Abstract
When Saul's servants suggest David for the job of court musician in 1 Sam. 16.14–23, they seem to ‘overnominate’ him. They describe the young shepherd boy as a ‘mighty man of valor’ and a ‘man of war’, titles clearly unsuitable for this youngest son of Jesse in the present literary context. Scholars have proposed various theories for understanding these enigmatic words: from source-critical reconstruction to chronological disjunction to anticipatory literary strategies. This article proposes that the difficulties posed by the words of Saul's nameless servants can be best understood as examples of the literary device described by Mikhail Bakhtin as double-voiced discourse. In this strategy, Saul's nameless servants speak both in their own voice and from their own perspective about a young shepherd boy but they also speak in another voice from a larger perspective about the shepherd-king, the warrior-poet. Reading the words of Saul's nameless servants as an example of double-voiced discourse not only solves the difficulties of this text but also provides a fruitful literary dialogue between a young shepherd and a man who would become the founder of Israel's monarchy.
Introduction: A Difficult Text and the Concept of Double-Voiced Discourse
The narrative of 1 Sam. 16.14–23 is a crucial text for many reasons.
Classically, according to many scholars, it is the beginning of the History of
David's Rise.
1
In terms of narrative, it details the coming of David to the
royal court as well as the first meeting between Saul and David, the first two kings
of Israel. It is, however, a very difficult text, especially when trying to make
sense of it in its current context, between the anointing of David (16.1–13)
and the story of David and Goliath (17.1–58). Chief among the difficulties in
this text is the speech of Saul's nameless servant describing David as
‘a mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and understanding in words, a man
of form, and Y
Bakhtin's category of double-voiced discourse is one of his categories that has been utilized many times in biblical studies. 6 However, it will likely be helpful to review briefly Bakhtin's own presentation of this category. According to Bakhtin, double-voiced discourse is speech which
serves two speakers at the same time and expresses simultaneously two different intentions: the direct intention of the character who is speaking, and the refracted intention of the author. In such discourse there are two voices, two meanings and two expressions. And all the while these two voices are dialogically interrelated, they—as it were—know about each other (just as two exchanges in a dialogue know of each other and are structured in this mutual knowledge of each other); it is as if they actually hold a conversation with each other. 7
It is my thesis that the recognition that multiple voices could be at play in the words of Saul's nameless servants is key for understanding how they function in this narrative. We will thus examine the words of Saul's nameless servants in 1 Sam. 16.14–23, through the literary lens of Bakhtin's category of double-voiced discourse.
Reading 1 Samuel 16.14–23 as an Example of Double-Voiced Discourse
This narrative begins in 16.14 on the tails of the previous narrative, in which the
reader was told how the spirit of Y
The narrator thus makes the reader aware of Saul's spiritual problem. What surprises, and what provides the first evidence that these nameless servants are speaking with voices not just their own, is the next verse, where Saul's servants are also aware of his spiritual problem! Immediately after the reader is alerted to Saul's spiritual problem the narrative continues in v. 15, ‘and the servants of Saul said to him, “Behold, please, an evil spirit of God is tormenting you’”. How do the servants of Saul know this? 9 Are they gifted with almost prophetic insight? Or are they perhaps reading the same text we are reading? This is more than a mere insightful statement about the spiritual situation of Saul, it is an almost verbatim repetition of the words of the narrator in the previous verse in a chiastic pattern:
This speech is thus double-voiced in that the words are in the mouths of Saul's servants but the voice, in this instance at least, appears to be that of the narrator.
The servants do more than diagnose Saul's problem—they also propose a solution. They ask the king to allow them to seek (שקב) a man who is able to play the lyre. Seeking someone to play the lyre will solve the problem because, according to the servants’ reasoning, ‘it will be, when the evil spirit from God comes upon you, then he will play what is in his hand, and it will be well with you (ךל בזטז)’ (16.16). The reader familiar with this entire narrative will know again that this statement is likely presented in more than just the servants’ voice, for this statement will be nearly repeated by the narrator at the end of narrative:
Again, Saul's nameless servants speak, but the voice overlaps with the narrator's voice. The reader begins to get the impression that when we hear the words of Saul's nameless servants we should be on the lookout for other voices entering the dialogue.
