Sa mu el 164 to David and ceases his pursuit, so that he is by no means a symbol of abstract evil . David, on the other hand, almost fails when he finds himself faced with a similar situation, and actually sets out to destroy Nabal and his household . In this way, the sharpness of the contrast between them is rather blunt, and so scholars of literature may call it a “delicate balance” ( cf . Sternberg 1987 : 445 – 475 ; Amit 2006 : 71 – 79 ) in which the two figures, the antagonist as well as the protagonist recover their human, realistic dimensions . Saul is not a complete villain knowing nothing of humanity or contrition ; and David is not an angel of light on whom anger, vindictiveness and inclination to take absolute power have no hold on him ( Garsiel 1985 : 123 – 124 ) . On the contrary, both now appear as “rounded” characters who are capable of surprising us by their discrete actions ( on such characterization, compare Forster 1927 : Chap 4 ; Auerbach 1957 : Chap 1 ) . Eventuall...
אל הספר