Part 21
Samuel the prophet ruled Israel in the style of the preceding charismatic leaders known as judges, who saved the people from their enemies (Judg 2:18); he also fulfilled the narrower judicial role of a judge (w. 15-17). Thus the effectiveness of a charismatic, non-royal leadership is affirmed, and the inappropriateness of Israel's wish to have a king is established. (8:1-22) Israel Requests a King This section, with its negative attitude towards the monarchy, contains the elders of Israel's request for a king and reports their persistence despite Samuel's warning about the oppressive ways of kings. There were two reasons for the quest for a king, one implicit and the other explicitly stated. According to w. 1-3, Samuel's position was similar to that of Eli before him, for his sons were
(so 3:20), and 10:14 suggests that they chose him deliberately.
205 I AND 2 SAMUEL
(10:27^-11:15) A Saviour for Jabesh-gilead The inhuman treatment of the inhabitants of Jabesh by Nahash the Ammonite gave Saul an opportunity to prove himself leader. The description of Nahash's oppression in Transjordan (10:27/7) is absent from the MT but provided by 4QSama; it was also in the Greek text known to Josephus (Ant. 6 f f 6 8—71) .His action against Jabesh on the east bank to the south of the Sea of Galilee occurred 'about a month later' (following 4QSama and the LXX), which was after Saul's return to Gibeah.
The seer is described as a popular diviner; but Samuel was the designated successor of Eli.
God's direct participation in the events is emphasized by their providential character. Saul, a mere youth belonging to the smallest of the tribes and the humblest of families (9:21), is endowed with extraordinary characteristics (9:1—2); it was a journey looking for stray donkeys that brought them to the land of Zuph; on the advice of a boy assistant the seer was consulted (9:6); by chance the boy had a quarter shekel to pay the seer for consultation (9:8); after a chance meeting with a group of girls they met the seer, who had just arrived in town and was on his way to a sacrifice (9:11-12); Samuel had been told beforehand by YHWH that the one chosen to be king would visit him (9:16); the three signs given by Samuel to Saul were fulfilled (10:2—7).
Saul is presented as a deliverer in the style of the ancient judges, which may well be a true historical representation of the emergence of the monarchy. The last of the judges became the first king. The conditions of pre-monarchial times are reflected in w. 3—4, when the tribes in their separation lacked central authority and a united front in battle. It is not clear if the messengers came to Gibeah specifically to consult Saul and so test the new king (Edelman 1991); however, his leadership is unmistakable and his action decisive. Like the judges, Saul was seized by the spirit (v. 6, cf. Samson in Judg 14:6,19; 15:14) and this brought him success in battle. This specific charismatic gift is different from his previous endowment of the gift of prophecy and may also be different from the charismatic leadership of later monarchs. Divine choice and inspiration constitute an ideal ofkingship that existed in Israel before the introduction of dynastic succession by David, and it persisted for some time in the northern kingdom (Alt 1968).
Although the issue ofkingship is settled (8:22), this chapter makes an important contribution to the definition of 'kingship' according to prophetic ideology. Saul was anointed to the office ofnagid (prince, leader) and not melek (king); to define the task of'ruling' the verb used is 'asar (to restrain) not malak
(to reign) (Gordon 1984). The emphasis is on YHWH's choice of ruler; blood succession was not to be practised. That Saul was YHWH's chosen ruler is confirmed elsewhere in the narrative: his anointing (10:1), which was a private matter not disclosed to others (io:ifo); his participation in sacrificial meals reserved normally for priests (9:24); his direct experience of inspiration (10:10—13).
Saul's technique for calling assistance is not without parallel; dismembering animals occurred in covenant ceremonies and was accompanied by making an oath (cf. Judg 19:29-30, and Wallis 1952 for an extra-biblical parallel). A curse was invoked on the oxen and possibly on the people who refused to respond; their fate would be like that of the oxen. Saul's victory was also similar to that of former judges. By dividing the forces (cf. Judg 7) the camp was surrounded and an early morning attack was made. His unmistakable victory over the enemies was attributed to YHWH (v. 12). Saul was deemed worthy of the kingship contrary to the words of his opponents
(10:17—270) Choosing a King at Mizpah The narrative of 8:1— 22 is continued, and the dismissed assembly is now reconvened to appoint a king. Although it belongs to the antimonarchial strand, this section recognizes that Saul was an elected ruler (see Gordon 1984).
The words spoken by Samuel (w. 17-19) present this development in an unfavourable light. Preceding the command to assemble for an election (v. 19 b) are words in the form of a judgement oracle (cf Birch 1975). Despite God's protection of his people and his ability to deliver them, they have chosen to reject him and elect a king. Set in this context, the election was under judgement. Furthermore, Saul'selection by lot must be considered in conjunction with the use of lottery elsewhere in the OTto find a hidden offender (Josh 7; i Sam 14:38-44); this casts some doubt over Saul's election (McCarter 1980). Nevertheless, Saul was God's choice, whether taken by lot (w. 17— 2ib) or acclaimed because of his stature (w. 21/7—27). Possibly two traditions about Saul's election have been preserved here, a later one followed by an older tradition about his stature (cf. 9:2). Both traditions allow for God's freedom of choice: the lot confirms that he was God's choice, and what was known in secret now becomes public; his choice on account of stature confirms what is already known from the lost asses narrative. YHWH's displeasure with the people's resolve to have a king does not make Saul's kingship invalid.
(10:26), but they were spared according to Saul's own wish (the name 'Samuel' is unnecessarily introduced in v. 12). Saul was acclaimed king at Gilgal; but the word 'renew' suggests that v. 14 was an attempt to harmonize this account with the preceding Mizpah narrative.
(12:1—25) Samuel's Farewell Speech This chapter closes the period of the judges, and, like other Deuteronomistic orations placed at junctures in the Deuteronomistic History, marks the end of an epoch. The cycle of alternative proand antimonarchial strands is concluded, as it began, with an antimonarchial stance and a repetition of the negative words spoken in 8:1— 22. However, in the introductory w. 1-5 Samuel's words introduce a new element, a contrast between the old prophetic regime and the new royal one. After suggesting that kingship was a concession in response to popular demand (v. i) and was a departure from the kind of leadership exercised by himself, Samuel poses a number of questions with the aim of justifying his own rule. The key is provided by the verb 'take'; in his just leadership the prophet had 'taken' nothing from the people. But according to 'the ways of the king' in 8:11-18, a number of things will be 'taken' from the people by the king. In pressing for a king the people had taken a step backwards.
Public acclamation (v. 24), an important element in a king's installation (cf. i Kings 1:25, 34, 39; 2 Kings 11:12), is followed by Samuel's proclamation of the rights and duties of the kingship, which may have been similar to 8:11—18 or to the law-book in Deut 17:18-20, but not identical with either. What is clearly established here is the subjugation of the monarchy to prophetic authority.
I AND 2 SAMUEL 206
the manufacture of weapons, disarmed the Israelites. By securing a monopoly in servicing Israelite agricultural implements they exacted revenue from them (w. 19-22).
The resume of history in w. 6-15 shows that it was an unnecessary step, for God 'in all his saving deeds' had given saviours or judges who had achieved great successes in the period prior to the call for a king. Set in the context of calling Moses and Aaron to deliver the people from Egypt (w. 6, 8), three oppressors from the period of the judges are mentioned: Sisera (Judg 4—5), the Philistines (Judg 13—16), and the Moabites (Judg 3). Within a skeletal pattern of apostasyoppression-repentance-deliverance, the saviours named (with assistance from the LXX) are Jerubbaal (Gideon), Barak, Jephthah, and Samson. The newly appointed king belongs to the same tradition.
