rebellion as well as by open revolt.  The narratives about Moses’ anger at Korah and at Dathan and Abiram (Num 16), Saul’s anger over the women singing praises of David (1 Sam 18) and Haman’s anger at Mordechai (Esth 3) portray political leaders who respond to rebellion with anger.    The narratives about Joseph’s potential anger at his brothers (Gen 44) and Ahashverosh’s anger at Haman (Esth 7) portray political leaders who respond to rebellion through theft with anger. 

Numbers 16 describes a great insurgency that is waged against Moses, the leader of Israel, by Korah, the chieftains and by Dathan and Abiram.  Moses responds to the rebellion with anger:

וישלח משה לקרא לדתן ואבירם בני אליאב ויאמרו לא נעלה: המעט כי העליתנו מארץ זבת חלב ודבש להמיתנו במדבר כי-תשתרר עלינו גם-השתרר: אף לא לא-ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאתנו ותתן-לנו נחלת שדה וכרם העיני האנשים ההם תנקר לא נעלה: ויחר למשה מאד ויאמר אל-יהוה אל-תפן אל-מנחתם לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי ולא הרעתי את-אחד מהם:
 (16:12-15)  

By not even mentioning the reason Moses call Dathan and Abiram to approach and instead, emphasizing the motivation of the brothers’ disobedience the narrative emphasizes that Moses’ anger is triggered by the attack on his authority.  Dathan and Abiram refuse to heed Moses because they question Moses’ success in office (כי העליתנו מארץ זבת חלב ודבש להמיתנו במדבר ) and they reject Moses’ claim to rule as chief (כי-תשתרר עלינו גם-השתרר ).  

Most scholars agree that Numbers 16 is a composite that fuses independent narratives about rebellions against Israel’s desert leadership into one account of a great insurgence against Moses and Aaron.  According to J. Milgrom, Numbers 13 comprises three formerly discrete stories about the separate rebellions of Dathan and Abiram against Moses, Korah and the chieftains against Aaron and Korah and the Levites against Aaron.29   Suggesting that the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram is an independent story about a rebellion against Moses, Dathan and Abiram contend only against Moses and register no complaint against Aaron.   In contrast, Korah and his band also contend against Aaron’s exclusive right to serve as Yahweh’s priest (16:4-14).  Moreover, Moses does not refer to Dathan and Abiram when he reprimands Korah and his party for wanting to offer censers to Yahweh as is the job of Aaron (16:5-11).  These factors, among others,30 suggest that Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against Moses was originally disassociated from Korah and his band’s rebellions against Aaron’s priesthood.
In light of the independence of the Dathan and Abiram account, the fact that Moses gets angry immediately after Dathan and Abiram refuse to adhere to Moses’ command to approach and, the fact that Moses’ anger is not referred to anywhere else in the narrative suggests that Moses’ anger was originally a response to Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against His leadership and not a response to the rebellions against Aaron’s priestly service. 

According to Milgrom, when the rebellions of Korah and the chieftains against Aaron are fused with the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram against Moses, Korah and the chieftains are described as rising up against Aaron and against Moses.

ויקח קרח בן-יצהר בן-קהת בן-לוי ודתן ואבירם בני אליאב ואון בן-פלת בני ראובן: ויקמו לפני משה ואנשים מבני-ישראל חמשים ומאתים נשיאי עדה קראי מועד אנשי-שם: ויקהלו על-משה ועל-אהרן ויאמרו אלהם רב-לכם כי כל-העדה כלם קדשים ובתוכם יהוה ומדוע תתנשאו על-קהל יהוה: וישמע משה ויפל על-פניו:
  (16:1-4)

Nevertheless, in these verses that mention only the rebellion of Korah and the chieftains, Moses responds by falling on his face and not with anger.  In contrast, when the verses that focus on Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against Moses expand to include Korah and his chieftains as well, Moses responds with anger: וישלח משה לקרא לדתן ולאבירם בני אליאב ויאמרו לא נעלה:...ויחר למשה מאד ויאמר אל-יהוה אל-תפן אל-מנחתם לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי ולא הרעתי את-אחד מהם: (16:12-15).  By using inclusive language, all of them, in his protest against the rebellion and by recounting Moses killing Dathan, Abiram, Korah and his band, the verses imply that Moses’ anger is a response to Dathan and Abiram as well as to Korah and his band.  (16:27-35).  

