SAMUEL, BOOKS OP

elusions. We are here given tlie sources themselves, and are in large part left to draw our own conclusions. The composite character of the books is evidenced (1) by the existence ot differing literary styles within them; (2) by the presence ot varying and conflicting theological standpoints; (3) by the fact that they exhibit radically different attitudes towards the founding of the monarchy (ot. e.g. 1 S 8'-^ and S'-'"- "); and (4) by the appearance of two or more narratives of one and the same event. In illustration of this last point we may cite (a) the three accounts of Saul's choice as king given in 1 S 9-11; (6) the two accounts of David's introduction to Saul in 1 S 16"*- and 17'™-; (c) the twofold announcement of the fate of Eli's house in 1 S 2"-« and 3"i-; (d) the double rejection of Saul in 1 S 13'-" and IS'-^s; (e) the two accounts of David's flight to Achish in 1 S 21'™-and 27'''-; (/) the two narratives of David sparing Saul's life in 1 S 23'i«- and 26« — one of the most marked examples of a doublet; (fir) the differing descriptions ot the death of Saul given in 1 S 31 and 2 S 1; (h) the varying traditions of Absalom's family found in 2 S 14™- and 18"; (i) the inconsistency of 1 S 7"'- with 13-14; and (j) the story that Goliath was slain by David in 1 S 17, but by Elhanan in 2 S 21". Phenomena of this kind are much more easily accounted tor on the supposition that we are dealing here with the works ot different hands, than on the hypothesis of a single author upon whom alone all the responsibility for the contents of the books must be placed.

This fact of composite origin is granted by all students of the Books ot Samuel. In the attempt, however, to resolve the narrative into its original elements, two different schools of analysts have been formed. To the one belong such scholars as Budde. Cornill, H. P. Smith, Driver, Nowack, Stenning, and Kent; to the other, Wellhausen, Kuenen, LOhr, Kittel, Stade, and Kennedy. Budde and his followers find two main sources running through the books and covering practi-cally the same ground, though from differing points of view. These sources, which Budde himself assigns to the same school of prophetic writers that produced the J and E narratives of the Hexateuch, are supposed to have originated from the 9th to the 8th cents. B.C.; the J source being the older of the two. These two sources were then supplemented and united by editors somewhere in the early part ot the 7th cent. B.C.; and finally the books were given their present form by a Deuteronomio editor who revised the existing materials and added materials ot his own some time in the Exile. Budde's distribution ot the materials among the sources is as follows [figures within parentheses in J indicate later elements; in E they designate the older portions of the document]: —

J=l S9'-10', (108), 10>-18a, 132-'"- (!b-15».) lSb-I8. (19-21) 22, 141-46, 1462, 16U-23 185-11, 1820-30, I9I. 4-6. 7b-18a, 20^"^- *^-'^,

221-4-' »-iii«' 11-18, 222"-23'»»- "»,' 23!i'-242» 25^-, 27'-28"! 2819-3113; 2 S 1 ^-*- "- 12. 17-23 2^-623 S^*-"**- ^^-^^ 9'-2122 23"'H., 241-2S. ^ ' ' ' '

E=l S 11-*- 7-28 2"-28 31-10. 15-21 (41-18a 5I-7I) 72_822a

121-25, 151, (152-28)', 152'-s>, (15»2i-),'l53ii-:'2S(l«-'i'- "-'«)!

71-29_

Pke-exiuc Editors = 1 S 1', 222b, 41s. 22, gnb. 15. 17- isa.

19, 822b, 92b. 9, 109a. 16b- 26-27 H?. 8b. 12-14 1319-22, 161-1* 17I2f., 1821b, 1921. 7a. 18-24, 20*""- ^0-42, 21"-^8,* 22^- ^OlJ, 2318b' 2421-23a. 24, 251, 283- 16-18,* SQS. ISb; 2's I', 223b, 36ft. *80, g6b* 11 12, 1121a, 1318a. 38a, 1426'-27, 2023-28* 212b- 3a*. 7 23"» 23a, '

Exilic Editor = 1 S 22''-38, 311-14, 131 i447'-si- 2 S ii""- ", 541., 713, igi-e. 14b- 16; 2 S 12'- 8. 10-12, 241a.

Op uncertain (Drigin = 1 S 2'-^'0; -2 S 22i*-, 23'«-.

This, which we may call the two-source theory because ot the predominant place ot the two main sources, is in its general features the prevailing view at the present time. In the assignment of certain passages, however, there is considerable variety of opinion, and in the identification of the two main sources with J and E, Budde and Cornill are not followed by several adherents of the two-source view.

824

SAMUEL, BOOKS OF

The analysis presented by the opposing school (Well-hausen, Stade, Kennedy, etal.) differs from the foregoing chiefly (a) in denying the unity ot the two sources, J and E respectively; (6) in refusing to recognize any relationship ot these sources to J and E; and (c) in proposing another chronological assignment of the sources. Kennedy, e.g., the latest representative of this school, resolves Budde's J into three main elements, and dates these three documents from the middle of the 10th cent. B.C. Budde's E likewise falls into three fragments under Kennedy's examination; one of these is a lite ot Samuel dating from about b.c. 630; another and larger portion Is from a Deuteronomic writer; and a small remainder consists of pre-exilio duplicates ot some narratives appearing in Budde's J.

The precise delimitation ot the various sources and the exact way in which the Books of Samuel assumed their present form must remain for the future to deter-mine. The unmistakable tact is that these books in their present form are due to the labours of late exilic editors who wrought them out ot existing docu-ments, some of which show Deuteronomic colouring, while others come from early pre-exilic times, some-where about B.C. 900. As compared with the Books of Kings and Chronicles, or even the Book of Judges, Samuel shows far less evidence of editorial additions and modifications. The various sources are tor the most part allowed to tell their stories in their 'own way. There is a total absence ot any such theological strait- jacket as is found in the editorial framework of the Books ot Kings. We thus have in the Books ot Samuel some of the finest examples ot the historical writings of the Hebrews in the various stages of their develop-ment.

5. Historical value.— In estimating the historical value ot the Books ot Samuel, care must be taken to discriminate sharply between the books themselves and the sources which constitute them. The books them-selves are the product ot a long literary history, the work ot various men living in widely scattered periods. They thus form a source-book, rather than a history in the modern sense. It is tor this reason that they are so extremely valuable to the modern historian ot Israel. For a correct picture of the times ot Samuel, Saul, and David, it goes without saying that the oldest sources are the most trustworthy. Failure to paint original scenes and characters with a proper perspective increases in direct proportion to the distance of the narrator from the things he describes. Hence the later elements in these books are primarily of value not as sources of information concerning the times of the early monarchy, but as reflecting the point of view and the background of their -writers. The older sources, however, coming from a period within a century or two of the events they narrate, furnish us with accurate information and are among the best historical records in the OT. They are especially rich in biographical materials. They help us to see Saul and David and their contemporaries as they really were. They give us glimpses ot Samuel as the local seer, known only within the narrow limits of his own immediate district; ot Da-vid as the fugitive, the freebooter, the outlaw, the idol ot his men, the devoted servant ot Jehovah, and yet capable of the most dastardly deeds; of Saul as the brave warrior, the patriot, the religious enthusiast, the moody chieftain of his clan. These men, with Joab, Absalom, and others, live and move before our eyes.

A still further service of the Books of Samuel is in the light they throw upon the development of religious practices and ideas in Israel. Kennedy rightly says: 'The study ot this book has contributed more than anything else to the more accurate views of the historical development ot religious thought in OT times, which are characteristic ot the present day.' The books represent from first to last a period of about five hundred years, during which time the religion of Israel