The Book of Samuel and the Three-Actor Rule in Classical Greek Tragedy

ABSTRACT Following a two-part 2022 publication which argues that portions of biblical literature may be written in the style of Classical Greek theatre plays, this paper seeks to demonstrate that 1 and 2 Samuel consistently adhere to the distinctive three-actor rule of Greek tragedy. The number of countable speaking actors present in any given scene from 1 or 2 Samuel never appears to exceed three actors at a time, provided that (1) only speaking actors are included in the tally, (2) group speech is treated as that of a single actor, and (3) scenes are parsed into episodes following regular criteria.


Introduction
In 2022, Haasbroek argued that portions of biblical literature overlap in theme and content with surviving plays in Attic theatrical tradition, and that portions of biblical literature adhere to criteria for Attic theatre plays in Aristotle's Poetics (Haasbroek 2022b).Based on this, Haasbroek concluded that some biblical literature may have been written in the style of the Classical tragic plays (2022a,b).This hypothesis integrates with earlier scholarship attributed to the Copenhagen school, sometimes generalized under the heading "biblical minimalism" (Lemche 2022).The general line of enquiry follows a long history of publications which have identified a relationship between Greek literature and Primary History in Genesis through 2 Kings, a few of which will be highlighted here.
Going back to the 20 th century, in 1962, Cyrus Gordon argued that Greek and Hebrew civilizations ran parallel, both extending from a shared East Mediterranean foundation (Gordon 1962: 9).Gordon summarised parallels between Ugaritic and Greek epic, along with triple parallels found in these and Hebrew biblical texts (1962: 133), further arguing that biblical literature fit the pattern of a national epic (1962: 291).In 1967, Michael Astour's examination of Western Semitic influence on Bronze Age Mycenaeans lead him to conclude, "Semitism was the prologue of Greek civilization" (Astour 1967: 361).Both of these positions remain relevant and have been historical pathways through which parallels in biblical literature and Greek mythology have been explained and interpreted.
Following within this line of thought, in 1995, John Brown argued that a major indicator of the relationship between Hebrew and Greek texts was their shared vocabulary, particularly evident in nouns (Brown 1995: viii).For example, Brown noted that the stems used to form the Greek noun "griffin" and the biblical noun "cherub" are phonetically the same, except for shift in voicing between stops (1995: 85).Brown also examined similarities in the ideology and phrasing of curses, oaths and proverbs.For example, in both corpuses, a treaty that is broken is "cut," and a broken tablet represents a broken treaty (1995: 259).
In 1997, Martin West examined the impact of Indo-European inheritance on Greek epic tradition from the Mycenaean to the Classical period (West 1997: vii).Specifically, he engaged in comparison between Greek epic and parallels in Mesopotamian, Syrian and Anatolian tradition, the latter of which had been previously underexplored (1997: vii).West noted that Greek sacrificial practice was "perfectly matched" with that of Western Semitic people, and went on to examine these overlaps in greater detail, such as the importance of smoke produced when burning fatty tissue (1997: 39-42).West identified a parallel between Judges 11,30-40 and Agamemnon's sacrifice of Iphigenia in Euripides' Iphigenia in Tauris 20-4 (1997: 442).He also noted parallels in the scapegoat ritual, and in the threat of stoning (1997: 53).Give the wide range of Greek materials which share parallels with earlier Mesopotamian, Syrian and Anatolian materials, as demonstrated by West, it was still valid to say that parallels alone could not prove the direction of influence.
At the turn of the 21 st century, greater attention was paid to potential overlaps within Greek prose: specifically, within Herodotus' Histories.In 1997, Flemming Nielsen examined the tragic elements in both Primary History and Herodotus' Histories.He noted that Herodotus used tragedy as a feature of his historiography, and that Deuteronomistic history appeared to follow Herodotus in this manner (Nielsen 1997: 89).Reviewing Near eastern literature, Nielsen demonstrated that Deuteronomistic history had no parallel in the pre-Hellenistic period (1997: 97).Rather, like Herodotus' Histories, Nielsen argued that Deuteronomistic history was intended as a theological commentary on historical events (1997: 114).Just as Herodotus attempted to explain the reason for Persian defeat, the Deuteronomist attempted to explain the reasons for the exile of the Israelites (1997: 110).
In 2002, Katherine Stott further compared Cyrus' rise to power in Herodotus' Histories 1 95-131, and the story of David's rise to power in 1 and The Book of Samuel and the Three-Actor Rule 3 2 Samuel.She also identified parallels between Herodotus' Cyrus and biblical Moses and Joseph (Stott 2002: 73).She proposed that in order to establish the direction of influence, it would need to be established which of these writings came first (Stott 2002: 58).Since that was not possibly, according to Stott, the better approach was to seek a way in which either set of writings could be better understood, from a literary perspective, in relation to the other (2002: 59).
