Lange Commentary - 1 Samuel

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 1 Samuel

(Show All Books)

Verse Commentaries:

THE BOOKS

of

SAMUEL

_________

by

Rev. Dr. CHR. FR. DAVID ERDMANN

general superintendent of the province of silesia, and professor of theology in the university of breslau

translated, enlarged and edited

by

Rev. C.H. TOY, D.D., LL.D.,

and

Rev. JOHN A. BROADUS, D.D., LL.D.,

professors in the theological seminary at louisville, ky.

VOL. V. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT:

CONTAINING THE FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF SAMUEL

PREFACE TO VOL. V. OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

____________

The Commentary on the two Books of Samuel was prepared in German by the Rev. Dr. Erdmann, General Superintendent of Silesia and Honor. Professor of Theology in the University of Breslau, and in English by the Rev. C. H. Toy, D. D., LL. D., and the Rev. John A. Broadus, D. D., LL. D., Professors in the Theological Seminary at Greenville, South Carolina.

Dr. Erdmann, in his Preface, dated Breslau, March 8, 1873, says:

‘In regard to the execution of the work in its several parts, I add the following remarks. In the translation, while I have tried to follow the ground-text closely, I have preserved as far as possible the tone and impress of Luther’s translation. On account of the admitted defectiveness of the Masoretic text of these books, it seemed to me better not to place the textual remarks and discussions, together with the various readings and emendations, under the text of the translation, but to insert them in the exegetical explanations. In the exegesis I have departed in one point from the form usual in this Bible-Work, namely, instead of explanations under each verse, I have given an exegesis that reproduces the content of the text in connected development, following the received division of verses. “Exegesis,” therefore, or “Scientific Exposition,” would have been a fitter heading for the section in question than “Exegetical Explanations.” In the next division, instead of the usual heading, “Dogmatic and Ethical Fundamental Thoughts,” I have chosen as a more appropriate designation for these prophetical-historical books: “Theocratic-historical and Biblical-Theological Comments;” for we have here to do with a new step in the historical development of the Theocracy in Israel, and with the wider unfolding of the religious-ethical truth which has its root in the advancing revelation of God. From this point of view of the history of revelation and the theocracy, the comments and remarks of this section are intended to serve as contributions to the hitherto too little cultivated science of the Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. In the homiletical section, while I have given my own words, I have rather cited the diverse witnesses of ancient and modern times, from whom I could derive any valuable material for fruitful application and parænetic use of the text on the basis of the preceding scientific exposition.

‘In every part of my work on this portion of the Old Testament history of the Kingdom of God, with its fund of religious-ethical revelation, I have been constantly reminded of and deeply impressed by a profound saying of Hamann, with which I here close: “Every biblical history is a prophecy, which is fulfilled through all the centuries and in the soul of every human being. Every history bears the image of man, a body, which is earth and ashes and nothing, the sensible letter; but also a soul, the breath of God, the life and the light, which shines in the dark, and cannot be comprehended by the darkness. The Spirit of God in His word reveals itself as the Self-sufficient in the form of a servant, in flesh, and dwells among us full of grace and truth.” ’

As regards the English edition, the work has been so divided that Dr. Toy prepared the Exegetical and Historical sections, and paid careful and minute attention to the Hebrew text; Dr. Broadus has reproduced the Homiletical and Practical portions, partly condensing and partly enlarging the original from English sources, especially from Bishop Hall’s Contemplations and Sermons, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, and Dr. W. Taylor’s Life of David.

PHILIP SCHAFF

New York, 42 Bible House, March 1, 1877.

THE

BOOKS OF SAMUEL

____________

INTRODUCTION

1. The Name

The title of these books is an indication not of their origin, but of their chief contents. Although it is only in the first book that the work of the Judge and Prophet Samuel is expressly related, and himself, with the divine mission which he had to fulfil for Saul and David, everywhere made to take precedence of them, yet the naming of both books after Samuel is justified by the fact that Samuel, by his conspicuous position, as it is set forth only in the first book in his judicial and prophetic office in the light of special divine call and guidance (he being not merely the close of the troubled period of the Judges, but also the foundational beginning of the divinely ordained kingly rule in Israel), thus towers far above the first two kings, so far as they were chosen and called through him, and points out and maintains for the Israelitish kingdom, which owes its origination and stability to him, its true theocratic basis and significance. Abarbanel remarks rightly (Prœf. in Libr. Sam. f. 74, in Carpzov, Introd. p. 212): “All the contents of both books may in a certain sense be referred to Samuel, even the deeds of Saul and David, because both, having been anointed by Samuel, were, so to speak, the work of his hands.” Keil also well says: “The naming of both these books, which in form and content are an inseparable whole, after Samuel is explained by the fact that Samuel not only by the anointing of Saul and David inaugurates the kingdom in Israel, but at the same time by his prophetic activity exerts so determining an influence on the spirit of Saul’s government as well as David’s, that this government also may be regarded as in a sort the continuation and completion of the reformation of the Israelitish theocracy begun by the prophet.” (Introduction to Prophetical Historical Books of O. T. [Clark’s Foreign Theol. Library], prefixed to Vol. IV. (Josh., Judg., Ruth), p. 4).

2. Division

In the Hebrew manuscripts and in the Jewish list of Old Testament books only one book of Samuel, ùְׁîåּàֵì , is given. Its division into two books under this name, as we find it in our printed texts of the Old Testament, was first introduced in the sixteenth century, by Daniel Bomberg, after the example of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and may be regarded as thus far appropriate, that the death of Saul, that epoch-making occurrence in the early history of the Israelitish kingdom, forms the close of the first book. Our Hebrew editions of the Bible follow the Seventy in dividing the Hebrew book of Samuel into two parts; they (the LXX.) did not, however, name these two books after Samuel, but included them with the two books of Kings, into which they in like manner divided the original one Hebrew book of Kings, îְìָëִéí ,under the common name “ Books of the Kingdoms,” âßâëïé âáóéëåéῶí . After the example of the Septuagint we find in the Greek Church-fathers and also in the Vulgate and the Latin Church-fathers, this division of the books of Samuel and Kings as one historical work into four books cited as the four âßâëïé âáóéëåéῶí , libri regum or regnorum. This way of combining, dividing, and naming, in which our “ Books of Samuel” are numbered as âáóéëåéῶí ðñþôç , äåõôÝñá “First, Second Kings ” (comp. Origen in Euseb. H. E. 6. 25, and Jerome, Prol. Gal.) corresponds certainly to the general contents of these four, or more precisely two, books, so far as it consists chiefly of the history of the kingdom in the Old Testament covenant-people, and appears as a connected whole in the continuous narrative from Samuel’s birth to the time of the Babylonian Exile.