However, even though an editor recasts Moses’ anger as triggered by an insurgency against Moses and against Aaron, the fact that Moses’ anger is a direct response to Dathan and Abiram’s disobedience suggests Moses’ anger was originally triggered by Dathan and Abiram’s rebellion against his own authority and not by Korah and the band’s rebellion against Aaron’s service.   In addition, Moses bolsters his own political authority by punishing the rebels.  After having the rebels killed, Moses attributes their death to Yahweh’s hand and claims that their deaths legitimate his divinely appointed authority to lead: ויאמר משה בזאת תדעון כי-יהוה שלחני לעשות את כל-המעשים האלה כי-לא מלבי (16:28).  Moses’ concern to prove only the legitimacy of his role as leader and not Aaron’s role as priest suggests that Moses’ anger was originally triggered by a rebellion against His political authority as leader of the people of Israel.  Thus Numbers 16 provides another example of anger that serves to reassert compromised authority.
In 1 Samuel 18, Saul directs his anger at a behavior that threatens His authority, but not at the individuals who engage in the behavior.  Saul becomes angry when women-singers enhance David’s victories over His own: ויחר לשאול מאד וירע בעיניו הדבר הזה ויאמר נתנו לדוד רבבות ולי נתנו האלפים ועוד לו אף המלוכה (18:8). By unfavorably comparing Saul’s strength to David’s and, in this way, legitimating the latter’s claim to usurp Saul, the women threaten Saul’s rule.31 However, since the powerless women-singers are not trying to usurp Saul’s power and pose no threat themselves, Saul does not direct his anger at them.32  Instead, he only expresses anger over the broadcast chant that, if believed by the masses, will threaten his rule.33

Anger is a dominant theme in the book of Esther and, like in the rest of the Bible, only the most powerful characters become angry.  For example, Haman, a Persian advisor to the king, becomes angry when Mordechai, a Persian citizen, disobeys Ahashverosh’s command that everyone bow to Haman:וכל-עבדי המלך אשר-בשער המלך כרעים ומשתחוים להמן כי-כן צוה לו המלך... וירא המן כי-אין מרדכי כרע ומשתחוה לו וימלא המן חמה (3: 2- 5).   When Haman discovers Mordechai’s nationality, Haman chooses to kill, not just Mordechai, but all of the Jews who might be influenced by Mordechai’s disregard.34  Thus, Haman’s anger functions to protect his political authority by compelling him to wipe out all potential rebels.

Like theft, as expressed through illicit relations and stolen possessions, incites anger within the domestic domain, theft incites anger in the political domain when the victim perceives the theft to be a rebellion against his political authority.  For example, in Genesis 44, Joseph’s brothers fear that they have provoked Joseph’s anger when Joseph accuses Benjamin of stealing his silver cup: ואל-יחר אפך בעבדך (44:18).35  Highlighting the treasonable nature of the theft, the text specifically mentions that Joseph, who has been described as second only to Pharaoh (41:40), uses the cup exclusively: הלא זה אשר ישתה אדני בו והוא נחש ינחש בו (44:5).

Because Benjamin’s alleged offense threatens Joseph’s authority, Judah and his brothers attempt to stave off Joseph’s anger through avowals of Joseph’s authority to rule.  First, the brothers fall on their faces in fear and submission (44:14).   Then, Judah deferentially acknowledges himself as Joseph’s servant and, recalling the verse that refers to Joseph as second to the king (41:40), affirms Joseph’s otherwise ambiguous status as royalty: ואל-יחר אפך בעבדך כי כמוך כפרעה  (Gen 44:18).36 