In that same year, Jan-Wim Wesselius proposed that Primary History was likely a deliberate composition, with a narrow time of origin and purpose (Wesselius 2002: 5). Quoting John Van Seters (1983), Wesselius noted that in regard to the historical distance between authors and texts, the Bible paralleled the model of Greek historians and not Near Eastern models (2002: 2).He argued that the author of Primary History made extensive use of Herodotus, especially for parts before 1000 BCE.In support of this, he analysed precise parallels found between figures such as Abraham and Cyaxares, Joseph and Cyrus, and most strikingly, Moses and King Xerxes.Because the author of Primary History made use of Herodotus, Wesselius argued that Primary History must be read in conjunction with Herodotus in order to attain full understanding (2002: 5).This would force a date of composition for Primary History after the time of Herodotus, which was 5 th century BCE.
From the end of the 20 th century until today, among scholars who accepted a later date of origin for Primary History, there has been dispute over whether this occurred during the Persian period (supported by Nielsen, Brodie [2001], Wesselius and Gnuse) or the Hellenistic period (supported by Lemche, Gmirkin, Adam and Wajdenbaum).The latter date, sometime between the 3rd or 2nd centuries BCE, would imply Hasmonean involvement (Gnuse 2021: 165).
In 2022, he continued this line of scholarship, proposing that ideas found in Plato's dialogues, specifically Timaeus and Critias, also appear to have influenced the biblical book of Genesis (Gmirkin 2022: 246).In particular, he discussed the impact of these writings on cosmogony in Genesis 1-3, also known as Primordial History, and the development of monotheistic Judaism.Gmirkin proposes that the development of monotheism in Israel was in fact gradual, and that this can be demonstrated (2022: 247).For example, in speaking of Samaritans, Gmirkin points to a Neo-Assyrian inscription by Sargon II from the 8th century BCE, in which Sargon refers to the gods (plural) of the Samaritans. 1 In contrast, no gods other than Yahweh are attested in epigraphical finds at Mount Gerizim in either the Persian or Hellenistic era (Gmirkin 2022: 295).
Gmirkin asserts that true monotheism-which rejected all other gods as fallen angels or demons-appears to have developed between 270-185 BCE, seen in "second" Isaiah (chapters 40-66).This is a departure from earlier philosophical monotheism of Plato and other Greeks, and from conflation of the Hebrew god with Zeus as found within the Letter of Aristeas 15-16 (Gmirkin 2022: 249).Gmirkin argues that at least two of these gradual stages towards monotheism are reflected in biblical literature, supporting his proposed dating for their creation (2022: 247).Taken all together, this leads Gmirkin to place the date of composition around 270 BCE (2017: 250).
Redirecting back to the influence of the Classical Greek tragic plays on biblical literature, in 2009, Klaus-Peter Adam demonstrated the ways in which biblical David in Samuel was informed by Greek tragic heroism.He identified parallels between the spy narrative of 1 Samuel 26 and that in Euripides' Rhesus, also reflected in Homeric epic (Adam 2009: 11-13).
In 2010, Adam used criteria in Aristotle's Poetics to analyse the tragic progression of Saul's narrative, demonstrating the ways in which Saul conforms to the model of the Greek tragic hero (2010: 157).Moreover, he noted that the unnamed people in 1 Samuel 14,24-46 appear to play a similar role as the Greek chorus (2010: 136).Adam further highlighted that casting lots was rarely used to determine kingship in 1st millennium Mesopotamia, while evidence of Greek use of the lot in governance is copious (2010: 139).Citing Aristotle's Constitution of the Athenians, Adam notes that accounts in 1 Samuel 10,17-27 and 1 Samuel 14,24-46 may reflect Judean understanding of Greek political practice (2010: 143).
Gmirkin noted that it has long been commonly proposed that Job may have been written in the form of a tragic play (Gmirkin 2016: 97).Philippe Wajdenbaum proposed that Greek works can be found in traces through Primary History, in a form which is reorganized and remodelled (Wajdenbaum 2016: 83), and this extends to the theatre plays.Within 1 Samuel, Wajdenbaum noted parallels between Samuel's warning about the results of monarchy in 1 Samuel 8:11-8, and Theseus' warning about the results of tyranny found in Euripides' Suppliants 430-60 (Wajdenbaum 2011: 241-242).Within 2 Samuel, Saul's concubine tends to the unburied corpses of seven of Saul's descendants who had been killed by David in 2 Samuel 21, until David allows for their burial.This is similar to Euripides' Suppliants 966-995, in which the seven of Thebes are dead, and their mothers beg king Theseus to claim their bodies from Thebes for burial (2011: 261).
In comparing Greek myths against biblical narratives, both Bruce Louden and Evangelia Dafni have noted that the figure of Ion, from Euripides' Ion, has parallels in Primary History, such as in the biblical accounts of Abraham, Isaac and the birth of Moses (Louden 2019;Dafni 2022: 75-77).Dafni concludes that biblical reflections which mirror Euripides' play are suggestive of contaminatio, a phenomenon demonstrated in early Roman theatre plays which The Book of Samuel and the Three-Actor Rule 5 were readapted and remodelled after Greek originals.These can only be explained by adaption of original Hebrew texts into Greek (Dafni 2022: 86).
