Samuel (Hastings' Dictionary)

The meaning 'name of (;i)d,' which is now generally accepted, is the only one that can be upheld on philological rounds. The author of the early history of Samuel ouviously connects the name with tlie circumstances of Siimuel's birth as if SmDE'='7ND Sini? (1^ 'and she called his name Samuel, snijing. Because I have asked him of the Lord'); hut it is impossible to regard this explanation as giving the actual deriva- tion of the name.

As is not infrequently the case in the OT, ' the \vriter merely expresses an asson- ance, nat an etymology, i.e. the name '^nidc recalled to his mind the word ''ikp n.tkcd, though in no sense derived from it' (Driver, Text of Sam. p. 13 f.) The derivation 'heard of God ' (Su jjiDif) 18 also et3'mologically imiirobable. The history of Samuel as set forth in the first Bjok that hears his name contains so many dis- • In a recent article on 'The Name of .Samuel and the Stem 7KP' {.IRL, vol. xix.

pt. 1.), M. Jaetrow, jr., mairiUiins that the init element (i"17) of the compound nwne Shihnu'H (should be rendcrwl 'ofTsprinif ' rather than 'name,' on the analojjy of the Afwyr. ghumu, which occunt frequently in the former senile in prnnor names (.Vi-^u-ft/iurn-ulrin, flr^-gAum -t/^ir, etc.) : ho explains ^'annc**/ therefore a8=' Bon of Go<l,' and compares the correlative Abiel. There Is, however, no evidence lo show that the Hell.

EC* ever bore thia meanlntf : the pasaanew cited by Jastrow in favour of It readily admit of the usual Hih^niflcation. crepancies not only as regards the history of the period, but also as regards Samuel's character and position, that it is impossible to assign it to a single author. These inconsistencies can be ex- plained only on the theory that we have two accounts of the history of Samuel, which have been combined by a later editor (see following article).

In order, therefore, to obtain a clear con- ception of the life and work of Samuel, it is neces- sary to treat the two sources separately. In the earlier of the two documents from which the Books of Samuel are mainly compiled, Samuel tlrst appears in connexion with the election of Saul as itintf at Gilf,'al tiin".) He is there described as ' a man of God ' (D*-), or, more accurately, as a seer (.1X1 as opposed to N'^J &prophet.

99), living in the Land of Zuph (probably in the hill-country of Ephraim). The narrative opens somewhat abruptly wilti the story of Saul's search for the asses of his father. After three days' search Saul is on the point of returning homewards, when he is urged by his servant to con- sult the man of God living in that clistrict (it is not until v.'o that we learn his name).

Saul's objection, that the seer will certainly expect a present, is met by the servant producing the fourth part of a shekel. They accordingly enter the city and inquire for the seer, whom they meet on his way to the high place.

The meeting, however, was no accidental one, for Samuel had been divinely prepared on the nrevious day for the coming of the Benjamite stranger, and had been instructed to anoint him to be prince over Israel; for, said Jehovuli, *he shall save my people out of the hands of the Philistines.'

Samuel accordingly invites Saul to the sacrificial meal, at which a place had been reserved for him, and on the tollowiiig morn- ing ]>rivately anointa him, and informs him at the sauie time of his Divine mission to delic'er Israel from its opi)ressor8. He adds, further, three signs by which Saul may prove the truth of his words, and bids him do as occasion ser^'es him when these have been fulfilled.

The signs are fulfilled, and shortly after Saul's return to his father's house the occasion foretold by Samuel presents itself in connexion with the siege of Jabesh- gilead by Nahash the Anmionite. Saul's prompt and successful action in relieving the besieged city arouses the enthusiasm of his countrymen, who crown him king at Gilgal. The comp.aratively subordinate position occujiied by Samuel, according to tliis older narrative, and the limited extent of his influence on the alliiirs of the n.

ation, stand in striking contrast to the tradi- tional view of his life and work. He is here repre- sented as the seer of a small town, who is consulted in matters of diiliculty and perplexity by the inhabitants of the district in which he lives, and who is in charge of the local shrine : beyond this district he is unknown to the rest of Israel.

Further, his chief claim to fame lies in the fact that on one occasion only he is chosen by Jehovah as His instrument in carrying out His phins for tlie deliverance of Israel. Lastly, it is noticeable that he has no voice in the establishment of the monarchy ; his interest in the matter ajiparently ceases with the performance of his part in anoint- ing Saul ; nor does he apjiear to have been consulted in the actual election of the king.

It cannot, how- ever, be doubted that this older document has been preserved to us only in a very fragmentary form ; and we may infer with considerable jiroLability that it originally contained a longer and fuller account of the life and work of Samuel, which was pa-ssed over by the editor in favour of the (from his point of view) more s.atisfactory account preserved in the later document. The explanation of this selection is furnished by the later document, which is obviou.

sly colourcil by the views and conceptions of a later age, and as sueli ajiproximates more closely to the standpoint of the editor who com- bined the two narratives. It remains, therefore, to examine the narrative of the later document, and tt> estimate how far we can utilize it for the purpose of supplementing the earlier account.

The later narrative commences with the birth of Samuel, and relates how Hannah, tlie barren wile of KIkanali, on the occasion of tile yearly feast made a suleiiin vow to the LoRn that if He would fook upon her atfiii'tinn and give her a man child, she would dedicate him to the 8ervi<:e of the sanctuary. Samuel is born in answer to her prayer, and In due time handed over to the care of Eli, the aged' priest at Shiloh.

His childhood is thus spent within the precincts of the ancient Israelite shrine. 382 SAMUEL SAMUEL, I. AND LL where 'he ministered to the Lord before Eli the prieat'(2ii), and 'grew in favour both wth the Lord nnd also with men' (2*^). But the sons of Eli, who in the natural course of events would have succeeded their father, proved uinvorthv of their Bacrt'd office, and provoked the wrath of Jehovah by tneir abuse of their priestly privileges.

In consequence of their sin the destruction of the house of Eli is decreed by Jehovah, who announces His purpose to the youthful Samuel in a vision of the night. The favour of Jehovah, however, which is openly displayed towards the latter, makes it apparent that he has been chosen to succeed to the priestly office, and all Israel recog- nized * that he was established to be a prophet of the Lord ' : for through his agency the word of the Lord was revealed to all Israel ^:520_4ia).

in the history of the defeat of Israel at Aphek, an<l of the capture and restoration of the ark by the Philistines (42-7^), there is no mention of Samuel, who is suddenly re- introduced some time after the return of the ark, in the character of a 'judge,' rather than in that of a 'prophet' or •priest' (T^f). Like a second Moses, he is represented ae exhorting the people to turn from their idolatrous practices and to serve Jehovah alone.

The people hearken to his words, and in order to confirm their resolution he* summons a national assembly at Miz^iah, where they make public confession of their eins. The purpose of this gathering, however, is misunder- Blood by the Philistines, who at once collect their forces to meet what appears to them as a national uprising. Dismayed by the approach of their hereditary enemies, the Israelites beseech Samuel to intercede with Jehovah on their behalf.

In answer to Samuel's prayer, Jehovah sends a violent thunder- Btonn, which scattei-s the Philistines, and renders thtm an easy prey to the pursuing Israelites. To commemorate their deliver- ance, Sanmel sets up a great stone and calls the name of it Eben-ezer, or 'stone of help.

According to the writer, this victory marks the downfall of the Philistine domination ; for from that time onwards the Philistines 'came no more within the border of Israel,' while the cities 'which they had taken from Israel were restored from Ekron even unt<)Gath '(Ti-). In the peaceful times that followed, Samuel is represented as administrating justice throughout Israel by means of a yearly circuit of the chief sanctuaries on the west of Jordan — Reth-el, Gilgal. and Mizpah.

As his years increase, he naturally asso- ciates his sons with himself in the office of judge ; but, like the sons of Eli, they ' walked not in the ways' of their father. For this reason, and also because they desire 'to be like all the nations," the people demand that a king should be set over them. Their request is viewed with disfavour by Samuel, who plainly regards it as an act of rebellion against Jehovah.

But, m compliance with the Divine command, he first sets clearly before them the treatment they may expect at the hanc^ of a king, and then, as they still persist in their demand, takes steps to grant it. For this purpose he once more summons the people to Mizpah, and, after pointing out their ingratitude, directs that lots should be cast for the king : the choice falls on Saul the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin (821).

Samuel now realizes that his life's work is at an end, and in a solemn farewell speech he first bids the people attest the justice of his rule, and then, by means of a brief survey of the national history, warns them against disobeying the word of Jehovah. His exhortation is rendered the more impressive by a miraculous thunderstorm, which frightens the people into a confession of their sin in asking for a king.

Their fears are allayed by Samuel, who assures them of Jehovah's favour if they will serve llira truly. The election of Saul as king, and the consequent establish- ment of the monarchy, seem to form a fitting conclusion to the work of the last Israelite ' judge ' ; but the last days of Samuel were destined to be embittered by the foolish action of the king whom he had been chiefly instrumental in appointing.

In accordance with the command of Jehovah as announced by Samuel, Saul wages a war of extermination against the Amalekites. but, in deference to the wishes of his people, spares Agag the king and the best of the spoil. Samuel la divmely informed of the king's action, and openly taxes him with disobeying the commands of Jehovah. Saul seeks to palliate his offence, but Samuel ignores his excuses and announces his rejection.

He thereupon confesses his sin, and begs for for- giveness ; but Samuel merely reiterates his sentence, interpreting the rending of hia cloak by Saul as a sign that the latter's kingdom has been 'rent' from him. In response, however, to Saul's apjieal. he consents to honour him once more before the people by joining vnth him in the worship of Jehovah. He then slays Agap with his own hands, and depart* to his house at Ramah.

This incident marks the close of Samuel's public life; for 'he came no more to see Saul until the day of his death,' but remained in seclusion at Ramah (see art. Ramau), where he died and was buried. Tlie above sketch of the contents of the later document shows clearly that the writer rejjarded Saimiel as exercisin*^ a far wider sphere of infhience than the unknown seer of the earlier narrative. The po^iition, indeed, which he a.

ssi^s to Samuel is that of a second Moses, who rules over the people as the representative of Jehovah, and whose mission it is to win the people from their apostasy to the service of the only true God. Further, he depicts him as exercising the office of a * judge' (in the sense in which that term is employed m the pre- Deuteronomic Book of Judges (2^-16")), and de- livering Israel from the hands of their Philistine oppressors : thus Israel's desire for a king can only be e.

xplained as an act of rebellion against Jehovah. The contrast between the two representations of Samuel is very marked, and at first sight it would appear as if the one must necessarily exclude the other. But though there can be no doubt as to the greater historical value of the earlier narrative, w'hich bears all the marks of a high antiquity, it by no means follows that the later narrative must be rejected as unhistoriual.

For it must be re- membered (l)that the later is not founded on, but is clearly independent of, the earlier narrative ; and (2) that the view which is taken of the standpoint of the later author does not of necessity affect the general truth of his narrative. Hence, though the earlier narrative contains no account of Samuel's childhood, of his connexion with Eli at Shiloh, and of his intercession on behalf of the people, we have no grounds for regarding these facts as other than historical.