One outcome of Philistine presence was that Saul could no longer depend on a militia, but had to establish a standing army (v. 2). He and Jonathan achieved successes against Philistine garrisons, although the Philistines had a betterequipped and numerically stronger force. To man 'three thousand chariots' (following the LXX in preference to the MT's 'thirty thousand') they had 'six thousand horsemen', two for each chariot, and their infantry for action in the hills was numerous (v. 5). Israel panicked, some fleeing eastwards to hide in the hills and some as far afield as Transjordan (w. 6— 7). Lack of action led to further depletion of the Israelite army (v. 8). Thus the scene is set for the battle of Michmash, where a Philistine garrison had been placed (v. 23).
Although the demand for a king was a wicked act (v. 17), there is a way forward: people and king must show faithfulness to YHWH. Covenantal language is used here, and also a historical summary as was usual in covenant ceremonies, w. 14-15 announce the blessing and curse of the covenant: it will be well if people and king remain faithful, but if not, people and 'king' (following the LXX in preference to 'ancestors' in the MT) will be wiped away (cf. v. 25). Parallels between this passage and the covenantal passage in Josh 24 have been noted (McCarter 1980): introduction, antecedent history, transition to the present, requirements, blessings, and curses. A covenant between God, people, and king holds the key to the future, for it is not God's wish to abandon his people (v. 22, cf. Muilenburg 1959). Nor will Samuel abandon the people, for he has a prophetic role in the period of the monarchy. Samuel's sons are not expected to follow him because they were among the people (v. 2); in any case judges did not have a line of descent. Although old, Samuel still possessed supernatural powers (v. 17); bringing thunder and rain was a sign of God's displeasure, but it also confirmed that Samuel was true to the prophetic office and acted according to God's will. He will continue to serve the people as intercessor and instructor (v. 23), which was the norm for the prophetic office under this new regime (Gordon 1986). (13:1-23) Saul's Disobedience A skeletal introduction to a king's reign in v. i (absent from the LXX) lacks Saul's age when he began to reign and gives an incorrect figure of'two' as the length of his reign. Some Greek MSS give 30 as his age, and in both Josephus (Ant. 10 § 8) and Acts 13:21 the length of his reign is 40 years.
An intrusion in w. 7/7-150 introduces a new perspective; the description of deteriorating Israelite—Philistine relations becomes a narrative explaining Saul's disapproval by YHWH. The emphasis is on disobedience. Saul's action could be justified: Samuel had not kept his appointment, and Saul did not infringe upon priestly prerogatives, since kings did offer sacrifices (2 Sam 6:17-18; 24:25; i Kings 3:3-4). But the issue is obedience, upon which the future of Saul's kingship depended (v. 13, cf. 12:14). Because he failed a Saulide dynasty was not established, and God chose another king to follow him. This represents a prophetic viewpoint: kings must obey prophets and kings are charismatic persons chosen by YHWH.
(14:1—52) The Battle of Michmash This narrative betrays a mixed attitude towards Saul, oscillating between a sympathetic, favourable view and a negative, unfavourable verdict. It may well be that an original positive source has been overlaid with other material to reinforce the conviction that Saul was not a man after God's heart. (On the chapter see Blenkinsopp 1964.)
The Philistines' camp at Michmash was to the north of the deep ravine, Wadi es-Suwenit, and that of the Israelites in Geba to the south of it. Jonathan and his armour-bearer succeeded in the first encounter (w. 1—15) by clambering up from the ravine through rock formations that were difficult to negotiate, as indicated by their names, Bozez ('slippery one') and Seneh ('thorny one'). The enterprise and bravery of Jonathan brought success against a superior Philistine force. There is a contrast between Jonathan the hero and the reckless
Saul had been appointed to save his people 'from the hand of their enemies' (10:1), more specifically the Philistines (9:16). A Philistine campaign to weaken Israel and restrict its expansion into the plains (Mayes 1977) led to the activities described here. First, they had a strong presence in the central hill country. The territory of Saul's own tribe, Benjamin, had to be freed, for Geba and Michmash were in Benjaminite territory to the south of Bethel (referred to as Beth-aven, 'house of wickedness', v. 5). Both Saul's capital, Gibeah of Benjamin (Tell el-Ful), and Geba of Benjamin are mentioned (w. 2,3,15 with a different reading in the LXX, v. 16), and it has been suggested that two accounts have been fused, a victory by
Saul, who acted foolishly on one occasion (13:13), interrupted a consultation to rush to battle on another (14:19), and finally endangered the life of his son (14:44) (Gordon 1984). After Jonathan had defeated the garrison and caused panic (v. 15), Saul and his troops later engaged in battle (v. 20). It is also emphasized that Jonathan was but an instrument in God's hand: he set out on the assumption 'it may be that the LORD will act for us' (v. 6), depended on God's approval of his action
(w. 8-12), and it is concluded that it was God's victory (v. 23, cf. v. 45). Jonathan, possessing the characteristics of a charismatic leader, stood in the tradition of those who waged God's battles (Jobling 1976). To ensure success Saul had placed an oath on his troops, a rash act (as noted in v. 24, following the LXX in preference to the MT), which became a threat to
Saul at Gibeah and another by Jonathan at Geba (Mayes 1977). Secondly, the Philistines were able to send out bands of raiders to the north (Ophrah), west (Beth-horon), and south (valley of Zeboim) (w. 17-18), undermining Israelite confidence and causing fear. Thirdly, the Philistines, by forbidding
207 I AND 2 SAMUEL
disobeyed the divine command. His kindness to the Kenites is not an issue (v. 6). Reasons could be given for his other actions; it may be that he believed in sparing the life of a king, as was done on other occasions (cf. i Kings 20:30-4, 42), and he attempted to justify sparing the best animals for sacrifice and not for personal gain (v. 14). Whatever his reasons, they were not acceptable. He was guilty of gross disobedience, as is seen from the selection of words chosen to describe his action: disobedience (v. 19), doing evil (v. 19), rebellion
Jonathan's life (w. 24-6). Taking the oath seriously, the troops refrained from eating of the plentiful honey available; Jonathan, unaware of the oath, ate and was refreshed ('his eyes brightened'). A clash between Jonathan and Saul is hinted at by the son's reference to his father as one who 'has troubled the land' and who had prevented a total wiping out of the Philistines (v. 30).
A separate tradition, which does not involve Jonathan, interrupts the narrative at w. 31-5. By observing the oath the troops were famished by evening when the oath was expiring. They seized animals from the spoil, but were not careful enough to drain blood from the meat; they slaughtered on the ground, not on a stone from which the blood could flow away (w. 33—4). 'Eating with blood' (as in NRSVagainst Hertzberg 1964) was contrary to regulation (Deut 12:23—7; Lev 19:26). Following the intrusion, the narrative proceeds to Saul's determination to wipe out the Philistines (w. 36-46); it was thwarted by lack of divine support. Upon investigation, by means of a sacred lot, fault was found with the king's family and more specifically with Jonathan. The NRSV reads the longer text of the LXX, which refers to Urim and Thummim, probably the black and white stones used for casting lots (see OCB). Although Jonathan, and to his credit Saul, were willing to accept the verdict, the warriors resisted and saved Jonathan's life (v. 44). Saul, condescending to the better judgement of the people, does not appear in a favourable light. There is, however, no proof that Saul and the priest manipulated the oracle in order to be rid of Jonathan his rival (Long 1989). The chapter closes on a more positive note depicting Saul as a successful warrior (w. 47—8) and the head of a household (w. 49-51).