Addressing some of the more vitriolic disputes over historicity, which erupted with particular force in the later 20 th century, Robert Gnuse has suggested with hope that while arguments between scholars has been heated, sometimes succumbing to ad hominem attacks, these positions may be reconciled (Gnuse 2021: 166).He notes that (so-called) maximalists and minimalists agree that an understanding of history must be reconstructed with archaeological data.What they disagree about is the extent to which archaeological data is supportive of the reconstruction of a historical Israel like the one reflected in biblical literature (2021: 172-173).
In regard to this dynamic, John Brown summarized the challenges of comparative studies in the 1980s, in a quote which is still accurate today.He wrote, Someone engaged in both Greek and Hebrew studies is like a sailor navigating across a sea only partly explored and unreliably chartered.He has to be extremely prudent and cautious in order not to suffer shipwreck on reefs, cliffs, or shoals.Yet at the same time he must summon up courage to weigh his anchor and to attempt the voyage even if the hull of his vessel might become scratched or spring a serious leak (Brown 1995: xi).
In speaking of the distance between ancient Greece and Israel, Brown also reminded his readers that travel between these ancient societies would take only around a week by ship, under favourable winds (1995: 1).
Continuing this discussion, this paper will demonstrate that both 1 and 2 Samuel consistently adhere to the distinctive three-actor rule of Greek tragedy.The three-actor rule refers to a convention of Classical Greek tragedy, which was historically performed using just two or three speaking actors, with a typical maximum of three speaking actors at one time within a scene (Starkey 2018: 271;Arist. Poet. 1449a).Though examination of existent plays demonstrates that some plays belong to transitional periods, failing to adhere to rigid expectations, the so-called three-actor rule is currently unrefuted (Ashby 1998: 270-271).
Applying the same criteria used for identification of actors in Classical Greek tragic theatre, it will be shown that no more than three speaking characters are simultaneously present in any scene from the biblical books of 1 or 2 Samuel.This supports the argument that some portions of biblical literature, such as 1 and 2 Samuel, may have been written in the style of Classical theatre plays.

Selection of Sources for Biblical Text
One major complication in counting actors in both Greek plays and biblical texts: the count may be affected by changes introduced by later copyists (Ashby 1998: 136).We have no record of the original sources used in the construction of the earliest Book of Samuel (Driesbach 2016: 297).For this reason, textual criticism depends on examination of existent Septuagint (LXX), Masoretic (MT) and Qumran (DSS) manuscripts.Variations between these sources have been analysed and compared in order to argue for particular pathways of development, but no consensus has been reached (Driesbach 2016: 297).
The MT is the central text of Judaism, and of all critical and non-critical editions of Hebrew scripture (Tov 2013: 382).Thus, for the purpose of this study, the MT has been placed in primary focus.However, it is acknowledged that the MT of Samuel displays evidence of textual corruption and incorporates theological inclusions (Hugo 2010: 232).Moreover, DSS manuscripts and the LXX share certain characteristics which are not observed in the MT (Hugo 2010: 2).This necessitates examination of both the MT and LXX (Aejmelaeus 2021: 2).Where the LXX is referenced in this study, primary evidence has been drawn from the Codex Vaticanus, which is broadly recognized as the most reliable representative of the Old Greek (Hill 2022: 97;Kreuzer 2012: 95).To minimize confusion, 1 and 2 Kings in the Greek LXX will be addressed as 1 and 2 Samuel, following convention in the MT.

How Actors Are Identified and Counted
Speaking roles in Classical Greek tragedy were performed by two or three actors, hired by the archon on behalf of the city of Athens (Starkey 2018: 269).The very first Classical playwrights are believed to have acted in their own plays. 2 From this came the tradition of a lead actor, or protagonist, who played the most important role in a given play (Starkey 2018: 269).The second actor in a play would play one to several major roles.The third actor, or tritagonist, would fill the role of many minor characters, such as servants or messengers (Ashby 1998: 131-132;Starkey 2018: 272).These roles were ranked in order of esteem (Starkey 2018: 272).
A first actor would not usually be responsible for minor parts associated with the tritagonist unless necessary, and then generally only after the death of his principal character (Starkey 2018: 272).These same rules may be applied in attempting to distinguish actors in 1 and 2 Samuel.For instance, in the context of 2 Samuel, the actor playing David may be reasonably identified as the first actor.
Although the identities of the actors were obscured by masks, theatre watchers would be able to identify performers by voice and physique.As such, it is believed that effort was made to ensure continuity of character roles from act to act (Ashby 1998: 131).However, this was not always possible.For 2. Starkey 2018: 276; this could prove useful in explaining biblical attribution.
The Book of Samuel and the Three-Actor Rule 7 example, Oedipus at Colonus indicates an unusual shifting of roles between actors (Ashby 1998: 135).