It cannot be doubted, however, that the/orwi in which they have been preserved to U3 has been largely coloured bv the later ' prophetic* point of view. Interpreted by this later stand- point, the establishment of the monarchy, or rather the election of David's predecessor as king, has little to recommend it, and is not unnaturally described as one of many acts of apostasy on the part of ancient Israel.

For the purpose of this narrative, it must be remembered, is religiotis ; and it does not lie within the writer's scope to estimate the importance of this event in thepontical history of the nation. His interest rather centres in the person of Samuel the prophet, and there is on this account a marked tendency to magnify his office and to overestimate his influence.

The extent to which this tendency has allected the narrative is illustrated in a very striking manner by the story of Samuel's intercession on behalf of the people at Mizpah {V"-).

That Samuel did intercede for the people may be inferred from Jer 15^ ; but that his intercession was followed by the subjugation of the Philistines (7'^) cannot be reconciled with the subsequent history (see the account of Saul's campaign against the Philistines 13-I4^ and especially 14^^ 'and there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul').

In like manner, we may conclude that the repre- sentation of Samuel as a * prophet,' and his aver- sion to the monarchy, reflect the point of view of a later age, and have but little foundation in fact. Looking back over the past history of Israel, the writer clearly regards Samuel as the last of the old order of jud^res, and also as the forerunner of the new order of prophets.

Tiiat his estimate in the main is a correct one cannot be <lenied : it is clear, however, that it has largely influenced his por- trayal of Samuel's life and work. In conclusion, it may be pointed out that the account of the anointing of David by Samuel (16'"^^), and the second e.xplanation of the proverb, 'Is Saul also among the prophets?' (19^^"**), can only be regarded as late and unhistorical (see below, p. 386 f.)

They illustrate that tendency to increase the importance of tlie heroes of the nation, and to connect them with the beginnings of later institutions, which in later times became especially characteristic of Jewish writings. J. F. Stennino. SAMUEL, I. AND II.— i. Title. ii. Contenta ill. Sources and DatA, iv. Analysis. Literature. i. TiTLK. — The two Books of Samuel, like the two Books of Kings, formed originally in the 5 Hebrew Canon a ..

in^le book called Sko^t (San me ) The LXX translators, however regarded the Book of Samuel and the Book of Kings as a com- Tae historj- of the two kingdoms of Israel and j dah and^divided them into four books, which thev entitled 'Books of the kingdonis (^I^Xo. ea^A«iW. The same division was foUowed by Jerome in the Vulgate, but t'-t'^'^^^^f *°ffe to 'Books of the Kings' Lihrv ^'!J'"'%,t^'l compromise which now obtains in printed Hebrew Bibles? viz.

the division of the boo'ks into four in ^cordance with the LXX !^"«1 Vulgate and he retention of the Hebrew titles for each pair, vas first adopted in Daniel Bomberg's printed edition "^Selection of the title is due to the fact that the open n?' chapters deal mainly with the history of SaCeC whi stUl plays an i">PO.tant role in those that follow : the pronunent part taken l-y him in the establishment of the monarchy may aLo have contributed to the chmce of his na.i.

e for the history of the period whic^h is chiefly con- cemed with the reigns of Saul and David ii. CONTESTS.-In their present form the two Books of Samuel faU most naturally into four ma°n sections: (a) I 1-15 SamufanJ the esUb- lishment of the monarchy ; (6) I 16-11 8 Saul and David ; (c) II 9-20 David ; {(l) II 21-24 an Appendix.

That this arrangement corresponds to liiVintentionof alater editor ,s made ev"l«rit by the three concluding summaries by ^^hicli tlie various sUges of the narratives are marked oi viz I 14^-=^, II 8 ("f ^^I'ic'' ^ ^ original y forined part , and II 20^, «. Since, however I lo the rejection of Saul and of his kingdom) was clearlyTntendcdto conclude the history of Sauls ret^ it seems better to attach that chapter to the ti'rst, rather than to treat it as introductory to the second section.

The four main section!) arfmit of the '""P"?" '""^t^'^'rch „hiSi brmfc'^t more clearly the course of the history wh.ch "'g')TJ-T5"'from the birth of Samuel till the rejection of an^n Samuel's birth and childhood a"d the mi^ *'deed» of the house of ^i = Sa.

uue succeeds to the office of Eli (l>-»"): th\''°'^J"i' ^L'phihsS house, and the capture of the ark by the Phllislmes a)%'^l^ Samuel as Judge over Israel delivers them ^ from their Philistine oppressors : in answer to the I^uMt of the iwople (cl . 8), and, through the aaency Tbamue (rh.'uf? siul after deteatint: the Anunon- "to (ch 11 is mide kin^. Samuel lays <io«n his Xith ik.and Saul carries on, ^-^fj^^^'„ with the Philistmca (cha 13.

14)- , '|V^^' , j'^ovah Aiualck Saul is infonned by Samuel that •''="01 a j h^ rejicS him because of his disobedience, and willL'ive his kingdom to another (ch.l5X , ^ , (M 116-11 8 Prom the first appe.irance of P»^7 ,"L, Jj ' flnnly established on the throne of Israel ana 0)"'no-31 History of David during the «'f° °' S"';,"; Uc is secretly anointed by """'• ""l^f'"rior «nice of Saul (ch. lU). By his success Ma «arnor kin>r ("ha 27 29.

30), while Saul is once more en- ^'eiin%a;-wrth tlie Philistines, and, after a vam iuempt to obtain a Divine oracle (ch. 28), perishts " Ih his sons at the battle of Ml. Gi boa (=»■ 31> mil 18 David's laimnl over Saul and Jonathan ^\ch 1). In the civil war which ensues between feavid and the ho.se of Saul,.the "rmer pro™, ^ctirious. an,l finally becon.es "i-'g ""^ '',^,^;,1 Judal. (i-SSV "« oaptures Jerusalem and 8>^«^-<l» Id Ihrovring off the Philistme yoke (oh. 6).

Tbejn (JvLri") mentions Simu/^l, w<rm no. rfmorum pnmum el i^idum dSi„, » the thiWot the prophetic hooka is brought to the capital (ch. 6), and the V«™«n™c, of the Uavidic dynasty assured (ch. X Concmoini sumuKiry of David's ren,Tl (ch. 8). (rt n 9-20 Kunlier history of David's reifc'^rK,,! n,„ „n of ai9-12 David's kindness to Meribbaal, the son of ^' Jonathan (ch. 9) : the war with Ammon, and David • m^ia'^o'Ab^iS'omUbeUion (13-19), and the revolt of Shcha (ch. 20). ^.

„, Wn 21 -"4 The Appendix, consisting or— ,,„„„ m historical nridenU: the Gibeonites and the house ^'^^Saul^l-'"^)-. e.vploiU and lists of David's heroes /2116-.-J 23S35) ; the census (ch. 24). (2) poetical f ra^-^nents : a psalm of David (cb. 22), and David's ' Last Words CiJi')- The history set forth in these books extends rougldy overl period of a hundred years, during whTch Israel gra'thially emerged from the con.Ut.

on of national disintegration and anaichy, described in the Book of J"Jges. and acnuire.I a dehn ite national existence. The establishment of the monarchy was at once the external sign o the union wbich was ettected between the hitherto scattered tribes, and the means by Nyhicli it was brought about.' Hence the mam jnteres of the history naturally centres round the jiersons ot SaS Saul, ai/d David, who were the principal aTnsn the work of consolidating the kingdom "iU SOURCES AND DATE.

-The Books of Samuel in heir present form afford a striking illn«"-afon of the methods of Hebrew composition. An ex- amination of their contents at ""ce reveals the fact that their author, after the manner of Hebrew historians has made use of previously existmg doCmlent;. which, though covering the same crround yet present the materials at their dis- fCl in vlry litlerent forms. The principle winch eli.

as followed in the compilation of his woik is ver-^ similar to that with which we are already ; ^^aln" e.i in those parts of the H^XATKycH where J and E have been united by a later editor (K ) fnto a Composite whole. In the P, " <^se xv. have also two narratives which togetlier lorm the m,ai^n bulk of the history. These narratives, however" are so obvi.msly independent of one an ther and so clearly distinguished by their d"lh.'

rent rnir,t of view, Uiat there is now consider- ae unanimity among critics with regard to their respe^Uve contents. Moreover, tliroughout the ma^n section of the Books of Samuel, the editor or redactor has made but little elVort to harm.jnize the varvin- accounts of the incidents which he relates^aml has contented himself, or the most part with reproducing in a twoto Id form the Fcad ng events' in the history of Saul and 1 av^d Hence arises that duplication of tnc.rfcni.

which 8 e>^ec^ally characteHstic of the -'"]-f 7. "^ the irrcater part of the history from 17-11 8 1 hus we \i^d two independent accounts of the choice of Saul as kill" and of his rejection. In like manner tl^ com, ilcT has preserved to us a double account of DiTvi. '8 introduction to Saul, and ot his light ? „™ ,.n,.rt • of the sparing of Sauls life by David, anTof the latter" i/ight to the Philistines ; and. lastly, of the death of Saul.

„:„i,f In nearly all these cases (to which others might be added) both accounts have been preserved afmost entire, and the redactor has "o.^ aUempted to connect them by other than the si i^ ttst o links- in a few instances, however, he «onl.l sum to have shortened or condensed the one narraUve while transcribing the other in full ; in no case hals he wedded thS two together in such a manner ns to rendc;r analysis inipos.sihle.

It remains, therefore, to inve8tigato these two sources, and to consider their probable ongin and m! St lav siO^tro clea/ly marked that wo hav^^o d'ii^^iilty in determining the relative ages of the two narratives. On the one hand, in what 384 SA]\IUEL, I. AND II, SAMUEL, I. AND II.

we may provisionally call the older narrative, we have a simple, straightforward history, which, froiu its graphic style, and its vivid description, as well as from its religious conceptions, manifestly belongs to a period of great antiquity. In other words, we have a natural representation of the state of society and of religion which existed in the early days of the monarchy, closely akin to that which we find in the earlier portions of the Book of Judges.

The later narrative tliroughout is obviously coloured by the religious teaching of a later age, and the standard by which the various incidents are judged is that of a period svibsequent to the prophetic teaching of the 8th century. Kuenen (Hist. ■ Krit. Einleitung, I. ii. p. 46 f.) and Wellhausen (Composition, p. 238 f.), who are followed, at least as regards 1 S 7. 8.

10'"«- 12, by Lohr, held that this later narrative was derived from a Deuteronomic source ; but Cornill and Budde have shown conclusively that it is marked, at any rate in part, by a close affinity to E. The great similarity of this narrative, both in language and style, to the E of the Hexateuch, has led these critics to regard it as a continuation of that source.

Budde, indeed, goes further, and assigns the earlier narrative to the older source J, supposing that the two sources were welded together by R^^, and afterwards edited by a Deuteronomic redactor. Antecedently, no doubt, this theorj', wliich presup- poses that the HeKateuchal sources J and E did not cease with the conquest of Canaan, but con- tinued the history dov.Ti to a later date, if not to their own day, has much to commend it (see Moore, Judges, p. xxvf.)

