260 EDWARD J. BRIDGE characters. Mephibosheth’s self-abasement also has the positive effect of making the hearer (David) out to be a magnanimous and generous person, because Mephibosheth constructs an identity of an inconsequential person who has received attention far beyond what he is worth. Such praise may induce the hearer to do more acts of kindness. Yet, Mephibosheth’s lack of expressed obligation to David indicates an attempt to avoid being in a patron-client rela- tionship with him. That is, he attempts to counter the implications of obligation inherent in receiving gifts. The problem with taking 2 Sam 9 at face value is that David’s kindness to Mephibosheth may be two-edged. David can fulfil his obligation to Jonathan, Mephibosheth’s father (1 Sam 20), but at the same time he can keep a watch on this potentially significant figure in the Saulide house 15. This interpretation is coupled with references in 2 Samuel in which it can be argued that a purge of Saul’s descendants has taken place prior to the events of 2 Sam 9. In 2 Sam 16,7-8, Shimei, a relative of Saul, accuses David of having killed descendants of Saul. In 2 Sam 9,3, David acknowl- edges there are few remaining descendants of Saul. In 2 Sam 19,28, Mephibosheth states that his “father’s house was doomed to death ”. These texts allow for the common opinion that the massacre of Saulides narrated in 2 Sam 21,1-14 has already happened 16. This interpretation is similar, on the surface, to David’s use of tm blk in 1 Sam 24,15[14] in which David denies being a threat to Saul when on the run from Saul. Here, David See, e.g. R. ALTER, The David Story. A Translation with Commentary on 15 1 and 2 Samuel (New York 1999) 243; J. MAUCHLINE, 1 and 2 Samuel (NCB ; London 1971) 241; and HERTZBERG, I & II Samuel, 299-301. J. BALDWIN, 1 and 2 Samuel. An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Leicester 1988) 227-228, understands the threat to be Mica, Mephibosheth’s son (2 Sam 9,12). D.G. FIRTH, 1 & 2 Samuel (Apollos OT Commentary; Nottingham 2009) 402-404, though rejecting that David keeps watch on Mephibosheth, recognizes that David prevents any pro-Saulide movement from occurring. Argued by, e.g., P.K. MCCARTER, II Samuel. A New Translation with 16 Introduction, Notes and Commentary (AB 9; New York 1984) 260-265; H.W. HERTZBERG, I & II Samuel. A Commentary (OTL; London 1964); L.G. PERDUE, “ ‘Is there Anyone left of the House of Saul ...?’ Ambiguity and the Characterization of David in the Succession Narrative”, JSOT 30 (1984) 67-84, here 75. FIRTH, 1 & 2 Samuel, 402, 503, remains doubtful, though ac- knowledges the possibility. Note that the narrator is careful to indicate the purge is not because of a change of dynasty per se.