Was Samson a psychopath?
No
This entry is the twelfth instalment of my blog ( and eventual podcast) Matitya’s Many Musings on a Myriad of Matters. While I have not recorded the audio file yet, this entry was written to be aired in podcast format and as such will (at times) read more like the transcript of a podcast than a traditional blog. So without further ado, here’s the twelfth episode of Matitya’s Many Musings on a Myriad of Matters.
(Chapter Headings: Introduction)
Hello, my name is Matitya and welcome to Matitya’s Many Musings on a Myriad of Matters. Today’s topic, was Samson a psychopath? No.
(Chapter Headings: Antisocial Personality Disorder)
Madness without delirium, Moral Insanity, Psychopathic inferiority, sociopathy, psychopathic personality, dyssocial personality, Antisocial Personality Disorder. All different terms for the same thing. It means having a pervasive disregard for the rights of other people, engaging in criminal behaviour, acting recklessly with little concern for the safety of yourself or others, feeling no remorse and repeatedly engaging in the same destructive behaviours.
(Chapter Headings: Eric Altschuler)
In 2018, the American neuroscientist and psychiatrist, Dr. Eric Altschuler wrote a book titled “A Great Literature Guide to the DSM-5”. In it, he “examines prominent individuals from great literature and their apparent mental disorders or diseases” and “investigates how those disorders and diseases meet the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5) diagnostic criteria, and how the authors of these stories could have had enough knowledge to create characters who were suffering from mental illness hundreds of years before these illnesses were classified or defined.” I have not read Dr. Altschuler’s book to comment thereupon. That said, at least since 2001, the good doctor has claimed the Biblical Samson met the criteria to be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder. In point of fact, Samson doesn’t meet Altschuler’s criteria.
(Chapter Headings: The story of Samson)
If you’re unfamiliar with the details of Samson’s life, click here to read my summary of it.
(Chapter Headings: Debunking Altschuler’s arguments Part 1: The New York Times)
Having read that, does it sound like he was a psychopath to you? It doesn’t to me. So let’s see what Dr. Altschuler has to say about this. Let’s begin with the New York Times article on his theory.
Altschuler says Samson
1) “lied to his parents”. Actually, Samson told his parents that he wanted to marry a Philistine woman. There isn’t any lie there. He didn’t volunteer that it was only a pretext to pick a fight with the Philistines. That’s not perfectly honest but it isn’t a lie, it’s an omission. It also isn’t a broader pattern of behaviour.
2) “stole from his neighbours”. That’s untrue. Nothing in the text describes him as having stolen from his neighbours
3) “brawled with regularity and killed with abandon”. Samson didn’t kill with abandon. He killed with purpose. He deliberately sought out a wife from the Philistines so he could come up with an excuse to get into violent fights with the Philistines unrelated to his political opposition to them such that they wouldn’t retaliate against Israel. It’s why, when the men of Judah arrested him, Samson refused to fight fellow Israelites.
4) had ‘’a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.’’ Ignoring the fact that we aren’t told about Samson’s childhood and adolescence, his refusal to kill other Israelites doesn’t sound like a pervasive disregard or violation of the rights of others. And his motivation for fighting the Philistines was to drive them out of Israel because the Philistines tyrannised the Israelites. He had a regard for the rights of others.
5) engaged in “defiance of the law”. Actually, when the men of Judah arrested him, Samson came quietly.
6) lacked “ remorse for his actions.” So we’re ignoring when Delilah shamed Samson into telling him his secret by bringing up that he lied to her about his weakness. Or that Samson only asked G-d to avenge one of his eyes, instead of both, because he regretted his failure to fulfil his oath never to cut his hair or let his hair be cut. That’s indicative of remorse.
7) repeatedly involved himself ‘’ in physical fights’’ The ones he initiated had a political motivation otherwise he would have been as willing to fight other Israelites as he was to fight the Philistines. And the ones he didn’t initiate involved other people trying to kill him. That’s relevant context.
8) died a “violent death by his own hand, taking countless Philistines with him.” I wasn’t aware dying to kill the people who kidnapped, shaved and tortured you and are planning to kill you once you’ve been thoroughly humiliated was a psychopathic trait.
9) had a “penchant for fire setting”. Samson’s Philistine father in law sent Samson’s first wife to another man. When Samson was upset about this, he told Samson he’d let him marry the first wife’s more beautiful sister. Instead, Samson tied together the tails of 300 foxes, set them on fire and angrily sent them against the Philistine fields. The Philistines responded by burning Samson’s first wife and her father to death. Samson swore to avenge the immolation of his wife and father-in-law so he lashed out against the Philistines and “he smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter: and he went down and dwelt in the top of the rock Etam.” That’s the sole story about Samson setting a fire, hardly the same thing as a penchant.
