[/SOr 58 (1993) 35-46]

SAUL, JONATHAN AND THE 'SON OF JESSE

Robert Β. Lawton
Georgetown College, Georgetown University, Washington DC 20057, USA

David, in his lament for Saul and Jonathan at the beginning of

2 Samuel, sings:
Saul and Jonathan, beloved and cherished, separated neither in life nor in
death, swifter than eagles, stronger than lions! (2 Sam. 1.23).1

Elegies tend to blur reality. As 1 Samuel indicates, Saul and Jonathan

were indeed separated, physically and emotionally, both in life and in
death. How close were they? The complex relationship of these
characters to David has seduced scholars into overlooking this question
and diverted attention from father and son. Examining their relation­
ship, however, illustrates the narrator's psychological insight and
artistic skill2 and provides a fresh angle for viewing the Saul-David
relationship, contributing to an understanding of the overarching
purpose of the Saul-David narrative.3

1. Unless otherwise indicated the translations in this article are those of the New
American Bible.
2. Throughout this article I use the term 'narrator' to refer to the implied author
of the text On the relationship of the narrator, implied author, and actual author in
biblical material see M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological
Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985),
pp. 74-75. As Sternberg points out, the 'implied author is the image of the author
projected by the text itself as the creator of its art and meaning and norms' (p. 74).
3. This article examines the material in 1 Samuel from a literary viewpoint For a
study of Jonathan that emphasizes theological concerns, see D. Jobling's chapter,
'Jonathan: A Structural Study in 1 Samuel', in his The Sense of Biblical Narrative:
Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 12-31, Numbers 11-12,
1 Kgs 17-18) (JSOTSup, 7; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), pp. 4-25. Emphasizing
36 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993)

Saul's words in 1 Sam. 22.7-8 focus our topic:

Listen, men of Benjamin! Will the son of Jesse give all of yourfieldsand
vineyards? Will he make each of you an officer over a thousand or a
hundred men, that you have all conspired against me and no one tells me
that my son has made an agreement with the son of Jesse? None of you
shows sympathy for me or discloses to me that my son has stirred up my
servant to be an enemy against me, as is the case today.

This is a curious statement, which, with a little coaxing, reveals more

than simply Saul's paranoia. We would have expected Saul to say that
David had stirred up not only his men but his own son against him.
But, as shaped by the narrator, Saul's words carry another emphasis:
he imagines that Jonathan has turned David against him, and it is the
loss of David's allegiance and affection rather than Jonathan's that
embitters him. What is the narrator suggesting here about Saul's
relationship to Jonathan and David and is it consistent with his
development of these characters? Does the narrator give us enough
clues to make some sense of the tangle of Saul's heart? To answer
these questions let us look first at Saul and his son and then at Saul and
the 'son of Jesse'.
Saul and Jonathan first appear together early in 1 Samuel 13. The
scene is simple, although the text is not.4 When the Philistines and the

literary concerns and techniques does not deny that the author has theological or
political purposes. It simply insists that the author pursues his goals, whatever they
may be, with literary and psychological sensitivity.
4. Concerning v. 3, McCarter (/ Samuel [AB, 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1980], p. 225 and n. on v. 3) observes: 'All principal witnesses have ws'wl tq'
bswpr bid h'rs, "and Saul blew the horn throughout the land**, before Vmr, but it is
out of place at this point It is characteristic of foreigners, not Israelites, to use the
term "Hebrews" (see the Note). Moreover, as Driver points out, the intrusive clause
fits naturally before v. 4.' He reads wysm'w plstym Vmr ps'w Wbrym and
translates w . 3-4: 'Jonathan slew the Philistine prefect who was in Gibeah, and the
Philistines were told, "The Hebrews have revolted"! Saul blew the horn throughout
the land, and all Israel was told, "Saul has slain the Philistine prefect! Indeed, Israel
has become obnoxious to the Philistines"! So the army rallied behind Saul at GilgaT
(for further explanations of this reading, see McCarter's additional textual comments,
pp. 225-26). The main problem in the text, McCarter points out, is that MT has Saul
using the term 'Hebrews', when 'bry almost always appears in the Bible in the
speech of foreigners or in speeches by Israelites to foreigners. Hertzberg (/ A //
Samuel [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964], p. 101 n. d) notes that 'Saul
would have had to say "Israel"'. Nevertheless, the narrator himself uses 'the
Hebrews' in 14.21: 'In addition, the Hebrews who had previously sided with the
 LAWTON Saul, Jonathan and the 'Son of Jesse' 37

