Saul's Death: What's with that Amalekite anyway?

"Death of King Saul", 1848 by Elie Marcuse

1 and 2 Samuel record the beginnings of the kings of Israel. God chooses Saul as Israel's first king, but after losing God's favor, Saul develops a rivalry with David, God's chosen successor to Saul. Even as Saul continues to fight the Philistines, he loses power and favor until he faces utter defeat at Mount Gilboa. Dismayed by the encroaching Philistines, he chooses to die rather than face further humiliation if captured or forced to flee. The main themes of the death tale remain consistent between the two different accounts at the end of 1 Samuel and beginning of 2 Samuel: Saul's defeat is assured and he chooses death rather than face any alternate outcomes; however, in 2 Samuel 1:4-10 an Amalekite reports Saul's death to David, and claims responsibility, saying that Saul asked to be killed by him. In 1 Samuel 31:4, Saul throws himself on his own sword after his personal servant refuses, and nobody described as present in this account survives. The Amalekite goes unmentioned.

Saul falls on his sword.

There are many ways to interpret this apparent inconsistency between these two books, mere passages apart during a continuous reading. Josephus wrote that Saul tried to kill himself, but didn't die immediately in the attempt, and so asked the passing Amalekite to finish the job. Some attempt to explain it away by merely stating that the books may have been compilations of various, inaccurate reports, but this can't explain why the conflicting accounts were left in by redactors. The most popular apologetic suggests one account may simply be a lie.

The explanation by Josephus and the documentary hypothesis are closely related. Josephus hopes to reconcile the apparent inconsistency by merely explaining that these are two different, partially true reports which each only explain part of the full story. Similarly, the documentary hypothesis suggests that these two accounts result from the compilation of different sources. Josephus's explanation means Saul was killed by the Amalekite, but the account of 1 Samuel 31 is only told from the point of view of those who recovered Saul's body, meaning the Philistines never suspected the Amalekite was ever present and that Saul only killed himself; meanwhile, the Amalekite's account is recorded in 2 Samuel 1, filling us in on what was not known by those present in 1 Samuel 31. It's an eloquent explanation, but as with the documentary hypothesis, it fails to explain why Biblical editors would leave the inconsistency without further explaining the connection between the accounts.

The recovery of the bodies of Saul and his sons.

One explanation lends some extra intrigue toward the inconsistency. It may be that the Amalekite was lying to David, hoping to gain some favor or reward from David, due to the rivalry Saul held against him. David, however, becomes enraged at the news, and has the Amalekite executed for aiding in the death of Israel's anointed king. The Amalekite may have only heard of Saul's death after the Philistines recovered the body, or he happened upon Saul when scavenging the battlefield, and recognized the king before he fled to inform David. In this case, the narrative elevates David as Saul's successor. He punishes the Amalekite harshly, though Saul was his enemy, and honor's Saul in death although Saul only gave him hate in life.