(v. 23), stubborness (v. 23), rejection of God's word (v. 23). Saul had to admit that it was a sin and transgression (v. 24). Disobedience was the reason for his rejection and for God to regret that he had made him king (w. 10, 35). To complete the narrative, Samuel himself fulfilled the terms of the ban
(w. 32-3), which was a criticism of Saul. Relations between them were then broken off (w. 34-5).
The cycle of Samuel-Saul narratives is now completed and the next section consists of a Saul—David cycle. The basic question of this cycle, Ts Saul a man after God's heart?', has been finally answered in the negative. He has been rejected because he rejected God's word (13:13; 15:23, 26), but it must be remembered that he was only reluctantly made king and that his kingship was under a cloud from the beginning (cf. Gunn 1980).
Saul and David (i Sam 16:1-2 Sam 1:27)
The block of narrative in i Sam 16-2 Sam 5 has become known as the History of David's Rise (see Gr0nbaek 1971), with David identified as the central character. Good reasons can be given for taking i Sam 16:1-2 Sam 1:27 as an independent unit with its own central theme, the decline of Saul and the rise of David (see 0.11—15). Although the section emphasizes that David is God's chosen (i Sam 16:1—13), me rejected Saul was still king and David was careful not to seize the kingdom from God's anointed (i Sam 24:6; 26:9). The recognition of David's stature is balanced by the decline of Saul's authority; whilst David was under blessing, Saul was under curse. Saul and his son Jonathan knew that David was the chosen successor, and the narrative stresses that he did not come to power by shedding Saulide blood. Jonathan even assisted him by his own virtual abdication (Jobling 1976). Saul's position was made even more pitiful by his intense jealousy. Gordon (1984) rightly refutes an alternative reading of the narrative (as by Ishida 1977), which makes Saul a popular king who was forced to oppress David, the usurper engaged in guerrilla warfare against the king.
(15:1—35) The Rejection of Saul This conclusion to the section on relations between Saul and Samuel has two prominent themes, the relationship between prophet and king and the necessity for obedience. Samuel plays a central role. His command in response to a divine message led to war against the Amalekites, as punishment for their opposition to the Israelites on their way from Egypt (w. 1-3, cf. Ex 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). A holy war to fulfil a divine sentence was instigated by a prophetic figure. Again God's views of Saul's kingship were transmitted to Samuel (v. 10), and the prophet spoke an oracle of judgement to Saul (w. 17-31). The same prophetic attitude is expressed here as in 8:1-22 and 13:8-15; the people had been warned against a monarchy, and it became obvious from the Gilgal episode that Saul's kingship was doomed. Here the rejection of Saul is final and absolute (w. 28-9) and it is parabolically confirmed by the accidental tearing of Samuel's robe when Saul made his last desperate supplication (Brauner 1974). The rejection is set out in rhythmic form in w. 22—3, taking up Saul's reference to sacrifice (v. 21) and in true prophetic spirit contrasting sacrifice and obedience (cf. Isa 1:11—15; Hos 6:6; Am 5:21—4; Mic 6:6—8) and declaring finally that he who rejected God's word has been rejected.
As noted above, various dates have been proposed for the composition of the History of David's Rise. The most likely are either the Solomonic period, when the kingdom was undivided and an effort was made to justify David's succession to the throne, or the period of David himself, when an attempt was made to refute charges brought against David by demonstrating that 'the LORD was with him' (i Sam 16:18; 18:14).
(16:1—23) David's Anointing and Introduction to Court Saul's rejection (v. i), Samuel's fear of Saul's reprisal (v. 2), and Samuel's pretence of going to Bethlehem to offer sacrifice (v. 2), provide the background for David's election and anointing. Thenarrative bears similaritiesand dissimilarities to Saul's own election to the kingship. A similarity of fundamental
The issue of obedience is as prominent in Saul's final rejection as it was in the preliminary warning in 13:13 (cf. 12:14). Th£ ban was operative in this Holy War, and so every living thing captured had to be exterminated (cf. Deut 20:10— 18; Gordon 1986), but Saul in his selective application of it
I AND 2 SAMUEL 208
introduction to Saul, possibly derived from a different source. Others interpret it, not as an alternative, but as providing the next step in David's progression to the throne by testing his suitability. In contrast to the testing of Jonathan at Michmash (w. 13—14) David proves himself a worthy successor to the throne.
importance is the concept that YHWH alone chooses a king, both accounts using the verb bahar (choose) (10:24; 16:8, 9, 10) and thus emphasizing that David, like Saul before him, did not come to the throne by chance or force. A miraculous and unexpected feature belongs to the actual choice; as Saul belonged to the smallest clan of the smallest tribe, David was the youngest of seven or eight sons, which may be a folkloric motif (McCarter 1980). It is also possible that the actual process of election was similar; Saul was chosen by elimination by means of lots (10:17—270), and it is possible that the elimination of all Jesse's sons, from Eliab the eldest and a man of stature through to David, the youngest and the chosen, occurred through a similar procedure. David, who was not present for examination, had to be brought from the fields, exactly as Saul had to be brought from among the baggage. Such obvious similarities are taken as indications that the Davidic narrative deliberately reflects the previous one about Saul. Nevertheless, there is a clear intention to bring out the dissimilarity between David and Saul. Although David was handsome (v. 12), it is emphasized that God does not look on the outward appearance'; it was precisely for that reason that Eliab was rejected. There is perhaps some justification for the comment that this is a veiled attack on Saul's personal appearance and stature (9:2; 10:23); me rejection of Eliab, a kind of second Saul, confirms Saul's rejection (Mettinger 1976). Whatever the similarities, the major difference introduced by this narrative is that Saul was rejected but David chosen. That difference is made explicit in v. 13 with the transfer of YHWH's spirit from Saul to David and the abandonment of
To avoid the difficulty caused by the statement in 2 Sam 21:19 ^at another Bethlehemite, called Elhanan, killed Goliath, several proposals have been made. Chronicles obviously attempted to harmonize the text by claiming that 'Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath' (i Chr 20:5). A suggestion that has found some support is that Elhanan was the original name of the Bethlehemite who killed Goliath, David his throne name (Honeymani948). Other more acceptable solutions are: either that elements from a popular tradition about Elhanan became attached later to David (McCarter 1980), or else that in the course of time the name Goliath was given to an anonymous challenger (Hertzberg 1964).
A shorter account of the narrative is given in the Vaticanus MS of the LXX (known as LXXB); it is thought that this is the result of a shortening of the text, probably for harmonizing purposes. It is not a satisfactory explanation; the shorter text does not harmonize with preceding or succeeding sections. Furthermore, the parts omitted in the shorter version form more or less a complete narrative on their own. A primary short narrative received an interpolation of a full alternative account (Stoebe 1973). The shorter version, consisting of w. i-n, 32-40, 42-83, 49, 51-4, reports how David, who was with Saul as his armour-bearer, volunteered to meet the challenge of the Philistine Goliath. Although the NRSV calls him 'champion', the Hebrew benayim denotes 'one who steps out to fight between the two battle lines', which was later interpreted in the Qumran War Scroll as 'infantryman' (McCarter 1980). According to the MT, preferred by the NRSV, he was over 'six cubits' tall (approximately 9 ft. 6 in.), but 4QSama and the LXX have 'four cubits' (6ft. 6 in.). His armour, described in detail in w. 5-7, made him a formidable opponent; he was far superior to David, who refused to take the armour offered him (w. 38—9) and relied entirely on his shepherd's sling (v. 40). However, his forehead had not been covered, an omission that was to prove fatal. The inequality in size, experience (v. 33), and armour, and the fact that David went to meet him without assistance, set the stage for presenting the theological theme of the narrative, namely that God was with David (w. 37, 45-7). David stood the test, and proved that he belonged to the tradition of Israel's great saviours. Like Saul he triumphed against the Philistines, and was now poised to succeed him.