3. Content

The content of the books of Samuel is in general the historical development of the Theocracy in the people of Israel from the end of the period of the Judges to near the end of the government of King David, and therefore embraces a space of nearly one hundred and twenty-five years, about 1140–1015 B. C. (Keil, Comm. on Sam., Introd. p. 2). The beginning of the first book introduces us into the end of the period of the Judges under the Highpriest Eli, narrating the history of the announcement, birth, childhood, and calling of Samuel (1 Samuel 1-3), and the troubled history of the people in the latter part of the misgovernment of Eli amid constant unfortunate conflicts with the Philistines (1 Samuel 4. sq.). Then follows the history of Israel under Samuel as the last Judge and Saul as the first king up to the death of Samuel (1 Samuel 25), and Saul (1 Samuel 31)——In the second book—whose original connection with the first is indicated not only formally by the fact that the masoretic appended remarks are placed only at the end of the second book, but also by the close connection between the historical contents of the two—the history of the government of David almost to its end, up to the punishment inflicted by God for the numbering of the people, forms the chief content, though its proper conclusion is found in the beginning of the first book of Kings, where David’s last sickness and death, and Solomon’s accession, are related. As on the one side the content of the books of Samuel goes over into the beginning of the books of Kings, so in the other direction it connects itself immediately with the history of the people of Israel in the book of Judges. The Old Testament history in its two factors—on the one hand the revelation of the living God to His chosen people, and on the other hand the thereby conditioned demeanor of the people towards its God in its general religious-ethical life—can be regarded only from the theocratic point of view, as the history of the kingdom of God in the people of Israel, and this history shows us in the course, and especially at the end of the period of the Judges, a deep decline of the Theocracy. The revelations of God’s saving power in the time of the Judges, always sporadic, became less and less frequent towards its end. The people were a long time in bondage under the dominion of the Philistines, and Samson’s twenty-years-judgeship could be described (Jdg_13:5) only as the beginning of the deliverance of Israel out of their hand. The internal political life was completely disintegrated, the sanctuary-service had perished, the priesthood was corrupted, idolatry widespread, godlessness and immorality had the upper hand. This deep decline is pictured in the beginning of the first book of Samuel, in immediate connection with the description given in the book of Judges, in the condition of the religious ethical life under the high-priesthood of Eli, and in the desecration of the priesthood wrought by the godlessness and wicked deeds of his two sons; and from it the theocracy was extricated by Samuel’s labors as Shophet (Judge) and Prophet, and under the guidance of God was led by this great Reformer into a new path of development. Without, under Samuel and the royal rule introduced by him, political freedom and independence of heathen powers (of the Philistines in the first place) was gradually achieved, and within, the internal theocratic covenant-relation between the people of Israel and their God was renewed and extended on the basis of the restored unity and order of political and national life by the union of the prophetic and royal offices. Looked at from this theocratic point of view, the books of Samuel have an epoch-making content.

From the three principal persons to whom this foundational historical development of the theocracy on its new course attaches itself, the contents of the books of Samuel divide themselves into three principal groups: 1) 1 Samuel 1-7 : The history of Samuel a restorer of the deep-sunken theocracy, and founder of the Israelitish kingdom. 2) 1 Samuel 8-31 : The history of Saul and his kingdom from the beginning of his government to his death 3) 2 Samuel 1-24 : The history of the government of David.

According to these three principal points of view, the contents divide themselves a follows:

FIRST PART

Samuel —1 Samuel 1-7

Samuel’s Life and Work as Judge and Prophet,

his aim being a reformation of the theocracy and the founding of the theocratical kingdom

First Division

Early life of Samuel, 1 Samuel 1-3

Sec. I. Samuel’s birth, in answer to prayer, 1Sa_1:1-20.

Sec. II. Samuel’s dedication,—restoration to the Lord, 1Sa_1:21-28.

Sec. III. His mother’s prayer over him, 1Sa_2:1-10.

Sec. IV. Samuel’s service before the Lord contrasted with the abominations of the degenerate priesthood in the house of Eli, 1Sa_2:11-26.

Sec. V. The prophecy of God’s punishment of Eli’s house, and of the calling of a faithful priest, 1Sa_2:27-36.

Sec. VI. Samuel’s call to be prophet alongside of the lack of prophecy in Israel, 1Sa_3:1-18.

Sec. VII. The beginning of his prophetical work, 1Sa_3:19 to 1Sa_4:1.

Second Division

Samuel’s prophetic-judicial work, 1Sa_4:1 to 1Sa_7:17

First Section.—Infliction of the punishment prophesied by Samuel on the house of Eli and on all Israel in the unfortunate battle with the Philistines, 1Sa_4:1 to 1Sa_7:1.

I. Israel’s double defeat and loss of the Ark, 1Sa_4:1-11.

II. The judgment on the house of Eli, 1Sa_4:12-22.

III. The Ark in the hands of the Philistines as a judgment on Israel (comp. 1Sa_4:22). 1Sa_5:1 to 1Sa_7:1.

1) Chastisement of the Philistines because they held the Ark, 1Sa_5:1-12.

2) Restoration of the Ark, 1Sa_6:1-11.

3) Reception and Settling of the Ark in Israel, 1Sa_6:12 to 1Sa_7:1.

Second Section.—Samuel’s Reformation of Israel, 1Sa_7:2-17.

I. Israel’s repentance and conversion through Samuel’s prophetic labors, 1Sa_7:2-6.

II. Israel’s victory over the Philistines under Samuel’s lead, 1Sa_7:7-14.

III. Summary view of Samuel’s work as Judge, 1Sa_7:15-17.

(Close of the period of the Judges).

____________

SECOND PART

Saul.—1 Samuel 8-31

First Division

Founding of the Israelitish kingdom under Saul’s rule, 1 Samuel 8-12

First Section.—The preparations, 1 Samuel 8, 9.

I. The occasion in the desire of the people for a king. Interview of the Elders with Samuel, 1 Samuel 8.

II. Samuel meets with Saul, and learns of his divine appointment to be king, 1 Samuel 9.

Second Section.—Saul’s induction into the royal office, 1 Samuel 10.

I. Saul anointed by Samuel, 1Sa_10:1.

II. The signs of divine confirmation, 1Sa_10:2-16.

III. The choice by lot, 1Sa_10:17-21.

IV. The installation and homage (but not of the whole people), 1Sa_10:22-27.

Third Section.—Establishment and general recognition of the kingdom under Saul, 1 Samuel 11, 12.