Israelites learn that Jonathan has overcome a Philistine garrison, they

each prepare for battle:
Now Jonathan overcame the Philistine garrison which was in Gibeah, and
the Philistines got word of i t Then Saul sounded the horn throughout the
land, with a proclamation, 'Let the Hebrews hear!' Thus all Israel learned
that Saul had overcome the garrison of the Philistines and that Israel had
brought disgrace upon the Philistines; and the soldiers were called up to
Saul in Gilgal (1 Sam. 13.3-4).

Verses 3-4 favour some reflections. Verse 3 begins:

DTOfrD 3^3 m jrar γι
Verse 4 follows with:
DTßfrD Tsrnn ^iwtí ΓΤΙΠ το«1? iwx ^merto
These lines may simply reflect the attribution of all victories to the
commander, whether or not he was directly responsible. Nevertheless,
the juxtaposition is jarring and suggests that the narrator is hinting at
something more. Did Saul, in fact, send the message that he had
defeated the Philistines? If so, does this indicate contempt for Jonathan
or at least insensitivity to his accomplishments? Does Jonathan mean
much to him at all, other than as, at times, an extension of his own ego
for the purposes of dynasty? Does Jonathan sense this? How does he
feel towards his father? The opening verses of ch. 13 stir up, or at
least tolerate, these questions. Later incidents will raise them again
and suggest some answers.5

Philistines and had gone up with them to the camp turned to the Israelites under Saul
and Jonathan'. The most obvious and elegant explanation is not textual corruption
but that of N. Gottwald (The Tribes of Yahweh [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,
1979], p. 423):

Actually, what is said of the 'Hebrews' in 13.3 fits well with what is said of them in
14.21. The sound of the trumpet is a military signal. 'Let the Hebrews hear!* is more
properly to be translated, 'Let the Hebrews listen/pay attention/obey!' This is Saul's
appeal to the 'third force' of 'apiru warriors, who have served the Philistines but should
now be warned or inspired by the Israelite victory to withdraw their support from the
Philistines and come over to Israel—precisely as they eventually did, according to
14.21.

5. J.P. Fokkelman (Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. Π. The
Crossing Fates (1 Sam. 13-31 ά 2 Sam. 1) [Dover, NH: VonGorcum, 1986]) finds
ch. 13*s opening verses richly suggestive. He considers the sequence of w . 3-7
disjointed and believes that placing 'the Philistines heard of it' in v. 3 rather than at
38 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993)

At the beginning of ch. 14 Jonathan sets out on another exploit:

One day Jonathan, son of Saul, said to his armor-bearer, 'Come, let us go
over to the Philistine outpost on the other side'. But he did not inform his
father (1 Sam. 14.1).

The narrator reminds us that Jonathan is Saul's son and makes explicit
that he did not tell his father. Why not? The narrator's withholding an
answer makes us reflect further on their relationship. It also prepares
for the scene when Saul learns about the panic that Jonathan causes in
the Philistine camp:
The lookouts of Saul in Geba of Benjamin saw that the enemy camp had
scattered and were running about in all directions. Saul said to those
around him, 'Count the troops and find out if any of us are missing'.
When they investigated they found Jonathan and his armor-bearer missing.
Saul then said to Ahijan, 'Bring the ephod here'... While Saul was
speaking to the priest, the tumult in the Philistine camp kept increasing.
So he said to the priest, 'Withdraw your hand'. And Saul and all his men
shouted and rushed into the fight, where the Philistines, wholly confused,
were thrusting swords at one another (1 Sam. 14.16-20).