Saul to a malevolent spirit.
The next section (w. 14—23) introduces an ironic element into the narrative. Immediately after David's anointing and his endowment with YHWH's spirit, Saul becomes troubled and unwell, which provides an opportunity for his servants to introduce David to court. By this strange turn of events, Saul gives David the court experience and training that will enable David to replace him. Although David was chosen because of his skill in playing (v. 18), he had many other attributes and pride of place goes to his military prowess. This made him even more attractive to Saul, whose policy was to enlist all men capable of assisting him in his fight against the Philistines (14:52); thus David became his armour-bearer. In addition David possessed good judgement and intellect, and was a man of presence (v. 18). To crown the list of qualifications it is stated that 'YHWH is with him', which superficially means that David's personal attributes are proof of God's blessing, but at a deeper level indicates that he had a special endowment, v. 21 states that 'Saul loved him'; reading 'Saul' with the LXX removes the possible suggestion of the MT that 'David' was the subject, thus leading to the interpretation of it as a covenant relationship (Thompson 1974). However, a key to the Saul-David narrative is the love-hate relationship between the two (Gunn 1980). Another key is provided in v. 23:
Additional verses included in the MT version are: 12-31,41, 48/7, 50, 55-8. Originally this had been an independent narrative, but has now been revised to fit into its present context. David was not in Saul's service (w. 17—18) and was unknown to the king (v. 55), but an editorial note in w. 14-15 attempts to harmonize the two versions. Again the editorial v. 31 seeks to harmonize the additional narrative, which does not contain conversation between David and Saul, with the shorter narrative to which the conversation in w. 32-7 belonged. The aim of this account is to portray David as a mere shepherd boy, not a king's armour-bearer, and how he successfully joined battle with the Philistine. The conversation of w. 26—32 emphasizes
Saul was entirely in David's hands, and the narrative shows how David responded to that responsibility.
(17:1-58) David and Goliath The place of this narrative in the History of David's Rise is unclear. In view of w. 12-16, which so glaringly contradict what has gone before in 16:14—23, it is generally assumed that it is an alternative account of David's
209 I AND 2 SAMUEL
Jonathan, after warning David of the danger, became a successful conciliator. His plea for David is based simply on David's service to Saul when he secured victory for Israel by defeating 'the Philistine' (Goliath), a victory in which Saul himself had rejoiced. Moreover, Saul is reminded that it was YHWH's victory, with perhaps a hidden suggestion that he should not kill a person so clearly endowed with divine power. Saul listened, and, after a promise under divine oath not to kill David, relations were restored. Saul's anger was aroused again (w. 8—10), and after an unsuccessful attempt to kill David with his spear he set guard over him (v. n). Michal warned her husband of the danger (v. n), helped him to escape (v. 12), and to give him time used a household idol with goats' hair (as a net or a wig) to confirm the impression that he was sick in bed (w. 13-17). The point is made, however, that he was to save his own life that night (v. n) and that Michal in protecting her husband was only acting in obedience to him (v. 17). Michal, so as not to dissatisfy her father, did not plan the escape, but in obedience to David only assisted him in executing it; she was thus loyal to both sides (Edelman 1991).
that David did not enter into battle because of arrogance or a spirit of adventure, but because he was destined for this part in God's plan. This account has all the characteristics of popular legendary material about David. Although it was not added to the text of the original narrative until the fourth century BCE
(after the divergence of the MT from the ancient Greek tradition), it may nevertheless consist of an ancient tradition about David (so McCarter 1980). Other biblical texts show that the shepherd motif attached to David in this narrative had 'royal' connotations (cf Ps. 78:70—2 and the prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah); this was also the case throughout the ancient Near East. (18:1-30) David, Jonathan, and Michal w. 1-5 are a fitting conclusion to the narrative in ch. 17. David became permanently attached to the court (v. 2), probably as a reward for his success and to ensure military assistance in the future (v. 5); another possible reason is that he could be kept under observation to avoid any revolt (Edelman 1991). David was attractive and popular, and was retained (v. 2) and elevated (v. 5) by Saul; he also won general acclaim by the populace and the courtiers. Especially important is Jonathan's attachment to David, which is described in terms of'covenant' and 'love'. The word 'love' here denotes more than personal attachment; as with 'bound to' (v. i) it signifies some kind of political liaison (see Thompson 1974; Ackroyd 1975). The word 'covenant' too signifies more than a bond of friendship; they were sealing a pact which had political implications; this is confirmed by Jonathan's act of handing over his clothes and armour to David
An independent tradition, possibly originating from Ramah (Hertzberg 1964), records David's escape to Samuel and their journey together to Naioth. This was a prophetic centre, exactly as Nob was a priestly centre. After three different groups of messengers were seized by prophetic frenzy, Saul himself decided to go to Naioth, and he was similarly possessed; his nakedness may be a symbolic indication that he had lost his authority as king. A different explanation to the one found in 10:5-12 is given to the saying Ts Saul also among the prophets?', and that may have been the narrative's original intention. In its present context the incident demonstrates how YHWH used Saul's possession by the spirit to protect David; the spirit has thus become a sign of disfavour and a means of protecting God's chosen one.
(v. 4), by which he was symbolically transferring the right of succession and making him heir-apparent (Mettinger 1976). Saul's jealousy was aroused, and his relationship with David developed into one of respect and hatred, recognition and desire to kill. The couplet in v. 7, which made him equal to Saul, not superior to him (McCarter 1980), gave the unmistakable message that he would become king and led to more suspicion and caution. The mixed and complicated attitude of Saul appears throughout this chapter. On the one hand, there is fear (w. 12, 29) and awe (v. 15) and a recognition that God was with David (v. 12). Saul was willing to give him his daughter Merab as wife, although for an unexplained reason he gave her to another. He was pleased to give him Michal, who became his wife. On the other hand, Saul hated him and sought to kill him (w. 10—12); he placed him in stations where he was likely to fall to the Philistines, such as sending him to battle as commander (v. 13), encouraging him to fight so that the Philistines could deal with him (v. 17), and making a demand upon him that would certainly deliver him to the Philistines (v. 25).
(20:1-42) David and Jonathan After escaping from Saul's wrath, David once again sought Jonathan, and tried to obtain some indication of Saul's intentions. They agreed on a plan whereby Jonathan, after establishing Saul's attitude, would, unknown to anyone else, give David a coded answer. A major theme in this narrative is a continuation from the previous chapter, namely that Saul's family sided with David against Saul. Jonathan, who had previously proved an effective conciliator between them, has now been forced to take sides. Atthe beginning he stands by his father, and refuses to believe that in view of the oath in 19:6 he will harm David without consulting him. But after David's assurance that he feels close to death he agrees to find out Saul's will. After a confirmation of their 'love' (or 'pact'), it is agreed to sound him on the Feast of the New Moon, which according to this section lasted for three days (see also Num 28:11—15), an(^ then to inform David according to their agreed method. Jonathan, after providing an excuse for David's absence, came out in his defence using words (v. 32) which echo David's own words in v. i. Jonathan has now moved from being conciliator between David and his father to the position of David's friend under threat from his father (w. 30-3). Saul's use of strong words to insult his own son demonstrates the extent of the rift between Saul and his family. His enmity towards David had isolated him from his own kin.