I. Saul’s first victory over the Ammonites, 1 Samuel 11.

II. Samuel’s last address, 1 Samuel 12.

Second Division

King Saul’s government up to his rejection, 1 Samuel 13-15

First Section.—The unfolding of his royal power in victorious battles for the salvation of Israel, 1 Samuel 13, 14.

I. Against the Philistines, 1Sa_13:1 to 1Sa_14:46.

II. Against the other enemies around about, especially Amalek, 1Sa_14:47-52.

Second Section.—The rejection of Saul for his disobedience in the war against Amalek, 1 Samuel 15.

Third Division

The decline of Saul’s kingdom, and choice of David to be king. The history of Saul from his rejection to his death, 1 Sam. 1 Samuel 16-31

First Section.—Early history of David, the Anointed of the Lord, 1 Samuel 16

I. David chosen and anointed as king by Samuel, 1Sa_16:1-13.

II. Darkening of Saul’s soul by an evil spirit, and David’s first appearance at the court of Saul as harper, 1Sa_16:14-23.

Second Section.—Saul’s new war with the Philistines, and David’s deed of deliverance, with its diverse consequences for him and for his relation to Saul, 1Sa_17:1 to 1Sa_18:30.

I. The Philistine host, and Goliath’s haughty challenge, 1Sa_17:1-11.

II. David and Goliath, 1Sa_17:12-54.

III. David at Saul’s court, his friendship with Jonathan; Saul’s hostile disposition towards him, and murderous attacks on his life, 1Sa_17:55 to 1Sa_18:30.

Third Section.—David fleeing before Saul, and his persecution by Saul, 1Sa_19:1 to 1Sa_27:12.

I. David’s flight from Saul’s attacks to Samuel to Rama and Naioth, 1 Samuel 19.

II. Jonathan’s faithful friendship, attested by repeated unsuccessful attempts to reconcile Saul with David, 1 Samuel 20.

III. David’s flight from Saul to the priest Ahimelech in Nob, and to the Philistine king Achish in Gath, 1 Samuel 21.

IV. David’s wandering as fugitive in Judah and Moab, and the murder of priests in Nob perpetrated by Saul, 1 Samuel 22.

V. David’s experience of God’s help and preservation in the battle against the Philistines, in his betrayal by the Ziphites, and when he was waylaid by Saul in the wilderness of Maon, 1 Samuel 23.

VI. David encounters Saul while the latter is laying snares for him, and nobly spares his life in a cave of the mountains of Engedi, 1 Samuel 24.

VII. Samuel’s death, and David’s march into the wilderness of Paran, with the history of Nabal and Abigail, 1 Samuel 25.

VIII. Narration of a second betrayal by the Ziphites, and second magnanimous sparing of Saul by David, 1 Samuel 26.

IX. David takes refuge from Saul at Ziklag in Philistia, 1 Samuel 27.

Fourth Section.—Saul perishes in the war against the Philistines, 1 Samuel 28-31.

I. Saul’s fear of the war with the Philistines, and his recourse to the witch, 1 Samuel 28. (Confirmation of his rejection, and announcement of his approaching end).

II. David’s march from the theatre of the Philistine war against Israel back to Philistia, 1 Samuel 29.

III. David’s victory over the Amalekites, who had plundered and burned Ziklag, 1 Samuel 30.

IV. Death of Saul and his sons in the battle with the Philistines, 1 Samuel 31.

____________

THIRD PART

David.—Second Book of Samuel

First Division

David king over Judah only, up to his acquisition of the general rule over all Israel, 2Sa_1:1 to 2Sa_5:5

First Section.—David after the death of Saul, (2Sa_1:1)—ch. 1.

I. The tidings of death, 2Sa_1:1-16.

II. The lament, 2Sa_1:17-27.

Second Section.—David, king of the tribe of Judah, is opposed by the house of Saul, 2Sa_2:1 to 2Sa_3:39.

I. David anointed king over Judah, and his abode at Hebron, 2Sa_2:1-7.

II. Ishbosheth, contrary to the divine arrangement, made king over all Israel by Abner, and continued struggle of the House of Saul and the adherents of Ishbosheth under Abner’s lead against David and his house, and his adherents, 2Sa_2:8 to 2Sa_3:6.

III. Abner breaks with Ishbosheth, leaves the house of Saul, and goes over to David, 2Sa_3:7-21.

IV. Murder of Abner by Joab, David’s General, 2Sa_3:22-39.

Third Section.—David gains sole authority over all Israel, 2Sa_4:1 to 2Sa_5:5.

I. Murder of Ishbosheth, 2Sa_4:1-8.

II. Punishment of the regicide by David, 2Sa_4:9-12.

III. David anointed king over all Israel, 2Sa_5:1-5.

Second Division

David’s royal rule over all Israel, 2Sa_5:5 to 2Sa_24:5

First Section.—David’s rule in its greatest splendor, 2Sa_5:5 to 2Sa_10:19.

I. Its glorious and firm establishment, 2Sa_5:5 to 2Sa_6:23.

1) The victory over the Jebusites—the citadel of Zion made the centre of the kingdom, 2Sa_5:6-12.

2) The victory over the Philistines, 2Sa_5:17-25.

3) Solemn transference of the Ark to Mount Zion, and establishment of a regular religious service, 2 Samuel 6.

II. Its divine consecration by the promise of the perpetual kingly rule of the Davidic House, 2 Samuel 7.

1) To David’s purpose, to build a house for the Lord, answers the divine promise, of which he becomes partaker by Nathan’s prophecy, that the Lord would build him a house, and after him (and not till then) his seed should build the Lord a house, 2Sa_7:1-16.

2) David’s answer to this divine declaration in a prayer, 2Sa_7:17-17.

III. The splendid development of David’s rule without and within, 2 Samuel 8-10.

1) Without by victories and conquests in battle against Israel’s foreign foes, 2Sa_8:1-14.

2) Within by the organization of the government of the kingdom (2Sa_8:15-18), and a noble display of royal grace towards Saul’s fallen House—Mephibosheth, 1 Samuel 9.

IV. Further victorious confirmation and elevation of the royal power to its zenith in the Ammonite-Syrian war, 1 Samuel 10.

1) The insult offered David by the king of the Ammonites, 2Sa_10:1-5.

2) Joab’s victory over the combined Ammonites and Syrians, 2Sa_10:6-14.

