The shorter, simpler account of David's introduction to Saul given in J (10i*-23) is obviously more in accordance with the actual facts; it forms a fitting sequel to 14^^^ and aptly illus- trates the statement ' that whenever Saul saw any mighty man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him.' The account pre- served in E seems to be derived rather from popular tradition than from actual historj- ; for we learn from 2 H 21'* that no( David but Elhanan slew 'Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.' Later tradition, therefore, has tranwferred the exploit of the warrior to his royal master; the rea/ling o( 1 Ch 20* is clearly due to a barmonizcr (see Driver, Samuel, p. 272).
(2) 18»-» (J and E combined). David's life at Saul's court, and Saul's growing jealousy of him.
It is clear that in this section also we have two accounts oom- bined, though it is not easy to distinguish the various parts. The Darr»tive as a whole seems drawn from the older source,
• Bv its omissions B removes the difficulties caused by (1) Divid'B residence In Bethlehem, and (2) Saul's IgnotftDoe of David's name and parentage.
and forms the continuation of \^*^ David ts here represented OS a well-known warrior and leader, and not as the vouthhd hero of l?^*"-. The song (v.7) was probably treated by both sources as the inunediale caui^e of Saul's jealousy, but, whereas the second intro<iiiction in v.iia (ifAen David returned from tM «iati.'/Afer 0/ f A** /'Ai/iJTfin^) connects it with the Goliath incident, we require some further exjiloit as the occasion of tlie song in the older narrative ; probably the first introduction in v.*> (as they came) is a fra^nuent of this notice. Vv.a-n^ the evil epiril from God, connects these verses with 161-*''- ; but w.is-16 and W.1719 must be assigned to the later narrative. In w. 15-18 we have a parallel account to that of v.fi (belonging to the older narrative), while vv. 17-19 clearly refer bock to 17"-^, according to which Saul was bound to receive David into his family: this is ignored by the older narrative, \t.203o^ which knows notjhing of David's betrothal to Merab (cf. v.'.M, where David seems to regard an alliance with the royal family as beyond the bounds of possibility). Further, since the later narrative must have contained an account of David's marriage with Michal, it is probable that the redactor has treated his sources more freely than usual, and omitted part of E's narrative ; V.21I) is obWou.sly an attempt on bis part to harmonize the two accounts of David's betrotiie!
The LXX (B) makes considerable omissions in this chapter also, \\z. w.6.6».sb.io. Ii.i2b.l7.ly. 2lb.2tib. 'iijb, and the majority of critics accept this shorter version as representing the original t«xt (Wellh., Kuenen, Driver). As Driver {Notes on Sam. p. 120 f.) points out, *the sequence of events is clearer; and the gradual growth of Saul's enmity towards David is distinctly marked ' (cf. vv. ^'^ 15- '^) ; further, the section then forms a con. nected whole, and nearly all the additional passages in the SIT admit of satisfactory explanation. The fact, however, that throughout this portion of the Books of Samuel we are con- fronted with two accounts of the same incidents, makes it more Erobable that the LXX omissions here, as in ch. 17, are due to a armonizer; further, we may argue (with Budde) that it is inconsistent to reject the (unsuccessful) recension of the LX.\ in ch. 17, and to adopt its more successful attempt in ch. 18. (For a fuller statement see David).
(3) 19 (E). 20 (J). Outbreak of Saul's hostUity towards David ; David's llijrht.
Later account of Jonatlian's intervention on behalf of his friend (lli'"'); the spear-tlirowing (w.^-'**) ; witli the assistance of his wife Michal, David escapes from his house (vv."*^") ; David's fliglit to Kainah (vv.*^*^") ; earlier account of Jona- than's intervention (SO*"^),
These two chapters consist of several short sections, in which are set forth various incidents illustrating Saul's enmity towards David 00 the one hand, and on the other the affection displayed towards him by Jonathan and Michal. The redactor haa apparently expanded the account of E in 19- S- 7, which are in- consistent in themselves, and are clearly influenced by the fuller ac*;ount of J in ch. 20. Vv.8-lO jrive E'a account of the spear- throwing, which differs but little from that of J in ISior. ; vv.iii7have been rejected by Wellhausen, Stade, and Cornill on the ground o( internal improbability, but the passage both in language and tone bears all the marks of E, and forms a suitable continuation of what precedes (for another view see H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 178 f.). Vv.is^^-i, which offer a second explanation of the proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets? are rejected by nearly all critics oa a late interpolation, similar to that in W-^^. The grounds for this view are. brietly, (1) that an entirely different and, as it would seem, more genuine account has been already given in lO^Of. ; (2) that David would mostnatnr ally flee southwards to Nob (c(. 21i). and not to Ramah in the north ; (S) according to 1683 a further meeting between Saul and Samuel is excluded. (1) is decisive against these verses belonging to the earlier narrative, while (2) and (3) equally exclude E as their source, though the position occupied by Samuel, as well as tbe place (Kamah), seem to argue for that narrative; the words 'from Naioth in Ramah ' (20i») naturally form part of the preceding account. Ch. 20 describes at length tne attempt made by Jonathan to reconcile his father to David, and the means by which ho informed the latter of the failure of his efforts. The section, which is obviously old and historical. Is probably a duplicate of 191-7, by which it has been displaced ; for (1) the situation is the same as that of lO^f-, and (2) David would not require further nroof of Saul's hostility after the unmistakable evidence of 19ilf-. These dilliculties, it is true, admit to a certain extent of explanation (cf. Driver, LOT^yt. 180), but the recurrence of duplicate accounts throughout 1 Samuel renders It jirobable that we have here a further ex- ample of the same phenomenon.