David Then and Now: Double-Voiced Discourse in 1 Samuel 16.14–23
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Saul's servants suggest David for the job of court musician in 1 Sam. 16.14–23, they seem to ‘overnominate’ him. They describe the young shepherd boy as a ‘mighty man of valor’ and a ‘man of war’, titles clearly unsuitable for this youngest son of Jesse in the present literary context. Scholars have proposed various theories for understanding these enigmatic words: from source-critical reconstruction to chronological disjunction to anticipatory literary strategies. This article proposes that the difficulties posed by the words of Saul's nameless servants can be best understood as examples of the literary device described by Mikhail Bakhtin as double-voiced discourse. In this strategy, Saul's nameless servants speak both in their own voice and from their own perspective about a young shepherd boy but they also speak in another voice from a larger perspective about the shepherd-king, the warrior-poet. Reading the words of Saul's nameless servants as an example of double-voiced discourse not only solves the difficulties of this text but also provides a fruitful literary dialogue between a young shepherd and a man who would become the founder of Israel's monarchy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".