Saul shows no concern for Jonathan's safety. In fact the text does not
even use dialogue to report those around Saul telling him that they
have found Jonathan and his armor-bearer missing. We simply hear of
their discovery and presume that they tell Saul. This absence of dia-
logue subtly conveys Saul's lack of feeling for Jonathan. Had the
narrator wished to portray a Saul who loved his son, he could have
shaped the narrative differently. Note, for example, how David's
questions about Absalom's safety (2 Sam. 18.29, 32) reveal his
affection for his rebellious son, and how a son's love for his father
shines clear as Joseph repeatedly asks his brothers about his distant
father (Gen. 43.27; 45.3).
The battle continues, and Saul puts the people under a ban, cursing
the man who takes food before evening, before the enemy has been

the beginning of v. 5 emphasizes the phrase. This 'emphasis on "the Philistines

heard of it" is subversive in effect. It pulls apart the son's line and the father's line,
severs the direct connection between Jonathan's action and Saul's assimilation
thereof, and thus anticipates the dramatic estrangement which will rapidly develop
between the king and his son. The budding conflict with the neighboring enemy is
now beginning to drive father and son apart' (p. 29). While intriguing, Fokkelman's
analysis is here over-subtle. MT's order makes sense and thus hardly emphasizes 'the
Philistines heard of it'.
 LAWTON Saul, Jonathan and the 'Son of Jesse' 39

defeated. He hopes thereby to please Yahweh and gain his support in

battle. Jonathan, unaware of what his father has done, eats some honey
and is refreshed. A soldier informs him of his father's curse.
Jonathan replied: 'My father brings trouble to the land. Look how bright
my eyes are from this small taste of honey I have had. What is more, if
the people had eaten freely today of their enemy's booty when they came
across it, would not the slaughter of the Philistines by now have been the
greater for it'? (1 Sam. 14.29-30).

Jonathan's open criticism speaks of his feelings toward his father.

Moreover, the narrator's favorable characterization of Jonathan, the
soldier's observation that 'the people are weak' (DSTT η:η 1 Sam. 14.28),
and the narrator's own statement that after the rout of the Philistines
'the people were completely exhausted' (τκο ϋΰπ *μη 1 Sam. 14.31)
confirm Jonathan's judgment; Saul has blundered. But have we blun­
dered as well in sensing distance between father and son? Are we
over-reading, insensitive to the narrator's other interests? The narra­
tor's story of Saul's condemning Jonathan to death resolves these
questions:
Then Saul said, 'let us go down in pursuit of the Philistines by night, to
plunder among them until daybreak and to kill them all off. They replied,
'Do what you think best'. But the priest said, 'Let us consult God'. So
Saul inquired of God: 'Shall I go down in pursuit of the Philistines? Will
you deliver them into the power of Israel?' But he received no answer on
this occasion. Saul then said, 'Come here, all officers of the army. We
must investigate and find out how this sin was committed today. As the
LORD lives who has given victory to Israel, even if my son Jonathan has
committed it, he shall surely die!' But none of the people answered him.
So he said to all Israel, 'Stand on one side, and I and my son Jonathan
will stand on the other'. The people responded, 'Do what you think best'.
And Saul said to the LORD, the God of Israel: 'Why did you not answer
your servant at this time? If the blame for this resides in me or my son
Jonathan, LORD, God of Israel, respond with Urim; but if this guilt is in
your people Israel, respond with Thummim'. Jonathan and Saul were
designated, and the people went free. Saul then said, 'Cast lots between
me and my son Jonathan'. And Jonathan was designated. Saul said to
Jonathan, 'Tell me what you have done'. Jonathan replied, Ί only tasted a
little honey from the end of the staff I was holding. Am I to die for this?'
Saul said, 'May God do thus and so to me if you do not indeed die,
Jonathan!' But the army said to Saul: 'Is Jonathan to die, though it was he
40 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993)

who brought Israel this great victory? This must not be! As the LORD
lives, not a single hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for God was
with him in what he did today!' Thus the soldiers were able to rescue
Jonathan from death (1 Sam. 14.36-45).