Another prominent theme is that, whereas Saul was thwarted in all his plans, David was successful in all his undertakings. It was 'an evil spirit' from God that troubled
Saul, but God was with David and gave him outstanding successes (w. 14, 30). Every attempt to hinder David was a failure and turned out to be a further opportunity for his triumph.
(19:1—24) David Escapes Death The loyalty of Saul's own family, Jonathan and Michal, saved David from Saul's further attempts to kill him. No reason is given for Saul's renewed plans, which were now brought into the open (v. i), but
I AND 2 SAMUEL 2IO
ephod' (v. 9). A cloth other than the ephod suggests that the word 'ephod' does not here signify a garment worn by priests, as is usually the case, but that it was some kind of image (cf Judg 8:27; OCB). Obtaining Goliath's sword was significant, since it was proof of David's success in battle and an omen of future successes; it may also signify that the object of power has been transferred from the sanctuary and entrusted to God's chosen king (Edelman 1991). Another act of deception, a feigned madness, was devised by David in Gath. The recognition of David by the courtiers of Gath, who used the words specifically connected with his successes against the Philistines, was made much easier by the fact that he was carrying Goliath's sword. His fear of Achish is significant; he was now outside YHWH's territory and within reach of the Philistines, and was perhaps more vulnerable because he had not consulted YHWH before fleeing to Gath (Edelman 1991). David acted quickly to feign madness; 'he scratched marks on the doors', which is preferred to the LXX's 'he drummed the doors', and he also 'let his spittle run down his beard'. Achish was deceived and was eager to get rid of him; madmen were thought to be under divine protection, and so Achish could not touch David.
In emphasizing the fierceness of Saul's actions this narrative shows that David had little choice but to leave court and escape. Saul's intention becomes clear in v. 31, 'bring him to me, for he shall surely die', and Jonathan was now convinced of his intention (v. 33). As noted by McCarter (1980), this confirms one of the main emphases of the History of David's Rise, namely that he did not leave Saul's court out of disloyalty or in order to further his own cause. He was forced to leave because of events which were beyond his control; he was the legitimate successor who did not act in any way to usurp the throne. A significant comment is made by Saul in w. 30—1. Previous hints have been given of his fear of David (18:12,15, 29) and of his recognition that he would ultimately take the kingdom (18:8). Saul now makes explicit to Jonathan that David stands between him and the kingship. Saul's intention to establish a dynasty by making Jonathan his successor could not be realized as long as David was alive. This sets the scene for those narratives describing Saul's tireless pursuit of David, for he was seen as an enemy who threatened the proposed dynasty.
Insertions into the narrative have been identified in w. n17, 23, 40—2 (McCarter 1980). A promise is made by David to extend his pact with Jonathan to include his 'house' (v. 15) and his 'descendants' (v. 42). These verses anticipate David's kindness to Jonathan's son Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9) and attribute the survival of the house of Saul to this pact between David and Jonathan. It is suggested that this strand in the narrative is an addition made by a Josianic historian. Thus the narrative serves as an introduction to David's period of flight before Saul and also to later relations between David and the house of Saul.
The series of deceptions associated with David in this chapter caused no moral problems for the narrator. David was in flight, had to depend on his presence of mind, and by whatever means was under divine protection.
(22:1—23) Tne Priesthood of Nob Before presenting the consequences of David's previous actions in Nob (w. 6—23), his sojourn in Adullam (w. 1-2) and Mizpah of Moab (w. 3-5) are briefly recorded. At Adullam (in 'the cave' according to MT, so NRSV, but 'the stronghold' according to LXX, so McCarter 1980), which is to the south-west of Jerusalem in the Shephelah, David was joined by his family and all those who were deprived and embittered. This marks a new development in the History of David's Rise; he was now an outlaw (cf. chs. 23— 6) and a leader of a group of malcontents. Although forced to this position by Saul's own actions, this development may have given Saul some grounds for suspecting a conspiracy
(21:1—15) David in Nob and Gath David's visit to Nob is the first scene in a plot continued in 22:6-23, but which is at present interrupted by the incidents recorded in 21:11-22:5 (McCarter 1980 following Gr0nbaek 1971). Taken as a whole the unit shows that David secured the support of the priesthood; however, it was obtained through deception, not willingly like that of Michal and Jonathan, and it was accompanied by tragic events. The high-priest of Nob, a little to the north of Jerusalem, was Ahimelech the grandson of Eli. His suspicion of David's visit was allayed by a concoted story about a secret mission, and he was persuaded to give provision to David and his young men from 'holy bread' or 'bread of Presence' reserved for priests (Lev 24:9). David obtained this favour after giving assurances that the young men were ceremonially clean through abstention from sex and that their 'vessels' (euphemism for genitals, Hertzberg 1964) were clean.
(w. 8,13). Travelling to Mizpah of Moab, a place not known or mentioned elsewhere, David, because of the uncertainty of his position as outlaw, sought asylum for his parents in Moab. Reasons for his approach to Moab were: his family connections with Moab (Ruth 4:17—22), and the likely support for an enemy of Saul, who had defeated Moab in battle (14:47). After a further stay in Adullam ('the stronghold'), David returned to Judah on the advice of Gad, who later became a court prophet (2 Sam 24:11—19). Receiving divine communication through a prophet gave David strength and respectability.
The sequel to David's visit to Nob is introduced by Saul's pitiful appeal to those servants not involved in a conspiracy against him. Saul, sitting in council at Gibeah (cf. 14:2), began accusing the members of his own tribe ('you Benjaminites') of conspiracy and so immediately isolated himself from them. His point in v. 7 is that his rival can in no way offer them the benefits they had received from him, possibly suggesting that they would be directed towards his own clan. He further isolates himself from his servants by accusing them of not disclosing to him the pact between David and Jonathan (v. 8). Doeg the Edomite, chief of the shepherds (21:7), appears now
The passing reference to Doeg in v. 7 becomes meaningful in the next scene of the plot (22:9-10,18). The presence of an Edomite spells trouble in view of the long-standing animosity between Israel and Edom (Gen 25:25, 30; Num 20:1—21; Judg 3:7-11). His 'detention' in the sanctuary was probably connected with an act of penance (Hertzberg 1964) rather than a mere holiday (McCarter 1980). The reference to him as 'chief of Saul's shepherds' need not refer in any way to the office of king (as has been suggested by Edelman 1991). By another probable act of deception David obtained from Nob Goliath's sword, which was 'wrapped in cloth behind the
211 I AND 2 SAMUEL
wilderness southwards of Hebron. Saul obviously treated David as an enemy and sought an opportunity to kill him; the Ziphites were willing to provide him with the necessary information. After double-checking to make sure that he did not fall into the hands of the 'cunning' David, Saul went in pursuit into the wilderness of Maon. It is clear that David was in real danger (v. 26); as he was moving away along one side of the mountain, Saul and his troops were 'closing in' on him from both sides. But David was saved at a critical moment because
to be 'in charge of Saul's servants' (Edelman 1991), in preference to 'standing against'. His initial contribution was to report Ahimelech's assistance to David by giving him sustenance and Goliath's sword. Naturally Ahimelech protested his innocence by claiming that he only treated David, as in the past, as Saul's obedient servant and honoured son-in-law and that he was not aware of a change in his position. When his other servants refused to obey Saul's command, Doeg killed the entire priesthood of Nob and executed blood revenge on the whole city (v. 19). One priest, Abiathar, escaped and attached himself to David. Not only did his escape fulfil the prophecy of 2:27-36, but it also secured for David the service of a priest. The main point of the narrative is to contrast Saul, whose demented act of reprisal had lost for him the service of a priesthood, and David, who had access to YHWH through the only priest left; Saul destroyed the priesthood, David preserved the only contact with it that was available. Although David acknowledged his own culpability (v. 22, reading 'responsible' with the LXX), he emerges triumphantly, with divine counsel available to him through prophet (Gad) and priest (Abiathar). The priest Abiathar remained with him as high priest until he was eventually banished by Solomon (i Kings 2:26-7).
