KINGS
651
KINGS
semblance, differ in every detail. This is the case with
the two accounts of Saul's disobedience and rejection,
with the two narratives of David's sparing Saul's life,
and of his seeking refuge ^\-ith Achis. Such narratives
cannot be identified, unless the improbability of the
events occurring as related be shown. But is it im-
probable that Saul should on two different occasions
have disregarded Samuel's directions and that the lat-
ter should repeat with greater emphasis the announce-
ment of his rejection? Or that in the game of hide-
and-seek among the mountains David should have
twice succeeded in getting near the person of Saul and
should on l)oth occasions have refrained from harming
him? Or that under changed conditions he shoukl
have entered into negotiations with .\chis and be-
come his vassal? Even where the circumstances are
the same, we cannot at once pronounce the narratives
to be only different accounts of the same occurrence.
It is not at all strange that Saul in his insane moods
should twice have attempted to spear Da^'itl, or that
the loyal Ziphites should twice have betrayed to Saul
David's whereabouts. The two accounts of Saul
among the prophets at first sight seem to be real dout>
lets, not so much because the two narratives are alike,
for they differ considerably, as because both incidents
seem to be given as the origin of the proverb: "Is
Saul too among the prophets?" The first, however,
is alone said to have given rise to the proverb. The
expression used in the other case — " Wherefore they
say, IsSaul also among the prophets?" — does not neces-
sarily imply that the proverb did not exist before, but
may be understood to say that it then became popu-
lar. The translation of the Vulgate, " Unde et exivit
proverbium ", is misleading. There is no double men-
tion of David's flight from court. When in xxi, 10, he
is said to have fled from the face of Saul, nothing more
is affirmed than that he fled to avoid being taken by
Saul, the meaning of the expression "to flee from the
face of " being to flee for fear of some one. The double
narrative of Saul's election is obtained by tearing
asunder parts which complement and explain one
another. Many a true story thus handled ■nill jaeld
the same results. The story as it stands is natural and
well connected. The people, disgusted at the conduct
of the sons of Samuel, and feeling that a strong central
government would be an advantage for the defence of
the country, request a king. Samuel receives the re-
quest with displeasure, but pelds at God's command
and appoints the time and place for the election. In
the meanwhile he anoints Saul, who is later designated
by lot and acclaimed king. All, however, did not rec-
ognize him. Influential persons belonging to the
larger tribes were very likely piqued that an unknown
man of the smallest tribe should have been chosen.
Under the circumstances Saul wisely delayed assum-
ingroyal power till a favourable opportunity presented
itself, which came a month later, when Naas besieged
Jabes. It is objected, indeed, that, since the Jabesites
did not send a message to Saul in their pressing dan-
ger, chap, xi, 4 sq., must have belonged to an account in
which Saul had not yet been proclaimed king, whence
a double narrative is clearly indicated. But even if
the Jabesites had sent no mes.sage, the fact would have
no significance, since Saul had not received universal
recognition; nothing, however, warrants us to read
such a meaning into the text. At all events, Saul on
hearing the news immediately exercised royal power
by threatening with severe punishment anyone who
would not follow him. Difficulties, it is true, exist
as to some particulars, but difficulties are found also
in the theory of a double account. The two accounts
of Saul's death are really contradictorj'; but only one
is the historian's: the other is the story told by the
Amalecite who brought to David the news of Saul's
death, and nothing indicates that the writer intends
to relate it as true. We need liave little hesitation in
pronouncing it a fabrication of the Amalecite. Lying
to promote one's interests is not unusual, and the
hope of winning David's favour was a sufficient in-
ducement for the man to invent his story.
With regard to the apparent contradiction between xvi, 14-23, and xvii, it should be remarked that the Vatican (B) and a few other MSS. of the Septuagint omit xvii, 12-31 and xvii, 55-xviii, 5. This form of the text is held to be the more original, not only by some conservative writers, but by such critics as Oor- nill, Stade, W. R. Smith, and'H. P. Smith. But though this text, if it were certain, would lessen the difficulty, it would not entirely remove it, as David still appears as a boy unused to arms. The apparent contradiction disappears if we take xvi, 14-23, to be out of its chronological place, a common enough occur- rence in the historical books both of the Old and of the New Testament. The reason of the inversion seems to be in the desire of the author to bring out the con- trast between David, upon whom the spirit of the Lord came from the day of his anointing, and Saul, who was thenceforth deserted by the spirit of the Lord and troubled by an evil spirit. Or it may be due to the fact that with xvii the author begins to follow a new source. This supposition would explain the repe- tition of some details concerning David's family, if .xvii, 17-21, is original. According to the real .sequence of events, David after his victory over Goliath re- turned home, and later, having been recommended by one who was aware of his musical skill, he was called to court and permanently attached to the person of Saul. This explanation might seem inad- missible, because it is said (xviii, 2) tliat "Saul took him that day, and would not let him return to his father's house." But as "on that day " is often used in a loo.se way, it need not be taken to refer to the day on which David slew Goliath, and room will thus be left for the incident related in xvi, 14-23. It is not true, therefore, that it is impossible to reconcile the two accounts, as is asserted. The so-called contra- dictory statements may also be satisfactorily ex- plained. As vii is a summary of Samuel's administra- tion, the words "the Philistines . . . did not come any more into the borders of Israel " must be taken to refer only to Samuel's term of office, and not to his whole lifetime; they do not, therefore, stand in con- tradiction with xiii, where an invasion during the reign of Saul is described. Besides, it is not said that there were no further wars with the Philistines; the following clause: "And the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines, all the days of Samuel ", rather supposes the contrary. There were wars, indeed, but the Philistines were always defeated and never suc- ceeded in gaining a foothold in the country. Still they remained dangerous neighbours, who might at- tack Israel at any moment. Hence it could well be said of Saul, "He shall save my people out of the hands of the Philistines" (ix, 16), which expression does not necessarily connote that they were then un- der the power of the Philistines. Ch. xiii, 19-21 , which seems to indicate that the Philistines were occupy- ing the country at the time of Saul's election, is generally acknowledged to be misplaced. Further, when Samuel delegated his powers to his sons, he still retained his office, and when he did resign it, after the election of Saul, he continued to advise and reprove both king and people (cf . I, xii, 23) ; he can therefore be truly said to hiive judged Israel all the days of his life. The last contradiction, which Budde declares to be inexplicable, rests on a mere quibble about the verb " to see ". The context shows clearly enough that when the writer states that "Samtiel saw Saul no more till the day of his death " (xv, 35), he means to say that Samuel had no further dealings with Saul, and not that he never beheld him again with his eyes. Really, is it likely that a retiactor who, we are told, often harmonizes liis sources, and who plainly intends to present a coherent story, and
