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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

76 Y. Shemesh / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 73-90 Philistines) evil for good. Th at would have been a conspiracy and most unseemly”. In practice Abravanel is trying to have it both ways, and to depict David as loyal to both Saul and Achish. Th e only way he can manage this is by offering an extremely forced interpretation: When he went [to join him] David thought that he would serve as Achish’s bodyguard and stay near him, but would not fight against Israel and not raise his hand against King Saul; [in this way] he would neither be a help nor a hindrance to the Philistines. 5 Abravanel does not explain how David could have served as Achish’s bodyguard without taking an active part in the battle and what role David intended his brigade of Hebrews to play in the battle. Similarly, in his commentary on 1 Sam. xxvii 8, 10, Abravanel argues that David’s raids on the Geshurites, Gizrites, and Amalekites were no betrayal of the Philistines and Achish, but in their interest, because those tribes pillaged the Philistines, too (as stated explicitly, with regard to the Amalekites, in xxx 16). 6 My feeling is that Abravanel was influenced by his own biography: aft er serving as treasurer to King Alfonso V of Portugal, he was suspected of participating in a conspiracy against his successor, João II, and forced to flee to Spain in 1483. It was at this juncture in his life that he wrote his commentary on the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. With this immediate background, it is easy to understand that he would deem it important to emphasize the loyalty of Hebrews/ Jews to the foreign rulers they served. 7 Few modern scholars share the confidence of Gersonides (and the Philistine commanders) that David intended to serve as a fift h column and fight 5) Don Isaac Abravanel, Commentary on the Former Prophets (Jerusalem, [1955]), p. 301 (Hebrew). 6) Ibid., p. 292. 7) Th e same approach, though more moderate than in Abravanel, is taken by Josephus Flavius, another Jew who had to prove his loyalty to a foreign power. Josephus does not dispel the vagueness concerning David’s true intentions, but supplements the Masoretic text with Achish’s reply to David that he will be of great help even if he remains in the rear echelon: “Th ere keep guard for me over the country, lest any of the enemy invade it. Th at too is the part of an ally” (Antiquities of the Jews VI, 14,5) (tr. Th ackeray and Marcus). Begg notes that the “ally terminology” in Josephus’ account of David’s relations with the Philistines is meant to show his Roman readers that “Jews are indeed capable of being reliable ‘allies’ of a foreign overlord”. See C. Begg, “David’s Dismissal by the Philistines according to Josephus”, Theologische Zeitschrift 54 (1998), pp. 111-119 (on 118).
Y. Shemesh / Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007) 73-90 77 alongside Israel against the Philistines. 8 Even those who do so fail to present all the evidence that supports this position. A majority of scholars, including those who note the ambiguity of David’s statements to Achish (1 Sam. xxviii 2 and xxix 8), 9 argue that Achish’s request placed David in a dilemma from which only the intervention of the Philistine commanders allowed him to escape, to his joy and relief. 10 According to them, we cannot know how David would have acted if he had not been dismissed from the ranks of the Philistine army. As Alter writes: “Whether David, lacking his providential way out, would really have pitted himself against his own people is another imponderable in the character of this elusive figure”. 11 A few scholars even infer from the story that David was sincere in his willingness to participate in the battle against Saul. Whitlam, for example, asserts that the biblical tradition found in 1 Sam. xxvii and xxix indicates that “David, as the vassal of Achish, was more than willing to take part in the campaign against Saul”. 12 Jobling holds a similar view and even asserts that the David depicted in 1 Sam. xxi and xxvii-xxx has given up his hopes of reigning over Israel. He adds that these chapters expose an anti-monarchical subtheme that is theologically subversive, because it runs counter to the dominant current of the Deuteronomic literature. 13 In support of his argument he cites David’s internal monologue in 1 Sam. xxvii 1: 8) Smith notes that the narrator certainly does not assume that David would have fought against Saul, though he does not state explicitly that at the moment of truth David was planning to turn against Achish. See H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (ICC 8; Edinburgh, 1899), pp. 237, 245. McCarter goes one step further and maintains (I think rightly) that, according to the story, “it is subtly but clearly implied that if he had been [at the battle on Gilboa], he would have fought with Saul rather than against him”. See P. K. McCarter, “Th e Apology of David”, JBL 99 (1980), pp. 500-501. See also his book, I Samuel (AB 8; New York, 1980), pp. 427, 428. 9) On the ambiguity of David’s statement, see below, §III 4. 10) See, for example, R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; Waco, Texas, 1983), p. 276; W. Brueggemann, “Narrative Intentionality in 1 Samuel 29”, JSOT 43 (1989), pp. 25-26, 30; Alter, The David Story, p. 181; A. F. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL 17; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2003), p. 277. 11) Alter, The David Story, p. 181. 12) Whitelam, The Just King, p. 105. 13) D. Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minnesota, 1998), pp. 232-241; idem, “David and the Philistines: With Methodological Reflections”, in David und Saul im Widerstreit: Diachronie und Synchronie im Wettstreit, ed. W. Dietrich (OBO 206; Fribourg, 2004), pp. 74-85.
Page 1 and 2: David in the Service of King Achish
Page 3: Y. Shemesh / Vetus Testamentum 57 (
Page 7 and 8: Y. Shemesh / Vetus Testamentum 57 (

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?