Saul had to meet a Philistine attack; thus the place was called Rock of Escape (NRSV) or Rock of Parting (possibly denoting that Saul and David parted company). Whatever the significance of the name, it is correct to regard this chapter as an aetiological narrative. It may have existed on its own originally, but has by now been included into the history of David.
(24:1—22) A Cave in Engedi The scene for this narrative is set in 23:29 (24:1 in the HB), which reports David's move to Engedi in the hilly area around the Dead Sea. Saul, enjoying a respite from Philistine threat, was free to pursue David.
Another account of sparing Saul's life is found in 26:1—25, and because of the marked similarities between the two the relationship between them has been widely discussed. One interpretation regards the version in ch. 26 as the older, with the present one in ch. 24 containing expansions and revisions, especially in the speeches which portray David as an exemplary figure and Saul in a most unfavourable light. This view is favoured by McCarter (1980). Another interpretation takes them as different versions developed from a common source, one coming from Engedi and the other from Ziph. It is possible that this account too contains some core of older material; this can probably be traced in w. 2—50, 7—11, 17—20, 23/7. David is portrayed in a very favourable light, for from his hiding place in the inner recesses of the cave he resisted the encouragement of his men to kill Saul when he came to the open part of the cave to relieve himself. His men's words of encouragement are oracular in form (v. 4), probably reflecting some previous divine saying rather than being a complete fabrication (as suggested by Gordon 1984). There is some confusion in w. 4—5. 'Then David went' (v. 4) suggests that he was listening to his men's words, but the statement that 'he was stricken' (v. 5) seems to indicate a change of heart. The section emphasizes two points: first, that David was in a position to kill Saul and seize the kingship; the possession of part of his skirt was proof; secondly, that he resisted the temptation to kill 'the LORD'S anointed' and prevented his men from bringing him to harm (v. 7). These points are elaborated in David's speech (w. 8—15): David could easily have taken vengeance on Saul for pursuing him and treating him like an insignificant dog or flea; David, duly acknowledging Saul's position as king (v. 8), did not take matters in his own hand, but entrusted vengeance to God (v. 12). The narrative thus repeats a recurring theme in the History of David's Rise; David was no usurper of the throne, for he did not take action against Saul, who was still God's anointed, but left such matters as vengeance and succession to the throne entirely in God's hands. Saul's speech (w. 16—21) truly reflects his weak position. First, he has to concede that his actions have been evil and that David is more 'righteous' than he
(23:1—29) The Liberation of Keilah In the account of the liberation of Keilah David is shown to have access to YHWH through the oracle and is also assisted by Abiathar and the ephod. Keilah, although designated as a city of Judah (Josh 15:44), was presumably in Philistine territory ('in the recesses of the Philistines', v. 3, according to McCarter 1980, on the basis of the LXX instead of'against the armies of the Philistines,' NRSV); thus it was of interest to Israelites and Philistines. After inquiring of YHWH twice, once on his own initiative and a second time in response to his men's uncertainty, David is given a positive response and an assurance of divine participation (v. 5). David's next consultation with YHWH was by means of Abiathar and the ephod; v. 6 suggests that it was after the liberation of the city that the priest joined David. Saul saw that David could be captured easily in a closed-in town such as Keilah, and believed that God had 'given him' into his hand (so NRSV, following the Greek and Targum, in preference to the MT's 'made a stranger of him'). In his consultation David asked two questions: Will Saul come to Keilah? Will the inhabitants of Keilah betray him? These questions (w. 11—12) are set out clearly in the NRSV, following 4QSamb in preference to the MT After an affirmative answer to both, David and his men depart and Saul's plan is thwarted. David obviously had advantage over Saul in that he had access to YHWH through the priest.
On his visit to David in Ziph, which was on the edge of the wilderness of Judah, Jonathan sought to encourage him. The pact between them was reaffirmed after Jonathan assured David that Saul would not find him and that he himself was content with being second to David. With the priesthood and the house of Saul behind him, David was in a strong position. However, as w. 19—23 show, he was still in danger. For some reason or other, the Ziphites were willing to deliver David into Saul's hand. Although the places mentioned in v. 19 have not been identified, it is obvious from the reference to 'the wilderness of Maon' (v. 24) that David was now moving to the
(v. 17). Secondly, in words reminiscent of Jonathan's words at
I AND 2 SAMUEL 212
blood-guiltiness. Without Abigail's intervention David would have become guilty of 'blood-guilt' and would have 'taken vengeance' with his own hand instead of restraining himself and trusting God. Whereas David was saved from Saul in chs. 24 and 26, he is in this chapter saved from himself by Abigail (McCarter 1980). Abigail's words have been elaborated to include phrases like 'sure house', 'fighting the battles', and 'prince over Israel', all implying David's future kingship. She also asks David to remember her when all is well with him.
Horesh (23:17), he acknowledges that David will become king. Thirdly, again echoing David's agreement with Jonathan concerning the house of Saul (20:14—15), he pleads with David to preserve his name and not to cut off his descendants.
In its present form, therefore, this narrative subscribes to the general theme of David's uprightness in submitting to the will of God and not taking matters into his own hands. He stands in contrast to the pitiful figure of Saul. (25:1-44) David, Nabal, and Abigail A note recording Samuel's death stands in v. i; it may be appropriate at this juncture since Saul has acknowledged that the issue of succession is settled (24:20) and that the one anointed by Samuel will come to the throne (so Edelman 1991). Following this David returned to 'the wilderness of Maon' (following the LXX, in preference to 'Paran' in the MT), and a man and wife from Maon now take centre stage.
The next section reports that David did remember Abigail. When her husband died (v. 30), he decided to take Abigail as his wife. He was no doubt impressed by her beauty and cleverness (v. 4), and by the good turn that she had done him (v. 33); but he was also making a wise political move. Nabal was a prominent member of the Calebite clan, possibly its leader, and had control over Hebron. By marrying his widow, David was probably taking over that particular territory, as he may have done elsewhere by marrying Ahinoam of Jezreel. This gave him the power he needed after the loss of Michal. It is also significant that later he became king at Hebron (2 Sam 2:1-4).
