cheenc03a.pdf

-,,
-
SAMUEL (BOOKS)
have come to be David's successor. He dwell$ by
preference on the more intimate affairs of the court, and
depicts the different characters with admirable skill.
Later insertions, however, are not altogether wanting.
Among there are certainly the nates upon the dress of
kings' daughters (13.80) and upon Abralom's beauty
(14z1,?), and the reference to the Levircr in 151,.
This reference, which is post~exilic, needs no expianation:
the other two notes owe their orisin to the
antiiu~rian interests of some reader, and &e, at the
earliest, exilic: cp 1426 (,the [Babylonian] king's
weight '). The account of Davi3s war against Hadarezei
(Hadadezer) in lOri-rgn ir alro liable to suspicion
(see Davlo, g 8[b]); and Schwaliy (ZATW12xsafl)
even reeards - the whole of 121.~~0.
~
.. includine " the . arable
of Nathan, as an addition (see JBDIDIAH. NATHAS).
Whether we accept the latter view or not, it ir beyond
doubt that 12768. the first clause of u. 9, and w. xo-12
were inserted at a later &tc. Thir is especially clear
in the care of 07,. ro-12, for there verses disagree with
the tenor of thr denunciation by which they are
follo*-ed, and are a uoiirinivm ex moriu.
Thir section also, as is shown by I K. lJ, has
undergone de~~teronomistic rwirion. In zS. 14-20,
indeed, it ir impossible to establish traca of such
redaction ; but the gradual amplification of the old
source5 can here be demonstrated with exceptional
clezmere. The connection hctween IS. 20 aud I K. 1
is, in the first instance, broken by the interpolatioll of
those old sections, zS. 211-rr (the vengeance of the
Gibeonire. on the house of Saul) and 25.24 (the
numbering of the people, the pestilence, the establishment
of the sanctuary on Oman's threshing floor).
Both are from the same a n and mav have been inrroduced
here even by a pre-deoteronomic editor. The
connection thus constituted (as. 9-20 211-~+ 24 I K.
If.) is again broken up by the introduction of the
andotes of the encounters of David and his wonhia
with the Philistines (2s. 21 XY*~), and the list of these
worthies 12S8-mi. , These mrtions were orobablv first
~
introduced into the book 'after it had &en d&teronomirricaily
edited. It is also advisable to assume
this for 221.~. -- - ia , oralm , erorerrive of the Messianic
faith of the port-exilic community. here introduced as a
song of David's), and for 231.7 (David's last words,
which were not introduced here till after the narrative
had been expanded by the addition of 21 15-n 23 8-39,
and. in point of fact, themselves interrupt this addition].
Thus four strata are observable in the narrative of
Samuel as it now stands. At the foundation lies a
,, Result of series of pre-exilic narratives relating
to the origin of the kingship, and its
ILnaYs,s,
earlier hirtorv. It is mssible that in
its oldest fo~m this series may have &ntnined pieces
which disappeared in later reuiiionr. In particular
there is some reason to conjecture that after IS. 71
there at one time stood an account of the downfall of
the sanctuary at Sbiloh. We have no means of determining
the date at which the narratives embodied in the
record became incorporated with the preexilic
part of the book. Eqluilly in the dark are we as
to whether the process of redaction involved in this led
to excisions of old material. Thir was certainly the
case when the dei~teronomistie revision was made ;
cp what has been said above on IS. 41-7 1. By means
of this last revirion Samuel wan brought into line with
the series of historical book which. in continuation of
the Pentateuch, describe the hirtorv of Irtael from the
conquest of Canaan onwards. It i; probable that more
than one hand had a share in this deuteronamistic
redaction. The dellteronomirtic portions are partly
edifying amplifications ( I S. 227-36 2 25.7). partly contexts
and subrtitnted passages intended to correct the
course of the hirtorv , ir , S. 7 8 10x7 ." fl 121. At the same
time the narrative was conformed to the chronological
system of the devteronomistie recension of the Book of
4179
SAMUEL (BOOKS)
Judger. The traces of this process are to bc found in
1s. 4xsb 277 zS.2.oa/. 54J. and its connection with
the work of the deuteronomist appears i.)r S. 72. If
6" (cp QL) has preserved the more original form of the
narrative in omitting IS. 13~. this kind of work must
hare continued much later. Regarding the additions
made to the text in the further course of its tmnimirrion.
we cannot
be sure whether they were
inwrted directly by some redactor or made their way io
from the margin. Some of these hare heen airendy
indicated. To the same class belong I S. 617 18n 89
2kIq .. rlrl .. 30s -. ~b 2 S. 3~ 416 r llsia and . perhaps . other
passger.
It has been already remarked that the exact date of
there additions often eludes os. At the same time there
is good pound for the belief that the poems (IS. 21-10
2% lZ7-& a3?/, 22 23~-~) and thow additions which
have the characteristics of Midrash were the latest
"
book in a form agreeing in all important points with
the recension that hr reached us in the Hebrew tevt
(see CHKONLCLESI. From the fact thnt Chronicler doer
~
not contain the or the last words of David (z S.
22 23 x.~) Budde concluder that these were not inserted
into Samuel till after the Chronicler's time. That is no
doubt wrsible ; but it is not to be proved by such an
arPmbnrum r si~lntio. We mnnot arguefrom the
presence of the psalm in I Ch. 1688 that the Chronicler
would not have passed over a D;lvidic psalm found in
his old source, for I Ch. 1688 is a later interpolation
into the Book of Chronicles. That the Chronicler was
acquainted with the prescnt division into Samuel and
Kings may be conjectured. Still, the fact that many
passage. occur with a better text in Chronicles shows
that the text of Samuel was not yet in the Chronicler's
time quite identical with ours.' That the text found
now in all Hebrew MSS has not ariren without eon-
~iderable distortion of the manuscript tradition appears
on comparing it with the text of 6 and in manj>aseo
if is only when this is done thnt the Hebrew text becomes
intelligible. Thir undeigned distortion of the text is
expl%ined by the fact that the Bookn of Samuel were
never used in the resular service of the synagogue.
Thcnius, Die Biiihrr Sam. dnllnrn21, 1861, I@! by Lbhr,
1898; Ki~fermmn, Dir Burher Snln. u. Kd"., 1887: Wellhausen
TBS, r871: Driver, TBS, 189:
8. Libntme. Budde: Heh. Text, cnr ed. with norcs,
Sn0.r. x8 +, Ewald, GVf!a!Pslqfl (~865):
@1332# (1866); K"h. Leh,l iw did?. Cesch. AT 1x3 fl
(~884); Kiirel in Kru. KS, Baditwan, 8 H. P. Smllh .Sax,.
(18w): Rudde. KHC(I~%): Navack f$(rpz).g On :ma1 rii
oi text, also Welthaueen in Bleek,!i! 106s (r878), and L?H,
.ngg, ~,~fl; stad., cvrizl?
OF BY~~C'S
critical
edlrlon in TSL 1895: Corntll m'elahlrtischer Bericht"b. d.
Enfstehungde~lrra&. ~oniithums'in~~~, 1885, p ria
continued in Koni~der8rr S6udirn l (r888) ljJ $:A&
logsf, +'id. (7892).?is:
~udd:. Ri. So. 167fl (189):
Kitte, revlev of Buddc in Th. Stud u. Knf., 1892, pp. +18;
xj~r. 2.,/:. nrirer ~nfrdiW. ~~~t-ch outline of