PHILISTINE  . once arise in connexion with the two

series v.–viii., xxi.–xxiv., and ix.-xx., since, apart from their earlier literary growth as distinct units, they have undergone some revision and alteration when compilers brought them into their present form . The story of David and Bathsheba, an incident placed in the account of the Ammonite campaign, upon which it now depends (x.–xii.; with x . 15-19 cf. viii . 3-8), connects itself through the prophecy in xii . 10-12 with the subsequent family feuds, in particular with Absalom's rebellion (cf. xvi . 21 seq.), and again with i Kings i., where Adonijah's revolt rouses Bathsheba to persuade David to fulfil some promise of his to recognize her young son Solomon as his heir (i . 13, 17, 21, 29 seq.) . The section is an admirable specimen of historiography . The whole is closely linked together for an ostensible purpose, a chronological scheme runs throughodt (xiii . 23, 38, xiv . 28 and xv .

7),' and the section concludes with an account both of David's

death and of Solomon's accession (see further SOLOMON) . But 2 Sam. xii . 10-12 is an insertion (Wellhausen, Cornill, Kittel, &c.), even if xii . 1-15a itself be not of secondary origin (Winckler, Schwally, H . P . Smith, Nowack, Budde, Dhorme) ; and of the related passages, xv . 16 is a gloss (Budde), on xx . 3 see below, and the authenticity of xvi . 21-23 in its present context is not beyond doubt (see also AHITHoPIiEL) . Although xxi . 1-14 and ix. are of entirely distinct standpoints,' both are presupposed in xvi . 5-14, xix .

16-23, and in xvi . 1-4, xix . 24-30 respectively; the gloss xxi . 7 evidently

dates after the insertion of ix., while the opening words of ix . 1 point back, not to xxi. which is ignored, but rather to iv., from which it is now severed by the miscellaneous group of passages in v.–viii .? In view of a few recognized signs of diverse origin (contrast xiv . 27 with xviii . 18, and see Budde on xv . 24 sqq., xvii . 17), it is possible that xvi . 1-14, xix . 16-3o are also secondary .

In any

case the new revolt of Sheba (xx . 1-22), can hardly be the original sequel to Absalom's rebellion (Winckler, H . P . Smith, B . Luther, E . Meyer) ; there is no historical prelude to i Kings i . (note the opening verse, David's old age, and cf . 2 Sam. xxiii . I) and the literary introduction to the story of Sheba is to be found in the closing scene of xix., apparently at the point where David returns to the Jordan on his way to Gilgal (v . 40).8 It is to be noticed that the murder of Amasa (xx . 8 sqq.) is parallel to that of Asahel (ii . 12 sqq.), and the two (now preceding the separate groups v.–viii. and xxi.–xxiv.) are closely associated in i Kings ii .

5 . The miscellaneous groups, v.–viii., xxi.–xxiv., are also certainly not in their original form . The introduction in v . 1-3 is twofold (v . 3 and the incomplete v. i seq.), and the

list in iii . 2-5 (note the resuming link v . 6 after v. i) is similar in character to that in v . 13-16, and has probably been removed from the context of the latter (cf . I Chron. iii . 1-8) . The presence of a late hand is also proved by the psalm in xxii . (Ps. xviii.) and by David's " last words," which sever xxi .

15-22 and xxiii . 8 sqq . These in turn

part two related narratives in xxi . 1-14 and xxiv., and the latter (with which note the divergent features in i Chron. xxi.) shows several signs of later origin or re-vision . Chap. vii. is to be read in the light of i Kings v . 3-5, viii . 14 sqq., all Deuteronomic passages, though not of one stamp . Continuous warfare prevented the building of the temple (1 Kings v . 3-5, cf . 2 Sam. viii.), and David's proposal to erect a house to Yahweh seems unnecessary after vi . 17 seq . ; but vii .

