154 | Martin Buber’s Theopolitics
tradition of the rise of the monarchy, not the intention of the final editors of 1
Samuel. Therefore, we will not attempt to resolve the controversy surrounding
textual phenomena that are classified as difficulties and contradictions by his-
torical criticism but that literary criticism may view as authorial artistry. It is
sufficient to note that they provide Buber an entry point into a tradition-critical
project of narrative reconstruction.^8 He does not accept the major historical-
critical hypotheses of the text’s emergence. In particular, he rejects the source
hypothesis, in which there are two or three major traditional sources: a Mizpa
source and a Gilgal source, corresponding to the two legends of Saul’s corona-
tion, which are later edited together. He also dismisses the fragment hypothesis,
in which independent epic units are strung together according to a later edito-
rial vision. Instead, he sees a unified narrative emerge early on, incorporating
previous oral traditions into a cohesive understanding of history. To isolate this
narrative, however, requires a thorough critical assessment of nearly every verse
of chapters 7–13, a project Buber describes with dry understatement as “the elimi-
nation of several additions, recognizable as such.”^9
Buber’s own criteria for distinguishing between earlier and later passages are
both historical and literary. In assessing authorship and consistency, he consid-
ers the sound and timbre of the text, in accordance with the theory that the core
of the text was originally oral. His method of tracing the Leitwort—that is, root
sounds repeated by the text in order to draw otherwise-invisible connections for
readers who are conceived of as hearers—is well known.^10 By reciting the text out
loud, Buber argues, one hears relationships between words that may not be ety-
mologically related but that resonate with each other; this draws us closer to the
original meaning of the text as spoken. Scholars rarely note, however, the extent
to which Buber deploys the Leitwort method in the service of his theopolitical
interpretation of Israelite history. Nor is it noted how his theopolitics drive his
instincts in cases in which no Leitwort is present, sometimes leading him to con-
tradict what would otherwise appear to be a clear Leitwort. Examples include his
comments on the sound א-ג-ד (aggid) and the root ש-פ-ט (shafat) in the legend of
Saul’s becoming king.
To start with the less surprising example: Buber reads our narrator as play-
ing on the “weighty central word nagid” in a twofold theopolitical way. On the
level of form, Buber calls our narrator “a master of esoteric style” (Geheimstil),
who repeats this sound throughout chapter 9 in reference to Saul’s rise to power.
Only two of these uses involve the noun nagid, “prince”; the others are variations
on the verb higgid, “tell”: “We hear jaggid in v. 6, higgid in v. 8, in v. 16 nagid itself
appears, then twice again, v. 18 haggida, v. 19 aggid, and finally renewed at 10:1
and the concluding nagid. Whoever refuses to give up maintaining that such
things are random throws the key to an inner chamber of the Hebrew Bible into
t he sea.”^11 This word choice also signifies on the level of theopolitical content. At