The chapter Clearly .o™sth^«,uelo«J^Jf^^
in presenting his account of Saul 8 rejecnon. k»
serpent to the prophetic 'e^son (Jer .^i »^) ^hich^he vnsnesro
?-^si^^t&;;«^r^|^«
consonant with toe actual '^cls (note the tneorei
genuineness of his •»<^"'."fhe brS beWeen Samuel and
f^ld^'s^E')" The r'e'teSelo toe^Lotntfng'ot Saul by (Budde s E,). t, Jl tZi\<4> rinlwcUir and cannot be ad- Samuel U Pfh^bly due to ^ 'f JJ'^ \°b „„ acquainted duced aa proving that toe writer oi cu. i" •— «
with 91 etc
(6) I 16-11 8. Sanl and David. Sr^L^SinfoY'^Vvfd^taru^l^l house
of 11: fatrrNf- (a l^^e Jdition, ,
of David's introduction to Saul (16'*- ) , i!- » accouni
of the same (17M8»).
At first sight toe secUonl.^;J'. of which l^l^^ ^JJ^^^^l fragment won d seem likjljl^ to bejon^ t^^ .^
conipanson ot these '""' ,"=V „„„„„iin<r <a 17" Jesse haa only presupposed by the latter : ^^"'^"Sj^ikes it evident that /our sons, in 161« he has r,gM »«»'o. 1'^ TaW^g been anointed David's brotoers had no knowledge of his havrngwen (compare also toe later historv of David » Pe^'J" jehovahi n which Saul alone U regarded M "ie,»'°'';°^°V,„ jell-fi On toe otoer hand, the influence »< "".f ^PP^rirther. tilt (ct. n*^) as weU as Id the general pomt 01 view, ruruio ■
SAMUEL, I. AND II.
SAMUEL, L AND XL
387
Incident to hardly consistent in itself ; Samuel's fear of Saul does not acree wiih the character of the latter as portrayed in ch. 15, and he so lar (ori^els it in v,<Jf. as to speak openly of his xuission ; similarly, the bocritlce, which he aJle^ed as the cause of his coming, is never per/omicd. The suggestion of Budde, that the section is an unskilful imitation of lOif-, inserted lor the purpose of showing tliat David also was Divinely conse- crated, is probably correct (cf. Wellh. IJist. p. 2C9f.); to the tiuuie h&nd is probably due the gloes IQ^^ (|xy^ "v^'^ which is uith the she^p).
In the earlier narrative of David's introduction to Saul Ike is described as a skilful musician, as *a mighty man of valour, and a man of war, ami prudent in speech, and a comely pt^rson, and the Lord is witli him ' (10^'^) ; he is invited by Saul to his court that he may drive away the * evil spirit from the Lord * by his playing, and is given tlie office of king's armour- bearer.
According to the later narrative, during one of the many engagements with the Phili>tines, the army of Israel is defied for forty days by the giant Goliath of Gath. Despite Saul's promises, no one will venture to engage the Philistine in single combat, until David, the youngest son of Jesse, a Bethlehemite, who had been sent from the sheep- fold on an errand to his brethren in the army, expresses his willingness to accept his challenge. Saul at tirst seeks to dissuade him on the score of his youth, but afterwards gives his consent, and oti'ers the loan of his armour. After a vain attempt to wear the armour, David goes forth to the en- counter armed only with his shepherd's sling. It is not until the combat has been brouglit to a successful conclusion tliat Saul, on inquiry, ascer- tains the parentage of the youthful hero ; Jonathan, the king's son, is seized witli a great affection for the .shepherd lad, while the king insists on his remaining at court (17^-18^).
It is impossible to reconcile these two accountfl, which differ in every essential feature. In the earlier account David is of mature age, an experienced warrior, and a player of some renown ; he is brought to court on account of his musical skill, and is attached to isaul's person as his armour-bearer; lastly, Saul is well acquainted wiih his parentage. In the later account David is but a shepherd lad, uuused to warlike weapons; he attracU Saul's attention by his bravery in meeting Goliath ; Saul does not learn his name and parentage until after the duel. The phenomenon is the same as that which confronta us in chs. 7-12. litre ttJE has attempted to harmonize the two narratives by ITl^^^Cnow David went to and fro from Saul'), which does not agree with lCl-*f- (according to which David receives a pennanent otlice at court), nor with IT^'t (which describes him oh living at Bethlehem with hie father).
It is, however, noticeable that in the LXX (B) 1712 si. 88b. 41. 48b. WBa_ia8« are omitted. Wellhausen formerly held that thisshorter text was the more original, and this \-iewis still maintained by Cornill, Stade, W. R. Smith, and H. P. Smith ; but most critics agree ' that the translators — or more probably, perhaps, the »cribe of the Heb. MS used by them — omitted tne verses in question from harmonistic motives, withoiit, however, entirely * securing the end desired ' (Driver, lUh. Text of Samuel, p. 116 ; similarly Wellhausen and Cl»c>7ie). Thus, according to 17^, I>avid is still but a youth (not tlie full-grown warrior of 16J8), while w.**ff. describe him as a shepherd lad, unacquainted with the use of armour (as opposed to le^ib). Further, It is incon* ceivable that discrepancies such as those described above should have been introduced into the text after the union of J and E, nor do the style and language of tbe sections omitted by the LXX support a late date.