1, 9, in fact, presuppose ch. viii., and the

main object of the narrative is to emphasize Yahweh's promise to build David's house, i.e. his dynasty. vii. is connected with i Kings viii. but an important variation (v . 16 contrast 2 Sam. vii . 6-8) illustrates the complexity of the Deuteronomic sources . It is important to notice that, as in the account of the temple in the history of Solomon, the introduction to it in these chapters (2 Sam. vi. seq.) divides miscellaneous though closely-related material (see KINGS) . On their prelude in i Sam. vi. see below, § 6 . Thus, the account of David's conflicts with giant heroes and the conquest of Jerusalem and its district seems to belong to a cycle of Judaean tradition (cf . Num. xiii . 22, 28; 5 . Narra-Josh. xi . 21, xv . 14), which has been almost superseded Ives of by other traditions of the rise of the Hebrew monarchy sauiand and by the more popular narratives of early relations David . between the Judaean David and the (north) Israelite king and In xv .

7 we must read four for

forty (the vow in this verse refers to Absalom's exile some years previously) . ' On this and on the character of the detailed narratives in general, see B . Luther in E . Meyer, Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstamme, pp . 184-199 . See, generally, the studies by W . Caspari, Aufkommen u . Krise d . Israel . Konigtums unter David (1909) and Theol . Stud. u . Krit .

(1909), pp . 317 sqq., 619 sqq.; and also H . Gressmann (Literature, below) . ' Chap. ix. belongs to the

joint traditions of David and Saul (cf . H . 5-iv.); V . 13, which presupposes chap. v., appears to be an addition (see H . P . Smith, Dhorme) . ' xix . 4o (all Judah and half Israel) resumes v . 15 (where Israel is not mentioned) .

For the view that Absalom's revolt originally concerned Judah alone, see the related section in DAVID . Dhorme, it may be observed, finds in ix.–xx. another source for x . 1-14, xii . 1-15a, xv . 1-6, 10, 24-26, 29, xvi . 5-14, xvii . 27-29, xix . 16-23 and xx . I-22 .

people . The persistent emphasis upon such features as the rejection of Saul, his enmity towards David, the latter's chivalry, and his friendship for Jonathan, will partly account for the present literary intricacies; and, on general grounds, traditions of quite distinct origin (Calebite or Jerahmeelite; indigenous Judaean; North Israelite or Benjamite) are to be expected in a work now in post-exilic form.' David's history is handled independently of Saul in I Sam. xxv.; and the narrative, now editorially connected with the context (v . 1, see xxviii .

3, and v . 44, see 2 Sam. iii . 15), gives a valuable picture of his

life in the south of Palestine ? With this notice his relations with south Judaean cities in xxx . 26-31 . His flight northwards to the Philistine king of Gath (xxvii.) is hardly connected with the preceding situations in xxiv . 17-22, xxv. or xxvi . 21-25, and his previous slaughter of the Philistines at Keilah (xxiii . I-15) raises historical difficulties . This is not to mention his earlier successes over the same people, which are very explicitly ignored in xxix . 5, although the famous couplet there quoted now finds its only explanation in xviii . 7 after the death of Goliath and the defeat of the Philistines .

The traditions of varying relations between Judah and the Philistines attached to David (cf. xxvii . 5 seq.) are quite distinct from the popular stories of giants of Gath, and now form part of the joint history of David and Saul . The

independent narratives of the latter's fate seem to represent one of those disastrous attacks upon the north which are familiar in the later history of the northern kingdom (xxviii . 4, xxix; see JEws: History, § 12) . The geographical data are confused by the stories of David (seer Sam. xxviii . 4, xxix . I, and the commentaries), and, while the " Philistines " for once march north to Jezreel to deliver their attack, David's presence is not discovered until Aphek is reached (xxix.) . His journey is the opportunity for an Amalekite raid (xxx. cf. xxvii . 8 seq.), and this new defeat of Amalek, ascribed to David, proves a more successful undertaking than that which led to the rejection of Saul (xv . 20 seq . 26-28) . Similarly, Saul's disaster leaves Israel again in the hands of the " Philistines " (xxii .

