Many attempts have been made to harmonize the two narratives. It is suggested that D. had returned home from his position as minstrel, and had since grown out of recognition ; or that Saul's question to Abner related to D.'s family, but that lie personally was known to Saul. Neither of these explanations can be regarded as satisfactory, nor do they account for the discrepancy between the .skilled warrior of 16'* and the shepherd lad of '[l^^-*''. The difficulty attracted attention at an early period. 17'^ seems to be a harmonistic addi- tion by some later editor, and represents D. as going backwards and forwards between his home and the court. Similarly, W ' which is with the sheep,' a clause which does not agree with v.'", must be regarded as a later gloss. The LXX (cod. B) offers a more violent solution of the problem, omitting 1712-31. «. so. ss.jg^ ; it thus gets rid of the description of 1). as sent to the camp by his father, and of Saul's question concerning the young hero, D. being represented (v. ^-) as already in attend- ance upon Saul. The LXX text has been accepted as original by competent .scholars (W. K. Smith, Stade, Cornill) ; but others with good reason adhere to the MT, and regard the omissions of the LXX as due to an attempt to reconcile chs. 16 and 17 (Driver, Cheyne, Wellhausen [Compii.'<ition], Kue- ncn, Budde, etc.). Even in the LXX text D. is a shepherd lad (vv. ^- *-), not the warrior of 16"- -1 ; in language and style the onutted paragraphs do not differ from the rest of the chapter, while cer- tain expressions wliioh suggest a later hand (e.f/. a.ts-embly v. ■", Jerusalem '^) are found also in the LXX ; and the original covenant between 1). and Jonathan, to which allusion is made more than once subsequently, is related only in 18'"*. In fact all tliese attempts to reconcile the two accounts of the first meeting of D. and Saul are unsuccessful ; we can only recognize them as two versions of the history, and choose between them. And here we
see the importance of the statement of 2 S 21" that ' Elhanan the sou of Jair (cf. Driver, Text oj Sam.) the Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam ' (cf. 1 S 17"). The Chronicler indeed states that ' Elhanan slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath ' (1 Ch 20^), but the 'harder' reading of 2 Sam. is certainly to be preferred. It has been .suggested that Elhanan was the original name of David (Bottcher, Sayce), — but of this there is no hint in either passage, and the father of Elhanan is .lair (or Jafir), not Jesse ; — or that the name of Goliath has been wrongly transferred to D.'s enemy, who, in 1 S 17, is usually termed simply ' the Philistine.' On the whole, however, it seems more probable that Goliath of Gath was slain at a later period by one of D.'s warriors, also a native of Bethlehem ; and subsequently the victory was by tradition as- cribed to D. himself, and put back to the period of his boyhood. In this case we must accept 1 S 16'^*^ as giving the true narrative of D.'s first introduction to Saul ; but the popular tradition has left its mark on other parts of the history of David.
A story of D.'s earliest life is given in 1 S 16'-i', where we read how, after Said's rejection, Sanmel was sent in accordance with J"'s instructions to Bethlehem. There he invited Jesse to a sacrifice, and, after sending a special summons to the young David, who was tending the sheep, anointed him in the midst of his brothers. This narrative now forms the introduction to the history of D. ; it is the counterpart to 1 S lO'ff- (the anointing of Saul by Samuel), and explains the coming of the Spirit of God upon D., and its departure from Saul ; but, as it stands, the account can hardly be aocepted as historical. Independently of any difficulties raised by the character and position here assigned to Samuel, which resemble what we find in the later narrative of the choice of Saul, the fact that D.'s anointing attracted so little attention has more than once been remarked as strange. His own brother Eliab seems unaware of it (17^), while D. himself appears unconscious of his destiny (18"), and always regards Saul as the Anointed of J" (1 S 24« 26'*, 2 S 1"). The explanation that this anoint- ing was only a mark of favour bestowed on the most honoured guest, and that D. was here given a place like that assigned to Saul at Ramah (9'^-, so Klostermann, Ewald, W. R. Smith), does not do justice to the narrative, and anointing in the OT implies the conferring of some office.
Our authorities do not enable us to say how long D. continued in the position of Saul's min.strel and armour-bearer. His success in war against the Philistines ; his popularity among the soldiers ; the love of Michal and her marriage with D. ; the strong friendship between D. and Jonathan, who entered into a covenant of brotherhood, — these facts are all attested by more than one passage in both the main narratives. But it is not quite easy to trace and explain the begiiniing of the distrust which Saul conceived for his young favourite, who had been immioted to the position of captain of the bodyguard (1 S 22'* LXX). It is only natural that there should be some want of definiteness in the narratives. The facts could be known only to tho.se belonging to the innermost circle of the court, and all our records are written from the point of view of friends of David. If any ill- advised action on his part contributed to excite Saul's ill-will, we are told nothing about it. The main rea.son alleged for Saul's enmity is his jealousy of D.'s popularity and success in war, which is said to have been excited by the song of the women, who met the victorious warriors with the words, ' Saul hath slain his thousands, and 1). his ten thousands.' But besides this there are hints