Even in this sentence in v. 16, where the overlap with the narrator's voice in
v. 23 seems fairly clear, there is the possibility of another ironic voice entering
the conversation. First, it is ironic that the person that the servants ask to seek
(שקב) for Saul's benefit, will turn out
to be the person that Y
Saul is all too happy to let his servants find someone who will ease his woe and asks them to find someone who is good (בזט) at playing the lyre (16.17). But before the order can be carried out, ‘one of the young men’ (םידענהט דחא) speaks up. The previous servant speaker was identified as the plural לזאש ידבע (‘servants of Saul’, v. 15). The present speaker in v. 18 is identified as םידענהט דחא (‘one of the young men’). The reader familiar with the books of Samuel will know that when ‘one of the young men’ (םידענהט דחא) or ‘a young man’ (דענ) speaks, they frequently have a significant role to play, and their speech is very important. For example, when Saul is ready to give up on his search for his father's donkeys, ‘the youth’ (דענ) who is with him, who had previously been identified as ‘one of the young men’ (םידענהט דחא, 1 Sam. 9.3), speaks up and says, ‘There is a man of God in this town; he is a man held in honor. Whatever he says always comes true. Let us go there now; perhaps he will tell us about the journey on which we have set out’ (9.6). When Saul protests that he has nothing to give him, the ‘youth’ responds, ‘Here, I have with me a quarter shekel of silver; I will give it to the man of God, to tell us our way’ (9.7). 11
Another example occurs in 1 Sam. 25.14, where ‘one of the young men’ (םידענהט דחא) tells Abigail of Nabal's response to David's request. The long speech by this unnamed young man is double-voiced in that it relays information that has already happened, some of which the reader is already aware, but it is also a key narrative moment because this unnamed servant's intervention both staves off disaster for Nabal's house and also instigates Abigail to the actions which will bring her into the royal household of David. 12
It seems, then, that these unnamed ‘youths’ (םידענ) are key narrative players, and when they speak the reader would do well to pay attention. 13 In the narrative of 1 Samuel 16, we were clued into the double-voiced discourse of the first speech of Saul's nameless servant by the almost verbatim repetition of the narrator's words (16.15). Now in 16.18 we are advised to pay special attention to the words of the speaker because they come from ‘one of the young men’ (םידענהט דחא).
This unnamed servant speaks up and says, ‘Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse
the Bethlehemite, who knows how to play’ (16.18). The syntax of this phrase
seems to suggest that the servant is saying ‘I have already seen a son of
Jesse the Bethlehemite’. Just like this servant, the reader has also already
seen a son of Jesse and has indeed spent a good deal of time looking at him (16.12).
More than this, the phrase ‘I have seen a son of Jesse the
Bethlehemite’ (יטחלה
תיב
ישיל זב
יתיאד) recalls
Y
The servant notes that he is able to play music and if he were to stop there it would
be an adequate description of someone who fits the job description that Saul
requires. But he does not stop there. Instead, he continues and gives a much fuller
list of the qualifications of this son of Jesse: he is ‘a mighty man of
valor, and a man of war, and understanding in words, and a man of appearance, and
Y
It is perhaps crucial at this point to suggest that the most fruitful way to read a biblical narrative is likely not as a first time reader. The fact that these narratives were placed in a larger canon of Israel's sacred scripture, suggests that they were seen as having enduring value that was repaid by repeat readings. Thus, while literary analysis of biblical narrative helpfully follows the flow of the story from the perspective of a first time reader, the ideal reader of biblical narrative may be one who is already familiar with its wider context—Israel's canonical scriptures in their entirety. 16 So, while a narrative may have a certain nuance when viewed on its own, in light of the fact that the form in which it has been preserved is within a wider textual context, it is capable of much wider resonances that inform the reading process. Thus, while in the sequence of the current story this nameless servant of Saul is introducing new information about David, it is safe to assume that the ideal reader of this narrative is bringing to the text a good deal of prior knowledge about this iconic character. Thus, we will keep this fact in mind as we examine the presentation of this ‘son of Jesse’.
