and having returned home, he was feeding his father's sheep once more (1Sa 17:12-15). Now, when the Israelites were standing opposite to the Philistines, and Goliath was repeating his challenge every day, David was sent by his father into the camp to bring provisions to his three eldest brothers, who were serving in Saul's army, and to inquire as to their welfare (1Sa 17:16-19). He arrived when the Israelites had placed themselves in battle array; and running to his brethren in the ranks, he saw Goliath come out from the ranks of the Philistines, and heard his words, and also learned from the mouth of an Israelite what reward Saul would give to any one who would defeat this Philistine (1Sa 17:20-25). He then inquired more minutely into the matter; and having thereby betrayed his own intention of trying to fight with him (1Sa 17:26, 1Sa 17:27), he was sharply reproved by his eldest brother in consequence (1Sa 17:28, 1Sa 17:29). He did not allow this to deter him, however, but turned to another with the same question, and received a similar reply (1Sa 17:30); whereupon his words were told to the king, who ordered David to come before him (1Sa 17:31).
This is, in a condensed form, the substance of the section, which introduces the conquest of Goliath by David in the character of an episode. This first heroic deed was of the greatest importance to David and all Israel, for it was David's first step on the way to the throne, to which Jehovah had resolved to raise him. This explains the fulness and circumstantiality of the narrative, in which the intention is very apparent to set forth most distinctly the marvellous overruling of all the circumstances by God himself. And this circumstantiality of the account is closely connected with the form of the narrative, which abounds in repetitions, that appear to us tautological in many instances, but which belong to the characteristic peculiarities of the early Hebrew style of historical composition.[1]
- ↑ On account of these repetitions and certain apparent differences, the lxx (Cod. Vat.) have omitted the section from 1Sa 17:12 to 1Sa 17:31, and also that from 1Sa 17:55 to 1Sa 18:5; and on the ground of this omission, Houbigant, Kennicott, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Dathe, Bertheau, and many others, have pronounced both these sections later interpolations; whereas the more recent critics, such as De Wette, Thenius, Ewald, Bleek, Stähelin, and others, reject the hypothesis that they are interpolations, and infer from the supposed discrepancies that 1 Samuel 17 and 18 were written by some one who was ignorant of the facts mentioned in 1 Samuel 16, and was altogether a different person from the author of this chapter. According to 1Sa 16:21., they say, David was Saul's armour-bearer already, and his family connections were well known to the king, whereas, according to 1Sa 17:15, David was absent just at the time when he ought as armour-bearer to have been in attendance upon Saul; whilst in 1Sa 17:33 he is represented as a shepherd boy who was unaccustomed to handle weapons, and as being an unauthorized spectator of the war, and, what is still more striking, even his lineage is represented in 1Sa 17:55. as unknown both to Abner and the king. Moreover, in 1Sa 17:12 the writer introduces a notice concerning David with which the reader must be already well acquainted from 1Sa 16:5., and which is therefore, to say the least, superfluous; and in 1Sa 17:54 Jerusalem is mentioned in a manner which does not quite harmonize with the history, whilst the account of the manner in which he disposed of Goliath's armour is apparently at variance with 1Sa 21:9. But the notion, that the sections in question are interpolations that have crept into the text, cannot be sustained on the mere authority of the Septuagint version; since the arbitrary manner in which the translators of this version made omissions or additions at pleasure is obvious to any one. Again, the assertion that these sections cannot well be reconciled with 1 Samuel 16, and emanated from an author who was unacquainted with the history in 1 Samuel 16, is overthrown by the unquestionable reference to 1 Samuel 16 which we find in 1Sa 16:12, “David the son of that Ephratite,” - where Jerome has correctly paraphrased הזּה, de quo supra dictum est, - and also by the remark in 1Sa 16:15, that David went backwards and forwards from Saul to feed his father's sheep in Bethlehem. Neither of these can be pronounced interpolations of the compiler, unless the fact can be established that the supposed discrepancies are really well founded. But it by no means follows, that because Saul loved David on account of the beneficial effect which is playing upon the harp produced upon his mind, and appointed him his armour-bearer, therefore David had really to carry the king's armour in time of war. The appointment of armour-bearer was nothing more than conferring upon him the title of aide-de-camp, from which it cannot be inferred that David had already become well known to the king through the performance of warlike deeds. If Joab, the commander-in-chief, had ten armour-bearers (2Sa 18:15, compare 1 Samuel 23:37), king Saul would certainly have other armour-bearers besides David, and such as were well used to war. Moreover, it is not stated anywhere in 1 Samuel 16 that Saul took David at the very outset into his regular and permanent service, but, according to 1Sa 16:22, he merely asked his father Jesse that David might stand before him, i.e., might serve him; and there is no contradiction in the supposition, that when his melancholy left him for a time, he sent David back to his father to Bethlehem, so that on the breaking out of the war with the Philistines he was living at home and keeping sheep, whilst his three eldest brothers had gone to the war. The circumstance, however, that when David went to fight with Goliath, Saul asked Abner his captain, “Whose son is this youth?” and Abner could give no explanation to the king, so that after the defeat of Goliath, Saul himself asked David, “Whose son art thou?” (1Sa 17:55-58), can hardly be comprehended, if all that Saul wanted to ascertain was the name of David's father. For even if Abner had not troubled himself about the lineage of Saul's harpist, Saul himself could not well have forgotten that David was a son of the Bethlehemite Jesse. But there was much more implied in Saul's question. It was not the name of David's father alone that he wanted to discover, but what kind of man the father of a youth who possessed the courage to accomplish so marvellous a heroic deed really was; and the question was put not merely in order that he might grant him an exemption of his house from taxes as the reward promised for the conquest of Goliath (1Sa 17:25), but also in all probability that he might attach such a man to his court, since he inferred from the courage and bravery of the son the existence of similar qualities in the father. It is true that David merely replied, “The son of thy servant Jesse of Bethlehem;” but it is very evident from the expression in 1Sa 18:1, “when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul,” that Saul conversed with him still further about his family affairs, since the very words imply a lengthened conversation. The other difficulties are very trivial, and will be answered in connection with the exposition of the passages in question.