3) David’s victory over the Syrians, 2Sa_10:14-19.

Second Section. Its obscuration,2 Samuel 11-18.

I. Internal shock to David’s royal authority by the grievous sins of himself and his House, 2 Samuel 11-14.

1) David’s deep fall during the war against Rabbath-Ammon, 2 Samuel 11.

2) Nathan’s reproof and David’s repentance, 2 Samuel 12.

3) Shattering of the House and family of David by the wickedness of his sons Amnon and Absalom, 2 Samuel 13.

a. Amnon’s incest with Tamar, 2Sa_13:1-21.

b. Murder of Amnon by Absalom, 2Sa_13:22-23.

c. Absalom’s flight, 2Sa_13:34-39.

4) David’s weakness towards Joab and Absalom, 2 Samuel 14.

a. Joab’s cunning, and the woman of Tekoa, 2Sa_14:1-20.

b. Absalom’s return to Jerusalem brought about by Joab’s influence with David, 2Sa_14:21-28.

c. Absalom forces Joab by an injury to effect his reconciliation with David, 2Sa_14:29-33.

II. External disintegration of the royal authority up to its loss, 2 Samuel 15-18.

1) Absalom stirs up the people, and usurps the royal power, 2Sa_15:1-13.

2) David’s flight from Absalom, 2Sa_15:14-35.

3) David’s two encounters with disloyal persons, 2Sa_16:1-14.

a. With the lying Ziba, 2Sa_16:1-4.

b. With the reviling Shimei, 2Sa_16:5-14.

4) Absalom’s entry into Jerusalem and incestuous act after Ahithophel’s counsel, 2Sa_16:15-23.

5) Ahithophel’s evil counsel against David set aside by Hushai’s good counsel—his horrible end, 2Sa_17:1-23.

6) The civil war, 2Sa_17:24 to 2Sa_18:33.

a. David at Mahanaim, 2Sa_17:24-29.

b. The battle in the wilderness of Ephraim, 2Sa_18:1-8.

c. Murder of Absalom by Joab, 2Sa_18:9-18.

d. Tidings of joy and of sorrow—David’s lament over Absalom, 2Sa_18:19-30.

Third Section. The recovery of the royal authority, which is soon, however, again assailed by insurrection, 2 Samuel 19, 20.

I. The way paved for the restoration of David’s authority by Joab’s reproval of his unworthy grief over Absalom, 2Sa_19:1-8.

II. David arranges for his return by negotiations with the men of Judah, 2Sa_19:9-14.

III. David’s passage over the Jordan under the escort of the men of Judah, with three incidents, 2Sa_19:15-24.

1) Pardon of Shimei, 2Sa_19:16-23.

2) Mephibosheth’s excuse, 2Sa_19:24-24.

3) Barzillai’s greeting and blessing, 2Sa_19:31-40.

IV. Strife between Judah and Israel about bringing David back (2Sa_19:41-43), and occasioned by this,

V. Sheba’s insurrection and Israel’s defection—both subdued by Joab after Amasa was killed, 2Sa_20:1-22.

VI. Officers of David’s government after the restoration of his royal authority, 2Sa_20:23-26.

Third Division

Eclectic appendix to the conclusion of the history of David’s government, 2 Samuel 21-24

Sec. I. Three years’ famine on account of Saul’s crime against the Gibeonites, and expiation of this crime, 2Sa_21:1-14.

Sec. II. Victorious battles against the Philistines, 2Sa_21:15-15.

Sec. III. David’s song of thanksgiving, 2 Samuel 22.

Sec. IV. David’s last prophetic word, 2Sa_23:1-7.

Sec. V. David’s heroes, 2Sa_23:8-29.

Sec. VI. The divine visitation by pestilence on account of the numbering of the people, 24.

I. David’s sin in the numbering of the people, 2Sa_24:1-10.

II. The pestilence as punishment on the king and all the people, 2Sa_24:11-17.

III. David builds an altar to the Lord on the threshing-floor of Araunah, afterwards the site of the Temple, 2Sa_24:18-22.

[The following references to the Books of Samuel occur in the New Testament:

Mat_1:6 to 1 Samuel 16 and 2Sa_12:24. Mat_12:3-4; Mar_2:25-26; Luk_6:3-4 to 1Sa_21:1-6. Luk_1:32-33; Act_2:30 to 2Sa_7:12-16. Act_3:24 to the general history. Act_7:46 to 2Sa_7:1-2. Act_13:20-22 to 1 Samuel 9-15. Heb_1:5 to 2Sa_7:14. Mary’s song, Luk_1:46-55, founded on Hannah’s song,

1Sa_2:1-10. These are sufficient to show that the writers of the New Testament and our Lord recognized the canonical authority of these Books, which, however, has never been questioned.—Tr.]

§ 4. Character And Composition

In investigating the origin of the Books of Samuel, it will be necessary, first, to fix on their characteristic quality of form and content in its fundamental features, because it is only in this way that we can get firm ground for considering the sources, the time of composition, and the author of the books. As to their linguistic character, in the first place, it is agreed by all competent critics that the language is throughout the pure classic, and in general free from Aramaizing elements, the mark of a later, not classically pure style. While in the Books of Kings there is often an inclination to the Aramaic, in the books of Samuel there is as good as none of it (Bleek, Einl. i. A. T. [Introd. to O. T.], 1860, p. 358), “except those isolated cases which occur in all the books” (Naegelsbach, Bücher Samuelis, in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., Bd. XIII., p. 412, and Keil, Einl. in das A. T., 2 Aufl. p. 176 f [Introd. I. 247]). On the linguistic peculiarities of the Books of Samuel, compare what is said on the subject in Ewald’s Hist. of the People of Israel, 3d ed., I. 193 seq., and on the alleged Aramaisms, Haevernick, Einl. in das A. T. [Introd. to O. T.], I. i. p. 213 seq.

In the composition and style of the historical content of the books, the first thing that strikes us is that bits of poetry occur in them more frequently than in any other historical book. At the very beginning stands Hannah’s lofty song of praise, which exhibits not only the history of Samuel’s birth, with which it is connected, but the whole history of his life and work in the clear light of divine ordination and guidance (1Sa_2:1-10). The words taken from the people’s chant of victory about David (1Sa_17:6 sq.) show us why Saul’s heart is embittered against David into envy and jealousy. David’s lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (2Sa_1:17-27) exhibits the noble feeling which David constantly maintained for Saul under all the experiences of his hatred and enmity, but at the same time indicates the judgment to be passed on Saul from a theocratic point of view, in so far as bravery is its only subject, and it celebrates him as hero only. Reference is there made to an authority called “The Book of the Upright.” Other poetical pieces are David’s Lamentation over Abner (2Sa_3:33-34), his Psalm of Thanksgiving (2 Samuel 22), his Prayer after the reception of the great promise concerning the rule of his House (2Sa_7:18-29), and his last Psalm (2Sa_23:1-7).

