Following the account of Samuel’s visit to Bethlehem to anoint David as the
future king of Israel, the book of 1 Samuel indicates that David became the
harp player and armor bearer for King Saul (16:14-23). Subsequent to this
information, the reader is told of David’s magnificent triumph over Goliath (1
Samuel 17), which then is followed by an “interrogation” by King Saul, who
asked David, “Whose son are you, young man?” (17:58). A general reading
through the text of 1 Samuel 16-17 has led some Bible believers to question
why Saul (it seems) knew David, then did not know David, and then got to know
him again. Skeptics, likewise, have inquired about the consistency of this
story (see Morgan, 2003; Wells, 2001; “Inerrancy,” n.d.). Paul Tobin, in an
article titled “Internal Contradictions in the Bible,” summed up the skeptic’s
argument by stating that 1 Samuel 16 “clearly shows that David…was known to
Saul. Yet a little later, after David’s fight with Goliath, Saul is made to
enquire from his chief captain as to the identity of the giant slayer (I
Samuel 17:56). And he is again made to inquire from David who he is, when he
should have known this all along” (2000). Allegedly, the Bible’s portrayal of
Saul’s ignorance of David after Goliath’s death is proof of the Bible
writers’ imperfection when penning the Scriptures.

First of all, it is imperative for one to recognize that, as with other Bible
passages, nowhere in 1 Samuel 16-17 are we told that all of these events
occurred in chronological order. Although throughout 1 Samuel, there is a
general, sequential progression, such does not demand that every event
recorded in the book must be laid out chronologically. In fact, within chapter
17 there is evidence that this is not the case. For example, the events
recorded in 17:54 (i.e., David putting his armor in his tent, and taking the
head of Goliath to Jerusalem) postdate the conversations mentioned in verses
55-58 (as verse 57 makes clear). More precisely, verses 55-56 synchronize with
verse 40, while verses 57-58 could be placed immediately following verse 51
(Youngblood, 1992, 3:703). And, regarding chapter 16, who can say for certain
that David was not already playing the harp for Saul before Samuel anointed
him? First Samuel 17:15 indicates that “David occasionally went and returned
from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem.” Perhaps it was during one
of these furloughs that he was anointed as the future king of Israel
(16:1-13). Unless the text clearly distinguishes one event as occurring before
or after another, a person cannot conclude for certain the exact chronology of
those events. Just because one historical event recorded in the Bible precedes
another, does not mean that it could not have occurred at a later time (or
vice versa). Truly, the ancients were not as concerned about chronology as is
the average person in twenty-first-century America.

Aside from the fact that one cannot be certain about the exact sequence of
events recorded in 1 Samuel 16-17, several possible explanations exist as to
why Saul appeared not to recognize David after his triumphal victory over
Goliath. First, enough time could have lapsed so that David’s appearance
changed significantly since the last time he appeared before king Saul.
William M. Thomson, a missionary in Syria and Palestine for nearly half of the
nineteenth century, once described the sudden changes in the physical
development of Eastern youths in his book titled _The Land and the Book_.

> They not only spring into full-grown manhood as if by magic, but all their
> former beauty disappears; their complexion becomes dark; their features hard
> and angular, and the whole expression of countenance stern and even
> disagreeable. I have often been accosted by such persons, formerly intimate
> acquaintances, but who had suddenly grown entirely out of my knowledge, nor
> could I without difficulty recognize them (1859, 2:366).

Few would deny that young men can change quickly over a relatively short
period of time. Facial hair, increased height and weight, larger, more defined
muscles, darker skin, a deeper voice, as well as the wearing of different
apparel, may all factor into why a person may say to someone that he or she
knows, but has not seen for some time, “I hardly recognized you. You’ve
changed.” Surely, it is more than possible that between the time David served
Saul as a harpist, and the time he slew Goliath, he could have experienced
many physical changes that prevented a “distressed” king from recognizing his
former harpist.

A second reason Saul might have failed to recognize David is because he may
have lapsed into another unreliable mental state. Saul’s intermittent
deviation from normalcy is seen throughout the book of 1 Samuel (cf. 16:14-23;
18:9-12; 19:22-24; 22:6-19), and it is possible 17:54-58 is another allusion
to his defective rationale. In his discussion of 1 Samuel 17, biblical
commentator Robert Jamieson mentioned this possibility saying, “The king’s
moody temper, not to say frequent fits of insanity, would alone be sufficient
to explain the circumstance of his not recognizing a youth who, during the
time of his mental aberration, had been much near him, trying to soothe his
distempered soul” (Jamieson, 1997).

Third, it could be that Saul did, in fact, remember David, but because of
jealousy over David’s momentous victory (cf. 1 Samuel 18:8-11), and perhaps of
hearing that Samuel had been to Bethlehem to anoint him as the next king (1
Samuel 16:1-13), Saul simply wanted to act like he did not know David.
Such a scenario is not difficult to envision. Today, a teacher or coach might
inquire about a student whom he or she already knows, yet in hopes of
instilling more submission into the arrogant teen, the faculty member acts
somewhat aloof. One textual indication that such may be the explanation of 1
Samuel 17:54-58 is that Saul still referred to David, the bear-killing, lion-
slaying, Goliath-demolisher, as a “stripling” (Hebrew _`elem_ —17:56, ASV) and
“young man” (Hebrew _na`ar_ —17:55,58). Although these two words do not
necessarily carry a belittling connotation, neither designation seems very
appropriate for a man who had just tried on the armor of King Saul—a man once
described as “shoulders upward…taller than any of the people” (1 Samuel
9:2)—and had just killed one of the fiercest enemies of Israel. Truly, Saul’s
supposed ignorance of David and his family may well have been a “performance”
instigated by, what physician Herman van Praag once called, “haughtiness fed
by envy” (1986, 35:421).

Finally, one must realize that the text does not even actually say that Saul
did not know David. It only records that Saul asked, “Whose son is this
youth?” (1 Samuel 17:55; cf. vss. 56,58). It is an assumption to conclude that
Saul did not recognize David. The king simply could have been inquiring about
David’s family. Since Saul had promised to reward the man who killed Goliath
by giving “his father’s house exemption from taxes in Israel” (17:25),
Saul might have been questioning David in order to ensure the identity of
David’s family. Furthermore, 18:1 seems to presuppose an extended conversation
between the two, which would imply that Saul wanted even more information than
just the name of David’s father.

Truly, any of these possibilities could account for Saul’s examination of
David. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show otherwise. As respected
law professor Simon Greenleaf concluded regarding the rule of municipal law in
relation to ancient writings:

> Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or
> custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law
> presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of
> proving it to be otherwise (1995, p. 16, emp. added).

Until skeptics logically negate the above possible solutions to the questions
surrounding 1 Samuel 16-17, and are able to prove beyond doubt that the Bible
writer made a genuine mistake, one does not have to doubt the integrity of the
biblical text.