This passage repays close attention. The absence of an oracle indicates

to Saul that someone has violated his ban and that Yahweh is therefore
unhappy with the Israelites. But Saul consulted the LORD only because
the priest suggested it; he had originally proposed pursuing the
Philistines without any thought of inquiring about the LORD'S will.
One may wonder about the depth of his piety, even though, at first
glance, it is his piety that leads him to condemn Jonathan for violating
his ban. He frequently uses the phrase 'my son Jonathan' (vv. 39, 40,
41, 6 42), but this repetition only underscores his coldness when
Jonathan is designated; Saul is not distraught. How differently the
repeated 'my son Absalom' functions when David learns of his son's
death!7 And what might have been a touching dialogue between father
and son (w. 43-44) becomes instead a signal of their distance. But if
the text in isolation points up Saul's lack of feeling for his son, all the
more so does its comparison with the story of Jephthah's vow in
Judges 11. In Jephthah's rending his garments and in his words we see
a father's grief and a father's love. When Saul responds to Jonathan's
4
Am I to die for this?' with 'May God do thus and so to me if you do
not indeed die, Jonathan!' we detect neither. The contrast between
Jephthah's love and Saul's detachment is especially striking when we
consider that Jephthah fulfils his vow (Judg. 11.39), while 'the soldiers
were able to rescue Jonathan from death'. Although father and son,
Saul and Jonathan never seem important to one another.
But what about Saul and David? Chapter 16 introduces David both
to Saul and to us. Before David and Saul meet, we learn something of
David's own family (1 Sam. 16.1-12). David and his father seem as

6. The NAB follows LXX for v. 41 which includes the phrase 'my son Jonathan'.
It is missing in MT. In support of the LXX reading, see McCarter, / Samuel, pp. 247-
48 n. on v. 41. Often the scholarly preference for LXX readings stems from failure to
appreciate the OT's use of elliptical narrative. For a discussion of this and the various
ways the OT handles repetition, see Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative*
pp. 365-440. The shorter MT might well be preferable, but the use of 'my son
Jonathan' even three times is noteworthy.
7. The narrator portrays periods of distance in the David-Absalom relationship
(see 2 Sam. 14), but he never pictures Saul and Jonathan as close.
 LAWTON Saul, Jonathan and the 'Son of Jesse' 41

distant as Jonathan and Saul. Joel Rosenberg sensitively summarizes

the situation:
Of David's childhood environment we know little—but enough. His
father views the lad either indifferently or overprotectively: David is pre-
sented to Samuel only as an afterthought... David's chances for a mean-
ingful life under the roof of his father's home seem dim, and, like many a
younger son in biblical history, he quickly learns that adoptive relations—
of the battlefield, of the political arena, of the bed—can be the most
formative and significant shapers of identity... In this light we may
understand the genuine affection he feels toward Saul and Jonathan... The
Father who nearly succeeded in keeping his own son shrouded in histori-
cal obscurity is rewarded with an obscurity of his own, and we cannot
escape the feeling that a certain coldness or emotional remoteness governs
David's relations with his parents from the earliest days of his public
career.8

As soon as David enters Saul's service they become fond of one

another.9 Whenever Saul is depressed, David plays the harp and then
Saul feels better; the two of them seem like father and son. Chapter 17
presents another account of David's coming to Saul's attention, the
famous story of David and Goliath. As its conclusion this account
presents a puzzling scene:
When Saul saw David go out to meet the Philistine, he asked his general
Abner, 'Abner, whose son is that youth'? Abner replied, 'As truly as your
majesty is alive, I have no idea'. And the king said, 'Find out whose son
the lad is'. So when David returned from slaying the Philistine, Abner took
him and presented him to Saul. David was still holding the Philistine's
head. Saul then asked him, 'Whose son are you, young man? David
replied, I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem' (1 Sam.
17.55-58).

