Page:EB1911 - Volume 24.djvu/136

Rh represents a situation which belongs to (a) rather than to the state of chaos represented in (b); it describes how the newly-elected king proved his worth (cf. x. 27, xi. 12 seq.). The compiler has used a story in which Saul is a private individual of Gibeah, whither the messengers came in the course of their mission (xi. 4 seq.). This valuable narrative is of quite distinct origin. Further, Samuel’s speech includes himself among the past judges (xii. II, cf. .vii.), and refers to an Ammonite invasion (v. 12). The latter finds no place in the present history, although the local story of Jephthah’s deliverance of Gilead (Judg. xi.) has been treated as the occasion of a general Ammonite oppression, which leads to an Israelite gathering, also at Mizpah (Judg. x. 7, 9, 17). For other evidence of compositeness in this section, see A. Lods, Etudes de théologie (Paris, 1901), pp. 259-284, and below, § 6.

Saul.—Saul’s reign is introduced in xiii. 1 where a blank has been left for his age at accession (some MSS. insert “thirty”); the duration of his reign is also textually uncertain. The formula is parallel to that in 2 Sam. ii. 10 seq., v. 4 seq., and frequently in the Book of Kings, with the

additional feature that the age at accession, there usually confined to the Judaean kings, is here given for the Israelite Saul and his son Ishbosheth (i.e. Ishbaal) The summary in xiv. 47 sqq. is evidently by an admirer; it is immediately followed by a reference to the continuous Philistine warfare (v. 52, contrast vii. 13) which forms an introduction to the life of David. This summary gives a picture of Saul’s ability and position which differs so markedly from the subsequent more extensive narratives of David’s history that its genuineness has sometimes been questioned; nevertheless it is substantiated by the old poem quoted from the Book of Jashar in 2 Sam. i. 19-27, and a fundamental divergence in the traditions may be assumed. Similarly in 2 Sam. ii-10a, the length of Ishbaal’s reign conflicts with the history of David (ii. 11 and iv. 1–v. 3), and the reorganization of (north) Israel with the aid of Abner does not accord with other traditions which represent David as the deliverer of (all?) Israel from the Philistine yoke (iii. 18, xix. 9). But ii 8-10a, in common with 1 Sam. xiii. 1, xiv. 47-51 (cf. also the introduction in 1 Sam. vii. 2 and the conclusion vii. 15-17), are of a literary character different from the detailed narratives; the redactional or annalistic style is noticeable, and they contain features characteristic of the annals which form the framework of Kings. In Kings the Israelite and Judaean records are kept carefully separate and the independent standpoint of each is at once obvious. Here, however, much complication arises from the combination of traditions of distinct origin: independent records of Saul having been revised or supplemented by writers whose interest lay in David. Little old tradition of Saul is preserved. The disastrous overthrow of Israel in the north (xxxi.) flnds its explanation in an interview with the dead Samuel (xxviii. 3-25, here a famous prophet), where the Israelite catastrophe is foreshadowed, and Saul learns that he has lost the favour of Yahweh, and that his kingdom will pass to David (vv. 16-19). Allusion is made to his campaign against Amalek (mentioned in xiv. 48 apparently as an active enemy), the story of which contains another denunciation and again a reference to the coming supremacy of David (xv. 28). This peculiar treatment of Saul’s history by writers of the prophetical school (cf. Ahab in 1 Kings xx. 35-43) has been adapted to the life of David, and the Amalekite war (1 Sam. xv.) is now the prelude to the anointing of the youth of Bethlehem by Samuel (xvi. 1 sqq.). Yet another accotmt of Saul’s rejection is found in xiii. 8-14, even before his defeat of the Philistines, and Saul is warned of the impending change (cf. v. 13 seq. with 2 Sam. vii. 11-16). But the incident was evidently unknown to the author of chap. xv., and in this subordination of the history of Saul to that of David, in the reshaping of writings by specifically Judaean hands, we have a preliminary clue to the literary growth of the book.