10) and engaged in “cruelty to animals”, when Samson killed the lion, it was a matter of kill or be killed. When he used a donkey’s jawbone as a weapon against the Philistines, it’s implied he found the jawbone lying around (suggesting the donkey was already dead) and he needed to use it since he was unarmed and had one thousand Philistines fighting against him. Neither of those is an indicator of animal cruelty (though I will concede the point vis-à-vis Samson lighting 300 foxes’ tails on fire.)
Altschuler objects to the counterpoint that people in violent places and times lived violent lives on the grounds that
“In Chapter 15, Verse 12, it says that 3,000 Israelites essentially arrested Samson and handed him over to the Philistines. His own people were saying ‘That’s enough, cool it.” If Altschuler were aware of that, then he should have been aware that “the Philistines went up, and pitched in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi” in retaliation for Samson having killed so many of them and this is what motivates the men of Judah to arrest Samson. Not that they morally disapproved but that they feared Philistine reprisals. Considering the Israelites made Samson a judge for twenty years, it would be quite strange for them to have been thinking “that’s enough, cool it”.
Let’s see if Altschuler has any better arguments.
(Chapter Headings: Debunking Altschuler’s arguments Part 2: Science Daily)
Per Science Daily, Altschuler justifies his claims of a psychopathic Samson by citing examples of him
1) “Using a weapon”. It would be quite difficult for him to fight 1000 Philistines trying to kill him if he were unarmed. Altschuler also brings up that Samson did so
2) “In a non-manic state.” By that logic, anyone who ever engages in violence and is not mentally ill would have to be a psychopath.
(Chapter Headings: Debunking Altschuler’s arguments Part 3: New Scientist)
New Scientist quotes the good doctor as saying
1) Samson “also showed a reckless disregard for his own safety when he told Delilah, a woman who’d tried to kill him three times before, the secret of his strength.” Actually, Delilah had tried to kill him twice before. The third time, she lied to him that the Philistines were there when they weren’t since she suspected he was lying to her about his weakness. Also, it was the Philistines who tried to kill Samson the first two times. Delilah had signalled them both of those times but neither she nor her Philistine employers let Samson know that.
2) “It’s almost as if the writer of the story has the DSM criteria tacked to the wall, and he is writing a sketch but this was 3000 years before the DSM.” Let’s verify that.
(Chapter Headings: DSM)
1) “The presence of a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others.” Samson didn’t have that. He managed to be a judge in Israel for 20 years. He refused to fight fellow Israelites. He protected Delilah when he thought she was in danger. His motivation for fighting the Philistines was that their rule made the Israelites suffer.
2) At least three of the following
A) “Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful [behaviours], such as performing acts that are grounds for arrest”. Samson followed and enforced the law in Israel but in Philistia he didn’t due to the Philistines being enemies of Israel. The Philistine laws he broke were the ones which would keep him from killing the Philistines and given his goal was to fight a war against them, it wouldn’t make sense for him to follow that law.
B) “repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for pleasure or personal profit.” He at no point used an alias. He at times used trickery but never for pleasure or profit.
C) “Impulsivity or failure to plan”. He went to Timna and married a Philistine woman to pick a seemingly personal fight with the Philistines without having to worry about them retaliating against the Israelites. That’s hardly the same thing as being impulsive.
D) “Irritability and aggressiveness, often with physical fights or assaults.” Samson meets the second half of this criterion but not the first.
E) “Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others.” Considering his reasoning for going to Timna and seeking a Philistine wife in the first place was to fight the Philistines without endangering other Israelites and that he refused to fight fellow Israelites, he didn’t disregard the safety of others. He did involve himself in life-threatening situations but considering his strength, it doesn’t make sense to call that disregard for his own safety. It was less dangerous to him than it would have been to most of us.
F) “Consistent irresponsibility, failure to sustain consistent work [behaviour] or [honour] monetary obligations.” I doubt he could have managed twenty years as a judge in Israel if that were the case.
G) ““Lack of remorse, indifference to or [rationalising] having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.” He felt remorse for lying to Delilah.
That’s zero out of two but let’s look at the other criteria.
3) “The individual is at least age 18.” Check.
4) “There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15.” Not any we know about.
5) “ The occurrence of antisocial behaviour is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.” There’s no indication that Samson was schizophrenic or bipolar but he would have to meet the earlier criteria for his behaviour to be described as “antisocial” and he doesn’t.
(Chapter Headings: Conclusion)
Samson meets a grand total of one DSM criterion, being an adult. Samson was not a psychopath.
My name is Matitya and this has been an episode of Matitya’s Many Musings on a Myriad of Matters.
