Literary Study and Higher Criticism in the Tales of David's Beginnings

OffPrint from

NINTH

PROCEEDINGSOF THE

WORLD

CONGRESS OF

JEWISH STUDIES

DIVISION A

THE PERIOD OF THE BIBLE

JERI"ISALEM 1986

WORLD UNION OF JEWISH STIJDIES

LITERARY STUDY AND "HIGHER CRITICISM"ACCORDING TO THE TALE OF DAVID'S BEGINNING

FRANK POLAK

Biblical scholarship.has not yet reached a satisfactory definition of therelation between literary study and "higher criticism." Accord.ing toaccepted critical method any text is first to be studied from ahistorical point of view: its discrepancies are analyzed and serve as anindication for the traditions, sources and redactional strands out ofwhich it presumably had been composed. The literary scholar, by contrast,considers the text as a whole. If he shou'ld encounter a problematicpassage, he wou1d, typically, try to accord it its rightful place in theunit. From his ang1e, the findings of critical analysis might appear tobe less relevant, if not outrageous. 0n the other hand, the criticalphilologist might well doubt the relevance of literary inquiry, if notits sanity. To a literary scholar with a sense for history this situationis rather disturbing. He needs a method for establishing the relationbetween the conflicting claims of these branches of scholarsh.ip. 0fcourse, he might take refuge in. skepticism and decide to deal with thefinal stage of redaction on1y.' But that would be dodging the issue.

Fortunately, a solution is not beyond our reach. The canons of,,highercriticism" are not homogeneous. One m'ight suggest a distinction betweenvarious criteria. The first aspect of critical method is analysis ofplain factual d'iscrepancies. In this field the findings of the critic aremere'ly objective. If they concern central pojqts of the narrative, theyshould be acceptable to the literary scholar.' But other canons of"higher crit'icism" deal with stylistics and literary structure. In thisrea1m, critical notions often are based on preconceptions which derivefrom classic'istic esthet'ics. Thus ph'ilologists have found fault with suchfeatures as syntactical iruegularity, repetition, retardat.ion, de'layedexposition, foreshadowing, retrospection, !lashback, and the 'intertwiningof various motifs and narrative sequences.s But here the literaryscholar is in his own field. At times he may accept the findings of thecrjtic; but often he must reject the criteria on which critical judgmentwas based, and accordingly dismiss the resulting analysis.4Prob'lems of idea content also serve as an indication for source analysis.This is no doubt sound method so long as the ideological attitude is as

Frank Polz

plain and as outspoken as it is in the Books of K'ings or Judges. In othercases, however, ideology'is not an explicit datum but a matter ofimplication, to be elucidated in the last phase of interpretation (e.g.,in the Succession Narrative of David). It would be high'ly premature touse it as a tool for critical ana'lysis. Thus, not a1l canons of,'highercriticism" take priority over f iterary study. In many casesconsiderations of literary features should by right precede criticalanalysi s.

Moreover, the method of "higher criticism" is rather one-sided. Its toolsmay be adequate for establishing lack of unity, but they are only partlycapable of demonstrating coherence. Its idea of unity is based on theClassical approach, consisting of an unbroken causal sequence of actions.5Logical development, however, includes morej we must also take intoaccount such features as presupposition, retribut'ion and the unfolding ofthemes. Moreover, modern literary scholarship has drawn attention to non-causa'l aspects of coherence. A text, or text-system, may also be coherentif its sections or sub-units share a common semantic p'latform. Such aplatform may be constituted by parallel constructions (e.g., Jacob'stricking of Esau vis-a-vis his own deception by Laban, as already notedby the Midrash)i contrast constructions (for instance, David's electionas against Saul's rejection); and common central themes ('in the Josephnarrative, the"theme of food, which already occurs in the dream of thecorn sheaves).oSince these indications are rather broad, some qualifications are inorder. The proposed indicatjons do not apply if the units 'in question arebased on the same frequent pattern (e.9., the messenger pattern in thecall narrative) or if main theme and subject matter are identica] (forexample, the wife-sister theme in Gen. 12, ?0,26). In these cases allparallelism and contrast is but the result of the similarity in type andmatter; a list of comespondences would not prove much (unless we note anobvious climactic progression or unfolding of the theme). 0n the otherhand, if the texts'in question follow different patterns and do not dealwith one and the same subject, there is no reason to expect a commonplatform. In this case, correspondence might be significant.Secondly, 'if these features occur in'isolation, they are somewhat weak.But if they occur together, as a c'luster, they may be quite decisive,especially if th'is cluster is reinforced by recument groups of wordswh'ich are significantly related to the central themes (the mereoccurrence of one or more cormon lexemes does not form evidence). Ifthese condit'ions are met, there is a high degree of integration betweenthe sections and units in question. This hardly fits the assumption thata given text'is not of a p'iece. Hence, we miiy presume that a h.ighlyintegrated text fonns one coherent unit or text-group. A 1ow degree ofcoherence would indicate that the given sections and units do notconstitute one text. Internpdiate measures of integration would becompatible w'ith a redaction hypothesis or with the assumption of