, but a closer examination of the resemblances between these two narratives and the Hexateuchal sources does not establish their identity. The question at issue may be briefly described as follows : — Excluding for tlie time being 2 S 9-24 (see Analysis), we find that the main bulk of the history contained in 1 S l'-2S 8 has been preserved in a Jouble series of narratives, which practically cover the same ground.

These two narratives are obviously independent of one another, and are clearly distinguished by their ^oui^ of view, and in part also by theiv literary style. The latter feature, liowever, is more especiallj' prominent in the first incident (the election of Saul, 7-12), which is pre- served in common by both narratives. Hero, as Cornill and Budde have shown (see, however, Lohr, p. xxiif.), the later narrative (7. 8.

lO"'- 12) presents noticeable affinities with E, and has accordingly been assigned by them to that source. But it is to be noted (1) that this resemblance to E is by no means so strongly marked in the latter portions of the history, wTiich present the same point of view, and clearly belong to tlie same source as ch. 7f. ; and (2) that the affinity does not exclude non-Elohistic features, notably the aversion of Samuel to the monarchy.

Budde, to a certain extent, evades the latter difficulty by assigning the larger portion of the later narrative to a later recension of E (En), which, as he rightly recoOTizes, has been largely influenced by the prophetic teaching of the 8th cent., more especi- ally by Hosea. It is clear that both Cornill and Budde go too far in identifying the later narrative with E.

That it is nearly related to E in language and thought cannot be denied, but at the most we can only conjecture that its author (or authors, for in the later narrative we can distinguish certainly two hands) belonged to the school of E, and that in writing the histories of Saul and David he was animated by a similar spirit and similar ideas. Budde's identification of the older narrative with J is closely connected with his view of the source of the later narrative.

The points of contact are not so strongly marked ; but if we are right in regarding the later narrative as the work of ■ follower of E, we may assume with considerable {irobability tliat the older narrative was composed ly a writer belonging to the school of J. The okler nanative may be assigned approxi- mately to tlie 9th cent., while the earlier stratum of E (Budde's EJ, which, though old, yet treats tlie histor}' from a more subjective standpoint, dates probably from tlie following century.

The later stratum (or strata) of E (Ej) has, as we have seen, been influenced by the teaching of the propliets of the 8th cent., and will belong to the end of the 8th or to the beginning of the 7th cent. As in the Hexateuch and in Judges, these sources were combined and welded together by a later editor (R-"^), who has, however, carried out his work in a less tliorough manner. His work is in an3' case prior to the reforms of Josiah (B.C.

621) and to the influence of Deuteronomy, and must be placed in the 7th cent. The present form of the Books of Samuel is largely due to an author of tlie Deuteronomic school, whose hand may be clearly traced in the concluding summaries (I 14"", II 8), and in various chronological notices (I V 13', II 2'°- " 5- °). To him also we probably owe I 2^"*" and II 7, while he has expanded other passages (mainly belonging to E2) which lent them- selves to this treatment, e.g. I 3. 12, II 8. 12'"'-.

Lastly, he appears to have omitted II 9-20 as in- compatible with his view of the history (compare tlie very simUar action in the Book of Judges*), though these chapters undoubtedly belong to the older narrative of J. The older work of JE, how- ever, was not entirely superseded by the later recension ; hence a later editor of the 5th or 4th cent, was able to utilize the earlier form of the two books, and, as might be expected, restorea those parts of JE which D had excluded.

He not improbably also transposed II 3-'° S'''"'"' from their original position after II 8". The obviously late insertions I I6I-" 17"- " lO'"* 21"-i« may have been added at this time, or possibly even later. Finally, tlie Appendix (II 21-24), a collection of miscel- laneous fragments belonging to dill'erent periods, and the Sung of Hannah (I 2'""), were added after the separation of the Books of Samuel from the Books of Kings.

Though we do not accept Bndde's identification of the older and later narratives with J and E ol the Hexateuch, we have retained these symbols aa representing approximately the age and character- istics of the two sources from wliich the history of these books is derived. Apart from minor inter- polations and additions, the parts belonging to the respective sources are as follows : — J I Q'-IO'"" ll'->'-M 131-7. IJb-lS J41-<«. M igi<-9 J§5.« (japtlrl-ll.

20-80 20''"'- •"• ■"'' 22''"''- 2u-a 031-ito 26. 27. 29-31, II 1 1- '»"•"• ■'-" 01-«. lOb. I2-S3 3_ 4^ gl-S. •-». 17-211 g_ 9-11. 12'"'' 13-31 131-20^. J, I 108 l^k-lH.. 19-23, ^ I 11-28 2n-22a.23-2« 3i^u (all Ej) 4"'-7» 7»-8« (Eo) 10"-«(Ej) 12. (E„) 15, « 17'-"- "■» 18>-- 13-19 291. «-«•»•" 21''*'22" 23"'-24" 25. 28 jj je-io. is-16 'J RJB I lo-a-" ll"-»'l5' 18='" 19'-»-' 20"-"-«-«»' 22'» (last cl.) 23''"»-"' 24" (in part) »■=», II 1». RD I 4'8 (last cl.)

V (in part) 13' 14"-»' 28», II 2'"- " 5''- ' 8 (based in part on older materials) 12'»-'».' Additions of the latest editor, I 4"- » B""- "• "• '«• '» (the larger number) ll"" 15' (last ed.) 24" 30», II S* 5»- (last cL)"^'" 15« (in part) 2ff»-=«. • The Deuteronomic redactor of the Book of Judges omitted l>-2' 9. 17-21, perhaps also cb. 16 (see Sanson, p. 878>:V SAilUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, I. AND II. 385 Latest na.

l it ions, I2'-'»-«" 16'"" 17"-" lO""" 2110-18 003, II 14M, and the Appendix 21-24. iv. Analysis. — (a) I 1-15. — From the birth of Samuel to the rejection of Saul. (1) l'-4'(Eo). Early history of Samuel, including the liistory of'KIi and his house, and the announce- ment of its downfall. These chapters serve as an introduction to 4i-7l, and appear to l>e eimiewiial later than tliat section.

From their represen- tation (1) of Samuel and his office, and (2) of Israel's subjection to the I'hilistines, it is clear that they both belong to E, though probably to dillcrent strata. The Song of Hannah (2ili>) is undoubtedly a verj- late addition : (a) tjie Song is probably a triumphal ode composed on the occasion of some national suc- cess (w.*.

10) : (6) there is no special reference to the circum- stances of Hannah— the fact of its being attributed to her is due probably to a misconception of the motaphor employed in v.""; (c)a comparison with the LXX text of 2H"( = lleb. lasb) shows that the .Song was inserted at a different place in that version (see Driver on I S V^). Another insertion is 222i> (from and how that) ; it is out of place after tv.»>-", and is omitted by the LXX (note the use of Va-.l instead of VlK).

Tlie an- nouncement of the anonymous prophet (227-sa^ cannot also in its present form belong to the original narrative : (a) the text, especiallv of w.^isi (LXX omits v.3"> and a2»). Is in great dis- order and unintelligible ; (b) tlie establishment of the monarcliy Is presupposed v. 35 ; (c) v. 36 clearly dates from the period after Josiah's reformation, and presupposes the central sanctuary at Jerusalem (Oort, ThT xviii. p. 3u9f.); (rf) the 'faithful jiriest' of V.

85 is not Samuel, as we might exi>ect from ch. 3, but ^dok, who superseded Abiathar, the grandson of Eli, under Solomon (1 K 2*>). The passage, which has obviously been expanded by the Deuteronomic editor, probably foretold the destruction of Eli's house, and the succession of Samuel. (2) 4"'-7' (E). The defeat of Israel by the Philis- tines at Aphek and its results, viz. the death of Eli and the capture of the ark ; farther history of the ark and its restoration.

In these chapters, which form a closely connected whole. It Is noticeable (1) that the main interest centres in the history of the ark ; (2) that Samuel is never even mentioned ; (3) that the destruction of ttie house of Eli, which forms the real sequel to 1MI», is treated merely as a side issue of the defeat.

On these grounds it has been argued with some force that this section is independent of the chapters that precede; the latter were probably added with a view to supplementing the un- doubtedly old account of the fall of the house of Eli, and of the capture of the ark. The original beginning of the section (41'') is to be restored from the L.XX {wi iyuntiri y rait fi^ipan ixtiimn km'i rvtatipoi^aiTou it^^i^i/Xoi lit TeAl/xtfv itri 'Irpxr.

k); 4'^' 1^ (last clause) and 22 are rejected by most critics as redaction.^1 glosses. For the additions of the L.\X in 66 61, and its various rewlings in 6-6, see Driver, Heb. Text 0/ Sam, n. 47 f. : unless we accept the readings of the LXX, 6 (to the land) must be rejected as a gloss ; while 1"»- (from vrith the mice) 10- 17- is- (to villaoet) 10 Ui/ty thoiuand men) will likewise be later insertions. (3) 7'-" (Ej).

Samuel as judge ; the rout of the Philistines at Mizpah ; summary of Samuel's judicial activity. The position here occupied by Samuel Is that of m Judge (o:,?), in the sense In which that term is used In the pre- Deuteronomic Isook of Judges (2«-1631 ; see Moore, Judget, p. xxiif.)

At his command the people put away their strange gods,' and assemble for rejientance and fasting at Mizpah ; in answer to his prayers on their behalf, the Philistines are miracu- lously defeated ; and so complete is their defeat, that 'they came no more within the borders of Israel.' The section thus gives a similar representation of the position of Samuel and of Israel's political condition to that of the later {E.) of the two account of the choice of Saul as king (8.

IQi'" 1'2), to which it sencs as an introduction. To Ri^ is probably to be pssigned the chronological note {for it wat tO i/*?on») in v. 2, the name Eben- ezer In v.i'^, and the statement as to Samuel's jiuiicial work In V.16. Ebenezer, as we know from 41 61, was the scene not of Israel's victor>', but of its defeat. For the linguiHtic resem- blances to the rwlaction of Judges, see Driver, LOi"^ p. 177 f.

It seems probable that the present section has been inserted here In place of an earlier account ; for, as Driver points out (li. p. 174), 'the existing narrative does not explain (1) how the Philistines reached tlibeah(lu* et«.) and secured the ascendency implied (iai»'), or (2) how Shiloh suddenly disiiiipears from history, and the priesthood located there reappears shortly afterwttnis at Nob (ch. 22).

That some signal disaster befell Shiloh maybe Inferred with certainty from the allusion In Jer 714 2jm (cf. Ps 78«i). ' See art. SniMill. (4) 8-12. The twofold account of the circtim- •tances that led to the election of Saul as king. The older narrative of J (9i-10'»'»"'l'^i-ll"- ") describes how Saul, the sou of Kish, of the tribe of VOL. IV. — 2? Benjamin, in his search for his father's asses, is persuaded by his servant to consult a seer livinK in the district to which they had wandered.

The seer is none other than Samuel, who had previously been ivarned by Jehovah to expect the Benjaraite stranger ; and had been instructed to anoint him as kin";, that he might deliver Israel from the Pliilistines : ' For,' says Jehovah, ' I have seen the oppression of my people (LXX), because their cry has come unto me' {1)"").