Nabal's refusal of David's request for provision occupies the first part of the narrative (w. 2—12). Nabal ('fool') is described as 'surly and mean', but his wife Abigail as 'clever and beautiful'; such descriptions do not necessarily suggest that he was a surrogate Saul and she a surrogate David (as in Edelman 1991), or that they are personifications of the fool and the virtuous wife in wisdom literature (Levenson 1978). To treat the designation 'Calebite' as an intentional pun on 'dog' (keleb, so LXX, cf. 24:14) is also unnecessary. Nabal's foolishness on this occasion was to refuse the request of a king-designate, which may suggest a struggle for power. David's request in w. 5—8 is very carefully structured; first comes the offer of peace and friendship to Nabal and his house; secondly, there is a reminder that Nabal's shepherds were not harmed when they were with David's men, a fact that could be easily verified; thirdly, there is a request for supplies, possibly in payment for the protection provided by David to Nabal's shepherds. Nabal's reply was negative and arrogant (especially if 'he behaved arrogantly' is read at the end of v. 9 for 'and they waited'; there is some basis for this in the LXX and 4QSamb). With his two questions in v. 10 he dismisses David as a nonentity; he also hints that he knows of his breach with Saul and was not willing to hand over supplies to 'men who come from I do not know where', casting doubt perhaps on the honesty of the young men and on their ties with David (Edelman 1991). The reference to Nabal as ben blliya'al in v. 17 may link him with those who despised Saul when he was king-elect
(26:1—25) Sparing Saul's Life As noted under 24:1—22, this chapter contains an older version of how David spared Saul's life. As in 23:19, the Ziphites betrayed David's whereabouts to
Saul, but there are differences between the two narratives. Whereas the other account describes David cutting off a piece of Saul's cloak, in this report he takes away Saul's spear and water jug as he lies asleep in the camp. At Engedi there was a chance meeting between the two men in a cave, but in this chapter David seems to be taking the initiative by secretly entering Israel's camp. Other important differences are due to the more elaborate revisions in ch. 24, especially in David's speech and in Saul's blessing and plea for mercy upon his descendants. In this account again David had an opportunity to kill Saul. After using spies to establish the position of Saul's camp, David himself was able to find where Saul slept, although it was within the encampment and beside his commander Abner (w. 4-5). On seeking company it was only Abishai who volunteered to accompany him, and they went into the camp. Saul's spear was stuck in the ground, possibly to indicate the leader's tent (Blenkinsopp 1969/7). As before, David was encouraged to kill Saul, but on this occasion Abishai declared his willingness to do the killing with a single thrust of Saul's own spear; a single stroke possibly introduces a deliberate contrast with Saul's twofold attempt to kill David (18:11). To prove that Saul had been in David's hands, his spear and water jug were confiscated (v. n) and later produced as evidence (v. 16). The spear was a symbol of his royal office and the water jug his life; at this moment both were in David's hands. According to Abishai (v. 8), confirmed by a reference to 'deep sleep from the LORD' (v. n), it was God who had given Saul into David's hands.
(10:27) and suggests that he too was rejecting a king-elect and not paying him tribute. In his response, which was a call to arms, David proved that he was ready for confrontation in order to force Nabal to produce what had been requested.
David was in danger of taking matters in his own hand and not relying on YHWH. But he was saved from taking violent action through the interference of Abigail. She was prompted to action by one of Nabal's assistants, who was well-disposed towards David and critical of his own master; he reported that David's men gave them kindness and protection and that he saw danger in Nabal's rash response (w. 14—18). By her swift action Abigail intercepted David as he was about to annihilate the house of Nabal (v. 22). She did not consult her husband, and obviously counted him a fool (v. 25). Abigail's words (w. 26—31) and David's response (w. 32—4) are concerned with
This narrative again emphasizes that Saul was spared because of David's unwillingness to harm 'the LORD'S anointed'. Even when he had a chance to avoid being personally responsible for killing him, he restrained Abishai from action. David confirms that he was not willing to permit the elimination of Saul; all had to be left to YHWH, who could strike him, as he had done with Nabal, or bring him to natural death, or hand
213 I AND 2 SAMUEL
desperation; it is in this context that he took this extraordinary step. Some background information is provided by w. 3—6. First, the reader is reminded that Samuel is dead and buried; Saul is therefore without access to YHWH through a prophetic figure. Secondly, it is stated that Saul had removed 'mediums and wizards' from the land, as was required bylaw (Lev 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deut 18:11). Thirdly, Saul was not answered when he sought YHWH's guidance through normal channels, namely dreams, sacred lots (Urim) and prophets (cf Jer 18:18; Ezek 7:26). This is what caused Saul such panic as he came face-to-face with the Philistine army; in desperation he turned to prohibited means of getting to know the divine will.
him over to an enemy (v. 10). It was not for Abishai or David to kill him. In his words to Abner, David accuses him of failing to protect the king, thereby putting the king's life in danger. Abner not only failed in his duty to Saul, but also failed to recognize the king-elect (v. 14). However, Saul did recognize him, and this version of their conversation differs from that of ch. 24. After protesting his own innocence (v. 18), David challenges Saul by suggesting that in his action he did not have the support of YHWH or his fellow-men (v. 19). In view of his decision to leave Israelite territory, David pleads with Saul not to let his blood fall to the earth in exile; it would be disastrous for Israel if this were to happen to its king-elect (v. 20). Saul's personal vengeance is likened to a partridge hunt, partridge (qore') being possibly a pun on Abner's question in v. 14, 'Who are you that calls (qara'ta)?' Saul's reply on this occasion makes no reference to David's future destiny, but simply acknowledges that he has been at fault and calls on David to return. But the die is cast, and before leaving the king-elect receives a blessing from the king.
When he turned to the medium at Endor, showing disloyalty to his own laws, Saul obviously wanted to consult the ancestral spirit of Samuel (v. 3). It is debatable, however, if he had set out to visit the medium incognito; possibly his disguise was a necessity so that he could pass through the Philistine camp to Endor, which was north-east of Shunem (Gordon 1986). The discarding of royal clothes may have been symbolic, and marks the end of Saul's kingship (Edelman 1991). At first he was not recognized by the medium and so made his request. The narrative as it proceeds after Saul's request is not without difficulties (McCarter 1980). The medium's recognition of Saul immediately after Samuel's appearance is not explained. The references in w. 17-18 to Samuel's previous oracle and to Saul's battle with the Amalekites are superfluous. It has therefore been suggested that originally the woman recognized Saul from his tone in v. 10, and that w. u-i2a, referring to the appearance of Samuel, are secondary; then the ghost's words are confined to w. 16 and 19, which answer Saul's request about the battle. In other words the original account has been revised, and Samuel has been introduced to prove that Saul failed and died because of his disobedience to the prophet Samuel. Even if the narrative has been revised along these lines, its main point cannot be mistaken. It portrays Saul as one totally cut off from YHWH having to resort to illegal divination. His failure as a king will now become finally evident when Israel will be defeated and he himself and his heirs will die at the hands of the Philistines.
(27:1—12) David with Achish at Gath David's sojourn for a year and four months in Gath raises some difficult problems. Although it is clear that he was crossing over to Philistine territory to escape from Saul (v. i), and that his aim was immediately achieved (v. 4), his relationship with YHWH becomes a problem. As he himself stated, YHWH would deal with Saul (26:10); but the question raised by this chapter is YHWH's protection of the king-elect. Instead of relying on YHWH to defend him, David now seems to be taking matters into his own hands to avoid confrontation with Saul (Edelman 1991). Another difficulty is that David has become a vassal of Achish of Gath. For a brief period he and his retinue lived 'in the royal city' with Achish, but soon, in response to his own request, he was given Ziklag. It was presumably given to him in return for military service, and from this time it remained in the hands of Judean kings as crown property. There is no agreement about the location of Ziklag, some identifying it with Tell el-Khuweilfeh, north of Beersheba, others with Tell esh-Sheri 'ah, south-east of Gaza. Wherever it was located, the full implication of these events cannot be missed. David had defected and was granted property for assisting the Philistines.