The first descriptor used of David is the one we would expect in the context. He is described as someone who ‘knows how to play music’ (ןגנ עדי). Since in this situation we are looking for someone who ‘knows how to play music’ (דזנבב ןגנט עדי; ןגנל ביטיט), then describing the proposed candidate in these terms is exactly the answer to the problem and thus the voice of the nameless servant in the immediate context appears to be the loudest here. However, given that in the résumé that follows we will have cause to think that another voice, a voice who knows David as later tradition will come to know him, is also present here, we may be justified in seeing a veiled reference to David as the quintessential psalmist, the one to whom the majority of the Psalms are credited. Interestingly, the reading of LXXB appears to suggest this very thing. In all of the instances of the previous suggestions about finding a candidate who ‘knows how to play’ or ‘is skilled at playing’, the Hebrew uses two verbal forms (ןגנט עדי and ןגנל ביטיט). The LXX translators translate accordingly, using a participle followed by an infinitive (εἰδóτα ψάλλειν, ‘who knows how to play’) in 16.16 and an adverb followed by a participle (ὀρθῶς ψάλλoντα, ‘one who plays well’) in 16.17. However, in 16.18, when it is David that is described, they translate the verbal Hebrew phrase ןגנ עדי (‘who knows how to play’) with εἰδóτα ψαλμóν, a participle followed by a noun, which I would translate ‘he knows a psalm’. It is difficult not to read this as an ironic understatement. I visualize it this way: if this Greek version were a play, at this point the actor portraying the nameless servant has turned away from Saul and said to the audience with a wink, ‘I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, and he knows a psalm or two’.
The next descriptor used of David in this servant's speech is that he is a ליח דזבג. How one translates this epithet depends on how one understands it. On the one hand, it may simply refer to a certain class of citizen, and so it may mean nothing more than that David comes from a family of some standing. 17 On the other hand, it frequently does refer to someone of military prowess (Josh. 1.14; 8.3; 10.7; etc.). 18 Thus, while the phrase is understandable from the voice of the servant of Saul about a young man who would qualify to serve in the king's court, as many commentators maintain, there is perhaps another voice breaking through here suggesting that this candidate for court musician will fulfill the title ליח דזבג in every sense of the word—he will be both ‘wealthy nobility’ and ‘mighty man of valor’.
The next qualification of this son of Jesse is that he is a ‘man of war’ (הטחלט שיא). This description has caused commentators the most difficulty. It is easy to understand why this is so. In the narrative thus far, the only picture that has been painted of David is as the ‘youngest’, or literally ‘the smallest’ (זתקה) of Jesse's sons. The narrative that follows will portray David as one who Saul thinks is unable to face Goliath because of his youth, and one who is unfamiliar with Saul's implements of war. It is easy to see, therefore, why this description of David as a ‘man of war’ would be difficult to accept in its present narrative context. Scholars have offered several options for what this phrase could mean: (1) it could simply mean that he is of proper age and means to serve in the military or in Saul's court; 19 (2) it could refer to his father as a man of war; 20 (3) it could in fact mean that he is trained in war or is one who is known for his military exploits; 21 (4) it could be that the narrator is describing David as the tradition will come to know him, as the slayer of Goliath, and the great warrior, not as he is in the present context. 22
As an interpretation option 2 does not commend itself. It is based on an analogy with Kish the father of Saul who is said to be a ‘mighty man of valor’ (9.1) as is David. However, the text makes it clear in 9.1 that it is referring to Kish not Saul, whereas the text in 16.18 seems clearly to be referring to David not his father. Option 1 seems possible and it appears that some uses of the phrase ‘man of war’ in the Old Testament could be read this way (e.g. Judg. 20.17). Yet often it seems to be used to describe especially mighty warriors (e.g. Josh. 17.1; 2 Sam. 17.18) and thus option 1 is a difficult case to make. Option 3 requires understanding the present narrative as having a different textual history than 16.1–13 and much of ch. 17. This is often the explanation that is given by scholars whose interest is understanding the sources behind the present text, 23 and while this could well be the way this narrative developed historically, it does little to help explain how the present text should be understood. One imagines that it would not have been difficult for a redactor simply to delete this phrase and forgo some significant difficulty in the narrative. Option 4 has much to commend it and is the view accepted by most literary critics of this chapter. 24 This option, however, while explaining the existence of this epithet in terms of the larger picture, makes nonsense of the immediate narrative context.