On the foUowiii" day Samuel anoints Saul, and assures him of his Divine call by means of three signs : he further bids him do as occasion serves him after the fultilment of the signs ; for God is with him ( 10'). About a month later (ICF"''-^^), the town of Jabesh-gilead is besieged by Nahash the Ammonite, and mes- sengers are despatched ' unto all the borders of Israel ' to obtain assistance.

In the course of their journey they reach Gibeah in Benjamin, and there, as elsewhere, make known their errand. On learn- ing the sad plight of his countrymen, Saul is at once seized with the spirit of God, and promptly takes measures to relieve the besieged city. By meansof a forced march he surprises the Ammonites, and delivers Jabesh-gilead and is thereupon in- stalled as king at GUgal (11"). The narrative of E (Ej) (8.

lO""" 12) offers a very different explanation of the manner in which Saul became king. After the signal defeat of the Philis- tines, described in ch. 7, Samuel continues to judqe Israel in peace and quietness until com- pelled by old age to delegate his authority to his sons. But the latter prove unwortliy of their high ofiice, and the people therefore demand that a king should be set over them after the manner of the neighbouring nations.

The request is viewed with disfavour by Samuel, who cnaracterizes it as rebellion again.st Jehovah. At the bidding of Jehovah, however, he first sets before the people ' the manner of the king that shall reign over them ' (cii. 8), and then proceeds to carry out the election of a king by lot at Mizpah (10"""'). The account concludes with the farewell speech of Samuel, in w hicli he solemnly lays down his office, and hands over the reins of government to Saul (ch. 12).

The two narratives which are here combined are thus not only compute in tliemselves • and independent of one another, but also inuttially contradictor!

/, in the earlier narrative (1) Samuel is a seer living in a certain district, who is unknown to the rest of Israel ; (2) he is employed as the instrument of Jehovah's purpose on one occasion only ; after his interview with Saul everything is left to the working of the Divine spirit In the latter ; (y) Israel is oppressed by the Pliilistines, and cries to Jehovah for a deliverer (911); (4) the eatalilishment of the mon- archy is the means chosen by Jehovah for the deliverance of Uis f)eople ; Samuel's attitude towards it is merely that of an on- ooker.

In contrast to this representation \vo find in the later narrative (1) that Samuel is the jH(/;/e of all Israel, who rules over the people as the representative of Jehovah ; (2) that in accordance with this position he hands over the reins of govern- ment to the newly-elected king ; (3) that the exterjial condition of Israel is entirely favourable : the Philistines had been finally subdued by Samuel (ch.

7); (4) that the request for a king U regarded as an act of apostasy ; it is duo to the desire to bo like other nations, and is displeasing both to Jehovah and to Samuel. The redactor has made but little effort to reconcile these con- flicting accounts, but his hand may be traced in 102»-27» Mid llia-u, according to which the ceremony at iJilgal is represented as a renewal of Saul's former election at Jlizpah ; lu'-" »)" refer back to ch. 8, and place Saul once more at (Jilieah, while w.

Mb, • In the narrative of J It la noticeable that the name of the town In which Samuel the seer lived is never mentioned. It Is probable (so Budde, but see above, p. ll)8») that the name was omitted just because it was no( Ramali, the house of Samuel the Judge (7" etc.) Since also the identit » of Samuel with the seer is not made clear till O", It seems probable that the redactoi has omitted a notice which both Introduced Samuel and made known the name of his native town.

In E there U no account of the anointing of Saul (cf. 12^ 'his anointing'): this w«» probably omitted because of the already existing account In J (lOl). The narrative probably also contained some notice of the conllnuatlon of the choice of Saul as king after lO**, which was omitted by the redaotor in vlaw of 181^ ^. 386 SAMUEL, I. AND IL SAIMUEL, I. AND n. n. wifh their sequel in 11"-" are intended to explain why Saul te n^t reJocniled a! Vrng in ch. 11, and why it was necessary t« ?

«J«, the kingdom, liut the warriors • whose hearts t,ad had touched/ and f ho accompanied Saul '"'"VSr'tr- sTs o'( as a bodyguard, do not appear m ch 11. Afc'am, the sons oi wortlilessness' who refuse to aclinowledge '>»"'•'"'? ^V^, i^^! rSion a.-cording to the view ot the redactor, prevent hi -n from :^ uminTthe kiSgly office, "«/PP-^"|'T^^°3''" t^^T "sum^ thev can be threatened Willi death in ll'^- 1" . yet it is presum Ib?^ on their account that the election of Saul requires cofi, fe r '.'

i^h^ r L7Sre\t ^clol^^Tof s^oS i„ fV,„ «mo hand are 822b. gsb ' from his shoulders and upward ^e It ^"^tfl^yo. the people • (introduced frorn^^^^ ?etr,a:^KfTh?Utt;^^f seTwr^a?^i|s partly^^^^^^^ rpan Jo9 24) partly with the redaction of J^'^^'^^v ^^"/^^J' (^esp. JOS ''^^ f*'" ■'r^mfl^ i77f\ With this agrees the strong Rmlflf /;v«A(er u Sdm. p. 184 f.) That the narrative is, how- e"er pre Deutlronomic, £ showi(l)by themanner in «hich the expansion are to be found in 12» (t? cc« 12?'), v." (0= 3."

y^-~) tIU-C""?-"? nnc): to the Deuteronomic redactor must aJo'be ^iimpd'the' mention of Samuel by himself (12"), and toe men?KJf?t the invasion of Naha^h dS'^) '^„"'e motw^^or the demand for a king; this disagrees «'t''8«, and further oresucposes a knowle<ige of the earlier narrative («!• ID- Ane I^^itraritvbothin tan./^je and in point o/ ww between the ?a?

eohe°e two narratives (E) and the redaction of the Book of Judges h^ been already referred to, and shown to agree with the nrobable origin ot that narrative. Both works are pre- DeutMononac,3 interpret history from the point of view of HosS and toe prophets rather toan from that of Jeremiah and toeDeu?eronomist: the formula which is ^^Pf '^"y ,<= '.'^Sf ^ iatic of Judges (cf. Jg 12' 102-3 et«. is applied to Eli (4i»), and Tl moS form U, Samuel (7.

15), while the use of the word Mud^e' is entirely analogous to its sense in Judges, lurther, .1 M^^rpr/SdoM D xxiiif.)haa pointed out, 'Samuel's speech ^h 1?) wSco'u^in^a retrospect of toe neriod of toe judges Cl nj and solemn words of warning for t^ie futore under the n7wlv-ekSbliBhed kingdom, is precisely the conclusion which we de^ef^r the book of'toe Histories of the Judges correspond- in?

admirably to the parting discourse of Joshua (Jos -4) at tol cl^S the period o^f toe conquest' (so Graf, «wA. Bach p. 97l!Budde, D,?ver). We may thus, assume with considerable Drobability that these chapters or.gini.lly formed part of Es Estor^- of the Judges, and that they were afte™''r4« /■'M^ted by RJ E M forming a smtable introducl ion to toe history of the monarchy. (5) 13. 14 (J with the excei.tion of 13'^-'-.''-" (Jo) 14'-" (R°))- Saul's struggle with the Fhilis- tines.

These chapters describe the revolt of the Israelites under Saul against their Philistine oppressors. The signal for revo t is S^^^.^y Jonathan, who destroys the pillar (?) of the Philis- tines at Giheah (see Gibeahi ; the Philistines, who had doubtless heard of Saul's election as king, at once assemble their forces at AUchinash on the M. side of the Wftdy Suweinit over against Geba (see Geba and Gibeah).

Alarmed by the size of the Philistine army, the followers of Saul, who had re- treated to Gibeah, gradually melt awajr until only six hundred are left (13"»>) ; the Philistines in the meantime overrun the country in three directions. Jonathan once more takes the initiative, and by a bold stroke succeeds in overcoming the PhUistme garrison at Michmash (14'-»).

This success is at once followed by a general attack m which SaiU completes the rout of the Philistines Jonathan unwittingly disobeys the command of his father bv eating food, and is with difficulty rescued by the people from death. Apparently Saul was not in a position to foUow up his victory, but snfiered the Philistines to retreat to their own land (v«). The section concludes with the remark that there was sore war against the PhUistines aU the days of Saul."

These chaptere form the continuation of the earlier narrative (J)coTt^neS m 9i-10.».^n,-u.i.l», «h°»^"i h"" Sairi ^ned iut the object for which he wa3 appomted (918). That they do not form the immediate sequel of those chapters ie evident. J>om t™ description of Saul in ch. 9"^ we should not expect to find him described as the father ot a fuU-gro»;n warnor such M Jonattan is here represented to be, and, further, the introduo.

tion of Jonathan (iV^) is very, sudden, P;^"^,^"^; «;|[^ "'^ the redactor has omitted the intervening ""'^''7iP5T^^6U favour ot ch. 12), unless we suppose, with Kuenen (Viia.' ^ t>l), that he habere incorporated a still earher amount of Saul • fTll ?ta"r,'intrrr i^ eS^ariy^' Tate insertion J^. vteton's (£XX) here ascribed to Saul ^.«) are bo„owed^rom the similar summary of David's reign m 2 S 8 . »P»" ''°™ ™ campaign against Nahash (ch. 11) and »e»'°!

t '''^^^f-'^^'r,^ mT ^t\ Siml's reign was spent in constant warfare with tne &stiAe9 In TeviTwof RD the account of Sau s reip, flni hes here, and is followed by "lat of the history o David. The most probable view of toe account "'Saul s rejection pre served in 108 i37b-lt. is that of Budde and H. P Smith (Aamwl, n^V who regard it as a later addition inserted m the narra- &vro'7beforftoe union of J and E. ,9° '»? one hand the verses cannot belong to toe origmal narrative • '°/,(.l .

/'fj,^'*/,, SaysTo^) i-learly inconsistent with toe exhor^^^^^^^ ^s rtfrtt fVl^ Ji^chm^h^S'oi'be'^hl'^'thTt'ha^inlr. k?nc°e^tr;irn^iu3:,'w^r>?e^u^^^^^^ interrup?^toe connexion, and appear to be somewhat exagger- ated ; the text is very corrupt. (6) Ch. 15 (E). The rejection of Saul.

The new kin^ is bidden by Samuel to ex ermmate the Amalekites ; but he and the people spare Aeag tlie kin- and the best of the spoil, and Samuel is therefor''e commanded to announce to him the DMne sentence of rejection. The king e^deavof^ to minimize his fault, but in vain. The senteuce^ pronounced, and Samuel himself slays the Amale- kite king. The chapter Clearly .o™sth^«,uelo«J^Jf^^ in presenting his account of Saul 8 rejecnon. k» serpent to the prophetic 'e^son (Jer .

^i »^) ^hich^he vnsnesro ?-^si^^t&;;«^r^|^« consonant with toe actual '^cls (note the tneorei genuineness of his •»<^"'."fhe brS beWeen Samuel and f^ld^'s^E')" The r'e'teSelo toe^Lotntfng'ot Saul by (Budde s E,). t, Jl tZi\<4> rinlwcUir and cannot be ad- Samuel U Pfh^bly due to ^ 'f JJ'^ \°b „„ acquainted duced aa proving that toe writer oi cu. i" •— « with 91 etc (6) I 16-11 8. Sanl and David.