8. J.Rosenberg, *1 and 2 Samuel', The Literary Guide to the Bible (ed.

R. Alter and F. Kermode; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 130-31.
9. The Hebrew of 1 Sam. 16.21 reads: inamw vxh lùsn 'TWBT^» i n ιαη
D^D REM frrn -wo McCarter points out that the MT 'admits of such ambiguity... that
LXXLfindsit necessary to introduce explicit subjects (Saul... David) into the last two
clauses. The same is necessary in English' (p. 280, n. on v. 21). This is how most
translations understand the verse. The NAB translates: 'Thus David came to Saul and
entered his service. Saul became very fond of him, (and) made him his armor-
bearer'. But David is most naturally the subject of 'love'. That David becomes fond
of Saul makes sense in its immediate context and also fits with the narrator's
portrayal of David's devotion to Saul even after Saul turns against him.
42 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993)

The scene is puzzling not only because of Saul's lack of knowledge

about David, even though he had met him in ch. 16 and earlier in
ch. 17, but also because it emphasizes the question of whose son David
is. The narrator has shaped the passage to flag Saul's concern with this
question, having Saul first ask Abner, then command Abner to find
out the answer, and then himself ask David directly. Why?
One reason, of course, might be to suggest the beginning of Saul's
anxiety about David, to hint at a foreboding that his young man might
supplant him and his family. There might be another reason, however.
Saul repeatedly refers to David as 'son of Jesse', and, as Alter points
out, 'when a relational epithet is attached to a character, or, conversely,
when a relational identity is stated without the character's proper
name, the narrator is generally telling us something substantive without
recourse to explicit commentary'.10 'Son of Jesse' has been taken as a
term of contempt, but Saul's frequent use of it, especially in light of
his increasing obsession with David, indicates something more. Is the
narrator pointing us towards the darker reaches of his character's
heart, hinting that, in fact, Saul is jealous of Jesse, wishing that David
were his own son?
Chapter 20 tells of a meeting between David and Jonathan:
David fled from the sheds near Raman, and went to Jonathan. 'What have
I done?' he asked him. 'What crime or what offense does your father hold
against me that he seeks my life?' Jonathan answered him: 'Heaven forbid
that you should die! My father does nothing great or small, without dis-
closing it to me. Why, then, should my father conceal this from me? This
cannot be so!' But David replied: 'Your father is well aware that I am
favored with your friendship, so he has decided, 'Jonathan must not
know of this lest he be grieved'. Nevertheless, as the LORD lives and as
you live, there is but a step between me and death'. Jonathan then said to
David, *I will do whatever you wish' (1 Sam. 20.1-4).

This dialogue shows what the narrative stresses throughout, Jonathan's

greater devotion to David than to Saul. But it also indicates the dis-
tance between father and son in other ways. Jonathan says that his
father discloses everything to him, but, because of what the narrator
tells us (19.9-10), we, like David, know that that is not true, just as
Jonathan scarcely tells his father much, whether it be about an attack
on a Philistine garrison or about his friendship with David. And

