I Shmuel 27: Searching for Ziklag

Finally realizing that Shaul will never end his quest to kill him, David resigns himself to returning to Achish and living among the Philistines. David at first lives in the capital before making a request for a territory of his own. This is similar to the request that Yosef made to Pharaoh. In response to his request, “at that time Achish granted him Ziklag; that is how Ziklag came to belong to the kings of Judah, as is still the case” (וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ אָכִישׁ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת־צִקְלָג לָכֵן הָיְתָה צִקְלָג לְמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה) (verse 6).There are two problems with this verse. The first is that Ziklag is already mentioned as part of the territory of the tribe of Judah in Joshua (וְצִקְלַג) (Joshua 15:31) and again in the territory of Shimon (וּבֵית הַמַּרְכָּבוֹת וַחֲצַר סוּסָה וּבֵית לְבָאוֹת וְשָׁרוּחֶן... וְצִקְלַג) (Joshua 19:5). The simple answer is that Ziklag was under Judean control until Achish and the Philistines conquered the city. Now that Achish gives it to David, it will remain his possession. The other possibility is that there were multiple towns named Ziklag. The two times it is mentioned in Joshua, the town is listed as part of two different tribes. In chapter 15, it belongs to Judah and in chapter 19, it belongs to Shimon. In chapter 15, the city is grouped with two others, Madmannah and Sansannah (וּמַדְמַנָּה וְסַנְסַנָּה וּלְבָאוֹת וְשִׁלְחִים וְעַיִן וְרִמּוֹן) (Joshua 15:31–32). In chapter 19, it is listed with Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susah (וּבֵית הַמַּרְכָּבוֹת וַחֲצַר סוּסָה וּבֵית לְבָאוֹת וְשָׁרוּחֶן) (Joshua 19:5–6). This could mean that there were two cities, each close to two different neighboring cities. It is possible then that this Ziklag is a third city.The second problem is the end of the verse. Many times in Tanach, the narrator will jump in to explain that a certain city name exists “until this day” (עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה). That phrase is somewhat ambiguous, as it does not explain until which day. But verse 6 is different. It specifically says “the kings of Judah” (לְמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה). What makes this problematic is that the kings of Judah were not a thing until a couple of centuries later under the reign of David’s grandson. This could mean that a later author, possibly Chizkiyahu, who is traditionally associated with preserving and editing certain biblical books, added this explanatory note to the verse. Another possibility is that the phrase “kings of Judah” may simply refer to the leadership of the territory of Judah. It would be strange, though, that the tribe of Judah would be referred to as the kings of Judah. It is possible that the note refers to the period when David was solely king of Judah, before he unified the nation under his rule (וַיִּמְשְׁחוּ שָׁם אֶת־דָּוִד לְמֶלֶךְ עַל־בֵּית יְהוּדָה) (II Samuel 2:4). The problem there is that the verse refers to kings in the plural, and David was the only king of Judah until his grandson. The city itself plays a vital role in the remainder of the Dovid story as his de facto pre-royal capital, so perhaps the narrator is explaining that this city stays with the Judah line as a symbolic way that this possession by Dovid begins the Judaic king line.