Literary Study and "Higher Criticism" according to the Tale of David's Beginning

borrowing. At times, we note a number of significant connections betweentwo units, along with obvious discrepancies. This constellation mightsuggest that one text has been composed on the base of the other one, oreven in order to correct it (a palimpsest, as 'it were).7

Let us try to illustrate these princ'ip1es with the help of the complexof David's beginnings, which comprises three units: I Sam. 16:'l-13 -the tale of David's anointing, the prelude to the David Cycle as awhole; 16:14-23'the story of his introduction to Saul's court inorder to play the harp before the king; l7:l-.l8 - the Goliath narrat'ive,which magnifies David as Israe'l's savior in battle.In MT the last consists of two intertwined narrative threads. The firstsequence tells of Goliath's challenge to all Israel and his temifyingappearance (17:l-ll). The second thread presents David as the youngeitson sent by his father to the army camp to bring provisions to hisbrothers (.l7:.l2-31). Both threads meet in the account of David's v'ictoryover Goliath (17:32-54), separating again in the pericope of David,sformal introduction to Saul (.l7:55-lB:5). The Old Greek, on the otherhand, represents only the verses I-.l1, 32-40,42-49,5'l-54 of ch. '17,

i.e., the sections on Goliath's challenge and his defeat at the hands ofDavid. Since the Greek translElion of the extant pericopes is rather f,literal, we must presume that(short recension was already present in the I bhaHebrew Vorlage. " Many scholal^s hold the shorter version to be the l\original one, probably out of preference for a straightforward, single-thread narrative. The additional passages of MT are explained as a lateradaptation or supplerent from another source. 9

From the literary point of view, this approach is inadequate. Accordingto the shorter vers'ion, Goliath's challenge'is promptly met by David(17:11,32),By contrast, the longer version of MT presents ui with as'ignificant retardation. After Goliath's appearance, which leaves Israelterror-stricken, the narrator halts all action. He keeps the reader insuspense and leisurely proceeds with the introduction of the protagonist,young David, still not capable of taking part in the war (17:12-14). Th.ispicture of the young 1ad contrasts with the description of the grimwarrior. Step by step tension increases. David is sent to the arTny campto bring provisions for his brothers. Upon his arrival he witnessesGofiath's reappearance. He discusses the challenge with others, until heis scolded by his eldest brothen, Eliab, for coming to view the war; heshould have stayed with the flock (17:28). This rebuke contrasts David,stask as shepherd with the role of the warrior. The next phase is David,sinterview with Saul. By now he volunteers to fight the champion but, 'likeEliab, Saul spurns David as being too young for this combat (1lz3Z-33).David now presents himself in a new light: when looking after his father'sflock, he would even fight bear and lion in order to save the sheep"Thus he is capable of battling Goliath (17:34-36). This is a startlingtransformation of the shepherd motif. Despite all doubts, David is a

Frank Polak

warrior, and that by virtue of his upbringing as a shepherd. The

metamorphosis is completed in the account of David's preparations forcombat. The shepherd equipment conceals a deadly weapon (17:40). The

transformation is sealed by David's formal introduction to Saul: theinexperienced lad has become a national hero (17:55-lB:5).In MT this transfornntion is a carefully prepared structure. There is agradual rise in suspense from the leisurely beginnings through thescolding of Eliab and the interview with Saul until the manifestation ofDavid's heroism. In particular we note the contrast between Eliab'srebuke and David's description of himself to Saul (17:28,34). Thus the

. structure of the long version 'is highly coherent. 0n the other hand, inthe shorter version of LXX the transformat'ion of David follows almostimnediate'ly. 0bviously th'is js a reduction of the origina'l 'longer version.Possibly the reviser who undertook the reduction sought to eliminate theembarassing picture of David strolling around and being rebuked beforehis presentation to the king; he may also have w'ished to avoid the longdelay between challenge and batt'le.