10. R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981),
p. 180.
 LAWTON Saul, Jonathan and the 'Son of Jesse' 43

David's saying that Saul fears grieving Jonathan makes all the sadder
our realization that this father has never shown any concern for his
son's feelings. But what does the narrator want us to think about
David's reason for saying this to Jonathan? Does David's affection for
Saul color his perception of the reason for Saul's secretiveness or is he
being sensitive to the feelings of his friend? The narrator leaves us
wondering and by that very fact draws us further into the relationships
of his characters.
The story continues:
On the next day, the second day of the month, David's place was vacant
Saul inquired of his son Jonathan, 'Why has the son of Jesse not come to
the table yesterday or today?' Jonathan answered Saul: 'David urgently
asked me to let him go to his city, Bethlehem. "Please let me go", he
begged, "for we are to have a clan sacrifice in our city, and my brothers
insist on my presence. Now, therefore, if you think well of me, give me
leave to visit my brothers." That is why he has not come to the king's
table.' But Saul was extremely angry with Jonathan and said to him: 'Son
of a rebellious woman, do I not know that, to your own shame and to the
disclosure of your mother's shame, you are the companion of Jesse's
son? Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, you cannot
make good your claim to the kingship! So send for him, and bring him to
me, for he is doomed.' But Jonathan asked his father Saul: 'Why should
he die? What has he done?' At this Saul brandished his spear to strike
him, and thus Jonathan learned that his father was resolved to kill David.
Jonathan sprang up from the table in great anger and took no food that
second day of the month, for he was grieved on David's account, since
his father had railed against him (1 Sam. 20.27-34).

This passage richly demonstrates the narrator's skill. Even the pur-
ported reason for David's absence raises the issue of family relations
that lies behind much of the Saul-David narrative. David's brothers
supposedly insist on his presence, yet his distance both from his
brothers and his father is what rendered him susceptible to becoming
so devoted, albeit in different ways, to Saul and Jonathan. Saul never
mentions David's name but refers him him three times as 'the son of
Jesse', as is underscored by both Jonathan's and the narrator's using
the name 'David'. As noted before, the phrase 'son of Jesse' suggests,
in Saul's tortuous heart, bitterness that David is another's son and not
his own. The phrase 'son of a rebellious woman' shows Saul's disdain
for his own son even as he talks about his becoming king and also
rings a change on the crucial word 'son'. Indeed, the words 'son' and
44 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993)

'father' run through the passage and further charge the dialogue.
These same words surface again in the scene at the Cave of Engedi.
There, however, they illuminate the relationship of Saul and David.
Saul, pursuing David, goes into the cave. David and his men are
there, and David sneaks up and cuts off a piece of Saul's robe. Filled
with remorse at what he has done, David keeps his men from
attacking. Saul leaves the cave and goes on his way.
David also stepped out of the cave, calling to Saul, 'My lord the King!'
When Saul looked back, David bowed to the ground in homage and asked
Saul: 'Why do you listen to those who say, "David is trying to harm
you"? You see for yourself today that the LORD just now delivered you
into my grasp in the cave. I had some thought of killing you, but I took
pity on you instead. I decided, "I will not raise my hand against my lord,
for he is the LORD'S anointed. My father, look, look here 11 at this end of
your mantle which I hold. Since I cut off an end of your mantle and did
not kill you, see and be convinced that I plan no harm and no rebellion. I
have done you no wrong, though you are hunting me down to take my
life"'... When David finished saying these things to Saul, Saul answered,
'Is that your voice, my son David'? And he wept aloud. Saul then said to
David: 'You are in the right rather than I; you have treated me generously,
while I have done you harm... And now, since I know that you shall surely
be king and that sovereignty over Israel shall come into your possession,
swear to me by the LORD that you will not destroy my descendants and
that you will not blot out my name and my family' (1 Sam. 24.9-22).

David shows here, as he has throughout, respect for the LORD's

anointed, both in what he says and in how he acts. But from the very
first, and despite all that Saul has done, David has also felt affection
for the king, who was so attached to him and gave him the attention
his own father had never given him. In the midst of his rather lengthy
and formal speech, with its words and gestures of respect, David
blurts out (v. 12), 'My father, look, look here at this end of your
mantle'. The terms 'father' and 'son' can, of course, be used in the