(29:1-11) The Philistines Reject David Preparations were now proceeding for the battle between Saul and the Philistines. Saul may have taken the initiative and set up camp in the plain of Jezreel to await the Philistine response to his challenge; they were mustering their forces at Aphek (v. i, cf. Edelman 1991). This chapter postpones giving a full account of the battle in order to describe David's predicament; he was with the Philistine forces and would soon be engaged in battle against Saul and his own people. By partaking in bringing about Saul's downfall he would at a stroke reverse a policy which he had hitherto consistently pursued. David's problem was resolved for him by the Philistine commanders, who objected to having 'Hebrews' in their ranks. They were easily recognized from their clothing (so Edelman 1991) rather than from any racial characteristics (as suggested by Hertzberg 1964). The commanders were adamant, and probably remembered how 'Hebrews' had defected at Michmash (i Sam 13-14). To support their suspicion of David they quote the victory song which ascribed to him the death of 'tens of
This narrative has an apologetic note, and in w. 8-12 offers some justification for David's action. From his base in Ziklag he attacked Israel's enemies, the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, who were on the route from Telam (with the LXX in preference to the MT) to Egypt. He gave Achish the impression that he was attacking enemies of the Philistines, but such was the extent of their annihilation that no contrary evidence was available. By conquering these prospective enemies and amassing booty, David was making preparations for his kingship. That seems to have been accepted by the narrator as justification for his actions; the moral problem of David's gross dishonesty is bypassed. (28:1-25) Saul's Consultation at Endor The story of David's time among the Philistines continues in w. 1-2, and is taken up again in chs. 29—30. Saul's consultation with a medium at Endor (w. 3—25), although in some ways an interruption, belongs to this complex of narratives. As he was in camp at Gilboa, facing the Philistines at Shunem, Saul was in utter
I AND 2 SAMUEL 214
1980). This narrative, therefore, is a preparation for 2 Sam 2:1—4, where David becomes king of Judah, for it gives an explanation of the special bond between David and the people of Judah. His success enabled him to hand over gifts to the people of Judah (w. 26—31); in this, as in his ruling on the suggestion made by 'worthless fellows' (w. 22—5), he is already assuming the role of king. (31:1-13) The Death of Saul and his Sons At about the same time ('now' of the NRSV is translated 'meanwhile' by Hertzberg 1964) as David's defeat of the Amalekites, Saul came at last face to face with the Philistines and their troops. The linking of events also serves to bring out the contrast between the two; whereas David succeeded in saving the lives of his own family and others, Saul and his family, with many others, fell in battle. David, as suggested by events described in the previous chapter, was favoured with divine guidance and protection; but Saul, as emphasized in this chapter, is a rejected and pitiful person. In the course of the battle on Mount Gilboa his three sons, Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua were killed and Saul himself was wounded. His death was now inescapable, and, after an unheeded request to his trustworthy personal armour-bearer to kill him before the Philistines derived pleasure from doing so, Saul fell on his sword and committed suicide. The armour-bearer's unwillingness and terror at Saul's request was due to his respect for the sacrosanct person of Saul as YHWH's anointed; he showed the same restraint as David had exercised on several occasions. Saul thus came to a dishonourable end (against Edelman 1991).
thousands' of Philistines. Because they did not trust David
(v. 4), and were afraidthathewouldturnagainstthem in battle (cf. 14:21), they could not approve ofhis presence in their ranks (v. 6), and Achish was compelled to send him back to Ziklag. Achish had never personally doubted David's loyalty, as he emphasizes in his reply to the commanders (v. 3) and again in his word to David himself (w. 6—7, 9—10); he had found him faultless,honest, blameless 'asan angel ofGod'. Indeclaringhis innocence to Achish, and confirming that he had gone out 'to fight the enemies of my lord the king', David ironically uses words which allude to his dishonest methods.
This narrative again makes a contribution to the theme that YHWH was protecting David; in this case he was saved from the undesirable situation of being a member of the Philistine army fighting against Saul.
(30:1—31) David against the Amalekites A report on the battle between Saul and the Philistines is delayed yet again to give an account of David's return to Ziklag, which had by now been burned by the Amalekites and its inhabitants carried away. David was prepared for immediate revenge. The Amalekite attack was probably in retaliation for David's raid on them (27:8, 10); although lives had not been taken, David and his men had lost their wives and families, which was a cause for great lamentation (v. 4) and placed David in personal danger (v. 6).
One feature that stands out in the narrative is David's ability to consult YHWH. The contrast between his access to YHWH and Saul's dependence on illegal consultation at Endor cannot be missed. David 'strengthened himself in the LORD' (cf. 23:16), and through Abiathar the priest he was able to contact YHWH. The answer he received was positive (w. 7-8) and so he was encouraged to set out in pursuit of the attackers. Thus the narrative again subscribes to the theme that YHWH was with David, although that is not specifically stated. A chance meeting with an exhausted Egyptian, probably recognized from his clothing, brought David and his men instantly to the raiders. After reviving the Egyptian and questioning him carefully, it becomes obvious that he had been engaged in enemy operations against Ziklag; however, he secured an undertaking from David that he would not take revenge upon him nor deliver him to his previous master, and in return he took them down to the Amalekite camp. By another coincidence David and his troops arrived as the Amalekites were celebrating their victory, and with feasting and revelry were enjoying the booty that they had taken from Ziklag. The Hebrew root h-g-g, translated 'dancing' in the NRSV, can be translated 'behaving as at a festival' (hag, S. Driver 1913), which has given rise to the suggestion that the Amalekites had timed their raid to secure booty to offer as sacrifice at an annual festival (Edelman 1991). The point is that David was able to take advantage of their condition, and only 400 camel riders were able to escape; the families captured were saved and the booty returned.
Saul's failure brought total defeat to his troops, as is emphasized in v. 6. 'All his men' in this case were not only his bodyguard, but 'the men of Israel' of v. i; it was a disastrous outcome for all Israel. Even those who were not engaged in battle (suggesting that Saul did not have all Israel behind him) fled from the surrounding areas to the north of Jezreel and even from as far as Transjordan, and left their towns and villages for the Philistines to occupy. The final ignominy was the disrespectful fate of Saul's body. After beheading him, spreading the news of his death throughout the land, and taking his armour into the temple of Astarte, the chief goddess of Beth-shan, his body was fastened to the wall of Bethshan. Hanging the body for public display was a declaration of victory; it is not stated whether his head was taken with his body (cf. i Chr 10:10) or was placed in the temple with the armour (cf. 17:54). However, this horrific scene is not the final one before the curtain is drawn; the men of Jabesh-gilead, remembering Saul's action on their behalf (11:1—13), came to take the body for cremation and burial. Although it is not clear if cremation was acceptable among the Semites, it appears in this instance to be preferable and more honourable than the treatment given by the Philistines to the bodies of Saul and his sons.
2 Samuel (2 Sam 1:1—27) David's Mourning for Saul and Jonathan Before proceeding to events concerned with the succession to Saul's throne, there is an account of how his death was reported to David, and then his reaction to the loss of Saul and Jonathan. This chapter is a fitting conclusion to the narrative about Saul and David; it is more appropriate to take it with that
Through the events described in this narrative David is prepared for the throne, and is by now more or less there. He had avenged not only Ziklag but also the areas mentioned in v. 14—the Negeb of the Cherethites, i.e. the Cretan Negeb in the southern area controlled by the Philistines, the Negeb of Caleb, i.e. around Hebron, as well as Judean areas (McCarter