If so, there is an obvious discrepancy between the Goliath narrative andthe tale of David's'introduction to Saul's court (.16:.14-23). 0f course,it is rather unlikely that David was unknourn to Saul,'if he already had

been accepted at court, even achieving the rank of ygapon-bearer (.l6:22).

I re,\otintThis is a plain contradiction in'irreversible factfan issue which is

' -L; "vital to the namative. At this po'int' at least, critical analysis is

inevitable. The tale of David as harp-player and the Goliath narrativedo not constitute a coherent text group. Admittedly, there are some

connections between both stories. David is sty'led nnn)n urx (16:18 -contrast 17:33). He is weapon-bearsv (or)5 Ru,l) for Saul (.l6:21 -contrast 17:38-39; u:): paralle'ls 17:22, 40). In m.y opinion these detailsshow that the tale of David's early introduction to court was composedon the base of, and as a correct'ion to, the Goliath narrat'ive; do notsay that David was merely an inexperienced lad; on the contrary, as ayouth he already was an accomplished warrior and an inspired musician(cp. Ps. '151 in LXX and llQPsa).

Now, what about the tale of Dav'id's anointing? l'4odern scholarship holdsthjs to be a late accretion to the David-cycle. Apparently it is an

anticipation of David's actual anointing at h'is enthronernent by allIsrael (II Sam. 5:3). I'breover, our ta'le introduces us to David's family,including his father and all his brothers (16:6-10). Thus it parallelsexactly the expos'itory description of David and his family in the Goliathnamative (17:1z-la). Hence many critics consider the anointing tale a'late, legendary concoction on the base of the Goliath narrative and theaccount of David's enthronement.l0 It has also been suggested that itrelates to the second thread in the Goliath namative, the additional

Literary Study and "Higher Criticism" according to the Tale of David's Beginning

passages of MT.1l 0n1y a tiny minority has entertained the view that ourtale forms the introduction to the Goliath narrative as a whole.12Nevertheless, this suggestion is qu'ite p'lausible.

Obviously, the shepherd motif is characteristic for the anointing tale(.16:ll) as well as for the Goliath namative, according to LXX (iZ:g+tt)and MT (17i20,28) alike. lvloreover, in both tales Eliab the eldestbrother is contrasted with David the youngest son. The other brothers,though mentioned, do not take part in the action. In the anointing taleSamuel holds Eliab for the future king because of his impressive physique(.l6:6). But the prophet's impression is mistaken. Only the youngest-son,David, though still a shepherd lad, is worthy of being elected (15:7-12).In the Go'liath namative we may note friction between the oldest and theyoungest son. Eliab rebukes David for com'ing to view the war (17:ZB).In both tales Eliab is comparable to saul. Like saul he stands out by hisimpressive appearance (16:7; 9:2;1A:B); like Saul he is rejected by God('16:1, 7); and like Saul he misjudges David (17:28,33). Furthermore,there are specific lexical connections between God's explanation forEliab's rejection and Eliab's scolding David. In the divine address toSamuel it'is stated thatu)) i.rx'.r) ti.rr b)Jry) nxr: urxn (16:7). Thereference [6 ::Soccurs again'in Eliab's rebuke: tl nNl "llrl hR rhy])nrrr nnn)nn nrxr tln) ,) t):r(17:28), Here Eliab claims to beacquainted with David's evil intentions,.tr:) ).r" In view of the divinestatement to Samuel the irony'is obvious: what can Eliab know? Also weshould note the use of hrxl along with )h),-T), the correlate sf hxr j6the well-known fixed pair. These vocables echo the use of nxrr in'16:17.indeed" the semantic field of "seeing" dominates the entire anointingtale. " This cluster of comespondences sustains the connection betweenEliab's rebuke and the episode of his rejection. The theme of outwardappearance occurs again in the account of Goliath's reaction when Davidmakes his stand: bt )lD'IX'l tll n)i )) 1i]T:tl 111 hR ;1slr1 rlgt)si] u5)'tilxill i're) (17242). The first part of this verse is reminiscent of thedivine reprimand of Sarnuel in 16:7 (once again): )xr rnxrn )x u:n )x