7, cf. xiii . 6 seq.), and it is for David to

save the people of Israel out of their hands (2 Sam. iii . 18, cf . I Sam. ix . 16)3 The sequel to the joint history has another version of Saul's death (2 Sam. i . 6-1o, 13-16), and an Amalekite is the offender; contrast his death in i . 15 seq. with iv. lo seq . The chapter explains the transference of the royal insignia from Israel to Judah . Here is quoted (from the " Book of Jashar ") the old poetical lament over the death of the valiant friends Saul and Jonathan, describing their successful warlike career, the wealth they brought the people, and the vivid sense of national misfortune (i . 19-27) . It is utilized for the history of David, to whom its authorship is attributed . In general, it appears that those narratives wherein the histories of Saul and David are combined—very much in the favour of the latter—were originally distinct from those where (a) Saul's figure is more in accord with the old poem from the Book of Jashar, and (b) where David's victories over prehistoric giants and his war-like movements to Jerusalem pave the way for the foundation—from a particular Judaean standpoint—of his remarkably long dynasty .

The literary problems of the books of

Samuel are those of the writing of the history of the monarchies from different points of 6 . Liter view; and the intimate connexion of the books with 8~ 8er those that precede and follow shows that a careful con- historical sideration of the internal literary and historical features problems. of these also is necessary . The first step is the recognition of a specific Deuteronomic redaction in Joshua—Kings, an intricate process which extended into the post-exilic age.' Certain phenomena suggest that the first compilation was made outside Judah—in Israel, whereas others represent a Judaean and anti-Israelite feeling . The close interconnexion of Judg. x.– Sam. xii. is as crucial as that of 2 Sam. v.–1 Kings ii . The (probably ' The late genealogy of Saul in I Chron. viii . 29 sqq.; ix . 35 sqq., is evidence for a keen interest in the Saulidae in post-exilic times . a The chapter with the prophecy of Abigail may be of Calebite origin . ' So also, David's wars (2 Sam. viii.) bear a certain resemblance to those of Saul (I Sam. xiv . 47) . 6 See G . F .

Moore, Ency . Bib . " Historical Literature," § 6 seq . " Joshua," §§ 5, r 1; " Judges," § 14 . Deuteronomic) framework of Israelite history in Kings can be traced in Samuel, and it is a natural assumption that it should have gone back beyond the time of Jeroboam'I . While the detailed history of Israelite kings and prophets in I Kings xvii.-2 Kings x . (Ahab to Jehu) finds more developed parallels in the narratives of Saul and Samuel, the peculiar treatment of the lives of David and Solomon (Judaean kings over a united Israel) and of the division of the monarchy has complicated the present sources . Although the contents of 2 Sam. v.-viii., xxi.-xxiv., I Kings ii . I0-I2, iii . 2, appear to have been consecutive (in some form) at an earlier stage, the connexion has been broken by ix.-xx., I Kings i. ii . 1-9, 13 sqq., and the further vicissitudes can scarcely be recovered; and while there are clear signs of more than one Deuteronomic hand in the former group, the latter shows in I Kings ii . 2-4 a Deuteronomic revision, either of independent origin or in the combination of the sources in their present form .

Moreover, Samuel's farewell address (I Sam. xii.) belongs to the Deuteronomic and later account of Saul's rise, and closes the