Sr^L^SinfoY'^Vvfd^taru^l^l house of 11: fatrrNf- (a l^^e Jdition, , of David's introduction to Saul (16'*- ) , i!- » accouni of the same (17M8»). At first sight toe secUonl.^;J'. of which l^l^^ ^JJ^^^^l fragment won d seem likjljl^ to bejon^ t^^ .^ conipanson ot these '""' ,"=V „„„„„iin<r <a 17" Jesse haa only presupposed by the latter : ^^"'^"Sj^ikes it evident that /our sons, in 161« he has r,gM »«»'o.

1'^ TaW^g been anointed David's brotoers had no knowledge of his havrngwen (compare also toe later historv of David » Pe^'J" jehovahi n which Saul alone U regarded M "ie,»'°'';°^°V,„ jell-fi On toe otoer hand, the influence »< "".f ^PP^rirther. tilt (ct. n*^) as weU as Id the general pomt 01 view, ruruio ■ SAMUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, L AND XL 387 Incident to hardly consistent in itself ; Samuel's fear of Saul does not acree wiih the character of the latter as portrayed in ch.

15, and he so lar (ori^els it in v,<Jf. as to speak openly of his xuission ; similarly, the bocritlce, which he aJle^ed as the cause of his coming, is never per/omicd. The suggestion of Budde, that the section is an unskilful imitation of lOif-, inserted lor the purpose of showing tliat David also was Divinely conse- crated, is probably correct (cf. Wellh. IJist. p. 2C9f.); to the tiuuie h&nd is probably due the gloes IQ^^ (|xy^ "v^'^ which is uith the she^p).

In the earlier narrative of David's introduction to Saul Ike is described as a skilful musician, as a mighty man of valour, and a man of war, ami prudent in speech, and a comely pt^rson, and the Lord is witli him ' (10^'^) ; he is invited by Saul to his court that he may drive away the evil spirit from the Lord * by his playing, and is given tlie office of king's armour- bearer.

According to the later narrative, during one of the many engagements with the Phili>tines, the army of Israel is defied for forty days by the giant Goliath of Gath. Despite Saul's promises, no one will venture to engage the Philistine in single combat, until David, the youngest son of Jesse, a Bethlehemite, who had been sent from the sheep- fold on an errand to his brethren in the army, expresses his willingness to accept his challenge.

Saul at tirst seeks to dissuade him on the score of his youth, but afterwards gives his consent, and oti'ers the loan of his armour. After a vain attempt to wear the armour, David goes forth to the en- counter armed only with his shepherd's sling. It is not until the combat has been brouglit to a successful conclusion tliat Saul, on inquiry, ascer- tains the parentage of the youthful hero ; Jonathan, the king's son, is seized witli a great affection for the .

shepherd lad, while the king insists on his remaining at court (17^-18^). It is impossible to reconcile these two accountfl, which differ in every essential feature. In the earlier account David is of mature age, an experienced warrior, and a player of some renown ; he is brought to court on account of his musical skill, and is attached to isaul's person as his armour-bearer; lastly, Saul is well acquainted wiih his parentage.

In the later account David is but a shepherd lad, uuused to warlike weapons; he attracU Saul's attention by his bravery in meeting Goliath ; Saul does not learn his name and parentage until after the duel. The phenomenon is the same as that which confronta us in chs. 7-12.

litre ttJE has attempted to harmonize the two narratives by ITl^^^Cnow David went to and fro from Saul'), which does not agree with lCl-*f- (according to which David receives a pennanent otlice at court), nor with IT^'t (which describes him oh living at Bethlehem with hie father). It is, however, noticeable that in the LXX (B) 1712 si. 88b. 41. 48b. WBa_ia8« are omitted. Wellhausen formerly held that thisshorter text was the more original, and this \-iewis still maintained by Cornill, Stade, W.

R. Smith, and H. P. Smith ; but most critics agree ' that the translators — or more probably, perhaps, the »cribe of the Heb. MS used by them — omitted tne verses in question from harmonistic motives, withoiit, however, entirely securing the end desired ' (Driver, lUh. Text of Samuel, p. 116 ; similarly Wellhausen and Cl»c>7ie). Thus, according to 17^, I>avid is still but a youth (not tlie full-grown warrior of 16J8), while w.*ff.

describe him as a shepherd lad, unacquainted with the use of armour (as opposed to le^ib). Further, It is incon* ceivable that discrepancies such as those described above should have been introduced into the text after the union of J and E, nor do the style and language of tbe sections omitted by the LXX support a late date.

The shorter, simpler account of David's introduction to Saul given in J (10i*-23) is obviously more in accordance with the actual facts; it forms a fitting sequel to 14^^^ and aptly illus- trates the statement ' that whenever Saul saw any mighty man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him.'

The account pre- served in E seems to be derived rather from popular tradition than from actual historj- ; for we learn from 2 H 21' that no( David but Elhanan slew 'Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.' Later tradition, therefore, has tranwferred the exploit of the warrior to his royal master; the rea/ling o( 1 Ch 20 is clearly due to a barmonizcr (see Driver, Samuel, p. 272). (2) 18»-» (J and E combined).

David's life at Saul's court, and Saul's growing jealousy of him. It is clear that in this section also we have two accounts oom- bined, though it is not easy to distinguish the various parts. The Darr»tive as a whole seems drawn from the older source, • Bv its omissions B removes the difficulties caused by (1) Divid'B residence In Bethlehem, and (2) Saul's IgnotftDoe of David's name and parentage.

and forms the continuation of \^^ David ts here represented OS a well-known warrior and leader, and not as the vouthhd hero of l?^"-. The song (v.7) was probably treated by both sources as the inunediale caui^e of Saul's jealousy, but, whereas the second intro<iiiction in v.iia (ifAen David returned from tM «iati.'

/Afer 0/ f A* /'Ai/iJTfin^) connects it with the Goliath incident, we require some further exjiloit as the occasion of tlie song in the older narrative ; probably the first introduction in v.> (as they came) is a fra^nuent of this notice. Vv.a-n^ the evil epiril from God, connects these verses with 161-*''- ; but w.is-16 and W.1719 must be assigned to the later narrative. In w. 15-18 we have a parallel account to that of v.fi (belonging to the older narrative), while vv.

17-19 clearly refer bock to 17"-^, according to which Saul was bound to receive David into his family: this is ignored by the older narrative, \t.203o^ which knows notjhing of David's betrothal to Merab (cf. v.'M, where David seems to regard an alliance with the royal family as beyond the bounds of possibility).

Further, since the later narrative must have contained an account of David's marriage with Michal, it is probable that the redactor has treated his sources more freely than usual, and omitted part of E's narrative ; V.21I) is obWou.sly an attempt on bis part to harmonize the two accounts of David's betrotiie! The LXX (B) makes considerable omissions in this chapter also, \\z. w.6.6».sb.io. Ii.i2b.l7.ly. 2lb.2tib.

'iijb, and the majority of critics accept this shorter version as representing the original t«xt (Wellh., Kuenen, Driver). As Driver {Notes on Sam. p. 120 f.) points out, *the sequence of events is clearer; and the gradual growth of Saul's enmity towards David is distinctly marked ' (cf. vv. ^'^ 15- '^) ; further, the section then forms a con. nected whole, and nearly all the additional passages in the SIT admit of satisfactory explanation.

The fact, however, that throughout this portion of the Books of Samuel we are con- fronted with two accounts of the same incidents, makes it more Erobable that the LXX omissions here, as in ch. 17, are due to a armonizer; further, we may argue (with Budde) that it is inconsistent to reject the (unsuccessful) recension of the LX.\ in ch. 17, and to adopt its more successful attempt in ch. 18. (For a fuller statement see David). (3) 19 (E). 20 (J).

Outbreak of Saul's hostUity towards David ; David's llijrht. Later account of Jonatlian's intervention on behalf of his friend (lli'"'); the spear-tlirowing (w.^-'*) ; witli the assistance of his wife Michal, David escapes from his house (vv."^") ; David's fliglit to Kainah (vv.

^^") ; earlier account of Jona- than's intervention (SO"^), These two chapters consist of several short sections, in which are set forth various incidents illustrating Saul's enmity towards David 00 the one hand, and on the other the affection displayed towards him by Jonathan and Michal. The redactor haa apparently expanded the account of E in 19- S- 7, which are in- consistent in themselves, and are clearly influenced by the fuller ac;ount of J in ch. 20. Vv.

8-lO jrive E'a account of the spear- throwing, which differs but little from that of J in ISior. ; vv.iii7have been rejected by Wellhausen, Stade, and Cornill on the ground o( internal improbability, but the passage both in language and tone bears all the marks of E, and forms a suitable continuation of what precedes (for another view see H. P. Smith, Samuel, p. 178 f.) Vv.is^^-i, which offer a second explanation of the proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets?

are rejected by nearly all critics oa a late interpolation, similar to that in W-^^. The grounds for this view are. brietly, (1) that an entirely different and, as it would seem, more genuine account has been already given in lO^Of. ; (2) that David would mostnatnr ally flee southwards to Nob (c(. 21i). and not to Ramah in the north ; (S) according to 1683 a further meeting between Saul and Samuel is excluded.

(1) is decisive against these verses belonging to the earlier narrative, while (2) and (3) equally exclude E as their source, though the position occupied by Samuel, as well as tbe place (Kamah), seem to argue for that narrative; the words 'from Naioth in Ramah ' (20i») naturally form part of the preceding account. Ch. 20 describes at length tne attempt made by Jonathan to reconcile his father to David, and the means by which ho informed the latter of the failure of his efforts.

The section, which is obviously old and historical. Is probably a duplicate of 191-7, by which it has been displaced ; for (1) the situation is the same as that of lO^f-, and (2) David would not require further nroof of Saul's hostility after the unmistakable evidence of 19ilf-. These dilliculties, it is true, admit to a certain extent of explanation (cf. Driver, LOT^yt.

180), but the recurrence of duplicate accounts throughout 1 Samuel renders It jirobable that we have here a further ex- ample of the same phenomenon. The text is evidently in great disorder, and the passage has Erobably been considirably expanded by the redactor. Well- ausen is no doubt right in regarding the sign of the arrow ns part of the original narrative. This sign, however, would exclude any meeting or conversation between David and Jonathan. Hence we must regard vv.

-o-2 (t^j y^,^ ri'er) as rer I actional. Further, vv.nn interrupt the main couive of the narrative, and reverse the relative i>oititionB of Jonathan and David, the latter being reganled as the undoubted successor ol Saul ; they are prolmblv therefore to be assigned to the redoctoi (Budde and Klttcl ascribe all w.^i7 to the same hand). (4) 21 (E). 22 (J). David flees to Nob, where he if received by Ahimelech, who gives him tbe shew* 388 SAMUEL, I. AND U.

SA3IUEL, L AND IL bread, and the sword of Goliath (SO'). [David flees to Achish, king of Gath, vvj-]. David takes refuse in the stronghold {read nTixr? at v.) of AduTlara, whence he sends his parents to Moab (2'2^*) ; massacre of the priests at Nob ; escape of Abiathar (228-'-^). With the exception of 211M8, the two chapters seem to connect quite naturally. But a closer examination makes it plain that the sequel (ch. 22) of the incident narrated in Sl^iO iwlongrs to a different source.