The differing tendencies of the scholarly opinions about this epithet for the young son of Jesse can be explained if we read it as an instance of double-voiced discourse. On the one hand, the servant of Saul in his immediate narrative context may merely be suggesting that this young man is a good catch; he is, as interpretive option 1 suggests, suitable to serve Saul militarily. 25 On the other hand, another voice is breaking through here, suggesting to the reader what the reader knows already, namely that David will become the slayer of Goliath, the warrior king, and will fulfill everything that the label ‘man of war’ (הטחלט שיא) entails. 26
The next two qualifications are not so obviously double-voiced. David is described as a man ‘understanding in words and a man of form’. Eloquence would certainly be a useful quality in a court musician and in the present context may mean no more than that. 27 If there is another voice here it may be hinting at what will be revealed later, that David will prove himself to be one who is full of witty remarks (cf. 17.43 [LXX], 45–47; 24.14). 28 The next phrase describes David as ‘man of form’, which implies that his form is good. It may be important that a member of the court be somewhat pleasant in appearance, but David's attractiveness will be seen throughout the narrative as character after character will love him and be drawn to him (e.g. Saul, Jonathan, Michal, and ‘all Israel and Judah’). 29
The nameless servant of Saul now names in the finale perhaps the most ominously
double-voiced qualification on David's CV. He says of David that
‘Y
Two pictures of David have been presented to the reader. The first is presented in
the voice of Saul's nameless servant. This David is a young but
well-qualified candidate for the position of court musician. He knows how to play
music, he is of a family of sufficient social standing, he is a young man suitable
to serve militarily should that be needed, he is sufficiently eloquent, easy on the
eyes, and is in general a well-favored young man. The second is presented in another
voice, a voice that breaks through the nameless servant's speech to overwhelm
the reader with a glorious picture of David. This is David fully realized, he is a
famed psalmist, he is a mighty man of valor and will command a host of
‘heroes’
(םידזבג) who will achieve
various military feats (2 Sam. 23.8–39), he is a ‘man of war’
of whom it will be said ‘Saul slew his thousands, but David his ten
thousands’ (1 Sam. 18.5), he is a man of wise words, taunting Goliath (17.43
[LXX], 45–47) and putting Saul in his place (24.14), he is a ‘man of
form’ who will attract the love of everyone he encounters, and he is a man
who will enjoy the support of Y
Conclusion: A Conversation Between David Then and David Now
The words of Saul's nameless servants in 16.14–23 do not quite sit comfortably in their immediate narrative context. Scholars have noticed this issue and attempted to solve it by appealing to reinterpretations of the descriptions of David, redactional theories, or some sort of literary foreshadowing. The thesis explored in the present study is that these awkward words of Saul's nameless servants are best understood as an example of what Bakhtin called ‘double-voiced discourse’. Their words can, however uncomfortably, be understood in their narrative context. But they also reflect another voice that appears to be aware of the David of later tradition. They present a dual picture of David, as a young candidate for court musician and also as the famous warrior-king who will found a dynasty.
Bakhtin's concept of double vocality seems the best explanation for the phenomenon of the speeches of the nameless servants of Saul in 1 Sam. 16.14–23. However, part of Bakhtin's concept of double-voiced discourse included the idea of dialogue between the voices. He noted that ‘these two voices are dialogically interrelated, they—as it were—know about each other (just as two exchanges in a dialogue know of each other and are structured in this mutual knowledge of each other); it is as if they actually hold a conversation with each other’. 34 In conclusion, then, we will briefly allow these two voices, these two presentations of David to dialogue with each other.
