David in the Service of King Achish of Gath: Renegade to His ...

88 Y. Shemesh / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 73-90
disloyalty to Achish, whom he deceives. If the Philistine commanders believe
that David is still loyal to Saul, despite this critical lack of knowledge, how
much more so should readers, who do have this vital information, reach the
same conclusion.
8. Th e analogy between 1 Sam. xxix and 1 Sam. xxi 11-16: 35 Th e argument
that Achish is naïve and that the Philistine commanders’ evaluation of
David is reliable is buttressed by the analogy between chapter xxix and xxi
11-16. Th e plot, structure, and language of the two passages resemble one
another. Both scenes involve two contrasting evaluations of David, one by
Achish’s courtiers and the other by Achish himself. In Chapter xxi the two
opposing opinions have to do with David’s identity: Is the refugee really
David the “king of the land”, who decimated the Philistines, as Achish’s servants
maintain (xxi 12)? Or is he only some crazy fool, as Achish counters
(xxi 15-16)? In Chapter xxix the dispute revolves around David’s inner nature
loyalty. Is David the Hebrew a faithful subject of Saul and the eternal bane of
the Philistines, who will be their undoing if he is allowed on the battlefield,
as the commanders maintain (xxix 3, 4-5)? Or has he renounced his fealty to
Saul and accepted Achish as his suzerain, as the latter maintains (xxix 3)?
Th ere are both thematic and linguistic links between the two chapters, for
Achish’s courtiers/commanders advance the same argument in both. In
Chapter xxi they say, “Is not this David, the king of the land? Did they not
sing to one another of him, in the dances, ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and
David his ten thousands’?” (v. 12 [RSV 11, modified]). Th ey repeat this
almost word for word in Chapter xxix: “Is not this David, of whom they sang
to one another in the dances, ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten
thousands’?” (v. 5 [RSV modified]). 36
Th e parallels between the two chapters must suggest to readers that just as
the courtiers were correct in Chapter xxi and Achish was misled by David’s
feigned insanity, so too in Chapter xxix the Philistine commanders are correct
and the naïve Achish is again being deceived by David’s feigned loyalty.
35) For a synchronic literary reading of these chapters, which notes the positive development
of David’s character in contrast to the deterioration in Saul’s, see Klein, “Davids Flucht zu den
Philistern”, pp. 176-84.
36) Achish, too, begins his answer with the same form of rhetorical question (reflected in the
RSV but not the more idiomatic NJPS quoted above for this verse): “Is not this David, the
servant of Saul, king of Israel” (1 Sam. xxix 3). Th us far he speaks the truth, just as the Philistine
officers do. Th e continuation, that he has found no fault with David since the day he
defected, is factually true (Achish has indeed found no fault with David); of course, it says
nothing about David’s loyalty to Achish but only about his ability to lead the latter by the nose.