(1) Does' the Eklomite is differ- enti)' described in 22"; (2) in ch. 22 emphasis is laid on the fact that Ahimelech had ' inquired of God ' on behalf of David (vMf-) ; 21 If ignores this fact, and lays more stress on the sacred char- acter of the bread piven to Da\id and his followers. Of the two accounts the earlier is that contained in 22*^23.

The later account, of which only part is given in 21-9, doubtless con- tained some record of the massacre of the priests at Nob; probably Budde is right in regarding 2219, which interrupts the connexion, as part of this later account. To the redactor may be assigned 22i0'> ^Goliath's sword) and and a sword ' in v.l^. The section 21l'^i5 interrupts the main narrative, and presupposes IflilS and 1018-24 (Wellh., Budde); like those pas- sages, it must be regarded as a late insertion.

Probably it waa designed to take the place of ch. 27 f., and was afterwards retamed alongside of it (Kuenen, Budde) ; to the same band we must also assign 22^ (the prophet Gad, cf. 2 S 24iiX (5) 23-27 (J 23i->*» 26. 27 ; E 23W-24'" 25). David as an ontlaw. David delivers Keilah from the Philistines ; then, warned by the oracle, leaves the city before it is besiejxed by Saul (23^-") ; he then takes refuge in the wilderness of Ziph, where he is visited by Jonathan {w."

-^^) ; the Ziphites inform Saul of his whereabouts, and the latter seeks to capture liim (w.^^, '^); tidings of a Philistine invasion give David a temporary respite from Saul (vv.^"'*^), who on his return continues the pursuit, and on this occasion falls into David's hands. David, however, spares the king's life, and, in the dialogue that follows, the latter admits that David is more rigliteous than he is (ch. 24).

The incident of Nabal, the wealthy sheepo^vne^ of Carmel (ch, 25), separates the two accounts of the sparing of Saul's life by David; for it is generally admitted that ch. 20 merely gives another version of the same oc- currence which is narrated in 23^'*. As a last resource, David enters the service of Achish, king of Gath, by whom he is assi^ed Ziklag as a residence : tnence he makes a series of raids against the tribes dwelling in the Negeb of Judah, etc. (ch. 27).

The agreement between the two stories narrated in 23i- 1-^ 24 and ch. 26 in regard to (1) Saul's pursuit of David in the wilderness ; (2) the sparing of Saul's life ; and (3) the dialogue that ensues, is so great that we can only regard them as different versions of the same incident The variations only affect the details, and are such as might easily have arisen in two independent narratives. Moreover, as Driver {LOT^ p. 181) points out, if the occasion of ch.

26 was a different one from that of 231^-, it is singular that it contains no allusion, od either David's part or Saul's, to David's having spared Saul's life before.' Of the two accounts the earlier and more original Is on* doubtedly that contained in ch. 26 (Kuenen, Wellh., Driver, Stade, H. P. Smith, Lohr). The arguments m favour of this view are clearly stated by Lbhr (Sam. p. xlv) as follows:^!)

the detailed information supplied as to (a) David's companions (26^, contrast David and his men, 24^f-), and (M Saul and his camp (26'>-7); (2) the manner in which Saul falls into David's hands : and more especially the old religious conception underl>ing 2619. To these we may add (3) the shorter and more genuine reply of Saul (2621- 26), which appears in a more expanded form in 2417-^.

Budde, however, who is followed by Comill, Cheyne, and Kittel, solely on the ground of tin' guistic evidence, contends for the later origin of ch. 26 ; but the expressions cited by him are not sufficiently characteristic to outweigh the arguments given above ; further, he ignores the characteristic npTnp (2613, cf. On 2*1 W^; see Ldhr, Sam. p. xlv ; H. P. Smith, Sam. p. 230). The first section of ch. 23 (w.iiJ) carries on 22" and belongs to the earlier narrative. V.

fl is ob%'iou8ly out of place a^fter v.a, and is probably a gloss designed to introduce v.^^, while the first question in v.^f is repeated by error from v. I'. V.i« properly forms the commencement of ch. 26 (or, accord- jig to the view of Budde, etc., of 23i9f). Vv.Ub-i8 (the inter- view between Jonathan and David) are clearly a redactional Insertion, similar to 2011-17. 40-42*.

To the redactor must also be assigned 23id^(* in thewoodttn the bill of Hachilah, which ts CD the south <h the desert'), which Is Inconsistent with v.^, and the phrase 24i6 (and Saul $aid, Is this my $on David f\ added from 261^ for harmonistic purposes. 23"-ia-2S, which have no parallel m the earlier narrative (ch. 26X contain a local tradition explaining the ori^n of the nama Sela-hammahlekoth (prob. = 'The rock of divisions').

The order of 24-7 is apparently at fault ; and Gaupp, followed by Comill and Budde, would rearrange the verses as follows : 4ft. a. 7ft. 4b. 6. 7b, Possibly the disorder has arisen by inten^ola tion (H. P. Smith, p. 217 f.) and we should omit vv.4i'-*nthe incident of the skirt). 24^3 is omitted by Wellh. and Budde as a gloss : the latter also regards w.30-22ft as due to the redactor.

The notice of the death and burial of Samuel (251*) jg clearly a redactional insertion borrowed from 28^-' ; it is out of place here. The rest of the chapter connects naturally with 23"-^, and fills up the interval of time required by that verse : it is prob- able, therefore, that the earlier narrative also contained some account of the incident narrated in 2'S^-^. The present position of ch. 25 is doubtless due to the desire to separate the two accounts ^2318-23 24. 20).

2528-31 have probably been expanded by the writer from the point of view of his later knowledge. 2"! David's decision to take refuge with tlie Philistines fol- lows quite naturally after ch. 26, and the whole chapter clearly belongs to the earUer narrative with 23l-l'*» 25. 26 : with this agrees its silence as regards any previous visit of David to Gath (2110-15), and the oracle of 225. (6) 28 (E). 29. 30 (J).

The Philistines prepare for battle with Israel (28^- ^) ; Saul being unable to obtain a Di\'ine oracle, seeks out a woman with a familiar spirit at Endor, who conjures up Samuel (28^'^) ; in spite of the confidence expressed by Achish, the other Philistine leaders mistrust David's loyalty, and insist on his dismissal (29^"").

On his return to Ziklag, David finds that his city has been sacked by the Amalekites ; he hastens in pursuit, and recovers all that the Amalekites had taken : the rest of the booty is equally divided among his men, part being sent as a present to * the elders of Judah ' (ch. 30). 281- 2 carry on the narrative of ch. 27, which is continued in chs. 29 and 30. 283-^ are usually regarded as out of place.

According to 28- the Philistines are already at Shunem (in the plain of Jezreel) ; but in 29^ they are assembled at Aphek in the Sharon valley, and only advance to Jezreel in vM ; similarly the Israelites in 291 are encamped by the spring which is in Jezreel, and presumably only fall back on Gilboa before the advance of the Philistines ; whereas in 28 they are encamped at Gil boa. Budde (who is followed as regards the order by Driver) solves the difficulty by placing 2S325 after chs. 29. 30.

He further assigns the incident to the same source (J) as the rest of the section, arguing (1) that Samuel is here represented aa a seer (9lf), and not aa a judge or prophet ; (2) that the general content of the passage agree with tne earlier representation, and (3) that it has many points of contact with ch. 14 : the undoubted reference in w.iv-ifl (to Philistine*) to ch. 16 he re- gards as a redactional insertion.

Buddes theory, however, fails to give any reason for the present order of these chapters, which admits of a perfectly simple explanation, if we assign 'JS'^^ftto the Later narrative. In that case the historical introduction in 28* will be parallet to and independent of the similar notices in 281-2 29111, and the section as a whole will form the sequel to ch. 15 (Wellh., H. P. Smith). On this view we might retain w.i7-ifc (with H. P.

Smith), but they are more probably to be regarded as a redactional expansion, suggested oy v.ifl, which point hack to 1623N-28 (gee Ldhr, p. xlix). As in the case of ch. 15 (Saul's war of extermination against the Amalekites), a genuine historical incident has been utilized for the purpose of mculcating a moral lesson from the prophetic standpoint. (7) I 31-11 1 (J. except II l^"*- "•"). Death of Saul. The defeat of Israel on Mt. Gilboa and the death of Saul and his three sons (31"').

The Philistines carry off the bodies of Saul and hia eons to Beth-shan, whence they are removed by the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead (vv. *-). The news of the death of Saul and Jonathaa is con- veyed to Da%'id at Ziklag by a fugitive Amalekite, who describes how he slew Saul (2 S V'^% David fasts till evening, and then orders the execution of the Amalekite because he had slain ' the Lord's anointed' (w.""") The lament of David over Saul and Jonathan (w."-^).

These chapters contain a double account of the death of Saul. The earlier narrative (J) describes how Saul in despair commits suicide after his armour-bearer has refused to slav nim (I 31-11 1): in the later narrative ^E) a wandering Amalekit slays him at his request while be is suffering from cramp (or giddiness), though unwounded (II l^-ld).

It has been conjeo tured by those who regard the two chapters as belonging t4 the same Bource, that the account of the Amalekite Is untrue ; SAMUEL, L AND IL SAMUEL, L AND IL 389 F, but this conflict with the whole narrative of lO-", which con- veys no hint of such bein^ the case. It is probable, as Budde Infers from 41*^, that David himself slew the fufntive who brought him the tidings of Saul's death.

This latter passage (4W) knows nothing of the reason assigned for the execution of the mesiicnger in 1^1^, viz. the fact that he hod laid hands on •the Lord's anointed.' Ch. 31 has been excerpted, with slight variations, by the compiler of Chronicles (1 Cb W), who has in part preserved a lurer text (see Driver, yotes on Sam, p. 176 f.) Budde regards _1 18 as a redactional insertion, introducing the later narrative ; vv.

ll->^ belong probably to the earlier narrative; they are out of place in their present context. n 117.vf7 the lament of David is avowediv taken from the Book of Jashar (so Jos lO'^-H, 1 K 812' (LXX)), but there is no reason to doubt David's authorship (on the text see Driver, A<X», p. IbOf.) (8) 2-4 (J). The straggle beWeen the house of Saul and the house of Darid.

David is anointed king of Judah at Hebron (2'-'') : he thanks the men of Jabesh-gUead for their kindly action in recovering the bodies of Saul and his sons, and at the same time informs them of his coronation (vv.*-'). Meantime Ishbaal, the sole remaining son of Saul, is set on tlie throne of Israel at Mahanaira by Abner, the captain of the host (vv.

»-") : then follows the encounter be- tween the troops of Joab and Abner at Gibeon, which results in the defeat of the men of Israel ; in his flight Abner is pursued by Asahel, Joab's brother, wliom he slays ; Asahel's death puts an end to the pursuit (vv. ', '*). The downfall of the house of Saul is caused by the rupture between Ishbaal and Abner : the latter makes a league witli David, to whom he restores his wife Michal ; and he further promises to bring all Israel unto him.