According to Haevernick, these songs form, as they are interwoven into the historical work, the points of support, as it were, to which the history is attached (Einl. [Introd.] II. 1, p. 121). But a mere glance at the quantitative relation of these poetical elements of the content to the historical material shows us how unsatisfactory this view is. If we bear in mind the position that these songs occupy in reference to the history to which they relate, rather the reverse seems to be true—it forms the point of support for them. The songs are introduced into the place in the history where they, being themselves historical elements, fit, without being intended precisely to serve as vouchers for the history, as Hævernick supposes (ubi supra). Standing as lyrical accompaniment in organic connection with the historical narration, they affect the coloring of the whole by heightening the liveliness, freshness and vividness of the historical narrative.

And this is throughout the character of the narration, effort at completeness in the accounts of deeds and persons which are often finished out to the smallest minutiæ, an elaborateness and vividness in the presentation of the historical material, not found in other historical books (especially in the Books of Kings which only here and there make brief extracts from their extensive authorities), and such freshness and directness in the coloring of the narrative that we cannot resist the impression that we have here an immediate copy of the incidents related, and that the editor did not draw from any intermediate working up of the original authorities. The narrative has an easy, simple, attractive flow, without interruption by stereotyped phrases and references to authorities, while in the Books of Kings there is a tedious, ever-recurring apparatus of standing formulæ. Thenius says (Einl. zum Komment über die Bücher Sam. S. 16, 2 Aufl.): “For the rest, the older parts especially of the work belong to the finest historical productions of the Old Testament; they excel all others in copiousness; they enable us to form a distinct idea of the actors introduced; they commend themselves by a charming simplicity of style, and give us a high conception of the many-sided influence of the prophetic work.”

Haevernick rightly says, that from this characteristic of the book, it is itself almost the same as an original authority and chronicle (Introd. II. 1, p. 142). It therefore bears throughout the stamp of historical truth. By the simple and exact setting forth of the personages and their doings, by the characteristic sketches of their dispositions and characters, by the thorough description of historical antecedents and vivid and lively references to local relations and accidental circumstances, we are pointed to rich original authorities, that in an original and immediate way brought persons and events before the editor of the books, who was certainly too far removed from them in time to be able to give so living and detailed a portraiture from his own personal observation and experience. Keil’s remark, therefore—that, on account of the qualities above described, the historical narrative of the Books of Samuel may lay rightful claim to historical truth and fidelity not only in general, but also in special and particular—is quite correct, at least in respect to the first point [the general correctness]. We make this restriction here only in reference to those particulars of the narrative whose historical trustworthiness has been denied on the ground of incongruences, inconcinnities and contradictions supposed to be observed in them. To solve the questions thus arising we must look more closely at the literary character and the composition of the books, for these are inseparable from the question of their historical value.

In the first place, it is certain that our Books of Samuel in form and content have the marks of a production that sprang from a redaction of a manifold historical material, which stretched over a space of more than a hundred years, and existed in various parts and groups, having already somehow taken shape by written tradition, and that this redaction is to be referred to the literary hand, traces of which we see in the passages, 1Sa_9:9; 1Sa_27:6; 1Sa_17:12; 1Sa_17:14-15. Further, a glance at the content shows that the redactor of these books took pains to give them unity, to produce as well-arranged a historical narrative as possible. The narrative sets out with a sharply marked beginning in the latter part of the period of the Judges, shows in the relation of the history of Samuel, Saul and David everywhere a generally steady connection and advance, and also is not without a firm and strong conclusion, as we maintain, and shall endeavor to prove below, against the view that on account of the non-mention of the death of David, it has no proper conclusion. The author of our books has so combined and worked up the historical material that he had at command as to give them an internal unity of composition, and it is, as Bleek rightly says (ubi supra, p. 367), decidedly incorrect to restrict the author’s work (as has been done in part) to a mere stringing together and combination of earlier writings, that is, to regard it as an external compilation. Against this view comp. also De Wette, Einl. [Introd.] § 178. We shall see hereafter what points of view control the arrangement of the historical material, and condition the internal connection of its often seemingly loosely arranged parts. At present we only establish the fact, which is plain to an unprejudiced consideration of the external composition of the historical content, that the latter makes in the main the impression of a well-arranged unitary whole (see also Nægelsbach, ubi sup., p. 400), and from this generally incontestable ground we shall proceed to consider a number of special passages which have been adduced against and seem to oppose the unity and concinnity of the historical narration in respect to its form and content.

In this examination we shall find that a not inconsiderable number of contradictions and incongruences supposed to be found in our books and referred to the union of various traditions and authorities, do not exist, or at least that there is no necessity for accepting them so long as unforced, satisfactory explanations of seeming discrepancies or repetitions may be given. At the same time unprejudiced regard for truth requires us to recognize the fact that there are certainly some passages in which there is not strict congruence and concinnity, and that there are certain peculiarities of the narration, in consequence of which there is in minutiæ an entire failure to maintain the historical connection according to the chronological order. Nevertheless, the general unity of the narrative, grounded in controlling fundamental thoughts, and in the sequence of events, is not only not impaired by these individual instances, but becomes clearer the more plainly we see from what chief point of view the redactor arranges and groups the material. The contradictions which it has been attempted to discover in the Books of Samuel as signs of various mutually exclusive parts out of which they have been put together, are all collected and examined, or rather solved, by a thorough explanation of the passages, in De Wette, Einleit. [Introd.], § 179; Bleek, Einleit. [Introd.] p. 363; Thenius, ubi sup, Einl., pp. 9–11; Keil, Einl. [Introd.], § 52; Haevernick, Einl. §166; Naegelsbach, Herzog, R.-E., ubi sup., p. 403.

In the first book the statement in 1Sa_7:15-17 that Samuel was Judge over Israel as long as he lived, is said to conflict with 1Sa_8:1 sq. and 1Sa_12:2 sq., according to which he gave up his office to his sons. But when it is said in 1Sa_8:1 that Samuel made his sons judges over Israel, this is not saying that he himself gave up his office; rather this step of his is expressly referred to the fact that he was growing old. The application of the Elders of the people to him for a king (1Sa_8:4), and their reference to the evil conduct of his sons, shows that, while the latter held the judicial office, he was the highest judicial authority in the administration of the affairs of the whole nation. The passage 1Sa_12:2 sq. shows plainly that Samuel, while his sons were judges, filled his old office “unto this day.” His authority did not cease even under Saul; rather, knowing that he exercised his function in the name of the Lord, he asserted it with all the more emphasis against Saul, and Saul yielded to it without making against him the charge of unauthorized conduct.