In Classical Greek theatre, males played female roles, and there do not appear to be specialized female impersonators (Ashby 1998: 134).However, there is some evidence that parts were grouped by vocal pitch (Ashby 1998: 131).For instance, old men and young women would both have higher pitched voices, and may be assigned to one actor.On this basis, it is likely that actors were selected to represent different vocal ranges (Ashby 1998: 137).
With these features acknowledged, identification of specific actors with specific roles is not always obvious.Some of this is owing to limited or absent stage directions in surviving manuscripts.For instance, Euripides' Suppliant Women presents difficulty in identifying which actors are on or off stage in a particular moment (Ashby 1998: 134).This same complication can likewise present itself in 1 and 2 Samuel.

How Silent Actors are Treated
In Greek plays, silent actors could appear as attendants, soldiers or other supportive roles (Davidson 2005: 203).The voiceless performers were not counted as actors in Classical theatre, and could be used freely as required (Ashby 1998: 134).Similarly, physical actors, or mutes, are indicated in a number of scenes in 1 and 2 Samuel.As in Classical Greek theatre, for the purpose of this study, only speaking figures-characters with direct speech utterances, made in that particular scene-are being counted as actors.

How Group Speech is Treated
Group speech, or multivocality, is a feature of biblical literature.Typically, members of a group speak with a singular voice, as if one individual is speaking on their behalf (Savran 2009: 2).George Savran has analysed several examples of multivocality in biblical literature, including 1 Sam 9,11-13, where Saul speaks with a group of women at a well, and Jonah 1,8-9, in which sailors pose questions to Jonah (Savran 2009: 6).In these instances, Savran demonstrates that group speech in biblical literature can be broken down to identify individual statements or questions, which could be individually spoken by members within a group.However, this speech is not delivered by individual speakers: it is rather "parcelled" together for singular delivery, generally keeping to a rule of two speakers to a scene (Savran 2009: 2).
The relationship between multivocality and the chorus is not explored in this paper, but is worthy of further consideration.In 5 th -century Athens, the chorus consisted of twelve members (Davidson 2005: 197).The chorus did not normally leave the orchestra until the end of the play (Davidson 2005: 207).Curran suggests that prior to the development of tragedy, the choral leader would answer questions from the chorus, allowing for dialogue in the performance (Curran 2016: 104).This is echoed in Savran's analysis of Judah, who functioned as spokesperson for the sons of Israel within portions of Genesis (Savran 2009: 16).In a Greek theatrical context, Aristotle argued that the chorus should be treated like one of the actors (Arist.Poet. 1456a;Wiles 2007: 95).
Following the position of secondary scholarship above, in the course of this paper, biblical instances of group speech or multivocality are counted as that of a singular actor.

Character Change
In almost all instances in existent Greek tragedy, time was given for an actor to leave the stage, change his costume and mask, and then return to the stage as a new character (Ashby 1998: 130).This time is provided by performance of the chorus, onstage action, or the speaking roles of other actors.Note that in some instances, the time permitted can be very short.For instance, in Euripides' Rhesus, there are only six lines (668-674) during which an actor would need to change from Paris to Odysseus. 3 With this convention understood, it is recognized that actors may leave and re-enter the stage within one biblical chapter.For this reason, actors in 1 and 2 Samuel are not tabulated across an entire biblical chapter, but are instead counted per episode, as if performing on stage.

How Acts and Episodes are Identified
Identification of acts and episodes is helpful when counting actors and identifying their movement.There is general consensus that the MT was divided into chapters during the 13 th century, following the model of the LXX and Vulgate.What is disputed is the degree to which these divisions are meaningful, and should be taken into consideration by contemporary interpreters (Avioz 2017: 11).In the context of this paper, what is uncertain is the degree to which these divisions reflect earlier markers relevant to theatrical performance.
Like biblical literature, Classical Greek tragedy can similarly be broken down into quantitative parts, including acts or episodes (Curran 2016: 134).The five-act rule, familiar in later Roman drama and in Greek New Comedy, had not yet evolved in 5 th -century Athenian tragedy (Halleran 2005: 169).Rather, Aristotle defined an episode as a complete part of tragedy which was contained between full choral songs (Arist.Poet. 1452b;Halleran 2005: 167).
Greek tragic episodes vary substantially in length, attested from forty to over six hundred lines (Euripides Alcestis 935-61; Euripides Iphigenia in Tauris 467-1088).The average length was about two hundred lines (Halleran 2005: 168).By convention, all of the action in a Greek play occurred in a single outdoor location, and it was rare to change this focal location in the middle of a play (Halleran 2005: 171).However, a change of scene mid-play is shown possible by Aeschylus' Eumenides and Sophocles' Ajax.
In consideration of these facts, for this paper, acts have been generally parsed using traditional chapter parsing found in the MT, with some exceptions.Namely, episodes have been divided if there is a dramatic change of focal character, a change in physical location, or a marked change in time within the given biblical chapter.Similarly, if a biblical chapter continues with the same 3. Ashby 1998: 135; it has been suggested that this is evidence for a fourth actor or author attribution error.
The Book of Samuel and the Three-Actor Rule 9 focal characters and same location, and occurs in the same period of time, this portion of text is instead treated as if it belongs to the earlier episode/chapter.