In chapter 7 Ahashverosh gets angry when, after hearing that Haman plans to kill Esther, he mistakenly witnesses Haman engaging in relations with the queen.  Although Haman’s offense is a direct infringement upon Ahashverosh’s family domain, the king perceives the violation to be politically motivated.  This is evident when Ahashverosh uses the language of military rebellion to describe Haman’s sexual act: הגם לכבוש את-המלכה עמי בבית (7:8).  A. Berlin notes that this language “has all the political connotations usually associated with an attempt to take someone else’s (especially a king’s) wife or concubine: it signals an attempt to supplant the husband’s authority and replace it with the usurper’s” (Berlin, 70).37  In this case, by usurping Vashti, Haman would be usurping Ahashverosh’s authority, not only as husband, but also as king.  Ahashverosh assuages His anger over Haman’s rebellion against his regime by hanging Haman: ויתלו את-המן על-העץ אשר-הכין למרדכי וחמת המלך שככה (7:10).   In this way Ahashverosh quashes the threat posed by his ambitious aid.38

Pre-deuteronomistic example of human anger

Contrary to the previous texts that have been observed, in 1 Samuel 11 a political leader intervenes in anger even though his authority is not threatened.   In this passage, Saul becomes angry at the Ammonites when Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, threatens to gouge out the eyes of the people of Jabesh-Gilead: ויאמר עליהם נחש העמוני בזאת אכרת לכם בנקר לכם כל-עין ימין ושמתיה חרפה על-כל-ישראל (11:2).  Even though Saul is not the leader of the people of Jabesh- Gilead and therefore, not officially responsible for them, his anger over the threat to their welfare compels him to attack the Ammonites: ויאמר שאול מה-לעם כי יבכו ויספרו-לו את-דברי אנשי יבש ותצלח רוח-אלהים על-שאול בשמעו את-הדברים האלה ויחר אפו מאד:.. ויבאו בתוך-המחנה באשמרת הבקר ויכו את-עמון עד-חם היום ויהי הנשארים ויפצו ולא נשארו-בם שנים אחד:. (11:5-11).39  

Many scholars (including J. Van Seters who sees very few stories in the Books of Samuel as pre-deuteronomistic) believe that 1 Samuel 11:1-11 is a pre-deuteronomistic narrative about Saul40 that is constructed in the style of the Judges narratives.41 In light of this, the distinctiveness of this example of anger may be attributed to its pre-deuteronomistic origin.42  Saul is being depicted like the judges of old who lead Israel to victory under Yahweh’s inspiration.  As the spirit of Yahweh came upon the judges Othniel (Judg 3:10) and Jephthah (Judg 11:29), the spirit of Yahweh comes down upon Saul.  The spirit of Yahweh and Saul’s anger compel Saul to send a message to all the territories in Israel (11:7) to oblige them to come out in military force and “reunite to rescue their brethren in Jabesh Gilead” (Tsumura 2007, 308-309). Thus, in this passage, Saul’s anger does not serve to reassert his own political authority but rather to defend a part of his community.  As such, while it does reflect the biblical perspective that attributes anger to powerful authorities, the passage possibly offers a distinctive, and perhaps pre-deuteronomistic, depiction of anger as serving to compel an individual to engage in an act of communal responsibility. 

Nevertheless, even though within verses 1-11, Saul’s anger is not a response to threatened leadership, the chapter concludes with a description of  how Saul’s act of anger achieves for him authority as king over the people of Jabesh-Gilead: וילכו כל-העם הגלגל וימלכו שם אש שאול (11:15).    By contextualizing Saul’s actions within the larger account of Saul’s rise to kingship, and by particularly setting the story as the reason the people of Jabesh-Gilead crown him king, the Dtr redaction has transformed Saul’s anger into an affirmation of authority.  Therefore, in its present form, Saul’s anger cannot be separated from his pursuit of authority and reflects the biblical perspective of anger.43

Conclusions

Cognitive theory of psychology asserts that an emotional response is not simply a reaction to a pre-determined set of behaviors but rather, derives from the meaning an individual ascribes to these behaviors.  Therefore, in order to understand the biblical conception of anger, the biblical characters’ interpretations of incendiary behaviors must be clarified.  It has been observed that the trigger of anger in the Bible is compromised authority.  It has also been observed that, accordingly, anger serves to compel an offended individual to reassert his  compromised authority.   Despite the fact that anger that arises in the domestic domain and anger that arises in the political domain share the same trigger and purpose, it should also be noted that in the Bible, the consequence of anger depends upon the relationship between the angered party and his offender.   However, this point will be addressed at another time.

Return to Homepage

Send messages to webmaster: psybibs@worldnet.att.net
Site designed by
Last updated November 21, 2008