There is no contradiction between 1Sa_8:5 and 1Sa_12:12, when in the first passage Samuel’s age and the evil conduct of his sons, and in the second the imminent danger of a crushing war with the Ammonites, is given as the occasion of the demand for a kingdom; for these two are inseparably connected. The people needed energetic and single guidance in its wars, and this it looked for not in the aging Samuel and his wicked sons, but in a man clothed with royal authority, under whose lead it might victoriously meet the kings of the heathen nations (comp. 1Sa_8:20). Besides, we must remember that Saul, though he was consecrated king over Israel by Samuel’s anointing, yet at first returned to his original calling (1Sa_11:5), and it was the attack of Nahash, the Ammonite king, that first aroused the people anew to a lively sense of their need of a royal leader, as is stated in 1Sa_12:12. And with this agrees the fact that, after the victory gained by Saul over the Ammonites by the power of the Spirit of God (1Sa_11:6), the whole people recognized him as their now freshly authenticated king, and in consequence of this victory regarded as a divine declaration of the kingdom, the latter was renewed by the three parties to it, the people, Saul, and Samuel (1Sa_11:12-15).

In 1Sa_7:13 we read: “So the Philistines were subdued, and they came no more into the coast of Israel, and the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel.” A discrepancy has been discovered between these words, according to which Samuel completely estopped the Philistines from returning, and 1Sa_9:16, where a king is promised the people as deliverer out of the hand of the Philistines, and 1Sa_10:5 and 1Sa_13:5 sq., especially 1Sa_13:19 sq. and 1Sa_17:1 sq., where there are express accounts of wars of the Philistines with Israel and of the oppression of the latter by the Philistine rule (Thenius and De Wette). But in fact no such discrepancy exists. It is by no means said in the first half of 1Sa_7:13 that the return of the Philistines was estopped fully, that is, for all time; it is said only that in this battle of Ebenezer they were “subdued or humbled.” When then it is added “they came no more into the coast of Israel,” that is, they did not repeat their incursions, we need not suppose that the narrator intended to say that the Philistines never again entered the territory of Israel so long as Samuel lived. On the contrary, the historical content is defined by the second half of 1Sa_7:13, “and the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel.” If “the hand of the Lord,” that is, His power and might, was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel, this involves the fact that, as long as Samuel lived, the Philistines were hostile to Israel and sought to subdue them, but God defended His people and gave them the victory over their enemies. “The hand of the Lord against the Philistines” supposes strife between Israel and the Philistines, occasioned by the incursions of the latter. What immediately precedes can therefore be understood only in a relative, not in an absolute sense of the Philistines’ not coming again into the border of Israel. Otherwise the supposed contradiction would exist in the two parts of 1Sa_7:13 itself. The decisive fact, however, in this question is that the words “all the days of Samuel” are to be connected not, as the alleged contradiction supposes, with the first half of 1Sa_7:13, but only with the second. It is not said “all the days of Samuel the Philistines did not return,” but “all the days of Samuel the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines.” The first statement declares, over against the reference to God’s power warding off the hostility of the Philistines, and in connection with Samuel’s victory over them at Ebenezer, that in consequence of this victory they had not repeated their incursions into the territory of Israel, and this is to be understood of the space of time after the lapse of which they resumed their old wars against Israel. In Saul’s victories over them, who, “as long as he lived,” had to struggle hard with them (1Sa_14:52), and whose term of life nearly coincided with that of Samuel, since the latter died only a few years before him, the hand of Jehovah was mighty against them, and the promise of 1Sa_9:16 was fulfilled. Israel’s condition of shameful subjection portrayed in 1Sa_13:19 sq. was the result of the occupation of the land by the Philistines mentioned in 1Sa_13:5-6, and does not contradict the statement that Jehovah’s hand was against the Philistines “all the days of Samuel,” since in 1 Samuel 14 is related how the Lord at that time helped Israel (comp. 1Sa_13:23). The solution of the alleged contradiction that restricts the expression “all the days of Samuel” to the duration of his judicial term, is unsatisfactory from the arbitrariness of this restriction, and conflicts with 1Sa_13:15 : “Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.”

It is also maintained that there is a contradiction between the section 1Sa_9:1-10; 1Sa_9:16 and the sections 8, 1Sa_10:17-27, because in the former Samuel anoints Saul in consequence of a divine revelation, and in the latter has him chosen king by lot in consequence of the demand of the people (De Wette). But in truth there is nothing here that compels us to suppose an absolute contradiction; “for in 1Sa_9:1 to 1Sa_10:16 is related the secret anointing of Saul by Samuel, with its immediate consequences, and in 1Sa_10:17-27 the choice by lot in the presence of the whole people” (Naegelsbach, ubi sup. p. 401). Thenius (Komm. 2 Aufl. p. 43) seeks to establish the unhistorical character of both narrations by stating the alternative: “the Prophet would then either have tempted God, or have been guilty of an unworthy trick before the people;” but against this we remark that according to 1Sa_10:17-27 also every thing was done by Samuel at the divine instance and under divine influence (1Sa_10:18; 1Sa_10:24), as in the narrative in 1Sa_9:1 to 1Sa_10:16, that therefore both tempting God and unworthy trickery on Samuel’s part are excluded, since in the narration the choice by lot also is conceived of in a theocratic point of view. In the presence of the assembled people God declares the man who had been chosen and anointed by His will, to be king, and His representative. Comp. Winer, Bibl. Realwörterbuch, II. p. 1Sa 389: “In 1 Samuel 8 Samuel declares himself against the wish of the people by command of Jehovah Himself, and by His command makes an attempt to divert the Israelites from their desire. This failing, he receives from Jehovah the command to yield (1Sa_8:21 sq.), and anoints Saul, 1 Samuel 9, 10. And then the scene, 1Sa_10:17 sq., was not superfluous: the first revelation, 1Sa_9:15 sq., was for the Prophet; the second, 1Sa_10:20 sq., for the people.” To this we add Ewald’s remark (Geschichte des V. Isr. [Hist. of Israel], III. p. 33, 3 Aufl.): “If we bear in mind the ordinary use of the sacred lot in those times, we shall find that in the connection of this narrative (Ewald ascribes 1Sa_9:17-27 to the author of the preceding section) nothing but the truth is described in this incident; the mysterious meeting with the Seer did not suffice for the full and benedictive recognition of Saul the king, but publicly also in solemn national assembly it was necessary that the Spirit of Jahveh should choose him before all others and mark him as the man of Jahveh.” And so there is no contradiction between 1Sa_9:1 to 1Sa_10:16 and 1Sa_10:17-27, but the two sections stand in concinnate relation to one another.