The possible placement of Psalms, or choral odes, has not been considered for this study, but is briefly addressed at the end under "further discussion."Samuel 2: Hannah makes an extended prayer, with a presence and exit in 1 Sam 2,1-11.This could be included in 1 Sam 1, where she is represented by an actor.For this reason, she is omitted as a character in 1 Sam 2, with the character count starting from 1 Sam 2,12.

3
In Greek theatrical tradition, the extended speech which Hannah gives may be called a rhesis.These varied in length from ten to a hundred lines, and acted as a medium for characters to provide additional information or make rhetorical arguments.The speeches could be soliloquy, or spoken to other characters on the stage (Halleran 2005: 170).
There are possibly 4 speaking characters in the rest of the chapter.However, one is an unnamed man, and the other is called a man of God.Both may be the same man, reading in context (a generic man, then revealed to be a man of God).Samuel appears in the book as a child, but has no speaking part, and so he would not be counted as an actor.
1 Samuel 4,1-18: The act could have been divided at 1 Sam 4,12, since the scene has shifted from the battlefield to the dwelling of Eli.The text says this was within the same day.The Benjamite man could be among the Elders of Israel (in plural speech), making it possible there are three actors.
Using the LXX, it is also possible to read three actors in 1 Sam 4,1-11, if the Philistine's speech is parsed.After some lines expressing fear of the Israelites, there is a line in which the speaker encourages the Philistines to fight like men.In lines 1 Sam 4,12-22, the wife does not speak.In this parsing, there are three actors, with Eli and the wife of Phinehas in the same scene/location.
The deaths of Eli's sons may have been represented through use of the ekkyklema, which was a type of trolley that could emerge from the skene door.In classical theatre, this trolley would be used to display the bodies of characters killed offstage (Davidson 2005: 201).
1 Samuel 4,18-22: This scene takes place in an unknown location or time, but is reasonably close to events prior.If more than one actor represented the plural women, this would make three.This is a very short scene, unlikely to be on its own, and may be a place for a Psalm insert.
1 Samuel 5: Three actors are possible if the men of Ashdod and messengers overlap.
1 Samuel 6: Three actors are possible if the men of Beth-shemesh and their messengers overlap.
1 Samuel 7: Three actors are possible if the Israelites are divided into two actors, though this is not necessary.In the LXX, the Lord makes a "mighty sound" in this passage, though it is not speech.It could require an actor.
1 Samuel 9: These parsings may be disputed.In 1 Sam 9,1-10, the focal characters are said to be climbing the ascent (no location) before introduction of the next speaker.For 1 Sam 9,11-14, the only way this would parse into three actors is if Saul and the messenger were still in the scene, although they are not speaking (but are being spoken to).In 1 Samuel 9,15-27, this parsing would be based on a new location: the dwelling place of Samuel.
Note that the Lord is consistently treated as an actor, in regard to the final count.In Greek plays, a mechane or crane was sometimes used for an actor playing a divine presence (Davidson 2005: 201).Euripides, in particular, made use of Greek gods to advance the plot (2005: 202).The crane would hoist the actor over or onto the skene, and so these scenes are sometimes referred to as deus ex machina (Paga 2016: 368).
1 Samuel 10: 1 Sam 10,1-8 is in the same location as the previous chapter, and features Samuel.For this reason, it has been grouped with 1 Sam 9 for the actor count. 1 Sam 9,10-13 includes group speech, and features as many as three actors if the people were divided.Alternatively, Saul may be non-speaking, but present in the scene.Alternatively, this could be part of the scene before, which features only Samuel.
In 1 Samuel 10,14-16, the uncle speaks to both men, who reply, but it is unclear which is replying.It is possible the servant is speaking.Both men may have replied in plural speech.It is also possible that only Saul speaks, and this passage connects to the above, with the three actors being: people (including "another person"), Saul's uncle and Saul. 1 Samuel 10,17-26 has been parsed here due to a shift in both the central character and the setting.
1 Samuel 11: In 1 Sam 11,1-4, there could be three actors, if the men and elders are different.For 1 Samuel 11,5 to 1 Samuel 12, alternatively, Saul may be added to the above grouping, which makes sense via time but not location.Otherwise, from line 11, this parsing would be justified by time.
The passage says events occurred the next day.The location following in 1 Sam 12 is the same, and involves the same figures.The Lord sends thunder and rain, but this would not require a speaking actor.
In this chapter, Nahash the Ammonite demands that the Israelites pluck out their right eyes in order to make a pact with him.In Greek theatre, King Oedipus actually did pluck out his own eyes.It has been hypothesized that this would have been displayed through use of a special mask to indicate the gouged-out eyes (Davidson 2005: 204).
1 Samuel 13: Jonathan is mentioned, and may be a third actor, but he has no speaking part and need not be counted.
1 Samuel 14: The Philistines and the men of the outpost (1 Sam 14,1-16) may be the same.In line 16, parsing may be justified due to change in location and focus character.The troops may overlap with the soldier, if the soldier was among them.