11. The NAB translates: Ί decided, "I will not raise a hand against my lord, for he
is the LORD'S anointed and a father to me". Look here at this end of your mantle
which I hold'. McCarter (/ Samuel, p. 382 n. on v. 12) prefers the short reading of
LXX, suggesting that MT is possibly a conflation of variants. He translates (p. 380):
Ί said, "I shall not raise my hand against my lord, for he is Y ah weh's anointed!"
Look, the skirt of your robe is in my hand!' If my analysis of the Saul-David
relationship is correct, however, then the unusual but hardly ungrammatical Hebrew
(ΓΤΚΊ m rrtn ORI) fits the emotion of the moment and makes MT most appropriate.
 LAWTON Saul, Jonathan and the 'Son of Jesse' 45

king-subject relationship, but in this speech the narrator has them

convey far more about his characters than their observance of
formalities. 'My father' betrays David's feelings for Saul and gives us
a sense of Saul's place in his life, while the unusual repeated impera­
tive and the use of OJ (ron ca ron) signal just how deep these feelings
are. And Saul's emotional I s that your voice, my son David?' needs
no commentary, its shortness and simplicity after David's more elabo­
rate speech adding to its power. David receives the fatherly affection
that Jonathan never experiences.
The alternate account of David's sparing of Saul in ch. 26 empha­
sizes this role that David plays in Saul's life.
Saul recognized David's voice and asked, 'Is that your voice, my son
David'? David answered, 'Yes, my lord the king'.. .Then Saul said: Ί
have done wrong. Come back, my son David, I will not harm you again,
because you have held my life precious today. Indeed, I have been a fool
and have made a serious mistake'... Then Saul said to David: 'Blessed are
you, my son David! You shall certainly succeed in whatever you
undertake' (1 Sam. 26.17-25).

The constant use of 'my son' drives home that David, not Jonathan,
functions as a son in Saul's emotions.
None of this, of course, denies the complexity of Saul's feelings.
Saul is also jealous of David and wants to kill him. Obsession is com­
plicated, and it is a tribute to the narrator's skill that the shaping of
the characters respects the tangle. It is likewise a tribute to his artistry
that the narrator subtly indicates Jonathan's emotional unimportance
to Saul and thus makes more understandable the place David assumes
in Saul's life.
If we return now to 1 Sam. 22.7-8, the text cited towards the
beginning of this article and used to focus our topic, we see how care­
fully the narrator has sculpted Saul's words. If my analysis is correct,
then when Saul says to his men that 'None of you...discloses to me
that my son has stirred up my servant to be an enemy against me', his
words are, in the end, not curious at all but consistent with how the
narrator portrays him. The 'son of Jesse' means more to Saul than
does his own son.
But why does the narrator shape the Saul-Jonathan-David relation­
ship this way? Is he simply exercising his skill in creating complex
characters and complicating their interactions, or does his artistry
serve a larger purpose of the story?
46 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993)

It has been argued that the narrative of David's early career is

intended to indicate the legitimacy of his succession to Saul as the
King of Israel.12 The story is at pains to point out, for example, that
David was not guilty of any wrongdoing in his dealings with Saul. He
did not try to seize Saul's power and he shows great respect for Saul's
person. Saul gives David his daughter Michal in marriage.13 Moreover,
'David's legitimation is worked out against a theological background
in which David is envisioned as Yahweh's chosen king and Saul as the
king abandoned by Yahweh'.14
The narrator's development of a deeper and more subtle relation-
ship between Saul, Jonathan and David puts a profound psychological
dimension at the service of this larger theme. In Saul's twisted heart,
David is more his son than Jonathan is. He is the one who should
succeed Saul.

ABSTRACT

This article examines a number of passages in 1 Samuel to show that the narrator
indicates emotional distance between Saul and his son Jonathan. On the other hand,
the narrator describes Saul and David as close, despite Saul's jealousy of David.
Indeed, Saul acts toward David and speaks to him at times as if he, not Jonathan,
were his son. The narrator's development of the Saul-Jonathan-David triangle
serves his larger purpose of showing that David is the legitimate successor to Saul.

12. For a summary of this argument see McCarter, / Samuel, pp. 27-30.
13. On the political implications of this marriage, see McCarter, / Samuel,
pp. 318-19.
14. McCarter, / Samuel, p. 28.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.