period of (a) the Israelite " judges " (see Judg. ii . 6–iii . 6, an extremely composite passage), and (b) the Ammonite and Philistine oppression (A,. x . 6 sgq.).6 The former follows upon Joshua's two concluding speeches, one given by a Deuteronomic writer in xxiii., and,the other incorporated by another though similar hand in xxiv . Although the pre-monarchical age is viewed as one of kinglike " judges," the chiefs are rather local heroes (so Ehud, Gideon, Jephthah), and the boisterous giant Samson (Judg. xiii.-xvi.), and the religious leaders Eli and Samuel are " judges " from other standpoints . Perplexity is caused, also, in the oldest account of Saul's rise (I Sam. ix.) by the sudden introduction of a Philistine oppression which cannot be connected with vii . 2–viii., or even with I Sam. iv.–vii . 1.6 On the other hand, Judg. x . 6 sqq. refers to a Philistine oppression which has no sequel . It may be conjectured that there was an original literary connexion between the two which has been broken by the insertion of traditions relating to Samuel and Saul.' This finds support (a) in the internal evidence for the later addition of Judg. xvii.-xxi., and of certain portions of the opening chapters of r Samuel ; (b) in the absence of any continuity in the intervening history; and (c) in the material relation-ship between portions of the highly composite Judg. x . 6 sqq. and the rise of Saul . The literary processes thus involved find an analogy in the original connexion between 2 Sam. v.-viii. and xxi.-xxiv., or between Exod. xxxiii. seq. and Num. x .

29-36, xi . (see SAUL) . The section r Sam. iv.-vii . 1 forms the prelude to Samuel's

great victory and belongs to the history of Shiloh and the priesthood of Eli . But the fall of this sanctuary scarcely belongs to this remote age (I Ith century) ; it was sufficiently recent to serve as a warning to Jerusalem in the time of Jeremiah (close of 7th century) . This event of supreme importance to north Israel (cf . Judg. xviii . 30 seq.) is already connected with Samuel's prophecy in iii., but the latter is strengthened by the Deuteronomic passage, ii . 27-36, which links the disaster, not with the history of Samuel, but with the rise of the Zadokite Levites of Jerusalem, and thus represents a specifically Judaean standpoint . This is analogous to the Judaean adaptation of the prophetical treatment of Saul's life, and it also reflects certain priestly rivalries (see LEVITES) . With the loss of Shiloh is explained the appearance of the priests at Nob outside Jerusalem (xxi . 1, xxii .

9), which is followed by their

massacre, the flight of Abiathar (xxii.), and the transference of the sacred ephod to David (xxiii . 6).8 Here, however, the emphasis laid upon the ephod brought by Abiathar, the survivor of the house of Eli (cf. ii . 28, xxi . 9), points away from what was once a common object of cult to the late and post-exilic restriction of its use to the Aaronite high priests (see EPHOD) . Moreover, according to 1 Kings ii . 26, Abiathar bore the ark, and while some traditions traced its history to Shiloh, or even found it at Bethel (Judg. xx . 27 seq.), others apparently ran quite another course, associated it with southern clans ultimately settled in Judah, and supposed that Jerusalem was its first resting-place . The author of 2 Sam. vii . 6 (cf. also 1 Chron. xxiii . 25 sq.) can scarcely have known I Sam. i.-iii. with its temple at Shiloh, and although 2 Sam. vi. finds its present prelude in I Sam. vi . 17-vii . I, that passage actually brings the story of its fortunes to a close by relating the return of the ark from Philistine territory to the care of Abinadab and Eleazar at Kirjath-jearim (note the " Levitical " type of the names; Budde, Sam. p .

47) . From Josh. ix . 17 (post-exilic source) it might indeed be argued that the district was not under Israelite

jurisdiction (see Kennedy, Sam. p . 325 seq.), although to judge from the older . With the length of office in I Sam. iv . 18 (cf. vii . 15) compare the similar notices in Judg. x . 2 seq., xii . 7 sqq., xv . 20, xvi . 31, and with the length of oppression in vii . 2, cf .

Judg. iii . 8, 14, iv . 3, vi . I, x . 8, xiii . 1 . 6 Nowack, p . 39; Riedel, Theolog . Lit . Blatt (1904), No . 3,

col . 28 .

S . A .

Cook, Critical Notes, p . 127 seq . (cf . Dhorme, Rev . Bibl., 1908, p . 436; Godbey, Amer . Journ . Theo'., 1909, p . 61o) . 6 Although writers sought to explain Saul's disastrous end (cf .