1 Samuel 15: In 1 Sam 15,1-12, there is a speaker, written in passive voice, who tells Samuel where Saul has gone.It is unclear if this is the Lord or a human speaker, but the latter can be an actor. 1 Samuel 15,13-23 may be parsed due to a change in location, but this may be disputed.
1 Samuel 16: 1 Samuel 16,7-13 was parsed due to a shift in location.Jesse presents his sons to Eli, in succession.Three are named, but there are seven in all, and they are not speaking.For 1 Samuel 16,14-23, parsing will be debated.It is possible based on a shift in location and main character.The couriers and the attendant may be the same actor.The messenger speaks through indirect speech, so it is unclear if this is an actor.
1 Samuel 17: This famous chapter includes David's fight with the giant Goliath.Giants also appeared in Greek plays.Polyphemus, who appears in the satyr play Cyclops, was also a giant.It has been hypothesized that his role was played by a speaking actor, who stood atop a mute actor or stilts for the role.Stilts have been depicted on one black-figure vase. 4 In regard to the head of Goliath, severed heads also appear in Greek plays, such as Euripides' Bacchae.In this play, it has been hypothesized that the mask worn by the actor playing King Pentheus was reused (minus the actor) to represent his newly-liberated appendage (Davidson 2005: 204).
1 Samuel 18: In 1 Samuel 18:1-16, David dodges Saul's spear, making him a possible actor, but he has no speaking part.The women have two types of instruments, making it possible there is more than one actor.In 1 Samuel 18,17-30, a parsing would be justified by a new topic of focus and the passing of time.
1 Samuel 19: In 1 Samuel 19:1-18, David again has an active part across these scenes, but no speaking part.They may be split into two.In 1 Samuel 19:19-24, there is a lot of passive/indirect speech, making it difficult to identify a parser, but a different count is possible if the speaker in Secu is different from the people.
1 Samuel 20: Abner is said to be sitting with Saul, though he does not speak.This could affect parsing.It is possible that David is off stage, and Abner can then be on stage, posing no conflict to the three-actor rule.
For 1 Samuel 20,36-42, a parsing is justified by a change of day or time.David and the boy who accompanies Jonathan both have action roles, but only Jonathan speaks.If this parsing is disputed, it could be added to the larger chapter without changing actor count.
1 Samuel 21: In 1 Samuel 21,1-10, only Ahimelech and David speak.Doeg the Edomite is mentioned, but not speaking.From 1 Samuel 21,11, parsing is difficult.The dancers are speaking, but it is indirect speech.Like before, David is feigning madness, so may be played by a physical actor.
4. Ashby 1998: 134;Vase 41.57 can be viewed at the Teece Museum of Classical Antiquities at Canterbury University in New Zealand, as part of the James Logie Memorial Collection.http://teecemuseum.nz/collection-item/212737 1 Samuel 22: In 1 Samuel 22,20 to 1 Samuel 23,1-6, the initial parsing is based on change of location and character focus.In this case, chapter 23 continues with David being told something (in passive voice), perhaps by Abiathar who was present in the last scene.This seems like one scene.
1 Samuel 23: Notice that Saul leaves the scene when Jonathan enters.This is another good example of the three-actor rule.In 1 Samuel 23,19-28, the parsing is based on a change of location and character focus.If the Ziphites are represented by 1 actor, this meets the three-actor rule.
1 Samuel 25: This chapter changes location and focus at 25,14, and location at 25,18 and 25,36.A variety of parsings are possible.Only three actors appear at a time.The death of Nabal is told in narration.
1 Samuel 26: Different parsings are possible, because this scene involves movement.There are not more than three speaking actors at a time.In lines 13-25, the parsing is based on a change of scene, but could be challenged (for example, if David moved far from Saul and shouted to him).
1 Samuel 27: The start of 1 Sam 28,1-13 continues with David and Achish before moving to a new location with a focus on Saul, which explains why these sections have been joined.
1 Samuel 30: The Lord and the Egyptian boy could be out of the scene when David was speaking with the troops.Alternatively, there is another explanation from Greek theatre.Euripides' surviving plays include three which feature children who have speaking roles: Alcestis, Andromache and Suppliant Women.It has been hypothesized that a chorus member may have spoken the lines for these children, while the children engaged in pantomime (Ashby 1998: 134).If this hypothesis is correct, then the Egyptian boy-a child character who is a potential fourth speaker, but who is instead voiced by a chorus member, thus keeping with the three-actor rule-would appear to follow the same pattern as those examples in Classical Greek theatre.This could support the idea of performance, since potential violation of the three-actor rule appears permissible under the same specific condition: the presence of a speaking child character.