David's initial qualification is the one that brings him to the court of Saul—he is a musician. But more than this he will become known as the psalmist par excellence and the bulk of Israel's psalms will be attributed to him. He is a man of valor (ליח דזבג), which may have something to say about his standing, but he will prove to be a mighty man in many ways. Furthermore, he will gather around him and be the chief of a group of men who are known by this title ‘the mighty ones’ (םידבג). These are largely positive trajectories for the young shepherd boy, but not all of his descriptors will prove to be unanimously positive.
As a youth he is described as a man of war (הטחלט שיא), and he will prove himself both with Goliath (ch. 17) and in his later military exploits (e.g. ch. 18). But this description is not entirely positive. His reputation as a ‘man of war’ (הטחלט שיא) will morph into a reputation as a ‘man of blood’ (םיטדה שיא), as Shimei will hurl this insult at him (2 Sam. 16.7) and the Chronicler will list this as the reason why David was not to build the temple (1 Chron. 22.8) and the task will be given to David's son, Solomon. David's violence will be portrayed positively for the most part, but it will not escape this negative undertone.
David's beauty is cause for derision in the immediate context; Goliath, for
example, will show disdain for him because of it (17.42). It will be important in
the continuing narrative as character after character will be attracted to him and
love him (Saul, Jonathan, Michal, all Israel and Judah). But when we examine the
life of David as a whole the theme of beauty that most stands out is not his own
beauty but the beauty of Bathsheba who is described in very similar terms as David
was in 16.12. As he is a man of ‘good form’
(יאד בזט),
she is a woman of ‘good form’
(האדט
תבזט). Beauty will be a tricky category
for David. It is not important for leadership according to Y
Finally, perhaps the most important descriptor of David is the fact that
Y
The description of David in 1 Sam. 16.18 has caused interpreters a significant amount
of difficulty. I believe that reading the speeches of the nameless servants of Saul
as examples of Bakhtin's category of double-voiced discourse not only helps
us understand a difficult text but also offers the most fruitful way to explore the
depths of meaning in this chapter. On the one hand, David is presented to us as an
over-qualified candidate for the post of court musician. On the other hand, he is
presented to the reader at this point in the narrative as we now know him in all his
glory and all his complexity. In the dialogue between the voice of the nameless
servant of Saul in the immediate context of Saul's court and the other voice,
who knows the fuller picture of David, we see David then as we see him now as a
character who is destined for great things, though as a character who has many
faults—a multifaceted and complex character who must ultimately rely on the
unique support he receives from Y
Through the technique of double-voiced discourse this narrative has allowed the reader into a dialogue about this complex character. This is but an entry point for the conversation about David that will continue with a plurality of voices. The thesis of the present study has been that the speeches of the nameless servants of Saul in 1 Samuel 16 need not be seen as a narrative problem to be overcome, but a fruitful dialogue to be joined.
Footnotes
1.
This was identified by Leonhard Rost, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT 3/6; Stuutgartt: W. Kohlhammer, 1926). See also Artur Weiser, ‘Die Legitimation des Königs David: Zur Eigenart und Entstehung der sogen. Geschichte vom Davids Aufstieg’, VT 16 (1966), pp. 325–54; Niels Peter Lemche, ‘David's Rise’, JSOT 10 (1979), pp. 2–25; P. Kyle McCarter Jr, ‘The Apology of David’, JBL 99 (1980), pp. 489–504.
2.
Antony F. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 176; and David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 429–30. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), p. 141, would seem to suggest this as the likely interpretation as well.
3.
Henry Preserved Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), p. 149; P. Kyle McCarter, 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB, 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), p. 281; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC, 10; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p. 166.
4.
John T. Willis, ‘The Function of Comprehensive Anticipatory Redactional Joints in I Samuel 16–18’, ZAW 85 (1973), pp. 295–300; Cf. also J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. II. The Crossing Fates (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1986), p. 137; Robert P. Gordon, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1986), p. 153; Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990), pp. 125–26; Robert Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel (New York: W.W. Norton, 1999), p. 99.