Abner, however, is treacherously slain by Joab in revenge for tlie death of Asaliel, and is mourned by David and all the people (ch. 3). The assassina- tion of Ishbaal, and the execution of his murderers (ch. 4). These chapters continue the earlier narrative of I 31 and U 1'-. the conclusion of which is probably lost. 210» (to two |/«ar«)H ( = 6) are obviously insertions; they interrupt the narrative, and are doubtless part of the chronological scheme of the Deuteronomic editor.

3'^ (a notice of David's family at Hebron) are out of place, and belong properly after S*: v. is continued by v.i''-, v.6» concealing the insertion. V.30 is omittfd by all critics as a later inter])olation. 4 is certainly inter)" lated: probably v.4i> should be placed after 93(WeUh., Budde). (9) 5'-8" (J, except ch. 7 (E)). David as king of all Israel. After the death of Ishbaal, David is acknow- ledged as king by all the tribes of Israel &'').

He captures the Jebusite city Jerusalem ; takes up his residence there, and fortifies it C"'"). Hiram, king of Tyre, aids him in building his palace ("• '-). [Notice of David's family (""")].

The I'hilistines hear that David has been iinointcd king over Israel, and imiiieciiatcly attack liim, but are twice defeated (17-iu) 'I'lm removal of the ark from Baale-judah ( = Kiriath-jearim) to Jerusalem is checked by the untoward death of Uzzah : the ark is therefore left at the house of Obedcdom (O'"'").

After an inter- val of three uonths it is brought up to the city of David in solemn procession, in which David takes part: his action is derided by Michal, who is therefore cnrsed with barrenness C'^). David proposes to build a house for Jehovah, but is informed by Nathan that this honour is reserved for his son (7'""). David's prayer (vv. "■'■). A summary of the wars waged by Daviil (8'"') ; his judicial activity (v.") ; and a list of his olUcers (vv.i«-'«).

It is obvious that the war with the Philistines (.',1" ">) follows lnime<Iiatcly after vv.i 3, which conUiin u twofold introdurtion, viz. vv 1-2 andv.3. The inter\'ening suctions (vv.-i") are clearly mifrjilaccd : w.4.» (cf. 1 K 2l') are omitted by the Chronicler, and are premature : vv.o-» the account of the capture of Jerusalem is undoubtedly old and genuine, but the text is unfortvinately very corrupt ; Budde would place it after 6 : w. n.

la probably oelong to the latter part of David's reign, if thov are not an addition from 1 K 6 (see S. A. Cook, AJSL xvL t, p. 161) : vv.in« should be placed like 8»» afUr »i. It is prob- able that the account given in w.i7-25 should be supplemented by the detailssupplied in 2115-2! 23^ (see below). 'That vv.ir'a do not connect with vv.-i6 is shown by the different use of the term ' the hold ' (.Tilimn) in w." and 17 : the use of this term here ond in 231 supports S. A.

Cook's theory (AJSL p. 164 f.^, that David's encounter with the Philistines preceded the inci- dents in chs. 2-4, and belong to the period 'when he had no army (S'n) or host (N3S), as chs. 8 and 10, but was accompanied only by his " men " or " servonts " ' (521 2116- 17. i.""). gl^ accord- ing to Budde, must have introduced some warlike incident, and he therefore prefixes it to 66-12 ; the rest of the chanter is old and genuine, though possibly it has been expanded in parts. Ch.

7 is admittedly later than chs. 6 and 6, with which it is clearly connected : the section, it is true, dispLiys certain re- semblances both in thought and expression to iJcutcronomy, but these are not strongly pronounced ; and from the nature of its contents the chapter would easily lend itself to theocratic expansions. Kuenen assigns the chapter to a post- Deuteronomic source on the ground of vv.li»-13. 22.23. 24 ; but 11* is omitted by the Chronicler (1 Ch 171); v.

13 is certainly due to the Deutero. nomic editor, and vv.22-24^ from their general character, may well be an expansion. Probably, therefore, Budde is right in assigning the chapter to £. Ch. 8 forms the concluding survey to the history of David (cf. 1 S 14fi-51 at the end of the history of Saul) : in its present form the chapt** represents the work of the Deuteronomic editor, who seems, however, to have made use of the older sources. The wars are first noticed: with the Philistines (v.

l), with the Moabites (v.2), with the Aranixans and their allies (vv.3.8); then follows an account of the homa^je paid by the king of Hamath (w.9-10); [the spoil dedicated by David to Jehovah (w.n. 12)]; the subjugation of Edoni (RV Syria) ^y^,,13.U), The notices of David's family at Hebron (3**) and at Jerusalem (513-16) should be inserted here (Wellh-, Budde): Budde would also insert 54-6 (RD). The chapter concludes with an account of David's administration (v.

i5), and a list of his officers (vv. it>-i'). A fuller account of the two campaigns against the Aramseans Is presented in ch. 10, which has been condensed and slightly altered by RD in w.3-8 : he has also inserted vv.l- 10 here, transferring them from the end of ch. 10 (see below), to which VV.13 and 14 properly belong (cf. the similar conclusion '^ and i-ib). Vv.ll-12 are probably a late insertion. It is remarkable that in ch.

10 the victories over the Aram»ans form but two episodes in the war with Ammon ; yet this war is ignored in ch. 8, and in its stead (v.2) the subjugation of Moab is described. This fact is not mentioned elsewhere, and seems inconsistent with I 223f- : it is far from improbable, therefore, that Moab has been substituted for Ammon in S2 (Budde). (c) II 9-20 (J) [and 1 K 1. 2]. Life at David's court, or the history of the succession to David's throne.

The events narrated in these chapters are closely connected with, and mutually dependent on, one another : they are further distinguished by unity of plan and conception. The story of Meribbaal (ch. 9) explains the action of Ziba(lU'-*) and the speech of the former (19'"-'»): lO'-lli with 12=«-»' explain how David became acquainted with Bath- sheba, and how he compassed the death of Uriah, while tlie whole section chs.

10-12 forms the neces- sary introduction to the final choice of David's successor in 1 K 1. 2. The narrative throughout, by its lifelike touches and its minutoiiess of detail, as well as by its bright and flowing style, betrays its early origin, ana must have been composed soon after the events which it describes. (1) 9'"". David on inquiry learns of the exist- ence of Meribbaal (Mephibosiif.

tii), the lame son of Jonathan : for Jonathan's sake he deals kindly with his son, and retains him at court ; Saul s estates are restored to his grandson, and Ziba, Saul's servant, appointed to look after them. Budde would place ch. 24 and 211 1' before this chapter, on the ground that the incident narrated in '.ill'- is presupposed in ch. 9 and 107'- 192<*, and that the census (ch. 24) would naturally take place soon after David's accession.

It is dilRcult, how- ever, on this theor)', to explain the present position of 21il« and 24. and, as Wellhausen has pointed out. the popular and legendary character of these chapters is very different from that of chs. 9-20 (for a fuller discussion of this point see on ihs. 21- 24). More probable is Buddo's view, that 44i> should be placed after v.*. (2) 10-12.

Owing to the insult oflercd to his ambassadors, war breaks out between David and Ammon : the latter call in the Aramwans to their aid, and prepare to defend their capital. Joab, with the pick of the troops, attacks and dcfeaW the AJamajaus, while the rest of the army undei 390 SAilUEL, I. AND II. SAMUEL, L AND II. Abisliai successfully engage the Ammonites (10'"").

Once more the Aramaeans, under Hadadezer, assemble against Israel, but are a},'ain defeated, this time by David himself : Joab is then sent to besiege the Ammonite capit.al (lO^-ll' ; see Rab- BAH). David remains at Jerusalem, where he commits adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of his warriors.

After a vain attempt to conceal the sin, he sends a letter to Joab instructing him to bring about the death of Uriah : his orders are carried out, and David then marries Bathsheba, who bears him a son (cli. 11). The prophet Nathan awakens David to a sense of his guilt by means of a parable, and announces the Divine punishment: the child of Bathsheba dies despite David's penitence ; but another son (Solomon) is born (12''^).

Meantime the siege of Kabbah has been drawing to a close, and David in person commands the final assault : the chapter ends with an account of the spoil, and of the punishment inflicted on the inhabitants Except in the speeches of Nathan, which have probably been expanded, the narrative appears to have been presented in its original form ; after ll'-^ we must restore the lontjer text of the LXX (see Driver, Text of Sam, p. 224) in accordance with w.

19-21 ; 1210-12 are probably due to the Deuteronomic editor, who regarded all the misfortunes of David's bouse as resulting from his great sin, while the phrase, ' the house of the Lord,' in V.20, seeuis an anachronism. With regard to the relation of 101-111 and 122S-31 to ch.

8, it is noticeable that (1) according to lO^f- the Ammonites hire the services of the Aramaeans of Beth- rehob and Zobah, the king of Maacah, and the men of 'lob : in 83- ■* the Ammonites are not mentioned, and there is only an obscure notice of a victory over the Aramaeans: (2) in 83 Hadadezer of Beth-rehob (for son of Jifhob) is mentioned by name as leader of the Aramaeans : in lOif- his name is given so abruptly (V.

16) that he must, as Budde conjectures, have been mentioned earlier in the original narrative ; (3) both accounts describe a second campaign : in S^ the Ar.amaeans of Damascus, in HH6 those * that were beyond the River' came to the assist- ance of their countrymen.

Budde conjectures verj' plausibly that when the detailed account lOlf- was appended, the editor attemjited to make the two narrutives dissimilar : to this end he omitted the name of Hadadezer in 10*^, and substituted Damascus for ' beyond the River ' in 8^. By these means he was able to transfer the notices of Ton's homage (8^- lO) and of the Edomite war (813- 14) from the end of ch. 10 to their present position, (3) 1.3-20. The rebellion of Absalom, its cause and cllects.

Amnon, David's lirstborn, and pre- sumably his successor, is murdered by command of Absalom for the violation of his half-sister Tamar : Absalom takes refuge with his maternal grandfather the king of Geshur (ch. 13). Joab, by the help of the wise woman of 'Tekoa, induces the king to consent to Absalom's return : the latter in his turn coerces Joab into bringing about a meet- ing between himself and the king, which results in the reconciliation of father and son (ch. 14).

Absalom now schemes to win the people to his side, and thus secure the throne, and hnally sets up the standard of revolt at Hebron. David at once flees eastward from Jerusalem, accompanied by his bodyguard and Ittai the Giltite : he sends back Zadolv and Abiathar with the ark to the capital, and arranges that tidings should be brought to him by their two sons : he further persuades Hushai to return, that he may defeat the counsel of Ahithophel (ch. 15).

In his flight David learns from Ziba of the disafTection of Meribbaal, and suliniits to the insults of Shimei the Benjamite (IG'"'^). Meantime Absalom, following the advice of Ahithophel, takes possession of his father's harem (16''''^). The same adviser further counsels the immediate pursuit of Daviil, but Absalom de- clares in favour of the waitinj' policy advised by Hushai (17''").

The news of his decision is con- veyed to David by the two sons of tlie priests, at the risk of their lives : he at once withdraws across Jordan, and is met at Mahanaim by rich Gileadites wit ham pic supplies for his army (vv. "■-"■'). Absalom, who hau already crossed the Jordan, is confronted at Mahanaim by David's army under Joa\), Abishai, and Ittai.