1 Samuel 31: This is similar to the death scene of Ajax in Sophocles' play from Classical Greece.Ajax likewise fell on his own sword.Difficulty parsing Ajax's death scene has been noted, with a possible failure to conform to the three-actor rule, along with an unusual shift in location (Ashby 1998: 135;Davidson 2005: 201).It has been suggested that the sword may have been placed at the edge of the orchestra, allowing Evadne to reappear as Athena, and Ajax to reappear as Teucer, with a mute actor replacing the dead Ajax (Ashby 1998: 135;Davidson 2005: 201).Further, refer to discussion of the ekkyklema in 1 Samuel 4. 2 Samuel 3: In 2 Samuel 3,1-19, there is a back-and-forth message between Abner and David, presumably spoken by the messengers, but this is not clear.
There is also a quote by the Lord, but this is retold as an indirect quote.Abner talks to the Israelites.
For 2 Samuel 3,20-39, the parsing is based on change of location.David talks to the Israelites, who do not respond.
2 Samuel 5: In 2 Samuel 5,1-16, genealogy indicates narration.An old saying is given, without a speaker saying it.This would also imply narration.From 5,17, the parsing is based on a shift in time and focus.It may be one scene, with the tribes of Israel and/or Jebusites out of focus when David speaks to the Lord.If the Israelites' opinion is reported by the narrator, there could be three actors in the combined scene (Jebusites, David, the Lord).
2 Samuel 6: Uzza and Ahio carry the ark with David.They don't speak, but Uzza dies when the ark slips.This could involve three physical actors, and a parsing with the later scene involving Michal.
Dancing is recorded, which may involve the chorus.A missing satyr play of some sort may be indicated, given the commentary of Michal.
2 Samuel 8: This chapter is entirely narrative.No actors would be required, unless they were physical actors.
2 Samuel 10: There is narration and possibly physical actors.There are messengers, but they do not have a speaking part.
2 Samuel 11: For 2 Samuel 11,1-6, three actors are possible if the unnamed person who responds to David's inquiry is also his messenger.In 2 Samuel 11,7-27, the parsing of the scene is due to a passing of time.It is unclear if Joab is The Book of Samuel and the Three-Actor Rule 19 speaking to the messenger, or if the messenger is repeating the message.The passage implies it is Joab.
In this chapter, David views Bathesheba bathing on the roof.Rooftop scenes are found in Greek theatre, and may have made use of the skene.For example, Aeschylus's Agamemnon begins with a monologue given by a watchman, who claims to be up on the palace roof.In Sophocles' Antigone, the protagonist is taken up to the walls of Thebes, so that she can observe the Argive army.This device is called "watching from the walls" or teichoskopia (Davidson 2005: 200).
2 Samuel 12: In 2 Samuel 12,1-25, the Lord speaks indirectly through Nathan.It seems likely that Nathan himself speaks these lines, but it is possible the Lord speaks these lines.The servants and courtiers may be the same.In 2 Samuel 12,26-31, parsing is due to change of location and focus.This is a narrative battle scene.
2 Samuel 13: In 2 Samuel 13,1-7, David speaks indirectly through a messenger.In 2 Samuel 13,8-22, the parsing is based on change of location.That is arguable, since the scene is otherwise unified.Jonadab is not present in the room with Amnon and Tamar (we suppose).In 2 Samuel 13,23-39, parsing is based on the passing of time (2 years).Absalom's attendants kill Amnon, but there is no speaking.The writing later says that there are courtiers tearing their clothes.Both would require only physical actors, or none if it is off-scene narration.
2 Samuel 14: The scene parsed as 2 Samuel 14,1-27 may end earlier, when Absalom is reintroduced, but he has no speaking part.For 2 Samuel 14,28-33 to 2 Samuel 15,1-6, the parsing is due to passing of time and location.This scene is challenging to parse, since there is narrative without speech.David is present, but does not speak.This has been joined with the following passage, since it features only Absalom and a representative unnamed Israelite.
2 Samuel 15: In 2 Samuel 15,7-12, Absalom orders the agents to repeat a message, so it is unclear if they speak the words, or if the observer would hear Absalom say them.For 2 Samuel 15,13-37, the parsing is arguable.They are fleeing, and it is a large procession.If figures like Ittai walk in and out of the scene when no longer relevant, it may be possible to keep this as one unified scene, which would not break the three-actor rule.Three actors would also be possible if Ittai was the informant who told David about Absalom.
2 Samuel 16: At 2 Samuel 16,5-14, parsing is based on the passing of time and a new location (approaching Bahurim).For 2 Samuel 16,15-23 to 2 Samuel 17,1-16, the parsing is based on a new focus and location.2 Samuel 17 is added because it keeps the same three speakers and location.
2 Samuel 18: In 2 Samuel 18,9-23, the parsing is based on a change of focus (from David to Absalom on the battlefield), but this may be disputed.Absalom has indirect or historical speech. 2 Samuel 18,24-32 could violate the threeactor rule.The watchman would need to leave for the two messengers to speak.The scene may be parsed to separate the watchmen scene from the messengers.
In regard to the death of Absalom, who was caught by his hair in a tree, it seems possible the mechane may have been used for this effect.Euripides is hypothesized to have used the mechane to carry non-divine figures on occasion (Davidson 2005: 202).