5.
David Firth, ‘“That the World May Know”: Narrative Poetics in 1 Samuel 16–17’, in Michael Parsons (ed.), Text and Task: Scripture and Mission (Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2005), pp. 20–32. Cf. also Joseph Arthur Scott, ‘Giving David his Due: An Investigation of Text, Structure, and Chronology in 1 Samuel 16–18’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005).
6.
For the use of double-voiced discourse in biblical studies, see Charles William Miller, ‘Reading Voices: Personification, Dialogism, and the Reader of Lamentations 1’, BibInt 9 (2001), pp. 393–408; and Austin Busch, ‘Questioning and Conviction: Double-Voiced Discourse in Mark 3:22–30’, JBL 125 (2006), pp. 477–505. For the utilization of many of Bakhtin's poetic categories in the study of the books of Samuel, see Robert Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomistic History. Part 2. 1 Samuel (New York: Harper & Row, 1989); Barbara Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study of King Saul in 1 Samuel (JSOTSup, 365; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003); Keith Bodner, David Observed: A King in the Eyes of his Court (HBM, 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005); and idem, 1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009). Though Bakhtin does not make it into the bibliography of Bodner's commentary, his thought and literary categories are evident throughout.
7.
Mikhail Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’, in Michael Holquist (ed.), The Dialogical Imagination (trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist; University of Texas Press Slavic Series, 1; Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), p. 324. Bakhtin elaborates his theory of double-voiced discourse in more detail in ‘Discourse in Dostoevsky’, in Caryl Emerson (ed. and trans.), Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (Theory and History of Literature, 8; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), pp. 181–274, especially the outline of the different kinds of double-voiced discourse on p. 199. His categories are frequently complex and difficult to understand. I prefer the simplification of double-voiced discourse as being ‘passive’ or ‘active’ (see Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson, Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of a Prosaics [Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990], pp. 149–59). In this case, I would classify the narrator's use of the nameless servants’ words as active double-voiced discourse.
8.
For one attempt to deal with this difficulty, see Tsumura, Samuel, pp. 426–28.
9.
Commentators note that Saul's servants appear to know too much in this narrative. Cf. Bodner, 1 Samuel, pp. 172–73.
10.
The description of the ‘neighbor’ in 15.28 is: ךטט בזטה (‘the one who is better than you’). The result of the situation of bringing this harpist to Saul's court in 16.16 will be: ךל בזטז (lit.: ‘and good to you’). Cf. Bodner, 1 Samuel, p. 173.
11.
For others who see the potential for multilayered speech in the speech of the youth (דענ) with Saul, see Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, pp. 92–93; Alter, David Story, p. 47; and Bodner, 1 Samuel, p. 83. Others see the servant's knowledge here as part of a series of fortunate coincidences. See Ferdinand Deist, ‘Coincidence as a Motif of Divine Intervention in 1 Samuel 9’, OTE 6 (1993), pp. 7–18; and David M. Gunn, The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story (JSOTSup, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), p. 61.
12.
Cf. Bodner, 1 Samuel, pp. 263–64.
13.
Another key moment for an unnamed ‘youth’ (דענ) is in 1 Sam. 14.1–7, where Jonathan's armor bearer, identified as a ‘youth’ (דענ), tells him ‘Do all that your mind inclines to. Behold, I am with you as your own heart’ (1 Sam. 14.7).
14.
Cf. also Klein, 1 Samuel, p. 166; Fokkelman, Crossing Fates, p. 136; and Ashley S. Rose, ‘The “Principles” of Divine Election: Wisdom in 1 Samuel 16’, in J.J. Jackson and M. Kessler (eds.), Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg (Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick Press, 1974), p. 51.
15.
Brueggemann, Samuel, p. 125, notes that the servant ‘overnominates David’ and that ‘David overpowers the job—-and the narrative’.
16.