The unambiguous allusions in xiii. 13 seq., xv 26-28, and the anointing of David by Samuel in xvi. are ignored in the narratives of the relations between David and Saul, of whose first meeting two

contradictory accounts are given (contrast xvi. 21 sqq. and xvii. 55 sqq.). The independent stories of David place him in the south of Judah, an outlaw with a large following, or a vassal of the Philistines; and his raids upon south Judaean clans are treated as attacks upon Saul’s kingdom (xxvii. 10-12). But the earlier stages are extremely confused. Two very similar narratives describe Saul’s pursuit of David in the Judaean desert (xxiv. xxvi.) The main points are Saul’s confession and his recognition that David would prevail (xxvi. 21-25); the latter is more emphatic when he foresees that David will gain the kingdom of Israel and he adjures him to spare his seed (xxiv. 20-22). This last feature is prominent in xxiii. 15-18 (the prelude to xxiv.), where a passage is inserted to describe the covenant between David and Saul’s son Jonathan. The account of David’s flight is equally intricate. The tradition that David slew Goliath, brought his head to Jerusalem, and deposited his sword in Nob (xvii., cf. xxi. 9, xxii. 10) is incompatible with the simpler notice in 2 Sam. xxi. 19 (1 Chron. xx. 5 seeks to avoid the discrepancy); and even if the name Goliath be a later addition to the story of some great exploit (A. R. S. Kennedy, Sam., pp. 122, 149), or a descriptive title (W. E. Barnes, Chron., p. 104), it is surely difficult, on historical grounds, to reconcile David’s recurring fights with the Philistines with his subsequent escape from Saul to Achish of Gath (xxvii.; already anticipated in xxi. 10-15); see further § 6. Saul’s jealousy, however, is in some way kindled, and there is already a hint at David’s succession (xviii. 8 sqq., Septuagint omits 10 seq.). The stories of Merab (xviii. 17-19) and Michal (vv. 20 sqq.) are duplicate, and a number of internal difficulties throughout are only partially removed in the shorter text of the Septuagint, In xx. David has realized Saul’s hatred; but Jonathan scarcely credits it, although in xix. 1-7 Saul had instructed his attendants to slay the youth and his son had effected a reconciliation. This is ignored also in xix. 8-10 (cf. xviii. 10 seq., xx. 31 sqq.), and again in vv. 11-17 where David is saved by Michal his wife (see xxv. 44), and in vv. 18-24 (David with Samuel, see § 1 end). Even in xx. the urgent preparations for flight are delayed in vv. 11-17, where Jonathan entreats David’s kindness for his descendants (see 2 Sam. ix. 1, below), and again in vv. 40-42, where the second meeting with a renewal of the covenant stultifies the preceding plans.

David.—All the stories of the relations between the founders of the respective monarchies are so closely interwoven that the disentanglement of distinct series of narratives is a task of the greatest difficulty. They reflect in varying forms the popular interest in David and are of the

greatest value in illustrating current traditions, thought and styles of literature. Apart from the more detailed and continuous history, there are miscellaneous passages in 2 Sam. v.-viii., with introduction (v. 1-3), and a concluding chapter rounding off his reign (viii.). A similar collection in xxi.–xxiv. severs the narratives in ix.–xx. from David’s death in 1 Kings i.–ii. Their contents range over all periods, from the Amalekite war (viii. 12, cf. 1 Sam. xxx.) to David’s “last words” (xxiii. 1, but see 1 Kings i. and ii. 1). In particular they narrate the capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites (v. 6-10) and other fights in that district as far as Gezer (vv. 17-25), the purchase of land from a Jebusite for the erection of an altar (xxiv.; see 1 Chron. xxi.–xxii. 1, 2 Chron. iii. 1), and the remarkable story of the pacification of the Gibeonites (xxi. 1-14). With the conflicts in v. are closely connected the exploits in xxi. 15 sqq., xxiii. 8 sqq., and the probability of some disarrangement is supported by the repetition of the list of officials in viii. 15-18 and xx. 23-26, which many scholars (after Budde) attribute to the later insertion of ix.-xx. 22. On this view, at an earlier stage the two groups v.–viii., xxi.–xxiv. were contiguous—though