The text is evidently in great disorder, and the passage has
Erobably been considirably expanded by the redactor. Well- ausen is no doubt right in regarding the sign of the arrow ns part of the original narrative. This sign, however, would exclude any meeting or conversation between David and Jonathan. Hence we must regard vv.-*o-*2 (t^j y^,^ ri'er) as rer I actional. Further, vv.nn interrupt the main couive of the narrative, and reverse the relative i>oititionB of Jonathan and David, the latter being reganled as the undoubted successor ol Saul ; they are prolmblv therefore to be assigned to the redoctoi (Budde and Klttcl ascribe all w.^i7 to the same hand).
(4) 21 (E). 22 (J). David flees to Nob, where he if received by Ahimelech, who gives him tbe shew*
388
SAMUEL, I. AND U.
SA3*IUEL, L AND IL
bread, and the sword of Goliath (SO'*). [David flees to Achish, king of Gath, vvj**-**]. David takes refuse in the stronghold {read nTixr? at v.*) of AduTlara, whence he sends his parents to Moab (2'2^**) ; massacre of the priests at Nob ; escape of Abiathar (228-'-^).
With the exception of 211M8, the two chapters seem to connect quite naturally. But a closer examination makes it plain that the sequel (ch. 22) of the incident narrated in Sl^iO iwlongrs to a different source. (1) Does' the Eklomite is differ- enti)' described in 22"; (2) in ch. 22 emphasis is laid on the fact that Ahimelech had ' inquired of God ' on behalf of David (vMf-) ; 21 If ignores this fact, and lays more stress on the sacred char- acter of the bread piven to Da\id and his followers. Of the two accounts the earlier is that contained in 22*^23. The later account, of which only part is given in 21*-9, doubtless con- tained some record of the massacre of the priests at Nob; probably Budde is right in regarding 2219, which interrupts the connexion, as part of this later account. To the redactor may be assigned 22i0'> ^Goliath's sword) and * and a sword ' in v.l^. The section 21l'^i5 interrupts the main narrative, and presupposes IflilS and 1018-24 (Wellh., Budde); like those pas- sages, it must be regarded as a late insertion. Probably it waa designed to take the place of ch. 27 f., and was afterwards retamed alongside of it (Kuenen, Budde) ; to the same band we must also assign 22^ (the prophet Gad, cf. 2 S 24iiX
(5) 23-27 (J 23i->*» 26. 27 ; E 23W-24'" 25). David as an ontlaw.
David delivers Keilah from the Philistines ; then, warned by the oracle, leaves the city before it is besiejxed by Saul (23^-") ; he then takes refuge in the wilderness of Ziph, where he is visited by Jonathan {w."-^^) ; the Ziphites inform Saul of his whereabouts, and the latter seeks to capture liim (w.^^--'^); tidings of a Philistine invasion give David a temporary respite from Saul (vv.^"'*^), who on his return continues the pursuit, and on this occasion falls into David's hands. David, however, spares the king's life, and, in the dialogue that follows, the latter admits that David is more rigliteous than he is (ch. 24). The incident of Nabal, the wealthy sheepo^vne^ of Carmel (ch, 25), separates the two accounts of the sparing of Saul's life by David; for it is generally admitted that ch. 20 merely gives another version of the same oc- currence which is narrated in 23^*'**. As a last resource, David enters the service of Achish, king of Gath, by whom he is assi^ed Ziklag as a residence : tnence he makes a series of raids against the tribes dwelling in the Negeb of Judah, etc. (ch. 27).
The agreement between the two stories narrated in 23i- 1*-^ 24 and ch. 26 in regard to (1) Saul's pursuit of David in the wilderness ; (2) the sparing of Saul's life ; and (3) the dialogue that ensues, is so great that we can only regard them as different versions of the same incident The variations only affect the details, and are such as might easily have arisen in two independent narratives. Moreover, as Driver {LOT^ p. 181) points out, * if the occasion of ch. 26 was a different one from that of 231^-, it is singular that it contains no allusion, od either David's part or Saul's, to David's having spared Saul's life before.'
Of the two accounts the earlier and more original Is on* doubtedly that contained in ch. 26 (Kuenen, Wellh., Driver, Stade, H. P. Smith, Lohr). The arguments m favour of this view are clearly stated by Lbhr (Sam. p. xlv) as follows:^!) the detailed information supplied as to (a) David's companions (26^, contrast * David and his men,* 24^f-), and (M Saul and his camp (26'>-7); (2) the manner in which Saul falls into David's hands : and more especially the old religious conception underl>ing 2619. To these we may add (3) the shorter and more genuine reply of Saul (2621- 26), which appears in a more expanded form in 2417-^. Budde, however, who is followed by Comill, Cheyne, and Kittel, solely on the ground of tin' guistic evidence, contends for the later origin of ch. 26 ; but the expressions cited by him are not sufficiently characteristic to outweigh the arguments given above ; further, he ignores the characteristic npTnp (2613, cf. On 2*1 W^; see Ldhr, Sam. p. xlv ; H. P. Smith, Sam. p. 230).