See, for example, Jon D. Levenson, ‘The Eighth Principle of Judaism and the Literary Simultaneity of Scripture’, in The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 62–81, esp. 78–79; and R.W.L. Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 80–81. Brevard S. Childs, ‘Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation’, ZAW 115 (2003), p. 180, critiques this intertextual strategy for not following the canonical sequence. While I maintain that the sequence of the story is important, the inclusion of these stories within the larger context of Israel's canon, suggests that it is likely that the returning reader is the more ideal reader than the first time reader.
17.
McCarter, 1 Samuel, p. 281; Klein, 1 Samuel, p. 166; Fokkelman, Crossing Fates, p. 137; and Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, p. 429, prefer this reading. Campbell, 1 Samuel, p. 176, suggests that this phrase ‘refers probably to the possession of adequate means to bear arms and live at court’. Comparison is often made to the description of Kish at 1 Sam. 9.1.
18.
David's mighty warriors will be known as םידבגה (‘the mighty men’, 2 Sam. 23.8).
19.
Campbell, 1 Samuel, p. 176. Hertzberg, Samuel, p. 141, would seem to suggest this as the likely interpretation as well.
20.
Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, pp. 429–30.
21.
Smith, Samuel, p. 149; McCarter, 1 Samuel, p. 281; Klein, 1 Samuel, p. 166. A variation of this option is proposed by Firth, ‘Narrative Poetics in 1 Samuel 16–17’, pp. 20–32. Firth suggests that the text in 1 Sam. 16 chronologically covers time past the events of 1 Sam. 17–18. Though Firth's view is possible, there are no signals of this chronology in the text and if this chronological scheme were accepted it would create its own difficulties.
22.
Willis, ‘Anticipatory Redactional Joints in I Samuel 16–18’, pp. 295–300; Cf. also Fokkelman, p. 137; Gordon, Samuel, p. 153; Brueggemann, Samuel, pp. 125–26; Alter, The David Story, p. 99.
23.
E.g. McCarter, 1 Samuel, pp. 295–98; and Stephen Pisano, Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoretic, LXX and Qumran Texts (OBO, 57; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), pp. 84–86.
24.
Though credit must be given to Willis for his comprehensive theory that deals with the majority of the difficulties in this text (see ‘Comprehensive Anticipatory Redactional Joints’, esp. pp. 300–302), I do not find all of his ‘anticipatory redactional joints’ persuasive. His intuition seems to be correct, but I think it more likely that the narrative is simply at times aware of a larger tradition, rather than implementing a comprehensive literary scheme of anticipation.
25.
Saul was after all on the look out for any ‘strong man’ (דזבג שיא) or any ‘son of might’ (ליח זב) that he could take into his service (1 Sam. 14.52).
26.
Brueggemann, Samuel, p. 124, notices that there are two levels of narrative running throughout 16.14–23, he does not seem to notice, however, that the most poignant moments of this phenomenon are in the speeches of the unnamed servants of Saul.
27.
Campbell, 1 Samuel, p. 176, notes that this phrase ‘may indicate training in rhetoric or the wisdom to give good counsel’.
28.
McCarter, 1 Samuel, p. 281, notes that ‘the ideal Israelite hero was clever with words’. He compares David to Jacob, Joseph, Esther, and Daniel.
29.
Cf. Bodner, 1 Samuel, p. 174.
30.
It perhaps adds to the centrality of this statement that Fokkelman, Crossing Fates, p. 136, notes that a word count of 16.14–23 shows the word ‘with him’ to be the exact middle word, having 73 words on either side of it.
31.
Campbell, 1 Samuel, p. 176.
32.
See David M. Howard Jr, ‘The Transfer of Power from Saul to David in 1 Sam. 16.13–14’, JETS 32 (1989), pp. 473–83.
33.
Cf. McCarter, 1 Samuel, p. 281; and Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, p. 430.
34.
Bakhtin, ‘Discourse in the Novel’, p. 324.
35.
Cf. the exploration of beauty by Michael Avioz, ‘The Motif of Beauty in the Books of Samuel and Kings’, VT 59 (2009), pp. 341–59, on Bathsheba specifically see pp. 356–57.
36.
McCarter, 1 Samuel, p. 281; and Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, p. 430.