As I’ve taught through portions of 1-2 Samuel (I generally just refer to it as “Samuel”, indicating the unity of the 2 books), I’ve become more and more convinced of the need to read this book as a narrative. I’m certainly not discounting the historical veracity of it; I’m simply trying to acknowledge that this book, and the stories that make up this book, uses literary and narrative techniques to make it’s point.
For instance, readers are often confused at the end of 1 Samuel 17. We’ve just read the story of David killing Goliath, but we come across something that seems to contradict the previous chapter: Saul doesn’t know who David is. Saul asks Abner, the army commander, “whose son is that young man?” (v55). The problem is this: in chapter 16, Saul is comforted by David’s musical abilities and requests that David be allowed to remain in his service. He seems to know who David is then, so how is it that only one chapter later he doesn’t have a clue who David is?
Now, some will suppose that the author/editor of the book is a buffoon and unknowingly included a contradiction. That seems unlikely, since it’s so obvious that you would think that someone would have caught the “problem.” So, it’s far more likely that the confusion is intentional.
Is it possible that the author is wanting you to ask this question? Perhaps you, the reader, are supposed to wonder, “why is Saul asking who David is? Doesn’t he know already?”
I think this is exactly what is happening here. You’re supposed to wonder why Saul doesn’t remember David. And the answer is unraveled in the following chapters, especially in chapter 18: Saul is insane. It’s not hard to notice, just look at the next chapter. Saul tries to pin David to the wall with his spear (he tries again in chapter 19). In fact, Saul tries to spear his own son, Jonathan, in chapter 20.
What I’m suggesting is that the author’s portrayal of Saul is intentionally confusing. The narrative is inviting you to ask the question: why doesn’t Saul remember David, who just a chapter earlier is favored by Saul? The narrative works in a way that we ought to expect a narrative to work. It isn’t through an explicit statement (“then Saul lost his marbles and went nuts”) that we learn of his insanity. It’s through the story itself that we learn that Saul went crazy. The “problem” is really no problem at all; it’s neither a contradiciton nor an oversight. It’s a literary technique used to craft a crazy king.
bmarchio
danny
Boston Bible Geeks 
As someone who’s taught this text, what do you make of the suggestion that the events aren’t in order, that 1 Samuel 17 took place before 1 Samuel 16?
I’ve thought about that, and it’s certainly possible. This leads to the question of why they aren’t presented in that order. One could assume that the author/editor screwed up, but I still think it’s obvious enough that someone would have caught it. That’s not blind piety, it’s common sense.
Now, the author/editor could have presented them in reverse order on purpose, though the reason why is hard to ascertain. Jeremy Pierce details one way to view this, and gives his own opinion on the matter. You can check it out here: http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/05/chronology_in_i.html
I still can’t help but wonder, though, if this question misses the point of the author. More to the point, I wonder if it’s asking the wrong question of the genre. That’s why I offer my analysis above. Trying to figure out the chronology when the author is trying to make a point through character development may be missing the target.
Does this make sense? Thanks for commenting.
I’m all for nuanced readings of the Bible that take account of genre and redaction. How this affects the meaning of the text is a great question.
If authors A and B each write a passage, asserting X and Y respectively, and redactor R combines them to make point Z, then what does the final text mean? Does it just mean Z? Or does it still mean X and Y too? Are the authorial intentions of the redactor more or less important than the those of the original authors in determining the meaning of the final text?
The more I think about this, the more complex it gets…
The problem with trying to come to grips with the assertions of the original documents is that we don’t know anything about the original documents. Besides, we can’t say that the stories talked about in this post are from separate documents that were later redacted by an editor. Some may see Saul’s question about David at the end of chapter 17 as evidence of separate source documents. I’m offering a separate explanation.
Okay, I think I get where you’re coming from now. I’ll have to think some more before forming a firm view, but I appreciate the ideas (and the link).
[…] sure. I’m a huge fan of reading passages in light of the surrounding context. You can see an earlier post here of how I think the biblical writers can use narrative to make their point rather than stating […]