Another discrepancy has been found between 1Sa_11:14 sq. and. 1Sa_13:8 compared with 1Sa_10:8, it being held that the words of Samuel (1Sa_10:8) contain a command to Saul to go immediately to Gilgal and wait for him there seven days. On this supposition certainly 1 Samuel 8 and 1Sa_9:14 sq. cannot be reconciled, since, according to the latter passage, Saul went to Gilgal not before but with Samuel, and indeed at his special suggestion, and there was therefore no waiting on Samuel; and moreover, before Saul and Samuel came together in Gilgal, their first meeting after that solemn prophetic consecration of Saul (1Sa_10:1-8) took place in Mizpeh. Equally impossible, on this supposition, is a reconciliation of 1Sa_10:8 and 1Sa_13:8, which last passage contains an undeniable reference to an order given to Saul by Samuel, such as is expressed in 1Sa_10:8; for between the two there is an interval, according to 1Sa_13:1, of two years. [But the text here (1Sa_13:1) is corrupt—see note on the verse in question.—Tr.] Naegelsbach therefore supposes that 1Sa_10:8 is not in its proper place, but stood originally somewhere just before 1Sa_13:8 (ubi sup. p. 401). Thenius joins 1Sa_13:2 sq. immediately on to 1Sa_10:16, regarding 1Sa_10:17 to 1Sa_12:25 as a section interpolated into the original document between 1Sa_10:16 and 1Sa_13:2, and 1Sa_13:1 as an interpolation by the Redactor, or perhaps by a later hand, by which the succedent matter was brought into plausible connection with the inserted section, and the necessary time gained for the occurrence narrated in this section (ubi sup. p. 49). There are grave objections to both expedients; to the first because of the impossibility of fixing the supposed right place before 1Sa_13:8 where 1Sa_10:8 is to be put; to the second—apart from the fact that no other reason is given for the supposition that this section is interpolated—because of the chronological difficulty mentioned by Keil (Introd. I. 236), which undoubtedly presents itself when we look at all which, on this supposition, must have been done (according to 1Sa_13:2-7) within these seven days, and because of the very bold hypothesis that is advanced by this assumption of an interpolated tradition, and by the explanation of the words of 1Sa_13:1. We have seen what significance the section 1Sa_10:17-27, in historical connection with what goes before, has for the commencement of Saul’s kingdom. Keil therefore properly asks the question: “How could Saul, secretly anointed by Samuel, and concealing this anointing even from his uncle (1Sa_10:1; 1Sa_10:16), come to such consideration, that at his call all Israel flocked about him, as about their king, when he had neither been proclaimed king by Samuel, nor by any act bad won the confidence of the people for himself as king?” (ubi supra). Keil, it is true, from the proposition (which is correct) that the narration in 1Sa_13:1-7 requires for its explanation the content of the section 1Sa_10:17 to 1Sa_12:25, draws the conclusion that Samuel’s order to Saul in 1Sa_10:8 refers to the solemn proclamation of Saul as king in Gilgal (1Sa_11:14 sq.); but this conclusion is unsatisfactory on grounds already adduced. And moreover the view which Keil connects with this conclusion (and which is found as far back as Clericus) is untenable—namely, that the statement in 1Sa_13:8 (which has consequently nothing at all to do with 1Sa_10:8) refers to a command not expressly mentioned, but here casually alluded to in the words “according to the set time that Samuel had appointed,” by which Samuel, with reference to the Philistine war, had at a later time ordered Saul to Gilgal; for these very words (as Keil himself now admits, Comm. in loco, 101,128) plainly point to the injunction given to Saul in 1Sa_10:8. However, proceeding from this supposition, we are no way bound to explain the words in 1Sa_10:8 as a command of Samuel which was to be immediately carried out by Saul. The proper explanation of the connection in which the “thou goest down” ( åְéָøַãְúָּ ) in 1Sa_10:8 stands partly with the preceding, partly with the following circumstantial clause introduced by “and behold” ( åְäִðֵּä ) leads to the conditional rendering “and when thou goest down before me to Gilgal, behold.…;” and a similar translation is found in Seb. Schmidt, only with improper temporal extension, and is proposed by Ewald (Gesch. 3 Aufl. III. 41) and Keil (Comm. p. 101). The king chosen to deliver Israel from the yoke of the Philistines must recognize it as his first duty to prove his kingly might in battle against the Philistines, in accordance with his consecration received from Samuel. The exhortation to this duty Samuel couples with the command that he should not in the exercise of his royal calling trespass on the field that was to remain closed to him, namely, the offering of sacrifice for the people when they were mustered for war. Ewald says: “Gilgal, on the south-western bank of the Jordan, was then, from all indications, one of the most holy places in Israel, and the true centre of the whole people; it had a like importance before, and much more then, because the Philistine control reached so far eastward that the middle point of the kingdom must have been pressed back to the bank of the Jordan. There the people must have assembled for all general political questions, and thence after offering and consecration have marched forth armed to war” (ubi sup. p. 42). The significance of Gilgal for the whole people at this period of the Israelitish history is presupposed in Samuel’s command to Saul, which consequently contains for him the following rule of government: When thou goest down to Gilgal—that is, to gather the people there, that they may be led forth to battle against the Philistines, and to this end receive consecration by solemn offering—thou shalt await my coming for the preparation, and neither in thy own power make the offering, nor of thy own will begin the war against the Philistines. In this prophetic command Saul ought to have recognized the voice of God (see Keil, ubi sup., pp. 101–103, and Ewald, ubi sup., p. 41–46). This explanation is found as early as Brenz. He says: “But we are not to understand that Samuel commands Saul to go straightway down to Gilgal and there wait seven days, but that he is to do this after he has been publicly elected king and confirmed in the kingdom by victory over the Ammonites, and shall then begin to prepare for war against the Philistines, on whose account especially Saul was called to the kingdom. The following, therefore, is the meaning of Samuel’s command: Thou art called to the kingdom especially to free Israel from the tyranny of the Philistines. When, therefore, thou art about to undertake this work, go down to Gilgal and wait there seven days till I come to thee; then thou shalt offer a sacrifice, but not before I come, and I will show thee what is to be done, that our enemies the Philistines may be conquered; this thing is related afterwards in 1 Samuel 13, where we read that Saul violated this command.”