I Chron. x . 13), it is only

Josephus (Ant. vi . 14, 9) who refers to the atrocity at Nob . The significance of the tradition is unknown ; some connexion with Saul's religious zeal at Gibeon has been conjectured (2 Sam. xxi . 2) . That the actual murderer was an Edomite may perhaps be associated with other traditions of Edomite hostility . traditions of Saul it was doubtless part of his kingdom . It may be that the narrative (which presupposes some account of the fall of Shiloh) is part of an attempt to co-ordinate different traditions of the great palladium.' Consequently, the literary structure of the Book of Samuel is throughout involved with a careful criticism of the historical tradi- 7 . Sum- tions ascribed to the I I th and beginning of the loth century mary B.C . The perspective of the past has often been lost, earlier views have been subordinated to later ones, conflicting standpoints have been incorporated . The intricacy of the Deuteronomic redactions still awaits solution, and the late insertion of earlier narratives (which have had their own vicissitudes) complicates the literary evidence . Greater care than usual was taken to weave into the canonical representation of history sources of diverse origin, and it is scarcely possible at present to do more than indicate some of the more important features in the composition of a book, one of the most important of all for the critical study of biblical history and theology .

The Hebrew

text is often corrupt but can frequently be corrected with the help of the Septuagint . The parallel portions in Chronicles also sometimes preserve better readings, but must be used with caution as they may represent other recensions or the result of rewriting and reshaping . As a whole, Chronicles presents the period from a later ecclesiastical standpoint, presupposing (in contrast to Samuel) the fully developed " Mosaic " ritual (see CHRONICLES) . After tribal and priestly lists (1 Chron. i.-ix.), Saul's end is suddenly introduced (x., note v . 13 seq.) . David appears no less abruptly, the sequence being 2 Sam. v . 1-3, 6-lo, xxiii . 8-39 (with additions, xi . 41-47, and a list of his supporters at Ziklag and Hebron) . To 2 Sam. vi . 2-11 there is a " Levitical " prelude (xiii . 1-5), then follow V .

11-25, and vi . 12-19, which is embedded in novel material . Next, 2 Sam. vii. seq., x., xi . I, xii . 30 seq., xxi . 18-22, and finally xxiv . (Chron. xxi.) . The last is the prelude to an account of the preparation for the temple and the future

sovereignty of Solomon, and ends' with David's army and government (Chron. xxvii.), and his concluding acts (xxviii. seq.) . The compiler was not ignorant of other sources (see x . 13, xii . 19, 21, 23), and, in general, carries out, though from a later standpoint, tendencies already manifest in Samuel . The latter in fact is no less the result of editorial processes and since it is now in post-exilic form, this is the starting-point for fresh criticism .

The representation of the remote past in Samuel most be viewed, there-fore, in the light of that age when, after a series of vital internal and

external vicissitudes in Judah and Benjamin, Judaism established itself in opposition to rival sects and renounced the Samaritans who had inherited the traditions of their land . See further JEWS, §§ 6-8, 20-23, PALESTINE: Old Test . History, pp . 614-616 . W . Nowack, K . Budde (1902); H . P . Smith in the International Critical Commentary (1899), with his Old Testament History, pp . 107-155, and the small but well-annotated edition of A . R . S .

Kennedy in the Century

Bible (1905) . All these give fuller bibliographical information, for which see also S . R . Driver, Introduction to Literature of Old Testament, and the articles by J . Stenning in Hastings's Dictionary and B . Stade in Ency . Bib . For the text, see especially J . Wellhausen's model Text-Bucher Sam . (1871); S . R . Driver, Text of Samuel (1890); K .

Budde's edition in

Haupt's Sacred Books of the Old Testament (1894); P . Dhorme, Livres de Samuel (1910) . Of special value for the psychological character of the various narratives is H . Gressmann's Schriften d . A . T. in Auswahl, i.-iii . (Gottingen, 19o9-1910) . In so far as the present article takes other views of the results of literary analysis in the light of historical criticism, see S . A . Cook, American Journ. of Sem . Lang . (1900), pp .

145 sqq.; and Critical Notes on Old Testament History (1907) (passim) . (S . A .