2 Samuel 19: 2 Sam 19 is a good passage to demonstrate the moving in and out of the 3rd actor.In 2 Samuel 18,9-23, the Israelites are speaking among themselves, and the Judites respond to David.In context, the first can be reported or indirect speech. 2 Samuel 19,16-24 features Shimei, Abishai, David.The 2 Samuel 19,25-39 parsing is due to a shift in focus, but this could be disputed.It seems likely to be the exit of Shimei (3rd actor), returning as Mephibosheth.
2 Samuel 19,40-44 to 2 Samuel,1-3 involves group speech, with two groups speaking together.It could also be the chorus speaking to an actor.The next portion of 2 Sam 20 has been incorporated because it fits the previous scene, and allows for three actors.There is some narration at the end.
2 Samuel 20: Parsing would be possible at 20,15 due to change of location.David would have left the scene, and it would be possible for an actor to play the clever woman.This would be an instance of the actor playing David also playing a minor part (the clever woman), unless this part was played by the actor who was also Joab's henchman.
2 Samuel 21: This scene includes an embedded narrative of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, who is evocative of Antigone.
For 2 Samuel 21,15, 2 Samuel 22, 2 Samuel 23,1-12: In 2 Sam 21, David and his men fight a giant with six fingers.The speech here is potentially indirect or reported.This has been grouped this with 2 Sam 22, which is simply an extended song by David.David's final words are given in 2 Sam 23, followed by narrative.
2 Samuel 23: 2 Samuel 23,13-39 may be another play within a play.2 Sam 23 includes an abbreviated narrative, in which three soldiers get David a drink of water from the Philistine camp.A further narrative includes the exploits of Benaiah son of Jehoida, who killed a lion in a pit on a snowy day.The end gives a genealogy, which would appear to be connecting these various figures together.
Gad, making it four actors in total.Alternatively, the actor playing Gad or the Lord may be off scene, and Araunah would be on scene.

Further Discussion: The Integration of Psalms
In Classical Greek tragedy, the movement of actors on and off stage was structured around choral songs (Halleran 2005: 168).A standard pattern was for an actor to exit the stage, followed by a song, followed by the entrance of an actor (Halleran 2005: 168).This necessitates further discussion on Psalms, and their potential integration into biblical writing.
For instance, the majority of section divisions in the MT coincide with the end of verses.However, the Aleppo codex also includes section divisions within the middle of verses, known as pisqah beemṣa pasuq (pbp).In the Aleppo Codex, a striking 65% of these occur within the Book of Samuel (Tov 2019: 223).
The implications of this are potentially significant, given that a large number of canonical Psalms are associated with David.

Limitations: Narration and Genealogy
It is worthwhile asking: if 1 and 2 Samuel were intended for performance as theatre plays, why does existent biblical text incorporate unexpected features like genealogy and narration?
The Letter of Aristeas, also known as Aristeas to Philocrates, is the only complete writing which describes the origins of the LXX (Wright 2015: 5).In speaking of the Jewish scholars dispatched as translators for the LXX, the language used here indicates that these were men of elite status (aristos), who lived under Jewish law (being repeatedly described as pious), and who had received a Greek education (paideia) (Wright 2015: 238).However, the historical accuracy of the Letter of Aristeas cannot be determined (Wright 2015: 8).Inconsistency between the expressed aim of the LXX translation in Aristeas, and the actual text of the LXX itself, makes its veracity doubtful (Wright 2015: 13-14).As such, later accounts drawing from Aristeas' testimony-such as those of Philo of Alexandria (On the Life of Moses 2.32), Flavius Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 12.100) and Eusebius of Caesarea (On Translation of Laws of the Jews 9.38)-are likewise of uncertain truth.Yet, with this aetiology in mind, it is possible that biblical narrative was produced incorporating features that are characteristic of Classical Greek theatre, while performance itself was never an intended goal.
The MT has marked textual difficulties and differs from the LXX, while evidence from the DSS is fragmentary and may be influenced by sectarian interpretations (Hugo 2010: 1).Simply put, we do not have evidence for every stage of the Book of Samuel's development (Driesbach 2016: 297).This presents a vexing challenge.

Conclusion
If treated in a manner similar to that of Classical Greek tragic plays, it is possible to tally the number of actors which would be required for stage performances of 1 and 2 Samuel.The number of speaking actors present in any given scene from 1 or 2 Samuel never appear to exceed three at a time, provided that (1) scenes are broken up into episodes or acts, (2) only speaking actors are tallied, and (3) group speech is treated as that of a single actor.The evidence provided in this paper indicates that 1 and 2 Samuel are both consistent with the threeactor rule of Classical Greek theatre, offering further support for the argument that some portions of biblical literature are written in the style of Classical Greek theatre plays.

Bibliography
In 2 Samuel 2,1-7, David instructs the messengers to speak.It seems that they are speaking, but it could also be David instructing them.In 2 Samuel 2,8, a parsing is justified due to a change in focal characters and location.There is a fight scene, in which twelve men on each side kill each other.This is written in third person, as if performed offstage.