Thenius finds a discrepancy between 1Sa_14:47 and 1Sa_10:17 sq. and 1Sa_11:14 sq. (p. 65), maintaining that here several mutually exclusive relations are put together—that the author of the sections 1Sa_14:47 sq. relates that Saul by this victory over the Philistines proved himself to be the king anointed by Samuel and secured royal authority, and that this cannot be reconciled with 1Sa_10:17 sq., 1Sa_11:14 sq., and 15. But if we recollect that the Philistines had possession of the greater part of the land, the expression ìָëַã [“took”] in 1Sa_14:47 is best understood as meaning that Saul by this victory got the real control of the land, not as referring to the public assumption of the kingdom to which he was first designated by the anointing. There is therefore no discrepancy between this statement of the result of the victory over the Philistines and the accounts of Saul’s choice by lot (1Sa_10:17 sq.), and of his confirmation as king before the whole people in Gilgal (1Sa_11:14 sq).

An apparent anachronism exists in 1Sa_17:54, where it is said that David carried Goliath’s head to Jerusalem, while it was some time later that he conquered Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5); but this is explained by the remark of Kurz (Herzog, Real-Encycl., Art. “David”) and others, that, if not the citadel, yet the city of Jerusalem had then been a long time in the possession of the Israelites (Jos_15:63; Jdg_1:21), and it is not at all necessary for the establishment of this fact, which makes the deposition (of Goliath’s head) possible, to suppose with Naegelsbach that David had a prophetic anticipation of the importance of this city, although this supposition is unjustly set aside by Thenius without further consideration. There is just as little difficulty in the statement that David, after the victory, deposited the armor of Goliath in his tent, while the giant’s sword is afterwards found in the Sanctuary at Nob.

Between 1Sa_18:5 and 1Sa_18:13-16 a discrepancy has been found, in that in the first passage David received his appointment as military commander on account of his bravery; in the second on account of Saul’s envy and fear of him. The apparent contradiction is set aside, however, by a glance at the intermediate narration, according to which the jealousy aroused in Saul by the women’s song of victory produced such a change in his disposition towards David that he assigned the latter a higher post only to remove him from his person and expose him to death in battle against the Philistines.

Between the statements of Jonathan in 1Sa_19:2 and 1Sa_20:2—the first of which informs David of his father’s murderous thoughts against him, while the second assures him of the contrary—there lies an interval, in which Saul’s hatred against David might have softened; or at least Jonathan, thinking the best of his father, might believe that he had perceived a change in his disposition towards David. Perhaps Jonathan, as Naegelsbach (p. 403) supposes, intends only to deny that another attack against David’s life is purposed. Why, in the face of this assurance of his friend, should it be so inconceivable that David should speak of again appearing at the royal table at the appointed time when Saul expected him? Had David not already had experience of similar paroxysms of rage in the king, and yet been always reconciled with him by Jonathan’s intervention?

The apparent contradiction between 1Sa_18:27, where David brings 200 foreskins of the Philistines for Michal, and 2Sa_3:14, which speaks of 100 only, is resolved by referring to 1Sa_18:25, according to which Saul had demanded the latter number of foreskins; only these, not the two hundred actually brought, are mentioned by David in the later passage.

We turn now to those sections in which there are supposed to exist double accounts of the same thing, in part mutually exclusive and contradictory; that is, signs of the use of various documents, which in respect to the same facts and events, present differences that the Redactor could not reconcile.

First among these is the narrative of the two Goliaths, 1Sa_17:4, and 2Sa_21:19. In the one passage David slays the giant Goliath, and in the other it is related of Elhanan, son of Jaare-oregim, that he slew Goliath of Gath, whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. It is altogether arbitrary in Boettcher (Neue exegetisch-kritische Æhrenlesen zum A. T. on 2Sa_21:19) to try to prove the identity of this Elhanan with David (see Thenius, p. 259), in order to make this account agree with 1Sa_17:4 f. Nothing obliges us to regard the two passages as referring to the same incident, since two different actors are mentioned, David and Elhanan, the last with circumstantial reference to his person and descent, and there may well have been at different times two giants of equal strength and the same name, the later perhaps purposely honored with the name of the earlier. But in the parallel passage, 1Ch_20:5, which evidently gives the same event as 2Sa_21:19, it is said: “Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath of Gath, whose spear, etc.,” and if the correct reading is not in 2Sa_21:19 (of which I cannot convince myself), but rather in 1Ch_20:5, then the distinctness of the combats related in the two accounts is so much the more beyond doubt (see Thenius’ view, p. 258sq., which is opposed to his earlier view).

In 1Sa_19:9 sq. the same incident seems to be related as in 1Sa_18:9 sq., and therefore the one passage or the other seems to be not in the right place. Yet the double narrative, agreeing literally in single expressions, may be referred without difficulty to two explosions of rage on Saul’s part, since according to 18 sq. this rage showed itself several times against David.

The rejection of Saul is narrated in the two sections, 1Sa_13:8-14; 1Sa_15:10-26. But nothing requires us to regard these as mutually exclusive narrations of one and the same fact. Rather, the circumstances under which Saul manifests his disobedience are so different in the two cases, that we must recognize two different courses of events in which his disobedience is shown. But, as in the second act of disobedience there lay a heightening of the guilt, so on the first act of the punishment (13, 14) followed the second sharper act, consisting in the definitive rejection (1Sa_15:23-24).

There is just as little necessity for referring the parallel narrations in 1Sa_10:10-12 and 1Sa_19:22-24 to the same event. Rather, there is so much in each that is peculiar, that we are justified in assuming two different occurrences in which the proverb “Is Saul also among the prophets?” found its application. The first incident explains its origin, for it is said, 1Sa_10:12 : “Therefore it became a proverb.” The second similar incident, which is described as occurring under totally different circumstances, fixed it and gave it a wider application, 1Sa_19:24.

Thenius’ grounds (p. 120) for referring to one event the two narratives of the repeated treachery of the Ziphites towards David and David’s magnanimous conduct towards Saul (1Sa_23:19-24; 1Sa_23:24; 1Sa_23:26), of which the tradition is supposed to have given a double account, seem not sufficient to establish the identity of the two. Their points of agreement do