1)hoRb )i tn)11i7 n:r. Said of Goliath, u:rr contrasts with the warningu:n )x; itRtrl and nrrn correspOnd yjtl thxre Goliath,s ,rht:rr is thicorrelate of God's announcement Irhbxh )j. 0f course Goliath'sphysique, lhh'ti2 n:1, is even more impressive than Eliab,s. Thus thenamator treats Goliath's despisal of David with much irony. Moreover,the description of David in 17:42 m'imors his presentation in 16:12.Hence a cluster of parallels, contrasts, thematic connections and lexicalcorrespondences form a semantic platform which is coffnon to theanointing tale and the Goliath narrative.This construction is not in the least impairied by the expository notesof l7:12-14 in which the introduction of David's family is repeated.Actually, this description is not mere'ly repetitive. It serves to high-

Frank Poli

light the information on David's family and also states that David'selier brothers did take part in the war' whereas David did not (.|7:.|3-la).This is the main point. The repeated information on Jesse and his sons

only provides the background for David's except'ional posit'ion. 14 Thus,

from a literary point of view this exposit'ion is not redundant; it js no

indication for source analysis.

Accordingly the anointing tale and the Goliath narative are sub-unjtsof one coherent text-system (16:l-13, l7:1-18:5). The naryator spotlightsthe'inception and gradual unfolding of David's calling. By contrast, inthe account of David as harp-player (.l6:l4ff) our hero'inunediately stands

out as a man of great capabifity and achjevement (.|6:18,22). $bviouslythis picture is not'in tune with the gradually unfolding structure of the

other units-[.16:lf, t7:]f). Thus structural analysis confinns our critjcaldissection. r5

q

6.

t.

2.

3.

8. Elaborate proof for this contention has been offered by E' Tov inan article to be published in 0rbis Bjblicus et 0r'ientalis.

9. N. Peters, Beitrege zur Text- und Literarkritik sowie zur Erkliirungder Biicher Samuel'(Freiburg i, 8., 1899) 34,40-58)'

K. Budde, Samuel (Freiburg-Leipzig, l902) Il4'

H"P, Smith, The Books of Samuel (ICC, Edinburgh, 1899) l5l '

J, de Fraine, L'aspect religieux de la royaut6 isra6lite. (Roma''1954) 2OBf; R. Halievy, Beth t'tiqra 2l ('1976) 154ff (Heb.).

AIter, op. cit., 148fi A.s. Rose, "The 'Principles' of oivineElection," in Rhetorical Criticism - Essays I'luilenburg, ed. J.J.Jackson, M. Kessler (Pittsburgh' 1974) 43-67.

0n repetition and high-lighting in non-western narrative vid'": J.Grimei, The Thread of Discourse (The Hague, Paris' 'l975) 292ff.

Fokke'lman, op, cit,, P. 5, n. ll.

R, Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, ']981) 133' l4B;L. Krinetzki, Biblica 54 ('l973) 197ff.

Snall details are less decisivet vid.: P. Cauer, Grundfragen derHomerkrit'ik (Leipz'ig, 'l909) 363-382, in particular 37lff.

Classicistic inf'luence is especially clear with futruc. The adverse'influence of Classicism on scho'lar1y treatmnt of Medieval

literature has been shwn by E. Vinaver, The Rise of Romance

(0xford, 1971) 69-7Q' 152.

Similar coments have been made by L. Alonso Schdkel' Biblica 42

(1961) l68i A. Ber'lin, Poetics and Interpretation of Bibl icalNarrative (Sheffield, 1983) 1 12-']21.

Aristotle, Poetics VII ('l450b, l45la), vIIl (l45la).

Tanchuma Buber i, p. 152 h"' ,xv'i): E. Lirlmert' Bauforen des

Erzahlens (Stuttgart, 'l955) 52ff; t. V.inaver, op. cjt., 42-55,7l-105; J,P. Fokkelmn, Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen' 1975)

97tt , 128f ' 227. Altcet, op ci t. , 5-l I .

0n this concept vid.: G. Genette, Palimpsestes - La litt6ratureau second degr6 (Paris, 1982).

10.

ll.l?.

13.

14.

15.

32

rllT 'ltnn or9-In

ry)?lyn D-llilZnrytujnnnltnrn ryTnT

N illronN'lPDn nerPn

t"DUn o'tut'tt

nnnfn ,y1D7 'n?tyn -illrNn