DAVID
of a suspicion thai D. had conspired with Jonathan to dethrone liini (cf. 1 S 203 f- 22'^). Everything that we are told of Jonathan goes to prove the baselessness of such a suspicion, and his continued affection for I), is evidence of D.'s innocence ; but we can well imagine that the melancholy from which Saul suffered served to increase any jealousy or distrust when once aroused, and it is possible that he feared that his subjects might regard him, owmg to his occasional attacks of madness, as no longer a fit ruler of the nation.
The chapter which describes the growth of the estrangement between Saul and D. lies before us in two forms. Here again the LXX lias a shorter text, omitting from ch. 18 w.^-"- i-'d. ii-io. 211,. m. 31. Tims the account of Saul's casting his spear at D. is omitted, and tlie promi.se of marriage with the elder daughter Merab ; the gradual growth of Saul's jealousy is described, and each stage is appropri- ately emphasized with the words ' Saul was afraid of D.' (v.'-), 'Stood in awe of him' (v.'°), 'was yet more afraid ' (v.'^) ; and on account of the clear and consistent picture given in this version, many scholars accept the LXX text as original (so Wellh., Kueneii, Stade, Driver, W. R. Smith, Kirkpatrick). IJut Cornill allows that the promise of Merab is the proper fultilnient of the king's promise to the slayer of tJoliath (17-''); and Budde urges the in- consistency of adopting the LXX recension in ch. la, and rejecting it (as Wellh., Kuenen, Driver do) in ch. 17. He accounts for the difficulties pre- sented by the MT by analysing the chapter into sections derived from the two principal documents (.so also Cheyne) ; and this seems to be the most satisfactory solution of the problem. Comparing the parallel narratives, we gather that D. was placed by Saul at the head of an armed force, either as a mark of favour (18' A), or because of his growing distru.st (v.'-'B) ; that Saul's jealousy was excited on some occasion when D. returned from a victory over the Philistines (vv.*-'*, probably A and B, — note the double introduction to v.*') ; that this did not prevent the marriage of D. to Saul's younger daughter Michal (vv.-"-^' A, cf. '"-'s B). In- deed it is not improbable that the estrangement is placed too early, and that Saul gave his daughter to the popular and successful officer in order to bind him to his interests, rather than that he al- re.idy desired to comjiass D.'s death. Jonathan's intercession for his friend failed to effect a real re- conciliation (I'.f 7 B, 20 A) ; and when Saul, in a lit of madness, hurled his spear at D. while he played the harp before the king, D. felt that his life was in danger, and that he mu.st flee from the court (1 !•'■'■ " B, 18"- " A, probably removed from its original position when A and B were combined).
Tlip rletAlla triven by the two narrntivos difTcr. According to A. Sunt ntlVrt'fl IiIm flau^'htcr u> I>. a,-, a luure »nare, hoping thai hi- riiii..'hl riilll[i tmttle, us the dowry was llxed at ItHt forcHklns of lilt' I'hllKtltic.H ; l)iit I)., without loft!* of time, procured twlcii thp required number (l'-"200, .MT; Km, 1,.\.\). and won his bride. After this (vv.»-"), Saul Ina frenzy attempted the life of Ids sondn-law, and, wlieti 1). coinplalneil t4i tlonathan, the latter repudlatiHl the Idea that his father hail any real Intention of harmlni; him. To deterndne the klntf'.s true feelings. It was then ak'reeil that 1). should stay In hiding during the new-moon festival, while •Jonathan was to e.\cU!>e his friend's absence from the royal table on the prelexl that he harl been summoned to a family feast at Bethlehem. On the lirst day of D.'s absence nothing was said : on the next dav, in answer to Saul's ln<iulries. •lonathan made the excuse agreed upon, whereat the king burst forth lnt() furious reproaches against I>. and his son, and hurled his spear at .Tonathati, who alteinpted to intercede for his fHend. In anger .Tonathnn left tiie table, and next Tnornlng went to the ai>polnted place In the tlelil. I'mler pretence of shooting at a mark, he sent an arrow beyond the stone where L>. lay concealed ; and while the boy carrksl back his niaster's weapons, the two friends took an atfectionate farewell. t>n ch. 20, which has per- ha;is not reiicheil us ipille in Its original form, it may be remarked tlial .liinalhan's denial of aiiv wish on tile part of Saul to harm li. r:ii:) 1, iinr.iiy apprcjr.riaie after I'.n-;. m.iT; „„,| tliat while a niere act of frenzy US'"*- \V^-) iidght leave L). uncertain as to Haul's Intentions, ho could not have any doubt after Saul had
DAVID
563
deliberately sent messengers to kill him (19"-"), or be expected to appear at the king's table Cio^' "• "1.
According to the second narrative (H), It was owing to Saul's jealousy that D. was removed from the position of aruiour- bearer to that of captain of a thousand (Is'^t. and when the time came for his promised marriage (cf !""», Merob the elder daughter was given to .\drlel of Meholah. Our account of D.'s marriage with .Michal seems to be derived from the other source, but the obscure words at the end of v.'i are perhaps a fragment of the second narrative. Saul's ill-wlll towards his former favourite increased so greatly that he i)urposed to put him to death, .lonathan. however, "pleaded to his father D.'s good deeds, and especially his victory over the Philistine (Goliath); and on Saul's relenting he brought D. out of his hiding-place ia the Held, and presented him to bis father (11)'-'). The recon- ciliation, however, was of no long duration, for, shortly a/fer -Jonathan's appeal, Saul, in a tit of madness, east his speiir at D. as he played on the harp before him. D. lied to his house, but that night (ly" LX)X Saul sent messengers to watch the house, and. while respecting his sleeping enetuy in accordance with Oriental custom, he ordered tliem to kill him in the morning. 1). was ^aved by the faithful Miclial, who lowered him through the window, while she placed in his bed the teraphim or house- hold image, and covered It with the bed-clothes. Next morning tlie messengers brought word that D. was ill ; but. when charged to bring him In the bed, the frauil was discovered, and Michal had to plead In self-defence that 1). had threatened her life if she hindered his escape. With regard to this series of narratives it may be pointed out that the similarities between portions oj in'-' and eb. 'iO suggest, though they do not prove, that we have before us two dltferent versions of the same event, while the reference to the victory over Goliath connects the former pas- sage with ch. 17. Further, the dilference of phrase. )logy in IS'"- I'J"*- (cf. also '.'U^) favours the view that these verses are the work of independeut writers, rather than tliat the former pas- sage has merely been borrowed from the latter afl«-r the time of the LXX.