In the battle that ensues David's forcei are completely victorious : Absalom in his flight is slain by order of Joab, in direct disobedience to David's command (18'"') : then follows a graphic description of the manner in which the news was conveyed to David ( vv. '"^).

The death of Absalom E lunges David into profound grief, from which e is only with great difticulty aroused by Joab : public opinion and the politic message of David to the men of J uilah are the chief factors in bringing about the king's return (19'"'*). At the passage of the Jordan Shimei asks for pardon and is forgiven ; Meribbaal explains how he had been slandered by Ziba ; and, lastly, the aged Barzillai refuses the king's invitation to himself, but asks his favour for his son Chimham (vv.'

*"^^). The men of Israel are envious of the favour shown to the men of Judah, and a quarrel breaks out (vv.'"'"'") In consequence of this dispute Sheba the Bichrite stirs up Israel to revolt against David. Amasa, the newly- appointed commander, faUs to muster the men of Judah quickly enough, and Abishai (or, perhaps, Joab, see art. JOAli in vol. ii. p. G59 note) is sent w ith all the available troops to stamp out the rebellion.

Amasa meets the royal forces oy the way, and is treacherously slain by Joab : the two brothers then pursue Sheba northwards to Abel of Beth- maacah, where he is slain, and his head handed over to Joab : the chapter concludes with a repeti- tion of the list of officers given in S"*'- (ch. 20). In this section there are but few passages whose origin haa been called in question by the critics : lyi'^'' (to apparelled) is probably a misplaced gloss (Wellh.) to v.

ia ; it interrupts the connexion between vv.i7 and !«> ; at the end of the chapter the right order of the verses is clearly ^^^- 37a. ySb. sy^ si» being due to the scribe. 142»j is rejected by most as a later addition ; Budde omits all w. 25-27. 1524 appears to have been worked over by a Deuteronomic redactor : and all the Levites with him' is certainly due to him, while the phrase *and Abiathar went up' is out of place ; Abiathar must originally have been mentioned alongside of Zadok (cf. v.

29) ; the textual difficulty in v. 27 may also be due to the same cause (Budde reads, 'See, do thou and Abiathar return': Wellh. 'unto [Zadok] the high priest, do thou return,' etc.ji ISi**** (for he vaid to reineinbraiice) conflicts with 1427, and must be rejected as an interpolation, unless w-ith Budde we omit 1427. Lastly, 2023-28 are repeated with some variations from 816f-, or more probably (see H. P. Smith, Sam. p. a27f.) are original here, and were borrowed by the compiler of ch.

8 for his concluding panegyric. It seems very probable (as Budde suggests) that the author of ch. 8 omitted the following chapters (9-20X because, from his point of view, the family history which they contained did not redound to David's credit, and that they were afterwards restored by a later editor. The unity of chs. &-"20 (see above) has been admitted by nearly all commentators and critics (Kuenen, Wellhausen, Driver, Budde, Cornill, Kittel, Lbhr, etc.), with the exception of Thenius (Coinm.

^ p. xiii), who rejected ch. 9 (the incident of Meribbaal) and IQl-lll 1'226-31 (the Ammonite war) as later redactional additions to the history of David : but, aa we have shown above, these sections are necessary to and presupposed by the following narrative. This theory, however, has been revived, in a different form, by S. A. Cook in his analysis of 2 Samuel (AJSL (Heln-aica), p. 15.1 f.) According to the latter"* view, ch.

9 is related to 1 S 20i5f-, and is therefore to bo ascribed to an Ephraimite source ; while ' the story of David't sin with Bathsheba and the birth of Solomon (112-1226) has been inserted in the account of a war against Rabbath-ammon of which it was originally independent.' He further argues that this war with Amnion should follow, and not piecede, the events recorded in chs.

13-20, chiefly on the ground that David's flight to and hospitable reception at Mahanaim • are impos- sible after the sanguinarj- war recorded (lOlf-) ; and pl.aces it at the end of David's reign. Absalom's rebellion, he contends, was probably confined to Judah (see Sayce, Early llist. of ths Hebrews, p. 429 f.)

, — the leading men (Amasa and Ahithophel) were both Judayins, and the centre of revolt was at Hebron, the old Judaean capital,— and followed shortly after David had settled in Jerusalem : in like manner the extent of Sheba's revolt, which was really limited to the Bichrites (201* LXX), has been exaggerated so as to include all Israel, and then appended to Absalom's rebellion.

As the result of his investigation Cook concludes: *(1) that the union of Judah and Israel under one king did not occur at any early date in David's reign, and (2) that the narratives in 2 Samuel which presuppose any close re- •Cook ingeniously emends 1727 'and ShobI the son of Nahash' (B'rij'p '^Pi) to 'and Nahash, etc., brought' (1K!3;i C'rtj), thus supplying (according to his view of the chronology) a motive for David's embassy in lun-.

SAXAAS SANCTIFICATION 391 ttittonshtp between Judiib and Israel (or Bcnjaintn) previous to thiR union are due to a redactor (HJE ?), and, in several cases at li-ast. seem to be derived from an Kphralinite source.' Tlie evidence, however, on wbicU these conclusions are based is obtained in many eases by a very subjective treatuieut of the text, an<l cannot be said to outweij;h the (general impression conveyed by chs. 1*^20 as a whole.

It is probable that t'ook is rinht in certain cases (especially in the story ol" Ahithopliel lij*'-i r^) in tracing the dirticnlties 'of the narrative Ut the com- bination of two sources ; but he certainly goes too far when he condemns all the interviews recorded, viz. those with Zibn, Meribbaal, bhimei, and Uarzillai, as the work of the redactor. (d) 21-24. The Appendix. 'i'hese four chapters contain a number of hetero- peneoiis fragments, viz.

: (ai the famine in Israel fxpiiited by the death of the sons of .Saul at the liands of the Uibeonites (21'-'-'); (6) a series of exploits asivinst the Philistines (21'*, ); (c) David's llyuin of Triumph after tlie defeat of his enemies (ch. 22 = I's la) ; {tl) David's ' Last Words' (2:3'-") ; (e) further exploits against the Philistines, and list of David's lieroes (23'^«') ; (/) David's census of the people, and its result (cb. 24). These chapters interrupt the main narrative of chs.

9-20, whicli IS continued in 1 K l-'J, and must therefore have been inserted in their present position alYcr the division of the Books of Samuel a!id Kings. It is notieeable that (/) is closely related In style and manner to («) : '24' clearly continues '21", while ln.th' narnitives have a .similar conclusion (21t'> ■24^'). The two narratives were apparently first separated by (/*) and (c), the contents of which are very similar, and between these again were inserted the two INalins chs.

22 and 2.S'-'. The incident narrated in 21"- evidently belongs to the begin- ning of Davlil's reign, atrd seems to be alluded to by Shitnei (Hi"- 8) and .\leribbiuil (1.|28), but is entirely ignored by ch. 1. fh. 24 is very similar to 21t-'. <(f which it is clearly the sequel: in each case the Divine wrath is kindled against the people owing to the action vf the king, and they are punished with a plague, vv.'"

and '' (David's repentance and his prayer) are out of place, and mav linve been inserted later: Hudde arranges the verses as follows: t''. Ub. IS. 13b. Ilk. Vim. iie. 14. u. lea. 17. 140^ lie (see above) assigns both sections to .1, and places them belore ch. 9 : on his view ch. 24 should precede 21'', and ho therefore omits 24'* as a Deuteronomic gloss ; 21-'' ho assigns to tiu- mlactor, and rejects 21' as a bite insertion caused by the ilis[ilaceinent of the passage.

He suggests that the gloomy nature t f tiieir content.s caused the sections to be removed l)y the comniler, and that they were atterwiirds added by the etlilor. The character of these and of the other sections is, however, very different from that of chs. 9-20. with which they exhibit no atiinity : hence, though '21'-'* and ch. 24 undoubtedly conljiln old traditions, we can only conjecture that they were adiled by a later hand after the completion of the main narra- tive.

2i'4-23 and 2Ji-^ likewise contain olil material, ami belong to the early period of David's reign (see 5""-^): possibly they may be derived from the register of the ' reconler,' as Driver suggests iLOT' pn, !><), IsT). Budde, who regards them as part iff the original narrative, places them after 'fi'^: his trans- liosltlon of 2:il3-l^* to the end of the chapter Is prolmbly correct. The two I'sulms chs.

22 (= I's IS) and 'lH'-' (David's 'Last Words') arc atlmittediy later additions to the book. The Da- vidic authorship of ch.22 has been maintained by Kwald, Hitzlg, etc., but the Internal evidence points to a later author. Tlio * Ijist Words' of David are obviously out of place ; the majority of cHtics agree that they are the work of a later hand : the text is in ]»arts very corrupt. LiTKnATt;RR. — For the text seeThenius. />/> lificher Samtteh (in Krj/. Fathi. //r/)ii/fc.),>ls4;i.

sis7:J, '(LohrllMis; Wellhausen, T^rtil. HuLhtr Sinn. 1-.71 ; Driver, /Mi. Text itf Sum. ISIIO; Klostermann, I>U ftnrtter Sum. it.der Ki'tuifjey^n K',tf. h'omm.), \^^1; Kelt, Die Bitchfv Sitm.* Is7.%; II. P. Smith,' .^r»(»c/ (In Iittfrnal. I'rit. I^(nnin.\ lsui»; Peters, Reitriinf e. Tevt- ii. Lilfriirkritikdfr ItucJifr ±Sitm. 18it9. For the critical analysis see esperiallv Wellhausen, Camp. 1889, pp. 2:iH-260 ; Kuenen, Ilint.Krit. 'Khilrituug{\^9»). l.li.np. )7-l'i2 ; Mudde. Itiflittr H. ,^im.

1S90. pp. Iii7 2"n, and S/lOT\iii. ; Driver, /.OT" (1S97), pji. 172-iH.'>; i:oridll, Xlnclir./. A: WiHHrnnch. n.k. LfOtti, IHS'i, !• ll:itT., Kmiig„li. •<liirl. Iss7, [.. 2,'.ir., XATW, ISSIO. p. 9(1 If.. Khilfilii}i:i ill A T; 1n9() ; Klllel, .^A', lh92. p, 44 IT., Genrli.iler Ihl.r.iir 1 1~92». il. li. 22 ff. (Krig. tr.) vol. ii. p. 22 IT. ; Chevne, hr roiil .•il Hil ij i:f rrilicimn ,\i\>,\-Vlf>\ Slndc, ^I7M'<S'9,1. 19711.; l.'iir, \'i>rh,'mfrktiiiyfii in Mr4l ed. of Thenills'/ 'of/(wj.

(see above); S. A. Cook, AJSI.{ = llehr,iica), 1900, p. I4,')f. ; II. A. Wliltc, art. David In present work. J. F. STKNNINO. _ SANAAS (H Zafii. A Saniaj ; AV Annaas. 1 Ks '"i-^i. — The sons of Sana.Ts returned from cajitivity under Zerubbal)el to the number of ,3:!:!0 (BJCUtl). In Kzr 2^, Ncli T's they are called the children of .Sfiiaali. In Neh :!■' tlie name has the article Uassenaali. The numbers given are 30;30 (Ezr. ), •i'.m (Xeh.) "Copi/rlaU, 1902, 6*